# The Right To Bear Arms



## Lakhota

> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.



More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week


----------



## Lakhota

Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited  never have been and never will be  Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star


----------



## waltky

Maybe not obsolete but antiquated, out of date...

... it needs to be updated to reflect the times...

... and the threat of overkill firepower...

... for the average citizen.


----------



## meson

Yipper it's as obsolete as a muzzle loader imho.


----------



## TheOldSchool

It's definitely not the most important amendment, like most conservatives argue, but it's not obsolete.  We're the United Freakin States.  We were founded on a revolutionary crazy notion that people are allowed to be as free as they want.

If you take away that crazy, then we're closer to being like the French.  And no one wants that.


----------



## elvis

The courts will say no.


----------



## Lakhota

> *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means.*


----------



## elvis

Lakhota said:


> *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means.*
Click to expand...


We aren't going back to bows and arrows.  Sorry.


----------



## Lakhota

I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed.  It's just a matter of time...


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Lakhota said:


> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
Click to expand...


The Constitution exist only in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review. 

Neither the Constitution nor any of its Amendments are obsolete.  

Whatever the current case law might be concerning the Second Amendment, however, further restrictions, regulations, or even bans will do little to curtail gun violence. 

The genius of the Constitution is it compels us to seek actual solutions to our many problems; be it abortion, campaign finance reform, or gun violence, the Constitution prevents us from taking the easy route often taken by dictatorships and totalitarian regimes, where the liberty of the people is destroyed. 

This does not mean we are helpless to do nothing, at the mercy of strict, unyielding jurisprudence protecting the rights of gun owners; rather, it means we must find solutions based on facts and evidence, and be prepared to address and acknowledge painful, embarrassing aspects of our society and culture.


----------



## ScienceRocks

The second amendment was put into the consitution to fight fascist like you bastards. Our founders knew what big government dictators were all about. 

Hell no it isn't out dated or obsolete.


----------



## Lakhota

Trying to live modern life according to the Constitution is much like trying to live modern life according to the Bible.  Both are subject to vast interpretation.


----------



## Two Thumbs

well congrats to all the liberals here.

The people that claim to be the authors of the Constitution

In openly admitting that freedom is so passe.


thank you for your honesty


----------



## ScienceRocks

Two Thumbs said:


> well congrats to all the liberals here.
> 
> The people that claim to be the authors of the Constitution
> 
> In openly admitting that freedom is so passe.
> 
> 
> thank you for your honesty



They're masters of using things against their enemies. They want a BIG government that rules over this nation in the same way as Hugo Chavez, Castro or Kim jong UN.

FUCK YOU LEFTIST. YOU won't get my guns, assholes!


----------



## Two Thumbs

fyi;  the Second Amendment allows you to have the other amendments.

For those totally ignorant of history


----------



## ScienceRocks

Two Thumbs said:


> fyi;  the Second Amendment allows you to have the other amendments.
> 
> For those totally ignorant of history



Yep,

Without the second the government can just take all of our rights away.


----------



## ScienceRocks

A well armed popalance is respected by government
A disarmed popalance is dictated to by government


----------



## zonly1

Lakhota said:


> I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed.  It's just a matter of time...



Obama signs NDAA and you voted for this moron, no?


----------



## sfcalifornia

Matthew said:


> A well armed popalance is respected by government
> A disarmed popalance is dictated to by government



Oh please.  What do you think, congresspeople sit around and say, "ooo we'd better not pass that law...  Matthew will get his gun and shoot us!!"  Give me a frickin' break.  Go ahead and try to form a militia group or whatever.  See how far you get before you're all squashed like bugs.  

It's populace btw, not populance.


----------



## Two Thumbs

sfcalifornia said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> A well armed popalance is respected by government
> A disarmed popalance is dictated to by government
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please.  What do you think, congresspeople sit around and say, "ooo we'd better not pass that law...  Matthew will get his gun and shoot us!!"  Give me a frickin' break.  Go ahead and try to form a militia group or whatever.  See how far you get before you're all squashed like bugs.
> 
> It's populace btw, not populance.
Click to expand...

Are you saying you want freedom loving, Constitution following Americans to get killed?


----------



## ba1614

More "fundamental change", well fuck them.


----------



## tinydancer

Lakhota said:


> I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed.  It's just a matter of time...



You aren't even American 

What's fun is to watch you morph depending the discussion. Now you are a gun lover.

OMG


----------



## Lakhota

Anyone here belong to a militia?  Know anyone who belongs to a militia?  I don't...


----------



## Avatar4321

Has human nature changed?

Have people stopped doing evil things and threatening innocent people?

Have politicians learned to respect the sovereignty of the people and stop trying to micromanage their existence?

If not, then of course it isn't obsolete. You'd have to be an idiot to think that or completely ignorant of the purpose of the Second amendment which is to protect our right to self defense and prevent tyranny and oppression.

When the people fear the government, we have tyranny. When the government fears it's people, then we have freedom.


----------



## Lakhota

Avatar4321 said:


> Has human nature changed?
> 
> Have people stopped doing evil things and threatening innocent people?
> 
> Have politicians learned to respect the sovereignty of the people and stop trying to micromanage their existence?
> 
> If not, then of course it isn't obsolete. You'd have to be an idiot to think that or completely ignorant of the purpose of the Second amendment which is to protect our right to self defense and prevent tyranny and oppression.
> 
> When the people fear the government, we have tyranny. When the government fears it's people, then we have freedom.



Your NaziCon rant doesn't address the OP.  Do you belong to a militia?  Why isn't the 2nd Amendment obsolete?


----------



## Avatar4321

Lakhota said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has human nature changed?
> 
> Have people stopped doing evil things and threatening innocent people?
> 
> Have politicians learned to respect the sovereignty of the people and stop trying to micromanage their existence?
> 
> If not, then of course it isn't obsolete. You'd have to be an idiot to think that or completely ignorant of the purpose of the Second amendment which is to protect our right to self defense and prevent tyranny and oppression.
> 
> When the people fear the government, we have tyranny. When the government fears it's people, then we have freedom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your NaziCon rant doesn't address the OP.  Do you belong to a militia?  Why isn't the 2nd Amendment obsolete?
Click to expand...


Just because you can't understand english, doesn't mean I didn't address the OP.

We still have a right and obligation to defend ourselves and our communities from: Hostiles, both foreign and domestic.

Nothing has changed. Human nature is still the same. When everyone stops trying to murder innocent people, there are no threats to us, and when politicians completely respect our liberties, there may be a time that we no longer need a second amendment. Until then, it's not obsolete in the least.

Just because you want to cede your sovereignty to a government bureaucrat, doesn't mean anyone else does or needs to.


----------



## Sarah G

Wingnuts haven't said or done anything to convince anyone that assualt weapons are a part of the second ammendment so in that way, yes, it is obsolete.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Sarah G said:


> Wingnuts haven't said or done anything to convince anyone that assualt weapons are a part of the second ammendment so in that way, yes, it is obsolete.



How profoundly motherfucking stupid.


----------



## Missourian

*Is the Second Amendment obsolete?

*No.

/thread


----------



## ScreamingEagle

"assault weapons" are like "hate speech".....

liberals want both Amendments 1 & 2 obsolete....


----------



## nodoginnafight

> Is the Second Amendment obsolete?



Maybe - so get the two-thirds you need and repeal it. It's been done before.

But DO NOT try to pretend it doesn't say what it says and repeal it by court order.

I would favor strict gun control. But I wouldn't favor an end run around the constitution.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Lakhota said:


> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
Click to expand...


Is there anything else in the Constitution that these people think is ambiguous? Is it possible they don't like the idea that laws actually have to follow the constitution in the first place? After all, it was written 200 years ago.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

TheOldSchool said:


> It's definitely not the most important amendment, like most conservatives argue, but it's not obsolete.  We're the United Freakin States.  We were founded on a revolutionary crazy notion that people are allowed to be as free as they want.
> 
> If you take away that crazy, then we're closer to being like the French.  And no one wants that.



Most of us tend to think that the right to self defense is more important than anything else, can you explain why you think it is more important that people die than live?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

elvis said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We aren't going back to bows and arrows.  Sorry.
Click to expand...


Those are next.


----------



## Some Guy

Lakhota said:


> Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited &#8212; never have been and never will be &#8211; Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star



Break that up into two parts. 

1. A well regulated militia being necessary to the *security of a free state*...

2. ...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

For #1, in my opinion, "security of a free state" means the security of the governed from the government, not "security" from foreign threats.  Look at history for an abundance of examples of the populace being smashed under the foot of an oppressive government. 

If liberals want to limit gun ownership and use, they'd best avoid trying to discredit the Constitution in order to do so.  Focus on the "well _regulated_ militia" part instead.


----------



## mudwhistle

elvis said:


> The courts will say no.



The courts?

So now the courts draft legislation and can change the constitution at will?


I think you'd better go back and re-read the constitution and focus on the powers of various branches of government.

The constitution is designed to prevent government from trouncing all over the rights of the citizens.

Seems the left constantly is attempting to do this.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Lakhota said:


> Trying to live modern life according to the Constitution is much like trying to live modern life according to the Bible.  Both are subject to vast interpretation.



Tell me something, how is "nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb" subject to interpretation? Is there something ambiguous about those words? Are you aware that it is idiots that insist that everything is open to interpretation that make things complicated, not those who insist the words mean exactly what they say? If you din't think you were smarter than someone else simply because you were born a few years later than them we wouldn't be having this discussion at all.


----------



## Contumacious

Lakhota said:


> Is the Second Amendment obsolete?




So our right to bear arms depends on the 2nd Amendment and the US Constitution? I thought it was an unalienable right because we are free people.

" The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' *This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.* The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. *This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government,* leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens ....,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the Constituton of the United States."


*UNITED STATES v. CRUIKSHANK ET AL., 92 U.S. 542 (U.S. 10/01/1875)*


Ooops, you are wrong again.

.


----------



## boedicca

This thread makes Baby Thomas Jefferson cry.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

zonly1 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed.  It's just a matter of time...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama signs NDAA and you voted for this moron, no?
Click to expand...


Not only did he vote for him, he insists that you are a racist for not accepting that he is god incarnate.


----------



## elvis

mudwhistle said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> The courts will say no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The courts?
> 
> So now the courts draft legislation and can change the constitution at will?
> 
> 
> I think you'd better go back and re-read the constitution and focus on the powers of various branches of government.
Click to expand...


No silly.  The courts will uphold the second amendment when it is challenged.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Lakhota said:


> Anyone here belong to a militia?  Know anyone who belongs to a militia?  I don't...



You do not know any able bodied men between 17 and 45? Why does that not surprise me?


----------



## DiamondDave

The minute you consider the rest of the constitution obsolete, it will be obsolete.. but at that moment, you will have those that swore to defend the constitution stepping up to defend it against the likes of the OP


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Lakhota said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has human nature changed?
> 
> Have people stopped doing evil things and threatening innocent people?
> 
> Have politicians learned to respect the sovereignty of the people and stop trying to micromanage their existence?
> 
> If not, then of course it isn't obsolete. You'd have to be an idiot to think that or completely ignorant of the purpose of the Second amendment which is to protect our right to self defense and prevent tyranny and oppression.
> 
> When the people fear the government, we have tyranny. When the government fears it's people, then we have freedom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your NaziCon rant doesn't address the OP.  Do you belong to a militia?  Why isn't the 2nd Amendment obsolete?
Click to expand...


I am pretty sure that, by definition, Nazis are the people that support the government, not the ones that think the government needs to be reigned in. That means that, if anyone is a Nazi in this thread, it would be the people who insist the government should disarm its citizens.


----------



## mudwhistle

elvis said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> The courts will say no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The courts?
> 
> So now the courts draft legislation and can change the constitution at will?
> 
> 
> I think you'd better go back and re-read the constitution and focus on the powers of various branches of government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No silly.  The courts will uphold the second amendment when it is challenged.
Click to expand...


The courts need not do so because the matter is settled.

The legislature must pass an amendment to change or strike down the 2nd amendment. The legislature can declare gun-free zones but they cannot pass laws that infringe on the right to gun ownership.


----------



## Zander

The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting or personal defense. It has to do with the People of America maintaining a military force for the sole purpose of overthrowing a government that becomes too tyrannical. That is the 100% documented, non-debatable intent of the Second Amendment.


----------



## elvis

DiamondDave said:


> The minute you consider the rest of the constitution obsolete, it will be obsolete.. but at that moment, you will have those that swore to defend the constitution stepping up to defend it against the likes of the OP



I don't think there are enough of us.....


----------



## Avatar4321

Quantum Windbag said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has human nature changed?
> 
> Have people stopped doing evil things and threatening innocent people?
> 
> Have politicians learned to respect the sovereignty of the people and stop trying to micromanage their existence?
> 
> If not, then of course it isn't obsolete. You'd have to be an idiot to think that or completely ignorant of the purpose of the Second amendment which is to protect our right to self defense and prevent tyranny and oppression.
> 
> When the people fear the government, we have tyranny. When the government fears it's people, then we have freedom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your NaziCon rant doesn't address the OP.  Do you belong to a militia?  Why isn't the 2nd Amendment obsolete?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am pretty sure that, by definition, Nazis are the people that support the government, not the ones that think the government needs to be reigned in. That means that, if anyone is a Nazi in this thread, it would be the people who insist the government should disarm its citizens.
Click to expand...


You forget, that we are talking to people who have no clue what the nazis want and think that somehow being for less government is compatible with nazism.


----------



## elvis

mudwhistle said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The courts?
> 
> So now the courts draft legislation and can change the constitution at will?
> 
> 
> I think you'd better go back and re-read the constitution and focus on the powers of various branches of government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No silly.  The courts will uphold the second amendment when it is challenged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts need not do so because the matter is settled.
> 
> The legislature must pass an amendment to change or strike down the 2nd amendment. The legislature can declare gun-free zones but they cannot pass laws that infringe on the right to gun ownership.
Click to expand...


They will try to pass laws that infringe gun ownership.  They want to.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Sarah G said:


> Wingnuts haven't said or done anything to convince anyone that assualt weapons are a part of the second ammendment so in that way, yes, it is obsolete.



No one has yet provided me with a definition of assault weapon. Once someone does, I will be able to attempt to make an argument about whether they are covered by the 2nd Amendment. Keep in mind that I can easily prove that cannons were actually privately owned at the time the Constitution was drafted, so it is going to be pretty easy for me to argue that it covers almost anything that a single person can operate, or move with the assistance of horses.

In fact, the US government actually allows anyone to purchase anything manufactured before 1898 as long as it has not been modified to accept modern cartridges. That actually includes a lot of things that you get your panties in a twist about, including the Maxim gun, the world's first fully automatic weapon.


----------



## ScreamingEagle

Avatar4321 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your NaziCon rant doesn't address the OP.  Do you belong to a militia?  Why isn't the 2nd Amendment obsolete?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am pretty sure that, by definition, Nazis are the people that support the government, not the ones that think the government needs to be reigned in. That means that, if anyone is a Nazi in this thread, it would be the people who insist the government should disarm its citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You forget, that we are talking to people who have no clue what the nazis want and think that somehow being for less government is compatible with nazism.
Click to expand...


clueless people who call conservatives Nazis......yet Nazis were just like the liberals are today....they were all for gun control too......

Nazi Gun Control


----------



## boedicca

Quantum Windbag said:


> No one has yet provided me with a definition of assault weapon.




I've also requested a comparison between an Assault Weapon and a Non-Assault Weapon several times.  No response.

From the press accounts, the bright lights on the left think assault weapons have "high magazine clips" and "things that flip up on the shoulder".  And they look Vewy Scawwwyyyy!!!


----------



## Quantum Windbag

boedicca said:


> This thread makes Baby Thomas Jefferson cry.



Baby Thomas Jefferson grew up into the man that argued that we should hold an armed revolution against the government every 20 years. In other words, I might make the baby cry, but people that want to defend the government instead of fight it make the man sick.



> God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion. The people can not be all, and always, well informed.  The part which  is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the  facts they misconceive.  If they remain quiet under such misconceptions  it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.  We  have had 13. states independant 11. years.  There has been one  rebellion.  That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each  state.  What country ever existed a century and a half without a  rebellion?  And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers  are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit  of resistance?  Let them take arms.  The remedy is to set them right as  to facts, pardon and pacify them.  What signify a few lives lost in a  century or two?  The *tree of liberty* must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.  It is it's natural manure


The tree of liberty... (Quotation) « Thomas Jefferson


----------



## ScreamingEagle

Nazi Weapons Act of 1938 (Translated to English)

Classified guns for "sporting purposes". 
All citizens who wished to purchase firearms had to register with the Nazi officials and have a background check. 
Presumed German citizens were hostile and thereby exempted Nazis from the gun control law. 
Gave Nazis unrestricted power to decide what kinds of firearms could, or could not be owned by private persons. 
The types of ammunition that were legal were subject to control by bureaucrats. 
Juveniles under 18 years could not buy firearms and ammunition.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

elvis said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> The minute you consider the rest of the constitution obsolete, it will be obsolete.. but at that moment, you will have those that swore to defend the constitution stepping up to defend it against the likes of the OP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think there are enough of us.....
Click to expand...


The government estimates that there are 270 million guns in this country, there might just be more than you think.


----------



## boedicca

Quantum Windbag said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread makes Baby Thomas Jefferson cry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baby Thomas Jefferson grew up into the man that argued that we should hold an armed revolution against the government every 20 years. In other words, I might make the baby cry, but people that want to defend the government instead of fight it make the man sick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion. The people can not be all, and always, well informed.  The part which  is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the  facts they misconceive.  If they remain quiet under such misconceptions  it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.  We  have had 13. states independant 11. years.  There has been one  rebellion.  That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each  state.  What country ever existed a century and a half without a  rebellion?  And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers  are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit  of resistance?  Let them take arms.  The remedy is to set them right as  to facts, pardon and pacify them.  What signify a few lives lost in a  century or two?  The *tree of liberty* must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.  It is it's natural manure
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The tree of liberty... (Quotation) « Thomas Jefferson
Click to expand...



You have a severe reading comprehension problem.   I dare you to find one post I have made regarding gun rights which doesn't support the Jeffersonian view.


----------



## asterism

Sarah G said:


> Wingnuts haven't said or done anything to convince anyone that assualt weapons are a part of the second ammendment so in that way, yes, it is obsolete.



The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

District of Columbia v. Heller:



> United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes



DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

United States v. Miller



> The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.



United States v. Miller

What weapons are in common use right now?


----------



## mudwhistle

Lakhota said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has human nature changed?
> 
> Have people stopped doing evil things and threatening innocent people?
> 
> Have politicians learned to respect the sovereignty of the people and stop trying to micromanage their existence?
> 
> If not, then of course it isn't obsolete. You'd have to be an idiot to think that or completely ignorant of the purpose of the Second amendment which is to protect our right to self defense and prevent tyranny and oppression.
> 
> When the people fear the government, we have tyranny. When the government fears it's people, then we have freedom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your NaziCon rant doesn't address the OP.  Do you belong to a militia?  Why isn't the 2nd Amendment obsolete?
Click to expand...


Is there a need for a militia today?

If there is do you think removing the means to form one follows the constitution?


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Lakhota said:


> *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means.*
Click to expand...


Back in yon olden days, that there musket could be fired only about 14 times before it became to hot to hold. 

I agree that the second amendment is outdated, antiquated and never intended to be the measurement we use it for today.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

boedicca said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread makes Baby Thomas Jefferson cry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baby Thomas Jefferson grew up into the man that argued that we should hold an armed revolution against the government every 20 years. In other words, I might make the baby cry, but people that want to defend the government instead of fight it make the man sick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion. The people can not be all, and always, well informed.  The part which  is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the  facts they misconceive.  If they remain quiet under such misconceptions  it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.  We  have had 13. states independant 11. years.  There has been one  rebellion.  That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each  state.  What country ever existed a century and a half without a  rebellion?  And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers  are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit  of resistance?  Let them take arms.  The remedy is to set them right as  to facts, pardon and pacify them.  What signify a few lives lost in a  century or two?  The *tree of liberty* must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.  It is it's natural manure
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The tree of liberty... (Quotation) « Thomas Jefferson
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You have a severe reading comprehension problem.   I dare you to find one post I have made regarding gun rights which doesn't support the Jeffersonian view.
Click to expand...


My apologies, I wasn't referring to you. In fact, if you read my post you will see that I clearly argued that people who want gun control make the man sick.


----------



## mudwhistle

asterism said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wingnuts haven't said or done anything to convince anyone that assualt weapons are a part of the second ammendment so in that way, yes, it is obsolete.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court disagrees with you.
> 
> District of Columbia v. Heller:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
> 
> United States v. Miller
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> United States v. Miller
> 
> What weapons are in common use right now?
Click to expand...


If the government were to say that the only private gun that is legal is a single shot musket that would be in opposition of the meaning of the constitution. The point of any militia is to be effective in mounting a defense against foreign and domestic invaders. 


The only reason we're even talking about this now is Obama wanted to invent another "important issue" he could use to divide us with. 

Who was it that said *"A house divided against itself cannot stand"*. - Abraham Lincoln


Enemies of this nation believe in division. Pitting one against another. Obama refuses to adhere to the number one goal of a good leader, to foster unity of purpose. He can only divide and marginalize.


----------



## Avatar4321

mudwhistle said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wingnuts haven't said or done anything to convince anyone that assualt weapons are a part of the second ammendment so in that way, yes, it is obsolete.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court disagrees with you.
> 
> District of Columbia v. Heller:
> 
> 
> 
> DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
> 
> United States v. Miller
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> United States v. Miller
> 
> What weapons are in common use right now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the government were to say that the only private gun that is legal is a single shot musket that would be in opposition of the meaning of the constitution. The point of any militia is to be effective in mounting a defense against foreign and domestic invaders.
> 
> 
> The only reason we're even talking about this now is Obama wanted to invent another "important issue" he could use to divide us with.
> 
> Who was it that said *"A house divided against itself cannot stand"*. - Abraham Lincoln
> 
> 
> Enemies of this nation believe in division. Pitting one against another. Obama refuses to adhere to the number one goal of a good leader, to foster unity of purpose. He can only divide and marginalize.
Click to expand...


Actually, Lincoln was quoting Jesus Christ when he said that.


----------



## DiamondDave

elvis said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> The minute you consider the rest of the constitution obsolete, it will be obsolete.. but at that moment, you will have those that swore to defend the constitution stepping up to defend it against the likes of the OP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think there are enough of us.....
Click to expand...


There were plenty of times in history when there were not enough to defend something.. it did not stop them from giving everything to defend it though... and sometimes, it was found that it was enough, even with great losses


----------



## mudwhistle

Avatar4321 said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court disagrees with you.
> 
> District of Columbia v. Heller:
> 
> 
> 
> DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
> 
> United States v. Miller
> 
> 
> 
> United States v. Miller
> 
> What weapons are in common use right now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the government were to say that the only private gun that is legal is a single shot musket that would be in opposition of the meaning of the constitution. The point of any militia is to be effective in mounting a defense against foreign and domestic invaders.
> 
> 
> The only reason we're even talking about this now is Obama wanted to invent another "important issue" he could use to divide us with.
> 
> Who was it that said *"A house divided against itself cannot stand"*. - Abraham Lincoln
> 
> 
> Enemies of this nation believe in division. Pitting one against another. Obama refuses to adhere to the number one goal of a good leader, to foster unity of purpose. He can only divide and marginalize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, Lincoln was quoting Jesus Christ when he said that.
Click to expand...


A wise man quoting an even wiser man.


----------



## chikenwing

Lakhota said:


> I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed.  It's just a matter of time...



Bull SHIT try again gun lover my ass!!


----------



## Avatar4321

DiamondDave said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> The minute you consider the rest of the constitution obsolete, it will be obsolete.. but at that moment, you will have those that swore to defend the constitution stepping up to defend it against the likes of the OP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think there are enough of us.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There were plenty of times in history when there were not enough to defend something.. it did not stop them from giving everything to defend it though... and sometimes, it was found that it was enough, even with great losses
Click to expand...


That's when the hand of Divine Providence steps in.


----------



## Avatar4321

mudwhistle said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the government were to say that the only private gun that is legal is a single shot musket that would be in opposition of the meaning of the constitution. The point of any militia is to be effective in mounting a defense against foreign and domestic invaders.
> 
> 
> The only reason we're even talking about this now is Obama wanted to invent another "important issue" he could use to divide us with.
> 
> Who was it that said *"A house divided against itself cannot stand"*. - Abraham Lincoln
> 
> 
> Enemies of this nation believe in division. Pitting one against another. Obama refuses to adhere to the number one goal of a good leader, to foster unity of purpose. He can only divide and marginalize.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, Lincoln was quoting Jesus Christ when he said that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A wise man quoting an even wiser man.
Click to expand...


It's an Eternal Truth.


----------



## Sallow

elvis said:


> The courts will say no.



Like with so many other things..the courts corrupted original intent.


----------



## Sallow

Avatar4321 said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court disagrees with you.
> 
> District of Columbia v. Heller:
> 
> 
> 
> DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
> 
> United States v. Miller
> 
> 
> 
> United States v. Miller
> 
> What weapons are in common use right now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the government were to say that the only private gun that is legal is a single shot musket that would be in opposition of the meaning of the constitution. The point of any militia is to be effective in mounting a defense against foreign and domestic invaders.
> 
> 
> The only reason we're even talking about this now is Obama wanted to invent another "important issue" he could use to divide us with.
> 
> Who was it that said *"A house divided against itself cannot stand"*. - Abraham Lincoln
> 
> 
> Enemies of this nation believe in division. Pitting one against another. Obama refuses to adhere to the number one goal of a good leader, to foster unity of purpose. He can only divide and marginalize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, Lincoln was quoting Jesus Christ when he said that.
Click to expand...


Christ never existed.

So..Lincoln might as well as quoted Hercules.


----------



## Contumacious

Sallow said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> The courts will say no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like with so many other things..the courts corrupted original intent.
Click to expand...


That is correct.

It was the founding fathers' intent to create yet another enslaved communist nation.

.


----------



## chikenwing

Sallow said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the government were to say that the only private gun that is legal is a single shot musket that would be in opposition of the meaning of the constitution. The point of any militia is to be effective in mounting a defense against foreign and domestic invaders.
> 
> 
> The only reason we're even talking about this now is Obama wanted to invent another "important issue" he could use to divide us with.
> 
> Who was it that said *"A house divided against itself cannot stand"*. - Abraham Lincoln
> 
> 
> Enemies of this nation believe in division. Pitting one against another. Obama refuses to adhere to the number one goal of a good leader, to foster unity of purpose. He can only divide and marginalize.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, Lincoln was quoting Jesus Christ when he said that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christ never existed.
> 
> So..Lincoln might as well as quoted Hercules.
Click to expand...


Say what? you have definitive proof right?


what don't need it,opinion always trumps.


----------



## Avatar4321

Sallow said:


> Christ never existed.
> 
> So..Lincoln might as well as quoted Hercules.



And yet, we have the eye witness accounts of countless people who disagree with your non-supported assertion.


----------



## chikenwing

Sallow said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> The courts will say no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like with so many other things..the courts corrupted original intent.
Click to expand...


And that would be what??


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Sallow said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> The courts will say no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like with so many other things..the courts corrupted original intent.
Click to expand...


For once, I have to agree with you. The courts used to think that everyone was allowed guns, then conservatives got into the courts and forced people to give up their guns. It wasn't until the pendulum started to swing back recently that the whole mess got straightened out.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Sallow said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the government were to say that the only private gun that is legal is a single shot musket that would be in opposition of the meaning of the constitution. The point of any militia is to be effective in mounting a defense against foreign and domestic invaders.
> 
> 
> The only reason we're even talking about this now is Obama wanted to invent another "important issue" he could use to divide us with.
> 
> Who was it that said *"A house divided against itself cannot stand"*. - Abraham Lincoln
> 
> 
> Enemies of this nation believe in division. Pitting one against another. Obama refuses to adhere to the number one goal of a good leader, to foster unity of purpose. He can only divide and marginalize.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, Lincoln was quoting Jesus Christ when he said that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christ never existed.
> 
> So..Lincoln might as well as quoted Hercules.
Click to expand...


Historians disagree.


----------



## Sallow

Contumacious said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> The courts will say no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like with so many other things..the courts corrupted original intent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is correct.
> 
> It was the founding fathers' intent to create yet another enslaved communist nation.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


:sigh:

But no.

And you wouldn't and will never get it.

By the way..it kind of was a good idea. Just to far thinking.

But you will never ever understand that.


----------



## Dick Tuck

Avatar4321 said:


> Has human nature changed?
> 
> Have people stopped doing evil things and threatening innocent people?
> 
> Have politicians learned to respect the sovereignty of the people and stop trying to micromanage their existence?
> 
> If not, then of course it isn't obsolete. You'd have to be an idiot to think that or completely ignorant of the purpose of the Second amendment which is to protect our right to self defense and prevent tyranny and oppression.
> 
> When the people fear the government, we have tyranny. When the government fears it's people, then we have freedom.


----------



## chikenwing

Dick Tuck said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has human nature changed?
> 
> Have people stopped doing evil things and threatening innocent people?
> 
> Have politicians learned to respect the sovereignty of the people and stop trying to micromanage their existence?
> 
> If not, then of course it isn't obsolete. You'd have to be an idiot to think that or completely ignorant of the purpose of the Second amendment which is to protect our right to self defense and prevent tyranny and oppression.
> 
> When the people fear the government, we have tyranny. When the government fears it's people, then we have freedom.
Click to expand...


consistent ,lame but reliable.


----------



## Rinata

Two Thumbs said:


> well congrats to all the liberals here.
> 
> The people that claim to be the authors of the Constitution
> 
> In openly admitting that freedom is so passe.
> 
> 
> thank you for your honesty



That is not what was said. You are choosing to misinterpret what has been said here the same way you choose to misinterpret the 2nd amendment.


----------



## Avatar4321

Dick Tuck said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has human nature changed?
> 
> Have people stopped doing evil things and threatening innocent people?
> 
> Have politicians learned to respect the sovereignty of the people and stop trying to micromanage their existence?
> 
> If not, then of course it isn't obsolete. You'd have to be an idiot to think that or completely ignorant of the purpose of the Second amendment which is to protect our right to self defense and prevent tyranny and oppression.
> 
> When the people fear the government, we have tyranny. When the government fears it's people, then we have freedom.
Click to expand...


I know you and some of your friends like posting irrelevant pictures and pretending they actually mean something or make you smart, but you just make yourself look stupid doing it. It's wiser to remain silent and look like a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt


----------



## Avatar4321

Rinata said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> well congrats to all the liberals here.
> 
> The people that claim to be the authors of the Constitution
> 
> In openly admitting that freedom is so passe.
> 
> 
> thank you for your honesty
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what was said. You are choosing to misinterpret what has been said here the same way you choose to misinterpret the 2nd amendment.
Click to expand...


The 2nd amendment allows us the right to bear arms. How is that a misinterpretation?


----------



## Katzndogz

The Second Amendment isn't obsolete.  It's unnecessary.  So is the First Amendment.  Government should regulate speech for the public good.  Prohibit religious exercise too.  The Fourth Amendment has to go.  Of course the government should have the power to take private property and distribute it fairly.  While you're at it double jeopardy is not fair.  A person should be tried as many timed as is necessary to convict.

The entire Constituton is inapplicable to the transformed country.  John Adams was correct.  The Constitution was made for the governance only for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate for any other.


----------



## boedicca

luddly.neddite said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Back in yon olden days, that there musket could be fired only about 14 times before it became to hot to hold.
> 
> I agree that the second amendment is outdated, antiquated and never intended to be the measurement we use it for today.
Click to expand...




You really are galactically stupid.


----------



## Dick Tuck

Avatar4321 said:


> Dick Tuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has human nature changed?
> 
> Have people stopped doing evil things and threatening innocent people?
> 
> Have politicians learned to respect the sovereignty of the people and stop trying to micromanage their existence?
> 
> If not, then of course it isn't obsolete. You'd have to be an idiot to think that or completely ignorant of the purpose of the Second amendment which is to protect our right to self defense and prevent tyranny and oppression.
> 
> When the people fear the government, we have tyranny. When the government fears it's people, then we have freedom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know you and some of your friends like posting irrelevant pictures and pretending they actually mean something or make you smart, but you just make yourself look stupid doing it. It's wiser to remain silent and look like a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt
Click to expand...


You seem to be under some impression that your opinion means something to me.


----------



## Dick Tuck

Katzndogz said:


> The Second Amendment isn't obsolete.  It's unnecessary.  So is the First Amendment.  Government should regulate speech for the public good.  Prohibit religious exercise too.  The Fourth Amendment has to go.  Of course the government should have the power to take private property and distribute it fairly.  While you're at it double jeopardy is not fair.  A person should be tried as many timed as is necessary to convict.
> 
> The entire Constituton is inapplicable to the transformed country.  John Adams was correct.  The Constitution was made for the governance only for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate for any other.



Nope.  It's not.  We should think of the founders intent, and then look to the militia laws they passed, and decide how we should be armed.


----------



## Avatar4321

Dick Tuck said:


> You seem to be under some impression that your opinion means something to me.



Well, you keep responding to what I say, so it must mean something.

But I would atleast who what you say means something to you. And as we were discussing what you said or didn't say with an irrelevant picture, you would think that would care how it looks.


----------



## candycorn

> Is the Second Amendment obsolete?


  Yes.  It happened around 1950


----------



## Katzndogz

Dick Tuck said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment isn't obsolete.  It's unnecessary.  So is the First Amendment.  Government should regulate speech for the public good.  Prohibit religious exercise too.  The Fourth Amendment has to go.  Of course the government should have the power to take private property and distribute it fairly.  While you're at it double jeopardy is not fair.  A person should be tried as many timed as is necessary to convict.
> 
> The entire Constituton is inapplicable to the transformed country.  John Adams was correct.  The Constitution was made for the governance only for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate for any other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  It's not.  We should think of the founders intent, and then look to the militia laws they passed, and decide how we should be armed.
Click to expand...


The militia of the time was every able bodied male.  There was no standing militia.

Although today it is quite attractive to give legitimacy to the various militia groups.


----------



## Lakhota




----------



## Lakhota




----------



## chikenwing

Lakhota said:


>



whats your point?


----------



## Dick Tuck

Avatar4321 said:


> Dick Tuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be under some impression that your opinion means something to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you keep responding to what I say, so it must mean something.
> 
> But I would atleast who what you say means something to you. And as we were discussing what you said or didn't say with an irrelevant picture, you would think that would care how it looks.
Click to expand...


I respond to a lot of stupid shit being stated.  You're second paragraph starts with an incomprehensible statement.  I have no idea what you're trying to convey.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Rinata said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> well congrats to all the liberals here.
> 
> The people that claim to be the authors of the Constitution
> 
> In openly admitting that freedom is so passe.
> 
> 
> thank you for your honesty
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what was said. You are choosing to misinterpret what has been said here the same way you choose to misinterpret the 2nd amendment.
Click to expand...


That is precisely what some people have said. One guy even stated that the constitution means whatever the government says it means. Just because you are not saying it does not mean it is not being said.


----------



## Dick Tuck

Katzndogz said:


> Dick Tuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment isn't obsolete.  It's unnecessary.  So is the First Amendment.  Government should regulate speech for the public good.  Prohibit religious exercise too.  The Fourth Amendment has to go.  Of course the government should have the power to take private property and distribute it fairly.  While you're at it double jeopardy is not fair.  A person should be tried as many timed as is necessary to convict.
> 
> The entire Constituton is inapplicable to the transformed country.  John Adams was correct.  The Constitution was made for the governance only for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate for any other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  It's not.  We should think of the founders intent, and then look to the militia laws they passed, and decide how we should be armed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The militia of the time was every able bodied male.  There was no standing militia.
> 
> Although today it is quite attractive to give legitimacy to the various militia groups.
Click to expand...


Only if you believe that scumbags like the KKK are well regulated.


----------



## Lakhota

Top Republican Strategist Says NRA Is Out Of Touch On Gun Control | ThinkProgress

Frank Luntz, GOP Pollster: The NRA Isn't Listening With Proposal For Armed Guards At Schools


----------



## Lakhota

Oh, but it will.  Just a matter of time...


----------



## Lakhota

> *Israeli gun control regulations 'opposite of US'*
> 
> _By Ben Hartman_
> 
> A gun lovers dream or a stringently controlled police state that would make a National Rifle Association supporters blood boil? In recent days, following the massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, that left 26 dead, including 20 children, Israel has been mentioned as a country awash in guns yet still free of such random massacres. Many have pointed out that the difference between the countries is not in the prevalence of guns, but the regulations that accompany them.
> 
> According to Yaakov Amit, the head of the Public Security Ministrys Firearms Licensing Department, the difference between the gun laws in the US and Israel are as clear as night and day.
> 
> There is an essential difference between the two. In America the right to bear arms is written in the law, here its the opposite... only those who have a license can bear arms and not everyone can get a license.
> 
> Amit said gun licenses are only given out to those who have a reason because they work in security or law enforcement, or those who live in settlements where the state has an interest in them being armed.
> 
> He added that former IDF officers above a certain rank can get a license.
> 
> Anyone who fits the requirements, is over age 21 and an Israeli resident for more than three years, must go through a mental and physical health exam, Amit said, then pass shooting exams and courses at a licensed gun range, as well as background checks by the Public Security Ministry.
> 
> Once they order their firearm from a gun store, they are allowed to take it home with a one-time supply of 50 bullets, which Amit said they cannot renew.
> 
> The gun owner must retake his license exam and testing at the gun range every three years. As of January, Amit said, a new law will go into effect requiring gun owners to prove that they have a safe at home to keep their weapon in.



More: Israeli gun control regulations 'opposite of US' - The Jerusalem Post


----------



## AmericanFirst

Lakhota said:


> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
Click to expand...

Only socialist fools like cass the idiot sunstein believe that. And only idiots believe cass sunstein.


----------



## Antares

Shitting Bull you are just pissed because we conquered your ass.



Lakhota said:


> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
Click to expand...


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

Stupid ass threads and posters like this thread is the reason I don't frequent this site as often. 

Second amendment obsolete? 

Your fucking common sense is obsolete.


----------



## AmericanFirst

Dick Tuck said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Tuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be under some impression that your opinion means something to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you keep responding to what I say, so it must mean something.
> 
> But I would atleast who what you say means something to you. And as we were discussing what you said or didn't say with an irrelevant picture, you would think that would care how it looks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I respond to a lot of stupid shit being stated.  You're second paragraph starts with an incomprehensible statement.  I have no idea what you're trying to convey.
Click to expand...

You must respond to yourself a lot then.


----------



## Lakhota

_"Outrage is growing over Republican sabotage of  well, everything."_

Even Mainstream Pundits Are Now Saying, Republicans 'No Longer a Normal Governing Party,' 'Unfit for Government' | Alternet


----------



## freedombecki

What a huge pile of leftist smarm to cover their plans to bury the Second Amendment in white paper.


----------



## Antares

Dickless, ALL you post is stupid shit.

Sorry, it just is what it is.



Dick Tuck said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Tuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be under some impression that your opinion means something to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you keep responding to what I say, so it must mean something.
> 
> But I would atleast who what you say means something to you. And as we were discussing what you said or didn't say with an irrelevant picture, you would think that would care how it looks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I respond to a lot of stupid shit being stated.  You're second paragraph starts with an incomprehensible statement.  I have no idea what you're trying to convey.
Click to expand...


----------



## Lakhota

Grampa Murked U said:


> Stupid ass threads and posters like this thread is the reason I don't frequent this site as often.
> 
> Second amendment obsolete?
> 
> Your fucking common sense is obsolete.



Please explain to us how the 2nd Amendment is legally relevant in current America.  Are you in a militia?


----------



## AmyNation

No.


----------



## Harry Dresden

Lakhota said:


> I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed.  It's just a matter of time...



sure you are.....your posts sure back that up.....a gun lover calling for guns to be banned....


----------



## Antares

No No, Shitting Bull prefers the Bow and the Lance.



Harry Dresden said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed.  It's just a matter of time...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sure you are.....your posts sure back that up.....a gun lover calling for guns to be banned....
Click to expand...


----------



## Lakhota

Harry Dresden said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed.  It's just a matter of time...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sure you are.....your posts sure back that up.....a gun lover calling for guns to be banned....
Click to expand...


I'm just trying to help prevent you radical NaziCon gun nuts from ruining it for the rest of us who support reasonable gun control legislation and strict enforcement.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

Lakhota said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid ass threads and posters like this thread is the reason I don't frequent this site as often.
> 
> Second amendment obsolete?
> 
> Your fucking common sense is obsolete.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain to us how the 2nd Amendment is legally relevant in current America.  Are you in a militia?
Click to expand...


Please explain to us how your brain allows you to function in a normal society today? Are you in a mental hospital?

Moron


----------



## Harry Dresden

tinydancer said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed.  It's just a matter of time...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't even American
> 
> What's fun is to watch you morph depending the discussion. Now you are a gun lover.
> 
> OMG
Click to expand...


you noticed that too.....he started off as a long time NRA guy who does not want guns banned,just reasonable restrictions keeping them out of the hands of crazies,.......now he is a "gun lover" BUT he wants guns banned......and his recent posts back that up.....i have said it before....LaKota is a phony......


----------



## Lakhota

tinydenser is hilariously stupid.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Lakhota said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid ass threads and posters like this thread is the reason I don't frequent this site as often.
> 
> Second amendment obsolete?
> 
> Your fucking common sense is obsolete.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain to us how the 2nd Amendment is legally relevant in current America.  Are you in a militia?
Click to expand...


Please explain the difference between a dependent and a main clause in English.


----------



## Lakhota

Quantum Windbag said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid ass threads and posters like this thread is the reason I don't frequent this site as often.
> 
> Second amendment obsolete?
> 
> Your fucking common sense is obsolete.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain to us how the 2nd Amendment is legally relevant in current America.  Are you in a militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please explain the difference between a dependent and a main clause in English.
Click to expand...


That's funny.  I've heard that argument many times.  Many Constitution experts say the 2nd Amendment is confusing.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Lakhota said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain to us how the 2nd Amendment is legally relevant in current America.  Are you in a militia?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain the difference between a dependent and a main clause in English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's funny.  I've heard that argument many times.  Many Constitution experts say the 2nd Amendment is confusing.
Click to expand...


Strangely enough, all the ones who are confused want to limit freedom.


----------



## Lakhota

> There are two problems with the Second Amendment.  First, under any circumstance, it is confusing; something that an English teacher would mark up in red ink and tell the author to redo and clarify.  Secondly, there are actually two versions of the Amendment; The first passed by two-thirds of the members of each house of Congress (the first step for ratifying a constitutional amendment).  A different version passed by three-fourths of the states (the second step for ratifying a constitution amendment).  The primary difference between the two versions are a capitalization and a simple comma.



DETAILS: Confusion -- the wording of the Second Amendment | Occasional Planet


----------



## Harry Dresden

Lakhota said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed.  It's just a matter of time...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sure you are.....your posts sure back that up.....a gun lover calling for guns to be banned....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm just trying to help prevent you radical NaziCon gun nuts from ruining it for the rest of us who support reasonable gun control legislation and strict enforcement.
Click to expand...


oh fuck you.....you don't support none of that stuff....your posts in those other Gun threads are basically calling for NO ONE to own guns.........and if you don't have the balls to stand up and just say it....then that says a lot about who you are....your a phony LaKota


----------



## Lakhota

Dream on...


----------



## YoungRepublican

There really is no argument here. there is no legislation that you need to alert the Govt that you are forming a militia, so theres no way for anyone to tell you you arent in a militia. hence, you can can be your own personal militia and own a gun legally. This is first week stuff in Constitution 101 guys and gals


----------



## Lakhota

YoungRepublican said:


> There really is no argument here. there is no legislation that you need to alert the Govt that you are forming a militia, so theres no way for anyone to tell you you arent in a militia. hence, you can can be your own personal militia and own a gun legally. This is first week stuff in Constitution 101 guys and gals



Wow, that was brilliant...and hilarious...


----------



## Ernie S.

Lakhota said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid ass threads and posters like this thread is the reason I don't frequent this site as often.
> 
> Second amendment obsolete?
> 
> Your fucking common sense is obsolete.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain to us how the 2nd Amendment is legally relevant in current America.  Are you in a militia?
Click to expand...


Is it still a part of the Constitution? Then it's not obsolete, is it?
If you want it to go the way of Prohibition, suggest repealing it, but duck.


----------



## Ernie S.

Harry Dresden said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed.  It's just a matter of time...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sure you are.....your posts sure back that up.....a gun lover calling for guns to be banned....
Click to expand...


He claims to be a gun lover, but proves he's a liar and a coward.


----------



## Ernie S.

Lakhota said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed.  It's just a matter of time...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sure you are.....your posts sure back that up.....a gun lover calling for guns to be banned....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm just trying to help prevent you radical NaziCon gun nuts from ruining it for the rest of us who support reasonable gun control legislation and strict enforcement.
Click to expand...


Legal Conservative gun owners aren't the ones ruining it. Liberal criminals who already are prohibited from owning guns are. No matter how much you want to win, it's an empty battle. You are fighting the wrong enemy.


----------



## Harry Dresden

Lakhota said:


> Dream on...


say that when you prove me wrong.....until then.....


----------



## jillian

Ernie S. said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid ass threads and posters like this thread is the reason I don't frequent this site as often.
> 
> Second amendment obsolete?
> 
> Your fucking common sense is obsolete.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain to us how the 2nd Amendment is legally relevant in current America.  Are you in a militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it still a part of the Constitution? Then it's not obsolete, is it?
> If you want it to go the way of Prohibition, suggest repealing it, but duck.
Click to expand...


things are generally part of the constitution after they're obsolete or they wouldn't be changed. but the reality is, the constitution, except for prohibition, has never been amended to limit rights... it's only ever been amended to expand them.

and it's unlikely that the 2nd amendment would be amended any time soon.


----------



## YoungRepublican

Lakhota said:


> YoungRepublican said:
> 
> 
> 
> There really is no argument here. there is no legislation that you need to alert the Govt that you are forming a militia, so theres no way for anyone to tell you you arent in a militia. hence, you can can be your own personal militia and own a gun legally. This is first week stuff in Constitution 101 guys and gals
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, that was brilliant...and hilarious...
Click to expand...


Are you being facetious? I dont know whether to thank you or defend my point lol
On another note. Fonts need a sarcastic style


----------



## Ernie S.

Lakhota said:


> tinydenser is hilariously stupid.


Why don't you turn your rep back on so you can neg her?


----------



## Lakhota

Ernie S. said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> tinydenser is hilariously stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you turn your rep back on so you can neg her?
Click to expand...


Negging is for children, Pee-wee...


----------



## Lakhota




----------



## Artifice

YoungRepublican said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YoungRepublican said:
> 
> 
> 
> There really is no argument here. there is no legislation that you need to alert the Govt that you are forming a militia, so theres no way for anyone to tell you you arent in a militia. hence, you can can be your own personal militia and own a gun legally. This is first week stuff in Constitution 101 guys and gals
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, that was brilliant...and hilarious...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you being facetious? I dont know whether to thank you or defend my point lol
> On another note. Fonts need a sarcastic style
Click to expand...


I support this "sarcastic font" idea. Sometimes it gets a little tedious trying to decipher the madness.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Lakhota said:


> I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed.  It's just a matter of time...



And all it takes is to propose and pass through Congress a new Amendment. The problem is the gun grabbers know they can not pass such an amendment. New laws must conform to already existing law. That the second is a personal right and that the weapons protected are of a military style in common use.


----------



## Lakhota

The truth behind America's 'civilian militias' - Telegraph

The Militia Movement -- Extremism in America

The Government and the Militia Movement

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Terrorist-Next-Door-Militia-Movement/dp/0312320418]The Terrorist Next Door: The Militia Movement and the Radical Right[/ame]


----------



## Lakhota

RetiredGySgt said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed.  It's just a matter of time...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And all it takes is to propose and pass through Congress a new Amendment. The problem is the gun grabbers know they can not pass such an amendment. New laws must conform to already existing law. That the second is a personal right and that the weapons protected are of a military style in common use.
Click to expand...


The 2nd Amendment is simply whatever SCOTUS says it is.  SCOTUS has redefined it before and will redefine it again.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Lakhota said:


> There are two problems with the Second Amendment.  First, under any circumstance, it is confusing; something that an English teacher would mark up in red ink and tell the author to redo and clarify.  Secondly, there are actually two versions of the Amendment; The first passed by two-thirds of the members of each house of Congress (the first step for ratifying a constitutional amendment).  A different version passed by three-fourths of the states (the second step for ratifying a constitution amendment).  The primary difference between the two versions are a capitalization and a simple comma.
> 
> 
> 
> DETAILS: Confusion -- the wording of the Second Amendment | Occasional Planet
Click to expand...


Interesting diversion into idiocy. The only reason to delve into the issue of capitalization in the 2nd Amendment is if you are completely ignorant of the fat that spelling and capitalization rules were non existent at the time the Constitution was written. It wasn't until the invention of the printing press made it possible to actually develop rules about those things that anyone actually started paying attention to the whole proper noun verses regular noun thing. Given that 

Strangely enough, the same lack of rules applied to the use of commas, which is even more proof that the author of the idiotic diversion is completely unqualified to comment on the alleged confusion in a clearly written sentence.

Thanks for the laugh though.


----------



## YoungRepublican

jillian said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain to us how the 2nd Amendment is legally relevant in current America.  Are you in a militia?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it still a part of the Constitution? Then it's not obsolete, is it?
> If you want it to go the way of Prohibition, suggest repealing it, but duck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> things are generally part of the constitution after they're obsolete or they wouldn't be changed. but the reality is, the constitution, except for prohibition, has never been amended to limit rights... it's only ever been amended to expand them.
> 
> and it's unlikely that the 2nd amendment would be amended any time soon.
Click to expand...


And the limiting of terms lenth


----------



## Quantum Windbag

jillian said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain to us how the 2nd Amendment is legally relevant in current America.  Are you in a militia?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it still a part of the
> Constitution? Then it's not obsolete, is it?
> If you want it to go the way of Prohibition, suggest repealing it, but duck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> things are generally part of the constitution after they're obsolete or they wouldn't be changed. but the reality is, the constitution, except for prohibition, has never been amended to limit rights... it's only ever been amended to expand them.
> 
> and it's unlikely that the 2nd amendment would be amended any time soon.
Click to expand...


Quite true, the government prefers to limit rights through court decisions.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Lakhota said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> tinydenser is hilariously stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you turn your rep back on so you can neg her?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Negging is for children, Pee-wee...
Click to expand...


C'mon, you don't have rep so no one can see how many splotches you have,


----------



## CrazedScotsman

Lakhota said:


> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
Click to expand...


The Second Amendment is only obsolete to the person who trusts the government from now into the very distant future, and I know no one who trusts our government from now into the very distant future.


----------



## Zander




----------



## Zoom

TheOldSchool said:


> It's definitely not the most important amendment, like most conservatives argue, but it's not obsolete.  We're the United Freakin States.  We were founded on a revolutionary crazy notion that people are allowed to be as free as they want.
> 
> If you take away that crazy, then we're closer to being like the French.  And no one wants that.



People were not free as they wanted back then.  Only certain ones.  In other words, white males.


----------



## Lakhota

> *Extreme Second Amendment Lawsuits are Failing in the Courts*
> 
> The Supreme Court may have opened the floodgates to Second Amendment litigation with the Heller decision, but the majority&#8217;s opinion also made clear that the Amendment protects only a limited right. The Court directly stated that the Second Amendment does not protect a &#8220;right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose,&#8221; and listed several examples of presumptively constitutional regulations.



More: Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence


----------



## blackhawk

I suspect you could make a argument about most anything written 200 plus years ago being obsolete by today's standards. So the question is do you want to go redefining a constitution that was worked very well for over 200 years to today's standards? If we go down that path I don't think any of us will like what we find at the end of it.


----------



## Katzndogz

blackhawk said:


> I suspect you could make a argument about most anything written 200 plus years ago being obsolete by today's standards. So the question is do you want to go redefining a constitution that was worked very well for over 200 years to today's standards? If we go down that path I don't think any of us will like what we find at the end of it.



Whether the Constution works depends on who you talk to. obama says it has never worked and was fatally flawed the day it was signed.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Quantum Windbag said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it still a part of the
> Constitution? Then it's not obsolete, is it?
> If you want it to go the way of Prohibition, suggest repealing it, but duck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> things are generally part of the constitution after they're obsolete or they wouldn't be changed. but the reality is, the constitution, except for prohibition, has never been amended to limit rights... it's only ever been amended to expand them.
> 
> and it's unlikely that the 2nd amendment would be amended any time soon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quite true, the government prefers to limit rights through court decisions.
Click to expand...


Which government? 

Over the last 60 years weve seen mostly state and local governments attempt to limit Americans civil liberties, where the Federal courts were needed to strike down those laws offensive to the Constitution and restore citizens rights. 

That was the issue with _Heller/McDonald_, where the District of Columbia and Chicago had enacted handgun bans, overturned as un-Constitutional by the courts. 

Thus your statement has no basis in fact, where the Federal courts remain a bulwark against government excess, and the sole venue in which the people can seek remedy to that excess.


----------



## YoungRepublican

Katzndogz said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect you could make a argument about most anything written 200 plus years ago being obsolete by today's standards. So the question is do you want to go redefining a constitution that was worked very well for over 200 years to today's standards? If we go down that path I don't think any of us will like what we find at the end of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whether the Constution works depends on who you talk to. obama says it has never worked and was fatally flawed the day it was signed.
Click to expand...


I remember that quote! man how funny was that!


----------



## tjvh

Lakhota said:


> *Extreme Second Amendment Lawsuits are Failing in the Courts*
> 
> The Supreme Court may have opened the floodgates to Second Amendment litigation with the Heller decision, but the majoritys opinion also made clear that the Amendment protects only a limited right. The Court directly stated that the Second Amendment does not protect a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose, and listed several examples of presumptively constitutional regulations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence
Click to expand...


You bitch about the NRA then you link to this ^ crap? *Hypocrite*.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

Lakhota said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> tinydenser is hilariously stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you turn your rep back on so you can neg her?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Negging is for children, Pee-wee...
Click to expand...


That's what everyone who gets negged regularly says. Hence yours is off. 

Pussy


----------



## Rinata

Avatar4321 said:


> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> well congrats to all the liberals here.
> 
> The people that claim to be the authors of the Constitution
> 
> In openly admitting that freedom is so passe.
> 
> 
> thank you for your honesty
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what was said. You are choosing to misinterpret what has been said here the same way you choose to misinterpret the 2nd amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 2nd amendment allows us the right to bear arms. How is that a misinterpretation?
Click to expand...


What it actually says is:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

This does not give individuals the right to bear arms. It is giving militias the right to bear arms. How is this at all relevant today??


----------



## American_Jihad

Is the Second Amendment obsolete?




You chumps need to lay off the crack that you smoke...


----------



## Lakhota

Gun Control and the Second Amendment


----------



## American_Jihad

Lakhota said:


> Gun Control and the Second Amendment



You silly liberals can get wee weed up all you want, nothing is going to change. Whatcha going to do, go door to door to collect guns, lol good luck...


----------



## Quantum Windbag

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> things are generally part of the constitution after they're obsolete or they wouldn't be changed. but the reality is, the constitution, except for prohibition, has never been amended to limit rights... it's only ever been amended to expand them.
> 
> and it's unlikely that the 2nd amendment would be amended any time soon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quite true, the government prefers to limit rights through court decisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which government?
> 
> Over the last 60 years weve seen mostly state and local governments attempt to limit Americans civil liberties, where the Federal courts were needed to strike down those laws offensive to the Constitution and restore citizens rights.
> 
> That was the issue with _Heller/McDonald_, where the District of Columbia and Chicago had enacted handgun bans, overturned as un-Constitutional by the courts.
> 
> Thus your statement has no basis in fact, where the Federal courts remain a bulwark against government excess, and the sole venue in which the people can seek remedy to that excess.
Click to expand...


Which government? The one that argues that the location data on my cell phone is not private. 

The US Government Can Track Your Location at Any Time Without a Warrant | Mother Jones

The government that argues that they do not need a warrant to go through my cell phone.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/26/t...rts-and-legislatures.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

The government that argues that people should be in prison even though we know they are innocent.

Scores of N.C. inmates 'innocent' of gun charges, yet still imprisoned

I can keep going all day long, do not even attempt to argue that the feds are not trying to limit people's rights, that position is indefensible.

By the way, the feds filed a brief in Heller supporting the restrictions.


----------



## Lakhota

Most NaziCons would wet their pants when ATF knocked on their door.


----------



## Harry Dresden

tjvh said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Extreme Second Amendment Lawsuits are Failing in the Courts*
> 
> The Supreme Court may have opened the floodgates to Second Amendment litigation with the Heller decision, but the majority&#8217;s opinion also made clear that the Amendment protects only a limited right. The Court directly stated that the Second Amendment does not protect a &#8220;right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose,&#8221; and listed several examples of presumptively constitutional regulations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You bitch about the NRA then you link to this ^ crap? *Hypocrite*.
Click to expand...


you folks are catching on.....LaKota is a phony......says he is a gun owner and for "sane" Gun ownership......bullshit.....in the other threads on this he is basically saying NO ONE should own a gun....the guy flip flops more than Romney did.....


----------



## Harry Dresden

Rinata said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what was said. You are choosing to misinterpret what has been said here the same way you choose to misinterpret the 2nd amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd amendment allows us the right to bear arms. How is that a misinterpretation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What it actually says is:
> 
> A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> This does not give individuals the right to bear arms. It is giving militias the right to bear arms. How is this at all relevant today??
Click to expand...

sorry Rinata.....the PEOPLE are the Citizens of this Country.....this Country has "Zero Tolerance" for this and that.....maybe they should start having "Zero Tolerance" for Violence against people and start putting violent people away for a long time with no time off for good behavior......you serve every minute of your sentence.....


----------



## hazlnut

Lakhota said:


> Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited  never have been and never will be  Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star



It's right up there with no quarter.


----------



## Si modo

Inherent rights have no expiration dates, except to fascists.


----------



## Harry Dresden

Lakhota said:


> Most NaziCons would wet their pants when ATF knocked on their door.



this coming from a guy who would not think twice about giving up a right because he was told that right is bad and we have to eliminate it......some people roll over LaKota like you.....some are willing to question WHY....and maybe even stand up for those rights.....you would not understand that.....you were told its not right to question authority....you don't question what the President says or does,you don't question what the Democrats do or say.....basically.....you don't question you just do.....and your Threads and Posts back that up.....go ahead prove how wrong i am about you....


----------



## Ernie S.

Lakhota said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> tinydenser is hilariously stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you turn your rep back on so you can neg her?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Negging is for children, Pee-wee...
Click to expand...


Turning rep off is for cowards that refuse to see how little respect people have for their opinions.


----------



## Si modo

Ernie S. said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you turn your rep back on so you can neg her?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Negging is for children, Pee-wee...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Turning rep off is for cowards that refuse to see how little respect people have for their opinions.
Click to expand...

And, how long did it take the coward to do that after it announced that it would do that?


----------



## rightwinger

Two Thumbs said:


> fyi;  the Second Amendment allows you to have the other amendments.
> 
> For those totally ignorant of history



The right to vote secured by a free and open press allows you to have the other amendments

At no point in our history has our freedom,deliniated by the second amendment, been assured by private gun ownership. A free press protects our freedom every day


----------



## Ernie S.

Rinata said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what was said. You are choosing to misinterpret what has been said here the same way you choose to misinterpret the 2nd amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd amendment allows us the right to bear arms. How is that a misinterpretation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What it actually says is:
> 
> A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> This does not give individuals the right to bear arms. It is giving militias the right to bear arms. How is this at all relevant today??
Click to expand...


You are 100% wrong, The 2 phrases can be taken independently. The founders realized that militias aren't a permanent entity. They may be raised, disbanded and become necessary again at a later time.
When, in the future, a citizen militia may be needed again, it will need arms. A oppressive government isn't about to arm its opposition.


----------



## Si modo

rightwinger said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> fyi;  the Second Amendment allows you to have the other amendments.
> 
> For those totally ignorant of history
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right to vote secured by a free and open press allows you to have the other amendments
> 
> At no point in our history has our freedom,deliniated by the second amendment, been assured by private gun ownership. A free press protects our freedom every day
Click to expand...

"Free and open press"


----------



## Ernie S.

Lakhota said:


> Most NaziCons would wet their pants when ATF knocked on their door.



The ATF would likely never reach my door, unless they stopped by here first.
Besides, if your President ordered the ATF to go door to door to disarm the public, I doubt strongly that they would do well up against local and state police departments, National Guard units and the US Military who have all sworn to uphold the US Constitution.

Violating my right to keep and bear arms would not end well.


----------



## Ernie S.

Si modo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Negging is for children, Pee-wee...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turning rep off is for cowards that refuse to see how little respect people have for their opinions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And, how long did it take the coward to do that after it announced that it would do that?
Click to expand...


It was a big scary step. I believe that at the time, it was irreversible. Apparently, your rep can be turned off and on at will.

A question posed by a member in the form of a visitor message:



> can you opt out of the rep system then opt back in? please clarify that rule?



And the answer from Cereal_Killer:



> You sure can but be sure to get the number from us that we are wiping out. For example: your rep may be 223 on the boards but in the field that we are looking at when we wipe it out will read 1265. So I'll give you that number and have you keep it for safe keeping in case you want to opt back in. I hope that makes sense?


----------



## Si modo

Rinata said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what was said. You are choosing to misinterpret what has been said here the same way you choose to misinterpret the 2nd amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd amendment allows us the right to bear arms. How is that a misinterpretation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What it actually says is:
> 
> A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> This does not give individuals the right to bear arms. It is giving militias the right to bear arms. How is this at all relevant today??
Click to expand...

Obviously you've never heard of _District of Columbia v. Heller_.  The SCOTUS says the 2nd DOES give individuals the right to bear arms.


----------



## Ernie S.

rightwinger said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> fyi;  the Second Amendment allows you to have the other amendments.
> 
> For those totally ignorant of history
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right to vote secured by a free and open press allows you to have the other amendments
> 
> At no point in our history has our freedom,deliniated by the second amendment, been assured by private gun ownership. A free press protects our freedom every day
Click to expand...


A free press can inform the citizens, but is of no use to stop an oppressive government. What it CAN do, is call out the armed militia.

The Press is also free to support the oppression, kind of like MSNBC


----------



## rightwinger

Ernie S. said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> fyi;  the Second Amendment allows you to have the other amendments.
> 
> For those totally ignorant of history
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right to vote secured by a free and open press allows you to have the other amendments
> 
> At no point in our history has our freedom,deliniated by the second amendment, been assured by private gun ownership. A free press protects our freedom every day
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A free press can inform the citizens, but is of no use to stop an oppressive government. What it CAN do, is call out the armed militia.
> 
> The Press is also free to support the oppression, kind of like MSNBC
Click to expand...


An oppressive government is more afraid of your vote than your gun


----------



## rightwinger

Si modo said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> fyi;  the Second Amendment allows you to have the other amendments.
> 
> For those totally ignorant of history
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right to vote secured by a free and open press allows you to have the other amendments
> 
> At no point in our history has our freedom,deliniated by the second amendment, been assured by private gun ownership. A free press protects our freedom every day
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Free and open press"
Click to expand...


With the advent of the internet, we have a more free and open press than in any time of our history


----------



## peach174

Rinata said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what was said. You are choosing to misinterpret what has been said here the same way you choose to misinterpret the 2nd amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd amendment allows us the right to bear arms. How is that a misinterpretation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What it actually says is:
> 
> &#8220;A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.&#8221;
> 
> This does not give individuals the right to bear arms. It is giving militias the right to bear arms. How is this at all relevant today??
Click to expand...


Then it wourld have said the right of the militia to keep and bear arms.
It says what it means and means what it says, for the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Reading it the way it says and along with the founders letters and papers they meant for the *PEOPLE* to keep and bear arms, not just the military.
I'm sick and tired of the lefties of this country trying to mis-read our Constitution and interpret it for their political agendas.

Adding what you want or think that the Constitution should say is totally against our freedoms as well as our Constitution.


----------



## GuyPinestra

Rinata said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what was said. You are choosing to misinterpret what has been said here the same way you choose to misinterpret the 2nd amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd amendment allows us the right to bear arms. How is that a misinterpretation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What it actually says is:
> 
> A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> This does not give individuals the right to bear arms. It is giving militias the right to bear arms. How is this at all relevant today??
Click to expand...


Fuck, you're stupid!! We ARE the 'militia'...


----------



## rightwinger

GuyPinestra said:


> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd amendment allows us the right to bear arms. How is that a misinterpretation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What it actually says is:
> 
> A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> This does not give individuals the right to bear arms. It is giving militias the right to bear arms. How is this at all relevant today??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck, you're stupid!! We ARE the 'militia'...
Click to expand...


No you are not

You are just a bunch of morons running around with guns


----------



## GuyPinestra

rightwinger said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> What it actually says is:
> 
> A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> This does not give individuals the right to bear arms. It is giving militias the right to bear arms. How is this at all relevant today??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck, you're stupid!! We ARE the 'militia'...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you are not
> 
> You are just a bunch of morons running around with guns
Click to expand...


Definition of MILITIA
1
a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2
: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service 

You're as fucking stupid as she is!!


----------



## rightwinger

GuyPinestra said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck, you're stupid!! We ARE the 'militia'...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you are not
> 
> You are just a bunch of morons running around with guns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Definition of MILITIA
> 1
> a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
> b : a body of citizens organized for military service
> 2
> : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service
> 
> You're as fucking stupid as she is!!
Click to expand...


You don't even meet the second criteria


----------



## Si modo

It's amazing to me that so many don't know about _Heller_.


----------



## Zander

Si modo said:


> It's amazing to me that so many don't know about _Heller_.



Doesn't surprise me at all. Precedent? Schmecedent!!  Pack the court with new justices!!! 

Dem/Prog/Lib/Socialist/Commies see the Constitution as a "living" document, subject to constant reinterpretation.....Obama thinks it is "flawed"......This is America today.


----------



## Si modo

Zander said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing to me that so many don't know about _Heller_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't surprise me at all. Precedent? Schmecedent!!  Pack the court with new justices!!!
> 
> Dem/Prog/Lib/Socialist/Commies see the Constitution as a "living" document, subject to constant reinterpretation.....Obama thinks it is "flawed"......This is America today.
Click to expand...

I just hope that moron Ginsberg remains alive until after January 2017.


----------



## hazlnut

Ernie S. said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> fyi;  the Second Amendment allows you to have the other amendments.
> 
> For those totally ignorant of history
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right to vote secured by a free and open press allows you to have the other amendments
> 
> At no point in our history has our freedom,deliniated by the second amendment, been assured by private gun ownership. A free press protects our freedom every day
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A free press can inform the citizens, but is of no use to stop an oppressive government. What it CAN do, is call out the armed militia.
> 
> The Press is also free to support the oppression, kind of like MSNBC
Click to expand...


Gun safety = oppression.

What are seat belts, gag balls?


----------



## hazlnut

Zander said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing to me that so many don't know about _Heller_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't surprise me at all. Precedent? Schmecedent!!  Pack the court with new justices!!!
> 
> Dem/Prog/Lib/Socialist/Commies see the Constitution as a "living" document, subject to constant reinterpretation.....Obama thinks it is "flawed"......This is America today.
Click to expand...


You idiots sound like such bitches...


----------



## Contumacious

rightwinger said:


> An oppressive government is more afraid of your vote than your gun



HUH? WTF?

An oppressive government does not give a shit about anybody's vote.


Bu I agree, the 2A is obsolete, we are being governed by angels, DC has incarcerated all the criminal element , yep, the US is a paradise now. 

We don't need guns anymore 


.


----------



## elvis

Si modo said:


> It's amazing to me that so many don't know about _Heller_.



May not matter.  That may be ignored.


----------



## hazlnut

Si modo said:


> It's amazing to me that so many don't know about _Heller_.



Yeah, yeah, yeah.... and we know about Dred Scott too.

Dumb fuck.


----------



## Si modo

hazlnut said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing to me that so many don't know about _Heller_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, yeah, yeah.... and we know about Dred Scott too.
> 
> Dumb fuck.
Click to expand...

And the SCOTUS was right.  Their responsibility is not to legislate.  Three branches...look it up.

Fuckwit.


----------



## candycorn

Lakhota said:


>



Very good post.  Highest marks.


----------



## asterism

Rinata said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what was said. You are choosing to misinterpret what has been said here the same way you choose to misinterpret the 2nd amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd amendment allows us the right to bear arms. How is that a misinterpretation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What it actually says is:
> 
> A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> This does not give individuals the right to bear arms. It is giving militias the right to bear arms. How is this at all relevant today??
Click to expand...


You're aware that the Supreme Court ruled differently right?



> The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 253.



DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER


----------



## Quantum Windbag

rightwinger said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> fyi;  the Second Amendment allows you to have the other amendments.
> 
> For those totally ignorant of history
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right to vote secured by a free and open press allows you to have the other amendments
> 
> At no point in our history has our freedom,deliniated by the second amendment, been assured by private gun ownership. A free press protects our freedom every day
Click to expand...


It does? Is that how it worked in Venezuela? Because I can guarantee that all of the Hollywood Left is satisfied with the fact that everyone under the benevolent care of Hugo Chavez has both a right to vote and a free and open press, the only thing they don't have is a right to keep and bear arms.

Syria, on the other hand, has no right to vote, and no free and open press, but they are currently securing both of those rights by exercising their right to bear arms and fight for their rights.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Ernie S. said:


> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd amendment allows us the right to bear arms. How is that a misinterpretation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What it actually says is:
> 
> A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> This does not give individuals the right to bear arms. It is giving militias the right to bear arms. How is this at all relevant today??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are 100% wrong, The 2 phrases can be taken independently. The founders realized that militias aren't a permanent entity. They may be raised, disbanded and become necessary again at a later time.
> When, in the future, a citizen militia may be needed again, it will need arms. A oppressive government isn't about to arm its opposition.
Click to expand...


Stop trying to argue that the fact that the amendment mentions militias means something different now than it did then. The simple fact is that that sentence contains both a dominant and a dependent clause. The simplest way to handle this is to slit the clauses apart and see which stands on its own.


A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free  state.
Umm, what? How is it necessary? What is a free state? Lots of questions, lots of ambiguity. Interesting concept, but it is not a complete sentence, so it has to be the dependent clause.


The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be  infringed.
Gee, look at that, a complete sentence, no ambiguity, no confusion.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

rightwinger said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right to vote secured by a free and open press allows you to have the other amendments
> 
> At no point in our history has our freedom,deliniated by the second amendment, been assured by private gun ownership. A free press protects our freedom every day
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A free press can inform the citizens, but is of no use to stop an oppressive government. What it CAN do, is call out the armed militia.
> 
> The Press is also free to support the oppression, kind of like MSNBC
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An oppressive government is more afraid of your vote than your gun
Click to expand...


That explains why oppressive governments always take the guns before they take the votes.


----------



## rightwinger

Quantum Windbag said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> A free press can inform the citizens, but is of no use to stop an oppressive government. What it CAN do, is call out the armed militia.
> 
> The Press is also free to support the oppression, kind of like MSNBC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An oppressive government is more afraid of your vote than your gun
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That explains why oppressive governments always take the guns before they take the votes.
Click to expand...


They first move to dictatorships and abolish the vote

But guess what?  The US is not a dictatorship regardless of what rightwing propaganda says.


----------



## rightwinger

Quantum Windbag said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> fyi;  the Second Amendment allows you to have the other amendments.
> 
> For those totally ignorant of history
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right to vote secured by a free and open press allows you to have the other amendments
> 
> At no point in our history has our freedom,deliniated by the second amendment, been assured by private gun ownership. A free press protects our freedom every day
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It does? Is that how it worked in Venezuela? Because I can guarantee that all of the Hollywood Left is satisfied with the fact that everyone under the benevolent care of Hugo Chavez has both a right to vote and a free and open press, the only thing they don't have is a right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Syria, on the other hand, has no right to vote, and no free and open press, but they are currently securing both of those rights by exercising their right to bear arms and fight for their rights.
Click to expand...


You fail to point out where, in the history of THE UNITED STATES, gun ownership has protected our freedom

Personal security, yes
Freedom, never


----------



## Quantum Windbag

rightwinger said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> What it actually says is:
> 
> A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> This does not give individuals the right to bear arms. It is giving militias the right to bear arms. How is this at all relevant today??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck, you're stupid!! We ARE the 'militia'...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you are not
> 
> You are just a bunch of morons running around with guns
Click to expand...


Strange, Federal Law defines the militia as able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32,  under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of  intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female  citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

FYI, that covers makes everyone under 64 years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps.

Want to tell me again I am not in the militia?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

rightwinger said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> An oppressive government is more afraid of your vote than your gun
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That explains why oppressive governments always take the guns before they take the votes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They first move to dictatorships and abolish the vote
> 
> But guess what?  The US is not a dictatorship regardless of what rightwing propaganda says.
Click to expand...


Iran has elections all the time, please tell me they aren't an oppressive government and/or a dictatorship.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

rightwinger said:


> quantum windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> the right to vote secured by a free and open press allows you to have the other amendments
> 
> at no point in our history has our freedom,deliniated by the second amendment, been assured by private gun ownership. A free press protects our freedom every day
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it does? Is that how it worked in venezuela? Because i can guarantee that all of the hollywood left is satisfied with the fact that everyone under the benevolent care of hugo chavez has both a right to vote and a free and open press, the only thing they don't have is a right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Syria, on the other hand, has no right to vote, and no free and open press, but they are currently securing both of those rights by exercising their right to bear arms and fight for their rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you fail to point out where, in the history of the united states, gun ownership has protected our freedom
> 
> personal security, yes
> freedom, never
Click to expand...


1776.


----------



## rightwinger

Quantum Windbag said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quantum windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> it does? Is that how it worked in venezuela? Because i can guarantee that all of the hollywood left is satisfied with the fact that everyone under the benevolent care of hugo chavez has both a right to vote and a free and open press, the only thing they don't have is a right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Syria, on the other hand, has no right to vote, and no free and open press, but they are currently securing both of those rights by exercising their right to bear arms and fight for their rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you fail to point out where, in the history of the united states, gun ownership has protected our freedom
> 
> personal security, yes
> freedom, never
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1776.
Click to expand...


Even in 1776 it was the Continental Army which did the brunt of the fighting. We were als supported immensely by the French. But you are correct, that was the highwater mark of our militias. Our founding fathers even thought they could rely on militias to protect the country

They were wrong


----------



## rightwinger

Quantum Windbag said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck, you're stupid!! We ARE the 'militia'...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you are not
> 
> You are just a bunch of morons running around with guns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strange, Federal Law defines the militia as able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32,  under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of  intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female  citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> 
> FYI, that covers makes everyone under 64 years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps.
> 
> Want to tell me again I am not in the militia?
Click to expand...


Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

_passed January 21, 1903, the organized militia of the States were given federal status to the militia, and required to conform to Regular Army organization within five years. The act also required National Guard units to attend 24 drills and five days annual training a year, and, for the first time, provided for pay for annual training. In return for the increased Federal funding which the act made available, militia units were subject to inspection by Regular Army officers, and had to meet certain standards  _


----------



## Too Tall

C_Clayton_Jones



> The Constitution exist only in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review.
> 
> Neither the Constitution nor any of its Amendments are obsolete.
> 
> Whatever the current case law might be concerning the Second Amendment, however, further restrictions, regulations, or even bans will do little to curtail gun violence.
> 
> The genius of the Constitution is it compels us to seek actual solutions to our many problems; be it abortion, campaign finance reform, or gun violence, the Constitution prevents us from taking the easy route often taken by dictatorships and totalitarian regimes, where the liberty of the people is destroyed.
> 
> This does not mean we are helpless to do nothing, at the mercy of strict, unyielding jurisprudence protecting the rights of gun owners; rather, it means we must find solutions based on facts and evidence, and be prepared to address and acknowledge painful, embarrassing aspects of our society and culture.



SPOT ON!


----------



## Too Tall

Lakhota said:


> I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed.  It's just a matter of time...



It doesn't say you have to belong to a militia. It does say "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


----------



## Too Tall

asterism said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wingnuts haven't said or done anything to convince anyone that assualt weapons are a part of the second ammendment so in that way, yes, it is obsolete.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court disagrees with you.
> 
> District of Columbia v. Heller:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
> 
> United States v. Miller
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> United States v. Miller
> 
> What weapons are in common use right now?
Click to expand...



Here is an estimate on so-called assault rifles.



> According to Sturm-Rugers 2011 annual report, sales of rifles accounted for $83.4 million in revenue that year out of $324.2 million in total net firearms salesabout 26 percent of revenue. Sturm-Ruger produced 1,114,700 firearms in 2011. Assuming that every gun cost the same amountthis is certainly incorrect, but were just making a back-of-the-envelope calculation here26 percent of 1,114,700 is roughly 290,000 rifles. According to Overstreet, AR-15s accounted for 14.4 percent of rifles produced in 2007. If that statistic remains true, then Sturm-Ruger produced close to 42,000 AR-15-style rifles in 2011. Walk that number back through the years, and extrapolate it out to the other two manufacturers, and youre possibly looking at anywhere from 500,000 to 700,000 more AR-15-style rifles. (Again, I must caution that there is a potentially huge margin of error in these calculations.)
> 
> 
> Add everything together, make all the necessary caveats, carry the two, and we reach the conclusion that there are somewhere around *3,750,000 AR-15-type rifles in the United States today*. If there are around 310 million firearms in the USA today, that means these auto-loading assault-style rifles make up around 1 percent of the total arsenal. And keep in mind, the AR-15 is just one of the many assault weapons on the market. Overstreet estimated that *more than 800,000 Ruger Mini-14 rifles*the rifle that Anders Behring Breivik used in the Oslo summer camp shootings last yearhad been produced since 1974. *There are other types, too. This is only the tip of the gunberg.*




Assault weapon stats: How many assault weapons are there in America?


----------



## GuyPinestra

rightwinger said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you are not
> 
> You are just a bunch of morons running around with guns
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Strange, Federal Law defines the militia as able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32,  under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of  intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female  citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> 
> FYI, that covers makes everyone under 64 years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps.
> 
> Want to tell me again I am not in the militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> _passed January 21, 1903, *the organized militia* of the States were given federal status to the militia, and required to conform to Regular Army organization within five years. The act also required National Guard units to attend 24 drills and five days annual training a year, and, for the first time, provided for pay for annual training. In return for the increased Federal funding which the act made available, militia units were subject to inspection by Regular Army officers, and had to meet certain standards  _
Click to expand...


That is the ORGANIZED militia. There is also an UN-organized militia, the army of last resort, so to speak, which is defined above by QW.


----------



## Dick Tuck

Quantum Windbag said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quantum windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> it does? Is that how it worked in venezuela? Because i can guarantee that all of the hollywood left is satisfied with the fact that everyone under the benevolent care of hugo chavez has both a right to vote and a free and open press, the only thing they don't have is a right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Syria, on the other hand, has no right to vote, and no free and open press, but they are currently securing both of those rights by exercising their right to bear arms and fight for their rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you fail to point out where, in the history of the united states, gun ownership has protected our freedom
> 
> personal security, yes
> freedom, never
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1776.
Click to expand...


???  Wrong year.


----------



## Dick Tuck




----------



## Harry Dresden

rightwinger said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> An oppressive government is more afraid of your vote than your gun
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That explains why oppressive governments always take the guns before they take the votes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They first move to dictatorships and abolish the vote
> 
> But guess what?  The US is not a dictatorship regardless of what rightwing propaganda says.
Click to expand...


if you thought it was it was coming to that RW...........would your opinion change about that "Propaganda"?.......just askin.....


----------



## Too Tall

Si modo said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing to me that so many don't know about _Heller_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't surprise me at all. Precedent? Schmecedent!!  Pack the court with new justices!!!
> 
> Dem/Prog/Lib/Socialist/Commies see the Constitution as a "living" document, subject to constant reinterpretation.....Obama thinks it is "flawed"......This is America today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just hope that moron Ginsberg remains alive until after January 2017.
Click to expand...


Don't worry about Ginsberg.  She is already a flaming liberal and would be replaced by another flaming liberal by Obama.  Worry about Scalia, Thomas and the other conservatives still on the SC. Lose one of those and it becomes a solid 5-4 liberal court.


----------



## Lakhota




----------



## Baron

The Second Amendment preserve Freedom of Americans, no one Kenyan communist can abolish it.


----------



## Lakhota




----------



## Harry Dresden

Lakhota said:


>


*
Since the word "militia" is no longer applicable in the 2nd Amendment, there is no right to keep and bear arms.*

and this Jerk says he is for reasonable gun control and "owns" guns....fucking lying sack of shit.....


----------



## YoungRepublican

Baron said:


> The Second Amendment preserve Freedom of Americans, no one Kenyan communist can abolish it.



Solid input to the discussion. Your quote is irony at its finest. Yes, he can take that right away, and thats why it is such a big issue. If the conservative SC judges leave the bench under Obamas watch it could mean serious trouble for the interpretation of the second amendment. I believe we have better lawyers, but the fact that it is an issue is nothing to step lightly over.


----------



## Abatis

Lakhota said:


> The 2nd Amendment is simply whatever SCOTUS says it is.  SCOTUS has redefined it before and will redefine it again.



SCOTUS has never wavered in its determinations / explanations of the right to arms and the 2nd Amendment (two distinct, separate things).

SCOTUS has *never held* that the right has any dependency on the 2nd Amendment (or "interpretation" of it) because the Court has always held that the right pre-existed the Constitution thus is not granted, given, created or established by the Constitution . . . In the words of the Court:


"[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

So the obvious question is, why do *you* persist in inventing conditions, qualifications, restrictions and constraints on the right from words that have absolutely no effect on the right? (besides the obvious reasons, profound ignorance (at best) or unabashed hostility for the Constitution (at worst)) 

Even more to the point, after nearly 140 years of holding that the right to arms does not "_in any manner_" depend on the words of the 2nd, what makes you think that the Court will do a 180° switcheroo?


----------



## Contumacious

Lakhota said:


> Is the Second Amendment obsolete?



Yes, of course it is.

In 1787 Americans wanted Liberty - now they want security .

In 1785 they adopted in a Libertarian Constitution.

In the 2012 election our choices for president were a Hawaiian Socialist and a Massachusetts Liberal.

In 1785 bearing arms was a right. In 2012 bearing arms is a Pho King privilege subject to the discretion of federal bureaucrats.

1n 1787 Americans could not be deprived of their rights without due process of law.

Now Americans can be collectively punished by the federales. Americans just grin and bear it.

.


----------



## Lakhota

Abatis said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd Amendment is simply whatever SCOTUS says it is.  SCOTUS has redefined it before and will redefine it again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SCOTUS has never wavered in its determinations / explanations of the right to arms and the 2nd Amendment (two distinct, separate things).
> 
> SCOTUS has *never held* that the right has any dependency on the 2nd Amendment (or "interpretation" of it) because the Court has always held that the right pre-existed the Constitution thus is not granted, given, created or established by the Constitution . . . In the words of the Court:
> 
> 
> "[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."
> 
> So the obvious question is, why do *you* persist in inventing conditions, qualifications, restrictions and constraints on the right from words that have absolutely no effect on the right? (besides the obvious reasons, profound ignorance (at best) or unabashed hostility for the Constitution (at worst))
> 
> Even more to the point, after nearly 140 years of holding that the right to arms does not "_in any manner_" depend on the words of the 2nd, what makes you think that the Court will do a 180° switcheroo?
Click to expand...


Things change.  Shit happens.  People evolve...


----------



## Lakhota

> There are two problems with the Second Amendment.  First, under any circumstance, it is confusing; something that an English teacher would mark up in red ink and tell the author to redo and clarify.  Secondly, there are actually two versions of the Amendment; The first passed by two-thirds of the members of each house of Congress (the first step for ratifying a constitutional amendment).  A different version passed by three-fourths of the states (the second step for ratifying a constitution amendment).  The primary difference between the two versions are a capitalization and a simple comma.



DETAILS: Confusion -- the wording of the Second Amendment | Occasional Planet


----------



## Avatar4321

Not confusing at all if you know how to read.


----------



## Lakhota

It is confusing to intelligent people.


----------



## Avatar4321

Lakhota said:


> It is confusing to intelligent people.



So you understand it perfectly?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Lakhota said:


> Abatis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd Amendment is simply whatever SCOTUS says it is.  SCOTUS has redefined it before and will redefine it again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SCOTUS has never wavered in its determinations / explanations of the right to arms and the 2nd Amendment (two distinct, separate things).
> 
> SCOTUS has *never held* that the right has any dependency on the 2nd Amendment (or "interpretation" of it) because the Court has always held that the right pre-existed the Constitution thus is not granted, given, created or established by the Constitution . . . In the words of the Court:
> 
> 
> "[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."
> So the obvious question is, why do *you* persist in inventing conditions, qualifications, restrictions and constraints on the right from words that have absolutely no effect on the right? (besides the obvious reasons, profound ignorance (at best) or unabashed hostility for the Constitution (at worst))
> 
> Even more to the point, after nearly 140 years of holding that the right to arms does not "_in any manner_" depend on the words of the 2nd, what makes you think that the Court will do a 180° switcheroo?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Things change.  Shit happens.  People evolve...
Click to expand...


Fake Indians don't evolve.


----------



## Avatar4321

Lakhota said:


> Abatis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd Amendment is simply whatever SCOTUS says it is.  SCOTUS has redefined it before and will redefine it again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SCOTUS has never wavered in its determinations / explanations of the right to arms and the 2nd Amendment (two distinct, separate things).
> 
> SCOTUS has *never held* that the right has any dependency on the 2nd Amendment (or "interpretation" of it) because the Court has always held that the right pre-existed the Constitution thus is not granted, given, created or established by the Constitution . . . In the words of the Court:
> 
> 
> "[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."
> 
> So the obvious question is, why do *you* persist in inventing conditions, qualifications, restrictions and constraints on the right from words that have absolutely no effect on the right? (besides the obvious reasons, profound ignorance (at best) or unabashed hostility for the Constitution (at worst))
> 
> Even more to the point, after nearly 140 years of holding that the right to arms does not "_in any manner_" depend on the words of the 2nd, what makes you think that the Court will do a 180° switcheroo?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Things change.  Shit happens.  People evolve...
Click to expand...


The devolve too.

Words penned in ink don't change though. They still mean what they have always meant.


----------



## Rinata

Harry Dresden said:


> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd amendment allows us the right to bear arms. How is that a misinterpretation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What it actually says is:
> 
> A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> This does not give individuals the right to bear arms. It is giving militias the right to bear arms. How is this at all relevant today??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sorry Rinata.....the PEOPLE are the Citizens of this Country.....this Country has "Zero Tolerance" for this and that.....maybe they should start having "Zero Tolerance" for Violence against people and start putting violent people away for a long time with no time off for good behavior......you serve every minute of your sentence.....
Click to expand...


I agree.


----------



## Rinata

Ernie S. said:


> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd amendment allows us the right to bear arms. How is that a misinterpretation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What it actually says is:
> 
> &#8220;A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.&#8221;
> 
> This does not give individuals the right to bear arms. It is giving militias the right to bear arms. How is this at all relevant today??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are 100% wrong, The 2 phrases can be taken independently. The founders realized that militias aren't a permanent entity. They may be raised, disbanded and become necessary again at a later time.
> When, in the future, a citizen militia may be needed again, it will need arms. A oppressive government isn't about to arm its opposition.
Click to expand...


I just posted what the amendment says exactly. Everybody interprets it in their own way. Maybe the two phrases can be taken independently but we will never know if that was the intent. 

In any case, militias do not need guns. I've never seen anything like it!!! The right wing bat crap crazies will say and do anything just to be contrary and fight about keeping their damn guns. Now you are throwing militias into the mix.

Read about the militia movement. I was not the least bit surprised to see who is behind it and why.

The Militia Movement -- Extremism in America

According to the ADL, the militia movement has embroiled themselves since 1994 in a variety of other bombing plots, conspiracies and serious violations of law. Their extreme anti-government ideology, along with their elaborate conspiracy theories and fascination with weaponry and paramilitary organization, lead many members of militia groups to act out in ways that justify the concerns expressed about them by public officials, law enforcement and the general public. 

Just great.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Lakhota said:


> Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited  never have been and never will be  Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star



I train once a month so yes I am well regulated.


----------



## Abatis

Lakhota said:


> Abatis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd Amendment is simply whatever SCOTUS says it is.  SCOTUS has redefined it before and will redefine it again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SCOTUS has never wavered in its determinations / explanations of the right to arms and the 2nd Amendment (two distinct, separate things).
> 
> SCOTUS has *never held* that the right has any dependency on the 2nd Amendment (or "interpretation" of it) because the Court has always held that the right pre-existed the Constitution thus is not granted, given, created or established by the Constitution . . . In the words of the Court:
> 
> 
> "[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."
> 
> So the obvious question is, why do *you* persist in inventing conditions, qualifications, restrictions and constraints on the right from words that have absolutely no effect on the right? (besides the obvious reasons, profound ignorance (at best) or unabashed hostility for the Constitution (at worst))
> 
> Even more to the point, after nearly 140 years of holding that the right to arms does not "_in any manner_" depend on the words of the 2nd, what makes you think that the Court will do a 180° switcheroo?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Things change.  Shit happens.  People evolve...
Click to expand...


And maybe you will start believing that stars are actually flaming chariots pulled across the sky by winged platypuses piloted by transgendered midgets . . .


----------



## Abatis

Rinata said:


> I just posted what the amendment says exactly. Everybody interprets it in their own way. Maybe the two phrases can be taken independently but we will never know if that was the intent.



We know that they considered the right to arms to be among "the great residuum" retained by the people after we granted the limited powers to government.  We know they believed the right was not created, granted or given by the Amendment thus the words of the Amendment can't be "interpreted" to modify, condition, qualify or restrain the right.

*Madison said*:

"[Bills of Rights] are unnecessary, because the powers are enumerated, and it follows that all that are not granted by the constitution are retained: that the constitution is a bill of powers, the great residuum being the rights of the people; and therefore a bill of rights cannot be so necessary as if the residuum was thrown into the hands of the government."​
We the People don't have the right to arms because the 2nd Amendment is there( we would possess it without any Constitutional recognition); we have the right to arms because no power was ever granted to government to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen.

All the Bill of Rights does is redundantly forbid the government to exercise powers never granted to it.   Your militia based "interpretation" is the product of profound ignorance.  You are arguing an absurdity completely divorced from the fundamental principles of the Constitution.


----------



## Harry Dresden

Lakhota said:


> Abatis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd Amendment is simply whatever SCOTUS says it is.  SCOTUS has redefined it before and will redefine it again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SCOTUS has never wavered in its determinations / explanations of the right to arms and the 2nd Amendment (two distinct, separate things).
> 
> SCOTUS has *never held* that the right has any dependency on the 2nd Amendment (or "interpretation" of it) because the Court has always held that the right pre-existed the Constitution thus is not granted, given, created or established by the Constitution . . . In the words of the Court:
> 
> 
> "[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."
> 
> So the obvious question is, why do *you* persist in inventing conditions, qualifications, restrictions and constraints on the right from words that have absolutely no effect on the right? (besides the obvious reasons, profound ignorance (at best) or unabashed hostility for the Constitution (at worst))
> 
> Even more to the point, after nearly 140 years of holding that the right to arms does not "_in any manner_" depend on the words of the 2nd, what makes you think that the Court will do a 180° switcheroo?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Things change.  Shit happens.  People evolve...
Click to expand...


people lie too about what they "supposedly" believe in.....


----------



## Harry Dresden

Quantum Windbag said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abatis said:
> 
> 
> 
> SCOTUS has never wavered in its determinations / explanations of the right to arms and the 2nd Amendment (two distinct, separate things).
> 
> SCOTUS has *never held* that the right has any dependency on the 2nd Amendment (or "interpretation" of it) because the Court has always held that the right pre-existed the Constitution thus is not granted, given, created or established by the Constitution . . . In the words of the Court:
> 
> 
> "[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."
> So the obvious question is, why do *you* persist in inventing conditions, qualifications, restrictions and constraints on the right from words that have absolutely no effect on the right? (besides the obvious reasons, profound ignorance (at best) or unabashed hostility for the Constitution (at worst))
> 
> Even more to the point, after nearly 140 years of holding that the right to arms does not "_in any manner_" depend on the words of the 2nd, what makes you think that the Court will do a 180° switcheroo?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Things change.  Shit happens.  People evolve...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fake Indians don't evolve.
Click to expand...

yep.....and they lie about their position on guns.....this one does anyway....


----------



## hazlnut

I'm going to call this thread for those who voted yea.

The 2nd Amendment is officially obsolete.

Someone tell Scalia.


----------



## LibertyLemming

Depends on who you ask. I would challenge anyone to prove to me that we live in a free state (especially considering the irony of posts like these which aim at convincing others it is okay to remove my *freedom* to own any piece of weaponry I desire. If you don't think that at one point or another in the future the USA is going to become (more) tyrannical and you won't want to be its servant, well, you apparently have decided to ignore the history of every nation ever.

I guess you are implying that the need for a local militia that could challenge the government should it try to usurp too much power from the people does not exist because our government is perfect and does everything great and would never say imprison hundreds of thousands of people for being a certain race (say Japanese) or that it would never assassinate its own citizens without due process like the Constitution provides, or well shit those things have happened! I guess everyone's threshold for tyranny is different.


----------



## hazlnut

LibertyLemming said:


> Depends on who you ask. I would challenge anyone to prove to me that we live in a free state (especially considering the irony of posts like these which aim at convincing others it is okay to remove my *freedom* to own any piece of weaponry I desire. If you don't think that at one point or another in the future the USA is going to become (more) tyrannical and you won't want to be its servant, well, you apparently have decided to ignore the history of every nation ever.
> 
> I guess you are implying that the need for a local militia that could challenge the government should it try to usurp too much power from the people does not exist because our government is perfect and does everything great and would never say imprison hundreds of thousands of people for being a certain race (say Japanese) or that it would never assassinate its own citizens without due process like the Constitution provides, or well shit those things have happened! I guess everyone's threshold for tyranny is different.




Sorry, you're too late.

We already decided it's *obsolete*.

Get here earlier next time.


----------



## LibertyLemming

This is why I rarely come to these things. You can't find intelligent discussion on the internet. People just say fuck off lol and that is that.


----------



## hazlnut

LibertyLemming said:


> This is why I rarely come to these things. You can't find intelligent discussion on the internet. People just say fuck off lol and that is that.



Fuck off.

LOL.

Happy New Year!!


----------



## LibertyLemming

wheeeee I suppose it is easier than trying to form a rational argument


----------



## bitterlyclingin

Certainly not with Barack Obama as president.
He's the one the Founders foresaw the need for when they included it into the Constitution. 
Good ol Jessee, stepping up to the plate to bat for the Liberal's 'cause celebre' in the face of Chicago's stunning and glaring demonstration of its failure. Lying C@#$sucker.

Jesse Jackson Attempts To Defend Chicago&#8217;s Gun Ban After 500th Homicide Of The Year&#8230; Fails Miserably&#8230; | Weasel Zippers


----------



## Missourian

Sallow said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> It absolutely is not a check..at least not the way you folks think it is.
> 
> There is no clause, word, letter in the constitution that fosters the  notion you can take up arms against the federal government, none. In  fact..it is the EXACT opposite. There are several reasons in the  Constitution the federal government can lawfully declare war. Of those  are included invasion and insurrection.
> 
> The "check" was a guard against a standing professional army under  federal control. What the constitution prescribed were regional militias  made up of citizens that would fill into an army as needed.
> 
> That' "check" has been completely obliterated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A history lesson proves this a false argument.
> 
> From _District of Columbia v. Heller_:The  prefatory clause comports with the Court&#8217;s interpretation of the   operative clause. The &#8220;militia&#8221; comprised all males physically capable   of acting in concert for the common defense.
> 
> *The Antifederalists feared  that the Federal  Government would disarm the people in order to disable  this citizens&#8217;  militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select  militia to  rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the  ancient  right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal  of a  citizens&#8217; militia would be preserved.* Pp. 22&#8211;28.
> 
> District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well it's not.
> 
> And you have to cite a decision by a very conservative court to back up your opinion.
> 
> By the way..Heller interferes with "state's rights"...which is awful hypocritical of judges like Scalia and Thomas.
> 
> Their argument is also a load of crap. Since we have a standing  professional army under federal control. Which by the way..if they  really believed the bullshit they put out in their "opinion" they would  abolish.
Click to expand...



Don't argue with me,  argue with Patrick Henry,  James Monroe,  Robert Yates and Samuel Adams.

It was the Antifederalist who were responsible for the Bill of Rights.

"Federalists realized there was insufficient support to ratify the   Constitution without a bill of rights and so they promised to support   amending the Constitution to add a bill of rights following the   Constitution's adoption. This compromise persuaded enough  Anti-federalists to vote for the Constitution, allowing for  ratification."

So,  if you are looking for rationale for Second Ammendment,  it is the Antifederalists you should look to.

This totally disproves your argument.

The Second Amendment was and is indeed a check against Federal Power.


----------



## Harry Dresden

hazlnut said:


> LibertyLemming said:
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on who you ask. I would challenge anyone to prove to me that we live in a free state (especially considering the irony of posts like these which aim at convincing others it is okay to remove my *freedom* to own any piece of weaponry I desire. If you don't think that at one point or another in the future the USA is going to become (more) tyrannical and you won't want to be its servant, well, you apparently have decided to ignore the history of every nation ever.
> 
> I guess you are implying that the need for a local militia that could challenge the government should it try to usurp too much power from the people does not exist because our government is perfect and does everything great and would never say imprison hundreds of thousands of people for being a certain race (say Japanese) or that it would never assassinate its own citizens without due process like the Constitution provides, or well shit those things have happened! I guess everyone's threshold for tyranny is different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, you're too late.
> 
> We already decided it's *obsolete*.
> 
> Get here earlier next time.
Click to expand...


no you decided.....and you got here pretty late yourself.....


----------



## Lakhota




----------



## bigrebnc1775

Harry Dresden said:


> hazlnut said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LibertyLemming said:
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on who you ask. I would challenge anyone to prove to me that we live in a free state (especially considering the irony of posts like these which aim at convincing others it is okay to remove my *freedom* to own any piece of weaponry I desire. If you don't think that at one point or another in the future the USA is going to become (more) tyrannical and you won't want to be its servant, well, you apparently have decided to ignore the history of every nation ever.
> 
> I guess you are implying that the need for a local militia that could challenge the government should it try to usurp too much power from the people does not exist because our government is perfect and does everything great and would never say imprison hundreds of thousands of people for being a certain race (say Japanese) or that it would never assassinate its own citizens without due process like the Constitution provides, or well shit those things have happened! I guess everyone's threshold for tyranny is different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, you're too late.
> 
> We already decided it's *obsolete*.
> 
> Get here earlier next time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no you decided.....and you got here pretty late yourself.....
Click to expand...


As long a tyranny exist the second amendment will never be obsolete


----------



## LibertyLemming

Armed or not we are still closer to subjects than free citizens.


----------



## jillian

YoungRepublican said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it still a part of the Constitution? Then it's not obsolete, is it?
> If you want it to go the way of Prohibition, suggest repealing it, but duck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> things are generally part of the constitution after they're obsolete or they wouldn't be changed. but the reality is, the constitution, except for prohibition, has never been amended to limit rights... it's only ever been amended to expand them.
> 
> and it's unlikely that the 2nd amendment would be amended any time soon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the limiting of terms lenth
Click to expand...


oh.. you mean the president's ability to serve?

i wouldn't see that as 'limiting rights'. it just limits the *length* of term of office.


----------



## jillian

Quantum Windbag said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it still a part of the
> Constitution? Then it's not obsolete, is it?
> If you want it to go the way of Prohibition, suggest repealing it, but duck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> things are generally part of the constitution after they're obsolete or they wouldn't be changed. but the reality is, the constitution, except for prohibition, has never been amended to limit rights... it's only ever been amended to expand them.
> 
> and it's unlikely that the 2nd amendment would be amended any time soon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quite true, the government prefers to limit rights through court decisions.
Click to expand...


in most instances rights are enforced by court decisions.

what "rights" are you talking about?


----------



## jillian

Katzndogz said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect you could make a argument about most anything written 200 plus years ago being obsolete by today's standards. So the question is do you want to go redefining a constitution that was worked very well for over 200 years to today's standards? If we go down that path I don't think any of us will like what we find at the end of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whether the Constution works depends on who you talk to. obama says it has never worked and was fatally flawed the day it was signed.
Click to expand...


really?

link?

idiota


----------



## jillian

Two Thumbs said:


> fyi;  the Second Amendment allows you to have the other amendments.
> 
> For those totally ignorant of history



really?

then why was treason the only criminal act defined in the constitution?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

jillian said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> fyi;  the Second Amendment allows you to have the other amendments.
> 
> For those totally ignorant of history
> 
> 
> 
> 
> really?
> 
> then why was treason the only criminal act defined in the constitution?
Click to expand...


It's not treasonous to over throw a tyrannical government.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

jillian said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect you could make a argument about most anything written 200 plus years ago being obsolete by today's standards. So the question is do you want to go redefining a constitution that was worked very well for over 200 years to today's standards? If we go down that path I don't think any of us will like what we find at the end of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whether the Constution works depends on who you talk to. obama says it has never worked and was fatally flawed the day it was signed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> really?
> 
> link?
> 
> idiota
Click to expand...

He has said it has flaws.
Obama: Constitution is &#39Deeply Flawed&#39


----------



## LibertyLemming

uh no. the second amendment does not provide for other amendments. sure part of the constitution does, but not the 2nd amendment


----------



## jillian

bigrebnc1775 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether the Constution works depends on who you talk to. obama says it has never worked and was fatally flawed the day it was signed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> really?
> 
> link?
> 
> idiota
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He has said it has flaws.
> Obama: Constitution is 'Deeply Flawed'
Click to expand...


how about a legitimate source?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

LibertyLemming said:


> Armed or not we are still closer to subjects than free citizens.


Some of use are and some aren't.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

jillian said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> things are generally part of the constitution after they're obsolete or they wouldn't be changed. but the reality is, the constitution, except for prohibition, has never been amended to limit rights... it's only ever been amended to expand them.
> 
> and it's unlikely that the 2nd amendment would be amended any time soon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quite true, the government prefers to limit rights through court decisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> in most instances rights are enforced by court decisions.
> 
> what "rights" are you talking about?
Click to expand...


And you call yourself a lawyer.

What about all the court decisions limiting the scope of the 4th? Or the ones that effectively removed the double jeopardy clause entirely?


----------



## jillian

bigrebnc1775 said:


> LibertyLemming said:
> 
> 
> 
> Armed or not we are still closer to subjects than free citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> Some of use are and some aren't.
Click to expand...


no... we aren't.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

jillian said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> fyi;  the Second Amendment allows you to have the other amendments.
> 
> For those totally ignorant of history
> 
> 
> 
> 
> really?
> 
> then why was treason the only criminal act defined in the constitution?
Click to expand...


Because the people who wrote the Constitution had no conception that the federal government would eventually have so many different laws that the average citizen now commits 3 felonies a day?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

jillian said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LibertyLemming said:
> 
> 
> 
> Armed or not we are still closer to subjects than free citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> Some of use are and some aren't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no... we aren't.
Click to expand...


Those on welfare I would say they are.


----------



## hazlnut

Katzndogz said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect you could make a argument about most anything written 200 plus years ago being obsolete by today's standards. So the question is do you want to go redefining a constitution that was worked very well for over 200 years to today's standards? If we go down that path I don't think any of us will like what we find at the end of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whether the Constution works depends on who you talk to. obama says it has never worked and was fatally flawed the day it was signed.
Click to expand...


Link to quote with context?

Waiting....


----------



## hazlnut

bigrebnc1775 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> fyi;  the Second Amendment allows you to have the other amendments.
> 
> For those totally ignorant of history
> 
> 
> 
> 
> really?
> 
> then why was treason the only criminal act defined in the constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not treasonous to over throw a tyrannical government.
Click to expand...


It's psychotic to see something that does not exist.

Paranoia is a sickness spread by the NRA.


----------



## LibertyLemming

hazlnut said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> really?
> 
> then why was treason the only criminal act defined in the constitution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not treasonous to over throw a tyrannical government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's psychotic to see something that does not exist.
> 
> Paranoia is a sickness spread by the NRA.
Click to expand...


You don't think our government is tyrannical? If so, please list 5-10 characteristics of a tyrannical government please.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

hazlnut said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> really?
> 
> then why was treason the only criminal act defined in the constitution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not treasonous to over throw a tyrannical government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's psychotic to see something that does not exist.
> 
> Paranoia is a sickness spread by the NRA.
Click to expand...


The patriot act? Assassination of American citizens without due process, Indefinite detention, Confiscation of private property, giving amnesty to illegals. Hell the only right we still or that hasn't been violated is the second amendment and housing the military.


----------



## Lakhota

> *From the 2008 DC v. Heller ruling,* written by Scalia, and one of the very few Supreme Court cases to touch on the Second Amendment at all:
> 
> _"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Courts opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."_​
> Remember: Written by Scalia, i.e., not one of those liberal judicial activists you hear so much about.



More: And Now a Thought From Justice Scalia


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Lakhota said:


> *From the 2008 DC v. Heller ruling,* written by Scalia, and one of the very few Supreme Court cases to touch on the Second Amendment at all:
> 
> _"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Courts opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."_​
> Remember: Written by Scalia, i.e., not one of those liberal judicial activists you hear so much about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: And Now a Thought From Justice Scalia
Click to expand...

Miller vs U.S. and Lewis vs. U.S. state that only militia type firearms are the only weapons protected by the second amendment.


----------



## Lakhota

Protected by 2nd Amendment.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Lakhota said:


> Protected by 2nd Amendment.



Yes the military and county sheriff also had those type of firearms.
DO YOU HAVE A POINT?


----------



## Contumacious

hazlnut said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> really?
> 
> then why was treason the only criminal act defined in the constitution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not treasonous to over throw a tyrannical government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's psychotic to see something that does not exist.
> 
> *Paranoia is a sickness spread by the NRA.*
Click to expand...



Government supremacy is a sickness spread by public shools

"Every politically controlled educational system will inculcate the doctrine of state supremacy sooner or later. . . . Once that doctrine has been accepted, it becomes an almost superhuman task to break the stranglehold of the political power over the life of the citizen. It has had his body, property and mind in its clutches from infancy. An octopus would sooner release its prey. A tax-supported, compulsory educational system is the complete model of the totalitarian state."

 Isabel Paterson, The God of the Machine (1943)


----------



## Zander




----------



## bigrebnc1775

Zander said:


>


----------



## Harry Dresden

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Protected by 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes the military and county sheriff also had those type of firearms.
> DO YOU HAVE A POINT?
Click to expand...


his point is.....ALL guns should be banned......


----------



## hazlnut

The cartoons above demonstrate the paranoia in some nutter circles.

Pathetic.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

*It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past." *

Love this claim. We're supposed to believe that the Bill of Rights, which limits the power of government over the people, includes an amendment that limits the power of the people, to keep and bear Arms. 

It's a ridiculous claim.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

TheOldSchool said:


> It's definitely not the most important amendment, like most conservatives argue, but it's not obsolete.  We're the United Freakin States.  We were founded on a revolutionary crazy notion that people are allowed to be as free as they want.
> 
> If you take away that crazy, then we're closer to being like the French.  And no one wants that.



Lookie here someone who supports what the KKK pushed for.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Harry Dresden said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Protected by 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes the military and county sheriff also had those type of firearms.
> DO YOU HAVE A POINT?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> his point is.....ALL guns should be banned......
Click to expand...


That's fine with me as long as the government isn't allowed to keep it's guns.


----------



## LibertyLemming

What is interesting is around the time of the 2nd amendment the entire world was more or less on an equal playing field in terms of weaponry. Citizens and anyone really could buy and access the same weapons around the globe. This is a time of massive populous lead revolutions that lead to repulics and democratic societies (not that I like democracy). 

Now we are oppressed and have a huge portion of our earnings taken by us via force. We can't even take the medicine we want without approval fromna government agency. Not drive, marry, fuck, eat, etc. A reason is the playing field is uneven. If Obama and his Republican counterparts can protect themselves with weapons A, B, and C, then I too should the allowed the same. After all it is "We the people" no? We are all equal in that sense.


----------



## SniperFire

*'Since the word "militia" is no longer applicable in the 2nd Amendment, there is no right to keep and bear arms.'*

The right to bear arms is ancient, and goes back to when man first chucked a rock to make a point. 

The 2nd Amendment has* nothing* to do with the inalienable right to bear arms.  Our inalienable right exists a priori and independent of it. 

Read it.   

The Amendment tells why nobody should think about INFRINGING on the right to bear arms.  It does not establish the right to bear arms.   That right exists a priori. 

Get it?  Good.   Then change your sig line, you stupid fuck.


----------



## LibertyLemming

LoL I bet you have no problem with taxing people and taking their property by threat of locking them in a cage do you? We have a right to rocks and guns but not our property and earnings.


----------



## HUGGY

Lakhota said:


> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
Click to expand...


If our government gets out of hand and turns into something like the NAZIs of Germany or Mussolini's Italy the second ammentment is a redress of last resort.  Would you throw the life preservers and the life boats off of ships?  We have the right and the duty to protect our constitution when our elected representatives choose to oaths and actions that lead to tyranny and treason.


----------



## Lakhota

Well, good luck fighting tanks, fighter jets, and poisonous gas.


----------



## bayoubill

Lakhota said:


> Well, good luck fighting tanks, fighter jets, and poisonous gas.



if the ragheads in bumbfuckistan can do it, so can we...


----------



## HUGGY

Lakhota said:


> Well, good luck fighting tanks, fighter jets, and poisonous gas.



The Afghans seem to manage.


----------



## Zoom

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Zander said:
Click to expand...


Bet?  Lost?  Still here?


----------



## Zoom

bayoubill said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, good luck fighting tanks, fighter jets, and poisonous gas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if the ragheads in bumbfuckistan can do it, so can we...
Click to expand...


Yeah but got cleetus and his cousin wife .  You see we have idiots here...cowardly idiots.  Are you telling me an armed citizen is a threat to the marines or the air force?  Go with that.  Merican.


----------



## tjvh

Lakhota said:


> Well, good luck fighting tanks, fighter jets, and poisonous gas.



What makes you think the tank crews, and fighter pilots wont side with the Constitution and with that, their fellow citizens?


----------



## Lakhota

tjvh said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, good luck fighting tanks, fighter jets, and poisonous gas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think the tank crews, and fighter pilots wont side with the Constitution and with that, their fellow citizens?
Click to expand...


What makes you think they will?


----------



## CrotchetyGeezer

waltky said:


> Maybe not obsolete but antiquated, out of date...
> 
> ... it needs to be updated to reflect the times...
> 
> ... and the threat of overkill firepower...
> 
> ... for the average citizen.



Unless it's updated to reflect the times in a negative manner for you and your leftist chums.


----------



## CrotchetyGeezer

Lakhota said:


> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
Click to expand...


Awww...how quaint...a leftturd cheering Murdoch. LOL!


----------



## squeeze berry

Lakhota said:


> Protected by 2nd Amendment.



I'm one person who would have no problem with a ban on any gun other than a flintlock.

Just as long as everyone else in the world plays by the same rules.


----------



## Lakhota

And Now a Thought From Justice Scalia


----------



## squeeze berry

Lakhota said:


> And Now a Thought From Justice Scalia



does Scalia have armed guards where he works?


----------



## LadyGunSlinger

LMAO A LEFTIST Zombie asking if the Bill of Rights is now obsolete??!!!  Wow.. the dumbed-down Zombie frenzy continues on the left.. You bozos won't be happy until every single freedom in this country has been stripped away from us.. What we eat, what we drink, where our kids go to school, if we can own certain land, if the government can take it, take our guns, tell us we can't smoke-- 

LIBERALISM = TOTALITARIANISM


----------



## CrotchetyGeezer

Lakhota said:


> Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited  never have been and never will be  Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star



Your first, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth amendment rights are not unlimited...either. However, I'm sure, if you find that any revision to any right you're in favor of which has a negative impact on you and you are in disagreement with, you'll certainly conveniently change your tune as to what's limited and "unlimited" at your discretion.


----------



## CrotchetyGeezer

Lakhota said:


> I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed.  It's just a matter of time...



No, the Second Amendment will not be changed. There will be a war, before the Second Amendment is changed...count on it.


----------



## LadyGunSlinger

CrotchetyGeezer said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed.  It's just a matter of time...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the Second Amendment will not be changed. There will be a war, before the Second Amendment is changed...count on it.
Click to expand...


^^^QFT!  CG is correct. Americans will NEVER tolerate losing their freedom to own weapons.. This whole Dog N Pony show you liberals have created is nothing more than propaganda and won't go anywhere.. You don't have the votes or the power to abolish gun rights in America and NEVER will. Dream on.


----------



## CrotchetyGeezer

sfcalifornia said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> A well armed popalance is respected by government
> A disarmed popalance is dictated to by government
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please.  What do you think, congresspeople sit around and say, "ooo we'd better not pass that law...  Matthew will get his gun and shoot us!!"  Give me a frickin' break.  Go ahead and try to form a militia group or whatever.  See how far you get before you're all squashed like bugs.
> 
> It's populace btw, not populance.
Click to expand...


So we know that at least you'll be one of the first ones sucking the brown-shirts' toes.


----------



## CrotchetyGeezer

Lakhota said:


> Anyone here belong to a militia?  Know anyone who belongs to a militia?  I don't...



Yes. I am militia. Any legal American citizen in the United States, is militia.


----------



## Lakhota

CrotchetyGeezer said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed.  It's just a matter of time...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the Second Amendment will not be changed. There will be a war, before the Second Amendment is changed...count on it.
Click to expand...


Well, then it'll be changed after the war.  What's the diff...?


----------



## CrotchetyGeezer

Lakhota said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has human nature changed?
> 
> Have people stopped doing evil things and threatening innocent people?
> 
> Have politicians learned to respect the sovereignty of the people and stop trying to micromanage their existence?
> 
> If not, then of course it isn't obsolete. You'd have to be an idiot to think that or completely ignorant of the purpose of the Second amendment which is to protect our right to self defense and prevent tyranny and oppression.
> 
> When the people fear the government, we have tyranny. When the government fears it's people, then we have freedom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your NaziCon rant doesn't address the OP.  Do you belong to a militia?  Why isn't the 2nd Amendment obsolete?
Click to expand...


Why isn't the Second Amendment obsolete? Well, that's easy. Because it's still in the United States Constitution...last time I checked.


----------



## Lakhota

> *From the 2008 DC v. Heller ruling,* written by Scalia, and one of the very few Supreme Court cases to touch on the Second Amendment at all:
> 
> _"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court&#8217;s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."_​
> Remember: Written by Scalia, i.e., not one of those liberal judicial activists you hear so much about.



More: And Now a Thought From Justice Scalia


----------



## Darkwind

Lakhota said:


> It is confusing to intelligent people.


Intelligent people always understand the 2nd Amendment.

You shouldn't out yourself like that.

Here is a good lesson on how to read the Second Amendment.

A Primer on the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms  <<---Link

Here is the opening excerpt.....



> _A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a  free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be  infringed._ - The Second Amendment
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment is among the most misunderstood provisions  of the U.S. Constitution. That is not because it is particularly  difficult to understand. *On the contrary, for more than a hundred years  after it was adopted, hardly anyone seemed the least bit confused about  what it meant.* The confusion, and some serious mistakes, only became  widespread in the twentieth century, when influential people began to  think it was a good idea to disarm the civilian population. Because the  plain meaning of the Second Amendment rather obviously creates an  obstacle to these disarmament schemes, the temptation to misinterpret  this provision of the Constitution became very strong.


Read the rest of it and learn something.  Perhaps your confusion will go away and you can actually say you are starting to gain some intelligence.


----------



## Darkwind

Lakhota said:


> CrotchetyGeezer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed.  It's just a matter of time...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the Second Amendment will not be changed. There will be a war, before the Second Amendment is changed...count on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, then it'll be changed after the war.  What's the diff...?
Click to expand...

Assuming you are going to win the war?  Not even you can be that stupid.


----------



## Si modo

Lakhota said:


> There are two problems with the Second Amendment.  First, under any circumstance, it is confusing; something that an English teacher would mark up in red ink and tell the author to redo and clarify.  Secondly, there are actually two versions of the Amendment; The first passed by two-thirds of the members of each house of Congress (the first step for ratifying a constitutional amendment).  A different version passed by three-fourths of the states (the second step for ratifying a constitution amendment).  The primary difference between the two versions are a capitalization and a simple comma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DETAILS: Confusion -- the wording of the Second Amendment | Occasional Planet
Click to expand...

You're usually confused, but thanks for reminding folks.


----------



## bayoubill

Lakhota said:


> It is confusing to intelligent people.



granted, the wording and punctuation approaches inscrutability...

but when you read about how the final version came to be, with all the various rewrites and edits done in a hurried manner, you can sorta understand how it happened...


----------



## bayoubill

Si modo said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are two problems with the Second Amendment.  First, under any circumstance, it is confusing; something that an English teacher would mark up in red ink and tell the author to redo and clarify.  Secondly, there are actually two versions of the Amendment; The first passed by two-thirds of the members of each house of Congress (the first step for ratifying a constitutional amendment).  A different version passed by three-fourths of the states (the second step for ratifying a constitution amendment).  The primary difference between the two versions are a capitalization and a simple comma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DETAILS: Confusion -- the wording of the Second Amendment | Occasional Planet
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're usually confused, but thanks for reminding folks.
Click to expand...


Lakhota night be wrong-headed on some issues, but I've always found him to be clear-headed... never confused...


----------



## Lakhota

bayoubill said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is confusing to intelligent people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> granted, the wording and punctuation approaches inscrutability...
> 
> but when you read about how the final version came to be, with all the various rewrites and edits done in a hurried manner, you can sorta understand how it happened...
Click to expand...


Ignorance is no excuse.  What took place behind the scenes is irrelevant.  Only the final product matters - and they fucked it up.


----------



## CrotchetyGeezer

Sallow said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the government were to say that the only private gun that is legal is a single shot musket that would be in opposition of the meaning of the constitution. The point of any militia is to be effective in mounting a defense against foreign and domestic invaders.
> 
> 
> The only reason we're even talking about this now is Obama wanted to invent another "important issue" he could use to divide us with.
> 
> Who was it that said *"A house divided against itself cannot stand"*. - Abraham Lincoln
> 
> 
> Enemies of this nation believe in division. Pitting one against another. Obama refuses to adhere to the number one goal of a good leader, to foster unity of purpose. He can only divide and marginalize.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, Lincoln was quoting Jesus Christ when he said that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christ never existed.
> 
> So..Lincoln might as well as quoted Hercules.
Click to expand...


Really? Explain the following photograph.

This is a picture my great grandmother's sister took in about 1974 or 1975, of a cloud formation she found interesting while she was attending a funeral of a family member in Idaho. This is a copy of the original photo, of which several copies are scattered throughout my family. This picture was taken LONG before Photoshop and other image manipulation software came along and, the copy was made long before Photoshop and other image manipulation software came along. And, I would challenge you to prove in any way, shape or form that the photo has been manipulated in any way, other than being copied from the original. She didn't see what came out in the picture with her own eyes but, this is the image which was produced when the photo was developed. Now, you can believe it or not but, I challenge you to debunk it.


----------



## Darkwind

Lakhota said:


> bayoubill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is confusing to intelligent people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> granted, the wording and punctuation approaches inscrutability...
> 
> but when you read about how the final version came to be, with all the various rewrites and edits done in a hurried manner, you can sorta understand how it happened...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ignorance is no excuse.  What took place behind the scenes is irrelevant.  Only the final product matters - and they fucked it up.
Click to expand...

You did not read it, did you?

Figures.......


----------



## ScienceRocks

It is NOT obsolete until it is over turned by 2/3rds of the states. Until then you can dig a hole in throw yourselve into it.


----------



## bayoubill

Lakhota said:


> bayoubill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is confusing to intelligent people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> granted, the wording and punctuation approaches inscrutability...
> 
> but when you read about how the final version came to be, with all the various rewrites and edits done in a hurried manner, you can sorta understand how it happened...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ignorance is no excuse.  What took place behind the scenes is irrelevant.  Only the final product matters - and they fucked it up.
Click to expand...


ah... well... they were, after all, a bunch of old white guys preoccupied with fucking their enslaved darky mistresses... 

it's a wonder they ever got this nation off the ground...


----------



## bayoubill

Darkwind said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bayoubill said:
> 
> 
> 
> granted, the wording and punctuation approaches inscrutability...
> 
> but when you read about how the final version came to be, with all the various rewrites and edits done in a hurried manner, you can sorta understand how it happened...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ignorance is no excuse.  What took place behind the scenes is irrelevant.  Only the final product matters - and they fucked it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You did not read it, did you?
> 
> Figures.......
Click to expand...


There's an incredible amount of back-and-forth documentation from that period regarding the construction of the Second Amendment... 

but, no... I wouldn't expect that Lakhota would have bothered to do the research...


----------



## Darkwind

bayoubill said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ignorance is no excuse.  What took place behind the scenes is irrelevant.  Only the final product matters - and they fucked it up.
> 
> 
> 
> You did not read it, did you?
> 
> Figures.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's an incredible amount of back-and-forth documentation from that period regarding the construction of the Second Amendment...
> 
> but, no... I wouldn't expect that Lakhota would have bothered to do the research...
Click to expand...

Yes, I know.  But this is straight forward breakdown of the language of the 2nd Amendment, and it does provide some historic contextual background to help people like Lakhota understand the more difficult concepts.


----------



## Lakhota

CrotchetyGeezer said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, Lincoln was quoting Jesus Christ when he said that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christ never existed.
> 
> So..Lincoln might as well as quoted Hercules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Explain the following photograph.
> 
> This is a picture my great grandmother's sister took in about 1974 or 1975, of a cloud formation she found interesting while she was attending a funeral of a family member in Idaho. This is a copy of the original photo, of which several copies are scattered throughout my family. This picture was taken LONG before Photoshop and other image manipulation software came along and, the copy was made long before Photoshop and other image manipulation software came along. And, I would challenge you to prove in any way, shape or form that the photo has been manipulated in any way, other than being copied from the original. She didn't see what came out in the picture with her own eyes but, this is the image which was produced when the photo was developed. Now, you can believe it or not but, I challenge you to debunk it.
Click to expand...


----------



## tyroneweaver

bayoubill said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ignorance is no excuse.  What took place behind the scenes is irrelevant.  Only the final product matters - and they fucked it up.
> 
> 
> 
> You did not read it, did you?
> 
> Figures.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's an incredible amount of back-and-forth documentation from that period regarding the construction of the Second Amendment...
> 
> but, no... I wouldn't expect that Lakhota would have bothered to do the research...
Click to expand...


of course that research would be that those who wrote a well regulated militia used guns in their private life so the libs better look for something different.


----------



## Lakhota

The so-called back and forth excuses are irrelevant.  They produced a confusing product.


----------



## NoNukes

TheOldSchool said:


> It's definitely not the most important amendment, like most conservatives argue, but it's not obsolete.  We're the United Freakin States.  We were founded on a revolutionary crazy notion that people are allowed to be as free as they want.
> 
> If you take away that crazy, then we're closer to being like the French.  And no one wants that.



You mean that invAmerica, people are free to marry whoever they want? Women have the freedom to control their bodies however they want? It is a joke when right wingers speak of freedom.


----------



## bayoubill

Lakhota said:


> The so-called back and forth excuses are irrelevant.  They produced a confusing product.



'k... so, now what...?


----------



## Lakhota

bayoubill said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> The so-called back and forth excuses are irrelevant.  They produced a confusing product.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'k... so, now what...?
Click to expand...


Well, it is what it is.  Goodnight, bill...


----------



## bayoubill

Lakhota said:


> The so-called back and forth excuses are irrelevant.  They produced a confusing product.



no matter... from their letters, the Framers' intent is clear... that law-abiding citizens have access to the latest technology in small-arms weaponry... in order to prevent tyranny (whether from within or without) from overtaking the newly-formed nation... whether during in their time or 200+ years hence...


----------



## bayoubill

Lakhota said:


> bayoubill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> The so-called back and forth excuses are irrelevant.  They produced a confusing product.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'k... so, now what...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, it is what it is.  Goodnight, bill...
Click to expand...


goodnight, ol' buddy... 'til next time, sweet dreams and blessings to you...


----------



## CrotchetyGeezer

Lakhota said:


> CrotchetyGeezer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christ never existed.
> 
> So..Lincoln might as well as quoted Hercules.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Explain the following photograph.
> 
> This is a picture my great grandmother's sister took in about 1974 or 1975, of a cloud formation she found interesting while she was attending a funeral of a family member in Idaho. This is a copy of the original photo, of which several copies are scattered throughout my family. This picture was taken LONG before Photoshop and other image manipulation software came along and, the copy was made long before Photoshop and other image manipulation software came along. And, I would challenge you to prove in any way, shape or form that the photo has been manipulated in any way, other than being copied from the original. She didn't see what came out in the picture with her own eyes but, this is the image which was produced when the photo was developed. Now, you can believe it or not but, I challenge you to debunk it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


That's odd. The only image I see in the bottom photo is Lakhota. One pure and simple asshole.


----------



## Ravi

Darkwind said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is confusing to intelligent people.
> 
> 
> 
> Intelligent people always understand the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> You shouldn't out yourself like that.
> 
> Here is a good lesson on how to read the Second Amendment.
> 
> A Primer on the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms  <<---Link
> 
> Here is the opening excerpt.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a  free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be  infringed._ - The Second Amendment
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment is among the most misunderstood provisions  of the U.S. Constitution. That is not because it is particularly  difficult to understand. *On the contrary, for more than a hundred years  after it was adopted, hardly anyone seemed the least bit confused about  what it meant.* The confusion, and some serious mistakes, only became  widespread in the twentieth century, when influential people began to  think it was a good idea to disarm the civilian population. Because the  plain meaning of the Second Amendment rather obviously creates an  obstacle to these disarmament schemes, the temptation to misinterpret  this provision of the Constitution became very strong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read the rest of it and learn something.  Perhaps your confusion will go away and you can actually say you are starting to gain some intelligence.
Click to expand...


The confusion became widespread when the NRA switched their previous position and started shilling for gun manufacturers. Throughout most of our history, there was no confusion about the second amendment. Interesting counter to your spin piece:

Sandy Hook massacre: The NRA's gun 'rights' are a fabrication of modern times - CSMonitor.com


----------



## konradv

Ravi said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is confusing to intelligent people.
> 
> 
> 
> Intelligent people always understand the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> You shouldn't out yourself like that.
> 
> Here is a good lesson on how to read the Second Amendment.
> 
> A Primer on the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms  <<---Link
> 
> Here is the opening excerpt.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a  free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be  infringed._ - The Second Amendment
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment is among the most misunderstood provisions  of the U.S. Constitution. That is not because it is particularly  difficult to understand. *On the contrary, for more than a hundred years  after it was adopted, hardly anyone seemed the least bit confused about  what it meant.* The confusion, and some serious mistakes, only became  widespread in the twentieth century, when influential people began to  think it was a good idea to disarm the civilian population. Because the  plain meaning of the Second Amendment rather obviously creates an  obstacle to these disarmament schemes, the temptation to misinterpret  this provision of the Constitution became very strong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read the rest of it and learn something.  Perhaps your confusion will go away and you can actually say you are starting to gain some intelligence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The confusion became widespread when the NRA switched their previous position and started shilling for gun manufacturers. Throughout most of our history, there was no confusion about the second amendment. Interesting counter to your spin piece:
> 
> Sandy Hook massacre: The NRA's gun 'rights' are a fabrication of modern times - CSMonitor.com
Click to expand...


The confusion seems to be over an individual vs collective right.  To me the 2nd would seem to be collective in that it mentions "the people" vs amendments like the 5th where the word "person" is used, making it an individual right.  Therefore, totally banning guns would be a violation, but requiring things like registration and competency and background checks would not.  "The people" also have the right: A) to make sure guns don't get into the wrong hands, i.e. criminals and the insane and B) to know if guns are being stockpiled by whom and where.  Remember, just because someone says they're doing it because they don't trust the government, doesn't automatically mean we should trust them.  The 2nd amendment isn't a suicide pact.


----------



## bayoubill

Ravi said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is confusing to intelligent people.
> 
> 
> 
> Intelligent people always understand the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> You shouldn't out yourself like that.
> 
> Here is a good lesson on how to read the Second Amendment.
> 
> A Primer on the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms  <<---Link
> 
> Here is the opening excerpt.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a  free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be  infringed._ - The Second Amendment
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment is among the most misunderstood provisions  of the U.S. Constitution. That is not because it is particularly  difficult to understand. *On the contrary, for more than a hundred years  after it was adopted, hardly anyone seemed the least bit confused about  what it meant.* The confusion, and some serious mistakes, only became  widespread in the twentieth century, when influential people began to  think it was a good idea to disarm the civilian population. Because the  plain meaning of the Second Amendment rather obviously creates an  obstacle to these disarmament schemes, the temptation to misinterpret  this provision of the Constitution became very strong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read the rest of it and learn something.  Perhaps your confusion will go away and you can actually say you are starting to gain some intelligence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The confusion became widespread when the NRA switched their previous position and started shilling for gun manufacturers. Throughout most of our history, there was no confusion about the second amendment. Interesting counter to your spin piece:
> 
> Sandy Hook massacre: The NRA's gun 'rights' are a fabrication of modern times - CSMonitor.com
Click to expand...


Go back and read the background writings of the Framers regarding the Second Amendment... then tell me you honestly believe that their intention was only that we could have guns to hunt for game and shoot the occasional bad guy who broke into our houses with bad intent... go ahead... I dare you to do it...


----------



## bigrebnc1775

ScreamingEagle said:


> Nazi Weapons Act of 1938 (Translated to English)
> 
> Classified guns for "sporting purposes".
> All citizens who wished to purchase firearms had to register with the Nazi officials and have a background check.
> Presumed German citizens were hostile and thereby exempted Nazis from the gun control law.
> Gave Nazis unrestricted power to decide what kinds of firearms could, or could not be owned by private persons.
> The types of ammunition that were legal were subject to control by bureaucrats.
> Juveniles under 18 years could not buy firearms and ammunition.



That sounds like something liberals would push for.


----------



## Ravi

bayoubill said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> Intelligent people always understand the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> You shouldn't out yourself like that.
> 
> Here is a good lesson on how to read the Second Amendment.
> 
> A Primer on the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms  <<---Link
> 
> Here is the opening excerpt.....
> 
> Read the rest of it and learn something.  Perhaps your confusion will go away and you can actually say you are starting to gain some intelligence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The confusion became widespread when the NRA switched their previous position and started shilling for gun manufacturers. Throughout most of our history, there was no confusion about the second amendment. Interesting counter to your spin piece:
> 
> Sandy Hook massacre: The NRA's gun 'rights' are a fabrication of modern times - CSMonitor.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go back and read the background writings of the Framers regarding the Second Amendment... then tell me you honestly believe that their intention was only that we could have guns to hunt for game and shoot the occasional bad guy who broke into our houses with bad intent... go ahead... I dare you to do it...
Click to expand...

Where did I ever make such a claim?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

konradv said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> Intelligent people always understand the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> You shouldn't out yourself like that.
> 
> Here is a good lesson on how to read the Second Amendment.
> 
> A Primer on the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms  <<---Link
> 
> Here is the opening excerpt.....
> 
> Read the rest of it and learn something.  Perhaps your confusion will go away and you can actually say you are starting to gain some intelligence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The confusion became widespread when the NRA switched their previous position and started shilling for gun manufacturers. Throughout most of our history, there was no confusion about the second amendment. Interesting counter to your spin piece:
> 
> Sandy Hook massacre: The NRA's gun 'rights' are a fabrication of modern times - CSMonitor.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The confusion seems to be over an individual vs collective right.  To me the 2nd would seem to be collective in that it mentions "the people" vs amendments like the 5th where the word "person" is used, making it an individual right.  Therefore, totally banning guns would be a violation, but requiring things like registration and competency and background checks would not.  "The people" also have the right: A) to make sure guns don't get into the wrong hands, i.e. criminals and the insane and B) to know if guns are being stockpiled by whom and where.  Remember, just because someone says they're doing it because they don't trust the government, doesn't automatically mean we should trust them.  The 2nd amendment isn't a suicide pact.
Click to expand...


So, a person isn't a person unless he's part of the collective?


----------



## konradv

bigrebnc1775 said:


> So, a person isn't a person unless he's part of the collective?



That all you got, a stupid one-liner?  It's obviously not what I said, revealing that you can't deal with what I did say.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

konradv said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, a person isn't a person unless he's part of the collective?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That all you got, a stupid one-liner?  It's obviously not what I said, revealing that you can't deal with what I did say.
Click to expand...


Nope, just making an observation. Could you be a little more specific, if the second amendment was meant for a collective how would it have been applied?


----------



## AnthonyMcPherso

The Amemdments to the constitution which were referred to as "The Bill of Rights", of which the Second Amendment is one, was to protect the rights of the STATES AND the INDIVIDUAL from the Federal government.

IF anyone who is not honest (or maybe educated) claims that the right to have a weapon referrs to the "National Guard" etc, then they must realize that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN FEDERALIZE the National Guard at the WHIM of the President!  At the WHIM of ONE MAN!   

They did this in several southern states if you recall, and although it was for a "good reason" at that time, it shows that ourprotection can be circumvented.  Will the next time be for a "good reason"?

Before HUNDREDS were massacured by the mobs, the citizens of Navoo, Ill. didn't oppose their disarming by the Federal troops.  Their militias weapons were confiscated.

Before WWII, the people in Europe couldn't believe that the politicians taking power could possibly be "that evil" because THEIR country was modern and civilized.

I'm sure that no matter how horrible the people have it in Parts of mexico controlled by the drug cartels, the public still didn't believe that the U.S. would supply the drug gang leaders with thousands of more weapons to kill them with.


----------



## konradv

bigrebnc1775 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, a person isn't a person unless he's part of the collective?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That all you got, a stupid one-liner?  It's obviously not what I said, revealing that you can't deal with what I did say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, just making an observation. Could you be a little more specific, if the second amendment was meant for a collective how would it have been applied?
Click to expand...


Basically the way we do now with registrations and background checks.  I didn't offer any new restrictions, just making the observation that, IMO, the restrictions we have now are not unconstitutional.  Much is made of the phrase "shall make no law", which I believe refers to the total banning of firearms, because it's a right given to "the people" in the amendment, not to a "person".  Therefore, registration and background checks are permitted to make it easier to keep criminals and the insane from getting guns legally.  It's not perfect, but even stolen and black market guns can be traced and crimes solved by the registration process and the records required of gun manufacturers.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

konradv said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> That all you got, a stupid one-liner?  It's obviously not what I said, revealing that you can't deal with what I did say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, just making an observation. Could you be a little more specific, if the second amendment was meant for a collective how would it have been applied?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Basically the way we do now with registrations and background checks.  I didn't offer any new restrictions, just making the observation that, IMO, the restrictions we have now are not unconstitutional.  Much is made of the phrase "shall make no law", which I believe refers to the total banning of firearms, because it's a right given to "the people" in the amendment, not to a "person".  Therefore, registration and background checks are permitted to make it easier to keep criminals and the insane from getting guns legally.  It's not perfect, but even stolen and black market guns can be traced and crimes solved by the registration process and the records required of gun manufacturers.
Click to expand...


If that were true the founders would have emphasized that all firearms would have to be registered with at least the militia.

It wasn't until blacks started arming themselves that registration of firearms became an issue.


----------



## SniperFire

'Being that a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. '

- 2nd Amendment, with modernized language for Libtards pretending to be confused by the original intent


----------



## konradv

bigrebnc1775 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, just making an observation. Could you be a little more specific, if the second amendment was meant for a collective how would it have been applied?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Basically the way we do now with registrations and background checks.  I didn't offer any new restrictions, just making the observation that, IMO, the restrictions we have now are not unconstitutional.  Much is made of the phrase "shall make no law", which I believe refers to the total banning of firearms, because it's a right given to "the people" in the amendment, not to a "person".  Therefore, registration and background checks are permitted to make it easier to keep criminals and the insane from getting guns legally.  It's not perfect, but even stolen and black market guns can be traced and crimes solved by the registration process and the records required of gun manufacturers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that were true the founders would have emphasized that all firearms would have to be registered with at least the militia.
Click to expand...


Why would they have done that?  The Constitution doesn't get very specific on many points.  The specifics were usually left to future legislation.  They made it obvious that it was the right of "the people" to be armed, but left the duties and responsibilities of the individual with regard to that right open to future interpretation.


----------



## konradv

SniperFire said:


> 'Being that a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. '
> 
> - 2nd Amendment, with modernized language for Libtards pretending to be confused by the original intent



You seem to be confused by your imagining there is such a thing as "original intent".  That notion presumes that all the Founders had the same intent, a case that would be unique in human history and so statistically remote as to be false on the face of it.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

konradv said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Basically the way we do now with registrations and background checks.  I didn't offer any new restrictions, just making the observation that, IMO, the restrictions we have now are not unconstitutional.  Much is made of the phrase "shall make no law", which I believe refers to the total banning of firearms, because it's a right given to "the people" in the amendment, not to a "person".  Therefore, registration and background checks are permitted to make it easier to keep criminals and the insane from getting guns legally.  It's not perfect, but even stolen and black market guns can be traced and crimes solved by the registration process and the records required of gun manufacturers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that were true the founders would have emphasized that all firearms would have to be registered with at least the militia.
> It wasn't until blacks started arming themselves that registration of firearms became an issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would they have done that?  The Constitution doesn't get very specific on many points.  The specifics were usually left to future legislation.  They made it obvious that it was the right of "the people" to be armed, but left the duties and responsibilities of the individual with regard to that right open to future interpretation.
Click to expand...


The second amendment does give specifics Shall not be infringed is being very specific.
I also noticed you didn't address the last part and even went as far as leaving it out of the quote.


----------



## konradv

bigrebnc1775 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that were true the founders would have emphasized that all firearms would have to be registered with at least the militia.
> It wasn't until blacks started arming themselves that registration of firearms became an issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would they have done that?  The Constitution doesn't get very specific on many points.  The specifics were usually left to future legislation.  They made it obvious that it was the right of "the people" to be armed, but left the duties and responsibilities of the individual with regard to that right open to future interpretation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The second amendment does give specifics Shall not be infringed is being very specific.
> I also noticed you didn't address the last part and even went as far as leaving it out of the quote.
Click to expand...


I agree that "shall not be infringed" is specific, but it refers to "the people" not individuals.

As far as the second part goes, I felt it was irrelevant to the topic and a needless distraction.


----------



## SniperFire

konradv said:


> SniperFire said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'Being that a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. '
> 
> - 2nd Amendment, with modernized language for Libtards pretending to be confused by the original intent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be confused by your imagining there is such a thing as "original intent".  That notion presumes that all the Founders had the same intent, a case that would be unique in human history and so statistically remote as to be false on the face of it.
Click to expand...


I did not use original intent as a noun.  I used it as an adverbial phrase. 

You failed, as usual.   But then again, you are a libtard and little is expected of you - be it linguistical competency or other.   


LOL


----------



## SniperFire

konradv said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would they have done that?  The Constitution doesn't get very specific on many points.  The specifics were usually left to future legislation.  They made it obvious that it was the right of "the people" to be armed, but left the duties and responsibilities of the individual with regard to that right open to future interpretation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The second amendment does give specifics Shall not be infringed is being very specific.
> I also noticed you didn't address the last part and even went as far as leaving it out of the quote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree that "shall not be infringed" is specific, but it refers to "the people" not individuals.
> 
> As far as the second part goes, I felt it was irrelevant to the topic and a needless distraction.
Click to expand...



Idiot, let me help you.     'shall not be infringed' is an adverbial clause describing the state of 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms.'

It modifies the 'right', which is singular.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

konradv said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would they have done that?  The Constitution doesn't get very specific on many points.  The specifics were usually left to future legislation.  They made it obvious that it was the right of "the people" to be armed, but left the duties and responsibilities of the individual with regard to that right open to future interpretation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The second amendment does give specifics Shall not be infringed is being very specific.
> I also noticed you didn't address the last part and even went as far as leaving it out of the quote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree that "shall not be infringed" is specific, but it refers to "the people" not individuals.
> 
> As far as the second part goes, I felt it was irrelevant to the topic and a needless distraction.
Click to expand...


So we are back too individuals aren't people?


----------



## SniperFire

Perhaps advanced semantical studies were not made available to you in Moscow, komrade konradv?


----------



## Abatis

Lakhota said:


> There are two problems with the Second Amendment.  First, under any circumstance, it is confusing; something that an English teacher would mark up in red ink and tell the author to redo and clarify.
Click to expand...


The only people "confused" by the wording are those who desire to illegitimately restrict the right.

SCOTUS has been unwavering in its determinations of the right to arms and the 2nd Amendment (two separate, distinct things) . . . .   The right is not granted, given, created or established by the 2nd Amendment *thus it is not in any manner dependent upon the words of the Amendment to exist.*

Once one conforms his/her thinking to the principles of conferred powers and retained rights, any confusion one had about the 2nd Amendment is relieved.


*__________________________*


"the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."
​*__________________________*​
If I was to address the wording of the Amendment I would offer that the the theory that the 2nd Amendment speaks to militia control or organization is not something there is evidence of.  The 2nd Amendment has never been inspected to inform or held to instruct on any aspect of militia powers, federal or state.  The 2nd Amendment has, as SCOTUS has said, only one function, to restrict the actions of the federal government, not modify, expand or establish powers.

With the declaratory clause nothing was intended other than to re-affirm what once was a universally understood and accepted maxim; that the armed citizenry dispenses with the need for a standing army (in times of peace) and those armed citizens stand as a barrier to foreign invasion and domestic tyranny (thus ensuring the free state).  

So without a doubt the inactive, dependent declaratory clause is only a statement of why the AMENDMENT exists and as such it does not create, qualify, condition, modify or constrain the pre-existing right, it only tells us *A POLITICAL REASON* why the fully retained right is being forever shielded from government interference..   

The framers were very used to constitutional provisions containing inactive declarations of principle.  

When one examines state arms provisions one sees statements securing the citizen's right to arms and the antipathy the framers held for standing armies sharing the same constitutional provision.  Those concerns were grouped together because they have similar objects, to limit the power of government in one specific arena, military affairs.

Those state provision's inactive declarations, (typically, "and as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; . . .") were certainly inactive statements.  Nobody believed these provisions really forbade the forming and maintaining of a federal standing army; these were state constitutional provisions with zero effect beyond the state line.  

They were merely stating an ideal . . .  The declaration, "_[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State_" is inextricably meshed (philosophically) with, "_as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up_."  To the founders / framers each conveyed the same principle and had the same power . . . NONE.

State provisions in force or enacted from the time:

*1776 North Carolina: *  That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and *as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up*; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by the civil power.

*1776 Pennsylvania:* That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and *as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up*; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

*1777 Vermont:* That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State&#8212;and *as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up;* and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

*1780 Massachusetts:* The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, *in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained* without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

*1790 Pennsylvania:* That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and *as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up*; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power.


----------



## konradv

SniperFire said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SniperFire said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'Being that a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. '
> 
> - 2nd Amendment, with modernized language for Libtards pretending to be confused by the original intent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be confused by your imagining there is such a thing as "original intent".  That notion presumes that all the Founders had the same intent, a case that would be unique in human history and so statistically remote as to be false on the face of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not use original intent as a noun.  I used it as an adverbial phrase.
Click to expand...


No you didn't.   'Intent' is a noun that's the object of the preposition 'by' modified by the adjective 'original'.  Nothing adverbial there at all.  Try again.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Abatis said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are two problems with the Second Amendment.  First, under any circumstance, it is confusing; something that an English teacher would mark up in red ink and tell the author to redo and clarify.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only people "confused" by the wording are those who desire to illegitimately restrict the right.
> 
> SCOTUS has been unwavering in its determinations of the right to arms and the 2nd Amendment (two separate, distinct things) . . . .   The right is not granted, given, created or established by the 2nd Amendment *thus it is not in any manner dependent upon the words of the Amendment to exist.*
> 
> Once one conforms his/her thinking to the principles of conferred powers and retained rights, any confusion one had about the 2nd Amendment is relieved.
> 
> 
> *__________________________*
> 
> 
> "the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."
> ​*__________________________*​
> If I was to address the wording of the Amendment I would offer that the the theory that the 2nd Amendment speaks to militia control or organization is not something there is evidence of.  *The 2nd Amendment has never been inspected to inform or held to instruct on any aspect of militia powers, federal or state.  The 2nd Amendment has, as SCOTUS has said, only one function, to restrict the actions of the federal government, not modify, expand or establish powers.*
> 
> With the declaratory clause nothing was intended other than to re-affirm what once was a universally understood and accepted maxim; that the armed citizenry dispenses with the need for a standing army (in times of peace) and those armed citizens stand as a barrier to foreign invasion and domestic tyranny (thus ensuring the free state).
> 
> So without a doubt the inactive, dependent declaratory clause is only a statement of why the AMENDMENT exists and as such it does not create, qualify, condition, modify or constrain the pre-existing right, it only tells us *A POLITICAL REASON* why the fully retained right is being forever shielded from government interference..
> 
> The framers were very used to constitutional provisions containing inactive declarations of principle.
> 
> When one examines state arms provisions one sees statements securing the citizen's right to arms and the antipathy the framers held for standing armies sharing the same constitutional provision.  Those concerns were grouped together because they have similar objects, to limit the power of government in one specific arena, military affairs.
> 
> Those state provision's inactive declarations, (typically, "and as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; . . .") were certainly inactive statements.  Nobody believed these provisions really forbade the forming and maintaining of a federal standing army; these were state constitutional provisions with zero effect beyond the state line.
> 
> They were merely stating an ideal . . .  The declaration, "_[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State_" is inextricably meshed (philosophically) with, "_as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up_."  To the founders / framers each conveyed the same principle and had the same power . . . NONE.
> 
> State provisions in force or enacted from the time:
> 
> *1776 North Carolina: *  That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and *as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up*; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by the civil power.
> 
> *1776 Pennsylvania:* That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and *as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up*; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
> 
> *1777 Vermont:* That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the Stateand *as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up;* and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.
> 
> *1780 Massachusetts:* The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, *in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained* without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.
> 
> *1790 Pennsylvania:* That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and *as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up*; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power.
Click to expand...


LOLberals do not believe in natural rights. They believe the government gives and takes rights at will. They believe we have some sort of direct democracy.


----------



## SniperFire

konradv said:


> SniperFire said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be confused by your imagining there is such a thing as "original intent".  That notion presumes that all the Founders had the same intent, a case that would be unique in human history and so statistically remote as to be false on the face of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did not use original intent as a noun.  I used it as an adverbial phrase.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you didn't.  * 'Intent' is a noun that's the object of the preposition *'by' modified by the adjective 'original'.  Nothing adverbial there at all.  Try again.
Click to expand...


LOL

Educate yourself on dependent adverbial phrases, komrade, and then we can discuss it.


----------



## SniperFire

Abatis said:


> So without a doubt the inactive, dependent declaratory clause is only a statement of why the AMENDMENT exists and as such it does not create, qualify, condition, modify or constrain the pre-existing right, it only tells us *A POLITICAL REASON* why the fully retained right is being forever shielded from government interference..



The Heller Supreme court case proves that 'militia' has nothing at all to do with the people's ancient right to bear arms, because Heller lived in D.C. which had no standing to raise such a miliita.


----------



## Abatis

konradv said:


> You seem to be confused by your imagining there is such a thing as "original intent".  That notion presumes that all the Founders had the same intent, a case that would be unique in human history and so statistically remote as to be false on the face of it.



There was no disagreement on the origin of rights only how best to secure them.

The Federalists were against adding a bill of rights because our rights were as numerous as grains of sand upon the seashore . . . and any "list" would be incomplete and lacking and would allow later arguments that said list was the full and complete expression of the rights of the citizen.  They were also against a bill of rights because they considered adding one dangerous and absurd.  The Constitution was a charter of conferred powers and the government could only exercise those powers granted, so they argued in *Federalist 84*:


*__________________________*


"I . . . affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights."
​*__________________________*​
We have certainly realized the Federalist's fears, especially about the 2nd Amendment.

And yeah, the Federalist's "lost" the argument over the Bill of rights but the 9th and 10th Amendments stand as affirmation of the Federalist argument and testament to the universal acceptance of the Federalists arguments.

So there was total and complete agreement, regardless of your thoughts about the statistical chance of said agreement . .  .


----------



## Abatis

SniperFire said:


> Abatis said:
> 
> 
> 
> So without a doubt the inactive, dependent declaratory clause is only a statement of why the AMENDMENT exists and as such it does not create, qualify, condition, modify or constrain the pre-existing right, it only tells us *A POLITICAL REASON* why the fully retained right is being forever shielded from government interference..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Heller Supreme court case proves that 'militia' has nothing at all to do with the people's ancient right to bear arms, because Heller lived in D.C. which had no standing to raise such a miliita.
Click to expand...


I'm not saying a dependency exists but the "object" of the 2nd Amendment is not in dispute.

That object was to ensure that the armed citizenry would always remain a viable entity to protect the state and federal governments and the liberty of the people.  In times of need, the civil power can summon a large group of citizens at a moments notice and have them muster with appropriate arms _*supplied by themselves*_ and a couple days provisions. 

And just to help the "confused" brains into an overdose of liberty meltdown . . . 

Also part of the object, the fundamental principle that the people retain the original and final right to rescind their consent to be governed.

Perpetuating the classical republican concept of general militia is the only intent of the 2nd Amendment; it does not create or grant or give the citizen's the right, it only holds it beyond the conferred powers granted to government.

If government moves against the right (hello Diane) it is no longer '_the government established by the Constitution_' it is then something else . . .  It is a foreign, illegitimate government ruling by force untethered to the constraints and limits of the Constitution.

It is then subject to the citizens original, fundamental right to rescind our consent to be governed and reclaim the powers we lent to government and abolish the illegitimate structure established by the usurpers.

*That's *the 2nd Amendment - without any confusion.


----------



## SniperFire

Abatis said:


> SniperFire said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abatis said:
> 
> 
> 
> So without a doubt the inactive, dependent declaratory clause is only a statement of why the AMENDMENT exists and as such it does not create, qualify, condition, modify or constrain the pre-existing right, it only tells us *A POLITICAL REASON* why the fully retained right is being forever shielded from government interference..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Heller Supreme court case proves that 'militia' has nothing at all to do with the people's ancient right to bear arms, because Heller lived in D.C. which had no standing to raise such a miliita.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not saying a dependency exists but the "object" of the 2nd Amendment is not in dispute.
> 
> That object was to ensure that the armed citizenry would always remain a viable entity to protect the state and federal governments and the liberty of the people.  In times of need, the civil power can summon a large group of citizens at a moments notice and have them muster with appropriate arms _*supplied by themselves*_ and a couple days provisions.
> 
> And just to help the "confused" brains into an overdose of liberty meltdown . . .
> 
> Also part of the object, the fundamental principle that the people retain the original and final right to rescind their consent to be governed.
> 
> Perpetuating the classical republican concept of general militia is the only intent of the 2nd Amendment; it does not create or grant or give the citizen's the right, it only holds it beyond the conferred powers granted to government.
> 
> If government moves against the right (hello Diane) it is no longer '_the government established by the Constitution_' it is then something else . . .  It is a foreign, illegitimate government ruling by force untethered to the constraints and limits of the Constitution.
> 
> It is then subject to the citizens original, fundamental right to rescind our consent to be governed and reclaim the powers we lent to government and abolish the illegitimate structure established by the usurpers.
> 
> *That's *the 2nd Amendment - without any confusion.
Click to expand...


I agree.  It is the only reason the Founders would go to the trouble of mentioning it. 

No rights were 'granted' in the second amendment.  It was just a warning that the ancient right of the people to bear arms shall not be fucked with.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Lakhota said:


> It is confusing to intelligent people.





That's fucking priceless.


----------



## Abatis

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is confusing to intelligent people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's fucking priceless.
Click to expand...


True, so true.

Someday he might realize just how anti-intellectual his position really is.

It is illogical and absurd to argue that the words of the Amendment, *upon which the right does not depend*, condition, qualify or outwardly restrict the right being recognized and guaranteed.  That Lakhota doesn't "get" that only speaks to how profoundly ignorant he is of the most fundamental principles that the US Constitution rests upon.


----------



## GuyPinestra

That's EXACTLY what they want!!


----------



## freedombecki

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past." *
> 
> Love this claim. We're supposed to believe that the Bill of Rights, which limits the power of government over the people, includes an amendment that limits the power of the people, to keep and bear Arms.
> 
> It's a ridiculous claim.


The uberlibbies are preoccupied with treasury power. When they pull our attention to their disparagement of Bill of Rights freedom, you can bet they're stacking up armored cars outside the US Treasury to pillage while our interests are occupied elsewhere. Shell games are their forte, if you'll pardon my pun. Why else would they be beating this dead nag with a bunch of bull?


----------



## Dick Tuck

bigrebnc1775 said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nazi Weapons Act of 1938 (Translated to English)
> 
> Classified guns for "sporting purposes".
> All citizens who wished to purchase firearms had to register with the Nazi officials and have a background check.
> Presumed German citizens were hostile and thereby exempted Nazis from the gun control law.
> Gave Nazis unrestricted power to decide what kinds of firearms could, or could not be owned by private persons.
> The types of ammunition that were legal were subject to control by bureaucrats.
> Juveniles under 18 years could not buy firearms and ammunition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That sounds like something liberals would push for.
Click to expand...


So you're against background checks, restrictions on ownership by convicted felons and the mentally ill, and want minors to be able to buy guns?  You're a fucking fruitcake.


----------



## NYcarbineer

If the 2nd amendment were as clear and straightforward and unequivocal in its meaning as some would have you believe,

then the right to own a handgun or a machine gun would be no different than the right to own a shotgun or a deer rifle or a muzzleloader.

Either the amendment is legitimately open to wide and various interpretations, or, 

the various interpretations that have upheld the various limitations on some of the above weapons have been incorrect.


----------



## GuyPinestra

Dick Tuck said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nazi Weapons Act of 1938 (Translated to English)
> 
> Classified guns for "sporting purposes".
> All citizens who wished to purchase firearms had to register with the Nazi officials and have a background check.
> Presumed German citizens were hostile and thereby exempted Nazis from the gun control law.
> Gave Nazis unrestricted power to decide what kinds of firearms could, or could not be owned by private persons.
> The types of ammunition that were legal were subject to control by bureaucrats.
> Juveniles under 18 years could not buy firearms and ammunition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That sounds like something liberals would push for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're against background checks, restrictions on ownership by convicted felons and the mentally ill, and want minors to be able to buy guns?  You're a fucking fruitcake.
Click to expand...


Dick(less), your comprehension level is fading....



> Nazi Weapons Act of 1938 (Translated to English)
> 
> Classified guns for "sporting purposes".


 Just like you libs want to do, take away the weapons that are most effective for self-defense.



> All citizens who wished to purchase firearms had to register with the Nazi officials and have a background check.


 The problem here isn't the background check, per se, it's the registration requirement that gives the government the knowledge of WHERE the guns are, making their confiscation that much easier.


> Presumed German citizens were hostile and thereby exempted Nazis from the gun control law.


 Guilty without evidence for the general public, yet unlimited access for the Brownshirts. That sounds good to you?


> Gave Nazis unrestricted power to decide what kinds of firearms could, or could not be owned by private persons.


 Again, restricting ownership to only those guns which are easily defeated in battle.


> The types of ammunition that were legal were subject to control by bureaucrats.


 Another unreasonable restriction designed to assure the state that they wouldn't be facing any SERIOUS opposition. 


> Juveniles under 18 years could not buy firearms and ammunition.


 This one I don't think is a bad idea, but I do believe that minors should be well-versed in the care and operation of arms, and own their own if their parents so desire. I've owned weapons since I was 10, and in 44 years have never shot ANYONE.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Dick Tuck said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nazi Weapons Act of 1938 (Translated to English)
> 
> Classified guns for "sporting purposes".
> All citizens who wished to purchase firearms had to register with the Nazi officials and have a background check.
> Presumed German citizens were hostile and thereby exempted Nazis from the gun control law.
> Gave Nazis unrestricted power to decide what kinds of firearms could, or could not be owned by private persons.
> The types of ammunition that were legal were subject to control by bureaucrats.
> Juveniles under 18 years could not buy firearms and ammunition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That sounds like something liberals would push for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're against background checks, restrictions on ownership by convicted felons and the mentally ill, and want minors to be able to buy guns?  You're a fucking fruitcake.
Click to expand...


Well shit stain exactly what part of that do you not support?


----------



## Darkwind

Ravi said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is confusing to intelligent people.
> 
> 
> 
> Intelligent people always understand the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> You shouldn't out yourself like that.
> 
> Here is a good lesson on how to read the Second Amendment.
> 
> A Primer on the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms  <<---Link
> 
> Here is the opening excerpt.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a  free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be  infringed._ - The Second Amendment
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment is among the most misunderstood provisions  of the U.S. Constitution. That is not because it is particularly  difficult to understand. *On the contrary, for more than a hundred years  after it was adopted, hardly anyone seemed the least bit confused about  what it meant.* The confusion, and some serious mistakes, only became  widespread in the twentieth century, when influential people began to  think it was a good idea to disarm the civilian population. Because the  plain meaning of the Second Amendment rather obviously creates an  obstacle to these disarmament schemes, the temptation to misinterpret  this provision of the Constitution became very strong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read the rest of it and learn something.  Perhaps your confusion will go away and you can actually say you are starting to gain some intelligence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The confusion became widespread when the NRA switched their previous position and started shilling for gun manufacturers. Throughout most of our history, there was no confusion about the second amendment. Interesting counter to your spin piece:
> 
> Sandy Hook massacre: The NRA's gun 'rights' are a fabrication of modern times - CSMonitor.com
Click to expand...

Your counter is fear based without real merit.  The Second Amendment says what it says, and there was never any confusion on its meaning until those who wished to disarm the citizenry took up the mantle of fear to influence opinion.

Whether the NRA supports gun manufacturers or not has no bearing on a Constitutional right enjoyed by ALL American citizens.

Should a person decide not to own guns, great.  That is a personal choice.

Either way, this knee jerk reaction to banning 'certain' guns is just code for "lets get our foot in the door and we'll take the rest of them in smaller increments, later down the road."

If people want a limitation placed upon the 2nd Amendment, then amend the Constitution itself.  Good luck with that.


----------



## Darkwind

konradv said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> Intelligent people always understand the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> You shouldn't out yourself like that.
> 
> Here is a good lesson on how to read the Second Amendment.
> 
> A Primer on the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms  <<---Link
> 
> Here is the opening excerpt.....
> 
> Read the rest of it and learn something.  Perhaps your confusion will go away and you can actually say you are starting to gain some intelligence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The confusion became widespread when the NRA switched their previous position and started shilling for gun manufacturers. Throughout most of our history, there was no confusion about the second amendment. Interesting counter to your spin piece:
> 
> Sandy Hook massacre: The NRA's gun 'rights' are a fabrication of modern times - CSMonitor.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The confusion seems to be over an individual vs collective right.  To me the 2nd would seem to be collective in that it mentions "the people" vs amendments like the 5th where the word "person" is used, making it an individual right.  Therefore, totally banning guns would be a violation, but requiring things like registration and competency and background checks would not.  "The people" also have the right: A) to make sure guns don't get into the wrong hands, i.e. criminals and the insane and B) to know if guns are being stockpiled by whom and where.  Remember, just because someone says they're doing it because they don't trust the government, doesn't automatically mean we should trust them.  The 2nd amendment isn't a suicide pact.
Click to expand...

Did you read the primer I linked to?  It explains very clearly why it is an individual right, using commonly accepted language.


----------



## LibertyLemming

tjvh said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, good luck fighting tanks, fighter jets, and poisonous gas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think the tank crews, and fighter pilots wont side with the Constitution and with that, their fellow citizens?
Click to expand...


The real question is why are these means of protection only available to some citizens. I should be able to own these things as well.


----------



## Abatis

NYcarbineer said:


> I=the various interpretations that have upheld the various limitations on some of the above weapons have been incorrect.



Ding! We have a winner!

The "militia right" and the "state's right" interpretations of the 2nd Amendment were placed into the federal court systems in 1942.

Problem is, for 70 years those lower federal court decisions were used to defeat claims of 2nd Amendment injury by individual citizens and illegitimate laws were upheld.

SCOTUS through _Heller_ re-re-re-re-affirmed what SCOTUS had said previously and unwaveringly on the right to arms and the 2nd Amendment for going on 140 years and invalidated those lower court inventions n 2008.

This is why _Heller_, in its mention of laws that _Heller_ was not deciding on, said that they were only "presumptively lawful"  Until they are challenged under the _Heller_ rule they do remain on the books.


----------



## konradv

SniperFire said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The second amendment does give specifics Shall not be infringed is being very specific.
> I also noticed you didn't address the last part and even went as far as leaving it out of the quote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that "shall not be infringed" is specific, but it refers to "the people" not individuals.
> 
> As far as the second part goes, I felt it was irrelevant to the topic and a needless distraction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Idiot, let me help you.     'shall not be infringed' is an adverbial clause describing the state of 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms.'
> 
> It modifies the 'right', which is singular.
Click to expand...


Very good, you passed grammar.  Now where does it say that "the people"  refers to an individual rather than a collective right?  Wouldn't they have used the word "person" to refer to an individual right?  As long as guns aren't banned, the amendment hasn't been violated.  That doesn't mean we can't register guns and do background check to make sure felons and lunatics don't have easy access and police have a database to help solve gun crimes.


----------



## boedicca

Lakhota said:


> It is confusing to intelligent people.




No it's not.


----------



## konradv

Darkwind said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> The confusion became widespread when the NRA switched their previous position and started shilling for gun manufacturers. Throughout most of our history, there was no confusion about the second amendment. Interesting counter to your spin piece:
> 
> Sandy Hook massacre: The NRA's gun 'rights' are a fabrication of modern times - CSMonitor.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The confusion seems to be over an individual vs collective right.  To me the 2nd would seem to be collective in that it mentions "the people" vs amendments like the 5th where the word "person" is used, making it an individual right.  Therefore, totally banning guns would be a violation, but requiring things like registration and competency and background checks would not.  "The people" also have the right: A) to make sure guns don't get into the wrong hands, i.e. criminals and the insane and B) to know if guns are being stockpiled by whom and where.  Remember, just because someone says they're doing it because they don't trust the government, doesn't automatically mean we should trust them.  The 2nd amendment isn't a suicide pact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you read the primer I linked to?  It explains very clearly why it is an individual right, using commonly accepted language.
Click to expand...

 
If it's an individual right, how can felons be barred from owning them?  Try again.


----------



## boedicca

The real confusion is actually over the phrase "well regulated" - which in the era it was written mean "properly functioning" and not the modern regulated by the government nonsense the left often promotes.

A felon can be be prohibited from owning a gun based upon his rejection of the law.   He give up his right to liberty when he is jailed.  Forbidding gun ownership is just another forfeited liberty as a consequence for violating the law.


----------



## konradv

bigrebnc1775 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The second amendment does give specifics Shall not be infringed is being very specific.
> I also noticed you didn't address the last part and even went as far as leaving it out of the quote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that "shall not be infringed" is specific, but it refers to "the people" not individuals.
> 
> As far as the second part goes, I felt it was irrelevant to the topic and a needless distraction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we are back too individuals aren't people?
Click to expand...


I didn't say "people" and neither does the amendment.  It says "*the* people".  That's a collective group.  If you want to talk an individual, that would be a "person".


----------



## Charles_Main

Lakhota said:


> There are two problems with the Second Amendment.  First, under any circumstance, it is confusing; something that an English teacher would mark up in red ink and tell the author to redo and clarify.  Secondly, there are actually two versions of the Amendment; The first passed by two-thirds of the members of each house of Congress (the first step for ratifying a constitutional amendment).  A different version passed by three-fourths of the states (the second step for ratifying a constitution amendment).  The primary difference between the two versions are a capitalization and a simple comma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DETAILS: Confusion -- the wording of the Second Amendment | Occasional Planet
Click to expand...


You don't know what you are talking about. Do you even know what a comma is? The second part about militias is UN-related to the first. They were not saying we can only have guns as part of a Militia, they were saying we can have guns, and we can only have well regulated militias. (they were actually worried about UN-regulated militias trying to set up their own states on the frontier at the time)

But, even if you were right, your argument is still lame, as it is the Fed that took away any and all "well Regulated Militias" when it Nationalized the State National Guards placing them under the sole control of the Federal Government.

Gotta love when an Ignorant asshole make a post claiming to teach us all how we are wrong about such simple, straight forward, Amendment. 

Learn what a comma is you fucking retard.


----------



## boedicca

konradv said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that "shall not be infringed" is specific, but it refers to "the people" not individuals.
> 
> As far as the second part goes, I felt it was irrelevant to the topic and a needless distraction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we are back too individuals aren't people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say "people" and neither does the amendment.  It says "*the* people".  That's a collective group.  If you want to talk an individual, that would be a "person".
Click to expand...




You really don't grok the Constitution, do you bub?


----------



## konradv

SniperFire said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SniperFire said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did not use original intent as a noun.  I used it as an adverbial phrase.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you didn't.  * 'Intent' is a noun that's the object of the preposition *'by' modified by the adjective 'original'.  Nothing adverbial there at all.  Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> Educate yourself on dependent adverbial phrases, komrade, and then we can discuss it.
Click to expand...


_2nd Amendment, with modernized language for Libtards pretending to be confused *by the original intent*_

That's the sentence I was commenting on, which you conveniently edited out.  There's no adverbial phrase there.  First you rewrite the amendment for our edification and now you're acting like the sentence doesn't exist.  HYPOCRITE!


----------



## konradv

boedicca said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we are back too individuals aren't people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say "people" and neither does the amendment.  It says "*the* people".  That's a collective group.  If you want to talk an individual, that would be a "person".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really don't grok the Constitution, do you bub?
Click to expand...


I don't find "grok" in the Constitution.  Please speak Merkin.


----------



## Darkwind

konradv said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> The confusion seems to be over an individual vs collective right.  To me the 2nd would seem to be collective in that it mentions "the people" vs amendments like the 5th where the word "person" is used, making it an individual right.  Therefore, totally banning guns would be a violation, but requiring things like registration and competency and background checks would not.  "The people" also have the right: A) to make sure guns don't get into the wrong hands, i.e. criminals and the insane and B) to know if guns are being stockpiled by whom and where.  Remember, just because someone says they're doing it because they don't trust the government, doesn't automatically mean we should trust them.  The 2nd amendment isn't a suicide pact.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you read the primer I linked to?  It explains very clearly why it is an individual right, using commonly accepted language.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it's an individual right, how can felons be barred from owning them?  Try again.
Click to expand...

Did you read the primer?  Yes or no.

BTW....when you commit horrendous crimes, you lose a lot of rights.  Fail again.

Read the link, then get back to Me.


----------



## GuyPinestra

konradv said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> The confusion seems to be over an individual vs collective right.  To me the 2nd would seem to be collective in that it mentions "the people" vs amendments like the 5th where the word "person" is used, making it an individual right.  Therefore, totally banning guns would be a violation, but requiring things like registration and competency and background checks would not.  "The people" also have the right: A) to make sure guns don't get into the wrong hands, i.e. criminals and the insane and B) to know if guns are being stockpiled by whom and where.  Remember, just because someone says they're doing it because they don't trust the government, doesn't automatically mean we should trust them.  The 2nd amendment isn't a suicide pact.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you read the primer I linked to?  It explains very clearly why it is an individual right, using commonly accepted language.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it's an individual right, how can felons be barred from owning them?  Try again.
Click to expand...


Voting is an individual right, yet felons are routinely debarred from it.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Why do so many 2nd amendment 'experts' readily concede that the right to own automatic weapons is not covered by the 2nd amendment?

Any modern day militia would presumably have them.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Lakhota said:


> There are two problems with the Second Amendment.  First, under any circumstance, it is confusing; something that an English teacher would mark up in red ink and tell the author to redo and clarify.  Secondly, there are actually two versions of the Amendment; The first passed by two-thirds of the members of each house of Congress (the first step for ratifying a constitutional amendment).  A different version passed by three-fourths of the states (the second step for ratifying a constitution amendment).  The primary difference between the two versions are a capitalization and a simple comma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DETAILS: Confusion -- the wording of the Second Amendment | Occasional Planet
Click to expand...


Nothing confusing or linguistically bad about the sentence.

The first part with the comma section added tells us the State has a right to have a militia. The second part with the comma section added tells us the PEOPLE have the right to keep and bear arms to form said militia as needed.


----------



## hazlnut

I love this thread.

20 pages and still not valid logical argument as to why the 2nd Amendment is relevant today.


----------



## Lakhota

LibertyLemming said:


> tjvh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, good luck fighting tanks, fighter jets, and poisonous gas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think the tank crews, and fighter pilots wont side with the Constitution and with that, their fellow citizens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The real question is why are these means of protection only available to some citizens. I should be able to own these things as well.
Click to expand...


Justice Scalia says the 2nd Amendment doesn't give you the right to own such things.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

hazlnut said:


> I love this thread.
> 
> 20 pages and still not valid logical argument as to why the 2nd Amendment is relevant today.



Why are any of the Amendments relevant?

Don't like them, pass a new one. Or whine some more......


----------



## LibertyLemming

Telling me the 2nd Amendment isn't valid while it reigns supreme in the world of laws is obnoxious. It's like telling me apples are invalid as I'm giving oral to a turnover. 

If you want some reason as to why it should continue to exist well that's easy. Land of free my man!


----------



## hazlnut

Toddsterpatriot said:


> hazlnut said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love this thread.
> 
> 20 pages and still not valid logical argument as to why the 2nd Amendment is relevant today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are any of the Amendments relevant?
> 
> Don't like them, pass a new one. Or whine some more......
Click to expand...


Again, another failed argument for the 2nd Amendment.

Logic is your friend, pal.  Use it.  Don't misuse it.


----------



## asaratis

RetiredGySgt said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are two problems with the Second Amendment.  First, under any circumstance, it is confusing; something that an English teacher would mark up in red ink and tell the author to redo and clarify.  Secondly, there are actually two versions of the Amendment; The first passed by two-thirds of the members of each house of Congress (the first step for ratifying a constitutional amendment).  A different version passed by three-fourths of the states (the second step for ratifying a constitution amendment).  The primary difference between the two versions are a capitalization and a simple comma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DETAILS: Confusion -- the wording of the Second Amendment | Occasional Planet
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing confusing or linguistically bad about the sentence.
> 
> The first part with the comma section added tells us the State has a right to have a militia. The second part with the comma section added tells us the PEOPLE have the right to keep and bear arms to form said militia as needed.
Click to expand...



In short:


(For whatever reason)...the right of the people to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

hazlnut said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hazlnut said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love this thread.
> 
> 20 pages and still not valid logical argument as to why the 2nd Amendment is relevant today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are any of the Amendments relevant?
> 
> Don't like them, pass a new one. Or whine some more......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, another failed argument for the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Logic is your friend, pal.  Use it.  Don't misuse it.
Click to expand...


Maybe you could explain why it is irrelevant?
Or whine some more......


----------



## Abatis

hazlnut said:


> Again, another failed argument for the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Logic is your friend, pal.  Use it.  Don't misuse it.



The law and the fundamental principles of the Constitution are our friends and your enemy.

Point #1 of your idiocy is simply that the right to arms does not depend upon the 2nd Amendment to exist so all this goofiness is just useless.   

Point #2 of your idiocy is that the right to arms is an original, pre-existing right that the people fully retained since not a shred of it was surrendered to government.  Since no power was ever granted to government to allow it to even compose a thought about the personal arms of the private citizen NONE EXISTS!

Point #3 of your idiocy is that the right to arms is a fundamental right and it isn't any citizen's responsibility to prove to any statist authoritarian that the right remains pertenant today . . .   it is your job to prove to us that a legitimate power exists to do what you want to do.  See, for fundamental rights laws challenged as being injurious to the right are presumed unconstitutional.

Point #4 of your idiocy is that emotional appeals have zero significance in public policy discussion and even less when we are discussing fundamental principles of the Constitution.

Go get a job willya . . .


----------



## GuyPinestra

hazlnut said:


> I love this thread.
> 
> 20 pages and still not valid logical argument as to why the 2nd Amendment is relevant today.



It's relevant today because there are dangerous people out there who want to rape, rob and pillage, and I don't plan on allowing them the opportunity to do that to me or my family. Even if I'm not home I know my family is better protected because EVERY member is proficient with multiple weapons, and NONE are afraid to use them.

In a crisis situation, the police will be there just in time to write a report.


----------



## asaratis

Here's another thought on the subject.  Notice how carefully the authors referred to "the security OF A FREE STATE" (meaning any particular ONE or more of the United States)

The "free state" is the group of people that call themselves "Missourians", or "Texans", or "the people of {name a state}".  It is the security OF THOSE PEOPLE that is being protected against any entity that would take away their freedom, including hypothetical possibilities such as a neighboring rogue state that wants their oil or their own rogue state government that wants to rule them without use of the Constitution.  Who knows?  We may have to rise up against our own National Guard someday...if a sufficiently maniacal dictator-type becomes the governor.

The right of THE PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed!


----------



## westwall

Lakhota said:


> There are two problems with the Second Amendment.  First, under any circumstance, it is confusing; something that an English teacher would mark up in red ink and tell the author to redo and clarify.  Secondly, there are actually two versions of the Amendment; The first passed by two-thirds of the members of each house of Congress (the first step for ratifying a constitutional amendment).  A different version passed by three-fourths of the states (the second step for ratifying a constitution amendment).  The primary difference between the two versions are a capitalization and a simple comma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DETAILS: Confusion -- the wording of the Second Amendment | Occasional Planet
Click to expand...





Confusing only if you lack a fundamental grasp of the English language, or are a lawyer seeking to enslave the People.


----------



## GuyPinestra

NYcarbineer said:


> Why do so many 2nd amendment 'experts' readily concede that the right to own automatic weapons is not covered by the 2nd amendment?
> 
> Any modern day militia would presumably have them.



Really? Who has conceded that? We do have the right to own fully automatic weapons, that's why they are for sale at many gun shops around the country.


----------



## westwall

NYcarbineer said:


> Why do so many 2nd amendment 'experts' readily concede that the right to own automatic weapons is not covered by the 2nd amendment?
> 
> Any modern day militia would presumably have them.








"Most" don't.  Even the Supreme Court, in its 1934 decision, stated that the only weapons protected by the 2nd Ammendment were military weapons.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

westwall said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do so many 2nd amendment 'experts' readily concede that the right to own automatic weapons is not covered by the 2nd amendment?
> 
> Any modern day militia would presumably have them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Most" don't.  Even the Supreme Court, in its 1934 decision, stated that the only weapons protected by the 2nd Ammendment were military weapons.
Click to expand...


That would be Miller vs U.S. 1938


----------



## Pogo

konradv said:


> SniperFire said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be confused by your imagining there is such a thing as "original intent".  That notion presumes that all the Founders had the same intent, a case that would be unique in human history and so statistically remote as to be false on the face of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did not use original intent as a noun.  I used it as an adverbial phrase.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you didn't.   'Intent' is a noun that's the object of the preposition 'by' modified by the adjective 'original'.  Nothing adverbial there at all.  Try again.
Click to expand...


Konrad is 100% correct here.
If "original intent" were an adverbial phrase -- what would it modify?

Very interesting thread, and the distinction between the collective "people" and individual "person" is a fascinating lead.  Konrad, you may be the only poster I've seen today who's not only familiar with English but proficient at it.  In any case I think we can dismiss grammar lessons from those who deliver them with illuminating gems like "learn what a comma is you fucking retard".

I don't see an issue with the comma there or not there if we're looking at the last one.  I don't even see its intended function.  Whether _militia _is capitalized or not has an interesting theory in the link.  I would point out that at the time of the writing we were still capitalizing nouns as a holdover from our parent language German, although this was dying out at this time and that may account for the change from majuscule to minuscule.  Or it may not.  Another fascinating lead.

I would just add that if the intent and interpretation of Amendments were clear prima facie, then we wouldn't need a Supreme Court to address them.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Pogo said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SniperFire said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did not use original intent as a noun.  I used it as an adverbial phrase.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you didn't.   'Intent' is a noun that's the object of the preposition 'by' modified by the adjective 'original'.  Nothing adverbial there at all.  Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Konrad is 100% correct here.
> If "original intent" were an adverbial phrase -- what would it modify?
> 
> Very interesting thread, and the distinction between the collective "people" and individual "person" is a fascinating lead.  Konrad, you may be the only poster I've seen today who's not only familiar with English but proficient at it.
> 
> I don't see an issue with the comma there or not there if we're looking at the last one.  I don't even see its function.  Whether _militia _is capitalized or not has an interesting theory in the link.  I would point out that at the time of the writing we were still capitalizing nouns as a holdover from our parent language German, although this was dying out at this time and that may account for the change from majuscule to minuscule.  Or it may not.  Another fascinating lead.
> 
> I would just add that if the intent and interpretation of Amendments were clear prima facie, then we wouldn't need a Supreme Court to address them.
Click to expand...


And the Court has addressed this Amendment. Consistently ruling that military type weapons in "common use" are what is protected and that it conveys an INDIVIDUAL right.


----------



## Pogo

RetiredGySgt said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you didn't.   'Intent' is a noun that's the object of the preposition 'by' modified by the adjective 'original'.  Nothing adverbial there at all.  Try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Konrad is 100% correct here.
> If "original intent" were an adverbial phrase -- what would it modify?
> 
> Very interesting thread, and the distinction between the collective "people" and individual "person" is a fascinating lead.  Konrad, you may be the only poster I've seen today who's not only familiar with English but proficient at it.
> 
> I don't see an issue with the comma there or not there if we're looking at the last one.  I don't even see its function.  Whether _militia _is capitalized or not has an interesting theory in the link.  I would point out that at the time of the writing we were still capitalizing nouns as a holdover from our parent language German, although this was dying out at this time and that may account for the change from majuscule to minuscule.  Or it may not.  Another fascinating lead.
> 
> I would just add that if the intent and interpretation of Amendments were clear prima facie, then we wouldn't need a Supreme Court to address them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the Court has addressed this Amendment. Consistently ruling that military type weapons in "common use" are what is protected and that it conveys an INDIVIDUAL right.
Click to expand...


That prolly depends on how it was / could be argued.


----------



## westwall

Pogo said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Konrad is 100% correct here.
> If "original intent" were an adverbial phrase -- what would it modify?
> 
> Very interesting thread, and the distinction between the collective "people" and individual "person" is a fascinating lead.  Konrad, you may be the only poster I've seen today who's not only familiar with English but proficient at it.
> 
> I don't see an issue with the comma there or not there if we're looking at the last one.  I don't even see its function.  Whether _militia _is capitalized or not has an interesting theory in the link.  I would point out that at the time of the writing we were still capitalizing nouns as a holdover from our parent language German, although this was dying out at this time and that may account for the change from majuscule to minuscule.  Or it may not.  Another fascinating lead.
> 
> I would just add that if the intent and interpretation of Amendments were clear prima facie, then we wouldn't need a Supreme Court to address them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the Court has addressed this Amendment. Consistently ruling that military type weapons in "common use" are what is protected and that it conveys an INDIVIDUAL right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That prolly depends on how it was / could be argued.
Click to expand...






I find the collectivist mentality amusing.  the Bill of Rights are very clearly a list of controls on what government can do and is a limitation on the governments ability to impose its will on the People.  Only in the twisted psyche of a anti freedom person could the 2nd ever be construed as a right given to the GOVERNMENT to bear arms.  The fundamental lack of logic and critical thinking skills that that implies are simply staggering.

The government fields armies, why, oh why would it EVER need an amendment to protect its "right" to have weapons.  Governments have no "rights", governments are power.  PEOPLE have rights.

Get that through your thick skulls.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Pogo said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Konrad is 100% correct here.
> If "original intent" were an adverbial phrase -- what would it modify?
> 
> Very interesting thread, and the distinction between the collective "people" and individual "person" is a fascinating lead.  Konrad, you may be the only poster I've seen today who's not only familiar with English but proficient at it.
> 
> I don't see an issue with the comma there or not there if we're looking at the last one.  I don't even see its function.  Whether _militia _is capitalized or not has an interesting theory in the link.  I would point out that at the time of the writing we were still capitalizing nouns as a holdover from our parent language German, although this was dying out at this time and that may account for the change from majuscule to minuscule.  Or it may not.  Another fascinating lead.
> 
> I would just add that if the intent and interpretation of Amendments were clear prima facie, then we wouldn't need a Supreme Court to address them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the Court has addressed this Amendment. Consistently ruling that military type weapons in "common use" are what is protected and that it conveys an INDIVIDUAL right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That prolly depends on how it was / could be argued.
Click to expand...


Since 39 the ruling has been referred to in at least 2 other cases. Case law is clear, the weapons protected by the second are military type that are in common usage by the military.

Without a new case CHANGING that case law it is set.


----------



## Pogo

westwall said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the Court has addressed this Amendment. Consistently ruling that military type weapons in "common use" are what is protected and that it conveys an INDIVIDUAL right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That prolly depends on how it was / could be argued.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I find the collectivist mentality amusing.  the Bill of Rights are very clearly a list of controls on what government can do and is a limitation on the governments ability to impose its will on the People.  Only in the twisted psyche of a anti freedom person could the 2nd ever be construed as a right given to the GOVERNMENT to bear arms.  The fundamental lack of logic and critical thinking skills that that implies are simply staggering.
> 
> The government fields armies, why, oh why would it EVER need an amendment to protect its "right" to have weapons.  Governments have no "rights", governments are power.  PEOPLE have rights.
> 
> Get that through your thick skulls.
Click to expand...


Either reading is a lost art, or I lost where anyone suggested that.

==========================



RetiredGySgt said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the Court has addressed this Amendment. Consistently ruling that military type weapons in "common use" are what is protected and that it conveys an INDIVIDUAL right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That prolly depends on how it was / could be argued.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since 39 the ruling has been referred to in at least 2 other cases. Case law is clear, the weapons protected by the second are military type that are in common usage by the military.
> 
> Without a new case CHANGING that case law it is set.
Click to expand...


A new case is exactly what "could be argued" means.  Anyway I'm not interested in which weapons are witch.  My interest is linguistic.  I'm far more interested in the other side of the sentence -- the meaning of "the people".  As well as "well-regulated".


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

konradv said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> That all you got, a stupid one-liner?  It's obviously not what I said, revealing that you can't deal with what I did say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, just making an observation. Could you be a little more specific, if the second amendment was meant for a collective how would it have been applied?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Basically the way we do now with registrations and background checks.  I didn't offer any new restrictions, just making the observation that, IMO, the restrictions we have now are not unconstitutional.  Much is made of the phrase "shall make no law", which I believe refers to the total banning of firearms, because it's a right given to "the people" in the amendment, not to a "person".  Therefore, registration and background checks are permitted to make it easier to keep criminals and the insane from getting guns legally.  It's not perfect, but even stolen and black market guns can be traced and crimes solved by the registration process and the records required of gun manufacturers.
Click to expand...


As already correctly noted, the Second Amendment enshrines an individual, not collective, right  thats settled and accepted law. 

You are correct, however, with regard to the constitutionality of such restrictions as registration and background checks, only an outright ban of a protected class of weapons would be un-Constitutional. 

Therefore, the issue isnt the specific restrictions, but the jurisdiction  or a Federal law or laws in particular. 

In my state, for example, there is no licensing or registration requirement, semi-automatic rifles with 30 round debatable magazines and pistol grips are perfectly legal. 

And I and my fellow residents prefer to keep it that way; indeed, we would challenge any Federal statute designed to require licensing or registration. 



NYcarbineer said:


> Why do so many 2nd amendment 'experts' readily concede that the right to own automatic weapons is not covered by the 2nd amendment?
> 
> Any modern day militia would presumably have them.



There are two legal concepts associated with the regulation of firearms: dangerous and unusual and in common use. What firearms may be subject to regulation and those not subject to regulation are predicated on those two criteria. 

The problem concerns which category a given firearm  or class of weapons  might be assigned. 

There is likely no right to own a fully automatic weapon because they are not in common use, which is why theyre subject to regulation per the NFA. 

Theres also likely no right to own an RPG as such a weapon could be construed to be dangerous and unusual. (Also not on common use)


----------



## westwall

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, just making an observation. Could you be a little more specific, if the second amendment was meant for a collective how would it have been applied?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Basically the way we do now with registrations and background checks.  I didn't offer any new restrictions, just making the observation that, IMO, the restrictions we have now are not unconstitutional.  Much is made of the phrase "shall make no law", which I believe refers to the total banning of firearms, because it's a right given to "the people" in the amendment, not to a "person".  Therefore, registration and background checks are permitted to make it easier to keep criminals and the insane from getting guns legally.  It's not perfect, but even stolen and black market guns can be traced and crimes solved by the registration process and the records required of gun manufacturers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As already correctly noted, the Second Amendment enshrines an individual, not collective, right  thats settled and accepted law.
> 
> You are correct, however, with regard to the constitutionality of such restrictions as registration and background checks, only an outright ban of a protected class of weapons would be un-Constitutional.
> 
> Therefore, the issue isnt the specific restrictions, but the jurisdiction  or a Federal law or laws in particular.
> 
> In my state, for example, there is no licensing or registration requirement, semi-automatic rifles with 30 round debatable magazines and pistol grips are perfectly legal.
> 
> And I and my fellow residents prefer to keep it that way; indeed, we would challenge any Federal statute designed to require licensing or registration.
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do so many 2nd amendment 'experts' readily concede that the right to own automatic weapons is not covered by the 2nd amendment?
> 
> Any modern day militia would presumably have them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are two legal concepts associated with the regulation of firearms: dangerous and unusual and in common use. What firearms may be subject to regulation and those not subject to regulation are predicated on those two criteria.
> 
> The problem concerns which category a given firearm  or class of weapons  might be assigned.
> 
> There is likely no right to own a fully automatic weapon because they are not in common use, which is why theyre subject to regulation per the NFA.
> 
> Theres also likely no right to own an RPG as such a weapon could be construed to be dangerous and unusual. (Also not on common use)
Click to expand...






Also an RPG is considered "ordnance" which is not covered under the 2nd.  Although the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Massachusetts (which still exists BTW) was a private group that still has the artillery pieces they purchased back in the 1600's, is the exception to that rule.


----------



## tap4154

Here's a girl who doesn't understand the Second Amendment, or what MPH is. She is the quintessential Obama voter...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qhm7-LEBznk]The real meaning of MPH- The Original- TCHappenings - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## tap4154

konradv said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> The confusion seems to be over an individual vs collective right.  To me the 2nd would seem to be collective in that it mentions "the people" vs amendments like the 5th where the word "person" is used, making it an individual right.  Therefore, totally banning guns would be a violation, but requiring things like registration and competency and background checks would not.  "The people" also have the right: A) to make sure guns don't get into the wrong hands, i.e. criminals and the insane and B) to know if guns are being stockpiled by whom and where.  Remember, just because someone says they're doing it because they don't trust the government, doesn't automatically mean we should trust them.  The 2nd amendment isn't a suicide pact.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you read the primer I linked to?  It explains very clearly why it is an individual right, using commonly accepted language.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it's an individual right, how can felons be barred from owning them?  Try again.
Click to expand...



Because you felons lose your right to vote, or own guns.

Read twice, and rinse.


----------



## Lakhota




----------



## bigrebnc1775

konradv said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> The confusion seems to be over an individual vs collective right.  To me the 2nd would seem to be collective in that it mentions "the people" vs amendments like the 5th where the word "person" is used, making it an individual right.  Therefore, totally banning guns would be a violation, but requiring things like registration and competency and background checks would not.  "The people" also have the right: A) to make sure guns don't get into the wrong hands, i.e. criminals and the insane and B) to know if guns are being stockpiled by whom and where.  Remember, just because someone says they're doing it because they don't trust the government, doesn't automatically mean we should trust them.  The 2nd amendment isn't a suicide pact.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you read the primer I linked to?  It explains very clearly why it is an individual right, using commonly accepted language.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it's an individual right, how can felons be barred from owning them?  Try again.
Click to expand...


Ever heard of due process?

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, *nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law*; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."


----------



## bigrebnc1775

tap4154 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you read the primer I linked to?  It explains very clearly why it is an individual right, using commonly accepted language.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it's an individual right, how can felons be barred from owning them?  Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because you felons lose your right to vote, or own guns.
> 
> Read twice, and rinse.
Click to expand...


Yep don't hear them bitching about that.


----------



## Sallow




----------



## bigrebnc1775

Sallow said:


>


Your cartoon is deceptive. The states or the government do not have any constitutionally protected rights to firearms. The private citizens does. Stop with the knee jerk reaction bullshit.


----------



## GuyPinestra

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your cartoon is deceptive. The states or the government do not have any constitutionally protected rights to firearms. The private citizens does. Stop with the knee jerk reaction bullshit.
Click to expand...


He can't help it, it's all he's got...


----------



## Sallow

GuyPinestra said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your cartoon is deceptive. The states or the government do not have any constitutionally protected rights to firearms. The private citizens does. Stop with the knee jerk reaction bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He can't help it, it's all he's got...
Click to expand...


Basically..no it isn't.

And it's really a twisted concept of the 2nd amendment that conservatives have shitted upon this country that keeps people with a hankering to shoot kids in the face, fully armed.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Sallow said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your cartoon is deceptive. The states or the government do not have any constitutionally protected rights to firearms. The private citizens does. Stop with the knee jerk reaction bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He can't help it, it's all he's got...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Basically..no it isn't.
> 
> And it's really a twisted concept of the 2nd amendment that conservatives have shitted upon this country that keeps people with a hankering to shoot kids in the face, fully armed.
Click to expand...


Dude it's very simple. The states/ the Government does not have a Constitutionally protected right to firearms. The Private citizen does.


----------



## Sallow

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> He can't help it, it's all he's got...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Basically..no it isn't.
> 
> And it's really a twisted concept of the 2nd amendment that conservatives have shitted upon this country that keeps people with a hankering to shoot kids in the face, fully armed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude it's very simple. The states/ the Government does not have a Constitutionally protected right to firearms. The Private citizen does.
Click to expand...


Again..a twisted concept of the constitution is and exactly what it does.

And that's probably because your historical context is lacking.

Which is part of the problem of relying on a document that is close to three hundred years old to provide guidance in the governance of a modern society.

The government *is* made up of private citizens. Which is part of the rationale for *arming* them. They were meant to be what was defending the nation against invasion and insurrection.

The Continental Congress had no intention of keeping a federally controlled professional army, permanent.


----------



## GuyPinestra

Sallow said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Basically..no it isn't.
> 
> And it's really a twisted concept of the 2nd amendment that conservatives have shitted upon this country that keeps people with a hankering to shoot kids in the face, fully armed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude it's very simple. The states/ the Government does not have a Constitutionally protected right to firearms. The Private citizen does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again..a twisted concept of the constitution is and exactly what it does.
> 
> And that's probably because your historical context is lacking.
> 
> Which is part of the problem of relying on a document that is close to three hundred years old to provide guidance in the governance of a modern society.
> 
> The government *is* made up of private citizens. Which is part of the rationale for *arming* them. They were meant to be what was defending the nation against invasion and insurrection.
> 
> The Continental Congress had no intention of keeping a federally controlled professional army, permanent.
Click to expand...


*PART* of the rationale. The rest of it is the right to defend oneself and one's family and property from the criminal acts of another. 

You're not getting the guns, so you might as well get used to the idea.


----------



## Sallow

GuyPinestra said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude it's very simple. The states/ the Government does not have a Constitutionally protected right to firearms. The Private citizen does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again..a twisted concept of the constitution is and exactly what it does.
> 
> And that's probably because your historical context is lacking.
> 
> Which is part of the problem of relying on a document that is close to three hundred years old to provide guidance in the governance of a modern society.
> 
> The government *is* made up of private citizens. Which is part of the rationale for *arming* them. They were meant to be what was defending the nation against invasion and insurrection.
> 
> The Continental Congress had no intention of keeping a federally controlled professional army, permanent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *PART* of the rationale. _The rest of it is the right to defend oneself and one's family and property from the criminal acts of another. _
> 
> You're not getting the guns, so you might as well get used to the idea.
Click to expand...


You are sort of right.

But this is where the notion of defending it from "government" comes in.

The folks that wrote the Constitution weren't to far away from remembering when an oppressive monarch could capriciously take away one's land and property. And although there are no explicit rules in the constitution regarding that event, there are many clauses protecting one's private property from the government.

Those things were necessary, by the way, since many of the founders did not want to trade one monarch for another.


----------



## Ernie S.

Lakhota said:


> It is confusing to intelligent people.



It is only confusing to people who want to find a way around "shall not be infringed".


----------



## Wry Catcher

Avatar4321 said:


> Not confusing at all if you know how to read.



Wow, in one short sentence you've attacked the person and not the argument and stated the second amendment is clear and not ambiguous.

I suppose you will diagram the First Amendment for all of us to see your vision of its only true meaning; you will add some historical  evidence to support your statement including other parts of our Constitution wherein the militia is mentioned, with particular attention to both the Congress' role and the several State's role in the command and control of militias.

Note too the role Jefferson and Marshall played in the Virginia Militia's and differentiate the distinction between a militia, a standing army and a gang of thugs.


----------



## Ravi

Ernie S. said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is confusing to intelligent people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is only confusing to people who want to find a way around "shall not be infringed".
Click to expand...


You don't find "well regulated" and "shall not be infringed" contradictory?


----------



## squeeze berry

AnthonyMcPherso said:


> The Amemdments to the constitution which were referred to as "The Bill of Rights", of which the Second Amendment is one, was to protect the rights of the STATES AND the INDIVIDUAL from the Federal government.
> 
> IF anyone who is not honest (or maybe educated) claims that the right to have a weapon referrs to the "National Guard" etc, then they must realize that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN FEDERALIZE the National Guard at the WHIM of the President!  At the WHIM of ONE MAN!
> 
> They did this in several southern states if you recall, and although it was for a "good reason" at that time, it shows that ourprotection can be circumvented.  Will the next time be for a "good reason"?
> 
> Before HUNDREDS were massacured by the mobs, the citizens of Navoo, Ill. didn't oppose their disarming by the Federal troops.  Their militias weapons were confiscated.
> 
> Before WWII, the people in Europe couldn't believe that the politicians taking power could possibly be "that evil" because THEIR country was modern and civilized.
> 
> I'm sure that no matter how horrible the people have it in Parts of mexico controlled by the drug cartels, the public still didn't believe that the U.S. would supply the drug gang leaders with thousands of more weapons to kill them with.




exactly

if the other amendments protect individual rights so does the 2nd.

A circuit court made that ruling several years ago

case closed


----------



## GuyPinestra

Ravi said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is confusing to intelligent people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is only confusing to people who want to find a way around "shall not be infringed".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't find "well regulated" and "shall not be infringed" contradictory?
Click to expand...


Not in the least, if you have any understanding of the English language as it was used at that time. 

'Well regulated' at the time of it's writing meant well EQUIPPED.


----------



## Sallow

GuyPinestra said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is only confusing to people who want to find a way around "shall not be infringed".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't find "well regulated" and "shall not be infringed" contradictory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not in the least, if you have any understanding of the English language as it was used at that time.
> 
> 'Well regulated' at the time of it's writing meant well EQUIPPED.
Click to expand...




Bullshit.



> Section 8.
> 
> To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
> 
> To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
> 
> To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
> 
> To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
> 
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;



This is what happens when you folks ignore LARGE PARTS OF THE DOCUMENT.

You get some really screwed up notions about what it actually says..


----------



## Harry Dresden

Lakhota said:


> Well, good luck fighting tanks, fighter jets, and poisonous gas.



yea we will all just roll over and be a good little dog like you.......and i guess you think everyone in the military and police would back a takeover i take it?......of course you would.....you dont question you just do......as i said before.....


----------



## Harry Dresden

Zoom said:


> bayoubill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, good luck fighting tanks, fighter jets, and poisonous gas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if the ragheads in bumbfuckistan can do it, so can we...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah but got cleetus and his cousin wife .  You see we have idiots here...cowardly idiots.  *Are you telling me an armed citizen is a threat to the marines or the air force? * Go with that.  Merican.
Click to expand...


i thought it was the other way around?.....


----------



## Harry Dresden

Lakhota said:


> tjvh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, good luck fighting tanks, fighter jets, and poisonous gas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think the tank crews, and fighter pilots wont side with the Constitution and with that, their fellow citizens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes you think they will?
Click to expand...


because many of them,unlike you,may question WHY do you want us to attack our fellow citizens.....what is the purpose?.....strange aint it LaKota.....people questioning authority.....and not just DOING as asked......


----------



## Darkwind

Sallow said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't find "well regulated" and "shall not be infringed" contradictory?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not in the least, if you have any understanding of the English language as it was used at that time.
> 
> 'Well regulated' at the time of it's writing meant well EQUIPPED.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Section 8.
> 
> To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
> 
> To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
> 
> To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
> 
> To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
> 
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is what happens when you folks ignore LARGE PARTS OF THE DOCUMENT.
> 
> You get some really screwed up notions about what it actually says..
Click to expand...

A break down of the language of the Second Amendment.  Even simplified enough that you can understand it.

A Primer on the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms


----------



## Ravi

GuyPinestra said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is only confusing to people who want to find a way around "shall not be infringed".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't find "well regulated" and "shall not be infringed" contradictory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not in the least, if you have any understanding of the English language as it was used at that time.
> 
> 'Well regulated' at the time of it's writing meant well EQUIPPED.
Click to expand...





regulate (v.) Look up regulate at Dictionary.com
    1630s, from L.L. regulatus, pp. of regulare "to control by rule, direct" (5c.), from L. regula "rule" (see regular). Related: Regulated; regulating.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Ravi said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't find "well regulated" and "shall not be infringed" contradictory?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not in the least, if you have any understanding of the English language as it was used at that time.
> 
> 'Well regulated' at the time of it's writing meant well EQUIPPED.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regulate (v.) Look up regulate at Dictionary.com
> 1630s, from L.L. regulatus, pp. of regulare "to control by rule, direct" (5c.), from L. regula "rule" (see regular). Related: Regulated; regulating.
Click to expand...


The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989). They are:

1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.
2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.

3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.

4) To put in good order.

[obsolete sense]
b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.

1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.


----------



## NYcarbineer

There is more gun control in the military than there is in out in the general population.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

NYcarbineer said:


> There is more gun control in the military than there is in out in the general population.



And? 
I realize you want a police state but this isn't the military. I own my firearms those in the military don't own the firearms they carry.


----------



## Ernie S.

Ravi said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is confusing to intelligent people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is only confusing to people who want to find a way around "shall not be infringed".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't find "well regulated" and "shall not be infringed" contradictory?
Click to expand...


Independent phrases...


And regulated doesn't mean "restricted to non-scary guns"


----------



## CrusaderFrank

The more the Progs bleat, the more ammo gets sold


----------



## bigrebnc1775

CrusaderFrank said:


> The more the Progs bleat, the more ammo gets sold


----------



## Zander




----------



## Lakhota




----------



## WillowTree

Avatar4321 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is confusing to intelligent people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you understand it perfectly?
Click to expand...


She wants it to say what she wants it to say and it has to do with her gun banning agenda. It doesn't say what she wants it to say therefore she be confused!


----------



## Contumacious

* CONFUSION: The Wording of the Communist Manifesto*

*What did Karl  Marx mean by 

"The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state" *

.


----------



## freedombecki

Lakhota said:


> There are two problems with the Second Amendment.  First, under any circumstance, it is confusing; something that an English teacher would mark up in red ink and tell the author to redo and clarify.  Secondly, there are actually two versions of the Amendment; The first passed by two-thirds of the members of each house of Congress (the first step for ratifying a constitutional amendment).  A different version passed by three-fourths of the states (the second step for ratifying a constitution amendment).  The primary difference between the two versions are a capitalization and a simple comma.
> 
> 
> 
> DETAILS: Confusion -- the wording of the Second Amendment | Occasional Planet
Click to expand...

Bull.

It's not in the least confusing. It means citizens can carry the guns. And "shall not be infringed" means leave armed citizens alone. It's just that simple.


----------



## Lakhota

freedombecki said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are two problems with the Second Amendment.  First, under any circumstance, it is confusing; something that an English teacher would mark up in red ink and tell the author to redo and clarify.  Secondly, there are actually two versions of the Amendment; The first passed by two-thirds of the members of each house of Congress (the first step for ratifying a constitutional amendment).  A different version passed by three-fourths of the states (the second step for ratifying a constitution amendment).  The primary difference between the two versions are a capitalization and a simple comma.
> 
> 
> 
> DETAILS: Confusion -- the wording of the Second Amendment | Occasional Planet
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bull.
> 
> It's not in the least confusing. It means citizens can carry the guns. And "shall not be infringed" means leave armed citizens alone. It's just that simple.
Click to expand...


Justice Scalia disagrees...

And Now a Thought From Justice Scalia


----------



## Harry Dresden

Lakhota said:


> It is confusing to intelligent people.



no....its confusing to people like you.....the ones who want guns banned....and i guess if i was against guns as bad as you are,i would be confused too....and i would hate those fuckers for making it an amendment....like you do....


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Harry Dresden said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is confusing to intelligent people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no....its confusing to people like you.....the ones who want guns banned....and i guess if i was against guns as bad as you are,i would be confused too....and i would hate those fuckers for making it an amendment....like you do....
Click to expand...


This^^^^^^^^^


----------



## Lakhota

Why is it that radical NaziCon gun nuts believe that anyone who is for "reasonable" gun control wants guns banned?  That's a major flaw in their argument.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Lakhota said:


> Why is it that radical NaziCon gun nuts believe that anyone who is for "reasonable" gun control wants guns banned?  That's a major flaw in their argument.



Dumb ass it was the nazi's that supported gun control


----------



## beagle9

Avatar4321 said:


> Not confusing at all if you know how to read.


And then to comprehend afterwards...It's really that simple, but when one is working an agenda as these people are, their hope's are that "confusion" is something that they can successfully sew into the fabric somehow, and this while they are going about trying to change things in which they have no business changing at all.


----------



## Harry Dresden

bayoubill said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> DETAILS: Confusion -- the wording of the Second Amendment | Occasional Planet
> 
> 
> 
> You're usually confused, but thanks for reminding folks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lakhota night be wrong-headed on some issues, but I've always found him to be clear-headed... never confused...
Click to expand...


yea he is so clear headed he ignores questions he brings up in his posts.....no doubt because he doesn't like the question....but hey....Dean and Dudley are the same way.....it's called a Character flaw....


----------



## Lakhota

Harry Dresden said:


> bayoubill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're usually confused, but thanks for reminding folks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota night be wrong-headed on some issues, but I've always found him to be clear-headed... never confused...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yea he is so clear headed he ignores questions he brings up in his posts.....no doubt because he doesn't like the question....but hey....Dean and Dudley are the same way.....it's called a Character flaw....
Click to expand...


It's actually called not wasting time with retarded assholes.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Lakhota said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bayoubill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota night be wrong-headed on some issues, but I've always found him to be clear-headed... never confused...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yea he is so clear headed he ignores questions he brings up in his posts.....no doubt because he doesn't like the question....but hey....Dean and Dudley are the same way.....it's called a Character flaw....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's actually called not wasting time with retarded assholes.
Click to expand...


You're chasing your asshole again aren't you? Go get that retarded asshole


----------



## freedombecki

Lakhota said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> DETAILS: Confusion -- the wording of the Second Amendment | Occasional Planet
> 
> 
> 
> Bull.
> 
> It's not in the least confusing. It means citizens can carry the guns. And "shall not be infringed" means leave armed citizens alone. It's just that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Justice Scalia disagrees...
> 
> And Now a Thought From Justice Scalia
Click to expand...

I read that one already.

I'm not Justice Scalia, as learned a man as he is, but I believe at the time it was written, people knew exactly what the Constitution said. It said leave people alone when they are armed, and they can arm when they feel threatened by oppressive government.

European governments have a different view than Americans.

Quit screwing with people's Bill of Rights, Lakota. It's a losing duel.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

freedombecki said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bull.
> 
> It's not in the least confusing. It means citizens can carry the guns. And "shall not be infringed" means leave armed citizens alone. It's just that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justice Scalia disagrees...
> 
> And Now a Thought From Justice Scalia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I read that one already.
> 
> I'm not Justice Scalia, as learned a man as he is, but I believe at the time it was written, people knew exactly what the Constitution said. It said leave people alone when they are armed, and they can arm when they feel threatened by oppressive government.
> 
> European governments have a different view than Americans.
> 
> Quit screwing with people's Bill of Rights, Lakota. It's a losing duel.
Click to expand...


You are way to nice.


----------



## Abatis

Lakhota said:


> Justice Scalia disagrees...
> 
> And Now a Thought From Justice Scalia



THIS POST EDITED TO CONFORM WITH MY REPLY IN *THIS THREAD* (*#29*)

Isn't that special.

I'll begin with an attack on the intellectual honesty of the blogger you cite / quote (and by extension, your intellectual honesty). Then I will turn to the premise of his statement; the conclusion he draws from what he "quotes" from "_Heller_".

So, even though he presents his "quote" as "*From the 2008 DC v. Heller ruling,*" and you bold that for dramatic effect in the OP, the link and the text he presents points to and directly copies from the Wikipedia article on _DC v Heller_.  

Uhhhhh, that's not quite the same thing LOL.

If one was to actually refer to the actual case we would find the full paragraph as written by Scalia.  I have highlighted in red what has been excised or significantly altered (and I was generous):

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152-153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489-490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students' Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26

Footnote 26: We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.​
Now, to address the basic premise of your blogger . . . 

It is a mistake to read that paragraph (severely edited or original) divorced from its footnote. Scalia holds those laws as merely "*presumptively lawful*" . . .   Because, _1)_ the Court was not undertaking an exhaustive historical analysis of the full scope of the Second Amendment and _2)_ none of those laws were under review, thus having no doubt cast upon them).

But . . . 

The many laws that *have* been challenged previously and upheld in state and lower federal courts were upheld using reasoning that _Heller_ was invalidating (namely the "state's right" and "militia right" inventions of 1942). 

Those laws that have *only* those crumbling blocks to rest on *will fall* and there are many, many many laws like that (example, pretty much the entire New Jersey gun control scheme is infirm, see Burton v. Sills, 248 A.2d 521 (N.J. 1968)).

So to the readers out there . . . who's the most disingenuous one, Lakhota or the asshole that put this deceitful garbage up originally? 

My next task focuses on this question . . .   

How many of the cited references in the real quote have you read?  

Do you think they support your "vision" of the right to arms or mine?  

I will post tomorrow with the cited excerpts for them but here are two, just as a tease:  

*Citation* -- _Rawle 123_: 


"The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both."

*Citation* -- _Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251_: 


"The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta! And Lexington, Concord, Camden, River Raisin, Sandusky, and the laurel-crowned field of New Orleans, plead eloquently for this interpretation!"

So how truthful is your blogger's closing statement?  He said:

"There is no constitutional bar to some limitation and regulation of firearms. The real question &#8212; the only real question, to my mind &#8212; is whether there is the political will for it."​
Must you anti-Liberty twits lie about everything?


----------



## Harry Dresden

Lakhota said:


> Why is it that radical NaziCon gun nuts believe that anyone who is for "reasonable" gun control wants guns banned?  That's a major flaw in their argument.


because you say as much in your dam posts.....geezus LaKota read what you post.....AND dont give me that shit when YOU called anyone who disagrees with Obama....a Bigot....


----------



## Harry Dresden

Lakhota said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bayoubill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota night be wrong-headed on some issues, but I've always found him to be clear-headed... never confused...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yea he is so clear headed he ignores questions he brings up in his posts.....no doubt because he doesn't like the question....but hey....Dean and Dudley are the same way.....it's called a Character flaw....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's actually called not wasting time with retarded assholes.
Click to expand...


no its not.....you called many here bigots for disagreeing with Obama....even those who never call the President names......i was one of them.....you have ignored me 3-4 times back in the campaigning days when i simply asked you if someone can disagree with this President without it being considered racial.....you ignored that question and continued calling people bigots for doing it......so eat shit asshole....you dont have any Character LaKota.....your a phony.....your no Indian and you are not for "sane" Gun regulations.....your for no one having guns.....you have said this 3 or 4 times already in other threads....and i pointed that out to you then and of course you ignored that too  instead of clarifying yourself.....its called Character.....something you lack.....


----------



## Ernie S.

Lakhota said:


> Why is it that radical NaziCon gun nuts believe that anyone who is for "reasonable" gun control wants guns banned?  That's a major flaw in their argument.



Reasonable gun control is 90 out of 100 at 100 yards.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

ernie s. said:


> lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> why is it that radical nazicon gun nuts believe that anyone who is for "reasonable" gun control wants guns banned?  That's a major flaw in their argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> reasonable gun control is 90 out of 100 at 100 yards.
Click to expand...


how can anyone have a discussion with someone who supports gun control but calls those who are anti gun control nazi's?


----------



## yidnar

Lakhota said:


> There are two problems with the Second Amendment.  First, under any circumstance, it is confusing; something that an English teacher would mark up in red ink and tell the author to redo and clarify.  Secondly, there are actually two versions of the Amendment; The first passed by two-thirds of the members of each house of Congress (the first step for ratifying a constitutional amendment).  A different version passed by three-fourths of the states (the second step for ratifying a constitution amendment).  The primary difference between the two versions are a capitalization and a simple comma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DETAILS: Confusion -- the wording of the Second Amendment | Occasional Planet
Click to expand...

 can you believe the arrogance of this idiot !! he thinks he is wiser than James Madison !!


----------



## Ernie S.

There are several folks like Lakhota here. They have their talking points and whatever evidence you give to discredit them, they still see their premise as fact.
Lakhota, Rdweeb, luddley and a couple others, wouldn't know integrity if it bit them on the ass.


----------



## GuyPinestra

Lakhota said:


> Why is it that radical NaziCon gun nuts believe that anyone who is for "reasonable" gun control wants guns banned?  That's a major flaw in their argument.



Maybe because you guys and 'reasonable' are a couple of TIME ZONES apart?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Lakhota said:


> There are two problems with the Second Amendment.  First, under any circumstance, it is confusing; something that an English teacher would mark up in red ink and tell the author to redo and clarify.  Secondly, there are actually two versions of the Amendment; The first passed by two-thirds of the members of each house of Congress (the first step for ratifying a constitutional amendment).  A different version passed by three-fourths of the states (the second step for ratifying a constitution amendment).  The primary difference between the two versions are a capitalization and a simple comma.
> 
> 
> 
> DETAILS: Confusion -- the wording of the Second Amendment | Occasional Planet
Click to expand...


Somebody already posted it, I suggested they talk to their English teacher about dependent clauses.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Lakhota said:


> It is confusing to intelligent people.



Intelligent people are not confused by grammar, only idiots are.


----------



## Contumacious

Quantum Windbag said:


> Somebody already posted it, I suggested they talk to their English teacher about dependent clauses.



Dependent clauses confusion is bullshit. We are free people with UNALIENABLE RIGHTS. Free people can buy ANYTHING THEIR HEARTS DESIRE. They don't need their neighbors nor the government's consent.

.


----------



## Rinata

Abatis said:


> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just posted what the amendment says exactly. Everybody interprets it in their own way. Maybe the two phrases can be taken independently but we will never know if that was the intent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We know that they considered the right to arms to be among "the great residuum" retained by the people after we granted the limited powers to government.  We know they believed the right was not created, granted or given by the Amendment thus the words of the Amendment can't be "interpreted" to modify, condition, qualify or restrain the right.
> 
> *Madison said*:
> 
> "[Bills of Rights] are unnecessary, because the powers are enumerated, and it follows that all that are not granted by the constitution are retained: that the constitution is a bill of powers, the great residuum being the rights of the people; and therefore a bill of rights cannot be so necessary as if the residuum was thrown into the hands of the government."​
> We the People don't have the right to arms because the 2nd Amendment is there( we would possess it without any Constitutional recognition); we have the right to arms because no power was ever granted to government to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen.
> 
> All the Bill of Rights does is redundantly forbid the government to exercise powers never granted to it.   Your militia based "interpretation" is the product of profound ignorance.  You are arguing an absurdity completely divorced from the fundamental principles of the Constitution.
Click to expand...


What a bunch of crap. You are the one that is profoundly ignorant. You'll say anything to convince people that you should own as many guns as you want to protect yourself and loved ones.


----------



## Abatis

Rinata said:


> Abatis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just posted what the amendment says exactly. Everybody interprets it in their own way. Maybe the two phrases can be taken independently but we will never know if that was the intent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We know that they considered the right to arms to be among "the great residuum" retained by the people after we granted the limited powers to government.  We know they believed the right was not created, granted or given by the Amendment thus the words of the Amendment can't be "interpreted" to modify, condition, qualify or restrain the right.
> 
> *Madison said*:
> 
> "[Bills of Rights] are unnecessary, because the powers are enumerated, and it follows that all that are not granted by the constitution are retained: that the constitution is a bill of powers, the great residuum being the rights of the people; and therefore a bill of rights cannot be so necessary as if the residuum was thrown into the hands of the government."​
> We the People don't have the right to arms because the 2nd Amendment is there( we would possess it without any Constitutional recognition); we have the right to arms because no power was ever granted to government to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen.
> 
> All the Bill of Rights does is redundantly forbid the government to exercise powers never granted to it.   Your militia based "interpretation" is the product of profound ignorance.  You are arguing an absurdity completely divorced from the fundamental principles of the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a bunch of crap. You are the one that is profoundly ignorant. You'll say anything to convince people that you should own as many guns as you want to protect yourself and loved ones.
Click to expand...


I know I'm going to regret this but why is that a bunch of crap?

I mean really, are you aware of the Federalist's opposition to adding a bill of rights to the Constitution and what their arguments were?

Madison was once a vocal opponent but his opinion changed and he became the editor of the state proposals and the speech I linked to and quoted from was; *James Madison Addresses the House of Representatives, 8 June 1789, on the Necessity of Amendments to the Constitution*

You might want to read that before you call me ignorant.

Conferred powers and retained rights . . . those are the most fundamental principles of the Constitution and establishes the maxim, ALL NOT CONFERRED IS RETAINED which of course is the basis of the 9th and 10th Amendments which stand as testaments to the Federalist's arguments (even though they "lost" the debate over adding a bill of rights).

If you want to play a sleuth find Madison's formal introduction of the proposed amendments to Congress.  He wanted to insert the amendments in the *BODY* of the Constitution, within the particular Articles and Sections that they were modifying / effecting.  Madison *did not* propose [what would become] the 2nd Amendment being inserted in Article I, § 8, the powers of Congress (and the militia clauses).   

Go be a good citizen and come back and tell us where Madison wanted to insert the right to arms amendment.


----------



## Lakhota




----------



## Lakhota




----------



## CrotchetyGeezer

Rinata said:


> Abatis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just posted what the amendment says exactly. Everybody interprets it in their own way. Maybe the two phrases can be taken independently but we will never know if that was the intent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We know that they considered the right to arms to be among "the great residuum" retained by the people after we granted the limited powers to government.  We know they believed the right was not created, granted or given by the Amendment thus the words of the Amendment can't be "interpreted" to modify, condition, qualify or restrain the right.
> 
> *Madison said*:
> "[Bills of Rights] are unnecessary, because the powers are enumerated, and it follows that all that are not granted by the constitution are retained: that the constitution is a bill of powers, the great residuum being the rights of the people; and therefore a bill of rights cannot be so necessary as if the residuum was thrown into the hands of the government."​We the People don't have the right to arms because the 2nd Amendment is there( we would possess it without any Constitutional recognition); we have the right to arms because no power was ever granted to government to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen.
> 
> All the Bill of Rights does is redundantly forbid the government to exercise powers never granted to it.   Your militia based "interpretation" is the product of profound ignorance.  You are arguing an absurdity completely divorced from the fundamental principles of the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a bunch of crap. You are the one that is profoundly ignorant. You'll say anything to convince people that you should own as many guns as you want to protect yourself and loved ones.
Click to expand...


You don't need convinced that we should own as many guns as we want to protect ourselves and our loved ones. Because, that's just the way it is. Why would anyone need to convince you when those are the facts of the matter? If you need convincing, then you must live in some fantasy land somewhere and you're completely oblivious to the United States Constitution and what it contains. But, since most people aren't as clueless as you? Convincing you really doesn't matter.


----------



## CrotchetyGeezer

Abatis said:


> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abatis said:
> 
> 
> 
> We know that they considered the right to arms to be among "the great residuum" retained by the people after we granted the limited powers to government.  We know they believed the right was not created, granted or given by the Amendment thus the words of the Amendment can't be "interpreted" to modify, condition, qualify or restrain the right.
> 
> *Madison said*:
> "[Bills of Rights] are unnecessary, because the powers are enumerated, and it follows that all that are not granted by the constitution are retained: that the constitution is a bill of powers, the great residuum being the rights of the people; and therefore a bill of rights cannot be so necessary as if the residuum was thrown into the hands of the government."​We the People don't have the right to arms because the 2nd Amendment is there( we would possess it without any Constitutional recognition); we have the right to arms because no power was ever granted to government to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen.
> 
> All the Bill of Rights does is redundantly forbid the government to exercise powers never granted to it.   Your militia based "interpretation" is the product of profound ignorance.  You are arguing an absurdity completely divorced from the fundamental principles of the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a bunch of crap. You are the one that is profoundly ignorant. You'll say anything to convince people that you should own as many guns as you want to protect yourself and loved ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know I'm going to regret this but why is that a bunch of crap?
> 
> I mean really, are you aware of the Federalist's opposition to adding a bill of rights to the Constitution and what their arguments were?
> 
> Madison was once a vocal opponent but his opinion changed and he became the editor of the state proposals and the speech I linked to and quoted from was; *James Madison Addresses the House of Representatives, 8 June 1789, on the Necessity of Amendments to the Constitution*
> 
> You might want to read that before you call me ignorant.
> 
> Conferred powers and retained rights . . . those are the most fundamental principles of the Constitution and establishes the maxim, ALL NOT CONFERRED IS RETAINED which of course is the basis of the 9th and 10th Amendments which stand as testaments to the Federalist's arguments (even though they "lost" the debate over adding a bill of rights).
> 
> If you want to play a sleuth find Madison's formal introduction of the proposed amendments to Congress.  He wanted to insert the amendments in the *BODY* of the Constitution, within the particular Articles and Sections that they were modifying / effecting.  Madison *did not* propose [what would become] the 2nd Amendment being inserted in Article I, § 8, the powers of Congress (and the militia clauses).
> 
> Go be a good citizen and come back and tell us where Madison wanted to insert the right to arms amendment.
Click to expand...


Come on Abatis. Trying to educate a leftist about the Constitution, the Founding Fathers and the history of this nation is a fruitless endeavor. You might as well bang your head against a wall, you'd probably make greater progress. You say Constitution to a leftist and they probably think you're referring to how they look.


----------



## Lakhota

Who gives a shit what Madison said.  All that matters is the final ratified document.  Just like the founders' religious beliefs or lack thereof - which were irrelevant to the Godless Constitution that was ratified.


----------



## LadyGunSlinger

Lakhota said:


> Who gives a shit what Madison said.  All that matters is the final ratified document.  Just like the founders' religious beliefs or lack thereof - which were irrelevant to the Godless Constitution that was ratified.



Ratification requires 3/4's of the states. Liberals will NEVER gain 3/4's of the States.. Not even in your best dream..

Lastly, the United States Constitution is a living, breathing document that is the basis of everything this country stands for. America has been a great nation and what makes her great are the people within who have held God and liberty as beacons of light. Not you, nor any other leftist can change that history.


----------



## Lakhota

America was founded on murder and theft.


----------



## koshergrl

There's some asshole in another thread saying that if we don't give up our guns, *they* will take our children while they're at school.

There's a reason progressives want us unarmed, ppl.


----------



## LadyGunSlinger

Lakhota said:


> America was founded on murder and theft.



I happen to agree with your intent in regard to what was done to the Native American. It's a black eye in our history but no nation is without mistakes. As far as you're concerned, you're truly one of the more extreme posters here and just about everything you say sounds insane.


----------



## beretta304

LadyGunSlinger said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> America was founded on murder and theft.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I happen to agree with your intent in regard to what was done to the Native American. It's a black eye in our history but no nation is without mistakes. As far as you're concerned, you're truly one of the more extreme posters here and just about everything you say sounds insane.
Click to expand...



She may be a native but she's no American.


----------



## LadyGunSlinger

beretta304 said:


> LadyGunSlinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> America was founded on murder and theft.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I happen to agree with your intent in regard to what was done to the Native American. It's a black eye in our history but no nation is without mistakes. As far as you're concerned, you're truly one of the more extreme posters here and just about everything you say sounds insane.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> She may be a native but she's no American.
Click to expand...


Lakhota is a she?! I agree with you there.. It's certainly NOT an American.


----------



## beretta304

LadyGunSlinger said:


> beretta304 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LadyGunSlinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I happen to agree with your intent in regard to what was done to the Native American. It's a black eye in our history but no nation is without mistakes. As far as you're concerned, you're truly one of the more extreme posters here and just about everything you say sounds insane.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She may be a native but she's no American.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lakhota is a she?! I agree with you there.. It's certainly NOT an American.
Click to expand...



I don't know what it is...metrosexual maybe.


----------



## koshergrl

She's native like I'm a prima ballerina.


----------



## LadyGunSlinger

koshergrl said:


> She's native like I'm a prima ballerina.


----------



## beretta304

Likely some little drunken leftist dope posting from mommy's basement.  Probably figured pretending to be a Native American would garner some sympathy and people would go easy on it.


----------



## Friends

Matthew said:


> FUCK YOU LEFTIST. YOU won't get my guns, assholes!


 
When I see a bumper sticker that says, "When guns are outlawed they will take my guns from my cold dead hands," it always seems like a good idea. Buns are a sick brutal fascination for sick, brutal men. I want the government to punish them by confiscating their guns. I favor confiscation without confiscation.


----------



## 4Horsemen

CrotchetyGeezer said:


> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abatis said:
> 
> 
> 
> We know that they considered the right to arms to be among "the great residuum" retained by the people after we granted the limited powers to government.  We know they believed the right was not created, granted or given by the Amendment thus the words of the Amendment can't be "interpreted" to modify, condition, qualify or restrain the right.
> 
> *Madison said*:
> "[Bills of Rights] are unnecessary, because the powers are enumerated, and it follows that all that are not granted by the constitution are retained: that the constitution is a bill of powers, the great residuum being the rights of the people; and therefore a bill of rights cannot be so necessary as if the residuum was thrown into the hands of the government."​We the People don't have the right to arms because the 2nd Amendment is there( we would possess it without any Constitutional recognition); we have the right to arms because no power was ever granted to government to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen.
> 
> All the Bill of Rights does is redundantly forbid the government to exercise powers never granted to it.   Your militia based "interpretation" is the product of profound ignorance.  You are arguing an absurdity completely divorced from the fundamental principles of the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a bunch of crap. You are the one that is profoundly ignorant. You'll say anything to convince people that you should own as many guns as you want to protect yourself and loved ones.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't need convinced that we should own as many guns as we want to protect ourselves and our loved ones. Because, that's just the way it is. Why would anyone need to convince you when those are the facts of the matter? If you need convincing, then you must live in some fantasy land somewhere and you're completely oblivious to the United States Constitution and what it contains. But, since most people aren't as clueless as you? Convincing you really doesn't matter.
Click to expand...


My point exactly. Why waste time convincing idiots?

I don't need a Gun Law to tell me I can protect my family or not, I just do it. So if they banned all guns tomorrow, I would still find one to protect my family and friends.


----------



## koshergrl

And if you can't find one, you make one.

And if you make one, you make more than one, and distribute them.


----------



## CrotchetyGeezer

Lakhota said:


> America was founded on murder and theft.



Then why are you pretending to care so much about the lives of Americans? Oh...wait, that's right, you don't...huh? It's just a ploy to push your anti-gun agenda, using the deaths of these children as a tool because you know a good number of folks are likely emotionally compromised at the moment and now is your chance to strike. Thanks for being so blatantly transparent.


----------



## Harry Dresden

Lakhota said:


>



once again.....no reply...........it also means i must be right about this jerk.......its called Character.....


----------



## Lakhota




----------



## Lakhota




----------



## Wry Catcher

First Congress Debate On Arms And Militia

Put your opinions aside for a bit and read the link.


So, what was that about the Second being clear?


----------



## Wry Catcher

The power of the pen, the gun huggers have all cut and run.  Run to another thread wherein they will receive accolades from posting the same bullshit.  Pitiful.


----------



## GuyPinestra

Wry Catcher said:


> The power of the pen, the gun huggers have all cut and run.  Run to another thread wherein they will receive accolades from posting the same bullshit.  Pitiful.



Having just read the entirety of your link I find no instance of anyone disputing the FACT that the people have a right to arms.

Think you could point that part out to me?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Wry Catcher said:


> First Congress Debate On Arms And Militia
> 
> Put your opinions aside for a bit and read the link.
> 
> 
> So, what was that about the Second being clear?



Seems pretty clear to me.

 A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.*3

*On September 4, the Senate agreed to amend Article 5 to read as follows: A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

On September 9, the Senate replaced "the best" with "necessary to the." On the same day, the Senate disagreed to a motion to insert "for the common defence" after "bear arms." This article and the following ones were then renumbered as articles 4 through 8. 

All the debate was about requiring people to keep and bear arms, not the right. Thanks for proving you can't read.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Wry Catcher said:


> The power of the pen, the gun huggers have all cut and run.  Run to another thread wherein they will receive accolades from posting the same bullshit.  Pitiful.



We did? Is it remotely possible that some of us have real lives?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

GuyPinestra said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> The power of the pen, the gun huggers have all cut and run.  Run to another thread wherein they will receive accolades from posting the same bullshit.  Pitiful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having just read the entirety of your link I find no instance of anyone disputing the FACT that the people have a right to arms.
> 
> Think you could point that part out to me?
Click to expand...


I like the part where the only part actually removed from the Amendment was the exception for conscientious objectors. If the basic intent was to actually require people to bear arms he cannot argue that the debate was over whether they would be allowed to.


----------



## GuyPinestra

Quantum Windbag said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> The power of the pen, the gun huggers have all cut and run.  Run to another thread wherein they will receive accolades from posting the same bullshit.  Pitiful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having just read the entirety of your link I find no instance of anyone disputing the FACT that the people have a right to arms.
> 
> Think you could point that part out to me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like the part where the only part actually removed from the Amendment was the exception for conscientious objectors. If the basic intent was to actually require people to bear arms he cannot argue that the debate was over whether they would be allowed to.
Click to expand...


Seems pretty obvious to me, but you can never tell with these Progressives WHAT they'll cook up...


----------



## Harry Dresden

Wry Catcher said:


> The power of the pen, the gun huggers have all cut and run.  Run to another thread wherein they will receive accolades from posting the same bullshit.  Pitiful.



some people work Wry.....i know that is a tough one to think about....and it is a Holiday.....


----------



## Wry Catcher

Quantum Windbag said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> First Congress Debate On Arms And Militia
> 
> Put your opinions aside for a bit and read the link.
> 
> 
> So, what was that about the Second being clear?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems pretty clear to me.
> 
> A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.*3
> 
> *On September 4, the Senate agreed to amend Article 5 to read as follows: A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> On September 9, the Senate replaced "the best" with "necessary to the." On the same day, the Senate disagreed to a motion to insert "for the common defence" after "bear arms." This article and the following ones were then renumbered as articles 4 through 8.
> 
> All the debate was about requiring people to keep and bear arms, not the right. Thanks for proving you can't read.
Click to expand...


I read quite well, thank you.  Let's put a bit more emphasis on each phrase framed by the intent of Article I, Sec. 8, Clause 15 and 16.

The topic phrase in bold is this:  A *well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state*, the right of people (of the several states) to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Reading the amendment in this manner suggests the Second was proposed because each state still held fears about a strong central government and wanted  the amendment to defend their State from the central government.  Your proof ignored the debate on several levels and I suspect you skipped through the entire link until you found a phrase which supported the conclusion you had at the beginning.

There were dozens of proposals put forth on this one amendment and most dealt with the matter of standing armies vis a vis militia's and not with an individuals right to bear arms.  I suspect every rural American in 1789 owned a rifle and it never occurred to the founder's that the right to bear such a gun would ever be infringed.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Wry Catcher said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> First Congress Debate On Arms And Militia
> 
> Put your opinions aside for a bit and read the link.
> 
> 
> So, what was that about the Second being clear?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems pretty clear to me.
> 
> A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.*3
> 
> *On September 4, the Senate agreed to amend Article 5 to read as follows: A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> On September 9, the Senate replaced "the best" with "necessary to the." On the same day, the Senate disagreed to a motion to insert "for the common defence" after "bear arms." This article and the following ones were then renumbered as articles 4 through 8.
> 
> All the debate was about requiring people to keep and bear arms, not the right. Thanks for proving you can't read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read quite well, thank you.  Let's put a bit more emphasis on each phrase framed by the intent of Article I, Sec. 8, Clause 15 and 16.
> 
> The topic phrase in bold is this:  A *well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state*, the right of people (of the several states) to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Reading the amendment in this manner suggests the Second was proposed because each state still held fears about a strong central government and wanted to the amendment to defend their State from the central government.  Your proof ignored the debate on several levels and I suspect you skipped through the entire link until you found a phrase which supported the conclusion you had at the beginning.
> 
> There were dozens of proposals put forth on this one amendment and most dealt with the matter of standing armies vis a vis militia's and not with an individuals right to bear arms.  I suspect every rural American in 1789 owned a rifle and it never occurred to the founder's that the right to bear such a gun would ever be infringed.
Click to expand...


If we adopt your reading it clearly prohibits national level gun control. If we then read the 14th Amendment, and the debate surrounding it, we discover that the same restrictions apply to the states.

You just lost the debate.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Harry Dresden said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> The power of the pen, the gun huggers have all cut and run.  Run to another thread wherein they will receive accolades from posting the same bullshit.  Pitiful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> some people work Wry.....i know that is a tough one to think about....and it is a Holiday.....
Click to expand...


True, but the some I was addressing were posting freely and often before the noon hour.  As I am approaching my 7th full year of retirement I do remember that some people work.

My last full day of work ended at 5 PM on December 31, 2005.

Have a happy and healthy new year Harry.


----------



## Dot Com

I'm a gun enthusiast but the lobby's, like ALEC, have gone too far


----------



## Abatis

Wry Catcher said:


> The power of the pen, the gun huggers have all cut and run.  Run to another thread wherein they will receive accolades from posting the same bullshit.  Pitiful.



Why don't you explain in reasoned and supported argument how Feinstein's new "assault weapons" ban is not a blatant violation of the right of the people to keep and bear arms as secured by the 2nd Amendment.

I pine for the legal discussions I used to have with anti-gunners back in the 90's.  

Nowadays all you anti's have is blind vitriol and idiotic hit-n-run nonsense (Lakhota) . . . 

So, you gonna be my huckleberry?


----------



## Wry Catcher

Quantum Windbag said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems pretty clear to me.
> 
> A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.*3
> 
> *On September 4, the Senate agreed to amend Article 5 to read as follows: A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> On September 9, the Senate replaced "the best" with "necessary to the." On the same day, the Senate disagreed to a motion to insert "for the common defence" after "bear arms." This article and the following ones were then renumbered as articles 4 through 8.
> 
> All the debate was about requiring people to keep and bear arms, not the right. Thanks for proving you can't read.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I read quite well, thank you.  Let's put a bit more emphasis on each phrase framed by the intent of Article I, Sec. 8, Clause 15 and 16.
> 
> The topic phrase in bold is this:  A *well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state*, the right of people (of the several states) to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Reading the amendment in this manner suggests the Second was proposed because each state still held fears about a strong central government and wanted to the amendment to defend their State from the central government.  Your proof ignored the debate on several levels and I suspect you skipped through the entire link until you found a phrase which supported the conclusion you had at the beginning.
> 
> There were dozens of proposals put forth on this one amendment and most dealt with the matter of standing armies vis a vis militia's and not with an individuals right to bear arms.  I suspect every rural American in 1789 owned a rifle and it never occurred to the founder's that the right to bear such a gun would ever be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we adopt your reading it clearly prohibits national level gun control. If we then read the 14th Amendment, and the debate surrounding it, we discover that the same restrictions apply to the states.
> 
> You just lost the debate.
Click to expand...


Section 1?  I see the point and understand the argument based on this phrase:  "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law...equal protection of the laws"

The intent of the Congress and the States in passing the 14th had nothing to do with the Second Amendment, it had to do with protecting in the Constitution the principles of the Emancipation Proclamation.

One must conclude that even the 14th would allow for depriving a citizen of the right to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control a firearm as long as due process of law was applied.

Here's an example of law wherein such a law is in effect, the first paragraph is the germane section. 

http://theacademy.ca.gov/docs/CA Penal Code 12021.pdf


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Dot Com said:


> I'm a gun enthusiast but the lobby's, like ALEC, have gone too far



Bull fucking shit on both what you said and your pic.


----------



## Abatis

Wry Catcher said:


> The intent of the Congress and the States in passing the 14th had nothing to do with the Second Amendment,



Protecting the right to arms of Freedmen was of particular concern for the 39th Congress.

Interestingly, the enforcers of the Black Codes (AKA state militias) were disbanded by Congress in the endeavor to stop the enforcement abuses, nearly always predicated on entering Freedmen's homes or detaining them on the street to search for firearms.

If you really want to get to brass tacks,  it seems the individual right of new Black citizens to own a firearm was of greater importance than the "right" of a state to organize and direct its militia.  

*Here, you like links so much . . .*


----------



## tjvh

The only reason people would have for confusion with regard to the Second Amendment is if they *choose* to interpret it based upon ideology rather than rationality.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Abatis said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> The intent of the Congress and the States in passing the 14th had nothing to do with the Second Amendment,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Protecting the right to arms of Freedmen was of particular concern for the 39th Congress.
> 
> Interestingly, the enforcers of the Black Codes (AKA state militias) were disbanded by Congress in the endeavor to stop the enforcement abuses, nearly always predicated on entering Freedmen's homes or detaining them on the street to search for firearms.
> 
> If you really want to get to brass tacks,  it seems the individual right of new Black citizens to own a firearm was of greater importance than the "right" of a state to organize and direct its militia.
> 
> *Here, you like links so much . . .*
Click to expand...


Wow.  Thank you for a most informative link.  I need to get going on the crown roast of Pork and my other duties but I will go over this link in detail.  In a quick read I learned more about Reconstruction then in any previous course of US History.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Wry Catcher said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read quite well, thank you.  Let's put a bit more emphasis on each phrase framed by the intent of Article I, Sec. 8, Clause 15 and 16.
> 
> The topic phrase in bold is this:  A *well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state*, the right of people (of the several states) to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Reading the amendment in this manner suggests the Second was proposed because each state still held fears about a strong central government and wanted to the amendment to defend their State from the central government.  Your proof ignored the debate on several levels and I suspect you skipped through the entire link until you found a phrase which supported the conclusion you had at the beginning.
> 
> There were dozens of proposals put forth on this one amendment and most dealt with the matter of standing armies vis a vis militia's and not with an individuals right to bear arms.  I suspect every rural American in 1789 owned a rifle and it never occurred to the founder's that the right to bear such a gun would ever be infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we adopt your reading it clearly prohibits national level gun control. If we then read the 14th Amendment, and the debate surrounding it, we discover that the same restrictions apply to the states.
> 
> You just lost the debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Section 1?  I see the point and understand the argument based on this phrase:  "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law...equal protection of the laws"
> 
> The intent of the Congress and the States in passing the 14th had nothing to do with the Second Amendment, it had to do with protecting in the Constitution the principles of the Emancipation Proclamation.
> 
> One must conclude that even the 14th would allow for depriving a citizen of the right to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control a firearm as long as due process of law was applied.
> 
> Here's an example of law wherein such a law is in effect, the first paragraph is the germane section.
> 
> http://theacademy.ca.gov/docs/CA Penal Code 12021.pdf
Click to expand...


That explains the Freedman's Bureau Act of 1866 which specifically spelled out the right of an individual black to the constitutional right to bear arms. It was even debated in the Senate when the 14th was being voted on, it seems that some Senators were concerned that Southern states might reinstate the pre Civil War ban on guns in the hands of blacks. 

In fact, it was the racists that specifically argued in court that the Bill of Rights shouldn't be incorporated against the states, and that the states would best be able to protect individual liberties and civil rights. This resulted in the infamous Cruikshank decision that said the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government, The racist really enjoyed that, and enacted all those Jim Crow laws people were so proud of, the same ones you pretend to hate.

The only people that I know that have a problem with the simple historical record are the racist hacks like William Joyce.

Are you a racist hack? If you are, there is no sense in me continuing to treat you like a human being.

The Volokh Conspiracy » Gun Rights and Reconstruction:


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Abatis said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> The intent of the Congress and the States in passing the 14th had nothing to do with the Second Amendment,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Protecting the right to arms of Freedmen was of particular concern for the 39th Congress.
> 
> Interestingly, the enforcers of the Black Codes (AKA state militias) were disbanded by Congress in the endeavor to stop the enforcement abuses, nearly always predicated on entering Freedmen's homes or detaining them on the street to search for firearms.
> 
> If you really want to get to brass tacks,  it seems the individual right of new Black citizens to own a firearm was of greater importance than the "right" of a state to organize and direct its militia.
> 
> *Here, you like links so much . . .*
Click to expand...


Facts do not matter to racists.



Wry Catcher said:


> Wow.  Thank you for a most informative link.  I need to get going on the  crown roast of Pork and my other duties but I will go over this link in  detail.  In a quick read I learned more about Reconstruction then in  any previous course of US History.


----------



## Rinata

Abatis said:


> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abatis said:
> 
> 
> 
> We know that they considered the right to arms to be among "the great residuum" retained by the people after we granted the limited powers to government.  We know they believed the right was not created, granted or given by the Amendment thus the words of the Amendment can't be "interpreted" to modify, condition, qualify or restrain the right.
> 
> *Madison said*:
> 
> "[Bills of Rights] are unnecessary, because the powers are enumerated, and it follows that all that are not granted by the constitution are retained: that the constitution is a bill of powers, the great residuum being the rights of the people; and therefore a bill of rights cannot be so necessary as if the residuum was thrown into the hands of the government."​
> We the People don't have the right to arms because the 2nd Amendment is there( we would possess it without any Constitutional recognition); we have the right to arms because no power was ever granted to government to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen.
> 
> All the Bill of Rights does is redundantly forbid the government to exercise powers never granted to it.   Your militia based "interpretation" is the product of profound ignorance.  You are arguing an absurdity completely divorced from the fundamental principles of the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a bunch of crap. You are the one that is profoundly ignorant. You'll say anything to convince people that you should own as many guns as you want to protect yourself and loved ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know I'm going to regret this but why is that a bunch of crap?
> I mean really, are you aware of the Federalist's opposition to adding a bill of rights to the Constitution and what their arguments were?
> 
> Madison was once a vocal opponent but his opinion changed and he became the editor of the state proposals and the speech I linked to and quoted from was; *James Madison Addresses the House of Representatives, 8 June 1789, on the Necessity of Amendments to the Constitution*
> 
> You might want to read that before you call me ignorant.
> 
> Conferred powers and retained rights . . . those are the most fundamental principles of the Constitution and establishes the maxim, ALL NOT CONFERRED IS RETAINED which of course is the basis of the 9th and 10th Amendments which stand as testaments to the Federalist's arguments (even though they "lost" the debate over adding a bill of rights).
> 
> If you want to play a sleuth find Madison's formal introduction of the proposed amendments to Congress.  He wanted to insert the amendments in the *BODY* of the Constitution, within the particular Articles and Sections that they were modifying / effecting.  Madison *did not* propose [what would become] the 2nd Amendment being inserted in Article I, § 8, the powers of Congress (and the militia clauses).
> 
> Go be a good citizen and come back and tell us where Madison wanted to insert the right to arms amendment.
Click to expand...


Because I don't believe it's the truth.  I don't understand this neurotic need that some people have to own a firearm. That's what it seems to be to me. Just a neurotic need.


----------



## AmericanFirst

Rinata said:


> Abatis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a bunch of crap. You are the one that is profoundly ignorant. You'll say anything to convince people that you should own as many guns as you want to protect yourself and loved ones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know I'm going to regret this but why is that a bunch of crap?
> I mean really, are you aware of the Federalist's opposition to adding a bill of rights to the Constitution and what their arguments were?
> 
> Madison was once a vocal opponent but his opinion changed and he became the editor of the state proposals and the speech I linked to and quoted from was; *James Madison Addresses the House of Representatives, 8 June 1789, on the Necessity of Amendments to the Constitution*
> 
> You might want to read that before you call me ignorant.
> 
> Conferred powers and retained rights . . . those are the most fundamental principles of the Constitution and establishes the maxim, ALL NOT CONFERRED IS RETAINED which of course is the basis of the 9th and 10th Amendments which stand as testaments to the Federalist's arguments (even though they "lost" the debate over adding a bill of rights).
> 
> If you want to play a sleuth find Madison's formal introduction of the proposed amendments to Congress.  He wanted to insert the amendments in the *BODY* of the Constitution, within the particular Articles and Sections that they were modifying / effecting.  Madison *did not* propose [what would become] the 2nd Amendment being inserted in Article I, § 8, the powers of Congress (and the militia clauses).
> 
> Go be a good citizen and come back and tell us where Madison wanted to insert the right to arms amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because I don't believe it's the truth.  I don't understand this neurotic need that some people have to own a firearm. That's what it seems to be to me. Just a neurotic need.
Click to expand...

A TRUE American would understand. Socialist only understand that have to care for everyone. Idiots.


----------



## HUGGY

*Is the Second Amendment obsolete? *

If you don't have a nuclear bomb in your garage and a Harrier Jet in your back yard to deliver it ..it is..


----------



## LibertyLemming

Don't tell the Afghans or the Vietnamese that beating a better trained, better armed, superior force isnt possible.


----------



## Rinata

AmericanFirst said:


> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abatis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know I'm going to regret this but why is that a bunch of crap?
> I mean really, are you aware of the Federalist's opposition to adding a bill of rights to the Constitution and what their arguments were?
> 
> Madison was once a vocal opponent but his opinion changed and he became the editor of the state proposals and the speech I linked to and quoted from was; *James Madison Addresses the House of Representatives, 8 June 1789, on the Necessity of Amendments to the Constitution*
> 
> You might want to read that before you call me ignorant.
> 
> Conferred powers and retained rights . . . those are the most fundamental principles of the Constitution and establishes the maxim, ALL NOT CONFERRED IS RETAINED which of course is the basis of the 9th and 10th Amendments which stand as testaments to the Federalist's arguments (even though they "lost" the debate over adding a bill of rights).
> 
> If you want to play a sleuth find Madison's formal introduction of the proposed amendments to Congress.  He wanted to insert the amendments in the *BODY* of the Constitution, within the particular Articles and Sections that they were modifying / effecting.  Madison *did not* propose [what would become] the 2nd Amendment being inserted in Article I, § 8, the powers of Congress (and the militia clauses).
> 
> Go be a good citizen and come back and tell us where Madison wanted to insert the right to arms amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because I don't believe it's the truth.  I don't understand this neurotic need that some people have to own a firearm. That's what it seems to be to me. Just a neurotic need.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A TRUE American would understand. Socialist only understand that have to care for everyone. Idiots.
Click to expand...


So you are the last word when it comes to true Americans and being a socialist?? Oh, and identifying idiots?? I don't think so. You don't even realize that YOU are the idiot. Happy New Year!!


----------



## Lakhota




----------



## Lakhota




----------



## Dante

Lakhota said:


> There are two problems with the Second Amendment.  First, under any circumstance, it is confusing; something that an English teacher would mark up in red ink and tell the author to redo and clarify.  Secondly, there are actually two versions of the Amendment; The first passed by two-thirds of the members of each house of Congress (the first step for ratifying a constitutional amendment).  A different version passed by three-fourths of the states (the second step for ratifying a constitution amendment).  *The primary difference between the two versions are a capitalization and a simple comma.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DETAILS: Confusion -- the wording of the Second Amendment | Occasional Planet
Click to expand...


*The primary difference between the two versions are a capitalization and a simple comma.*  and there is a record for why they fought for and put in the comma and capitalization?  what they meant to clarify?

think about what you are attempting to say


----------



## Dante

Lakhota said:


>





> Who belongs to a militia?
> 
> The 2nd Amendment means whatever SCOTUS says it means.
> 
> Since the word "militia" is no longer applicable in the 2nd Amendment, there is no right to keep and bear arms.



Is the right to keep and bear arms more important than an actual militia? 

The Militia and the Constitution  = an interesting primer on what constituted a militia when the words were written and the history of what constitutes a militia during the history that framed the framers thinking


----------



## CrusaderFrank

I agree about modifying the 2nd, it should say, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"


----------



## Contumacious

Rinata said:


> Because I don't believe it's the truth.  I don't understand this neurotic need that some people have to own a firearm. That's what it seems to be to me. Just a neurotic need.



Neither do I.

The 2A was intended for free people.

We are now a parasitic enslaved populace. We don't need it.

People should spend their money learning such techniques as bending over and kissing their ass good bye.

yep That's the ticket.

.


----------



## PaulS1950

This is how I would write it today...
"Immutable Rights, owned by Citizens, unchanging and unrestricted by any vote or power:

The right of all Citizens to keep and bear arms, including those arms of the current issued military infantry, shall not be recorded, taxed or limited in any way.

Ammunition, components and accessories for any arms shall not be taxed or limited in any way.

Arms include but are not limited to: bladed weapons, firearms, bows and arrows, and any other weapon of offense or defense ever or currently in either military infantry or civilian use."


----------



## JimH52

Do you honestly think the writers of the Second Amendment envisioned assault rifles with 100 shot magazines?  They would be shocked at the debate from the NRA and others.


----------



## emptystep

CrusaderFrank said:


> I agree about modifying the 2nd, it should say, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"



But that is exactly the point. You would have to modify the 2nd amendment to refer to "the people."

As passed by the Congress:


> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.



The "free state' is the United States of America. A well regulated Militia would be like the Minutemen, in nowadays terms that is the US Army and the National Guard. The right to keep and bear arms means that federal law does not allow Massachusetts to take the weapons away from the National Guard. 

It did not mean that any slave could own a gun and it did not mean that the local law official could not confiscate the local idiot's gun if he felt the need to protect the community. The American public has absolutely no provision under the Constitution for individual gun ownership.


----------



## bayoubill

emptystep said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree about modifying the 2nd, it should say, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that is exactly the point. You would have to modify the 2nd amendment to refer to "the people."
> 
> As passed by the Congress:
> 
> 
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "free state' is the United States of America. A well regulated Militia would be like the Minutemen, in nowadays terms that is the US Army and the National Guard. The right to keep and bear arms means that federal law does not allow Massachusetts to take the weapons away from the National Guard.
> 
> It did not mean that any slave could own a gun and it did not mean that the local law official could not confiscate the local idiot's gun if he felt the need to protect the community. The American public has absolutely no provision under the Constitution for individual gun ownership.
Click to expand...


Obama will be looking for someone like you the next time he has an opening on the Supreme Court... you should polish up your resume' in the meantime...


----------



## CrotchetyGeezer

Lakhota said:


> *From the 2008 DC v. Heller ruling,* written by Scalia, and one of the very few Supreme Court cases to touch on the Second Amendment at all:
> _"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Courts opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."_​Remember: Written by Scalia, i.e., not one of those liberal judicial activists you hear so much about.
> 
> 
> 
> More: And Now a Thought From Justice Scalia
Click to expand...


Cherry-picking DC v. Heller isn't going to help you.


----------



## beagle9

Correction....oops.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

There is nothing confusing about the 2nd amendment.


----------



## beagle9

JimH52 said:


> Do you honestly think the writers of the Second Amendment envisioned assault rifles with 100 shot magazines?  They would be shocked at the debate from the NRA and others.


Yes I do, and along with that vision, they probably would have also envisioned a citizenry that could represent this nation properly and safely without incident, as would be found in their overall ownership of guns, and them being as legal gun owning citizens.

They would have never envisioned a nation in the way that it is being taken down today by these devils, especially in the way in which they are taking it down and/or apart now. We see that they are attempting to do this more and more everyday, and this when reading the daily headlines that proves it as such.  They do this now, but if they (the framers) would have known what is going on now, and this way back then, well I think that the constitution would have definitely had some better provisions added, in which to protect against the sort of treachery & traitorous activity in which we are witnessing today in this nation more and more, and this by those who wish to take it over completely, in order to suit their ways and needs in which they see fit only by them & their ways of thinking now.


----------



## beagle9

bayoubill said:


> emptystep said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree about modifying the 2nd, it should say, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that is exactly the point. You would have to modify the 2nd amendment to refer to "the people."
> 
> As passed by the Congress:
> 
> 
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "free state' is the United States of America. A well regulated Militia would be like the Minutemen, in nowadays terms that is the US Army and the National Guard. The right to keep and bear arms means that federal law does not allow Massachusetts to take the weapons away from the National Guard.
> 
> It did not mean that any slave could own a gun and it did not mean that the local law official could not confiscate the local idiot's gun if he felt the need to protect the community. The American public has absolutely no provision under the Constitution for individual gun ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama will be looking for someone like you the next time he has an opening on the Supreme Court... you should polish up your resume' in the meantime...
Click to expand...

Kidding me right, so the citizens who own and bear arms, and have done so since the beginning of this nation, were all just dumb idiots according to you and your thinking today ? We have been wrong all this time now ? Best check your history, because it didn't start in 2008, and I am talking about " The United States of America".


----------



## LordBrownTrout

JimH52 said:


> Do you honestly think the writers of the Second Amendment envisioned assault rifles with 100 shot magazines?  They would be shocked at the debate from the NRA and others.



They never would have envisioned our current incompetent prez, senate, congress.  Well, yes they would have.  They warned us.


----------



## Gareyt17

Lakhota said:


> bayoubill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is confusing to intelligent people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> granted, the wording and punctuation approaches inscrutability...
> 
> but when you read about how the final version came to be, with all the various rewrites and edits done in a hurried manner, you can sorta understand how it happened...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ignorance is no excuse.  *What took place behind the scenes is irrelevant.  Only the final product matters - and they fucked it up.*
Click to expand...

*

*

Well, all of us here know that but I see no need for you to criticize your own parents in such a manner....


----------



## Contumacious

LordBrownTrout said:


> There is nothing confusing about the 2nd amendment.



True.

But Founding Father Alexander Hamilton opposed the same because he predicted over 200 years ago, that the fascists would claim that the 2A is "confusing".

.


----------



## emptystep

beagle9 said:


> bayoubill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emptystep said:
> 
> 
> 
> But that is exactly the point. You would have to modify the 2nd amendment to refer to "the people."
> 
> As passed by the Congress:
> 
> 
> The "free state' is the United States of America. A well regulated Militia would be like the Minutemen, in nowadays terms that is the US Army and the National Guard. The right to keep and bear arms means that federal law does not allow Massachusetts to take the weapons away from the National Guard.
> 
> It did not mean that any slave could own a gun and it did not mean that the local law official could not confiscate the local idiot's gun if he felt the need to protect the community. The American public has absolutely no provision under the Constitution for individual gun ownership.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama will be looking for someone like you the next time he has an opening on the Supreme Court... you should polish up your resume' in the meantime...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Kidding me right, so the citizens who own and bear arms, and have done so since the beginning of this nation, were all just dumb idiots according to you and your thinking today ? We have been wrong all this time now ? Best check your history, because it didn't start in 2008, and I am talking about " The United States of America".
Click to expand...


There is nothing that says you can't have firearms in the Constitution. There is also nothing that says you can have firearms in the Constitution. The 2nd amendment specifically says "militia". It was not referring to the general population or it would have said so. It doesn't.

Allow me to reference Amendment V


> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or *in the Militia*, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.



Militia is specifically referred to as an organization separate from simple citizenship. If you are authorized to have a firearm it can not be taken away. You don't automatically get to have one.


----------



## PaulS1950

People, we have the right to keep and bear arms simply because we recognize that the right to self defense demands that we have equivelent tools to those who would attack us. The second amendment just tells the government to keep their hands out of it.

This is not an issue of a "constitutional" right, it is a God given natural right. All living creatures use self defense with some of the deadliest tools available in nature. We use our mind to make weapons with which to defend ourselves, those we care about and our property in the same way that corals use chemical toxins to kill other corals that attack them and in the same way that ablack widow spider protects itself and its territory. This is a natural right that is given by the Creator. No man and no government can take it away. That is why over milenia societies have stood up to groups and governments who are harmful to those who have been governed. The constitution just exclaims the right and lets our government know that we recognize our right to use force when necessary to defend our rights. That is why I will not relinquish my guns - my ability to protect myself and those I care about.
You may feel free to do what ever your conscience dictates - that is another right we BOTH have.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

emptystep said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bayoubill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama will be looking for someone like you the next time he has an opening on the Supreme Court... you should polish up your resume' in the meantime...
> 
> 
> 
> Kidding me right, so the citizens who own and bear arms, and have done so since the beginning of this nation, were all just dumb idiots according to you and your thinking today ? We have been wrong all this time now ? Best check your history, because it didn't start in 2008, and I am talking about " The United States of America".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing that says you can't have firearms in the Constitution. There is also nothing that says you can have firearms in the Constitution. The 2nd amendment specifically says "militia". It was not referring to the general population or it would have said so. It doesn't.
> 
> Allow me to reference Amendment V
> 
> 
> 
> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or *in the Militia*, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Militia is specifically referred to as an organization separate from simple citizenship. If you are authorized to have a firearm it can not be taken away. You don't automatically get to have one.
Click to expand...


The general populace was the militia.  The colonists who gathered to confront the british regulars were militiamen.


----------



## CrotchetyGeezer

emptystep said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bayoubill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama will be looking for someone like you the next time he has an opening on the Supreme Court... you should polish up your resume' in the meantime...
> 
> 
> 
> Kidding me right, so the citizens who own and bear arms, and have done so since the beginning of this nation, were all just dumb idiots according to you and your thinking today ? We have been wrong all this time now ? Best check your history, because it didn't start in 2008, and I am talking about " The United States of America".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing that says you can't have firearms in the Constitution. There is also nothing that says you can have firearms in the Constitution. The 2nd amendment specifically says "militia". It was not referring to the general population or it would have said so. It doesn't.
Click to expand...


I don't know how many times this argument has to be covered but, your claim is pure and simple BS. The Supreme Court has already acknowledged that the Constitution grants the individual right to bear arms and one doesn't have to belong to an organized group militia to enjoy that right. Educate yourself.


----------



## emptystep

From Amendment V


> unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger



There is specified three divisions of armed forces here, land forces, naval forces, and the Militia (capitalization in original document it appears). Otherwise there would would be no 'unless'. It wouldn't make any sense if it meant 'unless everyone'.  I do hope people haven't wasted a lot of time arguing about the obvious.


----------



## Contumacious

emptystep said:


> There is nothing that says you can't have firearms in the Constitution. There is also nothing that says you can have firearms in the Constitution. The 2nd amendment specifically says "militia". It was not referring to the general population or it would have said so. It doesn't.



*The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.*

.


----------



## Clementine

A militia is composed of ordinary, non-military citizens and it's actually another right people have if they feel their liberty is being threatened.    Some saying that ordinary citizens don't need guns because they are not militia is a seriously flawed argument.     There is much confusion and it's on the part of those blindly follow government.    I know some people would rather cede weapons, rights and free will to a government who will take care of them.     Some of us are strong and smart enough to know that we can do way better for ourselves and our families than any politician can ever hope to.    

Follow like a subservient sheeple if you wish, but don't expect the entire population to join you.


----------



## emptystep

If the governor called you up right now and told you to grab your firearm and assemble at the State House, would you? No? Then you're not in the Militia.


----------



## Ernie S.

LordBrownTrout said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you honestly think the writers of the Second Amendment envisioned assault rifles with 100 shot magazines?  They would be shocked at the debate from the NRA and others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They never would have envisioned our current incompetent prez, senate, congress.  Well, yes they would have.  They warned us.
Click to expand...


And they gave us the second amendment immediately after the one that says we can bitch about the current state of the State.

I guess they figured we should be able to talk about the need and then back it up with force if necessary.


----------



## Ernie S.

emptystep said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bayoubill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama will be looking for someone like you the next time he has an opening on the Supreme Court... you should polish up your resume' in the meantime...
> 
> 
> 
> Kidding me right, so the citizens who own and bear arms, and have done so since the beginning of this nation, were all just dumb idiots according to you and your thinking today ? We have been wrong all this time now ? Best check your history, because it didn't start in 2008, and I am talking about " The United States of America".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing that says you can't have firearms in the Constitution. There is also nothing that says you can have firearms in the Constitution. The 2nd amendment specifically says "militia". It was not referring to the general population or it would have said so. It doesn't.
> 
> Allow me to reference Amendment V
> 
> 
> 
> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or *in the Militia*, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Militia is specifically referred to as an organization separate from simple citizenship. If you are authorized to have a firearm it can not be taken away. You don't automatically get to have one.
Click to expand...

You do realize that according to law, the "Militia" is comprised of every able bodied male between 18 and 45, do you not?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Ernie S. said:


> emptystep said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kidding me right, so the citizens who own and bear arms, and have done so since the beginning of this nation, were all just dumb idiots according to you and your thinking today ? We have been wrong all this time now ? Best check your history, because it didn't start in 2008, and I am talking about " The United States of America".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing that says you can't have firearms in the Constitution. There is also nothing that says you can have firearms in the Constitution. The 2nd amendment specifically says "militia". It was not referring to the general population or it would have said so. It doesn't.
> 
> Allow me to reference Amendment V
> 
> 
> 
> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or *in the Militia*, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Militia is specifically referred to as an organization separate from simple citizenship. If you are authorized to have a firearm it can not be taken away. You don't automatically get to have one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do realize that according to law, the "Militia" is comprised of every able bodied male between 18 and 45, do you not?
Click to expand...


There is also a portion of the militia that has no connection with the national guard, It's called the unorganized militia


----------



## emptystep

Ernie S. said:


> emptystep said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kidding me right, so the citizens who own and bear arms, and have done so since the beginning of this nation, were all just dumb idiots according to you and your thinking today ? We have been wrong all this time now ? Best check your history, because it didn't start in 2008, and I am talking about " The United States of America".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing that says you can't have firearms in the Constitution. There is also nothing that says you can have firearms in the Constitution. The 2nd amendment specifically says "militia". It was not referring to the general population or it would have said so. It doesn't.
> 
> Allow me to reference Amendment V
> 
> 
> 
> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or *in the Militia*, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Militia is specifically referred to as an organization separate from simple citizenship. If you are authorized to have a firearm it can not be taken away. You don't automatically get to have one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do realize that according to law, the "Militia" is comprised of every able bodied male between 18 and 45, do you not?
Click to expand...




> In colonial times, the Thirteen Colonies used a militia system for defense. Colonial militia lawsand after independence those of the United States and the various states*required able-bodied males to enroll in the militia, to undergo a minimum of military training, and to serve for limited periods of time in war or emergency*. This earliest form of conscription involved selective drafts of militiamen for service in particular campaigns. Following this system in its essentials, the Continental Congress in 1778 recommended that the states draft men from their militias for one year's service in the Continental army; this first national conscription was irregularly applied and failed to fill the Continental ranks.
> 
> For long-term operations, conscription was occasionally used when volunteers or paid substitutes were insufficient to raise the needed manpower. During the American Revolutionary War, *the states sometimes drafted men for militia duty* or to fill state Continental Army units, but the central government did not have the authority to conscript. President James Madison and his Secretary of War James Monroe unsuccessfully attempted to create a national draft of 40,000 men during the War of 1812.[3] This proposal was fiercely criticized on the House floor by antiwar Congressman Daniel Webster of Massachusetts.[4


]

Have you done your minimum military training or been drafted? No? Guess what? Your not in the Militia.


----------



## Contumacious

emptystep said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emptystep said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing that says you can't have firearms in the Constitution. There is also nothing that says you can have firearms in the Constitution. The 2nd amendment specifically says "militia". It was not referring to the general population or it would have said so. It doesn't.
> 
> Allow me to reference Amendment V
> 
> 
> Militia is specifically referred to as an organization separate from simple citizenship. If you are authorized to have a firearm it can not be taken away. You don't automatically get to have one.
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that according to law, the "Militia" is comprised of every able bodied male between 18 and 45, do you not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In colonial times, the Thirteen Colonies used a militia system for defense. Colonial militia lawsand after independence those of the United States and the various states*required able-bodied males to enroll in the militia, to undergo a minimum of military training, and to serve for limited periods of time in war or emergency*. This earliest form of conscription involved selective drafts of militiamen for service in particular campaigns. Following this system in its essentials, the Continental Congress in 1778 recommended that the states draft men from their militias for one year's service in the Continental army; this first national conscription was irregularly applied and failed to fill the Continental ranks.
> 
> For long-term operations, conscription was occasionally used when volunteers or paid substitutes were insufficient to raise the needed manpower. During the American Revolutionary War, *the states sometimes drafted men for militia duty* or to fill state Continental Army units, but the central government did not have the authority to conscript. President James Madison and his Secretary of War James Monroe unsuccessfully attempted to create a national draft of 40,000 men during the War of 1812.[3] This proposal was fiercely criticized on the House floor by antiwar Congressman Daniel Webster of Massachusetts.[4
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ]
> 
> Have you done your minimum military training or been drafted? No? Guess what? Your not in the Militia.
Click to expand...


Have they ever done an EEG on your to see if you have the minimum amount of brain waves showing that your brain is functional?

.


----------



## emptystep

Contumacious said:


> emptystep said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that according to law, the "Militia" is comprised of every able bodied male between 18 and 45, do you not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In colonial times, the Thirteen Colonies used a militia system for defense. Colonial militia lawsand after independence those of the United States and the various states*required able-bodied males to enroll in the militia, to undergo a minimum of military training, and to serve for limited periods of time in war or emergency*. This earliest form of conscription involved selective drafts of militiamen for service in particular campaigns. Following this system in its essentials, the Continental Congress in 1778 recommended that the states draft men from their militias for one year's service in the Continental army; this first national conscription was irregularly applied and failed to fill the Continental ranks.
> 
> For long-term operations, conscription was occasionally used when volunteers or paid substitutes were insufficient to raise the needed manpower. During the American Revolutionary War, *the states sometimes drafted men for militia duty* or to fill state Continental Army units, but the central government did not have the authority to conscript. President James Madison and his Secretary of War James Monroe unsuccessfully attempted to create a national draft of 40,000 men during the War of 1812.[3] This proposal was fiercely criticized on the House floor by antiwar Congressman Daniel Webster of Massachusetts.[4
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ]
> 
> Have you done your minimum military training or been drafted? No? Guess what? Your not in the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have they ever done an EEG on your to see if you have the minimum amount of brain waves showing that your brain is functional?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


By your logic all firemen are between the ages 18 and 65. Yeah! I'm a fireman!


----------



## Contumacious

emptystep said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emptystep said:
> 
> 
> 
> ]
> 
> Have you done your minimum military training or been drafted? No? Guess what? Your not in the Militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have they ever done an EEG on your to see if you have the minimum amount of brain waves showing that your brain is functional?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By your logic all firemen are between the ages 18 and 65. Yeah! I'm a fireman!
Click to expand...


By your logic Americans are between the ages of 6 and 12 months and require the guidance of bureaucrats.

.


----------



## Lakhota




----------



## Lakhota




----------



## bigrebnc1775

Lakhota said:


>


You like bumping your failed thread don't you?


----------



## Lakhota

Were the founding fathers stupid?  If not, why did they clusterfuck the 2nd Amendment?


----------



## Darkwind

emptystep said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree about modifying the 2nd, it should say, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that is exactly the point. You would have to modify the 2nd amendment to refer to "the people."
> 
> As passed by the Congress:
> 
> 
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The "free state' is the United States of America. A well regulated Militia would be like the Minutemen, in nowadays terms that is the US Army and the National Guard. The right to keep and bear arms means that federal law does not allow Massachusetts to take the weapons away from the National Guard.
> 
> It did not mean that any slave could own a gun and it did not mean that the local law official could not confiscate the local idiot's gun if he felt the need to protect the community. The American public has absolutely no provision under the Constitution for individual gun ownership.
Click to expand...

It means no such thing.  Those who think that the Second Amendment needs to be rewritten do not understand or comprehend what they read.  

A Primer on the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Succinctly and accurately details the language of the Second Amendment and shows why the militia is not a requirement for the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms.  Additionally, any nonsense about hunting, self defense or any of that other Bovine Squeeze is nothing more than fearful justification.

There are no requirements for keeping and owning firearms for the American citizen. 

We simply have the right (without justification) and government is forbidden from infringing upon it.


----------



## Lakhota

Darkwind said:


> emptystep said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree about modifying the 2nd, it should say, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that is exactly the point. You would have to modify the 2nd amendment to refer to "the people."
> 
> As passed by the Congress:
> 
> 
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The "free state' is the United States of America. A well regulated Militia would be like the Minutemen, in nowadays terms that is the US Army and the National Guard. The right to keep and bear arms means that federal law does not allow Massachusetts to take the weapons away from the National Guard.
> 
> It did not mean that any slave could own a gun and it did not mean that the local law official could not confiscate the local idiot's gun if he felt the need to protect the community. The American public has absolutely no provision under the Constitution for individual gun ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It means no such thing.  Those who think that the Second Amendment needs to be rewritten do not understand or comprehend what they read.
> 
> A Primer on the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms
> 
> Succinctly and accurately details the language of the Second Amendment and shows why the militia is not a requirement for the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms.  Additionally, any nonsense about hunting, self defense or any of that other Bovine Squeeze is nothing more than fearful justification.
> 
> There are no requirements for keeping and owning firearms for the American citizen.
> 
> We simply have the right (without justification) and government is forbidden from infringing upon it.
Click to expand...


BULLSHIT!!!!!  The 2nd Amendment has been "infringed" on several times - and will again.


----------



## bayoubill

Lakhota said:


> Were the founding fathers stupid?  If not, why did they clusterfuck the 2nd Amendment?



it kept getting rewritten, and they were tired by the time the final version came out...


----------



## Lakhota

bayoubill said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Were the founding fathers stupid?  If not, why did they clusterfuck the 2nd Amendment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it kept getting rewritten, and they were tired by the time the final version came out...
Click to expand...


So we live with their tired clusterfuck since 1791...?


----------



## bayoubill

Lakhota said:


> bayoubill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Were the founding fathers stupid?  If not, why did they clusterfuck the 2nd Amendment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it kept getting rewritten, and they were tired by the time the final version came out...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we live with their tired clusterfuck since 1791...?
Click to expand...


the final wording of the Second Amendment might seem a bit strange...

but the intent of the persons who wrote it were clear, if you bothered to read their background writings, of which we have a plethora...

to whit: citizens should always be able to have, by arms, a means to take on a federal government that somehow had became too oppressive to bear...


----------



## Lakhota

bayoubill said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bayoubill said:
> 
> 
> 
> it kept getting rewritten, and they were tired by the time the final version came out...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we live with their tired clusterfuck since 1791...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the final wording of the Second Amendment might seem a bit strange...
> 
> but the intent of the persons who wrote it were clear, if you bothered to read their background writings, of which we have a plethora...
> 
> to whit: citizens should always be able to have, by arms, a means to take on a federal government that somehow had became too oppressive to bear...
Click to expand...


Ahem, their so-called "background writings" don't mean shit.  All that matters is the final product - that they RATIFIED.


----------



## percysunshine

Lakhota said:


> It is confusing to intelligent people.



I see you have everything figured out.


----------



## Bfgrn

bayoubill said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> Intelligent people always understand the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> You shouldn't out yourself like that.
> 
> Here is a good lesson on how to read the Second Amendment.
> 
> A Primer on the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms  <<---Link
> 
> Here is the opening excerpt.....
> 
> Read the rest of it and learn something.  Perhaps your confusion will go away and you can actually say you are starting to gain some intelligence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The confusion became widespread when the NRA switched their previous position and started shilling for gun manufacturers. Throughout most of our history, there was no confusion about the second amendment. Interesting counter to your spin piece:
> 
> Sandy Hook massacre: The NRA's gun 'rights' are a fabrication of modern times - CSMonitor.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go back and read the background writings of the Framers regarding the Second Amendment... then tell me you honestly believe that their intention was only that we could have guns to hunt for game and shoot the occasional bad guy who broke into our houses with bad intent... go ahead... I dare you to do it...
Click to expand...


Pretty bold bluster from someone who clearly hasn't read the background writings of the Framers regarding the Second Amendment.

If you did, you would know what the background writings of the Framers regarding the Second Amendment said.

Our Founding Fathers never imagined a well-armed citizenry to keep the American government itself in check. It was all about protecting the American government from both foreign and domestic threats.

Poring over the first-hand documents from 1789 that detailed the First Congress debate on arms and militia, youll see a constant theme: the 2nd Amendment was created to protect the American government.

The James Madison resolution on the issue clearly stated that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed since a well-regulated militia is the best security of a free country.

Virginias support of a right to bear arms was based on the same rationale: A well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State

Ultimately, as we know the agreed upon 2nd Amendment reads: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

That reads like a conditional statement. If we as a fledgling new nation are committed to our own security, then its best we have a regulated militia. And to maintain this defensive militia, we must allow Americans to keep and bear arms.

The other defensive option would have been a standing army.  

But at the time, our Founding Fathers believed a militia was the one best defense for the nation since a standing army was, to quote Jefferson, an engine of oppression.

Our Founding Fathers were scared senseless of standing armies. It was well-accepted among the Members of Congress during that first gun debate that standing armies in a time of peace are dangerous to liberty. Those were the exact words used in the state of New Yorks amendment to the gun debate.

Later, in an 1814 letter to Thomas Cooper, Jefferson wrote of standing armies: The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.

Had the early framers of the Constitution embraced a standing army during times of peace, then there would be no need for a regulated militia, and thus no need for the 2nd Amendment.

more


----------



## bayoubill

Bfgrn said:


> bayoubill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> The confusion became widespread when the NRA switched their previous position and started shilling for gun manufacturers. Throughout most of our history, there was no confusion about the second amendment. Interesting counter to your spin piece:
> 
> Sandy Hook massacre: The NRA's gun 'rights' are a fabrication of modern times - CSMonitor.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go back and read the background writings of the Framers regarding the Second Amendment... then tell me you honestly believe that their intention was only that we could have guns to hunt for game and shoot the occasional bad guy who broke into our houses with bad intent... go ahead... I dare you to do it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty bold bluster from someone who clearly hasn't read the background writings of the Framers regarding the Second Amendment.
> 
> If you did, you would know what the background writings of the Framers regarding the Second Amendment said.
> 
> Our Founding Fathers never imagined a well-armed citizenry to keep the American government itself in check. It was all about protecting the American government from both foreign and domestic threats.
> 
> Poring over the first-hand documents from 1789 that detailed the First Congress debate on arms and militia, youll see a constant theme: the 2nd Amendment was created to protect the American government.
> 
> The James Madison resolution on the issue clearly stated that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed since a well-regulated militia is the best security of a free country.
> 
> Virginias support of a right to bear arms was based on the same rationale: A well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State
> 
> Ultimately, as we know the agreed upon 2nd Amendment reads: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> That reads like a conditional statement. If we as a fledgling new nation are committed to our own security, then its best we have a regulated militia. And to maintain this defensive militia, we must allow Americans to keep and bear arms.
> 
> The other defensive option would have been a standing army.
> 
> But at the time, our Founding Fathers believed a militia was the one best defense for the nation since a standing army was, to quote Jefferson, an engine of oppression.
> 
> Our Founding Fathers were scared senseless of standing armies. It was well-accepted among the Members of Congress during that first gun debate that standing armies in a time of peace are dangerous to liberty. Those were the exact words used in the state of New Yorks amendment to the gun debate.
> 
> Later, in an 1814 letter to Thomas Cooper, Jefferson wrote of standing armies: The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.
> 
> Had the early framers of the Constitution embraced a standing army during times of peace, then there would be no need for a regulated militia, and thus no need for the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> more
Click to expand...


meh... I'm confused... 

are you responding to what I wrote...?

it sounds like you're agreeing with me...

even though the tenor seems to be in opposition to what I wrote...


----------



## Bfgrn

bayoubill said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bayoubill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go back and read the background writings of the Framers regarding the Second Amendment... then tell me you honestly believe that their intention was only that we could have guns to hunt for game and shoot the occasional bad guy who broke into our houses with bad intent... go ahead... I dare you to do it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty bold bluster from someone who clearly hasn't read the background writings of the Framers regarding the Second Amendment.
> 
> If you did, you would know what the background writings of the Framers regarding the Second Amendment said.
> 
> Our Founding Fathers never imagined a well-armed citizenry to keep the American government itself in check. It was all about protecting the American government from both foreign and domestic threats.
> 
> Poring over the first-hand documents from 1789 that detailed the First Congress debate on arms and militia, youll see a constant theme: the 2nd Amendment was created to protect the American government.
> 
> The James Madison resolution on the issue clearly stated that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed since a well-regulated militia is the best security of a free country.
> 
> Virginias support of a right to bear arms was based on the same rationale: A well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State
> 
> Ultimately, as we know the agreed upon 2nd Amendment reads: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> That reads like a conditional statement. If we as a fledgling new nation are committed to our own security, then its best we have a regulated militia. And to maintain this defensive militia, we must allow Americans to keep and bear arms.
> 
> The other defensive option would have been a standing army.
> 
> But at the time, our Founding Fathers believed a militia was the one best defense for the nation since a standing army was, to quote Jefferson, an engine of oppression.
> 
> Our Founding Fathers were scared senseless of standing armies. It was well-accepted among the Members of Congress during that first gun debate that standing armies in a time of peace are dangerous to liberty. Those were the exact words used in the state of New Yorks amendment to the gun debate.
> 
> Later, in an 1814 letter to Thomas Cooper, Jefferson wrote of standing armies: The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.
> 
> Had the early framers of the Constitution embraced a standing army during times of peace, then there would be no need for a regulated militia, and thus no need for the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> more
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> meh... I'm confused...
> 
> are you responding to what I wrote...?
> 
> it sounds like you're agreeing with me...
> 
> even though the tenor seems to be in opposition to what I wrote...
Click to expand...


Reading without reflecting is like eating without digesting.
Edmund Burke

I don't agree with you. If you actually read what our founding fathers wrote, you wouldn't make this ignorant statement:

_to whit: citizens should always be able to have, by arms, a means to take on a federal government that somehow had became too oppressive to bear..._


----------



## GuyPinestra

You Libs can keep spinning this shit all you want, you're not getting the guns.


----------



## emptystep

Shay's Rebellion was in 1786 and 1787. The Bill of Rights was proposed in 1789. Tell me "A well regulated Militia" wasn't put in to by the paranoid founding fathers to provide themselves some control over gun ownership.


----------



## Si modo

Lakhota said:


> There are two problems with the Second Amendment.  First, under any circumstance, it is confusing; something that an English teacher would mark up in red ink and tell the author to redo and clarify.  Secondly, there are actually two versions of the Amendment; The first passed by two-thirds of the members of each house of Congress (the first step for ratifying a constitutional amendment).  A different version passed by three-fourths of the states (the second step for ratifying a constitution amendment).  The primary difference between the two versions are a capitalization and a simple comma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DETAILS: Confusion -- the wording of the Second Amendment | Occasional Planet
Click to expand...

Simple things often confuse you.


----------



## Lakhota




----------



## Lakhota




----------



## LibertyLemming

Quotation: "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."

Jefferson


----------



## Lakhota

The Second Amendment is what it says it is.  However, what is it really saying...?


----------



## Si modo

Lakhota said:


> The Second Amendment is what it says it is.  However, what is it really saying...?


I suggest you sign up for a TOFL course.


----------



## AmericanFirst

Lakhota said:


> It is confusing to intelligent people.


A libtard claiming to be intelligent and then says he can't understand the 2nd ammendment. How funny.


----------



## AmericanFirst

Lakhota said:


> bayoubill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is confusing to intelligent people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> granted, the wording and punctuation approaches inscrutability...
> 
> but when you read about how the final version came to be, with all the various rewrites and edits done in a hurried manner, you can sorta understand how it happened...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ignorance is no excuse.  What took place behind the scenes is irrelevant.  Only the final product matters - and they fucked it up.
Click to expand...

The only thing that is fucked up is a libtard claiming to know the constitution.


----------



## Lakhota

The Second Amendment was ratified in 1791, and is even more confusing today than when written.  Things have changed...


----------



## AmericanFirst

Lakhota said:


> The Second Amendment was ratified in 1791, and is even more confusing today than when written.  Things have changed...


The only thing that has changed is socialist libtard idiots that say things have changed.


----------



## percysunshine

AmericanFirst said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment was ratified in 1791, and is even more confusing today than when written.  Things have changed...
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing that has changed is socialist libtard idiots that say things have changed.
Click to expand...


Technically, socialist libtard idiots have always been saying that....


----------



## Lakhota

AmericanFirst said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment was ratified in 1791, and is even more confusing today than when written.  Things have changed...
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing that has changed is socialist libtard idiots that say things have changed.
Click to expand...


Really?  Then why has the 2nd Amendment been restricted several times by the courts?


----------



## Lakhota




----------



## Contumacious

Lakhota said:


> AmericanFirst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment was ratified in 1791, and is even more confusing today than when written.  Things have changed...
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing that has changed is socialist libtard idiots that say things have changed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Then why has the 2nd Amendment been restricted several times by the courts?
Click to expand...


Because the courts are populated by fascists who, instead of declaring the law pursuant to the Constitution , use the Communist manifesto as a guide.

They can do so with impunity because the scumbags in the supreme court have usurped judicial immunity protection.

.


----------



## beagle9

AmericanFirst said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is confusing to intelligent people.
> 
> 
> 
> A libtard claiming to be intelligent and then says he can't understand the 2nd ammendment. How funny.
Click to expand...

They say they can't understand it on purpose, because they want to change it in this confusion created by them, where as if they act as if they don't understand it, especially as smart as they think they are, then surely a dum conservative won't be able to right ? So if we allow them to change it in order to make it simpler in so that we can all understand it in the way that they want us to, then they will have stolen vital parts of it and it's meaning by then (replacing it with their own), just so we can all feel good that there is no more mis-understanding anymore after they do this for us you see.

Now do you see how they play these games ? Catch up man....Big Smile on my face


----------



## Lakhota




----------



## Lakhota




----------



## Erand7899

Lakhota said:


> It is confusing to intelligent people.



How would you know that?  

A person reading the second amendment could only be confused by attempting to make it read something other than what the plain language states.


----------



## Lakhota

The Right To Bear Arms: Ex-Chief Justice Warren Burger in Parade Magazine


----------



## Lakhota

The Right To Bear Arms: Ex-Chief Justice Warren Burger in Parade Magazine


----------



## Lakhota

*A distinguished citizen takes a stand on one of the most controversial issues in the nation*

_By Warren E. Burger, Chief Justice of the United States (1969-86)
Parade Magazine, January 14, 1990, page 4_

Let's look at the history.

First, many of the 3.5 million people living in the 13 original Colonies depended on wild game for food, and a good many of them required firearms for their defense from marauding Indians -- and later from the French and English. Underlying all these needs was an important concept that each able-bodied man in each of the 133 independent states had to help or defend his state.

The early opposition to the idea of national or standing armies was maintained under the Articles of Confederation; that confederation had no standing army and wanted none. The state militia -- essentially a part-time citizen army, as in Switzerland today -- was the only kind of "army" they wanted. From the time of the Declaration of Independence through the victory at Yorktown in 1781, George Washington, as the commander-in-chief of these volunteer-militia armies, had to depend upon the states to send those volunteers.

When a company of New Jersey militia volunteers reported for duty to Washington at Valley Forge, the men initially declined to take an oath to "the United States," maintaining, "Our country is New Jersey." Massachusetts Bay men, Virginians and others felt the same way. To the American of the 18th century, his state was his country, and his freedom was defended by his militia.

The victory at Yorktown -- and the ratification of the Bill of Rights a decade later -- did not change people's attitudes about a national army. They had lived for years under the notion that each state would maintain its own military establishment, and the seaboard states had their own navies as well. These people, and their fathers and grandfathers before them, remembered how monarchs had used standing armies to oppress their ancestors in Europe. Americans wanted no part of this. A state militia, like a rifle and powder horn, was as much a part of life as the automobile is today; pistols were largely for officers, aristocrats -- and dueling.

Against this background, it was not surprising that the provision concerning firearms emerged in very simple terms with the significant predicate -- basing the right on the necessity for a "well regulated militia," a state army.

In the two centuries since then -- with two world wars and some lesser ones -- it has become clear, sadly, that we have no choice but to maintain a standing national army while still maintaining a "militia" by way of the National Guard, which can be swiftly integrated into the national defense forces.

Americans also have a right to defend their homes, and we need not challenge that. Nor does anyone seriously question that the Constitution protects the right of hunters to own and keep sporting guns for hunting game any more than anyone would challenge the right to own and keep fishing rods and other equipment for fishing -- or to own automobiles. To "keep and bear arms" for hunting today is essentially a recreational activity and not an imperative of survival, as it was 200 years ago; "Saturday night specials" and machine guns are not recreational weapons and surely are as much in need of regulation as motor vehicles.

Americans should ask themselves a few questions. The Constitution does not mention automobiles or motorboats, but the right to keep and own an automobile is beyond question; equally beyond question is the power of the state to regulate the purchase or the transfer of such a vehicle and the right to license the vehicle and the driver with reasonable standards. In some places, even a bicycle must be registered, as must some household dogs.

If we are to stop this mindless homicidal carnage, is it unreasonable:

1. to provide that, to acquire a firearm, an application be made reciting age, residence, employment and any prior criminal convictions?
2. to required that this application lie on the table for 10 days (absent a showing for urgent need) before the license would be issued?
3. that the transfer of a firearm be made essentially as with that of a motor vehicle?
4. to have a "ballistic fingerprint" of the firearm made by the manufacturer and filed with the license record so that, if a bullet is found in a victim's body, law enforcement might be helped in finding the culprit?​These are the kind of questions the American people must answer if we are to preserve the "domestic tranquillity" promised in the Constitution.

More: Ex-Chief Justice Warren Burger in Parade Magazine


----------



## Lakhota

> Our metropolitan centers, and some suburban communities of America, are setting new records for homicides by handguns. Many of our large centers have up to 10 times the murder rate of all of Western Europe. In 1988, there were 9000 handgun murders in America. Last year, Washington, D.C., alone had more than 400 homicides -- setting a new record for our capital.
> 
> The Constitution of the United States, in its Second Amendment, guarantees a "right of the people to keep and bear arms." However, the meaning of this clause cannot be understood except by looking to the purpose, the setting and the objectives of the draftsmen. The first 10 amendments -- the Bill of Rights -- were not drafted at Philadelphia in 1787; that document came two years later than the Constitution. Most of the states already had bills of rights, but the Constitution might not have been ratified in 1788 if the states had not had assurances that a national Bill of Rights would soon be added.
> 
> People of that day were apprehensive about the new "monster" national government presented to them, and this helps explain the language and purpose of the Second Amendment. A few lines after the First Amendment's guarantees -- against "establishment of religion," "free exercise" of religion, free speech and free press -- came a guarantee that grew out of the deep-seated fear of a "national" or "standing" army. The same First Congress that approved the right to keep and bear arms also limited the national army to 840 men; Congress in the Second Amendment then provided:
> 
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."​
> In the 1789 debate in Congress on James Madison's proposed Bill of Rights, Elbridge Gerry argued that a state militia was necessary:
> 
> "to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty ... Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia in order to raise and army upon their ruins."​
> We see that the need for a state militia was the predicate of the "right" guaranteed; in short, it was declared "necessary" in order to have a state military force to protect the security of the state. That Second Amendment clause must be read as though the word "because" was the opening word of the guarantee. Today, of course, the "state militia" serves a very different purpose. A huge national defense establishment has taken over the role of the militia of 200 years ago.
> 
> Some have exploited these ancient concerns, blurring sporting guns -- rifles, shotguns and even machine pistols -- with all firearms, including what are now called "Saturday night specials." There is, of course, a great difference between sporting guns and handguns. Some regulation of handguns has long been accepted as imperative; laws relating to "concealed weapons" are common. That we may be "over-regulated" in some areas of life has never held us back from more regulation of automobiles, airplanes, motorboats and "concealed weapons."



From the OP link.


----------



## asaratis

Lakhota said:


> *A distinguished citizen takes a stand on one of the most controversial issues in the nation*
> 
> _By Warren E. Burger, Chief Justice of the United States (1969-86)
> Parade Magazine, January 14, 1990, page 4_
> 
> Let's look at the history.
> 
> First, many of the 3.5 million people living in the 13 original Colonies depended on wild game for food, and a good many of them required firearms for their defense from marauding Indians -- and later from the French and English. Underlying all these needs was an important concept that each able-bodied man in each of the 133 independent states had to help or defend his state.
> 
> The early opposition to the idea of national or standing armies was maintained under the Articles of Confederation; that confederation had no standing army and wanted none. The state militia -- essentially a part-time citizen army, as in Switzerland today -- was the only kind of "army" they wanted. From the time of the Declaration of Independence through the victory at Yorktown in 1781, George Washington, as the commander-in-chief of these volunteer-militia armies, had to depend upon the states to send those volunteers.
> 
> When a company of New Jersey militia volunteers reported for duty to Washington at Valley Forge, the men initially declined to take an oath to "the United States," maintaining, "Our country is New Jersey." Massachusetts Bay men, Virginians and others felt the same way. To the American of the 18th century, his state was his country, and his freedom was defended by his militia.
> 
> The victory at Yorktown -- and the ratification of the Bill of Rights a decade later -- did not change people's attitudes about a national army. They had lived for years under the notion that each state would maintain its own military establishment, and the seaboard states had their own navies as well. These people, and their fathers and grandfathers before them, remembered how monarchs had used standing armies to oppress their ancestors in Europe. Americans wanted no part of this. A state militia, like a rifle and powder horn, was as much a part of life as the automobile is today; pistols were largely for officers, aristocrats -- and dueling.
> 
> Against this background, it was not surprising that the provision concerning firearms emerged in very simple terms with the significant predicate -- basing the right on the necessity for a "well regulated militia," a state army.
> 
> In the two centuries since then -- with two world wars and some lesser ones -- it has become clear, sadly, that we have no choice but to maintain a standing national army while still maintaining a "militia" by way of the National Guard, which can be swiftly integrated into the national defense forces.
> 
> Americans also have a right to defend their homes, and we need not challenge that. Nor does anyone seriously question that the Constitution protects the right of hunters to own and keep sporting guns for hunting game any more than anyone would challenge the right to own and keep fishing rods and other equipment for fishing -- or to own automobiles. To "keep and bear arms" for hunting today is essentially a recreational activity and not an imperative of survival, as it was 200 years ago; "Saturday night specials" and machine guns are not recreational weapons and surely are as much in need of regulation as motor vehicles.
> 
> Americans should ask themselves a few questions. The Constitution does not mention automobiles or motorboats, but the right to keep and own an automobile is beyond question; equally beyond question is the power of the state to regulate the purchase or the transfer of such a vehicle and the right to license the vehicle and the driver with reasonable standards. In some places, even a bicycle must be registered, as must some household dogs.
> 
> If we are to stop this mindless homicidal carnage, is it unreasonable:
> 
> 1. to provide that, to acquire a firearm, an application be made reciting age, residence, employment and any prior criminal convictions?
> 2. to required that this application lie on the table for 10 days (absent a showing for urgent need) before the license would be issued?
> 3. that the transfer of a firearm be made essentially as with that of a motor vehicle?
> 4. to have a "ballistic fingerprint" of the firearm made by the manufacturer and filed with the license record so that, if a bullet is found in a victim's body, law enforcement might be helped in finding the culprit?​These are the kind of questions the American people must answer if we are to preserve the "domestic tranquillity" promised in the Constitution.
> 
> More: Ex-Chief Justice Warren Burger in Parade Magazine





Lakhota said:


> Our metropolitan centers, and some suburban communities of America, are setting new records for homicides by handguns. Many of our large centers have up to 10 times the murder rate of all of Western Europe. In 1988, there were 9000 handgun murders in America. Last year, Washington, D.C., alone had more than 400 homicides -- setting a new record for our capital.
> 
> The Constitution of the United States, in its Second Amendment, guarantees a "right of the people to keep and bear arms." However, the meaning of this clause cannot be understood except by looking to the purpose, the setting and the objectives of the draftsmen. The first 10 amendments -- the Bill of Rights -- were not drafted at Philadelphia in 1787; that document came two years later than the Constitution. Most of the states already had bills of rights, but the Constitution might not have been ratified in 1788 if the states had not had assurances that a national Bill of Rights would soon be added.
> 
> People of that day were apprehensive about the new "monster" national government presented to them, and this helps explain the language and purpose of the Second Amendment. A few lines after the First Amendment's guarantees -- against "establishment of religion," "free exercise" of religion, free speech and free press -- came a guarantee that grew out of the deep-seated fear of a "national" or "standing" army. The same First Congress that approved the right to keep and bear arms also limited the national army to 840 men; Congress in the Second Amendment then provided:
> 
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."​
> In the 1789 debate in Congress on James Madison's proposed Bill of Rights, Elbridge Gerry argued that a state militia was necessary:
> 
> "to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty ... Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia in order to raise and army upon their ruins."​
> We see that the need for a state militia was the predicate of the "right" guaranteed; in short, it was declared "necessary" in order to have a state military force to protect the security of the state. That Second Amendment clause must be read as though the word "because" was the opening word of the guarantee. Today, of course, the "state militia" serves a very different purpose. A huge national defense establishment has taken over the role of the militia of 200 years ago.
> 
> Some have exploited these ancient concerns, blurring sporting guns -- rifles, shotguns and even machine pistols -- with all firearms, including what are now called "Saturday night specials." There is, of course, a great difference between sporting guns and handguns. Some regulation of handguns has long been accepted as imperative; laws relating to "concealed weapons" are common. That we may be "over-regulated" in some areas of life has never held us back from more regulation of automobiles, airplanes, motorboats and "concealed weapons."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the OP link.
Click to expand...

I rest assured that even if you or any of your ilk read this entire primer, you will remain in favor of strict gun control.  You are incorrigible.

A Primer on the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms

The purpose of the Constitution is to limit the powers of the federal government.  The Bill of Rights applies to the citizens as protection from runaway government such as we have in office today.

Read it.


----------



## Lakhota

Chief Justice Burger was a smart man.  He clearly articulated why the 2nd Amendment is obsolete.


----------



## Barb

From another thread:

Thom Hartmann: The Second Amendment Was Ratified to Preserve Slavery | Alternet 



> why it says "State" instead of "Country" (the Framers knew the difference - see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the Slave Patrol Militias in the Southern States, which was necessary to get Virginia's vote.  Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that ... and we all should be too.


----------



## bayoubill

Barb said:


> From another thread:
> 
> Thom Hartmann: The Second Amendment Was Ratified to Preserve Slavery | Alternet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why it says "State" instead of "Country" (the Framers knew the difference - see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the Slave Patrol Militias in the Southern States, which was necessary to get Virginia's vote.  Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that ... and we all should be too.
Click to expand...


interesting take... plausible that it might have been a minor part of the reason behind the Second Amendment... but the background writings of the Framers make it clear that the primary reason for the Second Amendment is to guarantee a free state by way of lawful citizens having access to arms...


----------



## Lakhota

I think Chief Justice Burger made it very clear what the original intent of the 2nd Amendment was and why it's obsolete today.


----------



## asaratis

Lakhota said:


> Chief Justice Burger was a smart man.  He clearly articulated why the 2nd Amendment is obsolete.



I knew you wouldn't bother to read it.

As for Burger's opinion that the 2nd amendment is obsolete, the foresight of those that wrote the Constitution predicted there would come a day when others would want to change it...to suit their own fucking opinions.

Just as Obama is no Lincoln reincarnated, Warren Burger does not come anywhere close to possessing the intelligence and wisdom of Thomas Jefferson.


----------



## Lakhota

asaratis said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chief Justice Burger was a smart man.  He clearly articulated why the 2nd Amendment is obsolete.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I knew you wouldn't bother to read it.
> 
> As for Burger's opinion that the 2nd amendment is obsolete, the foresight of those that wrote the Constitution predicted there would come a day when others would want to change it...to suit their own fucking opinions.
> 
> Just as Obama is no Lincoln reincarnated, Warren Burger does not come anywhere close to possessing the intelligence and wisdom of Thomas Jefferson.
Click to expand...


Lots of things have changed since 1791...


----------



## asaratis

Lakhota said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chief Justice Burger was a smart man.  He clearly articulated why the 2nd Amendment is obsolete.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I knew you wouldn't bother to read it.
> 
> As for Burger's opinion that the 2nd amendment is obsolete, the foresight of those that wrote the Constitution predicted there would come a day when others would want to change it...to suit their own fucking opinions.
> 
> Just as Obama is no Lincoln reincarnated, Warren Burger does not come anywhere close to possessing the intelligence and wisdom of Thomas Jefferson.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lots of things have changed since 1791...
Click to expand...

Yes.  Assholes that want to restrict the rights of citizens have come into power.  That does not mean we should buckle under.  This is NOT a democracy!


----------



## LadyGunSlinger

Bring it on.. LET'S GET TO IT. MANY OF US ARE READY FOR THIS FIGHT- Step in to IMPEACHMENT land King Obama...


----------



## bayoubill

Lakhota said:


> I think Chief Justice Burger made it very clear what the original intent of the 2nd Amendment was and why it's obsolete today.



his opinion... and, as they say, opinions are like assholes...


----------



## asaratis

Lakhota said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has human nature changed?
> 
> Have people stopped doing evil things and threatening innocent people?
> 
> Have politicians learned to respect the sovereignty of the people and stop trying to micromanage their existence?
> 
> If not, then of course it isn't obsolete. You'd have to be an idiot to think that or completely ignorant of the purpose of the Second amendment which is to protect our right to self defense and prevent tyranny and oppression.
> 
> When the people fear the government, we have tyranny. When the government fears it's people, then we have freedom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your NaziCon rant doesn't address the OP.  Do you belong to a militia?  *Why isn't the 2nd Amendment obsolete?*
Click to expand...


Because it protects free men from becoming slaves.


----------



## LadyGunSlinger

Rinata said:


> Abatis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a bunch of crap. You are the one that is profoundly ignorant. You'll say anything to convince people that you should own as many guns as you want to protect yourself and loved ones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know I'm going to regret this but why is that a bunch of crap?
> I mean really, are you aware of the Federalist's opposition to adding a bill of rights to the Constitution and what their arguments were?
> 
> Madison was once a vocal opponent but his opinion changed and he became the editor of the state proposals and the speech I linked to and quoted from was; *James Madison Addresses the House of Representatives, 8 June 1789, on the Necessity of Amendments to the Constitution*
> 
> You might want to read that before you call me ignorant.
> 
> Conferred powers and retained rights . . . those are the most fundamental principles of the Constitution and establishes the maxim, ALL NOT CONFERRED IS RETAINED which of course is the basis of the 9th and 10th Amendments which stand as testaments to the Federalist's arguments (even though they "lost" the debate over adding a bill of rights).
> 
> If you want to play a sleuth find Madison's formal introduction of the proposed amendments to Congress.  He wanted to insert the amendments in the *BODY* of the Constitution, within the particular Articles and Sections that they were modifying / effecting.  Madison *did not* propose [what would become] the 2nd Amendment being inserted in Article I, § 8, the powers of Congress (and the militia clauses).
> 
> Go be a good citizen and come back and tell us where Madison wanted to insert the right to arms amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because I don't believe it's the truth.  I* don't understand this neurotic need that some people have to own a firearm.* That's what it seems to be to me. Just a neurotic need.
Click to expand...


It's none of your business why someone wants to own a weapon.. Now is it? I don't understand your need and demand to slaughter babies.. Should we wipe that right in America away with the stroke of a pen because I have a different opinion? You fascists keep on.. FOOLS.


----------



## BallsBrunswick

LadyGunSlinger said:


> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abatis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know I'm going to regret this but why is that a bunch of crap?
> I mean really, are you aware of the Federalist's opposition to adding a bill of rights to the Constitution and what their arguments were?
> 
> Madison was once a vocal opponent but his opinion changed and he became the editor of the state proposals and the speech I linked to and quoted from was; *James Madison Addresses the House of Representatives, 8 June 1789, on the Necessity of Amendments to the Constitution*
> 
> You might want to read that before you call me ignorant.
> 
> Conferred powers and retained rights . . . those are the most fundamental principles of the Constitution and establishes the maxim, ALL NOT CONFERRED IS RETAINED which of course is the basis of the 9th and 10th Amendments which stand as testaments to the Federalist's arguments (even though they "lost" the debate over adding a bill of rights).
> 
> If you want to play a sleuth find Madison's formal introduction of the proposed amendments to Congress.  He wanted to insert the amendments in the *BODY* of the Constitution, within the particular Articles and Sections that they were modifying / effecting.  Madison *did not* propose [what would become] the 2nd Amendment being inserted in Article I, § 8, the powers of Congress (and the militia clauses).
> 
> Go be a good citizen and come back and tell us where Madison wanted to insert the right to arms amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because I don't believe it's the truth.  I* don't understand this neurotic need that some people have to own a firearm.* That's what it seems to be to me. Just a neurotic need.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's none of your business why someone wants to own a weapon.. Now is it? I don't understand your need and demand to slaughter babies.. Should we wipe that right in America away with the stroke of a pen because I have a different opinion? You fascists keep on.. FOOLS.
Click to expand...


How drunk are you tonight? You're more emotional and ranting than usual.


----------



## asaratis

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You like bumping your failed thread don't you?
Click to expand...


Liberals are relentless repeaters of lies!  It is to be expected!


----------



## LadyGunSlinger

BallsBrunswick said:


> LadyGunSlinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because I don't believe it's the truth.  I* don't understand this neurotic need that some people have to own a firearm.* That's what it seems to be to me. Just a neurotic need.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's none of your business why someone wants to own a weapon.. Now is it? I don't understand your need and demand to slaughter babies.. Should we wipe that right in America away with the stroke of a pen because I have a different opinion? You fascists keep on.. FOOLS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How drunk are you tonight? You're more emotional and ranting than usual.
Click to expand...


Poor Scrotum.. Can never argue the merit only throw around his usual tirade of stupid taunts.. Go wash your nutsack.


----------



## zonly1

Sarah G said:


> Wingnuts haven't said or done anything to convince anyone that assualt weapons are a part of the second ammendment so in that way, yes, it is obsolete.



do you know what is an assault weapon without parriting ignorance from the leftwingnut new cor?  It was define in 1986 but you should read the DICK ACT OF 1902, cause you are screwed.


----------



## yidnar

Lakhota said:


> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
Click to expand...

according to your ilk the Constitution is obsolete .


----------



## Franticfrank

> Yes. Assholes that want to restrict the rights of citizens have come into power. That does not mean we should buckle under. This is NOT a democracy!



There's also a thing called common sense and Americans shouldn't oversimplify. In a democracy, people shouldn't have the freedom to do whatever the hell they want like drink and drive, commit murder, etc. There is also no need for citizens to stockpile assault rifles in the modern United States due to an outdated amendment. It's extremely dangerous and unnecessary, and needs to be changed.


----------



## peach174

Franticfrank said:


> Yes. Assholes that want to restrict the rights of citizens have come into power. That does not mean we should buckle under. This is NOT a democracy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's also a thing called common sense and Americans shouldn't oversimplify. In a democracy, people shouldn't have the freedom to do whatever the hell they want like drink and drive, commit murder, etc. There is also no need for citizens to stockpile assault rifles in the modern United States due to an outdated amendment. It's extremely dangerous and unnecessary, and needs to be changed.
Click to expand...


There are 20,000 gun laws already so I don't see where you get the idea that gun owners can do whatever they please.
Assault rifles are already banned.They fire rapid rounds.
Semi Automatic rifles fire one round at a time, just like any other rifle.
The 2nd amendment is to protect us from a tyrannical or dictatorship type of Government.
When the three branches of Government are not kept separate like is happening now, it then becomes a Government out of control.
The 2nd amendment is the last resort to tyranny.
You should read the Federalist Papers, it makes it very clear as to why we have the 2nd amendment.
What is extremely dangerous is when we have Presidents who think they have the right to be a Monarch like Wilson, Roosevelt and Obama. All Progressives and all who are or were against the Constitution.
By the way, we are a Republic not a Democracy.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Lakhota said:


> Chief Justice Burger was a smart man.  He clearly articulated why the 2nd Amendment is obsolete.



Then get it repealed.

Good luck with that.


----------



## Si modo

For the confused, the first clause is simple a justification clause and the second clause is the inalienable right.

8th grade material.

And, for the morons who were confused about that simple 8th grade concept, the SCOTUS clarified with _District of Columbia v Heller_:  the 2nd protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms and no clause can disarm individuals because it is an inherent right to preservation of life and property.

With respect to balance of power, Hamilton explained that both military AND political power should be balanced by having an armed citizenry:  "if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude *that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms*, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens



8th grade level material.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Franticfrank said:


> Yes. Assholes that want to restrict the rights of citizens have come into power. That does not mean we should buckle under. This is NOT a democracy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's also a thing called common sense and Americans shouldn't oversimplify. In a democracy, people shouldn't have the freedom to do whatever the hell they want like drink and drive, commit murder, etc. There is also no need for citizens to stockpile assault rifles in the modern United States due to an outdated amendment. It's extremely dangerous and unnecessary, and needs to be changed.
Click to expand...


There are laws against murder.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Raise you right hand if you believe that the Second Amendment is "outdated"


----------



## Bfgrn

Si modo said:


> For the confused, the first clause is simple a justification clause and the second clause is the inalienable right.
> 
> 8th grade material.
> 
> And, for the morons who were confused about that simple 8th grade concept, the SCOTUS clarified with _District of Columbia v Heller_:  the 2nd protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms and no clause can disarm individuals because it is an inherent right to preservation of life and property.
> 
> With respect to balance of power, Hamilton explained that both military AND political power should be balanced by having an armed citizenry:  "if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude *that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms*, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens
> 
> 
> 
> 8th grade level material.



Then you must be at a 4th grade level. If you are going to quote Alexander Hamilton, then you need to own all that he said.

Our founding fathers chose forming state militias TO defend our government, not protect FROM government. They were concerned that a standing army was a threat to the nation.


The Federalist No. 29​
Concerning the Militia
Wednesday, January 9, 1788
[Alexander Hamilton]​
To the People of the State of New York:

THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.

It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by congress."

Of the different grounds which have been taken in opposition to the plan of the convention, there is none that was so little to have been expected, or is so untenable in itself, as the one from which this particular provision has been attacked. If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security. If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia, in the body to whose care the protection of the State is committed, ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions. If the federal government can command the aid of the militia in those emergencies which call for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of force. If it cannot avail itself of the former, it will be obliged to recur to the latter. To render an army unnecessary, will be a more certain method of preventing its existence than a thousand prohibitions upon paper.


----------



## Lakhota




----------



## Barb

bayoubill said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> From another thread:
> 
> Thom Hartmann: The Second Amendment Was Ratified to Preserve Slavery | Alternet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why it says "State" instead of "Country" (the Framers knew the difference - see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the Slave Patrol Militias in the Southern States, which was necessary to get Virginia's vote.  Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that ... and we all should be too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> interesting take... plausible that *it might have been a minor part of the reason behind the Second Amendment.*.. but the background writings of the Framers make it clear that the primary reason for the Second Amendment is to guarantee a free state by way of lawful citizens having access to arms...
Click to expand...


*It was, in fact, a major reason for it's final wording*
here's more from the same article:



> By the time the Constitution was ratified, hundreds of substantial slave uprisings had occurred across the South.  Blacks outnumbered Whites in large areas, and the state militias were used to both prevent and to put down slave uprisings.  As Dr. Bogus points out, slavery can only exist in the context of a police state, and the enforcement of that police state was the explicit job of the militias.



[...]



> Their main concern was that Article 1, Section 8 of the newly-proposed Constitution  which gave the federal government the power to raise and supervise a militia  could also allow that federal militia to subsume their state militias and change them from slavery-enforcing institutions into something that could even, one day, free the slaves.



[...]



> Civil Liberties
> AlterNet / By Thom Hartmann
> comments_image 32 COMMENTS
> Thom Hartmann: The Second Amendment Was Ratified to Preserve Slavery
> Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that ... and we all should be too.
> 
> Continued from previous page
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This was not an imagined threat.  Famously, 12 years earlier, during the lead up to the Revolutionary War, Lord Dunsmore offered freedom to slaves who could escape and join his forces.  Liberty to Slaves was stitched onto their jackets pocket flaps.  During the War, British General Henry Clinton extended the practice in 1779.  And numerous freed slaves served in General Washingtons army.
> 
> Thus, southern legislators and plantation owners lived not just in fear of their own slaves rebelling, but also in fear that their slaves could be emancipated through military service.
> 
> At the ratifying convention in Virginia in 1788, Henry laid it out:
> 
> Let me here call your attention to that part [Article 1, Section 8 of the proposed Constitution] which gives the Congress power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States
> By this, sir, you see that their control over our last and best defence is unlimited. If they neglect or refuse to discipline or arm our militia, they will be useless: the states can do neither  this power being exclusively given to Congress. The power of appointing officers over men not disciplined or armed is ridiculous; so that this pretended little remains of power left to the states may, at the pleasure of Congress, be rendered nugatory.
> 
> George Mason expressed a similar fear:
> 
> The militia may be here destroyed by that method which has been practised in other parts of the world before; that is, by rendering them useless, by disarming them. Under various pretences, Congress may neglect to provide for arming and disciplining the militia; and the state governments cannot do it, for Congress has an exclusive right to arm them [under this proposed Constitution]



[...]



> Patrick Henry even argued that southerners property (slaves) would be lost under the new Constitution, and the resulting slave uprising would be less than peaceful or tranquil: In this situation, Henry said to Madison, I see a great deal of the property of the people of Virginia in jeopardy, and their peace and tranquility gone.
> 
> So Madison, who had (at Jeffersons insistence) already begun to prepare proposed amendments to the Constitution, changed his first draft of one that addressed the militia issue to make sure it was unambiguous that the Southern states could maintain their Slave Patrol Militias.
> His first draft for what became the Second Amendment had said: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country [emphasis mine]: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.
> 
> But Henry, Mason, and others wanted Southern states to preserve their slave-patrol militias independent of the federal government.  *So Madison changed the word country to the word state, and redrafted the Second Amendment into todays form:
> *
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State [emphasis mine], the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Little did Madison realize that one day in the future weapons-manufacturing corporations, newly defined as persons by a dysfunctional Supreme Court, would use his Slave Patrol Militia Amendment to protect their right to manufacture and sell assault weapons used to murder schoolchildren.


----------



## DiamondDave

Lakhota said:


> I think Chief Justice Burger made it very clear what the original intent of the 2nd Amendment was and why it's obsolete today.



I will take the word of the person who authored the second amendment, for the original intent... not some politically motivated judge


----------



## Stephanie

Lakhota said:


> I think Chief Justice Burger made it very clear what the original intent of the 2nd Amendment was and why it's obsolete today.



are we suppose to care?
my gawd


----------



## ReallyMeow

I assume this has been posted several times, penn and teller second amendment:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YY5Rj4cQ50]The 2nd Amendment - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## mascale

Horror at even the thought of the famous statue of Venus De Milo is likely not any basis for what the Framers had in mind.  It is not clear, in any source, just who wound up bearing those arms?

A well-regulated militia would easily benefit from gun controls regarding ammunition, standardized loading and re-loading mechanisms--and on and on.  The proposals now are to limit the standards--easily balancing the requirements of some self-gratifying concept of self-protection, with the absolute lunacy that tends to characterize, even the economy and morallity of the United States.

The opening of Amendment 2 is all about Gun Control!  Even the NRA at one time pitched its presence based on advocacy of safety and proper gun use.

"Crow, James Crow:  Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Maybe if Scalia were spelled, "Scalione:"  Then even Hollywood might understand the need for stringent gun control as a part of a well-regulated militia--probably of Dons engaged in street warfare, or something(?)!)


----------



## OODA_Loop

We need well-regulated criminals.


----------



## Lakhota

You should care.


----------



## WillowTree

homicidal carnage equal liquor and cars, aka drunk driving, how many little children die from drunk drivers every year? let's get rid of cars and alcohol. we should try.


----------



## OODA_Loop

Lakhota said:


> Chief Justice Burger was a smart man.  He clearly articulated why the 2nd Amendment is obsolete.



Yet he never memorialzed his opinion while leading SCOTUS ?

That is like the "greatest" field goal kicker thinking field goals are obsolete when he never made a field goal.


----------



## P@triot

Lakhota said:


> *A distinguished citizen takes a stand on one of the most controversial issues in the nation*
> 
> _By Warren E. Burger, Chief Justice of the United States (1969-86)
> Parade Magazine, January 14, 1990, page 4_
> 
> Let's look at the history.
> 
> First, many of the 3.5 million people living in the 13 original Colonies depended on wild game for food, and a good many of them required firearms for their defense from marauding Indians -- and later from the French and English. Underlying all these needs was an important concept that each able-bodied man in each of the 133 independent states had to help or defend his state.
> 
> The early opposition to the idea of national or standing armies was maintained under the Articles of Confederation; that confederation had no standing army and wanted none. The state militia -- essentially a part-time citizen army, as in Switzerland today -- was the only kind of "army" they wanted. From the time of the Declaration of Independence through the victory at Yorktown in 1781, George Washington, as the commander-in-chief of these volunteer-militia armies, had to depend upon the states to send those volunteers.
> 
> When a company of New Jersey militia volunteers reported for duty to Washington at Valley Forge, the men initially declined to take an oath to "the United States," maintaining, "Our country is New Jersey." Massachusetts Bay men, Virginians and others felt the same way. To the American of the 18th century, his state was his country, and his freedom was defended by his militia.
> 
> The victory at Yorktown -- and the ratification of the Bill of Rights a decade later -- did not change people's attitudes about a national army. They had lived for years under the notion that each state would maintain its own military establishment, and the seaboard states had their own navies as well. These people, and their fathers and grandfathers before them, remembered how monarchs had used standing armies to oppress their ancestors in Europe. Americans wanted no part of this. A state militia, like a rifle and powder horn, was as much a part of life as the automobile is today; pistols were largely for officers, aristocrats -- and dueling.
> 
> Against this background, it was not surprising that the provision concerning firearms emerged in very simple terms with the significant predicate -- basing the right on the necessity for a "well regulated militia," a state army.
> 
> In the two centuries since then -- with two world wars and some lesser ones -- it has become clear, sadly, that we have no choice but to maintain a standing national army while still maintaining a "militia" by way of the National Guard, which can be swiftly integrated into the national defense forces.
> 
> Americans also have a right to defend their homes, and we need not challenge that. Nor does anyone seriously question that the Constitution protects the right of hunters to own and keep sporting guns for hunting game any more than anyone would challenge the right to own and keep fishing rods and other equipment for fishing -- or to own automobiles. To "keep and bear arms" for hunting today is essentially a recreational activity and not an imperative of survival, as it was 200 years ago; "Saturday night specials" and machine guns are not recreational weapons and surely are as much in need of regulation as motor vehicles.
> 
> Americans should ask themselves a few questions. The Constitution does not mention automobiles or motorboats, but the right to keep and own an automobile is beyond question; equally beyond question is the power of the state to regulate the purchase or the transfer of such a vehicle and the right to license the vehicle and the driver with reasonable standards. In some places, even a bicycle must be registered, as must some household dogs.
> 
> If we are to stop this mindless homicidal carnage, is it unreasonable:
> 
> 1. to provide that, to acquire a firearm, an application be made reciting age, residence, employment and any prior criminal convictions?
> 2. to required that this application lie on the table for 10 days (absent a showing for urgent need) before the license would be issued?
> 3. that the transfer of a firearm be made essentially as with that of a motor vehicle?
> 4.* to have a "ballistic fingerprint" of the firearm made by the manufacturer and filed with the license record so that, if a bullet is found in a victim's body, law enforcement might be helped in finding the culprit?*​These are the kind of questions the American people must answer if we are to preserve the "domestic tranquillity" promised in the Constitution.
> 
> More: Ex-Chief Justice Warren Burger in Parade Magazine



This really illustrates the ignorance of the left when it comes to existing firearm laws.

Every single firearm manufactured has fired rounds on record with the F.B.I. for ballistics. Every single one. When I purchase a new firearm, it comes with the shell casing from that spent round and an explanation that the round is on file with the F.B.I. for just such a purpose.


----------



## P@triot

Stephanie said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think Chief Justice Burger made it very clear what the original intent of the 2nd Amendment was and why it's obsolete today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> are we suppose to care?
> my gawd
Click to expand...


Chief Justice Burger means shit. He did not create the U.S. Constitution nor is he allowed to make law from the bench. Laws are made by the legislative branch, this asshole belonged to the judicial branch. Period.

Our founders made it _very_ clear that the 2nd Amendment had *no* stipulation on type of weapon, magazine capacity, etc. That's why they said "the right to bear arms" and *not* "the right to bear muskets". Arms go way beyond guns. Arms dealers deal in RPG's, anti-tank technology, and a whole lot more. Of all of which our founders intended us to have to protect us from a tyrannical leader/government (a fear which, sadly, has come to be realized under the Obama regime).

As always Lahkota, you're completely misinformed on the facts and you're getting owned in the debate.


----------



## ReallyMeow

The militia is well regulated.

The people have the right (not privilege) to bear arms.


----------



## Dreamy

Many times over the SC has reaffirmed this interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.  *Private citizen Berger* spoke those words in that article for Parade magazine in Dec. 1991. He was not even on the bench(retired in 86) Not one 2nd Amendment case came before his bench in 1980 or anytime after. The Supreme Court has not heard a 2nd Amendment case since 1939.


----------



## Lakhota

Dreamy said:


> Many times over the SC has reaffirmed this interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.  *Private citizen Berger* spoke those words in that article for Parade magazine in Dec. 1991. He was not even on the bench(retired in 86) Not one 2nd Amendment case came before his bench in 1980 or anytime after. The Supreme Court has not heard a 2nd Amendment case since 1939.



Since 1939?  Really...?


----------



## whitehall

Thanks to the union based education system everything is confusing to the left.


----------



## Lakhota




----------



## Lakhota




----------



## OODA_Loop

Obama says he supports the individual protection of the 2A.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

Send O a letter asking him to repeal it then if you don't like it.  I'm 100 percent sure that you would lose.


----------



## Harry Dresden

Lakhota said:


> *A distinguished citizen takes a stand on one of the most controversial issues in the nation*
> 
> _By Warren E. Burger, Chief Justice of the United States (1969-86)
> Parade Magazine, January 14, 1990, page 4_
> 
> Let's look at the history.
> 
> First, many of the 3.5 million people living in the 13 original Colonies depended on wild game for food, and a good many of them required firearms for their defense from marauding Indians -- and later from the French and English. Underlying all these needs was an important concept that each able-bodied man in each of the 133 independent states had to help or defend his state.
> 
> The early opposition to the idea of national or standing armies was maintained under the Articles of Confederation; that confederation had no standing army and wanted none. The state militia -- essentially a part-time citizen army, as in Switzerland today -- was the only kind of "army" they wanted. From the time of the Declaration of Independence through the victory at Yorktown in 1781, George Washington, as the commander-in-chief of these volunteer-militia armies, had to depend upon the states to send those volunteers.
> 
> When a company of New Jersey militia volunteers reported for duty to Washington at Valley Forge, the men initially declined to take an oath to "the United States," maintaining, "Our country is New Jersey." Massachusetts Bay men, Virginians and others felt the same way. To the American of the 18th century, his state was his country, and his freedom was defended by his militia.
> 
> The victory at Yorktown -- and the ratification of the Bill of Rights a decade later -- did not change people's attitudes about a national army. They had lived for years under the notion that each state would maintain its own military establishment, and the seaboard states had their own navies as well. These people, and their fathers and grandfathers before them, remembered how monarchs had used standing armies to oppress their ancestors in Europe. Americans wanted no part of this. A state militia, like a rifle and powder horn, was as much a part of life as the automobile is today; pistols were largely for officers, aristocrats -- and dueling.
> 
> Against this background, it was not surprising that the provision concerning firearms emerged in very simple terms with the significant predicate -- basing the right on the necessity for a "well regulated militia," a state army.
> 
> In the two centuries since then -- with two world wars and some lesser ones -- it has become clear, sadly, that we have no choice but to maintain a standing national army while still maintaining a "militia" by way of the National Guard, which can be swiftly integrated into the national defense forces.
> 
> Americans also have a right to defend their homes, and we need not challenge that. Nor does anyone seriously question that the Constitution protects the right of hunters to own and keep sporting guns for hunting game any more than anyone would challenge the right to own and keep fishing rods and other equipment for fishing -- or to own automobiles. To "keep and bear arms" for hunting today is essentially a recreational activity and not an imperative of survival, as it was 200 years ago; "Saturday night specials" and machine guns are not recreational weapons and surely are as much in need of regulation as motor vehicles.
> 
> Americans should ask themselves a few questions. The Constitution does not mention automobiles or motorboats, but the right to keep and own an automobile is beyond question; equally beyond question is the power of the state to regulate the purchase or the transfer of such a vehicle and the right to license the vehicle and the driver with reasonable standards. In some places, even a bicycle must be registered, as must some household dogs.
> 
> If we are to stop this mindless homicidal carnage, is it unreasonable:
> 
> 1. to provide that, to acquire a firearm, an application be made reciting age, residence, employment and any prior criminal convictions?
> 2. to required that this application lie on the table for 10 days (absent a showing for urgent need) before the license would be issued?
> 3. that the transfer of a firearm be made essentially as with that of a motor vehicle?
> 4. to have a "ballistic fingerprint" of the firearm made by the manufacturer and filed with the license record so that, if a bullet is found in a victim's body, law enforcement might be helped in finding the culprit?​These are the kind of questions the American people must answer if we are to preserve the "domestic tranquillity" promised in the Constitution.
> 
> More: Ex-Chief Justice Warren Burger in Parade Magazine


how many times are you going to post this topic?....is not 5 threads enough?....


----------



## Lakhota

OODA_Loop said:


> Obama says he supports the individual protection of the 2A.



So do I and most responsible gun owners.  It's the extremist views of the NRA gun nuts that many of us don't support.


----------



## Harry Dresden

Lakhota said:


> I think Chief Justice Burger made it very clear what the original intent of the 2nd Amendment was and why it's obsolete today.



and until he said something you agree with.....he was a "Nazicon"....fucking phony....


----------



## Dreamy

Lakhota said:


> There are two problems with the Second Amendment. First, under any circumstance, it is confusing; something that an English teacher would mark up in red ink and tell the author to redo and clarify. Secondly, there are actually two versions of the Amendment; The first passed by two-thirds of the members of each house of Congress (the first step for ratifying a constitutional amendment). A different version passed by three-fourths of the states (the second step for ratifying a constitution amendment). The primary difference between the two versions are a capitalization and a simple comma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DETAILS: Confusion -- the wording of the Second Amendment | Occasional Planet
Click to expand...

 
Please let me assist YOU and yours with YOUR confusion about the 2nd Amendment:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wC8M12m9rM"]The Inconvenient Truth about Gun Control & the 2nd Amendment - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## OODA_Loop

Lakhota said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama says he supports the individual protection of the 2A.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So do I and most responsible gun owners.  It's the extremist views of the NRA gun nuts that many of us don't support.
Click to expand...


No.

You dont support the Heller decision.

El' difference es grande.


----------



## Dreamy

*"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed...."- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, 1787
*


----------



## OODA_Loop

You also don't support any type of criminal control or serious punitive consquences.

The President's effort today was devoid of any mention of it.


----------



## Nosmo King

What is tyranny?  The argument for an armed citizenry is to suppress tyranny, right?

So, what is tyranny?  Who can define it for the purposes of this conversation?  Give examples and provide strategy for fighting it.


----------



## OODA_Loop

Nosmo King said:


> What is tyranny?  The argument for an armed citizenry is to suppress tyranny, right?
> 
> So, what is tyranny?  Who can define it for the purposes of this conversation?  Give examples and provide strategy for fighting it.



You'll know it from the whirrrrrr of the Predator engine.


----------



## Nosmo King

OODA_Loop said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is tyranny?  The argument for an armed citizenry is to suppress tyranny, right?
> 
> So, what is tyranny?  Who can define it for the purposes of this conversation?  Give examples and provide strategy for fighting it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'll know it from the whirrrrrr of the Predator engine.
Click to expand...

Are you plagued by predator drones?  Have they been keeping an eye on you?  

Seriously folks, if you want to suppress tyranny, we'd like to know what it is first.


----------



## Lakhota

In the movie, Red Dawn, it wasn't the U.S. government attacking its own people.


----------



## Dreamy

Lakhota said:


> Dreamy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many times over the SC has reaffirmed this interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. *Private citizen Berger* spoke those words in that article for Parade magazine in Dec. 1991. He was not even on the bench(retired in 86) Not one 2nd Amendment case came before his bench in 1980 or anytime after. The Supreme Court has not heard a 2nd Amendment case since 1939.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since 1939? Really...?
Click to expand...

 

 United States versus Miller.

I stand corrected. There were four more since that date:

Federal Cases Regarding the Second Amendment


----------



## Nosmo King

Lakhota said:


> *In the movie*, Red Dawn, it wasn't the U.S. government attacking its own people.


 The operative phrase.  In the movie The Godfather they shot Sonny on the causeway.  But I would never deign to use that as a reason to ban assault weapons.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

In Old Yeller, the boy went out and shot his dog because he had rabies.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Lakhota said:


> Chief Justice Burger was a smart man.  He clearly articulated why the 2nd Amendment is obsolete.



Burger is a German name wonder how close of kin is he too the Hitlers?


----------



## hortysir

asaratis said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chief Justice Burger was a smart man.  He clearly articulated why the 2nd Amendment is obsolete.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I knew you wouldn't bother to read it.
> 
> As for Burger's opinion that the 2nd amendment is obsolete, the foresight of those that wrote the Constitution predicted there would come a day when others would want to change it...to suit their own fucking opinions.
> 
> Just as Obama is no Lincoln reincarnated, Warren Burger does not come anywhere close to possessing the intelligence and wisdom of Thomas Jefferson.
Click to expand...


Hence the need for the words, "shall not be infringed"


----------



## Nosmo King

So people can cite movies, but no one can cite exactly what tyranny means.    Are we in the shallow end of the intellectual pool?


----------



## hortysir

Nosmo King said:


> So people can cite movies, but no one can cite exactly what tyranny means.    Are we in the shallow end of the intellectual pool?



You hush..... American Idol is on


----------



## Dreamy

Nosmo King said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is tyranny? The argument for an armed citizenry is to suppress tyranny, right?
> 
> So, what is tyranny? Who can define it for the purposes of this conversation? Give examples and provide strategy for fighting it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'll know it from the whirrrrrr of the Predator engine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you plagued by predator drones? Have they been keeping an eye on you?
> 
> Seriously folks, if you want to suppress tyranny, we'd like to know what it is first.
Click to expand...

 

The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles.-Jeff Cooper


----------



## Lakhota

Nosmo King said:


> So people can cite movies, but no one can cite exactly what tyranny means.    Are we in the shallow end of the intellectual pool?



The very shallow end...


----------



## Lakhota

When was the last time the American people felt compelled to take up arms against their own government?


----------



## LordBrownTrout

Possibly the Civil War.


----------



## hortysir

Lakhota said:


> When was the last time the American people felt compelled to take up arms against their own government?



More to the point; when will be the NEXT time?


----------



## Richard-H

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chief Justice Burger was a smart man.  He clearly articulated why the 2nd Amendment is obsolete.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Burger is a German name wonder how close of kin is he too the Hitlers?
Click to expand...


'Hitler' isn't really a German family name. Adolf Hitler's father changed his last name to 'Hitler' from Hiedler for reasons unknown. Hitler's father's last name at birth was 'Schicklgruber' - he was born out of wedlock and it's highly likely that his biological father (Adolf's grandfather) was Jewish.


----------



## Lakhota

hortysir said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> When was the last time the American people felt compelled to take up arms against their own government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More to the point; when will be the NEXT time?
Click to expand...


When a black man lives in the White House...?


----------



## Dreamy

Lakhota said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> When was the last time the American people felt compelled to take up arms against their own government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More to the point; when will be the NEXT time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When a black man lives in the White House...?
Click to expand...

 
Oooh race card shown. That never happens.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Lakhota said:


> Chief Justice Burger was a smart man.  He clearly articulated why the 2nd Amendment is obsolete.



Yet this is supposed to deter crime and criminals from obtaining a gun, how? As if criminals look to obtain a gun "legally". This is why individuals like Lakhota don't have a clue as to how criminals are still able to obtain a gun, despite all the laws, waiting lists, and regulations already in place. 

Perhaps (in the same token) Lakhota will care to also "educate" us, how *more laws* making various illegal narcotics even harder to obtain will hinder teens from further illegal drug possession.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Richard-H said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chief Justice Burger was a smart man.  He clearly articulated why the 2nd Amendment is obsolete.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Burger is a German name wonder how close of kin is he too the Hitlers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'Hitler' isn't really a German family name. Adolf Hitler's father changed his last name to 'Hitler' from Hiedler for reasons unknown. Hitler's father's last name at birth was 'Schicklgruber' - he was born out of wedlock and it's highly likely that his biological father (Adolf's grandfather) was Jewish.
Click to expand...

So hitler had a son that had a name change too Burger.


----------



## Erand7899

Lakhota said:


> *A distinguished citizen takes a stand on one of the most controversial issues in the nation*
> 
> _By Warren E. Burger, Chief Justice of the United States (1969-86)
> Parade Magazine, January 14, 1990, page 4_
> 
> Let's look at the history.
> 
> First, many of the 3.5 million people living in the 13 original Colonies depended on wild game for food, and a good many of them required firearms for their defense from marauding Indians -- and later from the French and English. Underlying all these needs was an important concept that each able-bodied man in each of the 133 independent states had to help or defend his state.
> 
> The early opposition to the idea of national or standing armies was maintained under the Articles of Confederation; that confederation had no standing army and wanted none. The state militia -- essentially a part-time citizen army, as in Switzerland today -- was the only kind of "army" they wanted. From the time of the Declaration of Independence through the victory at Yorktown in 1781, George Washington, as the commander-in-chief of these volunteer-militia armies, had to depend upon the states to send those volunteers.
> 
> When a company of New Jersey militia volunteers reported for duty to Washington at Valley Forge, the men initially declined to take an oath to "the United States," maintaining, "Our country is New Jersey." Massachusetts Bay men, Virginians and others felt the same way. To the American of the 18th century, his state was his country, and his freedom was defended by his militia.
> 
> The victory at Yorktown -- and the ratification of the Bill of Rights a decade later -- did not change people's attitudes about a national army. They had lived for years under the notion that each state would maintain its own military establishment, and the seaboard states had their own navies as well. These people, and their fathers and grandfathers before them, remembered how monarchs had used standing armies to oppress their ancestors in Europe. Americans wanted no part of this. A state militia, like a rifle and powder horn, was as much a part of life as the automobile is today; pistols were largely for officers, aristocrats -- and dueling.
> 
> Against this background, it was not surprising that the provision concerning firearms emerged in very simple terms with the significant predicate -- basing the right on the necessity for a "well regulated militia," a state army.
> 
> In the two centuries since then -- with two world wars and some lesser ones -- it has become clear, sadly, that we have no choice but to maintain a standing national army while still maintaining a "militia" by way of the National Guard, which can be swiftly integrated into the national defense forces.
> 
> Americans also have a right to defend their homes, and we need not challenge that. Nor does anyone seriously question that the Constitution protects the right of hunters to own and keep sporting guns for hunting game any more than anyone would challenge the right to own and keep fishing rods and other equipment for fishing -- or to own automobiles. To "keep and bear arms" for hunting today is essentially a recreational activity and not an imperative of survival, as it was 200 years ago; "Saturday night specials" and machine guns are not recreational weapons and surely are as much in need of regulation as motor vehicles.
> 
> Americans should ask themselves a few questions. The Constitution does not mention automobiles or motorboats, but the right to keep and own an automobile is beyond question; equally beyond question is the power of the state to regulate the purchase or the transfer of such a vehicle and the right to license the vehicle and the driver with reasonable standards. In some places, even a bicycle must be registered, as must some household dogs.
> 
> If we are to stop this mindless homicidal carnage, is it unreasonable:
> 
> 1. to provide that, to acquire a firearm, an application be made reciting age, residence, employment and any prior criminal convictions?
> 2. to required that this application lie on the table for 10 days (absent a showing for urgent need) before the license would be issued?
> 3. that the transfer of a firearm be made essentially as with that of a motor vehicle?
> 4. to have a "ballistic fingerprint" of the firearm made by the manufacturer and filed with the license record so that, if a bullet is found in a victim's body, law enforcement might be helped in finding the culprit?​These are the kind of questions the American people must answer if we are to preserve the "domestic tranquillity" promised in the Constitution.
> 
> More: Ex-Chief Justice Warren Burger in Parade Magazine



If permission is required from a government entity, a right becomes a privilege that can be revoked at the will of the government.

Yes, we could require many things of gun owners that would assist law enforcement in solving crimes.  We could register all guns, maintain data bases of ballistic fingerprints, and all those other little things that you consider important.  We could also assist law enforcement by negating those other little things like search warrents, the right to remain silent, etc.  We could help law enforcement by universal DNA samples, universal fingerprints, etc.  How much privacy are you willing to give up to assist law enforcement?

Although the history lesson that you provided is essentially accurate, it is incomplete, and therefore a falsehood.  Much more important to the second amendment are the words of the founders who advocated for and gained acceptance of that amendment.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Lakhota said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chief Justice Burger was a smart man.  He clearly articulated why the 2nd Amendment is obsolete.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I knew you wouldn't bother to read it.
> 
> As for Burger's opinion that the 2nd amendment is obsolete, the foresight of those that wrote the Constitution predicted there would come a day when others would want to change it...to suit their own fucking opinions.
> 
> Just as Obama is no Lincoln reincarnated, Warren Burger does not come anywhere close to possessing the intelligence and wisdom of Thomas Jefferson.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lots of things have changed since 1791...
Click to expand...



The Founders desire to have a separation of powers written into the Constitution, appears to be another as well of late.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Nosmo King said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> *In the movie*, Red Dawn, it wasn't the U.S. government attacking its own people.
> 
> 
> 
> The operative phrase.  In the movie The Godfather they shot Sonny on the causeway.  But I would never deign to use that as a reason to ban assault weapons.
Click to expand...





LordBrownTrout said:


> In Old Yeller, the boy went out and shot his dog because he had rabies.



In the movie the Wizard of Oz, Dorothy used a house as a weapon.


----------



## hortysir

Lakhota said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> When was the last time the American people felt compelled to take up arms against their own government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More to the point; when will be the NEXT time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When a black man lives in the White House...?
Click to expand...


And you're a racist piece of shit.....we know


----------



## Lakhota

Chief Justice Berger was a Conservative Republican.


----------



## Lakhota

> Burger was a lifelong Republican. But, as we&#8217;ve known for some time, they don&#8217;t make &#8216;em like they used to... The late U.S. Supreme Court chief justice, named to the court by President Richard Nixon in 1969, said after leaving the bench that, *contrary to views espoused by gun groups, the Second Amendment &#8220;doesn&#8217;t guarantee the right to have firearms at all.&#8221; *



Chief Justice Warren Burger quote on the Second Amendment - Democratic Underground


----------



## uscitizen

The Amish are against women baring arms.


----------



## hortysir

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

What's so hard to understand?


----------



## Lakhota

hortysir said:


> the right of the people to keep and bear arms, _*shall not be infringed*_.
> 
> What's so hard to understand?



That part is easy to understand - until you connect it to the word "militia"...


----------



## hortysir

Lakhota said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> the right of the people to keep and bear arms, _*shall not be infringed*_.
> 
> What's so hard to understand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That part is easy to understand - until you connect it to the word "militia"...
Click to expand...


It's not connected.
It's in addition to.

Here, I'll post it in it's entirety so you can see the comma:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free  state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be  infringed.


----------



## Lakhota




----------



## uscitizen

hortysir said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> the right of the people to keep and bear arms, _*shall not be infringed*_.
> 
> What's so hard to understand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That part is easy to understand - until you connect it to the word "militia"...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not connected.
> It's in addition to.
> 
> Here, I'll post it in it's entirety so you can see the comma:
> 
> A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free  state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be  infringed.
Click to expand...


Hmm all one sentence, starts out as A well regulated militia....
Now if you understand grammer one sentence means....


----------



## hortysir

uscitizen said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> That part is easy to understand - until you connect it to the word "militia"...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not connected.
> It's in addition to.
> 
> Here, I'll post it in it's entirety so you can see the comma:
> 
> A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free  state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be  infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmm all one sentence, starts out as A well regulated militia....
> Now if you understand *grammer* one sentence means....
Click to expand...


A well staffed kitchen, being necessary for good guest service, the right of the cooks to keep clean spatulas, shall not be infringed.

So cooks wouldn't have the right to keep clean spatulas, according to your logic?


----------



## GuyPinestra

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chief Justice Burger was a smart man.  He clearly articulated why the 2nd Amendment is obsolete.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Burger is a German name wonder how close of kin is he too the Hitlers?
Click to expand...


He's probably a little closer to the Busches.


----------



## Nosmo King

So, lacking a definition of tyranny, is it safe to assume that such fears of tyranny and the need to arm against it is nothing more than an esoteric rant with all the credibility and potential of the fears ginned up over fluoridation from way back in the 1950s?

The calls to arms to resist tyranny are empty and ridiculous because no one can say how tyranny manifests itself in modern America.  The fact is you idiots know NOTHING of tyranny.  You can't even cite examples of American tyranny, in spite of the fact that anyone reading this who is over 55 years old has seen tyranny in action here in America.


----------



## BreezeWood

hortysir said:


> the right of the people to keep and bear arms, _*shall not be infringed*_.
> 
> What's so hard to understand?




*A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.*


nothing can be understood when using only a part of an Article.


----------



## KGB

Lakhota said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chief Justice Burger was a smart man.  He clearly articulated why the 2nd Amendment is obsolete.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I knew you wouldn't bother to read it.
> 
> As for Burger's opinion that the 2nd amendment is obsolete, the foresight of those that wrote the Constitution predicted there would come a day when others would want to change it...to suit their own fucking opinions.
> 
> Just as Obama is no Lincoln reincarnated, Warren Burger does not come anywhere close to possessing the intelligence and wisdom of Thomas Jefferson.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lots of things have changed since 1791...
Click to expand...


the original intent of the Constitution & the 2nd Amendment has not.


----------



## KGB

Lakhota said:


>



these are rednecks enjoying their God-given right to be free from tyranny....


----------



## BreezeWood

KGB said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> these are rednecks enjoying their God-given right to be free of a tyrannical state.
Click to expand...



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

What about the tyrannical rednecks, by the above half article are they allowed to murder.


----------



## Dreamy

Nosmo King said:


> So, lacking a definition of tyranny, is it safe to assume that such fears of tyranny and the need to arm against it is nothing more than an esoteric rant with all the credibility and potential of the fears ginned up over fluoridation from way back in the 1950s?
> 
> The calls to arms to resist tyranny are empty and ridiculous because no one can say how tyranny manifests itself in modern America. The fact is you idiots know NOTHING of tyranny. You can't even cite examples of American tyranny, in spite of the fact that anyone reading this who is over 55 years old has seen tyranny in action here in America.


 
I am not clear on what you are requesting? You want a definition of tyranny?  Do you think tyranny is something that works like a light switch?


----------



## hortysir

BreezeWood said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> the right of the people to keep and bear arms, _*shall not be infringed*_.
> 
> What's so hard to understand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.*
> 
> 
> nothing can be understood when using only a part of an Article.
Click to expand...



*com·ma  *

/&#712;käm&#601;/
Noun


A  punctuation mark (,) indicating a pause between parts of a sentence. *It  is also used to separate items in a list* and to mark the place...
A minute interval or difference of pitch.


----------



## Nosmo King

Dreamy said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, lacking a definition of tyranny, is it safe to assume that such fears of tyranny and the need to arm against it is nothing more than an esoteric rant with all the credibility and potential of the fears ginned up over fluoridation from way back in the 1950s?
> 
> The calls to arms to resist tyranny are empty and ridiculous because no one can say how tyranny manifests itself in modern America. The fact is you idiots know NOTHING of tyranny. You can't even cite examples of American tyranny, in spite of the fact that anyone reading this who is over 55 years old has seen tyranny in action here in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not clear on what you are requesting? You want a definition of tyranny?  Do you think tyranny is something that works like a light switch?
Click to expand...

No, i don't think there's instant tyranny.  But if the justification to keep a cache of weapons and ammunition so a citizen can hold off tyranny in a three hour fire fight, perhaps we should know what we'
re supposed to be so damn fearful about.  

What is tyranny?  How does it manifest itself?  What is there to fear?


----------



## Si modo

Nosmo King said:


> Dreamy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, lacking a definition of tyranny, is it safe to assume that such fears of tyranny and the need to arm against it is nothing more than an esoteric rant with all the credibility and potential of the fears ginned up over fluoridation from way back in the 1950s?
> 
> The calls to arms to resist tyranny are empty and ridiculous because no one can say how tyranny manifests itself in modern America. The fact is you idiots know NOTHING of tyranny. You can't even cite examples of American tyranny, in spite of the fact that anyone reading this who is over 55 years old has seen tyranny in action here in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not clear on what you are requesting? You want a definition of tyranny?  Do you think tyranny is something that works like a light switch?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, i don't think there's instant tyranny.  But if the justification to keep a cache of weapons and ammunition so a citizen can hold off tyranny in a three hour fire fight, perhaps we should know what we'
> re supposed to be so damn fearful about.
> 
> What is tyranny?  How does it manifest itself?  What is there to fear?
Click to expand...

As long as the right top bear arms is not infringed, there is little to fear about tyranny.


----------



## Nosmo King

Si modo said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dreamy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not clear on what you are requesting? You want a definition of tyranny?  Do you think tyranny is something that works like a light switch?
> 
> 
> 
> No, i don't think there's instant tyranny.  But if the justification to keep a cache of weapons and ammunition so a citizen can hold off tyranny in a three hour fire fight, perhaps we should know what we'
> re supposed to be so damn fearful about.
> 
> What is tyranny?  How does it manifest itself?  What is there to fear?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As long as the right top bear arms is not infringed, there is little to fear about tyranny.
Click to expand...

So, the only way to suppress tyranny is at the barrel of a gun?  Citizens cannot, nor have they ever, in this country faced real tyranny and freed themselves of it without armed resistance?


----------



## Dreamy

Nosmo King said:


> Dreamy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, lacking a definition of tyranny, is it safe to assume that such fears of tyranny and the need to arm against it is nothing more than an esoteric rant with all the credibility and potential of the fears ginned up over fluoridation from way back in the 1950s?
> 
> The calls to arms to resist tyranny are empty and ridiculous because no one can say how tyranny manifests itself in modern America. The fact is you idiots know NOTHING of tyranny. You can't even cite examples of American tyranny, in spite of the fact that anyone reading this who is over 55 years old has seen tyranny in action here in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not clear on what you are requesting? You want a definition of tyranny? Do you think tyranny is something that works like a light switch?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, i don't think there's instant tyranny. But if the justification to keep a cache of weapons and ammunition so a citizen can hold off tyranny in a three hour fire fight, perhaps we should know what we'
> re supposed to be so damn fearful about.
> 
> What is tyranny? How does it manifest itself? What is there to fear?
Click to expand...

 
I am sorry I am going to be abrupt here but I have to go at this time but I have to ask you this:

Why do you seemingly fear an armed citizenry?


----------



## Si modo

Nosmo King said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, i don't think there's instant tyranny.  But if the justification to keep a cache of weapons and ammunition so a citizen can hold off tyranny in a three hour fire fight, perhaps we should know what we'
> re supposed to be so damn fearful about.
> 
> What is tyranny?  How does it manifest itself?  What is there to fear?
> 
> 
> 
> As long as the right top bear arms is not infringed, there is little to fear about tyranny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, the only way to suppress tyranny is at the barrel of a gun?  Citizens cannot, nor have they ever, in this country faced real tyranny and freed themselves of it without armed resistance?
Click to expand...

Of course it's not the ONLY way, but it's a damn good deterrent....by design.


----------



## Lakhota

"Militia" is the _subject_ in the 2nd Amendment sentence.  "Militia" is now the National Guard.


----------



## Si modo

Lakhota said:


> "Militia" is the _subject_ in the 2nd Amendment sentence.  "Militia" is now the National Guard.


Wrong.  So says the SCOTUS, THE authority to determine constitutionality.


----------



## Nosmo King

What is tyranny?  By what actions will we recognize tyranny?  What actions are so egregious that they can be clearly and unmistakably labeled as "tyranny"?


----------



## Nosmo King

Si modo said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> As long as the right top bear arms is not infringed, there is little to fear about tyranny.
> 
> 
> 
> So, the only way to suppress tyranny is at the barrel of a gun?  Citizens cannot, nor have they ever, in this country faced real tyranny and freed themselves of it without armed resistance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it's not the ONLY way, but it's a damn good deterrent....by design.
Click to expand...

Again, I ask, what is tyranny?  How will we know tyranny is being forced upon us?  Has the state ever acted in a tyrannical manner towards its citizens here in the United States?


----------



## BreezeWood

hortysir said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> the right of the people to keep and bear arms, _*shall not be infringed*_.
> 
> What's so hard to understand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.*
> 
> 
> nothing can be understood when using only a part of an Article.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *com·ma  *
> 
> /&#712;käm&#601;/
> Noun
> 
> 
> A  punctuation mark (,) indicating a pause between parts of a sentence. *It  is also used to separate items in a list* and to mark the place...
> A minute interval or difference of pitch.
Click to expand...


the *com·ma* distinguishes (M)ilitia - military weaponry // (A)rms - bowie knife hunting rifle

there is no determination of when to exercise or what the given right of the 'people' represents - as to legislative jurisdiction.


----------



## Si modo

Nosmo King said:


> What is tyranny?  By what actions will we recognize tyranny?  What actions are so egregious that they can be clearly and unmistakably labeled as "tyranny"?


Unconstitutional actions by those elected into power.

But, of course, deterring tyranny is not the ONLY reason for the 2nd.  It is an inherent right to defends one's life and property.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

DC vs Heller


----------



## Lakhota

> As Fareed Zakaria pointed out in Time, Congress passed the first set of federal laws regulating, licensing and taxing guns in 1934. The act was challenged and went to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1939. Franklin Delano Roosevelts solicitor general, Robert H. Jackson, said the Second Amendment grants people a right that is not one which may be utilized for private purposes but only one which exists where the arms are borne in the militia or some other military organization provided for by law and intended for the protection of the state. The court agreed unanimously.



There is no 2nd amendment right to own a gun and there never was | Examiner.com

The Case for Gun Control - TIME


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Rottweiler said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think Chief Justice Burger made it very clear what the original intent of the 2nd Amendment was and why it's obsolete today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> are we suppose to care?
> my gawd
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chief Justice Burger means shit. He did not create the U.S. Constitution *nor is he allowed* to make law from the bench. Laws are made by the legislative branch, this asshole belonged to the judicial branch. Period.
> 
> Our founders made it _very_ clear that the 2nd Amendment had *no* stipulation on type of weapon, magazine capacity, etc. That's why they said "the right to bear arms" and *not* "the right to bear muskets". Arms go way beyond guns. Arms dealers deal in RPG's, anti-tank technology, and a whole lot more. Of all of which our founders intended us to have to protect us from a tyrannical leader/government (a fear which, sadly, has come to be realized under the Obama regime).
> 
> As always Lahkota, you're completely misinformed on the facts and you're getting owned in the debate.
Click to expand...


He couldn't anyway. Sorry you didn't get the memo but he's dead. 

As for the rest - it always cracks me up that the rw's believe they know more about what is "constitutional" than our SCOTUS. 

In point of FACT, it is our Supreme Court that decides what is constitutional. That is the very definition of "constitutional".

Why don't rw's know that?


----------



## Nosmo King

Si modo said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is tyranny?  By what actions will we recognize tyranny?  What actions are so egregious that they can be clearly and unmistakably labeled as "tyranny"?
> 
> 
> 
> Unconstitutional actions by those elected into power.
> 
> But, of course, deterring tyranny is not the ONLY reason for the 2nd.  It is an inherent right to defends one's life and property.
Click to expand...

Do you believe that the state has ever imposed tyranny, as you defined it, against the citizens of the United states?


----------



## Si modo

Nosmo King said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is tyranny?  By what actions will we recognize tyranny?  What actions are so egregious that they can be clearly and unmistakably labeled as "tyranny"?
> 
> 
> 
> Unconstitutional actions by those elected into power.
> 
> But, of course, deterring tyranny is not the ONLY reason for the 2nd.  It is an inherent right to defends one's life and property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you believe that the state has ever imposed tyranny, as you defined it, against the citizens of the United states?
Click to expand...

Yup.  Japanese interment camps, for example.  Lincoln's suspension of _habeus corpus_ is another example.  And, a recent example is execution of US citizens without any judicial review.

But, in general, no...the USA has not done so very often at all....BY DESIGN.


----------



## Si modo

Lakhota said:


> As Fareed Zakaria pointed out in Time, Congress passed the first set of federal laws regulating, licensing and taxing guns in 1934. The act was challenged and went to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1939. Franklin Delano Roosevelts solicitor general, Robert H. Jackson, said the Second Amendment grants people a right that is not one which may be utilized for private purposes but only one which exists where the arms are borne in the militia or some other military organization provided for by law and intended for the protection of the state. The court agreed unanimously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no 2nd amendment right to own a gun and there never was | Examiner.com
> 
> The Case for Gun Control - TIME
Click to expand...

Pssst.  Journalists have zero authority to determine what is and isn't constitutional.  The SCOTUS does, and the SCOTUS says one cannot deprive an individual of the right to bear an arm.


----------



## Nosmo King

Si modo said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unconstitutional actions by those elected into power.
> 
> But, of course, deterring tyranny is not the ONLY reason for the 2nd.  It is an inherent right to defends one's life and property.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe that the state has ever imposed tyranny, as you defined it, against the citizens of the United states?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup.  Japanese interment camps, for example.  Lincoln's suspension of _habeus corpus_ is another example.  And, a recent example is execution of US citizens without any judicial review.
> 
> But, in general, no...the USA has not done so very often at all....BY DESIGN.
Click to expand...

Would you say that suppressing voting rights is a form of tyranny?  If the state mandates which businesses you can trade at, is that tyranny?  If there are laws prohibiting you our your children from attending schools funded by tax dollars, is that a form of tyranny?  Should the state mandate where you can sit in a movie theater, or lunch counter, or municipal bus, can we think of those actions as tyrannical?  And if the state maintains this system of laws for 75 or 80 or 90 years, is that sustained tyranny the type armed resistance is called for?  Would citizens enduring this kind of tyranny have the right to arm themselves and take to the street?


----------



## hortysir

How can one feel truly safe and secure knowing that their nanny-state is more well armed than they?

When the black SUVs pull up in my yard, I'd like to have a fighting chance.


But, hey....that's just me


----------



## Si modo

Nosmo King said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe that the state has ever imposed tyranny, as you defined it, against the citizens of the United states?
> 
> 
> 
> Yup.  Japanese interment camps, for example.  Lincoln's suspension of _habeus corpus_ is another example.  And, a recent example is execution of US citizens without any judicial review.
> 
> But, in general, no...the USA has not done so very often at all....BY DESIGN.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Would you say that suppressing voting rights is a form of tyranny?  If the state mandates which businesses you can trade at, is that tyranny?  If there are laws prohibiting you our your children from attending schools funded by tax dollars, is that a form of tyranny?  Should the state mandate where you can sit in a movie theater, or lunch counter, or municipal bus, can we think of those actions as tyrannical?  And if the state maintains this system of laws for 75 or 80 or 90 years, is that sustained tyranny the type armed resistance is called for?  Would citizens enduring this kind of tyranny have the right to arm themselves and take to the street?
Click to expand...

Yes.  No.  Yes, unless the kid is a danger to others.  No, no, yes.  Depends.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Nosmo King said:


> So, lacking a definition of tyranny, is it safe to assume that such fears of tyranny and the need to arm against it is nothing more than an esoteric rant with all the credibility and potential of the fears ginned up over fluoridation from way back in the 1950s?
> 
> The calls to arms to resist tyranny are empty and ridiculous because no one can say how tyranny manifests itself in modern America.  The fact is you idiots know NOTHING of tyranny.  You can't even cite examples of American tyranny, in spite of the fact that anyone reading this who is over 55 years old has seen tyranny in action here in America.



Correct, there is no tyranny, it is indeed a partisan contrivance. 

The notion that private citizens armed with weapons currently in common use will somehow stand up to the US military is idiocy. 

The Second Amendment enshrines a right to self-defense, and the right to own a handgun pursuant to the right of self-defense, unconnected with militia service. This is consequently an individual, not collective, right, where private citizens may possess firearms for protection of home and self. 

As with all rights the right to own a gun is not absolute, it may be subject to reasonable restrictions where the state has demonstrated a compelling interest and a rational basis for regulation or restriction. 

And as with all rights the right to own a gun does not require a person to justify the exercising of that right, he may not be compelled to explain why he wishes to own an AR 15 if that firearm is legal to own in his jurisdiction, as a prerequisite to indeed exercise his Second Amendment rights.  

Unlike issues concerning abortion and same-sex couples access to marriage, there is currently little comprehensive case law as to what constitutes weapons dangerous and unusual, which may be subject to restrictions, and weapons in common use at the time, subject to Second Amendment protection.


----------



## Nosmo King

Si modo said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup.  Japanese interment camps, for example.  Lincoln's suspension of _habeus corpus_ is another example.  And, a recent example is execution of US citizens without any judicial review.
> 
> But, in general, no...the USA has not done so very often at all....BY DESIGN.
> 
> 
> 
> Would you say that suppressing voting rights is a form of tyranny?  If the state mandates which businesses you can trade at, is that tyranny?  If there are laws prohibiting you our your children from attending schools funded by tax dollars, is that a form of tyranny?  Should the state mandate where you can sit in a movie theater, or lunch counter, or municipal bus, can we think of those actions as tyrannical?  And if the state maintains this system of laws for 75 or 80 or 90 years, is that sustained tyranny the type armed resistance is called for?  Would citizens enduring this kind of tyranny have the right to arm themselves and take to the street?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.  No.  Yes, unless the kid is a danger to others.  No, no, yes.  Depends.
Click to expand...

Would you concede that the examples you cited; Japanese internment camps, the suspension of habeus, execution (on the field of battle) of American citizens without due process are all extreme cases born of the fog and turmoil of war?  While the cases i cited were sustained and egregious acts of state manifested tyranny?  

And when I cited businesses and lunch counters and movie theaters, remember that it was not by the choice of the owner, but by legislative mandate.

You see, the clamor about tyranny is nothing more than an esoteric rant, delivered by people who no NOTHING of tyranny.   they have never endured it, they have no real concept of it.  And a call to arms to defend freedom in the face of tyranny requires a sound reason.  Like the Declaration of Independence.  Without a working definition of tyranny and the ability to cite it, ain't it just a couple of drinking buddies, AR-15s slung over their shoulders and a beat up Dodge Durango and the chance to play Army?


----------



## Si modo

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, lacking a definition of tyranny, is it safe to assume that such fears of tyranny and the need to arm against it is nothing more than an esoteric rant with all the credibility and potential of the fears ginned up over fluoridation from way back in the 1950s?
> 
> The calls to arms to resist tyranny are empty and ridiculous because no one can say how tyranny manifests itself in modern America.  The fact is you idiots know NOTHING of tyranny.  You can't even cite examples of American tyranny, in spite of the fact that anyone reading this who is over 55 years old has seen tyranny in action here in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, there is no tyranny, it is indeed a partisan contrivance.
> 
> The notion that private citizens armed with weapons currently in common use will somehow stand up to the US military is idiocy.
> 
> The Second Amendment enshrines a right to self-defense, and the right to own a handgun pursuant to the right of self-defense, unconnected with militia service. This is consequently an individual, not collective, right, where private citizens may possess firearms for protection of home and self.
> 
> As with all rights the right to own a gun is not absolute, it may be subject to reasonable restrictions where the state has demonstrated a compelling interest and a rational basis for regulation or restriction.
> 
> And as with all rights the right to own a gun does not require a person to justify the exercising of that right, he may not be compelled to explain why he wishes to own an AR 15 if that firearm is legal to own in his jurisdiction, as a prerequisite to indeed exercise his Second Amendment rights.
> 
> Unlike issues concerning abortion and same-sex couples access to marriage, there is currently little comprehensive case law as to what constitutes weapons dangerous and unusual, which may be subject to restrictions, and weapons in common use at the time, subject to Second Amendment protection.
Click to expand...

Alexander Hamilton was a partisan idiot?

Who knew?


----------



## Si modo

Nosmo King said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you say that suppressing voting rights is a form of tyranny?  If the state mandates which businesses you can trade at, is that tyranny?  If there are laws prohibiting you our your children from attending schools funded by tax dollars, is that a form of tyranny?  Should the state mandate where you can sit in a movie theater, or lunch counter, or municipal bus, can we think of those actions as tyrannical?  And if the state maintains this system of laws for 75 or 80 or 90 years, is that sustained tyranny the type armed resistance is called for?  Would citizens enduring this kind of tyranny have the right to arm themselves and take to the street?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  No.  Yes, unless the kid is a danger to others.  No, no, yes.  Depends.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Would you concede that the examples you cited; Japanese internment camps, the suspension of habeus, execution (on the field of battle) of American citizens without due process are all extreme cases born of the fog and turmoil of war?  While the cases i cited were sustained and egregious acts of state manifested tyranny?
> 
> And when I cited businesses and lunch counters and movie theaters, remember that it was not by the choice of the owner, but by legislative mandate.
> 
> You see, the clamor about tyranny is nothing more than an esoteric rant, delivered by people who no NOTHING of tyranny.   they have never endured it, they have no real concept of it.  And a call to arms to defend freedom in the face of tyranny requires a sound reason.  Like the Declaration of Independence.  Without a working definition of tyranny and the ability to cite it, ain't it just a couple of drinking buddies, AR-15s slung over their shoulders and a beat up Dodge Durango and the chance to play Army?
Click to expand...

The execution of US citizens by Obama was not on any field of battle.


----------



## Nosmo King

Si modo said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  No.  Yes, unless the kid is a danger to others.  No, no, yes.  Depends.
> 
> 
> 
> Would you concede that the examples you cited; Japanese internment camps, the suspension of habeus, execution (on the field of battle) of American citizens without due process are all extreme cases born of the fog and turmoil of war?  While the cases i cited were sustained and egregious acts of state manifested tyranny?
> 
> And when I cited businesses and lunch counters and movie theaters, remember that it was not by the choice of the owner, but by legislative mandate.
> 
> You see, the clamor about tyranny is nothing more than an esoteric rant, delivered by people who no NOTHING of tyranny.   they have never endured it, they have no real concept of it.  And a call to arms to defend freedom in the face of tyranny requires a sound reason.  Like the Declaration of Independence.  Without a working definition of tyranny and the ability to cite it, ain't it just a couple of drinking buddies, AR-15s slung over their shoulders and a beat up Dodge Durango and the chance to play Army?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The execution of US citizens by Obama was not on any field of battle.
Click to expand...

<side bar> I thought you were referring to predator drone strikes against American born Al Qeada militants.


----------



## hortysir

Nosmo King said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you concede that the examples you cited; Japanese internment camps, the suspension of habeus, execution (on the field of battle) of American citizens without due process are all extreme cases born of the fog and turmoil of war?  While the cases i cited were sustained and egregious acts of state manifested tyranny?
> 
> And when I cited businesses and lunch counters and movie theaters, remember that it was not by the choice of the owner, but by legislative mandate.
> 
> You see, the clamor about tyranny is nothing more than an esoteric rant, delivered by people who no NOTHING of tyranny.   they have never endured it, they have no real concept of it.  And a call to arms to defend freedom in the face of tyranny requires a sound reason.  Like the Declaration of Independence.  Without a working definition of tyranny and the ability to cite it, ain't it just a couple of drinking buddies, AR-15s slung over their shoulders and a beat up Dodge Durango and the chance to play Army?
> 
> 
> 
> The execution of US citizens by Obama was not on any field of battle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> <side bar> I thought you were referring to predator drone strikes against American born Al Qeada militants.
Click to expand...


That happened in Pakistan, didn't it???


----------



## Nosmo King

hortysir said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The execution of US citizens by Obama was not on any field of battle.
> 
> 
> 
> <side bar> I thought you were referring to predator drone strikes against American born Al Qeada militants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That happened in Pakistan, didn't it???
Click to expand...

I don't want to go down a primrose path with this.  I just want to know if we're supposed to be fearful, what are we supposed to be fearful of?  And are the examples I cited tyranny or not?


----------



## Si modo

Nosmo King said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you concede that the examples you cited; Japanese internment camps, the suspension of habeus, execution (on the field of battle) of American citizens without due process are all extreme cases born of the fog and turmoil of war?  While the cases i cited were sustained and egregious acts of state manifested tyranny?
> 
> And when I cited businesses and lunch counters and movie theaters, remember that it was not by the choice of the owner, but by legislative mandate.
> 
> You see, the clamor about tyranny is nothing more than an esoteric rant, delivered by people who no NOTHING of tyranny.   they have never endured it, they have no real concept of it.  And a call to arms to defend freedom in the face of tyranny requires a sound reason.  Like the Declaration of Independence.  Without a working definition of tyranny and the ability to cite it, ain't it just a couple of drinking buddies, AR-15s slung over their shoulders and a beat up Dodge Durango and the chance to play Army?
> 
> 
> 
> The execution of US citizens by Obama was not on any field of battle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> <side bar> I thought you were referring to predator drone strikes against American born Al Qeada militants.
Click to expand...

I am referring to drone strikes to kill US citizens without judicial review and not in a combat zone.  Obama executed three US citizens without judicial review.  And the ACLU is all over his ass for it.  Gotta love those who value the US Constitution and American civil liberties.


----------



## hortysir

Nosmo King said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> <side bar> I thought you were referring to predator drone strikes against American born Al Qeada militants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That happened in Pakistan, didn't it???
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't want to go down a primrose path with this.  I just want to know if we're supposed to be fearful, what are we supposed to be fearful of?  And are the examples I cited tyranny or not?
Click to expand...


Yes, of a too-far-reaching government.
How long before "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is an "antiquated idea"???


----------



## Nosmo King

Si modo said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The execution of US citizens by Obama was not on any field of battle.
> 
> 
> 
> <side bar> I thought you were referring to predator drone strikes against American born Al Qeada militants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am referring to drone strikes to kill US citizens without judicial review and not in a combat zone.  Obama executed three US citizens without judicial review.  And the ACLU is all over his ass for it.  Gotta love those who value the US Constitution and American civil liberties.
Click to expand...

see post 99


----------



## Nosmo King

hortysir said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> That happened in Pakistan, didn't it???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want to go down a primrose path with this.  I just want to know if we're supposed to be fearful, what are we supposed to be fearful of?  And are the examples I cited tyranny or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, of a too-far-reaching government.
> How long before "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is an "antiquated idea"???
Click to expand...

So you agree that the Jim Crow south was state sanctioned tyranny?


----------



## Si modo

Nosmo King said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> <side bar> I thought you were referring to predator drone strikes against American born Al Qeada militants.
> 
> 
> 
> I am referring to drone strikes to kill US citizens without judicial review and not in a combat zone.  Obama executed three US citizens without judicial review.  And the ACLU is all over his ass for it.  Gotta love those who value the US Constitution and American civil liberties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> see post 99
Click to expand...

Sticking your head in the sand about Obama's tyranny is futile.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Lakhota said:


> *A distinguished citizen takes a stand on one of the most controversial issues in the nation*
> 
> _By Warren E. Burger, Chief Justice of the United States (1969-86)
> Parade Magazine, January 14, 1990, page 4_
> 
> Let's look at the history.
> 
> First, many of the 3.5 million people living in the 13 original Colonies depended on wild game for food, and a good many of them required firearms for their defense from marauding Indians -- and later from the French and English. Underlying all these needs was an important concept that each able-bodied man in each of the 133 independent states had to help or defend his state.
> 
> The early opposition to the idea of national or standing armies was maintained under the Articles of Confederation; that confederation had no standing army and wanted none. The state militia -- essentially a part-time citizen army, as in Switzerland today -- was the only kind of "army" they wanted. From the time of the Declaration of Independence through the victory at Yorktown in 1781, George Washington, as the commander-in-chief of these volunteer-militia armies, had to depend upon the states to send those volunteers.
> 
> When a company of New Jersey militia volunteers reported for duty to Washington at Valley Forge, the men initially declined to take an oath to "the United States," maintaining, "Our country is New Jersey." Massachusetts Bay men, Virginians and others felt the same way. To the American of the 18th century, his state was his country, and his freedom was defended by his militia.
> 
> The victory at Yorktown -- and the ratification of the Bill of Rights a decade later -- did not change people's attitudes about a national army. They had lived for years under the notion that each state would maintain its own military establishment, and the seaboard states had their own navies as well. These people, and their fathers and grandfathers before them, remembered how monarchs had used standing armies to oppress their ancestors in Europe. Americans wanted no part of this. A state militia, like a rifle and powder horn, was as much a part of life as the automobile is today; pistols were largely for officers, aristocrats -- and dueling.
> 
> Against this background, it was not surprising that the provision concerning firearms emerged in very simple terms with the significant predicate -- basing the right on the necessity for a "well regulated militia," a state army.
> 
> In the two centuries since then -- with two world wars and some lesser ones -- it has become clear, sadly, that we have no choice but to maintain a standing national army while still maintaining a "militia" by way of the National Guard, which can be swiftly integrated into the national defense forces.
> 
> Americans also have a right to defend their homes, and we need not challenge that. Nor does anyone seriously question that the Constitution protects the right of hunters to own and keep sporting guns for hunting game any more than anyone would challenge the right to own and keep fishing rods and other equipment for fishing -- or to own automobiles. To "keep and bear arms" for hunting today is essentially a recreational activity and not an imperative of survival, as it was 200 years ago; "Saturday night specials" and machine guns are not recreational weapons and surely are as much in need of regulation as motor vehicles.
> 
> Americans should ask themselves a few questions. The Constitution does not mention automobiles or motorboats, but the right to keep and own an automobile is beyond question; equally beyond question is the power of the state to regulate the purchase or the transfer of such a vehicle and the right to license the vehicle and the driver with reasonable standards. In some places, even a bicycle must be registered, as must some household dogs.
> 
> If we are to stop this mindless homicidal carnage, is it unreasonable:1. to provide that, to acquire a firearm, an application be made reciting age, residence, employment and any prior criminal convictions?
> 2. to required that this application lie on the table for 10 days (absent a showing for urgent need) before the license would be issued?
> 3. that the transfer of a firearm be made essentially as with that of a motor vehicle?
> 4. to have a "ballistic fingerprint" of the firearm made by the manufacturer and filed with the license record so that, if a bullet is found in a victim's body, law enforcement might be helped in finding the culprit?​These are the kind of questions the American people must answer if we are to preserve the "domestic tranquillity" promised in the Constitution.
> 
> More: Ex-Chief Justice Warren Burger in Parade Magazine



Let me take these things one at a time.



Why should anyone have to provide information about employment to purchase something if they are paying cash? Should we also require people to provide employment if they buy a computer? I can do a hell of a lot more damage with words than with a gun.
You have to prove someone is going to kill you? If I can't prove my son needs a gun will the police guarantee his safety until they get through pretending that they are important?
What the frack does that mean? I can give my car to anyone I want without a background check, does that mean I can do the same with a gun?
There is no evidence to support the delusion that "ballistic fingerprints" actually work the claim that they can decisively tie a bullet to a gun.
I guess that I can't actually expect Burger, as a statist, to accept that the government is capable of being wrong, but they are wrong more often than they are right


----------



## Nosmo King

Si modo said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am referring to drone strikes to kill US citizens without judicial review and not in a combat zone.  Obama executed three US citizens without judicial review.  And the ACLU is all over his ass for it.  Gotta love those who value the US Constitution and American civil liberties.
> 
> 
> 
> see post 99
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sticking your head in the sand about Obama's tyranny is futile.
Click to expand...

I'm building an argument here.  We agree that tyranny has happened, right?  Let's put a pin in any other issues and get to a conclusion.  It's already way past my bedtime and tomorrow is a work day.


----------



## ReallyMeow

Lakhota said:


>



These are people, the second amendment does apply.


----------



## 007

Lakhota said:


> As Fareed Zakaria pointed out in Time, Congress passed the first set of federal laws regulating, licensing and taxing guns in 1934. The act was challenged and went to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1939. Franklin Delano Roosevelts solicitor general, Robert H. Jackson, said the Second Amendment grants people a right that is not one which may be utilized for private purposes but only one which exists where the arms are borne in the militia or some other military organization provided for by law and intended for the protection of the state. The court agreed unanimously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no 2nd amendment right to own a gun and there never was | Examiner.com
> 
> The Case for Gun Control - TIME
Click to expand...

Hey commie... why don't you do yourself a great big huge favor and just move to a country that's been disarmed?

Your problems would be over. Get going.

I'll pay your air fare.


----------



## Lakhota

Duh, my people were here first...  I think I'll stay...


----------



## Lakhota

The 2nd Amendment is nothing more than a fossil of days long past.


----------



## 007

Lakhota said:


> Duh, my people were here first...  I think I'll stay...



"Your people?" I'm Cherokee myself shit for brains, but that's got nothing to do with it.

You dodged the question, why don't you move to a country that's been disarmed? It's your wet dream, do it.


----------



## zonly1

Lakhota said:


> The 2nd Amendment is nothing more than a fossil of days long past.



Tanks azzhat, your little world forgets a time the 2nd Amendment was put in place to confront TYRANNY.  Quit listening to left loser media in terms of true intent.
Maybe you should let grown ups discuss this manner.  IT's apparent you are out of your league.

Stalin posed with children to promote tyranny.





If jews were allowed to have guns, there would be no holocaust.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Lakhota said:


> "Militia" is the _subject_ in the 2nd Amendment sentence.  "Militia" is now the National Guard.



The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

You can't say that arms are limited to the militia and then say the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.

It's contradictory.  In law most contradictions are interpreted in favor of the less restrictive end


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Lakhota said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> When was the last time the American people felt compelled to take up arms against their own government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More to the point; when will be the NEXT time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When a black man lives in the White House...?
Click to expand...


Gotta love it when liberals moves right into the racial comments, no hesitation there.


----------



## Si modo

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> More to the point; when will be the NEXT time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When a black man lives in the White House...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gotta love it when liberals moves right into the racial comments, no hesitation there.
Click to expand...

Lakhota is a racist and an anti-semite.  A stormfronter.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Lakhota said:


> "Militia" is the _subject_ in the 2nd Amendment sentence.  "Militia" is now the National Guard.





> Governments are instituted among Men,* deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed*, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.



It was the Founders desire that its citizens be armed to ensure our government never dictates power or rule OVER its people, but rightfully respects that it's the people who rule over their government and its leaders are their "servants" OF the people. The people are to never become "enslaved" through the power of their government, this is guaranteed through the power of the second amendment.

It helps to actually READ what out Founders had desired and established for this country through the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. Neither of which are "dated" by those who respect the sacrifices our Founders made to establish this great Republic.


----------



## Lakhota




----------



## Harry Dresden

Lakhota said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> So people can cite movies, but no one can cite exactly what tyranny means.    Are we in the shallow end of the intellectual pool?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The very shallow end...
Click to expand...


well at least your admitting your in that part of the pool....


----------



## Harry Dresden

Lakhota said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> When was the last time the American people felt compelled to take up arms against their own government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More to the point; when will be the NEXT time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When a black man lives in the White House...?
Click to expand...


its been like that for 4 years you dumbass,has anyone taken up arms yet?......no wonder why your in the shallow end of the pool....


----------



## Harry Dresden

Dreamy said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> More to the point; when will be the NEXT time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When a black man lives in the White House...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oooh race card shown. That never happens.
Click to expand...


it does with this jerk.....every chance he gets....LaKoota is one of these assholes who say if your against Obama for ANY REASON......its because he is Black....there can be no other reason.....


----------



## Harry Dresden

Lakhota said:


> Chief Justice Berger was a Conservative Republican.



so what?......do you think other Conservative Republicans are going to change what they believe because of what this meatball thinks?......oh wait thats right.....your one of those people in the shallow end of the pool.....sorry....


----------



## Harry Dresden

Lakhota said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> the right of the people to keep and bear arms, _*shall not be infringed*_.
> 
> What's so hard to understand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That part is easy to understand - until you connect it to the word "militia"...
Click to expand...


who are....THE PEOPLE?.....


----------



## Harry Dresden

Lakhota said:


>



maybe not.....but whether you or i like it or not.....they are part of the PEOPLE.....if they use those guns to commit acts of violence.......then give them a nice long severe jail sentence....


----------



## Harry Dresden

uscitizen said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> That part is easy to understand - until you connect it to the word "militia"...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not connected.
> It's in addition to.
> 
> Here, I'll post it in it's entirety so you can see the comma:
> 
> A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free  state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be  infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmm all one sentence, starts out as A well regulated militia....
> Now if you understand grammer one sentence means....
Click to expand...


who are the PEOPLE us?.......


----------



## Harry Dresden

Lakhota said:


> "Militia" is the _subject_ in the 2nd Amendment sentence.  "Militia" is now the National Guard.



so are the People.......


----------



## williepete

We are the militia.

*Article 10, US Code - Section 311: Militia: composition and classes*

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.


----------



## Harry Dresden

luddly.neddite said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> are we suppose to care?
> my gawd
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chief Justice Burger means shit. He did not create the U.S. Constitution *nor is he allowed* to make law from the bench. Laws are made by the legislative branch, this asshole belonged to the judicial branch. Period.
> 
> Our founders made it _very_ clear that the 2nd Amendment had *no* stipulation on type of weapon, magazine capacity, etc. That's why they said "the right to bear arms" and *not* "the right to bear muskets". Arms go way beyond guns. Arms dealers deal in RPG's, anti-tank technology, and a whole lot more. Of all of which our founders intended us to have to protect us from a tyrannical leader/government (a fear which, sadly, has come to be realized under the Obama regime).
> 
> As always Lahkota, you're completely misinformed on the facts and you're getting owned in the debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He couldn't anyway. Sorry you didn't get the memo but he's dead.
> 
> As for the rest - it always cracks me up that the rw's believe they know more about what is "constitutional" than our SCOTUS.
> 
> In point of FACT, it is our Supreme Court that decides what is constitutional. That is the very definition of "constitutional".
> 
> Why don't rw's know that?
Click to expand...

*

As for the rest - it always cracks me up that the rw's believe they know more about what is "constitutional" than our SCOTUS. *

so why are you not getting on your buddies here on the left who seem to think they know more?.....like LaKota......or are you selective in who you criticize?....


----------



## Lakhota

Defense Secretary: 'I Don't Know Why The Hell People Have To Have Assault Weapons' | ThinkProgress


----------



## OODA_Loop

Lakhota said:


> Defense Secretary: 'I Don't Know Why The Hell People Have To Have Assault Weapons' | ThinkProgress



Cuz 'SCOTUS sayz = Yea!!!

_Common usage._


----------



## Doc91678

Lakhota said:


> *A distinguished citizen takes a stand on one of the most controversial issues in the nation*
> 
> _By Warren E. Burger, Chief Justice of the United States (1969-86)
> Parade Magazine, January 14, 1990, page 4_
> 
> Let's look at the history.
> 
> First, many of the 3.5 million people living in the 13 original Colonies depended on wild game for food, and a good many of them required firearms for their defense from marauding Indians -- and later from the French and English. Underlying all these needs was an important concept that each able-bodied man in each of the 133 independent states had to help or defend his state.
> 
> The early opposition to the idea of national or standing armies was maintained under the Articles of Confederation; that confederation had no standing army and wanted none. The state militia -- essentially a part-time citizen army, as in Switzerland today -- was the only kind of "army" they wanted. From the time of the Declaration of Independence through the victory at Yorktown in 1781, George Washington, as the commander-in-chief of these volunteer-militia armies, had to depend upon the states to send those volunteers.
> 
> When a company of New Jersey militia volunteers reported for duty to Washington at Valley Forge, the men initially declined to take an oath to "the United States," maintaining, "Our country is New Jersey." Massachusetts Bay men, Virginians and others felt the same way. To the American of the 18th century, his state was his country, and his freedom was defended by his militia.
> 
> The victory at Yorktown -- and the ratification of the Bill of Rights a decade later -- did not change people's attitudes about a national army. They had lived for years under the notion that each state would maintain its own military establishment, and the seaboard states had their own navies as well. These people, and their fathers and grandfathers before them, remembered how monarchs had used standing armies to oppress their ancestors in Europe. Americans wanted no part of this. A state militia, like a rifle and powder horn, was as much a part of life as the automobile is today; pistols were largely for officers, aristocrats -- and dueling.
> 
> Against this background, it was not surprising that the provision concerning firearms emerged in very simple terms with the significant predicate -- basing the right on the necessity for a "well regulated militia," a state army.
> 
> In the two centuries since then -- with two world wars and some lesser ones -- it has become clear, sadly, that we have no choice but to maintain a standing national army while still maintaining a "militia" by way of the National Guard, which can be swiftly integrated into the national defense forces.
> 
> Americans also have a right to defend their homes, and we need not challenge that. Nor does anyone seriously question that the Constitution protects the right of hunters to own and keep sporting guns for hunting game any more than anyone would challenge the right to own and keep fishing rods and other equipment for fishing -- or to own automobiles. To "keep and bear arms" for hunting today is essentially a recreational activity and not an imperative of survival, as it was 200 years ago; "Saturday night specials" and machine guns are not recreational weapons and surely are as much in need of regulation as motor vehicles.
> 
> Americans should ask themselves a few questions. The Constitution does not mention automobiles or motorboats, but the right to keep and own an automobile is beyond question; equally beyond question is the power of the state to regulate the purchase or the transfer of such a vehicle and the right to license the vehicle and the driver with reasonable standards. In some places, even a bicycle must be registered, as must some household dogs.
> 
> If we are to stop this mindless homicidal carnage, is it unreasonable:
> 
> 1. to provide that, to acquire a firearm, an application be made reciting age, residence, employment and any prior criminal convictions?
> 2. to required that this application lie on the table for 10 days (absent a showing for urgent need) before the license would be issued?
> 3. that the transfer of a firearm be made essentially as with that of a motor vehicle?
> 4. to have a "ballistic fingerprint" of the firearm made by the manufacturer and filed with the license record so that, if a bullet is found in a victim's body, law enforcement might be helped in finding the culprit?​These are the kind of questions the American people must answer if we are to preserve the "domestic tranquillity" promised in the Constitution.
> 
> More: Ex-Chief Justice Warren Burger in Parade Magazine



_"In many areas of constitutional law the Burger Court produced the most liberal jurisprudence in historyeven more liberal than that of its predecessor."​_


----------



## Si modo

Lakhota said:


> Defense Secretary: 'I Don't Know Why The Hell People Have To Have Assault Weapons' | ThinkProgress


Betcha didn't know he doesn't make law nor does his opinion on this have any legal significance.

But, you like being irrelevant, and least you must like it because you so often are.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Si modo said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Defense Secretary: 'I Don't Know Why The Hell People Have To Have Assault Weapons' | ThinkProgress
> 
> 
> 
> Betcha didn't know he doesn't make law nor does his opinion on this have any legal significance.
> 
> But, you like being irrelevant, and least you must like it because you so often are.
Click to expand...


The part that gets me is he thinks people don't need armor piercing bullets. One would think a career Army officer would understand that all bullets are armor piercing.


----------



## zonly1

Lakhota said:


>



fuck off turd wrestler


----------



## Skull Pilot

Lakhota said:


> Defense Secretary: 'I Don't Know Why The Hell People Have To Have Assault Weapons' | ThinkProgress



A semiautomatic rifle is not an assault weapon.


----------



## Dubya




----------



## bigrebnc1775

The Guilty Conscience of a Drone Pilot Who Killed a Child

Bryant had a sick feeling in his stomach. "Did we just kill a kid?" he asked the man sitting next to him.

"Yeah, I guess that was a kid," the pilot replied.

"Was that a kid?" they wrote into a chat window on the monitor.

Then, someone they didn't know answered, someone sitting in a military command center somewhere in the world who had observed their attack. "No. That was a dog," the person wrote.

They reviewed the scene on video. A dog on two legs?

The United States kills a lot of "dogs on two legs." The Bureau of Investigative Journalism reported last August that in Pakistan's tribal areas alone, there are at least 168 credible reports of children being killed in drone strikes. Presidents Bush and Obama have actively prevented human-rights observers from accessing full casualty data from programs that remain officially secret, so there is no way to know the total number of children American strikes have killed in the numerous countries in which they've been conducted, but if we arbitrarily presume that "just" 84 children have died -- half the Bureau's estimate from one country -- the death toll would still be more than quadruple the number of children killed in Newtown, Connecticut. 

The Guilty Conscience of a Drone Pilot Who Killed a Child - Conor Friedersdorf - The Atlantic


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Dubya said:


>



People who do not understand a 18th century military term need to stay the hell out of the firearms debate. You would look a lot less stupid.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Quantum Windbag said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Defense Secretary: 'I Don't Know Why The Hell People Have To Have Assault Weapons' | ThinkProgress
> 
> 
> 
> Betcha didn't know he doesn't make law nor does his opinion on this have any legal significance.
> 
> But, you like being irrelevant, and least you must like it because you so often are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The part that gets me is he thinks people don't need armor piercing bullets. One would think a career Army officer would understand that all bullets are armor piercing.
Click to expand...


No not all ammo is amour piercing. I have some that will penetrate 3/8 steel plate as far as 200 yards out, those I don't shoot because they cost 2.00 to 5.00 per round.


----------



## Dubya

Si modo said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Defense Secretary: 'I Don't Know Why The Hell People Have To Have Assault Weapons' | ThinkProgress
> 
> 
> 
> Betcha didn't know he doesn't make law nor does his opinion on this have any legal significance.
> 
> But, you like being irrelevant, and least you must like it because you so often are.
Click to expand...


Why wouldn't you think the Secretary of Defense is relevant in a discussion of the 2nd Amendment?

Probably the main argument for people who want continued access to military style weapons is the threat to tyranny. They think they are patriots and preventing tyranny, because of their might, but let's be realistic! For a Tyrant to exist, he would need the military and who is the next person from that Tyrant down the chain of command? That would be the Secretary of Defense. Somehow they are going to have to convince the military to go along and support this Tyrant. People in the military are taught to obey orders, but they are also taught they don't have to obey an unlawful order. Supporting a Tyrant is an unlawful order. The people in the military are not going to support a Tyrant and if their commanders tried to make them do it, that commander would die as soon as ammo was issued. Believe it or not, the people in the military are very patriotic.

What we have are people living a fantasy and endangering the community with their insistence to keep their access to weapons they shouldn't have. Creating access to those weapons puts those weapons into the hands of some very bad people in our society and they do a lot of damage with those weapons. It's a fantasy to think you could fight the military with the weapons available in America. It's the military that prevents tyranny and not you. 

Here is some information taken from the minutes during the creation of the 2nd Amendment:

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

Notice they didn't want a standing Army, because a Tyrant could get control of that standing army to seal his power. That's why they chose a regulated militia, because from past experience the militia had to train. Another major concern came from past experience in Europe, where they disarmed the people and that's where the keep and bear arms originates. Infringed doesn't mean the government can't make law about magazine size, it means you can't disarm the people. They were very careful in the way they worded the amendments. You can't get this next concept from the 2nd Amendment, but you get their reasoning from the 1st. Notice they use the word state in the 2nd Amendment. They bent over backwards to express themselves without ever using the word nation. 

To get to the minutes of the wording in amendments from the main page click contents, the amendment and click House of Representatives, Amendment to the Constitution. The other links have valuable information on the origin and post amendment developments. 

Founders' Constitution


----------



## expatriate

Skull Pilot said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chief Justice Burger was a smart man.  He clearly articulated why the 2nd Amendment is obsolete.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then get it repealed.
> 
> Good luck with that.
Click to expand...



It doesn't need to be repealed... It simply needs to be interpreted by the courts concentrating on the "well regulated militia" aspect.  there are plenty of ways to restrict gun ownership - and especially ownership of certain types of  high capacity, high caliber, high carnage sorts of arms - that will pass constitutional muster... Especially after Obama gets to appoint two young liberal justices during his second term.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

expatriate said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chief Justice Burger was a smart man.  He clearly articulated why the 2nd Amendment is obsolete.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then get it repealed.
> 
> Good luck with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't need to be repealed... It simply needs to be interpreted by the courts concentrating on the "well regulated militia" aspect.  there are plenty of ways to restrict gun ownership - and especially ownership of certain types of  high capacity, high caliber, high carnage sorts of arms - that will pass constitutional muster... Especially after Obama gets to appoint two young liberal justices during his second term.
Click to expand...


----------



## zeke

You are all mouth bigreppie. NOW is the time to start the revolution. Not waiting till the opposition gets its shit together. NOW is the time rebbie. GO FOR IT. 

I am sure with your militia, the US Army does not have a chance. 

But if I don't here of the revolution starting in the south real soon, I would have to think you are all mouth on a message board and will not put your life on the line just to own a semi automatic weapon.

What's it gonna be? You a leader of the revolution or a mouth of the wanna be revolution?


----------



## expatriate

Bigreb... Are you really saying that there should be zero restrictions on citizens arming themselves?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

expatriate said:


> Bigreb... Are you really saying that there should be zero restrictions on citizens arming themselves?



Again what part of shall not be infringed don't you fucking comprehend?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

zeke said:


> You are all mouth bigreppie. NOW is the time to start the revolution. Not waiting till the opposition gets its shit together. NOW is the time rebbie. GO FOR IT.
> 
> I am sure with your militia, the US Army does not have a chance.
> 
> But if I don't here of the revolution starting in the south real soon, I would have to think you are all mouth on a message board and will not put your life on the line just to own a semi automatic weapon.
> 
> What's it gonna be? You a leader of the revolution or a mouth of the wanna be revolution?



It's called Asymmetric warfare dumb ass.


----------



## expatriate

bigrebnc1775 said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bigreb... Are you really saying that there should be zero restrictions on citizens arming themselves?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again what part of shall not be infringed don't you fucking comprehend?
Click to expand...


Perfectly OK with landmines in the front yard are you?  What about a dual mount 40mm Anti-aircraft battery mounted on the back deck to shoot down those intrusive government agents in their black helicopters?  OK with everyone having those as well?  what about a satchel nuke?  Do you honestly think that is what the founders had in mind?  Do you honestly believe their should be ZERO restrictions on an American citizen arming himself and his castle against criminal invasion?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

expatriate said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bigreb... Are you really saying that there should be zero restrictions on citizens arming themselves?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again what part of shall not be infringed don't you fucking comprehend?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perfectly OK with landmines in the front yard are you?  What about a dual mount 40mm Anti-aircraft battery mounted on the back deck to shoot down those intrusive government agents in their black helicopters?  OK with everyone having those as well?  what about a satchel nuke?  Do you honestly think that is what the founders had in mind?  Do you honestly believe their should be ZERO restrictions on an American citizen arming himself and his castle against criminal invasion?
Click to expand...







Let's stick within the boundaries the second amendment is dealing with


----------



## expatriate

bigrebnc1775 said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again what part of shall not be infringed don't you fucking comprehend?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perfectly OK with landmines in the front yard are you?  What about a dual mount 40mm Anti-aircraft battery mounted on the back deck to shoot down those intrusive government agents in their black helicopters?  OK with everyone having those as well?  what about a satchel nuke?  Do you honestly think that is what the founders had in mind?  Do you honestly believe their should be ZERO restrictions on an American citizen arming himself and his castle against criminal invasion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's stick within the boundaries the second amendment is dealing with
Click to expand...


You mean the boundaries that have been interpreted by SCOTUS over time.  The wording of the amendment does not limit arms in any way.  answer my question... Do you believe in zero limits on arms or don't you?


----------



## HUGGY

^^^^^^ Crack shot with a .22 rifle.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

expatriate said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perfectly OK with landmines in the front yard are you?  What about a dual mount 40mm Anti-aircraft battery mounted on the back deck to shoot down those intrusive government agents in their black helicopters?  OK with everyone having those as well?  what about a satchel nuke?  Do you honestly think that is what the founders had in mind?  Do you honestly believe their should be ZERO restrictions on an American citizen arming himself and his castle against criminal invasion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's stick within the boundaries the second amendment is dealing with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean the boundaries that have been interpreted by SCOTUS over time.  The wording of the amendment does not limit arms in any way.  answer my question... Do you believe in zero limits on arms or don't you?
Click to expand...

You've not answered my question. What part of shall not be infringed don't you comprehend?
Now if you want to go the supreme court route Miller vs. U.S.  ruled in order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia and be the kind in common use at the time, and owned by the militia member.


----------



## Too Tall

Lakhota said:


> LibertyLemming said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tjvh said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think the tank crews, and fighter pilots wont side with the Constitution and with that, their fellow citizens?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The real question is why are these means of protection only available to some citizens. I should be able to own these things as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Justice Scalia says the 2nd Amendment doesn't give you the right to own such things.
Click to expand...


I didn't read what Justice Scalia said, but did he say if you have legally purchased a firearm it can be taken away from you?


----------



## expatriate

bigrebnc1775 said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's stick within the boundaries the second amendment is dealing with
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the boundaries that have been interpreted by SCOTUS over time.  The wording of the amendment does not limit arms in any way.  answer my question... Do you believe in zero limits on arms or don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've not answered my question. What part of shall not be infringed don't you comprehend?
> Now if you want to go the supreme court route Miller vs. U.S.  ruled in order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia and be the kind in common use at the time, and owned by the militia member.
Click to expand...


So... You are cool with restricting "arms" to single shot, muzzle loaders?  I'd be cool with that too.  That is certainly what the founders envisioned when the WROTE the 2nd Amendment.  I had no idea you'd be in agreement with such a restriction.  Because, in this day and age, I could easily imagine folks like you wanting that 40mm AA mount on the back deck, especially given the proliferation of threats from the air.


----------



## expatriate

And I would certainly be all in favor of limiting firearm ownership to only those citizens who agreed to be "well regulated" and participate in regular training as part of a well regulated militia. Are you with me on that one too?  Or do you think that everyone should just be able to go down to their local gun shop and buy the biggest, baddest weapon they can buy without any strings attached? THAT doesn't seem congruous with the framer's intent.


----------



## OODA_Loop

expatriate said:


> And I would certainly be all in favor of limiting firearm ownership to only those citizens who agreed to be "well regulated" and participate in regular training as part of a well regulated militia. Are you with me on that one too?  Or do you think that everyone should just be able to go down to their local gun shop and buy the biggest, baddest weapon they can buy without any strings attached? THAT doesn't seem congruous with the framer's intent.



Don't have to be in the militia per SCOTUS.

Individual right.


----------



## expatriate

OODA_Loop said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I would certainly be all in favor of limiting firearm ownership to only those citizens who agreed to be "well regulated" and participate in regular training as part of a well regulated militia. Are you with me on that one too?  Or do you think that everyone should just be able to go down to their local gun shop and buy the biggest, baddest weapon they can buy without any strings attached? THAT doesn't seem congruous with the framer's intent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't have to be in the militia per SCOTUS.
> 
> Individual right.
Click to expand...


So...40mm AA batteries on everyone's back deck are cool with you?


----------



## OODA_Loop

expatriate said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I would certainly be all in favor of limiting firearm ownership to only those citizens who agreed to be "well regulated" and participate in regular training as part of a well regulated militia. Are you with me on that one too?  Or do you think that everyone should just be able to go down to their local gun shop and buy the biggest, baddest weapon they can buy without any strings attached? THAT doesn't seem congruous with the framer's intent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't have to be in the militia per SCOTUS.
> 
> Individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So...40mm AA batteries on everyone's back deck are cool with you?
Click to expand...



Cool ? Yes. 

Legal ? No.


----------



## expatriate

OODA_Loop said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't have to be in the militia per SCOTUS.
> 
> Individual right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So...40mm AA batteries on everyone's back deck are cool with you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Cool ? Yes.
> 
> Legal ? No.
Click to expand...


Why not legal?  It certainly seems like an infringement, no?

And, if you say that judges and politicians DO have a role in drawing ANY line, then quit your fucking bitching if the elected officials draw the line somewhere other than you would personally have drawn it.  Vote for their opponent in the next election or run for their seat yourself.  Otherwise, STFU.


----------



## OODA_Loop

expatriate said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> So...40mm AA batteries on everyone's back deck are cool with you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cool ? Yes.
> 
> Legal ? No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not legal?  It certainly seems like an infringement, no?
> 
> And, if you say that judges and politicians DO have a role in drawing ANY line, then quit your fucking bitching if the elected officials draw the line somewhere other than you would personally have drawn it.  Vote for their opponent in the next election or run for their seat yourself.  Otherwise, STFU.
Click to expand...


40mm AA batteries are not in _common use._

AR-15's are.


----------



## expatriate

OODA_Loop said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cool ? Yes.
> 
> Legal ? No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not legal?  It certainly seems like an infringement, no?
> 
> And, if you say that judges and politicians DO have a role in drawing ANY line, then quit your fucking bitching if the elected officials draw the line somewhere other than you would personally have drawn it.  Vote for their opponent in the next election or run for their seat yourself.  Otherwise, STFU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 40mm AA batteries are not in _common use._
> 
> AR-15's are.
Click to expand...


So, when any new weapons technology comes on the market, all it needs is some clever marketing, and it will pass muster?


----------



## GuyPinestra

expatriate said:


> And I would certainly be all in favor of limiting firearm ownership to only those citizens who agreed to be "well regulated" and participate in regular training as part of a well regulated militia. Are you with me on that one too?  Or do you think that everyone should just be able to go down to their local gun shop and buy the biggest, baddest weapon they can buy without any strings attached? THAT doesn't seem congruous with the framer's intent.



You don't seem qualified to determine the Framer's intent, since your determination is so much different from SCOTUS.

You should probably give it a rest.


----------



## expatriate

GuyPinestra said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I would certainly be all in favor of limiting firearm ownership to only those citizens who agreed to be "well regulated" and participate in regular training as part of a well regulated militia. Are you with me on that one too?  Or do you think that everyone should just be able to go down to their local gun shop and buy the biggest, baddest weapon they can buy without any strings attached? THAT doesn't seem congruous with the framer's intent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't seem qualified to determine the Framer's intent, since your determination is so much different from SCOTUS.
> 
> You should probably give it a rest.
Click to expand...


So you too, are ready to give serious credence to nine judges in the 21st century over the framers from the end of the 18th?

Thanks for playing.


----------



## OODA_Loop

expatriate said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not legal?  It certainly seems like an infringement, no?
> 
> And, if you say that judges and politicians DO have a role in drawing ANY line, then quit your fucking bitching if the elected officials draw the line somewhere other than you would personally have drawn it.  Vote for their opponent in the next election or run for their seat yourself.  Otherwise, STFU.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 40mm AA batteries are not in _common use._
> 
> AR-15's are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, when any new weapons technology comes on the market, all it needs is some clever marketing, and it will pass muster?
Click to expand...


Needs more than clever marketing.


----------



## GuyPinestra

expatriate said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I would certainly be all in favor of limiting firearm ownership to only those citizens who agreed to be "well regulated" and participate in regular training as part of a well regulated militia. Are you with me on that one too?  Or do you think that everyone should just be able to go down to their local gun shop and buy the biggest, baddest weapon they can buy without any strings attached? THAT doesn't seem congruous with the framer's intent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't seem qualified to determine the Framer's intent, since your determination is so much different from SCOTUS.
> 
> You should probably give it a rest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you too, are ready to give serious credence to nine judges in the 21st century over the framers from the end of the 18th?
> 
> Thanks for playing.
Click to expand...


The intent of the 2nd was and is to make sure the people PRIVATELY possess weapons comparable to those 'standing armies' they were so skeptical of.

Period.


----------



## Lakhota




----------



## Lakhota




----------



## emptystep

GuyPinestra said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't seem qualified to determine the Framer's intent, since your determination is so much different from SCOTUS.
> 
> You should probably give it a rest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you too, are ready to give serious credence to nine judges in the 21st century over the framers from the end of the 18th?
> 
> Thanks for playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The intent of the 2nd was and is to make sure the people PRIVATELY possess weapons comparable to those 'standing armies' they were so skeptical of.
> 
> Period.
Click to expand...


We also have the right to carry any weapon any where we go in case the government tries to sneak up on us and oppress us.


----------



## percysunshine

Lakhota said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama says he supports the individual protection of the 2A.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So do I and most responsible gun owners.  It's the extremist views of the NRA gun nuts that many of us don't support.
Click to expand...


Lakota is a gun and bible clinging KKK nutjob?

We promise not to rat you out Lak...you are an individual thinker.


----------



## GuyPinestra

Lakhota said:


> Duh, my people were here first...  I think I'll stay...



You would think knowing 'your people's' history, you'd realize what happens when a group has inferior weapons and/or has those weapons confiscated.

Or is it just that you want to see EVERYBODY 'on the rez'?


----------



## expatriate

emptystep said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you too, are ready to give serious credence to nine judges in the 21st century over the framers from the end of the 18th?
> 
> Thanks for playing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The intent of the 2nd was and is to make sure the people PRIVATELY possess weapons comparable to those 'standing armies' they were so skeptical of.
> 
> Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We also have the right to carry any weapon any where we go in case the government tries to sneak up on us and oppress us.
Click to expand...


So you are completely in favor of letting any citizen own any armament he or she feels necessary... Missile launchers, land mines, tactical nuclear weapons... Not to mention assault rifles and fully automatic weapons?  do I have that right?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

Lakhota said:


> *A distinguished citizen takes a stand on one of the most controversial issues in the nation*
> 
> _By Warren E. Burger, Chief Justice of the United States (1969-86)
> Parade Magazine, January 14, 1990, page 4_
> 
> Let's look at the history.
> 
> First, many of the 3.5 million people living in the 13 original Colonies depended on wild game for food, and a good many of them required firearms for their defense from marauding Indians -- and later from the French and English. Underlying all these needs was an important concept that each able-bodied man in each of the 133 independent states had to help or defend his state.
> 
> The early opposition to the idea of national or standing armies was maintained under the Articles of Confederation; that confederation had no standing army and wanted none. The state militia -- essentially a part-time citizen army, as in Switzerland today -- was the only kind of "army" they wanted. From the time of the Declaration of Independence through the victory at Yorktown in 1781, George Washington, as the commander-in-chief of these volunteer-militia armies, had to depend upon the states to send those volunteers.
> 
> When a company of New Jersey militia volunteers reported for duty to Washington at Valley Forge, the men initially declined to take an oath to "the United States," maintaining, "Our country is New Jersey." Massachusetts Bay men, Virginians and others felt the same way. To the American of the 18th century, his state was his country, and his freedom was defended by his militia.
> 
> The victory at Yorktown -- and the ratification of the Bill of Rights a decade later -- did not change people's attitudes about a national army. They had lived for years under the notion that each state would maintain its own military establishment, and the seaboard states had their own navies as well. These people, and their fathers and grandfathers before them, remembered how monarchs had used standing armies to oppress their ancestors in Europe. Americans wanted no part of this. A state militia, like a rifle and powder horn, was as much a part of life as the automobile is today; pistols were largely for officers, aristocrats -- and dueling.
> 
> Against this background, it was not surprising that the provision concerning firearms emerged in very simple terms with the significant predicate -- basing the right on the necessity for a "well regulated militia," a state army.
> 
> In the two centuries since then -- with two world wars and some lesser ones -- it has become clear, sadly, that we have no choice but to maintain a standing national army while still maintaining a "militia" by way of the National Guard, which can be swiftly integrated into the national defense forces.
> 
> Americans also have a right to defend their homes, and we need not challenge that. Nor does anyone seriously question that the Constitution protects the right of hunters to own and keep sporting guns for hunting game any more than anyone would challenge the right to own and keep fishing rods and other equipment for fishing -- or to own automobiles. To "keep and bear arms" for hunting today is essentially a recreational activity and not an imperative of survival, as it was 200 years ago; "Saturday night specials" and machine guns are not recreational weapons and surely are as much in need of regulation as motor vehicles.
> 
> Americans should ask themselves a few questions. The Constitution does not mention automobiles or motorboats, but the right to keep and own an automobile is beyond question; equally beyond question is the power of the state to regulate the purchase or the transfer of such a vehicle and the right to license the vehicle and the driver with reasonable standards. In some places, even a bicycle must be registered, as must some household dogs.
> 
> If we are to stop this mindless homicidal carnage, is it unreasonable:
> 
> 1. to provide that, to acquire a firearm, an application be made reciting age, residence, employment and any prior criminal convictions?
> 2. to required that this application lie on the table for 10 days (absent a showing for urgent need) before the license would be issued?
> 3. that the transfer of a firearm be made essentially as with that of a motor vehicle?
> 4. to have a "ballistic fingerprint" of the firearm made by the manufacturer and filed with the license record so that, if a bullet is found in a victim's body, law enforcement might be helped in finding the culprit?​These are the kind of questions the American people must answer if we are to preserve the "domestic tranquillity" promised in the Constitution.
> 
> More: Ex-Chief Justice Warren Burger in Parade Magazine



Nope. none of that. You hate 'merica and the 2nd amendment. THe Federal government has no right to tell me what I can and cannot do. Boodaloo, I'm going to go bang my cousin now.


----------



## Lakhota

When the 2nd Amendment was written - there was no "standing army"...



> The early opposition to the idea of national or standing armies was maintained under the Articles of Confederation; that confederation had no standing army and wanted none. The state militia -- essentially a part-time citizen army, as in Switzerland today -- was the only kind of "army" they wanted. From the time of the Declaration of Independence through the victory at Yorktown in 1781, George Washington, as the commander-in-chief of these volunteer-militia armies, had to depend upon the states to send those volunteers.



From the OP.


----------



## asterism

Nosmo King said:


> So, lacking a definition of tyranny, is it safe to assume that such fears of tyranny and the need to arm against it is nothing more than an esoteric rant with all the credibility and potential of the fears ginned up over fluoridation from way back in the 1950s?
> 
> The calls to arms to resist tyranny are empty and ridiculous because no one can say how tyranny manifests itself in modern America.  The fact is you idiots know NOTHING of tyranny.  You can't even cite examples of American tyranny, in spite of the fact that anyone reading this who is over 55 years old has seen tyranny in action here in America.



A salient point.

That such tyranny has not existed here in a long while does not mean it will never happen again and it most certainly does not mean that vigilance against it are empty and ridiculous.  It can mean that so far, the 2nd Amendment as a check against tyranny has worked quite well.


----------



## asterism

Nosmo King said:


> Dreamy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, lacking a definition of tyranny, is it safe to assume that such fears of tyranny and the need to arm against it is nothing more than an esoteric rant with all the credibility and potential of the fears ginned up over fluoridation from way back in the 1950s?
> 
> The calls to arms to resist tyranny are empty and ridiculous because no one can say how tyranny manifests itself in modern America. The fact is you idiots know NOTHING of tyranny. You can't even cite examples of American tyranny, in spite of the fact that anyone reading this who is over 55 years old has seen tyranny in action here in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not clear on what you are requesting? You want a definition of tyranny?  Do you think tyranny is something that works like a light switch?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, i don't think there's instant tyranny.  But if the justification to keep a cache of weapons and ammunition so a citizen can hold off tyranny in a three hour fire fight, perhaps we should know what we'
> re supposed to be so damn fearful about.
> 
> What is tyranny?  How does it manifest itself?  What is there to fear?
Click to expand...


The government is to fear the wrath of a plurality of it's armed citizens deciding to rise up against it.  Not Waco, not Ruby Ridge, but millions of armed citizens defending their homes and their way of life.

It's a good check on the power of governments and it's telling that it hasn't occurred.


----------



## asterism

Nosmo King said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, the only way to suppress tyranny is at the barrel of a gun?  Citizens cannot, nor have they ever, in this country faced real tyranny and freed themselves of it without armed resistance?
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's not the ONLY way, but it's a damn good deterrent....by design.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, I ask, what is tyranny?  How will we know tyranny is being forced upon us?  Has the state ever acted in a tyrannical manner towards its citizens here in the United States?
Click to expand...


Yes, but the citizens did not rise up as they should have.  The Japanese internment camps of WWII were calamitous.


----------



## asterism

Nosmo King said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> <side bar> I thought you were referring to predator drone strikes against American born Al Qeada militants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That happened in Pakistan, didn't it???
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't want to go down a primrose path with this.  I just want to know if we're supposed to be fearful, what are we supposed to be fearful of?  And are the examples I cited tyranny or not?
Click to expand...


Only if enough of the armed citizens rise up and rebel.

That's the check on mob rule.


----------



## Lakhota

Tyranny was when Bush lied to us and then invaded Iraq.  We should have risen up.


----------



## asterism

Lakhota said:


> Tyranny was when Bush lied to us and then invaded Iraq.  We should have risen up.



Hard to do without sufficient arms right?

Why didn't you rise up?


----------



## Lakhota

asterism said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tyranny was when Bush lied to us and then invaded Iraq.  We should have risen up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hard to do without sufficient arms right?
> 
> Why didn't you rise up?
Click to expand...


I had no trained army with fighter jets, bombers, tanks, cruise missiles, spy satellites, nuclear submarines, biological weapons, etc...


----------



## asterism

Lakhota said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tyranny was when Bush lied to us and then invaded Iraq.  We should have risen up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hard to do without sufficient arms right?
> 
> Why didn't you rise up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I had no trained army with fighter jets, bombers, tanks, cruise missiles, spy satellites, nuclear submarines, biological weapons, etc...
Click to expand...


Ah.  So your opinion was in the extreme minority then.  Because if millions of armed citizens  shared your stated opinion it wouldn't have happened or it would have stopped immediately.


----------



## Lakhota

asterism said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hard to do without sufficient arms right?
> 
> Why didn't you rise up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I had no trained army with fighter jets, bombers, tanks, cruise missiles, spy satellites, nuclear submarines, biological weapons, etc...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah.  So your opinion was in the extreme minority then.  Because if millions of armed citizens  shared your stated opinion it wouldn't have happened or it would have stopped immediately.
Click to expand...


I highly suspect that if millions of UNARMED citizens had simply bombarded the White House with phone calls, emails, letters, work strikes and loud massive protests that it would have also stopped immediately - and no one would have shed blood.


----------



## asterism

Lakhota said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had no trained army with fighter jets, bombers, tanks, cruise missiles, spy satellites, nuclear submarines, biological weapons, etc...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah.  So your opinion was in the extreme minority then.  Because if millions of armed citizens  shared your stated opinion it wouldn't have happened or it would have stopped immediately.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I highly suspect that if millions of UNARMED citizens had simply bombarded the White House with phone calls, emails, letters, work strikes and loud massive protests that it would have also stopped immediately - and no one would have shed blood.
Click to expand...


Go ahead and think that the OWS model works.

But good to see you recognize how far into the minority you are.  Tell ya what, you keep thinking your online petitions and bake sales are going to serve as a good check to an absolutely out of control government.  I'll keep my powder dry for when it really matters, as enumerated in the Constitution and reaffirmed in D.C. v. Heller.


----------



## Lakhota

Okay...


----------



## Lakhota




----------



## asterism

Lakhota said:


>



Why do you keep repeating moot opinions?

D.C. v. Heller


----------



## Lakhota

asterism said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you keep repeating moot opinions?
> 
> D.C. v. Heller
Click to expand...


D.C. v. Heller was simply one ruling at one point in time.  There will be future rulings, and I doubt anyone expects the 2nd Amendment to be expanded rather than restricted.

The 2nd Amendment means whatever SCOTUS says it means - _at any point in time..._


----------



## MeBelle

.


----------



## MeBelle

8


----------



## Lakhota




----------



## Skull Pilot

Lakhota said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you keep repeating moot opinions?
> 
> D.C. v. Heller
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> D.C. v. Heller was simply one ruling at one point in time.  There will be future rulings, and I doubt anyone expects the 2nd Amendment to be expanded rather than restricted.
> 
> The 2nd Amendment means whatever SCOTUS says it means - _at any point in time..._
Click to expand...


Last time I checked in order to add words to the constitution required more than some Judge saying words should be added.


----------



## Lakhota

7 Gun Groups That Make the NRA Look Reasonable | Mother Jones


----------



## Bigfoot

Lakhota said:


> 7 Gun Groups That Make the NRA Look Reasonable | Mother Jones



This country needs the NRA, more now then ever! I am proud to be a member and I like and use their gear. They only carry the best!


----------



## PaulS1950

Mr. Morgan hates it when a guest brings up that England's violent crime rate is higher than that in the USA. He would much rather quote the number of gun murder incidents because if we did that the Sandy Hill shooting would only be counted as one murder incident. What a tool! He was kicked out of his job in England for using the same tactics that he can get away with in the USA because of another one of our rights - the first amendment.


----------



## MDiver

when they come for the assault weapons, the reaction should be simple....fight.  As news/word spreads, more and more will join in the fight.


----------



## Lakhota

Jennifer Granholm Destroys Santorum's Opposition To Gun Safety: 'Why Do You Need An Armor Piercing Bullet?' | ThinkProgress


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Lakhota said:


> Jennifer Granholm Destroys Santorum's Opposition To Gun Safety: 'Why Do You Need An Armor Piercing Bullet?' | ThinkProgress



Why does the government need armor piercing bullets? 
"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson



The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.-Thomas Jefferson


----------



## expatriate

expatriate said:


> emptystep said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> The intent of the 2nd was and is to make sure the people PRIVATELY possess weapons comparable to those 'standing armies' they were so skeptical of.
> 
> Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We also have the right to carry any weapon any where we go in case the government tries to sneak up on us and oppress us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are completely in favor of letting any citizen own any armament he or she feels necessary... Missile launchers, land mines, tactical nuclear weapons... Not to mention assault rifles and fully automatic weapons?  do I have that right?
Click to expand...


A literal reading of the 2nd seems like any arms would be acceptable.  Are you NRA types suggesting that any citizen ought to be able to own, carry and utilize any form of arms if he feels the need to use them in self protection, or are there some limits somewhere?


----------



## OODA_Loop

expatriate said:


> .  Are you NRA types suggesting that any citizen ought to be able to own, carry and utilize any form of arms if he feels the need to use them in self protection, or are there some limits somewhere?



Right to keep and bear arms in common usage.


----------



## expatriate

OODA_Loop said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> .  Are you NRA types suggesting that any citizen ought to be able to own, carry and utilize any form of arms if he feels the need to use them in self protection, or are there some limits somewhere?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right to keep and bear arms in common usage.
Click to expand...


Where is "common usage" mentioned in the Constitution?


----------



## OODA_Loop

expatriate said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> .  Are you NRA types suggesting that any citizen ought to be able to own, carry and utilize any form of arms if he feels the need to use them in self protection, or are there some limits somewhere?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right to keep and bear arms in common usage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is "common usage" mentioned in the Constitution?
Click to expand...


Affirmation by SCOTUS in _Heller v. DC_


----------



## expatriate

OODA_Loop said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right to keep and bear arms in common usage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is "common usage" mentioned in the Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Affirmation by SCOTUS in _Heller v. DC_
Click to expand...


Muzzle loaders are no longer in common usage.  Does that mean we no longer have a right to bear them?  

Also, how do new weapons technologies ever pass that test if they are not in common usage when they are introduced?


----------



## OODA_Loop

expatriate said:


> Muzzle loaders are no longer in common usage.  Does that mean we no longer have a right to bear them?
> 
> Also, how do new weapons technologies ever pass that test if they are not in common usage when they are introduced?



Muzzle loaders are sold and used everyday.    Most states have muzzle loader hunting season.   They sell them at most shooting retailers.

What new weapons technology are you referring to ?

http://www.cabelas.com/catalog/browse.cmd?N=1100199&WTz_l=SBC;BRprd740625


----------



## expatriate

OODA_Loop said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> Muzzle loaders are no longer in common usage.  Does that mean we no longer have a right to bear them?
> 
> Also, how do new weapons technologies ever pass that test if they are not in common usage when they are introduced?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muzzle loaders are sold and used everyday.    Most states have muzzle loader hunting season.   They sell them at most shooting retailers.
> 
> What new weapons technology are you referring to ?
> 
> Cabela's: Black Powder
Click to expand...


Regardless... Muzzle loaders are hardly "common".

Any new technology.... Throughout our history, firearms have improved in both speed and accuracy of fire... Whenever any of those advances first occurred, the new weapon was not in common usage.


----------



## OODA_Loop

expatriate said:


> Regardless... Muzzle loaders are hardly "common".
> 
> Any new technology.... Throughout our history, firearms have improved in both speed and accuracy of fire... Whenever any of those advances first occurred, the new weapon was not in common usage.



Muzzle loaders are common.  You are just not right on this.  I know you dont like to be wrong.

Got an example of your firearms advancement theory ?


----------



## Darkwind




----------



## expatriate

OODA_Loop said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless... Muzzle loaders are hardly "common".
> 
> Any new technology.... Throughout our history, firearms have improved in both speed and accuracy of fire... Whenever any of those advances first occurred, the new weapon was not in common usage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muzzle loaders are common.  You are just not right on this.  I know you dont like to be wrong.
> 
> Got an example of your firearms advancement theory ?
Click to expand...


Rifling of gun barrels.  If the Heller definition had been in place then, they would have been prohibited.  Are you suggesting that the firearms industry have all disbanded their R&D departments and that no new technologies will ever be forthcoming?

and I lived in Maine for a quarter of a century, and knew HUNDREDS of folks who hunted.  I could count the number of muzzle loader owners in that group on one hand, even if I'd lost three fingers.  Clearly, your definition of the word "common" and mine are different.  We'll have to agree to disagree on that issue.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

With every post by rightwing nitwits, supposed &#8216;advocates&#8217; of &#8216;gun rights,&#8217; they succeed in only undermining the Second Amendment and doing more harm than any &#8216;gun-grabber&#8217; could.  

Your ignorance and stupidity is neither helping nor wanted.


----------



## OODA_Loop

expatriate said:


> Rifling of gun barrels.  If the Heller definition had been in place then, they would have been prohibited.  Are you suggesting that the firearms industry have all disbanded their R&D departments and that no new technologies will ever be forthcoming?
> 
> and I lived in Maine for a quarter of a century, and knew HUNDREDS of folks who hunted.  I could count the number of muzzle loader owners in that group on one hand, even if I'd lost three fingers.  Clearly, your definition of the word "common" and mine are different.  We'll have to agree to disagree on that issue.



I have to say your "rifling of gun barrels" was a pretty slick answer and more thought out than about 90% of anti-gun retorts.   that said however, I am not certain that taking an existing smooth-bore arm and rifling the barrel to improve accuracy reduces the commonality of the arm.



We don't have to disagree.  Maine, having one of the larger populations of N. American big game is prime muzzle loading country.   The State of Maine has an entire licensing and industry around it.

Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife - Hunting Licenses


----------



## emptystep

OODA_Loop said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> .  Are you NRA types suggesting that any citizen ought to be able to own, carry and utilize any form of arms if he feels the need to use them in self protection, or are there some limits somewhere?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right to keep and bear arms in common usage.
Click to expand...


How many times a week do I have to fire my RPG for it to be common usage?


----------



## OODA_Loop

emptystep said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> .  Are you NRA types suggesting that any citizen ought to be able to own, carry and utilize any form of arms if he feels the need to use them in self protection, or are there some limits somewhere?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right to keep and bear arms in common usage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times a week do I have to fire my RPG for it to be common usage?
Click to expand...


RPG is an explosive.

No right to keep and bear explosives.


----------



## emptystep

OODA_Loop said:


> emptystep said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right to keep and bear arms in common usage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many times a week do I have to fire my RPG for it to be common usage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RPG is an explosive.
> 
> No right to keep and bear explosives.
Click to expand...


Catapult filled with poo?


----------



## OODA_Loop

emptystep said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emptystep said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many times a week do I have to fire my RPG for it to be common usage?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RPG is an explosive.
> 
> No right to keep and bear explosives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Catapult filled with poo?
Click to expand...


Catapult = legal.

Poo = Violates local health code.


----------



## emptystep

OODA_Loop said:


> emptystep said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> RPG is an explosive.
> 
> No right to keep and bear explosives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Catapult filled with poo?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Catapult = legal.
> 
> Poo = Violates local health code.
Click to expand...


?


----------



## OODA_Loop

emptystep said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emptystep said:
> 
> 
> 
> Catapult filled with poo?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Catapult = legal.
> 
> Poo = Violates local health code.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ?
Click to expand...


Check and mate.


----------



## expatriate

OODA_Loop said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rifling of gun barrels.  If the Heller definition had been in place then, they would have been prohibited.  Are you suggesting that the firearms industry have all disbanded their R&D departments and that no new technologies will ever be forthcoming?
> 
> and I lived in Maine for a quarter of a century, and knew HUNDREDS of folks who hunted.  I could count the number of muzzle loader owners in that group on one hand, even if I'd lost three fingers.  Clearly, your definition of the word "common" and mine are different.  We'll have to agree to disagree on that issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say your "rifling of gun barrels" was a pretty slick answer and more thought out than about 90% of anti-gun retorts.   that said however, I am not certain that taking an existing smooth-bore arm and rifling the barrel to improve accuracy reduces the commonality.
Click to expand...


The point is that "arms" today bear little to no resemblance to those the founders knew.  At each advancement, arms become more and more effective, more efficient, and more lethal.  I happen to believe that government has a role to play in regulating which of those new technologies is solely for military use, and which ones ought to be available to private citizens.  And if they do so after the use of some new technology has, perhaps, become somewhat common, I am fine with that, too.


----------



## asterism

expatriate said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless... Muzzle loaders are hardly "common".
> 
> Any new technology.... Throughout our history, firearms have improved in both speed and accuracy of fire... Whenever any of those advances first occurred, the new weapon was not in common usage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muzzle loaders are common.  You are just not right on this.  I know you dont like to be wrong.
> 
> Got an example of your firearms advancement theory ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rifling of gun barrels.  If the Heller definition had been in place then, they would have been prohibited.  Are you suggesting that the firearms industry have all disbanded their R&D departments and that no new technologies will ever be forthcoming?
> 
> and I lived in Maine for a quarter of a century, and knew HUNDREDS of folks who hunted.  I could count the number of muzzle loader owners in that group on one hand, even if I'd lost three fingers.  Clearly, your definition of the word "common" and mine are different.  We'll have to agree to disagree on that issue.
Click to expand...




OODA_Loop said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rifling of gun barrels.  If the Heller definition had been in place then, they would have been prohibited.  Are you suggesting that the firearms industry have all disbanded their R&D departments and that no new technologies will ever be forthcoming?
> 
> and I lived in Maine for a quarter of a century, and knew HUNDREDS of folks who hunted.  I could count the number of muzzle loader owners in that group on one hand, even if I'd lost three fingers.  Clearly, your definition of the word "common" and mine are different.  We'll have to agree to disagree on that issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say your "rifling of gun barrels" was a pretty slick answer and more thought out than about 90% of anti-gun retorts.   that said however, I am not certain that taking an existing smooth-bore arm and rifling the barrel to improve accuracy reduces the commonality of the arm.
> 
> 
> 
> We don't have to disagree.  Maine, having one of the larger populations of N. American big game is prime muzzle loading country.   The State of Maine has an entire licensing and industry around it.
> 
> Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife - Hunting Licenses
Click to expand...


I agree, the point about barrel rifling is good.

New technologies will be introduced, then used widely, thereby making them in common usage.  I'm not sure how that pertains to automatic machine guns.  Are they in common usage yet?

Interesting.


----------



## asterism

expatriate said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rifling of gun barrels.  If the Heller definition had been in place then, they would have been prohibited.  Are you suggesting that the firearms industry have all disbanded their R&D departments and that no new technologies will ever be forthcoming?
> 
> and I lived in Maine for a quarter of a century, and knew HUNDREDS of folks who hunted.  I could count the number of muzzle loader owners in that group on one hand, even if I'd lost three fingers.  Clearly, your definition of the word "common" and mine are different.  We'll have to agree to disagree on that issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say your "rifling of gun barrels" was a pretty slick answer and more thought out than about 90% of anti-gun retorts.   that said however, I am not certain that taking an existing smooth-bore arm and rifling the barrel to improve accuracy reduces the commonality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is that "arms" today bear little to no resemblance to those the founders knew.  At each advancement, arms become more and more effective, more efficient, and more lethal.  I happen to believe that government has a role to play in regulating which of those new technologies is solely for military use, and which ones ought to be available to private citizens.  And if they do so after the use of some new technology has, perhaps, become somewhat common, I am fine with that, too.
Click to expand...


I think a good parallel is technology advancement and the First Amendment.  The founders never envisioned abortion, the Internet, radio, or satellite TV.

In some situations there are virtually no restrictions for speech while others are regulated to the point where prior government approval is required.  Some rights are granted as extensions of derived rights (abortion resulting from privacy).

Some technologies like rifling, the removable magazine, and laser scopes have not been restricted while other technologies like tracer rounds, incendiary rounds (separate from explosive rounds) and full-auto have been restricted.

Interesting.


----------



## Lakhota




----------



## AquaAthena

asaratis said:


> The purpose of the Constitution is to limit the powers of the federal government.  The Bill of Rights applies to the citizens as protection from runaway government *such as we have in office today.
> *
> Read it.


----------



## emptystep

I think I should have one too.


----------



## OODA_Loop

asterism said:


> Some technologies like rifling, the removable magazine, and laser scopes have not been restricted while other technologies like tracer rounds, incendiary rounds (separate from explosive rounds) and full-auto have been restricted.
> 
> Interesting.



Because rifling, magazines and scopes increase accuracy not inherent danger of the weapon.


----------



## AquaAthena

asaratis said:


> Just as Obama is no Lincoln reincarnated, Warren Burger does not come anywhere close to possessing the intelligence and wisdom of Thomas Jefferson.


----------



## Lakhota




----------



## expatriate

OODA_Loop said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some technologies like rifling, the removable magazine, and laser scopes have not been restricted while other technologies like tracer rounds, incendiary rounds (separate from explosive rounds) and full-auto have been restricted.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because rifling, magazines and scopes increase accuracy not inherent danger of the weapon.
Click to expand...


Most would agree that a more accurate weapon that can fire more rounds per minute was, by its very nature, more dangerous.


----------



## Lakhota




----------



## hazlnut

asaratis said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> *A distinguished citizen takes a stand on one of the most controversial issues in the nation*
> 
> _By Warren E. Burger, Chief Justice of the United States (1969-86)
> Parade Magazine, January 14, 1990, page 4_
> 
> Let's look at the history.
> 
> First, many of the 3.5 million people living in the 13 original Colonies depended on wild game for food, and a good many of them required firearms for their defense from marauding Indians -- and later from the French and English. Underlying all these needs was an important concept that each able-bodied man in each of the 133 independent states had to help or defend his state.
> 
> The early opposition to the idea of national or standing armies was maintained under the Articles of Confederation; that confederation had no standing army and wanted none. The state militia -- essentially a part-time citizen army, as in Switzerland today -- was the only kind of "army" they wanted. From the time of the Declaration of Independence through the victory at Yorktown in 1781, George Washington, as the commander-in-chief of these volunteer-militia armies, had to depend upon the states to send those volunteers.
> 
> When a company of New Jersey militia volunteers reported for duty to Washington at Valley Forge, the men initially declined to take an oath to "the United States," maintaining, "Our country is New Jersey." Massachusetts Bay men, Virginians and others felt the same way. To the American of the 18th century, his state was his country, and his freedom was defended by his militia.
> 
> The victory at Yorktown -- and the ratification of the Bill of Rights a decade later -- did not change people's attitudes about a national army. They had lived for years under the notion that each state would maintain its own military establishment, and the seaboard states had their own navies as well. These people, and their fathers and grandfathers before them, remembered how monarchs had used standing armies to oppress their ancestors in Europe. Americans wanted no part of this. A state militia, like a rifle and powder horn, was as much a part of life as the automobile is today; pistols were largely for officers, aristocrats -- and dueling.
> 
> Against this background, it was not surprising that the provision concerning firearms emerged in very simple terms with the significant predicate -- basing the right on the necessity for a "well regulated militia," a state army.
> 
> In the two centuries since then -- with two world wars and some lesser ones -- it has become clear, sadly, that we have no choice but to maintain a standing national army while still maintaining a "militia" by way of the National Guard, which can be swiftly integrated into the national defense forces.
> 
> Americans also have a right to defend their homes, and we need not challenge that. Nor does anyone seriously question that the Constitution protects the right of hunters to own and keep sporting guns for hunting game any more than anyone would challenge the right to own and keep fishing rods and other equipment for fishing -- or to own automobiles. To "keep and bear arms" for hunting today is essentially a recreational activity and not an imperative of survival, as it was 200 years ago; "Saturday night specials" and machine guns are not recreational weapons and surely are as much in need of regulation as motor vehicles.
> 
> Americans should ask themselves a few questions. The Constitution does not mention automobiles or motorboats, but the right to keep and own an automobile is beyond question; equally beyond question is the power of the state to regulate the purchase or the transfer of such a vehicle and the right to license the vehicle and the driver with reasonable standards. In some places, even a bicycle must be registered, as must some household dogs.
> 
> If we are to stop this mindless homicidal carnage, is it unreasonable:
> 
> 1. to provide that, to acquire a firearm, an application be made reciting age, residence, employment and any prior criminal convictions?
> 2. to required that this application lie on the table for 10 days (absent a showing for urgent need) before the license would be issued?
> 3. that the transfer of a firearm be made essentially as with that of a motor vehicle?
> 4. to have a "ballistic fingerprint" of the firearm made by the manufacturer and filed with the license record so that, if a bullet is found in a victim's body, law enforcement might be helped in finding the culprit?​These are the kind of questions the American people must answer if we are to preserve the "domestic tranquillity" promised in the Constitution.
> 
> More: Ex-Chief Justice Warren Burger in Parade Magazine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our metropolitan centers, and some suburban communities of America, are setting new records for homicides by handguns. Many of our large centers have up to 10 times the murder rate of all of Western Europe. In 1988, there were 9000 handgun murders in America. Last year, Washington, D.C., alone had more than 400 homicides -- setting a new record for our capital.
> 
> The Constitution of the United States, in its Second Amendment, guarantees a "right of the people to keep and bear arms." However, the meaning of this clause cannot be understood except by looking to the purpose, the setting and the objectives of the draftsmen. The first 10 amendments -- the Bill of Rights -- were not drafted at Philadelphia in 1787; that document came two years later than the Constitution. Most of the states already had bills of rights, but the Constitution might not have been ratified in 1788 if the states had not had assurances that a national Bill of Rights would soon be added.
> 
> People of that day were apprehensive about the new "monster" national government presented to them, and this helps explain the language and purpose of the Second Amendment. A few lines after the First Amendment's guarantees -- against "establishment of religion," "free exercise" of religion, free speech and free press -- came a guarantee that grew out of the deep-seated fear of a "national" or "standing" army. The same First Congress that approved the right to keep and bear arms also limited the national army to 840 men; Congress in the Second Amendment then provided:
> 
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."​
> In the 1789 debate in Congress on James Madison's proposed Bill of Rights, Elbridge Gerry argued that a state militia was necessary:
> 
> "to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty ... Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia in order to raise and army upon their ruins."​
> We see that the need for a state militia was the predicate of the "right" guaranteed; in short, it was declared "necessary" in order to have a state military force to protect the security of the state. That Second Amendment clause must be read as though the word "because" was the opening word of the guarantee. Today, of course, the "state militia" serves a very different purpose. A huge national defense establishment has taken over the role of the militia of 200 years ago.
> 
> Some have exploited these ancient concerns, blurring sporting guns -- rifles, shotguns and even machine pistols -- with all firearms, including what are now called "Saturday night specials." There is, of course, a great difference between sporting guns and handguns. Some regulation of handguns has long been accepted as imperative; laws relating to "concealed weapons" are common. That we may be "over-regulated" in some areas of life has never held us back from more regulation of automobiles, airplanes, motorboats and "concealed weapons."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the OP link.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I rest assured that even if you or any of your ilk read this entire primer, you will remain in favor of strict gun control.  You are incorrigible.
> 
> A Primer on the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms
> 
> The purpose of the Constitution is to limit the powers of the federal government.  The Bill of Rights applies to the citizens as protection from runaway government such as we have in office today.
> 
> Read it.
Click to expand...


Typical bagger response, telling us to read a document they heard about once in high school, a document that is so over their head it's not even funny.


----------



## expatriate

asterism said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say your "rifling of gun barrels" was a pretty slick answer and more thought out than about 90% of anti-gun retorts.   that said however, I am not certain that taking an existing smooth-bore arm and rifling the barrel to improve accuracy reduces the commonality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that "arms" today bear little to no resemblance to those the founders knew.  At each advancement, arms become more and more effective, more efficient, and more lethal.  I happen to believe that government has a role to play in regulating which of those new technologies is solely for military use, and which ones ought to be available to private citizens.  And if they do so after the use of some new technology has, perhaps, become somewhat common, I am fine with that, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think a good parallel is technology advancement and the First Amendment.  The founders never envisioned abortion, the Internet, radio, or satellite TV.
> 
> In some situations there are virtually no restrictions for speech while others are regulated to the point where prior government approval is required.  Some rights are granted as extensions of derived rights (abortion resulting from privacy).
> 
> Some technologies like rifling, the removable magazine, and laser scopes have not been restricted while other technologies like tracer rounds, incendiary rounds (separate from explosive rounds) and full-auto have been restricted.
> 
> Interesting.
Click to expand...



Exactly.  What about "full auto" violates the intent and the scope of the framer's intent that semi-auto, or laser scopes does not?


----------



## asterism

expatriate said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that "arms" today bear little to no resemblance to those the founders knew.  At each advancement, arms become more and more effective, more efficient, and more lethal.  I happen to believe that government has a role to play in regulating which of those new technologies is solely for military use, and which ones ought to be available to private citizens.  And if they do so after the use of some new technology has, perhaps, become somewhat common, I am fine with that, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think a good parallel is technology advancement and the First Amendment.  The founders never envisioned abortion, the Internet, radio, or satellite TV.
> 
> In some situations there are virtually no restrictions for speech while others are regulated to the point where prior government approval is required.  Some rights are granted as extensions of derived rights (abortion resulting from privacy).
> 
> Some technologies like rifling, the removable magazine, and laser scopes have not been restricted while other technologies like tracer rounds, incendiary rounds (separate from explosive rounds) and full-auto have been restricted.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  What about "full auto" violates the intent and the scope of the framer's intent that semi-auto, or laser scopes does not?
Click to expand...


Hard to say, actually.  I think it's because they were classified as "machine guns" and therefore not considered small arms of the type intended by the founders.


----------



## expatriate

asterism said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think a good parallel is technology advancement and the First Amendment.  The founders never envisioned abortion, the Internet, radio, or satellite TV.
> 
> In some situations there are virtually no restrictions for speech while others are regulated to the point where prior government approval is required.  Some rights are granted as extensions of derived rights (abortion resulting from privacy).
> 
> Some technologies like rifling, the removable magazine, and laser scopes have not been restricted while other technologies like tracer rounds, incendiary rounds (separate from explosive rounds) and full-auto have been restricted.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  What about "full auto" violates the intent and the scope of the framer's intent that semi-auto, or laser scopes does not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hard to say, actually.  I think it's because they were classified as "machine guns" and therefore not considered small arms of the type intended by the founders.
Click to expand...



I think it is presumptuous to imagine we could accurately state what the founders would have thought about full auto versus semi-auto modern weaponry and think that we can somehow definitively draw that line where we would like it to be and bless our parsing with the holy writ of the founder's pen, and simultaneously condemn others who would draw that line elsewhere.


----------



## Dubya

expatriate said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that "arms" today bear little to no resemblance to those the founders knew.  At each advancement, arms become more and more effective, more efficient, and more lethal.  I happen to believe that government has a role to play in regulating which of those new technologies is solely for military use, and which ones ought to be available to private citizens.  And if they do so after the use of some new technology has, perhaps, become somewhat common, I am fine with that, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think a good parallel is technology advancement and the First Amendment.  The founders never envisioned abortion, the Internet, radio, or satellite TV.
> 
> In some situations there are virtually no restrictions for speech while others are regulated to the point where prior government approval is required.  Some rights are granted as extensions of derived rights (abortion resulting from privacy).
> 
> Some technologies like rifling, the removable magazine, and laser scopes have not been restricted while other technologies like tracer rounds, incendiary rounds (separate from explosive rounds) and full-auto have been restricted.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  What about "full auto" violates the intent and the scope of the framer's intent that semi-auto, or laser scopes does not?
Click to expand...


The intent of the Founders was to preserve liberty. They gave the people a representative form of government, so there wasn't a danger that a bad apple couldn't be just voted out. There was the potential for military invasion from abroad or someone using our military to seize power. Their security solution was to not have a standing army and have each state organize and train their militias. If the United States was attacked somewhere, the other militias would go there and assist. As a further safeguard against a militia developing into what is in effect a standing army, they prohibited the populace from being disarmed. This notion that the Founders were concerned about the government becoming tyrannical is ridiculous. They looked at the examples in Europe and were concerned about a tyrant using the military to take over the government. They designed a government with checks and balances, so it would correct itself. 

If those Founders came back today, they would be delighted how the seeds of liberty grew in Europe. If you briefed them on our gun control situation and showed them a comparison with the UK, they would think the people in this country are nuts. They gave the government the power to look after the general welfare and would wonder why they aren't doing their job. 

As per your question, it has nothing to do with the Founders intent and scope. As I said the intent of the 2nd was a check against the military, but we have a standing army now and then some. No tyrant is going to get control of all that. One house of Congress is up for re-election every two years. If the people want change, they can do it at the polls. 

You can have "full auto" by paying a NFA tax and transferring the registration.



> Legal possession of an NFA firearm by an individual requires transfer of registration within the NFA registry.





> *Categories of firearms regulated*
> 
> Main article: Title II weapons
> 
> The National Firearms Act of 1968 (NFA) defines a number of categories of regulated firearms. These weapons are collectively known as NFA firearms and include the following:
> 
> Machine gunsthis includes any firearm which can fire more than 1 cartridge per trigger pull. Both continuous fully automatic fire and "burst fire" (i.e., firearms with a 3-round burst feature) are considered machine gun features. The weapon's receiver is by itself considered to be a regulated firearm.
> 
> Short-barreled rifles (SBRs)this category includes any firearm with a buttstock and either a rifled barrel under 16" long or an overall length under 26". The overall length is measured with any folding or collapsing stocks in the extended position. The category also includes firearms which came from the factory with a buttstock that was later removed by a third party.
> 
> Short barreled shotguns (SBSs)this category is defined similarly to SBRs, but the barrel must be at least 18" instead of 16", and the barrel must be a smoothbore. The minimum overall length limit remains 26".
> 
> Silencers this includes any portable device designed to muffle or disguise the report of a portable firearm. This category does not include non-portable devices, such as sound traps used by gunsmiths in their shops which are large and usually bolted to the floor.
> 
> Destructive Devices (DDs)there are two broad classes of destructive devices:
> Devices such as grenades, bombs, explosive missiles, poison gas weapons, etc.
> Any firearm with a bore over 0.50 except for shotguns or shotgun shells which have been found to be generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes. (Many firearms with bores over 0.50", such as 12-gauge shotguns, are exempted from the law because they have been determined to have a "legitimate sporting use".)
> 
> Any Other Weapons (AOWs)this is a broad "catch-all" category used to regulate any number of firearms which the BATFE under the NFA enforces registration and taxation. Examples include, among others:
> 
> 1) Smooth-bore pistols 2) Pen guns and cane guns 3) A firearm with combinations smooth bore and rifle barrels 12 inches or more but less than 18 inches in length from which only a single shot can be made from either barrel. 4) Disguised firearms 5) Firearms that can be fired from within a wallet holster or a briefcase 6) A short-barreled shotgun which came from the factory with a pistol grip and no buttstock is categorized as an AOW (smooth-bore pistol) rather than a Short Barrel Shotgun (SBS), because the Gun Control Act describes a shotgun as, designed or redesigned to be fired from the shoulder 7) Handguns with a forward vertical grip.



Source: National Firearms Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These types of weapons are only illegal, if they aren't registered. They don't want them available to the general public without control, because they know what happened during the gangster era. They are just too dangerous for the general population.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Dubya said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think a good parallel is technology advancement and the First Amendment.  The founders never envisioned abortion, the Internet, radio, or satellite TV.
> 
> In some situations there are virtually no restrictions for speech while others are regulated to the point where prior government approval is required.  Some rights are granted as extensions of derived rights (abortion resulting from privacy).
> 
> Some technologies like rifling, the removable magazine, and laser scopes have not been restricted while other technologies like tracer rounds, incendiary rounds (separate from explosive rounds) and full-auto have been restricted.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  What about "full auto" violates the intent and the scope of the framer's intent that semi-auto, or laser scopes does not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The intent of the Founders was to preserve liberty. They gave the people a representative form of government, so there wasn't a danger that a bad apple couldn't be just voted out. There was the potential for military invasion from abroad or someone using our military to seize power. Their security solution was to not have a standing army and have each state organize and train their militias. If the United States was attacked somewhere, the other militias would go there and assist. As a further safeguard against a militia developing into what is in effect a standing army, they prohibited the populace from being disarmed. This notion that the Founders were concerned about the government becoming tyrannical is ridiculous. They looked at the examples in Europe and were concerned about a tyrant using the military to take over the government. They designed a government with checks and balances, so it would correct itself.
> 
> If those Founders came back today, they would be delighted how the seeds of liberty grew in Europe. If you briefed them on our gun control situation and showed them a comparison with the UK, they would think the people in this country are nuts. They gave the government the power to look after the general welfare and would wonder why they aren't doing their job.
> 
> As per your question, it has nothing to do with the Founders intent and scope. As I said the intent of the 2nd was a check against the military, but we have a standing army now and then some. No tyrant is going to get control of all that. One house of Congress is up for re-election every two years. If the people want change, they can do it at the polls.
> 
> You can have "full auto" by paying a NFA tax and transferring the registration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Legal possession of an NFA firearm by an individual requires transfer of registration within the NFA registry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Categories of firearms regulated*
> 
> Main article: Title II weapons
> 
> The National Firearms Act of 1968 (NFA) defines a number of categories of regulated firearms. These weapons are collectively known as NFA firearms and include the following:
> 
> Machine guns&#8212;this includes any firearm which can fire more than 1 cartridge per trigger pull. Both continuous fully automatic fire and "burst fire" (i.e., firearms with a 3-round burst feature) are considered machine gun features. The weapon's receiver is by itself considered to be a regulated firearm.
> 
> Short-barreled rifles (SBRs)&#8212;this category includes any firearm with a buttstock and either a rifled barrel under 16" long or an overall length under 26". The overall length is measured with any folding or collapsing stocks in the extended position. The category also includes firearms which came from the factory with a buttstock that was later removed by a third party.
> 
> Short barreled shotguns (SBSs)&#8212;this category is defined similarly to SBRs, but the barrel must be at least 18" instead of 16", and the barrel must be a smoothbore. The minimum overall length limit remains 26".
> 
> Silencers &#8212;this includes any portable device designed to muffle or disguise the report of a portable firearm. This category does not include non-portable devices, such as sound traps used by gunsmiths in their shops which are large and usually bolted to the floor.
> 
> Destructive Devices (DDs)&#8212;there are two broad classes of destructive devices:
> Devices such as grenades, bombs, explosive missiles, poison gas weapons, etc.
> Any firearm with a bore over 0.50 except for shotguns or shotgun shells which have been found to be generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes. (Many firearms with bores over 0.50", such as 12-gauge shotguns, are exempted from the law because they have been determined to have a "legitimate sporting use".)
> 
> Any Other Weapons (AOWs)&#8212;this is a broad "catch-all" category used to regulate any number of firearms which the BATFE under the NFA enforces registration and taxation. Examples include, among others:
> 
> 1) Smooth-bore pistols 2) Pen guns and cane guns 3) A firearm with combinations smooth bore and rifle barrels 12 inches or more but less than 18 inches in length from which only a single shot can be made from either barrel. 4) Disguised firearms 5) Firearms that can be fired from within a wallet holster or a briefcase 6) A short-barreled shotgun which came from the factory with a pistol grip and no buttstock is categorized as an AOW (smooth-bore pistol) rather than a Short Barrel Shotgun (SBS), because the Gun Control Act describes a shotgun as, &#8220;&#8230;designed or redesigned to be fired from the shoulder&#8230;&#8221; 7) Handguns with a forward vertical grip.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Source: National Firearms Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> These types of weapons are only illegal, if they aren't registered. They don't want them available to the general public without control, because they know what happened during the gangster era. They are just too dangerous for the general population.
Click to expand...


No danger of our government practicing tyranny huh?

Just ask all the Japanese Americans that were rounded up at gunpoint about that.

We've all seen our government in action with its addiction to undeclared wars and its penchant for invading other countries for nothing but games of political brinksmanship there is nothing to say the government won't turn its guns on its own citizens.

And if you're so worried about children being killed then why aren't you mentioning all the children our government has killed in its "wars"?

Seems to me our government is far more dangerous than any citizen gun owner.


----------



## OODA_Loop

expatriate said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some technologies like rifling, the removable magazine, and laser scopes have not been restricted while other technologies like tracer rounds, incendiary rounds (separate from explosive rounds) and full-auto have been restricted.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because rifling, magazines and scopes increase accuracy not inherent danger of the weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most would agree that a more accurate weapon that can fire more rounds per minute was, by its very nature, more dangerous.
Click to expand...


You could argue anything.  Law = Law.


----------



## expatriate

OODA_Loop said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because rifling, magazines and scopes increase accuracy not inherent danger of the weapon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most would agree that a more accurate weapon that can fire more rounds per minute was, by its very nature, more dangerous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You could argue anything.  Law = Law.
Click to expand...


So you would agree that the 2nd is not chiseled in stone but, like the rest of the document, has been and is open to judicial (and political) interpretation.


----------



## Dubya

Skull Pilot said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  What about "full auto" violates the intent and the scope of the framer's intent that semi-auto, or laser scopes does not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The intent of the Founders was to preserve liberty. They gave the people a representative form of government, so there wasn't a danger that a bad apple couldn't be just voted out. There was the potential for military invasion from abroad or someone using our military to seize power. Their security solution was to not have a standing army and have each state organize and train their militias. If the United States was attacked somewhere, the other militias would go there and assist. As a further safeguard against a militia developing into what is in effect a standing army, they prohibited the populace from being disarmed. This notion that the Founders were concerned about the government becoming tyrannical is ridiculous. They looked at the examples in Europe and were concerned about a tyrant using the military to take over the government. They designed a government with checks and balances, so it would correct itself.
> 
> If those Founders came back today, they would be delighted how the seeds of liberty grew in Europe. If you briefed them on our gun control situation and showed them a comparison with the UK, they would think the people in this country are nuts. They gave the government the power to look after the general welfare and would wonder why they aren't doing their job.
> 
> As per your question, it has nothing to do with the Founders intent and scope. As I said the intent of the 2nd was a check against the military, but we have a standing army now and then some. No tyrant is going to get control of all that. One house of Congress is up for re-election every two years. If the people want change, they can do it at the polls.
> 
> You can have "full auto" by paying a NFA tax and transferring the registration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Categories of firearms regulated*
> 
> Main article: Title II weapons
> 
> The National Firearms Act of 1968 (NFA) defines a number of categories of regulated firearms. These weapons are collectively known as NFA firearms and include the following:
> 
> Machine gunsthis includes any firearm which can fire more than 1 cartridge per trigger pull. Both continuous fully automatic fire and "burst fire" (i.e., firearms with a 3-round burst feature) are considered machine gun features. The weapon's receiver is by itself considered to be a regulated firearm.
> 
> Short-barreled rifles (SBRs)this category includes any firearm with a buttstock and either a rifled barrel under 16" long or an overall length under 26". The overall length is measured with any folding or collapsing stocks in the extended position. The category also includes firearms which came from the factory with a buttstock that was later removed by a third party.
> 
> Short barreled shotguns (SBSs)this category is defined similarly to SBRs, but the barrel must be at least 18" instead of 16", and the barrel must be a smoothbore. The minimum overall length limit remains 26".
> 
> Silencers this includes any portable device designed to muffle or disguise the report of a portable firearm. This category does not include non-portable devices, such as sound traps used by gunsmiths in their shops which are large and usually bolted to the floor.
> 
> Destructive Devices (DDs)there are two broad classes of destructive devices:
> Devices such as grenades, bombs, explosive missiles, poison gas weapons, etc.
> Any firearm with a bore over 0.50 except for shotguns or shotgun shells which have been found to be generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes. (Many firearms with bores over 0.50", such as 12-gauge shotguns, are exempted from the law because they have been determined to have a "legitimate sporting use".)
> 
> Any Other Weapons (AOWs)this is a broad "catch-all" category used to regulate any number of firearms which the BATFE under the NFA enforces registration and taxation. Examples include, among others:
> 
> 1) Smooth-bore pistols 2) Pen guns and cane guns 3) A firearm with combinations smooth bore and rifle barrels 12 inches or more but less than 18 inches in length from which only a single shot can be made from either barrel. 4) Disguised firearms 5) Firearms that can be fired from within a wallet holster or a briefcase 6) A short-barreled shotgun which came from the factory with a pistol grip and no buttstock is categorized as an AOW (smooth-bore pistol) rather than a Short Barrel Shotgun (SBS), because the Gun Control Act describes a shotgun as, designed or redesigned to be fired from the shoulder 7) Handguns with a forward vertical grip.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Source: National Firearms Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> These types of weapons are only illegal, if they aren't registered. They don't want them available to the general public without control, because they know what happened during the gangster era. They are just too dangerous for the general population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No danger of our government practicing tyranny huh?
> 
> Just ask all the Japanese Americans that were rounded up at gunpoint about that.
> 
> We've all seen our government in action with its addiction to undeclared wars and its penchant for invading other countries for nothing but games of political brinksmanship there is nothing to say the government won't turn its guns on its own citizens.
> 
> And if you're so worried about children being killed then why aren't you mentioning all the children our government has killed in its "wars"?
> 
> Seems to me our government is far more dangerous than any citizen gun owner.
Click to expand...


Changing the topic doesn't change facts, fool! It made sense to round up the Japanese, there were too many to watch.

Assholes like you aren't protecting this country from tyranny and the military does. This flipping burgers during the day and superhero at night delusion of yours has went too far.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Dubya said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> The intent of the Founders was to preserve liberty. They gave the people a representative form of government, so there wasn't a danger that a bad apple couldn't be just voted out. There was the potential for military invasion from abroad or someone using our military to seize power. Their security solution was to not have a standing army and have each state organize and train their militias. If the United States was attacked somewhere, the other militias would go there and assist. As a further safeguard against a militia developing into what is in effect a standing army, they prohibited the populace from being disarmed. This notion that the Founders were concerned about the government becoming tyrannical is ridiculous. They looked at the examples in Europe and were concerned about a tyrant using the military to take over the government. They designed a government with checks and balances, so it would correct itself.
> 
> If those Founders came back today, they would be delighted how the seeds of liberty grew in Europe. If you briefed them on our gun control situation and showed them a comparison with the UK, they would think the people in this country are nuts. They gave the government the power to look after the general welfare and would wonder why they aren't doing their job.
> 
> As per your question, it has nothing to do with the Founders intent and scope. As I said the intent of the 2nd was a check against the military, but we have a standing army now and then some. No tyrant is going to get control of all that. One house of Congress is up for re-election every two years. If the people want change, they can do it at the polls.
> 
> You can have "full auto" by paying a NFA tax and transferring the registration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Source: National Firearms Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> These types of weapons are only illegal, if they aren't registered. They don't want them available to the general public without control, because they know what happened during the gangster era. They are just too dangerous for the general population.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No danger of our government practicing tyranny huh?
> 
> Just ask all the Japanese Americans that were rounded up at gunpoint about that.
> 
> We've all seen our government in action with its addiction to undeclared wars and its penchant for invading other countries for nothing but games of political brinksmanship there is nothing to say the government won't turn its guns on its own citizens.
> 
> And if you're so worried about children being killed then why aren't you mentioning all the children our government has killed in its "wars"?
> 
> Seems to me our government is far more dangerous than any citizen gun owner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Changing the topic doesn't change facts, fool! It made sense to round up the Japanese, there were too many to watch.
> 
> Assholes like you aren't protecting this country from tyranny and the military does. This flipping burgers during the day and superhero at night delusion of yours has went too far.
Click to expand...


If Japanese concentration camps can be justified in your mind then tyranny must be just fine with you as long as we're all "safe" right?


----------



## Si modo

Lakhota said:


>


You're a moron.  Read _DC v Heller_.  I know you won't, as you are willfully ignorant.


----------



## Dubya

Skull Pilot said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> No danger of our government practicing tyranny huh?
> 
> Just ask all the Japanese Americans that were rounded up at gunpoint about that.
> 
> We've all seen our government in action with its addiction to undeclared wars and its penchant for invading other countries for nothing but games of political brinksmanship there is nothing to say the government won't turn its guns on its own citizens.
> 
> And if you're so worried about children being killed then why aren't you mentioning all the children our government has killed in its "wars"?
> 
> Seems to me our government is far more dangerous than any citizen gun owner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Changing the topic doesn't change facts, fool! It made sense to round up the Japanese, there were too many to watch.
> 
> Assholes like you aren't protecting this country from tyranny and the military does. This flipping burgers during the day and superhero at night delusion of yours has went too far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Japanese concentration camps can be justified in your mind then tyranny must be just fine with you as long as we're all "safe" right?
Click to expand...


It's called war and having a state of emergency. 

Your opinion absolutely means nothing to any rational person. It's just mindless bitching.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Dubya said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> Changing the topic doesn't change facts, fool! It made sense to round up the Japanese, there were too many to watch.
> 
> Assholes like you aren't protecting this country from tyranny and the military does. This flipping burgers during the day and superhero at night delusion of yours has went too far.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Japanese concentration camps can be justified in your mind then tyranny must be just fine with you as long as we're all "safe" right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's called war and having a state of emergency.
> 
> Your opinion absolutely means nothing to any rational person. It's just mindless bitching.
Click to expand...


Yeah your next tyrannical state of emergency act would be to round up all gun owners because there's too many of them to watch.

And as I said we have more to fear from our government than we do any citizen gun owner.

Just ask anyone whose kid was killed by a drone. But I guess we're at war even though there was no declaration voted on.

Our government goes too far all the time and you're jumping on the band wagon again.


----------



## Dubya

Skull Pilot said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Japanese concentration camps can be justified in your mind then tyranny must be just fine with you as long as we're all "safe" right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's called war and having a state of emergency.
> 
> Your opinion absolutely means nothing to any rational person. It's just mindless bitching.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah your next tyrannical state of emergency act would be to round up all gun owners because there's too many of them to watch.
> 
> And as I said we have more to fear from our government than we do any citizen gun owner.
> 
> Just ask anyone whose kid was killed by a drone. But I guess we're at war even though there was no declaration voted on.
> 
> Our government goes too far all the time and you're jumping on the band wagon again.
Click to expand...


Why do you even bother posting the words of a fool?


----------



## emptystep

Dubya said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> Changing the topic doesn't change facts, fool! It made sense to round up the Japanese, there were too many to watch.
> 
> Assholes like you aren't protecting this country from tyranny and the military does. This flipping burgers during the day and superhero at night delusion of yours has went too far.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Japanese concentration camps can be justified in your mind then tyranny must be just fine with you as long as we're all "safe" right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's called war and having a state of emergency.
> 
> Your opinion absolutely means nothing to any rational person. It's just mindless bitching.
Click to expand...


I can't remember a post you have made that I did not like, until this one. The Japanese internment camps has to be near the very top of things the U.S. has done that it should have never done, at least the list  of offenses to her own people. The list of things we have done to other peoples is kind of long and sometimes extremely severe.


----------



## Dubya

emptystep said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Japanese concentration camps can be justified in your mind then tyranny must be just fine with you as long as we're all "safe" right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's called war and having a state of emergency.
> 
> Your opinion absolutely means nothing to any rational person. It's just mindless bitching.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't remember a post you have made that I did not like, until this one. The Japanese internment camps has to be near the very top of things the U.S. has done that it should have never done, at least the list  of offenses to her own people. The list of things we have done to other peoples is kind of long and sometimes extremely severe.
Click to expand...


The United States has done plenty of things it shouldn't have done, but given the amount of Japanese in the country, it was just too much of a risk in what was a total war. Both sides were fire bombing cities. People that look back don't easily see how dangerous the world was at that time. They have the luxury of knowing we won. German armor, for example, was the best in the world. We only beat them by destroying their resources. The Japanese were fierce fighters and the strategic Hawaiian Islands had a very large Japanese population. 

The Japanese internment is regretable, but I think it was necessary.


----------



## asterism

expatriate said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  What about "full auto" violates the intent and the scope of the framer's intent that semi-auto, or laser scopes does not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hard to say, actually.  I think it's because they were classified as "machine guns" and therefore not considered small arms of the type intended by the founders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is presumptuous to imagine we could accurately state what the founders would have thought about full auto versus semi-auto modern weaponry and think that we can somehow definitively draw that line where we would like it to be and bless our parsing with the holy writ of the founder's pen, and simultaneously condemn others who would draw that line elsewhere.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure I agree.  SCOTUS is always imagining what the founders would have thought about a wide range of issues.  I'm pretty sure machine guns were banned in 1934 along with concealable shotguns and other weapons deemed to be used by "mobsters."

But like lots of SCOTUS case law, it's almost always some sort of compromise.


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> emptystep said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's called war and having a state of emergency.
> 
> Your opinion absolutely means nothing to any rational person. It's just mindless bitching.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't remember a post you have made that I did not like, until this one. The Japanese internment camps has to be near the very top of things the U.S. has done that it should have never done, at least the list  of offenses to her own people. The list of things we have done to other peoples is kind of long and sometimes extremely severe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The United States has done plenty of things it shouldn't have done, but given the amount of Japanese in the country, it was just too much of a risk in what was a total war. Both sides were fire bombing cities. People that look back don't easily see how dangerous the world was at that time. They have the luxury of knowing we won. German armor, for example, was the best in the world. We only beat them by destroying their resources. The Japanese were fierce fighters and the strategic Hawaiian Islands had a very large Japanese population.
> 
> The Japanese internment is regretable, but I think it was necessary.
Click to expand...



That is absolute, complete, inexcusably un-American bullshit. FDR's concentration camps were an affront to everything that our country is and stands for.


----------



## Dubya

Unkotare said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emptystep said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't remember a post you have made that I did not like, until this one. The Japanese internment camps has to be near the very top of things the U.S. has done that it should have never done, at least the list  of offenses to her own people. The list of things we have done to other peoples is kind of long and sometimes extremely severe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The United States has done plenty of things it shouldn't have done, but given the amount of Japanese in the country, it was just too much of a risk in what was a total war. Both sides were fire bombing cities. People that look back don't easily see how dangerous the world was at that time. They have the luxury of knowing we won. German armor, for example, was the best in the world. We only beat them by destroying their resources. The Japanese were fierce fighters and the strategic Hawaiian Islands had a very large Japanese population.
> 
> The Japanese internment is regretable, but I think it was necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is absolute, complete, inexcusably un-American bullshit. FDR's concentration camps were an affront to everything that our country is and stands for.
Click to expand...


How many Japanese were in the United States and Hawaii?


----------



## emptystep

Dubya said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> The United States has done plenty of things it shouldn't have done, but given the amount of Japanese in the country, it was just too much of a risk in what was a total war. Both sides were fire bombing cities. People that look back don't easily see how dangerous the world was at that time. They have the luxury of knowing we won. German armor, for example, was the best in the world. We only beat them by destroying their resources. The Japanese were fierce fighters and the strategic Hawaiian Islands had a very large Japanese population.
> 
> The Japanese internment is regretable, but I think it was necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is absolute, complete, inexcusably un-American bullshit. FDR's concentration camps were an affront to everything that our country is and stands for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many Japanese were in the United States and Hawaii?
Click to expand...


And the camps for the Germans and the Italians? The Japanese were easy to identify, relatively, and to be able to demonize them they could not be walking around the streets.


----------



## Dubya

emptystep said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is absolute, complete, inexcusably un-American bullshit. FDR's concentration camps were an affront to everything that our country is and stands for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many Japanese were in the United States and Hawaii?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the camps for the Germans and the Italians? The Japanese were easy to identify, relatively, and to be able to demonize them they could not be walking around the streets.
Click to expand...


Germans were here soon after the colonies began. The major Italian immigration was much later but still long enough for assimilation. The Germans and Italians weren't concentrated in Hawaii and along the west coast. The Japanese in America and Hawaii posed a threat that the other ethnic groups didn't. Up until Midway, we were losing the war in the Pacific.

To me, it's just like dropping the bomb(s). It was regretable, but necessary and probably saved lives on both sides. The Japanese Americans who served in Europe were excellent soldiers.


----------



## Lakhota




----------



## emptystep

Dubya said:


> emptystep said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many Japanese were in the United States and Hawaii?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the camps for the Germans and the Italians? The Japanese were easy to identify, relatively, and to be able to demonize them they could not be walking around the streets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Germans were here soon after the colonies began. The major Italian immigration was much later but still long enough for assimilation. The Germans and Italians weren't concentrated in Hawaii and along the west coast. The Japanese in America and Hawaii posed a threat that the other ethnic groups didn't. Up until Midway, we were losing the war in the Pacific.
> 
> To me, it's just like dropping the bomb(s). It was regretable, but necessary and probably saved lives on both sides. The Japanese Americans who served in Europe were excellent soldiers.
Click to expand...


I suppose you are going to say this guy was not assimilated either. Seems like your average, ordinary U.S. citizen to me.


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> The United States has done plenty of things it shouldn't have done, but given the amount of Japanese in the country, it was just too much of a risk in what was a total war. Both sides were fire bombing cities. People that look back don't easily see how dangerous the world was at that time. They have the luxury of knowing we won. German armor, for example, was the best in the world. We only beat them by destroying their resources. The Japanese were fierce fighters and the strategic Hawaiian Islands had a very large Japanese population.
> 
> The Japanese internment is regretable, but I think it was necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is absolute, complete, inexcusably un-American bullshit. FDR's concentration camps were an affront to everything that our country is and stands for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many Japanese were in the United States and Hawaii?
Click to expand...




How many Japanese-Americans were ever convicted of treason or espionage during WWII? 

Answer: 0

What remains to this day the most decorated unit in US Military history?

Answer: The 442nd 

Guess which Americans comprised the majority of the 442nd?

Answer: Look it up if you really don't know


----------



## Unkotare

emptystep said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is absolute, complete, inexcusably un-American bullshit. FDR's concentration camps were an affront to everything that our country is and stands for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many Japanese were in the United States and Hawaii?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the camps for the Germans and the Italians? The Japanese were easy to identify, relatively, and to be able to demonize them they could not be walking around the streets.
Click to expand...


Of course there were far, far, far~ more Americans of Italian and German ancestry in the US at the time. 

Around 3000 Italians or Americans of Italian ancestry (civilians, not POWs) were 'concentrated' during the war.
Around 11,000 Germans or Americans of German ancestry were treated likewise.

And from the far, far, far~ smaller population of Japanese and Americans of Japanese ancestry? *Over 100,000*

Yeah, that fucking FDR was a real peach.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

asterism said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hard to say, actually.  I think it's because they were classified as "machine guns" and therefore not considered small arms of the type intended by the founders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is presumptuous to imagine we could accurately state what the founders would have thought about full auto versus semi-auto modern weaponry and think that we can somehow definitively draw that line where we would like it to be and bless our parsing with the holy writ of the founder's pen, and simultaneously condemn others who would draw that line elsewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure I agree.  *SCOTUS is always imagining what the founders would have thought about a wide range of issues. * I'm pretty sure machine guns were banned in 1934 along with concealable shotguns and other weapons deemed to be used by "mobsters."
> 
> But like lots of SCOTUS case law, it's almost always some sort of compromise.
Click to expand...


Hardly. 

No right is absolute, including those enshrined by the Second Amendment. 

And Congress is authorized to limit those rights in the context of a compelling governmental interest. The question is: where to draw the line between appropriate regulation and laws enacted to regulate that are offensive to the Constitution.


----------



## asterism

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is presumptuous to imagine we could accurately state what the founders would have thought about full auto versus semi-auto modern weaponry and think that we can somehow definitively draw that line where we would like it to be and bless our parsing with the holy writ of the founder's pen, and simultaneously condemn others who would draw that line elsewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure I agree.  *SCOTUS is always imagining what the founders would have thought about a wide range of issues. * I'm pretty sure machine guns were banned in 1934 along with concealable shotguns and other weapons deemed to be used by "mobsters."
> 
> But like lots of SCOTUS case law, it's almost always some sort of compromise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hardly.
> 
> No right is absolute, including those enshrined by the Second Amendment.
> 
> And Congress is authorized to limit those rights in the context of a compelling governmental interest. The question is: where to draw the line between appropriate regulation and laws enacted to regulate that are offensive to the Constitution.
Click to expand...


I haven't said anything to the contrary.

Although ruling after ruling shows SCOTUS trying to divine the founders' intent.


----------



## Lakhota

The History Of The Prepper Paradise Known As The Citadel | TPMMuckraker


----------



## Lakhota

It just gets crazier and crazier...

Tea Party Congressman: Citizens Should Have Same Weapons As The Military | ThinkProgress


----------



## Lakhota

Texas Republicans Call For More Guns In Schools Following Shooting At Lone Star College | ThinkProgress


----------



## Dubya

Unkotare said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is absolute, complete, inexcusably un-American bullshit. FDR's concentration camps were an affront to everything that our country is and stands for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many Japanese were in the United States and Hawaii?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many Japanese-Americans were ever convicted of treason or espionage during WWII?
> 
> Answer: 0
> 
> What remains to this day the most decorated unit in US Military history?
> 
> Answer: The 442nd
> 
> Guess which Americans comprised the majority of the 442nd?
> 
> Answer: Look it up if you really don't know
Click to expand...


I already mentioned it. Why is it people can't handle someone with a different opinion? They didn't have your advantage of hind sight back then. I'm sure there were incidences of Americans attacking Japanese Americans.


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> I'm sure there were incidences of Americans attacking Japanese Americans.





So, if someone attacks _you_, would you welcome the government throwing you into a concentration camp in response?


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> Why is it people can't handle someone with a different opinion?




Your 'opinion' is grossly and offensively un-American.


----------



## Dubya

Unkotare said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure there were incidences of Americans attacking Japanese Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, if someone attacks _you_, would you welcome the government throwing you into a concentration camp in response?
Click to expand...


The point was made clearly and trying to change it to another scenario changes the whole thing. Let's be realistic, when you people start calling Japanese internment concentration camps, you're over the edge. I could care less about your opinion on the matter. No one said war was a pretty thing.


----------



## PaulS1950

The government has always reacted to situations like the attack on Pearl Harbor, the Twin Towers, and mass violence with emotional responses. They rarely think about what they should do to protect American citizens, instead they follow some crazy gut instinct to restrict the rights of folks that have nothing to do with the actual situation but that makes people "feel" safer. The American people go along with this crap and get all caught up in it because they believe that any action that might save a single life is worth any loss in the rights of the entire population.
Those that have fought the wars of freedom surely must be turning in their graves each time this happens.


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> Let's be realistic, when you people start calling Japanese internment concentration camps, you're over the edge.





That's what FDR himself called them. Was he over the edge? Concentration camps are what they were. A fucking villian is what FDR was. An un-American cur is what YOU are.


----------



## Lakhota




----------



## M14 Shooter

Lakhota said:


> *A distinguished citizen takes a stand on one of the most controversial issues in the nation*


The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.



> 1. to provide that, to acquire a firearm, an application be made reciting age, residence, employment and any prior criminal convictions?


In a free society, you do not have apply for permission to exercise a right.



> 2. to required that this application lie on the table for 10 days (absent a showing for urgent need) before the license would be issued?


In a free society, a right delayed is a right denied, and it is NEVER necessary to show a  "need" to exercise a right as immediately as possible.



> 3. that the transfer of a firearm be made essentially as with that of a motor vehicle?


As in:
1:  pay money
2:  take posession
Ok by me.



> 4. to have a "ballistic fingerprint" of the firearm made by the manufacturer and filed with the license record so that, if a bullet is found in a victim's body, law enforcement might be helped in finding the culprit?


Resgistration (of any kind) is a precondition to the exercise of the right not inherent to same, and thus an infringement,.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Franticfrank said:


> There is also no need for citizens to stockpile assault rifles in the modern United States due to an outdated amendmen


Does the fact that I have 32 assault rifles in my vault harm you?
Does the fact that I have 32 assault rifles in my vault place you in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Franticfrank said:


> Yes. Assholes that want to restrict the rights of citizens have come into power. That does not mean we should buckle under. This is NOT a democracy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's also a thing called common sense and Americans shouldn't oversimplify. In a democracy, people shouldn't have the freedom to do whatever the hell they want like drink and drive, commit murder, etc. There is also no need for citizens to stockpile assault rifles in the modern United States due to an outdated amendment. It's extremely dangerous and unnecessary, and needs to be changed.
Click to expand...


Because you feel the need to express your first amendment right through an avatar I need to express my second amendment right
Occupy everything? Really dude that will only get you six feet deep.


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> I could care less about your opinion on the matter.




You're not an American. Go find somewhere else to live.


----------



## PaulS1950

The second amendment is no more out-dated than any of the others. 
What is out-dated is the prosecution and sentancing of those found guilty of violent crimes.


----------



## Dubya

Unkotare said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's be realistic, when you people start calling Japanese internment concentration camps, you're over the edge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what FDR himself called them. Was he over the edge? Concentration camps are what they were. A fucking villian is what FDR was. An un-American cur is what YOU are.
Click to expand...


Kiss my ass, Motherfucker! There have always been assholes like you in this country, who sit on the sidelines bitching and second guessing history, while others do the fighting. What have you ever done in your life to preserve that liberty you keep blabbing about?

You need to grow the fuck up!


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's be realistic, when you people start calling Japanese internment concentration camps, you're over the edge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what FDR himself called them. Was he over the edge? Concentration camps are what they were. A fucking villian is what FDR was. An un-American cur is what YOU are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kiss my ass, Motherfucker!
Click to expand...



GTFO, you un-American douchebag.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Unkotare said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what FDR himself called them. Was he over the edge? Concentration camps are what they were. A fucking villian is what FDR was. An un-American cur is what YOU are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kiss my ass, Motherfucker!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> GTFO, you un-American douchebag.
Click to expand...


He's not an American?


----------



## Unkotare

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kiss my ass, Motherfucker!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GTFO, you un-American douchebag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's not an American?
Click to expand...



Not a real one. Not in my book.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Dubya said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure there were incidences of Americans attacking Japanese Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, if someone attacks _you_, would you welcome the government throwing you into a concentration camp in response?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point was made clearly and trying to change it to another scenario changes the whole thing. Let's be realistic, when you people start calling Japanese internment concentration camps, you're over the edge. I could care less about your opinion on the matter. No one said war was a pretty thing.
Click to expand...


Actually the term you should have used is "I *couldn't* care less"


----------



## LilOlLady

the right to bear arms did not apply to AK41 assault weapons and rocket launchers for private protection but for military use. WTF do anyone other and the military need a AK41 for if not to kill lots of people?


----------



## LilOlLady

Unkotare said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> GTFO, you un-American douchebag.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's not an American?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not a real one. Not in my book.
Click to expand...


Unkotare you did not write the book and you did not read it.


----------



## Unkotare

LilOlLady said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's not an American?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a real one. Not in my book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unkotare you did not write the book and you did not read it.
Click to expand...



You can leave with him, you bigoted, senile old fool.


----------



## M14 Shooter

LilOlLady said:


> the right to bear arms did not apply to *AK41 *assault weapons and rocket launchers for private protection but for military use. WTF do anyone other and the military need a *AK41 *for if not to kill lots of people?


Thanks, LOLady - you never fail to deliver a chuckle.


----------



## Dubya

Skull Pilot said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, if someone attacks _you_, would you welcome the government throwing you into a concentration camp in response?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point was made clearly and trying to change it to another scenario changes the whole thing. Let's be realistic, when you people start calling Japanese internment concentration camps, you're over the edge. I could care less about your opinion on the matter. No one said war was a pretty thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually the term you should have used is "I *couldn't* care less"
Click to expand...


Couldn't would be an absolute lack of care. People are entitled to their opinions, but that doesn't mean I accept them for my own. It's rather stupid to call people un-American because they believe there was a necessity for Japanese Internment. I understand how people today can look back and think things that happened in the past weren't necessary, but those are the kinds of people who can't walk around in the other person's shoes. 



> Japanese-American internment was the relocation and internment by the United States government in 1942 of about 110,000 Japanese Americans and Japanese who lived along the Pacific coast of the United States to camps called "War Relocation Camps," in the wake of Imperial Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor.[2][3] The internment of Japanese Americans was applied unequally throughout the United States. All who lived on the West Coast of the United States were interned, while in Hawaii, where the 150,000-plus Japanese Americans composed over one-third of the population, an estimated 1,200[4] to 1,800 were interned.[5] Of those interned, 62% were American citizens.[6][7]
> 
> During World War II, over 7,000 Japanese Americans and Japanese from Latin America were held in internment camps run by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, part of the Department of Justice. In this period, Latin Americans of Japanese ancestry were rounded up and transported to American internment camps run by the U.S. Justice Department.[52][53][54] These Latin American internees were eventually, through the efforts of civil rights attorney Wayne M. Collins,[55][56] offered "parole" relocation to the labor-starved farming community in Seabrook, New Jersey.[57] Many became naturalized American citizens or Japanese Americans after the war.
> 
> Of 127,000 Japanese Americans living in the continental United States at the time of the Pearl Harbor attack, 112,000 resided on the West Coast.[19]
> 
> Upon the bombing of Pearl Harbor and pursuant to the Alien Enemies Act, Presidential Proclamations 2525, 2526 and 2527 were issued designating Japanese, German and Italian nationals as enemy aliens.[25] Information from the CDI was used to locate and incarcerate foreign nationals from Japan, Germany and Italy (although Germany and Italy did not declare war on the U.S. until December 11).
> 
> Internment was not limited to those who had been to Japan, but included a small number of German and Italian enemy aliens.[23]



Source: Japanese American internment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have serious doubts that the people who are so much against Japanese Internment even examined those times, but let's do an analysis with a little more depth!

There is nothing better than numbers and concrete facts to build a case. The Japanese attack Pearl Harbor and war is declared. The next major battle in the Pacific is the Coral Sea, which is credited for preventing an attack against Australia. The most westward island in the Hawaiian chain is Midway and where did the Japanese attack next? They also attacked Alaska as a diversion, but we had already cracked the Japanese code and knew Midway was the target. 

Looking at the numbers in the link, we have 150,000-plus Japanese Americans living in Hawaii and only 1,200 to 1,800 were interned. Hawaii was a territory, so it's citizens were Americans, like someone in Puerto Rico is an American, though there were Japanese nationals interned there, too. On the west coast of the United States and Arizona, all the Japanese were put in internment camps. This behavior looks a little odd compared to Hawaii. There is definitely the message there that they aren't going to chance information coming out of the continental United States, but they will chance it in Hawaii, where a critical Naval Base exists? Putting over a third of Hawaii's population in internment does present some problems, but using the average figure about 1% of the Japanese living in Hawaii were placed in internment camps, while nearly a 100% of Japanese living on or near the west coast went to camps and those that didn't must of relocated. 

Crunching the numbers a little further, we have a total of 110,000 Japanese Americans and Japanese placed in internment. That would mean around 108,500 were placed in internment in the continental US and about 62% of them were Japanese Americans. Of that total then 68,200 Japanese Americans and 41,800 Japanese that weren't Americans at the max were placed in internment for approximately 2 years 10 months on average, if they didn't manage to get out. Over 7,000 Japanese Americans and Japanese were tranported from Latin America to our internment camps, but we'll assume those have the same percentage of Americans. That means the continental US and Hawaii had more than 277,000 people of Japanese ancestry and of them about 68,200 Japanese Americans were placed in internment. That is less than 24.6% of the Japanese people living in America or it's territories. Notice that wasn't even adjusted down for the 7,000 who arrived from Latin America.

So, were the Japanese in America rounded up and placed in internment camps? No, some were. 

Did the Japanese Imperial state call on all Japanese abroad to spy for it? Yes, they did. 

Well, what about the Germans and Italians? The west coast of the United States was scared shitless. They sent German and Italian nationals to internment camps, along with all the Japanese. They weren't taking any chances of spying on the west coast, which had critical naval bases. Japan had a world class naval force that used modern carrier tactics. It had submarines that could relay signals from spys on land. The balance of power in the Pacific was in the hands of the Japanese and America was on the defensive. On the east coast, there was no threat of invasion, so even foreign enemy nationals were given freedom, but excluded from restricted areas. The priorities of war meant going after Germany first. The times were not looking good for Americans living that moment in history and they weren't looking good for the British and later the Soviets. It's only hindsight that makes people believe winning WWII wasn't the total war that it was. I'm sure those people living in cities that were fire bombed would trade places with those in internment camps.

I don't object to removing people posing a threat from the west coast or the internment of people they considered a threat anywhere during WWII. I think it was a mistake not to relocate many of the west coast Japanese further east and give them an opportunity to benefit themselves during the war years. The only threat they posed was spying which has limited transmission ranges and sabotage, which can be controlled by restricted areas and intelligence. Obviously Japanese would draw more attention than Italians and Germans.


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> It's rather stupid to call people un-American because they believe there was a necessity for Japanese Internment.





Throwing innocent Americans (some of the bravest and most loyal Americans at that) into CONCENTRATION CAMPS because of their race or ethnicity is un-American. Defending such actions (and the scumbag FDR who ordered them) is un-American. Don't blame me for pointing out what you have chosen to be.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Dubya said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point was made clearly and trying to change it to another scenario changes the whole thing. Let's be realistic, when you people start calling Japanese internment concentration camps, you're over the edge. I could care less about your opinion on the matter. No one said war was a pretty thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the term you should have used is "I *couldn't* care less"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Couldn't would be an absolute lack of care. People are entitled to their opinions, but that doesn't mean I accept them for my own. It's rather stupid to call people un-American because they believe there was a necessity for Japanese Internment. I understand how people today can look back and think things that happened in the past weren't necessary, but those are the kinds of people who can't walk around in the other person's shoes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Japanese-American internment was the relocation and internment by the United States government in 1942 of about 110,000 Japanese Americans and Japanese who lived along the Pacific coast of the United States to camps called "War Relocation Camps," in the wake of Imperial Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor.[2][3] The internment of Japanese Americans was applied unequally throughout the United States. All who lived on the West Coast of the United States were interned, while in Hawaii, where the 150,000-plus Japanese Americans composed over one-third of the population, an estimated 1,200[4] to 1,800 were interned.[5] Of those interned, 62% were American citizens.[6][7]
> 
> During World War II, over 7,000 Japanese Americans and Japanese from Latin America were held in internment camps run by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, part of the Department of Justice. In this period, Latin Americans of Japanese ancestry were rounded up and transported to American internment camps run by the U.S. Justice Department.[52][53][54] These Latin American internees were eventually, through the efforts of civil rights attorney Wayne M. Collins,[55][56] offered "parole" relocation to the labor-starved farming community in Seabrook, New Jersey.[57] Many became naturalized American citizens or Japanese Americans after the war.
> 
> Of 127,000 Japanese Americans living in the continental United States at the time of the Pearl Harbor attack, 112,000 resided on the West Coast.[19]
> 
> Upon the bombing of Pearl Harbor and pursuant to the Alien Enemies Act, Presidential Proclamations 2525, 2526 and 2527 were issued designating Japanese, German and Italian nationals as enemy aliens.[25] Information from the CDI was used to locate and incarcerate foreign nationals from Japan, Germany and Italy (although Germany and Italy did not declare war on the U.S. until December 11).
> 
> Internment was not limited to those who had been to Japan, but included a small number of German and Italian enemy aliens.[23]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Source: Japanese American internment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> I have serious doubts that the people who are so much against Japanese Internment even examined those times, but let's do an analysis with a little more depth!
> 
> There is nothing better than numbers and concrete facts to build a case. The Japanese attack Pearl Harbor and war is declared. The next major battle in the Pacific is the Coral Sea, which is credited for preventing an attack against Australia. The most westward island in the Hawaiian chain is Midway and where did the Japanese attack next? They also attacked Alaska as a diversion, but we had already cracked the Japanese code and knew Midway was the target.
> 
> Looking at the numbers in the link, we have 150,000-plus Japanese Americans living in Hawaii and only 1,200 to 1,800 were interned. Hawaii was a territory, so it's citizens were Americans, like someone in Puerto Rico is an American, though there were Japanese nationals interned there, too. On the west coast of the United States and Arizona, all the Japanese were put in internment camps. This behavior looks a little odd compared to Hawaii. There is definitely the message there that they aren't going to chance information coming out of the continental United States, but they will chance it in Hawaii, where a critical Naval Base exists? Putting over a third of Hawaii's population in internment does present some problems, but using the average figure about 1% of the Japanese living in Hawaii were placed in internment camps, while nearly a 100% of Japanese living on or near the west coast went to camps and those that didn't must of relocated.
> 
> Crunching the numbers a little further, we have a total of 110,000 Japanese Americans and Japanese placed in internment. That would mean around 108,500 were placed in internment in the continental US and about 62% of them were Japanese Americans. Of that total then 68,200 Japanese Americans and 41,800 Japanese that weren't Americans at the max were placed in internment for approximately 2 years 10 months on average, if they didn't manage to get out. Over 7,000 Japanese Americans and Japanese were tranported from Latin America to our internment camps, but we'll assume those have the same percentage of Americans. That means the continental US and Hawaii had more than 277,000 people of Japanese ancestry and of them about 68,200 Japanese Americans were placed in internment. That is less than 24.6% of the Japanese people living in America or it's territories. Notice that wasn't even adjusted down for the 7,000 who arrived from Latin America.
> 
> So, were the Japanese in America rounded up and placed in internment camps? No, some were.
> 
> Did the Japanese Imperial state call on all Japanese abroad to spy for it? Yes, they did.
> 
> Well, what about the Germans and Italians? The west coast of the United States was scared shitless. They sent German and Italian nationals to internment camps, along with all the Japanese. They weren't taking any chances of spying on the west coast, which had critical naval bases. Japan had a world class naval force that used modern carrier tactics. It had submarines that could relay signals from spys on land. The balance of power in the Pacific was in the hands of the Japanese and America was on the defensive. On the east coast, there was no threat of invasion, so even foreign enemy nationals were given freedom, but excluded from restricted areas. The priorities of war meant going after Germany first. The times were not looking good for Americans living that moment in history and they weren't looking good for the British and later the Soviets. It's only hindsight that makes people believe winning WWII wasn't the total war that it was. I'm sure those people living in cities that were fire bombed would trade places with those in internment camps.
> 
> I don't object to removing people posing a threat from the west coast or the internment of people they considered a threat anywhere during WWII. I think it was a mistake not to relocate many of the west coast Japanese further east and give them an opportunity to benefit themselves during the war years. The only threat they posed was spying which has limited transmission ranges and sabotage, which can be controlled by restricted areas and intelligence. Obviously Japanese would draw more attention than Italians and Germans.
Click to expand...


Only a sadomoralist extolls the virtues ignorance and injustice as long as he agreed with the notion.


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> Did the Japanese Imperial state call on all Japanese abroad to spy for it? Yes, they did.
> 
> Well, what about the Germans and Italians? The west coast of the United States was scared shitless. They sent German and Italian nationals to internment camps, along with all the Japanese. They weren't taking any chances of spying on the west coast, which had critical naval bases. Japan had a world class naval force that used modern carrier tactics. It had submarines that could relay signals from spys on land. The balance of power in the Pacific was in the hands of the Japanese and America was on the defensive. On the east coast, there was no threat of invasion, so even foreign enemy nationals were given freedom, but excluded from restricted areas. The priorities of war meant going after Germany first. The times were not looking good for Americans living that moment in history and they weren't looking good for the British and later the Soviets. It's only hindsight that makes people believe winning WWII wasn't the total war that it was. I'm sure those people living in cities that were fire bombed would trade places with those in internment camps.
> 
> I don't object to removing people posing a threat from the west coast or the internment of people they considered a threat anywhere during WWII. I think it was a mistake not to relocate many of the west coast Japanese further east and give them an opportunity to benefit themselves during the war years. The only threat they posed was spying which has limited transmission ranges and sabotage, which can be controlled by restricted areas and intelligence. Obviously Japanese would draw more attention than Italians and Germans.







How many Japanese-Americans were ever convicted of treason or espionage during WWII? 

Answer: 0

What remains to this day the most decorated unit in US Military history?

Answer: The 442nd 

Guess which Americans comprised the majority of the 442nd?

Answer: Look it up if you really don't know 


Of course there were far, far, far~ more Americans of Italian and German ancestry in the US at the time. 

Around 3000 Italians or Americans of Italian ancestry (civilians, not POWs) were 'concentrated' during the war.
Around 11,000 Germans or Americans of German ancestry were treated likewise.

And from the far, far, far~ smaller population of Japanese and Americans of Japanese ancestry? Over 100,000

Yeah, that fucking FDR was a real peach.


----------



## Dubya

Unkotare said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's rather stupid to call people un-American because they believe there was a necessity for Japanese Internment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Throwing innocent Americans (some of the bravest and most loyal Americans at that) into CONCENTRATION CAMPS because of their race or ethnicity is un-American. Defending such actions (and the scumbag FDR who ordered them) is un-American. Don't blame me for pointing out what you have chosen to be.
Click to expand...


Fuck you and your concentration camps, Asshole! You don't even know what a concentration camp is.

You think war is some kind of game, because you weren't there fighting it. You can afford to sit back in your stupid indignation, but it wasn't your ass on the line. 

Did you bother to read what was posted? The Emperior is calling on his people to spy. 62% of those interned were Japanese Americans and that's about 23% of all the people of Japanese origin on American soil.


----------



## Skull Pilot

FDR called them concentration camps you fucking idiot and I suppose it doesn't matter to you that most of those people kidnapped by the fucking government were children.

We all know how dangerous little kids can be right? Those little 5 year old girls are regular Mata Haris.


----------



## Dubya

Skull Pilot said:


> FDR called them concentration camps you fucking idiot and I suppose it doesn't matter to you that most of those people kidnapped by the fucking government were children.
> 
> We all know how dangerous little kids can be right? Those little 5 year old girls are regular Mata Haris.



You are really full of shit. I think it's all false outrage against a Democrat anyway, but you like pretend you aren't a Republican. Children have to be with parents, dumbass. They didn't want Japanese and Foreign Nationals on the west coast during the worst war the world has ever seen. Deal with it, fool!


----------



## Dubya

Skull Pilot said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only a sadomoralist extolls the virtues ignorance and injustice as long as he agreed with the notion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kiss my ass, fool!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OOOOOH skewered by your rapier like wit.
> 
> Next time pull out all the stops and let me have it with an "Oh yeah?"
Click to expand...


Why don't you try to explain your case and back it up with concrete facts and figures?

Show us you can do something besides write a sentence or two!


----------



## Skull Pilot

Dubya said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR called them concentration camps you fucking idiot and I suppose it doesn't matter to you that most of those people kidnapped by the fucking government were children.
> 
> We all know how dangerous little kids can be right? Those little 5 year old girls are regular Mata Haris.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are really full of shit. I think it's all false outrage against a Democrat anyway, but you like pretend you aren't a Republican. Children have to be with parents, dumbass. They didn't want Japanese and Foreign Nationals on the west coast during the worst war the world has ever seen. Deal with it, fool!
Click to expand...


Yeah it's impossible for anyone to be against the unlawful unjust and cruel treatment of innocents without having underlying political motives.

Well for you maybe but I personally revere everyone's right to liberty above all else even if I disagree with them.

You should try it someday it really is liberating.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Dubya said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kiss my ass, fool!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OOOOOH skewered by your rapier like wit.
> 
> Next time pull out all the stops and let me have it with an "Oh yeah?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you try to explain your case and back it up with concrete facts and figures?
> 
> Show us you can do something besides write a sentence or two!
Click to expand...


So you really believe that those innocent until proven guilty Japanese Americans were a threat and that because of that anything is justified?

Like I said you just love to impose your morality on everyone and are OK with the use of force to do it because there is just no scenario that your ovine brain can devise in which you are not 100% correct.


----------



## Dubya

Skull Pilot said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR called them concentration camps you fucking idiot and I suppose it doesn't matter to you that most of those people kidnapped by the fucking government were children.
> 
> We all know how dangerous little kids can be right? Those little 5 year old girls are regular Mata Haris.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are really full of shit. I think it's all false outrage against a Democrat anyway, but you like pretend you aren't a Republican. Children have to be with parents, dumbass. They didn't want Japanese and Foreign Nationals on the west coast during the worst war the world has ever seen. Deal with it, fool!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah it's impossible for anyone to be against the unlawful unjust and cruel treatment of innocents without having underlying political motives.
> 
> Well for you maybe but I personally revere everyone's right to liberty above all else even if I disagree with them.
> 
> You should try it someday it really is liberating.
Click to expand...


I'm not concerned about the liberty of Japanese Americans when fascist government are at war with us. If they pose a threat, you neutralize the threat. I'm sure some Americans were in Japan at the time Pearl Harbor was attacked. How do you think they faired? You might not want people like that conquering your country.


----------



## Dubya

Skull Pilot said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> OOOOOH skewered by your rapier like wit.
> 
> Next time pull out all the stops and let me have it with an "Oh yeah?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you try to explain your case and back it up with concrete facts and figures?
> 
> Show us you can do something besides write a sentence or two!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you really believe that those innocent until proven guilty Japanese Americans were a threat and that because of that anything is justified?
> 
> Like I said you just love to impose your morality on everyone and are OK with the use of force to do it because there is just no scenario that your ovine brain can devise in which you are not 100% correct.
Click to expand...


I don't recall hearing a lot of bitching about it back then, so lay it on me, asshole! I wasn't even born.


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> You don't even know what a concentration camp is.





Yes, I do. So did that piece of shit FDR when he ordered innocent Americans - among them some of the very best Americans - thrown into his CONCENTRATION CAMPS. This was after those innocent people had been locked up in filthy horse stables while said CONCENTRATION CAMPS were being built, complete with barbed wire and guard towers from where anyone trying to escape could be shot and killed.

It seems that YOU don't know what concentration camps are.


"concentration camp
n.
1. A camp where civilians, enemy aliens, political prisoners, and sometimes prisoners of war are detained and confined, typically under harsh conditions."

"A place or situation characterized by extremely harsh conditions."

"a guarded prison camp in which nonmilitary prisoners are held"

"A place where large numbers of political prisoners or members of persecuted minorities are imprisoned"







"President Roosevelt himself called the 10 facilities "concentration camps."

"At the time, Executive Order 9066 was justified as a "military necessity" to protect against domestic espionage and sabotage. However, it was later documented that "our government had in its possession proof that not one Japanese American, citizen or not, had engaged in espionage, not one had committed any act of sabotage." (Michi Weglyn, 1976)."

Children of the Camps | INTERNMENT HISTORY


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> I'm not concerned about the liberty of Japanese Americans when fascist government are at war with us.





Japanese-Americans ARE "us" you moron.


----------



## asterism

LilOlLady said:


> the right to bear arms did not apply to AK41 assault weapons and rocket launchers for private protection but for military use. WTF do anyone other and the military need a AK41 for if not to kill lots of people?



Personal defense may involve killing lots of people.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRc_FlmW2Jc]La Riots store owners protect store with guns - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> You might not want people like that conquering your country.





I might not want people like YOU_ in _my country, scumbag.


----------



## Unkotare

Densho - Causes of the Incarceration

"What does an American look like?

For that matter, what does an enemy look like? And what can happen to those people who look like the enemy? 
In 1943, President Franklin D. Roosevelt said, "The principle on which this country was founded and by which it has always been governed is that Americanism is a matter of mind and heart; Americanism is not, and never was, a matter of race or ancestry." [1]

A year earlier, however, Roosevelt had authorized incarcerating more than 110,000 innocent people based on their ancestry, in what he called "concentration camps." Although two-thirds were U.S. citizens, they were targeted because of their ancestry and the way they looked. How could this happen? 

In 1941 the United States entered World War II after Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Without evidence, key U.S. leaders claimed that all people of Japanese ancestry on the West Coast of the U.S. posed a risk to national security. Justifying it as a "military necessity," the government forced U.S. citizens and their immigrant elders to leave their homes and live in camps under armed guard. 

In 1983, however, a U.S. congressional commission uncovered evidence from the 1940s proving that there had been no military necessity for the unequal, unjust treatment of Japanese Americans during WWII. The commission reported that the causes of the incarceration were rooted in " ... race prejudice, war hysteria and a failure of political leadership."[2] "

1. 
Public statement by President Roosevelt on January 31, 1943 praising the decision to form a segregated, all-nisei combat team. Roger Daniels. Concentration Camps: North America. (1971. Malabar, Florida: Kreiger Publishing Company, 1981,1989), pages 112-113.

2. 
Recommendations section, Personal Justice Denied: Report of the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians. (1982. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1997), page 459.



Copyright ©1997-2013 Densho. All Rights Reserved.


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> You think war is some kind of game, because you weren't there fighting it.






You didn't fight in WWII, big mouth, so you can shut right the fuck up with that shit.


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did the Japanese Imperial state call on all Japanese abroad to spy for it? Yes, they did.
> 
> Well, what about the Germans and Italians? The west coast of the United States was scared shitless. They sent German and Italian nationals to internment camps, along with all the Japanese. They weren't taking any chances of spying on the west coast, which had critical naval bases. Japan had a world class naval force that used modern carrier tactics. It had submarines that could relay signals from spys on land. The balance of power in the Pacific was in the hands of the Japanese and America was on the defensive. On the east coast, there was no threat of invasion, so even foreign enemy nationals were given freedom, but excluded from restricted areas. The priorities of war meant going after Germany first. The times were not looking good for Americans living that moment in history and they weren't looking good for the British and later the Soviets. It's only hindsight that makes people believe winning WWII wasn't the total war that it was. I'm sure those people living in cities that were fire bombed would trade places with those in internment camps.
> 
> I don't object to removing people posing a threat from the west coast or the internment of people they considered a threat anywhere during WWII. I think it was a mistake not to relocate many of the west coast Japanese further east and give them an opportunity to benefit themselves during the war years. The only threat they posed was spying which has limited transmission ranges and sabotage, which can be controlled by restricted areas and intelligence. Obviously Japanese would draw more attention than Italians and Germans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many Japanese-Americans were ever convicted of treason or espionage during WWII?
> 
> Answer: 0
> 
> What remains to this day the most decorated unit in US Military history?
> 
> Answer: The 442nd
> 
> Guess which Americans comprised the majority of the 442nd?
> 
> Answer: Look it up if you really don't know
> 
> 
> Of course there were far, far, far~ more Americans of Italian and German ancestry in the US at the time.
> 
> Around 3000 Italians or Americans of Italian ancestry (civilians, not POWs) were 'concentrated' during the war.
> Around 11,000 Germans or Americans of German ancestry were treated likewise.
> 
> And from the far, far, far~ smaller population of Japanese and Americans of Japanese ancestry? Over 100,000
> 
> Yeah, that fucking FDR was a real peach.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are an idiot!
Click to expand...




Thanks for admitting you cannot refute the real facts, you un-American shitstain.


----------



## Dubya

Unkotare said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't even know what a concentration camp is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I do. So did that piece of shit FDR when he ordered innocent Americans - among them some of the very best Americans - thrown into his CONCENTRATION CAMPS. This was after those innocent people had been locked up in filthy horse stables while said CONCENTRATION CAMPS were being built, complete with barbed wire and guard towers from where anyone trying to escape could be shot and killed.
> 
> It seems that YOU don't know what concentration camps are.
> 
> 
> "concentration camp
> n.
> 1. A camp where civilians, enemy aliens, political prisoners, and sometimes prisoners of war are detained and confined, typically under harsh conditions."
> 
> "A place or situation characterized by extremely harsh conditions."
> 
> "a guarded prison camp in which nonmilitary prisoners are held"
> 
> "A place where large numbers of political prisoners or members of persecuted minorities are imprisoned"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "President Roosevelt himself called the 10 facilities "concentration camps."
> 
> "At the time, Executive Order 9066 was justified as a "military necessity" to protect against domestic espionage and sabotage. However, it was later documented that "our government had in its possession proof that not one Japanese American, citizen or not, had engaged in espionage, not one had committed any act of sabotage." (Michi Weglyn, 1976)."
> 
> Children of the Camps | INTERNMENT HISTORY
Click to expand...


It's stupid to use the word concentration camp when 6 million Jews were killed by our enemy in WWII. That's 60 times the number who waited in an internment camp or 100 times the amount of Japanese Americans who were there. Those people weren't released to have a better life and they are more than a number. 

Don't you think there were reports in those days of what the Japanese were doing to the Chinese? That is what we were fighting against, so when the Imperial Japanese state asks it's people to spy, why would you take a chance? They removed all of them from the west coast.


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't even know what a concentration camp is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I do. So did that piece of shit FDR when he ordered innocent Americans - among them some of the very best Americans - thrown into his CONCENTRATION CAMPS. This was after those innocent people had been locked up in filthy horse stables while said CONCENTRATION CAMPS were being built, complete with barbed wire and guard towers from where anyone trying to escape could be shot and killed.
> 
> It seems that YOU don't know what concentration camps are.
> 
> 
> "concentration camp
> n.
> 1. A camp where civilians, enemy aliens, political prisoners, and sometimes prisoners of war are detained and confined, typically under harsh conditions."
> 
> "A place or situation characterized by extremely harsh conditions."
> 
> "a guarded prison camp in which nonmilitary prisoners are held"
> 
> "A place where large numbers of political prisoners or members of persecuted minorities are imprisoned"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "President Roosevelt himself called the 10 facilities "concentration camps."
> 
> "At the time, Executive Order 9066 was justified as a "military necessity" to protect against domestic espionage and sabotage. However, it was later documented that "our government had in its possession proof that not one Japanese American, citizen or not, had engaged in espionage, not one had committed any act of sabotage." (Michi Weglyn, 1976)."
> 
> Children of the Camps | INTERNMENT HISTORY
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's stupid to use the word concentration camp when 6 million Jews were killed by our enemy in WWII.
Click to expand...



No one is comparing FDR's concentration camps to hitler's death camps, you fucking idiot. If you don't like the term, then stop playing apologist for the action.


----------



## Dubya

Unkotare said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many Japanese-Americans were ever convicted of treason or espionage during WWII?
> 
> Answer: 0
> 
> What remains to this day the most decorated unit in US Military history?
> 
> Answer: The 442nd
> 
> Guess which Americans comprised the majority of the 442nd?
> 
> Answer: Look it up if you really don't know
> 
> 
> Of course there were far, far, far~ more Americans of Italian and German ancestry in the US at the time.
> 
> Around 3000 Italians or Americans of Italian ancestry (civilians, not POWs) were 'concentrated' during the war.
> Around 11,000 Germans or Americans of German ancestry were treated likewise.
> 
> And from the far, far, far~ smaller population of Japanese and Americans of Japanese ancestry? Over 100,000
> 
> Yeah, that fucking FDR was a real peach.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are an idiot!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting you cannot refute the real facts, you un-American shitstain.
Click to expand...


I've posted my reasonings and all you clowns have done is repeat the same bullshit. Those were real facts and you didn't refute them. You want us to believe Japan knew it would eventually go to war with the United States, but would be too stupid to put agents in this country. 

I guess you can't figure why the American people can't stand libertarians.


----------



## Dubya

Unkotare said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I do. So did that piece of shit FDR when he ordered innocent Americans - among them some of the very best Americans - thrown into his CONCENTRATION CAMPS. This was after those innocent people had been locked up in filthy horse stables while said CONCENTRATION CAMPS were being built, complete with barbed wire and guard towers from where anyone trying to escape could be shot and killed.
> 
> It seems that YOU don't know what concentration camps are.
> 
> 
> "concentration camp
> n.
> 1. A camp where civilians, enemy aliens, political prisoners, and sometimes prisoners of war are detained and confined, typically under harsh conditions."
> 
> "A place or situation characterized by extremely harsh conditions."
> 
> "a guarded prison camp in which nonmilitary prisoners are held"
> 
> "A place where large numbers of political prisoners or members of persecuted minorities are imprisoned"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "President Roosevelt himself called the 10 facilities "concentration camps."
> 
> "At the time, Executive Order 9066 was justified as a "military necessity" to protect against domestic espionage and sabotage. However, it was later documented that "our government had in its possession proof that not one Japanese American, citizen or not, had engaged in espionage, not one had committed any act of sabotage." (Michi Weglyn, 1976)."
> 
> Children of the Camps | INTERNMENT HISTORY
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's stupid to use the word concentration camp when 6 million Jews were killed by our enemy in WWII.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No one is comparing FDR's concentration camps to hitler's death camps, you fucking idiot. If you don't like the term, then stop playing apologist for the action.
Click to expand...


Do you like the term: Fuck you!


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> Don't you think there were reports in those days of what the Japanese were doing to the Chinese? That is what we were fighting against, so when the Imperial Japanese state asks it's people to spy, why would you take a chance? They removed all of them from the west coast.





We've already covered this, asshole. No Japanese-Americans were ever convicted of espionage during the war. NONE. There were many, many, many times more German-Americans in the country at the time, but only a tiny fraction as many of them were similarly deprived of their Constitutional rights. "Why would you take a chance"? You know why, asshole. 


German Espionage and Sabotage Against the U.S. in World War II

German Espionage and Sabotage Against the U.S. in World War II

Nazi Spies Come Ashore - America in WWII


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's stupid to use the word concentration camp when 6 million Jews were killed by our enemy in WWII.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is comparing FDR's concentration camps to hitler's death camps, you fucking idiot. If you don't like the term, then stop playing apologist for the action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you like the term: Fuck you!
Click to expand...




= you have nothing to say because you cannot refute the facts of history, you un-American sack of crap.


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are an idiot!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting you cannot refute the real facts, you un-American shitstain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've posted my reasonings and all you clowns have done is repeat the same bullshit. .
Click to expand...



Your "reasonings" are nothing but irrational, shamelessly un-American garbage. What I have repeated are FACTS to which you cannot respond. GTFO of my country, scum.


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> I guess you can't figure why the American people can't stand libertarians.





Go talk to a libertarian about it, idiot.


----------



## Dubya

Unkotare said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you think there were reports in those days of what the Japanese were doing to the Chinese? That is what we were fighting against, so when the Imperial Japanese state asks it's people to spy, why would you take a chance? They removed all of them from the west coast.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've already covered this, asshole. No Japanese-Americans were ever convicted of espionage during the war. NONE. There were many, many, many times more German-Americans in the country at the time, but only a tiny fraction as many of them were similarly deprived of their Constitutional rights. "Why would you take a chance"? You know why, asshole.
> 
> 
> German Espionage and Sabotage Against the U.S. in World War II
> 
> German Espionage and Sabotage Against the U.S. in World War II
> 
> Nazi Spies Come Ashore - America in WWII
Click to expand...


In order to do espionage, you have to report something. With the Japanese removed from the west coast, they were out of radio range. That's why they moved them, dumbass! Common sense would say Japan would have some agents in America, but their activity was foiled. The critical area for a Japanese agent would be the west coast. Only near the west coast could they send messages to a submarine. The only I see a Japanese could have slipped by and not stand out is to hide amongst the Chinese people, but the Chinese would recognize the person as being not from China, unless he was a strange looking Japanese person. 

No reports of espionage just means internment worked. 

You are posting links to blogs that aren't even accurate in their details. That isn't a source for the claims you have made. All you have to do is type there and find a fool to believe it.


----------



## Dubya

Unkotare said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one is comparing FDR's concentration camps to hitler's death camps, you fucking idiot. If you don't like the term, then stop playing apologist for the action.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you like the term: Fuck you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> = you have nothing to say because you cannot refute the facts of history, you un-American sack of crap.
Click to expand...


You are the un-American piece of shit. You haven't posted one link that makes sense. Post the primary sources and not blog nonsense!


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> Common sense would say Japan would have some agents in America, but their activity was foiled.





You have no proof that there were, since NO JAPANESE AMERICAN WAS EVER CONVICTED OF ESPIONAGE DURING WWII. What you have is proof that huge numbers of innocent Americans were deprived of their Constitutional rights by that scumbag FDR.


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> No reports of espionage just means internment worked.






By that un-American reasoning, it was a big mistake not to throw ALL German Americans on the East coast into concentration camps. After all, there really WERE spy rings and active espionage programs going on there. Hmmm, what was different, adolf?


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you like the term: Fuck you!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> = you have nothing to say because you cannot refute the facts of history, you un-American sack of crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the un-American piece of shit. You haven't posted one link that makes sense. Post the primary sources and not blog nonsense!
Click to expand...



And now, since you CANNOT refute the FACTs, you start playing these games. If you really bothered to read the links you'd have seen citations and references. You are completely transparent, you un-American filth.


----------



## Unkotare

Calisphere - JARDA - Relocation and Incarceration of Japanese Americans During World War II

"On December 7, 1941, Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. The next day, the United States and Britain declared on Japan. Two months later, on February 19, 1942, the lives of thousands of Japanese Americans were dramatically changed when President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 (view the Order). This order led to the assembly and evacuation and relocation of nearly 122,000 men, women, and children of Japanese ancestry on the west coast of the United States &#8212; but not in Hawaii, despite the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

Racism and Prejudice

Japanese Americans in Hawaii were not incarcerated because they made up nearly 40% of the population and a large portion of the skilled workforce. The fact they were not incarcerated suggests that the removal of Japanese Americans on the west coast was racially motivated rather than out of "military necessity." Agricultural interest groups in western states, and many local politicians, had long been against Japanese Americans, and used the attack on Pearl Harbor to step up calls for their removal.

The United States was fighting the war on three fronts &#8212; Japan, Germany, and Italy &#8212; compared to the number of Japanese Americans, a relatively small number of Germans and Italians were interned in the United States. But although Executive Order 9066 was written in vague terms that did not specify an ethnicity, it was used for the mass incarceration of Japanese Americans. The government claimed that incarceration was for military necessity and, ironically, to "protect" Japanese Americans from racist retribution they might face as a result of Pearl Harbor. (These reasons were later proved false by the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians in the 1980s.)

In fact, Japanese Americans and other Asian Americans had long been characterized as a foreign "Yellow Peril" that was a threat to the United States. Prejudice against Japanese Americans, including laws preventing them from owning land, existed long before World War II. Even though Japanese Americans largely considered themselves loyal and even patriotic Americans, suspicions about their loyalties were pervasive. Before Pearl Harbor was bombed, President Roosevelt secretly commissioned Curtis Munson, a businessman, to assess the possibility that Japanese Americans would pose a threat to US security. Munson&#8217;s report found (as cited in Ronald Takaki, Strangers from a Distant Shore, page 386) that "There will be no armed uprising of Japanese" in the United States. "For the most part," the report says, "the local Japanese are loyal to the United States or, at worst, hope that by remaining quiet they can avoid concentration camps or irresponsible mobs."

Despite these findings, however, thousands of families in California, Oregon, and Washington were soon incarcerated in government camps. The government &#8212; and popular sentiment &#8212; understood that German Americans were not necessarily Nazi sympathizers, and could distinguish Italian Americans from Mussolini&#8217;s Fascist regime, but they had a more difficult time separating Japanese Americans from Imperial Japan.

The majority of those interned &#8212; nearly 70,000, over 60% &#8212; were American citizens. Many of the rest were long-time US residents who had lived in this country between 20 and 40 years. By and large, most Japanese Americans, particularly the Nisei (the first generation born in the United States), considered themselves loyal Americans. No Japanese American or Japanese national was ever found guilty of sabotage or espionage."


----------



## Skull Pilot

Dubya said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you try to explain your case and back it up with concrete facts and figures?
> 
> Show us you can do something besides write a sentence or two!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you really believe that those innocent until proven guilty Japanese Americans were a threat and that because of that anything is justified?
> 
> Like I said you just love to impose your morality on everyone and are OK with the use of force to do it because there is just no scenario that your ovine brain can devise in which you are not 100% correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't recall hearing a lot of bitching about it back then, so lay it on me, asshole! I wasn't even born.
Click to expand...


But you defend the policy.  Therefore it is safe to assume you would defend it today.

And after reading your rants and seeing your penchant of sadomoralism I think that is a safe assumption.


----------



## Unkotare

And if the concentration camps were so necessary and effective, why was the process of closing the concentration camps and releasing those innocent American citizens and other political prisoners begun long before the end of the war?


----------



## Unkotare

US Supreme Court Justices (finally) had this to say:

"Justice Black denied that the process was constitutional or acceptable at the time: 

I dissent, therefore, from this legalization of racism. Racial discrimination in any form and in any degree has no justifiable part whatever in our democratic way of life. It is unattractive in any setting but it is utterly revolting among a free people who have embraced the principles set forth in the Constitution of the United States. All residents of this nation are kin in some way by blood or culture to a foreign land. Yet they are primarily and necessarily a part of the new and distinct civilization of the United States. They must accordingly be treated at all times as the heirs of the American experiment and as entitled to all the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. "

Japanese Internment


"The broad provisions of the Bill of rights. . . are [not] suspended by the mere existence of a state of war. Distinctions based on color and ancestry are utterly inconsistent with our traditions and ideals. Today is the first time, so far as I am aware, that we have sustained a substantial restriction of the personal liberty of citizens based on the accident of race or ancestry. It bears a melancholy resemblance to the treatment accorded to members of the Jewish race in Germany This goes to the very brink of constitutional power."

&#8212;Associate Justice Frank Murphy, Concurring Opinion, Hirabayashi v. U.S., 1943

"This is not a case of keeping people off the streets at night as was Hirabayashi... It is a case of convict*ing a citizen ... for not submitting to imprisonment in a concentration camp solely because of his ancestry."

&#8212;Associate Justice Owen J. Roberts, Dissenting Opinion, Korematsu v. U.S., 1944

"[There have to be] definite limits to military discretion, especially where martial law has not been declared. Individuals must not be impoverished of their constitutional rights on a plea of military necessity that has neither substance nor support."

&#8212;Associate Justice Frank Murphy, Concurring Opinion, Ex Parte Endo , 1944


A | More | Perfect | Union


----------



## Dubya

Unkotare said:


> Calisphere - JARDA - Relocation and Incarceration of Japanese Americans During World War II
> 
> "On December 7, 1941, Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. The next day, the United States and Britain declared on Japan. Two months later, on February 19, 1942, the lives of thousands of Japanese Americans were dramatically changed when President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 (view the Order). This order led to the assembly and evacuation and relocation of nearly 122,000 men, women, and children of Japanese ancestry on the west coast of the United States  but not in Hawaii, despite the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
> 
> Racism and Prejudice
> 
> Japanese Americans in Hawaii were not incarcerated because they made up nearly 40% of the population and a large portion of the skilled workforce. The fact they were not incarcerated suggests that the removal of Japanese Americans on the west coast was racially motivated rather than out of "military necessity." Agricultural interest groups in western states, and many local politicians, had long been against Japanese Americans, and used the attack on Pearl Harbor to step up calls for their removal.
> 
> The United States was fighting the war on three fronts  Japan, Germany, and Italy  compared to the number of Japanese Americans, a relatively small number of Germans and Italians were interned in the United States. But although Executive Order 9066 was written in vague terms that did not specify an ethnicity, it was used for the mass incarceration of Japanese Americans. The government claimed that incarceration was for military necessity and, ironically, to "protect" Japanese Americans from racist retribution they might face as a result of Pearl Harbor. (These reasons were later proved false by the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians in the 1980s.)
> 
> In fact, Japanese Americans and other Asian Americans had long been characterized as a foreign "Yellow Peril" that was a threat to the United States. Prejudice against Japanese Americans, including laws preventing them from owning land, existed long before World War II. Even though Japanese Americans largely considered themselves loyal and even patriotic Americans, suspicions about their loyalties were pervasive. Before Pearl Harbor was bombed, President Roosevelt secretly commissioned Curtis Munson, a businessman, to assess the possibility that Japanese Americans would pose a threat to US security. Munsons report found (as cited in Ronald Takaki, Strangers from a Distant Shore, page 386) that "There will be no armed uprising of Japanese" in the United States. "For the most part," the report says, "the local Japanese are loyal to the United States or, at worst, hope that by remaining quiet they can avoid concentration camps or irresponsible mobs."
> 
> Despite these findings, however, thousands of families in California, Oregon, and Washington were soon incarcerated in government camps. The government  and popular sentiment  understood that German Americans were not necessarily Nazi sympathizers, and could distinguish Italian Americans from Mussolinis Fascist regime, but they had a more difficult time separating Japanese Americans from Imperial Japan.
> 
> The majority of those interned  nearly 70,000, over 60%  were American citizens. Many of the rest were long-time US residents who had lived in this country between 20 and 40 years. By and large, most Japanese Americans, particularly the Nisei (the first generation born in the United States), considered themselves loyal Americans. No Japanese American or Japanese national was ever found guilty of sabotage or espionage."



Everything you have posted so far has inflated numbers and this article doesn't even have good facts, because Japanese were removed from Arizona, too (122,000 vs 110,000). It's the same propaganda about concentration camps.

Consider some of the propaganda in the links you have posted! They claim the internment was for 4 years, but the dates of the orders show 2 years 10 month. They say in the same blog that half were children or young adults and then say half the interned were children. Well, about half the people would be children and it would be inhuman to separate the children from the adults. If the adults are going to internment, then the children would have to go to. The statement about half were children is meaningless. Saying no one was ever found guilty of sabotage or espionage is meaningless. Comparing Hawaii to the west coast is meaningless. The strategic assessment at that time was that the United States could easily lose the Hawaiian Islands if attacked and would have to regroup on the west coast. We were outgunned at Midway and were lucky. That bought enough time to get American production into the Pacific theater. An attack on the locks of the Panama Canal could have really screwed up that effort.

122,000 men, women, and children - What else are there? Are they going to send the men away and keep the women? The content of your articles show intentional bias of thought.

"Yellow Peril" - There has always prejudice in America and still is today. I understand the farmers in California were happy, but the issue was competition, which tells me the Japanese there were good farmers. There may have been farm workers too, competing for jobs, because there were large amounts of Japanese imigrants who weren't American citizens. This is just a typical play the race card tactic.

The United States was not fighting a war on three fronts because three nations were involved. It was fighting mostly on two fronts, though the war effort was global.


----------



## PaulS1950

The fact that any American citizens were rounded up, stripped of their legal property and concentrated in fenced and guarded "relocation" camps is wrong on so many counts that it disgusts me.
The fact that it was done to the Native Americans and the people sold into slavery just shows that if you don't protect your rights you are bound to lose them even in the "United" States.


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Calisphere - JARDA - Relocation and Incarceration of Japanese Americans During World War II
> 
> "On December 7, 1941, Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. The next day, the United States and Britain declared on Japan. Two months later, on February 19, 1942, the lives of thousands of Japanese Americans were dramatically changed when President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 (view the Order). This order led to the assembly and evacuation and relocation of nearly 122,000 men, women, and children of Japanese ancestry on the west coast of the United States  but not in Hawaii, despite the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
> 
> Racism and Prejudice
> 
> Japanese Americans in Hawaii were not incarcerated because they made up nearly 40% of the population and a large portion of the skilled workforce. The fact they were not incarcerated suggests that the removal of Japanese Americans on the west coast was racially motivated rather than out of "military necessity." Agricultural interest groups in western states, and many local politicians, had long been against Japanese Americans, and used the attack on Pearl Harbor to step up calls for their removal.
> 
> The United States was fighting the war on three fronts  Japan, Germany, and Italy  compared to the number of Japanese Americans, a relatively small number of Germans and Italians were interned in the United States. But although Executive Order 9066 was written in vague terms that did not specify an ethnicity, it was used for the mass incarceration of Japanese Americans. The government claimed that incarceration was for military necessity and, ironically, to "protect" Japanese Americans from racist retribution they might face as a result of Pearl Harbor. (These reasons were later proved false by the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians in the 1980s.)
> 
> In fact, Japanese Americans and other Asian Americans had long been characterized as a foreign "Yellow Peril" that was a threat to the United States. Prejudice against Japanese Americans, including laws preventing them from owning land, existed long before World War II. Even though Japanese Americans largely considered themselves loyal and even patriotic Americans, suspicions about their loyalties were pervasive. Before Pearl Harbor was bombed, President Roosevelt secretly commissioned Curtis Munson, a businessman, to assess the possibility that Japanese Americans would pose a threat to US security. Munsons report found (as cited in Ronald Takaki, Strangers from a Distant Shore, page 386) that "There will be no armed uprising of Japanese" in the United States. "For the most part," the report says, "the local Japanese are loyal to the United States or, at worst, hope that by remaining quiet they can avoid concentration camps or irresponsible mobs."
> 
> Despite these findings, however, thousands of families in California, Oregon, and Washington were soon incarcerated in government camps. The government  and popular sentiment  understood that German Americans were not necessarily Nazi sympathizers, and could distinguish Italian Americans from Mussolinis Fascist regime, but they had a more difficult time separating Japanese Americans from Imperial Japan.
> 
> The majority of those interned  nearly 70,000, over 60%  were American citizens. Many of the rest were long-time US residents who had lived in this country between 20 and 40 years. By and large, most Japanese Americans, particularly the Nisei (the first generation born in the United States), considered themselves loyal Americans. No Japanese American or Japanese national was ever found guilty of sabotage or espionage."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything you have posted so far has inflated numbers and this article doesn't even have good facts, because Japanese were removed from Arizona, too (122,000 vs 110,000). It's the same propaganda about concentration camps.
Click to expand...




The University of California is not a legitimate enough source on the facts of the matter for you?  You stink of desperation, asshole. It must be clear by now - even to you - that you are defending the indefensible. Give it up and try being a real American for a change.


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> "Yellow Peril" - There has always prejudice in America and still is today. I understand the farmers in California were happy, but the issue was competition, which tells me the Japanese there were good farmers. There may have been farm workers too, competing for jobs, because there were large amounts of Japanese imigrants who weren't American citizens. This is just a typical play the race card tactic.




If you deny that race was the determining factor in this case, you have taken your un-American dishonesty to a new low. Read the (direct) quotes from US Supreme Court Justices on the matter, you disgraceful punk. 

I have provided source after source, quote after quote, and fact after fact. You have brought nothing but your own disingenuity and lack of character.


----------



## PaulS1950

The mistake we sometimes make is that we attempt to use logic and facts in answer to ones emotional belief (faith if you will) and it is senseless to argue faith with logic or facts because faith will always trump reality.


----------



## Dubya

Unkotare said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Calisphere - JARDA - Relocation and Incarceration of Japanese Americans During World War II
> 
> "On December 7, 1941, Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. The next day, the United States and Britain declared on Japan. Two months later, on February 19, 1942, the lives of thousands of Japanese Americans were dramatically changed when President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 (view the Order). This order led to the assembly and evacuation and relocation of nearly 122,000 men, women, and children of Japanese ancestry on the west coast of the United States  but not in Hawaii, despite the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
> 
> Racism and Prejudice
> 
> Japanese Americans in Hawaii were not incarcerated because they made up nearly 40% of the population and a large portion of the skilled workforce. The fact they were not incarcerated suggests that the removal of Japanese Americans on the west coast was racially motivated rather than out of "military necessity." Agricultural interest groups in western states, and many local politicians, had long been against Japanese Americans, and used the attack on Pearl Harbor to step up calls for their removal.
> 
> The United States was fighting the war on three fronts  Japan, Germany, and Italy  compared to the number of Japanese Americans, a relatively small number of Germans and Italians were interned in the United States. But although Executive Order 9066 was written in vague terms that did not specify an ethnicity, it was used for the mass incarceration of Japanese Americans. The government claimed that incarceration was for military necessity and, ironically, to "protect" Japanese Americans from racist retribution they might face as a result of Pearl Harbor. (These reasons were later proved false by the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians in the 1980s.)
> 
> In fact, Japanese Americans and other Asian Americans had long been characterized as a foreign "Yellow Peril" that was a threat to the United States. Prejudice against Japanese Americans, including laws preventing them from owning land, existed long before World War II. Even though Japanese Americans largely considered themselves loyal and even patriotic Americans, suspicions about their loyalties were pervasive. Before Pearl Harbor was bombed, President Roosevelt secretly commissioned Curtis Munson, a businessman, to assess the possibility that Japanese Americans would pose a threat to US security. Munsons report found (as cited in Ronald Takaki, Strangers from a Distant Shore, page 386) that "There will be no armed uprising of Japanese" in the United States. "For the most part," the report says, "the local Japanese are loyal to the United States or, at worst, hope that by remaining quiet they can avoid concentration camps or irresponsible mobs."
> 
> Despite these findings, however, thousands of families in California, Oregon, and Washington were soon incarcerated in government camps. The government  and popular sentiment  understood that German Americans were not necessarily Nazi sympathizers, and could distinguish Italian Americans from Mussolinis Fascist regime, but they had a more difficult time separating Japanese Americans from Imperial Japan.
> 
> The majority of those interned  nearly 70,000, over 60%  were American citizens. Many of the rest were long-time US residents who had lived in this country between 20 and 40 years. By and large, most Japanese Americans, particularly the Nisei (the first generation born in the United States), considered themselves loyal Americans. No Japanese American or Japanese national was ever found guilty of sabotage or espionage."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything you have posted so far has inflated numbers and this article doesn't even have good facts, because Japanese were removed from Arizona, too (122,000 vs 110,000). It's the same propaganda about concentration camps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The University of California is not a legitimate enough source on the facts of the matter for you?  You stink of desperation, asshole. It must be clear by now - even to you - that you are defending the indefensible. Give it up and try being a real American for a change.
Click to expand...


You post blogs that have two different numbers on the same page and talk about sources? All you have to do is study the subject from an objective source and compare it to what you post. There is obvious bias in what you choose to use as links.


----------



## Dubya

PaulS1950 said:


> The mistake we sometimes make is that we attempt to use logic and facts in answer to ones emotional belief (faith if you will) and it is senseless to argue faith with logic or facts because faith will always trump reality.



You have the Emperor of Japan telling his people to spy. You have the Japanese in the dominant situation in the Pacific. You have the ability to transmit information on the west coast to Japanese submarines. You have the obvious logic that a nation like Japan would be stupid to not have agents in America. 

I don't think you people can get it though your heads how dangerous the world was back then. It isn't like any kind of danger we have ever faced.


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The mistake we sometimes make is that we attempt to use logic and facts in answer to ones emotional belief (faith if you will) and it is senseless to argue faith with logic or facts because faith will always trump reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have the Emperor of Japan telling his people to spy. You have the Japanese in the dominant situation in the Pacific. You have the ability to transmit information on the west coast to Japanese submarines. You have the obvious logic that a nation like Japan would be stupid to not have agents in America.
> 
> I don't think you people can get it though your heads how dangerous the world was back then. It isn't like any kind of danger we have ever faced.
Click to expand...



Now you are just repeating lame arguments that have already been proven baseless several times. And stop trying to talk as if you were even alive at the time, poseur. Your position is wrong, un-American, and indefensible. Repeating failed points won't change that.


----------



## PaulS1950

There was no evidence, no warrants, no trial, just the loss of everything they owned - stores, homes jewlery, furnishings and of course guns - they were allowed a suitcase or bag each. It was an unlawful and Un-American act.
You don't punish an entire population because a few of them may be criminals. You can't even punish the criminals without a trial first.


----------



## Dubya

Unkotare said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Yellow Peril" - There has always prejudice in America and still is today. I understand the farmers in California were happy, but the issue was competition, which tells me the Japanese there were good farmers. There may have been farm workers too, competing for jobs, because there were large amounts of Japanese imigrants who weren't American citizens. This is just a typical play the race card tactic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you deny that race was the determining factor in this case, you have taken your un-American dishonesty to a new low. Read the (direct) quotes from US Supreme Court Justices on the matter, you disgraceful punk.
> 
> I have provided source after source, quote after quote, and fact after fact. You have brought nothing but your own disingenuity and lack of character.
Click to expand...


You haven't provided anything, including a mind. If Japan was full of Scots Irish, they would have done the exact same thing on the west coast. Their ethnicity only made them stand out and be easier to round up.


----------



## Unkotare

Just to refresh your memory:

"Japanese Americans in Hawaii were not incarcerated because they made up nearly 40% of the population and a large portion of the skilled workforce. The fact they were not incarcerated suggests that the removal of Japanese Americans on the west coast was racially motivated rather than out of "military necessity." Agricultural interest groups in western states, and many local politicians, had long been against Japanese Americans, and used the attack on Pearl Harbor to step up calls for their removal."

Oops, there goes that 'had to do it' argument.


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Yellow Peril" - There has always prejudice in America and still is today. I understand the farmers in California were happy, but the issue was competition, which tells me the Japanese there were good farmers. There may have been farm workers too, competing for jobs, because there were large amounts of Japanese imigrants who weren't American citizens. This is just a typical play the race card tactic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you deny that race was the determining factor in this case, you have taken your un-American dishonesty to a new low. Read the (direct) quotes from US Supreme Court Justices on the matter, you disgraceful punk.
> 
> I have provided source after source, quote after quote, and fact after fact. You have brought nothing but your own disingenuity and lack of character.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Japan was full of Scots Irish, they would have done the exact same thing on the west coast.
Click to expand...



This line of false reasoning has been debunked already. All the German-Americans on the East coast were not thrown into concentration camps despite the fact that there - in contrast to the case with Japanese Americans - there really were spy rings and actual espionage going on. 

You fail again.


----------



## Unkotare

Just to refresh your memory:


"The broad provisions of the Bill of rights. . . are [not] suspended by the mere existence of a state of war. Distinctions based on color and ancestry are utterly inconsistent with our traditions and ideals. Today is the first time, so far as I am aware, that we have sustained a substantial restriction of the personal liberty of citizens based on the accident of race or ancestry. It bears a melancholy resemblance to the treatment accorded to members of the Jewish race in Germany This goes to the very brink of constitutional power."

Associate Justice Frank Murphy, Concurring Opinion, Hirabayashi v. U.S., 1943

"This is not a case of keeping people off the streets at night as was Hirabayashi... It is a case of convict*ing a citizen ... for not submitting to imprisonment in a concentration camp solely because of his ancestry."

Associate Justice Owen J. Roberts, Dissenting Opinion, Korematsu v. U.S., 1944

"[There have to be] definite limits to military discretion, especially where martial law has not been declared. Individuals must not be impoverished of their constitutional rights on a plea of military necessity that has neither substance nor support."

Associate Justice Frank Murphy, Concurring Opinion, Ex Parte Endo , 1944


----------



## Dubya

Unkotare said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you deny that race was the determining factor in this case, you have taken your un-American dishonesty to a new low. Read the (direct) quotes from US Supreme Court Justices on the matter, you disgraceful punk.
> 
> I have provided source after source, quote after quote, and fact after fact. You have brought nothing but your own disingenuity and lack of character.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Japan was full of Scots Irish, they would have done the exact same thing on the west coast.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This line of false reasoning has been debunked already. All the German-Americans on the East coast were not thrown into concentration camps despite the fact that there - in contrast to the case with Japanese Americans - there really were spy rings and actual espionage going on.
> 
> You fail again.
Click to expand...


Dumbass! You have already been told and it was proven by figures that the Japanese on the east coast didn't go to internment camps. They weren't a threat on the east coast. There were restrictions to going near certain areas. There were also German and Italian foreign enemy nationals allowed freedom on the east coast with the same restrictions. Almost all the Japanese in America were on the west coast, except for Hawaii which was a territory.


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Japan was full of Scots Irish, they would have done the exact same thing on the west coast.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This line of false reasoning has been debunked already. All the German-Americans on the East coast were not thrown into concentration camps despite the fact that there - in contrast to the case with Japanese Americans - there really were spy rings and actual espionage going on.
> 
> You fail again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dumbass! You have already been told and it was proven by figures that the Japanese on the east coast didn't go to internment camps. They weren't a threat on the east coast. .
Click to expand...



Pay attention, idiot. I said 'German-Americans' on the East coast.


The whole 'threat of espionage' argument has been blown up in your face several times now.


----------



## Lakhota




----------



## P@triot

Wednesday morning, the White House accused the NRA of using children as "pawns in a political fight," because we pointed out in an advertisement that *while President Obama's children are protected by armed guards at school, their father had shown little interest in armed protection for anyone else's children*. We said Obama was being hypocritical. The White House said our ad was "repugnant and cowardly."

NRA-ILA | Hypocrisy and Theatrics as Obama Launches Campaign Against Second Amendment


----------



## P@triot

The Men Who Support Your *RIGHT* To Bear Arms:


George Washington
James Madison
Thomas Jefferson
Alexander Hamilton

The Men Who Do *NOT* Support Your Right To Bear Arms:


Adolf Hitler
Joseph Stalin
Fidel Castro
Barack Obama


----------



## P@triot

"The philosophy of gun control: Teenagers are roaring through town at 90MPH, where the speed limit is 25. Your solution is to lower the speed limit to 20."  -Sam Cohen


----------



## Dubya

Rottweiler said:


> Wednesday morning, the White House accused the NRA of using children as "pawns in a political fight," because we pointed out in an advertisement that *while President Obama's children are protected by armed guards at school, their father had shown little interest in armed protection for anyone else's children*. We said Obama was being hypocritical. The White House said our ad was "repugnant and cowardly."
> 
> NRA-ILA | Hypocrisy and Theatrics as Obama Launches Campaign Against Second Amendment



Your NRA ad is way over the line and if you don't know that, you're way over the line and lack proper judgment. It isn't the President's job to place security in schools. 18 states allow guns in schools and that means 32 states don't. There is nothing stopping a community which allows guns in schools raising their property taxes slightly to pay for security. There is nothing stopping a state legislature changing the laws of that state to allow guns in school. The fact is most schools in states that allow guns in school don't want security in the schools. They don't want anyone with a gun around their children. 

This is a state and local matter and shouldn't involve the federal government.


----------



## Dubya

Unkotare said:


> Just to refresh your memory:
> 
> "Japanese Americans in Hawaii were not incarcerated because they made up nearly 40% of the population and a large portion of the skilled workforce. The fact they were not incarcerated suggests that the removal of Japanese Americans on the west coast was racially motivated rather than out of "military necessity." Agricultural interest groups in western states, and many local politicians, had long been against Japanese Americans, and used the attack on Pearl Harbor to step up calls for their removal."
> 
> Oops, there goes that 'had to do it' argument.



It only suggests that to an idiot like you. Hawaii wasn't a state and they could restrict the Japanese from getting near sensitive military installations, so there was no problem with sabotage or espionage. I'm sure they believed there were Japanese agents in Hawaii, but if they were denied access to sensitive information, the agents could be used to help crack Japanese codes by feeding them misinformation. We had the ability to locate signals in those days and we most certainly were using that ability. Regardless of the language or codes involved, the communication all comes down to the dots and dashes of Morse Code, which is intercepted and copied rather easily by trained people. I was trained to do it when I was around 9 years old by someone who was in communications in the Air Force. You simply scan the frequencies for chatter. Any coded message stands out, because it doesn't make sense, meaning the letters don't spell recognizable words. The people are equipped with a parabolic antenna that can measure the strength of the signal, therefore it's direction can be determined. They are equipped with communication to other stations so the frequency of the transmission can be communicated. They plot the location by determining the intersection of the signal directions from as many stations as possible. Communications requires electricity, which means it has to be done with batteries or direct power and the batteries are heavy. Once you find the location of the communication, you can determine who is doing it. If the agent isn't in a position to give out sensitive information, they aren't a threat and they can be set up to report misinformation where specific words can be used to crack their code. 

I can think of two sensitive locations in Hawaii and they could be secured well enough to be out of visual range. The west coast is a very different story, there were sensitive locations all over the place. Information that a carrier made it back to a shipyard and was being repair was critical information in WWII. How is it possible to secure 100,000+ Japanese from dozens of sensitive locations, let alone what information they could pick up from servicemen running their mouths?



> President Franklin D. Roosevelt authorized the internment with Executive Order 9066, issued February 19, 1942



Source: Japanese American internment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> The Battle of the Coral Sea, fought from 48 May 1942, was a major naval battle in the Pacific Theater of World War II between the Imperial Japanese Navy and Allied naval and air forces from the United States and Australia. The battle was the first action in which aircraft carriers engaged each other, as well as the first in which neither side's ships sighted or fired directly upon the other.
> 
> Although a tactical victory for the Japanese in terms of ships sunk, the battle would prove to be a strategic victory for the Allies for several reasons. Japanese expansion, seemingly unstoppable until then, was turned back for the first time. More importantly, the Japanese fleet carriers Sh&#333;kaku and Zuikaku  one damaged and the other with a depleted aircraft complement  were unable to participate in the Battle of Midway, which took place the following month, ensuring a rough parity in aircraft between the two adversaries and contributing significantly to the U.S. victory in that battle. The severe losses in carriers at Midway prevented the Japanese from reattempting to invade Port Moresby from the ocean. Two months later, the Allies took advantage of Japan's resulting strategic vulnerability in the South Pacific and launched the Guadalcanal Campaign that, along with the New Guinea Campaign, eventually broke Japanese defenses in the South Pacific and was a significant contributing factor to Japan's ultimate defeat in World War II.



Source: Battle of the Coral Sea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia






You obviously can't look at those dates or use your brain to figure out there were Japanese agents on the west coast of the United States and in Hawaii. You're a fool trying to make something out of nothing.


----------



## P@triot

Dubya said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wednesday morning, the White House accused the NRA of using children as "pawns in a political fight," because we pointed out in an advertisement that *while President Obama's children are protected by armed guards at school, their father had shown little interest in armed protection for anyone else's children*. We said Obama was being hypocritical. The White House said our ad was "repugnant and cowardly."
> 
> NRA-ILA | Hypocrisy and Theatrics as Obama Launches Campaign Against Second Amendment
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your NRA ad is way over the line and if you don't know that, you're way over the line and lack proper judgment. It isn't the President's job to place security in schools. 18 states allow guns in schools and that means 32 states don't. There is nothing stopping a community which allows guns in schools raising their property taxes slightly to pay for security. There is nothing stopping a state legislature changing the laws of that state to allow guns in school. The fact is most schools in states that allow guns in school don't want security in the schools. They don't want anyone with a gun around their children.
> 
> This is a state and local matter and shouldn't involve the federal government.
Click to expand...


The only thing "over the line" is your complete inability to read and comprehend. At no point did I, or the NRA, claim that it was (and I quote you here) "the president's job to place security in schools".

We are both pointing out the hypocrisy of the idiot Obama and his dumbocrats. The man is looking to ban assault weapons while his family is *heavily* guarded by assault weapons. It's speaks volumes that both you and he are too fucking stupid to see the irony/hypocrisy of that.


----------



## expatriate

Rottweiler said:


> We are both pointing out the hypocrisy of the idiot Obama and his dumbocrats. The man is looking to ban assault weapons while his family is *heavily* guarded by assault weapons. It's speaks volumes that both you and he are too fucking stupid to see the irony/hypocrisy of that.



It is ridiculous to compare the security surrounding the president of the united states and his family with that provided private citizens.  Bringing that necessary security provided for the president into the national debate on gun control is what is hypocritical.


----------



## Dubya

Rottweiler said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wednesday morning, the White House accused the NRA of using children as "pawns in a political fight," because we pointed out in an advertisement that *while President Obama's children are protected by armed guards at school, their father had shown little interest in armed protection for anyone else's children*. We said Obama was being hypocritical. The White House said our ad was "repugnant and cowardly."
> 
> NRA-ILA | Hypocrisy and Theatrics as Obama Launches Campaign Against Second Amendment
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your NRA ad is way over the line and if you don't know that, you're way over the line and lack proper judgment. It isn't the President's job to place security in schools. 18 states allow guns in schools and that means 32 states don't. There is nothing stopping a community which allows guns in schools raising their property taxes slightly to pay for security. There is nothing stopping a state legislature changing the laws of that state to allow guns in school. The fact is most schools in states that allow guns in school don't want security in the schools. They don't want anyone with a gun around their children.
> 
> This is a state and local matter and shouldn't involve the federal government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing "over the line" is your complete inability to read and comprehend. At no point did I, or the NRA, claim that it was (and I quote you here) "the president's job to place security in schools".
> 
> We are both pointing out the hypocrisy of the idiot Obama and his dumbocrats. The man is looking to ban assault weapons while his family is *heavily* guarded by assault weapons. It's speaks volumes that both you and he are too fucking stupid to see the irony/hypocrisy of that.
Click to expand...


Reading has nothing to do with it. I've seen the ad several times and it isn't about assault weapons and was put out before any assault weapons ban was proposed. It's saying the first family has security and Obama won't give that security to your children. It breaks the rule of talking about the President's children and the subject is not a federal issue but a local one. States and local schools are suppose to provide security if they want it and most don't. The ad is stupid, period.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bKw7ZsQgtc]Protection For Obama's Kids, Gun-Free Zones For Ours? - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> Hawaii wasn't a state and they could restrict the Japanese from getting near sensitive military installations, so there was no problem with sabotage or espionage.




Hawaii was essentially a huge military installation at the time. No better place for espionage and/or sabotage. And there were many, many more Japanese concentrated in one place, undoubtedly with many well entrenched into the local economy and society. Very much closer to Japan and Japanese holdings and in a much better location for reporting and communicating information (as you yourself argued before you realized that residents of Hawaii were largely not sent to FDR's concentration camps, you ignorant shit). This, combined with the FACT that only a relatively tiny fraction of German Americans had their Constitutional rights abrogated despite their far larger numbers overall AND on the East coast where actual spy operations were active, completely and totally blows your stupid 'it was necessary' argument right out of the water. 

"Japanese Americans in Hawaii were not incarcerated because they made up nearly 40% of the population and a large portion of the skilled workforce. The fact they were not incarcerated suggests that the removal of Japanese Americans on the west coast was racially motivated rather than out of "military necessity." Agricultural interest groups in western states, and many local politicians, had long been against Japanese Americans, and used the attack on Pearl Harbor to step up calls for their removal."


----------



## Unkotare

And don't forget this:

"Before Pearl Harbor was bombed, President Roosevelt secretly commissioned Curtis Munson, a businessman, to assess the possibility that Japanese Americans would pose a threat to US security. Munson&#8217;s report found (as cited in Ronald Takaki, Strangers from a Distant Shore, page 386) that "There will be no armed uprising of Japanese" in the United States. "For the most part," the report says, "the local Japanese are loyal to the United States or, at worst, hope that by remaining quiet they can avoid concentration camps or irresponsible mobs."


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> You obviously can't look at those dates or use your brain to figure out there were Japanese agents on the west coast of the United States and in Hawaii.



Which agents were those?

Once again, NOT ONE Japanese American was ever convicted of espionage during WWII. This cannot be said for German and Italian Americans.


YOU are simply an un-American douchebag trying to defend the indefensible (and losing badly). Your false and baseless arguments have been knocked down at every turn. US Presidents and Supreme Court Justices since (and many during) the war have recognized the injustice of FDR's concentration camps. You are all alone in your obstinant anti-American view.


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> You're a fool trying to make something out of nothing.




If you think that throwing over 110,000 innocent people into concentration camps and depriving American citizens of their Constitutional rights is "nothing," then you are not just a fucking idiot, you are flat-out fucking evil. 


Don't just get the fuck out of my country, get the fuck off my planet you worthless, inhuman offense to life and liberty itself.


----------



## Dubya

Unkotare said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hawaii wasn't a state and they could restrict the Japanese from getting near sensitive military installations, so there was no problem with sabotage or espionage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hawaii was essentially a huge military installation at the time. No better place for espionage and/or sabotage. And there were many, many more Japanese concentrated in one place, undoubtedly with many well entrenched into the local economy and society. Very much closer to Japan and Japanese holdings and in a much better location for reporting and communicating information (as you yourself argued before you realized that residents of Hawaii were largely not sent to FDR's concentration camps, you ignorant shit). This, combined with the FACT that only a relatively tiny fraction of German Americans had their Constitutional rights abrogated despite their far larger numbers overall AND on the East coast where actual spy operations were active, completely and totally blows your stupid 'it was necessary' argument right out of the water.
> 
> "Japanese Americans in Hawaii were not incarcerated because they made up nearly 40% of the population and a large portion of the skilled workforce. The fact they were not incarcerated suggests that the removal of Japanese Americans on the west coast was racially motivated rather than out of "military necessity." Agricultural interest groups in western states, and many local politicians, had long been against Japanese Americans, and used the attack on Pearl Harbor to step up calls for their removal."
Click to expand...


You don't bother to know anything about what you talk about. Hawaii was not essentially a huge military installation at the time and never has been.

Pearl Harbor had the naval base, navy yard, oil tank farms, and submarine base, all in the same location. There was a major airfield and army barracks at a different location. Pearl Harbor is located on the island of Oahu, Hawaii, which is one of the smaller Hawaiian Islands. Those two military installations took up a small percentage of the area of that smaller Hawaiian Island. The only security needed was to keep the Japanese far enough away from those military installations. Doing so would mean a ship could come and go and the Japanese on the Island wouldn't know. The major ships leaving the harbor had submarine protection. The coming and going of aircraft wasn't that important, because they were always sending out patrols, including a lot of amphibious aircraft. 

After the Pearl Harbor attack, any location in the Pacific became important listening posts and it is possible at times to pick up a signal from a very long distance. I'm sure our government put plenty of resources on all the Hawaiian Islands to try to find Japanese agents. If Japan wanted to add an agent to the Hawaiian Islands, all it had to do is find someone who spoke English, train them, give them resources and drop them off by submarine. By the time the Philippines fell, they had plenty of American money. That's only 5 months after the Pearl Harbor attack. Your statements about no espionage or sabotage may apply to the continental United States where communication wasn't possible. Removing all the Japanese from the west coast prevented communication. Maybe that's why they were kept in internment and not released in the east. It's ridiculous to claim there weren't Japanese agents in Hawaii. 

At this point, you are just making ridiculous statements to support what you claim is your case, but the odds are, it's just more anti-Democrat propaganda and not even true outrage about the plight of the people in Japanese Internment. You've posted some shitty blogs that contradict themselves on their front page. A person who had an interest in the subject would be more selective in posting information.


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hawaii wasn't a state and they could restrict the Japanese from getting near sensitive military installations, so there was no problem with sabotage or espionage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hawaii was essentially a huge military installation at the time. No better place for espionage and/or sabotage. And there were many, many more Japanese concentrated in one place, undoubtedly with many well entrenched into the local economy and society. Very much closer to Japan and Japanese holdings and in a much better location for reporting and communicating information (as you yourself argued before you realized that residents of Hawaii were largely not sent to FDR's concentration camps, you ignorant shit). This, combined with the FACT that only a relatively tiny fraction of German Americans had their Constitutional rights abrogated despite their far larger numbers overall AND on the East coast where actual spy operations were active, completely and totally blows your stupid 'it was necessary' argument right out of the water.
> 
> "Japanese Americans in Hawaii were not incarcerated because they made up nearly 40% of the population and a large portion of the skilled workforce. The fact they were not incarcerated suggests that the removal of Japanese Americans on the west coast was racially motivated rather than out of "military necessity." Agricultural interest groups in western states, and many local politicians, had long been against Japanese Americans, and used the attack on Pearl Harbor to step up calls for their removal."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't bother to know anything about what you talk about. Hawaii was not essentially a huge military installation at the time and never has been.
> 
> Pearl Harbor had the naval base, navy yard, oil tank farms, and submarine base, all in the same location. There was a major airfield and army barracks at a different location. Pearl Harbor is located on the island of Oahu, Hawaii, which is one of the smaller Hawaiian Islands. Those two military installations took up a small percentage of the area of that smaller Hawaiian Island.
Click to expand...



LOL. You are such an ignorant shit. You stink of desperation at this point, you evil fuck.


Google Image Result for http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/7Dec41/maps/7Dec41-2.jpg


And look at all these military installations:



Camp McKinley (est. 1898)
 Fort Kamehameha (est. 1907)
 Pearl Harbor Naval Station (est. 1908)
 Fort Shafter (est. 1907)
 Fort Ruger (est. 1909)
 Schofield Barracks (est. 1909)


Battery Closson (est. 1911)
 Battery Dudley (est. 1911)
 Battery Randolph (est. 1911)
 Fort DeRussy (est. 1915)
 Wheeler Army Airfield (est. 1922)


Military Bases on the Big Island of Hawaii

Military Bases on Kauai Island in Hawaii



All of Hawaii was seen as America's most important strategic asset regarding the war in the Pacific.


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> I'm sure our government put plenty of resources on all the Hawaiian Islands to try to find Japanese agents.





I notice you say "I'm sure" a lot when you are talking out your ass and can't prove anything.


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> It's ridiculous to claim there weren't Japanese agents in Hawaii.




Really? What were their names?


----------



## Unkotare

You can't defend the indefnsible, you evil scum.


----------



## Unkotare

Hey scum, read about a real American:

He stood up while others sat - The Denver Post


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> If Japan wanted to add an agent to the Hawaiian Islands, all it had to do is find someone who spoke English, train them, give them resources and drop them off by submarine.






What's this "add an agent" stuff now? What happened to all your talk about "the Emperor putting out the call" and all that? Wasn't that part of your justification for throwing brave, loyal, innocent AMERICAN CITIZENS into concentration camps? How many times are you going to try and change the narrative when you get smacked in the face with facts, scumbag?


----------



## Dubya

Unkotare said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hawaii was essentially a huge military installation at the time. No better place for espionage and/or sabotage. And there were many, many more Japanese concentrated in one place, undoubtedly with many well entrenched into the local economy and society. Very much closer to Japan and Japanese holdings and in a much better location for reporting and communicating information (as you yourself argued before you realized that residents of Hawaii were largely not sent to FDR's concentration camps, you ignorant shit). This, combined with the FACT that only a relatively tiny fraction of German Americans had their Constitutional rights abrogated despite their far larger numbers overall AND on the East coast where actual spy operations were active, completely and totally blows your stupid 'it was necessary' argument right out of the water.
> 
> "Japanese Americans in Hawaii were not incarcerated because they made up nearly 40% of the population and a large portion of the skilled workforce. The fact they were not incarcerated suggests that the removal of Japanese Americans on the west coast was racially motivated rather than out of "military necessity." Agricultural interest groups in western states, and many local politicians, had long been against Japanese Americans, and used the attack on Pearl Harbor to step up calls for their removal."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't bother to know anything about what you talk about. Hawaii was not essentially a huge military installation at the time and never has been.
> 
> Pearl Harbor had the naval base, navy yard, oil tank farms, and submarine base, all in the same location. There was a major airfield and army barracks at a different location. Pearl Harbor is located on the island of Oahu, Hawaii, which is one of the smaller Hawaiian Islands. Those two military installations took up a small percentage of the area of that smaller Hawaiian Island.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. You are such an ignorant shit. You stink of desperation at this point, you evil fuck.
> 
> 
> Google Image Result for http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/7Dec41/maps/7Dec41-2.jpg
> 
> 
> And look at all these military installations:
> 
> 
> 
> Camp McKinley (est. 1898)
> Fort Kamehameha (est. 1907)
> Pearl Harbor Naval Station (est. 1908)
> Fort Shafter (est. 1907)
> Fort Ruger (est. 1909)
> Schofield Barracks (est. 1909)
> 
> 
> Battery Closson (est. 1911)
> Battery Dudley (est. 1911)
> Battery Randolph (est. 1911)
> Fort DeRussy (est. 1915)
> Wheeler Army Airfield (est. 1922)
> 
> 
> Military Bases on the Big Island of Hawaii
> 
> Military Bases on Kauai Island in Hawaii
> 
> 
> 
> All of Hawaii was seen as America's most important strategic asset regarding the war in the Pacific.
Click to expand...


You can't even post an image. Paste it in that little box above that says insert image when you post!







You act like an airstrip or radar outpost is some kind of major military installation. Those forts were obsolete in the day of carriers. Even the battleships were obsolete, if an aircraft carrier or aircraft was around. Do you see the Wheeler Field near Schofield Barracks, that's the other millitary installation, besides Pearl Harbor? It wouldn't surprise me if they remove every Japanese from Oahu to prevent some sailor mentioning his ship at a bar and having it overheard. Hawaii was not full of military installations. 

Pearl Harbor was attacked by 6 aircraft carriers and we had 3 carriers in the Pacific that weren't at Pearl Harbor. Very little damage was done to the Japanese Fleet. The Lexington was sunk at Coral Sea and the Saratoga was torpedoed at Wake Island (a very early battle when Pearl Harbor was attacked) and went back to the west coast for repairs. Only the Enterprise of the original 3 managed to make it to the Battle of Midway. The Hornet was there and the Yorktown, which was damaged during the Battle of the Coral Sea, was at Midway and was sunk. Midway was 4 months after Japanese Internment orders. The Japanese losing 4 carriers to our 1 and stopping the invasion was a great victory, but that left 2 carriers to guard the whole Pacific. An island with aircraft is like a carrier that can't move, but the airfield needs to be attacked by ground troops. Aircraft can be transported as freight, but that is a slow way of doing it. If you have enough small carriers, you can use them to refuel planes that can land on carriers, but you need many of them to get all the way to Hawaii.

You haven't shown anything to prove the decision to evacuate Japanese from the west coast was a bad decision. You can talk about people's rights all you want to, but this was total war. We were fighting a defensive war in the Pacific and weren't able to go on the offensive, until after the Guadalcanal Campaign. If we didn't get lucky at Midway and buy us some time, the Panama Canal would have been destroyed and the west coast would have been blockaded and raided. The Japanese would have owned the Hawaiian Islands by then. A different fate would had made so and it was that close.


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't bother to know anything about what you talk about. Hawaii was not essentially a huge military installation at the time and never has been.
> 
> Pearl Harbor had the naval base, navy yard, oil tank farms, and submarine base, all in the same location. There was a major airfield and army barracks at a different location. Pearl Harbor is located on the island of Oahu, Hawaii, which is one of the smaller Hawaiian Islands. Those two military installations took up a small percentage of the area of that smaller Hawaiian Island.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. You are such an ignorant shit. You stink of desperation at this point, you evil fuck.
> 
> 
> Google Image Result for http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/7Dec41/maps/7Dec41-2.jpg
> 
> 
> And look at all these military installations:
> 
> 
> 
> Camp McKinley (est. 1898)
> Fort Kamehameha (est. 1907)
> Pearl Harbor Naval Station (est. 1908)
> Fort Shafter (est. 1907)
> Fort Ruger (est. 1909)
> Schofield Barracks (est. 1909)
> 
> 
> Battery Closson (est. 1911)
> Battery Dudley (est. 1911)
> Battery Randolph (est. 1911)
> Fort DeRussy (est. 1915)
> Wheeler Army Airfield (est. 1922)
> 
> 
> Military Bases on the Big Island of Hawaii
> 
> Military Bases on Kauai Island in Hawaii
> 
> 
> 
> All of Hawaii was seen as America's most important strategic asset regarding the war in the Pacific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You act like an airstrip or radar outpost is some kind of major military installation.
Click to expand...



LOL! Keep spinning, chump. You're doing terrible.


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> You haven't shown anything to prove the decision to evacuate Japanese from the west coast was a bad decision.




Beyond bullshit. Anyone can read this thread and see the mountain of evidence I have shoved down your weaselly little throat, against which you have feebly offered nothing but your own un-American immorality.


----------



## Dubya

Unkotare said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't shown anything to prove the decision to evacuate Japanese from the west coast was a bad decision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beyond bullshit. Anyone can read this thread and see the mountain of evidence I have shoved down your weaselly little throat, against which you have feebly offered nothing but your own un-American immorality.
Click to expand...


There is no evidence in your posts. Blogs aren't evidence. You believe when a nation is at total war against two powerful enemies and the Italians and they know the Japanese have put agents on the west coast that they shouldn't be concerned that an invasion and containment of their operations in the Pacific looks eminent. The Japanese knew the names of the carriers we had in the Pacific at Pearl Harbor and afterwards when they had changed. We knew the names of their carriers too, so figure it out!

Your posts boil down to: under no conditions should the rights of an American citizen be violated, even if it costs you a war and you'll have no rights at all. It's totally hindsight. The Battle of Midway, which gave us our chance in the Pacific could easily rest on the Japanese fleet leaves 10 minutes earlier and the outcome of the battle changes. We had the three best carriers in our navy there, all Yorktown class, but we were still lucky to only lose 1. If the Japanese attacked with six, like they did at Pearl Harbor, they could have either sunk or damaged beyond battle readiness all three of those Yorktown class carriers in a counter strike and probably had three carriers left.


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't shown anything to prove the decision to evacuate Japanese from the west coast was a bad decision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beyond bullshit. Anyone can read this thread and see the mountain of evidence I have shoved down your weaselly little throat, against which you have feebly offered nothing but your own un-American immorality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no evidence in your posts. Blogs aren't evidence.
Click to expand...



Lies and denials won't improve your spin, scumbag. Anyone and everyone can see that you are choking under a mountain of evidence that your un-American views are wrong and indefensible. All proof and principle show that FDR's concentration camps were unwarranted, unconstitutional and immoral. Even most of those caught up in the fervor, fear, and racism of the times later came to admit it was in every sense wrong. That you cannot, more than half a century later, shows that you are stupid and fundamentally un-American (among other things).


----------



## Unkotare

President Ronald Reagan:

"August 10, 1988


The Members of Congress and distinguished guests, my fellow Americans, we gather here today to right a grave wrong. More than 40 years ago, shortly after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, 120,000 persons of Japanese ancestry living in the United States were forcibly removed from their homes and placed in makeshift internment camps. This action was taken without trial, without jury. It was based solely on race, for these 120,000 were Americans of Japanese descent.


Yes, the Nation was then at war, struggling for its survival and it's not for us today to pass judgment upon those who may have made mistakes while engaged in that great struggle. Yet we must recognize that the internment of Japanese-Americans was just that: a mistake. For throughout the war, Japanese-Americans in the tens of thousands remained utterly loyal to the United States. Indeed, scores of Japanese-Americans volunteered for our Armed Forces, many stepping forward in the internment camps themselves. The 442d Regimental Combat Team, made up entirely of Japanese-Americans, served with immense distinction to defend this nation, their nation. Yet back at home, the soldier's families were being denied the very freedom for which so many of the soldiers themselves were laying down their lives.


Congressman Norman Mineta, with us today, was 10 years old when his family was interned. In the Congressman's words: ''My own family was sent first to Santa Anita Racetrack. We showered in the horse paddocks. Some families lived in converted stables, others in hastily thrown together barracks. We were then moved to Heart Mountain, Wyoming, where our entire family lived in one small room of a rude tar paper barrack.'' Like so many tens of thousands of others, the members of the Mineta family lived in those conditions not for a matter of weeks or months but for 3 long years.


The legislation that I am about to sign provides for a restitution payment to each of the 60,000 surviving Japanese-Americans of the 120,000 who were relocated or detained. Yet no payment can make up for those lost years. So, what is most important in this bill has less to do with property than with honor. For here we admit a wrong; here we reaffirm our commitment as a nation to equal justice under the law.


I'd like to note that the bill I'm about to sign also provides funds for members of the Aleut community who were evacuated from the Aleutian and Pribilof Islands after a Japanese attack in 1942. This action was taken for the Aleuts' own protection, but property was lost or damaged that has never been replaced. 


And now in closing, I wonder whether you'd permit me one personal reminiscence, one prompted by an old newspaper report sent to me by Rose Ochi, a former internee. The clipping comes from the Pacific Citizen and is dated December 1945.


''Arriving by plane from Washington,'' the article begins, ''General Joseph W. Stilwell pinned the Distinguished Service Cross on Mary Masuda in a simple ceremony on the porch of her small frame shack near Talbert, Orange County. She was one of the first Americans of Japanese ancestry to return from relocation centers to California's farmlands.'' ''Vinegar Joe'' Stilwell was there that day to honor Kazuo Masuda, Mary's brother. You see, while Mary and her parents were in an internment camp, Kazuo served as staff sergeant to the 442d Regimental Combat Team. In one action, Kazuo ordered his men back and advanced through heavy fire, hauling a mortar. For 12 hours, he engaged in a singlehanded barrage of Nazi positions. Several weeks later at Cassino, Kazuo staged another lone advance. This time it cost him his life. 


The newspaper clipping notes that her two surviving brothers were with Mary and her parents on the little porch that morning. These two brothers, like the heroic Kazuo, had served in the United States Army. After General Stilwell made the award, the motion picture actress Louise Allbritton, a Texas girl, told how a Texas battalion had been saved by the 442d. Other show business personalities paid tribute--Robert Young, Will Rogers, Jr. And one young actor said: ''Blood that has soaked into the sands of a beach is all of one color. America stands unique in the world: the only country not founded on race but on a way, an ideal. Not in spite of but because of our polyglot background, we have had all the strength in the world. That is the American way.'' The name of that young actor--I hope I pronounce this right--was Ronald Reagan. And, yes, the ideal of liberty and justice for all--that is still the American way.


Thank you, and God bless you. And now let me sign H.R. 442, so fittingly named in honor of the 442d.


Thank you all again, and God bless you all. I think this is a fine day."


Note: The President spoke at 2:33 p.m. in Room 450 of the Old Executive Office Building. H.R. 442, approved August 10, was assigned Public Law No. 100-383.


----------



## Dubya

Unkotare said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Beyond bullshit. Anyone can read this thread and see the mountain of evidence I have shoved down your weaselly little throat, against which you have feebly offered nothing but your own un-American immorality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence in your posts. Blogs aren't evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lies and denials won't improve your spin, scumbag. Anyone and everyone can see that you are choking under a mountain of evidence that your un-American views are wrong and indefensible. All proof and principle show that FDR's concentration camps were unwarranted, unconstitutional and immoral. Even most of those caught up in the fervor, fear, and racism of the times later came to admit it was in every sense wrong. That you cannot, more than half a century later, shows that you are stupid and fundamentally un-American (among other things).
Click to expand...


That is spin and all your evidence is hindsight. There were very good reasons to get all the Japanese away from the west coast and the reasons have been explained. An apology after the fact doesn't mean those people wouldn't have done the same thing, if they were living in that time. It's totally bullshit to claim the Japanese were removed because of prejudice. They were removed to prevent spying and communicating information to the enemy. Guess what, it worked.

Tough times require tough decisions and you're point of view is obviously biased to keep calling internment camps, concentration camps. FDR was the Assistant Secretary of the Navy under President Wilson. He knew more about our chances in the Pacific than you do.


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence in your posts. Blogs aren't evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lies and denials won't improve your spin, scumbag. Anyone and everyone can see that you are choking under a mountain of evidence that your un-American views are wrong and indefensible. All proof and principle show that FDR's concentration camps were unwarranted, unconstitutional and immoral. Even most of those caught up in the fervor, fear, and racism of the times later came to admit it was in every sense wrong. That you cannot, more than half a century later, shows that you are stupid and fundamentally un-American (among other things).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is spin and all your evidence is hindsight.
Click to expand...



Was it "hindsight" that before the attack on Pearl Harbor, _Roosevelt's own intelligence agents _told him that there was no reason to expect espionage from among the Japanese community? And in FACT there never was. Do you remember that I have provided you with that information several times now, you dishonest fuck?

Was it "hindsight" that during the war volunteers from the Japanese-American community, many right from the concentration camps themselves, formed the unit that became the most decorated in US military history? Ask some boys from Texas about that.

Was it "hindsight" that the Supreme Court and even the scumbag FDR himself had to admit - before the war was over - that the camps were unnecessary and wrong?

Fuck you, you un-American piece of shit.


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> There were very good reasons to get all the Japanese away from the west coast and the reasons have been explained.




There were none, and all of your empty, false arguments have been shredded several times now.


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> It's totally bullshit to claim the Japanese were removed because of prejudice.





That's not what US Supreme Court Justices and US Presidents have said. That's more evidence I have given you several times now, you dishonest fuck.


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> They were removed to prevent spying and communicating information to the enemy.




If that were really the case, over 100,000 German and Italian Americans would have been "removed" from the East coast, WHERE THERE REALLY WAS ESPIONAGE TAKING PLACE. That's *more* evidence I have provided you several times now, you dishonest fuck.


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> you're [sic] point of view is obviously biased to keep calling internment camps, concentration camps.




'Your'


And I've already taught you that concentration camps are exactly what FDR ordered, you dishonest fuck. If you're afraid of the name maybe you should face up to the FACTS.


----------



## Dubya

Unkotare said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> you're [sic] point of view is obviously biased to keep calling internment camps, concentration camps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Your'
> 
> 
> And I've already taught you that concentration camps are exactly what FDR ordered, you dishonest fuck. If you're afraid of the name maybe you should face up to the FACTS.
Click to expand...


So what asshole, I changed a sentence and didn't change a word.

Post where FDR called them concentration camps! I think the point is the Germans probably called their camps concentration camps and that name took on different meaning and you know it. It's disrespectful of all those people who died in concentration camps to make that comparison. It shows you're an asshole.


----------



## Dubya

Unkotare said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were removed to prevent spying and communicating information to the enemy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that were really the case, over 100,000 German and Italian Americans would have been "removed" from the East coast, WHERE THERE REALLY WAS ESPIONAGE TAKING PLACE. That's *more* evidence I have provided you several times now, you dishonest fuck.
Click to expand...


No, they both wouldn't have been, because only the Germans were a threat and we didn't have many recent German immigrants. You better believe there was interest in recent immigrants from both those countries and the foreign enemy national were watched and had restrictions. There was no danger of a German invasion. The Germans didn't have the navy for it and the Japanese did. Are you that damned stupid that you don't know that as a fact? The Germans could even invade the UK, how in hell are they going to invade America?


----------



## Dubya

Unkotare said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's totally bullshit to claim the Japanese were removed because of prejudice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what US Supreme Court Justices and US Presidents have said. That's more evidence I have given you several times now, you dishonest fuck.
Click to expand...


That doesn't change the fact they would have done the same thing under those circumstance.


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> Post where FDR called them concentration camps!




I already have several times, you dishonest fuck.


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's totally bullshit to claim the Japanese were removed because of prejudice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what US Supreme Court Justices and US Presidents have said. That's more evidence I have given you several times now, you dishonest fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't change the fact they would have done the same thing under those circumstance.
Click to expand...



Not everyone is an evil, un-American piece of shit like you.


I already quoted Supreme Court Justices AT THE TIME, and told you about Ralph Carr, you dishonest fuck.


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> we didn't have many recent German immigrants.




Of course we did, you idiot. Prove your assertion that we didn't.


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> The Germans didn't have the navy for it and the Japanese did.




And yet German submarines actually did pull up to our shores and disgorge actual spies, AS OPPOSED TO THE WEST COAST, idiot. I've already presented these facts to you several times, you dishonest fuck.


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> the Germans probably called their camps concentration camps .





There it is again. "Probably," "I'm sure,"I have no doubt." all these phrases you rely on when you are talking out your ass and can't support what you are saying.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dubya said:


> There was no danger of a German invasion.



or an Italian invasion for sure but the tendency to be loyal and spy for your home country was obviously great. Some Italians were rounded up accordingly. I remember how local Italians would make big Sunday meals for Italian prisioner's of war at Camp Drum,NY. To say that some Japs may have been disloyal or contemplated being disloyal would be like saying some Jews would contemplate being disloyal if we went to war with Israel. Its obvious that it is a normal human reaction just as its obvious that the home country would want to take precautions.


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> we didn't have many recent German immigrants.




"From 1923 to 1963 the number of German arrivals to America outnumbered those from any other country."



German Immigration



"Between 1820 and 1920 over 5,500,000 emigrated from Germany to the United States. Germany therefore contributed more people than any other country including Ireland (4,400,000), Italy (4,190,000) and Austria-Hungary (3,700,000)."



German Immigration


----------



## Unkotare

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was no danger of a German invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or an Italian invasion for sure but the tendency to be loyal and spy for your home country was obviously great. Some Italians were rounded up accordingly. I remember how local Italians would make big Sunday meals for Italian prisioner's of war at Camp Drum,NY. To say that some Japs may have been disloyal or contemplated being disloyal would be like saying some Jews would contemplate being disloyal if we went to war with Israel. Its obvious that it is a normal human reaction just as its obvious that the home country would want to take precautions.
Click to expand...



The word is 'Japanese.' I know those three extra letters are a real chore to type.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Unkotare said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was no danger of a German invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or an Italian invasion for sure but the tendency to be loyal and spy for your home country was obviously great. Some Italians were rounded up accordingly. I remember how local Italians would make big Sunday meals for Italian prisioner's of war at Camp Drum,NY. To say that some Japs may have been disloyal or contemplated being disloyal would be like saying some Jews would contemplate being disloyal if we went to war with Israel. Its obvious that it is a normal human reaction just as its obvious that the home country would want to take precautions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The word is 'Japanese.' I know those three extra letters are a real chore to type.
Click to expand...


Its obvious that it is a normal human reaction just as its obvious that the home country would want to take precautions.


----------



## Unkotare

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> or an Italian invasion for sure but the tendency to be loyal and spy for your home country was obviously great. Some Italians were rounded up accordingly. I remember how local Italians would make big Sunday meals for Italian prisioner's of war at Camp Drum,NY. To say that some Japs may have been disloyal or contemplated being disloyal would be like saying some Jews would contemplate being disloyal if we went to war with Israel. Its obvious that it is a normal human reaction just as its obvious that the home country would want to take precautions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The word is 'Japanese.' I know those three extra letters are a real chore to type.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its obvious that it is a normal human reaction.
Click to expand...



Then why didn't it happen?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Unkotare said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> The word is 'Japanese.' I know those three extra letters are a real chore to type.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its obvious that it is a normal human reaction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then why didn't it happen?
Click to expand...


It did happen for many Japanese and some Italians and Germans.


----------



## Unkotare

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its obvious that it is a normal human reaction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why didn't it happen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It did happen for many Japanese and some Italians and Germans.
Click to expand...



What do you think you are talking about? What "did happen for many Japanese"?


----------



## Ernie S.

Dubya said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> you're [sic] point of view is obviously biased to keep calling internment camps, concentration camps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Your'
> 
> 
> And I've already taught you that concentration camps are exactly what FDR ordered, you dishonest fuck. If you're afraid of the name maybe you should face up to the FACTS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what asshole, I changed a sentence and didn't change a word.
> 
> Post where FDR called them concentration camps! I think the point is the Germans probably called their camps concentration camps and that name took on different meaning and you know it. It's disrespectful of all those people who died in concentration camps to make that comparison. It shows you're an asshole.
Click to expand...

For Christ sake! It is not disrespectful of anyone to call what you refer to as "internment camps" what they really were. Assigning some kind of imagined degenerate behavior to your opponents is one of those uniquely Liberal debate tactics. It may impress other Libs, but not anyone that has ever had an independent thought.
The camps were a place where Japanese Americans were _concentrated_ in several manageable locations. They likely would have been called Concentration Camps had the term not already been associated with Germany and Jewish internment.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Unkotare said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why didn't it happen?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It did happen for many Japanese and some Italians and Germans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think you are talking about? What "did happen for many Japanese"?
Click to expand...


they were rounded up as were fewer Germans and Italians


This is a list of Japanese spies including leaders and commanders of the Japanese Secret Intelligence Services (Kempeitai) in the period 1930 to 1945.
The Emperor of Japan (Tenno) was constitutionally the supreme commander of the Japanese Secret Services as a branch of the Imperial Armed forces.
Yakichiro Suma &#8211; Japan's Ambassador in Spain, Chief of the Japanese spy network code named "TO". Friend of Foreign Ministers Ramon Suñer (General Franco's brother-in-law) and Count Gomez Jordana. He collected information from Afghanistan, Russia, Iran, and India.
Morito Morishima &#8211; Japanese ambassador in Portugal.
Hiroshi &#332;shima &#8211; Japanese ambassador in Germany, close friends with Admiral Canaris, chief of Germany's intelligence organization (Abwehr) and Italy's Military Intelligence Bureau. Oshima then relayed TO to Tokyo along with messages coordinating policies and operations between the three Axis powers.
Yoshio Muto &#8211; spy operating in San Francisco.
Toshio Miyazaki &#8211; Japanese Navy agent who recruited the American Harry Thomas Thompson as a secret agent in San Diego.
Yuchi Tonogawa &#8211; a Japanese Army agent disguised as a farm worker in Brazil, also a member of a local secret web in Brazil.
A Japanese army captain disguised himself as a chef for a prominent Brazilian family until detected by Brazilian security services.
Jakuji Ochi &#8211; a Japanese Navy agent, disguised as a woodworker in Panama, also chief of a local secret web in Las Perlas Archipelago. Also in Panama were a Japanese family of fishermen who were a supposed part of this web.
There were 250,000 Japanese nationals living in Brazil, and by August 1942, German submarines had sunk 19 Brazilian ships. Considering that Japan had signed the Axis treaty with the Germans, and realizing the methods of Japan's intelligence system using Japanese people of ordinary appearance, Brazil's authorities were in a quandary.
Prince Higashikuni &#8211; on a secret mission commissioned by Tenno, arranged a secret meeting in Baden-Baden (Germany) during 1921, with "Three Raven" (a secret military thinking group) to organize the next underground commission of "Eleven Reliable Mens" who gave orders to prepare the future conquest lines of Japanese forces.
Prince Chichibu &#8211; with Hirohito's orders, arrived in Manchuria for an underground reconnaissance mission in accordance with secret plans of the Japanese intervention there.
Ryonosuke Seita &#8211; chief of a local spy web in Brisbane, Australia. Possibly linked to Pedro de Ygual, Spanish Consul in Australia and a known General Franco supporter.
Motojiro Akashi &#8211; Black Dragon member and Agent specialized in Siberia and North Asia. Knowledgeable about China, Manchuria, Siberia and established contacts throughout the Muslim world. These Muslim contacts would be maintained through the Second World War, both as operatives in their areas and as a hedge against Soviet aggression. Akashi eventually established networks through Europe too, that served the Black Dragons. The Black Dragons also formed close contact and even alliances with Buddhist sects throughout Asia.
Japanese Official Radio, Radio Tokyo, sent its foreign transmissions, with some cover messages to Japanese Doho agents outside Japan.
Tokyo Rose &#8211; a foreign woman announcer on Radio Tokyo. Sent coded messages to Japanese agents in Southeast Asia and the Pacific area via radio messages.
Hiraya Amane &#8211; secret agent in Hankow, China. Wrote Zhong-guo Bi-mi She-hui Shi, the first true history of the Triads and other secret societies; this book was a special intelligence handbook. Hiraya also organized Tung Wen College in Shanghai that trained future agents for espionage in China. The Tung Wen would continue to operate until the end of World War II, training agents for operations throughout Asia.
Marcelle Tao Kitazawa &#8211; agent in Australia, linked with Seita, who led a spy web in New Caledonia.[citation needed]
Agent Umeda &#8211; local agent in North Queensland, Australia.
Kinoaki Matsuo &#8211; member of the ultra-nationalist Black Dragon secret society, and an officer in Japanese Intelligence.
Mitsuru Toyama &#8211; chief of Black Dragon Society, an active agent linked with Japanese Secret Service and Japanese outside agents.
Sh&#363;mei &#332;kawa &#8211; ultra-nationalist, agent instructor, and an agent in China and North Asia.
Yoshio Kodama &#8211; Japanese gangster and Yakuza chief, he set up a massive network of Manchurian spies and informants spread across China.
Hideki T&#333;j&#333; &#8211; the Chief of the Japanese Army, Prime Minister and chief of the Kodoha Party; for a period chief of Kwantung Army and Kempeitai Intelligence service in Manchukuo. He also maintained during his military life direct control of the Japanese Secret Services (apart from the Emperor's command of such services) and received information first through his direct link with the Black Dragon Society and his own intelligence work with the Japanese Army during the conflict.
K&#333;ki Hirota &#8211; former Foreign Minister and head of the Black Dragons (also guided intelligence services in the group), discussed the advantages and consequences of a conflict with the United States with War Minister Hideki T&#333;j&#333;. In a conference on August 26, 1941 at a session of the Black Dragon Society HQ in Tokyo, the War Minister ordered preparation to be made to wage a total war against the armed forces of the United States. December 1941 or February 1942, were considered adequate time for this operation. Tojo said he "will start the war with America, and after sixty days he will reshuffle the cabinet and become a great dictator", at same time if analyzed the last dates provided from Japanese secret agents about Soviet Far East and European colonies in Southeast Asia, in relation to this operation.
Previously in World War II on the Chinese mainland, Black Dragon posed one five column, so-called "China Wave-Men". They undertook some secret operations at favour of such group. Similar operations with revolutionaries were established from 1906 to the 1940s, targeting India, Indonesia and the Philippines amongst others. The Black Dragons began establishing subsidiary groups to support these regional actions.
Kenjiro Hayashide &#8211; second secretary in Japanese Embassy in Hsinking, Diplomatic Adviser to the Kangde Emperor and underground secret agent, author of "Epochal voyage to Nippon", a publication edited by the Intelligence agency in General Affairs State Council of Manchukuo.
Michitar&#333; Komatsubara &#8211; intelligence chief in Harbin for some time.
Kingoro Hashimoto &#8211; served in the secret service in Manchukuo for a period
Sadao Araki &#8211; undertook some secret actions in his service in the Siberian Japanese expeditionary force period
Wellington Koo &#8211; as member of Lytton Commission during his diplomatic mission in Manchukuo, reported the frequent watching of suspicious Japanese, Chinese, Korean and White Russian employees in the Hotel Moderne, Harbin. Similarly Amleto Vespa as a Manchu/Japanese forced secret agent, confirmed the presence of such secret agents in these period in places where stay mentioned diplomatic commission in country.
Kanji Ishiwara &#8211; undertook undercover actions and espionage in Manchukuo
Kenji Doihara &#8211; member of the Japanese intelligence service in Manchukuo, making some secret actions there and on the Chinese mainland
Noboyushi Obata (Shinryo) &#8211; chief of secret unit in Harbin
Masaiko Amakazu &#8211; secret agent in Manchukuo, chief of the Manchukuo Film Association
A Japanese undercover agent, disguised as a "Housekeeper" watching constantly at Puyi in the imperial palace and writing periodical reports to superiors of Japanese Secret Services in Manchukuo about intimate details of Kangde Emperor.
Theorically in Manchukuo, Kangde Emperor held the command of Manchu Secret Services and received their information. But in reality these units and their sections stayed under the control of Kempeitai and Kwantung Army
Amleto Vespa &#8211; Italian forced secret agent of Japanese and Manchu secret service for some time
In Manchukuo &#8211; Japanese and Manchu local secret services used some Chinese, Mongol, Buriats, Korean, and White Russians as secret agents and saboteurs, for watching enemies
Lo-Chen-Yu &#8211; a local manchu servant with delictive links, also a secret agent
Seishir&#333; Itagaki &#8211; member of Japanese intelligence service with duties in Manchukuo and Korea
Yasunori Yoshioka &#8211; Japanese Intelligence member with missions in Manchukuo
A Prince &#8211; unknown identity, chief and secret agent in Japanese Secret Service in Manchukuo. Was possibly Prince Takeda
Konoto Daisaku &#8211; Japanese agent with orders in Manchukuo
Major Giga &#8211; Japanese agent and saboteur in Manchukuo
Hisao Watari &#8211; Agent of Japanese Intelligence service in Manchukuo
Kwantung Army &#8211; poses the Asano Division and "Mongol Army" special units, conformed by White Russians the first and Mongols the second. Imperial forces projected use such units in secret missions and sabotages during eventual invasion to SovietSiberia, Outer Mongolia and Russian Far East.
Takayoshi Tanaka &#8211; another Japanese agent with missions in the north and central Chinese mainland
Kanji Tsuneoka &#8211; the real power in Mengchiang, led the central academy (intelligence school) in Kalgan and undertook some secret operations in the area. Directed the Mongol department of Kwantung Army in the land, native saboteurs and secret agent units.
Yoshiko Kawashima &#8211; Manchu princess, and Japanese secret agent with orders on Chinese mainland
Pince Su &#8211; Another Mongol Japanese agent in inner Mongolia
Nataoke Sato &#8211; Japanese Ambassador in Moscow, undertook some secret missions for the Axis Powers efforts during Eastern front battles.
Jinzo Nomoto &#8211; intelligence officer sent by a unit of the Imperial Japanese Army to Tibet and Sinkiang. He worked in Manchukuo and was a member of Mongolian section in Kwantung Army, later sent to mentioned territories.
Ma Chung-ying &#8211; Local Uguir server, undertook some secret actions for the Japanese in this land.
Trebitsch Lincoln &#8211; Hungarian
Kanyei Chuyo &#8211; a chief of Japanese Navy Secret services. Directed the 8th Section "Yashika". Between this unit stay the "Australian Section" ("Tokyo Gimusho") linked with Japanese Naval Intelligence Staff under command of Imperial Navy General Staff. The office had orders to researching any affairs of the British Empire in Southeast Asia and Pacific Area.
Kinoaki Matsuo &#8211; Foreign Affairs Ministry, also intelligence officer when serving as liaison between the Japanese Foreign Office and the Imperial Admiralty
Mineo &#332;sumi &#8211; nobility member and member of the Supreme War Council of Japan. He undertook some secret missions in central and southern China under the orders of the Japanese Navy.
Officer Maruyama &#8211; underground unit, in Censorship department between the Tokk&#333; Intelligence service, in Tokyo, Japan. He watched any information sent to outside by foreign journalists from the Japanese capital.
Japanese Secret Services &#8211; used some foreign persons as inside agents for watching suspicious persons in Japan. Between theirs stayed one American with residence in Japan, one Hungarian agent in the service of the Japanese Army and one Euroasiatic Agent at service in Japanese Navy and intelligence office in Foreign Affairs Ministry. Such units along with Western and East Asian agents are used by Japanese Secret services and Army and Navy during Pacific War in East Asia, Australia and Pacific territories.
These intelligence services also used Doho or dokuku jin &#8211; (nikkei) cultural groups since 1920s to Pacific War as alternative secret agents. These were Japanese citizens with foreign nationality, with loyalty to Tenno and nation; they lived around the world.
Tatsuki Fuji &#8211; Editor of Singapore Herald. Himself an agent in Malaysia.
Shinozaki Mamoru &#8211; Japanese diplomat, arrested for espionage in previous days to arriving Imperial forces at country.
Japanese Army &#8211; special forces agents, Susuhiko Mizuno, Sergeant Morita, Sergeant Furuhashi, Lance Corporal Kazuo Ito 6 sailors and 5 Timorese decoys, undertook some secret missions from Koepang, Timor island, to disembark in Western Australia, during January 19, 1944. They were members of the Matsu Kikan (Pine Tree) Secret Agency, led by Captain Masayoshi Yamamoto with HQ in Ambon (Dutch Indies), under command of 19th Army. This group traveled aboard Hiyoshi Maru; managed by Staff Sergeant Auonuma and Officer Hachiro Akai. They arrived at Cartier Island escorted by Kawasaki Ki-48 "Lilly" light bomber of 7th Air division from Kendari finally arriving at Browse Island. The same group observed nearby areas too. On January 20, 1944, this unit returned to Timor.
Certain Australian sources mentioned one Japanese secret mission to Mornington Island, in the Gulf of Carpentaria during January 1944. Watchers inform about one black large ship, landing on the island on January 15, 1944.
The Black Dragon Society, the Kaigun Kyokai (Navy League), or the Hoirusha Kai (Military Service Man's League), and other similar societies. These Japanese secret groups were well known to the Naval Intelligence Service or the Federal Bureau of Investigation your existence and your some subversive actions in United States, at favour of Japanese cause along some elements of Doho communities in country.
Other overseas Japanese agents of Black Dragon Society, were the so-called "Soshi" (Brave Knights). At the same time referring to superior commander how the "Darkside Emperor" mentioned agents since firsts 1940s period, was operating worldwide, as far away as North America, South America and Morocco in North Africa. They formed covert ties with the Nazis.
German Lt. Col. Fritz von Petersdorf, Assist and German Military Attaché in Tokyo, received some information from Japanese Intelligence Services, in accord with Axis Powers alliance agreements. Such information was related to military strength, transportation, reserves, troop dispositions, and movements of Soviet Far East units sent to the West European front (Barbarossa Operation), as well the data concerning the war industry in the Soviet Union. This report was supported by Admiral Wenneker, the German naval attaché, under German official Ambassador Eugen Ott in the Japanese capital.
Hiroshi Akita &#8211; Chief of German Section of Japanese Military Intelligence in this period.
Japanese Army &#8211; sent a secret mission to Germany via Siberia, starting from Tokyo on March 1, 1943. This operation was led by Major General Okamoto, who had been Chief of the Second Bureau (Intelligence) at the time of the outbreak of the Pacific War. His staff consisted of Colonel Kotani, Navy officer Captain Onoda, and Mr.Yosano, Foreign Office Chancellor. Objectives of the mission were to investigate German ability to carry on the war; and to clarify Japan's real situation to the Germans. A third objective (concerning the arrangement of a separate peace between Germany and the Soviet Union) was eliminated just prior to the departure of the mission. The Okamoto Mission reported its findings in a cable dated July 5. Many reservations were attached to the report, which concluded that German national power was lower than had been foreseen by the mission before it left Japan. Germany would accordingly encounter many difficulties in emerging triumphant without first overcoming the critical problems which were fast approaching: Shortage of manpower, lowering of industrial war potential, insufficiency of liquid fuel, etc.
On October 15, 1943, IGHQ incorporated its Second Bureau's 16th Section (German and Italian Intelligence) into the 5th Section (U.S.S.R. intelligence). Just at time that the German Army was failing in its early summer offensive against Orel. The Soviet Army, on the other hand, had seized the operational initiative. The feeling of the Japanese Army High Command was therefore somewhat inclining to pessimism vis-a vis Germany. The Japanese Army committed a great error by placing excessive confidence in Germany. After the Allies had successfully established a Second Front in northern France (June 1944) and an attempt had soon afterwards been made to assassinate Hitler (July 20 plot, 1944) - only then did the Japanese Army Intelligence Services and High Command eventually conclude that Germany possessed scant prospects for victory.
Patrick Heenan, July 1910-February 13, 1942 was a Captain in the British Indian Army, who was convicted of treason, after spying for Japanese military intelligence during the Malayan campaign of World War II.[1] Heenan was reportedly killed in a summary execution, during the Battle of Singapore. It is also alleged that these events were suppressed by British Commonwealth military censors.[2]
William Forbes-Sempill, 19th Lord Sempill, a British peer and record-breaking air pioneer who passed secret information to the Imperial Japanese military before the Second World War.
Velvalee Dickinson
John Semer Farnsworth


----------



## Dubya

Unkotare said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> There were very good reasons to get all the Japanese away from the west coast and the reasons have been explained.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There were none, and all of your empty, false arguments have been shredded several times now.
Click to expand...


Invasion imminent is a rather good reason, fool. 

The United States only had one Yorktown class carrier and two Lexington class carriers in the Pacific when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor with six carriers. If Yamamoto would have attacked Midway or went after Port Moresby and then Midway with 6 carriers instead of splitting his force, the Pacific theater would have been a different story. The smart thing would have been to go after Midway first. Once they had Midway, they had an airfield to continue the attack on the Hawaiian Islands. Hawaii would have fallen, the Panama Canal would have been put out of commission and the west coast blockaded and raided.


----------



## Dubya

Unkotare said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lies and denials won't improve your spin, scumbag. Anyone and everyone can see that you are choking under a mountain of evidence that your un-American views are wrong and indefensible. All proof and principle show that FDR's concentration camps were unwarranted, unconstitutional and immoral. Even most of those caught up in the fervor, fear, and racism of the times later came to admit it was in every sense wrong. That you cannot, more than half a century later, shows that you are stupid and fundamentally un-American (among other things).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is spin and all your evidence is hindsight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Was it "hindsight" that before the attack on Pearl Harbor, _Roosevelt's own intelligence agents _told him that there was no reason to expect espionage from among the Japanese community? And in FACT there never was. Do you remember that I have provided you with that information several times now, you dishonest fuck?
> 
> Was it "hindsight" that during the war volunteers from the Japanese-American community, many right from the concentration camps themselves, formed the unit that became the most decorated in US military history? Ask some boys from Texas about that.
> 
> Was it "hindsight" that the Supreme Court and even the scumbag FDR himself had to admit - before the war was over - that the camps were unnecessary and wrong?
> 
> Fuck you, you un-American piece of shit.
Click to expand...


You are the un-American piece of shit, Asswipe. You want a rational human being to believe that a country heading towards war wouldn't use espionage. How fucking stupid can can a person be? Even the allies were using esponage to find out each others secrets. 

Do you think I care what a politician says who is trying to apologize? Did any of that stop FDR from ordering Japanese Internment when he needed to do it? Why was there all that concern about the west coast and not other places? Did you notice the USS Saratoga wasn't repaired in Hawaii? Why is that, asshole, you claim all of Hawaii was a hugh military base?


----------



## Dubya

Unkotare said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what US Supreme Court Justices and US Presidents have said. That's more evidence I have given you several times now, you dishonest fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't change the fact they would have done the same thing under those circumstance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not everyone is an evil, un-American piece of shit like you.
> 
> 
> I already quoted Supreme Court Justices AT THE TIME, and told you about Ralph Carr, you dishonest fuck.
Click to expand...


I've only seen others say it was so. What is the meaning of concentration camps now?


----------



## Dubya

Unkotare said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> we didn't have many recent German immigrants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course we did, you idiot. Prove your assertion that we didn't.
Click to expand...


You made that point, so you prove it!


----------



## Dubya

Unkotare said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Germans didn't have the navy for it and the Japanese did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet German submarines actually did pull up to our shores and disgorge actual spies, AS OPPOSED TO THE WEST COAST, idiot. I've already presented these facts to you several times, you dishonest fuck.
Click to expand...


Is a submarine an invasion, fool?


----------



## Dubya

Unkotare said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> the Germans probably called their camps concentration camps .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There it is again. "Probably," "I'm sure,"I have no doubt." all these phrases you rely on when you are talking out your ass and can't support what you are saying.
Click to expand...


Why did we call German concentration camps by that term?


----------



## Dubya

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was no danger of a German invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or an Italian invasion for sure but the tendency to be loyal and spy for your home country was obviously great. Some Italians were rounded up accordingly. I remember how local Italians would make big Sunday meals for Italian prisioner's of war at Camp Drum,NY. To say that some Japs may have been disloyal or contemplated being disloyal would be like saying some Jews would contemplate being disloyal if we went to war with Israel. Its obvious that it is a normal human reaction just as its obvious that the home country would want to take precautions.
Click to expand...


We have covered that, but spying requires timely communication and that's why the Japanese were removed from the west coast. The communication has to be sent to a submarine and relayed. Convoys or large movements of troops would have been valuable information on the East Coast.

Japanese on the east coast weren't sent to internment camps. On the east coast they generally just excluded certain people from sensitive areas. They even had the mafia looking for spys. I've read we even had German and Italian enemy nationals that they allowed to live freely, except for those exclusions.


----------



## Dubya

Unkotare said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> we didn't have many recent German immigrants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "From 1923 to 1963 the number of German arrivals to America outnumbered those from any other country."
> 
> 
> 
> German Immigration
> 
> 
> 
> "Between 1820 and 1920 over 5,500,000 emigrated from Germany to the United States. Germany therefore contributed more people than any other country including Ireland (4,400,000), Italy (4,190,000) and Austria-Hungary (3,700,000)."
> 
> 
> 
> German Immigration
Click to expand...


Your point is stupid. WWI definitely halting German immigration. Prior to WWII, the Germans that showed up were Jews trying to escape the early oppression in Germany. I've already mentioned that Germans were some of the early settlers in the Colonies. Germans are the second largest ethnicity recognized by the people in America. 

The point was about German arrivals before WWII that weren't Jews. The Jews weren't going to spy for Hitler. My impression of the Italians back then is they thought Italy was such a hell hole, they were glad to get out and never looked back. More recent immigrants from Italy tend to have better ties with Italy.


----------



## Dubya

Unkotare said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> The word is 'Japanese.' I know those three extra letters are a real chore to type.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its obvious that it is a normal human reaction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then why didn't it happen?
Click to expand...


I told you it was prevented from happening, fool! If you aren't on the west coast, you can't communicate information.


----------



## Dubya

Ernie S. said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'Your'
> 
> 
> And I've already taught you that concentration camps are exactly what FDR ordered, you dishonest fuck. If you're afraid of the name maybe you should face up to the FACTS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what asshole, I changed a sentence and didn't change a word.
> 
> Post where FDR called them concentration camps! I think the point is the Germans probably called their camps concentration camps and that name took on different meaning and you know it. It's disrespectful of all those people who died in concentration camps to make that comparison. It shows you're an asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For Christ sake! It is not disrespectful of anyone to call what you refer to as "internment camps" what they really were. Assigning some kind of imagined degenerate behavior to your opponents is one of those uniquely Liberal debate tactics. It may impress other Libs, but not anyone that has ever had an independent thought.
> The camps were a place where Japanese Americans were _concentrated_ in several manageable locations. They likely would have been called Concentration Camps had the term not already been associated with Germany and Jewish internment.
Click to expand...


There is no evidence we knew about what was happening in German concentration camps. It is disrespectful to the Jews now when the word concentration camp has taken on a new meaning.


----------



## Unkotare

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> It did happen for many Japanese and some Italians and Germans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think you are talking about? What "did happen for many Japanese"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they were rounded up as were fewer Germans and Italians
> 
> 
> This is a list of Japanese spies including leaders and commanders of the Japanese Secret Intelligence Services (Kempeitai) in the period 1930 to 1945.
Click to expand...



But NO Japanese American was ever convicted of espionage during WWII, as I've noted several times now.


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> There were very good reasons to get all the Japanese away from the west coast and the reasons have been explained.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There were none, and all of your empty, false arguments have been shredded several times now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Invasion imminent is a rather good reason, fool.
Click to expand...



Invasion was never imminent or by any leap of the imagination logistically possible.


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is spin and all your evidence is hindsight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was it "hindsight" that before the attack on Pearl Harbor, _Roosevelt's own intelligence agents _told him that there was no reason to expect espionage from among the Japanese community? And in FACT there never was. Do you remember that I have provided you with that information several times now, you dishonest fuck?
> 
> Was it "hindsight" that during the war volunteers from the Japanese-American community, many right from the concentration camps themselves, formed the unit that became the most decorated in US military history? Ask some boys from Texas about that.
> 
> Was it "hindsight" that the Supreme Court and even the scumbag FDR himself had to admit - before the war was over - that the camps were unnecessary and wrong?
> 
> Fuck you, you un-American piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want a rational human being to believe that a country heading towards war wouldn't use espionage.
Click to expand...



A rational human being looks at the facts, not his *biased* speculation. There were NO spies, asshole. FDR's own intelligence people told him not to expect any. The real spies were over on the East coast. Japanese Americans instead proved their loyalty to THEIR COUNTRY by fighting with the very greatest of distinction despite what was done to them and their mothers, fathers, babies, sisters, wives, etc. by THEIR OWN COUNTRY. 



Was it "hindsight" that before the attack on Pearl Harbor, _Roosevelt's own intelligence agents _told him that there was no reason to expect espionage from among the Japanese community? And in FACT there never was. Do you remember that I have provided you with that information several times now, you dishonest fuck?


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> Did any of that stop FDR from ordering Japanese Internment when he needed to do it?




It has been PROVEN that he did NOT "need to do it." He did so anyway because he was a scumbag piece of shit like you. Unlike you, before the war had even ended he recognized that he in FACT did NOT "need to do it." 60+ years later and YOU are too shit-all stupid to see the FACTS that you have been slapped around with for page after page now.


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't change the fact they would have done the same thing under those circumstance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not everyone is an evil, un-American piece of shit like you.
> 
> 
> I already quoted Supreme Court Justices AT THE TIME, and told you about Ralph Carr, you dishonest fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've only seen others say it was so. What is the meaning of concentration camps now?
Click to expand...



I've already given you the definintion several times now, you dishonest fuck.


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> we didn't have many recent German immigrants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course we did, you idiot. Prove your assertion that we didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You made that point, so you prove it!
Click to expand...




NO, you made the assertion, you illogical turd. Nonetheless, knowing how fucking stupid you are I provided proof of that as well anyway. Read all the posts, shitforbrains.


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Germans didn't have the navy for it and the Japanese did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet German submarines actually did pull up to our shores and disgorge actual spies, AS OPPOSED TO THE WEST COAST, idiot. I've already presented these facts to you several times, you dishonest fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is a submarine an invasion, fool?
Click to expand...




Is the absence of spies an invasion, fool? You just keep making more and more of an ass of yourself, you un-American douchebag.


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> the Germans probably called their camps concentration camps .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There it is again. "Probably," "I'm sure,"I have no doubt." all these phrases you rely on when you are talking out your ass and can't support what you are saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why did we call German concentration camps by that term?
Click to expand...



I've already given you the DEFINITION of concentration camp several times now, you dishonest fuck. When it was discovered what was going on there, hitler's concentration camps were also rightly called 'death camps' to further specify their evil purpose.

Sorry that the English language is such a challenge for you.


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> We have covered that, but spying requires timely communication and that's why the Japanese were removed from the west coast.




Wrong, you fucking liar. We've covered this six ways to Sunday and you have been proven wrong at every turn. Do you think just repeating false arguments that have already been blown up in your face will fool anyone, you dishonest fuck?


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> we didn't have many recent German immigrants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "From 1923 to 1963 the number of German arrivals to America outnumbered those from any other country."
> 
> 
> 
> German Immigration
> 
> 
> 
> "Between 1820 and 1920 over 5,500,000 emigrated from Germany to the United States. Germany therefore contributed more people than any other country including Ireland (4,400,000), Italy (4,190,000) and Austria-Hungary (3,700,000)."
> 
> 
> 
> German Immigration
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your point is stupid.
Click to expand...



I have EXACTLY disproven your stupid assertion. You know, the one you are now trying to run away from? Facts are facts, you idiot.


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> My impression of the Italians back then is they thought Italy was such a hell hole, they were glad to get out and never looked back. More recent immigrants from Italy tend to have better ties with Italy.





Here's another one for your list: "My impression." You can add that to "I'm sure," and "I'm certain," and "I have no doubt" to the expressions you try to lean on when you are talking out your ass and cannot support a thing you say. Fucking idiot.


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its obvious that it is a normal human reaction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why didn't it happen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you it was prevented from happening, fool!
Click to expand...



This bit of illogic has been bebunked now several times, you dishonest fuck.


----------



## Mac1958




----------



## Dubya

Unkotare said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why didn't it happen?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I told you it was prevented from happening, fool!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This bit of illogic has been bebunked now several times, you dishonest fuck.
Click to expand...


You haven't debunked anything since you started harping about this subject. You've ran your mouth and picked apart posts to increase your post count, sentence by sentence, while basically saying nothing to the basic subject. You show absolutely no common sense or knowledge of those times. You've made statements that the Japanese were sent to internment camps, but the fact is around 23% of the Japanese on American soil were sent to internment camps and the focus was on the west coast. 7,000 Japanese, including Japanese Americans, were rounded up in Latin America and sent to internment camps in America and around 1,500 or around 1% of the Japanese in Hawaii were sent to internment camps. In every one of those cases involving Japanese internment, the issue was whether they posed a threat to the security of our war interests. The critical areas involved activities on the west coast, the Panama Canal and cargo shipping that aided the war effort. 



> 6. For defense purposes, Luzon is divided into northern and southern districts. Planes reported in Central Luzon are as follows:
> 
> Fighters 130
> Bombers   30
> Navy patrol planes 20
> Total   180
> 
> Extensive aerial photo coverage of northern Luzon, including the Lingayen Gulf, Vigan, and Aparri coastal sectors (Plate No. 2), was obtained by Imperial General Headquarters a year before the outbreak of war. Commercial planes of the Nippon Airways, manned by military pilots and observers, flew seven photographic missions over Luzon between 27 November and 15 December 1940, ranging as far south as Lingayen Gulf on the west coast and Baler Bay on the east. Lamon Bay, where the Japanese 16th Division landed in the invasion operations, and Bataan Peninsula were not covered by these missions. Flights were made at an altitude of over 21,000 feet and, except at the southernmost point, beyond range



Source: Chapter II: Pre-war Japanese Espionage and Intelligence

Try some research, fool!

http://www.historynet.com/takeo-yoshikawa-world-war-ii-japanese-pearl-harbor-spy.htm

http://www.bing.com/search?q=japane...apanese+wwii+espionage&sc=0-17&sp=-1&qs=n&sk=


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> I told you it was prevented from happening, fool!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This bit of illogic has been bebunked now several times, you dishonest fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You haven't debunked anything since you started harping about this subject.
Click to expand...



I've debunked every failed argument you've tried to use to excuse your un-American attitude. It's right there for all to see.


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> You show absolutely no common sense or knowledge of those times.




Oh? Is that why I've had to correct and inform your ignorant ass over and over again?


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> You've made statements that the Japanese were sent to internment camps, but the fact is around 23% of the Japanese on American soil were sent to internment camps and the focus was on the west coast.




Japanese and Japanese Americans _WERE_ thrown into FDR's concentration camps. I never said _every single person _of Japanese descent in the country ended up in that scumbag Roosevelt's concentration camps, you dishonest fuck. You've been kicked around so completely that you have nothing left but repetition and fabrication.


----------



## Dubya

Unkotare said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've made statements that the Japanese were sent to internment camps, but the fact is around 23% of the Japanese on American soil were sent to internment camps and the focus was on the west coast.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Japanese and Japanese Americans _WERE_ thrown into FDR's concentration camps. I never said _every single person _of Japanese descent in the country ended up in that scumbag Roosevelt's concentration camps, you dishonest fuck. You've been kicked around so completely that you have nothing left but repetition and fabrication.
Click to expand...


The only thing you have proven in all these pages is that's the way you believe.


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've made statements that the Japanese were sent to internment camps, but the fact is around 23% of the Japanese on American soil were sent to internment camps and the focus was on the west coast.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Japanese and Japanese Americans _WERE_ thrown into FDR's concentration camps. I never said _every single person _of Japanese descent in the country ended up in that scumbag Roosevelt's concentration camps, you dishonest fuck. You've been kicked around so completely that you have nothing left but repetition and fabrication.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing you have proven in all these pages is that's the way you believe.
Click to expand...



No, _YOU_ are the one who has been relying on phrases like "I'm sure" and "I'll bet" and "I suppose" and the like because you are talking out your ass and can't back anything up. I have provided link after link, fact after fact, quote after quote and mountains of real information to prove how wrong and un-American your stupid view is.

It's all right there for anyone to see.


----------



## Dubya

Unkotare said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japanese and Japanese Americans _WERE_ thrown into FDR's concentration camps. I never said _every single person _of Japanese descent in the country ended up in that scumbag Roosevelt's concentration camps, you dishonest fuck. You've been kicked around so completely that you have nothing left but repetition and fabrication.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing you have proven in all these pages is that's the way you believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, _YOU_ are the one who has been relying on phrases like "I'm sure" and "I'll bet" and "I suppose" and the like because you are talking out your ass and can't back anything up. I have provided link after link, fact after fact, quote after quote and mountains of real information to prove how wrong and un-American your stupid view is.
> 
> It's all right there for anyone to see.
Click to expand...


You've had information given to you of spying by Japan. They don't need the whole Japanese west coast population involved in spying. The Japanese only needed one person to tell them the location of the USS Saratoga being repaired and that would be enough to destroy an aircraft carrier. The United States had 7 aircraft carriers to guard the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans at the beginning of the war and 6 after the Lexington sunk at Coral Sea. One was the Saratoga being repaired on the west coast in a navy yard up at Puget Sound. The Saratoga was the last of our Lexington class aircraft carriers. The two carriers helping convoys against submarines in the Atlantic were small compare to the 3 Yorktown class carriers in the Pacific. Carriers are large, so how are you going to hide it in Puget Sound? One report is enough to wipe out 22.4% of our eventual carrier strength in the Pacific and it wouldn't been able to fire a shot. One ship has enough fire power to completely alter the outcome of a naval battle. 

Under those conditions, I'd would have told the Japanese, sorry about your sushi, but you're going camping.


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing you have proven in all these pages is that's the way you believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, _YOU_ are the one who has been relying on phrases like "I'm sure" and "I'll bet" and "I suppose" and the like because you are talking out your ass and can't back anything up. I have provided link after link, fact after fact, quote after quote and mountains of real information to prove how wrong and un-American your stupid view is.
> 
> It's all right there for anyone to see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've had information given to you of spying by Japan. .
Click to expand...



You are such a dishonest fuck. You try to mention overflights and operations in the Philippines as some kind of lame distraction from the FACT that NO JAPANESE AMERICANS WERE EVER CONVICTED OF ESPIONAGE DURING WWII. A very lame attempt by a very lame and dishonest fuck.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Unkotare said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> There were very good reasons to get all the Japanese away from the west coast and the reasons have been explained.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There were none, and all of your empty, false arguments have been shredded several times now.
Click to expand...


lets be honest shall we, when the soviets needed to recruit new spies they would look among the liberals as Oleg Klugian said and when the Japanese needed to recruit new spies they would look among the Japanese Americans. Its only common sense!!


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> Under those conditions, I'd would have told the Japanese, sorry about your sushi, but you're going camping.





It has already been established that you are an un-American piece of shit who does not deserve to set one foot in this great nation. Even most of those caught up in FDR's evil at the time recognized eventually that they were wrong. YOU are too stupid and too immoral to learn the lesson even all these years later. The good news is that if you tried to tell anyone "you're going camping" today, you'd get what you deserve, scumbag.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dubya said:


> Under those conditions, I'd would have told the Japanese, sorry about your sushi, but you're going camping.



you're making sense of course!!


Cables decoded from the Japanese in May 1941 said in part,

We have already established contacts with absolutely reliable Japanese in the San Pedro and San Diego area, who will keep a close watch on all shipments of airplanes and other war materials

That same cable also stated that the Japanese had Japanese-American spies in the Army and that they were watching traffic crossing the American / Mexican border.

A January 3rd, 1942 army MID memo states, there can be no doubt that most of the leaders within the Japanese espionage network of Japanese clubs, business groups, and labor organizations continue to function as key operatives for the Japanese government along the West Coast.

So we knew that the Japanese had a spy network in America before Pearl Harbor and we believed it was still operating after the attacks.


----------



## Unkotare

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> There were very good reasons to get all the Japanese away from the west coast and the reasons have been explained.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There were none, and all of your empty, false arguments have been shredded several times now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lets be honest shall we, when the soviets needed to recruit new spies they would look among the liberals as Oleg Klugian said and when the Japanese needed to recruit new spies they would look among the Japanese Americans. Its only common sense!!
Click to expand...



The difference being that the Soviets found some. For the 1000th time, NO JAPANESE AMERICANS WERE EVER CONVICTED OF ESPIONAGE DURING WWII. FDR's own intelligence agents told him BEFORE THE WAR not to expect any. Is this getting through to you yet?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Unkotare said:


> The difference being that the Soviets found some. For the 1000th time, NO JAPANESE AMERICANS WERE EVER CONVICTED OF ESPIONAGE DURING WWII. FDR's own intelligence agents told him BEFORE THE WAR not to expect any. Is this getting through to you yet?




too stupid!! do you think the Japanese decided they did not need intelligence in WW 2???????????????????

Do you think they decided to recruit Irish Americans to spy for them??

And why such a bleeding heart for the Japanese when there just as many Germans picked up???

 As I said even the Italians were suffering from dual loyalty during the War. This would be common sense to all but a blind man.


----------



## Unkotare

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> Under those conditions, I'd would have told the Japanese, sorry about your sushi, but you're going camping.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you're making sense of course!!
> 
> 
> Cables decoded from the Japanese in May 1941 said in part,
> 
> We have already established contacts with absolutely reliable Japanese in the San Pedro and San Diego area, who will keep a close watch on all shipments of airplanes and other war materials
> 
> That same cable also stated that the Japanese had Japanese-American spies in the Army and that they were watching traffic crossing the American / Mexican border.
> 
> A January 3rd, 1942 army MID memo states, there can be no doubt that most of the leaders within the Japanese espionage network of Japanese clubs, business groups, and labor organizations continue to function as key operatives for the Japanese government along the West Coast.
> 
> So we knew that the Japanese had a spy network in America before Pearl Harbor and we believed it was still operating after the attacks.
Click to expand...



Ok, name one of these Japanese American spies. Go ahead.

Oh that's right, you can't.

Here are some names for you:

442nd Regimental Combat Team Historical Society


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Unkotare said:


> Ok, name one of these Japanese American spies. Go ahead.




so you think the Irish spied for the Japanese??????????


----------



## Dubya

Unkotare said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> Under those conditions, I'd would have told the Japanese, sorry about your sushi, but you're going camping.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has already been established that you are an un-American piece of shit who does not deserve to set one foot in this great nation. Even most of those caught up in FDR's evil at the time recognized eventually that they were wrong. YOU are too stupid and too immoral to learn the lesson even all these years later. The good news is that if you tried to tell anyone "you're going camping" today, you'd get what you deserve, scumbag.
Click to expand...


My morality in total war is protecting my country comes first. I certainly regret that innocent people were put in internment camps, but I consider the alternative. There was no way of sorting out the bad apples from the rest and just one spy could have seriously hurt our war effort. 

It's possible the only reason you have the right to hold your opinion is because of the Japanese Internment order. Changing things have consequences, so let's consider an alternative reality. What if the Japanese weren't interned and Japan recieved information from a spy on the location of the Saratoga. What if they changed their plans and sent two carriers and battle group to Puget Sound and 4 carriers to the Coral Sea, instead of 2. The Yorktown was damaged at the Battle of Coral Sea and the Lexington was sunk. The two carriers go to Puget Sound and destroy the Saratoga. The 4 carriers in the Coral Sea destroy both Lexington and the Yorktown. That's a big enough victory to take Port Moresby, stop the shipping of supplies in the Pacific to Australia and MacArthur and send the British all the way back to India with the fall of Australia. After the Saratoga is destroyed and the two naval groups link together to attack Midway. Our remaining two carriers in the Pacific are not going to be able to beat that Japanese force. Eventually Hawaii falls and a carrier group is sent to destroy the locks on the Panama Canal. The Japanese navy parks out of range off the west coast and harasses the shit out of them at will, destroying radar installations, shipping and conducting raids against key military targets. Without supplies MacArthur can't fight in the Pacific and the Japanese control all of it. You aren't going to be able to build ships on the west coast with the Japanese destroying what you build before it can fight. We could have lost the whole west coast's contribution to the war effort.

Catching a carrier with it's pants down would have been a big enough prize to alter plans.


----------



## Dubya

Unkotare said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> Under those conditions, I'd would have told the Japanese, sorry about your sushi, but you're going camping.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you're making sense of course!!
> 
> 
> Cables decoded from the Japanese in May 1941 said in part,
> 
> We have already established contacts with absolutely reliable Japanese in the San Pedro and San Diego area, who will keep a close watch on all shipments of airplanes and other war materials
> 
> That same cable also stated that the Japanese had Japanese-American spies in the Army and that they were watching traffic crossing the American / Mexican border.
> 
> A January 3rd, 1942 army MID memo states, there can be no doubt that most of the leaders within the Japanese espionage network of Japanese clubs, business groups, and labor organizations continue to function as key operatives for the Japanese government along the West Coast.
> 
> So we knew that the Japanese had a spy network in America before Pearl Harbor and we believed it was still operating after the attacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, name one of these Japanese American spies. Go ahead.
> 
> Oh that's right, you can't.
> 
> Here are some names for you:
> 
> 442nd Regimental Combat Team Historical Society
Click to expand...


Did you bother to read his post?

He already named at least one I saw.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dubya said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> you're making sense of course!!
> 
> 
> Cables decoded from the Japanese in May 1941 said in part,
> 
> We have already established contacts with absolutely reliable Japanese in the San Pedro and San Diego area, who will keep a close watch on all shipments of airplanes and other war materials
> 
> That same cable also stated that the Japanese had Japanese-American spies in the Army and that they were watching traffic crossing the American / Mexican border.
> 
> A January 3rd, 1942 army MID memo states, there can be no doubt that most of the leaders within the Japanese espionage network of Japanese clubs, business groups, and labor organizations continue to function as key operatives for the Japanese government along the West Coast.
> 
> So we knew that the Japanese had a spy network in America before Pearl Harbor and we believed it was still operating after the attacks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, name one of these Japanese American spies. Go ahead.
> 
> Oh that's right, you can't.
> 
> Here are some names for you:
> 
> 442nd Regimental Combat Team Historical Society
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you bother to read his post?
> 
> He already named at least one I saw.
Click to expand...



Yoshio Muto  spy operating in San Francisco.

Toshio Miyazaki  Japanese Navy agent who recruited the American Harry Thomas Thompson as a secret agent in San Diego.


----------



## Unkotare

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, name one of these Japanese American spies. Go ahead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so you think the Irish spied for the Japanese??????????
Click to expand...




That's not what I said (obviously ). Try to concentrate. I said, name one of these Japanese American spies. Go ahead. Don't change the subject, just name one.


----------



## Dubya

Unkotare said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, name one of these Japanese American spies. Go ahead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so you think the Irish spied for the Japanese??????????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what I said (obviously ). Try to concentrate. I said, name one of these Japanese American spies. Go ahead. Don't change the subject, just name one.
Click to expand...


He just named two 1 hour and 35 minutes before you posted. Do you bother to read anything?


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> My morality in total war is protecting my country comes first.




Obviously you don't know what 'morality' means. Nonetheless, even your own immoral notion holds no water in light of all the FACTS that I have thrown in your face over and over again.


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> It's possible the only reason you have the right to hold your opinion is because of the Japanese Internment order.





That makes no sense in any case.


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> Changing things have consequences, so let's consider an alternative reality.





Let's not. I'm not surprised you want to avoid reality, since in it there is no justification for your un-American view, but I'll stick to the real world.


----------



## Unkotare

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, name one of these Japanese American spies. Go ahead.
> 
> Oh that's right, you can't.
> 
> Here are some names for you:
> 
> 442nd Regimental Combat Team Historical Society
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you bother to read his post?
> 
> He already named at least one I saw.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yoshio Muto  spy operating in San Francisco.
Click to expand...



Are you kidding? Is it possible that you are even more of an idiot than this 'dubya' clown? I informed you idiots that no Japanese Americans were ever convicted of espionage during WWII. Do you know who Yoshio Muto was? He was _Japan's Consul General in the US_ at the time of Pearl Harbor. Not Japanese American (obviously ). Even at that, speculation that the Consul General was trying to recruit spies through the consul was never corroborated with concrete evidence, so you fail in every possible way. Good job helping 'dubya' look like even more of a fool, though.


----------



## Dubya

Unkotare said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you bother to read his post?
> 
> He already named at least one I saw.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yoshio Muto &#8211; spy operating in San Francisco.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you kidding? Is it possible that you are even more of an idiot than this 'dubya' clown? I informed you idiots that no Japanese Americans were ever convicted of espionage during WWII. Do you know who Yoshio Muto was? He was _Japan's Consul General in the US_ at the time of Pearl Harbor. Not Japanese American (obviously ). Even at that, speculation that the Consul General was trying to recruit spies through the consul was never corroborated with concrete evidence, so you fail in every possible way. Good job helping 'dubya' look like even more of a fool, though.
Click to expand...


Japanese American were only 62% of the Japanese in internment camps. The Japanese had spies all over the west coast and they had plenty of them in Panama and Hawaii. The Japanese in Brazil are credited for sinking huge amounts of cargo.

Spies with attached to diplimates are nothing new.


----------



## Unkotare

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, name one of these Japanese American spies. Go ahead.
> 
> Oh that's right, you can't.
> 
> Here are some names for you:
> 
> 442nd Regimental Combat Team Historical Society
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you bother to read his post?
> 
> He already named at least one I saw.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toshio Miyazaki  Japanese Navy agent who recruited the American Harry Thomas Thompson as a secret agent in San Diego.
Click to expand...




Did you give all your meds to 'dubya'? Is that what happened? You note in even posting the 'example' that Miyazaki was a "Japanese Navy agent." Guess what? Also NOT Japanese American rolleyes. How stupid are you two? The spy in your example is Thompson, also NOT Japanese American. Duuurrrrr.....

By this brilliant reasoning, all white farm boys should have been thrown into FDR's concentration camps. 

You boys don't have one fully functioning brain cell between the two of you. 

How much harder do you two want to fail at all this?


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> so you think the Irish spied for the Japanese??????????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what I said (obviously ). Try to concentrate. I said, name one of these Japanese American spies. Go ahead. Don't change the subject, just name one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He just named two 1 hour and 35 minutes before you posted. Do you bother to read anything?
Click to expand...



Two ridiculously inapplicable 'examples,' as I've kindly pointed out, moron.


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yoshio Muto  spy operating in San Francisco.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you kidding? Is it possible that you are even more of an idiot than this 'dubya' clown? I informed you idiots that no Japanese Americans were ever convicted of espionage during WWII. Do you know who Yoshio Muto was? He was _Japan's Consul General in the US_ at the time of Pearl Harbor. Not Japanese American (obviously ). Even at that, speculation that the Consul General was trying to recruit spies through the consul was never corroborated with concrete evidence, so you fail in every possible way. Good job helping 'dubya' look like even more of a fool, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Japanese American were only 62% of the Japanese in internment camps.
Click to expand...




Oh, "only" the majority, huh?  Another real strong argument, idiot.


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> The Japanese in Brazil are credited for sinking huge amounts of cargo.




We're not talking about Brazil, are we idiot?



You just keep rubbing your own face in it...


----------



## gipper

So true....so true...but they are blind to their ignorance and immorality.


----------



## Dubya

Unkotare said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what I said (obviously ). Try to concentrate. I said, name one of these Japanese American spies. Go ahead. Don't change the subject, just name one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He just named two 1 hour and 35 minutes before you posted. Do you bother to read anything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Two ridiculously inapplicable 'examples,' as I've kindly pointed out, moron.
Click to expand...


That's because you want to change it to Japanese American that were prosecuted in the continental United States. The fact that the spying was prevented by internment doesn't enter your mind. If you spy on the east coast, you can't communicate what you have discovered. Transmissions were limited in those days. 

Certainly the vast majority of Japanese Americans were loyal to America, but you don't need many spies to do significant damage. You were given an example of how just one Japanese, whether American or not could alter the course of the war and change the balance of power in the Pacific theater, just by going fishing in Puget Sound.


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> He just named two 1 hour and 35 minutes before you posted. Do you bother to read anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two ridiculously inapplicable 'examples,' as I've kindly pointed out, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because you want to change it to Japanese American that were prosecuted in the continental United States.
Click to expand...



Go back and read every single post. I haven't changed one thing; you stupid, dishonest shit.


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> The fact that the spying was prevented by internment doesn't enter your mind.





The only thing that you and your genius sidekick have demonstrated is that ONE case of actual spying could have been prevented by throwing all white farm boys into FDR's concentration camps. That would have been pretty stupid TOO.


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> If you spy on the east coast, you can't communicate what you have discovered. Transmissions were limited in those days.






Yeah, you couldn't possibly communicate with those German submarines off the East coast. Are you _trying_ to make yourself look as stupid as possible? You're doing a bang-up job.


----------



## PaulS1950

The people rounded up and put into the "relocation camps" (camps where they were concentrated - hence - concentration camps) were american citizens and native born american citizens. Not one ofthem was ever arrested for nor convicted of espionage. The cover story for this move of absolute fear by the government was to keep them from harm by other people. For that safety all their possessions were unlawfully seized and given or sold to others. 

Definitely a moment of American history to be proud of - NOT!


----------



## Antares

Ok, I have 3 12 gauges, come get them Redskin.




Lakhota said:


> Chief Justice Burger was a smart man.  He clearly articulated why the 2nd Amendment is obsolete.


----------



## PaulS1950

Roo said:


> Ok, I have 3 12 gauges, come get them Redskin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chief Justice Burger was a smart man.  He clearly articulated why the 2nd Amendment is obsolete.
Click to expand...


Only three? So what is that a maximum of 9 - 15 rounds? Some pistols have 15 rounds in one magazine. Who is "Redskin"? or is that a racial slur I don't want to recognize.....


----------



## Lakhota

One Million Moms For Gun Control: Origins Of A Movement | Alternet


----------



## Dubya

Unkotare said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you spy on the east coast, you can't communicate what you have discovered. Transmissions were limited in those days.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you couldn't possibly communicate with those German submarines off the East coast. Are you _trying_ to make yourself look as stupid as possible? You're doing a bang-up job.
Click to expand...


The Japanese on the west coast weren't set up to communicate with German submarines. The few that were left on the east coast had restricted areas.


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you spy on the east coast, you can't communicate what you have discovered. Transmissions were limited in those days.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you couldn't possibly communicate with those German submarines off the East coast. Are you _trying_ to make yourself look as stupid as possible? You're doing a bang-up job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Japanese on the west coast weren't set up to communicate with German submarines. The few that were left on the east coast had restricted areas.
Click to expand...



Holy shit you're stupid. And, your juvenile attempts at spin are only making you look worse.


----------



## Dubya

Unkotare said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you couldn't possibly communicate with those German submarines off the East coast. Are you _trying_ to make yourself look as stupid as possible? You're doing a bang-up job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese on the west coast weren't set up to communicate with German submarines. The few that were left on the east coast had restricted areas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Holy shit you're stupid. And, your juvenile attempts at spin are only making you look worse.
Click to expand...


Spin my ass, the attempt to spy on the United States by the Japanese during WWII was foiled, because the Japanese were easy to spot and were removed from communication range! In critical areas like Panama and the west coast, they gathered up the Japanese and put them in internment camps, whether they were American citizens or not. In Hawaii, I believe they fed the Japanese misinformation to help break their codes, while keeping them away from the limited places of strategic importance.


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese on the west coast weren't set up to communicate with German submarines. The few that were left on the east coast had restricted areas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Holy shit you're stupid. And, your juvenile attempts at spin are only making you look worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spin my ass, the attempt to spy on the United States by the Japanese during WWII was foiled, .
Click to expand...



What attempts were those? You and your little boy wonder could only come up with the name of one actual spy and he was white dude from Maryland.


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> the Japanese were easy to spot





Were they really? Is that why Chinese and Korean Americans at the time were beaten or had their businesses destroyed by fucking idiots like you?


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> In Hawaii, I believe they fed the Japanese misinformation to help break their codes.






There it is again. "I believe" = you are talking out your ass and can't back up what you say. How many times are you going to perform the same act, you un-American scumbag?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Unkotare said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, name one of these Japanese American spies. Go ahead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so you think the Irish spied for the Japanese??????????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what I said (obviously ). Try to concentrate. I said, name one of these Japanese American spies. Go ahead. Don't change the subject, just name one.
Click to expand...


there were very few and largely because the effort to prevent the spying was so effective, not because the Japanese did not wish to have intelligence as you seem to imagine.

Do you think the Japanese looked among the Irish, Polish, or the Japanese to recruit spies?


----------



## Lakhota

> _By Jeffrey Toobin_
> 
> Does the Second Amendment prevent Congress from passing gun-control laws? The question, which is suddenly pressing, in light of the reaction to the school massacre in Newtown, is rooted in politics as much as law.
> 
> For more than a hundred years, the answer was clear, even if the words of the amendment itself were not. The text of the amendment is divided into two clauses and is, as a whole, ungrammatical: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The courts had found that the first part, the militia clause, trumped the second part, the bear arms clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear armsbut did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon.
> 
> Enter the modern National Rifle Association. Before the nineteen-seventies, the N.R.A. had been devoted mostly to non-political issues, like gun safety. But a coup détat at the groups annual convention in 1977 brought a group of committed political conservatives to poweras part of the leading edge of the new, more rightward-leaning Republican Party. (Jill Lepore recounted this history in a recent piece for The New Yorker.) The new group pushed for a novel interpretation of the Second Amendment, one that gave individuals, not just militias, the right to bear arms. It was an uphill struggle. At first, their views were widely scorned. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, who was no liberal, mocked the individual-rights theory of the amendment as a fraud.
> 
> But the N.R.A. kept pushingand theres a lesson here. Conservatives often embrace originalism, the idea that the meaning of the Constitution was fixed when it was ratified, in 1787. They mock the so-called liberal idea of a living constitution, whose meaning changes with the values of the country at large. But there is no better example of the living Constitution than the conservative re-casting of the Second Amendment in the last few decades of the twentieth century. (Reva Siegel, of Yale Law School, elaborates on this point in a brilliant article.)
> 
> The re-interpretation of the Second Amendment was an elaborate and brilliantly executed political operation, inside and outside of government. Ronald Reagans election in 1980 brought a gun-rights enthusiast to the White House. At the same time, Orrin Hatch, the Utah Republican, became chairman of an important subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and he commissioned a report that claimed to find clearand long lostproof that the second amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms. The N.R.A. began commissioning academic studies aimed at proving the same conclusion. An outré constitutional theory, rejected even by the establishment of the Republican Party, evolved, through brute political force, into the conservative conventional wisdom.
> 
> And so, eventually, this theory became the law of the land. In District of Columbia v. Heller, decided in 2008, the Supreme Court embraced the individual-rights view of the Second Amendment.



More: So You Think You Know the Second Amendment? : The New Yorker


----------



## Lakhota

> It was a triumph above all for Justice Antonin Scalia, the author of the opinion, but it required him to craft a thoroughly political compromise. In the eighteenth century, militias were proto-military operations, and their members had to obtain the best military hardware of the day. But Scalia could not create, in the twenty-first century, an individual right to contemporary military weaponslike tanks and Stinger missiles. In light of this, Scalia conjured a rule that said D.C. could not ban handguns because handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.
> 
> So the government cannot ban handguns, but it can ban other weaponslike, say, an assault rifleor so it appears. The full meaning of the courts Heller opinion is still up for grabs. But it is clear that the scope of the Second Amendment will be determined as much by politics as by the law. The courts will respond to public pressureas they did by moving to the right on gun control in the last thirty years. And if legislators, responding to their constituents, sense a mandate for new restrictions on guns, the courts will find a way to uphold them. The battle over gun control is not just one of individual votes in Congress, but of a continuing clash of ideas, backed by political power. In other words, the law of the Second Amendment is not settled; no law, not even the Constitution, ever is.



From the OP link.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Lakhota said:


> _By Jeffrey Toobin_
> 
> Does the Second Amendment prevent Congress from passing gun-control laws? The question, which is suddenly pressing, in light of the reaction to the school massacre in Newtown, is rooted in politics as much as law.
> 
> For more than a hundred years, the answer was clear, even if the words of the amendment itself were not. The text of the amendment is divided into two clauses and is, as a whole, ungrammatical: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The courts had found that the first part, the militia clause, trumped the second part, the bear arms clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear armsbut did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon.
> 
> Enter the modern National Rifle Association. Before the nineteen-seventies, the N.R.A. had been devoted mostly to non-political issues, like gun safety. But a coup détat at the groups annual convention in 1977 brought a group of committed political conservatives to poweras part of the leading edge of the new, more rightward-leaning Republican Party. (Jill Lepore recounted this history in a recent piece for The New Yorker.) The new group pushed for a novel interpretation of the Second Amendment, one that gave individuals, not just militias, the right to bear arms. It was an uphill struggle. At first, their views were widely scorned. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, who was no liberal, mocked the individual-rights theory of the amendment as a fraud.
> 
> But the N.R.A. kept pushingand theres a lesson here. Conservatives often embrace originalism, the idea that the meaning of the Constitution was fixed when it was ratified, in 1787. They mock the so-called liberal idea of a living constitution, whose meaning changes with the values of the country at large. But there is no better example of the living Constitution than the conservative re-casting of the Second Amendment in the last few decades of the twentieth century. (Reva Siegel, of Yale Law School, elaborates on this point in a brilliant article.)
> 
> The re-interpretation of the Second Amendment was an elaborate and brilliantly executed political operation, inside and outside of government. Ronald Reagans election in 1980 brought a gun-rights enthusiast to the White House. At the same time, Orrin Hatch, the Utah Republican, became chairman of an important subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and he commissioned a report that claimed to find clearand long lostproof that the second amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms. The N.R.A. began commissioning academic studies aimed at proving the same conclusion. An outré constitutional theory, rejected even by the establishment of the Republican Party, evolved, through brute political force, into the conservative conventional wisdom.
> 
> And so, eventually, this theory became the law of the land. In District of Columbia v. Heller, decided in 2008, the Supreme Court embraced the individual-rights view of the Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> More: So You Think You Know the Second Amendment? : The New Yorker
Click to expand...



Gotta love the way racists ignored the 14th Amendment to justify gun control. Ever wonder why progressive Democrats want to firce anyone who gets a gun to have an ID, yet refuses to require an ID for voting?


----------



## tjvh

Hey Lakhota...*How many threads on the same thing are you going to post idiot?* Perhaps you might try responding in the last thread you created about the same subject.


----------



## Lakhota

> But it is clear that the scope of the Second Amendment will be determined as much by politics as by the law. The courts will respond to public pressure&#8212;as they did by moving to the right on gun control in the last thirty years. And if legislators, responding to their constituents, sense a mandate for new restrictions on guns, the courts will find a way to uphold them.



Exactly.


----------



## PaulS1950

The arguments surrounding the inclusion of the bill of rights in the constitutional document are neither hard to find nor a matter of fiction. They are included in every copy of the "Federalist Papers" that are recorded in the early records of our country.

These rights were so commonly held that it seemed rediculous to have to include them in a document which was written to provide a limited number of powers to the federal government. The founders believed that these rights extended from birth and that it was inconceivable that any government would attempt to assume powers over them. The second amendment doesn't provide us with the right to keep and bear arms - that which is given by the Creator can't be taken by man - but the second amendment was put in place to say that it was a right that the federal government had no power to touch and must defend and protect.
Not just the second but all ten of the amendments in the bill of rights was put in place for this reason. The defense of such rights was unlimited so long as you are willing to accept the responsibility for each of them. You are free to say anything you like as long as it doen't infringe on the rights of others. Libel, slander and yelling "FIRE" in a dark movie theaters are not infringments on your rights it is just that you must be willing to accept the punishment for your actions when they incite injury to others.
You have the right to worship, or not, as you please so long as you don't threaten the right to worship, or not, to others. It is not a limit on your right but the extension of those same rigts to others. You are free to keep and bear arms as long as you do not endanger another with your acts. That would infringe on their rights. Since I have never injured or even threatened someone with my guns I am protected by the letter of and intent of the second amendment. You have no power to restrict my personal right because of the illegal acts of others just as no one can limit your freedom of speech because of the slander or incision to riot by others. 

Our rights are forever our rights - each and all of them - and they can only be taken away by our own individual abuse of them.


----------



## Lakhota

Dead Or Alive: Originalism As Popular Constitutionalism In Heller


----------



## Avorysuds

Obama is destroying himself on this issue... So please keep it up.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

We've now learned that editorialists at the new yorker have no idea of what the second amendment means.  No surprise there.


----------



## williepete

18th century parlance isn't that hard to understand. It was not ungrammatical for the time. 

To have a well regulated militia, you need shooters. 

If you want an airline, you must have pilots.

If you want a functioning hospital, you must have doctors and nurses.


----------



## Ernie S.

tjvh said:


> Hey Lakhota...*How many threads on the same thing are you going to post idiot?* Perhaps you might try responding in the last thread you created about the same subject.



And when the hell are you going to grow a pair of nuts and turn your rep back on?


----------



## Lakhota

LordBrownTrout said:


> We've now learned that editorialists at the new yorker have no idea of what the second amendment means.  No surprise there.



The 2nd Amendment means whatever SCOTUS says it means - and that will continue to change over time...


----------



## williepete

Who belongs to the militia you ask?

No need to ask. It's not a matter of SCOTUS opinion or anyone else. It's a matter of law:

*Article 10, US Code - Section 311: Militia: composition and classes*

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
*(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.*


----------



## Lakhota

williepete said:


> Who belongs to the militia you ask?
> 
> No need to ask. It's not a matter of SCOTUS opinion or anyone else. It's a matter of law:
> 
> *Article 10, US Code - Section 311: Militia: composition and classes*
> 
> (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
> males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
> 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
> declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
> and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
> National Guard.
> (b) The classes of the militia are -
> (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
> and the Naval Militia; and
> *(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
> the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
> Naval Militia.*



Sooo, what gun rights does this give the "unorganized militia" in relation to the 2nd Amendment...?


----------



## Charles_Main

Quantum Windbag said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Jeffrey Toobin_
> 
> Does the Second Amendment prevent Congress from passing gun-control laws? The question, which is suddenly pressing, in light of the reaction to the school massacre in Newtown, is rooted in politics as much as law.
> 
> For more than a hundred years, the answer was clear, even if the words of the amendment itself were not. The text of the amendment is divided into two clauses and is, as a whole, ungrammatical: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The courts had found that the first part, the militia clause, trumped the second part, the bear arms clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear armsbut did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon.
> 
> Enter the modern National Rifle Association. Before the nineteen-seventies, the N.R.A. had been devoted mostly to non-political issues, like gun safety. But a coup détat at the groups annual convention in 1977 brought a group of committed political conservatives to poweras part of the leading edge of the new, more rightward-leaning Republican Party. (Jill Lepore recounted this history in a recent piece for The New Yorker.) The new group pushed for a novel interpretation of the Second Amendment, one that gave individuals, not just militias, the right to bear arms. It was an uphill struggle. At first, their views were widely scorned. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, who was no liberal, mocked the individual-rights theory of the amendment as a fraud.
> 
> But the N.R.A. kept pushingand theres a lesson here. Conservatives often embrace originalism, the idea that the meaning of the Constitution was fixed when it was ratified, in 1787. They mock the so-called liberal idea of a living constitution, whose meaning changes with the values of the country at large. But there is no better example of the living Constitution than the conservative re-casting of the Second Amendment in the last few decades of the twentieth century. (Reva Siegel, of Yale Law School, elaborates on this point in a brilliant article.)
> 
> The re-interpretation of the Second Amendment was an elaborate and brilliantly executed political operation, inside and outside of government. Ronald Reagans election in 1980 brought a gun-rights enthusiast to the White House. At the same time, Orrin Hatch, the Utah Republican, became chairman of an important subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and he commissioned a report that claimed to find clearand long lostproof that the second amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms. The N.R.A. began commissioning academic studies aimed at proving the same conclusion. An outré constitutional theory, rejected even by the establishment of the Republican Party, evolved, through brute political force, into the conservative conventional wisdom.
> 
> And so, eventually, this theory became the law of the land. In District of Columbia v. Heller, decided in 2008, the Supreme Court embraced the individual-rights view of the Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> More: So You Think You Know the Second Amendment? : The New Yorker
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Gotta love the way racists ignored the 14th Amendment to justify gun control. Ever wonder why progressive Democrats want to firce anyone who gets a gun to have an ID, yet refuses to require an ID for voting?
Click to expand...


Yep.


----------



## Charles_Main

Lakhota said:


> williepete said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who belongs to the militia you ask?
> 
> No need to ask. It's not a matter of SCOTUS opinion or anyone else. It's a matter of law:
> 
> *Article 10, US Code - Section 311: Militia: composition and classes*
> 
> (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
> males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
> 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
> declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
> and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
> National Guard.
> (b) The classes of the militia are -
> (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
> and the Naval Militia; and
> *(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
> the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
> Naval Militia.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sooo, what gun rights does this give the "unorganized militia" in relation to the 2nd Amendment...?
Click to expand...


Lefties like to Ignore the Comma.


----------



## williepete

*Sooo, what gun rights does this give the "unorganized militia" in relation to the 2nd Amendment...? *

Americans are not "given" rights by any law, document or opinion. Our rights are inherent, endowed by our creator. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are restrictions on government--not the people. This is a common misunderstanding. 

The Militia consists of all the people. The people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by the government. The government, under our constitution, is granted its power from the consent of the people. Not the other way around.

I admire your anti Second Amendment passion although I disagree with it. If you are so disposed, perhaps using the amendment process would be a better course than continuing to state that the law of the land is invalid.  

Prohibition was brought about by the 18th Amendment and was later repealed by the 21st Amendment. The Constitution can be changed. But we as a people, who loan our power to the government, must agree within our legal framework.


----------



## whitehall

When Toobin and the New Yorker start picking apart the 1st Amendment we are really going to be in trouble.


----------



## Lakhota

williepete said:


> *Sooo, what gun rights does this give the "unorganized militia" in relation to the 2nd Amendment...? *
> 
> Americans are not "given" rights by any law, document or opinion. Our rights are inherent, endowed by our creator. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are restrictions on government--not the people. This is a common misunderstanding.
> 
> The Militia consists of all the people. The people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by the government. The government, under our constitution, is granted its power from the consent of the people. Not the other way around.
> 
> I admire your anti Second Amendment passion although I disagree with it. If you are so disposed, perhaps using the amendment process would be a better course than continuing to state that the law of the land is invalid.
> 
> Prohibition was brought about by the 18th Amendment and was later repealed by the 21st Amendment. The Constitution can be changed. But we as a people, who loan our power to the government, must agree within our legal framework.



"Endowed by their creator" is in the Declaration of Independence - which is NOT a governing document.  The DoI was basically filing for divorce from England.


----------



## williepete

Lakhota, 

I understand and respect your position. Do you understand our rights are inherent?

Let's look at this from the opposite angle. Why do you want to disarm citizens? Why do you want the government to have a monopoly on guns? When governments have had a monopoly on guns, how has that worked out in history? Is that something we want to repeat?

Not to sound condescending, but a working knowledge of the Federalist Papers and why they were published might clear up most of this discussion. 


With all due respect.


----------



## Lakhota

williepete said:


> Lakhota,
> 
> I understand and respect your position. Do you understand our rights are inherent?
> 
> Let's look at this from the opposite angle. Why do you want to disarm citizens? Why do you want the government to have a monopoly on guns? When governments have had a monopoly on guns, how has that worked out in history? Is that something we want to repeat?
> 
> With all due respect.



I'm a gun lover and hunter.  I have no wish to disarm qualified citizens.  I simply want some common sense gun control.  I'm 66, and was a longtime NRA member - until they became extreme in the late 70's.  IMO, the 2nd Amendment is confusing and obsolete.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Lakhota said:


> _By Jeffrey Toobin_
> 
> Does the Second Amendment prevent Congress from passing gun-control laws? The question, which is suddenly pressing, in light of the reaction to the school massacre in Newtown, is rooted in politics as much as law.
> 
> For more than a hundred years, the answer was clear, even if the words of the amendment itself were not. The text of the amendment is divided into two clauses and is, as a whole, ungrammatical: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The courts had found that the first part, the militia clause, trumped the second part, the bear arms clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear armsbut did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon.
> 
> Enter the modern National Rifle Association. Before the nineteen-seventies, the N.R.A. had been devoted mostly to non-political issues, like gun safety. But a coup détat at the groups annual convention in 1977 brought a group of committed political conservatives to poweras part of the leading edge of the new, more rightward-leaning Republican Party. (Jill Lepore recounted this history in a recent piece for The New Yorker.) The new group pushed for a novel interpretation of the Second Amendment, one that gave individuals, not just militias, the right to bear arms. It was an uphill struggle. At first, their views were widely scorned. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, who was no liberal, mocked the individual-rights theory of the amendment as a fraud.
> 
> But the N.R.A. kept pushingand theres a lesson here. Conservatives often embrace originalism, the idea that the meaning of the Constitution was fixed when it was ratified, in 1787. They mock the so-called liberal idea of a living constitution, whose meaning changes with the values of the country at large. But there is no better example of the living Constitution than the conservative re-casting of the Second Amendment in the last few decades of the twentieth century. (Reva Siegel, of Yale Law School, elaborates on this point in a brilliant article.)
> 
> The re-interpretation of the Second Amendment was an elaborate and brilliantly executed political operation, inside and outside of government. Ronald Reagans election in 1980 brought a gun-rights enthusiast to the White House. At the same time, Orrin Hatch, the Utah Republican, became chairman of an important subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and he commissioned a report that claimed to find clearand long lostproof that the second amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms. The N.R.A. began commissioning academic studies aimed at proving the same conclusion. An outré constitutional theory, rejected even by the establishment of the Republican Party, evolved, through brute political force, into the conservative conventional wisdom.
> 
> And so, eventually, this theory became the law of the land. In District of Columbia v. Heller, decided in 2008, the Supreme Court embraced the individual-rights view of the Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: So You Think You Know the Second Amendment? : The New Yorker
Click to expand...


Someone from New York trying to tell me about the second amendment? When that person from New York explains how their assault weapons ban was allowed I listen too him.
This has got to be the moist stupidest thread start by shitting bull EVER.


----------



## PaulS1950

The fact is that our rights extend from our birth. The bill of rights was installed to prevent the government, including popular vote, from touching them.

There is a tremendous amount of history, even beyond the Magna Carta, that states that our rights come from the Creator, as a birthrite and not from government. Even in the twenty-third century BCE the People of Sumer accepted that even slaves had the right to defend themselves, buy their own freedom and work for themselves once their duties for their master were complete.

The concept that the Creator endowed us with certain rights at birth is nothing new and it is not likely to change.


----------



## williepete

Lakhota said:


> I'm a gun lover and hunter.  I have no wish to disarm qualified citizens.  I simply want some common sense gun control.  I'm 66, and was a longtime NRA member - until they became extreme in the late 70's.  IMO, the 2nd Amendment is confusing and obsolete.



Now we have common ground my friend. I'm glad because I'm tired of seeing you so abused on this forum by people who share my opinion. I apologize for putting words in your mouth about wishing to disarm qualified citizens. I was never a NRA member because I found their rhetoric too extreme. I too found the 2nd Amendment wording confusing until I did just a little research. People of the 18th century spoke differently than we do today. The intent remains true. If you and I and our fellow countrymen feel it's time to repeal or adjust the 2nd Amendment, we have a vehicle for that in Article V.



*The Constitution of the United States

* * * * * * * * * * 

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.*


----------



## bigrebnc1775

williepete said:


> lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> i'm a gun lover and hunter.  I have no wish to disarm qualified citizens.  I simply want some common sense gun control.  I'm 66, and was a longtime nra member - until they became extreme in the late 70's.  Imo, the 2nd amendment is confusing and obsolete.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> now we have common ground my friend. I'm glad because i'm tired of seeing you so abused on this forum by people who share my opinion. I apologize for putting words in your mouth about wishing to disarm qualified citizens. I was never a nra member because i found their rhetoric too extreme. I too found the 2nd amendment wording confusing until i did just a little research. People of the 18th century spoke differently than we do today. The intent remains true. If you and i and our fellow countrymen feel it's time to repeal or adjust the 2nd amendment, we have a vehicle for that in article v.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *the constitution of the united states
> 
> * * * * * * * * * *
> 
> article v
> 
> the congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the senate.*
Click to expand...

oh god damn how in the fuck is the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be in fringed confusing?


----------



## PaulS1950

Williepetet,
If you research the bill of rights, its history and the fight over its inclusion you will find that it cannot be changed  by any political power. It is above governmental powers and even the popular vote. It is a list of rights that precede the constitution and are not a part of the constitution. The listing is there to notify the government of what is to be defended and protected. 
Simply put the rights they defend are not granted by law - they are granted by birth.


----------



## williepete

PaulS1950 said:


> Williepetet,
> If you research the bill of rights, its history and the fight over its inclusion you will find that it cannot be changed  by any political power. It is above governmental powers and even the popular vote. It is a list of rights that precede the constitution and are not a part of the constitution. The listing is there to notify the government of what is to be defended and protected.
> Simply put the rights they defend are not granted by law - they are granted by birth.





Thank you Sir,

I'm currently reading the Federalist Papers, I'm a relatively new student of our Constitution of only 10 years and my interest continues to grow. Any and all recommendations for study are greatly appreciated.  

Cheers,

Bill


----------



## Lakhota

williepete said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a gun lover and hunter.  I have no wish to disarm qualified citizens.  I simply want some common sense gun control.  I'm 66, and was a longtime NRA member - until they became extreme in the late 70's.  IMO, the 2nd Amendment is confusing and obsolete.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now we have common ground my friend. I'm glad because I'm tired of seeing you so abused on this forum by people who share my opinion. I apologize for putting words in your mouth about wishing to disarm qualified citizens. I was never a NRA member because I found their rhetoric too extreme. I too found the 2nd Amendment wording confusing until I did just a little research. People of the 18th century spoke differently than we do today. The intent remains true. If you and I and our fellow countrymen feel it's time to repeal or adjust the 2nd Amendment, we have a vehicle for that in Article V.
> 
> 
> 
> *The Constitution of the United States
> 
> * * * * * * * * * *
> 
> Article V
> 
> The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.*
Click to expand...


williepete, I applaud your wisdom and open mind.  It's a pleasure to discuss this topic with you.


----------



## westwall

williepete said:


> Lakhota,
> 
> I understand and respect your position. Do you understand our rights are inherent?
> 
> Let's look at this from the opposite angle. Why do you want to disarm citizens? Why do you want the government to have a monopoly on guns? When governments have had a monopoly on guns, how has that worked out in history? Is that something we want to repeat?
> 
> Not to sound condescending, but a working knowledge of the Federalist Papers and why they were published might clear up most of this discussion.
> 
> 
> With all due respect.








lacky is an avowed Marxist/Stalinist.  He WANTS the gulags...


----------



## Lakhota

I admit the Federalist Papers are important historical documents, but I question how much weight they should carry in _*today's*_ constitutional interpretations.



> Federal judges, when interpreting the Constitution, frequently use the Federalist Papers as a contemporary account of the intentions of the framers and ratifiers.[27] They have been applied on issues ranging from the power of the federal government in foreign affairs (in Hines v. Davidowitz) to the validity of ex post facto laws (in the 1798 decision Calder v. Bull, apparently the first decision to mention The Federalist).[28] By 2000, The Federalist had been quoted 291 times in Supreme Court decisions.[29]



Federalist Papers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Harry Dresden

tjvh said:


> Hey Lakhota...*How many threads on the same thing are you going to post idiot?* Perhaps you might try responding in the last thread you created about the same subject.



he does not respond to Questions he brings up in threads he starts......plus he thinks if he words the thread title differently no one will know....he lacks honesty and integrity and he is a phony.....so its expected with meatballs like this.........


----------



## williepete

Lakhota said:


> williepete, I applaud your wisdom and open mind.  It's a pleasure to discuss this topic with you.





Cheers Lakhota.

If Westwall is correct and you are a Marxist, all the better. More to discuss. The Gulag idea, not so much. 

The reasons I'm fascinated with 2A discussions are the ones you bring up. Even though I consider myself to be a right-wing gun nut, I do see your points in the 2A's relevance in today's society considering modern technology. 

If the Founding Fathers could have envisioned modern weaponry, would that have changed the wording of the 2A? In their day, a musket or rifle was their assault weapon. That it fired once every 90 seconds and not at all when it rained, how does that equate with today's weapons? Would they still want citizens to have the same assault weapons as the standing army--a standing army that they never wanted? 

I believe from my readings that their intent was to have an armed citizenry to keep tyranny in check. I think this is the kernel of our 2A discussion. Do we surrender our arms and trust our current government will protect us in the hopes that in generations to come, that trusted government does not oppress us in our defenselessness? Do we seek a middle ground and put restrictions on who owns firearms and what firearms they are allowed to have? What we have now. Or do we stick to the strict 18th century wording of the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?     

As a right-wing gun nut, I find the more specific questions you place in front of me, the more hypocritical I become. My going in position is a strict adherence to the 2A. When you bring in the obvious qualifications of those with mental illness, I of course agree to restrict. When you point out that certain overcrowded areas where crime is rampant, I again agree measures should be taken. Not so much a slippery slope than pragmatic measures. Now when restrictions are presented as they are now with the Feinstein bill against ME--a law abiding, tax paying home owner and veteran, I rear up on my hind legs and rebel. I see my own hypocrisy in agreeing to restrict them and them and them but not *me*. What makes this debate important, passionate and potentially volatile is that it is a right that people like me will fight and die for. 

An interesting debate.


----------



## Harry Dresden

Lakhota said:


> I'm a gun lover and hunter.  I have no wish to disarm qualified citizens.  I simply want some common sense gun control.  I'm 66, and was a longtime NRA member - until they became extreme in the late 70's.  IMO, the 2nd Amendment is confusing and obsolete.



oh bullshit you lying sack of shit.....your fucking posts sure dont back that up.....how come in the other gun threads you started you STATED to posters there.....you do not need or should have guns........and dont tell me you did not say these things.....when me and a few other posters called you on this.....you did what you do best.....ignored everybody......your a fucking phony LaKota......its called CHARACTER....try getting some....


----------



## Lakhota

Harry Dresden said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a gun lover and hunter.  I have no wish to disarm qualified citizens.  I simply want some common sense gun control.  I'm 66, and was a longtime NRA member - until they became extreme in the late 70's.  IMO, the 2nd Amendment is confusing and obsolete.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh bullshit you lying sack of shit.....your fucking posts sure dont back that up.....*how come in the other gun threads you started you STATED to posters there.....you do not need or should have guns........and dont tell me you did not say these things.....*when me and a few other posters called you on this.....you did what you do best.....ignored everybody......your a fucking phony LaKota......its called CHARACTER....try getting some....
Click to expand...


Prove it.  Let's see some proof...

Also, keep in mind that it's a no-no to alter other's quotes.


----------



## Harry Dresden

williepete said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> williepete, I applaud your wisdom and open mind.  It's a pleasure to discuss this topic with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers Lakhota.
> 
> If Westwall is correct and you are a Marxist, all the better. More to discuss. The Gulag idea, not so much.
> 
> The reasons I'm fascinated with 2A discussions are the ones you bring up. Even though I consider myself to be a right-wing gun nut, I do see your points in the 2A's relevance in today's society considering modern technology.
> 
> If the Founding Fathers could have envisioned modern weaponry, would that have changed the wording of the 2A? In their day, a musket or rifle was their assault weapon. That it fired once every 90 seconds and not at all when it rained, how does that equate with today's weapons? Would they still want citizens to have the same assault weapons as the standing army--a standing army that they never wanted?
> 
> I believe from my readings that their intent was to have an armed citizenry to keep tyranny in check. I think this is the kernel of our 2A discussion. Do we surrender our arms and trust our current government will protect us in the hopes that in generations to come, that trusted government does not oppress us in our defenselessness? Do we seek a middle ground and put restrictions on who owns firearms and what firearms they are allowed to have. This is what we have now. Or do we stick to the strict 18th century wording of the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> As a right-wing gun nut, I find the more specific questions you place in front of me, the more hypocritical I become. My going in position is a strict adherence to the 2A. When you bring in the obvious qualifications of those with mental illness, I of course agree to restrict. When you point out that certain overcrowded areas where crime is rampant, I again agree measures should be taken. Not so much a slippery slope than pragmatic measures. Now when restrictions are presented as they are now with the Feinstein bill against ME--a law abiding, tax paying home owner and veteran, I rear up on my hind legs and rebel. I see my own hypocrisy in agreeing to restrict them and them and them but not *me*. What makes this debate important, passionate and potentially volitile is that it is a right that people will fight and die for.
> 
> An interesting debate.
Click to expand...


you sir....do not know this jerk yet.....go read his other gun threads.....when someone states......no one should have guns.....and then says he is a gun lover....but yet wants them banned.....and wont answer when called on it......yea he is a gun lover....


----------



## Lakhota

williepete said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> williepete, I applaud your wisdom and open mind.  It's a pleasure to discuss this topic with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers Lakhota.
> 
> If Westwall is correct and you are a Marxist, all the better. More to discuss. The Gulag idea, not so much.
> 
> The reasons I'm fascinated with 2A discussions are the ones you bring up. Even though I consider myself to be a right-wing gun nut, I do see your points in the 2A's relevance in today's society considering modern technology.
> 
> If the Founding Fathers could have envisioned modern weaponry, would that have changed the wording of the 2A? In their day, a musket or rifle was their assault weapon. That it fired once every 90 seconds and not at all when it rained, how does that equate with today's weapons? Would they still want citizens to have the same assault weapons as the standing army--a standing army that they never wanted?
> 
> I believe from my readings that their intent was to have an armed citizenry to keep tyranny in check. I think this is the kernel of our 2A discussion. Do we surrender our arms and trust our current government will protect us in the hopes that in generations to come, that trusted government does not oppress us in our defenselessness? Do we seek a middle ground and put restrictions on who owns firearms and what firearms they are allowed to have? What we have now. Or do we stick to the strict 18th century wording of the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?
> 
> As a right-wing gun nut, I find the more specific questions you place in front of me, the more hypocritical I become. My going in position is a strict adherence to the 2A. When you bring in the obvious qualifications of those with mental illness, I of course agree to restrict. When you point out that certain overcrowded areas where crime is rampant, I again agree measures should be taken. Not so much a slippery slope than pragmatic measures. Now when restrictions are presented as they are now with the Feinstein bill against ME--a law abiding, tax paying home owner and veteran, I rear up on my hind legs and rebel. I see my own hypocrisy in agreeing to restrict them and them and them but not *me*. What makes this debate important, passionate and potentially volatile is that it is a right that people like me will fight and die for.
> 
> An interesting debate.
Click to expand...


Amen!  I'm also a gun nut - just not a radical NRA gun nut.  Only a fool would think they have a right to the same weapons as today's military.


----------



## Lakhota

*Harry Dresden*, I'm still waiting on your proof (Post #34)...


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Lakhota said:


> I admit the Federalist Papers are important historical documents, but I question how much weight they should carry in _*today's*_ constitutional interpretations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Federal judges, when interpreting the Constitution, frequently use the Federalist Papers as a contemporary account of the intentions of the framers and ratifiers.[27] They have been applied on issues ranging from the power of the federal government in foreign affairs (in Hines v. Davidowitz) to the validity of ex post facto laws (in the 1798 decision Calder v. Bull, apparently the first decision to mention The Federalist).[28] By 2000, The Federalist had been quoted 291 times in Supreme Court decisions.[29]
> 
> 
> 
> Federalist Papers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Let me guess, you think Congress should be able to make a law and then throw people who violated the law before it existed in prison.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Lakhota said:


> williepete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> williepete, I applaud your wisdom and open mind.  It's a pleasure to discuss this topic with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers Lakhota.
> 
> If Westwall is correct and you are a Marxist, all the better. More to discuss. The Gulag idea, not so much.
> 
> The reasons I'm fascinated with 2A discussions are the ones you bring up. Even though I consider myself to be a right-wing gun nut, I do see your points in the 2A's relevance in today's society considering modern technology.
> 
> If the Founding Fathers could have envisioned modern weaponry, would that have changed the wording of the 2A? In their day, a musket or rifle was their assault weapon. That it fired once every 90 seconds and not at all when it rained, how does that equate with today's weapons? Would they still want citizens to have the same assault weapons as the standing army--a standing army that they never wanted?
> 
> I believe from my readings that their intent was to have an armed citizenry to keep tyranny in check. I think this is the kernel of our 2A discussion. Do we surrender our arms and trust our current government will protect us in the hopes that in generations to come, that trusted government does not oppress us in our defenselessness? Do we seek a middle ground and put restrictions on who owns firearms and what firearms they are allowed to have? What we have now. Or do we stick to the strict 18th century wording of the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?
> 
> As a right-wing gun nut, I find the more specific questions you place in front of me, the more hypocritical I become. My going in position is a strict adherence to the 2A. When you bring in the obvious qualifications of those with mental illness, I of course agree to restrict. When you point out that certain overcrowded areas where crime is rampant, I again agree measures should be taken. Not so much a slippery slope than pragmatic measures. Now when restrictions are presented as they are now with the Feinstein bill against ME--a law abiding, tax paying home owner and veteran, I rear up on my hind legs and rebel. I see my own hypocrisy in agreeing to restrict them and them and them but not *me*. What makes this debate important, passionate and potentially volatile is that it is a right that people like me will fight and die for.
> 
> An interesting debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amen!  I'm also a gun nut - just not a radical NRA gun nut.  Only a fool would think they have a right to the same weapons as today's military.
Click to expand...


Bull fucking shit you lying shack of shit.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

It's strange that obama comes out and says he loves shooting skeet and now shitting bull claims to be a gun nut. and in the same day.


----------



## bayoubill

Lakhota said:


> I admit the Federalist Papers are important historical documents, but I question how much weight they should carry in _*today's*_ constitutional interpretations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Federal judges, when interpreting the Constitution, frequently use the Federalist Papers as a contemporary account of the intentions of the framers and ratifiers.[27] They have been applied on issues ranging from the power of the federal government in foreign affairs (in Hines v. Davidowitz) to the validity of ex post facto laws (in the 1798 decision Calder v. Bull, apparently the first decision to mention The Federalist).[28] By 2000, The Federalist had been quoted 291 times in Supreme Court decisions.[29]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Federalist Papers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


well... ummm... mebbe because they were written by the same folks who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights... and, since said Framers wanted to keep the Constitution and Bill of Rights within only a coupla pages, they wrote and left us the Federal Papers so that we may know the intent of their work...


----------



## Lakhota

bayoubill said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I admit the Federalist Papers are important historical documents, but I question how much weight they should carry in _*today's*_ constitutional interpretations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Federal judges, when interpreting the Constitution, frequently use the Federalist Papers as a contemporary account of the intentions of the framers and ratifiers.[27] They have been applied on issues ranging from the power of the federal government in foreign affairs (in Hines v. Davidowitz) to the validity of ex post facto laws (in the 1798 decision Calder v. Bull, apparently the first decision to mention The Federalist).[28] By 2000, The Federalist had been quoted 291 times in Supreme Court decisions.[29]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Federalist Papers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well... ummm... mebbe because they were written by the same folks who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights... and, since said Framers wanted to keep the Constitution and Bill of Rights within only a coupla pages, they wrote and left us the Federal Papers so that we may know the intent of their work...
Click to expand...


Did the founders vote to "ratify" their "Federalist Papers"...?  Were their "Federalist Papers" ever ratified?


----------



## OODA_Loop

Lakhota said:


> Only a fool would think they have a right to the same weapons as today's military.



Which weapons are those?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

williepete said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> williepete, I applaud your wisdom and open mind.  It's a pleasure to discuss this topic with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers Lakhota.
> 
> If Westwall is correct and you are a Marxist, all the better. More to discuss. The Gulag idea, not so much.
> 
> The reasons I'm fascinated with 2A discussions are the ones you bring up. Even though I consider myself to be a right-wing gun nut, I do see your points in the 2A's relevance in today's society considering modern technology.
> 
> If the Founding Fathers could have envisioned modern weaponry, would that have changed the wording of the 2A? In their day, a musket or rifle was their assault weapon. That it fired once every 90 seconds and not at all when it rained, how does that equate with today's weapons? Would they still want citizens to have the same assault weapons as the standing army--a standing army that they never wanted?
> 
> I believe from my readings that their intent was to have an armed citizenry to keep tyranny in check. I think this is the kernel of our 2A discussion. Do we surrender our arms and trust our current government will protect us in the hopes that in generations to come, that trusted government does not oppress us in our defenselessness? Do we seek a middle ground and put restrictions on who owns firearms and what firearms they are allowed to have? What we have now. Or do we stick to the strict 18th century wording of the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?
> 
> As a right-wing gun nut, I find the more specific questions you place in front of me, the more hypocritical I become. My going in position is a strict adherence to the 2A. When you bring in the obvious qualifications of those with mental illness, I of course agree to restrict. When you point out that certain overcrowded areas where crime is rampant, I again agree measures should be taken. Not so much a slippery slope than pragmatic measures. Now when restrictions are presented as they are now with the Feinstein bill against ME--a law abiding, tax paying home owner and veteran, I rear up on my hind legs and rebel. I see my own hypocrisy in agreeing to restrict them and them and them but not *me*. What makes this debate important, passionate and potentially volatile is that it is a right that people like me will fight and die for.
> 
> An interesting debate.
Click to expand...


  I wish politicians had your integrity. Unfortunately they dont.
When you brought up "seeing your own hypocrisy" the first thing that popped into my head is the hypocrisy of the left regarding gun control.
Protection for me but not for thee.

  I see our second amendment problem as a break down of society that cant be dealt with because of our PC culture.
And the dems are more than happy to take advantage.
It's going to come back and bite us all in the ass eventually.....or more likely our children and grandchildren.

Oh and Willie. This would be one of the reasons why bigreb doesn't care for Lackota.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ne-aka-mrs-bill-ayers-is-for-gun-control.html


----------



## Harry Dresden

Lakhota said:


> *Harry Dresden*, I'm still waiting on your proof (Post #34)...



go read your other threads .....you know what you posted and so does anyone else in that thread LaKota......and i told you in that thread that what you originally posted was ok......but why are you saying now you are against guns?......you were asked a couple of times and not just by me......you did what you usually do.....ignored everyone instead of explaining why you say one thing and then say another.....you created your own bullshit here....not me....


----------



## Harry Dresden

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> williepete said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers Lakhota.
> 
> If Westwall is correct and you are a Marxist, all the better. More to discuss. The Gulag idea, not so much.
> 
> The reasons I'm fascinated with 2A discussions are the ones you bring up. Even though I consider myself to be a right-wing gun nut, I do see your points in the 2A's relevance in today's society considering modern technology.
> 
> If the Founding Fathers could have envisioned modern weaponry, would that have changed the wording of the 2A? In their day, a musket or rifle was their assault weapon. That it fired once every 90 seconds and not at all when it rained, how does that equate with today's weapons? Would they still want citizens to have the same assault weapons as the standing army--a standing army that they never wanted?
> 
> I believe from my readings that their intent was to have an armed citizenry to keep tyranny in check. I think this is the kernel of our 2A discussion. Do we surrender our arms and trust our current government will protect us in the hopes that in generations to come, that trusted government does not oppress us in our defenselessness? Do we seek a middle ground and put restrictions on who owns firearms and what firearms they are allowed to have? What we have now. Or do we stick to the strict 18th century wording of the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?
> 
> As a right-wing gun nut, I find the more specific questions you place in front of me, the more hypocritical I become. My going in position is a strict adherence to the 2A. When you bring in the obvious qualifications of those with mental illness, I of course agree to restrict. When you point out that certain overcrowded areas where crime is rampant, I again agree measures should be taken. Not so much a slippery slope than pragmatic measures. Now when restrictions are presented as they are now with the Feinstein bill against ME--a law abiding, tax paying home owner and veteran, I rear up on my hind legs and rebel. I see my own hypocrisy in agreeing to restrict them and them and them but not *me*. What makes this debate important, passionate and potentially volatile is that it is a right that people like me will fight and die for.
> 
> An interesting debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amen!  I'm also a gun nut - just not a radical NRA gun nut.  Only a fool would think they have a right to the same weapons as today's military.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull fucking shit you lying shack of shit.
Click to expand...

see.....Reb knows he has seen your other threads.....


----------



## Unkotare

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> so you think the Irish spied for the Japanese??????????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what I said (obviously ). Try to concentrate. I said, name one of these Japanese American spies. Go ahead. Don't change the subject, just name one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> there were very few
Click to expand...



Ok, what were their names?


----------



## Lakhota

It's easy to accuse someone of being a liar without providing any proof.  Where's the proof?


----------



## Harry Dresden

right here in this thread......someone who is a "gun lover".....and only wants the crazies not to have guns would not be calling for the end of the 2nd .....

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/272886-the-right-to-bear-arms.html

do you not have this written in every post?....

*Since the word "militia" is no longer applicable in the 2nd Amendment, there is no right to keep and bear arms.*


----------



## Lakhota

Harry Dresden said:


> right here in this thread......someone who is a "gun lover".....and only wants the crazies not to have guns would not be calling for the end of the 2nd .....
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/272886-the-right-to-bear-arms.html
> 
> post 154.....
> 
> *Since the word "militia" is no longer applicable in the 2nd Amendment, there is no right to keep and bear arms.*



Post 154 in your link is a picture.  The statement you reference is in my signature.  Nowhere have "I" called for guns to be banned.  I don't want guns banned.  I simply want sensible gun control.  The 2nd Amendment is confusing and obsolete in today's world.  The NRA is crazy.


----------



## Richard-H

PaulS1950 said:


> " The second amendment doesn't provide us with the right to keep and bear arms - that which is given by the Creator can't be taken by man - but the second amendment was put in place to say that it was a right that the federal government had no power to touch and must defend and protect."



Their is a huge difference between "The Right to Bear Arms" and all other inalienable rights:

As you stated: "that which is given by the Creator can't be taken by man". 

Guns are manufactured items, they are NOT "given by the creator" and therefore are NOT an inalienable right.

Though it is clear that the constitution does give SOME right to bear arms, it is neither an inalienable right, nor an unlimited right.

The limits on the right to bear arms are determined by the court. 

First the court must determine what level of arms is "Reasonable".

Second the court should look at the conflict between the right to bear arms (a non-inalienable right) and the greatest of all inalienable rights: The Right to Life.


----------



## Lakhota

> *Declaration of Independence*
> 
> _We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..._



The Declaration of Independence is NOT a governing document.  I repeat - NOT a governing document.



> Many Christian's who think of America as founded upon Christianity usually present the Declaration of Independence as "proof" of a Christian America. The reason appears obvious: the Declaration mentions God. (You may notice that some Christians avoid the Constitution, with its absence of God.)
> 
> However, the Declaration of Independence does not represent any law of the United States. It came before the establishment of our lawful government (the Constitution). The Declaration aimed at announcing the separation of America from Great Britain and it listed the various grievances with them. The Declaration includes the words, "The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America." The grievances against Great Britain no longer hold today, and we have more than thirteen states.
> 
> Although the Declaration may have influential power, it may inspire the lofty thoughts of poets and believers, and judges may mention it in their summations, it holds no legal power today. It represents a historical document about rebellious intentions against Great Britain at a time before the formation of our government.



More: The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity


----------



## Harry Dresden

Lakhota said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> right here in this thread......someone who is a "gun lover".....and only wants the crazies not to have guns would not be calling for the end of the 2nd .....
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/272886-the-right-to-bear-arms.html
> 
> post 154.....
> 
> *Since the word "militia" is no longer applicable in the 2nd Amendment, there is no right to keep and bear arms.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Post 154 in your link is a picture.  The statement you reference is in my signature.  Nowhere have "I" called for guns to be banned.  I don't want guns banned.  I simply want sensible gun control.  The 2nd Amendment is confusing and obsolete in today's world.  The NRA is crazy.
Click to expand...


your posts are pretty dam anti-gun Lakota.....i suggest you might want to start expressing yourself somewhat better......no one who is for gun rights would want the only thing protecting those rights to be abolished.......and YOU HAVE called for the 2nd to be shit canned.....i dont see how its confusing if you understand English.....there is a difference between the words MILITIA and PEOPLE.....and i am quite sure the guys who put it together and put it in the Bill understood this.....otherwise why would they have not put Militia instead of People in the second part?.....


----------



## Lakhota

Harry Dresden said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> right here in this thread......someone who is a "gun lover".....and only wants the crazies not to have guns would not be calling for the end of the 2nd .....
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/272886-the-right-to-bear-arms.html
> 
> post 154.....
> 
> *Since the word "militia" is no longer applicable in the 2nd Amendment, there is no right to keep and bear arms.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Post 154 in your link is a picture.  The statement you reference is in my signature.  Nowhere have "I" called for guns to be banned.  I don't want guns banned.  I simply want sensible gun control.  The 2nd Amendment is confusing and obsolete in today's world.  The NRA is crazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your posts are pretty dam anti-gun Lakota.....i suggest you might want to start expressing yourself somewhat better......no one who is for gun rights would want the only thing protecting those rights to be abolished.......and YOU HAVE called for the 2nd to be shit canned.....i dont see how its confusing if you understand English.....there is a difference between the words MILITIA and PEOPLE.....and i am quite sure the guys who put it together and put it in the Bill understood this.....otherwise why would they have not put Militia instead of People in the second part?.....
Click to expand...


My posts only seem radical to NRA extremists.  I express my intent just fine.  I don't ever recall calling for the 2nd Amendment to be "shit canned" as you call it - but I have certainly  stated that it is confusing and obsolete in today's world - in other words it should be changed and updated to reflect modern reality - not the mentally of the founders nearly 225 years ago.  They had no way to envision the world we live in today.  No civilian has a right to the same weapons as the military.


----------



## OODA_Loop

Richard-H said:


> The limits on the right to bear arms are determined by the court.
> 
> First the court must determine what level of arms is "Reasonable".



Not _reasonable _......what is in *common use*.


----------



## OODA_Loop

Lakhota said:


> No civilian has a right to the same weapons as the military.



Not the the same weapons as in military use......whats in common use.


----------



## OriginalShroom

For those who believe the wording of the 2nd Amendment is doesn't give the individual right to "Keep and bear arms" should read the following..

The following is taken from J. Neil Schulman's book Stopping Power, 
 (Pulpless.com, 1999 © 1999) 

 //The first person usage refers to Mr. Schulman// 

 "I just had a conversation with Mr. A. C. Brocki, Editorial Coordinator for the Office of Instruction of the Los Angeles Unified School District. Mr. Brocki taught Advanced Placement English for several years at Van Nuys H.S., as well as having been a senior editor for Houghton Mifflin....... 

 I gave Mr. Brocki my name.....then asked him to parse the following sentence: 
 "A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed." 

 Mr Brocki informed me that the sentence was over punctuated, but the meaning could be extracted anyway: 

 "A well-schooled electorate" is a nominative absolute. 

 "being necessary to the security of a free State" is a participial phrase modifying "electorate." 

 The subject (a compound subject) of the sentence is "the right of the people." 

&#8220;Shall not be infringed" is a verb phrase, with "not" as an adverb modifying the verb phrase "shall be infringed." 

 "To keep and read books is an infinitive phrase modifying the verb phrase "Shall not be infringed." 

 I then asked him if he could rephrase the sentence to make it clearer. 

 Mr. Brocki said, "Because a well schooled electorate is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed." 

 I asked: can the sentence be interpreted to restrict the right to keep and read books to a well schooled electorate.....

 He said, "No." 

 I then identified my purpose and read the 2nd A. in full: 
 "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." 

 I asked, "Is the structure and meaning of this sentence the same as the sentence I first quoted you?' 

 He said, "Yes." 

 I asked him to rephrase this sentence to make it clearer. 

 He transformed the sentence the same way as the first sentence: "Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." 

 I asked him whether the meaning could have changed in 200 years. 

 He said "No." 

 I asked whether this sentence could be interpreted to restrict the right to keep arms to "a well regulated Militia." 

 He said, "No." 

 According to Mr. Brocki, the sentence means that the people are the militia, and that the people have the right which is mentioned. 

 I asked him again to make sure: 

 SCHULMAN: "Can the sentence be interpreted to mean that the right can be restricted to a "well-regulated militia?" 

 BROCKI; "No, I don't see that." 

 SCHULMAN; "Could another professional in English grammar or linguistics interpret the sentence to mean otherwise?" 

 BROCKI: "I can't see any grounds for another interpretation." 

 I asked Mr. Brocki if he would be willing to stake his professional reputation on the opinion, and be quoted on this. 

 He said, "Yes." 

 At no point in the conversation did I ask Mr. Brocki his opinion on the 2nd. Amendment, gun control, or the right to keep and bear arms. -July17, 1991 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Sculman and Usage continued&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230; 

"&#8230;&#8230;but who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?"

 That was the question I asked A. C. Brocki.... Mr Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at USC and the author of American Usage and Style: The Consensus.

 Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a distinguished seventeen-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field. 

 He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. ...

 American Usage and Style: The Consensus has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publishers' Humanities Award. 

 //Schulman goes on to describe how he introduced himself to Professor Copperud and then describes a letter he wrote containing many questions concerning the 2nd. A. given the debate whether the opening clause, A well regulated militia..... "is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause w/ respect to the independent clause and subject of the sentence, "the right of the ......" 

 Sculman went on to ask, "I would request that your analysis ..... be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further.....I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary." &#8211; PB// 

 "After several more letters and phone calls... Professor Copperud sent me the following analysis:

 [Copperud] The words "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 25, 1991, constitute a present participle rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying "militia," which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject "the right," verb "shall" . The right to keep and bear arms is asserted as essential for maintaining a militia. 

 In reply to your questions: 

 [Schulman: (1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to a "well regulated militia"?

 [Copperud: (1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people. 

 [Sculman: (2) Is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" granted by the words of the 2nd. A., or does the 2nd. A assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and mere state that such right "shall not be infringed"? 

 [Copperid: (2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia. 

 [Schulman: (3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well-regulated militia is, in fact, necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" null and void?

 [Copperud: (3) no such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence. 

 [Schulman: (4) Does the clause "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," grant a right to the government to place conditions on the "right of the people to keep and bear arms," or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence? 

 [Copperud: The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia. 

 [Schulman: (5) Which of the following does the phrase "well-regulated militia mean: "well-equipped", "well-organized", "well-drilled", "well-educated", or "subject to the regulations of a superior authority"?] 

 [Copperud: (5) The phrase means "subject to regulations of a superior authority"; this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military. 

 [Schulman: If at all possible, I would ask you to take into account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not to take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated. 

 [Copperud: to the best of my knowledge thare has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: 

 "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged." 

 [Schulman: As a "scientific control" on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the 2nd A. to the following sentence: 

 "A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed." 

 My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be, 
 (1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the 2nd. A. sentence; and 
 (2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict "the right of the people to keep and read Books" only to "a well-educated electorate" - e.g. registered voters w/ a high school diploma? 

 [Copperud: (1) your "scientific control" sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure; 
 (2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation.


----------



## Harry Dresden

Lakhota said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Post 154 in your link is a picture.  The statement you reference is in my signature.  Nowhere have "I" called for guns to be banned.  I don't want guns banned.  I simply want sensible gun control.  The 2nd Amendment is confusing and obsolete in today's world.  The NRA is crazy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your posts are pretty dam anti-gun Lakota.....i suggest you might want to start expressing yourself somewhat better......no one who is for gun rights would want the only thing protecting those rights to be abolished.......and YOU HAVE called for the 2nd to be shit canned.....i dont see how its confusing if you understand English.....there is a difference between the words MILITIA and PEOPLE.....and i am quite sure the guys who put it together and put it in the Bill understood this.....otherwise why would they have not put Militia instead of People in the second part?.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My posts only seem radical to NRA extremists.  I express my intent just fine.  I don't ever recall calling for the 2nd Amendment to be "shit canned" as you call it - but I have certainly  stated that it is confusing and obsolete in today's world - in other words it should be changed and updated to reflect modern reality - not the mentally of the founders nearly 225 years ago.  They had no way to envision the world we live in today.  No civilian has a right to the same weapons as the military.
Click to expand...


you might think its only to the extremist....but when you "mock" what they say with your anti-gun posts instead of debating what they say......well need i say more?.....when i read your first post on this LaKota where you claimed you were for reasonable gun control i had no problems with that......but as soon as you started doing your "mocking" and saying the 2nd is obsolete.....you changed my mind about you......you think i am the only one?....you are doing as much damage to reasonable gun control advocacy as the rabid "gun nutters" are doing to the 2nd amendment by what some of them say.....you both are not doing your sides any favors......


----------



## Darkwind

PaulS1950 said:


> The arguments surrounding the inclusion of the bill of rights in the constitutional document are neither hard to find nor a matter of fiction. They are included in every copy of the "Federalist Papers" that are recorded in the early records of our country.
> 
> These rights were so commonly held that it seemed rediculous to have to include them in a document which was written to provide a limited number of powers to the federal government. The founders believed that these rights extended from birth and that it was inconceivable that any government would attempt to assume powers over them. The second amendment doesn't provide us with the right to keep and bear arms - that which is given by the Creator can't be taken by man - but the second amendment was put in place to say that it was a right that the federal government had no power to touch and must defend and protect.
> Not just the second but all ten of the amendments in the bill of rights was put in place for this reason. The defense of such rights was unlimited so long as you are willing to accept the responsibility for each of them. You are free to say anything you like as long as it doen't infringe on the rights of others. Libel, slander and yelling "FIRE" in a dark movie theaters are not infringments on your rights it is just that you must be willing to accept the punishment for your actions when they incite injury to others.
> You have the right to worship, or not, as you please so long as you don't threaten the right to worship, or not, to others. It is not a limit on your right but the extension of those same rigts to others. You are free to keep and bear arms as long as you do not endanger another with your acts. That would infringe on their rights. Since I have never injured or even threatened someone with my guns I am protected by the letter of and intent of the second amendment. You have no power to restrict my personal right because of the illegal acts of others just as no one can limit your freedom of speech because of the slander or incision to riot by others.
> 
> Our rights are forever our rights - each and all of them - and they can only be taken away by our own individual abuse of them.


Your wasting your time.  The apple believes that the Bill of Rights doe NOT limit government.  He thinks that it is okay to give up your guns because who is going to put the white man on a reservation?  White in the middle with a red skin is what Indians call government lackeys.  Apples.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Unkotare said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what I said (obviously ). Try to concentrate. I said, name one of these Japanese American spies. Go ahead. Don't change the subject, just name one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there were very few
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, what were their names?
Click to expand...


how would we know the names of German and Japanese spies  unless they got caught??

there were very few possibly and largely because the effort to prevent the spying was so effective, not because the Japanese did not wish to have intelligence as you seem to imagine.

Do you think the Japanese looked among the Irish, Polish, or the Japanese to recruit spies?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Harry Dresden said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amen!  I'm also a gun nut - just not a radical NRA gun nut.  Only a fool would think they have a right to the same weapons as today's military.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bull fucking shit you lying shack of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> see.....Reb knows he has seen your other threads.....
Click to expand...


----------



## UseCaution

Lakhota said:


> williepete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a gun lover and hunter.  I have no wish to disarm qualified citizens.  I simply want some common sense gun control.  I'm 66, and was a longtime NRA member - until they became extreme in the late 70's.  IMO, the 2nd Amendment is confusing and obsolete.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now we have common ground my friend. I'm glad because I'm tired of seeing you so abused on this forum by people who share my opinion. I apologize for putting words in your mouth about wishing to disarm qualified citizens. I was never a NRA member because I found their rhetoric too extreme. I too found the 2nd Amendment wording confusing until I did just a little research. People of the 18th century spoke differently than we do today. The intent remains true. If you and I and our fellow countrymen feel it's time to repeal or adjust the 2nd Amendment, we have a vehicle for that in Article V.
> 
> 
> 
> *The Constitution of the United States
> 
> * * * * * * * * * *
> 
> Article V
> 
> The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> williepete, I applaud your wisdom and open mind.  It's a pleasure to discuss this topic with you.
Click to expand...


What can you say about all this?  Meeting of minds, the NRA is an embarrassment to reasonable rational gun enthusiast.  As I have no guns, but have excellent shooting experience.  The language was absolutely developed from a different mindset and technology understanding of that time.  Along with no standing army.  But from the standpoint of being out in THE back country townships at that time, were dangers just on their own ,during these times I would've felt great comfort knowing that I can keep my guns.  I can apply the right to bear arms no matter what during these dangerous periods.  But the volatility of small weapons like the assault rifle vs.  Today's modern army technology to decimate you.  The second amendment is flawed!


----------



## Unkotare

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Do you think the Japanese looked among the Irish, Polish, or the Japanese to recruit spies?




You seem to think that line is really clever, but no one has claimed anything like that and it does not support your position in any way. Stop being so stupid.


----------



## Unkotare

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> there were very few
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, what were their names?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> how would we know the names of German and Japanese spies  unless they got caught??
Click to expand...



And how would you know the names of Japanese American spies if no Japanese Americans agreed to act as spies (as all evidence suggests)? You're trying to insist on something that did not happen as far as you can prove. In fact, the only thing you have been able to support with facts is that one white guy from Maryland spied for Japan during the war. Way to go, genius.


Ok, now it's time for you to say something stupid again.


----------



## Unkotare

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> the Japanese did not wish to have intelligence as you seem to imagine.





Have I ever said that, idiot? No? Then you can stop repeating it and making yourself look like an illogical moron whenever you like.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Unkotare said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> the Japanese did not wish to have intelligence as you seem to imagine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have I ever said that, idiot? No? Then you can stop repeating it and making yourself look like an illogical moron whenever you like.
Click to expand...


Wiki: "Even before the war, a large Nazi spy ring was found operating in the United States. The Duquesne Spy Ring is still the largest espionage case in United States history that ended in convictions. The 33 German agents who formed the Duquesne spy ring were placed in key jobs in the United States to get information that could be used in the event of war and to carry out acts of sabotage. One man opened a restaurant and used his position to get information from his customers; another worked on an airline so he could report Allied ships crossing the Atlantic Ocean; others in the ring worked as deliverymen so they could deliver secret messages alongside normal messages. The ring was led by Captain Fritz Joubert Duquesne, a South African Boer who spied for Germany in both World Wars and is best known as "The man who killed Kitchener" after he was awarded the Iron Cross for his key role in the sabotage and sinking of HMS Hampshire in 1916.[3] William G. Sebold, a double agent for the United States, was a major factor in the FBI's successful resolution of this case. For nearly two years, Sebold ran a radio station in New York for the ring, giving the FBI valuable information on what Germany was sending to its spies in the United States while also controlling the information that was being transmitted to Germany. On June 29, 1941, the FBI closed in. All 33 spies were arrested, found guilty, and sentenced to serve a total of over 300 years in prison.


----------



## Unkotare

Thanks for that post, which had absolutely NOTHING to do with what I said. Why bother quoting me and then posting something utterly unrelated to what I said? You really are a mental case.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Unkotare said:


> Thanks for that post, which had absolutely NOTHING to do with what I said. Why bother quoting me and then posting something utterly unrelated to what I said? You really are a mental case.



ok I'll spell it out for you. There were many German spies in the USA, and of course it was logical to assume the Japanese had the same idea, particularly on the West Coast.

Catching on now??


----------



## Unkotare

Name the Japanese American spies on the West coast. So far you've only named one white dude from Maryland.


Do you know who you CAN name? You can name the extraordinarily brave and loyal Japanese Americans who, despite being thown into FDR's concentration camps along with their families, volunteered to serve their country and went on to become members of the most decorated military unit in US history.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Unkotare said:


> Name the Japanese American spies on the West coast. So far you've only named one white dude from Maryland.



dear, the Germans and Japanese needed intelligence- right?? PLease answer yes or no or be held in contempt of court!!


----------



## Unkotare

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name the Japanese American spies on the West coast. So far you've only named one white dude from Maryland.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dear, the Germans and Japanese needed intelligence- right?? PLease answer yes or no or be held in contempt of court!!
Click to expand...




Is that a name? Name the Japanese American spies on the West coast. Answer my question and I'll answer yours. If you can remain lucid long enough, that is.


----------



## HUGGY

I support the rights of bears to have arms...



View attachment $bear arms.bmp


----------



## bigrebnc1775

UseCaution said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> williepete said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now we have common ground my friend. I'm glad because I'm tired of seeing you so abused on this forum by people who share my opinion. I apologize for putting words in your mouth about wishing to disarm qualified citizens. I was never a NRA member because I found their rhetoric too extreme. I too found the 2nd Amendment wording confusing until I did just a little research. People of the 18th century spoke differently than we do today. The intent remains true. If you and I and our fellow countrymen feel it's time to repeal or adjust the 2nd Amendment, we have a vehicle for that in Article V.
> 
> 
> 
> *The Constitution of the United States
> 
> * * * * * * * * * *
> 
> Article V
> 
> The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> williepete, I applaud your wisdom and open mind.  It's a pleasure to discuss this topic with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What can you say about all this?  Meeting of minds, the NRA is an embarrassment to reasonable rational gun enthusiast.  As I have no guns, but have excellent shooting experience.  The language was absolutely developed from a different mindset and technology understanding of that time.  Along with no standing army.  But from the standpoint of being out in THE back country townships at that time, were dangers just on their own ,during these times I would've felt great comfort knowing that I can keep my guns.  I can apply the right to bear arms no matter what during these dangerous periods.  But the volatility of small weapons like the assault rifle vs.  Today's modern army technology to decimate you.  The second amendment is flawed!
Click to expand...


Since you say you have no guns your opinion about guns is irrelevant. I suggest that you shut the fuck up.


----------



## Lakhota

bigrebnc1775 said:


> UseCaution said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> williepete, I applaud your wisdom and open mind.  It's a pleasure to discuss this topic with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What can you say about all this?  Meeting of minds, the NRA is an embarrassment to reasonable rational gun enthusiast.  As I have no guns, but have excellent shooting experience.  The language was absolutely developed from a different mindset and technology understanding of that time.  Along with no standing army.  But from the standpoint of being out in THE back country townships at that time, were dangers just on their own ,during these times I would've felt great comfort knowing that I can keep my guns.  I can apply the right to bear arms no matter what during these dangerous periods.  But the volatility of small weapons like the assault rifle vs.  Today's modern army technology to decimate you.  The second amendment is flawed!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you say you have no guns your opinion about guns is irrelevant. I suggest that you shut the fuck up.
Click to expand...


NOT TRUE.  This person has the same rights to their opinions as gun owners!


----------



## PaulS1950

There is nothing about the second amendment that is obsolete or even confusing. That people might think it is wrong to keep and be versed in the use of the same weapons as the military infantry don't understand that all citizens are the militia; a back-up support for the defense of our constitution. I would never attempt to overthrow the government unless it was overstepping the limits placed on it by the constitution. Every soldier, agent, politition, and law enforcement officer in the country has taken an oath to serve and protect that constitution. Violating that oath is a crime against this country and worse - against G_d. It should be named an act of treason and prosecuted as such.


----------



## Lakhota




----------



## Dubya

Unkotare said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holy shit you're stupid. And, your juvenile attempts at spin are only making you look worse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spin my ass, the attempt to spy on the United States by the Japanese during WWII was foiled, .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What attempts were those? You and your little boy wonder could only come up with the name of one actual spy and he was white dude from Maryland.
Click to expand...


You were given names of spies in America and only a fool would think the Japanese would start a war and not have spies on the west coast.


----------



## Wehrwolfen

Unkotare said:


> Name the Japanese American spies on the West coast. So far you've only named one white dude from Maryland.
> 
> 
> Do you know who you CAN name? You can name the extraordinarily brave and loyal Japanese Americans who, despite being thown into FDR's concentration camps along with their families, volunteered to serve their country and went on to become members of the most decorated military unit in US history.



uess you omitted the fact that on the onset FDR ordered Germans and Italians into concentration camps along with the Japanese. California was the first to incarcerate all three until they found it interfered with the draft and staffing the armed forces.

Read:
Italian Internment WWII Italian Internment WWII - Similarto Italian Internment WWII 

Roosevelt sent envoys to Italy and Mussolini's son visited the United States ... of names of aliens from Germany, Japan and Italy without regard for anything ... the head of the household and support of their families who were arrested. ... However, the 300 or so who were incarcerated remained so until the end of the war in ...

More:
History of Internment - German American Internee Coalition German American Internee Coalition - Similarto History of Internment - German American Internee Coalition 

World War II Violations of the Civil Liberties of German Americans and ... We also have much to learn about the Japanese and Italian Latin American programs. ... Families were disrupted, reputations destroyed, homes and belongings lost. ... and their subsequent incarceration overseen by the War Relocation Authority.


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spin my ass, the attempt to spy on the United States by the Japanese during WWII was foiled, .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What attempts were those? You and your little boy wonder could only come up with the name of one actual spy and he was white dude from Maryland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were given names of spies in America .
Click to expand...



You and Boy Wonder there could only come up with the name of ONE actual spy - some white dude from Maryland. 

You continue to fail.


----------



## Unkotare

Wehrwolfen said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name the Japanese American spies on the West coast. So far you've only named one white dude from Maryland.
> 
> 
> Do you know who you CAN name? You can name the extraordinarily brave and loyal Japanese Americans who, despite being thown into FDR's concentration camps along with their families, volunteered to serve their country and went on to become members of the most decorated military unit in US history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uess you omitted the fact that on the onset FDR ordered Germans and Italians into concentration camps along with the Japanese. California was the first to incarcerate all three until they found it interfered with the draft and staffing the armed forces.
> 
> Read:
> Italian Internment WWII Italian Internment WWII - Similarto Italian Internment WWII
> 
> Roosevelt sent envoys to Italy and Mussolini's son visited the United States ... of names of aliens from Germany, Japan and Italy without regard for anything ... the head of the household and support of their families who were arrested. ... However, the 300 or so who were incarcerated remained so until the end of the war in ...
> 
> More:
> History of Internment - German American Internee Coalition German American Internee Coalition - Similarto History of Internment - German American Internee Coalition
> 
> World War II Violations of the Civil Liberties of German Americans and ... We also have much to learn about the Japanese and Italian Latin American programs. ... Families were disrupted, reputations destroyed, homes and belongings lost. ... and their subsequent incarceration overseen by the War Relocation Authority.
Click to expand...



I omitted nothing. Several pages back I provided facts and figures on German and Italian Americans similarly deprived of their rights.


----------



## Wehrwolfen

Lakhota said:


> Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited  never have been and never will be  Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star



Is that because the gov't is scared of the people? The Constitution is based upon small gov't and the People controlling the gov't not the other way around. The problem today is that the government has become to large and is subjugating the people.


----------



## Dubya

Unkotare said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> What attempts were those? You and your little boy wonder could only come up with the name of one actual spy and he was white dude from Maryland.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You were given names of spies in America .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You and Boy Wonder there could only come up with the name of ONE actual spy - some white dude from Maryland.
> 
> You continue to fail.
Click to expand...


You failed Common Sense 001. We knew there were Japanese spies, but we didn't know who they were. If a spy can't communicate, their spying amounts to nothing. Now, I pointed out how we had an aircraft carrier being repaired on the west coast and how the entire outcome of that war could be changed by one spy. Reports of an aircraft carrier sitting there defenseless is enough to change planning, because it's too big of a prize to allow it to pass by. One Japanese spy pretending to be fishing in Puget Sound is all it would take to locate the Saratoga. The spy could communicate that to a submarine offshore and the Japanese would send a carrier to destroy it. They could have postponed Midway and concentrated all their other carriers in their Coral Sea campaign. Once the Midway campaign started, the Yorktown would be at the bottom of the ocean and it would be 5 carriers against 2. The Battle of the Coral Sea was the first carrier against carrier battle in history. It was the experienced Yorktown pilots that did major damage on the Japanese at Midway. Those additional Japanese carriers would have been enough to finish the Yorktown off when it was damaged and withdrew from the battle. Midway falls, Hawaii falls, the Panama Canal is put of commission and the Japanese stay off the west coast raiding it at will. Japanese spies are reporting locations of radar installations and commandos from submarines put out their eyes.


----------



## bitterlyclingin

Not unless you want to make personal Liberty and the rights of the individual obsolete alongside it.
The Second Amendment is meant as a reminder to all would be tyrants and dictators of the fate that befell Benito Mussolini. Barack Obama is the poster child reason for the Second Amendment.

More Than 1,000 Green Berets Sign Letter Supporting Second Amendment? | Weasel Zippers

Poll: 52% Say Politicians Exploiting Sandy Hook For Political Gain, 67% Say Assault Weapons Ban Would Not Have Stopped Tragedy? | Weasel Zippers

Liberal Dem Sen. Sherrod Brown: ?Much Of The Progressive Agenda Is Going To Be Driven? By Obama Using Executive Power? | Weasel Zippers

Obama Says It?s The GOP?s Fault He Acts Like A Dictator, Warns More Executive Actions On The Way? | Weasel Zippers

Sharpton On Second Amendment: ?People Do Not Have The Right To Unregulated Rights In This Country?? | Weasel Zippers

Barack Hussein and the Communist Party are one, anyway. No big surprise here.

Communist Party USA Cheers On Obama?s Gun Grab? | Weasel Zippers

Obama: Centralized Power Is The Source Of Our Freedoms? | Weasel Zippers


----------



## Wehrwolfen

Lakhota said:


> The 2nd Amendment is nothing more than a fossil of days long past.



Perhaps you'd prefer to adopt the Marxist Constitution? How about China's Constitution and Bill of Rights? Would you be able to sleep better under those conditions?


----------



## Unkotare

Repeating your failed arguments that have already been shot full of holes several times now is not going to make them any more valid, you dishonest fuck. Your little habit of dropping in unrelated and commonly-known bits of information in an attempt to distract from what you're really trying to do also does not work at all. 

You continue to fail at defending the indefensible, you un-American scumbag.


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> We knew there were Japanese spies, but we didn't know who they were.





What we "know" is that no Japanese Americans were ever convicted of espionage during WWII. 


FDR's concentration camps were an inexcusable offense and affront to everything that this great nation stands for. Your pathetic and failed attempts at defending them brands you an un-American scumbag who does not deserve to live here.


----------



## Erand7899

expatriate said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are both pointing out the hypocrisy of the idiot Obama and his dumbocrats. The man is looking to ban assault weapons while his family is *heavily* guarded by assault weapons. It's speaks volumes that both you and he are too fucking stupid to see the irony/hypocrisy of that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is ridiculous to compare the security surrounding the president of the united states and his family with that provided private citizens.  Bringing that necessary security provided for the president into the national debate on gun control is what is hypocritical.
Click to expand...


The president and his family are entitled to government provided security.  Private citizens are entitled to provide their own security through the same methods and with the same weapons that are effective for security for the president or any other politician

Hypocrisy exists anytime that politicians, and other elitists who exist within armed security bubbles, demean the idea that the rest of us are entitled to protect ourselves with effective weapons.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Unkotare said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's ridiculous to claim there weren't Japanese agents in Hawaii.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? What were their names?
Click to expand...


too stupid!!! Spies don't publish their names! I guess there were only German spies right????


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

expatriate said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are both pointing out the hypocrisy of the idiot Obama and his dumbocrats. The man is looking to ban assault weapons while his family is *heavily* guarded by assault weapons. It's speaks volumes that both you and he are too fucking stupid to see the irony/hypocrisy of that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is ridiculous to compare the security surrounding the president of the united states and his family with that provided private citizens.  Bringing that necessary security provided for the president into the national debate on gun control is what is hypocritical.
Click to expand...



why does the president need gun defense and not us exactly???


----------



## Dubya

Unkotare said:


> Repeating your failed arguments that have already been shot full of holes several times now is not going to make them any more valid, you dishonest fuck. Your little habit of dropping in unrelated and commonly-known bits of information in an attempt to distract from what you're really trying to do also does not work at all.
> 
> You continue to fail at defending the indefensible, you un-American scumbag.



You haven't shot anything down. For some reason you can't look at those times and see the danger this country was in. At the beginning of WWII, we didn't have a superior military or weapons over the enemy. The Japanese Internment was necessary. 

All you posts dissecting paragraphs and disputing each sentence just proves you are an ad hom idiot.


----------



## westwall

Dubya said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Repeating your failed arguments that have already been shot full of holes several times now is not going to make them any more valid, you dishonest fuck. Your little habit of dropping in unrelated and commonly-known bits of information in an attempt to distract from what you're really trying to do also does not work at all.
> 
> You continue to fail at defending the indefensible, you un-American scumbag.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't shot anything down. For some reason you can't look at those times and see the danger this country was in. At the beginning of WWII, we didn't have a superior military or weapons over the enemy. The Japanese Internment was necessary.
> 
> All you posts dissecting paragraphs and disputing each sentence just proves you are an ad hom idiot.
Click to expand...







Really?  Denying American citizens of their rights and placing them in concentration camps is OK?  Further, becausethey were unable to maintain their property it was stolen from them and they had to wait for a pittance payment from the government for nearly 40 years...that's A-OK with you is it?

Good to know Reinhard.  Good to know.


----------



## Dubya

westwall said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Repeating your failed arguments that have already been shot full of holes several times now is not going to make them any more valid, you dishonest fuck. Your little habit of dropping in unrelated and commonly-known bits of information in an attempt to distract from what you're really trying to do also does not work at all.
> 
> You continue to fail at defending the indefensible, you un-American scumbag.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't shot anything down. For some reason you can't look at those times and see the danger this country was in. At the beginning of WWII, we didn't have a superior military or weapons over the enemy. The Japanese Internment was necessary.
> 
> All you posts dissecting paragraphs and disputing each sentence just proves you are an ad hom idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Denying American citizens of their rights and placing them in concentration camps is OK?  Further, becausethey were unable to maintain their property it was stolen from them and they had to wait for a pittance payment from the government for nearly 40 years...that's A-OK with you is it?
> 
> Good to know Reinhard.  Good to know.
Click to expand...


If I was President, I'd order Japanese internment.


----------



## Unkotare

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's ridiculous to claim there weren't Japanese agents in Hawaii.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? What were their names?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> too stupid!!! Spies don't publish their names! I guess there were only German spies right????
Click to expand...



Yes, you are too stupid. Here are 33 German spies convicted in the US during WWII to start with:

File:Fbi duquesne spy ring members.gif - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

westwall said:


> Really?  Denying American citizens of their rights and placing them in concentration camps is OK?  .



Wiki:Even before the war, a large Nazi spy ring was found operating in the United States. The Duquesne Spy Ring is still the largest espionage case in United States history that ended in convictions. The 33 German agents who formed the Duquesne spy ring were placed in key jobs in the United States to get information that could be used in the event of war and to carry out acts of sabotage. One man opened a restaurant and used his position to get information from his customers; another worked on an airline so he could report Allied ships crossing the Atlantic Ocean; others in the ring worked as deliverymen so they could delive


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't shot anything down. For some reason you can't look at those times and see the danger this country was in. At the beginning of WWII, we didn't have a superior military or weapons over the enemy. The Japanese Internment was necessary.
> 
> All you posts dissecting paragraphs and disputing each sentence just proves you are an ad hom idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Denying American citizens of their rights and placing them in concentration camps is OK?  Further, becausethey were unable to maintain their property it was stolen from them and they had to wait for a pittance payment from the government for nearly 40 years...that's A-OK with you is it?
> 
> Good to know Reinhard.  Good to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I was President, I'd order Japanese internment.
Click to expand...




Fortunately, an ignorant, dimwitted, un-American scumbag like you would never become President.


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Repeating your failed arguments that have already been shot full of holes several times now is not going to make them any more valid, you dishonest fuck. Your little habit of dropping in unrelated and commonly-known bits of information in an attempt to distract from what you're really trying to do also does not work at all.
> 
> You continue to fail at defending the indefensible, you un-American scumbag.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't shot anything down.
Click to expand...




Every one of your false points has been shot down several times now, you dishonest fuck.


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> All you posts dissecting paragraphs and disputing each sentence just proves you are an ad hom [sic] idiot.




Here AGAIN you are trying to talk about something you don't understand.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Unkotare said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> All you posts dissecting paragraphs and disputing each sentence just proves you are an ad hom [sic] idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here AGAIN you are trying to talk about something you don't understand.
Click to expand...


Actually he does seem to understand the obvious, namely, it was perfectly sensible to assume Germans and Japanese had dual loyalities and were likely spies.


----------



## Unkotare

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> All you posts dissecting paragraphs and disputing each sentence just proves you are an ad hom [sic] idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here AGAIN you are trying to talk about something you don't understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually he does seem to understand the obvious, namely, it was perfectly sensible to assume Germans and Japanese had dual loyalities and were likely spies.
Click to expand...



You really are as dumb as a rock. Why don't you go back and read all your buddy's failed arguments so you don't have to sit here and repeat them all one by one?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Unkotare said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here AGAIN you are trying to talk about something you don't understand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually he does seem to understand the obvious, namely, it was perfectly sensible to assume Germans and Japanese had dual loyalities and were likely spies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You really are as dumb as a rock. Why don't you go back and read all your buddy's failed arguments so you don't have to sit here and repeat them all one by one?
Click to expand...


Wiki:Even before the war, a large Nazi spy ring was found operating in the United States. The Duquesne Spy Ring is still the largest espionage case in United States history that ended in convictions. The 33 German agents who formed the Duquesne spy ring were placed in key jobs in the United States to get information that could be used in the event of war and to carry out acts of sabotage. One man opened a restaurant and used his position to get information from his customers; another worked on an airline so he could report Allied ships crossing the Atlantic Ocean; others in the ring worked as deliverymen so they could delive


----------



## HUGGY

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually he does seem to understand the obvious, namely, it was perfectly sensible to assume Germans and Japanese had dual loyalities and were likely spies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really are as dumb as a rock. Why don't you go back and read all your buddy's failed arguments so you don't have to sit here and repeat them all one by one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wiki:Even before the war, a large Nazi spy ring was found operating in the United States. The Duquesne Spy Ring is still the largest espionage case in United States history that ended in convictions. The 33 German agents who formed the Duquesne spy ring were placed in key jobs in the United States to get information that could be used in the event of war and to carry out acts of sabotage. One man opened a restaurant and used his position to get information from his customers; another worked on an airline so he could report Allied ships crossing the Atlantic Ocean; others in the ring worked as deliverymen so they could delive
Click to expand...


That never happened because you are stupid!


----------



## Unkotare

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually he does seem to understand the obvious, namely, it was perfectly sensible to assume Germans and Japanese had dual loyalities and were likely spies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really are as dumb as a rock. Why don't you go back and read all your buddy's failed arguments so you don't have to sit here and repeat them all one by one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wiki:Even before the war, a large Nazi spy ring was found operating in the United States. The Duquesne Spy Ring is still the largest espionage case in United States history that ended in convictions. The 33 German agents who formed the Duquesne spy ring were placed in key jobs in the United States to get information that could be used in the event of war and to carry out acts of sabotage. One man opened a restaurant and used his position to get information from his customers; another worked on an airline so he could report Allied ships crossing the Atlantic Ocean; others in the ring worked as deliverymen so they could delive
Click to expand...




Yeah, I was the first to post that information on this thread, headcase. You really aren't doing your buddy any favors at this point. Go take your meds.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Unkotare said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really are as dumb as a rock. Why don't you go back and read all your buddy's failed arguments so you don't have to sit here and repeat them all one by one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wiki:Even before the war, a large Nazi spy ring was found operating in the United States. The Duquesne Spy Ring is still the largest espionage case in United States history that ended in convictions. The 33 German agents who formed the Duquesne spy ring were placed in key jobs in the United States to get information that could be used in the event of war and to carry out acts of sabotage. One man opened a restaurant and used his position to get information from his customers; another worked on an airline so he could report Allied ships crossing the Atlantic Ocean; others in the ring worked as deliverymen so they could delive
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I was the first to post that information on this thread, headcase. You really aren't doing your buddy any favors at this point. Go take your meds.
Click to expand...


Actually he does seem to understand the obvious, namely, it was perfectly sensible to assume Germans and Japanese had dual loyalities and were likely spies.

Also, the go take you meds insult is so original that 5 million people use it?? If you are oblivious to that what else are you oblivious too??


----------



## Unkotare

Ok, you're an idiot. Go play with a ball of yarn or something. 'Dubya' there is an un-American scumbag, but you are too stupid to even follow along with the discussion.


----------



## Bigfoot

Unkotare said:


> Ok, you're an idiot. Go play with a ball of yarn or something. 'Dubya' there is an un-American scumbag, but you are too stupid to even follow along with the discussion.



Banzai!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Unkotare said:


> Ok, you're an idiot. Go play with a ball of yarn or something. 'Dubya' there is an un-American scumbag, but you are too stupid to even follow along with the discussion.



Actually he does seem to understand the obvious, namely, it was perfectly sensible to assume Germans and Japanese had dual loyalities and were likely spies.


----------



## Unkotare

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, you're an idiot. Go play with a ball of yarn or something. 'Dubya' there is an un-American scumbag, but you are too stupid to even follow along with the discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually he does seem to understand the obvious, namely, it was perfectly sensible to assume Germans and Japanese had dual loyalities and were likely spies.
Click to expand...



................... 


Thanks for proving my point that you can't even follow along, headcase.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Unkotare said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, you're an idiot. Go play with a ball of yarn or something. 'Dubya' there is an un-American scumbag, but you are too stupid to even follow along with the discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually he does seem to understand the obvious, namely, it was perfectly sensible to assume Germans and Japanese had dual loyalities and were likely spies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ...................
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving my point that you can't even follow along, headcase.
Click to expand...


thanks for proving that you cant address the issue!! Do you think you're fooling anyone.

Why, you must be off your Meds!!!( wasn't that so clever???)


----------



## Unkotare

You don't even realize that you have been mixing up your own posts and 'dubya's' headcase.


----------



## Dubya

Unkotare said:


> You don't even realize that you have been mixing up your own posts and 'dubya's' headcase.



21,948 posts and not one of them worth reading!


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't even realize that you have been mixing up your own posts and 'dubya's' headcase.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 21,948 posts and not one of them worth reading!
Click to expand...



Not one of them the kind of un-American bullshit you've been trying to sell here, scumbag.


----------



## Dubya

Unkotare said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't even realize that you have been mixing up your own posts and 'dubya's' headcase.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 21,948 posts and not one of them worth reading!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not one of them the kind of un-American bullshit you've been trying to sell here, scumbag.
Click to expand...


Sure thing, Tokyo Rose!

Keep on pretending you're an American!


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 21,948 posts and not one of them worth reading!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not one of them the kind of un-American bullshit you've been trying to sell here, scumbag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure thing, Tokyo Rose!
> 
> Keep on pretending you're an American!
Click to expand...




I am an American, you piece of shit. YOU don't deserve to be allowed in my country even to visit.


----------



## Dubya

Unkotare said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not one of them the kind of un-American bullshit you've been trying to sell here, scumbag.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure thing, Tokyo Rose!
> 
> Keep on pretending you're an American!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am an American, you piece of shit. YOU don't deserve to be allowed in my country even to visit.
Click to expand...


Pack your ass over to Japan where you belong!


----------



## OODA_Loop

Dubya said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure thing, Tokyo Rose!
> 
> Keep on pretending you're an American!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am an American, you piece of shit. YOU don't deserve to be allowed in my country even to visit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Back your ass over to Japan where you belong!
Click to expand...


And here I thought Dubya calling me a n1gger was hateful.


----------



## Dubya

OODA_Loop said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am an American, you piece of shit. YOU don't deserve to be allowed in my country even to visit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Back your ass over to Japan where you belong!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And here I thought Dubya calling me a n1gger was hateful.
Click to expand...


Don't PM me, because you are too right-wing dumb to realize you PM yourself when I give you a neg!


----------



## OODA_Loop

Dubya said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back your ass over to Japan where you belong!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here I thought Dubya calling me a n1gger was hateful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't PM me, because you are too right-wing dumb to realize you PM yourself when I give you a neg!
Click to expand...


Yes your hate is not watered down by the retarded-ness or your pre-occupation with the anus.


----------



## Dubya

OODA_Loop said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> And here I thought Dubya calling me a n1gger was hateful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't PM me, because you are too right-wing dumb to realize you PM yourself when I give you a neg!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes your hate is not watered down by the retarded-ness or your pre-occupation with the anus.
Click to expand...


Either join the discussion of the subject or shut the fuck up! Can't you ever post something worth reading?


----------



## GuyPinestra

Dubya said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't PM me, because you are too right-wing dumb to realize you PM yourself when I give you a neg!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes your hate is not watered down by the retarded-ness or your pre-occupation with the anus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Either join the discussion of the subject or shut the fuck up! *Can't you ever post something worth reading?*
Click to expand...


You first!!


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure thing, Tokyo Rose!
> 
> Keep on pretending you're an American!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am an American, you piece of shit. YOU don't deserve to be allowed in my country even to visit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pack your ass over to Japan where you belong!
Click to expand...




That makes no sense, but since you're a fucking moron I guess rationality is not to be expected of you.


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> Can't you ever post something worth reading?





Look who's talking, you idiotic, un-American scumbag.


----------



## Lakhota

> Magazines holding more than 10 rounds were used in 31 of the 62 mass shootings we investigated.



"A Killing Machine": Half of All Mass Shooters Used High-Capacity Magazines | Mother Jones


----------



## GuyPinestra

Lakhota said:


> Magazines holding more than 10 rounds were used in 31 of the 62 mass shootings we investigated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "A Killing Machine": Half of All Mass Shooters Used High-Capacity Magazines | Mother Jones
Click to expand...


10+ shot magazines are STANDARD ISSUE for almost ALL semi-automatic handguns made, so your headline is MEANINGLESS.

Which puts it in the same class as all your other posts...


----------



## bigrebnc1775

GuyPinestra said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Magazines holding more than 10 rounds were used in 31 of the 62 mass shootings we investigated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "A Killing Machine": Half of All Mass Shooters Used High-Capacity Magazines | Mother Jones
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 10+ shot magazines are STANDARD ISSUE for almost ALL semi-automatic handguns made, so your headline is MEANINGLESS.
> 
> Which puts it in the same class as all your other posts...
Click to expand...


and the standard 30 round magazine is just that standard and not high capacity


----------



## Lakhota

bigrebnc1775 said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> "A Killing Machine": Half of All Mass Shooters Used High-Capacity Magazines | Mother Jones
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10+ shot magazines are STANDARD ISSUE for almost ALL semi-automatic handguns made, so your headline is MEANINGLESS.
> 
> Which puts it in the same class as all your other posts...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and the standard 30 round magazine is just that standard and not high capacity
Click to expand...


"Standard" by whose standards?  A 10-round magazine is more than sufficient - unless one is a very bad shot.  A good shotgun (pump or semi) helps compensate for poor marksmanship.


----------



## OODA_Loop

Lakhota said:


> A good shotgun (pump or semi) helps compensate for poor marksmanship.



Wrong.

The majority, most, people hit more accurately, readily and consistently with a properly equipped AR-15 than a shotgun.


----------



## Lakhota

OODA_Loop said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good shotgun (pump or semi) helps compensate for poor marksmanship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The majority, most, people hit more accurately, readily and consistently with a properly equipped AR-15 than a shotgun.
Click to expand...


"The majority"...?  Hardly.  In a panic situation at short distance (5-10 yards)?  I'll take a shotgun with 00 buckshot any day for home defense.


----------



## OODA_Loop

Lakhota said:


> "The majority"...?  Hardly.  In a panic situation at short distance (5-10 yards)?  I'll take a shotgun with 00 buckshot any day for home defense.



Right. Cause you are out of your lane.


----------



## Lakhota




----------



## Lakhota

10 Pro-Gun Myths, Shot Down | Mother Jones


----------



## Katzndogz

As the nation becomes more corrupt and communistic, not only is the second amendment obsolete but the whole constitution is inadequate.


----------



## skookerasbil

Lakhota said:


> [  A good shotgun (pump or semi) helps compensate for poor marksmanship.




Agree asshole...........so why ban the 30 round magazine?

Another of the thousands of daily examples depicting far lefties as mental cases.

The 2nd amendment isnt going away........ever s0n.


----------



## Dubya

OODA_Loop said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good shotgun (pump or semi) helps compensate for poor marksmanship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The majority, most, people hit more accurately, readily and consistently with a properly equipped AR-15 than a shotgun.
Click to expand...


I've owned an AR-15 and used an M-16 in the Marines. They aren't good weapons around a neighborhood. I shot a bullet from an AR-15 that went through two trees about 16 inches in diameter. The trees were getting plenty of moisture and amazingly the bullet continued in a straight line. It was a military surplus round though and I don't think they are presently available to the public. After the bullet exited the second tree, I couldn't find where it went, but I was surprised how it penetrated so much wood and didn't seem to deform. The holes in the second tree looked like the first. After that I stopped ever firing my AR-15 without a backstop, though the area I was shooting in was private property with a stream and natural backstop. Still, I couldn't know if someone was trespassing in that area, because it was too wooded.

The sound of an 870 is going to scare the piss out of someone and I think it's safer to have around than an 1100. Both are easy to load and don't penetrate to shoot your neighbor, like an AR-15 will. If you are that worried about a home invasion, get a big dog! Name your dog NRA, so you can be happy and the dog doesn't care what you call it, as long as you call.


----------



## Lakhota

Orrin Hatch: Gun Background Checks Could Destroy Liberty, Cause Persecution


----------



## Lakhota

skookerasbil said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> [  A good shotgun (pump or semi) helps compensate for poor marksmanship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agree asshole...........so why ban the 30 round magazine?
> 
> Another of the thousands of daily examples depicting far lefties as mental cases.
> 
> The 2nd amendment isnt going away........ever s0n.
Click to expand...


The 2nd Amendment is only a fossil.  It has been restricted several time and will again several more - until it is totally rewritten and replaced.


----------



## GuyPinestra

The 2nd Amendment will still be here long after you're gone, Lakhota...


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dubya said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't PM me, because you are too right-wing dumb to realize you PM yourself when I give you a neg!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes your hate is not watered down by the retarded-ness or your pre-occupation with the anus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Either join the discussion of the subject or shut the fuck up! Can't you ever post something worth reading?
Click to expand...


I assume we all now agree on the obvious, namely, it was perfectly sensible to assume Germans, Japanese, and Italians had dual loyalities and were potential spies??? And this is especially true given we we were  attacked by militaries much bigger than our own!


----------



## PaulS1950

Even IF we COULD agree that all Germans and Japanese had dual loyalties and were likely spies - which we do not - Individuals have to be tried and convicted before you can lock them up. If you don't do that you are using a "Law of Attainder" and it is unconstitutional.

What the US did to American citizens at the outbreak of WW II was unconstitutional and unconscianable. It was the second largest racial attack in our short history.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

PaulS1950 said:


> It was the second largest racial attack in our short history.





dear, Japanese Italians and Germans are not separate races!


----------



## PaulS1950

The slaves in the united states were not of a single race either.
Would the term ethnic fit your morality better?
Does it modify the constitutionality of the act?
Does that term make it easier to sooth the injustice of it?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

PaulS1950 said:


> The slaves in the united states were not of a single race either.
> Would the term ethnic fit your morality better?
> Does it modify the constitutionality of the act?
> Does that term make it easier to sooth the injustice of it?



dear, talking about injustice when you are under attack by armys far larger than yours is absurd and idiotic.


----------



## GuyPinestra

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was the second largest racial attack in our short history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dear, Japanese Italians and Germans are not separate races!
Click to expand...


Actually, none of us are, according to most anthropologists.

The minority of them claim there are 3 basic races on the planet; Mongoloid, Negroid and Caucasoid.

I believe Paul meant slavery against the Negroids and internment against the Mongoloids.

Ugly stuff...


----------



## PaulS1950

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The slaves in the united states were not of a single race either.
> Would the term ethnic fit your morality better?
> Does it modify the constitutionality of the act?
> Does that term make it easier to sooth the injustice of it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dear, talking about injustice when you are under attack by armys far larger than yours is absurd and idiotic.
Click to expand...


You are absolutely right!
That is expressly why we have the second amendment. We also have more people and more guns than the US military - which can't be used in civil police actions without breaking from the constitution. The "weekend warriors" of the national guard wouldn't be much of a challenge.


----------



## Dubya

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes your hate is not watered down by the retarded-ness or your pre-occupation with the anus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Either join the discussion of the subject or shut the fuck up! Can't you ever post something worth reading?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I assume we all now agree on the obvious, namely, it was perfectly sensible to assume Germans, Japanese, and Italians had dual loyalities and were potential spies??? And this is especially true given we we were  attacked by militaries much bigger than our own!
Click to expand...


I think this issue is only brought up for partisan reasons. If FDR was a Republican, probably we would support his decision and so would they. I think people on the far right believe they are contributing something to their cause by just hacking away at the opposition, while in fact they are demonstrating to the world, they have no judgment at all. They are their own worst enemy.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

PaulS1950 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The slaves in the united states were not of a single race either.
> Would the term ethnic fit your morality better?
> Does it modify the constitutionality of the act?
> Does that term make it easier to sooth the injustice of it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dear, talking about injustice when you are under attack by armys far larger than yours is absurd and idiotic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are absolutely right!
> That is expressly why we have the second amendment.
Click to expand...

Too stupid!! We have the second amendment because we were being attacked by armies larger than our????????????


]


----------



## Dubya

PaulS1950 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The slaves in the united states were not of a single race either.
> Would the term ethnic fit your morality better?
> Does it modify the constitutionality of the act?
> Does that term make it easier to sooth the injustice of it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dear, talking about injustice when you are under attack by armys far larger than yours is absurd and idiotic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are absolutely right!
> That is expressly why we have the second amendment. We also have more people and more guns than the US military - which can't be used in civil police actions without breaking from the constitution. The "weekend warriors" of the national guard wouldn't be much of a challenge.
Click to expand...


Some of those weekend warriors fly jets. Don't you remember Bush's draft dodging days?


----------



## westwall

Dubya said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good shotgun (pump or semi) helps compensate for poor marksmanship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The majority, most, people hit more accurately, readily and consistently with a properly equipped AR-15 than a shotgun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've owned an AR-15 and used an M-16 in the Marines. They aren't good weapons around a neighborhood. I shot a bullet from an AR-15 that went through two trees about 16 inches in diameter. The trees were getting plenty of moisture and amazingly the bullet continued in a straight line. It was a military surplus round though and I don't think they are presently available to the public. After the bullet exited the second tree, I couldn't find where it went, but I was surprised how it penetrated so much wood and didn't seem to deform. The holes in the second tree looked like the first. After that I stopped ever firing my AR-15 without a backstop, though the area I was shooting in was private property with a stream and natural backstop. Still, I couldn't know if someone was trespassing in that area, because it was too wooded.
> 
> The sound of an 870 is going to scare the piss out of someone and I think it's safer to have around than an 1100. Both are easy to load and don't penetrate to shoot your neighbor, like an AR-15 will. If you are that worried about a home invasion, get a big dog! Name your dog NRA, so you can be happy and the dog doesn't care what you call it, as long as you call.
Click to expand...






You are full of poo.  No 5.56X45 NATO (either the M855 OR the NATO SS 109, which are both SAP) round will penetrate a 16 inch diameter tree (except for maybe a balsa tree), much less two!   It is physically impossible.  99% of all civilian and 80% of all military rounds will break apart at the cannelure upon impact with anything and disintigrate.  That means they are relatively safe to use indoors in a defence situation (as safe as any high velocity projectile), those that don't break apart will still deform highly and turn sideways and stop in short order.

I agree a pump shotgun is better, but an AR is every bit as valid a defence weapon as any other no matter your BS political opinion.  The one time that SCOTUS has ruled on a NFA weapon they held that a sawed off shotgun could be controlled because it had "no forseeable military purpose".


----------



## westwall

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> dear, talking about injustice when you are under attack by armys far larger than yours is absurd and idiotic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are absolutely right!
> That is expressly why we have the second amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too stupid!! We have the second amendment because we were being attacked by armies larger than our????????????
> 
> 
> ]
Click to expand...








  A more ignorant post would be hard to comprehend but I'm sure dubya will come along and upstage you soon.


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> Either join the discussion of the subject or shut the fuck up! Can't you ever post something worth reading?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I assume we all now agree on the obvious, namely, it was perfectly sensible to assume Germans, Japanese, and Italians had dual loyalities and were potential spies??? And this is especially true given we we were  attacked by militaries much bigger than our own!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think this issue is only brought up for partisan reasons. If FDR was a Republican, probably we would support his decision and so would they. I think people on the far right believe they are contributing something to their cause by just hacking away at the opposition, while in fact they are demonstrating to the world, they have no judgment at all. They are their own worst enemy.
Click to expand...



Fuck that. FDR was a scumbag (like you) regardless of party. You've got it all ass-backwards again. YOU are so fucking hyperpartisan that you would go so far as to try (and fail) to defend the indefensible. You don't give a shit about this country and you don't give a shit about people - any people. The only thing you care about is your absurdly extreme partisanship. You're a fucking disgrace as a human being, and you're sure as hell NOT a real American.


----------



## Lakhota

NRA Publishes Enemies List With 506 Names | ThinkProgress


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Unkotare said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> I assume we all now agree on the obvious, namely, it was perfectly sensible to assume Germans, Japanese, and Italians had dual loyalities and were potential spies??? And this is especially true given we we were  attacked by militaries much bigger than our own!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think this issue is only brought up for partisan reasons. If FDR was a Republican, probably we would support his decision and so would they. I think people on the far right believe they are contributing something to their cause by just hacking away at the opposition, while in fact they are demonstrating to the world, they have no judgment at all. They are their own worst enemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck that. FDR was a scumbag (like you) regardless of party. You've got it all ass-backwards again. YOU are so fucking hyperpartisan that you would go so far as to try (and fail) to defend the indefensible. You don't give a shit about this country and you don't give a shit about people - any people. The only thing you care about is your absurdly extreme partisanship. You're a fucking disgrace as a human being, and you're sure as hell NOT a real American.
Click to expand...


I assume we all now agree on the obvious, namely, it was perfectly sensible to assume Germans, Japanese, and Italians had dual loyalities and were potential spies??? And this is especially true given we  were attacked by militaries much bigger than our own! Can you even imagine how scary that might be? Try it once and then report back about Constitutional niceities. The Commander-in-Chief gets to drop atomic bombs and burn up 100,000 human beings at a time, and certainly to worry about a few spies too.


----------



## Dubya

westwall said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The majority, most, people hit more accurately, readily and consistently with a properly equipped AR-15 than a shotgun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've owned an AR-15 and used an M-16 in the Marines. They aren't good weapons around a neighborhood. I shot a bullet from an AR-15 that went through two trees about 16 inches in diameter. The trees were getting plenty of moisture and amazingly the bullet continued in a straight line. It was a military surplus round though and I don't think they are presently available to the public. After the bullet exited the second tree, I couldn't find where it went, but I was surprised how it penetrated so much wood and didn't seem to deform. The holes in the second tree looked like the first. After that I stopped ever firing my AR-15 without a backstop, though the area I was shooting in was private property with a stream and natural backstop. Still, I couldn't know if someone was trespassing in that area, because it was too wooded.
> 
> The sound of an 870 is going to scare the piss out of someone and I think it's safer to have around than an 1100. Both are easy to load and don't penetrate to shoot your neighbor, like an AR-15 will. If you are that worried about a home invasion, get a big dog! Name your dog NRA, so you can be happy and the dog doesn't care what you call it, as long as you call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are full of poo.  No 5.56X45 NATO (either the M855 OR the NATO SS 109, which are both SAP) round will penetrate a 16 inch diameter tree (except for maybe a balsa tree), much less two!   It is physically impossible.  99% of all civilian and 80% of all military rounds will break apart at the cannelure upon impact with anything and disintigrate.  That means they are relatively safe to use indoors in a defence situation (as safe as any high velocity projectile), those that don't break apart will still deform highly and turn sideways and stop in short order.
> 
> I agree a pump shotgun is better, but an AR is every bit as valid a defence weapon as any other no matter your BS political opinion.  The one time that SCOTUS has ruled on a NFA weapon they held that a sawed off shotgun could be controlled because it had "no forseeable military purpose".
Click to expand...


I know what I saw, fool, and the trees probably were red maple of the swamp maple variety, not the onamental lawn variety. I was astonished and I didn't think it would penetrate even the first tree. It could be because the trees were getting plenty of water, but I wasn't that close to that stream and was on a slope going towards it. I also thought the bullet would start to tumble and there was no evidence of that happening. All four holes were the diameter of the bullet, though the back of the trees was busted out like an exit should be. 

What part of that round going right through a person and hitting another person is too hard to understand. Those NATO rounds were known to hit a bone and travel to weird places in a human body until exiting. You can get shot in the chest and have it come out your leg. I doubt if normal ammo is that bad, but those military rounds could do some weird shit and I have shot plenty of them. You could buy them for around $0.07 to $0.10 per round back then and the military surplus stores had plenty of rounds to sell. 

Shooting an AR-15 off in a populated area is not safe. That round will go right through the walls of a house like it's nothing and a shotgun projectile would slow down. Use aught or double-aught and not deer slugs. Use a large dog and a shotgun, if you truly need protection from a home invasion and remember you don't have to shoot someone, unless you really have to. The good dog would keep a home invasion from happening, so use your brain for a change.

What I see about right-wingers is always the same bullshit. Nothing is ever what it is, to a group of fools like you people. You're the Ritalin Republican Party.


----------



## PaulS1950

You know what happens when you ASSume?
Only I will not participate in your assumption.
It was nether sensible nor lawful to incarcerate whole populations based on potential, theoretical, imaginings that some MIGHT be spies.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

PaulS1950 said:


> You know what happens when you ASSume?
> Only I will not participate in your assumption.
> It was nether sensible nor lawful to incarcerate whole populations based on potential, theoretical, imaginings that some MIGHT be spies.



was it sensible to assume incinerating 100,000 at a time with the A bomb might encourage them to surrender and end a war that killed 60 million?? The CIC gets to make assumptions! Incarcerating a few 1000 was uber ultra trival in the scheme of things. Sorry to be 
the one to inform you.

did you know that many of the Italian chuches in the 1930's encouraged people to send their gold, including wedding rings, to Mussolini.


----------



## PaulS1950

The decision to use the atom bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a military decision against an enemy that was believed would continue fighting to the last man woman and child. That would have cost more enemy lives and the lives of our soldiers and provided the USSR with a big chunk of eastern asia. The bombs were dropped and the war ended and although they killed 105000 in the combined attacks (immediate deaths with about another 50000 deaths due to the effects of the radiation) it saved many more lives and left Asia untouched by the USSR at the end of the war.
The actions of men in time of war are rarely sensible and the only good that can come from it is its ending.


----------



## westwall

Dubya said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've owned an AR-15 and used an M-16 in the Marines. They aren't good weapons around a neighborhood. I shot a bullet from an AR-15 that went through two trees about 16 inches in diameter. The trees were getting plenty of moisture and amazingly the bullet continued in a straight line. It was a military surplus round though and I don't think they are presently available to the public. After the bullet exited the second tree, I couldn't find where it went, but I was surprised how it penetrated so much wood and didn't seem to deform. The holes in the second tree looked like the first. After that I stopped ever firing my AR-15 without a backstop, though the area I was shooting in was private property with a stream and natural backstop. Still, I couldn't know if someone was trespassing in that area, because it was too wooded.
> 
> The sound of an 870 is going to scare the piss out of someone and I think it's safer to have around than an 1100. Both are easy to load and don't penetrate to shoot your neighbor, like an AR-15 will. If you are that worried about a home invasion, get a big dog! Name your dog NRA, so you can be happy and the dog doesn't care what you call it, as long as you call.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are full of poo.  No 5.56X45 NATO (either the M855 OR the NATO SS 109, which are both SAP) round will penetrate a 16 inch diameter tree (except for maybe a balsa tree), much less two!   It is physically impossible.  99% of all civilian and 80% of all military rounds will break apart at the cannelure upon impact with anything and disintigrate.  That means they are relatively safe to use indoors in a defence situation (as safe as any high velocity projectile), those that don't break apart will still deform highly and turn sideways and stop in short order.
> 
> I agree a pump shotgun is better, but an AR is every bit as valid a defence weapon as any other no matter your BS political opinion.  The one time that SCOTUS has ruled on a NFA weapon they held that a sawed off shotgun could be controlled because it had "no forseeable military purpose".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know what I saw, fool, and the trees probably were red maple of the swamp maple variety, not the onamental lawn variety. I was astonished and I didn't think it would penetrate even the first tree. It could be because the trees were getting plenty of water, but I wasn't that close to that stream and was on a slope going towards it. I also thought the bullet would start to tumble and there was no evidence of that happening. All four holes were the diameter of the bullet, though the back of the trees was busted out like an exit should be.
> 
> What part of that round going right through a person and hitting another person is too hard to understand. Those NATO rounds were known to hit a bone and travel to weird places in a human body until exiting. You can get shot in the chest and have it come out your leg. I doubt if normal ammo is that bad, but those military rounds could do some weird shit and I have shot plenty of them. You could buy them for around $0.07 to $0.10 per round back then and the military surplus stores had plenty of rounds to sell.
> 
> Shooting an AR-15 off in a populated area is not safe. That round will go right through the walls of a house like it's nothing and a shotgun projectile would slow down. Use aught or double-aught and not deer slugs. Use a large dog and a shotgun, if you truly need protection from a home invasion and remember you don't have to shoot someone, unless you really have to. The good dog would keep a home invasion from happening, so use your brain for a change.
> 
> What I see about right-wingers is always the same bullshit. Nothing is ever what it is, to a group of fools like you people. You're the Ritalin Republican Party.
Click to expand...






You are full of poo as I said.  It is physically impossible for any 5.56 mm round to do what you described.


Here is just one of many tests showing the poor penetrative capability of 5.56 ammo.  As I said, you are a prevaricator of the first order and full of dung...


223 Rem. gelatin only 9.5" two pieces 

.223 Rem. wall & gelatin 5.5" * fragmented 

.40S&W gelatin only 13.5" mushroomed 

.40S&W wall & gelatin 22" * no deformation 

.40S&W wall & gelatin 22" * no deformation 

.40S&W wall & gelatin 19.5" * slight deformation 

12 ga. wall & gelatin 27.5" mushroomed 


Real World .223 Testing

The penetrative capabilities you are describing are for a 7.62X51 NATO round (and even there you are full of crap as they can't punch through two trees, but they can punch through one) and yes, that round will punch holes through several houses in a block before it stops.


----------



## Dubya

westwall said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are full of poo.  No 5.56X45 NATO (either the M855 OR the NATO SS 109, which are both SAP) round will penetrate a 16 inch diameter tree (except for maybe a balsa tree), much less two!   It is physically impossible.  99% of all civilian and 80% of all military rounds will break apart at the cannelure upon impact with anything and disintigrate.  That means they are relatively safe to use indoors in a defence situation (as safe as any high velocity projectile), those that don't break apart will still deform highly and turn sideways and stop in short order.
> 
> I agree a pump shotgun is better, but an AR is every bit as valid a defence weapon as any other no matter your BS political opinion.  The one time that SCOTUS has ruled on a NFA weapon they held that a sawed off shotgun could be controlled because it had "no forseeable military purpose".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know what I saw, fool, and the trees probably were red maple of the swamp maple variety, not the onamental lawn variety. I was astonished and I didn't think it would penetrate even the first tree. It could be because the trees were getting plenty of water, but I wasn't that close to that stream and was on a slope going towards it. I also thought the bullet would start to tumble and there was no evidence of that happening. All four holes were the diameter of the bullet, though the back of the trees was busted out like an exit should be.
> 
> What part of that round going right through a person and hitting another person is too hard to understand. Those NATO rounds were known to hit a bone and travel to weird places in a human body until exiting. You can get shot in the chest and have it come out your leg. I doubt if normal ammo is that bad, but those military rounds could do some weird shit and I have shot plenty of them. You could buy them for around $0.07 to $0.10 per round back then and the military surplus stores had plenty of rounds to sell.
> 
> Shooting an AR-15 off in a populated area is not safe. That round will go right through the walls of a house like it's nothing and a shotgun projectile would slow down. Use aught or double-aught and not deer slugs. Use a large dog and a shotgun, if you truly need protection from a home invasion and remember you don't have to shoot someone, unless you really have to. The good dog would keep a home invasion from happening, so use your brain for a change.
> 
> What I see about right-wingers is always the same bullshit. Nothing is ever what it is, to a group of fools like you people. You're the Ritalin Republican Party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are full of poo as I said.  It is physically impossible for any 5.56 mm round to do what you described.
> 
> 
> Here is just one of many tests showing the poor penetrative capability of 5.56 ammo.  As I said, you are a prevaricator of the first order and full of dung...
> 
> 
> 223 Rem. gelatin only 9.5" two pieces
> 
> .223 Rem. wall & gelatin 5.5" * fragmented
> 
> .40S&W gelatin only 13.5" mushroomed
> 
> .40S&W wall & gelatin 22" * no deformation
> 
> .40S&W wall & gelatin 22" * no deformation
> 
> .40S&W wall & gelatin 19.5" * slight deformation
> 
> 12 ga. wall & gelatin 27.5" mushroomed
> 
> 
> Real World .223 Testing
> 
> The penetrative capabilities you are describing are for a 7.62X51 NATO round (and even there you are full of crap as they can't punch through two trees, but they can punch through one) and yes, that round will punch holes through several houses in a block before it stops.
Click to expand...


Who gives a fuck what you believe? I know what I did and saw, dumbass. I also went through boot camp during the M-14 days and it's still my favorite long distance weapon without a scope.

Aren't you that guy who claims to be a geologist and doesn't know a damned thing about Geology? Why is it I've only had a few science courses required for a Geology degree and know more about the subject than you do?


----------



## westwall

Dubya said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know what I saw, fool, and the trees probably were red maple of the swamp maple variety, not the onamental lawn variety. I was astonished and I didn't think it would penetrate even the first tree. It could be because the trees were getting plenty of water, but I wasn't that close to that stream and was on a slope going towards it. I also thought the bullet would start to tumble and there was no evidence of that happening. All four holes were the diameter of the bullet, though the back of the trees was busted out like an exit should be.
> 
> What part of that round going right through a person and hitting another person is too hard to understand. Those NATO rounds were known to hit a bone and travel to weird places in a human body until exiting. You can get shot in the chest and have it come out your leg. I doubt if normal ammo is that bad, but those military rounds could do some weird shit and I have shot plenty of them. You could buy them for around $0.07 to $0.10 per round back then and the military surplus stores had plenty of rounds to sell.
> 
> Shooting an AR-15 off in a populated area is not safe. That round will go right through the walls of a house like it's nothing and a shotgun projectile would slow down. Use aught or double-aught and not deer slugs. Use a large dog and a shotgun, if you truly need protection from a home invasion and remember you don't have to shoot someone, unless you really have to. The good dog would keep a home invasion from happening, so use your brain for a change.
> 
> What I see about right-wingers is always the same bullshit. Nothing is ever what it is, to a group of fools like you people. You're the Ritalin Republican Party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are full of poo as I said.  It is physically impossible for any 5.56 mm round to do what you described.
> 
> 
> Here is just one of many tests showing the poor penetrative capability of 5.56 ammo.  As I said, you are a prevaricator of the first order and full of dung...
> 
> 
> 223 Rem. gelatin only 9.5" two pieces
> 
> .223 Rem. wall & gelatin 5.5" * fragmented
> 
> .40S&W gelatin only 13.5" mushroomed
> 
> .40S&W wall & gelatin 22" * no deformation
> 
> .40S&W wall & gelatin 22" * no deformation
> 
> .40S&W wall & gelatin 19.5" * slight deformation
> 
> 12 ga. wall & gelatin 27.5" mushroomed
> 
> 
> Real World .223 Testing
> 
> The penetrative capabilities you are describing are for a 7.62X51 NATO round (and even there you are full of crap as they can't punch through two trees, but they can punch through one) and yes, that round will punch holes through several houses in a block before it stops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who gives a fuck what you believe? I know what I did and saw, dumbass. I also went through boot camp during the M-14 days and it's still my favorite long distance weapon without a scope.
> 
> Aren't you that guy who claims to be a geologist and doesn't know a damned thing about Geology? Why is it I've only had a few science courses required for a Geology degree and know more about the subject than you do?
Click to expand...







It's not what I "believe" dumbshit.  No 5.56 round has the physical ability to do what you claim...PERIOD.  It is not a "belief"  It is a FACT!  Your drug addled "observations" are cute but they bear no resemblence to the physical world.

Yeah, insult me all you like (it's the only thing you seem capable of doing) but feel free to ask me any question you like in the geological realm.


Here's a simple one for you....I gave this as a test question to my second year students..

What is the general mechanism behind how an image plate detector records a diffraction event?


----------



## Dubya

westwall said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are full of poo as I said.  It is physically impossible for any 5.56 mm round to do what you described.
> 
> 
> Here is just one of many tests showing the poor penetrative capability of 5.56 ammo.  As I said, you are a prevaricator of the first order and full of dung...
> 
> 
> 223 Rem. gelatin only 9.5" two pieces
> 
> .223 Rem. wall & gelatin 5.5" * fragmented
> 
> .40S&W gelatin only 13.5" mushroomed
> 
> .40S&W wall & gelatin 22" * no deformation
> 
> .40S&W wall & gelatin 22" * no deformation
> 
> .40S&W wall & gelatin 19.5" * slight deformation
> 
> 12 ga. wall & gelatin 27.5" mushroomed
> 
> 
> Real World .223 Testing
> 
> The penetrative capabilities you are describing are for a 7.62X51 NATO round (and even there you are full of crap as they can't punch through two trees, but they can punch through one) and yes, that round will punch holes through several houses in a block before it stops.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who gives a fuck what you believe? I know what I did and saw, dumbass. I also went through boot camp during the M-14 days and it's still my favorite long distance weapon without a scope.
> 
> Aren't you that guy who claims to be a geologist and doesn't know a damned thing about Geology? Why is it I've only had a few science courses required for a Geology degree and know more about the subject than you do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not what I "believe" dumbshit.  No 5.56 round has the physical ability to do what you claim...PERIOD.  It is not a "belief"  It is a FACT!  Your drug addled "observations" are cute but they bear no resemblence to the physical world.
> 
> Yeah, insult me all you like (it's the only thing you seem capable of doing) but feel free to ask me any question you like in the geological realm.
> 
> 
> Here's a simple one for you....I gave this as a test question to my second year students..
> 
> What is the general mechanism behind how an image plate detector records a diffraction event?
Click to expand...


I know what I saw and the wood in those trees was moist inside. They could have been poplar, but it went through two trees and the bullet penetrated straight through. I found the second tree by following what I considered the straight path of the bullet and there it was. It was also weird, because the trees were a distance apart, maybe twenty feet, and they were both hit dead center and exited as such. My father-in-law grew up in a city and he wanted to build a pond where that stream was. He damned it up and created a large swampy area. To truly build a pond there he need a backhoe. He lost interest in it and I tore down his damn and channeled the swampy area, by digging and repeatedly damming up the water with a plywood dam to cut a channel. I cut channels all the way back to the many springs feeding the stream. After awhile, all I had do is walk it removing old limbs and the water was cutting the channels for me. That whole swampy area dried and started to spring up. It didn't take many years before large red maples were everywhere in that area and that's why I considered it may have been a red maple. Back in those days, I never paid much attention to the types of trees, but my in-laws were into the names of plants and my grandfather could give the name of about every weed under the sun, so I started picking up the names. 

I don't give a fuck what an idiot like you thinks, but that was the first and last time I ever used an AR-15 to shoot a tree. You're just a right-wing hacking troll, period.

When I was young, I had my choice of home defense weapons with a .45 M1911 auto, a Remington 870 shotgun and an AR-15. I considered the shotgun the best choice, even though the pistol will also back off someone and who could miss at that short range inside a house? It's possible to shot right through a person with an AR-15 and not possible with the other two weapons that have much more stopping power.


----------



## Unkotare

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think this issue is only brought up for partisan reasons. If FDR was a Republican, probably we would support his decision and so would they. I think people on the far right believe they are contributing something to their cause by just hacking away at the opposition, while in fact they are demonstrating to the world, they have no judgment at all. They are their own worst enemy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck that. FDR was a scumbag (like you) regardless of party. You've got it all ass-backwards again. YOU are so fucking hyperpartisan that you would go so far as to try (and fail) to defend the indefensible. You don't give a shit about this country and you don't give a shit about people - any people. The only thing you care about is your absurdly extreme partisanship. You're a fucking disgrace as a human being, and you're sure as hell NOT a real American.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I assume we all now agree on the obvious, namely, it was perfectly sensible to assume Germans, Japanese, and Italians had dual loyalities and were potential spies??? .
Click to expand...



What gives you the idea that "we all now agree" on anything based on the thread so far, you idiotic headcase? You and 'dubya' really are a couple of fucking morons.


----------



## Dubya

Unkotare said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck that. FDR was a scumbag (like you) regardless of party. You've got it all ass-backwards again. YOU are so fucking hyperpartisan that you would go so far as to try (and fail) to defend the indefensible. You don't give a shit about this country and you don't give a shit about people - any people. The only thing you care about is your absurdly extreme partisanship. You're a fucking disgrace as a human being, and you're sure as hell NOT a real American.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I assume we all now agree on the obvious, namely, it was perfectly sensible to assume Germans, Japanese, and Italians had dual loyalities and were potential spies??? .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What gives you the idea that "we all now agree" on anything based on the thread so far, you idiotic headcase? You and 'dubya' really are a couple of fucking morons.
Click to expand...


Sarcasm, fool!


----------



## Luddly Neddite




----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Unkotare said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck that. FDR was a scumbag (like you) regardless of party. You've got it all ass-backwards again. YOU are so fucking hyperpartisan that you would go so far as to try (and fail) to defend the indefensible. You don't give a shit about this country and you don't give a shit about people - any people. The only thing you care about is your absurdly extreme partisanship. You're a fucking disgrace as a human being, and you're sure as hell NOT a real American.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I assume we all now agree on the obvious, namely, it was perfectly sensible to assume Germans, Japanese, and Italians had dual loyalities and were potential spies??? .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What gives you the idea that "we all now agree" on anything based on the thread so far, you idiotic headcase? You and 'dubya' really are a couple of fucking morons.
Click to expand...


if you don't agree that Germans Japanese and Italians were potential spies please say why or admit you lack the IQ to do so.


----------



## Dubya

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> I assume we all now agree on the obvious, namely, it was perfectly sensible to assume Germans, Japanese, and Italians had dual loyalities and were potential spies??? .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What gives you the idea that "we all now agree" on anything based on the thread so far, you idiotic headcase? You and 'dubya' really are a couple of fucking morons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if you don't agree that Germans Japanese and Italians were potential spies please say why or admit you lack the IQ to do so.
Click to expand...


There are always ethnic ties that can encourage someone to spy, but consider this. If some country started to rival the US and had the same stupid views of some of these far right-wingers, it wouldn't be hard to get one of them to spy against America. The same can be said for an American communist or socialist or some Neo-Nazi type who was around during WWII. It isn't hard to get people who are dissatified with our government to spy against it. Some people will spy for money, but it's usually an issue of loyalty and ideology. All our enemies in WWII had the resources to create spies from people in their country that were familiar with the US. The only defense against spying was to deny them access to sensitive information that could aid the enemy.

Before Pearl Harbor, people like Charles Lindbergh did things that supported the Nazis and others supported fascism in Italy. Most were like Lindbergh and sided with their country when it went to war, but I'm sure all of them didn't. 

War is complex, but you don't need that many spies to screw things up, when they can focus on things vital to the war effort.


----------



## westwall

Dubya said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who gives a fuck what you believe? I know what I did and saw, dumbass. I also went through boot camp during the M-14 days and it's still my favorite long distance weapon without a scope.
> 
> Aren't you that guy who claims to be a geologist and doesn't know a damned thing about Geology? Why is it I've only had a few science courses required for a Geology degree and know more about the subject than you do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not what I "believe" dumbshit.  No 5.56 round has the physical ability to do what you claim...PERIOD.  It is not a "belief"  It is a FACT!  Your drug addled "observations" are cute but they bear no resemblence to the physical world.
> 
> Yeah, insult me all you like (it's the only thing you seem capable of doing) but feel free to ask me any question you like in the geological realm.
> 
> 
> Here's a simple one for you....I gave this as a test question to my second year students..
> 
> What is the general mechanism behind how an image plate detector records a diffraction event?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know what I saw and the wood in those trees was moist inside. They could have been poplar, but it went through two trees and the bullet penetrated straight through. I found the second tree by following what I considered the straight path of the bullet and there it was. It was also weird, because the trees were a distance apart, maybe twenty feet, and they were both hit dead center and exited as such. My father-in-law grew up in a city and he wanted to build a pond where that stream was. He damned it up and created a large swampy area. To truly build a pond there he need a backhoe. He lost interest in it and I tore down his damn and channeled the swampy area, by digging and repeatedly damming up the water with a plywood dam to cut a channel. I cut channels all the way back to the many springs feeding the stream. After awhile, all I had do is walk it removing old limbs and the water was cutting the channels for me. That whole swampy area dried and started to spring up. It didn't take many years before large red maples were everywhere in that area and that's why I considered it may have been a red maple. Back in those days, I never paid much attention to the types of trees, but my in-laws were into the names of plants and my grandfather could give the name of about every weed under the sun, so I started picking up the names.
> 
> I don't give a fuck what an idiot like you thinks, but that was the first and last time I ever used an AR-15 to shoot a tree. You're just a right-wing hacking troll, period.
> 
> When I was young, I had my choice of home defense weapons with a .45 M1911 auto, a Remington 870 shotgun and an AR-15. I considered the shotgun the best choice, even though the pistol will also back off someone and who could miss at that short range inside a house? It's possible to shot right through a person with an AR-15 and not possible with the other two weapons that have much more stopping power.
Click to expand...





What you "saw" is IMPOSSIBLE asshat.  You can lie all you want but people who own and shoot those types of rifles KNOW what they can and cannot do.  I own three of them and have shot tens of thousands of rounds through them.  What you claim you saw is IMPOSSIBLE.

Now take your lies elsewhere.


----------



## westwall

Dubya said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> What gives you the idea that "we all now agree" on anything based on the thread so far, you idiotic headcase? You and 'dubya' really are a couple of fucking morons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if you don't agree that Germans Japanese and Italians were potential spies please say why or admit you lack the IQ to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are always ethnic ties that can encourage someone to spy, but consider this. If some country started to rival the US and had the same stupid views of some of these far right-wingers, it wouldn't be hard to get one of them to spy against America. The same can be said for an American communist or socialist or some Neo-Nazi type who was around during WWII. It isn't hard to get people who are dissatified with our government to spy against it. Some people will spy for money, but it's usually an issue of loyalty and ideology. All our enemies in WWII had the resources to create spies from people in their country that were familiar with the US. The only defense against spying was to deny them access to sensitive information that could aid the enemy.
> 
> Before Pearl Harbor, people like Charles Lindbergh did things that supported the Nazis and others supported fascism in Italy. Most were like Lindbergh and sided with their country when it went to war, but I'm sure all of them didn't.
> 
> War is complex, but you don't need that many spies to screw things up, when they can focus on things vital to the war effort.
Click to expand...







That's funny.  Historical fact shows us it has allways been the LEFTIES who were the spies.

Once again you speak out of your sphincter.


----------



## Dubya

westwall said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not what I "believe" dumbshit.  No 5.56 round has the physical ability to do what you claim...PERIOD.  It is not a "belief"  It is a FACT!  Your drug addled "observations" are cute but they bear no resemblence to the physical world.
> 
> Yeah, insult me all you like (it's the only thing you seem capable of doing) but feel free to ask me any question you like in the geological realm.
> 
> 
> Here's a simple one for you....I gave this as a test question to my second year students..
> 
> What is the general mechanism behind how an image plate detector records a diffraction event?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know what I saw and the wood in those trees was moist inside. They could have been poplar, but it went through two trees and the bullet penetrated straight through. I found the second tree by following what I considered the straight path of the bullet and there it was. It was also weird, because the trees were a distance apart, maybe twenty feet, and they were both hit dead center and exited as such. My father-in-law grew up in a city and he wanted to build a pond where that stream was. He damned it up and created a large swampy area. To truly build a pond there he need a backhoe. He lost interest in it and I tore down his damn and channeled the swampy area, by digging and repeatedly damming up the water with a plywood dam to cut a channel. I cut channels all the way back to the many springs feeding the stream. After awhile, all I had do is walk it removing old limbs and the water was cutting the channels for me. That whole swampy area dried and started to spring up. It didn't take many years before large red maples were everywhere in that area and that's why I considered it may have been a red maple. Back in those days, I never paid much attention to the types of trees, but my in-laws were into the names of plants and my grandfather could give the name of about every weed under the sun, so I started picking up the names.
> 
> I don't give a fuck what an idiot like you thinks, but that was the first and last time I ever used an AR-15 to shoot a tree. You're just a right-wing hacking troll, period.
> 
> When I was young, I had my choice of home defense weapons with a .45 M1911 auto, a Remington 870 shotgun and an AR-15. I considered the shotgun the best choice, even though the pistol will also back off someone and who could miss at that short range inside a house? It's possible to shot right through a person with an AR-15 and not possible with the other two weapons that have much more stopping power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you "saw" is IMPOSSIBLE asshat.  You can lie all you want but people who own and shoot those types of rifles KNOW what they can and cannot do.  I own three of them and have shot tens of thousands of rounds through them.  What you claim you saw is IMPOSSIBLE.
> 
> Now take your lies elsewhere.
Click to expand...


What ammo were you using and when did you get it? Were you shooting trees? Fill in some details like why would someone would need three AR-15s? They aren't that great of a firearm and neither are the AK types.


----------



## Dubya

westwall said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you don't agree that Germans Japanese and Italians were potential spies please say why or admit you lack the IQ to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are always ethnic ties that can encourage someone to spy, but consider this. If some country started to rival the US and had the same stupid views of some of these far right-wingers, it wouldn't be hard to get one of them to spy against America. The same can be said for an American communist or socialist or some Neo-Nazi type who was around during WWII. It isn't hard to get people who are dissatified with our government to spy against it. Some people will spy for money, but it's usually an issue of loyalty and ideology. All our enemies in WWII had the resources to create spies from people in their country that were familiar with the US. The only defense against spying was to deny them access to sensitive information that could aid the enemy.
> 
> Before Pearl Harbor, people like Charles Lindbergh did things that supported the Nazis and others supported fascism in Italy. Most were like Lindbergh and sided with their country when it went to war, but I'm sure all of them didn't.
> 
> War is complex, but you don't need that many spies to screw things up, when they can focus on things vital to the war effort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's funny.  Historical fact shows us it has allways been the LEFTIES who were the spies.
> 
> Once again you speak out of your sphincter.
Click to expand...


You're one of them modern idiots who claim Nazis are left wing.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Dubya said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are always ethnic ties that can encourage someone to spy, but consider this. If some country started to rival the US and had the same stupid views of some of these far right-wingers, it wouldn't be hard to get one of them to spy against America. The same can be said for an American communist or socialist or some Neo-Nazi type who was around during WWII. It isn't hard to get people who are dissatified with our government to spy against it. Some people will spy for money, but it's usually an issue of loyalty and ideology. All our enemies in WWII had the resources to create spies from people in their country that were familiar with the US. The only defense against spying was to deny them access to sensitive information that could aid the enemy.
> 
> Before Pearl Harbor, people like Charles Lindbergh did things that supported the Nazis and others supported fascism in Italy. Most were like Lindbergh and sided with their country when it went to war, but I'm sure all of them didn't.
> 
> War is complex, but you don't need that many spies to screw things up, when they can focus on things vital to the war effort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's funny.  Historical fact shows us it has allways been the LEFTIES who were the spies.
> 
> Once again you speak out of your sphincter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're one of them modern idiots who claim Nazis are left wing.
Click to expand...


I bet you think the founders of American are the same as modern day liberals.


----------



## Dubya

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's funny.  Historical fact shows us it has allways been the LEFTIES who were the spies.
> 
> Once again you speak out of your sphincter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're one of them modern idiots who claim Nazis are left wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I bet you think the founders of American are the same as modern day liberals.
Click to expand...


Being wrong about things is like a career for you.

The Founders of America were a spectrum of people's ideologies. Their product was determined by vote.

I don't think many of them would support your irrational ways.


----------



## OODA_Loop

Dubya said:


> Fill in some details like why would someone would need three AR-15s?



 9mm

M4 Style Carbine

20in HBAR


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Dubya said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know what I saw and the wood in those trees was moist inside. They could have been poplar, but it went through two trees and the bullet penetrated straight through. I found the second tree by following what I considered the straight path of the bullet and there it was. It was also weird, because the trees were a distance apart, maybe twenty feet, and they were both hit dead center and exited as such. My father-in-law grew up in a city and he wanted to build a pond where that stream was. He damned it up and created a large swampy area. To truly build a pond there he need a backhoe. He lost interest in it and I tore down his damn and channeled the swampy area, by digging and repeatedly damming up the water with a plywood dam to cut a channel. I cut channels all the way back to the many springs feeding the stream. After awhile, all I had do is walk it removing old limbs and the water was cutting the channels for me. That whole swampy area dried and started to spring up. It didn't take many years before large red maples were everywhere in that area and that's why I considered it may have been a red maple. Back in those days, I never paid much attention to the types of trees, but my in-laws were into the names of plants and my grandfather could give the name of about every weed under the sun, so I started picking up the names.
> 
> I don't give a fuck what an idiot like you thinks, but that was the first and last time I ever used an AR-15 to shoot a tree. You're just a right-wing hacking troll, period.
> 
> When I was young, I had my choice of home defense weapons with a .45 M1911 auto, a Remington 870 shotgun and an AR-15. I considered the shotgun the best choice, even though the pistol will also back off someone and who could miss at that short range inside a house? It's possible to shot right through a person with an AR-15 and not possible with the other two weapons that have much more stopping power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you "saw" is IMPOSSIBLE asshat.  You can lie all you want but people who own and shoot those types of rifles KNOW what they can and cannot do.  I own three of them and have shot tens of thousands of rounds through them.  What you claim you saw is IMPOSSIBLE.
> 
> Now take your lies elsewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What ammo were you using and when did you get it? Were you shooting trees? Fill in some details like why would someone would need three AR-15s? They aren't that great of a firearm and neither are the AK types.
Click to expand...


Dude you have no knowledge on the subject
the AK platform goes all the way back to 1949 and still is the main battle rifle of a large portion of country's They are tough and are not fussy rifles. An AK may not be a tack driver, because it doesn't have too when it can knock a block wall down. It is one of the best firearms out their.
and now that it comes in many calibers makes it an even better firearm.


----------



## Dubya

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you "saw" is IMPOSSIBLE asshat.  You can lie all you want but people who own and shoot those types of rifles KNOW what they can and cannot do.  I own three of them and have shot tens of thousands of rounds through them.  What you claim you saw is IMPOSSIBLE.
> 
> Now take your lies elsewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What ammo were you using and when did you get it? Were you shooting trees? Fill in some details like why would someone would need three AR-15s? They aren't that great of a firearm and neither are the AK types.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude you have no knowledge on the subject
> the AK platform goes all the way back to 1949 and still is the main battle rifle of a large portion of country's They are tough and are not fussy rifles. An AK may not be a tack driver, because it doesn't have too when it can knock a block wall down. It is one of the best firearms out their.
> and now that it comes in many calibers makes it an even better firearm.
Click to expand...


My brother bought 5 AK type weapons before the assault weapons ban and I've held all of them. 

AKs are weapons designed to be easily made. It's a cheap revolutionary's weapon.


----------



## westwall

Dubya said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know what I saw and the wood in those trees was moist inside. They could have been poplar, but it went through two trees and the bullet penetrated straight through. I found the second tree by following what I considered the straight path of the bullet and there it was. It was also weird, because the trees were a distance apart, maybe twenty feet, and they were both hit dead center and exited as such. My father-in-law grew up in a city and he wanted to build a pond where that stream was. He damned it up and created a large swampy area. To truly build a pond there he need a backhoe. He lost interest in it and I tore down his damn and channeled the swampy area, by digging and repeatedly damming up the water with a plywood dam to cut a channel. I cut channels all the way back to the many springs feeding the stream. After awhile, all I had do is walk it removing old limbs and the water was cutting the channels for me. That whole swampy area dried and started to spring up. It didn't take many years before large red maples were everywhere in that area and that's why I considered it may have been a red maple. Back in those days, I never paid much attention to the types of trees, but my in-laws were into the names of plants and my grandfather could give the name of about every weed under the sun, so I started picking up the names.
> 
> I don't give a fuck what an idiot like you thinks, but that was the first and last time I ever used an AR-15 to shoot a tree. You're just a right-wing hacking troll, period.
> 
> When I was young, I had my choice of home defense weapons with a .45 M1911 auto, a Remington 870 shotgun and an AR-15. I considered the shotgun the best choice, even though the pistol will also back off someone and who could miss at that short range inside a house? It's possible to shot right through a person with an AR-15 and not possible with the other two weapons that have much more stopping power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you "saw" is IMPOSSIBLE asshat.  You can lie all you want but people who own and shoot those types of rifles KNOW what they can and cannot do.  I own three of them and have shot tens of thousands of rounds through them.  What you claim you saw is IMPOSSIBLE.
> 
> Now take your lies elsewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What ammo were you using and when did you get it? Were you shooting trees? Fill in some details like why would someone would need three AR-15s? They aren't that great of a firearm and neither are the AK types.
Click to expand...







I use everything from the M193 Ball all the way up to 80 grain VLD cartridges that I load myself.  I have an original AR-15 Model 614 that would probably buy your car.  I have a CQB setup and I have a night vision set up if you must know.  I also own a few HK's an FN, an AK and AR-18.  I have a lot of guns that I play with and the local law enforcement use some of them for training purposes as well.

I am a certified expert witness in all aspects of firearm safety and in their operation.  It's been a hobby for a very long time and I even held a Title II manufacturing license for over a decade.

In other words I know more about firearms (and the courts believe I do as well) than you ever will.


----------



## westwall

Dubya said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are always ethnic ties that can encourage someone to spy, but consider this. If some country started to rival the US and had the same stupid views of some of these far right-wingers, it wouldn't be hard to get one of them to spy against America. The same can be said for an American communist or socialist or some Neo-Nazi type who was around during WWII. It isn't hard to get people who are dissatified with our government to spy against it. Some people will spy for money, but it's usually an issue of loyalty and ideology. All our enemies in WWII had the resources to create spies from people in their country that were familiar with the US. The only defense against spying was to deny them access to sensitive information that could aid the enemy.
> 
> Before Pearl Harbor, people like Charles Lindbergh did things that supported the Nazis and others supported fascism in Italy. Most were like Lindbergh and sided with their country when it went to war, but I'm sure all of them didn't.
> 
> War is complex, but you don't need that many spies to screw things up, when they can focus on things vital to the war effort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's funny.  Historical fact shows us it has allways been the LEFTIES who were the spies.
> 
> Once again you speak out of your sphincter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're one of them modern idiots who claim Nazis are left wing.
Click to expand...







Uhhhh 'cause that's what they are stupid.  Left wingers are collectivists, rightwingers are individualists.  It's only Fabian Socialists who have tried to make dumbasses like you believe there is a difference between a communist totalitarian and a fascist totalitarian.


----------



## westwall

Dubya said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> What ammo were you using and when did you get it? Were you shooting trees? Fill in some details like why would someone would need three AR-15s? They aren't that great of a firearm and neither are the AK types.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude you have no knowledge on the subject
> the AK platform goes all the way back to 1949 and still is the main battle rifle of a large portion of country's They are tough and are not fussy rifles. An AK may not be a tack driver, because it doesn't have too when it can knock a block wall down. It is one of the best firearms out their.
> and now that it comes in many calibers makes it an even better firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My brother bought 5 AK type weapons before the assault weapons ban and I've held all of them.
> 
> AKs are weapons designed to be easily made. It's a cheap revolutionary's weapon.
Click to expand...







Ooooooooh you've held five whole AK's....big fucking deal.  The AK is derived from the MP 43/44, STG44 series of assault rifles designed by the Germans during WWII.  And yes, they were designed to be fast to produce.

All modern stamped metal and welded construction weapons are designed to be easy to produce.  The HK production line was popping out a G3 every 4 minutes when they were at full production during Desert Storm.

AK's equip the field armies of over 80 armies and somewhere between 70 and 100 MILLION of them have been made throughout the years..... so it is much more than a cheap revolutionaries weapon dipshit.


----------



## Unkotare

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> I assume we all now agree on the obvious, namely, it was perfectly sensible to assume Germans, Japanese, and Italians had dual loyalities and were potential spies??? .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What gives you the idea that "we all now agree" on anything based on the thread so far, you idiotic headcase? You and 'dubya' really are a couple of fucking morons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if you don't agree that Germans Japanese and Italians were potential spies please say why or admit you lack the IQ to do so.
Click to expand...




_Everyone_ is a potential spy, headcase. The only _actual_ spy you came up with was some white guy from Maryland, which makes more sense if you think about it. Oh wait, 'think about it' would be impossible for a mental defect like you.


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> If some country started to rival the US and had the same stupid views of some of these far right-wingers, it wouldn't be hard to get one of them to spy against America.





YOU, of all people, have the gall to say something about this? After you have proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that you are completely and shamelessly un-American? You fucking hypocrite.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Dubya said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> What ammo were you using and when did you get it? Were you shooting trees? Fill in some details like why would someone would need three AR-15s? They aren't that great of a firearm and neither are the AK types.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude you have no knowledge on the subject
> the AK platform goes all the way back to 1949 and still is the main battle rifle of a large portion of country's They are tough and are not fussy rifles. An AK may not be a tack driver, because it doesn't have too when it can knock a block wall down. It is one of the best firearms out their.
> and now that it comes in many calibers makes it an even better firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My brother bought 5 AK type weapons before the assault weapons ban and I've held all of them.
> 
> AKs are weapons designed to be easily made. It's a cheap revolutionary's weapon.
Click to expand...


Just because your brother bought 5 doesn't mean you or him knows jack shit about the firearm. At least using what you post as an example you don't know anything about the firearm.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Dubya said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're one of them modern idiots who claim Nazis are left wing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I bet you think the founders of American are the same as modern day liberals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being wrong about things is like a career for you.
> 
> The Founders of America were a spectrum of people's ideologies. Their product was determined by vote.
> 
> I don't think many of them would support your irrational ways.
Click to expand...


great non answer let's try it again
I bet you think the founders of American are the same as modern day liberals?


----------



## Dubya

westwall said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude you have no knowledge on the subject
> the AK platform goes all the way back to 1949 and still is the main battle rifle of a large portion of country's They are tough and are not fussy rifles. An AK may not be a tack driver, because it doesn't have too when it can knock a block wall down. It is one of the best firearms out their.
> and now that it comes in many calibers makes it an even better firearm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My brother bought 5 AK type weapons before the assault weapons ban and I've held all of them.
> 
> AKs are weapons designed to be easily made. It's a cheap revolutionary's weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ooooooooh you've held five whole AK's....big fucking deal.  The AK is derived from the MP 43/44, STG44 series of assault rifles designed by the Germans during WWII.  And yes, they were designed to be fast to produce.
> 
> All modern stamped metal and welded construction weapons are designed to be easy to produce.  The HK production line was popping out a G3 every 4 minutes when they were at full production during Desert Storm.
> 
> AK's equip the field armies of over 80 armies and somewhere between 70 and 100 MILLION of them have been made throughout the years..... so it is much more than a cheap revolutionaries weapon dipshit.
Click to expand...


Even weapons built with the most exacting tolerances have some weapons better than others. AK types are just a cheap weapon made to easily arm the military.


----------



## Dubya

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude you have no knowledge on the subject
> the AK platform goes all the way back to 1949 and still is the main battle rifle of a large portion of country's They are tough and are not fussy rifles. An AK may not be a tack driver, because it doesn't have too when it can knock a block wall down. It is one of the best firearms out their.
> and now that it comes in many calibers makes it an even better firearm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My brother bought 5 AK type weapons before the assault weapons ban and I've held all of them.
> 
> AKs are weapons designed to be easily made. It's a cheap revolutionary's weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because your brother bought 5 doesn't mean you or him knows jack shit about the firearm. At least using what you post as an example you don't know anything about the firearm.
Click to expand...


A weapon made from sheet metal isn't impressive.


----------



## Dubya

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I bet you think the founders of American are the same as modern day liberals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being wrong about things is like a career for you.
> 
> The Founders of America were a spectrum of people's ideologies. Their product was determined by vote.
> 
> I don't think many of them would support your irrational ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> great non answer let's try it again
> I bet you think the founders of American are the same as modern day liberals?
Click to expand...


People who claim the Founders of America and not American, which you have said twice, are anything other than a diverse group of people are stupid. They never had a monolithic position that an ideology could claim.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Dubya said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being wrong about things is like a career for you.
> 
> The Founders of America were a spectrum of people's ideologies. Their product was determined by vote.
> 
> I don't think many of them would support your irrational ways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> great non answer let's try it again
> I bet you think the founders of American are the same as modern day liberals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People who claim the Founders of America and not American, which you have said twice, are anything other than a diverse group of people are stupid. They never had a monolithic position that an ideology could claim.
Click to expand...


OH excuse, still using a non answer?


Have you ever heard of a Constitutionalist?
Now shit stain let's try this once again

I bet you think the founders of America are the same as modern day liberals?
Yes or No.


----------



## OODA_Loop

Dubya said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> My brother bought 5 AK type weapons before the assault weapons ban and I've held all of them.
> 
> AKs are weapons designed to be easily made. It's a cheap revolutionary's weapon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because your brother bought 5 doesn't mean you or him knows jack shit about the firearm. At least using what you post as an example you don't know anything about the firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A weapon made from sheet metal isn't impressive.
Click to expand...


The original Russian AK47 and many other variants were / are not made from sheet metal.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Dubya said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> My brother bought 5 AK type weapons before the assault weapons ban and I've held all of them.
> 
> AKs are weapons designed to be easily made. It's a cheap revolutionary's weapon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because your brother bought 5 doesn't mean you or him knows jack shit about the firearm. At least using what you post as an example you don't know anything about the firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A weapon made from sheet metal isn't impressive.
Click to expand...


For a firearm that has been used in combat in some of the worse regions on the planet since 1949 I would say it's impressive.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

OODA_Loop said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because your brother bought 5 doesn't mean you or him knows jack shit about the firearm. At least using what you post as an example you don't know anything about the firearm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A weapon made from sheet metal isn't impressive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The original Russian AK47 and many other variants were / are not made from sheet metal.
Click to expand...


let him go with that stupid argument.


----------



## GuyPinestra

I'm amazed at how proudly the gun grabbers display their abject ignorance...

Priceless!!


----------



## Dubya

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> great non answer let's try it again
> I bet you think the founders of American are the same as modern day liberals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People who claim the Founders of America and not American, which you have said twice, are anything other than a diverse group of people are stupid. They never had a monolithic position that an ideology could claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OH excuse, still using a non answer?
> 
> 
> Have you ever heard of a Constitutionalist?
> Now shit stain let's try this once again
> 
> I bet you think the founders of America are the same as modern day liberals?
> Yes or No.
Click to expand...


Let's try this one more time!

Fuck you!


----------



## Dubya

OODA_Loop said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because your brother bought 5 doesn't mean you or him knows jack shit about the firearm. At least using what you post as an example you don't know anything about the firearm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A weapon made from sheet metal isn't impressive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The original Russian AK47 and many other variants were / are not made from sheet metal.
Click to expand...


All the ones I've seen have sheet metal parts.


----------



## OODA_Loop

Dubya said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> A weapon made from sheet metal isn't impressive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The original Russian AK47 and many other variants were / are not made from sheet metal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the ones I've seen have sheet metal parts.
Click to expand...


Yet another case of you not being in your lane or knowing what you are talking about.

The AK47 was designed, first constructed and many still use a milled receiver from a solid billet.


----------



## Dubya

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because your brother bought 5 doesn't mean you or him knows jack shit about the firearm. At least using what you post as an example you don't know anything about the firearm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A weapon made from sheet metal isn't impressive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For a firearm that has been used in combat in some of the worse regions on the planet since 1949 I would say it's impressive.
Click to expand...


You are obviously stupid and not a good judge of firearms and probably more impressed by the look of the weapon. The AK types have two obvious limitations. It could be used for hunting at a limited range and it's real purpose is combat, but there are much better weapons to use for hunting and combat. If you want to cheaply arm a mass assault, like a human wave, the AK will work. The problem is, that tactic in modern warfare only gets a bunch of people killed. The AK is a great weapon for a bunch of revolutionaries wanting to die for their cause, but it isn't a good weapon for a modern military wanting the enemy to die for their cause. 

At 700 yards, give me an M-14 and at very long distances, I'll take the Stoner. I can use both those weapons for hunting with the proper ammo and both in war. At close quarters in war, the M-16 is a better choice, but it isn't good for hunting. 

For home defense, a shotgun is the best choice and it can be used for hunting. I had both an 18 inch and 30 inch barrel for my shotgun. Now, you can play with a shotgun in target practice, but there really isn't much challenge beyond timing how fast you can shoot targets or shooting trap or skeet. My state only allows deer hunting by shotgun and bow. I was very good with a bow, but I think it's stupid to hunt with one. If you want to hunt, you should train with a weapon to the point where you can assassinate the animal. You're not going to find me hunting deer with a shotgun in my state. 

I've actually had the pleasure once to walk through a herd a deer in the woods that took about 5 minute for them all to pass by. As they came right up to me, they would see me and pass by my side. They didn't appear frightened, but the other deer blocked their view until they were right in front of me. The deer were in a slow run through the woods. This happened on a military base that didn't allow hunting and there were hugh herds of deer on that base. The deer had no fear, just like the sparrows at boot camp would walk between the legs of Marines standing in line. 

I've been around large herds of deer on family farms large enough to kill them without an out of state license, but I don't like venison and I've had it prepared by experts at butchering it. I've had cheese steaks made of venison and they were good, but I'd rather have the beef. If I need the food, I'd shoot a deer, but I don't need the food. 

I've had my time at the target range, I don't need a gun for self-defense and I don't hunt, so I have no use for a gun and have zero probability of an accident, if there isn't a gun around. It made sense to me to give the guns away long ago to someone who could use them, when I had children growing up.


----------



## Dubya

OODA_Loop said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> The original Russian AK47 and many other variants were / are not made from sheet metal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All the ones I've seen have sheet metal parts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet another case of you not being in your lane or knowing what you are talking about.
> 
> The AK47 was designed, first constructed and many still use a milled receiver from a solid billet.
Click to expand...


I've seen how hard it it to make an AK-47 in a crude shop along the border of Pakistan with Afghanistan. The only thing you can say about it is, it shoots and it's easy to get the ammo.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Dubya said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> A weapon made from sheet metal isn't impressive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For a firearm that has been used in combat in some of the worse regions on the planet since 1949 I would say it's impressive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are obviously stupid and not a good judge of firearms and probably more impressed by the look of the weapon. The AK types have two obvious limitations. It could be used for hunting at a limited range and it's real purpose is combat, but there are much better weapons to use for hunting and combat. If you want to cheaply arm a mass assault, like a human wave, the AK will work. The problem is, that tactic in modern warfare only gets a bunch of people killed. The AK is a great weapon for a bunch of revolutionaries wanting to die for their cause, but it isn't a good weapon for a modern military wanting the enemy to die for their cause.
> 
> At 700 yards, give me an M-14 and at very long distances, I'll take the Stoner. I can use both those weapons for hunting with the proper ammo and both in war. At close quarters in war, the M-16 is a better choice, but it isn't good for hunting.
> 
> For home defense, a shotgun is the best choice and it can be used for hunting. I had both an 18 inch and 30 inch barrel for my shotgun. Now, you can play with a shotgun in target practice, but there really isn't much challenge beyond timing how fast you can shoot targets or shooting trap or skeet. My state only allows deer hunting by shotgun and bow. I was very good with a bow, but I think it's stupid to hunt with one. If you want to hunt, you should train with a weapon to the point where you can assassinate the animal. You're not going to find me hunting deer with a shotgun in my state.
> 
> I've actually had the pleasure once to walk through a herd a deer in the woods that took about 5 minute for them all to pass by. As they came right up to me, they would see me and pass by my side. They didn't appear frightened, but the other deer blocked their view until they were right in front of me. The deer were in a slow run through the woods. This happened on a military base that didn't allow hunting and there were hugh herds of deer on that base. The deer had no fear, just like the sparrows at boot camp would walk between the legs of Marines standing in line.
> 
> I've been around large herds of deer on family farms large enough to kill them without an out of state license, but I don't like venison and I've had it prepared by experts at butchering it. I've had cheese steaks made of venison and they were good, but I'd rather have the beef. If I need the food, I'd shoot a deer, but I don't need the food.
> 
> I've had my time at the target range, I don't need a gun for self-defense and I don't hunt, so I have no use for a gun and have zero probability of an accident, if there isn't a gun around. It made sense to me to give the guns away long ago to someone who could use them, when I had children growing up.
Click to expand...


Son listen this is the master speaking with you, you are clueless about the AK variant Rifle


----------



## westwall

Dubya said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> A weapon made from sheet metal isn't impressive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For a firearm that has been used in combat in some of the worse regions on the planet since 1949 I would say it's impressive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are obviously stupid and not a good judge of firearms and probably more impressed by the look of the weapon. The AK types have two obvious limitations. It could be used for hunting at a limited range and it's real purpose is combat, but there are much better weapons to use for hunting and combat. If you want to cheaply arm a mass assault, like a human wave, the AK will work. The problem is, that tactic in modern warfare only gets a bunch of people killed. The AK is a great weapon for a bunch of revolutionaries wanting to die for their cause, but it isn't a good weapon for a modern military wanting the enemy to die for their cause.
> 
> At 700 yards, give me an M-14 and at very long distances, I'll take the Stoner. I can use both those weapons for hunting with the proper ammo and both in war. At close quarters in war, the M-16 is a better choice, but it isn't good for hunting.
> 
> For home defense, a shotgun is the best choice and it can be used for hunting. I had both an 18 inch and 30 inch barrel for my shotgun. Now, you can play with a shotgun in target practice, but there really isn't much challenge beyond timing how fast you can shoot targets or shooting trap or skeet. My state only allows deer hunting by shotgun and bow. I was very good with a bow, but I think it's stupid to hunt with one. If you want to hunt, you should train with a weapon to the point where you can assassinate the animal. You're not going to find me hunting deer with a shotgun in my state.
> 
> I've actually had the pleasure once to walk through a herd a deer in the woods that took about 5 minute for them all to pass by. As they came right up to me, they would see me and pass by my side. They didn't appear frightened, but the other deer blocked their view until they were right in front of me. The deer were in a slow run through the woods. This happened on a military base that didn't allow hunting and there were hugh herds of deer on that base. The deer had no fear, just like the sparrows at boot camp would walk between the legs of Marines standing in line.
> 
> I've been around large herds of deer on family farms large enough to kill them without an out of state license, but I don't like venison and I've had it prepared by experts at butchering it. I've had cheese steaks made of venison and they were good, but I'd rather have the beef. If I need the food, I'd shoot a deer, but I don't need the food.
> 
> I've had my time at the target range, I don't need a gun for self-defense and I don't hunt, so I have no use for a gun and have zero probability of an accident, if there isn't a gun around. It made sense to me to give the guns away long ago to someone who could use them, when I had children growing up.
Click to expand...







  What a clown.  You clearly don't know shit about any firearm.  The M-14 is a modified M1 Garand.  The FAL and the G3 are MILES ahead of the M14 in accuracy, reliability, ease of maintenance, and ease of repair when needed.  The M14 was obsolete when it was adopted.

I have deer that live on my property so I see them every damned day.  

And once again, the 2nd is not about hunting, no matter how much you idiots like to claim it is.  It is about being able to defend ones self from an iligitimate government.

As one of the founders stated..."it is oftimes neccessary for the tree of liberty to be nourished by the blood of tyrants and patriots".

You are an asshat of the first order with ZERO knowledge of what you speak.  In other words you are the typical lib troll.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

westwall said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> For a firearm that has been used in combat in some of the worse regions on the planet since 1949 I would say it's impressive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are obviously stupid and not a good judge of firearms and probably more impressed by the look of the weapon. The AK types have two obvious limitations. It could be used for hunting at a limited range and it's real purpose is combat, but there are much better weapons to use for hunting and combat. If you want to cheaply arm a mass assault, like a human wave, the AK will work. The problem is, that tactic in modern warfare only gets a bunch of people killed. The AK is a great weapon for a bunch of revolutionaries wanting to die for their cause, but it isn't a good weapon for a modern military wanting the enemy to die for their cause.
> 
> At 700 yards, give me an M-14 and at very long distances, I'll take the Stoner. I can use both those weapons for hunting with the proper ammo and both in war. At close quarters in war, the M-16 is a better choice, but it isn't good for hunting.
> 
> For home defense, a shotgun is the best choice and it can be used for hunting. I had both an 18 inch and 30 inch barrel for my shotgun. Now, you can play with a shotgun in target practice, but there really isn't much challenge beyond timing how fast you can shoot targets or shooting trap or skeet. My state only allows deer hunting by shotgun and bow. I was very good with a bow, but I think it's stupid to hunt with one. If you want to hunt, you should train with a weapon to the point where you can assassinate the animal. You're not going to find me hunting deer with a shotgun in my state.
> 
> I've actually had the pleasure once to walk through a herd a deer in the woods that took about 5 minute for them all to pass by. As they came right up to me, they would see me and pass by my side. They didn't appear frightened, but the other deer blocked their view until they were right in front of me. The deer were in a slow run through the woods. This happened on a military base that didn't allow hunting and there were hugh herds of deer on that base. The deer had no fear, just like the sparrows at boot camp would walk between the legs of Marines standing in line.
> 
> I've been around large herds of deer on family farms large enough to kill them without an out of state license, but I don't like venison and I've had it prepared by experts at butchering it. I've had cheese steaks made of venison and they were good, but I'd rather have the beef. If I need the food, I'd shoot a deer, but I don't need the food.
> 
> I've had my time at the target range, I don't need a gun for self-defense and I don't hunt, so I have no use for a gun and have zero probability of an accident, if there isn't a gun around. It made sense to me to give the guns away long ago to someone who could use them, when I had children growing up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a clown.  You clearly don't know shit about any firearm.  The M-14 is a modified M1 Garand.  The FAL and the G3 are MILES ahead of the M14 in accuracy, reliability, ease of maintenance, and ease of repair when needed.  The M14 was obsolete when it was adopted.
> 
> I have deer that live on my property so I see them every damned day.
> 
> And once again, the 2nd is not about hunting, no matter how much you idiots like to claim it is.  It is about being able to defend ones self from an iligitimate government.
> 
> As one of the founders stated..."it is oftimes neccessary for the tree of liberty to be nourished by the blood of tyrants and patriots".
> 
> You are an asshat of the first order with ZERO knowledge of what you speak.  In other words you are the typical lib troll.
Click to expand...


Well to be honest there are three things he's clueless on
Who started the Klan
Who was the first form of gun control used against
and this one, firearms  and the AK variant rifle.


----------



## Dubya

westwall said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> For a firearm that has been used in combat in some of the worse regions on the planet since 1949 I would say it's impressive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are obviously stupid and not a good judge of firearms and probably more impressed by the look of the weapon. The AK types have two obvious limitations. It could be used for hunting at a limited range and it's real purpose is combat, but there are much better weapons to use for hunting and combat. If you want to cheaply arm a mass assault, like a human wave, the AK will work. The problem is, that tactic in modern warfare only gets a bunch of people killed. The AK is a great weapon for a bunch of revolutionaries wanting to die for their cause, but it isn't a good weapon for a modern military wanting the enemy to die for their cause.
> 
> At 700 yards, give me an M-14 and at very long distances, I'll take the Stoner. I can use both those weapons for hunting with the proper ammo and both in war. At close quarters in war, the M-16 is a better choice, but it isn't good for hunting.
> 
> For home defense, a shotgun is the best choice and it can be used for hunting. I had both an 18 inch and 30 inch barrel for my shotgun. Now, you can play with a shotgun in target practice, but there really isn't much challenge beyond timing how fast you can shoot targets or shooting trap or skeet. My state only allows deer hunting by shotgun and bow. I was very good with a bow, but I think it's stupid to hunt with one. If you want to hunt, you should train with a weapon to the point where you can assassinate the animal. You're not going to find me hunting deer with a shotgun in my state.
> 
> I've actually had the pleasure once to walk through a herd a deer in the woods that took about 5 minute for them all to pass by. As they came right up to me, they would see me and pass by my side. They didn't appear frightened, but the other deer blocked their view until they were right in front of me. The deer were in a slow run through the woods. This happened on a military base that didn't allow hunting and there were hugh herds of deer on that base. The deer had no fear, just like the sparrows at boot camp would walk between the legs of Marines standing in line.
> 
> I've been around large herds of deer on family farms large enough to kill them without an out of state license, but I don't like venison and I've had it prepared by experts at butchering it. I've had cheese steaks made of venison and they were good, but I'd rather have the beef. If I need the food, I'd shoot a deer, but I don't need the food.
> 
> I've had my time at the target range, I don't need a gun for self-defense and I don't hunt, so I have no use for a gun and have zero probability of an accident, if there isn't a gun around. It made sense to me to give the guns away long ago to someone who could use them, when I had children growing up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a clown.  You clearly don't know shit about any firearm.  The M-14 is a modified M1 Garand.  The FAL and the G3 are MILES ahead of the M14 in accuracy, reliability, ease of maintenance, and ease of repair when needed.  The M14 was obsolete when it was adopted.
> 
> I have deer that live on my property so I see them every damned day.
> 
> And once again, the 2nd is not about hunting, no matter how much you idiots like to claim it is.  It is about being able to defend ones self from an iligitimate government.
> 
> As one of the founders stated..."it is oftimes neccessary for the tree of liberty to be nourished by the blood of tyrants and patriots".
> 
> You are an asshat of the first order with ZERO knowledge of what you speak.  In other words you are the typical lib troll.
Click to expand...


That's a stretch of the word modified. For a peep hole sight weapon, like I said, I like the M-14. Any 30-06 type weapon is very good for hunting large game at long distances. Since long distance shooting involves the prone position, I believe I could shoot the M-14 better than the FAL or G3, though I've never shot with them. I liked the sights on the M-14. In boot camp I didn't miss a bullseye with my M-14 at 500 yards and was told I was hitting the target in the area of the heart. The pits were giving my coach and I the sign of a possible, like all bullseyes in rapid fire. I was very good at the rifle range and didn't miss a bullseye, except occasionally in the offhand position and I had to shoot two of those postitions, because I wasn't allowed to use the knelling position (water on the knee). They told me I had a photographic eye, because I could tell them even on a bullseye were the bullet landed. If I missed in the offhand position, I knew it and where I missed. The coach would ask me about the shot after every shot or how I did on rapid fire. 

Why do you idiots say this shit about people who obviously know these weapons. You don't have to be a gun nut to know these basic things. You act like only fools who agree with you know anything about such basic facts. It wasn't hard to buy an M1 Garand and they are a fine weapon. The advantage of the M-16 is being able to carry about two and a half rounds for the same weight of ammo. It isn't more accurate at very long distances than the M-14, which can be quite accurate, as is, at distances over 500 yards. My baby was rifle number 33365 and I would love to get my hands on that weapon.


----------



## Dubya

bigrebnc1775 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are obviously stupid and not a good judge of firearms and probably more impressed by the look of the weapon. The AK types have two obvious limitations. It could be used for hunting at a limited range and it's real purpose is combat, but there are much better weapons to use for hunting and combat. If you want to cheaply arm a mass assault, like a human wave, the AK will work. The problem is, that tactic in modern warfare only gets a bunch of people killed. The AK is a great weapon for a bunch of revolutionaries wanting to die for their cause, but it isn't a good weapon for a modern military wanting the enemy to die for their cause.
> 
> At 700 yards, give me an M-14 and at very long distances, I'll take the Stoner. I can use both those weapons for hunting with the proper ammo and both in war. At close quarters in war, the M-16 is a better choice, but it isn't good for hunting.
> 
> For home defense, a shotgun is the best choice and it can be used for hunting. I had both an 18 inch and 30 inch barrel for my shotgun. Now, you can play with a shotgun in target practice, but there really isn't much challenge beyond timing how fast you can shoot targets or shooting trap or skeet. My state only allows deer hunting by shotgun and bow. I was very good with a bow, but I think it's stupid to hunt with one. If you want to hunt, you should train with a weapon to the point where you can assassinate the animal. You're not going to find me hunting deer with a shotgun in my state.
> 
> I've actually had the pleasure once to walk through a herd a deer in the woods that took about 5 minute for them all to pass by. As they came right up to me, they would see me and pass by my side. They didn't appear frightened, but the other deer blocked their view until they were right in front of me. The deer were in a slow run through the woods. This happened on a military base that didn't allow hunting and there were hugh herds of deer on that base. The deer had no fear, just like the sparrows at boot camp would walk between the legs of Marines standing in line.
> 
> I've been around large herds of deer on family farms large enough to kill them without an out of state license, but I don't like venison and I've had it prepared by experts at butchering it. I've had cheese steaks made of venison and they were good, but I'd rather have the beef. If I need the food, I'd shoot a deer, but I don't need the food.
> 
> I've had my time at the target range, I don't need a gun for self-defense and I don't hunt, so I have no use for a gun and have zero probability of an accident, if there isn't a gun around. It made sense to me to give the guns away long ago to someone who could use them, when I had children growing up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a clown.  You clearly don't know shit about any firearm.  The M-14 is a modified M1 Garand.  The FAL and the G3 are MILES ahead of the M14 in accuracy, reliability, ease of maintenance, and ease of repair when needed.  The M14 was obsolete when it was adopted.
> 
> I have deer that live on my property so I see them every damned day.
> 
> And once again, the 2nd is not about hunting, no matter how much you idiots like to claim it is.  It is about being able to defend ones self from an iligitimate government.
> 
> As one of the founders stated..."it is oftimes neccessary for the tree of liberty to be nourished by the blood of tyrants and patriots".
> 
> You are an asshat of the first order with ZERO knowledge of what you speak.  In other words you are the typical lib troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well to be honest there are three things he's clueless on
> Who started the Klan
> Who was the first form of gun control used against
> and this one, firearms  and the AK variant rifle.
Click to expand...


If you were honest, you'd be fessing up to being an idiot.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Dubya said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a clown.  You clearly don't know shit about any firearm.  The M-14 is a modified M1 Garand.  The FAL and the G3 are MILES ahead of the M14 in accuracy, reliability, ease of maintenance, and ease of repair when needed.  The M14 was obsolete when it was adopted.
> 
> I have deer that live on my property so I see them every damned day.
> 
> And once again, the 2nd is not about hunting, no matter how much you idiots like to claim it is.  It is about being able to defend ones self from an iligitimate government.
> 
> As one of the founders stated..."it is oftimes neccessary for the tree of liberty to be nourished by the blood of tyrants and patriots".
> 
> You are an asshat of the first order with ZERO knowledge of what you speak.  In other words you are the typical lib troll.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well to be honest there are three things he's clueless on
> Who started the Klan
> Who was the first form of gun control used against
> and this one, firearms  and the AK variant rifle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you were honest, you'd be fessing up to being an idiot.
Click to expand...


Isn't it bad to be shown how stupid you are from a person you consider an idiot? 
THREE TIMES I HAVE SHOWN YOU HOW STUPID AN MORONIC YOUR POSITION IS 
ON THE KLAN, GUN CONTROL USED AGAINST BLACK, AND FIREARMS


----------



## bigrebnc1775




----------



## Dubya

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well to be honest there are three things he's clueless on
> Who started the Klan
> Who was the first form of gun control used against
> and this one, firearms  and the AK variant rifle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you were honest, you'd be fessing up to being an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't it bad to be shown how stupid you are from a person you consider an idiot?
> THREE TIMES I HAVE SHOWN YOU HOW STUPID AN MORONIC YOUR POSITION IS
> ON THE KLAN, GUN CONTROL USED AGAINST BLACK, AND FIREARMS
Click to expand...


Gun control predate the KKK, fool. There were two KKKs, fool. You have to make every post wrong, don't you?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Dubya said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you were honest, you'd be fessing up to being an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it bad to be shown how stupid you are from a person you consider an idiot?
> THREE TIMES I HAVE SHOWN YOU HOW STUPID AN MORONIC YOUR POSITION IS
> ON THE KLAN, GUN CONTROL USED AGAINST BLACK, AND FIREARMS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gun control predate the KKK, fool. There were two KKKs, fool. You have to make every post wrong, don't you?
Click to expand...




> Gun control predate the KKK, fool.



Idiot never said that it didn't again fail on your part.



> There were two KKKs, fool.


Nope




> You have to make every post wrong, don't you?


You have yet to be right so how can I be wrong?


----------



## Dubya

> First KKK
> 
> The first Klan was founded in 1865 in Pulaski, Tennessee, by six veterans of the Confederate Army.[17] The name is probably from the Greek word kuklos (&#954;&#973;&#954;&#955;&#959;&#962 which means circle, suggesting a circle or band of brothers.[18]
> 
> Although there was no organizational structure above the local level, similar groups arose across the South adopted the same name and methods.[19] Klan groups spread throughout the South as an insurgent movement during the Reconstruction era in the United States. As a secret vigilante group, the Klan targeted freedmen and their allies; it sought to restore white supremacy by threats and violence, including murder, against black and white Republicans. In 1870 and 1871, the federal government passed the Force Acts, which were used to prosecute Klan crimes.[20] Prosecution of Klan crimes and enforcement of the Force Acts suppressed Klan activity. In 1874 and later, however, newly organized and openly active paramilitary organizations, such as the White League and the Red Shirts, started a fresh round of violence aimed at suppressing blacks' voting and running Republicans out of office. These contributed to segregationist white Democrats regaining political power in all the Southern states by 1877.
> 
> Second KKK
> 
> In 1915, the second Klan was founded in Atlanta, Georgia. Starting in 1921, it adopted a modern business system of recruiting (which paid most of the initiation fee and costume charges as commissions to the organizers) and grew rapidly nationwide at a time of prosperity. Reflecting the social tensions of urban industrialization and vastly increased immigration, its membership grew most rapidly in cities, and spread out of the South to the Midwest and West. The second KKK preached "One Hundred Percent Americanism" and demanded the purification of politics, calling for strict morality and better enforcement of prohibition. Its official rhetoric focused on the threat of the Catholic Church, using anti-Catholicism and nativism.[3] Its appeal was directed exclusively at white Protestants.[21] Some local groups took part in attacks on private houses and carried out other violent activities. The violent episodes were generally in the South.[22]
> 
> The second Klan was a formal fraternal organization, with a national and state structure. At its peak in the mid-1920s, the organization claimed to include about 15% of the nation's eligible population, approximately 4&#8211;5 million men. Internal divisions, criminal behavior by leaders, and external opposition brought about a collapse in membership, which had dropped to about 30,000 by 1930. It finally faded away in the 1940s.[23] Klan organizers also operated in Canada, especially in Saskatchewan in 1926-28, where it attacked immigrants from Eastern Europe.[24]





> Third KKK
> 
> The "Ku Klux Klan" name was used by many independent local groups opposing the Civil Rights Movement and desegregation, especially in the 1950s and 1960s. During this period, they often forged alliances with Southern police departments, as in Birmingham, Alabama; or with governor's offices, as with George Wallace of Alabama.[25] Several members of KKK groups were convicted of murder in the deaths of civil rights workers and children in the bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham. Today, researchers estimate that there may be 150 Klan chapters with upwards of 5,000 members nationwide.[2]
> 
> Today, many sources classify the Klan as a "subversive or terrorist organization".[2][26][27][28] In April 1997, FBI agents arrested four members of the True Knights of the Ku Klux Klan in Dallas for conspiracy to commit robbery and to blow up a natural gas processing plant.[29] In 1999, the city council of Charleston, South Carolina passed a resolution declaring the Klan to be a terrorist organization.[30] In 2004, a professor at the University of Louisville began a campaign to have the Klan declared a terrorist organization in order to ban it from campus.[31]





> First Klan 1865&#8211;1874



Source: Ku Klux Klan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I consider the Third KKK to be a continuation of the Second and base that on members I knew, who were members during those times. The Second KKK is not a continuation of the First.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Dubya said:


> First KKK
> 
> The first Klan was founded in 1865 in Pulaski, Tennessee, by six veterans of the Confederate Army.[17] The name is probably from the Greek word kuklos (&#954;&#973;&#954;&#955;&#959;&#962 which means circle, suggesting a circle or band of brothers.[18]
> 
> Although there was no organizational structure above the local level, similar groups arose across the South adopted the same name and methods.[19] Klan groups spread throughout the South as an insurgent movement during the Reconstruction era in the United States. As a secret vigilante group, the Klan targeted freedmen and their allies; it sought to restore white supremacy by threats and violence, including murder, against black and white Republicans. In 1870 and 1871, the federal government passed the Force Acts, which were used to prosecute Klan crimes.[20] Prosecution of Klan crimes and enforcement of the Force Acts suppressed Klan activity. In 1874 and later, however, newly organized and openly active paramilitary organizations, such as the White League and the Red Shirts, started a fresh round of violence aimed at suppressing blacks' voting and running Republicans out of office. These contributed to segregationist white Democrats regaining political power in all the Southern states by 1877.
> 
> Second KKK
> 
> In 1915, the second Klan was founded in Atlanta, Georgia. Starting in 1921, it adopted a modern business system of recruiting (which paid most of the initiation fee and costume charges as commissions to the organizers) and grew rapidly nationwide at a time of prosperity. Reflecting the social tensions of urban industrialization and vastly increased immigration, its membership grew most rapidly in cities, and spread out of the South to the Midwest and West. The second KKK preached "One Hundred Percent Americanism" and demanded the purification of politics, calling for strict morality and better enforcement of prohibition. Its official rhetoric focused on the threat of the Catholic Church, using anti-Catholicism and nativism.[3] Its appeal was directed exclusively at white Protestants.[21] Some local groups took part in attacks on private houses and carried out other violent activities. The violent episodes were generally in the South.[22]
> 
> The second Klan was a formal fraternal organization, with a national and state structure. At its peak in the mid-1920s, the organization claimed to include about 15% of the nation's eligible population, approximately 45 million men. Internal divisions, criminal behavior by leaders, and external opposition brought about a collapse in membership, which had dropped to about 30,000 by 1930. It finally faded away in the 1940s.[23] Klan organizers also operated in Canada, especially in Saskatchewan in 1926-28, where it attacked immigrants from Eastern Europe.[24]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Third KKK
> 
> The "Ku Klux Klan" name was used by many independent local groups opposing the Civil Rights Movement and desegregation, especially in the 1950s and 1960s. During this period, they often forged alliances with Southern police departments, as in Birmingham, Alabama; or with governor's offices, as with George Wallace of Alabama.[25] Several members of KKK groups were convicted of murder in the deaths of civil rights workers and children in the bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham. Today, researchers estimate that there may be 150 Klan chapters with upwards of 5,000 members nationwide.[2]
> 
> Today, many sources classify the Klan as a "subversive or terrorist organization".[2][26][27][28] In April 1997, FBI agents arrested four members of the True Knights of the Ku Klux Klan in Dallas for conspiracy to commit robbery and to blow up a natural gas processing plant.[29] In 1999, the city council of Charleston, South Carolina passed a resolution declaring the Klan to be a terrorist organization.[30] In 2004, a professor at the University of Louisville began a campaign to have the Klan declared a terrorist organization in order to ban it from campus.[31]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First Klan 18651874
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Source: Ku Klux Klan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> I consider the Third KKK to be a continuation of the Second and base that on members I knew, who were members during those times. The Second KKK is not a continuation of the First.
Click to expand...




It's still the same fucking Klan you moron. 
What in the fuck happened to the old members? They did just go away the klan has always been their.
Damn dude stop making this so easy.


----------



## Dubya

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First KKK
> 
> The first Klan was founded in 1865 in Pulaski, Tennessee, by six veterans of the Confederate Army.[17] The name is probably from the Greek word kuklos (&#954;&#973;&#954;&#955;&#959;&#962 which means circle, suggesting a circle or band of brothers.[18]
> 
> Although there was no organizational structure above the local level, similar groups arose across the South adopted the same name and methods.[19] Klan groups spread throughout the South as an insurgent movement during the Reconstruction era in the United States. As a secret vigilante group, the Klan targeted freedmen and their allies; it sought to restore white supremacy by threats and violence, including murder, against black and white Republicans. In 1870 and 1871, the federal government passed the Force Acts, which were used to prosecute Klan crimes.[20] Prosecution of Klan crimes and enforcement of the Force Acts suppressed Klan activity. In 1874 and later, however, newly organized and openly active paramilitary organizations, such as the White League and the Red Shirts, started a fresh round of violence aimed at suppressing blacks' voting and running Republicans out of office. These contributed to segregationist white Democrats regaining political power in all the Southern states by 1877.
> 
> Second KKK
> 
> In 1915, the second Klan was founded in Atlanta, Georgia. Starting in 1921, it adopted a modern business system of recruiting (which paid most of the initiation fee and costume charges as commissions to the organizers) and grew rapidly nationwide at a time of prosperity. Reflecting the social tensions of urban industrialization and vastly increased immigration, its membership grew most rapidly in cities, and spread out of the South to the Midwest and West. The second KKK preached "One Hundred Percent Americanism" and demanded the purification of politics, calling for strict morality and better enforcement of prohibition. Its official rhetoric focused on the threat of the Catholic Church, using anti-Catholicism and nativism.[3] Its appeal was directed exclusively at white Protestants.[21] Some local groups took part in attacks on private houses and carried out other violent activities. The violent episodes were generally in the South.[22]
> 
> The second Klan was a formal fraternal organization, with a national and state structure. At its peak in the mid-1920s, the organization claimed to include about 15% of the nation's eligible population, approximately 45 million men. Internal divisions, criminal behavior by leaders, and external opposition brought about a collapse in membership, which had dropped to about 30,000 by 1930. It finally faded away in the 1940s.[23] Klan organizers also operated in Canada, especially in Saskatchewan in 1926-28, where it attacked immigrants from Eastern Europe.[24]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First Klan 18651874
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Source: Ku Klux Klan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> I consider the Third KKK to be a continuation of the Second and base that on members I knew, who were members during those times. The Second KKK is not a continuation of the First.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's still the same fucking Klan you moron.
> What in the fuck happened to the old members? They did just go away the klan has always been their.
> Damn dude stop making this so easy.
Click to expand...


Oh, no it isn't! There were other similar racist groups that outlasted the original KKK, but that was the name a new organization chose in 1915. An organization that starts up over 40 years later and uses the same name is not the same organization. The Second KKK was anti-Catholic in it's focus, because of immigration. Now, how do I know the Second KKK didn't disband. My Grandfather, who I grew up with, was a member of the KKK and my Grandmother was a member of the sister organization. My Grandfather was born 10 years before Robert Byrd (you know, the guy righties like to point out) and in the same state. West Virginia didn't have many Black people or problems with them. The KKK there were involved against severe wife and child abuse, where some guy would beat the shit out of members of his family. They were vigilantes, who would dress up, pay him a visit and beat the shit out of him. I was told it was quite effective.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Dubya said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> Source: Ku Klux Klan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> I consider the Third KKK to be a continuation of the Second and base that on members I knew, who were members during those times. The Second KKK is not a continuation of the First.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's still the same fucking Klan you moron.
> What in the fuck happened to the old members? They did just go away the klan has always been their.
> Damn dude stop making this so easy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, no it isn't! There were other similar racist groups that outlasted the original KKK, but that was the name a new organization chose in 1915. An organization that starts up over 40 years later and uses the same name is not the same organization. The Second KKK was anti-Catholic in it's focus, because of immigration. Now, how do I know the Second KKK didn't disband. My Grandfather, who I grew up with, was a member of the KKK and my Grandmother was a member of the sister organization. My Grandfather was born 10 years before Robert Byrd (you know, the guy righties like to point out) and in the same state. West Virginia didn't have many Black people or problems with them. The KKK there were involved against severe wife and child abuse, where some guy would beat the shit out of members of his family. They were vigilantes, who would dress up, pay him a visit and beat the shit out of him. I was told it was quite effective.
Click to expand...


OH for crying out loud there is no new klan because wiki says so. the klan is still the klan since the day it was created., It has had a few rebirths but still the same klan with the same agenda.

Why do you like to be shown how stupid you really are?


----------



## Dubya

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's still the same fucking Klan you moron.
> What in the fuck happened to the old members? They did just go away the klan has always been their.
> Damn dude stop making this so easy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, no it isn't! There were other similar racist groups that outlasted the original KKK, but that was the name a new organization chose in 1915. An organization that starts up over 40 years later and uses the same name is not the same organization. The Second KKK was anti-Catholic in it's focus, because of immigration. Now, how do I know the Second KKK didn't disband. My Grandfather, who I grew up with, was a member of the KKK and my Grandmother was a member of the sister organization. My Grandfather was born 10 years before Robert Byrd (you know, the guy righties like to point out) and in the same state. West Virginia didn't have many Black people or problems with them. The KKK there were involved against severe wife and child abuse, where some guy would beat the shit out of members of his family. They were vigilantes, who would dress up, pay him a visit and beat the shit out of him. I was told it was quite effective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OH for crying out loud there is no new klan because wiki says so. the klan is still the klan since the day it was created., It has had a few rebirths but still the same klan with the same agenda.
> 
> Why do you like to be shown how stupid you really are?
Click to expand...


The original Klan died in 1874. Encyclopedias say so and only a fool like you says it's the same Klan. You don't anything about the Klan, so shut the fuck up!


----------



## westwall

Dubya said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are obviously stupid and not a good judge of firearms and probably more impressed by the look of the weapon. The AK types have two obvious limitations. It could be used for hunting at a limited range and it's real purpose is combat, but there are much better weapons to use for hunting and combat. If you want to cheaply arm a mass assault, like a human wave, the AK will work. The problem is, that tactic in modern warfare only gets a bunch of people killed. The AK is a great weapon for a bunch of revolutionaries wanting to die for their cause, but it isn't a good weapon for a modern military wanting the enemy to die for their cause.
> 
> At 700 yards, give me an M-14 and at very long distances, I'll take the Stoner. I can use both those weapons for hunting with the proper ammo and both in war. At close quarters in war, the M-16 is a better choice, but it isn't good for hunting.
> 
> For home defense, a shotgun is the best choice and it can be used for hunting. I had both an 18 inch and 30 inch barrel for my shotgun. Now, you can play with a shotgun in target practice, but there really isn't much challenge beyond timing how fast you can shoot targets or shooting trap or skeet. My state only allows deer hunting by shotgun and bow. I was very good with a bow, but I think it's stupid to hunt with one. If you want to hunt, you should train with a weapon to the point where you can assassinate the animal. You're not going to find me hunting deer with a shotgun in my state.
> 
> I've actually had the pleasure once to walk through a herd a deer in the woods that took about 5 minute for them all to pass by. As they came right up to me, they would see me and pass by my side. They didn't appear frightened, but the other deer blocked their view until they were right in front of me. The deer were in a slow run through the woods. This happened on a military base that didn't allow hunting and there were hugh herds of deer on that base. The deer had no fear, just like the sparrows at boot camp would walk between the legs of Marines standing in line.
> 
> I've been around large herds of deer on family farms large enough to kill them without an out of state license, but I don't like venison and I've had it prepared by experts at butchering it. I've had cheese steaks made of venison and they were good, but I'd rather have the beef. If I need the food, I'd shoot a deer, but I don't need the food.
> 
> I've had my time at the target range, I don't need a gun for self-defense and I don't hunt, so I have no use for a gun and have zero probability of an accident, if there isn't a gun around. It made sense to me to give the guns away long ago to someone who could use them, when I had children growing up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a clown.  You clearly don't know shit about any firearm.  The M-14 is a modified M1 Garand.  The FAL and the G3 are MILES ahead of the M14 in accuracy, reliability, ease of maintenance, and ease of repair when needed.  The M14 was obsolete when it was adopted.
> 
> I have deer that live on my property so I see them every damned day.
> 
> And once again, the 2nd is not about hunting, no matter how much you idiots like to claim it is.  It is about being able to defend ones self from an iligitimate government.
> 
> As one of the founders stated..."it is oftimes neccessary for the tree of liberty to be nourished by the blood of tyrants and patriots".
> 
> You are an asshat of the first order with ZERO knowledge of what you speak.  In other words you are the typical lib troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a stretch of the word modified. For a peep hole sight weapon, like I said, I like the M-14. Any 30-06 type weapon is very good for hunting large game at long distances. Since long distance shooting involves the prone position, I believe I could shoot the M-14 better than the FAL or G3, though I've never shot with them. I liked the sights on the M-14. In boot camp I didn't miss a bullseye with my M-14 at 500 yards and was told I was hitting the target in the area of the heart. The pits were giving my coach and I the sign of a possible, like all bullseyes in rapid fire. I was very good at the rifle range and didn't miss a bullseye, except occasionally in the offhand position and I had to shoot two of those postitions, because I wasn't allowed to use the knelling position (water on the knee). They told me I had a photographic eye, because I could tell them even on a bullseye were the bullet landed. If I missed in the offhand position, I knew it and where I missed. The coach would ask me about the shot after every shot or how I did on rapid fire.
> 
> Why do you idiots say this shit about people who obviously know these weapons. You don't have to be a gun nut to know these basic things. You act like only fools who agree with you know anything about such basic facts. It wasn't hard to buy an M1 Garand and they are a fine weapon. The advantage of the M-16 is being able to carry about two and a half rounds for the same weight of ammo. It isn't more accurate at very long distances than the M-14, which can be quite accurate, as is, at distances over 500 yards. My baby was rifle number 33365 and I would love to get my hands on that weapon.
Click to expand...





Once again you demonstrate your complete ignorance about weapons.  Here's a clue nimrod, both the FAL AND the HK use peep sights as well.  And yes the M-14 uses nearly the exact same action as the Garand, the reciever is basically the same, the gas system the same, the op rod is the only real difference between the two, and the fact the M14 uses a box magazine instead of an en bloc clip.  The 7.62 NATO round is around 11% less powerful than the .30-06 and the .308 has almost completely supplanted the .30-06 in virtually all the long range matches.  The only time the .30-06 has an edge is when you are comparing military match ammo where the ought six has a definite edge AT 1000 YARDS.  If you use the Federal Premium 175 grain Match ammo the advantage disappears.

My AR with the 80 grain VLD is every bit as accurate as your best Super Match set up M1A, so there goes your claim of the AR being inadequate for long range shooting.  And no, you don't know a fucking thing about any of this.  There is no such thing as a "photographic eye" in shooting.  Period...it is a photgraphic term dealing with whether you are a natural at framing pictures.

So, in other words...you are a lying sack of horse poo.....provably so.  Nice try asshat, you're a fraud just like all you other lib tard trolls.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Dubya said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, no it isn't! There were other similar racist groups that outlasted the original KKK, but that was the name a new organization chose in 1915. An organization that starts up over 40 years later and uses the same name is not the same organization. The Second KKK was anti-Catholic in it's focus, because of immigration. Now, how do I know the Second KKK didn't disband. My Grandfather, who I grew up with, was a member of the KKK and my Grandmother was a member of the sister organization. My Grandfather was born 10 years before Robert Byrd (you know, the guy righties like to point out) and in the same state. West Virginia didn't have many Black people or problems with them. The KKK there were involved against severe wife and child abuse, where some guy would beat the shit out of members of his family. They were vigilantes, who would dress up, pay him a visit and beat the shit out of him. I was told it was quite effective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OH for crying out loud there is no new klan because wiki says so. the klan is still the klan since the day it was created., It has had a few rebirths but still the same klan with the same agenda.
> 
> Why do you like to be shown how stupid you really are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The original Klan died in 1874. Encyclopedias say so and only a fool like you says it's the same Klan. You don't anything about the Klan, so shut the fuck up!
Click to expand...

The klan has always existed since it creation  it never went away, just like now there is a klan but you don't hear much from them. It never went away or died it never disbanded the same agenda from 1866 still exist.


----------



## Dubya

westwall said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a clown.  You clearly don't know shit about any firearm.  The M-14 is a modified M1 Garand.  The FAL and the G3 are MILES ahead of the M14 in accuracy, reliability, ease of maintenance, and ease of repair when needed.  The M14 was obsolete when it was adopted.
> 
> I have deer that live on my property so I see them every damned day.
> 
> And once again, the 2nd is not about hunting, no matter how much you idiots like to claim it is.  It is about being able to defend ones self from an iligitimate government.
> 
> As one of the founders stated..."it is oftimes neccessary for the tree of liberty to be nourished by the blood of tyrants and patriots".
> 
> You are an asshat of the first order with ZERO knowledge of what you speak.  In other words you are the typical lib troll.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a stretch of the word modified. For a peep hole sight weapon, like I said, I like the M-14. Any 30-06 type weapon is very good for hunting large game at long distances. Since long distance shooting involves the prone position, I believe I could shoot the M-14 better than the FAL or G3, though I've never shot with them. I liked the sights on the M-14. In boot camp I didn't miss a bullseye with my M-14 at 500 yards and was told I was hitting the target in the area of the heart. The pits were giving my coach and I the sign of a possible, like all bullseyes in rapid fire. I was very good at the rifle range and didn't miss a bullseye, except occasionally in the offhand position and I had to shoot two of those postitions, because I wasn't allowed to use the knelling position (water on the knee). They told me I had a photographic eye, because I could tell them even on a bullseye were the bullet landed. If I missed in the offhand position, I knew it and where I missed. The coach would ask me about the shot after every shot or how I did on rapid fire.
> 
> Why do you idiots say this shit about people who obviously know these weapons. You don't have to be a gun nut to know these basic things. You act like only fools who agree with you know anything about such basic facts. It wasn't hard to buy an M1 Garand and they are a fine weapon. The advantage of the M-16 is being able to carry about two and a half rounds for the same weight of ammo. It isn't more accurate at very long distances than the M-14, which can be quite accurate, as is, at distances over 500 yards. My baby was rifle number 33365 and I would love to get my hands on that weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you demonstrate your complete ignorance about weapons.  Here's a clue nimrod, both the FAL AND the HK use peep sights as well.  And yes the M-14 uses nearly the exact same action as the Garand, the reciever is basically the same, the gas system the same, the op rod is the only real difference between the two, and the fact the M14 uses a box magazine instead of an en bloc clip.  The 7.62 NATO round is around 11% less powerful than the .30-06 and the .308 has almost completely supplanted the .30-06 in virtually all the long range matches.  The only time the .30-06 has an edge is when you are comparing military match ammo where the ought six has a definite edge AT 1000 YARDS.  If you use the Federal Premium 175 grain Match ammo the advantage disappears.
> 
> My AR with the 80 grain VLD is every bit as accurate as your best Super Match set up M1A, so there goes your claim of the AR being inadequate for long range shooting.  And no, you don't a fucking thing about any of this.  There is no such thing as a "photographic eye" in shooting.  Period...it is a photgraphic term dealing with whether you are a natural at framing pictures.
> 
> So, in other words...you are a lying sack of horse poo.....provably so.  Nice try asshat, you're a fraud just like all you other lib tard trolls.
Click to expand...


Show me a modern military rifle that doesn't use that gas system!


























Do you shoot peep hole sights at 700 yards with your AR? If you are a good shot, you should be able to get all bullseyes with an AR using peep hole sights at 500 yards, but the shots aren't going to group as closely as an M-14 can do it.

All peep hole sights aren't the same. I like the M-14 peep hole sights and distance/windage adjustments.


----------



## Triton

westwall said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a clown.  You clearly don't know shit about any firearm.  The M-14 is a modified M1 Garand.  The FAL and the G3 are MILES ahead of the M14 in accuracy, reliability, ease of maintenance, and ease of repair when needed.  The M14 was obsolete when it was adopted.
> 
> I have deer that live on my property so I see them every damned day.
> 
> And once again, the 2nd is not about hunting, no matter how much you idiots like to claim it is.  It is about being able to defend ones self from an iligitimate government.
> 
> As one of the founders stated..."it is oftimes neccessary for the tree of liberty to be nourished by the blood of tyrants and patriots".
> 
> You are an asshat of the first order with ZERO knowledge of what you speak.  In other words you are the typical lib troll.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a stretch of the word modified. For a peep hole sight weapon, like I said, I like the M-14. Any 30-06 type weapon is very good for hunting large game at long distances. Since long distance shooting involves the prone position, I believe I could shoot the M-14 better than the FAL or G3, though I've never shot with them. I liked the sights on the M-14. In boot camp I didn't miss a bullseye with my M-14 at 500 yards and was told I was hitting the target in the area of the heart. The pits were giving my coach and I the sign of a possible, like all bullseyes in rapid fire. I was very good at the rifle range and didn't miss a bullseye, except occasionally in the offhand position and I had to shoot two of those postitions, because I wasn't allowed to use the knelling position (water on the knee). They told me I had a photographic eye, because I could tell them even on a bullseye were the bullet landed. If I missed in the offhand position, I knew it and where I missed. The coach would ask me about the shot after every shot or how I did on rapid fire.
> 
> Why do you idiots say this shit about people who obviously know these weapons. You don't have to be a gun nut to know these basic things. You act like only fools who agree with you know anything about such basic facts. It wasn't hard to buy an M1 Garand and they are a fine weapon. The advantage of the M-16 is being able to carry about two and a half rounds for the same weight of ammo. It isn't more accurate at very long distances than the M-14, which can be quite accurate, as is, at distances over 500 yards. My baby was rifle number 33365 and I would love to get my hands on that weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you demonstrate your complete ignorance about weapons.  Here's a clue nimrod, both the FAL AND the HK use peep sights as well.  And yes the M-14 uses nearly the exact same action as the Garand, the reciever is basically the same, the gas system the same, the op rod is the only real difference between the two, and the fact the M14 uses a box magazine instead of an en bloc clip.  The 7.62 NATO round is around 11% less powerful than the .30-06 and the .308 has almost completely supplanted the .30-06 in virtually all the long range matches.  The only time the .30-06 has an edge is when you are comparing military match ammo where the ought six has a definite edge AT 1000 YARDS.  If you use the Federal Premium 175 grain Match ammo the advantage disappears.
> 
> My AR with the 80 grain VLD is every bit as accurate as your best Super Match set up M1A, so there goes your claim of the AR being inadequate for long range shooting.  And no, you don't a fucking thing about any of this.  There is no such thing as a "photographic eye" in shooting.  Period...it is a photgraphic term dealing with whether you are a natural at framing pictures.
> 
> So, in other words...you are a lying sack of horse poo.....provably so.  Nice try asshat, you're a fraud just like all you other lib tard trolls.
Click to expand...




Wow, the AR is that good at long range, huh? I was under the impression an M1a could outreach an AR and was more accurate at long range.


----------



## westwall

Triton said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a stretch of the word modified. For a peep hole sight weapon, like I said, I like the M-14. Any 30-06 type weapon is very good for hunting large game at long distances. Since long distance shooting involves the prone position, I believe I could shoot the M-14 better than the FAL or G3, though I've never shot with them. I liked the sights on the M-14. In boot camp I didn't miss a bullseye with my M-14 at 500 yards and was told I was hitting the target in the area of the heart. The pits were giving my coach and I the sign of a possible, like all bullseyes in rapid fire. I was very good at the rifle range and didn't miss a bullseye, except occasionally in the offhand position and I had to shoot two of those postitions, because I wasn't allowed to use the knelling position (water on the knee). They told me I had a photographic eye, because I could tell them even on a bullseye were the bullet landed. If I missed in the offhand position, I knew it and where I missed. The coach would ask me about the shot after every shot or how I did on rapid fire.
> 
> Why do you idiots say this shit about people who obviously know these weapons. You don't have to be a gun nut to know these basic things. You act like only fools who agree with you know anything about such basic facts. It wasn't hard to buy an M1 Garand and they are a fine weapon. The advantage of the M-16 is being able to carry about two and a half rounds for the same weight of ammo. It isn't more accurate at very long distances than the M-14, which can be quite accurate, as is, at distances over 500 yards. My baby was rifle number 33365 and I would love to get my hands on that weapon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you demonstrate your complete ignorance about weapons.  Here's a clue nimrod, both the FAL AND the HK use peep sights as well.  And yes the M-14 uses nearly the exact same action as the Garand, the reciever is basically the same, the gas system the same, the op rod is the only real difference between the two, and the fact the M14 uses a box magazine instead of an en bloc clip.  The 7.62 NATO round is around 11% less powerful than the .30-06 and the .308 has almost completely supplanted the .30-06 in virtually all the long range matches.  The only time the .30-06 has an edge is when you are comparing military match ammo where the ought six has a definite edge AT 1000 YARDS.  If you use the Federal Premium 175 grain Match ammo the advantage disappears.
> 
> My AR with the 80 grain VLD is every bit as accurate as your best Super Match set up M1A, so there goes your claim of the AR being inadequate for long range shooting.  And no, you don't a fucking thing about any of this.  There is no such thing as a "photographic eye" in shooting.  Period...it is a photgraphic term dealing with whether you are a natural at framing pictures.
> 
> So, in other words...you are a lying sack of horse poo.....provably so.  Nice try asshat, you're a fraud just like all you other lib tard trolls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, the AR is that good at long range, huh? I was under the impression an M1a could outreach an AR and was more accurate at long range.
Click to expand...







The M1A is better at 800-1000 yards.  Out to 800 however, a properly built AR will out perform it.  Even the Marines have gone to the AR for a lot of their competitions.  The AMU built AR's were outshooting them on a regular basis.

The max reach for the 80 grain VLD projectiles is right at 900 meters, the 175 grain Sierra's are good to 1300 meters.  After that both projies drop out of supersonic and they fall apart accuracy wise at that point.


----------



## westwall

Dubya said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a stretch of the word modified. For a peep hole sight weapon, like I said, I like the M-14. Any 30-06 type weapon is very good for hunting large game at long distances. Since long distance shooting involves the prone position, I believe I could shoot the M-14 better than the FAL or G3, though I've never shot with them. I liked the sights on the M-14. In boot camp I didn't miss a bullseye with my M-14 at 500 yards and was told I was hitting the target in the area of the heart. The pits were giving my coach and I the sign of a possible, like all bullseyes in rapid fire. I was very good at the rifle range and didn't miss a bullseye, except occasionally in the offhand position and I had to shoot two of those postitions, because I wasn't allowed to use the knelling position (water on the knee). They told me I had a photographic eye, because I could tell them even on a bullseye were the bullet landed. If I missed in the offhand position, I knew it and where I missed. The coach would ask me about the shot after every shot or how I did on rapid fire.
> 
> Why do you idiots say this shit about people who obviously know these weapons. You don't have to be a gun nut to know these basic things. You act like only fools who agree with you know anything about such basic facts. It wasn't hard to buy an M1 Garand and they are a fine weapon. The advantage of the M-16 is being able to carry about two and a half rounds for the same weight of ammo. It isn't more accurate at very long distances than the M-14, which can be quite accurate, as is, at distances over 500 yards. My baby was rifle number 33365 and I would love to get my hands on that weapon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you demonstrate your complete ignorance about weapons.  Here's a clue nimrod, both the FAL AND the HK use peep sights as well.  And yes the M-14 uses nearly the exact same action as the Garand, the reciever is basically the same, the gas system the same, the op rod is the only real difference between the two, and the fact the M14 uses a box magazine instead of an en bloc clip.  The 7.62 NATO round is around 11% less powerful than the .30-06 and the .308 has almost completely supplanted the .30-06 in virtually all the long range matches.  The only time the .30-06 has an edge is when you are comparing military match ammo where the ought six has a definite edge AT 1000 YARDS.  If you use the Federal Premium 175 grain Match ammo the advantage disappears.
> 
> My AR with the 80 grain VLD is every bit as accurate as your best Super Match set up M1A, so there goes your claim of the AR being inadequate for long range shooting.  And no, you don't a fucking thing about any of this.  There is no such thing as a "photographic eye" in shooting.  Period...it is a photgraphic term dealing with whether you are a natural at framing pictures.
> 
> So, in other words...you are a lying sack of horse poo.....provably so.  Nice try asshat, you're a fraud just like all you other lib tard trolls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me a modern military rifle that doesn't use that gas system!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you shoot peep hole sights at 700 yards with your AR? If you are a good shot, you should be able to get all bullseyes with an AR using peep hole sights at 500 yards, but the shots aren't going to group as closely as an M-14 can do it.
> 
> All peep hole sights aren't the same. I like the M-14 peep hole sights and distance/windage adjustments.
Click to expand...






No problem.  Here is the G3 series.  It's not even gas operated.  Yes, I shoot IRON sights nimrod.  And yes, an AR will beat your M1A (I own an M21 too so know what the M1A is capable of) every day of the week.  Your M1A has a glass bedded barrel, the AR has a free floated barrel, huge edge to the AR.  Top quality trigger jobs for the M1A cost around 400 dollars.  You can buy a DROP IN trigger for the AR that will set you back 150 bucks and is better than the custom trigger job on the M1A, edge AR.

Then you take into account the lack of punishing recoil, the lesser cost of the ammo, and the edge clearly go's to the AR.

The M1A in its best form will give you between 1 and 1.5 MOA (2-2.5 MOA is standard).  The AR will do sub MOA all day long with proper barrel and ammo.


----------



## Dubya

westwall said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you demonstrate your complete ignorance about weapons.  Here's a clue nimrod, both the FAL AND the HK use peep sights as well.  And yes the M-14 uses nearly the exact same action as the Garand, the reciever is basically the same, the gas system the same, the op rod is the only real difference between the two, and the fact the M14 uses a box magazine instead of an en bloc clip.  The 7.62 NATO round is around 11% less powerful than the .30-06 and the .308 has almost completely supplanted the .30-06 in virtually all the long range matches.  The only time the .30-06 has an edge is when you are comparing military match ammo where the ought six has a definite edge AT 1000 YARDS.  If you use the Federal Premium 175 grain Match ammo the advantage disappears.
> 
> My AR with the 80 grain VLD is every bit as accurate as your best Super Match set up M1A, so there goes your claim of the AR being inadequate for long range shooting.  And no, you don't a fucking thing about any of this.  There is no such thing as a "photographic eye" in shooting.  Period...it is a photgraphic term dealing with whether you are a natural at framing pictures.
> 
> So, in other words...you are a lying sack of horse poo.....provably so.  Nice try asshat, you're a fraud just like all you other lib tard trolls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show me a modern military rifle that doesn't use that gas system!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you shoot peep hole sights at 700 yards with your AR? If you are a good shot, you should be able to get all bullseyes with an AR using peep hole sights at 500 yards, but the shots aren't going to group as closely as an M-14 can do it.
> 
> All peep hole sights aren't the same. I like the M-14 peep hole sights and distance/windage adjustments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No problem.  Here is the G3 series.  It's not even gas operated.  Yes, I shoot IRON sights nimrod.  And yes, an AR will beat your M1A (I own an M21 too so know what the M1A is capable of) every day of the week.  Your M1A has a glass bedded barrel, the AR has a free floated barrel, huge edge to the AR.  Top quality trigger jobs for the M1A cost around 400 dollars.  You can buy a DROP IN trigger for the AR that will set you back 150 bucks and is better than the custom trigger job on the M1A, edge AR.
> 
> Then you take into account the lack of punishing recoil, the lesser cost of the ammo, and the edge clearly go's to the AR.
> 
> The M1A in its best form will give you between 1 and 1.5 MOA (2-2.5 MOA is standard).  The AR will do sub MOA all day long with proper barrel and ammo.
Click to expand...


Post where I said I have ever had or shot an M1A! You talk about making strawman arguments!

What scoped weapon was that soldier in Iraq using instead of a scoped M-16? Explain why the M-14 was his choice!


----------



## Bird

Yes. Assholes that want to restrict the rights of citizens have come into power. That does not mean we should buckle under. This is NOT a democracy! 

There's also a thing called common sense and Americans shouldn't oversimplify. In a democracy, people shouldn't have the freedom to do whatever the hell they want like drink and drive, commit murder, etc. There is also no need for citizens to stockpile assault rifles in the modern United States due to an outdated amendment. It's extremely dangerous and unnecessary, and needs to be changed.

There are 20,000 gun laws already so I don't see where you get the idea that gun owners can do whatever they please.
Assault rifles are already banned.They fire rapid rounds.
Semi Automatic rifles fire one round at a time, just like any other rifle.
The 2nd amendment is to protect us from a tyrannical or dictatorship type of Government.
When the three branches of Government are not kept separate like is happening now, it then becomes a Government out of control.
The 2nd amendment is the last resort to tyranny.
You should read the Federalist Papers, it makes it very clear as to why we have the 2nd amendment.
What is extremely dangerous is when we have Presidents who think they have the right to be a Monarch like Wilson, Roosevelt and Obama. All Progressives and all who are or were against the Constitution.
By the way, we are a Republic not a Democracy.

Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Democracy allows eligible citizens to participate equallyeither directly or through elected representativesin the proposal, development, and creation of laws. It encompasses social, economic and cultural conditions that enable the free and equal practice of political self-determination.

A republic is a form of government in which the country is considered a "public matter" (Latin: res publica), not the private concern or property of the rulers, and where offices of state are subsequently directly or indirectly elected or appointed rather than inherited. In modern times, a common simplified definition of a republic is a government where the head of state is not a monarch.[1][2] Currently, 135 of the world's 206 sovereign states use the word "republic" as part of their official names.

  I would say that we are both a democracy and a republic... as there is little difference between the two definitions.


----------



## Unkotare

Bird said:


> There is also no need for citizens to stockpile assault rifles in the modern United States due to an outdated amendment. It's extremely dangerous and unnecessary, and needs to be changed.





If you are unsatisfied with the US Constitution, go find another place to live with a constitution you like better, because we won't be changing ours to accomodate the likes of you any time soon.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Bird said:


> There is also no need for citizens to stockpile assault rifles in the modern United States due to an outdated amendment.



you mean the danger of a liberal tyranny has passed??? There are no liberals like Barry who want to expand government forever no matter how much is has already expanded???


----------



## westwall

Dubya said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me a modern military rifle that doesn't use that gas system!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you shoot peep hole sights at 700 yards with your AR? If you are a good shot, you should be able to get all bullseyes with an AR using peep hole sights at 500 yards, but the shots aren't going to group as closely as an M-14 can do it.
> 
> All peep hole sights aren't the same. I like the M-14 peep hole sights and distance/windage adjustments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No problem.  Here is the G3 series.  It's not even gas operated.  Yes, I shoot IRON sights nimrod.  And yes, an AR will beat your M1A (I own an M21 too so know what the M1A is capable of) every day of the week.  Your M1A has a glass bedded barrel, the AR has a free floated barrel, huge edge to the AR.  Top quality trigger jobs for the M1A cost around 400 dollars.  You can buy a DROP IN trigger for the AR that will set you back 150 bucks and is better than the custom trigger job on the M1A, edge AR.
> 
> Then you take into account the lack of punishing recoil, the lesser cost of the ammo, and the edge clearly go's to the AR.
> 
> The M1A in its best form will give you between 1 and 1.5 MOA (2-2.5 MOA is standard).  The AR will do sub MOA all day long with proper barrel and ammo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post where I said I have ever had or shot an M1A! You talk about making strawman arguments!
> 
> What scoped weapon was that soldier in Iraq using instead of a scoped M-16? Explain why the M-14 was his choice!
Click to expand...






The M1A is the same rifle as the M-14 dipshit.  The only difference is the M-14 is select fire and as such will never be as accurate as a tuned M1A...I was giving you the best possible performing rifle to try and fulfill your ridiculous claim.

The US Army and Marines are using M-14's.......wait for it....cause it's ALL THEY HAVE moron.


----------



## Dubya

westwall said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> No problem.  Here is the G3 series.  It's not even gas operated.  Yes, I shoot IRON sights nimrod.  And yes, an AR will beat your M1A (I own an M21 too so know what the M1A is capable of) every day of the week.  Your M1A has a glass bedded barrel, the AR has a free floated barrel, huge edge to the AR.  Top quality trigger jobs for the M1A cost around 400 dollars.  You can buy a DROP IN trigger for the AR that will set you back 150 bucks and is better than the custom trigger job on the M1A, edge AR.
> 
> Then you take into account the lack of punishing recoil, the lesser cost of the ammo, and the edge clearly go's to the AR.
> 
> The M1A in its best form will give you between 1 and 1.5 MOA (2-2.5 MOA is standard).  The AR will do sub MOA all day long with proper barrel and ammo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Post where I said I have ever had or shot an M1A! You talk about making strawman arguments!
> 
> What scoped weapon was that soldier in Iraq using instead of a scoped M-16? Explain why the M-14 was his choice!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The M1A is the same rifle as the M-14 dipshit.  The only difference is the M-14 is select fire and as such will never be as accurate as a tuned M1A...I was giving you the best possible performing rifle to try and fulfill your ridiculous claim.
> 
> The US Army and Marines are using M-14's.......wait for it....cause it's ALL THEY HAVE moron.
Click to expand...


You are full of shit and soldiers who can shoot will take an M-14 over an M-16 or an AR-15. The photos of the two rifles show they aren't the same. How many parts of an M1A could be used on an M-14?


----------



## P@triot

Guess we need to outlaw nicotine and shovels:

He and Morgan Mengel tried to poison her husband by spiking a juice drink with liquid nicotine, prosecutors said, and when that failed, he used company shovels to bludgeon his boss to death at the West Goshen Township firm.

Woman admits role in murder

Now this one is a real predicament. Not only to we have to outlaw knives, but we also have to outlaw anything can be used to "smother" (geez - pillows, sheets, clothing - we're all going to be NAKED, blankets, and literally millions and millions of other items):

A Teaneck man accused of stabbing his girlfriend to death and smothering her 5-year-old daughter

Man accused of slaying Englewood mom, young daughter pleads not guilty | NJ.com


Oh My God!!! Do you realize what this means?!? We are going to have to outlaw hands for all human beings. Every person born will have to have their hands amputated. But wait a second, how will the physicians amputate when they won't have any hands?!? Damn, this is a real conundrum!

A 53-year-old man was arrested Tuesday in the strangulation of a woman whose body was found at a Third Ward house over the weekend

Man charged with murder in woman's strangulation - Houston Chronicle


----------



## Dubya

Rottweiler said:


> Guess we need to outlaw nicotine and shovels:
> 
> He and Morgan Mengel tried to poison her husband by spiking a juice drink with liquid nicotine, prosecutors said, and when that failed, he used company shovels to bludgeon his boss to death at the West Goshen Township firm.
> 
> Woman admits role in murder
> 
> Now this one is a real predicament. Not only to we have to outlaw knives, but we also have to outlaw anything can be used to "smother" (geez - pillows, sheets, clothing - we're all going to be NAKED, blankets, and literally millions and millions of other items):
> 
> A Teaneck man accused of stabbing his girlfriend to death and smothering her 5-year-old daughter
> 
> Man accused of slaying Englewood mom, young daughter pleads not guilty | NJ.com
> 
> 
> Oh My God!!! Do you realize what this means?!? We are going to have to outlaw hands for all human beings. Every person born will have to have their hands amputated. But wait a second, how will the physicians amputate when they won't have any hands?!? Damn, this is a real conundrum!
> 
> A 53-year-old man was arrested Tuesday in the strangulation of a woman whose body was found at a Third Ward house over the weekend
> 
> Man charged with murder in woman's strangulation - Houston Chronicle



No, we need gun regulations, fool, and less fools in our country!


----------



## westwall

Dubya said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> Post where I said I have ever had or shot an M1A! You talk about making strawman arguments!
> 
> What scoped weapon was that soldier in Iraq using instead of a scoped M-16? Explain why the M-14 was his choice!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The M1A is the same rifle as the M-14 dipshit.  The only difference is the M-14 is select fire and as such will never be as accurate as a tuned M1A...I was giving you the best possible performing rifle to try and fulfill your ridiculous claim.
> 
> The US Army and Marines are using M-14's.......wait for it....cause it's ALL THEY HAVE moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are full of shit and soldiers who can shoot will take an M-14 over an M-16 or an AR-15. The photos of the two rifles show they aren't the same. How many parts of an M1A could be used on an M-14?
Click to expand...





All of them, except for the receiver, which doesn't have the lug for the selectfire lever asshat.  You really don't know shit from shinola do you...  Here are TWO pictures for you, one a M-14 the other an M1A, can you tell the difference?  The THIRD picture is what they would rather have....Notice the family resemblance?  The problem is cost, the SR-25 costs around 3k and the military has the M-14 in stock.

Understand the diff?


----------



## westwall

Dubya said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guess we need to outlaw nicotine and shovels:
> 
> He and Morgan Mengel tried to poison her husband by spiking a juice drink with liquid nicotine, prosecutors said, and when that failed, he used company shovels to bludgeon his boss to death at the West Goshen Township firm.
> 
> Woman admits role in murder
> 
> Now this one is a real predicament. Not only to we have to outlaw knives, but we also have to outlaw anything can be used to "smother" (geez - pillows, sheets, clothing - we're all going to be NAKED, blankets, and literally millions and millions of other items):
> 
> A Teaneck man accused of stabbing his girlfriend to death and smothering her 5-year-old daughter
> 
> Man accused of slaying Englewood mom, young daughter pleads not guilty | NJ.com
> 
> 
> Oh My God!!! Do you realize what this means?!? We are going to have to outlaw hands for all human beings. Every person born will have to have their hands amputated. But wait a second, how will the physicians amputate when they won't have any hands?!? Damn, this is a real conundrum!
> 
> A 53-year-old man was arrested Tuesday in the strangulation of a woman whose body was found at a Third Ward house over the weekend
> 
> Man charged with murder in woman's strangulation - Houston Chronicle
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, we need gun regulations, fool, and less fools in our country!
Click to expand...





AMEN BROTHA!   When do you leave?  Go to some other country that has all the laws you like, and stay the fuck there.  Leave us alone.


----------



## Dubya

westwall said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The M1A is the same rifle as the M-14 dipshit.  The only difference is the M-14 is select fire and as such will never be as accurate as a tuned M1A...I was giving you the best possible performing rifle to try and fulfill your ridiculous claim.
> 
> The US Army and Marines are using M-14's.......wait for it....cause it's ALL THEY HAVE moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are full of shit and soldiers who can shoot will take an M-14 over an M-16 or an AR-15. The photos of the two rifles show they aren't the same. How many parts of an M1A could be used on an M-14?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of them, except for the receiver, which doesn't have the lug for the selectfire lever asshat.  You really don't know shit from shinola do you...  Here are TWO pictures for you, one a M-14 the other an M1A, can you tell the difference?  The THIRD picture is what they would rather have....Notice the family resemblance?  The problem is cost, the SR-25 costs around 3k and the military has the M-14 in stock.
> 
> Understand the diff?
Click to expand...


You changed the M1 Garand to the M1A, so I'll keep it that way.

Why because you say so?

You can't see the difference in how the two different barrels vent gas at different places and all those parts involved? 
You can't see the difference in that clip and a magazine?
You can't see the difference in the front sight?
You can't see the difference in the length of the stock?
You can't see the difference in the hand guard?

I haven't personally examined the interior an M1A, but from the looks of it, you may get a bolt, rear sight, two sling swivels, operating rod and trigger assembly and then again you may not get all those parts. The M1A vents further along the barrel, so the operating rod might have had to been longer to keep the piston from having to travel so far. It's possible the trigger assembly could be the same or modified to work, but many of the parts in it would be the same. I doubt if they changed slings enough to make the part change or the bolt and rear sights had to change much, though the rear sight is different. That isn't a lot of parts and the remaining parts is nearly the whole weapon.


----------



## Unkotare

Dubya said:


> No, we need gun regulations, fool, and less fools in our country!





Why don't you lead by example and get the fuck out? You're anti-American anyway.


----------



## P@triot

Bird said:


> Assault rifles are already banned.They fire rapid rounds.



Uh....what?

I have a friend who purchased a *fully-automatic uzi with a silencer*, just over a year ago.

He did have to submit papers to the ATF, and it took them forever and a day to approve the sale, but the sale did occur and it was 100% legal. Around that same time, I seriously considered purchasing the very bad-ass fully automatic Barrett M468 from a licensed dealer (a different one from where my buddy had purchased the uzi).

Where in the world did you get that "assault weapons" are banned?



Bird said:


> The 2nd amendment is to protect us from a tyrannical or dictatorship type of Government.



*True. 100% accurate here*



Bird said:


> When the three branches of Government are not kept separate like is happening now, it then becomes a Government out of control.



*True again. 100% accurate here as well*



Bird said:


> The 2nd amendment is the last resort to tyranny.



*True again. 100% accurate here as well*



Bird said:


> You should read the Federalist Papers, it makes it very clear as to why we have the 2nd amendment.



*True again. 100% accurate here as well*



Bird said:


> What is extremely dangerous is when we have Presidents who think they have the right to be a Monarch like Wilson, Roosevelt and Obama. All Progressives and all who are or were against the Constitution.



*True again. 100% accurate here as well*



Bird said:


> By the way, we are a Republic not a Democracy.



*True again. 100% accurate here as well*



Bird said:


> Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Democracy allows eligible citizens to participate equally&#8212;either directly or through elected representatives&#8212;in the proposal, development, and creation of laws. It encompasses social, economic and cultural conditions that enable the free and equal practice of political self-determination.
> 
> A republic is a form of government in which the country is considered a "public matter" (Latin: res publica), not the private concern or property of the rulers, and where offices of state are subsequently directly or indirectly elected or appointed rather than inherited. In modern times, a common simplified definition of a republic is a government where the head of state is not a monarch.[1][2] Currently, 135 of the world's 206 sovereign states use the word "republic" as part of their official names.
> 
> I would say that we are both a democracy and a republic... as there is little difference between the two definitions.



*Doh! You were doing so well. Here the streak is broken. A Republic is not a "government in which the country is considered a public matter" (hell, that would essentially apply to 100% of the world, including communisms, socialisms, etc.)

A Republic is a form of government in which people elect representatives to make votes on their behalf. A true Democracy is a form of government in which the people make their own votes. A Republic is better because there is no way a person could work a real job, take care of a family, and still be perfectly informed on four-hundred different 2,000 page bills to make an informed vote on them (hence hiring a representative to do it for you). Additionally, a true Democracy leads to "mob rule". If 50.00001% of the country decided that it's ok to hang black people in a Democracy, that's what you end up with. In a Republic, the power gets divided exponentially more evenly between the majority and the minority, helping to ensure less tyranny and radical principles. A Republic and a Democracy are significantly different.*


----------



## P@triot

Dubya said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guess we need to outlaw nicotine and shovels:
> 
> He and Morgan Mengel tried to poison her husband by spiking a juice drink with liquid nicotine, prosecutors said, and when that failed, he used company shovels to bludgeon his boss to death at the West Goshen Township firm.
> 
> Woman admits role in murder
> 
> Now this one is a real predicament. Not only to we have to outlaw knives, but we also have to outlaw anything can be used to "smother" (geez - pillows, sheets, clothing - we're all going to be NAKED, blankets, and literally millions and millions of other items):
> 
> A Teaneck man accused of stabbing his girlfriend to death and smothering her 5-year-old daughter
> 
> Man accused of slaying Englewood mom, young daughter pleads not guilty | NJ.com
> 
> 
> Oh My God!!! Do you realize what this means?!? We are going to have to outlaw hands for all human beings. Every person born will have to have their hands amputated. But wait a second, how will the physicians amputate when they won't have any hands?!? Damn, this is a real conundrum!
> 
> A 53-year-old man was arrested Tuesday in the strangulation of a woman whose body was found at a Third Ward house over the weekend
> 
> Man charged with murder in woman's strangulation - Houston Chronicle
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, we need gun regulations, fool, and less fools in our country!
Click to expand...


Oh, I see what you're saying you irrational wing-nut! You're basically saying you could give a shit if people die. However, since you've never so much as HELD a gun in your life, and have been brainwashed to hate them, you want to see an inanimate object banned.

Ok. Gotcha! Now I'm on the same page as you (understand - I don't agree, but I finally found the irrational, uneducated, wing-nut page you've landed on).


----------



## P@triot

Dubya said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guess we need to outlaw nicotine and shovels:
> 
> He and Morgan Mengel tried to poison her husband by spiking a juice drink with liquid nicotine, prosecutors said, and when that failed, he used company shovels to bludgeon his boss to death at the West Goshen Township firm.
> 
> Woman admits role in murder
> 
> Now this one is a real predicament. Not only to we have to outlaw knives, but we also have to outlaw anything can be used to "smother" (geez - pillows, sheets, clothing - we're all going to be NAKED, blankets, and literally millions and millions of other items):
> 
> A Teaneck man accused of stabbing his girlfriend to death and smothering her 5-year-old daughter
> 
> Man accused of slaying Englewood mom, young daughter pleads not guilty | NJ.com
> 
> 
> Oh My God!!! Do you realize what this means?!? We are going to have to outlaw hands for all human beings. Every person born will have to have their hands amputated. But wait a second, how will the physicians amputate when they won't have any hands?!? Damn, this is a real conundrum!
> 
> A 53-year-old man was arrested Tuesday in the strangulation of a woman whose body was found at a Third Ward house over the weekend
> 
> Man charged with murder in woman's strangulation - Houston Chronicle
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, we need gun regulations, fool, and less fools in our country!
Click to expand...


*Would you please expand on your answer and explain to us why it is perfectly acceptable in your warped mind to strangle a women to death (a very slow, painful, torturous, and personal way to kill/die), but not ok to shoot a woman to death (quick and painless)?

Do you hate women, as I suspect, and like to punish and make them suffer?*


----------



## g5000

Register gun buyers, not guns.  Run it just like voter registration.  You register as a voter, you register as a gun buyer.

The government verifies you are eligible to vote, the government verifies you are eligible to buy guns.

You are free to vote or not vote after you register, you are free to buy a gun or not buy a gun after you register.

The burden of maintaining an accurate eligible registered voter list is on the government, the burden of maintaining an accurate eligible registered gun buyer list is on the government.

You show up to vote, if your name is on the list, then you vote; you show up to buy a gun, if your name is on the list, then you buy a gun.

When you vote, you vote for as many or as few offices and initiatives and measures as you wish, and the government does not know who or what you voted for; when you buy guns, you buy as many or as few as you wish, and the government does not know what you bought.


Problem solved.


Or you can be a totalitarian wannabe dickhead, like this:

To hell with freedom.  "Prove you need this" is the new bar which must be cleared.  You must justify a need before being able to exercise your allegedly inalienable rights.

The "prove you need this" standard should be applied consistently.  For instance, you do not need porn any more than you need an AR-15.  So we must let the religious people have their way and ban porn.  Porn kills.

Our founding fathers were not able to foresee porn DVDs.  They absolutely have to go.



You want to be a totalitarian fuck?  Then do it right!


*NEXT!!!*


----------



## westwall

Dubya said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are full of shit and soldiers who can shoot will take an M-14 over an M-16 or an AR-15. The photos of the two rifles show they aren't the same. How many parts of an M1A could be used on an M-14?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of them, except for the receiver, which doesn't have the lug for the selectfire lever asshat.  You really don't know shit from shinola do you...  Here are TWO pictures for you, one a M-14 the other an M1A, can you tell the difference?  The THIRD picture is what they would rather have....Notice the family resemblance?  The problem is cost, the SR-25 costs around 3k and the military has the M-14 in stock.
> 
> Understand the diff?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You changed the M1 Garand to the M1A, so I'll keep it that way.
> 
> Why because you say so?
> 
> You can't see the difference in how the two different barrels vent gas at different places and all those parts involved?
> You can't see the difference in that clip and a magazine?
> You can't see the difference in the front sight?
> You can't see the difference in the length of the stock?
> You can't see the difference in the hand guard?
> 
> I haven't personally examined the interior an M1A, but from the looks of it, you may get a bolt, rear sight, two sling swivels, operating rod and trigger assembly and then again you may not get all those parts. The M1A vents further along the barrel, so the operating rod might have had to been longer to keep the piston from having to travel so far. It's possible the trigger assembly could be the same or modified to work, but many of the parts in it would be the same. I doubt if they changed slings enough to make the part change or the bolt and rear sights had to change much, though the rear sight is different. That isn't a lot of parts and the remaining parts is nearly the whole weapon.
Click to expand...







Nice try dummy, I clearly stated that the M-14 was merely a improved M1 Garand, and the side by side pictures show that quite clearly.  If you want we can go to the Italian BM-59 which is....yes you guessed it a M1 Garand retrofitted to a box magazine set up.  Below is a picture of one of those and it uses everything from the receiver back, they modified the barrel and gas system but once again, it is a modified garand.  And you think that it is is as good as the G3 or the FAL which is a joke.

The M-14 is a dinosaur, it is used because that's all they have, they would prefer a modern weapon instead of an UPDATED WORLD WAR TWO rifle.


----------



## Dubya

westwall said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of them, except for the receiver, which doesn't have the lug for the selectfire lever asshat.  You really don't know shit from shinola do you...  Here are TWO pictures for you, one a M-14 the other an M1A, can you tell the difference?  The THIRD picture is what they would rather have....Notice the family resemblance?  The problem is cost, the SR-25 costs around 3k and the military has the M-14 in stock.
> 
> Understand the diff?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You changed the M1 Garand to the M1A, so I'll keep it that way.
> 
> Why because you say so?
> 
> You can't see the difference in how the two different barrels vent gas at different places and all those parts involved?
> You can't see the difference in that clip and a magazine?
> You can't see the difference in the front sight?
> You can't see the difference in the length of the stock?
> You can't see the difference in the hand guard?
> 
> I haven't personally examined the interior an M1A, but from the looks of it, you may get a bolt, rear sight, two sling swivels, operating rod and trigger assembly and then again you may not get all those parts. The M1A vents further along the barrel, so the operating rod might have had to been longer to keep the piston from having to travel so far. It's possible the trigger assembly could be the same or modified to work, but many of the parts in it would be the same. I doubt if they changed slings enough to make the part change or the bolt and rear sights had to change much, though the rear sight is different. That isn't a lot of parts and the remaining parts is nearly the whole weapon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try dummy, I clearly stated that the M-14 was merely a improved M1 Garand, and the side by side pictures show that quite clearly.  If you want we can go to the Italian BM-59 which is....yes you guessed it a M1 Garand retrofitted to a box magazine set up.  Below is a picture of one of those and it uses everything from the receiver back, they modified the barrel and gas system but once again, it is a modified garand.  And you think that it is is as good as the G3 or the FAL which is a joke.
> 
> The M-14 is a dinosaur, it is used because that's all they have, they would prefer a modern weapon instead of an UPDATED WORLD WAR TWO rifle.
Click to expand...


The M-14 is much better at 500+ yards than the M-16. At 500 yards in boot camp, I shot bullseye every shot and they bunched around the heart.

To exchange parts, you may be able to use the trigger assembly and I'm fairly sure you could use the bolt without major modification. I think the trigger assembly would have to be modified, but the inner parts should be about the same. 

The M-14 has very few parts that can be interchanged with the Garand. The concept is basically the same, but that can be said of many similar weapons. The M-14 was designed to replace the BAR and the M1 Garand. Both weapons have an operating rod that is curved to to fit down in the gas cylinder with a spring connected to a gas piston, but the distances to where gas is vented and the length of the gas cylinder are very different between the two weapons. The operating rod is connected to the bolt that rolls and rotates when the weapon is fired or the operating rod is pulled back by the operating rod handle. I think it would take more than a longer spring to make up for the differences in the length of the gas cylinders. It would be my guess that the part of the operating rod that fit into the gas cylinder for the Garand would be longer than the similar part of the operating rod on the M-14. I say part, but it's all a single piece. If that's the case and it is longer, it may be possible to cut down and mill the part of the operating rod that fits into the gas cylinder and make the part out of a Garand part. Like I said, I've never disassembled a Garand, put I've disassembed and assembled M-14s blindfolded, so I know the possibilities of how the gas cylinder could be shortened in the M-14. Besides changing the vents for gas, I think it would require more than a different size spring to make it function. 

The M-14 could be equipped with a bipod that connected to the area where there is a gap between the barrel and the gas cylinder. It had a hinged butt plate that would flip up allowing the weapon to rest on the soldier's shoulder. When switched to auto, that allowed the weapon to rest on the bipod and soldier's shoulder without being held. In that position it was ready to perform like a 20 round BAR giving quick and powerful auto bursts, using the same ammo as the M-60 machine gun. With enough magazines and ammo, that's a lot of knockdown firepower from a platoon size of soldiers. Human waves could only get through once the barrels started melting down. The M-14 was also equipped with a flash suppressor and the Garand wasn't. 

It's the larger, heavier bullet that makes the M-14 more accurate. With about two and a half times the weight, the bullet varies less with windage compared to an M-16 and windage is the hardest thing to esitmate. The long range ammo for the M-14 is 174 gr compared to 63 gr for the M-16. The added weight more than compensates for the slower speed and that's why the first sniper rifles were modified M-14s. There are various ammo types and the maximum energy is 3,526 J for the 7.62×51mm NATO and 1,796 J for the 5.56×45mm NATO. That's a big difference in the energy of those bullets.


----------



## westwall

Dubya said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> You changed the M1 Garand to the M1A, so I'll keep it that way.
> 
> Why because you say so?
> 
> You can't see the difference in how the two different barrels vent gas at different places and all those parts involved?
> You can't see the difference in that clip and a magazine?
> You can't see the difference in the front sight?
> You can't see the difference in the length of the stock?
> You can't see the difference in the hand guard?
> 
> I haven't personally examined the interior an M1A, but from the looks of it, you may get a bolt, rear sight, two sling swivels, operating rod and trigger assembly and then again you may not get all those parts. The M1A vents further along the barrel, so the operating rod might have had to been longer to keep the piston from having to travel so far. It's possible the trigger assembly could be the same or modified to work, but many of the parts in it would be the same. I doubt if they changed slings enough to make the part change or the bolt and rear sights had to change much, though the rear sight is different. That isn't a lot of parts and the remaining parts is nearly the whole weapon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try dummy, I clearly stated that the M-14 was merely a improved M1 Garand, and the side by side pictures show that quite clearly.  If you want we can go to the Italian BM-59 which is....yes you guessed it a M1 Garand retrofitted to a box magazine set up.  Below is a picture of one of those and it uses everything from the receiver back, they modified the barrel and gas system but once again, it is a modified garand.  And you think that it is is as good as the G3 or the FAL which is a joke.
> 
> The M-14 is a dinosaur, it is used because that's all they have, they would prefer a modern weapon instead of an UPDATED WORLD WAR TWO rifle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The M-14 is much better at 500+ yards than the M-16. At 500 yards in boot camp, I shot bullseye every shot and they bunched around the heart.
> 
> To exchange parts, you may be able to use the trigger assembly and I'm fairly sure you could use the bolt without major modification. I think the trigger assembly would have to be modified, but the inner parts should be about the same.
> 
> The M-14 has very few parts that can be interchanged with the Garand. The concept is basically the same, but that can be said of many similar weapons. The M-14 was designed to replace the BAR and the M1 Garand. Both weapons have an operating rod that is curved to to fit down in the gas cylinder with a spring connected to a gas piston, but the distances to where gas is vented and the length of the gas cylinder are very different between the two weapons. The operating rod is connected to the bolt that rolls and rotates when the weapon is fired or the operating rod is pulled back by the operating rod handle. I think it would take more than a longer spring to make up for the differences in the length of the gas cylinders. It would be my guess that the part of the operating rod that fit into the gas cylinder for the Garand would be longer than the similar part of the operating rod on the M-14. I say part, but it's all a single piece. If that's the case and it is longer, it may be possible to cut down and mill the part of the operating rod that fits into the gas cylinder and make the part out of a Garand part. Like I said, I've never disassembled a Garand, put I've disassembed and assembled M-14s blindfolded, so I know the possibilities of how the gas cylinder could be shortened in the M-14. Besides changing the vents for gas, I think it would require more than a different size spring to make it function.
> 
> The M-14 could be equipped with a bipod that connected to the area where there is a gap between the barrel and the gas cylinder. It had a hinged butt plate that would flip up allowing the weapon to rest on the soldier's shoulder. When switched to auto, that allowed the weapon to rest on the bipod and soldier's shoulder without being held. In that position it was ready to perform like a 20 round BAR giving quick and powerful auto bursts, using the same ammo as the M-60 machine gun. With enough magazines and ammo, that's a lot of knockdown firepower from a platoon size of soldiers. Human waves could only get through once the barrels started melting down. The M-14 was also equipped with a flash suppressor and the Garand wasn't.
> 
> It's the larger, heavier bullet that makes the M-14 more accurate. With about two and a half times the weight, the bullet varies less with windage compared to an M-16 and windage is the hardest thing to esitmate. The long range ammo for the M-14 is 174 gr compared to 63 gr for the M-16. The added weight more than compensates for the slower speed and that's why the first sniper rifles were modified M-14s. There are various ammo types and the maximum energy is 3,526 J for the 7.62×51mm NATO and 1,796 J for the 5.56×45mm NATO. That's a big difference in the energy of those bullets.
Click to expand...







BS.  What type target did you qualify on?  What ranges did you shoot and what positions for the various ranges?  What firing rates did you use?  How many rounds did you expend per position?

Bullet weight does not make a particular cartridge more accurate.  Any first year shooter knows that.  One of the most accurate rifles in the world is the 6.5X55 Swede and it uses anywhere from a 108 grain all the way up to a 140 grain bullet.  It has an absurdly high BC and THAT'S what makes it so accurate.  Not the weight of the bullet.

The M-14 on full auto is completely uncontrollabe.  It is nowhere near what a BAR is (I've owned both) the BAR weighs 10 pounds more than the M-14 and fires at a slower ROF.  Placing the bipod on the gas tube in that location will dirrectly imping on teh barrel (a total no no if you knew anything) which further reduces your accuracy.

I'm going to give you some advice, never try and bullshit your way around people who know firearms, we know very well what you do and don't know...and you don't know shit.

BTW, below is my M21.  Unlike you I actually have the things I claim to have.


----------



## PaulS1950

The "first" sniper rifles were "modified M-14s" ??
In WWII sniper rifles were the 03A3 Springfield with a trigger job and a scope. And since that time there have been many sniper rifles and most have been bolt action rifles - not the semi-autos.


----------



## westwall

PaulS1950 said:


> The "first" sniper rifles were "modified M-14s" ??
> In WWII sniper rifles were the 03A3 Springfield with a trigger job and a scope. And since that time there have been many sniper rifles and most have been bolt action rifles - not the semi-autos.







The WWII rifle you are talking about is the 1903A4 (yes I own one of those too), and prior to that in the American Civil War they were using telescopic rifles for sniping.  dumbag doesn't know anything about rifle marksmanship.


----------



## Antares

Stupid fuck....

Of course you would require Photo ID's for both...right?

Stupid fuck.



g5000 said:


> Register gun buyers, not guns.  Run it just like voter registration.  You register as a voter, you register as a gun buyer.
> 
> The government verifies you are eligible to vote, the government verifies you are eligible to buy guns.
> 
> You are free to vote or not vote after you register, you are free to buy a gun or not buy a gun after you register.
> 
> The burden of maintaining an accurate eligible registered voter list is on the government, the burden of maintaining an accurate eligible registered gun buyer list is on the government.
> 
> You show up to vote, if your name is on the list, then you vote; you show up to buy a gun, if your name is on the list, then you buy a gun.
> 
> When you vote, you vote for as many or as few offices and initiatives and measures as you wish, and the government does not know who or what you voted for; when you buy guns, you buy as many or as few as you wish, and the government does not know what you bought.
> 
> 
> Problem solved.
> 
> 
> Or you can be a totalitarian wannabe dickhead, like this:
> 
> To hell with freedom.  "Prove you need this" is the new bar which must be cleared.  You must justify a need before being able to exercise your allegedly inalienable rights.
> 
> The "prove you need this" standard should be applied consistently.  For instance, you do not need porn any more than you need an AR-15.  So we must let the religious people have their way and ban porn.  Porn kills.
> 
> Our founding fathers were not able to foresee porn DVDs.  They absolutely have to go.
> 
> 
> 
> You want to be a totalitarian fuck?  Then do it right!
> 
> 
> *NEXT!!!*


----------



## Dubya

westwall said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try dummy, I clearly stated that the M-14 was merely a improved M1 Garand, and the side by side pictures show that quite clearly.  If you want we can go to the Italian BM-59 which is....yes you guessed it a M1 Garand retrofitted to a box magazine set up.  Below is a picture of one of those and it uses everything from the receiver back, they modified the barrel and gas system but once again, it is a modified garand.  And you think that it is is as good as the G3 or the FAL which is a joke.
> 
> The M-14 is a dinosaur, it is used because that's all they have, they would prefer a modern weapon instead of an UPDATED WORLD WAR TWO rifle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The M-14 is much better at 500+ yards than the M-16. At 500 yards in boot camp, I shot bullseye every shot and they bunched around the heart.
> 
> To exchange parts, you may be able to use the trigger assembly and I'm fairly sure you could use the bolt without major modification. I think the trigger assembly would have to be modified, but the inner parts should be about the same.
> 
> The M-14 has very few parts that can be interchanged with the Garand. The concept is basically the same, but that can be said of many similar weapons. The M-14 was designed to replace the BAR and the M1 Garand. Both weapons have an operating rod that is curved to to fit down in the gas cylinder with a spring connected to a gas piston, but the distances to where gas is vented and the length of the gas cylinder are very different between the two weapons. The operating rod is connected to the bolt that rolls and rotates when the weapon is fired or the operating rod is pulled back by the operating rod handle. I think it would take more than a longer spring to make up for the differences in the length of the gas cylinders. It would be my guess that the part of the operating rod that fit into the gas cylinder for the Garand would be longer than the similar part of the operating rod on the M-14. I say part, but it's all a single piece. If that's the case and it is longer, it may be possible to cut down and mill the part of the operating rod that fits into the gas cylinder and make the part out of a Garand part. Like I said, I've never disassembled a Garand, put I've disassembed and assembled M-14s blindfolded, so I know the possibilities of how the gas cylinder could be shortened in the M-14. Besides changing the vents for gas, I think it would require more than a different size spring to make it function.
> 
> The M-14 could be equipped with a bipod that connected to the area where there is a gap between the barrel and the gas cylinder. It had a hinged butt plate that would flip up allowing the weapon to rest on the soldier's shoulder. When switched to auto, that allowed the weapon to rest on the bipod and soldier's shoulder without being held. In that position it was ready to perform like a 20 round BAR giving quick and powerful auto bursts, using the same ammo as the M-60 machine gun. With enough magazines and ammo, that's a lot of knockdown firepower from a platoon size of soldiers. Human waves could only get through once the barrels started melting down. The M-14 was also equipped with a flash suppressor and the Garand wasn't.
> 
> It's the larger, heavier bullet that makes the M-14 more accurate. With about two and a half times the weight, the bullet varies less with windage compared to an M-16 and windage is the hardest thing to esitmate. The long range ammo for the M-14 is 174 gr compared to 63 gr for the M-16. The added weight more than compensates for the slower speed and that's why the first sniper rifles were modified M-14s. There are various ammo types and the maximum energy is 3,526 J for the 7.62×51mm NATO and 1,796 J for the 5.56×45mm NATO. That's a big difference in the energy of those bullets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS.  What type target did you qualify on?  What ranges did you shoot and what positions for the various ranges?  What firing rates did you use?  How many rounds did you expend per position?
> 
> Bullet weight does not make a particular cartridge more accurate.  Any first year shooter knows that.  One of the most accurate rifles in the world is the 6.5X55 Swede and it uses anywhere from a 108 grain all the way up to a 140 grain bullet.  It has an absurdly high BC and THAT'S what makes it so accurate.  Not the weight of the bullet.
> 
> The M-14 on full auto is completely uncontrollabe.  It is nowhere near what a BAR is (I've owned both) the BAR weighs 10 pounds more than the M-14 and fires at a slower ROF.  Placing the bipod on the gas tube in that location will dirrectly imping on teh barrel (a total no no if you knew anything) which further reduces your accuracy.
> 
> I'm going to give you some advice, never try and bullshit your way around people who know firearms, we know very well what you do and don't know...and you don't know shit.
> 
> BTW, below is my M21.  Unlike you I actually have the things I claim to have.
Click to expand...


You think you are demonstrating you know something about firearms? In fact you demonstrate you can't even read. I never claimed to have any weapons and have said I don't have any. You only impress yourself with what you think you know. Were you in the service when they issued M-14s and later switched to M-16s? 

The only reason to use the M-14 on auto would be when a human wave is attacking you at close range. How much accuracy do you need against a human wave? How many rounds are you going to shoot before the weapon gives out? If you were being attacked by a large group and the enemy was still in the distance, say 1100 to 700 yards, you could lay down some fire with an M-14 and tracers to start picking off the enemy, but auto is going to kick that weapon all over the place and not hit anything at that distance. Shooting the weapon is counter-productive unless you are hitting the enemy. If there are large amounts of enemy like in Korea and they are at an extreme distance, you can use tracers to adjust your sights and drop rounds in on them. It's good to have your ammo set up to fire a tracer every once in awhile and make adjustment, but tracers aren't good at short distances, because they give away your position. If you are familiar with your weapon, you will know how to set the sights for shorter than extreme distances and elevation changes and should have a good idea where to start setting them at extreme distances. The only time to use that auto fire is when you are about to be overrun and the enemy are so close that those two and three round burst have to hit someone. If you were trained well, you'd be zone firing before that time. 

You were comparing an M-14 to an M-16 or AR. The M-16 has a 63 gr bullet max. The M-14 has a 174 gr bullet max. Your other gr examples above aren't small bullets like the M-16 and that's why they are accurate at a distance. The difference is the M-14 will put about 20 gr of bullet out there, but the M-16 while putting out less gr is doing it with two and a half times the bullets. Having all that extra lead flying around creates more injuries, though less lethal ones. At shorter distances, the advantage of the weapon goes to the M-16 and it goes to the M-14 at longer distances.

The basic Physics of projectiles has to involve the forces that act on the projectile. Obviously, shooting at a target up or down in elevation changes the path of a bullet from what it would be at equal elevation. If the sight setting were zeroed in for level shooting, using those settings to shoot at a target with a higher elevation would cause the bullet to fall short and using those settings to shoot at a target with a lower elevation would cause the bullet to overshoot the target. The weight of the projectile isn't influenced differently with gravity. Dropping two things with different weights will cause them to hit the ground at the same time. The only difference in how a projectile travels through the air is the resistance of the air. A larger diameter bullet will encounter slightly more air resistance. 

Wind direction and speed are a major variable affecting the path of a bullet, so skipping all the obvious variables involved, it's best to consider it an inaccurate estimate. It's hard to tell if the wind will maintain it's velocity throughout the path of a bullet. That's why bullets less affected by the wind are better at long distances. How a bullet is affected by the wind is related to it's mass and velocity. The amount of area that the wind can affect on a bullet is also a factor when comparing bullets of different sizes and shapes. The wind is a force and a bullet having more force is less affected in the resultant force, which means it doesn't move off the direction of the target as much. A bullet becomes more accurate with more velocity and more mass. The product of mass and velocity is momentum, which is easily conceptualized as the resistance to change from a force. You claim the mass of a bullet doesn't affect it's accuracy, but mass translates into momentum which means the bullet with the higher momentum isn't affected by forces as much as a bullet with lower momentum.

Now if you compare bullets with the same momentum, you can see the picture from a different angle. It is possible to make a bullet or projectile that has an identical aerodynamic shape, but is made with materials of different mass and still has the same momentum. Consider bullets made out of lead, aluminum and depleted uranium. An aluminum bullet would have to have a higher velocity than a lead bullet to have equal momentum and a depleted uranium bullet would have to have a lower velocity. In this case the lighter aluminum bullet would be more accurate, than the lead and the depleted uranium would be least accurate. The reason is simply the faster bullet travels to it's destination in less time. The faster it travels, the less time there is for forces to act on it. Having a lighter bullet isn't the case with 5.56×45mm NATO and 7.62×51mm NATO ammo, because the momentum is no where near the same. The 7.62×51mm NATO ammo has a velocity of 790 m/s and a weight of 174 gr. The 5.56×45mm NATO has a velocity of 936 m/s and a weight of 63 gr. The M-16 bullet is almost 18.5% faster, which helps, but it's only 36.2% of the weight of the M-14 bullet. The M-14 bullet has 2.33 times the momentum as the M-16 bullet and when fired with weapons of equal quality, the M-14 ammo is more accurate. All that extra momentum more than compensates for the M-14 bullet traveling at 84.4% of the speed of the M-16 bullet. The amount of extra time the M-14 bullet is experiencing external ballistic forces isn't long enough to counter the resistance to forces that the addition momentum gives the bullet. The only possible way an M-16 could be more accurate than an M-14 is comparing a worn out M-14 to a match grade M-16. Bench firing the weapon without wind will identify a worn out weapon. When the quality of the weapons are the same, the M-14 has to be more accurate.

Normal rifle ranges are level and have distance markers. The ones they used to qualify with in the Marines, when I was there, had 200, 300 and 500 yard positions. Firing the rifle range at boot camp was the most eventful, because they would spend time to fam fire or fire for familiarization the weapon during the week they trained us to shoot. Their plan was to teach us how to fire the weapon. How to set the weapon for the various distances and positions during the first week and practice for four days and qualify on the fifth day the next week. That meant in the second week you were shooting the course five times with the final day being your qualifying score. The course consisted of 50 rounds and bullseyes being worth 5 points, meaning a perfect score was 250 points. I know expert was 220 or above, sharpshooter was 210 to 219 and I believe marksman was 190 to 209. Below 190 you failed and Marines have to qualify, so you are going to do it again and go back in training. The easiest way to describe the positions is there are four - offhand (standing), kneeling, sitting and prone. 3 events used 10 rounds and 4 events used 5 rounds. On the 200 yard line, we fired the 5 round offhand, kneeling and sitting plus a 10 round rapid fire sitting. On the 300 yard line, we fired the 5 round sitting and a 10 round rapid fire prone. On the 500 yard line, we fired a 10 round prone. There were 3 types of targets. A bullseye at the 500 yard line was a human shaped black silhouette, about the size of a real skinny person from the waste up. The rapid fires were also a human shaped black silhouette, but it was cut short around midway, let's say around the heart area, so it was maybe half the size as the 500 yard target. The other targets were round bullseyes, alternating black and white. All the targets were ringed with decreasing scores away from the bullseye.


----------



## westwall

Dubya said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> The M-14 is much better at 500+ yards than the M-16. At 500 yards in boot camp, I shot bullseye every shot and they bunched around the heart.
> 
> To exchange parts, you may be able to use the trigger assembly and I'm fairly sure you could use the bolt without major modification. I think the trigger assembly would have to be modified, but the inner parts should be about the same.
> 
> The M-14 has very few parts that can be interchanged with the Garand. The concept is basically the same, but that can be said of many similar weapons. The M-14 was designed to replace the BAR and the M1 Garand. Both weapons have an operating rod that is curved to to fit down in the gas cylinder with a spring connected to a gas piston, but the distances to where gas is vented and the length of the gas cylinder are very different between the two weapons. The operating rod is connected to the bolt that rolls and rotates when the weapon is fired or the operating rod is pulled back by the operating rod handle. I think it would take more than a longer spring to make up for the differences in the length of the gas cylinders. It would be my guess that the part of the operating rod that fit into the gas cylinder for the Garand would be longer than the similar part of the operating rod on the M-14. I say part, but it's all a single piece. If that's the case and it is longer, it may be possible to cut down and mill the part of the operating rod that fits into the gas cylinder and make the part out of a Garand part. Like I said, I've never disassembled a Garand, put I've disassembed and assembled M-14s blindfolded, so I know the possibilities of how the gas cylinder could be shortened in the M-14. Besides changing the vents for gas, I think it would require more than a different size spring to make it function.
> 
> The M-14 could be equipped with a bipod that connected to the area where there is a gap between the barrel and the gas cylinder. It had a hinged butt plate that would flip up allowing the weapon to rest on the soldier's shoulder. When switched to auto, that allowed the weapon to rest on the bipod and soldier's shoulder without being held. In that position it was ready to perform like a 20 round BAR giving quick and powerful auto bursts, using the same ammo as the M-60 machine gun. With enough magazines and ammo, that's a lot of knockdown firepower from a platoon size of soldiers. Human waves could only get through once the barrels started melting down. The M-14 was also equipped with a flash suppressor and the Garand wasn't.
> 
> It's the larger, heavier bullet that makes the M-14 more accurate. With about two and a half times the weight, the bullet varies less with windage compared to an M-16 and windage is the hardest thing to esitmate. The long range ammo for the M-14 is 174 gr compared to 63 gr for the M-16. The added weight more than compensates for the slower speed and that's why the first sniper rifles were modified M-14s. There are various ammo types and the maximum energy is 3,526 J for the 7.62×51mm NATO and 1,796 J for the 5.56×45mm NATO. That's a big difference in the energy of those bullets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS.  What type target did you qualify on?  What ranges did you shoot and what positions for the various ranges?  What firing rates did you use?  How many rounds did you expend per position?
> 
> Bullet weight does not make a particular cartridge more accurate.  Any first year shooter knows that.  One of the most accurate rifles in the world is the 6.5X55 Swede and it uses anywhere from a 108 grain all the way up to a 140 grain bullet.  It has an absurdly high BC and THAT'S what makes it so accurate.  Not the weight of the bullet.
> 
> The M-14 on full auto is completely uncontrollabe.  It is nowhere near what a BAR is (I've owned both) the BAR weighs 10 pounds more than the M-14 and fires at a slower ROF.  Placing the bipod on the gas tube in that location will dirrectly imping on teh barrel (a total no no if you knew anything) which further reduces your accuracy.
> 
> I'm going to give you some advice, never try and bullshit your way around people who know firearms, we know very well what you do and don't know...and you don't know shit.
> 
> BTW, below is my M21.  Unlike you I actually have the things I claim to have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think you are demonstrating you know something about firearms? In fact you demonstrate you can't even read. I never claimed to have any weapons and have said I don't have any. You only impress yourself with what you think you know. Were you in the service when they issued M-14s and later switched to M-16s?
> 
> The only reason to use the M-14 on auto would be when a human wave is attacking you at close range. How much accuracy do you need against a human wave? How many rounds are you going to shoot before the weapon gives out? If you were being attacked by a large group and the enemy was still in the distance, say 1100 to 700 yards, you could lay down some fire with an M-14 and tracers to start picking off the enemy, but auto is going to kick that weapon all over the place and not hit anything at that distance. Shooting the weapon is counter-productive unless you are hitting the enemy. If there are large amounts of enemy like in Korea and they are at an extreme distance, you can use tracers to adjust your sights and drop rounds in on them. It's good to have your ammo set up to fire a tracer every once in awhile and make adjustment, but tracers aren't good at short distances, because they give away your position. If you are familiar with your weapon, you will know how to set the sights for shorter than extreme distances and elevation changes and should have a good idea where to start setting them at extreme distances. The only time to use that auto fire is when you are about to be overrun and the enemy are so close that those two and three round burst have to hit someone. If you were trained well, you'd be zone firing before that time.
> 
> You were comparing an M-14 to an M-16 or AR. The M-16 has a 63 gr bullet max. The M-14 has a 174 gr bullet max. Your other gr examples above aren't small bullets like the M-16 and that's why they are accurate at a distance. The difference is the M-14 will put about 20 gr of bullet out there, but the M-16 while putting out less gr is doing it with two and a half times the bullets. Having all that extra lead flying around creates more injuries, though less lethal ones. At shorter distances, the advantage of the weapon goes to the M-16 and it goes to the M-14 at longer distances.
> 
> The basic Physics of projectiles has to involve the forces that act on the projectile. Obviously, shooting at a target up or down in elevation changes the path of a bullet from what it would be at equal elevation. If the sight setting were zeroed in for level shooting, using those settings to shoot at a target with a higher elevation would cause the bullet to fall short and using those settings to shoot at a target with a lower elevation would cause the bullet to overshoot the target. The weight of the projectile isn't influenced differently with gravity. Dropping two things with different weights will cause them to hit the ground at the same time. The only difference in how a projectile travels through the air is the resistance of the air. A larger diameter bullet will encounter slightly more air resistance.
> 
> Wind direction and speed are a major variable affecting the path of a bullet, so skipping all the obvious variables involved, it's best to consider it an inaccurate estimate. It's hard to tell if the wind will maintain it's velocity throughout the path of a bullet. That's why bullets less affected by the wind are better at long distances. How a bullet is affected by the wind is related to it's mass and velocity. The amount of area that the wind can affect on a bullet is also a factor when comparing bullets of different sizes and shapes. The wind is a force and a bullet having more force is less affected in the resultant force, which means it doesn't move off the direction of the target as much. A bullet becomes more accurate with more velocity and more mass. The product of mass and velocity is momentum, which is easily conceptualized as the resistance to change from a force. You claim the mass of a bullet doesn't affect it's accuracy, but mass translates into momentum which means the bullet with the higher momentum isn't affected by forces as much as a bullet with lower momentum.
> 
> Now if you compare bullets with the same momentum, you can see the picture from a different angle. It is possible to make a bullet or projectile that has an identical aerodynamic shape, but is made with materials of different mass and still has the same momentum. Consider bullets made out of lead, aluminum and depleted uranium. An aluminum bullet would have to have a higher velocity than a lead bullet to have equal momentum and a depleted uranium bullet would have to have a lower velocity. In this case the lighter aluminum bullet would be more accurate, than the lead and the depleted uranium would be least accurate. The reason is simply the faster bullet travels to it's destination in less time. The faster it travels, the less time there is for forces to act on it. Having a lighter bullet isn't the case with 5.56×45mm NATO and 7.62×51mm NATO ammo, because the momentum is no where near the same. The 7.62×51mm NATO ammo has a velocity of 790 m/s and a weight of 174 gr. The 5.56×45mm NATO has a velocity of 936 m/s and a weight of 63 gr. The M-16 bullet is almost 18.5% faster, which helps, but it's only 36.2% of the weight of the M-14 bullet. The M-14 bullet has 2.33 times the momentum as the M-16 bullet and when fired with weapons of equal quality, the M-14 ammo is more accurate. All that extra momentum more than compensates for the M-14 bullet traveling at 84.4% of the speed of the M-16 bullet. The amount of extra time the M-14 bullet is experiencing external ballistic forces isn't long enough to counter the resistance to forces that the addition momentum gives the bullet. The only possible way an M-16 could be more accurate than an M-14 is comparing a worn out M-14 to a match grade M-16. Bench firing the weapon without wind will identify a worn out weapon. When the quality of the weapons are the same, the M-14 has to be more accurate.
> 
> Normal rifle ranges are level and have distance markers. The ones they used to qualify with in the Marines, when I was there, had 200, 300 and 500 yard positions. Firing the rifle range at boot camp was the most eventful, because they would spend time to fam fire or fire for familiarization the weapon during the week they trained us to shoot. Their plan was to teach us how to fire the weapon. How to set the weapon for the various distances and positions during the first week and practice for four days and qualify on the fifth day the next week. That meant in the second week you were shooting the course five times with the final day being your qualifying score. The course consisted of 50 rounds and bullseyes being worth 5 points, meaning a perfect score was 250 points. I know expert was 220 or above, sharpshooter was 210 to 219 and I believe marksman was 190 to 209. Below 190 you failed and Marines have to qualify, so you are going to do it again and go back in training. The easiest way to describe the positions is there are four - offhand (standing), kneeling, sitting and prone. 3 events used 10 rounds and 4 events used 5 rounds. On the 200 yard line, we fired the 5 round offhand, kneeling and sitting plus a 10 round rapid fire sitting. On the 300 yard line, we fired the 5 round sitting and a 10 round rapid fire prone. On the 500 yard line, we fired a 10 round prone. There were 3 types of targets. A bullseye at the 500 yard line was a human shaped black silhouette, about the size of a real skinny person from the waste up. The rapid fires were also a human shaped black silhouette, but it was cut short around midway, let's say around the heart area, so it was maybe half the size as the 500 yard target. The other targets were round bullseyes, alternating black and white. All the targets were ringed with decreasing scores away from the bullseye.
Click to expand...






What is meant by the terms bc and moa?


----------



## Dubya

westwall said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> BS.  What type target did you qualify on?  What ranges did you shoot and what positions for the various ranges?  What firing rates did you use?  How many rounds did you expend per position?
> 
> Bullet weight does not make a particular cartridge more accurate.  Any first year shooter knows that.  One of the most accurate rifles in the world is the 6.5X55 Swede and it uses anywhere from a 108 grain all the way up to a 140 grain bullet.  It has an absurdly high BC and THAT'S what makes it so accurate.  Not the weight of the bullet.
> 
> The M-14 on full auto is completely uncontrollabe.  It is nowhere near what a BAR is (I've owned both) the BAR weighs 10 pounds more than the M-14 and fires at a slower ROF.  Placing the bipod on the gas tube in that location will dirrectly imping on teh barrel (a total no no if you knew anything) which further reduces your accuracy.
> 
> I'm going to give you some advice, never try and bullshit your way around people who know firearms, we know very well what you do and don't know...and you don't know shit.
> 
> BTW, below is my M21.  Unlike you I actually have the things I claim to have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think you are demonstrating you know something about firearms? In fact you demonstrate you can't even read. I never claimed to have any weapons and have said I don't have any. You only impress yourself with what you think you know. Were you in the service when they issued M-14s and later switched to M-16s?
> 
> The only reason to use the M-14 on auto would be when a human wave is attacking you at close range. How much accuracy do you need against a human wave? How many rounds are you going to shoot before the weapon gives out? If you were being attacked by a large group and the enemy was still in the distance, say 1100 to 700 yards, you could lay down some fire with an M-14 and tracers to start picking off the enemy, but auto is going to kick that weapon all over the place and not hit anything at that distance. Shooting the weapon is counter-productive unless you are hitting the enemy. If there are large amounts of enemy like in Korea and they are at an extreme distance, you can use tracers to adjust your sights and drop rounds in on them. It's good to have your ammo set up to fire a tracer every once in awhile and make adjustment, but tracers aren't good at short distances, because they give away your position. If you are familiar with your weapon, you will know how to set the sights for shorter than extreme distances and elevation changes and should have a good idea where to start setting them at extreme distances. The only time to use that auto fire is when you are about to be overrun and the enemy are so close that those two and three round burst have to hit someone. If you were trained well, you'd be zone firing before that time.
> 
> You were comparing an M-14 to an M-16 or AR. The M-16 has a 63 gr bullet max. The M-14 has a 174 gr bullet max. Your other gr examples above aren't small bullets like the M-16 and that's why they are accurate at a distance. The difference is the M-14 will put about 20 gr of bullet out there, but the M-16 while putting out less gr is doing it with two and a half times the bullets. Having all that extra lead flying around creates more injuries, though less lethal ones. At shorter distances, the advantage of the weapon goes to the M-16 and it goes to the M-14 at longer distances.
> 
> The basic Physics of projectiles has to involve the forces that act on the projectile. Obviously, shooting at a target up or down in elevation changes the path of a bullet from what it would be at equal elevation. If the sight setting were zeroed in for level shooting, using those settings to shoot at a target with a higher elevation would cause the bullet to fall short and using those settings to shoot at a target with a lower elevation would cause the bullet to overshoot the target. The weight of the projectile isn't influenced differently with gravity. Dropping two things with different weights will cause them to hit the ground at the same time. The only difference in how a projectile travels through the air is the resistance of the air. A larger diameter bullet will encounter slightly more air resistance.
> 
> Wind direction and speed are a major variable affecting the path of a bullet, so skipping all the obvious variables involved, it's best to consider it an inaccurate estimate. It's hard to tell if the wind will maintain it's velocity throughout the path of a bullet. That's why bullets less affected by the wind are better at long distances. How a bullet is affected by the wind is related to it's mass and velocity. The amount of area that the wind can affect on a bullet is also a factor when comparing bullets of different sizes and shapes. The wind is a force and a bullet having more force is less affected in the resultant force, which means it doesn't move off the direction of the target as much. A bullet becomes more accurate with more velocity and more mass. The product of mass and velocity is momentum, which is easily conceptualized as the resistance to change from a force. You claim the mass of a bullet doesn't affect it's accuracy, but mass translates into momentum which means the bullet with the higher momentum isn't affected by forces as much as a bullet with lower momentum.
> 
> Now if you compare bullets with the same momentum, you can see the picture from a different angle. It is possible to make a bullet or projectile that has an identical aerodynamic shape, but is made with materials of different mass and still has the same momentum. Consider bullets made out of lead, aluminum and depleted uranium. An aluminum bullet would have to have a higher velocity than a lead bullet to have equal momentum and a depleted uranium bullet would have to have a lower velocity. In this case the lighter aluminum bullet would be more accurate, than the lead and the depleted uranium would be least accurate. The reason is simply the faster bullet travels to it's destination in less time. The faster it travels, the less time there is for forces to act on it. Having a lighter bullet isn't the case with 5.56×45mm NATO and 7.62×51mm NATO ammo, because the momentum is no where near the same. The 7.62×51mm NATO ammo has a velocity of 790 m/s and a weight of 174 gr. The 5.56×45mm NATO has a velocity of 936 m/s and a weight of 63 gr. The M-16 bullet is almost 18.5% faster, which helps, but it's only 36.2% of the weight of the M-14 bullet. The M-14 bullet has 2.33 times the momentum as the M-16 bullet and when fired with weapons of equal quality, the M-14 ammo is more accurate. All that extra momentum more than compensates for the M-14 bullet traveling at 84.4% of the speed of the M-16 bullet. The amount of extra time the M-14 bullet is experiencing external ballistic forces isn't long enough to counter the resistance to forces that the addition momentum gives the bullet. The only possible way an M-16 could be more accurate than an M-14 is comparing a worn out M-14 to a match grade M-16. Bench firing the weapon without wind will identify a worn out weapon. When the quality of the weapons are the same, the M-14 has to be more accurate.
> 
> Normal rifle ranges are level and have distance markers. The ones they used to qualify with in the Marines, when I was there, had 200, 300 and 500 yard positions. Firing the rifle range at boot camp was the most eventful, because they would spend time to fam fire or fire for familiarization the weapon during the week they trained us to shoot. Their plan was to teach us how to fire the weapon. How to set the weapon for the various distances and positions during the first week and practice for four days and qualify on the fifth day the next week. That meant in the second week you were shooting the course five times with the final day being your qualifying score. The course consisted of 50 rounds and bullseyes being worth 5 points, meaning a perfect score was 250 points. I know expert was 220 or above, sharpshooter was 210 to 219 and I believe marksman was 190 to 209. Below 190 you failed and Marines have to qualify, so you are going to do it again and go back in training. The easiest way to describe the positions is there are four - offhand (standing), kneeling, sitting and prone. 3 events used 10 rounds and 4 events used 5 rounds. On the 200 yard line, we fired the 5 round offhand, kneeling and sitting plus a 10 round rapid fire sitting. On the 300 yard line, we fired the 5 round sitting and a 10 round rapid fire prone. On the 500 yard line, we fired a 10 round prone. There were 3 types of targets. A bullseye at the 500 yard line was a human shaped black silhouette, about the size of a real skinny person from the waste up. The rapid fires were also a human shaped black silhouette, but it was cut short around midway, let's say around the heart area, so it was maybe half the size as the 500 yard target. The other targets were round bullseyes, alternating black and white. All the targets were ringed with decreasing scores away from the bullseye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is meant by the terms bc and moa?
Click to expand...


The terms stand for ballistic coefficient and minute of angle, but the art of shooting is more involved in the activity of compensating for the external ballistics than getting too mathematical and scientific about it. The person has to be familiar with the weapon and their environment where they can make quick changes that properly adjust for the forces that will take a bullet off target. The normal soldier is not a sniper, but will keep his weapon on battle (field) ready Goldilocks settings. They should know where to shoot off center target to compensate for a target being farther away or closer than those mid range settings. That allows them to quickly hit a target without taking the time to adjust the sight settings.


----------



## westwall

Dubya said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think you are demonstrating you know something about firearms? In fact you demonstrate you can't even read. I never claimed to have any weapons and have said I don't have any. You only impress yourself with what you think you know. Were you in the service when they issued M-14s and later switched to M-16s?
> 
> The only reason to use the M-14 on auto would be when a human wave is attacking you at close range. How much accuracy do you need against a human wave? How many rounds are you going to shoot before the weapon gives out? If you were being attacked by a large group and the enemy was still in the distance, say 1100 to 700 yards, you could lay down some fire with an M-14 and tracers to start picking off the enemy, but auto is going to kick that weapon all over the place and not hit anything at that distance. Shooting the weapon is counter-productive unless you are hitting the enemy. If there are large amounts of enemy like in Korea and they are at an extreme distance, you can use tracers to adjust your sights and drop rounds in on them. It's good to have your ammo set up to fire a tracer every once in awhile and make adjustment, but tracers aren't good at short distances, because they give away your position. If you are familiar with your weapon, you will know how to set the sights for shorter than extreme distances and elevation changes and should have a good idea where to start setting them at extreme distances. The only time to use that auto fire is when you are about to be overrun and the enemy are so close that those two and three round burst have to hit someone. If you were trained well, you'd be zone firing before that time.
> 
> You were comparing an M-14 to an M-16 or AR. The M-16 has a 63 gr bullet max. The M-14 has a 174 gr bullet max. Your other gr examples above aren't small bullets like the M-16 and that's why they are accurate at a distance. The difference is the M-14 will put about 20 gr of bullet out there, but the M-16 while putting out less gr is doing it with two and a half times the bullets. Having all that extra lead flying around creates more injuries, though less lethal ones. At shorter distances, the advantage of the weapon goes to the M-16 and it goes to the M-14 at longer distances.
> 
> The basic Physics of projectiles has to involve the forces that act on the projectile. Obviously, shooting at a target up or down in elevation changes the path of a bullet from what it would be at equal elevation. If the sight setting were zeroed in for level shooting, using those settings to shoot at a target with a higher elevation would cause the bullet to fall short and using those settings to shoot at a target with a lower elevation would cause the bullet to overshoot the target. The weight of the projectile isn't influenced differently with gravity. Dropping two things with different weights will cause them to hit the ground at the same time. The only difference in how a projectile travels through the air is the resistance of the air. A larger diameter bullet will encounter slightly more air resistance.
> 
> Wind direction and speed are a major variable affecting the path of a bullet, so skipping all the obvious variables involved, it's best to consider it an inaccurate estimate. It's hard to tell if the wind will maintain it's velocity throughout the path of a bullet. That's why bullets less affected by the wind are better at long distances. How a bullet is affected by the wind is related to it's mass and velocity. The amount of area that the wind can affect on a bullet is also a factor when comparing bullets of different sizes and shapes. The wind is a force and a bullet having more force is less affected in the resultant force, which means it doesn't move off the direction of the target as much. A bullet becomes more accurate with more velocity and more mass. The product of mass and velocity is momentum, which is easily conceptualized as the resistance to change from a force. You claim the mass of a bullet doesn't affect it's accuracy, but mass translates into momentum which means the bullet with the higher momentum isn't affected by forces as much as a bullet with lower momentum.
> 
> Now if you compare bullets with the same momentum, you can see the picture from a different angle. It is possible to make a bullet or projectile that has an identical aerodynamic shape, but is made with materials of different mass and still has the same momentum. Consider bullets made out of lead, aluminum and depleted uranium. An aluminum bullet would have to have a higher velocity than a lead bullet to have equal momentum and a depleted uranium bullet would have to have a lower velocity. In this case the lighter aluminum bullet would be more accurate, than the lead and the depleted uranium would be least accurate. The reason is simply the faster bullet travels to it's destination in less time. The faster it travels, the less time there is for forces to act on it. Having a lighter bullet isn't the case with 5.56×45mm NATO and 7.62×51mm NATO ammo, because the momentum is no where near the same. The 7.62×51mm NATO ammo has a velocity of 790 m/s and a weight of 174 gr. The 5.56×45mm NATO has a velocity of 936 m/s and a weight of 63 gr. The M-16 bullet is almost 18.5% faster, which helps, but it's only 36.2% of the weight of the M-14 bullet. The M-14 bullet has 2.33 times the momentum as the M-16 bullet and when fired with weapons of equal quality, the M-14 ammo is more accurate. All that extra momentum more than compensates for the M-14 bullet traveling at 84.4% of the speed of the M-16 bullet. The amount of extra time the M-14 bullet is experiencing external ballistic forces isn't long enough to counter the resistance to forces that the addition momentum gives the bullet. The only possible way an M-16 could be more accurate than an M-14 is comparing a worn out M-14 to a match grade M-16. Bench firing the weapon without wind will identify a worn out weapon. When the quality of the weapons are the same, the M-14 has to be more accurate.
> 
> Normal rifle ranges are level and have distance markers. The ones they used to qualify with in the Marines, when I was there, had 200, 300 and 500 yard positions. Firing the rifle range at boot camp was the most eventful, because they would spend time to fam fire or fire for familiarization the weapon during the week they trained us to shoot. Their plan was to teach us how to fire the weapon. How to set the weapon for the various distances and positions during the first week and practice for four days and qualify on the fifth day the next week. That meant in the second week you were shooting the course five times with the final day being your qualifying score. The course consisted of 50 rounds and bullseyes being worth 5 points, meaning a perfect score was 250 points. I know expert was 220 or above, sharpshooter was 210 to 219 and I believe marksman was 190 to 209. Below 190 you failed and Marines have to qualify, so you are going to do it again and go back in training. The easiest way to describe the positions is there are four - offhand (standing), kneeling, sitting and prone. 3 events used 10 rounds and 4 events used 5 rounds. On the 200 yard line, we fired the 5 round offhand, kneeling and sitting plus a 10 round rapid fire sitting. On the 300 yard line, we fired the 5 round sitting and a 10 round rapid fire prone. On the 500 yard line, we fired a 10 round prone. There were 3 types of targets. A bullseye at the 500 yard line was a human shaped black silhouette, about the size of a real skinny person from the waste up. The rapid fires were also a human shaped black silhouette, but it was cut short around midway, let's say around the heart area, so it was maybe half the size as the 500 yard target. The other targets were round bullseyes, alternating black and white. All the targets were ringed with decreasing scores away from the bullseye.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is meant by the terms bc and moa?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The terms stand for ballistic coefficient and minute of angle, but the art of shooting is more involved in the activity of compensating for the external ballistics than getting too mathematical and scientific about it. The person has to be familiar with the weapon and their environment where they can make quick changes that properly adjust for the forces that will take a bullet off target. The normal soldier is not a sniper, but will keep his weapon on battle (field) ready Goldilocks settings. They should know where to shoot off center target to compensate for a target being farther away or closer than those mid range settings. That allows them to quickly hit a target without taking the time to adjust the sight settings.
Click to expand...






You didn't define the terms.  You posted a huge diatribe (which is made up of questionable tactical decisions) instead of answering my very simple questions.  I asked you to define the terms.  Please do so.  In your own words.  Also, when using iron sights, what are the prime variables in the inherent accuracy of a rifle?


----------



## Dubya

westwall said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is meant by the terms bc and moa?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The terms stand for ballistic coefficient and minute of angle, but the art of shooting is more involved in the activity of compensating for the external ballistics than getting too mathematical and scientific about it. The person has to be familiar with the weapon and their environment where they can make quick changes that properly adjust for the forces that will take a bullet off target. The normal soldier is not a sniper, but will keep his weapon on battle (field) ready Goldilocks settings. They should know where to shoot off center target to compensate for a target being farther away or closer than those mid range settings. That allows them to quickly hit a target without taking the time to adjust the sight settings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't define the terms.  You posted a huge diatribe (which is made up of questionable tactical decisions) instead of answering my very simple questions.  I asked you to define the terms.  Please do so.  In your own words.  Also, when using iron sights, what are the prime variables in the inherent accuracy of a rifle?
Click to expand...


I have better things to do than answer your foolish basic questions about ballistics. Go take a two semester Physics course for Physics majors and let me know if ballistics is complicated science! You don't become a great marksman or pool player by studying science. The science behind these activities is good for someone to grasp, but the art of shooting or playing pool requires technique and practice. It's possible to be a great pool player and possess no formal understanding of the concept of the science behind the game. 

When I'm shooting on a rifle range, I use a technique of trigger pull that makes it so I'm not going to know when that weapon fires. There is time on a rifle range and time to fire a sniper shot, but there isn't always time in combat and some types of shooting ranges are timed ranges. In hunting, there are situations where a person has the time for a shot and situations where they don't. There are times to avoid a shot, like shooting a deer and times avoiding a shot isn't as important, like in goose hunting, where there is still a good chance of hitting the target, so you take your chances at a probability shot. Only practice and training can teach the person what to do. 

I've been involved with both science and guns since the time we moved from the city to a rural area at age 11. From the time I was a young child, I knew my dad had guns, but he didn't shoot them, until some friend of the family dropped by our rural home and wanted to shoot target practice. The guy bought a 357 magnum 6" revolver and he even let me shoot it. They were shooting various guns and my dad starts showing this guy how to light matches with a .22 cal. rifle. My dad grew up in West Virginia where they would shoot to eat and they didn't waste ammo. I taught myself to shoot well with a BB gun. Only practice can make somebody a good marksman, so you have to discover what makes a particular weapon shoot well and follow the proper techniques. 

You're not the only person in America who has been around guns, so stop acting like you are! It's dumb to think people can't like guns for sports, but still want common sense laws to protect our citizens. The criminals and you idiots are the problem. We can make laws that allow people to enjoy the firearm related sports and protect society. If you have a problem with those laws, take it up with your mental health professional, who is paid to care about your problems.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

PaulS1950 said:


> The "first" sniper rifles were "modified M-14s" ??
> In WWII sniper rifles were the 03A3 Springfield with a trigger job and a scope. And since that time there have been many sniper rifles and most have been bolt action rifles - not the semi-autos.


The mosin nagant  was also a sniper rifle during WWII


----------



## Dubya

PaulS1950 said:


> The "first" sniper rifles were "modified M-14s" ??
> In WWII sniper rifles were the 03A3 Springfield with a trigger job and a scope. And since that time there have been many sniper rifles and most have been bolt action rifles - not the semi-autos.



I'm talking about a real sniper rifle and not some rifle used in the Revolutionary War.


----------



## P@triot

Roo said:


> Stupid fuck....
> 
> Of course you would require Photo ID's for both...right?
> 
> Stupid fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Register gun buyers, not guns.  Run it just like voter registration.  You register as a voter, you register as a gun buyer.
> 
> The government verifies you are eligible to vote, the government verifies you are eligible to buy guns.
> 
> You are free to vote or not vote after you register, you are free to buy a gun or not buy a gun after you register.
> 
> The burden of maintaining an accurate eligible registered voter list is on the government, the burden of maintaining an accurate eligible registered gun buyer list is on the government.
> 
> You show up to vote, if your name is on the list, then you vote; you show up to buy a gun, if your name is on the list, then you buy a gun.
> 
> When you vote, you vote for as many or as few offices and initiatives and measures as you wish, and the government does not know who or what you voted for; when you buy guns, you buy as many or as few as you wish, and the government does not know what you bought.
> 
> 
> Problem solved.
> 
> 
> Or you can be a totalitarian wannabe dickhead, like this:
> 
> To hell with freedom.  "Prove you need this" is the new bar which must be cleared.  You must justify a need before being able to exercise your allegedly inalienable rights.
> 
> The "prove you need this" standard should be applied consistently.  For instance, you do not need porn any more than you need an AR-15.  So we must let the religious people have their way and ban porn.  Porn kills.
> 
> Our founding fathers were not able to foresee porn DVDs.  They absolutely have to go.
> 
> 
> 
> You want to be a totalitarian fuck?  Then do it right!
> 
> 
> *NEXT!!!*
Click to expand...


Ok - GREAT point on the photo id!


----------



## westwall

Dubya said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> The terms stand for ballistic coefficient and minute of angle, but the art of shooting is more involved in the activity of compensating for the external ballistics than getting too mathematical and scientific about it. The person has to be familiar with the weapon and their environment where they can make quick changes that properly adjust for the forces that will take a bullet off target. The normal soldier is not a sniper, but will keep his weapon on battle (field) ready Goldilocks settings. They should know where to shoot off center target to compensate for a target being farther away or closer than those mid range settings. That allows them to quickly hit a target without taking the time to adjust the sight settings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't define the terms.  You posted a huge diatribe (which is made up of questionable tactical decisions) instead of answering my very simple questions.  I asked you to define the terms.  Please do so.  In your own words.  Also, when using iron sights, what are the prime variables in the inherent accuracy of a rifle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have better things to do than answer your foolish basic questions about ballistics. Go take a two semester Physics course for Physics majors and let me know if ballistics is complicated science! You don't become a great marksman or pool player by studying science. The science behind these activities is good for someone to grasp, but the art of shooting or playing pool requires technique and practice. It's possible to be a great pool player and possess no formal understanding of the concept of the science behind the game.
> 
> When I'm shooting on a rifle range, I use a technique of trigger pull that makes it so I'm not going to know when that weapon fires. There is time on a rifle range and time to fire a sniper shot, but there isn't always time in combat and some types of shooting ranges are timed ranges. In hunting, there are situations where a person has the time for a shot and situations where they don't. There are times to avoid a shot, like shooting a deer and times avoiding a shot isn't as important, like in goose hunting, where there is still a good chance of hitting the target, so you take your chances at a probability shot. Only practice and training can teach the person what to do.
> 
> I've been involved with both science and guns since the time we moved from the city to a rural area at age 11. From the time I was a young child, I knew my dad had guns, but he didn't shoot them, until some friend of the family dropped by our rural home and wanted to shoot target practice. The guy bought a 357 magnum 6" revolver and he even let me shoot it. They were shooting various guns and my dad starts showing this guy how to light matches with a .22 cal. rifle. My dad grew up in West Virginia where they would shoot to eat and they didn't waste ammo. I taught myself to shoot well with a BB gun. Only practice can make somebody a good marksman, so you have to discover what makes a particular weapon shoot well and follow the proper techniques.
> 
> You're not the only person in America who has been around guns, so stop acting like you are! It's dumb to think people can't like guns for sports, but still want common sense laws to protect our citizens. The criminals and you idiots are the problem. We can make laws that allow people to enjoy the firearm related sports and protect society. If you have a problem with those laws, take it up with your mental health professional, who is paid to care about your problems.
Click to expand...








Had you really been a Marine, and shot as well as you claimed, you could have answered the MOA question with a single sentence of no more than 20 words.  The BC question could likewise be answered with a single sentence of no more than 35 words.

Instead you post a minor novella because you don't know a damned thing about what you posted and are trying to baffle us with BS.

Typical for dim bulbs like yourself.


----------



## westwall

Dubya said:


> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "first" sniper rifles were "modified M-14s" ??
> In WWII sniper rifles were the 03A3 Springfield with a trigger job and a scope. And since that time there have been many sniper rifles and most have been bolt action rifles - not the semi-autos.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm talking about a real sniper rifle and not some rifle used in the Revolutionary War.
Click to expand...







  What an ignorant dumb ass.  The photo is of a DEDICATED SNIPER RIFLE (in other words nimrod it was built for the purpose, you'll note it has no iron sights) made for the US Army in WWII.  The Germans had them too, as did the Japanese, the Russians, the British, the Swedes.....I hope you get my point....though somehow I think you are incapable.  

Now would be a good time to tuck tale and run, because you are way the fuck out of your league little boy.


----------



## OODA_Loop

Dubya said:


> We can make laws that allow people to enjoy the firearm related sports and protect society. If you have a problem with those laws, take it up with your mental health professional, who is paid to care about your problems.



Senate and House won't pass it.


----------



## Dubya

westwall said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't define the terms.  You posted a huge diatribe (which is made up of questionable tactical decisions) instead of answering my very simple questions.  I asked you to define the terms.  Please do so.  In your own words.  Also, when using iron sights, what are the prime variables in the inherent accuracy of a rifle?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have better things to do than answer your foolish basic questions about ballistics. Go take a two semester Physics course for Physics majors and let me know if ballistics is complicated science! You don't become a great marksman or pool player by studying science. The science behind these activities is good for someone to grasp, but the art of shooting or playing pool requires technique and practice. It's possible to be a great pool player and possess no formal understanding of the concept of the science behind the game.
> 
> When I'm shooting on a rifle range, I use a technique of trigger pull that makes it so I'm not going to know when that weapon fires. There is time on a rifle range and time to fire a sniper shot, but there isn't always time in combat and some types of shooting ranges are timed ranges. In hunting, there are situations where a person has the time for a shot and situations where they don't. There are times to avoid a shot, like shooting a deer and times avoiding a shot isn't as important, like in goose hunting, where there is still a good chance of hitting the target, so you take your chances at a probability shot. Only practice and training can teach the person what to do.
> 
> I've been involved with both science and guns since the time we moved from the city to a rural area at age 11. From the time I was a young child, I knew my dad had guns, but he didn't shoot them, until some friend of the family dropped by our rural home and wanted to shoot target practice. The guy bought a 357 magnum 6" revolver and he even let me shoot it. They were shooting various guns and my dad starts showing this guy how to light matches with a .22 cal. rifle. My dad grew up in West Virginia where they would shoot to eat and they didn't waste ammo. I taught myself to shoot well with a BB gun. Only practice can make somebody a good marksman, so you have to discover what makes a particular weapon shoot well and follow the proper techniques.
> 
> You're not the only person in America who has been around guns, so stop acting like you are! It's dumb to think people can't like guns for sports, but still want common sense laws to protect our citizens. The criminals and you idiots are the problem. We can make laws that allow people to enjoy the firearm related sports and protect society. If you have a problem with those laws, take it up with your mental health professional, who is paid to care about your problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Had you really been a Marine, and shot as well as you claimed, you could have answered the MOA question with a single sentence of no more than 20 words.  The BC question could likewise be answered with a single sentence of no more than 35 words.
> 
> Instead you post a minor novella because you don't know a damned thing about what you posted and are trying to baffle us with BS.
> 
> Typical for dim bulbs like yourself.
Click to expand...


I'm done talking to an idiot who can't face reality and has to question the honesty of others, just because they don't want to make America an open gun market and want common sense laws. 

MOA was not taught to Marines so they could qualify at the firing range when I was there. They focuses on teaching the Recruits how to shoot and qualify with the weapon, because if they didn't qualify, they had to go back in training until they did. You aren't allowed to be in the Marine Corps and not qualify at the range or not pass a physical fitness test. It isn't that hard to get a 190 out of a possible 250 score on the rifle range. It isn't hard to figure out somebody who hasn't been in the Marines wouldn't know these details, so you're just a motherfucking troll, talking shit. The Marines at boot camp have figured out how to solve problems with recruits making mistakes like jerking the trigger. They've discovered things like when a hardhead keeps jerking the trigger after being told long enough to stop it, that simply sticking his finger with a needle will stop him from jerking that trigger. Just looking at the weapon let's you know if the recruit is holding their breath properly or breathing when they shouldn't be. They can correct the way the recruit gets into one of the four positions and if they have to correct someone too much, they aren't going to be so gentle how they do it. The methods might be harsh, but they were effective and no one failed the rifle range. 

Go take a flying leap into the cesspool you crawled out of, Turdosaurus!


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Dubya said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> The terms stand for ballistic coefficient and minute of angle, but the art of shooting is more involved in the activity of compensating for the external ballistics than getting too mathematical and scientific about it. The person has to be familiar with the weapon and their environment where they can make quick changes that properly adjust for the forces that will take a bullet off target. The normal soldier is not a sniper, but will keep his weapon on battle (field) ready Goldilocks settings. They should know where to shoot off center target to compensate for a target being farther away or closer than those mid range settings. That allows them to quickly hit a target without taking the time to adjust the sight settings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't define the terms.  You posted a huge diatribe (which is made up of questionable tactical decisions) instead of answering my very simple questions.  I asked you to define the terms.  Please do so.  In your own words.  Also, when using iron sights, what are the prime variables in the inherent accuracy of a rifle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have better things to do than answer your foolish basic questions about ballistics. Go take a two semester Physics course for Physics majors and let me know if ballistics is complicated science! You don't become a great marksman or pool player by studying science. The science behind these activities is good for someone to grasp, but the art of shooting or playing pool requires technique and practice. It's possible to be a great pool player and possess no formal understanding of the concept of the science behind the game.
> 
> When I'm shooting on a rifle range, I use a technique of trigger pull that makes it so I'm not going to know when that weapon fires. There is time on a rifle range and time to fire a sniper shot, but there isn't always time in combat and some types of shooting ranges are timed ranges. In hunting, there are situations where a person has the time for a shot and situations where they don't. There are times to avoid a shot, like shooting a deer and times avoiding a shot isn't as important, like in goose hunting, where there is still a good chance of hitting the target, so you take your chances at a probability shot. Only practice and training can teach the person what to do.
> 
> I've been involved with both science and guns since the time we moved from the city to a rural area at age 11. From the time I was a young child, I knew my dad had guns, but he didn't shoot them, until some friend of the family dropped by our rural home and wanted to shoot target practice. The guy bought a 357 magnum 6" revolver and he even let me shoot it. They were shooting various guns and my dad starts showing this guy how to light matches with a .22 cal. rifle. My dad grew up in West Virginia where they would shoot to eat and they didn't waste ammo. I taught myself to shoot well with a BB gun. Only practice can make somebody a good marksman, so you have to discover what makes a particular weapon shoot well and follow the proper techniques.
> 
> You're not the only person in America who has been around guns, so stop acting like you are! It's dumb to think people can't like guns for sports, but still want common sense laws to protect our citizens. The criminals and you idiots are the problem. We can make laws that allow people to enjoy the firearm related sports and protect society. If you have a problem with those laws, take it up with your mental health professional, who is paid to care about your problems.
Click to expand...


Dumb ass the second amendment is not about sport shooting, hunting, or going out to target practice.


----------



## westwall

Dubya said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have better things to do than answer your foolish basic questions about ballistics. Go take a two semester Physics course for Physics majors and let me know if ballistics is complicated science! You don't become a great marksman or pool player by studying science. The science behind these activities is good for someone to grasp, but the art of shooting or playing pool requires technique and practice. It's possible to be a great pool player and possess no formal understanding of the concept of the science behind the game.
> 
> When I'm shooting on a rifle range, I use a technique of trigger pull that makes it so I'm not going to know when that weapon fires. There is time on a rifle range and time to fire a sniper shot, but there isn't always time in combat and some types of shooting ranges are timed ranges. In hunting, there are situations where a person has the time for a shot and situations where they don't. There are times to avoid a shot, like shooting a deer and times avoiding a shot isn't as important, like in goose hunting, where there is still a good chance of hitting the target, so you take your chances at a probability shot. Only practice and training can teach the person what to do.
> 
> I've been involved with both science and guns since the time we moved from the city to a rural area at age 11. From the time I was a young child, I knew my dad had guns, but he didn't shoot them, until some friend of the family dropped by our rural home and wanted to shoot target practice. The guy bought a 357 magnum 6" revolver and he even let me shoot it. They were shooting various guns and my dad starts showing this guy how to light matches with a .22 cal. rifle. My dad grew up in West Virginia where they would shoot to eat and they didn't waste ammo. I taught myself to shoot well with a BB gun. Only practice can make somebody a good marksman, so you have to discover what makes a particular weapon shoot well and follow the proper techniques.
> 
> You're not the only person in America who has been around guns, so stop acting like you are! It's dumb to think people can't like guns for sports, but still want common sense laws to protect our citizens. The criminals and you idiots are the problem. We can make laws that allow people to enjoy the firearm related sports and protect society. If you have a problem with those laws, take it up with your mental health professional, who is paid to care about your problems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Had you really been a Marine, and shot as well as you claimed, you could have answered the MOA question with a single sentence of no more than 20 words.  The BC question could likewise be answered with a single sentence of no more than 35 words.
> 
> Instead you post a minor novella because you don't know a damned thing about what you posted and are trying to baffle us with BS.
> 
> Typical for dim bulbs like yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm done talking to an idiot who can't face reality and has to question the honesty of others, just because they don't want to make America an open gun market and want common sense laws.
> 
> MOA was not taught to Marines so they could qualify at the firing range when I was there. They focuses on teaching the Recruits how to shoot and qualify with the weapon, because if they didn't qualify, they had to go back in training until they did. You aren't allowed to be in the Marine Corps and not qualify at the range or not pass a physical fitness test. It isn't that hard to get a 190 out of a possible 250 score on the rifle range. It isn't hard to figure out somebody who hasn't been in the Marines wouldn't know these details, so you're just a motherfucking troll, talking shit. The Marines at boot camp have figured out how to solve problems with recruits making mistakes like jerking the trigger. They've discovered things like when a hardhead keeps jerking the trigger after being told long enough to stop it, that simply sticking his finger with a needle will stop him from jerking that trigger. Just looking at the weapon let's you know if the recruit is holding their breath properly or breathing when they shouldn't be. They can correct the way the recruit gets into one of the four positions and if they have to correct someone too much, they aren't going to be so gentle how they do it. The methods might be harsh, but they were effective and no one failed the rifle range.
> 
> Go take a flying leap into the cesspool you crawled out of, Turdosaurus!
Click to expand...








You lying sack of crap.  The Marines live and breathe MOA (and have since at least 1900).  It is the FUNDAMENTAL unit of measurement for adjusting your point of bullet strike on target.

In a nutshell a one minute of angle rifle will shoot a one inch group at 100 yards.  I used more words because you're too stupid to understand the shorthand version.

What an ass.


----------



## westwall

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't define the terms.  You posted a huge diatribe (which is made up of questionable tactical decisions) instead of answering my very simple questions.  I asked you to define the terms.  Please do so.  In your own words.  Also, when using iron sights, what are the prime variables in the inherent accuracy of a rifle?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have better things to do than answer your foolish basic questions about ballistics. Go take a two semester Physics course for Physics majors and let me know if ballistics is complicated science! You don't become a great marksman or pool player by studying science. The science behind these activities is good for someone to grasp, but the art of shooting or playing pool requires technique and practice. It's possible to be a great pool player and possess no formal understanding of the concept of the science behind the game.
> 
> When I'm shooting on a rifle range, I use a technique of trigger pull that makes it so I'm not going to know when that weapon fires. There is time on a rifle range and time to fire a sniper shot, but there isn't always time in combat and some types of shooting ranges are timed ranges. In hunting, there are situations where a person has the time for a shot and situations where they don't. There are times to avoid a shot, like shooting a deer and times avoiding a shot isn't as important, like in goose hunting, where there is still a good chance of hitting the target, so you take your chances at a probability shot. Only practice and training can teach the person what to do.
> 
> I've been involved with both science and guns since the time we moved from the city to a rural area at age 11. From the time I was a young child, I knew my dad had guns, but he didn't shoot them, until some friend of the family dropped by our rural home and wanted to shoot target practice. The guy bought a 357 magnum 6" revolver and he even let me shoot it. They were shooting various guns and my dad starts showing this guy how to light matches with a .22 cal. rifle. My dad grew up in West Virginia where they would shoot to eat and they didn't waste ammo. I taught myself to shoot well with a BB gun. Only practice can make somebody a good marksman, so you have to discover what makes a particular weapon shoot well and follow the proper techniques.
> 
> You're not the only person in America who has been around guns, so stop acting like you are! It's dumb to think people can't like guns for sports, but still want common sense laws to protect our citizens. The criminals and you idiots are the problem. We can make laws that allow people to enjoy the firearm related sports and protect society. If you have a problem with those laws, take it up with your mental health professional, who is paid to care about your problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dumb ass the second amendment is not about sport shooting, hunting, or going out to target practice.
Click to expand...






The lying sack of shit claims to be able to hit bullseyes at 500 meters but doesn't understand MOA.  What a complete ass.


----------



## Dubya

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't define the terms.  You posted a huge diatribe (which is made up of questionable tactical decisions) instead of answering my very simple questions.  I asked you to define the terms.  Please do so.  In your own words.  Also, when using iron sights, what are the prime variables in the inherent accuracy of a rifle?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have better things to do than answer your foolish basic questions about ballistics. Go take a two semester Physics course for Physics majors and let me know if ballistics is complicated science! You don't become a great marksman or pool player by studying science. The science behind these activities is good for someone to grasp, but the art of shooting or playing pool requires technique and practice. It's possible to be a great pool player and possess no formal understanding of the concept of the science behind the game.
> 
> When I'm shooting on a rifle range, I use a technique of trigger pull that makes it so I'm not going to know when that weapon fires. There is time on a rifle range and time to fire a sniper shot, but there isn't always time in combat and some types of shooting ranges are timed ranges. In hunting, there are situations where a person has the time for a shot and situations where they don't. There are times to avoid a shot, like shooting a deer and times avoiding a shot isn't as important, like in goose hunting, where there is still a good chance of hitting the target, so you take your chances at a probability shot. Only practice and training can teach the person what to do.
> 
> I've been involved with both science and guns since the time we moved from the city to a rural area at age 11. From the time I was a young child, I knew my dad had guns, but he didn't shoot them, until some friend of the family dropped by our rural home and wanted to shoot target practice. The guy bought a 357 magnum 6" revolver and he even let me shoot it. They were shooting various guns and my dad starts showing this guy how to light matches with a .22 cal. rifle. My dad grew up in West Virginia where they would shoot to eat and they didn't waste ammo. I taught myself to shoot well with a BB gun. Only practice can make somebody a good marksman, so you have to discover what makes a particular weapon shoot well and follow the proper techniques.
> 
> You're not the only person in America who has been around guns, so stop acting like you are! It's dumb to think people can't like guns for sports, but still want common sense laws to protect our citizens. The criminals and you idiots are the problem. We can make laws that allow people to enjoy the firearm related sports and protect society. If you have a problem with those laws, take it up with your mental health professional, who is paid to care about your problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dumb ass the second amendment is not about sport shooting, hunting, or going out to target practice.
Click to expand...


Dumbass! Is there any mention of the 2nd Amendment in my post?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Dubya said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have better things to do than answer your foolish basic questions about ballistics. Go take a two semester Physics course for Physics majors and let me know if ballistics is complicated science! You don't become a great marksman or pool player by studying science. The science behind these activities is good for someone to grasp, but the art of shooting or playing pool requires technique and practice. It's possible to be a great pool player and possess no formal understanding of the concept of the science behind the game.
> 
> When I'm shooting on a rifle range, I use a technique of trigger pull that makes it so I'm not going to know when that weapon fires. There is time on a rifle range and time to fire a sniper shot, but there isn't always time in combat and some types of shooting ranges are timed ranges. In hunting, there are situations where a person has the time for a shot and situations where they don't. There are times to avoid a shot, like shooting a deer and times avoiding a shot isn't as important, like in goose hunting, where there is still a good chance of hitting the target, so you take your chances at a probability shot. Only practice and training can teach the person what to do.
> 
> I've been involved with both science and guns since the time we moved from the city to a rural area at age 11. From the time I was a young child, I knew my dad had guns, but he didn't shoot them, until some friend of the family dropped by our rural home and wanted to shoot target practice. The guy bought a 357 magnum 6" revolver and he even let me shoot it. They were shooting various guns and my dad starts showing this guy how to light matches with a .22 cal. rifle. My dad grew up in West Virginia where they would shoot to eat and they didn't waste ammo. I taught myself to shoot well with a BB gun. Only practice can make somebody a good marksman, so you have to discover what makes a particular weapon shoot well and follow the proper techniques.
> 
> You're not the only person in America who has been around guns, so stop acting like you are! It's dumb to think people can't like guns for sports, but still want common sense laws to protect our citizens. The criminals and you idiots are the problem. We can make laws that allow people to enjoy the firearm related sports and protect society. If you have a problem with those laws, take it up with your mental health professional, who is paid to care about your problems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dumb ass the second amendment is not about sport shooting, hunting, or going out to target practice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dumbass! Is there any mention of the 2nd Amendment in my post?
Click to expand...


Dumb ass you said this



> We can make laws that allow people to enjoy the firearm related sports and protect society. If you have a problem with those laws, take it up with your mental health professional, who is paid to care about your problems.



It's the same old bull shit liberal argument about hunting and other bull shit.


----------



## Dubya

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dumb ass the second amendment is not about sport shooting, hunting, or going out to target practice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dumbass! Is there any mention of the 2nd Amendment in my post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dumb ass you said this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can make laws that allow people to enjoy the firearm related sports and protect society. If you have a problem with those laws, take it up with your mental health professional, who is paid to care about your problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the same old bull shit liberal argument about hunting and other bull shit.
Click to expand...


I didn't mention the 2nd Amendment and only morons equate making common sense laws about gun control to the 2nd Amendment. The law of the land has decided that the 2nd Amendment only prohibits the government from disarming the people, so that is what the 2nd Amendment says according to our laws, whether you believe it or not. The 2nd doesn't say anything about prohibiting common sense laws and regulations. I've shown regulations and laws that would prevent weapons getting into the hands of criminals. I've shown that these regulations and laws in no way prohibit owning weapons, including things like assault weapons. The only thing required is background checks, universal registration that is renewable to prevent transfer of the weapon and ballistics test for rifled firearms. When people with unregistered weapons recieve severe punishment and all the weapons become registered with a ballistics test on file, no one is going to want to shoot someone with that weapon, unless they have very good reason to do so. 

If someone is so paranoid that they are worried to register a weapon in a country prohibited from disarming the populace, then they aren't mentally fit to own one in the first place.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Dubya said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dumbass! Is there any mention of the 2nd Amendment in my post?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dumb ass you said this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can make laws that allow people to enjoy the firearm related sports and protect society. If you have a problem with those laws, take it up with your mental health professional, who is paid to care about your problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the same old bull shit liberal argument about hunting and other bull shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't mention the 2nd Amendment and only morons equate making common sense laws about gun control to the 2nd Amendment. The law of the land has decided that the 2nd Amendment only prohibits the government from disarming the people, so that is what the 2nd Amendment says according to our laws, whether you believe it or not. The 2nd doesn't say anything about prohibiting common sense laws and regulations. I've shown regulations and laws that would prevent weapons getting into the hands of criminals. I've shown that these regulations and laws in no way prohibit owning weapons, including things like assault weapons. The only thing required is background checks, universal registration that is renewable to prevent transfer of the weapon and ballistics test for rifled firearms. When people with unregistered weapons recieve severe punishment and all the weapons become registered with a ballistics test on file, no one is going to want to shoot someone with that weapon, unless they have very good reason to do so.
> 
> If someone is so paranoid that they are worried to register a weapon in a country prohibited from disarming the populace, then they aren't mentally fit to own one in the first place.
Click to expand...


Hey stupid which came first gun registration  or gun confiscation?


----------



## KissMy

Lakhota said:


> I think Chief Justice Burger made it very clear what the original intent of the 2nd Amendment was and why it's obsolete today.



So freedom is obsolete today?

Thanks for clearing that up!


----------



## Dubya

KissMy said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think Chief Justice Burger made it very clear what the original intent of the 2nd Amendment was and why it's obsolete today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So freedom is obsolete today?
> 
> Thanks for clearing that up!
Click to expand...


Freedom of speech is the 1st Amendment and the right to bear arms is the 2nd.

Now, thank me for clearing that up!

First Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Dubya

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dumb ass you said this
> 
> 
> 
> It's the same old bull shit liberal argument about hunting and other bull shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't mention the 2nd Amendment and only morons equate making common sense laws about gun control to the 2nd Amendment. The law of the land has decided that the 2nd Amendment only prohibits the government from disarming the people, so that is what the 2nd Amendment says according to our laws, whether you believe it or not. The 2nd doesn't say anything about prohibiting common sense laws and regulations. I've shown regulations and laws that would prevent weapons getting into the hands of criminals. I've shown that these regulations and laws in no way prohibit owning weapons, including things like assault weapons. The only thing required is background checks, universal registration that is renewable to prevent transfer of the weapon and ballistics test for rifled firearms. When people with unregistered weapons recieve severe punishment and all the weapons become registered with a ballistics test on file, no one is going to want to shoot someone with that weapon, unless they have very good reason to do so.
> 
> If someone is so paranoid that they are worried to register a weapon in a country prohibited from disarming the populace, then they aren't mentally fit to own one in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey stupid which came first gun registration  or gun confiscation?
Click to expand...


I can see why you are worried about losing your guns, just like many people who are nuts. It doesn't worry people who have rational minds.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Dubya said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't mention the 2nd Amendment and only morons equate making common sense laws about gun control to the 2nd Amendment. The law of the land has decided that the 2nd Amendment only prohibits the government from disarming the people, so that is what the 2nd Amendment says according to our laws, whether you believe it or not. The 2nd doesn't say anything about prohibiting common sense laws and regulations. I've shown regulations and laws that would prevent weapons getting into the hands of criminals. I've shown that these regulations and laws in no way prohibit owning weapons, including things like assault weapons. The only thing required is background checks, universal registration that is renewable to prevent transfer of the weapon and ballistics test for rifled firearms. When people with unregistered weapons recieve severe punishment and all the weapons become registered with a ballistics test on file, no one is going to want to shoot someone with that weapon, unless they have very good reason to do so.
> 
> If someone is so paranoid that they are worried to register a weapon in a country prohibited from disarming the populace, then they aren't mentally fit to own one in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey stupid which came first gun registration  or gun confiscation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can see why you are worried about losing your guns, just like many people who are nuts. It doesn't worry people who have rational minds.
Click to expand...


Just because you're a fucking idiot does not mean I'm not rational.
So I'll ask you one god damn time more
Which came first gun registration  or gun confiscation?


----------



## Dubya

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey stupid which came first gun registration  or gun confiscation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can see why you are worried about losing your guns, just like many people who are nuts. It doesn't worry people who have rational minds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because you're a fucking idiot does not mean I'm not rational.
> So I'll ask you one god damn time more
> Which came first gun registration  or gun confiscation?
Click to expand...


Nuts worry about losing their guns and think other people are nuts.

You don't have a problem with Wayne LaPierre avoiding the draft because he kept having nervous breakdowns, but he's in fine health now claiming the government is after your guns. Maybe he's worried about losing his guns because he's a nut. 

What is with the right-wing always embracing a draft dodger?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Dubya said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can see why you are worried about losing your guns, just like many people who are nuts. It doesn't worry people who have rational minds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you're a fucking idiot does not mean I'm not rational.
> So I'll ask you one god damn time more
> Which came first gun registration  or gun confiscation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nuts worry about losing their guns and think other people are nuts.
> 
> You don't have a problem with Wayne LaPierre avoiding the draft because he kept having nervous breakdowns, but he's in fine health now claiming the government is after your guns. Maybe he's worried about losing his guns because he's a nut.
> 
> What is with the right-wing always embracing a draft dodger?
Click to expand...


You're a fucking nuts, so I'll ask you again nutter which came first gun registration  or gun confiscation?


----------



## Dubya

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you're a fucking idiot does not mean I'm not rational.
> So I'll ask you one god damn time more
> Which came first gun registration  or gun confiscation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nuts worry about losing their guns and think other people are nuts.
> 
> You don't have a problem with Wayne LaPierre avoiding the draft because he kept having nervous breakdowns, but he's in fine health now claiming the government is after your guns. Maybe he's worried about losing his guns because he's a nut.
> 
> What is with the right-wing always embracing a draft dodger?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a fucking nuts, so I'll ask you again nutter which came first gun registration  or gun confiscation?
Click to expand...


In your case, like all nuts, it will probably be confiscation before we have universal registration. Just stay away from all people and keep your insanity hidden! That's the only chance your guns have.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Dubya said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nuts worry about losing their guns and think other people are nuts.
> 
> You don't have a problem with Wayne LaPierre avoiding the draft because he kept having nervous breakdowns, but he's in fine health now claiming the government is after your guns. Maybe he's worried about losing his guns because he's a nut.
> 
> What is with the right-wing always embracing a draft dodger?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a fucking nuts, so I'll ask you again nutter which came first gun registration  or gun confiscation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In your case, like all nuts, it will probably be confiscation before we have universal registration. Just stay away from all people and keep your insanity hidden! That's the only chance your guns have.
Click to expand...


I'm not a nut, but you are.
Again which came first gun registration  or gun confiscation?


----------



## Dubya

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a fucking nuts, so I'll ask you again nutter which came first gun registration  or gun confiscation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In your case, like all nuts, it will probably be confiscation before we have universal registration. Just stay away from all people and keep your insanity hidden! That's the only chance your guns have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a nut, but you are.
> Again which came first gun registration  or gun confiscation?
Click to expand...


There is no sense in keeping you off of ignore, because I can't neg you and your nonsense isn't worth reading. I'll take you off ignore when I can neg your ass again. 

If I was you, I'd be worried about my guns. Real worried!


----------



## Harry Dresden

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a fucking nuts, so I'll ask you again nutter which came first gun registration  or gun confiscation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In your case, like all nuts, it will probably be confiscation before we have universal registration. Just stay away from all people and keep your insanity hidden! That's the only chance your guns have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a nut, but you are.
> Again which came first gun registration  or gun confiscation?
Click to expand...


this guys a real dipshit aint he Reb.....notice how he wont answer your simple question......i wonder why?.....maybe LaKunta hasn't PM'd him what to say yet....


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Dubya said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> In your case, like all nuts, it will probably be confiscation before we have universal registration. Just stay away from all people and keep your insanity hidden! That's the only chance your guns have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a nut, but you are.
> Again which came first gun registration  or gun confiscation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no sense in keeping you off of ignore, because I can't neg you and your nonsense isn't worth reading. I'll take you off ignore when I can neg your ass again.
> 
> *If I was you, I'd be worried about my guns. Real worried!*
Click to expand...


You're guns is this a threat?


----------



## Dubya

Harry Dresden said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> In your case, like all nuts, it will probably be confiscation before we have universal registration. Just stay away from all people and keep your insanity hidden! That's the only chance your guns have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a nut, but you are.
> Again which came first gun registration  or gun confiscation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> this guys a real dipshit aint he Reb.....notice how he wont answer your simple question......i wonder why?.....maybe LaKunta hasn't PM'd him what to say yet....
Click to expand...


Both you OCD right-wingers are as fucked up as they come. How can I answer the question of a fool I have on ignore. Since you are worthless, too, and I can't neg you then you might as well join the fool. 

If you retards want questions answered, go to Yahoo Answers and stop wasting people's time, you fucking Retards!


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Harry Dresden said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> In your case, like all nuts, it will probably be confiscation before we have universal registration. Just stay away from all people and keep your insanity hidden! That's the only chance your guns have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a nut, but you are.
> Again which came first gun registration  or gun confiscation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> this guys a real dipshit aint he Reb.....notice how he wont answer your simple question......i wonder why?.....maybe LaKunta hasn't PM'd him what to say yet....
Click to expand...


I didn't think the question was all that hard, but then again I gave him the benefit of the doubt that his brain was a little bigger than your average size peanut.


----------



## Harry Dresden

Dubya said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a nut, but you are.
> Again which came first gun registration  or gun confiscation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this guys a real dipshit aint he Reb.....notice how he wont answer your simple question......i wonder why?.....maybe LaKunta hasn't PM'd him what to say yet....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both you OCD right-wingers are as fucked up as they come. How can I answer the question of a fool I have on ignore. Since you are worthless, too, and I can't neg you then you might as well join the fool.
> 
> If you retards want questions answered, go to Yahoo Answers and stop wasting people's time, you fucking Retards!
Click to expand...

in other words.....you cant deal with questions.....you are a fucking PUSSY Dumbya.....you wussed out in that other thread and you wussing out here..... turn your fucking Rep on asshole and neg me.....or are you too much of a puss to do that?....


----------



## Harry Dresden

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a nut, but you are.
> Again which came first gun registration  or gun confiscation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this guys a real dipshit aint he Reb.....notice how he wont answer your simple question......i wonder why?.....maybe LaKunta hasn't PM'd him what to say yet....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't think the question was all that hard, but then again I gave him the benefit of the doubt that his brain was a little bigger than your average size peanut.
Click to expand...


the guy is a dipshit.....he claimed that if there was a group of Latinos from different Countries standing together he can pick out which ones are Mexicans.....just by looking at them.....he is amazing....even Latinos cant do that....but this little piss ant can...


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Harry Dresden said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> this guys a real dipshit aint he Reb.....notice how he wont answer your simple question......i wonder why?.....maybe LaKunta hasn't PM'd him what to say yet....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both you OCD right-wingers are as fucked up as they come. How can I answer the question of a fool I have on ignore. Since you are worthless, too, and I can't neg you then you might as well join the fool.
> 
> If you retards want questions answered, go to Yahoo Answers and stop wasting people's time, you fucking Retards!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in other words.....you cant deal with questions.....you are a fucking PUSSY Dumbya.....you wussed out in that other thread and you wussing out here..... turn your fucking Rep on asshole and neg me.....or are you too much of a puss to do that?....
Click to expand...

He can't turn it back on


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Harry Dresden said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> this guys a real dipshit aint he Reb.....notice how he wont answer your simple question......i wonder why?.....maybe LaKunta hasn't PM'd him what to say yet....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't think the question was all that hard, but then again I gave him the benefit of the doubt that his brain was a little bigger than your average size peanut.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the guy is a dipshit.....he claimed that if there was a group of Latinos from different Countries standing together he can pick out which ones are Mexicans.....just by looking at them.....he is amazing....even Latinos cant do that....but this little piss ant can...
Click to expand...


Should I be concerned because of his threat? Nawh I don't think so


----------



## Harry Dresden

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both you OCD right-wingers are as fucked up as they come. How can I answer the question of a fool I have on ignore. Since you are worthless, too, and I can't neg you then you might as well join the fool.
> 
> If you retards want questions answered, go to Yahoo Answers and stop wasting people's time, you fucking Retards!
> 
> 
> 
> in other words.....you cant deal with questions.....you are a fucking PUSSY Dumbya.....you wussed out in that other thread and you wussing out here..... turn your fucking Rep on asshole and neg me.....or are you too much of a puss to do that?....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He can't turn it back on
Click to expand...


did he abuse it?....


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Harry Dresden said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> in other words.....you cant deal with questions.....you are a fucking PUSSY Dumbya.....you wussed out in that other thread and you wussing out here..... turn your fucking Rep on asshole and neg me.....or are you too much of a puss to do that?....
> 
> 
> 
> He can't turn it back on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> did he abuse it?....
Click to expand...

I am not at the liberty to say.


----------



## westwall

Dubya said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a nut, but you are.
> Again which came first gun registration  or gun confiscation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this guys a real dipshit aint he Reb.....notice how he wont answer your simple question......i wonder why?.....maybe LaKunta hasn't PM'd him what to say yet....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both you OCD right-wingers are as fucked up as they come. How can I answer the question of a fool I have on ignore. Since you are worthless, too, and I can't neg you then you might as well join the fool.
> 
> If you retards want questions answered, go to Yahoo Answers and stop wasting people's time, you fucking Retards!
Click to expand...







Yeah, but we don't feel the need to lie about prior military service and make abject fools of ourselves when caught in those lies....like you.


----------



## Harry Dresden

westwall said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> this guys a real dipshit aint he Reb.....notice how he wont answer your simple question......i wonder why?.....maybe LaKunta hasn't PM'd him what to say yet....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both you OCD right-wingers are as fucked up as they come. How can I answer the question of a fool I have on ignore. Since you are worthless, too, and I can't neg you then you might as well join the fool.
> 
> If you retards want questions answered, go to Yahoo Answers and stop wasting people's time, you fucking Retards!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, but we don't feel the need to lie about prior military service and make abject fools of ourselves when caught in those lies....like you.
Click to expand...


oh no.....not another phony Vet.....well so far what i have seen of this jerk and what i have been told by some posters who apparently know him from somewhere else.....the guy apparently is just another loser......


----------



## Dubya

westwall said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> this guys a real dipshit aint he Reb.....notice how he wont answer your simple question......i wonder why?.....maybe LaKunta hasn't PM'd him what to say yet....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both you OCD right-wingers are as fucked up as they come. How can I answer the question of a fool I have on ignore. Since you are worthless, too, and I can't neg you then you might as well join the fool.
> 
> If you retards want questions answered, go to Yahoo Answers and stop wasting people's time, you fucking Retards!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, but we don't feel the need to lie about prior military service and make abject fools of ourselves when caught in those lies....like you.
Click to expand...


You feel the need to troll and that's all you are good for. Since you have proven yourself worthless, join the idiots who are only a named blank line, who don't know how to post anything of substance and waste people's time with their mindless ad hom posts.


----------



## Sherants

Well said Lakhota!  


> 1. to provide that, to acquire a firearm, an application be made reciting age, residence, employment and any prior criminal convictions?
> 2. to required that this application lie on the table for 10 days (absent a showing for urgent need) before the license would be issued?
> 3. that the transfer of a firearm be made essentially as with that of a motor vehicle?
> 4. to have a "ballistic fingerprint" of the firearm made by the manufacturer and filed with the license record so that, if a bullet is found in a victim's body, law enforcement might be helped in finding the culprit?


This is pretty much exactly what Ive been saying.  There is no logical reason NOT to do the things you suggest here. I dont want people to give up their guns. All I ask is for responsible gun ownership!


----------



## OriginalShroom

Sherants said:


> Well said Lakhota!
> 
> 
> 
> 1. to provide that, to acquire a firearm, an application be made reciting age, residence, employment and any prior criminal convictions?
> 2. to required that this application lie on the table for 10 days (absent a showing for urgent need) before the license would be issued?
> 3. that the transfer of a firearm be made essentially as with that of a motor vehicle?
> 4. to have a "ballistic fingerprint" of the firearm made by the manufacturer and filed with the license record so that, if a bullet is found in a victim's body, law enforcement might be helped in finding the culprit?
> 
> 
> 
> This is pretty much exactly what Ive been saying.  There is no logical reason NOT to do the things you suggest here. I dont want people to give up their guns. All I ask is for responsible gun ownership!
Click to expand...


Let's put those same restrictions on those planning to exert other rights, such printing a paper, giving a speech, aborting a baby,  ect.


----------



## Harry Dresden

Dubya said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both you OCD right-wingers are as fucked up as they come. How can I answer the question of a fool I have on ignore. Since you are worthless, too, and I can't neg you then you might as well join the fool.
> 
> If you retards want questions answered, go to Yahoo Answers and stop wasting people's time, you fucking Retards!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, but we don't feel the need to lie about prior military service and make abject fools of ourselves when caught in those lies....like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You feel the need to troll and that's all you are good for. Since you have proven yourself worthless, join the idiots who are only a named blank line, who don't know how to post anything of substance and waste people's time with their mindless ad hom posts.
Click to expand...


oh shit.....your not going to start crying are ya?.....let me get the Kleenex....


----------



## OODA_Loop

Sherants said:


> Well said Lakhota!
> 
> 
> 
> 1. to provide that, to acquire a firearm, an application be made reciting age, residence, employment and any prior criminal convictions?
> 2. to required that this application lie on the table for 10 days (absent a showing for urgent need) before the license would be issued?
> 3. that the transfer of a firearm be made essentially as with that of a motor vehicle?
> 4. to have a "ballistic fingerprint" of the firearm made by the manufacturer and filed with the license record so that, if a bullet is found in a victim's body, law enforcement might be helped in finding the culprit?
> 
> 
> 
> This is pretty much exactly what Ive been saying.  There is no logical reason NOT to do the things you suggest here. I dont want people to give up their guns. All I ask is for responsible gun ownership!
Click to expand...


1.  Already in place (save for employment)
2.  Most States have waiting periods.
3.  Registration ?  How does knowing what I have stop a criminal ?
4.  How does a ballistic fingerprint of my lawful gun stop or help solve a crime ?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

OODA_Loop said:


> Sherants said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well said Lakhota!
> 
> 
> 
> 1. to provide that, to acquire a firearm, an application be made reciting age, residence, employment and any prior criminal convictions?
> 2. to required that this application lie on the table for 10 days (absent a showing for urgent need) before the license would be issued?
> 3. that the transfer of a firearm be made essentially as with that of a motor vehicle?
> 4. to have a "ballistic fingerprint" of the firearm made by the manufacturer and filed with the license record so that, if a bullet is found in a victim's body, law enforcement might be helped in finding the culprit?
> 
> 
> 
> This is pretty much exactly what Ive been saying.  There is no logical reason NOT to do the things you suggest here. I dont want people to give up their guns. All I ask is for responsible gun ownership!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  Already in place (save for employment)
> 2.  Most States have waiting periods.
> 3.  Registration ?  How does knowing what I have stop a criminal ?
> 4.  How does a ballistic fingerprint of my lawful gun stop or help solve a crime ?
Click to expand...


as a radical conservative I'd be ok with all except the ballistic fingerprint. Let's not forget we were given guns to kill liberals if they ever get really out of hand. If and when the revolution starts we don't want liberals to be able to track down the first brave revolutionaries do we??


----------



## westwall

Dubya said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both you OCD right-wingers are as fucked up as they come. How can I answer the question of a fool I have on ignore. Since you are worthless, too, and I can't neg you then you might as well join the fool.
> 
> If you retards want questions answered, go to Yahoo Answers and stop wasting people's time, you fucking Retards!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, but we don't feel the need to lie about prior military service and make abject fools of ourselves when caught in those lies....like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You feel the need to troll and that's all you are good for. Since you have proven yourself worthless, join the idiots who are only a named blank line, who don't know how to post anything of substance and waste people's time with their mindless ad hom posts.
Click to expand...








  You're the asshole who claims to have been a Marine and can't tell us how you qualified.  All you can claim is that you shot bullseyes at 500 yards.  Here's a heads up for you nimrod, the Marines don't shoot at 500 yards!

They qualify at 600 meters.  Next time you lie about your service you might want to do some basic research to at least attempt to get your fucking story right.  You are a loser of the first order that's for sure.  You lie about your prior military service (of which you clearly have none), you lie about your scientific credentials, and you are simply a internet troll.

Good job asshat, we've got your number now.


----------



## Dubya

Sherants said:


> Well said Lakhota!
> 
> 
> 
> 1. to provide that, to acquire a firearm, an application be made reciting age, residence, employment and any prior criminal convictions?
> 2. to required that this application lie on the table for 10 days (absent a showing for urgent need) before the license would be issued?
> 3. that the transfer of a firearm be made essentially as with that of a motor vehicle?
> 4. to have a "ballistic fingerprint" of the firearm made by the manufacturer and filed with the license record so that, if a bullet is found in a victim's body, law enforcement might be helped in finding the culprit?
> 
> 
> 
> This is pretty much exactly what Ive been saying.  There is no logical reason NOT to do the things you suggest here. I dont want people to give up their guns. All I ask is for responsible gun ownership!
Click to expand...


I would like the registration with background checks and renewed each year to make sure the gun is still in the possession of the owner. Selling the weapon from the time it's in a gun store requires transferring the registration and I want it to apply to all firearms, including the cops and military. Of course, only rifled firearms need ballistics tests and the test should be done periodically. The sale of rifled firearm barrels should also be registered. Every gun in a gun store is registered to an owner. The manufacturer has to register the gun once assembled. 

Since people may have multiple weapons, I suggest a date randomly decided should be selected for renewal or periodic ballistics tests. If someone has very many guns, they can select more than one date of the year. Gun shops in the area could be used for renewal and ballistics testing and the bullets should be sent to the FBI, so they can be quickly scanned and placed in a data base. The gun shop can hold off sending the bullets for testing for a short period to avoid excess postage. The gun shops can get a modest fee, but there isn't much required for a renewal. If an area has problems with guns disappearing, photos can be taken to assist law enforcement. 

I suggest confiscation and heavy penalties for possession of an unregistered weapon, which includes losing the right to own a gun.


----------



## OODA_Loop

Dubya said:


> Since people may have multiple weapons, I suggest a date randomly decided should be selected for renewal or periodic ballistics tests. If someone has very many guns, they can select more than one date of the year. Gun shops in the area could be used for renewal and ballistics testing and the bullets should be sent to the FBI, so they can be quickly scanned and placed in a data base. The gun shop can hold off sending the bullets for testing for a short period to avoid excess postage. The gun shops can get a modest fee, but there isn't much required for a renewal. If an area has problems with guns disappearing, photos can be taken to assist law enforcement.
> 
> I suggest confiscation and heavy penalties for possession of an unregistered weapon, which includes losing the right to own a gun.



Does nothing to stop criminals.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dubya said:


> Sherants said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well said Lakhota!
> 
> 
> 
> 1. to provide that, to acquire a firearm, an application be made reciting age, residence, employment and any prior criminal convictions?
> 2. to required that this application lie on the table for 10 days (absent a showing for urgent need) before the license would be issued?
> 3. that the transfer of a firearm be made essentially as with that of a motor vehicle?
> 4. to have a "ballistic fingerprint" of the firearm made by the manufacturer and filed with the license record so that, if a bullet is found in a victim's body, law enforcement might be helped in finding the culprit?
> 
> 
> 
> This is pretty much exactly what Ive been saying.  There is no logical reason NOT to do the things you suggest here. I dont want people to give up their guns. All I ask is for responsible gun ownership!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would like the registration with background checks and renewed each year to make sure the gun is still in the possession of the owner. Selling the weapon from the time it's in a gun store requires transferring the registration and I want it to apply to all firearms, including the cops and military. Of course, only rifled firearms need ballistics tests and the test should be done periodically. The sale of rifled firearm barrels should also be registered. Every gun in a gun store is registered to an owner. The manufacturer has to register the gun once assembled.
> 
> Since people may have multiple weapons, I suggest a date randomly decided should be selected for renewal or periodic ballistics tests. If someone has very many guns, they can select more than one date of the year. Gun shops in the area could be used for renewal and ballistics testing and the bullets should be sent to the FBI, so they can be quickly scanned and placed in a data base. The gun shop can hold off sending the bullets for testing for a short period to avoid excess postage. The gun shops can get a modest fee, but there isn't much required for a renewal. If an area has problems with guns disappearing, photos can be taken to assist law enforcement.
> 
> I suggest confiscation and heavy penalties for possession of an unregistered weapon, which includes losing the right to own a gun.
Click to expand...


and would any of that stopped Sandy Hook??


----------



## Dubya

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sherants said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well said Lakhota!
> 
> This is pretty much exactly what Ive been saying.  There is no logical reason NOT to do the things you suggest here. I dont want people to give up their guns. All I ask is for responsible gun ownership!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  Already in place (save for employment)
> 2.  Most States have waiting periods.
> 3.  Registration ?  How does knowing what I have stop a criminal ?
> 4.  How does a ballistic fingerprint of my lawful gun stop or help solve a crime ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> as a radical conservative I'd be ok with all except the ballistic fingerprint. Let's not forget we were given guns to kill liberals if they ever get really out of hand. If and when the revolution starts we don't want liberals to be able to track down the first brave revolutionaries do we??
Click to expand...


The ballistics fingerprint is to stop a criminal from wanting to use the weapon in a crime. 

Your revolutionaries would get blown off the planet, so dream on, fool!


----------



## OODA_Loop

Dubya said:


> The ballistics fingerprint is to stop a criminal from wanting to use the weapon in a crime.
> 
> Your revolutionaries would get blown off the planet, so dream on, fool!



- Stolen gun.
- Felon ineligible to posses a gun.
- Committing a crime of violence with a gun.

All we lack is a ballistic fingerprint law which is the deterrent which will stop the criminal.

Geenus.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dubya said:


> The ballistics fingerprint is to stop a criminal from wanting to use the weapon in a crime.




but also stop conservatives and libertarians from  using it as intended,i.e., to protect themselves from liberals



Dubya said:


> Your revolutionaries would get blown off the planet, so dream on, fool!



thats what the British thought too and the US in Vietnam. Sorry


----------



## Dubya

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sherants said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well said Lakhota!
> 
> This is pretty much exactly what Ive been saying.  There is no logical reason NOT to do the things you suggest here. I dont want people to give up their guns. All I ask is for responsible gun ownership!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would like the registration with background checks and renewed each year to make sure the gun is still in the possession of the owner. Selling the weapon from the time it's in a gun store requires transferring the registration and I want it to apply to all firearms, including the cops and military. Of course, only rifled firearms need ballistics tests and the test should be done periodically. The sale of rifled firearm barrels should also be registered. Every gun in a gun store is registered to an owner. The manufacturer has to register the gun once assembled.
> 
> Since people may have multiple weapons, I suggest a date randomly decided should be selected for renewal or periodic ballistics tests. If someone has very many guns, they can select more than one date of the year. Gun shops in the area could be used for renewal and ballistics testing and the bullets should be sent to the FBI, so they can be quickly scanned and placed in a data base. The gun shop can hold off sending the bullets for testing for a short period to avoid excess postage. The gun shops can get a modest fee, but there isn't much required for a renewal. If an area has problems with guns disappearing, photos can be taken to assist law enforcement.
> 
> I suggest confiscation and heavy penalties for possession of an unregistered weapon, which includes losing the right to own a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and would any of that stopped Sandy Hook??
Click to expand...


It's possible some woman wouldn't have weapons around with only a small amount of shootings in the country each year. The woman should have had better sense and kept weapons away from her son. I've suggested using local armories to store confiscated weapons which may be returned in the future, or use the armories for weapons people want to safely put up. 

When it comes down to it, your gun nut talking points about Sandy Hook are meaningless, because this shit has went on too long. Sandy Hook is just one incident, but the problem is our country has turned into an open market for guns and that has to stop. Your gun nut ways are causing the violence that you need a gun to protect yourself against. It's time to solve these problems and stop acting like children.


----------



## Dubya

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ballistics fingerprint is to stop a criminal from wanting to use the weapon in a crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but also stop conservatives and libertarians from  using it as intended,i.e., to protect themselves from liberals
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your revolutionaries would get blown off the planet, so dream on, fool!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> thats what the British thought too and the US in Vietnam. Sorry
Click to expand...


I'm not interested in your fucking fantasies. Go find some idiots and talk to them!


----------



## Dubya

OODA_Loop said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ballistics fingerprint is to stop a criminal from wanting to use the weapon in a crime.
> 
> Your revolutionaries would get blown off the planet, so dream on, fool!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Stolen gun.
> - Felon ineligible to posses a gun.
> - Committing a crime of violence with a gun.
> 
> All we lack is a ballistic fingerprint law which is the deterrent which will stop the criminal.
> 
> Geenus.
Click to expand...


Stolen guns will get reported and they still will have ballistics tests on file. The person who steals that gun can be considered an accessory to the crime that it's used on and criminals will rat you out.


----------



## OODA_Loop

Dubya said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ballistics fingerprint is to stop a criminal from wanting to use the weapon in a crime.
> 
> Your revolutionaries would get blown off the planet, so dream on, fool!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Stolen gun.
> - Felon ineligible to posses a gun.
> - Committing a crime of violence with a gun.
> 
> All we lack is a ballistic fingerprint law which is the deterrent which will stop the criminal.
> 
> Geenus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stolen guns will get reported and they still will have ballistics tests on file.
Click to expand...


So the person will steal or unlawfully acquire the gun.......... but the ballistic test on file registered to its lawful owner will stop them from using it ?


----------



## OODA_Loop

Dubya said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ballistics fingerprint is to stop a criminal from wanting to use the weapon in a crime.
> 
> Your revolutionaries would get blown off the planet, so dream on, fool!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Stolen gun.
> - Felon ineligible to posses a gun.
> - Committing a crime of violence with a gun.
> 
> All we lack is a ballistic fingerprint law which is the deterrent which will stop the criminal.
> 
> Geenus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stolen guns will get reported and they still will have ballistics tests on file.
Click to expand...


So the criminal will steal or unlawfully acquire the gun but the ballistic test on file registered to its lawful owner will stop the criminal from using it ?

You are indeed an onion of geenus.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dubya said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ballistics fingerprint is to stop a criminal from wanting to use the weapon in a crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but also stop conservatives and libertarians from  using it as intended,i.e., to protect themselves from liberals
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your revolutionaries would get blown off the planet, so dream on, fool!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> thats what the British thought too and the US in Vietnam. Sorry
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not interested in your fucking fantasies. Go find some idiots and talk to them!
Click to expand...



dear, the American Revolution, Vietman, Iraq, Afghanistan, Algeria, Indo china were not fantasies. Sorry

The tactics of guerrilla warfare were used successfully in the 20th century byamong others the Soviet partisans and the Polish Home Army[13] and the OSS in Burma[14] in World War II; Mao Zedong and the People's Liberation Army in the Second Sino-Japanese War and Chinese Civil War. Fidel Castro, Che Guevara and the 26th of July Movement in the Cuban Revolution. Ho Chi Minh, Vo Nguyen Giap, Viet Cong and select members of the Green Berets in the Vietnam War (and the First Indochina War before that). The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in the Sri Lankan Civil War, the Afghan Mujahideen in the Soviet war in Afghanistan, George Grivas and Nikos Sampson's Greek guerrilla group EOKA in Cyprus, Aris Velouchiotis and Stefanos Sarafis and the EAM against the Axis occupation of Greece during World War II, Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck and the German Schutztruppe in World War I, Josip Broz Tito and the Yugoslav Partisans in World War II, and the antifrancoist guerrilla in Spain during the Franco dictatorship,[15] the Kosovo Liberation Army in the Kosovo War, and the Irish Republican Army led by Michael Collins (considered to be the founder of modern guerrilla warfare) during the Irish War of Independence.[16


----------



## OODA_Loop

Punish gun criminals severely is the answer.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

OODA_Loop said:


> Punish gun criminals severely is the answer.



dear, the real serious criminals kill themselves


----------



## Dubya

OODA_Loop said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> - Stolen gun.
> - Felon ineligible to posses a gun.
> - Committing a crime of violence with a gun.
> 
> All we lack is a ballistic fingerprint law which is the deterrent which will stop the criminal.
> 
> Geenus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stolen guns will get reported and they still will have ballistics tests on file.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the person will steal or unlawfully acquire the gun.......... but the ballistic test on file registered to its lawful owner will stop them from using it ?
Click to expand...


Getting your ass burnt big time will stop a thief from taking a gun and selling it. Do you really think all criminals are connected? A burglar will get a little bit of time, but let's say someone is just shot with that gun and identifies the shooter. The shooter rats out the burglar, so now the burglar isn't going to do a little bit of time for a burglary, because he's an accessory to attempted murder. That makes stealing guns a big taboo. Since guns require registration and it's a serious offense to have an unregistered gun, the market to sell a stolen gun is going to be very limited and it isn't now. There would be a lot more involved than recieving stolen property.


----------



## Dubya

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> but also stop conservatives and libertarians from  using it as intended,i.e., to protect themselves from liberals
> 
> 
> 
> thats what the British thought too and the US in Vietnam. Sorry
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not interested in your fucking fantasies. Go find some idiots and talk to them!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> dear, the American Revolution, Vietman, Iraq, Afghanistan, Algeria, Indo china were not fantasies. Sorry
> 
> The tactics of guerrilla warfare were used successfully in the 20th century by&#8212;among others&#8212; the Soviet partisans and the Polish Home Army[13] and the OSS in Burma[14] in World War II; Mao Zedong and the People's Liberation Army in the Second Sino-Japanese War and Chinese Civil War. Fidel Castro, Che Guevara and the 26th of July Movement in the Cuban Revolution. Ho Chi Minh, Vo Nguyen Giap, Viet Cong and select members of the Green Berets in the Vietnam War (and the First Indochina War before that). The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in the Sri Lankan Civil War, the Afghan Mujahideen in the Soviet war in Afghanistan, George Grivas and Nikos Sampson's Greek guerrilla group EOKA in Cyprus, Aris Velouchiotis and Stefanos Sarafis and the EAM against the Axis occupation of Greece during World War II, Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck and the German Schutztruppe in World War I, Josip Broz Tito and the Yugoslav Partisans in World War II, and the antifrancoist guerrilla in Spain during the Franco dictatorship,[15] the Kosovo Liberation Army in the Kosovo War, and the Irish Republican Army led by Michael Collins (considered to be the founder of modern guerrilla warfare) during the Irish War of Independence.[16
Click to expand...


Trust me, you aren't a warrior and how are you going to identify liberals? Liberals have guns too, so don't think you can shoot it out with them. 

Tell it to your Shrink!


----------



## OODA_Loop

Dubya said:


> Getting your ass burnt big time will stop a thief from taking a gun and selling it. Do you really think all criminals are connected? A burglar will get a little bit of time, but let's say someone is just shot with that gun and identifies the shooter. The shooter rats out the burglar, so now the burglar isn't going to do a little bit of time for a burglary, because he's an accessory to attempted murder. That makes stealing guns a big taboo. Since guns require registration and it's a serious offense to have an unregistered gun, the market to sell a stolen gun is going to be very limited and it isn't now. There would be a lot more involved than recieving stolen property.



You smoke a lot of weed  ?


----------



## Dubya

OODA_Loop said:


> Punish gun criminals severely is the answer.



You don't have an answer and just like that trickle down bullshit, your ways never works. That's why America doesn't want anything to do with your stupid "do nothing" solutions. We want problems solved and you don't.


----------



## Dubya

OODA_Loop said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> Getting your ass burnt big time will stop a thief from taking a gun and selling it. Do you really think all criminals are connected? A burglar will get a little bit of time, but let's say someone is just shot with that gun and identifies the shooter. The shooter rats out the burglar, so now the burglar isn't going to do a little bit of time for a burglary, because he's an accessory to attempted murder. That makes stealing guns a big taboo. Since guns require registration and it's a serious offense to have an unregistered gun, the market to sell a stolen gun is going to be very limited and it isn't now. There would be a lot more involved than recieving stolen property.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You smoke a lot of weed  ?
Click to expand...


Here is your choice! Either discuss the subject which is not me or go on ignore. Find someone else who wants to put up with your childish nonsense, because I won't! Once I can neg again, then I'll take you off ignore, because then there is a reason to read your shit.


----------



## Bigfoot

Dubya said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> Getting your ass burnt big time will stop a thief from taking a gun and selling it. Do you really think all criminals are connected? A burglar will get a little bit of time, but let's say someone is just shot with that gun and identifies the shooter. The shooter rats out the burglar, so now the burglar isn't going to do a little bit of time for a burglary, because he's an accessory to attempted murder. That makes stealing guns a big taboo. Since guns require registration and it's a serious offense to have an unregistered gun, the market to sell a stolen gun is going to be very limited and it isn't now. There would be a lot more involved than recieving stolen property.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You smoke a lot of weed  ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is your choice! Either discuss the subject which is not me or go on ignore. Find someone else who wants to put up with your childish nonsense, because I won't! Once I can neg again, then I'll take you off ignore, because then there is a reason to read your shit.
Click to expand...


It says in the forum guidelines that your ability to add or subtract rep. is gone permanently. Unless of course you come back as your daughter.


----------



## OODA_Loop

Dubya said:


> Here is your choice! Either discuss the subject which is not me or go on ignore. Find someone else who wants to put up with your childish nonsense, because I won't! Once I can neg again, then I'll take you off ignore, because then there is a reason to read your shit.



I choose:  _Go on ignore._

Your notion that a ballistic fingerprint is going be the final legislative magic bullet to stop an already well committed criminal in possession of an already illegal gun is patently laughable.


----------



## Harry Dresden

westwall said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, but we don't feel the need to lie about prior military service and make abject fools of ourselves when caught in those lies....like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You feel the need to troll and that's all you are good for. Since you have proven yourself worthless, join the idiots who are only a named blank line, who don't know how to post anything of substance and waste people's time with their mindless ad hom posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the asshole who claims to have been a Marine and can't tell us how you qualified.  All you can claim is that you shot bullseyes at 500 yards.  Here's a heads up for you nimrod, the Marines don't shoot at 500 yards!
> 
> They qualify at 600 meters.  Next time you lie about your service you might want to do some basic research to at least attempt to get your fucking story right.  You are a loser of the first order that's for sure.  You lie about your prior military service (of which you clearly have none), you lie about your scientific credentials, and you are simply a internet troll.
> 
> Good job asshat, we've got your number now.
Click to expand...

shame on you Dumbya....if Gunny was still the Admin he would ask you to prove it to him or else he would kick your lowlife ass out...your lucky these new people dont care....


----------



## Bigfoot

OODA_Loop said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is your choice! Either discuss the subject which is not me or go on ignore. Find someone else who wants to put up with your childish nonsense, because I won't! Once I can neg again, then I'll take you off ignore, because then there is a reason to read your shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I choose:  _Go on ignore._
> 
> Your notion that a ballistic fingerprint is going be the final legislative magic bullet to stop an already well committed criminal in possession of an already illegal gun is patently laughable.
Click to expand...


The crap that he has been spouting about his breakthrough gun-control ideas is laughable    What an ignorant bastage.


----------



## Harry Dresden

Dubya said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  Already in place (save for employment)
> 2.  Most States have waiting periods.
> 3.  Registration ?  How does knowing what I have stop a criminal ?
> 4.  How does a ballistic fingerprint of my lawful gun stop or help solve a crime ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> as a radical conservative I'd be ok with all except the ballistic fingerprint. Let's not forget we were given guns to kill liberals if they ever get really out of hand. If and when the revolution starts we don't want liberals to be able to track down the first brave revolutionaries do we??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The ballistics fingerprint is to stop a criminal from wanting to use the weapon in a crime.
> 
> Your revolutionaries would get blown off the planet, so dream on, fool!
Click to expand...


probably from an Ex Marine like yourself....right?.....


----------



## Harry Dresden

Dubya said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ballistics fingerprint is to stop a criminal from wanting to use the weapon in a crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but also stop conservatives and libertarians from  using it as intended,i.e., to protect themselves from liberals
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your revolutionaries would get blown off the planet, so dream on, fool!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> thats what the British thought too and the US in Vietnam. Sorry
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not interested in your fucking fantasies. Go find some idiots and talk to them!
Click to expand...


watch out Ed....you start asking questions that back him in a corner the Ex Marine will put you on ignore.....and call you a "fool".....


----------



## Dubya

Bigfoot said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> You smoke a lot of weed  ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is your choice! Either discuss the subject which is not me or go on ignore. Find someone else who wants to put up with your childish nonsense, because I won't! Once I can neg again, then I'll take you off ignore, because then there is a reason to read your shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It says in the forum guidelines that your ability to add or subtract rep. is gone permanently. Unless of course you come back as your daughter.
Click to expand...


Then I guess being on my ignore list is permanent for those idiots.


----------



## Harry Dresden

Dubya said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Punish gun criminals severely is the answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have an answer and just like that trickle down bullshit, your ways never works. That's why America doesn't want anything to do with your stupid "do nothing" solutions. We want problems solved and you don't.
Click to expand...

are you for real?......punishing the Criminal severely is a foolish thing to do?....and never works?....whats your solution?....a 30 year sentence and let them out in 5 for good behavior?...... yea you are solving problems.....


----------



## Harry Dresden

Dubya said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> Getting your ass burnt big time will stop a thief from taking a gun and selling it. Do you really think all criminals are connected? A burglar will get a little bit of time, but let's say someone is just shot with that gun and identifies the shooter. The shooter rats out the burglar, so now the burglar isn't going to do a little bit of time for a burglary, because he's an accessory to attempted murder. That makes stealing guns a big taboo. Since guns require registration and it's a serious offense to have an unregistered gun, the market to sell a stolen gun is going to be very limited and it isn't now. There would be a lot more involved than recieving stolen property.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You smoke a lot of weed  ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is your choice! Either discuss the subject which is not me or go on ignore. Find someone else who wants to put up with your childish nonsense, because I won't! Once I can neg again, then I'll take you off ignore, because then there is a reason to read your shit.
Click to expand...


hey ANYBODY GOT ANY KLEENEX?....this fucker is starting cry ....again....or i should say some more.....


----------



## Dubya

OODA_Loop said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is your choice! Either discuss the subject which is not me or go on ignore. Find someone else who wants to put up with your childish nonsense, because I won't! Once I can neg again, then I'll take you off ignore, because then there is a reason to read your shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I choose:  _Go on ignore._
> 
> Your notion that a ballistic fingerprint is going be the final legislative magic bullet to stop an already well committed criminal in possession of an already illegal gun is patently laughable.
Click to expand...


What's laughable is knowing this country has so much gun related crime and not doing something about it. It reminds me of that trickle down nonsense, when the CBO is telling them it will cost revenue. How many times does someone have to try the same thing before they realize it won't work?

Common sense should tell you it will reduce crime and aid law enforcement in catching a criminal. Most homicides by guns are not planned assassinations.


----------



## Bigfoot

Dubya said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is your choice! Either discuss the subject which is not me or go on ignore. Find someone else who wants to put up with your childish nonsense, because I won't! Once I can neg again, then I'll take you off ignore, because then there is a reason to read your shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It says in the forum guidelines that your ability to add or subtract rep. is gone permanently. Unless of course you come back as your daughter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then I guess being on my ignore list is permanent for those idiots.
Click to expand...


Lucky bastards!


----------



## OODA_Loop

Dubya said:


> Common sense should tell you it will reduce crime and aid law enforcement in catching a criminal.



A registered gun which is stolen is still registered to the lawful owner and does nothing to identify the thief whole stole and/or the criminal who used it.


----------



## OODA_Loop

Dubya said:


> Then I guess being on my ignore list is permanent for those idiots.



But kitty likes its new toy.


----------



## westwall

Dubya said:


> Sherants said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well said Lakhota!
> 
> 
> 
> 1. to provide that, to acquire a firearm, an application be made reciting age, residence, employment and any prior criminal convictions?
> 2. to required that this application lie on the table for 10 days (absent a showing for urgent need) before the license would be issued?
> 3. that the transfer of a firearm be made essentially as with that of a motor vehicle?
> 4. to have a "ballistic fingerprint" of the firearm made by the manufacturer and filed with the license record so that, if a bullet is found in a victim's body, law enforcement might be helped in finding the culprit?
> 
> 
> 
> This is pretty much exactly what Ive been saying.  There is no logical reason NOT to do the things you suggest here. I dont want people to give up their guns. All I ask is for responsible gun ownership!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would like the registration with background checks and renewed each year to make sure the gun is still in the possession of the owner. Selling the weapon from the time it's in a gun store requires transferring the registration and I want it to apply to all firearms, including the cops and military. Of course, only rifled firearms need ballistics tests and the test should be done periodically. The sale of rifled firearm barrels should also be registered. Every gun in a gun store is registered to an owner. The manufacturer has to register the gun once assembled.
> 
> Since people may have multiple weapons, I suggest a date randomly decided should be selected for renewal or periodic ballistics tests. If someone has very many guns, they can select more than one date of the year. Gun shops in the area could be used for renewal and ballistics testing and the bullets should be sent to the FBI, so they can be quickly scanned and placed in a data base. The gun shop can hold off sending the bullets for testing for a short period to avoid excess postage. The gun shops can get a modest fee, but there isn't much required for a renewal. If an area has problems with guns disappearing, photos can be taken to assist law enforcement.
> 
> I suggest confiscation and heavy penalties for possession of an unregistered weapon, which includes losing the right to own a gun.
Click to expand...






The problem with your little dream scenario is once you shoot someone, you go clean the weapon and the baliistics fingerprint has been altered.  In other words what you would like to do would fail to do anything.


----------



## westwall

Dubya said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ballistics fingerprint is to stop a criminal from wanting to use the weapon in a crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but also stop conservatives and libertarians from  using it as intended,i.e., to protect themselves from liberals
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your revolutionaries would get blown off the planet, so dream on, fool!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> thats what the British thought too and the US in Vietnam. Sorry
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not interested in your fucking fantasies. Go find some idiots and talk to them!
Click to expand...






Why?  You're here now!


----------



## GuyPinestra

Sherants said:


> Well said Lakhota!
> 
> 
> 
> 1. to provide that, to acquire a firearm, an application be made reciting age, residence, employment and any prior criminal convictions?
> 2. to required that this application lie on the table for 10 days (absent a showing for urgent need) before the license would be issued?
> 3. that the transfer of a firearm be made essentially as with that of a motor vehicle?
> 4. to have a "ballistic fingerprint" of the firearm made by the manufacturer and filed with the license record so that, if a bullet is found in a victim's body, law enforcement might be helped in finding the culprit?
> 
> 
> 
> This is pretty much exactly what Ive been saying.  There is no logical reason NOT to do the things you suggest here. I dont want people to give up their guns. All I ask is for responsible gun ownership!
Click to expand...


When 99.99% of guns are NEVER used in a crime you already have responsible gun ownership, moron.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

westwall said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> but also stop conservatives and libertarians from  using it as intended,i.e., to protect themselves from liberals
> 
> 
> 
> thats what the British thought too and the US in Vietnam. Sorry
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not interested in your fucking fantasies. Go find some idiots and talk to them!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?  You're here now!
Click to expand...


but also stop conservatives and libertarians from using guns as intended,i.e., to protect themselves from liberals.


----------



## Harry Dresden

westwall said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> but also stop conservatives and libertarians from  using it as intended,i.e., to protect themselves from liberals
> 
> 
> 
> thats what the British thought too and the US in Vietnam. Sorry
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not interested in your fucking fantasies. Go find some idiots and talk to them!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?  You're here now!
Click to expand...

this meatball might be dumber than Franco.......


----------



## GuyPinestra

Harry Dresden said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not interested in your fucking fantasies. Go find some idiots and talk to them!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?  You're here now!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *this meatball might be dumber than Franco*.......
Click to expand...


Until I read this thread I didn't think that was humanly possible!


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Harry Dresden said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Punish gun criminals severely is the answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have an answer and just like that trickle down bullshit, your ways never works. That's why America doesn't want anything to do with your stupid "do nothing" solutions. We want problems solved and you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> are you for real?......punishing the Criminal severely is a foolish thing to do?....and never works?....whats your solution?....a 30 year sentence and let them out in 5 for good behavior?...... yea you are solving problems.....
Click to expand...


No I think he would whether punish the victim if they live through being victimized


----------



## Dubya

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not interested in your fucking fantasies. Go find some idiots and talk to them!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?  You're here now!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> but also stop conservatives and libertarians from using guns as intended,i.e., to protect themselves from liberals.
Click to expand...


Instead of hiding behind a keyboard, try running your mouth about killing liberals in public!


----------



## GuyPinestra

Dubya said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why?  You're here now!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but also stop conservatives and libertarians from using guns as intended,i.e., to protect themselves from liberals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Instead of hiding behind a keyboard, try running your mouth about killing liberals in public!
Click to expand...


STFU... Nobody has to 'kill a liberal' to protect themselves from one, just the sight of a pistol or the racking of a shotgun would be enough to make you piss your pants and run screaming for Mommy in the other direction.


----------



## Harry Dresden

GuyPinestra said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> but also stop conservatives and libertarians from using guns as intended,i.e., to protect themselves from liberals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of hiding behind a keyboard, try running your mouth about killing liberals in public!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> STFU... Nobody has to 'kill a liberal' to protect themselves from one, just the sight of a pistol or the racking of a shotgun would be enough to make you piss your pants and run screaming for Mommy in the other direction.
Click to expand...


i dont think so Guy....he "CLAIMS" he is an ex Marine from what i understand.....so i am sure he is one tough mo fo....maybe to the Women anyway....


----------



## westwall

Dubya said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why?  You're here now!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but also stop conservatives and libertarians from using guns as intended,i.e., to protect themselves from liberals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Instead of hiding behind a keyboard, try running your mouth about killing liberals in public!
Click to expand...







  Typical lib response.  I hate to inform you (but you allready know it anyway) but it's you libs who want to kill everything.  You want to kill all the babies, you want to kill all the climate sceptics, you want to kill all the cats, you want to kill all the mice, you want to kill pretty much anyone who doesn't agree with you.  McVeigh was a lefty, this nutjob ex cop is a leftwing nutjob, the Aurora shooter is a lefty, Loughner is a lefty........

I see lots and lots of lefties commiting all sorts of violent crimes going all the way back to the 1960's.  You asshats haven't changed your stripe.....


----------



## westwall

Harry Dresden said:


> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of hiding behind a keyboard, try running your mouth about killing liberals in public!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> STFU... Nobody has to 'kill a liberal' to protect themselves from one, just the sight of a pistol or the racking of a shotgun would be enough to make you piss your pants and run screaming for Mommy in the other direction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i dont think so Guy....he "CLAIMS" he is an ex Marine from what i understand.....so i am sure he is one tough mo fo....maybe to the Women anyway....
Click to expand...






This guy is the kind of douchebag you read about who beats cats and small children.  He couldn't fight his way out of a wet paper bag.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dubya finds it impossible to imagine that our saintly Founders gave us guns to protect ourselves from morally superior welfare loving liberals!

Liberals are so sure they are right they spied for Stalin and gave him the A- bomb so he could violently impose his morally superior system on us. The ends justify the means if you're a welfare loving, moral   hazard ignoring,  liberal!


----------



## Dubya

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dubya finds it impossible to imagine that our saintly Founders gave us guns to protect ourselves from morally superior welfare loving liberals!
> 
> Liberals are so sure they are right they spied for Stalin and gave him the A- bomb so he could violently impose his morally superior system on us. The ends justify the means if you're a welfare loving, moral   hazard ignoring,  liberal!



I see the Keyboard Warrior is back at it again, because he's too afraid to run that mouth in public.

The Founders gave us a government where we elected our representatives. Since then, men without property were allowed to vote, woman were allowed to vote, we were given the direct vote for the Senate and the terms a President could serve were limited. If you want to change that government, you do it at the polls, like the country has just done. Too bad you lost, but that's what losers are good at doing! 

You are allowed to run your mouth with your crazy talk, but talk is all it will ever be. The day you start something in America is the day you die. Your small arms are no match for a government that will keep you in check. Your guns don't make much difference when they drop a bomb on your ass.



> MOVE or the MOVE Organization is a Philadelphia-based black liberation group founded by John Africa. MOVE was described by CNN as "a loose-knit, mostly black group whose members all adopted the surname Africa, advocated a "back-to-nature" lifestyle and preached against technology."[1] The group lived communally and frequently engaged in public demonstrations related to issues they deemed important.
> 
> Since their founding in 1972, their actions attracted the attention of the Philadelphia Police Department. A major incident occurred in 1978, when the police raided their Powelton Village home. This raid resulted in the death of one police officer and the imprisonment of nine group members, now known as "The MOVE 9." After this, the group relocated further west to a house at 6221 Osage Ave.
> 
> *In 1985, the group made national news when police dropped a bomb on the Osage house from a helicopter in an attempt to end an armed standoff. The explosion ignited a fire in which 11 people died, including five children and the group's leader, John Africa. Only two occupants survived, Ramona, an adult and Birdie, a child. In addition, 65 homes were destroyed as the entire block burned*.[2]



Source: MOVE - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The first thing communists do when the take over a country is go after the liberals. The liberals believe in individual freedom and conservatives don't trust the individual, just like the communists. Conservatives believe in economic freedom, but they have business in bed with the government, just like the communists. They are no longer capitalists, but corporatists. The communists know you conservatives will get along just fine with their system focused on the economic controls and controlling the people's lives, because that's what conservatives want too. It's individual freedom that threatens both conservatives and communists.

Liberals and communists don't get along, because they are competing ideologies. Liberals don't spy for Stalin and communists do. Of course, there is no way you could know that, because you have to be wrong about everything in your Goober life.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Dubya said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dubya finds it impossible to imagine that our saintly Founders gave us guns to protect ourselves from morally superior welfare loving liberals!
> 
> Liberals are so sure they are right they spied for Stalin and gave him the A- bomb so he could violently impose his morally superior system on us. The ends justify the means if you're a welfare loving, moral   hazard ignoring,  liberal!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see the Keyboard Warrior is back at it again, because he's too afraid to run that mouth in public.
> 
> The Founders gave us a government where we elected our representatives. Since then, men without property were allowed to vote, woman were allowed to vote, we were given the direct vote for the Senate and the terms a President could serve were limited. If you want to change that government, you do it at the polls, like the country has just done. Too bad you lost, but that's what losers are good at doing!
> 
> You are allowed to run your mouth with your crazy talk, but talk is all it will ever be. The day you start something in America is the day you die. Your small arms are no match for a government that will keep you in check. Your guns don't make much difference when they drop a bomb on your ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MOVE or the MOVE Organization is a Philadelphia-based black liberation group founded by John Africa. MOVE was described by CNN as "a loose-knit, mostly black group whose members all adopted the surname Africa, advocated a "back-to-nature" lifestyle and preached against technology."[1] The group lived communally and frequently engaged in public demonstrations related to issues they deemed important.
> 
> Since their founding in 1972, their actions attracted the attention of the Philadelphia Police Department. A major incident occurred in 1978, when the police raided their Powelton Village home. This raid resulted in the death of one police officer and the imprisonment of nine group members, now known as "The MOVE 9." After this, the group relocated further west to a house at 6221 Osage Ave.
> 
> *In 1985, the group made national news when police dropped a bomb on the Osage house from a helicopter in an attempt to end an armed standoff. The explosion ignited a fire in which 11 people died, including five children and the group's leader, John Africa. Only two occupants survived, Ramona, an adult and Birdie, a child. In addition, 65 homes were destroyed as the entire block burned*.[2]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Source: MOVE - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The first thing communists do when the take over a country is go after the liberals. The liberals believe in individual freedom and conservatives don't trust the individual, just like the communists. Conservatives believe in economic freedom, but they have business in bed with the government, just like the communists. They are no longer capitalists, but corporatists. The communists know you conservatives will get along just fine with their system focused on the economic controls and controlling the people's lives, because that's what conservatives want too. It's individual freedom that threatens both conservatives and communists.
> 
> Liberals and communists don't get along, because they are competing ideologies. Liberals don't spy for Stalin and communists do. Of course, there is no way you could know that, because you have to be wrong about everything in your Goober life.
Click to expand...


Words of an admitted fraud.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dubya said:


> Liberals don't spy for Stalin and communists do.



dear, Alger Hiss and Whittacker Chambers  were openly liberal and communist. The KGB code name for the Julius Rosenberg was, "Liberal". Oleg Klugian said, "we looked among the liberals when we needed new spies."

Mona Charon wrote a whole book about it called "Useful Idiots"!! Have you read it or many of the others ? Do you want a reading list?

Obama is a liberal but had 2 communist parents and voted to the left of Bernie Sanders 

Norman Thomas quotes:  
The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.


This was precisely the tactic of infiltration advocated by Lenin and Stalin.[3] As Communist International General Secretary Georgi Dimitroff told the Seventh World Congress of the Comintern in 1935: 
"Comrades, you remember the ancient tale of the capture of Troy. Troy was inaccessible to the armies attacking her, thanks to her impregnable walls. And the attacking army, after suffering many sacrifices, was unable to achieve victory until, with the aid of the famous Trojan horse, it managed to penetrate to the very heart of the enemys camp."[4] 

C. S. Lewis on Diabolical Democracy, Socialism, and Public Education « Conservative Colloquium 


Buckley endorsed Chambers analysis of modern liberalism as a watered-down version of Communist ideology. The New Deal, Chambers insists, is not liberal democratic but revolutionary in its nature and intentions, seeking a basic change in the social and, above all, the power relationships within the nation.


Obama said, in his biography,  he gravitated to Marxist professors in college, he had a Marxist preacher best friend for 20 years, said in his auto biography that when he worked on Wall Street he felt as if "he had parachuted behind enemy lines", was more liberal in the Senate the Bernie Sanders( an open socialist) and now, despite 200 years of gov't growth, his deficits  will be bigger than all other American presidents combined, and, he also wants perhaps absolute control over health care (already mostly controlled by gov't), banking, and the auto industry. 

Through Frank Marshall Davis,( Communist Party number: 47544) Obama had an admitted deep and prolonged relationship with someone who was publicly identified as a member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA). The record shows that Obama was in Hawaii from 1971-1979, where, at some point in time, he developed a close relationship, almost like a son, with Davis, listening to his "poetry" and getting advice on his career path. 
But Obama, in his book, Dreams From My Father, refers to him repeatedly as just "Frank."


Bernie Saunders is a Democrat and an open socialist. Obama is to the left of Saunders based on his voting record in the Senate. 

Oleg Klugian (head of KGB in cold war) said that when he wanted to recruit spies he looked among the liberals. When FDR's liberals went to the USSR they came back on  a ship named the "Leviathan" to report, "they had seen the future and it worked." 

Then of course BO appointed at least 4 communists: Mark Lloyd (supporter of communist revolution in Venezuela) and Van Jones who said "give them the wealth, give them the wealth," and Annita Dunn who said, "Mao is my favorite philosopher" , and Bloom who said, "free markets are nonsense." 

Obama:  the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties....... it doesnt say what the federal government [our genius founders forgot?]  or the state government must do on your behalf.

I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive [Marxist] change.

Obama: "I think we can say that the Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day, and that the Framers had that same blind spot."

Obama: the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties....... it doesn't say what the federal government [our genius founders forgot?] or the state government must do on your behalf.

In an article titled "The Impossible is Now Possible: Assessing the Obama Presidency," executive vice chair of the Communist Party United States, Jarvis Tyner hailed the President's "drive to the left." "The health care bill, the stimulus package, the cap-and-trade bill, the elimination of secret elections for union representation-it's a program we dared not dream possible only a year ago," Tyner wrote. "But now it's on the verge of becoming the new blueprint for a truly socialist America."

A quick visit to the CPUSA website yields: 

"In some ways last night's State of the Union address by President Obama was a virtuoso performance. There were stirring moments, memorable turns of phrase, humor, a defense of activist government, and proposals that will be welcomed, and surely help, millions of people in need." Obama State of the Union: He got the ball rolling » cpusa


And, if all that is not enough BO  wrote a book called " Dreams From my Father". His father was a drunken suicidal Marxist who dreamed to  free the world from American imperialism. His mother married 2 communists and urged BO to follow is communist bio dad.


And lets not forget that BO is openly for single payer socialist health care!!

And lets not forget Barry wrote a book called "Dreams from my Father"

1. In 1965, Barack Obama, Sr. wrote in the East Africa Journal the following: We needto eliminate power structures that have been built through excessive accumulation so that not only a few individuals shall control a vast magnitude of resources as is the case now. How? Well, the state can take over large segments of the commercial or private sector. And, he said, there is no reason to worry about economic freedom or individual rights We have to look at priorities in terms of what is good for society and on this basis we may find it necessary to force people to do things they would not do otherwise.

2. In an article from 1965 entitled Problems Facing Our Socialism, Barack Obamas father stated: Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed. . . It is a fallacy to say there is a limit (to tax rates), and it is a fallacy to rely mainly on individual free enterprise to get the savings. Barack Obama Sr. "Tax 100% of income." Like Father, Like Son? | Peace . Gold . Liberty | Revolution


----------



## Dubya

A statist and a liberal are too different ideologies, just like conservative and libertarian are. Moderate is another ideology.


----------



## westwall

Dubya said:


> A statist and a liberal are too different ideologies, just like conservative and libertarian are. Moderate is another ideology.








  Wow, you are truly a poorly educated individual.


----------



## GuyPinestra

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals don't spy for Stalin and communists do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dear, Alger Hiss and Whittacker Chambers  were openly liberal and communist. The KGB code name for the Julius Rosenberg was, "Liberal". Oleg Klugian said, "we looked among the liberals when we needed new spies."
> 
> Mona Charon wrote a whole book about it called "Useful Idiots"!! Have you read it or many of the others ? Do you want a reading list?
> 
> Obama is a liberal but had 2 communist parents and voted to the left of Bernie Sanders
> 
> Norman Thomas quotes:
> The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.
> 
> 
> This was precisely the tactic of infiltration advocated by Lenin and Stalin.[3] As Communist International General Secretary Georgi Dimitroff told the Seventh World Congress of the Comintern in 1935:
> "Comrades, you remember the ancient tale of the capture of Troy. Troy was inaccessible to the armies attacking her, thanks to her impregnable walls. And the attacking army, after suffering many sacrifices, was unable to achieve victory until, with the aid of the famous Trojan horse, it managed to penetrate to the very heart of the enemys camp."[4]
> 
> C. S. Lewis on Diabolical Democracy, Socialism, and Public Education « Conservative Colloquium
> 
> 
> Buckley endorsed Chambers analysis of modern liberalism as a watered-down version of Communist ideology. The New Deal, Chambers insists, is not liberal democratic but revolutionary in its nature and intentions, seeking a basic change in the social and, above all, the power relationships within the nation.
> 
> 
> Obama said, in his biography,  he gravitated to Marxist professors in college, he had a Marxist preacher best friend for 20 years, said in his auto biography that when he worked on Wall Street he felt as if "he had parachuted behind enemy lines", was more liberal in the Senate the Bernie Sanders( an open socialist) and now, despite 200 years of gov't growth, his deficits  will be bigger than all other American presidents combined, and, he also wants perhaps absolute control over health care (already mostly controlled by gov't), banking, and the auto industry.
> 
> Through Frank Marshall Davis,( Communist Party number: 47544) Obama had an admitted deep and prolonged relationship with someone who was publicly identified as a member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA). The record shows that Obama was in Hawaii from 1971-1979, where, at some point in time, he developed a close relationship, almost like a son, with Davis, listening to his "poetry" and getting advice on his career path.
> But Obama, in his book, Dreams From My Father, refers to him repeatedly as just "Frank."
> 
> 
> Bernie Saunders is a Democrat and an open socialist. Obama is to the left of Saunders based on his voting record in the Senate.
> 
> Oleg Klugian (head of KGB in cold war) said that when he wanted to recruit spies he looked among the liberals. When FDR's liberals went to the USSR they came back on  a ship named the "Leviathan" to report, "they had seen the future and it worked."
> 
> Then of course BO appointed at least 4 communists: Mark Lloyd (supporter of communist revolution in Venezuela) and Van Jones who said "give them the wealth, give them the wealth," and Annita Dunn who said, "Mao is my favorite philosopher" , and Bloom who said, "free markets are nonsense."
> 
> Obama:  the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties....... it doesnt say what the federal government [our genius founders forgot?]  or the state government must do on your behalf.
> 
> I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive [Marxist] change.
> 
> Obama: "I think we can say that the Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day, and that the Framers had that same blind spot."
> 
> Obama: the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties....... it doesn't say what the federal government [our genius founders forgot?] or the state government must do on your behalf.
> 
> In an article titled "The Impossible is Now Possible: Assessing the Obama Presidency," executive vice chair of the Communist Party United States, Jarvis Tyner hailed the President's "drive to the left." "The health care bill, the stimulus package, the cap-and-trade bill, the elimination of secret elections for union representation-it's a program we dared not dream possible only a year ago," Tyner wrote. "But now it's on the verge of becoming the new blueprint for a truly socialist America."
> 
> A quick visit to the CPUSA website yields:
> 
> "In some ways last night's State of the Union address by President Obama was a virtuoso performance. There were stirring moments, memorable turns of phrase, humor, a defense of activist government, and proposals that will be welcomed, and surely help, millions of people in need." Obama State of the Union: He got the ball rolling » cpusa
> 
> 
> And, if all that is not enough BO  wrote a book called " Dreams From my Father". His father was a drunken suicidal Marxist who dreamed to  free the world from American imperialism. His mother married 2 communists and urged BO to follow is communist bio dad.
> 
> 
> And lets not forget that BO is openly for single payer socialist health care!!
> 
> And lets not forget Barry wrote a book called "Dreams from my Father"
> 
> 1. In 1965, Barack Obama, Sr. wrote in the East Africa Journal the following: We needto eliminate power structures that have been built through excessive accumulation so that not only a few individuals shall control a vast magnitude of resources as is the case now. How? Well, the state can take over large segments of the commercial or private sector. And, he said, there is no reason to worry about economic freedom or individual rights We have to look at priorities in terms of what is good for society and on this basis we may find it necessary to force people to do things they would not do otherwise.
> 
> 2. In an article from 1965 entitled Problems Facing Our Socialism, Barack Obamas father stated: Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed. . . It is a fallacy to say there is a limit (to tax rates), and it is a fallacy to rely mainly on individual free enterprise to get the savings. Barack Obama Sr. "Tax 100% of income." Like Father, Like Son? | Peace . Gold . Liberty | Revolution
Click to expand...


You really don't think Dumbya read all that, do you?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dubya said:


> A statist and a liberal are too different ideologies, just like conservative and libertarian are. Moderate is another ideology.




Liberals  Ayn Rand Lexicon
The goal of the liberalsas it emerges from the record of the past decades
was to smuggle this country into welfare *statism *by means of single, concrete, ...
aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/liberals.html

Statism : The only option you're being given
Liberal Statism emerged as the Welfare State: a place where everyone was 
equal, where the poor were supported, everyone could go to ...
Statism : The only option you're being given


Yes, Duby is an illiterate, but that is 100% typical of a liberal


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Dubya said:


> A statist and a liberal are too different ideologies, just like conservative and libertarian are. Moderate is another ideology.



True. 

Liberals have consistently advocated for the rights of individuals and restriction of the state, such as privacy rights with regard to abortion, equal protection rights concerning same-sex couples, and due process rights for minorities and immigrants.


----------



## Dubya

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> A statist and a liberal are too different ideologies, just like conservative and libertarian are. Moderate is another ideology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals  Ayn Rand Lexicon
> The goal of the liberalsas it emerges from the record of the past decades
> was to smuggle this country into welfare *statism *by means of single, concrete, ...
> aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/liberals.html
> 
> Statism : The only option you're being given
> Liberal Statism emerged as the Welfare State: a place where everyone was
> equal, where the poor were supported, everyone could go to ...
> Statism : The only option you're being given
> 
> 
> Yes, Duby is an illiterate, but that is 100% typical of a liberal
Click to expand...


Do you know what a scumbag Ayn Rand was? 

Statists will kill off the liberals as their first target, because statists can't deal with individual liberty. A libertarian also hates liberals, because they compete ideologically on issues of individual liberty.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dubya said:


> Do you know what a scumbag Ayn Rand was?



who cares???? as if she's the only one who thinks statists and liberals are the same??

Why do you think BO wants that state to control health care and why do you think the liberals spied for Stalin??,


do you want 1000 more links??????

See why we are 1000% positive a liberal will be slow??


We are Statists in Classical Liberal Clothing | Bleeding Heart ...
May 30, 2012 ... The problem with premise 2 in this argument is that, if it's true, almost every 
libertarian and classical liberal thinker ever counts as a left-statist.
bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2012/05/libertarian-purity-statists-in-classical-liberal-clothing/
Reminder: The Media Isn't Liberal, It's Statist | The Agitator
Nov 5, 2012 ... The Boston Globe today editorializes against medical marijuana and physician-
assisted suicide today, both of which are on the ballot in ...
Reminder: The Media Isn?t Liberal, It?s Statist | The Agitator
Statist vs. Liberal : What a crock
I'm really tired of hearing about Liberals and change. Let's see how they really 
stack up.
Statist vs. Liberal : What a crock
Statism : The only option you're being given
Liberal Statism emerged as the Welfare State: a place where ... Liberals don't 
care about the poor, they don't care about minorities, they don't ...
Statism : The only option you're being given


----------



## bigrebnc1775

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> A statist and a liberal are too different ideologies, just like conservative and libertarian are. Moderate is another ideology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True.
> 
> Liberals have consistently advocated for the rights of individuals and restriction of the state, such as privacy rights with regard to abortion, equal protection rights concerning same-sex couples, and due process rights for minorities and immigrants.
Click to expand...


Total fucking bull shit
you're version of immigrates is illegals immigrates  and they have no rights because they broke the law.
Abortion has two people affecting it, when the mother introduces another life into her body sahe lost the right too privacy.
There are no protected rights for a perversion act  of same sex


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Liberals have consistently advocated for the rights of individuals and restriction of the state, such as privacy rights with regard to abortion



got it!! killing a baby is advocating for the individual?????




C_Clayton_Jones said:


> equal protection rights concerning same-sex couples, and due process rights for minorities and immigrants.



wow thats trivial stuff, meanwhile libturds advocate for the individual by unemploying 24 million, taking half of everyone's income, and constantly attacking  the businesses we work for that provide the goods and services we need to survive.


----------



## Dubya

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what a scumbag Ayn Rand was?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> who cares???? as if she's the only one who thinks statists and liberals are the same??
> 
> Why do you think BO wants that state to control health care and why do you think the liberals spied for Stalin??,
> 
> 
> do you want 1000 more links??????
> 
> See why we are 1000% positive a liberal will be slow??
> 
> 
> We are Statists in Classical Liberal Clothing | Bleeding Heart ...
> May 30, 2012 ... The problem with premise 2 in this argument is that, if it's true, almost every
> libertarian and classical liberal thinker ever counts as a left-statist.
> bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2012/05/libertarian-purity-statists-in-classical-liberal-clothing/
> Reminder: The Media Isn't Liberal, It's Statist | The Agitator
> Nov 5, 2012 ... The Boston Globe today editorializes against medical marijuana and physician-
> assisted suicide today, both of which are on the ballot in ...
> Reminder: The Media Isn?t Liberal, It?s Statist | The Agitator
> Statist vs. Liberal : What a crock
> I'm really tired of hearing about Liberals and change. Let's see how they really
> stack up.
> Statist vs. Liberal : What a crock
> Statism : The only option you're being given
> Liberal Statism emerged as the Welfare State: a place where ... Liberals don't
> care about the poor, they don't care about minorities, they don't ...
> Statism : The only option you're being given
Click to expand...


What about history? This is the same nonsense like claiming Nazis are socialists, so the argument goes why did all those socialists and communists in Europe go fight against the fascists in Spain. History refutes this bullshit attempt to rewrite it. How can someone buy that fascism is the same as socialism and socialists have historically fought against it? 

There is a history of communists taking over countries and doing away with the liberals that lived there. That means they can't be the same and all the rhetoric in the world isn't going to change that fact.

It's a fact that Ayn Rand had a hair up her ass about liberals and she's a biased source that isn't designed for the truth.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Dubya said:


> This is the same nonsense like claiming Nazis are socialists,



dear, the Nazis were National Socialist. Our liberals spied for Hitler and Stalin!! Coincidence??? 




Dubya said:


> so the argument goes why did all those socialists and communists in Europe go fight against the fascists in Spain. .



too stupid. It like asking why did one monarchy fight against another when both believed in the devine right of kings!!

See why we are 1000% positive a lberal will be slow??


----------



## Lakhota

> _By Matt Ferner_
> 
> After a full day Tuesday of listening to testimony from gun control advocates and opponents, Colorado Democrats passed two bold new bills aimed at curbing gun violence in a state that has the dubious distinction of being the home to two of the bloodiest mass shootings in American history -- Columbine and Aurora.
> 
> First, the House Judiciary Committee passed House Bill 1229, on a 7 to 4 party line vote, which requires universal background checks on all private gun sales in Colorado. Read the full text of HB-1229 here.
> 
> Then, late Tuesday night, the committee passed a bill that bans the sale of high capacity gun magazines that hold more than 15 rounds or more than five shotgun shells. A person who already owns a high-capacity magazine fitting the description would be able to continue to own the magazine but would have to maintain continuous possession of it. Late Tuesday, HP-1224 was amended to increase the amount of rounds in a magazine to 15, instad of 10, and was also passed on a party line vote of 7 to 4, read the full text of the bill here.
> 
> Both bills now head to the House floor for another vote.
> 
> Recent polling from Project New America/Chris Keating and The Denver Post found that a majority of Coloradans' favor stricter gun control.
> 
> Fox31 first reported on a survey from PNA/Chris Keating which asked 905 Colorado voters, in general, if they favor stricter gun control -- 55 percent of Colorado voters said they favor of stricter gun control, while only 40 percent were opposed.
> 
> The same poll also asked Colorado voters about specific gun law proposals and the margin of support was wide for nearly all the measures in question, according to PNA/Chris Keating:
> 
> 95 percent of voters agree that people with "serious mental health problems" should be prevented from owning a gun.
> 80 percent of voters agree that judges should be able to order someone who is "convicted of domestic violence or given a restraining order" to surrender their guns to the court.
> 80 percent of voters agree that all private gun sales should go through a licensed dealer and be subject to a background check.
> 65 percent of voters agree that guns should be banned on college and university campuses.
> 61 percent of voters agree that the sale and possession of semi-automatic guns and assault rifles should be banned.
> 61 percent of voters agree that the sale and possession of high-capacity ammunition clips, which allow some guns to shoot more than 10 bullets before reloading, should be banned.



More: Colorado Democrats Pass Bold New Gun Control Measures In House Committee


----------



## Lakhota

I find the Colorado poll much more interesting than the committee vote.


----------



## Harry Dresden

Lakhota said:


> I find the Colorado poll much more interesting than the committee vote.



i bet you jizzed your underpants..... didnt ya?....


----------



## Lakhota

I am encouraged that Colorado is seeing the light.


----------



## TruthSeeker56

Exactly HOW would these proposed Colorado gun control laws have stopped Columbine or Aurora from happening?

Once again, the Democrats are putting lipstick on a PIG, and calling it "saving lives".


----------



## Harry Dresden

Lakhota said:


> I am encouraged that Colorado is seeing the light.



just say it.....you are happy anytime something progresses towards gun banishment....and don't give me this shit about you being for gun rights.....that's a bunch of shit.....the stuff you post is pretty anti-gun.....especially... when you are replying to a pro-gun rights person....


----------



## Lakhota

Harry Dresden said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am encouraged that Colorado is seeing the light.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> just say it.....you are happy anytime something progresses towards gun banishment....and don't give me this shit about you being for gun rights.....that's a bunch of shit.....the stuff you post is pretty anti-gun.....especially... when you are replying to a pro-gun rights person....
Click to expand...


I'm very pro-gun and very anti-NRA extremist gun nuttery.  I don't ride the NRA crazy train.  It ain't that complicated...

Ask yourself this question:  Why doesn't everyone who owns a gun belong to the NRA?  The NRA claims to have around 4 million members (which experts believe is much lower) - but even 4 million would only be a very small fraction of gun owners.

Does the NRA Really Have 4 Million Members?


----------



## Dubya

Lakhota said:


> I am encouraged that Colorado is seeing the light.



Colorado has 20 Democrats and 15 Republicans in their state Senate and they have a Democrat as Governor. I would think it would pass and be signed.


----------



## OKTexas

Dubya said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am encouraged that Colorado is seeing the light.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colorado has 20 Democrats and 15 Republicans in their state Senate and they have a Democrat as Governor. I would think it would pass and be signed.
Click to expand...


Got to make it out of the House first. Don't count your chickens before they're hatched there baby boy.


----------



## Harry Dresden

Lakhota said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am encouraged that Colorado is seeing the light.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> just say it.....you are happy anytime something progresses towards gun banishment....and don't give me this shit about you being for gun rights.....that's a bunch of shit.....the stuff you post is pretty anti-gun.....especially... when you are replying to a pro-gun rights person....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm very pro-gun and very anti-NRA extremist gun nuttery.  I don't ride the NRA crazy train.  It ain't that complicated...
> 
> Ask yourself this question:  Why doesn't everyone who owns a gun belong to the NRA?  The NRA claims to have around 4 million members (which experts believe is much lower) - but even 4 million would only be a very small fraction of gun owners.
> 
> Does the NRA Really Have 4 Million Members?
Click to expand...


LaKota your posts are pretty anti-gun when you are answering one of these so called "nutters".......maybe you should do something about that......


----------



## Lakhota

Katzndogz said:


> As the nation becomes more corrupt and communistic, not only is the second amendment obsolete but the whole constitution is inadequate.



Mostly true.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Wehrwolfen said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd Amendment is nothing more than a fossil of days long past.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you'd prefer to adopt the Marxist Constitution? How about China's Constitution and Bill of Rights? Would you be able to sleep better under those conditions?
Click to expand...




Lakhota said:


>


Shitting bull smiles at the thought,  of adopting the Marxist Constitution. Yes I think shitting bull would love that


----------



## whitehall

Only a radical left wing a-hole would ask if one (or more?) of the Bill of Rights was obsolete.


----------



## Lakhota

The 2nd Amendment is not negotiable...because...

It means whatever SCOTUS says it means.


----------



## Lakhota

The wording of the 2nd Amendment is irrelevant today.  It now means whatever SCOTUS says it means.


----------



## Lakhota

PaulS1950 said:


> There is nothing about the second amendment that is obsolete or even confusing. That people might think it is wrong to keep and be versed in the use of the same weapons as the military infantry don't understand that all citizens are the militia; a back-up support for the defense of our constitution. I would never attempt to overthrow the government unless it was overstepping the limits placed on it by the constitution. Every soldier, agent, politition, and law enforcement officer in the country has taken an oath to serve and protect that constitution. Violating that oath is a crime against this country and worse - against G_d. It should be named an act of treason and prosecuted as such.



The 2nd Amendment is totally obsolete - and SCOTUS has proven that.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Lakhota said:


> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing about the second amendment that is obsolete or even confusing. That people might think it is wrong to keep and be versed in the use of the same weapons as the military infantry don't understand that all citizens are the militia; a back-up support for the defense of our constitution. I would never attempt to overthrow the government unless it was overstepping the limits placed on it by the constitution. Every soldier, agent, politition, and law enforcement officer in the country has taken an oath to serve and protect that constitution. Violating that oath is a crime against this country and worse - against G_d. It should be named an act of treason and prosecuted as such.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd Amendment is totally obsolete - and SCOTUS has proven that.
Click to expand...

There is no way in hell you could have the right to speak your opinion without the support of a second amendment supporter to be their too defend that right for you.
So shut the fuck up and kiss my feet and be thankful we're still here.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Lakhota said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UseCaution said:
> 
> 
> 
> What can you say about all this?  Meeting of minds, the NRA is an embarrassment to reasonable rational gun enthusiast.  As I have no guns, but have excellent shooting experience.  The language was absolutely developed from a different mindset and technology understanding of that time.  Along with no standing army.  But from the standpoint of being out in THE back country townships at that time, were dangers just on their own ,during these times I would've felt great comfort knowing that I can keep my guns.  I can apply the right to bear arms no matter what during these dangerous periods.  But the volatility of small weapons like the assault rifle vs.  Today's modern army technology to decimate you.  The second amendment is flawed!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since you say you have no guns your opinion about guns is irrelevant. I suggest that you shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NOT TRUE.  This person has the same rights to their opinions as gun owners!
Click to expand...


OH wow a person with no experience with firearms trying to give their opinion about them like you?


----------



## Intense

Lakhota said:


> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing about the second amendment that is obsolete or even confusing. That people might think it is wrong to keep and be versed in the use of the same weapons as the military infantry don't understand that all citizens are the militia; a back-up support for the defense of our constitution. I would never attempt to overthrow the government unless it was overstepping the limits placed on it by the constitution. Every soldier, agent, politition, and law enforcement officer in the country has taken an oath to serve and protect that constitution. Violating that oath is a crime against this country and worse - against G_d. It should be named an act of treason and prosecuted as such.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd Amendment is totally obsolete - and SCOTUS has proven that.
Click to expand...


You could not be more wrong, and a danger to society by imposing your prejudices on others. There is no more important a time for armed Citizenry, than when Civil Rule breaks down, be it Natural Disaster, Civil Unrest, or even the absence of Civil Authority in a crisis or emergency, where people are threatened. Your notions are absurd and place people at risk. Your agenda is centralized control, for better or worse, and removing all perceived obstacles to that end, real or imagined.


----------



## editec

Lakhota said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've now learned that editorialists at the new yorker have no idea of what the second amendment means.  No surprise there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd Amendment means whatever SCOTUS says it means - and that will continue to change over time...
Click to expand...


Yup.

Would that that were the ONLY issue the SCOTUS weighed in on, eh?

Corporations are persons?

Money = FREE SPEECH?!


----------



## tjvh

Lakhota said:


> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing about the second amendment that is obsolete or even confusing. That people might think it is wrong to keep and be versed in the use of the same weapons as the military infantry don't understand that all citizens are the militia; a back-up support for the defense of our constitution. I would never attempt to overthrow the government unless it was overstepping the limits placed on it by the constitution. Every soldier, agent, politition, and law enforcement officer in the country has taken an oath to serve and protect that constitution. Violating that oath is a crime against this country and worse - against G_d. It should be named an act of treason and prosecuted as such.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd Amendment is totally obsolete - and SCOTUS has proven that.
Click to expand...


Obsolete *only* because it *interferes* with the liberal utopian agenda. For the rest of us who feel like *protecting our families, property and homes*... Not so much.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing about the second amendment that is obsolete or even confusing. That people might think it is wrong to keep and be versed in the use of the same weapons as the military infantry don't understand that all citizens are the militia; a back-up support for the defense of our constitution. I would never attempt to overthrow the government unless it was overstepping the limits placed on it by the constitution. Every soldier, agent, politition, and law enforcement officer in the country has taken an oath to serve and protect that constitution. Violating that oath is a crime against this country and worse - against G_d. It should be named an act of treason and prosecuted as such.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd Amendment is totally obsolete - and SCOTUS has proven that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no way in hell you could have the right to speak your opinion without the support of a second amendment supporter to be their too defend that right for you.
> So shut the fuck up and kiss my feet and be thankful we're still here.
Click to expand...


Lakhota  I must correct myself I was wrong for what I said. You have the right to speak your opinion because of supporters of the second amendment. As a supporter of the second amendment I have no right to try and restrict your right to free speech by telling you too shut the fuck up.


----------



## Care4all

Quantum Windbag said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Jeffrey Toobin_
> 
> Does the Second Amendment prevent Congress from passing gun-control laws? The question, which is suddenly pressing, in light of the reaction to the school massacre in Newtown, is rooted in politics as much as law.
> 
> For more than a hundred years, the answer was clear, even if the words of the amendment itself were not. The text of the amendment is divided into two clauses and is, as a whole, ungrammatical: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The courts had found that the first part, the militia clause, trumped the second part, the bear arms clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear armsbut did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon.
> 
> Enter the modern National Rifle Association. Before the nineteen-seventies, the N.R.A. had been devoted mostly to non-political issues, like gun safety. But a coup détat at the groups annual convention in 1977 brought a group of committed political conservatives to poweras part of the leading edge of the new, more rightward-leaning Republican Party. (Jill Lepore recounted this history in a recent piece for The New Yorker.) The new group pushed for a novel interpretation of the Second Amendment, one that gave individuals, not just militias, the right to bear arms. It was an uphill struggle. At first, their views were widely scorned. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, who was no liberal, mocked the individual-rights theory of the amendment as a fraud.
> 
> But the N.R.A. kept pushingand theres a lesson here. Conservatives often embrace originalism, the idea that the meaning of the Constitution was fixed when it was ratified, in 1787. They mock the so-called liberal idea of a living constitution, whose meaning changes with the values of the country at large. But there is no better example of the living Constitution than the conservative re-casting of the Second Amendment in the last few decades of the twentieth century. (Reva Siegel, of Yale Law School, elaborates on this point in a brilliant article.)
> 
> The re-interpretation of the Second Amendment was an elaborate and brilliantly executed political operation, inside and outside of government. Ronald Reagans election in 1980 brought a gun-rights enthusiast to the White House. At the same time, Orrin Hatch, the Utah Republican, became chairman of an important subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and he commissioned a report that claimed to find clearand long lostproof that the second amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms. The N.R.A. began commissioning academic studies aimed at proving the same conclusion. An outré constitutional theory, rejected even by the establishment of the Republican Party, evolved, through brute political force, into the conservative conventional wisdom.
> 
> And so, eventually, this theory became the law of the land. In District of Columbia v. Heller, decided in 2008, the Supreme Court embraced the individual-rights view of the Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> More: So You Think You Know the Second Amendment? : The New Yorker
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Gotta love the way racists ignored the 14th Amendment to justify gun control. Ever wonder why progressive Democrats want to firce anyone who gets a gun to have an ID, yet refuses to require an ID for voting?
Click to expand...

you are LYING....

Democrats or liberals on the whole DO NOT REFUSE voter ID laws or the need to present id's for voting.....many democratic states have voter id laws where you have to present identification with the voter's address and name on it, like a recent utility bill, a recent paycheck, and /or a social security card, worker's id badges and a number of identification items....

what they oppose is the government issued pictured identification crap that the right wing authoritarians  insist upon, which many seniors and citizens do not have....and making these citizens who do not drive, put through a more difficult process to vote than those who drive and have a gvt issued pictured id already in hand.

BIG DIFFERENCE young man....


----------



## Care4all

> *The Secret History of Guns*
> 
> The Ku Klux Klan, Ronald Reagan, and, for most of  its history, the NRA all worked to control guns. The Founding Fathers?  They required gun ownership&#8212;and regulated it. And no group has more  fiercely advocated the right to bear loaded weapons in public than the  Black Panthers&#8212;the true pioneers of the modern pro-gun movement. In the  battle over gun rights in America, both sides have distorted history and  the law, and there&#8217;s no resolution in sight.



The Secret History of Guns - Adam Winkler - The Atlantic


----------



## Ernie S.

Lakhota said:


> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing about the second amendment that is obsolete or even confusing. That people might think it is wrong to keep and be versed in the use of the same weapons as the military infantry don't understand that all citizens are the militia; a back-up support for the defense of our constitution. I would never attempt to overthrow the government unless it was overstepping the limits placed on it by the constitution. Every soldier, agent, politition, and law enforcement officer in the country has taken an oath to serve and protect that constitution. Violating that oath is a crime against this country and worse - against G_d. It should be named an act of treason and prosecuted as such.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd Amendment is totally obsolete - and SCOTUS has proven that.
Click to expand...


Talking out your ass again? Is the first amendment obsolete? They were enacted the same day. 5th? It's inconvenient that defendants can't be compelled to testify against themselves so we'll just declare the language obsolete and beat black kids until they confess, OK?


----------



## editec

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing about the second amendment that is obsolete or even confusing. That people might think it is wrong to keep and be versed in the use of the same weapons as the military infantry don't understand that all citizens are the militia; a back-up support for the defense of our constitution. I would never attempt to overthrow the government unless it was overstepping the limits placed on it by the constitution. Every soldier, agent, politition, and law enforcement officer in the country has taken an oath to serve and protect that constitution. Violating that oath is a crime against this country and worse - against G_d. It should be named an act of treason and prosecuted as such.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd Amendment is totally obsolete - and SCOTUS has proven that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no way in hell you could have the right to speak your opinion without the support of a second amendment supporter to be their too defend that right for you.
> So shut the fuck up and kiss my feet and be thankful we're still here.
Click to expand...


What hubris.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

editec said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd Amendment is totally obsolete - and SCOTUS has proven that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no way in hell you could have the right to speak your opinion without the support of a second amendment supporter to be their too defend that right for you.
> So shut the fuck up and kiss my feet and be thankful we're still here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What hubris.
Click to expand...


Really? I don't think so.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Lakhota said:


> The 2nd Amendment is not negotiable...because...
> 
> It means whatever SCOTUS says it means.



You have the right to speak your opinion because of people who support the second amendment. Be respectful of my right and I'll do the same for you.


----------



## billyerock1991

I don't believe the second amendment is obsolete ... like everything in the constitution its always up for change, if the majority wants it, and its constitutional ... our founding fathers never thought that they would have a musket that would fire 100 rounds a minute ... they clearly felt that you as a citizen should have the right to defend yourself ... here's where we have the problem ... the constitution says you have a right to defend your self to what point ... where is the cut off point ... I don't believe that a citizen should have any weapon that fire 100 round a minute ... I feel a rifle or a hand gun is suffisant for any citizen to defend themselves ... I as a far left, tree hugging, leftie liberal, feel you have a right to have a gun ... but not a gun that fires 100, 50, 30, 25 bullets an minute


----------



## billyerock1991

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Wehrwolfen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd Amendment is nothing more than a fossil of days long past.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you'd prefer to adopt the Marxist Constitution? How about China's Constitution and Bill of Rights? Would you be able to sleep better under those conditions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shitting bull smiles at the thought,  of adopting the Marxist Constitution. Yes I think shitting bull would love that
Click to expand...


if it were up to me, there wouldn't be any guns allowed in the confines of the united states ... anyone caught with one will receive life in prison ... that's my feelings about guns ... that doesn't make me a commie a socialist or a Marxist ... it makes me a person who dislikes guns ... now for reality ... I feel if you want to own a gun, fine .... but not a gun the fires 100, 50, 30, 25, 11, rounds a minute .. thats unexceptable in my opinion


----------



## Wry Catcher

Avatar4321 said:


> Not confusing at all if you know how to read.



Obviously you read at a 'concrete' level.  Suggesting clarity in the Second is ridiculous.  Doing so when one may easily infer from Article I, sec 8 and clause(s) 14, 15 and 16 that a militia is a government organization and its members are quasi government employees under the direction of officers appointed by the State is absurd.

The inference that guns should be freely exchanged in a market economy is absurd on its face and is even recognized by Plato in The Republic on the moral dilemma of returing a weapon to a madman.

The Second is not sacrosanct, as NRA spokesperson LaPierre wants you to believe, nor is The First.


----------



## GuyPinestra

billyerock1991 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wehrwolfen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you'd prefer to adopt the Marxist Constitution? How about China's Constitution and Bill of Rights? Would you be able to sleep better under those conditions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shitting bull smiles at the thought,  of adopting the Marxist Constitution. Yes I think shitting bull would love that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if it were up to me, there wouldn't be any guns allowed in the confines of the united states ... anyone caught with one will receive life in prison ... that's my feelings about guns ... that doesn't make me a commie a socialist or a Marxist ... it makes me a person who dislikes guns ... now for reality ... I feel if you want to own a gun, fine .... but not a gun the fires 100, 50, 30, 25, 11, rounds a minute .. thats unexceptable in my opinion
Click to expand...


Thank God it isn't up to you!


----------



## bigrebnc1775

GuyPinestra said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Duh, my people were here first...  I think I'll stay...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You would think knowing 'your people's' history, you'd realize what happens when a group has inferior weapons and/or has those weapons confiscated.
> 
> Or is it just that you want to see EVERYBODY 'on the rez'?
Click to expand...


Yep, I don't know many Indians, but the ones I do know in no way support gun control.


----------



## Erand7899

Lakhota said:


> It is confusing to intelligent people.



How would you know?  Do you even know any intelligent people?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

billyerock1991 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wehrwolfen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you'd prefer to adopt the Marxist Constitution? How about China's Constitution and Bill of Rights? Would you be able to sleep better under those conditions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shitting bull smiles at the thought,  of adopting the Marxist Constitution. Yes I think shitting bull would love that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if it were up to me, there wouldn't be any guns allowed in the confines of the united states ... anyone caught with one will receive life in prison ... that's my feelings about guns ... that doesn't make me a commie a socialist or a Marxist ... it makes me a person who dislikes guns ... now for reality ... I feel if you want to own a gun, fine .... but not a gun the fires 100, 50, 30, 25, 11, rounds a minute .. thats unexceptable in my opinion
Click to expand...


Go do some research on the second amendment and why it was created. media matters is not a good source


----------



## whitehall

Confusion? The union based education system made sure left wing Americans wouldbe in a constant state of confusion. I wonder when the "progressive" propaganda sources will start attacking the confusing wording of the 1st Amendment? What did they really mean when they said "congress will make no law impeding the free exercise of religion"? Did it mean Christians can no longer celebrate Christmas on public property?


----------



## Erand7899

Ravi said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is confusing to intelligent people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is only confusing to people who want to find a way around "shall not be infringed".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't find "well regulated" and "shall not be infringed" contradictory?
Click to expand...


No, because they refer to two different subjects.  First, any militia has to be well regulated to make it efficient, effective, and disciplined.  No one wants an a militia that is not well regulated.  Part, and only part, of having a well regulated militia made up of the citizenry, is to have an armed citizenry.  Consequently, the independent clause which states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  

Independent clauses of a sentence, stand on their own, even though they may be explained by a dependent clause.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Erand7899 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is only confusing to people who want to find a way around "shall not be infringed".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't find "well regulated" and "shall not be infringed" contradictory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, because they refer to two different subjects.  First, any militia has to be well regulated to make it efficient, effective, and disciplined.  No one wants an a militia that is not well regulated.  Part, and only part, of having a well regulated militia made up of the citizenry, is to have an armed citizenry.  Consequently, the independent clause which states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Independent clauses of a sentence, stand on their own, even though they may be explained by a dependent clause.
Click to expand...


Please, please, please, understand the meaning of a word before you talk about it. Well regulated as it was written in the 18th century does not have the same meaning as the 21st century meaning of well regulated.
To be as expected in working order.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

whitehall said:


> Confusion? The union based education system made sure left wing Americans wouldbe in a constant state of confusion. I wonder when the "progressive" propaganda sources will start attacking the confusing wording of the 1st Amendment? What did they really mean when they said "congress will make no law impeding the free exercise of religion"? Did it mean Christians can no longer celebrate Christmas on public property?



The Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review. 

Consequently, there is no confusion as to the meanings of the First and Second Amendments. 



> Did it mean Christians can no longer celebrate Christmas on public property?



That depends on the nature and context of the religious expression: 



> Every analysis in this area must begin with consideration of the cumulative criteria developed by the Court over many years. Three such tests may be gleaned from our cases. First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion, Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U.S. 236, 243 (1968); [p613] finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion." Walz, supra, at 674.
> 
> Lemon v. Kurtzman


----------



## M14 Shooter

There's "confusion" only among those that dislike the fact that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.


----------



## Intense

editec said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've now learned that editorialists at the new yorker have no idea of what the second amendment means.  No surprise there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd Amendment means whatever SCOTUS says it means - and that will continue to change over time...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup.
> 
> Would that that were the ONLY issue the SCOTUS weighed in on, eh?
> 
> Corporations are persons?
> 
> Money = FREE SPEECH?!
Click to expand...


And what is the source, as opposed to the relevant truth it shares? Who are you to restrict what information is available to me?


----------



## novasteve

To the libs who think they know what the 2nd amendment means, where in the 4th amendment does it state a right to privacy let alone abortion?


----------



## Nika2013

I do not have an opinion either way on the subject, but from my own genealogical study of my ancestors in the late 1700's in America, I would respond to your statement as the following:

 A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" =

The people were promised in the Federalist by Alexander Hamilton that there would never be a standing army to threaten the states....Therefore each state had militias in each county...The militias existed to protect both county and state.  In an article called, The Last Indian Raid on the Virginia Frontier, the county militia went after Cherokee Chief Benge when he scalped an ancestor and stole my ancestral grandmother...I would assume that each man was required to carry a gun at all times as they often had to protect their frontier forts..The authority to carry a gun may have originated with the state, but how the guns were used in defense were the choices of the men..(I assume)  

The point that I am making is that the government is stating today that the national, state and local police and the national guard can protect citizens so the right to bear arms under the theory of a well-regulated militia is null and void...Under the original theories developed by the founding fathers this would not be so...Has the US Supreme Court ruled on the issue?  It is the source of constitutional interpretation.
People can find more information on the Russell Co. Va website, including the story I cited and the frontier forts...Have a nice day..


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Nika2013 said:


> I do not have an opinion either way on the subject, but from my own genealogical study of my ancestors in the late 1700's in America, I would respond to your statement as the following:
> 
> A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" =
> 
> The people were promised in the Federalist by Alexander Hamilton that there would never be a standing army to threaten the states....Therefore each state had militias in each county...The militias existed to protect both county and state.  In an article called, The Last Indian Raid on the Virginia Frontier, the county militia went after Cherokee Chief Benge when he scalped an ancestor and stole my ancestral grandmother...I would assume that each man was required to carry a gun at all times as they often had to protect their frontier forts..The authority to carry a gun may have originated with the state, but how the guns were used in defense were the choices of the men..(I assume)
> 
> The point that I am making is that the government is stating today that the national, state and local police and the national guard can protect citizens so the right to bear arms under the theory of a well-regulated militia is null and void...Under the original theories developed by the founding fathers this would not be so...Has the US Supreme Court ruled on the issue?  It is the source of constitutional interpretation.
> People can find more information on the Russell Co. Va website, including the story I cited and the frontier forts...Have a nice day..





> Has the US Supreme Court ruled on the issue?


Yes Miller vs. U.S. 1938  Lewis vs U.S. 1980
Both in summary agreed that in order for a firearm t be protected by the second amendment it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and be in common use at the time and supplied by the militia member.

Now we also have a law that states what a militia is

10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes | Title 10 - Armed Forces | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
*(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.*

See below if you have any doubt


----------



## Pogo

whitehall said:


> Confusion? The union based education system made sure left wing Americans wouldbe in a constant state of confusion. I wonder when the "progressive" propaganda sources will start attacking the confusing wording of the 1st Amendment? What did they really mean when they said "congress will make no law impeding the free exercise of religion"? Did it mean Christians can no longer celebrate Christmas on public property?



Don't know what ass you pulled that wording from but that ain't even what the First Amendment says.
Never read it, have you?

SMH...


----------



## Lakhota

The 2nd Amendment will soon be extinct.


----------



## Lakhota

State and federal courts and legislatures continue to restrict the 2nd Amendment. Go states' rights!


----------



## Wehrwolfen

Lakhota said:


> *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means.*
Click to expand...


Hmm.... Each weapon the assault rifle of that era.....


----------



## The2ndAmendment

Democide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Democide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Democide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Democide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democidehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide

Democide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Democide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Lakhota

Former Chief Justice Warren Burger was correct and ahead of his time.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Confusion? The union based education system made sure left wing Americans wouldbe in a constant state of confusion. I wonder when the "progressive" propaganda sources will start attacking the confusing wording of the 1st Amendment? What did they really mean when they said "congress will make no law impeding the free exercise of religion"? Did it mean Christians can no longer celebrate Christmas on public property?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review.
> 
> Consequently, there is no confusion as to the meanings of the First and Second Amendments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did it mean Christians can no longer celebrate Christmas on public property?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That depends on the nature and context of the religious expression:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every analysis in this area must begin with consideration of the cumulative criteria developed by the Court over many years. Three such tests may be gleaned from our cases. First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion, Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U.S. 236, 243 (1968); [p613] finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion." Walz, supra, at 674.
> 
> Lemon v. Kurtzman
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...




> The Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means,


The hell with that, the supreme court nor the government will dictate what my rights mean. They are mine and I will keep them.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Lakhota said:


> State and federal courts and legislatures continue to restrict the 2nd Amendment. Go states' rights!



You were confused about the second amendment when you started this thread and you still are.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Lakhota said:


> Former Chief Justice Warren Burger was correct and ahead of his time.


Miller vs. U.S.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

billyerock1991 said:


> I don't believe the second amendment is obsolete ... like everything in the constitution its always up for change, if the majority wants it, and its constitutional ... our founding fathers never thought that they would have a musket that would fire 100 rounds a minute ... they clearly felt that you as a citizen should have the right to defend yourself ... here's where we have the problem ... the constitution says you have a right to defend your self to what point ... where is the cut off point ... I don't believe that a citizen should have any weapon that fire 100 round a minute ... I feel a rifle or a hand gun is suffisant for any citizen to defend themselves ... I as a far left, tree hugging, leftie liberal, feel you have a right to have a gun ... but not a gun that fires 100, 50, 30, 25 bullets an minute



You forgot one major thing the Founders feared the most that was tyranny, that was their intent for the second amendment. They expected every citizen to have access to the same firearms the government would have, and they never intend for the government to have a standing army.


----------



## The2ndAmendment

The number one cause of VIOLENT death in the last 120 years:


Democide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Democide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Democide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Democide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democidehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide

Democide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Democide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## The2ndAmendment

So (if you read the above post), if anything, the 2nd Amendment is more needed now than back in the 18th Century. However, the powers that be, that wish to genocide you, want to think its as obsolete as muskets, while they monopolize force to kill you.


----------



## The2ndAmendment

Read Federalist 28:



> usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of the territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition, and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements, and the military force in the possession of the usurpers can be more rapidly directed against the part where the opposition has begun. In this situation there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to insure success to the popular resistance.
> 
> The obstacles to usurpation and the facilities of resistance increase with the increased extent of the state, provided the citizens understand their rights and are disposed to defend them. The natural strength of the people in a large community, in proportion to the artificial strength of the government, is greater than in a small, and of course more competent to a struggle with the attempts of the government to establish a tyranny. But in a confederacy the people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people, by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress. How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized!
> 
> It may safely be received as an axiom in our political system, that the State governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority. Projects of usurpation cannot be masked under pretenses so likely to escape the penetration of select bodies of men, as of the people at large. The legislatures will have better means of information. They can discover the danger at a distance; and possessing all the organs of civil power, and the confidence of the people, they can at once adopt a regular plan of opposition, in which they can combine all the resources of the community. They can readily communicate with each other in the different States, and unite their common forces for the protection of their common liberty.


----------



## Bfgrn

Federalist 28

Summary

In this paper, Hamilton acknowledges that there may be times in which the government must use force to maintain law and order. However, he contends that this is an unavoidable possibility in any political system. He argues that having a standing army, as opposed to just a militia, will be necessary at times to subdue large scale domestic insurrections or foreign aggression.

Hamilton emphasizes that the people need not fear the military establishment because it will be controlled by a government run by the representatives of the people. However, if for some reason, the representatives of the people were to betray their constituents, the people would be better able to resist the usurpation of the national rulers than those of the rulers of an individual state. If the national government were to use standing armies to usurp power, the people could rally around the state governments and resist the national rulers. The larger the polity, the harder it is for a government to gain absolute control.

In the system designed by the proposed constitution, the state governments would act as natural checks on the national government and vice versa: power being almost always the rival of power. However, if each state were totally independent and no national army existed, then state governments could more easily violate the rights of the people, who would have very limited means for organizing a strong resistance.

Analysis

In this paper, Hamilton is describing a hypothetical worst-case scenario. Although it may seem unthinkable in 21st century America, the Americans of the 18th century were deeply concerned about an excessively powerful national government using the military to oppress the people. Hamilton is arguing that not only is a national military at times necessary to ensure public safety, but, even were this military to become an instrument of tyranny, the state governments would act as natural centers of resistance.

Hamilton frequently takes the approach of acknowledging a widespread fear among the populatione.g., the fear of violent usurpation of political libertiesand then using a hypothetical situation to illustrate how the proposed constitution offers the best protection against that fear. However, Hamilton also buttresses his hypothetical with current events in order to make his arguments more plausible to his audience. In this paper, he refers to New York states claim to certain sections of Vermont to illustrate that, although militias can deal with small local issues, they will not be sufficient to deal with major conflicts.


----------



## hunarcy

Lakhota said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama says he supports the individual protection of the 2A.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So do I and most responsible gun owners.  It's the extremist views of the NRA gun nuts that many of us don't support.
Click to expand...



The NRA is only considered "extremist" to those who seek to take away rights from law abiding, responsible gun owners.  To the rest of the world, it's an organization which represents law abiding, responsible gun owners as they seek to exercise their rights within the confines of the law.


----------



## Bfgrn

hunarcy said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama says he supports the individual protection of the 2A.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So do I and most responsible gun owners.  It's the extremist views of the NRA gun nuts that many of us don't support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The NRA is only considered "extremist" to those who seek to take away rights from law abiding, responsible gun owners.  To the rest of the world, it's an organization which represents law abiding, responsible gun owners as they seek to exercise their rights within the confines of the law.
Click to expand...


The NRA is a front group for gun manufacturers. They have successfully lobbied to pass laws that totally excuse gun manufacturers of ANY liability, even from manufacturer defects. The NRA take the heat to keep those gun manufacturers protected from scrutiny and criticism.

There is NO concern by gun manufacturers or the NRA as to WHO buys a gun. The more the better. Criminals, murderers and the mentally ill are PAYING CUSTOMERS, nothing more and nothing less.

Get you head out of your naive ass.


----------



## P@triot

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> True.
> 
> Liberals have consistently advocated for the rights of individuals and restriction of the state, such as privacy rights with regard to abortion



*Of course liberals want "restriction" on the state when they want to MURDER someone. I mean, you can't want government involved when it comes to killing. Any other time though, you want the state 100% in full control.*



C_Clayton_Jones said:


> equal protection rights concerning same-sex couples



*Um, how is that "restriction of the state" when you're demanding the state get directly involved and recognize a union? *



C_Clayton_Jones said:


> due process rights for minorities and immigrants.



*They already have that genius. You can't even list 3 legitimate items that you liberals want to see restraint of government on, that you have to actually list things that already exist 

Seriously, do you think anybody believes the nonsense you spew?!?*


----------



## P@triot

Lakhota said:


> Former Chief Justice Warren Burger was correct and ahead of his time.



No, he wasn't. He was as radical and as dumb as you are. Case closed.


----------



## P@triot

In a 14-minute instructional and debunk clip, Campbell narrates why a ban on high-capacity magazine sizes is ineffective, showcasing  through examples  the ideas purported deficiencies.

I think its a great fallacy to believe that it would, he said candidly. Youve got a standard capacity versus a 10 round. *From a citizen standpointall were doing is making it more difficult for [people] to defend themselves against bad guys*.

He said that *those who break the law arent concerned with abiding by regulations*, so creating magazine capacity restrictions simply doesnt make sense. The law abiding will follow, but criminals, naturally, wont.

By limiting the access to standard magazinesI think you are restricting a good Americans opportunity to protect himself and his family, the sheriff continued

The clip concludes by noting that proposed magazine size changes dont truly pass the common sense test.

*Yes, but when has an ignorant dumbocrat policy ever passed the "common sense test"? The next time will be the first time.

It just makes sense that when it comes to firearms, we should listen to firearms experts and law enforcement instead of liberal bureaucrats who have never even held a firearm in their life.*

Sheriff Debunks Gun Magazine ?Fallacies? in This Viral Vid (Plus: His Response to Biden?s Shotgun Advice) | TheBlaze.com


----------



## M14 Shooter

Lakhota said:


> State and federal courts and legislatures continue to restrict the 2nd Amendment. Go states' rights!


Can you show the comelling state interest in enacting these restrictions?
Can you show that these restrictions are an effective means to achive these interest, and the lest restrictive means to do so?
If not, they violate the 2nd; should they make it to court they will be struck.


----------



## regent

Seems like the only answer to this problem is have the government issue a gun to every citizen. Not to kids under the age of five, however, they wouldn't keep em clean and get sticky candy all over them.
Each citizen would then be rated for a magazine, the bigger the taxes paid the bigger the magazine. The Trumps of America would get a magazine holding 10,000 rounds, and a bonus drone. The entitlement citizens, a blank round. The politicians of the right party also get a new tank others a jeep. 
Second Amendment saved and problem solved.


----------



## Contumacious

Bfgrn said:


> The NRA is a front group for gun manufacturers. .



Bfgrn is the spokesman for mentally retarded  socialists.

.


----------



## P@triot

regent said:


> Seems like the only answer to this problem is have the government issue a gun to every citizen. Not to kids under the age of five, however, they wouldn't keep em clean and get sticky candy all over them.
> Each citizen would then be rated for a magazine, the bigger the taxes paid the bigger the magazine. The Trumps of America would get a magazine holding 10,000 rounds, and a bonus drone. The entitlement citizens, a blank round. The politicians of the right party also get a new tank others a jeep.
> Second Amendment saved and problem solved.



No, the only answer to this problem is (like all problems) to get the government the fuck out of the issue.

The government issuing _anything_ just creates more problems. When they started issuing food stamps, subsidized housing, and medicaid, all they managed to accomplish is grow the number in poverty in this nation and create a larger base of government-dependent parasites.


----------



## Bfgrn

Contumacious said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The NRA is a front group for gun manufacturers. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn is the spokesman for mentally retarded  socialists.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


New Evidence that the NRA Might Be Just Another Corporate Front

Mainstream Media Downplay NRA's Close Ties to Gun Industry 

Here's Who The NRA REALLY Represents

NRA Gun Control Crusade Reflects Firearms Industry Financial Ties


----------



## Nosmo King

Rottweiler said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems like the only answer to this problem is have the government issue a gun to every citizen. Not to kids under the age of five, however, they wouldn't keep em clean and get sticky candy all over them.
> Each citizen would then be rated for a magazine, the bigger the taxes paid the bigger the magazine. The Trumps of America would get a magazine holding 10,000 rounds, and a bonus drone. The entitlement citizens, a blank round. The politicians of the right party also get a new tank others a jeep.
> Second Amendment saved and problem solved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the only answer to this problem is (like all problems) to get the government the fuck out of the issue.
> 
> The government issuing _anything_ just creates more problems. When they started issuing food stamps, subsidized housing, and medicaid, all they managed to accomplish is grow the number in poverty in this nation and create a larger base of government-dependent parasites.
Click to expand...

How has government getting out of the issue worked for say crime?  And could you provide proof that social welfare programs have increased poverty?  Anecdotal evidence is not proof, and neither are opinions.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Nosmo King said:


> And could you provide proof that social welfare programs have increased poverty?  Anecdotal evidence is not proof, and neither are opinions.



are you crazy??? social welfare programs amounted  to a near genocide against the black family. The men went to jail and the women gave birth as very very poor single mothers.


----------



## Nosmo King

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> And could you provide proof that social welfare programs have increased poverty?  Anecdotal evidence is not proof, and neither are opinions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> are you crazy??? social welfare programs amounted  to a near genocide against the black family. The men went to jail and the women gave birth as very very poor single mothers.
Click to expand...

Show me.  Prove it.  Incontrovertibly and with genuine evidence.  Because that argument has been made by every Conservative pundit without proof.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Nosmo King said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> And could you provide proof that social welfare programs have increased poverty?  Anecdotal evidence is not proof, and neither are opinions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> are you crazy??? social welfare programs amounted  to a near genocide against the black family. The men went to jail and the women gave birth as very very poor single mothers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show me.  Prove it.  Incontrovertibly and with genuine evidence.  Because that argument has been made by every Conservative pundit without proof.
Click to expand...


too stupid!!! Read "Losing Ground" all the numbers are laid out at book length!!

The fool liberal didn't notice that the black family was destroyed by welfare????

What planet were you on????


----------



## Nosmo King

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> are you crazy??? social welfare programs amounted  to a near genocide against the black family. The men went to jail and the women gave birth as very very poor single mothers.
> 
> 
> 
> *Show me.  Prove it.  Incontrovertibly and with genuine evidence.  Because that argument has been made by every Conservative pundit without proof*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> too stupid!!! Read "Losing Ground" all the numbers are laid out at book length!!
> 
> The fool liberal didn't notice that the black family was destroyed by welfare????
> 
> What planet were you on????
Click to expand...

Opinion.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Nosmo King said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Show me.  Prove it.  Incontrovertibly and with genuine evidence.  Because that argument has been made by every Conservative pundit without proof*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> too stupid!!! Read "Losing Ground" all the numbers are laid out at book length!!
> 
> The fool liberal didn't notice that the black family was destroyed by welfare????
> 
> What planet were you on????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Opinion.
Click to expand...


too stupid!! "Losing Ground" is a scientific book, not an opinion!!!


----------



## expatriate

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> are you crazy??? social welfare programs amounted  to a near genocide against the black family. The men went to jail and the women gave birth as very very poor single mothers.
> 
> 
> 
> Show me.  Prove it.  Incontrovertibly and with genuine evidence.  Because that argument has been made by every Conservative pundit without proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> too stupid!!! Read "Losing Ground" all the numbers are laid out at book length!!
> 
> The fool liberal didn't notice that the black family was destroyed by welfare????
> 
> What planet were you on????
Click to expand...


I bet you buy into his book, "The Bell Curve", too...don't you, Ed?


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> A statist and a liberal are too different ideologies, just like conservative and libertarian are. Moderate is another ideology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True.
> 
> Liberals have consistently advocated for the rights of individuals and restriction of the state, such as privacy rights with regard to abortion, equal protection rights concerning same-sex couples, and due process rights for minorities and immigrants.
Click to expand...


Actually liberals use Government to influence and control the rights of others through a system of "what's best for the majority", not the individual. They try to grow and place more responsibility upon the role of government to control the needs of the whole. No where in that do I find the "individual" placing that responsibility upon themselves whether they are to succeed or fail based upon their OWN decisions they make, without outside influence or power placed upon "Government" and its place to subject their will upon others for the sake of the needs of the MAJORITY. It's a system where there is a desire for more increasing government control and intrusion over the interests of its people, rather than a smaller government system which relinquishes the need for more power and hands that control back over to the individual person. A less intrusive government where the individual must suffer the consequences of their OWN choices they make, and "LEARN" to grow based on their own experiences rather than simply allow government to provide for them.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

expatriate said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me.  Prove it.  Incontrovertibly and with genuine evidence.  Because that argument has been made by every Conservative pundit without proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> too stupid!!! Read "Losing Ground" all the numbers are laid out at book length!!
> 
> The fool liberal didn't notice that the black family was destroyed by welfare????
> 
> What planet were you on????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I bet you buy into his book, "The Bell Curve", too...don't you, Ed?
Click to expand...



Daniel Patrick Moynihan
The Negro Family: The Case for National Action
Office of Policy Planning and Research, United States Department of Labor
March 1965
3
"In too many cases, if our Government had set out determined to destroy the family, it couldn't have done greater damage than some of what we see today. Too often these programs, well-intentioned, welfare programs for example, which were meant to provide for temporary support, have undermined responsibility. They've robbed people of control of their lives, destroyed their dignity, in some cases -- and we've tried hard to change this -- encouraged people, man and wife, to live apart because they might just get a little bit more to put in their pockets."


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> 
> A statist and a liberal are too different ideologies, just like conservative and libertarian are. Moderate is another ideology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True.
> 
> Liberals have consistently advocated for the rights of individuals and restriction of the state, such as privacy rights with regard to abortion, equal protection rights concerning same-sex couples, and due process rights for minorities and immigrants.
Click to expand...


Restriction of the state when they want to socialize the economy????
That's restriction of the State????????????? No liberal can be that slow!!!

Clayton is the king of slow and proud of it!!


----------



## expatriate

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> too stupid!!! Read "Losing Ground" all the numbers are laid out at book length!!
> 
> The fool liberal didn't notice that the black family was destroyed by welfare????
> 
> What planet were you on????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I bet you buy into his book, "The Bell Curve", too...don't you, Ed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Patrick Moynihan
> The Negro Family: The Case for National Action
> Office of Policy Planning and Research, United States Department of Labor
> March 1965
> 3
> "In too many cases, if our Government had set out determined to destroy the family, it couldn't have done greater damage than some of what we see today. Too often these programs, well-intentioned, welfare programs for example, which were meant to provide for temporary support, have undermined responsibility. They've robbed people of control of their lives, destroyed their dignity, in some cases -- and we've tried hard to change this -- encouraged people, man and wife, to live apart because they might just get a little bit more to put in their pockets."
Click to expand...

Can't you just answer the question I asked you?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

expatriate said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> 
> I bet you buy into his book, "The Bell Curve", too...don't you, Ed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Patrick Moynihan
> The Negro Family: The Case for National Action
> Office of Policy Planning and Research, United States Department of Labor
> March 1965
> 3
> "In too many cases, if our Government had set out determined to destroy the family, it couldn't have done greater damage than some of what we see today. Too often these programs, well-intentioned, welfare programs for example, which were meant to provide for temporary support, have undermined responsibility. They've robbed people of control of their lives, destroyed their dignity, in some cases -- and we've tried hard to change this -- encouraged people, man and wife, to live apart because they might just get a little bit more to put in their pockets."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can't you just answer the question I asked you?
Click to expand...


never read Bell Curve  , sorry


----------



## Lakhota

The 2nd Amendment will continue to be limited over time.


----------



## Lakhota

State and federal courts and legislatures have repeatedly rendered the 2nd Amendment obsolete - including SCOTUS.  The 2nd Amendment is nothing but a fossil from 1796.


----------



## Contumacious

Lakhota said:


> Trying to live modern life according to the Constitution is much like trying to live modern life according to the Bible.  *Both are subject to vast interpretation*.









.


----------



## Crackerjaxon

Lakhota said:


> Trying to live modern life according to the Constitution is much like trying to live modern life according to the Bible.  Both are subject to vast interpretation.




Both are attacked by people who can't change them so they try to quibble them away.


----------



## Lakhota

I love the OP.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Lakhota said:


> I love the OP.


Of course you do.  

This is a lie...


> ...but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders...


... as _Heller_ contains no such text.


----------



## PaulS1950

The second amendment does not grant the right to keep and bear arms, it mearly states that government must protect that right which comes with life as a human.


----------



## American_Jihad




----------



## Lakhota

Lakhota said:


> *A distinguished citizen takes a stand on one of the most controversial issues in the nation*
> 
> _By Warren E. Burger, Chief Justice of the United States (1969-86)
> Parade Magazine, January 14, 1990, page 4_
> 
> Let's look at the history.
> 
> First, many of the 3.5 million people living in the 13 original Colonies depended on wild game for food, and a good many of them required firearms for their defense from marauding Indians -- and later from the French and English. Underlying all these needs was an important concept that each able-bodied man in each of the 133 independent states had to help or defend his state.
> 
> The early opposition to the idea of national or standing armies was maintained under the Articles of Confederation; that confederation had no standing army and wanted none. The state militia -- essentially a part-time citizen army, as in Switzerland today -- was the only kind of "army" they wanted. From the time of the Declaration of Independence through the victory at Yorktown in 1781, George Washington, as the commander-in-chief of these volunteer-militia armies, had to depend upon the states to send those volunteers.
> 
> When a company of New Jersey militia volunteers reported for duty to Washington at Valley Forge, the men initially declined to take an oath to "the United States," maintaining, "Our country is New Jersey." Massachusetts Bay men, Virginians and others felt the same way. To the American of the 18th century, his state was his country, and his freedom was defended by his militia.
> 
> The victory at Yorktown -- and the ratification of the Bill of Rights a decade later -- did not change people's attitudes about a national army. They had lived for years under the notion that each state would maintain its own military establishment, and the seaboard states had their own navies as well. These people, and their fathers and grandfathers before them, remembered how monarchs had used standing armies to oppress their ancestors in Europe. Americans wanted no part of this. A state militia, like a rifle and powder horn, was as much a part of life as the automobile is today; pistols were largely for officers, aristocrats -- and dueling.
> 
> Against this background, it was not surprising that the provision concerning firearms emerged in very simple terms with the significant predicate -- basing the right on the necessity for a "well regulated militia," a state army.
> 
> In the two centuries since then -- with two world wars and some lesser ones -- it has become clear, sadly, that we have no choice but to maintain a standing national army while still maintaining a "militia" by way of the National Guard, which can be swiftly integrated into the national defense forces.
> 
> Americans also have a right to defend their homes, and we need not challenge that. Nor does anyone seriously question that the Constitution protects the right of hunters to own and keep sporting guns for hunting game any more than anyone would challenge the right to own and keep fishing rods and other equipment for fishing -- or to own automobiles. To "keep and bear arms" for hunting today is essentially a recreational activity and not an imperative of survival, as it was 200 years ago; "Saturday night specials" and machine guns are not recreational weapons and surely are as much in need of regulation as motor vehicles.
> 
> Americans should ask themselves a few questions. The Constitution does not mention automobiles or motorboats, but the right to keep and own an automobile is beyond question; equally beyond question is the power of the state to regulate the purchase or the transfer of such a vehicle and the right to license the vehicle and the driver with reasonable standards. In some places, even a bicycle must be registered, as must some household dogs.
> 
> If we are to stop this mindless homicidal carnage, is it unreasonable:
> 
> 1. to provide that, to acquire a firearm, an application be made reciting age, residence, employment and any prior criminal convictions?
> 2. to required that this application lie on the table for 10 days (absent a showing for urgent need) before the license would be issued?
> 3. that the transfer of a firearm be made essentially as with that of a motor vehicle?
> 4. to have a "ballistic fingerprint" of the firearm made by the manufacturer and filed with the license record so that, if a bullet is found in a victim's body, law enforcement might be helped in finding the culprit?​These are the kind of questions the American people must answer if we are to preserve the "domestic tranquillity" promised in the Constitution.
> 
> More: Ex-Chief Justice Warren Burger in Parade Magazine



Chief Justice Burger was a smart man.


----------



## ScienceRocks

I have a right to bear and use arms.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Are a majority of anti gunners criminals? Have they done something criminal to lose their right too keep and bear arms?


----------



## ScienceRocks

Nope, they're people that want the government to rule us.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Lakhota said:


> Chief Justice Burger was a smart man.


The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home


----------



## M14 Shooter

M14 Shooter said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love the OP.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you do.
> 
> This is a lie...
> 
> 
> 
> ...but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ... as _Heller_ contains no such text.
Click to expand...

Not going to defend the lie you posted?
No wonder you like the OP.


----------



## Lakhota

Lakhota said:


> There are two problems with the Second Amendment.  First, under any circumstance, it is confusing; something that an English teacher would mark up in red ink and tell the author to redo and clarify.  Secondly, there are actually two versions of the Amendment; The first passed by two-thirds of the members of each house of Congress (the first step for ratifying a constitutional amendment).  A different version passed by three-fourths of the states (the second step for ratifying a constitution amendment).  The primary difference between the two versions are a capitalization and a simple comma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DETAILS: Confusion -- the wording of the Second Amendment | Occasional Planet
Click to expand...


Yes, the 2nd Amendment is confusing.


----------



## tjvh

Lakhota said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are two problems with the Second Amendment.  First, under any circumstance, it is confusing; something that an English teacher would mark up in red ink and tell the author to redo and clarify.  Secondly, there are actually two versions of the Amendment; The first passed by two-thirds of the members of each house of Congress (the first step for ratifying a constitutional amendment).  A different version passed by three-fourths of the states (the second step for ratifying a constitution amendment).  The primary difference between the two versions are a capitalization and a simple comma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DETAILS: Confusion -- the wording of the Second Amendment | Occasional Planet
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the 2nd Amendment is confusing.
Click to expand...


Only to idiots. The exact same wording is used on several other amendments which gun grabbers have no problems with.


----------



## ScienceRocks

I have a right to arms. Fact.


----------



## Lakhota

Matthew said:


> I have a right to arms. Fact.



You only have a right to whatever SCOTUS says you have a right to - and thus far SCOTUS has said you only have a right to "certain" arms under "certain" restrictions.  Fact.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Lakhota said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a right to arms. Fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You only have a right to whatever SCOTUS says you have a right to - and thus far SCOTUS has said you only have a right to "certain" arms under "certain" restrictions.  Fact.
Click to expand...


In order for a firearm too be protected by the second amendment it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.
United States v. Miller


----------



## ScienceRocks

I'm drinking whiskey tonight. Do you want to take my right to drink away from?  I'm fucked out of my mind.

You want to take away my right of arms but you don't want to take away my right to drink. Interesting. I'm sitting here getting fucked and posting to you. hehe 

Real reason is my back hurts like hell so I'm leaning on it to take the pain away.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

So will black bear and grizzly bear arms both be illegal?


----------



## Spoonman

Lakhota said:


> Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited  never have been and never will be  Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star



perhaps you could point out any limitations in the wording of the 2nd amendment.  I'm guessing you can't


----------



## M14 Shooter

Lakhota said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a right to arms. Fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You only have a right to whatever SCOTUS says you have a right to - and thus far SCOTUS has said you only have a right to "certain" arms under "certain" restrictions.  Fact.
Click to expand...

So....
When are you going to cite the text where Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders...?


----------



## regent

Perhaps our problem is our reading into the second amendment what we would like the amendment  to say, but until the Court rules on the entire amendment it is sort of meaningless. And worse, it seems the Court does not want to make a decision on the entire amendment, and so we get decisions in dribblet form.  A new amendment is perhaps the answer but then the politicians would get to dribble. Is all that dribble a result of the citizens dribble? We may have to wait for a few more school shootings until the American people decide?


----------



## M14 Shooter

regent said:


> Perhaps our problem is our reading into the second amendment what we would like the amendment  to say, but until the Court rules on the entire amendment it is sort of meaningless. And worse, it seems the Court does not want to make a decision on the entire amendment, and so we get decisions in dribblet form.  A new amendment is perhaps the answer but then the politicians would get to dribble. Is all that dribble a result of the citizens dribble? We may have to wait for a few more school shootings until the American people decide?


There's more than enough specific and general jurispudence to form a sound argument and debunk the unsound.


----------



## regent

M14 Shooter said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps our problem is our reading into the second amendment what we would like the amendment  to say, but until the Court rules on the entire amendment it is sort of meaningless. And worse, it seems the Court does not want to make a decision on the entire amendment, and so we get decisions in dribblet form.  A new amendment is perhaps the answer but then the politicians would get to dribble. Is all that dribble a result of the citizens dribble? We may have to wait for a few more school shootings until the American people decide?
> 
> 
> 
> There's more than enough specific and general jurispudence to form a sound argument and debunk the unsound.
Click to expand...


If a sound argument worked the problem would have been solved long ago. It must be an emotional argument, an argument with a few catchy slogans and some historical references to the founding fathers. If the NRA was smart they would try to stop the massacre of children, those kinds of things do get people upset.


----------



## M14 Shooter

regent said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps our problem is our reading into the second amendment what we would like the amendment  to say, but until the Court rules on the entire amendment it is sort of meaningless. And worse, it seems the Court does not want to make a decision on the entire amendment, and so we get decisions in dribblet form.  A new amendment is perhaps the answer but then the politicians would get to dribble. Is all that dribble a result of the citizens dribble? We may have to wait for a few more school shootings until the American people decide?
> 
> 
> 
> There's more than enough specific and general jurispudence to form a sound argument and debunk the unsound.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If a sound argument worked the problem would have been solved long ago.
Click to expand...

This is only true if both sides are convinced by sound arguments; the anti-gun side argues from emotion, ignorance and dishonesty, which explains why there is still a "problem".


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> If the NRA was smart they would try to stop the massacre of children, those kinds of things do get people upset.



too stupid and 100% liberal as usual: But the NRA made its position clear: The prominent gun rights organization will not budge an inch toward discussion of gun control. To the contrary, the group announced it will fund a team that will design a program to get armed security personnel on school grounds across the country.
"You know, five years ago after the Virginia Tech tragedy, when I said we should put armed security in every school, the media called me crazy," NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said.


----------



## regent

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the NRA was smart they would try to stop the massacre of children, those kinds of things do get people upset.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> too stupid and 100% liberal as usual: But the NRA made its position clear: The prominent gun rights organization will not budge an inch toward discussion of gun control. To the contrary, the group announced it will fund a team that will design a program to get armed security personnel on school grounds across the country.
> "You know, five years ago after the Virginia Tech tragedy, when I said we should put armed security in every school, the media called me crazy," NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said.
Click to expand...


Thank God a solution. Now with, say, over 100,000 schools in the nation the next question is how many guards to each school? Some universities may require more than two, or even two to a building, how many guards did La Pierre think it would take? Even two to a school is over 200,000. I also suspect LaPierre did not indicate the training required nor a a yearly cost estimate? But then agan is that really LaPierre's problem, as long as America can keep her guns--whatever the cost. 
Great idea though.


----------



## Spoonman

regent said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the NRA was smart they would try to stop the massacre of children, those kinds of things do get people upset.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> too stupid and 100% liberal as usual: But the NRA made its position clear: The prominent gun rights organization will not budge an inch toward discussion of gun control. To the contrary, the group announced it will fund a team that will design a program to get armed security personnel on school grounds across the country.
> "You know, five years ago after the Virginia Tech tragedy, when I said we should put armed security in every school, the media called me crazy," NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank God a solution. Now with, say, over 100,000 schools in the nation the next question is how many guards to each school? Some universities may require more than two, or even two to a building, how many guards did La Pierre think it would take? Even two to a school is over 200,000. I also suspect LaPierre did not indicate the training required nor a a yearly cost estimate? But then agan is that really LaPierre's problem, as long as America can keep her guns--whatever the cost.
> Great idea though.
Click to expand...


it will still cost less than maintaining a database of firearms, tracking every trransaction, issuing the proper paperwork and permits.  any idea what these background checks are going to cost?  they don't tell you that part.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Spoonman said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> too stupid and 100% liberal as usual: But the NRA made its position clear: The prominent gun rights organization will not budge an inch toward discussion of gun control. To the contrary, the group announced it will fund a team that will design a program to get armed security personnel on school grounds across the country.
> "You know, five years ago after the Virginia Tech tragedy, when I said we should put armed security in every school, the media called me crazy," NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank God a solution. Now with, say, over 100,000 schools in the nation the next question is how many guards to each school? Some universities may require more than two, or even two to a building, how many guards did La Pierre think it would take? Even two to a school is over 200,000. I also suspect LaPierre did not indicate the training required nor a a yearly cost estimate? But then agan is that really LaPierre's problem, as long as America can keep her guns--whatever the cost.
> Great idea though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it will still cost less than maintaining a database of firearms, tracking every trransaction, issuing the proper paperwork and permits.  any idea what these background checks are going to cost?  they don't tell you that part.
Click to expand...

Never mind that none of these things will prevent someone from shooting up a school...


----------



## PaulS1950

The constitution is the only document that grants any power to the federal government and it grants very few. Nowhere in the constitution does it grant the supreme court the power to decide the constitutionality of any act by, on behalf of or for the other branches of the federal government.

The bill of rights does remove the power of modifications to those rights by the states and the federal government. EVERY infringement on any of our rights is unlawful, unconstitutional and an act against the constitutional republic of the United States of America - in plain words it is treasonous.


----------



## regent

The Bill of Rights only protected people from the national government, but gradually the Court with its self-ordained power to interpret the constitution decided to gradually apply the Bill of Rights to the state governments also. There in an ironic twist here.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> The Bill of Rights only protected people from the national government, but gradually the Court with its self-ordained power to interpret the constitution decided to gradually apply the Bill of Rights to the state governments also. There in an ironic twist here.



dear, only the treasonous liberals on the court feel self-ordained such that the Constitution can mean anythng they want it to mean. Why do you think liberals fight so hard to get them on the court???


----------



## whitehall

"The right to free speech". The left has been picking that Amendment to death for years. Does it mean the "right to liberal free speech"?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> Some universities may require more than two, or even two to a building, how many guards did La Pierre think it would take?



dear, most universities already have a police force, often armed. If they need more and have no money they can train teachers or students. Its very very possible while changing the Constitution is not. Got it?


----------



## M14 Shooter

regent said:


> The Bill of Rights only protected people from the national government, but gradually the Court with its self-ordained power to interpret the constitution decided to gradually apply the Bill of Rights to the state governments also. There in an ironic twist here.


This is one of the dumber things I've ever seen.

The SCotUS incorporates the bill of rights against the states thru the 14th amendment, which is one of the purposes OF the 14th amendment.

The idea that incorporation is someting the court made up and is a usurpation of power from the people and the states is sheer ignorance.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

M14 Shooter said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights only protected people from the national government, but gradually the Court with its self-ordained power to interpret the constitution decided to gradually apply the Bill of Rights to the state governments also. There in an ironic twist here.
> 
> 
> 
> This is one of the dumber things I've ever seen.
> 
> The SCotUS incorporates the bill of rights against the states thru the 14th amendment, which is one of the purposes OF the 14th amendment.
> 
> The idea that incorporation is someting the court made up and is a usurpation of power from the people and the states is sheer ignorance.
Click to expand...


This happen when blacks were losing their rights, such as the right too keep and bear arms.


----------



## eots

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zgccp0RB6K4]The Right to Arm Bears: The Right to Bear Arms - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## regent

bigrebnc1775 said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights only protected people from the national government, but gradually the Court with its self-ordained power to interpret the constitution decided to gradually apply the Bill of Rights to the state governments also. There in an ironic twist here.
> 
> 
> 
> This is one of the dumber things I've ever seen.
> 
> The SCotUS incorporates the bill of rights against the states thru the 14th amendment, which is one of the purposes OF the 14th amendment.
> 
> The idea that incorporation is someting the court made up and is a usurpation of power from the people and the states is sheer ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This happen when blacks were losing their rights, such as the right too keep and bear arms.
Click to expand...



Can you tell us where in the 14th Amendment it even mentions incorporation? 
Or where in the constitution the Court is given the power to interpret the Constitution?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

regent said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is one of the dumber things I've ever seen.
> 
> The SCotUS incorporates the bill of rights against the states thru the 14th amendment, which is one of the purposes OF the 14th amendment.
> 
> The idea that incorporation is someting the court made up and is a usurpation of power from the people and the states is sheer ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This happen when blacks were losing their rights, such as the right too keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Can you tell us where in the 14th Amendment it even mentions incorporation?
> Or where in the constitution the Court is given the power to interpret the Constitution?
Click to expand...


Yes


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Quantum Windbag said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This happen when blacks were losing their rights, such as the right too keep and bear arms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you tell us where in the 14th Amendment it even mentions incorporation?
> Or where in the constitution the Court is given the power to interpret the Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes
Click to expand...


pretty much.


----------



## regent

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you tell us where in the 14th Amendment it even mentions incorporation?
> Or where in the constitution the Court is given the power to interpret the Constitution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> pretty much.
Click to expand...


Some lawyers learn not to ask a question if  they do not know the answer. Good premise.


----------



## M14 Shooter

regent said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is one of the dumber things I've ever seen.
> 
> The SCotUS incorporates the bill of rights against the states thru the 14th amendment, which is one of the purposes OF the 14th amendment.
> 
> The idea that incorporation is someting the court made up and is a usurpation of power from the people and the states is sheer ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This happen when blacks were losing their rights, such as the right too keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you tell us where in the 14th Amendment it even mentions incorporation?
> Or where in the constitution the Court is given the power to interpret the Constitution?
Click to expand...

If you have to ask these questionss you cannot possibly fathom the answers.


----------



## regent

M14 Shooter said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This happen when blacks were losing their rights, such as the right too keep and bear arms.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you tell us where in the 14th Amendment it even mentions incorporation?
> Or where in the constitution the Court is given the power to interpret the Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you have to ask these questionss you cannot possibly fathom the answers.
Click to expand...


So where is it written in the constitution that the Supreme Court shall interpret the Constitution? Of course, it is not written in the constitution. So the next question, how did the Court decide it had that power?


----------



## Billo_Really

The Founders intended for the 2nd amendment to be for a well regulated militia, not to give citizens the right to shoot their elected representatives.


----------



## OODA_Loop

loinboy said:


> The Founders intended for the 2nd amendment to be for a well regulated militia, not to give citizens the right to shoot their elected representatives.



If ordered by their State militia they can.


----------



## Billo_Really

OODA_Loop said:


> If ordered by their State militia they can.


Not if the federal government nationalizes them.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

loinboy said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> If ordered by their State militia they can.
> 
> 
> 
> Not if the federal government nationalizes them.
Click to expand...


There is a militia called the unorganized militia Try that with them see what happens.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

regent said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pretty much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some lawyers learn not to ask a question if  they do not know the answer. Good premise.
Click to expand...

Did I ask a question?


----------



## regent

bigrebnc1775 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> pretty much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some lawyers learn not to ask a question if  they do not know the answer. Good premise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did I ask a question?
Click to expand...


No, I asked the question, where is the Supreme Court given the power in the  constitution to interpret the constitution and no one replied. So I answered the question myself, it was not.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

loinboy said:


> The Founders intended for the 2nd amendment to be for a well regulated militia, not to give citizens the right to shoot their elected representatives.



Can you provide documentation, or are we supposed to take your word for it?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

regent said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some lawyers learn not to ask a question if  they do not know the answer. Good premise.
> 
> 
> 
> Did I ask a question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I asked the question, where is the Supreme Court given the power in the  constitution to interpret the constitution and no one replied. So I answered the question myself, it was not.
Click to expand...


You did not ask that question, you asked if anyone can show where in the 14th amendment it mentions incorporation, or what part of the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to interpret the constitution. 

I answered yes.


----------



## Billo_Really

Quantum Windbag said:


> Can you provide documentation, or are we supposed to take your word for it?


Although I think my word is pretty kick-ass, I will grant your request.




> _The Rights Second Amendment Fraud
> 
> Drafted by a congressional committee that seemed a bit challenged in the precise use of punctuation, it reads: *A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms*, shall not be infringed._


No where in there does it say _"defending against the federal government"._


----------



## regent

Quantum Windbag said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did I ask a question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I asked the question, where is the Supreme Court given the power in the  constitution to interpret the constitution and no one replied. So I answered the question myself, it was not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You did not ask that question, you asked if anyone can show where in the 14th amendment it mentions incorporation, or what part of the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to interpret the constitution.
> 
> I answered yes.
Click to expand...


Both questions are related to the same answer. If the constitution never gave the Court the power in the constitution to interpret the constitution then the Court could not have interpreted the the 14th. amendment applying the Bill of Rights to the states. But the Court took the power unto itself and the nation accepted it. If you can show in the constitution where the Court was given the power, I'll listen, but it's a dead issue.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

loinboy said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you provide documentation, or are we supposed to take your word for it?
> 
> 
> 
> Although I think my word is pretty kick-ass, I will grant your request.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _The Rights Second Amendment Fraud
> 
> Drafted by a congressional committee that seemed a bit challenged in the precise use of punctuation, it reads: *A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms*, shall not be infringed._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No where in there does it say _"defending against the federal government"._
Click to expand...


Strange, you never said it didn't say anything about defending against the federal government, you claimed that the founders intended the 2nd to apply only to a well regulated militia. So far you have provided no evidence to back that claim up.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

regent said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I asked the question, where is the Supreme Court given the power in the  constitution to interpret the constitution and no one replied. So I answered the question myself, it was not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You did not ask that question, you asked if anyone can show where in the 14th amendment it mentions incorporation, or what part of the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to interpret the constitution.
> 
> I answered yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both questions are related to the same answer. If the constitution never gave the Court the power in the constitution to interpret the constitution then the Court could not have interpreted the the 14th. amendment applying the Bill of Rights to the states. But the Court took the power unto itself and the nation accepted it. If you can show in the constitution where the Court was given the power, I'll listen, but it's a dead issue.
Click to expand...


Article 3 Section 2, original text.

*The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; *to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

*The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed;* but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.​11th Amendment.

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend  to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of  the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or  Subjects of any Foreign State.​Care to explain how, if the Supreme Court is not allowed to read, and interpret, the Constitution, they can possibly use it to rule on cases? Are they supposed to make things up as they go along?

As for incorporation, the 14th Amendment says:
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. *No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.*​


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Quantum Windbag said:


> Care to explain how, if the Supreme Court is not allowed to read, and interpret, the Constitution,



Actually they are obviously allowed to read it, but not to interpret it in anything but a literal way.

Of course it never would have been passed if it was understood that it meant nothing and could be intrepreted to mean anything the judges wanted it to mean.


----------



## M14 Shooter

loinboy said:


> The Founders intended for the 2nd amendment to be for a well regulated militia, not to give citizens the right to shoot their elected representatives.


Does this qualify as reaseoned discourse in your circles?  
Do you think this is particularly witty, clever or compelling?

I ask, because to reasoned and knowledgeable people, this is a 4th rate strawman and an inidicator of a pre-pubescent level of understandin of the subject.


----------



## regent

Quantum Windbag said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> You did not ask that question, you asked if anyone can show where in the 14th amendment it mentions incorporation, or what part of the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to interpret the constitution.
> 
> I answered yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both questions are related to the same answer. If the constitution never gave the Court the power in the constitution to interpret the constitution then the Court could not have interpreted the the 14th. amendment applying the Bill of Rights to the states. But the Court took the power unto itself and the nation accepted it. If you can show in the constitution where the Court was given the power, I'll listen, but it's a dead issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Article 3 Section 2, original text.
> 
> *The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; *to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
> 
> In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
> 
> *The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed;* but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.​11th Amendment.
> 
> The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend  to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of  the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or  Subjects of any Foreign State.​Care to explain how, if the Supreme Court is not allowed to read, and interpret, the Constitution, they can possibly use it to rule on cases? Are they supposed to make things up as they go along?
> 
> As for incorporation, the 14th Amendment says:
> 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. *No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.*​
Click to expand...


Two issues, both can be explained by reading two court cases, one Barron v. Baltimore and two, Marbury v. Madison. Marbury is the most famous case and generally found in most high school texts. Remember the Midnight judges? Basic history.


----------



## Crackerjaxon

waltky said:


> Maybe not obsolete but antiquated, out of date...
> 
> ... it needs to be updated to reflect the times...
> 
> ... and the threat of overkill firepower...
> 
> ... for the average citizen.



Repeal it, then.


----------



## Billo_Really

M14 Shooter said:


> Does this qualify as reaseoned discourse in your circles?


Yes, I think taking what the Constitution actually says and not claiming things that it doesn't, is reasonable. 

What is not reasonable, is to lop off the first 12 words of that amendment and claim something entirely different for its inclusion in the Constitution.



M14 Shooter said:


> Do you think this is particularly witty, clever or compelling?


Never entered my mind.



M14 Shooter said:


> I ask, because to reasoned and knowledgeable people, this is a 4th rate strawman and an inidicator of a pre-pubescent level of understandin of the subject.


Really?

  Why would the Founders, who just created a new country and deliberately made the  federal government supreme over the states, enact a law that would legalize a military coup over that government or compromise its authority?


----------



## Billo_Really

Quantum Windbag said:


> Strange, you never said it didn't say anything about defending against the federal government, you claimed that the founders intended the 2nd to apply only to a well regulated militia. So far you have provided no evidence to back that claim up.


Yes I have!

If they wanted it to apply to something else, they would've said so.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Care to explain how, if the Supreme Court is not allowed to read, and interpret, the Constitution,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually they are obviously allowed to read it, but not to interpret it in anything but a literal way.
> 
> Of course it never would have been passed if it was understood that it meant nothing and could be intrepreted to mean anything the judges wanted it to mean.
Click to expand...


Really?

Tell me something, what is the literal interpretation of the Constitution?


----------



## Billo_Really

Quantum Windbag said:


> Really?
> 
> Tell me something, what is the literal interpretation of the Constitution?


How the fuck would you know?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

regent said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both questions are related to the same answer. If the constitution never gave the Court the power in the constitution to interpret the constitution then the Court could not have interpreted the the 14th. amendment applying the Bill of Rights to the states. But the Court took the power unto itself and the nation accepted it. If you can show in the constitution where the Court was given the power, I'll listen, but it's a dead issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 3 Section 2, original text.
> *The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; *to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
> 
> In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
> 
> *The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed;* but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.​11th Amendment.
> The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend  to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of  the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or  Subjects of any Foreign State.​Care to explain how, if the Supreme Court is not allowed to read, and interpret, the Constitution, they can possibly use it to rule on cases? Are they supposed to make things up as they go along?
> 
> As for incorporation, the 14th Amendment says:1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. *No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two issues, both can be explained by reading two court cases, one Barron v. Baltimore and two, Marbury v. Madison. Marbury is the most famous case and generally found in most high school texts. Remember the Midnight judges? Basic history.
Click to expand...


Marbury v Madison, the case where the Supreme Court ruled Congress could not simply rewrite the Constitution and give the Supreme Court more power by making new laws. One would think that anyone that actually opposed Congress making laws not covered by the Constitution would cheer about that case.

Baron v Baltimore, where the Supreme Court ruled that the Bill of Rights does not restrict the states. Since that case was handed down in 1833, and the 14th Amendment was not ratified until 1868, I am not sure why anyone would even bring it up.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

loinboy said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Strange, you never said it didn't say anything about defending against the federal government, you claimed that the founders intended the 2nd to apply only to a well regulated militia. So far you have provided no evidence to back that claim up.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I have!
> 
> If they wanted it to apply to something else, they would've said so.
Click to expand...


They did.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

loinboy said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> Tell me something, what is the literal interpretation of the Constitution?
> 
> 
> 
> How the fuck would you know?
Click to expand...


If I knew would I ask? Is your brain short circuiting?


----------



## Billo_Really

Quantum Windbag said:


> If I knew would I ask? Is your brain short circuiting?


I gave you a literal interpretation and you still questioned that!


----------



## regent

Quantum Windbag said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Article 3 Section 2, original text.
> *The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; *to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
> 
> In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
> 
> *The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed;* but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.​11th Amendment.
> The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend  to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of  the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or  Subjects of any Foreign State.​Care to explain how, if the Supreme Court is not allowed to read, and interpret, the Constitution, they can possibly use it to rule on cases? Are they supposed to make things up as they go along?
> 
> As for incorporation, the 14th Amendment says:1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. *No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.*​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two issues, both can be explained by reading two court cases, one Barron v. Baltimore and two, Marbury v. Madison. Marbury is the most famous case and generally found in most high school texts. Remember the Midnight judges? Basic history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marbury v Madison, the case where the Supreme Court ruled Congress could not simply rewrite the Constitution and give the Supreme Court more power by making new laws. One would think that anyone that actually opposed Congress making laws not covered by the Constitution would cheer about that case.
> 
> Baron v Baltimore, where the Supreme Court ruled that the Bill of Rights does not restrict the states. Since that case was handed down in 1833, and the 14th Amendment was not ratified until 1868, I am not sure why anyone would even bring it up.
Click to expand...


No. The importance of Marbury is that the Court ruled a law of Congress unconstitutional. Nothing in the constitution gave the Court that  power but they said they had the power and we accepted it. Today, the Court can decide the constitutionally of laws, acts of presidents, acts of states and other constitutional questions all based on Marbury. 
Regarding Barron that is correct, the Court ruled that the Bill of Rights applied to the national government not the state governments. Since Barron, however, the Court has been interpreting many rights in the Bill of Rights as applying to the states as well as the national government.


----------



## M14 Shooter

loinboy said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does this qualify as reaseoned discourse in your circles?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I think taking what the Constitution actually says and not claiming things that it doesn't, is reasonable.
Click to expand...

You say, after posting "., not to give citizens the right to shoot their elected representatives."
You cannot cite a single person who has ever claimed such a thing - and thus, you argue a 4th-rate strawman.



> What is not reasonable, is to lop off the first 12 words of that amendment and claim something entirely different for its inclusion in the Constitution.


Fact:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.



> Why would the Founders, who just created a new country and deliberately made the  federal government supreme over the states, enact a law that would legalize a military coup over that government or compromise its authority?


No one has claimed that any such law has been enacted, and so you have presented yet another strawman.
Excellent work - keep it up.  Peopel like you are why the anti-gun loons are losing the national debate.


----------



## regent

There are a few ways justices have interpreted the constitution for example one is original intent. Using this interpretation a justice tries to find the original intent of the framers was when they wrote the constitution. Another method is literal, or go by the exact words of the framers in the constitution. If for example the framers wrote Congress shell make no law...then that means no law, period. An originalist might say that the framers did not mean no law if the law was used to overthrow the government, that was not the framers original intent. And then what of justices that believe a law might violate some of the wording but was good for the nation?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

loinboy said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I knew would I ask? Is your brain short circuiting?
> 
> 
> 
> I gave you a literal interpretation and you still questioned that!
Click to expand...


You did not give me a literal interpretation, you gave me a liberal interpretation.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

regent said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two issues, both can be explained by reading two court cases, one Barron v. Baltimore and two, Marbury v. Madison. Marbury is the most famous case and generally found in most high school texts. Remember the Midnight judges? Basic history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marbury v Madison, the case where the Supreme Court ruled Congress could not simply rewrite the Constitution and give the Supreme Court more power by making new laws. One would think that anyone that actually opposed Congress making laws not covered by the Constitution would cheer about that case.
> 
> Baron v Baltimore, where the Supreme Court ruled that the Bill of Rights does not restrict the states. Since that case was handed down in 1833, and the 14th Amendment was not ratified until 1868, I am not sure why anyone would even bring it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. The importance of Marbury is that the Court ruled a law of Congress unconstitutional. Nothing in the constitution gave the Court that  power but they said they had the power and we accepted it. Today, the Court can decide the constitutionally of laws, acts of presidents, acts of states and other constitutional questions all based on Marbury.
> Regarding Barron that is correct, the Court ruled that the Bill of Rights applied to the national government not the state governments. Since Barron, however, the Court has been interpreting many rights in the Bill of Rights as applying to the states as well as the national government.
Click to expand...


What part of Marbury did I get wrong? The law they ruled unconstitutional clearly expanded the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, which, also clearly, is unconstitutional.


----------



## M14 Shooter

regent said:


> Regarding Barron that is correct, the Court ruled that the Bill of Rights applied to the national government not the state governments. Since Barron, however, the Court has been interpreting many rights in the Bill of Rights as applying to the states as well as the national government.


Through the 14th amendment, which was the intent of same.


----------



## regent

Quantum Windbag said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marbury v Madison, the case where the Supreme Court ruled Congress could not simply rewrite the Constitution and give the Supreme Court more power by making new laws. One would think that anyone that actually opposed Congress making laws not covered by the Constitution would cheer about that case.
> 
> Baron v Baltimore, where the Supreme Court ruled that the Bill of Rights does not restrict the states. Since that case was handed down in 1833, and the 14th Amendment was not ratified until 1868, I am not sure why anyone would even bring it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. The importance of Marbury is that the Court ruled a law of Congress unconstitutional. Nothing in the constitution gave the Court that  power but they said they had the power and we accepted it. Today, the Court can decide the constitutionally of laws, acts of presidents, acts of states and other constitutional questions all based on Marbury.
> Regarding Barron that is correct, the Court ruled that the Bill of Rights applied to the national government not the state governments. Since Barron, however, the Court has been interpreting many rights in the Bill of Rights as applying to the states as well as the national government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part of Marbury did I get wrong? The law they ruled unconstitutional clearly expanded the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, which, also clearly, is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...


No, the Judicial Act of 1789 expansion was piddling compared to the power the court had after Marbury. Original jurisdiction was down in black and white in the constitution and the congress had given it more OJ, and Marshall declared that and the whole act unconstitutional.  
Marshall completely outfoxed the new president, Jefferson and his secretary of state, Madison. The Supreme Court became a powerhouse compared to the pre-Marshall Court. As I said, Marbury was the most famous and probably the most important judicial case in our history. It is a basic in political or history courses.


----------



## buckeye45_73

yep the left thinks freedom and liberty are obsolete, we should all just live comunally and let the government tell us what to do......no thanks


----------



## Billo_Really

M14 Shooter said:


> You say, after posting "., not to give citizens the right to shoot their elected representatives."
> You cannot cite a single person who has ever claimed such a thing - and thus, you argue a 4th-rate strawman.


 It's no secret one of the pro-gun club claims is that the 2nd amendment ensures liberty.  Well, liberty from whom?








M14 Shooter said:


> Fact:
> The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.


That's not what it says. 



M14 Shooter said:


> No one has claimed that any such law has been enacted, and so you have presented yet another strawman.


I didn't claim it either!  

It was a rhetorical statement in reference to comments like Sharon Engle's solving problems with _"2nd amendment rights". _  Which is a direct threat to elected officials.



M14 Shooter said:


> Excellent work - keep it up.  Peopel like you are why the anti-gun loons are losing the national debate.


I could care less about the 2nd amendment.  I'm not a gun guy.  I don't give a shit whether you have a gun or not.  I just don't like people trying to bullshit me regarding the Constitution.


----------



## Billo_Really

Quantum Windbag said:


> You did not give me a literal interpretation, you gave me a liberal interpretation.


I stated word for word what it said.

That is literal.


----------



## buckeye45_73

loinboy said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> You did not give me a literal interpretation, you gave me a liberal interpretation.
> 
> 
> 
> I stated word for word what it said.
> 
> That is literal.
Click to expand...

 

by the way it's liberty from the government....if I need to explain this to you, you're a moron...


----------



## Billo_Really

buckeye45_73 said:


> by the way it's liberty from the government....if I need to explain this to you, you're a moron...


WTF are you talkin' about?

I didn't say it wasn't!


----------



## M14 Shooter

loinboy said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You say, after posting "., not to give citizens the right to shoot their elected representatives."
> You cannot cite a single person who has ever claimed such a thing - and thus, you argue a 4th-rate strawman.
> 
> 
> 
> It's no secret one of the pro-gun club claims is that the 2nd amendment ensures liberty.  Well, liberty from whom?
Click to expand...

A I said:
You cannot cite a single person who has ever claimed such a thing .
Straw, man.



> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact:
> The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what it says.
Click to expand...

Its still a fact.
You don't have to like it, but you don't get to ignore it.


----------



## buckeye45_73

loinboy said:


> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> by the way it's liberty from the government....if I need to explain this to you, you're a moron...
> 
> 
> 
> WTF are you talkin' about?
> 
> I didn't say it wasn't!
Click to expand...

 

The 2nd amendment dumbass.....it's there to protect us from the government...and the only reason it's there....but retards like you think as long as a commie is in charge we should give up all of our freedoms, so we can live like peasants.....no thanks


----------



## Billo_Really

buckeye45_73 said:


> The 2nd amendment dumbass.....it's there to protect us from the government...and the only reason it's there....but retards like you think as long as a commie is in charge we should give up all of our freedoms, so we can live like peasants.....no thanks


That's not what the Constitution says, shithead!

It clearly states what the 2nd amendment is for and it isn't your bullshit lie.

BTW, if the government wanted your little pea shooter, it'd take it and there's nothing you could do to stop them.


----------



## Billo_Really

M14 Shooter said:


> A I said:
> You cannot cite a single person who has ever claimed such a thing .
> Straw, man.


Are you on crack?

They hold up these signs at protest rallys!







Never claimed such a thing, my ass. 



M14 Shooter said:


> Its still a fact.
> You don't have to like it, but you don't get to ignore it.


You simply saying shit, does not make it a fact.

And there's nothing to ignore.  The wording in the Constitution does not back you up.


----------



## zonly1

Why do most of AMERICA think the 2nd is for hunting as dumbass biden states?....Propaganda

Did we ever see the visual evidence of sandy hook?????


----------



## Wildman

expatriate said:


> emptystep said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GuyPinestra said:
> 
> 
> 
> The intent of the 2nd was and is to make sure the people PRIVATELY possess weapons comparable to those 'standing armies' they were so skeptical of.
> 
> Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We also have the right to carry any weapon any where we go in case the government tries to sneak up on us and oppress us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are completely in favor of letting any citizen own any armament he or she feels necessary... Missile launchers, land mines, tactical nuclear weapons... *Not to mention assault rifles and fully automatic weapons? * do I have that right?
Click to expand...


did you know they are one and the same ?

also if you libs want to amend or remove the Second.., we must also amend or remove the first amdt.


----------



## regent

One first acts of out new government was to put down a citizen-uprising, and to do so Washington used the militia to put down the uprising. Even an uprising by a number of states, not citizens, using equal weapons was put down, and even more, no foreign government with its armies has ever put down our government? 
Yet, some still believe that the second amendment will allow some upset citizens to have guns and if they suspect the government of wrong doing, will use those guns to take down the government.   We could have twenty second-amendments and the government would survive mainly because Americans are behind the government, and not behind the upset second-amendment citizens.


----------



## M14 Shooter

loinboy said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> A I said:
> You cannot cite a single person who has ever claimed such a thing .
> Straw, man.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you on crack?
> They hold up these signs at protest rallys!
Click to expand...

You picture simply proves my point, trhat no one has claimed what you stated..  Thank you.



> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its still a fact.
> You don't have to like it, but you don't get to ignore it.
> 
> 
> 
> You simply saying shit, does not make it a fact.
Click to expand...

The fact that it is a fact makes it a fact.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
You can disagree, but it just makes you wrong.


----------



## M14 Shooter

regent said:


> One first acts of out new government was to put down a citizen-uprising, and to do so Washington used the militia to put down the uprising. Even an uprising by a number of states, not citizens, using equal weapons was put down, and even more, no foreign government with its armies has ever put down our government?
> Yet, some still believe that the second amendment will allow some upset citizens to have guns and if they suspect the government of wrong doing, will use those guns to take down the government.   We could have twenty second-amendments and the government would survive mainly because Americans are behind the government, and not behind the upset second-amendment citizens.


All of this is written in total obliviousness to the fact that the people who founded this country did so while exercising their right to rebel against tyranny.
"When in the course of human events..."


----------



## regent

M14 Shooter said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> One first acts of out new government was to put down a citizen-uprising, and to do so Washington used the militia to put down the uprising. Even an uprising by a number of states, not citizens, using equal weapons was put down, and even more, no foreign government with its armies has ever put down our government?
> Yet, some still believe that the second amendment will allow some upset citizens to have guns and if they suspect the government of wrong doing, will use those guns to take down the government.   We could have twenty second-amendments and the government would survive mainly because Americans are behind the government, and not behind the upset second-amendment citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> All of this is written in total obliviousness to the fact that the people who founded this country did so while exercising their right to rebel against tyranny.
> "When in the course of human events..."
Click to expand...


The Declaration was simply a form of propaganda to convince others that we had reason for our actions. In the end it took a war, some allies and some years to achieve that independence. Most rebellions against governments label the government as tyrannical how many nations today are involved in a war where the government is accused of tyranny? In the end, however, it is usually the side with the most power that decides.


----------



## Billo_Really

M14 Shooter said:


> You picture simply proves my point, trhat no one has claimed what you stated..  Thank you.


It doesn't prove your point.  It imply's the 2nd amendment is for the protection of liberty.  Well, protection from whom?  Who are you protecting liberty against?  The government?  And how does that protection manifest itself in regards to the 2nd amendment?  By shooting government officials, that's how.

But you wanna play these fuckin' semantical word games, so here's a quote for you.



> _&#8220;The historical reality of the Second Amendment&#8217;s protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer.* It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, with the same instruments they would use upon us*.&#8221;
> - Fox News personality Andrew Napolitano_


It shows a lack of integrity when you can't even admit the obvious.



M14 Shooter said:


> The fact that it is a fact makes it a fact.
> DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
> You can disagree, but it just makes you wrong.


That decision is the result of a politicized conservative SCOTUS that reversed 200 years of legal precedents and goes against what the Framers had intended.



> _The Second Amendment was enacted so each state would have the specific right to form &#8220;a well-regulated militia&#8221; to maintain &#8220;security,&#8221;* i.e. to put down armed rebellions.*
> 
> *The Framers also made clear what they thought should happen to people who took up arms against the Republic.* Article IV, Section 4 committed the federal government to *protect each state from not only invasion but &#8220;domestic Violence,&#8221; and treason is defined in the Constitution as &#8220;levying war against&#8221; the United States *as well as giving &#8220;Aid and Comfort&#8221; to the enemy (Article III, Section 3)._


There is no fucking way the Framers would give you the right to individually protect your liberty against the Republic when they were dealing with shit like Shay's Rebellion at the time.


----------



## Billo_Really

zonly1 said:


> Why do most of AMERICA think the 2nd is for hunting as dumbass biden states?....Propaganda


Joe Biden has the best smile in politics, so back off!


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

buckeye45_73 said:


> loinboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> by the way it's liberty from the government....if I need to explain this to you, you're a moron...
> 
> 
> 
> WTF are you talkin' about?
> 
> I didn't say it wasn't!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd amendment dumbass.....it's there to protect us from the government...and the only reason it's there....but retards like you think as long as a commie is in charge we should give up all of our freedoms, so we can live like peasants.....no thanks
Click to expand...


Nonsense. 

The Second Amendment protects ones right to self-defense, and the right to own a handgun in pursuance of that right. Although it prohibits the government from enacting outright bans of certain classes of firearms, such as handguns, it does not prohibit other regulatory measures. 

And its naïve idiocy to argue the Amendment authorizes citizens to take up arms against a Federal government perceived to have become tyrannical.


----------



## M14 Shooter

regent said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> One first acts of out new government was to put down a citizen-uprising, and to do so Washington used the militia to put down the uprising. Even an uprising by a number of states, not citizens, using equal weapons was put down, and even more, no foreign government with its armies has ever put down our government?
> Yet, some still believe that the second amendment will allow some upset citizens to have guns and if they suspect the government of wrong doing, will use those guns to take down the government.   We could have twenty second-amendments and the government would survive mainly because Americans are behind the government, and not behind the upset second-amendment citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> All of this is written in total obliviousness to the fact that the people who founded this country did so while exercising their right to rebel against tyranny.
> "When in the course of human events..."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Declaration was simply a form of propaganda to convince others that we had reason for our actions. In the end it took a war, some allies and some years to achieve that independence. Most rebellions against governments label the government as tyrannical how many nations today are involved in a war where the government is accused of tyranny? In the end, however, it is usually the side with the most power that decides.
Click to expand...

None of this negates the soundness of what I said.   Feel free to try again.


----------



## M14 Shooter

loinboy said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You picture simply proves my point, trhat no one has claimed what you stated..  Thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't prove your point.
Click to expand...

It does not supprt your claim, and so it proves my point that you are arguing straw.
No one has argued what you said.  No one.



> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that it is a fact makes it a fact.
> DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
> You can disagree, but it just makes you wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> That decision is the result of a politicized conservative SCOTUS that reversed 200 years of legal precedents and goes against what the Framers had intended.
Click to expand...

This is a lie - The Heller decision did not reverse a single SCotUS decision.  
Disagree?  Cite them.
Further, you can show no such intent from the people who wrote, debates, or ratified the 2nd,


----------



## M14 Shooter

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> loinboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF are you talkin' about?
> 
> I didn't say it wasn't!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd amendment dumbass.....it's there to protect us from the government...and the only reason it's there....but retards like you think as long as a commie is in charge we should give up all of our freedoms, so we can live like peasants.....no thanks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> The Second Amendment protects ones right to self-defense, and the right to own a handgun in pursuance of that right. Although it prohibits the government from enacting outright bans of certain classes of firearms, such as handguns, it does not prohibit other regulatory measures.
Click to expand...

That depends entirely on if the regulatory measure in question infringes upon the right to arms.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The Second Amendment protects ones right to self-defense, and the right to own a handgun in pursuance of that right.



too stupid !! Amendment says nothing about hand guns which were rare at time of amendment



joewp said:


> Although it prohibits the government from enacting outright bans of certain classes of firearms, such as handguns, it does not prohibit other regulatory measures.


too stupid!!! it prohibits all regulatory measures that infridge significantly on the right to bear arms 



joewp said:


> And its naïve idiocy to argue the Amendment authorizes citizens to take up arms against a Federal government perceived to have become tyrannical.



too stupid!! that's exactly why the amendment was created- a too liberal government!!!!!! Did you think it was to scare squirrels off?????



"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government" 

-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334


----------



## regent

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment protects ones right to self-defense, and the right to own a handgun in pursuance of that right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> too stupid !! Amendment says nothing about hand guns which were rare at time of amendment
> 
> 
> 
> joewp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although it prohibits the government from enacting outright bans of certain classes of firearms, such as handguns, it does not prohibit other regulatory measures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> too stupid!!! it prohibits all regulatory measures that infridge significantly on the right to bear arms
> 
> 
> 
> joewp said:
> 
> 
> 
> And its naïve idiocy to argue the Amendment authorizes citizens to take up arms against a Federal government perceived to have become tyrannical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> too stupid!! that's exactly why the amendment was created- a too liberal government!!!!!! Did you think it was to scare squirrels off?????
> 
> 
> 
> "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
> 
> -- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
Click to expand...


Any other evidence besides Jefferson's opinion? If that was the purpose for the second amendment why didn't the framers put that into the amendment; a few more words and there it would be, along with the militia purpose?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment protects ones right to self-defense, and the right to own a handgun in pursuance of that right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> too stupid !! Amendment says nothing about hand guns which were rare at time of amendment
> 
> 
> too stupid!!! it prohibits all regulatory measures that infridge significantly on the right to bear arms
> 
> 
> 
> joewp said:
> 
> 
> 
> And its naïve idiocy to argue the Amendment authorizes citizens to take up arms against a Federal government perceived to have become tyrannical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> too stupid!! that's exactly why the amendment was created- a too liberal government!!!!!! Did you think it was to scare squirrels off?????
> 
> 
> 
> "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
> 
> -- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any other evidence besides Jefferson's opinion? If that was the purpose for the second amendment why didn't the framers put that into the amendment; a few more words and there it would be, along with the militia purpose?
Click to expand...


Alexander Hamilton: "...that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties 
of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms." 
(Federalist Paper #29)


----------



## TemplarKormac

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment protects ones right to self-defense, and the right to own a handgun in pursuance of that right.
> 
> 
> 
> *
> too stupid !! Amendment says nothing about hand guns which were rare at time of amendment*
> 
> 
> 
> joewp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although it prohibits the government from enacting outright bans of certain classes of firearms, such as handguns, it does not prohibit other regulatory measures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> too stupid!!! it prohibits all regulatory measures that infridge significantly on the right to bear arms
> 
> 
> 
> joewp said:
> 
> 
> 
> And its naïve idiocy to argue the Amendment authorizes citizens to take up arms against a Federal government perceived to have become tyrannical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> too stupid!! that's exactly why the amendment was created- a too liberal government!!!!!! Did you think it was to scare squirrels off?????
> 
> 
> 
> "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
> 
> -- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
Click to expand...


That's why the term "bear arms" was written into the Amendment. The founders didn't think we would be using muskets and flintlocks forever.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment protects ones right to self-defense, and the right to own a handgun in pursuance of that right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> too stupid !! Amendment says nothing about hand guns which were rare at time of amendment
> 
> 
> 
> joewp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although it prohibits the government from enacting outright bans of certain classes of firearms, such as handguns, it does not prohibit other regulatory measures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> too stupid!!! it prohibits all regulatory measures that infridge significantly on the right to bear arms
> 
> 
> 
> joewp said:
> 
> 
> 
> And its naïve idiocy to argue the Amendment authorizes citizens to take up arms against a Federal government perceived to have become tyrannical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> too stupid!! that's exactly why the amendment was created- a too liberal government!!!!!! Did you think it was to scare squirrels off?????
> 
> 
> 
> "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
> 
> -- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
Click to expand...


Then you reject the _Heller_ Courts majority opinion, and consider the ruling wrong  take it up with Justice Scalia.


----------



## TemplarKormac

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> loinboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF are you talkin' about?
> 
> I didn't say it wasn't!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd amendment dumbass.....it's there to protect us from the government...and the only reason it's there....but retards like you think as long as a commie is in charge we should give up all of our freedoms, so we can live like peasants.....no thanks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> The Second Amendment protects one&#8217;s right to self-defense, and the right to own a handgun in pursuance of that right. Although it prohibits the government from enacting outright bans of certain classes of firearms, such as handguns, it does not prohibit other regulatory measures.
> 
> *And it&#8217;s naïve idiocy to argue the Amendment authorizes citizens to &#8216;take up arms&#8217; against a Federal government perceived to have become &#8216;tyrannical.&#8217;*
Click to expand...


"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. &#8212; *That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, &#8212; That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."*

-Declaration of Independence


----------



## Billo_Really

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
> 
> -- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334


Why are you quoting Jefferson?  He hardly had anything to do with the final version of the Constitution.  

He was in Paris most of the time during its writing.


----------



## regent

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> too stupid !! Amendment says nothing about hand guns which were rare at time of amendment
> 
> 
> too stupid!!! it prohibits all regulatory measures that infridge significantly on the right to bear arms
> 
> 
> 
> too stupid!! that's exactly why the amendment was created- a too liberal government!!!!!! Did you think it was to scare squirrels off?????
> 
> 
> 
> "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
> 
> -- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any other evidence besides Jefferson's opinion? If that was the purpose for the second amendment why didn't the framers put that into the amendment; a few more words and there it would be, along with the militia purpose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Alexander Hamilton: "...that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties
> of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms."
> (Federalist Paper #29)
Click to expand...



The federalist Papers were simply a reprinting of some letters to the editor, what else you got? Anything in law or the constitution, not just opinions? 
If the framers took the time to write out the second amendment why couldn't they put in the amendment those things some people would want to read a few hundred years later? Very lax of them.


----------



## Billo_Really

M14 Shooter said:


> It does not supprt your claim, and so it proves my point that you are arguing straw.
> No one has argued what you said.  No one.


You just want to argue semantics like a little teenager.



M14 Shooter said:


> This is a lie - The Heller decision did not reverse a single SCotUS decision.
> Disagree?  Cite them.
> Further, you can show no such intent from the people who wrote, debates, or ratified the 2nd,


I've proven my point.

It's not my problem if you lack the integrity to admit that.


----------



## TemplarKormac

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment protects ones right to self-defense, and the right to own a handgun in pursuance of that right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> too stupid !! Amendment says nothing about hand guns which were rare at time of amendment
> 
> 
> too stupid!!! it prohibits all regulatory measures that infridge significantly on the right to bear arms
> 
> 
> 
> joewp said:
> 
> 
> 
> And its naïve idiocy to argue the Amendment authorizes citizens to take up arms against a Federal government perceived to have become tyrannical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> too stupid!! that's exactly why the amendment was created- a too liberal government!!!!!! Did you think it was to scare squirrels off?????
> 
> 
> 
> "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
> 
> -- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you reject the _Heller_ Courts majority opinion, and consider the ruling wrong  take it up with Justice Scalia.
Click to expand...


So simple minded. Scalia didn't say our second amendment rights weren't unlimited for the sake of having them regulated, they were limited to arms any reasonable civilian could use with the necessary proficiency. That means you can't go down the street with an RPG strapped to your back, or in a truck towing a howitzer behind you. You really need to understand the gist of the statement before you go off making prevaricated assumptions.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

regent said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. The importance of Marbury is that the Court ruled a law of Congress unconstitutional. Nothing in the constitution gave the Court that  power but they said they had the power and we accepted it. Today, the Court can decide the constitutionally of laws, acts of presidents, acts of states and other constitutional questions all based on Marbury.
> Regarding Barron that is correct, the Court ruled that the Bill of Rights applied to the national government not the state governments. Since Barron, however, the Court has been interpreting many rights in the Bill of Rights as applying to the states as well as the national government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What part of Marbury did I get wrong? The law they ruled unconstitutional clearly expanded the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, which, also clearly, is unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the Judicial Act of 1789 expansion was piddling compared to the power the court had after Marbury. Original jurisdiction was down in black and white in the constitution and the congress had given it more OJ, and Marshall declared that and the whole act unconstitutional.
> Marshall completely outfoxed the new president, Jefferson and his secretary of state, Madison. The Supreme Court became a powerhouse compared to the pre-Marshall Court. As I said, Marbury was the most famous and probably the most important judicial case in our history. It is a basic in political or history courses.
Click to expand...


And we ended up with three branches of government instead of two.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

loinboy said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> You did not give me a literal interpretation, you gave me a liberal interpretation.
> 
> 
> 
> I stated word for word what it said.
> 
> That is literal.
Click to expand...


Sure you did, here is what you said it says. "_Drafted by a congressional committee that seemed a bit challenged in the precise use of punctuation, it reads: *A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms*, shall not be infringed._

Here is what it says, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

No comments about punctuation, no emphasis of everything except the last clause, no extra comma before the last 4 words. 

I really thought that extra comma was telling given your pretense that the committee didn't understand punctuation.

Tell me something, what is the literal interpretation of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be  infringed.?"


----------



## TemplarKormac

loinboy said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
> 
> -- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you quoting Jefferson?  He hardly had anything to do with the final version of the Constitution.
> 
> He was in Paris most of the time during its writing.
Click to expand...


You're an idiot.

He was in Paris at the time of the Convention, but kept correspondence with James Madison to keep tabs on the proceedings in Philadelphia. He had plenty to do with the Constitution. He helped play a big role in the development of a limited Federal Government. Through his correspondences, he helped define the powers of the Constitution and the nature of the emerging republic. 

Establishing A Federal Republic - Thomas Jefferson | Exhibitions - Library of Congress


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

loinboy said:


> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd amendment dumbass.....it's there to protect us from the government...and the only reason it's there....but retards like you think as long as a commie is in charge we should give up all of our freedoms, so we can live like peasants.....no thanks
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what the Constitution says, shithead!
> 
> It clearly states what the 2nd amendment is for and it isn't your bullshit lie.
> 
> BTW, if the government wanted your little pea shooter, it'd take it and there's nothing you could do to stop them.
Click to expand...



Our government has grown to incorporate a lot of things that are "clearly" not stated in our Constitution: such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Federal Income tax, as well as a national Health Care System. Perhaps we also need to look into eliminating the government's role in these areas as well, or do you want to now justify and expand YOUR interpretation of what the Constitution  just doesn't say?

With regard to the 2nd Amendment here is what some of our Founders, and those who are familiar with their views during that time period, had to say. I'd say their views on the issue are pretty relevant, as they in fact reveal the purpose, TRUE interpretation, and intent behind American's "right to bear arms".




> "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
> - *TENCHE  COXE*, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
> 
> One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them.
> - *THOMAS JEFFERSON* to George Washington, 1796. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.
> 
> Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
> - *THOMAS JEFFERSON*, Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774_1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764
> 
> "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
> - *THOMAS JEFFERSON*, Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776, Jefferson Papers 344.
> 
> "Americans [have] the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust their people with arms."
> - *SAMUEL ADAMS*
> 
> "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms . . ."
> - *GEORGE MASON*
> 
> "When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor..."
> - *GEORGE MASON*, Virginia Constitution Convention
> 
> 
> "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
> - *NOAH WEBSTER*, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787)


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

TemplarKormac said:


> loinboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
> 
> -- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you quoting Jefferson?  He hardly had anything to do with the final version of the Constitution.
> 
> He was in Paris most of the time during its writing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an idiot.
> 
> He was in Paris at the time of the Convention, but kept correspondence with James Madison to keep tabs on the proceedings in Philadelphia. He had plenty to do with the Constitution. He helped play a big role in the development of a limited Federal Government. Through his correspondences, he helped define the powers of the Constitution and the nature of the emerging republic.
> 
> Establishing A Federal Republic - Thomas Jefferson | Exhibitions - Library of Congress
Click to expand...


Yes, Jefferson was mentor to Madison and then Madison became Jefferson's Secretary of State. Jefferson created the idea of freedom from liberal government when he wrote the Declaration. When he saw that Washington and the Federalists showed slight liberal tendencies he immediately created the Republican Party and forever destroyed the liberal Federalists! Jefferson called it  Second American Revolution!!


----------



## regent

Quantum Windbag said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> What part of Marbury did I get wrong? The law they ruled unconstitutional clearly expanded the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, which, also clearly, is unconstitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the Judicial Act of 1789 expansion was piddling compared to the power the court had after Marbury. Original jurisdiction was down in black and white in the constitution and the congress had given it more OJ, and Marshall declared that and the whole act unconstitutional.
> Marshall completely outfoxed the new president, Jefferson and his secretary of state, Madison. The Supreme Court became a powerhouse compared to the pre-Marshall Court. As I said, Marbury was the most famous and probably the most important judicial case in our history. It is a basic in political or history courses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we ended up with three branches of government instead of two.
Click to expand...


No, originally there were three, but after Marbury the Court had significantly more power.


----------



## TemplarKormac

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> loinboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you quoting Jefferson?  He hardly had anything to do with the final version of the Constitution.
> 
> He was in Paris most of the time during its writing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're an idiot.
> 
> He was in Paris at the time of the Convention, but kept correspondence with James Madison to keep tabs on the proceedings in Philadelphia. He had plenty to do with the Constitution. He helped play a big role in the development of a limited Federal Government. Through his correspondences, he helped define the powers of the Constitution and the nature of the emerging republic.
> 
> Establishing A Federal Republic - Thomas Jefferson | Exhibitions - Library of Congress
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, Jefferson was mentor to Madison and then Madison became Jefferson's Secretary of State. Jefferson created the idea of freedom from liberal government when he wrote the Declaration. When he saw that Washington and the Federalists showed slight liberal tendencies he immediately created the Republican Party and forever destroyed the liberal Federalists! Jefferson called it  Second American Revolution!!
Click to expand...


Liberal? LIMITED government.

No sir/ma'am. What are you trying to pull?

Jefferson?s Arguments for Nullification and Limited Government ? Tenth Amendment Center


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the Judicial Act of 1789 expansion was piddling compared to the power the court had after Marbury. Original jurisdiction was down in black and white in the constitution and the congress had given it more OJ, and Marshall declared that and the whole act unconstitutional.
> Marshall completely outfoxed the new president, Jefferson and his secretary of state, Madison. The Supreme Court became a powerhouse compared to the pre-Marshall Court. As I said, Marbury was the most famous and probably the most important judicial case in our history. It is a basic in political or history courses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And we ended up with three branches of government instead of two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, originally there were three, but after Marbury the Court had significantly more power.
Click to expand...


you mean 100 years after Marbury it had more power!!Chief Justice  Reinquist was fond of telling us the Marbury was most significant case ever but that it was not used for 100 years after ruling!!


----------



## M14 Shooter

loinboy said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> It does not supprt your claim, and so it proves my point that you are arguing straw.
> No one has argued what you said.  No one.
> 
> 
> 
> You just want to argue semantics like a little teenager.
Click to expand...

I'll take that as your acceptance of the fact that you know you cannot support your statement.



> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a lie - The Heller decision did not reverse a single SCotUS decision.
> Disagree?  Cite them.
> Further, you can show no such intent from the people who wrote, debates, or ratified the 2nd,
> 
> 
> 
> I've proven my point.
Click to expand...

Another lie.
You know you cannot cite the SCotUS decisions overturned by _Heller_ because none exist.


----------



## Billo_Really

M14 Shooter said:


> I'll take that as your acceptance of the fact that you know you cannot support your statement.


I've proven my point.

The fact that you refuse to acknowledge it, is not my problem.




M14 Shooter said:


> Another lie.
> You know you cannot cite the SCotUS decisions overturned by _Heller_ because none exist.


You're trying to respond to something I didn't say.

I said 200 years of precedents, not past SCOTUS decisions.


----------



## M14 Shooter

loinboy said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll take that as your acceptance of the fact that you know you cannot support your statement.
> 
> 
> 
> I've proven my point.
Click to expand...

You have not supplied any evidence whatsoever that backs you claim.
The fact that you refuse to acknowledge this simply illustrares your inteddelctual dishonesty.



> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another lie.
> You know you cannot cite the SCotUS decisions overturned by _Heller_ because none exist.
> 
> 
> 
> You're trying to respond to something I didn't say.
> I said 200 years of precedents, not past SCOTUS decisions.
Click to expand...

Whenever the SCotUS overturns a case, it necessarily overturns precedent - never mind the fact that the SCotUS is not bound by precedent from the lower courts and that in _Heller _it UPHELD the lower court's decision.
But, I'll take note that you disagree with _Brown v Baord of Education_ on the grounds that it overturned etablished precendent, and that you have no sound argument against _Heller_


----------



## blackhawk

Joe Biden mistook the right to bear arms to be about people wanting to wear tank tops and muscle shirts as a result he is calling for background checks and a seven day waiting period before you can purchase these types of shirts.


----------



## Billo_Really

M14 Shooter said:


> You have not supplied any evidence whatsoever that backs you claim.
> The fact that you refuse to acknowledge this simply illustrares your inteddelctual dishonesty.


Yes I have, go back and look!

I provided links to back up my claim.



M14 Shooter said:


> Whenever the SCotUS overturns a case, *it necessarily overturns precedent* -


In this case it did, bigtime!


----------



## M14 Shooter

loinboy said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have not supplied any evidence whatsoever that backs you claim.
> The fact that you refuse to acknowledge this simply illustrares your inteddelctual dishonesty.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I have, go back and look!
> I provided links to back up my claim.
Click to expand...

This is a lie; none of the links you provided support the claim you made.
You made a very specific claim, and to back that up, you need very specific information.
You have failed to supply that information.



> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whenever the SCotUS overturns a case, *it necessarily overturns precedent* -
> 
> 
> 
> In this case it did, bigtime!
Click to expand...

Never mind the fact that: 
-The SCotUS is not bound by precedent from the lower courts 
-In Heller, the SCotUS UPHELD the lower court's decision.
-You disagree with Brown v Baord of Education on the grounds that it overturned etablished precendent
-You have no sound argument against Heller


----------



## Billo_Really

M14 Shooter said:


> This is a lie; none of the links you provided support the claim you made.
> You made a very specific claim, and to back that up, you need very specific information.
> You have failed to supply that information.


Your personal opinion of the evidence I provided, does not prove I provided no evidence at all.



M14 Shooter said:


> Never mind the fact that:
> -The SCotUS is not bound by precedent from the lower courts
> -In Heller, the SCotUS UPHELD the lower court's decision.
> -You disagree with Brown v Baord of Education on the grounds that it overturned etablished precendent
> -You have no sound argument against Heller


The Heller decision did not give you the right to individually take up arms against the government.


----------



## M14 Shooter

loinboy said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a lie; none of the links you provided support the claim you made.
> You made a very specific claim, and to back that up, you need very specific information.
> You have failed to supply that information.
> 
> 
> 
> Your personal opinion of the evidence I provided, does not prove I provided no evidence at all.
Click to expand...

Fact is that your evidence does not support what you claimed.


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never mind the fact that:
> -The SCotUS is not bound by precedent from the lower courts
> -In Heller, the SCotUS UPHELD the lower court's decision.
> -You disagree with Brown v Baord of Education on the grounds that it overturned etablished precendent
> -You have no sound argument against Heller
> 
> 
> 
> The Heller decision did not give you the right to individually take up arms against the government.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant to the point made by the introduction of _Heller _into the conversation; the facts cited above remian unchallenged.


----------



## Spoonman

loinboy said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a lie; none of the links you provided support the claim you made.
> You made a very specific claim, and to back that up, you need very specific information.
> You have failed to supply that information.
> 
> 
> 
> Your personal opinion of the evidence I provided, does not prove I provided no evidence at all.
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never mind the fact that:
> -The SCotUS is not bound by precedent from the lower courts
> -In Heller, the SCotUS UPHELD the lower court's decision.
> -You disagree with Brown v Baord of Education on the grounds that it overturned etablished precendent
> -You have no sound argument against Heller
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Heller decision did not give you the right to individually take up arms against the government.
Click to expand...


the second amendment did


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Spoonman said:


> loinboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a lie; none of the links you provided support the claim you made.
> You made a very specific claim, and to back that up, you need very specific information.
> You have failed to supply that information.
> 
> 
> 
> Your personal opinion of the evidence I provided, does not prove I provided no evidence at all.
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never mind the fact that:
> -The SCotUS is not bound by precedent from the lower courts
> -In Heller, the SCotUS UPHELD the lower court's decision.
> -You disagree with Brown v Baord of Education on the grounds that it overturned etablished precendent
> -You have no sound argument against Heller
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Heller decision did not give you the right to individually take up arms against the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the second amendment did
Click to expand...


liberals love to pretend its there so people can have fun hunting squirrels, rather than to keep liberals at bay!!


----------



## BreezeWood

The solution is to require all public firearms to be lever or bolt action per round with non detachable magazines ... Constitutionally sound legislation.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

regent said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the Judicial Act of 1789 expansion was piddling compared to the power the court had after Marbury. Original jurisdiction was down in black and white in the constitution and the congress had given it more OJ, and Marshall declared that and the whole act unconstitutional.
> Marshall completely outfoxed the new president, Jefferson and his secretary of state, Madison. The Supreme Court became a powerhouse compared to the pre-Marshall Court. As I said, Marbury was the most famous and probably the most important judicial case in our history. It is a basic in political or history courses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And we ended up with three branches of government instead of two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, originally there were three, but after Marbury the Court had significantly more power.
Click to expand...


Rather than &#8216;more&#8217; power, let&#8217;s say the Court acknowledged in _Marbury_ its existing authority as a co-equal with regard to the two other branches, where the doctrine of judicial review and the Court&#8217;s interpretive authority were already well established: 



> *The generation that framed the Constitution presumed that courts would declare void legislation that was repugnant or contrary to the Constitution. *They held this presumption because of colonial American practice. By the early seventeenth century, English law subjected the by-laws of corporations to the requirement that they not be repugnant to the laws of the nation. The early English settlements in Virginia and Massachusetts were originally corporations and so these settlements were bound by the principle that colonial legislation could not be repugnant to the laws of England. Under this standard, colonial lawyers appealed approximately 250 cases from colonial courts to the English Privy Council, and the Crown reviewed over 8500 colonial acts.
> 
> After the American Revolution, this practice continued. State court judges voided state legislation inconsistent with their respective state constitutions. The Framers of the Constitution similarly presumed that judges would void legislation repugnant to the United States Constitution. Although a few Framers worried about the power, they expected it would exist. As James Madison stated, &#8220;A law violating a constitution established by the people themselves, would be considered by the Judges as null & void.&#8221; *In fact, the word &#8220;Constitution&#8221; in the Supremacy Clause and the clause describing the Supreme Court&#8217;s jurisdiction appeared to give textual authorization for judicial enforcement of constitutional constraints on state and federal legislation. *Indeed, before _Marbury_, Justice Chase observed that although the Court had never adjudicated whether the judiciary had the authority to declare laws contrary to the Constitution void, *this authority was acknowledged by general opinion, the entire Supreme Court bar, and some of the Supreme Court Justices.*
> 
> By 1803, as Chief Justice Marshall acknowledged in _Marbury_, &#8220;long and well established&#8221; principles answered &#8220;the question, whether an act, repugnant to the constitution, can become the law of the land.&#8221; Marshall concluded that &#8220;a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts . . . are bound by that instrument.&#8221; As such, contrary to the traditional account of _Marbury_, *Marshall&#8217;s decision did not conjure judicial review out of thin air, but rather affirmed the well-established and long-practiced idea of limited legislative authority in the new context of the federal republic of the United States. In doing so, Marshall recommitted American constitutional law to a practice over four centuries old.*
> 
> The Yale Law Journal Online - Why We Have Judicial Review


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Spoonman said:


> loinboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a lie; none of the links you provided support the claim you made.
> You made a very specific claim, and to back that up, you need very specific information.
> You have failed to supply that information.
> 
> 
> 
> Your personal opinion of the evidence I provided, does not prove I provided no evidence at all.
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never mind the fact that:
> -The SCotUS is not bound by precedent from the lower courts
> -In Heller, the SCotUS UPHELD the lower court's decision.
> -You disagree with Brown v Baord of Education on the grounds that it overturned etablished precendent
> -You have no sound argument against Heller
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Heller decision did not give you the right to individually take up arms against the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the second amendment did
Click to expand...


The Second Amendment, as with the rest of the Constitution, exists only in the context of its case law.


----------



## M14 Shooter

BreezeWood said:


> The solution is to require all public firearms to be lever or bolt action per round with non detachable magazines ... Constitutionally sound legislation.


Please provide a sound argument as to how banning all other firearms does not violate the constitution.
Please be sure to include the relevant text from _Miller _and _Heller _that supports said argument.


----------



## BreezeWood

M14 Shooter said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> The solution is to require all public firearms to be lever or bolt action per round with non detachable magazines ... Constitutionally sound legislation.
> 
> 
> 
> Please provide a sound argument as to how banning all other firearms does not violate the constitution.
> Please be sure to include the relevant text from _Miller _and _Heller _that supports said argument.
Click to expand...






> Amendment [II.]
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.




you can chose either:* A well regulated Militia,* or *being necessary to the security of a free State,* ...


my choice: *"being necessary to the security of a free State,"*


you know, gunlovers running around blowing away anyone or anything they disagree with .... at least by one bolt - leaver action at a time and reloading as they go.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> loinboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your personal opinion of the evidence I provided, does not prove I provided no evidence at all.
> 
> The Heller decision did not give you the right to individually take up arms against the government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the second amendment did
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment, as with the rest of the Constitution, exists only in the context of its case law.
Click to expand...


Strange, you just posted an article about how the Constitution is the framework of out law, and you then claim that our law is the framework of the Constitution.

YOU
CANNOT
HAVE
IT
BOTH
WAYS.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

BreezeWood said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> The solution is to require all public firearms to be lever or bolt action per round with non detachable magazines ... Constitutionally sound legislation.
> 
> 
> 
> Please provide a sound argument as to how banning all other firearms does not violate the constitution.
> Please be sure to include the relevant text from _Miller _and _Heller _that supports said argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amendment [II.]
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you can chose either:* A well regulated Militia,* or *being necessary to the security of a free State,* ...
> 
> 
> my choice: *"being necessary to the security of a free State,"*
> 
> 
> you know, gunlovers running around blowing away anyone or anything they disagree with .... at least by one bolt - leaver action at a time and reloading as they go.
Click to expand...


How about "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."


----------



## BreezeWood

Quantum Windbag said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please provide a sound argument as to how banning all other firearms does not violate the constitution.
> Please be sure to include the relevant text from _Miller _and _Heller _that supports said argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amendment [II.]
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you can chose either:* A well regulated Militia,* or *being necessary to the security of a free State,* ...
> 
> 
> my choice: *"being necessary to the security of a free State,"*
> 
> 
> you know, gunlovers running around blowing away anyone or anything they disagree with .... at least by one bolt - leaver action at a time and reloading as they go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Click to expand...



The solution is to require all public firearms to be lever or bolt action per round with non detachable magazines ... "being necessary to the security of a free State,"

not a contradiction - "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."


----------



## M14 Shooter

BreezeWood said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> The solution is to require all public firearms to be lever or bolt action per round with non detachable magazines ... Constitutionally sound legislation.
> 
> 
> 
> Please provide a sound argument as to how banning all other firearms does not violate the constitution.
> Please be sure to include the relevant text from _Miller _and _Heller _that supports said argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amendment [II.]
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you can chose either:* A well regulated Militia,* or *being necessary to the security of a free State,* ...
> 
> my choice: *"being necessary to the security of a free State,"*
> 
> you know, gunlovers running around blowing away anyone or anything they disagree with .... at least by one bolt - leaver action at a time and reloading as they go.
Click to expand...

Thank you for illustrating that you _cannot _present a sound argument as to how banning all other firearms does not violate the constitution, taking into consideration _Miller _and _Heller_.


----------



## Nemo

The Second Amendment does not grant any rights.  See _United States v. Cruikshank_, 92 U.S. 542 (1875).  The prohibition against &#8220;infringement&#8221; does not preclude &#8220;regulation.&#8221;  Whatever rights that are secured under the Second Amendment, whether individual or collective, are nevertheless subject to law; which is to say that they are not unlimited, much less absolute.  American gun owners shall soon find themselves the more &#8220;well regulated&#8221;.


----------



## Crackerjaxon

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> loinboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your personal opinion of the evidence I provided, does not prove I provided no evidence at all.
> 
> The Heller decision did not give you the right to individually take up arms against the government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the second amendment did
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment, as with the rest of the Constitution, exists only in the context of its case law.
Click to expand...



Wrong.  The Constitution exists despite case law.  It is the supreme law of the land.  It is easily accessible to anyone.  There's nothing obtuse about it.

All case law that obfuscates the Constitution should be overturned immediately.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Nemo said:


> The Second Amendment does not grant any rights.  See _United States v. Cruikshank_, 92 U.S. 542 (1875).  The prohibition against infringement does not preclude regulation.


It does if said regulation constitutes an infringement.


----------



## Nemo

The Second Amendment does not sanction armed rebellion; and even to advocate such action is punishable as a federal criminal offense under 18 U.S.C. § 2385. The argument that we, as citizens, have a constitutional right to take up arms against our lawfully constituted government is without any foundation. There is no support for such right, either historically or constitutionally. The American Revolution was a war waged for separation of the American colonies from the rule of the English monarchy, and not a rebellion against the established colonial governments. The colonies were being taxed under English laws in which they had no elected representatives in Parliament; and when the Crown refused to grant representation, the colonies, in Continental Congress, declared their separate statehood and independence. Likewise, the reliance on the supposed historical record of the founding fathers is wrong. George Washington, who is considered the father of our nation and who commanded the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War, was the president of the Constitutional Convention that drafted our Constitution that is the framework of our government of laws; and thereafter elected to be the first President of the United States. During his term in office, President Washington put down the Whisky rebellion of 1794, which was an armed insurrection against the government in protest of the tax enacted by Congress in 1791. Washington personally lead the organized militia to quash the rebellion and assert the federal governments authority over the states and their citizens. We would do well to learn from history than suffer repeating it.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Nemo said:


> The Second Amendment does not sanction armed rebellion; and even to advocate such action is punishable as a federal criminal offense under 18 U.S.C. § 2385.


So?
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home


----------



## Nemo

Your right to have a gun for whatever purpose exists only by law.  That's why it's important to have clarity on the subject.  The decision of the Supreme Court is anything but clear - the decision raises more questions than it answers - it leaves us all in doubt.  Without clear direction from the Supreme Court, we don&#8217;t know where we stand. The court has issued a decision that is unclear, even confusing; and, worse, as pointed out by the dissenting opinions of Justice Stevens and Justice Breyer, weakly premised. This "landmark" decision will spawn more gun laws (and even more litigation), which can only lead to the lessening of our rights.  It's happening here and now.


----------



## Katzndogz

The liberal pathology is that we have moved beyond wanting to be a free people.  The whole notion of freedom is obsolete.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Nemo said:


> Your right to have a gun for whatever purpose exists only by law.


No...  the right exists, period.   It is protected by the constitution.

Beyond that, you're simply repeating issues that I've already addressed.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Katzndogz said:


> The liberal pathology is that we have moved beyond wanting to be a free people.  The whole notion of freedom is obsolete.


They believe the state shoud have a monopoly on force and recognize that an armed citizenry gets in the way of that.


----------



## nodoginnafight

Lakhota said:


> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
Click to expand...




> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."


I personally disagree.


> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous,"


I disagree again. The text seems clear enough to me. The right of an individual to own a firearm is secured.


> The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly


I agree


----------



## Nemo

Under the Constitution there can be no extra-legal rights, period.  There are no God-given rights, no inherent rights, no natural rights, no unalienable rights; there are only legal rights.  There are no rights without law, no rights contrary to law, no rights superior to law.  That's the way it is, the way it must be, and no other way.  Get used to it.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Nemo said:


> Under the Constitution there can be no extra-legal rights, period.  There are no God-given rights, no inherent rights, no natural rights, no unalienable rights; there are only legal rights.  There are no rights without law, no rights contrary to law, no rights superior to law.  That's the way it is, the way it must be, and no other way.  Get used to it.


Incorrect.
All rights - life, liberty, property, self-determination and the derivatives thereof - pre-exist government, and are therefore do not depend on government for their existence.  This is illustrated by the fact that nowhere in our system of government or law are these rights granted to us.


----------



## Little-Acorn

Nemo said:


> Under the Constitution there can be no extra-legal rights, period.  There are no God-given rights, no inherent rights, no natural rights, no unalienable rights; there are only legal rights.  There are no rights without law, no rights contrary to law, no rights superior to law.  That's the way it is, the way it must be, and no other way.  Get used to it.



There are rights without law.

There is merely no ENFORCEMENT BY SOCIETY without law.

Without law, you're on your own for defending your rights. But that doesn't mean you don't have any.

It's always fun to see the leftist fanatics twist themselves into strange pretzel shapes, trying to follow their own philosophy to its "logical" conclusion, also known as "reductio ad absurdum", such as "there are no rights without law". 

Won't be long before they decide that, since law protects life, there is no life without law.  

.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Little-Acorn said:


> Nemo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Under the Constitution there can be no extra-legal rights, period.  There are no God-given rights, no inherent rights, no natural rights, no unalienable rights; there are only legal rights.  There are no rights without law, no rights contrary to law, no rights superior to law.  That's the way it is, the way it must be, and no other way.  Get used to it.
> 
> 
> 
> There are rights without law.
> There is merely no ENFORCEMENT BY SOCIETY without law.
> Without law, you're on your own for defending your rights. But that doesn't mean you don't have any.
Click to expand...

Indeed.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.


----------



## Nemo

The Declaration of Independence is not authority for anything.  The Declaration of Independence is not a foundational document.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Nemo said:


> The Declaration of Independence is not authority for anything.  The Declaration of Independence is not a foundational document.


Fact:
All rights - life, liberty, property, self-determination and the derivatives thereof - pre-exist government, and are therefore do not depend on government for their existence. 
This is illustrated by the fact that nowhere in our system of government or law are these rights granted to us. 

Fact:
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.


----------



## koshergrl

Nemo said:


> The Declaration of Independence is not authority for anything. The Declaration of Independence is not a foundational document.


 
I love how progressive nutbags work overtime to overthrow our government by revising history.


----------



## Nemo

No.  It is the Cato Institute that is revising history.  Contrary to popular belief, the Declaration of Independence was not a foundational document; it was a declaration of our independence from the colonial rule by the English Monarchy, and an act of war. It was also, idealistically, a pretty piece of propaganda! Likewise, it may come as a surprise (even a shock) for some to learn that Thomas Jefferson&#8217;s ideas about natural rights were not adopted by the framers of our Constitution. (Jefferson was not a framer of the Constitution.  He was serving as Ambassador to France at the time of the Constitutional Convention; and except for his correspondence with some of the delegates, what resulted was largely the work of James Madison. Even his draft Constitution and Declaration of Rights for Virginia was rejected in favor of the model of George Mason.)  Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed . . . ." The framework of our government, however, did not incorporate the ideals expressed by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. The intoxicating ideas of Rousseau and Locke that Jefferson so admired, and that inspired our revolution (and that of France as well), gave way to a more sober expression of our rights and freedoms in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The framers of our Constitution created a nation of laws and not men; which represents a compromise between the rights of individuals and the power of the state. All men are not created equal, they are equal under the law; and the rights to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" are not unalienable, they are subject to law. In this compromise - this social contract that is our Constitution - rests the security for our individual rights and liberty.


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez

Nemo said:


> Under the Constitution there can be no extra-legal rights, period.  There are no God-given rights, no inherent rights, no natural rights, no unalienable rights; there are only legal rights.  There are no rights without law, no rights contrary to law, no rights superior to law.  That's the way it is, the way it must be, and no other way.  Get used to it.



*I have a friend who is a civil rights attorney who has won many cases before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and he would agree with you 100%.  You are spot on.*


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez

Nemo said:


> No.  It is the Cato Institute that is revising history.  Contrary to popular belief, the Declaration of Independence was not a foundational document; it was a declaration of our independence from the colonial rule by the English Monarchy, and an act of war. It was also, idealistically, a pretty piece of propaganda! Likewise, it may come as a surprise (even a shock) for some to learn that Thomas Jeffersons ideas about natural rights were not adopted by the framers of our Constitution. (Jefferson was not a framer of the Constitution.  He was serving as Ambassador to France at the time of the Constitutional Convention; and except for his correspondence with some of the delegates, what resulted was largely the work of James Madison. Even his draft Constitution and Declaration of Rights for Virginia was rejected in favor of the model of George Mason.)  Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed . . . ." The framework of our government, however, did not incorporate the ideals expressed by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. The intoxicating ideas of Rousseau and Locke that Jefferson so admired, and that inspired our revolution (and that of France as well), gave way to a more sober expression of our rights and freedoms in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The framers of our Constitution created a nation of laws and not men; which represents a compromise between the rights of individuals and the power of the state.* All men are not created equal, they are equal under the law; and the rights to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" are not unalienable, they are subject to law. In this compromise - this social contract that is our Constitution - rests the security for our individual rights and liberty.*




*Spot on! *


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez

koshergrl said:


> Nemo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Declaration of Independence is not authority for anything. The Declaration of Independence is not a foundational document.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love how progressive nutbags work overtime to overthrow our government by revising history.
Click to expand...


*Yes, but he or she happens to be a correct progressive nutbag.  

He or she has not "revised history".  He or she has a legal understanding of the Constitution rather than an emotional one.  *


----------



## earlycuyler

Lakhota said:


> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
Click to expand...



I believe in the right to arm Bears.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Nemo said:


> No.  It is the Cato Institute that is revising history.  Contrary to popular belief, the Declaration of Independence was not a foundational document; it was a declaration of our independence from the colonial rule by the English Monarchy, and an act of war. It was also, idealistically, a pretty piece of propaganda! Likewise, it may come as a surprise (even a shock) for some to learn that Thomas Jeffersons ideas about natural rights were not adopted by the framers of our Constitution. (Jefferson was not a framer of the Constitution.  He was serving as Ambassador to France at the time of the Constitutional Convention; and except for his correspondence with some of the delegates, what resulted was largely the work of James Madison. Even his draft Constitution and Declaration of Rights for Virginia was rejected in favor of the model of George Mason.)  Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed . . . ." The framework of our government, however, did not incorporate the ideals expressed by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. The intoxicating ideas of Rousseau and Locke that Jefferson so admired, and that inspired our revolution (and that of France as well), gave way to a more sober expression of our rights and freedoms in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The framers of our Constitution created a nation of laws and not men; which represents a compromise between the rights of individuals and the power of the state. All men are not created equal, they are equal under the law; and the rights to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" are not unalienable, they are subject to law. In this compromise - this social contract that is our Constitution - rests the security for our individual rights and liberty.


Fact:
All rights - life, liberty, property, self-determination and the derivatives thereof - pre-exist government, and are therefore do not depend on government for their existence. 
This is illustrated by the fact that nowhere in our system of government or law are these rights granted to us. 

Fact:
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.


----------



## Nemo

No, there are no natural rights.  The problem with the concept of natural rights is that it is egocentric; i.e., it places the individual in the center of importance.  It assumes, falsely, that man, as Locke espoused, has certain inherent rights; or, as Jefferson phrased it, unalienable rights.  However, that is not how things are ordered. There are no inherent rights; there are no unalienable rights; there are only legal rights.  The words &#8220;inherent&#8221; and &#8220;unalienable&#8221; do not appear anywhere in the Constitution.  The framers of the Constitution created a nation of laws and not men. It is the recognition, from the time of Magna Carta to this day, that no person can be above the law; for it is not the individual that is sovereign, it is the law.  To say that one has a right to anything need must admit that such right exists by law.  Indeed, there is nothing in the varied course of human events, from the moment of life&#8217;s conception to the final disposition of one&#8217;s mortal remains and property after death, that is not governed by law.  Natural rights are a fiction - a philosophical construct - airy nothings.  Real rights are legal rights; rights that are provided and protected by law.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Nemo said:


> No, there are no natural rights.


All rights - life, liberty, property, self-determination and the derivatives thereof - pre-exist government, and are therefore do not depend on government for their existence.   This is illustrated by the fact that nowhere in our system of government or law are these rights granted to us. 
Disagree?
Cite the text of the constitution or law that grants us the rights so mentioned.


----------



## Nemo

No.  You cite one right that is not subject to law.  You can't because there are none - not one.  All rights exist only by law - even unto the very air we breathe.  Get used to it.


----------



## buckeye45_73

Nemo said:


> No. You cite one right that is not subject to law. You can't because there are none - not one. All rights exist only by law - even unto the very air we breathe. Get used to it.


 

Ah a true atheise/marxist....nice.....well thank you for allowing us our rights...we appreciate that.......Stalin and Hitler love you


----------



## buckeye45_73

Nemo said:


> No, there are no natural rights. The problem with the concept of natural rights is that it is egocentric; i.e., it places the individual in the center of importance. It assumes, falsely, that man, as Locke espoused, has certain inherent rights; or, as Jefferson phrased it, unalienable rights. However, that is not how things are ordered. There are no inherent rights; there are no unalienable rights; there are only legal rights. The words inherent and unalienable do not appear anywhere in the Constitution. The framers of the Constitution created a nation of laws and not men. It is the recognition, from the time of Magna Carta to this day, that no person can be above the law; for it is not the individual that is sovereign, it is the law. To say that one has a right to anything need must admit that such right exists by law. Indeed, there is nothing in the varied course of human events, from the moment of lifes conception to the final disposition of ones mortal remains and property after death, that is not governed by law. Natural rights are a fiction - a philosophical construct - airy nothings. Real rights are legal rights; rights that are provided and protected by law.


 
yeah they were in the declaration, which along with the federalist papers, has as much weight in the US as the constitution.....wow......I knew liberals hated the constitution, but the declaration too? and I'm sure you dont even know what the Federalist Papers are.


----------



## Nemo

Happily, our rights are secure by law, and not such men.


----------



## Nemo

I am not a liberal.  I am a founding member of the Federalist Society.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Nemo said:


> No.  You cite one right that is not subject to law.  You can't because there are none - not one.  All rights exist only by law - even unto the very air we breathe.  Get used to it.


I accept your conession of the point, that you indeed cannot cite the text where the constitution, or the law that stems from it, grants us the rights so mentioned.

Absent those citations of grant, it is impossible to soundly argue against the fact that these rights pre-exist government, are not dependant on government for their existence, and would continue to exist should the government somehow suddenly disappear.

Unless you can show -- that is, cite the text - where the government specifically granted the rights so mentioned, you donlt have a leg to stand on.


----------



## Nemo

No, it is implicit in the Constitution that our rights are derived by law; which is the prerogative of the legislative power, and enforced by the executive and judicial powers.  It is the law that provides our rights; it is the law that protects our rights.  To say that you have extra-legal rights is simple nonsense.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Nemo said:


> No, it is implicit in the Constitution...


If you cannot provide a cite, you have no argument.
Nothing you can say or do will ever change that.


----------



## Nemo

You have not stated a single right that is not subject to law.  You have no support for your position.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Nemo said:


> You have not stated a single right that is not subject to law.  You have no support for your position.


We both understand that you know you cannot cite the text where the constitution, or the law that stems from it, grants us the rights to life, liberty, property, self-detemination and all of the rights so derived, and so, we both know that you know you cannot soundly argue that government granted us the rights so mentioned.

These rights unquestionably exist.

Since these rights, which unquestionably exist, were not granted to us by the government, they then _necessarily _pre-exist government, they cannot be dependant on government for their existence, and they will continue to exist should the government somehow suddenly disappear.   Point proven.

It is impossible for you to soundly argue otherwise.


----------



## Nemo

You are living in a dream world. You will learn for yourself the true nature and source of your rights when you have need to enforce them. There is no provision in the Constitution for any imprescriptible rights of any kind.  Quoting the Bible or John Locke or Thomas Jefferson is no authority and will get you nowhere; and unless you have a legal basis for your claim of right you&#8217;re SOL. God-given rights are only good in heaven; natural rights are no good in court; and in the real world, one need have recourse to the law.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Nemo said:


> You are living in a dream world.


I understand that you are upset that your premise is unsound and that you cannot soundly argue against mine, but that's on you, not me - you CHOOSE to hang on to your unsound premise, and no one but you can force you to choose otherwise.

Fact of the matter is that unless you can cite the text that grants the rights in question, then those rights  -MUST- pre-exist government, cannot be dependant on government for their existence, and will continue to exist should the government somehow suddenly disappear. 

You don't have to like that fact, but, at this point, the only intellectually honest thing you can do is accept it.


----------



## M14 Shooter

taichiliberal said:


> _In U.S. V. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (939) the Court upheld a federal law criminalizing the shipment of a sawed-off shotgun in interstate commerce. Concluding that the "obvious purpose" of the Second Amendment was "to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of the state militia, the Court refused to strike down the law on Second Amendment grounds absent any evidence that a sawed-off shotgun had "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." The Court added that without this evidence, "we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."_


What a softball...

Had the Court, in _Miller_, believed that the Second Amendment protects only those serving in the militia, it would have been odd to examine the character of the weapon rather than simply note that the two crooks were not militiamen. You can say again and again that _Miller _did not turn on the difference between muskets and sawed-off shotguns, it turned, rather, on the basic difference between the military and nonmilitary use and possession of guns, but the words of the opinion prove otherwise. 

The most you can plausibly claim for Miller is that it declined to decide the nature of the Second Amendment right, despite the Solicitor Generals argument (made in the alternative) that the right was collective. Thus, Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons.



> Bottom line: if the NRA flunkies REALLY are into the Constitution to justify gun ownership, then they would have to JOIN A MILITIA...which is currently in the form of the NATIONAL GUARD....and abide by their rules.  I don't think they could or want to do that.


Bottom line:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez

M14 Shooter said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> _In U.S. V. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (939) the Court upheld a federal law criminalizing the shipment of a sawed-off shotgun in interstate commerce. Concluding that the "obvious purpose" of the Second Amendment was "to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of the state militia, the Court refused to strike down the law on Second Amendment grounds absent any evidence that a sawed-off shotgun had "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." The Court added that without this evidence, "we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."_
> 
> 
> 
> What a softball...
> 
> Had the Court, in _Miller_, believed that the Second Amendment protects only those serving in the militia, it would have been odd to examine the character of the weapon rather than simply note that the two crooks were not militiamen. You can say again and again that _Miller _did not turn on the difference between muskets and sawed-off shotguns, it turned, rather, on the basic difference between the military and nonmilitary use and possession of guns, but the words of the opinion prove otherwise.
> 
> The most you can plausibly claim for Miller is that it declined to decide the nature of the Second Amendment right, despite the Solicitor Generals argument (made in the alternative) that the right was collective. Thus, Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bottom line: if the NRA flunkies REALLY are into the Constitution to justify gun ownership, then they would have to JOIN A MILITIA...which is currently in the form of the NATIONAL GUARD....and abide by their rules.  I don't think they could or want to do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bottom line:
> The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
Click to expand...



*Then why the language of a "well regulated militia" at all if it means nothing?
Sorry, Nemo wins.*


----------



## M14 Shooter

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> _In U.S. V. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (939) the Court upheld a federal law criminalizing the shipment of a sawed-off shotgun in interstate commerce. Concluding that the "obvious purpose" of the Second Amendment was "to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of the state militia, the Court refused to strike down the law on Second Amendment grounds absent any evidence that a sawed-off shotgun had "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." The Court added that without this evidence, "we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."_
> 
> 
> 
> What a softball...
> 
> Had the Court, in _Miller_, believed that the Second Amendment protects only those serving in the militia, it would have been odd to examine the character of the weapon rather than simply note that the two crooks were not militiamen. You can say again and again that _Miller _did not turn on the difference between muskets and sawed-off shotguns, it turned, rather, on the basic difference between the military and nonmilitary use and possession of guns, but the words of the opinion prove otherwise.
> 
> The most you can plausibly claim for Miller is that it declined to decide the nature of the Second Amendment right, despite the Solicitor Generals argument (made in the alternative) that the right was collective. Thus, Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bottom line: if the NRA flunkies REALLY are into the Constitution to justify gun ownership, then they would have to JOIN A MILITIA...which is currently in the form of the NATIONAL GUARD....and abide by their rules.  I don't think they could or want to do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bottom line:
> The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then why the language of a "well regulated militia" at all if it means nothing?
Click to expand...

Another softball.

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



> Sorry, Nemo wins.


Given that this conversation doesnt involve Nemo, that's not possible.


----------



## Little-Acorn

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> Then why the language of a "well regulated militia" at all if it means nothing?
> Sorry, Nemo wins.



The amendment means,

"Since a militia is necessary, the right of ordinary people shall not be infringed."

Even if somebody later proved that militias _weren't_ necessary, the amendment would still mean that the right shall not be infringed.

BTW, the reason that the Miller opinion came out so stilted and strange-sounding, was because _nobody showed up for the defense._

That's right. One side of the courtroom was completely empty. Defendent Miller wasn't there, his lawyer wasn't there, no defense team, no Friends of the Court, no nothing.  Only the government lawyers for the prosecution were there.

Those govt lawyers took advantage of the incredible windfall, and read a number of flat lies into the record. Including such fibs as "The 2nd amendment only protects military-style weapons", and "Miller's shotgun is nothing like the weapons used in the military", and "You have to be in a military organization to be protected by the 2nd amendment".

The justices rubber-stamped those lies into an Opinion of the Court, since nobody came forward to refute them, and it stands to this day. And the Govt has been VERY careful to never, ever revisit that case.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Little-Acorn said:


> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why the language of a "well regulated militia" at all if it means nothing?
> Sorry, Nemo wins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The amendment means,
> 
> "Since a militia is necessary, the right of ordinary people shall not be infringed."
> 
> Even if somebody later proved that militias _weren't_ necessary, the amendment would still mean that the right shall not be infringed.
> 
> BTW, the reason that the Miller opinion came out so stilted and strange-sounding, was because _nobody showed up for the defense._
> 
> That's right. One side of the courtroom was completely empty. Defendent Miller wasn't there, his lawyer wasn't there, no defense team, no Friends of the Court, no nothing.  Only the government lawyers for the prosecution were there.
> 
> Those govt lawyers took advantage of the incredible windfall, and read a number of flat lies into the record. Including such fibs as "The 2nd amendment only protects military-style weapons", and "Miller's shotgun is nothing like the weapons used in the military", and "You have to be in a military organization to be protected by the 2nd amendment".
> 
> The justices rubber-stamped those lies into an Opinion of the Court, since nobody came forward to refute them, and it stands to this day. And the Govt has been VERY careful to never, ever revisit that case.
Click to expand...

In all reality, with the situation you describe, above, they got _Miller _right.

The essence of _Miiler _is that if you can show that a given weapon, particularly a fiream, is of a kind that would be effective for service in the militia, and part of the ordinary military equipment in common use at the time, the 2nd protects it.

That's a particularly borad stroke, which _Heller _then widened by also including weapons in common use for the traditionally lawful purposes one might have for a firearm.


----------



## legaleagle_45

Nemo said:


> You are living in a dream world. You will learn for yourself the true nature and source of your rights when you have need to enforce them. There is no provision in the Constitution for any imprescriptible rights of any kind.



Incorrect.  Obviously you are unfamiliar with what exactly is an "unalienable right".  It has its origin in the social compact theory pf government... that governments are formed among men and derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.   So why is that important?  There are certain things which humans have no power or control over and thus have no capacity to give consent to government to curtail.  As such, they are "unalienable".  That the Constitutiopn is based upon the social compact theory is quite evident..



> We the People of the United States..do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.





Nemo said:


> Quoting the Bible or John Locke or Thomas Jefferson is no authority and will get you nowhere; and unless you have a legal basis for your claim of right youre SOL. God-given rights are only good in heaven; natural rights are no good in court; and in the real world, one need have recourse to the law.



Your primary problem is that you somehow believe that it is imppossible to violate an unalienabvle right.  Or that government protection of unalienable rights somehow converts them into something else...  However, that is clearly not the case:



> ...that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.  That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,



We form governments to secure these rights, not to create them.  "Life liberty and property" found in the 5th and 14th Amendment is basically plagerized from John Locke's 2 Treastises...



> The aim of such a legitimate government is to preserve, so far as possible, the rights to life, liberty, health  and property...  An illegitimate government will fail to protect those rights ... [and] a despotic government asserts the power to defeat those rights.



Natural Law Philosophy is a philosophy and you need not adopt that philosphy and you may deny its accuracy and you are free to reject same.  Some would say you have an unalienable right to believe what you belioeve and that no law which prohibits you from disbelieveing in unalienable rights will be obeyed.  However, what is not in dispute, and never has been in dispute by any legitimate legal scholar, is that the basis of our government is founded upon Natural Law Philosphy, the Social Compact and the concept of unalinable rights.  As such, our government is constrained accordingly.  

I find it interesting that many liberals disclaim the Natural law theory as it is considered the foundation of modern liberal thought.  Perhaps because of the phrase "god given rights?"?  I assure you that natural law philosophy works equally well in a Darwinian universe.  I also find it interesting that the political philosophy that it displaced is quite close to what you seem to be espousing.  I refer, of course, to the "Divine Right of Kings" which holds that government power is supreme and can do anything it pleases subject only to the intervention of God.  Of course you throw out God and basically make the power of government unlimited.  It can do no wrong because it makes the rules unconstrained by anything or anyone... it can do anything it wants to.  

I personally do not like that philosophy because it makes Nazi Germany no better or no worse than any other government.  I can not say what they did was wrong, because, under that theory, nothing a government does is wrong. However with Natural Law philosophy no such problem arises.  Nazi Germany was despotic as they asserted the power to defeat the unalienable rights of people by herding them into gas chambers to be murdered and that was wrong... period.


----------



## legaleagle_45

Nemo said:


> The Declaration of Independence is not authority for anything.  The Declaration of Independence is not a foundational document.



SCOTUS disagrees with you and has disagreed with you for a looong time.  You should write them and tell them of their error.  Here is where to mail them a letter:



> Supreme Court of the United States
> 1 First Street, NE
> Washington, DC 20543



Or you can call them here: 



> Telephone:202-479-3000
> TTY:202-479-3472
> (Available M-F 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. eastern)



I am sure they will be so impressed with your scholarly credentials that they will revise all of their previous rulings which employed the Declaration of Independence as a source of substantive law right away.  They can start with their error in _Inglis v. Trustees of Sailors Snug Harbor,_ 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) 99, 121 (1830) and then correct the mistakes made in _Boyd v. Nebraska ex rel. Thayer_, 143 U.S. 135, 163 (1892) and _United States v. Ritchie, _58 U.S. (17 How.) 525, 539-40 (1854).

Did you know that one of the wars declared by the the United States Congress under the authority of our present Constitution involved, in part, the US insistance that the Declaration of Independence had substantive legal effect? Too bad it is kinda late for you to disabuse them of their error.


----------



## legaleagle_45

taichiliberal said:


> _In U.S. V. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (939) the Court upheld a federal law criminalizing the shipment of a sawed-off shotgun in interstate commerce. Concluding that the "obvious purpose" of the Second Amendment was "to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of the state militia, the Court refused to strike down the law on Second Amendment grounds absent any evidence that a sawed-off shotgun had "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." The Court added that without this evidence, "we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."_



The primary problem is that you are so lacking in historical context that you can not perceive why or how a broad based individual right to have and use arms for individual purposes serves to preserve and protect the well regulated militia much better than any other formulation which can be devised. 

The purpose is to protect a well regulated militia, the method employed is to preserve a preexisting individual right to arms for individual purposes, such as self defense.  Laurence Tribe... liberal darling of the legal scholarly arena, Famed Harvard  Constitutional Law Professor, who in his textbook used in many law schools phrased it this way:



> [The Second Amendment's] central purpose is to arm "We the People" so that ordinary citizens can participate in the collective defense of their community and their state. But it does so not through directly protecting a right on the part of states or other collectivities, assertable by them against the federal government, to arm the populace as they see fit. Rather the amendment achieves its central purpose by assuring that the federal government may not disarm individual citizens without some unusually strong justification consistent with the authority of the states to organize their own militias. That assurance in turn is provided through recognizing a right (admittedly of uncertain scope) on the part of individuals to possess and use firearms in the defense of themselves and their homes--not a right to hunt for game, quite clearly, and certainly not a right to employ firearms to commit aggressive acts against other persons--a right that directly limits action by Congress or by the Executive Branch and may well, in addition, be among the privileges or immunities of United States citizens protected by  §1 of the Fourteenth Amendment against state or local government action.


Laurence H. Tribe, 1 American Constitutional Law 902 n.221 [3d ed. 2000] .

The fact is, the individual right to arms and the duty of arms to serve in a militia are two sides of the same coin.  They grew up together.  The viability of a well regulated milita REQUIRED a populace which was well armed and familiar with the use of arms so that they could be orgasnized into a well regulated militia in an emergency.  



> [W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.


         ---Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788. 


The fact is, no other formulation of the right provides any protection whatsoever, as the government disarms the militia all the time... not allowing them to keep arms whatsoever and only allowing them to bear arms when and whre the government directs.  In fact the Feds disbanded the well regulated militia entirely at one point in our history, drafting the entire force into the regular armed forces so they could fight overseas... and took away all their supplies and equipment, lock, stock and gun barrel for use overseas.  When the states complained, the Feds said they needed to fend for themselves.


----------



## Nemo

In point of fact, the primary purpose of the Second Amendment was to protect the right of the several states to control their militias, and as a limitation of the power of the federal government over state militia&#8217;s under Article I, Section 8, Clause 15.  At the time of the ratification of the Second Amendment, there was no standing army, and there was very real concern that the Constitution ceded too much power to Congress.  See The Federalist Papers, No. 46 (James Madison, Jan. 29, 1788).  However that has been largely made obsolete by time, as the National Guard is now an adjunct component of the United States Army Reserve.   (Interestingly, an argument could be made that the deployment of State National Guard Units to Iraq and Afghanistan violates the Second  Amendment.)


----------



## legaleagle_45

Nemo said:


> In point of fact, the primary purpose of the Second Amendment was to protect the right of the several states to control their militias, and as a limitation of the power of the federal government over state militia&#8217;s under Article I, Section 8, Clause 15.



In point of fact you are obviously wrong as the 2nd Amend was drawn from the  amendments proposed by the state of Virginia.  Virginia proposed two blocks of proposed amendments  The first block was entitled 



> That there be a declaration or bill of rights  asserting, and securing from encroachment, the essential and unalienable rights of the people, in some such manner as the following: &#8212;



The 2nd block consited of structural changes to the Constitution rather than additions. 

As indicated previously, the Bill of Rights provision to protect the unalienable rights of the people contained what was to become the 2nd Amend... it also contained 



> That the people have a right peaceably to assemble together to consult for the common good, or to instruct their representatives; and that every freeman has a right to petition or apply to the legislature for redress of grievances.  That the people have a right to freedom of speech, and of writing and publishing their sentiments; that the freedom of the press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty, and ought not to be violated.


  Plus many of the other individual rights provided for in the Bill of Rights.

Now the structural changes included a provision as follows:



> That each state respectively shall have the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining its own militia, whensoever Congress shall omit or neglect to provide for the same. That the militia shall not be subject to martial law, except when in actual service, in time of war, invasion, or rebellion; and when not in the actual service of the United States, shall be subject only to such fines, penalties, and punishments, as shall be directed or inflicted by the laws of its own state.



So unless you wish to violate every rule of statutory construction known to man, and wish to argue that Virginia passed two distinct amendments which mean exactly the same thing, then you would be wrong...  

Further, when Madison introduced his draft of the Bill of Rights to the 1st Congress on June 8, 1789, his proposal was to amend the constitution by interliniation rather than by addendum... In other words, insert the amendments in the body of the constitution in the appropriate place where they belonged rather than sticking them in a single document as an appendix.

Now what is interesting is that Madison lumped the 1st , 2nd, 3rd, 4th and some of the 5th all together and were to be inserted "in article 1st, section 9, between clauses 3 and 4" --or just following the protections of  the Writ of Habeas Corpus and the prohibitions against Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Laws... He lumped much of the trial by jury and rights of the accused in Article III relating to the judiciary. and the 10 Amend was to be placed in a brand new VII Article.  

Now if you were correct, Madison would have placed the 2nd Amend not with other individual rights but either:
1.) Right around, or within Article I, Sec 8, Cl 15-16; or,
2.) In that brand new Article VII...(it relating to a power reserved to the states)

He did neither, he lumped it together with other individual rights in a portion of the constitution which was preserving individual rights. 

Another factor which proves you wrong is the notes to Madison's speech to the 1st Congress introducing the Bill of Rights.  What Madison states is that his version of the 2nd is superior than the one found in the English Bill of Rights because it was not "just for protestants only" and was not subject t a "mere act of parliament"... and of course, as everyone knows the right to arms found in the English Bill of Rights was then recoginized as an individual right ..



> the mere having a gun was no offense . . . for a man may keep a gun for the defense of his house and family .


 _Mallock v. Eastley_, 87 Eng. Rep. 1370, 1374 (K.B. 1744).  Se also, _Rex v. Gardner_, 87 Eng. Rep. 1240, 1241 (K.B.1739); _Wingfield v. Stratford_, 96 Eng. Rep. 787 (K.B. 1752); accord, _The King v. Thompson_, 100 Eng. Rep. 10, 12 (K.B. 1787) (it is &#8220;not an offence to keep or use a gun&#8221, and _Rex v. Hartley_, II Chitty 1178, 1183 (1782) (&#8220;a gun may be used for other purposes, as the protection of a man's house.&#8221.



Nemo said:


> However that has been largely made obsolete by time, as the National Guard is now an adjunct component of the United States Army Reserve.



Irrelevant even if true, if you feel the 2nd is obsolete, you should repeal it.  Until you repeal it, you can not ignore it.



Nemo said:


> Interestingly, an argument could be made that the deployment of State National Guard Units to Iraq and Afghanistan violates the Second Amendment.)



Obviously, you are unfamiliar with a unanimous decision of SCOTUS authored by Stevens and entitled Perpich v Dept of Defense.  Nor do you seem to know anything about the dual enlistment clause or the existence of state defense forces authorized by 32 USC 109(c).  When you have read that, get back to me with any questions.


----------



## RandallFlagg

Two Thumbs said:


> well congrats to all the liberals here.
> 
> The people that claim to be the authors of the Constitution
> 
> In openly admitting that freedom is so passe.
> 
> 
> thank you for your honesty




Remember that liberals believe that you're free in America. As long as THEY approve of it.

I detest liberals.


----------



## Rct_Tsoul

You have the right to bear arms, so that you can work and make a living.
eg. Lets say a wealthy person wanted to make an example out of you for talking some shit.
He can't chop off your arms because you have the right to bear arms, instead, he can chop off your hands at the base of the wrist, thus preserving the arm, thus the right to bear arms.
It doesn't say anything about modern firearms or sophisticated weaponry.
The Bill of Rights .......... misread it is ..............


----------



## Quantum Windbag

BreezeWood said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> you can chose either:* A well regulated Militia,* or *being necessary to the security of a free State,* ...
> 
> 
> my choice: *"being necessary to the security of a free State,"*
> 
> 
> you know, gunlovers running around blowing away anyone or anything they disagree with .... at least by one bolt - leaver action at a time and reloading as they go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The solution is to require all public firearms to be lever or bolt action per round with non detachable magazines ... "being necessary to the security of a free State,"
> 
> not a contradiction - "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Click to expand...


How do lever or bolt action rifles contribute to the security of a free state? Is there something wrong with rifles that use revolving actions that makes them especially dangerous to free states? Is it remotely possible you don't know what you are talking about?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Nemo said:


> The Second Amendment does not grant any rights.  See _United States v. Cruikshank_, 92 U.S. 542 (1875).  The prohibition against infringement does not preclude regulation.  Whatever rights that are secured under the Second Amendment, whether individual or collective, are nevertheless subject to law; which is to say that they are not unlimited, much less absolute.  American gun owners shall soon find themselves the more well regulated.



All rights are absolute, governments just don't want you to understand that.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Nemo said:


> Under the Constitution there can be no extra-legal rights, period.  There are no God-given rights, no inherent rights, no natural rights, no unalienable rights; there are only legal rights.  There are no rights without law, no rights contrary to law, no rights superior to law.  That's the way it is, the way it must be, and no other way.  Get used to it.



You are so full of shit you should be in the Guinness Book of World Records.

If there are no extra legal rights how do you explain privacy?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> Nemo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Under the Constitution there can be no extra-legal rights, period.  There are no God-given rights, no inherent rights, no natural rights, no unalienable rights; there are only legal rights.  There are no rights without law, no rights contrary to law, no rights superior to law.  That's the way it is, the way it must be, and no other way.  Get used to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I have a friend who is a civil rights attorney who has won many cases before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and he would agree with you 100%.  You are spot on.*
Click to expand...


Your alleged friend would agree that no one has a right to privacy? Can anyone tell me why I should believe that?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Nemo said:


> No, there are no natural rights.  The problem with the concept of natural rights is that it is egocentric; i.e., it places the individual in the center of importance.  It assumes, falsely, that man, as Locke espoused, has certain inherent rights; or, as Jefferson phrased it, unalienable rights.  However, that is not how things are ordered. There are no inherent rights; there are no unalienable rights; there are only legal rights.  The words inherent and unalienable do not appear anywhere in the Constitution.  The framers of the Constitution created a nation of laws and not men. It is the recognition, from the time of Magna Carta to this day, that no person can be above the law; for it is not the individual that is sovereign, it is the law.  To say that one has a right to anything need must admit that such right exists by law.  Indeed, there is nothing in the varied course of human events, from the moment of lifes conception to the final disposition of ones mortal remains and property after death, that is not governed by law.  Natural rights are a fiction - a philosophical construct - airy nothings.  Real rights are legal rights; rights that are provided and protected by law.



I can demonstrate natural rights outside of human society, what does that do to your premise?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Nemo said:


> No.  You cite one right that is not subject to law.  You can't because there are none - not one.  All rights exist only by law - even unto the very air we breathe.  Get used to it.



If we accept that premise there can be no moral justification for fighting against the legal infringement of rights.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Nemo said:


> I am not a liberal.  I am a founding member of the Federalist Society.




You making donations to a club does not qualify you to comment on anything.


----------



## petro

Idiotic Quote "Guns are bad, they must be banned then confiscated from the general public."

Again blame the object and not the individual. 

Reality...
Guns will NEVER be banned in free America. Accept that or move to a country more to your way of thinking...such as China or any tyrannical society where you can feel safe.

Confiscation? Good luck with that one... To quote Charlton Heston..."Out of my cold dead hands"


----------



## legaleagle_45

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> *I have a friend who is a civil rights attorney who has won many cases before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and he would agree with you 100%.  You are spot on.*



Not a very good civil rights attorney because s/he is obvioulsly unfamilar with the one of the most important rulings by SCOTUS:



> We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.



Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Nemo said:


> No, it is implicit in the Constitution that our rights are derived by law; which is the prerogative of the legislative power, and enforced by the executive and judicial powers.  It is the law that provides our rights; it is the law that protects our rights.  To say that you have extra-legal rights is simple nonsense.



It is? Which part?


----------



## legaleagle_45

Rct_Tsoul said:


> You have the right to bear arms, so that you can work and make a living.
> eg. Lets say a wealthy person wanted to make an example out of you for talking some shit.
> He can't chop off your arms because you have the right to bear arms, instead, he can chop off your hands at the base of the wrist, thus preserving the arm, thus the right to bear arms.
> It doesn't say anything about modern firearms or sophisticated weaponry.
> The Bill of Rights .......... misread it is ..............



You have the right to prevent the government from using your house to cut soldiers into 4 equal pieces.  However, and just to make sure you do not do anything unlawful, we are going to have two soldiers live in your home, rent free.  You can clear out of the master bedroom tomorrow.


----------



## Little-Acorn

Nemo said:


> The Declaration of Independence is not authority for anything.  The Declaration of Independence is not a foundational document.



Wow.

You'll tell any lie to support your failed aganda, won't you?

The DOI is the first law ever passed in the United States of America.

It remains as valid today as any law that has been passed since.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Nemo said:


> You have not stated a single right that is not subject to law.  You have no support for your position.



Hate to point out the obvious, but you cannot actually point out a right that is subject to law. The reason for that, believe it or not, is because rights are not under the authority of law. In fact, under US law, people are not actually subject to the authority of law. The government cannot tell me where or when to travel, and cannot even tell me not to travel. They can't even force me to leave an area if there is a massive storm coming, all they can do is advise me to do so. 

Maybe you should pull your head out of your ass.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> _In U.S. V. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (939) the Court upheld a federal law criminalizing the shipment of a sawed-off shotgun in interstate commerce. Concluding that the "obvious purpose" of the Second Amendment was "to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of the state militia, the Court refused to strike down the law on Second Amendment grounds absent any evidence that a sawed-off shotgun had "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." The Court added that without this evidence, "we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."_
> 
> 
> 
> What a softball...
> 
> Had the Court, in _Miller_, believed that the Second Amendment protects only those serving in the militia, it would have been odd to examine the character of the weapon rather than simply note that the two crooks were not militiamen. You can say again and again that _Miller _did not turn on the difference between muskets and sawed-off shotguns, it turned, rather, on the basic difference between the military and nonmilitary use and possession of guns, but the words of the opinion prove otherwise.
> 
> The most you can plausibly claim for Miller is that it declined to decide the nature of the Second Amendment right, despite the Solicitor Generals argument (made in the alternative) that the right was collective. Thus, Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bottom line: if the NRA flunkies REALLY are into the Constitution to justify gun ownership, then they would have to JOIN A MILITIA...which is currently in the form of the NATIONAL GUARD....and abide by their rules.  I don't think they could or want to do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bottom line:
> The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Then why the language of a "well regulated militia" at all if it means nothing?
> Sorry, Nemo wins.*
Click to expand...


He wins because you don't know what something means?


----------



## Little-Acorn

M14 Shooter said:


> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The amendment means,
> 
> "Since a militia is necessary, the right of ordinary people shall not be infringed."
> 
> Even if somebody later proved that militias _weren't_ necessary, the amendment would still mean that the right shall not be infringed.
> 
> BTW, the reason that the Miller opinion came out so stilted and strange-sounding, was because _nobody showed up for the defense._
> 
> That's right. One side of the courtroom was completely empty. Defendent Miller wasn't there, his lawyer wasn't there, no defense team, no Friends of the Court, no nothing.  Only the government lawyers for the prosecution were there.
> 
> Those govt lawyers took advantage of the incredible windfall, and read a number of flat lies into the record. Including such fibs as "The 2nd amendment only protects military-style weapons", and "Miller's shotgun is nothing like the weapons used in the military", and "You have to be in a military organization to be protected by the 2nd amendment".
> 
> The justices rubber-stamped those lies into an Opinion of the Court, since nobody came forward to refute them, and it stands to this day. And the Govt has been VERY careful to never, ever revisit that case.
> 
> 
> 
> In all reality, with the situation you describe, above, they got _Miller _right.
Click to expand...

Not even close.



> The essence of _Miiler _is that if you can show that a given weapon, particularly a fiream, is of a kind that would be effective for service in the militia, and part of the ordinary military equipment in common use at the time, the 2nd protects it.


_Miller_ did indeed say that.

But if you can show that a given weapon is NOT of a kind that would be effective for service in the militia, the 2nd amendment would protect that one too, anyway. _Miller_ disagrees with this fact... which is why the Supremes got _Miller_ wrong.

The 2nd amendment makes no exceptions for weapons not useable in a militia, or weapons not in "common usage", or weapons that are painted pink. The 2nd amendment doesn't even mention such circumstances. It sinple says that the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. And it gives a reason... but the reason is unnecessary.

The 2nd says that no government can restrict the private ownership or useage of weapons. Period.


----------



## Little-Acorn

BTW, one of the funniest things about the paranoid gun-haters and the US v. Miller case, is that although _Miller_ clearly said that weapons like those used in the military are protected... those are exactly the weapons the gun-haters keep trying to ban! M-16s, AK-47s, etc., particularly the full-auto ones. 

Those are used VERY commonly by individuals in the military, all over the world, and have been for generations. But the paranoid gun-haters will scream bloody murder and try to enact "assault weapons bans" right and left if you even THINK about buying or carrying one... despite the fact that their favorite Supreme Court 2nd amendment case said flatly they are protected!

Listenening to these fruitcakes insist they want to obey the Supreme Court and the 2nd amendment, is a hilarious interlude a times.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Nemo said:


> In point of fact, the primary purpose of the Second Amendment was to protect the right of the several states to control their militias,


There is absolutely no compelling evidence to back this claim.


----------



## legaleagle_45

Little-Acorn said:


> _Miller_ did indeed say that.
> 
> But if you can show that a given weapon is NOT of a kind that would be effective for service in the militia, the 2nd amendment would protect that one too, anyway. _Miller_ disagrees with this fact... which is why the Supremes got _Miller_ wrong.
> 
> The 2nd amendment makes no exceptions for weapons not useable in a militia, or weapons not in "common usage", or weapons that are painted pink. The 2nd amendment doesn't even mention such circumstances. It sinple says that the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. And it gives a reason... but the reason is unnecessary.
> 
> The 2nd says that no government can restrict the private ownership or useage of weapons. Period.



I tend to agree with your analysis.  _Miller_ relied upon _Aymette v. State_, 21 Tenn. (2 Hump.) 154 (1840).  I have less problem with _Aymette_ than with _Miller.  __Miller_ altered the test adopted in _Aymette_ from one carving out a limited exception for those weapons  "which are efficient only in the hands of the robber and the assassin" to a general military usefull standard.


----------



## petro

Take the OP's flawed logic a step further and argue that the First Amendment is obsolete as the Founding Fathers never accounted for the development of worldwide instant media, the protection of pornography, and disgusting violent imagery in movies and games.  I am quite sure that they would be shocked by what they would see in the media today as the "intention" was to protect an INDIVIDUALS right to politically speak out against the government and practice religion. 

The Bill of Rights are individual rights and you can't pick and chose which apply to the modern world. So no Amendment is obsolete. 

Our society should be more focused on the WHY of increased violence in the last couple of decades. Perhaps, the lack of personal responsibility, the violent imagery, a PC culture, broken mental health system would be a few places to start. 

Easier for Libtards to blame a gun than admit being wrong.


----------



## petro

Take the OP's flawed logic a step further and argue that the First Amendment is obsolete as the Founding Fathers never accounted for the development of worldwide instant media, the protection of pornography, and disgusting violent imagery in movies and games.  I am quite sure that they would be shocked by what they would see in the media today as the "intention" was to protect an INDIVIDUALS right to politically speak out against the government and practice religion. 

The Bill of Rights are individual rights and you can't pick and chose which apply to the modern world. So no Amendment is obsolete. 

Our society should be more focused on the WHY of increased violence in the last couple of decades. Perhaps, the lack of personal responsibility, the violent imagery, a PC culture, broken mental health system would be a few places to start. 

Easier for Libtards to blame a gun than admit being wrong.


----------



## BreezeWood

Quantum Windbag said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The solution is to require all public firearms to be lever or bolt action per round with non detachable magazines ... "being necessary to the security of a free State,"
> 
> not a contradiction - "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *How do lever or bolt action rifles contribute to the security of a free state?* Is there something wrong with rifles that use revolving actions that makes them especially dangerous to free states? Is it remotely possible you don't know what you are talking about?
Click to expand...




> Amendment _
> 
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; *or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,* and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. _


_



*How do lever or bolt action rifles contribute to the security of a free state?*

by preventing the use of firearms as a threat to "the right of the people peaceably to assemble". - against excessive force displayed by Firearms, when passed by the US Congress the restrictions are Constitutionally protected as "being necessary to the security of a free State,".


Edit -  *QW: How do lever or bolt action rifles ...* - not "rifles": "All Firearms" -  as bolt or lever action per round with non detachable magazines._


----------



## Little-Acorn

legaleagle_45 said:


> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Miller_ did indeed say that.
> 
> But if you can show that a given weapon is NOT of a kind that would be effective for service in the militia, the 2nd amendment would protect that one too, anyway. _Miller_ disagrees with this fact... which is why the Supremes got _Miller_ wrong.
> 
> The 2nd amendment makes no exceptions for weapons not useable in a militia, or weapons not in "common usage", or weapons that are painted pink. The 2nd amendment doesn't even mention such circumstances. It sinple says that the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. And it gives a reason... but the reason is unnecessary.
> 
> The 2nd says that no government can restrict the private ownership or usage of weapons. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I tend to agree with your analysis.  _Miller_ relied upon _Aymette v. State_, 21 Tenn. (2 Hump.) 154 (1840).  I have less problem with _Aymette_ than with _Miller.  __Miller_ altered the test adopted in _Aymette_ from one carving out a limited exception for those weapons  "which are efficient only in the hands of the robber and the assassin" to a general military usefull standard.
Click to expand...


Exceptions which, again, are found nowhere in the 2nd amendment nor anywhere else in the Consitution.

The 2nd says that no government can restrict the private ownership or usage of weapons. Period.

BTW, _Aymette_ is based on state law, not the U.S. Constitution, which trumps state law. It was an older version of the Tennessee constitution which has since been thrown out in its entirety by the people of Tennessee, and replaced. It was expressly designed to keep guns out of the hands of black people. No wonder today's Democrats keep citing it as valid.


----------



## Rct_Tsoul

All of you are failing to understand the true nature of gun confiscation, it's about cheap labor, CHEAP LABOR, and being in control of the shit, that's what it's all about.
eg. Lets say I own a factory, and I have an employee picnic. 
Employee #4671 has a wife and 2 daughters, one of them is 16 years old, AND SHE IS A HOTTIE, I then ask employee #4671 if I could spend some time alone with her.
They way things are now with this silly gun ownership & voting, I would most likely get shot in dick immediately.
I provided that man with an opportunity to raise his daughters, I should have the right to dabble in that young, untouched, hotness a little bit.
If we can all work together and get rid of gun ownership & voting, we could then abolish all lawyers & judges and put an end to shittalking once and for all.
Utopia.........


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Little-Acorn said:


> Nemo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Declaration of Independence is not authority for anything.  The Declaration of Independence is not a foundational document.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.
> 
> You'll tell any lie to support your failed aganda, won't you?
> 
> The DOI is the first law ever passed in the United States of America.
> 
> It remains as valid today as any law that has been passed since.
Click to expand...



The Declaration of Independence was a document of treason (in the eyes of the British Empire), to declare the colonies intent to break away from the rule of a tyrant and establish a new set of "ideas" of beliefs behind a new FORM of government. The Constitution took the "idea" of government ruled by the people and established it into a legal structure for the "people's" government to follow. *It is very important to note the legal document of the United States Constitution begins with "WE THE PEOPLE" establishing FIRST with utmost importance where the true authority power "allowed" to Government will always reside in, according to our Founders, never to be a government that rules OVER the people.*



*INTERPRETING THE SECOND AMENDMENT FROM THE FOUNDER'S INTENT*

*[1]*With respect to the Right to Bear Arms, the Founders concerns of seeing the birth of their newly formed government ever falling under the rule of yet another tyrant (like the one they had lived under England) was SO strong, that they established the SECOND Amendment - which makes it very significant and very important to the view of our Founding Fathers. This was the true purpose of having such an Amendment in our Constitution, after all this is to be a Republic where the people rule over the government and their leaders serve and submit to the will of the people.... not the other way around.



> The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government."
> 
> *Patrick Henry*





> "... God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and *tyrants.* It is its natural manure."
> 
> *Thomas Jefferson Papers*, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950)





> One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them.
> 
> *Thomas Jefferson to George Washington* 1796. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.





> "Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God."
> 
> *Thomas Jefferson*





> A wise and *frugal* government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, *which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement*, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned [heavy burden of excessive taxes]. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicity.
> 
> *Thomas Jefferson*, First Inaugural Address.





> "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
> 
> *Thomas Jefferson* Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776, Jefferson Papers 344.




*[2]*The 2nd Amendment was also written to utilize a concept that had been established in England under the Bill of Rights of 1689. This law, passed by the English Parliament on December 16, reestablished for the Protestants the freedom to have [bear] arms for their own defense under the rule of law. At the same time the law was called *to condemn James II of England for causing several good subjects of Protestants to be disarmed, while allowing the employment of papists to become armed contrary to the rule of law.* This would limit rights of the sovereign, and set new rights to the Parliament to include the Freedom of Speech, of holding regular elections in Parliament, as well as petitioning the Monarch without any fear of retribution. This Bill of Rights of 1689 would become one of the key factors for the later succession from the authority of the thrown, and a new form of independent elected government.

[https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Bill_of_Rights_1689.html]

This view and establishment of arms, as it relates to James II and the Protestants during his rule, is reflected through the voice of our Founders with their own dissent to be subjugated under the rule of England through the decree and use of arms.



> "When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor..."
> 
> *George Mason*, Virginia Constitution Convention





> "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. *The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as THE PEOPLE perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power*, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
> 
> *Noah Webster*, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787)




As a result of the colonists living in oppression from a government under the control of a tyrant or king, the Founders followed the example set under the Bill of Rights in 1689 to establish a Second Amendment where the people would stand free from the threat of another tyrant under their newly formed government. 

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

The Second Amendment ratified by three fourths of the state:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.




> "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...*[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.*"
> 
> *Tenche Coxe*, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.


----------



## M14 Shooter

BreezeWood said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> The solution is to require all public firearms to be lever or bolt action per round with non detachable magazines ... "being necessary to the security of a free State,"
> 
> not a contradiction - "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *How do lever or bolt action rifles contribute to the security of a free state?* Is there something wrong with rifles that use revolving actions that makes them especially dangerous to free states? Is it remotely possible you don't know what you are talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amendment _
> 
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; *or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,* and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
> 
> *How do lever or bolt action rifles contribute to the security of a free state?*
> 
> by preventing the use of firearms as a threat to "the right of the people peaceably to assemble". - against excessive force displayed by Firearms, when passed by the US Congress the restrictions are Constitutionally protected as "being necessary to the security of a free State,".
> 
> Edit -  *QW: How do lever or bolt action rifles ...* - not "rifles": "All Firearms" -  as bolt or lever action per round with non detachable magazines._
Click to expand...

_
Your argument is fully absent of logic, reason and consideration of history and jurisprudence.   There is no reason to consider it at all._


----------



## PredFan

Poor little liberal gun grabbers, bitch-slapped by the NRA again.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Little-Acorn said:


> Those govt lawyers took advantage of the incredible windfall, and read a number of flat lies into the record. Including such fibs as "The 2nd amendment only protects military-style weapons", and "Miller's shotgun is nothing like the weapons used in the military", and "You have to be in a military organization to be protected by the 2nd amendment".
> 
> The justices rubber-stamped those lies into an Opinion of the Court, since nobody came forward to refute them, and it stands to this day. And the Govt has been VERY careful to never, ever revisit that case.






Little-Acorn said:


> But if you can show that a given weapon is NOT of a kind that would be effective for service in the militia, the 2nd amendment would protect that one too, anyway. _Miller_ disagrees with this fact... which is why the Supremes got _Miller_ wrong.
> 
> The 2nd amendment makes no exceptions for weapons not useable in a militia, or weapons not in "common usage", or weapons that are painted pink. The 2nd amendment doesn't even mention such circumstances. It sinple says that the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. And it gives a reason... but the reason is unnecessary.
> 
> The 2nd says that no government can restrict the private ownership or useage of weapons. Period.



If I may add to your discussion with regard to the 2nd Amendment, you have to be careful when using the term "militia". That term often gets confused, and it was never intended to be interpreted in the form of how we view it today as "military". When you look at how the word was used in the context of the language during that period of time, you begin to uncover an entirely different interpretation. 


militia (m&#618;&#712;l&#618;&#643; &#601 

n.

1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2. a body of citizen soldiers as *distinguished from professional soldiers.*
3. all able-bodied males eligible by law for military service.
4. *a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.*
[158090; < Latin m&#299;litia soldiery =m&#299;lit-, s. of m&#299;les soldier + -ia -ia]

Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.


I hope this helps in adding some clarity to your discussion with regard to firearms, military usage, and civilian militia.


----------



## Nemo

The Constitution did not incorporate Thomas Jefferson&#8217;s ideas expressed in the Declaration of Independence; to the contrary, it was a rejection of Jeffersonian democracy in favor of a constitutional republic, which is a representative form of government providing for division of powers between three coequal branches subject to checks and balances. The framers of the Constitution created the United States as a nation of laws and not men. The overarching principle of the Constitution is the primacy of the rule of law.  No person can be above the law. Under the Constitution, our rights are provided and protected by law, not by force of arms; and government authority is exercised  through our elected representatives by vote, not by violence - by lawful process, not lawlessness.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Nemo said:


> The Constitution did not incorporate Thomas Jefferson&#8217;s ideas expressed in the Declaration of Independence; to the contrary, it was a rejection of Jeffersonian democracy in favor of a constitutional republic, which is a representative form of government providing for division of powers between three coequal branches subject to checks and balances. The framers of the Constitution created the United States as a nation of laws and not men. The overarching principle of the Constitution is the primacy of the rule of law.  No person can be above the law. Under the Constitution, our rights are provided and protected by law, not by force of arms; and government authority is exercised  through our elected representatives by vote, not by violence - by lawful process, not lawlessness.


Still waiting for you to cite where our rghts are granted to us by the government.
Until then, you haven't a leg to stand on.



> Under the Constitution, our rights are provided and protected by law, not by force of arms;



How does the government protect our rights?
Force, or the credible threat thereof.


----------



## legaleagle_45

Little-Acorn said:


> [Exceptions which, again, are found nowhere in the 2nd amendment nor anywhere else in the Consitution..



Correct, but then again, there is nothing in the Constitution that limits the 1st Amend right of freedom of religion so that human sacrafice can not be banned.   Is it your understanding that the 2nd protects a right that preexisted the Constitution?  If so, is the right protected to be understood as protecting what that preexisting right protected, and including therein such exceptions and restrictions which formed the basis of that preexisting right?  After all it is the preexisting right which "shall not be infringed", not "we are creating a brand new right that prevents governmental interfrence of any nature, kind and sort in the private ownership of weapons"



Little-Acorn said:


> [The 2nd says that no government can restrict the private ownership or usage of weapons. Period..



Incorrect.  The 2nd protects the private ownership of arms, which is a subset of weapons.



Little-Acorn said:


> [BTW, _Aymette_ is based on state law, not the U.S. Constitution, which trumps state law..



Agreed and I have some major problems with it's recitation of history, however, the problem is that_ Miller _specifically cites it as authority in the most crucial portion of their decision, thus we can not not ignore it.


----------



## legaleagle_45

Nemo said:


> The Constitution did not incorporate Thomas Jeffersons ideas expressed in the Declaration of Independence; .



Incorrect... the ideal of the social compact is expressed in the first few words of the the Constitution itself and the unalienable rights of life, liberty and property are specifically protected in the 5th amend.


----------



## Nemo

Bloomberg Law - Document - Kachalsky v. County of Westchester, 701 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2012), Court Opinion

Petition DENIED.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Nemo said:


> Bloomberg Law - Document - Kachalsky v. County of Westchester, 701 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2012), Court Opinion
> Petition DENIED.


You cannot possibly dscribe how that is meaningful in any way.


----------



## Nemo

Had you taken the time to read the decision you would know (as I told you before) that the rights secured by the Second Amendment are not unlimited, but subject to law.  Now you will see just how limited those rights can be defined.  Get used to it.


----------



## legaleagle_45

Nemo said:


> Bloomberg Law - Document - Kachalsky v. County of Westchester, 701 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2012), Court Opinion
> 
> Petition DENIED.



Moore v. Madigan

MOORE v. MADIGAN, Nos. 12?1788, 12?1269., December 11, 2012 - US 7th Circuit | FindLaw

Any questions?


----------



## legaleagle_45

Nemo said:


> Had you taken the time to read the decision you would know (as I told you before) that the rights secured by the Second Amendment are not unlimited, but subject to law.  Now you will see just how limited those rights can be defined.  Get used to it.



If you can name any person who claims that the 2nd amend is unlimited, you might have a point.  For example, I have never ever found a 2nd Amend advocate that believed that persons incarcerated in prison have the right to keep and bear arms while they are in prison, even though prisons are dangerous places.  On the other hand, people who like to trot out that strawman invariably tend to believe that "not unlimited" is equivalent to "non existent".


----------



## Nemo

The Seventh Circuit decision in _Moore v. Madigan_ is not persuasive or even binding precedent as court ordered that mandate be stayed &#8220;to allow the Illinois legislature to craft a new gun law that will impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment as interpreted in this opinion, on the carrying of guns in public.&#8221; (You can bet it will be carefully crafted and narrowly construed.)  Also, the handwriting is on the wall, as the decision was rendered prior the Supreme Court denying cert in _Kachalsky v. County of Westchester_ which involved &#8220;one of the nation&#8217;s most restrictive such laws&#8221;.


----------



## legaleagle_45

Nemo said:


> The Seventh Circuit decision in _Moore v. Madigan_ is not persuasive or even binding precedent as court ordered that mandate be stayed to allow the Illinois legislature to craft a new gun law that will impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment as interpreted in this opinion, on the carrying of guns in public.



It is in fact binding precedent.  The mandate has been stayed to allow Illinois to draft a law allowing CCW, otherwise there would be no restriction whatsoever on carrying firearms in Illinois. .. so you assertion that it is not "binding or persuasive" is totally absurd.



Nemo said:


> Also, the handwriting is on the wall, as the decision was rendered prior the Supreme Court denying cert in _Kachalsky v. County of Westchester_ which involved one of the nations most restrictive such laws.



LOL, you realize that the denial of cert has no precedential value whatsoever?  In fact most commentators were expecting that the court would deny cert there so as to take up the issue in Moore v Madigan... because while New York laws are very restrictive, Illinois did not allow it at all.  Moore v Madigan is a much cleaner case involving a single issue for review.  You do not know too much how SCOTUS operates, huh?


----------



## Nemo

Is the decision "ripe" for appeal?  No.  The handwriting is on the wall - read it.


----------



## legaleagle_45

Nemo said:


> Is the decision "ripe" for appeal?  No.  The handwriting is on the wall - read it.



Yes the decision is ripe for appeal.... next.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Nemo said:


> Had you taken the time to read the decision you would know (as I told you before) that the rights secured by the Second Amendment are not unlimited, but subject to law.  Now you will see just how limited those rights can be defined.  Get used to it.



I am supposed to ignore over 400 years of history and jurisprudence simply because you are too stupid to poor water out of your boot?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Nemo said:


> Is the decision "ripe" for appeal?  No.  The handwriting is on the wall - read it.



Is this supposed to make sense?


----------



## legaleagle_45

Quantum Windbag said:


> Nemo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is the decision "ripe" for appeal?  No.  The handwriting is on the wall - read it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this supposed to make sense?
Click to expand...


The "ripe for appeal" issue makes sense and is whether there exists a binding final decision on the merits which can be appealed to a higher court.  The answer to that issue is clearly yes, since there was already an appeal of the 7th Cir 3 judge panel decision for en banc review (where an expanded panel of 7th Circ appealate judges would hear the case).  The 7th Circ denied en banc review on Feb 22, 2013.  Illinois has 90 days from Feb 22, 2013 to file a petition for cert with SCOTUS.  They most assuredly will file a petition for cert. (or ask for an extension) within that time frame... and I would be surprised if SCOTUS did not grant cert.... Case would be heard next term which begins in October 2013.  Current term ends in the last part of June 2013 so there would be no time this term to brief it and hold oral arguments. 

The part about "handwriting on the wall" is wishfull thinking by Nemo who obviously has no idea how SCOTUS operates..


----------



## Little-Acorn

legaleagle_45 said:


> If you can name any person who claims that the 2nd amend is unlimited,



*The 2nd amendment does not say "Except as provided by law". Why not?*

The 4th amendment bans searches and seizure, but not all of them: It specifically names unreasonable searches and seizures.

The 5th amendment says that no one can be jailed or executed etc... but makes an exception: unless there is "due process of law".

Even the 13th amendment that prohibits slavery or involuntary servitude, makes an exception:"except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted."

But the 2nd amendment, which forbids government from taking away or restricting our right to keep and bear arms, is conspicuously devoid of any such language. As written, it permits NO exceptions or "reasonable restrictions". Period.

Why?

There's an important characteristic of the people's right to keep and bear arms, which might explain why the 2nd is written without qualifications. It says "Since X is so, the people's RKBA cannot be taken away or restricted." Unlike the 4th, 5th, and 13th, the 2nd does NOT say "except by due process of law". And it does NOT say "unless the person is a certain type of extreme criminal", and etc.

To make up an extreme example, suppose some guy goes into a restaurant, pulls out a gun and blows away half a dozen people. The cops show up and surround him, and one cop says, "Give me your gun right now." The guy says, "Sorry, the 2nd amendment says my right to KBA cannot be taken away or restricted, PERIOD, so you have no authority to make me give you my gun." And this with gunsmoke in the air and bodies bleeding on the floor next to him. 

Many of the people who wrote the 2nd were lawyers, and knew well the effect that certain words have when included, or omitted, from legislation. And yet they chose to omit ANY exceptions to the ban on government taking people's guns away. Strictly speaking, that would even include the extreme example I just gave: Cops can't take away the gun of a murderer at the scene of his crime.

Many people use this as the reason why the 2nd amendment MUST have been intended to implicitly allow for exceptions: It's impossible that the Framers could have intended for murderers to retain their weapons immediately after committing their murders. Yet a truly strict reading of the 2nd, forbids any govt official (including police) from taking the mass-murderer's gun.

So what could the Framers' intention have been, in omitting any exceptions?

Remember that it is GOVERNMENT that is being forbidden from taking away people's weapons. And the foremost reason it's forbidden, is so that the people can use them against government itself, if/when the government becomes tyrannical. And the Framers knew that if government were given even the tiniest exception, there would be a tendency to turn that tiny loophole into more and more twisted, warped excuses to take guns away anyway, far beyond the "reasonable" exception of being able to take away a mass-murderer's gun at the scene of his crime.

The only way the Framers could find of avoiding the far-greater evil of a tyrannical government disarming its people, was to make NO EXCEPTIONS WHATSOEVER to an explicit ban on government disarming even one of us.

So where does that leave us on the question of the cops taking the mass murderer's gun at the restaurant? 

It's inconceivable that the Framers would want the murderer to retain his gun even as they haul him off to jail.

But it's VERY conceivable that the Framers would want government to have NOT THE SLIGHTEST EXCUSE, NO MATTER HOW "REASONABLE", to take away the weapons of their populace in general. Because the slightest excuse, the tiniest exception, could be stretched into a huge loophole. And the Framers regarded a government that could somehow finagle its way into disarming its own people, as a far greater threat than the occasional murderous nutcase in a restaurant. 

And history has proven the Framers right, time and again.

Should we amend the Constitution, changing the 2nd amendment to officially empower government to take away the right of, say, murderers, to own and carry guns?

Some would think it's obvious that we should, to make the law "really" right. But consider the potential cost.

My own guess is, the Framers intended for an exception to be made in such a case... but not by any government official. The restaurant mass-murderer tells the cops they have no power to take his gun. The cop responds by cracking the guy's skull with his billy club, hard, and taking away his gun anyway. Did the cop violate the strict words of the 2nd amendment by doing so? Yes. But is there a jury in the world that will convict the cop for it? Probably not.

The Constitution puts the ultimate fate of anyone accused of breaking laws, into the hands of a JURY. A groupd of the accused guy's own peers, people pretty much like him. NOT government officials. And that was so the only people who can find, or even invent, exceptions to the law, are ordinary civilians: the ones on the jury. Today this is called "Jury Nullification". And I suggest that this is exactly what the Framers had in mind when the wrote the 2nd amendment with NO exceptions and NO "reasonable restrictions" on guns and other such weapons.

The 2nd amendment is a restriction on GOVERNMENT. But not on a jury.

So when the murderer from the restaurant brings charges against the cop for taking away his gun, the cop gets a chance to explain to a JURY why he did it. His explanation will probably take less than ten seconds. And the jury (whose members wouldn't be there if they hadn't been accepted by the cop) will certainly decide that the cop should not be found guilty of violating the clear language of the 2nd, in that case. Because the JURY (and nobody else) has the power to make "reasonable exceptions".

But at the same time, when government makes the slightest move toward disarming even a little of its populace by legislation, they can be met with the absolute, no-exceptions ban codified by the 2nd amendment. No loopholes, no "reasonable exceptions", no nothing. ANY legislation that infringes on the absolute right to KBA, is unconstitutional. Period.

I suspect that's how the Framers expected this particular law to work.

Can I prove it? No. When I meet one of the Framers, I'll ask him. Until that time, I can only guess, based on the records they have left behind. If anyone can come up with a better guess, I'd be happy to hear it.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Nemo said:


> The Seventh Circuit decision in _Moore v. Madigan_ is not persuasive or even binding precedent as court ordered that mandate be stayed to allow the Illinois legislature to craft a new gun law that will impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment as interpreted in this opinion, on the carrying of guns in public. (You can bet it will be carefully crafted and narrowly construed.)  Also, the handwriting is on the wall, as the decision was rendered prior the Supreme Court denying cert in _Kachalsky v. County of Westchester_ which involved one of the nations most restrictive such laws.


Clearly,  you just move your ass and words fall out.
None of this has any discnerable meaning to anyone that knows anything about the subject.


----------



## legaleagle_45

Little-Acorn said:


> *The 2nd amendment does not say "Except as provided by law". Why not?*



Because the 2nd amend protects a preexisting individual right to arms first codified in the English Bill of Rights in 1689, but which had life and substance even before that.  Thus the right which "shall not be infringed" is itself subject to limitations which existed prior to the passage of the 2nd.  It is not so much "limiting second amend rights" but determinining what exactly is the "right to keep and bear arms" which shall not be infringed..  One of those limitations was the disqualification of persons convicted of a felony.  They were considered "civilly dead" as a consequence of their felony conviction and stripped of many of their civil rights, including the right to vote, the right to sit on a jury and the right to arms.  Minors and the mentally insane also did not have the same civil rights as others and could not even legally own property... they had to act by ad through a conservator or guardian.   The statute of Northhampton forbade the carrying of dangerous and unusal weapons.  Similarly, arms at common law were single man portable and use weapons designed for man on man combat... thus the 2nd does not protect ownership of ordinance such as nukes...  

In short, I am not infringing upon the right... I am determining the nature and the scope of that right as it existed at the time the 2nd was written.  It is that right which shall not be infringed. 



Little-Acorn said:


> As written, it permits NO exceptions or "reasonable restrictions". Period.



Do you believe that persons incarcerated in prison have the right to keep and bear arms while they are in prison?  After all, prison is a dangerous place... If you do, then you are at least consistant, but we have nothing further to discuss as I do not intend to argue that point.  However, if you do believe that persons incarcerated in prisons can be legally denied access to guns, then you have made your first exception to an unlimited right.



Little-Acorn said:


> Because the JURY (and nobody else) has the power to make "reasonable exceptions".



Why?  Where in the 2nd does it say "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by anyone other than a jury"?  That certainly is not in my version of the Constitution.


----------



## Little-Acorn

legaleagle_45 said:


> Do you believe that persons incarcerated in prison have the right to keep and bear arms while they are in prison?



Read what I wrote.


----------



## legaleagle_45

Little-Acorn said:


> legaleagle_45 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe that persons incarcerated in prison have the right to keep and bear arms while they are in prison?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read what I wrote.
Click to expand...


I did.  You opined that a mass murderer could be disarmed because a jury would not rule in his favor.  That was non responsive to a more general query involving all prisoners and espescially those who have been convicted of non violent behavior. 

But most importantly it fails to explain where in the 2nd amend the words "except if a jury decides otherwise" appear.  

Further, can you cite even one case in the history of the world where a jury was actually asked to make a determination that an accused prisoner or a convicted prisoner be disarmed or remain disarmed?


----------



## bendog

This is a unique reading by Acorn.  Consider the milita clause, which I think Scalia correctly views as a historical anachonism but illustrative of what the framers had in mind.  Eagle is correct that the 2nd codified English common law, and as Scalia opinied the milita clause gave if fuller weight in that not only could citizens defend themselves, but the militias were necessary to defend freedom from a feared tyrannical central govt that would refuse to give up power even if it lost a vote.

The right to arms was specifically denied non citizens and more importantly is is only justified by self-defense and (possibly) hunting.  Though at English law, there was no hunting the King's animals.

the ban on felons is premised upon their giving up their right to self defense when they prey upon law abiding folks.


----------



## regent

How many of our rights are absolute?


----------



## M14 Shooter

regent said:


> How many of our rights are absolute?


Define absolute.


----------



## bendog

I assume absolute means not being subject to regulation, or limitation, regardless of whether the limitation is proposed for a very important purpose demonstratively has some positive impact in promoting the purpose.

Linguistically, it is important to understand two things.  1) Infringe is a verb, but the meaning is not absolute.  Infringe does not imply an absolute ban on any limitiations even in it's current definition.  2) A meaning of the word that is now obsolete, but which existed in the 18th century, was "to frustrate" or defeant.  if the second means we law abiding citizens have a right to defend ourselves with firearms, then so long as we retain that right, any reglulation may be permissible depending on the govts' reason for the regulation and simply if it would have a beneficial result.

Infringe - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


----------



## M14 Shooter

bendog said:


> I assume absolute means not being subject to regulation, or limitation, regardless of whether the limitation is proposed for a very important purpose demonstratively has some positive impact in promoting the purpose.


All rights have limits; not everything that could be conceptually linked to a right is included in that right.  Within the inherent limits of the rights - that is, withing the actual right itself, rights are indeed absolute.

For instance - the 1st amendment does not protect speech, political or otherwise, that harm sothers or places them in a condition of clear, preent and immediate danger.   It does, however, absolutely protect your right to otherwise express your opinion.


----------



## bendog

M14 Shooter said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> I assume absolute means not being subject to regulation, or limitation, regardless of whether the limitation is proposed for a very important purpose demonstratively has some positive impact in promoting the purpose.
> 
> 
> 
> All rights have limits; not everything that could be conceptually linked to a right is included in that right.  Within the inherent limits of the rights - that is, withing the actual right itself, rights are indeed absolute.
> 
> For instance - the 1st amendment does not protect speech, political or otherwise, that harm sothers or places them in a condition of clear, preent and immediate danger.   It does, however, absolutely protect your right to otherwise express your opinion.
Click to expand...


True, and even when engaging in protected political speech, the govt can require people to obtain parade permits before engaging in speech and the right to assembly.


----------



## M14 Shooter

bendog said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> I assume absolute means not being subject to regulation, or limitation, regardless of whether the limitation is proposed for a very important purpose demonstratively has some positive impact in promoting the purpose.
> 
> 
> 
> All rights have limits; not everything that could be conceptually linked to a right is included in that right.  Within the inherent limits of the rights - that is, withing the actual right itself, rights are indeed absolute.
> 
> For instance - the 1st amendment does not protect speech, political or otherwise, that harm sothers or places them in a condition of clear, preent and immediate danger.   It does, however, absolutely protect your right to otherwise express your opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, and even when engaging in protected political speech, the govt can require people to obtain parade permits before engaging in speech and the right to assembly.
Click to expand...

On public property, _because _it is public property, whch everyone has a right to use.  
The permits may be denied due to scheduling or whatnot, but cannot be denied based on content.


----------



## bendog

M14 Shooter said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> All rights have limits; not everything that could be conceptually linked to a right is included in that right.  Within the inherent limits of the rights - that is, withing the actual right itself, rights are indeed absolute.
> 
> For instance - the 1st amendment does not protect speech, political or otherwise, that harm sothers or places them in a condition of clear, preent and immediate danger.   It does, however, absolutely protect your right to otherwise express your opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, and even when engaging in protected political speech, the govt can require people to obtain parade permits before engaging in speech and the right to assembly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On public property, _because _it is public property, whch everyone has a right to use.
> The permits may be denied due to scheduling or whatnot, but cannot be denied based on content.
Click to expand...


yes, of course.  However, there can be a vetting process where the valid exercise of speech can be denied when it could pose a public safety problem.  While the ACLU may disagree, the Klan is going to have difficulty getting a parade permit in S.Boston on MLKjr day.


----------



## legaleagle_45

bendog said:


> This is a unique reading by Acorn.  Consider the milita clause, which I think Scalia correctly views as a historical anachonism but illustrative of what the framers had in mind.



Not sure if it is such a historical anachronism as many may believe.  The thing that makes it "less significant" is the change in the very nature of what we describe as a "standing army".  During the colonial period a standing army was more akin to a mercenary force which owed its allegiance to whomever paid them.  This began changing right at the time the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were being adopted.  Instead of monetary gain, armies began to be composed of patriots with the rise of nationalism associated with the French Revolution.  Today, our standing army is much more closely related to a militia than a mercernary force feared by the framers.  A militia was composed of our neighbors, friends and relatives who maintained ties to the community which they served and could not be employed as an instrument of repression.  It served the same function as a jury... the peoples voice in our administration of justice while the molitia was the peoples voice in our defense establishment...

However, there is nothing which prohibits Congress from disbanding the US Army and outsourcing our defense needs to Blackwater... except the outcry of objections from every voter in the USA... the framers viewed a standing army as we would view Blackwater today.  We would demand that our defense forces be composed soldiers who are our friends and neighbors and relatives... and not some mercernary force which owed its allegiance to whomever paid them.  

Sidebar... the reason we got away from the militia model was we became much more of a world power, needing to project our strength outside our borders.  A militia could not be employed outside of the nations borders.  This is the sole reason we have a "dual enlistment provision" with the National Guard.  They are regular state militia when not in federal service, but when called into federal service they are magically transformed into a part of the regular armedforces and are no longer a militia.



bendog said:


> the milita clause gave if fuller weight in that not only could citizens defend themselves, but the militias were necessary to defend freedom from a feared tyrannical central govt that would refuse to give up power even if it lost a vote.



I believe that the real framers  this possibility as remote and that the existence of the militia serving as deterant to that eventuality, a form of checks and balance found elsewhere in our system of government that by its very existence prevents overreaching.  This sentimet can be discerned in Madison's Federalist #46..



> *Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made.*



Patrick Henry pointed to the experiences in Virginia and opined that the failure to arm the militia by the feds would more likely be a result of benign neglect rather than nefarious design... penny wise, pound foolish.



> Mr. HENRY:... The great object is, that every man be armed. But can the people afford to pay for double sets of arms, &c.? Every one Who is able may have a gun. But we have learned, by experience, that, necessary as it is to have arms, and though our Assembly has, by a succession of laws for many years, endeavored to have the militia completely armed, it is still far from being the case. When this power is given up to Congress without. limitation or bounds, how will your militia be armed?



Virgina Ratifying Convention: June 14, 1788

Essentially, the framers desired a militia not just to combat tyranny (which was aminor concern), but also to repel invasions, put down insurrections and enforce the laws of the Union (which were the primary roles envisioned).



bendog said:


> The right to arms was specifically denied non citizens and more importantly is is only justified by self-defense and (possibly) hunting.  Though at English law, there was no hunting the King's animals.



It was treated similarly to the right to vote, the right to serve on a jury, the right to run for public office and the right to engage in certain occupations, such as lawyers.  

Side bar... "hunting" had different connotations in merry ole England than it does in present day USA.  One hunted, deer, elk (which we would call "moose"), fox and swans.  Killing other animals for food or protection was not considered hunting.  Rabbits and feral hogs could be "hunted" and would not be considered "hunting".



bendog said:


> the ban on felons is premised upon their giving up their right to self defense when they prey upon law abiding folks.



Plus the concept of "civil death" effectively stripped them of all rights associated with citizenship.


----------



## bendog

Essentially, the framers desired a militia not just to combat tyranny (which was aminor concern), but also to repel invasions, put down insurrections and enforce the laws of the Union (which were the primary roles envisioned).
--

Yes, the militas were to be the basis for a national army after the revolution.  The Continentals were mostly disbanded.  There was a fear of a standing army.  Late 18th century events and threats that showed the weakness of state militas eventually led to founding West Point and expanding what was left.  This is all sort of an aside, but in a nutshell the militia clause does reinforce the notion an individual right to self defense.

Albiet a right that had conditions and limits.  I don't think there will be any support for the Founders thinking a person known to be mentally ill could own a weapon, and I'm sure that had someone like Alexander Hamilton ordered a quantiy of cannon and muskuts, there would have been a outcry and limitation.  LOL


----------



## koshergrl

Tyranny was a minor concern of the framers?

Are you going to go with that?


----------



## bendog

koshergrl said:


> Tyranny was a minor concern of the framers?
> 
> Are you going to go with that?



I thought his intent was that to the Framers the state militias had a variety of purposes.  There primary purpose was to repel an invasion or civil insurrection, most likely in terms of native americans and slave revolts ... but of course the notion European interference was a possiblity, but after the Treaty of Paris, it was not an issue to require the Continental Army be retained.

But placing the primary tool for the entire body politic to act in self defense AT the State, rather than Federal, level was the means to prevent Tryanny.  Any attempt by a previously elected govt to illegally retain power, or by a State or group of states, to force other states to do what they didn't agree to do, would require the Federal Govt, or group of states, to raise an Federal Army.  And the militas were an impediment to that occurring.

Which, btw, was exactly what Lincoln had to do to prevent the South from walking, peacefully, away.  And, that's the South argument even today.  We never would have ratified danm thing in the first place if we didn't think we could leave.  LOL  We could whip em for a couple of years, but once them federal boys got some experience, they was just too much fer us.


----------



## Nemo

The handwriting is on the wall:
http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/11/11-1149.pdf


----------



## TemplarKormac

bendog said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> tyranny was a minor concern of the framers?
> 
> Are you going to go with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i thought his intent was that to the framers the state militias had a variety of purposes.  There primary purpose was to repel an invasion or civil insurrection, most likely in terms of native americans and slave revolts ... But of course the notion european interference was a possiblity, but after the treaty of paris, it was not an issue to require the continental army be retained.
> 
> But placing the primary tool for the entire body politic to act in self defense at the state, rather than federal, level was the means to prevent tryanny.  Any attempt by a previously elected govt to illegally retain power, or by a state or group of states, to force other states to do what they didn't agree to do, would require the federal govt, or group of states, to raise an federal army.  And the militas were an impediment to that occurring.
> 
> Which, btw, was exactly what lincoln had to do to prevent the south from walking, peacefully, away.  And, that's the south argument even today.  We never would have ratified danm thing in the first place if we didn't think we could leave.  Lol  we could whip em for a couple of years, but once them federal boys got some experience, they was just too much fer us.
Click to expand...


District of Colombia vs. Heller! Read it!


----------



## Nemo

The handwriting is on the wall:
Google Scholar


----------



## Wolfmoon

The right to Bare Arms was intended for the citizens to protect themselves from a tyrant government. When a government allows third world degenerate into America and kills her citizenry, I call that tyrant. When a government spends the countries coffers on making themselves rich, I call that tyrant. When a government strips away people Constitutional rights and calls it updating, I call that tyrant!!! The government may take away the peoples right to have guns but not in my generation!

.


----------



## Nemo

the right to "bare arms" is provided by short-sleeve shirts.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Nemo said:


> The handwriting is on the wall:
> http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/11/11-1149.pdf


Other than the fact you do not usnderstand the issues here, it is hard to see why you thing this is meaningful.


----------



## Rct_Tsoul

I have been trying to find a list of Senators that voted incorrectly on the recent gun bill, if anyone has this list please point me in the right direction or post it here.


----------



## Lakhota

The 2nd Amendment is confusing and obsolete - and is certainly not unlimited.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Lakhota said:


> The 2nd Amendment is confusing and obsolete - and is certainly not unlimited.



So is the 1st.


----------



## PaulS1950

Since when is the right to defend ones self obsolete? Almost every plant, animal bacteria and virus have a means to defend themselves. What makes it so wrong for people to defend themselves? Just because some criminals use guns doesn't mean that we should disarm those who use the guns to defend themselves. two million people each year use a gun to defend themselves ugainst criminals - most often without firing a shot.
If the second amendment is obsolete then so is the USA.
We have lost the fourth amendment - it is no longer a right. 
There are places in the USA where the fifth amendment is no longer a right - New York city for one.
What is next - our freedom of religion? freedom of speech? no, wait - our right to vote.

The USA is a constitutional republic. It is the constitution that gives us power over the government instead of the other way around. If the constitution is obsolete then we need to have a vote to get the right kind of government in place. Wait - if the constitution is obsolete we don't have a right to vote - it may take a war!


----------



## Nosmo King

PaulS1950 said:


> Since when is the right to defend ones self obsolete? Almost every plant, animal bacteria and virus have a means to defend themselves. What makes it so wrong for people to defend themselves? Just because some criminals use guns doesn't mean that we should disarm those who use the guns to defend themselves. two million people each year use a gun to defend themselves ugainst criminals - most often without firing a shot.
> If the second amendment is obsolete then so is the USA.
> We have lost the fourth amendment - it is no longer a right.
> There are places in the USA where the fifth amendment is no longer a right - New York city for one.
> What is next - our freedom of religion? freedom of speech? no, wait - our right to vote.
> 
> The USA is a constitutional republic. It is the constitution that gives us power over the government instead of the other way around. If the constitution is obsolete then we need to have a vote to get the right kind of government in place. Wait - if the constitution is obsolete we don't have a right to vote - it may take a war!


The constitution is not in peril.  Our system of courts coupled with our unique system of checks and balances assure continuity of the rule of law.

But that constitution does not provide absolute freedoms.  Our freedom of speech is restricted as libel and slander are criminal offenses.  Likewise, it is a criminal offense to unduly call for emergency action such as false 911 calls or shouting "FIRE!" in a theater.  Our right to practice religious rituals is restricted.  Some sects would make blood sacrifice.  Even though it would end up battered and deep fried afterward, try sacrificing a live chicken during a voodoo ceremony.

Everyone accepts limits on freedoms to assure public safety and civil peace.  Everyone but the gun fanatic.  To him, there are no limitations, no matter how watered down that are not the cause for cries of constitutional crisis.  No measure, no matter how common sense, no matter how widely agreed upon, no matter that the idea was championed by his political side first, but when proffered by his opposition he flip flopped.  

No law works, they will tell you.  So why pass new laws?  What a brilliant piece of inductive reasoning that is!  What depth of thinking came up with that screed?

Surely had the second amendment been written in the full knowledge of what modern weaponry is capable of, the founders would have clearly identified what "arms" are.  Rocket propelled grenades perhaps?  That's a weapon designed for war.  Why aren't they on the streets?  For you see, weapons are regulated and those regulations came about over concerns for public safety.  

Certainly there is a solution to the gun violence that plagues this country.  Certainly there are ways to at the very least, start to make and end to the phenomena of "mass shootings".  Certainly there is a way to at least take the "mass" out of that awful phrase.

But if the gun lobby keeps it's Grover Norquist like trance over the re-election hopes for some members, we can expect nothing but more of the same.  It seems the "right" to have an assault weapon trumps the rights of first graders to grow up.


----------



## Missouri_Mike

Lakhota said:


> The 2nd Amendment is confusing and obsolete - and is certainly not unlimited.



It's only confusing to a toddler. Some day you may grow up.


----------



## PaulS1950

Nosmo King said:


> The constitution is not in peril.  Our system of courts coupled with our unique system of checks and balances assure continuity of the rule of law.
> 
> But that constitution does not provide absolute freedoms.  Our freedom of speech is restricted as libel and slander are criminal offenses.  Likewise, it is a criminal offense to unduly call for emergency action such as false 911 calls or shouting "FIRE!" in a theater.
> *That is because those crimes affect the rights of others*
> Our right to practice religious rituals is restricted.  Some sects would make blood sacrifice.  Even though it would end up battered and deep fried afterward, try sacrificing a live chicken during a voodoo ceremony.
> *There are religions that still practice ritual killings of animal - Jews come to mind.*
> 
> Everyone accepts limits on freedoms to assure public safety and civil peace.
> *Limits on freedoms but not our rights so long as they don't infringe on the rights of others. Me owning a submachine gun does not infringe on your rights*
> Everyone but the gun fanatic.  To him, there are no limitations, no matter how watered down that are not the cause for cries of constitutional crisis.  No measure, no matter how common sense, no matter how widely agreed upon, no matter that the idea was championed by his political side first, but when proffered by his opposition he flip flopped.
> *The right to the means to defend ones self and the constitution does not infringe on anyone elses rights. It is clearly already illegal for felons and the criminally insane to have guns because they have been tried and convicted of crimes that infringe on the rights of others. Law abiding gun owners have no responsibility in the actions of criminals and the criminally insane. There is no reason to infringe on the right to keep and bear any arms that are in current and popular use in the infantry.*
> No law works, they will tell you.  So why pass new laws?  What a brilliant piece of inductive reasoning that is!  What depth of thinking came up with that screed?
> 
> Surely had the second amendment been written in the full knowledge of what modern weaponry is capable of, the founders would have clearly identified what "arms" are.  Rocket propelled grenades perhaps?  That's a weapon designed for war.  Why aren't they on the streets?  For you see, weapons are regulated and those regulations came about over concerns for public safety.
> *public safety is not jeaprodized by legal gun owners. There are American citizens who legally own and fire RPGs, full auto machine guns and even anti-aircraft guns. The permit costs $200.*
> 
> Certainly there is a solution to the gun violence that plagues this country.  Certainly there are ways to at the very least, start to make and end to the phenomena of "mass shootings".  Certainly there is a way to at least take the "mass" out of that awful phrase.
> *The only way to stop violent crime is to prosecute those guilty of it. From those who legally own guns there are two million times a year that they protect themselves and others from criminals - often without firing a shot.*
> But if the gun lobby keeps it's Grover Norquist like trance over the re-election hopes for some members, we can expect nothing but more of the same.  It seems the "right" to have an assault weapon trumps the rights of first graders to grow up.


*The man who shot those children was a killer before he entered that school. He killed his own mother to get the guns to continue killing. Before that he had no record of violence. It just proves that you can't prevent violence, you have to prosecute it.
You can't legislate against criminal behavior so we enact laws so that we can prosecute those who commit the acts. What you want to do is punish 300,000,000 people for the actions of what, 3 in the last year? You want to punish them without a trial. I understand your frustration, I feel it too but I know that making it harder for lawful citizens to get guns will only give more ground to the criminals. We need to prosecute them for their crimes. We should ban plea-bargains, light sentances for violent criminals and add a life sentence for anyone who uses a gun in a crime.*


----------



## legaleagle_45

Lakhota said:


> The 2nd Amendment is confusing and obsolete



The 2nd amend is not confusing to anyone who has taken the time to discover the historical context.

As for being obsolete...  That is a reason to repeal the 2nd Amend via a Constitutional Amend, it is not a a reason to ignore the 2nd Amend.  Let me help you out on how it is done legally:

First you convince 2/3rds of the Senate and 2/3rds of the House to propose an amendment to the states;  Then you convince 38 states to ratify said amendment.. and then voila,  the 2nd disappears!

You should contact Harry Reid right away, as it is my understanding that the Senate may have some extra time on its hands, having deep sixed all major gun control legislation this year... Here is his contact info:



> 522 Hart Senate Office Bldg
> Washington, DC 20510
> Phone: 202-224-3542
> Fax: 202-224-7327
> Toll Free for Nevadans:
> 1-866-SEN-REID (736-7343)



I am sure that Harry will be thrilled with your proposal and be dazzeled by your political prowess.  In fact he may use it as the center peice for the Democratic Platform in the upcoming mid term elections...*



			VOTE for the DEMS and REPEAL another FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT
		
Click to expand...

*



Lakhota said:


> and is certainly not unlimited



Saying it is "not unlimited" is not equivalent to saying "we can limit it anyway we want".  When you treat it like the 1st amend, I will be satisfied.... which means no more scary looking gun bans, shall issue nationwide CCW and no more laws specifically designed to make the exercise of the right protected more expensive and burdensome for the sole or primary reason to make gun ownership less common.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Lakhota said:


> The 2nd Amendment is confusing and obsolete


You cannot prove this to be true.


----------



## P@triot

M14 Shooter said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd Amendment is confusing and obsolete
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot prove this to be true.
Click to expand...


If liberals were forced to refrain from speaking things they could not prove to be true, they would not have spoken in their 115 year existence....


----------



## M14 Shooter

Rottweiler said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd Amendment is confusing and obsolete
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot prove this to be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If liberals were forced to refrain from speaking things they could not prove to be true, they would not have spoken in their 115 year existence....
Click to expand...

They know that they can lie faster than we can prove them to be liars.


----------



## TemplarKormac

PaulS1950 said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution is not in peril.  Our system of courts coupled with our unique system of checks and balances assure continuity of the rule of law.
> 
> But that constitution does not provide absolute freedoms.  Our freedom of speech is restricted as libel and slander are criminal offenses.  Likewise, it is a criminal offense to unduly call for emergency action such as false 911 calls or shouting "FIRE!" in a theater.
> *That is because those crimes affect the rights of others*
> Our right to practice religious rituals is restricted.  Some sects would make blood sacrifice.  Even though it would end up battered and deep fried afterward, try sacrificing a live chicken during a voodoo ceremony.
> *There are religions that still practice ritual killings of animal - Jews come to mind.*
> 
> Everyone accepts limits on freedoms to assure public safety and civil peace.
> *Limits on freedoms but not our rights so long as they don't infringe on the rights of others. Me owning a submachine gun does not infringe on your rights*
> Everyone but the gun fanatic.  To him, there are no limitations, no matter how watered down that are not the cause for cries of constitutional crisis.  No measure, no matter how common sense, no matter how widely agreed upon, no matter that the idea was championed by his political side first, but when proffered by his opposition he flip flopped.
> *The right to the means to defend ones self and the constitution does not infringe on anyone elses rights. It is clearly already illegal for felons and the criminally insane to have guns because they have been tried and convicted of crimes that infringe on the rights of others. Law abiding gun owners have no responsibility in the actions of criminals and the criminally insane. There is no reason to infringe on the right to keep and bear any arms that are in current and popular use in the infantry.*
> No law works, they will tell you.  So why pass new laws?  What a brilliant piece of inductive reasoning that is!  What depth of thinking came up with that screed?
> 
> Surely had the second amendment been written in the full knowledge of what modern weaponry is capable of, the founders would have clearly identified what "arms" are.  Rocket propelled grenades perhaps?  That's a weapon designed for war.  Why aren't they on the streets?  For you see, weapons are regulated and those regulations came about over concerns for public safety.
> *public safety is not jeaprodized by legal gun owners. There are American citizens who legally own and fire RPGs, full auto machine guns and even anti-aircraft guns. The permit costs $200.*
> 
> Certainly there is a solution to the gun violence that plagues this country.  Certainly there are ways to at the very least, start to make and end to the phenomena of "mass shootings".  Certainly there is a way to at least take the "mass" out of that awful phrase.
> *The only way to stop violent crime is to prosecute those guilty of it. From those who legally own guns there are two million times a year that they protect themselves and others from criminals - often without firing a shot.*
> But if the gun lobby keeps it's Grover Norquist like trance over the re-election hopes for some members, we can expect nothing but more of the same.  It seems the "right" to have an assault weapon trumps the rights of first graders to grow up.
> 
> 
> 
> *The man who shot those children was a killer before he entered that school. He killed his own mother to get the guns to continue killing. Before that he had no record of violence. It just proves that you can't prevent violence, you have to prosecute it.
> You can't legislate against criminal behavior so we enact laws so that we can prosecute those who commit the acts. What you want to do is punish 300,000,000 people for the actions of what, 3 in the last year? You want to punish them without a trial. I understand your frustration, I feel it too but I know that making it harder for lawful citizens to get guns will only give more ground to the criminals. We need to prosecute them for their crimes. We should ban plea-bargains, light sentances for violent criminals and add a life sentence for anyone who uses a gun in a crime.*
Click to expand...


All this red text reminds me of my KJV Bible. Words of Jesus marked in red. Well at least there it was.


----------



## Nosmo King

Some folks refuse to believe that not every experience with guns is a good, constructive experience.  Not every gun owner is a responsible citizen.  Not every shot fired is filled with childish glee and triumph.  No, some folks die as a result of an encounter with guns, too many in fact.  The Rambo wannabes maintain that their guns are righteous instruments designed to make them feel as if they are actually playing Army as they did when they were younger, but not more mature.  They willingly turn a blind eye to the havoc loosed by indiscriminate gun fire.  And then they sit incredulous as to why Americans insist on common sense gun restrictions.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Nosmo King said:


> Some folks refuse to believe that not every experience with guns is a good, constructive experience.


The overhwlemingly vast majority are.


> Not every gun owner is a responsible citizen.


The overhwlemingly vast majority are.

Fact of the matter is that a statistically insgnificant % of guns - a number that statistically approaches zero - are used to commit murder; that said. to further restrict the rights of the overwhelming majority in order to prevent illegal acts by the impossibly small minority makes no sense whatsoever. 

You may now further prove my position that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.


----------



## KevinWestern

Nosmo King said:


> Some folks refuse to believe that not every experience with guns is a good, constructive experience.  Not every gun owner is a responsible citizen.  Not every shot fired is filled with childish glee and triumph.  No, some folks die as a result of an encounter with guns, too many in fact.  The Rambo wannabes maintain that their guns are righteous instruments designed to make them feel as if they are actually playing Army as they did when they were younger, but not more mature.  They willingly turn a blind eye to the havoc loosed by indiscriminate gun fire.  And then they sit incredulous as to why Americans insist on common sense gun restrictions.


 
Some folks, too, believe that it&#8217;s completely logical to spearhead a gun control campaign with the use of buzzwords like &#8220;assault rifles&#8221; and &#8220;high capacity magazines&#8221; when in fact the type of weapon they&#8217;re trying to describe only is involved in about 20-30 homicides annually (vs. maybe 6-7,000 with regards to handguns).

Some folks refuse to FIRST discuss gun the correlation between violence rate & poverty, despite the fact that it's well known the relationship is pretty significant. In Chicago, the poorest neighborhoods experience a gun homicide rate of about 45/100,000 people, whereas the least poor areas experience a rate of about 3/100,000 people. 

Q: How many times have we heard Obama use the word &#8220;assault weapon&#8221; when it comes to this debate vs &#8220;poverty&#8221; or &#8220;handgun&#8221;? 




.


----------



## bendog

KevinWestern said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some folks refuse to believe that not every experience with guns is a good, constructive experience.  Not every gun owner is a responsible citizen.  Not every shot fired is filled with childish glee and triumph.  No, some folks die as a result of an encounter with guns, too many in fact.  The Rambo wannabes maintain that their guns are righteous instruments designed to make them feel as if they are actually playing Army as they did when they were younger, but not more mature.  They willingly turn a blind eye to the havoc loosed by indiscriminate gun fire.  And then they sit incredulous as to why Americans insist on common sense gun restrictions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some folks, too, believe that its completely logical to spearhead a gun control campaign with the use of buzzwords like assault rifles and high capacity magazines when in fact the type of weapon theyre trying to describe only is involved in about 20-30 homicides annually (vs. maybe 6-7,000 with regards to handguns).
> 
> Some folks refuse to FIRST discuss gun the correlation between violence rate & poverty, despite the fact that it's well known the relationship is pretty significant. In Chicago, the poorest neighborhoods experience a gun homicide rate of about 45/100,000 people, whereas the least poor areas experience a rate of about 3/100,000 people.
> 
> Q: How many times have we heard Obama use the word assault weapon when it comes to this debate vs poverty or handgun?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Perhaps it's because suburbanites, and higher income ubran dwellers, fear their kids getting killed by crazies with "high capacity magazines" more than they fear a gang kid with a six gun.  Perhaps that's not rational, but it's not rational for you to deny that all this gang violence isn't involving high capacity magazines.  When I grew up a seven round .45 ACP was about as big as they came, so what else would one call a magazine that holds 13 and up 9mm.


----------



## KevinWestern

bendog said:


> Perhaps it's because suburbanites, and higher income ubran dwellers, fear their kids getting killed by crazies with "high capacity magazines" more than they fear a gang kid with a six gun.  Perhaps that's not rational, but it's not rational for you to deny that all this gang violence isn't involving high capacity magazines.  When I grew up a seven round .45 ACP was about as big as they came, so what else would one call a magazine that holds 13 and up 9mm.



Sure, suburbanites might not have to worry about gang violence  &#8211; I understand &#8211; but isn&#8217;t the job of our gov&#8217;t and our President to see the *big picture* and go after the type of weapon that affects the most amount of people? Isn&#8217;t that common sense? 

*With a finite amount of time and resources*, which gun type is more logical to pin as a &#8220;buzzword&#8221; in the news:

(A)	&#8220;Assault Rifles&#8221; &#8211; ~40 deaths annually, has affected mostly wealthy communities in mass shootings
(B)	Handguns &#8211; ~6,000 deaths annually, has affected mostly poor communities in acts of gang violence

Please let me know if I'm being unfair (and why), but isn&#8217;t it sort of a slap in the face to our nation&#8217;s poor that he chose to go with (A)? 

It's like, "hey guys, we know you poor folks have been suffering thousands and thousands of deaths a year due to handgun violence, but we're going to instead focus on the 20 upper class people that died from an AR-15 first and try to ban that. We'll get to you later.." 

I'm really not trying to be unfair here, this is just how I'm seeing this unfold. I'd like to hear your thoughts.






.


----------



## Nosmo King

KevinWestern said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some folks refuse to believe that not every experience with guns is a good, constructive experience.  Not every gun owner is a responsible citizen.  Not every shot fired is filled with childish glee and triumph.  No, some folks die as a result of an encounter with guns, too many in fact.  The Rambo wannabes maintain that their guns are righteous instruments designed to make them feel as if they are actually playing Army as they did when they were younger, but not more mature.  They willingly turn a blind eye to the havoc loosed by indiscriminate gun fire.  And then they sit incredulous as to why Americans insist on common sense gun restrictions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some folks, too, believe that its completely logical to spearhead a gun control campaign with the use of buzzwords like assault rifles and high capacity magazines when in fact the type of weapon theyre trying to describe only is involved in about 20-30 homicides annually (vs. maybe 6-7,000 with regards to handguns).
> 
> Some folks refuse to FIRST discuss gun the correlation between violence rate & poverty, despite the fact that it's well known the relationship is pretty significant. In Chicago, the poorest neighborhoods experience a gun homicide rate of about 45/100,000 people, whereas the least poor areas experience a rate of about 3/100,000 people.
> 
> Q: How many times have we heard Obama use the word assault weapon when it comes to this debate vs poverty or handgun?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Let us come to an agreement about the definition of "assault weapons".  I'll provide a definition, and you can comment on it,. add to it or subtract from it, but there must be consensus over what we're talking about it we ever want to do anything about the problem.

I define "assault weapons" as ANY firearm, rifle or pistol that features a semi or fully automatic firing system and can be fitted with an ammunition magazine that can hold greater than ten rounds.

Surely you will concede that while long barrel guns are used in the most heinous mass shootings, handguns with similar firing systems and high capacity clips are responsible for many of the shootings in urban and suburban areas, particularly by gangs and criminals in the drug trade.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Nosmo King said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some folks refuse to believe that not every experience with guns is a good, constructive experience.  Not every gun owner is a responsible citizen.  Not every shot fired is filled with childish glee and triumph.  No, some folks die as a result of an encounter with guns, too many in fact.  The Rambo wannabes maintain that their guns are righteous instruments designed to make them feel as if they are actually playing Army as they did when they were younger, but not more mature.  They willingly turn a blind eye to the havoc loosed by indiscriminate gun fire.  And then they sit incredulous as to why Americans insist on common sense gun restrictions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some folks, too, believe that its completely logical to spearhead a gun control campaign with the use of buzzwords like assault rifles and high capacity magazines when in fact the type of weapon theyre trying to describe only is involved in about 20-30 homicides annually (vs. maybe 6-7,000 with regards to handguns).
> 
> Some folks refuse to FIRST discuss gun the correlation between violence rate & poverty, despite the fact that it's well known the relationship is pretty significant. In Chicago, the poorest neighborhoods experience a gun homicide rate of about 45/100,000 people, whereas the least poor areas experience a rate of about 3/100,000 people.
> 
> Q: How many times have we heard Obama use the word assault weapon when it comes to this debate vs poverty or handgun?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let us come to an agreement about the definition of "assault weapons".  I'll provide a definition, and you can comment on it,. add to it or subtract from it, but there must be consensus over what we're talking about it we ever want to do anything about the problem.
> 
> I define "assault weapons" as ANY firearm, rifle or pistol that features a semi or fully automatic firing system and can be fitted with an ammunition magazine that can hold greater than ten rounds.
Click to expand...

If that's the case, you must then not support any of the current proposals for bans on 'assault weapons'.
Never mind that it is also unconstitutonal to ban handguns.


----------



## Nosmo King

M14 Shooter said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some folks, too, believe that its completely logical to spearhead a gun control campaign with the use of buzzwords like assault rifles and high capacity magazines when in fact the type of weapon theyre trying to describe only is involved in about 20-30 homicides annually (vs. maybe 6-7,000 with regards to handguns).
> 
> Some folks refuse to FIRST discuss gun the correlation between violence rate & poverty, despite the fact that it's well known the relationship is pretty significant. In Chicago, the poorest neighborhoods experience a gun homicide rate of about 45/100,000 people, whereas the least poor areas experience a rate of about 3/100,000 people.
> 
> Q: How many times have we heard Obama use the word assault weapon when it comes to this debate vs poverty or handgun?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Let us come to an agreement about the definition of "assault weapons".  I'll provide a definition, and you can comment on it,. add to it or subtract from it, but there must be consensus over what we're talking about it we ever want to do anything about the problem.
> 
> I define "assault weapons" as ANY firearm, rifle or pistol that features a semi or fully automatic firing system and can be fitted with an ammunition magazine that can hold greater than ten rounds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If that's the case, you must then not support any of the current proposals for bans on 'assault weapons'.
> Never mind that it is also unconstitutonal to ban handguns.
Click to expand...

I would keep revolvers legal.  Also pistols requiring the user to cock the action prior to shooting.  The handguns that cause the grief and death and violence have no place on our streets.  Perhaps such weapons belong in well regulated militias.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Nosmo King said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let us come to an agreement about the definition of "assault weapons".  I'll provide a definition, and you can comment on it,. add to it or subtract from it, but there must be consensus over what we're talking about it we ever want to do anything about the problem.
> 
> I define "assault weapons" as ANY firearm, rifle or pistol that features a semi or fully automatic firing system and can be fitted with an ammunition magazine that can hold greater than ten rounds.
> 
> 
> 
> If that's the case, you must then not support any of the current proposals for bans on 'assault weapons'.
> Never mind that it is also unconstitutonal to ban handguns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would keep revolvers legal.  Also pistols requiring the user to cock the action prior to shooting.  The handguns that cause the grief and death and violence have no place on our streets.  Perhaps such weapons belong in well regulated militias.
Click to expand...

Aside from the fact that hanguns w/ hi-cap magazines are purposely designed for self-defense and so very much DO have a place in our homes and on our streets...  It's unconstitutinal to ban handguns, period, especually those intended for self-defense.

Left unaddressed by you:
If that's your definition of 'assault wepon;, you must then not support any of the current proposals for bans on 'assault weapons'.  Correct?


----------



## bendog

KevinWestern said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps it's because suburbanites, and higher income ubran dwellers, fear their kids getting killed by crazies with "high capacity magazines" more than they fear a gang kid with a six gun.  Perhaps that's not rational, but it's not rational for you to deny that all this gang violence isn't involving high capacity magazines.  When I grew up a seven round .45 ACP was about as big as they came, so what else would one call a magazine that holds 13 and up 9mm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, suburbanites might not have to worry about gang violence  &#8211; I understand &#8211; but isn&#8217;t the job of our gov&#8217;t and our President to see the *big picture* and go after the type of weapon that affects the most amount of people? Isn&#8217;t that common sense?
> 
> *With a finite amount of time and resources*, which gun type is more logical to pin as a &#8220;buzzword&#8221; in the news:
> 
> (A)	&#8220;Assault Rifles&#8221; &#8211; ~40 deaths annually, has affected mostly wealthy communities in mass shootings
> (B)	Handguns &#8211; ~6,000 deaths annually, has affected mostly poor communities in acts of gang violence
> 
> Please let me know if I'm being unfair (and why), but isn&#8217;t it sort of a slap in the face to our nation&#8217;s poor that he chose to go with (A) first?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Well, again, I don't see a limit on magazine capacity to ... say ten ... as having zero potential do decrease urban deaths.  But, I'd agree that it would have more potential benefit in Sandy Hook/ Aurora type situations ... which of course is what has more political affect on likely suburban/higher income urban voters.  And, one has to admit honestly that with so many magazines in commerce, it'd take a decade to even begin to make a change in what's in circulation.

I believe Ill has begun to try and enact imprisonment enhancements for gun crimes.  The Gop turned away stricter enforcement of straw purchases.  The Chi police have altered how cops patrol, and that has reduced deaths in the past few months.  So, I don't agree that govt has simply turned it's back on where the vast maj of deaths are coming from.  But, the govt cannot convince peopel to stay in school and get educations.  The govt can try to make resources available.  But, we're talking societal, and not governmental, failure.

And background checks?  Who the hell can be against that, seriously.  It's beyone ludicrious.  

I think you are really posting about what the LW media and Obama has framed the issue as.  The things that would be most effective in urban crime simply aren't of interest to the voters Obama wants for the off year and Hill's ascension, along with taking back the House and a 60 member senate.  To get there he has to have the gop as lunatic fringe.  

Even magazine capacity limits don't have the popularity of background checks.  For example, I'd prefer to keep my 13 round 9mm; It hurts my hand to fire anything more powerful, even though I'd really prefer my old .357 or a .45 ACP, but no can do anymore.

But, if someone is not willing to wait the few minutes it would take for a real background check, with the possibility no matter how slight that it would keep a weapon from a crazy, that's crazy.  And that's where Obama wants the gop.


----------



## Nosmo King

M14 Shooter said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that's the case, you must then not support any of the current proposals for bans on 'assault weapons'.
> Never mind that it is also unconstitutonal to ban handguns.
> 
> 
> 
> I would keep revolvers legal.  Also pistols requiring the user to cock the action prior to shooting.  The handguns that cause the grief and death and violence have no place on our streets.  Perhaps such weapons belong in well regulated militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aside from the fact that hanguns w/ hi-cap magazines are purposely designed for self-defense and so very much DO have a place in our homes and on our streets...  It's unconstitutinal to ban handguns, period, especually those intended for self-defense.
> 
> Left unaddressed by you:
> If that's your definition of 'assault wepon;, you must then not support any of the current proposals for bans on 'assault weapons'.  Correct?
Click to expand...

I reject the premise that handguns with semi automatic firing systems and high capacity clips are strictly defensive weapons.  They are, in fact, offensive weapons.

And I do support all efforts to ban assault weapons.  This round defeated by NRA bought and paid for Senators would be a good point of departure to at least begin to rid such weapons from our streets.


----------



## KevinWestern

Nosmo King said:


> Let us come to an agreement about the definition of "assault weapons".  I'll provide a definition, and you can comment on it,. add to it or subtract from it, but there must be consensus over what we're talking about it we ever want to do anything about the problem.
> 
> I define "assault weapons" as ANY firearm, rifle or pistol that features a semi or fully automatic firing system and can be fitted with an ammunition magazine that can hold greater than ten rounds.
> 
> Surely you will concede that while long barrel guns are used in the most heinous mass shootings, handguns with similar firing systems and high capacity clips are responsible for many of the shootings in urban and suburban areas, particularly by gangs and criminals in the drug trade.



Sure. To me, an assault weapon would be a fully automatic rifle (like the kind used in war). 

Ive had an extremely difficult time finding data on how frequently guns with magazines of greater than 10 rounds are used in homicides, so if you could help out it would be fascinating to analyze. 

.


----------



## M14 Shooter

KevinWestern said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let us come to an agreement about the definition of "assault weapons".  I'll provide a definition, and you can comment on it,. add to it or subtract from it, but there must be consensus over what we're talking about it we ever want to do anything about the problem.
> 
> I define "assault weapons" as ANY firearm, rifle or pistol that features a semi or fully automatic firing system and can be fitted with an ammunition magazine that can hold greater than ten rounds.
> 
> Surely you will concede that while long barrel guns are used in the most heinous mass shootings, handguns with similar firing systems and high capacity clips are responsible for many of the shootings in urban and suburban areas, particularly by gangs and criminals in the drug trade.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. To me, an assault weapon would be a fully automatic rifle (like the kind used in war).
Click to expand...

How many of these weapons, legally owned, have been used in crime?
Exactly zero.
Clearly indicating there is no reason to ban them.


----------



## Nosmo King

KevinWestern said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let us come to an agreement about the definition of "assault weapons".  I'll provide a definition, and you can comment on it,. add to it or subtract from it, but there must be consensus over what we're talking about it we ever want to do anything about the problem.
> 
> I define "assault weapons" as ANY firearm, rifle or pistol that features a semi or fully automatic firing system and can be fitted with an ammunition magazine that can hold greater than ten rounds.
> 
> Surely you will concede that while long barrel guns are used in the most heinous mass shootings, handguns with similar firing systems and high capacity clips are responsible for many of the shootings in urban and suburban areas, particularly by gangs and criminals in the drug trade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. To me, an assault weapon would be a fully automatic rifle (like the kind used in war).
> 
> Ive had an extremely difficult time finding data on how frequently guns with magazines of greater than 10 rounds are used in homicides, so if you could help out it would be fascinating to analyze.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Yeah.  That problem was due to an amendment added by another NRA bought and paid for Senator that strictly prohibits funds from the gathering and dissemination of data on gun violence by any federal authority like the CDC.  Seems that makes real study of the problem tougher and allows the gun lobby to sweep its complicity in gun violence under the rug.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Nosmo King said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would keep revolvers legal.  Also pistols requiring the user to cock the action prior to shooting.  The handguns that cause the grief and death and violence have no place on our streets.  Perhaps such weapons belong in well regulated militias.
> 
> 
> 
> Aside from the fact that hanguns w/ hi-cap magazines are purposely designed for self-defense and so very much DO have a place in our homes and on our streets...  It's unconstitutinal to ban handguns, period, especually those intended for self-defense.
> 
> Left unaddressed by you:
> If that's your definition of 'assault wepon;, you must then not support any of the current proposals for bans on 'assault weapons'.  Correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I reject the premise that handguns with semi automatic firing systems and high capacity clips are strictly defensive weapons.
Click to expand...

You then argue from ignorance, dishonesty or both - given that you changed the term I used, it's likely both,.
Given that, you cannot possibly have a sound position in this regard.
Never mind the fact that banning handguns violates the constituion - period.



> And I do support all efforts to ban assault weapons.


The bans curremntly under consideration do not ban 'assault weapons' as you define them.   Why do you support those bans?


----------



## bendog

KevinWestern said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let us come to an agreement about the definition of "assault weapons".  I'll provide a definition, and you can comment on it,. add to it or subtract from it, but there must be consensus over what we're talking about it we ever want to do anything about the problem.
> 
> I define "assault weapons" as ANY firearm, rifle or pistol that features a semi or fully automatic firing system and can be fitted with an ammunition magazine that can hold greater than ten rounds.
> 
> Surely you will concede that while long barrel guns are used in the most heinous mass shootings, handguns with similar firing systems and high capacity clips are responsible for many of the shootings in urban and suburban areas, particularly by gangs and criminals in the drug trade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. To me, an assault weapon would be a fully automatic rifle (like the kind used in war).
> 
> Ive had an extremely difficult time finding data on how frequently guns with magazines of greater than 10 rounds are used in homicides, so if you could help out it would be fascinating to analyze.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Not to tread on your post  (-: But, the capacity thing was part of my original point.  I believe the gang weapon of choice is the semi-auto pistol.  Sure, some .380 cal are less than ten capacity, but 9mm are nearly universally more than ten.  That's why I agree, more or less, that magazine capacity is aimed at the Sandy Hook voters.  But, it's not like they have no effect on urban killings.  When urban gun violence is at its worst, it's with the stray rounds that miss the target and kill innocent children just walking around.


----------



## Nosmo King

M14 Shooter said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aside from the fact that hanguns w/ hi-cap magazines are purposely designed for self-defense and so very much DO have a place in our homes and on our streets...  It's unconstitutinal to ban handguns, period, especually those intended for self-defense.
> 
> Left unaddressed by you:
> If that's your definition of 'assault wepon;, you must then not support any of the current proposals for bans on 'assault weapons'.  Correct?
> 
> 
> 
> I reject the premise that handguns with semi automatic firing systems and high capacity clips are strictly defensive weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You then argue from ignorance, dishonesty or both - given you changed the term I used, its likely both,.
> Given that, you cannot possibly have a sound position in this regard.
> Never mind the fact that banning handguns violates the constituion - period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I do support all efforts to ban assault weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The bans curremntly under consideration do not ban 'assault weapons' as you define them.   Why do you support those bans?
Click to expand...

I further reject your assumption that I argue from ignorance or dishonesty.  If I agreed with you, I would not only have no standing in an honest debate, but I'd abandon all rational thought and stick my head in the sand to ignore gun violence while maintaining that guns are just too damn cool.


----------



## Brain357

KevinWestern said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps it's because suburbanites, and higher income ubran dwellers, fear their kids getting killed by crazies with "high capacity magazines" more than they fear a gang kid with a six gun.  Perhaps that's not rational, but it's not rational for you to deny that all this gang violence isn't involving high capacity magazines.  When I grew up a seven round .45 ACP was about as big as they came, so what else would one call a magazine that holds 13 and up 9mm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, suburbanites might not have to worry about gang violence   I understand  but isnt the job of our govt and our President to see the *big picture* and go after the type of weapon that affects the most amount of people? Isnt that common sense?
> 
> *With a finite amount of time and resources*, which gun type is more logical to pin as a buzzword in the news:
> 
> (A)	Assault Rifles  ~40 deaths annually, has affected mostly wealthy communities in mass shootings
> (B)	Handguns  ~6,000 deaths annually, has affected mostly poor communities in acts of gang violence
> 
> Please let me know if I'm being unfair (and why), but isnt it sort of a slap in the face to our nations poor that he chose to go with (A)?
> 
> It's like, "hey guys, we know you poor folks have been suffering thousands and thousands of deaths a year due to handgun violence, but we're going to instead focus on the 20 upper class people that died from an AR-15 first and try to ban that. We'll get to you later.."
> 
> I'm really not trying to be unfair here, this is just how I'm seeing this unfold. I'd like to hear your thoughts.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Didn't things start with background checks?  I don't think I've heard him go after assault weapons more than hi cap magazines.


----------



## Little-Acorn

In modern language, the 2nd amendment says,

"Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted."

And it's as true and relevant today, as the day it was ratified.


----------



## Nosmo King

Little-Acorn said:


> In modern language, the 2nd amendment says,
> 
> "Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted."
> 
> And it's as true and relevant today, as the day it was ratified.


"other such weapons"?  Care to clarify?


----------



## bendog

Little-Acorn said:


> In modern language, the 2nd amendment says,
> 
> "Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted."
> 
> And it's as true and relevant today, as the day it was ratified.



Actually, what it means today is .... since Americans have a right to defend themselves, the govt may not prevent them from owning and keeping firearms normally used for self defense in their homes (and I'm sure business's they own), and the gvot may allow them to carry weapons in other places so long as the govt treats all applications to do so the same ... i.e. no discrimination.  And, I've no doubt we can take unloaded firearms to gun ranges and repair shops.


----------



## Little-Acorn

bendog said:


> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> In modern language, the 2nd amendment says,
> 
> "Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted."
> 
> And it's as true and relevant today, as the day it was ratified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, what it means today is .... since Americans have a right to defend themselves, the govt may not prevent them from owning and keeping firearms normally used for self defense in their homes (and I'm sure business's they own), and the gvot may allow them to carry weapons in other places so long as the govt treats all applications to do so the same ... i.e. no discrimination.  And, I've no doubt we can take unloaded firearms to gun ranges and repair shops.
Click to expand...


That's humorous.

The reason for the 2nd amendment, of course, was that the people who wrote and ratified it thought the country would be better off if government has no say whatsoever, in whether ordinary citizens could own and carry guns and other such weapons. Hence its complete lack of any phrasing like "except as provided by law", or "except for reasonable restrictions" as other parts of the Constitution have.

The people who wrote and ratified it never thought the country would be PERFECT with this in place, of course. Simply that it would be BETTER than it would be if the government could restrict or take away your weapons.


----------



## Nosmo King

Little-Acorn said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> In modern language, the 2nd amendment says,
> 
> "Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted."
> 
> And it's as true and relevant today, as the day it was ratified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, what it means today is .... since Americans have a right to defend themselves, the govt may not prevent them from owning and keeping firearms normally used for self defense in their homes (and I'm sure business's they own), and the gvot may allow them to carry weapons in other places so long as the govt treats all applications to do so the same ... i.e. no discrimination.  And, I've no doubt we can take unloaded firearms to gun ranges and repair shops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's humorous.
> 
> The reason for the 2nd amendment, of course, was that the people who wrote and ratified it thought the country would be better off if government has no say whatsoever, in whether ordinary citizens could own and carry guns and other such weapons. Hence its complete lack of any phrasing like "except as provided by law", or "except for reasonable restrictions" as other parts of the Constitution have.
> 
> The people who wrote and ratified it never thought the country would be PERFECT with this in place, of course. Simply that it would be BETTER than it would be if the government could restrict or take away your weapons.
Click to expand...

Right up to 1861 when citizens armed with weapons of war rebelled against the United States of America and prosecuted a war that virtually ruined half of this nation.  Those were state militias involved in the insurrection and rebellion.


----------



## Spoonman

there are no limitations in the 2nd amendment placed on either what you can own or how much you can own.  the wording is very clear and implicit.  the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.


----------



## Nosmo King

Spoonman said:


> there are no limitations in the 2nd amendment placed on either what you can own or how much you can own.  the wording is very clear and implicit.  the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.


If the founding fathers could look beyond muzzle loading muskets into the future when dozens of rounds could be fired in a matter of a few seconds, would they have written the amendment to clearly define what "arms" are?  If any and all firearms and weapons designed for war should be held by private citizens, would we be a safer nation?  And if that's the case, wouldn't that apply to other nations around the globe?  Would we need to worry about an Iranian nuclear bomb?


----------



## Spoonman

here is another fact.  the number of guns in the USA grows greatly every year.  every year there are more and more guns.  but every year there are fewer and fewer homicides with a gun.  today only       .000036 guns in america causes a homicide.    if you want to look at that number interms of what deadly assault style weapons cause it is .0000011.   and the numbers are getting smaller every year.   guns are not a problem. so called assault style weapons are not the problem.


----------



## Little-Acorn

Spoonman said:


> there are no limitations in the 2nd amendment placed on either what you can own or how much you can own.  the wording is very clear and implicit.  the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.



The only limitation mentioned in the 2nd amendment, is a limitation on government. It is forbidden to infringe on the people's right.


----------



## Little-Acorn

Nosmo King said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> there are no limitations in the 2nd amendment placed on either what you can own or how much you can own.  the wording is very clear and implicit.  the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> If the founding fathers could look beyond muzzle loading muskets into the future when dozens of rounds could be fired in a matter of a few seconds, would they have written the amendment to clearly define what "arms" are?  If any and all firearms and weapons designed for war should be held by private citizens, would we be a safer nation?  And if that's the case, wouldn't that apply to other nations around the globe?  Would we need to worry about an Iranian nuclear bomb?
Click to expand...


Isn't it cute how little nosmo keeps trying desperately to change the subject?

The government has no power whatsoever to take your or my gun away, or restrict our use or ownership of it.

Actually, that was true of the Federal govt even before the 2nd amendment was added to the Constitution, two years after the Const was ratified. All the 2nd really did, was extend that prohibition, to state and local governments too.


----------



## Spoonman

Nosmo King said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> there are no limitations in the 2nd amendment placed on either what you can own or how much you can own.  the wording is very clear and implicit.  the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> If the founding fathers could look beyond muzzle loading muskets into the future when dozens of rounds could be fired in a matter of a few seconds, would they have written the amendment to clearly define what "arms" are?  If any and all firearms and weapons designed for war should be held by private citizens, would we be a safer nation?  And if that's the case, wouldn't that apply to other nations around the globe?  Would we need to worry about an Iranian nuclear bomb?
Click to expand...


nosomo the founding father were looking well beyond a muzzle loader.  the first machine gun was invented in 1718.  long before the 2nd amendment was written.   in 1777 the continental congress had and order out for 100 rapid fire rifles that utilized large capacity magazines and fired 20 shots in five seconds,  what a so called deadly AR- 15 is capable of today.  they well knew of advancing technologies.  the point is the expectation was the public was to have access to the same technology available as the government.  there were no limitations placed.   the didn't have telephones back then either but free speech is still protected over air waves and phone lines.   it is not limited because the technology didn't exist.  they new then, as we know now, technology continues to change and develop.  they were in the process of pushing the current envelope of technology to further improve weapons, their capacity, their rate of fire, even before they wrote the second amendment


----------



## Little-Acorn

Spoonman said:


> nosomo the founding father were looking well beyond a muzzle loader.  the first machine gun was invented in 1718.  long before the 2nd amendment was written.   in 1777 the continental congress had and order out for 100 rapid fire rifles that utilized large capacity magazines and fired 20 shots in five seconds,  what a so called deadly AR- 15 is capable of today.  they well knew of advancing technologies.  the point is the expectation was the public was to have access to the same technology available as the government.  there were no limitations placed.   the didn't have telephones back then either but free speech is still protected over air waves and phone lines.   it is not limited because the technology didn't exist.  they new then, as we know now, technology continues to change and develop.  they were in the process of pushing the current envelope of technology to further improve weapons, their capacity, their rate of fire, even before they wrote the second amendment



Little nosmo knows these things.

He's not interested in telling people the truth.

He's trying to get them to believe his diversions and lies.


----------



## Nosmo King

Little-Acorn said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> nosomo the founding father were looking well beyond a muzzle loader.  the first machine gun was invented in 1718.  long before the 2nd amendment was written.   in 1777 the continental congress had and order out for 100 rapid fire rifles that utilized large capacity magazines and fired 20 shots in five seconds,  what a so called deadly AR- 15 is capable of today.  they well knew of advancing technologies.  the point is the expectation was the public was to have access to the same technology available as the government.  there were no limitations placed.   the didn't have telephones back then either but free speech is still protected over air waves and phone lines.   it is not limited because the technology didn't exist.  they new then, as we know now, technology continues to change and develop.  they were in the process of pushing the current envelope of technology to further improve weapons, their capacity, their rate of fire, even before they wrote the second amendment
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Little nosmo knows these things.
> 
> He's not interested in telling people the truth.
> 
> He's trying to get them to believe his diversions and lies.
Click to expand...

You have no real knowledge of me.  Unlike spooman who does know me and argues from knowledge and facts, you simply make wild assumptions as to someone else's motivations and character.  Which of the two of you do you think I have greater respect for?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Nosmo King said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> I reject the premise that handguns with semi automatic firing systems and high capacity clips are strictly defensive weapons.
> 
> 
> 
> You then argue from ignorance, dishonesty or both - given you changed the term I used, its likely both,.
> Given that, you cannot possibly have a sound position in this regard.
> Never mind the fact that banning handguns violates the constituion - period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I do support all efforts to ban assault weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The bans curremntly under consideration do not ban 'assault weapons' as you define them.   Why do you support those bans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I further reject your assumption that I argue from ignorance or dishonesty.
Click to expand...

I said:


> Aside from the fact that hanguns w/ hi-cap magazines *are purposely designed for self-defense *


You said:


> I reject the premise that handguns with semi automatic firing systems and high capacity clips *are strictly defensive weapons*.


As you changed the terms of the coversation away from the statement I made to the position want to take, you have engaged in dishonest debate; in the process, you allow my statement to stand, undiminished.



> If I agreed with you, I would not only have no standing in an honest debate, but I'd abandon all rational thought and stick my head in the sand to ignore gun violence while maintaining that guns are just too damn cool.


And here, you argue from emotion and ignorance - proving yet again that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and dishonesty.

Also, because of your dishonesty, you refused to, twice, addrewss this question:
The bans curremntly under consideration do not ban 'assault weapons' as you define them.   Why do you support those bans?

Don't worry -- I don't expect an honest answer.


----------



## Lakhota

The 2nd Amendment is obsolete!


----------



## petro

Lakhota said:


> The 2nd Amendment is obsolete!



In that case we will consider the First amendment obsolete for the likes of you. Lunatics use words as well as guns.


----------



## Geaux4it

Lakhota said:


> The 2nd Amendment is obsolete!



Well, maybe its dead for the red man. But like liquor, they get the guns anyway which is fine with me, as long as they continue to beat their women instead of shooting them

-Geaux


----------



## M14 Shooter

Lakhota said:


> The 2nd Amendment is obsolete!


Your opinion is laughable.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Lakhota said:


> The 2nd Amendment is obsolete!


----------



## legaleagle_45

Lakhota said:


> The 2nd Amendment is obsolete!



Then the solution is clear and the process is found in Article V of the Constitution.  First you convince 2/3rds of the House and 2/3rds of the Senate to propose a Constitutional Amendment repealing the 2nd Amend,  Then all you need do is convince 38 states to ratify that amendment and the 2nd Amend disappears.  Pretty simple actually.

I suggest you contact Harry Reid at once and demand that he spearhead your proposal through the Senate... after all the Senate should have some time on their hands after rejecting all gun control laws earlier this year.

I am certain that Harry will be thrilled with your proposal and marvel at your political savvy.  Perhaps he will choose to employ it as the centerpiece of the Democratic Platform for the Midterm elections?  Something like this would go over great.



> *VOTE DEMOCRATIC AND REPEAL PART OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS*


----------



## Shoey

While the importance of individuals to form militias to defend against tyranny is certainly substantial and worthy of notation in the 2nd Amendment, it is by no means the only reason for the 2nd Amendment to prohibit infringements upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms relates to the individual's Right of Self Defense and certainly the tyranny of government presents one of the greatest threats to the individual. Tyranny is the very cause of revolution which is why we have a protected Right to defend ourselves against it. That doesn't imply that assault and murder aren't also serious threats where the Right to Keep and Bear Arms isn't also necessary.


----------



## Geaux4it

Lakhota said:


> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
Click to expand...


And your point?

-Geaux


----------



## Lakhota

> There are two problems with the Second Amendment.  First, under any circumstance, it is confusing; something that an English teacher would mark up in red ink and tell the author to redo and clarify.  Secondly, there are actually two versions of the Amendment; The first passed by two-thirds of the members of each house of Congress (the first step for ratifying a constitutional amendment).  A different version passed by three-fourths of the states (the second step for ratifying a constitution amendment).  The primary difference between the two versions are a capitalization and a simple comma.



DETAILS: Confusion -- the wording of the Second Amendment | Occasional Planet


----------



## Rct_Tsoul

You have the right to wear a short sleeve shirt ........... its time for the culling ............ Check Mate sheeple, goodnight & Godspeed.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Lakhota said:


> DETAILS: Confusion -- the wording of the Second Amendment | Occasional Planet


Thank you for your ridiculous opinion.


----------



## legaleagle_45

Lakhota said:


> There are two problems with the Second Amendment.  First, under any circumstance, it is confusing; something that an English teacher would mark up in red ink and tell the author to redo and clarify.  Secondly, there are actually two versions of the Amendment; The first passed by two-thirds of the members of each house of Congress (the first step for ratifying a constitutional amendment).  A different version passed by three-fourths of the states (the second step for ratifying a constitution amendment).  The primary difference between the two versions are a capitalization and a simple comma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DETAILS: Confusion -- the wording of the Second Amendment | Occasional Planet
Click to expand...


Actually it is not confusing at all, at least to persons living at the time it was passed.  The other supposed deficiency would be applicable to almost all of the Bill of Rights. .. non substantive variations of punctuation and capitalization are irrelevant.  In fact the same exact issue has arisen with respect to the 16th amend which provides for the income tax.  With the 16th the legislatures of various states passed ratifying resolutions in which the quoted text of the Amendment differed from the text proposed by Congress in terms of capitalization, spelling of words, or punctuation marks (e.g. semi-colons instead of commas), and it was claimed that  these differences made the ratification invalid and that there is legally no income tax.  Go ahead Lakota, be consistent.  Don't pay your federal income taxes and claim the feds have no power to collect it...  You would still be wrong, but at least you would be consistent.


----------



## petro

Shoey said:


> While the importance of individuals to form militias to defend against tyranny is certainly substantial and worthy of notation in the 2nd Amendment, it is by no means the only reason for the 2nd Amendment to prohibit infringements upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms relates to the individual's Right of Self Defense and certainly the tyranny of government presents one of the greatest threats to the individual. Tyranny is the very cause of revolution which is why we have a protected Right to defend ourselves against it. That doesn't imply that assault and murder aren't also serious threats where the Right to Keep and Bear Arms isn't also necessary.



This is exactly why the anti-Federalists insisted on a Bill of Rights, they had a fresh memory of the tyranny imposed by the British and intended the Bill of Rights to be individual rights against any future government imposing a tyrannical regime. Nothing confusing about it as some would suggest.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

petro said:


> Shoey said:
> 
> 
> 
> While the importance of individuals to form militias to defend against tyranny is certainly substantial and worthy of notation in the 2nd Amendment, it is by no means the only reason for the 2nd Amendment to prohibit infringements upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms relates to the individual's Right of Self Defense and certainly the tyranny of government presents one of the greatest threats to the individual. Tyranny is the very cause of revolution which is why we have a protected Right to defend ourselves against it. That doesn't imply that assault and murder aren't also serious threats where the Right to Keep and Bear Arms isn't also necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is exactly why the anti-Federalists insisted on a Bill of Rights, they had a fresh memory of the tyranny imposed by the British and intended the Bill of Rights to be individual rights against any future government imposing a tyrannical regime. Nothing confusing about it as some would suggest.
Click to expand...


My guess is that today the right to bear arms is problematic because decadent liberalism has so deteriorated the American character  that guns are now used primarily in  senseless crimes.


----------



## FJO

The REAL representative of Right to Bare Arms:

Google Image Result for http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2009/database/michelleobama/michelle_obama300.jpg

Like Larry the Cable Guy, except he is prettier.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

petro said:


> Shoey said:
> 
> 
> 
> While the importance of individuals to form militias to defend against tyranny is certainly substantial and worthy of notation in the 2nd Amendment, it is by no means the only reason for the 2nd Amendment to prohibit infringements upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms relates to the individual's Right of Self Defense and certainly the tyranny of government presents one of the greatest threats to the individual. Tyranny is the very cause of revolution which is why we have a protected Right to defend ourselves against it. That doesn't imply that assault and murder aren't also serious threats where the Right to Keep and Bear Arms isn't also necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is exactly why the anti-Federalists insisted on a Bill of Rights, they had a fresh memory of the tyranny imposed by the British and intended the Bill of Rights to be individual rights against any future government imposing a tyrannical regime. Nothing confusing about it as some would suggest.
Click to expand...

What's fascinating to note here is that the Federalists did not want a Bill of Rights on the theory that if government were given the power to protect rights it might subvert that power and actually dissolve that right. We see that with guns today. One step at a time they are taking the power to own guns away.

Indeed, all of our Founders understood the pure evil of liberal government

.


----------



## OODA_Loop

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> My guess is that today the right to bear arms is problematic because decadent liberalism has so deteriorated the American character  that guns are now used primarily in  senseless crimes.



Obama's recently commissioned study found guns are used as many times for lawful self-defense as they are crimes.

See Page 15

Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence


----------



## asaratis

bendog said:


> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> In modern language, the 2nd amendment says,
> 
> "Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted."
> 
> And it's as true and relevant today, as the day it was ratified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, what it means today is .... since Americans have a right to defend themselves, the govt may not prevent them from owning and keeping firearms normally used for self defense in their homes (and I'm sure business's they own), and the gvot may allow them to carry weapons in other places so long as the govt treats all applications to do so the same ... i.e. no discrimination.  And, I've no doubt we can take unloaded firearms to gun ranges and repair shops.
Click to expand...

People with valid permits can carry concealed weapons except in certain places.  People with or without valid permits can carry open weapons...except in certain places.  That is the law in my state.


----------



## Missourian

Lakhota said:


> The 2nd Amendment is obsolete!




Do you shake your fist at the sky when you say that?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

OODA_Loop said:


> Obama's recently commissioned study found guns are used as many times for lawful self-defense as they are crimes.




why not show us the exact quote???


----------



## regent

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> petro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shoey said:
> 
> 
> 
> While the importance of individuals to form militias to defend against tyranny is certainly substantial and worthy of notation in the 2nd Amendment, it is by no means the only reason for the 2nd Amendment to prohibit infringements upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms relates to the individual's Right of Self Defense and certainly the tyranny of government presents one of the greatest threats to the individual. Tyranny is the very cause of revolution which is why we have a protected Right to defend ourselves against it. That doesn't imply that assault and murder aren't also serious threats where the Right to Keep and Bear Arms isn't also necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is exactly why the anti-Federalists insisted on a Bill of Rights, they had a fresh memory of the tyranny imposed by the British and intended the Bill of Rights to be individual rights against any future government imposing a tyrannical regime. Nothing confusing about it as some would suggest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's fascinating to note here is that the Federalists did not want a Bill of Rights on the theory that if government were given the power to protect rights it might subvert that power and actually dissolve that right. We see that with guns today. One step at a time they are taking the power to own guns away.
> 
> Indeed, all of our Founders understood the pure evil of liberal government
> 
> .
Click to expand...

I think most historians agree that the reason the Federalists did not see the need for a Bill of Rights, was that they believed the constitution was in fact a form of a Bill of Rights, but the anti-federalists insisted. The Anti-federalists will become the Republicans of that period and eventually the Democratic party of today. 
As to the liberal government, General MacArthur said this in his farewell speech: "For the framers were the most liberal thinkers of all the ages and the charter they produced out of the liberal revolution of their time has never been and is not now surpassed in liberal thought."

MacArthur at the time was still being thought of as a Republican candidate for president.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

regent said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> petro said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is exactly why the anti-Federalists insisted on a Bill of Rights, they had a fresh memory of the tyranny imposed by the British and intended the Bill of Rights to be individual rights against any future government imposing a tyrannical regime. Nothing confusing about it as some would suggest.
> 
> 
> 
> What's fascinating to note here is that the Federalists did not want a Bill of Rights on the theory that if government were given the power to protect rights it might subvert that power and actually dissolve that right. We see that with guns today. One step at a time they are taking the power to own guns away.
> 
> Indeed, all of our Founders understood the pure evil of liberal government
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think most historians agree that the reason the Federalists did not see the need for a Bill of Rights, was that they believed the constitution was in fact a form of a Bill of Rights, but the anti-federalists insisted. The Anti-federalists will become the Republicans of that period and eventually the Democratic party of today.
> As to the liberal government, General MacArthur said this in his farewell speech: "For the framers were the most liberal thinkers of all the ages and the charter they produced out of the liberal revolution of their time has never been and is not now surpassed in liberal thought."
> 
> MacArthur at the time was still being thought of as a Republican candidate for president.
Click to expand...


dear, when he said liberal he meant classical liberal or limited government liberal. Milton Friedman called himself a liberal too,.... because he was for limited government.

See why we say slow?


----------



## Geaux4it

Rct_Tsoul said:


> You have the right to wear a short sleeve shirt ........... its time for the culling ............ Check Mate sheeple, goodnight & Godspeed.



Who will do the culling?

We might as well cut to the chase

-Geaux


----------



## Geaux4it

Lakhota said:


> The 2nd Amendment is obsolete!





-Geaux:


----------



## regent

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's fascinating to note here is that the Federalists did not want a Bill of Rights on the theory that if government were given the power to protect rights it might subvert that power and actually dissolve that right. We see that with guns today. One step at a time they are taking the power to own guns away.
> 
> Indeed, all of our Founders understood the pure evil of liberal government
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> I think most historians agree that the reason the Federalists did not see the need for a Bill of Rights, was that they believed the constitution was in fact a form of a Bill of Rights, but the anti-federalists insisted. The Anti-federalists will become the Republicans of that period and eventually the Democratic party of today.
> As to the liberal government, General MacArthur said this in his farewell speech: "For the framers were the most liberal thinkers of all the ages and the charter they produced out of the liberal revolution of their time has never been and is not now surpassed in liberal thought."
> 
> MacArthur at the time was still being thought of as a Republican candidate for president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dear, when he said liberal he meant classical liberal or limited government liberal. Milton Friedman called himself a liberal too,.... because he was for limited government.
> 
> See why we say slow?
Click to expand...


I think there is considerably more to the political ideology of liberalism than limited government. I'm sure Liberalism has far more components than just limited government.
I don't think MacArthur was using just one component of of an ideology in labeling the founders liberal. If MacArthur made an error it was generalizing about the founders, they were of different beliefs but the Declaration of Independence was pure Locke and the Constitution somewhat Locke. 
Friedman being for limited government does not make him a liberal no matter the classical liberal label. So what is the correct definition of liberalism you might start with the core beliefs?


----------



## legaleagle_45

regent said:


> I think most historians agree that the reason the Federalists did not see the need for a Bill of Rights, was that they believed the constitution was in fact a form of a Bill of Rights, but the anti-federalists insisted. The Anti-federalists will become the Republicans of that period and eventually the Democratic party of today.



OK, here is a top secret historical truth that you will never learn in High School.



> *The Bill of Rights was a political ploy unleashed by the anti-federalists in a desperate effort to prevent the Constituion from being ratified.*



There, I said it, now you must promise not to tell anyone else.

Here is what occurred.  

A growing political movement was gaining momentum to strengthen the powers of the federal government under the Articles of Confederation.. most agreed that some change was necessary and it was agreed to establish a Federal Convention to recommend AMENDMENTS TO THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION.

Now what many people did not know was that in order to amend the Articles of Confederation, it was necessary to obtain the consent of 100% of the states.  As a result, many of the leading Anti-Federalists decided not to attend the federal convention, safe in the knowledge that their state had veto power over any proposed amendment and they could pick and choose the proposals they liked and ignore those that they did not.  As a result, the Federalists dominated the Federal Convention even though politically they represented only a minority view in the country in 1787

The Federalist threw the anti federalists a curve when they did not propose any amendments to the Articles, instead they proposed that the Articles be thrown on the dustbin of history and replaced with an entirely new Constituion.  What is worse, it only required 9 states to appove it and not 100% approval.  Further, it was an all or nothing  poposal..    The only alternatives were to ratify the Constituion or reject it, they could not pick and choose.  This put the antifeds at a great disadvantage because the people wanted SOMETHING and the newly proposed Constituion was something... maybe not perfect, but far better than the Articles.  The antifeds were livid.

The Federalists got out of the gate running and a litlle over 2 months later, Delaware became the 1st state to ratify... the antifeds were in shock and in a total stae of disarray.  Next up was Pennsylvania and finally the antifeds got their act together.  Pennsylvania ratified, but at least the antifederalists were able to mount some opposition.  They issued a minority report which seemed reasonable enough.. send the Constitution back to Convention for a few adjustments, such as the addition of a Bill of Rights.

The proposal fom the Pennsylvania Minority was actually a *poison pill,* and the leaders of both the anti feds and the feds knew this.  The reason why is because if a new convention was convened to amend the the constituion to add a Bill of Rights, the anti feds would not stay at home this time.  They would dominate the new convention and trash the Constituion.

The Bill of Rights was the one thing that gained traction with the people and there was a real threat that a new covention would be called.  The federalists pulled out all the stops, claiming that not only was a BoR not necessary, but it was also dangerous... They also claimed that no list of rights could be complete, but the exclusion from the list would mean they were lost.. the feds were grasping at straws trying to convince the people that it was dangerous to protect the right to free speech and freedom of religion and a jury trial...  

The antifederalists now had the upper hand, pointing to the federalists opposition to something as basic as a BoR created suspiscion as to the motives of the federalists... why can't we just send it back for some amendments?  

It seemed certain at that point that ratification would fail and the Constitution lost forever.  And then a miracle...

*THE MASSACHUSETTS COMPROMISE*

This was a deal brokered between a moderate faction of anti federalists (led by Sam Adams) and the federalists wherin the antifeds would vote to ratify if there was an express direction that the 1st Congress propose a Bill of Rights for Ratification by the states. .. and Massachusetts barely ratified the Constituion.  

Other states quickly mimicked the Massachusetts Compromise with the ratification made with an express directive that a Bill of Rights be proposed by the 1st Congress.

Any truly knowledgeable historian will tell you that without the Massachusetts compromise, we would have neither a Constitution or a Bill of Rights...

and that is the hidden history of the political infighting that occured with the ratification of our Constitution.  The feds were not really philosophically opposed to the BoR's and the antifeds were not the benovolent protectors of the individual rights of the people.  For many of the leading players, it was nothing more than political posturing to achieve political ends.


----------



## Rct_Tsoul

Geaux4it said:


> Rct_Tsoul said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have the right to wear a short sleeve shirt ........... its time for the culling ............ Check Mate sheeple, goodnight & Godspeed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who will do the culling?
> 
> We might as well cut to the chase
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


As you know every sheep herder cares very much for his sheep, but he also realizes that one day the sheep must be culled.
Eg. Lets say I am touring or inspecting one of my factories, and I turn left when I should have turned right ............. and my left arm gets mangled up on one of the factories machines, like all mashed up in the gears .......... the doctors must amputate. 
A database shows there is a man near by that is a genetic & size match to myself. 
Now that guns will soon be gone, we won't have to worry about the donor putting up a fight with his guns and risk damaging my new arm in a shootout with police. 
No ........ he will be brought to the hospital in complete and total submission, just like in South America when I got a kidney transplant. 
Yea I am sure that some will argue that he has the right to bear arms, but so do I, if you think about it, his arms belong to me anyway as I am a wealthy person.


----------



## Geaux4it

Just let me know when my street number comes up and who will have the fortitude to deliver the news

Standing by

-Geaux


----------



## Spoonman

Lakhota said:


> The 2nd Amendment is obsolete!



now if your opinion only mattered


----------



## Lakhota

FACT: The 2nd Amendment is obsolete!


----------



## Lakhota

FACT: The wording of the 2nd Amendment is confusing!


----------



## Geaux4it

Lakhota said:


> FACT: The 2nd Amendment is obsolete!


----------



## M14 Shooter

Lakhota said:


> FACT: The wording of the 2nd Amendment is confusing!


Fact:
I thank you for continuing to prove that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.


----------



## OKTexas

Lakhota said:


> FACT: The wording of the 2nd Amendment is confusing!



FACT SCOTUS said it is an individual right, period, end of story.

Does that make it less confusing for you.


----------



## Missouri_Mike

Lakhota said:


> FACT: The wording of the 2nd Amendment is confusing!



Only to morons like you.


----------



## Vigilante




----------



## TheOldSchool

Lakhota said:


> FACT: The wording of the 2nd Amendment is confusing!



Holy Smokes!!!!!!!

Lakhota!!!!!!


----------



## Vigilante




----------



## OKTexas

Vigilante said:


>



I liked her better with the blue eyes.


----------



## Vigilante

OKTexas said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I liked her better with the blue eyes.
Click to expand...


Would you have paid any attention, except to puke, if she looked like either one of these two bitches?


----------



## westwall

Lakhota said:


> FACT: The 2nd Amendment is obsolete!








When did they let you out of jail?


----------



## westwall

Lakhota said:


> FACT: The wording of the 2nd Amendment is confusing!







Only if you're a moron.


----------



## Vigilante

Lakhota said:


> FACT: The wording of the 2nd Amendment is confusing!



Yes, subversives say that all the time, as they worry what will happen to them when the second American Revolution starts, and now the rabbits have a gun, and know how to use it!


----------



## RetiredGySgt

You want it changed? Get an amendment past Congress and then approved by 37 States. That is the only way you will change it. I notice your type never actually try that.


----------



## Vigilante

Proving the old axiom that morons think alike....


----------



## Antares

Shitting Bull is back and stupid as ever.


----------



## Wyld Kard

Lakhota said:


> FACT: The 2nd Amendment is obsolete!



FACT:  The 2nd Amendment is *NOT* obsolete!

FACT:  You are an idiot!


----------



## Wyld Kard

Lakhota said:


> FACT: The wording of the 2nd Amendment is confusing!



FACT:  Only to idiots like yourself who fail to comprehend it.


----------



## Wyld Kard




----------



## hunarcy

Lakhota said:


> FACT: The wording of the 2nd Amendment is confusing!



Actually, the wording is very clear to all except those who wish it said something else.


----------



## P@triot

Lakhota said:


> FACT: The wording of the 2nd Amendment is confusing!



What _exactly_ is "confusing" about THE *RIGHT* OF THE *PEOPLE* TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL *NOT* BE INFRINGED.

That is about as clear as it gets.


----------



## P@triot

Lakhota said:


> Trying to live modern life according to the Constitution is much like trying to live modern life according to the Bible.  Both are subject to vast interpretation.



FACT: The U.S. Constitution is the highest law in the land. The law is *not* open to interpretation. The law is written in black & white and is illegal to violate.

Game over junior.


----------



## Iceweasel

Rottweiler said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> FACT: The wording of the 2nd Amendment is confusing!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What _exactly_ is "confusing" about THE *RIGHT* OF THE *PEOPLE* TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL *NOT* BE INFRINGED.
> 
> That is about as clear as it gets.
Click to expand...

No no. It's the comma. The comma changes everything and we've got it wrong for 200+ years and even the Supreme Court doesn't understand its' significance. The comma can only be understood by the higher evolutionary life forms known as 'liberals'.


----------



## gipper

Lakhota said:


> Trying to live modern life according to the Constitution is much like trying to live modern life according to the Bible.  Both are subject to vast interpretation.



That has to be one of the dumbest posts ever posted on USMB.

The Constitution protects fundamental individual rights.  The freedom of speech, assemble, religion, press, due process, trial by jury, privacy, bear arms, self incrimination, etc....well those are old antiquated ideas not applicable to modern life...

...just like the Ten Commandments are old antiquated ideas...you know like, thou shalt not murder...

CRAZY!


----------



## LibertyLemming

gipper said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trying to live modern life according to the Constitution is much like trying to live modern life according to the Bible.  Both are subject to vast interpretation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That has to be one of the dumbest posts ever posted on USMB.
> 
> The Constitution protects fundamental individual rights.  The freedom of speech, assemble, religion, press, due process, trial by jury, privacy, bear arms, self incrimination, etc....well those are old antiquated ideas not applicable to modern life...
> 
> ...just like the Ten Commandments are old antiquated ideas...you know like, thou shalt not murder...
> 
> CRAZY!
Click to expand...


Yeah man a piece of fucking parchment is "protecting" your rights. This dude broke into my house and I wrote down I shall not be broken into on a piece of paper and stuck it on the front door and showed it to him and he fucking bounced


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

gipper said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trying to live modern life according to the Constitution is much like trying to live modern life according to the Bible.  Both are subject to vast interpretation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That has to be one of the dumbest posts ever posted on USMB.
> 
> The Constitution protects fundamental individual rights.  The freedom of speech, assemble, religion, press, due process, trial by jury, privacy, bear arms, self incrimination, etc....well those are old antiquated ideas not applicable to modern life...
> 
> ...just like the Ten Commandments are old antiquated ideas...you know like, thou shalt not murder...
> 
> CRAZY!
Click to expand...


Its very simple really. The liberal needs to burn the Consititution before communism is possible. And what does communism mean: welfare for all, except for those who must pay for it!!


----------



## Lakhota

I see more kids are being needlessly killed by firearms.  Even an instructor was just killed by a 9-year-old kid being trained to use an uzi.  This is madness.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Lakhota said:


> I see more kids are being needlessly killed by firearms.  Even an instructor was just killed by a 9-year-old kid being trained to use an uzi.  This is madness.


Obvious troll is obvious.


----------



## Lakhota

Gotta love this.

NRA: Children Can Have Fun At The Shooting Range


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

How can anyone take Lakhota serous enough to let a thread started by shim get to 91 pages?


----------



## BreezeWood

.

all public firearms to be bolt or lever action per round, six rounds or less capacity.


----------



## Lakhota

BreezeWood said:


> .
> 
> all public firearms to be bolt or lever action per round, six rounds or less capacity.



That sounds reasonable.  I use even less for deer and elk.


----------



## Spoonman

Lakhota said:


> I see more kids are being needlessly killed by firearms.  Even an instructor was just killed by a 9-year-old kid being trained to use an uzi.  This is madness.


shit happens.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Lakhota said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> all public firearms to be bolt or lever action per round, six rounds or less capacity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That sounds reasonable.  I use even less for deer and elk.
Click to expand...



Thats some excellent


Lakhota said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> all public firearms to be bolt or lever action per round, six rounds or less capacity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That sounds reasonable.  I use even less for deer and elk.
Click to expand...


 I'm sure anyone who is gunning for you is happy about your lack of fire power....
I can hit you out to 500 yards with my AR,and out to 800 with the .270.
  I love having options....


----------



## Sallow

Rottweiler said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> FACT: The wording of the 2nd Amendment is confusing!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What _exactly_ is "confusing" about THE *RIGHT* OF THE *PEOPLE* TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL *NOT* BE INFRINGED.
> 
> That is about as clear as it gets.
Click to expand...

Sure is.

And the people bearing arms have an obligation to defend the state while serving in a militia. Said militia is under the control of congress and under the command of the President.

Go forth and defend.


----------



## blackhawk

You ever notice threads like this only pop up after a shooting or when an election is coming up? That is a pretty good tell on just how sincere people are in there beliefs on the subject.


----------



## Lakhota

blackhawk said:


> You ever notice threads like this only pop up after a shooting or when an election is coming up? That is a pretty good tell on just how sincere people are in there beliefs on the subject.



That's about the only time such threads get any attention.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Spoonman said:


> shit happens.



Sadly, that's exactly how the nutters see this. 

That man was someone's son, father, brother, friend but the nutter's don't feel anything more about his death than the death of a 8yo who accidentally shot himself at a shooting range not long ago. 

They'll do damn near anything for a fetus but not a damn thing for a living human being.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

blackhawk said:


> You ever notice threads like this only pop up after a shooting or when an election is coming up? That is a pretty good tell on just how sincere people are in there beliefs on the subject.



Depends on how they vote.


----------



## turtledude

BreezeWood said:


> .
> 
> all public firearms to be bolt or lever action per round, six rounds or less capacity.



wtf is a public firearm?

one you can borrow from the local library?


----------



## blackhawk

Lakhota said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> You ever notice threads like this only pop up after a shooting or when an election is coming up? That is a pretty good tell on just how sincere people are in there beliefs on the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's about the only time such threads get any attention.
Click to expand...

Which tells you that this is really not a major issue with most people including those who start the threads.


----------



## Missouri_Mike

Lakhota said:


> I see more kids are being needlessly killed by firearms.  Even an instructor was just killed by a 9-year-old kid being trained to use an uzi.  This is madness.


How many were shot today in Chicago by gang criminals? They weren't out for a family day at the range. Tragic this happened? Yes. A reason we should all lose our 2A rights? No.


----------



## Spoonman

Luddly Neddite said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> shit happens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, that's exactly how the nutters see this.
> 
> That man was someone's son, father, brother, friend but the nutter's don't feel anything more about his death than the death of a 8yo who accidentally shot himself at a shooting range not long ago.
> 
> They'll do damn near anything for a fetus but not a damn thing for a living human being.
Click to expand...

you know, some kid taking his driving test got into an accident and killed the poor guy administering the test. That man was someone's son, father, brother, friend but the lunatic left is still ok to let kids keep on getting their drivers license.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

AzMike said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see more kids are being needlessly killed by firearms.  Even an instructor was just killed by a 9-year-old kid being trained to use an uzi.  This is madness.
> 
> 
> 
> How many were shot today in Chicago by gang criminals? They weren't out for a family day at the range. Tragic this happened? Yes. A reason we should all lose our 2A rights? No.
Click to expand...


I notice the low-info types have taken to using Chicago as some sort of barometer of gun violence. What they don't know is that Chicago is 21st in the nation in gun deaths. 

Turn off fux and educate yourself. 

Despite recent shootings Chicago nowhere near U.S. 8216 murder capital 8217 Pew Research Center


----------



## Missouri_Mike

Lakhota said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> all public firearms to be bolt or lever action per round, six rounds or less capacity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That sounds reasonable.  I use even less for deer and elk.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking that is probably true if your version of "deer and elk" means you went to the grocery store armed with a 1/2 off coupon as your hunting weapon of choice to purchase hamburger. Congrats on your public firearm.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Spoonman said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> shit happens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, that's exactly how the nutters see this.
> 
> That man was someone's son, father, brother, friend but the nutter's don't feel anything more about his death than the death of a 8yo who accidentally shot himself at a shooting range not long ago.
> 
> They'll do damn near anything for a fetus but not a damn thing for a living human being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you know, some kid taking his driving test got into an accident and killed the poor guy administering the test. That man was someone's son, father, brother, friend but the lunatic left is still ok to let kids keep on getting their drivers license.
Click to expand...


Cars are not guns.
Swimming pools are not guns. 
Bread boxes are not guns. 

The scary thing is, the damn dumb gun nutters really don't seem to know that. 

But, since you nutters think cars and guns are the same ...


----------



## Missouri_Mike

Luddly Neddite said:


> AzMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see more kids are being needlessly killed by firearms.  Even an instructor was just killed by a 9-year-old kid being trained to use an uzi.  This is madness.
> 
> 
> 
> How many were shot today in Chicago by gang criminals? They weren't out for a family day at the range. Tragic this happened? Yes. A reason we should all lose our 2A rights? No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I notice the low-info types have taken to using Chicago as some sort of barometer of gun violence. What they don't know is that Chicago is 21st in the nation in gun deaths.
> 
> Turn off fux and educate yourself.
> 
> Despite recent shootings Chicago nowhere near U.S. 8216 murder capital 8217 Pew Research Center
Click to expand...

So your response to high murder rates are someone else is worse? Well thanks for that info slick. I'm thinking most of those cities you listed are dumbocrat run right?


----------



## Spoonman

Luddly Neddite said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> shit happens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, that's exactly how the nutters see this.
> 
> That man was someone's son, father, brother, friend but the nutter's don't feel anything more about his death than the death of a 8yo who accidentally shot himself at a shooting range not long ago.
> 
> They'll do damn near anything for a fetus but not a damn thing for a living human being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you know, some kid taking his driving test got into an accident and killed the poor guy administering the test. That man was someone's son, father, brother, friend but the lunatic left is still ok to let kids keep on getting their drivers license.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cars are not guns.
> Swimming pools are not guns.
> Bread boxes are not guns.
> 
> The scary thing is, the damn dumb gun nutters really don't seem to know that.
> 
> But, since you nutters think cars and guns are the same ...
Click to expand...

cars  kill more than guns,  more people drown each year than are killed by guns.  ban cars and swimming, they are more dangerous than guns


----------



## Missouri_Mike

Luddly Neddite said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> shit happens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, that's exactly how the nutters see this.
> 
> That man was someone's son, father, brother, friend but the nutter's don't feel anything more about his death than the death of a 8yo who accidentally shot himself at a shooting range not long ago.
> 
> They'll do damn near anything for a fetus but not a damn thing for a living human being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you know, some kid taking his driving test got into an accident and killed the poor guy administering the test. That man was someone's son, father, brother, friend but the lunatic left is still ok to let kids keep on getting their drivers license.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cars are not guns.
> Swimming pools are not guns.
> Bread boxes are not guns.
> 
> The scary thing is, the damn dumb gun nutters really don't seem to know that.
> 
> But, since you nutters think cars and guns are the same ...
Click to expand...

So what should be the waiting period on buying a car? Background checks? Is driving even in the Constitution as a right?


----------



## frigidweirdo

Rottweiler said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> FACT: The wording of the 2nd Amendment is confusing!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What _exactly_ is "confusing" about THE *RIGHT* OF THE *PEOPLE* TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL *NOT* BE INFRINGED.
> 
> That is about as clear as it gets.
Click to expand...


It's clear for those who don't want to understand the truth. 

The right shall not be infringed. But what is the right? This is the hard part. 

The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. Not the right to carry arms. The founding fathers were quite clear on that one.


----------



## frigidweirdo

AzMike said:


> So what should be the waiting period on buying a car? Background checks? Is driving even in the Constitution as a right?



Cars kill as many, but how often do people use cars out in public compared to how many use guns out in public? 

I think you''ll find that the number of gun usages to deaths much lower than with cars.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

frigidweirdo said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> FACT: The wording of the 2nd Amendment is confusing!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What _exactly_ is "confusing" about THE *RIGHT* OF THE *PEOPLE* TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL *NOT* BE INFRINGED.
> 
> That is about as clear as it gets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's clear for those who don't want to understand the truth.
> 
> The right shall not be infringed. But what is the right? This is the hard part.
> 
> The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. Not the right to carry arms. The founding fathers were quite clear on that one.
Click to expand...

 
LOL! That's funny.


----------



## Missouri_Mike

frigidweirdo said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> FACT: The wording of the 2nd Amendment is confusing!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What _exactly_ is "confusing" about THE *RIGHT* OF THE *PEOPLE* TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL *NOT* BE INFRINGED.
> 
> That is about as clear as it gets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's clear for those who don't want to understand the truth.
> 
> The right shall not be infringed. But what is the right? This is the hard part.
> 
> The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. Not the right to carry arms. The founding fathers were quite clear on that one.
Click to expand...

Then why doesn't the Constitution say the right shall not be infringed as long as you belong to a certain group?


----------



## turtledude

Luddly Neddite said:


> AzMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see more kids are being needlessly killed by firearms.  Even an instructor was just killed by a 9-year-old kid being trained to use an uzi.  This is madness.
> 
> 
> 
> How many were shot today in Chicago by gang criminals? They weren't out for a family day at the range. Tragic this happened? Yes. A reason we should all lose our 2A rights? No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I notice the low-info types have taken to using Chicago as some sort of barometer of gun violence. What they don't know is that Chicago is 21st in the nation in gun deaths.
> 
> Turn off fux and educate yourself.
> 
> Despite recent shootings Chicago nowhere near U.S. 8216 murder capital 8217 Pew Research Center
Click to expand...



Chicago and DC prove that disarming honest people is a failure.  its too bad that the politicians who disarmed honest citizens cannot be tried as co-conspirators with the felons.


----------



## turtledude

frigidweirdo said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> FACT: The wording of the 2nd Amendment is confusing!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What _exactly_ is "confusing" about THE *RIGHT* OF THE *PEOPLE* TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL *NOT* BE INFRINGED.
> 
> That is about as clear as it gets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's clear for those who don't want to understand the truth.
> 
> The right shall not be infringed. But what is the right? This is the hard part.
> 
> The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. Not the right to carry arms. The founding fathers were quite clear on that one.
Click to expand...



so that is why the founders said "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?

Oh they didn't say that

and there is NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION that properly empowered the FEDERAL government to interfere with our natural right to be armed


----------



## Missouri_Mike

frigidweirdo said:


> AzMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what should be the waiting period on buying a car? Background checks? Is driving even in the Constitution as a right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cars kill as many, but how often do people use cars out in public compared to how many use guns out in public?
> 
> I think you''ll find that the number of gun usages to deaths much lower than with cars.
Click to expand...

But cars were used as the excuse to regulate guns. Why?


----------



## Lakhota

I'd be happy just getting universal background checks.


----------



## Missouri_Mike

Lakhota said:


> I'd be happy just getting universal background checks.


We have those. Or do you mean the kind we used to have that said no indian, fake or otherwise, can have one? Is that your kind of universal?


----------



## Luddly Neddite

AzMike said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see more kids are being needlessly killed by firearms.  Even an instructor was just killed by a 9-year-old kid being trained to use an uzi.  This is madness.
> 
> 
> 
> How many were shot today in Chicago by gang criminals? They weren't out for a family day at the range. Tragic this happened? Yes. A reason we should all lose our 2A rights? No.
Click to expand...


Why Chicago?

As I said, they're 21st in the nation. 

Despite recent shootings Chicago nowhere near U.S. 8216 murder capital 8217 Pew Research Center

Where did anyone say anything about "losing Second Amendment rights". 

Where? Post a link.


----------



## Lakhota

AzMike said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be happy just getting universal background checks.
> 
> 
> 
> *We have those.* Or do you mean the kind we used to have that said no indian, fake or otherwise, can have one? Is that your kind of universal?
Click to expand...


Really?  Where?

Universal Background Checks Coalition to Stop Gun Violence


----------



## Luddly Neddite

turtledude said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see more kids are being needlessly killed by firearms.  Even an instructor was just killed by a 9-year-old kid being trained to use an uzi.  This is madness.
> 
> 
> 
> How many were shot today in Chicago by gang criminals? They weren't out for a family day at the range. Tragic this happened? Yes. A reason we should all lose our 2A rights? No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I notice the low-info types have taken to using Chicago as some sort of barometer of gun violence. What they don't know is that Chicago is 21st in the nation in gun deaths.
> 
> Turn off fux and educate yourself.
> 
> Despite recent shootings Chicago nowhere near U.S. 8216 murder capital 8217 Pew Research Center
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Chicago and DC prove that disarming honest people is a failure.  its too bad that the politicians who disarmed honest citizens cannot be tried as co-conspirators with the felons.
Click to expand...


Not true at all.


----------



## Vigilante




----------



## turtledude

Luddly Neddite said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see more kids are being needlessly killed by firearms.  Even an instructor was just killed by a 9-year-old kid being trained to use an uzi.  This is madness.
> 
> 
> 
> How many were shot today in Chicago by gang criminals? They weren't out for a family day at the range. Tragic this happened? Yes. A reason we should all lose our 2A rights? No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I notice the low-info types have taken to using Chicago as some sort of barometer of gun violence. What they don't know is that Chicago is 21st in the nation in gun deaths.
> 
> Turn off fux and educate yourself.
> 
> Despite recent shootings Chicago nowhere near U.S. 8216 murder capital 8217 Pew Research Center
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Chicago and DC prove that disarming honest people is a failure.  its too bad that the politicians who disarmed honest citizens cannot be tried as co-conspirators with the felons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true at all.
Click to expand...


how about proving that rather than squawking like a gun hating parrot.  

all gun control does is disarm good people

only morons believe that those UNDETERRED by the punishment for rape, robbery or murder are somehow going to be controlled by laws against guns


----------



## turtledude

Lakhota said:


> I'd be happy just getting universal background checks.




why do you support something that is worthless in decreasing crime and is being pushed as a reason to get registration?


----------



## Wildman

Luddly Neddite said:


> AzMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see more kids are being needlessly killed by firearms.  Even an instructor was just killed by a 9-year-old kid being trained to use an uzi.  This is madness.
> 
> 
> 
> How many were shot today in Chicago by gang criminals? They weren't out for a family day at the range. Tragic this happened? Yes. A reason we should all lose our 2A rights? No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I notice the low-info types have taken to using Chicago as some sort of barometer of gun violence. What they don't know is that Chicago is 21st in the nation in gun deaths.
> 
> Turn off fux and educate yourself.
> 
> Despite recent shootings Chicago nowhere near U.S. 8216 murder capital 8217 Pew Research Center
Click to expand...

====================

did you know Doctors kill over 500,000 people every year ? truth.., look it up............................, liberfool


----------



## turtledude

Luddly Neddite said:


> [
> But, since you nutters think cars and guns are the same ...


the million morons really don't want guns treated like cars

here is why

I can buy a car in any state of the union
I can buy a car that is much more powerful than anything the cops have
I can buy cars without any waiting period or background check
I don't need a license to own a car, buy a car or operate a car on private property
My driver's license-which requires NO Classroom time or instruction if I am over 18, is good in all fifty states
no city or state bans my car or fails to recognize my license 


go ahead Million morons against guns, lets get gun laws just like cars

and those morons don't realize its a felony to be drunk and in possession of a gun
you only get jail time with a car if you are actually OPERATING IT ON PUBLIC STREETS while drunk

and you get extra years in prison for having a gun while committing a crime.  You don't get a mandatory 3 extra years in any state I know of for using a car to say facilitate a bank robbery

yep, the millions are morons


----------



## Lakhota

turtledude said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be happy just getting universal background checks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why do you support something that is worthless in decreasing crime and is being pushed as a reason to get registration?
Click to expand...


For much the same reason I support speed limits and legal authorities to enforce them.  Imagine what the highways would be without them.

To date, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) has prevented more than two million convicted felons and other prohibited purchasers from buying guns. The law also has a deterrent effect—prohibited purchasers are less likely to try to buy guns when they know comprehensive background check requirements are in place.

Unfortunately, current federal law requires criminal background checks only for guns sold through licensed firearm dealers, which account for just 60% of all gun sales in the United States. A loophole in the law allows individuals not “engaged in the business” of selling firearms to sell guns without a license—and without processing any paperwork. That means that two out of every five guns sold in the United States change hands without a background check.

Though sometimes referred to as the “Gun Show Loophole,” the “private sales” described above include firearms sold at gun shows, through classified newspaper ads, the Internet, and between individuals virtually anywhere.

Unfortunately, a majority of states have yet to take any action to regulate the private sale of firearms. In order to guarantee that criminals, domestic abusers, the dangerously mentally ill and others are denied unchecked access to guns, the U.S. Congress should enact a federal law requiring universal background checks on all sales of firearms, including private sales.

Universal Background Checks Coalition to Stop Gun Violence


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Luddly Neddite said:


> AzMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see more kids are being needlessly killed by firearms.  Even an instructor was just killed by a 9-year-old kid being trained to use an uzi.  This is madness.
> 
> 
> 
> How many were shot today in Chicago by gang criminals? They weren't out for a family day at the range. Tragic this happened? Yes. A reason we should all lose our 2A rights? No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why Chicago?
> 
> As I said, they're 21st in the nation.
> 
> Despite recent shootings Chicago nowhere near U.S. 8216 murder capital 8217 Pew Research Center
> 
> Where did anyone say anything about "losing Second Amendment rights".
> 
> Where? Post a link.
Click to expand...

 
*Why Chicago?*

Maybe because Chicago had such a high rate of gun violence while having some of the strictest anti-gun laws on the books? And because Obama lived here.


----------



## turtledude

Lakhota said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be happy just getting universal background checks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why do you support something that is worthless in decreasing crime and is being pushed as a reason to get registration?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For much the same reason I support speed limits and legal authorities to enforce them.  Imagine what the highways would be without them.
> 
> To date, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) has prevented more than two million convicted felons and other prohibited purchasers from buying guns. The law also has a deterrent effect—prohibited purchasers are less likely to try to buy guns when they know comprehensive background check requirements are in place.
> 
> Unfortunately, current federal law requires criminal background checks only for guns sold through licensed firearm dealers, which account for just 60% of all gun sales in the United States. A loophole in the law allows individuals not “engaged in the business” of selling firearms to sell guns without a license—and without processing any paperwork. That means that two out of every five guns sold in the United States change hands without a background check.
> 
> Though sometimes referred to as the “Gun Show Loophole,” the “private sales” described above include firearms sold at gun shows, through classified newspaper ads, the Internet, and between individuals virtually anywhere.
> 
> Unfortunately, a majority of states have yet to take any action to regulate the private sale of firearms. In order to guarantee that criminals, domestic abusers, the dangerously mentally ill and others are denied unchecked access to guns, the U.S. Congress should enact a federal law requiring universal background checks on all sales of firearms, including private sales.
> 
> Universal Background Checks Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
Click to expand...





every time someone is properly prevented from buying a gun through NICS that person has engaged in a federal felony of perjury.  HOW MANY DENIED applicants who had lied on their form (IF YOU ADMIT ON YOUR 4473 that you are a felon etc, NO BACKGROUND CHECK IS CONDUCTED-rather the clerk refuses to sell you the gun) HAVE BEEN PROSECUTED.  I was a DOJ attorney for almost 25 years and such cases almost never happened.  

There is no gun show loophole. CONGRESS chose to impose the requirement to conduct  BGCs only on those who engage in INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  There is no sufficient nexus with interstate commerce to justify a federal universal BGC requirement.  

and criminals in possession of weapons cannot be prosecuted for failing to conduct a BGC due to the fifth amendment

so you support a law that is unconstitutional, won't solve anything and DOES NOT EVEN APPLY TO CRIMINALS

and anyone who understands the war on drugs realizes how futile it is to try to eliminate the black market with criminal sanctions


----------



## Lakhota

turtledude said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be happy just getting universal background checks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why do you support something that is worthless in decreasing crime and is being pushed as a reason to get registration?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For much the same reason I support speed limits and legal authorities to enforce them.  Imagine what the highways would be without them.
> 
> To date, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) has prevented more than two million convicted felons and other prohibited purchasers from buying guns. The law also has a deterrent effect—prohibited purchasers are less likely to try to buy guns when they know comprehensive background check requirements are in place.
> 
> Unfortunately, current federal law requires criminal background checks only for guns sold through licensed firearm dealers, which account for just 60% of all gun sales in the United States. A loophole in the law allows individuals not “engaged in the business” of selling firearms to sell guns without a license—and without processing any paperwork. That means that two out of every five guns sold in the United States change hands without a background check.
> 
> Though sometimes referred to as the “Gun Show Loophole,” the “private sales” described above include firearms sold at gun shows, through classified newspaper ads, the Internet, and between individuals virtually anywhere.
> 
> Unfortunately, a majority of states have yet to take any action to regulate the private sale of firearms. In order to guarantee that criminals, domestic abusers, the dangerously mentally ill and others are denied unchecked access to guns, the U.S. Congress should enact a federal law requiring universal background checks on all sales of firearms, including private sales.
> 
> Universal Background Checks Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> every time someone is properly prevented from buying a gun through NICS that person has engaged in a federal felony of perjury.  HOW MANY DENIED applicants who had lied on their form (IF YOU ADMIT ON YOUR 4473 that you are a felon etc, NO BACKGROUND CHECK IS CONDUCTED-rather the clerk refuses to sell you the gun) HAVE BEEN PROSECUTED.  I was a DOJ attorney for almost 25 years and such cases almost never happened.
> 
> There is no gun show loophole. CONGRESS chose to impose the requirement to conduct  BGCs only on those who engage in INTERSTATE COMMERCE.  There is no sufficient nexus with interstate commerce to justify a federal universal BGC requirement.
> 
> and criminals in possession of weapons cannot be prosecuted for failing to conduct a BGC due to the fifth amendment
> 
> so you support a law that is unconstitutional, won't solve anything and DOES NOT EVEN APPLY TO CRIMINALS
> 
> and anyone who understands the war on drugs realizes how futile it is to try to eliminate the black market with criminal sanctions
Click to expand...

 
So, your solution is what - DO NOTHING?  Don't even make an attempt?  Why not just do away with speed limits and cops, etc.?  Return to the wild, wild west.


----------



## Vigilante




----------



## turtledude

Lakhota said:


> So, your solution is what - DO NOTHING?  Don't even make an attempt?  Why not just do away with speed limits and cops, etc.?  Return to the wild, wild west.



I am not a liberal.  I don't need to do something that is worthless to feel good about myself.  I don't sit around wringing my hands screaming WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING EVEN IF IT IS A WASTE OF TIME, WILL HURT HONEST PEOPLE and won't do a DAMN THING TO STOP CRIME

that is the difference between a pragmatist and a pillow headed idealist

some of you actually feel a NEED to do something either so you can feel good about yourself or to pander to suc people

others of you know it won't work but it will set the stage for more restrictions on our rights-like registration 

So I don't have much use for the WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING rants


----------



## frigidweirdo

Toddsterpatriot said:


> LOL! That's funny.



Funny you want me to back everything I said up instead of just spouting simple sentences? Right you are then.

Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution

During the debates in the House (Senate records were kept a secret) they debated the inclusion of the clause (which changed) over the course of the debate with two distinct types.

1st: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to *render military service* in person.

2nd:but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to *bear arms*.

Now, here it looks like they're using "bear arms" and "render military service" synonymously to me. What do you think?

Well to back this up I'll look at the debate. 

Mr Gerry said:"Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

Now, if "bear arms" meant carrying guns around, why would declaring those who couldn't carry guns around (but still own them) allow people in power to destroy the constitution? Because they can't use self defence? Doesn't make sense.
It does make sense that if people were not allowed to "render military service" then this might take away from the actual purpose of the 2A which is to protect the militia from the US govt. 

"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. "

Well that's what Mr Gerry thinks this is all about. You see self defence, carrying weapons around individually here?

"Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

They're talking about excluding people from militia duty. "render military service", "bear arms", "militia duty", they are the same thing.

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

And here they even use the two same things, to mean the same thing, next to each other. 

There's more in there. But shall we move on?

ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1897)

_“_the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;”

This is a case which makes a claim that has been upheld, even in the relevant cases recently. Simply said, the right to keep and bear arms does not prevent the govt from stopping people carrying concealed weapons.

You don't think it's funny the NRA supports carry and conceal permits?

Surely this would go against licensing a right.

PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)

"*We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265]   and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."*

This case was one where they looked at whether men drilling, but not part of the militia, was a right, they said it wasn't.

We also have state constitutions from before the 2A was ratified that show there was a right to be in the militia for the protection of the militia, so the common defence would be served.

"1780 Massachusetts:  *The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence.*"

"1790 Pennsylvania:*  The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."
*
And the biggest joke of all is George Washington
*
SENTIMENTS ON A PEACE ESTABLISHMENT, 1783
George Washington


"every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America... from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls,"


"by making it universally reputable to bear Arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the performance of Military duties; in fine, by keeping up in Peace "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia," we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country.“

He uses the term "bear arms" in the sense of "render military service" and "militia duty".
*
So now, I'm going to see what you've got. Will it be insults and not much else, or will be hardcore facts or will it be quotes taken massively out of context????

Hmmmmm.


----------



## frigidweirdo

AzMike said:


> It's clear for those who don't want to understand the truth.
> 
> The right shall not be infringed. But what is the right? This is the hard part.
> 
> The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. Not the right to carry arms. The founding fathers were quite clear on that one.


Then why doesn't the Constitution say the right shall not be infringed as long as you belong to a certain group?[/QUOTE]

Who's talking about certain groups?

Everyone has the right to be in the militia. 

Where it gets confusing is that the right can and is infringed upon. Criminals are not allowed to be in the militia, either while in prison or after being in prison. The constitutionality of this is debatable after prison, but I doubt anyone would say an individual in prison has the right to be in the militia. 

Where you're making the mistake is thinking the right is actually to carry weapons. People have made the argument that ownership of guns should only be for those in the militia. This isn't so. It's a duff argument and I'm not making it.


----------



## frigidweirdo

turtledude said:


> Chicago and DC prove that disarming honest people is a failure.  its too bad that the politicians who disarmed honest citizens cannot be tried as co-conspirators with the felons.



Japan and China prove that disarming people is a success.


----------



## turtledude

frigidweirdo said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chicago and DC prove that disarming honest people is a failure.  its too bad that the politicians who disarmed honest citizens cannot be tried as co-conspirators with the felons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Japan and China prove that disarming people is a success.
Click to expand...


you want the civil liberties of those two nations?  success being no civil liberties?  or on where only the government and criminals have weapons?

and its a little late here when we have hundreds of millions of firearms


----------



## frigidweirdo

turtledude said:


> so that is why the founders said "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?
> 
> Oh they didn't say that
> 
> and there is NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION that properly empowered the FEDERAL government to interfere with our natural right to be armed



Er.... What?

It's not the right of the militia to bear arms. 

It's the right of the individual to be in the militia. Imagine the militia trying to be in the militia, it wouldn't make sense, would it?

What the right to keep and bear arms means is that an individual can keep weapons so if the US govt starts doing stuff it shouldn't the militia has a ready supply of weapons. Also it means if the US govt starts playing up, it has a ready supply of personnel. 

They wanted to protect the militia, by protecting the individuals to be in it, and to be able to be armed.


----------



## frigidweirdo

AzMike said:


> But cars were used as the excuse to regulate guns. Why?


I don't know, it wasn't me that made this argument.


----------



## turtledude

frigidweirdo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL! That's funny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny you want me to back everything I said up instead of just spouting simple sentences? Right you are then.
> 
> Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> During the debates in the House (Senate records were kept a secret) they debated the inclusion of the clause (which changed) over the course of the debate with two distinct types.
> 
> 1st: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to *render military service* in person.
> 
> 2nd:but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to *bear arms*.
> 
> Now, here it looks like they're using "bear arms" and "render military service" synonymously to me. What do you think?
> 
> Well to back this up I'll look at the debate.
> 
> Mr Gerry said:"Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."
> 
> Now, if "bear arms" meant carrying guns around, why would declaring those who couldn't carry guns around (but still own them) allow people in power to destroy the constitution? Because they can't use self defence? Doesn't make sense.
> It does make sense that if people were not allowed to "render military service" then this might take away from the actual purpose of the 2A which is to protect the militia from the US govt.
> 
> "What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. "
> 
> Well that's what Mr Gerry thinks this is all about. You see self defence, carrying weapons around individually here?
> 
> "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."
> 
> They're talking about excluding people from militia duty. "render military service", "bear arms", "militia duty", they are the same thing.
> 
> "Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""
> 
> And here they even use the two same things, to mean the same thing, next to each other.
> 
> There's more in there. But shall we move on?
> 
> ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1897)
> 
> _“_the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;”
> 
> This is a case which makes a claim that has been upheld, even in the relevant cases recently. Simply said, the right to keep and bear arms does not prevent the govt from stopping people carrying concealed weapons.
> 
> You don't think it's funny the NRA supports carry and conceal permits?
> 
> Surely this would go against licensing a right.
> 
> PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)
> 
> "*We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265]   and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."*
> 
> This case was one where they looked at whether men drilling, but not part of the militia, was a right, they said it wasn't.
> 
> We also have state constitutions from before the 2A was ratified that show there was a right to be in the militia for the protection of the militia, so the common defence would be served.
> 
> "1780 Massachusetts:  *The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence.*"
> 
> "1790 Pennsylvania:*  The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."
> *
> And the biggest joke of all is George Washington
> *
> SENTIMENTS ON A PEACE ESTABLISHMENT, 1783
> George Washington
> 
> 
> "every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America... from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls,"
> 
> 
> "by making it universally reputable to bear Arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the performance of Military duties; in fine, by keeping up in Peace "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia," we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country.“
> 
> He uses the term "bear arms" in the sense of "render military service" and "militia duty".
> *
> So now, I'm going to see what you've got. Will it be insults and not much else, or will be hardcore facts or will it be quotes taken massively out of context????
> 
> Hmmmmm.
Click to expand...



the founders never intended the federal government have any power to regulate firearms.  You simply cannot find any evidence they did. So under the tenth amendment, federal gun control is an abomination so ranting about what the 2A says means little.  Under the 9th amendment, the natural right of self defense and its corollary of free citizens to be armed are recognized.  so putting your gun ban eggs in the basket of the 2A is a losing strategy


----------



## turtledude

frigidweirdo said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> so that is why the founders said "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?
> 
> Oh they didn't say that
> 
> and there is NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION that properly empowered the FEDERAL government to interfere with our natural right to be armed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Er.... What?
> 
> It's not the right of the militia to bear arms.
> 
> It's the right of the individual to be in the militia. Imagine the militia trying to be in the militia, it wouldn't make sense, would it?
> 
> What the right to keep and bear arms means is that an individual can keep weapons so if the US govt starts doing stuff it shouldn't the militia has a ready supply of weapons. Also it means if the US govt starts playing up, it has a ready supply of personnel.
> 
> They wanted to protect the militia, by protecting the individuals to be in it, and to be able to be armed.
Click to expand...



there is no reputable legal scholar who agrees with that even though Amar sort of tries to give lip service to that opinion.  The USSC rejected it in Heller and so have almost every major scholar.  why would a bill of rights designed to recognize natural rights be limited to serving in a militia which is not a natural right


----------



## frigidweirdo

turtledude said:


> you want the civil liberties of those two nations?  success being no civil liberties?  or on where only the government and criminals have weapons?
> 
> and its a little late here when we have hundreds of millions of firearms



Japan's quite free. China isn't. But they are a lot safer than the US. That's the point. 

You talk about success. What is success? That civil liberties are taken by criminals instead of the government?

What about the native americans who get pounded on? Leonard Peltier's spent how long in prison because he had something the govt didn't want people to hear? 

So you define success for me and we'll see how successful the US is.


----------



## frigidweirdo

turtledude said:


> the founders never intended the federal government have any power to regulate firearms.  You simply cannot find any evidence they did. So under the tenth amendment, federal gun control is an abomination so ranting about what the 2A says means little.  Under the 9th amendment, the natural right of self defense and its corollary of free citizens to be armed are recognized.  so putting your gun ban eggs in the basket of the 2A is a losing strategy



The founders made a clause that allows the US govt and the states to alter the US Constitution. They also knew that no matter what the constitution says the govt might do as it pleases anyway. Hence why the ultimate check and balance is the militia. 
They also worried that a militia without control of the govt would go rouge, so they put constraints on the militia, ie power to the US govt. 

The US govt could call up the militia. Now, imagine you call up the militia, then take away all the guns that the militia has, because hey, they're in the army now, and then you send them back home. That power is there. Right?

So, your argument here is I shouldn't bother to discuss the 2A because it's all irrelevant anyway. So tell me this. Why did they write the 2A if it is irrelevant? That makes no sense at all.

You're talking self defence. I'm sorry to have to ask, WHY? What has this got to do with what we're talking about?

You can defend yourself with your hands, with a TV, with a car, with a dog, with a spoon, with a rock, with water, with just about ANYTHING. Are you trying to claim that because you can defend yourself with a gun and the 2A says "arms" that therefore the 2A protects the right to self defence?

The right to self defence exists, it's there in the constitution but unwritten, that doesn't mean the 2A protects the right to self defence. It allows individuals to have guns and be in the militia. If they use the guns in self defence woopdiedoo for them, but what has it got to do with this topic and the 2A?

The answer is sweet FA. (Nothing)


----------



## turtledude

frigidweirdo said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> you want the civil liberties of those two nations?  success being no civil liberties?  or on where only the government and criminals have weapons?
> 
> and its a little late here when we have hundreds of millions of firearms
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Japan's quite free. China isn't. But they are a lot safer than the US. That's the point.
> 
> You talk about success. What is success? That civil liberties are taken by criminals instead of the government?
> 
> What about the native americans who get pounded on? Leonard Peltier's spent how long in prison because he had something the govt didn't want people to hear?
> 
> So you define success for me and we'll see how successful the US is.
Click to expand...


gun control laws in the USA have no track record of doing anything other than harassing honest people

there is not a single study that can demonstrated that  waiting periods, magazine limits, assault weapon (LOL) bans etc do anything good.  and in a free society, there should be a heavy heavy burden on those who want to restrict our freedom


----------



## turtledude

frigidweirdo said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> the founders never intended the federal government have any power to regulate firearms.  You simply cannot find any evidence they did. So under the tenth amendment, federal gun control is an abomination so ranting about what the 2A says means little.  Under the 9th amendment, the natural right of self defense and its corollary of free citizens to be armed are recognized.  so putting your gun ban eggs in the basket of the 2A is a losing strategy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The founders made a clause that allows the US govt and the states to alter the US Constitution. They also knew that no matter what the constitution says the govt might do as it pleases anyway. Hence why the ultimate check and balance is the militia.
> They also worried that a militia without control of the govt would go rouge, so they put constraints on the militia, ie power to the US govt.
> 
> The US govt could call up the militia. Now, imagine you call up the militia, then take away all the guns that the militia has, because hey, they're in the army now, and then you send them back home. That power is there. Right?
> 
> So, your argument here is I shouldn't bother to discuss the 2A because it's all irrelevant anyway. So tell me this. Why did they write the 2A if it is irrelevant? That makes no sense at all.
> 
> You're talking self defence. I'm sorry to have to ask, WHY? What has this got to do with what we're talking about?
> 
> You can defend yourself with your hands, with a TV, with a car, with a dog, with a spoon, with a rock, with water, with just about ANYTHING. Are you trying to claim that because you can defend yourself with a gun and the 2A says "arms" that therefore the 2A protects the right to self defence?
> 
> The right to self defence exists, it's there in the constitution but unwritten, that doesn't mean the 2A protects the right to self defence. It allows individuals to have guns and be in the militia. If they use the guns in self defence woopdiedoo for them, but what has it got to do with this topic and the 2A?
> 
> The answer is sweet FA. (Nothing)
Click to expand...



remind me where the federal government was given any power to regulate small arms?  

the government couldn't take away arms.  they don't have the proper power. 

the founders believed in the natural right of self defense-why would they allow the federal government a power to render that natural right moot


you really are demonstrating that you have spent a little bit of time on this but you really do not know the subject.


----------



## OriginalShroom

I love these left wing "gun owners" that want to gut the 2nd.

They remind me of the Vichy.


----------



## frigidweirdo

turtledude said:


> there is no reputable legal scholar who agrees with that even though Amar sort of tries to give lip service to that opinion.  The USSC rejected it in Heller and so have almost every major scholar.  why would a bill of rights designed to recognize natural rights be limited to serving in a militia which is not a natural right



How many "reputable legal scholars" know much about an amendment that hardly ever comes up in the course of their job that isn't as biased as hell? 

Also, they didn't reject this, that's the point. 

Here's how.

"(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. "

The right to keep arms = the right to own a weapon not connected to militia duty. This is what I'm saying. 
The right to bear arms is not mentioned here.

"(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:"

Tricky language. They talk about the right to carry, saying it's not unlimited. Well there is no right to carry, so whatever. They're sort of pretending there is, using language suggesting there is, without actually having to refer to it. 

"(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense."

So this is about the ownership of arms, ie, keep arms, and not bear arms. 

Oh, and who says that the right to be in the militia is not a natural right? Natural and guns, guns aren't natural, they don't grow on trees.


----------



## turtledude

frigidweirdo said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is no reputable legal scholar who agrees with that even though Amar sort of tries to give lip service to that opinion.  The USSC rejected it in Heller and so have almost every major scholar.  why would a bill of rights designed to recognize natural rights be limited to serving in a militia which is not a natural right
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many "reputable legal scholars" know much about an amendment that hardly ever comes up in the course of their job that isn't as biased as hell?
> 
> Also, they didn't reject this, that's the point.
> 
> Here's how.
> 
> "(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. "
> 
> The right to keep arms = the right to own a weapon not connected to militia duty. This is what I'm saying.
> The right to bear arms is not mentioned here.
> 
> "(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:"
> 
> Tricky language. They talk about the right to carry, saying it's not unlimited. Well there is no right to carry, so whatever. They're sort of pretending there is, using language suggesting there is, without actually having to refer to it.
> 
> "(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense."
> 
> So this is about the ownership of arms, ie, keep arms, and not bear arms.
> 
> Oh, and who says that the right to be in the militia is not a natural right? Natural and guns, guns aren't natural, they don't grow on trees.
Click to expand...


I see you know enough to not address the 10A argument or the 9A one-there is no honest way to claim that the federal government was actually given a power to regulate small arms-

the rest of your stuff is silly.  Look, I have been dealing with anti gun arguments since I was 15. I am 55 now. I have seen everything.  the bottom line-federal gun control is one of the most dishonest things in US History.  Senile former Justice Stevens whined recently about the 2A-he refused to address the 10A angle because it destroys the anti gun side when it comes to  honesty

the founders knew the several states had time place and use restrictions and that was proper-they never intended overlapping federal jurisdiction

even those who like what FDR did with the commerce clause admit it wasn't consistent with either the language or the intent.

Later-BBT


----------



## frigidweirdo

turtledude said:


> remind me where the federal government was given any power to regulate small arms?
> 
> the government couldn't take away arms.  they don't have the proper power.
> 
> the founders believed in the natural right of self defense-why would they allow the federal government a power to render that natural right moot
> 
> 
> you really are demonstrating that you have spent a little bit of time on this but you really do not know the subject.



It's not about which power the feds were given to regulate small arms. 
What power is there to do half the things the US govt does? The point is the US govt DOES THESE THINGS and the founding fathers were not so stupid to believe the govt would just stick to what it is allowed to do in the constitution.

So I'll ask a question.
Is it possible for the US federal govt to change the constitution so that it bans guns with an amendment? Yes or no.

Is it possible for the US federal govt to call up every single militiaman, requiring him to bring all of his weapons (this is a power they have in article 1 section 8, this allows them to make militia acts, which they have done since 1792, which can regulated how the militiaman turns up, see italics below) and then under the power they have to regulate the military to take these weapons away and leave the militia with absolutely no weapons? 

_The Militia Act of 1792

"That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. "_

Your argument is that there is no point in having a right to be in the militia because there's nothing there to stop the feds from stopping people being in the militia.

So why then did Mr Gerry and other founding fathers say things like:

"Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; "

"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. "

I mean, it's there for you to see that the founding fathers were debating this at the time, and they wanted to prevent this from happening. Now you have managed to completely ignore a part of US history because you think you know better.


----------



## frigidweirdo

OriginalShroom said:


> I love these left wing "gun owners" that want to gut the 2nd.
> 
> They remind me of the Vichy.



I love people who make comments that have nothing to do with anything, can't make an argument and wouldn't be able to back it up even if they could.

So you want to debate or just make "I love" statements?????

I love popcorn exploding in space. Blast from exploding stars trapped Earth in space bubble NASA says - Yahoo News UK


----------



## frigidweirdo

turtledude said:


> I see you know enough to not address the 10A argument or the 9A one-there is no honest way to claim that the federal government was actually given a power to regulate small arms-
> 
> the rest of your stuff is silly.  Look, I have been dealing with anti gun arguments since I was 15. I am 55 now. I have seen everything.  the bottom line-federal gun control is one of the most dishonest things in US History.  Senile former Justice Stevens whined recently about the 2A-he refused to address the 10A angle because it destroys the anti gun side when it comes to  honesty
> 
> the founders knew the several states had time place and use restrictions and that was proper-they never intended overlapping federal jurisdiction
> 
> even those who like what FDR did with the commerce clause admit it wasn't consistent with either the language or the intent.
> 
> Later-BBT



Silly huh? Jeez. You want to ignore the truth, that's your problem. To be honest I've found about 2 people who have ever acknowledged that what I'm saying exists.

Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution

Question. Is this document real or not? 

So you've been doing this for 40 years. And what do you have? I'm being serious here. You've not used much in the way of anything. You've ignored the founding fathers and what they've said. You've talked about Heller but vaguely, and nothing that really is in anyway convincing towards your argument.

Time does not, and will not, make your argument better if you're ignoring the reality of what is there. All I ask is for your to look at what I have and debate it. 

The founders knew a lot, and we can see what they said, said article above is one major piece of document that I have NEVER, EVER seen a person who is pro-gun use, it gets ignored. Why?

But I'd also say you should take what I have to say not from the point of view that you think you know my argument because you've seen it 100 times, the reality is you haven't. Take it as if you've never seen it. Don't make assumptions about what I think, it's happens quite a few times today already, where I get told I think this or that, when clearly I don't, clearly others do, and I'm being tarred with the same brush.


----------



## jon_berzerk

frigidweirdo said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> remind me where the federal government was given any power to regulate small arms?
> 
> the government couldn't take away arms.  they don't have the proper power.
> 
> the founders believed in the natural right of self defense-why would they allow the federal government a power to render that natural right moot
> 
> 
> you really are demonstrating that you have spent a little bit of time on this but you really do not know the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not about which power the feds were given to regulate small arms.
> What power is there to do half the things the US govt does? The point is the US govt DOES THESE THINGS and the founding fathers were not so stupid to believe the govt would just stick to what it is allowed to do in the constitution.
> 
> So I'll ask a question.
> Is it possible for the US federal govt to change the constitution so that it bans guns with an amendment? Yes or no.
> 
> Is it possible for the US federal govt to call up every single militiaman, requiring him to bring all of his weapons (this is a power they have in article 1 section 8, this allows them to make militia acts, which they have done since 1792, which can regulated how the militiaman turns up, see italics below) and then under the power they have to regulate the military to take these weapons away and leave the militia with absolutely no weapons?
> 
> _The Militia Act of 1792
> 
> "That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. "_
> 
> Your argument is that there is no point in having a right to be in the militia because there's nothing there to stop the feds from stopping people being in the militia.
> 
> So why then did Mr Gerry and other founding fathers say things like:
> 
> "Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; "
> 
> "What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. "
> 
> I mean, it's there for you to see that the founding fathers were debating this at the time, and they wanted to prevent this from happening. Now you have managed to completely ignore a part of US history because you think you know better.
Click to expand...


I*s it possible for the US federal govt to call up every single militiaman, requiring him to bring all of his weapons (this is a power they have in article 1 section 8, this allows them to make militia acts, which they have done since 1792, which can regulated how the militiaman turns up, see italics below) and then under the power they have to regulate the military to take these weapons away and leave the militia with absolutely no weapons? *

no not according to perpich vs department of defense 

Congress has provided by statute that, in addition to its National Guard, a State may provide and maintain at its own expense a defense force that is exempt from being drafted into the Armed Forces of the United States. _See_ 32 U.S.C. § 109(c). As long as that provision remains in effect, there is no basis for an argument that the federal statutory scheme deprives Minnesota of any constitutional entitlement to a separate militia of its own.


----------



## jon_berzerk

frigidweirdo said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> the founders never intended the federal government have any power to regulate firearms.  You simply cannot find any evidence they did. So under the tenth amendment, federal gun control is an abomination so ranting about what the 2A says means little.  Under the 9th amendment, the natural right of self defense and its corollary of free citizens to be armed are recognized.  so putting your gun ban eggs in the basket of the 2A is a losing strategy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The founders made a clause that allows the US govt and the states to alter the US Constitution. They also knew that no matter what the constitution says the govt might do as it pleases anyway. Hence why the ultimate check and balance is the militia.
> They also worried that a militia without control of the govt would go rouge, so they put constraints on the militia, ie power to the US govt.
> 
> The US govt could call up the militia. Now, imagine you call up the militia, then take away all the guns that the militia has, because hey, they're in the army now, and then you send them back home. That power is there. Right?
> 
> So, your argument here is I shouldn't bother to discuss the 2A because it's all irrelevant anyway. So tell me this. Why did they write the 2A if it is irrelevant? That makes no sense at all.
> 
> You're talking self defence. I'm sorry to have to ask, WHY? What has this got to do with what we're talking about?
> 
> You can defend yourself with your hands, with a TV, with a car, with a dog, with a spoon, with a rock, with water, with just about ANYTHING. Are you trying to claim that because you can defend yourself with a gun and the 2A says "arms" that therefore the 2A protects the right to self defence?
> 
> The right to self defence exists, it's there in the constitution but unwritten, that doesn't mean the 2A protects the right to self defence. It allows individuals to have guns and be in the militia. If they use the guns in self defence woopdiedoo for them, but what has it got to do with this topic and the 2A?
> 
> The answer is sweet FA. (Nothing)
Click to expand...


*The right to self defense exists, it's there in the constitution but unwritten, that doesn't mean the 2A protects the right to self defense.
*
Heller says it does 

and McDonald said it is the law of the land


----------



## Missourian

frigidweirdo said:


> OriginalShroom said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love these left wing "gun owners" that want to gut the 2nd.
> 
> They remind me of the Vichy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love people who make comments that have nothing to do with anything, can't make an argument and wouldn't be able to back it up even if they could.
> 
> So you want to debate or just make "I love" statements?????
> 
> I love popcorn exploding in space. Blast from exploding stars trapped Earth in space bubble NASA says - Yahoo News UK
Click to expand...



He's calling you a liar.

The old "Sure,  I'm a gun owner,  I just hate the 2nd Amendment" routine.

No one buys it.


----------



## frigidweirdo

jon_berzerk said:


> I*s it possible for the US federal govt to call up every single militiaman, requiring him to bring all of his weapons (this is a power they have in article 1 section 8, this allows them to make militia acts, which they have done since 1792, which can regulated how the militiaman turns up, see italics below) and then under the power they have to regulate the military to take these weapons away and leave the militia with absolutely no weapons? *
> 
> no not according to perpich vs department of defense
> 
> Congress has provided by statute that, in addition to its National Guard, a State may provide and maintain at its own expense a defense force that is exempt from being drafted into the Armed Forces of the United States. _See_ 32 U.S.C. § 109(c). As long as that provision remains in effect, there is no basis for an argument that the federal statutory scheme deprives Minnesota of any constitutional entitlement to a separate militia of its own.



Yes, but you're talking about something else here, going off on a tangent. This is something new, also proving my point that things can change. In 1791 this wasn't the case, and we're dealing with what was going on at this time.

In 1791 was it possible for the feds to call up all militiamen and take their weapons?


----------



## frigidweirdo

jon_berzerk said:


> *The right to self defense exists, it's there in the constitution but unwritten, that doesn't mean the 2A protects the right to self defense.
> *
> Heller says it does
> 
> and McDonald said it is the law of the land



McDonald doesn't say the 2A is about self defence.

"Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II–A, II–B, II–D, III–A, and III–B, concluding that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right, recognized in _Heller,_ to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. "

This is about incorporation of the 14A into the 2A which means the 2A is subject to the states as well as the feds. 
The language used here is pandering to the gun lobby massively, but doesn't actually mean much. It doesn't say the 2A is about self defence. It means you can keep guns, which is the 2A, and you can defend yourself with guns, which is elsewhere. 

Heller you have more of a case, but not much.

"(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. "

This has nothing to do with with self defence being a part of the 2A. It merely says you can own a weapons and you can use it for "lawful purposes" and NOT for a right protected by the 2A. Lawful purposes would cover a lot of things. Like using your gun to scratch your back, protected by the constitution? Like propping up the TV when the stand breaks, protected by the constitution?

"(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

The second part is the Supreme Court basically saying that while there is an individual right, it can be infringed upon (and they list the infringements) and they also say that carrying weapons in certain places is not protected either. 

"(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense."

And here's your best bet, still it seems to say that you have the right to own weapons and you can lawfully use them for self defence. Nowhere does it say that the 2A protects the right to self defence.

Unless of course you have something I don't.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Missourian said:


> He's calling you a liar.
> 
> The old "Sure,  I'm a gun owner,  I just hate the 2nd Amendment" routine.
> 
> No one buys it.



He's calling me a liar and I'm calling him a.......... well we don't need to go there.


----------



## jon_berzerk

frigidweirdo said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is no reputable legal scholar who agrees with that even though Amar sort of tries to give lip service to that opinion.  The USSC rejected it in Heller and so have almost every major scholar.  why would a bill of rights designed to recognize natural rights be limited to serving in a militia which is not a natural right
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many "reputable legal scholars" know much about an amendment that hardly ever comes up in the course of their job that isn't as biased as hell?
> 
> Also, they didn't reject this, that's the point.
> 
> Here's how.
> 
> "(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. "
> 
> The right to keep arms = the right to own a weapon not connected to militia duty. This is what I'm saying.
> The right to bear arms is not mentioned here.
> 
> "(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:"
> 
> Tricky language. They talk about the right to carry, saying it's not unlimited. Well there is no right to carry, so whatever. They're sort of pretending there is, using language suggesting there is, without actually having to refer to it.
> 
> "(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense."
> 
> So this is about the ownership of arms, ie, keep arms, and not bear arms.
> 
> Oh, and who says that the right to be in the militia is not a natural right? Natural and guns, guns aren't natural, they don't grow on trees.
Click to expand...


*So this is about the ownership of arms, ie, keep arms, and not bear arms*.


frigidweirdo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL! That's funny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny you want me to back everything I said up instead of just spouting simple sentences? Right you are then.
> 
> Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> During the debates in the House (Senate records were kept a secret) they debated the inclusion of the clause (which changed) over the course of the debate with two distinct types.
> 
> 1st: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to *render military service* in person.
> 
> 2nd:but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to *bear arms*.
> 
> Now, here it looks like they're using "bear arms" and "render military service" synonymously to me. What do you think?
> 
> Well to back this up I'll look at the debate.
> 
> Mr Gerry said:"Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."
> 
> Now, if "bear arms" meant carrying guns around, why would declaring those who couldn't carry guns around (but still own them) allow people in power to destroy the constitution? Because they can't use self defence? Doesn't make sense.
> It does make sense that if people were not allowed to "render military service" then this might take away from the actual purpose of the 2A which is to protect the militia from the US govt.
> 
> "What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. "
> 
> Well that's what Mr Gerry thinks this is all about. You see self defence, carrying weapons around individually here?
> 
> "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."
> 
> They're talking about excluding people from militia duty. "render military service", "bear arms", "militia duty", they are the same thing.
> 
> "Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""
> 
> And here they even use the two same things, to mean the same thing, next to each other.
> 
> There's more in there. But shall we move on?
> 
> ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1897)
> 
> _“_the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;”
> 
> This is a case which makes a claim that has been upheld, even in the relevant cases recently. Simply said, the right to keep and bear arms does not prevent the govt from stopping people carrying concealed weapons.
> 
> You don't think it's funny the NRA supports carry and conceal permits?
> 
> Surely this would go against licensing a right.
> 
> PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)
> 
> "*We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265]   and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."*
> 
> This case was one where they looked at whether men drilling, but not part of the militia, was a right, they said it wasn't.
> 
> We also have state constitutions from before the 2A was ratified that show there was a right to be in the militia for the protection of the militia, so the common defence would be served.
> 
> "1780 Massachusetts:  *The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence.*"
> 
> "1790 Pennsylvania:*  The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."
> *
> And the biggest joke of all is George Washington
> *
> SENTIMENTS ON A PEACE ESTABLISHMENT, 1783
> George Washington
> 
> 
> "every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America... from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls,"
> 
> 
> "by making it universally reputable to bear Arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the performance of Military duties; in fine, by keeping up in Peace "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia," we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country.“
> 
> He uses the term "bear arms" in the sense of "render military service" and "militia duty".
> *
> So now, I'm going to see what you've got. Will it be insults and not much else, or will be hardcore facts or will it be quotes taken massively out of context????
> 
> Hmmmmm.
Click to expand...


*This is a case which makes a claim that has been upheld, even in the relevant cases recently. Simply said, the right to keep and bear arms does not prevent the govt from stopping people carrying concealed weapons*.

the 7th circuit of appeals differs

and says the right to self defense extends to outside of the home

in other works to bear arms


frigidweirdo said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The right to self defense exists, it's there in the constitution but unwritten, that doesn't mean the 2A protects the right to self defense.
> *
> Heller says it does
> 
> and McDonald said it is the law of the land
> 
> 
> 
> 
> McDonald doesn't say the 2A is about self defence.
> 
> "Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II–A, II–B, II–D, III–A, and III–B, concluding that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right, recognized in _Heller,_ to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. "
> 
> This is about incorporation of the 14A into the 2A which means the 2A is subject to the states as well as the feds.
> The language used here is pandering to the gun lobby massively, but doesn't actually mean much. It doesn't say the 2A is about self defence. It means you can keep guns, which is the 2A, and you can defend yourself with guns, which is elsewhere.
> 
> Heller you have more of a case, but not much.
> 
> "(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. "
> 
> This has nothing to do with with self defence being a part of the 2A. It merely says you can own a weapons and you can use it for "lawful purposes" and NOT for a right protected by the 2A. Lawful purposes would cover a lot of things. Like using your gun to scratch your back, protected by the constitution? Like propping up the TV when the stand breaks, protected by the constitution?
> 
> "(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."
> 
> The second part is the Supreme Court basically saying that while there is an individual right, it can be infringed upon (and they list the infringements) and they also say that carrying weapons in certain places is not protected either.
> 
> "(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense."
> 
> And here's your best bet, still it seems to say that you have the right to own weapons and you can lawfully use them for self defence. Nowhere does it say that the 2A protects the right to self defence.
> 
> Unless of course you have something I don't.
Click to expand...


the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right, recognized in_Heller,_ to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense


frigidweirdo said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I*s it possible for the US federal govt to call up every single militiaman, requiring him to bring all of his weapons (this is a power they have in article 1 section 8, this allows them to make militia acts, which they have done since 1792, which can regulated how the militiaman turns up, see italics below) and then under the power they have to regulate the military to take these weapons away and leave the militia with absolutely no weapons? *
> 
> no not according to perpich vs department of defense
> 
> Congress has provided by statute that, in addition to its National Guard, a State may provide and maintain at its own expense a defense force that is exempt from being drafted into the Armed Forces of the United States. _See_ 32 U.S.C. § 109(c). As long as that provision remains in effect, there is no basis for an argument that the federal statutory scheme deprives Minnesota of any constitutional entitlement to a separate militia of its own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but you're talking about something else here, going off on a tangent. This is something new, also proving my point that things can change. In 1791 this wasn't the case, and we're dealing with what was going on at this time.
> 
> In 1791 was it possible for the feds to call up all militiamen and take their weapons?
Click to expand...



no we are not talking about something else here 

the supreme court was rather clear on the issue in perpich 

the feds do not enjoy the privilege of activating all the militia


----------



## frigidweirdo

jon_berzerk said:


> *This is a case which makes a claim that has been upheld, even in the relevant cases recently. Simply said, the right to keep and bear arms does not prevent the govt from stopping people carrying concealed weapons*.
> 
> the 7th circuit of appeals differs
> 
> and says the right to self defense extends to outside of the home
> 
> in other works to bear arms



Well there are plenty of examples of circuit courts differing from the Supreme Court. Most judges have bias. 

That does not mean that the whole history of the founding fathers in this matter didn't happen, does it? 

Is it so easy to just completely ignore history? 



jon_berzerk said:


> the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right, recognized in_Heller,_ to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense



No. It recognises it for the doing things that are lawful, self defence just happens to be one of these. You can't use Heller to prove that the 2A specifically protects self defence. Inherently by protecting the right to keep arms, it allows for ONE FORM of self defence to be protected. 
Otherwise ANYTHING that allows for self defence is protected and the Supreme Court rejects this by saying that many weapons are not protected. 



jon_berzerk said:


> no we are not talking about something else here
> 
> the supreme court was rather clear on the issue in perpich
> 
> the feds do not enjoy the privilege of activating all the militia



This is getting a little absurd. The point being made was that the 2A could not possibly protect the right to be in the militia because the feds do not have the power and could never, ever, possibly gain the power to take away arms from individuals therefore necessitating the right to be in the militia.

It's absurd because the founding fathers CLEARLY made the case that the right to bear arms, or "render military service" or "militia duty" was there because they stated:

"This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government;"

"Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."

So not only were the founding fathers worried about the government, which had been set up under the present constitution minus any amendments, taking away liberty, but they felt the govt had this power. Now 200 odd years later and we have people claiming that A) this was never the case and B) this could never be the case.


----------



## Sallow

Spoonman said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> shit happens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, that's exactly how the nutters see this.
> 
> That man was someone's son, father, brother, friend but the nutter's don't feel anything more about his death than the death of a 8yo who accidentally shot himself at a shooting range not long ago.
> 
> They'll do damn near anything for a fetus but not a damn thing for a living human being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you know, some kid taking his driving test got into an accident and killed the poor guy administering the test. That man was someone's son, father, brother, friend but the lunatic left is still ok to let kids keep on getting their drivers license.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cars are not guns.
> Swimming pools are not guns.
> Bread boxes are not guns.
> 
> The scary thing is, the damn dumb gun nutters really don't seem to know that.
> 
> But, since you nutters think cars and guns are the same ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> cars  kill more than guns,  more people drown each year than are killed by guns.  ban cars and swimming, they are more dangerous than guns
Click to expand...


Even if this were true, which I doubt..most guns have one purpose.

To kill human beings.


----------



## Sallow

jon_berzerk said:


> no we are not talking about something else here
> 
> the supreme court was rather clear on the issue in perpich
> 
> the feds do not enjoy the privilege of activating all the militia



Which is another fine example of the perversion of original intent when it comes to the second amendment.


----------



## turtledude

frigidweirdo said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I*s it possible for the US federal govt to call up every single militiaman, requiring him to bring all of his weapons (this is a power they have in article 1 section 8, this allows them to make militia acts, which they have done since 1792, which can regulated how the militiaman turns up, see italics below) and then under the power they have to regulate the military to take these weapons away and leave the militia with absolutely no weapons? *
> 
> no not according to perpich vs department of defense
> 
> Congress has provided by statute that, in addition to its National Guard, a State may provide and maintain at its own expense a defense force that is exempt from being drafted into the Armed Forces of the United States. _See_ 32 U.S.C. § 109(c). As long as that provision remains in effect, there is no basis for an argument that the federal statutory scheme deprives Minnesota of any constitutional entitlement to a separate militia of its own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but you're talking about something else here, going off on a tangent. This is something new, also proving my point that things can change. In 1791 this wasn't the case, and we're dealing with what was going on at this time.
> 
> In 1791 was it possible for the feds to call up all militiamen and take their weapons?
Click to expand...



NO


----------



## turtledude

Sallow said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> no we are not talking about something else here
> 
> the supreme court was rather clear on the issue in perpich
> 
> the feds do not enjoy the privilege of activating all the militia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is another fine example of the perversion of original intent when it comes to the second amendment.
Click to expand...



original intent of the founders

the federal government has no jurisdiction over what arms private citizens own

at best, the federal government can tell members of the federal militia what arms to use while serving


----------



## frigidweirdo

turtledude said:


> original intent of the founders
> 
> the federal government has no jurisdiction over what arms private citizens own
> 
> at best, the federal government can tell members of the federal militia what arms to use while serving



Actually the Right to Keep arms is a limit on federal power. The feds cannot stop people from owning weapons. They can limit weapons. A ban on fully automatic weapons is not limited by the 2A.


----------



## frigidweirdo

turtledude said:


> In 1791 was it possible for the feds to call up all militiamen and take their weapons?




NO[/QUOTE]

So there was no way possible for feds to call someone up and then take their weapons?

Again, it's still moot because the founding fathers were clearly concerned that the feds could take the weapons away from the people, and also prevent them from being in the militia, hence why they protected this.

I bet you can't find a single instance where the founding fathers spoke about the need to protect the right to carry weapons.


----------



## Sallow

turtledude said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> no we are not talking about something else here
> 
> the supreme court was rather clear on the issue in perpich
> 
> the feds do not enjoy the privilege of activating all the militia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is another fine example of the perversion of original intent when it comes to the second amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> original intent of the founders
> 
> the federal government has no jurisdiction over what arms private citizens own
> 
> at best, the federal government can tell members of the federal militia what arms to use while serving
Click to expand...


That's not "at best".

The Original intent was that you were required to keep arms for the defense of the country.

They weren't for hunting or self defense.

Essentially, you were in the "army" and at the ready in cases of insurrection or invasion.

By the way? You were prohibited from using those arms against the government.

There are multiple clauses in the Constitution that specifically address this.

Case law has corrupted the original intent.

Which was that a permanent standing army under Federal control would not be needed and that citizens would perform that function.


----------



## Sallow

frigidweirdo said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> original intent of the founders
> 
> the federal government has no jurisdiction over what arms private citizens own
> 
> at best, the federal government can tell members of the federal militia what arms to use while serving
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Actually the Right to Keep arms is a limit on federal power.* The feds cannot stop people from owning weapons. They can limit weapons. A ban on fully automatic weapons is not limited by the 2A.
Click to expand...


No it is not.

The "limits" on Federal Power can be found in clauses regarding the quartering of soldiers and similar references.

Citizens have no right, at all, as codified in the Constitution, to take up arms against the government. None.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

frigidweirdo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL! That's funny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny you want me to back everything I said up instead of just spouting simple sentences? Right you are then.
> 
> Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> During the debates in the House (Senate records were kept a secret) they debated the inclusion of the clause (which changed) over the course of the debate with two distinct types.
> 
> 1st: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to *render military service* in person.
> 
> 2nd:but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to *bear arms*.
> 
> Now, here it looks like they're using "bear arms" and "render military service" synonymously to me. What do you think?
> 
> Well to back this up I'll look at the debate.
> 
> Mr Gerry said:"Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."
> 
> Now, if "bear arms" meant carrying guns around, why would declaring those who couldn't carry guns around (but still own them) allow people in power to destroy the constitution? Because they can't use self defence? Doesn't make sense.
> It does make sense that if people were not allowed to "render military service" then this might take away from the actual purpose of the 2A which is to protect the militia from the US govt.
> 
> "What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. "
> 
> Well that's what Mr Gerry thinks this is all about. You see self defence, carrying weapons around individually here?
> 
> "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."
> 
> They're talking about excluding people from militia duty. "render military service", "bear arms", "militia duty", they are the same thing.
> 
> "Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""
> 
> And here they even use the two same things, to mean the same thing, next to each other.
> 
> There's more in there. But shall we move on?
> 
> ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1897)
> 
> _“_the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;”
> 
> This is a case which makes a claim that has been upheld, even in the relevant cases recently. Simply said, the right to keep and bear arms does not prevent the govt from stopping people carrying concealed weapons.
> 
> You don't think it's funny the NRA supports carry and conceal permits?
> 
> Surely this would go against licensing a right.
> 
> PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)
> 
> "*We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265]   and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."*
> 
> This case was one where they looked at whether men drilling, but not part of the militia, was a right, they said it wasn't.
> 
> We also have state constitutions from before the 2A was ratified that show there was a right to be in the militia for the protection of the militia, so the common defence would be served.
> 
> "1780 Massachusetts:  *The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence.*"
> 
> "1790 Pennsylvania:*  The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."
> *
> And the biggest joke of all is George Washington
> *
> SENTIMENTS ON A PEACE ESTABLISHMENT, 1783
> George Washington
> 
> 
> "every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America... from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls,"
> 
> 
> "by making it universally reputable to bear Arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the performance of Military duties; in fine, by keeping up in Peace "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia," we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country.“
> 
> He uses the term "bear arms" in the sense of "render military service" and "militia duty".
> *
> So now, I'm going to see what you've got. Will it be insults and not much else, or will be hardcore facts or will it be quotes taken massively out of context????
> 
> Hmmmmm.
Click to expand...

 
Thanks.
I love a good laugh in the morning.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Sallow said:


> No it is not.
> 
> The "limits" on Federal Power can be found in clauses regarding the quartering of soldiers and similar references.
> 
> Citizens have no right, at all, as codified in the Constitution, to take up arms against the government. None.



Of course it is. What do you think the constitution is? It defines the powers the govt has, both powers it has and powers it explicitly doesn't have. 

You think there are just limits to their power in those clauses you have mentioned in article 1? I don't thinks so. 

The Bill of Rights was mainly a limit on the power of the federal govt. 

Bill of Rights Institute Bill of Rights

"The first 10 amendments to the Constitutionmake up the Bill of Rights. Written by James Madison in response to calls from several states for greater constitutional protection for individual liberties,* the Bill of Rights lists specific prohibitions on governmental power.* "

How can the Constitution limit Government power 1995 

"A Bill of Rights as contained in the Amendments to the US Constitution, provides an admirable philosophical statement, for application in concrete situations, *of the basis on which the power of legislatures and governments may be limited. *"

I mean, this is BASIC political theory. 

Citizens have no rights codified into the constitution at all. Rights are assumed to exist. The constitution merely protects those rights by LIMITING GOVT POWER.....

No, there is no right to take up arms against the government. However I bet I can find a million quotes from the time which talks about the potential need to take up arms.

The reason the militia is there and has a certain amount of federal input is so that only this militia will rise up and restore the constitution, or at least it was hoped this would be the case, rather than a rabble taking over and doing what it liked.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Thanks.
> I love a good laugh in the morning.



You actually bothered to read it all and then make such an idiotic statement afterwards? Wow, I'm impressed with your staying power.

So, what exactly do you find funny? Because you know what would be funny? You actually being able to form an opinion on this and debate with me.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Sallow said:


> That's not "at best".
> 
> The Original intent was that you were required to keep arms for the defense of the country.
> 
> They weren't for hunting or self defense.
> 
> Essentially, you were in the "army" and at the ready in cases of insurrection or invasion.
> 
> By the way? You were prohibited from using those arms against the government.
> 
> There are multiple clauses in the Constitution that specifically address this.
> 
> Case law has corrupted the original intent.
> 
> Which was that a permanent standing army under Federal control would not be needed and that citizens would perform that function.



Actually original intent put the "you were in an army" down to law, ie, the militia act. Not all people were ever in it, they're still not, women aren't automatically in the militia, men are. 

While it is against the law to rise up against the govt, the militia was actually there for this potential. This is, assuming the govt had surpassed its limits and gone off the rails so that the people felt they needed to take over the govt. 
It's a check and balance. It's contradictory, but then it's there as the last line of defence to only be used when everything else has failed. 

No, original intent wasn't that there wouldn't be a standing army, clearly the constitution has a standing army. It was part of the battle between federalists and anti-federalists, one wanted a standing army, the other wanted a militia.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

frigidweirdo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks.
> I love a good laugh in the morning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You actually bothered to read it all and then make such an idiotic statement afterwards? Wow, I'm impressed with your staying power.
> 
> So, what exactly do you find funny? Because you know what would be funny? You actually being able to form an opinion on this and debate with me.
Click to expand...

 
Such long-winded idiocy deserves little but mockery and laughter.

Your rant ignored the word keep.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, *the right of the people to keep* and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Using your logic.....

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, *the right of the people to keep* (Arms)and bear Arms (serve in the militia), shall not be infringed.

Okay, you win. I can keep arms and I can serve in the militia.


----------



## turtledude

Sallow said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> no we are not talking about something else here
> 
> the supreme court was rather clear on the issue in perpich
> 
> the feds do not enjoy the privilege of activating all the militia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is another fine example of the perversion of original intent when it comes to the second amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> original intent of the founders
> 
> the federal government has no jurisdiction over what arms private citizens own
> 
> at best, the federal government can tell members of the federal militia what arms to use while serving
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not "at best".
> 
> The Original intent was that you were required to keep arms for the defense of the country.
> 
> They weren't for hunting or self defense.
> 
> Essentially, you were in the "army" and at the ready in cases of insurrection or invasion.
> 
> By the way? You were prohibited from using those arms against the government.
> 
> There are multiple clauses in the Constitution that specifically address this.
> 
> Case law has corrupted the original intent.
> 
> Which was that a permanent standing army under Federal control would not be needed and that citizens would perform that function.
Click to expand...




the founders all believed in the natural right of self defense and with it the belief that all free men should be able to keep and bear arms.  Indeed, many did not think the 2A was needed since it was obvious to them

there is no power delegated to the federal government to regulate what sort of arms private citizens can own

FDR made that up with the commerce clause which every major legal scholar-gun hater or not-sees as a corruption of the intent of the founders and its clearly a violation of the 10th Amendment


----------



## hunarcy

BreezeWood said:


> .
> 
> all public firearms to be bolt or lever action per round, six rounds or less capacity.




Of course, because everyone knows that it takes a lot of bullets to kill someone and no one can kill anyone else with one bullet.  Just as no one is ever killed with a bolt action or lever action rifle.

I honestly believe that some of you on the Left can't be trusted to vote.


----------



## hunarcy

Spoonman said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> shit happens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, that's exactly how the nutters see this.
> 
> That man was someone's son, father, brother, friend but the nutter's don't feel anything more about his death than the death of a 8yo who accidentally shot himself at a shooting range not long ago.
> 
> They'll do damn near anything for a fetus but not a damn thing for a living human being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you know, some kid taking his driving test got into an accident and killed the poor guy administering the test. That man was someone's son, father, brother, friend but the lunatic left is still ok to let kids keep on getting their drivers license.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cars are not guns.
> Swimming pools are not guns.
> Bread boxes are not guns.
> 
> The scary thing is, the damn dumb gun nutters really don't seem to know that.
> 
> But, since you nutters think cars and guns are the same ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> cars  kill more than guns,  more people drown each year than are killed by guns.  ban cars and swimming, they are more dangerous than guns
Click to expand...


Having a car and driving it is a priviledge.  Owning a firearm is a right.


----------



## hunarcy

Toddsterpatriot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks.
> I love a good laugh in the morning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You actually bothered to read it all and then make such an idiotic statement afterwards? Wow, I'm impressed with your staying power.
> 
> So, what exactly do you find funny? Because you know what would be funny? You actually being able to form an opinion on this and debate with me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such long-winded idiocy deserves little but mockery and laughter.
> 
> Your rant ignored the word keep.
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, *the right of the people to keep* and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Using your logic.....
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, *the right of the people to keep* (Arms)and bear Arms (serve in the militia), shall not be infringed.
> 
> Okay, you win. I can keep arms and I can serve in the militia.
Click to expand...


Everyone is in the militia.


----------



## Sallow

turtledude said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> no we are not talking about something else here
> 
> the supreme court was rather clear on the issue in perpich
> 
> the feds do not enjoy the privilege of activating all the militia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is another fine example of the perversion of original intent when it comes to the second amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> original intent of the founders
> 
> the federal government has no jurisdiction over what arms private citizens own
> 
> at best, the federal government can tell members of the federal militia what arms to use while serving
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not "at best".
> 
> The Original intent was that you were required to keep arms for the defense of the country.
> 
> They weren't for hunting or self defense.
> 
> Essentially, you were in the "army" and at the ready in cases of insurrection or invasion.
> 
> By the way? You were prohibited from using those arms against the government.
> 
> There are multiple clauses in the Constitution that specifically address this.
> 
> Case law has corrupted the original intent.
> 
> Which was that a permanent standing army under Federal control would not be needed and that citizens would perform that function.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the founders all believed in the natural right of self defense and with it the belief that all free men should be able to keep and bear arms.  Indeed, many did not think the 2A was needed since it was obvious to them
> 
> there is no power delegated to the federal government to regulate what sort of arms private citizens can own
> 
> FDR made that up with the commerce clause which every major legal scholar-gun hater or not-sees as a corruption of the intent of the founders and its clearly a violation of the 10th Amendment
Click to expand...


First off the founders weren't a mass of men that represented a single mind. And actually they had many different notions about what this country should be about.

Second? They didn't codify "natural rights". That's an esoteric argument that has zero to do with American Justice.

And the 10th is one of the second most misread amendment and has more to do with giving states the power to administer local issues, like say gambling or prostitution. It does not nor should it be construed that this amendment gives the states superiority over the Federal Government in matters of governance. That, was settled by the Civil War.


----------



## Sallow

Toddsterpatriot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks.
> I love a good laugh in the morning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You actually bothered to read it all and then make such an idiotic statement afterwards? Wow, I'm impressed with your staying power.
> 
> So, what exactly do you find funny? Because you know what would be funny? You actually being able to form an opinion on this and debate with me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such long-winded idiocy deserves little but mockery and laughter.
> 
> Your rant ignored the word keep.
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, *the right of the people to keep* and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Using your logic.....
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, *the right of the people to keep* (Arms)and bear Arms (serve in the militia), shall not be infringed.
> 
> Okay, you win. I can keep arms and I can serve in the militia.
Click to expand...


Whew..we can finally disband the army now.

Will save us a bundle!

Keep on watch Todd!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Sallow said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks.
> I love a good laugh in the morning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You actually bothered to read it all and then make such an idiotic statement afterwards? Wow, I'm impressed with your staying power.
> 
> So, what exactly do you find funny? Because you know what would be funny? You actually being able to form an opinion on this and debate with me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such long-winded idiocy deserves little but mockery and laughter.
> 
> Your rant ignored the word keep.
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, *the right of the people to keep* and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Using your logic.....
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, *the right of the people to keep* (Arms)and bear Arms (serve in the militia), shall not be infringed.
> 
> Okay, you win. I can keep arms and I can serve in the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whew..we can finally disband the army now.
> 
> Will save us a bundle!
> 
> Keep on watch Todd!
Click to expand...

 
Hands up, comrade!


----------



## Sallow

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks.
> I love a good laugh in the morning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You actually bothered to read it all and then make such an idiotic statement afterwards? Wow, I'm impressed with your staying power.
> 
> So, what exactly do you find funny? Because you know what would be funny? You actually being able to form an opinion on this and debate with me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such long-winded idiocy deserves little but mockery and laughter.
> 
> Your rant ignored the word keep.
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, *the right of the people to keep* and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Using your logic.....
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, *the right of the people to keep* (Arms)and bear Arms (serve in the militia), shall not be infringed.
> 
> Okay, you win. I can keep arms and I can serve in the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whew..we can finally disband the army now.
> 
> Will save us a bundle!
> 
> Keep on watch Todd!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hands up, comrade!
Click to expand...


Hold Herr Todd, have to make adjustments to my launch system for my thermal nuclear device the 2nd amendment allows me to have. I will put my hands up after I hit the button.

Oh..and don't worry about the flash..


----------



## M14 Shooter

Sallow said:


> Hold Herr Todd, have to make adjustments to my launch system for my thermal nuclear device the 2nd amendment allows me to have.


Oh look - ignorance and/or dishonesty from an anti-gun loon.
Color me shocked.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Lakhota said:


> Gotta love this.
> 
> NRA: Children Can Have Fun At The Shooting Range


Obvious troll remains obvious.


----------



## DigitalDrifter

I think the OP should have the right to a bow and arrow.


----------



## M14 Shooter

BreezeWood said:


> .
> all [civilian] firearms to be bolt or lever action per round, six rounds or less capacity.


There is no sound argument for this restriction, and any such restriction will violate the constitution.
Conclusion:  Fail.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Sallow said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> FACT: The wording of the 2nd Amendment is confusing!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What _exactly_ is "confusing" about THE *RIGHT* OF THE *PEOPLE* TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL *NOT* BE INFRINGED.
> 
> That is about as clear as it gets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure is.
> And the people bearing arms have an obligation to defend the state while serving in a militia.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately for you, The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home..


----------



## M14 Shooter

frigidweirdo said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> FACT: The wording of the 2nd Amendment is confusing!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What _exactly_ is "confusing" about THE *RIGHT* OF THE *PEOPLE* TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL *NOT* BE INFRINGED.
> 
> That is about as clear as it gets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's clear for those who don't want to understand the truth.
> 
> The right shall not be infringed. But what is the right? This is the hard part.
> 
> The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. Not the right to carry arms.
Click to expand...

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.



> The founding fathers were quite clear on that one.


Really.   Citations, please.


----------



## turtledude

Sallow said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> no we are not talking about something else here
> 
> the supreme court was rather clear on the issue in perpich
> 
> the feds do not enjoy the privilege of activating all the militia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is another fine example of the perversion of original intent when it comes to the second amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> original intent of the founders
> 
> the federal government has no jurisdiction over what arms private citizens own
> 
> at best, the federal government can tell members of the federal militia what arms to use while serving
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not "at best".
> 
> The Original intent was that you were required to keep arms for the defense of the country.
> 
> They weren't for hunting or self defense.
> 
> Essentially, you were in the "army" and at the ready in cases of insurrection or invasion.
> 
> By the way? You were prohibited from using those arms against the government.
> 
> There are multiple clauses in the Constitution that specifically address this.
> 
> Case law has corrupted the original intent.
> 
> Which was that a permanent standing army under Federal control would not be needed and that citizens would perform that function.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the founders all believed in the natural right of self defense and with it the belief that all free men should be able to keep and bear arms.  Indeed, many did not think the 2A was needed since it was obvious to them
> 
> there is no power delegated to the federal government to regulate what sort of arms private citizens can own
> 
> FDR made that up with the commerce clause which every major legal scholar-gun hater or not-sees as a corruption of the intent of the founders and its clearly a violation of the 10th Amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First off the founders weren't a mass of men that represented a single mind. And actually they had many different notions about what this country should be about.
> 
> Second? They didn't codify "natural rights". That's an esoteric argument that has zero to do with American Justice.
> 
> And the 10th is one of the second most misread amendment and has more to do with giving states the power to administer local issues, like say gambling or prostitution. It does not nor should it be construed that this amendment gives the states superiority over the Federal Government in matters of governance. That, was settled by the Civil War.
Click to expand...



You obviously are clueless about the Lopez decision and the Prinz decision involving the brady bill

its not about superiority, its about the power of the federal government to act in an area where it was not given the proper power to do so.  Remind me of which university gave you a law degree


----------



## turtledude

Sallow said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks.
> I love a good laugh in the morning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You actually bothered to read it all and then make such an idiotic statement afterwards? Wow, I'm impressed with your staying power.
> 
> So, what exactly do you find funny? Because you know what would be funny? You actually being able to form an opinion on this and debate with me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such long-winded idiocy deserves little but mockery and laughter.
> 
> Your rant ignored the word keep.
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, *the right of the people to keep* and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Using your logic.....
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, *the right of the people to keep* (Arms)and bear Arms (serve in the militia), shall not be infringed.
> 
> Okay, you win. I can keep arms and I can serve in the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whew..we can finally disband the army now.
> 
> Will save us a bundle!
> 
> Keep on watch Todd!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hands up, comrade!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hold Herr Todd, have to make adjustments to my launch system for my thermal nuclear device the 2nd amendment allows me to have. I will put my hands up after I hit the button.
> 
> Oh..and don't worry about the flash..
Click to expand...



I love amateurs pretending to be constitutional scholars and then they use the Nuke nonsense and proves they are dullards in the field of 2A scholarship


----------



## Sallow

turtledude said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> no we are not talking about something else here
> 
> the supreme court was rather clear on the issue in perpich
> 
> the feds do not enjoy the privilege of activating all the militia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is another fine example of the perversion of original intent when it comes to the second amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> original intent of the founders
> 
> the federal government has no jurisdiction over what arms private citizens own
> 
> at best, the federal government can tell members of the federal militia what arms to use while serving
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not "at best".
> 
> The Original intent was that you were required to keep arms for the defense of the country.
> 
> They weren't for hunting or self defense.
> 
> Essentially, you were in the "army" and at the ready in cases of insurrection or invasion.
> 
> By the way? You were prohibited from using those arms against the government.
> 
> There are multiple clauses in the Constitution that specifically address this.
> 
> Case law has corrupted the original intent.
> 
> Which was that a permanent standing army under Federal control would not be needed and that citizens would perform that function.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the founders all believed in the natural right of self defense and with it the belief that all free men should be able to keep and bear arms.  Indeed, many did not think the 2A was needed since it was obvious to them
> 
> there is no power delegated to the federal government to regulate what sort of arms private citizens can own
> 
> FDR made that up with the commerce clause which every major legal scholar-gun hater or not-sees as a corruption of the intent of the founders and its clearly a violation of the 10th Amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First off the founders weren't a mass of men that represented a single mind. And actually they had many different notions about what this country should be about.
> 
> Second? They didn't codify "natural rights". That's an esoteric argument that has zero to do with American Justice.
> 
> And the 10th is one of the second most misread amendment and has more to do with giving states the power to administer local issues, like say gambling or prostitution. It does not nor should it be construed that this amendment gives the states superiority over the Federal Government in matters of governance. That, was settled by the Civil War.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously are clueless about the Lopez decision and the Prinz decision involving the brady bill
> 
> its not about superiority, its about the power of the federal government to act in an area where it was not given the proper power to do so.  Remind me of which university gave you a law degree
Click to expand...


Which goes back to my original point that case law has perverted the 2nd Amendment.

And I don't need a law degree to go up against the likes of you.


----------



## Sallow

turtledude said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks.
> I love a good laugh in the morning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You actually bothered to read it all and then make such an idiotic statement afterwards? Wow, I'm impressed with your staying power.
> 
> So, what exactly do you find funny? Because you know what would be funny? You actually being able to form an opinion on this and debate with me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such long-winded idiocy deserves little but mockery and laughter.
> 
> Your rant ignored the word keep.
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, *the right of the people to keep* and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Using your logic.....
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, *the right of the people to keep* (Arms)and bear Arms (serve in the militia), shall not be infringed.
> 
> Okay, you win. I can keep arms and I can serve in the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whew..we can finally disband the army now.
> 
> Will save us a bundle!
> 
> Keep on watch Todd!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hands up, comrade!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hold Herr Todd, have to make adjustments to my launch system for my thermal nuclear device the 2nd amendment allows me to have. I will put my hands up after I hit the button.
> 
> Oh..and don't worry about the flash..
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I love amateurs pretending to be constitutional scholars and then they use the Nuke nonsense and proves they are dullards in the field of 2A scholarship
Click to expand...


No actually, dimwit, this follows the logical conclusion of what you radicals put out with this "cannot be abridged" nonsense.

You folks constantly and consistently have no consistency in your arguments.


----------



## Sallow

M14 Shooter said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> FACT: The wording of the 2nd Amendment is confusing!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What _exactly_ is "confusing" about THE *RIGHT* OF THE *PEOPLE* TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL *NOT* BE INFRINGED.
> 
> That is about as clear as it gets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure is.
> And the people bearing arms have an obligation to defend the state while serving in a militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unfortunately for you, The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home..
Click to expand...


Unfortunately case law did bifurcate the amendment.

But that's only a couple of judges away from being set right.

Until then, the slaughter of Americans by conservative radicals and gun nuts will continue.

Un 'abridged'.


----------



## turtledude

Sallow said:


> And I don't need a law degree to go up against the likes of you.




yes you do because you are ignorant about the original intent of the 2A.  and its fun seeing amateurs pretending they actually understand this point.  Why is it that EVERY established law professor-including Tribe of Harvard (well known Liberal) U of T's Sanford Levinson and the top scholar in the USA-my good friend and former classmate, Akhil Reed Amar-the Sterling Professor of Law at the Best Law School in the world (Yale) all agree it was to recognize an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT of INDIVIDUALS to keep and bear arms.  

Who do you have on your side?  Certainly not conservatives such as Koppel, Volokh  or Kates.


----------



## turtledude

Sallow said:


> No actually, dimwit, this follows the logical conclusion of what you radicals put out with this "cannot be abridged" nonsense.
> 
> You folks constantly and consistently have no consistency in your arguments.


Oh Look, I have a moron without a law degree calling me and others who actually understand this topic "dimwits"

where was the federal government ever given the proper power to intrude into this area


----------



## M14 Shooter

Sallow said:


> No actually, dimwit, this follows the logical conclusion of what you radicals put out with this "cannot be abridged" nonsense.


Only to those who choose to be, or cannot help but be, ignorant of the subject.



> You folks constantly and consistently have no consistency in your arguments.


Says she who consistently argues from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.


----------



## turtledude

Sallow said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> FACT: The wording of the 2nd Amendment is confusing!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What _exactly_ is "confusing" about THE *RIGHT* OF THE *PEOPLE* TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL *NOT* BE INFRINGED.
> 
> That is about as clear as it gets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure is.
> And the people bearing arms have an obligation to defend the state while serving in a militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unfortunately for you, The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately case law did bifurcate the amendment.
> 
> But that's only a couple of judges away from being set right.
> 
> Until then, the slaughter of Americans by conservative radicals and gun nuts will continue.
> 
> Un 'abridged'.
Click to expand...



the people doing the slaughtering tend to be your fellow travelers dullard

not ours.  "gun nuts" are not the ones committing crime

its mainly black thugs who vote for your heroes like Obama

and there is no support for the statist nonsense of Stevens who claimed the USSC should be bound by dishonest inferior court opinions that deliberately misconstrued the Cruikshank decision (which correctly held that the 2A did not CREATE a RKBA but merely recognized it-disonest turds on the bench said no right therefore exists and Stevens demanded that the supremes follow that idiocy)


----------



## turtledude

M14 Shooter said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> No actually, dimwit, this follows the logical conclusion of what you radicals put out with this "cannot be abridged" nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> Only to those who choose to be, or cannot help but be, ignorant of the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You folks constantly and consistently have no consistency in your arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says she who consistently argues from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
Click to expand...



Strong the stupidity is with that one Master Yoda

Seduced by the far left side of the force he has been Jedi M14


----------



## Sallow

turtledude said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I don't need a law degree to go up against the likes of you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes you do because you are ignorant about the original intent of the 2A.  and its fun seeing amateurs pretending they actually understand this point.  Why is it that EVERY established law professor-including Tribe of Harvard (well known Liberal) U of T's Sanford Levinson and the top scholar in the USA-my good friend and former classmate, Akhil Reed Amar-the Sterling Professor of Law at the Best Law School in the world (Yale) all agree it was to recognize an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT of INDIVIDUALS to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Who do you have on your side?  Certainly not conservatives such as Koppel, Volokh  or Kates.
Click to expand...

Again,as I have pointed out, case law has completely and thoroughly corrupted the amendment.

It doesn't even follow the linguistics of the Constitution that is an individual right divorced of any responsibility toward defending the nation.

The constitution also makes delineations between individual rights (person) and collective rights (the people).

Thanks to a very powerful and wealthy gun lobby in this nations they have bought politicians and judges who are friendly and advocate their cause.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Sallow said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> FACT: The wording of the 2nd Amendment is confusing!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What _exactly_ is "confusing" about THE *RIGHT* OF THE *PEOPLE* TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL *NOT* BE INFRINGED.
> 
> That is about as clear as it gets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure is.
> And the people bearing arms have an obligation to defend the state while serving in a militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unfortunately for you, The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unfortunately case law did bifurcate the amendment.
> But that's only a couple of judges away from being set right.
> Until then, the slaughter of Americans by conservative radicals and gun nuts will continue.
> Un 'abridged'.
Click to expand...

A response deeply set in emotion, ignorance and or dishonesty.
As per the norm.


----------



## turtledude

Sallow said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I don't need a law degree to go up against the likes of you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes you do because you are ignorant about the original intent of the 2A.  and its fun seeing amateurs pretending they actually understand this point.  Why is it that EVERY established law professor-including Tribe of Harvard (well known Liberal) U of T's Sanford Levinson and the top scholar in the USA-my good friend and former classmate, Akhil Reed Amar-the Sterling Professor of Law at the Best Law School in the world (Yale) all agree it was to recognize an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT of INDIVIDUALS to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Who do you have on your side?  Certainly not conservatives such as Koppel, Volokh  or Kates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again,as I have appointed out, case law has completely and thoroughly corrupted the amendment.
> 
> It doesn't even follow the linguistics of the Constitution that is an individual right divorced of any responsibility toward defending the nation.
> 
> The constitution also makes delineations between individual rights (person) and collective rights (the people).
> 
> Thanks to a very powerful and wealthy gun lobby in this nations they have bought politicians and judges who are friendly and advocate their cause.
Click to expand...


the Democrat party had to pretend that the 2A didn't guarantee an individual  right because it was Dems-from the Klan leaders seeking to disarm blacks, to Dem politicians trying to counter the Nixon Southern Strategy in the 60s, who adopted gun control.  Gun control first was a racist reaction to armed freemen:  later it was a COVER OUR ASS strategy when Dems were being pummeled for being soft on violent black street crime.

the gun banners can never tell us why the  federal government actually has a proper power to say decree magazine limits or machine gun bans given that the use of the commerce clause is so intellectually dishonest, the best its educated supporters can do is claim its "settled law" rather than arguing what FDR's pet monkeys on the court did was actually intellectually honest


----------



## Sallow

turtledude said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I don't need a law degree to go up against the likes of you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes you do because you are ignorant about the original intent of the 2A.  and its fun seeing amateurs pretending they actually understand this point.  Why is it that EVERY established law professor-including Tribe of Harvard (well known Liberal) U of T's Sanford Levinson and the top scholar in the USA-my good friend and former classmate, Akhil Reed Amar-the Sterling Professor of Law at the Best Law School in the world (Yale) all agree it was to recognize an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT of INDIVIDUALS to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Who do you have on your side?  Certainly not conservatives such as Koppel, Volokh  or Kates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again,as I have appointed out, case law has completely and thoroughly corrupted the amendment.
> 
> It doesn't even follow the linguistics of the Constitution that is an individual right divorced of any responsibility toward defending the nation.
> 
> The constitution also makes delineations between individual rights (person) and collective rights (the people).
> 
> Thanks to a very powerful and wealthy gun lobby in this nations they have bought politicians and judges who are friendly and advocate their cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the Democrat party had to pretend that the 2A didn't guarantee an individual  right because it was Dems*-from the Klan leaders seeking to disarm blacks*, to Dem politicians trying to counter the Nixon Southern Strategy in the 60s, who adopted gun control.  Gun control first was a racist reaction to armed freemen:  later it was a COVER OUR ASS strategy when Dems were being pummeled for being soft on violent black street crime.
> 
> the gun banners can never tell us why the  federal government actually has a proper power to say decree magazine limits or machine gun bans given that the use of the commerce clause is so intellectually dishonest, the best its educated supporters can do is claim its "settled law" rather than arguing what FDR's pet monkeys on the court did was actually intellectually honest
Click to expand...


Ronald Reagan was a Democrat?



> The *Mulford Act* was a 1967 California bill prohibiting the public carrying of loaded firearms. Named after Republican assemblyman Don Mulford, the bill garnered national attention after the Black Panthers marched bearing arms upon the California State Capitol to protest the bill.[1][2] The bill was signed by Republican California Governor Ronald Reagan and became California penal code 12031 and 171(c).
> Mulford Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## M14 Shooter

Sallow said:


> [
> Again,as I have pointed out, case law has completely and thoroughly corrupted the amendment.


As you have claimed.  You have never presented any proof of this claim, and you run away from every challenge to do so - and you know it.



> It doesn't even follow the linguistics of the Constitution that is an individual right divorced of any responsibility toward defending the nation.


The opinion in Heller extensively discusses this very thing - that "keep and bear arms" in no way has a necessary and indivisible connection to serving in defense of the state.
Specifically, how is it wrong?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Sallow said:


> Ronald Reagan was a Democrat?



Yes.
Who doesn't know that?


----------



## turtledude

Sallow said:


> Ronald Reagan was a Democrat?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The *Mulford Act* was a 1967 California bill prohibiting the public carrying of loaded firearms. Named after Republican assemblyman Don Mulford, the bill garnered national attention after the Black Panthers marched bearing arms upon the California State Capitol to protest the bill.[1][2] The bill was signed by Republican California Governor Ronald Reagan and became California penal code 12031 and 171(c).
> Mulford Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


that was a state action not federal and it was wrong.  Name federal restrictions that have been passed that were sponsored by the GOP?


----------



## Sallow

M14 Shooter said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ronald Reagan was a Democrat?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> Who doesn't know that?
Click to expand...


You don't.

As governor of California he ran as a Republican.

Things you learn..eh?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Sallow said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ronald Reagan was a Democrat?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> Who doesn't know that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't.
> As governor of California he ran as a Republican.
> Things you learn..eh?
Click to expand...

I laugh at you.


> Originally, he was a member of the Democratic Party, but due to the parties' shifting platforms during the 1950s, he switched to the Republican Party in 1962.[1]


Ronald Reagan - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Was Reagan a Democrat?  The only sound answer is "yes".

Glad I could help you with your ignorance.


----------



## Sallow

turtledude said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ronald Reagan was a Democrat?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The *Mulford Act* was a 1967 California bill prohibiting the public carrying of loaded firearms. Named after Republican assemblyman Don Mulford, the bill garnered national attention after the Black Panthers marched bearing arms upon the California State Capitol to protest the bill.[1][2] The bill was signed by Republican California Governor Ronald Reagan and became California penal code 12031 and 171(c).
> Mulford Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that was a state action not federal and it was wrong.  Name federal restrictions that have been passed that were sponsored by the GOP?
Click to expand...


You specifically pointed out that "Democrats" were looking to keep black Americans away from guns.

Well..you were proved wrong.

And?

Bill Summary Status - 99th Congress 1985 - 1986 - S.49 - All Information - THOMAS Library of Congress 
Firearm Owners Protection Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

There ya go.

Thought you were a lawyer..or something.


----------



## turtledude

Sallow said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ronald Reagan was a Democrat?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The *Mulford Act* was a 1967 California bill prohibiting the public carrying of loaded firearms. Named after Republican assemblyman Don Mulford, the bill garnered national attention after the Black Panthers marched bearing arms upon the California State Capitol to protest the bill.[1][2] The bill was signed by Republican California Governor Ronald Reagan and became California penal code 12031 and 171(c).
> Mulford Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that was a state action not federal and it was wrong.  Name federal restrictions that have been passed that were sponsored by the GOP?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You specifically pointed out that "Democrats" were looking to keep black Americans away from guns.
> 
> Well..you were proved wrong.
> 
> And?
> 
> Bill Summary Status - 99th Congress 1985 - 1986 - S.49 - All Information - THOMAS Library of Congress
> Firearm Owners Protection Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> There ya go.
> 
> Thought you were a lawyer..or something.
Click to expand...



gee you are dishonest.  The HUGHES amendment was DEMOCRAT sponsored and an attempt to derail the FOPA

I guess you weren't smart enough to comprehend that.  Reagan signed the overall bill after being told by WH counsel that the Hughes derailment would be stripped out

and its the DEMS who passed gun control in the south to disarm blacks

Reagan's law in California did not strip anyone of arms-it was a use restriction

do you even have a HS education?


----------



## Sallow

M14 Shooter said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ronald Reagan was a Democrat?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> Who doesn't know that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't.
> As governor of California he ran as a Republican.
> Things you learn..eh?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I laugh at you.
> 
> 
> 
> Originally, he was a member of the Democratic Party, but due to the parties' shifting platforms during the 1950s, he switched to the Republican Party in 1962.[1]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ronald Reagan - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Was Reagan a Democrat?  The only sound answer is "yes".
> 
> Glad I could help you with your ignorance.
Click to expand...




You are engaging in the time honored "gotcha" game, which here? Is silly. It also shows the depth of your intellect.

Reagan was also the head of the Actor's Union for a while.

Reagan was neither friendly toward Unions..or elected to the governor's office or the Presidency as a Democrat.

Glad I could help here..since you didn't seem to know that.


----------



## Sallow

turtledude said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ronald Reagan was a Democrat?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The *Mulford Act* was a 1967 California bill prohibiting the public carrying of loaded firearms. Named after Republican assemblyman Don Mulford, the bill garnered national attention after the Black Panthers marched bearing arms upon the California State Capitol to protest the bill.[1][2] The bill was signed by Republican California Governor Ronald Reagan and became California penal code 12031 and 171(c).
> Mulford Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that was a state action not federal and it was wrong.  *Name federal restrictions that have been passed that were sponsored by the GOP?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You specifically pointed out that "Democrats" were looking to keep black Americans away from guns.
> 
> Well..you were proved wrong.
> 
> And?
> 
> Bill Summary Status - 99th Congress 1985 - 1986 - S.49 - All Information - THOMAS Library of Congress
> Firearm Owners Protection Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> There ya go.
> 
> Thought you were a lawyer..or something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> gee you are dishonest.  The HUGHES amendment was DEMOCRAT sponsored and an attempt to derail the FOPA
> 
> I guess you weren't smart enough to comprehend that.  Reagan signed the overall bill after being told by WH counsel that the Hughes derailment would be stripped out
> 
> and its the DEMS who passed gun control in the south to disarm blacks
> 
> Reagan's law in California did not strip anyone of arms-it was a use restriction
> 
> do you even have a HS education?
Click to expand...


Do you even read your own posts?

You asked for a GOP sponsored "restriction". I bolded it for you.

The bill was brought up by a Republican and signed into law by a Republican President.

Where did you study law?

Did they teach you anything about civics?

Or how to read?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Sallow said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ronald Reagan was a Democrat?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> Who doesn't know that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't.
> As governor of California he ran as a Republican.
> Things you learn..eh?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I laugh at you.
> 
> 
> 
> Originally, he was a member of the Democratic Party, but due to the parties' shifting platforms during the 1950s, he switched to the Republican Party in 1962.[1]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ronald Reagan - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Was Reagan a Democrat?  The only sound answer is "yes".
> 
> Glad I could help you with your ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are engaging in the time honored "gotcha" game, which here? Is silly. It also shows the depth of your intellect.
Click to expand...

Says she who didn't know that RWR was a Democrat and thought she had me when she triumphantly  noted that he was elected in 1968 as a Republican.

I continue to laugh at you.


----------



## turtledude

Sallow said:


> [
> 
> Do you even read your own posts?
> 
> You asked for a GOP sponsored "restriction". I bolded it for you.
> 
> The bill was brought up by a Republican and signed into law by a Republican President.
> 
> Where did you study law?
> 
> Did they teach you anything about civics?
> 
> Or how to read?




You moron-the FOPA was a pro gun piece of legislation

A democrat named HUGHES tried to derail it by putting a machine gun ban in it

Reagan signed it on the grounds that it was mainly pro gun and the poison amendment would be stripped out

So stop LYING

DEMOCRATS WERE THE ONES WHO ATTACHED THAT ANTI GUN NONSENSE

 Recorded Vote 74 was the Hughes Amendment that called for the banning of machine guns. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), at the time presiding as Chairman over the proceedings, claimed that the "amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was agreed to." H*owever, after the voice vote on the Hughes Amendment, Rangel ignored a plea to take a recorded vote and moved on to Recorded Vote 74 where the Hughes Amendment failed*.[9][10] The bill, H.R. 4332, as a whole passed in Record Vote No: 75 on a motion to recommit. Despite the controversial amendment, the Senate, in S.B. 49, adopted H.R. 4332 as an amendment to the final bill. The bill was subsequently passed and signed on May 19, 1986 by President Ronald Reagan to become Public Law 99-308, the Firearms Owners' Protection Act.


So you are lying-again


----------



## BreezeWood

hunarcy said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> all public firearms to be bolt or lever action per round, six rounds or less capacity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, because everyone knows that it takes a lot of bullets to kill someone and no one can kill anyone else with one bullet.  Just as no one is ever killed with a bolt action or lever action rifle.
> 
> I honestly believe that some of you on the Left can't be trusted to vote.
Click to expand...



everything in moderation, firearms are lethal weapons.

a pump shotgun six round capacity will protect anyone in their home - a WWII, 8 millimeter bolt action, six round capacity rifle will keep them at a distance.

owning a weapon is a responsibility for both its handler and to those present around it.

.


----------



## Sallow

M14 Shooter said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ronald Reagan was a Democrat?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> Who doesn't know that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't.
> As governor of California he ran as a Republican.
> Things you learn..eh?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I laugh at you.
> 
> 
> 
> Originally, he was a member of the Democratic Party, but due to the parties' shifting platforms during the 1950s, he switched to the Republican Party in 1962.[1]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ronald Reagan - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Was Reagan a Democrat?  The only sound answer is "yes".
> 
> Glad I could help you with your ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are engaging in the time honored "gotcha" game, which here? Is silly. It also shows the depth of your intellect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says she who didn't know that RWR was a Democrat and thought she had me when she triumphantly  noted that he was elected in 1968 as a Republican.
> 
> I continue to laugh at you.
Click to expand...


Laugh?

You don't even seem to know I am a 53 year old man. I've posted my picture many times.

Of course I knew that Ronnie (The rapist) Reagan was a Democrat for a short time.

I also know he raped a young actress named Selene Walthers and has a gay son (Apple doesn't fall far from the tree, does it? )

He's also supported Osama Bin Laden and gave money to the contras who raped, mutilated and murdered 3 American nuns.

Let's not even go into what he did to the American economy.

So I guess we can agree he was a despicable human being and one of the worst Presidents this country ever had to endure.

You know..because he was a Democrat.

We agree on the fact he was a terrible man, right?


----------



## turtledude

BreezeWood said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> all public firearms to be bolt or lever action per round, six rounds or less capacity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, because everyone knows that it takes a lot of bullets to kill someone and no one can kill anyone else with one bullet.  Just as no one is ever killed with a bolt action or lever action rifle.
> 
> I honestly believe that some of you on the Left can't be trusted to vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> everything in moderation, firearms are lethal weapons.
> 
> a pump shotgun six round capacity will protect anyone in their home - a WWII, 8 millimeter bolt action, six round capacity rifle will keep them at a distance.
> 
> owning a weapon is a responsibility for both its handler and to those present around it.
> 
> .
Click to expand...



you should decide what works for you and not tell others what they should use.

many people cannot operate a pump shotgun due to physical ailments

my late father was the national HS skeet champion with an Ithaca 37 but after four shoulder and neck operations in his 60s, I bought him a benelli MI auto shotgun for home protection because he couldn't operate the 37 pump action

no one has ever lost a gun fight because they had too many rounds in their weapon


----------



## turtledude

Sallow said:


> Laugh?
> 
> You don't even seem to know I am a 53 year old man. I've posted my picture many times.
> 
> Of course I knew that Ronnie (The rapist) Reagan was a Democrat for a short time.
> 
> I also know he raped a young actress named Selene Walthers and has a gay son (Apple doesn't fall far from the tree, does it? )
> 
> He's also supported Osama Bin Laden and gave money to the contras who raped, mutilated and murdered 3 American nuns.
> 
> Let's not even go into what he did to the American economy.
> 
> So I guess we can agree he was a despicable human being and one of the worst Presidents this country ever had to endure.
> 
> You know..because he was a Democrat.
> 
> We agree on the fact he was a terrible man, right?



gun control tends to be a feminist craving and men who support gun control are either power hungry assholes (Biden for example) or more likely, castrated males.  So if you are a 53 year old male, you either are worried about doing something that would get you shot by an honest citizen or you are essentially a Eunuch who is projecting your cowardice and timidity onto others


----------



## BreezeWood

turtledude said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> all public firearms to be bolt or lever action per round, six rounds or less capacity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, because everyone knows that it takes a lot of bullets to kill someone and no one can kill anyone else with one bullet.  Just as no one is ever killed with a bolt action or lever action rifle.
> 
> I honestly believe that some of you on the Left can't be trusted to vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> everything in moderation, firearms are lethal weapons.
> 
> a pump shotgun six round capacity will protect anyone in their home - a WWII, 8 millimeter bolt action, six round capacity rifle will keep them at a distance.
> 
> owning a weapon is a responsibility for both its handler and to those present around it.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you should decide what works for you and not tell others what they should use.
> 
> many people cannot operate a pump shotgun due to physical ailments
> 
> my late father was the national HS skeet champion with an Ithaca 37 but after four shoulder and neck operations in his 60s, I bought him a benelli MI auto shotgun for home protection because he couldn't operate the 37 pump action
> 
> no one has ever lost a gun fight because they had too many rounds in their weapon
Click to expand...


*
you should decide what works for you and not tell others what they should use.*


firearms are weapons of violence not confined to their handlers, the community as a whole has a right to regulate them.

you obviously do not know about firearms to think six round capacity is not sufficient for personal protection and / or readily reloaded.

your father and others could be issued selective permits pertaining to disabilities.

.


----------



## Ernie S.

Sallow said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> FACT: The wording of the 2nd Amendment is confusing!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What _exactly_ is "confusing" about THE *RIGHT* OF THE *PEOPLE* TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL *NOT* BE INFRINGED.
> 
> That is about as clear as it gets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure is.
> 
> And the people bearing arms have an obligation to defend the state while serving in a militia. Said militia is under the control of congress and under the command of the President.
> 
> Go forth and defend.
Click to expand...

I will when Congress calls me to service, just like I did 46 years ago.


----------



## Sallow

turtledude said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Laugh?
> 
> You don't even seem to know I am a 53 year old man. I've posted my picture many times.
> 
> Of course I knew that Ronnie (The rapist) Reagan was a Democrat for a short time.
> 
> I also know he raped a young actress named Selene Walthers and has a gay son (Apple doesn't fall far from the tree, does it? )
> 
> He's also supported Osama Bin Laden and gave money to the contras who raped, mutilated and murdered 3 American nuns.
> 
> Let's not even go into what he did to the American economy.
> 
> So I guess we can agree he was a despicable human being and one of the worst Presidents this country ever had to endure.
> 
> You know..because he was a Democrat.
> 
> We agree on the fact he was a terrible man, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gun control tends to be a feminist craving and men who support gun control are either power hungry assholes (Biden for example) or more likely, castrated males.  So if you are a 53 year old male, you either are worried about doing something that would get you shot by an honest citizen or you are essentially a Eunuch who is projecting your cowardice and timidity onto others
Click to expand...


Naw. Never needed anything more than my dukes for self defense. I have been accused of being a bully. But? I don't give a fuck..ya know?

And your dime store psychology act is just about as good as your lawyer act.

You are a failure at both.

Keep it coming.

This is getting good.


----------



## turtledude

BreezeWood said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> all public firearms to be bolt or lever action per round, six rounds or less capacity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, because everyone knows that it takes a lot of bullets to kill someone and no one can kill anyone else with one bullet.  Just as no one is ever killed with a bolt action or lever action rifle.
> 
> I honestly believe that some of you on the Left can't be trusted to vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> everything in moderation, firearms are lethal weapons.
> 
> a pump shotgun six round capacity will protect anyone in their home - a WWII, 8 millimeter bolt action, six round capacity rifle will keep them at a distance.
> 
> owning a weapon is a responsibility for both its handler and to those present around it.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you should decide what works for you and not tell others what they should use.
> 
> many people cannot operate a pump shotgun due to physical ailments
> 
> my late father was the national HS skeet champion with an Ithaca 37 but after four shoulder and neck operations in his 60s, I bought him a benelli MI auto shotgun for home protection because he couldn't operate the 37 pump action
> 
> no one has ever lost a gun fight because they had too many rounds in their weapon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *
> you should decide what works for you and not tell others what they should use.*
> 
> 
> firearms are weapons of violence not confined to their handlers, the community as a whole has a right to regulate them.
> 
> you obviously do not know about firearms to think six round capacity is not sufficient for personal protection and / or readily reloaded.
> 
> your father and others could be issued selective permits pertaining to disabilities.
> 
> .
Click to expand...



I live in a state where I don't need to worry about morons telling me what sort of weapons I need.  I also spent 24 years as a federal law enforcement officer and the standard issued handgun was a Glock 17 (US Marshals Service) or a Glock 22 (FBI) or a SIG 229 and all of those hold FAR MORE THAN 6 rounds.  

so you claiming 6 rounds is sufficient when every major police department and every major federal CIVILIAN LE agency says far more shows you are just a fool when it comes to this subject and experts like me need not listen to your complete and utter bullshit


----------



## turtledude

Sallow said:


> [
> 
> Naw. Never needed anything more than my dukes for self defense. I have been accused of being a bully. But? I don't give a fuck..ya know?
> 
> And your dime store psychology act is just about as good as your lawyer act.
> 
> You are a failure at both.
> 
> Keep it coming.
> 
> This is getting good.



Don't go away mad tinker belle.  You are just stupid and out of your league here.


----------



## frigidweirdo

hunarcy said:


> Everyone is in the militia.



Not everyone. Women are not automatically in the militia. The President isn't in the militia and some others. Also those under or over the age aren't automatically in the militia either.


----------



## AmericanFirst

Lakhota said:


> Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited  never have been and never will be  Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star


I love it when a libtard tries to prove his anti American point by trying to use the constitution and fails.


----------



## frigidweirdo

M14 Shooter said:


> The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.



Yes. However it's the right to bear arms, the right to be in the militia, that causes all the problems. 




> The founding fathers were quite clear on that one.


Really.   Citations, please.[/QUOTE]

Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution


----------



## whitehall

Lakhota said:


> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
Click to expand...



Doesn't it scare rational Americans when the radical left declares one of the Bill of Rights to be a "relic" and "it's purpose long passed"?  What about the rest of the Constitution?


----------



## frigidweirdo

M14 Shooter said:


> There is no sound argument for this restriction, and any such restriction will violate the constitution.
> Conclusion:  Fail.



Actually you're wrong.

The 2A prevents the US govt from doing something. What?

It prevents the US govt stopping individuals from owning arms. Ie, if an individual has a gun, they are armed, therefore the govt isn't stopping them from being armed.

Heller made the point:

_(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. _

So here they make a few related points. First that the right is not unlimited. Second that certain people can be denied this right (what does "shall not be infringed" mean when it can be infringed?) and lastly that common weapons are protected and not "dangerous" or unusual weapons. 

But really the 2A means the US govt has to allow weapons to be sold, but it doesn't mean it has to allow ALL weapons to be sold. It isn't prevented by the 2A from stopping certain companies selling weapons, it isn't prevented by the 2A from stopping certain types of weapons. 

It has to allow enough of a market for weapons to be affordable, ie that prices don't get silly, but other than this the 2A doesn't do that much.


----------



## frigidweirdo

AmericanFirst said:


> I love it when a libtard tries to prove his anti American point by trying to use the constitution and fails.



Don't you love it when people make posts which contain insults, and then pretend anything left wing is anti-American? Jeez.


----------



## turtledude

frigidweirdo said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no sound argument for this restriction, and any such restriction will violate the constitution.
> Conclusion:  Fail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually you're wrong.
> 
> The 2A prevents the US govt from doing something. What?
> 
> It prevents the US govt stopping individuals from owning arms. Ie, if an individual has a gun, they are armed, therefore the govt isn't stopping them from being armed.
> 
> Heller made the point:
> 
> _(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. _
> 
> So here they make a few related points. First that the right is not unlimited. Second that certain people can be denied this right (what does "shall not be infringed" mean when it can be infringed?) and lastly that common weapons are protected and not "dangerous" or unusual weapons.
> 
> But really the 2A means the US govt has to allow weapons to be sold, but it doesn't mean it has to allow ALL weapons to be sold. It isn't prevented by the 2A from stopping certain companies selling weapons, it isn't prevented by the 2A from stopping certain types of weapons.
> 
> It has to allow enough of a market for weapons to be affordable, ie that prices don't get silly, but other than this the 2A doesn't do that much.
Click to expand...



I realize you do not have a law license, a law degree or training in constitutional law but do you know what DICTA means?


----------



## Sallow

turtledude said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Naw. Never needed anything more than my dukes for self defense. I have been accused of being a bully. But? I don't give a fuck..ya know?
> 
> And your dime store psychology act is just about as good as your lawyer act.
> 
> You are a failure at both.
> 
> Keep it coming.
> 
> This is getting good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't go away mad tinker belle.  You are just stupid and out of your league here.
Click to expand...




Must feel nice to sit behind a screen, anonymous calling folks names..don't it?

The mark of a true tough guy.

Back in the day, when I drove a truck and was a mover, we did a job for a guy who was an actual lawyer. He was pretty much a schmuck. My boss did something for him called a "flat rate" and I found out later why he did it. Anyways, we get the place and he's living in a nice swank Manhattan apartment with lots of nice stuff. He had a lot of the metal and glass furniture pieces, real tough to move. The guy was pretty fussy about it too. And he wanted everything done for him. Packing, wrapping..he was completely unprepared. Well it was just me and a helper and it was tough going, but we got everything done. Then he goes, he wanted a ride. I was like, we generally don't let customers ride with us and then he let us know he was a personal friend of the boss. Which made sense, since he got a flat rate. Well he's getting ready to go and hands me his brief case. While waiting for the schmuck I checked inside it and found his gun.

Once the way to his house in Long Island, he says, "I handle your boss's books and know you guys are making money under the table, give me a hundred bucks a piece and I will forget all about it". To which I said, "Joel (That was his name), I am a mover and I ain't got anything. You? You got a beamer, right? Would be a shame if one day that beamer went up in flames". Then he starts looking around and goes, "Where's my brief case?" I said, "It's under my seat". We sat quiet for awhile and then he says, "You know I was kidding about the hundred bucks, right?" I said, "I wasn't kidding Joel. And at the end of this job? You are going to hand us a hundred bucks each. Oh, I found your gun. You get it back after that".

When we got to his place in Long Island, it was a real sweet place. On the way to the door he goes, "My wife is begging for me to come back" and he swaggered to the door bell. She opens up the door and man, she was a beauty. She looks like Barbra Bach (That may be to old a reference for ya). She goes, "Joel, I made your movers some coffee, get it for them". The swagger was gone and he was obedient.

We moved everything in pretty quickly and were basically done. In one finally act of trying to assert himself Joel starts making us move this glass top table around. After three times I said, "Joel, we are done. Time to pay the bill". Before he could say anything his wife says, "Oh, he'll get it and be glad to do it or he's out again". Joel turned pale. I gave him the bill and he paid it without tipping. And I let him know he forgot about it.

His wife says, "How much did he promise you?" I told her and she said, "Give them 150, each".

After that, I gave him back his briefcase.

That was pretty sweet.

Is that you? Joel?


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Why is Lakhota opposed to me showing off my guns?


----------



## turtledude

Sallow said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Naw. Never needed anything more than my dukes for self defense. I have been accused of being a bully. But? I don't give a fuck..ya know?
> 
> And your dime store psychology act is just about as good as your lawyer act.
> 
> You are a failure at both.
> 
> Keep it coming.
> 
> This is getting good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't go away mad tinker belle.  You are just stupid and out of your league here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Must feel nice to sit behind a screen, anonymous calling folks names..don't it?
> 
> The mark of a true tough guy.
> 
> Back in the day, when I drove a truck and was a mover, we did a job for a guy who was an actual lawyer. He was pretty much a schmuck. My boss did something for him called a "flat rate" and I found out later why he did it. Anyways, we get the place and he's living in a nice swank Manhattan apartment with lots of nice stuff. He had a lot of the metal and glass furniture pieces, real tough to move. The guy was pretty fussy about it too. And he wanted everything done for him. Packing, wrapping..he was completely unprepared. Well it was just me and a helper and it was tough going, but we got everything done. Then he goes, he wanted a ride. I was like, we generally don't let customers ride with us and then he let us know he was a personal friend of the boss. Which made sense, since he got a flat rate. Well he's getting ready to go and hands me his brief case. While waiting for the schmuck I checked inside it and found his gun.
> 
> Once the way to his house in Long Island, he says, "I handle your boss's books and know you guys are making money under the table, give me a hundred bucks a piece and I will forget all about it". To which I said, "Joel (That was his name), I am a mover and I ain't got anything. You? You got a beamer, right? Would be a shame if one day that beamer went up in flames". Then he starts looking around and goes, "Where's my brief case?" I said, "It's under my seat". We sat quiet for awhile and then he says, "You know I was kidding about the hundred bucks, right?" I said, "I wasn't kidding Joel. And at the end of this job? You are going to hand us a hundred bucks each. Oh, I found your gun. You get it back after that".
> 
> When we got to his place in Long Island, it was a real sweet place. On the way to the door he goes, "My wife is begging for me to come back" and he swaggered to the door bell. She opens up the door and man, she was a beauty. She looks like Barbra Bach (That may be to old a reference for ya). She goes, "Joel, I made your movers some coffee, get it for them". The swagger was gone and he was obedient.
> 
> We moved everything in pretty quickly and were basically done. In one finally act of trying to assert himself Joel starts making us move this glass top table around. After three times I said, "Joel, we are done. Time to pay the bill". Before he could say anything his wife says, "Oh, he'll get it and be glad to do it or he's out again". Joel turned pale. I gave him the bill and he paid it without tipping. And I let him know he forgot about it.
> 
> His wife says, "How much did he promise you?" I told her and she said, "Give them 150, each".
> 
> After that, I gave him back his briefcase.
> 
> That was pretty sweet.
> 
> Is that you? Joel?
Click to expand...



interesting imagination you have

my name isn't Joe
people call me Guido


----------



## BreezeWood

turtledude said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> all public firearms to be bolt or lever action per round, six rounds or less capacity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, because everyone knows that it takes a lot of bullets to kill someone and no one can kill anyone else with one bullet.  Just as no one is ever killed with a bolt action or lever action rifle.
> 
> I honestly believe that some of you on the Left can't be trusted to vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> everything in moderation, firearms are lethal weapons.
> 
> a pump shotgun six round capacity will protect anyone in their home - a WWII, 8 millimeter bolt action, six round capacity rifle will keep them at a distance.
> 
> owning a weapon is a responsibility for both its handler and to those present around it.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you should decide what works for you and not tell others what they should use.
> 
> many people cannot operate a pump shotgun due to physical ailments
> 
> my late father was the national HS skeet champion with an Ithaca 37 but after four shoulder and neck operations in his 60s, I bought him a benelli MI auto shotgun for home protection because he couldn't operate the 37 pump action
> 
> no one has ever lost a gun fight because they had too many rounds in their weapon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *
> you should decide what works for you and not tell others what they should use.*
> 
> 
> firearms are weapons of violence not confined to their handlers, the community as a whole has a right to regulate them.
> 
> you obviously do not know about firearms to think six round capacity is not sufficient for personal protection and / or readily reloaded.
> 
> your father and others could be issued selective permits pertaining to disabilities.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I live in a state where I don't need to worry about morons telling me what sort of weapons I need.  I also spent 24 years as a federal law enforcement officer and the standard issued handgun was a Glock 17 (US Marshals Service) or a Glock 22 (FBI) or a SIG 229 and all of those hold FAR MORE THAN 6 rounds.
> 
> so you claiming 6 rounds is sufficient when every major police department and every major federal CIVILIAN LE agency says far more shows you are just a fool when it comes to this subject and experts like me need not listen to your complete and utter bullshit
Click to expand...


*
experts like me need not listen to your complete and utter bullshit ... I bought him a benelli MI auto shotgun*


sorry, I'm not impressed also anyone who believes there is a need for an automatic shotgun has serious problems that hopefully one day will be addressed.

.


----------



## Ernie S.

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Why is Lakhota opposed to me showing off my guns?


'Cause he looks like this:


----------



## turtledude

BreezeWood said:


> [
> *
> experts like me need not listen to your complete and utter bullshit ... I bought him a benelli MI auto shotgun*
> 
> 
> sorry, I'm not impressed also anyone who believes there is a need for an automatic shotgun has serious problems that hopefully one day will be addressed.
> 
> .




semi auto moron. you are the one who has serious problems because you are clueless about firearms and you seem to want to impose your mental failures on the rest of us


----------



## Sallow

turtledude said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Naw. Never needed anything more than my dukes for self defense. I have been accused of being a bully. But? I don't give a fuck..ya know?
> 
> And your dime store psychology act is just about as good as your lawyer act.
> 
> You are a failure at both.
> 
> Keep it coming.
> 
> This is getting good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't go away mad tinker belle.  You are just stupid and out of your league here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Must feel nice to sit behind a screen, anonymous calling folks names..don't it?
> 
> The mark of a true tough guy.
> 
> Back in the day, when I drove a truck and was a mover, we did a job for a guy who was an actual lawyer. He was pretty much a schmuck. My boss did something for him called a "flat rate" and I found out later why he did it. Anyways, we get the place and he's living in a nice swank Manhattan apartment with lots of nice stuff. He had a lot of the metal and glass furniture pieces, real tough to move. The guy was pretty fussy about it too. And he wanted everything done for him. Packing, wrapping..he was completely unprepared. Well it was just me and a helper and it was tough going, but we got everything done. Then he goes, he wanted a ride. I was like, we generally don't let customers ride with us and then he let us know he was a personal friend of the boss. Which made sense, since he got a flat rate. Well he's getting ready to go and hands me his brief case. While waiting for the schmuck I checked inside it and found his gun.
> 
> Once the way to his house in Long Island, he says, "I handle your boss's books and know you guys are making money under the table, give me a hundred bucks a piece and I will forget all about it". To which I said, "Joel (That was his name), I am a mover and I ain't got anything. You? You got a beamer, right? Would be a shame if one day that beamer went up in flames". Then he starts looking around and goes, "Where's my brief case?" I said, "It's under my seat". We sat quiet for awhile and then he says, "You know I was kidding about the hundred bucks, right?" I said, "I wasn't kidding Joel. And at the end of this job? You are going to hand us a hundred bucks each. Oh, I found your gun. You get it back after that".
> 
> When we got to his place in Long Island, it was a real sweet place. On the way to the door he goes, "My wife is begging for me to come back" and he swaggered to the door bell. She opens up the door and man, she was a beauty. She looks like Barbra Bach (That may be to old a reference for ya). She goes, "Joel, I made your movers some coffee, get it for them". The swagger was gone and he was obedient.
> 
> We moved everything in pretty quickly and were basically done. In one finally act of trying to assert himself Joel starts making us move this glass top table around. After three times I said, "Joel, we are done. Time to pay the bill". Before he could say anything his wife says, "Oh, he'll get it and be glad to do it or he's out again". Joel turned pale. I gave him the bill and he paid it without tipping. And I let him know he forgot about it.
> 
> His wife says, "How much did he promise you?" I told her and she said, "Give them 150, each".
> 
> After that, I gave him back his briefcase.
> 
> That was pretty sweet.
> 
> Is that you? Joel?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> interesting imagination you have
> 
> my name isn't Joe
> people call me Guido
Click to expand...


I drove a moving truck for 11 years you think I am "imagining" it?

You're too much..

Joel.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

BreezeWood said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> all public firearms to be bolt or lever action per round, six rounds or less capacity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, because everyone knows that it takes a lot of bullets to kill someone and no one can kill anyone else with one bullet.  Just as no one is ever killed with a bolt action or lever action rifle.
> 
> I honestly believe that some of you on the Left can't be trusted to vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> everything in moderation, firearms are lethal weapons.
> 
> a pump shotgun six round capacity will protect anyone in their home - a WWII, 8 millimeter bolt action, six round capacity rifle will keep them at a distance.
> 
> owning a weapon is a responsibility for both its handler and to those present around it.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you should decide what works for you and not tell others what they should use.
> 
> many people cannot operate a pump shotgun due to physical ailments
> 
> my late father was the national HS skeet champion with an Ithaca 37 but after four shoulder and neck operations in his 60s, I bought him a benelli MI auto shotgun for home protection because he couldn't operate the 37 pump action
> 
> no one has ever lost a gun fight because they had too many rounds in their weapon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *
> you should decide what works for you and not tell others what they should use.*
> 
> 
> firearms are weapons of violence not confined to their handlers, the community as a whole has a right to regulate them.
> 
> you obviously do not know about firearms to think six round capacity is not sufficient for personal protection and / or readily reloaded.
> 
> your father and others could be issued selective permits pertaining to disabilities.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I live in a state where I don't need to worry about morons telling me what sort of weapons I need.  I also spent 24 years as a federal law enforcement officer and the standard issued handgun was a Glock 17 (US Marshals Service) or a Glock 22 (FBI) or a SIG 229 and all of those hold FAR MORE THAN 6 rounds.
> 
> so you claiming 6 rounds is sufficient when every major police department and every major federal CIVILIAN LE agency says far more shows you are just a fool when it comes to this subject and experts like me need not listen to your complete and utter bullshit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *
> experts like me need not listen to your complete and utter bullshit ... I bought him a benelli MI auto shotgun*
> 
> 
> *sorry, I'm not impressed also anyone who believes there is a need for an automatic shotgun has serious problems that hopefully one day will be addressed.*
> 
> .
Click to expand...


small counterpoint here. I will NEVER need quite a few of my enumerated rights. For example, I am not a criminal, so I will never need the 4th,5th, or 6th Amendments in their entirety (God willing) also, I don't NEED to say fuck. However NOWHERE in the COTUS does it specify that I have to prove NEED to enjoy my rights..


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Ernie S. said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is Lakhota opposed to me showing off my guns?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Cause he looks like this:
Click to expand...



Back up.... Lakhota is a guy? Seriously


----------



## turtledude

Sallow said:


> I drove a moving truck for 11 years you think I am "imagining" it?
> 
> You're too much..
> 
> Joel.



I spent 30 years dealing with criminal scumbags.


----------



## Sallow

turtledude said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> I drove a moving truck for 11 years you think I am "imagining" it?
> 
> You're too much..
> 
> Joel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I spent 30 years dealing with criminal scumbags.
Click to expand...


Want your briefcase back?


----------



## turtledude

Sallow said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> I drove a moving truck for 11 years you think I am "imagining" it?
> 
> You're too much..
> 
> Joel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I spent 30 years dealing with criminal scumbags.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Want your briefcase back?
Click to expand...


If you took my briefcase-two nice young men in Khaki suits and Ray ban sunglasses would have shown up at your door with a warrant.  If that didn't happen, you didn't take my suitcase

by the way be very careful opening it.


----------



## Ernie S.

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is Lakhota opposed to me showing off my guns?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Cause he looks like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Back up.... Lakhota is a guy? Seriously
Click to expand...

His claim, not mine.


----------



## Lakhota

turtledude said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> I drove a moving truck for 11 years you think I am "imagining" it?
> 
> You're too much..
> 
> Joel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I spent 30 years dealing with criminal scumbags.
Click to expand...


Cellmates?  How was prison romance?


----------



## turtledude

You must be a fan of the bob and tom show but I was an attorney dealing with the scum on behalf of the people


----------



## frigidweirdo

turtledude said:


> I realize you do not have a law license, a law degree or training in constitutional law but do you know what DICTA means?



What's your point? You want to say that when the Supreme Court speaks everyone should listen? When federal courts speak everyone should listen? Are you trying to claim some kind of moral high ground? I really don't know why you've said this.


----------



## turtledude

frigidweirdo said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> I realize you do not have a law license, a law degree or training in constitutional law but do you know what DICTA means?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's your point? You want to say that when the Supreme Court speaks everyone should listen? When federal courts speak everyone should listen? Are you trying to claim some kind of moral high ground? I really don't know why you've said this.
Click to expand...



you don't understand that some comments in a majority opinion do not serve as legal precedent


----------



## frigidweirdo

turtledude said:


> you don't understand that some comments in a majority opinion do not serve as legal precedent



Well thank you for telling me what I understand and don't understand. You want to tell me what I think too? 

I'm sorry, but I'm failing to see the point of anything you're saying. 

I've come here and I've backed up what I've said, I've made an argument. You can try and break this argument down, but you haven't. You've hardly even touched on what the founding fathers said, you mentioned a few court cases but hardly even bothered to reply to what I've said to them.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Sallow said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ronald Reagan was a Democrat?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> Who doesn't know that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't.
> As governor of California he ran as a Republican.
> Things you learn..eh?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I laugh at you.
> 
> 
> 
> Originally, he was a member of the Democratic Party, but due to the parties' shifting platforms during the 1950s, he switched to the Republican Party in 1962.[1]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ronald Reagan - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Was Reagan a Democrat?  The only sound answer is "yes".
> 
> Glad I could help you with your ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are engaging in the time honored "gotcha" game, which here? Is silly. It also shows the depth of your intellect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says she who didn't know that RWR was a Democrat and thought she had me when she triumphantly  noted that he was elected in 1968 as a Republican.
> 
> I continue to laugh at you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Laugh?
> You don't even seem to know I am a 53 year old man. I've posted my picture many times.
> Of course I knew that Ronnie (The rapist) Reagan was a Democrat for a short time.
Click to expand...

Apparently not.


----------



## M14 Shooter

BreezeWood said:


> you should decide what works for you and not tell others what they should use.
> firearms are weapons of violence not confined to their handlers, the community as a whole has a right to regulate them.


In exactly the same manner as it has a right to regulate speech -- to prohibit speech that harms others or places others in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.

How do you think this would apply to the right to arms?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Sallow said:


> Naw. Never needed anything more than my dukes for self defense. I have been accused of being a bully. But? I don't give a fuck..ya know?


Oh look -- an internet tough guy. :roll:
One who can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.


----------



## M14 Shooter

frigidweirdo said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. However it's the right to bear arms, the right to be in the militia, that causes all the problems.
Click to expand...

The right to bear arms is plainly covered, above.  There is no problem except for those who decide they do not want to understand this.



> Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution


Sorry - "look it up here" doesn't cut it.   Post quotes.


----------



## M14 Shooter

frigidweirdo said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no sound argument for this restriction, and any such restriction will violate the constitution.
> Conclusion:  Fail.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually you're wrong.
> The 2A prevents the US govt from doing something. What?
Click to expand...

Infrimnging upon the right to keep and bear arms.


> It prevents the US govt stopping individuals from owning arms. Ie, if an individual has a gun, they are armed, therefore the govt isn't stopping them from being armed.


"A gun"?  As in just one?  That limiting a person to one gun does not violate the constitution?  You jest.
It also, BTW, prohibits anything else that might be an infringement.


> So here they make a few related points. First that the right is not unlimited


Like all rights, the right to arms is defined by the boundaries inherent to same.  Everyone knows this.


> Second that certain people can be denied this right


5th amendment, due process.   Not news.


> and lastly that common weapons are protected and not "dangerous" or unusual weapons.





> But really the 2A means the US govt has to allow weapons to be sold, but it doesn't mean it has to allow ALL weapons to be sold.


Only those weapons not dangerous AND unusual, which are suitable for the traditionally lawful purposes one night have for a firearm, such as (but not limited to) self-defense within the home.
What class(es) of firearm would you argue this excludes?  

Oh - it also means the government cannot otherwise infringe on the exercise of the right - you know, restrict the exercise of the right in such a way that if applied to speech or abortion or religion ts unconstituonality would be unquestioned.


----------



## frigidweirdo

M14 Shooter said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. However it's the right to bear arms, the right to be in the militia, that causes all the problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right to bear arms is plainly covered, above.  There is no problem except for those who decide they do not want to understand this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry - "look it up here" doesn't cut it.   Post quotes.
Click to expand...


Well firstly I have posted plenty of this article on here. In fact I appear to be the ONLY person who has posted for a while that actually does reference things and quote on it. So if you'd like to go back a few days and look at my posts and you want to comment you are free to do so. But I'm not repeating the same thing over and over because you can't be bothered to go look at what I wrote. 

The RKBA isn't so clear for people to understand seeing as both the left and the right manage to get it so wrong sometimes.


----------



## Sallow

M14 Shooter said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Naw. Never needed anything more than my dukes for self defense. I have been accused of being a bully. But? I don't give a fuck..ya know?
> 
> 
> 
> Oh look -- an internet tough guy. :roll:
> One who can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
Click to expand...

You're the one calling me a "she" and trolling for a flame, asswipe.

Generally, though, I find that most gun nuts carry guns? Because without them..they would really live in fear.

Because they are such fucking pussies.

Happy now? You got your flame.


----------



## frigidweirdo

M14 Shooter said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no sound argument for this restriction, and any such restriction will violate the constitution.
> Conclusion:  Fail.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually you're wrong.
> The 2A prevents the US govt from doing something. What?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Infrimnging upon the right to keep and bear arms.
Click to expand...


Really? Firstly this phrase is used a lot, and often people don't know what the RKBA arms actually means, so don't even understand when it's being infringed.
Secondly should I make the assumption that you're against the feds infringing on the RKBA for felons, whether in prison or not, children and the mentally ill?

_*District of Columbia v. Heller*_, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

"(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56."

So what do you make of this then?

Carry and conceal can be prevented. This is probably because carry is not necessarily protected by the RKBA. It is protected within keep arms only, as in a person has to be able to carry them at times in order to be able to buy and sell. The rest of carry isn't actually protected.
Also carrying in certain places is never allowed, and still constitutional.
What weapons are protected? Not "dangerous and unusual weapons", the term dangerous is a little misleading and I think, as with quite of lot of this case, the justices were sloppy and were being more political than they should have been. What the mean are things like SAM, tanks, warplanes, nukes and so on. These are not protected. Why?

The simple answer is that the govt can't prevent people keeping arms, but it can prevent them keeping specific arms, as long as individuals are allowed to keep arms, then not being able to own nukes doesn't mean they can't keep arms.




M14 Shooter said:


> It prevents the US govt stopping individuals from owning arms. Ie, if an individual has a gun, they are armed, therefore the govt isn't stopping them from being armed.
> 
> 
> 
> "A gun"?  As in just one?  That limiting a person to one gun does not violate the constitution?  You jest.
> It also, BTW, prohibits anything else that might be an infringement.
Click to expand...


Well not, it's not really what I'm saying. The exact number, the exact make and so on has never been defined. The reality is the feds cannot put in place laws which stop individuals, before due process (ie the limitations in place) from being able to keep arms. What does it mean? One gun, five guns, any number of guns? the type of gun? It's all a bit of an unknown, especially as people don't really understand the amendment and fight over other stuff which isn't really relevant anyway.
Basically the govt imposes a law, it is either constitutional or not. That then defines it more closely. Without such a law, it's up in the air....



M14 Shooter said:


> So here they make a few related points. First that the right is not unlimited
> 
> 
> 
> Like all rights, the right to arms is defined by the boundaries inherent to same.  Everyone knows this.
> 
> 
> 
> Second that certain people can be denied this right
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 5th amendment, due process.   Not news.
Click to expand...


Well it's news to a lot of people actually, seeing as it says "shall not be infringed" and most people say "what's not clear about this then?"
What isn't clear is that what they are reading is more than the words on the paper. It's centuries of precedent, it the historical basis of the amendment, the theory of rights and so much more.



M14 Shooter said:


> and lastly that common weapons are protected and not "dangerous" or unusual weapons.





> But really the 2A means the US govt has to allow weapons to be sold, but it doesn't mean it has to allow ALL weapons to be sold.





> Only those weapons not dangerous AND unusual, which are suitable for the traditionally lawful purposes one night have for a firearm, such as (but not limited to) self-defense within the home.
> What class(es) of firearm would you argue this excludes?
> 
> Oh - it also means the government cannot otherwise infringe on the exercise of the right - you know, restrict the exercise of the right in such a way that if applied to speech or abortion or religion ts unconstituonality would be unquestioned.



You say "traditional lawful purposes", but at what point does a new gun qualify for this? At what point does an old gun not qualify? At what point does a new type of weapon no qualify or qualify? There are plenty of unanswered question.
The govt clearly can ban a type of gun for various reasons. It can deny import to guns, it can close down companies that don't meet requirements, it can ban certain guns for this that and the other, like safety and so on, even if they might meet your definition above.

The exercise of the right? That is the right to own a gun. There's a little more on this, like the buying and selling, but even that can be restricted, but not much else is protected. Certainly not the carrying of the weapon concealed.


----------



## M14 Shooter

frigidweirdo said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. However it's the right to bear arms, the right to be in the militia, that causes all the problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right to bear arms is plainly covered, above.  There is no problem except for those who decide they do not want to understand this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry - "look it up here" doesn't cut it.   Post quotes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well firstly I have posted plenty of this article on here. In fact I appear to be the ONLY person who has posted for a while that actually does reference things and quote on it. So if you'd like to go back a few days....
Click to expand...

If you have it, post it.  if you do not, do not.

Please also note that the court in _Heller _talks at some length of the "keep and bear" part of this argument.  
How is it wrong?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Sallow said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Naw. Never needed anything more than my dukes for self defense. I have been accused of being a bully. But? I don't give a fuck..ya know?
> 
> 
> 
> Oh look -- an internet tough guy. :roll:
> One who can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're the one calling me a "she"...
Click to expand...

Walks like a duck...


----------



## Sallow

frigidweirdo said:


> The exercise of the right? That is the right to own a gun. There's a little more on this, like the buying and selling, but even that can be restricted, but not much else is protected. Certainly not the carrying of the weapon concealed.



What it comes down to is what "the people" will tolerate. Right now, gun lobbies have been enormously successfully in pushing back on regulations. But as history has shown, their is only so much bloodshed that the American people are willing to tolerate in the civilian space. When gunfighters in the wild west were blasting up towns? Marshals in those towns restricted their use. When mobsters were running around with Tommyguns? They were banned. When the black panthers were marching into courtrooms with shotguns? That activity got prohibited. Assault Rifles were banned for a time as were Saturday Night Specials.

The Gun Nuts are really pushing this now. They are marching through cities with Assault Rifles and on the heels of massacres of school children. Right now? 60% of Americans just want background checks and gun nuts oppose that. It's not reasonable and the backlash is going to be intense.


----------



## Spoonman

Sallow said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> shit happens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, that's exactly how the nutters see this.
> 
> That man was someone's son, father, brother, friend but the nutter's don't feel anything more about his death than the death of a 8yo who accidentally shot himself at a shooting range not long ago.
> 
> They'll do damn near anything for a fetus but not a damn thing for a living human being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you know, some kid taking his driving test got into an accident and killed the poor guy administering the test. That man was someone's son, father, brother, friend but the lunatic left is still ok to let kids keep on getting their drivers license.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cars are not guns.
> Swimming pools are not guns.
> Bread boxes are not guns.
> 
> The scary thing is, the damn dumb gun nutters really don't seem to know that.
> 
> But, since you nutters think cars and guns are the same ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> cars  kill more than guns,  more people drown each year than are killed by guns.  ban cars and swimming, they are more dangerous than guns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even if this were true, which I doubt..most guns have one purpose.
> 
> To kill human beings.
Click to expand...

sallow  showing his ignorance again.  no wonder you come off sounding like such a flipping idiot all the time.  you are ignorant of the facts.


----------



## Avatar4321

Sallow said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The exercise of the right? That is the right to own a gun. There's a little more on this, like the buying and selling, but even that can be restricted, but not much else is protected. Certainly not the carrying of the weapon concealed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What it comes down to is what "the people" will tolerate. Right now, gun lobbies have been enormously successfully in pushing back on regulations. But as history has shown, their is only so much bloodshed that the American people are willing to tolerate in the civilian space. When gunfighters in the wild west were blasting up towns? Marshals in those towns restricted their use. When mobsters were running around with Tommyguns? They were banned. When the black panthers were marching into courtrooms with shotguns? That activity got prohibited. Assault Rifles were banned for a time as were Saturday Night Specials.
> 
> The Gun Nuts are really pushing this now. They are marching through cities with Assault Rifles and on the heels of massacres of school children. Right now? 60% of Americans just want background checks and gun nuts oppose that. It's not reasonable and the backlash is going to be intense.
Click to expand...


Why do you think government should be able to restrict who can defend themselves and their family from harm? Why should we outsource that responsibility to the governments of the world that use the power we give them to oppress the people instead of stepping up and governing ourselves? What are you so afraid of? If you are prepared to govern yourself, you will not fear.


----------



## BreezeWood

M14 Shooter said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> you should decide what works for you and not tell others what they should use.
> 
> firearms are weapons of violence not confined to their handlers, the community as a whole has a right to regulate them.
> 
> 
> 
> In exactly the same manner as it has a right to regulate speech -- to prohibit speech that harms others or places others in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.
> 
> How do you think this would apply to the right to arms?
Click to expand...






> the right of the people to keep and bear Arms




as stated, to define what "Arms" refers to in the amendment -

all public firearms "Arms" to be leaver or bolt action per round, non detachable magazine, maximum six round capacity.

.


----------



## frigidweirdo

M14 Shooter said:


> If you have it, post it.  if you do not, do not.
> 
> Please also note that the court in _Heller _talks at some length of the "keep and bear" part of this argument.
> How is it wrong?



You're being lazy. I'm sorry but you can reply to my post or not, whatever. 

Yes, they talk about keep and bear. However I also know that even Supreme Court justices aren't experts in all areas of law. They were listening to two arguments, the DC side was just completely wrong, so they listened to the Heller side. They didn't necessarily get all of the information on this debate. 

"(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever "

They don't talk of keep and bear arms, they talk of keep and carry, as if carry means bear, when it does not. 

However the Supreme Court justices aren't stupid, they know a lot more law than most people, and they also know how to manipulate their opinions in order to go towards their own bias. This is why cases aren't always 9-0 as you'd expect them to be if they're following the law as it "should be".

"Petitioners and today’s dissenting Justices believe that it protects only the right to possess and carry a firearm in connection with militia service. See Brief for Petitioners 11–12; _post_, at 1 (Stevens, J., dissenting). Respondent argues that it protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

Here is a summary by Scalia about the two sides. Both contend that "bear" means carry, I say it doesn't. Now, Scalia uses carry in place of bear in his argument. 

"No party has apprised us of an idiomatic meaning of “keep Arms.” Thus, the most natural reading of “keep Arms” in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.”"

Ie, he's saying that because neither side made a case for "bear arms" to mean "render military service" that he's not going to bother actually consider it. Here lies a problem.

"At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” "

This is a great argument (I'm being sarcastic). It's often used by people who want to misinterpret the 2A to mean "carry arms".
They say because it can mean "carry" it MUST mean "carry". 

For example. "Stool" means a wooden object usually with three legs that you sit on, right?

"John went to the doctor who said he needed a sample of his stool". So because it can mean the definition I gave must mean it means this definition, or not? It would seem a little silly if I were to assume it is this definition.

They did look at other definitions

"When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation. "

"bear arms" means something different to "bear +object" 

"‘wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” _Id._, at 143 (dissenting opinion) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 1998)). We think that Justice Ginsburg accurately captured the natural meaning of “bear arms.” Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization.""

However here they're getting much closer to the truth, and I have to wonder why they rejected it, or at least pandered to the pro-gun side by using the term "carry arms" instead of "bear arms".

" In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. "

I'm not disputing this. However it's interesting that they don't refer to "bear arms" meaning "render military service" or "militia duty" as Mr Gerry and other founding fathers did. It's as if they know the truth but are deliberately avoiding it. 

"The phrase “bear Arms” also had at the time of the founding an idiomatic meaning that was significantly different from its natural meaning: “to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight” or “to wage war.” See Linguists’ Brief 18; _post_, at 11 (Stevens, J., dissenting). But it _unequivocally_ bore that idiomatic meaning only when followed by the preposition “against,” which was in turn followed by the target of the hostilities. "

Then they seem to be heading towards this, and then claim it needs "against", but like Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution this isn't the case. They use the term "bear arms" to mean "render military service" and "militia duty" WITHOUT against. So it seems odd that they would claim this.

However there isn't much difference between "bear arms" to mean the right to be in the militia, and "bear arms" to "of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person."

Are we suggesting that people who carry weapons are "ready for offensive or defensive action"? My interpretation of this meaning would be that someone knows something is going to happen, rather than just having a gun just in case something may happen. 

What it interesting about all of this is that the Bush govt helped. The MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (http://www.griegermd.com/secondamendment2[1].pdf here for example, page 16 onwards) they aimed to prove that the RKBA was individual. 

The Supreme Court had this document and used it, clearly. What they didn't use were things like:

"It is true that “bear arms” often did refer to carrying arms in military service." 

"Arms also could be “borne” for private, non-military purposes, principally tied to self-defense. For example, an early colonial statute in Massachusetts required every “freeman or other inhabitant” to provide arms for himself and anyone else in his household able to “beare armes,” and one in Virginia required “all men that are fittinge to beare armes” to “bring their pieces” to church."

Probably something like this had an impact. In fact some states included an individual bear arms which they spoke about in Heller. 

"1776 Pennsylvania:  *That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state;"
*
For example PA, but they used the term with "defence of themselves", Vermont also used something similar. This could be ambiguous as to whether themselves was "the people" or "the individual".
Other states used it exclusively collective. 
North Carolina "_XVII. That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; "
Massachusetts  "XVII.--The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. "
_
Then the memorandum again, they say at the end:

"In sum, although “bear arms” often referred to carrying or wearing arms in connection 
with military duty, it was not limited to such a meaning."

So the Supreme Court took the "it was not limited to such a meaning" to mean more than the fact that even the Bush govt said it usually had connection with the militia.

Now. Here's the BIG problem.

What's an amendment about when it starts with "A well regulated militia....."?

It's about the militia.

CONTEXT suggests that "bear arms" means something like "render military service" and "militia duty" as used by the founding fathers in a document completely ignored by the Supreme Court when discussing the Second Amendment. 

How on earth could this document be missed out? It basically takes all the Supreme Court looks at and puts it into context and makes it make sense. 

This is where the Supreme Court was wrong, especially Scalia.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Sallow said:


> What it comes down to is what "the people" will tolerate. Right now, gun lobbies have been enormously successfully in pushing back on regulations. But as history has shown, their is only so much bloodshed that the American people are willing to tolerate in the civilian space. When gunfighters in the wild west were blasting up towns? Marshals in those towns restricted their use. When mobsters were running around with Tommyguns? They were banned. When the black panthers were marching into courtrooms with shotguns? That activity got prohibited. Assault Rifles were banned for a time as were Saturday Night Specials.
> 
> The Gun Nuts are really pushing this now. They are marching through cities with Assault Rifles and on the heels of massacres of school children. Right now? 60% of Americans just want background checks and gun nuts oppose that. It's not reasonable and the backlash is going to be intense.



The big problem is the anti-gun lobby believes the gun lobby and tries to combat the 2A based on what the gun lobby says. So they're basically totally unaware of what the 2A actually means. So they're never going to get anywhere.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Avatar4321 said:


> Why do you think government should be able to restrict who can defend themselves and their family from harm? Why should we outsource that responsibility to the governments of the world that use the power we give them to oppress the people instead of stepping up and governing ourselves? What are you so afraid of? If you are prepared to govern yourself, you will not fear.



I've been to quite a few countries in the world, probably a quarter of them. I've felt safe, and I've felt very unsafe in differing countries. Japan and China seem the safest. South Africa by far the least safe. Why? Because people are often armed in the streets. You don't know when you're going to get robbed. You want a gun in South Africa, you don't in Japan or China. 

Oppression happens in countries where people are armed, and may not happen in countries where people aren't armed. 

http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/portals/0/images/comment and an/ormaporiginal.jpg

Here's a map of countries based on oppression. 






How many of those green countries have people with guns? I'd say not many. Whereas South Africa with lots of guns and knives isn't doing too well.


----------



## Sallow

frigidweirdo said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> What it comes down to is what "the people" will tolerate. Right now, gun lobbies have been enormously successfully in pushing back on regulations. But as history has shown, their is only so much bloodshed that the American people are willing to tolerate in the civilian space. When gunfighters in the wild west were blasting up towns? Marshals in those towns restricted their use. When mobsters were running around with Tommyguns? They were banned. When the black panthers were marching into courtrooms with shotguns? That activity got prohibited. Assault Rifles were banned for a time as were Saturday Night Specials.
> 
> The Gun Nuts are really pushing this now. They are marching through cities with Assault Rifles and on the heels of massacres of school children. Right now? 60% of Americans just want background checks and gun nuts oppose that. It's not reasonable and the backlash is going to be intense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The big problem is the anti-gun lobby believes the gun lobby and tries to combat the 2A based on what the gun lobby says. So they're basically totally unaware of what the 2A actually means. So they're never going to get anywhere.
Click to expand...


Basically..yeah.

For now.

The argument should be that the 2nd Amendment is no longer necessary since we provide for a permanent military, which includes ground forces.

But adding an amendment that stipulates that citizens may have small arms for defense of the home isn't going to get anywhere.

So right now? While we have a great many judges that are in their seats because of the gun lobby? You are right.


----------



## Sallow

Avatar4321 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The exercise of the right? That is the right to own a gun. There's a little more on this, like the buying and selling, but even that can be restricted, but not much else is protected. Certainly not the carrying of the weapon concealed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What it comes down to is what "the people" will tolerate. Right now, gun lobbies have been enormously successfully in pushing back on regulations. But as history has shown, their is only so much bloodshed that the American people are willing to tolerate in the civilian space. When gunfighters in the wild west were blasting up towns? Marshals in those towns restricted their use. When mobsters were running around with Tommyguns? They were banned. When the black panthers were marching into courtrooms with shotguns? That activity got prohibited. Assault Rifles were banned for a time as were Saturday Night Specials.
> 
> The Gun Nuts are really pushing this now. They are marching through cities with Assault Rifles and on the heels of massacres of school children. Right now? 60% of Americans just want background checks and gun nuts oppose that. It's not reasonable and the backlash is going to be intense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you think government should be able to restrict who can defend themselves and their family from harm? Why should we outsource that responsibility to the governments of the world that use the power we give them to oppress the people instead of stepping up and governing ourselves? What are you so afraid of? If you are prepared to govern yourself, you will not fear.
Click to expand...


Actually, I think that if you feel the need to keep a gun in the home, you should be allowed to do it. But those guns shouldn't be military assault weapons. Shotguns, bolt action rifles and revolvers are more than adequate to do the trick. Most people that want to do harm? Do not want to engage in a gun battle.

However, carrying guns in the streets? That should be limited to law enforcement, private security and folks that, as their profession, carry valuable items or large sums of money.


----------



## Ernie S.

BreezeWood said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> you should decide what works for you and not tell others what they should use.
> 
> firearms are weapons of violence not confined to their handlers, the community as a whole has a right to regulate them.
> 
> 
> 
> In exactly the same manner as it has a right to regulate speech -- to prohibit speech that harms others or places others in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.
> 
> How do you think this would apply to the right to arms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the right of the people to keep and bear Arms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> as stated, to define what "Arms" refers to in the amendment -
> 
> all public firearms "Arms" to be leaver or bolt action per round, non detachable magazine, maximum six round capacity.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

This is your brilliant restriction?

How do you justify that when you include the phrase that you so obviously want to ignore?


> ]the right of the people to keep and bear Arms _*SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED*_.


----------



## Ernie S.

Sallow said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The exercise of the right? That is the right to own a gun. There's a little more on this, like the buying and selling, but even that can be restricted, but not much else is protected. Certainly not the carrying of the weapon concealed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What it comes down to is what "the people" will tolerate. Right now, gun lobbies have been enormously successfully in pushing back on regulations. But as history has shown, their is only so much bloodshed that the American people are willing to tolerate in the civilian space. When gunfighters in the wild west were blasting up towns? Marshals in those towns restricted their use. When mobsters were running around with Tommyguns? They were banned. When the black panthers were marching into courtrooms with shotguns? That activity got prohibited. Assault Rifles were banned for a time as were Saturday Night Specials.
> 
> The Gun Nuts are really pushing this now. They are marching through cities with Assault Rifles and on the heels of massacres of school children. Right now? 60% of Americans just want background checks and gun nuts oppose that. It's not reasonable and the backlash is going to be intense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you think government should be able to restrict who can defend themselves and their family from harm? Why should we outsource that responsibility to the governments of the world that use the power we give them to oppress the people instead of stepping up and governing ourselves? What are you so afraid of? If you are prepared to govern yourself, you will not fear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I think that if you feel the need to keep a gun in the home, you should be allowed to do it. But those guns shouldn't be military assault weapons. Shotguns, bolt action rifles and revolvers are more than adequate to do the trick. Most people that want to do harm? Do not want to engage in a gun battle.
> 
> However, carrying guns in the streets? That should be limited to law enforcement, private security and folks that, as their profession, carry valuable items or large sums of money.
Click to expand...

Who gets to decide what a large sum of money is? I own a bar. My day's receipts are large to me whether they total $5,000 or $200.
If someone wants to rob me on the way out of Doc's early Sunday morning, they damned well better start shooting as soon as I walk out the door.


----------



## Sallow

Ernie S. said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The exercise of the right? That is the right to own a gun. There's a little more on this, like the buying and selling, but even that can be restricted, but not much else is protected. Certainly not the carrying of the weapon concealed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What it comes down to is what "the people" will tolerate. Right now, gun lobbies have been enormously successfully in pushing back on regulations. But as history has shown, their is only so much bloodshed that the American people are willing to tolerate in the civilian space. When gunfighters in the wild west were blasting up towns? Marshals in those towns restricted their use. When mobsters were running around with Tommyguns? They were banned. When the black panthers were marching into courtrooms with shotguns? That activity got prohibited. Assault Rifles were banned for a time as were Saturday Night Specials.
> 
> The Gun Nuts are really pushing this now. They are marching through cities with Assault Rifles and on the heels of massacres of school children. Right now? 60% of Americans just want background checks and gun nuts oppose that. It's not reasonable and the backlash is going to be intense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you think government should be able to restrict who can defend themselves and their family from harm? Why should we outsource that responsibility to the governments of the world that use the power we give them to oppress the people instead of stepping up and governing ourselves? What are you so afraid of? If you are prepared to govern yourself, you will not fear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I think that if you feel the need to keep a gun in the home, you should be allowed to do it. But those guns shouldn't be military assault weapons. Shotguns, bolt action rifles and revolvers are more than adequate to do the trick. Most people that want to do harm? Do not want to engage in a gun battle.
> 
> However, carrying guns in the streets? That should be limited to law enforcement, private security and folks that, as their profession, carry valuable items or large sums of money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who gets to decide what a large sum of money is? I own a bar. My day's receipts are large to me whether they total $5,000 or $200.
> If someone wants to rob me on the way out of Doc's early Sunday morning, they damned well better start shooting as soon as I walk out the door.
Click to expand...


Business owners or people responsible for dropping the day's receipts?

Yeah..they should be armed..or have an armed guard.

I use to own a bar. I made damn sure to have a guard with me when I dropped money.


----------



## Ernie S.

Sallow said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The exercise of the right? That is the right to own a gun. There's a little more on this, like the buying and selling, but even that can be restricted, but not much else is protected. Certainly not the carrying of the weapon concealed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What it comes down to is what "the people" will tolerate. Right now, gun lobbies have been enormously successfully in pushing back on regulations. But as history has shown, their is only so much bloodshed that the American people are willing to tolerate in the civilian space. When gunfighters in the wild west were blasting up towns? Marshals in those towns restricted their use. When mobsters were running around with Tommyguns? They were banned. When the black panthers were marching into courtrooms with shotguns? That activity got prohibited. Assault Rifles were banned for a time as were Saturday Night Specials.
> 
> The Gun Nuts are really pushing this now. They are marching through cities with Assault Rifles and on the heels of massacres of school children. Right now? 60% of Americans just want background checks and gun nuts oppose that. It's not reasonable and the backlash is going to be intense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you think government should be able to restrict who can defend themselves and their family from harm? Why should we outsource that responsibility to the governments of the world that use the power we give them to oppress the people instead of stepping up and governing ourselves? What are you so afraid of? If you are prepared to govern yourself, you will not fear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I think that if you feel the need to keep a gun in the home, you should be allowed to do it. But those guns shouldn't be military assault weapons. Shotguns, bolt action rifles and revolvers are more than adequate to do the trick. Most people that want to do harm? Do not want to engage in a gun battle.
> 
> However, carrying guns in the streets? That should be limited to law enforcement, private security and folks that, as their profession, carry valuable items or large sums of money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who gets to decide what a large sum of money is? I own a bar. My day's receipts are large to me whether they total $5,000 or $200.
> If someone wants to rob me on the way out of Doc's early Sunday morning, they damned well better start shooting as soon as I walk out the door.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Business owners or people responsible for dropping the day's receipts?
> 
> Yeah..they should be armed..or have an armed guard.
> 
> I use to own a bar. I made damn sure to have a guard with me when I dropped money.
Click to expand...

I prefer to be my own guard, thank you.


----------



## Sallow

Ernie S. said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The exercise of the right? That is the right to own a gun. There's a little more on this, like the buying and selling, but even that can be restricted, but not much else is protected. Certainly not the carrying of the weapon concealed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What it comes down to is what "the people" will tolerate. Right now, gun lobbies have been enormously successfully in pushing back on regulations. But as history has shown, their is only so much bloodshed that the American people are willing to tolerate in the civilian space. When gunfighters in the wild west were blasting up towns? Marshals in those towns restricted their use. When mobsters were running around with Tommyguns? They were banned. When the black panthers were marching into courtrooms with shotguns? That activity got prohibited. Assault Rifles were banned for a time as were Saturday Night Specials.
> 
> The Gun Nuts are really pushing this now. They are marching through cities with Assault Rifles and on the heels of massacres of school children. Right now? 60% of Americans just want background checks and gun nuts oppose that. It's not reasonable and the backlash is going to be intense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you think government should be able to restrict who can defend themselves and their family from harm? Why should we outsource that responsibility to the governments of the world that use the power we give them to oppress the people instead of stepping up and governing ourselves? What are you so afraid of? If you are prepared to govern yourself, you will not fear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I think that if you feel the need to keep a gun in the home, you should be allowed to do it. But those guns shouldn't be military assault weapons. Shotguns, bolt action rifles and revolvers are more than adequate to do the trick. Most people that want to do harm? Do not want to engage in a gun battle.
> 
> However, carrying guns in the streets? That should be limited to law enforcement, private security and folks that, as their profession, carry valuable items or large sums of money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who gets to decide what a large sum of money is? I own a bar. My day's receipts are large to me whether they total $5,000 or $200.
> If someone wants to rob me on the way out of Doc's early Sunday morning, they damned well better start shooting as soon as I walk out the door.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Business owners or people responsible for dropping the day's receipts?
> 
> Yeah..they should be armed..or have an armed guard.
> 
> I use to own a bar. I made damn sure to have a guard with me when I dropped money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I prefer to be my own guard, thank you.
Click to expand...


Are you just being disagreeable for the heck of it? Or what?


----------



## M14 Shooter

frigidweirdo said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no sound argument for this restriction, and any such restriction will violate the constitution.
> Conclusion:  Fail.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually you're wrong.
> The 2A prevents the US govt from doing something. What?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Infrimnging upon the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?
Click to expand...

That's what it says.



> Secondly should I make the assumption that you're against the feds infringing on the RKBA for felons, whether in prison or not, children and the mentally ill?


Not everyone has the right to arms, just as not everyone has the right to vote - so, no.



> _*District of Columbia v. Heller*_, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
> 
> "(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56."
> 
> So what do you make of this then?


I don't see anything here that needs addressed



> Carry and conceal can be prevented. This is probably because carry is not necessarily protected by the RKBA.  It is protected within keep arms only, as in a person has to be able to carry them at times in order to be able to buy and sell. The rest of carry isn't actually protected.


.
Um....no.  Both are protected, specifically:

_The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, *and to use that arm *for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home_.

Silly to argue that your right to own a gun is protected but your right to use it is not.

Note that there is some judicial movement towards Heller preventing an absolute prohibition of concealed carry:
Moore v. Madigan - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



> Also carrying in certain places is never allowed, and still constitutional.


And this differs from time/place/manner restrictions on the right to free speech?  Nothing earthshaking here.



> What weapons are protected?


_Heller_:
_None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes._

Note that _Heller _expands _Miller  _rather than limits it.



> Not "dangerous and unusual weapons", the term dangerous is a little misleading and I think, as with quite of lot of this case, the justices were sloppy and were being more political than they should have been. What the mean are things like SAM, tanks, warplanes, nukes and so on. These are not protected. Why?


They are dangerous and unusual.  



> The simple answer is that the govt can't prevent people keeping arms, but it can prevent them keeping specific arms,


Yes -- those that are dangerous and unusual; those unsuitable for the traditionally lawful purposes one might have for a firearm.
Every class of firearm, however, is suitable for such purposes, and so the government cannot prevent ownership.



> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It prevents the US govt stopping individuals from owning arms. Ie, if an individual has a gun, they are armed, therefore the govt isn't stopping them from being armed.
> 
> 
> 
> "A gun"?  As in just one?  That limiting a person to one gun does not violate the constitution?  You jest.
> It also, BTW, prohibits anything else that might be an infringement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well not, it's not really what I'm saying.
Click to expand...

Good -- because that would be no different than arguing that because you can still go to church on Sunday, prohibiting you from going Mon-Sat does not violate the constitution.



> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh - it also means the government cannot otherwise infringe on the exercise of the right - you know, restrict the exercise of the right in such a way that if applied to speech or abortion or religion ts unconstituonality would be unquestioned.
> 
> 
> 
> You say "traditional lawful purposes",
Click to expand...

No. The law says that.



> The govt clearly can ban a type of gun for various reasons


Only those that are dangerous and unusual; only those unsuitable for the traditionally lawful purposes one might have for a firearm.
Every class of firearm, however, is suitable for such purposes, and so the government cannot prevent ownership.



> The exercise of the right? That is the right to own a gun.


And to use, both protected specifically.


----------



## M14 Shooter

frigidweirdo said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you have it, post it.  if you do not, do not.
> 
> Please also note that the court in _Heller _talks at some length of the "keep and bear" part of this argument.
> How is it wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> You're being lazy.
Click to expand...

Says he that will not provide information asked of him.




> Yes, they talk about keep and bear. However I also know that even Supreme Court justices aren't experts in all areas of law. They were listening to two arguments, the DC side was just completely wrong, so they listened to the Heller side. They didn't necessarily get all of the information on this debate.


You mean they did not get your opinion on the debate, or answer it in a manner consistent with same.  Unfortunate for you.

You want "bear arms" to have a necessary relation to service in the militia.   It doesn't.
Why?  Because "the righto of the people" is not the same as "the right of the militia", and so the "right to bear" of the former is in no way necessarily limited by the "right to bear" of the latter.

You're arguing that the people that wrote the 2nd intended it to protect the right to a weapons so that you might, at the behest of the state, protect your town, state or country, to the total exclusion of any right to said arm for the protection of your house, family or person.  

This position is utterly unsupportable by primary source material.


----------



## Ernie S.

I'm being disagreeable because I generally disagree with you. OK?


----------



## BreezeWood

Ernie S. said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> you should decide what works for you and not tell others what they should use.
> 
> firearms are weapons of violence not confined to their handlers, the community as a whole has a right to regulate them.
> 
> 
> 
> In exactly the same manner as it has a right to regulate speech -- to prohibit speech that harms others or places others in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.
> 
> How do you think this would apply to the right to arms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the right of the people to keep and bear Arms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> as stated, to define what "Arms" refers to in the amendment -
> 
> all public firearms "Arms" to be leaver or bolt action per round, non detachable magazine, maximum six round capacity.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is your brilliant restriction?
> 
> How do you justify that when you include the phrase that you so obviously want to ignore?
> 
> 
> 
> ]the right of the people to keep and bear Arms _*SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED*_.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



its a definition -

there is no infringement against: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms".

.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Sallow said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The exercise of the right? That is the right to own a gun. There's a little more on this, like the buying and selling, but even that can be restricted, but not much else is protected. Certainly not the carrying of the weapon concealed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What it comes down to is what "the people" will tolerate. Right now, gun lobbies have been enormously successfully in pushing back on regulations. But as history has shown, their is only so much bloodshed that the American people are willing to tolerate in the civilian space.
Click to expand...

99.997% of the guns in the US will not be used to murder anyone this year; only those suffering from abject ignorance or a certain political predisposition sees gun ownership as a "problem" that requires continually limiting the rights of the law abiding.

THAT, not the NRA, is why your side cannot enact any additional gun control.



> Assault Rifles were banned for a time as were Saturday Night Specials.


Of course, it doesn't help your cause when you argue from ignorance and/or dishonesty, as you do here.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Sallow said:


> Even if this were true, which I doubt..most guns have one purpose.
> To kill human beings.


That's why our right to own and use them is specifically protected by the Constitution.
Duh.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Sallow said:


> Basically..yeah.
> 
> For now.
> 
> The argument should be that the 2nd Amendment is no longer necessary since we provide for a permanent military, which includes ground forces.
> 
> But adding an amendment that stipulates that citizens may have small arms for defense of the home isn't going to get anywhere.
> 
> So right now? While we have a great many judges that are in their seats because of the gun lobby? You are right.



No, that argument wouldn't work at all. It's not just about having a military force in place of a permanent military. 

Self defence will be an issue, but the main reason for the 2A is to protect against the maladministration of the government. Ie, the ability to be able to take down the govt.


----------



## frigidweirdo

M14 Shooter said:


> Infrimnging upon the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what it says.
Click to expand...



Yes, it’s what it says. And what? You have no opinion on this matter. You think it allows an unlimited right to keep arms and whatever you want bear to mean? Really?




M14 Shooter said:


> Secondly should I make the assumption that you're against the feds infringing on the RKBA for felons, whether in prison or not, children and the mentally ill?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not everyone has the right to arms, just as not everyone has the right to vote - so, no.
Click to expand...


[/QUOTE]


WOOOOW. You say not everyone has the right? Did I read that correctly?

Actually the theory of rights assumes EVERYONE has the right and some are having that right infringed. Maybe you think women don’t have the right to keep and bear arms, I don’t know. But this is showing rather a lack of knowledge of what rights are.




M14 Shooter said:


> *District of Columbia v. Heller*, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
> 
> 
> "(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56."
> 
> 
> So what do you make of this then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see anything here that needs addressed
Click to expand...


Seeing what you just said previous I wonder how you cope with the contradiction.




M14 Shooter said:


> Carry and conceal can be prevented. This is probably because carry is not necessarily protected by the RKBA.  It is protected within keep arms only, as in a person has to be able to carry them at times in order to be able to buy and sell. The rest of carry isn't actually protected.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Um....no.  Both are protected, specifically:
> 
> 
> _The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, *and to use that arm *for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home_.
> 
> 
> Silly to argue that your right to own a gun is protected but your right to use it is not.
> 
> 
> Note that there is some judicial movement towards Heller preventing an absolute prohibition of concealed carry:
> 
> Moore v. Madigan - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...



I think you’re getting confused. The RKBA protects the right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in the militia. The use of the weapon is not about the 2A. Self defence is not a part of the 2A.

The argument is dodgy at best.


Self defence can be carried out in many different ways with many different items. Does that mean every item that can be used for self defence is protected?
No.


The 2A deals with the keeping of weapons. Protection of self defence is within the Bill of Rights but not directly specified.

Unless of course you think there’s a right to self defence with a gun and NOT a right to self defence with any other weapon, or no weapon at all. This clearly doesn’t make sense either.




M14 Shooter said:


> Also carrying in certain places is never allowed, and still constitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this differs from time/place/manner restrictions on the right to free speech?  Nothing earthshaking here.
Click to expand...



This is hardly an argument.

Free speech is limited based on whether it is a danger or not.

Are you saying that gun carry is only limited when there is a danger? Er… guns are inherently dangerous in all situations.

Also, carry and conceal permits, are there free speech permits out there?




M14 Shooter said:


> What weapons are protected?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Heller_:
> 
> _None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes._
> 
> 
> Note that _Heller _expands _Miller _rather than limits it.
Click to expand...



I love the term “lawful”, you know what it means? It means the US federal govt allows it. So if they ban handguns, handguns aren’t lawful, and if they ban the use of handguns, then using handguns isn’t a lawful purpose.




M14 Shooter said:


> Not "dangerous and unusual weapons", the term dangerous is a little misleading and I think, as with quite of lot of this case, the justices were sloppy and were being more political than they should have been. What the mean are things like SAM, tanks, warplanes, nukes and so on. These are not protected. Why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are dangerous and unusual.
Click to expand...



A handgun isn’t dangerous?




M14 Shooter said:


> The simple answer is that the govt can't prevent people keeping arms, but it can prevent them keeping specific arms,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes -- those that are dangerous and unusual; those unsuitable for the traditionally lawful purposes one might have for a firearm.
> 
> Every class of firearm, however, is suitable for such purposes, and so the government cannot prevent ownership.
Click to expand...



Er….

So an automatic machine gun can be used for “traditionally lawful purposes”? Like what exactly? We’re getting into the realm of vague things.




> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It prevents the US govt stopping individuals from owning arms. Ie, if an individual has a gun, they are armed, therefore the govt isn't stopping them from being armed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "A gun"?  As in just one?  That limiting a person to one gun does not violate the constitution?  You jest.
> 
> It also, BTW, prohibits anything else that might be an infringement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well not, it's not really what I'm saying.
Click to expand...


Good -- because that would be no different than arguing that because you can still go to church on Sunday, prohibiting you from going Mon-Sat does not violate the constitution.

[/QUOTE]


Actually it isn’t the same. The prohibition on the govt is that it can’t stop and individual owning arms. That’s it. The limitation on this is quite low. What it means is vague but at the same time if you can own a weapons you can own it every day of the week. However I’d also say that limiting someone to one weapon wouldn’t cut it.

Though it does allow the govt the possibility of limiting weapons and the like.




> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The govt clearly can ban a type of gun for various reasons
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only those that are dangerous and unusual; only those unsuitable for the traditionally lawful purposes one might have for a firearm.
> 
> Every class of firearm, however, is suitable for such purposes, and so the government cannot prevent ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Find me a gun that isn’t dangerous.
> 
> Actually the Supreme Court said the govt can prevent people from owning such weapons in their whole class.
> 
> It did not say the govt can’t ban other weapons.
> 
> You’re trying to make an argument out of a void.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The exercise of the right? That is the right to own a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And to use, both protected specifically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, it’s just not there. The right is to own a weapon. Because you have the right to own it, you can use it for lawful purposes. Like I said, lawful means just that.
> 
> If you own a TV can you use it for lawful purposes?
> Does this mean it’s protected by the 2A?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Lakhota

The 2nd Amendment means whatever SCOTUS says it means at any given point in time.  Even a retard like Scalia knows that.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and noted that future limitations will have to be decided in future cases - NY Daily News


----------



## Ernie S.

BreezeWood said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> you should decide what works for you and not tell others what they should use.
> 
> firearms are weapons of violence not confined to their handlers, the community as a whole has a right to regulate them.
> 
> 
> 
> In exactly the same manner as it has a right to regulate speech -- to prohibit speech that harms others or places others in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.
> 
> How do you think this would apply to the right to arms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the right of the people to keep and bear Arms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> as stated, to define what "Arms" refers to in the amendment -
> 
> all public firearms "Arms" to be leaver or bolt action per round, non detachable magazine, maximum six round capacity.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is your brilliant restriction?
> 
> How do you justify that when you include the phrase that you so obviously want to ignore?
> 
> 
> 
> ]the right of the people to keep and bear Arms _*SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED*_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> its a definition -
> 
> there is no infringement against: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms".
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Except that the 2nd Amendment makes no distinction what arms citizens have a right to keep and bear. Your limitation to bolt or lever actions with 6 round max capacity is an infringement.


*in·fringe*
_verb_ \in-ˈfrinj\
: to do something that does not obey or follow (a rule, law, etc.) ( _chiefly US_ )

: to wrongly limit or restrict (something, such as another person's rights)

*in·fringed in·fring·ing*

*Full Definition of INFRINGE*
transitive verb
1
*:*  to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <_infringe_ a patent>
2
_obsolete_ *:* defeat, frustrate
intransitive verb
*:* encroach —used with _on_ or _upon_ <_infringe_ on our rights>


----------



## frigidweirdo

M14 Shooter said:


> Says he that will not provide information asked of him.



Oh stop pretending that you're the kid who thinks he's being clever by being stupid. You want to look, look, you don't, whatever. 



M14 Shooter said:


> Yes, they talk about keep and bear. However I also know that even Supreme Court justices aren't experts in all areas of law. They were listening to two arguments, the DC side was just completely wrong, so they listened to the Heller side. They didn't necessarily get all of the information on this debate.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean they did not get your opinion on the debate, or answer it in a manner consistent with same.  Unfortunate for you.
> 
> You want "bear arms" to have a necessary relation to service in the militia.   It doesn't.
> Why?  Because "the righto of the people" is not the same as "the right of the militia", and so the "right to bear" of the former is in no way necessarily limited by the "right to bear" of the latter.
> 
> You're arguing that the people that wrote the 2nd intended it to protect the right to a weapons so that you might, at the behest of the state, protect your town, state or country, to the total exclusion of any right to said arm for the protection of your house, family or person.
> 
> This position is utterly unsupportable by primary source material.
Click to expand...


Do you think in two 30 minutes sessions (which weren't 30 minutes either) that they will get all the information, especially as it's coming from only two sides? 

Oh, and thank you for telling me what I think. Only this ISN'T what I think. I don't think it has any relation to militia duty at all. 
The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. You don't have to be in the militia to have the right to be in the militia. It's not essential. 

Also, I'm not arguing that people can't use their weapons for self defence. This is getting a little frustrating. It's the usual not reading what I write but just assuming I'm saying the same damn thing everyone on the left is saying. I'M NOT.

I'm saying the 2A doesn't protect the right to self defence. That doesn't mean the right to self defence doesn't exist.
I'm saying the 2A protects the right to keep arms, not the right to use arms in self defence. I'm not saying a person can't use their weapons in self defence. 
Self defence is protected, just somewhere else. 

You can use your TV for self defence. This also doesn't mean the TV is protected by the 2A. 

Got it? Or are you just going to assume I said something else?

You can ask questions if you are unsure of what I have said, I understand that concepts can be difficult. But what I will not tolerate is you telling me that I'm arguing something I clearly have not said. And you did it twice.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Lakhota said:


> The 2nd Amendment means whatever SCOTUS says it means at any given point in time.  Even a retard like Scalia knows that.
> 
> Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and noted that future limitations will have to be decided in future cases - NY Daily News



Also the 2A means what someone can convince the Supreme Court to say it is. ie, people can go to court and have the meaning changed. Which is why you can't just say "the Supreme Court said this therefore it is definitely this" because it can change.


----------



## Lakhota

frigidweirdo said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd Amendment means whatever SCOTUS says it means at any given point in time.  Even a retard like Scalia knows that.
> 
> Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and noted that future limitations will have to be decided in future cases - NY Daily News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also the 2A means what someone can convince the Supreme Court to say it is. ie, people can go to court and have the meaning changed. Which is why you can't just say "the Supreme Court said this therefore it is definitely this" because it can change.
Click to expand...


True, which is what I meant "at any given point in time".  There is nothing "absolute" about the 2nd Amendment.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Ernie S. said:


> This is your brilliant restriction?
> 
> How do you justify that when you include the phrase that you so obviously want to ignore?
> 
> 
> 
> ]the right of the people to keep and bear Arms _*SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED*_.
Click to expand...



its a definition -

there is no infringement against: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms".

.[/QUOTE]
Except that the 2nd Amendment makes no distinction what arms citizens have a right to keep and bear. Your limitation to bolt or lever actions with 6 round max capacity is an infringement.


*in·fringe*
_verb_ \in-ˈfrinj\
: to do something that does not obey or follow (a rule, law, etc.) ( _chiefly US_ )

: to wrongly limit or restrict (something, such as another person's rights)

*in·fringed in·fring·ing*

*Full Definition of INFRINGE*
transitive verb
1
*:*  to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <_infringe_ a patent>
2
_obsolete_ *:* defeat, frustrate
intransitive verb
*:* encroach —used with _on_ or _upon_ <_infringe_ on our rights>[/QUOTE]

Only when it comes to rights, infringe means to stop someone. Many people are having their 2A rights infringed upon right now. Criminals, the insane, children and so on.


----------



## Ernie S.

frigidweirdo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is your brilliant restriction?
> 
> How do you justify that when you include the phrase that you so obviously want to ignore?
> 
> 
> 
> ]the right of the people to keep and bear Arms _*SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED*_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> its a definition -
> 
> there is no infringement against: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms".
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Except that the 2nd Amendment makes no distinction what arms citizens have a right to keep and bear. Your limitation to bolt or lever actions with 6 round max capacity is an infringement.


*in·fringe*
_verb_ \in-ˈfrinj\
: to do something that does not obey or follow (a rule, law, etc.) ( _chiefly US_ )

: to wrongly limit or restrict (something, such as another person's rights)

*in·fringed in·fring·ing*

*Full Definition of INFRINGE*
transitive verb
1
*:*  to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <_infringe_ a patent>
2
_obsolete_ *:* defeat, frustrate
intransitive verb
*:* encroach —used with _on_ or _upon_ <_infringe_ on our rights>[/QUOTE]

Only when it comes to rights, infringe means to stop someone. Many people are having their 2A rights infringed upon right now. Criminals, the insane, children and so on.[/QUOTE]
Rights are for citizens. Children have not matured to the point where they can be depended upon to exercise the right to vote OR carry a gun. The insane and the felonious have surrendered that right.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Ernie S. said:


> Rights are for citizens. Children have not matured to the point where they can be depended upon to exercise the right to vote OR carry a gun. The insane and the felonious have surrendered that right.



Children have limited rights. 

The insane and felons still have the right, they haven't surrendered the right at all. They have had their right infringed upon through due process. It's as simple as that. That is the theory of rights. Rights can be infringed upon.

Even the Chinese are considered to have these rights, but they're just being infringed. Non-citizens have rights the same as citizens, it's a matter of whether the right is infringed for non-citizens or not.


----------



## jon_berzerk

BreezeWood said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> you should decide what works for you and not tell others what they should use.
> 
> firearms are weapons of violence not confined to their handlers, the community as a whole has a right to regulate them.
> 
> 
> 
> In exactly the same manner as it has a right to regulate speech -- to prohibit speech that harms others or places others in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.
> 
> How do you think this would apply to the right to arms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the right of the people to keep and bear Arms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> as stated, to define what "Arms" refers to in the amendment -
> 
> all public firearms "Arms" to be leaver or bolt action per round, non detachable magazine, maximum six round capacity.
> 
> .
Click to expand...



sure if they are in common use and useful to the military


----------



## frigidweirdo

jon_berzerk said:


> sure if they are in common use and useful to the military



The whole point of the militia is the last line of defence. ie, when all else has failed you have the gun in the hands of people who join up the militia which has military leadership which then attempts to overthrow the bad regime.

If a weapon is "useful to the military" then it's probably not useful to the militia, unless they get lucky. 

The whole point of arms in the hands of people is so that the govt doesn't have them, and the protection is there so the govt can't take them away.


----------



## jon_berzerk

frigidweirdo said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> sure if they are in common use and useful to the military
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The whole point of the militia is the last line of defence. ie, when all else has failed you have the gun in the hands of people who join up the militia which has military leadership which then attempts to overthrow the bad regime.
> 
> If a weapon is "useful to the military" then it's probably not useful to the militia, unless they get lucky.
> 
> The whole point of arms in the hands of people is so that the govt doesn't have them, and the protection is there so the govt can't take them away.
Click to expand...



*If a weapon is "useful to the military" then it's probably not useful to the militia,*

no offense but that is a pretty nutty thing to say

considering that the militia is military


----------



## M14 Shooter

frigidweirdo said:


> That's what it says.
> Yes, it’s what it says. And what? You have no opinion on this matter. You think it allows an unlimited right to keep arms and whatever you want bear to mean? Really?


As I have stated, the right to arms, like all oither rights has inherent limits.

You have a right to own and use a firearm, protected by the constitution.   That doesnt mean laws against murder infringe on your right to own a use firearms because your right to same does not include the rightt to commit murder.

The state cannot infringe on the right -- it cannot place preconditions on the ecercise of the right not inherent to same, unless it can demonstrate that said precoindition is an effective, most narroly tailored and least restrictive means of achieving a  demonstrably compelling state interest - primarily, in its role of portecting the rights of others.

And so, i'm not sure of your point here.



> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not everyone has the right to arms, just as not everyone has the right to vote - so, no.
> 
> 
> 
> WOOOOW. You say not everyone has the right? Did I read that correctly?
Click to expand...

Established fact.   Not sure why you show surprise here.
Children do not have the right because theu have not reached the age of majority.
Felons do not have the right because it was removed through due process.
(insert numerous other examples here).
Just like the right to vote.



M14 Shooter said:


> I don't see anything here that needs addressed
> 
> 
> 
> Seeing what you just said previous I wonder how you cope with the contradiction.
Click to expand...

Maybe if you show a contraduction, I can address your wonderment.


> I think you’re getting confused. The RKBA protects the right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in the militia. The use of the weapon is not about the 2A. Self defence is not a part of the 2A.


Why do you contiunually and deliberatly refuse to accept the fact that the 2nd protects a right to own and USE a firearm, both in its text - "keep and bear" and in its current jurisprudence - "and to use that arm"?


> Self defence can be carried out in many different ways with many different items. Does that mean every item that can be used for self defence is protected?  No.


Just those that constitute "arms".
I'm sure that the fact you can kill someone with a papercllip does not bring them under said term.


> The 2A deals with the keeping of weapons.


And their use.


> Free speech is limited based on whether it is a danger or not.


No...  it is limited when it harms others and/or places others in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.
The exact same standard shoud apply to all rights - I'm sure you'd agree.


> Also, carry and conceal permits, are there free speech permits out there?


You need a permit to have a parade or other significant demonstration that uses public propetry - so, yes


> I love the term “lawful”, you know what it means?


Traditionally lawful.  Distinct difference, made deliberatly.
As you havent addressed my response, and so I assume my response was acceptable.


> It means the US federal govt allows it. So if they ban handguns, handguns aren’t lawful, and if they ban the use of handguns, then using handguns isn’t a lawful purpose.


You haven't read _Heller_?

_The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster_

Your response thusly falls flat on its face.


> A handgun isn’t dangerous?


Dangerous AND unusual.
Clearly, handguns do not fall into this category (see above).
Feel free to deomonstrate than any other class of firearms does.


> Er….
> So an automatic machine gun can be used for “traditionally lawful purposes”? Like what exactly? We’re getting into the realm of vague things.


There's no reaon you cannot, with full efficacy, use a machinegun for any number of the traditionally lawful porposes one might have for a firearm - hunting, target shooting/competition, personal defense, home defense.
Can you demonstrate otherwise?


> Actually it isn’t the same. The prohibition on the govt is that it can’t stop and individual owning arms. That’s it.


No, its not it.  It cannot infringe (see above) on the ownership and use.


> The limitation on this is quite low.


Please demonstrate this to be true.
Be sure to place this limitation in context with the protections afforded other rights and how they differ from the protections afforded by the 2nd.


> Find me a gun that isn’t dangerous.


All weapons are dangerous, which is why the standard isn't "dangerous", and why "dangerouns" clearly designates something other than firearms, which are clearly protected.
Your response, therefore carries no meaning.


> Actually the Supreme Court said the govt can prevent people from owning such weapons in their whole class.
> It did not say the govt can’t ban other weapons.


Really.   Please explain how Heller allows the government to ban weapons that are -not- dangerous and unusual but are suitable for traditionally lawful purposes.  Be sure to cite the relevant parts of the text.


> You’re trying to make an argument out of a void.


Irony alert.


> No, it’s just not there. The right is to own a weapon.


Look, at this point, you're just lying.
The protection for the right to USE a protected weapon is specifically noted in both the amendment and the jurisprudence.
Keep AND bear
Own AND use

So, I'm not sure what your overall point here is, but whatever it is, your argument for it is, at best, lacking


----------



## M14 Shooter

frigidweirdo said:


> I'm saying the 2A doesn't protect the right to self defence...
> I'm saying the 2A protects the right to keep arms, not the right to use arms in self defence.


:roll:
Based on what?
And why do you continue to refuse to include "and bear" in the protections afforded by the 2nd?


----------



## frigidweirdo

jon_berzerk said:


> *If a weapon is "useful to the military" then it's probably not useful to the militia,*
> 
> no offense but that is a pretty nutty thing to say
> 
> considering that the militia is military



No, the militia isn't the military. You have the unorganised militia which is not part of the military, you have the National Guard which has dual status and you have the military which is professional. 

The militia is designed to be apart from the military and the govt.

When I say it's not useful to the military, in the modern context, the militia doesn't get called up. They use the draft if they need to, not the militia and certainly not one with the weapons found at home. 

The last time this happened was with a war with Mexico 2 centuries ago.


----------



## M14 Shooter

frigidweirdo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rights are for citizens. Children have not matured to the point where they can be depended upon to exercise the right to vote OR carry a gun. The insane and the felonious have surrendered that right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Children have limited rights.
> 
> The insane and felons still have the right, they haven't surrendered the right at all. They have had their right infringed upon through due process. It's as simple as that. That is the theory of rights. Rights can be infringed upon.
Click to expand...

Felons have their right to arms removed by due process - as in, they no longer have the right.
You cannot infringe on a right that someone does not have.


----------



## Wildman

after 1998 posts the liberfools still do not understand this: *"The Right To Keep And Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed"*

what i see here is libercommunism in action.


----------



## M14 Shooter

frigidweirdo said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> sure if they are in common use and useful to the military
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The whole point of the militia is the last line of defence. ie, when all else has failed you have the gun in the hands of people who join up the militia which has military leadership which then attempts to overthrow the bad regime.
> 
> If a weapon is "useful to the military" then it's probably not useful to the militia, unless they get lucky.
Click to expand...

The miltia has no use for M9s, M16s or M240s?


----------



## jon_berzerk

frigidweirdo said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If a weapon is "useful to the military" then it's probably not useful to the militia,*
> 
> no offense but that is a pretty nutty thing to say
> 
> considering that the militia is military
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the militia isn't the military. You have the unorganised militia which is not part of the military, you have the National Guard which has dual status and you have the military which is professional.
> 
> The militia is designed to be apart from the military and the govt.
> 
> When I say it's not useful to the military, in the modern context, the militia doesn't get called up. They use the draft if they need to, not the militia and certainly not one with the weapons found at home.
> 
> The last time this happened was with a war with Mexico 2 centuries ago.
Click to expand...



the national guard is not the militia 

for all your hoohay 


and the end of the day the militia is military


----------



## jon_berzerk

M14 Shooter said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> sure if they are in common use and useful to the military
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The whole point of the militia is the last line of defence. ie, when all else has failed you have the gun in the hands of people who join up the militia which has military leadership which then attempts to overthrow the bad regime.
> 
> If a weapon is "useful to the military" then it's probably not useful to the militia, unless they get lucky.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The miltia has no use for M9s, M16s or M240s?
Click to expand...



they are not military dontcha know --LOL


----------



## frigidweirdo

M14 Shooter said:


> As I have stated, the right to arms, like all oither rights has inherent limits.
> 
> 
> You have a right to own and use a firearm, protected by the constitution.  That doesnt mean laws against murder infringe on your right to own a use firearms because your right to same does not include the rightt to commit murder.
> 
> 
> The state cannot infringe on the right -- it cannot place preconditions on the ecercise of the right not inherent to same, unless it can demonstrate that said precoindition is an effective, most narroly tailored and least restrictive means of achieving a  demonstrably compelling state interest - primarily, in its role of portecting the rights of others.
> 
> 
> And so, i'm not sure of your point here.




Yes, there are inherent limits. However a criminal who has left prison is not part of that inherent limit. In fact even in prison rights are often uninfringed by the govt. The limits to the RKBA are outside what we’ve been talking about.


Yes, the state can’t normally infringe on the right, unless after due process. But you have to remember people are talking about the right not being infringed upon. Clearly it is being infringed upon. 
It’s not really much of an issue though.




M14 Shooter said:


> WOOOOW. You say not everyone has the right? Did I read that correctly?



Established fact.  Not sure why you show surprise here.

Children do not have the right because theu have not reached the age of majority.

Felons do not have the right because it was removed through due process.

(insert numerous other examples here).

Just like the right to vote.

[/quote]


It’s clearly not an “established fact” and you haven’t even backed this claim up. So, you’re wrong. Children do have rights. They have limited rights. Felons clearly do have rights and there are plenty of Supreme Court cases that show that things like torture cannot be carried out against felons, why? Because their rights are still protected.


But, certain rights can be infringed against after due process.




M14 Shooter said:


> Why do you contiunually and deliberatly refuse to accept the fact that the 2nd protects a right to own and USE a firearm, both in its text - "keep and bear" and in its current jurisprudence - "and to use that arm"?




The fact huh? Have you shown it’s a fact? No……. so…….. you think I should just accept what you say without any evidence, anything to really back you up?

It protects the right to own a firearm. It protects the right to be in the militia.


You go show me where the founding fathers said anything about protecting a right to use the weapon.

Also, why do they need to make a right to use the weapon in an amendment about “the militia”.

Doesn’t make sense. The founding fathers didn’t make clauses that spoke about one thing then went off a complete tangent in one slight part to talk about something completely different.


And the biggest argument against this is that the Bill of Rights, everything that was written down, concerned the govt. Rights were assumed to exist. But the BoR was merely taking powers away from the feds.

Now, ownership of guns, well the feds can ban guns.

Did the founders think that if guns were protected that there would be any need to EXPLICITILY protect self defence? Or did later amendments not just make this the case?








M14 Shooter said:


> Just those that constitute "arms".
> 
> I'm sure that the fact you can kill someone with a papercllip does not bring them under said term.




Why? This makes no sense other than it happens to be very convenient for your own argument and nothing else.

It doesn’t matter whether you’re going to kill with paperclips or not. There are plenty of items that do not come under arms that can be used for self defence. Is this all about just killing? Is that just self defence? 
You’re claiming self defence from the 2A without ever having proven that anyone ever spoke about the 2A and self defence in the same sentence during the debates, you’re claiming self defence based on one word and making a massive leap of faith.


“it says arms, you can defend yourself with arms, therefore it protects self defence”


Doesn’t make sense.





M14 Shooter said:


> No...  it is limited when it harms others and/or places others in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.
> 
> The exact same standard shoud apply to all rights - I'm sure you'd agree.




Yes, I agree. Do gun harm others? Does a man having a SAM missile at home harm anyone? Does someone having enriched uranium being kept safely at home harm others?




M14 Shooter said:


> You need a permit to have a parade or other significant demonstration that uses public propetry - so, yes




Do you need a permit to not have troops quartered at home? Do you need a permit to ot be tortured? Do you need a permit to not have excessive bail?

A permit for “significant demonstrations” is different to the protections in the constitution. You have the right to peacefully assemble, but it’s such a right where peaceful assembly en masse requires lots of police presence.

Does bearing arms require any foreknowledge to make it workable? Or does it merely stop some people from carrying arms?


Does requiring a permit  for protesting stop people protesting? Or does it merely stop them protesting in a certain manner?






M14 Shooter said:


> Traditionally lawful.  Distinct difference, made deliberatly.
> 
> As you havent addressed my response, and so I assume my response was acceptable.




So who decides what is “traditionally lawful”?




M14 Shooter said:


> You haven't read _Heller_?
> 
> 
> _The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster_
> 
> 
> Your response thusly falls flat on its face.




No it doesn’t.

What they’re saying is that the DC law is unconstitutional because it prevents people from keeping arms.

It also talks about self defence. It doesn’t stop people from defending themselves, but it limits this. 
I have never, ever said there isn’t a right to self defence protected in the Bill of Rights.


So…….


You’re making a claim that is different from this. You’re saying the 2A protects the right to self defence with a weapon. And yet you’ve got almost nothing.





M14 Shooter said:


> A handgun isn’t dangerous?



Dangerous AND unusual.

Clearly, handguns do not fall into this category (see above).

Feel free to deomonstrate than any other class of firearms does.

[/quote]


So it’s basically unusual then, what’s the point of the term “dangerous” then?





M14 Shooter said:


> There's no reaon you cannot, with full efficacy, use a machinegun for any number of the traditionally lawful porposes one might have for a firearm - hunting, target shooting/competition, personal defense, home defense.
> 
> Can you demonstrate otherwise?




Well I’d say there are lots of weapons you could use for “traditionally lawful purposes”, which I’d assume includes hunting. Hand grenades, land mines, I guess I could hunt with a SAM missile too.

Who gets to decide whether I can use a weapon to hunt or not?  





M14 Shooter said:


> No, its not it.  It cannot infringe (see above) on the ownership and use.




Prove use. Come on, you’ve said it enough to require some kind of evidence.


As for “can’t infringe on the ownership”, now it can’t, but that doesn’t mean ownership is unlimited. Doesn’t mean you can own any type of handgun, or better said that the US govt can’t ban, for some reason, like safety issues or whatever, a handgun.

You think you could buy handguns from Cuba or North Korea? I mean, you can’t even buy coins or stamps from North Korea.




M14 Shooter said:


> The limitation on this is quite low.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please demonstrate this to be true.
> 
> Be sure to place this limitation in context with the protections afforded other rights and how they differ from the protections afforded by the 2nd.
Click to expand...



The limitation is based on the wording. Ie, the US federal govt cannot stop an individual from keeping arms. Like I’ve said, if they allow certain arms at an affordable price, then what’s the issue? You’re allowed to keep arms.

Bear arms is limited to only the militia mentioned in article 1 of the constitution.


The 3A is limited to troops from the US govt and clearly only in times of peace. What does that mean? They US is never at peace.

The 4A doesn’t go outside of the wording. It prevents the govt doing something and that’s that.

The 8A of excessive bail is merely what the govt decides is excessive, right? I mean it’s the Supreme Court that decides and they’re part of the US govt.




M14 Shooter said:


> Really.  Please explain how Heller allows the government to ban weapons that are -not- dangerous and unusual but are suitable for traditionally lawful purposes.  Be sure to cite the relevant parts of the text.



You’re moving to something else. We’re talking about a prohibition on the US govt. Now you’re talking about the power that the US govt has. Why the switch? This isn’t about the 2A.






M14 Shooter said:


> You’re trying to make an argument out of a void.



Irony alert.

[/quote]


Not at all.





M14 Shooter said:


> No, it’s just not there. The right is to own a weapon.



Look, at this point, you're just lying.

The protection for the right to USE a protected weapon is specifically noted in both the amendment and the jurisprudence.

Keep AND bear

Own AND use

[/quote]


Yeah, where is “Own AND use” in the 2A. Really, I can’t see those words.

Keep is own, I’ll grant you that. “bear arms” as has been noted, not only usually mean usage within the militia, but the FOUNDING FATHERS in the US HOUSE on the DEBATE of the future SECOND AMENDMENT said that it means “render military service” and “militia duty”.


Which part of render military service means “carry arms around as you like”?

Which part of militia duty means “carry arms around as you like”?


So, you’re going to have to find where the founding fathers spoke about the 2A including a right to keep arms, because IT ISN’T THERE.


----------



## frigidweirdo

jon_berzerk said:


> the national guard is not the militia
> 
> for all your hoohay
> 
> 
> and the end of the day the militia is military



Jeez.

National Guard of the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia (yeah, yeah, wikipedia, but it's more than anyone else posts)

"All members of the National Guard of the United States are also members of the militia of the United States as defined by 10 U.S.C.§ 311"

10 U.S. Code Part I - ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION LII Legal Information Institute

So you can search through here if you actually care about the truth. 

So at the end of the day, the National Guard has DUEL STATUS and the militia, the unorganised militia, is not the military, it's citizens.


----------



## frigidweirdo

jon_berzerk said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> sure if they are in common use and useful to the military
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The whole point of the militia is the last line of defence. ie, when all else has failed you have the gun in the hands of people who join up the militia which has military leadership which then attempts to overthrow the bad regime.
> 
> If a weapon is "useful to the military" then it's probably not useful to the militia, unless they get lucky.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The miltia has no use for M9s, M16s or M240s?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> they are not military dontcha know --LOL
Click to expand...


And the National Guard doesn't have duel status, dontcha know --LOL


----------



## frigidweirdo

M14 Shooter said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying the 2A doesn't protect the right to self defence...
> I'm saying the 2A protects the right to keep arms, not the right to use arms in self defence.
> 
> 
> 
> :roll:
> Based on what?
> And why do you continue to refuse to include "and bear" in the protections afforded by the 2nd?
Click to expand...


Based on the fact that the 2A is all about "the militia", seeing as that's what it talks about.
Based on the fact that the founding father spoke about the 2A being about protected in the militia from maladministration from the US govt. 

Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution

"Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government;"

"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. "

"Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. For this reason, he wished the words to be altered so as to be confined to persons belonging to a religious sect scrupulous of bearing arms."

My last question is this. 

Who is religiously scrupulous of carrying arms around, and how does this affect the militia and militia duty???


----------



## Ernie S.

frigidweirdo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rights are for citizens. Children have not matured to the point where they can be depended upon to exercise the right to vote OR carry a gun. The insane and the felonious have surrendered that right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Children have limited rights.
> 
> The insane and felons still have the right, they haven't surrendered the right at all. They have had their right infringed upon through due process. It's as simple as that. That is the theory of rights. *Rights can be infringed upon.*
> 
> Even the Chinese are considered to have these rights, but they're just being infringed. Non-citizens have rights the same as citizens, it's a matter of whether the right is infringed for non-citizens or not.
Click to expand...

Except for those that specifically "shall not be infringed"

An interesting read:





> *Does the Constitution Only Apply to Citizens? or. . . Are Illegal Immigrants Afforded Constitutional Rights?*


----------



## Ernie S.

frigidweirdo said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> sure if they are in common use and useful to the military
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The whole point of the militia is the last line of defence. ie, when all else has failed you have the gun in the hands of people who join up the militia which has military leadership which then attempts to overthrow the bad regime.
> 
> If a weapon is "useful to the military" then it's probably not useful to the militia, unless they get lucky.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The miltia has no use for M9s, M16s or M240s?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> they are not military dontcha know --LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the National Guard doesn't have duel status, dontcha know --LOL
Click to expand...

Duel status?

Pistols at 10 paces?

Or maybe dual pistols at 20 paces?


----------



## Charles_Main

frigidweirdo said:


> I'm saying the 2A doesn't protect the right to self defence...
> I'm saying the 2A protects the right to keep arms, not the right to use arms in self defence.



Its keep and Bare arms bro, Not just keep. What do you think it means to bare arms?


----------



## Lakhota

Charles_Main said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying the 2A doesn't protect the right to self defence...
> I'm saying the 2A protects the right to keep arms, not the right to use arms in self defence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its keep and Bare arms bro, Not just keep. What do you think it means to bare arms?
Click to expand...


"Bare" arms?  What's that about?


----------



## M14 Shooter

frigidweirdo said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I have stated, the right to arms, like all oither rights has inherent limits.
> 
> You have a right to own and use a firearm, protected by the constitution.  That doesnt mean laws against murder infringe on your right to own a use firearms because your right to same does not include the rightt to commit murder.
> 
> The state cannot infringe on the right -- it cannot place preconditions on the ecercise of the right not inherent to same, unless it can demonstrate that said precoindition is an effective, most narroly tailored and least restrictive means of achieving a  demonstrably compelling state interest - primarily, in its role of portecting the rights of others.
> 
> And so, i'm not sure of your point here.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, there are inherent limits. However a criminal who has left prison is not part of that inherent limit.
Click to expand...

Lost the right through due process.   Irrelevant to the point.



> Yes, the state can’t normally infringe on the right, unless after due process. But you have to remember people are talking about the right not being infringed upon. Clearly it is being infringed upon.
> It’s not really much of an issue though.


Still not sure of your point here.




> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> WOOOOW. You say not everyone has the right? Did I read that correctly?
> 
> 
> 
> Established fact.  Not sure why you show surprise here.
> Children do not have the right because theu have not reached the age of majority.
> Felons do not have the right because it was removed through due process.
> (insert numerous other examples here).
> Just like the right to vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s clearly not an “established fact” and you haven’t even backed this claim up. So, you’re wrong. Children do have rights. They have limited rights.
Click to expand...

The right to arms is not one of them.   Established fact.


> Felons clearly do have rights...


The right to armms is not one of them.   Established fact.


> But, certain rights can be infringed against after due process.


 When you take awa  right thru due process, the right no longer exists and therefore cannot be iunfringed upon.



> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you contiunually and deliberatly refuse to accept the fact that the 2nd protects a right to own and USE a firearm, both in its text - "keep and bear" and in its current jurisprudence - "and to use that arm"?
> 
> 
> 
> The fact huh? Have you shown it’s a fact? No...
Click to expand...

I cited the text in the 2nd and the hext in _Heller_ - Keep *and* bear, own *and* use.
Established fact.
Why do you continue with the charade?



> It protects the right to own a firearm.


Keep AND bear, own AND use.   You have not shown otherwise.



> It protects the right to be in the militia.


Cite the text to that effect, especially as supported by _Heller_.



> Also, why do they need to make a right to use the weapon in an amendment about “the militia”.


They did not create a right to use a weapon, they protected it.

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



> And the biggest argument against this is that the Bill of Rights, everything that was written down, concerned the govt. Rights were assumed to exist. But the BoR was merely taking powers away from the feds.
> Now, ownership of guns, well the feds can ban guns.


The Federal government can ban "dangerouns annd unusual weapons" that are not suitable for any of the traditionally legal uses for a firearm.
You have not in any way demonstrated that this means it can ban any class of firearm.



> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just those that constitute "arms".
> I'm sure that the fact you can kill someone with a papercllip does not bring them under said term.
> 
> 
> 
> Why? This makes no sense other than it happens to be very convenient for your own argument and nothing else.
Click to expand...

If you want to take the position that  the 2nd protects the right to own and use paperclips as a weapon, feel free.



> You’re claiming self defence from the 2A without ever having proven that anyone ever spoke about the 2A and self defence in the same sentence during the debates, you’re claiming self defence based on one word and making a massive leap of faith.


Heller explains this quite well.   Have a read.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER



> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> No...  it is limited when it harms others and/or places others in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.
> The exact same standard shoud apply to all rights - I'm sure you'd agree.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I agree. Do gun harm others?
Click to expand...

Simple ownership and possession of a firearm by those who have the right to do so hams no one and places no one in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.

If restrctions for all rights should be considered as they are for the 1st, as you said, do you not then disagree with restrictions on the simple ownership and possession on firearms by those who have the right to do so?.



> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need a permit to have a parade or other significant demonstration that uses public propetry - so, yes
> 
> 
> 
> Do you need a permit to not have troops quartered at home? Do you need a permit to ot be tortured? Do you need a permit to not have excessive bail?
Click to expand...

You asked for an exampleof needing a permit to exercise the right to free speech.  You got one.
dunno:



> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Traditionally lawful.  Distinct difference, made deliberatly.
> As you havent addressed my response, and so I assume my response was acceptable.
> 
> 
> 
> So who decides what is “traditionally lawful”?
Click to expand...

Doesn'tt matter - there's a difference between what you said - "Lawful" - and what the law says - "traditionally lawful".



> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't read _Heller_?
> _The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster_
> Your response thusly falls flat on its face.
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn’t.
> What they’re saying is that the DC law is unconstitutional because it prevents people from keeping arms.
Click to expand...

The point, of course is that there's no way to argue that handguns are "dangerousn and unusual weapons" which can be banned when the court states expolicty that banning them vuiolates the constitution under ANY level of scrutiny.

Note too that the court stated that the DC law also violates the constitution because the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to *use* arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.



> You’re making a claim that is different from this. You’re saying the 2A protects the right to self defence with a weapon. And yet you’ve got almost nothing.


Current jurisprudence is hardly nothing.



> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> A handgun isn’t dangerous?
> 
> 
> 
> Dangerous AND unusual.
> Clearly, handguns do not fall into this category (see above).
> Feel free to deomonstrate than any other class of firearms does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So it’s basically unusual then, what’s the point of the term “dangerous” then?
Click to expand...

All weapons are "dangerous" and so the inclusion of the term must mean someting other than firearms.
So, again:  Feel free to deomonstrate than any other class of firearms falls into those categories.

Personally? I think the court refers to weapons that present a clear present and imminent danger to others simply by their presence --  VX gas, for isntance.



> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no reaon you cannot, with full efficacy, use a machinegun for any number of the traditionally lawful porposes one might have for a firearm - hunting, target shooting/competition, personal defense, home defense.
> Can you demonstrate otherwise?
> 
> 
> 
> Well I’d say there are lots of weapons you could use for “traditionally lawful purposes”, which I’d assume includes hunting. Hand grenades, land mines, I guess I could hunt with a SAM missile too.
Click to expand...

So, you can NOT demonstrate that machinegus are unsuitable for any number of the traditionally lawful porposes one might have for a firearm - hunting, target shooting/competition, personal defense, home defense.
Thank you.



> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, its not it.  It cannot infringe (see above) on the ownership and use.
> 
> 
> 
> Prove use. Come on, you’ve said it enough to require some kind of evidence.
Click to expand...

I have repeatedly cited the text of the 2nd and _Heller_, which clearly, by the inclusion of the "and" conjunction, both cover the USE of firearms.



> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The limitation on this is quite low.
> 
> 
> 
> Please demonstrate this to be true.
> Be sure to place this limitation in context with the protections afforded other rights and how they differ from the protections afforded by the 2nd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The limitation is based on the wording. Ie, the US federal govt cannot stop an individual from keeping arms. Like I’ve said, if they allow certain arms at an affordable price, then what’s the issue? You’re allowed to keep arms.
> Bear arms is limited to only the militia mentioned in article 1 of the constitution.
Click to expand...

Like I said -- at this point, its clear you're lying.



> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really.  Please explain how Heller allows the government to ban weapons that are -not- dangerous and unusual but are suitable for traditionally lawful purposes.  Be sure to cite the relevant parts of the text.
> 
> 
> 
> You’re moving to something else. We’re talking about a prohibition on the US govt. Now you’re talking about the power that the US govt has. Why the switch? This isn’t about the 2A.
Click to expand...

OK, so you cannot explain how _Heller_ allows the government to ban weapons that are -not- dangerous and unusual but are suitable for traditionally lawful purposes.
Thank you.



> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, at this point, you're just lying.
> The protection for the right to USE a protected weapon is specifically noted in both the amendment and the jurisprudence.
> Keep AND bear
> Own AND use
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, where is “Own AND use” in the 2A. Really, I can’t see those words.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry - if you're going to contine to lie about this, there's no reason to continue.
Too bad, really.


----------



## M14 Shooter

frigidweirdo said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying the 2A doesn't protect the right to self defence...
> I'm saying the 2A protects the right to keep arms, not the right to use arms in self defence.
> 
> 
> 
> :roll:
> Based on what?
> And why do you continue to refuse to include "and bear" in the protections afforded by the 2nd?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Based on the fact that the 2A is all about "the militia", seeing as that's what it talks about.
Click to expand...

Prefatory clause.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
"Right of the people"
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER


----------



## frigidweirdo

Ernie S. said:


> Except for those that specifically "shall not be infringed"
> 
> An interesting read:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Does the Constitution Only Apply to Citizens? or. . . Are Illegal Immigrants Afforded Constitutional Rights?*
Click to expand...


So criminals, the insane etc don't have the right infringed then?


----------



## frigidweirdo

Ernie S. said:


> Duel status?
> 
> Pistols at 10 paces?
> 
> Or maybe dual pistols at 20 paces?



Dual status as in they're in both the militia and military.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Charles_Main said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying the 2A doesn't protect the right to self defence...
> I'm saying the 2A protects the right to keep arms, not the right to use arms in self defence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its keep and Bare arms bro, Not just keep. What do you think it means to bare arms?
Click to expand...


I don't know? Naked arms? 

Are you being serious? I'll take this as either you were blind drunk when you wrote this or you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

"bare" doesn't appear in the 2A, I doubt it appears anywhere in the constitution.


----------



## frigidweirdo

M14 Shooter said:


> Lost the right through due process.  Irrelevant to the point.




More than 200 years of the rights theory, and then you turn up and change it in an instant. Well done. Or maybe you should learn about human rights.


We’ll use Wikipedia for some basics

Human rights - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


“They are commonly understood as inalienable[3] fundamentalrights"to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being,"[4] and which are "inherent in all human beings"[5] regardless of their nation, location, language, religion, ethnic origin or any other status.[3] They are applicable everywhere and at every time in the sense of beinguniversal,[1] and they areegalitarianin the sense of being the same for everyone.”


Okay, do you see that there are these rights which cannot just be taken away? The theory of rights has this is a fundamental aspect. You can’t just take human rights away, a prisoner doesn’t lose their rights, they just have them infringed upon.




> Yes, the state can’t normally infringe on the right, unless after due process. But you have to remember people are talking about the right not being infringed upon. Clearly it is being infringed upon.
> 
> It’s not really much of an issue though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still not sure of your point here.
Click to expand...



The point is that the 2A says “shall not be infringed” yet the 2A is being infringed and not only that, people actually support this infringement. 
It’s not much of an issue, I’m worried more about the fact that hardly anyone has a clue about rights, hardly anyone’s willing to look at the historical facts either.






M14 Shooter said:


> The right to arms is not one of them.  Established fact.




What’s your point here? You’re still trying to claim that rights can be taken away? If a child doesn’t have the right, it doesn’t help you at all.




M14 Shooter said:


> When you take awa  right thru due process, the right no longer exists and therefore cannot be iunfringed upon.




Except you CAN’T TAKE AWAY a right. You can only infringe on this right. Unless of course you can prove that a single person has had their right taken away from them in the US. Can you? Bet you can’t.




> I cited the text in the 2nd and the hext in _Heller_ - Keep *and* bear, own *and* use.
> 
> Established fact.
> 
> Why do you continue with the charade?




Oh wow, you used one source, which is quite dodgy because it doesn’t explicitly say what you want it to say. Well done. Why do I continue to not believe you? Maybe because you have not reached a level at which I should believe you. This is a debate, not a “I’ll believe everything you say” thing.




> Keep AND bear, own AND use.  You have not shown otherwise.




It’s YOUR argument. Jeez, am I supposed to be making your arguments for you?





> It protects the right to be in the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cite the text to that effect, especially as supported by _Heller_.
Click to expand...



Why especially to Heller? Are we to ignore 200 years of history and just use Heller for everything now? Are you joking?


Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution


“Mr.Jacksonwas willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent."”


This is what Mr Jackson wanted the 2A to say. Why would he say this if the founding fathers weren’t looking at protecting the right to be in the militia.

He uses “militia service” in connection with “bearing arms”. Why? If bearing arms meant carry arms around and has nothing to do with the militia?


“Mr.Bensonmoved to have the words "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms," struck out. He would always leave it to the benevolence of the Legislature, for, modify it as you please, it will be impossible to express it in such a manner as to clear it from ambiguity. No man can claim this indulgence of right. It may be a religious persuasion, but it is no natural right, and therefore ought to be left to the discretion of the Government. If this stands part of the constitution, it will be a question before the Judiciary on every regulation you make with respect to the organization of the militia, whether it comports with this declaration or not. It is extremely injudicious to intermix matters of doubt with fundamentals.”


Mr Benson clearly talks about the bearing of arms in respect to “the organization of the milita”, why?


And there’s plenty more where this came from which shows the founding fathers were looking at protecting the right to be in the militia.  




> Also, why do they need to make a right to use the weapon in an amendment about “the militia”.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They did not create a right to use a weapon, they protected it.
Click to expand...



Well at least you’re learning. Yes, I made a slip in language, nothing more. 
So I ask the question again. Why make protections of carrying weapons around that has nothing to do with the militia in an amendment which talks about the militia? 

Makes no sense.


Can you provide ANY evidence that suggests the 2A deals with anything other than the militia? (I’m not talking about the individual protections of arms, for example, which are protected even if the person isn’t in the militia, this still allows for a ready supply of weapons for the militia, ie, it protects the militia).




> The Federal government can ban "dangerouns annd unusual weapons" that are not suitable for any of the traditionally legal uses for a firearm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have not in any way demonstrated that this means it can ban any class of firearm.
Click to expand...



That’s because I’m not debating whether it can ban any class of firearm. We’ve done this before. I’m talking about the 2A, not about whether the feds have the power to do this, I’m talking the theoretical “the power has been limited or not”






> If you want to take the position that  the 2nd protects the right to own and use paperclips as a weapon, feel free.




What does this have to do with any of our debate? It’s just moving away from the debate.




> Heller explains this quite well.  Have a read.
> 
> DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER




I know what Heller says, and you know what I’ve said in reply to this. Also, is this your argument or the Supreme Court’s argument?


 [/quote]

Simple ownership and possession of a firearm by those who have the right to do so hams no one and places no one in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.


If restrctions for all rights should be considered as they are for the 1st, as you said, do you not then disagree with restrictions on the simple ownership and possession on firearms by those who have the right to do so?.


[/quote]


When does “simple ownership and possession” of any weapon harm anyone? It doesn’t, other than nukes that can leak.


The point being, I don’t think there is a right to carry arms. It has never existed. Historically it never existed, even from the English Bill of Rights when carrying on horseback was prohibited.





> You asked for an exampleof needing a permit to exercise the right to free speech.  You got one.
> 
> dunno:




Is it actually a permit to exercise the right to free speech? (I’d say it’s the right to protest, but it doesn’t actually matter). You can say what you like on this forum, right? And everywhere else as long as it doesn’t harm others.

Now, a large group of people together that is UNCONTROLLED has shown to be quite dangerous. So, it’s actually a limit of the right based on the same limits which prevent treason and libel.

In some places you CANNOT carry arms without a permit. No permit, no carrying.

This is totally different to a limit on a right due to danger.




> Doesn'tt matter - there's a difference between what you said - "Lawful" - and what the law says - "traditionally lawful".




Well of course it matters. Unless of course you’re making a point that has no relevance to anything. What’s your point?




> The point, of course is that there's no way to argue that handguns are "dangerousn and unusual weapons" which can be banned when the court states expolicty that banning them vuiolates the constitution under ANY level of scrutiny.
> 
> 
> Note too that the court stated that the DC law also violates the constitution because the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to *use* arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.




Well I’m not denying that there isn’t a right to self defence, am I?




> You’re making a claim that is different from this. You’re saying the 2A protects the right to self defence with a weapon. And yet you’ve got almost nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Current jurisprudence is hardly nothing.
Click to expand...



Only you haven’t proven that it is current jurisprudence. You’re making a claim about two separate things and putting them together.





> So, you can NOT demonstrate that machinegus are unsuitable for any number of the traditionally lawful porposes one might have for a firearm - hunting, target shooting/competition, personal defense, home defense.
> 
> Thank you.




I can’t prove that SAM missles are “unsuitable” for traditionally lawful purposes either, can you? Well they’re banned. Or do you think they shouldn’t be banned? Even an ICBM could be used for target practice, don’t you think? 
This is MY point, that you say traditional lawful purposes, and yet I could include so much that all weapons would be included. So there’s clearly something wrong with your argument, UNLESS you’re claiming SAMs and other such weapons are protected. But I doubt you’ll find many who’ll back you up.




> [
> 
> The limitation is based on the wording. Ie, the US federal govt cannot stop an individual from keeping arms. Like I’ve said, if they allow certain arms at an affordable price, then what’s the issue? You’re allowed to keep arms.
> 
> Bear arms is limited to only the militia mentioned in article 1 of the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said -- at this point, its clear you're lying.
Click to expand...



So if I disagree with you I’m clearly lying? Er……


I’m not lying.

The 2A is a limit on the power of the federal govt.

What is the federal govt not allowed to do?

It’s not allowed to prevent people from owning weapons for one.

So if an individual has a legal weapon, is the govt acting unconstitutionally? No, clearly not.


Where am I lying here?





> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, at this point, you're just lying.
> 
> The protection for the right to USE a protected weapon is specifically noted in both the amendment and the jurisprudence.
> 
> Keep AND bear
> 
> Own AND use
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, where is “Own AND use” in the 2A. Really, I can’t see those words.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry - if you're going to contine to lie about this, there's no reason to continue.

Too bad, really.[/QUOTE]


Oh stop playing the little child who had his toy taken from him.


You have used Heller and NOTHING more, your argument is flimsy, reliant on a leap of faith which I just don’t get.


You don’t want to answer the question, fine, but why can’t you? You need to figure that one out for yourself.


----------



## frigidweirdo

M14 Shooter said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying the 2A doesn't protect the right to self defence...
> I'm saying the 2A protects the right to keep arms, not the right to use arms in self defence.
> 
> 
> 
> :roll:
> Based on what?
> And why do you continue to refuse to include "and bear" in the protections afforded by the 2nd?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Based on the fact that the 2A is all about "the militia", seeing as that's what it talks about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prefatory clause.
> DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
> "Right of the people"
> DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
Click to expand...


Posting websites does not constitute an answer.


----------



## Sallow

frigidweirdo said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Basically..yeah.
> 
> For now.
> 
> The argument should be that the 2nd Amendment is no longer necessary since we provide for a permanent military, which includes ground forces.
> 
> But adding an amendment that stipulates that citizens may have small arms for defense of the home isn't going to get anywhere.
> 
> So right now? While we have a great many judges that are in their seats because of the gun lobby? You are right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that argument wouldn't work at all. It's not just about having a military force in place of a permanent military.
> 
> Self defence will be an issue, but the main reason for the 2A is to protect *against the maladministration of the government. Ie, the ability to be able to take down the govt. *
Click to expand...


No it is not.

Nothing in the Constitution allows for that.


----------



## Sallow

Ernie S. said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is your brilliant restriction?
> 
> How do you justify that when you include the phrase that you so obviously want to ignore?
> 
> 
> 
> ]the right of the people to keep and bear Arms _*SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED*_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> its a definition -
> 
> there is no infringement against: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms".
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except that the 2nd Amendment makes no distinction what arms citizens have a right to keep and bear. Your limitation to bolt or lever actions with 6 round max capacity is an infringement.
> 
> 
> *in·fringe*
> _verb_ \in-ˈfrinj\
> : to do something that does not obey or follow (a rule, law, etc.) ( _chiefly US_ )
> 
> : to wrongly limit or restrict (something, such as another person's rights)
> 
> *in·fringed in·fring·ing*
> 
> *Full Definition of INFRINGE*
> transitive verb
> 1
> *:*  to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <_infringe_ a patent>
> 2
> _obsolete_ *:* defeat, frustrate
> intransitive verb
> *:* encroach —used with _on_ or _upon_ <_infringe_ on our rights>
Click to expand...




The Constitution has the exact same protocol for voting rights.

Yet you folks seek to limit those rights..

Funny that.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Sallow said:


> No, that argument wouldn't work at all. It's not just about having a military force in place of a permanent military.
> 
> Self defence will be an issue, but the main reason for the 2A is to protect *against the maladministration of the government. Ie, the ability to be able to take down the govt. *



No it is not.

Nothing in the Constitution allows for that.[/QUOTE]

Of course there isn't anything in the constitution that allows for that. That's not the point. The founders were stupid. 

Taking down the govt is the ultimate line of defence. 

But then did the founding fathers have anything in any constitution that allowed them to take down the British in America? No.......

You see where they might have got this idea?


----------



## Sallow

frigidweirdo said:


> Of course there isn't anything in the constitution that allows for that. That's not the point. The founders were stupid.
> 
> Taking down the govt is the ultimate line of defence.
> 
> But then did the founding fathers have anything in any constitution that allowed them to take down the British in America? No.......
> 
> You see where they might have got this idea?



That's ridiculous.

The Declaration of Independence was the document that outlined the grievance toward the British empire.

And folks "get that idea" because of the several instances of insurrection against the Federal Government, namely by Conservatives..like the Civil war.

And in my humble opinion, the consequences were not severe enough to quell that sentiment.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Sallow said:


> That's ridiculous.
> 
> The Declaration of Independence was the document that outlined the grievance toward the British empire.
> 
> And folks "get that idea" because of the several instances of insurrection against the Federal Government, namely by Conservatives..like the Civil war.
> 
> And in my humble opinion, the consequences were not severe enough to quell that sentiment.



Are you suggesting the 2A and the US constitution were written AFTER the civil war? 

You have to remember the constitution and the BoR were written in the shadow of the war of independence.


----------



## jon_berzerk

frigidweirdo said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> sure if they are in common use and useful to the military
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The whole point of the militia is the last line of defence. ie, when all else has failed you have the gun in the hands of people who join up the militia which has military leadership which then attempts to overthrow the bad regime.
> 
> If a weapon is "useful to the military" then it's probably not useful to the militia, unless they get lucky.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The miltia has no use for M9s, M16s or M240s?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> they are not military dontcha know --LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the National Guard doesn't have duel status, dontcha know --LOL
Click to expand...



certainly they do according to perpich 

the *state guard* does not have dual status


----------



## jon_berzerk

M14 Shooter said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I have stated, the right to arms, like all oither rights has inherent limits.
> 
> You have a right to own and use a firearm, protected by the constitution.  That doesnt mean laws against murder infringe on your right to own a use firearms because your right to same does not include the rightt to commit murder.
> 
> The state cannot infringe on the right -- it cannot place preconditions on the ecercise of the right not inherent to same, unless it can demonstrate that said precoindition is an effective, most narroly tailored and least restrictive means of achieving a  demonstrably compelling state interest - primarily, in its role of portecting the rights of others.
> 
> And so, i'm not sure of your point here.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, there are inherent limits. However a criminal who has left prison is not part of that inherent limit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lost the right through due process.   Irrelevant to the point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the state can’t normally infringe on the right, unless after due process. But you have to remember people are talking about the right not being infringed upon. Clearly it is being infringed upon.
> It’s not really much of an issue though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still not sure of your point here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> WOOOOW. You say not everyone has the right? Did I read that correctly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Established fact.  Not sure why you show surprise here.
> Children do not have the right because theu have not reached the age of majority.
> Felons do not have the right because it was removed through due process.
> (insert numerous other examples here).
> Just like the right to vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s clearly not an “established fact” and you haven’t even backed this claim up. So, you’re wrong. Children do have rights. They have limited rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right to arms is not one of them.   Established fact.
> 
> 
> 
> Felons clearly do have rights...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right to armms is not one of them.   Established fact.
> 
> 
> 
> But, certain rights can be infringed against after due process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you take awa  right thru due process, the right no longer exists and therefore cannot be iunfringed upon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you contiunually and deliberatly refuse to accept the fact that the 2nd protects a right to own and USE a firearm, both in its text - "keep and bear" and in its current jurisprudence - "and to use that arm"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact huh? Have you shown it’s a fact? No...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I cited the text in the 2nd and the hext in _Heller_ - Keep *and* bear, own *and* use.
> Established fact.
> Why do you continue with the charade?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It protects the right to own a firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Keep AND bear, own AND use.   You have not shown otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It protects the right to be in the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cite the text to that effect, especially as supported by _Heller_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, why do they need to make a right to use the weapon in an amendment about “the militia”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did not create a right to use a weapon, they protected it.
> 
> Prefatory clause:
> _ It is therefore entirely sensible that the __Second Amendment__ ’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right—unlike some other English rights—was codified in a written Constitution. Justice Breyer’s assertion that individual self-defense is merely a “subsidiary interest” of the right to keep and bear arms, see post, at 36, is profoundly mistaken. He bases that assertion solely upon the prologue—but that can only show that self-defense had little to do
> with the right’s codification; it was the central component of the right itself._
> DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the biggest argument against this is that the Bill of Rights, everything that was written down, concerned the govt. Rights were assumed to exist. But the BoR was merely taking powers away from the feds.
> Now, ownership of guns, well the feds can ban guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Federal government can ban "dangerouns annd unusual weapons" that are not suitable for any of the traditionally legal uses for a firearm.
> You have not in any way demonstrated that this means it can ban any class of firearm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just those that constitute "arms".
> I'm sure that the fact you can kill someone with a papercllip does not bring them under said term.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why? This makes no sense other than it happens to be very convenient for your own argument and nothing else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want to take the position that  the 2nd protects the right to own and use paperclips as a weapon, feel free.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You’re claiming self defence from the 2A without ever having proven that anyone ever spoke about the 2A and self defence in the same sentence during the debates, you’re claiming self defence based on one word and making a massive leap of faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Heller explains this quite well.   Have a read.
> DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> No...  it is limited when it harms others and/or places others in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.
> The exact same standard shoud apply to all rights - I'm sure you'd agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I agree. Do gun harm others?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simple ownership and possession of a firearm by those who have the right to do so hams no one and places no one in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.
> 
> If restrctions for all rights should be considered as they are for the 1st, as you said, do you not then disagree with restrictions on the simple ownership and possession on firearms by those who have the right to do so?.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need a permit to have a parade or other significant demonstration that uses public propetry - so, yes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you need a permit to not have troops quartered at home? Do you need a permit to ot be tortured? Do you need a permit to not have excessive bail?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You asked for an exampleof needing a permit to exercise the right to free speech.  You got one.
> dunno:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Traditionally lawful.  Distinct difference, made deliberatly.
> As you havent addressed my response, and so I assume my response was acceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So who decides what is “traditionally lawful”?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doesn'tt matter - there's a difference between what you said - "Lawful" - and what the law says - "traditionally lawful".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't read _Heller_?
> _The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster_
> Your response thusly falls flat on its face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it doesn’t.
> What they’re saying is that the DC law is unconstitutional because it prevents people from keeping arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point, of course is that there's no way to argue that handguns are "dangerousn and unusual weapons" which can be banned when the court states expolicty that banning them vuiolates the constitution under ANY level of scrutiny.
> 
> Note too that the court stated that the DC law also violates the constitution because the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to *use* arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You’re making a claim that is different from this. You’re saying the 2A protects the right to self defence with a weapon. And yet you’ve got almost nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Current jurisprudence is hardly nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> A handgun isn’t dangerous?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dangerous AND unusual.
> Clearly, handguns do not fall into this category (see above).
> Feel free to deomonstrate than any other class of firearms does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So it’s basically unusual then, what’s the point of the term “dangerous” then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All weapons are "dangerous" and so the inclusion of the term must mean someting other than firearms.
> So, again:  Feel free to deomonstrate than any other class of firearms falls into those categories.
> 
> Personally? I think the court refers to weapons that present a clear present and imminent danger to others simply by their presence --  VX gas, for isntance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no reaon you cannot, with full efficacy, use a machinegun for any number of the traditionally lawful porposes one might have for a firearm - hunting, target shooting/competition, personal defense, home defense.
> Can you demonstrate otherwise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well I’d say there are lots of weapons you could use for “traditionally lawful purposes”, which I’d assume includes hunting. Hand grenades, land mines, I guess I could hunt with a SAM missile too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you can NOT demonstrate that machinegus are unsuitable for any number of the traditionally lawful porposes one might have for a firearm - hunting, target shooting/competition, personal defense, home defense.
> Thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, its not it.  It cannot infringe (see above) on the ownership and use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove use. Come on, you’ve said it enough to require some kind of evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have repeatedly cited the text of the 2nd and _Heller_, which clearly, by the inclusion of the "and" conjunction, both cover the USE of firearms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The limitation on this is quite low.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please demonstrate this to be true.
> Be sure to place this limitation in context with the protections afforded other rights and how they differ from the protections afforded by the 2nd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The limitation is based on the wording. Ie, the US federal govt cannot stop an individual from keeping arms. Like I’ve said, if they allow certain arms at an affordable price, then what’s the issue? You’re allowed to keep arms.
> Bear arms is limited to only the militia mentioned in article 1 of the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said -- at this point, its clear you're lying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really.  Please explain how Heller allows the government to ban weapons that are -not- dangerous and unusual but are suitable for traditionally lawful purposes.  Be sure to cite the relevant parts of the text.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re moving to something else. We’re talking about a prohibition on the US govt. Now you’re talking about the power that the US govt has. Why the switch? This isn’t about the 2A.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, so you cannot explain how _Heller_ allows the government to ban weapons that are -not- dangerous and unusual but are suitable for traditionally lawful purposes.
> Thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, at this point, you're just lying.
> The protection for the right to USE a protected weapon is specifically noted in both the amendment and the jurisprudence.
> Keep AND bear
> Own AND use
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, where is “Own AND use” in the 2A. Really, I can’t see those words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sorry - if you're going to contine to lie about this, there's no reason to continue.
> Too bad, really.
Click to expand...



Scalia in an interview about the Heller opinion 

*“Obviously, the Amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried -- it’s to keep and ‘bear,’ so it doesn’t apply to cannons -- but I suppose there are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided,” Scalia said.*


----------



## Clementine

No, liberals don't want to take our guns.   They just want to trash the 2nd amendment.    And if you say they want to take our guns, they will ridicule you and pretend they don't.   Then they turn around and say that's what they should do.   It's a vicious cycle, but libs really want us to give up our guns and would rather we didn't object or criticize them for it.   How frustrating for them that the majority don't see things their way and continue to fight them.


----------



## jon_berzerk

dont kid yourself they want your guns


----------



## Ernie S.

frigidweirdo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except for those that specifically "shall not be infringed"
> 
> An interesting read:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Does the Constitution Only Apply to Citizens? or. . . Are Illegal Immigrants Afforded Constitutional Rights?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So criminals, the insane etc don't have the right infringed then?
Click to expand...

Infringed....? No More like disenfranchised. They, through their own actions or conditions, have shown they no longer deserve certain rights. I am not a felon, nor am I insane. MY right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Ernie S. said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except for those that specifically "shall not be infringed"
> 
> An interesting read:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Does the Constitution Only Apply to Citizens? or. . . Are Illegal Immigrants Afforded Constitutional Rights?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So criminals, the insane etc don't have the right infringed then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Infringed....? No More like disenfranchised. They, through their own actions or conditions, have shown they no longer deserve certain rights. I am not a felon, nor am I insane. MY right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...



through due process


----------



## frigidweirdo

jon_berzerk said:


> certainly they do according to perpich
> 
> the *state guard* does not have dual status



Well I'm not talking about the state guard am I? I'm talking about the National Guard.

You do realise burritos don't have duel militia/army status as well don't you?


----------



## jon_berzerk

frigidweirdo said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> certainly they do according to perpich
> 
> the *state guard* does not have dual status
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I'm not talking about the state guard am I? I'm talking about the National Guard.
> 
> You do realise burritos don't have duel militia/army status as well don't you?
Click to expand...



the national guard has dual enlistment if you say otherwise you are 

simply wrong


----------



## frigidweirdo

jon_berzerk said:


> Scalia in an interview about the Heller opinion
> 
> *“Obviously, the Amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried -- it’s to keep and ‘bear,’ so it doesn’t apply to cannons -- but I suppose there are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided,” Scalia said.*



But what's the point here, that you're allowed a weapon that can be handheld and nothing more? So anything handheld can use used for "traditional lawful purpose" is going to be protected, regardless of whether it's "dangerous" or not. And what is "unusual"?????

So Scalia has his opinion, he's a Supreme Court justice with potentially a bit of bias.... He's certainly not definitive to any argument.


----------



## frigidweirdo

jon_berzerk said:


> the national guard has dual enlistment if you say otherwise you are
> 
> simply wrong



What are you drinking? Seriously? I've been saying it has dual status all along.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Ernie S. said:


> So criminals, the insane etc don't have the right infringed then?


Infringed....? No More like disenfranchised. They, through their own actions or conditions, have shown they no longer deserve certain rights. I am not a felon, nor am I insane. MY right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[/QUOTE]

Disenfranchised just means losing the vote. 

Yes, through their actions they are having their rights infringed upon. Not taken away, infringed upon. 

But it doesn't say the RKBA shall not be infringed for those who haven't committed a felony, it says for all people, right?


----------



## jon_berzerk

frigidweirdo said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> the national guard has dual enlistment if you say otherwise you are
> 
> simply wrong
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you drinking? Seriously? I've been saying it has dual status all along.
Click to expand...



no what you attempted to say is that the feds could activate everyone into the militia 

then strip away their arms which is false


----------



## jon_berzerk

frigidweirdo said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scalia in an interview about the Heller opinion
> 
> *“Obviously, the Amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried -- it’s to keep and ‘bear,’ so it doesn’t apply to cannons -- but I suppose there are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided,” Scalia said.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But what's the point here, that you're allowed a weapon that can be handheld and nothing more? So anything handheld can use used for "traditional lawful purpose" is going to be protected, regardless of whether it's "dangerous" or not. And what is "unusual"?????
> 
> So Scalia has his opinion, he's a Supreme Court justice with potentially a bit of bias.... He's certainly not definitive to any argument.
Click to expand...



--LOL


----------



## frigidweirdo

jon_berzerk said:


> no what you attempted to say is that the feds could activate everyone into the militia
> 
> then strip away their arms which is false



They can activate everyone, I didn't say at the same time. They can strip away their arms.

However this isn't the point. It gets very frustrating when someone picks up on a point that doesn't matter and completely ignores the main point that is being made.


----------



## frigidweirdo

jon_berzerk said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scalia in an interview about the Heller opinion
> 
> *“Obviously, the Amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried -- it’s to keep and ‘bear,’ so it doesn’t apply to cannons -- but I suppose there are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided,” Scalia said.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But what's the point here, that you're allowed a weapon that can be handheld and nothing more? So anything handheld can use used for "traditional lawful purpose" is going to be protected, regardless of whether it's "dangerous" or not. And what is "unusual"?????
> 
> So Scalia has his opinion, he's a Supreme Court justice with potentially a bit of bias.... He's certainly not definitive to any argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> --LOL
Click to expand...


Great post....... NOT!


----------



## jon_berzerk

frigidweirdo said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scalia in an interview about the Heller opinion
> 
> *“Obviously, the Amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried -- it’s to keep and ‘bear,’ so it doesn’t apply to cannons -- but I suppose there are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided,” Scalia said.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But what's the point here, that you're allowed a weapon that can be handheld and nothing more? So anything handheld can use used for "traditional lawful purpose" is going to be protected, regardless of whether it's "dangerous" or not. And what is "unusual"?????
> 
> So Scalia has his opinion, he's a Supreme Court justice with potentially a bit of bias.... He's certainly not definitive to any argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> --LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great post....... NOT!
Click to expand...



ditto 

--LOL


----------



## jon_berzerk

frigidweirdo said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> no what you attempted to say is that the feds could activate everyone into the militia
> 
> then strip away their arms which is false
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can activate everyone, I didn't say at the same time. They can strip away their arms.
> 
> However this isn't the point. It gets very frustrating when someone picks up on a point that doesn't matter and completely ignores the main point that is being made.
Click to expand...


yes your point does not matter 

the right to owning a firearm is not connected to the militia


----------



## M14 Shooter

frigidweirdo said:


> Oh stop playing the little child who had his toy taken from him.


Uh-huh.
Since it is clear you will only choose to be wrong and lie about established facts and proven points, it is clear I need waste no more time on you.  Into the pit.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Ernie S. said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rights are for citizens. Children have not matured to the point where they can be depended upon to exercise the right to vote OR carry a gun. The insane and the felonious have surrendered that right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Children have limited rights.
> 
> The insane and felons still have the right, they haven't surrendered the right at all. They have had their right infringed upon through due process. It's as simple as that. That is the theory of rights. *Rights can be infringed upon.*
> 
> Even the Chinese are considered to have these rights, but they're just being infringed. Non-citizens have rights the same as citizens, it's a matter of whether the right is infringed for non-citizens or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except for those that specifically "shall not be infringed"
> 
> An interesting read:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Does the Constitution Only Apply to Citizens? or. . . Are Illegal Immigrants Afforded Constitutional Rights?*
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Interesting but wrong, as the Constitution indeed applies to all persons, including those undocumented.


And there's a sound reason for this, consistent with our republican form of government, where we do not want bureaucrats, politicians, and simple majorities deciding who is or is not a citizen, or who will or will not be afforded his civil rights.


14th Amendment jurisprudence is also consistent with the doctrine of inalienable rights, where our rights manifest as a consequence of our humanity, rights that can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man:


“The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. This Court's prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are "persons" protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which Clauses do not include the phrase "within its jurisdiction," cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. Nor do the logic and history of the Fourteenth Amendment support such a construction. Instead, use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory.”


FindLaw Cases and Codes


Consequently, those undocumented are persons, human beings, possessing their inalienable rights as persons, which manifest once subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and entitled to the fundamental right of due process (see also _Boumediene v. Bush_ (2008), reaffirming the due process rights of Guantanamo detainees).


By affording those undocumented their due process rights in accordance with the 14th Amendment, therefore, we in turn safeguard our civil liberties as citizens.


With regard to the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment, as with all other rights they are inalienable but not absolute, and subject to reasonable restrictions by government (_DC v. Heller_ (2008)), consequently felons and those mentally ill may be prohibited from possessing firearms, as well as those who are undocumented. But before the state restricts these rights each person is nonetheless entitled to due process to challenge the state's efforts to limit a right, where the burden rests most heavily on the state to justify its desire to do so.


----------



## westwall

frigidweirdo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Duel status?
> 
> Pistols at 10 paces?
> 
> Or maybe dual pistols at 20 paces?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dual status as in they're in both the militia and military.
Click to expand...






There's no such thing.  Every able bodied male who is between 18 and 60 or there abouts is in the unorganized militia.  The various National Guards ARE the US military.  They are not militia at all.


----------



## frigidweirdo

M14 Shooter said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh stop playing the little child who had his toy taken from him.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh-huh.
> Since it is clear you will only choose to be wrong and lie about established facts and proven points, it is clear I need waste no more time on you.  Into the pit.
Click to expand...


Clearly you have no desire to actually learn something here. What "established facts" are you talking about here? Because I don't really remember too many of those. 

You have used one source and one source only.


----------



## frigidweirdo

westwall said:


> Dual status as in they're in both the militia and military.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no such thing.  Every able bodied male who is between 18 and 60 or there abouts is in the unorganized militia.  The various National Guards ARE the US military.  They are not militia at all.
Click to expand...


No such thing other than the FACT that this has been in existence for quite a while now. 

In 1902 there was the Dick Act which made the National Guard as the organised militia, and the unorganised militia exists merely as a tool to make the US govt act constitutionally when it comes to "bear arms", because all people can be in the militia, but not all can be in the National Guard. 

handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA420536 (this will download the document)

"The paper will offer three options. The first option is to eliminate the Guard’s state status by merging it into the Reserves. The second option is to maintain the status quo, continuing the National Guard’s dual status. Finally, the third and recommended option is to keep the dual status of the Guard, but to revise the law to allow the DOD to federalize the Guard more easily."

"The National Defense Act of 1916 reorganized the military, federalized the Organized Militia (now called the National Guard), and created the Reserves."

"National Guard members were now required to take two oaths on joining, one to the state and one to the federal
government."

By the way, this is written by Charles T. Huguelet, Lt Col Alaska Air National Guard 
4 April 2002 

I guess he might know if he has had to take two oaths, thereby having dual status with the feds and the state. 

So when they are part of the state they are the organised militia.


----------



## M14 Shooter

westwall said:


> There's no such thing.  Every able bodied male who is between 18 and 60 or there abouts is in the unorganized militia.  The various National Guards ARE the US military.  They are not militia at all.


Ultimately, while described under federal law as the "organized militia" the NG is a federal force that the governors can call up for various tasks.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

M14 Shooter said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no such thing.  Every able bodied male who is between 18 and 60 or there abouts is in the unorganized militia.  The various National Guards ARE the US military.  They are not militia at all.
> 
> 
> 
> Ultimately, while described under federal law as the "organized militia" the NG is a federal force that the governors can call up for various tasks.
Click to expand...

The unorganized militia is not connected with the national guard.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

frigidweirdo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dual status as in they're in both the militia and military.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no such thing.  Every able bodied male who is between 18 and 60 or there abouts is in the unorganized militia.  The various National Guards ARE the US military.  They are not militia at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No such thing other than the FACT that this has been in existence for quite a while now.
> 
> In 1902 there was the Dick Act which made the National Guard as the organised militia, and the unorganised militia exists merely as a tool to make the US govt act constitutionally when it comes to "bear arms", because all people can be in the militia, but not all can be in the National Guard.
> 
> handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA420536 (this will download the document)
> 
> "The paper will offer three options. The first option is to eliminate the Guard’s state status by merging it into the Reserves. The second option is to maintain the status quo, continuing the National Guard’s dual status. Finally, the third and recommended option is to keep the dual status of the Guard, but to revise the law to allow the DOD to federalize the Guard more easily."
> 
> "The National Defense Act of 1916 reorganized the military, federalized the Organized Militia (now called the National Guard), and created the Reserves."
> 
> "National Guard members were now required to take two oaths on joining, one to the state and one to the federal
> government."
> 
> By the way, this is written by Charles T. Huguelet, Lt Col Alaska Air National Guard
> 4 April 2002
> 
> I guess he might know if he has had to take two oaths, thereby having dual status with the feds and the state.
> 
> So when they are part of the state they are the organised militia.
Click to expand...

There is a thing called the unorganized militia not connected with the national guard.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

M14 Shooter said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no such thing.  Every able bodied male who is between 18 and 60 or there abouts is in the unorganized militia.  The various National Guards ARE the US military.  They are not militia at all.
> 
> 
> 
> Ultimately, while described under federal law as the "organized militia" the NG is a federal force that the governors can call up for various tasks.
Click to expand...


Yes, the NG USED to be the state force that the feds could occasionally nationalize but that has changed, they are now for all intents and purposes a department of the Army.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rights are for citizens. Children have not matured to the point where they can be depended upon to exercise the right to vote OR carry a gun. The insane and the felonious have surrendered that right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Children have limited rights.
> 
> The insane and felons still have the right, they haven't surrendered the right at all. They have had their right infringed upon through due process. It's as simple as that. That is the theory of rights. *Rights can be infringed upon.*
> 
> Even the Chinese are considered to have these rights, but they're just being infringed. Non-citizens have rights the same as citizens, it's a matter of whether the right is infringed for non-citizens or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except for those that specifically "shall not be infringed"
> 
> An interesting read:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Does the Constitution Only Apply to Citizens? or. . . Are Illegal Immigrants Afforded Constitutional Rights?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting but wrong, as the Constitution indeed applies to all persons, including those undocumented.
> 
> 
> And there's a sound reason for this, consistent with our republican form of government, where we do not want bureaucrats, politicians, and simple majorities deciding who is or is not a citizen, or who will or will not be afforded his civil rights.
> 
> 
> 14th Amendment jurisprudence is also consistent with the doctrine of inalienable rights, where our rights manifest as a consequence of our humanity, rights that can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man:
> 
> 
> “The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. This Court's prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are "persons" protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which Clauses do not include the phrase "within its jurisdiction," cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. Nor do the logic and history of the Fourteenth Amendment support such a construction. Instead, use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory.”
> 
> 
> FindLaw Cases and Codes
> 
> 
> Consequently, those undocumented are persons, human beings, possessing their inalienable rights as persons, which manifest once subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and entitled to the fundamental right of due process (see also _Boumediene v. Bush_ (2008), reaffirming the due process rights of Guantanamo detainees).
> 
> 
> By affording those undocumented their due process rights in accordance with the 14th Amendment, therefore, we in turn safeguard our civil liberties as citizens.
> 
> 
> With regard to the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment, as with all other rights they are inalienable but not absolute, and subject to reasonable restrictions by government (_DC v. Heller_ (2008)), consequently felons and those mentally ill may be prohibited from possessing firearms, as well as those who are undocumented. But before the state restricts these rights each person is nonetheless entitled to due process to challenge the state's efforts to limit a right, where the burden rests most heavily on the state to justify its desire to do so.
Click to expand...

inalienable rights are God given the government can't limit or take away what they never had control over.


----------



## frigidweirdo

bigrebnc1775 said:


> There is a thing called the unorganized militia not connected with the national guard.



Yes, a very convenient thing to stop people demanding to be in the militia, because it's the right of people to be in the militia (bear arms), so the US govt simply made people, with the Dick Act, be a part of it, without doing anything other than saying "you're a part of it" and then "but you're not part of the National Guard, haha, unless we let you in".


----------



## frigidweirdo

bigrebnc1775 said:


> inalienable rights are God given the government can't limit or take away what they never had control over.



Well, the govt CAN infringe on them, and does.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

frigidweirdo said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> inalienable rights are God given the government can't limit or take away what they never had control over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the govt CAN infringe on them, and does.
Click to expand...

Not when you put a bullet in the idiot that try's to take them away without due process.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

frigidweirdo said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a thing called the unorganized militia not connected with the national guard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, a very convenient thing to stop people demanding to be in the militia, because it's the right of people to be in the militia (bear arms), so the US govt simply made people, with the Dick Act, be a part of it, without doing anything other than saying "you're a part of it" and then "but you're not part of the National Guard, haha, unless we let you in".
Click to expand...

I am in the militia even before the "dickless act" all Americans were part of the militia.


----------



## regent

Two Thumbs said:


> sfcalifornia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> A well armed popalance is respected by government
> A disarmed popalance is dictated to by government
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please.  What do you think, congresspeople sit around and say, "ooo we'd better not pass that law...  Matthew will get his gun and shoot us!!"  Give me a frickin' break.  Go ahead and try to form a militia group or whatever.  See how far you get before you're all squashed like bugs.
> 
> It's populace btw, not populance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you saying you want freedom loving, Constitution following Americans to get killed?
Click to expand...


None of the rights in the Bill of Rights are absolute. The people that use guns to threaten the government are safe only because the government is reluctant to kill Americans. That practice has not always been followed and will not always follow in the future. There may come a time in the near future that the nation decides that allowing armed citizens to challenge the government is no longer a good practice and bingo.


----------



## frigidweirdo

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Not when you put a bullet in the idiot that try's to take them away without due process.



Only, you've just pointed out that they can take them away with due process, hohoho.


----------



## frigidweirdo

bigrebnc1775 said:


> I am in the militia even before the "dickless act" all Americans were part of the militia.



You're wrong.

Firstly, people were in the militia because of militia acts. The first being the 1792 militia act. The Dick Act was an attempt at destroying the militia made up of common people with not much clue about how to be in the armed forces. They knew they needed to keep within the constitutional boundaries of allowing individuals to be in the militia (bear arms), so they made a militia that exists on paper and not much more, to prevent people demanding to be in the National Guard.

Not ALL Americans were in the militia, at no time have 100% of Americans been in the militia. At present it is men between certain ages and women who are in the National Guard. Women are not automatically in the militia, never have been. Might be in the future, but aren't now.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

frigidweirdo said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am in the militia even before the "dickless act" all Americans were part of the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're wrong.
> 
> Firstly, people were in the militia because of militia acts. The first being the 1792 militia act. The Dick Act was an attempt at destroying the militia made up of common people with not much clue about how to be in the armed forces. They knew they needed to keep within the constitutional boundaries of allowing individuals to be in the militia (bear arms), so they made a militia that exists on paper and not much more, to prevent people demanding to be in the National Guard.
> 
> Not ALL Americans were in the militia, at no time have 100% of Americans been in the militia. At present it is men between certain ages and women who are in the National Guard. Women are not automatically in the militia, never have been. Might be in the future, but aren't now.
Click to expand...

Do not ever challenge me on this subject I am about to make you look like a fucking fool
*10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes*
(a) The militia of the United States consists of  able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
*(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.*


----------



## bigrebnc1775

frigidweirdo said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not when you put a bullet in the idiot that try's to take them away without due process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only, you've just pointed out that they can take them away with due process, hohoho.
Click to expand...

You surrender your rights no one takes them.


----------



## frigidweirdo

bigrebnc1775 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am in the militia even before the "dickless act" all Americans were part of the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're wrong.
> 
> Firstly, people were in the militia because of militia acts. The first being the 1792 militia act. The Dick Act was an attempt at destroying the militia made up of common people with not much clue about how to be in the armed forces. They knew they needed to keep within the constitutional boundaries of allowing individuals to be in the militia (bear arms), so they made a militia that exists on paper and not much more, to prevent people demanding to be in the National Guard.
> 
> Not ALL Americans were in the militia, at no time have 100% of Americans been in the militia. At present it is men between certain ages and women who are in the National Guard. Women are not automatically in the militia, never have been. Might be in the future, but aren't now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do not ever challenge me on this subject I am about to make you look like a fucking fool
> *10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes*
> (a) The militia of the United States consists of  able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> (b) The classes of the militia are—
> (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
> *(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.*
Click to expand...



Holy moly. Someone who thinks they know EVERYTHING and makes themselves look like a COMPLETE FOOL. 

What did I say? Not all Americans are in the militia because women aren't. And you reply back saying I'm a fool and you know everything with the law that says "WOMEN ARE NOT AUTOMATICALLY IN THE MILITIA".

Oh boy, this is priceless. 




> and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.



Read it. Read it again, and again, and again. 

A) says who's in the militia. 
B) says the two classes of militia. You do realise that the unorganised militia is anyone who is in the group of A and not in b1 right? Right? RIGHT? 

Give me a wall to smack my head against.


----------



## frigidweirdo

bigrebnc1775 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not when you put a bullet in the idiot that try's to take them away without due process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only, you've just pointed out that they can take them away with due process, hohoho.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You surrender your rights no one takes them.
Click to expand...


Actually I'll use correct terminology, they can be infringed upon after due process. People don't usually surrender their rights. If they did, then in prison you'd have no rights, and that's clearly not the case.

Rights are assumed to be held by everyone, no matter where. They cannot be destroyed or taken away, just infringed upon. So, in theory, the Chinese govt is infringing on the right to keep and bear arms for all its citizens.


----------



## M14 Shooter

regent said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sfcalifornia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> A well armed popalance is respected by government
> A disarmed popalance is dictated to by government
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please.  What do you think, congresspeople sit around and say, "ooo we'd better not pass that law...  Matthew will get his gun and shoot us!!"  Give me a frickin' break.  Go ahead and try to form a militia group or whatever.  See how far you get before you're all squashed like bugs.
> 
> It's populace btw, not populance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you saying you want freedom loving, Constitution following Americans to get killed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of the rights in the Bill of Rights are absolute. The people that use guns to threaten the government are safe only because the government is reluctant to kill Americans. That practice has not always been followed and will not always follow in the future. There may come a time in the near future that the nation decides that allowing armed citizens to challenge the government is no longer a good practice and bingo.
Click to expand...

What does any of that have to do with simple ownership, possession and lawful use?


----------



## regent

M14 Shooter said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sfcalifornia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> A well armed popalance is respected by government
> A disarmed popalance is dictated to by government
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please.  What do you think, congresspeople sit around and say, "ooo we'd better not pass that law...  Matthew will get his gun and shoot us!!"  Give me a frickin' break.  Go ahead and try to form a militia group or whatever.  See how far you get before you're all squashed like bugs.
> 
> It's populace btw, not populance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you saying you want freedom loving, Constitution following Americans to get killed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of the rights in the Bill of Rights are absolute. The people that use guns to threaten the government are safe only because the government is reluctant to kill Americans. That practice has not always been followed and will not always follow in the future. There may come a time in the near future that the nation decides that allowing armed citizens to challenge the government is no longer a good practice and bingo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does any of that have to do with simple ownership, possession and lawful use?
Click to expand...

Simple ownership, possession and lawful use, may be subject to change as new cases or new laws arrive, and the changes may be in response to events that are now taking place.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Two Thumbs said:


> fyi;  the Second Amendment allows you to have the other amendments.
> 
> For those totally ignorant of history


Nonsense.


The rights enshrined in the Second Amendment protect an individual right to own firearms pursuant to the right to self-defense.


Our civil liberties are safeguarded by the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law, having nothing to do whatsoever with government being 'afraid' of a gun-owning population – the notion of government refraining from 'tyranny' solely as a consequence of a gun-owning population is unfounded, ridiculous, and inane.


Moreover, the Second Amendment doesn't 'trump' the First, a minority of citizens who incorrectly and subjectively perceive the 'government' to be 'tyrannical' do not have the right to ignore the First Amendment rights of the majority to petition the Government for a redress of grievances through either the political process or legal process, and seek to 'overthrow' a lawfully and constitutionally elected government representing the will of the majority of the people.


----------



## frigidweirdo

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Nonsense.
> 
> 
> The rights enshrined in the Second Amendment protect an individual right to own firearms pursuant to the right to self-defense.
> 
> 
> Our civil liberties are safeguarded by the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law, having nothing to do whatsoever with government being 'afraid' of a gun-owning population – the notion of government refraining from 'tyranny' solely as a consequence of a gun-owning population is unfounded, ridiculous, and inane.
> 
> 
> Moreover, the Second Amendment doesn't 'trump' the First, a minority of citizens who incorrectly and subjectively perceive the 'government' to be 'tyrannical' do not have the right to ignore the First Amendment rights of the majority to petition the Government for a redress of grievances through either the political process or legal process, and seek to 'overthrow' a lawfully and constitutionally elected government representing the will of the majority of the people.



No, the Right to Keep arms has nothing to do with self defence. I challenge you to find anything that the founders said linking the right to keep arms in the 2A with self defence. I bet you can't. 
The right to keep arms is the right of an individual to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply of weapons. 
The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia so the militia has a ready supply of personnel to use those weapons (guns don't kill people, people do, right?)

The amendment is clearly about protecting the militia. The argument used for it not protecting the militia is they claim it's not a collective right, and it's not, but that doesn't mean it doesn't protect the militia. 

The amendment talks about the militia, the founding fathers spoke about the militia when they discussed this, and never once spoke about self defence.


----------



## Iceweasel

regent said:


> None of the rights in the Bill of Rights are absolute. The people that use guns to threaten the government are safe only because the government is reluctant to kill Americans. That practice has not always been followed and will not always follow in the future. There may come a time in the near future that the nation decides that allowing armed citizens to challenge the government is no longer a good practice and bingo.


Bingo? Most LEOs are 2nd Amendment friendly and are sworn to uphold the Constitution. So where's your Bingo? How does that play out? The government won't/can't decide it. Only enough morons voting away their rights.


----------



## M14 Shooter

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> fyi;  the Second Amendment allows you to have the other amendments.
> 
> For those totally ignorant of history
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> The rights enshrined in the Second Amendment protect an individual right to own firearms pursuant to the right to self-defense.
Click to expand...

As well as all of the other traditionally lawful purposes one has for a firearm.
Why do you always leave that out?


----------



## M14 Shooter

regent said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sfcalifornia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> A well armed popalance is respected by government
> A disarmed popalance is dictated to by government
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please.  What do you think, congresspeople sit around and say, "ooo we'd better not pass that law...  Matthew will get his gun and shoot us!!"  Give me a frickin' break.  Go ahead and try to form a militia group or whatever.  See how far you get before you're all squashed like bugs.
> 
> It's populace btw, not populance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you saying you want freedom loving, Constitution following Americans to get killed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of the rights in the Bill of Rights are absolute. The people that use guns to threaten the government are safe only because the government is reluctant to kill Americans. That practice has not always been followed and will not always follow in the future. There may come a time in the near future that the nation decides that allowing armed citizens to challenge the government is no longer a good practice and bingo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does any of that have to do with simple ownership, possession and lawful use?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simple ownership, possession and lawful use, may be subject to change as new cases or new laws arrive, and the changes may be in response to events that are now taking place.
Click to expand...

You don't understand the question.   That's OK.


----------



## frigidweirdo

M14 Shooter said:


> As well as all of the other traditionally lawful purposes one has for a firearm.
> Why do you always leave that out?



The amendment doesn't necessarily protect these things. They are just protected similar to other things in the Bill or Rights, or not, the problem is no one really knows what "traditionally lawful purposes" are, and how the courts would protect them. 

Self defence is protected, but this is from other parts of the Bill of Rights anyway. 
Hunting is not protected
Carry and conceal is not protected

So........


----------



## regent

Iceweasel said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of the rights in the Bill of Rights are absolute. The people that use guns to threaten the government are safe only because the government is reluctant to kill Americans. That practice has not always been followed and will not always follow in the future. There may come a time in the near future that the nation decides that allowing armed citizens to challenge the government is no longer a good practice and bingo.
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo? Most LEOs are 2nd Amendment friendly and are sworn to uphold the Constitution. So where's your Bingo? How does that play out? The government won't/can't decide it. Only enough morons voting away their rights.
Click to expand...

The bingo played out in the Whiskey Rebellion, the veteran' bonus army, Kent State and numerous other incidents. When enough Americans feel a threat the bingo demand increases.


----------



## Iceweasel

regent said:


> The bingo played out in the Whiskey Rebellion, the veteran' bonus army, Kent State and numerous other incidents. When enough Americans feel a threat the bingo demand increases.


Bingo for Bozos huh? Last I checked, my guns are still here.


----------



## Ernie S.

Sallow said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Basically..yeah.
> 
> For now.
> 
> The argument should be that the 2nd Amendment is no longer necessary since we provide for a permanent military, which includes ground forces.
> 
> But adding an amendment that stipulates that citizens may have small arms for defense of the home isn't going to get anywhere.
> 
> So right now? While we have a great many judges that are in their seats because of the gun lobby? You are right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that argument wouldn't work at all. It's not just about having a military force in place of a permanent military.
> 
> Self defence will be an issue, but the main reason for the 2A is to protect *against the maladministration of the government. Ie, the ability to be able to take down the govt. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it is not.
> 
> Nothing in the Constitution allows for that.
Click to expand...

The very core of our existence as a free and independent country says that it is.

Perhaps you have read the Declaration of Independence?


> That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government



The fact that the Constitution doesn't spell it out it immaterial. The framers expected no such need if the Constitution were followed.
They were all honorable men. They didn't expect or foresee Progressivism.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

frigidweirdo said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am in the militia even before the "dickless act" all Americans were part of the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're wrong.
> 
> Firstly, people were in the militia because of militia acts. The first being the 1792 militia act. The Dick Act was an attempt at destroying the militia made up of common people with not much clue about how to be in the armed forces. They knew they needed to keep within the constitutional boundaries of allowing individuals to be in the militia (bear arms), so they made a militia that exists on paper and not much more, to prevent people demanding to be in the National Guard.
> 
> Not ALL Americans were in the militia, at no time have 100% of Americans been in the militia. At present it is men between certain ages and women who are in the National Guard. Women are not automatically in the militia, never have been. Might be in the future, but aren't now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do not ever challenge me on this subject I am about to make you look like a fucking fool
> *10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes*
> (a) The militia of the United States consists of  able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> (b) The classes of the militia are—
> (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
> *(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Holy moly. Someone who thinks they know EVERYTHING and makes themselves look like a COMPLETE FOOL.
> 
> What did I say? Not all Americans are in the militia because women aren't. And you reply back saying I'm a fool and you know everything with the law that says "WOMEN ARE NOT AUTOMATICALLY IN THE MILITIA".
> 
> Oh boy, this is priceless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read it. Read it again, and again, and again.
> 
> A) says who's in the militia.
> B) says the two classes of militia. You do realise that the unorganised militia is anyone who is in the group of A and not in b1 right? Right? RIGHT?
> 
> Give me a wall to smack my head against.
Click to expand...

Actually this is what 2 A says 
*(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.*

You do understand what who are not members of means?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

I bet they wished they were armed.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

frigidweirdo said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> As well as all of the other traditionally lawful purposes one has for a firearm.
> Why do you always leave that out?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The amendment doesn't necessarily protect these things. They are just protected similar to other things in the Bill or Rights, or not, the problem is no one really knows what "traditionally lawful purposes" are, and how the courts would protect them.
> 
> Self defence is protected, but this is from other parts of the Bill of Rights anyway.
> Hunting is not protected
> Carry and conceal is not protected
> 
> So........
Click to expand...

There are only three purposes for the second amendment
Defense against the government 
Defense against an invasion
And self defense.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

frigidweirdo said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not when you put a bullet in the idiot that try's to take them away without due process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only, you've just pointed out that they can take them away with due process, hohoho.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You surrender your rights no one takes them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I'll use correct terminology, they can be infringed upon after due process. People don't usually surrender their rights. If they did, then in prison you'd have no rights, and that's clearly not the case.
> 
> Rights are assumed to be held by everyone, no matter where. They cannot be destroyed or taken away, just infringed upon. So, in theory, the Chinese govt is infringing on the right to keep and bear arms for all its citizens.
Click to expand...

Do you think I give a fuck about the Chinese government?


----------



## frigidweirdo

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Actually this is what 2 A says
> *(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.*
> 
> You do understand what who are not members of means?



What does it say? Read it.

"which consists of the members of the militia". Who are the members of the militia? Oh yeah, it tells you in part 1, which is men able bodied, 17-45 and women in the National Guard.

So let's re-write this.

2) the unorganized militia, which consists of able bodied men aged 17-45 who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

It's not so hard to read, surely?

It doesn't say "citizens who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia" does it?


----------



## turtledude

I am looking for some meaning in frigidweirdo's post # 2081.  Militia service has no real relevance to our right to keep and bear arms


----------



## frigidweirdo

bigrebnc1775 said:


> There are only three purposes for the second amendment
> Defense against the government
> Defense against an invasion
> And self defense.



Prove that the 2A was designed for self defence. 
Just saying it 100 times doesn't make it so, i want to see evidence. 

I can prove the other two quite easily.


----------



## turtledude

frigidweirdo said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are only three purposes for the second amendment
> Defense against the government
> Defense against an invasion
> And self defense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove that the 2A was designed for self defence.
> Just saying it 100 times doesn't make it so, i want to see evidence.
> 
> I can prove the other two quite easily.
Click to expand...


all that matters is that the federal government was not supposed to interfere with the right of the people to keep and bear arms.


----------



## frigidweirdo

turtledude said:


> I am looking for some meaning in frigidweirdo's post # 2081.  Militia service has no real relevance to our right to keep and bear arms



No it doesn't. I'm trying to clear up a point which seems to be getting in the way.

Actually the Dick Act solved a problem of making the militia more professional while still maintaining the right to bear arms for people, ie, the right to be in the militia or "militia duty" or "render military service" as the founding fathers used synonymously with "bear arms"!


----------



## frigidweirdo

turtledude said:


> all that matters is that the federal government was not supposed to interfere with the right of the people to keep and bear arms.



But then we're discussing what this right is, right? A lot of people believe they know what things are, but quite clearly people have a view that is not based on evidence, facts or reality, but what they want it to be. But an amendment surely isn't what you want it to be, but what it is. 

The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.


----------



## frigidweirdo

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Do you think I give a fuck about the Chinese government?



And you don't seem to "give a fuck" about human rights either, because the point wasn't about the Chinese government, the point was about rights, but seeing as you completely side stepped the point and went for an idiotic post which has no relevance to anything here, then we end up at a dead end. 

Nice job.


----------



## turtledude

frigidweirdo said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am looking for some meaning in frigidweirdo's post # 2081.  Militia service has no real relevance to our right to keep and bear arms
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't. I'm trying to clear up a point which seems to be getting in the way.
> 
> Actually the Dick Act solved a problem of making the militia more professional while still maintaining the right to bear arms for people, ie, the right to be in the militia or "militia duty" or "render military service" as the founding fathers used synonymously with "bear arms"!
Click to expand...


here is the problem liberal gun banners have with playing "what does the constitution says"

even if you were to prove that the 2A was intended only to protect the ability of those in the militia to be armed you still LOSE on two other grounds

Like it or not, the use of the commerce clause as a federal gun control empowerment clause is bogus   True, FDR and his minions managed to pull that crap off but its dishonest and more and more states are passing statutes attacking that.  

secondly, there is the 9th and10th amendments which 1) recognize the other rights and 2) prohibit the federal government from acting in areas it does not have jurisdiction

the Heller decision has rejected the silly claim one must be in the militia to have standing to object to federal gun encroachments.   That is not a new thing because  the MILLER court did not dismiss Miller's argument on STANDING


----------



## turtledude

frigidweirdo said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> all that matters is that the federal government was not supposed to interfere with the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But then we're discussing what this right is, right? A lot of people believe they know what things are, but quite clearly people have a view that is not based on evidence, facts or reality, but what they want it to be. But an amendment surely isn't what you want it to be, but what it is.
> 
> The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.
Click to expand...



Opinion noted and rejected as not correct.  Sorry that is completely bogus.


----------



## frigidweirdo

turtledude said:


> here is the problem liberal gun banners have with playing "what does the constitution says"
> 
> even if you were to prove that the 2A was intended only to protect the ability of those in the militia to be armed you still LOSE on two other grounds
> 
> Like it or not, the use of the commerce clause as a federal gun control empowerment clause is bogus   True, FDR and his minions managed to pull that crap off but its dishonest and more and more states are passing statutes attacking that.
> 
> secondly, there is the 9th and10th amendments which 1) recognize the other rights and 2) prohibit the federal government from acting in areas it does not have jurisdiction
> 
> the Heller decision has rejected the silly claim one must be in the militia to have standing to object to federal gun encroachments.   That is not a new thing because  the MILLER court did not dismiss Miller's argument on STANDING



Wait. I didn't say only those in the militia could be armed, did I? 
Why the hell are you not reading what I write? It's ridiculous. I can write loads, use lots of evidence and most people seem to skim over everything because they actually believe they know what I'm saying before I do it.

READ WHAT I WRITE!!!


----------



## frigidweirdo

turtledude said:


> Opinion noted and rejected as not correct.  Sorry that is completely bogus.



Prove it. You're on a debate message board. Don't come up with sentences that just say "you're wrong". It's not completely bogus. 

Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution

Have you bothered to read this?

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""


Why would he use "render military service" when talking about "bearing arms"?? Surely he'd have used "carry arms" if he meant "carry arms". When did you ever hear about "carry arms" being called "render military service"?

"Mr. Benson moved to have the words "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms," struck out"

Why would you compel someone to "carry arms"???? Doesn't make sense if it means carry arms. Makes sense if you mean "militia duty" or "render military service".

In fact the whole document shows that the 2A is about protecting the militia by protecting individuals rights to own weapons and to be in the militia.

No where does it talk about self defence. No where does it talk about carrying arms. NOWHERE>


----------



## turtledude

frigidweirdo said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> here is the problem liberal gun banners have with playing "what does the constitution says"
> 
> even if you were to prove that the 2A was intended only to protect the ability of those in the militia to be armed you still LOSE on two other grounds
> 
> Like it or not, the use of the commerce clause as a federal gun control empowerment clause is bogus   True, FDR and his minions managed to pull that crap off but its dishonest and more and more states are passing statutes attacking that.
> 
> secondly, there is the 9th and10th amendments which 1) recognize the other rights and 2) prohibit the federal government from acting in areas it does not have jurisdiction
> 
> the Heller decision has rejected the silly claim one must be in the militia to have standing to object to federal gun encroachments.   That is not a new thing because  the MILLER court did not dismiss Miller's argument on STANDING
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait. I didn't say only those in the militia could be armed, did I?
> Why the hell are you not reading what I write? It's ridiculous. I can write loads, use lots of evidence and most people seem to skim over everything because they actually believe they know what I'm saying before I do it.
> 
> READ WHAT I WRITE!!!
Click to expand...


to quote by good friend Bart Simpson

DON'T HAVE A FUCKING COW DUDE

nothing you write is really anything useful to me.   I have been involved in this debate since the late 70s.  I have been cited in Congress, referred to in lectures by top scholars and have presented lectures on this topic to ABA accredited law schools.  I have seen every possible argument on this topic.  You can write all you want and its not going to matter to me


----------



## frigidweirdo

turtledude said:


> to quote by good friend Bart Simpson
> 
> DON'T HAVE A FUCKING COW DUDE
> 
> nothing you write is really anything useful to me.   I have been involved in this debate since the late 70s.  I have been cited in Congress, referred to in lectures by top scholars and have presented lectures on this topic to ABA accredited law schools.  I have seen every possible argument on this topic.  You can write all you want and its not going to matter to me



OF course it's not useful because you don't efing reading it. You've been involved in this debate so long you can't read any more? You've been to this and that and the other and YOU DON'T ACTUALLY READ WHAT I WRITE.

So if you're not going to read DON'T RESPOND. Either you respond to what I write or you don't respond. Is that a good enough plan for you? Because I'm sick of people who just reply to something I didn't write.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

frigidweirdo said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually this is what 2 A says
> *(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.*
> 
> You do understand what who are not members of means?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does it say? Read it.
> 
> "which consists of the members of the militia". Who are the members of the militia? Oh yeah, it tells you in part 1, which is men able bodied, 17-45 and women in the National Guard.
> 
> So let's re-write this.
> 
> 2) the unorganized militia, which consists of able bodied men aged 17-45 who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
> 
> It's not so hard to read, surely?
> 
> It doesn't say "citizens who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia" does it?
Click to expand...

Dude you are not comprehending the unorganized militias are people who are not connected with the government
Regular or national guard.
Reading and comprehension are fundamental
Here's what it says one more time not what you think it says
*(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.*
Nothing about age or sex just those who are not in the militia "national guard"


----------



## bigrebnc1775

frigidweirdo said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think I give a fuck about the Chinese government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you don't seem to "give a fuck" about human rights either, because the point wasn't about the Chinese government, the point was about rights, but seeing as you completely side stepped the point and went for an idiotic post which has no relevance to anything here, then we end up at a dead end.
> 
> Nice job.
Click to expand...

No I don't give a fuck about other countries.


----------



## frigidweirdo

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Dude you are not comprehending the unorganized militias are people who are not connected with the government
> Regular or national guard.
> Reading and comprehension are fundamental
> Here's what it says one more time not what you think it says
> *(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.*
> Nothing about age or sex just those who are not in the militia "national guard"




I know what the militia is, I know what the unorganised militia is. This isn't the point. The point is that what you quoted DOES NOT say that all individuals are in the unorganised militia, and it says it clearly and you seem to be unable to grasp this.

I really don't know how to simplify this enough for you to be able ti understand, I've explained it twice already. It's just about the English language, which I'm making the assumption is your first language.

"(a) The militia of the United States consists of able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard."

The militia consists able bodied males between 17 and 45, plus women in the National Guard. Is this okay so far? There is nothing here about women being in the militia unless they join the National Guard, RIGHT? 

*"(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."*

The unorganised militia, is composed of MEMBERS OF THE MILITIA (ie, see members of the militia in 1, which is able bodied males aged 17-45 and Women in the National Guard). So the unorganised militia is all males aged 17-45 not in the National Guard.

Does this make sense? It's easy. 

It does say about sex, you just have to be able to read part 1 where it defines who is in the militia, then part 2 says which of these are in the unorganised militia. 

It's clear.


----------



## frigidweirdo

bigrebnc1775 said:


> No I don't give a fuck about other countries.



You don't seem to be able to comprehend much, so I don't doubt that you don't understand that this doesn't have anything to do with other countries, it has to do with the theory of HUMAN RIGHTS.

Jeez, you're difficult. Stop efing around with stuff that doesn't matter and stick to the damn topic will you?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

frigidweirdo said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I don't give a fuck about other countries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't seem to be able to comprehend much, so I don't doubt that you don't understand that this doesn't have anything to do with other countries, it has to do with the theory of HUMAN RIGHTS.
> 
> Jeez, you're difficult. Stop efing around with stuff that doesn't matter and stick to the damn topic will you?
Click to expand...

Fuck you , you god damn mother fucking son of a bitch.
Have you ever been outside the U.S.? I have.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

frigidweirdo said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude you are not comprehending the unorganized militias are people who are not connected with the government
> Regular or national guard.
> Reading and comprehension are fundamental
> Here's what it says one more time not what you think it says
> *(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.*
> Nothing about age or sex just those who are not in the militia "national guard"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know what the militia is, I know what the unorganised militia is. This isn't the point. The point is that what you quoted DOES NOT say that all individuals are in the unorganised militia, and it says it clearly and you seem to be unable to grasp this.
> 
> I really don't know how to simplify this enough for you to be able ti understand, I've explained it twice already. It's just about the English language, which I'm making the assumption is your first language.
> 
> "(a) The militia of the United States consists of able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard."
> 
> The militia consists able bodied males between 17 and 45, plus women in the National Guard. Is this okay so far? There is nothing here about women being in the militia unless they join the National Guard, RIGHT?
> 
> *"(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."*
> 
> The unorganised militia, is composed of MEMBERS OF THE MILITIA (ie, see members of the militia in 1, which is able bodied males aged 17-45 and Women in the National Guard). So the unorganised militia is all males aged 17-45 not in the National Guard.
> 
> Does this make sense? It's easy.
> 
> It does say about sex, you just have to be able to read part 1 where it defines who is in the militia, then part 2 says which of these are in the unorganised militia.
> 
> It's clear.
Click to expand...

Stop fucking adding it.
There is no age or sex requirement for the unorganized militia. Nor is the unorganized militia part of the god damn national guard.
Dumb ass what is the militia?


----------



## frigidweirdo

bigrebnc1775 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I don't give a fuck about other countries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't seem to be able to comprehend much, so I don't doubt that you don't understand that this doesn't have anything to do with other countries, it has to do with the theory of HUMAN RIGHTS.
> 
> Jeez, you're difficult. Stop efing around with stuff that doesn't matter and stick to the damn topic will you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck you , you god damn mother fucking son of a bitch.
> Have you ever been outside the U.S.? I have.
Click to expand...


Well done, you've managed to get to your lowest point so far. 

By the way, seeing as we're completely off topic, I've lived in China, the UK, Spain, Germany and Austria, I've been to 51 different foreign countries, not including airports I've flown through but not entered the country this year. I've been to 7 African countries and 3 Asian countries this year alone. I've spent quite a bit of my life abroad, thank you.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

frigidweirdo said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are only three purposes for the second amendment
> Defense against the government
> Defense against an invasion
> And self defense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove that the 2A was designed for self defence.
> Just saying it 100 times doesn't make it so, i want to see evidence.
> 
> I can prove the other two quite easily.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't defense against the government also be in self defense?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

frigidweirdo said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I don't give a fuck about other countries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't seem to be able to comprehend much, so I don't doubt that you don't understand that this doesn't have anything to do with other countries, it has to do with the theory of HUMAN RIGHTS.
> 
> Jeez, you're difficult. Stop efing around with stuff that doesn't matter and stick to the damn topic will you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck you , you god damn mother fucking son of a bitch.
> Have you ever been outside the U.S.? I have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well done, you've managed to get to your lowest point so far.
> 
> By the way, seeing as we're completely off topic, I've lived in China, the UK, Spain, Germany and Austria, I've been to 51 different foreign countries, not including airports I've flown through but not entered the country this year. I've been to 7 African countries and 3 Asian countries this year alone. I've spent quite a bit of my life abroad, thank you.
Click to expand...

I've lived in Europe, You've been mentally corrupted and have no valuable use to provide in this discussion.


----------



## frigidweirdo

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Stop fucking adding it.
> There is no age or sex requirement for the unorganized militia. Nor is the unorganized militia part of the god damn national guard.
> Dumb ass what is the militia?



I didn't say the unorganised militia is part of the National Guard. Jeez this is hard.

I also didn't say there was an age or sex requirement for the unorganised militia. You don't seem to get this. 

The militia was introduced in the Constitution in article 1 section 8.

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

These are powers of congress. They have the power to organise, arm and discipline the Milita. 

In doing so they have passed various militia acts, starting with the militia act of 1792 which defined who was in the militia. 

"That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia,"

So in 1792 they declared who was in the militia. 

Up to now this has remained the same, the US Congress has decided who is in the militia. This isn't necessarily a limit on who is in the militia. It's them saying these people are in the militia. 

Women could be in the militia if they wanted to be, but they have to opt in, men are automatically opted in, this is the difference. How many women do you think have opted in to the unorganised militia since the Dick Act came in 100 years ago? I'm going to say about zero.


----------



## frigidweirdo

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Wouldn't defense against the government also be in self defense?



No, that would be "common defence" or "defence of the State" 

North Carolina’s constitution of December 18, 1776

"_XVII. That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; "_

Massachusetts declaration of rights of 1780 

"_XVII.--The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence."_


----------



## frigidweirdo

bigrebnc1775 said:


> I've lived in Europe, You've been mentally corrupted and have no valuable use to provide in this discussion.



Serious dude, you have no idea about this topic, and when someone tries to educate you and you feel inferior or something you come out with the crap. Get over it, you're fumbling around making a fool of yourself, you're even fighting against that which cannot be fought against, you'll ignore the debate at hand to try and score points on something you feel you can win on, because it's off topic, and even then you lose.

You've lived in Europe, oh, big deal. Let me guess, Germany, on a US military base, probably near Osnabruck or somewhere like that, perhaps near Bamberg, and you think living on a US military base some how puts you above other people. Don't give me that. 

This is a DEBATE, it's about making a decent argument, it's about learning stuff, moving forward. You're not learning anything, you're just getting idiotically angry and swearing a lot of the time. It doesn't make you more intelligent, it doesn't "win" an argument either. 

So either you stick to the program and act like a civilised human being or I'm not bothering with you, because I didn't come on here to get down to that level.


----------



## jon_berzerk

frigidweirdo said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop fucking adding it.
> There is no age or sex requirement for the unorganized militia. Nor is the unorganized militia part of the god damn national guard.
> Dumb ass what is the militia?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say the unorganised militia is part of the National Guard. Jeez this is hard.
> 
> I also didn't say there was an age or sex requirement for the unorganised militia. You don't seem to get this.
> 
> The militia was introduced in the Constitution in article 1 section 8.
> 
> "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> 
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
> 
> These are powers of congress. They have the power to organise, arm and discipline the Milita.
> 
> In doing so they have passed various militia acts, starting with the militia act of 1792 which defined who was in the militia.
> 
> "That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia,"
> 
> So in 1792 they declared who was in the militia.
> 
> Up to now this has remained the same, the US Congress has decided who is in the militia. This isn't necessarily a limit on who is in the militia. It's them saying these people are in the militia.
> 
> Women could be in the militia if they wanted to be, but they have to opt in, men are automatically opted in, this is the difference. How many women do you think have opted in to the unorganised militia since the Dick Act came in 100 years ago? I'm going to say about zero.
Click to expand...


what the militia act really did was establish the authority of drafting at the fed level


----------



## frigidweirdo

jon_berzerk said:


> what the militia act really did was establish the authority of drafting at the fed level



What is the point of what you have said? 

Seriously? Are you making an argument here, making a passing comment while sipping a cup of tea? Is there any point at all?


----------



## Iceweasel

frigidweirdo said:


> In fact the whole document shows that the 2A is about protecting the militia by protecting individuals rights to own weapons and to be in the militia.
> 
> No where does it talk about self defence. No where does it talk about carrying arms. NOWHERE>


What are you trying to accomplish exactly? You are trying to overturn the Supreme Court? Anyway, the 2nd uses the term 'people', that isn't how military personnel are referred to. Why mention people keeping and bearing arms if the reference was military? That makes no sense, military are armed. You're just masturbating.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

frigidweirdo said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've lived in Europe, You've been mentally corrupted and have no valuable use to provide in this discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Serious dude, you have no idea about this topic, and when someone tries to educate you and you feel inferior or something you come out with the crap. Get over it, you're fumbling around making a fool of yourself, you're even fighting against that which cannot be fought against, you'll ignore the debate at hand to try and score points on something you feel you can win on, because it's off topic, and even then you lose.
> 
> You've lived in Europe, oh, big deal. Let me guess, Germany, on a US military base, probably near Osnabruck or somewhere like that, perhaps near Bamberg, and you think living on a US military base some how puts you above other people. Don't give me that.
> 
> This is a DEBATE, it's about making a decent argument, it's about learning stuff, moving forward. You're not learning anything, you're just getting idiotically angry and swearing a lot of the time. It doesn't make you more intelligent, it doesn't "win" an argument either.
> 
> So either you stick to the program and act like a civilised human being or I'm not bothering with you, because I didn't come on here to get down to that level.
Click to expand...

On the militia? Dude you are about at the level of a second grader on the subject compared to me. Here's you're problem trying to debate, you don't add to the context Like you have done. Here's what you need to argue against without adding to what is defined as the unorganized militia. "The unorganized militia is not connected with the national guard"


frigidweirdo said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't defense against the government also be in self defense?
> 
> 
> 
> Defending against the government is also in self defense stop adding to the context.
> No, that would be "common defence" or "defence of the State"
> 
> North Carolina’s constitution of December 18, 1776
> 
> "_XVII. That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; "_
> 
> Massachusetts declaration of rights of 1780
> 
> "_XVII.--The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence."_
Click to expand...


----------



## frigidweirdo

Iceweasel said:


> What are you trying to accomplish exactly? You are trying to overturn the Supreme Court? Anyway, the 2nd uses the term 'people', that isn't how military personnel are referred to. Why mention people keeping and bearing arms if the reference was military? That makes no sense, military are armed. You're just masturbating.



Okay, you remember I said about reading what I wrote, I never said that the militia was the military. The militia is a citizen army. Got that, I said, the militia is citizens. So no, I did not say keeping and bearing arms was a reference to the military.

The right to keep arms is the right of individuals to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply of weapons.
The right to bear arms is the right of individuals to be in the militia, so the militia has a ready supply of personnel. 

The latter part is clear, as the founding fathers used "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service" and "militia duty".


----------



## frigidweirdo

bigrebnc1775 said:


> On the militia? Dude you are about at the level of a second grader on the subject compared to me. Here's you're problem trying to debate, you don't add to the context Like you have done. Here's what you need to argue against without adding to what is defined as the unorganized militia. "The unorganized militia is not connected with the national guard"



What's your point? You feel an insult plus making a comment that has nothing to do with what I've ever said is going to get you where?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

frigidweirdo said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the militia? Dude you are about at the level of a second grader on the subject compared to me. Here's you're problem trying to debate, you don't add to the context Like you have done. Here's what you need to argue against without adding to what is defined as the unorganized militia. "The unorganized militia is not connected with the national guard"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's your point? You feel an insult plus making a comment that has nothing to do with what I've ever said is going to get you where?
Click to expand...

Insults are due because you start to twist things into place to fit your god damn position Stop it.


----------



## frigidweirdo

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Insults are due because you start to twist things into place to fit your god damn position Stop it.



No, insults are due because you want to insult. Simple as that, you're an insulter. You can't twist this around, you want to insult.

I make my argument. If you want to argue against this, fine, if you want to insult, feck off.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

frigidweirdo said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Insults are due because you start to twist things into place to fit your god damn position Stop it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, insults are due because you want to insult. Simple as that, you're an insulter. You can't twist this around, you want to insult.
> 
> I make my argument. If you want to argue against this, fine, if you want to insult, feck off.
Click to expand...

Yes insults are due when you twist words into something that isn't there it's dishonest.
Let's start over
The unorganized militia is not connected with the regular Military or the nation guard.


----------



## Wildman

frigidweirdo said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've lived in Europe, You've been mentally corrupted and have no valuable use to provide in this discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Serious dude, you have no idea about this topic, and when someone tries to educate you and you feel inferior or something you come out with the crap. Get over it, you're fumbling around making a fool of yourself, you're even fighting against that which cannot be fought against, you'll ignore the debate at hand to try and score points on something you feel you can win on, because it's off topic, and even then you lose.
> 
> You've lived in Europe, oh, big deal. Let me guess, Germany, on a US military base, probably near Osnabruck or somewhere like that, perhaps near Bamberg, and you think living on a US military base some how puts you above other people. Don't give me that.
> 
> This is a DEBATE, it's about making a decent argument, it's about learning stuff, moving forward. You're not learning anything, you're just getting idiotically angry and swearing a lot of the time. It doesn't make you more intelligent, it doesn't "win" an argument either.
> 
> So either you stick to the program and act like a civilised human being or I'm not bothering with you, because I didn't come on here to get down to that level.
Click to expand...

====================
no more* RED X's*...., so here is my reply


----------



## Iceweasel

frigidweirdo said:


> The right to keep arms is the right of individuals to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply of weapons.
> The right to bear arms is the right of individuals to be in the militia, so the militia has a ready supply of personnel.
> 
> The latter part is clear, as the founding fathers used "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service" and "militia duty".


Bullshit. 

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/gun-quotations-founding-fathersought to be armed."

"A free people ought to be armed."
- George Washington

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria)

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson

"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson

"I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence ... I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy."
- Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778

"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense."
- John Adams

"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason

"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians."
- George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe."
- Noah Webster

"The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster

"A government resting on the minority is an aristocracy, not a Republic, and could not be safe with a numerical and physical force against it, without a standing army, an enslaved press and a disarmed populace."
- James Madison

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms."
- James Madison

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison

"The ultimate authority resides in the people alone."
- James Madison

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
- William Pitt

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms."
- Richard Henry Lee

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker

"... arms ... discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property.... Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them."
- Thomas Paine

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts

" ... for it is a truth, which the experience of all ages has attested, that the people are commonly most in danger when the means of insuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion."
- Alexander Hamilton


----------



## frigidweirdo

Iceweasel said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right to keep arms is the right of individuals to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply of weapons.
> The right to bear arms is the right of individuals to be in the militia, so the militia has a ready supply of personnel.
> 
> The latter part is clear, as the founding fathers used "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service" and "militia duty".
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/gun-quotations-founding-fathersought to be armed."
> 
> "A free people ought to be armed."
> - George Washington
> 
> "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
> - Benjamin Franklin
> 
> "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
> - Thomas Jefferson
> 
> "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
> - Thomas Jefferson
> 
> "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
> - Thomas Jefferson (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria)
> 
> "A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson
> 
> "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
> - Thomas Jefferson
> 
> "On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
> - Thomas Jefferson
> 
> "I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence ... I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy."
> - Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778
> 
> "Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense."
> - John Adams
> 
> "To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them."
> - George Mason
> 
> "I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians."
> - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)
> 
> "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe."
> - Noah Webster
> 
> "The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
> - Noah Webster
> 
> "A government resting on the minority is an aristocracy, not a Republic, and could not be safe with a numerical and physical force against it, without a standing army, an enslaved press and a disarmed populace."
> - James Madison
> 
> "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms."
> - James Madison
> 
> "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
> - James Madison
> 
> "The ultimate authority resides in the people alone."
> - James Madison
> 
> "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
> - William Pitt
> 
> "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
> - Richard Henry Lee
> 
> "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms."
> - Richard Henry Lee
> 
> "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
> - Patrick Henry
> 
> "This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
> - St. George Tucker
> 
> "... arms ... discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property.... Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them."
> - Thomas Paine
> 
> "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
> - Samuel Adams
> 
> "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
> - Joseph Story
> 
> "What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
> - Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts
> 
> " ... for it is a truth, which the experience of all ages has attested, that the people are commonly most in danger when the means of insuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion."
> - Alexander Hamilton
Click to expand...


Oh good, some quotes not in context, with no argument from you. This is meaningless. 

I'll discuss the first three. 

1) Washington's quote. I'm not saying that the people shouldn't be armed. So...?
2) Franklin's quote, so what? I'm not talking about giving up liberty.
3) Jefferson's quote. So what? I'm not talking about barring people the use of arms. 

I could go on and on. I don't see any of these quotes really giving you anything. 

The thing is, you're finding quotes about arms, but none of this suggests that this is about the 2A. The 2A prevented the US govt from doing something. That doesn't mean that it prevents them from doing EVERYTHING connected to arms. 
This is a big problem here. 
Also, you have random quotes, and all I can say is, so what? It's all meaningless for me.


----------



## Iceweasel

frigidweirdo said:


> The thing is, you're finding quotes about arms, but none of this suggests that this is about the 2A. The 2A prevented the US govt from doing something. That doesn't mean that it prevents them from doing EVERYTHING connected to arms.
> This is a big problem here.
> Also, you have random quotes, and all I can say is, so what? It's all meaningless for me.


It's meaningless to you because you're a fucking retard. The quotes prove they were concerned about the individuals right to bear arms, not just a militia. No one can understand it for you.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Iceweasel said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is, you're finding quotes about arms, but none of this suggests that this is about the 2A. The 2A prevented the US govt from doing something. That doesn't mean that it prevents them from doing EVERYTHING connected to arms.
> This is a big problem here.
> Also, you have random quotes, and all I can say is, so what? It's all meaningless for me.
> 
> 
> 
> It's meaningless to you because you're a fucking retard. The quotes prove they were concerned about the individuals right to bear arms, not just a militia. No one can understand it for you.
Click to expand...

He isn't intersted in an honest conversation.   Cut your losses now.


----------



## Iceweasel

M14 Shooter said:


> He isn't intersted in an honest conversation.   Cut your losses now.


He's too stupid to talk to anyway.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Iceweasel said:


> It's meaningless to you because you're a fucking retard. The quotes prove they were concerned about the individuals right to bear arms, not just a militia. No one can understand it for you.



Ah, pull out the insults when you don't get your way huh? Well done, do you want a medal? 

The quotes don't prove ANYTHING. Why? Because there's no context, there's no argument, there's just quotes. 

I know there was concern over individual right to bear arms. My argument is that there is an individual right to bear arms. So what? 

I'm not saying the right to bear arms is a militia right. I'm saying the right is for individuals to be in the militia. It's an individual right. I've said it 100 times and you keep telling me that I'm saying something different. I keep telling you to read what I write and you keep arguing against some ghost that appears to changing all my posts, or, maybe, just maybe, you're not reading what I write. 

So, if you want your quotes to mean anything, present them as evidence for your argument, not just as quotes which on their own are meaningless.


----------



## frigidweirdo

M14 Shooter said:


> He isn't intersted in an honest conversation.   Cut your losses now.





Iceweasel said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> He isn't intersted in an honest conversation.  Cut your losses now.
> 
> 
> 
> He's too stupid to talk to anyway.
Click to expand...


Says the guy who likes to insult to the guy who likes to insult about the guy who doesn't.

Also says the guy who likes to tell others what they have said when they clearly haven't said it, and likes to use quotes on their own and then claims it's proof of something when they've hardly made a claim.

Jeez, standards are a slack as hell here, you just expect me to take what you say without backing anything up. You say you've been debating this for decades, really? I'd expect you to have your argument nailed down, be able to back it up with all that evidence you should have collected in the past decades and be able to whip off evidence and use it correctly.

But all i get are INSULTS. Well done. Decades well spent, learning to insult.

As for the other one, well, he's just insults. Seems to think he's intelligent because he once went to Europe........


----------



## Iceweasel

frigidweirdo said:


> Ah, pull out the insults when you don't get your way huh? Well done, do you want a medal
> 
> The quotes don't prove ANYTHING. Why? Because there's no context, there's no argument, there's just quotes.
> 
> I know there was concern over individual right to bear arms. My argument is that there is an individual right to bear arms. So what?
> 
> I'm not saying the right to bear arms is a militia right. I'm saying the right is for individuals to be in the militia. It's an individual right. I've said it 100 times and you keep telling me that I'm saying something different. I keep telling you to read what I write and you keep arguing against some ghost that appears to changing all my posts, or, maybe, just maybe, you're not reading what I write.
> 
> So, if you want your quotes to mean anything, present them as evidence for your argument, not just as quotes which on their own are meaningless.


I didn't insult you, I was pointing out an unfortunate fact. The context is there for any functioning mind. The founders believed an armed population was critical for freedom. They put the words "the people..." in the 2nd. You don't get it but that isn't anyone else's problem.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution

So, any of you guys instead of insulting want to take a look at this? I've only presented it 100 times already, and only seen it ignored 100 times already.

""A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.""

This is the amendment they were talking about, in an unfinished state.

"Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government;"

Not intended to protect self defence, not for carrying arms, but against the mal-administration of the govt.

"Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

Why would taking away the carrying of arms destroy the constitution? 

"What, sir, is the use of a militia?"

Why mention the militia if the 2A has nothing to do with the militia, as is being claimed here?

"Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. "

Why talk about the destruction of the militia if this amendment isn't designed to protect the militia?

"Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "

Why would Mr Gerry say this, and replace "bear arms" in the proposed amendment with "militia duty" if he meant "carry arms"???

He continued with "For this reason, he wished the words to be altered so as to be confined to persons belonging to a religious sect scrupulous of bearing arms.", clearly here "bear arms" and "militia duty" are being used synonymously. 

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

Why would Mr Jackson use "bearing arms" and "render military service" synonymously if he wanted to say "carry arms"? 

"It is well known that those who are religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, are equally scrupulous of getting substitutes or paying an equivalent. "

Why would Mr Sherman think that if people were religiously scrupulous of carrying arms that they would need to pay an equivalent instead of carrying arms? Who thinks the founding fathers were going to make people pay who didn't carry arms?

And the big question is, why would the founders discuss a part to the amendment that discussed whether religiously scrupulous people should be allowed not to bear arms if the term "bear arms" meant "carry arms"?

I'd really like it if some of you tried to answer some of these questions instead of insulting people.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Iceweasel said:


> I didn't insult you, I was pointing out an unfortunate fact. The context is there for any functioning mind. The founders believed an armed population was critical for freedom. They put the words "the people..." in the 2nd. You don't get it but that isn't anyone else's problem.



Oh please, this isn't primary school where you can claim you didn't insult. 



Iceweasel said:


> you're a fucking retard



Let's see who doesn't think this isn't an insult. It clearly is. You claim an "unfortunate fact", well prove it then, prove I'm a retard. 

retard definition of retard in Oxford dictionary American English US 

*NOUN*
Pronunciation: /ˈrēˌtärd /
_INFORMAL_ , _OFFENSIVE_Back to top 
A mentally handicapped person (often used as a general term of abuse).

Oh, so either I'm mentally handicapped, if so prove it, or more likely it's what's in brackets. 

The founders believed a lot of things. So what? That doesn't mean they made an amendment out of it. 
The founders probably believed that human beings needed to breath air in order to survive. They also probably believed that people needed to drink water and eat food. 

Does the 2A protect all of these things? No it does not. Just because the founders believed in something does not equate to the protection of the 2A. Do you follow me? 

So, you're posting quotes saying the founders believe this and that, and then you're saying that clearly the 2A protects these things because......

I'd have to suppose because the 2A says "arms" and some of the stuff you're talking about involved guns, that someone how you've just decided there is clearly a massive link here and that it MUST protect arms.

It goes like this. Stool. It's a word right? 

*stool*
Syllabification: stool
Pronunciation: /sto͞ol /

A piece of feces.

Okay, it can mean "A piece of feces". 

So, "John sat on the wooden stool", because stool can mean feces, are we going to assume that it does mean feces? I doubt it. Yet, under the logic you're using, we'd have to assume that it does mean this, right? Or do you think we can be intelligent enough about all of this to demand a little more?

You said the founders had concerns about things. I don't want concerns, I want actual evidence that there is a link between the two. Quotes are fine as evidence of something if used properly, you didn't use the quotes, you merely presented them. Great, and what? 
Then the next post you made a slight attempt at saying what the quotes were for, and quite frankly it wasn't up to any standard I am willing to accept. 

As for the words "the people..." so what? If you were arguing against someone who said there was a collective right, then you might have a point, had you read a single word of what I have written on the matter you'd see one thing. The 2A protects an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. 

So what's your point? Are you even debating with me or with someone else?


----------



## Ernie S.

frigidweirdo said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's meaningless to you because you're a fucking retard. The quotes prove they were concerned about the individuals right to bear arms, not just a militia. No one can understand it for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, pull out the insults when you don't get your way huh? Well done, do you want a medal?
> 
> The quotes don't prove ANYTHING. Why? Because there's no context, there's no argument, there's just quotes.
> 
> I know there was concern over individual right to bear arms. My argument is that there is an individual right to bear arms. So what?
> 
> I'm not saying the right to bear arms is a militia right. *I'm saying the right is for individuals to be in the militia*. It's an individual right. I've said it 100 times and you keep telling me that I'm saying something different. I keep telling you to read what I write and you keep arguing against some ghost that appears to changing all my posts, or, maybe, just maybe, you're not reading what I write.
> 
> So, if you want your quotes to mean anything, present them as evidence for your argument, not just as quotes which on their own are meaningless.
Click to expand...

And SCOTUS says differently.

The quotes all imply that membership in a/the militia is irrelevant.


----------



## Iceweasel

Ernie S. said:


> And SCOTUS says differently.
> 
> The quotes all imply that membership in a/the militia is irrelevant.


I think he expects to see the quotes in the second or something. Odd.


----------



## hunarcy

frigidweirdo said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not when you put a bullet in the idiot that try's to take them away without due process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only, you've just pointed out that they can take them away with due process, hohoho.
Click to expand...


I don't think anyone believes that your rights can't be curtailed by due process based on your actions.  The fact that you're reduced to arguing that shows you've actually lost the argument.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Ernie S. said:


> And SCOTUS says differently.
> 
> The quotes all imply that membership in a/the militia is irrelevant.



So, where did I say that membership in the militia is necessary to be able to have the right to keep and the right to bear arms?

Oh wait, I didn't. 

Another person who doesn't read what I write and just assumes I'm saying something when clearly I'm not.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Iceweasel said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> And SCOTUS says differently.
> 
> The quotes all imply that membership in a/the militia is irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> I think he expects to see the quotes in the second or something. Odd.
Click to expand...


No, you expect me to say something I didn't say.


----------



## frigidweirdo

hunarcy said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not when you put a bullet in the idiot that try's to take them away without due process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only, you've just pointed out that they can take them away with due process, hohoho.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone believes that your rights can't be curtailed by due process based on your actions.  The fact that you're reduced to arguing that shows you've actually lost the argument.
Click to expand...


There is a big difference, which is the point I'm making, between infringing on the rights of someone after due process, and the taking away of rights. 

The first implies you still have the rights, but because of due process of the law, you have had this right infringed upon. 
The second implies you don't actually have the right, it's not there. 

The theory of rights says that all humans have their rights no matter what happens (barring death of course), but that merely govts and others can just infringe on them.


----------



## M14 Shooter

hunarcy said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not when you put a bullet in the idiot that try's to take them away without due process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only, you've just pointed out that they can take them away with due process, hohoho.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone believes that your rights can't be curtailed by due process based on your actions.  The fact that you're reduced to arguing that shows you've actually lost the argument.
Click to expand...

The 5th amendment states very clearly that, through due process, all rights may be taken away.
There's no real reason to take seriously anyone who believes otherwise.


----------



## konradv

Excellent ad campaign against Open Carry.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

konradv said:


> Excellent ad campaign against Open Carry.


ted Kennedy was a good example of not allowing democrats access to a car.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Ernie S. said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's meaningless to you because you're a fucking retard. The quotes prove they were concerned about the individuals right to bear arms, not just a militia. No one can understand it for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, pull out the insults when you don't get your way huh? Well done, do you want a medal?
> 
> The quotes don't prove ANYTHING. Why? Because there's no context, there's no argument, there's just quotes.
> 
> I know there was concern over individual right to bear arms. My argument is that there is an individual right to bear arms. So what?
> 
> I'm not saying the right to bear arms is a militia right. *I'm saying the right is for individuals to be in the militia*. It's an individual right. I've said it 100 times and you keep telling me that I'm saying something different. I keep telling you to read what I write and you keep arguing against some ghost that appears to changing all my posts, or, maybe, just maybe, you're not reading what I write.
> 
> So, if you want your quotes to mean anything, present them as evidence for your argument, not just as quotes which on their own are meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And SCOTUS says differently.
> 
> The quotes all imply that membership in a/the militia is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Playing devils advocate the supreme court has ruled the only weapons protected by the second amendment are those  that would maintain a efficient and effective militia and had to be provided by the militia members


----------



## konradv

bigrebnc1775 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent ad campaign against Open Carry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ted Kennedy was a good example of not allowing democrats access to a car.
Click to expand...


So that's about 385,000-1, since it happened.  What explains your being allowed to access a computer?


----------



## turtledude

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Playing devils advocate the supreme court has ruled the only weapons protected by the second amendment are those  that would maintain a efficient and effective militia and had to be provided by the militia members



But Miiller-who was not represented by counsel before the USSC, did not have his position rejected for STANDING

in other words, if militia membership was necessary to exercise 2A rights, and since MILLER was not a member of the organized (i.e. well regulated militia), he would have had his position rejected on STANDING

it was not


----------



## bigrebnc1775

turtledude said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Playing devils advocate the supreme court has ruled the only weapons protected by the second amendment are those  that would maintain a efficient and effective militia and had to be provided by the militia members
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But Miiller-who was not represented by counsel before the USSC, did not have his position rejected for STANDING
> 
> in other words, if militia membership was necessary to exercise 2A rights, and since MILLER was not a member of the organized (i.e. well regulated militia), he would have had his position rejected on STANDING
> 
> it was not
Click to expand...

The subject wasn't about being in a militia but what was accepted firearms for a militia protected by the second amendment.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

konradv said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent ad campaign against Open Carry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ted Kennedy was a good example of not allowing democrats access to a car.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So that's about 385,000-1, since it happened.  What explains your being allowed to access a computer?
Click to expand...

Your count is high and to low for democrats.
Luckily Lehmberg didn't kill anyone that night she was caught.
Or at least it hasn't been reported yet.


----------



## frigidweirdo

M14 Shooter said:


> The 5th amendment states very clearly that, through due process, all rights may be taken away.
> There's no real reason to take seriously anyone who believes otherwise.



"No person shall be.... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

You mean this? Because nothing else gets close.

The only one where you can see rights being taken away is when deprived of life. 

The first issue to look at here is with prisoners. Can a prisoner have all their rights taken away? The 8th Amendment would be almost redundant if this were the case.

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

So, once convicted, a prisoner could be subject to cruel and unusual punishment. Is this the case? Clearly not. Even when it comes to the death penalty, it cannot be considered cruel or unusual. 

The term "deprive" also seems to suggest two things. 

deprive - definition of deprive by The Free Dictionary

"
de·prive
_tr.v._ *de·prived*, *de·priv·ing*, *de·prives
1. *To take something away from: The court ruling deprived us of any share in the inheritance."

Which means to take away.

"*2. *To keep from possessing or enjoying;deny:They were deprived of a normal childhood by the war."

Which seems to mean a possible temporary taking away, such as what I'm talking about with infringement. 

The theory of rights at the time was going strong

Amendment V Virginia Declaration of Rights sec. 1

Virginia declaration of rights

"1. That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."

Men have certain inherent rights, ie, ones which cannot be taken away. The enjoyment of life and liberty were those. Of course there are limits to all rights though.

Amendment V Delaware Declaration of Rights and Fundamental Rules

Delaware's is interesting, because it combines the notion of bearing arms (as in the right to be in the militia) as being the protection of other rights. 

"10. That every Member of Society hath a Right to be protected in the Enjoyment of Life, Liberty and Property; and therefore is bound to contribute his Proportion towards the Expense of that Protection, and yield his personal Service when necessary, or an Equivalent thereto; but no Part of a Man's Property can be justly taken from him, or applied to public Uses without his own Consent or that of his legal Representatives; Nor can any Man that is conscientiously scrupulous of bearing Arms in any Case be justly compelled thereto if he will pay such Equivalent."


The declaration of independence would be the starting point, I guess 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

They say that rights are "endowed by their creator" and these are "unalienable rights", ie, can't be taken away.

So my argument is this. You can't take away someone's rights, and the founding fathers and their theory of rights makes this quite clear, which must mean that "deprive" as a right merely means to withhold for a time rather than permanently take away, as this was considered impossible.


----------



## frigidweirdo

M14 Shooter said:


> The 5th amendment states very clearly that, through due process, all rights may be taken away.
> There's no real reason to take seriously anyone who believes otherwise.



You mean, like the founding fathers with the declaration of independence? 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." 

If rights are unalienable, that they are endowed by their creator, doesn't this suggest they can't be taken away? 

I think you're completely missing the point. If a person goes to prison, they're having their rights infringed upon. They don't have their right to liberty taken away, because perhaps at some point they will be free. In which case the govt can't simply say "you don't have any rights any more", the rights are assumed to still be the rights of this person, they merely do not have them infringed any more.

Do you think you could take someone seriously who would say that anyone convicted of an offence, anyone who has been found wanting through due process can be tortured?


----------



## frigidweirdo

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Playing devils advocate the supreme court has ruled the only weapons protected by the second amendment are those  that would maintain a efficient and effective militia and had to be provided by the militia members



Which is merely to say that the govt can't ban all weapons, but can ban some. This doesn't allow them to stop individuals being able to get weapons though. But they can stop them getting nukes, SAMs, even automatic machine guns and so on.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Why we even arguing over bear arms? I can barely finish a bear claw for breakfast.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

frigidweirdo said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Playing devils advocate the supreme court has ruled the only weapons protected by the second amendment are those  that would maintain a efficient and effective militia and had to be provided by the militia members
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is merely to say that the govt can't ban all weapons, but can ban some. This doesn't allow them to stop individuals being able to get weapons though. But they can stop them getting nukes, SAMs, even automatic machine guns and so on.
Click to expand...

They can't ban any military style firearms the end.
AND PULLING A GOD DAMN MOTHER FUCKING STRAW MAN OUT OF YOUR FUCKING ASS YOU DUMB SON OF A FUCKING BITCH IS UNCALLED FOR 
pull another fucking straw man out how about it?


----------



## BluesLegend

They had some particularly nasty weapons in the 1700's, gun control nuts would freak out if they were for sale today.


----------



## frigidweirdo

bigrebnc1775 said:


> They can't ban any military style firearms the end.
> AND PULLING A GOD DAMN MOTHER FUCKING STRAW MAN OUT OF YOUR FUCKING ASS YOU DUMB SON OF A FUCKING BITCH IS UNCALLED FOR
> pull another fucking straw man out how about it?



They can't? Prove it. 

As for insults, you're showing your intelligence here. Get lost.


----------



## Billo_Really

Do Palestinian's have a right to bear arms?


----------



## frigidweirdo

Billo_Really said:


> Do Palestinian's have a right to bear arms?




Well, the theory of rights says yes. That is, they have the right to be in the militia. Not the US militia, but their own militia. 

The fact is that what is a right and isn't a right is often debatable, which can often lead to local differences. From the US point of view the Palestinians have a right to bear arms.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

frigidweirdo said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They can't ban any military style firearms the end.
> AND PULLING A GOD DAMN MOTHER FUCKING STRAW MAN OUT OF YOUR FUCKING ASS YOU DUMB SON OF A FUCKING BITCH IS UNCALLED FOR
> pull another fucking straw man out how about it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can't? Prove it.
> 
> As for insults, you're showing your intelligence here. Get lost.
Click to expand...

When you go for the fucking straw man bull shit it shows you to be a fucking to bitch
So kiss my god damn ass. bitch.
Miller vs U.S.1939 Lewis vs U.S. 1980


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Billo_Really said:


> Do Palestinian's have a right to bear arms?


Who gives a fuck about terrorist dogs.


----------



## Wry Catcher

bigrebnc1775 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They can't ban any military style firearms the end.
> AND PULLING A GOD DAMN MOTHER FUCKING STRAW MAN OUT OF YOUR FUCKING ASS YOU DUMB SON OF A FUCKING BITCH IS UNCALLED FOR
> pull another fucking straw man out how about it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can't? Prove it.
> 
> As for insults, you're showing your intelligence here. Get lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you go for the fucking straw man bull shit it shows you to be a fucking to bitch
> So kiss my god damn ass. bitch.
> Miller vs U.S.1939 Lewis vs U.S. 1980
Click to expand...


Someone as out-of-control as bigrebnc should be banned from owning, possessing or having in his custody or control a firearm.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Wry Catcher said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They can't ban any military style firearms the end.
> AND PULLING A GOD DAMN MOTHER FUCKING STRAW MAN OUT OF YOUR FUCKING ASS YOU DUMB SON OF A FUCKING BITCH IS UNCALLED FOR
> pull another fucking straw man out how about it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can't? Prove it.
> 
> As for insults, you're showing your intelligence here. Get lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you go for the fucking straw man bull shit it shows you to be a fucking to bitch
> So kiss my god damn ass. bitch.
> Miller vs U.S.1939 Lewis vs U.S. 1980
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone as out-of-control as bigrebnc should be banned from owning, possessing or having in his custody or control a firearm.
Click to expand...

Come on Bitch lead the fucking charge don't be a god damn pussy and try and send someone to do something you think that should be done.


----------



## Wry Catcher

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They can't ban any military style firearms the end.
> AND PULLING A GOD DAMN MOTHER FUCKING STRAW MAN OUT OF YOUR FUCKING ASS YOU DUMB SON OF A FUCKING BITCH IS UNCALLED FOR
> pull another fucking straw man out how about it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can't? Prove it.
> 
> As for insults, you're showing your intelligence here. Get lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you go for the fucking straw man bull shit it shows you to be a fucking to bitch
> So kiss my god damn ass. bitch.
> Miller vs U.S.1939 Lewis vs U.S. 1980
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone as out-of-control as bigrebnc should be banned from owning, possessing or having in his custody or control a firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Come on Bitch lead the fucking charge don't be a god damn pussy and try and send someone to do something you think that should be done.
Click to expand...


Calling me a "Bitch" while hiding behind a keyboard is rather humorous.  I suggest you seek counseling, a good therapist and a couple of years of treatment and even you might become socialized.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Wry Catcher said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They can't ban any military style firearms the end.
> AND PULLING A GOD DAMN MOTHER FUCKING STRAW MAN OUT OF YOUR FUCKING ASS YOU DUMB SON OF A FUCKING BITCH IS UNCALLED FOR
> pull another fucking straw man out how about it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can't? Prove it.
> 
> As for insults, you're showing your intelligence here. Get lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you go for the fucking straw man bull shit it shows you to be a fucking to bitch
> So kiss my god damn ass. bitch.
> Miller vs U.S.1939 Lewis vs U.S. 1980
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone as out-of-control as bigrebnc should be banned from owning, possessing or having in his custody or control a firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Come on Bitch lead the fucking charge don't be a god damn pussy and try and send someone to do something you think that should be done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Calling me a "Bitch" while hiding behind a keyboard is rather humorous.  I suggest you seek counseling, a good therapist and a couple of years of treatment and even you might become socialized.
Click to expand...

I live in Kannapolis north Carolina you want my guns come and get'em Bitch.
Have no doubt about it I would call you a bitch to your face.


----------



## Wry Catcher

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They can't ban any military style firearms the end.
> AND PULLING A GOD DAMN MOTHER FUCKING STRAW MAN OUT OF YOUR FUCKING ASS YOU DUMB SON OF A FUCKING BITCH IS UNCALLED FOR
> pull another fucking straw man out how about it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can't? Prove it.
> 
> As for insults, you're showing your intelligence here. Get lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you go for the fucking straw man bull shit it shows you to be a fucking to bitch
> So kiss my god damn ass. bitch.
> Miller vs U.S.1939 Lewis vs U.S. 1980
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone as out-of-control as bigrebnc should be banned from owning, possessing or having in his custody or control a firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Come on Bitch lead the fucking charge don't be a god damn pussy and try and send someone to do something you think that should be done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Calling me a "Bitch" while hiding behind a keyboard is rather humorous.  I suggest you seek counseling, a good therapist and a couple of years of treatment and even you might become socialized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I live in Kannapolis north Carolina you want my guns come and get'em Bitch.
> Have no doubt about it I would call you a bitch to your face.
Click to expand...

Maybe a decade of therapy, and some powerful meds is necessary.  You are one sick puppy and seem not to know it.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Wry Catcher said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They can't ban any military style firearms the end.
> AND PULLING A GOD DAMN MOTHER FUCKING STRAW MAN OUT OF YOUR FUCKING ASS YOU DUMB SON OF A FUCKING BITCH IS UNCALLED FOR
> pull another fucking straw man out how about it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can't? Prove it.
> 
> As for insults, you're showing your intelligence here. Get lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you go for the fucking straw man bull shit it shows you to be a fucking to bitch
> So kiss my god damn ass. bitch.
> Miller vs U.S.1939 Lewis vs U.S. 1980
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone as out-of-control as bigrebnc should be banned from owning, possessing or having in his custody or control a firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Come on Bitch lead the fucking charge don't be a god damn pussy and try and send someone to do something you think that should be done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Calling me a "Bitch" while hiding behind a keyboard is rather humorous.  I suggest you seek counseling, a good therapist and a couple of years of treatment and even you might become socialized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I live in Kannapolis north Carolina you want my guns come and get'em Bitch.
> Have no doubt about it I would call you a bitch to your face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe a decade of therapy, and some powerful meds is necessary.  You are one sick puppy and seem not to know it.
Click to expand...

You support obama shows that you are one ignorant bastard Fucking pussy


----------



## MXdad

frigidweirdo said:


> Which is merely to say that the govt can't ban all weapons, but can ban some. This doesn't allow them to stop individuals being able to get weapons though. But they can stop them getting nukes, SAMs,* even automatic machine guns and *so on.


Thats false a private individual can own machine guns, many do. SAMs and Nukes are not arms


----------



## Wry Catcher

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They can't ban any military style firearms the end.
> AND PULLING A GOD DAMN MOTHER FUCKING STRAW MAN OUT OF YOUR FUCKING ASS YOU DUMB SON OF A FUCKING BITCH IS UNCALLED FOR
> pull another fucking straw man out how about it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can't? Prove it.
> 
> As for insults, you're showing your intelligence here. Get lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you go for the fucking straw man bull shit it shows you to be a fucking to bitch
> So kiss my god damn ass. bitch.
> Miller vs U.S.1939 Lewis vs U.S. 1980
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone as out-of-control as bigrebnc should be banned from owning, possessing or having in his custody or control a firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Come on Bitch lead the fucking charge don't be a god damn pussy and try and send someone to do something you think that should be done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Calling me a "Bitch" while hiding behind a keyboard is rather humorous.  I suggest you seek counseling, a good therapist and a couple of years of treatment and even you might become socialized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I live in Kannapolis north Carolina you want my guns come and get'em Bitch.
> Have no doubt about it I would call you a bitch to your face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe a decade of therapy, and some powerful meds is necessary.  You are one sick puppy and seem not to know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You support obama shows that you are one ignorant bastard Fucking pussy
Click to expand...


I'm 66 years old, retired law enforcement and know you're  a punk; you 'sound' no different than the crits talking from the cage in a patrol car, punks who STFU when they reach the sally port.  Of course some are stupid enough to want to fight and get put down fast and hard.

 Now, when I say you're one sick puppy, I'm being nice.  Assholes and dirt bags like you need to be put and locked in a cage.  That's where you belong.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Wry Catcher said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They can't ban any military style firearms the end.
> AND PULLING A GOD DAMN MOTHER FUCKING STRAW MAN OUT OF YOUR FUCKING ASS YOU DUMB SON OF A FUCKING BITCH IS UNCALLED FOR
> pull another fucking straw man out how about it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can't? Prove it.
> 
> As for insults, you're showing your intelligence here. Get lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you go for the fucking straw man bull shit it shows you to be a fucking to bitch
> So kiss my god damn ass. bitch.
> Miller vs U.S.1939 Lewis vs U.S. 1980
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone as out-of-control as bigrebnc should be banned from owning, possessing or having in his custody or control a firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Come on Bitch lead the fucking charge don't be a god damn pussy and try and send someone to do something you think that should be done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Calling me a "Bitch" while hiding behind a keyboard is rather humorous.  I suggest you seek counseling, a good therapist and a couple of years of treatment and even you might become socialized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I live in Kannapolis north Carolina you want my guns come and get'em Bitch.
> Have no doubt about it I would call you a bitch to your face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe a decade of therapy, and some powerful meds is necessary.  You are one sick puppy and seem not to know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You support obama shows that you are one ignorant bastard Fucking pussy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm 66 years old, retired law enforcement and know you're  a punk; you 'sound' no different than the crits talking from the cage in a patrol car, punks who STFU when they reach the sally port.  Of course some are stupid enough to want to fight and get put down fast and hard.
> 
> Now, when I say you're one sick puppy, I'm being nice.  Assholes and dirt bags like you need to be put and locked in a cage.  That's where you belong.
Click to expand...

I' military and former law enforcement  fuck off 
I'm telling you don't suggest that someone come and take whats mine without you leading the way. pussy.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They can't ban any military style firearms the end.
> AND PULLING A GOD DAMN MOTHER FUCKING STRAW MAN OUT OF YOUR FUCKING ASS YOU DUMB SON OF A FUCKING BITCH IS UNCALLED FOR
> pull another fucking straw man out how about it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can't? Prove it.
> 
> As for insults, you're showing your intelligence here. Get lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you go for the fucking straw man bull shit it shows you to be a fucking to bitch
> So kiss my god damn ass. bitch.
> Miller vs U.S.1939 Lewis vs U.S. 1980
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone as out-of-control as bigrebnc should be banned from owning, possessing or having in his custody or control a firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Come on Bitch lead the fucking charge don't be a god damn pussy and try and send someone to do something you think that should be done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Calling me a "Bitch" while hiding behind a keyboard is rather humorous.  I suggest you seek counseling, a good therapist and a couple of years of treatment and even you might become socialized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I live in Kannapolis north Carolina you want my guns come and get'em Bitch.
> Have no doubt about it I would call you a bitch to your face.
Click to expand...



This would be me taking your gun if I decided to


----------



## bigrebnc1775

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They can't ban any military style firearms the end.
> AND PULLING A GOD DAMN MOTHER FUCKING STRAW MAN OUT OF YOUR FUCKING ASS YOU DUMB SON OF A FUCKING BITCH IS UNCALLED FOR
> pull another fucking straw man out how about it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can't? Prove it.
> 
> As for insults, you're showing your intelligence here. Get lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you go for the fucking straw man bull shit it shows you to be a fucking to bitch
> So kiss my god damn ass. bitch.
> Miller vs U.S.1939 Lewis vs U.S. 1980
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone as out-of-control as bigrebnc should be banned from owning, possessing or having in his custody or control a firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Come on Bitch lead the fucking charge don't be a god damn pussy and try and send someone to do something you think that should be done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Calling me a "Bitch" while hiding behind a keyboard is rather humorous.  I suggest you seek counseling, a good therapist and a couple of years of treatment and even you might become socialized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I live in Kannapolis north Carolina you want my guns come and get'em Bitch.
> Have no doubt about it I would call you a bitch to your face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This would be me taking your gun if I decided to
Click to expand...

How many police officer's have you attempt to take a gun away from? You do realize I still possess the training to defend myself?
I would really would hate make you look foolish with a barrel of a gun stick out of your ear drum.
I live in Kannapolis North Carolina any time you feel the urge.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

bigrebnc1775 said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They can't ban any military style firearms the end.
> AND PULLING A GOD DAMN MOTHER FUCKING STRAW MAN OUT OF YOUR FUCKING ASS YOU DUMB SON OF A FUCKING BITCH IS UNCALLED FOR
> pull another fucking straw man out how about it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can't? Prove it.
> 
> As for insults, you're showing your intelligence here. Get lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you go for the fucking straw man bull shit it shows you to be a fucking to bitch
> So kiss my god damn ass. bitch.
> Miller vs U.S.1939 Lewis vs U.S. 1980
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone as out-of-control as bigrebnc should be banned from owning, possessing or having in his custody or control a firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Come on Bitch lead the fucking charge don't be a god damn pussy and try and send someone to do something you think that should be done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Calling me a "Bitch" while hiding behind a keyboard is rather humorous.  I suggest you seek counseling, a good therapist and a couple of years of treatment and even you might become socialized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I live in Kannapolis north Carolina you want my guns come and get'em Bitch.
> Have no doubt about it I would call you a bitch to your face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This would be me taking your gun if I decided to
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many police officer have you attempt to take a gun away from? You do realize I still pocess the train to defend myself?
> I would really would hate make you look foolish with a barrel of a gun stick out of your ear drum.
Click to expand...



Oh I was just teasing you I have no desire to take your gun.

But just you know, I was the MP they called in when Rangers were tearing up a bar.

I seen you are former military, which means you know MPs are normally not fucked with.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They can't ban any military style firearms the end.
> AND PULLING A GOD DAMN MOTHER FUCKING STRAW MAN OUT OF YOUR FUCKING ASS YOU DUMB SON OF A FUCKING BITCH IS UNCALLED FOR
> pull another fucking straw man out how about it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can't? Prove it.
> 
> As for insults, you're showing your intelligence here. Get lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you go for the fucking straw man bull shit it shows you to be a fucking to bitch
> So kiss my god damn ass. bitch.
> Miller vs U.S.1939 Lewis vs U.S. 1980
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone as out-of-control as bigrebnc should be banned from owning, possessing or having in his custody or control a firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Come on Bitch lead the fucking charge don't be a god damn pussy and try and send someone to do something you think that should be done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Calling me a "Bitch" while hiding behind a keyboard is rather humorous.  I suggest you seek counseling, a good therapist and a couple of years of treatment and even you might become socialized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I live in Kannapolis north Carolina you want my guns come and get'em Bitch.
> Have no doubt about it I would call you a bitch to your face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This would be me taking your gun if I decided to
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many police officer have you attempt to take a gun away from? You do realize I still pocess the train to defend myself?
> I would really would hate make you look foolish with a barrel of a gun stick out of your ear drum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I was just teasing you I have no desire to take your gun.
> 
> But just you know, I was the MP they called in when Rangers were tearing up a bar.
> 
> I seen you are former military, which means you know MPs are normally not fucked with.
Click to expand...

I was Air Force Security police cross trained ABGD Trained by Army special forces Recon when I went through my ABGD training.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

bigrebnc1775 said:


> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I was just teasing you I have no desire to take your gun.
> 
> But just you know, I was the MP they called in when Rangers were tearing up a bar.
> 
> I seen you are former military, which means you know MPs are normally not fucked with.
> 
> 
> 
> I was Air Force Security police cross trained ABGD Trained by Army special forces Recon when I went through my ABGD training.
Click to expand...


And you still wouldn't have messed with me.



From one vet to another, thanks for your service.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanTheAverageBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I was just teasing you I have no desire to take your gun.
> 
> But just you know, I was the MP they called in when Rangers were tearing up a bar.
> 
> I seen you are former military, which means you know MPs are normally not fucked with.
> 
> 
> 
> I was Air Force Security police cross trained ABGD Trained by Army special forces Recon when I went through my ABGD training.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you still wouldn't have messed with me.
> 
> 
> 
> From one vet to another, thanks for your service.
Click to expand...

Hell I got to jack up a couple generals one day because to walked into a no lone zone with out being identified before they went in. The rush of having two two star generals laying prone on their bellies with handcuffs.
Offutt AFB 1985 SAC headquarters .Now that takes balls.


----------



## frigidweirdo

MXdad said:


> Thats false a private individual can own machine guns, many do. SAMs and Nukes are not arms



It's not about whether someone can own machine guns, it's about whether the govt could stop someone if they choose to. We're dealing with theory here.


----------



## Lakhota

On Monday, Panera Bread became the latest U.S. company to ask customers to leave their guns at home.

The bakery-cafe chain joins Starbucks, Chipotle, Target and a handful of other restaurants and retailers in making such a request, which comes amid an increasingly heated debate over the role of guns in public places.

Panera Asks Customers Not To Bring Guns Into Its Restaurants

Good.  More companies are wising up.  I like Panera Bread.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

Lakhota said:


> On Monday, Panera Bread became the latest U.S. company to ask customers to leave their guns at home.
> 
> The bakery-cafe chain joins Starbucks, Chipotle, Target and a handful of other restaurants and retailers in making such a request, which comes amid an increasingly heated debate over the role of guns in public places.
> 
> Panera Asks Customers Not To Bring Guns Into Its Restaurants
> 
> Good.  More companies are wising up.  I like Panera Bread.


@JakeStarkey  hey look Jake , companies are discriminating against people who carry guns. Where are you to claim they can't? 

For the record, I believe they can and should be able to


----------



## Wildman

"... therapy, and some powerful meds..." 
said by a liberaddict, why is it that this is the first thing a liberscum says when they are in a losing dialog about guns ? me thinks they are way too familiar with therapy and drugs, both illegal and prescription.

all you gun hating liberfools get back in touch with your psychiatrist, your unlicensed therapist is not helping you one little bit   .....


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear

and @JakeStarkey wisely avoids the thread.


----------



## MXdad

Lakhota said:


> On Monday, Panera Bread became the latest U.S. company to ask customers to leave their guns at home.
> 
> The bakery-cafe chain joins Starbucks, Chipotle, Target and a handful of other restaurants and retailers in making such a request, which comes amid an increasingly heated debate over the role of guns in public places.
> 
> Panera Asks Customers Not To Bring Guns Into Its Restaurants
> 
> Good.  More companies are wising up.  I like Panera Bread.



LOL Panera is doing the same as the handful of other companies which is basically straddling the fence in an effort to appease the Hoplophobes. They are not banning guns, they are also not asking their employees to enforce their request. Nothing has changed at all in Panera's policy, I can still walking in carrying a weapon just as I always have and they will say nothing about it. What they have done is apparently pulled the wool over your eyes by making you think they have taken a stand, while not changing anything. LOL 

What they have basically done is issue a statement that does nothing and changes nothing. They are still going to operate under the state and local laws



> While the request is new, Panera plans to continue to follow state and local laws regarding firearm policy. The chain also won't ask employees to enforce the new request or place signs about it in its restaurants.


Panera Bread asks customers not to bring guns to its restaurants


----------



## M14 Shooter

Lakhota said:


> On Monday, Panera Bread became the latest U.S. company to ask customers to leave their guns at home.
> 
> The bakery-cafe chain joins Starbucks, Chipotle, Target and a handful of other restaurants and retailers in making such a request, which comes amid an increasingly heated debate over the role of guns in public places.
> 
> Panera Asks Customers Not To Bring Guns Into Its Restaurants
> 
> Good.  More companies are wising up.  I like Panera Bread.


Oh look -- another gun free-zone, where criminals are free to kill at their leisure.


----------



## Lakhota

*When will the confusing, poorly worded Second Amendment be updated to reflect modern reality?


*


----------



## M14 Shooter

Lakhota said:


> *When will the confusing, poorly worded Second Amendment be updated to reflect modern reality?*


Obvious troll remains obvious.


----------



## Lakhota

*(Over)Bearing Arms in America*

What was once the "tool" of law enforcement types, the military, and hunters is now the equivalent of an iPhone, a talisman of connection and social order. It's something that just about anyone can put in a pocket, a purse, or simply strap on in the full light of day in a land where all of us seem to be heading for the O.K. Corral.

Much More:  Over Bearing Arms in America - Tom Engelhardt

I cherish my guns and have been a hunter all my life - but I have mixed emotions about this trend.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Lakhota said:


> *(Over)Bearing Arms in America*
> 
> What was once the "tool" of law enforcement types, the military, and hunters is now the equivalent of an iPhone, a talisman of connection and social order. It's something that just about anyone can put in a pocket, a purse, or simply strap on in the full light of day in a land where all of us seem to be heading for the O.K. Corral.
> 
> Much More:  Over Bearing Arms in America - Tom Engelhardt
> 
> I cherish my guns and have been a hunter all my life - but I have mixed emotions about this trend.


You lefties have been claiming we would have wild west shoot outs since the 90's, still HASN'T happened. I guess if you keep claiming it some day one might happen.


----------



## Lakhota

RetiredGySgt said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> *(Over)Bearing Arms in America*
> 
> What was once the "tool" of law enforcement types, the military, and hunters is now the equivalent of an iPhone, a talisman of connection and social order. It's something that just about anyone can put in a pocket, a purse, or simply strap on in the full light of day in a land where all of us seem to be heading for the O.K. Corral.
> 
> Much More:  Over Bearing Arms in America - Tom Engelhardt
> 
> I cherish my guns and have been a hunter all my life - but I have mixed emotions about this trend.
> 
> 
> 
> You lefties have been claiming we would have wild west shoot outs since the 90's, still HASN'T happened. I guess if you keep claiming it some day one might happen.
Click to expand...


I have no problem with sane, law-abiding people having and/or carrying guns.


----------



## Ernie S.

As long as they vote Democrat, right?


----------



## Iceweasel

Small arms have always been with us. Improved upon for sure but they had snub nosed revolvers and derringers before that. You have the Constitution right to be offended, exercise it to your heart's content.


----------



## PredFan

Lakhota said:


> *When will the confusing, poorly worded Second Amendment be updated to reflect modern reality?
> 
> *



You are right, it's time to clear it up. It should read:

"The American People have the right to arm themselves without restrictions."


----------



## 2aguy

Lakhota said:


> *When will the confusing, poorly worded Second Amendment be updated to reflect modern reality?
> 
> *




I have a suggestion for rewording the 2nd amendment.....to reflect modern reality.....

"The Right to Keep and Bear arms is absolute.....and cannot be stopped by either local or federal government, and just because there are people who pretended to not understand the first iteration of this Amendment......let us be clear......people can own, carry and defend themselves with pistols and rifles, especially those used by the current military, but not excluding any others......and no treaties with foreign nations will stop this right......oh......and for those gun grabbers who will try to be clever.....ammo and equipment needed to operate pistols and rifles are off limits as well.....they carry the same protection as the pistols and rifles.....oh.......and again......for those who pretended not to understand the first attempt at this.........this does not mean for a militia....it is an absolute individual right.....get it......."


There....that may need some work, since the gun grabbers will weasle around just about anything you try to do to stop them....but we'll start with this....


----------



## 2aguy

Lakhota said:


> *(Over)Bearing Arms in America*
> 
> What was once the "tool" of law enforcement types, the military, and hunters is now the equivalent of an iPhone, a talisman of connection and social order. It's something that just about anyone can put in a pocket, a purse, or simply strap on in the full light of day in a land where all of us seem to be heading for the O.K. Corral.
> 
> Much More:  Over Bearing Arms in America - Tom Engelhardt
> 
> I cherish my guns and have been a hunter all my life - but I have mixed emotions about this trend.




Except...we aren't.....more people own and carry guns for protection and the violent crime rate and the accidental gun death rate are going down, not up.....the only O.K. corrals are the inner city, gang infested neighborhoods and their small, multi block killing zones.......and that can be stopped with longer prison sentences for felons caught with guns, and for using a gun to commit a crime....until then, we won't get a handle on violence in those neighborhoods......


----------



## Flash

Lakhota said:


> I have no problem with sane, law-abiding people having and/or carrying guns.



I have a problem with citizens having to get government permission to enjoy a right that is guaranteed in the  Bill of Rights.


----------



## 2aguy

Flash said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem with sane, law-abiding people having and/or carrying guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a problem with citizens having to get government permission to enjoy a right that is guaranteed in the  Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...

exactly......


----------



## M14 Shooter

Lakhota said:


> *(Over)Bearing Arms in America*
> 
> What was once the "tool" of law enforcement types, the military, and hunters is now the equivalent of an iPhone, a talisman of connection and social order. It's something that just about anyone can put in a pocket, a purse, or simply strap on in the full light of day in a land where all of us seem to be heading for the O.K. Corral.
> 
> Much More:  Over Bearing Arms in America - Tom Engelhardt
> 
> I cherish my guns and have been a hunter all my life - but I have mixed emotions about this trend.


Obvious troll remains obvious.


----------



## 2aguy

Lakhota said:


> On Monday, Panera Bread became the latest U.S. company to ask customers to leave their guns at home.
> 
> The bakery-cafe chain joins Starbucks, Chipotle, Target and a handful of other restaurants and retailers in making such a request, which comes amid an increasingly heated debate over the role of guns in public places.
> 
> Panera Asks Customers Not To Bring Guns Into Its Restaurants
> 
> Good.  More companies are wising up.  I like Panera Bread.




Hmmmmm...they must be taking their policy advice from the Australian coffee shop, the Kosher Deli in France and any number of other gun free zones that were targets of armed criminals....

See, the thing is simply this....gun control does not work......only locking up criminals who commit crimes with guns works......France has strict gun control, especially of military rifles........and three terrorists, one of whom was a convicted criminal on a government watch list for terrrorism, still managed to get all the military style rifles and pistols they wanted.......who didn't have guns......the normal, law abiding innocent people at the magazine and at the Kosher Deli...gun control completely worked for them....they didn't have one gun among them....

Australia.....another terrorist was able to get a gun in allegedly, strictly gun controlled Australia.....and killed people at a coffee shop, and dittos Canada, where a guy got a gun and killed an unarmed soldier and attacked their parliament....

And then we have Puerto Rico......the strictest gun control in the United States and its territories....and the highest gun murder rate in the world........

So Panera.....they are following in the grand tradition of the gun free killing zones from around the world......


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Lakhota said:


> On Monday, Panera Bread became the latest U.S. company to ask customers to leave their guns at home.
> 
> The bakery-cafe chain joins Starbucks, Chipotle, Target and a handful of other restaurants and retailers in making such a request, which comes amid an increasingly heated debate over the role of guns in public places.
> 
> Panera Asks Customers Not To Bring Guns Into Its Restaurants
> 
> Good.  More companies are wising up.  I like Panera Bread.




From the article -

_The companies that have decided to ask customers to leave guns at home have framed the new policy as a request, saying that they do not want to put employees in the position of confronting an armed customer.
...

Supporters argue that the weapons are frightening, and that it is dangerous to ask shoppers and law enforcement officers to distinguish between people carrying guns peacefully and those intending to do harm._

Fine and good but unenforceable.

We've seen toy guns mistaken for the real thing, children killed and shoppers mistaken for shooters. There's no such thing as "carrying guns peacefully". If one carries a gun, they're looking for an opportunity to use it. That is the main reason to carry a gun.

Be that as it may, at the very least, scared nutters should be required to open carry but, as we've seen here, some would defy that law as well.

We have more guns and they have made us all less safe.


----------



## Little-Acorn

Flash said:


> I have a problem with citizens having to get government permission to enjoy a right that is guaranteed in the  Bill of Rights.


The purpose of the 2nd amendment was to make sure government had NO say in who can or can't own and carry a gun or other such weapon.

A store owner can ask that people not bring a gun into his store (just as a homeowner can ask that people not being a gun into his house if he wants to). They can forbid a person carrying a gun, entrance into the property. But they can't take the guy's gun away.

Parents can decide their child isn't mature enough to handle a gun.

But government can't.


----------



## Little-Acorn

Luddly Neddite said:


> We have more guns and they have made us all less safe.


I have been waiting a long time for the people who claim to believe this, to put a sign on their front lawn saying:

* "Since I believe guns make us less safe, I have removed all guns from this house. Burglars and home invaders, please don't assault or hurt us, because we have made a law against it."*

I'm still waiting.

These people don't actually believe it. They are just pretending, so they can further pretend they are somehow better than normal people.

Everything they do and say, is based on fakery, wishful thinking, and lies.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Little-Acorn said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a problem with citizens having to get government permission to enjoy a right that is guaranteed in the  Bill of Rights.
> 
> 
> 
> The purpose of the 2nd amendment was to make sure government had NO say in who can or can't own and carry a gun or other such weapon.
> 
> A store owner can ask that people not bring a gun into his store (just as a homeowner can ask that people not being a gun into his house if he wants to). They can forbid a person carrying a gun, entrance into the property. But they can't take the guy's gun away.
> 
> Parents can decide their child isn't mature enough to handle a gun.
> 
> But government can't.
Click to expand...


_
The purpose of the 2nd amendment was to make sure government had NO say in who can or can't own and carry a gun or other such weapon._

That's incomplete and arguable but it does not take into consideration nutters working to make sure criminals, illegals, terrorists and the mentally ill have free access to any gun they want.

See Billc's revision above.


----------



## Little-Acorn

Luddly Neddite said:


> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The purpose of the 2nd amendment was to make sure government had NO say in who can or can't own and carry a gun or other such weapon.
> 
> 
> 
> That's incomplete and arguable
Click to expand...

TRANSLATION: I can't find any way to refute it.


> but it does not take into consideration nutters working to make sure criminals, illegals, terrorists and the mentally ill have free access to any gun they want.



TRANSLATION: Time to change the subject, attack conservatives, call them names, and tell lies about what they are doing.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Little-Acorn said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The purpose of the 2nd amendment was to make sure government had NO say in who can or can't own and carry a gun or other such weapon.
> 
> 
> 
> That's incomplete and arguable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> TRANSLATION: I can't find any way to refute it.
> 
> 
> 
> but it does not take into consideration nutters working to make sure criminals, illegals, terrorists and the mentally ill have free access to any gun they want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> TRANSLATION: Time to change the subject, attack conservatives, call them names, and tell lies about what they are doing.
Click to expand...

Don't forget his strawman argument.


----------



## turtledude

The federal government shall not make any law or regulation concerning firearms owned, possessed, used, bought sold or carried by citizens of the United States and the several states.

The commerce clause is limited to the United States of America, the several states and foreign nations. Nothing in the Commerce Clause shall be construed to allow the federal government to pass laws as to the actions of individual citizens


----------



## Brain357

Billc said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *When will the confusing, poorly worded Second Amendment be updated to reflect modern reality?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a suggestion for rewording the 2nd amendment.....to reflect modern reality.....
> 
> "The Right to Keep and Bear arms is absolute.....and cannot be stopped by either local or federal government, and just because there are people who pretended to not understand the first iteration of this Amendment......let us be clear......people can own, carry and defend themselves with pistols and rifles, especially those used by the current military, but not excluding any others......and no treaties with foreign nations will stop this right......oh......and for those gun grabbers who will try to be clever.....ammo and equipment needed to operate pistols and rifles are off limits as well.....they carry the same protection as the pistols and rifles.....oh.......and again......for those who pretended not to understand the first attempt at this.........this does not mean for a militia....it is an absolute individual right.....get it......."
> 
> 
> There....that may need some work, since the gun grabbers will weasle around just about anything you try to do to stop them....but we'll start with this....
Click to expand...


So you want people to have machine guns?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Brain357 said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *When will the confusing, poorly worded Second Amendment be updated to reflect modern reality?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a suggestion for rewording the 2nd amendment.....to reflect modern reality.....
> 
> "The Right to Keep and Bear arms is absolute.....and cannot be stopped by either local or federal government, and just because there are people who pretended to not understand the first iteration of this Amendment......let us be clear......people can own, carry and defend themselves with pistols and rifles, especially those used by the current military, but not excluding any others......and no treaties with foreign nations will stop this right......oh......and for those gun grabbers who will try to be clever.....ammo and equipment needed to operate pistols and rifles are off limits as well.....they carry the same protection as the pistols and rifles.....oh.......and again......for those who pretended not to understand the first attempt at this.........this does not mean for a militia....it is an absolute individual right.....get it......."
> 
> 
> There....that may need some work, since the gun grabbers will weasle around just about anything you try to do to stop them....but we'll start with this....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you want people to have machine guns?
Click to expand...

Machine Guns are not pistols or rifles. They are machine guns.


----------



## Brain357

RetiredGySgt said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *When will the confusing, poorly worded Second Amendment be updated to reflect modern reality?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a suggestion for rewording the 2nd amendment.....to reflect modern reality.....
> 
> "The Right to Keep and Bear arms is absolute.....and cannot be stopped by either local or federal government, and just because there are people who pretended to not understand the first iteration of this Amendment......let us be clear......people can own, carry and defend themselves with pistols and rifles, especially those used by the current military, but not excluding any others......and no treaties with foreign nations will stop this right......oh......and for those gun grabbers who will try to be clever.....ammo and equipment needed to operate pistols and rifles are off limits as well.....they carry the same protection as the pistols and rifles.....oh.......and again......for those who pretended not to understand the first attempt at this.........this does not mean for a militia....it is an absolute individual right.....get it......."
> 
> 
> There....that may need some work, since the gun grabbers will weasle around just about anything you try to do to stop them....but we'll start with this....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you want people to have machine guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Machine Guns are not pistols or rifles. They are machine guns.
Click to expand...


You are saying an m16 isn't a rifle?


----------



## Flash

Little-Acorn said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a problem with citizens having to get government permission to enjoy a right that is guaranteed in the  Bill of Rights.
> 
> 
> 
> The purpose of the 2nd amendment was to make sure government had NO say in who can or can't own and carry a gun or other such weapon.
> 
> A store owner can ask that people not bring a gun into his store (just as a homeowner can ask that people not being a gun into his house if he wants to). They can forbid a person carrying a gun, entrance into the property. But they can't take the guy's gun away.
> 
> Parents can decide their child isn't mature enough to handle a gun.
> 
> But government can't.
Click to expand...


You are correct.

Since Florida is mostly a free state a business owner can post all the signs he wants to tell a customer not to bring in a weapon but that sign has no force of law. 

I always ignore those signs and carry anyhow if I want.

I think most states are like that.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Brain357 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *When will the confusing, poorly worded Second Amendment be updated to reflect modern reality?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a suggestion for rewording the 2nd amendment.....to reflect modern reality.....
> 
> "The Right to Keep and Bear arms is absolute.....and cannot be stopped by either local or federal government, and just because there are people who pretended to not understand the first iteration of this Amendment......let us be clear......people can own, carry and defend themselves with pistols and rifles, especially those used by the current military, but not excluding any others......and no treaties with foreign nations will stop this right......oh......and for those gun grabbers who will try to be clever.....ammo and equipment needed to operate pistols and rifles are off limits as well.....they carry the same protection as the pistols and rifles.....oh.......and again......for those who pretended not to understand the first attempt at this.........this does not mean for a militia....it is an absolute individual right.....get it......."
> 
> 
> There....that may need some work, since the gun grabbers will weasle around just about anything you try to do to stop them....but we'll start with this....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you want people to have machine guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Machine Guns are not pistols or rifles. They are machine guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are saying an m16 isn't a rifle?
Click to expand...

The M16 is not full auto. Further if one makes a rifle fully auto it is now classified as a machine gun not a rifle. And Machine guns have been strictly limited since 1934. Did you know that you can legally buy a machine gun in 33 States? Only 17 ban them outright.


----------



## M14 Shooter

RetiredGySgt said:


> The M16 is not full auto.


The A1 is.    The A2 and later are 3RB.  3RB is legally considered FA.



> Further if one makes a rifle fully auto it is now classified as a machine gun not a rifle


Legally yes. In real terms, it is an assault rifle, which is a subset of rifles.


----------



## 2aguy

> If one carries a gun, they're looking for an opportunity to use it. That is the main reason to carry a gun.




The people who are looking for an opportunity to use a gun are already carrying a gun illegally.....law abiding, good people do not carry a gun to use it....they carry a gun on the remote chance that some liberal/criminal will attempt to rob, rape, stab, beat or murder them.......and until that happens the gun stays nice and snug in its holster.....


----------



## 2aguy

> That's incomplete and arguable but it does not take into consideration nutters working to make sure criminals, illegals, terrorists and the mentally ill have free access to any gun they want.



Actually, gun control ensured that the killers in France had guns....but the innocent magazine writers and patrons of the Kosher Deli had none.......


----------



## M14 Shooter

Flash said:


> You are correct.
> Since Florida is mostly a free state a business owner can post all the signs he wants to tell a customer not to bring in a weapon but that sign has no force of law.
> I always ignore those signs and carry anyhow if I want.
> I think most states are like that.


I carried into an OH bar and grill that did not have the sign posted at the door, but at the bar.
As the sign must be at the door, I went on my merry way,  Oddly enough, no one died.


----------



## Brain357

Billc said:


> That's incomplete and arguable but it does not take into consideration nutters working to make sure criminals, illegals, terrorists and the mentally ill have free access to any gun they want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, gun control ensured that the killers in France had guns....but the innocent magazine writers and patrons of the Kosher Deli had none.......
Click to expand...


And France has far fewer shootings than us.  And since most companies don't allow employees to carry the same thing would happen here.  Most of the U.S. does not carry because they know they will never need a gun.  When are you going after the big corporations and their gun free zones?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

You don't like the 2nd amendment? Get it changed, others shut your yap.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

RetiredGySgt said:


> You don't like the 2nd amendment? Get it changed, others shut your yap.


 unfortunately we need guns to protect ourselves from liberal govt.


----------



## Brain357

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't like the 2nd amendment? Get it changed, others shut your yap.
> 
> 
> 
> unfortunately we need guns to protect ourselves from liberal govt.
Click to expand...


When have guns been used for that?


----------



## Contumacious

Lakhota said:


> Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited  never have been and never will be  Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star




The ABSOLUTE INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms - is  UNALIENABLE  not dependent on the Constitution.


.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Brain357 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't like the 2nd amendment? Get it changed, others shut your yap.
> 
> 
> 
> unfortunately we need guns to protect ourselves from liberal govt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When have guns been used for that?
Click to expand...


its like asking when does the IRS use guns to collect taxes. Rarely, because everyone knows they have them.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Contumacious said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited  never have been and never will be  Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ABSOLUTE INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms - is  UNALIENABLE  not dependent on the Constitution.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


exactly, without guns we could not protect ourselves from criminals and liberals. That turns govt into a GOD.


----------



## 2aguy

> Most of the U.S. does not carry because they know they will never need a gun.



And Brain....if you figure out a way to determine which Americans need their guns each day and which don't.....you would be a wealthy man......until then.........it is better that each individual decide for themselves.....

And the French have fewer gun murders because their criminals don't use guns to murder people........it is really as simple as that....since these three terrorists decided to murder people, went out, got illegal millitary rifles.....and murdered people.....gun control only works for those who decide to obey the law....and those who are caught breaking it....it will never work like Tom Cruise and the movie "minority report..."


----------



## Brain357

Billc said:


> Most of the U.S. does not carry because they know they will never need a gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Brain....if you figure out a way to determine which Americans need their guns each day and which don't.....you would be a wealthy man......until then.........it is better that each individual decide for themselves.....
> 
> And the French have fewer gun murders because their criminals don't use guns to murder people........it is really as simple as that....since these three terrorists decided to murder people, went out, got illegal millitary rifles.....and murdered people.....gun control only works for those who decide to obey the law....and those who are caught breaking it....it will never work like Tom Cruise and the movie "minority report..."
Click to expand...



Yes individuals should decide.

The French also have a much lower homicide rate.  And like I said what happened there could happen here despite all our guns.  Companies don't let employees carry.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Brain357 said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the U.S. does not carry because they know they will never need a gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Brain....if you figure out a way to determine which Americans need their guns each day and which don't.....you would be a wealthy man......until then.........it is better that each individual decide for themselves.....
> 
> And the French have fewer gun murders because their criminals don't use guns to murder people........it is really as simple as that....since these three terrorists decided to murder people, went out, got illegal millitary rifles.....and murdered people.....gun control only works for those who decide to obey the law....and those who are caught breaking it....it will never work like Tom Cruise and the movie "minority report..."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes individuals should decide.
> 
> The French also have a much lower homicide rate.  And like I said what happened there could happen here despite all our guns.  Companies don't let employees carry.
Click to expand...


*Companies don't let employees carry.*

some do some dont


----------



## Brain357

jon_berzerk said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the U.S. does not carry because they know they will never need a gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Brain....if you figure out a way to determine which Americans need their guns each day and which don't.....you would be a wealthy man......until then.........it is better that each individual decide for themselves.....
> 
> And the French have fewer gun murders because their criminals don't use guns to murder people........it is really as simple as that....since these three terrorists decided to murder people, went out, got illegal millitary rifles.....and murdered people.....gun control only works for those who decide to obey the law....and those who are caught breaking it....it will never work like Tom Cruise and the movie "minority report..."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes individuals should decide.
> 
> The French also have a much lower homicide rate.  And like I said what happened there could happen here despite all our guns.  Companies don't let employees carry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Companies don't let employees carry.*
> 
> some do some dont
Click to expand...


Yes some small do.  But name some large companies that do.


----------



## Lakhota

Don't get me wrong. I'm licensed for CCW and I carry a gun from time to time. So I'm not opposed per se to the notion that guns do more good than harm. What I do oppose is constructing an argument for either position out of whole cloth, and John Lott has been stitching together his argument for longer than he should.

Do Guns Protect Us? Violence Policy Center Says No

The gun debate should be an honest one.


----------



## westwall

Lakhota said:


> I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed.  It's just a matter of time...







When it is, the gulags and mass graves will be right around the corner.


----------



## westwall

Lakhota said:


> Don't get me wrong. I'm licensed for CCW and I carry a gun from time to time. So I'm not opposed per se to the notion that guns do more good than harm. What I do oppose is constructing an argument for either position out of whole cloth, and John Lott has been stitching together his argument for longer than he should.
> 
> Do Guns Protect Us? Violence Policy Center Says No
> 
> The gun debate should be an honest one.








If you want an honest discussion why do you use such an overtly biased organization?  There is nothing balanced about anything they do.  You say one thing and then do the exact opposite.

Hard to take anyone seriously who is that screwed up.


----------



## Brain357

westwall said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed.  It's just a matter of time...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When it is, the gulags and mass graves will be right around the corner.
Click to expand...


That is just silly.


----------



## Lakhota

westwall said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't get me wrong. I'm licensed for CCW and I carry a gun from time to time. So I'm not opposed per se to the notion that guns do more good than harm. What I do oppose is constructing an argument for either position out of whole cloth, and John Lott has been stitching together his argument for longer than he should.
> 
> Do Guns Protect Us? Violence Policy Center Says No
> 
> The gun debate should be an honest one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want an honest discussion why do you use such an overtly biased organization?  There is nothing balanced about anything they do.  You say one thing and then do the exact opposite.
> 
> Hard to take anyone seriously who is that screwed up.
Click to expand...


Well, sparky, it's better than listening to Ted Nugent and the NRA.


----------



## turtledude

Brain357 said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *When will the confusing, poorly worded Second Amendment be updated to reflect modern reality?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a suggestion for rewording the 2nd amendment.....to reflect modern reality.....
> 
> "The Right to Keep and Bear arms is absolute.....and cannot be stopped by either local or federal government, and just because there are people who pretended to not understand the first iteration of this Amendment......let us be clear......people can own, carry and defend themselves with pistols and rifles, especially those used by the current military, but not excluding any others......and no treaties with foreign nations will stop this right......oh......and for those gun grabbers who will try to be clever.....ammo and equipment needed to operate pistols and rifles are off limits as well.....they carry the same protection as the pistols and rifles.....oh.......and again......for those who pretended not to understand the first attempt at this.........this does not mean for a militia....it is an absolute individual right.....get it......."
> 
> 
> There....that may need some work, since the gun grabbers will weasle around just about anything you try to do to stop them....but we'll start with this....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you want people to have machine guns?
Click to expand...


anything civilian police have other civilians should be able to buy with nothing more than a background check.  same with the standard issue individual infantry weapon.  when we get to crew served heavy machine guns we are nearing the limit of arms that individuals KEEP and BEAR


----------



## turtledude

Billc said:


> That's incomplete and arguable but it does not take into consideration nutters working to make sure criminals, illegals, terrorists and the mentally ill have free access to any gun they want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, gun control ensured that the killers in France had guns....but the innocent magazine writers and patrons of the Kosher Deli had none.......
Click to expand...

which is what people like Brain want


----------



## Contumacious

Contumacious said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited  never have been and never will be  Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ABSOLUTE INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms - is  UNALIENABLE  not dependent on the Constitution.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


----------



## Brain357

turtledude said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *When will the confusing, poorly worded Second Amendment be updated to reflect modern reality?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a suggestion for rewording the 2nd amendment.....to reflect modern reality.....
> 
> "The Right to Keep and Bear arms is absolute.....and cannot be stopped by either local or federal government, and just because there are people who pretended to not understand the first iteration of this Amendment......let us be clear......people can own, carry and defend themselves with pistols and rifles, especially those used by the current military, but not excluding any others......and no treaties with foreign nations will stop this right......oh......and for those gun grabbers who will try to be clever.....ammo and equipment needed to operate pistols and rifles are off limits as well.....they carry the same protection as the pistols and rifles.....oh.......and again......for those who pretended not to understand the first attempt at this.........this does not mean for a militia....it is an absolute individual right.....get it......."
> 
> 
> There....that may need some work, since the gun grabbers will weasle around just about anything you try to do to stop them....but we'll start with this....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you want people to have machine guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> anything civilian police have other civilians should be able to buy with nothing more than a background check.  same with the standard issue individual infantry weapon.  when we get to crew served heavy machine guns we are nearing the limit of arms that individuals KEEP and BEAR
Click to expand...


So then you do think people should have fully automatic weapons?  Just limit at heavy machine guns?  Now that is remarkably stupid.  Like criminals aren't already doing enough damage with semi autos and hi cap magazines.  You want to give them machine guns.  Our machine gun laws now work great.  The gun nuts can get them but they are practically gone from crime.  Only a real dope would want to change that.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Brain357 said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the U.S. does not carry because they know they will never need a gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Brain....if you figure out a way to determine which Americans need their guns each day and which don't.....you would be a wealthy man......until then.........it is better that each individual decide for themselves.....
> 
> And the French have fewer gun murders because their criminals don't use guns to murder people........it is really as simple as that....since these three terrorists decided to murder people, went out, got illegal millitary rifles.....and murdered people.....gun control only works for those who decide to obey the law....and those who are caught breaking it....it will never work like Tom Cruise and the movie "minority report..."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes individuals should decide.
> 
> The French also have a much lower homicide rate.  And like I said what happened there could happen here despite all our guns.  Companies don't let employees carry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Companies don't let employees carry.*
> 
> some do some dont
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes some small do.  But name some large companies that do.
Click to expand...



dont be absurd

there are tons  of them 

almost every state has laws preventing employers 

from banning employees bring firearms in their vehicles 

on the company site


----------



## turtledude

Brain357 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *When will the confusing, poorly worded Second Amendment be updated to reflect modern reality?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a suggestion for rewording the 2nd amendment.....to reflect modern reality.....
> 
> "The Right to Keep and Bear arms is absolute.....and cannot be stopped by either local or federal government, and just because there are people who pretended to not understand the first iteration of this Amendment......let us be clear......people can own, carry and defend themselves with pistols and rifles, especially those used by the current military, but not excluding any others......and no treaties with foreign nations will stop this right......oh......and for those gun grabbers who will try to be clever.....ammo and equipment needed to operate pistols and rifles are off limits as well.....they carry the same protection as the pistols and rifles.....oh.......and again......for those who pretended not to understand the first attempt at this.........this does not mean for a militia....it is an absolute individual right.....get it......."
> 
> 
> There....that may need some work, since the gun grabbers will weasle around just about anything you try to do to stop them....but we'll start with this....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you want people to have machine guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> anything civilian police have other civilians should be able to buy with nothing more than a background check.  same with the standard issue individual infantry weapon.  when we get to crew served heavy machine guns we are nearing the limit of arms that individuals KEEP and BEAR
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then you do think people should have fully automatic weapons?  Just limit at heavy machine guns?  Now that is remarkably stupid.  Like criminals aren't already doing enough damage with semi autos and hi cap magazines.  You want to give them machine guns.  Our machine gun laws now work great.  The gun nuts can get them but they are practically gone from crime.  Only a real dope would want to change that.
Click to expand...

1) yes-select fire carbines, machine pistols, and sub machine guns.  

2) you are too stupid to understand that full automatic is usually less dangerous than semi auto

3) there has been NO crimes with legal machine guns in 80 years, banning ones made after May 19, 1986 was spiteful, unconstitutional and not base on any legitimate reason

4) if cops have them, that means Other civilians should have them

tell us moron

why do cops need machine guns?


----------



## Lakhota

Former Chief Justice Warren E. Burger said it best:

Ex-Chief Justice Warren Burger


----------



## jon_berzerk

Lakhota said:


> Former Chief Justice Warren E. Burger said it best:
> 
> Ex-Chief Justice Warren Burger




since the SC has sided against most of that


----------



## Lakhota

jon_berzerk said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Former Chief Justice Warren E. Burger said it best:
> 
> Ex-Chief Justice Warren Burger
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> since the SC has sided against most of that
Click to expand...


True - because of the NaziCons on the bench.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Lakhota said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Former Chief Justice Warren E. Burger said it best:
> 
> Ex-Chief Justice Warren Burger
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> since the SC has sided against most of that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True - because of the NaziCons on the bench.
Click to expand...



troll alert --LOL

no one take you serious with that sort of stupid talk 

--LOL@U


----------



## peach174

Lakhota said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Former Chief Justice Warren E. Burger said it best:
> 
> Ex-Chief Justice Warren Burger
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> since the SC has sided against most of that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True - because of the NaziCons on the bench.
Click to expand...


What is your own definition of a NaziCon?


----------



## turtledude

Lakhota said:


> Former Chief Justice Warren E. Burger said it best:
> 
> Ex-Chief Justice Warren Burger




burger was one of the least intellectually gifted political hacks to sit on the USSC and that turd ignored  half the issue

you can whine all you want about the 2A but its the 10A that really destroys the anti gun idiocy of cocksuckers like Burger


----------



## turtledude

jon_berzerk said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Former Chief Justice Warren E. Burger said it best:
> 
> Ex-Chief Justice Warren Burger
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> since the SC has sided against most of that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True - because of the NaziCons on the bench.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> troll alert --LOL
> 
> no one take you serious with that sort of stupid talk
> 
> --LOL@U
Click to expand...


big chief Shitting Bull has been hitting big firewater tonight


----------



## Brain357

jon_berzerk said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the U.S. does not carry because they know they will never need a gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Brain....if you figure out a way to determine which Americans need their guns each day and which don't.....you would be a wealthy man......until then.........it is better that each individual decide for themselves.....
> 
> And the French have fewer gun murders because their criminals don't use guns to murder people........it is really as simple as that....since these three terrorists decided to murder people, went out, got illegal millitary rifles.....and murdered people.....gun control only works for those who decide to obey the law....and those who are caught breaking it....it will never work like Tom Cruise and the movie "minority report..."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes individuals should decide.
> 
> The French also have a much lower homicide rate.  And like I said what happened there could happen here despite all our guns.  Companies don't let employees carry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Companies don't let employees carry.*
> 
> some do some dont
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes some small do.  But name some large companies that do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> dont be absurd
> 
> there are tons  of them
> 
> almost every state has laws preventing employers
> 
> from banning employees bring firearms in their vehicles
> 
> on the company site
Click to expand...


You didn't name any or provide a link supporting your claim.


----------



## westwall

Brain357 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed.  It's just a matter of time...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When it is, the gulags and mass graves will be right around the corner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is just silly.
Click to expand...





And, historically correct.


----------



## westwall

Lakhota said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't get me wrong. I'm licensed for CCW and I carry a gun from time to time. So I'm not opposed per se to the notion that guns do more good than harm. What I do oppose is constructing an argument for either position out of whole cloth, and John Lott has been stitching together his argument for longer than he should.
> 
> Do Guns Protect Us? Violence Policy Center Says No
> 
> The gun debate should be an honest one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want an honest discussion why do you use such an overtly biased organization?  There is nothing balanced about anything they do.  You say one thing and then do the exact opposite.
> 
> Hard to take anyone seriously who is that screwed up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, sparky, it's better than listening to Ted Nugent and the NRA.
Click to expand...






No, it's every bit as biased which makes it every bit as worthless as what they say.  It's a shame your so dishonest you can't see that.


----------



## Brain357

turtledude said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *When will the confusing, poorly worded Second Amendment be updated to reflect modern reality?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a suggestion for rewording the 2nd amendment.....to reflect modern reality.....
> 
> "The Right to Keep and Bear arms is absolute.....and cannot be stopped by either local or federal government, and just because there are people who pretended to not understand the first iteration of this Amendment......let us be clear......people can own, carry and defend themselves with pistols and rifles, especially those used by the current military, but not excluding any others......and no treaties with foreign nations will stop this right......oh......and for those gun grabbers who will try to be clever.....ammo and equipment needed to operate pistols and rifles are off limits as well.....they carry the same protection as the pistols and rifles.....oh.......and again......for those who pretended not to understand the first attempt at this.........this does not mean for a militia....it is an absolute individual right.....get it......."
> 
> 
> There....that may need some work, since the gun grabbers will weasle around just about anything you try to do to stop them....but we'll start with this....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you want people to have machine guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> anything civilian police have other civilians should be able to buy with nothing more than a background check.  same with the standard issue individual infantry weapon.  when we get to crew served heavy machine guns we are nearing the limit of arms that individuals KEEP and BEAR
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then you do think people should have fully automatic weapons?  Just limit at heavy machine guns?  Now that is remarkably stupid.  Like criminals aren't already doing enough damage with semi autos and hi cap magazines.  You want to give them machine guns.  Our machine gun laws now work great.  The gun nuts can get them but they are practically gone from crime.  Only a real dope would want to change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1) yes-select fire carbines, machine pistols, and sub machine guns.
> 
> 2) you are too stupid to understand that full automatic is usually less dangerous than semi auto
> 
> 3) there has been NO crimes with legal machine guns in 80 years, banning ones made after May 19, 1986 was spiteful, unconstitutional and not base on any legitimate reason
> 
> 4) if cops have them, that means Other civilians should have them
> 
> tell us moron
> 
> why do cops need machine guns?
Click to expand...


Do cops have machine guns? 

Do explain how a full auto is less dangerous than a semi auto.  Maybe you can tell that to the guy training the young girl with the uzi...

Always with the name calling turtle.  Why so childish all the time?

When did you become so pro criminal?  They would love to have easy access to machine guns.


----------



## Brain357

westwall said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed.  It's just a matter of time...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When it is, the gulags and mass graves will be right around the corner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is just silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, historically correct.
Click to expand...


Really mass graves?  There is a long list of countries where very few people have guns.  They don't have mass graves.  Sorry but it is silly.  You obviously aren't looking at modern history.


----------



## westwall

Brain357 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *When will the confusing, poorly worded Second Amendment be updated to reflect modern reality?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a suggestion for rewording the 2nd amendment.....to reflect modern reality.....
> 
> "The Right to Keep and Bear arms is absolute.....and cannot be stopped by either local or federal government, and just because there are people who pretended to not understand the first iteration of this Amendment......let us be clear......people can own, carry and defend themselves with pistols and rifles, especially those used by the current military, but not excluding any others......and no treaties with foreign nations will stop this right......oh......and for those gun grabbers who will try to be clever.....ammo and equipment needed to operate pistols and rifles are off limits as well.....they carry the same protection as the pistols and rifles.....oh.......and again......for those who pretended not to understand the first attempt at this.........this does not mean for a militia....it is an absolute individual right.....get it......."
> 
> 
> There....that may need some work, since the gun grabbers will weasle around just about anything you try to do to stop them....but we'll start with this....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you want people to have machine guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> anything civilian police have other civilians should be able to buy with nothing more than a background check.  same with the standard issue individual infantry weapon.  when we get to crew served heavy machine guns we are nearing the limit of arms that individuals KEEP and BEAR
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then you do think people should have fully automatic weapons?  Just limit at heavy machine guns?  Now that is remarkably stupid.  Like criminals aren't already doing enough damage with semi autos and hi cap magazines.  You want to give them machine guns.  Our machine gun laws now work great.  The gun nuts can get them but they are practically gone from crime.  Only a real dope would want to change that.
Click to expand...







I do.  I have 10 machineguns.  They're a blast to shoot, and my friends love to come up from California on the 4th of July and shoot them.  Just so you know, the only legally held machinegun ever used in a crime was a Mac-10 that a cop used to try and murder someone.  The only thing the machinegun laws have done is make them super expensive so the average person can't afford them.  The criminals who want them still get them and the values just keep going up and up.  My first MG cost less than the tax stamp that accompanies the paperwork.  Those days are long gone.


----------



## westwall

Brain357 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a suggestion for rewording the 2nd amendment.....to reflect modern reality.....
> 
> "The Right to Keep and Bear arms is absolute.....and cannot be stopped by either local or federal government, and just because there are people who pretended to not understand the first iteration of this Amendment......let us be clear......people can own, carry and defend themselves with pistols and rifles, especially those used by the current military, but not excluding any others......and no treaties with foreign nations will stop this right......oh......and for those gun grabbers who will try to be clever.....ammo and equipment needed to operate pistols and rifles are off limits as well.....they carry the same protection as the pistols and rifles.....oh.......and again......for those who pretended not to understand the first attempt at this.........this does not mean for a militia....it is an absolute individual right.....get it......."
> 
> 
> There....that may need some work, since the gun grabbers will weasle around just about anything you try to do to stop them....but we'll start with this....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you want people to have machine guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> anything civilian police have other civilians should be able to buy with nothing more than a background check.  same with the standard issue individual infantry weapon.  when we get to crew served heavy machine guns we are nearing the limit of arms that individuals KEEP and BEAR
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then you do think people should have fully automatic weapons?  Just limit at heavy machine guns?  Now that is remarkably stupid.  Like criminals aren't already doing enough damage with semi autos and hi cap magazines.  You want to give them machine guns.  Our machine gun laws now work great.  The gun nuts can get them but they are practically gone from crime.  Only a real dope would want to change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1) yes-select fire carbines, machine pistols, and sub machine guns.
> 
> 2) you are too stupid to understand that full automatic is usually less dangerous than semi auto
> 
> 3) there has been NO crimes with legal machine guns in 80 years, banning ones made after May 19, 1986 was spiteful, unconstitutional and not base on any legitimate reason
> 
> 4) if cops have them, that means Other civilians should have them
> 
> tell us moron
> 
> why do cops need machine guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do cops have machine guns?
> 
> Do explain how a full auto is less dangerous than a semi auto.  Maybe you can tell that to the guy training the young girl with the uzi...
> 
> Always with the name calling turtle.  Why so childish all the time?
> 
> When did you become so pro criminal?  They would love to have easy access to machine guns.
Click to expand...






Most people can't hit the inside of a barn when they shoot a fully automatic weapon.  The person taking rapid single shots is far more deadly.  If you weren't such an ignorant twit you would know that.


----------



## westwall

Brain357 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed.  It's just a matter of time...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When it is, the gulags and mass graves will be right around the corner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is just silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, historically correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really mass graves?  There is a long list of countries where very few people have guns.  They don't have mass graves.  Sorry but it is silly.  You obviously aren't looking at modern history.
Click to expand...





Name them.


----------



## Brain357

westwall said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *When will the confusing, poorly worded Second Amendment be updated to reflect modern reality?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a suggestion for rewording the 2nd amendment.....to reflect modern reality.....
> 
> "The Right to Keep and Bear arms is absolute.....and cannot be stopped by either local or federal government, and just because there are people who pretended to not understand the first iteration of this Amendment......let us be clear......people can own, carry and defend themselves with pistols and rifles, especially those used by the current military, but not excluding any others......and no treaties with foreign nations will stop this right......oh......and for those gun grabbers who will try to be clever.....ammo and equipment needed to operate pistols and rifles are off limits as well.....they carry the same protection as the pistols and rifles.....oh.......and again......for those who pretended not to understand the first attempt at this.........this does not mean for a militia....it is an absolute individual right.....get it......."
> 
> 
> There....that may need some work, since the gun grabbers will weasle around just about anything you try to do to stop them....but we'll start with this....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you want people to have machine guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> anything civilian police have other civilians should be able to buy with nothing more than a background check.  same with the standard issue individual infantry weapon.  when we get to crew served heavy machine guns we are nearing the limit of arms that individuals KEEP and BEAR
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then you do think people should have fully automatic weapons?  Just limit at heavy machine guns?  Now that is remarkably stupid.  Like criminals aren't already doing enough damage with semi autos and hi cap magazines.  You want to give them machine guns.  Our machine gun laws now work great.  The gun nuts can get them but they are practically gone from crime.  Only a real dope would want to change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do.  I have 10 machineguns.  They're a blast to shoot, and my friends love to come up from California on the 4th of July and shoot them.  Just so you know, the only legally held machinegun ever used in a crime was a Mac-10 that a cop used to try and murder someone.  The only thing the machinegun laws have done is make them super expensive so the average person can't afford them.  The criminals who want them still get them and the values just keep going up and up.  My first MG cost less than the tax stamp that accompanies the paperwork.  Those days are long gone.
Click to expand...


When was the last time you heard of them being used in the crime?  Last time I checked they are almost never used.


----------



## AceRothstein




----------



## Brain357

westwall said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed.  It's just a matter of time...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When it is, the gulags and mass graves will be right around the corner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is just silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, historically correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really mass graves?  There is a long list of countries where very few people have guns.  They don't have mass graves.  Sorry but it is silly.  You obviously aren't looking at modern history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name them.
Click to expand...


Denmark.  Sweden.  Netherlands.  Australia....


----------



## turtledude

westwall said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you want people to have machine guns?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anything civilian police have other civilians should be able to buy with nothing more than a background check.  same with the standard issue individual infantry weapon.  when we get to crew served heavy machine guns we are nearing the limit of arms that individuals KEEP and BEAR
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then you do think people should have fully automatic weapons?  Just limit at heavy machine guns?  Now that is remarkably stupid.  Like criminals aren't already doing enough damage with semi autos and hi cap magazines.  You want to give them machine guns.  Our machine gun laws now work great.  The gun nuts can get them but they are practically gone from crime.  Only a real dope would want to change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1) yes-select fire carbines, machine pistols, and sub machine guns.
> 
> 2) you are too stupid to understand that full automatic is usually less dangerous than semi auto
> 
> 3) there has been NO crimes with legal machine guns in 80 years, banning ones made after May 19, 1986 was spiteful, unconstitutional and not base on any legitimate reason
> 
> 4) if cops have them, that means Other civilians should have them
> 
> tell us moron
> 
> why do cops need machine guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do cops have machine guns?
> 
> Do explain how a full auto is less dangerous than a semi auto.  Maybe you can tell that to the guy training the young girl with the uzi...
> 
> Always with the name calling turtle.  Why so childish all the time?
> 
> When did you become so pro criminal?  They would love to have easy access to machine guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most people can't hit the inside of a barn when they shoot a fully automatic weapon.  The person taking rapid single shots is far more deadly.  If you weren't such an ignorant twit you would know that.
Click to expand...



true-automatic fire-suppress movement, break contact

single shots-inflict casualties 

1989=Turtle doing demo for news chicks at a range north of Cincinnati

10 IPSC targets 1.5 yards apart-20 yards down range

turtle-one colt SMG 9mm32 round magazine

1) shot full auto-32 rounds in about 2 seconds-hit most of the targets

2) shot semi auto-one shot per target-all center of mass-less than 3 seconds-had 22 rounds left and all the targets were hit so as to normally be fatal in 75% of the cases

3) one shot per target-head shots-all targets hit in the head in less than 4 seconds-all guaranteed kills with 22 rounds left

4) one 10 shot semi auto shotgun loaded with federal tactical # 4 buckshot

less than 3 seconds-every target filled with at least 15 holes

full auto least "deadly"


----------



## Brain357

turtledude said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> anything civilian police have other civilians should be able to buy with nothing more than a background check.  same with the standard issue individual infantry weapon.  when we get to crew served heavy machine guns we are nearing the limit of arms that individuals KEEP and BEAR
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then you do think people should have fully automatic weapons?  Just limit at heavy machine guns?  Now that is remarkably stupid.  Like criminals aren't already doing enough damage with semi autos and hi cap magazines.  You want to give them machine guns.  Our machine gun laws now work great.  The gun nuts can get them but they are practically gone from crime.  Only a real dope would want to change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1) yes-select fire carbines, machine pistols, and sub machine guns.
> 
> 2) you are too stupid to understand that full automatic is usually less dangerous than semi auto
> 
> 3) there has been NO crimes with legal machine guns in 80 years, banning ones made after May 19, 1986 was spiteful, unconstitutional and not base on any legitimate reason
> 
> 4) if cops have them, that means Other civilians should have them
> 
> tell us moron
> 
> why do cops need machine guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do cops have machine guns?
> 
> Do explain how a full auto is less dangerous than a semi auto.  Maybe you can tell that to the guy training the young girl with the uzi...
> 
> Always with the name calling turtle.  Why so childish all the time?
> 
> When did you become so pro criminal?  They would love to have easy access to machine guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most people can't hit the inside of a barn when they shoot a fully automatic weapon.  The person taking rapid single shots is far more deadly.  If you weren't such an ignorant twit you would know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> true-automatic fire-suppress movement, break contact
> 
> single shots-inflict casualties
> 
> 1989=Turtle doing demo for news chicks at a range north of Cincinnati
> 
> 10 IPSC targets 1.5 yards apart-20 yards down range
> 
> turtle-one colt SMG 9mm32 round magazine
> 
> 1) shot full auto-32 rounds in about 2 seconds-hit most of the targets
> 
> 2) shot semi auto-one shot per target-all center of mass-less than 3 seconds-had 22 rounds left and all the targets were hit so as to normally be fatal in 75% of the cases
> 
> 3) one shot per target-head shots-all targets hit in the head in less than 4 seconds-all guaranteed kills with 22 rounds left
> 
> 4) one 10 shot semi auto shotgun loaded with federal tactical # 4 buckshot
> 
> less than 3 seconds-every target filled with at least 15 holes
> 
> full auto least "deadly"
Click to expand...


I see what you ment now by "deadly".  What applications do you see civilians needing a machine gun for?  There is only about 230 criminals killed in defense each year.  Based on the number of defenses that is already quite a low number.  I don't think you can get much less deadly to criminals than that.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Brain357 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *When will the confusing, poorly worded Second Amendment be updated to reflect modern reality?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a suggestion for rewording the 2nd amendment.....to reflect modern reality.....
> 
> "The Right to Keep and Bear arms is absolute.....and cannot be stopped by either local or federal government, and just because there are people who pretended to not understand the first iteration of this Amendment......let us be clear......people can own, carry and defend themselves with pistols and rifles, especially those used by the current military, but not excluding any others......and no treaties with foreign nations will stop this right......oh......and for those gun grabbers who will try to be clever.....ammo and equipment needed to operate pistols and rifles are off limits as well.....they carry the same protection as the pistols and rifles.....oh.......and again......for those who pretended not to understand the first attempt at this.........this does not mean for a militia....it is an absolute individual right.....get it......."
> 
> 
> There....that may need some work, since the gun grabbers will weasle around just about anything you try to do to stop them....but we'll start with this....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you want people to have machine guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> anything civilian police have other civilians should be able to buy with nothing more than a background check.  same with the standard issue individual infantry weapon.  when we get to crew served heavy machine guns we are nearing the limit of arms that individuals KEEP and BEAR
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then you do think people should have fully automatic weapons?  Just limit at heavy machine guns?  Now that is remarkably stupid.  Like criminals aren't already doing enough damage with semi autos and hi cap magazines.  You want to give them machine guns.  Our machine gun laws now work great.  The gun nuts can get them but they are practically gone from crime.  Only a real dope would want to change that.
Click to expand...

What makes you think if a criminal wanted a full auto he couldn't get it?


----------



## Brain357

RetiredGySgt said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *When will the confusing, poorly worded Second Amendment be updated to reflect modern reality?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a suggestion for rewording the 2nd amendment.....to reflect modern reality.....
> 
> "The Right to Keep and Bear arms is absolute.....and cannot be stopped by either local or federal government, and just because there are people who pretended to not understand the first iteration of this Amendment......let us be clear......people can own, carry and defend themselves with pistols and rifles, especially those used by the current military, but not excluding any others......and no treaties with foreign nations will stop this right......oh......and for those gun grabbers who will try to be clever.....ammo and equipment needed to operate pistols and rifles are off limits as well.....they carry the same protection as the pistols and rifles.....oh.......and again......for those who pretended not to understand the first attempt at this.........this does not mean for a militia....it is an absolute individual right.....get it......."
> 
> 
> There....that may need some work, since the gun grabbers will weasle around just about anything you try to do to stop them....but we'll start with this....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you want people to have machine guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> anything civilian police have other civilians should be able to buy with nothing more than a background check.  same with the standard issue individual infantry weapon.  when we get to crew served heavy machine guns we are nearing the limit of arms that individuals KEEP and BEAR
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then you do think people should have fully automatic weapons?  Just limit at heavy machine guns?  Now that is remarkably stupid.  Like criminals aren't already doing enough damage with semi autos and hi cap magazines.  You want to give them machine guns.  Our machine gun laws now work great.  The gun nuts can get them but they are practically gone from crime.  Only a real dope would want to change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What makes you think if a criminal wanted a full auto he couldn't get it?
Click to expand...


I suppose he could, but it wouldn't be easy.  And obviously the vast majority don't bother trying.  I think our machine gun laws work great.  If you really want one you can get one and criminals aren't using them.


----------



## turtledude

Brain357 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a suggestion for rewording the 2nd amendment.....to reflect modern reality.....
> 
> "The Right to Keep and Bear arms is absolute.....and cannot be stopped by either local or federal government, and just because there are people who pretended to not understand the first iteration of this Amendment......let us be clear......people can own, carry and defend themselves with pistols and rifles, especially those used by the current military, but not excluding any others......and no treaties with foreign nations will stop this right......oh......and for those gun grabbers who will try to be clever.....ammo and equipment needed to operate pistols and rifles are off limits as well.....they carry the same protection as the pistols and rifles.....oh.......and again......for those who pretended not to understand the first attempt at this.........this does not mean for a militia....it is an absolute individual right.....get it......."
> 
> 
> There....that may need some work, since the gun grabbers will weasle around just about anything you try to do to stop them....but we'll start with this....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you want people to have machine guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> anything civilian police have other civilians should be able to buy with nothing more than a background check.  same with the standard issue individual infantry weapon.  when we get to crew served heavy machine guns we are nearing the limit of arms that individuals KEEP and BEAR
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then you do think people should have fully automatic weapons?  Just limit at heavy machine guns?  Now that is remarkably stupid.  Like criminals aren't already doing enough damage with semi autos and hi cap magazines.  You want to give them machine guns.  Our machine gun laws now work great.  The gun nuts can get them but they are practically gone from crime.  Only a real dope would want to change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What makes you think if a criminal wanted a full auto he couldn't get it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suppose he could, but it wouldn't be easy.  And obviously the vast majority don't bother trying.  I think our machine gun laws work great.  If you really want one you can get one and criminals aren't using them.
Click to expand...


why are liberals so hateful of poor people?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Brain357 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a suggestion for rewording the 2nd amendment.....to reflect modern reality.....
> 
> "The Right to Keep and Bear arms is absolute.....and cannot be stopped by either local or federal government, and just because there are people who pretended to not understand the first iteration of this Amendment......let us be clear......people can own, carry and defend themselves with pistols and rifles, especially those used by the current military, but not excluding any others......and no treaties with foreign nations will stop this right......oh......and for those gun grabbers who will try to be clever.....ammo and equipment needed to operate pistols and rifles are off limits as well.....they carry the same protection as the pistols and rifles.....oh.......and again......for those who pretended not to understand the first attempt at this.........this does not mean for a militia....it is an absolute individual right.....get it......."
> 
> 
> There....that may need some work, since the gun grabbers will weasle around just about anything you try to do to stop them....but we'll start with this....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you want people to have machine guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> anything civilian police have other civilians should be able to buy with nothing more than a background check.  same with the standard issue individual infantry weapon.  when we get to crew served heavy machine guns we are nearing the limit of arms that individuals KEEP and BEAR
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then you do think people should have fully automatic weapons?  Just limit at heavy machine guns?  Now that is remarkably stupid.  Like criminals aren't already doing enough damage with semi autos and hi cap magazines.  You want to give them machine guns.  Our machine gun laws now work great.  The gun nuts can get them but they are practically gone from crime.  Only a real dope would want to change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What makes you think if a criminal wanted a full auto he couldn't get it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suppose he could, but it wouldn't be easy.  And obviously the vast majority don't bother trying.  I think our machine gun laws work great.  If you really want one you can get one and criminals aren't using them.
Click to expand...

Almost NO ONE uses a rifle to commit crimes. Machine pistols are big and bulky. They are not used for the same reason.  Pistols are the preferred weapon of choice. Has nothing to do with our laws. It is about concealment. And our border is like a sieve hell less then 2 percent lo all cargo shipping is even inspected.Not to mention the fact that if one wanted to they could get firearms from Mexico from all over the world.


----------



## westwall

Brain357 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a suggestion for rewording the 2nd amendment.....to reflect modern reality.....
> 
> "The Right to Keep and Bear arms is absolute.....and cannot be stopped by either local or federal government, and just because there are people who pretended to not understand the first iteration of this Amendment......let us be clear......people can own, carry and defend themselves with pistols and rifles, especially those used by the current military, but not excluding any others......and no treaties with foreign nations will stop this right......oh......and for those gun grabbers who will try to be clever.....ammo and equipment needed to operate pistols and rifles are off limits as well.....they carry the same protection as the pistols and rifles.....oh.......and again......for those who pretended not to understand the first attempt at this.........this does not mean for a militia....it is an absolute individual right.....get it......."
> 
> 
> There....that may need some work, since the gun grabbers will weasle around just about anything you try to do to stop them....but we'll start with this....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you want people to have machine guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> anything civilian police have other civilians should be able to buy with nothing more than a background check.  same with the standard issue individual infantry weapon.  when we get to crew served heavy machine guns we are nearing the limit of arms that individuals KEEP and BEAR
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then you do think people should have fully automatic weapons?  Just limit at heavy machine guns?  Now that is remarkably stupid.  Like criminals aren't already doing enough damage with semi autos and hi cap magazines.  You want to give them machine guns.  Our machine gun laws now work great.  The gun nuts can get them but they are practically gone from crime.  Only a real dope would want to change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do.  I have 10 machineguns.  They're a blast to shoot, and my friends love to come up from California on the 4th of July and shoot them.  Just so you know, the only legally held machinegun ever used in a crime was a Mac-10 that a cop used to try and murder someone.  The only thing the machinegun laws have done is make them super expensive so the average person can't afford them.  The criminals who want them still get them and the values just keep going up and up.  My first MG cost less than the tax stamp that accompanies the paperwork.  Those days are long gone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When was the last time you heard of them being used in the crime?  Last time I checked they are almost never used.
Click to expand...






Gangbangers use illegal short barreled shotguns all the time.  They call it Booyahing.  MGs are indeed rarely used, just like all rifles are rarely used.


----------



## westwall

Brain357 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> When it is, the gulags and mass graves will be right around the corner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is just silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, historically correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really mass graves?  There is a long list of countries where very few people have guns.  They don't have mass graves.  Sorry but it is silly.  You obviously aren't looking at modern history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Denmark.  Sweden.  Netherlands.  Australia....
Click to expand...







Denmark and the Netherlands both lost thousands of people to the German death camps.  Might want to check your history there.  The aboriginals likewise suffered at the hands of those who were armed.  Sweden is indeed one of the few countries that hasn't had a mass murderer take control but 16% of the population does indeed own guns, so they are not disarmed are they?


----------



## Little-Acorn

turtledude said:


> why are liberals so hateful of poor people?


They're not "hateful of poor people".

They hate poor people, rich people, people in between. They hate everybody.


----------



## Little-Acorn

If gun ownership was allowed for all law-abiding citizens, most people still wouldn't bother carrying one with them. But a few would. Often concealed.

And the best news is, someone contemplating committing a crime, would know there were no laws preventing nearly everyone in the crowd from carrying a gun in their pocket or purse. And he would know that most probably weren't carrying... and that a few people probably were. _And he wouldn't know which ones they were._

So he would know that if he slugged an old lady and snatched her purse, he could expect a bullet from an unknown direction (or two). And there would be nothing he could do to prevent it, or to know which person in the crowd might fire the shot.

It's enough to make a criminal change jobs, and not commit the crime in the first place.

And that's the point.

If gun ownership is allowed for all law-abiding adults, many crimes won't get committed in the first place. And without a shot being fired. Without anyone having to pull their gun at all.

And that's the biggest benefit of gun ownership by all responsible adults.


----------



## Brain357

westwall said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is just silly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, historically correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really mass graves?  There is a long list of countries where very few people have guns.  They don't have mass graves.  Sorry but it is silly.  You obviously aren't looking at modern history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Denmark.  Sweden.  Netherlands.  Australia....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Denmark and the Netherlands both lost thousands of people to the German death camps.  Might want to check your history there.  The aboriginals likewise suffered at the hands of those who were armed.  Sweden is indeed one of the few countries that hasn't had a mass murderer take control but 16% of the population does indeed own guns, so they are not disarmed are they?
Click to expand...


And that has what to do with how many guns they had?  That was WWII.  And since then there have been many countries with few guns in citizens hands living quite peaceful and happy.


----------



## turtledude

Brain357 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, historically correct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really mass graves?  There is a long list of countries where very few people have guns.  They don't have mass graves.  Sorry but it is silly.  You obviously aren't looking at modern history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Denmark.  Sweden.  Netherlands.  Australia....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Denmark and the Netherlands both lost thousands of people to the German death camps.  Might want to check your history there.  The aboriginals likewise suffered at the hands of those who were armed.  Sweden is indeed one of the few countries that hasn't had a mass murderer take control but 16% of the population does indeed own guns, so they are not disarmed are they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that has what to do with how many guns they had?  That was WWII.  And since then there have been many countries with few guns in citizens hands living quite peaceful and happy.
Click to expand...


you should move to one of them

it would save you from massive laundry bills or needing adult diapers


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Brain357 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, historically correct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really mass graves?  There is a long list of countries where very few people have guns.  They don't have mass graves.  Sorry but it is silly.  You obviously aren't looking at modern history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Denmark.  Sweden.  Netherlands.  Australia....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Denmark and the Netherlands both lost thousands of people to the German death camps.  Might want to check your history there.  The aboriginals likewise suffered at the hands of those who were armed.  Sweden is indeed one of the few countries that hasn't had a mass murderer take control but 16% of the population does indeed own guns, so they are not disarmed are they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that has what to do with how many guns they had?  That was WWII.  And since then there have been many countries with few guns in citizens hands living quite peaceful and happy.
Click to expand...

Like Rwanda?


----------



## Brain357

Little-Acorn said:


> If gun ownership was allowed for all law-abiding citizens, most people still wouldn't bother carrying one with them. But a few would. Often concealed.
> 
> And the best news is, someone contemplating committing a crime, would know there were no laws preventing nearly everyone in the crowd from carrying a gun in their pocket or purse. And he would know that most probably weren't carrying... and that a few people probably were. _And he wouldn't know which ones they were._
> 
> So he would know that if he slugged an old lady and snatched her purse, he could expect a bullet from an unknown direction (or two). And there would be nothing he could do to prevent it, or to know which person in the crowd might fire the shot.
> 
> It's enough to make a criminal change jobs, and not commit the crime in the first place.
> 
> And that's the point.
> 
> If gun ownership is allowed for all law-abiding adults, many crimes won't get committed in the first place. And without a shot being fired. Without anyone having to pull their gun at all.
> 
> And that's the biggest benefit of gun ownership by all responsible adults.



So we have the most guns of any other country.  Why do so many other countries with far fewer guns have lower crime rates?  I don't think the number of guns really effects crime.


----------



## Brain357

RetiredGySgt said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really mass graves?  There is a long list of countries where very few people have guns.  They don't have mass graves.  Sorry but it is silly.  You obviously aren't looking at modern history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Denmark.  Sweden.  Netherlands.  Australia....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Denmark and the Netherlands both lost thousands of people to the German death camps.  Might want to check your history there.  The aboriginals likewise suffered at the hands of those who were armed.  Sweden is indeed one of the few countries that hasn't had a mass murderer take control but 16% of the population does indeed own guns, so they are not disarmed are they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that has what to do with how many guns they had?  That was WWII.  And since then there have been many countries with few guns in citizens hands living quite peaceful and happy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like Rwanda?
Click to expand...


Really?  Rwanda?  No like most of Europe.  Countries that are actually comparable to us.  You are comparing us to Rwanda?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Brain357 said:


> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If gun ownership was allowed for all law-abiding citizens, most people still wouldn't bother carrying one with them. But a few would. Often concealed.
> 
> And the best news is, someone contemplating committing a crime, would know there were no laws preventing nearly everyone in the crowd from carrying a gun in their pocket or purse. And he would know that most probably weren't carrying... and that a few people probably were. _And he wouldn't know which ones they were._
> 
> So he would know that if he slugged an old lady and snatched her purse, he could expect a bullet from an unknown direction (or two). And there would be nothing he could do to prevent it, or to know which person in the crowd might fire the shot.
> 
> It's enough to make a criminal change jobs, and not commit the crime in the first place.
> 
> And that's the point.
> 
> If gun ownership is allowed for all law-abiding adults, many crimes won't get committed in the first place. And without a shot being fired. Without anyone having to pull their gun at all.
> 
> And that's the biggest benefit of gun ownership by all responsible adults.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we have the most guns of any other country.  Why do so many other countries with far fewer guns have lower crime rates?  I don't think the number of guns really effects crime.
Click to expand...

Actually Europe is awash in crime. Britain France and Germany all have higher levels of violent crimes.


----------



## Brain357

turtledude said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really mass graves?  There is a long list of countries where very few people have guns.  They don't have mass graves.  Sorry but it is silly.  You obviously aren't looking at modern history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Denmark.  Sweden.  Netherlands.  Australia....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Denmark and the Netherlands both lost thousands of people to the German death camps.  Might want to check your history there.  The aboriginals likewise suffered at the hands of those who were armed.  Sweden is indeed one of the few countries that hasn't had a mass murderer take control but 16% of the population does indeed own guns, so they are not disarmed are they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that has what to do with how many guns they had?  That was WWII.  And since then there have been many countries with few guns in citizens hands living quite peaceful and happy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you should move to one of them
> 
> it would save you from massive laundry bills or needing adult diapers
Click to expand...


And there you go, right back to being a child.  If you can't debate like an adult go somewhere else.


----------



## Brain357

RetiredGySgt said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If gun ownership was allowed for all law-abiding citizens, most people still wouldn't bother carrying one with them. But a few would. Often concealed.
> 
> And the best news is, someone contemplating committing a crime, would know there were no laws preventing nearly everyone in the crowd from carrying a gun in their pocket or purse. And he would know that most probably weren't carrying... and that a few people probably were. _And he wouldn't know which ones they were._
> 
> So he would know that if he slugged an old lady and snatched her purse, he could expect a bullet from an unknown direction (or two). And there would be nothing he could do to prevent it, or to know which person in the crowd might fire the shot.
> 
> It's enough to make a criminal change jobs, and not commit the crime in the first place.
> 
> And that's the point.
> 
> If gun ownership is allowed for all law-abiding adults, many crimes won't get committed in the first place. And without a shot being fired. Without anyone having to pull their gun at all.
> 
> And that's the biggest benefit of gun ownership by all responsible adults.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we have the most guns of any other country.  Why do so many other countries with far fewer guns have lower crime rates?  I don't think the number of guns really effects crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually Europe is awash in crime. Britain France and Germany all have higher levels of violent crimes.
Click to expand...


Those three all have much lower homicide rates.  What crimes in particular are you speaking of?


----------



## ninja007

Lakhota said:


> *I am also a gun lover*, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed.  It's just a matter of time...



sure you are...................judging by your post history your a hardcore leftist.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Brain357 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If gun ownership was allowed for all law-abiding citizens, most people still wouldn't bother carrying one with them. But a few would. Often concealed.
> 
> And the best news is, someone contemplating committing a crime, would know there were no laws preventing nearly everyone in the crowd from carrying a gun in their pocket or purse. And he would know that most probably weren't carrying... and that a few people probably were. _And he wouldn't know which ones they were._
> 
> So he would know that if he slugged an old lady and snatched her purse, he could expect a bullet from an unknown direction (or two). And there would be nothing he could do to prevent it, or to know which person in the crowd might fire the shot.
> 
> It's enough to make a criminal change jobs, and not commit the crime in the first place.
> 
> And that's the point.
> 
> If gun ownership is allowed for all law-abiding adults, many crimes won't get committed in the first place. And without a shot being fired. Without anyone having to pull their gun at all.
> 
> And that's the biggest benefit of gun ownership by all responsible adults.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we have the most guns of any other country.  Why do so many other countries with far fewer guns have lower crime rates?  I don't think the number of guns really effects crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually Europe is awash in crime. Britain France and Germany all have higher levels of violent crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those three all have much lower homicide rates.  What crimes in particular are you speaking of?
Click to expand...

You claimed crime was lower in Europe. It is not. 

Countries Compared by Crime Total crimes per 1000. International Statistics at NationMaster.com


----------



## westwall

Brain357 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, historically correct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really mass graves?  There is a long list of countries where very few people have guns.  They don't have mass graves.  Sorry but it is silly.  You obviously aren't looking at modern history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Denmark.  Sweden.  Netherlands.  Australia....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Denmark and the Netherlands both lost thousands of people to the German death camps.  Might want to check your history there.  The aboriginals likewise suffered at the hands of those who were armed.  Sweden is indeed one of the few countries that hasn't had a mass murderer take control but 16% of the population does indeed own guns, so they are not disarmed are they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that has what to do with how many guns they had?  That was WWII.  And since then there have been many countries with few guns in citizens hands living quite peaceful and happy.
Click to expand...






Swedens numbers are current.  The fact that they had no guns to defend themselves is the point.  Funny how whenever a population is disarmed, imprisonment and death soon follow.


----------



## Brain357

RetiredGySgt said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If gun ownership was allowed for all law-abiding citizens, most people still wouldn't bother carrying one with them. But a few would. Often concealed.
> 
> And the best news is, someone contemplating committing a crime, would know there were no laws preventing nearly everyone in the crowd from carrying a gun in their pocket or purse. And he would know that most probably weren't carrying... and that a few people probably were. _And he wouldn't know which ones they were._
> 
> So he would know that if he slugged an old lady and snatched her purse, he could expect a bullet from an unknown direction (or two). And there would be nothing he could do to prevent it, or to know which person in the crowd might fire the shot.
> 
> It's enough to make a criminal change jobs, and not commit the crime in the first place.
> 
> And that's the point.
> 
> If gun ownership is allowed for all law-abiding adults, many crimes won't get committed in the first place. And without a shot being fired. Without anyone having to pull their gun at all.
> 
> And that's the biggest benefit of gun ownership by all responsible adults.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we have the most guns of any other country.  Why do so many other countries with far fewer guns have lower crime rates?  I don't think the number of guns really effects crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually Europe is awash in crime. Britain France and Germany all have higher levels of violent crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those three all have much lower homicide rates.  What crimes in particular are you speaking of?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claimed crime was lower in Europe. It is not.
> 
> Countries Compared by Crime Total crimes per 1000. International Statistics at NationMaster.com
Click to expand...


They seem to have us beat here:
Crime Index by Country 2015
And this is much newer.
And they have us beat in homicide rates:
List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## Brain357

westwall said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really mass graves?  There is a long list of countries where very few people have guns.  They don't have mass graves.  Sorry but it is silly.  You obviously aren't looking at modern history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Denmark.  Sweden.  Netherlands.  Australia....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Denmark and the Netherlands both lost thousands of people to the German death camps.  Might want to check your history there.  The aboriginals likewise suffered at the hands of those who were armed.  Sweden is indeed one of the few countries that hasn't had a mass murderer take control but 16% of the population does indeed own guns, so they are not disarmed are they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that has what to do with how many guns they had?  That was WWII.  And since then there have been many countries with few guns in citizens hands living quite peaceful and happy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swedens numbers are current.  The fact that they had no guns to defend themselves is the point.  Funny how whenever a population is disarmed, imprisonment and death soon follow.
Click to expand...


Soon follow?  I think WWII might have been before gun control in those countries.  And well they have been doing quite well ever since.  That is hardly soon.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

And another, this chart just shows all crimes and does not break it down by population or per 100000, it it were this is the result....



> Alex is correct. These figures are NOT incidents per 100,000 citizens as some readers have stated despite the fact that the U.S. lists over 11 MILLION incidents which would equate to about every fourth citizen committing a violent crime! When you divide the incidents of violent crime by the population the list changes dramatically. In order of Highest to Lowest crime rate: 1:Columbia, 2:U.K., 3:Iceland, 4:Mexico, 5:Montserrat, 6:Sweden, 7:New Zealand, 8:Finland, 9:Belgium, 10enmark, 11:Netherlands, 12:Germany, 13:Canada, 14:Norway, 15:Austria, 16:France, 17:S.Africa.
> The U.S. is #27, a far cry from the number 1 position implied in this list.
> Other than to make some sort of an ideological point villifying the United States I can't figure out why a misleading list like this would be published without qualifiers.
> Wanna bet the same people who embrace this list for the ingenuous way it misrepresnts would denounce it when population is factored in to show the truth?


Countries Compared by Crime Total crimes. International Statistics at NationMaster.com


----------



## turtledude

why do WHITE americans who have the HIGHEST RATE of LEGAL gun ownership have a LOWER RATE of gun violence than BLACKS AND HISPANICS who have far LOWER rates of LEGAL GUN OWNERSHIP

why do WHITE AMERICANS with "Easy access to guns" have lower rates of gun crime than WHITE EUROPEANS living in gun hating nations?


----------



## jon_berzerk

peach174 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Former Chief Justice Warren E. Burger said it best:
> 
> Ex-Chief Justice Warren Burger
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> since the SC has sided against most of that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True - because of the NaziCons on the bench.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is your own definition of a NaziCon?
Click to expand...



dont


Brain357 said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Brain....if you figure out a way to determine which Americans need their guns each day and which don't.....you would be a wealthy man......until then.........it is better that each individual decide for themselves.....
> 
> And the French have fewer gun murders because their criminals don't use guns to murder people........it is really as simple as that....since these three terrorists decided to murder people, went out, got illegal millitary rifles.....and murdered people.....gun control only works for those who decide to obey the law....and those who are caught breaking it....it will never work like Tom Cruise and the movie "minority report..."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes individuals should decide.
> 
> The French also have a much lower homicide rate.  And like I said what happened there could happen here despite all our guns.  Companies don't let employees carry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Companies don't let employees carry.*
> 
> some do some dont
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes some small do.  But name some large companies that do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> dont be absurd
> 
> there are tons  of them
> 
> almost every state has laws preventing employers
> 
> from banning employees bring firearms in their vehicles
> 
> on the company site
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't name any or provide a link supporting your claim.
Click to expand...


one would think (wrongly so) 

that you would have been aware of such a common fact 

http://www.cozen.com/cozendocs/Outgoing/alerts/2013/Guns_in_Workplace_Chart.pdf


----------



## jon_berzerk

RetiredGySgt said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *When will the confusing, poorly worded Second Amendment be updated to reflect modern reality?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a suggestion for rewording the 2nd amendment.....to reflect modern reality.....
> 
> "The Right to Keep and Bear arms is absolute.....and cannot be stopped by either local or federal government, and just because there are people who pretended to not understand the first iteration of this Amendment......let us be clear......people can own, carry and defend themselves with pistols and rifles, especially those used by the current military, but not excluding any others......and no treaties with foreign nations will stop this right......oh......and for those gun grabbers who will try to be clever.....ammo and equipment needed to operate pistols and rifles are off limits as well.....they carry the same protection as the pistols and rifles.....oh.......and again......for those who pretended not to understand the first attempt at this.........this does not mean for a militia....it is an absolute individual right.....get it......."
> 
> 
> There....that may need some work, since the gun grabbers will weasle around just about anything you try to do to stop them....but we'll start with this....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you want people to have machine guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> anything civilian police have other civilians should be able to buy with nothing more than a background check.  same with the standard issue individual infantry weapon.  when we get to crew served heavy machine guns we are nearing the limit of arms that individuals KEEP and BEAR
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then you do think people should have fully automatic weapons?  Just limit at heavy machine guns?  Now that is remarkably stupid.  Like criminals aren't already doing enough damage with semi autos and hi cap magazines.  You want to give them machine guns.  Our machine gun laws now work great.  The gun nuts can get them but they are practically gone from crime.  Only a real dope would want to change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What makes you think if a criminal wanted a full auto he couldn't get it?
Click to expand...



oh they certainly can 

look at the terrorists in Paris for example 

with very strict gun laws 

they had full auto rifles 

pistols and 

rpgs


----------



## Brain357

jon_berzerk said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Former Chief Justice Warren E. Burger said it best:
> 
> Ex-Chief Justice Warren Burger
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> since the SC has sided against most of that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True - because of the NaziCons on the bench.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is your own definition of a NaziCon?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> dont
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes individuals should decide.
> 
> The French also have a much lower homicide rate.  And like I said what happened there could happen here despite all our guns.  Companies don't let employees carry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Companies don't let employees carry.*
> 
> some do some dont
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes some small do.  But name some large companies that do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> dont be absurd
> 
> there are tons  of them
> 
> almost every state has laws preventing employers
> 
> from banning employees bring firearms in their vehicles
> 
> on the company site
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't name any or provide a link supporting your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> one would think (wrongly so)
> 
> that you would have been aware of such a common fact
> 
> http://www.cozen.com/cozendocs/Outgoing/alerts/2013/Guns_in_Workplace_Chart.pdf
Click to expand...


What good does keeping a gun in the car do?  Sounds like a good opportunity for it to get stolen.


----------



## EatMorChikin

With as many of the cult of bloodbath aka muslims that are being forced on us in America. We can never stand down and be disarmed! Once they start going after Americans, they need a tri pattern in chest. If a serious disarming effort is attempted, every firearm needs to show up in Washington.


----------



## MaxGrit

Brain357 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Denmark.  Sweden.  Netherlands.  Australia....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Denmark and the Netherlands both lost thousands of people to the German death camps.  Might want to check your history there.  The aboriginals likewise suffered at the hands of those who were armed.  Sweden is indeed one of the few countries that hasn't had a mass murderer take control but 16% of the population does indeed own guns, so they are not disarmed are they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that has what to do with how many guns they had?  That was WWII.  And since then there have been many countries with few guns in citizens hands living quite peaceful and happy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you should move to one of them
> 
> it would save you from massive laundry bills or needing adult diapers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there you go, right back to being a child.  If you can't debate like an adult go somewhere else.
Click to expand...

Brainless, why don't you have a brain?


----------



## Brain357

EatMorChikin said:


> With as many of the cult of bloodbath aka muslims that are being forced on us in America. We can never stand down and be disarmed! Once they start going after Americans, they need a tri pattern in chest. If a serious disarming effort is attempted, every firearm needs to show up in Washington.



Where have you been?  Did you notice the last attempt at gun control failed?  It was far from taking guns away.  Relax, don't be so paranoid.


----------



## EatMorChikin

Brain357 said:


> EatMorChikin said:
> 
> 
> 
> With as many of the cult of bloodbath aka muslims that are being forced on us in America. We can never stand down and be disarmed! Once they start going after Americans, they need a tri pattern in chest. If a serious disarming effort is attempted, every firearm needs to show up in Washington.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where have you been?  Did you notice the last attempt at gun control failed?  It was far from taking guns away.  Relax, don't be so paranoid.
Click to expand...


Firearms are being taken away, little by little. And the criteria for being disqualified are some very minor reasons. Ever heard the frog and the pot of cold water story? It's all happening sorta like that.


----------



## DriftingSand

A person's right to defend himself and his family will never get old.  Disarming ones self in a dangerous world is simply stupid.


----------



## Brain357

EatMorChikin said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EatMorChikin said:
> 
> 
> 
> With as many of the cult of bloodbath aka muslims that are being forced on us in America. We can never stand down and be disarmed! Once they start going after Americans, they need a tri pattern in chest. If a serious disarming effort is attempted, every firearm needs to show up in Washington.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where have you been?  Did you notice the last attempt at gun control failed?  It was far from taking guns away.  Relax, don't be so paranoid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Firearms are being taken away, little by little. And the criteria for being disqualified are some very minor reasons. Ever heard the frog and the pot of cold water story? It's all happening sorta like that.
Click to expand...


Felons can't have guns.  Been that way for a long time.  You prefer armed criminals?


----------



## Flash

Lakhota said:


> Well, sparky, it's better than listening to Ted Nugent and the NRA.



Ted Nugent is a nutcase, who, like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, did not even have the courage to serve his country in the military.  He is not a spokesman for anything.

However, the NRA is a grassroots organization created to protect Constitutional rights.  You have heard of the Bill of Rights, haven't you?

If anything the NRA should be criticized for being too willing to compromise with the anti gun nuts.

Unlike most Libtard greedy special interest groups (whose main purpose is to get money out of the government) the NRA's mission is to protect the Constitutional rights of all Americans because once you lose them you will never get them back.

You Libtards hate the NRA because they are an effective lobbying organization.  They are effective because they are well funded because of the massive membership.  I know because I am one of them; a Life Member.  The only other organizations that come close are the AIPAC and the greedy unions, who mostly contribute to Democrats.

The NRA is not the bogeyman you Moon Bats have made them out to be.  They are the good guys.  The anti gun nuts are the bad guys.


----------



## Flash

Brain357 said:


> So then you do think people should have fully automatic weapons?  Just limit at heavy machine guns?  Now that is remarkably stupid.  Like criminals aren't already doing enough damage with semi autos and hi cap magazines.  You want to give them machine guns.  Our machine gun laws now work great.  The gun nuts can get them but they are practically gone from crime.  Only a real dope would want to change that.



I have a machine gun and have never used it in a crime.

Many of my shooting friends have legal Class III automatic weapons and none of them have ever used the firearms in a crime.

In fact there is only one recorded incident of anyone using a Class III machine gun in a crime and that was an off duty police and it was a crime of passion when he found his wife with another guy.  He blasted his wife and the guy with his M-16 because he was damn mad.

There is nothing bad about American citizens having machine guns.

Criminals mostly use stolen or illegal handguns for crimes.  Machine guns are not the weapon of choice for most criminals.  In the case where criminals do use them, like in the drug wars, no law in the world is going to keep them out of the hands of the bad guys.

Libtards hate machine guns because it puts substantial power in the hands of the citizens.  It allows them to be more effective against government tyranny.  Unlike our founding fathers the Libtards wants the government to have all the power and not the citizens.


----------



## 2aguy

Lakhota said:


> Don't get me wrong. I'm licensed for CCW and I carry a gun from time to time. So I'm not opposed per se to the notion that guns do more good than harm. What I do oppose is constructing an argument for either position out of whole cloth, and John Lott has been stitching together his argument for longer than he should.
> 
> Do Guns Protect Us? Violence Policy Center Says No
> 
> The gun debate should be an honest one.




Actually, that article is innacurate....Lott provided his data...and the anti gunners have still attacked him....you should know by now that you can't trust anti gunners, ever.....

The violence policy center has made up it's numbers....I will find the links to that but the whole Concealed carry permit holders are dangerous meme is a lie......Studies have shown that concealed carry permit holders are more law abiding than even police officers.....

On the Violence Policy Center....an anti gun nut group.....who will lie to push their agenda....

Bogus Gun-Control Numbers National Review Online



> The Violence Policy Center regularly puts out these bogus charges in a report called “Concealed Carry Killers.” But how does it claim to arrive at these numbers?
> The VPC collects cases of permit holders’ abusing their permitted concealed handguns for each state. For Michigan, for example, it cites state-police reports on permit holders indicating that 185 died from suicide during the period 2007 through 2012. Surely some alarm bells should have gone off, with Michigan suicides supposedly making up 29 percent of all 636 deaths nationwide the VPC attributed to permitted concealed handguns.





> But more importantly, the suicides are not in any meaningful way linked to the issue of carrying a permitted concealed handgun outside of one’s home. If you look at page 2 in the latest report from the Michigan State Police, you will see that in the listing of suicides, there is no indication of specific cause of death. The report merely notes that 56 permit holders committed suicide, without saying whether any or all of them used a gun. Interestingly, the suicide rate among permit holders in Michigan in 2010 (13.3 per 100,000 permit holders) is lower than the rate in the general adult population (16.30). But typically suicides — with or without guns — take place at home. So, again, what would these numbers have to do with the concealed-carry


 debate?



> All in all, the VPC has managed to triple-count claimed cases of permit holders killing people, and the vast majority of cases it includes in its list — such as legitimate self-defense shootings or suicides not related to permitted concealed handguns — shouldn’t be counted to begin with.





> Yet, put aside all these problems for a moment. Assume, for the sake of argument, that the Violence Policy Center’s claim that concealed-handgun permits were responsible for 636 deaths in seven years is correct. One has to note that there are over 11 million concealed-handgun permits in the U.S. right now. With an annual number of deaths of 90, that means 0.00083 percent of concealed-carry permit holders were responsible for a shooting death each year. Removing suicides from the total reduces the rate even more, to 0.00058 percent.





> The conjuring up of bogus numbers like these has become a mainstay of gun-control groups. That also includes the “studies” financed by Michael Bloomberg’s millions. However, a group of researchers, of whom I am one, are setting up the Crime Prevention Research Center to uncover and counter these misleading claims.


----------



## Brain357

Flash said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So then you do think people should have fully automatic weapons?  Just limit at heavy machine guns?  Now that is remarkably stupid.  Like criminals aren't already doing enough damage with semi autos and hi cap magazines.  You want to give them machine guns.  Our machine gun laws now work great.  The gun nuts can get them but they are practically gone from crime.  Only a real dope would want to change that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a machine gun and have never used it in a crime.
> 
> Many of my shooting friends have legal Class III automatic weapons and none of them have ever used the firearms in a crime.
> 
> In fact there is only one recorded incident of anyone using a Class III machine gun in a crime and that was an off duty police and it was a crime of passion when he found his wife with another guy.  He blasted his wife and the guy with his M-16 because he was damn mad.
> 
> There is nothing bad about American citizens having machine guns.
> 
> Criminals mostly use stolen or illegal handguns for crimes.  Machine guns are not the weapon of choice for most criminals.  In the case where criminals do use them, like in the drug wars, no law in the world is going to keep them out of the hands of the bad guys.
> 
> Libtards hate machine guns because it puts substantial power in the hands of the citizens.  It allows them to be more effective against government tyranny.  Unlike our founding fathers the Libtards wants the government to have all the power and not the citizens.
Click to expand...


Thank you for providing examples of how our current laws on machine guns are working so well.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Brain357 said:


> EatMorChikin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EatMorChikin said:
> 
> 
> 
> With as many of the cult of bloodbath aka muslims that are being forced on us in America. We can never stand down and be disarmed! Once they start going after Americans, they need a tri pattern in chest. If a serious disarming effort is attempted, every firearm needs to show up in Washington.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where have you been?  Did you notice the last attempt at gun control failed?  It was far from taking guns away.  Relax, don't be so paranoid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Firearms are being taken away, little by little. And the criteria for being disqualified are some very minor reasons. Ever heard the frog and the pot of cold water story? It's all happening sorta like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Felons can't have guns.  Been that way for a long time.  You prefer armed criminals?
Click to expand...

Misdemeanor charges of a family squabble can now bar you from firearms ownership. Keep up.


----------



## Brain357

RetiredGySgt said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EatMorChikin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EatMorChikin said:
> 
> 
> 
> With as many of the cult of bloodbath aka muslims that are being forced on us in America. We can never stand down and be disarmed! Once they start going after Americans, they need a tri pattern in chest. If a serious disarming effort is attempted, every firearm needs to show up in Washington.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where have you been?  Did you notice the last attempt at gun control failed?  It was far from taking guns away.  Relax, don't be so paranoid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Firearms are being taken away, little by little. And the criteria for being disqualified are some very minor reasons. Ever heard the frog and the pot of cold water story? It's all happening sorta like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Felons can't have guns.  Been that way for a long time.  You prefer armed criminals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Misdemeanor charges of a family squabble can now bar you from firearms ownership. Keep up.
Click to expand...


So you don't go shooting your wife like so often happens?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Brain357 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EatMorChikin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EatMorChikin said:
> 
> 
> 
> With as many of the cult of bloodbath aka muslims that are being forced on us in America. We can never stand down and be disarmed! Once they start going after Americans, they need a tri pattern in chest. If a serious disarming effort is attempted, every firearm needs to show up in Washington.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where have you been?  Did you notice the last attempt at gun control failed?  It was far from taking guns away.  Relax, don't be so paranoid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Firearms are being taken away, little by little. And the criteria for being disqualified are some very minor reasons. Ever heard the frog and the pot of cold water story? It's all happening sorta like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Felons can't have guns.  Been that way for a long time.  You prefer armed criminals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Misdemeanor charges of a family squabble can now bar you from firearms ownership. Keep up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't go shooting your wife like so often happens?
Click to expand...

Now you are being retarded.


----------



## 2aguy

Brain357 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *When will the confusing, poorly worded Second Amendment be updated to reflect modern reality?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a suggestion for rewording the 2nd amendment.....to reflect modern reality.....
> 
> "The Right to Keep and Bear arms is absolute.....and cannot be stopped by either local or federal government, and just because there are people who pretended to not understand the first iteration of this Amendment......let us be clear......people can own, carry and defend themselves with pistols and rifles, especially those used by the current military, but not excluding any others......and no treaties with foreign nations will stop this right......oh......and for those gun grabbers who will try to be clever.....ammo and equipment needed to operate pistols and rifles are off limits as well.....they carry the same protection as the pistols and rifles.....oh.......and again......for those who pretended not to understand the first attempt at this.........this does not mean for a militia....it is an absolute individual right.....get it......."
> 
> 
> There....that may need some work, since the gun grabbers will weasle around just about anything you try to do to stop them....but we'll start with this....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you want people to have machine guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> anything civilian police have other civilians should be able to buy with nothing more than a background check.  same with the standard issue individual infantry weapon.  when we get to crew served heavy machine guns we are nearing the limit of arms that individuals KEEP and BEAR
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then you do think people should have fully automatic weapons?  Just limit at heavy machine guns?  Now that is remarkably stupid.  Like criminals aren't already doing enough damage with semi autos and hi cap magazines.  You want to give them machine guns.  Our machine gun laws now work great.  The gun nuts can get them but they are practically gone from crime.  Only a real dope would want to change that.
Click to expand...


If they want fully automatic military rifles Brain they will get them....for example....like the 3 muslim terrorists in France....the weapons they used are illegal in France, it is also against the law for them to have hand guns....they got both....and at least one of the guys was a convicted criminal, and still on a government anti terrorism watch list....and they still got fully automatic weapons......

Dittos mexico....military weapons are forbidden to law abiding Mexican citizens....the cartels have them as many as they want and need....

Puerto Rico....has the strictest gun control in the United States and it's territories...it is an island so you can't just drive illegal guns across the border....and it has the highest murder rate in the world......

Gun control only works for law abiding citizens....for example....not one journalist had a gun when they were killed by the muslim terrorists with illegal guns.....


----------



## westwall

Flash said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So then you do think people should have fully automatic weapons?  Just limit at heavy machine guns?  Now that is remarkably stupid.  Like criminals aren't already doing enough damage with semi autos and hi cap magazines.  You want to give them machine guns.  Our machine gun laws now work great.  The gun nuts can get them but they are practically gone from crime.  Only a real dope would want to change that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a machine gun and have never used it in a crime.
> 
> Many of my shooting friends have legal Class III automatic weapons and none of them have ever used the firearms in a crime.
> 
> In fact there is only one recorded incident of anyone using a Class III machine gun in a crime and that was an off duty police and it was a crime of passion when he found his wife with another guy.  He blasted his wife and the guy with his M-16 because he was damn mad.
> 
> There is nothing bad about American citizens having machine guns.
> 
> Criminals mostly use stolen or illegal handguns for crimes.  Machine guns are not the weapon of choice for most criminals.  In the case where criminals do use them, like in the drug wars, no law in the world is going to keep them out of the hands of the bad guys.
> 
> Libtards hate machine guns because it puts substantial power in the hands of the citizens.  It allows them to be more effective against government tyranny.  Unlike our founding fathers the Libtards wants the government to have all the power and not the citizens.
Click to expand...







It was a Mac-10, not an M-16.


----------



## 2aguy

Brain357 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So then you do think people should have fully automatic weapons?  Just limit at heavy machine guns?  Now that is remarkably stupid.  Like criminals aren't already doing enough damage with semi autos and hi cap magazines.  You want to give them machine guns.  Our machine gun laws now work great.  The gun nuts can get them but they are practically gone from crime.  Only a real dope would want to change that.
> 
> 
> 
> 1) yes-select fire carbines, machine pistols, and sub machine guns.
> 
> 2) you are too stupid to understand that full automatic is usually less dangerous than semi auto
> 
> 3) there has been NO crimes with legal machine guns in 80 years, banning ones made after May 19, 1986 was spiteful, unconstitutional and not base on any legitimate reason
> 
> 4) if cops have them, that means Other civilians should have them
> 
> tell us moron
> 
> why do cops need machine guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do cops have machine guns?
> 
> Do explain how a full auto is less dangerous than a semi auto.  Maybe you can tell that to the guy training the young girl with the uzi...
> 
> Always with the name calling turtle.  Why so childish all the time?
> 
> When did you become so pro criminal?  They would love to have easy access to machine guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most people can't hit the inside of a barn when they shoot a fully automatic weapon.  The person taking rapid single shots is far more deadly.  If you weren't such an ignorant twit you would know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> true-automatic fire-suppress movement, break contact
> 
> single shots-inflict casualties
> 
> 1989=Turtle doing demo for news chicks at a range north of Cincinnati
> 
> 10 IPSC targets 1.5 yards apart-20 yards down range
> 
> turtle-one colt SMG 9mm32 round magazine
> 
> 1) shot full auto-32 rounds in about 2 seconds-hit most of the targets
> 
> 2) shot semi auto-one shot per target-all center of mass-less than 3 seconds-had 22 rounds left and all the targets were hit so as to normally be fatal in 75% of the cases
> 
> 3) one shot per target-head shots-all targets hit in the head in less than 4 seconds-all guaranteed kills with 22 rounds left
> 
> 4) one 10 shot semi auto shotgun loaded with federal tactical # 4 buckshot
> 
> less than 3 seconds-every target filled with at least 15 holes
> 
> full auto least "deadly"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see what you ment now by "deadly".  What applications do you see civilians needing a machine gun for?  There is only about 230 criminals killed in defense each year.  Based on the number of defenses that is already quite a low number.  I don't think you can get much less deadly to criminals than that.
Click to expand...


Fighting the government in the event it turns as evil as the governments in Europe did in the 1930s, or as evil and murderous as the Mexican drug cartels are now...with their allies in the police and Mexican military....or the people of Kenya might need them as boko haram murders them in their thousands as the Kenyan government sits there helpless.......

Mass murders have happened....to ignore it is to doom future generations from the easy living of today


----------



## westwall

Brain357 said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So then you do think people should have fully automatic weapons?  Just limit at heavy machine guns?  Now that is remarkably stupid.  Like criminals aren't already doing enough damage with semi autos and hi cap magazines.  You want to give them machine guns.  Our machine gun laws now work great.  The gun nuts can get them but they are practically gone from crime.  Only a real dope would want to change that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a machine gun and have never used it in a crime.
> 
> Many of my shooting friends have legal Class III automatic weapons and none of them have ever used the firearms in a crime.
> 
> In fact there is only one recorded incident of anyone using a Class III machine gun in a crime and that was an off duty police and it was a crime of passion when he found his wife with another guy.  He blasted his wife and the guy with his M-16 because he was damn mad.
> 
> There is nothing bad about American citizens having machine guns.
> 
> Criminals mostly use stolen or illegal handguns for crimes.  Machine guns are not the weapon of choice for most criminals.  In the case where criminals do use them, like in the drug wars, no law in the world is going to keep them out of the hands of the bad guys.
> 
> Libtards hate machine guns because it puts substantial power in the hands of the citizens.  It allows them to be more effective against government tyranny.  Unlike our founding fathers the Libtards wants the government to have all the power and not the citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for providing examples of how our current laws on machine guns are working so well.
Click to expand...








Before the current laws MG ownership was rare.  After the laws went into effect the rate of ownership increased dramatically.  Their use in crime was always low (even when unregulated) and has stayed low.  Your pithy responses make you sound like a child.


----------



## 2aguy

Brain357 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So then you do think people should have fully automatic weapons?  Just limit at heavy machine guns?  Now that is remarkably stupid.  Like criminals aren't already doing enough damage with semi autos and hi cap magazines.  You want to give them machine guns.  Our machine gun laws now work great.  The gun nuts can get them but they are practically gone from crime.  Only a real dope would want to change that.
> 
> 
> 
> 1) yes-select fire carbines, machine pistols, and sub machine guns.
> 
> 2) you are too stupid to understand that full automatic is usually less dangerous than semi auto
> 
> 3) there has been NO crimes with legal machine guns in 80 years, banning ones made after May 19, 1986 was spiteful, unconstitutional and not base on any legitimate reason
> 
> 4) if cops have them, that means Other civilians should have them
> 
> tell us moron
> 
> why do cops need machine guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do cops have machine guns?
> 
> Do explain how a full auto is less dangerous than a semi auto.  Maybe you can tell that to the guy training the young girl with the uzi...
> 
> Always with the name calling turtle.  Why so childish all the time?
> 
> When did you become so pro criminal?  They would love to have easy access to machine guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most people can't hit the inside of a barn when they shoot a fully automatic weapon.  The person taking rapid single shots is far more deadly.  If you weren't such an ignorant twit you would know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> true-automatic fire-suppress movement, break contact
> 
> single shots-inflict casualties
> 
> 1989=Turtle doing demo for news chicks at a range north of Cincinnati
> 
> 10 IPSC targets 1.5 yards apart-20 yards down range
> 
> turtle-one colt SMG 9mm32 round magazine
> 
> 1) shot full auto-32 rounds in about 2 seconds-hit most of the targets
> 
> 2) shot semi auto-one shot per target-all center of mass-less than 3 seconds-had 22 rounds left and all the targets were hit so as to normally be fatal in 75% of the cases
> 
> 3) one shot per target-head shots-all targets hit in the head in less than 4 seconds-all guaranteed kills with 22 rounds left
> 
> 4) one 10 shot semi auto shotgun loaded with federal tactical # 4 buckshot
> 
> less than 3 seconds-every target filled with at least 15 holes
> 
> full auto least "deadly"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see what you ment now by "deadly".  What applications do you see civilians needing a machine gun for?  There is only about 230 criminals killed in defense each year.  Based on the number of defenses that is already quite a low number.  I don't think you can get much less deadly to criminals than that.
Click to expand...



You know the 230 number is probably too low.....when a homicide is changed from murder to justified by a prosecutor or the killer is found innocent in court, the FBI doesn't change the data....so that number is off....probably too low....but still pretty good considering that law abiding gun owners use their guns 1.6 million times a year to stop violent criminal attack and save lives....


----------



## Flash

westwall said:


> Your pithy responses make you sound like a child.



That is why I didn't even bother to answer him.


----------



## Flash

westwall said:


> It was a Mac-10, not an M-16.



It has been several years since I read the account of what happen.  Excuse me for not having a good memory.


----------



## Brain357

Billc said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *When will the confusing, poorly worded Second Amendment be updated to reflect modern reality?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a suggestion for rewording the 2nd amendment.....to reflect modern reality.....
> 
> "The Right to Keep and Bear arms is absolute.....and cannot be stopped by either local or federal government, and just because there are people who pretended to not understand the first iteration of this Amendment......let us be clear......people can own, carry and defend themselves with pistols and rifles, especially those used by the current military, but not excluding any others......and no treaties with foreign nations will stop this right......oh......and for those gun grabbers who will try to be clever.....ammo and equipment needed to operate pistols and rifles are off limits as well.....they carry the same protection as the pistols and rifles.....oh.......and again......for those who pretended not to understand the first attempt at this.........this does not mean for a militia....it is an absolute individual right.....get it......."
> 
> 
> There....that may need some work, since the gun grabbers will weasle around just about anything you try to do to stop them....but we'll start with this....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you want people to have machine guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> anything civilian police have other civilians should be able to buy with nothing more than a background check.  same with the standard issue individual infantry weapon.  when we get to crew served heavy machine guns we are nearing the limit of arms that individuals KEEP and BEAR
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then you do think people should have fully automatic weapons?  Just limit at heavy machine guns?  Now that is remarkably stupid.  Like criminals aren't already doing enough damage with semi autos and hi cap magazines.  You want to give them machine guns.  Our machine gun laws now work great.  The gun nuts can get them but they are practically gone from crime.  Only a real dope would want to change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they want fully automatic military rifles Brain they will get them....for example....like the 3 muslim terrorists in France....the weapons they used are illegal in France, it is also against the law for them to have hand guns....they got both....and at least one of the guys was a convicted criminal, and still on a government anti terrorism watch list....and they still got fully automatic weapons......
> 
> Dittos mexico....military weapons are forbidden to law abiding Mexican citizens....the cartels have them as many as they want and need....
> 
> Puerto Rico....has the strictest gun control in the United States and it's territories...it is an island so you can't just drive illegal guns across the border....and it has the highest murder rate in the world......
> 
> Gun control only works for law abiding citizens....for example....not one journalist had a gun when they were killed by the muslim terrorists with illegal guns.....
Click to expand...


What you mean is if they are made easy to get again they will use them.  Right now they are not.


----------



## 2aguy

Brain357 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, historically correct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really mass graves?  There is a long list of countries where very few people have guns.  They don't have mass graves.  Sorry but it is silly.  You obviously aren't looking at modern history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Denmark.  Sweden.  Netherlands.  Australia....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Denmark and the Netherlands both lost thousands of people to the German death camps.  Might want to check your history there.  The aboriginals likewise suffered at the hands of those who were armed.  Sweden is indeed one of the few countries that hasn't had a mass murderer take control but 16% of the population does indeed own guns, so they are not disarmed are they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that has what to do with how many guns they had?  That was WWII.  And since then there have been many countries with few guns in citizens hands living quite peaceful and happy.
Click to expand...


For now......it only took Germany 20 years to go from the Weimar republic to the Death camps of hitler's Germany....20 years......and do you think the Germans of 1917 thought that in 20 years they would be gassing 6 million Jews and millions of other "undesirables".....they were probably like you guys.......never needed a gun so no one else needs one either.....and 20 years later you have 12 million dead......


----------



## Brain357

Billc said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) yes-select fire carbines, machine pistols, and sub machine guns.
> 
> 2) you are too stupid to understand that full automatic is usually less dangerous than semi auto
> 
> 3) there has been NO crimes with legal machine guns in 80 years, banning ones made after May 19, 1986 was spiteful, unconstitutional and not base on any legitimate reason
> 
> 4) if cops have them, that means Other civilians should have them
> 
> tell us moron
> 
> why do cops need machine guns?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do cops have machine guns?
> 
> Do explain how a full auto is less dangerous than a semi auto.  Maybe you can tell that to the guy training the young girl with the uzi...
> 
> Always with the name calling turtle.  Why so childish all the time?
> 
> When did you become so pro criminal?  They would love to have easy access to machine guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most people can't hit the inside of a barn when they shoot a fully automatic weapon.  The person taking rapid single shots is far more deadly.  If you weren't such an ignorant twit you would know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> true-automatic fire-suppress movement, break contact
> 
> single shots-inflict casualties
> 
> 1989=Turtle doing demo for news chicks at a range north of Cincinnati
> 
> 10 IPSC targets 1.5 yards apart-20 yards down range
> 
> turtle-one colt SMG 9mm32 round magazine
> 
> 1) shot full auto-32 rounds in about 2 seconds-hit most of the targets
> 
> 2) shot semi auto-one shot per target-all center of mass-less than 3 seconds-had 22 rounds left and all the targets were hit so as to normally be fatal in 75% of the cases
> 
> 3) one shot per target-head shots-all targets hit in the head in less than 4 seconds-all guaranteed kills with 22 rounds left
> 
> 4) one 10 shot semi auto shotgun loaded with federal tactical # 4 buckshot
> 
> less than 3 seconds-every target filled with at least 15 holes
> 
> full auto least "deadly"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see what you ment now by "deadly".  What applications do you see civilians needing a machine gun for?  There is only about 230 criminals killed in defense each year.  Based on the number of defenses that is already quite a low number.  I don't think you can get much less deadly to criminals than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You know the 230 number is probably too low.....when a homicide is changed from murder to justified by a prosecutor or the killer is found innocent in court, the FBI doesn't change the data....so that number is off....probably too low....but still pretty good considering that law abiding gun owners use their guns 1.6 million times a year to stop violent criminal attack and save lives....
Click to expand...


It is from the FBI.  Not going to find more accurate number.  You mean mostly criminals defending themselves as kleck has admitted.


----------



## 2aguy

Brain357 said:


> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If gun ownership was allowed for all law-abiding citizens, most people still wouldn't bother carrying one with them. But a few would. Often concealed.
> 
> And the best news is, someone contemplating committing a crime, would know there were no laws preventing nearly everyone in the crowd from carrying a gun in their pocket or purse. And he would know that most probably weren't carrying... and that a few people probably were. _And he wouldn't know which ones they were._
> 
> So he would know that if he slugged an old lady and snatched her purse, he could expect a bullet from an unknown direction (or two). And there would be nothing he could do to prevent it, or to know which person in the crowd might fire the shot.
> 
> It's enough to make a criminal change jobs, and not commit the crime in the first place.
> 
> And that's the point.
> 
> If gun ownership is allowed for all law-abiding adults, many crimes won't get committed in the first place. And without a shot being fired. Without anyone having to pull their gun at all.
> 
> And that's the biggest benefit of gun ownership by all responsible adults.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we have the most guns of any other country.  Why do so many other countries with far fewer guns have lower crime rates?  I don't think the number of guns really effects crime.
Click to expand...



Because their criminals and nuts haven't decided to use guns to kill people......but as we have seen in Canada, Australia, France, when they do decide they want or need guns to kill people, none of their laws stop them......once Britain, Germany, France and the rest reach the point of saturation with muslim radicals....you will see an uptick in gun crime....since most of the gun crime in those countries already occurs in the parts of the country with immigrant communities......


----------



## Brain357

Billc said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really mass graves?  There is a long list of countries where very few people have guns.  They don't have mass graves.  Sorry but it is silly.  You obviously aren't looking at modern history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Denmark.  Sweden.  Netherlands.  Australia....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Denmark and the Netherlands both lost thousands of people to the German death camps.  Might want to check your history there.  The aboriginals likewise suffered at the hands of those who were armed.  Sweden is indeed one of the few countries that hasn't had a mass murderer take control but 16% of the population does indeed own guns, so they are not disarmed are they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that has what to do with how many guns they had?  That was WWII.  And since then there have been many countries with few guns in citizens hands living quite peaceful and happy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For now......it only took Germany 20 years to go from the Weimar republic to the Death camps of hitler's Germany....20 years......and do you think the Germans of 1917 thought that in 20 years they would be gassing 6 million Jews and millions of other "undesirables".....they were probably like you guys.......never needed a gun so no one else needs one either.....and 20 years later you have 12 million dead......
Click to expand...


Germany didnt go from a stable country with real voting rights to that.  Name a country that has?  

Won't happen in this modern time with cell phones, 24 hour news, Internet....   Our military is the best we have and would never go with any tyrant.


----------



## Brain357

Billc said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If gun ownership was allowed for all law-abiding citizens, most people still wouldn't bother carrying one with them. But a few would. Often concealed.
> 
> And the best news is, someone contemplating committing a crime, would know there were no laws preventing nearly everyone in the crowd from carrying a gun in their pocket or purse. And he would know that most probably weren't carrying... and that a few people probably were. _And he wouldn't know which ones they were._
> 
> So he would know that if he slugged an old lady and snatched her purse, he could expect a bullet from an unknown direction (or two). And there would be nothing he could do to prevent it, or to know which person in the crowd might fire the shot.
> 
> It's enough to make a criminal change jobs, and not commit the crime in the first place.
> 
> And that's the point.
> 
> If gun ownership is allowed for all law-abiding adults, many crimes won't get committed in the first place. And without a shot being fired. Without anyone having to pull their gun at all.
> 
> And that's the biggest benefit of gun ownership by all responsible adults.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we have the most guns of any other country.  Why do so many other countries with far fewer guns have lower crime rates?  I don't think the number of guns really effects crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because their criminals and nuts haven't decided to use guns to kill people......but as we have seen in Canada, Australia, France, when they do decide they want or need guns to kill people, none of their laws stop them......once Britain, Germany, France and the rest reach the point of saturation with muslim radicals....you will see an uptick in gun crime....since most of the gun crime in those countries already occurs in the parts of the country with immigrant communities......
Click to expand...


Gun nuts sure jumped at the France tragedy fast....  Hypocricy?


----------



## 2aguy

Brain357 said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do cops have machine guns?
> 
> Do explain how a full auto is less dangerous than a semi auto.  Maybe you can tell that to the guy training the young girl with the uzi...
> 
> Always with the name calling turtle.  Why so childish all the time?
> 
> When did you become so pro criminal?  They would love to have easy access to machine guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most people can't hit the inside of a barn when they shoot a fully automatic weapon.  The person taking rapid single shots is far more deadly.  If you weren't such an ignorant twit you would know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> true-automatic fire-suppress movement, break contact
> 
> single shots-inflict casualties
> 
> 1989=Turtle doing demo for news chicks at a range north of Cincinnati
> 
> 10 IPSC targets 1.5 yards apart-20 yards down range
> 
> turtle-one colt SMG 9mm32 round magazine
> 
> 1) shot full auto-32 rounds in about 2 seconds-hit most of the targets
> 
> 2) shot semi auto-one shot per target-all center of mass-less than 3 seconds-had 22 rounds left and all the targets were hit so as to normally be fatal in 75% of the cases
> 
> 3) one shot per target-head shots-all targets hit in the head in less than 4 seconds-all guaranteed kills with 22 rounds left
> 
> 4) one 10 shot semi auto shotgun loaded with federal tactical # 4 buckshot
> 
> less than 3 seconds-every target filled with at least 15 holes
> 
> full auto least "deadly"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see what you ment now by "deadly".  What applications do you see civilians needing a machine gun for?  There is only about 230 criminals killed in defense each year.  Based on the number of defenses that is already quite a low number.  I don't think you can get much less deadly to criminals than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You know the 230 number is probably too low.....when a homicide is changed from murder to justified by a prosecutor or the killer is found innocent in court, the FBI doesn't change the data....so that number is off....probably too low....but still pretty good considering that law abiding gun owners use their guns 1.6 million times a year to stop violent criminal attack and save lives....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is from the FBI.  Not going to find more accurate number.  You mean mostly criminals defending themselves as kleck has admitted.
Click to expand...



Brain....Kleck did not say self defense deaths are criminals fighting criminals....he most definitely said that back in the 90s when people had their rights violated to carry weapons for self defense, many of them did any way...and he didn't quantify how many of the 2.5 million were that situation anyway....so your using it is decietful.....they were not gang members or drug dealers just average citizens who needed to protect themselves.....and the 238 is not accurate...the FBI does not follow up on homicides and if they stay justifiable or not....so they don't change their numbers....


----------



## 2aguy

Brain357 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Denmark.  Sweden.  Netherlands.  Australia....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Denmark and the Netherlands both lost thousands of people to the German death camps.  Might want to check your history there.  The aboriginals likewise suffered at the hands of those who were armed.  Sweden is indeed one of the few countries that hasn't had a mass murderer take control but 16% of the population does indeed own guns, so they are not disarmed are they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that has what to do with how many guns they had?  That was WWII.  And since then there have been many countries with few guns in citizens hands living quite peaceful and happy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swedens numbers are current.  The fact that they had no guns to defend themselves is the point.  Funny how whenever a population is disarmed, imprisonment and death soon follow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Soon follow?  I think WWII might have been before gun control in those countries.  And well they have been doing quite well ever since.  That is hardly soon.
Click to expand...



actually, no....Weimar Germany began taking away guns from people....and then the nazis faced disarmed Jews and dissenters when they started their rise to power...instead of facing Jewish business owners who could fight back, their brown shirts had free reign because they were younger, stronger, in greater numbers and more aggressive....everything that a gun will equalize.....if more Germans were armed then the brown shirts, much like our klan in the south, wouldn't have been as effective at beating their enemies into submission.....


----------



## 2aguy

Brain357 said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If gun ownership was allowed for all law-abiding citizens, most people still wouldn't bother carrying one with them. But a few would. Often concealed.
> 
> And the best news is, someone contemplating committing a crime, would know there were no laws preventing nearly everyone in the crowd from carrying a gun in their pocket or purse. And he would know that most probably weren't carrying... and that a few people probably were. _And he wouldn't know which ones they were._
> 
> So he would know that if he slugged an old lady and snatched her purse, he could expect a bullet from an unknown direction (or two). And there would be nothing he could do to prevent it, or to know which person in the crowd might fire the shot.
> 
> It's enough to make a criminal change jobs, and not commit the crime in the first place.
> 
> And that's the point.
> 
> If gun ownership is allowed for all law-abiding adults, many crimes won't get committed in the first place. And without a shot being fired. Without anyone having to pull their gun at all.
> 
> And that's the biggest benefit of gun ownership by all responsible adults.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we have the most guns of any other country.  Why do so many other countries with far fewer guns have lower crime rates?  I don't think the number of guns really effects crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because their criminals and nuts haven't decided to use guns to kill people......but as we have seen in Canada, Australia, France, when they do decide they want or need guns to kill people, none of their laws stop them......once Britain, Germany, France and the rest reach the point of saturation with muslim radicals....you will see an uptick in gun crime....since most of the gun crime in those countries already occurs in the parts of the country with immigrant communities......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gun nuts sure jumped at the France tragedy fast....  Hypocricy?
Click to expand...




> Gun nuts sure jumped at the France tragedy fast....  Hypocricy?



For myself...I got tired of sitting by out of respect for the victims and their families to just have anti gunner politicians jump in front of the first camera as the blood was still wet, to denounce gun owners.....no more......


----------



## 2aguy

Brain357 said:


> EatMorChikin said:
> 
> 
> 
> With as many of the cult of bloodbath aka muslims that are being forced on us in America. We can never stand down and be disarmed! Once they start going after Americans, they need a tri pattern in chest. If a serious disarming effort is attempted, every firearm needs to show up in Washington.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where have you been?  Did you notice the last attempt at gun control failed?  It was far from taking guns away.  Relax, don't be so paranoid.
Click to expand...



But they never, ever stop......they will continue to fight for each and every gun, bullet and piece of equipment, so we have to be just as determined to stop them.......


----------



## Brain357

Billc said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most people can't hit the inside of a barn when they shoot a fully automatic weapon.  The person taking rapid single shots is far more deadly.  If you weren't such an ignorant twit you would know that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> true-automatic fire-suppress movement, break contact
> 
> single shots-inflict casualties
> 
> 1989=Turtle doing demo for news chicks at a range north of Cincinnati
> 
> 10 IPSC targets 1.5 yards apart-20 yards down range
> 
> turtle-one colt SMG 9mm32 round magazine
> 
> 1) shot full auto-32 rounds in about 2 seconds-hit most of the targets
> 
> 2) shot semi auto-one shot per target-all center of mass-less than 3 seconds-had 22 rounds left and all the targets were hit so as to normally be fatal in 75% of the cases
> 
> 3) one shot per target-head shots-all targets hit in the head in less than 4 seconds-all guaranteed kills with 22 rounds left
> 
> 4) one 10 shot semi auto shotgun loaded with federal tactical # 4 buckshot
> 
> less than 3 seconds-every target filled with at least 15 holes
> 
> full auto least "deadly"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see what you ment now by "deadly".  What applications do you see civilians needing a machine gun for?  There is only about 230 criminals killed in defense each year.  Based on the number of defenses that is already quite a low number.  I don't think you can get much less deadly to criminals than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You know the 230 number is probably too low.....when a homicide is changed from murder to justified by a prosecutor or the killer is found innocent in court, the FBI doesn't change the data....so that number is off....probably too low....but still pretty good considering that law abiding gun owners use their guns 1.6 million times a year to stop violent criminal attack and save lives....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is from the FBI.  Not going to find more accurate number.  You mean mostly criminals defending themselves as kleck has admitted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Brain....Kleck did not say self defense deaths are criminals fighting criminals....he most definitely said that back in the 90s when people had their rights violated to carry weapons for self defense, many of them did any way...and he didn't quantify how many of the 2.5 million were that situation anyway....so your using it is decietful.....they were not gang members or drug dealers just average citizens who needed to protect themselves.....and the 238 is not accurate...the FBI does not follow up on homicides and if they stay justifiable or not....so they don't change their numbers....
Click to expand...


He said most defenders are involved in criminal activity.  That makes them criminals.


----------



## Brain357

Billc said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EatMorChikin said:
> 
> 
> 
> With as many of the cult of bloodbath aka muslims that are being forced on us in America. We can never stand down and be disarmed! Once they start going after Americans, they need a tri pattern in chest. If a serious disarming effort is attempted, every firearm needs to show up in Washington.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where have you been?  Did you notice the last attempt at gun control failed?  It was far from taking guns away.  Relax, don't be so paranoid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But they never, ever stop......they will continue to fight for each and every gun, bullet and piece of equipment, so we have to be just as determined to stop them.......
Click to expand...


Sure they will.  They are going backwards now so don't be so paranoid.


----------



## 2aguy

Brain357 said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Denmark.  Sweden.  Netherlands.  Australia....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Denmark and the Netherlands both lost thousands of people to the German death camps.  Might want to check your history there.  The aboriginals likewise suffered at the hands of those who were armed.  Sweden is indeed one of the few countries that hasn't had a mass murderer take control but 16% of the population does indeed own guns, so they are not disarmed are they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that has what to do with how many guns they had?  That was WWII.  And since then there have been many countries with few guns in citizens hands living quite peaceful and happy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For now......it only took Germany 20 years to go from the Weimar republic to the Death camps of hitler's Germany....20 years......and do you think the Germans of 1917 thought that in 20 years they would be gassing 6 million Jews and millions of other "undesirables".....they were probably like you guys.......never needed a gun so no one else needs one either.....and 20 years later you have 12 million dead......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Germany didnt go from a stable country with real voting rights to that.  Name a country that has?
> 
> Won't happen in this modern time with cell phones, 24 hour news, Internet....   Our military is the best we have and would never go with any tyrant.
Click to expand...


So...Germany was a third world Country before the nazis....What about Belgium, Norway, France...and all the countries invaded by Germany, or Russia, or Japan and Italy........they murdered millions in the countries they invaded....


----------



## Brain357

Billc said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Denmark.  Sweden.  Netherlands.  Australia....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Denmark and the Netherlands both lost thousands of people to the German death camps.  Might want to check your history there.  The aboriginals likewise suffered at the hands of those who were armed.  Sweden is indeed one of the few countries that hasn't had a mass murderer take control but 16% of the population does indeed own guns, so they are not disarmed are they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that has what to do with how many guns they had?  That was WWII.  And since then there have been many countries with few guns in citizens hands living quite peaceful and happy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swedens numbers are current.  The fact that they had no guns to defend themselves is the point.  Funny how whenever a population is disarmed, imprisonment and death soon follow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Soon follow?  I think WWII might have been before gun control in those countries.  And well they have been doing quite well ever since.  That is hardly soon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> actually, no....Weimar Germany began taking away guns from people....and then the nazis faced disarmed Jews and dissenters when they started their rise to power...instead of facing Jewish business owners who could fight back, their brown shirts had free reign because they were younger, stronger, in greater numbers and more aggressive....everything that a gun will equalize.....if more Germans were armed then the brown shirts, much like our klan in the south, wouldn't have been as effective at beating their enemies into submission.....
Click to expand...


That's old bill.  And for obvious reasons won't happen in a country with real freedom and voting rights.


----------



## 2aguy

Brain357 said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> true-automatic fire-suppress movement, break contact
> 
> single shots-inflict casualties
> 
> 1989=Turtle doing demo for news chicks at a range north of Cincinnati
> 
> 10 IPSC targets 1.5 yards apart-20 yards down range
> 
> turtle-one colt SMG 9mm32 round magazine
> 
> 1) shot full auto-32 rounds in about 2 seconds-hit most of the targets
> 
> 2) shot semi auto-one shot per target-all center of mass-less than 3 seconds-had 22 rounds left and all the targets were hit so as to normally be fatal in 75% of the cases
> 
> 3) one shot per target-head shots-all targets hit in the head in less than 4 seconds-all guaranteed kills with 22 rounds left
> 
> 4) one 10 shot semi auto shotgun loaded with federal tactical # 4 buckshot
> 
> less than 3 seconds-every target filled with at least 15 holes
> 
> full auto least "deadly"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see what you ment now by "deadly".  What applications do you see civilians needing a machine gun for?  There is only about 230 criminals killed in defense each year.  Based on the number of defenses that is already quite a low number.  I don't think you can get much less deadly to criminals than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You know the 230 number is probably too low.....when a homicide is changed from murder to justified by a prosecutor or the killer is found innocent in court, the FBI doesn't change the data....so that number is off....probably too low....but still pretty good considering that law abiding gun owners use their guns 1.6 million times a year to stop violent criminal attack and save lives....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is from the FBI.  Not going to find more accurate number.  You mean mostly criminals defending themselves as kleck has admitted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Brain....Kleck did not say self defense deaths are criminals fighting criminals....he most definitely said that back in the 90s when people had their rights violated to carry weapons for self defense, many of them did any way...and he didn't quantify how many of the 2.5 million were that situation anyway....so your using it is decietful.....they were not gang members or drug dealers just average citizens who needed to protect themselves.....and the 238 is not accurate...the FBI does not follow up on homicides and if they stay justifiable or not....so they don't change their numbers....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He said most defenders are involved in criminal activity.  That makes them criminals.
Click to expand...



And he pointed out that they were carrying guns for protection from criminals and in many cases it was not legal at the time...they were not actual criminals conducting criminal business, just law abiding citizens practising their 2nd amendment rights...and we still don't know how many of the 2.5 million even fit that category.....


----------



## 2aguy

Brain357 said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Denmark and the Netherlands both lost thousands of people to the German death camps.  Might want to check your history there.  The aboriginals likewise suffered at the hands of those who were armed.  Sweden is indeed one of the few countries that hasn't had a mass murderer take control but 16% of the population does indeed own guns, so they are not disarmed are they?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that has what to do with how many guns they had?  That was WWII.  And since then there have been many countries with few guns in citizens hands living quite peaceful and happy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swedens numbers are current.  The fact that they had no guns to defend themselves is the point.  Funny how whenever a population is disarmed, imprisonment and death soon follow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Soon follow?  I think WWII might have been before gun control in those countries.  And well they have been doing quite well ever since.  That is hardly soon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> actually, no....Weimar Germany began taking away guns from people....and then the nazis faced disarmed Jews and dissenters when they started their rise to power...instead of facing Jewish business owners who could fight back, their brown shirts had free reign because they were younger, stronger, in greater numbers and more aggressive....everything that a gun will equalize.....if more Germans were armed then the brown shirts, much like our klan in the south, wouldn't have been as effective at beating their enemies into submission.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's old bill.  And for obvious reasons won't happen in a country with real freedom and voting rights.
Click to expand...



You don't think that could ever happen again.....really?


----------



## Brain357

Billc said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Denmark.  Sweden.  Netherlands.  Australia....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Denmark and the Netherlands both lost thousands of people to the German death camps.  Might want to check your history there.  The aboriginals likewise suffered at the hands of those who were armed.  Sweden is indeed one of the few countries that hasn't had a mass murderer take control but 16% of the population does indeed own guns, so they are not disarmed are they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that has what to do with how many guns they had?  That was WWII.  And since then there have been many countries with few guns in citizens hands living quite peaceful and happy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For now......it only took Germany 20 years to go from the Weimar republic to the Death camps of hitler's Germany....20 years......and do you think the Germans of 1917 thought that in 20 years they would be gassing 6 million Jews and millions of other "undesirables".....they were probably like you guys.......never needed a gun so no one else needs one either.....and 20 years later you have 12 million dead......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Germany didnt go from a stable country with real voting rights to that.  Name a country that has?
> 
> Won't happen in this modern time with cell phones, 24 hour news, Internet....   Our military is the best we have and would never go with any tyrant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So...Germany was a third world Country before the nazis....What about Belgium, Norway, France...and all the countries invaded by Germany, or Russia, or Japan and Italy........they murdered millions in the countries they invaded....
Click to expand...


That is war.  What is your point?  Guns won't defend you from modern armies.  Bombs fall from the sky.


----------



## Brain357

Billc said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that has what to do with how many guns they had?  That was WWII.  And since then there have been many countries with few guns in citizens hands living quite peaceful and happy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swedens numbers are current.  The fact that they had no guns to defend themselves is the point.  Funny how whenever a population is disarmed, imprisonment and death soon follow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Soon follow?  I think WWII might have been before gun control in those countries.  And well they have been doing quite well ever since.  That is hardly soon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> actually, no....Weimar Germany began taking away guns from people....and then the nazis faced disarmed Jews and dissenters when they started their rise to power...instead of facing Jewish business owners who could fight back, their brown shirts had free reign because they were younger, stronger, in greater numbers and more aggressive....everything that a gun will equalize.....if more Germans were armed then the brown shirts, much like our klan in the south, wouldn't have been as effective at beating their enemies into submission.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's old bill.  And for obvious reasons won't happen in a country with real freedom and voting rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't think that could ever happen again.....really?
Click to expand...


It's been a long time and lots of countries have few guns.  So yes it won't happen.  You insult our military if you say they will turn on us.


----------



## 2aguy

Brain357 said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Denmark and the Netherlands both lost thousands of people to the German death camps.  Might want to check your history there.  The aboriginals likewise suffered at the hands of those who were armed.  Sweden is indeed one of the few countries that hasn't had a mass murderer take control but 16% of the population does indeed own guns, so they are not disarmed are they?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that has what to do with how many guns they had?  That was WWII.  And since then there have been many countries with few guns in citizens hands living quite peaceful and happy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For now......it only took Germany 20 years to go from the Weimar republic to the Death camps of hitler's Germany....20 years......and do you think the Germans of 1917 thought that in 20 years they would be gassing 6 million Jews and millions of other "undesirables".....they were probably like you guys.......never needed a gun so no one else needs one either.....and 20 years later you have 12 million dead......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Germany didnt go from a stable country with real voting rights to that.  Name a country that has?
> 
> Won't happen in this modern time with cell phones, 24 hour news, Internet....   Our military is the best we have and would never go with any tyrant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So...Germany was a third world Country before the nazis....What about Belgium, Norway, France...and all the countries invaded by Germany, or Russia, or Japan and Italy........they murdered millions in the countries they invaded....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is war.  What is your point?  Guns won't defend you from modern armies.  Bombs fall from the sky.
Click to expand...





> Guns won't defend you from modern armies.  Bombs fall from the sky



See, that sounds good when you anti gunners say it but just looking at recent history shows how wrong you are again......we are pulling our troops out of 2 countries with primitive technology...they kept fighting and our people and politicians got tired...and are going home....now imagine our people, armed with weapons guaranteed by the 2nd amendment....we would be able to do much better against our own government or any invading force....every country that resisted the Germans and the Russians, and the Japanese lacked two things, guns and ammo........we want to avoid that by not having to scramble at the last minute as the death camps are being set up....

History has taught one lesson over and over....a disarmed population is vulnerable to strong murderous government.....

We know how a disarmed people fairs against their own government when they start killing them......how about we try the other way next time......and see what happens?


----------



## 2aguy

Brain357 said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Swedens numbers are current.  The fact that they had no guns to defend themselves is the point.  Funny how whenever a population is disarmed, imprisonment and death soon follow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soon follow?  I think WWII might have been before gun control in those countries.  And well they have been doing quite well ever since.  That is hardly soon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> actually, no....Weimar Germany began taking away guns from people....and then the nazis faced disarmed Jews and dissenters when they started their rise to power...instead of facing Jewish business owners who could fight back, their brown shirts had free reign because they were younger, stronger, in greater numbers and more aggressive....everything that a gun will equalize.....if more Germans were armed then the brown shirts, much like our klan in the south, wouldn't have been as effective at beating their enemies into submission.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's old bill.  And for obvious reasons won't happen in a country with real freedom and voting rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't think that could ever happen again.....really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's been a long time and lots of countries have few guns.  So yes it won't happen.  You insult our military if you say they will turn on us.
Click to expand...



Sorry....you are delusional...........I won't bet the lives of future generations on your naivete ..........


----------



## Ernie S.

Luddly Neddite said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> On Monday, Panera Bread became the latest U.S. company to ask customers to leave their guns at home.
> 
> The bakery-cafe chain joins Starbucks, Chipotle, Target and a handful of other restaurants and retailers in making such a request, which comes amid an increasingly heated debate over the role of guns in public places.
> 
> Panera Asks Customers Not To Bring Guns Into Its Restaurants
> 
> Good.  More companies are wising up.  I like Panera Bread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the article -
> 
> _The companies that have decided to ask customers to leave guns at home have framed the new policy as a request, saying that they do not want to put employees in the position of confronting an armed customer.
> ...
> 
> Supporters argue that the weapons are frightening, and that it is dangerous to ask shoppers and law enforcement officers to distinguish between people carrying guns peacefully and those intending to do harm._
> 
> Fine and good but unenforceable.
> 
> We've seen toy guns mistaken for the real thing, children killed and shoppers mistaken for shooters. There's no such thing as "carrying guns peacefully". If one carries a gun, they're looking for an opportunity to use it. That is the main reason to carry a gun.
> 
> Be that as it may, at the very least, scared nutters should be required to open carry but, as we've seen here, some would defy that law as well.
> 
> *We have more guns and they have made us all less safe.*
Click to expand...

That is a lie and you know it.

I carry a gun every day, hoping I never have to use it.

I own a bar. I left my place of business at a little after midnight last night and headed home. At 2AM, I got a call from my very hot, but very feminine bartender. She informed me that someone had called, asking when we closed, saying they were in a town a half hour away. When told we stopped serving at 2AM, their location magically changed to here in Foley. THEN they asked if we had security. She answered that we did, although the man doing security last night is not well trained and although large, is not a fighter type. (regular security guy down with the flu)
A couple minutes later, a customer goes out to walk a petite female to her car and sees 3 people lurking in the bushes just off our north lot. He brings her back in and tells Megan, security and another fellow what's going on. Megan calls me and tells me what's going on.
Henry, a huge black man and a good friend of Doc Holliday's goes out and makes his presence known. He also retrieves  his Glock from his truck and comes back in. I arrive in 4 minutes, pull in the lot and make a wide sweep of the bushes with my high beams and flashlight with a Taurus .40 in my hand.
The three were back. One, I'm sure, had been in earlier. They saw me and my gun and took off running.

The fact that at least one had been in Doc's at least once before, makes him recognizable which makes a robbery a very dangerous situation since felons hate witnesses.
As people left, I walked out first, checked the lot and then walked with them to their cars.
At that point, the weapon was no longer concealed. No one freaked out or felt threatened by my gun and all were very thankful I made every effort to keep them safe.
I stayed and help staff clean and close. I got home at 4:20 AM. 
So Ludley, Why didn't I kill anyone last night?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Lakhota said:


> The gun debate should be an honest one.


For that to happen, you need to drop out of it.


----------



## Brain357

M14 Shooter said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> The gun debate should be an honest one.
> 
> 
> 
> For that to happen, you need to drop out of it.
Click to expand...


As do you.


----------



## Brain357

Billc said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see what you ment now by "deadly".  What applications do you see civilians needing a machine gun for?  There is only about 230 criminals killed in defense each year.  Based on the number of defenses that is already quite a low number.  I don't think you can get much less deadly to criminals than that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know the 230 number is probably too low.....when a homicide is changed from murder to justified by a prosecutor or the killer is found innocent in court, the FBI doesn't change the data....so that number is off....probably too low....but still pretty good considering that law abiding gun owners use their guns 1.6 million times a year to stop violent criminal attack and save lives....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is from the FBI.  Not going to find more accurate number.  You mean mostly criminals defending themselves as kleck has admitted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Brain....Kleck did not say self defense deaths are criminals fighting criminals....he most definitely said that back in the 90s when people had their rights violated to carry weapons for self defense, many of them did any way...and he didn't quantify how many of the 2.5 million were that situation anyway....so your using it is decietful.....they were not gang members or drug dealers just average citizens who needed to protect themselves.....and the 238 is not accurate...the FBI does not follow up on homicides and if they stay justifiable or not....so they don't change their numbers....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He said most defenders are involved in criminal activity.  That makes them criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And he pointed out that they were carrying guns for protection from criminals and in many cases it was not legal at the time...they were not actual criminals conducting criminal business, just law abiding citizens practising their 2nd amendment rights...and we still don't know how many of the 2.5 million even fit that category.....
Click to expand...


No he said they were involved in criminal activity.  You are making up the rest to candy coat it.


----------



## Brain357

Billc said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Soon follow?  I think WWII might have been before gun control in those countries.  And well they have been doing quite well ever since.  That is hardly soon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> actually, no....Weimar Germany began taking away guns from people....and then the nazis faced disarmed Jews and dissenters when they started their rise to power...instead of facing Jewish business owners who could fight back, their brown shirts had free reign because they were younger, stronger, in greater numbers and more aggressive....everything that a gun will equalize.....if more Germans were armed then the brown shirts, much like our klan in the south, wouldn't have been as effective at beating their enemies into submission.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's old bill.  And for obvious reasons won't happen in a country with real freedom and voting rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't think that could ever happen again.....really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's been a long time and lots of countries have few guns.  So yes it won't happen.  You insult our military if you say they will turn on us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry....you are delusional...........I won't bet the lives of future generations on your naivete ..........
Click to expand...


Right so why are so many countries with few guns not taken over by tyrants?  Sorry but that view is just silly.


----------



## EatMorChikin

Brain357 said:


> EatMorChikin said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Firearms are being taken away, little by little. And the criteria for being disqualified are some very minor reasons. Ever heard the frog and the pot of cold water story? It's all happening sorta like that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Felons can't have guns.  Been that way for a long time.  You prefer armed criminals?
Click to expand...


You have trouble reading? When I imply that the right to purchase is being stripped away for very minor reasons, do you think I am talking about felons? And you use the moniker Brain? The irony in that is astounding.


----------



## Brain357

EatMorChikin said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EatMorChikin said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Firearms are being taken away, little by little. And the criteria for being disqualified are some very minor reasons. Ever heard the frog and the pot of cold water story? It's all happening sorta like that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Felons can't have guns.  Been that way for a long time.  You prefer armed criminals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have trouble reading? When I imply that the right to purchase is being stripped away for very minor reasons, do you think I am talking about felons? And you use the moniker Brain? The irony in that is astounding.
Click to expand...


Yes very specific.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Billc said:


> [
> Puerto Rico....has the strictest gun control in the United States and it's territories...it is an island so you can't just drive illegal guns across the border....and it has the highest murder rate in the world......


PR gun laws - "Reasonable gun control", according go the anti-gun loons
-A license is required to purchase any firearm or ammunition.
-All firearms must be registered with the Puerto Rico Police.
-"Assault weapons" and .50 BMG rifles prohibited.
-Magazine capacity restriction? Yes
-A target shooting license is required to purchase any firearm or ammunition.
-The Commonwealth currently has a "may issue" policy for the issuance of concealed carry permits. In order to obtain one the applicant must already have a target shooting license and must appear before a judge and provide proof of a strong need for a permit. Very few people are issued permits.
-Open carry is prohibited.
-Automatic firearms are prohibited.

Puerto Rico
% of homicides w/ firearms:94.8%
# of gun-related homicides per 100k population:   18.3
800,000 guns, 692 gun murders.  99.9135% of guns not used to commit murder

Clearly, PR gun control laws work.
/sarcasm


----------



## EatMorChikin

Ernie S. said:


> [
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I carry a gun every day, hoping I never have to use it.
> 
> I own a bar. I left my place of business at a little after midnight last night and headed home. At 2AM, I got a call from my very hot, but very feminine bartender. She informed me that someone had called, asking when we closed, saying they were in a town a half hour away. When told we stopped serving at 2AM, their location magically changed to here in Foley. THEN they asked if we had security. She answered that we did, although the man doing security last night is not well trained and although large, is not a fighter type. (regular security guy down with the flu)
> A couple minutes later, a customer goes out to walk a petite female to her car and sees 3 people lurking in the bushes just off our north lot. He brings her back in and tells Megan, security and another fellow what's going on. Megan calls me and tells me what's going on.
> Henry, a huge black man and a good friend of Doc Holliday's goes out and makes his presence known. He also retrieves  his Glock from his truck and comes back in. I arrive in 4 minutes, pull in the lot and make a wide sweep of the bushes with my high beams and flashlight with a Taurus .40 in my hand.
> The three were back. One, I'm sure, had been in earlier. They saw me and my gun and took off running.
> 
> The fact that at least one had been in Doc's at least once before, makes him recognizable which makes a robbery a very dangerous situation since felons hate witnesses.
> As people left, I walked out first, checked the lot and then walked with them to their cars.
> At that point, the weapon was no longer concealed. No one freaked out or felt threatened by my gun and all were very thankful I made every effort to keep them safe.
> I stayed and help staff clean and close. I got home at 4:20 AM.
> So Ludley, Why didn't I kill anyone last night?



I'm glad everything worked out, and there is a reasonable chance they wont be back. They will move on to an easier target. 

I once used my Sig P226 to deter a situation at my home, and I never had to fire a shot. They guy tried calling the cops on me, saying I threatened him with a gun. Yeah no shit Sherlock, you walked into my home not knowing I was home. They all gathered outside, and called me asking me to come out. I refused, knowing full well the first thing they would do after that is enter and take my arms.

After it was all said and done, and I talked to someone higher up on the phone the situation became diffused and all the follow up from that point was handled by phone. The guy was built like an offensive lineman, and I am not that big of a guy. He was someone I sort of knew but was not friends with, and he had no business in my home uninvited.


----------



## Brain357

EatMorChikin said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I carry a gun every day, hoping I never have to use it.
> 
> I own a bar. I left my place of business at a little after midnight last night and headed home. At 2AM, I got a call from my very hot, but very feminine bartender. She informed me that someone had called, asking when we closed, saying they were in a town a half hour away. When told we stopped serving at 2AM, their location magically changed to here in Foley. THEN they asked if we had security. She answered that we did, although the man doing security last night is not well trained and although large, is not a fighter type. (regular security guy down with the flu)
> A couple minutes later, a customer goes out to walk a petite female to her car and sees 3 people lurking in the bushes just off our north lot. He brings her back in and tells Megan, security and another fellow what's going on. Megan calls me and tells me what's going on.
> Henry, a huge black man and a good friend of Doc Holliday's goes out and makes his presence known. He also retrieves  his Glock from his truck and comes back in. I arrive in 4 minutes, pull in the lot and make a wide sweep of the bushes with my high beams and flashlight with a Taurus .40 in my hand.
> The three were back. One, I'm sure, had been in earlier. They saw me and my gun and took off running.
> 
> The fact that at least one had been in Doc's at least once before, makes him recognizable which makes a robbery a very dangerous situation since felons hate witnesses.
> As people left, I walked out first, checked the lot and then walked with them to their cars.
> At that point, the weapon was no longer concealed. No one freaked out or felt threatened by my gun and all were very thankful I made every effort to keep them safe.
> I stayed and help staff clean and close. I got home at 4:20 AM.
> So Ludley, Why didn't I kill anyone last night?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad everything worked out, and there is a reasonable chance they wont be back. They will move on to an easier target.
> 
> I once used my Sig P226 to deter a situation at my home, and I never had to fire a shot. They guy tried calling the cops on me, saying I threatened him with a gun. Yeah no shit Sherlock, you walked into my home not knowing I was home. They all gathered outside, and called me asking me to come out. I refused, knowing full well the first thing they would do after that is enter and take my arms.
> 
> After it was all said and done, and I talked to someone higher up on the phone the situation became diffused and all the follow up from that point was handled by phone. The guy was built like an offensive lineman, and I am not that big of a guy. He was someone I sort of knew but was not friends with, and he had no business in my home uninvited.
Click to expand...


Somewhere between his story and yours is the truth....


----------



## EatMorChikin

Brain357 said:


> EatMorChikin said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have trouble reading? When I imply that the right to purchase is being stripped away for very minor reasons, do you think I am talking about felons? And you use the moniker Brain? The irony in that is astounding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes very specific.
Click to expand...


The only specifics needed, is that you can lose those rights without being a felon, or committing a violent crime. Cops try and take them from people who are legally carrying all the time. And at that point it is the owner who is having to fight to get legal property returned.


----------



## EatMorChikin

Brain357 said:


> Somewhere between his story and yours is the truth....



I'm new here so I must ask. Are you the social commentator parrot?


----------



## Flash

Brain357 said:


> That is war.  What is your point?  Guns won't defend you from modern armies.  Bombs fall from the sky.



Wrong!  History is full of examples of where a lesser armed revolution succeeded against a more heavily armed government force.  Our own American revolution is one of them.

The reason you Moon Bats are so afraid of firearms is that you know that they could pose a threat to your beloved big government  and the welfare checks and free cell phones and that scares you to death.

However, you don't have to worry your little Moon Bat head.  Americans nowadays are too chickenshit to hold the government accountable for anything.  You are home free, guns or no guns.


----------



## Flash

M14 Shooter said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Puerto Rico....has the strictest gun control in the United States and it's territories...it is an island so you can't just drive illegal guns across the border....and it has the highest murder rate in the world......
> 
> 
> 
> PR gun laws - "Reasonable gun control", according go the anti-gun loons
> -A license is required to purchase any firearm or ammunition.
> -All firearms must be registered with the Puerto Rico Police.
> -"Assault weapons" and .50 BMG rifles prohibited.
> -Magazine capacity restriction? Yes
> -A target shooting license is required to purchase any firearm or ammunition.
> -The Commonwealth currently has a "may issue" policy for the issuance of concealed carry permits. In order to obtain one the applicant must already have a target shooting license and must appear before a judge and provide proof of a strong need for a permit. Very few people are issued permits.
> -Open carry is prohibited.
> -Automatic firearms are prohibited.
> 
> Puerto Rico
> % of homicides w/ firearms:94.8%
> # of gun-related homicides per 100k population:   18.3
> 800,000 guns, 692 gun murders.  99.9135% of guns used to commit murder
> 
> Clearly, PR gun control laws work.
> /sarcasm
Click to expand...


The Moon Bats think New York's SAFE act is "reasonable gun control" but it put a veteran in jail for having a couple of empty AR-15 magazines in his trunk a week after the law was enacted and another veteran had his guns confiscated because he went to see a doctor about insomnia. 

You can't trust Moon Bats to get it right with "reasonable" because their agenda is too unreasonable.


----------



## 2aguy

Brain357 said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know the 230 number is probably too low.....when a homicide is changed from murder to justified by a prosecutor or the killer is found innocent in court, the FBI doesn't change the data....so that number is off....probably too low....but still pretty good considering that law abiding gun owners use their guns 1.6 million times a year to stop violent criminal attack and save lives....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is from the FBI.  Not going to find more accurate number.  You mean mostly criminals defending themselves as kleck has admitted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Brain....Kleck did not say self defense deaths are criminals fighting criminals....he most definitely said that back in the 90s when people had their rights violated to carry weapons for self defense, many of them did any way...and he didn't quantify how many of the 2.5 million were that situation anyway....so your using it is decietful.....they were not gang members or drug dealers just average citizens who needed to protect themselves.....and the 238 is not accurate...the FBI does not follow up on homicides and if they stay justifiable or not....so they don't change their numbers....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He said most defenders are involved in criminal activity.  That makes them criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And he pointed out that they were carrying guns for protection from criminals and in many cases it was not legal at the time...they were not actual criminals conducting criminal business, just law abiding citizens practising their 2nd amendment rights...and we still don't know how many of the 2.5 million even fit that category.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No he said they were involved in criminal activity.  You are making up the rest to candy coat it.
Click to expand...



No...you didn't post his whole quote in context....he specifically says in many states carrying a gun for protection was illegal.....but people did it anyway.....


----------



## 2aguy

Brain357 said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> actually, no....Weimar Germany began taking away guns from people....and then the nazis faced disarmed Jews and dissenters when they started their rise to power...instead of facing Jewish business owners who could fight back, their brown shirts had free reign because they were younger, stronger, in greater numbers and more aggressive....everything that a gun will equalize.....if more Germans were armed then the brown shirts, much like our klan in the south, wouldn't have been as effective at beating their enemies into submission.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's old bill.  And for obvious reasons won't happen in a country with real freedom and voting rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't think that could ever happen again.....really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's been a long time and lots of countries have few guns.  So yes it won't happen.  You insult our military if you say they will turn on us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry....you are delusional...........I won't bet the lives of future generations on your naivete ..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right so why are so many countries with few guns not taken over by tyrants?  Sorry but that view is just silly.
Click to expand...



Because today, the United States has been ready and willing to come to their aid....sadly, we can't do that anymore....we can't even fight terrorists without getting bored and wanting to bring our troops home....


----------



## Ernie S.

Brain357 said:


> EatMorChikin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I carry a gun every day, hoping I never have to use it.
> 
> I own a bar. I left my place of business at a little after midnight last night and headed home. At 2AM, I got a call from my very hot, but very feminine bartender. She informed me that someone had called, asking when we closed, saying they were in a town a half hour away. When told we stopped serving at 2AM, their location magically changed to here in Foley. THEN they asked if we had security. She answered that we did, although the man doing security last night is not well trained and although large, is not a fighter type. (regular security guy down with the flu)
> A couple minutes later, a customer goes out to walk a petite female to her car and sees 3 people lurking in the bushes just off our north lot. He brings her back in and tells Megan, security and another fellow what's going on. Megan calls me and tells me what's going on.
> Henry, a huge black man and a good friend of Doc Holliday's goes out and makes his presence known. He also retrieves  his Glock from his truck and comes back in. I arrive in 4 minutes, pull in the lot and make a wide sweep of the bushes with my high beams and flashlight with a Taurus .40 in my hand.
> The three were back. One, I'm sure, had been in earlier. They saw me and my gun and took off running.
> 
> The fact that at least one had been in Doc's at least once before, makes him recognizable which makes a robbery a very dangerous situation since felons hate witnesses.
> As people left, I walked out first, checked the lot and then walked with them to their cars.
> At that point, the weapon was no longer concealed. No one freaked out or felt threatened by my gun and all were very thankful I made every effort to keep them safe.
> I stayed and help staff clean and close. I got home at 4:20 AM.
> So Ludley, Why didn't I kill anyone last night?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad everything worked out, and there is a reasonable chance they wont be back. They will move on to an easier target.
> 
> I once used my Sig P226 to deter a situation at my home, and I never had to fire a shot. They guy tried calling the cops on me, saying I threatened him with a gun. Yeah no shit Sherlock, you walked into my home not knowing I was home. They all gathered outside, and called me asking me to come out. I refused, knowing full well the first thing they would do after that is enter and take my arms.
> 
> After it was all said and done, and I talked to someone higher up on the phone the situation became diffused and all the follow up from that point was handled by phone. The guy was built like an offensive lineman, and I am not that big of a guy. He was someone I sort of knew but was not friends with, and he had no business in my home uninvited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Somewhere between his story and yours is the truth....
Click to expand...

I can't vouch for him....


----------



## Ernie S.

EatMorChikin said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somewhere between his story and yours is the truth....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm new here so I must ask. Are you the social commentator parrot?
Click to expand...

No he's the resident gun grabber.


----------



## Brain357

Ernie S. said:


> EatMorChikin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somewhere between his story and yours is the truth....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm new here so I must ask. Are you the social commentator parrot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No he's the resident gun grabber.
Click to expand...


I've never suggested grabbing anyone's gun.  You seem to be mistaken.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Flash said:


> You can't trust Moon Bats to get it right with "reasonable" because their agenda is too unreasonable.


Anti-gun loons are only interested in making it harder for the law abiding to exercise their right to self-defense.
They have no other agenda.


----------



## Brain357

M14 Shooter said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't trust Moon Bats to get it right with "reasonable" because their agenda is too unreasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> Anti-gun loons are only interested in making it harder for the law abiding to exercise their right to self-defense.
> They have no other agenda.
Click to expand...


No they are interested in making it harder for criminals to get guns.  Often they happen to be the same given how many comcealed carry holders turn criminal.  Whether their efforts are effective is the debate.


----------



## Flash

Brain357 said:


> No they are interested in making it harder for criminals to get guns.  Often they happen to be the same given how many comcealed carry holders turn criminal.  Whether their efforts are effective is the debate.



What criminal is going to be deterred by any stupid anti gun law?

Most firearm crimes are committed with illegal or stolen firearms so why do you think making even more laws is going to change anything?  Chicago has the strictest gun control laws in the country and the worse crime rate so what addition law is going to change that?

Even in a "shall issue" state a concealed weapon permit usually requires a significant background check so if they think concealed weapon permit holders are potential criminals then what degree of gun control are they suggesting? 

There is a Bill of Rights that says that Americans have the individual right to keep and bear arms.   The Libtards should lean to live with it.


----------



## Brain357

Flash said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they are interested in making it harder for criminals to get guns.  Often they happen to be the same given how many comcealed carry holders turn criminal.  Whether their efforts are effective is the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What criminal is going to be deterred by any stupid anti gun law?
> 
> Most firearm crimes are committed with illegal or stolen firearms so why do you think making even more laws is going to change anything?  Chicago has the strictest gun control laws in the country and the worse crime rate so what addition law is going to change that?
> 
> Even in a "shall issue" state a concealed weapon permit usually requires a significant background check so if they think concealed weapon permit holders are potential criminals then what degree of gun control are they suggesting?
> 
> There is a Bill of Rights that says that Americans have the individual right to keep and bear arms.   The Libtards should lean to live with it.
Click to expand...


Right now felons can easily get around background checks by buying from a private seller.  Why not make it harder for them?

Ok so if many crimes involve stolen guns than maybe laws are needed to keep guns from being stolen.  Like they must be stored in a safe.

The machine gun laws have been very effective.  They are almost never used in crime.


----------



## 2aguy

Brain357 said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't trust Moon Bats to get it right with "reasonable" because their agenda is too unreasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> Anti-gun loons are only interested in making it harder for the law abiding to exercise their right to self-defense.
> They have no other agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they are interested in making it harder for criminals to get guns.  Often they happen to be the same given how many comcealed carry holders turn criminal.  Whether their efforts are effective is the debate.
Click to expand...



Brain.....they have stats on concealed carry permit holders and by far they are more law abiding than regular citizens and even police officers....and not one gun control law has stopped the 8-9,000 gun murders a year, mainly in small block areas in our inner cities, nor has it stopped any of the mass shooters, many of whom have followed all of the laws you want and we already have.....


----------



## 2aguy

> The machine gun laws have been very effective. They are almost never used in crime.



The criminals who need them use them....ask the Mexican drug cartels.....most gangs use concealable weapons and rarely use rifles of any sort....that is why you don't see them used, not because the laws have been effective...just ask the three terrorists in France, with stricter gun control than we have how they had military grade rifles, a rocket propelled grenade launcher and grenades.....


----------



## Flash

Brain357 said:


> Right now felons can easily get around background checks by buying from a private seller.  Why not make it harder for them?
> 
> Ok so if many crimes involve stolen guns than maybe laws are needed to keep guns from being stolen.  Like they must be stored in a safe.
> 
> The machine gun laws have been very effective.  They are almost never used in crime.



The problem with "making it harder for criminals to get firearms" is that it never stops criminals from getting the weapons but it infringes on the people that have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Felons or anybody that wants to commit a crime will always be able to get a firearm if they want one so what difference would any additional gun law make?

The terrorist in Paris is a great example of that.  The French has some of the  strictest gun control laws in the world and the bad guys got their guns and did their bad deeds. 

The NFA laws requires that you pay a $200 tax and get the chief law enforcement officer of a area to sign, which is usually a rubber stamp in most non commie states.  All the NFA laws do is make it more difficult for the law abiding citizens like myself to own a machine gun.  The drug gangs and other criminals that use illegal FA weapon just ignore the NFA laws so it is really no deterrent.  

NFA laws are not effective.  The people that abide by the NFA laws are not criminals to start with and that is the reason that registered Class III weapons are not ever used in crimes but that doesn't do anything to stop the criminals from using illegal automatic weapons.


----------



## 2aguy

These stories look at how law abiding concealed carry permit holders actually are....

From Texas. also discusses distortions in stats.....

Texas Concealed Handgun Carriers Law-abiding Public Benefactors NCPAFrom Reason Magazine, on NYT article....


NYT Scare Story About Carry Permit Holders Shows They Are Remarkably Law-Abiding - Hit Run Reason.com




> Excluding traffic offenses, the _Times_ counts 2,400 over five years, of which 200 were felonies. More relevant (since critics of nondiscretionary permit laws worry that they contribute to gun violence), "More than 200 permit holders were also convicted of gun- or weapon-related felonies or misdemeanors, including roughly 60 who committed weapon-related assaults."





> That's a dozen gun assaults a year. How many permit holders are there in North Carolina? According to the story, "more than 240,000." So 0.2 percent of them are convicted of a non-traffic-related offense each year, about 0.017 percent are convicted of a felony, and only 0.005 percent are convicted of a gun assault.





> *The Times concedes that the number of permit holders convicted of crimes "represents a small percentage of those with permits." More like "tiny." By comparison, about 0.35 percent of all Americans are [URL='http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=233']convicted*





> * of a felony each year--more than 20 times the rate among North Carolina permit holders. It seems clear these people are far more law-abiding than the general population, a finding consistent with  data from other states. Such data are not surprising, since law-abidingness, as measured by a clean criminal record, is one requirement for a carry permit. *


[/URL]



> Between horror stories that suggest letting people carry guns in public fosters violence, the _Times_ admits there is little evidence to substantiate that fear:




John Lott

CPRC in the Christian Science Monitor How law-abiding are concealed handgun permit holders - Crime Prevention Research Center


----------



## 2aguy

Flash said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right now felons can easily get around background checks by buying from a private seller.  Why not make it harder for them?
> 
> Ok so if many crimes involve stolen guns than maybe laws are needed to keep guns from being stolen.  Like they must be stored in a safe.
> 
> The machine gun laws have been very effective.  They are almost never used in crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with "making it harder for criminals to get firearms" is that it never stops criminals from getting the weapons but it infringes on the people that have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Felons or anybody that wants to commit a crime will always be able to get a firearm if they want one so what difference would any additional gun law make?
> 
> The terrorist in Paris is a great example of that.  The French has some of the  strictest gun control laws in the world and the bad guys got their guns and did their bad deeds.
> 
> The NFA laws requires that you pay a $200 tax and get the chief law enforcement officer of a area to sign, which is usually a rubber stamp in most non commie states.  All the NFA laws do is make it more difficult for the law abiding citizens like myself to own a machine gun.  The drug gangs and other criminals that use illegal FA weapon just ignore the NFA laws so it is really no deterrent.
> 
> NFA laws are not effective.  The people that abide by the NFA laws are not criminals to start with and that is the reason that registered Class III weapons are not ever used in crimes but that doesn't do anything to stop the criminals from using illegal automatic weapons.
Click to expand...



Gun laws will not stop criminals from getting guns if they want or need them...it stops law abiding citizens from having them......and that is the main goal....gun grabbers want to control people, they know they can't control criminals, but the can damned sure control law abiding people with laws....and they will do that whatever it takes.........


----------



## Flash

Billc said:


> These stories look at how law abiding concealed carry permit holders actually are....



That is a good example that background checks (that you have to get to have a CWP) really do nothing to stop people from using weapons for illegal purposes.

If I wanted to commit a crime the fact that I have a CWP (or didn't have one) would not factor in it.

Gun control laws on any level is not much of a deterrent at all.  It is naive to think so.  The evidence is overwhelming that gun control laws do not stop vilolent crime, anywhere in the world and especallialy here in the US.

All gun control laws do is infringe on the constitutional rights of the people that were never going to use a gun in a crime.


----------



## 2aguy

Brain357 said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they are interested in making it harder for criminals to get guns.  Often they happen to be the same given how many comcealed carry holders turn criminal.  Whether their efforts are effective is the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What criminal is going to be deterred by any stupid anti gun law?
> 
> Most firearm crimes are committed with illegal or stolen firearms so why do you think making even more laws is going to change anything?  Chicago has the strictest gun control laws in the country and the worse crime rate so what addition law is going to change that?
> 
> Even in a "shall issue" state a concealed weapon permit usually requires a significant background check so if they think concealed weapon permit holders are potential criminals then what degree of gun control are they suggesting?
> 
> There is a Bill of Rights that says that Americans have the individual right to keep and bear arms.   The Libtards should lean to live with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right now felons can easily get around background checks by buying from a private seller.  Why not make it harder for them?
> 
> Ok so if many crimes involve stolen guns than maybe laws are needed to keep guns from being stolen.  Like they must be stored in a safe.
> 
> The machine gun laws have been very effective.  They are almost never used in crime.
Click to expand...



If you keep your guns in your home...there is no reason the government has to get involved in how you store those guns... If someone breaks into your home they are making you a victim by stealing your guns....and as we have seen in Britain, once they mandate storing guns in safes, they will want the ability to check on those safes and if they are in your home they will try to penalize you if they see your safe is not locked....it happened in Britain, they want that here.....

Not one more gun, bullet, piece of equipment...they have all they can have and we will prevent further encroachment.....


----------



## Little-Acorn

Billc said:


> Gun laws will not stop criminals from getting guns if they want or need them...it stops law abiding citizens from having them......and that is the main goal....gun grabbers want to control people, they know they can't control criminals, but the can damned sure control law abiding people with laws....and they will do that whatever it takes.........


 ^^^^^^ This. ^^^^^^


----------



## Little-Acorn

If gun ownership was allowed for all law-abiding citizens, most people still wouldn't bother carrying one with them. But a few would. Often concealed.

And the best news is, someone contemplating committing a crime, would know there were no laws preventing nearly everyone in the crowd from carrying a gun in their pocket or purse. And he would know that most probably weren't carrying... and that a few people probably were. _And he wouldn't know which ones they were._

So he would know that if he slugged an old lady and snatched her purse, he could expect a bullet from an unknown direction (or two). And there would be nothing he could do to prevent it, or to know which person in the crowd might fire the shot.

It's enough to make a criminal change jobs, and not commit the crime in the first place.

And that's the point.

If gun ownership is allowed for all law-abiding adults, many crimes won't get committed in the first place. And without a shot being fired. Without anyone having to pull their gun at all.

And that's the biggest benefit of gun ownership by all responsible adults.


----------



## EatMorChikin

Brain357 said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't trust Moon Bats to get it right with "reasonable" because their agenda is too unreasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> Anti-gun loons are only interested in making it harder for the law abiding to exercise their right to self-defense.
> They have no other agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they are interested in making it harder for criminals to get guns.  Often they happen to be the same given how many comcealed carry holders turn criminal.  Whether their efforts are effective is the debate.
Click to expand...


Where is some data to support all these cc holders who turn criminal?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Brain357 said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't trust Moon Bats to get it right with "reasonable" because their agenda is too unreasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> Anti-gun loons are only interested in making it harder for the law abiding to exercise their right to self-defense.
> They have no other agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they are interested in making it harder for criminals to get guns.  Often they happen to be the same given how many comcealed carry holders turn criminal.  Whether their efforts are effective is the debate.
Click to expand...

Link us to statistics that support your bullshit claim that concealed carry permit holders turn criminal.


----------



## Flash

If you are a CWP holder then all that really means is that you were a law abiding citizen that went through the silly government licensing process so you can be legal.

That licensing process does nothing to stop a criminal from either acquiring a gun, carrying a gun or using a gun in a crime.

That is the way it is with most gun control laws.  It is only red tape for law abiding citizens and does nothing of substance to prevent the criminals from doing whatever they want to do.

It is a feel good exercise for the stupid Libtards.


----------



## Brain357

RetiredGySgt said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't trust Moon Bats to get it right with "reasonable" because their agenda is too unreasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> Anti-gun loons are only interested in making it harder for the law abiding to exercise their right to self-defense.
> They have no other agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they are interested in making it harder for criminals to get guns.  Often they happen to be the same given how many comcealed carry holders turn criminal.  Whether their efforts are effective is the debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link us to statistics that support your bullshit claim that concealed carry permit holders turn criminal.
Click to expand...


VPC - The Violence Policy Center - Concealed Carry Killers
And that is just the killers.  A recent story a janitor was fired and tried to shoot the pastor.  The janitor had a carry permit....


----------



## 2aguy

EatMorChikin said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't trust Moon Bats to get it right with "reasonable" because their agenda is too unreasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> Anti-gun loons are only interested in making it harder for the law abiding to exercise their right to self-defense.
> They have no other agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they are interested in making it harder for criminals to get guns.  Often they happen to be the same given how many comcealed carry holders turn criminal.  Whether their efforts are effective is the debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is some data to support all these cc holders who turn criminal?
Click to expand...



You just go to the Violence Policy Center....they are a rabidly anti gun, anti 2nd Amendment site that miscounts the numbers, and counts suicided against concealed carry holders.....and when you go to Brains link.....

another thing to keep in mind......having a concealed carry permit would not have stopped these crimes....I read one where a dentist with a permit shot a cop for no reason......having a permit did not mean one thing toward the outcome of that shooting.....he could and probably would have carried without a permit considering he murdered a cop in cold blood...

So again....this site simply proves that these laws only matter for those who obey the laws.....the concealed carry process doesn't stop crime....it just burdens the good people who won't murder other people.....


----------



## 2aguy

Brain357 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't trust Moon Bats to get it right with "reasonable" because their agenda is too unreasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> Anti-gun loons are only interested in making it harder for the law abiding to exercise their right to self-defense.
> They have no other agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they are interested in making it harder for criminals to get guns.  Often they happen to be the same given how many comcealed carry holders turn criminal.  Whether their efforts are effective is the debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link us to statistics that support your bullshit claim that concealed carry permit holders turn criminal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> VPC - The Violence Policy Center - Concealed Carry Killers
> And that is just the killers.  A recent story a janitor was fired and tried to shoot the pastor.  The janitor had a carry permit....
Click to expand...




> A recent story a janitor was fired and tried to shoot the pastor.  The janitor had a carry permit...



Funny that you left out the rest of that little story Brain.....and the pastor also had a concealed carry permit and shot the janitor saving the lives of those people....of course....if concealed carry was not allowed in that state...the janitor would have still had his gun because he was willing to commit murder, and the pastor would not have had his gun because he would have obeyed the law and not carried a weapon.......

So thanks Brain for showing why concealed carry laws are so important and can and do save lives.......

And the fact that you failed to finish that story should make people wary of listening to your points on the issue.....


----------



## RetiredGySgt

How many years does your supposed impartial report cover? At least 6. So out of millions of concealed carry people you have a list of 650 or so shootings, that some do not even include the supposed name of the shooter. Remind me again what the percentage is and why with such a low percentage we should prevent the VAST majority of law abiding from owning possessing and carrying? And then contrast that with all the other ways people are killed and explain why those methods which far exceed this should NOT be prevented?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

RetiredGySgt said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't trust Moon Bats to get it right with "reasonable" because their agenda is too unreasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> Anti-gun loons are only interested in making it harder for the law abiding to exercise their right to self-defense.
> They have no other agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they are interested in making it harder for criminals to get guns.  Often they happen to be the same given how many comcealed carry holders turn criminal.  Whether their efforts are effective is the debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link us to statistics that support your bullshit claim that concealed carry permit holders turn criminal.
Click to expand...

You claimed MANY turn criminal yet only have a little over 600 for 6 years an average of 100 a year out of millions of carry permits.


----------



## Brain357

RetiredGySgt said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't trust Moon Bats to get it right with "reasonable" because their agenda is too unreasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> Anti-gun loons are only interested in making it harder for the law abiding to exercise their right to self-defense.
> They have no other agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they are interested in making it harder for criminals to get guns.  Often they happen to be the same given how many comcealed carry holders turn criminal.  Whether their efforts are effective is the debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link us to statistics that support your bullshit claim that concealed carry permit holders turn criminal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claimed MANY turn criminal yet only have a little over 600 for 6 years an average of 100 a year out of millions of carry permits.
Click to expand...


Well it is just the murders, I said turn criminal.  Murder is small percent of all crime.  That is quite a lot of killing for only what 11 million carrying?  Now if they are killing so many one can assume there is a lot of other crimes being done.  The janitor didn't actually kill anyone, but he tried and is a criminal.


----------



## Brain357

RetiredGySgt said:


> How many years does your supposed impartial report cover? At least 6. So out of millions of concealed carry people you have a list of 650 or so shootings, that some do not even include the supposed name of the shooter. Remind me again what the percentage is and why with such a low percentage we should prevent the VAST majority of law abiding from owning possessing and carrying? And then contrast that with all the other ways people are killed and explain why those methods which far exceed this should NOT be prevented?



I have not suggested not allowing people to possess guns.


----------



## Brain357

Billc said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't trust Moon Bats to get it right with "reasonable" because their agenda is too unreasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> Anti-gun loons are only interested in making it harder for the law abiding to exercise their right to self-defense.
> They have no other agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they are interested in making it harder for criminals to get guns.  Often they happen to be the same given how many comcealed carry holders turn criminal.  Whether their efforts are effective is the debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link us to statistics that support your bullshit claim that concealed carry permit holders turn criminal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> VPC - The Violence Policy Center - Concealed Carry Killers
> And that is just the killers.  A recent story a janitor was fired and tried to shoot the pastor.  The janitor had a carry permit....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A recent story a janitor was fired and tried to shoot the pastor.  The janitor had a carry permit...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny that you left out the rest of that little story Brain.....and the pastor also had a concealed carry permit and shot the janitor saving the lives of those people....of course....if concealed carry was not allowed in that state...the janitor would have still had his gun because he was willing to commit murder, and the pastor would not have had his gun because he would have obeyed the law and not carried a weapon.......
> 
> So thanks Brain for showing why concealed carry laws are so important and can and do save lives.......
> 
> And the fact that you failed to finish that story should make people wary of listening to your points on the issue.....
Click to expand...


Yes because you armed a criminal another person had to shot him.  Great job arming a criminal.


----------



## Brain357

Billc said:


> EatMorChikin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't trust Moon Bats to get it right with "reasonable" because their agenda is too unreasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> Anti-gun loons are only interested in making it harder for the law abiding to exercise their right to self-defense.
> They have no other agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they are interested in making it harder for criminals to get guns.  Often they happen to be the same given how many comcealed carry holders turn criminal.  Whether their efforts are effective is the debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is some data to support all these cc holders who turn criminal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You just go to the Violence Policy Center....they are a rabidly anti gun, anti 2nd Amendment site that miscounts the numbers, and counts suicided against concealed carry holders.....and when you go to Brains link.....
> 
> another thing to keep in mind......having a concealed carry permit would not have stopped these crimes....I read one where a dentist with a permit shot a cop for no reason......having a permit did not mean one thing toward the outcome of that shooting.....he could and probably would have carried without a permit considering he murdered a cop in cold blood...
> 
> So again....this site simply proves that these laws only matter for those who obey the laws.....the concealed carry process doesn't stop crime....it just burdens the good people who won't murder other people.....
Click to expand...


It proves you are arming criminals and often murderers.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Brain357 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't trust Moon Bats to get it right with "reasonable" because their agenda is too unreasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> Anti-gun loons are only interested in making it harder for the law abiding to exercise their right to self-defense.
> They have no other agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they are interested in making it harder for criminals to get guns.  Often they happen to be the same given how many comcealed carry holders turn criminal.  Whether their efforts are effective is the debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link us to statistics that support your bullshit claim that concealed carry permit holders turn criminal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claimed MANY turn criminal yet only have a little over 600 for 6 years an average of 100 a year out of millions of carry permits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well it is just the murders, I said turn criminal.  Murder is small percent of all crime.  That is quite a lot of killing for only what 11 million carrying?  Now if they are killing so many one can assume there is a lot of other crimes being done.  The janitor didn't actually kill anyone, but he tried and is a criminal.
Click to expand...

100 a year out of 11 million is .000009 percent of holders. so small as to be meaningless.


----------



## 2aguy

Brain357 said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EatMorChikin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't trust Moon Bats to get it right with "reasonable" because their agenda is too unreasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> Anti-gun loons are only interested in making it harder for the law abiding to exercise their right to self-defense.
> They have no other agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they are interested in making it harder for criminals to get guns.  Often they happen to be the same given how many comcealed carry holders turn criminal.  Whether their efforts are effective is the debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is some data to support all these cc holders who turn criminal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You just go to the Violence Policy Center....they are a rabidly anti gun, anti 2nd Amendment site that miscounts the numbers, and counts suicided against concealed carry holders.....and when you go to Brains link.....
> 
> another thing to keep in mind......having a concealed carry permit would not have stopped these crimes....I read one where a dentist with a permit shot a cop for no reason......having a permit did not mean one thing toward the outcome of that shooting.....he could and probably would have carried without a permit considering he murdered a cop in cold blood...
> 
> So again....this site simply proves that these laws only matter for those who obey the laws.....the concealed carry process doesn't stop crime....it just burdens the good people who won't murder other people.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It proves you are arming criminals and often murderers.
Click to expand...



Brain, the only ones arming criminals are obama and Eric holder and they really armed drug cartels with fully automatic weapons.......

You and your anti gun buddies insist on concealed carry permits and background checks......and when they don't work......you blame us....after we told you guys they were pointless and wouldn't work............if a person with a permit murders someone.....lock them up.....but don't blame 99.9% of permit holders who obey your dumb anti gun laws and your dumb permit process.


----------



## 2aguy

RetiredGySgt said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anti-gun loons are only interested in making it harder for the law abiding to exercise their right to self-defense.
> They have no other agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they are interested in making it harder for criminals to get guns.  Often they happen to be the same given how many comcealed carry holders turn criminal.  Whether their efforts are effective is the debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link us to statistics that support your bullshit claim that concealed carry permit holders turn criminal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claimed MANY turn criminal yet only have a little over 600 for 6 years an average of 100 a year out of millions of carry permits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well it is just the murders, I said turn criminal.  Murder is small percent of all crime.  That is quite a lot of killing for only what 11 million carrying?  Now if they are killing so many one can assume there is a lot of other crimes being done.  The janitor didn't actually kill anyone, but he tried and is a criminal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 100 a year out of 11 million is .000009 percent of holders. so small as to be meaningless.
Click to expand...



Actually there are 11.1 million permit holders in the United States....so your number is even better.....


----------



## 2aguy

Brain357 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't trust Moon Bats to get it right with "reasonable" because their agenda is too unreasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> Anti-gun loons are only interested in making it harder for the law abiding to exercise their right to self-defense.
> They have no other agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they are interested in making it harder for criminals to get guns.  Often they happen to be the same given how many comcealed carry holders turn criminal.  Whether their efforts are effective is the debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link us to statistics that support your bullshit claim that concealed carry permit holders turn criminal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claimed MANY turn criminal yet only have a little over 600 for 6 years an average of 100 a year out of millions of carry permits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well it is just the murders, I said turn criminal.  Murder is small percent of all crime.  That is quite a lot of killing for only what 11 million carrying?  Now if they are killing so many one can assume there is a lot of other crimes being done.  The janitor didn't actually kill anyone, but he tried and is a criminal.
Click to expand...



And he was stopped by a concealed carry permit holder...don't forget to point that out.....

and again....if you took away the right to carry a weapon for self defense.....that janitor would still have brought that gun to kill those people....because he doesn't care about your law...but the pastor......he would have obeyed your stupid law and would have been unarmed facing this killer.....

your law would have killed those people not mine.....


----------



## Brain357

RetiredGySgt said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anti-gun loons are only interested in making it harder for the law abiding to exercise their right to self-defense.
> They have no other agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they are interested in making it harder for criminals to get guns.  Often they happen to be the same given how many comcealed carry holders turn criminal.  Whether their efforts are effective is the debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link us to statistics that support your bullshit claim that concealed carry permit holders turn criminal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claimed MANY turn criminal yet only have a little over 600 for 6 years an average of 100 a year out of millions of carry permits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well it is just the murders, I said turn criminal.  Murder is small percent of all crime.  That is quite a lot of killing for only what 11 million carrying?  Now if they are killing so many one can assume there is a lot of other crimes being done.  The janitor didn't actually kill anyone, but he tried and is a criminal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 100 a year out of 11 million is .000009 percent of holders. so small as to be meaningless.
Click to expand...


Unless you are one of the dead people.  Or one of your loved ones is one of the dead.  But again I said criminals not murderers, but there are obviously quite a few murders.


----------



## Brain357

Billc said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anti-gun loons are only interested in making it harder for the law abiding to exercise their right to self-defense.
> They have no other agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they are interested in making it harder for criminals to get guns.  Often they happen to be the same given how many comcealed carry holders turn criminal.  Whether their efforts are effective is the debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link us to statistics that support your bullshit claim that concealed carry permit holders turn criminal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claimed MANY turn criminal yet only have a little over 600 for 6 years an average of 100 a year out of millions of carry permits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well it is just the murders, I said turn criminal.  Murder is small percent of all crime.  That is quite a lot of killing for only what 11 million carrying?  Now if they are killing so many one can assume there is a lot of other crimes being done.  The janitor didn't actually kill anyone, but he tried and is a criminal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And he was stopped by a concealed carry permit holder...don't forget to point that out.....
> 
> and again....if you took away the right to carry a weapon for self defense.....that janitor would still have brought that gun to kill those people....because he doesn't care about your law...but the pastor......he would have obeyed your stupid law and would have been unarmed facing this killer.....
> 
> your law would have killed those people not mine.....
Click to expand...


No you can't say the janitor would have been armed.  But since he was armed and mad at being fired he started shooting.


----------



## Brain357

Billc said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they are interested in making it harder for criminals to get guns.  Often they happen to be the same given how many comcealed carry holders turn criminal.  Whether their efforts are effective is the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> Link us to statistics that support your bullshit claim that concealed carry permit holders turn criminal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claimed MANY turn criminal yet only have a little over 600 for 6 years an average of 100 a year out of millions of carry permits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well it is just the murders, I said turn criminal.  Murder is small percent of all crime.  That is quite a lot of killing for only what 11 million carrying?  Now if they are killing so many one can assume there is a lot of other crimes being done.  The janitor didn't actually kill anyone, but he tried and is a criminal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 100 a year out of 11 million is .000009 percent of holders. so small as to be meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually there are 11.1 million permit holders in the United States....so your number is even better.....
Click to expand...


So you think it is good that concealed carry holders murder people?


----------



## Brain357

Billc said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EatMorChikin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anti-gun loons are only interested in making it harder for the law abiding to exercise their right to self-defense.
> They have no other agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they are interested in making it harder for criminals to get guns.  Often they happen to be the same given how many comcealed carry holders turn criminal.  Whether their efforts are effective is the debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is some data to support all these cc holders who turn criminal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You just go to the Violence Policy Center....they are a rabidly anti gun, anti 2nd Amendment site that miscounts the numbers, and counts suicided against concealed carry holders.....and when you go to Brains link.....
> 
> another thing to keep in mind......having a concealed carry permit would not have stopped these crimes....I read one where a dentist with a permit shot a cop for no reason......having a permit did not mean one thing toward the outcome of that shooting.....he could and probably would have carried without a permit considering he murdered a cop in cold blood...
> 
> So again....this site simply proves that these laws only matter for those who obey the laws.....the concealed carry process doesn't stop crime....it just burdens the good people who won't murder other people.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It proves you are arming criminals and often murderers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Brain, the only ones arming criminals are obama and Eric holder and they really armed drug cartels with fully automatic weapons.......
> 
> You and your anti gun buddies insist on concealed carry permits and background checks......and when they don't work......you blame us....after we told you guys they were pointless and wouldn't work............if a person with a permit murders someone.....lock them up.....but don't blame 99.9% of permit holders who obey your dumb anti gun laws and your dumb permit process.
Click to expand...


Well the 232,000 guns stolen each year are coming from gun owners into the hands of criminals.  That's no small number.  Huge number really.


----------



## 2aguy

Brain357 said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they are interested in making it harder for criminals to get guns.  Often they happen to be the same given how many comcealed carry holders turn criminal.  Whether their efforts are effective is the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> Link us to statistics that support your bullshit claim that concealed carry permit holders turn criminal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claimed MANY turn criminal yet only have a little over 600 for 6 years an average of 100 a year out of millions of carry permits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well it is just the murders, I said turn criminal.  Murder is small percent of all crime.  That is quite a lot of killing for only what 11 million carrying?  Now if they are killing so many one can assume there is a lot of other crimes being done.  The janitor didn't actually kill anyone, but he tried and is a criminal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And he was stopped by a concealed carry permit holder...don't forget to point that out.....
> 
> and again....if you took away the right to carry a weapon for self defense.....that janitor would still have brought that gun to kill those people....because he doesn't care about your law...but the pastor......he would have obeyed your stupid law and would have been unarmed facing this killer.....
> 
> your law would have killed those people not mine.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you can't say the janitor would have been armed.  But since he was armed and mad at being fired he started shooting.
Click to expand...


Yes, I can.....he tried to kill those people, and if he was prepared to cross that line he would have had that gun anyway....the only one who would not have had a gun if you and your anti gun buddies had your way and stopped carry laws would have been the pastor......since he would have obeyed the law....so the janitor who was prepared to kill would have had a gun, the good guy obeying anti gun laws would have been unarmed and those people would have been dead....lives were saved because a good guy had a gun and carried it to his place of work......

Just like the Psychiatrist at that hospital who broke the rules and brought a gun to work, the hospital was a gun free zone, and stopped the killer who also broke the law by carrying an illegal gun.....

only the good guys follow your stupid anti gun laws.....and good people die because of it....


----------



## 2aguy

Brain357 said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link us to statistics that support your bullshit claim that concealed carry permit holders turn criminal.
> 
> 
> 
> You claimed MANY turn criminal yet only have a little over 600 for 6 years an average of 100 a year out of millions of carry permits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well it is just the murders, I said turn criminal.  Murder is small percent of all crime.  That is quite a lot of killing for only what 11 million carrying?  Now if they are killing so many one can assume there is a lot of other crimes being done.  The janitor didn't actually kill anyone, but he tried and is a criminal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 100 a year out of 11 million is .000009 percent of holders. so small as to be meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually there are 11.1 million permit holders in the United States....so your number is even better.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think it is good that concealed carry holders murder people?
Click to expand...


No, I was talking about the .000009 number from Retiredgysgt......with the actual number being 11.1 million concealed carry owners that percent would be even smaller.....I think it is great that gun owners in general, and concealed gun carriers stop 1.6 million violent criminal attacks and save lives every year.....far more than the alleged number from the anti gun, anti 2nd amendment Violence policy center numbers.....


----------



## 2aguy

Brain357 said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EatMorChikin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they are interested in making it harder for criminals to get guns.  Often they happen to be the same given how many comcealed carry holders turn criminal.  Whether their efforts are effective is the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is some data to support all these cc holders who turn criminal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You just go to the Violence Policy Center....they are a rabidly anti gun, anti 2nd Amendment site that miscounts the numbers, and counts suicided against concealed carry holders.....and when you go to Brains link.....
> 
> another thing to keep in mind......having a concealed carry permit would not have stopped these crimes....I read one where a dentist with a permit shot a cop for no reason......having a permit did not mean one thing toward the outcome of that shooting.....he could and probably would have carried without a permit considering he murdered a cop in cold blood...
> 
> So again....this site simply proves that these laws only matter for those who obey the laws.....the concealed carry process doesn't stop crime....it just burdens the good people who won't murder other people.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It proves you are arming criminals and often murderers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Brain, the only ones arming criminals are obama and Eric holder and they really armed drug cartels with fully automatic weapons.......
> 
> You and your anti gun buddies insist on concealed carry permits and background checks......and when they don't work......you blame us....after we told you guys they were pointless and wouldn't work............if a person with a permit murders someone.....lock them up.....but don't blame 99.9% of permit holders who obey your dumb anti gun laws and your dumb permit process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the 232,000 guns stolen each year are coming from gun owners into the hands of criminals.  That's no small number.  Huge number really.
Click to expand...



Hmmmm....then make it against the law to steal someones gun....and make it extra special against the law to steal guns out of someones house....there......following your logic and the rest of the anti gunners that should do the trick....right?  No more stolen guns......

Keeping in mind, again,and again....the three French terrorists lived in France, a country with strict gun control, where military guns are banned for civilians....and one of the terrorists was a convicted criminal, on a government anti terror watch list......and they still got military rifles, a rocket propelled grenade launcher and grenades.......all in a country with strict gun control laws....

Puerto Rico has the strictest gun control laws in the United States....an Island, where you can't just drive illegal guns across a border but must smuggle them in by plane or ship......and they have the highest gun murder rate in the world.......

So your gun laws do nothing to stop criminals from getting guns....all they can do is define the length of time criminals spend in jail after they break the law......

so all your gun laws are doing right now is disarming law abiding citizens......


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Brain357 said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link us to statistics that support your bullshit claim that concealed carry permit holders turn criminal.
> 
> 
> 
> You claimed MANY turn criminal yet only have a little over 600 for 6 years an average of 100 a year out of millions of carry permits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well it is just the murders, I said turn criminal.  Murder is small percent of all crime.  That is quite a lot of killing for only what 11 million carrying?  Now if they are killing so many one can assume there is a lot of other crimes being done.  The janitor didn't actually kill anyone, but he tried and is a criminal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 100 a year out of 11 million is .000009 percent of holders. so small as to be meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually there are 11.1 million permit holders in the United States....so your number is even better.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think it is good that concealed carry holders murder people?
Click to expand...

No one said that except you. One knows someone has lost the argument when they make such retarded statements.


----------



## Flash

Billc said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EatMorChikin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is some data to support all these cc holders who turn criminal?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just go to the Violence Policy Center....they are a rabidly anti gun, anti 2nd Amendment site that miscounts the numbers, and counts suicided against concealed carry holders.....and when you go to Brains link.....
> 
> another thing to keep in mind......having a concealed carry permit would not have stopped these crimes....I read one where a dentist with a permit shot a cop for no reason......having a permit did not mean one thing toward the outcome of that shooting.....he could and probably would have carried without a permit considering he murdered a cop in cold blood...
> 
> So again....this site simply proves that these laws only matter for those who obey the laws.....the concealed carry process doesn't stop crime....it just burdens the good people who won't murder other people.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It proves you are arming criminals and often murderers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Brain, the only ones arming criminals are obama and Eric holder and they really armed drug cartels with fully automatic weapons.......
> 
> You and your anti gun buddies insist on concealed carry permits and background checks......and when they don't work......you blame us....after we told you guys they were pointless and wouldn't work............if a person with a permit murders someone.....lock them up.....but don't blame 99.9% of permit holders who obey your dumb anti gun laws and your dumb permit process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the 232,000 guns stolen each year are coming from gun owners into the hands of criminals.  That's no small number.  Huge number really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmm....then make it against the law to steal someones gun....and make it extra special against the law to steal guns out of someones house....there......following your logic and the rest of the anti gunners that should do the trick....right?  No more stolen guns......
> 
> Keeping in mind, again,and again....the three French terrorists lived in France, a country with strict gun control, where military guns are banned for civilians....and one of the terrorists was a convicted criminal, on a government anti terror watch list......and they still got military rifles, a rocket propelled grenade launcher and grenades.......all in a country with strict gun control laws....
> 
> Puerto Rico has the strictest gun control laws in the United States....an Island, where you can't just drive illegal guns across a border but must smuggle them in by plane or ship......and they have the highest gun murder rate in the world.......
> 
> So your gun laws do nothing to stop criminals from getting guns....all they can do is define the length of time criminals spend in jail after they break the law......
> 
> so all your gun laws are doing right now is disarming law abiding citizens......
Click to expand...


It is amazing that these Left Wingers really think that more gun control laws will somehow make a difference in crime despite all the evidence that the existing laws make little or no difference.

Of course these are the same yahoos that thought Obama was going to be a good president so you know they aren't that smart.


----------



## Brain357

Billc said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link us to statistics that support your bullshit claim that concealed carry permit holders turn criminal.
> 
> 
> 
> You claimed MANY turn criminal yet only have a little over 600 for 6 years an average of 100 a year out of millions of carry permits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well it is just the murders, I said turn criminal.  Murder is small percent of all crime.  That is quite a lot of killing for only what 11 million carrying?  Now if they are killing so many one can assume there is a lot of other crimes being done.  The janitor didn't actually kill anyone, but he tried and is a criminal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And he was stopped by a concealed carry permit holder...don't forget to point that out.....
> 
> and again....if you took away the right to carry a weapon for self defense.....that janitor would still have brought that gun to kill those people....because he doesn't care about your law...but the pastor......he would have obeyed your stupid law and would have been unarmed facing this killer.....
> 
> your law would have killed those people not mine.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you can't say the janitor would have been armed.  But since he was armed and mad at being fired he started shooting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I can.....he tried to kill those people, and if he was prepared to cross that line he would have had that gun anyway....the only one who would not have had a gun if you and your anti gun buddies had your way and stopped carry laws would have been the pastor......since he would have obeyed the law....so the janitor who was prepared to kill would have had a gun, the good guy obeying anti gun laws would have been unarmed and those people would have been dead....lives were saved because a good guy had a gun and carried it to his place of work......
> 
> Just like the Psychiatrist at that hospital who broke the rules and brought a gun to work, the hospital was a gun free zone, and stopped the killer who also broke the law by carrying an illegal gun.....
> 
> only the good guys follow your stupid anti gun laws.....and good people die because of it....
Click to expand...


No you can't.  He was only prepared to do that at the time of being fired.  I don't think he knew he was getting fired that day so he'd have no reason to have the gun.  He'd have to go back home and get the gun or perhaps even buy one.  In the mean time any number of things could happen making him change his mind about trying to kill people.


----------



## Brain357

RetiredGySgt said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claimed MANY turn criminal yet only have a little over 600 for 6 years an average of 100 a year out of millions of carry permits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well it is just the murders, I said turn criminal.  Murder is small percent of all crime.  That is quite a lot of killing for only what 11 million carrying?  Now if they are killing so many one can assume there is a lot of other crimes being done.  The janitor didn't actually kill anyone, but he tried and is a criminal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 100 a year out of 11 million is .000009 percent of holders. so small as to be meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually there are 11.1 million permit holders in the United States....so your number is even better.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think it is good that concealed carry holders murder people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one said that except you. One knows someone has lost the argument when they make such retarded statements.
Click to expand...


Well you guys seem really proud of the head count.


----------



## 2aguy

Brain357 said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claimed MANY turn criminal yet only have a little over 600 for 6 years an average of 100 a year out of millions of carry permits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well it is just the murders, I said turn criminal.  Murder is small percent of all crime.  That is quite a lot of killing for only what 11 million carrying?  Now if they are killing so many one can assume there is a lot of other crimes being done.  The janitor didn't actually kill anyone, but he tried and is a criminal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And he was stopped by a concealed carry permit holder...don't forget to point that out.....
> 
> and again....if you took away the right to carry a weapon for self defense.....that janitor would still have brought that gun to kill those people....because he doesn't care about your law...but the pastor......he would have obeyed your stupid law and would have been unarmed facing this killer.....
> 
> your law would have killed those people not mine.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you can't say the janitor would have been armed.  But since he was armed and mad at being fired he started shooting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I can.....he tried to kill those people, and if he was prepared to cross that line he would have had that gun anyway....the only one who would not have had a gun if you and your anti gun buddies had your way and stopped carry laws would have been the pastor......since he would have obeyed the law....so the janitor who was prepared to kill would have had a gun, the good guy obeying anti gun laws would have been unarmed and those people would have been dead....lives were saved because a good guy had a gun and carried it to his place of work......
> 
> Just like the Psychiatrist at that hospital who broke the rules and brought a gun to work, the hospital was a gun free zone, and stopped the killer who also broke the law by carrying an illegal gun.....
> 
> only the good guys follow your stupid anti gun laws.....and good people die because of it....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you can't.  He was only prepared to do that at the time of being fired.  I don't think he knew he was getting fired that day so he'd have no reason to have the gun.  He'd have to go back home and get the gun or perhaps even buy one.  In the mean time any number of things could happen making him change his mind about trying to kill people.
Click to expand...



Wow....so you are resting on your argument that a man who actually did try to murder several people....would have decided not to if he had to go home to get his gun................riiiiiiiiiiight........and then the pastor would have still been empty handed when the janitor went home and got his gun to murder those people............

Sometimes you think funny Brain.......


----------



## Brain357

Billc said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EatMorChikin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is some data to support all these cc holders who turn criminal?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just go to the Violence Policy Center....they are a rabidly anti gun, anti 2nd Amendment site that miscounts the numbers, and counts suicided against concealed carry holders.....and when you go to Brains link.....
> 
> another thing to keep in mind......having a concealed carry permit would not have stopped these crimes....I read one where a dentist with a permit shot a cop for no reason......having a permit did not mean one thing toward the outcome of that shooting.....he could and probably would have carried without a permit considering he murdered a cop in cold blood...
> 
> So again....this site simply proves that these laws only matter for those who obey the laws.....the concealed carry process doesn't stop crime....it just burdens the good people who won't murder other people.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It proves you are arming criminals and often murderers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Brain, the only ones arming criminals are obama and Eric holder and they really armed drug cartels with fully automatic weapons.......
> 
> You and your anti gun buddies insist on concealed carry permits and background checks......and when they don't work......you blame us....after we told you guys they were pointless and wouldn't work............if a person with a permit murders someone.....lock them up.....but don't blame 99.9% of permit holders who obey your dumb anti gun laws and your dumb permit process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the 232,000 guns stolen each year are coming from gun owners into the hands of criminals.  That's no small number.  Huge number really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmm....then make it against the law to steal someones gun....and make it extra special against the law to steal guns out of someones house....there......following your logic and the rest of the anti gunners that should do the trick....right?  No more stolen guns......
> 
> Keeping in mind, again,and again....the three French terrorists lived in France, a country with strict gun control, where military guns are banned for civilians....and one of the terrorists was a convicted criminal, on a government anti terror watch list......and they still got military rifles, a rocket propelled grenade launcher and grenades.......all in a country with strict gun control laws....
> 
> Puerto Rico has the strictest gun control laws in the United States....an Island, where you can't just drive illegal guns across a border but must smuggle them in by plane or ship......and they have the highest gun murder rate in the world.......
> 
> So your gun laws do nothing to stop criminals from getting guns....all they can do is define the length of time criminals spend in jail after they break the law......
> 
> so all your gun laws are doing right now is disarming law abiding citizens......
Click to expand...


And Denmark has strict gun laws and a really low homicide rate.  We could go back and forth like that all day.  France has a much lower homicide rate than us for that matter.


----------



## 2aguy

Brain357 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well it is just the murders, I said turn criminal.  Murder is small percent of all crime.  That is quite a lot of killing for only what 11 million carrying?  Now if they are killing so many one can assume there is a lot of other crimes being done.  The janitor didn't actually kill anyone, but he tried and is a criminal.
> 
> 
> 
> 100 a year out of 11 million is .000009 percent of holders. so small as to be meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually there are 11.1 million permit holders in the United States....so your number is even better.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think it is good that concealed carry holders murder people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one said that except you. One knows someone has lost the argument when they make such retarded statements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you guys seem really proud of the head count.
Click to expand...



I am proud that 1.6 million Americans have stopped violent attacks and saved peoples lives, while only 8-9,000 gun murders happen each year in a country of over 310 million people....


----------



## Brain357

Billc said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well it is just the murders, I said turn criminal.  Murder is small percent of all crime.  That is quite a lot of killing for only what 11 million carrying?  Now if they are killing so many one can assume there is a lot of other crimes being done.  The janitor didn't actually kill anyone, but he tried and is a criminal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And he was stopped by a concealed carry permit holder...don't forget to point that out.....
> 
> and again....if you took away the right to carry a weapon for self defense.....that janitor would still have brought that gun to kill those people....because he doesn't care about your law...but the pastor......he would have obeyed your stupid law and would have been unarmed facing this killer.....
> 
> your law would have killed those people not mine.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you can't say the janitor would have been armed.  But since he was armed and mad at being fired he started shooting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I can.....he tried to kill those people, and if he was prepared to cross that line he would have had that gun anyway....the only one who would not have had a gun if you and your anti gun buddies had your way and stopped carry laws would have been the pastor......since he would have obeyed the law....so the janitor who was prepared to kill would have had a gun, the good guy obeying anti gun laws would have been unarmed and those people would have been dead....lives were saved because a good guy had a gun and carried it to his place of work......
> 
> Just like the Psychiatrist at that hospital who broke the rules and brought a gun to work, the hospital was a gun free zone, and stopped the killer who also broke the law by carrying an illegal gun.....
> 
> only the good guys follow your stupid anti gun laws.....and good people die because of it....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you can't.  He was only prepared to do that at the time of being fired.  I don't think he knew he was getting fired that day so he'd have no reason to have the gun.  He'd have to go back home and get the gun or perhaps even buy one.  In the mean time any number of things could happen making him change his mind about trying to kill people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow....so you are resting on your argument that a man who actually did try to murder several people....would have decided not to if he had to go home to get his gun................riiiiiiiiiiight........and then the pastor would have still been empty handed when the janitor went home and got his gun to murder those people............
> 
> Sometimes you think funny Brain.......
Click to expand...


Yes that is exactly what I'm saying.  Sometimes a person just needs a little time to cool off.  Are you saying you've never done something in anger that you regretted minutes later?  You must be joking.


----------



## 2aguy

Brain357 said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just go to the Violence Policy Center....they are a rabidly anti gun, anti 2nd Amendment site that miscounts the numbers, and counts suicided against concealed carry holders.....and when you go to Brains link.....
> 
> another thing to keep in mind......having a concealed carry permit would not have stopped these crimes....I read one where a dentist with a permit shot a cop for no reason......having a permit did not mean one thing toward the outcome of that shooting.....he could and probably would have carried without a permit considering he murdered a cop in cold blood...
> 
> So again....this site simply proves that these laws only matter for those who obey the laws.....the concealed carry process doesn't stop crime....it just burdens the good people who won't murder other people.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It proves you are arming criminals and often murderers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Brain, the only ones arming criminals are obama and Eric holder and they really armed drug cartels with fully automatic weapons.......
> 
> You and your anti gun buddies insist on concealed carry permits and background checks......and when they don't work......you blame us....after we told you guys they were pointless and wouldn't work............if a person with a permit murders someone.....lock them up.....but don't blame 99.9% of permit holders who obey your dumb anti gun laws and your dumb permit process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the 232,000 guns stolen each year are coming from gun owners into the hands of criminals.  That's no small number.  Huge number really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmm....then make it against the law to steal someones gun....and make it extra special against the law to steal guns out of someones house....there......following your logic and the rest of the anti gunners that should do the trick....right?  No more stolen guns......
> 
> Keeping in mind, again,and again....the three French terrorists lived in France, a country with strict gun control, where military guns are banned for civilians....and one of the terrorists was a convicted criminal, on a government anti terror watch list......and they still got military rifles, a rocket propelled grenade launcher and grenades.......all in a country with strict gun control laws....
> 
> Puerto Rico has the strictest gun control laws in the United States....an Island, where you can't just drive illegal guns across a border but must smuggle them in by plane or ship......and they have the highest gun murder rate in the world.......
> 
> So your gun laws do nothing to stop criminals from getting guns....all they can do is define the length of time criminals spend in jail after they break the law......
> 
> so all your gun laws are doing right now is disarming law abiding citizens......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And Denmark has strict gun laws and a really low homicide rate.  We could go back and forth like that all day.  France has a much lower homicide rate than us for that matter.
Click to expand...


Until the criminals decide to use guns to kill people....then the gun laws mean nothing ,and stop nothing....as was shown at the magazine and the deli and the other shootings in France....and Canada, and Australia, and Puerto Rico....


----------



## Brain357

Billc said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 100 a year out of 11 million is .000009 percent of holders. so small as to be meaningless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually there are 11.1 million permit holders in the United States....so your number is even better.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think it is good that concealed carry holders murder people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one said that except you. One knows someone has lost the argument when they make such retarded statements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you guys seem really proud of the head count.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am proud that 1.6 million Americans have stopped violent attacks and saved peoples lives, while only 8-9,000 gun murders happen each year in a country of over 310 million people....
Click to expand...


1.6 million criminals defending against other criminals according to kleck.  You are proud of a bunch of armed criminals?  That is messed up.


----------



## 2aguy

Brain357 said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> And he was stopped by a concealed carry permit holder...don't forget to point that out.....
> 
> and again....if you took away the right to carry a weapon for self defense.....that janitor would still have brought that gun to kill those people....because he doesn't care about your law...but the pastor......he would have obeyed your stupid law and would have been unarmed facing this killer.....
> 
> your law would have killed those people not mine.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you can't say the janitor would have been armed.  But since he was armed and mad at being fired he started shooting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I can.....he tried to kill those people, and if he was prepared to cross that line he would have had that gun anyway....the only one who would not have had a gun if you and your anti gun buddies had your way and stopped carry laws would have been the pastor......since he would have obeyed the law....so the janitor who was prepared to kill would have had a gun, the good guy obeying anti gun laws would have been unarmed and those people would have been dead....lives were saved because a good guy had a gun and carried it to his place of work......
> 
> Just like the Psychiatrist at that hospital who broke the rules and brought a gun to work, the hospital was a gun free zone, and stopped the killer who also broke the law by carrying an illegal gun.....
> 
> only the good guys follow your stupid anti gun laws.....and good people die because of it....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you can't.  He was only prepared to do that at the time of being fired.  I don't think he knew he was getting fired that day so he'd have no reason to have the gun.  He'd have to go back home and get the gun or perhaps even buy one.  In the mean time any number of things could happen making him change his mind about trying to kill people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow....so you are resting on your argument that a man who actually did try to murder several people....would have decided not to if he had to go home to get his gun................riiiiiiiiiiight........and then the pastor would have still been empty handed when the janitor went home and got his gun to murder those people............
> 
> Sometimes you think funny Brain.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes that is exactly what I'm saying.  Sometimes a person just needs a little time to cool off.  Are you saying you've never done something in anger that you regretted minutes later?  You must be joking.
Click to expand...



I'm saying it is stupid to trust the lives of those people at that church to the "chance" that that janitor would decide not to murder them.....when he actually did try to murder them......I would rather that pastor have the choice to protect himself...and not rely on the judgment of the janitor, who actually showed he was willing to commit murder....it wasn't a hypothetical...it was real.....and he was really stopped by the pastor with a gun......


----------



## 2aguy

Brain357 said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually there are 11.1 million permit holders in the United States....so your number is even better.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think it is good that concealed carry holders murder people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one said that except you. One knows someone has lost the argument when they make such retarded statements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you guys seem really proud of the head count.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am proud that 1.6 million Americans have stopped violent attacks and saved peoples lives, while only 8-9,000 gun murders happen each year in a country of over 310 million people....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.6 million criminals defending against other criminals according to kleck.  You are proud of a bunch of armed criminals?  That is messed up.
Click to expand...



That is a lie Brain....kleck said no such thing....he specifically stated that some people in the study were carrying guns for protection from criminals even though in the 90s it was against the law in some of those states....

You are lying when you imply that career criminals committing crimes are the majority of those cases.....


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Brain357 said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually there are 11.1 million permit holders in the United States....so your number is even better.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think it is good that concealed carry holders murder people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one said that except you. One knows someone has lost the argument when they make such retarded statements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you guys seem really proud of the head count.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am proud that 1.6 million Americans have stopped violent attacks and saved peoples lives, while only 8-9,000 gun murders happen each year in a country of over 310 million people....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.6 million criminals defending against other criminals according to kleck.  You are proud of a bunch of armed criminals?  That is messed up.
Click to expand...

That lie did not work the first time and does not work now. Remind us how you want all swimming pools shut down and removed along with all access to streams rivers lakes and oceans due to the number of people that drown every year in them?

You want to remove a right from 315 million people because a fraction of  fraction of a fraction of a percent of people abuse the right. Guess what dumb ass get a new amendment passed or shut the fuck up.


----------



## Brain357

Billc said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you can't say the janitor would have been armed.  But since he was armed and mad at being fired he started shooting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I can.....he tried to kill those people, and if he was prepared to cross that line he would have had that gun anyway....the only one who would not have had a gun if you and your anti gun buddies had your way and stopped carry laws would have been the pastor......since he would have obeyed the law....so the janitor who was prepared to kill would have had a gun, the good guy obeying anti gun laws would have been unarmed and those people would have been dead....lives were saved because a good guy had a gun and carried it to his place of work......
> 
> Just like the Psychiatrist at that hospital who broke the rules and brought a gun to work, the hospital was a gun free zone, and stopped the killer who also broke the law by carrying an illegal gun.....
> 
> only the good guys follow your stupid anti gun laws.....and good people die because of it....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you can't.  He was only prepared to do that at the time of being fired.  I don't think he knew he was getting fired that day so he'd have no reason to have the gun.  He'd have to go back home and get the gun or perhaps even buy one.  In the mean time any number of things could happen making him change his mind about trying to kill people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow....so you are resting on your argument that a man who actually did try to murder several people....would have decided not to if he had to go home to get his gun................riiiiiiiiiiight........and then the pastor would have still been empty handed when the janitor went home and got his gun to murder those people............
> 
> Sometimes you think funny Brain.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes that is exactly what I'm saying.  Sometimes a person just needs a little time to cool off.  Are you saying you've never done something in anger that you regretted minutes later?  You must be joking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying it is stupid to trust the lives of those people at that church to the "chance" that that janitor would decide not to murder them.....when he actually did try to murder them......I would rather that pastor have the choice to protect himself...and not rely on the judgment of the janitor, who actually showed he was willing to commit murder....it wasn't a hypothetical...it was real.....and he was really stopped by the pastor with a gun......
Click to expand...


I've never suggested disarming anyone.  I've just pointed out that concealed carry people turn criminal quite often.  I was challenged on that fact so I offered examples.  I prefer people not be shooting at each other.


----------



## Brain357

Billc said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you think it is good that concealed carry holders murder people?
> 
> 
> 
> No one said that except you. One knows someone has lost the argument when they make such retarded statements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you guys seem really proud of the head count.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am proud that 1.6 million Americans have stopped violent attacks and saved peoples lives, while only 8-9,000 gun murders happen each year in a country of over 310 million people....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.6 million criminals defending against other criminals according to kleck.  You are proud of a bunch of armed criminals?  That is messed up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is a lie Brain....kleck said no such thing....he specifically stated that some people in the study were carrying guns for protection from criminals even though in the 90s it was against the law in some of those states....
> 
> You are lying when you imply that career criminals committing crimes are the majority of those cases.....
Click to expand...


Then Kleck is lying:
Kleck:
"This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."


----------



## 2aguy

Brain357 said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I can.....he tried to kill those people, and if he was prepared to cross that line he would have had that gun anyway....the only one who would not have had a gun if you and your anti gun buddies had your way and stopped carry laws would have been the pastor......since he would have obeyed the law....so the janitor who was prepared to kill would have had a gun, the good guy obeying anti gun laws would have been unarmed and those people would have been dead....lives were saved because a good guy had a gun and carried it to his place of work......
> 
> Just like the Psychiatrist at that hospital who broke the rules and brought a gun to work, the hospital was a gun free zone, and stopped the killer who also broke the law by carrying an illegal gun.....
> 
> only the good guys follow your stupid anti gun laws.....and good people die because of it....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you can't.  He was only prepared to do that at the time of being fired.  I don't think he knew he was getting fired that day so he'd have no reason to have the gun.  He'd have to go back home and get the gun or perhaps even buy one.  In the mean time any number of things could happen making him change his mind about trying to kill people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow....so you are resting on your argument that a man who actually did try to murder several people....would have decided not to if he had to go home to get his gun................riiiiiiiiiiight........and then the pastor would have still been empty handed when the janitor went home and got his gun to murder those people............
> 
> Sometimes you think funny Brain.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes that is exactly what I'm saying.  Sometimes a person just needs a little time to cool off.  Are you saying you've never done something in anger that you regretted minutes later?  You must be joking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying it is stupid to trust the lives of those people at that church to the "chance" that that janitor would decide not to murder them.....when he actually did try to murder them......I would rather that pastor have the choice to protect himself...and not rely on the judgment of the janitor, who actually showed he was willing to commit murder....it wasn't a hypothetical...it was real.....and he was really stopped by the pastor with a gun......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never suggested disarming anyone.  I've just pointed out that concealed carry people turn criminal quite often.  I was challenged on that fact so I offered examples.  I prefer people not be shooting at each other.
Click to expand...



How do you figure "quite often?"   There are 11.1 million people with concealed carry permits....only what...650 people may have committed a crime according to an anti gun, anti 2nd amendment site.....out of 11.1 million people......hardly.....

I have to go....


----------



## Brain357

RetiredGySgt said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you think it is good that concealed carry holders murder people?
> 
> 
> 
> No one said that except you. One knows someone has lost the argument when they make such retarded statements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you guys seem really proud of the head count.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am proud that 1.6 million Americans have stopped violent attacks and saved peoples lives, while only 8-9,000 gun murders happen each year in a country of over 310 million people....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.6 million criminals defending against other criminals according to kleck.  You are proud of a bunch of armed criminals?  That is messed up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That lie did not work the first time and does not work now. Remind us how you want all swimming pools shut down and removed along with all access to streams rivers lakes and oceans due to the number of people that drown every year in them?
> 
> You want to remove a right from 315 million people because a fraction of  fraction of a fraction of a percent of people abuse the right. Guess what dumb ass get a new amendment passed or shut the fuck up.
Click to expand...


When have a suggested removing a right?  I've just brought out the facts.  You seem very confused.


----------



## Brain357

Billc said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you can't.  He was only prepared to do that at the time of being fired.  I don't think he knew he was getting fired that day so he'd have no reason to have the gun.  He'd have to go back home and get the gun or perhaps even buy one.  In the mean time any number of things could happen making him change his mind about trying to kill people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow....so you are resting on your argument that a man who actually did try to murder several people....would have decided not to if he had to go home to get his gun................riiiiiiiiiiight........and then the pastor would have still been empty handed when the janitor went home and got his gun to murder those people............
> 
> Sometimes you think funny Brain.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes that is exactly what I'm saying.  Sometimes a person just needs a little time to cool off.  Are you saying you've never done something in anger that you regretted minutes later?  You must be joking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying it is stupid to trust the lives of those people at that church to the "chance" that that janitor would decide not to murder them.....when he actually did try to murder them......I would rather that pastor have the choice to protect himself...and not rely on the judgment of the janitor, who actually showed he was willing to commit murder....it wasn't a hypothetical...it was real.....and he was really stopped by the pastor with a gun......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never suggested disarming anyone.  I've just pointed out that concealed carry people turn criminal quite often.  I was challenged on that fact so I offered examples.  I prefer people not be shooting at each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How do you figure "quite often?"   There are 11.1 million people with concealed carry permits....only what...650 people may have committed a crime according to an anti gun, anti 2nd amendment site.....out of 11.1 million people......hardly.....
> 
> I have to go....
Click to expand...


That 650 is just murder Bill.  As you know murder is a small percent of crime so extrapolate the numbers.  The janitor was a criminal but never murdered anyone.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Billc said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you can't.  He was only prepared to do that at the time of being fired.  I don't think he knew he was getting fired that day so he'd have no reason to have the gun.  He'd have to go back home and get the gun or perhaps even buy one.  In the mean time any number of things could happen making him change his mind about trying to kill people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow....so you are resting on your argument that a man who actually did try to murder several people....would have decided not to if he had to go home to get his gun................riiiiiiiiiiight........and then the pastor would have still been empty handed when the janitor went home and got his gun to murder those people............
> 
> Sometimes you think funny Brain.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes that is exactly what I'm saying.  Sometimes a person just needs a little time to cool off.  Are you saying you've never done something in anger that you regretted minutes later?  You must be joking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying it is stupid to trust the lives of those people at that church to the "chance" that that janitor would decide not to murder them.....when he actually did try to murder them......I would rather that pastor have the choice to protect himself...and not rely on the judgment of the janitor, who actually showed he was willing to commit murder....it wasn't a hypothetical...it was real.....and he was really stopped by the pastor with a gun......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never suggested disarming anyone.  I've just pointed out that concealed carry people turn criminal quite often.  I was challenged on that fact so I offered examples.  I prefer people not be shooting at each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How do you figure "quite often?"   There are 11.1 million people with concealed carry permits....only what...650 people may have committed a crime according to an anti gun, anti 2nd amendment site.....out of 11.1 million people......hardly.....
> 
> I have to go....
Click to expand...

650 in 6 years an average of 100 a year. so small a percentage of JUST concealed carry as to be meaningless.


----------



## 2aguy

Brain357 said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one said that except you. One knows someone has lost the argument when they make such retarded statements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well you guys seem really proud of the head count.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am proud that 1.6 million Americans have stopped violent attacks and saved peoples lives, while only 8-9,000 gun murders happen each year in a country of over 310 million people....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.6 million criminals defending against other criminals according to kleck.  You are proud of a bunch of armed criminals?  That is messed up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is a lie Brain....kleck said no such thing....he specifically stated that some people in the study were carrying guns for protection from criminals even though in the 90s it was against the law in some of those states....
> 
> You are lying when you imply that career criminals committing crimes are the majority of those cases.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then Kleck is lying:
> Kleck:
> "This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."
Click to expand...



And Kleck stated this....

Guns and Self-Defense by Gary Kleck Ph.D.



> The authors concluded that defensive uses of guns are about three to four times as common as criminal uses of guns. The National Self-Defense Survey confirmed the picture of frequent defensive gun use implied by the results of earlier, less sophisticated surveys.



And this....




> Kleck:
> "This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."



Goes directly to law abiding citizens carrying guns to protect themselves from violent criminals when the laws, in the 90s, violated their constitutional rights to self defense....not gang member or career criminals involved in crime......


----------



## Brain357

Billc said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you guys seem really proud of the head count.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am proud that 1.6 million Americans have stopped violent attacks and saved peoples lives, while only 8-9,000 gun murders happen each year in a country of over 310 million people....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.6 million criminals defending against other criminals according to kleck.  You are proud of a bunch of armed criminals?  That is messed up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is a lie Brain....kleck said no such thing....he specifically stated that some people in the study were carrying guns for protection from criminals even though in the 90s it was against the law in some of those states....
> 
> You are lying when you imply that career criminals committing crimes are the majority of those cases.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then Kleck is lying:
> Kleck:
> "This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And Kleck stated this....
> 
> Guns and Self-Defense by Gary Kleck Ph.D.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The authors concluded that defensive uses of guns are about three to four times as common as criminal uses of guns. The National Self-Defense Survey confirmed the picture of frequent defensive gun use implied by the results of earlier, less sophisticated surveys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And this....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kleck:
> "This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Goes directly to law abiding citizens carrying guns to protect themselves from violent criminals when the laws, in the 90s, violated their constitutional rights to self defense....not gang member or career criminals involved in crime......
Click to expand...


But he counts criminals defending themselves as a defense.


----------



## 2aguy

Brain357 said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am proud that 1.6 million Americans have stopped violent attacks and saved peoples lives, while only 8-9,000 gun murders happen each year in a country of over 310 million people....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.6 million criminals defending against other criminals according to kleck.  You are proud of a bunch of armed criminals?  That is messed up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is a lie Brain....kleck said no such thing....he specifically stated that some people in the study were carrying guns for protection from criminals even though in the 90s it was against the law in some of those states....
> 
> You are lying when you imply that career criminals committing crimes are the majority of those cases.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then Kleck is lying:
> Kleck:
> "This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And Kleck stated this....
> 
> Guns and Self-Defense by Gary Kleck Ph.D.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The authors concluded that defensive uses of guns are about three to four times as common as criminal uses of guns. The National Self-Defense Survey confirmed the picture of frequent defensive gun use implied by the results of earlier, less sophisticated surveys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And this....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kleck:
> "This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Goes directly to law abiding citizens carrying guns to protect themselves from violent criminals when the laws, in the 90s, violated their constitutional rights to self defense....not gang member or career criminals involved in crime......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But he counts criminals defending themselves as a defense.
Click to expand...



No, he counts law abiding citizens carrying guns when the laws said they couldn't....and that is just one part of the defensive uses, not all of them....


----------



## Brain357

Billc said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.6 million criminals defending against other criminals according to kleck.  You are proud of a bunch of armed criminals?  That is messed up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a lie Brain....kleck said no such thing....he specifically stated that some people in the study were carrying guns for protection from criminals even though in the 90s it was against the law in some of those states....
> 
> You are lying when you imply that career criminals committing crimes are the majority of those cases.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then Kleck is lying:
> Kleck:
> "This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And Kleck stated this....
> 
> Guns and Self-Defense by Gary Kleck Ph.D.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The authors concluded that defensive uses of guns are about three to four times as common as criminal uses of guns. The National Self-Defense Survey confirmed the picture of frequent defensive gun use implied by the results of earlier, less sophisticated surveys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And this....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kleck:
> "This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Goes directly to law abiding citizens carrying guns to protect themselves from violent criminals when the laws, in the 90s, violated their constitutional rights to self defense....not gang member or career criminals involved in crime......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But he counts criminals defending themselves as a defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, he counts law abiding citizens carrying guns when the laws said they couldn't....and that is just one part of the defensive uses, not all of them....
Click to expand...


Unlawful gun possession is often a felon.  And in cases where the law says they can't carry a gun then it is still criminal.  Also don't most defenses happen at home or somewhere else than anyone not a felon can have a gun?


----------



## EatMorChikin

Brain357 said:


> ]
> 
> Well you guys seem really proud of the head count.



How about the head count from people who could not defend themselves from an armed criminal?

Or our daughters and wives getting raped because they couldn't have a firearm? 

Wont happen in my family, my wife is armed. And my daughter will be when she is age appropriate.


----------



## 2aguy

Brain357 said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a lie Brain....kleck said no such thing....he specifically stated that some people in the study were carrying guns for protection from criminals even though in the 90s it was against the law in some of those states....
> 
> You are lying when you imply that career criminals committing crimes are the majority of those cases.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then Kleck is lying:
> Kleck:
> "This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And Kleck stated this....
> 
> Guns and Self-Defense by Gary Kleck Ph.D.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The authors concluded that defensive uses of guns are about three to four times as common as criminal uses of guns. The National Self-Defense Survey confirmed the picture of frequent defensive gun use implied by the results of earlier, less sophisticated surveys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And this....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kleck:
> "This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Goes directly to law abiding citizens carrying guns to protect themselves from violent criminals when the laws, in the 90s, violated their constitutional rights to self defense....not gang member or career criminals involved in crime......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But he counts criminals defending themselves as a defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, he counts law abiding citizens carrying guns when the laws said they couldn't....and that is just one part of the defensive uses, not all of them....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unlawful gun possession is often a felon.  And in cases where the law says they can't carry a gun then it is still criminal.  Also don't most defenses happen at home or somewhere else than anyone not a felon can have a gun?
Click to expand...



Remember, his study is from the 90s when more states violated the 2nd amendment....and you are implying they are career criminals when they aren't...they are just normal people afraid of criminals....and Kleck gives a breakdown of where the guns were used and how they were used...and felons still can't have a gun, even in their own home.....


----------



## emilynghiem

waltky said:


> Maybe not obsolete but antiquated, out of date...
> 
> ... it needs to be updated to reflect the times...
> 
> ... and the threat of overkill firepower...
> 
> ... for the average citizen.



Hi waltky 
I would recommend either agreeing to INTERPRET
(or actually inserting a footnote in writing)
that right of the "people" means "law abiding citizens"

I would also recommend local AGREEMENT between
residents in communities and their local police
on the procedures for training in firearms and
what the LAW ABIDING CITIZENS agree are
the procedures in a confrontation involving police or
potential suspects. That should be decided locally so it is not imposing.
it is local citizens AGREEING with police what the policies are,
and having all law abiding residents and police sign agreements to follow them.


----------



## 2aguy

Brain357 said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am proud that 1.6 million Americans have stopped violent attacks and saved peoples lives, while only 8-9,000 gun murders happen each year in a country of over 310 million people....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.6 million criminals defending against other criminals according to kleck.  You are proud of a bunch of armed criminals?  That is messed up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is a lie Brain....kleck said no such thing....he specifically stated that some people in the study were carrying guns for protection from criminals even though in the 90s it was against the law in some of those states....
> 
> You are lying when you imply that career criminals committing crimes are the majority of those cases.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then Kleck is lying:
> Kleck:
> "This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And Kleck stated this....
> 
> Guns and Self-Defense by Gary Kleck Ph.D.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The authors concluded that defensive uses of guns are about three to four times as common as criminal uses of guns. The National Self-Defense Survey confirmed the picture of frequent defensive gun use implied by the results of earlier, less sophisticated surveys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And this....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kleck:
> "This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Goes directly to law abiding citizens carrying guns to protect themselves from violent criminals when the laws, in the 90s, violated their constitutional rights to self defense....not gang member or career criminals involved in crime......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But he counts criminals defending themselves as a defense.
Click to expand...



From the Cato white paper looking at 5,000 reported gun uses for self defense from 2003-2011, not exactly scientific but it does address certain issues....

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/WP-Tough-Targets.pdf

How Many Defensive Gun Uses by Drug Dealers?

A commonly held view among skeptics of defensive gun uses is that many—perhaps most—involve criminals defending them- selves from other criminals, such as drug dealers who are stealing from rival dealers. Without question, there are stories that fit that description—or where you can read be- tween the lines and get that impression. In February 2008 Washington residents Mar- cus Bradford, Khiry Jackson, and Lawrence Adams went to steal drugs and money from Luis Acevedo. Acevedo shot Bradford to death. While Acevedo was still facing charg- es, it was not for shooting Bradford—but for the drugs that Bradford and his associates were there to steal.59

*Still, such stories seem to be sufficiently rare that the data set does not have a separate category for drug dealers defending them- selves. A search for the string “drug dealer” in the database found only nine news stories.* It is entirely possible that police responding to shootings involving known drug dealers are less inclined to give such individuals the benefit of the doubt on questionable shoot- ings—but still, the overwhelming majority of defensive gun use stories involve ordinary and decent people defending themselves against criminals.

Armed and Female

Some of the other categories are unsur- prising. There are 154 defensive gun use sto- ries involving women.60 On April 29, 2010, two Colorado residents used pistols to deal with an intruder. Avi Manges grabbed her .38-caliber revolver when she heard an in-

truder. “I hollered, ‘Who’s there? I’ve got a gun.’” The intruder fled after seeing her— and her pistol.61 The intruder actually at- tempted to enter a nearby dwelling, where he was confronted and then detained by an- other pistol-wielding homeowner.62

In February 2010 an Albuquerque, New Mexico, woman called 911 to report a break- in attempt—and while she was on the phone to police, two men forced their way into the house. She shot one of them in the head.63

On June 9, 2009, Marty Impastato react- ed to a home invasion in Southern Illinois. She confronted an acquaintance who gained entry through an unlocked window and was rifling through the “safe where the family keeps jewelry and prescription drugs.” Im- pastato shot the intruder.64

It is difficult to say whether the relatively sparse population of armed females repre- sents news media selection bias or simply the disparity between women and men on gun ownership. Women represent a more attractive target to male criminals, either be- cause they are on average smaller and weaker or because the criminal is looking for a rape victim.

Rape

There are 25 news stories where rapists discovered that the victim was able to fight back. Take the case of a Charlotte, North Carolina, woman who, after being raped, disarmed her attacker and then held him for the police. It was later found that the perpetrator had “an extensive criminal his- tory, dating back 20 years, and many of the offenses involved sexual conduct with chil- dren.”65

Sometimes a gun prevents a rape from happening again. On October 31, 2008, a Missouri woman shot and killed Ronnie W. Preyer, 47, “a registered sex offender who had broken into her home early one morn- ing with the intention of raping her a sec- ond time.”66

Shockingly, when it comes to resisting sexual assault, resources are few and effec- tive armed resistance is not considered an

------------------------

9 stories from 5,000 where drug dealers fought each other and used guns defensively.....hmmmm.....


----------



## Brain357

Billc said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then Kleck is lying:
> Kleck:
> "This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Kleck stated this....
> 
> Guns and Self-Defense by Gary Kleck Ph.D.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The authors concluded that defensive uses of guns are about three to four times as common as criminal uses of guns. The National Self-Defense Survey confirmed the picture of frequent defensive gun use implied by the results of earlier, less sophisticated surveys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And this....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kleck:
> "This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Goes directly to law abiding citizens carrying guns to protect themselves from violent criminals when the laws, in the 90s, violated their constitutional rights to self defense....not gang member or career criminals involved in crime......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But he counts criminals defending themselves as a defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, he counts law abiding citizens carrying guns when the laws said they couldn't....and that is just one part of the defensive uses, not all of them....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unlawful gun possession is often a felon.  And in cases where the law says they can't carry a gun then it is still criminal.  Also don't most defenses happen at home or somewhere else than anyone not a felon can have a gun?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Remember, his study is from the 90s when more states violated the 2nd amendment....and you are implying they are career criminals when they aren't...they are just normal people afraid of criminals....and Kleck gives a breakdown of where the guns were used and how they were used...and felons still can't have a gun, even in their own home.....
Click to expand...


What state ever said you can't have a gun in your own home?  The only people in their own home who couldn't have a gun would be felons.  So there must be a whole lot of felons defending themselves.


----------



## Brain357

Billc said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.6 million criminals defending against other criminals according to kleck.  You are proud of a bunch of armed criminals?  That is messed up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a lie Brain....kleck said no such thing....he specifically stated that some people in the study were carrying guns for protection from criminals even though in the 90s it was against the law in some of those states....
> 
> You are lying when you imply that career criminals committing crimes are the majority of those cases.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then Kleck is lying:
> Kleck:
> "This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And Kleck stated this....
> 
> Guns and Self-Defense by Gary Kleck Ph.D.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The authors concluded that defensive uses of guns are about three to four times as common as criminal uses of guns. The National Self-Defense Survey confirmed the picture of frequent defensive gun use implied by the results of earlier, less sophisticated surveys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And this....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kleck:
> "This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Goes directly to law abiding citizens carrying guns to protect themselves from violent criminals when the laws, in the 90s, violated their constitutional rights to self defense....not gang member or career criminals involved in crime......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But he counts criminals defending themselves as a defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> From the Cato white paper looking at 5,000 reported gun uses for self defense from 2003-2011, not exactly scientific but it does address certain issues....
> 
> http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/WP-Tough-Targets.pdf
Click to expand...


Ah the very right wing pro gun cato again...  I've already debunked their work.


----------



## 2aguy

Brain357 said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Kleck stated this....
> 
> Guns and Self-Defense by Gary Kleck Ph.D.
> 
> And this....
> 
> 
> Goes directly to law abiding citizens carrying guns to protect themselves from violent criminals when the laws, in the 90s, violated their constitutional rights to self defense....not gang member or career criminals involved in crime......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But he counts criminals defending themselves as a defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, he counts law abiding citizens carrying guns when the laws said they couldn't....and that is just one part of the defensive uses, not all of them....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unlawful gun possession is often a felon.  And in cases where the law says they can't carry a gun then it is still criminal.  Also don't most defenses happen at home or somewhere else than anyone not a felon can have a gun?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Remember, his study is from the 90s when more states violated the 2nd amendment....and you are implying they are career criminals when they aren't...they are just normal people afraid of criminals....and Kleck gives a breakdown of where the guns were used and how they were used...and felons still can't have a gun, even in their own home.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What state ever said you can't have a gun in your own home?  The only people in their own home who couldn't have a gun would be felons.  So there must be a whole lot of felons defending themselves.
Click to expand...



Ummm...no....felons cannot own a gun and if they are caught they go to prison......because it is against the law for them to own guns......


----------



## 2aguy

Brain357 said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a lie Brain....kleck said no such thing....he specifically stated that some people in the study were carrying guns for protection from criminals even though in the 90s it was against the law in some of those states....
> 
> You are lying when you imply that career criminals committing crimes are the majority of those cases.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then Kleck is lying:
> Kleck:
> "This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And Kleck stated this....
> 
> Guns and Self-Defense by Gary Kleck Ph.D.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The authors concluded that defensive uses of guns are about three to four times as common as criminal uses of guns. The National Self-Defense Survey confirmed the picture of frequent defensive gun use implied by the results of earlier, less sophisticated surveys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And this....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kleck:
> "This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Goes directly to law abiding citizens carrying guns to protect themselves from violent criminals when the laws, in the 90s, violated their constitutional rights to self defense....not gang member or career criminals involved in crime......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But he counts criminals defending themselves as a defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> From the Cato white paper looking at 5,000 reported gun uses for self defense from 2003-2011, not exactly scientific but it does address certain issues....
> 
> http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/WP-Tough-Targets.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah the very right wing pro gun cato again...  I've already debunked their work.
Click to expand...



You can't "debunk" their work...they just catalogued 5000 stories collected from news articles from 2003-2011, and they admit their work is what it is....a representative sample of stories that made it into papers...5000 of them....but it does point out why the FBI stats on homicide are wrong...and it points out that only 9 stories out of the 5,000 could be considered criminals defending themselves against criminals....I know....that upsets you.....


----------



## 2aguy

Brain...you yourself cite as gospel stories from "The Armed Citizen" the NRA column that also collects news stories...the article you site as gospel is a collection of only 125 or so stories from that site vs. the Cato look at 5000 stories from 2003-2011....you can hardly denounce the Cato look while you claim the NRA look at these stories has scientific meaning....


----------



## Brain357

Billc said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But he counts criminals defending themselves as a defense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, he counts law abiding citizens carrying guns when the laws said they couldn't....and that is just one part of the defensive uses, not all of them....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unlawful gun possession is often a felon.  And in cases where the law says they can't carry a gun then it is still criminal.  Also don't most defenses happen at home or somewhere else than anyone not a felon can have a gun?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Remember, his study is from the 90s when more states violated the 2nd amendment....and you are implying they are career criminals when they aren't...they are just normal people afraid of criminals....and Kleck gives a breakdown of where the guns were used and how they were used...and felons still can't have a gun, even in their own home.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What state ever said you can't have a gun in your own home?  The only people in their own home who couldn't have a gun would be felons.  So there must be a whole lot of felons defending themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm...no....felons cannot own a gun and if they are caught they go to prison......because it is against the law for them to own guns......
Click to expand...


Which is why Kleck says most defenses involve criminal activity by the defender.


----------



## Brain357

Billc said:


> Brain...you yourself cite as gospel stories from "The Armed Citizen" the NRA column that also collects news stories...the article you site as gospel is a collection of only 125 or so stories from that site vs. the Cato look at 5000 stories from 2003-2011....you can hardly denounce the Cato look while you claim the NRA look at these stories has scientific meaning....



Yes I can.  They both have a different purpose.  The cato study uses the newspaper.  Well the people involved in criminal activity are the least likely to be in the newspaper because they don't report their defenses.  So cato is using a source that they know will have very few instances of criminal activity.  That is not honest and debunks the study.  It would be like doing a survey on gun control and only calling Democrats.


----------



## Ernie S.

Brain357 said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't trust Moon Bats to get it right with "reasonable" because their agenda is too unreasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> Anti-gun loons are only interested in making it harder for the law abiding to exercise their right to self-defense.
> They have no other agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they are interested in making it harder for criminals to get guns.  Often they happen to be the same given how many comcealed carry holders turn criminal.  Whether their efforts are effective is the debate.
Click to expand...

How many is that? Do you have numbers and links, or are you talking out your anus again?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

3 in 100000 children under the age of 5 drown every year. Where is the outrage, the demands for pools to be closed, for rivers and oceans to be blocked. For better controls on bathtubs and sinks?

Drowning Still A Leading Cause Of Death For Kids 5 And Under CDC Reports


----------



## Brain357

Ernie S. said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't trust Moon Bats to get it right with "reasonable" because their agenda is too unreasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> Anti-gun loons are only interested in making it harder for the law abiding to exercise their right to self-defense.
> They have no other agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they are interested in making it harder for criminals to get guns.  Often they happen to be the same given how many comcealed carry holders turn criminal.  Whether their efforts are effective is the debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many is that? Do you have numbers and links, or are you talking out your anus again?
Click to expand...


I back up everything I say.  I've already posted the killers.  And like I posted kleck has said most defenses are by someone involved in criminal activity.  You need to keep up.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Over 200000 deaths a year due to doctors. When will we outlaw doctors?

Doctors are the Third Leading Cause of Death


----------



## Brain357

RetiredGySgt said:


> 3 in 100000 children under the age of 5 drown every year. Where is the outrage, the demands for pools to be closed, for rivers and oceans to be blocked. For better controls on bathtubs and sinks?
> 
> Drowning Still A Leading Cause Of Death For Kids 5 And Under CDC Reports



You seem really off topic.  Have you lost your mind?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Brain357 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3 in 100000 children under the age of 5 drown every year. Where is the outrage, the demands for pools to be closed, for rivers and oceans to be blocked. For better controls on bathtubs and sinks?
> 
> Drowning Still A Leading Cause Of Death For Kids 5 And Under CDC Reports
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem really off topic.  Have you lost your mind?
Click to expand...

I have posted 2 different ways that people die more from then firearms, and I have yet to see you complain about those things, have you an agenda?


----------



## 2aguy

Brain357 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't trust Moon Bats to get it right with "reasonable" because their agenda is too unreasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> Anti-gun loons are only interested in making it harder for the law abiding to exercise their right to self-defense.
> They have no other agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they are interested in making it harder for criminals to get guns.  Often they happen to be the same given how many comcealed carry holders turn criminal.  Whether their efforts are effective is the debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many is that? Do you have numbers and links, or are you talking out your anus again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I back up everything I say.  I've already posted the killers.  And like I posted kleck has said most defenses are by someone involved in criminal activity.  You need to keep up.
Click to expand...



He didn't say that....

Guns and Self-Defense by Gary Kleck Ph.D.



> The authors concluded that defensive uses of guns are about three to four times as common as criminal uses of guns. The National Self-Defense Survey confirmed the picture of frequent defensive gun use implied by the results of earlier, less sophisticated surveys.


----------



## Ernie S.

Brain357 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't trust Moon Bats to get it right with "reasonable" because their agenda is too unreasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> Anti-gun loons are only interested in making it harder for the law abiding to exercise their right to self-defense.
> They have no other agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they are interested in making it harder for criminals to get guns.  Often they happen to be the same given how many comcealed carry holders turn criminal.  Whether their efforts are effective is the debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link us to statistics that support your bullshit claim that concealed carry permit holders turn criminal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> VPC - The Violence Policy Center - Concealed Carry Killers
> And that is just the killers.  A recent story a janitor was fired and tried to shoot the pastor.  The janitor had a carry permit....
Click to expand...

The article avoids saying that 169 cases apparently resulted in acquittals or dropped charges.
That leaves 510 of which 190 were suicides or 320. 17 were lawful self defense where no charges were filed and 18 were ruled accidental. That's 285, 60 of which are pending trial. We can expect half to end in acquittals, so we have 255 unlawful killings with guns by concealed carry permit holders.

What's that? 6 months death toll for Chicago alone?


----------



## 2aguy

Ernie S. said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't trust Moon Bats to get it right with "reasonable" because their agenda is too unreasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> Anti-gun loons are only interested in making it harder for the law abiding to exercise their right to self-defense.
> They have no other agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they are interested in making it harder for criminals to get guns.  Often they happen to be the same given how many comcealed carry holders turn criminal.  Whether their efforts are effective is the debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link us to statistics that support your bullshit claim that concealed carry permit holders turn criminal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> VPC - The Violence Policy Center - Concealed Carry Killers
> And that is just the killers.  A recent story a janitor was fired and tried to shoot the pastor.  The janitor had a carry permit....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The article avoids saying that 169 cases apparently resulted in acquittals or dropped charges.
> That leaves 510 of which 190 were suicides or 320. 17 were lawful self defense where no charges were filed and 18 were ruled accidental. That's 285, 60 of which are pending trial. We can expect half to end in acquittals, so we have 255 unlawful killings with guns by concealed carry permit holders.
> 
> What's that? 6 months death toll for Chicago alone?
Click to expand...



Out of a country of over 310 million people......285.....


----------



## Brain357

Billc said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't trust Moon Bats to get it right with "reasonable" because their agenda is too unreasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> Anti-gun loons are only interested in making it harder for the law abiding to exercise their right to self-defense.
> They have no other agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they are interested in making it harder for criminals to get guns.  Often they happen to be the same given how many comcealed carry holders turn criminal.  Whether their efforts are effective is the debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many is that? Do you have numbers and links, or are you talking out your anus again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I back up everything I say.  I've already posted the killers.  And like I posted kleck has said most defenses are by someone involved in criminal activity.  You need to keep up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't say that....
> 
> Guns and Self-Defense by Gary Kleck Ph.D.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The authors concluded that defensive uses of guns are about three to four times as common as criminal uses of guns. The National Self-Defense Survey confirmed the picture of frequent defensive gun use implied by the results of earlier, less sophisticated surveys.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Yes he has and its a quote from your link.  He counts criminals defending against criminals and you know that.  Stop lying.


----------



## Brain357

Billc said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anti-gun loons are only interested in making it harder for the law abiding to exercise their right to self-defense.
> They have no other agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they are interested in making it harder for criminals to get guns.  Often they happen to be the same given how many comcealed carry holders turn criminal.  Whether their efforts are effective is the debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link us to statistics that support your bullshit claim that concealed carry permit holders turn criminal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> VPC - The Violence Policy Center - Concealed Carry Killers
> And that is just the killers.  A recent story a janitor was fired and tried to shoot the pastor.  The janitor had a carry permit....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The article avoids saying that 169 cases apparently resulted in acquittals or dropped charges.
> That leaves 510 of which 190 were suicides or 320. 17 were lawful self defense where no charges were filed and 18 were ruled accidental. That's 285, 60 of which are pending trial. We can expect half to end in acquittals, so we have 255 unlawful killings with guns by concealed carry permit holders.
> 
> What's that? 6 months death toll for Chicago alone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Out of a country of over 310 million people......285.....
Click to expand...


It's from the 11 million carriers.  And that's just murders.


----------



## Roadrunner

B


Brain357 said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they are interested in making it harder for criminals to get guns.  Often they happen to be the same given how many comcealed carry holders turn criminal.  Whether their efforts are effective is the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What criminal is going to be deterred by any stupid anti gun law?
> 
> Most firearm crimes are committed with illegal or stolen firearms so why do you think making even more laws is going to change anything?  Chicago has the strictest gun control laws in the country and the worse crime rate so what addition law is going to change that?
> 
> Even in a "shall issue" state a concealed weapon permit usually requires a significant background check so if they think concealed weapon permit holders are potential criminals then what degree of gun control are they suggesting?
> 
> There is a Bill of Rights that says that Americans have the individual right to keep and bear arms.   The Libtards should lean to live with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right now felons can easily get around background checks by buying from a private seller.  Why not make it harder for them?
> 
> Ok so if many crimes involve stolen guns than maybe laws are needed to keep guns from being stolen.  Like they must be stored in a safe.
> 
> The machine gun laws have been very effective.  They are almost never used in crime.
Click to expand...

But, we have more per capita murders than we had when machine guns were legal.


----------



## Brain357

RetiredGySgt said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3 in 100000 children under the age of 5 drown every year. Where is the outrage, the demands for pools to be closed, for rivers and oceans to be blocked. For better controls on bathtubs and sinks?
> 
> Drowning Still A Leading Cause Of Death For Kids 5 And Under CDC Reports
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem really off topic.  Have you lost your mind?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have posted 2 different ways that people die more from then firearms, and I have yet to see you complain about those things, have you an agenda?
Click to expand...


I don't see a reason to go so far off topic.  Again I've not suggested banning guns, just giving the facts.


----------



## Brain357

Roadrunner said:


> B
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they are interested in making it harder for criminals to get guns.  Often they happen to be the same given how many comcealed carry holders turn criminal.  Whether their efforts are effective is the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What criminal is going to be deterred by any stupid anti gun law?
> 
> Most firearm crimes are committed with illegal or stolen firearms so why do you think making even more laws is going to change anything?  Chicago has the strictest gun control laws in the country and the worse crime rate so what addition law is going to change that?
> 
> Even in a "shall issue" state a concealed weapon permit usually requires a significant background check so if they think concealed weapon permit holders are potential criminals then what degree of gun control are they suggesting?
> 
> There is a Bill of Rights that says that Americans have the individual right to keep and bear arms.   The Libtards should lean to live with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right now felons can easily get around background checks by buying from a private seller.  Why not make it harder for them?
> 
> Ok so if many crimes involve stolen guns than maybe laws are needed to keep guns from being stolen.  Like they must be stored in a safe.
> 
> The machine gun laws have been very effective.  They are almost never used in crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But, we have more per capita murders than we had when machine guns were legal.
Click to expand...


Think you better check your numbers. You have a link?  They are still legal btw, just controlled.


----------



## Ernie S.

Brain357 said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EatMorChikin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they are interested in making it harder for criminals to get guns.  Often they happen to be the same given how many comcealed carry holders turn criminal.  Whether their efforts are effective is the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is some data to support all these cc holders who turn criminal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You just go to the Violence Policy Center....they are a rabidly anti gun, anti 2nd Amendment site that miscounts the numbers, and counts suicided against concealed carry holders.....and when you go to Brains link.....
> 
> another thing to keep in mind......having a concealed carry permit would not have stopped these crimes....I read one where a dentist with a permit shot a cop for no reason......having a permit did not mean one thing toward the outcome of that shooting.....he could and probably would have carried without a permit considering he murdered a cop in cold blood...
> 
> So again....this site simply proves that these laws only matter for those who obey the laws.....the concealed carry process doesn't stop crime....it just burdens the good people who won't murder other people.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It proves you are arming criminals and often murderers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Brain, the only ones arming criminals are obama and Eric holder and they really armed drug cartels with fully automatic weapons.......
> 
> You and your anti gun buddies insist on concealed carry permits and background checks......and when they don't work......you blame us....after we told you guys they were pointless and wouldn't work............if a person with a permit murders someone.....lock them up.....but don't blame 99.9% of permit holders who obey your dumb anti gun laws and your dumb permit process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the 232,000 guns stolen each year are coming from gun owners into the hands of criminals.  That's no small number.  Huge number really.
Click to expand...

And that can be blamed on legal gun owners who didn't use their weapons to defend their homes.


----------



## Ernie S.

EatMorChikin said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ]
> 
> Well you guys seem really proud of the head count.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the head count from people who could not defend themselves from an armed criminal?
> 
> Or our daughters and wives getting raped because they couldn't have a firearm?
> 
> Wont happen in my family, my wife is armed. And my daughter will be when she is age appropriate.
Click to expand...

My wife and all 3 children (2 sons and a daughter) have concealed carry permits.


----------



## Brain357

Ernie S. said:


> EatMorChikin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ]
> 
> Well you guys seem really proud of the head count.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the head count from people who could not defend themselves from an armed criminal?
> 
> Or our daughters and wives getting raped because they couldn't have a firearm?
> 
> Wont happen in my family, my wife is armed. And my daughter will be when she is age appropriate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My wife and all 3 children (2 sons and a daughter) have concealed carry permits.
Click to expand...


I hope everyone is careful.  You are about 3x more likely to accidently kill someone than you are to shoot and kill a criminal.


----------



## Ernie S.

Billc said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anti-gun loons are only interested in making it harder for the law abiding to exercise their right to self-defense.
> They have no other agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they are interested in making it harder for criminals to get guns.  Often they happen to be the same given how many comcealed carry holders turn criminal.  Whether their efforts are effective is the debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link us to statistics that support your bullshit claim that concealed carry permit holders turn criminal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> VPC - The Violence Policy Center - Concealed Carry Killers
> And that is just the killers.  A recent story a janitor was fired and tried to shoot the pastor.  The janitor had a carry permit....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The article avoids saying that 169 cases apparently resulted in acquittals or dropped charges.
> That leaves 510 of which 190 were suicides or 320. 17 were lawful self defense where no charges were filed and 18 were ruled accidental. That's 285, 60 of which are pending trial. We can expect half to end in acquittals, so we have 255 unlawful killings with guns by concealed carry permit holders.
> 
> What's that? 6 months death toll for Chicago alone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Out of a country of over 310 million people......285.....
Click to expand...

In 6 years. That's 153 cases per billion, yes BILLION per year.


----------



## Ernie S.

Brain357 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EatMorChikin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ]
> 
> Well you guys seem really proud of the head count.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the head count from people who could not defend themselves from an armed criminal?
> 
> Or our daughters and wives getting raped because they couldn't have a firearm?
> 
> Wont happen in my family, my wife is armed. And my daughter will be when she is age appropriate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My wife and all 3 children (2 sons and a daughter) have concealed carry permits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hope everyone is careful.  You are about 3x more likely to accidently kill someone than you are to shoot and kill a criminal.
Click to expand...

Bullshit!


----------



## Brain357

Ernie S. said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they are interested in making it harder for criminals to get guns.  Often they happen to be the same given how many comcealed carry holders turn criminal.  Whether their efforts are effective is the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> Link us to statistics that support your bullshit claim that concealed carry permit holders turn criminal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> VPC - The Violence Policy Center - Concealed Carry Killers
> And that is just the killers.  A recent story a janitor was fired and tried to shoot the pastor.  The janitor had a carry permit....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The article avoids saying that 169 cases apparently resulted in acquittals or dropped charges.
> That leaves 510 of which 190 were suicides or 320. 17 were lawful self defense where no charges were filed and 18 were ruled accidental. That's 285, 60 of which are pending trial. We can expect half to end in acquittals, so we have 255 unlawful killings with guns by concealed carry permit holders.
> 
> What's that? 6 months death toll for Chicago alone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Out of a country of over 310 million people......285.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In 6 years. That's 153 cases per billion, yes BILLION per year.
Click to expand...


No there are only about 11 million with carry permits.


----------



## Brain357

Ernie S. said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EatMorChikin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ]
> 
> Well you guys seem really proud of the head count.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about the head count from people who could not defend themselves from an armed criminal?
> 
> Or our daughters and wives getting raped because they couldn't have a firearm?
> 
> Wont happen in my family, my wife is armed. And my daughter will be when she is age appropriate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My wife and all 3 children (2 sons and a daughter) have concealed carry permits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hope everyone is careful.  You are about 3x more likely to accidently kill someone than you are to shoot and kill a criminal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit!
Click to expand...


There are only about 230 or so criminals killed each year in defense and over 600 accidental killings each year.  Do the math.


----------



## Ernie S.

Perhaps your 230 number is correct, but there are, depending on the study you choose, maybe a million and a half instances where a gun has been used to ward off assault or robbery without firing a shot in most cases. I myself have stopped an armed robbery (knife) attempt on myself with my legally carried revolver and the attempted rape of my wife with a shotgun.
I chased off people lurking in the bushes outside of my bar on Monday night by displaying my firearm after they (or someone) had called asking if we had security.
There were roughly 30 people in the bar at the time.

Did my actions save lives? There is no way of knowing. I just know that no one was shot or robbed and all 11 bullets are still in my weapon.


----------



## Ernie S.

Brain357 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link us to statistics that support your bullshit claim that concealed carry permit holders turn criminal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VPC - The Violence Policy Center - Concealed Carry Killers
> And that is just the killers.  A recent story a janitor was fired and tried to shoot the pastor.  The janitor had a carry permit....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The article avoids saying that 169 cases apparently resulted in acquittals or dropped charges.
> That leaves 510 of which 190 were suicides or 320. 17 were lawful self defense where no charges were filed and 18 were ruled accidental. That's 285, 60 of which are pending trial. We can expect half to end in acquittals, so we have 255 unlawful killings with guns by concealed carry permit holders.
> 
> What's that? 6 months death toll for Chicago alone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Out of a country of over 310 million people......285.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In 6 years. That's 153 cases per billion, yes BILLION per year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No there are only about 11 million with carry permits.
Click to expand...

OK we'll multiply my 153 per billion by 150. We get >23 per million.


----------



## Silent Warrior

Ernie S. said:


> Did my actions save lives? There is no way of knowing. I just know that no one was shot or robbed and all 11 bullets are still in my weapon.



That is the problem with the anti-gun side's argument. If indeed 230 is a valid number, a case can be made that those were the exceptions. How many times has a gun been used to stop violence and didn't result in a casualty. Those cases are simply ignored by the anti-gunners. Just the other night on the local news was a story about a legal permit holder walking into a quick shop during a robbery. He drew his weapon and held the two would be robbers on the ground until police arrived. It the anti-gun crowd acknowledges such an act at all it is to argue something like “he shouldn't have pulled his gun because his life may not have been in danger.” The number of times something like this happens vastly outnumbers the occasions with casualties.


----------



## Ernie S.

In my case, I feel a responsibility to my patrons. I take their safety very seriously and at 2 AM, there is a lot of cash and a lot of vulnerable people in any bar.
I'm very proud that there have, up to this point, been no injuries, assaults or robberies at the place since I took it over from the previous owners.
Hel! We haven't even had to rough up an unruly drunk. We've asked people to leave and shown solidarity to enforce it, but other than one "gentle shove" in the direction of the door, we haven't had to use force.
The one guy who did invite me outside when I asked him to leave, backed down when he noticed the 6'7" 380 pound gentleman standing behind him.


----------



## Brain357

Ernie S. said:


> Perhaps your 230 number is correct, but there are, depending on the study you choose, maybe a million and a half instances where a gun has been used to ward off assault or robbery without firing a shot in most cases. I myself have stopped an armed robbery (knife) attempt on myself with my legally carried revolver and the attempted rape of my wife with a shotgun.
> I chased off people lurking in the bushes outside of my bar on Monday night by displaying my firearm after they (or someone) had called asking if we had security.
> There were roughly 30 people in the bar at the time.
> 
> Did my actions save lives? There is no way of knowing. I just know that no one was shot or robbed and all 11 bullets are still in my weapon.



Actually the most reliable study has it at about 108,000 defenses each year.  The studies in the millions include defenses by criminals defending against criminals.  Kleck has stated most defenders are involved in illegal activity.


----------



## Brain357

Silent Warrior said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did my actions save lives? There is no way of knowing. I just know that no one was shot or robbed and all 11 bullets are still in my weapon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the problem with the anti-gun side's argument. If indeed 230 is a valid number, a case can be made that those were the exceptions. How many times has a gun been used to stop violence and didn't result in a casualty. Those cases are simply ignored by the anti-gunners. Just the other night on the local news was a story about a legal permit holder walking into a quick shop during a robbery. He drew his weapon and held the two would be robbers on the ground until police arrived. It the anti-gun crowd acknowledges such an act at all it is to argue something like “he shouldn't have pulled his gun because his life may not have been in danger.” The number of times something like this happens vastly outnumbers the occasions with casualties.
Click to expand...


Nobody is ignoring those.  But I was discussing the likelihood of being killed.  And you are 3X more likely to be accidently shot and killed than to kill a criminal in defense.  You are also more likely to be shot if you are carrying a gun.

Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed - science-in-society - 06 October 2009 - New Scientist


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Brain357 said:


> Silent Warrior said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did my actions save lives? There is no way of knowing. I just know that no one was shot or robbed and all 11 bullets are still in my weapon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the problem with the anti-gun side's argument. If indeed 230 is a valid number, a case can be made that those were the exceptions. How many times has a gun been used to stop violence and didn't result in a casualty. Those cases are simply ignored by the anti-gunners. Just the other night on the local news was a story about a legal permit holder walking into a quick shop during a robbery. He drew his weapon and held the two would be robbers on the ground until police arrived. It the anti-gun crowd acknowledges such an act at all it is to argue something like “he shouldn't have pulled his gun because his life may not have been in danger.” The number of times something like this happens vastly outnumbers the occasions with casualties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody is ignoring those.  But I was discussing the likelihood of being killed.  And you are 3X more likely to be accidently shot and killed than to kill a criminal in defense.  You are also more likely to be shot if you are carrying a gun.
> 
> Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed - science-in-society - 06 October 2009 - New Scientist
Click to expand...

And yet facts do not support that supposed claim. Of the murders a year how many were firearms owners and not criminals? How many of the shootings are firearms owners that shot themselves accidentally? And no I am not counting suicide.


----------



## Brain357

RetiredGySgt said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silent Warrior said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did my actions save lives? There is no way of knowing. I just know that no one was shot or robbed and all 11 bullets are still in my weapon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the problem with the anti-gun side's argument. If indeed 230 is a valid number, a case can be made that those were the exceptions. How many times has a gun been used to stop violence and didn't result in a casualty. Those cases are simply ignored by the anti-gunners. Just the other night on the local news was a story about a legal permit holder walking into a quick shop during a robbery. He drew his weapon and held the two would be robbers on the ground until police arrived. It the anti-gun crowd acknowledges such an act at all it is to argue something like “he shouldn't have pulled his gun because his life may not have been in danger.” The number of times something like this happens vastly outnumbers the occasions with casualties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody is ignoring those.  But I was discussing the likelihood of being killed.  And you are 3X more likely to be accidently shot and killed than to kill a criminal in defense.  You are also more likely to be shot if you are carrying a gun.
> 
> Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed - science-in-society - 06 October 2009 - New Scientist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet facts do not support that supposed claim. Of the murders a year how many were firearms owners and not criminals? How many of the shootings are firearms owners that shot themselves accidentally? And no I am not counting suicide.
Click to expand...


You lost me which claim that you are 3X more likely to be accidently shot than to shoot a criminal?  Or that you are more likely to be shot if you carry a gun?  Your response doesn't make much sense for either, but please specify.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Brain357 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silent Warrior said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did my actions save lives? There is no way of knowing. I just know that no one was shot or robbed and all 11 bullets are still in my weapon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the problem with the anti-gun side's argument. If indeed 230 is a valid number, a case can be made that those were the exceptions. How many times has a gun been used to stop violence and didn't result in a casualty. Those cases are simply ignored by the anti-gunners. Just the other night on the local news was a story about a legal permit holder walking into a quick shop during a robbery. He drew his weapon and held the two would be robbers on the ground until police arrived. It the anti-gun crowd acknowledges such an act at all it is to argue something like “he shouldn't have pulled his gun because his life may not have been in danger.” The number of times something like this happens vastly outnumbers the occasions with casualties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody is ignoring those.  But I was discussing the likelihood of being killed.  And you are 3X more likely to be accidently shot and killed than to kill a criminal in defense.  You are also more likely to be shot if you are carrying a gun.
> 
> Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed - science-in-society - 06 October 2009 - New Scientist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet facts do not support that supposed claim. Of the murders a year how many were firearms owners and not criminals? How many of the shootings are firearms owners that shot themselves accidentally? And no I am not counting suicide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You lost me which claim that you are 3X more likely to be accidently shot than to shoot a criminal?  Or that you are more likely to be shot if you carry a gun?  Your response doesn't make much sense for either, but please specify.
Click to expand...

You claim owning a firearm makes you 3 x more likely to be shot. Prove it and do not include career criminals or gang members.


----------



## 2aguy

Brain357 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link us to statistics that support your bullshit claim that concealed carry permit holders turn criminal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VPC - The Violence Policy Center - Concealed Carry Killers
> And that is just the killers.  A recent story a janitor was fired and tried to shoot the pastor.  The janitor had a carry permit....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The article avoids saying that 169 cases apparently resulted in acquittals or dropped charges.
> That leaves 510 of which 190 were suicides or 320. 17 were lawful self defense where no charges were filed and 18 were ruled accidental. That's 285, 60 of which are pending trial. We can expect half to end in acquittals, so we have 255 unlawful killings with guns by concealed carry permit holders.
> 
> What's that? 6 months death toll for Chicago alone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Out of a country of over 310 million people......285.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In 6 years. That's 153 cases per billion, yes BILLION per year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No there are only about 11 million with carry permits.
Click to expand...



11.1 from the research......


----------



## Brain357

Billc said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> VPC - The Violence Policy Center - Concealed Carry Killers
> And that is just the killers.  A recent story a janitor was fired and tried to shoot the pastor.  The janitor had a carry permit....
> 
> 
> 
> The article avoids saying that 169 cases apparently resulted in acquittals or dropped charges.
> That leaves 510 of which 190 were suicides or 320. 17 were lawful self defense where no charges were filed and 18 were ruled accidental. That's 285, 60 of which are pending trial. We can expect half to end in acquittals, so we have 255 unlawful killings with guns by concealed carry permit holders.
> 
> What's that? 6 months death toll for Chicago alone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Out of a country of over 310 million people......285.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In 6 years. That's 153 cases per billion, yes BILLION per year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No there are only about 11 million with carry permits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 11.1 from the research......
Click to expand...


Sorry I wasn't very specific.  My point was that using the whole population of the country was not correct.


----------



## 2aguy

Brain357 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps your 230 number is correct, but there are, depending on the study you choose, maybe a million and a half instances where a gun has been used to ward off assault or robbery without firing a shot in most cases. I myself have stopped an armed robbery (knife) attempt on myself with my legally carried revolver and the attempted rape of my wife with a shotgun.
> I chased off people lurking in the bushes outside of my bar on Monday night by displaying my firearm after they (or someone) had called asking if we had security.
> There were roughly 30 people in the bar at the time.
> 
> Did my actions save lives? There is no way of knowing. I just know that no one was shot or robbed and all 11 bullets are still in my weapon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the most reliable study has it at about 108,000 defenses each year.  The studies in the millions include defenses by criminals defending against criminals.  Kleck has stated most defenders are involved in illegal activity.
Click to expand...



actually the National Crime Victimization Survey, where he gets the 108,000 number is the least accurate....and Brain includes honest, law abiding citizens in the 90s carrying guns to protect themselves from actual criminals...as criminals.....since back then not as many states allowed people to carry guns on their person......


----------



## 2aguy

The 230 number is not accurate either....the FBI doesn't keep track of homicides very well because convictions and prosecutions are very fluid....


----------



## Brain357

RetiredGySgt said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silent Warrior said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did my actions save lives? There is no way of knowing. I just know that no one was shot or robbed and all 11 bullets are still in my weapon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the problem with the anti-gun side's argument. If indeed 230 is a valid number, a case can be made that those were the exceptions. How many times has a gun been used to stop violence and didn't result in a casualty. Those cases are simply ignored by the anti-gunners. Just the other night on the local news was a story about a legal permit holder walking into a quick shop during a robbery. He drew his weapon and held the two would be robbers on the ground until police arrived. It the anti-gun crowd acknowledges such an act at all it is to argue something like “he shouldn't have pulled his gun because his life may not have been in danger.” The number of times something like this happens vastly outnumbers the occasions with casualties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody is ignoring those.  But I was discussing the likelihood of being killed.  And you are 3X more likely to be accidently shot and killed than to kill a criminal in defense.  You are also more likely to be shot if you are carrying a gun.
> 
> Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed - science-in-society - 06 October 2009 - New Scientist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet facts do not support that supposed claim. Of the murders a year how many were firearms owners and not criminals? How many of the shootings are firearms owners that shot themselves accidentally? And no I am not counting suicide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You lost me which claim that you are 3X more likely to be accidently shot than to shoot a criminal?  Or that you are more likely to be shot if you carry a gun?  Your response doesn't make much sense for either, but please specify.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claim owning a firearm makes you 3 x more likely to be shot. Prove it and do not include career criminals or gang members.
Click to expand...


No that is not at all what I claimed.  I claimed that you are 3X more likely to accidently shoot and kill someone than you are to shoot and kill a criminal.  There are about 600 people accidently shot and killed each year.  Per FBI stats there are about 230 or so criminals shot and killed in defense each year.  So it's pretty simple math from there.


----------



## Brain357

Billc said:


> The 230 number is not accurate either....the FBI doesn't keep track of homicides very well because convictions and prosecutions are very fluid....



Prove it.  Sorry Bill but I believe the FBI stats above the Bill stats.


----------



## 2aguy

Just putting out another resource...this one discusses the usual stuff......

http://www.hoplofobia.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Armed-Resistance-to-Crime.pdf

They have a more detailed bread down on why the National Crime Victimization Survey is so off compared to the other 19 studies on gun violence....

Also, keep in mind....this was from the 90s when the States were first making their moves to allowing people to carry guns in public.....in states that had banned that activity before.....

On why the National Crime Victimization Survey is the worst of the bunch....



> Further, Rs in the NCVS are not even asked the general self-pro- tection question unless they already independently indicated that they had been a victim of a crime. This means that any DGUs associated with crimes the Rs did not want to talk about would remain hidden.* It has been estimated that the NCVS may catch less than one-twelfth of spousal assaults and one-thirty-third of rapes, 2 7 thereby missing nearly all DGUs associated with such crimes.*





> For all but a handful of gun owners with a permit to carry a weapon in public places (under 4% of the adult population even in states like Florida, where carry permits are rela- tively easy to get)28 , the mere possession of a gun in a place other than their home, place of business, or in some states, their vehicle, is a crime, often a felony.





> In at least ten states, it is punishable by a puni- tively mandatory minimum prison sentence.29 Yet, 88% of the violent crimes which Rs reported to NCVS interviewers in 1992 were commit- ted away from the victim's home,30 i.e., in a location where it would ordinarily be a crime for the victim to even possess a gun, never mind use it defensively.
> Because the question about location is asked before the self-protection questions,31 the typical violent crime victim R has already committed himself to having been victimized in a public place before being asked what he or she did for self-protection. In short, Rs usually could not mention their defensive use of a gun without, in effect, confessing to a crime to a federal government employee.


----------



## Vandalshandle

And, here we have the truth about the myth of defensive gun ownership:

The Myth Behind Defensive Gun Ownership - Evan DeFilippis and Devin Hughes - POLITICO Magazine

"In 1992, Gary Kleck and Marc Getz, criminologists at Florida State University, conducted a random digit-dial survey to establish the annual number of defensive gun uses in the United States. They surveyed 5,000 individuals, asking them if they had used a firearm in self-defense in the past year and, if so, for what reason and to what effect. Sixty-six incidences of defensive gun use were reported from the sample. The researchers then extrapolated their findings to the entire U.S. population, resulting in an estimate of between 1 million and 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year.

The claim has since become gospel for gun advocates and is frequently touted by the National Rifle Association, pro-gun scholars such as John Lott and conservative politicians. The argument typically goes something like this: Guns are used defensively “over 2 million times every year—five times more frequently than the 430,000 times guns were used to commit crimes.” Or, as Gun Owners of America states, “firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.” Former Republican Sen. Rick Santorum has frequently opined on the benefits of defensive gun use, explaining: “In fact, there are millions of lives that are saved in America every year, or millions of instances like that where gun owners have prevented crimes and stopped things from happening because of having guns at the scene.”

It may sound reassuring, but is utterly false. In fact, gun owners are far more likely to end up like Theodore Wafer or Eusebio Christian, accidentally shooting an innocent person or seeing their weapons harm a family member, than be heroes warding off criminals."



Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/defensive-gun-ownership-myth-114262.html#ixzz3OwnzpGfX


----------



## Brain357

Billc said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps your 230 number is correct, but there are, depending on the study you choose, maybe a million and a half instances where a gun has been used to ward off assault or robbery without firing a shot in most cases. I myself have stopped an armed robbery (knife) attempt on myself with my legally carried revolver and the attempted rape of my wife with a shotgun.
> I chased off people lurking in the bushes outside of my bar on Monday night by displaying my firearm after they (or someone) had called asking if we had security.
> There were roughly 30 people in the bar at the time.
> 
> Did my actions save lives? There is no way of knowing. I just know that no one was shot or robbed and all 11 bullets are still in my weapon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the most reliable study has it at about 108,000 defenses each year.  The studies in the millions include defenses by criminals defending against criminals.  Kleck has stated most defenders are involved in illegal activity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> actually the National Crime Victimization Survey, where he gets the 108,000 number is the least accurate....and Brain includes honest, law abiding citizens in the 90s carrying guns to protect themselves from actual criminals...as criminals.....since back then not as many states allowed people to carry guns on their person......
Click to expand...


Sorry Bill but that explanation doesn't cut it.  The majority of defenses are not by people carrying, but at home.  It has never been illegal for anyone to defend themselves with a gun while home.  Try again.


----------



## Brain357

Billc said:


> Just putting out another resource...this one discusses the usual stuff......
> 
> http://www.hoplofobia.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Armed-Resistance-to-Crime.pdf
> 
> They have a more detailed bread down on why the National Crime Victimization Survey is so off compared to the other 19 studies on gun violence....
> 
> Also, keep in mind....this was from the 90s when the States were first making their moves to allowing people to carry guns in public.....in states that had banned that activity before.....
> 
> On why the National Crime Victimization Survey is the worst of the bunch....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Further, Rs in the NCVS are not even asked the general self-pro- tection question unless they already independently indicated that they had been a victim of a crime. This means that any DGUs associated with crimes the Rs did not want to talk about would remain hidden.* It has been estimated that the NCVS may catch less than one-twelfth of spousal assaults and one-thirty-third of rapes, 2 7 thereby missing nearly all DGUs associated with such crimes.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For all but a handful of gun owners with a permit to carry a weapon in public places (under 4% of the adult population even in states like Florida, where carry permits are rela- tively easy to get)28 , the mere possession of a gun in a place other than their home, place of business, or in some states, their vehicle, is a crime, often a felony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In at least ten states, it is punishable by a puni- tively mandatory minimum prison sentence.29 Yet, 88% of the violent crimes which Rs reported to NCVS interviewers in 1992 were commit- ted away from the victim's home,30 i.e., in a location where it would ordinarily be a crime for the victim to even possess a gun, never mind use it defensively.
> Because the question about location is asked before the self-protection questions,31 the typical violent crime victim R has already committed himself to having been victimized in a public place before being asked what he or she did for self-protection. In short, Rs usually could not mention their defensive use of a gun without, in effect, confessing to a crime to a federal government employee.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


The NCVS survey is the only one that weeds out all the criminals defending against criminals.  I don't see why you'd want to count those.


----------



## 2aguy

Brain357 said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps your 230 number is correct, but there are, depending on the study you choose, maybe a million and a half instances where a gun has been used to ward off assault or robbery without firing a shot in most cases. I myself have stopped an armed robbery (knife) attempt on myself with my legally carried revolver and the attempted rape of my wife with a shotgun.
> I chased off people lurking in the bushes outside of my bar on Monday night by displaying my firearm after they (or someone) had called asking if we had security.
> There were roughly 30 people in the bar at the time.
> 
> Did my actions save lives? There is no way of knowing. I just know that no one was shot or robbed and all 11 bullets are still in my weapon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the most reliable study has it at about 108,000 defenses each year.  The studies in the millions include defenses by criminals defending against criminals.  Kleck has stated most defenders are involved in illegal activity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> actually the National Crime Victimization Survey, where he gets the 108,000 number is the least accurate....and Brain includes honest, law abiding citizens in the 90s carrying guns to protect themselves from actual criminals...as criminals.....since back then not as many states allowed people to carry guns on their person......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry Bill but that explanation doesn't cut it.  The majority of defenses are not by people carrying, but at home.  It has never been illegal for anyone to defend themselves with a gun while home.  Try again.
Click to expand...


Which is why your statement is wrong....2.5 million defensive gun uses are not just criminals using guns....they are normal people using guns to defend themselves against violent criminal attack....


----------



## 2aguy

This paper explains how the FBI numbers on homicide get distorted....and why the NCVS numbers are way off....


http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/WP-Tough-Targets.pdf



> *The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports also significantly overstate murders and understate defensive gun uses.* If the police investigate a homicide and ask the district attorney to charge someone with murder or manslaugh- ter, that is reported as a murder or man- slaughter to the Uniform Crime Reports program. But district attorneys will often investigate a case in the weeks afterward, find evidence that the killing was justifiable or excusable homicide, and drop the case en- tirely.





> Further, some of those charges are found to be justifiable or excusable homicide by judges and juries during a trial. This is very often the case in spousal abuse situations where a woman defends herself or her chil- dren from an estranged husband.9 *A killing initially charged as a murder or nonnegli- gent homicide that is later reclassified as a justifiable or excusable homicide, will not be moved in the Uniform Crime Reports data from the homicide column to the justifiable homicide column*.





> How do we find out how many such cases exist? In 1989, Time magazine published an article called “Death by Gun.” It included photographs and information about every person killed by a gun in one week in the United States: May 1–7, 1989. There were 464 gun deaths reported in the article. Of these, 216 were suicides, 14 were initially reported as non–law enforcement defensive homicides, 13 were police justifiable homi- cides, and 22 accidents.10 That left 199 mur- ders and manslaughters.





> The Time article, like the FBI’s data col- lection, showed the number of defensive gun uses that resulted in a death based on initial reports. A year later, Time followed up on the murder cases, to see how the courts handled them. Instead of 14 self-defense or “justifiable” homicides, there were now 28. This was because 14 of the “crimes” report- ed in “Death by Gun” were now found to be justifiable homicides. At least 43 murder cases had still not gone to trial, and it was possible that some of those would be found “justifiable.”11 Clearly, the FBI’s justifiable homicide data is not particularly meaning- ful for understanding defensive gun uses that result in death—and is useless for un- derstanding the vastly larger number of de- fensive gun uses that do not result in death. Just as clearly, a better data set is needed.


----------



## 2aguy

Brain357 said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just putting out another resource...this one discusses the usual stuff......
> 
> http://www.hoplofobia.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Armed-Resistance-to-Crime.pdf
> 
> They have a more detailed bread down on why the National Crime Victimization Survey is so off compared to the other 19 studies on gun violence....
> 
> Also, keep in mind....this was from the 90s when the States were first making their moves to allowing people to carry guns in public.....in states that had banned that activity before.....
> 
> On why the National Crime Victimization Survey is the worst of the bunch....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Further, Rs in the NCVS are not even asked the general self-pro- tection question unless they already independently indicated that they had been a victim of a crime. This means that any DGUs associated with crimes the Rs did not want to talk about would remain hidden.* It has been estimated that the NCVS may catch less than one-twelfth of spousal assaults and one-thirty-third of rapes, 2 7 thereby missing nearly all DGUs associated with such crimes.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For all but a handful of gun owners with a permit to carry a weapon in public places (under 4% of the adult population even in states like Florida, where carry permits are rela- tively easy to get)28 , the mere possession of a gun in a place other than their home, place of business, or in some states, their vehicle, is a crime, often a felony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In at least ten states, it is punishable by a puni- tively mandatory minimum prison sentence.29 Yet, 88% of the violent crimes which Rs reported to NCVS interviewers in 1992 were commit- ted away from the victim's home,30 i.e., in a location where it would ordinarily be a crime for the victim to even possess a gun, never mind use it defensively.
> Because the question about location is asked before the self-protection questions,31 the typical violent crime victim R has already committed himself to having been victimized in a public place before being asked what he or she did for self-protection. In short, Rs usually could not mention their defensive use of a gun without, in effect, confessing to a crime to a federal government employee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The NCVS survey is the only one that weeds out all the criminals defending against criminals.  I don't see why you'd want to count those.
Click to expand...


Actually, it doesn't......


----------



## Brain357

Billc said:


> This paper explains how the FBI numbers on homicide get distorted....and why the NCVS numbers are way off....
> 
> 
> http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/WP-Tough-Targets.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports also significantly overstate murders and understate defensive gun uses.* If the police investigate a homicide and ask the district attorney to charge someone with murder or manslaugh- ter, that is reported as a murder or man- slaughter to the Uniform Crime Reports program. But district attorneys will often investigate a case in the weeks afterward, find evidence that the killing was justifiable or excusable homicide, and drop the case en- tirely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Further, some of those charges are found to be justifiable or excusable homicide by judges and juries during a trial. This is very often the case in spousal abuse situations where a woman defends herself or her chil- dren from an estranged husband.9 *A killing initially charged as a murder or nonnegli- gent homicide that is later reclassified as a justifiable or excusable homicide, will not be moved in the Uniform Crime Reports data from the homicide column to the justifiable homicide column*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do we find out how many such cases exist? In 1989, Time magazine published an article called “Death by Gun.” It included photographs and information about every person killed by a gun in one week in the United States: May 1–7, 1989. There were 464 gun deaths reported in the article. Of these, 216 were suicides, 14 were initially reported as non–law enforcement defensive homicides, 13 were police justifiable homi- cides, and 22 accidents.10 That left 199 mur- ders and manslaughters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Time article, like the FBI’s data col- lection, showed the number of defensive gun uses that resulted in a death based on initial reports. A year later, Time followed up on the murder cases, to see how the courts handled them. Instead of 14 self-defense or “justifiable” homicides, there were now 28. This was because 14 of the “crimes” report- ed in “Death by Gun” were now found to be justifiable homicides. At least 43 murder cases had still not gone to trial, and it was possible that some of those would be found “justifiable.”11 Clearly, the FBI’s justifiable homicide data is not particularly meaning- ful for understanding defensive gun uses that result in death—and is useless for un- derstanding the vastly larger number of de- fensive gun uses that do not result in death. Just as clearly, a better data set is needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


You need to do better than the right wing pro gun often wrong Cato institute.


----------



## Ernie S.

Brain357 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps your 230 number is correct, but there are, depending on the study you choose, maybe a million and a half instances where a gun has been used to ward off assault or robbery without firing a shot in most cases. I myself have stopped an armed robbery (knife) attempt on myself with my legally carried revolver and the attempted rape of my wife with a shotgun.
> I chased off people lurking in the bushes outside of my bar on Monday night by displaying my firearm after they (or someone) had called asking if we had security.
> There were roughly 30 people in the bar at the time.
> 
> Did my actions save lives? There is no way of knowing. I just know that no one was shot or robbed and all 11 bullets are still in my weapon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the most reliable study has it at about 108,000 defenses each year.  The studies in the millions include defenses by criminals defending against criminals.  Kleck has stated most defenders are involved in illegal activity.
Click to expand...

That's the most likely to support your position. There are another 14 or 15 that are between 700,000 (unreliable) and 2 million or so.

Cite your 108K number. Please like the study with methodology and questions.


----------



## Brain357

Billc said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps your 230 number is correct, but there are, depending on the study you choose, maybe a million and a half instances where a gun has been used to ward off assault or robbery without firing a shot in most cases. I myself have stopped an armed robbery (knife) attempt on myself with my legally carried revolver and the attempted rape of my wife with a shotgun.
> I chased off people lurking in the bushes outside of my bar on Monday night by displaying my firearm after they (or someone) had called asking if we had security.
> There were roughly 30 people in the bar at the time.
> 
> Did my actions save lives? There is no way of knowing. I just know that no one was shot or robbed and all 11 bullets are still in my weapon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the most reliable study has it at about 108,000 defenses each year.  The studies in the millions include defenses by criminals defending against criminals.  Kleck has stated most defenders are involved in illegal activity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> actually the National Crime Victimization Survey, where he gets the 108,000 number is the least accurate....and Brain includes honest, law abiding citizens in the 90s carrying guns to protect themselves from actual criminals...as criminals.....since back then not as many states allowed people to carry guns on their person......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry Bill but that explanation doesn't cut it.  The majority of defenses are not by people carrying, but at home.  It has never been illegal for anyone to defend themselves with a gun while home.  Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is why your statement is wrong....2.5 million defensive gun uses are not just criminals using guns....they are normal people using guns to defend themselves against violent criminal attack....
Click to expand...


Kleck:
"This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."


----------



## Brain357

Ernie S. said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps your 230 number is correct, but there are, depending on the study you choose, maybe a million and a half instances where a gun has been used to ward off assault or robbery without firing a shot in most cases. I myself have stopped an armed robbery (knife) attempt on myself with my legally carried revolver and the attempted rape of my wife with a shotgun.
> I chased off people lurking in the bushes outside of my bar on Monday night by displaying my firearm after they (or someone) had called asking if we had security.
> There were roughly 30 people in the bar at the time.
> 
> Did my actions save lives? There is no way of knowing. I just know that no one was shot or robbed and all 11 bullets are still in my weapon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the most reliable study has it at about 108,000 defenses each year.  The studies in the millions include defenses by criminals defending against criminals.  Kleck has stated most defenders are involved in illegal activity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's the most likely to support your position. There are another 14 or 15 that are between 700,000 (unreliable) and 2 million or so.
> 
> Cite your 108K number. Please like the study with methodology and questions.
Click to expand...


The other studies are filled with criminals defending against criminals.


----------



## 2aguy

Brain357 said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps your 230 number is correct, but there are, depending on the study you choose, maybe a million and a half instances where a gun has been used to ward off assault or robbery without firing a shot in most cases. I myself have stopped an armed robbery (knife) attempt on myself with my legally carried revolver and the attempted rape of my wife with a shotgun.
> I chased off people lurking in the bushes outside of my bar on Monday night by displaying my firearm after they (or someone) had called asking if we had security.
> There were roughly 30 people in the bar at the time.
> 
> Did my actions save lives? There is no way of knowing. I just know that no one was shot or robbed and all 11 bullets are still in my weapon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the most reliable study has it at about 108,000 defenses each year.  The studies in the millions include defenses by criminals defending against criminals.  Kleck has stated most defenders are involved in illegal activity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> actually the National Crime Victimization Survey, where he gets the 108,000 number is the least accurate....and Brain includes honest, law abiding citizens in the 90s carrying guns to protect themselves from actual criminals...as criminals.....since back then not as many states allowed people to carry guns on their person......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry Bill but that explanation doesn't cut it.  The majority of defenses are not by people carrying, but at home.  It has never been illegal for anyone to defend themselves with a gun while home.  Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is why your statement is wrong....2.5 million defensive gun uses are not just criminals using guns....they are normal people using guns to defend themselves against violent criminal attack....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kleck:
> "This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."
Click to expand...


You know Brain....at no point in that quote does he say the person in possession of the gun is an actual criminal, and heavily implies in other places that these are law abiding citizens carrying guns for protection 'from' criminals.....which is not the type of criminal you are implying when you quote this statement and lie about his study.,....

And again...the anti gunners would have you believe that Kleck's is the only study out there...there is over 40 years of studies, 19 different studies, performed by different researchers both public and private....here are the results of some of the studies that Kleck points out in his work.....the name of the research group or individual, the year of the study and the number of times they found guns were used to stop violent criminal attack and save lives....notice...Klecks isn't the only study with a high number.....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....You can find the complete list of the studies and what they looked at in Kleck's paper...


http://www.hoplofobia.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Armed-Resistance-to-Crime.pdf


*Field...1976....3,052,717
DMIa 1978...2,141,512
L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68
Kleck...2.5 million
Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544
DMIb...1978...1,098,409
Hart...1981...1.797,461
Mauser...1990...1,487,342
Gallup...1993...1,621,377
DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million
Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."
-------------------------------------------
Ohio...1982...771,043
Gallup...1991...777,152
Tarrance... 1994... 764,036
Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..



NCVS (National Crime Victimization Survey)....108,000*


*Notice, the 3 different groupings of stats from the research listed so far.....not one of them approaches the NCVS number of 100,000.....yet you claim to know that is the correct number....*


----------



## 2aguy

Brain357 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps your 230 number is correct, but there are, depending on the study you choose, maybe a million and a half instances where a gun has been used to ward off assault or robbery without firing a shot in most cases. I myself have stopped an armed robbery (knife) attempt on myself with my legally carried revolver and the attempted rape of my wife with a shotgun.
> I chased off people lurking in the bushes outside of my bar on Monday night by displaying my firearm after they (or someone) had called asking if we had security.
> There were roughly 30 people in the bar at the time.
> 
> Did my actions save lives? There is no way of knowing. I just know that no one was shot or robbed and all 11 bullets are still in my weapon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the most reliable study has it at about 108,000 defenses each year.  The studies in the millions include defenses by criminals defending against criminals.  Kleck has stated most defenders are involved in illegal activity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's the most likely to support your position. There are another 14 or 15 that are between 700,000 (unreliable) and 2 million or so.
> 
> Cite your 108K number. Please like the study with methodology and questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The other studies are filled with criminals defending against criminals.
Click to expand...



Not even close to true Brain....keep saying it....you'll need to in order to believe it....


----------



## Brain357

Billc said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the most reliable study has it at about 108,000 defenses each year.  The studies in the millions include defenses by criminals defending against criminals.  Kleck has stated most defenders are involved in illegal activity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> actually the National Crime Victimization Survey, where he gets the 108,000 number is the least accurate....and Brain includes honest, law abiding citizens in the 90s carrying guns to protect themselves from actual criminals...as criminals.....since back then not as many states allowed people to carry guns on their person......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry Bill but that explanation doesn't cut it.  The majority of defenses are not by people carrying, but at home.  It has never been illegal for anyone to defend themselves with a gun while home.  Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is why your statement is wrong....2.5 million defensive gun uses are not just criminals using guns....they are normal people using guns to defend themselves against violent criminal attack....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kleck:
> "This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know Brain....at no point in that quote does he say the person in possession of the gun is an actual criminal, and heavily implies in other places that these are law abiding citizens carrying guns for protection 'from' criminals.....which is not the type of criminal you are implying when you quote this statement and lie about his study.,....
> 
> And again...the anti gunners would have you believe that Kleck's is the only study out there...there is over 40 years of studies, 19 different studies, performed by different researchers both public and private....here are the results of some of the studies that Kleck points out in his work.....the name of the research group or individual, the year of the study and the number of times they found guns were used to stop violent criminal attack and save lives....notice...Klecks isn't the only study with a high number.....
> 
> A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....
> 
> *Field...1976....3,052,717
> DMIa 1978...2,141,512
> L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68
> Kleck...2.5 million
> Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million
> 
> --------------------
> 
> 
> Bordua...1977...1,414,544
> DMIb...1978...1,098,409
> Hart...1981...1.797,461
> Mauser...1990...1,487,342
> Gallup...1993...1,621,377
> DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million
> Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."
> -------------------------------------------
> Ohio...1982...771,043
> Gallup...1991...777,152
> Tarrance... 1994... 764,036
> Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..
> 
> 
> 
> NCVS (National Crime Victimization Survey)....108,000*
> 
> 
> *Notice, the 3 different groupings of stats from the research listed so far.....not one of them approaches the NCVS number of 100,000.....yet you claim to know that is the correct number....*
Click to expand...


Ok so what criminal activity then are all the people involved in that are defending themselves from home?  I know you don't like it Bill, but that is what Kleck said.


----------



## Ernie S.

Brain357 said:


> Silent Warrior said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did my actions save lives? There is no way of knowing. I just know that no one was shot or robbed and all 11 bullets are still in my weapon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the problem with the anti-gun side's argument. If indeed 230 is a valid number, a case can be made that those were the exceptions. How many times has a gun been used to stop violence and didn't result in a casualty. Those cases are simply ignored by the anti-gunners. Just the other night on the local news was a story about a legal permit holder walking into a quick shop during a robbery. He drew his weapon and held the two would be robbers on the ground until police arrived. It the anti-gun crowd acknowledges such an act at all it is to argue something like “he shouldn't have pulled his gun because his life may not have been in danger.” The number of times something like this happens vastly outnumbers the occasions with casualties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody is ignoring those.  But I was discussing the likelihood of being killed.  And you are 3X more likely to be accidently shot and killed than to kill a criminal in defense.  You are also more likely to be shot if you are carrying a gun.
> 
> Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed - science-in-society - 06 October 2009 - New Scientist
Click to expand...

Of course you are. That's the whole point of self defense. I don't want to kill anyone, hense, I didn't kill the man who broke down my door to rape my wife. I didn't kill the crack addict that tried to rob me armed with a steak knife nor did I fire a few rounds at the people creeping around Doc's Monday night.

Law abiding people use their weapons as a last resort. Criminals use theirs to eliminate witnesses.

I would for shit sure HOPE that less criminals are shot than defenders given the number of times we use our guns as a deterrent. If we fired every time we were confronted by criminals, Chicago and DCwould be ghost towns.


----------



## Brain357

Billc said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps your 230 number is correct, but there are, depending on the study you choose, maybe a million and a half instances where a gun has been used to ward off assault or robbery without firing a shot in most cases. I myself have stopped an armed robbery (knife) attempt on myself with my legally carried revolver and the attempted rape of my wife with a shotgun.
> I chased off people lurking in the bushes outside of my bar on Monday night by displaying my firearm after they (or someone) had called asking if we had security.
> There were roughly 30 people in the bar at the time.
> 
> Did my actions save lives? There is no way of knowing. I just know that no one was shot or robbed and all 11 bullets are still in my weapon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the most reliable study has it at about 108,000 defenses each year.  The studies in the millions include defenses by criminals defending against criminals.  Kleck has stated most defenders are involved in illegal activity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's the most likely to support your position. There are another 14 or 15 that are between 700,000 (unreliable) and 2 million or so.
> 
> Cite your 108K number. Please like the study with methodology and questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The other studies are filled with criminals defending against criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not even close to true Brain....keep saying it....you'll need to in order to believe it....
Click to expand...


I don't need to say it, Kleck did:
Kleck:
"This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."


----------



## Brain357

Ernie S. said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silent Warrior said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did my actions save lives? There is no way of knowing. I just know that no one was shot or robbed and all 11 bullets are still in my weapon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the problem with the anti-gun side's argument. If indeed 230 is a valid number, a case can be made that those were the exceptions. How many times has a gun been used to stop violence and didn't result in a casualty. Those cases are simply ignored by the anti-gunners. Just the other night on the local news was a story about a legal permit holder walking into a quick shop during a robbery. He drew his weapon and held the two would be robbers on the ground until police arrived. It the anti-gun crowd acknowledges such an act at all it is to argue something like “he shouldn't have pulled his gun because his life may not have been in danger.” The number of times something like this happens vastly outnumbers the occasions with casualties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody is ignoring those.  But I was discussing the likelihood of being killed.  And you are 3X more likely to be accidently shot and killed than to kill a criminal in defense.  You are also more likely to be shot if you are carrying a gun.
> 
> Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed - science-in-society - 06 October 2009 - New Scientist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you are. That's the whole point of self defense. I don't want to kill anyone, hense, I didn't kill the man who broke down my door to rape my wife. I didn't kill the crack addict that tried to rob me armed with a steak knife nor did I fire a few rounds at the people creeping around Doc's Monday night.
> 
> Law abiding people use their weapons as a last resort. Criminals use theirs to eliminate witnesses.
> 
> I would for shit sure HOPE that less criminals are shot than defenders given the number of times we use our guns as a deterrent. If we fired every time we were confronted by criminals, Chicago and DCwould be ghost towns.
Click to expand...


It is sort of sad though that more innocent people are accidently shot and killed than are criminals.


----------



## 2aguy

Brain357 said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> actually the National Crime Victimization Survey, where he gets the 108,000 number is the least accurate....and Brain includes honest, law abiding citizens in the 90s carrying guns to protect themselves from actual criminals...as criminals.....since back then not as many states allowed people to carry guns on their person......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Bill but that explanation doesn't cut it.  The majority of defenses are not by people carrying, but at home.  It has never been illegal for anyone to defend themselves with a gun while home.  Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is why your statement is wrong....2.5 million defensive gun uses are not just criminals using guns....they are normal people using guns to defend themselves against violent criminal attack....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kleck:
> "This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know Brain....at no point in that quote does he say the person in possession of the gun is an actual criminal, and heavily implies in other places that these are law abiding citizens carrying guns for protection 'from' criminals.....which is not the type of criminal you are implying when you quote this statement and lie about his study.,....
> 
> And again...the anti gunners would have you believe that Kleck's is the only study out there...there is over 40 years of studies, 19 different studies, performed by different researchers both public and private....here are the results of some of the studies that Kleck points out in his work.....the name of the research group or individual, the year of the study and the number of times they found guns were used to stop violent criminal attack and save lives....notice...Klecks isn't the only study with a high number.....
> 
> A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....
> 
> *Field...1976....3,052,717
> DMIa 1978...2,141,512
> L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68
> Kleck...2.5 million
> Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million
> 
> --------------------
> 
> 
> Bordua...1977...1,414,544
> DMIb...1978...1,098,409
> Hart...1981...1.797,461
> Mauser...1990...1,487,342
> Gallup...1993...1,621,377
> DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million
> Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."
> -------------------------------------------
> Ohio...1982...771,043
> Gallup...1991...777,152
> Tarrance... 1994... 764,036
> Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..
> 
> 
> 
> NCVS (National Crime Victimization Survey)....108,000*
> 
> 
> *Notice, the 3 different groupings of stats from the research listed so far.....not one of them approaches the NCVS number of 100,000.....yet you claim to know that is the correct number....*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok so what criminal activity then are all the people involved in that are defending themselves from home?  I know you don't like it Bill, but that is what Kleck said.
Click to expand...




> Ok so what criminal activity then are all the people involved in that are defending themselves from home?  I know you don't like it Bill, but that is what Kleck said



See, that's the point Brain...they are at home and aren't engaged in criminal activity...which is where most of the defensive gun uses occur....putting the truth to your distortion of what Kleck said....the grey area comes in in the 1990s before concealed carry had spread as far as it has today.....but there was more crime, and normal people decided they would rather violate an unjust law that disarmed them rather than be defenseless......

And still, reporting a non event....scaring off a home invader with a gun is not always something people want to report to police....at least doing it with a gun.....that carries legal implications and hassles....especially if no shots were fired an no one was injured.....


----------



## Ernie S.

Brain357 said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> actually the National Crime Victimization Survey, where he gets the 108,000 number is the least accurate....and Brain includes honest, law abiding citizens in the 90s carrying guns to protect themselves from actual criminals...as criminals.....since back then not as many states allowed people to carry guns on their person......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Bill but that explanation doesn't cut it.  The majority of defenses are not by people carrying, but at home.  It has never been illegal for anyone to defend themselves with a gun while home.  Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is why your statement is wrong....2.5 million defensive gun uses are not just criminals using guns....they are normal people using guns to defend themselves against violent criminal attack....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kleck:
> "This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know Brain....at no point in that quote does he say the person in possession of the gun is an actual criminal, and heavily implies in other places that these are law abiding citizens carrying guns for protection 'from' criminals.....which is not the type of criminal you are implying when you quote this statement and lie about his study.,....
> 
> And again...the anti gunners would have you believe that Kleck's is the only study out there...there is over 40 years of studies, 19 different studies, performed by different researchers both public and private....here are the results of some of the studies that Kleck points out in his work.....the name of the research group or individual, the year of the study and the number of times they found guns were used to stop violent criminal attack and save lives....notice...Klecks isn't the only study with a high number.....
> 
> A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....
> 
> *Field...1976....3,052,717
> DMIa 1978...2,141,512
> L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68
> Kleck...2.5 million
> Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million
> 
> --------------------
> 
> 
> Bordua...1977...1,414,544
> DMIb...1978...1,098,409
> Hart...1981...1.797,461
> Mauser...1990...1,487,342
> Gallup...1993...1,621,377
> DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million
> Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."
> -------------------------------------------
> Ohio...1982...771,043
> Gallup...1991...777,152
> Tarrance... 1994... 764,036
> Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..
> 
> 
> 
> NCVS (National Crime Victimization Survey)....108,000*
> 
> 
> *Notice, the 3 different groupings of stats from the research listed so far.....not one of them approaches the NCVS number of 100,000.....yet you claim to know that is the correct number....*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok so what criminal activity then are all the people involved in that are defending themselves from home?  I know you don't like it Bill, but that is what Kleck said.
Click to expand...

Please quote where Kleck said that as I am unable to locate such a claim. Please avoid bloggers commenting on his studies. I require 1st hand evidence.


----------



## 2aguy

Brain357 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silent Warrior said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did my actions save lives? There is no way of knowing. I just know that no one was shot or robbed and all 11 bullets are still in my weapon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the problem with the anti-gun side's argument. If indeed 230 is a valid number, a case can be made that those were the exceptions. How many times has a gun been used to stop violence and didn't result in a casualty. Those cases are simply ignored by the anti-gunners. Just the other night on the local news was a story about a legal permit holder walking into a quick shop during a robbery. He drew his weapon and held the two would be robbers on the ground until police arrived. It the anti-gun crowd acknowledges such an act at all it is to argue something like “he shouldn't have pulled his gun because his life may not have been in danger.” The number of times something like this happens vastly outnumbers the occasions with casualties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody is ignoring those.  But I was discussing the likelihood of being killed.  And you are 3X more likely to be accidently shot and killed than to kill a criminal in defense.  You are also more likely to be shot if you are carrying a gun.
> 
> Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed - science-in-society - 06 October 2009 - New Scientist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you are. That's the whole point of self defense. I don't want to kill anyone, hense, I didn't kill the man who broke down my door to rape my wife. I didn't kill the crack addict that tried to rob me armed with a steak knife nor did I fire a few rounds at the people creeping around Doc's Monday night.
> 
> Law abiding people use their weapons as a last resort. Criminals use theirs to eliminate witnesses.
> 
> I would for shit sure HOPE that less criminals are shot than defenders given the number of times we use our guns as a deterrent. If we fired every time we were confronted by criminals, Chicago and DCwould be ghost towns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is sort of sad though that more innocent people are accidently shot and killed than are criminals.
Click to expand...



Only 6-700 people a year are killed in gun accidents....out of a country of over 310 million people....and considering that on average 1.6 million violent criminal attacks are stopped and lives are saved....that is far more than are killed by criminals.....and each life saved by a gun is important.....


----------



## Ernie S.

Brain357 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silent Warrior said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did my actions save lives? There is no way of knowing. I just know that no one was shot or robbed and all 11 bullets are still in my weapon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the problem with the anti-gun side's argument. If indeed 230 is a valid number, a case can be made that those were the exceptions. How many times has a gun been used to stop violence and didn't result in a casualty. Those cases are simply ignored by the anti-gunners. Just the other night on the local news was a story about a legal permit holder walking into a quick shop during a robbery. He drew his weapon and held the two would be robbers on the ground until police arrived. It the anti-gun crowd acknowledges such an act at all it is to argue something like “he shouldn't have pulled his gun because his life may not have been in danger.” The number of times something like this happens vastly outnumbers the occasions with casualties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody is ignoring those.  But I was discussing the likelihood of being killed.  And you are 3X more likely to be accidently shot and killed than to kill a criminal in defense.  You are also more likely to be shot if you are carrying a gun.
> 
> Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed - science-in-society - 06 October 2009 - New Scientist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you are. That's the whole point of self defense. I don't want to kill anyone, hense, I didn't kill the man who broke down my door to rape my wife. I didn't kill the crack addict that tried to rob me armed with a steak knife nor did I fire a few rounds at the people creeping around Doc's Monday night.
> 
> Law abiding people use their weapons as a last resort. Criminals use theirs to eliminate witnesses.
> 
> I would for shit sure HOPE that less criminals are shot than defenders given the number of times we use our guns as a deterrent. If we fired every time we were confronted by criminals, Chicago and DCwould be ghost towns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is sort of sad though that more innocent people are accidently shot and killed than are criminals.
Click to expand...

It is sad. The blame for that belongs on the criminals, not the legal gun owners who want to avoid taking a life as most do.


----------



## Brain357

Billc said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Bill but that explanation doesn't cut it.  The majority of defenses are not by people carrying, but at home.  It has never been illegal for anyone to defend themselves with a gun while home.  Try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why your statement is wrong....2.5 million defensive gun uses are not just criminals using guns....they are normal people using guns to defend themselves against violent criminal attack....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kleck:
> "This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know Brain....at no point in that quote does he say the person in possession of the gun is an actual criminal, and heavily implies in other places that these are law abiding citizens carrying guns for protection 'from' criminals.....which is not the type of criminal you are implying when you quote this statement and lie about his study.,....
> 
> And again...the anti gunners would have you believe that Kleck's is the only study out there...there is over 40 years of studies, 19 different studies, performed by different researchers both public and private....here are the results of some of the studies that Kleck points out in his work.....the name of the research group or individual, the year of the study and the number of times they found guns were used to stop violent criminal attack and save lives....notice...Klecks isn't the only study with a high number.....
> 
> A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....
> 
> *Field...1976....3,052,717
> DMIa 1978...2,141,512
> L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68
> Kleck...2.5 million
> Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million
> 
> --------------------
> 
> 
> Bordua...1977...1,414,544
> DMIb...1978...1,098,409
> Hart...1981...1.797,461
> Mauser...1990...1,487,342
> Gallup...1993...1,621,377
> DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million
> Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."
> -------------------------------------------
> Ohio...1982...771,043
> Gallup...1991...777,152
> Tarrance... 1994... 764,036
> Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..
> 
> 
> 
> NCVS (National Crime Victimization Survey)....108,000*
> 
> 
> *Notice, the 3 different groupings of stats from the research listed so far.....not one of them approaches the NCVS number of 100,000.....yet you claim to know that is the correct number....*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok so what criminal activity then are all the people involved in that are defending themselves from home?  I know you don't like it Bill, but that is what Kleck said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok so what criminal activity then are all the people involved in that are defending themselves from home?  I know you don't like it Bill, but that is what Kleck said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, that's the point Brain...they are at home and aren't engaged in criminal activity...which is where most of the defensive gun uses occur....putting the truth to your distortion of what Kleck said....the grey area comes in in the 1990s before concealed carry had spread as far as it has today.....but there was more crime, and normal people decided they would rather violate an unjust law that disarmed them rather than be defenseless......
> 
> And still, reporting a non event....scaring off a home invader with a gun is not always something people want to report to police....at least doing it with a gun.....that carries legal implications and hassles....especially if no shots were fired an no one was injured.....
Click to expand...


No Bill you miss the point. 
Kleck:
"This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."

Sorry but according to Kleck they are home and involved in criminal activity.  Because most DGUs involve criminal behavior by the victim.


----------



## Brain357

Billc said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silent Warrior said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did my actions save lives? There is no way of knowing. I just know that no one was shot or robbed and all 11 bullets are still in my weapon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the problem with the anti-gun side's argument. If indeed 230 is a valid number, a case can be made that those were the exceptions. How many times has a gun been used to stop violence and didn't result in a casualty. Those cases are simply ignored by the anti-gunners. Just the other night on the local news was a story about a legal permit holder walking into a quick shop during a robbery. He drew his weapon and held the two would be robbers on the ground until police arrived. It the anti-gun crowd acknowledges such an act at all it is to argue something like “he shouldn't have pulled his gun because his life may not have been in danger.” The number of times something like this happens vastly outnumbers the occasions with casualties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody is ignoring those.  But I was discussing the likelihood of being killed.  And you are 3X more likely to be accidently shot and killed than to kill a criminal in defense.  You are also more likely to be shot if you are carrying a gun.
> 
> Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed - science-in-society - 06 October 2009 - New Scientist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you are. That's the whole point of self defense. I don't want to kill anyone, hense, I didn't kill the man who broke down my door to rape my wife. I didn't kill the crack addict that tried to rob me armed with a steak knife nor did I fire a few rounds at the people creeping around Doc's Monday night.
> 
> Law abiding people use their weapons as a last resort. Criminals use theirs to eliminate witnesses.
> 
> I would for shit sure HOPE that less criminals are shot than defenders given the number of times we use our guns as a deterrent. If we fired every time we were confronted by criminals, Chicago and DCwould be ghost towns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is sort of sad though that more innocent people are accidently shot and killed than are criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Only 6-700 people a year are killed in gun accidents....out of a country of over 310 million people....and considering that on average 1.6 million violent criminal attacks are stopped and lives are saved....that is far more than are killed by criminals.....and each life saved by a gun is important.....
Click to expand...


You mean 1.6 million criminals defend against other criminals.


----------



## kaz

Lakhota said:


> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
Click to expand...


We also need to ban extreme speech, right?   And people should be reasonable about having their property searched, nothing extreme like forcing government to get a warrant should be required.  And wow, abortions can be banned in extreme cases, right?  We need to be reasonable about this.  Rights really should only be allowed in moderation.  I feel you.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Denmark.  Sweden.  Netherlands.  Australia....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Denmark and the Netherlands both lost thousands of people to the German death camps.  Might want to check your history there.  The aboriginals likewise suffered at the hands of those who were armed.  Sweden is indeed one of the few countries that hasn't had a mass murderer take control but 16% of the population does indeed own guns, so they are not disarmed are they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that has what to do with how many guns they had?  That was WWII.  And since then there have been many countries with few guns in citizens hands living quite peaceful and happy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you should move to one of them
> 
> it would save you from massive laundry bills or needing adult diapers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there you go, right back to being a child.  If you can't debate like an adult go somewhere else.
Click to expand...


I thought it was kind of funny actually.  


Brain357 said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Denmark.  Sweden.  Netherlands.  Australia....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Denmark and the Netherlands both lost thousands of people to the German death camps.  Might want to check your history there.  The aboriginals likewise suffered at the hands of those who were armed.  Sweden is indeed one of the few countries that hasn't had a mass murderer take control but 16% of the population does indeed own guns, so they are not disarmed are they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that has what to do with how many guns they had?  That was WWII.  And since then there have been many countries with few guns in citizens hands living quite peaceful and happy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you should move to one of them
> 
> it would save you from massive laundry bills or needing adult diapers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there you go, right back to being a child.  If you can't debate like an adult go somewhere else.
Click to expand...


I'm sure you can probably bring your diapers with you wherever you go.  Lol!   



Brain357 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Denmark.  Sweden.  Netherlands.  Australia....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Denmark and the Netherlands both lost thousands of people to the German death camps.  Might want to check your history there.  The aboriginals likewise suffered at the hands of those who were armed.  Sweden is indeed one of the few countries that hasn't had a mass murderer take control but 16% of the population does indeed own guns, so they are not disarmed are they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that has what to do with how many guns they had?  That was WWII.  And since then there have been many countries with few guns in citizens hands living quite peaceful and happy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like Rwanda?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Rwanda?  No like most of Europe.  Countries that are actually comparable to us.  You are comparing us to Rwanda?
Click to expand...


Violent crime in the UK is double that of the US.  GUNS do not create violence.  People do.


----------



## ChrisL

We have big cities with lots of African American gangs.  That is where most of the high homicide with guns happens.  Most of those guns are obtained illegally.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If gun ownership was allowed for all law-abiding citizens, most people still wouldn't bother carrying one with them. But a few would. Often concealed.
> 
> And the best news is, someone contemplating committing a crime, would know there were no laws preventing nearly everyone in the crowd from carrying a gun in their pocket or purse. And he would know that most probably weren't carrying... and that a few people probably were. _And he wouldn't know which ones they were._
> 
> So he would know that if he slugged an old lady and snatched her purse, he could expect a bullet from an unknown direction (or two). And there would be nothing he could do to prevent it, or to know which person in the crowd might fire the shot.
> 
> It's enough to make a criminal change jobs, and not commit the crime in the first place.
> 
> And that's the point.
> 
> If gun ownership is allowed for all law-abiding adults, many crimes won't get committed in the first place. And without a shot being fired. Without anyone having to pull their gun at all.
> 
> And that's the biggest benefit of gun ownership by all responsible adults.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we have the most guns of any other country.  Why do so many other countries with far fewer guns have lower crime rates?  I don't think the number of guns really effects crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually Europe is awash in crime. Britain France and Germany all have higher levels of violent crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those three all have much lower homicide rates.  What crimes in particular are you speaking of?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claimed crime was lower in Europe. It is not.
> 
> Countries Compared by Crime Total crimes per 1000. International Statistics at NationMaster.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They seem to have us beat here:
> Crime Index by Country 2015
> And this is much newer.
> And they have us beat in homicide rates:
> List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


America doesn't have a gun problem.  It has a gang problem.  

America Doesn 8217 t Have a Gun Problem It Has a Gang Problem FrontPage Magazine


----------



## ChrisL

turtledude said:


> why do WHITE americans who have the HIGHEST RATE of LEGAL gun ownership have a LOWER RATE of gun violence than BLACKS AND HISPANICS who have far LOWER rates of LEGAL GUN OWNERSHIP
> 
> why do WHITE AMERICANS with "Easy access to guns" have lower rates of gun crime than WHITE EUROPEANS living in gun hating nations?



Oh, oh, I know!  It's because of gang violence.


----------



## ChrisL

Billc said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most people can't hit the inside of a barn when they shoot a fully automatic weapon.  The person taking rapid single shots is far more deadly.  If you weren't such an ignorant twit you would know that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> true-automatic fire-suppress movement, break contact
> 
> single shots-inflict casualties
> 
> 1989=Turtle doing demo for news chicks at a range north of Cincinnati
> 
> 10 IPSC targets 1.5 yards apart-20 yards down range
> 
> turtle-one colt SMG 9mm32 round magazine
> 
> 1) shot full auto-32 rounds in about 2 seconds-hit most of the targets
> 
> 2) shot semi auto-one shot per target-all center of mass-less than 3 seconds-had 22 rounds left and all the targets were hit so as to normally be fatal in 75% of the cases
> 
> 3) one shot per target-head shots-all targets hit in the head in less than 4 seconds-all guaranteed kills with 22 rounds left
> 
> 4) one 10 shot semi auto shotgun loaded with federal tactical # 4 buckshot
> 
> less than 3 seconds-every target filled with at least 15 holes
> 
> full auto least "deadly"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see what you ment now by "deadly".  What applications do you see civilians needing a machine gun for?  There is only about 230 criminals killed in defense each year.  Based on the number of defenses that is already quite a low number.  I don't think you can get much less deadly to criminals than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You know the 230 number is probably too low.....when a homicide is changed from murder to justified by a prosecutor or the killer is found innocent in court, the FBI doesn't change the data....so that number is off....probably too low....but still pretty good considering that law abiding gun owners use their guns 1.6 million times a year to stop violent criminal attack and save lives....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is from the FBI.  Not going to find more accurate number.  You mean mostly criminals defending themselves as kleck has admitted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Brain....Kleck did not say self defense deaths are criminals fighting criminals....he most definitely said that back in the 90s when people had their rights violated to carry weapons for self defense, many of them did any way...and he didn't quantify how many of the 2.5 million were that situation anyway....so your using it is decietful.....they were not gang members or drug dealers just average citizens who needed to protect themselves.....and the 238 is not accurate...the FBI does not follow up on homicides and if they stay justifiable or not....so they don't change their numbers....
Click to expand...


Just like all the anti-second amendment jerks, completely dishonest and untrustworthy scums.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do cops have machine guns?
> 
> Do explain how a full auto is less dangerous than a semi auto.  Maybe you can tell that to the guy training the young girl with the uzi...
> 
> Always with the name calling turtle.  Why so childish all the time?
> 
> When did you become so pro criminal?  They would love to have easy access to machine guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most people can't hit the inside of a barn when they shoot a fully automatic weapon.  The person taking rapid single shots is far more deadly.  If you weren't such an ignorant twit you would know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> true-automatic fire-suppress movement, break contact
> 
> single shots-inflict casualties
> 
> 1989=Turtle doing demo for news chicks at a range north of Cincinnati
> 
> 10 IPSC targets 1.5 yards apart-20 yards down range
> 
> turtle-one colt SMG 9mm32 round magazine
> 
> 1) shot full auto-32 rounds in about 2 seconds-hit most of the targets
> 
> 2) shot semi auto-one shot per target-all center of mass-less than 3 seconds-had 22 rounds left and all the targets were hit so as to normally be fatal in 75% of the cases
> 
> 3) one shot per target-head shots-all targets hit in the head in less than 4 seconds-all guaranteed kills with 22 rounds left
> 
> 4) one 10 shot semi auto shotgun loaded with federal tactical # 4 buckshot
> 
> less than 3 seconds-every target filled with at least 15 holes
> 
> full auto least "deadly"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see what you ment now by "deadly".  What applications do you see civilians needing a machine gun for?  There is only about 230 criminals killed in defense each year.  Based on the number of defenses that is already quite a low number.  I don't think you can get much less deadly to criminals than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You know the 230 number is probably too low.....when a homicide is changed from murder to justified by a prosecutor or the killer is found innocent in court, the FBI doesn't change the data....so that number is off....probably too low....but still pretty good considering that law abiding gun owners use their guns 1.6 million times a year to stop violent criminal attack and save lives....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is from the FBI.  Not going to find more accurate number.  You mean mostly criminals defending themselves as kleck has admitted.
Click to expand...


You are a dishonest POS.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If gun ownership was allowed for all law-abiding citizens, most people still wouldn't bother carrying one with them. But a few would. Often concealed.
> 
> And the best news is, someone contemplating committing a crime, would know there were no laws preventing nearly everyone in the crowd from carrying a gun in their pocket or purse. And he would know that most probably weren't carrying... and that a few people probably were. _And he wouldn't know which ones they were._
> 
> So he would know that if he slugged an old lady and snatched her purse, he could expect a bullet from an unknown direction (or two). And there would be nothing he could do to prevent it, or to know which person in the crowd might fire the shot.
> 
> It's enough to make a criminal change jobs, and not commit the crime in the first place.
> 
> And that's the point.
> 
> If gun ownership is allowed for all law-abiding adults, many crimes won't get committed in the first place. And without a shot being fired. Without anyone having to pull their gun at all.
> 
> And that's the biggest benefit of gun ownership by all responsible adults.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we have the most guns of any other country.  Why do so many other countries with far fewer guns have lower crime rates?  I don't think the number of guns really effects crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because their criminals and nuts haven't decided to use guns to kill people......but as we have seen in Canada, Australia, France, when they do decide they want or need guns to kill people, none of their laws stop them......once Britain, Germany, France and the rest reach the point of saturation with muslim radicals....you will see an uptick in gun crime....since most of the gun crime in those countries already occurs in the parts of the country with immigrant communities......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gun nuts sure jumped at the France tragedy fast....  Hypocricy?
Click to expand...


He's right, you little runt!


----------



## ChrisL

Billc said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If gun ownership was allowed for all law-abiding citizens, most people still wouldn't bother carrying one with them. But a few would. Often concealed.
> 
> And the best news is, someone contemplating committing a crime, would know there were no laws preventing nearly everyone in the crowd from carrying a gun in their pocket or purse. And he would know that most probably weren't carrying... and that a few people probably were. _And he wouldn't know which ones they were._
> 
> So he would know that if he slugged an old lady and snatched her purse, he could expect a bullet from an unknown direction (or two). And there would be nothing he could do to prevent it, or to know which person in the crowd might fire the shot.
> 
> It's enough to make a criminal change jobs, and not commit the crime in the first place.
> 
> And that's the point.
> 
> If gun ownership is allowed for all law-abiding adults, many crimes won't get committed in the first place. And without a shot being fired. Without anyone having to pull their gun at all.
> 
> And that's the biggest benefit of gun ownership by all responsible adults.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we have the most guns of any other country.  Why do so many other countries with far fewer guns have lower crime rates?  I don't think the number of guns really effects crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because their criminals and nuts haven't decided to use guns to kill people......but as we have seen in Canada, Australia, France, when they do decide they want or need guns to kill people, none of their laws stop them......once Britain, Germany, France and the rest reach the point of saturation with muslim radicals....you will see an uptick in gun crime....since most of the gun crime in those countries already occurs in the parts of the country with immigrant communities......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gun nuts sure jumped at the France tragedy fast....  Hypocricy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gun nuts sure jumped at the France tragedy fast....  Hypocricy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For myself...I got tired of sitting by out of respect for the victims and their families to just have anti gunner politicians jump in front of the first camera as the blood was still wet, to denounce gun owners.....no more......
Click to expand...


Every single time some psychotic moron shoots up a school or something, the scummy anti-rights advocates are right there to try to snag one of the citizens rights out from under them.    God, I hate those people.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> true-automatic fire-suppress movement, break contact
> 
> single shots-inflict casualties
> 
> 1989=Turtle doing demo for news chicks at a range north of Cincinnati
> 
> 10 IPSC targets 1.5 yards apart-20 yards down range
> 
> turtle-one colt SMG 9mm32 round magazine
> 
> 1) shot full auto-32 rounds in about 2 seconds-hit most of the targets
> 
> 2) shot semi auto-one shot per target-all center of mass-less than 3 seconds-had 22 rounds left and all the targets were hit so as to normally be fatal in 75% of the cases
> 
> 3) one shot per target-head shots-all targets hit in the head in less than 4 seconds-all guaranteed kills with 22 rounds left
> 
> 4) one 10 shot semi auto shotgun loaded with federal tactical # 4 buckshot
> 
> less than 3 seconds-every target filled with at least 15 holes
> 
> full auto least "deadly"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see what you ment now by "deadly".  What applications do you see civilians needing a machine gun for?  There is only about 230 criminals killed in defense each year.  Based on the number of defenses that is already quite a low number.  I don't think you can get much less deadly to criminals than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You know the 230 number is probably too low.....when a homicide is changed from murder to justified by a prosecutor or the killer is found innocent in court, the FBI doesn't change the data....so that number is off....probably too low....but still pretty good considering that law abiding gun owners use their guns 1.6 million times a year to stop violent criminal attack and save lives....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is from the FBI.  Not going to find more accurate number.  You mean mostly criminals defending themselves as kleck has admitted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Brain....Kleck did not say self defense deaths are criminals fighting criminals....he most definitely said that back in the 90s when people had their rights violated to carry weapons for self defense, many of them did any way...and he didn't quantify how many of the 2.5 million were that situation anyway....so your using it is decietful.....they were not gang members or drug dealers just average citizens who needed to protect themselves.....and the 238 is not accurate...the FBI does not follow up on homicides and if they stay justifiable or not....so they don't change their numbers....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He said most defenders are involved in criminal activity.  That makes them criminals.
Click to expand...


Quote it.


----------



## ChrisL

Billc said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EatMorChikin said:
> 
> 
> 
> With as many of the cult of bloodbath aka muslims that are being forced on us in America. We can never stand down and be disarmed! Once they start going after Americans, they need a tri pattern in chest. If a serious disarming effort is attempted, every firearm needs to show up in Washington.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where have you been?  Did you notice the last attempt at gun control failed?  It was far from taking guns away.  Relax, don't be so paranoid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But they never, ever stop......they will continue to fight for each and every gun, bullet and piece of equipment, so we have to be just as determined to stop them.......
Click to expand...


Exactly.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Billc said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they are interested in making it harder for criminals to get guns.  Often they happen to be the same given how many comcealed carry holders turn criminal.  Whether their efforts are effective is the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What criminal is going to be deterred by any stupid anti gun law?
> 
> Most firearm crimes are committed with illegal or stolen firearms so why do you think making even more laws is going to change anything?  Chicago has the strictest gun control laws in the country and the worse crime rate so what addition law is going to change that?
> 
> Even in a "shall issue" state a concealed weapon permit usually requires a significant background check so if they think concealed weapon permit holders are potential criminals then what degree of gun control are they suggesting?
> 
> There is a Bill of Rights that says that Americans have the individual right to keep and bear arms.   The Libtards should lean to live with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right now felons can easily get around background checks by buying from a private seller.  Why not make it harder for them?
> 
> Ok so if many crimes involve stolen guns than maybe laws are needed to keep guns from being stolen.  Like they must be stored in a safe.
> 
> The machine gun laws have been very effective.  They are almost never used in crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you keep your guns in your home...there is no reason the government has to get involved in how you store those guns... If someone breaks into your home they are making you a victim by stealing your guns....and as we have seen in Britain, once they mandate storing guns in safes, they will want the ability to check on those safes and if they are in your home they will try to penalize you if they see your safe is not locked....it happened in Britain, they want that here.....
> 
> Not one more gun, bullet, piece of equipment...they have all they can have and we will prevent further encroachment.....
Click to expand...


Normally, you are correct on handguns, rifles and shotguns.  But when you introduce battle field weapons like Auto Fire M-16, AK47, Battle Rifles and more they aren't saying you can't have them.  You just have to show that you have a legitimate storage for them.  You can own a friggin M-1A1 Tank with live rounds and an active barrel with the proper licensing.  

I agree with limiting the number of rounds in a clip or belt to no more than 20.  The worst shootings we have had has been involved with 32 to 100 round clips.and limiting the cyclic rate to non licensed people.  But to those with the proper license, they can and will be had.  

Your Teabircher scare tactic lost it's enamor.  The majority of us aren't buy it anymore.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Denmark and the Netherlands both lost thousands of people to the German death camps.  Might want to check your history there.  The aboriginals likewise suffered at the hands of those who were armed.  Sweden is indeed one of the few countries that hasn't had a mass murderer take control but 16% of the population does indeed own guns, so they are not disarmed are they?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that has what to do with how many guns they had?  That was WWII.  And since then there have been many countries with few guns in citizens hands living quite peaceful and happy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swedens numbers are current.  The fact that they had no guns to defend themselves is the point.  Funny how whenever a population is disarmed, imprisonment and death soon follow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Soon follow?  I think WWII might have been before gun control in those countries.  And well they have been doing quite well ever since.  That is hardly soon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> actually, no....Weimar Germany began taking away guns from people....and then the nazis faced disarmed Jews and dissenters when they started their rise to power...instead of facing Jewish business owners who could fight back, their brown shirts had free reign because they were younger, stronger, in greater numbers and more aggressive....everything that a gun will equalize.....if more Germans were armed then the brown shirts, much like our klan in the south, wouldn't have been as effective at beating their enemies into submission.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's old bill.  And for obvious reasons won't happen in a country with real freedom and voting rights.
Click to expand...


You really are stupid.  Really, you are.  How old are you anyway?


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> EatMorChikin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I carry a gun every day, hoping I never have to use it.
> 
> I own a bar. I left my place of business at a little after midnight last night and headed home. At 2AM, I got a call from my very hot, but very feminine bartender. She informed me that someone had called, asking when we closed, saying they were in a town a half hour away. When told we stopped serving at 2AM, their location magically changed to here in Foley. THEN they asked if we had security. She answered that we did, although the man doing security last night is not well trained and although large, is not a fighter type. (regular security guy down with the flu)
> A couple minutes later, a customer goes out to walk a petite female to her car and sees 3 people lurking in the bushes just off our north lot. He brings her back in and tells Megan, security and another fellow what's going on. Megan calls me and tells me what's going on.
> Henry, a huge black man and a good friend of Doc Holliday's goes out and makes his presence known. He also retrieves  his Glock from his truck and comes back in. I arrive in 4 minutes, pull in the lot and make a wide sweep of the bushes with my high beams and flashlight with a Taurus .40 in my hand.
> The three were back. One, I'm sure, had been in earlier. They saw me and my gun and took off running.
> 
> The fact that at least one had been in Doc's at least once before, makes him recognizable which makes a robbery a very dangerous situation since felons hate witnesses.
> As people left, I walked out first, checked the lot and then walked with them to their cars.
> At that point, the weapon was no longer concealed. No one freaked out or felt threatened by my gun and all were very thankful I made every effort to keep them safe.
> I stayed and help staff clean and close. I got home at 4:20 AM.
> So Ludley, Why didn't I kill anyone last night?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad everything worked out, and there is a reasonable chance they wont be back. They will move on to an easier target.
> 
> I once used my Sig P226 to deter a situation at my home, and I never had to fire a shot. They guy tried calling the cops on me, saying I threatened him with a gun. Yeah no shit Sherlock, you walked into my home not knowing I was home. They all gathered outside, and called me asking me to come out. I refused, knowing full well the first thing they would do after that is enter and take my arms.
> 
> After it was all said and done, and I talked to someone higher up on the phone the situation became diffused and all the follow up from that point was handled by phone. The guy was built like an offensive lineman, and I am not that big of a guy. He was someone I sort of knew but was not friends with, and he had no business in my home uninvited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Somewhere between his story and yours is the truth....
Click to expand...


Here is the truth, brainless.  

America Doesn 8217 t Have a Gun Problem It Has a Gang Problem FrontPage Magazine

America’s murder rate isn’t the work of the suburban and rural homeowners who shop for guns at sporting goods stores and at gun shows, and whom news shows profile after every shooting, but by the gangs embedded in the urban areas controlled by the Democratic machine. The gangs who drive up America’s murder rate look nothing like the occasional mentally ill suburban white kid who goes off his medication and decides to shoot up a school. Lanza, like most serial killers, is a media aberration, not the norm.

National murder statistics show that blacks are far more likely to be killers than whites and they are also far more likely to be killed. The single largest cause of homicides is the argument. 4th on the list is juvenile gang activity with 676 murders, which combined with various flavors of gangland killings takes us nearly to the 1,000 mark. America has more gangland murders than Sierra Leone, Eritrea and Puerto Rico have murders.

Our national murder rate is not some incomprehensible mystery that can only be attributed to the inanimate tools, the steel, brass and wood that do the work. It is largely the work of adult males from age 18 to 39 with criminal records killing other males of that same age and criminal past.

If this were going on in Rwanda, El Salvador or Sierra Leone, we would have no trouble knowing what to make of it, and silly pearl-clutching nonsense about gun control would never even come up. But this is Chicago, it’s Baltimore, it’s Philly and NOLA; and so we refuse to see that our major cities are in the same boat as some of the worst trouble spots in the world.

Lanza and Newtown are comforting aberrations. They allow us to take refuge in the fantasy that homicides in America are the work of the occasional serial killer practicing his dark art in one of those perfect small towns that always show up in murder mysteries or Stephen King novels. They fool us into thinking that there is something American about our murder rate that can be traced to hunting season, patriotism and bad mothers.

But go to Chicago or Baltimore. Go where the killings really happen and the illusion comes apart.

There is a war going on in America between gangs of young men who bear an uncanny resemblance to their counterparts in Sierra Leone or El Salvador. They live like them, they fight for control of the streets like them and they kill like them.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EatMorChikin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somewhere between his story and yours is the truth....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm new here so I must ask. Are you the social commentator parrot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No he's the resident gun grabber.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never suggested grabbing anyone's gun.  You seem to be mistaken.
Click to expand...


Oh please, at least be honest about your intentions, you dishonest little POS.  You aren't very clever and you aren't fooling anyone.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EatMorChikin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I carry a gun every day, hoping I never have to use it.
> 
> I own a bar. I left my place of business at a little after midnight last night and headed home. At 2AM, I got a call from my very hot, but very feminine bartender. She informed me that someone had called, asking when we closed, saying they were in a town a half hour away. When told we stopped serving at 2AM, their location magically changed to here in Foley. THEN they asked if we had security. She answered that we did, although the man doing security last night is not well trained and although large, is not a fighter type. (regular security guy down with the flu)
> A couple minutes later, a customer goes out to walk a petite female to her car and sees 3 people lurking in the bushes just off our north lot. He brings her back in and tells Megan, security and another fellow what's going on. Megan calls me and tells me what's going on.
> Henry, a huge black man and a good friend of Doc Holliday's goes out and makes his presence known. He also retrieves  his Glock from his truck and comes back in. I arrive in 4 minutes, pull in the lot and make a wide sweep of the bushes with my high beams and flashlight with a Taurus .40 in my hand.
> The three were back. One, I'm sure, had been in earlier. They saw me and my gun and took off running.
> 
> The fact that at least one had been in Doc's at least once before, makes him recognizable which makes a robbery a very dangerous situation since felons hate witnesses.
> As people left, I walked out first, checked the lot and then walked with them to their cars.
> At that point, the weapon was no longer concealed. No one freaked out or felt threatened by my gun and all were very thankful I made every effort to keep them safe.
> I stayed and help staff clean and close. I got home at 4:20 AM.
> So Ludley, Why didn't I kill anyone last night?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad everything worked out, and there is a reasonable chance they wont be back. They will move on to an easier target.
> 
> I once used my Sig P226 to deter a situation at my home, and I never had to fire a shot. They guy tried calling the cops on me, saying I threatened him with a gun. Yeah no shit Sherlock, you walked into my home not knowing I was home. They all gathered outside, and called me asking me to come out. I refused, knowing full well the first thing they would do after that is enter and take my arms.
> 
> After it was all said and done, and I talked to someone higher up on the phone the situation became diffused and all the follow up from that point was handled by phone. The guy was built like an offensive lineman, and I am not that big of a guy. He was someone I sort of knew but was not friends with, and he had no business in my home uninvited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Somewhere between his story and yours is the truth....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the truth, brainless. .
Click to expand...


I stopped reading at this point.  You may or may not have made some good points but your insulting and personal attacks takes away from them.

Keep it up.  2016 is going to be a rough year for Reps unless you start accepting some kind of responsibility.


----------



## Ernie S.

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Denmark.  Sweden.  Netherlands.  Australia....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Denmark and the Netherlands both lost thousands of people to the German death camps.  Might want to check your history there.  The aboriginals likewise suffered at the hands of those who were armed.  Sweden is indeed one of the few countries that hasn't had a mass murderer take control but 16% of the population does indeed own guns, so they are not disarmed are they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that has what to do with how many guns they had?  That was WWII.  And since then there have been many countries with few guns in citizens hands living quite peaceful and happy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you should move to one of them
> 
> it would save you from massive laundry bills or needing adult diapers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there you go, right back to being a child.  If you can't debate like an adult go somewhere else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought it was kind of funny actually.
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Denmark.  Sweden.  Netherlands.  Australia....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Denmark and the Netherlands both lost thousands of people to the German death camps.  Might want to check your history there.  The aboriginals likewise suffered at the hands of those who were armed.  Sweden is indeed one of the few countries that hasn't had a mass murderer take control but 16% of the population does indeed own guns, so they are not disarmed are they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that has what to do with how many guns they had?  That was WWII.  And since then there have been many countries with few guns in citizens hands living quite peaceful and happy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you should move to one of them
> 
> it would save you from massive laundry bills or needing adult diapers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there you go, right back to being a child.  If you can't debate like an adult go somewhere else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure you can probably bring your diapers with you wherever you go.  Lol!
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Denmark.  Sweden.  Netherlands.  Australia....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Denmark and the Netherlands both lost thousands of people to the German death camps.  Might want to check your history there.  The aboriginals likewise suffered at the hands of those who were armed.  Sweden is indeed one of the few countries that hasn't had a mass murderer take control but 16% of the population does indeed own guns, so they are not disarmed are they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that has what to do with how many guns they had?  That was WWII.  And since then there have been many countries with few guns in citizens hands living quite peaceful and happy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like Rwanda?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Rwanda?  No like most of Europe.  Countries that are actually comparable to us.  You are comparing us to Rwanda?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Violent crime in the UK is double that of the US.  _*GUNS do not create violence.  People do.*_
Click to expand...


Quite right Chris.
Let's take 2 US cities of about the same population and compare crime statistics.
Mobile Alabama has a population of 194,899 Salt Lake City has a population of 191,180
In 2012, Salt Lake City had 8 murders. Mobile had 32.
What do you suppose is the biggest difference between Mobile and SLC?

Mobile is 51% black. Salt Lake City is 3% black.

Lets go to larger cities. How about Seattle, WA and Baltimore; 608 thousand and 622 thousand, respectively. Seattle is 8% black, Baltimore is 64% black
In 2012 Seattle had 23 murders; Baltimore had 218.

Facts is facts, whether they are something you want to hear or not.


----------



## turtledude

Daryl Hunt said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EatMorChikin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I carry a gun every day, hoping I never have to use it.
> 
> I own a bar. I left my place of business at a little after midnight last night and headed home. At 2AM, I got a call from my very hot, but very feminine bartender. She informed me that someone had called, asking when we closed, saying they were in a town a half hour away. When told we stopped serving at 2AM, their location magically changed to here in Foley. THEN they asked if we had security. She answered that we did, although the man doing security last night is not well trained and although large, is not a fighter type. (regular security guy down with the flu)
> A couple minutes later, a customer goes out to walk a petite female to her car and sees 3 people lurking in the bushes just off our north lot. He brings her back in and tells Megan, security and another fellow what's going on. Megan calls me and tells me what's going on.
> Henry, a huge black man and a good friend of Doc Holliday's goes out and makes his presence known. He also retrieves  his Glock from his truck and comes back in. I arrive in 4 minutes, pull in the lot and make a wide sweep of the bushes with my high beams and flashlight with a Taurus .40 in my hand.
> The three were back. One, I'm sure, had been in earlier. They saw me and my gun and took off running.
> 
> The fact that at least one had been in Doc's at least once before, makes him recognizable which makes a robbery a very dangerous situation since felons hate witnesses.
> As people left, I walked out first, checked the lot and then walked with them to their cars.
> At that point, the weapon was no longer concealed. No one freaked out or felt threatened by my gun and all were very thankful I made every effort to keep them safe.
> I stayed and help staff clean and close. I got home at 4:20 AM.
> So Ludley, Why didn't I kill anyone last night?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad everything worked out, and there is a reasonable chance they wont be back. They will move on to an easier target.
> 
> I once used my Sig P226 to deter a situation at my home, and I never had to fire a shot. They guy tried calling the cops on me, saying I threatened him with a gun. Yeah no shit Sherlock, you walked into my home not knowing I was home. They all gathered outside, and called me asking me to come out. I refused, knowing full well the first thing they would do after that is enter and take my arms.
> 
> After it was all said and done, and I talked to someone higher up on the phone the situation became diffused and all the follow up from that point was handled by phone. The guy was built like an offensive lineman, and I am not that big of a guy. He was someone I sort of knew but was not friends with, and he had no business in my home uninvited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Somewhere between his story and yours is the truth....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the truth, brainless. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I stopped reading at this point.  You may or may not have made some good points but your insulting and personal attacks takes away from them.
> 
> Keep it up.  2016 is going to be a rough year for Reps unless you start accepting some kind of responsibility.
Click to expand...

shut up fool-people who want to infringe on our rights mainly because they want to make things safer for criminals ar TURDS


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Ernie S. said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Denmark and the Netherlands both lost thousands of people to the German death camps.  Might want to check your history there.  The aboriginals likewise suffered at the hands of those who were armed.  Sweden is indeed one of the few countries that hasn't had a mass murderer take control but 16% of the population does indeed own guns, so they are not disarmed are they?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that has what to do with how many guns they had?  That was WWII.  And since then there have been many countries with few guns in citizens hands living quite peaceful and happy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you should move to one of them
> 
> it would save you from massive laundry bills or needing adult diapers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there you go, right back to being a child.  If you can't debate like an adult go somewhere else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought it was kind of funny actually.
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Denmark and the Netherlands both lost thousands of people to the German death camps.  Might want to check your history there.  The aboriginals likewise suffered at the hands of those who were armed.  Sweden is indeed one of the few countries that hasn't had a mass murderer take control but 16% of the population does indeed own guns, so they are not disarmed are they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that has what to do with how many guns they had?  That was WWII.  And since then there have been many countries with few guns in citizens hands living quite peaceful and happy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you should move to one of them
> 
> it would save you from massive laundry bills or needing adult diapers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there you go, right back to being a child.  If you can't debate like an adult go somewhere else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure you can probably bring your diapers with you wherever you go.  Lol!
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Denmark and the Netherlands both lost thousands of people to the German death camps.  Might want to check your history there.  The aboriginals likewise suffered at the hands of those who were armed.  Sweden is indeed one of the few countries that hasn't had a mass murderer take control but 16% of the population does indeed own guns, so they are not disarmed are they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that has what to do with how many guns they had?  That was WWII.  And since then there have been many countries with few guns in citizens hands living quite peaceful and happy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like Rwanda?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Rwanda?  No like most of Europe.  Countries that are actually comparable to us.  You are comparing us to Rwanda?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Violent crime in the UK is double that of the US.  _*GUNS do not create violence.  People do.*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quite right Chris.
> Let's take 2 US cities of about the same population and compare crime statistics.
> Mobile Alabama has a population of 194,899 Salt Lake City has a population of 191,180
> In 2012, Salt Lake City had 8 murders. Mobile had 32.
> What do you suppose is the biggest difference between Mobile and SLC?
> 
> Mobile is 51% black. Salt Lake City is 3% black.
> 
> Lets go to larger cities. How about Seattle, WA and Baltimore; 608 thousand and 622 thousand, respectively. Seattle is 8% black, Baltimore is 64% black
> In 2012 Seattle had 23 murders; Baltimore had 218.
> 
> Facts is facts, whether they are something you want to hear or not.
Click to expand...

Stupid violent *******.


----------



## Ernie S.

Daryl Hunt said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EatMorChikin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I carry a gun every day, hoping I never have to use it.
> 
> I own a bar. I left my place of business at a little after midnight last night and headed home. At 2AM, I got a call from my very hot, but very feminine bartender. She informed me that someone had called, asking when we closed, saying they were in a town a half hour away. When told we stopped serving at 2AM, their location magically changed to here in Foley. THEN they asked if we had security. She answered that we did, although the man doing security last night is not well trained and although large, is not a fighter type. (regular security guy down with the flu)
> A couple minutes later, a customer goes out to walk a petite female to her car and sees 3 people lurking in the bushes just off our north lot. He brings her back in and tells Megan, security and another fellow what's going on. Megan calls me and tells me what's going on.
> Henry, a huge black man and a good friend of Doc Holliday's goes out and makes his presence known. He also retrieves  his Glock from his truck and comes back in. I arrive in 4 minutes, pull in the lot and make a wide sweep of the bushes with my high beams and flashlight with a Taurus .40 in my hand.
> The three were back. One, I'm sure, had been in earlier. They saw me and my gun and took off running.
> 
> The fact that at least one had been in Doc's at least once before, makes him recognizable which makes a robbery a very dangerous situation since felons hate witnesses.
> As people left, I walked out first, checked the lot and then walked with them to their cars.
> At that point, the weapon was no longer concealed. No one freaked out or felt threatened by my gun and all were very thankful I made every effort to keep them safe.
> I stayed and help staff clean and close. I got home at 4:20 AM.
> So Ludley, Why didn't I kill anyone last night?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad everything worked out, and there is a reasonable chance they wont be back. They will move on to an easier target.
> 
> I once used my Sig P226 to deter a situation at my home, and I never had to fire a shot. They guy tried calling the cops on me, saying I threatened him with a gun. Yeah no shit Sherlock, you walked into my home not knowing I was home. They all gathered outside, and called me asking me to come out. I refused, knowing full well the first thing they would do after that is enter and take my arms.
> 
> After it was all said and done, and I talked to someone higher up on the phone the situation became diffused and all the follow up from that point was handled by phone. The guy was built like an offensive lineman, and I am not that big of a guy. He was someone I sort of knew but was not friends with, and he had no business in my home uninvited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Somewhere between his story and yours is the truth....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the truth, brainless. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I stopped reading at this point.  You may or may not have made some good points but your insulting and personal attacks takes away from them.
> 
> Keep it up.  2016 is going to be a rough year for Reps unless you start accepting some kind of responsibility.
Click to expand...

You obviously have not read the whole thread. "brainless" is an appropriate nom de plume for our mostly brain dead friend, Brain 357.


----------



## ChrisL

Daryl Hunt said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EatMorChikin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I carry a gun every day, hoping I never have to use it.
> 
> I own a bar. I left my place of business at a little after midnight last night and headed home. At 2AM, I got a call from my very hot, but very feminine bartender. She informed me that someone had called, asking when we closed, saying they were in a town a half hour away. When told we stopped serving at 2AM, their location magically changed to here in Foley. THEN they asked if we had security. She answered that we did, although the man doing security last night is not well trained and although large, is not a fighter type. (regular security guy down with the flu)
> A couple minutes later, a customer goes out to walk a petite female to her car and sees 3 people lurking in the bushes just off our north lot. He brings her back in and tells Megan, security and another fellow what's going on. Megan calls me and tells me what's going on.
> Henry, a huge black man and a good friend of Doc Holliday's goes out and makes his presence known. He also retrieves  his Glock from his truck and comes back in. I arrive in 4 minutes, pull in the lot and make a wide sweep of the bushes with my high beams and flashlight with a Taurus .40 in my hand.
> The three were back. One, I'm sure, had been in earlier. They saw me and my gun and took off running.
> 
> The fact that at least one had been in Doc's at least once before, makes him recognizable which makes a robbery a very dangerous situation since felons hate witnesses.
> As people left, I walked out first, checked the lot and then walked with them to their cars.
> At that point, the weapon was no longer concealed. No one freaked out or felt threatened by my gun and all were very thankful I made every effort to keep them safe.
> I stayed and help staff clean and close. I got home at 4:20 AM.
> So Ludley, Why didn't I kill anyone last night?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad everything worked out, and there is a reasonable chance they wont be back. They will move on to an easier target.
> 
> I once used my Sig P226 to deter a situation at my home, and I never had to fire a shot. They guy tried calling the cops on me, saying I threatened him with a gun. Yeah no shit Sherlock, you walked into my home not knowing I was home. They all gathered outside, and called me asking me to come out. I refused, knowing full well the first thing they would do after that is enter and take my arms.
> 
> After it was all said and done, and I talked to someone higher up on the phone the situation became diffused and all the follow up from that point was handled by phone. The guy was built like an offensive lineman, and I am not that big of a guy. He was someone I sort of knew but was not friends with, and he had no business in my home uninvited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Somewhere between his story and yours is the truth....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the truth, brainless. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I stopped reading at this point.  You may or may not have made some good points but your insulting and personal attacks takes away from them.
> 
> Keep it up.  2016 is going to be a rough year for Reps unless you start accepting some kind of responsibility.
Click to expand...


What in the hell makes you think I care if you read my posts?  I don't even know you, nor do I care about you or what you think.  I am going to put this little brainless moron in his place once and for all.


----------



## Ernie S.

PaintMyHouse said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that has what to do with how many guns they had?  That was WWII.  And since then there have been many countries with few guns in citizens hands living quite peaceful and happy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you should move to one of them
> 
> it would save you from massive laundry bills or needing adult diapers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there you go, right back to being a child.  If you can't debate like an adult go somewhere else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought it was kind of funny actually.
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that has what to do with how many guns they had?  That was WWII.  And since then there have been many countries with few guns in citizens hands living quite peaceful and happy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you should move to one of them
> 
> it would save you from massive laundry bills or needing adult diapers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there you go, right back to being a child.  If you can't debate like an adult go somewhere else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure you can probably bring your diapers with you wherever you go.  Lol!
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that has what to do with how many guns they had?  That was WWII.  And since then there have been many countries with few guns in citizens hands living quite peaceful and happy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like Rwanda?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Rwanda?  No like most of Europe.  Countries that are actually comparable to us.  You are comparing us to Rwanda?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Violent crime in the UK is double that of the US.  _*GUNS do not create violence.  People do.*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quite right Chris.
> Let's take 2 US cities of about the same population and compare crime statistics.
> Mobile Alabama has a population of 194,899 Salt Lake City has a population of 191,180
> In 2012, Salt Lake City had 8 murders. Mobile had 32.
> What do you suppose is the biggest difference between Mobile and SLC?
> 
> Mobile is 51% black. Salt Lake City is 3% black.
> 
> Lets go to larger cities. How about Seattle, WA and Baltimore; 608 thousand and 622 thousand, respectively. Seattle is 8% black, Baltimore is 64% black
> In 2012 Seattle had 23 murders; Baltimore had 218.
> 
> Facts is facts, whether they are something you want to hear or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stupid violent *******.
Click to expand...

A larger than normal segment of them are.


----------



## ChrisL

Ernie S. said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> you should move to one of them
> 
> it would save you from massive laundry bills or needing adult diapers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there you go, right back to being a child.  If you can't debate like an adult go somewhere else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought it was kind of funny actually.
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> you should move to one of them
> 
> it would save you from massive laundry bills or needing adult diapers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there you go, right back to being a child.  If you can't debate like an adult go somewhere else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure you can probably bring your diapers with you wherever you go.  Lol!
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like Rwanda?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Rwanda?  No like most of Europe.  Countries that are actually comparable to us.  You are comparing us to Rwanda?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Violent crime in the UK is double that of the US.  _*GUNS do not create violence.  People do.*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quite right Chris.
> Let's take 2 US cities of about the same population and compare crime statistics.
> Mobile Alabama has a population of 194,899 Salt Lake City has a population of 191,180
> In 2012, Salt Lake City had 8 murders. Mobile had 32.
> What do you suppose is the biggest difference between Mobile and SLC?
> 
> Mobile is 51% black. Salt Lake City is 3% black.
> 
> Lets go to larger cities. How about Seattle, WA and Baltimore; 608 thousand and 622 thousand, respectively. Seattle is 8% black, Baltimore is 64% black
> In 2012 Seattle had 23 murders; Baltimore had 218.
> 
> Facts is facts, whether they are something you want to hear or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stupid violent *******.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A larger than normal segment of them are.
Click to expand...


Yes, there is a problem with violence, crime and murder in the black community.  A lot of people want to ignore that this is the reason why the murder rate in the United States is so high, but those are the facts.


----------



## ChrisL

turtledude said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EatMorChikin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I carry a gun every day, hoping I never have to use it.
> 
> I own a bar. I left my place of business at a little after midnight last night and headed home. At 2AM, I got a call from my very hot, but very feminine bartender. She informed me that someone had called, asking when we closed, saying they were in a town a half hour away. When told we stopped serving at 2AM, their location magically changed to here in Foley. THEN they asked if we had security. She answered that we did, although the man doing security last night is not well trained and although large, is not a fighter type. (regular security guy down with the flu)
> A couple minutes later, a customer goes out to walk a petite female to her car and sees 3 people lurking in the bushes just off our north lot. He brings her back in and tells Megan, security and another fellow what's going on. Megan calls me and tells me what's going on.
> Henry, a huge black man and a good friend of Doc Holliday's goes out and makes his presence known. He also retrieves  his Glock from his truck and comes back in. I arrive in 4 minutes, pull in the lot and make a wide sweep of the bushes with my high beams and flashlight with a Taurus .40 in my hand.
> The three were back. One, I'm sure, had been in earlier. They saw me and my gun and took off running.
> 
> The fact that at least one had been in Doc's at least once before, makes him recognizable which makes a robbery a very dangerous situation since felons hate witnesses.
> As people left, I walked out first, checked the lot and then walked with them to their cars.
> At that point, the weapon was no longer concealed. No one freaked out or felt threatened by my gun and all were very thankful I made every effort to keep them safe.
> I stayed and help staff clean and close. I got home at 4:20 AM.
> So Ludley, Why didn't I kill anyone last night?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad everything worked out, and there is a reasonable chance they wont be back. They will move on to an easier target.
> 
> I once used my Sig P226 to deter a situation at my home, and I never had to fire a shot. They guy tried calling the cops on me, saying I threatened him with a gun. Yeah no shit Sherlock, you walked into my home not knowing I was home. They all gathered outside, and called me asking me to come out. I refused, knowing full well the first thing they would do after that is enter and take my arms.
> 
> After it was all said and done, and I talked to someone higher up on the phone the situation became diffused and all the follow up from that point was handled by phone. The guy was built like an offensive lineman, and I am not that big of a guy. He was someone I sort of knew but was not friends with, and he had no business in my home uninvited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Somewhere between his story and yours is the truth....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the truth, brainless. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I stopped reading at this point.  You may or may not have made some good points but your insulting and personal attacks takes away from them.
> 
> Keep it up.  2016 is going to be a rough year for Reps unless you start accepting some kind of responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> shut up fool-people who want to infringe on our rights mainly because they want to make things safer for criminals ar TURDS
Click to expand...


Not to mention, the particular poster is completely dishonest with just about everything and trying to twist facts to fit his agenda.  No way is that going to happen while I'm watching!


----------



## turtledude

ChrisL said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EatMorChikin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad everything worked out, and there is a reasonable chance they wont be back. They will move on to an easier target.
> 
> I once used my Sig P226 to deter a situation at my home, and I never had to fire a shot. They guy tried calling the cops on me, saying I threatened him with a gun. Yeah no shit Sherlock, you walked into my home not knowing I was home. They all gathered outside, and called me asking me to come out. I refused, knowing full well the first thing they would do after that is enter and take my arms.
> 
> After it was all said and done, and I talked to someone higher up on the phone the situation became diffused and all the follow up from that point was handled by phone. The guy was built like an offensive lineman, and I am not that big of a guy. He was someone I sort of knew but was not friends with, and he had no business in my home uninvited.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Somewhere between his story and yours is the truth....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the truth, brainless. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I stopped reading at this point.  You may or may not have made some good points but your insulting and personal attacks takes away from them.
> 
> Keep it up.  2016 is going to be a rough year for Reps unless you start accepting some kind of responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> shut up fool-people who want to infringe on our rights mainly because they want to make things safer for criminals ar TURDS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not to mention, the particular poster is completely dishonest with just about everything and trying to twist facts to fit his agenda.  No way is that going to happen while I'm watching!
Click to expand...


gun banners are either ignorant/stupid morons or dishonest assholes

there are no other possibilities


----------



## Daryl Hunt

turtledude said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somewhere between his story and yours is the truth....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the truth, brainless. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I stopped reading at this point.  You may or may not have made some good points but your insulting and personal attacks takes away from them.
> 
> Keep it up.  2016 is going to be a rough year for Reps unless you start accepting some kind of responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> shut up fool-people who want to infringe on our rights mainly because they want to make things safer for criminals ar TURDS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not to mention, the particular poster is completely dishonest with just about everything and trying to twist facts to fit his agenda.  No way is that going to happen while I'm watching!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> gun banners are either ignorant/stupid morons or dishonest assholes
> 
> there are no other possibilities
Click to expand...


And also fictitious.


----------



## ChrisL

So now Brain357 , now you can STOP asking why the US has a higher murder rate than some other countries.  The answer is gang violence.  Now, do you want to ban black people?


----------



## ChrisL

turtledude said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somewhere between his story and yours is the truth....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the truth, brainless. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I stopped reading at this point.  You may or may not have made some good points but your insulting and personal attacks takes away from them.
> 
> Keep it up.  2016 is going to be a rough year for Reps unless you start accepting some kind of responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> shut up fool-people who want to infringe on our rights mainly because they want to make things safer for criminals ar TURDS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not to mention, the particular poster is completely dishonest with just about everything and trying to twist facts to fit his agenda.  No way is that going to happen while I'm watching!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> gun banners are either ignorant/stupid morons or dishonest assholes
> 
> there are no other possibilities
Click to expand...


Agreed.  Also, they are traitors to the American people!


----------



## PaintMyHouse

turtledude said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somewhere between his story and yours is the truth....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the truth, brainless. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I stopped reading at this point.  You may or may not have made some good points but your insulting and personal attacks takes away from them.
> 
> Keep it up.  2016 is going to be a rough year for Reps unless you start accepting some kind of responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> shut up fool-people who want to infringe on our rights mainly because they want to make things safer for criminals ar TURDS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not to mention, the particular poster is completely dishonest with just about everything and trying to twist facts to fit his agenda.  No way is that going to happen while I'm watching!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> gun banners are either ignorant/stupid morons or dishonest assholes
Click to expand...

AKA people with common sense so the gun nuts will hate them...


----------



## Ernie S.

Daryl Hunt said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the truth, brainless. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I stopped reading at this point.  You may or may not have made some good points but your insulting and personal attacks takes away from them.
> 
> Keep it up.  2016 is going to be a rough year for Reps unless you start accepting some kind of responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> shut up fool-people who want to infringe on our rights mainly because they want to make things safer for criminals ar TURDS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not to mention, the particular poster is completely dishonest with just about everything and trying to twist facts to fit his agenda.  No way is that going to happen while I'm watching!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> gun banners are either ignorant/stupid morons or dishonest assholes
> 
> there are no other possibilities
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And also fictitious.
Click to expand...

Fidtitious???? That's a stupid way to spell lying sacks of shit.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

ChrisL said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the truth, brainless. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I stopped reading at this point.  You may or may not have made some good points but your insulting and personal attacks takes away from them.
> 
> Keep it up.  2016 is going to be a rough year for Reps unless you start accepting some kind of responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> shut up fool-people who want to infringe on our rights mainly because they want to make things safer for criminals ar TURDS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not to mention, the particular poster is completely dishonest with just about everything and trying to twist facts to fit his agenda.  No way is that going to happen while I'm watching!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> gun banners are either ignorant/stupid morons or dishonest assholes
> 
> there are no other possibilities
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed.  Also, they are traitors to the American people!
Click to expand...

The American people no longer need guns, and haven't for decades.


----------



## Ernie S.

PaintMyHouse said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the truth, brainless. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I stopped reading at this point.  You may or may not have made some good points but your insulting and personal attacks takes away from them.
> 
> Keep it up.  2016 is going to be a rough year for Reps unless you start accepting some kind of responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> shut up fool-people who want to infringe on our rights mainly because they want to make things safer for criminals ar TURDS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not to mention, the particular poster is completely dishonest with just about everything and trying to twist facts to fit his agenda.  No way is that going to happen while I'm watching!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> gun banners are either ignorant/stupid morons or dishonest assholes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> AKA people with common sense so the gun nuts will hate them...
Click to expand...


You sir, have no business talking about common sense.


----------



## turtledude

PaintMyHouse said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I stopped reading at this point.  You may or may not have made some good points but your insulting and personal attacks takes away from them.
> 
> Keep it up.  2016 is going to be a rough year for Reps unless you start accepting some kind of responsibility.
> 
> 
> 
> shut up fool-people who want to infringe on our rights mainly because they want to make things safer for criminals ar TURDS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not to mention, the particular poster is completely dishonest with just about everything and trying to twist facts to fit his agenda.  No way is that going to happen while I'm watching!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> gun banners are either ignorant/stupid morons or dishonest assholes
> 
> there are no other possibilities
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed.  Also, they are traitors to the American people!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The American people no longer need guns, and haven't for decades.
Click to expand...


we no longer need gun banners.  

you really are a moron

but I cannot tell if you are a moron who thinks gun control stops crime or you are a dishonest prick who pushes gun control to harass people who aren't leftwing turds like you

anyway if guns are banned-people like you will be among the first targeted by patriots


----------



## Ernie S.

PaintMyHouse said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I stopped reading at this point.  You may or may not have made some good points but your insulting and personal attacks takes away from them.
> 
> Keep it up.  2016 is going to be a rough year for Reps unless you start accepting some kind of responsibility.
> 
> 
> 
> shut up fool-people who want to infringe on our rights mainly because they want to make things safer for criminals ar TURDS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not to mention, the particular poster is completely dishonest with just about everything and trying to twist facts to fit his agenda.  No way is that going to happen while I'm watching!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> gun banners are either ignorant/stupid morons or dishonest assholes
> 
> there are no other possibilities
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed.  Also, they are traitors to the American people!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The American people no longer need guns, and haven't for decades.
Click to expand...

I suppose I have no need to prevent a crack addict from robbing me at knife point or to prevent a violent drunk from raping my wife. I've done both.


----------



## ChrisL

PaintMyHouse said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the truth, brainless. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I stopped reading at this point.  You may or may not have made some good points but your insulting and personal attacks takes away from them.
> 
> Keep it up.  2016 is going to be a rough year for Reps unless you start accepting some kind of responsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> shut up fool-people who want to infringe on our rights mainly because they want to make things safer for criminals ar TURDS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not to mention, the particular poster is completely dishonest with just about everything and trying to twist facts to fit his agenda.  No way is that going to happen while I'm watching!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> gun banners are either ignorant/stupid morons or dishonest assholes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> AKA people with common sense so the gun nuts will hate them...
Click to expand...


No, they are stupid people with absolutely no common sense who want to live like sheep.  If you let the government mess with just ONE right, there is absolutely nothing to stop them from meddling with others.  Nothing at all, because you have now set a precedence.  That is why some of us are so bothered by this nonsense!  It is like an attack on our freedom.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Ernie S. said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> shut up fool-people who want to infringe on our rights mainly because they want to make things safer for criminals ar TURDS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention, the particular poster is completely dishonest with just about everything and trying to twist facts to fit his agenda.  No way is that going to happen while I'm watching!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> gun banners are either ignorant/stupid morons or dishonest assholes
> 
> there are no other possibilities
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed.  Also, they are traitors to the American people!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The American people no longer need guns, and haven't for decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I suppose I have no need to prevent a crack addict from robbing me at knife point or to prevent a violent drunk from raping my wife. I've done both.
Click to expand...

Neither required a gun.


----------



## ChrisL

PaintMyHouse said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I stopped reading at this point.  You may or may not have made some good points but your insulting and personal attacks takes away from them.
> 
> Keep it up.  2016 is going to be a rough year for Reps unless you start accepting some kind of responsibility.
> 
> 
> 
> shut up fool-people who want to infringe on our rights mainly because they want to make things safer for criminals ar TURDS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not to mention, the particular poster is completely dishonest with just about everything and trying to twist facts to fit his agenda.  No way is that going to happen while I'm watching!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> gun banners are either ignorant/stupid morons or dishonest assholes
> 
> there are no other possibilities
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed.  Also, they are traitors to the American people!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The American people no longer need guns, and haven't for decades.
Click to expand...


Says you, but we already know that you have an irrational fear of guns and run away from them whenever you see one.  Lol.


----------



## ChrisL

PaintMyHouse said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention, the particular poster is completely dishonest with just about everything and trying to twist facts to fit his agenda.  No way is that going to happen while I'm watching!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gun banners are either ignorant/stupid morons or dishonest assholes
> 
> there are no other possibilities
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed.  Also, they are traitors to the American people!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The American people no longer need guns, and haven't for decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I suppose I have no need to prevent a crack addict from robbing me at knife point or to prevent a violent drunk from raping my wife. I've done both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither required a gun.
Click to expand...


How in the hell would you know?


----------



## PaintMyHouse

ChrisL said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> shut up fool-people who want to infringe on our rights mainly because they want to make things safer for criminals ar TURDS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention, the particular poster is completely dishonest with just about everything and trying to twist facts to fit his agenda.  No way is that going to happen while I'm watching!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> gun banners are either ignorant/stupid morons or dishonest assholes
> 
> there are no other possibilities
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed.  Also, they are traitors to the American people!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The American people no longer need guns, and haven't for decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says you, but we already know that you have an irrational fear of guns and run away from them whenever you see one.  Lol.
Click to expand...

That must be why I have one five feet from me eh ****?


----------



## PaintMyHouse

ChrisL said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> gun banners are either ignorant/stupid morons or dishonest assholes
> 
> there are no other possibilities
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.  Also, they are traitors to the American people!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The American people no longer need guns, and haven't for decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I suppose I have no need to prevent a crack addict from robbing me at knife point or to prevent a violent drunk from raping my wife. I've done both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither required a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How in the hell would you know?
Click to expand...

Because if he had needed a gun someone would be dead, and no one is.


----------



## ChrisL

PaintMyHouse said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention, the particular poster is completely dishonest with just about everything and trying to twist facts to fit his agenda.  No way is that going to happen while I'm watching!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gun banners are either ignorant/stupid morons or dishonest assholes
> 
> there are no other possibilities
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed.  Also, they are traitors to the American people!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The American people no longer need guns, and haven't for decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says you, but we already know that you have an irrational fear of guns and run away from them whenever you see one.  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That must be why I have one five feet from me eh ****?
Click to expand...


You're just making shit up, of course.


----------



## ChrisL

PaintMyHouse said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.  Also, they are traitors to the American people!
> 
> 
> 
> The American people no longer need guns, and haven't for decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I suppose I have no need to prevent a crack addict from robbing me at knife point or to prevent a violent drunk from raping my wife. I've done both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither required a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How in the hell would you know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because if he had needed a gun someone would be dead, and no one is.
Click to expand...


That is not true, in the study by Dr. Kleck, it was found that most cases of self defense occur because the perp is scared away by the weapon (kind of like you), and runs away.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

ChrisL said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> gun banners are either ignorant/stupid morons or dishonest assholes
> 
> there are no other possibilities
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.  Also, they are traitors to the American people!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The American people no longer need guns, and haven't for decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says you, but we already know that you have an irrational fear of guns and run away from them whenever you see one.  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That must be why I have one five feet from me eh ****?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're just making shit up, of course.
Click to expand...

Nope.


----------



## ChrisL

That is the crux of the matter.  Those particular instances of self defense where no shots are fired, and the suspect is scared off by the sight of the weapon, are NOT counted as "self defense" even they are, CLEARLY.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

ChrisL said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> The American people no longer need guns, and haven't for decades.
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose I have no need to prevent a crack addict from robbing me at knife point or to prevent a violent drunk from raping my wife. I've done both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither required a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How in the hell would you know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because if he had needed a gun someone would be dead, and no one is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not true, in the study by Dr. Kleck, it was found that most cases of self defense occur because the perp is scared away by the weapon (kind of like you), and runs away.
Click to expand...

AKA pure bullshit.  People go for a gun and think they needed it, when they didn't.


----------



## ChrisL

PaintMyHouse said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose I have no need to prevent a crack addict from robbing me at knife point or to prevent a violent drunk from raping my wife. I've done both.
> 
> 
> 
> Neither required a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How in the hell would you know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because if he had needed a gun someone would be dead, and no one is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not true, in the study by Dr. Kleck, it was found that most cases of self defense occur because the perp is scared away by the weapon (kind of like you), and runs away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> AKA pure bullshit.  People go for a gun and think they needed it, when they didn't.
Click to expand...


You are full of it.  You do not know the suspect's intentions.  PLENTY of times people are raped, murdered, seriously assaulted so that they are NEVER the same afterwards, etc.

If someone busts in my door, I am not going to sit there and try to decide whether or not he means me harm, I am going to put a cap in his arse!    And ask questions later, or let God sort it out.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

ChrisL said:


> You do not know the suspect's intentions


Neither do you, but you think the gun protected you, and it didn't since you were never in harm's way.


----------



## ChrisL

Some more interesting information I'd like to share here. 

Who Has Guns and How Are They Acquired National Institute of Justice

*Who Has Guns and How Are They Acquired?*
NIJ's earliest firearms studies uncovered who owns guns, legally and illegally, and how illegal gun trafficking is tied to juvenile gun violence and other crimes such as drug dealing and gang crime. Highlights of these studies:


Many juveniles and young adults can easily obtain guns illegally; most claim to carry them for self-defense.
A study of persons arrested for a wide range of crimes showed that a higher percentage of arrestees than regular citizens own firearms. Arrestees are also more likely to be injured or killed by gun violence. Within a community, this amounts to an identifiable group of “career” offenders.
Surveys of offenders have found that they prefer newer, high-quality guns and may steal or borrow them; most, however, acquire guns “off the street” through the illicit gun market.



PaintMyHouse said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do not know the suspect's intentions
> 
> 
> 
> Neither do you, but you think the gun protected you, and it didn't since you were never in harm's way.
Click to expand...


Are you for real?  Who do you think you're convincing with this retarded angle?    You don't know if you are in harm's way because you cannot know what the suspect's intentions are.  If you would rather take the chance that he is going to be nice to you, then by all means.  I would not be that dumb though.


----------



## ChrisL

PaintMyHouse said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do not know the suspect's intentions
> 
> 
> 
> Neither do you, but you think the gun protected you, and it didn't since you were never in harm's way.
Click to expand...


God, what a stupid post.  It might just be one of the MOST stupid posts I've ever read.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

ChrisL said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do not know the suspect's intentions
> 
> 
> 
> Neither do you, but you think the gun protected you, and it didn't since you were never in harm's way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God, what a stupid post.  It might just be one of the MOST stupid posts I've ever read.
Click to expand...

You believe lies.  I can't help that.


----------



## ChrisL

PaintMyHouse said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do not know the suspect's intentions
> 
> 
> 
> Neither do you, but you think the gun protected you, and it didn't since you were never in harm's way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God, what a stupid post.  It might just be one of the MOST stupid posts I've ever read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You believe lies.  I can't help that.
Click to expand...


What lies?  Specify or GTFO.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

ChrisL said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do not know the suspect's intentions
> 
> 
> 
> Neither do you, but you think the gun protected you, and it didn't since you were never in harm's way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God, what a stupid post.  It might just be one of the MOST stupid posts I've ever read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You believe lies.  I can't help that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What lies?  Specify or GTFO.
Click to expand...

The lie that guns saves lives.  Guns take lives, they don't save them, and they were never designed to.


----------



## ChrisL

PaintMyHouse said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do not know the suspect's intentions
> 
> 
> 
> Neither do you, but you think the gun protected you, and it didn't since you were never in harm's way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God, what a stupid post.  It might just be one of the MOST stupid posts I've ever read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You believe lies.  I can't help that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What lies?  Specify or GTFO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The lie that guns saves lives.  Guns take lives, they don't save them, and they were never designed to.
Click to expand...


Sure they do.  You are wrong.  Guns work well for self defense, especially since most of the time, just the sight of the gun scares the perp away.  

Not to mention, like I said earlier, if you let the government mess with one right, that gives them freedom to mess with others too.  It is stupid beyond belief.


----------



## Ernie S.

PaintMyHouse said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention, the particular poster is completely dishonest with just about everything and trying to twist facts to fit his agenda.  No way is that going to happen while I'm watching!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gun banners are either ignorant/stupid morons or dishonest assholes
> 
> there are no other possibilities
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed.  Also, they are traitors to the American people!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The American people no longer need guns, and haven't for decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I suppose I have no need to prevent a crack addict from robbing me at knife point or to prevent a violent drunk from raping my wife. I've done both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither required a gun.
Click to expand...

Neither required me to discharge my weapon, but both cases required me to show it, unless you think I should be able to defend myself from a 6 foot tall 200 pound man with a knife in one case or a 6'2" 280 pound drunk in the other. 
Would you prefer I wait a half hour for a cop? Or should a man 5'9 and 135 pounds be able to ward off these attacks alone?


----------



## ChrisL

Ernie S. said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> gun banners are either ignorant/stupid morons or dishonest assholes
> 
> there are no other possibilities
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.  Also, they are traitors to the American people!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The American people no longer need guns, and haven't for decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I suppose I have no need to prevent a crack addict from robbing me at knife point or to prevent a violent drunk from raping my wife. I've done both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither required a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither required me to discharge my weapon, but both cases required me to show it, unless you think I should be able to defend myself from a 6 foot tall 200 pound man with a knife in one case or a 6'2" 280 pound drunk in the other.
> Would you prefer I wait a half hour for a cop? Or should a man 5'9 and 135 pounds be able to ward off these attacks alone?
Click to expand...


He doesn't care about you.  He only cares about his stupid ridiculous ideology and what his "leaders" tell him to think and say.


----------



## Ernie S.

PaintMyHouse said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do not know the suspect's intentions
> 
> 
> 
> Neither do you, but you think the gun protected you, and it didn't since you were never in harm's way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God, what a stupid post.  It might just be one of the MOST stupid posts I've ever read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You believe lies.  I can't help that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What lies?  Specify or GTFO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The lie that guns saves lives.  Guns take lives, they don't save them, and they were never designed to.
Click to expand...

Guns were designed to take lives. That is quite correct. Sometimes it is necessary to take a life in defense of another life. I really don't want to be placed in the position of executioner, but I would gladly take the life of a thug if I was defending my wife or child. Would you?
If not, perhaps you are somewhat less than a man.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Ernie S. said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither do you, but you think the gun protected you, and it didn't since you were never in harm's way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God, what a stupid post.  It might just be one of the MOST stupid posts I've ever read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You believe lies.  I can't help that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What lies?  Specify or GTFO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The lie that guns saves lives.  Guns take lives, they don't save them, and they were never designed to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guns were designed to take lives. That is quite correct. Sometimes it is necessary to take a life in defense of another life. I really don't want to be placed in the position of executioner, but I would gladly take the life of a thug if I was defending my wife or child. Would you?
> If not, perhaps you are somewhat less than a man.
Click to expand...

Unlike you, I don't need a gun to be a man.

I do appreciate you saying guns are for taking lives though.  That's far more honest than most here.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

ChrisL said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.  Also, they are traitors to the American people!
> 
> 
> 
> The American people no longer need guns, and haven't for decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I suppose I have no need to prevent a crack addict from robbing me at knife point or to prevent a violent drunk from raping my wife. I've done both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither required a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither required me to discharge my weapon, but both cases required me to show it, unless you think I should be able to defend myself from a 6 foot tall 200 pound man with a knife in one case or a 6'2" 280 pound drunk in the other.
> Would you prefer I wait a half hour for a cop? Or should a man 5'9 and 135 pounds be able to ward off these attacks alone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He doesn't care about you.  He only cares about his stupid ridiculous ideology and what his "leaders" tell him to think and say.
Click to expand...

The ideology is yours.  I deal in reality where guns are for killing things.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Ernie S. said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> gun banners are either ignorant/stupid morons or dishonest assholes
> 
> there are no other possibilities
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.  Also, they are traitors to the American people!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The American people no longer need guns, and haven't for decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I suppose I have no need to prevent a crack addict from robbing me at knife point or to prevent a violent drunk from raping my wife. I've done both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither required a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither required me to discharge my weapon, but both cases required me to show it, unless you think I should be able to defend myself from a 6 foot tall 200 pound man with a knife in one case or a 6'2" 280 pound drunk in the other.
> Would you prefer I wait a half hour for a cop? Or should a man 5'9 and 135 pounds be able to ward off these attacks alone?
Click to expand...

One wanted money and the other was drunk.  Just because you are a tiny man doesn't mean you required a gun to be a real one.  Had you truly needed a gun someone would have died, and they didn't, which means it was unnecessary in the first place.


----------



## Ernie S.

PaintMyHouse said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose I have no need to prevent a crack addict from robbing me at knife point or to prevent a violent drunk from raping my wife. I've done both.
> 
> 
> 
> Neither required a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How in the hell would you know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because if he had needed a gun someone would be dead, and no one is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not true, in the study by Dr. Kleck, it was found that most cases of self defense occur because the perp is scared away by the weapon (kind of like you), and runs away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> AKA pure bullshit.  People go for a gun and think they needed it, when they didn't.
Click to expand...

A guy walking towards me with a knife in his hand is clearly a case where I needed to defend myself. I showed the grips of my very large revolver with my right hand poised very close to it and he turned and ran when he was still maybe 20 feet away. Had he continued in my direction, he would have met his maker.
Had I seen the knife before he turned away from me, I would have drawn the gun and likely fired 2 .44 caliber bullets into his chest. I would not have lost any sleep.

Well maybe a little. A .44 magnum is very loud and causes a ringing in your ears that lasts hours.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Ernie S. said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither required a gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How in the hell would you know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because if he had needed a gun someone would be dead, and no one is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not true, in the study by Dr. Kleck, it was found that most cases of self defense occur because the perp is scared away by the weapon (kind of like you), and runs away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> AKA pure bullshit.  People go for a gun and think they needed it, when they didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A guy walking towards me with a knife in his hand is clearly a case where I needed to defend myself. I showed the grips of my very large revolver with my right hand poised very close to it and he turned and ran when he was still maybe 20 feet away. Had he continued in my direction, he would have met his maker.
> Had I seen the knife before he turned away from me, I would have drawn the gun and likely fired 2 .44 caliber bullets into his chest. I would not have lost any sleep.
> 
> Well maybe a little. A .44 magnum is very loud and causes a ringing in your ears that lasts hours.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you're a real tough there 140 pounds of soaking wet manhood...


----------



## Ernie S.

PaintMyHouse said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> The American people no longer need guns, and haven't for decades.
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose I have no need to prevent a crack addict from robbing me at knife point or to prevent a violent drunk from raping my wife. I've done both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither required a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither required me to discharge my weapon, but both cases required me to show it, unless you think I should be able to defend myself from a 6 foot tall 200 pound man with a knife in one case or a 6'2" 280 pound drunk in the other.
> Would you prefer I wait a half hour for a cop? Or should a man 5'9 and 135 pounds be able to ward off these attacks alone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He doesn't care about you.  He only cares about his stupid ridiculous ideology and what his "leaders" tell him to think and say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The ideology is yours.  I deal in reality where guns are for killing things.
Click to expand...

Guns are for killing food, enemy soldiers and predators. Thieves and rapists are predators.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Ernie S. said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose I have no need to prevent a crack addict from robbing me at knife point or to prevent a violent drunk from raping my wife. I've done both.
> 
> 
> 
> Neither required a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither required me to discharge my weapon, but both cases required me to show it, unless you think I should be able to defend myself from a 6 foot tall 200 pound man with a knife in one case or a 6'2" 280 pound drunk in the other.
> Would you prefer I wait a half hour for a cop? Or should a man 5'9 and 135 pounds be able to ward off these attacks alone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He doesn't care about you.  He only cares about his stupid ridiculous ideology and what his "leaders" tell him to think and say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The ideology is yours.  I deal in reality where guns are for killing things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guns are for killing food, enemy soldiers and predators. Thieves and rapists are predators.
Click to expand...

Is your shit worthy of killing a human being, yes or no?


----------



## Ernie S.

PaintMyHouse said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.  Also, they are traitors to the American people!
> 
> 
> 
> The American people no longer need guns, and haven't for decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I suppose I have no need to prevent a crack addict from robbing me at knife point or to prevent a violent drunk from raping my wife. I've done both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither required a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither required me to discharge my weapon, but both cases required me to show it, unless you think I should be able to defend myself from a 6 foot tall 200 pound man with a knife in one case or a 6'2" 280 pound drunk in the other.
> Would you prefer I wait a half hour for a cop? Or should a man 5'9 and 135 pounds be able to ward off these attacks alone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One wanted money and the other was drunk.  Just because you are a tiny man doesn't mean you required a gun to be a real one.  Had you truly needed a gun someone would have died, and they didn't, which means it was unnecessary in the first place.
Click to expand...

It was only unnecessary to cause the guns to make a very loud noise. Had I not had a gun, my wife would have been raped and I would have been robbed and likely stabbed, but because no one died, your claim is the weapons were unnecessary. You're not only less than a man, you are less than simply mildly retarded.


----------



## Ernie S.

PaintMyHouse said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither required a gun.
> 
> 
> 
> Neither required me to discharge my weapon, but both cases required me to show it, unless you think I should be able to defend myself from a 6 foot tall 200 pound man with a knife in one case or a 6'2" 280 pound drunk in the other.
> Would you prefer I wait a half hour for a cop? Or should a man 5'9 and 135 pounds be able to ward off these attacks alone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He doesn't care about you.  He only cares about his stupid ridiculous ideology and what his "leaders" tell him to think and say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The ideology is yours.  I deal in reality where guns are for killing things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guns are for killing food, enemy soldiers and predators. Thieves and rapists are predators.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is your shit worthy of killing a human being, yes or no?
Click to expand...

Yes! You bet your ass it is. I worked for my possessions. I own them. I will defend my family and my home with all the force necessary.

Let me ask you a question: If you came home from work and found someone attempting to rape your wife, what would you do?


----------



## Ernie S.

PaintMyHouse said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> How in the hell would you know?
> 
> 
> 
> Because if he had needed a gun someone would be dead, and no one is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not true, in the study by Dr. Kleck, it was found that most cases of self defense occur because the perp is scared away by the weapon (kind of like you), and runs away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> AKA pure bullshit.  People go for a gun and think they needed it, when they didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A guy walking towards me with a knife in his hand is clearly a case where I needed to defend myself. I showed the grips of my very large revolver with my right hand poised very close to it and he turned and ran when he was still maybe 20 feet away. Had he continued in my direction, he would have met his maker.
> Had I seen the knife before he turned away from me, I would have drawn the gun and likely fired 2 .44 caliber bullets into his chest. I would not have lost any sleep.
> 
> Well maybe a little. A .44 magnum is very loud and causes a ringing in your ears that lasts hours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, you're a real tough there 140 pounds of soaking wet manhood...
Click to expand...

I am small. I'll grant you that, but I am NOT a coward, coward.


----------



## Ernie S.

PaintMyHouse said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> God, what a stupid post.  It might just be one of the MOST stupid posts I've ever read.
> 
> 
> 
> You believe lies.  I can't help that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What lies?  Specify or GTFO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The lie that guns saves lives.  Guns take lives, they don't save them, and they were never designed to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guns were designed to take lives. That is quite correct. Sometimes it is necessary to take a life in defense of another life. I really don't want to be placed in the position of executioner, but I would gladly take the life of a thug if I was defending my wife or child. Would you?
> If not, perhaps you are somewhat less than a man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unlike you, I don't need a gun to be a man.
> 
> I do appreciate you saying guns are for taking lives though.  That's far more honest than most here.
Click to expand...

What then, makes you a man? If you are not willing to defend your family, I say you are nothing but a pussy coward. WHAT WOULD YOU DO?


----------



## Ernie S.

As they say, never get involved in a fight with an old man. If he figures he can't take you, he'll just kill you dead.


----------



## Abishai100

*Water-Guns: Behavior Rant*


Remember folks that the Constitution was designed to promote debate and encourage revision.

When it was written, America was just forming out of the chaos of a quickly-assembled colonial militia - turned - provisional government.  People still felt like decentralized village-based governance was the way to go in a pioneerism-centric New World and therefore the proverbial right to bear arms was considered a community values issue (and not a political one).

Can we reorient this issue to coordinate with modern age consumerism as it relates the marketing of war-themed toys?

For example, many toy stores in the USA and toy store chains such as Toys 'R Us carry plastic water-guns on their shelves.  These water-guns have become popular consumer products for children during summer month sales, when the temperature is hot and outdoor water games are celebrated.

If we trumpet the 'right to bear arms' even today as neighborhood curfews are being effectively administered, how should we talk about the potential anti-violence imagination created in the consumer market by water-guns?






Curfew - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Ernie S. said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither required me to discharge my weapon, but both cases required me to show it, unless you think I should be able to defend myself from a 6 foot tall 200 pound man with a knife in one case or a 6'2" 280 pound drunk in the other.
> Would you prefer I wait a half hour for a cop? Or should a man 5'9 and 135 pounds be able to ward off these attacks alone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He doesn't care about you.  He only cares about his stupid ridiculous ideology and what his "leaders" tell him to think and say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The ideology is yours.  I deal in reality where guns are for killing things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guns are for killing food, enemy soldiers and predators. Thieves and rapists are predators.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is your shit worthy of killing a human being, yes or no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes! You bet your ass it is. I worked for my possessions. I own them. I will defend my family and my home with all the force necessary.
> 
> Let me ask you a question: If you came home from work and found someone attempting to rape your wife, what would you do?
Click to expand...

Your material shit is worth more than a human life?  Good to know little man.


----------



## Ernie S.

PaintMyHouse said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> He doesn't care about you.  He only cares about his stupid ridiculous ideology and what his "leaders" tell him to think and say.
> 
> 
> 
> The ideology is yours.  I deal in reality where guns are for killing things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guns are for killing food, enemy soldiers and predators. Thieves and rapists are predators.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is your shit worthy of killing a human being, yes or no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes! You bet your ass it is. I worked for my possessions. I own them. I will defend my family and my home with all the force necessary.
> 
> Let me ask you a question: If you came home from work and found someone attempting to rape your wife, what would you do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cut his balls off, but I'd be too late since she is a real woman and I am a real man, and we both outweigh your gun-toting teenage boy skinny ass.
Click to expand...

You'd cut his balls off? Yeah right. You'd hide in the closet and then offer him a cigarette when he was done, coward.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Ernie S. said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ideology is yours.  I deal in reality where guns are for killing things.
> 
> 
> 
> Guns are for killing food, enemy soldiers and predators. Thieves and rapists are predators.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is your shit worthy of killing a human being, yes or no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes! You bet your ass it is. I worked for my possessions. I own them. I will defend my family and my home with all the force necessary.
> 
> Let me ask you a question: If you came home from work and found someone attempting to rape your wife, what would you do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cut his balls off, but I'd be too late since she is a real woman and I am a real man, and we both outweigh your gun-toting teenage boy skinny ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You'd cut his balls off? Yeah right. You'd hide in the closet and then offer him a cigarette when he was done, coward.
Click to expand...

Take your tiny wounded ego and dick to bed little man.


----------



## Ernie S.

PaintMyHouse said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> He doesn't care about you.  He only cares about his stupid ridiculous ideology and what his "leaders" tell him to think and say.
> 
> 
> 
> The ideology is yours.  I deal in reality where guns are for killing things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guns are for killing food, enemy soldiers and predators. Thieves and rapists are predators.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is your shit worthy of killing a human being, yes or no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes! You bet your ass it is. I worked for my possessions. I own them. I will defend my family and my home with all the force necessary.
> 
> Let me ask you a question: If you came home from work and found someone attempting to rape your wife, what would you do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your material shit is worth more than a human life?  Good to know little man.
Click to expand...

It's worth more than the punk ass thug who thinks the world owes him what others have worked for.

If you want something from me, ask. I am a generous man. BUT violate my home and family and I get a bit hard hearted.


----------



## Ernie S.

PaintMyHouse said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guns are for killing food, enemy soldiers and predators. Thieves and rapists are predators.
> 
> 
> 
> Is your shit worthy of killing a human being, yes or no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes! You bet your ass it is. I worked for my possessions. I own them. I will defend my family and my home with all the force necessary.
> 
> Let me ask you a question: If you came home from work and found someone attempting to rape your wife, what would you do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cut his balls off, but I'd be too late since she is a real woman and I am a real man, and we both outweigh your gun-toting teenage boy skinny ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You'd cut his balls off? Yeah right. You'd hide in the closet and then offer him a cigarette when he was done, coward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take your tiny wounded ego and dick to bed little man.
Click to expand...

Aren't you about due to cough up a hairball, pussy?


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Ernie S. said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ideology is yours.  I deal in reality where guns are for killing things.
> 
> 
> 
> Guns are for killing food, enemy soldiers and predators. Thieves and rapists are predators.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is your shit worthy of killing a human being, yes or no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes! You bet your ass it is. I worked for my possessions. I own them. I will defend my family and my home with all the force necessary.
> 
> Let me ask you a question: If you came home from work and found someone attempting to rape your wife, what would you do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your material shit is worth more than a human life?  Good to know little man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's worth more than the punk ass thug who thinks the world owes him what others have worked for.
> 
> If you want something from me, ask. I am a generous man. BUT violate my home and family and I get a bit hard.
Click to expand...

Your value of human life has already been noted.  When the guy tries to flee with cash you'll shoot him in the back, like any other psycho with a gun.  No worries.


----------



## AntiParty

Guns are important in society. Lack of what was supposed to be a "well regulated militia" has caused many issues, mostly because Corporate Arms have convinced small brains that "regulated" means it's secondary meaning. When guns are regulated and stupid people don't get a chance to own them legally, there will be very little gun violence.

This pack of ignorant gun owners stating we can never have regulation are the cause of all this. Also, this pack of ignorant non- gun owners seem to think the only answer is to ban all guns.

REGULATION is key and it always has been. The words of the Constitution have been tainted by the Weapons Manufacturers that flood the NRA with money who then flood the (R)ight Wing with money.

What we have today is a society of gun owners that openly justify national homicide cases because they are scared to lose their guns. And we have gun owners trying to say that "hammers" are relatable to guns.........proof they don't know the gravity of knowledge that SHOULD come with gun ownership.

I've always proposed forced education and grandfather clause out 100 round mags and silencers. Funny thing is when I propose to force *education* on gun owners, *some say that infringes their right to have a gun*


----------



## AntiParty

Just for fun, let's take the car discussion lately. "cars kill more than guns"

First of all, it takes education and a test to prove you are responsible to drive a car.

Secondly, cars were designed to drive. Guns were designed to kill. If you can't accept this historical fact, you aren't a responsible gun owner.

Last, if you are one who says, "Criminals are just going to get them anyway" you are a NIHILIST and nothing more. Your argument in whole is that we shouldn't have laws because criminals will just disobey them anyway........


----------



## Ernie S.

PaintMyHouse said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes! You bet your ass it is. I worked for my possessions. I own them. I will defend my family and my home with all the force necessary.
> 
> Let me ask you a question: If you came home from work and found someone attempting to rape your wife, what would you do?
> 
> 
> 
> Cut his balls off, but I'd be too late since she is a real woman and I am a real man, and we both outweigh your gun-toting teenage boy skinny ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You'd cut his balls off? Yeah right. You'd hide in the closet and then offer him a cigarette when he was done, coward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take your tiny wounded ego and dick to bed little man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aren't you about due to cough up a hairball, pussy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Men with small penis syndrome don't concern me in the slightest.  It's why you cherish those big black phallic symbols, and so does the wife I hear.
Click to expand...

Bu-Bye...


----------



## Ernie S.

AntiParty said:


> Guns are important in society. Lack of what was supposed to be a "well regulated militia" has caused many issues, mostly because Corporate Arms have convinced small brains that "regulated" means it's secondary meaning. When guns are regulated and stupid people don't get a chance to own them legally, there will be very little gun violence.
> 
> This pack of ignorant gun owners stating we can never have regulation are the cause of all this. Also, this pack of ignorant non- gun owners seem to think the only answer is to ban all guns.
> 
> REGULATION is key and it always has been. The words of the Constitution have been tainted by the Weapons Manufacturers that flood the NRA with money who then flood the (R)ight Wing with money.
> 
> What we have today is a society of gun owners that openly justify national homicide cases because they are scared to lose their guns. And we have gun owners trying to say that "hammers" are relatable to guns.........proof they don't know the gravity of knowledge that SHOULD come with gun ownership.
> 
> I've always proposed forced education and grandfather clause out 100 round mags and silencers. Funny thing is when I propose to force *education* on gun owners, *some say that infringes their right to have a gun*


You don't even know what "well regulated militia" means, do you?


----------



## AntiParty

Ernie S. said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guns are important in society. Lack of what was supposed to be a "well regulated militia" has caused many issues, mostly because Corporate Arms have convinced small brains that "regulated" means it's secondary meaning. When guns are regulated and stupid people don't get a chance to own them legally, there will be very little gun violence.
> 
> This pack of ignorant gun owners stating we can never have regulation are the cause of all this. Also, this pack of ignorant non- gun owners seem to think the only answer is to ban all guns.
> 
> REGULATION is key and it always has been. The words of the Constitution have been tainted by the Weapons Manufacturers that flood the NRA with money who then flood the (R)ight Wing with money.
> 
> What we have today is a society of gun owners that openly justify national homicide cases because they are scared to lose their guns. And we have gun owners trying to say that "hammers" are relatable to guns.........proof they don't know the gravity of knowledge that SHOULD come with gun ownership.
> 
> I've always proposed forced education and grandfather clause out 100 round mags and silencers. Funny thing is when I propose to force *education* on gun owners, *some say that infringes their right to have a gun*
> 
> 
> 
> You don't even know what "well regulated militia" means, do you?
Click to expand...


^See lol...........He thinks he does..........He thinks "regulated" means "well trained" even though that is the SECONDARY definition. He will claim, "it didn't use to be".........

Just another small brain that listened to the $ driven NRA.

The least regulated Countries have the most gun violence, fun fact!

But to counter, gun free zones have even more.

So yes on regulation, no on bans. Pretty simple.


----------



## Ernie S.

> This concept of the people's self-regulation, that is, non-governmental regulation, is also in keeping with the limited grant of power to Congress "for calling forth" the militia for only certain, limited purposes, to "provide for" the militia only certain limited control and equipment, and the limited grant of power to the President regarding the militia, who only serves as Commander in Chief of that portion of the militia called into the actual service of the nation. The "well regula[tion]" of the militia set forth in the Second Amendment was apart from that control over the militia exercised by Congress and the President, which extended only to that part of the militia called into actual service of the Union. Thus, "well regula[tion]" referred to something else. _*Since the fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, it would seem the words "well regulated" referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia(s) have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government's standing army. *_
> 
> This view is confirmed by Alexander Hamilton's observation, in The Federalist, No. 29, regarding the people's militias ability to be a match for a standing army: " . . . but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights . . . ."
> 
> It is an absolute truism that law-abiding, armed citizens pose no threat to other law-abiding citizens. The Framers' writings show they also believed this. As we have seen, the Framers understood that "well regulated" militias, that is, armed citizens, ready to form militias that would be well trained, self-regulated and disciplined, would pose no threat to their fellow citizens, but would, indeed, help to "insure domestic Tranquility" and "provide for the common defence."


----------



## turtledude

PaintMyHouse said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.  Also, they are traitors to the American people!
> 
> 
> 
> The American people no longer need guns, and haven't for decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says you, but we already know that you have an irrational fear of guns and run away from them whenever you see one.  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That must be why I have one five feet from me eh ****?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're just making shit up, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.
Click to expand...


of course you are

you are a garment soiling coward


----------



## turtledude

AntiParty said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guns are important in society. Lack of what was supposed to be a "well regulated militia" has caused many issues, mostly because Corporate Arms have convinced small brains that "regulated" means it's secondary meaning. When guns are regulated and stupid people don't get a chance to own them legally, there will be very little gun violence.
> 
> This pack of ignorant gun owners stating we can never have regulation are the cause of all this. Also, this pack of ignorant non- gun owners seem to think the only answer is to ban all guns.
> 
> REGULATION is key and it always has been. The words of the Constitution have been tainted by the Weapons Manufacturers that flood the NRA with money who then flood the (R)ight Wing with money.
> 
> What we have today is a society of gun owners that openly justify national homicide cases because they are scared to lose their guns. And we have gun owners trying to say that "hammers" are relatable to guns.........proof they don't know the gravity of knowledge that SHOULD come with gun ownership.
> 
> I've always proposed forced education and grandfather clause out 100 round mags and silencers. Funny thing is when I propose to force *education* on gun owners, *some say that infringes their right to have a gun*
> 
> 
> 
> You don't even know what "well regulated militia" means, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^See lol...........He thinks he does..........He thinks "regulated" means "well trained" even though that is the SECONDARY definition. He will claim, "it didn't use to be".........
> 
> Just another small brain that listened to the $ driven NRA.
> 
> The least regulated Countries have the most gun violence, fun fact!
> 
> But to counter, gun free zones have even more.
> 
> So yes on regulation, no on bans. Pretty simple.
Click to expand...


still a moron on this board


----------



## Kondor3

You're not going to get the guns.

No means No.


----------



## Brain357

AntiParty said:


> Just for fun, let's take the car discussion lately. "cars kill more than guns"
> 
> First of all, it takes education and a test to prove you are responsible to drive a car.
> 
> Secondly, cars were designed to drive. Guns were designed to kill. If you can't accept this historical fact, you aren't a responsible gun owner.
> 
> Last, if you are one who says, "Criminals are just going to get them anyway" you are a NIHILIST and nothing more. Your argument in whole is that we shouldn't have laws because criminals will just disobey them anyway........



Don't forget cars are used daily by most people.  Most people will never need to use a gun.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> So now Brain357 , now you can STOP asking why the US has a higher murder rate than some other countries.  The answer is gang violence.  Now, do you want to ban black people?



That seems like a rather silly question.  How about background checks on private sales and registration?


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most people can't hit the inside of a barn when they shoot a fully automatic weapon.  The person taking rapid single shots is far more deadly.  If you weren't such an ignorant twit you would know that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> true-automatic fire-suppress movement, break contact
> 
> single shots-inflict casualties
> 
> 1989=Turtle doing demo for news chicks at a range north of Cincinnati
> 
> 10 IPSC targets 1.5 yards apart-20 yards down range
> 
> turtle-one colt SMG 9mm32 round magazine
> 
> 1) shot full auto-32 rounds in about 2 seconds-hit most of the targets
> 
> 2) shot semi auto-one shot per target-all center of mass-less than 3 seconds-had 22 rounds left and all the targets were hit so as to normally be fatal in 75% of the cases
> 
> 3) one shot per target-head shots-all targets hit in the head in less than 4 seconds-all guaranteed kills with 22 rounds left
> 
> 4) one 10 shot semi auto shotgun loaded with federal tactical # 4 buckshot
> 
> less than 3 seconds-every target filled with at least 15 holes
> 
> full auto least "deadly"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see what you ment now by "deadly".  What applications do you see civilians needing a machine gun for?  There is only about 230 criminals killed in defense each year.  Based on the number of defenses that is already quite a low number.  I don't think you can get much less deadly to criminals than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You know the 230 number is probably too low.....when a homicide is changed from murder to justified by a prosecutor or the killer is found innocent in court, the FBI doesn't change the data....so that number is off....probably too low....but still pretty good considering that law abiding gun owners use their guns 1.6 million times a year to stop violent criminal attack and save lives....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is from the FBI.  Not going to find more accurate number.  You mean mostly criminals defending themselves as kleck has admitted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a dishonest POS.
Click to expand...


I have posted the quote from Kleck several times.  Sorry the truth doesn't go with your agenda.


----------



## Esmeralda

Lakhota said:


> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
Click to expand...

I think the right to bear arms is obsolete, absolutely. It should be a privilege, not a right.  Most of the pro-2nd amendment posters on here are hysterical people with limited intelligence and borderline personalities. I think it is a disgrace that such people have the right to own guns.  Being able to own a gun is something that should be earned and that privilge should maintained by specific behavior.  I remember, some years ago, a guy telling me he accidently shot his roommate's cat which was sitting on the couch  next to him. He thought it was funny. Such a moron should not have the right to own a gun.


----------



## Esmeralda

Two Thumbs said:


> sfcalifornia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> A well armed popalance is respected by government
> A disarmed popalance is dictated to by government
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please.  What do you think, congresspeople sit around and say, "ooo we'd better not pass that law...  Matthew will get his gun and shoot us!!"  Give me a frickin' break.  Go ahead and try to form a militia group or whatever.  See how far you get before you're all squashed like bugs.
> 
> It's populace btw, not populance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you saying you want freedom loving, Constitution following Americans to get killed?
Click to expand...

You only want freedom for the things you want. You don't want people with whom you disagree to have freedom.


----------



## ChrisL

AntiParty said:


> Just for fun, let's take the car discussion lately. "cars kill more than guns"
> 
> First of all, it takes education and a test to prove you are responsible to drive a car.
> 
> Secondly, cars were designed to drive. Guns were designed to kill. If you can't accept this historical fact, you aren't a responsible gun owner.
> 
> Last, if you are one who says, "Criminals are just going to get them anyway" you are a NIHILIST and nothing more. Your argument in whole is that we shouldn't have laws because criminals will just disobey them anyway........



Yes, fantastic, for fun.  

1)  DRIVING a vehicle is NOT a right.  It is a privilege.  
2)  Even THOUGH they are educated and licensed, car accidents are still the NUMBER 1 killer in the United States.  Cars kill many, many, many more people than guns.  Key Data and Statistics Injury Center CDC
3)  You are so full of shit, I can smell you from here.


----------



## ChrisL

AntiParty said:


> Guns are important in society. Lack of what was supposed to be a "well regulated militia" has caused many issues, mostly because Corporate Arms have convinced small brains that "regulated" means it's secondary meaning. When guns are regulated and stupid people don't get a chance to own them legally, there will be very little gun violence.
> 
> This pack of ignorant gun owners stating we can never have regulation are the cause of all this. Also, this pack of ignorant non- gun owners seem to think the only answer is to ban all guns.
> 
> REGULATION is key and it always has been. The words of the Constitution have been tainted by the Weapons Manufacturers that flood the NRA with money who then flood the (R)ight Wing with money.
> 
> What we have today is a society of gun owners that openly justify national homicide cases because they are scared to lose their guns. And we have gun owners trying to say that "hammers" are relatable to guns.........proof they don't know the gravity of knowledge that SHOULD come with gun ownership.
> 
> I've always proposed forced education and grandfather clause out 100 round mags and silencers. Funny thing is when I propose to force *education* on gun owners, *some say that infringes their right to have a gun*



Should we "regulate" your right to vote too?


----------



## ChrisL

PaintMyHouse said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> How in the hell would you know?
> 
> 
> 
> Because if he had needed a gun someone would be dead, and no one is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not true, in the study by Dr. Kleck, it was found that most cases of self defense occur because the perp is scared away by the weapon (kind of like you), and runs away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> AKA pure bullshit.  People go for a gun and think they needed it, when they didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A guy walking towards me with a knife in his hand is clearly a case where I needed to defend myself. I showed the grips of my very large revolver with my right hand poised very close to it and he turned and ran when he was still maybe 20 feet away. Had he continued in my direction, he would have met his maker.
> Had I seen the knife before he turned away from me, I would have drawn the gun and likely fired 2 .44 caliber bullets into his chest. I would not have lost any sleep.
> 
> Well maybe a little. A .44 magnum is very loud and causes a ringing in your ears that lasts hours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, you're a real tough there 140 pounds of soaking wet manhood...
Click to expand...


Yes, a gun is an equalizer.    I am a small woman, only 5 feet 1 inch tall and probably weigh 100 pounds soaking wet.  Do I want to be able to get a gun (with LOTS of bullets) to protect myself against any potential attackers if I so choose to have one, you bet your butt I do!  Do I care if you think I'm "tough" or not because of that?  Not at all.  What you and others THINK would be very low on my list f priorities or things that matter.  The safety and life of me and my loved ones, OTOH, is number one on that list.


----------



## ChrisL

Esmeralda said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think the right to bear arms is obsolete, absolutely. It should be a privilege, not a right.  Most of the pro-2nd amendment posters on here are hysterical people with limited intelligence and borderline personalities. I think it is a disgrace that such people have the right to own guns.  Being able to own a gun is something that should be earned and that privilge should maintained by specific behavior.  I remember, some years ago, a guy telling me he accidently shot his roommate's cat which was sitting on the couch  next to him. He thought it was funny. Such a moron should not have the right to own a gun.
Click to expand...


Accidental shootings make up a VERY small percentage of all shootings.  The largest percentage of gun deaths is related to suicide and gang warfare.


----------



## ChrisL

Esmeralda said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think the right to bear arms is obsolete, absolutely. It should be a privilege, not a right.  Most of the pro-2nd amendment posters on here are hysterical people with limited intelligence and borderline personalities. I think it is a disgrace that such people have the right to own guns.  Being able to own a gun is something that should be earned and that privilge should maintained by specific behavior.  I remember, some years ago, a guy telling me he accidently shot his roommate's cat which was sitting on the couch  next to him. He thought it was funny. Such a moron should not have the right to own a gun.
Click to expand...


So, basically because there are SOME morons, you want to limit or take away a RIGHT from all citizens unless YOU feel they are worthy to practice a constitutionally guaranteed right?


----------



## Esmeralda

ChrisL said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think the right to bear arms is obsolete, absolutely. It should be a privilege, not a right.  Most of the pro-2nd amendment posters on here are hysterical people with limited intelligence and borderline personalities. I think it is a disgrace that such people have the right to own guns.  Being able to own a gun is something that should be earned and that privilge should maintained by specific behavior.  I remember, some years ago, a guy telling me he accidently shot his roommate's cat which was sitting on the couch  next to him. He thought it was funny. Such a moron should not have the right to own a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Accidental shootings make up a VERY small percentage of all shootings.  The largest percentage of gun deaths is related to suicide and gang warfare.
Click to expand...

That's not my point. The point is what is he doing sitting on the couch playing with a loaded gun?  What kind of judgment does this guy have? And, why does he think it is funny when he kills something? He's a moron and should not have the privilege of owning a gun.


----------



## Esmeralda

ChrisL said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think the right to bear arms is obsolete, absolutely. It should be a privilege, not a right.  Most of the pro-2nd amendment posters on here are hysterical people with limited intelligence and borderline personalities. I think it is a disgrace that such people have the right to own guns.  Being able to own a gun is something that should be earned and that privilge should maintained by specific behavior.  I remember, some years ago, a guy telling me he accidently shot his roommate's cat which was sitting on the couch  next to him. He thought it was funny. Such a moron should not have the right to own a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, basically because there are SOME morons, you want to limit or take away a RIGHT from all citizens unless YOU feel they are worthy to practice a constitutionally guaranteed right?
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly. I am responding to the thread topic: the right to bear arms is obsolete.  Period.


----------



## Esmeralda

ChrisL said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guns are important in society. Lack of what was supposed to be a "well regulated militia" has caused many issues, mostly because Corporate Arms have convinced small brains that "regulated" means it's secondary meaning. When guns are regulated and stupid people don't get a chance to own them legally, there will be very little gun violence.
> 
> This pack of ignorant gun owners stating we can never have regulation are the cause of all this. Also, this pack of ignorant non- gun owners seem to think the only answer is to ban all guns.
> 
> REGULATION is key and it always has been. The words of the Constitution have been tainted by the Weapons Manufacturers that flood the NRA with money who then flood the (R)ight Wing with money.
> 
> What we have today is a society of gun owners that openly justify national homicide cases because they are scared to lose their guns. And we have gun owners trying to say that "hammers" are relatable to guns.........proof they don't know the gravity of knowledge that SHOULD come with gun ownership.
> 
> I've always proposed forced education and grandfather clause out 100 round mags and silencers. Funny thing is when I propose to force *education* on gun owners, *some say that infringes their right to have a gun*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should we "regulate" your right to vote too?
Click to expand...


This is a false analogy, faulty logic. Voting does not kill anyone.


----------



## ChrisL

ChrisL said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just for fun, let's take the car discussion lately. "cars kill more than guns"
> 
> First of all, it takes education and a test to prove you are responsible to drive a car.
> 
> Secondly, cars were designed to drive. Guns were designed to kill. If you can't accept this historical fact, you aren't a responsible gun owner.
> 
> Last, if you are one who says, "Criminals are just going to get them anyway" you are a NIHILIST and nothing more. Your argument in whole is that we shouldn't have laws because criminals will just disobey them anyway........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, fantastic, for fun.
> 
> 1)  DRIVING a vehicle is NOT a right.  It is a privilege.
> 2)  Even THOUGH they are educated and licensed, car accidents are still the NUMBER 1 killer in the United States.  Cars kill many, many, many more people than guns.  Key Data and Statistics Injury Center CDC
> 3)  You are so full of shit, I can smell you from here.
Click to expand...


Another AntiParty, I don't know where you live, but where I live any moron is given a license.  Just look around!!!


----------



## ChrisL

Esmeralda said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guns are important in society. Lack of what was supposed to be a "well regulated militia" has caused many issues, mostly because Corporate Arms have convinced small brains that "regulated" means it's secondary meaning. When guns are regulated and stupid people don't get a chance to own them legally, there will be very little gun violence.
> 
> This pack of ignorant gun owners stating we can never have regulation are the cause of all this. Also, this pack of ignorant non- gun owners seem to think the only answer is to ban all guns.
> 
> REGULATION is key and it always has been. The words of the Constitution have been tainted by the Weapons Manufacturers that flood the NRA with money who then flood the (R)ight Wing with money.
> 
> What we have today is a society of gun owners that openly justify national homicide cases because they are scared to lose their guns. And we have gun owners trying to say that "hammers" are relatable to guns.........proof they don't know the gravity of knowledge that SHOULD come with gun ownership.
> 
> I've always proposed forced education and grandfather clause out 100 round mags and silencers. Funny thing is when I propose to force *education* on gun owners, *some say that infringes their right to have a gun*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should we "regulate" your right to vote too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a false analogy, faulty logic. Voting does not kill anyone.
Click to expand...


Bull.  Elections have VERY serious consequences.


----------



## ChrisL

Esmeralda said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think the right to bear arms is obsolete, absolutely. It should be a privilege, not a right.  Most of the pro-2nd amendment posters on here are hysterical people with limited intelligence and borderline personalities. I think it is a disgrace that such people have the right to own guns.  Being able to own a gun is something that should be earned and that privilge should maintained by specific behavior.  I remember, some years ago, a guy telling me he accidently shot his roommate's cat which was sitting on the couch  next to him. He thought it was funny. Such a moron should not have the right to own a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, basically because there are SOME morons, you want to limit or take away a RIGHT from all citizens unless YOU feel they are worthy to practice a constitutionally guaranteed right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, exactly. I am responding to the thread topic: the right to bear arms is obsolete.  Period.
Click to expand...


It is more important now than ever with the levels of violence we are seeing in the world.  Just as an example, one out of every five women in the United States has reported being sexually assaulted, and THAT is the ones who report it.  Many do not ever report it.


----------



## ChrisL

If we were to let the government infringe upon just ONE of our rights, then we have set a precedent for them.  Do you people NOT understand this?  Then there is absolutely NOTHING to stop them from doing the same to any one of our other rights too!!!  The founders wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights to protect US, the citizen, FROM the government.  In this way, we prevent the government from becoming all powerful, like a monarchy.  

THIS is why it is important to teach about these things in school!!!  People need to realize just how precious every single ONE of our rights is!


----------



## jon_berzerk

ChrisL said:


> If we were to let the government infringe upon just ONE of our rights, then we have set a precedent for them.  Do you people NOT understand this?  Then there is absolutely NOTHING to stop them from doing the same to any one of our other rights too!!!  The founders wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights to protect US, the citizen, FROM the government.  In this way, we prevent the government from becoming all powerful, like a monarchy.
> 
> THIS is why it is important to teach about these things in school!!!  People need to realize just how precious every single ONE of our rights is!




yeah they could even force you to buy a product from a private industry 

or be fined for not doing so


----------



## ChrisL

jon_berzerk said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we were to let the government infringe upon just ONE of our rights, then we have set a precedent for them.  Do you people NOT understand this?  Then there is absolutely NOTHING to stop them from doing the same to any one of our other rights too!!!  The founders wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights to protect US, the citizen, FROM the government.  In this way, we prevent the government from becoming all powerful, like a monarchy.
> 
> THIS is why it is important to teach about these things in school!!!  People need to realize just how precious every single ONE of our rights is!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yeah they could even force you to buy a product from a private industry
> 
> or be fined for not doing so
Click to expand...


Exactly.  The government is not to be trusted.  They will use every loop hole, like calling something a "tax."


----------



## hadit

Esmeralda said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think the right to bear arms is obsolete, absolutely. It should be a privilege, not a right.  Most of the pro-2nd amendment posters on here are hysterical people with limited intelligence and borderline personalities. I think it is a disgrace that such people have the right to own guns.  Being able to own a gun is something that should be earned and that privilge should maintained by specific behavior.  I remember, some years ago, a guy telling me he accidently shot his roommate's cat which was sitting on the couch  next to him. He thought it was funny. Such a moron should not have the right to own a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, basically because there are SOME morons, you want to limit or take away a RIGHT from all citizens unless YOU feel they are worthy to practice a constitutionally guaranteed right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, exactly. I am responding to the thread topic: the right to bear arms is obsolete.  Period.
Click to expand...


So change the Constitution.  Until then, you're just complaining and going nowhere.


----------



## 2aguy

Esmeralda said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think the right to bear arms is obsolete, absolutely. It should be a privilege, not a right.  Most of the pro-2nd amendment posters on here are hysterical people with limited intelligence and borderline personalities. I think it is a disgrace that such people have the right to own guns.  Being able to own a gun is something that should be earned and that privilge should maintained by specific behavior.  I remember, some years ago, a guy telling me he accidently shot his roommate's cat which was sitting on the couch  next to him. He thought it was funny. Such a moron should not have the right to own a gun.
Click to expand...



And thanks for proving the Founders right when some of them insisted on codifying our God given right to self defense in the Bill of Rights, specifically the Second Amendment....they saw you and your ilk coming over 200 years ago.......


----------



## 2aguy

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now Brain357 , now you can STOP asking why the US has a higher murder rate than some other countries.  The answer is gang violence.  Now, do you want to ban black people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That seems like a rather silly question.  How about background checks on private sales and registration?
Click to expand...



How will this stop criminals.....since felons can't legally own guns now.....and how will registration do anything....since felons are protected by a supreme court ruling from having to register their illegal guns....self incrimination and all that.......so only law abiding citizens will have to register their guns....which is, and has always been one of the two steps toward banning and forced turn ins.......and does nothing to stop crime or solve crime....

Brain.....what exactly does registering a gun do to solve or prevent a crime?  Please....tell us....


----------



## 2aguy

Esmeralda said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think the right to bear arms is obsolete, absolutely. It should be a privilege, not a right.  Most of the pro-2nd amendment posters on here are hysterical people with limited intelligence and borderline personalities. I think it is a disgrace that such people have the right to own guns.  Being able to own a gun is something that should be earned and that privilge should maintained by specific behavior.  I remember, some years ago, a guy telling me he accidently shot his roommate's cat which was sitting on the couch  next to him. He thought it was funny. Such a moron should not have the right to own a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, basically because there are SOME morons, you want to limit or take away a RIGHT from all citizens unless YOU feel they are worthy to practice a constitutionally guaranteed right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, exactly. I am responding to the thread topic: the right to bear arms is obsolete.  Period.
Click to expand...



Explain that to the Jews killed in the death camps....or the Kulaks killed by the communists....or the Mexicans today killed by the drug cartels working with the Mexican government, or the people of Detroit Michigan who can't get the police to help them, or the hundreds of thousands of  Rwandan's killed by machete....or the Kenyans killed by boko haram in their thousands.....or the journalists at the French magazine or the Deli customers in France or the people involved in the terrorist attacks in Belgium, Canada, and Australia

The right to  keep and bear arms will never be obsolete......


----------



## 2aguy

Brain357 said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why your statement is wrong....2.5 million defensive gun uses are not just criminals using guns....they are normal people using guns to defend themselves against violent criminal attack....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kleck:
> "This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know Brain....at no point in that quote does he say the person in possession of the gun is an actual criminal, and heavily implies in other places that these are law abiding citizens carrying guns for protection 'from' criminals.....which is not the type of criminal you are implying when you quote this statement and lie about his study.,....
> 
> And again...the anti gunners would have you believe that Kleck's is the only study out there...there is over 40 years of studies, 19 different studies, performed by different researchers both public and private....here are the results of some of the studies that Kleck points out in his work.....the name of the research group or individual, the year of the study and the number of times they found guns were used to stop violent criminal attack and save lives....notice...Klecks isn't the only study with a high number.....
> 
> A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....
> 
> *Field...1976....3,052,717
> DMIa 1978...2,141,512
> L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68
> Kleck...2.5 million
> Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million
> 
> --------------------
> 
> 
> Bordua...1977...1,414,544
> DMIb...1978...1,098,409
> Hart...1981...1.797,461
> Mauser...1990...1,487,342
> Gallup...1993...1,621,377
> DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million
> Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."
> -------------------------------------------
> Ohio...1982...771,043
> Gallup...1991...777,152
> Tarrance... 1994... 764,036
> Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..
> 
> 
> 
> NCVS (National Crime Victimization Survey)....108,000*
> 
> 
> *Notice, the 3 different groupings of stats from the research listed so far.....not one of them approaches the NCVS number of 100,000.....yet you claim to know that is the correct number....*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok so what criminal activity then are all the people involved in that are defending themselves from home?  I know you don't like it Bill, but that is what Kleck said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok so what criminal activity then are all the people involved in that are defending themselves from home?  I know you don't like it Bill, but that is what Kleck said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, that's the point Brain...they are at home and aren't engaged in criminal activity...which is where most of the defensive gun uses occur....putting the truth to your distortion of what Kleck said....the grey area comes in in the 1990s before concealed carry had spread as far as it has today.....but there was more crime, and normal people decided they would rather violate an unjust law that disarmed them rather than be defenseless......
> 
> And still, reporting a non event....scaring off a home invader with a gun is not always something people want to report to police....at least doing it with a gun.....that carries legal implications and hassles....especially if no shots were fired an no one was injured.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No Bill you miss the point.
> Kleck:
> "This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."
> 
> Sorry but according to Kleck they are home and involved in criminal activity.  Because most DGUs involve criminal behavior by the victim.
Click to expand...



You really need to talk to Kleck about that.....2.5 million defensive gun uses are not criminals, and now....with concealed and open carry in every state......law abiding people who have to break the law to excercise their civil right is now a thing of the past in most situations......


----------



## Brain357

Billc said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kleck:
> "This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know Brain....at no point in that quote does he say the person in possession of the gun is an actual criminal, and heavily implies in other places that these are law abiding citizens carrying guns for protection 'from' criminals.....which is not the type of criminal you are implying when you quote this statement and lie about his study.,....
> 
> And again...the anti gunners would have you believe that Kleck's is the only study out there...there is over 40 years of studies, 19 different studies, performed by different researchers both public and private....here are the results of some of the studies that Kleck points out in his work.....the name of the research group or individual, the year of the study and the number of times they found guns were used to stop violent criminal attack and save lives....notice...Klecks isn't the only study with a high number.....
> 
> A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....
> 
> *Field...1976....3,052,717
> DMIa 1978...2,141,512
> L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68
> Kleck...2.5 million
> Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million
> 
> --------------------
> 
> 
> Bordua...1977...1,414,544
> DMIb...1978...1,098,409
> Hart...1981...1.797,461
> Mauser...1990...1,487,342
> Gallup...1993...1,621,377
> DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million
> Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."
> -------------------------------------------
> Ohio...1982...771,043
> Gallup...1991...777,152
> Tarrance... 1994... 764,036
> Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..
> 
> 
> 
> NCVS (National Crime Victimization Survey)....108,000*
> 
> 
> *Notice, the 3 different groupings of stats from the research listed so far.....not one of them approaches the NCVS number of 100,000.....yet you claim to know that is the correct number....*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok so what criminal activity then are all the people involved in that are defending themselves from home?  I know you don't like it Bill, but that is what Kleck said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok so what criminal activity then are all the people involved in that are defending themselves from home?  I know you don't like it Bill, but that is what Kleck said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, that's the point Brain...they are at home and aren't engaged in criminal activity...which is where most of the defensive gun uses occur....putting the truth to your distortion of what Kleck said....the grey area comes in in the 1990s before concealed carry had spread as far as it has today.....but there was more crime, and normal people decided they would rather violate an unjust law that disarmed them rather than be defenseless......
> 
> And still, reporting a non event....scaring off a home invader with a gun is not always something people want to report to police....at least doing it with a gun.....that carries legal implications and hassles....especially if no shots were fired an no one was injured.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No Bill you miss the point.
> Kleck:
> "This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."
> 
> Sorry but according to Kleck they are home and involved in criminal activity.  Because most DGUs involve criminal behavior by the victim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You really need to talk to Kleck about that.....2.5 million defensive gun uses are not criminals, and now....with concealed and open carry in every state......law abiding people who have to break the law to excercise their civil right is now a thing of the past in most situations......
Click to expand...


No we have his very clear quote.  Most are criminals.


----------



## 2aguy

Brain357 said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know Brain....at no point in that quote does he say the person in possession of the gun is an actual criminal, and heavily implies in other places that these are law abiding citizens carrying guns for protection 'from' criminals.....which is not the type of criminal you are implying when you quote this statement and lie about his study.,....
> 
> And again...the anti gunners would have you believe that Kleck's is the only study out there...there is over 40 years of studies, 19 different studies, performed by different researchers both public and private....here are the results of some of the studies that Kleck points out in his work.....the name of the research group or individual, the year of the study and the number of times they found guns were used to stop violent criminal attack and save lives....notice...Klecks isn't the only study with a high number.....
> 
> A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....
> 
> *Field...1976....3,052,717
> DMIa 1978...2,141,512
> L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68
> Kleck...2.5 million
> Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million
> 
> --------------------
> 
> 
> Bordua...1977...1,414,544
> DMIb...1978...1,098,409
> Hart...1981...1.797,461
> Mauser...1990...1,487,342
> Gallup...1993...1,621,377
> DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million
> Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."
> -------------------------------------------
> Ohio...1982...771,043
> Gallup...1991...777,152
> Tarrance... 1994... 764,036
> Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..
> 
> 
> 
> NCVS (National Crime Victimization Survey)....108,000*
> 
> 
> *Notice, the 3 different groupings of stats from the research listed so far.....not one of them approaches the NCVS number of 100,000.....yet you claim to know that is the correct number....*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok so what criminal activity then are all the people involved in that are defending themselves from home?  I know you don't like it Bill, but that is what Kleck said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok so what criminal activity then are all the people involved in that are defending themselves from home?  I know you don't like it Bill, but that is what Kleck said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, that's the point Brain...they are at home and aren't engaged in criminal activity...which is where most of the defensive gun uses occur....putting the truth to your distortion of what Kleck said....the grey area comes in in the 1990s before concealed carry had spread as far as it has today.....but there was more crime, and normal people decided they would rather violate an unjust law that disarmed them rather than be defenseless......
> 
> And still, reporting a non event....scaring off a home invader with a gun is not always something people want to report to police....at least doing it with a gun.....that carries legal implications and hassles....especially if no shots were fired an no one was injured.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No Bill you miss the point.
> Kleck:
> "This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."
> 
> Sorry but according to Kleck they are home and involved in criminal activity.  Because most DGUs involve criminal behavior by the victim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You really need to talk to Kleck about that.....2.5 million defensive gun uses are not criminals, and now....with concealed and open carry in every state......law abiding people who have to break the law to excercise their civil right is now a thing of the past in most situations......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No we have his very clear quote.  Most are criminals.
Click to expand...



This quote says it all from Kleck....

Guns and Self-Defense by Gary Kleck Ph.D.



> *The authors concluded that defensive uses of guns are about three to four times as common as criminal uses of guns.* The National Self-Defense Survey confirmed the picture of frequent defensive gun use implied by the results of earlier, less sophisticated surveys.





> A national survey conducted in 1994 by the Police Foundation and sponsored by the National Institute of Justice almost exactly confirmed the estimates from the National Self-Defense Survey. This survey's person-based estimate was that 1.44% of the adult population had used a gun for protection against a person in the previous year, implying 2.73 million defensive gun users. These results were well within sampling error of the corresponding 1.33% and 2.55 million estimates produced by the National Self-Defense Survey.





> To briefly summarize:
> 
> *Defensive gun uses by crime victims are three to four times more common than crimes committed with guns; *
> 
> Victim gun use is associated with lower rates of assault or robbery victim injury and lower rates of robbery completion than any other defensive action or doing nothing to resist;
> 
> Serious predatory criminals perceive a risk from victim gun use that is roughly comparable to that of criminal-justice-system actions, and this perception may influence their criminal behavior in socially desirable ways.


----------



## Brain357

Billc said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok so what criminal activity then are all the people involved in that are defending themselves from home?  I know you don't like it Bill, but that is what Kleck said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok so what criminal activity then are all the people involved in that are defending themselves from home?  I know you don't like it Bill, but that is what Kleck said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, that's the point Brain...they are at home and aren't engaged in criminal activity...which is where most of the defensive gun uses occur....putting the truth to your distortion of what Kleck said....the grey area comes in in the 1990s before concealed carry had spread as far as it has today.....but there was more crime, and normal people decided they would rather violate an unjust law that disarmed them rather than be defenseless......
> 
> And still, reporting a non event....scaring off a home invader with a gun is not always something people want to report to police....at least doing it with a gun.....that carries legal implications and hassles....especially if no shots were fired an no one was injured.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No Bill you miss the point.
> Kleck:
> "This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."
> 
> Sorry but according to Kleck they are home and involved in criminal activity.  Because most DGUs involve criminal behavior by the victim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You really need to talk to Kleck about that.....2.5 million defensive gun uses are not criminals, and now....with concealed and open carry in every state......law abiding people who have to break the law to excercise their civil right is now a thing of the past in most situations......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No we have his very clear quote.  Most are criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This quote says it all from Kleck....
> 
> Guns and Self-Defense by Gary Kleck Ph.D.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The authors concluded that defensive uses of guns are about three to four times as common as criminal uses of guns.* The National Self-Defense Survey confirmed the picture of frequent defensive gun use implied by the results of earlier, less sophisticated surveys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A national survey conducted in 1994 by the Police Foundation and sponsored by the National Institute of Justice almost exactly confirmed the estimates from the National Self-Defense Survey. This survey's person-based estimate was that 1.44% of the adult population had used a gun for protection against a person in the previous year, implying 2.73 million defensive gun users. These results were well within sampling error of the corresponding 1.33% and 2.55 million estimates produced by the National Self-Defense Survey.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


You keep posting that but why? Just means armed criminals are often defending against unarmed criminals.


----------



## 2aguy

Brain357 said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> See, that's the point Brain...they are at home and aren't engaged in criminal activity...which is where most of the defensive gun uses occur....putting the truth to your distortion of what Kleck said....the grey area comes in in the 1990s before concealed carry had spread as far as it has today.....but there was more crime, and normal people decided they would rather violate an unjust law that disarmed them rather than be defenseless......
> 
> And still, reporting a non event....scaring off a home invader with a gun is not always something people want to report to police....at least doing it with a gun.....that carries legal implications and hassles....especially if no shots were fired an no one was injured.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No Bill you miss the point.
> Kleck:
> "This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."
> 
> Sorry but according to Kleck they are home and involved in criminal activity.  Because most DGUs involve criminal behavior by the victim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You really need to talk to Kleck about that.....2.5 million defensive gun uses are not criminals, and now....with concealed and open carry in every state......law abiding people who have to break the law to excercise their civil right is now a thing of the past in most situations......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No we have his very clear quote.  Most are criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This quote says it all from Kleck....
> 
> Guns and Self-Defense by Gary Kleck Ph.D.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The authors concluded that defensive uses of guns are about three to four times as common as criminal uses of guns.* The National Self-Defense Survey confirmed the picture of frequent defensive gun use implied by the results of earlier, less sophisticated surveys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A national survey conducted in 1994 by the Police Foundation and sponsored by the National Institute of Justice almost exactly confirmed the estimates from the National Self-Defense Survey. This survey's person-based estimate was that 1.44% of the adult population had used a gun for protection against a person in the previous year, implying 2.73 million defensive gun users. These results were well within sampling error of the corresponding 1.33% and 2.55 million estimates produced by the National Self-Defense Survey.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep posting that but why? Just means armed criminals are often defending against unarmed criminals.
Click to expand...



Because Kleck specifically addresses your point....these are law abiding citizens carrying guns because they are afraid of actual criminals.....not criminals conducting criminal business...



> Consequently, police never hear about the bulk of successful defensive gun uses, instead hearing mostly about an unrepresentative minority of them containing a disproportionately large number of failures. Further, even when they do receive a report of a crime that in fact involved a gun-wielding victim, the victim has strong legal reasons for leaving their own gun use out of their account of the crime.* Since most defensive gun uses occur away from the victim's home, and few victims have the required permits for carrying concealed weapons in public, most gun uses probably involved a crime on the part of the victim. *



Of course, he means that in the 90s, when his survey was conducted, many states denied the rights of their citizens to carry guns for protection, so rather than be a victim, they performed acts of civil disobedience and carried their guns anyway....

But don't worry Brain.....law abiding ctizens can now carry guns in all 50 states to some degree....so they now have their right to carry a gun restored.....to the tune of 11.1 million concealed carry permit holders.....


----------



## Flash

ChrisL said:


> [
> 
> Exactly.  The government is not to be trusted.  They will use every loop hole, like calling something a "tax."



That is the problem.  

People in power will interpret the laws and in a way so they or their special interest groups can benefit from it.  

A Bill of Rights isn't worth the paper (or parchment) it is written on unless the people are willing to enforce compliance and that is why we need the right to keep and bear arms.

We may not have the courage to use the arms when government is abusive, like we are seeing nowadays, but at least we have the option.


----------



## Ernie S.

Esmeralda said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think the right to bear arms is obsolete, absolutely. It should be a privilege, not a right.  Most of the pro-2nd amendment posters on here are hysterical people with limited intelligence and borderline personalities. I think it is a disgrace that such people have the right to own guns.  Being able to own a gun is something that should be earned and that privilge should maintained by specific behavior.  I remember, some years ago, a guy telling me he accidently shot his roommate's cat which was sitting on the couch  next to him. He thought it was funny. Such a moron should not have the right to own a gun.
Click to expand...

According to the US Constitution, the right to bear arms is absolutely absolute It shall not be infringed. It is more of a protected right than voting and just as fundamental.
Yes, convicted felons, the mentally deficient and children should not possess firearms. They should not vote either.
I am a pro-2nd Amendment poster here that is far from hysterical and about 60 IQ points ahead of you from the look of the uninformed drivel you post here.
As for your  guy with the cat.... Perhaps the guy shouldn't have a gun. He did a stupid thing. Maybe he should lose his right to vote too?

How about that? How about we have "reasonable voting control"? You walk in to your polling place and the proctor asks you 10 questions about government. If you can't answer them and prove who you are, you don't vote.
That's reasonable, isn't it?


----------



## Ernie S.

Brain357 said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know Brain....at no point in that quote does he say the person in possession of the gun is an actual criminal, and heavily implies in other places that these are law abiding citizens carrying guns for protection 'from' criminals.....which is not the type of criminal you are implying when you quote this statement and lie about his study.,....
> 
> And again...the anti gunners would have you believe that Kleck's is the only study out there...there is over 40 years of studies, 19 different studies, performed by different researchers both public and private....here are the results of some of the studies that Kleck points out in his work.....the name of the research group or individual, the year of the study and the number of times they found guns were used to stop violent criminal attack and save lives....notice...Klecks isn't the only study with a high number.....
> 
> A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....
> 
> *Field...1976....3,052,717
> DMIa 1978...2,141,512
> L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68
> Kleck...2.5 million
> Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million
> 
> --------------------
> 
> 
> Bordua...1977...1,414,544
> DMIb...1978...1,098,409
> Hart...1981...1.797,461
> Mauser...1990...1,487,342
> Gallup...1993...1,621,377
> DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million
> Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."
> -------------------------------------------
> Ohio...1982...771,043
> Gallup...1991...777,152
> Tarrance... 1994... 764,036
> Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..
> 
> 
> 
> NCVS (National Crime Victimization Survey)....108,000*
> 
> 
> *Notice, the 3 different groupings of stats from the research listed so far.....not one of them approaches the NCVS number of 100,000.....yet you claim to know that is the correct number....*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok so what criminal activity then are all the people involved in that are defending themselves from home?  I know you don't like it Bill, but that is what Kleck said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok so what criminal activity then are all the people involved in that are defending themselves from home?  I know you don't like it Bill, but that is what Kleck said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, that's the point Brain...they are at home and aren't engaged in criminal activity...which is where most of the defensive gun uses occur....putting the truth to your distortion of what Kleck said....the grey area comes in in the 1990s before concealed carry had spread as far as it has today.....but there was more crime, and normal people decided they would rather violate an unjust law that disarmed them rather than be defenseless......
> 
> And still, reporting a non event....scaring off a home invader with a gun is not always something people want to report to police....at least doing it with a gun.....that carries legal implications and hassles....especially if no shots were fired an no one was injured.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No Bill you miss the point.
> Kleck:
> "This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."
> 
> Sorry but according to Kleck they are home and involved in criminal activity.  Because most DGUs involve criminal behavior by the victim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You really need to talk to Kleck about that.....2.5 million defensive gun uses are not criminals, and now....with concealed and open carry in every state......law abiding people who have to break the law to excercise their civil right is now a thing of the past in most situations......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No we have his very clear quote.  Most are criminals.
Click to expand...

Provide the quote in context. Post a link to it. You keep posting words which you attribute to Kleck but so far I have been unable to find evidence that he did and meant what you claim.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Esmeralda said:


> I think the right to bear arms is obsolete, absolutely. It should be a privilege, not a right.


Fortunately, your opinion runs contrary to established fact and law.



> Most of the pro-2nd amendment posters on here are hysterical people with limited intelligence and borderline personalities.


Ah...  the ad hom.  Sure sign you have no counter to their argument(s)

Now, did you have anything else?


----------



## IlarMeilyr

The right to bear arms was not GIVEN to us by the Constitution.  It is a right that PREDATES the Republic, and it was merely protected, explicitly, by the Constitutional Amendment.


----------



## Two Thumbs

Esmeralda said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sfcalifornia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> A well armed popalance is respected by government
> A disarmed popalance is dictated to by government
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please.  What do you think, congresspeople sit around and say, "ooo we'd better not pass that law...  Matthew will get his gun and shoot us!!"  Give me a frickin' break.  Go ahead and try to form a militia group or whatever.  See how far you get before you're all squashed like bugs.
> 
> It's populace btw, not populance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you saying you want freedom loving, Constitution following Americans to get killed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You only want freedom for the things you want. You don't want people with whom you disagree to have freedom.
Click to expand...

well that's a fucking lie

or

proof you talk about shit you know nothing about

take your pick fool


----------



## westwall

Esmeralda said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think the right to bear arms is obsolete, absolutely. It should be a privilege, not a right.  Most of the pro-2nd amendment posters on here are hysterical people with limited intelligence and borderline personalities. I think it is a disgrace that such people have the right to own guns.  Being able to own a gun is something that should be earned and that privilge should maintained by specific behavior.  I remember, some years ago, a guy telling me he accidently shot his roommate's cat which was sitting on the couch  next to him. He thought it was funny. Such a moron should not have the right to own a gun.
Click to expand...







Most of the pro 2nd Amendment types here are far better educated than you will ever be.  This is the USA and it was founded on the principle of equal rights for all.  In your world of "privileges" the rich would have all the "rights" that we poor people enjoy now.

How fucked up a person you must be, to think that that's OK.


----------



## Esmeralda

westwall said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think the right to bear arms is obsolete, absolutely. It should be a privilege, not a right.  Most of the pro-2nd amendment posters on here are hysterical people with limited intelligence and borderline personalities. I think it is a disgrace that such people have the right to own guns.  Being able to own a gun is something that should be earned and that privilge should maintained by specific behavior.  I remember, some years ago, a guy telling me he accidently shot his roommate's cat which was sitting on the couch  next to him. He thought it was funny. Such a moron should not have the right to own a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the pro 2nd Amendment types here are far better educated than you will ever be.  This is the USA and it was founded on the principle of equal rights for all.  In your world of "privileges" the rich would have all the "rights" that we poor people enjoy now.
> 
> How fucked up a person you must be, to think that that's OK.
Click to expand...


First of all, your post doesn't even make sense and is terribly inarticulate. Second, I am more highly educated than about 80% of the American population, so, no, most people who own guns are not better educated than I am. 


You are a prime example of the type, btw, who should not own a gun--ignorant and ridiculously arrogant with it: that’s a very bad combination which leads to anger management issues and poor reasoning.


As well you are in absolutely no position to be able to assess who is fucked up, being so desperately fucked up yourself. So fucked up you are laughable.

.


----------



## Esmeralda

Ernie S. said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think the right to bear arms is obsolete, absolutely. It should be a privilege, not a right.  Most of the pro-2nd amendment posters on here are hysterical people with limited intelligence and borderline personalities. I think it is a disgrace that such people have the right to own guns.  Being able to own a gun is something that should be earned and that privilge should maintained by specific behavior.  I remember, some years ago, a guy telling me he accidently shot his roommate's cat which was sitting on the couch  next to him. He thought it was funny. Such a moron should not have the right to own a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to the US Constitution, the right to bear arms is absolutely absolute It shall not be infringed. It is more of a protected right than voting and just as fundamental.
> Yes, convicted felons, the mentally deficient and children should not possess firearms. They should not vote either.
> I am a pro-2nd Amendment poster here that is far from hysterical and about 60 IQ points ahead of you from the look of the uninformed drivel you post here.
> As for your  guy with the cat.... Perhaps the guy shouldn't have a gun. He did a stupid thing. Maybe he should lose his right to vote too?
> 
> How about that? How about we have "reasonable voting control"? You walk in to your polling place and the proctor asks you 10 questions about government. If you can't answer them and prove who you are, you don't vote.
> That's reasonable, isn't it?
Click to expand...

You people's arguments are so stupid and are generally always logical failures: there is no comparison between voting and owning a gun.  Voting is not the same thing as having a firearm, which kills people or animals, in your possession. There is no comparison between voting and having a gun.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Esmeralda said:


> You people's arguments are so stupid and are generally always logical failures


I assure you :  You cannot show any of my arguments to be unsound.


> there is no comparison between voting and owning a gun


Both are rights, protected by the Constitution.
In that regard, they are similar.
Thus, a sound comparison.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Esmeralda said:


> First of all, your post doesn't even make sense and is terribly inarticulate. Second, I am more highly educated than about 80% of the American population, so, no, most people who own guns are not better educated than I am.
> 
> You are a prime example of the type, btw, who should not own a gun--ignorant and ridiculously arrogant with it: that’s a very bad combination which leads to anger management issues and poor reasoning.
> 
> As well you are in absolutely no position to be able to assess who is fucked up, being so desperately fucked up yourself. So fucked up you are laughable.


This passes for reasoned discussion in your highly-educated circles?
So....  what happens when it's too cold to go out for recess?


----------



## westwall

Esmeralda said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think the right to bear arms is obsolete, absolutely. It should be a privilege, not a right.  Most of the pro-2nd amendment posters on here are hysterical people with limited intelligence and borderline personalities. I think it is a disgrace that such people have the right to own guns.  Being able to own a gun is something that should be earned and that privilge should maintained by specific behavior.  I remember, some years ago, a guy telling me he accidently shot his roommate's cat which was sitting on the couch  next to him. He thought it was funny. Such a moron should not have the right to own a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the pro 2nd Amendment types here are far better educated than you will ever be.  This is the USA and it was founded on the principle of equal rights for all.  In your world of "privileges" the rich would have all the "rights" that we poor people enjoy now.
> 
> How fucked up a person you must be, to think that that's OK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, your post doesn't even make sense and is terribly inarticulate. Second, I am more highly educated than about 80% of the American population, so, no, most people who own guns are not better educated than I am.
> 
> 
> You are a prime example of the type, btw, who should not own a gun--ignorant and ridiculously arrogant with it: that’s a very bad combination which leads to anger management issues and poor reasoning.
> 
> 
> As well you are in absolutely no position to be able to assess who is fucked up, being so desperately fucked up yourself. So fucked up you are laughable.
> 
> .
Click to expand...







No, my comment is very succinct and very easy to understand.  My post referred to the 2nd Amendment types who post HERE, so your reading comprehension is suspect at best.  Your critical thinking skills are no longer in question, you have none.  You are a reactionary who allows emotion and uninformed opinion to color your thinking.

Furthermore you seem to think that the world should be governed by the "privileged".  This country was founded on the principle that all PEOPLE are created equal.  It's only fucked up progressives like you who think that the untermenschen  must be kept "under control" so that the individuals of "privilege" no longer need smell them.


----------



## Flash

Esmeralda said:


> First of all, your post doesn't even make sense and is terribly inarticulate. Second, I am more highly educated than about 80% of the American population, so, no, most people who own guns are not better educated than I am.
> .



For someone that claims to be educated you sure make some dumbass posts from time to time on this forum.


----------



## Esmeralda

westwall said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think the right to bear arms is obsolete, absolutely. It should be a privilege, not a right.  Most of the pro-2nd amendment posters on here are hysterical people with limited intelligence and borderline personalities. I think it is a disgrace that such people have the right to own guns.  Being able to own a gun is something that should be earned and that privilge should maintained by specific behavior.  I remember, some years ago, a guy telling me he accidently shot his roommate's cat which was sitting on the couch  next to him. He thought it was funny. Such a moron should not have the right to own a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the pro 2nd Amendment types here are far better educated than you will ever be.  This is the USA and it was founded on the principle of equal rights for all.  In your world of "privileges" the rich would have all the "rights" that we poor people enjoy now.
> 
> How fucked up a person you must be, to think that that's OK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, your post doesn't even make sense and is terribly inarticulate. Second, I am more highly educated than about 80% of the American population, so, no, most people who own guns are not better educated than I am.
> 
> 
> You are a prime example of the type, btw, who should not own a gun--ignorant and ridiculously arrogant with it: that’s a very bad combination which leads to anger management issues and poor reasoning.
> 
> 
> As well you are in absolutely no position to be able to assess who is fucked up, being so desperately fucked up yourself. So fucked up you are laughable.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, my comment is very succinct and very easy to understand.  My post referred to the 2nd Amendment types who post HERE, so your reading comprehension is suspect at best.  Your critical thinking skills are no longer in question, you have none.  You are a reactionary who allows emotion and uninformed opinion to color your thinking.
> 
> Furthermore you seem to think that the world should be governed by the "privileged".  This country was founded on the principle that all PEOPLE are created equal.  It's only fucked up progressives like you who think that the untermenschen  must be kept "under control" so that the individuals of "privilege" no longer need smell them.
Click to expand...

No, your comment was not succinct.  LOL  Not at all.  You are not making any sense.

The second amendment supporters who post here are clearly not highly educated people; where you get the idea they are is mystifying.  And you are obviously not able to assess anyone's critical thinking skills, probably because you don't understand the concept. 

Finally, if you were actually informed regarding my posts, you would know that I am not a reactionary, and that I do, in fact, often post opinions that do not follow standard liberal perspective.  My position on gun control is not reactionary.  However, you are apparently too limited to appreciate that point. You see a post of mine on gun control and assume it is purely 'reactionary' without understanding in depth what it is based on. I suspect one would have to explain it in nursery school blocks for you to understand the underlying meaning behind my post and the example I gave.

In addition, you are completey misinterpreting my use of the word privilege. But, I imagine most others have gotten it, and I have no intention of spelling it out for you in nursery school blocks.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Esmeralda said:


> The second amendment supporters who post here are clearly not highly educated people...


Funny then how you refuse to engage them on the substance of their posts.
Especially me, and mine..


----------



## Esmeralda

Flash said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, your post doesn't even make sense and is terribly inarticulate. Second, I am more highly educated than about 80% of the American population, so, no, most people who own guns are not better educated than I am.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For someone that claims to be educated you sure make some dumbass posts from time to time on this forum.
Click to expand...

I suspect that to someone who is not able to understand a post, it might seem  'dumbass.'  I have noticed that the most uninformed and untelligent right wing posters on this board regularly identify at least two (not referring to myself) of the most highly intelligent liberal posters on this board as 'stupid.'  It's quite amusing, as those people are running circles around you all, intellectually speaking, and you don't even know it. So, the point is, as I probably need to spell it out, is that you are in no position to assess who is smart and who isn't.


----------



## Little-Acorn

If gun ownership was allowed for all law-abiding citizens, most people still wouldn't bother carrying one with them. But a few would. Often concealed.

And the best news is, someone contemplating committing a crime, would know there were no laws preventing nearly everyone in the crowd from carrying a gun in their pocket or purse. And he would know that most probably weren't carrying... and that a few people probably were. _And he wouldn't know which ones they were._

So he would know that if he slugged an old lady and snatched her purse, he could expect a bullet from an unknown direction (or two). And there would be nothing he could do to prevent it, or to know which person in the crowd might fire the shot.

It's enough to make a criminal change jobs, and not commit the crime in the first place.

And that's the point.

If gun ownership is allowed for all law-abiding adults, many crimes won't get committed in the first place. And without a shot being fired. Without anyone having to pull their gun at all.

And that's the biggest benefit of gun ownership by all responsible adults.


----------



## deltex1

Rontavis be's daid........yo






Taco Bell Thief Demands Victim Drop Pants Victim Kills Him


----------



## westwall

Esmeralda said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> 
> 
> I think the right to bear arms is obsolete, absolutely. It should be a privilege, not a right.  Most of the pro-2nd amendment posters on here are hysterical people with limited intelligence and borderline personalities. I think it is a disgrace that such people have the right to own guns.  Being able to own a gun is something that should be earned and that privilge should maintained by specific behavior.  I remember, some years ago, a guy telling me he accidently shot his roommate's cat which was sitting on the couch  next to him. He thought it was funny. Such a moron should not have the right to own a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the pro 2nd Amendment types here are far better educated than you will ever be.  This is the USA and it was founded on the principle of equal rights for all.  In your world of "privileges" the rich would have all the "rights" that we poor people enjoy now.
> 
> How fucked up a person you must be, to think that that's OK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, your post doesn't even make sense and is terribly inarticulate. Second, I am more highly educated than about 80% of the American population, so, no, most people who own guns are not better educated than I am.
> 
> 
> You are a prime example of the type, btw, who should not own a gun--ignorant and ridiculously arrogant with it: that’s a very bad combination which leads to anger management issues and poor reasoning.
> 
> 
> As well you are in absolutely no position to be able to assess who is fucked up, being so desperately fucked up yourself. So fucked up you are laughable.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, my comment is very succinct and very easy to understand.  My post referred to the 2nd Amendment types who post HERE, so your reading comprehension is suspect at best.  Your critical thinking skills are no longer in question, you have none.  You are a reactionary who allows emotion and uninformed opinion to color your thinking.
> 
> Furthermore you seem to think that the world should be governed by the "privileged".  This country was founded on the principle that all PEOPLE are created equal.  It's only fucked up progressives like you who think that the untermenschen  must be kept "under control" so that the individuals of "privilege" no longer need smell them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, your comment was not succinct.  LOL  Not at all.  You are not making any sense.
> 
> The second amendment supporters who post here are clearly not highly educated people; where you get the idea they are is mystifying.  And you are obviously not able to assess anyone's critical thinking skills, probably because you don't understand the concept.
> 
> Finally, if you were actually informed regarding my posts, you would know that I am not a reactionary, and that I do, in fact, often post opinions that do not follow standard liberal perspective.  My position on gun control is not reactionary.  However, you are apparently too limited to appreciate that point. You see a post of mine on gun control and assume it is purely 'reactionary' without understanding in depth what it is based on. I suspect one would have to explain it in nursery school blocks for you to understand the underlying meaning behind my post and the example I gave.
> 
> In addition, you are completey misinterpreting my use of the word privilege. But, I imagine most others have gotten it, and I have no intention of spelling it out for you in nursery school blocks.
Click to expand...






This post of yours further demonstrates your complete lack of knowledge on pretty much any subject you address.

I have to say, your claims of a great education are not substantiated by your posts.


----------



## Ernie S.

Esmeralda said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think the right to bear arms is obsolete, absolutely. It should be a privilege, not a right.  Most of the pro-2nd amendment posters on here are hysterical people with limited intelligence and borderline personalities. I think it is a disgrace that such people have the right to own guns.  Being able to own a gun is something that should be earned and that privilge should maintained by specific behavior.  I remember, some years ago, a guy telling me he accidently shot his roommate's cat which was sitting on the couch  next to him. He thought it was funny. Such a moron should not have the right to own a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the pro 2nd Amendment types here are far better educated than you will ever be.  This is the USA and it was founded on the principle of equal rights for all.  In your world of "privileges" the rich would have all the "rights" that we poor people enjoy now.
> 
> How fucked up a person you must be, to think that that's OK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, your post doesn't even make sense and is terribly inarticulate. Second, I am more highly educated than about 80% of the American population, so, no, most people who own guns are not better educated than I am.
> 
> 
> You are a prime example of the type, btw, who should not own a gun--ignorant and ridiculously arrogant with it: that’s a very bad combination which leads to anger management issues and poor reasoning.
> 
> 
> As well you are in absolutely no position to be able to assess who is fucked up, being so desperately fucked up yourself. So fucked up you are laughable.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Why don't you call his wife names while you're at it you arrogant ignoramus? Talk about inarticulate! Your second paragraph is indecipherable.

"Fucked up" is completely subjective. We would all like to think that those we disagree with are fucked up lunatics. Sane people do their best not to criticize the opposition and become a poster child for the same deficiency we see in them, lest we prove just how fucked up we are.


----------



## Ernie S.

Esmeralda said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> 
> 
> I think the right to bear arms is obsolete, absolutely. It should be a privilege, not a right.  Most of the pro-2nd amendment posters on here are hysterical people with limited intelligence and borderline personalities. I think it is a disgrace that such people have the right to own guns.  Being able to own a gun is something that should be earned and that privilge should maintained by specific behavior.  I remember, some years ago, a guy telling me he accidently shot his roommate's cat which was sitting on the couch  next to him. He thought it was funny. Such a moron should not have the right to own a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the pro 2nd Amendment types here are far better educated than you will ever be.  This is the USA and it was founded on the principle of equal rights for all.  In your world of "privileges" the rich would have all the "rights" that we poor people enjoy now.
> 
> How fucked up a person you must be, to think that that's OK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, your post doesn't even make sense and is terribly inarticulate. Second, I am more highly educated than about 80% of the American population, so, no, most people who own guns are not better educated than I am.
> 
> 
> You are a prime example of the type, btw, who should not own a gun--ignorant and ridiculously arrogant with it: that’s a very bad combination which leads to anger management issues and poor reasoning.
> 
> 
> As well you are in absolutely no position to be able to assess who is fucked up, being so desperately fucked up yourself. So fucked up you are laughable.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, my comment is very succinct and very easy to understand.  My post referred to the 2nd Amendment types who post HERE, so your reading comprehension is suspect at best.  Your critical thinking skills are no longer in question, you have none.  You are a reactionary who allows emotion and uninformed opinion to color your thinking.
> 
> Furthermore you seem to think that the world should be governed by the "privileged".  This country was founded on the principle that all PEOPLE are created equal.  It's only fucked up progressives like you who think that the untermenschen  must be kept "under control" so that the individuals of "privilege" no longer need smell them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, your comment was not succinct.  LOL  Not at all.  You are not making any sense.
> 
> The second amendment supporters who post here are clearly not highly educated people; where you get the idea they are is mystifying.  And you are obviously not able to assess anyone's critical thinking skills, probably because you don't understand the concept.
> 
> Finally, if you were actually informed regarding my posts, you would know that I am not a reactionary, and that I do, in fact, often post opinions that do not follow standard liberal perspective.  My position on gun control is not reactionary.  However, you are apparently too limited to appreciate that point. You see a post of mine on gun control and assume it is purely 'reactionary' without understanding in depth what it is based on. I suspect one would have to explain it in nursery school blocks for you to understand the underlying meaning behind my post and the example I gave.
> 
> In addition, you are completey misinterpreting my use of the word privilege. But, I imagine most others have gotten it, and I have no intention of spelling it out for you in nursery school blocks.
Click to expand...


----------



## Ernie S.

Esmeralda said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, your post doesn't even make sense and is terribly inarticulate. Second, I am more highly educated than about 80% of the American population, so, no, most people who own guns are not better educated than I am.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For someone that claims to be educated you sure make some dumbass posts from time to time on this forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I suspect that to someone who is not able to understand a post, it might seem  'dumbass.'  I have noticed that the most uninformed and untelligent right wing posters on this board regularly identify at least two (not referring to myself) of the most highly intelligent liberal posters on this board as 'stupid.'  It's quite amusing, as those people are running circles around you all, intellectually speaking, and you don't even know it. So, the point is, as I probably need to spell it out, is that you are in no position to assess who is smart and who isn't.
Click to expand...

Why don't you tell us who these two are? It's been years since I was completely in awe of another human being.


----------



## ChrisL

Flash said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Exactly.  The government is not to be trusted.  They will use every loop hole, like calling something a "tax."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the problem.
> 
> People in power will interpret the laws and in a way so they or their special interest groups can benefit from it.
> 
> A Bill of Rights isn't worth the paper (or parchment) it is written on unless the people are willing to enforce compliance and that is why we need the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> We may not have the courage to use the arms when government is abusive, like we are seeing nowadays, but at least we have the option.
Click to expand...


I couldn't agree more.  Anyone who thinks otherwise is just ignorant.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> See, that's the point Brain...they are at home and aren't engaged in criminal activity...which is where most of the defensive gun uses occur....putting the truth to your distortion of what Kleck said....the grey area comes in in the 1990s before concealed carry had spread as far as it has today.....but there was more crime, and normal people decided they would rather violate an unjust law that disarmed them rather than be defenseless......
> 
> And still, reporting a non event....scaring off a home invader with a gun is not always something people want to report to police....at least doing it with a gun.....that carries legal implications and hassles....especially if no shots were fired an no one was injured.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No Bill you miss the point.
> Kleck:
> "This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."
> 
> Sorry but according to Kleck they are home and involved in criminal activity.  Because most DGUs involve criminal behavior by the victim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You really need to talk to Kleck about that.....2.5 million defensive gun uses are not criminals, and now....with concealed and open carry in every state......law abiding people who have to break the law to excercise their civil right is now a thing of the past in most situations......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No we have his very clear quote.  Most are criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This quote says it all from Kleck....
> 
> Guns and Self-Defense by Gary Kleck Ph.D.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The authors concluded that defensive uses of guns are about three to four times as common as criminal uses of guns.* The National Self-Defense Survey confirmed the picture of frequent defensive gun use implied by the results of earlier, less sophisticated surveys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A national survey conducted in 1994 by the Police Foundation and sponsored by the National Institute of Justice almost exactly confirmed the estimates from the National Self-Defense Survey. This survey's person-based estimate was that 1.44% of the adult population had used a gun for protection against a person in the previous year, implying 2.73 million defensive gun users. These results were well within sampling error of the corresponding 1.33% and 2.55 million estimates produced by the National Self-Defense Survey.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep posting that but why? Just means armed criminals are often defending against unarmed criminals.
Click to expand...


It says that guns are used 3-4 times more often for self defense than in the process of a crime!    Where are you getting that they are criminals?  Certainly SOME might be, but that does not negate the fact that many people ARE using their weapons in situations of self defense, regardless of how you try and twist facts.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No Bill you miss the point.
> Kleck:
> "This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."
> 
> Sorry but according to Kleck they are home and involved in criminal activity.  Because most DGUs involve criminal behavior by the victim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really need to talk to Kleck about that.....2.5 million defensive gun uses are not criminals, and now....with concealed and open carry in every state......law abiding people who have to break the law to excercise their civil right is now a thing of the past in most situations......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No we have his very clear quote.  Most are criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This quote says it all from Kleck....
> 
> Guns and Self-Defense by Gary Kleck Ph.D.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The authors concluded that defensive uses of guns are about three to four times as common as criminal uses of guns.* The National Self-Defense Survey confirmed the picture of frequent defensive gun use implied by the results of earlier, less sophisticated surveys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A national survey conducted in 1994 by the Police Foundation and sponsored by the National Institute of Justice almost exactly confirmed the estimates from the National Self-Defense Survey. This survey's person-based estimate was that 1.44% of the adult population had used a gun for protection against a person in the previous year, implying 2.73 million defensive gun users. These results were well within sampling error of the corresponding 1.33% and 2.55 million estimates produced by the National Self-Defense Survey.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep posting that but why? Just means armed criminals are often defending against unarmed criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It says that guns are used 3-4 times more often for self defense than in the process of a crime!    Where are you getting that they are criminals?  Certainly SOME might be, but that does not negate the fact that many people ARE using their weapons in situations of self defense, regardless of how you try and twist facts.
Click to expand...


I am getting they are criminals from the same person:
Kleck:
"This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."

So if they are used 3-4 times more for defense then they must be used by criminals defending against unarmed criminals a lot.  But yes they are certainly used in self defense, just according to Kleck mostly by people involved in criminal behavior.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really need to talk to Kleck about that.....2.5 million defensive gun uses are not criminals, and now....with concealed and open carry in every state......law abiding people who have to break the law to excercise their civil right is now a thing of the past in most situations......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No we have his very clear quote.  Most are criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This quote says it all from Kleck....
> 
> Guns and Self-Defense by Gary Kleck Ph.D.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The authors concluded that defensive uses of guns are about three to four times as common as criminal uses of guns.* The National Self-Defense Survey confirmed the picture of frequent defensive gun use implied by the results of earlier, less sophisticated surveys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A national survey conducted in 1994 by the Police Foundation and sponsored by the National Institute of Justice almost exactly confirmed the estimates from the National Self-Defense Survey. This survey's person-based estimate was that 1.44% of the adult population had used a gun for protection against a person in the previous year, implying 2.73 million defensive gun users. These results were well within sampling error of the corresponding 1.33% and 2.55 million estimates produced by the National Self-Defense Survey.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep posting that but why? Just means armed criminals are often defending against unarmed criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It says that guns are used 3-4 times more often for self defense than in the process of a crime!    Where are you getting that they are criminals?  Certainly SOME might be, but that does not negate the fact that many people ARE using their weapons in situations of self defense, regardless of how you try and twist facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am getting they are criminals from the same person:
> Kleck:
> "This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."
> 
> So if they are used 3-4 times more for defense then they must be used by criminals defending against unarmed criminals a lot.  But yes they are certainly used in self defense, just according to Kleck mostly by people involved in criminal behavior.
Click to expand...


They must be defending against unarmed criminals?  Where do you get that from?  Does it say that anywhere in the study? 

Also, please quote the section in the study where it says this.  Does it give a percentage of how many are "criminals?"  You can't just make a claim.  You have to reference it or else it is not a fact.


----------



## turtledude

Esmeralda said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think the right to bear arms is obsolete, absolutely. It should be a privilege, not a right.  Most of the pro-2nd amendment posters on here are hysterical people with limited intelligence and borderline personalities. I think it is a disgrace that such people have the right to own guns.  Being able to own a gun is something that should be earned and that privilge should maintained by specific behavior.  I remember, some years ago, a guy telling me he accidently shot his roommate's cat which was sitting on the couch  next to him. He thought it was funny. Such a moron should not have the right to own a gun.
Click to expand...


People who think like you are why all freedom loving Americans should remain well armed


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No we have his very clear quote.  Most are criminals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This quote says it all from Kleck....
> 
> Guns and Self-Defense by Gary Kleck Ph.D.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The authors concluded that defensive uses of guns are about three to four times as common as criminal uses of guns.* The National Self-Defense Survey confirmed the picture of frequent defensive gun use implied by the results of earlier, less sophisticated surveys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A national survey conducted in 1994 by the Police Foundation and sponsored by the National Institute of Justice almost exactly confirmed the estimates from the National Self-Defense Survey. This survey's person-based estimate was that 1.44% of the adult population had used a gun for protection against a person in the previous year, implying 2.73 million defensive gun users. These results were well within sampling error of the corresponding 1.33% and 2.55 million estimates produced by the National Self-Defense Survey.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep posting that but why? Just means armed criminals are often defending against unarmed criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It says that guns are used 3-4 times more often for self defense than in the process of a crime!    Where are you getting that they are criminals?  Certainly SOME might be, but that does not negate the fact that many people ARE using their weapons in situations of self defense, regardless of how you try and twist facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am getting they are criminals from the same person:
> Kleck:
> "This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."
> 
> So if they are used 3-4 times more for defense then they must be used by criminals defending against unarmed criminals a lot.  But yes they are certainly used in self defense, just according to Kleck mostly by people involved in criminal behavior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They must be defending against unarmed criminals?  Where do you get that from?  Does it say that anywhere in the study?
> 
> Also, please quote the section in the study where it says this.  Does it give a percentage of how many are "criminals?"  You can't just make a claim.  You have to reference it or else it is not a fact.
Click to expand...


Well if they are used 3-4 times more for defense than criminal use and most DGUs are by people involved in criminal behavior then it must be armed criminals defending against unarmed criminals.

There is no % given but typically does mean in most cases.
You can find it in here:
Although we systematically rebut each of Hemenwayls H claims we


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> This quote says it all from Kleck....
> 
> Guns and Self-Defense by Gary Kleck Ph.D.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep posting that but why? Just means armed criminals are often defending against unarmed criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It says that guns are used 3-4 times more often for self defense than in the process of a crime!    Where are you getting that they are criminals?  Certainly SOME might be, but that does not negate the fact that many people ARE using their weapons in situations of self defense, regardless of how you try and twist facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am getting they are criminals from the same person:
> Kleck:
> "This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."
> 
> So if they are used 3-4 times more for defense then they must be used by criminals defending against unarmed criminals a lot.  But yes they are certainly used in self defense, just according to Kleck mostly by people involved in criminal behavior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They must be defending against unarmed criminals?  Where do you get that from?  Does it say that anywhere in the study?
> 
> Also, please quote the section in the study where it says this.  Does it give a percentage of how many are "criminals?"  You can't just make a claim.  You have to reference it or else it is not a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if they are used 3-4 times more for defense than criminal use and most DGUs are by people involved in criminal behavior then it must be armed criminals defending against unarmed criminals.
> 
> There is no % given but typically does mean in most cases.
> You can find it in here:
> Although we systematically rebut each of Hemenwayls H claims we
Click to expand...


Yes, I was the one who posted that study in another thread where you and I were arguing about guns.  I'm familiar with the study.  You need to show where it says what you claim it says.  That way, people don't have to read the ENTIRE study to find that one part, and we can see it in context as well.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep posting that but why? Just means armed criminals are often defending against unarmed criminals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It says that guns are used 3-4 times more often for self defense than in the process of a crime!    Where are you getting that they are criminals?  Certainly SOME might be, but that does not negate the fact that many people ARE using their weapons in situations of self defense, regardless of how you try and twist facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am getting they are criminals from the same person:
> Kleck:
> "This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."
> 
> So if they are used 3-4 times more for defense then they must be used by criminals defending against unarmed criminals a lot.  But yes they are certainly used in self defense, just according to Kleck mostly by people involved in criminal behavior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They must be defending against unarmed criminals?  Where do you get that from?  Does it say that anywhere in the study?
> 
> Also, please quote the section in the study where it says this.  Does it give a percentage of how many are "criminals?"  You can't just make a claim.  You have to reference it or else it is not a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if they are used 3-4 times more for defense than criminal use and most DGUs are by people involved in criminal behavior then it must be armed criminals defending against unarmed criminals.
> 
> There is no % given but typically does mean in most cases.
> You can find it in here:
> Although we systematically rebut each of Hemenwayls H claims we
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I was the one who posted that study in another thread where you and I were arguing about guns.  I'm familiar with the study.  You need to show where it says what you claim it says.  That way, people don't have to read the ENTIRE study to find that one part, and we can see it in context as well.
Click to expand...


I've posted a link and posted the quote several times over.  I'm sure you can find it.


----------



## nodoginnafight

I have to disagree in that I believe a fair reading clearly produces a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects the right of the individual to own firearms. And I believe that can only change by constitutional amendment.

Case law keeps the document current but the document also lays out some core principles that were not meant to be easily altered. And explains the high standard for amending the Constitution. MHO


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> It says that guns are used 3-4 times more often for self defense than in the process of a crime!    Where are you getting that they are criminals?  Certainly SOME might be, but that does not negate the fact that many people ARE using their weapons in situations of self defense, regardless of how you try and twist facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am getting they are criminals from the same person:
> Kleck:
> "This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."
> 
> So if they are used 3-4 times more for defense then they must be used by criminals defending against unarmed criminals a lot.  But yes they are certainly used in self defense, just according to Kleck mostly by people involved in criminal behavior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They must be defending against unarmed criminals?  Where do you get that from?  Does it say that anywhere in the study?
> 
> Also, please quote the section in the study where it says this.  Does it give a percentage of how many are "criminals?"  You can't just make a claim.  You have to reference it or else it is not a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if they are used 3-4 times more for defense than criminal use and most DGUs are by people involved in criminal behavior then it must be armed criminals defending against unarmed criminals.
> 
> There is no % given but typically does mean in most cases.
> You can find it in here:
> Although we systematically rebut each of Hemenwayls H claims we
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I was the one who posted that study in another thread where you and I were arguing about guns.  I'm familiar with the study.  You need to show where it says what you claim it says.  That way, people don't have to read the ENTIRE study to find that one part, and we can see it in context as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've posted a link and posted the quote several times over.  I'm sure you can find it.
Click to expand...


Well, if YOU can't find it, then how do you know that is what it says?  I don't remember it specifically saying that as a conclusion to the study.  Just that potential crime victims use guns more frequently than criminals.  So what is your problem with that?  Now you are trying to say that it is criminals who defend themselves and not honest people?  That only criminals are the victim of crime?  

Granted, criminals ARE going to be the crime victims more often, simply because of their lifestyles.  However, again, that does nothing to negate the fact that people do use their guns for self defense, correct?  

I remember on the last thread you were trying to say that use of guns for self defense hardly never occurred until I proved you wrong.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am getting they are criminals from the same person:
> Kleck:
> "This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."
> 
> So if they are used 3-4 times more for defense then they must be used by criminals defending against unarmed criminals a lot.  But yes they are certainly used in self defense, just according to Kleck mostly by people involved in criminal behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They must be defending against unarmed criminals?  Where do you get that from?  Does it say that anywhere in the study?
> 
> Also, please quote the section in the study where it says this.  Does it give a percentage of how many are "criminals?"  You can't just make a claim.  You have to reference it or else it is not a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if they are used 3-4 times more for defense than criminal use and most DGUs are by people involved in criminal behavior then it must be armed criminals defending against unarmed criminals.
> 
> There is no % given but typically does mean in most cases.
> You can find it in here:
> Although we systematically rebut each of Hemenwayls H claims we
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I was the one who posted that study in another thread where you and I were arguing about guns.  I'm familiar with the study.  You need to show where it says what you claim it says.  That way, people don't have to read the ENTIRE study to find that one part, and we can see it in context as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've posted a link and posted the quote several times over.  I'm sure you can find it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if YOU can't find it, then how do you know that is what it says?  I don't remember it specifically saying that as a conclusion to the study.  Just that potential crime victims use guns more frequently than criminals.  So what is your problem with that?  Now you are trying to say that it is criminals who defend themselves and not honest people?  That only criminals are the victim of crime?
> 
> Granted, criminals ARE going to be the crime victims more often, simply because of their lifestyles.  However, again, that does nothing to negate the fact that people do use their guns for self defense, correct?
> 
> I remember on the last thread you were trying to say that use of guns for self defense hardly never occurred until I proved you wrong.
Click to expand...


You seem confused.  We have discussed magazine capacity before.  And you were unable to give an example of anyone ever needing a hi cap mag for defense.  You did give interesting example of people firing that many times, but it was clearly overkill.

No I can find it obviously.  But his quote pretty much says it all.  If you don't like the quote then you should probably read through it and find out why, I can't direct you to whatever it is your looking for.

Kleck arrived at some 2.5 million defenses, but as he has stated most of those are typically by people involved in criminal activity.  So the number of non-criminals defending is a much smaller number than that.  Probably the 108,000 the NCVS survey arrives at as it would weed out the criminals.  Still a big number but nothing like the 2.5 million.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> They must be defending against unarmed criminals?  Where do you get that from?  Does it say that anywhere in the study?
> 
> Also, please quote the section in the study where it says this.  Does it give a percentage of how many are "criminals?"  You can't just make a claim.  You have to reference it or else it is not a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well if they are used 3-4 times more for defense than criminal use and most DGUs are by people involved in criminal behavior then it must be armed criminals defending against unarmed criminals.
> 
> There is no % given but typically does mean in most cases.
> You can find it in here:
> Although we systematically rebut each of Hemenwayls H claims we
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I was the one who posted that study in another thread where you and I were arguing about guns.  I'm familiar with the study.  You need to show where it says what you claim it says.  That way, people don't have to read the ENTIRE study to find that one part, and we can see it in context as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've posted a link and posted the quote several times over.  I'm sure you can find it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if YOU can't find it, then how do you know that is what it says?  I don't remember it specifically saying that as a conclusion to the study.  Just that potential crime victims use guns more frequently than criminals.  So what is your problem with that?  Now you are trying to say that it is criminals who defend themselves and not honest people?  That only criminals are the victim of crime?
> 
> Granted, criminals ARE going to be the crime victims more often, simply because of their lifestyles.  However, again, that does nothing to negate the fact that people do use their guns for self defense, correct?
> 
> I remember on the last thread you were trying to say that use of guns for self defense hardly never occurred until I proved you wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem confused.  We have discussed magazine capacity before.  And you were unable to give an example of anyone ever needing a hi cap mag for defense.  You did give interesting example of people firing that many times, but it was clearly overkill.
> 
> No I can find it obviously.  But his quote pretty much says it all.  If you don't like the quote then you should probably read through it and find out why, I can't direct you to whatever it is your looking for.
> 
> Kleck arrived at some 2.5 million defenses, but as he has stated most of those are typically by people involved in criminal activity.  So the number of non-criminals defending is a much smaller number than that.  Probably the 108,000 the NCVS survey arrives at as it would weed out the criminals.  Still a big number but nothing like the 2.5 million.
Click to expand...


Um, no, I gave at least 3 examples of such incidents.  I looked through the link and saw NO such thing.  If you can't quote it directly from the link, then you must be making it up.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> They must be defending against unarmed criminals?  Where do you get that from?  Does it say that anywhere in the study?
> 
> Also, please quote the section in the study where it says this.  Does it give a percentage of how many are "criminals?"  You can't just make a claim.  You have to reference it or else it is not a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well if they are used 3-4 times more for defense than criminal use and most DGUs are by people involved in criminal behavior then it must be armed criminals defending against unarmed criminals.
> 
> There is no % given but typically does mean in most cases.
> You can find it in here:
> Although we systematically rebut each of Hemenwayls H claims we
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I was the one who posted that study in another thread where you and I were arguing about guns.  I'm familiar with the study.  You need to show where it says what you claim it says.  That way, people don't have to read the ENTIRE study to find that one part, and we can see it in context as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've posted a link and posted the quote several times over.  I'm sure you can find it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if YOU can't find it, then how do you know that is what it says?  I don't remember it specifically saying that as a conclusion to the study.  Just that potential crime victims use guns more frequently than criminals.  So what is your problem with that?  Now you are trying to say that it is criminals who defend themselves and not honest people?  That only criminals are the victim of crime?
> 
> Granted, criminals ARE going to be the crime victims more often, simply because of their lifestyles.  However, again, that does nothing to negate the fact that people do use their guns for self defense, correct?
> 
> I remember on the last thread you were trying to say that use of guns for self defense hardly never occurred until I proved you wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem confused.  We have discussed magazine capacity before.  And you were unable to give an example of anyone ever needing a hi cap mag for defense.  You did give interesting example of people firing that many times, but it was clearly overkill.
> 
> No I can find it obviously.  But his quote pretty much says it all.  If you don't like the quote then you should probably read through it and find out why, I can't direct you to whatever it is your looking for.
> 
> Kleck arrived at some 2.5 million defenses, but as he has stated most of those are typically by people involved in criminal activity.  So the number of non-criminals defending is a much smaller number than that.  Probably the 108,000 the NCVS survey arrives at as it would weed out the criminals.  Still a big number but nothing like the 2.5 million.
Click to expand...


Remember I posted the video, along with a link about the man whose gun store was being robbed?  He fought off the attackers and used many, many rounds to do so.  There were also several others I linked you to.  I can find them again if need be.  I can back up my claims, unlike yourself.


----------



## ChrisL

So . . . if anyone wonders why I am not very nice to brainless, this is why.  He is completely dishonest POS.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well if they are used 3-4 times more for defense than criminal use and most DGUs are by people involved in criminal behavior then it must be armed criminals defending against unarmed criminals.
> 
> There is no % given but typically does mean in most cases.
> You can find it in here:
> Although we systematically rebut each of Hemenwayls H claims we
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I was the one who posted that study in another thread where you and I were arguing about guns.  I'm familiar with the study.  You need to show where it says what you claim it says.  That way, people don't have to read the ENTIRE study to find that one part, and we can see it in context as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've posted a link and posted the quote several times over.  I'm sure you can find it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if YOU can't find it, then how do you know that is what it says?  I don't remember it specifically saying that as a conclusion to the study.  Just that potential crime victims use guns more frequently than criminals.  So what is your problem with that?  Now you are trying to say that it is criminals who defend themselves and not honest people?  That only criminals are the victim of crime?
> 
> Granted, criminals ARE going to be the crime victims more often, simply because of their lifestyles.  However, again, that does nothing to negate the fact that people do use their guns for self defense, correct?
> 
> I remember on the last thread you were trying to say that use of guns for self defense hardly never occurred until I proved you wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem confused.  We have discussed magazine capacity before.  And you were unable to give an example of anyone ever needing a hi cap mag for defense.  You did give interesting example of people firing that many times, but it was clearly overkill.
> 
> No I can find it obviously.  But his quote pretty much says it all.  If you don't like the quote then you should probably read through it and find out why, I can't direct you to whatever it is your looking for.
> 
> Kleck arrived at some 2.5 million defenses, but as he has stated most of those are typically by people involved in criminal activity.  So the number of non-criminals defending is a much smaller number than that.  Probably the 108,000 the NCVS survey arrives at as it would weed out the criminals.  Still a big number but nothing like the 2.5 million.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Remember I posted the video, along with a link about the man whose gun store was being robbed?  He fought off the attackers and used many, many rounds to do so.  There were also several others I linked you to.  I can find them again if need be.  I can back up my claims, unlike yourself.
Click to expand...


Yes it sounded very fictional.  I believe he was at his house and saw the criminals.  Grabbed his pistol, assault rifle, submachine gun, and shotgun.  Then he went and blasted all 10 of them or whatever.  Sounded pretty fictional to me but I guess the most important point is that he chose to go take on a bunch of criminals.  He should have called the cops and stayed safely at his home.  Had it been a real story he'd probably be dead.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well if they are used 3-4 times more for defense than criminal use and most DGUs are by people involved in criminal behavior then it must be armed criminals defending against unarmed criminals.
> 
> There is no % given but typically does mean in most cases.
> You can find it in here:
> Although we systematically rebut each of Hemenwayls H claims we
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I was the one who posted that study in another thread where you and I were arguing about guns.  I'm familiar with the study.  You need to show where it says what you claim it says.  That way, people don't have to read the ENTIRE study to find that one part, and we can see it in context as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've posted a link and posted the quote several times over.  I'm sure you can find it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if YOU can't find it, then how do you know that is what it says?  I don't remember it specifically saying that as a conclusion to the study.  Just that potential crime victims use guns more frequently than criminals.  So what is your problem with that?  Now you are trying to say that it is criminals who defend themselves and not honest people?  That only criminals are the victim of crime?
> 
> Granted, criminals ARE going to be the crime victims more often, simply because of their lifestyles.  However, again, that does nothing to negate the fact that people do use their guns for self defense, correct?
> 
> I remember on the last thread you were trying to say that use of guns for self defense hardly never occurred until I proved you wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem confused.  We have discussed magazine capacity before.  And you were unable to give an example of anyone ever needing a hi cap mag for defense.  You did give interesting example of people firing that many times, but it was clearly overkill.
> 
> No I can find it obviously.  But his quote pretty much says it all.  If you don't like the quote then you should probably read through it and find out why, I can't direct you to whatever it is your looking for.
> 
> Kleck arrived at some 2.5 million defenses, but as he has stated most of those are typically by people involved in criminal activity.  So the number of non-criminals defending is a much smaller number than that.  Probably the 108,000 the NCVS survey arrives at as it would weed out the criminals.  Still a big number but nothing like the 2.5 million.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, no, I gave at least 3 examples of such incidents.  I looked through the link and saw NO such thing.  If you can't quote it directly from the link, then you must be making it up.
Click to expand...


You must not be very smart.  I've already quoted it.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> So . . . if anyone wonders why I am not very nice to brainless, this is why.  He is completely dishonest POS.



For quoting Kleck?  Hey I didn't make him say it.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I was the one who posted that study in another thread where you and I were arguing about guns.  I'm familiar with the study.  You need to show where it says what you claim it says.  That way, people don't have to read the ENTIRE study to find that one part, and we can see it in context as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've posted a link and posted the quote several times over.  I'm sure you can find it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if YOU can't find it, then how do you know that is what it says?  I don't remember it specifically saying that as a conclusion to the study.  Just that potential crime victims use guns more frequently than criminals.  So what is your problem with that?  Now you are trying to say that it is criminals who defend themselves and not honest people?  That only criminals are the victim of crime?
> 
> Granted, criminals ARE going to be the crime victims more often, simply because of their lifestyles.  However, again, that does nothing to negate the fact that people do use their guns for self defense, correct?
> 
> I remember on the last thread you were trying to say that use of guns for self defense hardly never occurred until I proved you wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem confused.  We have discussed magazine capacity before.  And you were unable to give an example of anyone ever needing a hi cap mag for defense.  You did give interesting example of people firing that many times, but it was clearly overkill.
> 
> No I can find it obviously.  But his quote pretty much says it all.  If you don't like the quote then you should probably read through it and find out why, I can't direct you to whatever it is your looking for.
> 
> Kleck arrived at some 2.5 million defenses, but as he has stated most of those are typically by people involved in criminal activity.  So the number of non-criminals defending is a much smaller number than that.  Probably the 108,000 the NCVS survey arrives at as it would weed out the criminals.  Still a big number but nothing like the 2.5 million.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Remember I posted the video, along with a link about the man whose gun store was being robbed?  He fought off the attackers and used many, many rounds to do so.  There were also several others I linked you to.  I can find them again if need be.  I can back up my claims, unlike yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it sounded very fictional.  I believe he was at his house and saw the criminals.  Grabbed his pistol, assault rifle, submachine gun, and shotgun.  Then he went and blasted all 10 of them or whatever.  Sounded pretty fictional to me but I guess the most important point is that he chose to go take on a bunch of criminals.  He should have called the cops and stayed safely at his home.  Had it been a real story he'd probably be dead.
Click to expand...


It was a real story.  It was in the news, and I quoted you a link to that.  There are MANY instances.  

shop owner fights off would be robbers - Google Search


----------



## ChrisL

Many instances, and given how violent people have become, I suspect the need will increase too.  

Let me google that for you


----------



## ChrisL

8216 Shoot the Mother F ker 8217 Gun Store Owner Opens Fire on 3 Burglars After They Drove Van Through Wall Video TheBlaze.com


----------



## ChrisL

I suppose brainless wants all of these would-be crime victims to have been left defenseless, or only with the amount of rounds that he feels is appropriate, even though he has NO idea what could happen or how many rounds a person may need to defend themselves, their family and their livelihood.


----------



## ChrisL

The Store Owner Who Killed 5 Gang Members


----------



## ChrisL

Now what angle is brainless going to take?  All of his anti second amendment angles have been utterly destroyed.  What now?


----------



## Ernie S.

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> This quote says it all from Kleck....
> 
> Guns and Self-Defense by Gary Kleck Ph.D.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep posting that but why? Just means armed criminals are often defending against unarmed criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It says that guns are used 3-4 times more often for self defense than in the process of a crime!    Where are you getting that they are criminals?  Certainly SOME might be, but that does not negate the fact that many people ARE using their weapons in situations of self defense, regardless of how you try and twist facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am getting they are criminals from the same person:
> Kleck:
> "This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."
> 
> So if they are used 3-4 times more for defense then they must be used by criminals defending against unarmed criminals a lot.  But yes they are certainly used in self defense, just according to Kleck mostly by people involved in criminal behavior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They must be defending against unarmed criminals?  Where do you get that from?  Does it say that anywhere in the study?
> 
> Also, please quote the section in the study where it says this.  Does it give a percentage of how many are "criminals?"  You can't just make a claim.  You have to reference it or else it is not a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if they are used 3-4 times more for defense than criminal use and most DGUs are by people involved in criminal behavior then it must be armed criminals defending against unarmed criminals.
> 
> There is no % given but typically does mean in most cases.
> You can find it in here:
> Although we systematically rebut each of Hemenwayls H claims we
Click to expand...

You STILL won't link to that statement in context.


----------



## Ernie S.

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> It says that guns are used 3-4 times more often for self defense than in the process of a crime!    Where are you getting that they are criminals?  Certainly SOME might be, but that does not negate the fact that many people ARE using their weapons in situations of self defense, regardless of how you try and twist facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am getting they are criminals from the same person:
> Kleck:
> "This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."
> 
> So if they are used 3-4 times more for defense then they must be used by criminals defending against unarmed criminals a lot.  But yes they are certainly used in self defense, just according to Kleck mostly by people involved in criminal behavior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They must be defending against unarmed criminals?  Where do you get that from?  Does it say that anywhere in the study?
> 
> Also, please quote the section in the study where it says this.  Does it give a percentage of how many are "criminals?"  You can't just make a claim.  You have to reference it or else it is not a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if they are used 3-4 times more for defense than criminal use and most DGUs are by people involved in criminal behavior then it must be armed criminals defending against unarmed criminals.
> 
> There is no % given but typically does mean in most cases.
> You can find it in here:
> Although we systematically rebut each of Hemenwayls H claims we
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I was the one who posted that study in another thread where you and I were arguing about guns.  I'm familiar with the study.  You need to show where it says what you claim it says.  That way, people don't have to read the ENTIRE study to find that one part, and we can see it in context as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've posted a link and posted the quote several times over.  I'm sure you can find it.
Click to expand...

I've followed your links and not found the statement. Frankly, I doubt it says what you keep quoting.


----------



## Ernie S.

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> They must be defending against unarmed criminals?  Where do you get that from?  Does it say that anywhere in the study?
> 
> Also, please quote the section in the study where it says this.  Does it give a percentage of how many are "criminals?"  You can't just make a claim.  You have to reference it or else it is not a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well if they are used 3-4 times more for defense than criminal use and most DGUs are by people involved in criminal behavior then it must be armed criminals defending against unarmed criminals.
> 
> There is no % given but typically does mean in most cases.
> You can find it in here:
> Although we systematically rebut each of Hemenwayls H claims we
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I was the one who posted that study in another thread where you and I were arguing about guns.  I'm familiar with the study.  You need to show where it says what you claim it says.  That way, people don't have to read the ENTIRE study to find that one part, and we can see it in context as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've posted a link and posted the quote several times over.  I'm sure you can find it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if YOU can't find it, then how do you know that is what it says?  I don't remember it specifically saying that as a conclusion to the study.  Just that potential crime victims use guns more frequently than criminals.  So what is your problem with that?  Now you are trying to say that it is criminals who defend themselves and not honest people?  That only criminals are the victim of crime?
> 
> Granted, criminals ARE going to be the crime victims more often, simply because of their lifestyles.  However, again, that does nothing to negate the fact that people do use their guns for self defense, correct?
> 
> I remember on the last thread you were trying to say that use of guns for self defense hardly never occurred until I proved you wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem confused.  We have discussed magazine capacity before.  And you were unable to give an example of anyone ever needing a hi cap mag for defense.  You did give interesting example of people firing that many times, but it was clearly overkill.
> 
> No I can find it obviously.  But his quote pretty much says it all.  If you don't like the quote then you should probably read through it and find out why, I can't direct you to whatever it is your looking for.
> 
> Kleck arrived at some 2.5 million defenses, but as he has stated _*most of those are typically by people involved in criminal activity.*_  So the number of non-criminals defending is a much smaller number than that.  Probably the 108,000 the NCVS survey arrives at as it would weed out the criminals.  Still a big number but nothing like the 2.5 million.
Click to expand...

You keep saying that, but refuse to quote in context or provide a page number of his study. This leads me to conclude that you are talking out of your ass, as usual.


----------



## Ernie S.

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I was the one who posted that study in another thread where you and I were arguing about guns.  I'm familiar with the study.  You need to show where it says what you claim it says.  That way, people don't have to read the ENTIRE study to find that one part, and we can see it in context as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've posted a link and posted the quote several times over.  I'm sure you can find it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if YOU can't find it, then how do you know that is what it says?  I don't remember it specifically saying that as a conclusion to the study.  Just that potential crime victims use guns more frequently than criminals.  So what is your problem with that?  Now you are trying to say that it is criminals who defend themselves and not honest people?  That only criminals are the victim of crime?
> 
> Granted, criminals ARE going to be the crime victims more often, simply because of their lifestyles.  However, again, that does nothing to negate the fact that people do use their guns for self defense, correct?
> 
> I remember on the last thread you were trying to say that use of guns for self defense hardly never occurred until I proved you wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem confused.  We have discussed magazine capacity before.  And you were unable to give an example of anyone ever needing a hi cap mag for defense.  You did give interesting example of people firing that many times, but it was clearly overkill.
> 
> No I can find it obviously.  But his quote pretty much says it all.  If you don't like the quote then you should probably read through it and find out why, I can't direct you to whatever it is your looking for.
> 
> Kleck arrived at some 2.5 million defenses, but as he has stated most of those are typically by people involved in criminal activity.  So the number of non-criminals defending is a much smaller number than that.  Probably the 108,000 the NCVS survey arrives at as it would weed out the criminals.  Still a big number but nothing like the 2.5 million.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, no, I gave at least 3 examples of such incidents.  I looked through the link and saw NO such thing.  If you can't quote it directly from the link, then you must be making it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must not be very smart.  I've already quoted it.
Click to expand...

You have quoted it many times, but as of yet, no one has seen it in the context of the study. The only conclusion that a reasonable person could make is that you are a lying sack of shit.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357

Here is the link to the story I had posted on the other thread about the man who used more than 10 rounds in self defense that you think is "made up." 

Gun Training Report 34 Interview with a Gunfighter

And here is the news report to corroborate his story.  The man in the video is property owner Billy Jackson.  

Police Shooting Was Self-Defense WLKY Home - WLKY Home


----------



## ChrisL

Ernie S. said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've posted a link and posted the quote several times over.  I'm sure you can find it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if YOU can't find it, then how do you know that is what it says?  I don't remember it specifically saying that as a conclusion to the study.  Just that potential crime victims use guns more frequently than criminals.  So what is your problem with that?  Now you are trying to say that it is criminals who defend themselves and not honest people?  That only criminals are the victim of crime?
> 
> Granted, criminals ARE going to be the crime victims more often, simply because of their lifestyles.  However, again, that does nothing to negate the fact that people do use their guns for self defense, correct?
> 
> I remember on the last thread you were trying to say that use of guns for self defense hardly never occurred until I proved you wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem confused.  We have discussed magazine capacity before.  And you were unable to give an example of anyone ever needing a hi cap mag for defense.  You did give interesting example of people firing that many times, but it was clearly overkill.
> 
> No I can find it obviously.  But his quote pretty much says it all.  If you don't like the quote then you should probably read through it and find out why, I can't direct you to whatever it is your looking for.
> 
> Kleck arrived at some 2.5 million defenses, but as he has stated most of those are typically by people involved in criminal activity.  So the number of non-criminals defending is a much smaller number than that.  Probably the 108,000 the NCVS survey arrives at as it would weed out the criminals.  Still a big number but nothing like the 2.5 million.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, no, I gave at least 3 examples of such incidents.  I looked through the link and saw NO such thing.  If you can't quote it directly from the link, then you must be making it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must not be very smart.  I've already quoted it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have quoted it many times, but as of yet, no one has seen it in the context of the study. The only conclusion that a reasonable person could make is that you are a lying sack of shit.
Click to expand...


This is typical for them.  They bring something up, you prove them wrong.  Then, they will bring up the same thing in another thread and deny ALL the points you made in the other thread or play stupid.  This is their MO.  Not only are they INCREDIBLY ignorant, but they also insult everyone's intelligence with their silly antics.  They seem to think they are clever, but they are quite transparent lying and dishonest POS for anyone who follows along.


----------



## ChrisL

I also find it interesting when certain posters claim that they are not "gun banners," yet if you check out their posting history, they ONLY post on anti-gun threads.  Hmmm.  Lol.


----------



## 2aguy

Esmeralda said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think the right to bear arms is obsolete, absolutely. It should be a privilege, not a right.  Most of the pro-2nd amendment posters on here are hysterical people with limited intelligence and borderline personalities. I think it is a disgrace that such people have the right to own guns.  Being able to own a gun is something that should be earned and that privilge should maintained by specific behavior.  I remember, some years ago, a guy telling me he accidently shot his roommate's cat which was sitting on the couch  next to him. He thought it was funny. Such a moron should not have the right to own a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to the US Constitution, the right to bear arms is absolutely absolute It shall not be infringed. It is more of a protected right than voting and just as fundamental.
> Yes, convicted felons, the mentally deficient and children should not possess firearms. They should not vote either.
> I am a pro-2nd Amendment poster here that is far from hysterical and about 60 IQ points ahead of you from the look of the uninformed drivel you post here.
> As for your  guy with the cat.... Perhaps the guy shouldn't have a gun. He did a stupid thing. Maybe he should lose his right to vote too?
> 
> How about that? How about we have "reasonable voting control"? You walk in to your polling place and the proctor asks you 10 questions about government. If you can't answer them and prove who you are, you don't vote.
> That's reasonable, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You people's arguments are so stupid and are generally always logical failures: there is no comparison between voting and owning a gun.  Voting is not the same thing as having a firearm, which kills people or animals, in your possession. There is no comparison between voting and having a gun.
Click to expand...



Owning guns protects the right to vote....just look at any dictatorship......they all vote....North Korea, Iraq under sadaam, Iran.........and no freedom......what protects freedom........free people with guns.....that protects the vote..........


----------



## 2aguy

Ernie S. said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am getting they are criminals from the same person:
> Kleck:
> "This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident."
> 
> So if they are used 3-4 times more for defense then they must be used by criminals defending against unarmed criminals a lot.  But yes they are certainly used in self defense, just according to Kleck mostly by people involved in criminal behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They must be defending against unarmed criminals?  Where do you get that from?  Does it say that anywhere in the study?
> 
> Also, please quote the section in the study where it says this.  Does it give a percentage of how many are "criminals?"  You can't just make a claim.  You have to reference it or else it is not a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if they are used 3-4 times more for defense than criminal use and most DGUs are by people involved in criminal behavior then it must be armed criminals defending against unarmed criminals.
> 
> There is no % given but typically does mean in most cases.
> You can find it in here:
> Although we systematically rebut each of Hemenwayls H claims we
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I was the one who posted that study in another thread where you and I were arguing about guns.  I'm familiar with the study.  You need to show where it says what you claim it says.  That way, people don't have to read the ENTIRE study to find that one part, and we can see it in context as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've posted a link and posted the quote several times over.  I'm sure you can find it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've followed your links and not found the statement. Frankly, I doubt it says what you keep quoting.
Click to expand...



Kleck refers to the situation when the study was done...it isn't surprising that gun grabbers don't understand the history of gun control....they don't understand any history really, that is why they believe in big government, and disarming good people.......history for gun grabbers and the other liberals starts when they wake up in the morning.....

In the 90s, you didn't have the concealed carry laws that we have today....it took Florida to start that ball rolling....but....criminals still existed and still preyed on innocent people....remember when tourists in Florida were being killed....because the criminals knew they couldn't carry guns in Florida....and the criminals just followed the new tourists from the airport?   So law abiding citizens who carried guns for defense against criminals, who then displayed that gun, drew that gun but did not shoot the gun....would not want to tell cops they were carrying a weapon "illegally" because thanks to the anti gunners, that would be a felony.......back in the 90s....

Today....not a problem like it was back then....my state...Illinois....we now have concealed carry.....so those law abiding citizens can now carry "legally"......which in and of itself stupid, since even back in the 90s the 2nd Amendment existed and any law barring the ability to carry a weapon for self defense was unconstitutional......but Brain will still beat that drum with that quote....I keep hoping to find the passage he found it in...to get the whole context....but other things Kleck has stated pretty much points out the opposite of what Brain says......


----------



## Ernie S.

I tend to agree with you about Kleck. I have repeatedly asked for the quote in context with a link. He keeps ducking the question.

Florida was the first large state to go from may issue to shall issue, but I believe Connecticut, of all states, was the first some time before Florida. Their system was and is cumbersome, but if you have a clear record, you will get a CCP in CT.

Alabama is about the most efficient. It is also a shall issue state. You walk int the Sheriff's office, fill out a form, show your driver's license and pose for a photo. No prints and your background check takes about 30 seconds. The whole process takes under 5 minutes. The form is straight forward. It asks about felony records and your address and if you have held or do hold pistol permits in other states. No finger prints required no reason for carrying is asked for.

The fee is $25/year ($20 if you're over 65.


----------



## AntiParty

turtledude said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> The American people no longer need guns, and haven't for decades.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says you, but we already know that you have an irrational fear of guns and run away from them whenever you see one.  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That must be why I have one five feet from me eh ****?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're just making shit up, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> of course you are
> 
> you are a garment soiling coward
Click to expand...


^ Look at all of the education in that post.

I'll have to remember that line for every possible debate in the future. Why hold a knowledge when you can simply call someone a "garment soiling coward" and feel like a pro?


----------



## AntiParty

turtledude said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guns are important in society. Lack of what was supposed to be a "well regulated militia" has caused many issues, mostly because Corporate Arms have convinced small brains that "regulated" means it's secondary meaning. When guns are regulated and stupid people don't get a chance to own them legally, there will be very little gun violence.
> 
> This pack of ignorant gun owners stating we can never have regulation are the cause of all this. Also, this pack of ignorant non- gun owners seem to think the only answer is to ban all guns.
> 
> REGULATION is key and it always has been. The words of the Constitution have been tainted by the Weapons Manufacturers that flood the NRA with money who then flood the (R)ight Wing with money.
> 
> What we have today is a society of gun owners that openly justify national homicide cases because they are scared to lose their guns. And we have gun owners trying to say that "hammers" are relatable to guns.........proof they don't know the gravity of knowledge that SHOULD come with gun ownership.
> 
> I've always proposed forced education and grandfather clause out 100 round mags and silencers. Funny thing is when I propose to force *education* on gun owners, *some say that infringes their right to have a gun*
> 
> 
> 
> You don't even know what "well regulated militia" means, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^See lol...........He thinks he does..........He thinks "regulated" means "well trained" even though that is the SECONDARY definition. He will claim, "it didn't use to be".........
> 
> Just another small brain that listened to the $ driven NRA.
> 
> The least regulated Countries have the most gun violence, fun fact!
> 
> But to counter, gun free zones have even more.
> 
> So yes on regulation, no on bans. Pretty simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> still a moron on this board
Click to expand...


^Don't be so hard on yourself kiddo. You will learn something some day. Less hemp would help you and would help US, the ones fighting for the right to ownership. People like you are the reason there is hemp oppression.


----------



## Jackinthebox

Almost 300 pages on a topic that speaks for itself. 

If I want to own a fracking tank, it is none of your gaddamn business.


----------



## AntiParty

ChrisL said:


> I also find it interesting when certain posters claim that they are not "gun banners," yet if you check out their posting history, they ONLY post on anti-gun threads.  Hmmm.  Lol.



All you have to do is learn both sides.

The (far) Left that fixate on no guns don't own one and see stories every day about killings with them. They think that guns are bad. And the idiotic Right has the worst response possible due to lack of education. The (far) Left thinks there will be no gun killings without guns and the (far) Right says guns will kill people if we ban guns so why ban guns............not exactly creating the best argument. Creating a fear that people with guns will kill us if we don't have guns drives the topic. The ONLY people that create that fear today is the NRA AND THE RIGHT WING and the ones who can profit.

The majority of the Left don't want to ban guns. Most want regulation.

I say lack of regulation will lead to bans. But that's just an individuals predications based on collective information.


----------



## AntiParty

Jackinthebox said:


> Almost 300 pages on a topic that speaks for itself.
> 
> If I want to own a fracking tank, it is none of your gaddamn business.



You can own a tank, but not the rounds.

And it's EVERYONE'S business. THE PEOPLE decide what powers any certain individual can have.

What small brains like you fail to notice is that your Liberty can infringe the Liberty of others. 

Welcome to America and "Freedom isn't free"


----------



## AntiParty

ChrisL said:


> I also find it interesting when certain posters claim that they are not "gun banners," yet if you check out their posting history, they ONLY post on anti-gun threads.  Hmmm.  Lol.



Is this an "anti-gun thread" or is it labeled "right to bear arms"?............not too smart there kid.


----------



## Jackinthebox

AntiParty said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost 300 pages on a topic that speaks for itself.
> 
> If I want to own a fracking tank, it is none of your gaddamn business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can own a tank, but not the rounds.
> 
> And it's EVERYONE'S business. THE PEOPLE decide what powers any certain individual can have.
> 
> What small brains like you fail to notice is that your Liberty can infringe the Liberty of others.
> 
> Welcome to America and "Freedom isn't free"
Click to expand...


The people my balls, this is a republic, not a democracy. If I have live rounds, that in no way infringes on your liberty.


----------



## turtledude

AntiParty said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guns are important in society. Lack of what was supposed to be a "well regulated militia" has caused many issues, mostly because Corporate Arms have convinced small brains that "regulated" means it's secondary meaning. When guns are regulated and stupid people don't get a chance to own them legally, there will be very little gun violence.
> 
> This pack of ignorant gun owners stating we can never have regulation are the cause of all this. Also, this pack of ignorant non- gun owners seem to think the only answer is to ban all guns.
> 
> REGULATION is key and it always has been. The words of the Constitution have been tainted by the Weapons Manufacturers that flood the NRA with money who then flood the (R)ight Wing with money.
> 
> What we have today is a society of gun owners that openly justify national homicide cases because they are scared to lose their guns. And we have gun owners trying to say that "hammers" are relatable to guns.........proof they don't know the gravity of knowledge that SHOULD come with gun ownership.
> 
> I've always proposed forced education and grandfather clause out 100 round mags and silencers. Funny thing is when I propose to force *education* on gun owners, *some say that infringes their right to have a gun*
> 
> 
> 
> You don't even know what "well regulated militia" means, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^See lol...........He thinks he does..........He thinks "regulated" means "well trained" even though that is the SECONDARY definition. He will claim, "it didn't use to be".........
> 
> Just another small brain that listened to the $ driven NRA.
> 
> The least regulated Countries have the most gun violence, fun fact!
> 
> But to counter, gun free zones have even more.
> 
> So yes on regulation, no on bans. Pretty simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> still a moron on this board
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^Don't be so hard on yourself kiddo. You will learn something some day. Less hemp would help you and would help US, the ones fighting for the right to ownership. People like you are the reason there is hemp oppression.
Click to expand...


its funny that someone who was seen as a complete troll on another board, remains a troll on another board


----------



## Brain357

Billc said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think the right to bear arms is obsolete, absolutely. It should be a privilege, not a right.  Most of the pro-2nd amendment posters on here are hysterical people with limited intelligence and borderline personalities. I think it is a disgrace that such people have the right to own guns.  Being able to own a gun is something that should be earned and that privilge should maintained by specific behavior.  I remember, some years ago, a guy telling me he accidently shot his roommate's cat which was sitting on the couch  next to him. He thought it was funny. Such a moron should not have the right to own a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to the US Constitution, the right to bear arms is absolutely absolute It shall not be infringed. It is more of a protected right than voting and just as fundamental.
> Yes, convicted felons, the mentally deficient and children should not possess firearms. They should not vote either.
> I am a pro-2nd Amendment poster here that is far from hysterical and about 60 IQ points ahead of you from the look of the uninformed drivel you post here.
> As for your  guy with the cat.... Perhaps the guy shouldn't have a gun. He did a stupid thing. Maybe he should lose his right to vote too?
> 
> How about that? How about we have "reasonable voting control"? You walk in to your polling place and the proctor asks you 10 questions about government. If you can't answer them and prove who you are, you don't vote.
> That's reasonable, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You people's arguments are so stupid and are generally always logical failures: there is no comparison between voting and owning a gun.  Voting is not the same thing as having a firearm, which kills people or animals, in your possession. There is no comparison between voting and having a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Owning guns protects the right to vote....just look at any dictatorship......they all vote....North Korea, Iraq under sadaam, Iran.........and no freedom......what protects freedom........free people with guns.....that protects the vote..........
Click to expand...


Lots of countries with few guns have the right to vote.


----------



## Brain357

Billc said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> They must be defending against unarmed criminals?  Where do you get that from?  Does it say that anywhere in the study?
> 
> Also, please quote the section in the study where it says this.  Does it give a percentage of how many are "criminals?"  You can't just make a claim.  You have to reference it or else it is not a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well if they are used 3-4 times more for defense than criminal use and most DGUs are by people involved in criminal behavior then it must be armed criminals defending against unarmed criminals.
> 
> There is no % given but typically does mean in most cases.
> You can find it in here:
> Although we systematically rebut each of Hemenwayls H claims we
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I was the one who posted that study in another thread where you and I were arguing about guns.  I'm familiar with the study.  You need to show where it says what you claim it says.  That way, people don't have to read the ENTIRE study to find that one part, and we can see it in context as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've posted a link and posted the quote several times over.  I'm sure you can find it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've followed your links and not found the statement. Frankly, I doubt it says what you keep quoting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Kleck refers to the situation when the study was done...it isn't surprising that gun grabbers don't understand the history of gun control....they don't understand any history really, that is why they believe in big government, and disarming good people.......history for gun grabbers and the other liberals starts when they wake up in the morning.....
> 
> In the 90s, you didn't have the concealed carry laws that we have today....it took Florida to start that ball rolling....but....criminals still existed and still preyed on innocent people....remember when tourists in Florida were being killed....because the criminals knew they couldn't carry guns in Florida....and the criminals just followed the new tourists from the airport?   So law abiding citizens who carried guns for defense against criminals, who then displayed that gun, drew that gun but did not shoot the gun....would not want to tell cops they were carrying a weapon "illegally" because thanks to the anti gunners, that would be a felony.......back in the 90s....
> 
> Today....not a problem like it was back then....my state...Illinois....we now have concealed carry.....so those law abiding citizens can now carry "legally"......which in and of itself stupid, since even back in the 90s the 2nd Amendment existed and any law barring the ability to carry a weapon for self defense was unconstitutional......but Brain will still beat that drum with that quote....I keep hoping to find the passage he found it in...to get the whole context....but other things Kleck has stated pretty much points out the opposite of what Brain says......
Click to expand...


Let me explain this again bill.  Kleck is talking about all DGUs, not just people carrying.  Since mosts defenses happen at home, concealed carry laws don't really matter.  It has never been illegal to defend your home with a gun.  Good try though.  But as Kleck says in most defenses the defender is involved in criminal activity. You have yet to post anything that points in the opposite direction.


----------



## 2aguy

AntiParty said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I also find it interesting when certain posters claim that they are not "gun banners," yet if you check out their posting history, they ONLY post on anti-gun threads.  Hmmm.  Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All you have to do is learn both sides.
> 
> The (far) Left that fixate on no guns don't own one and see stories every day about killings with them. They think that guns are bad. And the idiotic Right has the worst response possible due to lack of education. The (far) Left thinks there will be no gun killings without guns and the (far) Right says guns will kill people if we ban guns so why ban guns............not exactly creating the best argument. Creating a fear that people with guns will kill us if we don't have guns drives the topic. The ONLY people that create that fear today is the NRA AND THE RIGHT WING and the ones who can profit.
> 
> The majority of the Left don't want to ban guns. Most want regulation.
> 
> I say lack of regulation will lead to bans. But that's just an individuals predications based on collective information.
Click to expand...





> The majority of the Left don't want to ban guns. Most want regulation.



Sorry, this is untrue.....the majority of the left want guns banned but don't know how to get it done....so they settle for baby steps..."universal background checks" which make it har


Brain357 said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well if they are used 3-4 times more for defense than criminal use and most DGUs are by people involved in criminal behavior then it must be armed criminals defending against unarmed criminals.
> 
> There is no % given but typically does mean in most cases.
> You can find it in here:
> Although we systematically rebut each of Hemenwayls H claims we
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I was the one who posted that study in another thread where you and I were arguing about guns.  I'm familiar with the study.  You need to show where it says what you claim it says.  That way, people don't have to read the ENTIRE study to find that one part, and we can see it in context as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've posted a link and posted the quote several times over.  I'm sure you can find it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've followed your links and not found the statement. Frankly, I doubt it says what you keep quoting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Kleck refers to the situation when the study was done...it isn't surprising that gun grabbers don't understand the history of gun control....they don't understand any history really, that is why they believe in big government, and disarming good people.......history for gun grabbers and the other liberals starts when they wake up in the morning.....
> 
> In the 90s, you didn't have the concealed carry laws that we have today....it took Florida to start that ball rolling....but....criminals still existed and still preyed on innocent people....remember when tourists in Florida were being killed....because the criminals knew they couldn't carry guns in Florida....and the criminals just followed the new tourists from the airport?   So law abiding citizens who carried guns for defense against criminals, who then displayed that gun, drew that gun but did not shoot the gun....would not want to tell cops they were carrying a weapon "illegally" because thanks to the anti gunners, that would be a felony.......back in the 90s....
> 
> Today....not a problem like it was back then....my state...Illinois....we now have concealed carry.....so those law abiding citizens can now carry "legally"......which in and of itself stupid, since even back in the 90s the 2nd Amendment existed and any law barring the ability to carry a weapon for self defense was unconstitutional......but Brain will still beat that drum with that quote....I keep hoping to find the passage he found it in...to get the whole context....but other things Kleck has stated pretty much points out the opposite of what Brain says......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me explain this again bill.  Kleck is talking about all DGUs, not just people carrying.  Since mosts defenses happen at home, concealed carry laws don't really matter.  It has never been illegal to defend your home with a gun.  Good try though.  But as Kleck says in most defenses the defender is involved in criminal activity. You have yet to post anything that points in the opposite direction.
Click to expand...



Yes Brain.....he is talking about most defensive gun uses, in the home and carrying, and if you read the study most uses occur in the home, fewer while people are carrying.....it is the people carrying outside the home where the "illegal weapon possession" occurs.  And having a gun can in some instances, in the home be illegal and until you actually talk to the man and see what he means you are not being honest.....


----------



## ChrisL

ChrisL said:


> Brain357
> 
> Here is the link to the story I had posted on the other thread about the man who used more than 10 rounds in self defense that you think is "made up."
> 
> Gun Training Report 34 Interview with a Gunfighter
> 
> And here is the news report to corroborate his story.  The man in the video is property owner Billy Jackson.
> 
> Police Shooting Was Self-Defense WLKY Home - WLKY Home



I recommend everyone watch the Interview with a Gunfighter video.  It is just fascinating.  Eleven rounds he used with a TEC 9 with a high capacity magazine.  He ended up killing both perpetrators though.  Post #2619, I believe. 



AntiParty said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I also find it interesting when certain posters claim that they are not "gun banners," yet if you check out their posting history, they ONLY post on anti-gun threads.  Hmmm.  Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All you have to do is learn both sides.
> 
> The (far) Left that fixate on no guns don't own one and see stories every day about killings with them. They think that guns are bad. And the idiotic Right has the worst response possible due to lack of education. The (far) Left thinks there will be no gun killings without guns and the (far) Right says guns will kill people if we ban guns so why ban guns............not exactly creating the best argument. Creating a fear that people with guns will kill us if we don't have guns drives the topic. The ONLY people that create that fear today is the NRA AND THE RIGHT WING and the ones who can profit.
> 
> The majority of the Left don't want to ban guns. Most want regulation.
> 
> I say lack of regulation will lead to bans. But that's just an individuals predications based on collective information.
Click to expand...


Obviously you have a very poor understanding of the issue.


----------



## ChrisL

AntiParty said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guns are important in society. Lack of what was supposed to be a "well regulated militia" has caused many issues, mostly because Corporate Arms have convinced small brains that "regulated" means it's secondary meaning. When guns are regulated and stupid people don't get a chance to own them legally, there will be very little gun violence.
> 
> This pack of ignorant gun owners stating we can never have regulation are the cause of all this. Also, this pack of ignorant non- gun owners seem to think the only answer is to ban all guns.
> 
> REGULATION is key and it always has been. The words of the Constitution have been tainted by the Weapons Manufacturers that flood the NRA with money who then flood the (R)ight Wing with money.
> 
> What we have today is a society of gun owners that openly justify national homicide cases because they are scared to lose their guns. And we have gun owners trying to say that "hammers" are relatable to guns.........proof they don't know the gravity of knowledge that SHOULD come with gun ownership.
> 
> I've always proposed forced education and grandfather clause out 100 round mags and silencers. Funny thing is when I propose to force *education* on gun owners, *some say that infringes their right to have a gun*
> 
> 
> 
> You don't even know what "well regulated militia" means, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^See lol...........He thinks he does..........He thinks "regulated" means "well trained" even though that is the SECONDARY definition. He will claim, "it didn't use to be".........
> 
> Just another small brain that listened to the $ driven NRA.
> 
> The least regulated Countries have the most gun violence, fun fact!
> 
> But to counter, gun free zones have even more.
> 
> So yes on regulation, no on bans. Pretty simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> still a moron on this board
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^Don't be so hard on yourself kiddo. You will learn something some day. Less hemp would help you and would help US, the ones fighting for the right to ownership. People like you are the reason there is hemp oppression.
Click to expand...


  Are you accusing TurtleDude of being a drug user?  I think it is MUCH more likely that you would be the pot head.  Lol!


----------



## 2aguy

Here is kleck...again......

Armed Resistance to Crime The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun



> The traditional conceptualization of victims as either passive targets or active collaborators overlooks another possible victim role, that of the active resister who does not initiate or accelerate any illegitimate activity, but uses various means of resistance for legitimate purposes, such as avoiding injury or property loss.


----------



## ChrisL

AntiParty said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I also find it interesting when certain posters claim that they are not "gun banners," yet if you check out their posting history, they ONLY post on anti-gun threads.  Hmmm.  Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this an "anti-gun thread" or is it labeled "right to bear arms"?............not too smart there kid.
Click to expand...


You all take the anti rights position on every gun thread, regardless of whether it is pro or anti, therefore my statement stands.


----------



## 2aguy

More Kleck....

Guns and Self-Defense by Gary Kleck Ph.D.



> *The authors concluded that defensive uses of guns are about three to four times as common as criminal uses of guns. The National Self-Defense Survey confirmed the picture of frequent defensive gun use implied by the results of earlier, less sophisticated surveys.*





> A national survey conducted in 1994 by the Police Foundation and sponsored by the National Institute of Justice almost exactly confirmed the estimates from the National Self-Defense Survey. This survey's person-based estimate was that 1.44% of the adult population had used a gun for protection against a person in the previous year, implying 2.73 million defensive gun users. These results were well within sampling error of the corresponding 1.33% and 2.55 million estimates produced by the National Self-Defense Survey.





> The one survey that is clearly not suitable for estimating the total number of defensive gun uses is the National Crime Victimization Survey. This is the only survey that has ever generated results implying an annual defensive-gun-use estimate under 700,000. Not surprisingly, it is a favorite of academic gun-control supporters. If one is to make even a pretense of empirically supporting the claim that defensive gun use is rare in America, one must rely on the National Crime Victimization Survey, warts and all.





> That the National Crime Victimization Survey estimate is radically wrong is now beyond serious dispute. Ultimately, the only foundation one ever has for knowing that a measurement is wrong is that it is inconsistent with other measurements of the same phenomenon. There are now at least 15 other independent estimates of the frequency of defensive gun uses and every one of them is enormously larger than the National-Crime-Victimization-Survey estimate. Unanimity is rare in studies of crime, but this is one of those rare cases. Apparently, however, even unanimous and overwhelming evidence is not sufficient to dissuade the gun control advocacy organizations, such as Handgun Control, Inc., and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, that the National Crime Victimization Survey estimate is at least approximately valid and that defensive gun use is rare.





> The numerous surveys yielding contrary estimates strongly support the view that the National-Crime-Victimization-Survey estimate is grossly erroneous.


----------



## Esmeralda

Brain357 said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> 
> 
> I think the right to bear arms is obsolete, absolutely. It should be a privilege, not a right.  Most of the pro-2nd amendment posters on here are hysterical people with limited intelligence and borderline personalities. I think it is a disgrace that such people have the right to own guns.  Being able to own a gun is something that should be earned and that privilge should maintained by specific behavior.  I remember, some years ago, a guy telling me he accidently shot his roommate's cat which was sitting on the couch  next to him. He thought it was funny. Such a moron should not have the right to own a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to the US Constitution, the right to bear arms is absolutely absolute It shall not be infringed. It is more of a protected right than voting and just as fundamental.
> Yes, convicted felons, the mentally deficient and children should not possess firearms. They should not vote either.
> I am a pro-2nd Amendment poster here that is far from hysterical and about 60 IQ points ahead of you from the look of the uninformed drivel you post here.
> As for your  guy with the cat.... Perhaps the guy shouldn't have a gun. He did a stupid thing. Maybe he should lose his right to vote too?
> 
> How about that? How about we have "reasonable voting control"? You walk in to your polling place and the proctor asks you 10 questions about government. If you can't answer them and prove who you are, you don't vote.
> That's reasonable, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You people's arguments are so stupid and are generally always logical failures: there is no comparison between voting and owning a gun.  Voting is not the same thing as having a firearm, which kills people or animals, in your possession. There is no comparison between voting and having a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Owning guns protects the right to vote....just look at any dictatorship......they all vote....North Korea, Iraq under sadaam, Iran.........and no freedom......what protects freedom........free people with guns.....that protects the vote..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Lots of countries with few guns have the right to vote*.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Owning a gun does not have anything to do with or protect your right to vote. All the countries of Europe have far stricter gun laws than the US, and in all those countries, the citizens have voting rights.  Saying guns are connected to voting is a red herring.


----------



## ChrisL

Let's put this into perspective so that everyone can SEE how retarded the anti-rights crowd is.  The Second Amendment was drafted to protect us from, not only foreign invaders, but also our OWN government to prevent government tyranny!  Now we have some tards who want the government to REGULATE the right!  Oh good Lord, people cannot be so stupid, can they?


----------



## 2aguy

ChrisL said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357
> 
> Here is the link to the story I had posted on the other thread about the man who used more than 10 rounds in self defense that you think is "made up."
> 
> Gun Training Report 34 Interview with a Gunfighter
> 
> And here is the news report to corroborate his story.  The man in the video is property owner Billy Jackson.
> 
> Police Shooting Was Self-Defense WLKY Home - WLKY Home
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I recommend everyone watch the Interview with a Gunfighter video.  It is just fascinating.  Eleven rounds he used with a TEC 9 with a high capacity magazine.  He ended up killing both perpetrators though.  Post #2619, I believe.
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I also find it interesting when certain posters claim that they are not "gun banners," yet if you check out their posting history, they ONLY post on anti-gun threads.  Hmmm.  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All you have to do is learn both sides.
> 
> The (far) Left that fixate on no guns don't own one and see stories every day about killings with them. They think that guns are bad. And the idiotic Right has the worst response possible due to lack of education. The (far) Left thinks there will be no gun killings without guns and the (far) Right says guns will kill people if we ban guns so why ban guns............not exactly creating the best argument. Creating a fear that people with guns will kill us if we don't have guns drives the topic. The ONLY people that create that fear today is the NRA AND THE RIGHT WING and the ones who can profit.
> 
> The majority of the Left don't want to ban guns. Most want regulation.
> 
> I say lack of regulation will lead to bans. But that's just an individuals predications based on collective information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously you have a very poor understanding of the issue.
Click to expand...



sorry Chris....this didn't happen...I have it on expert psychic authority (Brain) that no one ever, ever, ever, ever, has needed or will ever, ever, ever need more that 2 bullets in any violent criminal attack..........besides, with what Brain says about Kleck....this gentleman is obviously a criminal King pin since only criminals use guns for self defense........


----------



## Jackinthebox

Esmeralda said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the right to bear arms is obsolete, absolutely. It should be a privilege, not a right.  Most of the pro-2nd amendment posters on here are hysterical people with limited intelligence and borderline personalities. I think it is a disgrace that such people have the right to own guns.  Being able to own a gun is something that should be earned and that privilge should maintained by specific behavior.  I remember, some years ago, a guy telling me he accidently shot his roommate's cat which was sitting on the couch  next to him. He thought it was funny. Such a moron should not have the right to own a gun.
> 
> 
> 
> According to the US Constitution, the right to bear arms is absolutely absolute It shall not be infringed. It is more of a protected right than voting and just as fundamental.
> Yes, convicted felons, the mentally deficient and children should not possess firearms. They should not vote either.
> I am a pro-2nd Amendment poster here that is far from hysterical and about 60 IQ points ahead of you from the look of the uninformed drivel you post here.
> As for your  guy with the cat.... Perhaps the guy shouldn't have a gun. He did a stupid thing. Maybe he should lose his right to vote too?
> 
> How about that? How about we have "reasonable voting control"? You walk in to your polling place and the proctor asks you 10 questions about government. If you can't answer them and prove who you are, you don't vote.
> That's reasonable, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You people's arguments are so stupid and are generally always logical failures: there is no comparison between voting and owning a gun.  Voting is not the same thing as having a firearm, which kills people or animals, in your possession. There is no comparison between voting and having a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Owning guns protects the right to vote....just look at any dictatorship......they all vote....North Korea, Iraq under sadaam, Iran.........and no freedom......what protects freedom........free people with guns.....that protects the vote..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Lots of countries with few guns have the right to vote*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely. Owning a gun does not have anything to do with or protect your right to vote. All the countries of Europe have far stricter gun laws than the US, and in all those countries, the citizens have voting rights.  Saying guns are connected to voting is a red herring.
Click to expand...


This is a Republic, not a democracy.


----------



## Wildman

AntiParty said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I also find it interesting when certain posters claim that they are not "gun banners," yet if you check out their posting history, they ONLY post on anti-gun threads.  Hmmm.  Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All you have to do is learn both sides.
> 
> The (far) Left that fixate on no guns don't own one and see stories every day about killings with them. They think that guns are bad. And the idiotic Right has the worst response possible due to lack of education. The (far) Left thinks there will be no gun killings without guns and the (far) Right says guns will kill people if we ban guns so why ban guns............not exactly creating the best argument. Creating a fear that people with guns will kill us if we don't have guns drives the topic. The ONLY people that create that fear today is the NRA AND THE RIGHT WING and the ones who can profit.
> 
> *The majority of the Left don't want to ban guns. Most want regulation.*
> 
> I say lack of regulation will lead to bans. But that's just an individuals predications based on collective information.
Click to expand...

<><><><><><><><><>
regulation ?? *""The majority of the Left don't want to ban guns. Most want regulation."" *  regulations leads to banning and confiscation !!

you know that to be true, but you will lie about facts till your dying day !!


----------



## Jackinthebox

Billc said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357
> 
> Here is the link to the story I had posted on the other thread about the man who used more than 10 rounds in self defense that you think is "made up."
> 
> Gun Training Report 34 Interview with a Gunfighter
> 
> And here is the news report to corroborate his story.  The man in the video is property owner Billy Jackson.
> 
> Police Shooting Was Self-Defense WLKY Home - WLKY Home
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I recommend everyone watch the Interview with a Gunfighter video.  It is just fascinating.  Eleven rounds he used with a TEC 9 with a high capacity magazine.  He ended up killing both perpetrators though.  Post #2619, I believe.
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I also find it interesting when certain posters claim that they are not "gun banners," yet if you check out their posting history, they ONLY post on anti-gun threads.  Hmmm.  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All you have to do is learn both sides.
> 
> The (far) Left that fixate on no guns don't own one and see stories every day about killings with them. They think that guns are bad. And the idiotic Right has the worst response possible due to lack of education. The (far) Left thinks there will be no gun killings without guns and the (far) Right says guns will kill people if we ban guns so why ban guns............not exactly creating the best argument. Creating a fear that people with guns will kill us if we don't have guns drives the topic. The ONLY people that create that fear today is the NRA AND THE RIGHT WING and the ones who can profit.
> 
> The majority of the Left don't want to ban guns. Most want regulation.
> 
> I say lack of regulation will lead to bans. But that's just an individuals predications based on collective information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously you have a very poor understanding of the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> sorry Chris....this didn't happen...I have it on expert psychic authority (Brain) that no one ever, ever, ever, ever, has needed or will ever, ever, ever need more that 2 bullets in any violent criminal attack..........besides, with what Brain says about Kleck....this gentleman is obviously a criminal King pin since only criminals use guns for self defense........
Click to expand...



I think too few people in this conversation have ever shot a man dead.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Lakhota said:


> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
Click to expand...


Since Paris, French Jews working security are asking for Europe's laws restricting guns be loosened so security forces can arm themselves against terrorists. I'm surprised pro-gun people here aren't citing this as an example of when having legal access to weapons is justified. When Europeans are wanting to arm up, maybe it's time to accept the reality of the human animal as a violent species and just accept guns instead of trying to make the world better outlawing them when doing so only ensures criminals (and terrorists) will have them.


----------



## 2aguy

Esmeralda said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the right to bear arms is obsolete, absolutely. It should be a privilege, not a right.  Most of the pro-2nd amendment posters on here are hysterical people with limited intelligence and borderline personalities. I think it is a disgrace that such people have the right to own guns.  Being able to own a gun is something that should be earned and that privilge should maintained by specific behavior.  I remember, some years ago, a guy telling me he accidently shot his roommate's cat which was sitting on the couch  next to him. He thought it was funny. Such a moron should not have the right to own a gun.
> 
> 
> 
> According to the US Constitution, the right to bear arms is absolutely absolute It shall not be infringed. It is more of a protected right than voting and just as fundamental.
> Yes, convicted felons, the mentally deficient and children should not possess firearms. They should not vote either.
> I am a pro-2nd Amendment poster here that is far from hysterical and about 60 IQ points ahead of you from the look of the uninformed drivel you post here.
> As for your  guy with the cat.... Perhaps the guy shouldn't have a gun. He did a stupid thing. Maybe he should lose his right to vote too?
> 
> How about that? How about we have "reasonable voting control"? You walk in to your polling place and the proctor asks you 10 questions about government. If you can't answer them and prove who you are, you don't vote.
> That's reasonable, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You people's arguments are so stupid and are generally always logical failures: there is no comparison between voting and owning a gun.  Voting is not the same thing as having a firearm, which kills people or animals, in your possession. There is no comparison between voting and having a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Owning guns protects the right to vote....just look at any dictatorship......they all vote....North Korea, Iraq under sadaam, Iran.........and no freedom......what protects freedom........free people with guns.....that protects the vote..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Lots of countries with few guns have the right to vote*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely. Owning a gun does not have anything to do with or protect your right to vote. All the countries of Europe have far stricter gun laws than the US, and in all those countries, the citizens have voting rights.  Saying guns are connected to voting is a red herring.
Click to expand...



Yes...and they had the right to vote in nazi Germany and communist Russia as well....as well as modern North Korea, and Iraq under sadaam Hussein, and in Modern Iran, and in all those tin pot African dictatorships....they all have the right to vote........but it means nothing since they have no freedom.....and freedom is only secured by free people armed with guns.........Europe has shown us that......

again...libs like you don't understand history, and that what happened in the past can happen again because for you libs, history only begins each morning when you wake up.....all of the rest of that "history" stuff the pro 2nd amendment types talk about is just fairy tales to you......


----------



## Wildman

Brain357 said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> 
> 
> I think the right to bear arms is obsolete, absolutely. It should be a privilege, not a right.  Most of the pro-2nd amendment posters on here are hysterical people with limited intelligence and borderline personalities. I think it is a disgrace that such people have the right to own guns.  Being able to own a gun is something that should be earned and that privilge should maintained by specific behavior.  I remember, some years ago, a guy telling me he accidently shot his roommate's cat which was sitting on the couch  next to him. He thought it was funny. Such a moron should not have the right to own a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to the US Constitution, the right to bear arms is absolutely absolute It shall not be infringed. It is more of a protected right than voting and just as fundamental.
> Yes, convicted felons, the mentally deficient and children should not possess firearms. They should not vote either.
> I am a pro-2nd Amendment poster here that is far from hysterical and about 60 IQ points ahead of you from the look of the uninformed drivel you post here.
> As for your  guy with the cat.... Perhaps the guy shouldn't have a gun. He did a stupid thing. Maybe he should lose his right to vote too?
> 
> How about that? How about we have "reasonable voting control"? You walk in to your polling place and the proctor asks you 10 questions about government. If you can't answer them and prove who you are, you don't vote.
> That's reasonable, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You people's arguments are so stupid and are generally always logical failures: there is no comparison between voting and owning a gun.  Voting is not the same thing as having a firearm, which kills people or animals, in your possession. There is no comparison between voting and having a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Owning guns protects the right to vote....just look at any dictatorship......they all vote....North Korea, Iraq under sadaam, Iran.........and no freedom......what protects freedom........free people with guns.....that protects the vote..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Lots of countries with few guns have the right to vote.*
Click to expand...

<><><><><><><><>
sooooo.., at this point in time, what fucking difference does it make ......,


----------



## 2aguy

Delta4Embassy said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since Paris, French Jews working security are asking for Europe's laws restricting guns be loosened so security forces can arm themselves against terrorists. I'm surprised pro-gun people here aren't citing this as an example of when having legal access to weapons is justified. When Europeans are wanting to arm up, maybe it's time to accept the reality of the human animal as a violent species and just accept guns instead of trying to make the world better outlawing them when doing so only ensures criminals (and terrorists) will have them.
Click to expand...



haven't gotten around to it though I have seen the story......and it is only those Europeans who actually are currently under actual threat........the rest of the French population haven't wised up yet.....


----------



## 2aguy

Jackinthebox said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357
> 
> Here is the link to the story I had posted on the other thread about the man who used more than 10 rounds in self defense that you think is "made up."
> 
> Gun Training Report 34 Interview with a Gunfighter
> 
> And here is the news report to corroborate his story.  The man in the video is property owner Billy Jackson.
> 
> Police Shooting Was Self-Defense WLKY Home - WLKY Home
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I recommend everyone watch the Interview with a Gunfighter video.  It is just fascinating.  Eleven rounds he used with a TEC 9 with a high capacity magazine.  He ended up killing both perpetrators though.  Post #2619, I believe.
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I also find it interesting when certain posters claim that they are not "gun banners," yet if you check out their posting history, they ONLY post on anti-gun threads.  Hmmm.  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All you have to do is learn both sides.
> 
> The (far) Left that fixate on no guns don't own one and see stories every day about killings with them. They think that guns are bad. And the idiotic Right has the worst response possible due to lack of education. The (far) Left thinks there will be no gun killings without guns and the (far) Right says guns will kill people if we ban guns so why ban guns............not exactly creating the best argument. Creating a fear that people with guns will kill us if we don't have guns drives the topic. The ONLY people that create that fear today is the NRA AND THE RIGHT WING and the ones who can profit.
> 
> The majority of the Left don't want to ban guns. Most want regulation.
> 
> I say lack of regulation will lead to bans. But that's just an individuals predications based on collective information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously you have a very poor understanding of the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> sorry Chris....this didn't happen...I have it on expert psychic authority (Brain) that no one ever, ever, ever, ever, has needed or will ever, ever, ever need more that 2 bullets in any violent criminal attack..........besides, with what Brain says about Kleck....this gentleman is obviously a criminal King pin since only criminals use guns for self defense........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I think too few people in this conversation have ever shot a man dead.
Click to expand...



I have never experienced a house fire either....but that doesn't mean I don't understand the concept of what that is like........


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Thankfully, I've never taken another's life. Have been shot at however.


----------



## Jackinthebox

Billc said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357
> 
> Here is the link to the story I had posted on the other thread about the man who used more than 10 rounds in self defense that you think is "made up."
> 
> Gun Training Report 34 Interview with a Gunfighter
> 
> And here is the news report to corroborate his story.  The man in the video is property owner Billy Jackson.
> 
> Police Shooting Was Self-Defense WLKY Home - WLKY Home
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I recommend everyone watch the Interview with a Gunfighter video.  It is just fascinating.  Eleven rounds he used with a TEC 9 with a high capacity magazine.  He ended up killing both perpetrators though.  Post #2619, I believe.
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I also find it interesting when certain posters claim that they are not "gun banners," yet if you check out their posting history, they ONLY post on anti-gun threads.  Hmmm.  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All you have to do is learn both sides.
> 
> The (far) Left that fixate on no guns don't own one and see stories every day about killings with them. They think that guns are bad. And the idiotic Right has the worst response possible due to lack of education. The (far) Left thinks there will be no gun killings without guns and the (far) Right says guns will kill people if we ban guns so why ban guns............not exactly creating the best argument. Creating a fear that people with guns will kill us if we don't have guns drives the topic. The ONLY people that create that fear today is the NRA AND THE RIGHT WING and the ones who can profit.
> 
> The majority of the Left don't want to ban guns. Most want regulation.
> 
> I say lack of regulation will lead to bans. But that's just an individuals predications based on collective information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously you have a very poor understanding of the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> sorry Chris....this didn't happen...I have it on expert psychic authority (Brain) that no one ever, ever, ever, ever, has needed or will ever, ever, ever need more that 2 bullets in any violent criminal attack..........besides, with what Brain says about Kleck....this gentleman is obviously a criminal King pin since only criminals use guns for self defense........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I think too few people in this conversation have ever shot a man dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have never experienced a house fire either....but that doesn't mean I don't understand the concept of what that is like........
Click to expand...


Pray you don't have to. I have done that too though. I was a firefighter for a few years. Of course, that doesn't mean you should be banned from having a fire extinguisher either.


----------



## 2aguy

ChrisL said:


> Let's put this into perspective so that everyone can SEE how retarded the anti-rights crowd is.  The Second Amendment was drafted to protect us from, not only foreign invaders, but also our OWN government to prevent government tyranny!  Now we have some tards who want the government to REGULATE the right!  Oh good Lord, people cannot be so stupid, can they?




ChrisL..do you have any more links to actual gunfight interviews?


----------



## Wildman

Esmeralda said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the right to bear arms is obsolete, absolutely. It should be a privilege, not a right.  Most of the pro-2nd amendment posters on here are hysterical people with limited intelligence and borderline personalities. I think it is a disgrace that such people have the right to own guns.  Being able to own a gun is something that should be earned and that privilge should maintained by specific behavior.  I remember, some years ago, a guy telling me he accidently shot his roommate's cat which was sitting on the couch  next to him. He thought it was funny. Such a moron should not have the right to own a gun.
> 
> 
> 
> According to the US Constitution, the right to bear arms is absolutely absolute It shall not be infringed. It is more of a protected right than voting and just as fundamental.
> Yes, convicted felons, the mentally deficient and children should not possess firearms. They should not vote either.
> I am a pro-2nd Amendment poster here that is far from hysterical and about 60 IQ points ahead of you from the look of the uninformed drivel you post here.
> As for your  guy with the cat.... Perhaps the guy shouldn't have a gun. He did a stupid thing. Maybe he should lose his right to vote too?
> 
> How about that? How about we have "reasonable voting control"? You walk in to your polling place and the proctor asks you 10 questions about government. If you can't answer them and prove who you are, you don't vote.
> That's reasonable, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You people's arguments are so stupid and are generally always logical failures: there is no comparison between voting and owning a gun.  Voting is not the same thing as having a firearm, which kills people or animals, in your possession. There is no comparison between voting and having a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Owning guns protects the right to vote....just look at any dictatorship......they all vote....North Korea, Iraq under sadaam, Iran.........and no freedom......what protects freedom........free people with guns.....that protects the vote..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Lots of countries with few guns have the right to vote*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely. Owning a gun does not have anything to do with or protect your right to vote. All the countries of Europe have far stricter gun laws than the US, and in all those countries, the citizens have voting rights. * Saying guns are connected to voting is a red herring.*
Click to expand...

<><><><><><><><>

*I DISAGREE ! *


----------



## Jackinthebox

Delta4Embassy said:


> Thankfully, I've never taken another's life. Have been shot at however.



Ya know, this is kind of a side note here. But I have killed a lot of people. And it doesn't phase me in the least. I always hear how about it should do this or that to your mind your soul whatever. The thing that breaks my heart the most is a stupid stray cat I had to abandon.


----------



## Jackinthebox

Billc said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's put this into perspective so that everyone can SEE how retarded the anti-rights crowd is.  The Second Amendment was drafted to protect us from, not only foreign invaders, but also our OWN government to prevent government tyranny!  Now we have some tards who want the government to REGULATE the right!  Oh good Lord, people cannot be so stupid, can they?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL..do you have any more links to actual gunfight interviews?
Click to expand...


I been in a gunfight.


----------



## ChrisL

Billc said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's put this into perspective so that everyone can SEE how retarded the anti-rights crowd is.  The Second Amendment was drafted to protect us from, not only foreign invaders, but also our OWN government to prevent government tyranny!  Now we have some tards who want the government to REGULATE the right!  Oh good Lord, people cannot be so stupid, can they?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL..do you have any more links to actual gunfight interviews?
Click to expand...


I just found those by using Google.    I posted a couple of others somewhere in the thread.  One where a man killed 5 gang members who were trying to rob his store.  Here is one that I posted earlier.  Video is embedded in link.  

The Store Owner Who Killed 5 Gang Members


----------



## 2aguy

ChrisL said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's put this into perspective so that everyone can SEE how retarded the anti-rights crowd is.  The Second Amendment was drafted to protect us from, not only foreign invaders, but also our OWN government to prevent government tyranny!  Now we have some tards who want the government to REGULATE the right!  Oh good Lord, people cannot be so stupid, can they?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL..do you have any more links to actual gunfight interviews?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just found those by using Google.    I posted a couple of others somewhere in the thread.  One where a man killed 5 gang members who were trying to rob his store.  Here is one that I posted earlier.  Video is embedded in link.
> 
> The Store Owner Who Killed 5 Gang Members
Click to expand...



I saw this back when it first aired back in the 90s....great story.......but again....according to Brain....he is probably a criminal kingpin.....since only criminals use guns for self defense.....

Thanks, ChrisL...


----------



## Jackinthebox

Billc said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's put this into perspective so that everyone can SEE how retarded the anti-rights crowd is.  The Second Amendment was drafted to protect us from, not only foreign invaders, but also our OWN government to prevent government tyranny!  Now we have some tards who want the government to REGULATE the right!  Oh good Lord, people cannot be so stupid, can they?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL..do you have any more links to actual gunfight interviews?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just found those by using Google.    I posted a couple of others somewhere in the thread.  One where a man killed 5 gang members who were trying to rob his store.  Here is one that I posted earlier.  Video is embedded in link.
> 
> The Store Owner Who Killed 5 Gang Members
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I saw this back when it first aired back in the 90s....great story.......but again....according to Brain....he is probably a criminal kingpin.....since only criminals use guns for self defense.....
> 
> Thanks, ChrisL...
Click to expand...


My brother and I winged a man with broad tips. Tracked him for a day. Found him bleeding out. Well, not going to incriminate myself. But I will say that I prefer  .45 rounds even if there are less in the mag.


----------



## Brain357

Billc said:


> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I also find it interesting when certain posters claim that they are not "gun banners," yet if you check out their posting history, they ONLY post on anti-gun threads.  Hmmm.  Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All you have to do is learn both sides.
> 
> The (far) Left that fixate on no guns don't own one and see stories every day about killings with them. They think that guns are bad. And the idiotic Right has the worst response possible due to lack of education. The (far) Left thinks there will be no gun killings without guns and the (far) Right says guns will kill people if we ban guns so why ban guns............not exactly creating the best argument. Creating a fear that people with guns will kill us if we don't have guns drives the topic. The ONLY people that create that fear today is the NRA AND THE RIGHT WING and the ones who can profit.
> 
> The majority of the Left don't want to ban guns. Most want regulation.
> 
> I say lack of regulation will lead to bans. But that's just an individuals predications based on collective information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The majority of the Left don't want to ban guns. Most want regulation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, this is untrue.....the majority of the left want guns banned but don't know how to get it done....so they settle for baby steps..."universal background checks" which make it har
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I was the one who posted that study in another thread where you and I were arguing about guns.  I'm familiar with the study.  You need to show where it says what you claim it says.  That way, people don't have to read the ENTIRE study to find that one part, and we can see it in context as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've posted a link and posted the quote several times over.  I'm sure you can find it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've followed your links and not found the statement. Frankly, I doubt it says what you keep quoting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Kleck refers to the situation when the study was done...it isn't surprising that gun grabbers don't understand the history of gun control....they don't understand any history really, that is why they believe in big government, and disarming good people.......history for gun grabbers and the other liberals starts when they wake up in the morning.....
> 
> In the 90s, you didn't have the concealed carry laws that we have today....it took Florida to start that ball rolling....but....criminals still existed and still preyed on innocent people....remember when tourists in Florida were being killed....because the criminals knew they couldn't carry guns in Florida....and the criminals just followed the new tourists from the airport?   So law abiding citizens who carried guns for defense against criminals, who then displayed that gun, drew that gun but did not shoot the gun....would not want to tell cops they were carrying a weapon "illegally" because thanks to the anti gunners, that would be a felony.......back in the 90s....
> 
> Today....not a problem like it was back then....my state...Illinois....we now have concealed carry.....so those law abiding citizens can now carry "legally"......which in and of itself stupid, since even back in the 90s the 2nd Amendment existed and any law barring the ability to carry a weapon for self defense was unconstitutional......but Brain will still beat that drum with that quote....I keep hoping to find the passage he found it in...to get the whole context....but other things Kleck has stated pretty much points out the opposite of what Brain says......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me explain this again bill.  Kleck is talking about all DGUs, not just people carrying.  Since mosts defenses happen at home, concealed carry laws don't really matter.  It has never been illegal to defend your home with a gun.  Good try though.  But as Kleck says in most defenses the defender is involved in criminal activity. You have yet to post anything that points in the opposite direction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Brain.....he is talking about most defensive gun uses, in the home and carrying, and if you read the study most uses occur in the home, fewer while people are carrying.....it is the people carrying outside the home where the "illegal weapon possession" occurs.  And having a gun can in some instances, in the home be illegal and until you actually talk to the man and see what he means you are not being honest.....
Click to expand...


So you are trying to explain something that happens with the majority of defenses with something that effects only a minority.  You can't see how that doesn't work mathematically?

They are called felons.


----------



## ChrisL

Here is another interesting link with a bunch of stories about civilians using their weapons for self defense.  

Ohio CHL-holders acting in self-defense Buckeye Firearms Association

Here is just one story from that link . . . 

*Robbery victim*
The victim of an attempted robbery shot at his two assailants on the Near East Side and was shot himself in return, police said. According to Columbus police, the man, who has a concealed handgun license, was approached by two men who attempted to rob him on E. Main Street and Miller Avenue just after midnight. One of the attackers put a gun in the victim's stomach and fired, tearing a hole through the victim's midsection. The robbery victim pulled a gun and shot both suspects, identified as Alexander C. Pinkston, 21, of 1440 Burstock Rd., and Devante L. Michael, 18, of 852 Fairwood Ave., both on the South Side. Pinkston and Michael ran off and were found in separate locations. All three were taken to two area hospitals, where they are listed in stable condition.

^^^

These incidents are very good examples of why we need guns for self defense and why law-abiding civilians should not have restrictions put on their rights!


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I also find it interesting when certain posters claim that they are not "gun banners," yet if you check out their posting history, they ONLY post on anti-gun threads.  Hmmm.  Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All you have to do is learn both sides.
> 
> The (far) Left that fixate on no guns don't own one and see stories every day about killings with them. They think that guns are bad. And the idiotic Right has the worst response possible due to lack of education. The (far) Left thinks there will be no gun killings without guns and the (far) Right says guns will kill people if we ban guns so why ban guns............not exactly creating the best argument. Creating a fear that people with guns will kill us if we don't have guns drives the topic. The ONLY people that create that fear today is the NRA AND THE RIGHT WING and the ones who can profit.
> 
> The majority of the Left don't want to ban guns. Most want regulation.
> 
> I say lack of regulation will lead to bans. But that's just an individuals predications based on collective information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The majority of the Left don't want to ban guns. Most want regulation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, this is untrue.....the majority of the left want guns banned but don't know how to get it done....so they settle for baby steps..."universal background checks" which make it har
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've posted a link and posted the quote several times over.  I'm sure you can find it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've followed your links and not found the statement. Frankly, I doubt it says what you keep quoting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Kleck refers to the situation when the study was done...it isn't surprising that gun grabbers don't understand the history of gun control....they don't understand any history really, that is why they believe in big government, and disarming good people.......history for gun grabbers and the other liberals starts when they wake up in the morning.....
> 
> In the 90s, you didn't have the concealed carry laws that we have today....it took Florida to start that ball rolling....but....criminals still existed and still preyed on innocent people....remember when tourists in Florida were being killed....because the criminals knew they couldn't carry guns in Florida....and the criminals just followed the new tourists from the airport?   So law abiding citizens who carried guns for defense against criminals, who then displayed that gun, drew that gun but did not shoot the gun....would not want to tell cops they were carrying a weapon "illegally" because thanks to the anti gunners, that would be a felony.......back in the 90s....
> 
> Today....not a problem like it was back then....my state...Illinois....we now have concealed carry.....so those law abiding citizens can now carry "legally"......which in and of itself stupid, since even back in the 90s the 2nd Amendment existed and any law barring the ability to carry a weapon for self defense was unconstitutional......but Brain will still beat that drum with that quote....I keep hoping to find the passage he found it in...to get the whole context....but other things Kleck has stated pretty much points out the opposite of what Brain says......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me explain this again bill.  Kleck is talking about all DGUs, not just people carrying.  Since mosts defenses happen at home, concealed carry laws don't really matter.  It has never been illegal to defend your home with a gun.  Good try though.  But as Kleck says in most defenses the defender is involved in criminal activity. You have yet to post anything that points in the opposite direction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Brain.....he is talking about most defensive gun uses, in the home and carrying, and if you read the study most uses occur in the home, fewer while people are carrying.....it is the people carrying outside the home where the "illegal weapon possession" occurs.  And having a gun can in some instances, in the home be illegal and until you actually talk to the man and see what he means you are not being honest.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are trying to explain something that happens with the majority of defenses with something that effects only a minority.  You can't see how that doesn't work mathematically?
> 
> They are called felons.
Click to expand...


Please try to make coherent posts.  Your post makes no sense at all.  You have absolutely NO evidence of any of your claims, and you have not even bothered to try posting any evidence.  Perhaps this discussion is over your head because I don't really think you understand the importance of every single one of our rights.


----------



## Jackinthebox

Brain357 said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I also find it interesting when certain posters claim that they are not "gun banners," yet if you check out their posting history, they ONLY post on anti-gun threads.  Hmmm.  Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All you have to do is learn both sides.
> 
> The (far) Left that fixate on no guns don't own one and see stories every day about killings with them. They think that guns are bad. And the idiotic Right has the worst response possible due to lack of education. The (far) Left thinks there will be no gun killings without guns and the (far) Right says guns will kill people if we ban guns so why ban guns............not exactly creating the best argument. Creating a fear that people with guns will kill us if we don't have guns drives the topic. The ONLY people that create that fear today is the NRA AND THE RIGHT WING and the ones who can profit.
> 
> The majority of the Left don't want to ban guns. Most want regulation.
> 
> I say lack of regulation will lead to bans. But that's just an individuals predications based on collective information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The majority of the Left don't want to ban guns. Most want regulation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, this is untrue.....the majority of the left want guns banned but don't know how to get it done....so they settle for baby steps..."universal background checks" which make it har
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've posted a link and posted the quote several times over.  I'm sure you can find it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've followed your links and not found the statement. Frankly, I doubt it says what you keep quoting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Kleck refers to the situation when the study was done...it isn't surprising that gun grabbers don't understand the history of gun control....they don't understand any history really, that is why they believe in big government, and disarming good people.......history for gun grabbers and the other liberals starts when they wake up in the morning.....
> 
> In the 90s, you didn't have the concealed carry laws that we have today....it took Florida to start that ball rolling....but....criminals still existed and still preyed on innocent people....remember when tourists in Florida were being killed....because the criminals knew they couldn't carry guns in Florida....and the criminals just followed the new tourists from the airport?   So law abiding citizens who carried guns for defense against criminals, who then displayed that gun, drew that gun but did not shoot the gun....would not want to tell cops they were carrying a weapon "illegally" because thanks to the anti gunners, that would be a felony.......back in the 90s....
> 
> Today....not a problem like it was back then....my state...Illinois....we now have concealed carry.....so those law abiding citizens can now carry "legally"......which in and of itself stupid, since even back in the 90s the 2nd Amendment existed and any law barring the ability to carry a weapon for self defense was unconstitutional......but Brain will still beat that drum with that quote....I keep hoping to find the passage he found it in...to get the whole context....but other things Kleck has stated pretty much points out the opposite of what Brain says......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me explain this again bill.  Kleck is talking about all DGUs, not just people carrying.  Since mosts defenses happen at home, concealed carry laws don't really matter.  It has never been illegal to defend your home with a gun.  Good try though.  But as Kleck says in most defenses the defender is involved in criminal activity. You have yet to post anything that points in the opposite direction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Brain.....he is talking about most defensive gun uses, in the home and carrying, and if you read the study most uses occur in the home, fewer while people are carrying.....it is the people carrying outside the home where the "illegal weapon possession" occurs.  And having a gun can in some instances, in the home be illegal and until you actually talk to the man and see what he means you are not being honest.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are trying to explain something that happens with the majority of defenses with something that effects only a minority.  You can't see how that doesn't work mathematically?
> 
> They are called felons.
Click to expand...


A firefighter in my station did ten years in the state pen. I would trust him with a firearm any day of the week over the state fire marshal in our area who is a violent scumbag who beats on kids and women, among other things.


----------



## ChrisL

ChrisL said:


> Here is another interesting link with a bunch of stories about civilians using their weapons for self defense.
> 
> Ohio CHL-holders acting in self-defense Buckeye Firearms Association
> 
> Here is just one story from that link . . .
> 
> *Robbery victim*
> The victim of an attempted robbery shot at his two assailants on the Near East Side and was shot himself in return, police said. According to Columbus police, the man, who has a concealed handgun license, was approached by two men who attempted to rob him on E. Main Street and Miller Avenue just after midnight. One of the attackers put a gun in the victim's stomach and fired, tearing a hole through the victim's midsection. The robbery victim pulled a gun and shot both suspects, identified as Alexander C. Pinkston, 21, of 1440 Burstock Rd., and Devante L. Michael, 18, of 852 Fairwood Ave., both on the South Side. Pinkston and Michael ran off and were found in separate locations. All three were taken to two area hospitals, where they are listed in stable condition.
> 
> ^^^
> 
> These incidents are very good examples of why we need guns for self defense and why law-abiding civilians should not have restrictions put on their rights!



Interesting too, that ALL of these happened only in Ohio.


----------



## Ernie S.

AntiParty said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I also find it interesting when certain posters claim that they are not "gun banners," yet if you check out their posting history, they ONLY post on anti-gun threads.  Hmmm.  Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this an "anti-gun thread" or is it labeled "right to bear arms"?............not too smart there kid.
Click to expand...

The title may be "Right to bear arms" but the OP is a vocal supporter for stringent gun control, a flaming liberal coward and a habitual liar.


----------



## Ernie S.

ChrisL said:


> Let's put this into perspective so that everyone can SEE how retarded the anti-rights crowd is.  The Second Amendment was drafted to protect us from, not only foreign invaders, but also our OWN government to prevent government tyranny!  Now we have some tards who want the government to REGULATE the right!  Oh good Lord, people cannot be so stupid, can they?


People like Brainless and Lakhota prove they can every day.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I also find it interesting when certain posters claim that they are not "gun banners," yet if you check out their posting history, they ONLY post on anti-gun threads.  Hmmm.  Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All you have to do is learn both sides.
> 
> The (far) Left that fixate on no guns don't own one and see stories every day about killings with them. They think that guns are bad. And the idiotic Right has the worst response possible due to lack of education. The (far) Left thinks there will be no gun killings without guns and the (far) Right says guns will kill people if we ban guns so why ban guns............not exactly creating the best argument. Creating a fear that people with guns will kill us if we don't have guns drives the topic. The ONLY people that create that fear today is the NRA AND THE RIGHT WING and the ones who can profit.
> 
> The majority of the Left don't want to ban guns. Most want regulation.
> 
> I say lack of regulation will lead to bans. But that's just an individuals predications based on collective information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The majority of the Left don't want to ban guns. Most want regulation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, this is untrue.....the majority of the left want guns banned but don't know how to get it done....so they settle for baby steps..."universal background checks" which make it har
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've posted a link and posted the quote several times over.  I'm sure you can find it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've followed your links and not found the statement. Frankly, I doubt it says what you keep quoting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Kleck refers to the situation when the study was done...it isn't surprising that gun grabbers don't understand the history of gun control....they don't understand any history really, that is why they believe in big government, and disarming good people.......history for gun grabbers and the other liberals starts when they wake up in the morning.....
> 
> In the 90s, you didn't have the concealed carry laws that we have today....it took Florida to start that ball rolling....but....criminals still existed and still preyed on innocent people....remember when tourists in Florida were being killed....because the criminals knew they couldn't carry guns in Florida....and the criminals just followed the new tourists from the airport?   So law abiding citizens who carried guns for defense against criminals, who then displayed that gun, drew that gun but did not shoot the gun....would not want to tell cops they were carrying a weapon "illegally" because thanks to the anti gunners, that would be a felony.......back in the 90s....
> 
> Today....not a problem like it was back then....my state...Illinois....we now have concealed carry.....so those law abiding citizens can now carry "legally"......which in and of itself stupid, since even back in the 90s the 2nd Amendment existed and any law barring the ability to carry a weapon for self defense was unconstitutional......but Brain will still beat that drum with that quote....I keep hoping to find the passage he found it in...to get the whole context....but other things Kleck has stated pretty much points out the opposite of what Brain says......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me explain this again bill.  Kleck is talking about all DGUs, not just people carrying.  Since mosts defenses happen at home, concealed carry laws don't really matter.  It has never been illegal to defend your home with a gun.  Good try though.  But as Kleck says in most defenses the defender is involved in criminal activity. You have yet to post anything that points in the opposite direction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Brain.....he is talking about most defensive gun uses, in the home and carrying, and if you read the study most uses occur in the home, fewer while people are carrying.....it is the people carrying outside the home where the "illegal weapon possession" occurs.  And having a gun can in some instances, in the home be illegal and until you actually talk to the man and see what he means you are not being honest.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are trying to explain something that happens with the majority of defenses with something that effects only a minority.  You can't see how that doesn't work mathematically?
> 
> They are called felons.
Click to expand...


Why are they called "felons?"  Because of what should be illegal and unconstitutional maneuvers by the government to limit one of our rights?  So, in some states, people are not allowed to use their guns outside of their homes/businesses, but happened to anyways when faced with what they perceived as a life-or-death situation?  So now these people who were lucky enough to be armed when attacked by a criminal are now considered criminals themselves?  For protecting their lives or the lives of their loved ones because, according to the government in some states, we cannot practice our 2nd amendment right outside of our homes?  Ridiculous.  This is why I believe the government should NOT be able to put such restrictions on citizens.  The criminals face NO SUCH restrictions.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I also find it interesting when certain posters claim that they are not "gun banners," yet if you check out their posting history, they ONLY post on anti-gun threads.  Hmmm.  Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All you have to do is learn both sides.
> 
> The (far) Left that fixate on no guns don't own one and see stories every day about killings with them. They think that guns are bad. And the idiotic Right has the worst response possible due to lack of education. The (far) Left thinks there will be no gun killings without guns and the (far) Right says guns will kill people if we ban guns so why ban guns............not exactly creating the best argument. Creating a fear that people with guns will kill us if we don't have guns drives the topic. The ONLY people that create that fear today is the NRA AND THE RIGHT WING and the ones who can profit.
> 
> The majority of the Left don't want to ban guns. Most want regulation.
> 
> I say lack of regulation will lead to bans. But that's just an individuals predications based on collective information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The majority of the Left don't want to ban guns. Most want regulation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, this is untrue.....the majority of the left want guns banned but don't know how to get it done....so they settle for baby steps..."universal background checks" which make it har
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've followed your links and not found the statement. Frankly, I doubt it says what you keep quoting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Kleck refers to the situation when the study was done...it isn't surprising that gun grabbers don't understand the history of gun control....they don't understand any history really, that is why they believe in big government, and disarming good people.......history for gun grabbers and the other liberals starts when they wake up in the morning.....
> 
> In the 90s, you didn't have the concealed carry laws that we have today....it took Florida to start that ball rolling....but....criminals still existed and still preyed on innocent people....remember when tourists in Florida were being killed....because the criminals knew they couldn't carry guns in Florida....and the criminals just followed the new tourists from the airport?   So law abiding citizens who carried guns for defense against criminals, who then displayed that gun, drew that gun but did not shoot the gun....would not want to tell cops they were carrying a weapon "illegally" because thanks to the anti gunners, that would be a felony.......back in the 90s....
> 
> Today....not a problem like it was back then....my state...Illinois....we now have concealed carry.....so those law abiding citizens can now carry "legally"......which in and of itself stupid, since even back in the 90s the 2nd Amendment existed and any law barring the ability to carry a weapon for self defense was unconstitutional......but Brain will still beat that drum with that quote....I keep hoping to find the passage he found it in...to get the whole context....but other things Kleck has stated pretty much points out the opposite of what Brain says......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me explain this again bill.  Kleck is talking about all DGUs, not just people carrying.  Since mosts defenses happen at home, concealed carry laws don't really matter.  It has never been illegal to defend your home with a gun.  Good try though.  But as Kleck says in most defenses the defender is involved in criminal activity. You have yet to post anything that points in the opposite direction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Brain.....he is talking about most defensive gun uses, in the home and carrying, and if you read the study most uses occur in the home, fewer while people are carrying.....it is the people carrying outside the home where the "illegal weapon possession" occurs.  And having a gun can in some instances, in the home be illegal and until you actually talk to the man and see what he means you are not being honest.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are trying to explain something that happens with the majority of defenses with something that effects only a minority.  You can't see how that doesn't work mathematically?
> 
> They are called felons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please try to make coherent posts.  Your post makes no sense at all.  You have absolutely NO evidence of any of your claims, and you have not even bothered to try posting any evidence.  Perhaps this discussion is over your head because I don't really think you understand the importance of every single one of our rights.
Click to expand...


No it does make perfect sense to anyone intelligent.  I don't need evidence, it is a quote from Kleck from a post by Bill actually.  And I have posted a link where the quote comes from for you.  Bill is taking something that would effect only a small minority of defenses and pretending that explains why most defenses are by criminals.


----------



## Jackinthebox

If a felon has served their time, and their parole is complete, they should be able to carry. Anyone, felon, paroled, whatever, should be allowed to keep a shotgun in the house.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I also find it interesting when certain posters claim that they are not "gun banners," yet if you check out their posting history, they ONLY post on anti-gun threads.  Hmmm.  Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All you have to do is learn both sides.
> 
> The (far) Left that fixate on no guns don't own one and see stories every day about killings with them. They think that guns are bad. And the idiotic Right has the worst response possible due to lack of education. The (far) Left thinks there will be no gun killings without guns and the (far) Right says guns will kill people if we ban guns so why ban guns............not exactly creating the best argument. Creating a fear that people with guns will kill us if we don't have guns drives the topic. The ONLY people that create that fear today is the NRA AND THE RIGHT WING and the ones who can profit.
> 
> The majority of the Left don't want to ban guns. Most want regulation.
> 
> I say lack of regulation will lead to bans. But that's just an individuals predications based on collective information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The majority of the Left don't want to ban guns. Most want regulation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, this is untrue.....the majority of the left want guns banned but don't know how to get it done....so they settle for baby steps..."universal background checks" which make it har
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kleck refers to the situation when the study was done...it isn't surprising that gun grabbers don't understand the history of gun control....they don't understand any history really, that is why they believe in big government, and disarming good people.......history for gun grabbers and the other liberals starts when they wake up in the morning.....
> 
> In the 90s, you didn't have the concealed carry laws that we have today....it took Florida to start that ball rolling....but....criminals still existed and still preyed on innocent people....remember when tourists in Florida were being killed....because the criminals knew they couldn't carry guns in Florida....and the criminals just followed the new tourists from the airport?   So law abiding citizens who carried guns for defense against criminals, who then displayed that gun, drew that gun but did not shoot the gun....would not want to tell cops they were carrying a weapon "illegally" because thanks to the anti gunners, that would be a felony.......back in the 90s....
> 
> Today....not a problem like it was back then....my state...Illinois....we now have concealed carry.....so those law abiding citizens can now carry "legally"......which in and of itself stupid, since even back in the 90s the 2nd Amendment existed and any law barring the ability to carry a weapon for self defense was unconstitutional......but Brain will still beat that drum with that quote....I keep hoping to find the passage he found it in...to get the whole context....but other things Kleck has stated pretty much points out the opposite of what Brain says......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me explain this again bill.  Kleck is talking about all DGUs, not just people carrying.  Since mosts defenses happen at home, concealed carry laws don't really matter.  It has never been illegal to defend your home with a gun.  Good try though.  But as Kleck says in most defenses the defender is involved in criminal activity. You have yet to post anything that points in the opposite direction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Brain.....he is talking about most defensive gun uses, in the home and carrying, and if you read the study most uses occur in the home, fewer while people are carrying.....it is the people carrying outside the home where the "illegal weapon possession" occurs.  And having a gun can in some instances, in the home be illegal and until you actually talk to the man and see what he means you are not being honest.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are trying to explain something that happens with the majority of defenses with something that effects only a minority.  You can't see how that doesn't work mathematically?
> 
> They are called felons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please try to make coherent posts.  Your post makes no sense at all.  You have absolutely NO evidence of any of your claims, and you have not even bothered to try posting any evidence.  Perhaps this discussion is over your head because I don't really think you understand the importance of every single one of our rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it does make perfect sense to anyone intelligent.  I don't need evidence, it is a quote from Kleck from a post by Bill actually.  And I have posted a link where the quote comes from for you.  Bill is taking something that would effect only a small minority of defenses and pretending that explains why most defenses are by criminals.
Click to expand...


What?  This doesn't even make sense, and no that is not what he is doing.  You are so dishonest that you can't even type a coherent thought. 

Again, where is your evidence that any of these people are felons?  EVIDENCE or it's not true.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I also find it interesting when certain posters claim that they are not "gun banners," yet if you check out their posting history, they ONLY post on anti-gun threads.  Hmmm.  Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All you have to do is learn both sides.
> 
> The (far) Left that fixate on no guns don't own one and see stories every day about killings with them. They think that guns are bad. And the idiotic Right has the worst response possible due to lack of education. The (far) Left thinks there will be no gun killings without guns and the (far) Right says guns will kill people if we ban guns so why ban guns............not exactly creating the best argument. Creating a fear that people with guns will kill us if we don't have guns drives the topic. The ONLY people that create that fear today is the NRA AND THE RIGHT WING and the ones who can profit.
> 
> The majority of the Left don't want to ban guns. Most want regulation.
> 
> I say lack of regulation will lead to bans. But that's just an individuals predications based on collective information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The majority of the Left don't want to ban guns. Most want regulation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, this is untrue.....the majority of the left want guns banned but don't know how to get it done....so they settle for baby steps..."universal background checks" which make it har
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've followed your links and not found the statement. Frankly, I doubt it says what you keep quoting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Kleck refers to the situation when the study was done...it isn't surprising that gun grabbers don't understand the history of gun control....they don't understand any history really, that is why they believe in big government, and disarming good people.......history for gun grabbers and the other liberals starts when they wake up in the morning.....
> 
> In the 90s, you didn't have the concealed carry laws that we have today....it took Florida to start that ball rolling....but....criminals still existed and still preyed on innocent people....remember when tourists in Florida were being killed....because the criminals knew they couldn't carry guns in Florida....and the criminals just followed the new tourists from the airport?   So law abiding citizens who carried guns for defense against criminals, who then displayed that gun, drew that gun but did not shoot the gun....would not want to tell cops they were carrying a weapon "illegally" because thanks to the anti gunners, that would be a felony.......back in the 90s....
> 
> Today....not a problem like it was back then....my state...Illinois....we now have concealed carry.....so those law abiding citizens can now carry "legally"......which in and of itself stupid, since even back in the 90s the 2nd Amendment existed and any law barring the ability to carry a weapon for self defense was unconstitutional......but Brain will still beat that drum with that quote....I keep hoping to find the passage he found it in...to get the whole context....but other things Kleck has stated pretty much points out the opposite of what Brain says......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me explain this again bill.  Kleck is talking about all DGUs, not just people carrying.  Since mosts defenses happen at home, concealed carry laws don't really matter.  It has never been illegal to defend your home with a gun.  Good try though.  But as Kleck says in most defenses the defender is involved in criminal activity. You have yet to post anything that points in the opposite direction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Brain.....he is talking about most defensive gun uses, in the home and carrying, and if you read the study most uses occur in the home, fewer while people are carrying.....it is the people carrying outside the home where the "illegal weapon possession" occurs.  And having a gun can in some instances, in the home be illegal and until you actually talk to the man and see what he means you are not being honest.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are trying to explain something that happens with the majority of defenses with something that effects only a minority.  You can't see how that doesn't work mathematically?
> 
> They are called felons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are they called "felons?"  Because of what should be illegal and unconstitutional maneuvers by the government to limit one of our rights?  So, in some states, people are not allowed to use their guns outside of their homes/businesses, but happened to anyways when faced with what they perceived as a life-or-death situation?  So now these people who were lucky enough to be armed when attacked by a criminal are now considered criminals themselves?  For protecting their lives or the lives of their loved ones because, according to the government in some states, we cannot practice our 2nd amendment right outside of our homes?  Ridiculous.  This is why I believe the government should NOT be able to put such restrictions on citizens.  The criminals face NO SUCH restrictions.
Click to expand...


Ok then why would it be illegal to defend your home with a gun if you are not a felon?  Certainly the vast majority of law abiding gun owners can legally defend themselves at home with a gun.  So Bills examples would only effect a small minority of defenses.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I also find it interesting when certain posters claim that they are not "gun banners," yet if you check out their posting history, they ONLY post on anti-gun threads.  Hmmm.  Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All you have to do is learn both sides.
> 
> The (far) Left that fixate on no guns don't own one and see stories every day about killings with them. They think that guns are bad. And the idiotic Right has the worst response possible due to lack of education. The (far) Left thinks there will be no gun killings without guns and the (far) Right says guns will kill people if we ban guns so why ban guns............not exactly creating the best argument. Creating a fear that people with guns will kill us if we don't have guns drives the topic. The ONLY people that create that fear today is the NRA AND THE RIGHT WING and the ones who can profit.
> 
> The majority of the Left don't want to ban guns. Most want regulation.
> 
> I say lack of regulation will lead to bans. But that's just an individuals predications based on collective information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The majority of the Left don't want to ban guns. Most want regulation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, this is untrue.....the majority of the left want guns banned but don't know how to get it done....so they settle for baby steps..."universal background checks" which make it har
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kleck refers to the situation when the study was done...it isn't surprising that gun grabbers don't understand the history of gun control....they don't understand any history really, that is why they believe in big government, and disarming good people.......history for gun grabbers and the other liberals starts when they wake up in the morning.....
> 
> In the 90s, you didn't have the concealed carry laws that we have today....it took Florida to start that ball rolling....but....criminals still existed and still preyed on innocent people....remember when tourists in Florida were being killed....because the criminals knew they couldn't carry guns in Florida....and the criminals just followed the new tourists from the airport?   So law abiding citizens who carried guns for defense against criminals, who then displayed that gun, drew that gun but did not shoot the gun....would not want to tell cops they were carrying a weapon "illegally" because thanks to the anti gunners, that would be a felony.......back in the 90s....
> 
> Today....not a problem like it was back then....my state...Illinois....we now have concealed carry.....so those law abiding citizens can now carry "legally"......which in and of itself stupid, since even back in the 90s the 2nd Amendment existed and any law barring the ability to carry a weapon for self defense was unconstitutional......but Brain will still beat that drum with that quote....I keep hoping to find the passage he found it in...to get the whole context....but other things Kleck has stated pretty much points out the opposite of what Brain says......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me explain this again bill.  Kleck is talking about all DGUs, not just people carrying.  Since mosts defenses happen at home, concealed carry laws don't really matter.  It has never been illegal to defend your home with a gun.  Good try though.  But as Kleck says in most defenses the defender is involved in criminal activity. You have yet to post anything that points in the opposite direction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Brain.....he is talking about most defensive gun uses, in the home and carrying, and if you read the study most uses occur in the home, fewer while people are carrying.....it is the people carrying outside the home where the "illegal weapon possession" occurs.  And having a gun can in some instances, in the home be illegal and until you actually talk to the man and see what he means you are not being honest.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are trying to explain something that happens with the majority of defenses with something that effects only a minority.  You can't see how that doesn't work mathematically?
> 
> They are called felons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are they called "felons?"  Because of what should be illegal and unconstitutional maneuvers by the government to limit one of our rights?  So, in some states, people are not allowed to use their guns outside of their homes/businesses, but happened to anyways when faced with what they perceived as a life-or-death situation?  So now these people who were lucky enough to be armed when attacked by a criminal are now considered criminals themselves?  For protecting their lives or the lives of their loved ones because, according to the government in some states, we cannot practice our 2nd amendment right outside of our homes?  Ridiculous.  This is why I believe the government should NOT be able to put such restrictions on citizens.  The criminals face NO SUCH restrictions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok then why would it be illegal to defend your home with a gun if you are not a felon?  Certainly the vast majority of law abiding gun owners can legally defend themselves at home with a gun.  So Bills examples would only effect a small minority of defenses.
Click to expand...


Brainless .  . . Bill is trying to explain to you that some of the self defense shooters might be considered "felons" because of an illegal weapon possession charge during said self defense shooting, such as in a state where you are ONLY allowed stand your ground option if you are protecting your home.  

However, say you have a gun on your person, and you are with your children, and a gunman comes up to your car and demands you get out of the car because he is going to take it!  Are you going to use that gun to protect your children, regardless of any stupid laws?


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> All you have to do is learn both sides.
> 
> The (far) Left that fixate on no guns don't own one and see stories every day about killings with them. They think that guns are bad. And the idiotic Right has the worst response possible due to lack of education. The (far) Left thinks there will be no gun killings without guns and the (far) Right says guns will kill people if we ban guns so why ban guns............not exactly creating the best argument. Creating a fear that people with guns will kill us if we don't have guns drives the topic. The ONLY people that create that fear today is the NRA AND THE RIGHT WING and the ones who can profit.
> 
> The majority of the Left don't want to ban guns. Most want regulation.
> 
> I say lack of regulation will lead to bans. But that's just an individuals predications based on collective information.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The majority of the Left don't want to ban guns. Most want regulation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, this is untrue.....the majority of the left want guns banned but don't know how to get it done....so they settle for baby steps..."universal background checks" which make it har
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me explain this again bill.  Kleck is talking about all DGUs, not just people carrying.  Since mosts defenses happen at home, concealed carry laws don't really matter.  It has never been illegal to defend your home with a gun.  Good try though.  But as Kleck says in most defenses the defender is involved in criminal activity. You have yet to post anything that points in the opposite direction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Brain.....he is talking about most defensive gun uses, in the home and carrying, and if you read the study most uses occur in the home, fewer while people are carrying.....it is the people carrying outside the home where the "illegal weapon possession" occurs.  And having a gun can in some instances, in the home be illegal and until you actually talk to the man and see what he means you are not being honest.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are trying to explain something that happens with the majority of defenses with something that effects only a minority.  You can't see how that doesn't work mathematically?
> 
> They are called felons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are they called "felons?"  Because of what should be illegal and unconstitutional maneuvers by the government to limit one of our rights?  So, in some states, people are not allowed to use their guns outside of their homes/businesses, but happened to anyways when faced with what they perceived as a life-or-death situation?  So now these people who were lucky enough to be armed when attacked by a criminal are now considered criminals themselves?  For protecting their lives or the lives of their loved ones because, according to the government in some states, we cannot practice our 2nd amendment right outside of our homes?  Ridiculous.  This is why I believe the government should NOT be able to put such restrictions on citizens.  The criminals face NO SUCH restrictions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok then why would it be illegal to defend your home with a gun if you are not a felon?  Certainly the vast majority of law abiding gun owners can legally defend themselves at home with a gun.  So Bills examples would only effect a small minority of defenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Brainless .  . . Bill is trying to explain to you that some of the self defense shooters might be considered "felons" because of an illegal weapon possession charge during said self defense shooting, such as in a state where you are ONLY allowed stand your ground option if you are protecting your home.
> 
> However, say you have a gun on your person, and you are with your children, and a gunman comes up to your car and demands you get out of the car because he is going to take it!  Are you going to use that gun to protect your children, regardless of any stupid laws?
Click to expand...


And you are saying that would be the case in the majority of gun defenses?  Really?  Most gun owners are felons?  Because unless it does then he's just explaining a small minority of defenses which does very little.  Why is this so hard for you to understand?


----------



## Jackinthebox

We all have as much right to a gun as a screwdriver.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Jackinthebox said:


> We all have as much right to a gun as a screwdriver.


If someone tries to ban screwdrivers, the constitution doesn't get in their way.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, this is untrue.....the majority of the left want guns banned but don't know how to get it done....so they settle for baby steps..."universal background checks" which make it har
> Yes Brain.....he is talking about most defensive gun uses, in the home and carrying, and if you read the study most uses occur in the home, fewer while people are carrying.....it is the people carrying outside the home where the "illegal weapon possession" occurs.  And having a gun can in some instances, in the home be illegal and until you actually talk to the man and see what he means you are not being honest.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are trying to explain something that happens with the majority of defenses with something that effects only a minority.  You can't see how that doesn't work mathematically?
> 
> They are called felons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are they called "felons?"  Because of what should be illegal and unconstitutional maneuvers by the government to limit one of our rights?  So, in some states, people are not allowed to use their guns outside of their homes/businesses, but happened to anyways when faced with what they perceived as a life-or-death situation?  So now these people who were lucky enough to be armed when attacked by a criminal are now considered criminals themselves?  For protecting their lives or the lives of their loved ones because, according to the government in some states, we cannot practice our 2nd amendment right outside of our homes?  Ridiculous.  This is why I believe the government should NOT be able to put such restrictions on citizens.  The criminals face NO SUCH restrictions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok then why would it be illegal to defend your home with a gun if you are not a felon?  Certainly the vast majority of law abiding gun owners can legally defend themselves at home with a gun.  So Bills examples would only effect a small minority of defenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Brainless .  . . Bill is trying to explain to you that some of the self defense shooters might be considered "felons" because of an illegal weapon possession charge during said self defense shooting, such as in a state where you are ONLY allowed stand your ground option if you are protecting your home.
> 
> However, say you have a gun on your person, and you are with your children, and a gunman comes up to your car and demands you get out of the car because he is going to take it!  Are you going to use that gun to protect your children, regardless of any stupid laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you are saying that would be the case in the majority of gun defenses?  Really?  Most gun owners are felons?  Because unless it does then he's just explaining a small minority of defenses which does very little.  Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Click to expand...


I never said that.  That is what YOU were saying.


----------



## Jackinthebox

I am a convicted violent felon who went to prison. I am now legally allowed to carry a concealed firearm in my state. I had to jump through a lot of hoops, but it is legal, and I have even qualified as a sworn peace officer.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are trying to explain something that happens with the majority of defenses with something that effects only a minority.  You can't see how that doesn't work mathematically?
> 
> They are called felons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are they called "felons?"  Because of what should be illegal and unconstitutional maneuvers by the government to limit one of our rights?  So, in some states, people are not allowed to use their guns outside of their homes/businesses, but happened to anyways when faced with what they perceived as a life-or-death situation?  So now these people who were lucky enough to be armed when attacked by a criminal are now considered criminals themselves?  For protecting their lives or the lives of their loved ones because, according to the government in some states, we cannot practice our 2nd amendment right outside of our homes?  Ridiculous.  This is why I believe the government should NOT be able to put such restrictions on citizens.  The criminals face NO SUCH restrictions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok then why would it be illegal to defend your home with a gun if you are not a felon?  Certainly the vast majority of law abiding gun owners can legally defend themselves at home with a gun.  So Bills examples would only effect a small minority of defenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Brainless .  . . Bill is trying to explain to you that some of the self defense shooters might be considered "felons" because of an illegal weapon possession charge during said self defense shooting, such as in a state where you are ONLY allowed stand your ground option if you are protecting your home.
> 
> However, say you have a gun on your person, and you are with your children, and a gunman comes up to your car and demands you get out of the car because he is going to take it!  Are you going to use that gun to protect your children, regardless of any stupid laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you are saying that would be the case in the majority of gun defenses?  Really?  Most gun owners are felons?  Because unless it does then he's just explaining a small minority of defenses which does very little.  Why is this so hard for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said that.  That is what YOU were saying.
Click to expand...


You sure are amazingly dense.  Well unless bills example covers what would be the majority of defenses he really has nothing.  Like I've already said he's trying to explain the majority with something that would only effect a small minority.


----------



## ChrisL

Well, I just hope everyone can just see how dishonest brainless and the other anti rights posters are.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are they called "felons?"  Because of what should be illegal and unconstitutional maneuvers by the government to limit one of our rights?  So, in some states, people are not allowed to use their guns outside of their homes/businesses, but happened to anyways when faced with what they perceived as a life-or-death situation?  So now these people who were lucky enough to be armed when attacked by a criminal are now considered criminals themselves?  For protecting their lives or the lives of their loved ones because, according to the government in some states, we cannot practice our 2nd amendment right outside of our homes?  Ridiculous.  This is why I believe the government should NOT be able to put such restrictions on citizens.  The criminals face NO SUCH restrictions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok then why would it be illegal to defend your home with a gun if you are not a felon?  Certainly the vast majority of law abiding gun owners can legally defend themselves at home with a gun.  So Bills examples would only effect a small minority of defenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Brainless .  . . Bill is trying to explain to you that some of the self defense shooters might be considered "felons" because of an illegal weapon possession charge during said self defense shooting, such as in a state where you are ONLY allowed stand your ground option if you are protecting your home.
> 
> However, say you have a gun on your person, and you are with your children, and a gunman comes up to your car and demands you get out of the car because he is going to take it!  Are you going to use that gun to protect your children, regardless of any stupid laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you are saying that would be the case in the majority of gun defenses?  Really?  Most gun owners are felons?  Because unless it does then he's just explaining a small minority of defenses which does very little.  Why is this so hard for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said that.  That is what YOU were saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sure are amazingly dense.  Well unless bills example covers what would be the majority of defenses he really has nothing.  Like I've already said he's trying to explain the majority with something that would only effect a small minority.
Click to expand...


You are the one who is dense.  You are the one who was saying that MOST of them were criminals, weren't you?  Then Bill tried to explain to you that yes, SOME of them might be considered "felons" because of their self defense actions because of a technicality involving a ridiculous gun "regulation."  Do you get it yet?


----------



## Jackinthebox

ChrisL said:


> Well, I just hope everyone can just see how dishonest brainless and the other anti rights posters are.



I spent time in state prison for a several violent felonies. I changed my ways, granted, but I also had political friends and a lot of money to get my permit back.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

M14 Shooter said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all have as much right to a gun as a screwdriver.
> 
> 
> 
> If someone tries to ban screwdrivers, the constitution doesn't get in their way.
Click to expand...


Actually, it might.  It might be a matter of due process.  Equal protection, maybe.  Commerce Clause.  The litigation might simply have to involve some provision other than the Second Amendment.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Well, I just hope everyone can just see how dishonest brainless and the other anti rights posters are.



There is nothing dishonest.  It's just you aren't smart enough to get very simple concepts.  Kleck says the majority of defenses are by people involved in criminal activity.  If you believe in Kleck's numbers for defensive uses then you have to accept this also.  Bill is trying to candy coat what Kleck said, but his example still would only effect a small minority of Kleck's defenses.  So the vast majority must be involved in some sort of actual criminal activity or be a felon who can't own a gun.  It's all really very simple.


----------



## ChrisL

Jackinthebox said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I just hope everyone can just see how dishonest brainless and the other anti rights posters are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I spent time in state prison for a several violent felonies. I changed my ways, granted, but I also had political friends and a lot of money to get my permit back.
Click to expand...


I've heard that it's very difficult and expensive to "buy" back your right.  I've actually had a conversation on another forum with a poster who was allegedly convicted with at least one felony charge too.  

I don't see the point of revoking the 2nd Amendment rights of a person who is considered a "felon" unless their crime has to do with a firearm.  In some instances, writing a bad check can be considered a "felony."


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I just hope everyone can just see how dishonest brainless and the other anti rights posters are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing dishonest.  It's just you aren't smart enough to get very simple concepts.  Kleck says the majority of defenses are by people involved in criminal activity.  If you believe in Kleck's numbers for defensive uses then you have to accept this also.  Bill is trying to candy coat what Kleck said, but his example still would only effect a small minority of Kleck's defenses.  So the vast majority must be involved in some sort of actual criminal activity or be a felon who can't own a gun.  It's all really very simple.
Click to expand...


You keep saying this, but yet NOBODY has seen you link to this data.  Supply a link to this claim of your's or else it isn't true.

Link to the claim with the specific paragraph and where exactly in the link this data is mentioned.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I just hope everyone can just see how dishonest brainless and the other anti rights posters are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing dishonest.  It's just you aren't smart enough to get very simple concepts.  Kleck says the majority of defenses are by people involved in criminal activity.  If you believe in Kleck's numbers for defensive uses then you have to accept this also.  Bill is trying to candy coat what Kleck said, but his example still would only effect a small minority of Kleck's defenses.  So the vast majority must be involved in some sort of actual criminal activity or be a felon who can't own a gun.  It's all really very simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep saying this, but yet NOBODY has seen you link to this data.  Supply a link to this claim of your's or else it isn't true.
Click to expand...


Wow I just posted a link to it for you last night.  Talk about dishonest.  And it was originally posted by Bill so yes people have seen it.


----------



## 2aguy

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I also find it interesting when certain posters claim that they are not "gun banners," yet if you check out their posting history, they ONLY post on anti-gun threads.  Hmmm.  Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All you have to do is learn both sides.
> 
> The (far) Left that fixate on no guns don't own one and see stories every day about killings with them. They think that guns are bad. And the idiotic Right has the worst response possible due to lack of education. The (far) Left thinks there will be no gun killings without guns and the (far) Right says guns will kill people if we ban guns so why ban guns............not exactly creating the best argument. Creating a fear that people with guns will kill us if we don't have guns drives the topic. The ONLY people that create that fear today is the NRA AND THE RIGHT WING and the ones who can profit.
> 
> The majority of the Left don't want to ban guns. Most want regulation.
> 
> I say lack of regulation will lead to bans. But that's just an individuals predications based on collective information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The majority of the Left don't want to ban guns. Most want regulation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, this is untrue.....the majority of the left want guns banned but don't know how to get it done....so they settle for baby steps..."universal background checks" which make it har
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kleck refers to the situation when the study was done...it isn't surprising that gun grabbers don't understand the history of gun control....they don't understand any history really, that is why they believe in big government, and disarming good people.......history for gun grabbers and the other liberals starts when they wake up in the morning.....
> 
> In the 90s, you didn't have the concealed carry laws that we have today....it took Florida to start that ball rolling....but....criminals still existed and still preyed on innocent people....remember when tourists in Florida were being killed....because the criminals knew they couldn't carry guns in Florida....and the criminals just followed the new tourists from the airport?   So law abiding citizens who carried guns for defense against criminals, who then displayed that gun, drew that gun but did not shoot the gun....would not want to tell cops they were carrying a weapon "illegally" because thanks to the anti gunners, that would be a felony.......back in the 90s....
> 
> Today....not a problem like it was back then....my state...Illinois....we now have concealed carry.....so those law abiding citizens can now carry "legally"......which in and of itself stupid, since even back in the 90s the 2nd Amendment existed and any law barring the ability to carry a weapon for self defense was unconstitutional......but Brain will still beat that drum with that quote....I keep hoping to find the passage he found it in...to get the whole context....but other things Kleck has stated pretty much points out the opposite of what Brain says......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me explain this again bill.  Kleck is talking about all DGUs, not just people carrying.  Since mosts defenses happen at home, concealed carry laws don't really matter.  It has never been illegal to defend your home with a gun.  Good try though.  But as Kleck says in most defenses the defender is involved in criminal activity. You have yet to post anything that points in the opposite direction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Brain.....he is talking about most defensive gun uses, in the home and carrying, and if you read the study most uses occur in the home, fewer while people are carrying.....it is the people carrying outside the home where the "illegal weapon possession" occurs.  And having a gun can in some instances, in the home be illegal and until you actually talk to the man and see what he means you are not being honest.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are trying to explain something that happens with the majority of defenses with something that effects only a minority.  You can't see how that doesn't work mathematically?
> 
> They are called felons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are they called "felons?"  Because of what should be illegal and unconstitutional maneuvers by the government to limit one of our rights?  So, in some states, people are not allowed to use their guns outside of their homes/businesses, but happened to anyways when faced with what they perceived as a life-or-death situation?  So now these people who were lucky enough to be armed when attacked by a criminal are now considered criminals themselves?  For protecting their lives or the lives of their loved ones because, according to the government in some states, we cannot practice our 2nd amendment right outside of our homes?  Ridiculous.  This is why I believe the government should NOT be able to put such restrictions on citizens.  The criminals face NO SUCH restrictions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok then why would it be illegal to defend your home with a gun if you are not a felon?  Certainly the vast majority of law abiding gun owners can legally defend themselves at home with a gun.  So Bills examples would only effect a small minority of defenses.
Click to expand...




> Ok then why would it be illegal to defend your home with a gun if you are not a felon?  Certainly the vast majority of law abiding gun owners can legally defend themselves at home with a gun.  So Bills examples would only effect a small minority of defenses.



Because some states don't have the "Castle Doctrine" which means that you are still required to prove you were justified in shooting someone in your home if you had the ability to retreat from the threat.....another case, you shoot the criminal as he is moving and hit him somewhere other than the front of this body....that can be used by a prosecutor to take you into court for murder, not self defense since his back was to you when you shot him and therefore did not pose  a threat....a situation that has happened in the past....ask Massad Ayoob.....

You anti gunners have made it very difficult for law abiding citizens to protect themsleves from criminals.....and you have done this specifically to discourage the use of guns.......


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I just hope everyone can just see how dishonest brainless and the other anti rights posters are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing dishonest.  It's just you aren't smart enough to get very simple concepts.  Kleck says the majority of defenses are by people involved in criminal activity.  If you believe in Kleck's numbers for defensive uses then you have to accept this also.  Bill is trying to candy coat what Kleck said, but his example still would only effect a small minority of Kleck's defenses.  So the vast majority must be involved in some sort of actual criminal activity or be a felon who can't own a gun.  It's all really very simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep saying this, but yet NOBODY has seen you link to this data.  Supply a link to this claim of your's or else it isn't true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow I just posted a link to it for you last night.  Talk about dishonest.  And it was originally posted by Bill so yes people have seen it.
Click to expand...


No, nobody has seen it.  Post a link to it right now, with the specific paragraph number and location where it says this in the link.  Right now.  I'm waiting and so is everyone else.


----------



## ChrisL

Billc said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> All you have to do is learn both sides.
> 
> The (far) Left that fixate on no guns don't own one and see stories every day about killings with them. They think that guns are bad. And the idiotic Right has the worst response possible due to lack of education. The (far) Left thinks there will be no gun killings without guns and the (far) Right says guns will kill people if we ban guns so why ban guns............not exactly creating the best argument. Creating a fear that people with guns will kill us if we don't have guns drives the topic. The ONLY people that create that fear today is the NRA AND THE RIGHT WING and the ones who can profit.
> 
> The majority of the Left don't want to ban guns. Most want regulation.
> 
> I say lack of regulation will lead to bans. But that's just an individuals predications based on collective information.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The majority of the Left don't want to ban guns. Most want regulation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, this is untrue.....the majority of the left want guns banned but don't know how to get it done....so they settle for baby steps..."universal background checks" which make it har
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me explain this again bill.  Kleck is talking about all DGUs, not just people carrying.  Since mosts defenses happen at home, concealed carry laws don't really matter.  It has never been illegal to defend your home with a gun.  Good try though.  But as Kleck says in most defenses the defender is involved in criminal activity. You have yet to post anything that points in the opposite direction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Brain.....he is talking about most defensive gun uses, in the home and carrying, and if you read the study most uses occur in the home, fewer while people are carrying.....it is the people carrying outside the home where the "illegal weapon possession" occurs.  And having a gun can in some instances, in the home be illegal and until you actually talk to the man and see what he means you are not being honest.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are trying to explain something that happens with the majority of defenses with something that effects only a minority.  You can't see how that doesn't work mathematically?
> 
> They are called felons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are they called "felons?"  Because of what should be illegal and unconstitutional maneuvers by the government to limit one of our rights?  So, in some states, people are not allowed to use their guns outside of their homes/businesses, but happened to anyways when faced with what they perceived as a life-or-death situation?  So now these people who were lucky enough to be armed when attacked by a criminal are now considered criminals themselves?  For protecting their lives or the lives of their loved ones because, according to the government in some states, we cannot practice our 2nd amendment right outside of our homes?  Ridiculous.  This is why I believe the government should NOT be able to put such restrictions on citizens.  The criminals face NO SUCH restrictions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok then why would it be illegal to defend your home with a gun if you are not a felon?  Certainly the vast majority of law abiding gun owners can legally defend themselves at home with a gun.  So Bills examples would only effect a small minority of defenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok then why would it be illegal to defend your home with a gun if you are not a felon?  Certainly the vast majority of law abiding gun owners can legally defend themselves at home with a gun.  So Bills examples would only effect a small minority of defenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because some states don't have the "Castle Doctrine" which means that you are still required to prove you were justified in shooting someone in your home if you had the ability to retreat from the threat.....another case, you shoot the criminal as he is moving and hit him somewhere other than the front of this body....that can be used by a prosecutor to take you into court for murder, not self defense since his back was to you when you shot him and therefore did not pose  a threat....a situation that has happened in the past....ask Massad Ayoob.....
> 
> You anti gunners have made it very difficult for law abiding citizens to protect themsleves from criminals.....and you have done this specifically to discourage the use of guns.......
Click to expand...


This is WHY I do not go out of my way to try and be pleasant or kind to these kind of people.  It is a useless waste of time, and you might as well treat them like the trashy POS that they are.  He doesn't care about how civil you are when presenting your point, nor does he care if your points make good sense.  He has an agenda.


----------



## Brain357

Billc said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AntiParty said:
> 
> 
> 
> All you have to do is learn both sides.
> 
> The (far) Left that fixate on no guns don't own one and see stories every day about killings with them. They think that guns are bad. And the idiotic Right has the worst response possible due to lack of education. The (far) Left thinks there will be no gun killings without guns and the (far) Right says guns will kill people if we ban guns so why ban guns............not exactly creating the best argument. Creating a fear that people with guns will kill us if we don't have guns drives the topic. The ONLY people that create that fear today is the NRA AND THE RIGHT WING and the ones who can profit.
> 
> The majority of the Left don't want to ban guns. Most want regulation.
> 
> I say lack of regulation will lead to bans. But that's just an individuals predications based on collective information.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The majority of the Left don't want to ban guns. Most want regulation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, this is untrue.....the majority of the left want guns banned but don't know how to get it done....so they settle for baby steps..."universal background checks" which make it har
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me explain this again bill.  Kleck is talking about all DGUs, not just people carrying.  Since mosts defenses happen at home, concealed carry laws don't really matter.  It has never been illegal to defend your home with a gun.  Good try though.  But as Kleck says in most defenses the defender is involved in criminal activity. You have yet to post anything that points in the opposite direction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Brain.....he is talking about most defensive gun uses, in the home and carrying, and if you read the study most uses occur in the home, fewer while people are carrying.....it is the people carrying outside the home where the "illegal weapon possession" occurs.  And having a gun can in some instances, in the home be illegal and until you actually talk to the man and see what he means you are not being honest.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are trying to explain something that happens with the majority of defenses with something that effects only a minority.  You can't see how that doesn't work mathematically?
> 
> They are called felons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are they called "felons?"  Because of what should be illegal and unconstitutional maneuvers by the government to limit one of our rights?  So, in some states, people are not allowed to use their guns outside of their homes/businesses, but happened to anyways when faced with what they perceived as a life-or-death situation?  So now these people who were lucky enough to be armed when attacked by a criminal are now considered criminals themselves?  For protecting their lives or the lives of their loved ones because, according to the government in some states, we cannot practice our 2nd amendment right outside of our homes?  Ridiculous.  This is why I believe the government should NOT be able to put such restrictions on citizens.  The criminals face NO SUCH restrictions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok then why would it be illegal to defend your home with a gun if you are not a felon?  Certainly the vast majority of law abiding gun owners can legally defend themselves at home with a gun.  So Bills examples would only effect a small minority of defenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok then why would it be illegal to defend your home with a gun if you are not a felon?  Certainly the vast majority of law abiding gun owners can legally defend themselves at home with a gun.  So Bills examples would only effect a small minority of defenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because some states don't have the "Castle Doctrine" which means that you are still required to prove you were justified in shooting someone in your home if you had the ability to retreat from the threat.....another case, you shoot the criminal as he is moving and hit him somewhere other than the front of this body....that can be used by a prosecutor to take you into court for murder, not self defense since his back was to you when you shot him and therefore did not pose  a threat....a situation that has happened in the past....ask Massad Ayoob.....
> 
> You anti gunners have made it very difficult for law abiding citizens to protect themsleves from criminals.....and you have done this specifically to discourage the use of guns.......
Click to expand...


So then you would have to show that someone gets shot in the majority of defenses.  You have spent a lot of time trying to prove the opposite so we both know that isn't true.  Try again.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, this is untrue.....the majority of the left want guns banned but don't know how to get it done....so they settle for baby steps..."universal background checks" which make it har
> Yes Brain.....he is talking about most defensive gun uses, in the home and carrying, and if you read the study most uses occur in the home, fewer while people are carrying.....it is the people carrying outside the home where the "illegal weapon possession" occurs.  And having a gun can in some instances, in the home be illegal and until you actually talk to the man and see what he means you are not being honest.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are trying to explain something that happens with the majority of defenses with something that effects only a minority.  You can't see how that doesn't work mathematically?
> 
> They are called felons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are they called "felons?"  Because of what should be illegal and unconstitutional maneuvers by the government to limit one of our rights?  So, in some states, people are not allowed to use their guns outside of their homes/businesses, but happened to anyways when faced with what they perceived as a life-or-death situation?  So now these people who were lucky enough to be armed when attacked by a criminal are now considered criminals themselves?  For protecting their lives or the lives of their loved ones because, according to the government in some states, we cannot practice our 2nd amendment right outside of our homes?  Ridiculous.  This is why I believe the government should NOT be able to put such restrictions on citizens.  The criminals face NO SUCH restrictions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok then why would it be illegal to defend your home with a gun if you are not a felon?  Certainly the vast majority of law abiding gun owners can legally defend themselves at home with a gun.  So Bills examples would only effect a small minority of defenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok then why would it be illegal to defend your home with a gun if you are not a felon?  Certainly the vast majority of law abiding gun owners can legally defend themselves at home with a gun.  So Bills examples would only effect a small minority of defenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because some states don't have the "Castle Doctrine" which means that you are still required to prove you were justified in shooting someone in your home if you had the ability to retreat from the threat.....another case, you shoot the criminal as he is moving and hit him somewhere other than the front of this body....that can be used by a prosecutor to take you into court for murder, not self defense since his back was to you when you shot him and therefore did not pose  a threat....a situation that has happened in the past....ask Massad Ayoob.....
> 
> You anti gunners have made it very difficult for law abiding citizens to protect themsleves from criminals.....and you have done this specifically to discourage the use of guns.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is WHY I do not go out of my way to try and be pleasant or kind to these kind of people.  It is a useless waste of time, and you might as well treat them like the trashy POS that they are.  He doesn't care about how civil you are when presenting your point, nor does he care if your points make good sense.  He has an agenda.
Click to expand...


Actually me and Bill have lots of civil discussions.  I actually like Bill and think he makes a lot of good points.  You on the other hand can make good points but prefer to be trashy.


----------



## Jackinthebox

ChrisL said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I just hope everyone can just see how dishonest brainless and the other anti rights posters are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I spent time in state prison for a several violent felonies. I changed my ways, granted, but I also had political friends and a lot of money to get my permit back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've heard that it's very difficult and expensive to "buy" back your right.  I've actually had a conversation on another forum with a poster who was allegedly convicted with at least one felony charge too.
> 
> I don't see the point of revoking the 2nd Amendment rights of a person who is considered a "felon" unless their crime has to do with a firearm.  In some instances, writing a bad check can be considered a "felony."
Click to expand...


I pistol whipped a man and robbed him of a large amount of cash and goods.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, this is untrue.....the majority of the left want guns banned but don't know how to get it done....so they settle for baby steps..."universal background checks" which make it har
> Yes Brain.....he is talking about most defensive gun uses, in the home and carrying, and if you read the study most uses occur in the home, fewer while people are carrying.....it is the people carrying outside the home where the "illegal weapon possession" occurs.  And having a gun can in some instances, in the home be illegal and until you actually talk to the man and see what he means you are not being honest.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are trying to explain something that happens with the majority of defenses with something that effects only a minority.  You can't see how that doesn't work mathematically?
> 
> They are called felons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are they called "felons?"  Because of what should be illegal and unconstitutional maneuvers by the government to limit one of our rights?  So, in some states, people are not allowed to use their guns outside of their homes/businesses, but happened to anyways when faced with what they perceived as a life-or-death situation?  So now these people who were lucky enough to be armed when attacked by a criminal are now considered criminals themselves?  For protecting their lives or the lives of their loved ones because, according to the government in some states, we cannot practice our 2nd amendment right outside of our homes?  Ridiculous.  This is why I believe the government should NOT be able to put such restrictions on citizens.  The criminals face NO SUCH restrictions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok then why would it be illegal to defend your home with a gun if you are not a felon?  Certainly the vast majority of law abiding gun owners can legally defend themselves at home with a gun.  So Bills examples would only effect a small minority of defenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok then why would it be illegal to defend your home with a gun if you are not a felon?  Certainly the vast majority of law abiding gun owners can legally defend themselves at home with a gun.  So Bills examples would only effect a small minority of defenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because some states don't have the "Castle Doctrine" which means that you are still required to prove you were justified in shooting someone in your home if you had the ability to retreat from the threat.....another case, you shoot the criminal as he is moving and hit him somewhere other than the front of this body....that can be used by a prosecutor to take you into court for murder, not self defense since his back was to you when you shot him and therefore did not pose  a threat....a situation that has happened in the past....ask Massad Ayoob.....
> 
> You anti gunners have made it very difficult for law abiding citizens to protect themsleves from criminals.....and you have done this specifically to discourage the use of guns.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then you would have to show that someone gets shot in the majority of defenses.  You have spent a lot of time trying to prove the opposite so we both know that isn't true.  Try again.
Click to expand...


Why do I have to show that?  How is that relevant?


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are trying to explain something that happens with the majority of defenses with something that effects only a minority.  You can't see how that doesn't work mathematically?
> 
> They are called felons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are they called "felons?"  Because of what should be illegal and unconstitutional maneuvers by the government to limit one of our rights?  So, in some states, people are not allowed to use their guns outside of their homes/businesses, but happened to anyways when faced with what they perceived as a life-or-death situation?  So now these people who were lucky enough to be armed when attacked by a criminal are now considered criminals themselves?  For protecting their lives or the lives of their loved ones because, according to the government in some states, we cannot practice our 2nd amendment right outside of our homes?  Ridiculous.  This is why I believe the government should NOT be able to put such restrictions on citizens.  The criminals face NO SUCH restrictions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok then why would it be illegal to defend your home with a gun if you are not a felon?  Certainly the vast majority of law abiding gun owners can legally defend themselves at home with a gun.  So Bills examples would only effect a small minority of defenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok then why would it be illegal to defend your home with a gun if you are not a felon?  Certainly the vast majority of law abiding gun owners can legally defend themselves at home with a gun.  So Bills examples would only effect a small minority of defenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because some states don't have the "Castle Doctrine" which means that you are still required to prove you were justified in shooting someone in your home if you had the ability to retreat from the threat.....another case, you shoot the criminal as he is moving and hit him somewhere other than the front of this body....that can be used by a prosecutor to take you into court for murder, not self defense since his back was to you when you shot him and therefore did not pose  a threat....a situation that has happened in the past....ask Massad Ayoob.....
> 
> You anti gunners have made it very difficult for law abiding citizens to protect themsleves from criminals.....and you have done this specifically to discourage the use of guns.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is WHY I do not go out of my way to try and be pleasant or kind to these kind of people.  It is a useless waste of time, and you might as well treat them like the trashy POS that they are.  He doesn't care about how civil you are when presenting your point, nor does he care if your points make good sense.  He has an agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually me and Bill have lots of civil discussions.  I actually like Bill and think he makes a lot of good points.  You on the other hand can make good points but prefer to be trashy.
Click to expand...


I adjust my attitude, depending on who I am dealing with.


----------



## ChrisL

Jackinthebox said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I just hope everyone can just see how dishonest brainless and the other anti rights posters are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I spent time in state prison for a several violent felonies. I changed my ways, granted, but I also had political friends and a lot of money to get my permit back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've heard that it's very difficult and expensive to "buy" back your right.  I've actually had a conversation on another forum with a poster who was allegedly convicted with at least one felony charge too.
> 
> I don't see the point of revoking the 2nd Amendment rights of a person who is considered a "felon" unless their crime has to do with a firearm.  In some instances, writing a bad check can be considered a "felony."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I pistol whipped a man and robbed him of a large amount of cash and goods.
Click to expand...


What's your deal?  What point are you trying to make here?


----------



## 2aguy

More from Kleck, he discusses his methods in defense of his study...

http://www.rkba.org/research/kleck/md-rebuttal.3sep95

In this connection, Vernick misleads by omission, failing to
inform the Commission just how common surveys yielding large DGU
estimates are. *To date, there have been at least 14 surveys
implying anywhere from 700,000 to 3.6 million DGUs per year (see
Table 1 of enclosed report). For Vernick to hint that my estimate
was an isolated fluke rather than a common result is more than a
little deceptive. That there are many other surveys implying
frequency DGUs is common knowledge among scholars who study this
subject, as it has been reported in both previous published
articles* (e.g. Social Problems, volume 35, p. 3, February, 1988)
and in my book, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America (p.
146), winner of the 1993 Hindelang Award, granted by the American
Society of Criminology to the most outstanding book of the
preceding several years. These are hardly obscure information
sources to serious scholars, and no competent student of the
subject could claim to be unaware of these numerous surveys.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are trying to explain something that happens with the majority of defenses with something that effects only a minority.  You can't see how that doesn't work mathematically?
> 
> They are called felons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are they called "felons?"  Because of what should be illegal and unconstitutional maneuvers by the government to limit one of our rights?  So, in some states, people are not allowed to use their guns outside of their homes/businesses, but happened to anyways when faced with what they perceived as a life-or-death situation?  So now these people who were lucky enough to be armed when attacked by a criminal are now considered criminals themselves?  For protecting their lives or the lives of their loved ones because, according to the government in some states, we cannot practice our 2nd amendment right outside of our homes?  Ridiculous.  This is why I believe the government should NOT be able to put such restrictions on citizens.  The criminals face NO SUCH restrictions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok then why would it be illegal to defend your home with a gun if you are not a felon?  Certainly the vast majority of law abiding gun owners can legally defend themselves at home with a gun.  So Bills examples would only effect a small minority of defenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok then why would it be illegal to defend your home with a gun if you are not a felon?  Certainly the vast majority of law abiding gun owners can legally defend themselves at home with a gun.  So Bills examples would only effect a small minority of defenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because some states don't have the "Castle Doctrine" which means that you are still required to prove you were justified in shooting someone in your home if you had the ability to retreat from the threat.....another case, you shoot the criminal as he is moving and hit him somewhere other than the front of this body....that can be used by a prosecutor to take you into court for murder, not self defense since his back was to you when you shot him and therefore did not pose  a threat....a situation that has happened in the past....ask Massad Ayoob.....
> 
> You anti gunners have made it very difficult for law abiding citizens to protect themsleves from criminals.....and you have done this specifically to discourage the use of guns.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then you would have to show that someone gets shot in the majority of defenses.  You have spent a lot of time trying to prove the opposite so we both know that isn't true.  Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do I have to show that?  How is that relevant?
Click to expand...


You clearly can't think very well so I suggest you leave the debating to me and bill.  I'm certain he gets it.  But one last time he is trying to explain away why the majority of defenses would involve criminal activity by the defender.  He has tried to do that twice with reasons that would involve only a small minority of defenses.  Mathematically it doesn't add up.


----------



## ChrisL

It's also common these forums to get posters who pretend to be pro gun rights but  . . . .


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I just hope everyone can just see how dishonest brainless and the other anti rights posters are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I spent time in state prison for a several violent felonies. I changed my ways, granted, but I also had political friends and a lot of money to get my permit back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've heard that it's very difficult and expensive to "buy" back your right.  I've actually had a conversation on another forum with a poster who was allegedly convicted with at least one felony charge too.
> 
> I don't see the point of revoking the 2nd Amendment rights of a person who is considered a "felon" unless their crime has to do with a firearm.  In some instances, writing a bad check can be considered a "felony."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I pistol whipped a man and robbed him of a large amount of cash and goods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's your deal?  What point are you trying to make here?
Click to expand...


That he is now legally armed and we should feel good about that.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Here's a thought or three ...

The Second Amendment secures a right that pre-existed our Constitution.  That right is the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose (minimally) of self-protection in one's own home.  

The right is subject to SOME limitations and regulation by the government.  But those governmental limitations and regulations on your right to have a gun in your own home cannot, properly, serve to effectively ban guns. (This means that if the state has a law that says you can have a gun but you need a license but the state's licensing law effectively denies you the ability to get licensed, then the law or laws violate the Constitution and are a legal nullity.)

This FEDERAL Government Amendment has now been "incorporated" which means that it DOES apply to STATE laws, too.

If we have a right that pre-dates the Constitution (i.e., the Constitution merely secures that right) and that right is associated with self-protection (and the protection of family) in one's own home, then the right of self-defense in one's own home is not something that any person should have to prove.  It should be the requirement that the government prove that you were not protecting your family in your own home if that's where you happened to have made your stand against some (say) burglars or the like.


----------



## Jackinthebox

ChrisL said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I just hope everyone can just see how dishonest brainless and the other anti rights posters are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I spent time in state prison for a several violent felonies. I changed my ways, granted, but I also had political friends and a lot of money to get my permit back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've heard that it's very difficult and expensive to "buy" back your right.  I've actually had a conversation on another forum with a poster who was allegedly convicted with at least one felony charge too.
> 
> I don't see the point of revoking the 2nd Amendment rights of a person who is considered a "felon" unless their crime has to do with a firearm.  In some instances, writing a bad check can be considered a "felony."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I pistol whipped a man and robbed him of a large amount of cash and goods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's your deal?  What point are you trying to make here?
Click to expand...


If it weren't for my money and connections, I would not be armed. I am special. More special than you. I can carry a pistol where citizens can't. Even though I am a convicted violent felon.


----------



## 2aguy

and kleck again on how guns are used....

Armed Resistance to Crime The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun



> Even under the best of circumstances, reporting the use of a gun for self-protection would be an extremely sensitive and legally controversial matter for either of two reasons. As with other forms of forceful resistance, the defensive act itself, regardless of the characteristics of any weapon used, might constitute an unlawful assault or at least the R might believe that others, including either legal authorities or the researchers, could regard it that way.





> Resistance with a gun also involves additional elements of sensitivity. Because guns are legally regulated, a victim's possession of the weapon, either in general or at the time of the DGU, might itself be unlawful, either in fact or in the mind of a crime victim who used one. More likely, lay persons with a limited knowledge of the extremely complicated law of either self-defense or firearms regulation are unlikely to know for sure whether their defensive actions or their gun possession was lawful.





> In the context of a non anonymous survey conducted by the federal government, an R who reports a DGU may believe that he is placing himself in serious legal jeopardy. For example, consider the issue of the location of crimes. For all but a handful of gun owners with a permit to carry a weapon in public places (under 4% of the adult population even in states like Florida, where carry permits are relatively easy to get)[28], the mere possession of a gun in a place other than their home, place of business, or in some states, their vehicle, is a crime, often a felony.





> In at least ten states, it is punishable by a punitively mandatory minimum prison sentence.[29] Yet, 88% of the violent crimes which Rs reported to NCVS interviewers in 1992 were committed away from the victim's home,[30] i.e., in a location where it would ordinarily be a crime for the victim to even possess a gun, never mind use it defensively. Because the question about location is asked before the self-protection questions,[31] the typical violent crime victim R has already committed himself to having been victimized in a public place before being asked what he or she did for self-protection. In short, Rs usually could not mention their defensive use of a gun without, in effect, confessing to a crime to a federal government employee.





> *Even for crimes that occurred in the victim's home, such as a burglary, possession of a gun would still often be unlawful or of unknown legal status; because the R had not complied with or could not be sure he had complied with all legal requirements concerning registration of the gun's acquisition or possession, permits for purchase, licensing of home possession, storage requirements, and so on.* In light of all these considerations, it may be unrealistic to assume that more than a fraction of Rs who have used a gun defensively would be willing to report it to NCVS interviewers.



Mr. Branca....can you comment on defensive gun use and wether most of those using guns for defense are criminals or law abiding citizens....thank you....


Andrew Branca Law of Self Defense Interview Seminar


----------



## Ernie S.

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, this is untrue.....the majority of the left want guns banned but don't know how to get it done....so they settle for baby steps..."universal background checks" which make it har
> Yes Brain.....he is talking about most defensive gun uses, in the home and carrying, and if you read the study most uses occur in the home, fewer while people are carrying.....it is the people carrying outside the home where the "illegal weapon possession" occurs.  And having a gun can in some instances, in the home be illegal and until you actually talk to the man and see what he means you are not being honest.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are trying to explain something that happens with the majority of defenses with something that effects only a minority.  You can't see how that doesn't work mathematically?
> 
> They are called felons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are they called "felons?"  Because of what should be illegal and unconstitutional maneuvers by the government to limit one of our rights?  So, in some states, people are not allowed to use their guns outside of their homes/businesses, but happened to anyways when faced with what they perceived as a life-or-death situation?  So now these people who were lucky enough to be armed when attacked by a criminal are now considered criminals themselves?  For protecting their lives or the lives of their loved ones because, according to the government in some states, we cannot practice our 2nd amendment right outside of our homes?  Ridiculous.  This is why I believe the government should NOT be able to put such restrictions on citizens.  The criminals face NO SUCH restrictions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok then why would it be illegal to defend your home with a gun if you are not a felon?  Certainly the vast majority of law abiding gun owners can legally defend themselves at home with a gun.  So Bills examples would only effect a small minority of defenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Brainless .  . . Bill is trying to explain to you that some of the self defense shooters might be considered "felons" because of an illegal weapon possession charge during said self defense shooting, such as in a state where you are ONLY allowed stand your ground option if you are protecting your home.
> 
> However, say you have a gun on your person, and you are with your children, and a gunman comes up to your car and demands you get out of the car because he is going to take it!  Are you going to use that gun to protect your children, regardless of any stupid laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you are saying that would be the case in the majority of gun defenses?  Really?  Most gun owners are felons?  Because unless it does then he's just explaining a small minority of defenses which does very little.  Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Click to expand...

You STILL have not provided context or a cited quote from Kleck. I'm beginning to think you made up or altered the quote to serve your purpose. Put up or shut up, as they say.


----------



## Jackinthebox

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I just hope everyone can just see how dishonest brainless and the other anti rights posters are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I spent time in state prison for a several violent felonies. I changed my ways, granted, but I also had political friends and a lot of money to get my permit back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've heard that it's very difficult and expensive to "buy" back your right.  I've actually had a conversation on another forum with a poster who was allegedly convicted with at least one felony charge too.
> 
> I don't see the point of revoking the 2nd Amendment rights of a person who is considered a "felon" unless their crime has to do with a firearm.  In some instances, writing a bad check can be considered a "felony."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I pistol whipped a man and robbed him of a large amount of cash and goods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's your deal?  What point are you trying to make here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That he is now legally armed and we should feel good about that.
Click to expand...


My firearms are registered, and some of my ammo is even counted in accordance with my work. The gun I used to pistol whip my victim? A "throwaway." I was in uniform though when I committed my crimes, and armed with a government-issued weapon.


----------



## Ernie S.

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I just hope everyone can just see how dishonest brainless and the other anti rights posters are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing dishonest.  It's just you aren't smart enough to get very simple concepts.  Kleck says the majority of defenses are by people involved in criminal activity.  If you believe in Kleck's numbers for defensive uses then you have to accept this also.  Bill is trying to candy coat what Kleck said, but his example still would only effect a small minority of Kleck's defenses.  So the vast majority must be involved in some sort of actual criminal activity or be a felon who can't own a gun.  It's all really very simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep saying this, but yet NOBODY has seen you link to this data.  Supply a link to this claim of your's or else it isn't true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow I just posted a link to it for you last night.  Talk about dishonest.  And it was originally posted by Bill so yes people have seen it.
Click to expand...

No one was able to find the quote at the link provided.


----------



## Brain357

Billc said:


> and kleck again on how guns are used....
> 
> Armed Resistance to Crime The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even under the best of circumstances, reporting the use of a gun for self-protection would be an extremely sensitive and legally controversial matter for either of two reasons. As with other forms of forceful resistance, the defensive act itself, regardless of the characteristics of any weapon used, might constitute an unlawful assault or at least the R might believe that others, including either legal authorities or the researchers, could regard it that way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Resistance with a gun also involves additional elements of sensitivity. Because guns are legally regulated, a victim's possession of the weapon, either in general or at the time of the DGU, might itself be unlawful, either in fact or in the mind of a crime victim who used one. More likely, lay persons with a limited knowledge of the extremely complicated law of either self-defense or firearms regulation are unlikely to know for sure whether their defensive actions or their gun possession was lawful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the context of a non anonymous survey conducted by the federal government, an R who reports a DGU may believe that he is placing himself in serious legal jeopardy. For example, consider the issue of the location of crimes. For all but a handful of gun owners with a permit to carry a weapon in public places (under 4% of the adult population even in states like Florida, where carry permits are relatively easy to get)[28], the mere possession of a gun in a place other than their home, place of business, or in some states, their vehicle, is a crime, often a felony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In at least ten states, it is punishable by a punitively mandatory minimum prison sentence.[29] Yet, 88% of the violent crimes which Rs reported to NCVS interviewers in 1992 were committed away from the victim's home,[30] i.e., in a location where it would ordinarily be a crime for the victim to even possess a gun, never mind use it defensively. Because the question about location is asked before the self-protection questions,[31] the typical violent crime victim R has already committed himself to having been victimized in a public place before being asked what he or she did for self-protection. In short, Rs usually could not mention their defensive use of a gun without, in effect, confessing to a crime to a federal government employee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Even for crimes that occurred in the victim's home, such as a burglary, possession of a gun would still often be unlawful or of unknown legal status; because the R had not complied with or could not be sure he had complied with all legal requirements concerning registration of the gun's acquisition or possession, permits for purchase, licensing of home possession, storage requirements, and so on.* In light of all these considerations, it may be unrealistic to assume that more than a fraction of Rs who have used a gun defensively would be willing to report it to NCVS interviewers.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


That is why the NCVS would weed out the criminals and why their numbers are more accurate for defenses by law abiding citizens.


----------



## 2aguy

Brain357 said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> and kleck again on how guns are used....
> 
> Armed Resistance to Crime The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even under the best of circumstances, reporting the use of a gun for self-protection would be an extremely sensitive and legally controversial matter for either of two reasons. As with other forms of forceful resistance, the defensive act itself, regardless of the characteristics of any weapon used, might constitute an unlawful assault or at least the R might believe that others, including either legal authorities or the researchers, could regard it that way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Resistance with a gun also involves additional elements of sensitivity. Because guns are legally regulated, a victim's possession of the weapon, either in general or at the time of the DGU, might itself be unlawful, either in fact or in the mind of a crime victim who used one. More likely, lay persons with a limited knowledge of the extremely complicated law of either self-defense or firearms regulation are unlikely to know for sure whether their defensive actions or their gun possession was lawful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the context of a non anonymous survey conducted by the federal government, an R who reports a DGU may believe that he is placing himself in serious legal jeopardy. For example, consider the issue of the location of crimes. For all but a handful of gun owners with a permit to carry a weapon in public places (under 4% of the adult population even in states like Florida, where carry permits are relatively easy to get)[28], the mere possession of a gun in a place other than their home, place of business, or in some states, their vehicle, is a crime, often a felony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In at least ten states, it is punishable by a punitively mandatory minimum prison sentence.[29] Yet, 88% of the violent crimes which Rs reported to NCVS interviewers in 1992 were committed away from the victim's home,[30] i.e., in a location where it would ordinarily be a crime for the victim to even possess a gun, never mind use it defensively. Because the question about location is asked before the self-protection questions,[31] the typical violent crime victim R has already committed himself to having been victimized in a public place before being asked what he or she did for self-protection. In short, Rs usually could not mention their defensive use of a gun without, in effect, confessing to a crime to a federal government employee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Even for crimes that occurred in the victim's home, such as a burglary, possession of a gun would still often be unlawful or of unknown legal status; because the R had not complied with or could not be sure he had complied with all legal requirements concerning registration of the gun's acquisition or possession, permits for purchase, licensing of home possession, storage requirements, and so on.* In light of all these considerations, it may be unrealistic to assume that more than a fraction of Rs who have used a gun defensively would be willing to report it to NCVS interviewers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is why the NCVS would weed out the criminals and why their numbers are more accurate for defenses by law abiding citizens.
Click to expand...



the NCVS is not even close to being accurate...it is the least reliable of all of the other 19 studies.....that's right, 19 other studies.....


----------



## Esmeralda

Jackinthebox said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thankfully, I've never taken another's life. Have been shot at however.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ya know, this is kind of a side note here. But I have killed a lot of people. And it doesn't phase me in the least. I always hear how about it should do this or that to your mind your soul whatever. The thing that breaks my heart the most is a stupid stray cat I had to abandon.
Click to expand...


----------



## Brain357

Ernie S. said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are trying to explain something that happens with the majority of defenses with something that effects only a minority.  You can't see how that doesn't work mathematically?
> 
> They are called felons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are they called "felons?"  Because of what should be illegal and unconstitutional maneuvers by the government to limit one of our rights?  So, in some states, people are not allowed to use their guns outside of their homes/businesses, but happened to anyways when faced with what they perceived as a life-or-death situation?  So now these people who were lucky enough to be armed when attacked by a criminal are now considered criminals themselves?  For protecting their lives or the lives of their loved ones because, according to the government in some states, we cannot practice our 2nd amendment right outside of our homes?  Ridiculous.  This is why I believe the government should NOT be able to put such restrictions on citizens.  The criminals face NO SUCH restrictions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok then why would it be illegal to defend your home with a gun if you are not a felon?  Certainly the vast majority of law abiding gun owners can legally defend themselves at home with a gun.  So Bills examples would only effect a small minority of defenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Brainless .  . . Bill is trying to explain to you that some of the self defense shooters might be considered "felons" because of an illegal weapon possession charge during said self defense shooting, such as in a state where you are ONLY allowed stand your ground option if you are protecting your home.
> 
> However, say you have a gun on your person, and you are with your children, and a gunman comes up to your car and demands you get out of the car because he is going to take it!  Are you going to use that gun to protect your children, regardless of any stupid laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you are saying that would be the case in the majority of gun defenses?  Really?  Most gun owners are felons?  Because unless it does then he's just explaining a small minority of defenses which does very little.  Why is this so hard for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You STILL have not provided context or a cited quote from Kleck. I'm beginning to think you made up or altered the quote to serve your purpose. Put up or shut up, as they say.
Click to expand...


You people should be pretty embarrassed that I provided a link and you aren't competent enough to even find it on the page.  Sad really.  Kleck is explaining why he has more defenses than there are crimes.  He does that by explaining that in most defenses the defender is involved in criminal activity so these attempted crimes go unreported:
Although we systematically rebut each of Hemenwayls H claims we
Hemenway argued that the NSDS estimates are implausible because this survey implied a number of DGUs occurring in connection with burglaries that exceeded the total number of burglaries of occupied residences estimated by the NCVS, and thus the DGU estimate was impossible, or at least implausibly high (p. 1441). This argument rested on an unstated assumption that the universe of DGU events sampled by the NSDS is a subset of the universe of crime events covered by the NCVS. However, Kleck and Gertz had explicitly warned in their paper that “a large share of the incidents covered by our survey are probably outside the scope of incidents that realistically are likely to be reported to the NCVS or police” (1995, p. 167). This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident. Once it is recognized that many DGU events are outside the realm of crime incidents effectively covered by the NCVS, it is logically impossible to treat any NCVS estimates as imposing an upper limit on how many DGUs there plausibly could be.


----------



## Jackinthebox

Esmeralda said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thankfully, I've never taken another's life. Have been shot at however.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ya know, this is kind of a side note here. But I have killed a lot of people. And it doesn't phase me in the least. I always hear how about it should do this or that to your mind your soul whatever. The thing that breaks my heart the most is a stupid stray cat I had to abandon.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Or, let's spot the sociopath. Whichever.


----------



## Brain357

Billc said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> and kleck again on how guns are used....
> 
> Armed Resistance to Crime The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even under the best of circumstances, reporting the use of a gun for self-protection would be an extremely sensitive and legally controversial matter for either of two reasons. As with other forms of forceful resistance, the defensive act itself, regardless of the characteristics of any weapon used, might constitute an unlawful assault or at least the R might believe that others, including either legal authorities or the researchers, could regard it that way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Resistance with a gun also involves additional elements of sensitivity. Because guns are legally regulated, a victim's possession of the weapon, either in general or at the time of the DGU, might itself be unlawful, either in fact or in the mind of a crime victim who used one. More likely, lay persons with a limited knowledge of the extremely complicated law of either self-defense or firearms regulation are unlikely to know for sure whether their defensive actions or their gun possession was lawful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the context of a non anonymous survey conducted by the federal government, an R who reports a DGU may believe that he is placing himself in serious legal jeopardy. For example, consider the issue of the location of crimes. For all but a handful of gun owners with a permit to carry a weapon in public places (under 4% of the adult population even in states like Florida, where carry permits are relatively easy to get)[28], the mere possession of a gun in a place other than their home, place of business, or in some states, their vehicle, is a crime, often a felony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In at least ten states, it is punishable by a punitively mandatory minimum prison sentence.[29] Yet, 88% of the violent crimes which Rs reported to NCVS interviewers in 1992 were committed away from the victim's home,[30] i.e., in a location where it would ordinarily be a crime for the victim to even possess a gun, never mind use it defensively. Because the question about location is asked before the self-protection questions,[31] the typical violent crime victim R has already committed himself to having been victimized in a public place before being asked what he or she did for self-protection. In short, Rs usually could not mention their defensive use of a gun without, in effect, confessing to a crime to a federal government employee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Even for crimes that occurred in the victim's home, such as a burglary, possession of a gun would still often be unlawful or of unknown legal status; because the R had not complied with or could not be sure he had complied with all legal requirements concerning registration of the gun's acquisition or possession, permits for purchase, licensing of home possession, storage requirements, and so on.* In light of all these considerations, it may be unrealistic to assume that more than a fraction of Rs who have used a gun defensively would be willing to report it to NCVS interviewers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is why the NCVS would weed out the criminals and why their numbers are more accurate for defenses by law abiding citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the NCVS is not even close to being accurate...it is the least reliable of all of the other 19 studies.....that's right, 19 other studies.....
Click to expand...


If you include defenses by criminals.


----------



## Esmeralda

Jackinthebox said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thankfully, I've never taken another's life. Have been shot at however.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ya know, this is kind of a side note here. But I have killed a lot of people. And it doesn't phase me in the least. I always hear how about it should do this or that to your mind your soul whatever. The thing that breaks my heart the most is a stupid stray cat I had to abandon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or, let's spot the sociopath. Whichever.
Click to expand...

Oh, I see. So you are a troll and a sociopath?  Okay. Whatever.


----------



## 2aguy

A detailed look at how bad the National Crime Victimization Survey is......read this to understand how bad the National Crime Victimization Survey actually is at determining defensive gun uses....

*A.  THE NATIONAL CRIME VICTIMIZATION SURVEY (NCVS)*

However consistent the evidence may be concerning the effectiveness of armed victim resistance, there are some who minimize its significance by insisting that it is rare.[15] This assertion is invariably based entirely on a single source of information, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS).

Data from the NCVS imply that each year there are only about 68,000 defensive uses of guns in connection with assaults and robberies,[16] or about 80,000 to 82,000 if one adds in uses linked with household burglaries.[17] These figures are less than one ninth of the estimates implied by the results of at least thirteen other surveys, summarized in Table 1, most of which have been previously reported.[18] The NCVS estimates imply that about 0.09 of 1% of U.S. households experience a defensive gun use (DGU) in any one year, compared to the Mauser survey's estimate of 3.79% of households over a five year period, or about 0.76% in any one year, assuming an even distribution over the five year period, and no repeat uses.[19]

*The strongest evidence that a measurement is inaccurate is that it is inconsistent with many other independent measurements or observations of the same phenomenon; indeed, some would argue that this is ultimately the only way of knowing that a measurement is wrong.* Therefore, one might suppose that the gross inconsistency of the NCVS-based estimates with all other known estimates, each derived from sources with no known flaws even remotely substantial enough to account for nine-to-one, or more, discrepancies, would be sufficient to persuade any serious scholar that the NCVS estimates are unreliable.

Apparently it is not, since the Bureau of Justice Statistics continues to disseminate their DGU estimates as if they were valid,[20] and scholars continue to cite the NCVS estimates as being at least as reasonable as those from the gun surveys.[21] Similarly, the editors of a report on violence conducted for the prestigious National Academy of Sciences have uncritically accepted the validity of the NCVS estimate as being at least equal to that of all of the alternative estimates.[22] In effect, even the National Academy of Sciences gives no more weight to estimates from numerous independent sources than to an estimate derived from a single source which is, as explained below, singularly ill-suited to the task of estimating DGU frequency.

This sort of bland and spurious even-handedness is misleading.* For example, Reiss and Roth withheld from their readers that there were at least nineother estimates contradicting the NCVS-based estimate; instead they vaguely alluded only to "a number of surveys,"[23] as did Cook,[24] and they down played the estimates from the other surveys on the basis of flaws which they only speculated those surveys might have. *Even as speculations, these scholars' conjectures were conspicuously one-sided, focusing solely on possible flaws whose correction would bring the estimate down, while ignoring obvious flaws, such as respondents (Rs) forgetting or intentionally concealing DGUs, whose correction would push the estimate up. *Further, die speculations, even if true, would be wholly inadequate to account for more than a small share of the enormous nine-to-one or more discrepancy between the NCVS-based estimates and all other estimates*. For example, the effects of telescoping can be completely cancelled out by the effects of memory loss and other recall failure, and even if they are not, they cannot account for more than a tiny share of a discrepancy of nine-to-one or more.

Equally important, those who take the NCVS-based estimates seriously have consistently ignored the most pronounced limitations of the NCVS for estimating DGU frequency. *The NCVS is a non anonymous national survey conducted by a branch of the federal government, the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Interviewers identify themselves to Rs as federal government employees, even displaying, in face-to-face contacts, an identification card with a badge.* Rs are told that the interviews are being conducted on behalf of the U.S. Department of justice, the law enforcement branch of the federal government. *As a preliminary to asking questions about crime victimization experiences, interviewers establish the address, telephone number, and full names of all occupants, age twelve and over, in each household they contact.[25] In short, it is made very clear to Rs that they are, in effect, speaking to a law enforcement arm of the federal government, whose employees know exactly who the Rs and their family members are, where they live, and how they can be re contacted.*

Even under the best of circumstances, reporting the use of a gun for self-protection would be an extremely sensitive and legally controversial matter for either of two reasons. As with other forms of forceful resistance, the defensive act itself, regardless of the characteristics of any weapon used, might constitute an unlawful assault or at least the R might believe that others, including either legal authorities or the researchers, could regard it that way. Resistance with a gun also involves additional elements of sensitivity. Because guns are legally regulated, a victim's possession of the weapon, either in general or at the time of the DGU, might itself be unlawful, either in fact or in the mind of a crime victim who used one. More likely, lay persons with a limited knowledge of the extremely complicated law of either self-defense or firearms regulation are unlikely to know for sure whether their defensive actions or their gun possession was lawful.

*It is not hard for gun-using victims interviewed in the NCVS to withhold information about their use of a gun, especially since they are never directly asked whether they used a gun for self-protection. They are asked only general questions about whether they did anything to protect themselves.[26] In short, Rs are merely given the opportunity to volunteer the information that they have used a gun defensively. *All it takes for an R to conceal a DGU is to simply refrain from mentioning it, i.e., to leave it out of what may be an otherwise accurate and complete account of the crime incident.

*Further, Rs in the NCVS are not even asked the general self-protection question unless they already independently indicated that they had been a victim of a crime. *This means that any DGUs associated with crimes the Rs did not want to talk about would remain hidden.

 It has been estimated that the NCVS may catch less than one-twelfth of spousal assaults and one-thirty-third of rapes,[27] thereby missing nearly all DGUs associated with such crimes.

In the context of a non anonymous survey conducted by the federal government, an R who reports a DGU may believe that he is placing himself in serious legal jeopardy. For example, consider the issue of the location of crimes. For all but a handful of gun owners with a permit to carry a weapon in public places (under 4% of the adult population even in states like Florida, where carry permits are relatively easy to get)[28], the mere possession of a gun in a place other than their home, place of business, or in some states, their vehicle, is a crime, often a felony. In at least ten states, it is punishable by a punitively mandatory minimum prison sentence.[29] Yet, 88% of the violent crimes which Rs reported to NCVS interviewers in 1992 were committed away from the victim's home,[30] i.e., in a location where it would ordinarily be a crime for the victim to even possess a gun, never mind use it defensively.* Because the question about location is asked before the self-protection questions,[31] the typical violent crime victim R has already committed himself to having been victimized in a public place before being asked what he or she did for self-protection. In short, Rs usually could not mention their defensive use of a gun without, in effect, confessing to a crime to a federal government employee.*

Even for crimes that occurred in the victim's home, such as a burglary, possession of a gun would still often be unlawful or of unknown legal status; because the R had not complied with or could not be sure he had complied with all legal requirements concerning registration of the gun's acquisition or possession, permits for purchase, licensing of home possession, storage requirements, and so on. In light of all these considerations, it may be unrealistic to assume that more than a fraction of Rs who have used a gun defensively would be willing to report it to NCVS interviewers.

*The NCVS was not designed to estimate how often people resist crime using a gun. It was designed primarily to estimate national victimization levels; it incidentally happens to include a few self-protection questions which include response categories covering resistance with a gun. Its survey instrument has been carefully refined and evaluated over the years to do as good a job as possible in getting people to report illegal things which otherpeople have done to them. *This is the exact opposite of the task which faces anyone trying to get good DGU estimates--to get people to admit controversial and possibly illegal things which the _Rs themselves have done_. Therefore, it is neither surprising, nor a reflection on the survey's designers, to note that the NCVS is singularly ill-suited for estimating the prevalence or incidence of DGU. 

It is not credible to regard this survey as an acceptable basis for establishing, in even the roughest way, how often Americans use guns for self-protection.


----------



## 2aguy

Brain357 said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> and kleck again on how guns are used....
> 
> Armed Resistance to Crime The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even under the best of circumstances, reporting the use of a gun for self-protection would be an extremely sensitive and legally controversial matter for either of two reasons. As with other forms of forceful resistance, the defensive act itself, regardless of the characteristics of any weapon used, might constitute an unlawful assault or at least the R might believe that others, including either legal authorities or the researchers, could regard it that way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Resistance with a gun also involves additional elements of sensitivity. Because guns are legally regulated, a victim's possession of the weapon, either in general or at the time of the DGU, might itself be unlawful, either in fact or in the mind of a crime victim who used one. More likely, lay persons with a limited knowledge of the extremely complicated law of either self-defense or firearms regulation are unlikely to know for sure whether their defensive actions or their gun possession was lawful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the context of a non anonymous survey conducted by the federal government, an R who reports a DGU may believe that he is placing himself in serious legal jeopardy. For example, consider the issue of the location of crimes. For all but a handful of gun owners with a permit to carry a weapon in public places (under 4% of the adult population even in states like Florida, where carry permits are relatively easy to get)[28], the mere possession of a gun in a place other than their home, place of business, or in some states, their vehicle, is a crime, often a felony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In at least ten states, it is punishable by a punitively mandatory minimum prison sentence.[29] Yet, 88% of the violent crimes which Rs reported to NCVS interviewers in 1992 were committed away from the victim's home,[30] i.e., in a location where it would ordinarily be a crime for the victim to even possess a gun, never mind use it defensively. Because the question about location is asked before the self-protection questions,[31] the typical violent crime victim R has already committed himself to having been victimized in a public place before being asked what he or she did for self-protection. In short, Rs usually could not mention their defensive use of a gun without, in effect, confessing to a crime to a federal government employee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Even for crimes that occurred in the victim's home, such as a burglary, possession of a gun would still often be unlawful or of unknown legal status; because the R had not complied with or could not be sure he had complied with all legal requirements concerning registration of the gun's acquisition or possession, permits for purchase, licensing of home possession, storage requirements, and so on.* In light of all these considerations, it may be unrealistic to assume that more than a fraction of Rs who have used a gun defensively would be willing to report it to NCVS interviewers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is why the NCVS would weed out the criminals and why their numbers are more accurate for defenses by law abiding citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the NCVS is not even close to being accurate...it is the least reliable of all of the other 19 studies.....that's right, 19 other studies.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you include defenses by criminals.
Click to expand...




Andrew Branca Law of Self Defense Interview Seminar


----------



## Jackinthebox

Esmeralda said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thankfully, I've never taken another's life. Have been shot at however.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ya know, this is kind of a side note here. But I have killed a lot of people. And it doesn't phase me in the least. I always hear how about it should do this or that to your mind your soul whatever. The thing that breaks my heart the most is a stupid stray cat I had to abandon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or, let's spot the sociopath. Whichever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, I see. So you are a troll and a sociopath?  Okay. Whatever.
Click to expand...


And I speak truth too. So put that in your pipe and let it sizzle.


----------



## Ernie S.

Brain357 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are they called "felons?"  Because of what should be illegal and unconstitutional maneuvers by the government to limit one of our rights?  So, in some states, people are not allowed to use their guns outside of their homes/businesses, but happened to anyways when faced with what they perceived as a life-or-death situation?  So now these people who were lucky enough to be armed when attacked by a criminal are now considered criminals themselves?  For protecting their lives or the lives of their loved ones because, according to the government in some states, we cannot practice our 2nd amendment right outside of our homes?  Ridiculous.  This is why I believe the government should NOT be able to put such restrictions on citizens.  The criminals face NO SUCH restrictions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok then why would it be illegal to defend your home with a gun if you are not a felon?  Certainly the vast majority of law abiding gun owners can legally defend themselves at home with a gun.  So Bills examples would only effect a small minority of defenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Brainless .  . . Bill is trying to explain to you that some of the self defense shooters might be considered "felons" because of an illegal weapon possession charge during said self defense shooting, such as in a state where you are ONLY allowed stand your ground option if you are protecting your home.
> 
> However, say you have a gun on your person, and you are with your children, and a gunman comes up to your car and demands you get out of the car because he is going to take it!  Are you going to use that gun to protect your children, regardless of any stupid laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you are saying that would be the case in the majority of gun defenses?  Really?  Most gun owners are felons?  Because unless it does then he's just explaining a small minority of defenses which does very little.  Why is this so hard for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You STILL have not provided context or a cited quote from Kleck. I'm beginning to think you made up or altered the quote to serve your purpose. Put up or shut up, as they say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You people should be pretty embarrassed that I provided a link and you aren't competent enough to even find it on the page.  Sad really.  Kleck is explaining why he has more defenses than there are crimes.  He does that by explaining that in most defenses the defender is involved in criminal activity so these attempted crimes go unreported:
> Although we systematically rebut each of Hemenwayls H claims we
> Hemenway argued that the NSDS estimates are implausible because this survey implied a number of DGUs occurring in connection with burglaries that exceeded the total number of burglaries of occupied residences estimated by the NCVS, and thus the DGU estimate was impossible, or at least implausibly high (p. 1441). This argument rested on an unstated assumption that the universe of DGU events sampled by the NSDS is a subset of the universe of crime events covered by the NCVS. However, Kleck and Gertz had explicitly warned in their paper that “a large share of the incidents covered by our survey are probably outside the scope of incidents that realistically are likely to be reported to the NCVS or police” (1995, p. 167). This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident. Once it is recognized that many DGU events are outside the realm of crime incidents effectively covered by the NCVS, it is logically impossible to treat any NCVS estimates as imposing an upper limit on how many DGUs there plausibly could be.
Click to expand...

OK a supposition with no factual data. I have had a valid pistol permit for 30 years or so as, I claim, most of the people who have been involved in a DGU defense. (Prove otherwise) Some of my weapons are registered but many are not. No state I have ever lived in required registration for all weapons; only those sold by a dealer.

Registering several of my weapons would be problematic. 2 are antiques, one is a Japanese army sniper rifle, one I found wrapped in a blanked standing against a tree out in the woods and 6 were left to me by my father. I own all of them legally though 2, perhaps 3, have been used to take a human life

For Kleck to assume DGU is typically felonious is utter bullshit. He doesn't back up his supposition with fact as I assumed, given the lack of context you provided. You and he are full of shit.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> and kleck again on how guns are used....
> 
> Armed Resistance to Crime The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even under the best of circumstances, reporting the use of a gun for self-protection would be an extremely sensitive and legally controversial matter for either of two reasons. As with other forms of forceful resistance, the defensive act itself, regardless of the characteristics of any weapon used, might constitute an unlawful assault or at least the R might believe that others, including either legal authorities or the researchers, could regard it that way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Resistance with a gun also involves additional elements of sensitivity. Because guns are legally regulated, a victim's possession of the weapon, either in general or at the time of the DGU, might itself be unlawful, either in fact or in the mind of a crime victim who used one. More likely, lay persons with a limited knowledge of the extremely complicated law of either self-defense or firearms regulation are unlikely to know for sure whether their defensive actions or their gun possession was lawful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the context of a non anonymous survey conducted by the federal government, an R who reports a DGU may believe that he is placing himself in serious legal jeopardy. For example, consider the issue of the location of crimes. For all but a handful of gun owners with a permit to carry a weapon in public places (under 4% of the adult population even in states like Florida, where carry permits are relatively easy to get)[28], the mere possession of a gun in a place other than their home, place of business, or in some states, their vehicle, is a crime, often a felony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In at least ten states, it is punishable by a punitively mandatory minimum prison sentence.[29] Yet, 88% of the violent crimes which Rs reported to NCVS interviewers in 1992 were committed away from the victim's home,[30] i.e., in a location where it would ordinarily be a crime for the victim to even possess a gun, never mind use it defensively. Because the question about location is asked before the self-protection questions,[31] the typical violent crime victim R has already committed himself to having been victimized in a public place before being asked what he or she did for self-protection. In short, Rs usually could not mention their defensive use of a gun without, in effect, confessing to a crime to a federal government employee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Even for crimes that occurred in the victim's home, such as a burglary, possession of a gun would still often be unlawful or of unknown legal status; because the R had not complied with or could not be sure he had complied with all legal requirements concerning registration of the gun's acquisition or possession, permits for purchase, licensing of home possession, storage requirements, and so on.* In light of all these considerations, it may be unrealistic to assume that more than a fraction of Rs who have used a gun defensively would be willing to report it to NCVS interviewers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is why the NCVS would weed out the criminals and why their numbers are more accurate for defenses by law abiding citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the NCVS is not even close to being accurate...it is the least reliable of all of the other 19 studies.....that's right, 19 other studies.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you include defenses by criminals.
Click to expand...


Even so, we know not ALL of these would be criminals or even a majority (that's just stupid).  The point is that, because of some stupid laws which make it illegal for a person to carry a weapon for self defense purposes, they might be CONSIDERED criminals at some point during an investigation.  Does that negate the fact that they were able to save their own lives or perhaps the lives of others?  No it does not, so again, brainless, you are pointless.


----------



## ChrisL

Esmeralda said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thankfully, I've never taken another's life. Have been shot at however.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ya know, this is kind of a side note here. But I have killed a lot of people. And it doesn't phase me in the least. I always hear how about it should do this or that to your mind your soul whatever. The thing that breaks my heart the most is a stupid stray cat I had to abandon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or, let's spot the sociopath. Whichever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, I see. So you are a troll and a sociopath?  Okay. Whatever.
Click to expand...


I have to agree with Esmeralda on this one.    I think this poster is trolling as well.


----------



## ChrisL

Ernie S. said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok then why would it be illegal to defend your home with a gun if you are not a felon?  Certainly the vast majority of law abiding gun owners can legally defend themselves at home with a gun.  So Bills examples would only effect a small minority of defenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brainless .  . . Bill is trying to explain to you that some of the self defense shooters might be considered "felons" because of an illegal weapon possession charge during said self defense shooting, such as in a state where you are ONLY allowed stand your ground option if you are protecting your home.
> 
> However, say you have a gun on your person, and you are with your children, and a gunman comes up to your car and demands you get out of the car because he is going to take it!  Are you going to use that gun to protect your children, regardless of any stupid laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you are saying that would be the case in the majority of gun defenses?  Really?  Most gun owners are felons?  Because unless it does then he's just explaining a small minority of defenses which does very little.  Why is this so hard for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You STILL have not provided context or a cited quote from Kleck. I'm beginning to think you made up or altered the quote to serve your purpose. Put up or shut up, as they say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You people should be pretty embarrassed that I provided a link and you aren't competent enough to even find it on the page.  Sad really.  Kleck is explaining why he has more defenses than there are crimes.  He does that by explaining that in most defenses the defender is involved in criminal activity so these attempted crimes go unreported:
> Although we systematically rebut each of Hemenwayls H claims we
> Hemenway argued that the NSDS estimates are implausible because this survey implied a number of DGUs occurring in connection with burglaries that exceeded the total number of burglaries of occupied residences estimated by the NCVS, and thus the DGU estimate was impossible, or at least implausibly high (p. 1441). This argument rested on an unstated assumption that the universe of DGU events sampled by the NSDS is a subset of the universe of crime events covered by the NCVS. However, Kleck and Gertz had explicitly warned in their paper that “a large share of the incidents covered by our survey are probably outside the scope of incidents that realistically are likely to be reported to the NCVS or police” (1995, p. 167). This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident. Once it is recognized that many DGU events are outside the realm of crime incidents effectively covered by the NCVS, it is logically impossible to treat any NCVS estimates as imposing an upper limit on how many DGUs there plausibly could be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK a supposition with no factual data. I have had a valid pistol permit for 30 years or so as, I claim, most of the people who have been involved in a DGU defense. (Prove otherwise) Some of my weapons are registered but many are not. No state I have ever lived in required registration for all weapons; only those sold by a dealer.
> 
> Registering several of my weapons would be problematic. 2 are antiques, one is a Japanese army sniper rifle, one I found wrapped in a blanked standing against a tree out in the woods and 6 were left to me by my father. I own all of them legally though 2, perhaps 3, have been used to take a human life
> 
> For Kleck to assume DGU is typically felonious is utter bullshit. He doesn't back up his supposition with fact as I assumed, given the lack of context you provided. You and he are full of shit.
Click to expand...


I guess brainless feels that if a person uses his/her weapon in a "non-designated" area for self defense, that makes them a criminal and they should not be able to defend themselves against attackers.  Also, that's a good point, that is only an assumption made for which there is no evidence.  Some people might simply not want to have to deal with the problems they will have to face in announcing that they are a gun owner in today's prejudicial environment against gun owners.


----------



## 2aguy

> You people should be pretty embarrassed that I provided a link and you aren't competent enough to even find it on the page. Sad really. Kleck is explaining why he has more defenses than there are crimes. He does that by explaining that in most defenses the defender is involved in criminal activity so these attempted crimes go unreported:
> Although we systematically rebut each of Hemenwayls H claims we
> Hemenway argued that the NSDS estimates are implausible because this survey implied a number of DGUs occurring in connection with burglaries that exceeded the total number of burglaries of occupied residences estimated by the NCVS, and thus the DGU estimate was impossible, or at least implausibly high (p. 1441). This argument rested on an unstated assumption that the universe of DGU events sampled by the NSDS is a subset of the universe of crime events covered by the NCVS. However, Kleck and Gertz had explicitly warned in their paper that “a large share of the incidents covered by our survey are probably outside the scope of incidents that realistically are likely to be reported to the NCVS or police” (1995, p. 167). You people should be pretty embarrassed that I provided a link and you aren't competent enough to even find it on the page. Sad really. Kleck is explaining why he has more defenses than there are crimes. He does that by explaining that in most defenses the defender is involved in criminal activity so these attempted crimes go unreported:
> Although we systematically rebut each of Hemenwayls H claims we
> Hemenway argued that the NSDS estimates are implausible because this survey implied a number of DGUs occurring in connection with burglaries that exceeded the total number of burglaries of occupied residences estimated by the NCVS, and thus the DGU estimate was impossible, or at least implausibly high (p. 1441). This argument rested on an unstated assumption that the universe of DGU events sampled by the NSDS is a subset of the universe of crime events covered by the NCVS. However, Kleck and Gertz had explicitly warned in their paper that “a large share of the incidents covered by our survey are probably outside the scope of incidents that realistically are likely to be reported to the NCVS or police” (1995, p. 167). This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident. Once it is recognized that many DGU events are outside the realm of crime incidents effectively covered by the NCVS, it is logically impossible to treat any NCVS estimates as imposing an upper limit on how many DGUs there plausibly could be., by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident. Once it is recognized that many DGU events are outside the realm of crime incidents effectively covered by the NCVS, it is logically impossible to treat any NCVS estimates as imposing an upper limit on how many DGUs there plausibly could be.



See....even here Kleck points out 



> This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident.



Since this is simple unlawful possession, nowhere can you make the claim that he believes defensive gun use is performed by  actual, career criminals engaged in their criminal business.....that is a stretch typical of anti gunners who can't refute the 2.5 million number legitimately...because again, his study was conducted in the 1990s, before states started fixing their concealed carry laws, before they had stand your ground laws and the castle doctrine....so law abiding citizens had to carry guns "illegally' if they wanted to use them to protect themselves outside their homes....

So Brain...please find where he states that criminals...real criminals, not law abiding citizens carrying guns for protection, make up the majority of defensive gun uses.....you can't find that anywhere in his work....please try though......


----------



## 2aguy

ChrisL said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brainless .  . . Bill is trying to explain to you that some of the self defense shooters might be considered "felons" because of an illegal weapon possession charge during said self defense shooting, such as in a state where you are ONLY allowed stand your ground option if you are protecting your home.
> 
> However, say you have a gun on your person, and you are with your children, and a gunman comes up to your car and demands you get out of the car because he is going to take it!  Are you going to use that gun to protect your children, regardless of any stupid laws?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you are saying that would be the case in the majority of gun defenses?  Really?  Most gun owners are felons?  Because unless it does then he's just explaining a small minority of defenses which does very little.  Why is this so hard for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You STILL have not provided context or a cited quote from Kleck. I'm beginning to think you made up or altered the quote to serve your purpose. Put up or shut up, as they say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You people should be pretty embarrassed that I provided a link and you aren't competent enough to even find it on the page.  Sad really.  Kleck is explaining why he has more defenses than there are crimes.  He does that by explaining that in most defenses the defender is involved in criminal activity so these attempted crimes go unreported:
> Although we systematically rebut each of Hemenwayls H claims we
> Hemenway argued that the NSDS estimates are implausible because this survey implied a number of DGUs occurring in connection with burglaries that exceeded the total number of burglaries of occupied residences estimated by the NCVS, and thus the DGU estimate was impossible, or at least implausibly high (p. 1441). This argument rested on an unstated assumption that the universe of DGU events sampled by the NSDS is a subset of the universe of crime events covered by the NCVS. However, Kleck and Gertz had explicitly warned in their paper that “a large share of the incidents covered by our survey are probably outside the scope of incidents that realistically are likely to be reported to the NCVS or police” (1995, p. 167). This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident. Once it is recognized that many DGU events are outside the realm of crime incidents effectively covered by the NCVS, it is logically impossible to treat any NCVS estimates as imposing an upper limit on how many DGUs there plausibly could be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK a supposition with no factual data. I have had a valid pistol permit for 30 years or so as, I claim, most of the people who have been involved in a DGU defense. (Prove otherwise) Some of my weapons are registered but many are not. No state I have ever lived in required registration for all weapons; only those sold by a dealer.
> 
> Registering several of my weapons would be problematic. 2 are antiques, one is a Japanese army sniper rifle, one I found wrapped in a blanked standing against a tree out in the woods and 6 were left to me by my father. I own all of them legally though 2, perhaps 3, have been used to take a human life
> 
> For Kleck to assume DGU is typically felonious is utter bullshit. He doesn't back up his supposition with fact as I assumed, given the lack of context you provided. You and he are full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess brainless feels that if a person uses his/her weapon in a "non-designated" area for self defense, that makes them a criminal and they should not be able to defend themselves against attackers.  Also, that's a good point, that is only an assumption made for which there is no evidence.  Some people might simply not want to have to deal with the problems they will have to face in announcing that they are a gun owner in today's prejudicial environment against gun owners.
Click to expand...



That is exactly what Brain is doing....and again, in the 90s, no Castle Doctrine, no Stand Your Ground laws and it was before Florida began the trend for all the states to allow concealed carry...which started in the 90s....Massad Ayoob, in his latest book goes over a case of a man who was attacked by 3 men....in Iowa, a state without Stand Your Ground laws.  The man shot one of the attackers, a justified shoot....but he had an anti gun prosecutor who took him to trial....he spent 90 days in jail for defending himself....the local paper reported on the incident...saying he was arrested for shooting a man....his landlord saw this story...not knowing it was actual self defense, and posted an eviction notice on the guy....since the guy was in jail for 90 days, he didn't know about the eviction notice....after 30 days, the sherrifs came and put all of his belongings outside the apartment complex....the guy lost all of his valuables...90 days later he went to court, went through a jury trial...and was acquited.....because he was lawful in his use of force....but...he had no home, his belongings were gone, and he drained his bank account paying for his defense......

So....that is what Kleck is referring to....when he states that people in the 90s were reluctant to admit to carrying guns when it was against the law......


----------



## Brain357

Billc said:


> You people should be pretty embarrassed that I provided a link and you aren't competent enough to even find it on the page. Sad really. Kleck is explaining why he has more defenses than there are crimes. He does that by explaining that in most defenses the defender is involved in criminal activity so these attempted crimes go unreported:
> Although we systematically rebut each of Hemenwayls H claims we
> Hemenway argued that the NSDS estimates are implausible because this survey implied a number of DGUs occurring in connection with burglaries that exceeded the total number of burglaries of occupied residences estimated by the NCVS, and thus the DGU estimate was impossible, or at least implausibly high (p. 1441). This argument rested on an unstated assumption that the universe of DGU events sampled by the NSDS is a subset of the universe of crime events covered by the NCVS. However, Kleck and Gertz had explicitly warned in their paper that “a large share of the incidents covered by our survey are probably outside the scope of incidents that realistically are likely to be reported to the NCVS or police” (1995, p. 167). You people should be pretty embarrassed that I provided a link and you aren't competent enough to even find it on the page. Sad really. Kleck is explaining why he has more defenses than there are crimes. He does that by explaining that in most defenses the defender is involved in criminal activity so these attempted crimes go unreported:
> Although we systematically rebut each of Hemenwayls H claims we
> Hemenway argued that the NSDS estimates are implausible because this survey implied a number of DGUs occurring in connection with burglaries that exceeded the total number of burglaries of occupied residences estimated by the NCVS, and thus the DGU estimate was impossible, or at least implausibly high (p. 1441). This argument rested on an unstated assumption that the universe of DGU events sampled by the NSDS is a subset of the universe of crime events covered by the NCVS. However, Kleck and Gertz had explicitly warned in their paper that “a large share of the incidents covered by our survey are probably outside the scope of incidents that realistically are likely to be reported to the NCVS or police” (1995, p. 167). This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident. Once it is recognized that many DGU events are outside the realm of crime incidents effectively covered by the NCVS, it is logically impossible to treat any NCVS estimates as imposing an upper limit on how many DGUs there plausibly could be., by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident. Once it is recognized that many DGU events are outside the realm of crime incidents effectively covered by the NCVS, it is logically impossible to treat any NCVS estimates as imposing an upper limit on how many DGUs there plausibly could be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See....even here Kleck points out
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since this is simple unlawful possession, nowhere can you make the claim that he believes defensive gun use is performed by  actual, career criminals engaged in their criminal business.....that is a stretch typical of anti gunners who can't refute the 2.5 million number legitimately...because again, his study was conducted in the 1990s, before states started fixing their concealed carry laws, before they had stand your ground laws and the castle doctrine....so law abiding citizens had to carry guns "illegally' if they wanted to use them to protect themselves outside their homes....
> 
> So Brain...please find where he states that criminals...real criminals, not law abiding citizens carrying guns for protection, make up the majority of defensive gun uses.....you can't find that anywhere in his work....please try though......
Click to expand...


Bill he is giving only one example, but stating typically involve criminal behavior.  Sorry, but since it is legal to defend your home with a gun, just unlawful gun possession isn't going to explain it.


----------



## Brain357

Billc said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you are saying that would be the case in the majority of gun defenses?  Really?  Most gun owners are felons?  Because unless it does then he's just explaining a small minority of defenses which does very little.  Why is this so hard for you to understand?
> 
> 
> 
> You STILL have not provided context or a cited quote from Kleck. I'm beginning to think you made up or altered the quote to serve your purpose. Put up or shut up, as they say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You people should be pretty embarrassed that I provided a link and you aren't competent enough to even find it on the page.  Sad really.  Kleck is explaining why he has more defenses than there are crimes.  He does that by explaining that in most defenses the defender is involved in criminal activity so these attempted crimes go unreported:
> Although we systematically rebut each of Hemenwayls H claims we
> Hemenway argued that the NSDS estimates are implausible because this survey implied a number of DGUs occurring in connection with burglaries that exceeded the total number of burglaries of occupied residences estimated by the NCVS, and thus the DGU estimate was impossible, or at least implausibly high (p. 1441). This argument rested on an unstated assumption that the universe of DGU events sampled by the NSDS is a subset of the universe of crime events covered by the NCVS. However, Kleck and Gertz had explicitly warned in their paper that “a large share of the incidents covered by our survey are probably outside the scope of incidents that realistically are likely to be reported to the NCVS or police” (1995, p. 167). This is true because DGUs typically involve criminal behavior, such as unlawful gun possession, by the gun-using victim, who therefore is often unwilling to report the incident. Once it is recognized that many DGU events are outside the realm of crime incidents effectively covered by the NCVS, it is logically impossible to treat any NCVS estimates as imposing an upper limit on how many DGUs there plausibly could be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK a supposition with no factual data. I have had a valid pistol permit for 30 years or so as, I claim, most of the people who have been involved in a DGU defense. (Prove otherwise) Some of my weapons are registered but many are not. No state I have ever lived in required registration for all weapons; only those sold by a dealer.
> 
> Registering several of my weapons would be problematic. 2 are antiques, one is a Japanese army sniper rifle, one I found wrapped in a blanked standing against a tree out in the woods and 6 were left to me by my father. I own all of them legally though 2, perhaps 3, have been used to take a human life
> 
> For Kleck to assume DGU is typically felonious is utter bullshit. He doesn't back up his supposition with fact as I assumed, given the lack of context you provided. You and he are full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess brainless feels that if a person uses his/her weapon in a "non-designated" area for self defense, that makes them a criminal and they should not be able to defend themselves against attackers.  Also, that's a good point, that is only an assumption made for which there is no evidence.  Some people might simply not want to have to deal with the problems they will have to face in announcing that they are a gun owner in today's prejudicial environment against gun owners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is exactly what Brain is doing....and again, in the 90s, no Castle Doctrine, no Stand Your Ground laws and it was before Florida began the trend for all the states to allow concealed carry...which started in the 90s....Massad Ayoob, in his latest book goes over a case of a man who was attacked by 3 men....in Iowa, a state without Stand Your Ground laws.  The man shot one of the attackers, a justified shoot....but he had an anti gun prosecutor who took him to trial....he spent 90 days in jail for defending himself....the local paper reported on the incident...saying he was arrested for shooting a man....his landlord saw this story...not knowing it was actual self defense, and posted an eviction notice on the guy....since the guy was in jail for 90 days, he didn't know about the eviction notice....after 30 days, the sherrifs came and put all of his belongings outside the apartment complex....the guy lost all of his valuables...90 days later he went to court, went through a jury trial...and was acquited.....because he was lawful in his use of force....but...he had no home, his belongings were gone, and he drained his bank account paying for his defense......
> 
> So....that is what Kleck is referring to....when he states that people in the 90s were reluctant to admit to carrying guns when it was against the law......
Click to expand...


You are going back to carrying again, but that isn't where most defenses take place.  Most take place at places where that excuse doesn't work.  Even in the 90s you could legally defend yourself at home. 

Your explanation works for only a small number of defenses, not the majority.  And Kleck is clear that most defenses involve criminal activity by the defender.


----------



## 2aguy

Brain, you need to know the history of the Castle Doctrine before it became more common....in many states before the Castle Doctrine laws, you still had to retreat when there was a criminal in your home.....and if you couldn't prove that you believed the criminal was threatening you....you would be the one in jail....look up duty to retreat..before the Castle Doctrine laws.....

Castle doctrine - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



> With a mere justifiable homicide law, one generally must objectively prove to a trier of fact, beyond all reasonable doubt, the intent in the intruder's mind to commit violence or a felony. It would be a misconception of law to infer that because a state has a justifiable homicide provision pertaining to one'sdomicile, it has a castle doctrine, exonerating any duty whatsoever to retreat therefrom.



Kleck did his paper in the 90s....before the Castle Doctrine became popular.....



> *Immunity from civil lawsuit[edit]*
> 
> In addition to providing a valid defense in criminal law, many laws implementing the castle doctrine, particularly those with a "stand-your-ground clause," also have a clause which provides immunity from any _civil_ lawsuits filed on behalf of the assailant (for damages/injuries resulting from the force used to stop them). Without this clause, an assailant could sue for medical bills, property damage, disability, and pain & suffering as a result of the injuries inflicted by the defender; or, if the force results in the assailant's death, his/her next-of-kin or estate could launch a wrongful death suit.





> * Even if successfully rebutted, the defendant (the homeowner/defender) may still have to pay high legal costs leading up to the suit's dismissal. Without criminal/civil immunity, such civil action could be used as revenge against a lawfully acting defender (who was, originally, the assailant's victim).*





> Use of force in self-defense which causes damage or injuries to other, non-criminally-acting parties, may not be shielded from criminal or civil prosecution, however.





> *Duty-to-retreat[edit]*
> *"Castle laws" remove the duty to retreat before using deadly force when one is in their home or in some U.S. states just simply where one can legally be.[10]*


----------



## Ernie S.

anti-gun Liberals typically eat their first born. See how that works, you brainless nincompoop?


----------



## Brain357

Billc said:


> Brain, you need to know the history of the Castle Doctrine before it became more common....in many states before the Castle Doctrine laws, you still had to retreat when there was a criminal in your home.....and if you couldn't prove that you believed the criminal was threatening you....you would be the one in jail....
> 
> Castle doctrine - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With a mere justifiable homicide law, one generally must objectively prove to a trier of fact, beyond all reasonable doubt, the intent in the intruder's mind to commit violence or a felony. It would be a misconception of law to infer that because a state has a justifiable homicide provision pertaining to one'sdomicile, it has a castle doctrine, exonerating any duty whatsoever to retreat therefrom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kleck did his paper in the 90s....before the Castle Doctrine became popular.....
Click to expand...


If you shot and or killed the intruder maybe.  But you have argued most defenses don't involve shooting so again you are talking about a minority of defenses.


----------



## Brain357

Ernie S. said:


> anti-gun Liberals typically eat their first born. See how that works, you brainless nincompoop?



Am I suppose to believe an adult posts like that?


----------



## 2aguy

Brain357 said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brain, you need to know the history of the Castle Doctrine before it became more common....in many states before the Castle Doctrine laws, you still had to retreat when there was a criminal in your home.....and if you couldn't prove that you believed the criminal was threatening you....you would be the one in jail....
> 
> Castle doctrine - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With a mere justifiable homicide law, one generally must objectively prove to a trier of fact, beyond all reasonable doubt, the intent in the intruder's mind to commit violence or a felony. It would be a misconception of law to infer that because a state has a justifiable homicide provision pertaining to one'sdomicile, it has a castle doctrine, exonerating any duty whatsoever to retreat therefrom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kleck did his paper in the 90s....before the Castle Doctrine became popular.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you shot and or killed the intruder maybe.  But you have argued most defenses don't involve shooting so again you are talking about a minority of defenses.
Click to expand...



Except when you called the police to report the robbery, and then you admitted to waving a gun around....


----------



## 2aguy

About the Castle Doctrine...

BBC News - German student Diren Dede killed in castle doctrine case



> 'Castle doctrine' defence
> 
> The suspect was released on $30,000 (£17,800) bond, and has remained in his home.
> 
> Montana's so-called "castle doctrine" law was amended in 2009 to allow deadly force if a homeowner "reasonably believes" an intruder is trying to harm him or her.
> 
> *Before that, residents could only use such force if the intruder acted in a violent way. *The legislation was backed by the US' largest gun lobby, the National Rifle Association (NRA).



Force includes wounding, not killing ,and as we have seen in the NCVS...they only count when someone is killed.....not wounded, held for police or runs away.....so in the 90s, if you just shot the guy...but couldn't prove he was acting in a violent way......you were going to jail, even though he broke into your home, and you were going to be sued by the guy who broke into your home........


----------



## Brain357

Billc said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brain, you need to know the history of the Castle Doctrine before it became more common....in many states before the Castle Doctrine laws, you still had to retreat when there was a criminal in your home.....and if you couldn't prove that you believed the criminal was threatening you....you would be the one in jail....
> 
> Castle doctrine - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With a mere justifiable homicide law, one generally must objectively prove to a trier of fact, beyond all reasonable doubt, the intent in the intruder's mind to commit violence or a felony. It would be a misconception of law to infer that because a state has a justifiable homicide provision pertaining to one'sdomicile, it has a castle doctrine, exonerating any duty whatsoever to retreat therefrom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kleck did his paper in the 90s....before the Castle Doctrine became popular.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you shot and or killed the intruder maybe.  But you have argued most defenses don't involve shooting so again you are talking about a minority of defenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Except when you called the police to report the robbery, and then you admitted to waving a gun around....
Click to expand...


Bill you can't tell me that any significant number of people have ever gone to jail by defending their home with a gun and not even shooting.  That is just silly.  This is a very fair country.


----------



## 2aguy

Oh...they didn't stay in jail, I'm sure....but how much money do you have to spend to prove you were justified in shooting the criminal who broke into your home....or the money you have to pay for bail while you wait to prove you were justified....another aspect that the anti gunners never take into account....


----------



## 2aguy

Brain357 said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brain, you need to know the history of the Castle Doctrine before it became more common....in many states before the Castle Doctrine laws, you still had to retreat when there was a criminal in your home.....and if you couldn't prove that you believed the criminal was threatening you....you would be the one in jail....
> 
> Castle doctrine - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With a mere justifiable homicide law, one generally must objectively prove to a trier of fact, beyond all reasonable doubt, the intent in the intruder's mind to commit violence or a felony. It would be a misconception of law to infer that because a state has a justifiable homicide provision pertaining to one'sdomicile, it has a castle doctrine, exonerating any duty whatsoever to retreat therefrom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kleck did his paper in the 90s....before the Castle Doctrine became popular.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you shot and or killed the intruder maybe.  But you have argued most defenses don't involve shooting so again you are talking about a minority of defenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Except when you called the police to report the robbery, and then you admitted to waving a gun around....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bill you can't tell me that any significant number of people have ever gone to jail by defending their home with a gun and not even shooting.  That is just silly.  This is a very fair country.
Click to expand...



This Gentleman can answer that question far better than I can...since he lectures on the topic and advises for these cases....


Andrew Branca Law of Self Defense Interview Seminar


----------



## Brain357

Billc said:


> About the Castle Doctrine...
> 
> BBC News - German student Diren Dede killed in castle doctrine case
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Castle doctrine' defence
> 
> The suspect was released on $30,000 (£17,800) bond, and has remained in his home.
> 
> Montana's so-called "castle doctrine" law was amended in 2009 to allow deadly force if a homeowner "reasonably believes" an intruder is trying to harm him or her.
> 
> *Before that, residents could only use such force if the intruder acted in a violent way. *The legislation was backed by the US' largest gun lobby, the National Rifle Association (NRA).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Force includes wounding, not killing ,and as we have seen in the NCVS...they only count when someone is killed.....not wounded, held for police or runs away.....so in the 90s, if you just shot the guy...but couldn't prove he was acting in a violent way......you were going to jail, even though he broke into your home, and you were going to be sued by the guy who broke into your home........
Click to expand...


And again you are wrong the NCVS does not include just killed.  They estimate 108,000 defenses a year.  Those do not include only when the criminal is killed, that is silly.  In the report they mention only 30k or so a year are killed by guns each year, so they wouldn't later claim 108K defenses.


----------



## 2aguy

Here is a famous, recent case....

Brooklyn Dad Facing Jail for Shooting Intruder - ABC News


There was a stranger in the house. When Dixon saw the intruder enter his young son's room, he grabbed his 9 mm pistol, loaded it, and moved to the entrance of the boy's room. He saw the man rifling through drawers, and said, "What are you doing in my house?"

*Dixon says the burglar then moved toward him. * He told his girlfriend, Tricia Best, to call the police.

She did, and as she was on the line with the 911 operator, Best heard shots ring out.

Dixon had shot the intruder. "I fired at him twice.  He fell down the stairs and he lay at the bottom of the stairs," Dixon said.

*The intruder, Ivan Thompson, survived. He's a career criminal who's been arrested 19 times and convicted of criminal trespass, burglary and attempted assault. Thompson is now being held in New York's Rikers Island jail.*

The local paper called Dixon a hero. He is a Navy veteran, a father of two, and had never been in trouble with the law.

‘Hero’ Headed to Rikers?

*So how was the hero treated?  He was arrested and charged with "criminal possession of a weapon" — threatened with up to a year in jail, because his gun was unlicensed.*

The district attorney did offer Dixon a deal — if he pleaded guilty they'd just put a misdemeanor on his record and lock him up for just four weekends. Guess where? … Rikers Island.

*Dixon turned down the plea bargain and tested his luck in court.  He said he couldn't pay his mortgage if he had to spend weekends in jail. "I work at a Wall Street firm. I do 40 hours on the weekend as well as during the week," Dixon said, adding, "That might mean that I would be out of a job."*

Dixon's concerns didn't sway prosecutor Charles Hynes.  Hynes wouldn't talk to 20/20 but he has said of Dixon's case, "You get caught with a [unlicensed] gun in Brooklyn, you're going to do jail time."

*Dixon said he had bought the gun because he had been robbed at gunpoint in Florida. Dixon said he paid a gun law consultant $500 to help him with the paperwork to get a license, but the consultant took his money and went out of business.*

Dixon's neighbors are outraged by what's happened.

"He shouldn't get no jail at all. He shouldn't — because he was protecting his family and his house," said a man who lives on Dixon's street.

Come on. Prosecutors are allowed discretion. When the career criminal, who was in Dixon's house, got his first conviction, he got probation, no jail time, but Dixon has to go to jail?

Dixon said the thought of going to jail for simply defending his family scares him a lot.

Me too.

Give me a break.

Update: The Outcome

In a June 9 deal with Hynes, Dixon pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of disorderly conduct, an infraction that will send him to Rikers Island for just three days.

To get the reduced sentence, Dixon, had to acknowledge his violation of gun registration laws, document where he purchased his gun and prove that he had taken steps to register it.

--------------------------
---------------------------

This is what happens Brain.....when anti gunners set up law abiding citizens for arrest because of stupid gun control laws......and it shows what Kleck meant........

this happened way back before 2003 as this article discusses the case in 2003...

remember the Ron Dixon case in NYC - THR


----------



## Brain357

Billc said:


> Oh...they didn't stay in jail, I'm sure....but how much money do you have to spend to prove you were justified in shooting the criminal who broke into your home....or the money you have to pay for bail while you wait to prove you were justified....another aspect that the anti gunners never take into account....



Sorry not buying it.  If someone went to jail it was for a reason other than defending their home.


----------



## Ernie S.

Brain357 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> anti-gun Liberals typically eat their first born. See how that works, you brainless nincompoop?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Am I suppose to believe an adult posts like that?
Click to expand...

Am I supposed to believe a biased opinion from a study that provides no factual data to back up its suppositions?

My claim is every bit as "adult" as Kleck's and every bit as verifiable.


----------



## kaz

ChrisL said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I stopped reading at this point.  You may or may not have made some good points but your insulting and personal attacks takes away from them.
> 
> Keep it up.  2016 is going to be a rough year for Reps unless you start accepting some kind of responsibility.
> 
> 
> 
> shut up fool-people who want to infringe on our rights mainly because they want to make things safer for criminals ar TURDS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not to mention, the particular poster is completely dishonest with just about everything and trying to twist facts to fit his agenda.  No way is that going to happen while I'm watching!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> gun banners are either ignorant/stupid morons or dishonest assholes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> AKA people with common sense so the gun nuts will hate them...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are stupid people with absolutely no common sense who want to live like sheep.  If you let the government mess with just ONE right, there is absolutely nothing to stop them from meddling with others.  Nothing at all, because you have now set a precedence.  That is why some of us are so bothered by this nonsense!  It is like an attack on our freedom.
Click to expand...


Do you notice how the left think there can be no restrictions at all on abortions because government can't be trusted to be reasonable and one restriction will lead to banning abortion, but when it comes to guns, we have to be reasonable and accept restrictions?


----------



## Brain357

Billc said:


> Here is a famous, recent case....
> 
> Brooklyn Dad Facing Jail for Shooting Intruder - ABC News



So first there was a shooting which means it was in a minority of defenses.  Second he is in trouble not for defending but because his gun was not licensed.  So he was not law abiding and also in most of the country you don't need to have a gun licensed.  So this is a very rare case.


----------



## Brain357

Ernie S. said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> anti-gun Liberals typically eat their first born. See how that works, you brainless nincompoop?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Am I suppose to believe an adult posts like that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Am I supposed to believe a biased opinion from a study that provides no factual data to back up its suppositions?
> 
> My claim is every bit as "adult" as Kleck's and every bit as verifiable.
Click to expand...


Sorry but the NRA talks about the Kleck study all of the time.  I haven't heard anyone talking about you.


----------



## 2aguy

Brain357 said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a famous, recent case....
> 
> Brooklyn Dad Facing Jail for Shooting Intruder - ABC News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So first there was a shooting which means it was in a minority of defenses.  Second he is in trouble not for defending but because his gun was not licensed.  So he was not law abiding and also in most of the country you don't need to have a gun licensed.
Click to expand...



Brain...really....the guy was going through the permit process....that anti gunners made unreasonable...and you want to claim he is a career criminal engaged in criminal business which would justify your claim that most gun defenses are by criminals.....

The guy wasn't killed....I don't think...so it wouldn't even count in the NCVS study.....


----------



## ChrisL

kaz said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> shut up fool-people who want to infringe on our rights mainly because they want to make things safer for criminals ar TURDS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention, the particular poster is completely dishonest with just about everything and trying to twist facts to fit his agenda.  No way is that going to happen while I'm watching!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> gun banners are either ignorant/stupid morons or dishonest assholes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> AKA people with common sense so the gun nuts will hate them...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are stupid people with absolutely no common sense who want to live like sheep.  If you let the government mess with just ONE right, there is absolutely nothing to stop them from meddling with others.  Nothing at all, because you have now set a precedence.  That is why some of us are so bothered by this nonsense!  It is like an attack on our freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you notice how the left think there can be no restrictions at all on abortions because government can't be trusted to be reasonable and one restriction will lead to banning abortion, but when it comes to guns, we have to be reasonable and accept restrictions?
Click to expand...


Yes I do.  I am really against the banning of most things, TBH.  Individual liberty and freedom!   

Another point in this discussion that seems to be ignored is that when a person is confronted by an attacker, there is not time to wait for the police to come and save your arse.  So what do people like brainless expect crime victims to do?  Hope for the best?


----------



## Ernie S.

You don't know who I am. How would you know if someone was talking about me?


----------



## ChrisL

Billc said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a famous, recent case....
> 
> Brooklyn Dad Facing Jail for Shooting Intruder - ABC News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So first there was a shooting which means it was in a minority of defenses.  Second he is in trouble not for defending but because his gun was not licensed.  So he was not law abiding and also in most of the country you don't need to have a gun licensed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Brain...really....the guy was going through the permit process....that anti gunners made unreasonable...and you want to claim he is a career criminal engaged in criminal business which would justify your claim that most gun defenses are by criminals.....
> 
> The guy wasn't killed....I don't think...so it wouldn't even count in the NCVS study.....
Click to expand...


This is because he is dishonest.  He will try to twist the data to fit his agenda of disarming honest citizens so that we are at the mercy of criminals and the government, basically pawns.


----------



## 2aguy

Brain357 said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a famous, recent case....
> 
> Brooklyn Dad Facing Jail for Shooting Intruder - ABC News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So first there was a shooting which means it was in a minority of defenses.  Second he is in trouble not for defending but because his gun was not licensed.  So he was not law abiding and also in most of the country you don't need to have a gun licensed.  So this is a very rare case.
Click to expand...



Here you go Brain.....a legal opinion...this sort of legal gymnastics governing self defense...in your own home....shows Kleck is accurate......




> If someone has invaded your home, and you fear great bodily harm or death, then yes -- the law will generally protect you if you shoot. *Outside of those very specific circumstances, the question is a bit too complicated to provide a cut and dried answer.*



Really.....too complicated for a lawyer to give an easy answer...now imagine you are the homeowner who just shot at or shot a criminal in your home.....



> *Self Defense*
> The law gives everyone the right to defend themselves with a reasonable response. Self-defense is an affirmative defense to a charged violent crime. This means if someone is charged with murder, or assault, they can use self-defense as a legal excuse for the conduct if they can prove it in a court of law.





> *Any force used against an intruder must usually be proportionate to harm that is reasonably perceived*. For example, if a burglar were to enter your bedroom with a yellow banana as a weapon, you would not be justified in shooting them with a 20 gauge shotgun. However, if they were carrying a fake pistol, and you reasonably believed it to be real, you would likely be justified in shooting that intruder.



So...in the middle of the night....in your own home.....you have to make a snap decision when you confront a menacing stranger in your home......and know the exact legal consequences of that decision when you make it.......really?



> If you act with a disproportionate response, or believe that banana to be a futuristic space weapon (an unreasonable perception),* this becomes what is referred to as imperfect self-defense. This will mitigate the crime you are charged with and usually result in a lesser punishment, though it will not excuse disproportionate response completely*.





May I Shoot an Intruder - FindLaw


----------



## Brain357

Billc said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a famous, recent case....
> 
> Brooklyn Dad Facing Jail for Shooting Intruder - ABC News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So first there was a shooting which means it was in a minority of defenses.  Second he is in trouble not for defending but because his gun was not licensed.  So he was not law abiding and also in most of the country you don't need to have a gun licensed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Brain...really....the guy was going through the permit process....that anti gunners made unreasonable...and you want to claim he is a career criminal engaged in criminal business which would justify your claim that most gun defenses are by criminals.....
> 
> The guy wasn't killed....I don't think...so it wouldn't even count in the NCVS study.....
Click to expand...


Still very rare to happen.  It's not my claim, it is Klecks.

Again the NCVS survey is 108,000!  There are not that many deaths by guns each year and the study states that.  Stop looking foolish and claiming they only count deaths.  You better go back and read it.


----------



## 2aguy

Brain357 said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a famous, recent case....
> 
> Brooklyn Dad Facing Jail for Shooting Intruder - ABC News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So first there was a shooting which means it was in a minority of defenses.  Second he is in trouble not for defending but because his gun was not licensed.  So he was not law abiding and also in most of the country you don't need to have a gun licensed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Brain...really....the guy was going through the permit process....that anti gunners made unreasonable...and you want to claim he is a career criminal engaged in criminal business which would justify your claim that most gun defenses are by criminals.....
> 
> The guy wasn't killed....I don't think...so it wouldn't even count in the NCVS study.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still very rare to happen.  It's not my claim, it is Klecks.
> 
> Again the NCVS survey is 108,000!  There are not that many deaths by guns each year and the study states that.  Stop looking foolish and claiming they only count deaths.  You better go back and read it.
Click to expand...



I didn't claim it, the Cato institute did in their research of the subject.....


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a famous, recent case....
> 
> Brooklyn Dad Facing Jail for Shooting Intruder - ABC News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So first there was a shooting which means it was in a minority of defenses.  Second he is in trouble not for defending but because his gun was not licensed.  So he was not law abiding and also in most of the country you don't need to have a gun licensed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Brain...really....the guy was going through the permit process....that anti gunners made unreasonable...and you want to claim he is a career criminal engaged in criminal business which would justify your claim that most gun defenses are by criminals.....
> 
> The guy wasn't killed....I don't think...so it wouldn't even count in the NCVS study.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is because he is dishonest.  He will try to twist the data to fit his agenda of disarming honest citizens so that we are at the mercy of criminals and the government, basically pawns.
Click to expand...


No actually Bill is trying to twist it.  And so far not doing a good job.  And I have not suggested disarming anyone that isn't a criminal.  You are being dishonest.  Or please post where I have said that.


----------



## Brain357

Billc said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a famous, recent case....
> 
> Brooklyn Dad Facing Jail for Shooting Intruder - ABC News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So first there was a shooting which means it was in a minority of defenses.  Second he is in trouble not for defending but because his gun was not licensed.  So he was not law abiding and also in most of the country you don't need to have a gun licensed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Brain...really....the guy was going through the permit process....that anti gunners made unreasonable...and you want to claim he is a career criminal engaged in criminal business which would justify your claim that most gun defenses are by criminals.....
> 
> The guy wasn't killed....I don't think...so it wouldn't even count in the NCVS study.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still very rare to happen.  It's not my claim, it is Klecks.
> 
> Again the NCVS survey is 108,000!  There are not that many deaths by guns each year and the study states that.  Stop looking foolish and claiming they only count deaths.  You better go back and read it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't claim it, the Cato institute did in their research of the subject.....
Click to expand...


Yes the pro gun right wing cato institute.  And I have given you lots of reasons why they are completely wrong in that.  So go read it or stop claiming it.  The report specifically mentions there are 30k or so gun deaths each year.  They estimate 108,000 defenses each year.  So sorry the Cato institute is wrong as they are with most things.


----------



## 2aguy

Again....where the National Crime Victimization Study numbers fall compare with other studies.....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....

*Field...1976....3,052,717*
*DMIa 1978...2,141,512*
*L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68*
*Kleck...2.5 million
Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544
DMIb...1978...1,098,409
Hart...1981...1.797,461
Mauser...1990...1,487,342
Gallup...1993...1,621,377
DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million
Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."
-------------------------------------------
Ohio...1982...771,043
Gallup...1991...777,152
Tarrance... 1994... 764,036
Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..



NCVS (National Crime Victimization Survey)....108,000*


*Notice, the 3 different groupings of stats from the research listed so far.....not one of them approaches the NCVS number of 100,000.....yet you claim to know that is the correct number....*


----------



## Brain357

Billc said:


> Again....where the National Crime Victimization Study numbers fall compare with other studies.....
> 
> A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....
> 
> *Field...1976....3,052,717
> DMIa 1978...2,141,512
> L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68
> Kleck...2.5 million
> Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million
> 
> --------------------
> 
> 
> Bordua...1977...1,414,544
> DMIb...1978...1,098,409
> Hart...1981...1.797,461
> Mauser...1990...1,487,342
> Gallup...1993...1,621,377
> DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million
> Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."
> -------------------------------------------
> Ohio...1982...771,043
> Gallup...1991...777,152
> Tarrance... 1994... 764,036
> Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..
> 
> 
> 
> NCVS (National Crime Victimization Survey)....108,000*
> 
> 
> *Notice, the 3 different groupings of stats from the research listed so far.....not one of them approaches the NCVS number of 100,000.....yet you claim to know that is the correct number....*



And the NCVS survey is the only one that would weed out criminals defending against criminals.  I really don't care how many criminals defend themselves.


----------



## 2aguy

The Cato study.....they looked at 5000 defensive gun uses culled from news stories from 2003-2011....and they admit that it is a study based on news stories and make no claim beyond that...they do however show why the NCVS study is wrong, and why the FBI stats on homicide are misleading....


http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/WP-Tough-Targets.pdf

On the NCVS study....

Still another problem with the NCVS numbers on defensive gun uses concerns the sequence of the survey questions. The sequence of the questions posed may cause some victims to not report defensive gun uses.

* For example, the survey asks, “Have you been the victim of a crime?” If you an- swer, “yes,” you will be asked about defensive gun uses. If you answer, “no,” you will not be asked that question. It is plausible that a respondent who has defended himself or herself with a gun, but was not injured or robbed, will answer, “no,” to the “victim of a crime” question. A respondent who defend- ed someone else with a gun is also unlikely to regard himself as a crime victim. *The point here is that there are defensive gun use situ- ations that may not show up in the NCVS.

*With regard to the NCVS, researchers have matched up survey respondents with local police reports. This matching effort shows that victims appear to forget—and thus underreport on the NCVS—crimes that they reported to the local police.* This problem is most pronounced among Afri- can American and poor victims—and these are the members of our society who are most likely to be victimized.5 *This underreporting also means that such victims will not have the chance to answer “yes” to the question about using a gun in self-defense.*

At one time it was quite common for gun control advocates to use the very low num- ber of recorded justifiable homicides with guns as evidence that there were very few self- defense shootings. The main problem with that line of reasoning is that it only includes those defensive gun uses where a citizen kills a criminal. It does not tell us anything about instances where the criminal was wounded (but did not die), where the victim held an attacker for police, or where the brandishing of a gun caused the criminal to flee.

*Another problem is that the data gath- ered on justifiable homicides employs a very strict definition of what is “justifiable”: where one person kills another person to pre- vent a felony, and the action is lawful.6 That narrow definition does not include excusable homicide. Many states have two categories of excusable homicide. *The first category is a homicide “committed by accident and mis-


-----------------
----------------

The NCVS study is the most flawed studies for the purposes of determining defensive gun uses.....

And why the FBI stats on homicides are also innaccurate.....



> The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports also significantly overstate murders and understate defensive gun uses. If the police investigate a homicide and ask the district attorney to charge someone with murder or manslaugh- ter, that is reported as a murder or man- slaughter to the Uniform Crime Reports program. But district attorneys will often investigate a case in the weeks afterward, find evidence that the killing was justifiable or excusable homicide, and drop the case en- tirely.





> Further, some of those charges are found to be justifiable or excusable homicide by judges and juries during a trial. This is very often the case in spousal abuse situations where a woman defends herself or her chil- dren from an estranged husband.9 *A killing initially charged as a murder or nonnegli- gent homicide that is later reclassified as a justifiable or excusable homicide, will not be moved in the Uniform Crime Reports data from the homicide column to the justifiable homicide column.*





> How do we find out how many such cases exist? In 1989, Time magazine published an article called “Death by Gun.” It included photographs and information about every person killed by a gun in one week in the United States: May 1–7, 1989. There were 464 gun deaths reported in the article. Of these, 216 were suicides, 14 were initially reported as non–law enforcement defensive homicides, 13 were police justifiable homi- cides, and 22 accidents.10 That left 199 mur- ders and manslaughters.





> The Time article, like the FBI’s data col- lection, showed the number of defensive gun uses that resulted in a death based on initial reports.* A year later, Time followed up on the murder cases, to see how the courts handled them. Instead of 14 self-defense or “justifiable” homicides, there were now 28. This was because 14 of the “crimes” report- ed in “Death by Gun” were now found to be justifiable homicides. At least 43 murder cases had still not gone to trial, and it was possible that some of those would be found “justifiable.”11 Clearly, the FBI’s justifiable homicide data is not particularly meaning- ful for understanding defensive gun uses that result in death—and is useless for un- derstanding the vastly larger number of de- fensive gun uses that do not result in death. Just as clearly, a better data set is needed.*


----------



## 2aguy

As has been shown countless times, the National Crime Victimization Survey is not credible for determining defensive gun uses....however....it is the only study, the only one, that gives gun grabbers the lowest number of defensive gun uses....and because gun grabbers can never, ever be trusted to tell the truth where guns are concerned...they cling to that study......no matter how wrong it is......


----------



## 2aguy

Have a nice weekend Brain....


----------



## Brain357

Billc said:


> As has been shown countless times, the National Crime Victimization Survey is not credible for determining defensive gun uses....however....it is the only study, the only one, that gives gun grabbers the lowest number of defensive gun uses....and because gun grabbers can never, ever be trusted to tell the truth where guns are concerned...they cling to that study......no matter how wrong it is......



It is the only one that weeds out criminals defending against criminals.  So the result is much more valuable.  And 108k is a pretty big number.


----------



## Brain357

Billc said:


> Have a nice weekend Brain....




You too!


----------



## P@triot

Lakhota said:


> *When will the confusing, poorly worded Second Amendment be updated to reflect modern reality?
> 
> *


*When will the left, the liberal, the progressive, etc. educate themselves beyond a second grade level so that they may understand clear, concise, simple sentences?*

*"...the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed"*

*It does not say the right of the "militia" it says the right of the people. And it does not say keep and bear "muskets", it says ARMS (as in any weapon - including but not limited to military-grade).*

*Just because you don't like a law doesn't mean you get to violate it. The beauty of the Constitution is that it can be amended. So go through the proper and legal amendment process and change it Lakhota. Except that, you can't because the American people don't agree with you or your unhinged, radical views. And that pisses you off. Well...sorry my friend.*


----------



## Lakhota

NaziCons are the greatest danger to our future gun rights.


----------



## emilynghiem

Rottweiler said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *When will the confusing, poorly worded Second Amendment be updated to reflect modern reality?
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *When will the left, the liberal, the progressive, etc. educate themselves beyond a second grade level so that they may understand clear, concise, simple sentences?*
> 
> *"...the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed"*
> 
> *It does not say the right of the "militia" it says the right of the people. And it does not say keep and bear "muskets", it says ARMS (as in any weapon - including but not limited to military-grade).*
> 
> *Just because you don't like a law doesn't mean you get to violate it. The beauty of the Constitution is that it can be amended. So go through the proper and legal amendment process and change it Lakhota. Except that, you can't because the American people don't agree with you or your unhinged, radical views. And that pisses you off. Well...sorry my friend.*
Click to expand...


Hi Rottweiler
I do not think the law applies to people who intend to commit crimes.

What do you think of this idea:

To form an agreement between parties that the right of the PEOPLE
means LAW ABIDING CITIZENS

The right to bear arms is assumed to be in context with DEFENDING laws NOT VIOLATING THEM.

Can we agree on THAT??? Do you THINK?

Simple: if we require military and police officers to take specific training in PROCEDURES
and an oath to uphold the Constitution, why not offer this same training and oath to all other citizens
who want to SHARE the responsibility for defense and law enforcement (note: officers are not allowed
to use guns for OFFENSE, so the same training and procedures would be agreed upon among citizens)

Can the police and citizens in each district agree to train under the SAME policies?
Would THAT help?


----------



## ChrisL

Just because some people (criminals) abuse their rights doesn't mean the rest of us should lose any rights.  The fact is that criminals are going to be criminals, with or without guns.  Look at what Tim McVeigh did.  No guns required.  If you don't think these sickos will find a way to kill when they are determined to kill a bunch of people, then you are fooling yourself.


----------



## turtledude

Lakhota said:


> NaziCons are the greatest danger to our future gun rights.



I have never seen one of those things 

the worst threat are cowardly turds who claim to be pro gun but are Hillary fluffing castrated men who want to ban guns


----------



## Ernie S.

Lakhota said:


> NaziCons are the greatest danger to our future gun rights.


Idiots like you are not a challenge. You are unable to present a logical argument on the subject.


----------



## kaz

Lakhota said:


> NaziCons are the greatest danger to our future gun rights.



Your ability to produce a stupid, bigoted, meaningless blurb with no connection to reality is actually pretty impressive.  Are you actually a PR guy for the Democratic Party?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Rottweiler said:


> [
> 
> *"...the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed"*



yep, the people already had guns when that was written; for hunting, indians, self- defense and, most importantly, the Revolution. Its 100% impossible that they intended to restrict that right one tiny bit given that they had no idea if the Revolution and Constitution would succeed or what the future held.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution exist only in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review.
> 
> Neither the Constitution nor any of its Amendments are obsolete.
> 
> Whatever the current case law might be concerning the Second Amendment, however, further restrictions, regulations, or even bans will do little to curtail gun violence.
> 
> The genius of the Constitution is it compels us to seek actual solutions to our many problems; be it abortion, campaign finance reform, or gun violence, the Constitution prevents us from taking the easy route often taken by dictatorships and totalitarian regimes, where the liberty of the people is destroyed.
> 
> This does not mean we are helpless to do nothing, at the mercy of strict, unyielding jurisprudence protecting the rights of gun owners; rather, it means we must find solutions based on facts and evidence, and be prepared to address and acknowledge painful, embarrassing aspects of our society and culture.
Click to expand...


During the time that it was written, the only ones that could afford more than a musket or a crude rifle was government who could afford canons.  Our founding fathers had no way of knowing the wholesale slaughter that the weapons of today possess.  Had they been aware of the carnage that can done today I believe that they would have worded the 2nd amendment rather differently.

The latest shooting is attributed to the hate from the right wing.  And if you count the ISIS related (they are even more far right than most GOPers are) you can see that the Right IS striking back.   How many times does this have to happen before we review the 2nd amendment.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Daryl Hunt said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution exist only in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review.
> 
> Neither the Constitution nor any of its Amendments are obsolete.
> 
> Whatever the current case law might be concerning the Second Amendment, however, further restrictions, regulations, or even bans will do little to curtail gun violence.
> 
> The genius of the Constitution is it compels us to seek actual solutions to our many problems; be it abortion, campaign finance reform, or gun violence, the Constitution prevents us from taking the easy route often taken by dictatorships and totalitarian regimes, where the liberty of the people is destroyed.
> 
> This does not mean we are helpless to do nothing, at the mercy of strict, unyielding jurisprudence protecting the rights of gun owners; rather, it means we must find solutions based on facts and evidence, and be prepared to address and acknowledge painful, embarrassing aspects of our society and culture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> During the time that it was written, the only ones that could afford more than a musket or a crude rifle was government who could afford canons.  Our founding fathers had no way of knowing the wholesale slaughter that the weapons of today possess.  Had they been aware of the carnage that can done today I believe that they would have worded the 2nd amendment rather differently.
> 
> The latest shooting is attributed to the hate from the right wing.  And if you count the ISIS related (they are even more far right than most GOPers are) you can see that the Right IS striking back.   How many times does this have to happen before we review the 2nd amendment.
Click to expand...

 
*During the time that it was written, the only ones that could afford more than a musket or a crude rifle was government who could afford canons.* 

Well gosh, back then only rich people could afford a printing press.
I guess we should review the First Amendment. Moron.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution exist only in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review.
> 
> Neither the Constitution nor any of its Amendments are obsolete.
> 
> Whatever the current case law might be concerning the Second Amendment, however, further restrictions, regulations, or even bans will do little to curtail gun violence.
> 
> The genius of the Constitution is it compels us to seek actual solutions to our many problems; be it abortion, campaign finance reform, or gun violence, the Constitution prevents us from taking the easy route often taken by dictatorships and totalitarian regimes, where the liberty of the people is destroyed.
> 
> This does not mean we are helpless to do nothing, at the mercy of strict, unyielding jurisprudence protecting the rights of gun owners; rather, it means we must find solutions based on facts and evidence, and be prepared to address and acknowledge painful, embarrassing aspects of our society and culture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> During the time that it was written, the only ones that could afford more than a musket or a crude rifle was government who could afford canons.  Our founding fathers had no way of knowing the wholesale slaughter that the weapons of today possess.  Had they been aware of the carnage that can done today I believe that they would have worded the 2nd amendment rather differently.
> 
> The latest shooting is attributed to the hate from the right wing.  And if you count the ISIS related (they are even more far right than most GOPers are) you can see that the Right IS striking back.   How many times does this have to happen before we review the 2nd amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *During the time that it was written, the only ones that could afford more than a musket or a crude rifle was government who could afford canons.*
> 
> Well gosh, back then only rich people could afford a printing press.
> I guess we should review the First Amendment. Moron.
Click to expand...


Words don't kill.  And if we did review the first then you would be one of the first to be arrested.  As bad as it sounds to modifying the 1st amendment, there are some benefits to changing it to have you arrested.  But, no, let's not go that far.  Words don't kill, they help to garner freedom.


----------



## BreezeWood

.


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



- however Arms in reference to Firearms shall be defined as:


_lever or bolt action, six round capacity non detachable magazine._


as prescribed for both public (law enforcement) and private use.

.


----------



## Ernie S.

Daryl Hunt said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution exist only in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review.
> 
> Neither the Constitution nor any of its Amendments are obsolete.
> 
> Whatever the current case law might be concerning the Second Amendment, however, further restrictions, regulations, or even bans will do little to curtail gun violence.
> 
> The genius of the Constitution is it compels us to seek actual solutions to our many problems; be it abortion, campaign finance reform, or gun violence, the Constitution prevents us from taking the easy route often taken by dictatorships and totalitarian regimes, where the liberty of the people is destroyed.
> 
> This does not mean we are helpless to do nothing, at the mercy of strict, unyielding jurisprudence protecting the rights of gun owners; rather, it means we must find solutions based on facts and evidence, and be prepared to address and acknowledge painful, embarrassing aspects of our society and culture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> During the time that it was written, the only ones that could afford more than a musket or a crude rifle was government who could afford canons.  Our founding fathers had no way of knowing the wholesale slaughter that the weapons of today possess.  Had they been aware of the carnage that can done today I believe that they would have worded the 2nd amendment rather differently.
> 
> The latest shooting is attributed to the hate from the right wing.  And if you count the ISIS related (they are even more far right than most GOPers are) you can see that the Right IS striking back.   How many times does this have to happen before we review the 2nd amendment.
Click to expand...

Bullshit! The founders wanted us to have weapons that we could use to throw off a tyrannical government as they had done a few years earlier.
The latest shooting is attributed to one man acting alone. His politics and motivation are ambiguous.
ISIS is conservative, I guess, but shares nothing of substance with Conservatives in the US. 

Learn to think for yourself, youngster. Read something but Slate and Progressive Underground.


----------



## Ernie S.

Daryl Hunt said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution exist only in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review.
> 
> Neither the Constitution nor any of its Amendments are obsolete.
> 
> Whatever the current case law might be concerning the Second Amendment, however, further restrictions, regulations, or even bans will do little to curtail gun violence.
> 
> The genius of the Constitution is it compels us to seek actual solutions to our many problems; be it abortion, campaign finance reform, or gun violence, the Constitution prevents us from taking the easy route often taken by dictatorships and totalitarian regimes, where the liberty of the people is destroyed.
> 
> This does not mean we are helpless to do nothing, at the mercy of strict, unyielding jurisprudence protecting the rights of gun owners; rather, it means we must find solutions based on facts and evidence, and be prepared to address and acknowledge painful, embarrassing aspects of our society and culture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> During the time that it was written, the only ones that could afford more than a musket or a crude rifle was government who could afford canons.  Our founding fathers had no way of knowing the wholesale slaughter that the weapons of today possess.  Had they been aware of the carnage that can done today I believe that they would have worded the 2nd amendment rather differently.
> 
> The latest shooting is attributed to the hate from the right wing.  And if you count the ISIS related (they are even more far right than most GOPers are) you can see that the Right IS striking back.   How many times does this have to happen before we review the 2nd amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *During the time that it was written, the only ones that could afford more than a musket or a crude rifle was government who could afford canons.*
> 
> Well gosh, back then only rich people could afford a printing press.
> I guess we should review the First Amendment. Moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Words don't kill.  And if we did review the first then you would be one of the first to be arrested.  As bad as it sounds to modifying the 1st amendment, there are some benefits to changing it to have you arrested.  But, no, let's not go that far.  Words don't kill, they help to garner freedom.
Click to expand...

Dismissed!


----------



## Ernie S.

BreezeWood said:


> .
> 
> 
> 
> ... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - however Arms in reference to Firearms shall be defined as:
> 
> 
> _lever or bolt action, six round capacity non detachable magazine._
> 
> 
> as prescribed for both public (law enforcement) and private use.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

See post 2769


----------



## BreezeWood

Ernie S. said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> ... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - however Arms in reference to Firearms shall be defined as:
> 
> 
> _lever or bolt action, six round capacity non detachable magazine._
> 
> 
> as prescribed for both public (law enforcement) and private use.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See post 2769
Click to expand...

.


> Bullshit! The founders wanted us to have weapons that we could use to throw off a tyrannical government as they had done a few years earlier.



such as ballistic missiles - your argument has been refuted by SCOTUS already ...


Firearms: _lever or bolt action, six round capacity non detachable magazine._


as prescribed for both public (law enforcement) and private use - is perfectly Constitutional and in unison with the majority of the Founding politicians of that time.

.


----------



## Ernie S.

BreezeWood said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> ... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - however Arms in reference to Firearms shall be defined as:
> 
> 
> _lever or bolt action, six round capacity non detachable magazine._
> 
> 
> as prescribed for both public (law enforcement) and private use.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See post 2769
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit! The founders wanted us to have weapons that we could use to throw off a tyrannical government as they had done a few years earlier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> such as ballistic missiles - your argument has been refuted by SCOTUS already ...
> 
> 
> Firearms: _lever or bolt action, six round capacity non detachable magazine._
> 
> 
> as prescribed for both public (law enforcement) and private use - is perfectly Constitutional and in unison with the majority of the Founding politicians of that time.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

No, I don't need ballistic missiles. I can't afford more than a couple anyway.
Please explain your justification for limiting me to "Firearms: _lever or bolt action, six round capacity non detachable magazine._


----------



## Ernie S.

When the 2nd Amendment was written, firearms were single shot breech loaders, so your prescription holds no historical value, only typical Liberal hysterical nonsense.


----------



## Lakhota

Little dicks need big guns.  Why is that?


----------



## Ernie S.

Dickheads are afraid of guns. Why's that?


----------



## Lakhota

Ernie S. said:


> Dickheads are afraid of guns. Why's that?



I don't know.  I have several.


----------



## Little-Acorn

Ernie S. said:


> ISIS is conservative, I guess,


ISIS believes in small government, freedom, personal responsibility,and the right to do pretty much anything you want except violate the rights of others?

And they PRACTICE that???

Not even close to correct.


----------



## Little-Acorn

Ernie S. said:


> Dickheads are afraid of guns. Why's that?


No, liberals are afraid of people they don't have control over, having guns.

And once they get control over people, one of the first thing they do is restrict their subjects' guns.


----------



## Ernie S.

Lakhota said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dickheads are afraid of guns. Why's that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know.  I have several.
Click to expand...

So you are afraid of me owning a gun. Why?


----------



## Ernie S.

Little-Acorn said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> ISIS is conservative, I guess,
> 
> 
> 
> ISIS believes in small government, freedom, personal responsibility,and the right to do pretty much anything you want except violate the rights of others?
> 
> And they PRACTICE that???
> 
> Not even close to correct.
Click to expand...

Only in their religious views. I think I made a clear distinction.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Lakhota said:


> NaziCons are the greatest danger to our future gun rights.



In the babbling world of Dorkhota speak, "NaziCons" might mean (a) anybody who disagrees with Chief Shitting Bull, (b) anybody who is a conservative or (c) any other theoretical thing, group or entity who Shitting Bull happens to dislike.

Beyond those things, his post is of course quite lacking in meaning, coherence and anything much in the way of interest.


----------



## Grizz

Lakhota said:


> Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited  never have been and never will be  Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star



Did you want to try and grab my guns Sobbing Brave?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Grizz said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited  never have been and never will be  Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you want to try and grab my guns Sobbing Brave?
Click to expand...

No one is going to try to 'grab your guns.'  

And it is also a fact of Constitutional law that although inalienable, the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment are not unlimited, they are indeed subject to reasonable restrictions by government.


----------



## regent

Is the second amendment the only bill of right that also gives the reason for its existance?


----------



## IlarMeilyr

There are those (including some late not so great but highly over-rated SCOTUS Justices) who maintain that the First Amendment guarantee of the Freedom of Speech is an absolute.

It isn't.

And on that basis, I am willing to admit that the Second Amendment guarantee of the Right to Bear Arms is also subject to rational and reasonable limitations.

But such a limitation is never supposed to erase the very right to which it applies.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Grizz said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited  never have been and never will be  Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you want to try and grab my guns Sobbing Brave?
Click to expand...


You just lay awake at nights worrying about this.  And make sure you buy more ammo.


----------



## BreezeWood

Ernie S. said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> ... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - however Arms in reference to Firearms shall be defined as:
> 
> 
> _lever or bolt action, six round capacity non detachable magazine._
> 
> 
> as prescribed for both public (law enforcement) and private use.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See post 2769
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit! The founders wanted us to have weapons that we could use to throw off a tyrannical government as they had done a few years earlier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> such as ballistic missiles - your argument has been refuted by SCOTUS already ...
> 
> 
> Firearms: _lever or bolt action, six round capacity non detachable magazine._
> 
> 
> as prescribed for both public (law enforcement) and private use - is perfectly Constitutional and in unison with the majority of the Founding politicians of that time.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I don't need ballistic missiles. I can't afford more than a couple anyway.
> Please explain your justification for limiting me to "Firearms: _lever or bolt action, six round capacity non detachable magazine._
Click to expand...

.


> Firearms: . _lever or bolt action, six round capacity non detachable magazine._




it is a reasonable limitation for a dangerous weapon in the hands of both private and public figures.

the amendment by politicians is deliberately written - Firearms are not mentioned, intentionally.

.


----------



## Ernie S.

BreezeWood said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> ... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - however Arms in reference to Firearms shall be defined as:
> 
> 
> _lever or bolt action, six round capacity non detachable magazine._
> 
> 
> as prescribed for both public (law enforcement) and private use.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See post 2769
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit! The founders wanted us to have weapons that we could use to throw off a tyrannical government as they had done a few years earlier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> such as ballistic missiles - your argument has been refuted by SCOTUS already ...
> 
> 
> Firearms: _lever or bolt action, six round capacity non detachable magazine._
> 
> 
> as prescribed for both public (law enforcement) and private use - is perfectly Constitutional and in unison with the majority of the Founding politicians of that time.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I don't need ballistic missiles. I can't afford more than a couple anyway.
> Please explain your justification for limiting me to "Firearms: _lever or bolt action, six round capacity non detachable magazine._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Firearms: . _lever or bolt action, six round capacity non detachable magazine._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> it is a reasonable limitation for a dangerous weapon in the hands of both private and public figures.
> 
> the amendment by politicians is deliberately written - Firearms are not mentioned, intentionally.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

1, Reasonable to who? You? Who the hell are you? What gives you the right to dictate what kind off "arms" I can have?
2. Arms are mentioned unqualified as to type, but with the phrase, "Shall not be infringed"
Just in case you don't know the meaning of the word "infringe", here ya go.

*infringe *
See definition in  Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary 
Syllabification: in·fringe
Pronunciation:  /inˈfrinj/

*Definition of infringe in English:*
* verb (infringes, infringing, infringed)*
_ [with object]_
Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): _making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright_
_*limit or undermine (something); encroach on: his legal rights were being infringed*_ _ [no object]:_ _I wouldn’t *infringe on* his privacy_


----------



## ChrisL

Daryl Hunt said:


> Grizz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited  never have been and never will be  Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you want to try and grab my guns Sobbing Brave?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just lay awake at nights worrying about this.  And make sure you buy more ammo.
Click to expand...


Our rights should be of concern to everyone.  It is beyond stupid to allow the GOVERNMENT to infringe on our 2nd amendment or any other rights, considering the Bill of Rights is to protect us from governmental tyranny.


----------



## frigidweirdo

IlarMeilyr said:


> There are those (including some late not so great but highly over-rated SCOTUS Justices) who maintain that the First Amendment guarantee of the Freedom of Speech is an absolute.
> 
> It isn't.
> 
> And on that basis, I am willing to admit that the Second Amendment guarantee of the Right to Bear Arms is also subject to rational and reasonable limitations.
> 
> But such a limitation is never supposed to erase the very right to which it applies.



And what is that right? 

The reality of the 2A is that it's a restriction on the US govt, rather than giving a right. 

It prevents the US govt from stopping individuals having arms. If you have a gun, then the US govt hasn't stopped you from getting arms. Beyond that it doesn't stop much. 

As for the right to bear arms, that's a right to be in the militia. Most people are automatically in the militia anyway, due to the Dick Act. So, it's hardly worth much now anyway in terms of fighting over. People can't claim the US govt is taking away their right to bear arms, as it specifically made an unorganised militia to deal with this issue.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Ernie S. said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> - however Arms in reference to Firearms shall be defined as:
> 
> 
> _lever or bolt action, six round capacity non detachable magazine._
> 
> 
> as prescribed for both public (law enforcement) and private use.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> See post 2769
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit! The founders wanted us to have weapons that we could use to throw off a tyrannical government as they had done a few years earlier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> such as ballistic missiles - your argument has been refuted by SCOTUS already ...
> 
> 
> Firearms: _lever or bolt action, six round capacity non detachable magazine._
> 
> 
> as prescribed for both public (law enforcement) and private use - is perfectly Constitutional and in unison with the majority of the Founding politicians of that time.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I don't need ballistic missiles. I can't afford more than a couple anyway.
> Please explain your justification for limiting me to "Firearms: _lever or bolt action, six round capacity non detachable magazine._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Firearms: . _lever or bolt action, six round capacity non detachable magazine._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> it is a reasonable limitation for a dangerous weapon in the hands of both private and public figures.
> 
> the amendment by politicians is deliberately written - Firearms are not mentioned, intentionally.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1, Reasonable to who? You? Who the hell are you? What gives you the right to dictate what kind off "arms" I can have?
> 2. Arms are mentioned unqualified as to type, but with the phrase, "Shall not be infringed"
> Just in case you don't know the meaning of the word "infringe", here ya go.
> 
> *infringe *
> See definition in  Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary
> Syllabification: in·fringe
> Pronunciation:  /inˈfrinj/
> 
> *Definition of infringe in English:*
> * verb (infringes, infringing, infringed)*
> _ [with object]_
> Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): _making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright_
> _*limit or undermine (something); encroach on: his legal rights were being infringed*_ _ [no object]:_ _I wouldn’t *infringe on* his privacy_
Click to expand...



What the US govt cannot infringe on is your right to have arms. You have a gun, then you have not been infringed upon. Or even if you can get a gun your rights aren't being infringed upon. 

So, if the feds ban you from getting, say, nuclear weapons, you can still get a gun, so your right is not being infringed upon. Same with assault rifles, same with a lot of things. 

The line is difficult to say where it's at.


----------



## Ernie S.

The second amendment doesn't limit the type of arms in any way. It says simply that the right is not to be limited/infringed

The law has generally been interpreted to refer to single user weapons. There is a ban on full automatic weapons made after 1986, but basically any weapon the fires a single bullet type (non explosive) projectile every time the trigger is pulled is legal.
I could legally purchase a (>31 year old) 50 caliber heavy machine gun from a shop a mile and a half from my house and have it in my home within a day or 2. I would just have to go see the sheriff and show him my CCP and $200 for the transfer stamp.

Would that piss you off? I'm not sure that alone is worth 12 grand, but get Joe and the Chief on board and I'm in.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Ernie S. said:


> The second amendment doesn't limit the type of arms in any way. It says simply that the right is not to be limited/infringed
> 
> The law has generally been interpreted to refer to single user weapons. There is a ban on full automatic weapons made after 1986, but basically any weapon the fires a single bullet type (non explosive) projectile every time the trigger is pulled is legal.
> I could legally purchase a (>31 year old) 50 caliber heavy machine gun from a shop a mile and a half from my house and have it in my home within a day or 2. I would just have to go see the sheriff and show him my CCP and $200 for the transfer stamp.
> 
> Would that piss you off? I'm not sure that alone is worth 12 grand, but get Joe and the Chief on board and I'm in.



Again, it's about understand what the 2A is. 

The 2A is not a right. It's something that protects rights being infringed by the federal govt (well now the state govts too). 

What the feds can't do is stop people having arms. This means that the feds CAN stop people having certain arms as long as people can, before due process, own arms. 

The first part of the Amendment is about the militia. It's generally accepted that this means that the weapons need to be "militia weaponry". This would mean that the weapons need to be modern. However it's the type of weaponry that an individual would keep at home and use in the militia in times of need.
This does not include tanks, nukes. Assault rifles and other such things are borderline, it's really up to the people who are making the rules.


----------



## BreezeWood

Ernie S. said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> - however Arms in reference to Firearms shall be defined as:
> 
> 
> _lever or bolt action, six round capacity non detachable magazine._
> 
> 
> as prescribed for both public (law enforcement) and private use.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> See post 2769
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit! The founders wanted us to have weapons that we could use to throw off a tyrannical government as they had done a few years earlier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> such as ballistic missiles - your argument has been refuted by SCOTUS already ...
> 
> 
> Firearms: _lever or bolt action, six round capacity non detachable magazine._
> 
> 
> as prescribed for both public (law enforcement) and private use - is perfectly Constitutional and in unison with the majority of the Founding politicians of that time.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I don't need ballistic missiles. I can't afford more than a couple anyway.
> Please explain your justification for limiting me to "Firearms: _lever or bolt action, six round capacity non detachable magazine._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Firearms: . _lever or bolt action, six round capacity non detachable magazine._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> it is a reasonable limitation for a dangerous weapon in the hands of both private and public figures.
> 
> the amendment by politicians is deliberately written - Firearms are not mentioned, intentionally.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1, Reasonable to who? You? Who the hell are you? What gives you the right to dictate what kind off "arms" I can have?
> 2. Arms are mentioned unqualified as to type, but with the phrase, "Shall not be infringed"
> Just in case you don't know the meaning of the word "infringe", here ya go.
> 
> *infringe *
> See definition in  Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary
> Syllabification: in·fringe
> Pronunciation:  /inˈfrinj/
> 
> *Definition of infringe in English:*
> * verb (infringes, infringing, infringed)*
> _ [with object]_
> Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): _making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright_
> _*limit or undermine (something); encroach on: his legal rights were being infringed*_ _ [no object]:_ _I wouldn’t *infringe on* his privacy_
Click to expand...

.


> 1, Reasonable to who?



to whoever sets the speedlimit on our nations highway ....




> Arms are mentioned unqualified as to type ...



anotherwords, politically firearms are not an exclusive category protected unto themselves ....


*Firearms: bolt or lever action, six round capacity non detachable magazine*




> "Shall not be infringed"



owning a Firearm, the right to bare Arms is not being infringed.

.


----------



## ChrisL

BreezeWood said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> See post 2769
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit! The founders wanted us to have weapons that we could use to throw off a tyrannical government as they had done a few years earlier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> such as ballistic missiles - your argument has been refuted by SCOTUS already ...
> 
> 
> Firearms: _lever or bolt action, six round capacity non detachable magazine._
> 
> 
> as prescribed for both public (law enforcement) and private use - is perfectly Constitutional and in unison with the majority of the Founding politicians of that time.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I don't need ballistic missiles. I can't afford more than a couple anyway.
> Please explain your justification for limiting me to "Firearms: _lever or bolt action, six round capacity non detachable magazine._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Firearms: . _lever or bolt action, six round capacity non detachable magazine._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> it is a reasonable limitation for a dangerous weapon in the hands of both private and public figures.
> 
> the amendment by politicians is deliberately written - Firearms are not mentioned, intentionally.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1, Reasonable to who? You? Who the hell are you? What gives you the right to dictate what kind off "arms" I can have?
> 2. Arms are mentioned unqualified as to type, but with the phrase, "Shall not be infringed"
> Just in case you don't know the meaning of the word "infringe", here ya go.
> 
> *infringe *
> See definition in  Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary
> Syllabification: in·fringe
> Pronunciation:  /inˈfrinj/
> 
> *Definition of infringe in English:*
> * verb (infringes, infringing, infringed)*
> _ [with object]_
> Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): _making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright_
> _*limit or undermine (something); encroach on: his legal rights were being infringed*_ _ [no object]:_ _I wouldn’t *infringe on* his privacy_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 1, Reasonable to who?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> to whoever sets the speedlimit on our nations highway ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arms are mentioned unqualified as to type ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> anotherwords, politically firearms are not an exclusive category protected unto themselves ....
> 
> 
> *Firearms: bolt or lever action, six round capacity non detachable magazine*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Shall not be infringed"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> owning a Firearm, the right to bare Arms is not being infringed.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Yes it is, according to a couple of different SCOTUS decisions.  Like the handgun ban in Chi Town for example.  That was determined by SCOTUS to be unconstitutional based upon their interpretation of the 2nd amendment.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Lakhota said:


> NaziCons are the greatest danger to our future gun rights.


Oh look -- the village useful idiot, trolling another ancient topic.


----------



## Little-Acorn

Ernie S. said:


> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> ISIS is conservative, I guess,
> 
> 
> 
> ISIS believes in small government, freedom, personal responsibility,and the right to do pretty much anything you want except violate the rights of others?
> 
> And they PRACTICE that???
> 
> Not even close to correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only in their religious views. I think I made a clear distinction.
Click to expand...

So in their religious views, they believe in small government, freedom, personal responsibility, and your right to do pretty much anything you want except violate the rights of others?

That's preposterous.

They chop off the heads of people who don't believe in their Islamic religious views.


----------



## Little-Acorn

frigidweirdo said:


> As for the right to bear arms, that's a right to be in the militia.



(sigh)

Liberals seem to keep bringing up this lie, no matter how many times it's debunked. Maybe they think enough people have forgotten how the liberals have been proven wrong, and that enough time has passed that they can now tart re-statig it as though it had become the truth.

OK, for the 2258th time:


J. Neil Schulman The Unabridged Second Amendment


The Unabridged Second Amendment

by J. Neil Schulman

If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan, right? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwarzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?

That was the question I asked A.C. Brocki, editorial coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers — who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of American Usage and Style: The Consensus.

A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of Professor Copperud's expertise.

Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.

He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award.

That sounds like an expert to me.

After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent the following letter:

"I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.

"The text of the Second Amendment is, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State', is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary."

My letter framed several questions about the test of the Second Amendment, then concluded:

"I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance."

After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the follow analysis (into which I have inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

"In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"

[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."

[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"

[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."

[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"

[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

[Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"

[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."

[Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,' 'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"

[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."

[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated."

[Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary tot he security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'

[Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.'

"My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,

"(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and

"(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people to keep and read Books' only to 'a well-educated electorate' — for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?"

[Copperud:] "(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

"(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation."

Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."

So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all governments formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.

As I write this, the attempted coup against constitutional government in the Soviet Union has failed, apparently because the will of the people in that part of the world to be free from capricious tyranny is stronger than the old guard's desire to maintain a monopoly on dictatorial power.

And here in the United States, elected lawmakers, judges, and appointed officials who are pledged to defend the Constitution of the United States ignore, marginalize, or prevaricate about the Second Amendment routinely. American citizens are put in American prisons for carrying arms, owning arms of forbidden sorts, or failing to satisfy bureaucratic requirements regarding the owning and carrying of firearms — all of which is an abridgement of the unconditional right of the people to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Constitution.

And even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), staunch defender of the rest of the Bill of Rights, stands by and does nothing.

It seems it is up to those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms to preserve that right. No one else will. No one else can. Will we beg our elected representatives not to take away our rights, and continue regarding them as representing us if they do? Will we continue obeying judges who decide that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what it says it means but means whatever they say it means in their Orwellian doublespeak?

Or will be simply keep and bear the arms of our choice, as the Constitution of the United States promises us we can, and pledge that we will defend that promise with our lives, our fortuned, and our sacred honor?

-------------------------------------------------------

(C) 1991 by The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation. Informational reproduction of the entire article is hereby authorized provided the author, The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation are credited. All other rights reserved.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Little-Acorn said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for the right to bear arms, that's a right to be in the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> (sigh)
> Liberals seem to keep bringing up this lie...
Click to expand...

 The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Anyone who argues otherwise is lying.


----------



## ChrisL

Little-Acorn said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for the right to bear arms, that's a right to be in the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (sigh)
> 
> Liberals seem to keep bringing up this lie, no matter how many times it's debunked. Maybe they think enough people have forgotten how the liberals have been proven wrong, and that enough time has passed that they can now tart re-statig it as though it had become the truth.
> 
> OK, for the 2258th time:
> 
> 
> J. Neil Schulman The Unabridged Second Amendment
> 
> 
> The Unabridged Second Amendment
> 
> by J. Neil Schulman
> 
> If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan, right? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwarzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?
> 
> That was the question I asked A.C. Brocki, editorial coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers — who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of American Usage and Style: The Consensus.
> 
> A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of Professor Copperud's expertise.
> 
> Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.
> 
> He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award.
> 
> That sounds like an expert to me.
> 
> After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent the following letter:
> 
> "I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.
> 
> "The text of the Second Amendment is, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'
> 
> "The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State', is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'
> 
> "I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary."
> 
> My letter framed several questions about the test of the Second Amendment, then concluded:
> 
> "I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance."
> 
> After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the follow analysis (into which I have inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> [Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.
> 
> "In reply to your numbered questions:
> 
> [Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"
> 
> [Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."
> 
> [Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"
> 
> [Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."
> 
> [Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"
> 
> [Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."
> 
> [Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"
> 
> [Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."
> 
> [Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,' 'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"
> 
> [Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."
> 
> [Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated."
> 
> [Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary tot he security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'
> 
> [Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,
> 
> "A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.'
> 
> "My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,
> 
> "(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and
> 
> "(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people to keep and read Books' only to 'a well-educated electorate' — for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?"
> 
> [Copperud:] "(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.
> 
> "(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation."
> 
> Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."
> 
> So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all governments formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.
> 
> As I write this, the attempted coup against constitutional government in the Soviet Union has failed, apparently because the will of the people in that part of the world to be free from capricious tyranny is stronger than the old guard's desire to maintain a monopoly on dictatorial power.
> 
> And here in the United States, elected lawmakers, judges, and appointed officials who are pledged to defend the Constitution of the United States ignore, marginalize, or prevaricate about the Second Amendment routinely. American citizens are put in American prisons for carrying arms, owning arms of forbidden sorts, or failing to satisfy bureaucratic requirements regarding the owning and carrying of firearms — all of which is an abridgement of the unconditional right of the people to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Constitution.
> 
> And even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), staunch defender of the rest of the Bill of Rights, stands by and does nothing.
> 
> It seems it is up to those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms to preserve that right. No one else will. No one else can. Will we beg our elected representatives not to take away our rights, and continue regarding them as representing us if they do? Will we continue obeying judges who decide that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what it says it means but means whatever they say it means in their Orwellian doublespeak?
> 
> Or will be simply keep and bear the arms of our choice, as the Constitution of the United States promises us we can, and pledge that we will defend that promise with our lives, our fortuned, and our sacred honor?
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (C) 1991 by The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation. Informational reproduction of the entire article is hereby authorized provided the author, The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation are credited. All other rights reserved.
Click to expand...


Well, the simple fact that it is in the Bill of Rights says that it is about the PEOPLE and not the government.  The Bill of Rights was written to outline OUR rights, not the rights of the government to limit those rights.  Lol.  This is just common sense stuff and why it is silly when the left tries to argue about the "definition" of the 2nd amendment.  The founders did not want a centralized government controlled military.  They wanted WE THE PEOPLE to be the military or the "militia."


----------



## frigidweirdo

Little-Acorn said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for the right to bear arms, that's a right to be in the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (sigh)
> 
> Liberals seem to keep bringing up this lie, no matter how many times it's debunked. Maybe they think enough people have forgotten how the liberals have been proven wrong, and that enough time has passed that they can now tart re-statig it as though it had become the truth.
> 
> OK, for the 2258th time:
> 
> 
> J. Neil Schulman The Unabridged Second Amendment
> 
> 
> The Unabridged Second Amendment
> 
> by J. Neil Schulman
> 
> If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan, right? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwarzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?
> 
> That was the question I asked A.C. Brocki, editorial coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers — who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of American Usage and Style: The Consensus.
> 
> A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of Professor Copperud's expertise.
> 
> Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.
> 
> He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award.
> 
> That sounds like an expert to me.
> 
> After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent the following letter:
> 
> "I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.
> 
> "The text of the Second Amendment is, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'
> 
> "The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State', is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'
> 
> "I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary."
> 
> My letter framed several questions about the test of the Second Amendment, then concluded:
> 
> "I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance."
> 
> After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the follow analysis (into which I have inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> [Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.
> 
> "In reply to your numbered questions:
> 
> [Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"
> 
> [Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."
> 
> [Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"
> 
> [Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."
> 
> [Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"
> 
> [Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."
> 
> [Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"
> 
> [Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."
> 
> [Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,' 'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"
> 
> [Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."
> 
> [Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated."
> 
> [Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary tot he security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'
> 
> [Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,
> 
> "A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.'
> 
> "My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,
> 
> "(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and
> 
> "(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people to keep and read Books' only to 'a well-educated electorate' — for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?"
> 
> [Copperud:] "(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.
> 
> "(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation."
> 
> Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."
> 
> So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all governments formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.
> 
> As I write this, the attempted coup against constitutional government in the Soviet Union has failed, apparently because the will of the people in that part of the world to be free from capricious tyranny is stronger than the old guard's desire to maintain a monopoly on dictatorial power.
> 
> And here in the United States, elected lawmakers, judges, and appointed officials who are pledged to defend the Constitution of the United States ignore, marginalize, or prevaricate about the Second Amendment routinely. American citizens are put in American prisons for carrying arms, owning arms of forbidden sorts, or failing to satisfy bureaucratic requirements regarding the owning and carrying of firearms — all of which is an abridgement of the unconditional right of the people to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Constitution.
> 
> And even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), staunch defender of the rest of the Bill of Rights, stands by and does nothing.
> 
> It seems it is up to those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms to preserve that right. No one else will. No one else can. Will we beg our elected representatives not to take away our rights, and continue regarding them as representing us if they do? Will we continue obeying judges who decide that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what it says it means but means whatever they say it means in their Orwellian doublespeak?
> 
> Or will be simply keep and bear the arms of our choice, as the Constitution of the United States promises us we can, and pledge that we will defend that promise with our lives, our fortuned, and our sacred honor?
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (C) 1991 by The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation. Informational reproduction of the entire article is hereby authorized provided the author, The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation are credited. All other rights reserved.
Click to expand...



It's funny. You have posted a lot, but only from one source. Nothing you have said actually deals with the issues here.

I'll look at what has been said, then I'll present my own stuff later on.

Firstly, I've pulled this quote from the first paragraph:

"The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia."

I agree with this. You'll see why later.

"The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.""

Totally agree. You'll see later.

"The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed."

Totally agree. You'll see later.

"The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

Well.... I don't totally agree with this statement. From an English language point of view it might appear like that, however based on Human Rights, ALL rights can be infringed upon after due process, and also have limitations. So, you have an issue where this guy is ignoring the meaning of rights and how they function and using his blinkers just to look at the language. 

However, we'll see later why it doesn't even matter so much.

Lastly, it's funny. The guy not once says what the right to bear arms is. Not once. You've said I'm wrong that the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia, and you've backed it up with a document which does not, in any single way, refute what I've said. I'm a little confused as to why you posted this. 


Well, let's get on to my stuff, seeing as your stuff has ended rather disappointingly. 

Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution

Firstly I'm presenting the most ignored document that people with an agenda that the right to bear arms should mean the right to walk around with a gun as they choose ignore.

This document is from the Founding Fathers, it shows the progress of the 2A through the House (Senate debates were secret). 

The first part of the document they're discussing the future 2A as it stood at that time. It read:

_"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; *but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."*_

The last part is the part they were discussing. I've put it in bold for you.

Mr Gerry said: _"Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."_

So we're clearly talking about the last part here. Not anything that comes before this. 

Mr Gerry then said: _"Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "_

So Mr Gerry seems to be saying that "bear arms" is "militia duty". Seems as clear as day to me. "Exclude those from militia duty" is "prevent them from bearing arms"

Mr Jackson wanted the clause to read: _"No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent."_

Clearly here Mr Jackson is using the term "bear arms" to mean "render military service". 

Mr Sherman said: _"It is well known that those who are religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, are equally scrupulous of getting substitutes or paying an equivalent."_

Now, imagine if "bear arms" were carry arms. Mr Sherman would just have said "It is well known that those who are religiously scrupulous of carrying arms around, are equally scrupulous of getting substitutes or paying an equivalent".

This begs the question of why the Founding Fathers would want people to pay a substitute if they were unwilling to carry guns around with them on a daily basis. Seems a little bizarre. Nowhere in US history, or British history, has anyone ever had to pay money in order to no carry arms around with them on a daily basis. 
The view that "bear arms" means "carry arms" here is just ridiculous.

He even goes on to mention the militia: _"We do not live under an arbitrary Government, said he, and the States, respectively, will have the government of the militia, unless when called into actual service; besides, it would not do to alter it so as to exclude the whole of any sect,"_
This implies that he's talking about people being called up into "actual service".

Mr Vining said _"he saw no use in it if it was amended so as to compel a man to find a substitute, which, with respect to the Government, was the same as if the person himself turned out to fight."_
In other words "bear arms" means turning "out to fight" and NOT carry arms.

So, this first document alone proves that the Founding Fathers saw "bear arms" as a right of individuals to be in the militia. 

Now let's have a look at another document from the time. This one written by a certain George Washington. Apparently he was a Founding Father too.

*SENTIMENTS ON A PEACE ESTABLISHMENT, 1783*

"every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America... from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls,"


"by making it universally reputable to bear Arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the performance of Military duties; in fine, by keeping up in Peace "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia," we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country.“

The first quote uses the term "borne on the Militia Rolls", borne be the past participle of the verb "to bear".

The second is far more conclusive. Why would it be disgraceful to decline to walk around with a gun? Wait, he continues and it says "share in the performance of Military duties". 

Seems Washington was also in agreement that "bear arms" was "militia duty". 

Anyway, enough of the Founding Fathers. Let's go look at the Supreme Court.

*PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)
*
This from 1886, before the right to bear arms was a politicised issue. When the Supreme Court passing judgement on it was neither here nor there. No agendas on it meaning "carry arms" or things like that.

"_We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265]   and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."_

So, going around town CARRYING ARMS is NOT protected by the Second Amendment. 

Also I'll bring in _*District of Columbia v. Heller*_, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

_"(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes."_

So, it upheld Presser. 

It also said:
_"(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues."_

Ie, the right to bear arms is NOT the right to carry arms.

Back to some points you made:

"The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia."

Yes, the right to keep arms is the right of individuals to own weapons, so the militia has a ready supply of weapons.
The right to bear arms is the right of individuals to be in the militia, so the militia has a ready supply of personnel to use those weapons.

I'm struggle to think up of something sensible for the view that "bear arms" means "carry arms"/

"The right to bear arms is the right of individuals to carry arms, so the militia has people walking around in their daily lives defending themselves". 

Doesn't work, does it?

"The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.""

This one. There is no restriction on the right to keep and bear arms. The right to keep arms is the right to own arms. It's not the right to own EVERY type of weapons, it's the right to own arms which are considered normal for militia duty (which in itself is debatable what that means). If you can own one type of gun, you are not having your right infringed upon. Actually the view of this is that not only should there be a variety of types of guns that you can buy, but also they should be at an affordable price (again, whatever that means). 
The right to bear arms is unrestricted, unless due process has been carried out. Every adult, more or less, before due process, has the right to be in the militia. Hence the Dick Act where they made the "unorganized militia" and put all males 18-45 in it so they were automatically carrying out their right to bear arms from their 18th birthday. Ie, they can't go to court and complain the govt is restricting their right to bear arms by not allowing them to join the National Guard. Because the National Guard is more professional than the normal militia, they wanted to have discipline that would otherwise be impossible if all riff raff were claiming their right to bear arms in the militia.

"The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed."

And the right is still assume to exist. The reality is that the right to keep arms as stated in the 2A merely prevents the US Federal govt (and now states) from stopping people from not having arms. Ie, if they can have one gun, the govt hasn't stopped them from keeping arms. Also, the US Federal govt can't stop people being in the militia. As stated before, the reasons for the Dick Act are clear when you see that "bear arms" means "render military service", "Militia Duty", "turn out to fight" and the like. 

So...."Liberals seem to keep bringing up this lie, ", I'm sorry, what lie? I've backed up EVERYTHING I've said in detail, compared to what you posted which didn't even deal with the meaning of the term "bear arms".


----------



## frigidweirdo

M14 Shooter said:


> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for the right to bear arms, that's a right to be in the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> (sigh)
> Liberals seem to keep bringing up this lie...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
> 
> Anyone who argues otherwise is lying.
Click to expand...


I'm I disagreeing with you?

No I'm not. 

Firstly. The right to possess a firearm is the right to keep arms. I was talking about the right to bear arms. 

The reason individuals have this right is because the founders wanted to protect the supply of arms for the militia. 
So, an individual can own a gun, without being in the militia, because that gun could potentially be used by the militia at a later date. Even the individual could join the militia at a later date. Why? Because the right to bear arms protects (see previous post) their right to be in the militia. 

The use of that weapon for "traditionally lawful purposes" is just an obvious.
If something is legal, why shouldn't they do it? You don't need the 2A to tell you that you can hunt. Hunting has NOTHING to do with the 2A. The fact that you CAN hunt with a gun (but you can hunt with many different things, like bow and arrow, bare hands (or possible bear hands if you manage to find a useful manner in using them), traps and many other things, and the fact that the 2A has the term "arms" doesn't mean they have a connection here. 
The 2A says "bear", doesn't mean bears have their right to own weapons protected, does it? That'd be silly, just as it's silly to suggest that the 2A protects hunting, or self defence or whatever. 

Self defense is protected by the constitution. It's not explicit, nor is the right to privacy, but nonetheless they're protected. But neither are protected by the 2A.


----------



## frigidweirdo

ChrisL said:


> Well, the simple fact that it is in the Bill of Rights says that it is about the PEOPLE and not the government.  The Bill of Rights was written to outline OUR rights, not the rights of the government to limit those rights.  Lol.  This is just common sense stuff and why it is silly when the left tries to argue about the "definition" of the 2nd amendment.  The founders did not want a centralized government controlled military.  They wanted WE THE PEOPLE to be the military or the "militia."



No, you're wrong, sort of.

The rights in the BoRs were assumed to exist. They didn't need the govt to outline them at all. 

The amendments were introduced to PROTECT the rights from government power.

If you look at the rights they're all political.

The right to free speech was put in the constitution so people could talk about politics, for the purpose of making good decisions when voting. The right to protest is protected so they could tell the govt what they have come up with. The right to bear arms is protected in case the govt goes bad, and so on. So, something like a supposed right to hunt would never be put in because it doesn't have anything to do with politics.

But yes, the militia was a people army and this is what they wanted, hence why the 2A is....

The right to keep arms so the militia has a ready supply of arms.
The right to bear arms so the militia has a ready supply of personnel to use those arms.


----------



## Ernie S.

Little-Acorn said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> ISIS is conservative, I guess,
> 
> 
> 
> ISIS believes in small government, freedom, personal responsibility,and the right to do pretty much anything you want except violate the rights of others?
> 
> And they PRACTICE that???
> 
> Not even close to correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only in their religious views. I think I made a clear distinction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in their religious views, they believe in small government, freedom, personal responsibility, and your right to do pretty much anything you want except violate the rights of others?
> 
> That's preposterous.
> 
> They chop off the heads of people who don't believe in their Islamic religious views.
Click to expand...


Read back I made a clear distinction. You chop out one line of my response without context and run with it.
What I said was "ISIS is conservative, I guess, but shares nothing of substance with Conservatives in the US."
What I clearly meant was ISIS is religiously conservative, but pretty damned totalitarian in every other way. More like Democrats in their devotion to Pope AlGore.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

frigidweirdo said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are those (including some late not so great but highly over-rated SCOTUS Justices) who maintain that the First Amendment guarantee of the Freedom of Speech is an absolute.
> 
> It isn't.
> 
> And on that basis, I am willing to admit that the Second Amendment guarantee of the Right to Bear Arms is also subject to rational and reasonable limitations.
> 
> But such a limitation is never supposed to erase the very right to which it applies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what is that right?
> 
> The reality of the 2A is that it's a restriction on the US govt, rather than giving a right.
> 
> It prevents the US govt from stopping individuals having arms. If you have a gun, then the US govt hasn't stopped you from getting arms. Beyond that it doesn't stop much.
> 
> As for the right to bear arms, that's a right to be in the militia. Most people are automatically in the militia anyway, due to the Dick Act. So, it's hardly worth much now anyway in terms of fighting over. People can't claim the US govt is taking away their right to bear arms, as it specifically made an unorganised militia to deal with this issue.
Click to expand...


The government lacks legal authority to enact laws to take away folks' guns.

What the government might have a rational ability to do is impose certain restrictions on the eligibility of felons or mentally-impaired individuals from getting a license (and thereby maybe preventing them from legally obtaining arms).

And no.

The right to bear arms is a personal right which is explicitly guaranteed under the Constitution as two recent SCOTUS decisions made clear.  It was drafted in a way that invoked militias, but that preface does not (and was never intended to) subsume the right. It is a right that is not dependent on the Government for its existence.  It was a right that predated the Constitution, in fact.

Your preferred spin on the Second Amendment is not controlling and it is flatly wrong.


----------



## Grizz

Daryl Hunt said:


> Grizz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited  never have been and never will be  Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you want to try and grab my guns Sobbing Brave?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just lay awake at nights worrying about this.  And make sure you buy more ammo.
Click to expand...


Na, I do so love to shove shit in Sobbing Brave's ass though....and if you are as ignorant as he we can include you in the show son.


----------



## frigidweirdo

IlarMeilyr said:


> The government lacks legal authority to enact laws to take away folks' guns.
> 
> What the government might have a rational ability to do is impose certain restrictions on the eligibility of felons or mentally-impaired individuals from getting a license (and thereby maybe preventing them from legally obtaining arms).
> 
> And no.
> 
> The right to bear arms is a personal right which is explicitly guaranteed under the Constitution as two recent SCOTUS decisions made clear.  It was drafted in a way that invoked militias, but that preface does not (and was never intended to) subsume the right. It is a right that is not dependent on the Government for its existence.  It was a right that predated the Constitution, in fact.
> 
> Your preferred spin on the Second Amendment is not controlling and it is flatly wrong.



Firstly. The govt has plenty of powers to restrict what types of guns you can get. It has the ability to ban certain guns for many reasons, like they're not safe or whatever (in the sense that the gun doesn't do what it's supposed to). 

The govt can infringe on rights AFTER DUE PROCESS. Hopefully you understand what this means. 

Secondly, the 2A is not "explicitly guaranteed" under the Constitution. At the time it was written state govts could, if they had the power, take away your right to keep and bear arms. The Constitution is a document which gives and takes powers from the US govt. It now also takes powers from state govts too. 
However, I could stop you from keeping arms. There's nothing that says I have to abide by the constitution. There might just happen to be laws in place that stop me from doing this, however this isn't the 2A. So, the 2A doesn't explicitly guarantee your right. It merely protects it from the government. 

And there you have your last part in which you say it predates the govt. Yeah, supposedly it does. Rights exist because we make them so. Often in reality they need to be written down for them to actually turn into a right. So the right of privacy only became when a right when the Supreme Court decided it was one and not before. When it was written down it became one.

However the fundamental principles of the constitution say that it doesn't guarantee, it protects.


----------



## Little-Acorn

Some of the amendments were written to restrict only the Federal government but not the states' governments. Amendment 1 is an example, saying "*Congress* shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." etc. This was done since, at the time it was adopted, most states had official state religions, and the Framers didn't want to mess with that. (This restriction to the Fed only, was later changed by the 14th amendment.)

Other amendments were written to specifically apply to ALL governments within the United States' borders: Federal, state, local. Amendment 2 is an example. Unlike the 1st amendment, the 2nd lacks any language specifying which government(s) it restricts, and so it restricts all of them. This was true from the day it was ratified. A recent "decision" by the Supreme Court "incorporating" the 2nd amendment to apply to all governments, had no effect, since it already applied to them all.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

Lakhota said:


> I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed.  It's just a matter of time...



You are right...and I'll own a 50 caliber when it is.....machine gun.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

First off. I have no problem limiting certain armaments for military use only. However...

Any citizen should be able to purchase any firearms and other equipment that the civil police force and other civil authorities are allowed to carry in their armament.

If they, the civil authorities, think they need that kind of firepower then I must need it also.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## frigidweirdo

Little-Acorn said:


> Some of the amendments were written to restrict only the Federal government but not the states' governments. Amendment 1 is an example, saying "*Congress* shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." etc. This was done since, at the time it was adopted, most states had official state religions, and the Framers didn't want to mess with that. (This restriction to the Fed only, was later changed by the 14th amendment.)
> 
> Other amendments were written to specifically apply to ALL governments within the United States' borders: Federal, state, local. Amendment 2 is an example. Unlike the 1st amendment, the 2nd lacks any language specifying which government(s) it restricts, and so it restricts all of them. This was true from the day it was ratified. A recent "decision" by the Supreme Court "incorporating" the 2nd amendment to apply to all governments, had no effect, since it already applied to them all.



Er... incorporation didn't happen until after the Civil War. Before that NONE of the amendments were subject to the states and weren't intended to.
If the 2A were intended to be for the states, why did so many states put a RKA or RBA clause in their constitutions?


----------



## Ernie S.

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed.  It's just a matter of time...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are right...and I'll own a 50 caliber when it is.....machine gun.
Click to expand...

You can own a machine gun right now. A fully automatic weapon, including Ma Deuce made before 186 is legal to own for the price of the weapon and a $200 dollar transfer stamp. One must get the approval of the chief law enforcement officer of your jurisdiction to get your stamp.
There is a shop a mile and a half from my house that has a Deuce with 1,000 rounds of ammo for $12K.
I REALLY want one, but the price is a bit dear. I may just end up with a Russian belt fed PKM. (around $3,500)


----------



## ChrisL

frigidweirdo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the simple fact that it is in the Bill of Rights says that it is about the PEOPLE and not the government.  The Bill of Rights was written to outline OUR rights, not the rights of the government to limit those rights.  Lol.  This is just common sense stuff and why it is silly when the left tries to argue about the "definition" of the 2nd amendment.  The founders did not want a centralized government controlled military.  They wanted WE THE PEOPLE to be the military or the "militia."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you're wrong, sort of.
> 
> The rights in the BoRs were assumed to exist. They didn't need the govt to outline them at all.
> 
> The amendments were introduced to PROTECT the rights from government power.
> 
> If you look at the rights they're all political.
> 
> The right to free speech was put in the constitution so people could talk about politics, for the purpose of making good decisions when voting. The right to protest is protected so they could tell the govt what they have come up with. The right to bear arms is protected in case the govt goes bad, and so on. So, something like a supposed right to hunt would never be put in because it doesn't have anything to do with politics.
> 
> But yes, the militia was a people army and this is what they wanted, hence why the 2A is....
> 
> The right to keep arms so the militia has a ready supply of arms.
> The right to bear arms so the militia has a ready supply of personnel to use those arms.
Click to expand...


The government did NOT outline them.  The founders did and for the reasons I noted.  My post is correct.  Every able bodied man was expected to own a weapon, maintain that weapon and be prepared to use it at a moment's notice.


----------



## ChrisL

There has been gun ownership in this country since it's beginnings.  These problems with school shootings and the like are fairly relatively new problems.  That tells me that the problem is society and people, not the weapon.  Even if guns were banned, people are STILL going to be mentally ill.


----------



## ChrisL

There are mass murders every DAY in the ME somewhere and rarely are guns used.  What does that tell you?


----------



## frigidweirdo

ChrisL said:


> There has been gun ownership in this country since it's beginnings.  These problems with school shootings and the like are fairly relatively new problems.  That tells me that the problem is society and people, not the weapon.  Even if guns were banned, people are STILL going to be mentally ill.



Which is where people ask why the murder rate is 4.7 times higher in the US than the UK. 

What problems are there in society and why aren't they being dealt with?


----------



## ChrisL

frigidweirdo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> There has been gun ownership in this country since it's beginnings.  These problems with school shootings and the like are fairly relatively new problems.  That tells me that the problem is society and people, not the weapon.  Even if guns were banned, people are STILL going to be mentally ill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is where people ask why the murder rate is 4.7 times higher in the US than the UK.
> 
> What problems are there in society and why aren't they being dealt with?
Click to expand...


Gangs.  It's not a fucking mystery.


----------



## frigidweirdo

ChrisL said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> There has been gun ownership in this country since it's beginnings.  These problems with school shootings and the like are fairly relatively new problems.  That tells me that the problem is society and people, not the weapon.  Even if guns were banned, people are STILL going to be mentally ill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is where people ask why the murder rate is 4.7 times higher in the US than the UK.
> 
> What problems are there in society and why aren't they being dealt with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gangs.  It's not a fucking mystery.
Click to expand...


And again, I'll ask the same questions about gangs.

Why does the US have a prevalence of gangs when other first world countries don't? Or I could say it like this. What the feck is wrong with the US?


----------



## ChrisL

frigidweirdo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> There has been gun ownership in this country since it's beginnings.  These problems with school shootings and the like are fairly relatively new problems.  That tells me that the problem is society and people, not the weapon.  Even if guns were banned, people are STILL going to be mentally ill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is where people ask why the murder rate is 4.7 times higher in the US than the UK.
> 
> What problems are there in society and why aren't they being dealt with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gangs.  It's not a fucking mystery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And again, I'll ask the same questions about gangs.
> 
> Why does the US have a prevalence of gangs when other first world countries don't? Or I could say it like this. What the feck is wrong with the US?
Click to expand...


Black people have a homicide rate that is 4 TIMES the national average.  We have much more diversity than any other country, and our black people are descendants of slaves.  Socioeconomic factors play a big role here.  Some will tell you that entitlement programs cause people to feel "entitled" to other people's property or what not too.  I'm sure if it was THAT easy to just say what the problem is, it would have been solved by now.  It's more complicated than "guns" though.


----------



## frigidweirdo

ChrisL said:


> Black people have a homicide rate that is 4 TIMES the national average.  We have much more diversity than any other country, and our black people are descendants of slaves.  Socioeconomic factors play a big role here.  Some will tell you that entitlement programs cause people to feel "entitled" to other people's property or what not too.  I'm sure if it was THAT easy to just say what the problem is, it would have been solved by now.  It's more complicated than "guns" though.



Yeah, there is a massive issue with black people. A lot of it has to do with slavery and segregation and the racism that still exists as vestiges of a time when morality was something quite different. 

Poverty does play a major part, especially the cycle of poverty. 

However the big issue here is why almost nothing gets done about any of this, whereas in other countries it does get dealt with.

The answer seems to be that politicians are doing the bidding of the rich in the US, whereas in Europe they're far more likely to deal with the issues the people have.


----------



## Ernie S.

frigidweirdo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> There has been gun ownership in this country since it's beginnings.  These problems with school shootings and the like are fairly relatively new problems.  That tells me that the problem is society and people, not the weapon.  Even if guns were banned, people are STILL going to be mentally ill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is where people ask why the murder rate is 4.7 times higher in the US than the UK.
> 
> What problems are there in society and why aren't they being dealt with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gangs.  It's not a fucking mystery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And again, I'll ask the same questions about gangs.
> 
> Why does the US have a prevalence of gangs when other first world countries don't? Or I could say it like this. What the feck is wrong with the US?
Click to expand...

Minorities, if you want an honest, non PC answer.


----------



## Little-Acorn

Little-Acorn said:


> Some of the amendments were written to restrict only the Federal government but not the states' governments. Amendment 1 is an example, saying "*Congress* shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." etc. This was done since, at the time it was adopted, most states had official state religions, and the Framers didn't want to mess with that. (This restriction to the Fed only, was later changed by the 14th amendment.)
> 
> Other amendments were written to specifically apply to ALL governments within the United States' borders: Federal, state, local. Amendment 2 is an example. Unlike the 1st amendment, the 2nd lacks any language specifying which government(s) it restricts, and so it restricts all of them. This was true from the day it was ratified. A recent "decision" by the Supreme Court "incorporating" the 2nd amendment to apply to all governments, had no effect, since it already applied to them all.





frigidweirdo said:


> the Civil War. Before that NONE of the amendments were subject to the states and weren't intended to.


People who try to pretend this is so, invariably fail to include any evidence supporting their hopes... since there is none.



frigidweirdo said:


> If the 2A were intended to be for the states, why did so many states put a RKA or RBA clause in their constitutions?


Because they thought the Fed might eventually do exactly what it's doing: Ginning up every excuse it can find to violate the 2nd amendment.

As we can see, their fears were fully justified.


----------



## Little-Acorn

Ernie S. said:


> A fully automatic weapon, including Ma Deuce made before 186 is legal to own for the price of the weapon and a $200 dollar transfer stamp. One must get the approval of the chief law enforcement officer of your jurisdiction to get your stamp.


Meaning, the CLEO can forbid you to own it if he feels like it.

Which is a flat violation of the 2nd amendment.


----------



## Little-Acorn

legaleagle_45 said:


> If you can name any person who claims that the 2nd amend is unlimited,



*The 2nd amendment does not say "Except as provided by law". Why not?*

The 4th amendment bans searches and seizure, but not all of them: It specifically names unreasonable searches and seizures.

The 5th amendment says that no one can be jailed or executed etc... but makes an exception: unless there is "due process of law".

Even the 13th amendment that prohibits slavery or involuntary servitude, makes an exception:"except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted."

But the 2nd amendment, which forbids government from taking away or restricting our right to keep and bear arms, is conspicuously devoid of any such language. As written, it permits NO exceptions or "reasonable restrictions". Period.

Why?

There's an important characteristic of the people's right to keep and bear arms, which might explain why the 2nd is written without qualifications. It says "Since X is so, the people's RKBA cannot be taken away or restricted." Unlike the 4th, 5th, and 13th, the 2nd does NOT say "except by due process of law". And it does NOT say "unless the person is a certain type of extreme criminal", and etc.

To make up an extreme example, suppose some guy goes into a restaurant, pulls out a gun and blows away half a dozen people. The cops show up and surround him, and one cop says, "Give me your gun right now." The guy says, "Sorry, the 2nd amendment says my right to KBA cannot be taken away or restricted, PERIOD, so you have no authority to make me give you my gun." And this with gunsmoke in the air and bodies bleeding on the floor next to him.

Many of the people who wrote the 2nd were lawyers, and knew well the effect that certain words have when included, or omitted, from legislation. And yet they chose to omit ANY exceptions to the ban on government taking people's guns away. Strictly speaking, that would even include the extreme example I just gave: Cops can't take away the gun of a murderer at the scene of his crime.

Many people use this as the reason why the 2nd amendment MUST have been intended to implicitly allow for exceptions: It's impossible that the Framers could have intended for murderers to retain their weapons immediately after committing their murders. Yet a truly strict reading of the 2nd, forbids any govt official (including police) from taking the mass-murderer's gun.

So what could the Framers' intention have been, in omitting any exceptions?

Remember that it is GOVERNMENT that is being forbidden from taking away people's weapons. And the foremost reason it's forbidden, is so that the people can use them against government itself, if/when the government becomes tyrannical. And the Framers knew that if government were given even the tiniest exception, there would be a tendency to turn that tiny loophole into more and more twisted, warped excuses to take guns away anyway, far beyond the "reasonable" exception of being able to take away a mass-murderer's gun at the scene of his crime.

The only way the Framers could find of avoiding the far-greater evil of a tyrannical government disarming its people, was to make NO EXCEPTIONS WHATSOEVER to an explicit ban on government disarming even one of us.

So where does that leave us on the question of the cops taking the mass murderer's gun at the restaurant?

It's inconceivable that the Framers would want the murderer to retain his gun even as they haul him off to jail.

But it's VERY conceivable that the Framers would want government to have NOT THE SLIGHTEST EXCUSE, NO MATTER HOW "REASONABLE", to take away the weapons of their populace in general. Because the slightest excuse, the tiniest exception, could be stretched into a huge loophole. And the Framers regarded a government that could somehow finagle its way into disarming its own people, as a far greater threat than the occasional murderous nutcase in a restaurant.

And history has proven the Framers right, time and again.

Should we amend the Constitution, changing the 2nd amendment to officially empower government to take away the right of, say, murderers, to own and carry guns?

Some would think it's obvious that we should, to make the law "really" right. But consider the potential cost.

My own guess is, the Framers intended for an exception to be made in such a case... but not by any government official. The restaurant mass-murderer tells the cops they have no power to take his gun. The cop responds by cracking the guy's skull with his billy club, hard, and taking away his gun anyway. Did the cop violate the strict words of the 2nd amendment by doing so? Yes. But is there a jury in the world that will convict the cop for it? Probably not.

The Constitution puts the ultimate fate of anyone accused of breaking laws, into the hands of a JURY. A groupd of the accused guy's own peers, people pretty much like him. NOT government officials. And that was so the only people who can find, or even invent, exceptions to the law, are ordinary civilians: the ones on the jury. Today this is called "Jury Nullification". And I suggest that this is exactly what the Framers had in mind when the wrote the 2nd amendment with NO exceptions and NO "reasonable restrictions" on guns and other such weapons.

The 2nd amendment is a restriction on GOVERNMENT. But not on a jury.

So when the murderer from the restaurant brings charges against the cop for taking away his gun, the cop gets a chance to explain to a JURY why he did it. His explanation will probably take less than ten seconds. And the jury (whose members wouldn't be there if they hadn't been accepted by the cop) will certainly decide that the cop should not be found guilty of violating the clear language of the 2nd, in that case. Because the JURY (and nobody else) has the power to make "reasonable exceptions".

But at the same time, when government makes the slightest move toward disarming even a little of its populace by legislation, they can be met with the absolute, no-exceptions ban codified by the 2nd amendment. No loopholes, no "reasonable exceptions", no nothing. ANY legislation that infringes on the absolute right to KBA, is unconstitutional. Period.

I suspect that's how the Framers expected this particular law to work.

Can I prove it? No. When I meet one of the Framers, I'll ask him. Until that time, I can only guess, based on the records they have left behind... and the fact that they put NONE of the usual qualifiers, into the 2nd amendment. If anyone can come up with a better guess, I'd be happy to hear it.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Ernie S. said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> There has been gun ownership in this country since it's beginnings.  These problems with school shootings and the like are fairly relatively new problems.  That tells me that the problem is society and people, not the weapon.  Even if guns were banned, people are STILL going to be mentally ill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is where people ask why the murder rate is 4.7 times higher in the US than the UK.
> 
> What problems are there in society and why aren't they being dealt with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gangs.  It's not a fucking mystery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And again, I'll ask the same questions about gangs.
> 
> Why does the US have a prevalence of gangs when other first world countries don't? Or I could say it like this. What the feck is wrong with the US?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Minorities, if you want an honest, non PC answer.
Click to expand...


Great, the non-PC answer, the simple answer, the answer that allows the rich to feel good about themselves for fecking over the poor and doing nothing to solve the problems. The answer that keeps the rich in charge of government, that makes sure only the interests of the rich are served in Washington and in state governments.

I see why you call it the "non PC answer", because it's a pile of stinking poo.


----------



## Ernie S.

Little-Acorn said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> A fully automatic weapon, including Ma Deuce made before 186 is legal to own for the price of the weapon and a $200 dollar transfer stamp. One must get the approval of the chief law enforcement officer of your jurisdiction to get your stamp.
> 
> 
> 
> Meaning, the CLEO can forbid you to own it if he feels like it.
> 
> Which is a flat violation of the 2nd amendment.
Click to expand...

Meh... Sheriff Mac is a friend of mine.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Little-Acorn said:


> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the amendments were written to restrict only the Federal government but not the states' governments. Amendment 1 is an example, saying "*Congress* shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." etc. This was done since, at the time it was adopted, most states had official state religions, and the Framers didn't want to mess with that. (This restriction to the Fed only, was later changed by the 14th amendment.)
> 
> Other amendments were written to specifically apply to ALL governments within the United States' borders: Federal, state, local. Amendment 2 is an example. Unlike the 1st amendment, the 2nd lacks any language specifying which government(s) it restricts, and so it restricts all of them. This was true from the day it was ratified. A recent "decision" by the Supreme Court "incorporating" the 2nd amendment to apply to all governments, had no effect, since it already applied to them all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> the Civil War. Before that NONE of the amendments were subject to the states and weren't intended to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People who try to pretend this is so, invariably fail to include any evidence supporting their hopes... since there is none.
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the 2A were intended to be for the states, why did so many states put a RKA or RBA clause in their constitutions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because they thought the Fed might eventually do exactly what it's doing: Ginning up every excuse it can find to violate the 2nd amendment.
> 
> As we can see, their fears were fully justified.
Click to expand...


There's no evidence before the Civil War that the Bill of Rights included the states? Well, yeah, that's probably because the Bill of Rights was only for the US govt. 

I mean, do the states have to abide by Article 1 of the Constitution? No they don't. Why? Because it only concerns the Federal government. Same for the Bill of Rights before an amendment came along that basically said the Bill of Rights should be incorporated.

Let's provide some evidence for you then.

Incorporation Bill of Rights legal definition of Incorporation Bill of Rights 

"
*Incorporation Doctrine*
_A constitutional doctrine whereby selected provisions of the_ Bill of Rights _are made applicable to the states through the_ due process clause _ofthe_ Fourteenth Amendment."

"Until the early twentieth century, the Bill of Rights was interpreted as applying only to the federal government. In the 1833 case _Barron ex rel.Tiernon v. Mayor of Baltimore_,32 U.S.(7Pet.)243,8L.Ed.672, the Supreme Court expressly limited application of the Bill of Rights to the federal government."

Had you wanted to, you could have found out this information in 2 minutes, and saved yourself the hassle of making up false claims.


----------



## Ernie S.

frigidweirdo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> There has been gun ownership in this country since it's beginnings.  These problems with school shootings and the like are fairly relatively new problems.  That tells me that the problem is society and people, not the weapon.  Even if guns were banned, people are STILL going to be mentally ill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is where people ask why the murder rate is 4.7 times higher in the US than the UK.
> 
> What problems are there in society and why aren't they being dealt with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gangs.  It's not a fucking mystery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And again, I'll ask the same questions about gangs.
> 
> Why does the US have a prevalence of gangs when other first world countries don't? Or I could say it like this. What the feck is wrong with the US?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Minorities, if you want an honest, non PC answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great, the non-PC answer, the simple answer, the answer that allows the rich to feel good about themselves for fecking over the poor and doing nothing to solve the problems. The answer that keeps the rich in charge of government, that makes sure only the interests of the rich are served in Washington and in state governments.
> 
> I see why you call it the "non PC answer", because it's a pile of stinking poo.
Click to expand...

It IS a pile of stinking poo, but the truth. Blacks as a percentage of population, commit murder at 6 to 7 times the rate of blacks. Latinos murder at about twice their representative rate. What we end up with is 30% of the population committing 70% of the murders.Stinky? You bet your ass, but it's not "whitey's" fault. It's not law enforcement's fault or the fault of slavery or Jim Crow.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Ernie S. said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is where people ask why the murder rate is 4.7 times higher in the US than the UK.
> 
> What problems are there in society and why aren't they being dealt with?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gangs.  It's not a fucking mystery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And again, I'll ask the same questions about gangs.
> 
> Why does the US have a prevalence of gangs when other first world countries don't? Or I could say it like this. What the feck is wrong with the US?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Minorities, if you want an honest, non PC answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great, the non-PC answer, the simple answer, the answer that allows the rich to feel good about themselves for fecking over the poor and doing nothing to solve the problems. The answer that keeps the rich in charge of government, that makes sure only the interests of the rich are served in Washington and in state governments.
> 
> I see why you call it the "non PC answer", because it's a pile of stinking poo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It IS a pile of stinking poo, but the truth. Blacks as a percentage of population, commit murder at 6 to 7 times the rate of blacks. Latinos murder at about twice their representative rate. What we end up with is 30% of the population committing 70% of the murders.Stinky? You bet your ass, but it's not "whitey's" fault. It's not law enforcement's fault or the fault of slavery or Jim Crow.
Click to expand...


No, it's not the truth. 
Yes, blacks commit more murders, as do Hispanics, who also make up the largest percentages of those people living in inner city ghettos with no hope in the world. 

"but it's not "whitey's" fault." 

I disagree. There's a massive difference between Europe and the US, and the main difference is that in Europe politics, well some of them, attempt to solve the problems that exist in society, whereas in the US they simply don't, they just throw the blame out at people.

In terms of black people, they went from slavery to segregation. And segregation wasn't just toilets and buses, it was jobs, it was housing, it was everything. A lot of them up sticks and went to places like Detroit and took menial jobs, but were still treated badly. 
Education developed in a manner where the rich got the best education. Go to Europe and unless you pay for private education, then education will not be based on income, or house price or whatever, it'll be fairly equal for all. 

NOTHING has been done in the US to solve these problems, hence why these problems still exist. 

You sell your soul for money, then your soul lives with more violence and more murder and no go areas and tighter security. 

You talk about it being mostly gangs, but how many schools in Europe have metal detectors at their entrance? Not many. There are some problem areas, but compared to the US.....


----------



## Damaged Eagle

frigidweirdo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> There has been gun ownership in this country since it's beginnings.  These problems with school shootings and the like are fairly relatively new problems.  That tells me that the problem is society and people, not the weapon.  Even if guns were banned, people are STILL going to be mentally ill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is where people ask why the murder rate is 4.7 times higher in the US than the UK.
> 
> What problems are there in society and why aren't they being dealt with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gangs.  It's not a fucking mystery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And again, I'll ask the same questions about gangs.
> 
> Why does the US have a prevalence of gangs when other first world countries don't? Or I could say it like this. What the feck is wrong with the US?
Click to expand...








Because in places like Italy the carabinieri will shoot them. The same goes for the police in Spain and Greece. Guilty until proven innocent.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Ernie S.

frigidweirdo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gangs.  It's not a fucking mystery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And again, I'll ask the same questions about gangs.
> 
> Why does the US have a prevalence of gangs when other first world countries don't? Or I could say it like this. What the feck is wrong with the US?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Minorities, if you want an honest, non PC answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great, the non-PC answer, the simple answer, the answer that allows the rich to feel good about themselves for fecking over the poor and doing nothing to solve the problems. The answer that keeps the rich in charge of government, that makes sure only the interests of the rich are served in Washington and in state governments.
> 
> I see why you call it the "non PC answer", because it's a pile of stinking poo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It IS a pile of stinking poo, but the truth. Blacks as a percentage of population, commit murder at 6 to 7 times the rate of blacks. Latinos murder at about twice their representative rate. What we end up with is 30% of the population committing 70% of the murders.Stinky? You bet your ass, but it's not "whitey's" fault. It's not law enforcement's fault or the fault of slavery or Jim Crow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's not the truth.
> Yes, blacks commit more murders, as do Hispanics, who also make up the largest percentages of those people living in inner city ghettos with no hope in the world.
> 
> "but it's not "whitey's" fault."
> 
> I disagree. There's a massive difference between Europe and the US, and the main difference is that in Europe politics, well some of them, attempt to solve the problems that exist in society, whereas in the US they simply don't, they just throw the blame out at people.
> 
> In terms of black people, they went from slavery to segregation. And segregation wasn't just toilets and buses, it was jobs, it was housing, it was everything. A lot of them up sticks and went to places like Detroit and took menial jobs, but were still treated badly.
> Education developed in a manner where the rich got the best education. Go to Europe and unless you pay for private education, then education will not be based on income, or house price or whatever, it'll be fairly equal for all.
> 
> NOTHING has been done in the US to solve these problems, hence why these problems still exist.
> 
> You sell your soul for money, then your soul lives with more violence and more murder and no go areas and tighter security.
> 
> You talk about it being mostly gangs, but how many schools in Europe have metal detectors at their entrance? Not many. There are some problem areas, but compared to the US.....
Click to expand...

European countries have more heterogeneous populations. Less blacks and Latinos, for example.

Geeze guy! When someone commits murder, it's the fault of the whites? Bullshit! We are responsible for our own bad acts.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Damaged Eagle said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> There has been gun ownership in this country since it's beginnings.  These problems with school shootings and the like are fairly relatively new problems.  That tells me that the problem is society and people, not the weapon.  Even if guns were banned, people are STILL going to be mentally ill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is where people ask why the murder rate is 4.7 times higher in the US than the UK.
> 
> What problems are there in society and why aren't they being dealt with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gangs.  It's not a fucking mystery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And again, I'll ask the same questions about gangs.
> 
> Why does the US have a prevalence of gangs when other first world countries don't? Or I could say it like this. What the feck is wrong with the US?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because in places like Italy the carabinieri will shoot them. The same goes for the police in Spain and Greece. Guilty until proven innocent.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
Click to expand...


Ever been to these places? Jeez. It's not my experience at all. 

Then again in countries like the UK most police don't have guns and still the rates are lower.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Ernie S. said:


> Geeze guy! When someone commits murder, it's the fault of the whites? Bullshit! We are responsible for our own bad acts.



This is an extremely complex issue, and you're trying to fit it into a sentence.

It isn't going to happen.

You can either try and understand, or you can continue to ignore the reality. It's your choice. But I'm not going to waste time on someone who is simply going to pass off everything I say.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

frigidweirdo said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> There has been gun ownership in this country since it's beginnings.  These problems with school shootings and the like are fairly relatively new problems.  That tells me that the problem is society and people, not the weapon.  Even if guns were banned, people are STILL going to be mentally ill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is where people ask why the murder rate is 4.7 times higher in the US than the UK.
> 
> What problems are there in society and why aren't they being dealt with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gangs.  It's not a fucking mystery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And again, I'll ask the same questions about gangs.
> 
> Why does the US have a prevalence of gangs when other first world countries don't? Or I could say it like this. What the feck is wrong with the US?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because in places like Italy the carabinieri will shoot them. The same goes for the police in Spain and Greece. Guilty until proven innocent.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ever been to these places? Jeez. It's not my experience at all.
> 
> Then again in countries like the UK most police don't have guns and still the rates are lower.
Click to expand...







I spent around five years living in Italy and visiting most of the southern European countries.

A dependent wife was sent back to the USA after spending six months in critical condition because she didn't pull to the side of the road in Italy after a carabinieri waved his 'lollipop' wand at her car to stop for inspection. They pulled over forty rounds out of the back of her car from the Uzi that he and other carabinieri carry around under their arms...

However if you don't want to believe me you're free to go over there and test their resolve.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Ernie S.

frigidweirdo said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Geeze guy! When someone commits murder, it's the fault of the whites? Bullshit! We are responsible for our own bad acts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is an extremely complex issue, and you're trying to fit it into a sentence.
> 
> It isn't going to happen.
> 
> You can either try and understand, or you can continue to ignore the reality. It's your choice. But I'm not going to waste time on someone who is simply going to pass off everything I say.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah! Horribly complex.... If YOU shoot someone, it is somehow MY fault? That's absurd!


----------



## ThoughtCrimes

Little-Acorn said:


> legaleagle_45 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you can name any person who claims that the 2nd amend is unlimited,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The 2nd amendment does not say "Except as provided by law". Why not?*
> 
> The 4th amendment bans searches and seizure, but not all of them: It specifically names unreasonable searches and seizures.
> 
> The 5th amendment says that no one can be jailed or executed etc... but makes an exception: unless there is "due process of law".
> 
> Even the 13th amendment that prohibits slavery or involuntary servitude, makes an exception:"except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted."
> 
> But the 2nd amendment, which forbids government from taking away or restricting our right to keep and bear arms, is conspicuously devoid of any such language. As written, it permits NO exceptions or "reasonable restrictions". Period.
> 
> Why?
> 
> There's an important characteristic of the people's right to keep and bear arms, which might explain why the 2nd is written without qualifications. It says "Since X is so, the people's RKBA cannot be taken away or restricted." Unlike the 4th, 5th, and 13th, the 2nd does NOT say "except by due process of law". And it does NOT say "unless the person is a certain type of extreme criminal", and etc.
> 
> To make up an extreme example, suppose some guy goes into a restaurant, pulls out a gun and blows away half a dozen people. The cops show up and surround him, and one cop says, "Give me your gun right now." The guy says, "Sorry, the 2nd amendment says my right to KBA cannot be taken away or restricted, PERIOD, so you have no authority to make me give you my gun." And this with gunsmoke in the air and bodies bleeding on the floor next to him.
> 
> Many of the people who wrote the 2nd were lawyers, and knew well the effect that certain words have when included, or omitted, from legislation. And yet they chose to omit ANY exceptions to the ban on government taking people's guns away. Strictly speaking, that would even include the extreme example I just gave: Cops can't take away the gun of a murderer at the scene of his crime.
> 
> Many people use this as the reason why the 2nd amendment MUST have been intended to implicitly allow for exceptions: It's impossible that the Framers could have intended for murderers to retain their weapons immediately after committing their murders. Yet a truly strict reading of the 2nd, forbids any govt official (including police) from taking the mass-murderer's gun.
> 
> So what could the Framers' intention have been, in omitting any exceptions?
> 
> Remember that it is GOVERNMENT that is being forbidden from taking away people's weapons. And the foremost reason it's forbidden, is so that the people can use them against government itself, if/when the government becomes tyrannical. And the Framers knew that if government were given even the tiniest exception, there would be a tendency to turn that tiny loophole into more and more twisted, warped excuses to take guns away anyway, far beyond the "reasonable" exception of being able to take away a mass-murderer's gun at the scene of his crime.
> 
> The only way the Framers could find of avoiding the far-greater evil of a tyrannical government disarming its people, was to make NO EXCEPTIONS WHATSOEVER to an explicit ban on government disarming even one of us.
> 
> So where does that leave us on the question of the cops taking the mass murderer's gun at the restaurant?
> 
> It's inconceivable that the Framers would want the murderer to retain his gun even as they haul him off to jail.
> 
> But it's VERY conceivable that the Framers would want government to have NOT THE SLIGHTEST EXCUSE, NO MATTER HOW "REASONABLE", to take away the weapons of their populace in general. Because the slightest excuse, the tiniest exception, could be stretched into a huge loophole. And the Framers regarded a government that could somehow finagle its way into disarming its own people, as a far greater threat than the occasional murderous nutcase in a restaurant.
> 
> And history has proven the Framers right, time and again.
> 
> Should we amend the Constitution, changing the 2nd amendment to officially empower government to take away the right of, say, murderers, to own and carry guns?
> 
> Some would think it's obvious that we should, to make the law "really" right. But consider the potential cost.
> 
> My own guess is, the Framers intended for an exception to be made in such a case... but not by any government official. The restaurant mass-murderer tells the cops they have no power to take his gun. The cop responds by cracking the guy's skull with his billy club, hard, and taking away his gun anyway. Did the cop violate the strict words of the 2nd amendment by doing so? Yes. But is there a jury in the world that will convict the cop for it? Probably not.
> 
> The Constitution puts the ultimate fate of anyone accused of breaking laws, into the hands of a JURY. A groupd of the accused guy's own peers, people pretty much like him. NOT government officials. And that was so the only people who can find, or even invent, exceptions to the law, are ordinary civilians: the ones on the jury. Today this is called "Jury Nullification". And I suggest that this is exactly what the Framers had in mind when the wrote the 2nd amendment with NO exceptions and NO "reasonable restrictions" on guns and other such weapons.
> 
> The 2nd amendment is a restriction on GOVERNMENT. But not on a jury.
> 
> So when the murderer from the restaurant brings charges against the cop for taking away his gun, the cop gets a chance to explain to a JURY why he did it. His explanation will probably take less than ten seconds. And the jury (whose members wouldn't be there if they hadn't been accepted by the cop) will certainly decide that the cop should not be found guilty of violating the clear language of the 2nd, in that case. Because the JURY (and nobody else) has the power to make "reasonable exceptions".
> 
> But at the same time, when government makes the slightest move toward disarming even a little of its populace by legislation, they can be met with the absolute, no-exceptions ban codified by the 2nd amendment. No loopholes, no "reasonable exceptions", no nothing. ANY legislation that infringes on the absolute right to KBA, is unconstitutional. Period.
> 
> I suspect that's how the Framers expected this particular law to work.
> 
> Can I prove it? No. When I meet one of the Framers, I'll ask him. Until that time, I can only guess, based on the records they have left behind... and the fact that they put NONE of the usual qualifiers, into the 2nd amendment. If anyone can come up with a better guess, I'd be happy to hear it.
Click to expand...


I think you've spent far too much time reading your pocket copy of the NRA version of the Constitution, as amended. Throw that POS away, put down the NRA/Tea Party Kool Aide and start reading the real thing! I don't have to guess about Amendment II, so prepare to get happy. I know how it reads, and the true intent of the Founders as interpreted by SCOTUS.

Back in 2008, Justice Scalia wrote the Opinion of the Court in District of Columbia v. Heller. That decision, as many will recall, struck down the DC ban on handguns in the home for self protection. In that opinion, J. Scalia, a paragon of the New-Age "conservative" movement and self-serving, egotistical ass, wrote the following: 

_ "Like most rights, *the right secured by the *_*Second Amendment*_*  is not unlimited*. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that *the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose*. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the __*Second Amendment*__ or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the __*Second Amendment*__ , *nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms*._*26*_"_ [Emphasis Added] 

That passage above makes it crystal clear to all but the mentally impaired perhaps, that *LIMITS UPON ARMS, AKA GUN CONTROL, IS CONSTITUTIONAL* in spite of all the propaganda spewed by the guns uber allis lobby to the contrary.  No one needs a 100 round mag for their AR for home protection, just as criminals don't need access to either the weapon or the mag. If others don't see it that way, Article V of the Constitution provides the remedy to Amend our founding document. 

I suggest you read Justice Scalia's FULL DECISION in Heller and learn how to discern truth from the Big Lie Machines like the political factions of the elephants and the asses as well as corporate shills like the NRA.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Damaged Eagle said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is where people ask why the murder rate is 4.7 times higher in the US than the UK.
> 
> What problems are there in society and why aren't they being dealt with?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gangs.  It's not a fucking mystery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And again, I'll ask the same questions about gangs.
> 
> Why does the US have a prevalence of gangs when other first world countries don't? Or I could say it like this. What the feck is wrong with the US?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because in places like Italy the carabinieri will shoot them. The same goes for the police in Spain and Greece. Guilty until proven innocent.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ever been to these places? Jeez. It's not my experience at all.
> 
> Then again in countries like the UK most police don't have guns and still the rates are lower.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I spent around five years living in Italy and visiting most of the southern European countries.
> 
> A dependent wife was sent back to the USA after spending six months in critical condition because she didn't pull to the side of the road in Italy after a carabinieri waved his 'lollipop' wand at her car to stop for inspection. They pulled over forty rounds out of the back of her car from the Uzi that he and other carabinieri carry around under their arms...
> 
> However if you don't want to believe me you're free to go over there and test their resolve.
> 
> *****SMILE*****
Click to expand...


I lived in Spain for years. I'm not saying these things don't happen. I'm saying they don't happen as a general rule. How long ago did this incident happen?


----------



## frigidweirdo

Ernie S. said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Geeze guy! When someone commits murder, it's the fault of the whites? Bullshit! We are responsible for our own bad acts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is an extremely complex issue, and you're trying to fit it into a sentence.
> 
> It isn't going to happen.
> 
> You can either try and understand, or you can continue to ignore the reality. It's your choice. But I'm not going to waste time on someone who is simply going to pass off everything I say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh yeah! Horribly complex.... If YOU shoot someone, it is somehow MY fault? That's absurd!
Click to expand...


Thanks for proving my point. 

No wonder the US is going down the tube.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Just to clarify it for the terminally ignorant.

The second amendment most certainly DOES explicitly guarantee a RIGHT.

And as the SCOTUS made clear recently, it is a right that predated the Constitution.

No matter how anybody may try to spin it, the fact remains:  the RIGHT to bear arms is a right of a person explicitly guaranteed by the Second Amendment.


----------



## M14 Shooter

IlarMeilyr said:


> Just to clarify it for the terminally ignorant.
> 
> The second amendment most certainly DOES explicitly guarantee a RIGHT.
> 
> And as the SCOTUS made clear recently, it is a right that predated the Constitution.
> 
> No matter how anybody may try to spin it, the fact remains:  the RIGHT to bear arms is a right of a person explicitly guaranteed by the Second Amendment.


Anyone who argues otherwise is lying.


----------



## Lakhota

The Second Amendment is a colonial relic and should be put out of its misery.  It's confusing and obsolete.


----------



## Lakhota

*Myth No11: Universal background checks would create a federal database of gun owners*

One of the myths that ended the background checks bill in the Senate two years ago was the claim – perpetrated by the gun lobby and swallowed by most Republicans – was that it would create a national registry of gun owners.

In fact, the Manchin-Toomey legislation explicitly barred the creation of a federal database in its text, but opponents insisted it would infringe on the liberties of gun owners in America.

Aside from that being a false claim, it was notable that just a couple of months later, when it was revealed that the NSA was spying on millions of Americans, the same lawmakers were overwhelmingly supportive of far more intrusive data-gathering.

Much More: 11 myths about the future of gun control, debunked after the Charleston shooting

So, why can't the NRA gun nutters at least allow universal background checks?


----------



## Iceweasel

Lakhota said:


> The Second Amendment is a colonial relic and should be put out of its misery.  It's confusing and obsolete.


What's confusing about it? How is a right miserable to you?


----------



## Lakhota

*Guns Kill An Average Of 36 People Every Day, And The Nation Doesn't Even Blink*

Gun makers and suppliers should be held liable.


----------



## Iceweasel

Guns don't kill, people do. Sometimes themselves, sometimes self defense. You've seen it all before but your brainwashed mind can't process it.


----------



## kaz

Lakhota said:


> The Second Amendment is a colonial relic and should be put out of its misery.  It's confusing and obsolete.



So why don't you do that, Adolph?  Get it repealed


----------



## Lakhota

kaz said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment is a colonial relic and should be put out of its misery.  It's confusing and obsolete.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why don't you do that, Adolph?  Get it repealed
Click to expand...

 
We're working on it.


----------



## kaz

Lakhota said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment is a colonial relic and should be put out of its misery.  It's confusing and obsolete.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why don't you do that, Adolph?  Get it repealed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're working on it.
Click to expand...


How are all the dead bodies piling up with no one shooting back working out for you?


----------



## Iceweasel

Lakhota said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment is a colonial relic and should be put out of its misery.  It's confusing and obsolete.
> 
> 
> 
> So why don't you do that, Adolph?  Get it repealed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We're working on it.
Click to expand...

You're welcome to come get mine anytime....


----------



## 2aguy

Lakhota said:


> *Myth No11: Universal background checks would create a federal database of gun owners*
> 
> One of the myths that ended the background checks bill in the Senate two years ago was the claim – perpetrated by the gun lobby and swallowed by most Republicans – was that it would create a national registry of gun owners.
> 
> In fact, the Manchin-Toomey legislation explicitly barred the creation of a federal database in its text, but opponents insisted it would infringe on the liberties of gun owners in America.
> 
> Aside from that being a false claim, it was notable that just a couple of months later, when it was revealed that the NSA was spying on millions of Americans, the same lawmakers were overwhelmingly supportive of far more intrusive data-gathering.
> 
> Much More: 11 myths about the future of gun control, debunked after the Charleston shooting
> 
> So, why can't the NRA gun nutters at least allow universal background checks?




Universal background checks will lead to registration…there is no way to keep track of private sales without it…..they will simply force states to do it and have the information available for the feds…moron…


And again….why are Universal BAckground Checks your goal…they are avoided the same way that current mandatory federal background checks are avoided…..the criminal steals the gun or gets a straw buyer to buy the gun for them..thereby getting past even Universal background checks.

The mass shooters….go through the universal background check and then shoot people…the Santa Barbara Shooter went through 3 background checks, one for each gun he bought….didn't stop him……

And we still don't know how this guy got his gun
'

And we already know Universal Background Checks will fail….there was a case I posted yesterday..a state with universal background checks…the father could not own a gun, lied on his paperwork and his son used the gun to kill people…

So Unviversal BAckground Checks are simply a way for you guys to make felons out of John Q. Citizen selling his brother his old .22 rifle if he doesn't drag him down to the police station or gun store to pay more money for a background check….


----------



## 2aguy

Lakhota said:


> *Guns Kill An Average Of 36 People Every Day, And The Nation Doesn't Even Blink*
> 
> Gun makers and suppliers should be held liable.




And guns save lives on average 2 million times a year as Americans use them to stop criminal attack…and you would prefer those victims be raped, robbed and murdered rather than stop the attack with a gun….


----------



## 2aguy

Lakhota said:


> The Second Amendment is a colonial relic and should be put out of its misery.  It's confusing and obsolete.




As is the First Amendment…the founders never knew about computers, laptops, or the internet…..we should ban all of those..because of identity theft, computer crime and child abuse…..


----------



## Dan Daly

Lakhota said:


> Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited  never have been and never will be  Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star



Incorrect.  My right of self defense using the means of my choosing is a basic human right that no government can take away.  You have the right to give up your basic human rights, if that is your choice, but if you try to take mine, I will fight, that is a promise.


----------



## Dan Daly

Sarah G said:


> Wingnuts haven't said or done anything to convince anyone that assualt weapons are a part of the second ammendment so in that way, yes, it is obsolete.



wut?  Lay off the sauce, dear, you sound really stupid when you're drinking.

There was no such thing as the internet when the First Amendment was ratified, so using your logic you have no right to open your piehole on the internet, so you best shut the fk up before we send the SWAT team for you.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Lakhota said:


> The Second Amendment is a colonial relic and should be put out of its misery.  It's confusing and obsolete.


Says an anti-gun loon, incapable of arguing from anything other than emotion, ignorance and/of dishonesty, and only too happy to use the blood of innocents to push his mindless, bigoted agenda.


----------



## Wildman

Lakhota said:


> *Gun makers and suppliers should be held liable.*



as should car makers, makers of knives, ropes, ball bats, pencils, glass bottles, metal cans.., the list is enormous.., soooo,  ...  ...


----------



## Dan Daly

Lakhota said:


> Anyone here belong to a militia?  Know anyone who belongs to a militia?  I don't...



I used to belong to the New Mexico militia.  FYI, according to the US Code:

§ 311.
Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.


----------



## hunarcy

Lakhota said:


> The Second Amendment is a colonial relic and should be put out of its misery.  It's confusing and obsolete.



It is not confusing nor obsolete.  The only problem with it is that it doesn't say what YOU want it to say.


----------



## kaz

frigidweirdo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Black people have a homicide rate that is 4 TIMES the national average.  We have much more diversity than any other country, and our black people are descendants of slaves.  Socioeconomic factors play a big role here.  Some will tell you that entitlement programs cause people to feel "entitled" to other people's property or what not too.  I'm sure if it was THAT easy to just say what the problem is, it would have been solved by now.  It's more complicated than "guns" though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, there is a massive issue with black people. A lot of it has to do with slavery and segregation and the racism that still exists as vestiges of a time when morality was something quite different.
> 
> Poverty does play a major part, especially the cycle of poverty.
> 
> However the big issue here is why almost nothing gets done about any of this, whereas in other countries it does get dealt with.
> 
> The answer seems to be that politicians are doing the bidding of the rich in the US, whereas in Europe they're far more likely to deal with the issues the people have.
Click to expand...


The politicians working the hardest to keep blacks poor are the Democrats who want them to stay dependent on government.  Blacks becoming more middle and upper class would be great for our economy and everyone in it.  It would be bad for the politicians who assume the votes are theirs


----------



## Lakhota

NRA gun nutters are the greatest threat to my future gun rights.


----------



## emilynghiem

No, only you decide if you are willing to concede your inalienable rights.



Lakhota said:


> NRA gun nutters are the greatest threat to my future gun rights.


----------



## 007

Lakhota said:


> NRA gun nutters are the greatest threat to my future gun rights.


Really?


----------



## Lakhota

The 2nd Amendment may be the most fucked up sentence ever written.

Reading the Second Amendment | Sheldon Richman


----------



## Contumacious

Lakhota said:


> The 2nd Amendment may be the most fucked up sentence ever written.
> 
> Reading the Second Amendment | Sheldon Richman




ONLY if your mind has been ENSLAVED by 12 years of government "education".


----------



## frigidweirdo

emilynghiem said:


> No, only you decide if you are willing to concede your inalienable rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> NRA gun nutters are the greatest threat to my future gun rights.
Click to expand...


Have you conceded your inalienable right to kill people yet?


----------



## WillowTree

Lakhota said:


> The 2nd Amendment may be the most fucked up sentence ever written.
> 
> Reading the Second Amendment | Sheldon Richman





Oh well, it takes a long time to change an amendment. Best get busy.


----------



## Rustic

Lakhota said:


> NRA gun nutters are the greatest threat to my future gun rights.


----------



## Kondor3

frigidweirdo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, only you decide if you are willing to concede your inalienable rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> NRA gun nutters are the greatest threat to my future gun rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you conceded your inalienable right to kill people yet?
Click to expand...

Feral, Democratic-voting inner-city Neanderthals kill more people using guns, than do decent, honest gun-toting people outside such environments...


----------



## westwall

Lakhota said:


> The 2nd Amendment may be the most fucked up sentence ever written.
> 
> Reading the Second Amendment | Sheldon Richman








Only if you don't understand the English language.


----------



## westwall

frigidweirdo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, only you decide if you are willing to concede your inalienable rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> NRA gun nutters are the greatest threat to my future gun rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you conceded your inalienable right to kill people yet?
Click to expand...








Where is that enumerated?


----------



## Little-Acorn

Lakhota said:


> The 2nd Amendment may be the most fucked up sentence ever written.



Yet another ignoramous who can't read the normal English in the Constitution.

Time for another reprint.

No, no need to thank me. I'm happy to help you figure out what you can't understand.

-------------------------------------------------------------

From Taking On Gun Control - The Unabridged Second Amendment

*The Unabridged Second Amendment
by J. Neil Schulman*

If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan, right? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwarzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?

That was the question I asked A.C. Brocki, editorial coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers -- who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of American Usage and Style: The Consensus.

A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of Professor Copperud's expertise.

Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.

He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award.

That sounds like an expert to me.

After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent the following letter:

"I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.

"The text of the Second Amendment is, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State', is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary."

My letter framed several questions about the text of the Second Amendment, then concluded:

"I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance."

After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the follow analysis (into which I have inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):

[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The 'to keep and bear arms' is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

"In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"

[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."

[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"

[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."

[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia is, in fact, necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"

[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

[Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"

[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."

[Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,' 'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"

[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."

[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account of the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated."

[Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'

[Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.'

"My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be:

"(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and

"(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people to keep and read Books' _only_ to 'a well-educated electorate' -- for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?"

[Copperud:] "(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

"(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation."

Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."

So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all governments formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.

As I write this, the attempted coup against constitutional government in the Soviet Union has failed, apparently because the will of the people in that part of the world to be free from capricious tyranny is stronger than the old guard's desire to maintain a monopoly on dictatorial power.

And here in the United States, elected lawmakers, judges, and appointed officials who are pledged to defend the Constitution of the United States ignore, marginalize, or prevaricate about the Second Amendment routinely. American citizens are put in American prisons for carrying arms, owning arms of forbidden sorts, or failing to satisfy bureaucratic requirements regarding the owning and carrying of firearms -- all of which is an abridgement of the unconditional right of the people to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Constitution.

And even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), staunch defender of the rest of the Bill of Rights, stands by and does nothing.

It seems it is up to those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms to preserve that right. No one else will. No one else can. Will we beg our elected representatives not to take away our rights, and continue regarding them as representing us if they do? Will we continue obeying judges who decide that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what it says it means but means whatever they say it means in their Orwellian doublespeak?

Or will we simply keep and bear the arms of our choice, as the Constitution of the United States promises us we can, and pledge that we will defend that promise with our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor?

------------------------------------------

©1991 by The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation. Informational reproduction of the entire article is hereby authorized provided the author, The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation are credited. All other rights reserved


----------



## Ernie S.

Lakhota said:


> The 2nd Amendment may be the most fucked up sentence ever written.
> 
> Reading the Second Amendment | Sheldon Richman


You may be the most fucked up person ever born.


----------



## gipper

Lakhota said:


> The 2nd Amendment may be the most fucked up sentence ever written.
> 
> Reading the Second Amendment | Sheldon Richman


Only to idiots and statists....


----------



## ChrisL




----------



## emilynghiem

frigidweirdo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, only you decide if you are willing to concede your inalienable rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> NRA gun nutters are the greatest threat to my future gun rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you conceded your inalienable right to kill people yet?
Click to expand...


? frigidweirdo
To kill someone violates their free will, freedom of choice, or free exercise of religion
where they believe they have the right to live.  That is against their First Amendment
rights which indirectly protect the right to life as a belief, as well as right to choose,
not to mention their right to assemble in peace and to petition to redress grievances.
If I deny the right to protest and petition for a different outcome they consent to,
I'd also be violating First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to equal protection of the laws.

To use arms to defend laws or for defense, there is the Constitutional principle of
"due process of law" -- if we don't violate this by forcing punishments on people or depriving them of liberty "without due process," then we won't have these problems to being with of using force for offense or defense.

If someone is killed or they are raped, robbed, assaulted, "punished or deprived of liberty without due process", or otherwise afflicted with any crime abuse or violation against their will, they are not being "equally protected" as the person inflicting their will on the other person. So that's not equal protection or equal justice. The only way to enforce Equal Protection
or Equal Justice Under Law is to PREVENT all abuses and crimes from violating someone's rights in the first place, i e, respect the CONSENT
of each person and redress ALL grievances and objections to make decisions by CONSENSUS
before carrying them out - by mutual AGREEMENT. I believe the spirit of laws and contracts is based on "consent of the governed" so that is the standard of law I support, personally and publicly, in order to enforce a consistent standard for people and for government for equality sake.

That is why I believe in mediation and conflict resolution to ensure
the highest possible success rate of reaching consensus (I'd say 80-98% agreement is possible in most cases
if you remove the time limit and give full free speech so people can redress all grievances freely and fully).

I am certainly not going to violate the same laws I seek to
enforce for myself and others equally as a Constitutionalist.

To kill someone, they'd have to agree to that, first of all, such as in police situations where the police are otherwise unable to stop the person from killing others. Sometimes they can disable the person without necessarily killing them, so I do prefer the least restrictive means that cause the least damage.

I am not a trained officer, and would likely die at the hand of someone acting that way before I could defend myself.

If they don't want to live they can choose to quit eating and die of starvation, choose to give up their will to live and die of depression etc.  Choose not to ask for help, and choose to refuse any offer of help given to them.

It is not my place to hasten the process even if they do consent to die.
I would have them seek spiritual mental and medical counseling if they go down that route
as I believe most lives can be saved. I have found that even criminal illness can be cured if cases are caught early enough where the person receives full therapy and is detained or supervised to avoid harming themselves or others during rehab that can take 10-25 years if it is cureable at all in severe cases.

But if they choose not to listen and cut off all support, I can't force them to live any more than
I can force someone to die.  I can offer help, support and better options but can't force people to choose them.

The only thing that can compel people to choose to do things beyond their will is God's will through prayer. So I learned to respect why Christians pray and hold the authority of Christ Jesus in the highest regard, because it has saved lives and healed people of mental, physical and even criminal illnesses that otherwise kill people.

The same prayers for forgiveness and healing that have "miraculously" saved lives from death from addiction, abuse, crime and disease
ALSO heal relationships and allow people to resolve conflicts we didn't think were possible either.

Because I am secular gentile, and most of my friends are more secular than I am,
I support medical research and scientific proof of how spiritual healing works to heal
physical, mental and even criminal illness to solve a lot of our problems with the current
mental health, criminal justice and political systems under govt. We can save more
money and more lives, but the research and development has to be established by
secular and scientific means. Currently the effective methods of spiritual healing that have been proven through limited studies are consistently practiced in faith based circles, but not yet understood by the general public.


----------



## candycorn

gipper said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd Amendment may be the most fucked up sentence ever written.
> 
> Reading the Second Amendment | Sheldon Richman
> 
> 
> 
> Only to idiots and statists....
Click to expand...


----------



## RandallFlagg

Lakhota said:


> NRA gun nutters are the greatest threat to my future gun rights.




Damn - don't you mean your bow and arrow?


----------



## ChrisL

candycorn said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd Amendment may be the most fucked up sentence ever written.
> 
> Reading the Second Amendment | Sheldon Richman
> 
> 
> 
> Only to idiots and statists....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


This again?  Goodness.  You must think you are awfully clever, but guess what?  NOT.


----------



## candycorn

ChrisL said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd Amendment may be the most fucked up sentence ever written.
> 
> Reading the Second Amendment | Sheldon Richman
> 
> 
> 
> Only to idiots and statists....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This again?  Goodness.  You must think you are awfully clever, but guess what?  NOT.
Click to expand...


Yet here you are trying desperately to prop up your messiah….


----------



## RandallFlagg

ChrisL said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd Amendment may be the most fucked up sentence ever written.
> 
> Reading the Second Amendment | Sheldon Richman
> 
> 
> 
> Only to idiots and statists....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This again?  Goodness.  You must think you are awfully clever, but guess what?  NOT.
Click to expand...




Indeed. I have always wondered if it was Hillary who pulled the trigger on Vince Foster or maybe Bill?  These assholes who laud themselves over us - telling us that we don't have a "right" to protect our homes and our families - while they are guarded 24-7 by men with guns pisses me the hell off.


----------



## ChrisL

candycorn said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd Amendment may be the most fucked up sentence ever written.
> 
> Reading the Second Amendment | Sheldon Richman
> 
> 
> 
> Only to idiots and statists....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This again?  Goodness.  You must think you are awfully clever, but guess what?  NOT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet here you are trying desperately to prop up your messiah….
Click to expand...


Why don't you explain to me why he's my messiah?  I'm waiting.    And yet again, I will kick your fat butt.


----------



## candycorn

RandallFlagg said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd Amendment may be the most fucked up sentence ever written.
> 
> Reading the Second Amendment | Sheldon Richman
> 
> 
> 
> Only to idiots and statists....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This again?  Goodness.  You must think you are awfully clever, but guess what?  NOT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. I have always wondered if it was Hillary who pulled the trigger on Vince Foster or maybe Bill?  These assholes who laud themselves over us - telling us that we don't have a "right" to protect our homes and our families - while they are guarded 24-7 by men with guns pisses me the hell off.
Click to expand...


Wow, you should try to do something about that.


----------



## Rexx Taylor

ChrisL said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd Amendment may be the most fucked up sentence ever written.
> 
> Reading the Second Amendment | Sheldon Richman
> 
> 
> 
> Only to idiots and statists....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This again?  Goodness.  You must think you are awfully clever, but guess what?  NOT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet here you are trying desperately to prop up your messiah….
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you explain to me why he's my messiah?  I'm waiting.    And yet again, I will kick your fat butt.
Click to expand...

hey, maybe Hillary can add this to her list of those who need rights!! Human Rights! Gay Rights! Workers Rights! and "Bear Rights" !!!!!


----------



## candycorn

ChrisL said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd Amendment may be the most fucked up sentence ever written.
> 
> Reading the Second Amendment | Sheldon Richman
> 
> 
> 
> Only to idiots and statists....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This again?  Goodness.  You must think you are awfully clever, but guess what?  NOT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet here you are trying desperately to prop up your messiah….
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you explain to me why he's my messiah?  I'm waiting.    And yet again, I will kick your fat butt.
Click to expand...


Awww…poor baby.  Did yor wittle feelings get hwurt?


----------



## boedicca

It's not surprising that the Prog-Left doesn't grok the 2nd Amendment.  Their worldview is is consumed with Group Identity; hence they do not understand that the Bill of Rights is designed to protect INDIVIDUAL Rights.


----------



## Rexx Taylor

ChrisL said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd Amendment may be the most fucked up sentence ever written.
> 
> Reading the Second Amendment | Sheldon Richman
> 
> 
> 
> Only to idiots and statists....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This again?  Goodness.  You must think you are awfully clever, but guess what?  NOT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet here you are trying desperately to prop up your messiah….
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you explain to me why he's my messiah?  I'm waiting.    And yet again, I will kick your fat butt.
Click to expand...

what about Huma's ass, does her ass have equal rights too?


----------



## candycorn

boedicca said:


> It's not surprising that the Prog-Left doesn't grok the 2nd Amendment.  Their worldview is is consumed with Group Identity; hence they do not understand that the Bill of Rights is designed to protect INDIVIDUAL Rights.








Does he grok it?


----------



## boedicca

candycorn said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not surprising that the Prog-Left doesn't grok the 2nd Amendment.  Their worldview is is consumed with Group Identity; hence they do not understand that the Bill of Rights is designed to protect INDIVIDUAL Rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does he grok it?
Click to expand...



16 years ago, hun.   He has evolved on the issue, much the way you admire Barry and hiLARY's revised views on Gay Marriage.


----------



## candycorn

boedicca said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not surprising that the Prog-Left doesn't grok the 2nd Amendment.  Their worldview is is consumed with Group Identity; hence they do not understand that the Bill of Rights is designed to protect INDIVIDUAL Rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does he grok it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 16 years ago, hun.   He has evolved on the issue, much the way you admire Barry and hiLARY's revised views on Gay Marriage.
Click to expand...


Either that or he’s campaigning for President and telling you only what you want to hear.   What do you think is more likely…a guy who has changed his mind on nearly everything; he used to be pro choice, pro free trade, pro showing-your-income-tax returns, pro assault weapons ban, pro waiting period, pro Iraq war, and even Pro Clinton…. or he has evolved on 38 issues????

I know you’ll lie through your teeth here to prop up your messiah but you shouldn’t BS yourself so much


----------



## boedicca

candycorn said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not surprising that the Prog-Left doesn't grok the 2nd Amendment.  Their worldview is is consumed with Group Identity; hence they do not understand that the Bill of Rights is designed to protect INDIVIDUAL Rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does he grok it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 16 years ago, hun.   He has evolved on the issue, much the way you admire Barry and hiLARY's revised views on Gay Marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Either that or he’s campaigning for President and telling you only what you want to hear.   What do you think is more likely…a guy who has changed his mind on nearly everything; he used to be pro choice, pro free trade, pro showing-your-income-tax returns, pro assault weapons ban, pro waiting period, pro Iraq war, and even Pro Clinton…. or he has evolved on 38 issues????
> 
> I know you’ll lie through your teeth here to prop up your messiah but you shouldn’t BS yourself so much
Click to expand...



The lying's on your wide, you sad hag.

_
But now, Trump opposes any sort of restriction on them. "Gun and magazine bans are a total failure," he says on his site.

Rather than impose gun control on law-abiding citizens, he wants to imprison gun-toting violent criminals for longer periods of time. Rather than expand background checks, he wants to fix the current system, which he says is "broken."

He also dismisses "scary sounding phrases" like "assault weapons" and "high capacity magazines," which are only meant to "confuse people." Instead, he calls them "popular semi-automatic rifles" and "standard magazines."..._

Where Donald Trump stands on guns


----------



## candycorn

boedicca said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not surprising that the Prog-Left doesn't grok the 2nd Amendment.  Their worldview is is consumed with Group Identity; hence they do not understand that the Bill of Rights is designed to protect INDIVIDUAL Rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does he grok it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 16 years ago, hun.   He has evolved on the issue, much the way you admire Barry and hiLARY's revised views on Gay Marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Either that or he’s campaigning for President and telling you only what you want to hear.   What do you think is more likely…a guy who has changed his mind on nearly everything; he used to be pro choice, pro free trade, pro showing-your-income-tax returns, pro assault weapons ban, pro waiting period, pro Iraq war, and even Pro Clinton…. or he has evolved on 38 issues????
> 
> I know you’ll lie through your teeth here to prop up your messiah but you shouldn’t BS yourself so much
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The lying's on your wide, you sad hag.
> 
> _
> But now, Trump opposes any sort of restriction on them. "Gun and magazine bans are a total failure," he says on his site.
> 
> Rather than impose gun control on law-abiding citizens, he wants to imprison gun-toting violent criminals for longer periods of time. Rather than expand background checks, he wants to fix the current system, which he says is "broken."
> 
> He also dismisses "scary sounding phrases" like "assault weapons" and "high capacity magazines," which are only meant to "confuse people." Instead, he calls them "popular semi-automatic rifles" and "standard magazines."..._
> 
> Where Donald Trump stands on guns
Click to expand...


So you think he evolved on 38 issues….told you you’d lie through your teeth.  You guys are so predictable when it comes to your messiah.  

According to the National gun rights association, your messiah:

*



			*** Recently, Donald Trump came out in full support of the President’s “no-fly, no guns” plan to strip gun rights from law-abiding Americans by labeling them “terrorists.” 2
		
Click to expand...

*
The stakes couldn't be higher

Roh-Roh


----------



## boedicca

candycorn said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not surprising that the Prog-Left doesn't grok the 2nd Amendment.  Their worldview is is consumed with Group Identity; hence they do not understand that the Bill of Rights is designed to protect INDIVIDUAL Rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does he grok it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 16 years ago, hun.   He has evolved on the issue, much the way you admire Barry and hiLARY's revised views on Gay Marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Either that or he’s campaigning for President and telling you only what you want to hear.   What do you think is more likely…a guy who has changed his mind on nearly everything; he used to be pro choice, pro free trade, pro showing-your-income-tax returns, pro assault weapons ban, pro waiting period, pro Iraq war, and even Pro Clinton…. or he has evolved on 38 issues????
> 
> I know you’ll lie through your teeth here to prop up your messiah but you shouldn’t BS yourself so much
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The lying's on your wide, you sad hag.
> 
> _
> But now, Trump opposes any sort of restriction on them. "Gun and magazine bans are a total failure," he says on his site.
> 
> Rather than impose gun control on law-abiding citizens, he wants to imprison gun-toting violent criminals for longer periods of time. Rather than expand background checks, he wants to fix the current system, which he says is "broken."
> 
> He also dismisses "scary sounding phrases" like "assault weapons" and "high capacity magazines," which are only meant to "confuse people." Instead, he calls them "popular semi-automatic rifles" and "standard magazines."..._
> 
> Where Donald Trump stands on guns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think he evolved on 38 issues….told you you’d lie through your teeth.  You guys are so predictable when it comes to your messiah.
> 
> According to the National gun rights association, your messiah:
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *** Recently, Donald Trump came out in full support of the President’s “no-fly, no guns” plan to strip gun rights from law-abiding Americans by labeling them “terrorists.” 2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> The stakes couldn't be higher
> 
> Roh-Roh
Click to expand...




Sorry to disappoint, but I don't worship Politicians the way you Barking Moonbats do.


----------



## candycorn

boedicca said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does he grok it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 16 years ago, hun.   He has evolved on the issue, much the way you admire Barry and hiLARY's revised views on Gay Marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Either that or he’s campaigning for President and telling you only what you want to hear.   What do you think is more likely…a guy who has changed his mind on nearly everything; he used to be pro choice, pro free trade, pro showing-your-income-tax returns, pro assault weapons ban, pro waiting period, pro Iraq war, and even Pro Clinton…. or he has evolved on 38 issues????
> 
> I know you’ll lie through your teeth here to prop up your messiah but you shouldn’t BS yourself so much
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The lying's on your wide, you sad hag.
> 
> _
> But now, Trump opposes any sort of restriction on them. "Gun and magazine bans are a total failure," he says on his site.
> 
> Rather than impose gun control on law-abiding citizens, he wants to imprison gun-toting violent criminals for longer periods of time. Rather than expand background checks, he wants to fix the current system, which he says is "broken."
> 
> He also dismisses "scary sounding phrases" like "assault weapons" and "high capacity magazines," which are only meant to "confuse people." Instead, he calls them "popular semi-automatic rifles" and "standard magazines."..._
> 
> Where Donald Trump stands on guns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think he evolved on 38 issues….told you you’d lie through your teeth.  You guys are so predictable when it comes to your messiah.
> 
> According to the National gun rights association, your messiah:
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *** Recently, Donald Trump came out in full support of the President’s “no-fly, no guns” plan to strip gun rights from law-abiding Americans by labeling them “terrorists.” 2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> The stakes couldn't be higher
> 
> Roh-Roh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to disappoint, but I don't worship Politicians the way you Barking Moonbats do.
Click to expand...


I can see why since your messiah is on the other side of so many issues and disagrees with you on everything.  
What I can’t understand is why you can’t see your messiah is playing you for a fool…but then again.  Given the material he has to work with, what else could he play you for?


----------



## ChrisL

candycorn said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 16 years ago, hun.   He has evolved on the issue, much the way you admire Barry and hiLARY's revised views on Gay Marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Either that or he’s campaigning for President and telling you only what you want to hear.   What do you think is more likely…a guy who has changed his mind on nearly everything; he used to be pro choice, pro free trade, pro showing-your-income-tax returns, pro assault weapons ban, pro waiting period, pro Iraq war, and even Pro Clinton…. or he has evolved on 38 issues????
> 
> I know you’ll lie through your teeth here to prop up your messiah but you shouldn’t BS yourself so much
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The lying's on your wide, you sad hag.
> 
> _
> But now, Trump opposes any sort of restriction on them. "Gun and magazine bans are a total failure," he says on his site.
> 
> Rather than impose gun control on law-abiding citizens, he wants to imprison gun-toting violent criminals for longer periods of time. Rather than expand background checks, he wants to fix the current system, which he says is "broken."
> 
> He also dismisses "scary sounding phrases" like "assault weapons" and "high capacity magazines," which are only meant to "confuse people." Instead, he calls them "popular semi-automatic rifles" and "standard magazines."..._
> 
> Where Donald Trump stands on guns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think he evolved on 38 issues….told you you’d lie through your teeth.  You guys are so predictable when it comes to your messiah.
> 
> According to the National gun rights association, your messiah:
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *** Recently, Donald Trump came out in full support of the President’s “no-fly, no guns” plan to strip gun rights from law-abiding Americans by labeling them “terrorists.” 2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> The stakes couldn't be higher
> 
> Roh-Roh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to disappoint, but I don't worship Politicians the way you Barking Moonbats do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can see why since your messiah is on the other side of so many issues and disagrees with you on everything.
> What I can’t understand is why you can’t see your messiah is playing you for a fool…but then again.  Given the material he has to work with, what else could he play you for?
Click to expand...


Since you're the one who can't stop talking about The Trumpster and his views, it seems like he might be your messiah.


----------



## boedicca

ChrisL said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Either that or he’s campaigning for President and telling you only what you want to hear.   What do you think is more likely…a guy who has changed his mind on nearly everything; he used to be pro choice, pro free trade, pro showing-your-income-tax returns, pro assault weapons ban, pro waiting period, pro Iraq war, and even Pro Clinton…. or he has evolved on 38 issues????
> 
> I know you’ll lie through your teeth here to prop up your messiah but you shouldn’t BS yourself so much
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The lying's on your wide, you sad hag.
> 
> _
> But now, Trump opposes any sort of restriction on them. "Gun and magazine bans are a total failure," he says on his site.
> 
> Rather than impose gun control on law-abiding citizens, he wants to imprison gun-toting violent criminals for longer periods of time. Rather than expand background checks, he wants to fix the current system, which he says is "broken."
> 
> He also dismisses "scary sounding phrases" like "assault weapons" and "high capacity magazines," which are only meant to "confuse people." Instead, he calls them "popular semi-automatic rifles" and "standard magazines."..._
> 
> Where Donald Trump stands on guns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think he evolved on 38 issues….told you you’d lie through your teeth.  You guys are so predictable when it comes to your messiah.
> 
> According to the National gun rights association, your messiah:
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *** Recently, Donald Trump came out in full support of the President’s “no-fly, no guns” plan to strip gun rights from law-abiding Americans by labeling them “terrorists.” 2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> The stakes couldn't be higher
> 
> Roh-Roh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to disappoint, but I don't worship Politicians the way you Barking Moonbats do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can see why since your messiah is on the other side of so many issues and disagrees with you on everything.
> What I can’t understand is why you can’t see your messiah is playing you for a fool…but then again.  Given the material he has to work with, what else could he play you for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you're the one who can't stop talking about The Trumpster and his views, it seems like he might be your messiah.
Click to expand...


I haven't seen any Trump supporters call him "sort of God" or talk about leg tingles at the sight of the crease in his pants.

Just sayin'.


----------



## Lakhota

candycorn said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not surprising that the Prog-Left doesn't grok the 2nd Amendment.  Their worldview is is consumed with Group Identity; hence they do not understand that the Bill of Rights is designed to protect INDIVIDUAL Rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does he grok it?
Click to expand...


And NaziCons eat it up.  Lies only matter to them - when spoken by a Democrat.  Funny...


----------



## 2aguy

Lakhota said:


> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
Click to expand...



No.  Just ask the Mexican citizens across the border being murdered by their government working with the drug cartels...oh yeah...that's right...you can't...they were murdered and their bodies were put into ovens.......just across our border....look up the Autodefensas...ask them if they think the 2nd Amendment is outdated......


----------



## 2aguy

Lakhota said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not surprising that the Prog-Left doesn't grok the 2nd Amendment.  Their worldview is is consumed with Group Identity; hence they do not understand that the Bill of Rights is designed to protect INDIVIDUAL Rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does he grok it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And NaziCons eat it up.  Lies only matter to them - when spoken by a Democrat.  Funny...
Click to expand...



nazis can't be conservatives...they are left wing socialists.

Did you notice the date on that quote moron....it is from 2000, 15 years ago..........obama didn't come out supporting gay marriage until half way through his first term..........you guys are such brainless twits.........


----------



## 2aguy

waltky said:


> Maybe not obsolete but antiquated, out of date...
> 
> ... it needs to be updated to reflect the times...
> 
> ... and the threat of overkill firepower...
> 
> ... for the average citizen.




Wow...that was a dumb post.

3,750,000 million AR-15s in private hands....how many are used illegally each year for crime...about 2-4...

So where is the threat of overkill firepower...since 3,749,998 million guns in private hands didn't shoot anyone?

And whatever weapons the police and our paid soldiers carry...we need to carry them too....just ask the unarmed Mexicans across the border...the police, soldiers.......and drug cartels all have guns...the unarmed Mexicans...they have shallow graves and ovens......


----------



## Silhouette

I'm instead advocating for the right to arm bears...could get weird on the Summer camping trips..


----------



## ChrisL

boedicca said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lying's on your wide, you sad hag.
> 
> _
> But now, Trump opposes any sort of restriction on them. "Gun and magazine bans are a total failure," he says on his site.
> 
> Rather than impose gun control on law-abiding citizens, he wants to imprison gun-toting violent criminals for longer periods of time. Rather than expand background checks, he wants to fix the current system, which he says is "broken."
> 
> He also dismisses "scary sounding phrases" like "assault weapons" and "high capacity magazines," which are only meant to "confuse people." Instead, he calls them "popular semi-automatic rifles" and "standard magazines."..._
> 
> Where Donald Trump stands on guns
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think he evolved on 38 issues….told you you’d lie through your teeth.  You guys are so predictable when it comes to your messiah.
> 
> According to the National gun rights association, your messiah:
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *** Recently, Donald Trump came out in full support of the President’s “no-fly, no guns” plan to strip gun rights from law-abiding Americans by labeling them “terrorists.” 2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> The stakes couldn't be higher
> 
> Roh-Roh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to disappoint, but I don't worship Politicians the way you Barking Moonbats do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can see why since your messiah is on the other side of so many issues and disagrees with you on everything.
> What I can’t understand is why you can’t see your messiah is playing you for a fool…but then again.  Given the material he has to work with, what else could he play you for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you're the one who can't stop talking about The Trumpster and his views, it seems like he might be your messiah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I haven't seen any Trump supporters call him "sort of God" or talk about leg tingles at the sight of the crease in his pants.
> 
> Just sayin'.
Click to expand...


He's not my "messiah."  He's way too much of an asshole, and I hate his haircut.  My messiah would have great hair at least.  Lol.


----------



## turtledude

Lakhota said:


> NRA gun nutters are the greatest threat to my future gun rights.




Your devotion to idiots like Hilary is the greatest threat to the rights of REAL GUN OWNERS


----------



## turtledude

Lakhota said:


> The 2nd Amendment may be the most fucked up sentence ever written.
> 
> Reading the Second Amendment | Sheldon Richman



people who pretend it says something other than a complete ban on federal action in the area are usually fucked up


----------



## frigidweirdo

gipper said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd Amendment may be the most fucked up sentence ever written.
> 
> Reading the Second Amendment | Sheldon Richman
> 
> 
> 
> Only to idiots and statists....
Click to expand...


But we know there's a problem.....


----------



## frigidweirdo

emilynghiem said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, only you decide if you are willing to concede your inalienable rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> NRA gun nutters are the greatest threat to my future gun rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you conceded your inalienable right to kill people yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ? frigidweirdo
> To kill someone violates their free will, freedom of choice, or free exercise of religion
> where they believe they have the right to live.  That is against their First Amendment
> rights which indirectly protect the right to life as a belief, as well as right to choose,
> not to mention their right to assemble in peace and to petition to redress grievances.
> If I deny the right to protest and petition for a different outcome they consent to,
> I'd also be violating First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to equal protection of the laws.
> 
> To use arms to defend laws or for defense, there is the Constitutional principle of
> "due process of law" -- if we don't violate this by forcing punishments on people or depriving them of liberty "without due process," then we won't have these problems to being with of using force for offense or defense.
> 
> If someone is killed or they are raped, robbed, assaulted, "punished or deprived of liberty without due process", or otherwise afflicted with any crime abuse or violation against their will, they are not being "equally protected" as the person inflicting their will on the other person. So that's not equal protection or equal justice. The only way to enforce Equal Protection
> or Equal Justice Under Law is to PREVENT all abuses and crimes from violating someone's rights in the first place, i e, respect the CONSENT
> of each person and redress ALL grievances and objections to make decisions by CONSENSUS
> before carrying them out - by mutual AGREEMENT. I believe the spirit of laws and contracts is based on "consent of the governed" so that is the standard of law I support, personally and publicly, in order to enforce a consistent standard for people and for government for equality sake.
> 
> That is why I believe in mediation and conflict resolution to ensure
> the highest possible success rate of reaching consensus (I'd say 80-98% agreement is possible in most cases
> if you remove the time limit and give full free speech so people can redress all grievances freely and fully).
> 
> I am certainly not going to violate the same laws I seek to
> enforce for myself and others equally as a Constitutionalist.
> 
> To kill someone, they'd have to agree to that, first of all, such as in police situations where the police are otherwise unable to stop the person from killing others. Sometimes they can disable the person without necessarily killing them, so I do prefer the least restrictive means that cause the least damage.
> 
> I am not a trained officer, and would likely die at the hand of someone acting that way before I could defend myself.
> 
> If they don't want to live they can choose to quit eating and die of starvation, choose to give up their will to live and die of depression etc.  Choose not to ask for help, and choose to refuse any offer of help given to them.
> 
> It is not my place to hasten the process even if they do consent to die.
> I would have them seek spiritual mental and medical counseling if they go down that route
> as I believe most lives can be saved. I have found that even criminal illness can be cured if cases are caught early enough where the person receives full therapy and is detained or supervised to avoid harming themselves or others during rehab that can take 10-25 years if it is cureable at all in severe cases.
> 
> But if they choose not to listen and cut off all support, I can't force them to live any more than
> I can force someone to die.  I can offer help, support and better options but can't force people to choose them.
> 
> The only thing that can compel people to choose to do things beyond their will is God's will through prayer. So I learned to respect why Christians pray and hold the authority of Christ Jesus in the highest regard, because it has saved lives and healed people of mental, physical and even criminal illnesses that otherwise kill people.
> 
> The same prayers for forgiveness and healing that have "miraculously" saved lives from death from addiction, abuse, crime and disease
> ALSO heal relationships and allow people to resolve conflicts we didn't think were possible either.
> 
> Because I am secular gentile, and most of my friends are more secular than I am,
> I support medical research and scientific proof of how spiritual healing works to heal
> physical, mental and even criminal illness to solve a lot of our problems with the current
> mental health, criminal justice and political systems under govt. We can save more
> money and more lives, but the research and development has to be established by
> secular and scientific means. Currently the effective methods of spiritual healing that have been proven through limited studies are consistently practiced in faith based circles, but not yet understood by the general public.
Click to expand...


Yes, I know all of that. I wasn't seriously suggesting there was a right to take someone's life.

What I was getting at more was, who decides what are "inalienable rights"? I mean, in the rest of the world, owning a gun is not an "inalienable right", but in the US people think it is. So who decides?


----------



## kaz

Lakhota said:


> NRA gun nutters are the greatest threat to my future gun rights.



What?  Was that supposed to make sense?


----------



## ChrisL

frigidweirdo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, only you decide if you are willing to concede your inalienable rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> NRA gun nutters are the greatest threat to my future gun rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you conceded your inalienable right to kill people yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ? frigidweirdo
> To kill someone violates their free will, freedom of choice, or free exercise of religion
> where they believe they have the right to live.  That is against their First Amendment
> rights which indirectly protect the right to life as a belief, as well as right to choose,
> not to mention their right to assemble in peace and to petition to redress grievances.
> If I deny the right to protest and petition for a different outcome they consent to,
> I'd also be violating First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to equal protection of the laws.
> 
> To use arms to defend laws or for defense, there is the Constitutional principle of
> "due process of law" -- if we don't violate this by forcing punishments on people or depriving them of liberty "without due process," then we won't have these problems to being with of using force for offense or defense.
> 
> If someone is killed or they are raped, robbed, assaulted, "punished or deprived of liberty without due process", or otherwise afflicted with any crime abuse or violation against their will, they are not being "equally protected" as the person inflicting their will on the other person. So that's not equal protection or equal justice. The only way to enforce Equal Protection
> or Equal Justice Under Law is to PREVENT all abuses and crimes from violating someone's rights in the first place, i e, respect the CONSENT
> of each person and redress ALL grievances and objections to make decisions by CONSENSUS
> before carrying them out - by mutual AGREEMENT. I believe the spirit of laws and contracts is based on "consent of the governed" so that is the standard of law I support, personally and publicly, in order to enforce a consistent standard for people and for government for equality sake.
> 
> That is why I believe in mediation and conflict resolution to ensure
> the highest possible success rate of reaching consensus (I'd say 80-98% agreement is possible in most cases
> if you remove the time limit and give full free speech so people can redress all grievances freely and fully).
> 
> I am certainly not going to violate the same laws I seek to
> enforce for myself and others equally as a Constitutionalist.
> 
> To kill someone, they'd have to agree to that, first of all, such as in police situations where the police are otherwise unable to stop the person from killing others. Sometimes they can disable the person without necessarily killing them, so I do prefer the least restrictive means that cause the least damage.
> 
> I am not a trained officer, and would likely die at the hand of someone acting that way before I could defend myself.
> 
> If they don't want to live they can choose to quit eating and die of starvation, choose to give up their will to live and die of depression etc.  Choose not to ask for help, and choose to refuse any offer of help given to them.
> 
> It is not my place to hasten the process even if they do consent to die.
> I would have them seek spiritual mental and medical counseling if they go down that route
> as I believe most lives can be saved. I have found that even criminal illness can be cured if cases are caught early enough where the person receives full therapy and is detained or supervised to avoid harming themselves or others during rehab that can take 10-25 years if it is cureable at all in severe cases.
> 
> But if they choose not to listen and cut off all support, I can't force them to live any more than
> I can force someone to die.  I can offer help, support and better options but can't force people to choose them.
> 
> The only thing that can compel people to choose to do things beyond their will is God's will through prayer. So I learned to respect why Christians pray and hold the authority of Christ Jesus in the highest regard, because it has saved lives and healed people of mental, physical and even criminal illnesses that otherwise kill people.
> 
> The same prayers for forgiveness and healing that have "miraculously" saved lives from death from addiction, abuse, crime and disease
> ALSO heal relationships and allow people to resolve conflicts we didn't think were possible either.
> 
> Because I am secular gentile, and most of my friends are more secular than I am,
> I support medical research and scientific proof of how spiritual healing works to heal
> physical, mental and even criminal illness to solve a lot of our problems with the current
> mental health, criminal justice and political systems under govt. We can save more
> money and more lives, but the research and development has to be established by
> secular and scientific means. Currently the effective methods of spiritual healing that have been proven through limited studies are consistently practiced in faith based circles, but not yet understood by the general public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I know all of that. I wasn't seriously suggesting there was a right to take someone's life.
> 
> What I was getting at more was, who decides what are "inalienable rights"? I mean, in the rest of the world, owning a gun is not an "inalienable right", but in the US people think it is. So who decides?
Click to expand...


We the people, that's who.  We have a natural human right to self defense.  Simple.  We don't "think" it is.  We aren't the "rest of the world" and we don't care what the rest of the world does.  That's what makes US special.


----------



## turtledude

kaz said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> NRA gun nutters are the greatest threat to my future gun rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What?  Was that supposed to make sense?
Click to expand...


Big Chief say Lakhota speak with fucked tongue


----------



## emilynghiem

frigidweirdo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, only you decide if you are willing to concede your inalienable rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> NRA gun nutters are the greatest threat to my future gun rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you conceded your inalienable right to kill people yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ? frigidweirdo
> To kill someone violates their free will, freedom of choice, or free exercise of religion
> where they believe they have the right to live.  That is against their First Amendment
> rights which indirectly protect the right to life as a belief, as well as right to choose,
> not to mention their right to assemble in peace and to petition to redress grievances.
> If I deny the right to protest and petition for a different outcome they consent to,
> I'd also be violating First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to equal protection of the laws.
> 
> To use arms to defend laws or for defense, there is the Constitutional principle of
> "due process of law" -- if we don't violate this by forcing punishments on people or depriving them of liberty "without due process," then we won't have these problems to being with of using force for offense or defense.
> 
> If someone is killed or they are raped, robbed, assaulted, "punished or deprived of liberty without due process", or otherwise afflicted with any crime abuse or violation against their will, they are not being "equally protected" as the person inflicting their will on the other person. So that's not equal protection or equal justice. The only way to enforce Equal Protection
> or Equal Justice Under Law is to PREVENT all abuses and crimes from violating someone's rights in the first place, i e, respect the CONSENT
> of each person and redress ALL grievances and objections to make decisions by CONSENSUS
> before carrying them out - by mutual AGREEMENT. I believe the spirit of laws and contracts is based on "consent of the governed" so that is the standard of law I support, personally and publicly, in order to enforce a consistent standard for people and for government for equality sake.
> 
> That is why I believe in mediation and conflict resolution to ensure
> the highest possible success rate of reaching consensus (I'd say 80-98% agreement is possible in most cases
> if you remove the time limit and give full free speech so people can redress all grievances freely and fully).
> 
> I am certainly not going to violate the same laws I seek to
> enforce for myself and others equally as a Constitutionalist.
> 
> To kill someone, they'd have to agree to that, first of all, such as in police situations where the police are otherwise unable to stop the person from killing others. Sometimes they can disable the person without necessarily killing them, so I do prefer the least restrictive means that cause the least damage.
> 
> I am not a trained officer, and would likely die at the hand of someone acting that way before I could defend myself.
> 
> If they don't want to live they can choose to quit eating and die of starvation, choose to give up their will to live and die of depression etc.  Choose not to ask for help, and choose to refuse any offer of help given to them.
> 
> It is not my place to hasten the process even if they do consent to die.
> I would have them seek spiritual mental and medical counseling if they go down that route
> as I believe most lives can be saved. I have found that even criminal illness can be cured if cases are caught early enough where the person receives full therapy and is detained or supervised to avoid harming themselves or others during rehab that can take 10-25 years if it is cureable at all in severe cases.
> 
> But if they choose not to listen and cut off all support, I can't force them to live any more than
> I can force someone to die.  I can offer help, support and better options but can't force people to choose them.
> 
> The only thing that can compel people to choose to do things beyond their will is God's will through prayer. So I learned to respect why Christians pray and hold the authority of Christ Jesus in the highest regard, because it has saved lives and healed people of mental, physical and even criminal illnesses that otherwise kill people.
> 
> The same prayers for forgiveness and healing that have "miraculously" saved lives from death from addiction, abuse, crime and disease
> ALSO heal relationships and allow people to resolve conflicts we didn't think were possible either.
> 
> Because I am secular gentile, and most of my friends are more secular than I am,
> I support medical research and scientific proof of how spiritual healing works to heal
> physical, mental and even criminal illness to solve a lot of our problems with the current
> mental health, criminal justice and political systems under govt. We can save more
> money and more lives, but the research and development has to be established by
> secular and scientific means. Currently the effective methods of spiritual healing that have been proven through limited studies are consistently practiced in faith based circles, but not yet understood by the general public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I know all of that. I wasn't seriously suggesting there was a right to take someone's life.
> 
> What I was getting at more was, who decides what are "inalienable rights"? I mean, in the rest of the world, owning a gun is not an "inalienable right", but in the US people think it is. So who decides?
Click to expand...


Dear frigidweirdo
I find people naturally agree on this, though they express it differently.
To make this clearly agreed upon, I do think we need a Constitutional conference
so everyone is on the same page with these concepts, and the language different groups use for the same principles.

A. I have found everyone I know believes in their own free will, right to consent and dissent.
Every human being I've met practices this every day.  We defend our beliefs, interests and will naturally as human beings
with "free will reason and conscience"

This is a natural law, which I would put into legal terms as
* free exercise of religion (the reason I equate or expand this as free will is to treat all
people's beliefs equally under law who don't necessarily affiliate with an organized religion, so
the common factor I have found regardless of having a particular faith is one's consent or will)
* freedom of choice/right to choose/prochoice
* civil liberties
NOTE: Christians recognize that man's free will is limited to be within laws of nature/God
where we cannot will things outside our reality or power/control.
But generally recognize that God made man with free will, where this notion of
"Forgiveness" cannot be forced on people but must be chosen freely, where we AGREE to receive or grant forgiveness.

Indirectly this notion of free will is expressed as
* consent of the governed, or informed consent, as the basis of civil laws and contracts
* no taxation without representation (another way of saying people must consent to policies we pay for)

I don't know anyone who disagree with this, when it comes to what THAT person believes in,
consent or dissents.

The main problem I find is
* we use different language to express this
* we apply it more to one issue than another (ie whether we don't consent to
gun laws, abortion laws, health care laws, marriage laws, immigration laws)
* we defend our own rights and beliefs but don't always respect the same of our neighbors doing the same thing

We are all arguing for our right to consent and no taxation without representing us,
but we don't enforce this standard equally; we are selectively defending one issue while
attacking someone else's equal right to consent or dissent on another issue.

B. we Express this free will and our right to consent or dissent by other laws
* freedom of speech or of the press (spoken or written communications)
* right to assemble and to petition for redress of grievances (protesting or voicing objections especially)
* due process of law / equal access to democratic process of representation or legal defense
This area has been monopolized by privatized or politicized interests, which results
in legal and legislative "bullying" to abuse "greater force" to overpower the opposition or dissension.

Again, everyone I know naturally invokes and exercises their
rights to defense, to petition and seek due process by
"freedom of speech, or of the press" as natural law that all human beings follow  as part of our collective social behavior
and growth toward democratic self-government for sustainable peace and justice.

Every human being I've ever met was striving for peace/security and freedom/justice by their terms
to feel secure.  So all natural rights stem from this inherent will in people, and how they express it in society.

C. Some areas where people disagree on what is natural rights and what is political/depending on govt
1. right to bear arms and right to vote
I say these are partially dependent on the govt system and whether people are defending the law.
Where people protest these rights is where they fear people seek to abuse them without check for criminal purposes
and therefore demand greater regulation to prevent abuse.
2. right to life and right to health care
Again, people disagree to what degree govt can or cannot regulate or impose these.
From abortion to the death penalty, euthanasia and suicide, I've just about heard it all.
Even the right to homicide without punishment, yes I've heard and talked to people regarding beliefs in that degree of freedom.
3. right to marriage, to livable housing and work conditions
This gets into areas where people don't agree between rights and privileges,
govt duty and free market, state vs. federal govt.

I believe we are reaching a level of self-governance where we should host
Constitutional conferences and decide where to draw the line between
public and private, which may vary from one region or state to the next.

Some may still depend on federal govt, but some populations or groups
may be ready to take on self-govt, or invest in private organizations to handle social programs
and not run these through govt.

The more we reward people, groups or states with tax breaks for taking on responsibilities
for managing social and educational programs locally, the less burden on federal govt, and the more the central
govt can focus on national security and emergency/disasters, while letting citizens handle
the mundane level of social programs locally. 

Especially in areas we don't agree on, we may need to delegate these by party or by
groups which do share the same beliefs, and not impose that publicly through govt except
where it affects public safety and national security on a global scale.

sorry frigidweirdo for the long response
in short where I would summarize what are the basic natural laws and human rights
A. free exercise of religion, free will  or individual "executive" power to carry out or act on our beliefs (note: this and other freedoms are still checked and balanced with the right of all people peaceably to assemble and to petition for redress of grievances, so none of these rights/freedoms in the First Amendment can be abused to the point of violating the same of others without breaking the very natural law that embraces all of these together in context)
B. freedom of speech or individual "judicial" power to speak our opinions and interpretations of what is consistent with truth and justice, and express our consent or dissent
C. freedom of the press or individual "legislative" power to write out our agreements and contracts, our terms and records, and to share information for educated choice and informed consent
D. the right peaceably to assemble to petition for redress of grievances
(combination of right of security and right of due process of law that is spelled out in other amendments more specifically)
E. I would add the Fourteenth Amendment on equal protection of the laws (and
Civil Rights language against discrimination by creed which I use to cover religious
and political beliefs equally).

Everyone I know naturally exercises these. 
All OTHER beliefs (religious or political) we may or may not agree on, fall under "free exercise of religion" and "equal protection of the laws from discrimination by creed"

See sources posted: ethics-commission.net
As the minimal laws I would recommend citizens learn in order to 
exercise and enforce equal rights and authority as government.


----------



## HUGGY

*The Right To Bear Arms*

I would prefer that we arm bears.


----------



## frigidweirdo

emilynghiem said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, only you decide if you are willing to concede your inalienable rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> NRA gun nutters are the greatest threat to my future gun rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you conceded your inalienable right to kill people yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ? frigidweirdo
> To kill someone violates their free will, freedom of choice, or free exercise of religion
> where they believe they have the right to live.  That is against their First Amendment
> rights which indirectly protect the right to life as a belief, as well as right to choose,
> not to mention their right to assemble in peace and to petition to redress grievances.
> If I deny the right to protest and petition for a different outcome they consent to,
> I'd also be violating First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to equal protection of the laws.
> 
> To use arms to defend laws or for defense, there is the Constitutional principle of
> "due process of law" -- if we don't violate this by forcing punishments on people or depriving them of liberty "without due process," then we won't have these problems to being with of using force for offense or defense.
> 
> If someone is killed or they are raped, robbed, assaulted, "punished or deprived of liberty without due process", or otherwise afflicted with any crime abuse or violation against their will, they are not being "equally protected" as the person inflicting their will on the other person. So that's not equal protection or equal justice. The only way to enforce Equal Protection
> or Equal Justice Under Law is to PREVENT all abuses and crimes from violating someone's rights in the first place, i e, respect the CONSENT
> of each person and redress ALL grievances and objections to make decisions by CONSENSUS
> before carrying them out - by mutual AGREEMENT. I believe the spirit of laws and contracts is based on "consent of the governed" so that is the standard of law I support, personally and publicly, in order to enforce a consistent standard for people and for government for equality sake.
> 
> That is why I believe in mediation and conflict resolution to ensure
> the highest possible success rate of reaching consensus (I'd say 80-98% agreement is possible in most cases
> if you remove the time limit and give full free speech so people can redress all grievances freely and fully).
> 
> I am certainly not going to violate the same laws I seek to
> enforce for myself and others equally as a Constitutionalist.
> 
> To kill someone, they'd have to agree to that, first of all, such as in police situations where the police are otherwise unable to stop the person from killing others. Sometimes they can disable the person without necessarily killing them, so I do prefer the least restrictive means that cause the least damage.
> 
> I am not a trained officer, and would likely die at the hand of someone acting that way before I could defend myself.
> 
> If they don't want to live they can choose to quit eating and die of starvation, choose to give up their will to live and die of depression etc.  Choose not to ask for help, and choose to refuse any offer of help given to them.
> 
> It is not my place to hasten the process even if they do consent to die.
> I would have them seek spiritual mental and medical counseling if they go down that route
> as I believe most lives can be saved. I have found that even criminal illness can be cured if cases are caught early enough where the person receives full therapy and is detained or supervised to avoid harming themselves or others during rehab that can take 10-25 years if it is cureable at all in severe cases.
> 
> But if they choose not to listen and cut off all support, I can't force them to live any more than
> I can force someone to die.  I can offer help, support and better options but can't force people to choose them.
> 
> The only thing that can compel people to choose to do things beyond their will is God's will through prayer. So I learned to respect why Christians pray and hold the authority of Christ Jesus in the highest regard, because it has saved lives and healed people of mental, physical and even criminal illnesses that otherwise kill people.
> 
> The same prayers for forgiveness and healing that have "miraculously" saved lives from death from addiction, abuse, crime and disease
> ALSO heal relationships and allow people to resolve conflicts we didn't think were possible either.
> 
> Because I am secular gentile, and most of my friends are more secular than I am,
> I support medical research and scientific proof of how spiritual healing works to heal
> physical, mental and even criminal illness to solve a lot of our problems with the current
> mental health, criminal justice and political systems under govt. We can save more
> money and more lives, but the research and development has to be established by
> secular and scientific means. Currently the effective methods of spiritual healing that have been proven through limited studies are consistently practiced in faith based circles, but not yet understood by the general public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I know all of that. I wasn't seriously suggesting there was a right to take someone's life.
> 
> What I was getting at more was, who decides what are "inalienable rights"? I mean, in the rest of the world, owning a gun is not an "inalienable right", but in the US people think it is. So who decides?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo
> I find people naturally agree on this, though they express it differently.
> To make this clearly agreed upon, I do think we need a Constitutional conference
> so everyone is on the same page with these concepts, and the language different groups use for the same principles.
> 
> A. I have found everyone I know believes in their own free will, right to consent and dissent.
> Every human being I've met practices this every day.  We defend our beliefs, interests and will naturally as human beings
> with "free will reason and conscience"
> 
> This is a natural law, which I would put into legal terms as
> * free exercise of religion (the reason I equate or expand this as free will is to treat all
> people's beliefs equally under law who don't necessarily affiliate with an organized religion, so
> the common factor I have found regardless of having a particular faith is one's consent or will)
> * freedom of choice/right to choose/prochoice
> * civil liberties
> NOTE: Christians recognize that man's free will is limited to be within laws of nature/God
> where we cannot will things outside our reality or power/control.
> But generally recognize that God made man with free will, where this notion of
> "Forgiveness" cannot be forced on people but must be chosen freely, where we AGREE to receive or grant forgiveness.
> 
> Indirectly this notion of free will is expressed as
> * consent of the governed, or informed consent, as the basis of civil laws and contracts
> * no taxation without representation (another way of saying people must consent to policies we pay for)
> 
> I don't know anyone who disagree with this, when it comes to what THAT person believes in,
> consent or dissents.
> 
> The main problem I find is
> * we use different language to express this
> * we apply it more to one issue than another (ie whether we don't consent to
> gun laws, abortion laws, health care laws, marriage laws, immigration laws)
> * we defend our own rights and beliefs but don't always respect the same of our neighbors doing the same thing
> 
> We are all arguing for our right to consent and no taxation without representing us,
> but we don't enforce this standard equally; we are selectively defending one issue while
> attacking someone else's equal right to consent or dissent on another issue.
> 
> B. we Express this free will and our right to consent or dissent by other laws
> * freedom of speech or of the press (spoken or written communications)
> * right to assemble and to petition for redress of grievances (protesting or voicing objections especially)
> * due process of law / equal access to democratic process of representation or legal defense
> This area has been monopolized by privatized or politicized interests, which results
> in legal and legislative "bullying" to abuse "greater force" to overpower the opposition or dissension.
> 
> Again, everyone I know naturally invokes and exercises their
> rights to defense, to petition and seek due process by
> "freedom of speech, or of the press" as natural law that all human beings follow  as part of our collective social behavior
> and growth toward democratic self-government for sustainable peace and justice.
> 
> Every human being I've ever met was striving for peace/security and freedom/justice by their terms
> to feel secure.  So all natural rights stem from this inherent will in people, and how they express it in society.
> 
> C. Some areas where people disagree on what is natural rights and what is political/depending on govt
> 1. right to bear arms and right to vote
> I say these are partially dependent on the govt system and whether people are defending the law.
> Where people protest these rights is where they fear people seek to abuse them without check for criminal purposes
> and therefore demand greater regulation to prevent abuse.
> 2. right to life and right to health care
> Again, people disagree to what degree govt can or cannot regulate or impose these.
> From abortion to the death penalty, euthanasia and suicide, I've just about heard it all.
> Even the right to homicide without punishment, yes I've heard and talked to people regarding beliefs in that degree of freedom.
> 3. right to marriage, to livable housing and work conditions
> This gets into areas where people don't agree between rights and privileges,
> govt duty and free market, state vs. federal govt.
> 
> I believe we are reaching a level of self-governance where we should host
> Constitutional conferences and decide where to draw the line between
> public and private, which may vary from one region or state to the next.
> 
> Some may still depend on federal govt, but some populations or groups
> may be ready to take on self-govt, or invest in private organizations to handle social programs
> and not run these through govt.
> 
> The more we reward people, groups or states with tax breaks for taking on responsibilities
> for managing social and educational programs locally, the less burden on federal govt, and the more the central
> govt can focus on national security and emergency/disasters, while letting citizens handle
> the mundane level of social programs locally.
> 
> Especially in areas we don't agree on, we may need to delegate these by party or by
> groups which do share the same beliefs, and not impose that publicly through govt except
> where it affects public safety and national security on a global scale.
Click to expand...


Surely what is needed is kids being taught this stuff in school. Then most people would be on the same page.


----------



## emilynghiem

frigidweirdo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, only you decide if you are willing to concede your inalienable rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you conceded your inalienable right to kill people yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ? frigidweirdo
> To kill someone violates their free will, freedom of choice, or free exercise of religion
> where they believe they have the right to live.  That is against their First Amendment
> rights which indirectly protect the right to life as a belief, as well as right to choose,
> not to mention their right to assemble in peace and to petition to redress grievances.
> If I deny the right to protest and petition for a different outcome they consent to,
> I'd also be violating First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to equal protection of the laws.
> 
> To use arms to defend laws or for defense, there is the Constitutional principle of
> "due process of law" -- if we don't violate this by forcing punishments on people or depriving them of liberty "without due process," then we won't have these problems to being with of using force for offense or defense.
> 
> If someone is killed or they are raped, robbed, assaulted, "punished or deprived of liberty without due process", or otherwise afflicted with any crime abuse or violation against their will, they are not being "equally protected" as the person inflicting their will on the other person. So that's not equal protection or equal justice. The only way to enforce Equal Protection
> or Equal Justice Under Law is to PREVENT all abuses and crimes from violating someone's rights in the first place, i e, respect the CONSENT
> of each person and redress ALL grievances and objections to make decisions by CONSENSUS
> before carrying them out - by mutual AGREEMENT. I believe the spirit of laws and contracts is based on "consent of the governed" so that is the standard of law I support, personally and publicly, in order to enforce a consistent standard for people and for government for equality sake.
> 
> That is why I believe in mediation and conflict resolution to ensure
> the highest possible success rate of reaching consensus (I'd say 80-98% agreement is possible in most cases
> if you remove the time limit and give full free speech so people can redress all grievances freely and fully).
> 
> I am certainly not going to violate the same laws I seek to
> enforce for myself and others equally as a Constitutionalist.
> 
> To kill someone, they'd have to agree to that, first of all, such as in police situations where the police are otherwise unable to stop the person from killing others. Sometimes they can disable the person without necessarily killing them, so I do prefer the least restrictive means that cause the least damage.
> 
> I am not a trained officer, and would likely die at the hand of someone acting that way before I could defend myself.
> 
> If they don't want to live they can choose to quit eating and die of starvation, choose to give up their will to live and die of depression etc.  Choose not to ask for help, and choose to refuse any offer of help given to them.
> 
> It is not my place to hasten the process even if they do consent to die.
> I would have them seek spiritual mental and medical counseling if they go down that route
> as I believe most lives can be saved. I have found that even criminal illness can be cured if cases are caught early enough where the person receives full therapy and is detained or supervised to avoid harming themselves or others during rehab that can take 10-25 years if it is cureable at all in severe cases.
> 
> But if they choose not to listen and cut off all support, I can't force them to live any more than
> I can force someone to die.  I can offer help, support and better options but can't force people to choose them.
> 
> The only thing that can compel people to choose to do things beyond their will is God's will through prayer. So I learned to respect why Christians pray and hold the authority of Christ Jesus in the highest regard, because it has saved lives and healed people of mental, physical and even criminal illnesses that otherwise kill people.
> 
> The same prayers for forgiveness and healing that have "miraculously" saved lives from death from addiction, abuse, crime and disease
> ALSO heal relationships and allow people to resolve conflicts we didn't think were possible either.
> 
> Because I am secular gentile, and most of my friends are more secular than I am,
> I support medical research and scientific proof of how spiritual healing works to heal
> physical, mental and even criminal illness to solve a lot of our problems with the current
> mental health, criminal justice and political systems under govt. We can save more
> money and more lives, but the research and development has to be established by
> secular and scientific means. Currently the effective methods of spiritual healing that have been proven through limited studies are consistently practiced in faith based circles, but not yet understood by the general public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I know all of that. I wasn't seriously suggesting there was a right to take someone's life.
> 
> What I was getting at more was, who decides what are "inalienable rights"? I mean, in the rest of the world, owning a gun is not an "inalienable right", but in the US people think it is. So who decides?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo
> I find people naturally agree on this, though they express it differently.
> To make this clearly agreed upon, I do think we need a Constitutional conference
> so everyone is on the same page with these concepts, and the language different groups use for the same principles.
> 
> A. I have found everyone I know believes in their own free will, right to consent and dissent.
> Every human being I've met practices this every day.  We defend our beliefs, interests and will naturally as human beings
> with "free will reason and conscience"
> 
> This is a natural law, which I would put into legal terms as
> * free exercise of religion (the reason I equate or expand this as free will is to treat all
> people's beliefs equally under law who don't necessarily affiliate with an organized religion, so
> the common factor I have found regardless of having a particular faith is one's consent or will)
> * freedom of choice/right to choose/prochoice
> * civil liberties
> NOTE: Christians recognize that man's free will is limited to be within laws of nature/God
> where we cannot will things outside our reality or power/control.
> But generally recognize that God made man with free will, where this notion of
> "Forgiveness" cannot be forced on people but must be chosen freely, where we AGREE to receive or grant forgiveness.
> 
> Indirectly this notion of free will is expressed as
> * consent of the governed, or informed consent, as the basis of civil laws and contracts
> * no taxation without representation (another way of saying people must consent to policies we pay for)
> 
> I don't know anyone who disagree with this, when it comes to what THAT person believes in,
> consent or dissents.
> 
> The main problem I find is
> * we use different language to express this
> * we apply it more to one issue than another (ie whether we don't consent to
> gun laws, abortion laws, health care laws, marriage laws, immigration laws)
> * we defend our own rights and beliefs but don't always respect the same of our neighbors doing the same thing
> 
> We are all arguing for our right to consent and no taxation without representing us,
> but we don't enforce this standard equally; we are selectively defending one issue while
> attacking someone else's equal right to consent or dissent on another issue.
> 
> B. we Express this free will and our right to consent or dissent by other laws
> * freedom of speech or of the press (spoken or written communications)
> * right to assemble and to petition for redress of grievances (protesting or voicing objections especially)
> * due process of law / equal access to democratic process of representation or legal defense
> This area has been monopolized by privatized or politicized interests, which results
> in legal and legislative "bullying" to abuse "greater force" to overpower the opposition or dissension.
> 
> Again, everyone I know naturally invokes and exercises their
> rights to defense, to petition and seek due process by
> "freedom of speech, or of the press" as natural law that all human beings follow  as part of our collective social behavior
> and growth toward democratic self-government for sustainable peace and justice.
> 
> Every human being I've ever met was striving for peace/security and freedom/justice by their terms
> to feel secure.  So all natural rights stem from this inherent will in people, and how they express it in society.
> 
> C. Some areas where people disagree on what is natural rights and what is political/depending on govt
> 1. right to bear arms and right to vote
> I say these are partially dependent on the govt system and whether people are defending the law.
> Where people protest these rights is where they fear people seek to abuse them without check for criminal purposes
> and therefore demand greater regulation to prevent abuse.
> 2. right to life and right to health care
> Again, people disagree to what degree govt can or cannot regulate or impose these.
> From abortion to the death penalty, euthanasia and suicide, I've just about heard it all.
> Even the right to homicide without punishment, yes I've heard and talked to people regarding beliefs in that degree of freedom.
> 3. right to marriage, to livable housing and work conditions
> This gets into areas where people don't agree between rights and privileges,
> govt duty and free market, state vs. federal govt.
> 
> I believe we are reaching a level of self-governance where we should host
> Constitutional conferences and decide where to draw the line between
> public and private, which may vary from one region or state to the next.
> 
> Some may still depend on federal govt, but some populations or groups
> may be ready to take on self-govt, or invest in private organizations to handle social programs
> and not run these through govt.
> 
> The more we reward people, groups or states with tax breaks for taking on responsibilities
> for managing social and educational programs locally, the less burden on federal govt, and the more the central
> govt can focus on national security and emergency/disasters, while letting citizens handle
> the mundane level of social programs locally.
> 
> Especially in areas we don't agree on, we may need to delegate these by party or by
> groups which do share the same beliefs, and not impose that publicly through govt except
> where it affects public safety and national security on a global scale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Surely what is needed is kids being taught this stuff in school. Then most people would be on the same page.
Click to expand...


Yes, right now I've been busy just trying to get adults on the same page.
If we don't stop the political bullying over this, who is going to be
in any position to teach kids to follow rules and quit bullying?


----------



## emilynghiem

HUGGY said:


> *The Right To Bear Arms*
> 
> I would prefer that we arm bears.


 
ha ha HUGGY 
And I'd rather that we bear hugging 
instead of hugging bears!


----------



## emilynghiem

turtledude said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> NRA gun nutters are the greatest threat to my future gun rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your devotion to idiots like Hilary is the greatest threat to the rights of REAL GUN OWNERS
Click to expand...


Well, Obama sent gun sales to new record highs.
Maybe Hillary will prove to have a similar effect.

The same can be said of whether LGBT or Christian opposing beliefs
are more a threat to each other, or they actually strengthen the support for the opposing camp
the more they fight. (That happened with DOMA and BANS on same sex marriage,
that had the opposite effect of providing legal leverage to push for marriage equality that won in court.)


----------



## hunarcy

Lakhota said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not surprising that the Prog-Left doesn't grok the 2nd Amendment.  Their worldview is is consumed with Group Identity; hence they do not understand that the Bill of Rights is designed to protect INDIVIDUAL Rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does he grok it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And NaziCons eat it up.  Lies only matter to them - when spoken by a Democrat.  Funny...
Click to expand...


Funny how Democrats excuse lies and say, "no one believes campaign promises, but get OUTRAGED when they find a comment from a republican that might be inaccurate.


----------



## candycorn

hunarcy said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not surprising that the Prog-Left doesn't grok the 2nd Amendment.  Their worldview is is consumed with Group Identity; hence they do not understand that the Bill of Rights is designed to protect INDIVIDUAL Rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does he grok it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And NaziCons eat it up.  Lies only matter to them - when spoken by a Democrat.  Funny...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny how Democrats excuse lies and say, "no one believes campaign promises, but get OUTRAGED when they find a comment from a republican that might be inaccurate.
Click to expand...


Inaccurate?  

Drumpf likes banning assault weapons.  That is a quote from him when he wasn’t trying to get anyone’s votes….  In other words; it is what he really feels.  

Drumpf likes a longer waiting period.  That is a quote from him when he wasn’t trying to get anyone’s votes…. In other words; it is what he really feels.

There is no question about lies or inaccuracy; Small fractions of men are are entitled to their opinions too.  

You don’t have to vote for him if you don’t like what he stands for.


----------



## emilynghiem

hunarcy said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not surprising that the Prog-Left doesn't grok the 2nd Amendment.  Their worldview is is consumed with Group Identity; hence they do not understand that the Bill of Rights is designed to protect INDIVIDUAL Rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does he grok it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And NaziCons eat it up.  Lies only matter to them - when spoken by a Democrat.  Funny...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny how Democrats excuse lies and say, "no one believes campaign promises, but get OUTRAGED when they find a comment from a republican that might be inaccurate.
Click to expand...


Dear hunarcy Can you IMAGINE if the laws on false advertising applied to political campaign ads?
When companies make mistakes in ads, and are forced to either fill orders at that price or face financial penalties per incident,
people have been known to cash in and take advantage.

What if taxpayers actually called political leaders and parties on their own printed and published advertising?
We could collect enough in damages to pay off the debts charged to citizens.  Look at the trillions in spending on war efforts alone.
If we argued for "misrepresentation" and demanded refunds of war contracts to be reimbursed to taxpayers,
we'd have enough credits to rebuild the health care system and other govt reforms without raising any new taxes.


----------



## hunarcy

emilynghiem said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not surprising that the Prog-Left doesn't grok the 2nd Amendment.  Their worldview is is consumed with Group Identity; hence they do not understand that the Bill of Rights is designed to protect INDIVIDUAL Rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does he grok it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And NaziCons eat it up.  Lies only matter to them - when spoken by a Democrat.  Funny...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny how Democrats excuse lies and say, "no one believes campaign promises, but get OUTRAGED when they find a comment from a republican that might be inaccurate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear hunarcy Can you IMAGINE if the laws on false advertising applied to political campaign ads?
> When companies make mistakes in ads, and are forced to either fill orders at that price or face financial penalties per incident,
> people have been known to cash in and take advantage.
> 
> What if taxpayers actually called political leaders and parties on their own printed and published advertising?
> We could collect enough in damages to pay off the debts charged to citizens.  Look at the trillions in spending on war efforts alone.
> If we argued for "misrepresentation" and demanded refunds of war contracts to be reimbursed to taxpayers,
> we'd have enough credits to rebuild the health care system and other govt reforms without raising any new taxes.
Click to expand...


well, of course there would have to be laws in force to collect such settlements and you KNOW the politicians exempt themselves from every annoying law.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Lakhota said:


> NRA gun nutters are the greatest threat to my future gun rights.


Whatever the fuck an "NRA Gun Nutter" might mean to Chief Running Bullshit.

As usual, it appears that Dorkhota confuses supporters of the Second Amendment with "nuts."


----------



## ChrisL

The NRA is not an "evil group."  They are a group that is concerned with preserving one of our constitutionally guaranteed rights, and they have just as much a right to "lobby" the government as any other group.  

If you are going to put down one for lobbying, then you must be against those who lobby for the things that YOU think are important as well.  Get real.


----------



## kaz

waltky said:


> Maybe not obsolete but antiquated, out of date...
> 
> ... it needs to be updated to reflect the times...
> 
> ... and the threat of overkill firepower...
> 
> ... for the average citizen.



Sure.  The framers actually anticipated that the Constitution would need to be updated.  Here's how you do that:

Article Five of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## kaz

ChrisL said:


> The NRA is not an "evil group."  They are a group that is concerned with preserving one of our constitutionally guaranteed rights, and they have just as much a right to "lobby" the government as any other group.
> 
> If you are going to put down one for lobbying, then you must be against those who lobby for the things that YOU think are important as well.  Get real.



Even more than that, the NRA is concerned with teaching gun owners to own and use them safely.  And sure, preserving the right to own them is a critical part of that


----------



## waltky

The NRA is the spirit of Anti-Christ.


----------



## M14 Shooter

waltky said:


> The NRA is the spirit of Anti-Christ.



Good one!


----------



## Lakhota

Hillary won't take our guns.


----------



## P@triot

waltky said:


> The NRA liberal ideology is the spirit of Anti-Christ.


I corrected your mistake for you...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Lakhota said:


> Hillary won't take our guns.



She won't even get elected.


----------



## P@triot




----------



## Lakhota

P@triot said:


> waltky said:
> 
> 
> 
> The NRA liberal ideology is the spirit of Anti-Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> I corrected your mistake for you...
Click to expand...


You actually "altered" a quote - which is against the rules.


----------



## P@triot

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hillary won't take our guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She won't even get elected.
Click to expand...

Let's hope not. What a _nightmare_ that would be.


----------



## P@triot

Lakhota said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> waltky said:
> 
> 
> 
> The NRA liberal ideology is the spirit of Anti-Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> I corrected your mistake for you...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You actually "altered" a quote - which is against the rules.
Click to expand...

You clearly don't grasp the spirit of that rule. Go ahead and report it - watch the mod's laugh at you...

(Psst...if you admit you are "altering" and then make it clear which part you altered - you are not actually "altering" but simply indicating that you believe it needed corrections)


----------



## Lakhota

P@triot said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> waltky said:
> 
> 
> 
> The NRA liberal ideology is the spirit of Anti-Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> I corrected your mistake for you...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You actually "altered" a quote - which is against the rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You clearly don't grasp the spirit of that rule. Go ahead and report it - watch the mod's laugh at you...
> 
> (Psst...if you admit you are "altering" and then make it clear which part you altered - you are not actually "altering" but simply indicating that you believe it needed corrections)
Click to expand...


Not if you leave it in the quote box along with the originator's name.  You need to quote it OUTSIDE the quote box - separate from the originator's name.


----------



## frigidweirdo

P@triot said:


> View attachment 85608



You have to love it when people pick and choose their facts.


----------



## waltky

frigidweirdo wrote: _You have to love it when people pick and choose their facts._

Granny says, "Dat's right...

... some people are bad `bout dat."


----------



## westwall

Lakhota said:


> Hillary won't take our guns.







She disagrees with you...




And here's one of her delegates affirming that philosophy....


----------



## Lakhota

westwall said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hillary won't take our guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She disagrees with you...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here's one of her delegates affirming that philosophy....
Click to expand...


Looks like doctored videos to me.


----------



## westwall

Lakhota said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hillary won't take our guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She disagrees with you...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here's one of her delegates affirming that philosophy....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Looks like doctored videos to me.
Click to expand...








Yeah right.  Face it silly person, she's anti gun and wants to get rid of them so that you can be a proper slave.


----------



## Rustic

P@triot said:


> View attachment 85608


Progressives are the most intolerant of folk...


----------



## billyerock1991

heres the problem with republicans ....they are gullible ... they will believe just about everything they are told by their handlers
Hillary will take your guns away ... do you think she and the entire democrats would be that stupid to try and do that ???  really !!!!! do you ??? hears what they would have to do.... first get every democrat on board to pass legislation in removing the second amendment, how well do you think thats going to work you idiots republicans ??? then get the majority of the people in the country on board with them so they know they can get reelected ... mind you, this is how stupid you republicans are ... you would believe this crap that they would be this stupid to try and remove the second amendment ... I guess your stupidity is cause by your mother and your uncles being your father is the cause ...here we have 294 post saying all kinds of bull shit reason that you believe we Dems will take the second amendment away ... because thats what it is ... right wing bull shit ... they can't come up with any kind of plan to run on,  they rely on you ignorance they intern go after the flag burners, people on welfare, guns, and gays and you fools lap it up ... I can believe republicans are this stupid .... that they feel we democrats would be so stupid to try and repeal the 2 amendment ... a amend meant that we believe that every person should have a gun ... we don't believe that gun should be a AR 15 .. or any automatic weapons ... by us democrats saying this you have been duped into beliebing we will repeal the second amendment, how moronic is that ...


----------



## billyerock1991

westwall said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hillary won't take our guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She disagrees with you...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here's one of her delegates affirming that philosophy....
Click to expand...

are you cable of comprehension at all??? are you really this stupid??? to believe that she wants to take your guns away ??? did you even listen to what she was talking about ???  automatic weapons you fool not your hunting rifle, not your hand gun ... automatic weapons ,,, better back ground check ... keep the mental case from buying guns  ... are you really this stupid that you feel she wants to take your guns away ... then I guess you're mother is your fathers sister ... thats the only way you could be this stupid


----------



## billyerock1991

Lakhota said:


> Hillary won't take our guns.


its sad that these people would believe that every democrat in the house including hillary would be stupid enough to take your guns ...it amazes me how stupid republicans are


----------



## westwall

billyerock1991 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hillary won't take our guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She disagrees with you...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here's one of her delegates affirming that philosophy....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> are you cable of comprehension at all??? are you really this stupid??? to believe that she wants to take your guns away ??? did you even listen to what she was talking about ???  automatic weapons you fool not your hunting rifle, not your hand gun ... automatic weapons ,,, better back ground check ... keep the mental case from buying guns  ... are you really this stupid that you feel she wants to take your guns away ... then I guess you're mother is your fathers sister ... thats the only way you could be this stupid
Click to expand...






Define ALL for the class, please.


----------



## westwall

billyerock1991 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hillary won't take our guns.
> 
> 
> 
> its sad that these people would believe that every democrat in the house including hillary would be stupid enough to take your guns ...it amazes me how stupid republicans are
Click to expand...






No, what is sad is you can hear them actually make the statements that they do, and then you be so devoid of critical thinking that you are unable to add 2+2.  That is sad.


----------



## EatMorChikin

billyerock1991 said:


> heres the problem with republicans ....they are gullible ... they will believe just about everything they are told by their handlers
> Hillary will take your guns away ... do you think she and the entire democrats would be that stupid to try and do that ???  really !!!!! do you ??? hears what they would have to do.... first get every democrat on board to pass legislation in removing the second amendment, how well do you think thats going to work you idiots republicans ??? then get the majority of the people in the country on board with them so they know they can get reelected ... mind you, this is how stupid you republicans are ... you would believe this crap that they would be this stupid to try and remove the second amendment ... I guess your stupidity is cause by your mother and your uncles being your father is the cause ...here we have 294 post saying all kinds of bull shit reason that you believe we Dems will take the second amendment away ... because thats what it is ... right wing bull shit ... they can't come up with any kind of plan to run on,  they rely on you ignorance they intern go after the flag burners, people on welfare, guns, and gays and you fools lap it up ... I can believe republicans are this stupid .... that they feel we democrats would be so stupid to try and repeal the 2 amendment ... a amend meant that we believe that every person should have a gun ... we don't believe that gun should be a AR 15 .. or any automatic weapons ... by us democrats saying this you have been duped into beliebing we will repeal the second amendment, how moronic is that ...



First it's one type, than the next. And why is the Armalite 15 the posterchild for gun control? Because those for gun control, are trying to regulate shit, they know nothing about. Oohhh it's a black scary boogie man gun. As far as I'm concerned, I should have an M-16. The infringement has already went too far. Liberals will not stop, until we are limited to single shot musket loaders.


----------



## owebo

billyerock1991 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hillary won't take our guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She disagrees with you...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here's one of her delegates affirming that philosophy....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> are you cable of comprehension at all??? are you really this stupid??? to believe that she wants to take your guns away ??? did you even listen to what she was talking about ???  automatic weapons you fool not your hunting rifle, not your hand gun ... automatic weapons ,,, better back ground check ... keep the mental case from buying guns  ... are you really this stupid that you feel she wants to take your guns away ... then I guess you're mother is your fathers sister ... thats the only way you could be this stupid
Click to expand...

Are you really this stupid?


----------



## owebo

billyerock1991 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hillary won't take our guns.
> 
> 
> 
> its sad that these people would believe that every democrat in the house including hillary would be stupid enough to take your guns ...it amazes me how stupid republicans are
Click to expand...

We look on in fear, not about your desire to try and take our guns, but at the level of indoctrination you exhibit.  Fixing this is probably the biggest threat America has ever faced......


----------



## EatMorChikin

billyerock1991 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hillary won't take our guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She disagrees with you...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here's one of her delegates affirming that philosophy....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> are you cable of comprehension at all??? are you really this stupid??? to believe that she wants to take your guns away ??? did you even listen to what she was talking about ???  automatic weapons you fool not your hunting rifle, not your hand gun ... automatic weapons ,,, better back ground check ... keep the mental case from buying guns  ... are you really this stupid that you feel she wants to take your guns away ... then I guess you're mother is your fathers sister ... thats the only way you could be this stupid
Click to expand...


You are calling others stupid. But you think we can have automatic weapons. Semi auto is all we have.


----------



## Flash

Lakhota said:


> Hillary won't take our guns.




Crooked Hillary will just use her filthy ass powers as President to enact "common sense" gun control measures that will keep the Second Amendment in place but take away all or many of the rights inherent in the amendment.  Just like they do in the commie states.

It doesn't do you any good if you have the right to keep and bear arms if the fucking piece of shit oppressive government requires that you get permission from them to enjoy the right, like in background checks.

It doesn't do you any good if you have the right to keep and bear arms if the fucking piece of shit oppressive government restricts the types of arms that you can have.

It doesn't do you any good if you have the right to keep and bear arms if the fucking piece of shit oppressive government restricts the ammo that you can have.

It doesn't do you any good if you have the right to keep and bear arms if the fucking piece of shit oppressive government restricts the size of the magazines that you can have.

FHRC.  Only an idiot would vote for her.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The NRA is not an "evil group."  They are a group that is concerned with preserving one of our constitutionally guaranteed rights, and they have just as much a right to "lobby" the government as any other group.
> 
> If you are going to put down one for lobbying, then you must be against those who lobby for the things that YOU think are important as well.  Get real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even more than that, the NRA is concerned with teaching gun owners to own and use them safely.  And sure, preserving the right to own them is a critical part of that
Click to expand...


LOL The NRA is a terrorist organization, it enables the crazy, the criminal and those driven by hate to easily obtain guns.  It opposes any and all restrictions on the gun trade and its supporters are they themselves culpable in the deaths of so many innocent human beings.


----------



## Wry Catcher

ChrisL said:


> The NRA is not an "evil group."  They are a group that is concerned with preserving one of our constitutionally guaranteed rights, and they have just as much a right to "lobby" the government as any other group.
> 
> If you are going to put down one for lobbying, then you must be against those who lobby for the things that YOU think are important as well.  Get real.



You don't seem to understand the distinction between what is lobbying and what is coercion.  

Vote as I say, or we will recruit and fund the campaign of someone who will, is coercion, and that is what the NRA does!  It is extorting the vote of a member of a legislature, _do my bidding or else._


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The NRA is not an "evil group."  They are a group that is concerned with preserving one of our constitutionally guaranteed rights, and they have just as much a right to "lobby" the government as any other group.
> 
> If you are going to put down one for lobbying, then you must be against those who lobby for the things that YOU think are important as well.  Get real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even more than that, the NRA is concerned with teaching gun owners to own and use them safely.  And sure, preserving the right to own them is a critical part of that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL The NRA is a terrorist organization, it enables the crazy, the criminal and those driven by hate to easily obtain guns.  It opposes any and all restrictions on the gun trade and its supporters are they themselves culpable in the deaths of so many innocent human beings.
Click to expand...


They do?  Actually, you murder innocent people by preventing them from defending themselves.  The blood of people in Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, the Washington Navy Yard, Aurora, San Bernardino, Columbine, ... on your hands.  You've done zero to take guns from criminals.

Hey, remember all the crap you spewed on this thread without ever an actual practical proposal to keep guns out of the hands of criminals?  You're a joke.

Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan? 

Your plan?   Keep saying that gun laws work while the one thing we know is ... they don't


----------



## M14 Shooter

billyerock1991 said:


> heres the problem with republicans ....they are gullible ... they will believe just about everything they are told by their handlers.  Hillary will take your guns away


Like Obama, Hillary will enact as many restriction on the rights of the law abiding as she can.
No one questions this, not even you.



> ...a amend meant that we believe that every person should have a gun ... we don't believe that gun should be a AR 15


And so, you seek to ban them.
That is, you seek to ban guns.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> You don't seem to understand the distinction between what is lobbying and what is coercion.
> Vote as I say, or we will recruit and fund the campaign of someone who will, is coercion, and that is what the NRA does!  It is extorting the vote of a member of a legislature, _do my bidding or else._


This is exactly the approach anti-gun loons such as yourself take with regards to gun control.
When we refuse to give you what you want, you cry about our unwillingness to "compromise".

The NRA has the right to support / not support whoever it likes; if you take exception to their tactics, you have the right to form an opposition group to counter it.
Good luck with that.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> LOL The NRA is a terrorist organization...


Mindless nonsense from an anti-gun loon unable to argue from anything other than emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't seem to understand the distinction between what is lobbying and what is coercion.
> Vote as I say, or we will recruit and fund the campaign of someone who will, is coercion, and that is what the NRA does!  It is extorting the vote of a member of a legislature, _do my bidding or else._
> 
> 
> 
> This is exactly the approach anti-gun loons such as yourself take with regards to gun control.
> When we refuse to give you what you want, you cry about our unwillingness to "compromise".
> 
> The NRA has the right to support / not support whoever it likes; if you take exception to their tactics, you have the right to form an opposition group to counter it.
> Good luck with that.
Click to expand...


I don't need to form one, one exists and your attitude as well as the policy of the NRA makes gun controls future sanguine.


----------



## Flash

kaz said:


> [Q
> 
> They do?  Actually, you murder innocent people by preventing them from defending themselves.  The blood of people in Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, the Washington Navy Yard, Aurora, San Bernardino, Columbine, ... on your hands.  You've done zero to take guns from criminals.
> 
> Hey, remember all the crap you spewed on this thread without ever an actual practical proposal to keep guns out of the hands of criminals?  You're a joke.
> 
> Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?
> 
> Your plan?   Keep saying that gun laws work while the one thing we know is ... they don't



The only plan these stupid Moon Bats have is to nullify the Second Amendment through very oppressive requirements.

The Moon Bats really don't give a crap about preventing crime.  In fact the areas where they have the most political support are the highest crime areas in the US like Chicago.

Their plan is to take the power away from the people to resist government oppression because they think somehow they benefit from the government oppression.  Dumbasses!


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't seem to understand the distinction between what is lobbying and what is coercion.
> Vote as I say, or we will recruit and fund the campaign of someone who will, is coercion, and that is what the NRA does!  It is extorting the vote of a member of a legislature, _do my bidding or else._
> 
> 
> 
> This is exactly the approach anti-gun loons such as yourself take with regards to gun control.
> When we refuse to give you what you want, you cry about our unwillingness to "compromise".
> 
> The NRA has the right to support / not support whoever it likes; if you take exception to their tactics, you have the right to form an opposition group to counter it.
> Good luck with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't need to form one, one exists
Click to expand...

There is?  Who?  I need a good laugh.



> and your attitude as well as the policy of the NRA makes gun controls future sanguine.


Only in your wildest fantasies -- you know, the ones about you living in prison.
Since you refuse to offer compromise, there's no reason for the NRA or anyone else to give an inch.


----------



## Flash

Wry Catcher said:


> [
> 
> I don't need to form one, one exists and your attitude as well as the policy of the NRA makes gun controls future sanguine.



You are really an uneducated low information Moon Bat.

The NRA is a grassroots advocate for Constitutional rights with over five million members that is also the largest gun safety organization in the owrld.

Only you filthy ass shithead Libtards hate organizations that promote safety and Constitutional rights.


----------



## Ernie S.

Lakhota said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> waltky said:
> 
> 
> 
> The NRA liberal ideology is the spirit of Anti-Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> I corrected your mistake for you...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You actually "altered" a quote - which is against the rules.
Click to expand...

No, asshole. The altered quote appears with original and well delineated new content. The rule is about altering the meaning of someone's post to discredit them.


----------



## P@triot

frigidweirdo said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 85608
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have to love it when people pick and choose their facts.
Click to expand...

Right? I've always wondered why liberals do that.


----------



## P@triot

Lakhota said:


> Looks like doctored videos to me.


_Every_ time someone smacks Laky in her face with an indisputable video she cries "doctored". 

Sweetie....it's time to remove the little tinfoil hat and simply accept reality. Nobody is using Hollywood CGI "magic" to "trick" you. These are real videos showing what _really_ happened.


----------



## P@triot

billyerock1991 said:


> heres the problem with republicans ....they are gullible ... they will believe just about everything they are told by their handlers
> Hillary will take your guns away ... do you think she and the entire democrats would be that stupid to try and do that ???  really !!!!! do you ??? *hears* what they would have to do....


Do I believe Dumbocrats are dumb enough to do that? Yes. Yes I do. And *here* is why: because you liberals are so stupid, so brainwashed, and so ignorant that you can't even form proper sentences. You actually just used the word hears when it should have been here's (hear is to listen, here's is a contraction of here is). You just illustrated how dumb you people are while proclaiming that Dumbocrats wouldn't be dumb enough to do something. The irony is fall down hilarious.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't seem to understand the distinction between what is lobbying and what is coercion.
> Vote as I say, or we will recruit and fund the campaign of someone who will, is coercion, and that is what the NRA does!  It is extorting the vote of a member of a legislature, _do my bidding or else._
> 
> 
> 
> This is exactly the approach anti-gun loons such as yourself take with regards to gun control.
> When we refuse to give you what you want, you cry about our unwillingness to "compromise".
> 
> The NRA has the right to support / not support whoever it likes; if you take exception to their tactics, you have the right to form an opposition group to counter it.
> Good luck with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need to form one, one exists and your attitude as well as the policy of the NRA makes gun controls future sanguine.
Click to expand...


So your next step, disarm honest citizens while doing nothing about the guns owned by criminals.  Then what?


----------



## P@triot

billyerock1991 said:


> its sad that these people would believe that every democrat in the house including hillary would be stupid enough to take your guns ...it amazes me how stupid republicans are


Says the uneducated jack-ass who said "*hears* why"...


----------



## P@triot

Wry Catcher said:


> I don't need to form one, one exists and your attitude as well as the policy of the NRA makes gun *control*s future sanguine.


It's always the same with libtards - _control_. Liberty scares the hell out of these small children. They grew up with parents thinking for them and providing for them and now that they are all grown up they still want someone in that role.


----------



## EatMorChikin

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The NRA is not an "evil group."  They are a group that is concerned with preserving one of our constitutionally guaranteed rights, and they have just as much a right to "lobby" the government as any other group.
> 
> If you are going to put down one for lobbying, then you must be against those who lobby for the things that YOU think are important as well.  Get real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even more than that, the NRA is concerned with teaching gun owners to own and use them safely.  And sure, preserving the right to own them is a critical part of that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL The NRA is a terrorist organization, it enables the crazy, the criminal and those driven by hate to easily obtain guns.  It opposes any and all restrictions on the gun trade and its supporters are they themselves culpable in the deaths of so many innocent human beings.
Click to expand...


The government has absolutely zero business restricting firearms. That right wasn't given to us by the government.

The NRA just looks out for us. Andi t is not the NRA, out killing people. You sure are uninformed, and have much vitriol aimed in the wrong direction.


----------



## P@triot

Wry Catcher said:


> You don't seem to understand the distinction between what is lobbying and what is coercion.


Exactly! Liberals never do. Lobbying is what conservatives do. Coercion is what liberals do through government at the barrel of a gun (ironic since they want to ban them).


----------



## kaz

EatMorChikin said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The NRA is not an "evil group."  They are a group that is concerned with preserving one of our constitutionally guaranteed rights, and they have just as much a right to "lobby" the government as any other group.
> 
> If you are going to put down one for lobbying, then you must be against those who lobby for the things that YOU think are important as well.  Get real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even more than that, the NRA is concerned with teaching gun owners to own and use them safely.  And sure, preserving the right to own them is a critical part of that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL The NRA is a terrorist organization, it enables the crazy, the criminal and those driven by hate to easily obtain guns.  It opposes any and all restrictions on the gun trade and its supporters are they themselves culpable in the deaths of so many innocent human beings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government has absolutely zero business restricting firearms. That right wasn't given to us by the government.
> 
> The NRA just looks out for us. Andi t is not the NRA, out killing people. You sure are uninformed, and have much vitriol aimed in the wrong direction.
Click to expand...


Yes, it's what a dumb ass Wry is.  The NRA fights to keep honest citizens armed and also trains us to use guns effectively and safely.

Wry's like OMG, honest citizens armed and trained!   That's just killing people!   Only criminals should have guns!  That would be so much safer


----------



## kaz

P@triot said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't seem to understand the distinction between what is lobbying and what is coercion.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly! Liberals never do. Lobbying is what conservatives do. Coercion is what liberals do through government at the barrel of a gun (ironic since they want to ban them).
Click to expand...


Yes, don't you love it?  Wry wants government to have guns, not citizens.  You know, because we can trust cops, not citizens.  Then he's all on how cops are killing black kids.  The only consistency in Wry is hypocrisy


----------



## waltky

Uncle Ferd likes dem bare arms...

... on dem beach volleyball ladies.


----------



## westwall

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The NRA is not an "evil group."  They are a group that is concerned with preserving one of our constitutionally guaranteed rights, and they have just as much a right to "lobby" the government as any other group.
> 
> If you are going to put down one for lobbying, then you must be against those who lobby for the things that YOU think are important as well.  Get real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even more than that, the NRA is concerned with teaching gun owners to own and use them safely.  And sure, preserving the right to own them is a critical part of that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL The NRA is a terrorist organization, it enables the crazy, the criminal and those driven by hate to easily obtain guns.  It opposes any and all restrictions on the gun trade and its supporters are they themselves culpable in the deaths of so many innocent human beings.
Click to expand...






The NRA has done more for public safety than you ever have.  Tens of thousands of kids have been saved from harm because of NRA safety programs.   Your propaganda attack on them merely shows you to be the fascist you truly are.


----------



## westwall

Wry Catcher said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The NRA is not an "evil group."  They are a group that is concerned with preserving one of our constitutionally guaranteed rights, and they have just as much a right to "lobby" the government as any other group.
> 
> If you are going to put down one for lobbying, then you must be against those who lobby for the things that YOU think are important as well.  Get real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't seem to understand the distinction between what is lobbying and what is coercion.
> 
> Vote as I say, or we will recruit and fund the campaign of someone who will, is coercion, and that is what the NRA does!  It is extorting the vote of a member of a legislature, _do my bidding or else._
Click to expand...






Government is the only entity in the US with the power of coercion.  That is a fascist tool, and look at you the fascist who wants to disarm the PEOPLE of the USA.


----------



## kaz

westwall said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The NRA is not an "evil group."  They are a group that is concerned with preserving one of our constitutionally guaranteed rights, and they have just as much a right to "lobby" the government as any other group.
> 
> If you are going to put down one for lobbying, then you must be against those who lobby for the things that YOU think are important as well.  Get real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't seem to understand the distinction between what is lobbying and what is coercion.
> 
> Vote as I say, or we will recruit and fund the campaign of someone who will, is coercion, and that is what the NRA does!  It is extorting the vote of a member of a legislature, _do my bidding or else._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government is the only entity in the US with the power of coercion.  That is a fascist tool, and look at you the fascist who wants to disarm the PEOPLE of the USA.
Click to expand...


Yes, leftists live in hysterical fear of CEOs who can't make them do anything, then they blindly trust government, the only entity that can compel you to do things against your own interest because only they can use guns to compel you to do it


----------



## westwall

kaz said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The NRA is not an "evil group."  They are a group that is concerned with preserving one of our constitutionally guaranteed rights, and they have just as much a right to "lobby" the government as any other group.
> 
> If you are going to put down one for lobbying, then you must be against those who lobby for the things that YOU think are important as well.  Get real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't seem to understand the distinction between what is lobbying and what is coercion.
> 
> Vote as I say, or we will recruit and fund the campaign of someone who will, is coercion, and that is what the NRA does!  It is extorting the vote of a member of a legislature, _do my bidding or else._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government is the only entity in the US with the power of coercion.  That is a fascist tool, and look at you the fascist who wants to disarm the PEOPLE of the USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, leftists live in hysterical fear of CEOs who can't make them do anything, then they blindly trust government, the only entity that can compel you to do things against your own interest because only they can use guns to compel you to do it
Click to expand...






It is a particularly weird form of mental illness.  That is for certain.  It is astonishing that a thinking person would even attempt to label the NRA as a terrorist organization.  They are for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals while fascists like wry here, is all for releasing violent criminals back out into society so that they can commit their terrible crimes.  The only terrorist in this thread is wry catcher.  And provably so.


----------



## Flash

EatMorChikin said:


> [
> 
> 
> The government has absolutely zero business restricting firearms. That right wasn't given to us by the government.
> 
> The NRA just looks out for us. Andi t is not the NRA, out killing people. You sure are uninformed, and have much vitriol aimed in the wrong direction.



These stupid uneducated low information Moon Bats have absolutely no understanding of what "shall not be infringed" means.  They think it means that the government can infringe or something.

However, I think the real truth is that they are not as stupid as we think they are.  Nobody is really that stupid, not even these Libtards.  They know what a Constitutional right is the same as we do.  They know what "shall not be infringed" means the same as we do.  They just don't like this country having that as a Constitutional Right because they are afraid of the people having the power to resist government oppression, which they like. 

They hate the NRA because the NRA is an effective Constitutional Rights protection organization.  Haters gonna hate.


----------



## Wry Catcher

westwall said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The NRA is not an "evil group."  They are a group that is concerned with preserving one of our constitutionally guaranteed rights, and they have just as much a right to "lobby" the government as any other group.
> 
> If you are going to put down one for lobbying, then you must be against those who lobby for the things that YOU think are important as well.  Get real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even more than that, the NRA is concerned with teaching gun owners to own and use them safely.  And sure, preserving the right to own them is a critical part of that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL The NRA is a terrorist organization, it enables the crazy, the criminal and those driven by hate to easily obtain guns.  It opposes any and all restrictions on the gun trade and its supporters are they themselves culpable in the deaths of so many innocent human beings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The NRA has done more for public safety than you ever have.  Tens of thousands of kids have been saved from harm because of NRA safety programs.   Your propaganda attack on them merely shows you to be the fascist you truly are.
Click to expand...


LOL, my opinion is and remains that the NRA enables criminals, the insane, addicts and all around haters easy access to guns.  Your little ad hominem does not refute my claim.  

There is no doubt safety programs are good and prevent accidents, now the NRA needs to expand safety by figuring out a way to restrict guns to people who have taken such courses, have passed a comprehensive background check and can be denied access to guns and ammo if they commit any future act which would have made guns inaccessible to them, i.e. licensing and registration.


----------



## P@triot

Wry Catcher said:


> LOL, *my opinion* is and remains that the NRA enables criminals, the insane, addicts and all around haters easy access to guns.  Your little ad hominem does not refute my claim.


And that's just it - it is just your opinions and they are uneducated opinions at that. The rest of us know that it is a reality that the NRA protects the 2nd Amendment, promotes and provides gun safety and proper gun use, and ensures that American's retain their right to defend themselves.


----------



## Flash

Wry Catcher said:


> [Q
> 
> LOL, my opinion is and remains that the NRA enables criminals, the insane, addicts and all around haters easy access to guns.  Your little ad hominem does not refute my claim.
> 
> There is no doubt safety programs are good and prevent accidents, now the NRA needs to expand safety by figuring out a way to restrict guns to people who have taken such courses, have passed a comprehensive background check and can be denied access to guns and ammo if they commit any future act which would have made guns inaccessible to them, i.e. licensing and registration.



You are confused Moon Bat.

The NRA is a Constitutional rights protection lobby and a gun safety organization.  The largest gun safety organization in the world.

The NRA advocates adhering to all laws and regulations, especially the Constitution and using firearms for legal purposes.

It is not the fault of the NRA that some thug uses a gun in a crime.  It is not the fault of the NRA that firearms are used in an illegal or irresponsible manner.

You Moon Bats never seem to understand the concept of personal responsibility so you are always looking to blame somebody else for your sorriness.

That is one of the reasons we ridicule you so much for being shitheads.  You never get it right.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The NRA is not an "evil group."  They are a group that is concerned with preserving one of our constitutionally guaranteed rights, and they have just as much a right to "lobby" the government as any other group.
> 
> If you are going to put down one for lobbying, then you must be against those who lobby for the things that YOU think are important as well.  Get real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even more than that, the NRA is concerned with teaching gun owners to own and use them safely.  And sure, preserving the right to own them is a critical part of that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL The NRA is a terrorist organization, it enables the crazy, the criminal and those driven by hate to easily obtain guns.  It opposes any and all restrictions on the gun trade and its supporters are they themselves culpable in the deaths of so many innocent human beings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The NRA has done more for public safety than you ever have.  Tens of thousands of kids have been saved from harm because of NRA safety programs.   Your propaganda attack on them merely shows you to be the fascist you truly are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, my opinion is and remains that the NRA enables criminals, the insane, addicts and all around haters easy access to guns.  Your little ad hominem does not refute my claim.
> 
> There is no doubt safety programs are good and prevent accidents, now the NRA needs to expand safety by figuring out a way to restrict guns to people who have taken such courses, have passed a comprehensive background check and can be denied access to guns and ammo if they commit any future act which would have made guns inaccessible to them, i.e. licensing and registration.
Click to expand...


Note again all you propose is restricting gun access to honest citizens.  Not one of your proposals has anything to do with criminals who just buy them illegally.  That's why you keep ignoring responses to your stupid ideas


----------



## paulitician

Seriously, y'all 'Safe Space' pussies are gonna have to move to a pussy country like France, England, Belgium, and so on. America's a tough place. It always has been. It's not for the weak and whiny.

Folks have the right to bear arms. If you can't handle that, move to another country. If you don't wanna do that, just quit your whining and go hide in your 'Safe Spaces'. Folks are gonna have their guns. Deal with it.


----------



## Afterword

There is no practical way to disarm the populous. It would require country wide marshal law resulting in a lengthy but temporary police state. The actions required would be much too extreme.

Banning high capacity magazines would require the same extreme measures to be effective. Like firearms, there are too many out there already and in anticipation of a Clinton presidency I am sure they are both flying of the shelves as I write this. Besides, where there is a demand there will always be a supply to fulfill its needs.


----------



## Uncensored2008

meson said:


> Yipper it's as obsolete as a muzzle loader imho.



Then all you anti-liberty leftists should band together to get a constitutional amendment going to repeal it. That is the ONLY legal way to end the right of the peasants to have arms.


----------



## EatMorChikin

Wry Catcher said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The NRA is not an "evil group."  They are a group that is concerned with preserving one of our constitutionally guaranteed rights, and they have just as much a right to "lobby" the government as any other group.
> 
> If you are going to put down one for lobbying, then you must be against those who lobby for the things that YOU think are important as well.  Get real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even more than that, the NRA is concerned with teaching gun owners to own and use them safely.  And sure, preserving the right to own them is a critical part of that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL The NRA is a terrorist organization, it enables the crazy, the criminal and those driven by hate to easily obtain guns.  It opposes any and all restrictions on the gun trade and its supporters are they themselves culpable in the deaths of so many innocent human beings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The NRA has done more for public safety than you ever have.  Tens of thousands of kids have been saved from harm because of NRA safety programs.   Your propaganda attack on them merely shows you to be the fascist you truly are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, my opinion is and remains that the NRA enables criminals, the insane, addicts and all around haters easy access to guns.  Your little ad hominem does not refute my claim.
> 
> There is no doubt safety programs are good and prevent accidents, now the NRA needs to expand safety by figuring out a way to restrict guns to people who have taken such courses, have passed a comprehensive background check and can be denied access to guns and ammo if they commit any future act which would have made guns inaccessible to them, i.e. licensing and registration.
Click to expand...


Criminals are not NRA members. NRA members are law abiding citizens. Go ask a gang banger in Chicago, how they are enjoying their NRA membership.

If you aren't informed about something. You look really stupid, trying to pretend you are.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Wry Catcher said:


> LOL, my opinion is and remains that the NRA enables criminals, the insane, addicts and all around haters easy access to guns.  Your little ad hominem does not refute my claim.



Your "opinion" is based on prejudice, ignorance, and outright lies.



> There is no doubt safety programs are good and prevent accidents, now the NRA needs to expand safety by figuring out a way to restrict guns to people who have taken such courses, have passed a comprehensive background check and can be denied access to guns and ammo if they commit any future act which would have made guns inaccessible to them, i.e. licensing and registration.



The NRA supports the United States Constitution; you are at war to end it. Naturally you and the NRA clash.


----------



## EatMorChikin

westwall said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The NRA is not an "evil group."  They are a group that is concerned with preserving one of our constitutionally guaranteed rights, and they have just as much a right to "lobby" the government as any other group.
> 
> If you are going to put down one for lobbying, then you must be against those who lobby for the things that YOU think are important as well.  Get real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't seem to understand the distinction between what is lobbying and what is coercion.
> 
> Vote as I say, or we will recruit and fund the campaign of someone who will, is coercion, and that is what the NRA does!  It is extorting the vote of a member of a legislature, _do my bidding or else._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government is the only entity in the US with the power of coercion.  That is a fascist tool, and look at you the fascist who wants to disarm the PEOPLE of the USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, leftists live in hysterical fear of CEOs who can't make them do anything, then they blindly trust government, the only entity that can compel you to do things against your own interest because only they can use guns to compel you to do it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a particularly weird form of mental illness.  That is for certain.  It is astonishing that a thinking person would even attempt to label the NRA as a terrorist organization.  They are for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals while fascists like wry here, is all for releasing violent criminals back out into society so that they can commit their terrible crimes.  The only terrorist in this thread is wry catcher.  And provably so.
Click to expand...


A thinking person wouldn't! That is the distinction.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> LOL, my opinion is and remains....


... mindless nonsense.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The NRA is not an "evil group."  They are a group that is concerned with preserving one of our constitutionally guaranteed rights, and they have just as much a right to "lobby" the government as any other group.
> 
> If you are going to put down one for lobbying, then you must be against those who lobby for the things that YOU think are important as well.  Get real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even more than that, the NRA is concerned with teaching gun owners to own and use them safely.  And sure, preserving the right to own them is a critical part of that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL The NRA is a terrorist organization, it enables the crazy, the criminal and those driven by hate to easily obtain guns.  It opposes any and all restrictions on the gun trade and its supporters are they themselves culpable in the deaths of so many innocent human beings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The NRA has done more for public safety than you ever have.  Tens of thousands of kids have been saved from harm because of NRA safety programs.   Your propaganda attack on them merely shows you to be the fascist you truly are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, my opinion is and remains that the NRA enables criminals, the insane, addicts and all around haters easy access to guns.  Your little ad hominem does not refute my claim.
> 
> There is no doubt safety programs are good and prevent accidents, now the NRA needs to expand safety by figuring out a way to restrict guns to people who have taken such courses, have passed a comprehensive background check and can be denied access to guns and ammo if they commit any future act which would have made guns inaccessible to them, i.e. licensing and registration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Note again all you propose is restricting gun access to honest citizens.  Not one of your proposals has anything to do with criminals who just buy them illegally.  That's why you keep ignoring responses to your stupid ideas
Click to expand...


Once again you biases color your judgment.  Most guns are sold legally, yet criminals seem to get them too easily as do mass murderers who are (presumably) insane.  

Answer this question:  How do criminals and the insane get guns?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Wry Catcher said:


> [
> 
> Once again you biases color your judgment.  Most guns are sold legally, yet criminals seem to get them too easily as do mass murderers who are (presumably) insane.
> 
> Answer this question:  How do criminals and the insane get guns?



There you go with the lies again...

Most guns are sold legally - TRUE

Most criminals get guns legally - NO TRUE

If you ever told the truth, would you burst into flames or something?


----------



## Wry Catcher

westwall said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The NRA is not an "evil group."  They are a group that is concerned with preserving one of our constitutionally guaranteed rights, and they have just as much a right to "lobby" the government as any other group.
> 
> If you are going to put down one for lobbying, then you must be against those who lobby for the things that YOU think are important as well.  Get real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't seem to understand the distinction between what is lobbying and what is coercion.
> 
> Vote as I say, or we will recruit and fund the campaign of someone who will, is coercion, and that is what the NRA does!  It is extorting the vote of a member of a legislature, _do my bidding or else._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government is the only entity in the US with the power of coercion.  That is a fascist tool, and look at you the fascist who wants to disarm the PEOPLE of the USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, leftists live in hysterical fear of CEOs who can't make them do anything, then they blindly trust government, the only entity that can compel you to do things against your own interest because only they can use guns to compel you to do it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a particularly weird form of mental illness.  That is for certain.  It is astonishing that a thinking person would even attempt to label the NRA as a terrorist organization.  They are for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals while fascists like wry here, is all for releasing violent criminals back out into society so that they can commit their terrible crimes.  The only terrorist in this thread is wry catcher.  And provably so.
Click to expand...


Only a fool will believe your statement above.  

Do you not know the meaning of the word "enable", and can you not understand why I used it in context of my post.  If you disagree, offer a rebuttal, but calling me mentally ill is nothing but a personal attack, and a surrender.


----------



## EatMorChikin

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even more than that, the NRA is concerned with teaching gun owners to own and use them safely.  And sure, preserving the right to own them is a critical part of that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL The NRA is a terrorist organization, it enables the crazy, the criminal and those driven by hate to easily obtain guns.  It opposes any and all restrictions on the gun trade and its supporters are they themselves culpable in the deaths of so many innocent human beings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The NRA has done more for public safety than you ever have.  Tens of thousands of kids have been saved from harm because of NRA safety programs.   Your propaganda attack on them merely shows you to be the fascist you truly are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, my opinion is and remains that the NRA enables criminals, the insane, addicts and all around haters easy access to guns.  Your little ad hominem does not refute my claim.
> 
> There is no doubt safety programs are good and prevent accidents, now the NRA needs to expand safety by figuring out a way to restrict guns to people who have taken such courses, have passed a comprehensive background check and can be denied access to guns and ammo if they commit any future act which would have made guns inaccessible to them, i.e. licensing and registration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Note again all you propose is restricting gun access to honest citizens.  Not one of your proposals has anything to do with criminals who just buy them illegally.  That's why you keep ignoring responses to your stupid ideas
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again you biases color your judgment.  Most guns are sold legally, yet criminals seem to get them too easily as do mass murderers who are (presumably) insane.
> 
> Answer this question:  How do criminals and the insane get guns?
Click to expand...


I would guess one source could be, the open borders the progressives love so much. The cartels will sell anything.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even more than that, the NRA is concerned with teaching gun owners to own and use them safely.  And sure, preserving the right to own them is a critical part of that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL The NRA is a terrorist organization, it enables the crazy, the criminal and those driven by hate to easily obtain guns.  It opposes any and all restrictions on the gun trade and its supporters are they themselves culpable in the deaths of so many innocent human beings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The NRA has done more for public safety than you ever have.  Tens of thousands of kids have been saved from harm because of NRA safety programs.   Your propaganda attack on them merely shows you to be the fascist you truly are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, my opinion is and remains that the NRA enables criminals, the insane, addicts and all around haters easy access to guns.  Your little ad hominem does not refute my claim.
> 
> There is no doubt safety programs are good and prevent accidents, now the NRA needs to expand safety by figuring out a way to restrict guns to people who have taken such courses, have passed a comprehensive background check and can be denied access to guns and ammo if they commit any future act which would have made guns inaccessible to them, i.e. licensing and registration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Note again all you propose is restricting gun access to honest citizens.  Not one of your proposals has anything to do with criminals who just buy them illegally.  That's why you keep ignoring responses to your stupid ideas
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again you biases color your judgment.  Most guns are sold legally, yet criminals seem to get them too easily as do mass murderers who are (presumably) insane.
> 
> Answer this question:  How do criminals and the insane get guns?
Click to expand...


Yes, most guns are sold legally, yet most crimes are committed with guns that are obtained illegally.  

You call me "biased" yet exactly as I said, you're targeting legal gun owners, not criminals


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The NRA is not an "evil group."  They are a group that is concerned with preserving one of our constitutionally guaranteed rights, and they have just as much a right to "lobby" the government as any other group.
> 
> If you are going to put down one for lobbying, then you must be against those who lobby for the things that YOU think are important as well.  Get real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't seem to understand the distinction between what is lobbying and what is coercion.
> 
> Vote as I say, or we will recruit and fund the campaign of someone who will, is coercion, and that is what the NRA does!  It is extorting the vote of a member of a legislature, _do my bidding or else._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government is the only entity in the US with the power of coercion.  That is a fascist tool, and look at you the fascist who wants to disarm the PEOPLE of the USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, leftists live in hysterical fear of CEOs who can't make them do anything, then they blindly trust government, the only entity that can compel you to do things against your own interest because only they can use guns to compel you to do it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a particularly weird form of mental illness.  That is for certain.  It is astonishing that a thinking person would even attempt to label the NRA as a terrorist organization.  They are for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals while fascists like wry here, is all for releasing violent criminals back out into society so that they can commit their terrible crimes.  The only terrorist in this thread is wry catcher.  And provably so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a fool will believe your statement above.
> 
> Do you not know the meaning of the word "enable", and can you not understand why I used it in context of my post.  If you disagree, offer a rebuttal, but calling me mentally ill is nothing but a personal attack, and a surrender.
Click to expand...




You called the NRA a "terrorist organization," yeah, that's pretty mentally ill.

You're out there fighting to disarm honest citizens while doing zero to address criminals.  

Thinking we're safer when criminals are armed, and we are not.  Yeah, mental ... illness ...


----------



## Wry Catcher

Uncensored2008 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Once again you biases color your judgment.  Most guns are sold legally, yet criminals seem to get them too easily as do mass murderers who are (presumably) insane.
> 
> Answer this question:  How do criminals and the insane get guns?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There you go with the lies again...
> 
> Most guns are sold legally - TRUE
> 
> Most criminals get guns legally - NO TRUE
> 
> If you ever told the truth, would you burst into flames or something?
Click to expand...


Once again, you are either a liar, or cannot read and comprehend (I know you are both)

Never did I say "most criminals get guns legally".

Answer the question I asked, and don't post another straw man, you're not smart enough to pull that off.

HOW DO CRIMINALS AND THE INSANE GET GUNS?


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Once again you biases color your judgment.  Most guns are sold legally, yet criminals seem to get them too easily as do mass murderers who are (presumably) insane.
> 
> Answer this question:  How do criminals and the insane get guns?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There you go with the lies again...
> 
> Most guns are sold legally - TRUE
> 
> Most criminals get guns legally - NO TRUE
> 
> If you ever told the truth, would you burst into flames or something?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, you are either a liar, or cannot read and comprehend (I know you are both)
> 
> Never did I say "most criminals get guns legally".
> 
> Answer the question I asked, and don't post another straw man, you're not smart enough to pull that off.
> 
> HOW DO CRIMINALS AND THE INSANE GET GUNS?
Click to expand...


They buy them illegally


----------



## Conservative65

Lakhota said:


> Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited  never have been and never will be  Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star



"shall not be infringed" says otherwise.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL The NRA is a terrorist organization, it enables the crazy, the criminal and those driven by hate to easily obtain guns.  It opposes any and all restrictions on the gun trade and its supporters are they themselves culpable in the deaths of so many innocent human beings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The NRA has done more for public safety than you ever have.  Tens of thousands of kids have been saved from harm because of NRA safety programs.   Your propaganda attack on them merely shows you to be the fascist you truly are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, my opinion is and remains that the NRA enables criminals, the insane, addicts and all around haters easy access to guns.  Your little ad hominem does not refute my claim.
> 
> There is no doubt safety programs are good and prevent accidents, now the NRA needs to expand safety by figuring out a way to restrict guns to people who have taken such courses, have passed a comprehensive background check and can be denied access to guns and ammo if they commit any future act which would have made guns inaccessible to them, i.e. licensing and registration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Note again all you propose is restricting gun access to honest citizens.  Not one of your proposals has anything to do with criminals who just buy them illegally.  That's why you keep ignoring responses to your stupid ideas
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again you biases color your judgment.  Most guns are sold legally, yet criminals seem to get them too easily as do mass murderers who are (presumably) insane.
> 
> Answer this question:  How do criminals and the insane get guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, most guns are sold legally, yet most crimes are committed with guns that are obtained illegally.
> 
> You call me "biased" yet exactly as I said, you're targeting legal gun owners, not criminals
Click to expand...


So,  if most crimes committed with a gun are obtained illegally, what method(s) does the perp use to obtain the gun?


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Once again you biases color your judgment.  Most guns are sold legally, yet criminals seem to get them too easily as do mass murderers who are (presumably) insane.
> 
> Answer this question:  How do criminals and the insane get guns?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There you go with the lies again...
> 
> Most guns are sold legally - TRUE
> 
> Most criminals get guns legally - NO TRUE
> 
> If you ever told the truth, would you burst into flames or something?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, you are either a liar, or cannot read and comprehend (I know you are both)
> 
> Never did I say "most criminals get guns legally".
> 
> Answer the question I asked, and don't post another straw man, you're not smart enough to pull that off.
> 
> HOW DO CRIMINALS AND THE INSANE GET GUNS?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They buy them illegally
Click to expand...


So a seller commits a crime too.  Yes or no?


----------



## Conservative65

Lakhota said:


> I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed.  It's just a matter of time...


The wording of the 2nd amendment hasn't changed since it was put into the Constitution.  Are you saying it will be rewritten.

You're a Constitution hater.


----------



## Flash

Wry Catcher said:


> [
> 
> 
> Once again you biases color your judgment.  Most guns are sold legally, yet criminals seem to get them too easily as do mass murderers who are (presumably) insane.
> 
> Answer this question:  How do criminals and the insane get guns?



Then blame the criminals.  They are the ones that do bad things, not an organization that promotes Constitutional rights and firearms safety.

You do understand the difference between the two, don't you?  Maybe not.

If you are concerned about the insane then you can blame the Democrats.  The Republicans introduced a bills a couple of months ago to strengthen the reporting of the mentally ill into the NICS systems and to provide more funding for NICS but the Democrats voted it down.  

I bet you are going to be one of these confused Moon Bats that bitch about the mentally ill having firearms but yet will vote for Democrats that fight against strengthening the system, aren't you?


----------



## Flash

Wry Catcher said:


> [Q
> 
> HOW DO CRIMINALS AND THE INSANE GET GUNS?



1.  They steal them.

2.  They buy them legally but then use them for illegal purposes.

Any more stupid questions?


----------



## EatMorChikin

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Once again you biases color your judgment.  Most guns are sold legally, yet criminals seem to get them too easily as do mass murderers who are (presumably) insane.
> 
> Answer this question:  How do criminals and the insane get guns?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There you go with the lies again...
> 
> Most guns are sold legally - TRUE
> 
> Most criminals get guns legally - NO TRUE
> 
> If you ever told the truth, would you burst into flames or something?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, you are either a liar, or cannot read and comprehend (I know you are both)
> 
> Never did I say "most criminals get guns legally".
> 
> Answer the question I asked, and don't post another straw man, you're not smart enough to pull that off.
> 
> HOW DO CRIMINALS AND THE INSANE GET GUNS?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They buy them illegally
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So a seller commits a crime too.  Yes or no?
Click to expand...


Not a crime to partake in commerce. And government has no business regulating firearm sales in the first place.


----------



## kaz

Conservative65 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited  never have been and never will be  Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "shall not be infringed" says otherwise.
Click to expand...


There is one way the Constitution prescribes we can have our rights restricted:

Fifth amendment:   "... nor shall any person be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ..."

Tonto hasn't learned how restricting guns worked out for real Indians.  He's an apple, he's a metrosexual who dresses white and lives in a loft and his favorite drinks are white whine spritzers.  Guns scare him


----------



## Conservative65

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The NRA has done more for public safety than you ever have.  Tens of thousands of kids have been saved from harm because of NRA safety programs.   Your propaganda attack on them merely shows you to be the fascist you truly are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, my opinion is and remains that the NRA enables criminals, the insane, addicts and all around haters easy access to guns.  Your little ad hominem does not refute my claim.
> 
> There is no doubt safety programs are good and prevent accidents, now the NRA needs to expand safety by figuring out a way to restrict guns to people who have taken such courses, have passed a comprehensive background check and can be denied access to guns and ammo if they commit any future act which would have made guns inaccessible to them, i.e. licensing and registration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Note again all you propose is restricting gun access to honest citizens.  Not one of your proposals has anything to do with criminals who just buy them illegally.  That's why you keep ignoring responses to your stupid ideas
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again you biases color your judgment.  Most guns are sold legally, yet criminals seem to get them too easily as do mass murderers who are (presumably) insane.
> 
> Answer this question:  How do criminals and the insane get guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, most guns are sold legally, yet most crimes are committed with guns that are obtained illegally.
> 
> You call me "biased" yet exactly as I said, you're targeting legal gun owners, not criminals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So,  if most crimes committed with a gun are obtained illegally, what method(s) does the perp use to obtain the gun?
Click to expand...


In my case, it was STOLEN, out of a LOCKED vehicle, sitting on PRIVATE PROPERTY, and the one stealing it DIDN'T have an invitation to be there. 

Tell me what background check that perp is going to go through in order to possess that gun.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The NRA has done more for public safety than you ever have.  Tens of thousands of kids have been saved from harm because of NRA safety programs.   Your propaganda attack on them merely shows you to be the fascist you truly are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, my opinion is and remains that the NRA enables criminals, the insane, addicts and all around haters easy access to guns.  Your little ad hominem does not refute my claim.
> 
> There is no doubt safety programs are good and prevent accidents, now the NRA needs to expand safety by figuring out a way to restrict guns to people who have taken such courses, have passed a comprehensive background check and can be denied access to guns and ammo if they commit any future act which would have made guns inaccessible to them, i.e. licensing and registration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Note again all you propose is restricting gun access to honest citizens.  Not one of your proposals has anything to do with criminals who just buy them illegally.  That's why you keep ignoring responses to your stupid ideas
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again you biases color your judgment.  Most guns are sold legally, yet criminals seem to get them too easily as do mass murderers who are (presumably) insane.
> 
> Answer this question:  How do criminals and the insane get guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, most guns are sold legally, yet most crimes are committed with guns that are obtained illegally.
> 
> You call me "biased" yet exactly as I said, you're targeting legal gun owners, not criminals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So,  if most crimes committed with a gun are obtained illegally, what method(s) does the perp use to obtain the gun?
Click to expand...


Well, the place I would start if I needed one would be my local drug dealer.  They can get me a gun just like they can get me a joint or whatever other drugs I want.  In fact they could fly in on the same plane.  Or they can drive them across the border you fight to keep open.  

That was my thread you swished on.  We can't keep pot from high schoolers, how are you going to keep guns from criminals?


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Once again you biases color your judgment.  Most guns are sold legally, yet criminals seem to get them too easily as do mass murderers who are (presumably) insane.
> 
> Answer this question:  How do criminals and the insane get guns?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There you go with the lies again...
> 
> Most guns are sold legally - TRUE
> 
> Most criminals get guns legally - NO TRUE
> 
> If you ever told the truth, would you burst into flames or something?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, you are either a liar, or cannot read and comprehend (I know you are both)
> 
> Never did I say "most criminals get guns legally".
> 
> Answer the question I asked, and don't post another straw man, you're not smart enough to pull that off.
> 
> HOW DO CRIMINALS AND THE INSANE GET GUNS?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They buy them illegally
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So a seller commits a crime too.  Yes or no?
Click to expand...


Of course.  So you're thinking drug dealers wouldn't sell guns because that would be illegal?

And I thought you had no real argument.  Nailed it ...


----------



## kaz

Conservative65 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, my opinion is and remains that the NRA enables criminals, the insane, addicts and all around haters easy access to guns.  Your little ad hominem does not refute my claim.
> 
> There is no doubt safety programs are good and prevent accidents, now the NRA needs to expand safety by figuring out a way to restrict guns to people who have taken such courses, have passed a comprehensive background check and can be denied access to guns and ammo if they commit any future act which would have made guns inaccessible to them, i.e. licensing and registration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note again all you propose is restricting gun access to honest citizens.  Not one of your proposals has anything to do with criminals who just buy them illegally.  That's why you keep ignoring responses to your stupid ideas
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again you biases color your judgment.  Most guns are sold legally, yet criminals seem to get them too easily as do mass murderers who are (presumably) insane.
> 
> Answer this question:  How do criminals and the insane get guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, most guns are sold legally, yet most crimes are committed with guns that are obtained illegally.
> 
> You call me "biased" yet exactly as I said, you're targeting legal gun owners, not criminals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So,  if most crimes committed with a gun are obtained illegally, what method(s) does the perp use to obtain the gun?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In my case, it was STOLEN, out of a LOCKED vehicle, sitting on PRIVATE PROPERTY, and the one stealing it DIDN'T have an invitation to be there.
> 
> Tell me what background check that perp is going to go through in order to possess that gun.
Click to expand...


What's funny is the leftists whacko crowd like Wry make the same argument with drugs.  You can't keep drugs out, stop funding organized crime!

Then with the exact same scenario with guns, they're like oh, Criminals won't break the law, that would be illegal


----------



## Wry Catcher

paulitician said:


> Seriously, y'all 'Safe Space' pussies are gonna have to move to a pussy country like France, England, Belgium, and so on. America's a tough place. It always has been. It's not for the weak and whiny.
> 
> Folks have the right to bear arms. If you can't handle that, move to another country. If you don't wanna do that, just quit your whining and go hide in your 'Safe Spaces'. Folks are gonna have their guns. Deal with it.



All folks have a right to bear arms?  Do you really believe "shall not be infringed applies to everyone"?


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, y'all 'Safe Space' pussies are gonna have to move to a pussy country like France, England, Belgium, and so on. America's a tough place. It always has been. It's not for the weak and whiny.
> 
> Folks have the right to bear arms. If you can't handle that, move to another country. If you don't wanna do that, just quit your whining and go hide in your 'Safe Spaces'. Folks are gonna have their guns. Deal with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All folks have a right to bear arms?  Do you really believe "shall not be infringed applies to everyone"?
Click to expand...


Post number 3003.  The only one arguing that criminals and the mentally ill (when proven in court with due process) can buy guns is and always was you


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Once again you biases color your judgment.  Most guns are sold legally, yet criminals seem to get them too easily as do mass murderers who are (presumably) insane.
> 
> Answer this question:  How do criminals and the insane get guns?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There you go with the lies again...
> 
> Most guns are sold legally - TRUE
> 
> Most criminals get guns legally - NO TRUE
> 
> If you ever told the truth, would you burst into flames or something?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, you are either a liar, or cannot read and comprehend (I know you are both)
> 
> Never did I say "most criminals get guns legally".
> 
> Answer the question I asked, and don't post another straw man, you're not smart enough to pull that off.
> 
> HOW DO CRIMINALS AND THE INSANE GET GUNS?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They buy them illegally
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So a seller commits a crime too.  Yes or no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course.  So you're thinking drug dealers wouldn't sell guns because that would be illegal?
> 
> And I thought you had no real argument.  Nailed it ...
Click to expand...


Have you ever sold a gun and not done a background check?  

Would you sell a gun to a neighbor who was so agitated at his wife and said he wanted to buy a gun to kill her?  If yes, you are a criminal; if no, you believe in gun control


----------



## Daryl Hunt

EatMorChikin said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> 
> heres the problem with republicans ....they are gullible ... they will believe just about everything they are told by their handlers
> Hillary will take your guns away ... do you think she and the entire democrats would be that stupid to try and do that ???  really !!!!! do you ??? hears what they would have to do.... first get every democrat on board to pass legislation in removing the second amendment, how well do you think thats going to work you idiots republicans ??? then get the majority of the people in the country on board with them so they know they can get reelected ... mind you, this is how stupid you republicans are ... you would believe this crap that they would be this stupid to try and remove the second amendment ... I guess your stupidity is cause by your mother and your uncles being your father is the cause ...here we have 294 post saying all kinds of bull shit reason that you believe we Dems will take the second amendment away ... because thats what it is ... right wing bull shit ... they can't come up with any kind of plan to run on,  they rely on you ignorance they intern go after the flag burners, people on welfare, guns, and gays and you fools lap it up ... I can believe republicans are this stupid .... that they feel we democrats would be so stupid to try and repeal the 2 amendment ... a amend meant that we believe that every person should have a gun ... we don't believe that gun should be a AR 15 .. or any automatic weapons ... by us democrats saying this you have been duped into beliebing we will repeal the second amendment, how moronic is that ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First it's one type, than the next. And why is the Armalite 15 the posterchild for gun control? Because those for gun control, are trying to regulate shit, they know nothing about. Oohhh it's a black scary boogie man gun. As far as I'm concerned, I should have an M-16. The infringement has already went too far. Liberals will not stop, until we are limited to single shot musket loaders.
Click to expand...


Let's look at it.  High Capacity Mags, high rate of fire, the type of weapon that has done the most murdering in schools, theaters, public areas.  The death and wounded would have been a lot lower if a handgun or bolt action were to be used.  You 2nd amendment clowns all seem to want more slaughter like it's been used.  They are weapons or war, not self defense.  You want one of the best home defense weapon, I suggest you look into the 410 pistol using 3 double aught buck pellets.  Your .556 rifle kills two houses over.  Just like it's not a real good idea to use your 700 bdl 30 cal since it will do the same thing.  The difference in the 7.62 is that the rifle is usually a bolt action.  You can also use a shotgun using the defender shells that are designed to hold the pattern without the extreme penetration.  Common sense says that a 40 SW is a better choice as well if you are a fair shot or real close.  

The only reason to have a .556 AR style weapon is to shoot long and fast.  And that is why it's the choice of mass shootings.   WE need to fix it where not every Tom Dick and Omar can get his or her hands on one.  In the 20s, the Thompson 45 cal MG was taken out of circulation in 1926.  Stop this nonsense and save a few lives in the process.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you go with the lies again...
> 
> Most guns are sold legally - TRUE
> 
> Most criminals get guns legally - NO TRUE
> 
> If you ever told the truth, would you burst into flames or something?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, you are either a liar, or cannot read and comprehend (I know you are both)
> 
> Never did I say "most criminals get guns legally".
> 
> Answer the question I asked, and don't post another straw man, you're not smart enough to pull that off.
> 
> HOW DO CRIMINALS AND THE INSANE GET GUNS?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They buy them illegally
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So a seller commits a crime too.  Yes or no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course.  So you're thinking drug dealers wouldn't sell guns because that would be illegal?
> 
> And I thought you had no real argument.  Nailed it ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you ever sold a gun and not done a background check?
> 
> Would you sell a gun to a neighbor who was so agitated at his wife and said he wanted to buy a gun to kill her?  If yes, you are a criminal; if no, you believe in gun control
Click to expand...


In your scenario, that's just mentally retarded.  "Gun control" is government.  My making a personal decision who I want to do business with being the same as government limiting all our rights is just wow, stupid even by your lofty standards of stupid.

My choice is free market.  You're is a government controlled market.  Those are the same, what a whack job.

So what about it turns out the husband is the nut job and he already has a gun and the wife wants one and then learns about the waiting period?  You going to her funeral?  You going to contribute to her children's college fund?


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Note again all you propose is restricting gun access to honest citizens.  Not one of your proposals has anything to do with criminals who just buy them illegally.  That's why you keep ignoring responses to your stupid ideas
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you biases color your judgment.  Most guns are sold legally, yet criminals seem to get them too easily as do mass murderers who are (presumably) insane.
> 
> Answer this question:  How do criminals and the insane get guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, most guns are sold legally, yet most crimes are committed with guns that are obtained illegally.
> 
> You call me "biased" yet exactly as I said, you're targeting legal gun owners, not criminals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So,  if most crimes committed with a gun are obtained illegally, what method(s) does the perp use to obtain the gun?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In my case, it was STOLEN, out of a LOCKED vehicle, sitting on PRIVATE PROPERTY, and the one stealing it DIDN'T have an invitation to be there.
> 
> Tell me what background check that perp is going to go through in order to possess that gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's funny is the leftists whacko crowd like Wry make the same argument with drugs.  You can't keep drugs out, stop funding organized crime!
> 
> Then with the exact same scenario with guns, they're like oh, Criminals won't break the law, that would be illegal
Click to expand...


I do wonder about your sanity.  Did you report the theft to the agency of original jurisdiction?  If not, why not?  If all guns were registered, and when stolen reported to a nation registry, a) you might get your gun back, and b) when the gun was found, it could be traced back to the time and date stolen, and potentially open the door to a number of leads when followed to other guns and stolen property in the hands of criminals.


----------



## Conservative65

Wry Catcher said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, y'all 'Safe Space' pussies are gonna have to move to a pussy country like France, England, Belgium, and so on. America's a tough place. It always has been. It's not for the weak and whiny.
> 
> Folks have the right to bear arms. If you can't handle that, move to another country. If you don't wanna do that, just quit your whining and go hide in your 'Safe Spaces'. Folks are gonna have their guns. Deal with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All folks have a right to bear arms?  Do you really believe "shall not be infringed applies to everyone"?
Click to expand...


Do you believe "due process" applies only to those you think should have it?


----------



## emilynghiem

Lakhota said:


> Hillary won't take our guns.



Dear Lakhota
But the DOCTORS and COURTS can. By declaring people mentally unfit.

You cannot trust the "legal lobby" who have infiltrated every branch of govt.

If they can make people pay for health INSURANCE and call it health CARE,
under "penalty by tax fines" and call it FREE CHOICE,
they can mandate anything they want. Now that the FEDS have their hands on doctors and health care regulations!

Do you even realize the abuse of power that has been going on? And more and more power keeps shifting to govt?

A friend of mine lost her house and property to legal abuse this way .Got declared incompetent WITHOUT any doctor EVER examining her, and blocked from suing in court to defend her property.  ALL POLITICAL because the lawyers and judges wanted her GONE.

So this is already happening, abusing legal power to declare people incompetent and unfit for political agenda.


----------



## Flash

Wry Catcher said:


> [Q
> 
> 
> Have you ever sold a gun and not done a background check?
> 
> Would you sell a gun to a neighbor who was so agitated at his wife and said he wanted to buy a gun to kill her?  If yes, you are a criminal; if no, you believe in gun control



A background check is government permission to enjoy a right that is protected under the Constitution of the US.  It is also an assumption of guilt before being proven innocent.  If you have to get permission to be able to adhere to a right then it really isn't a right at all, is it?

The crime should never be the possession of a firearm because the Constitution clearly states that the right to keep and bear arms hall not be infringed.  The crime should be for illegally using the firearm.

Do you understand that, Moon Bat, or are you still confused?


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, you are either a liar, or cannot read and comprehend (I know you are both)
> 
> Never did I say "most criminals get guns legally".
> 
> Answer the question I asked, and don't post another straw man, you're not smart enough to pull that off.
> 
> HOW DO CRIMINALS AND THE INSANE GET GUNS?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They buy them illegally
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So a seller commits a crime too.  Yes or no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course.  So you're thinking drug dealers wouldn't sell guns because that would be illegal?
> 
> And I thought you had no real argument.  Nailed it ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you ever sold a gun and not done a background check?
> 
> Would you sell a gun to a neighbor who was so agitated at his wife and said he wanted to buy a gun to kill her?  If yes, you are a criminal; if no, you believe in gun control
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In your scenario, that's just mentally retarded.  "Gun control" is government.  My making a personal decision who I want to do business with being the same as government limiting all our rights is just wow, stupid even by your lofty standards of stupid.
> 
> My choice is free market.  You're is a government controlled market.  Those are the same, what a whack job.
> 
> So what about it turns out the husband is the nut job and he already has a gun and the wife wants one and then learns about the waiting period?  You going to her funeral?  You going to contribute to her children's college fund?
Click to expand...


Temper temper, I have a right to express my opinions as do you.  Sadly, you lack the intelligence to argue you position without losing your temper and calling me a nut.  I suppose you know this, and also know that your behavior might restrict your right to own a gun, if discovered in a background check.  I suggest you find a good therapist.


----------



## Wry Catcher

emilynghiem said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hillary won't take our guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Lakhota
> But the DOCTORS and COURTS can. By declaring people mentally unfit.
> 
> You cannot trust the "legal lobby" who have infiltrated every branch of govt.
> 
> If they can make people pay for health INSURANCE and call it health CARE,
> under "penalty by tax fines" and call it FREE CHOICE,
> they can mandate anything they want. Now that the FEDS have their hands on doctors and health care regulations!
> 
> Do you even realize the abuse of power that has been going on? And more and more power keeps shifting to govt?
> 
> A friend of mine lost her house and property to legal abuse this way .Got declared incompetent WITHOUT any doctor EVER examining her, and blocked from suing in court to defend her property.  ALL POLITICAL because the lawyers and judges wanted her GONE.
> 
> So this is already happening, abusing legal power to declare people incompetent and unfit for political agenda.
Click to expand...


This ^^^ is really fringe thinking.  I suggest you run to the library and take out a copy of Lord of the Flies, a great primer for anyone contemplating libertarianism.


----------



## emilynghiem

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you go with the lies again...
> 
> Most guns are sold legally - TRUE
> 
> Most criminals get guns legally - NO TRUE
> 
> If you ever told the truth, would you burst into flames or something?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, you are either a liar, or cannot read and comprehend (I know you are both)
> 
> Never did I say "most criminals get guns legally".
> 
> Answer the question I asked, and don't post another straw man, you're not smart enough to pull that off.
> 
> HOW DO CRIMINALS AND THE INSANE GET GUNS?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They buy them illegally
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So a seller commits a crime too.  Yes or no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course.  So you're thinking drug dealers wouldn't sell guns because that would be illegal?
> 
> And I thought you had no real argument.  Nailed it ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you ever sold a gun and not done a background check?
> 
> Would you sell a gun to a neighbor who was so agitated at his wife and said he wanted to buy a gun to kill her?  If yes, you are a criminal; if no, you believe in gun control
Click to expand...


Dear Wry Catcher:
The difference is NOT treating the LAW ABIDING citizens with the same 'deprivation of liberty' as the criminals who have mental or criminal issues or records.

That's the problem.

How do we screen out the truly dangerous people? Without infringing on rights of law abiding citizens?

One solution Wry Catcher is the process of spiritual healing that has been used effectively and VOLUNTARILY to diagnose the cause and also to CURE criminal illness, abuse and addiction issues.

Since this is VOLUNTARY, that's why it isn't implemented through govt, which has no jurisdiction over people's spiritual process of healing of their internal issues and sickness.

Only AFTER a crime has occurred is the govt authorized to intervene.

So that's where the conflict lies.

The solution would be for PEOPLE to VOLUNTARILY participate and apply these methods to screen out mental and criminal illness per community WITHOUT being forced by govt.

Maybe we could find a way to do that, sort of like the OPPOSITE of the ACA health care mandates that imposed the wrong way.

If people want to qualify for the health care program of their choice (either free market or single payer through govt), the condition could be added that everyone go through the spiritual healing diagnostics to cure any potential cause of illness that is internal, in order to reduce the COST so health care can be afforded for everyone.  something like that.

this same process would SCREEN OUT the mentally ill and criminally dangerous people at the same time, not for punishment but for free treatment and recovery counseling. So everyone would win that way.


----------



## Contumacious

Wry Catcher said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hillary won't take our guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Lakhota
> But the DOCTORS and COURTS can. By declaring people mentally unfit.
> 
> You cannot trust the "legal lobby" who have infiltrated every branch of govt.
> 
> If they can make people pay for health INSURANCE and call it health CARE,
> under "penalty by tax fines" and call it FREE CHOICE,
> they can mandate anything they want. Now that the FEDS have their hands on doctors and health care regulations!
> 
> Do you even realize the abuse of power that has been going on? And more and more power keeps shifting to govt?
> 
> A friend of mine lost her house and property to legal abuse this way .Got declared incompetent WITHOUT any doctor EVER examining her, and blocked from suing in court to defend her property.  ALL POLITICAL because the lawyers and judges wanted her GONE.
> 
> So this is already happening, abusing legal power to declare people incompetent and unfit for political agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is really fringe thinking.  I suggest you run to the library and take out a copy of Lord of the Flies, a great primer for anyone contemplating libertarianism.
Click to expand...



Yep, FREEMEN need a primer.


.


----------



## Wry Catcher

P@triot said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, *my opinion* is and remains that the NRA enables criminals, the insane, addicts and all around haters easy access to guns.  Your little ad hominem does not refute my claim.
> 
> 
> 
> And that's just it - it is just your opinions and they are uneducated opinions at that. The rest of us know that it is a reality that the NRA protects the 2nd Amendment, promotes and provides gun safety and proper gun use, and ensures that American's retain their right to defend themselves.
Click to expand...


And my opinion of you is well known too.  Your foolishness aside, the NRA is doing a piss poor job on keeping Americans safe:

Key Gun Violence Statistics | Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence


----------



## EatMorChikin

Daryl Hunt said:


> EatMorChikin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> 
> heres the problem with republicans ....they are gullible ... they will believe just about everything they are told by their handlers
> Hillary will take your guns away ... do you think she and the entire democrats would be that stupid to try and do that ???  really !!!!! do you ??? hears what they would have to do.... first get every democrat on board to pass legislation in removing the second amendment, how well do you think thats going to work you idiots republicans ??? then get the majority of the people in the country on board with them so they know they can get reelected ... mind you, this is how stupid you republicans are ... you would believe this crap that they would be this stupid to try and remove the second amendment ... I guess your stupidity is cause by your mother and your uncles being your father is the cause ...here we have 294 post saying all kinds of bull shit reason that you believe we Dems will take the second amendment away ... because thats what it is ... right wing bull shit ... they can't come up with any kind of plan to run on,  they rely on you ignorance they intern go after the flag burners, people on welfare, guns, and gays and you fools lap it up ... I can believe republicans are this stupid .... that they feel we democrats would be so stupid to try and repeal the 2 amendment ... a amend meant that we believe that every person should have a gun ... we don't believe that gun should be a AR 15 .. or any automatic weapons ... by us democrats saying this you have been duped into beliebing we will repeal the second amendment, how moronic is that ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First it's one type, than the next. And why is the Armalite 15 the posterchild for gun control? Because those for gun control, are trying to regulate shit, they know nothing about. Oohhh it's a black scary boogie man gun. As far as I'm concerned, I should have an M-16. The infringement has already went too far. Liberals will not stop, until we are limited to single shot musket loaders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's look at it.  High Capacity Mags, high rate of fire, the type of weapon that has done the most murdering in schools, theaters, public areas.  The death and wounded would have been a lot lower if a handgun or bolt action were to be used.  You 2nd amendment clowns all seem to want more slaughter like it's been used.  They are weapons or war, not self defense.  You want one of the best home defense weapon, I suggest you look into the 410 pistol using 3 double aught buck pellets.  Your .556 rifle kills two houses over.  Just like it's not a real good idea to use your 700 bdl 30 cal since it will do the same thing.  The difference in the 7.62 is that the rifle is usually a bolt action.  You can also use a shotgun using the defender shells that are designed to hold the pattern without the extreme penetration.  Common sense says that a 40 SW is a better choice as well if you are a fair shot or real close.
> 
> The only reason to have a .556 AR style weapon is to shoot long and fast.  And that is why it's the choice of mass shootings.   WE need to fix it where not every Tom Dick and Omar can get his or her hands on one.  In the 20s, the Thompson 45 cal MG was taken out of circulation in 1926.  Stop this nonsense and save a few lives in the process.
Click to expand...


High rate of fire? One pull, one shot. Absolutely no different than any other semi auto rifle. A Ruger mini 14 uses a bolt, and I can fire that just as fast. And it uses the same .223 as an Armalite 15. But it isn't black and scary, so you idiots aren't afraid of that. And I have a 30 round mag for my mini 14. 

If you are ignorant of a subject, don't try and act like you know. Because you don't!


----------



## Wry Catcher

Contumacious said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hillary won't take our guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Lakhota
> But the DOCTORS and COURTS can. By declaring people mentally unfit.
> 
> You cannot trust the "legal lobby" who have infiltrated every branch of govt.
> 
> If they can make people pay for health INSURANCE and call it health CARE,
> under "penalty by tax fines" and call it FREE CHOICE,
> they can mandate anything they want. Now that the FEDS have their hands on doctors and health care regulations!
> 
> Do you even realize the abuse of power that has been going on? And more and more power keeps shifting to govt?
> 
> A friend of mine lost her house and property to legal abuse this way .Got declared incompetent WITHOUT any doctor EVER examining her, and blocked from suing in court to defend her property.  ALL POLITICAL because the lawyers and judges wanted her GONE.
> 
> So this is already happening, abusing legal power to declare people incompetent and unfit for political agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is really fringe thinking.  I suggest you run to the library and take out a copy of Lord of the Flies, a great primer for anyone contemplating libertarianism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, FREEMEN need a primer.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I don't know about all "FREEMEN"; I do now you need a therapist.


emilynghiem said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, you are either a liar, or cannot read and comprehend (I know you are both)
> 
> Never did I say "most criminals get guns legally".
> 
> Answer the question I asked, and don't post another straw man, you're not smart enough to pull that off.
> 
> HOW DO CRIMINALS AND THE INSANE GET GUNS?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They buy them illegally
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So a seller commits a crime too.  Yes or no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course.  So you're thinking drug dealers wouldn't sell guns because that would be illegal?
> 
> And I thought you had no real argument.  Nailed it ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you ever sold a gun and not done a background check?
> 
> Would you sell a gun to a neighbor who was so agitated at his wife and said he wanted to buy a gun to kill her?  If yes, you are a criminal; if no, you believe in gun control
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Wry Catcher:
> The difference is NOT treating the LAW ABIDING citizens with the same 'deprivation of liberty' as the criminals who have mental or criminal issues or records.
> 
> That's the problem.
> 
> How do we screen out the truly dangerous people? Without infringing on rights of law abiding citizens?
> 
> One solution Wry Catcher is the process of spiritual healing that has been used effectively and VOLUNTARILY to diagnose the cause and also to CURE criminal illness, abuse and addiction issues.
> 
> Since this is VOLUNTARY, that's why it isn't implemented through govt, which has no jurisdiction over people's spiritual process of healing of their internal issues and sickness.
> 
> Only AFTER a crime has occurred is the govt authorized to intervene.
> 
> So that's where the conflict lies.
> 
> The solution would be for PEOPLE to VOLUNTARILY participate and apply these methods to screen out mental and criminal illness per community WITHOUT being forced by govt.
> 
> Maybe we could find a way to do that, sort of like the OPPOSITE of the ACA health care mandates that imposed the wrong way.
> 
> If people want to qualify for the health care program of their choice (either free market or single payer through govt), the condition could be added that everyone go through the spiritual healing diagnostics to cure any potential cause of illness that is internal, in order to reduce the COST so health care can be afforded for everyone.  something like that.
> 
> this same process would SCREEN OUT the mentally ill and criminally dangerous people at the same time, not for punishment but for free treatment and recovery counseling. So everyone would win that way.
Click to expand...


Which is the greatest "infringement", a license to own, possess or have in one's custody and control a gun; and, that all guns be registered with a national registry

Or,

Having a police office come to your door telling you, your child, sibling, parent or spouse was shot and killed at ABA Mall in America?


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you biases color your judgment.  Most guns are sold legally, yet criminals seem to get them too easily as do mass murderers who are (presumably) insane.
> 
> Answer this question:  How do criminals and the insane get guns?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, most guns are sold legally, yet most crimes are committed with guns that are obtained illegally.
> 
> You call me "biased" yet exactly as I said, you're targeting legal gun owners, not criminals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So,  if most crimes committed with a gun are obtained illegally, what method(s) does the perp use to obtain the gun?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In my case, it was STOLEN, out of a LOCKED vehicle, sitting on PRIVATE PROPERTY, and the one stealing it DIDN'T have an invitation to be there.
> 
> Tell me what background check that perp is going to go through in order to possess that gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's funny is the leftists whacko crowd like Wry make the same argument with drugs.  You can't keep drugs out, stop funding organized crime!
> 
> Then with the exact same scenario with guns, they're like oh, Criminals won't break the law, that would be illegal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do wonder about your sanity.  Did you report the theft to the agency of original jurisdiction?  If not, why not?  If all guns were registered, and when stolen reported to a nation registry, a) you might get your gun back, and b) when the gun was found, it could be traced back to the time and date stolen, and potentially open the door to a number of leads when followed to other guns and stolen property in the hands of criminals.
Click to expand...


I do wonder about your sanity.  I'm not the one who said I had a gun stolen


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> They buy them illegally
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So a seller commits a crime too.  Yes or no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course.  So you're thinking drug dealers wouldn't sell guns because that would be illegal?
> 
> And I thought you had no real argument.  Nailed it ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you ever sold a gun and not done a background check?
> 
> Would you sell a gun to a neighbor who was so agitated at his wife and said he wanted to buy a gun to kill her?  If yes, you are a criminal; if no, you believe in gun control
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In your scenario, that's just mentally retarded.  "Gun control" is government.  My making a personal decision who I want to do business with being the same as government limiting all our rights is just wow, stupid even by your lofty standards of stupid.
> 
> My choice is free market.  You're is a government controlled market.  Those are the same, what a whack job.
> 
> So what about it turns out the husband is the nut job and he already has a gun and the wife wants one and then learns about the waiting period?  You going to her funeral?  You going to contribute to her children's college fund?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Temper temper, I have a right to express my opinions as do you.  Sadly, you lack the intelligence to argue you position without losing your temper and calling me a nut.  I suppose you know this, and also know that your behavior might restrict your right to own a gun, if discovered in a background check.  I suggest you find a good therapist.
Click to expand...


OK, you need to calm down, guy.  It's just an internet discussion, don't get so upset.  Maybe you can play in the back yard a while and come back when you calm down.

And just to be clear, you can wonder about my sanity, that's cool, but if I call you a nut, that's out of bounds.  Seems the boundaries constantly move with you


----------



## P@triot

Wry Catcher said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, *my opinion* is and remains that the NRA enables criminals, the insane, addicts and all around haters easy access to guns.  Your little ad hominem does not refute my claim.
> 
> 
> 
> And that's just it - it is just your opinions and they are uneducated opinions at that. The rest of us know that it is a reality that the NRA protects the 2nd Amendment, promotes and provides gun safety and proper gun use, and ensures that American's retain their right to defend themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And my opinion of you is well known too.  Your foolishness aside, the NRA is doing a piss poor job on keeping Americans safe:
> 
> Key Gun Violence Statistics | Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
Click to expand...

It's not the NRA banning firearms and creating *victim zones*. It's Dumbocrats doing that my friend.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hillary won't take our guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Lakhota
> But the DOCTORS and COURTS can. By declaring people mentally unfit.
> 
> You cannot trust the "legal lobby" who have infiltrated every branch of govt.
> 
> If they can make people pay for health INSURANCE and call it health CARE,
> under "penalty by tax fines" and call it FREE CHOICE,
> they can mandate anything they want. Now that the FEDS have their hands on doctors and health care regulations!
> 
> Do you even realize the abuse of power that has been going on? And more and more power keeps shifting to govt?
> 
> A friend of mine lost her house and property to legal abuse this way .Got declared incompetent WITHOUT any doctor EVER examining her, and blocked from suing in court to defend her property.  ALL POLITICAL because the lawyers and judges wanted her GONE.
> 
> So this is already happening, abusing legal power to declare people incompetent and unfit for political agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is really fringe thinking.  I suggest you run to the library and take out a copy of Lord of the Flies, a great primer for anyone contemplating libertarianism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, FREEMEN need a primer.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know about all "FREEMEN"; I do now you need a therapist.
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> They buy them illegally
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So a seller commits a crime too.  Yes or no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course.  So you're thinking drug dealers wouldn't sell guns because that would be illegal?
> 
> And I thought you had no real argument.  Nailed it ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you ever sold a gun and not done a background check?
> 
> Would you sell a gun to a neighbor who was so agitated at his wife and said he wanted to buy a gun to kill her?  If yes, you are a criminal; if no, you believe in gun control
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Wry Catcher:
> The difference is NOT treating the LAW ABIDING citizens with the same 'deprivation of liberty' as the criminals who have mental or criminal issues or records.
> 
> That's the problem.
> 
> How do we screen out the truly dangerous people? Without infringing on rights of law abiding citizens?
> 
> One solution Wry Catcher is the process of spiritual healing that has been used effectively and VOLUNTARILY to diagnose the cause and also to CURE criminal illness, abuse and addiction issues.
> 
> Since this is VOLUNTARY, that's why it isn't implemented through govt, which has no jurisdiction over people's spiritual process of healing of their internal issues and sickness.
> 
> Only AFTER a crime has occurred is the govt authorized to intervene.
> 
> So that's where the conflict lies.
> 
> The solution would be for PEOPLE to VOLUNTARILY participate and apply these methods to screen out mental and criminal illness per community WITHOUT being forced by govt.
> 
> Maybe we could find a way to do that, sort of like the OPPOSITE of the ACA health care mandates that imposed the wrong way.
> 
> If people want to qualify for the health care program of their choice (either free market or single payer through govt), the condition could be added that everyone go through the spiritual healing diagnostics to cure any potential cause of illness that is internal, in order to reduce the COST so health care can be afforded for everyone.  something like that.
> 
> this same process would SCREEN OUT the mentally ill and criminally dangerous people at the same time, not for punishment but for free treatment and recovery counseling. So everyone would win that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is the greatest "infringement", a license to own, possess or have in one's custody and control a gun; and, that all guns be registered with a national registry
> 
> Or,
> 
> Having a police office come to your door telling you, your child, sibling, parent or spouse was shot and killed at ABA Mall in America?
Click to expand...


False dichotomy.

Also begging the question.

You've presented zero plans on how to keep guns from criminals, you're only targeting honest citizens.

Again, a drug lord puts drugs on a plane, flies them into the US, teenagers buy them.

That same drug lord can't throw some guns on the plane and sell them to criminals, because ....

You have no fricking clue, do you, Opie?


----------



## Wry Catcher

Holy shit, a fire storm of gun nuts has swarmed this thread, bringing with them ad hominems, strawmen and slippery slopes aplenty.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Wry Catcher said:


> Only a fool will believe your statement above.
> 
> Do you not know the meaning of the word "enable", and can you not understand why I used it in context of my post.  If you disagree, offer a rebuttal, but calling me mentally ill is nothing but a personal attack, and a surrender.



You are a demagogue.

You slander and libel the objects of your hate, as directed by your party. Nothing you claim is true, ever.  The rebuttal to your "argument" is that you are flat out lying.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> All folks have a right to bear arms?  Do you really believe "shall not be infringed applies to everyone"?


No one argues this.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> Temper temper, I have a right to express my opinions as do you.  Sadly, you lack the intelligence...


Proving yourself the foolish child again?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> Holy shit, a fire storm of gun nuts has swarmed this thread, bringing with them ad hominems, strawmen and slippery slopes aplenty.


Proving yourself the foolish child - _again_?


----------



## Flash

Wry Catcher said:


> [
> 
> 
> This ^^^ is really fringe thinking.  I suggest you run to the library and take out a copy of Lord of the Flies, a great primer for anyone contemplating libertarianism.



Libertarianism is real freedom and personal responsibility.  Most Moon Bats don't like real freedom and they sure as hell hate to be held responsible for anything.

Socialism is slavery to the state.  Moon Bats love it.


----------



## P@triot

Wry Catcher said:


> Holy shit, a fire storm of gun nuts has swarmed this thread, bringing with them ad hominems, strawmen and slippery slopes aplenty.


In other words....*common sense*. Something the irrational and emotional left completely lacks.


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hillary won't take our guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Lakhota
> But the DOCTORS and COURTS can. By declaring people mentally unfit.
> 
> You cannot trust the "legal lobby" who have infiltrated every branch of govt.
> 
> If they can make people pay for health INSURANCE and call it health CARE,
> under "penalty by tax fines" and call it FREE CHOICE,
> they can mandate anything they want. Now that the FEDS have their hands on doctors and health care regulations!
> 
> Do you even realize the abuse of power that has been going on? And more and more power keeps shifting to govt?
> 
> A friend of mine lost her house and property to legal abuse this way .Got declared incompetent WITHOUT any doctor EVER examining her, and blocked from suing in court to defend her property.  ALL POLITICAL because the lawyers and judges wanted her GONE.
> 
> So this is already happening, abusing legal power to declare people incompetent and unfit for political agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is really fringe thinking.  I suggest you run to the library and take out a copy of Lord of the Flies, a great primer for anyone contemplating libertarianism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, FREEMEN need a primer.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know about all "FREEMEN"; I do now you need a therapist.
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> So a seller commits a crime too.  Yes or no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course.  So you're thinking drug dealers wouldn't sell guns because that would be illegal?
> 
> And I thought you had no real argument.  Nailed it ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you ever sold a gun and not done a background check?
> 
> Would you sell a gun to a neighbor who was so agitated at his wife and said he wanted to buy a gun to kill her?  If yes, you are a criminal; if no, you believe in gun control
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Wry Catcher:
> The difference is NOT treating the LAW ABIDING citizens with the same 'deprivation of liberty' as the criminals who have mental or criminal issues or records.
> 
> That's the problem.
> 
> How do we screen out the truly dangerous people? Without infringing on rights of law abiding citizens?
> 
> One solution Wry Catcher is the process of spiritual healing that has been used effectively and VOLUNTARILY to diagnose the cause and also to CURE criminal illness, abuse and addiction issues.
> 
> Since this is VOLUNTARY, that's why it isn't implemented through govt, which has no jurisdiction over people's spiritual process of healing of their internal issues and sickness.
> 
> Only AFTER a crime has occurred is the govt authorized to intervene.
> 
> So that's where the conflict lies.
> 
> The solution would be for PEOPLE to VOLUNTARILY participate and apply these methods to screen out mental and criminal illness per community WITHOUT being forced by govt.
> 
> Maybe we could find a way to do that, sort of like the OPPOSITE of the ACA health care mandates that imposed the wrong way.
> 
> If people want to qualify for the health care program of their choice (either free market or single payer through govt), the condition could be added that everyone go through the spiritual healing diagnostics to cure any potential cause of illness that is internal, in order to reduce the COST so health care can be afforded for everyone.  something like that.
> 
> this same process would SCREEN OUT the mentally ill and criminally dangerous people at the same time, not for punishment but for free treatment and recovery counseling. So everyone would win that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is the greatest "infringement", a license to own, possess or have in one's custody and control a gun; and, that all guns be registered with a national registry
> 
> Or,
> 
> Having a police office come to your door telling you, your child, sibling, parent or spouse was shot and killed at ABA Mall in America?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False dichotomy.
> 
> Also begging the question.
> 
> You've presented zero plans on how to keep guns from criminals, you're only targeting honest citizens.
> 
> Again, a drug lord puts drugs on a plane, flies them into the US, teenagers buy them.
> 
> That same drug lord can't throw some guns on the plane and sell them to criminals, because ....
> 
> You have no fricking clue, do you, Opie?
Click to expand...


Don't use terms you don't understand. 

 The two questions I asked, could both be considered infringements
 Background checks need to be more comprehensive, and may take longer
 Registration  provides a means to return a stolen gun to the rightful owner, and
 There is no Constitutional guarantee of privacy.
The name here is Wry Catcher, in the future address me as Mr. Catcher, or Sir.  Know you place.


----------



## westwall

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The NRA has done more for public safety than you ever have.  Tens of thousands of kids have been saved from harm because of NRA safety programs.   Your propaganda attack on them merely shows you to be the fascist you truly are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, my opinion is and remains that the NRA enables criminals, the insane, addicts and all around haters easy access to guns.  Your little ad hominem does not refute my claim.
> 
> There is no doubt safety programs are good and prevent accidents, now the NRA needs to expand safety by figuring out a way to restrict guns to people who have taken such courses, have passed a comprehensive background check and can be denied access to guns and ammo if they commit any future act which would have made guns inaccessible to them, i.e. licensing and registration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Note again all you propose is restricting gun access to honest citizens.  Not one of your proposals has anything to do with criminals who just buy them illegally.  That's why you keep ignoring responses to your stupid ideas
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again you biases color your judgment.  Most guns are sold legally, yet criminals seem to get them too easily as do mass murderers who are (presumably) insane.
> 
> Answer this question:  How do criminals and the insane get guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, most guns are sold legally, yet most crimes are committed with guns that are obtained illegally.
> 
> You call me "biased" yet exactly as I said, you're targeting legal gun owners, not criminals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So,  if most crimes committed with a gun are obtained illegally, what method(s) does the perp use to obtain the gun?
Click to expand...






Why don't you ask your hero's in France who had no problem obtaining AK-47's which they used to gun down 150 people.  Face it silly boy, gun laws affect only the law abiding.  Evil people ignore your bullshit laws, and have NO problem getting what they want.


----------



## westwall

Wry Catcher said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The NRA is not an "evil group."  They are a group that is concerned with preserving one of our constitutionally guaranteed rights, and they have just as much a right to "lobby" the government as any other group.
> 
> If you are going to put down one for lobbying, then you must be against those who lobby for the things that YOU think are important as well.  Get real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't seem to understand the distinction between what is lobbying and what is coercion.
> 
> Vote as I say, or we will recruit and fund the campaign of someone who will, is coercion, and that is what the NRA does!  It is extorting the vote of a member of a legislature, _do my bidding or else._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government is the only entity in the US with the power of coercion.  That is a fascist tool, and look at you the fascist who wants to disarm the PEOPLE of the USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, leftists live in hysterical fear of CEOs who can't make them do anything, then they blindly trust government, the only entity that can compel you to do things against your own interest because only they can use guns to compel you to do it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a particularly weird form of mental illness.  That is for certain.  It is astonishing that a thinking person would even attempt to label the NRA as a terrorist organization.  They are for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals while fascists like wry here, is all for releasing violent criminals back out into society so that they can commit their terrible crimes.  The only terrorist in this thread is wry catcher.  And provably so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a fool will believe your statement above.
> 
> Do you not know the meaning of the word "enable", and can you not understand why I used it in context of my post.  If you disagree, offer a rebuttal, but calling me mentally ill is nothing but a personal attack, and a surrender.
Click to expand...






Yes, I do.  And you are an enabler.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Flash said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> This ^^^ is really fringe thinking.  I suggest you run to the library and take out a copy of Lord of the Flies, a great primer for anyone contemplating libertarianism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Libertarianism is real freedom and personal responsibility.  Most Moon Bats don't like real freedom and they sure as hell hate to be held responsible for anything.
> 
> Socialism is slavery to the state.  Moon Bats love it.
Click to expand...


Have you read Lord of the Flies?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> The name here is Wry Catcher, in the future address me as Mr. Catcher, or Sir.  Know you place.


You also agreed "Foolish Child", by your own standard, applies.


----------



## Wry Catcher

westwall said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, my opinion is and remains that the NRA enables criminals, the insane, addicts and all around haters easy access to guns.  Your little ad hominem does not refute my claim.
> 
> There is no doubt safety programs are good and prevent accidents, now the NRA needs to expand safety by figuring out a way to restrict guns to people who have taken such courses, have passed a comprehensive background check and can be denied access to guns and ammo if they commit any future act which would have made guns inaccessible to them, i.e. licensing and registration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note again all you propose is restricting gun access to honest citizens.  Not one of your proposals has anything to do with criminals who just buy them illegally.  That's why you keep ignoring responses to your stupid ideas
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again you biases color your judgment.  Most guns are sold legally, yet criminals seem to get them too easily as do mass murderers who are (presumably) insane.
> 
> Answer this question:  How do criminals and the insane get guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, most guns are sold legally, yet most crimes are committed with guns that are obtained illegally.
> 
> You call me "biased" yet exactly as I said, you're targeting legal gun owners, not criminals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So,  if most crimes committed with a gun are obtained illegally, what method(s) does the perp use to obtain the gun?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you ask your hero's in France who had no problem obtaining AK-47's which they used to gun down 150 people.  Face it silly boy, gun laws affect only the law abiding.  Evil people ignore your bullshit laws, and have NO problem getting what they want.
Click to expand...



Temper temper, we all want to set a good example and play well with others.


----------



## Flash

Wry Catcher said:


> [Q
> 
> 
> Have you read Lord of the Flies?



Ten and eleven year olds stranded on an island can't make socialism work either you idiot.

Have you read Animal Farm?


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> The name here is Wry Catcher, in the future address me as Mr. Catcher, or Sir.  Know you place.
> 
> 
> 
> You also agreed "Foolish Child", by your own standard, applies.
Click to expand...


Personal attacks are childish, and they are hard to avoid when dealing with assholes' like you!


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Lakhota
> But the DOCTORS and COURTS can. By declaring people mentally unfit.
> 
> You cannot trust the "legal lobby" who have infiltrated every branch of govt.
> 
> If they can make people pay for health INSURANCE and call it health CARE,
> under "penalty by tax fines" and call it FREE CHOICE,
> they can mandate anything they want. Now that the FEDS have their hands on doctors and health care regulations!
> 
> Do you even realize the abuse of power that has been going on? And more and more power keeps shifting to govt?
> 
> A friend of mine lost her house and property to legal abuse this way .Got declared incompetent WITHOUT any doctor EVER examining her, and blocked from suing in court to defend her property.  ALL POLITICAL because the lawyers and judges wanted her GONE.
> 
> So this is already happening, abusing legal power to declare people incompetent and unfit for political agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is really fringe thinking.  I suggest you run to the library and take out a copy of Lord of the Flies, a great primer for anyone contemplating libertarianism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, FREEMEN need a primer.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know about all "FREEMEN"; I do now you need a therapist.
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course.  So you're thinking drug dealers wouldn't sell guns because that would be illegal?
> 
> And I thought you had no real argument.  Nailed it ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you ever sold a gun and not done a background check?
> 
> Would you sell a gun to a neighbor who was so agitated at his wife and said he wanted to buy a gun to kill her?  If yes, you are a criminal; if no, you believe in gun control
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Wry Catcher:
> The difference is NOT treating the LAW ABIDING citizens with the same 'deprivation of liberty' as the criminals who have mental or criminal issues or records.
> 
> That's the problem.
> 
> How do we screen out the truly dangerous people? Without infringing on rights of law abiding citizens?
> 
> One solution Wry Catcher is the process of spiritual healing that has been used effectively and VOLUNTARILY to diagnose the cause and also to CURE criminal illness, abuse and addiction issues.
> 
> Since this is VOLUNTARY, that's why it isn't implemented through govt, which has no jurisdiction over people's spiritual process of healing of their internal issues and sickness.
> 
> Only AFTER a crime has occurred is the govt authorized to intervene.
> 
> So that's where the conflict lies.
> 
> The solution would be for PEOPLE to VOLUNTARILY participate and apply these methods to screen out mental and criminal illness per community WITHOUT being forced by govt.
> 
> Maybe we could find a way to do that, sort of like the OPPOSITE of the ACA health care mandates that imposed the wrong way.
> 
> If people want to qualify for the health care program of their choice (either free market or single payer through govt), the condition could be added that everyone go through the spiritual healing diagnostics to cure any potential cause of illness that is internal, in order to reduce the COST so health care can be afforded for everyone.  something like that.
> 
> this same process would SCREEN OUT the mentally ill and criminally dangerous people at the same time, not for punishment but for free treatment and recovery counseling. So everyone would win that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is the greatest "infringement", a license to own, possess or have in one's custody and control a gun; and, that all guns be registered with a national registry
> 
> Or,
> 
> Having a police office come to your door telling you, your child, sibling, parent or spouse was shot and killed at ABA Mall in America?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False dichotomy.
> 
> Also begging the question.
> 
> You've presented zero plans on how to keep guns from criminals, you're only targeting honest citizens.
> 
> Again, a drug lord puts drugs on a plane, flies them into the US, teenagers buy them.
> 
> That same drug lord can't throw some guns on the plane and sell them to criminals, because ....
> 
> You have no fricking clue, do you, Opie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't use terms you don't understand.
> 
> 
> The two questions I asked, could both be considered infringements
> Background checks need to be more comprehensive, and may take longer
> Registration  provides a means to return a stolen gun to the rightful owner, and
> There is no Constitutional guarantee of privacy.
> The name here is Wry Catcher, in the future address me as Mr. Catcher, or Sir.  Know you place.
Click to expand...


The problem is using terms that you don't understand.  Now what about answering the question?

"Again, a drug lord puts drugs on a plane, flies them into the US, teenagers buy them.

That same drug lord can't throw some guns on the plane and sell them to criminals, because ...."


----------



## paulitician

Wry Catcher said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, y'all 'Safe Space' pussies are gonna have to move to a pussy country like France, England, Belgium, and so on. America's a tough place. It always has been. It's not for the weak and whiny.
> 
> Folks have the right to bear arms. If you can't handle that, move to another country. If you don't wanna do that, just quit your whining and go hide in your 'Safe Spaces'. Folks are gonna have their guns. Deal with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All folks have a right to bear arms?  Do you really believe "shall not be infringed applies to everyone"?
Click to expand...


Come on, seriously? Y'all go run and hide in your Safe Spaces, and we'll keep our guns. Deal with it.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> This ^^^ is really fringe thinking.  I suggest you run to the library and take out a copy of Lord of the Flies, a great primer for anyone contemplating libertarianism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Libertarianism is real freedom and personal responsibility.  Most Moon Bats don't like real freedom and they sure as hell hate to be held responsible for anything.
> 
> Socialism is slavery to the state.  Moon Bats love it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you read Lord of the Flies?
Click to expand...


He said libertarian, not anarchist.  How stupid are you?  I've told you that dozens of times


----------



## Flash

Wry Catcher said:


> [
> 
> 
> Personal attacks are childish, and they are hard to avoid when dealing with assholes' like you!



If you would say something intelligent every once in awhile maybe we wouldn't ridicule you so much.  Making a stupid statement about a fictitious book about children stranded on an island to attack individual liberty and personal responsibility will only get you ridicule in response.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Note again all you propose is restricting gun access to honest citizens.  Not one of your proposals has anything to do with criminals who just buy them illegally.  That's why you keep ignoring responses to your stupid ideas
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you biases color your judgment.  Most guns are sold legally, yet criminals seem to get them too easily as do mass murderers who are (presumably) insane.
> 
> Answer this question:  How do criminals and the insane get guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, most guns are sold legally, yet most crimes are committed with guns that are obtained illegally.
> 
> You call me "biased" yet exactly as I said, you're targeting legal gun owners, not criminals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So,  if most crimes committed with a gun are obtained illegally, what method(s) does the perp use to obtain the gun?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you ask your hero's in France who had no problem obtaining AK-47's which they used to gun down 150 people.  Face it silly boy, gun laws affect only the law abiding.  Evil people ignore your bullshit laws, and have NO problem getting what they want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Temper temper, we all want to set a good example and play well with others.
Click to expand...


Swish, another non-answer.  If gun laws work, why could they get AK-47's in France where there are far stricter gun laws than we have?


----------



## Wry Catcher

Flash said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Q
> 
> 
> Have you read Lord of the Flies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ten and eleven year olds stranded on an island can't make socialism work either you idiot.
> 
> Have you read Animal Farm?
Click to expand...


Of course, Do you have a point?

Have you read:  "It can't happen here"; a necessary read for those who support Trump.

Read it here:

IT CAN'T HAPPEN HERE


----------



## Flash

Wry Catcher said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Q
> 
> 
> Have you read Lord of the Flies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ten and eleven year olds stranded on an island can't make socialism work either you idiot.
> 
> Have you read Animal Farm?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, Do you have a point?
> 
> Have you read:  "It can't happen here"; a necessary read for those who support Trump.
> 
> Read it here:
> 
> IT CAN'T HAPPEN HERE
Click to expand...


I am not voting for Trump.  He is a big government Liberal that will be be better than this Crooked Hillary bitch but not good enough.

My point is that you are an idiot that is uneducated and low information and is confused about many things.  You prove it in just about every post that you make.

Since you want to play this silly game have you read "The Camp of the Saints"?  A book about the third worlders overrunning and destroying the civilized world.  Just what we are seeing nowadays.

The Camp of the Saints - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

_*The Camp of the Saints*_ (_Le Camp des Saints_) is a 1973 French apocalyptic novel by Jean Raspail. The novel depicts a setting wherein Third World mass immigration to France and the West leads to the destruction of Western civilization.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> Personal attacks are childish, and they are hard to avoid when dealing with assholes' like you!


The Foolish Child speaks.


----------



## Conservative65

Daryl Hunt said:


> EatMorChikin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> 
> heres the problem with republicans ....they are gullible ... they will believe just about everything they are told by their handlers
> Hillary will take your guns away ... do you think she and the entire democrats would be that stupid to try and do that ???  really !!!!! do you ??? hears what they would have to do.... first get every democrat on board to pass legislation in removing the second amendment, how well do you think thats going to work you idiots republicans ??? then get the majority of the people in the country on board with them so they know they can get reelected ... mind you, this is how stupid you republicans are ... you would believe this crap that they would be this stupid to try and remove the second amendment ... I guess your stupidity is cause by your mother and your uncles being your father is the cause ...here we have 294 post saying all kinds of bull shit reason that you believe we Dems will take the second amendment away ... because thats what it is ... right wing bull shit ... they can't come up with any kind of plan to run on,  they rely on you ignorance they intern go after the flag burners, people on welfare, guns, and gays and you fools lap it up ... I can believe republicans are this stupid .... that they feel we democrats would be so stupid to try and repeal the 2 amendment ... a amend meant that we believe that every person should have a gun ... we don't believe that gun should be a AR 15 .. or any automatic weapons ... by us democrats saying this you have been duped into beliebing we will repeal the second amendment, how moronic is that ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First it's one type, than the next. And why is the Armalite 15 the posterchild for gun control? Because those for gun control, are trying to regulate shit, they know nothing about. Oohhh it's a black scary boogie man gun. As far as I'm concerned, I should have an M-16. The infringement has already went too far. Liberals will not stop, until we are limited to single shot musket loaders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's look at it.  High Capacity Mags, high rate of fire, the type of weapon that has done the most murdering in schools, theaters, public areas.  The death and wounded would have been a lot lower if a handgun or bolt action were to be used.  You 2nd amendment clowns all seem to want more slaughter like it's been used.  They are weapons or war, not self defense.  You want one of the best home defense weapon, I suggest you look into the 410 pistol using 3 double aught buck pellets.  Your .556 rifle kills two houses over.  Just like it's not a real good idea to use your 700 bdl 30 cal since it will do the same thing.  The difference in the 7.62 is that the rifle is usually a bolt action.  You can also use a shotgun using the defender shells that are designed to hold the pattern without the extreme penetration.  Common sense says that a 40 SW is a better choice as well if you are a fair shot or real close.
> 
> The only reason to have a .556 AR style weapon is to shoot long and fast.  And that is why it's the choice of mass shootings.   WE need to fix it where not every Tom Dick and Omar can get his or her hands on one.  In the 20s, the Thompson 45 cal MG was taken out of circulation in 1926.  Stop this nonsense and save a few lives in the process.
Click to expand...


I'm going to need proof of your claim about less deaths related to the type of weapon.  The second deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history involved only a 9mm Glock and a 22 semi automatic.  

There isn't but one person that can determine what I deems as the best defense weapon in my home and it isn't you.  I see that you use the term common sense.  Hate to break it to you but you believing something doesn't make it common sense nor does it fail to be common sense because you don't.


----------



## Rustic

billyerock1991 said:


> heres the problem with republicans ....they are gullible ... they will believe just about everything they are told by their handlers
> Hillary will take your guns away ... do you think she and the entire democrats would be that stupid to try and do that ???  really !!!!! do you ??? hears what they would have to do.... first get every democrat on board to pass legislation in removing the second amendment, how well do you think thats going to work you idiots republicans ??? then get the majority of the people in the country on board with them so they know they can get reelected ... mind you, this is how stupid you republicans are ... you would believe this crap that they would be this stupid to try and remove the second amendment ... I guess your stupidity is cause by your mother and your uncles being your father is the cause ...here we have 294 post saying all kinds of bull shit reason that you believe we Dems will take the second amendment away ... because thats what it is ... right wing bull shit ... they can't come up with any kind of plan to run on,  they rely on you ignorance they intern go after the flag burners, people on welfare, guns, and gays and you fools lap it up ... I can believe republicans are this stupid .... that they feel we democrats would be so stupid to try and repeal the 2 amendment ... a amend meant that we believe that every person should have a gun ... we don't believe that gun should be a AR 15 .. or any automatic weapons ... by us democrats saying this you have been duped into beliebing we will repeal the second amendment, how moronic is that ...


Dip shit, an ar15 is just a sporting rifle... Harmless on their own.
Lol


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

billyerock1991 said:


> heres the problem with republicans ....they are gullible ... they will believe just about everything they are told by their handlers
> Hillary will take your guns away ... do you think she and the entire democrats would be that stupid to try and do that ???  really !!!!! do you ??? hears what they would have to do.... first get every democrat on board to pass legislation in removing the second amendment, how well do you think thats going to work you idiots republicans ??? then get the majority of the people in the country on board with them so they know they can get reelected ... mind you, this is how stupid you republicans are ... you would believe this crap that they would be this stupid to try and remove the second amendment ... I guess your stupidity is cause by your mother and your uncles being your father is the cause ...here we have 294 post saying all kinds of bull shit reason that you believe we Dems will take the second amendment away ... because thats what it is ... right wing bull shit ... they can't come up with any kind of plan to run on,  they rely on you ignorance they intern go after the flag burners, people on welfare, guns, and gays and you fools lap it up ... I can believe republicans are this stupid .... that they feel we democrats would be so stupid to try and repeal the 2 amendment ... a amend meant that we believe that every person should have a gun ... we don't believe that gun should be a AR 15 .. or any automatic weapons ... by us democrats saying this you have been duped into beliebing we will repeal the second amendment, how moronic is that ...



All Hillary Clinton has to do is appoint and place enough liberal judges who agrees with her view towards guns.  When has the United States Supreme Court, particularly judges who share a liberal ideological view of that document, actually abided by the rules written  in the Constitution?


----------



## Wry Catcher

Flash said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Q
> 
> 
> Have you read Lord of the Flies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ten and eleven year olds stranded on an island can't make socialism work either you idiot.
> 
> Have you read Animal Farm?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, Do you have a point?
> 
> Have you read:  "It can't happen here"; a necessary read for those who support Trump.
> 
> Read it here:
> 
> IT CAN'T HAPPEN HERE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not voting for Trump.  He is a big government Liberal that will be be better than this Crooked Hillary bitch but not good enough.
> 
> My point is that you are an idiot that is uneducated and low information and is confused about many things.  You prove it in just about every post that you make.
> 
> Since you want to play this silly game have you read "The Camp of the Saints"?  A book about the third worlders overrunning and destroying the civilized world.  Just what we are seeing nowadays.
> 
> The Camp of the Saints - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> _*The Camp of the Saints*_ (_Le Camp des Saints_) is a 1973 French apocalyptic novel by Jean Raspail. The novel depicts a setting wherein Third World mass immigration to France and the West leads to the destruction of Western civilization.
Click to expand...


Hmmmm, no I haven't.  But I'll read some reviews and if I'm interested I'll add it to my reading list.

Since you believe HRC is a crook, maybe you can offer what she did to be arraigned, tried and convicted of doing, which made her a crook.  You might also explain who you conclude Trump is a big government liberal  - his Stump speech leaves little doubt that he is a neo fascist as are his supporters.

For others here is the first synopsis I've read:

_By the year 2000 there will on present projections be seven billion people swarming on the surface of the Earth. And only nine hundred million of them will be white. What will happen when the teeming billions of the so-called Third World - driven by unbearable hunger and despair, the inevitable consequences of insensate over-population - descend locust-like on the lush lands of the complacent white nations?

Jean Raspail has the rare imagination and courage necessary to face this terrifying question head-on. Readers of whatever color and political persuasion will find in The Camp of the Saints (already a bestseller in France & America) a hypnotically readable novel of compelling power that will disturb, provoke and horrify them by turns. And so powerful is its impact that once you have read it you will need brain surgery to forget it.

_


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The NRA is not an "evil group."  They are a group that is concerned with preserving one of our constitutionally guaranteed rights, and they have just as much a right to "lobby" the government as any other group.
> 
> If you are going to put down one for lobbying, then you must be against those who lobby for the things that YOU think are important as well.  Get real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even more than that, the NRA is concerned with teaching gun owners to own and use them safely.  And sure, preserving the right to own them is a critical part of that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL The NRA is a terrorist organization, it enables the crazy, the criminal and those driven by hate to easily obtain guns.  It opposes any and all restrictions on the gun trade and its supporters are they themselves culpable in the deaths of so many innocent human beings.
Click to expand...


The NRA is a terrorist organization but labling a particular group or region of Muslims as terrorists that are forbidden from entering this country is hate speech.  Looks like you just validated Trump's position on choosing who is allowed to enter the United States with that rhetoric.


----------



## Wry Catcher

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> 
> heres the problem with republicans ....they are gullible ... they will believe just about everything they are told by their handlers
> Hillary will take your guns away ... do you think she and the entire democrats would be that stupid to try and do that ???  really !!!!! do you ??? hears what they would have to do.... first get every democrat on board to pass legislation in removing the second amendment, how well do you think thats going to work you idiots republicans ??? then get the majority of the people in the country on board with them so they know they can get reelected ... mind you, this is how stupid you republicans are ... you would believe this crap that they would be this stupid to try and remove the second amendment ... I guess your stupidity is cause by your mother and your uncles being your father is the cause ...here we have 294 post saying all kinds of bull shit reason that you believe we Dems will take the second amendment away ... because thats what it is ... right wing bull shit ... they can't come up with any kind of plan to run on,  they rely on you ignorance they intern go after the flag burners, people on welfare, guns, and gays and you fools lap it up ... I can believe republicans are this stupid .... that they feel we democrats would be so stupid to try and repeal the 2 amendment ... a amend meant that we believe that every person should have a gun ... we don't believe that gun should be a AR 15 .. or any automatic weapons ... by us democrats saying this you have been duped into beliebing we will repeal the second amendment, how moronic is that ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All Hillary Clinton has to do is appoint and place enough liberal judges who agrees with her view towards guns.  When has the United States Supreme Court, particularly judges who share a liberal ideological view of that document, actually abided by the rules written  in the Constitution?
Click to expand...


And what do you believe five liberal judges can do to impact the Second A.?  The have no authority to repeal it, so what is your worst case scenario?


----------



## owebo

Wry Catcher said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> 
> heres the problem with republicans ....they are gullible ... they will believe just about everything they are told by their handlers
> Hillary will take your guns away ... do you think she and the entire democrats would be that stupid to try and do that ???  really !!!!! do you ??? hears what they would have to do.... first get every democrat on board to pass legislation in removing the second amendment, how well do you think thats going to work you idiots republicans ??? then get the majority of the people in the country on board with them so they know they can get reelected ... mind you, this is how stupid you republicans are ... you would believe this crap that they would be this stupid to try and remove the second amendment ... I guess your stupidity is cause by your mother and your uncles being your father is the cause ...here we have 294 post saying all kinds of bull shit reason that you believe we Dems will take the second amendment away ... because thats what it is ... right wing bull shit ... they can't come up with any kind of plan to run on,  they rely on you ignorance they intern go after the flag burners, people on welfare, guns, and gays and you fools lap it up ... I can believe republicans are this stupid .... that they feel we democrats would be so stupid to try and repeal the 2 amendment ... a amend meant that we believe that every person should have a gun ... we don't believe that gun should be a AR 15 .. or any automatic weapons ... by us democrats saying this you have been duped into beliebing we will repeal the second amendment, how moronic is that ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All Hillary Clinton has to do is appoint and place enough liberal judges who agrees with her view towards guns.  When has the United States Supreme Court, particularly judges who share a liberal ideological view of that document, actually abided by the rules written  in the Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what do you believe five liberal judges can do to impact the Second A.?  The have no authority to repeal it, so what is your worst case scenario?
Click to expand...

Link me to a Walmart where I can buy an automatic weapon?  Thanks!!!!


----------



## IsaacNewton

The great myth of the 'seckund uhmendmunt' klingons that the population having single shot rifles is enough to protect us from our own military that has millions of fully automatic  rifles, thousands of fully auto .60 caliber machine guns, 8,700 M1A1 tanks, 6,400 attack helicopters, 13,000 aircraft, 10 aircraft carriers, cruise missiles, B-52 bombers, ballistic missiles, and nuclear weapons.

If we do ever have to fight our own military the very first thing they will do is secure all of their assets, you know because they are their assets and they know right where all of them are, then mobilize all that firepower against us and the few divisions that may switch over and fight with us.

You people live in a fantasy that died completely just before WW1, over 100 years ago.

It is a very unpleasant reality but it is reality. The American people with their single shot AR15's couldn't beat the Mexican army.


----------



## westwall

Wry Catcher said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Note again all you propose is restricting gun access to honest citizens.  Not one of your proposals has anything to do with criminals who just buy them illegally.  That's why you keep ignoring responses to your stupid ideas
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you biases color your judgment.  Most guns are sold legally, yet criminals seem to get them too easily as do mass murderers who are (presumably) insane.
> 
> Answer this question:  How do criminals and the insane get guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, most guns are sold legally, yet most crimes are committed with guns that are obtained illegally.
> 
> You call me "biased" yet exactly as I said, you're targeting legal gun owners, not criminals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So,  if most crimes committed with a gun are obtained illegally, what method(s) does the perp use to obtain the gun?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you ask your hero's in France who had no problem obtaining AK-47's which they used to gun down 150 people.  Face it silly boy, gun laws affect only the law abiding.  Evil people ignore your bullshit laws, and have NO problem getting what they want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Temper temper, we all want to set a good example and play well with others.
Click to expand...







I don't "play" with people who want to deprive me of fundamental Rights.  I despise "people" like you.  "People", just like you have made it possible for governments to murder over 150 million civilians over the last 125 years.  You're scum.


----------



## owebo

IsaacNewton said:


> The great myth of the 'seckund uhmendmunt' klingons that the population having single shot rifles is enough to protect us from our own military that has millions of fully automatic  rifles, thousands of fully auto .60 caliber machine guns, 8,700 M1A1 tanks, 6,400 attack helicopters, 13,000 aircraft, 10 aircraft carriers, cruise missiles, B-52 bombers, ballistic missiles, and nuclear weapons.
> 
> If we do ever have to fight our own military the very first thing they will do is secure all of their assets, you know because they are their assets and they know right where all of them are, then mobilize all that firepower against us and the few divisions that may switch over and fight with us.
> 
> You people live in a fantasy that died completely just before WW1, over 100 years ago.
> 
> It is a very unpleasant reality but it is reality. The American people with their single shot AR15's couldn't beat the Mexican army.


.50 caliber....fucking genius....


----------



## Borillar

Lakhota said:


> *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means.*
Click to expand...


Yeah... If I was in a crowded bar or theater, I'd be a lot happier taking my chances against some asshole with a muzzle loading musket than some nutjob with an AR-15.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Wry Catcher said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> 
> heres the problem with republicans ....they are gullible ... they will believe just about everything they are told by their handlers
> Hillary will take your guns away ... do you think she and the entire democrats would be that stupid to try and do that ???  really !!!!! do you ??? hears what they would have to do.... first get every democrat on board to pass legislation in removing the second amendment, how well do you think thats going to work you idiots republicans ??? then get the majority of the people in the country on board with them so they know they can get reelected ... mind you, this is how stupid you republicans are ... you would believe this crap that they would be this stupid to try and remove the second amendment ... I guess your stupidity is cause by your mother and your uncles being your father is the cause ...here we have 294 post saying all kinds of bull shit reason that you believe we Dems will take the second amendment away ... because thats what it is ... right wing bull shit ... they can't come up with any kind of plan to run on,  they rely on you ignorance they intern go after the flag burners, people on welfare, guns, and gays and you fools lap it up ... I can believe republicans are this stupid .... that they feel we democrats would be so stupid to try and repeal the 2 amendment ... a amend meant that we believe that every person should have a gun ... we don't believe that gun should be a AR 15 .. or any automatic weapons ... by us democrats saying this you have been duped into beliebing we will repeal the second amendment, how moronic is that ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All Hillary Clinton has to do is appoint and place enough liberal judges who agrees with her view towards guns.  When has the United States Supreme Court, particularly judges who share a liberal ideological view of that document, actually abided by the rules written  in the Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what do you believe five liberal judges can do to impact the Second A.?  The have no authority to repeal it, so what is your worst case scenario?
Click to expand...


They can water down and undermine it's interpretation to the point of making its authoritative nature weak. Liberals don't follow constitutional rules, else we would see a 14th amendment specifically include and address sexual orientation with gay rights or transgenders.  The 14 Amendment didn't work historically with the women's movement, and I don't see a process to amend the constitution being utilized since that period of our nation's history to address the issue of sexual orientation.  That's all the proof you need to show that liberal judges don't abide by the same Constitutional rules that our nation had to historically once follow during that period of seeking women's equality.


----------



## westwall

IsaacNewton said:


> The great myth of the 'seckund uhmendmunt' klingons that the population having single shot rifles is enough to protect us from our own military that has millions of fully automatic  rifles, thousands of fully auto .60 caliber machine guns, 8,700 M1A1 tanks, 6,400 attack helicopters, 13,000 aircraft, 10 aircraft carriers, cruise missiles, B-52 bombers, ballistic missiles, and nuclear weapons.
> 
> If we do ever have to fight our own military the very first thing they will do is secure all of their assets, you know because they are their assets and they know right where all of them are, then mobilize all that firepower against us and the few divisions that may switch over and fight with us.
> 
> You people live in a fantasy that died completely just before WW1, over 100 years ago.
> 
> It is a very unpleasant reality but it is reality. The American people with their single shot AR15's couldn't beat the Mexican army.









That's why we don't have "single shot" AR-15's.  We have self loading AR-15's.  Evens up the odds quite a bit.  However, you might want to ask them Russki's abut how they were able to demolish them backasswards Afghani's and their Jezails.....

Oh...wait...


----------



## IsaacNewton

westwall said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> The great myth of the 'seckund uhmendmunt' klingons that the population having single shot rifles is enough to protect us from our own military that has millions of fully automatic  rifles, thousands of fully auto .60 caliber machine guns, 8,700 M1A1 tanks, 6,400 attack helicopters, 13,000 aircraft, 10 aircraft carriers, cruise missiles, B-52 bombers, ballistic missiles, and nuclear weapons.
> 
> If we do ever have to fight our own military the very first thing they will do is secure all of their assets, you know because they are their assets and they know right where all of them are, then mobilize all that firepower against us and the few divisions that may switch over and fight with us.
> 
> You people live in a fantasy that died completely just before WW1, over 100 years ago.
> 
> It is a very unpleasant reality but it is reality. The American people with their single shot AR15's couldn't beat the Mexican army.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's why we don't have "single shot" AR-15's.  We have self loading AR-15's.  Evens up the odds quite a bit.  However, you might want to ask them Russki's abut how they were able to demolish them backasswards Afghani's and their Jezails.....
> 
> Oh...wait...
Click to expand...


You demonstrate your fantasy world, thank you.


----------



## Afterword

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> All Hillary Clinton has to do is appoint and place enough liberal judges who agrees with her view towards guns. When has the United States Supreme Court, particularly judges who share a liberal ideological view of that document, actually abided by the rules written in the Constitution?





How would they dispossess the populous of firearms once the Supreme Court sanctioned the act? I am quite certain that a large number of gun owners would not hand over there weapons willingly, and it would require extreme measures to force them into submission. Homes would have to be searched, the border security would have to be strengthened to an unprecedented level and a special task force would be needed to implement the latter.

The devil would be in the details.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Afterword said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> All Hillary Clinton has to do is appoint and place enough liberal judges who agrees with her view towards guns. When has the United States Supreme Court, particularly judges who share a liberal ideological view of that document, actually abided by the rules written in the Constitution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would they dispossess the populous of firearms once the Supreme Court sanctioned the act? I am quite certain that a large number of gun owners would not hand over there weapons willing, and it would require extreme measures to force them into submission. Homes would have to be searched, the border security would have to be strengthened to an unprecedented level and a special task force would be needed to implement the latter.
> 
> The devil would be in the details.
Click to expand...


Not that difficult really. Anyone approached by the police or government agent in a routine enforcement stop as a  "suspected individual" (or person of interest) found in possession of a firearm would have that firearm seized, as any cop that arrests a criminal suspected of a violent crime would do.   Those that sell firearms would be so heavily regulated by the government that their ability to have a license to sell a firearm would be difficult to obtain.  Look at the coal industry and how regulations have hindered their position to produce coal as a fossil fuel source.  Democrats are well known for more and more increased regulations more than republicans, all one has to do is look at those President Obama has passed and the effects they achieved towards meeting their liberal ideological position.  You don't think government has the authority?  Just look at the government health care system and the Supreme Court Justices that have kept it in place. You really only have to see what Democrats have historically been known for over the past three decades to see the capability and the possibility that exists.


----------



## Afterword

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Afterword said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> All Hillary Clinton has to do is appoint and place enough liberal judges who agrees with her view towards guns. When has the United States Supreme Court, particularly judges who share a liberal ideological view of that document, actually abided by the rules written in the Constitution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would they dispossess the populous of firearms once the Supreme Court sanctioned the act? I am quite certain that a large number of gun owners would not hand over there weapons willing, and it would require extreme measures to force them into submission. Homes would have to be searched, the border security would have to be strengthened to an unprecedented level and a special task force would be needed to implement the latter.
> 
> The devil would be in the details.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not that difficult really. Anyone approached by the police or government agent in a routine enforcement stop as a  "suspected individual" (or person of interest) found in possession of a firearm would have that firearm seized, as any cop that arrests a criminal suspected of a violent crime would do.   Those that sell firearms would be so heavily regulated by the government that their ability to have a license to sell a firearm would be difficult to obtain.  Look at the coal industry and how regulations have hindered their position to produce coal as a fossil fuel source.  Democrats are well known for more and more increased regulations more than republicans, all one has to do is look at those President Obama has passed and the effects they achieved towards meeting their liberal ideological position.  You don't think government has the authority?  Just look at the government health care system and the Supreme Court Justices that have kept it in place.
Click to expand...



My mistake, I thought you were talking about making firearms illegal to own?


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Afterword said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Afterword said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> All Hillary Clinton has to do is appoint and place enough liberal judges who agrees with her view towards guns. When has the United States Supreme Court, particularly judges who share a liberal ideological view of that document, actually abided by the rules written in the Constitution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would they dispossess the populous of firearms once the Supreme Court sanctioned the act? I am quite certain that a large number of gun owners would not hand over there weapons willing, and it would require extreme measures to force them into submission. Homes would have to be searched, the border security would have to be strengthened to an unprecedented level and a special task force would be needed to implement the latter.
> 
> The devil would be in the details.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not that difficult really. Anyone approached by the police or government agent in a routine enforcement stop as a  "suspected individual" (or person of interest) found in possession of a firearm would have that firearm seized, as any cop that arrests a criminal suspected of a violent crime would do.   Those that sell firearms would be so heavily regulated by the government that their ability to have a license to sell a firearm would be difficult to obtain.  Look at the coal industry and how regulations have hindered their position to produce coal as a fossil fuel source.  Democrats are well known for more and more increased regulations more than republicans, all one has to do is look at those President Obama has passed and the effects they achieved towards meeting their liberal ideological position.  You don't think government has the authority?  Just look at the government health care system and the Supreme Court Justices that have kept it in place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My mistake, I thought you were talking about making firearms illegal to own?
Click to expand...


Own and sell, as I have just shown in my response how they (police and government agents)  can seize firearms that come to their knowledge. It comes down to the constitutional interpretation of the second amendment and how it applies, or its historical significance when it comes to the language it was written at the time.


----------



## Afterword

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Afterword said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Afterword said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> All Hillary Clinton has to do is appoint and place enough liberal judges who agrees with her view towards guns. When has the United States Supreme Court, particularly judges who share a liberal ideological view of that document, actually abided by the rules written in the Constitution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would they dispossess the populous of firearms once the Supreme Court sanctioned the act? I am quite certain that a large number of gun owners would not hand over there weapons willing, and it would require extreme measures to force them into submission. Homes would have to be searched, the border security would have to be strengthened to an unprecedented level and a special task force would be needed to implement the latter.
> 
> The devil would be in the details.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not that difficult really. Anyone approached by the police or government agent in a routine enforcement stop as a  "suspected individual" (or person of interest) found in possession of a firearm would have that firearm seized, as any cop that arrests a criminal suspected of a violent crime would do.   Those that sell firearms would be so heavily regulated by the government that their ability to have a license to sell a firearm would be difficult to obtain.  Look at the coal industry and how regulations have hindered their position to produce coal as a fossil fuel source.  Democrats are well known for more and more increased regulations more than republicans, all one has to do is look at those President Obama has passed and the effects they achieved towards meeting their liberal ideological position.  You don't think government has the authority?  Just look at the government health care system and the Supreme Court Justices that have kept it in place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My mistake, I thought you were talking about making firearms illegal to own?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Own and sell, as I have just shown in my response how they (police and government agents)  can seize firearms that come to their knowledge.
Click to expand...




That would not be an effective or serious means of accomplishing the desired end. A large number of people would still own firearms a hundred years later.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Borillar said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah... If I was in a crowded bar or theater, I'd be a lot happier taking my chances against some asshole with a muzzle loading musket than some nutjob with an AR-15.
Click to expand...


Yeah because it happens soooo often


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Afterword said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Afterword said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Afterword said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> All Hillary Clinton has to do is appoint and place enough liberal judges who agrees with her view towards guns. When has the United States Supreme Court, particularly judges who share a liberal ideological view of that document, actually abided by the rules written in the Constitution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would they dispossess the populous of firearms once the Supreme Court sanctioned the act? I am quite certain that a large number of gun owners would not hand over there weapons willing, and it would require extreme measures to force them into submission. Homes would have to be searched, the border security would have to be strengthened to an unprecedented level and a special task force would be needed to implement the latter.
> 
> The devil would be in the details.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not that difficult really. Anyone approached by the police or government agent in a routine enforcement stop as a  "suspected individual" (or person of interest) found in possession of a firearm would have that firearm seized, as any cop that arrests a criminal suspected of a violent crime would do.   Those that sell firearms would be so heavily regulated by the government that their ability to have a license to sell a firearm would be difficult to obtain.  Look at the coal industry and how regulations have hindered their position to produce coal as a fossil fuel source.  Democrats are well known for more and more increased regulations more than republicans, all one has to do is look at those President Obama has passed and the effects they achieved towards meeting their liberal ideological position.  You don't think government has the authority?  Just look at the government health care system and the Supreme Court Justices that have kept it in place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My mistake, I thought you were talking about making firearms illegal to own?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Own and sell, as I have just shown in my response how they (police and government agents)  can seize firearms that come to their knowledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would not be an effective or serious means of accomplishing the desired end. A large number of people would still own firearms a hundred years later.
Click to expand...


As we have so many successful coal industries  that are able to remain in business from more and more government regulations? Think again.  Interpretation, government provided regulation, Constitutional Judicial support from life term judges without anyone to answer to, and government enforcement is all you need.


----------



## westwall

IsaacNewton said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> The great myth of the 'seckund uhmendmunt' klingons that the population having single shot rifles is enough to protect us from our own military that has millions of fully automatic  rifles, thousands of fully auto .60 caliber machine guns, 8,700 M1A1 tanks, 6,400 attack helicopters, 13,000 aircraft, 10 aircraft carriers, cruise missiles, B-52 bombers, ballistic missiles, and nuclear weapons.
> 
> If we do ever have to fight our own military the very first thing they will do is secure all of their assets, you know because they are their assets and they know right where all of them are, then mobilize all that firepower against us and the few divisions that may switch over and fight with us.
> 
> You people live in a fantasy that died completely just before WW1, over 100 years ago.
> 
> It is a very unpleasant reality but it is reality. The American people with their single shot AR15's couldn't beat the Mexican army.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's why we don't have "single shot" AR-15's.  We have self loading AR-15's.  Evens up the odds quite a bit.  However, you might want to ask them Russki's abut how they were able to demolish them backasswards Afghani's and their Jezails.....
> 
> Oh...wait...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You demonstrate your fantasy world, thank you.
Click to expand...







Historically, and factually correct.  It is you and your simpleton views that are living in fantasy land.


----------



## Borillar

Skull Pilot said:


> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah... If I was in a crowded bar or theater, I'd be a lot happier taking my chances against some asshole with a muzzle loading musket than some nutjob with an AR-15.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah because it happens soooo often
Click to expand...

Happens more often than a zombie apocalypse, anti-tyrannical government revolutions, and invaders from space - the typical right wing reasons to have them.


----------



## IsaacNewton

westwall said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> The great myth of the 'seckund uhmendmunt' klingons that the population having single shot rifles is enough to protect us from our own military that has millions of fully automatic  rifles, thousands of fully auto .60 caliber machine guns, 8,700 M1A1 tanks, 6,400 attack helicopters, 13,000 aircraft, 10 aircraft carriers, cruise missiles, B-52 bombers, ballistic missiles, and nuclear weapons.
> 
> If we do ever have to fight our own military the very first thing they will do is secure all of their assets, you know because they are their assets and they know right where all of them are, then mobilize all that firepower against us and the few divisions that may switch over and fight with us.
> 
> You people live in a fantasy that died completely just before WW1, over 100 years ago.
> 
> It is a very unpleasant reality but it is reality. The American people with their single shot AR15's couldn't beat the Mexican army.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's why we don't have "single shot" AR-15's.  We have self loading AR-15's.  Evens up the odds quite a bit.  However, you might want to ask them Russki's abut how they were able to demolish them backasswards Afghani's and their Jezails.....
> 
> Oh...wait...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You demonstrate your fantasy world, thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Historically, and factually correct.  It is you and your simpleton views that are living in fantasy land.
Click to expand...


Well stock up on your flintlocks and musket balls. And don't forget your pointy aluminum hat.


----------



## Flash

Wry Catcher said:


> [
> 
> 
> Since you believe HRC is a crook, maybe you can offer what she did to be arraigned, tried and convicted of doing, which made her a crook.  You might also explain who you conclude Trump is a big government liberal  - his Stump speech leaves little doubt that he is a neo fascist as are his supporters.



I don't believe it I know it.  We all know it, even you idiots that are going to voted for the filthy ass bitch.  The FBI Director even said she was an incompetent asshole and said she lied to Congress when pressed on the matter.

You must be getting all your news from MSNBC so you continue to be low information.  That is typical for a Moon Bat, isn't it?

You may be the only Gruberidiot left in this country that actually believes Crooked Hillary is honest and not corrupt.

You are quite a peach, aren't you?  You think Crooked Hillary is honest ,you voted for that jackass Obama and you don't believe we should have the right to keep and bear arms in this country.  You should run for the office of President of the Libtard Moon Bat Club.  You would be  a shoe in.


----------



## Wry Catcher

westwall said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you biases color your judgment.  Most guns are sold legally, yet criminals seem to get them too easily as do mass murderers who are (presumably) insane.
> 
> Answer this question:  How do criminals and the insane get guns?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, most guns are sold legally, yet most crimes are committed with guns that are obtained illegally.
> 
> You call me "biased" yet exactly as I said, you're targeting legal gun owners, not criminals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So,  if most crimes committed with a gun are obtained illegally, what method(s) does the perp use to obtain the gun?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you ask your hero's in France who had no problem obtaining AK-47's which they used to gun down 150 people.  Face it silly boy, gun laws affect only the law abiding.  Evil people ignore your bullshit laws, and have NO problem getting what they want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Temper temper, we all want to set a good example and play well with others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't "play" with people who want to deprive me of fundamental Rights.  I despise "people" like you.  "People", just like you have made it possible for governments to murder over 150 million civilians over the last 125 years.  You're scum.
Click to expand...


Thanks so much for sharing.  BTW, I don't default to fighting words with punks like you.  You're entitled to your opinion, but always keep in mind that opinions built on a foundation of hate and fear and emotion are like assholes, existing for the single reason to spread shit.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Flash said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> Since you believe HRC is a crook, maybe you can offer what she did to be arraigned, tried and convicted of doing, which made her a crook.  You might also explain who you conclude Trump is a big government liberal  - his Stump speech leaves little doubt that he is a neo fascist as are his supporters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe it I know it.  We all know it, even you idiots that are going to voted for the filthy ass bitch.  The FBI Director even said she was an incompetent asshole and said she lied to Congress when pressed on the matter.
> 
> You must be getting all your news from MSNBC so you continue to be low information.  That is typical for a Moon Bat, isn't it?
> 
> You may be the only Gruberidiot left in this country that actually believes Crooked Hillary is honest and not corrupt.
> 
> You are quite a peach, aren't you?  You think Crooked Hillary is honest ,you voted for that jackass Obama and you don't believe we should have the right to keep and bear arms in this country.  You should run for the office of President of the Libtard Moon Bat Club.  You would be  a shoe in.
Click to expand...


You unbridled anger is emotional, not rational.  It seems to me someone who cannot control their emotions is too immature and too childish to engage in an adult conversation.   In all fairness, I suggest you a) get a competent therapist; b) return to high school and learn to write an expository essay, as well a take a course in debate, and c) grow up.


----------



## EatMorChikin

IsaacNewton said:


> The great myth of the 'seckund uhmendmunt' klingons that the population having single shot rifles is enough to protect us from our own military that has millions of fully automatic  rifles, thousands of fully auto .60 caliber machine guns, 8,700 M1A1 tanks, 6,400 attack helicopters, 13,000 aircraft, 10 aircraft carriers, cruise missiles, B-52 bombers, ballistic missiles, and nuclear weapons.
> 
> If we do ever have to fight our own military the very first thing they will do is secure all of their assets, you know because they are their assets and they know right where all of them are, then mobilize all that firepower against us and the few divisions that may switch over and fight with us.
> 
> You people live in a fantasy that died completely just before WW1, over 100 years ago.
> 
> It is a very unpleasant reality but it is reality. The American people with their single shot AR15's couldn't beat the Mexican army.


If I had to fight the mexican army, my rifles would be converted. And if shit happened in this country, military would take our side.


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, most guns are sold legally, yet most crimes are committed with guns that are obtained illegally.
> 
> You call me "biased" yet exactly as I said, you're targeting legal gun owners, not criminals
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So,  if most crimes committed with a gun are obtained illegally, what method(s) does the perp use to obtain the gun?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you ask your hero's in France who had no problem obtaining AK-47's which they used to gun down 150 people.  Face it silly boy, gun laws affect only the law abiding.  Evil people ignore your bullshit laws, and have NO problem getting what they want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Temper temper, we all want to set a good example and play well with others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't "play" with people who want to deprive me of fundamental Rights.  I despise "people" like you.  "People", just like you have made it possible for governments to murder over 150 million civilians over the last 125 years.  You're scum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks so much for sharing.  BTW, I don't default to fighting words with punks like you.  You're entitled to your opinion, but always keep in mind that opinions built on a foundation of hate and fear and emotion are like assholes, existing for the single reason to spread shit.
Click to expand...


Gawd, you insult people all the time and you whine to high heaven when you get insulted.  And yet, you can't answer this simple question, you keep running away and hiding.  Here it is ... again ... coward ...

Drug smugglers smuggle all the drugs they want to and sell them to high school kids.

What stops them from bringing guns with the drugs and selling them to criminals?

Stop being a complete and utter sniveling coward and avoiding the question and ... answer it ...


----------



## owebo

Wry Catcher said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, most guns are sold legally, yet most crimes are committed with guns that are obtained illegally.
> 
> You call me "biased" yet exactly as I said, you're targeting legal gun owners, not criminals
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So,  if most crimes committed with a gun are obtained illegally, what method(s) does the perp use to obtain the gun?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you ask your hero's in France who had no problem obtaining AK-47's which they used to gun down 150 people.  Face it silly boy, gun laws affect only the law abiding.  Evil people ignore your bullshit laws, and have NO problem getting what they want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Temper temper, we all want to set a good example and play well with others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't "play" with people who want to deprive me of fundamental Rights.  I despise "people" like you.  "People", just like you have made it possible for governments to murder over 150 million civilians over the last 125 years.  You're scum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks so much for sharing.  BTW, I don't default to fighting words with punks like you.  You're entitled to your opinion, but always keep in mind that opinions built on a foundation of hate and fear and emotion are like assholes, existing for the single reason to spread shit.
Click to expand...

One thing you can rest assured knowing, you will be stacked at the bottom of the piles....


----------



## frigidweirdo

P@triot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 85608
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have to love it when people pick and choose their facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right? I've always wondered why liberals do that.
Click to expand...


It's not just liberals. People do it on both sides, mainly because they don't know how to debate properly.

People want everything so simple so they don't have to think about things properly. 

That's why soundbites work really well. As Fox News said the other day, why is it Trump made a whole speech and the media (including Fox) picked up only of the silly statement that Trump made. 

Well, it's because people can't be bothered to wade through a whole speech, they prefer their news in 30 seconds or less.


----------



## westwall

Wry Catcher said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, most guns are sold legally, yet most crimes are committed with guns that are obtained illegally.
> 
> You call me "biased" yet exactly as I said, you're targeting legal gun owners, not criminals
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So,  if most crimes committed with a gun are obtained illegally, what method(s) does the perp use to obtain the gun?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you ask your hero's in France who had no problem obtaining AK-47's which they used to gun down 150 people.  Face it silly boy, gun laws affect only the law abiding.  Evil people ignore your bullshit laws, and have NO problem getting what they want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Temper temper, we all want to set a good example and play well with others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't "play" with people who want to deprive me of fundamental Rights.  I despise "people" like you.  "People", just like you have made it possible for governments to murder over 150 million civilians over the last 125 years.  You're scum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks so much for sharing.  BTW, I don't default to fighting words with punks like you.  You're entitled to your opinion, but always keep in mind that opinions built on a foundation of hate and fear and emotion are like assholes, existing for the single reason to spread shit.
Click to expand...







I don't hate you, or fear you.  I despise you.  Look it up.


----------



## P@triot

frigidweirdo said:


> It's not just liberals. People do it on both sides, mainly because they don't know how to debate properly.
> 
> People want everything so simple so they don't have to think about things properly.
> 
> That's why soundbites work really well. As Fox News said the other day, why is it Trump made a whole speech and the media (including Fox) picked up only of the silly statement that Trump made.
> 
> Well, it's because people can't be bothered to wade through a whole speech, they prefer their news in 30 seconds or less.


While I grant you that there is _some_ validity to your point - I do think you are over simplifying it quite a bit. Take your Trump example. If Fox News showed the entire speech it would eat up there entire news segment. Furthermore, why would anyone tune in to Fox if they are going to air the entire thing? Why not just watch it live? Finally - there are only 24 hours in a day and most people are pretty darn busy. They don't have the luxury of reading every government report in its entirety, watch every speech in its entirety, read every bill in its entirety, etc. We rely on various sources to give us the "Cliffs Notes" that we need.

Do you realize that government passed _over_ 40,000 new laws in 2015 alone? Even if reading new laws was your full time job, there wouldn't be enough time in an entire year to read them all.


----------



## P@triot

IsaacNewton said:


> You people live in a fantasy that died completely just before WW1, over 100 years ago. It is a very unpleasant reality but it is reality. The American people with their single shot AR15's couldn't beat the Mexican army.


What a testament to how liberals have horribly shredded the U.S. Constitution in general and the 2nd Amendment in particular. Thank you for making one of the most sound cases I have ever seen for expanding the American people's *right* to weapons.


----------



## IsaacNewton

P@triot said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> You people live in a fantasy that died completely just before WW1, over 100 years ago. It is a very unpleasant reality but it is reality. The American people with their single shot AR15's couldn't beat the Mexican army.
> 
> 
> 
> What a testament to how liberals have horribly shredded the U.S. Constitution in general and the 2nd Amendment in particular. Thank you for making one of the most sound cases I have ever seen for expanding the American people's *right* to weapons.
Click to expand...


Yes please explain how you and a few thousand other fantasy rebel league members will defeat the US Military with your pea shooters and 'can do' attitude. LOL

It's sad how some folks cling so desperately to a fantasy that died long ago.


----------



## P@triot

IsaacNewton said:


> If we do ever have to fight our own military the very first thing they will do is secure all of their assets, you know because they are their assets and they know right where all of them are, then mobilize all that firepower against us and the few divisions that may switch over and fight with us.


What a sad testament to your knowledge about the United States. Like all libtards, you truly believe the federal government is your *ruler* (like the King in England).

Here's the thing cupcake - who paid for those "assets"? The American people did. Who elected the people who purchased those "assets"? The American people did. Every single last item in the U.S. military inventory - from the most sophisticated top secret weapon system to the last roll of toilet paper, belongs to the American *people*.

And just so you know - the first thing the majority of the personnel in the U.S. military would do is "secure the assets" and use them _against_ the government and liberals. They all swore an oath to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution and the overwhelming majority take it *very* seriously. I've listened to dozens and dozens and dozens of Navy Seals express their _disgust_ with liberalism and a handful of Delta Operators do likewise.


----------



## P@triot

IsaacNewton said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> You people live in a fantasy that died completely just before WW1, over 100 years ago. It is a very unpleasant reality but it is reality. The American people with their single shot AR15's couldn't beat the Mexican army.
> 
> 
> 
> What a testament to how liberals have horribly shredded the U.S. Constitution in general and the 2nd Amendment in particular. Thank you for making one of the most sound cases I have ever seen for expanding the American people's *right* to weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes please explain how you and a few thousand other fantasy rebel league members will defeat the US Military with your pea shooters and 'can do' attitude. LOL
> 
> It's sad how some folks cling so desperately to a fantasy that died long ago.
Click to expand...

Profoundly illiterate, are we??? No where in my post did I say anything even remotely like you are claiming. Perhaps you can grab an adult nearby and ask them to read it to you?


----------



## Wry Catcher

EatMorChikin said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> The great myth of the 'seckund uhmendmunt' klingons that the population having single shot rifles is enough to protect us from our own military that has millions of fully automatic  rifles, thousands of fully auto .60 caliber machine guns, 8,700 M1A1 tanks, 6,400 attack helicopters, 13,000 aircraft, 10 aircraft carriers, cruise missiles, B-52 bombers, ballistic missiles, and nuclear weapons.
> 
> If we do ever have to fight our own military the very first thing they will do is secure all of their assets, you know because they are their assets and they know right where all of them are, then mobilize all that firepower against us and the few divisions that may switch over and fight with us.
> 
> You people live in a fantasy that died completely just before WW1, over 100 years ago.
> 
> It is a very unpleasant reality but it is reality. The American people with their single shot AR15's couldn't beat the Mexican army.
> 
> 
> 
> If I had to fight the mexican army, my rifles would be converted. And if shit happened in this country, military would take our side.
Click to expand...


Obviously you never served in the US Military; to side with an insurrection is to violate the General Orders and suffer the consequences of the UCMJ.  You're simply echoing a fantasy.


----------



## P@triot

IsaacNewton said:


> Yes please explain how you and *a few thousand* other fantasy rebel league members will defeat the US Military with your pea shooters and 'can do' attitude.


Well let's start with this right here - there are a few thousand library cowards like you - just looking to be free loaders who receive handouts in exchange for liberty. There are *tens of millions* of American's like me.


----------



## P@triot

Wry Catcher said:


> EatMorChikin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> The great myth of the 'seckund uhmendmunt' klingons that the population having single shot rifles is enough to protect us from our own military that has millions of fully automatic  rifles, thousands of fully auto .60 caliber machine guns, 8,700 M1A1 tanks, 6,400 attack helicopters, 13,000 aircraft, 10 aircraft carriers, cruise missiles, B-52 bombers, ballistic missiles, and nuclear weapons.
> 
> If we do ever have to fight our own military the very first thing they will do is secure all of their assets, you know because they are their assets and they know right where all of them are, then mobilize all that firepower against us and the few divisions that may switch over and fight with us.
> 
> You people live in a fantasy that died completely just before WW1, over 100 years ago.
> 
> It is a very unpleasant reality but it is reality. The American people with their single shot AR15's couldn't beat the Mexican army.
> 
> 
> 
> If I had to fight the mexican army, my rifles would be converted. And if shit happened in this country, military would take our side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously you never served in the US Military; to side with an insurrection is to violate the General Orders and suffer the consequences of the UCMJ.  You're simply echoing a fantasy.
Click to expand...

Obviously you're a liberal (i.e. you never have any clue about the topic at hand so you just make shit up). U.S. military personnel are trained to _disobey_ orders that are unconstitutional, illegal, or violate international law (such as the Geneva Convention, etc.). Order a U.S. serviceman to attack their own country or their own fellow citizen. I can _promise_ you that 90 out of every 100 of them will _refuse_. Only the rare military libtard will comply.


----------



## EatMorChikin

Wry Catcher said:


> EatMorChikin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> The great myth of the 'seckund uhmendmunt' klingons that the population having single shot rifles is enough to protect us from our own military that has millions of fully automatic  rifles, thousands of fully auto .60 caliber machine guns, 8,700 M1A1 tanks, 6,400 attack helicopters, 13,000 aircraft, 10 aircraft carriers, cruise missiles, B-52 bombers, ballistic missiles, and nuclear weapons.
> 
> If we do ever have to fight our own military the very first thing they will do is secure all of their assets, you know because they are their assets and they know right where all of them are, then mobilize all that firepower against us and the few divisions that may switch over and fight with us.
> 
> You people live in a fantasy that died completely just before WW1, over 100 years ago.
> 
> It is a very unpleasant reality but it is reality. The American people with their single shot AR15's couldn't beat the Mexican army.
> 
> 
> 
> If I had to fight the mexican army, my rifles would be converted. And if shit happened in this country, military would take our side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously you never served in the US Military; to side with an insurrection is to violate the General Orders and suffer the consequences of the UCMJ.  You're simply echoing a fantasy.
Click to expand...


Obviously you know nothing about me. And I will not share my background. I am a patriot, pure and simple.


----------



## westwall

IsaacNewton said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> You people live in a fantasy that died completely just before WW1, over 100 years ago. It is a very unpleasant reality but it is reality. The American people with their single shot AR15's couldn't beat the Mexican army.
> 
> 
> 
> What a testament to how liberals have horribly shredded the U.S. Constitution in general and the 2nd Amendment in particular. Thank you for making one of the most sound cases I have ever seen for expanding the American people's *right* to weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes please explain how you and a few thousand other fantasy rebel league members will defeat the US Military with your pea shooters and 'can do' attitude. LOL
> 
> It's sad how some folks cling so desperately to a fantasy that died long ago.
Click to expand...







Well hell, if they're just "pea shooters" they are nothing for you to be worried about.  Right?  So, you don't need to take anything away with your "common sense"  anti gun legislation.  Right?


----------



## westwall

P@triot said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes please explain how you and *a few thousand* other fantasy rebel league members will defeat the US Military with your pea shooters and 'can do' attitude.
> 
> 
> 
> Well let's start with this right here - there are a few thousand library cowards like you - just looking to be free loaders who receive handouts in exchange for liberty. There are *tens of millions* of American's like me.
Click to expand...







Indeed.  It is estimated that only 3% of the population in America took part in the Revolution.  If we just use that number there are 10,050,000 people who will engage.  That's a pretty big number.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Borillar said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah... If I was in a crowded bar or theater, I'd be a lot happier taking my chances against some asshole with a muzzle loading musket than some nutjob with an AR-15.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah because it happens soooo often
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Happens more often than a zombie apocalypse, anti-tyrannical government revolutions, and invaders from space - the typical right wing reasons to have them.
Click to expand...

But not more often than a home break in or a mugging on the street
but let's not talk about those things because it ruins your talking points


----------



## frigidweirdo

P@triot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not just liberals. People do it on both sides, mainly because they don't know how to debate properly.
> 
> People want everything so simple so they don't have to think about things properly.
> 
> That's why soundbites work really well. As Fox News said the other day, why is it Trump made a whole speech and the media (including Fox) picked up only of the silly statement that Trump made.
> 
> Well, it's because people can't be bothered to wade through a whole speech, they prefer their news in 30 seconds or less.
> 
> 
> 
> While I grant you that there is _some_ validity to your point - I do think you are over simplifying it quite a bit. Take your Trump example. If Fox News showed the entire speech it would eat up there entire news segment. Furthermore, why would anyone tune in to Fox if they are going to air the entire thing? Why not just watch it live? Finally - there are only 24 hours in a day and most people are pretty darn busy. They don't have the luxury of reading every government report in its entirety, watch every speech in its entirety, read every bill in its entirety, etc. We rely on various sources to give us the "Cliffs Notes" that we need.
> 
> Do you realize that government passed _over_ 40,000 new laws in 2015 alone? Even if reading new laws was your full time job, there wouldn't be enough time in an entire year to read them all.
Click to expand...


The point I was making wasn't that Fox should show the whole speech, but that they didn't actually report on the speech at all, other than to say it had happened. This is only one segment I'm talking about here, but they actually went off on one about how the other media outlets only concentrate on this one part. Irony? 

The media outlets will pick and choose what they think is important. Fox is picking pro-Trump and anti-Clinton and complaining about left wing outlets being pro-Clinton and anti-Trump.....


----------



## IsaacNewton

P@triot said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes please explain how you and *a few thousand* other fantasy rebel league members will defeat the US Military with your pea shooters and 'can do' attitude.
> 
> 
> 
> Well let's start with this right here - there are a few thousand library cowards like you - just looking to be free loaders who receive handouts in exchange for liberty. There are *tens of millions* of American's like me.
Click to expand...


You are a coward and a free loader and the only 'others' that are like you are the Oregon Bird Sanctuary bungs who think you are going to overthrow the government of the United States. What are you waiting for mini mouse. Every single time you ladies start threatening everyone else don't you know we the population are laughing at you? You really don't know that? LOL

You aren't patriots, you don't know the Constitution, you aren't above the law, you aren't going to overthrow anything, and all the sane people in the country think you weak and lacking intelligence. The fact that you NEED to believe you are among 'a group who will soon exercise our *second amendment* rights so you 'libruls' better watch out' only paints you as wearing a tin foil hat and living in a trailer.

Threatening other people? You are cowards. You are like tiny hands trump who couldn't hold an 'arm' let alone fire it. He can't pay his own bills and stiffs honest people he hires who do real work. Why don't you get off welfare, put down your bb gun, and join adult society. And for f#$cks sake stop whining about everything. The only people threatening the *right to bear arms* are phony conservatives.


----------



## owebo

IsaacNewton said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes please explain how you and *a few thousand* other fantasy rebel league members will defeat the US Military with your pea shooters and 'can do' attitude.
> 
> 
> 
> Well let's start with this right here - there are a few thousand library cowards like you - just looking to be free loaders who receive handouts in exchange for liberty. There are *tens of millions* of American's like me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a coward and a free loader and the only 'others' there are like you are the Oregon Bird Sanctuary bungs who think you are going to overthrow the government of the United States. What are you waiting for mini mouse. Every single time you ladies start threatening everyone else don't you know we the population are laughing at you? You really don't know that? LOL
> 
> You aren't patriots, you don't know the Constitution, you aren't above the law, you aren't going to overthrow anything, and all the sane people in the country think you weak and lacking intelligence. The fact that you NEED to believe you are among 'a group who will soon exercise our second amendment rights so you 'libruls' better watch out' only paints you as wearing a tin foil hat and living in a trailer.
> 
> Threatening other people? You are cowards. You are like tiny hands trump who couldn't hold an 'arm' let alone fire it. He can't pay his own bills and stiffs honest people he hires who do real work. Why don't you get off welfare, put down your bb gun, and join adult society. And for f#$cks sake stop whining about everything.
Click to expand...

Fortunately for America....you will be stacked near the bottom of the pile....


----------



## Skull Pilot

IsaacNewton said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes please explain how you and *a few thousand* other fantasy rebel league members will defeat the US Military with your pea shooters and 'can do' attitude.
> 
> 
> 
> Well let's start with this right here - there are a few thousand library cowards like you - just looking to be free loaders who receive handouts in exchange for liberty. There are *tens of millions* of American's like me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a coward and a free loader and the only 'others' there are like you are the Oregon Bird Sanctuary bungs who think you are going to overthrow the government of the United States. What are you waiting for mini mouse. Every single time you ladies start threatening everyone else don't you know we the population are laughing at you? You really don't know that? LOL
> 
> You aren't patriots, you don't know the Constitution, you aren't above the law, you aren't going to overthrow anything, and all the sane people in the country think you weak and lacking intelligence. The fact that you NEED to believe you are among 'a group who will soon exercise our second amendment rights so you 'libruls' better watch out' only paints you as wearing a tin foil hat and living in a trailer.
> 
> Threatening other people? You are cowards. You are like tiny hands trump who couldn't hold an 'arm' let alone fire it. He can't pay his own bills and stiffs honest people he hires who do real work. Why don't you get off welfare, put down your bb gun, and join adult society. And for f#$cks sake stop whining about everything.
Click to expand...

Listen to you whining about other people whining


----------



## ChrisL

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The NRA is not an "evil group."  They are a group that is concerned with preserving one of our constitutionally guaranteed rights, and they have just as much a right to "lobby" the government as any other group.
> 
> If you are going to put down one for lobbying, then you must be against those who lobby for the things that YOU think are important as well.  Get real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even more than that, the NRA is concerned with teaching gun owners to own and use them safely.  And sure, preserving the right to own them is a critical part of that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL The NRA is a terrorist organization, it enables the crazy, the criminal and those driven by hate to easily obtain guns.  It opposes any and all restrictions on the gun trade and its supporters are they themselves culpable in the deaths of so many innocent human beings.
Click to expand...


----------



## ChrisL

kaz said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't seem to understand the distinction between what is lobbying and what is coercion.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly! Liberals never do. Lobbying is what conservatives do. Coercion is what liberals do through government at the barrel of a gun (ironic since they want to ban them).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, don't you love it?  Wry wants government to have guns, not citizens.  You know, because we can trust cops, not citizens.  Then he's all on how cops are killing black kids.  The only consistency in Wry is hypocrisy
Click to expand...


I've brought this up as well on more than one occasion.  They will tell us that the cops are racist and that we have "institutionalized racism" in this country, yet here they are seeming to say that they want ONLY the cops and government to be able to be armed.  Makes sense, huh?


----------



## ChrisL

Meanwhile in Syria and other unstable parts of the world, our government says, "oh, rebels are fighting their government? Let's ARM them, no background checks required!"  Lol.


----------



## Conservative65

Wry Catcher said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> 
> heres the problem with republicans ....they are gullible ... they will believe just about everything they are told by their handlers
> Hillary will take your guns away ... do you think she and the entire democrats would be that stupid to try and do that ???  really !!!!! do you ??? hears what they would have to do.... first get every democrat on board to pass legislation in removing the second amendment, how well do you think thats going to work you idiots republicans ??? then get the majority of the people in the country on board with them so they know they can get reelected ... mind you, this is how stupid you republicans are ... you would believe this crap that they would be this stupid to try and remove the second amendment ... I guess your stupidity is cause by your mother and your uncles being your father is the cause ...here we have 294 post saying all kinds of bull shit reason that you believe we Dems will take the second amendment away ... because thats what it is ... right wing bull shit ... they can't come up with any kind of plan to run on,  they rely on you ignorance they intern go after the flag burners, people on welfare, guns, and gays and you fools lap it up ... I can believe republicans are this stupid .... that they feel we democrats would be so stupid to try and repeal the 2 amendment ... a amend meant that we believe that every person should have a gun ... we don't believe that gun should be a AR 15 .. or any automatic weapons ... by us democrats saying this you have been duped into beliebing we will repeal the second amendment, how moronic is that ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All Hillary Clinton has to do is appoint and place enough liberal judges who agrees with her view towards guns.  When has the United States Supreme Court, particularly judges who share a liberal ideological view of that document, actually abided by the rules written  in the Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what do you believe five liberal judges can do to impact the Second A.?  The have no authority to repeal it, so what is your worst case scenario?
Click to expand...


Their gun hating interpretation can change the meaning of what it actually says.


----------



## Skull Pilot

IsaacNewton said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes please explain how you and *a few thousand* other fantasy rebel league members will defeat the US Military with your pea shooters and 'can do' attitude.
> 
> 
> 
> Well let's start with this right here - there are a few thousand library cowards like you - just looking to be free loaders who receive handouts in exchange for liberty. There are *tens of millions* of American's like me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a coward and a free loader and the only 'others' there are like you are the Oregon Bird Sanctuary bungs who think you are going to overthrow the government of the United States. What are you waiting for mini mouse. Every single time you ladies start threatening everyone else don't you know we the population are laughing at you? You really don't know that? LOL
> 
> You aren't patriots, you don't know the Constitution, you aren't above the law, you aren't going to overthrow anything, and all the sane people in the country think you weak and lacking intelligence. The fact that you NEED to believe you are among 'a group who will soon exercise our second amendment rights so you 'libruls' better watch out' only paints you as wearing a tin foil hat and living in a trailer.
> 
> Threatening other people? You are cowards. You are like tiny hands trump who couldn't hold an 'arm' let alone fire it. He can't pay his own bills and stiffs honest people he hires who do real work. Why don't you get off welfare, put down your bb gun, and join adult society. And for f#$cks sake stop whining about everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Listen to you whining about other people whining
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop yer whining Barney Fife. Exercise your *right to bear arms* by loading your one bullet and shooting yourself in the foot.
Click to expand...


Still whining about other people I see


----------



## IsaacNewton

Skull Pilot said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes please explain how you and *a few thousand* other fantasy rebel league members will defeat the US Military with your pea shooters and 'can do' attitude.
> 
> 
> 
> Well let's start with this right here - there are a few thousand library cowards like you - just looking to be free loaders who receive handouts in exchange for liberty. There are *tens of millions* of American's like me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a coward and a free loader and the only 'others' there are like you are the Oregon Bird Sanctuary bungs who think you are going to overthrow the government of the United States. What are you waiting for mini mouse. Every single time you ladies start threatening everyone else don't you know we the population are laughing at you? You really don't know that? LOL
> 
> You aren't patriots, you don't know the Constitution, you aren't above the law, you aren't going to overthrow anything, and all the sane people in the country think you weak and lacking intelligence. The fact that you NEED to believe you are among 'a group who will soon exercise our second amendment rights so you 'libruls' better watch out' only paints you as wearing a tin foil hat and living in a trailer.
> 
> Threatening other people? You are cowards. You are like tiny hands trump who couldn't hold an 'arm' let alone fire it. He can't pay his own bills and stiffs honest people he hires who do real work. Why don't you get off welfare, put down your bb gun, and join adult society. And for f#$cks sake stop whining about everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Listen to you whining about other people whining
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop yer whining Barney Fife. Exercise your *right to bear arms* by loading your one bullet and shooting yourself in the foot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still whining about other people I see
Click to expand...


I love to hear you whine, don't stop. The *right to bear arms* and the ability to defend a population against it's own military have not been in the same universe for over a hundred years. But people cling to their fantasies.


----------



## owebo

IsaacNewton said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well let's start with this right here - there are a few thousand library cowards like you - just looking to be free loaders who receive handouts in exchange for liberty. There are *tens of millions* of American's like me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a coward and a free loader and the only 'others' there are like you are the Oregon Bird Sanctuary bungs who think you are going to overthrow the government of the United States. What are you waiting for mini mouse. Every single time you ladies start threatening everyone else don't you know we the population are laughing at you? You really don't know that? LOL
> 
> You aren't patriots, you don't know the Constitution, you aren't above the law, you aren't going to overthrow anything, and all the sane people in the country think you weak and lacking intelligence. The fact that you NEED to believe you are among 'a group who will soon exercise our second amendment rights so you 'libruls' better watch out' only paints you as wearing a tin foil hat and living in a trailer.
> 
> Threatening other people? You are cowards. You are like tiny hands trump who couldn't hold an 'arm' let alone fire it. He can't pay his own bills and stiffs honest people he hires who do real work. Why don't you get off welfare, put down your bb gun, and join adult society. And for f#$cks sake stop whining about everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Listen to you whining about other people whining
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop yer whining Barney Fife. Exercise your *right to bear arms* by loading your one bullet and shooting yourself in the foot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still whining about other people I see
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love to hear you whine, don't stop. The *right to bear arms* and the ability to defend a population against it's own military have not been in the same universe for over a hundred years. But people cling to their fantasies.
Click to expand...

You should read the 2A and supporting documents so you don't look like such a fool....


----------



## Wry Catcher

westwall said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> So,  if most crimes committed with a gun are obtained illegally, what method(s) does the perp use to obtain the gun?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you ask your hero's in France who had no problem obtaining AK-47's which they used to gun down 150 people.  Face it silly boy, gun laws affect only the law abiding.  Evil people ignore your bullshit laws, and have NO problem getting what they want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Temper temper, we all want to set a good example and play well with others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't "play" with people who want to deprive me of fundamental Rights.  I despise "people" like you.  "People", just like you have made it possible for governments to murder over 150 million civilians over the last 125 years.  You're scum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks so much for sharing.  BTW, I don't default to fighting words with punks like you.  You're entitled to your opinion, but always keep in mind that opinions built on a foundation of hate and fear and emotion are like assholes, existing for the single reason to spread shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hate you, or fear you.  I despise you.  Look it up.
Click to expand...


That's your right, not that I care.  In fact most of what you post disgusts me.


----------



## hadit

EatMorChikin said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> The great myth of the 'seckund uhmendmunt' klingons that the population having single shot rifles is enough to protect us from our own military that has millions of fully automatic  rifles, thousands of fully auto .60 caliber machine guns, 8,700 M1A1 tanks, 6,400 attack helicopters, 13,000 aircraft, 10 aircraft carriers, cruise missiles, B-52 bombers, ballistic missiles, and nuclear weapons.
> 
> If we do ever have to fight our own military the very first thing they will do is secure all of their assets, you know because they are their assets and they know right where all of them are, then mobilize all that firepower against us and the few divisions that may switch over and fight with us.
> 
> You people live in a fantasy that died completely just before WW1, over 100 years ago.
> 
> It is a very unpleasant reality but it is reality. The American people with their single shot AR15's couldn't beat the Mexican army.
> 
> 
> 
> If I had to fight the mexican army, my rifles would be converted. And if shit happened in this country, military would take our side.
Click to expand...

The point is not whether armed civilians would be able to face down the American military in an ultimate battle to the death.  The point is to make military occupation of the country as expensive and difficult as possible.  An unarmed populace has no chance at all, but as we saw in Iraq, even a small portion of a populace that is armed can make occupation very costly.  Add to that the specter of American soldiers turning against American civilians and it becomes even more costly.


----------



## ChrisL

OUR rights don't go away because of what a few lunatics do!  That would be the same thing as banning all Muslims from our country because of the few loons amongst them.


----------



## hadit

IsaacNewton said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> You people live in a fantasy that died completely just before WW1, over 100 years ago. It is a very unpleasant reality but it is reality. The American people with their single shot AR15's couldn't beat the Mexican army.
> 
> 
> 
> What a testament to how liberals have horribly shredded the U.S. Constitution in general and the 2nd Amendment in particular. Thank you for making one of the most sound cases I have ever seen for expanding the American people's *right* to weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes please explain how you and a few thousand other fantasy rebel league members will defeat the US Military with your pea shooters and 'can do' attitude. LOL
> 
> It's sad how some folks cling so desperately to a fantasy that died long ago.
Click to expand...

"A few thousand other fantasy rebel league members" with "pea shooters and 'can do' attitude" can make military occupation of the US not worth the effort.  A population with access to the 300 million or so guns in this country can make military occupation very costly indeed.  No one doubts the outcome of a private militia facing the American military on a battlefield, just as no one doubted the outcome of the Continental Army facing down the British military on the traditional battlefield, but we all know how that one ended.


----------



## hadit

IsaacNewton said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes please explain how you and *a few thousand* other fantasy rebel league members will defeat the US Military with your pea shooters and 'can do' attitude.
> 
> 
> 
> Well let's start with this right here - there are a few thousand library cowards like you - just looking to be free loaders who receive handouts in exchange for liberty. There are *tens of millions* of American's like me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a coward and a free loader and the only 'others' that are like you are the Oregon Bird Sanctuary bungs who think you are going to overthrow the government of the United States. What are you waiting for mini mouse. Every single time you ladies start threatening everyone else don't you know we the population are laughing at you? You really don't know that? LOL
> 
> You aren't patriots, you don't know the Constitution, you aren't above the law, you aren't going to overthrow anything, and all the sane people in the country think you weak and lacking intelligence. The fact that you NEED to believe you are among 'a group who will soon exercise our *second amendment* rights so you 'libruls' better watch out' only paints you as wearing a tin foil hat and living in a trailer.
> 
> Threatening other people? You are cowards. You are like tiny hands trump who couldn't hold an 'arm' let alone fire it. He can't pay his own bills and stiffs honest people he hires who do real work. Why don't you get off welfare, put down your bb gun, and join adult society. And for f#$cks sake stop whining about everything. The only people threatening the *right to bear arms* are phony conservatives.
Click to expand...

There were three groups in the American colonies when the Revolutionary War started, the British loyalists, the rebels, and the fence sitters.  The rebels, though a minority, prevailed.  You don't have to be a majority to bring about massive change.


----------



## ChrisL

The Founders and the 2nd Amendment

Advocates of gun control tend to be the same sort of people who argue in favor of the idea of a “living Constitution.” Of course, usually when people argue for a “living Constitution,” what they really want is a dead Constitution. Specifically, they want to eliminate almost every constitutional limit on the power of federal politicians and allow those politicians to control almost everything except abortion, which they want the politicians to subsidize.

Yet some of the people who think the Constitution should be manipulated to meet allegedly new conditions take a very different tack when applying the Second Amendment. To them, the Second Amendment, if it protects individual rights at all, should be limited to militia duty with muskets and flintlocks.

But if the Second Amendment is based partly on a right to personal self-defense—and it is—then this narrow view is wrong.  The Second Amendment cannot be limited to muskets and flintlocks any more than the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce can be limited to trade in sailing ships and horse-drawn wagons.  Even an old-fashioned constitutionalist like myself believes that Congress can use the Commerce Power to regulate railroads and air travel, although those forms of travel did not exist when the Constitution was ratified. Otherwise, the Commerce Power would mean nothing. For the same reason, the right to keep and bear arms must include the free use of modern technology appropriate for self-defense.

It is true that when the Second Amendment was ratified, a standard capacity 30 round magazine would not be necessary for personal self-defense. But now, when when mass murderers and terrorists have modern weapons, citizens need standard capacity magazines for self defense. They also need handguns and a range of other weapons. That is one reason the Second Amendment protects their use today.

In addition to self-defense, the Second Amendment was adopted to enable citizens to defend against tyrants foreign and domestic. At this point it becomes helpful to turn to the Second Amendment’s preamble: The Amendment seeks a “well regulated militia.” In 18th century language, “a well regulated militia” meant a “well-trained militia.”

The “militia” that the Second Amendment says should be well trained consists of all able bodied men. Article XVII, Section 1 of the Colorado Constitution expresses this well: It says, “The militia of the state shall consist of all able-bodied male residents of the state between the ages of eighteen and forty-five years; except, such persons as may be exempted by the laws of the United States, or of the state.” That was pretty much the American Founders’ view of the matter. Read Madison’s language in Number 46 of The Federalist Papers, and you’ll see what I mean. It is pretty much the understanding of our fathers and grandfathers when gun use and safety was commonly taught in public school.

So according to the Second Amendment, we want all men of military age well trained in the use of weapons. And why is this? Because, as the preamble tells us, this is “necessary for the security of a free state.” By “a free state,” the Constitution means “a free country.”

So all men of military age should be well-trained in weapons so that America survives as a free country.

Well, what weapons? Obviously, the muskets and single-shot rifles in use when the Second Amendment was adopted are no longer sufficient to do the job. Today the Second Amendment protects a range of weapons appropriate for citizen militias resisting foreign invaders and tyrannical politicians.

Now at this point someone favoring gun control always comes up with the line, “Well, does that mean that citizens have the right to hoard naval artillery and atomic bombs?”  And the answer is “No, the Second Amendment doesn’t encompass naval artillery or atomic bombs any more than the First Amendment includes falsely shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.” The language and purposes of the Second Amendment, as well as its history, tell us what it excludes as well as what it includes.  Naval artillery and atomic bombs are not customary for personal self-defense and they never have been militia weapons used for repelling foreign invaders and domestic tyrants. In fact, the Second Amendment itself refers to the right to _bear_ arms—that is, to carry arms—referring to weapons that normally are carried by a human being.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> Since you believe HRC is a crook, maybe you can offer what she did to be arraigned, tried and convicted of doing, which made her a crook.


Wait...
Just so we're clear -- by your standard, someone is not a criminal  - a "crook" - until they are tried and convicted?



> You might also explain who you conclude Trump is a big government liberal  - his Stump speech leaves little doubt that he is a neo fascist as are his supporters.


More mindless nonsense.

_



			By the year 2000 there will on present projections be seven billion people swarming on the surface of the Earth. And only nine hundred million of them will be white. What will happen when the teeming billions of the so-called Third World - driven by unbearable hunger and despair, the inevitable consequences of insensate over-population - descend locust-like on the lush lands of the complacent white nations?
		
Click to expand...

_Overpopulation is a joke.  
There's more than enough space on this planet for everyone, and more than enough capacity to grow enough food for everyone..


----------



## ChrisL

Continued . . . 

Let’s focus for a minute on another purpose of the Second Amendment: protecting against domestic tyrants. We tend not to discuss this purpose much, but it might possibly have some relevance to the authoritarian types who currently dominate the Colorado legislature.

Politicians in America right now tend to fall into either of two groups. There are those who generally favor freedom but also strongly support law enforcement. And there are those who are skeptical toward law enforcement but nevertheless seek to expand the power of government in many areas of life, and particularly in economic affairs. It’s not intuitively obvious which group should be for gun control.  You might think that those who favor economic freedom might be for gun control as a way of backing law enforcement. Or you might think those who favor more economic regulation might be against gun control because they are skeptical about law enforcement and might not want to give the police a monopoly over weapons.

But we all know what the situation is in real life: In real life, the biggest advocates of gun control are precisely those who want to lord it over the rest of us in nearly every other aspect of life.


Why is this? Well, reflect on the fact that the modern era of gun control began with the federal Gun Control Act of 1968. This law—if an unconstitutional act can be called a “law”—was passed in the wake of some ghastly political assassinations. I don’t think this is a coincidence. It’s reasonable to assume that those who wish to fasten more and more fetters on the productive people of American society might consider that one day they might go too far, and face physical and armed opposition.

Indeed, just the fact that many citizens are armed may have a moderating influence on authoritarian politicians.

The author of the first draft of the Second Amendment was James Madison. Madison’s favorite book of political theory was Aristotle’s _Politics_. Several times in that work Aristotle makes the point that all citizens should have weapons, and that only those with weapons should be citizens. Otherwise, he wrote, those that are disarmed are the slaves of those who are armed.

The point was made another way by Jean Louis DeLolme, a Swiss jurist. DeLolme wrote a book on the English constitution that we know Madison read, and that was a source for other American Founders as well. In speaking of the need for an armed citizenry, DeLolme wrote:

The Power of the People is not when they strike, but when they keep in awe. It is when they can overthrow every thing, that they never need to move; and Manlius [a Roman consul] included all in four words, when he said to the People of Rome, _Ostendite bellum, pacem habebitis_. [Look toward war, and you shall have peace].

The widespread ownership of firearms, therefore, helps to preserve freedom, usually without the need for armed violence. When politicians limit or harass gun ownership, the threat is far wider than the threat to guns alone. By reducing the number of citizens who are armed, gun control emboldens the authoritarian politicians to control everything else we do, thereby imperiling freedom generally.


----------



## P@triot

westwall said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes please explain how you and a few thousand other fantasy rebel league members will defeat the US Military with your pea shooters and 'can do' attitude. LOL
> 
> It's sad how some folks cling so desperately to a fantasy that died long ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well hell, if they're just "pea shooters" they are nothing for you to be worried about.  Right?  So, you don't need to take anything away with your "common sense"  anti gun legislation.  Right?
Click to expand...

Sir IsaacNewton just got bent over the table on that one. 

Liberal "logic" is fall down hilarious. It always contradicts itself. On one hand - guns are so dangerous they pose a threat to all of humanity. On the other, they are such insignificant little objects that they pose no threat at all to government.


----------



## owebo

hadit said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes please explain how you and *a few thousand* other fantasy rebel league members will defeat the US Military with your pea shooters and 'can do' attitude.
> 
> 
> 
> Well let's start with this right here - there are a few thousand library cowards like you - just looking to be free loaders who receive handouts in exchange for liberty. There are *tens of millions* of American's like me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a coward and a free loader and the only 'others' that are like you are the Oregon Bird Sanctuary bungs who think you are going to overthrow the government of the United States. What are you waiting for mini mouse. Every single time you ladies start threatening everyone else don't you know we the population are laughing at you? You really don't know that? LOL
> 
> You aren't patriots, you don't know the Constitution, you aren't above the law, you aren't going to overthrow anything, and all the sane people in the country think you weak and lacking intelligence. The fact that you NEED to believe you are among 'a group who will soon exercise our *second amendment* rights so you 'libruls' better watch out' only paints you as wearing a tin foil hat and living in a trailer.
> 
> Threatening other people? You are cowards. You are like tiny hands trump who couldn't hold an 'arm' let alone fire it. He can't pay his own bills and stiffs honest people he hires who do real work. Why don't you get off welfare, put down your bb gun, and join adult society. And for f#$cks sake stop whining about everything. The only people threatening the *right to bear arms* are phony conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There were three groups in the American colonies when the Revolutionary War started, the British loyalists, the rebels, and the fence sitters.  The rebels, though a minority, prevailed.  You don't have to be a majority to bring about massive change.
Click to expand...


----------



## P@triot

IsaacNewton said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes please explain how you and *a few thousand* other fantasy rebel league members will defeat the US Military with your pea shooters and 'can do' attitude.
> 
> 
> 
> Well let's start with this right here - there are a few thousand library cowards like you - just looking to be free loaders who receive handouts in exchange for liberty. There are *tens of millions* of American's like me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a coward and a free loader and the only 'others' that are like you are the Oregon Bird Sanctuary bungs who think you are going to overthrow the government of the United States. What are you waiting for mini mouse. Every single time you ladies start threatening everyone else don't you know we the population are laughing at you? You really don't know that? LOL
> 
> You aren't patriots, you don't know the Constitution, you aren't above the law, you aren't going to overthrow anything, and all the sane people in the country think you weak and lacking intelligence. The fact that you NEED to believe you are among 'a group who will soon exercise our *second amendment* rights so you 'libruls' better watch out' only paints you as wearing a tin foil hat and living in a trailer.
> 
> Threatening other people? You are cowards. You are like tiny hands trump who couldn't hold an 'arm' let alone fire it. He can't pay his own bills and stiffs honest people he hires who do real work. Why don't you get off welfare, put down your bb gun, and join adult society. And for f#$cks sake stop whining about everything. The only people threatening the *right to bear arms* are phony conservatives.
Click to expand...

Well that _clearly_ touched a nerve with little Newton here. Here's the thing cupcake - conservatives such as myself haven't threatened _anyone_. It's libtard free loaders such as yourself always threatening to take other people's money, other people's firearms, other people's livelihood, etc.

Your response really illustrated a ton of fear. What is it that you're so afraid of? That you won't be able to mooch off of other people any more?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> Thanks so much for sharing.  BTW, I don't default to fighting words with punks like you.  You're entitled to your opinion, but always keep in mind that opinions built on a foundation of hate and fear and emotion are like assholes, existing for the single reason to spread shit.


Says the self-qualified Foolish Child.


----------



## M14 Shooter

IsaacNewton said:


> You are a coward and a free loader


According to Wry, you are a Foolish Child.


----------



## P@triot

ChrisL said:


> Meanwhile in Syria and other unstable parts of the world, our government says, "oh, rebels are fighting their government? Let's ARM them, no background checks required!"  Lol.


That's twice now that IsaacNewton's weak and nonsensical argument has been _obliterated_.


----------



## P@triot

IsaacNewton said:


> I love to hear you whine, don't stop. The *right to bear arms* and the ability to defend a population against it's own military have not been in the same universe for over a hundred years. But people cling to their fantasies.


Once again you prove how libtards like you have destroyed the 2nd Amendment while claiming you've done no such thing. If we can't stop our own government as you claim then you are making the best case yet to expand the types of modern weapons available to U.S. citizens.


----------



## Flash

IsaacNewton said:


> [
> 
> I love to hear you whine, don't stop. The *right to bear arms* and the ability to defend a population against it's own military have not been in the same universe for over a hundred years. But people cling to their fantasies.



It is hardly a fantasy.  In more recent times we had the Battle of Athens, Tennessee.  Returning WWII vets used arms to fight against corrupt government officials.  

It is not our military we have to fight against.  It is the shithead corrupt oppressive politicians that give orders to the military that we sometimes need to remind them that we aren't going to take this shit any more.  The military may or may not take the sides of the oppressors.

Thomas Jefferson said that we need to have these reminders from time to time so that the corrupt assholes in power don't get too cocky. 

Government sucks for the most part.  When it crosses the line (like we have seen in the last few years) the people need to have the means to hold the government accountable for the oppression.  However, whether we have the courage to do it or not s a different matter altogether.


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since you believe HRC is a crook, maybe you can offer what she did to be arraigned, tried and convicted of doing, which made her a crook.
> 
> 
> 
> Wait...
> Just so we're clear -- by your standard, someone is not a criminal  - a "crook" - until they are tried and convicted?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might also explain who you conclude Trump is a big government liberal  - his Stump speech leaves little doubt that he is a neo fascist as are his supporters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More mindless nonsense.
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> By the year 2000 there will on present projections be seven billion people swarming on the surface of the Earth. And only nine hundred million of them will be white. What will happen when the teeming billions of the so-called Third World - driven by unbearable hunger and despair, the inevitable consequences of insensate over-population - descend locust-like on the lush lands of the complacent white nations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Overpopulation is a joke.
> There's more than enough space on this planet for everyone, and more than enough capacity to grow enough food for everyone..
Click to expand...


Yep, unlike you I believe in innocent until proven guilty; you support the guilty until proven innocent policy of Stalin, Mao and other despots.   Lucky for all Americans you are impotent and lack the power to implement your Authoritarian desires.


----------



## Flash

Wry Catcher said:


> [
> 
> Yep, unlike you I believe in innocent until proven guilty; you support the guilty until proven innocent policy of Stalin, Mao and other despots.   Lucky for all Americans you are impotent and lack the power to implement your Authoritarian desires.



You are either a liar or a very confused Moon Bat..

You believe in those filthy ass government background checks for firearms.

That is a great example of the government assuming you are guilty until proven innocence.


----------



## Pilate

It would seem like a glaring flaw in the document itself. My personal opinion on the matter is that nowhere in there is it actually expressed directly that you must be in a militia to bear arms. Indeed, the founding fathers wrote this at a time when the knew for a fact that there were individuals not in militias who had weapons. The right expressed  in the text is described as belonging to the people and not to the militia. The militia part reads, to me, as a suggestion of what we could do with our rights or an example of a potential use. In regards to what weapons people should be allowed to own, that has actually become somewhat more restricted over time. Back when the constitution first was ratified, the common man could arm himself in an identical fashion to the military of the time. Anyway, I personally do not believe in the second amendment as I believe that all rights and freedoms we have been given were intentionally given to us with the intent to breed complacency and spawn conflict among the lower classes. The powers that be count on it that the common man cares little for freedom, his country, or anything of meaningful value.

I'd like to add that people will likely acquire guns illegally if they cannot do so legally.


----------



## kaz

kaz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> So,  if most crimes committed with a gun are obtained illegally, what method(s) does the perp use to obtain the gun?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you ask your hero's in France who had no problem obtaining AK-47's which they used to gun down 150 people.  Face it silly boy, gun laws affect only the law abiding.  Evil people ignore your bullshit laws, and have NO problem getting what they want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Temper temper, we all want to set a good example and play well with others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't "play" with people who want to deprive me of fundamental Rights.  I despise "people" like you.  "People", just like you have made it possible for governments to murder over 150 million civilians over the last 125 years.  You're scum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks so much for sharing.  BTW, I don't default to fighting words with punks like you.  You're entitled to your opinion, but always keep in mind that opinions built on a foundation of hate and fear and emotion are like assholes, existing for the single reason to spread shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gawd, you insult people all the time and you whine to high heaven when you get insulted.  And yet, you can't answer this simple question, you keep running away and hiding.  Here it is ... again ... coward ...
> 
> Drug smugglers smuggle all the drugs they want to and sell them to high school kids.
> 
> What stops them from bringing guns with the drugs and selling them to criminals?
> 
> Stop being a complete and utter sniveling coward and avoiding the question and ... answer it ...
Click to expand...


When danger reared it's ugly head, Sir Wry turned his tail and fled ...


So you posted how many times in my thread on the subject?  And every time you get the same simple question, you run away and hide.  You know, I can see your head sticking up from behind the sofa.

" Drug smugglers smuggle all the drugs they want to and sell them to high school kids.

What stops them from bringing guns with the drugs and selling them to criminals? "

The question even Wry Catcher himself had to admit he's a sniveling coward who runs away and hides every time he's asked the question


----------



## Wry Catcher

kaz said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you ask your hero's in France who had no problem obtaining AK-47's which they used to gun down 150 people.  Face it silly boy, gun laws affect only the law abiding.  Evil people ignore your bullshit laws, and have NO problem getting what they want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Temper temper, we all want to set a good example and play well with others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't "play" with people who want to deprive me of fundamental Rights.  I despise "people" like you.  "People", just like you have made it possible for governments to murder over 150 million civilians over the last 125 years.  You're scum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks so much for sharing.  BTW, I don't default to fighting words with punks like you.  You're entitled to your opinion, but always keep in mind that opinions built on a foundation of hate and fear and emotion are like assholes, existing for the single reason to spread shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gawd, you insult people all the time and you whine to high heaven when you get insulted.  And yet, you can't answer this simple question, you keep running away and hiding.  Here it is ... again ... coward ...
> 
> Drug smugglers smuggle all the drugs they want to and sell them to high school kids.
> 
> What stops them from bringing guns with the drugs and selling them to criminals?
> 
> Stop being a complete and utter sniveling coward and avoiding the question and ... answer it ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When danger reared it's ugly head, Sir Wry turned his tail and fled ...
> 
> 
> So you posted how many times in my thread on the subject?  And every time you get the same simple question, you run away and hide.  You know, I can see your head sticking up from behind the sofa.
> 
> " Drug smugglers smuggle all the drugs they want to and sell them to high school kids.
> 
> What stops them from bringing guns with the drugs and selling them to criminals? "
> 
> The question even Wry Catcher himself had to admit he's a sniveling coward who runs away and hides every time he's asked the question
Click to expand...


Mostly I skip past posts on guns by you, 2aguy and M14. 

This time I read your post and once I stopped laughing I decided to call you out for the fool you are.

Q.  What stops a gas station from serving hot cross buns

Q.  Who claimed drug smugglers do not bring guns to sell to other criminals?  Not me.

Drug smugglers are mules, they bring contraband across borders.  Few if any sell the product, most pass it on to others in the line of distribution, who in turn pass it on to sellers.  Most dealers who sell to high school kids are in high school themselves, and most kids who buy drugs in high school never see the mule or anyone else in the distribution system, other than the dealer kid in their math class.


----------



## Skull Pilot

IsaacNewton said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well let's start with this right here - there are a few thousand library cowards like you - just looking to be free loaders who receive handouts in exchange for liberty. There are *tens of millions* of American's like me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a coward and a free loader and the only 'others' there are like you are the Oregon Bird Sanctuary bungs who think you are going to overthrow the government of the United States. What are you waiting for mini mouse. Every single time you ladies start threatening everyone else don't you know we the population are laughing at you? You really don't know that? LOL
> 
> You aren't patriots, you don't know the Constitution, you aren't above the law, you aren't going to overthrow anything, and all the sane people in the country think you weak and lacking intelligence. The fact that you NEED to believe you are among 'a group who will soon exercise our second amendment rights so you 'libruls' better watch out' only paints you as wearing a tin foil hat and living in a trailer.
> 
> Threatening other people? You are cowards. You are like tiny hands trump who couldn't hold an 'arm' let alone fire it. He can't pay his own bills and stiffs honest people he hires who do real work. Why don't you get off welfare, put down your bb gun, and join adult society. And for f#$cks sake stop whining about everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Listen to you whining about other people whining
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop yer whining Barney Fife. Exercise your *right to bear arms* by loading your one bullet and shooting yourself in the foot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still whining about other people I see
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love to hear you whine, don't stop. The *right to bear arms* and the ability to defend a population against it's own military have not been in the same universe for over a hundred years. But people cling to their fantasies.
Click to expand...


OK now quote me where I ever said anything about fighting the military.

Good luck because i have never said that.

So now go suck your thumb in the corner


----------



## kaz

Wry Catcher said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Temper temper, we all want to set a good example and play well with others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't "play" with people who want to deprive me of fundamental Rights.  I despise "people" like you.  "People", just like you have made it possible for governments to murder over 150 million civilians over the last 125 years.  You're scum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks so much for sharing.  BTW, I don't default to fighting words with punks like you.  You're entitled to your opinion, but always keep in mind that opinions built on a foundation of hate and fear and emotion are like assholes, existing for the single reason to spread shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gawd, you insult people all the time and you whine to high heaven when you get insulted.  And yet, you can't answer this simple question, you keep running away and hiding.  Here it is ... again ... coward ...
> 
> Drug smugglers smuggle all the drugs they want to and sell them to high school kids.
> 
> What stops them from bringing guns with the drugs and selling them to criminals?
> 
> Stop being a complete and utter sniveling coward and avoiding the question and ... answer it ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When danger reared it's ugly head, Sir Wry turned his tail and fled ...
> 
> 
> So you posted how many times in my thread on the subject?  And every time you get the same simple question, you run away and hide.  You know, I can see your head sticking up from behind the sofa.
> 
> " Drug smugglers smuggle all the drugs they want to and sell them to high school kids.
> 
> What stops them from bringing guns with the drugs and selling them to criminals? "
> 
> The question even Wry Catcher himself had to admit he's a sniveling coward who runs away and hides every time he's asked the question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mostly I skip past posts on guns by you, 2aguy and M14.
> 
> This time I read your post and once I stopped laughing I decided to call you out for the fool you are.
> 
> Q.  What stops a gas station from serving hot cross buns
> 
> Q.  Who claimed drug smugglers do not bring guns to sell to other criminals?  Not me.
> 
> Drug smugglers are mules, they bring contraband across borders.  Few if any sell the product, most pass it on to others in the line of distribution, who in turn pass it on to sellers.  Most dealers who sell to high school kids are in high school themselves, and most kids who buy drugs in high school never see the mule or anyone else in the distribution system, other than the dealer kid in their math class.
Click to expand...


  Yeah, you set such a high bar.  You're really funny you're so stupid.  And the stick up your ass is feigned, you've been skirting this question through hundreds of posts in my thread on that subject.

Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

So basically all you have left now is to admit your war on guns is in fact to leave guns only in the hands of criminals, it is actually honest citizens that you are targeting to disarm


----------



## Flash

Wry Catcher said:


> [Q
> 
> 
> Mostly I skip past posts on guns by you, 2aguy and M14.
> 
> .




That is because they kick your ass every time you post your Moon Bat stupidity.  You don't like that, do you?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> Yep, unlike you I believe in innocent until proven guilty


So, just to be clear...
GWB and Dick Cheney are -not- war criminals.
Right?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> Mostly I skip past posts on guns by you, 2aguy and M14.


Because you know you cannot respond w/o fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.


----------



## Flash

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, unlike you I believe in innocent until proven guilty
> 
> 
> 
> So, just to be clear...
> GWB and Dick Cheney are -not- war criminals.
> Right?
Click to expand...



It is apparent he thinks all Conservative are guilty until proven innocent but Libtards are never guilty of anything, not even this Crooked Hillary bitch.

It is part of his confusion and hypocrisy.


----------



## westwall

Wry Catcher said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you ask your hero's in France who had no problem obtaining AK-47's which they used to gun down 150 people.  Face it silly boy, gun laws affect only the law abiding.  Evil people ignore your bullshit laws, and have NO problem getting what they want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Temper temper, we all want to set a good example and play well with others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't "play" with people who want to deprive me of fundamental Rights.  I despise "people" like you.  "People", just like you have made it possible for governments to murder over 150 million civilians over the last 125 years.  You're scum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks so much for sharing.  BTW, I don't default to fighting words with punks like you.  You're entitled to your opinion, but always keep in mind that opinions built on a foundation of hate and fear and emotion are like assholes, existing for the single reason to spread shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hate you, or fear you.  I despise you.  Look it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's your right, not that I care.  In fact most of what you post disgusts me.
Click to expand...




Wry Catcher said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you ask your hero's in France who had no problem obtaining AK-47's which they used to gun down 150 people.  Face it silly boy, gun laws affect only the law abiding.  Evil people ignore your bullshit laws, and have NO problem getting what they want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Temper temper, we all want to set a good example and play well with others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't "play" with people who want to deprive me of fundamental Rights.  I despise "people" like you.  "People", just like you have made it possible for governments to murder over 150 million civilians over the last 125 years.  You're scum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks so much for sharing.  BTW, I don't default to fighting words with punks like you.  You're entitled to your opinion, but always keep in mind that opinions built on a foundation of hate and fear and emotion are like assholes, existing for the single reason to spread shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hate you, or fear you.  I despise you.  Look it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's your right, not that I care.  In fact most of what you post disgusts me.
Click to expand...








of course it does.  You hate freedom, and you hate the fact that the PEOPLE of this country have Rights.  Rights that prevent you from stomping them under your boots.


----------



## Borillar

Skull Pilot said:


> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah... If I was in a crowded bar or theater, I'd be a lot happier taking my chances against some asshole with a muzzle loading musket than some nutjob with an AR-15.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah because it happens soooo often
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Happens more often than a zombie apocalypse, anti-tyrannical government revolutions, and invaders from space - the typical right wing reasons to have them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But not more often than a home break in or a mugging on the street
> but let's not talk about those things because it ruins your talking points
Click to expand...

You could just as effectively defend your home with a shotgun or revolver than an AR-15. I've never heard of anyone thwarting a street mugging with an AR-15.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Borillar said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah... If I was in a crowded bar or theater, I'd be a lot happier taking my chances against some asshole with a muzzle loading musket than some nutjob with an AR-15.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah because it happens soooo often
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Happens more often than a zombie apocalypse, anti-tyrannical government revolutions, and invaders from space - the typical right wing reasons to have them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But not more often than a home break in or a mugging on the street
> but let's not talk about those things because it ruins your talking points
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You could just as effectively defend your home with a shotgun or revolver than an AR-15. I've never heard of anyone thwarting a street mugging with an AR-15.
Click to expand...


I didn't mention any particular weapon did I?


----------



## Rustic

An ar15 is just a sporting rifle...


----------



## Skull Pilot

Rustic said:


> An ar15 is just a sporting rifle...


It's a plain old everyday ordinary semiautomatic rifle.
The kind that has been around since the mid 1800's


----------



## Flash

Borillar said:


> [Q
> 
> You could just as effectively defend your home with a shotgun or revolver than an AR-15. I've never heard of anyone thwarting a street mugging with an AR-15.



Who are you tell somebody how they can effectively defend their home?

I have over two dozen ARs.  It is not my weapon of choice for home defense but I may change my mind depending upon the threat.


----------



## westwall

Borillar said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah... If I was in a crowded bar or theater, I'd be a lot happier taking my chances against some asshole with a muzzle loading musket than some nutjob with an AR-15.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah because it happens soooo often
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Happens more often than a zombie apocalypse, anti-tyrannical government revolutions, and invaders from space - the typical right wing reasons to have them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But not more often than a home break in or a mugging on the street
> but let's not talk about those things because it ruins your talking points
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You could just as effectively defend your home with a shotgun or revolver than an AR-15. I've never heard of anyone thwarting a street mugging with an AR-15.
Click to expand...







Why look at that.  A Mini-14 up on that roof defending themselves from the rioters and looters.  Who knew....


And a revolver bullet will penetrate through multiple walls of a home.  A .223 projectile won't.  Thus, in a home defense situation the other residents of the home are safer in a defensive gun use situation if the homeowner is using an AR.  They are also far more accurate than a revolver, and they are nearly impossible to take away from a homeowner. 

There are many tactical benefits that an AR has over a revolver.


----------



## Borillar

Rustic said:


> An ar15 is just a sporting rifle...


What's the sport? Killing as many people as you can in a given time period? Do you get points for style?


----------



## westwall

Borillar said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> An ar15 is just a sporting rifle...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the sport? Killing as many people as you can in a given time period? Do you get points for style?
Click to expand...










There are over 9 million of them in private hands.  At most 20 of them are used to commit a crime.  France has all the laws you want to pass here (and more) and the scumbags there managed to kill more innocent people in a single terrible attack, than all of the US mass shootings over the last 15 years.

You were saying?


----------



## P@triot

Wry Catcher said:


> Yep, unlike you I believe in innocent until proven guilty; you support the guilty until proven innocent policy of Stalin, Mao and other despots.   Lucky for all Americans you are impotent and lack the power to implement your Authoritarian desires.


You don't believe that all. Stop lying. What you believe in is making sure that Dumbocrats in power are above the law. You applaud every crime they commit and you attempt to deny they committed the crime by citing how they aren't prosecuted for it. It's a vicious cycle of unethical liberalism which you both perpetrate and celebrate.


----------



## P@triot

westwall said:


> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> An ar15 is just a sporting rifle...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the sport? Killing as many people as you can in a given time period? Do you get points for style?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are over 9 million of them in private hands.  At most 20 of them are used to commit a crime.  France has all the laws you want to pass here (and more) and the scumbags there managed to kill more innocent people in a single terrible attack, than all of the US mass shootings over the last 15 years.
> 
> You were saying?
Click to expand...

He was just saying what an ignorant idiot he is...


----------



## P@triot

Borillar said:


> You could just as effectively defend your home with a shotgun or revolver than an AR-15. I've never heard of anyone thwarting a street mugging with an AR-15.


Actually....you can't. You're just too ignorant to know it. See, you don't know anything about firearms (but oddly that doesn't stop you from throwing you uninformed opinion out there). A "revolver" has 6 shots - after which you are _dead_. And since you're a libtard and get all of your information from Hollywood movies, you don't understand that nobody hits a moving target 6 out of 6 shots. In fact, most people under extreme duress won't even hit a moving target 1 out of 6 shots. 

And again, because you get your "information" from Arnold Schwarzenegger movies - you think the "good guy" not only hits the first shot, but the "bad guy" goes down and the "good guy" then blows the smoke away from the end of his barrel. In real life however, a person will take 2, 3, 4, or even more shots before it incapacitates them. If they are all hopped up on something (like cocaine), they could take 10 or 12 rounds and still keep coming.

Is there an adult near you that you could grab real quick and start doing the math for you now? A revolver is just barely above a straw and a spit-wad when it comes to self defense. Please shut up now. You look like an _idiot_ spouting Hollywood nonsense.


----------



## P@triot

Flash said:


> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> 
> You could just as effectively defend your home with a shotgun or revolver than an AR-15. I've never heard of anyone thwarting a street mugging with an AR-15.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you tell somebody how they can effectively defend their home?
Click to expand...

Are you serious? He's an idiot liberal - which means he believes he has the right to control _everything_ that _everybody_ does. Your money is not yours - he controls it in his mind. Your firearms are not yours - he controls it in his mind. Hell - even your _children_ are not yours. Just ask Mellisa Harris-Perry. This is actually the mind-numbing mindset of the modern day idiot liberal...


----------



## P@triot

Borillar said:


> You could just as effectively defend your home with a shotgun or revolver than an AR-15. I've never heard of anyone thwarting a street mugging with an AR-15.


Thankfully for the American people - neither you nor your uneducated opinions matter at all!


----------



## westwall

P@triot said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> 
> You could just as effectively defend your home with a shotgun or revolver than an AR-15. I've never heard of anyone thwarting a street mugging with an AR-15.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you tell somebody how they can effectively defend their home?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you serious? He's an idiot liberal - which means he believes he has the right to control _everything_ that _everybody_ does. Your money is not yours - he controls it in his mind. Your firearms are not yours - he controls it in his mind. Hell - even your _children_ are not yours. Just ask Mellisa Harris-Perry. This is actually the mind-numbing mindset of the modern day idiot liberal...
Click to expand...





Yeppers.  This is what the progressives believe.  Here's a medal that they used to get for having kids................ for the government....






Cross of Honour of the German Mother - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Rustic

Borillar said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> An ar15 is just a sporting rifle...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the sport? Killing as many people as you can in a given time period? Do you get points for style?
Click to expand...

 Varmints and such...


----------



## Rustic

More people die from falling out of bed than people killing other people by using an ar15... Fact


----------



## P@triot

Rustic said:


> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> An ar15 is just a sporting rifle...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the sport? Killing as many people as you can in a given time period? Do you get points for style?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Varmints and such...
Click to expand...

Shooting something that small from 700 yards?!? Those dudes _have_ to be special forces snipers....


----------



## P@triot

IsaacNewton said:


> It says 'well regulated' right in the 2nd amendment


No...really....it *doesn't*.

"The *right* of the *people* to keep and bear arms shall *not* be _infringed_"

That sentence is so simple and so basic - even a libtard could understand it.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Borillar said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> An ar15 is just a sporting rifle...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the sport? Killing as many people as you can in a given time period? Do you get points for style?
Click to expand...


An AR15 is nothing but your plain old ordinary everyday semiautomatic rifle that has been around for a century and a half all it has is some modern materials and cosmetic doodads


----------



## Borillar

Rustic said:


> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> An ar15 is just a sporting rifle...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the sport? Killing as many people as you can in a given time period? Do you get points for style?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Varmints and such...
Click to expand...

And such... you mean like cops, schoolkids, moviegoers, nightclubbers, shoppers at malls, etc? Truly a multipurpose sporting rifle, eh?


----------



## westwall

Borillar said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> An ar15 is just a sporting rifle...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the sport? Killing as many people as you can in a given time period? Do you get points for style?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Varmints and such...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And such... you mean like cops, schoolkids, moviegoers, nightclubbers, shoppers at malls, etc? Truly a multipurpose sporting rifle, eh?
Click to expand...






This statement is nothing more than temper tantrum type trolling.  If you don't have a relevant comment to make then I suggest you simply bow out.  You're only making a fool of yourself.


----------



## Borillar

westwall said:


> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> An ar15 is just a sporting rifle...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the sport? Killing as many people as you can in a given time period? Do you get points for style?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Varmints and such...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And such... you mean like cops, schoolkids, moviegoers, nightclubbers, shoppers at malls, etc? Truly a multipurpose sporting rifle, eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This statement is nothing more than temper tantrum type trolling.  If you don't have a relevant comment to make then I suggest you simply bow out.  You're only making a fool of yourself.
Click to expand...

Shit, you're the ones losing your minds over simple questions. Better hole up in your basement with your two dozen AR-15's and canned goods. I'm sure Obama will be by any day now to try to take them away from you. That or a Zombie apocalypse. Don't make a sound. We'll let you know when the coast is clear.


----------



## westwall

Borillar said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> An ar15 is just a sporting rifle...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the sport? Killing as many people as you can in a given time period? Do you get points for style?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Varmints and such...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And such... you mean like cops, schoolkids, moviegoers, nightclubbers, shoppers at malls, etc? Truly a multipurpose sporting rifle, eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This statement is nothing more than temper tantrum type trolling.  If you don't have a relevant comment to make then I suggest you simply bow out.  You're only making a fool of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shit, you're the ones losing your minds over simple questions. Better hole up in your basement with your two dozen AR-15's and canned goods. I'm sure Obama will be by any day now to try to take them away from you. That or a Zombie apocalypse. Don't make a sound. We'll let you know when the coast is clear.
Click to expand...







What "simple" question?  The simpleton remarks that you keep making?  This statement that you just made is yet another example of idiotic thought, reinforced with a temper tantrum worthy of a three year old laying on the ground stamping their feet.

The "simple" fact, is the Founders of this nation wanted the American People to be as well armed as the armies of the world.  That is a fact which no amount of your hysterical whining, and thrashing about, can wipe away.


----------



## Borillar

westwall said:


> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's the sport? Killing as many people as you can in a given time period? Do you get points for style?
> 
> 
> 
> Varmints and such...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And such... you mean like cops, schoolkids, moviegoers, nightclubbers, shoppers at malls, etc? Truly a multipurpose sporting rifle, eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This statement is nothing more than temper tantrum type trolling.  If you don't have a relevant comment to make then I suggest you simply bow out.  You're only making a fool of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shit, you're the ones losing your minds over simple questions. Better hole up in your basement with your two dozen AR-15's and canned goods. I'm sure Obama will be by any day now to try to take them away from you. That or a Zombie apocalypse. Don't make a sound. We'll let you know when the coast is clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What "simple" question?  The simpleton remarks that you keep making?  This statement that you just made is yet another example of idiotic thought, reinforced with a temper tantrum worthy of a three year old laying on the ground stamping their feet.
> 
> The "simple" fact, is the Founders of this nation wanted the American People to be as well armed as the armies of the world.  That is a fact which no amount of your hysterical whining, and thrashing about, can wipe away.
Click to expand...

Sure they did. They didn't have large standing armies back then. That's why they had well regulated militias of the type mentioned in the 2nd Amendment. Are you worried about the redcoats coming to get you? Don't worry. We have a large Army now, National Guard units, Reserve units, Air Force, Air National Guard, Marine Corps, Navy, Navy reserves, Coast Guard, FBI, state cops, county cops, city cops, etc. Plus you have your own arsenal that nobody has come to take away from you.


----------



## westwall

Borillar said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Varmints and such...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And such... you mean like cops, schoolkids, moviegoers, nightclubbers, shoppers at malls, etc? Truly a multipurpose sporting rifle, eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This statement is nothing more than temper tantrum type trolling.  If you don't have a relevant comment to make then I suggest you simply bow out.  You're only making a fool of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shit, you're the ones losing your minds over simple questions. Better hole up in your basement with your two dozen AR-15's and canned goods. I'm sure Obama will be by any day now to try to take them away from you. That or a Zombie apocalypse. Don't make a sound. We'll let you know when the coast is clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What "simple" question?  The simpleton remarks that you keep making?  This statement that you just made is yet another example of idiotic thought, reinforced with a temper tantrum worthy of a three year old laying on the ground stamping their feet.
> 
> The "simple" fact, is the Founders of this nation wanted the American People to be as well armed as the armies of the world.  That is a fact which no amount of your hysterical whining, and thrashing about, can wipe away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure they did. They didn't have large standing armies back then. That's why they had well regulated militias of the type mentioned in the 2nd Amendment. Are you worried about the redcoats coming to get you? Don't worry. We have a large Army now, National Guard units, Reserve units, Air Force, Air National Guard, Marine Corps, Navy, Navy reserves, Coast Guard, FBI, state cops, county cops, city cops, etc. Plus you have your own arsenal that nobody has come to take away from you.
Click to expand...








The Founders wanted the American People to be as heavily armed as we are to prevent a illegitimate government from taking over and oppressing us.  Thus, in 1934 when the US Supreme Court outlawed sawed off shotguns they did so because they had "no foreseeable military purpose".   I think you would have a hard time making that assertion for an AR now wouldn't you...


----------



## Borillar

westwall said:


> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> 
> And such... you mean like cops, schoolkids, moviegoers, nightclubbers, shoppers at malls, etc? Truly a multipurpose sporting rifle, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This statement is nothing more than temper tantrum type trolling.  If you don't have a relevant comment to make then I suggest you simply bow out.  You're only making a fool of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shit, you're the ones losing your minds over simple questions. Better hole up in your basement with your two dozen AR-15's and canned goods. I'm sure Obama will be by any day now to try to take them away from you. That or a Zombie apocalypse. Don't make a sound. We'll let you know when the coast is clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What "simple" question?  The simpleton remarks that you keep making?  This statement that you just made is yet another example of idiotic thought, reinforced with a temper tantrum worthy of a three year old laying on the ground stamping their feet.
> 
> The "simple" fact, is the Founders of this nation wanted the American People to be as well armed as the armies of the world.  That is a fact which no amount of your hysterical whining, and thrashing about, can wipe away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure they did. They didn't have large standing armies back then. That's why they had well regulated militias of the type mentioned in the 2nd Amendment. Are you worried about the redcoats coming to get you? Don't worry. We have a large Army now, National Guard units, Reserve units, Air Force, Air National Guard, Marine Corps, Navy, Navy reserves, Coast Guard, FBI, state cops, county cops, city cops, etc. Plus you have your own arsenal that nobody has come to take away from you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Founders wanted the American People to be as heavily armed as we are to prevent a illegitimate government from taking over and oppressing us.  Thus, in 1934 when the US Supreme Court outlawed sawed off shotguns they did so because they had "no foreseeable military purpose".   I think you would have a hard time making that assertion for an AR now wouldn't you...
Click to expand...

So an AR-15 has legitimate military use? Military use == killing people? It isn't a "sporting"rifle? I agree. Such weapons would be better off left in the hands of the military or police.


----------



## Borillar

P@triot said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> It says 'well regulated' right in the 2nd amendment
> 
> 
> 
> No...really....it *doesn't*.
> 
> "The *right* of the *people* to keep and bear arms shall *not* be _infringed_"
> 
> That sentence is so simple and so basic - even a libtard could understand it.
Click to expand...

That is a sentence fragment. Nutters always forget about the first part of the sentence "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state,"


----------



## westwall

Borillar said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> This statement is nothing more than temper tantrum type trolling.  If you don't have a relevant comment to make then I suggest you simply bow out.  You're only making a fool of yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> Shit, you're the ones losing your minds over simple questions. Better hole up in your basement with your two dozen AR-15's and canned goods. I'm sure Obama will be by any day now to try to take them away from you. That or a Zombie apocalypse. Don't make a sound. We'll let you know when the coast is clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What "simple" question?  The simpleton remarks that you keep making?  This statement that you just made is yet another example of idiotic thought, reinforced with a temper tantrum worthy of a three year old laying on the ground stamping their feet.
> 
> The "simple" fact, is the Founders of this nation wanted the American People to be as well armed as the armies of the world.  That is a fact which no amount of your hysterical whining, and thrashing about, can wipe away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure they did. They didn't have large standing armies back then. That's why they had well regulated militias of the type mentioned in the 2nd Amendment. Are you worried about the redcoats coming to get you? Don't worry. We have a large Army now, National Guard units, Reserve units, Air Force, Air National Guard, Marine Corps, Navy, Navy reserves, Coast Guard, FBI, state cops, county cops, city cops, etc. Plus you have your own arsenal that nobody has come to take away from you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Founders wanted the American People to be as heavily armed as we are to prevent a illegitimate government from taking over and oppressing us.  Thus, in 1934 when the US Supreme Court outlawed sawed off shotguns they did so because they had "no foreseeable military purpose".   I think you would have a hard time making that assertion for an AR now wouldn't you...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So an AR-15 has legitimate military use? Military use == killing people? It isn't a "sporting"rifle? I agree. Such weapons would be better off left in the hands of the military or police.
Click to expand...






According to YOU.  According to the Founders (who's opinions far outweigh yours) of this nation the AR15 is one of the few weapons that are absolutely protected from government confiscation.  They couldn't give a rats butt about hunting or target shooting.  They wanted the American People to be able to defend themselves from people like your buddies, the Stalinists.  

Anyone who  wishes to do away with any Constitutional Right is a threat to liberty.


----------



## westwall

Borillar said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> It says 'well regulated' right in the 2nd amendment
> 
> 
> 
> No...really....it *doesn't*.
> 
> "The *right* of the *people* to keep and bear arms shall *not* be _infringed_"
> 
> That sentence is so simple and so basic - even a libtard could understand it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a sentence fragment. Nutters always forget about the first part of the sentence "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state,"
Click to expand...






Which is merely a preparatory statement.  Then you have to add in the actual context....

Read the Founders statements and then you can crawl back under your rock.

*George Mason:* *“I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people.” *(Elliott, Debates, 425-426)

*Richard Henry Lee: *“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.” (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)

*George Washington:* “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”

*James Madison: *“As the greatest danger to liberty is from large standing armies, it is best to prevent them by an effectual provision for a good militia.” (notes of debates in the 1787 Federal Convention)

*Patrick Henry:* “The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.


----------



## Rustic

Borillar said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> An ar15 is just a sporting rifle...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the sport? Killing as many people as you can in a given time period? Do you get points for style?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Varmints and such...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And such... you mean like cops, schoolkids, moviegoers, nightclubbers, shoppers at malls, etc? Truly a multipurpose sporting rifle, eh?
Click to expand...

An ar makes for a great hog and varmit rifle. Pretty much what it's designed for... Just a sporting rifle. Dumbass


----------



## Rustic

Borillar said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> This statement is nothing more than temper tantrum type trolling.  If you don't have a relevant comment to make then I suggest you simply bow out.  You're only making a fool of yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> Shit, you're the ones losing your minds over simple questions. Better hole up in your basement with your two dozen AR-15's and canned goods. I'm sure Obama will be by any day now to try to take them away from you. That or a Zombie apocalypse. Don't make a sound. We'll let you know when the coast is clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What "simple" question?  The simpleton remarks that you keep making?  This statement that you just made is yet another example of idiotic thought, reinforced with a temper tantrum worthy of a three year old laying on the ground stamping their feet.
> 
> The "simple" fact, is the Founders of this nation wanted the American People to be as well armed as the armies of the world.  That is a fact which no amount of your hysterical whining, and thrashing about, can wipe away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure they did. They didn't have large standing armies back then. That's why they had well regulated militias of the type mentioned in the 2nd Amendment. Are you worried about the redcoats coming to get you? Don't worry. We have a large Army now, National Guard units, Reserve units, Air Force, Air National Guard, Marine Corps, Navy, Navy reserves, Coast Guard, FBI, state cops, county cops, city cops, etc. Plus you have your own arsenal that nobody has come to take away from you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Founders wanted the American People to be as heavily armed as we are to prevent a illegitimate government from taking over and oppressing us.  Thus, in 1934 when the US Supreme Court outlawed sawed off shotguns they did so because they had "no foreseeable military purpose".   I think you would have a hard time making that assertion for an AR now wouldn't you...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So an AR-15 has legitimate military use? Military use == killing people? It isn't a "sporting"rifle? I agree. Such weapons would be better off left in the hands of the military or police.
Click to expand...

An ar15 would never pass muster for military use. Shit for brains


----------



## Rustic

Borillar said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> It says 'well regulated' right in the 2nd amendment
> 
> 
> 
> No...really....it *doesn't*.
> 
> "The *right* of the *people* to keep and bear arms shall *not* be _infringed_"
> 
> That sentence is so simple and so basic - even a libtard could understand it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a sentence fragment. Nutters always forget about the first part of the sentence "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state,"
Click to expand...

Fuck face... Here you go


----------



## P@triot

Borillar said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> It says 'well regulated' right in the 2nd amendment
> 
> 
> 
> No...really....it *doesn't*.
> 
> "The *right* of the *people* to keep and bear arms shall *not* be _infringed_"
> 
> That sentence is so simple and so basic - even a libtard could understand it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a sentence fragment. Nutters always forget about the first part of the sentence "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state,"
Click to expand...

That is they _why_...it is not the _what_. It was the Prefatory Clause. The founders were simply giving their *reasoning* for implementing the 2nd Amendment. But the Operative Clause is "The *right* of the *people* to keep and bear arms shall *not* be _infringed_". And for many years after - they were very clear that the right belonged to the people.

Would you like to try again?


----------



## P@triot

Rustic said:


> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shit, you're the ones losing your minds over simple questions. Better hole up in your basement with your two dozen AR-15's and canned goods. I'm sure Obama will be by any day now to try to take them away from you. That or a Zombie apocalypse. Don't make a sound. We'll let you know when the coast is clear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What "simple" question?  The simpleton remarks that you keep making?  This statement that you just made is yet another example of idiotic thought, reinforced with a temper tantrum worthy of a three year old laying on the ground stamping their feet.
> 
> The "simple" fact, is the Founders of this nation wanted the American People to be as well armed as the armies of the world.  That is a fact which no amount of your hysterical whining, and thrashing about, can wipe away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure they did. They didn't have large standing armies back then. That's why they had well regulated militias of the type mentioned in the 2nd Amendment. Are you worried about the redcoats coming to get you? Don't worry. We have a large Army now, National Guard units, Reserve units, Air Force, Air National Guard, Marine Corps, Navy, Navy reserves, Coast Guard, FBI, state cops, county cops, city cops, etc. Plus you have your own arsenal that nobody has come to take away from you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Founders wanted the American People to be as heavily armed as we are to prevent a illegitimate government from taking over and oppressing us.  Thus, in 1934 when the US Supreme Court outlawed sawed off shotguns they did so because they had "no foreseeable military purpose".   I think you would have a hard time making that assertion for an AR now wouldn't you...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So an AR-15 has legitimate military use? Military use == killing people? It isn't a "sporting"rifle? I agree. Such weapons would be better off left in the hands of the military or police.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An ar15 would never pass muster for military use. Shit for brains
Click to expand...

And here's the thing - we have a *right* to military grade weapons anyway.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

IsaacNewton said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well let's start with this right here - there are a few thousand library cowards like you - just looking to be free loaders who receive handouts in exchange for liberty. There are *tens of millions* of American's like me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a coward and a free loader and the only 'others' there are like you are the Oregon Bird Sanctuary bungs who think you are going to overthrow the government of the United States. What are you waiting for mini mouse. Every single time you ladies start threatening everyone else don't you know we the population are laughing at you? You really don't know that? LOL
> 
> You aren't patriots, you don't know the Constitution, you aren't above the law, you aren't going to overthrow anything, and all the sane people in the country think you weak and lacking intelligence. The fact that you NEED to believe you are among 'a group who will soon exercise our second amendment rights so you 'libruls' better watch out' only paints you as wearing a tin foil hat and living in a trailer.
> 
> Threatening other people? You are cowards. You are like tiny hands trump who couldn't hold an 'arm' let alone fire it. He can't pay his own bills and stiffs honest people he hires who do real work. Why don't you get off welfare, put down your bb gun, and join adult society. And for f#$cks sake stop whining about everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Listen to you whining about other people whining
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop yer whining Barney Fife. Exercise your *right to bear arms* by loading your one bullet and shooting yourself in the foot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still whining about other people I see
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love to hear you whine, don't stop. The *right to bear arms* and the ability to defend a population against it's own military have not been in the same universe for over a hundred years. But people cling to their fantasies.
Click to expand...


There is nothing wrong with "responsible" gun owners, they already agree to back ground checks and undergo the state process of obtaining a gun permit, but that in itself is not enough to satisfy you.

Now the problem comes in the form of criminals, or those with a criminal mindset going AROUND current gun laws, even using other individuals to acquire a firearm FOR them.  Yet the left cling to this fantasy notion that *criminal's* actually* "obey" *gun laws, and that by providing more gun regulations criminal's will be honest enough to utilize whatever form of government oversight hoops that the responsible gun owners actually follow. Welcome to the liberal mindset.


----------



## ChrisL

IsaacNewton said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well let's start with this right here - there are a few thousand library cowards like you - just looking to be free loaders who receive handouts in exchange for liberty. There are *tens of millions* of American's like me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a coward and a free loader and the only 'others' there are like you are the Oregon Bird Sanctuary bungs who think you are going to overthrow the government of the United States. What are you waiting for mini mouse. Every single time you ladies start threatening everyone else don't you know we the population are laughing at you? You really don't know that? LOL
> 
> You aren't patriots, you don't know the Constitution, you aren't above the law, you aren't going to overthrow anything, and all the sane people in the country think you weak and lacking intelligence. The fact that you NEED to believe you are among 'a group who will soon exercise our second amendment rights so you 'libruls' better watch out' only paints you as wearing a tin foil hat and living in a trailer.
> 
> Threatening other people? You are cowards. You are like tiny hands trump who couldn't hold an 'arm' let alone fire it. He can't pay his own bills and stiffs honest people he hires who do real work. Why don't you get off welfare, put down your bb gun, and join adult society. And for f#$cks sake stop whining about everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Listen to you whining about other people whining
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop yer whining Barney Fife. Exercise your *right to bear arms* by loading your one bullet and shooting yourself in the foot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still whining about other people I see
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love to hear you whine, don't stop. The *right to bear arms* and the ability to defend a population against it's own military have not been in the same universe for over a hundred years. But people cling to their fantasies.
Click to expand...


Seems as if a bunch of rag tag terrorist groups have had success in "holding off" the US military.


----------



## P@triot

ChrisL said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a coward and a free loader and the only 'others' there are like you are the Oregon Bird Sanctuary bungs who think you are going to overthrow the government of the United States. What are you waiting for mini mouse. Every single time you ladies start threatening everyone else don't you know we the population are laughing at you? You really don't know that? LOL
> 
> You aren't patriots, you don't know the Constitution, you aren't above the law, you aren't going to overthrow anything, and all the sane people in the country think you weak and lacking intelligence. The fact that you NEED to believe you are among 'a group who will soon exercise our second amendment rights so you 'libruls' better watch out' only paints you as wearing a tin foil hat and living in a trailer.
> 
> Threatening other people? You are cowards. You are like tiny hands trump who couldn't hold an 'arm' let alone fire it. He can't pay his own bills and stiffs honest people he hires who do real work. Why don't you get off welfare, put down your bb gun, and join adult society. And for f#$cks sake stop whining about everything.
> 
> 
> 
> Listen to you whining about other people whining
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop yer whining Barney Fife. Exercise your *right to bear arms* by loading your one bullet and shooting yourself in the foot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still whining about other people I see
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love to hear you whine, don't stop. The *right to bear arms* and the ability to defend a population against it's own military have not been in the same universe for over a hundred years. But people cling to their fantasies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems as if a bunch of rag tag terrorist groups have had success in "holding off" the US military.
Click to expand...

It is a _pleasure _watching you work!


----------



## Afterword

ChrisL said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a coward and a free loader and the only 'others' there are like you are the Oregon Bird Sanctuary bungs who think you are going to overthrow the government of the United States. What are you waiting for mini mouse. Every single time you ladies start threatening everyone else don't you know we the population are laughing at you? You really don't know that? LOL
> 
> You aren't patriots, you don't know the Constitution, you aren't above the law, you aren't going to overthrow anything, and all the sane people in the country think you weak and lacking intelligence. The fact that you NEED to believe you are among 'a group who will soon exercise our second amendment rights so you 'libruls' better watch out' only paints you as wearing a tin foil hat and living in a trailer.
> 
> Threatening other people? You are cowards. You are like tiny hands trump who couldn't hold an 'arm' let alone fire it. He can't pay his own bills and stiffs honest people he hires who do real work. Why don't you get off welfare, put down your bb gun, and join adult society. And for f#$cks sake stop whining about everything.
> 
> 
> 
> Listen to you whining about other people whining
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop yer whining Barney Fife. Exercise your *right to bear arms* by loading your one bullet and shooting yourself in the foot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still whining about other people I see
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love to hear you whine, don't stop. The *right to bear arms* and the ability to defend a population against it's own military have not been in the same universe for over a hundred years. But people cling to their fantasies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems as if a bunch of rag tag terrorist groups have had success in "holding off" the US military.
Click to expand...




This is only because of the limitations applied to the US military’s ability to succeed.


----------



## P@triot

Afterword said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Listen to you whining about other people whining
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop yer whining Barney Fife. Exercise your *right to bear arms* by loading your one bullet and shooting yourself in the foot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still whining about other people I see
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love to hear you whine, don't stop. The *right to bear arms* and the ability to defend a population against it's own military have not been in the same universe for over a hundred years. But people cling to their fantasies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems as if a bunch of rag tag terrorist groups have had success in "holding off" the US military.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is only because of the limitations applied to the US military’s ability to succeed.
Click to expand...

So then those same limitations would be placed against us 2nd Amendment defenders and we would still win anyway! Either what the libtard narrative false apart (as it _always_ does).


----------



## ChrisL

P@triot said:


> Afterword said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop yer whining Barney Fife. Exercise your *right to bear arms* by loading your one bullet and shooting yourself in the foot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still whining about other people I see
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love to hear you whine, don't stop. The *right to bear arms* and the ability to defend a population against it's own military have not been in the same universe for over a hundred years. But people cling to their fantasies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems as if a bunch of rag tag terrorist groups have had success in "holding off" the US military.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is only because of the limitations applied to the US military’s ability to succeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So then those same limitations would be placed against us 2nd Amendment defenders and we would still win anyway! Either what the libtard narrative false apart (as it _always_ does).
Click to expand...


It sure does.  They are very inconsistent.


----------



## westwall

ChrisL said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Afterword said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still whining about other people I see
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love to hear you whine, don't stop. The *right to bear arms* and the ability to defend a population against it's own military have not been in the same universe for over a hundred years. But people cling to their fantasies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems as if a bunch of rag tag terrorist groups have had success in "holding off" the US military.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is only because of the limitations applied to the US military’s ability to succeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So then those same limitations would be placed against us 2nd Amendment defenders and we would still win anyway! Either what the libtard narrative false apart (as it _always_ does).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It sure does.  They are very inconsistent.
Click to expand...






No, their arguments are consistent in their stupidity.  Well their perceived stupidity of us.  They think they are smart but they're truly not.  All of their arguments come down to "you don't need guns but the wealthy elite do.  Because they're special, and you're not."


----------



## Afterword

P@triot said:


> Afterword said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop yer whining Barney Fife. Exercise your *right to bear arms* by loading your one bullet and shooting yourself in the foot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still whining about other people I see
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love to hear you whine, don't stop. The *right to bear arms* and the ability to defend a population against it's own military have not been in the same universe for over a hundred years. But people cling to their fantasies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems as if a bunch of rag tag terrorist groups have had success in "holding off" the US military.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is only because of the limitations applied to the US military’s ability to succeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So then those same limitations would be placed against us 2nd Amendment defenders and we would still win anyway! Either what the libtard narrative false apart (as it _always_ does).
Click to expand...



I was defending the US military's capability, which exists despite restrictions.

We should all hope the government never, at least in the foreseeable future, becomes serious about relieving citizens of their firearms. I am talking about a real attempt to disarm the populous, with teeth sharp enough for the government to achieve their end.

Not only would many people resist in the belief they have the right to bear arms, it would also be perceived by some as a precursor to a military initiated dictatorship, and what were once law abiding citizens would become criminals in the eyes of the government and soldiers of freedom for those who oppose the government’s actions. Some states might secede (or its equivalent) from the union, especially in the south.

It is highly unlikely the government would risk such an eventuality.

Even if they did and were successful, the police would still not be able to protect citizens from crime. The criminals would simply improvise and steal at the point of a blade. Citizens in turn would arm themselves with blades as a defense.

It would not prevent crimes of passion or hatred or crimes committed by the mentally ill or terrorists.

It would not prevent mass murder. Drive any vehicle through a large gathering of people at a high rate of speed and you will accomplish this end, or make a bomb. There are other less obvious ways as well, that I will refrain from mentioning.


----------



## ChrisL

Afterword said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Afterword said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still whining about other people I see
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love to hear you whine, don't stop. The *right to bear arms* and the ability to defend a population against it's own military have not been in the same universe for over a hundred years. But people cling to their fantasies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems as if a bunch of rag tag terrorist groups have had success in "holding off" the US military.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is only because of the limitations applied to the US military’s ability to succeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So then those same limitations would be placed against us 2nd Amendment defenders and we would still win anyway! Either what the libtard narrative false apart (as it _always_ does).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was defending the US military's capability, which exists despite restrictions.
> 
> We should all hope the government never, at least in the foreseeable future, becomes serious about relieving citizens of their firearms. I am talking about a real attempt to disarm the populous, with teeth sharp enough for the government to achieve their end.
> 
> Not only would many people resist in the belief they have the right to bear arms, it would also be perceived by some as a precursor to a military initiated dictatorship, and what were once law abiding citizens would become criminals in the eyes of the government and soldiers of freedom for those who oppose the government’s actions. Some states might secede (or its equivalent) from the union, especially in the south.
> 
> It is highly unlikely the government would risk such an eventuality.
> 
> Even if they did and were successful, the police would still not be able to protect citizens from crime. The criminals would simply improvise and steal at the point of a blade. Citizens in turn would arm themselves with blades as a defense.
> 
> It would not prevent crimes of passion or hatred or crimes committed by the mentally ill or terrorists.
> 
> It would not prevent mass murder. Drive any vehicle through a large gathering of people at a high rate of speed and you will accomplish this end, or make a bomb. There are other less obvious ways as well, that I will refrain from mentioning.
Click to expand...


Well, the military (as far as I know) pledges to defend the constitution of the United States and the citizens of the US, and NOT the government.  This is why the founders were against a strong centralized military, but in today's day and age, it can be no other way unfortunately.


----------



## P@triot

ChrisL said:


> Well, the military (as far as I know) *pledges to defend the constitution of the United States and the citizens of the US, and NOT the government*.  This is why the founders were against a strong centralized military, but in today's day and age, it can be no other way unfortunately.


Bingo! Have explained this to liberals dozens of times but it just never sinks in for them. They believe that the government thinks like they do - including members of the military...


----------



## kaz

ChrisL said:


> Afterword said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Afterword said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love to hear you whine, don't stop. The *right to bear arms* and the ability to defend a population against it's own military have not been in the same universe for over a hundred years. But people cling to their fantasies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems as if a bunch of rag tag terrorist groups have had success in "holding off" the US military.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is only because of the limitations applied to the US military’s ability to succeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So then those same limitations would be placed against us 2nd Amendment defenders and we would still win anyway! Either what the libtard narrative false apart (as it _always_ does).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was defending the US military's capability, which exists despite restrictions.
> 
> We should all hope the government never, at least in the foreseeable future, becomes serious about relieving citizens of their firearms. I am talking about a real attempt to disarm the populous, with teeth sharp enough for the government to achieve their end.
> 
> Not only would many people resist in the belief they have the right to bear arms, it would also be perceived by some as a precursor to a military initiated dictatorship, and what were once law abiding citizens would become criminals in the eyes of the government and soldiers of freedom for those who oppose the government’s actions. Some states might secede (or its equivalent) from the union, especially in the south.
> 
> It is highly unlikely the government would risk such an eventuality.
> 
> Even if they did and were successful, the police would still not be able to protect citizens from crime. The criminals would simply improvise and steal at the point of a blade. Citizens in turn would arm themselves with blades as a defense.
> 
> It would not prevent crimes of passion or hatred or crimes committed by the mentally ill or terrorists.
> 
> It would not prevent mass murder. Drive any vehicle through a large gathering of people at a high rate of speed and you will accomplish this end, or make a bomb. There are other less obvious ways as well, that I will refrain from mentioning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the military (as far as I know) pledges to defend the constitution of the United States and the citizens of the US, and NOT the government.  This is why the founders were against a strong centralized military, but in today's day and age, it can be no other way unfortunately.
Click to expand...


Perfectly stated.  Democrats think the government = the people, it doesn't any more than the warden = his prisoners


----------



## Afterword

ChrisL said:


> but in today's day and age, it can be no other way unfortunately.




Not until mankind matures enough as a species, which will be a long time coming.


----------



## Afterword

ChrisL said:


> Well, the military (as far as I know) pledges to defend the constitution of the United States and the citizens of the US...




... and follow the orders of their Commander-in-Chief.


----------



## ChrisL

Afterword said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the military (as far as I know) pledges to defend the constitution of the United States and the citizens of the US...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... and follow the orders of their Commander-in-Chief.
Click to expand...


Not if he goes against the constitution.  Our country is set up so as to avoid the occurrence of tyranny.  THAT is why the military takes an oath to protect AMERICA and not any politicians or their offices.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby

ChrisL said:


> Not if he goes against the constitution.  Our country is set up so as to avoid the occurrence of tyranny.  THAT is why the military takes an oath to protect AMERICA and not any politicians or their offices.



TESTIFY!


----------



## Afterword

ChrisL said:


> Not if he goes against the constitution.





At least, your interpretation of the constitution. While I would like to preserve my right to own firearms, I cannot truthfully say I know what the motivations of the authors of the 2nd Amendment were when it was written or if it applies to the present. I could only give my opinion, which, like your own opinion, would be nothing more than that - an opinion - and neither your opinion nor my opinion makes it so.


----------



## turtledude

Lakhota said:


> Hillary won't take our guns.



of course not, she will need men with guns to do that. Bannerrhoids are invariably cowards and want others to do the dirty work


----------



## ChrisL

Afterword said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not if he goes against the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least, your interpretation of the constitution. While I would like to preserve my right to own firearms, I cannot truthfully say I know what the motivations of the authors of the 2nd Amendment were when it was written or if it applies to the present. I could only give my opinion, which, like your own opinion, would be nothing more than that - an opinion - and neither your opinion nor my opinion makes it so.
Click to expand...


Well then you need to read the federalist papers and familiarize yourself with exactly what it is they meant.  I have.


----------



## Afterword

ChrisL said:


> Afterword said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not if he goes against the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least, your interpretation of the constitution. While I would like to preserve my right to own firearms, I cannot truthfully say I know what the motivations of the authors of the 2nd Amendment were when it was written or if it applies to the present. I could only give my opinion, which, like your own opinion, would be nothing more than that - an opinion - and neither your opinion nor my opinion makes it so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then you need to read the federalist papers and familiarize yourself with exactly what it is they meant.  I have.
Click to expand...




I have as well and it only familiarized myself with what they said, not the reason they said it. The period of time they lived in and the period of time we live in are to different worlds entirely.


----------



## ChrisL

Afterword said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Afterword said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not if he goes against the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least, your interpretation of the constitution. While I would like to preserve my right to own firearms, I cannot truthfully say I know what the motivations of the authors of the 2nd Amendment were when it was written or if it applies to the present. I could only give my opinion, which, like your own opinion, would be nothing more than that - an opinion - and neither your opinion nor my opinion makes it so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then you need to read the federalist papers and familiarize yourself with exactly what it is they meant.  I have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have as well and it only familiarized myself with what they said, not the reason they said it. The period of time they lived in and the period of time we live in are to different worlds entirely.
Click to expand...


Oh really?  Well, why don't you quote some of the federalist papers relating to the 2A then.    If you've read them, then you would know that they in fact DO explain why.


----------



## ChrisL

Afterword said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Afterword said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not if he goes against the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least, your interpretation of the constitution. While I would like to preserve my right to own firearms, I cannot truthfully say I know what the motivations of the authors of the 2nd Amendment were when it was written or if it applies to the present. I could only give my opinion, which, like your own opinion, would be nothing more than that - an opinion - and neither your opinion nor my opinion makes it so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then you need to read the federalist papers and familiarize yourself with exactly what it is they meant.  I have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have as well and it only familiarized myself with what they said, not the reason they said it. The period of time they lived in and the period of time we live in are to different worlds entirely.
Click to expand...


The James Madison Research Library and Information Center

It is our ardent wish that an efficient government may be established over these states so constructed that the people may retain all liberties, privileges, and immunities usual and necessary for citizens of a free country and yet sufficient provision made for carrying into execution all the powers vested in government. We are willing to give up such share of our rights as to enable government to support, defend, preserve the rest. It is difficult to draw the line. All will agree that the people should retain so much power that if ever venality and corruption should prevail in our public councils and government should be perverted and not answer the end of the institution, viz., the well being of society and the good of the whole, in that case the people may resume their rights and put an end to the wantonness of power. In whatever government the people neglect to retain so much power in their hands as to be a check to their rulers, depravity and the love of power is so prevalent in the humane mind, even of the best of men, that tyranny and cruelty will inevitably take place."

MINORITY OF THE PENNSYLVANIA CONVENTION

(December 12, 1787)





That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public inquiry from individuals.

DEBATES OF THE MASSACHUSETTS CONVENTION

(February 6, 1788)

And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.

NEW HAMPSHIRE RATIFICATION CONVENTION

(June 21, 1788)

Congress shall never disarm any citizen, unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion.

VIRGINIA CONVENTION

(June 27, 1788)

17th. That the people have a right to keep and bear to arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

NEW YORK CONVENTION

(July 7,1788)

That the militia should always be kept well organized, armed and disciplined, and include, according to past usages of the states, all the men capable of bearing arms, and that no regulations tending to render the general militia useless and defenceless, by establishing select corps of militia, of distinct bodies of military men, not having permanent interests and attachments to the community, ought to be made.





NEW YORK CONVENTION

(July 26,1788)

That the people have the right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people _capable of bearing arms_, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state.

RHODE ISLAND RATIFICATION CONVENTION

(May 29, 1790)

XVII. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state.


----------



## Afterword

As it applied then is all that you have demonstrated. It is like asking Madison how he would fix the carburetor in your '66 Camaro.

Besides, I see no credible threat to my possession of firearms, and if there were a serious threat nothing in the Federalist Papers or the Constitution or The Bill of Rights would stop them.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Afterword said:


> As it applied then is all that you have demonstrated. It is like asking Madison how he would fix the carburetor in your '66 Camaro.


1966 Camaro?
Can I get a pic?


----------



## P@triot

Afterword said:


> I have as well and it only familiarized myself with what they said, not the reason they said it. The period of time they lived in and the period of time we live in are to different worlds entirely.


By that logic - you should be banned from posting your oppressive, anti-constitutional rants on the internet. You should also be banned from owning a cell phone, a computer, and internet access. After all, the founders granted us 1st Amendment rights but they lived in a world without technology allowing misinformation and disinformation to spread across the world in seconds. They could not have foreseen how dangerous the 1st Amendment would become in the hands of liberals with this kind of development in technology. They intended the first amendment to be just between neighbors speaking and newspapers. They didn't even have telephones back then.

*Idiot*.


----------



## P@triot

Afterword said:


> The period of time they lived in and the period of time we live in are to different worlds entirely.


And your point would be??? Liberty does not apply only to certain era's. It transcends all time and space. And if for some reason the modern era requires the end of liberty - the founders allowed the people to make that choice but *only* through the proper amendment process.

So if you feel that firearms no longer have a place in American society, convince the American people of that and amend the U.S. Constitution to reflect that. Good luck.


----------



## P@triot

Proof that the entire liberal narrative about their concern for those in poverty is *false*. They had the perfect opportunity here for complete bipartisan support to lift fees, taxes, and various other costly regulations on those below the poverty line to ensure that they were compliant with important gun laws. And what did the Dumbocrats do? In one case, unanimously voted it down and in another case, blocked the legislation from even being voted upon.

They are exponentially more interested in disarming the American people than they are in helping those in poverty. There is no denying it. The audio is damning.

Gun Expert Blows Away Stats Used by Democrats


----------



## Afterword

Y


P@triot said:


> Afterword said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have as well and it only familiarized myself with what they said, not the reason they said it. The period of time they lived in and the period of time we live in are to different worlds entirely.
> 
> 
> 
> By that logic - you should be banned from posting your oppressive, anti-constitutional rants on the internet. You should also be banned from owning a cell phone, a computer, and internet access. After all, the founders granted us 1st Amendment rights but they lived in a world without technology allowing misinformation and disinformation to spread across the world in seconds. They could not have foreseen how dangerous the 1st Amendment would become in the hands of liberals with this kind of development in technology. They intended the first amendment to be just between neighbors speaking and newspapers. They didn't even have telephones back then.
> 
> *Idiot*.
Click to expand...



You are right, they were out of touch with today's reality.


----------



## P@triot

Afterword said:


> Y
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Afterword said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have as well and it only familiarized myself with what they said, not the reason they said it. The period of time they lived in and the period of time we live in are to different worlds entirely.
> 
> 
> 
> By that logic - you should be banned from posting your oppressive, anti-constitutional rants on the internet. You should also be banned from owning a cell phone, a computer, and internet access. After all, the founders granted us 1st Amendment rights but they lived in a world without technology allowing misinformation and disinformation to spread across the world in seconds. They could not have foreseen how dangerous the 1st Amendment would become in the hands of liberals with this kind of development in technology. They intended the first amendment to be just between neighbors speaking and newspapers. They didn't even have telephones back then.
> 
> *Idiot*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are right, they were out of touch with today's reality.
Click to expand...

So stop posting. Throw away your computer and unplug your internet. Lead. Lead by example. Don't sit there boring everyone to death with your nonsense. Stand up and show the world how it is done.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

The Right to Bear Arms saved this man's life.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

Flash said:


> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> 
> You could just as effectively defend your home with a shotgun or revolver than an AR-15. I've never heard of anyone thwarting a street mugging with an AR-15.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you tell somebody how they can effectively defend their home?
> 
> I have over two dozen ARs.  It is not my weapon of choice for home defense but I may change my mind depending upon the threat.
Click to expand...


When it comes to home invasions, a good ole .45 will probably work best.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, unlike you I believe in innocent until proven guilty
> 
> 
> 
> So, just to be clear...
> GWB and Dick Cheney are -not- war criminals.
> Right?
Click to expand...


Of course, they are. Unfortunately, the Hague is not big enough for the two of them. 

*Shootout at the OK Corral*


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

Skull Pilot said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a coward and a free loader and the only 'others' there are like you are the Oregon Bird Sanctuary bungs who think you are going to overthrow the government of the United States. What are you waiting for mini mouse. Every single time you ladies start threatening everyone else don't you know we the population are laughing at you? You really don't know that? LOL
> 
> You aren't patriots, you don't know the Constitution, you aren't above the law, you aren't going to overthrow anything, and all the sane people in the country think you weak and lacking intelligence. The fact that you NEED to believe you are among 'a group who will soon exercise our second amendment rights so you 'libruls' better watch out' only paints you as wearing a tin foil hat and living in a trailer.
> 
> Threatening other people? You are cowards. You are like tiny hands trump who couldn't hold an 'arm' let alone fire it. He can't pay his own bills and stiffs honest people he hires who do real work. Why don't you get off welfare, put down your bb gun, and join adult society. And for f#$cks sake stop whining about everything.
> 
> 
> 
> Listen to you whining about other people whining
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop yer whining Barney Fife. Exercise your *right to bear arms* by loading your one bullet and shooting yourself in the foot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still whining about other people I see
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love to hear you whine, don't stop. The *right to bear arms* and the ability to defend a population against it's own military have not been in the same universe for over a hundred years. But people cling to their fantasies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK now quote me where I ever said anything about fighting the military.
> 
> Good luck because i have never said that.
> 
> So now go suck your thumb in the corner
Click to expand...


Fighting the military with the millions of guns we have will be the best game ever invented.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

Flash said:


> You believe in those filthy ass government background checks for firearms.



If you are so upset, just pitch a tent at a gun show. Good luck!


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

Flash said:


> It is hardly a fantasy. In more recent times we had the Battle of Athens, Tennessee. Returning WWII vets used arms to fight against corrupt government officials.


----------



## ChrisL

Skull Pilot said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a coward and a free loader and the only 'others' there are like you are the Oregon Bird Sanctuary bungs who think you are going to overthrow the government of the United States. What are you waiting for mini mouse. Every single time you ladies start threatening everyone else don't you know we the population are laughing at you? You really don't know that? LOL
> 
> You aren't patriots, you don't know the Constitution, you aren't above the law, you aren't going to overthrow anything, and all the sane people in the country think you weak and lacking intelligence. The fact that you NEED to believe you are among 'a group who will soon exercise our second amendment rights so you 'libruls' better watch out' only paints you as wearing a tin foil hat and living in a trailer.
> 
> Threatening other people? You are cowards. You are like tiny hands trump who couldn't hold an 'arm' let alone fire it. He can't pay his own bills and stiffs honest people he hires who do real work. Why don't you get off welfare, put down your bb gun, and join adult society. And for f#$cks sake stop whining about everything.
> 
> 
> 
> Listen to you whining about other people whining
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop yer whining Barney Fife. Exercise your *right to bear arms* by loading your one bullet and shooting yourself in the foot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still whining about other people I see
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love to hear you whine, don't stop. The *right to bear arms* and the ability to defend a population against it's own military have not been in the same universe for over a hundred years. But people cling to their fantasies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK now quote me where I ever said anything about fighting the military.
> 
> Good luck because i have never said that.
> 
> So now go suck your thumb in the corner
Click to expand...


Since the military takes an oath to defend the citizens of the US and the Constitution, then we don't need to worry about fighting the military.  A lot of them would side with the people because THEY are also citizens of the United States who hate politicians.


----------



## ChrisL

QuickHitCurepon said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> You believe in those filthy ass government background checks for firearms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are so upset, just pitch a tent at a gun show. Good luck!
Click to expand...


Why don't you try being involved in a discussion for once.  Do you have anything to say about the topic?


----------



## Skull Pilot

ChrisL said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Listen to you whining about other people whining
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop yer whining Barney Fife. Exercise your *right to bear arms* by loading your one bullet and shooting yourself in the foot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still whining about other people I see
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love to hear you whine, don't stop. The *right to bear arms* and the ability to defend a population against it's own military have not been in the same universe for over a hundred years. But people cling to their fantasies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK now quote me where I ever said anything about fighting the military.
> 
> Good luck because i have never said that.
> 
> So now go suck your thumb in the corner
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since the military takes an oath to defend the citizens of the US and the Constitution, then we don't need to worry about fighting the military.  A lot of them would side with the people because THEY are also citizens of the United States who hate politicians.
Click to expand...


The oaths of enlistment say nothing about defending citizens


----------



## ChrisL

Skull Pilot said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop yer whining Barney Fife. Exercise your *right to bear arms* by loading your one bullet and shooting yourself in the foot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still whining about other people I see
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love to hear you whine, don't stop. The *right to bear arms* and the ability to defend a population against it's own military have not been in the same universe for over a hundred years. But people cling to their fantasies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK now quote me where I ever said anything about fighting the military.
> 
> Good luck because i have never said that.
> 
> So now go suck your thumb in the corner
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since the military takes an oath to defend the citizens of the US and the Constitution, then we don't need to worry about fighting the military.  A lot of them would side with the people because THEY are also citizens of the United States who hate politicians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The oaths of enlistment say nothing about defending citizens
Click to expand...


Well, WE are the United States, not the government.  How many service men and women do you think would turn against the population?  I think very FEW would be willing to do such a thing.


----------



## Skull Pilot

ChrisL said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still whining about other people I see
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love to hear you whine, don't stop. The *right to bear arms* and the ability to defend a population against it's own military have not been in the same universe for over a hundred years. But people cling to their fantasies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK now quote me where I ever said anything about fighting the military.
> 
> Good luck because i have never said that.
> 
> So now go suck your thumb in the corner
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since the military takes an oath to defend the citizens of the US and the Constitution, then we don't need to worry about fighting the military.  A lot of them would side with the people because THEY are also citizens of the United States who hate politicians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The oaths of enlistment say nothing about defending citizens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, WE are the United States, not the government.  How many service men and women do you think would turn against the population?  I think very FEW would be willing to do such a thing.
Click to expand...


Servicemen follow orders

the military has no problem killing civilians if they are ordered to do so


----------



## kaz

Skull Pilot said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love to hear you whine, don't stop. The *right to bear arms* and the ability to defend a population against it's own military have not been in the same universe for over a hundred years. But people cling to their fantasies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK now quote me where I ever said anything about fighting the military.
> 
> Good luck because i have never said that.
> 
> So now go suck your thumb in the corner
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since the military takes an oath to defend the citizens of the US and the Constitution, then we don't need to worry about fighting the military.  A lot of them would side with the people because THEY are also citizens of the United States who hate politicians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The oaths of enlistment say nothing about defending citizens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, WE are the United States, not the government.  How many service men and women do you think would turn against the population?  I think very FEW would be willing to do such a thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Servicemen follow orders
> 
> the military has no problem killing civilians if they are ordered to do so
Click to expand...


Some in the military, sure.  But as for most, ordering them to kill innocent American civilians isn't something they'd be willing to do


----------



## Skull Pilot

kaz said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK now quote me where I ever said anything about fighting the military.
> 
> Good luck because i have never said that.
> 
> So now go suck your thumb in the corner
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since the military takes an oath to defend the citizens of the US and the Constitution, then we don't need to worry about fighting the military.  A lot of them would side with the people because THEY are also citizens of the United States who hate politicians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The oaths of enlistment say nothing about defending citizens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, WE are the United States, not the government.  How many service men and women do you think would turn against the population?  I think very FEW would be willing to do such a thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Servicemen follow orders
> 
> the military has no problem killing civilians if they are ordered to do so
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some in the military, sure.  But as for most, ordering them to kill innocent American civilians isn't something they'd be willing to do
Click to expand...

you hope


----------



## kaz

Skull Pilot said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since the military takes an oath to defend the citizens of the US and the Constitution, then we don't need to worry about fighting the military.  A lot of them would side with the people because THEY are also citizens of the United States who hate politicians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The oaths of enlistment say nothing about defending citizens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, WE are the United States, not the government.  How many service men and women do you think would turn against the population?  I think very FEW would be willing to do such a thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Servicemen follow orders
> 
> the military has no problem killing civilians if they are ordered to do so
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some in the military, sure.  But as for most, ordering them to kill innocent American civilians isn't something they'd be willing to do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you hope
Click to expand...


I hope based on a lot of military people I know, including in my family.  That they are defending America is a huge thing to them.  The idea they would shoot Americans and have "no problem" is just wrong


----------



## ChrisL

Skull Pilot said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love to hear you whine, don't stop. The *right to bear arms* and the ability to defend a population against it's own military have not been in the same universe for over a hundred years. But people cling to their fantasies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK now quote me where I ever said anything about fighting the military.
> 
> Good luck because i have never said that.
> 
> So now go suck your thumb in the corner
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since the military takes an oath to defend the citizens of the US and the Constitution, then we don't need to worry about fighting the military.  A lot of them would side with the people because THEY are also citizens of the United States who hate politicians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The oaths of enlistment say nothing about defending citizens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, WE are the United States, not the government.  How many service men and women do you think would turn against the population?  I think very FEW would be willing to do such a thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Servicemen follow orders
> 
> the military has no problem killing civilians if they are ordered to do so
Click to expand...


Their family and friends are "civilians."


----------



## Skull Pilot

ChrisL said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK now quote me where I ever said anything about fighting the military.
> 
> Good luck because i have never said that.
> 
> So now go suck your thumb in the corner
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since the military takes an oath to defend the citizens of the US and the Constitution, then we don't need to worry about fighting the military.  A lot of them would side with the people because THEY are also citizens of the United States who hate politicians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The oaths of enlistment say nothing about defending citizens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, WE are the United States, not the government.  How many service men and women do you think would turn against the population?  I think very FEW would be willing to do such a thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Servicemen follow orders
> 
> the military has no problem killing civilians if they are ordered to do so
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their family and friends are "civilians."
Click to expand...


Most of the people in the country are not their friends and/or family.

Our military has killed innocent civilians in other countries it is not any stretch of the imagination to say they would kill civilians in this country if ordered


----------



## Skull Pilot

kaz said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The oaths of enlistment say nothing about defending citizens
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, WE are the United States, not the government.  How many service men and women do you think would turn against the population?  I think very FEW would be willing to do such a thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Servicemen follow orders
> 
> the military has no problem killing civilians if they are ordered to do so
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some in the military, sure.  But as for most, ordering them to kill innocent American civilians isn't something they'd be willing to do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you hope
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hope based on a lot of military people I know, including in my family.  That they are defending America is a huge thing to them.  The idea they would shoot Americans and have "no problem" is just wrong
Click to expand...


All their superiors have to do is tell them that the Americans they are ordered to kill are a threat to America and the drones will fly


----------



## kaz

Skull Pilot said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, WE are the United States, not the government.  How many service men and women do you think would turn against the population?  I think very FEW would be willing to do such a thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Servicemen follow orders
> 
> the military has no problem killing civilians if they are ordered to do so
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some in the military, sure.  But as for most, ordering them to kill innocent American civilians isn't something they'd be willing to do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you hope
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hope based on a lot of military people I know, including in my family.  That they are defending America is a huge thing to them.  The idea they would shoot Americans and have "no problem" is just wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All their superiors have to do is tell them that the Americans they are ordered to kill are a threat to America and the drones will fly
Click to expand...


Do you know anyone in the military?


----------



## Skull Pilot

kaz said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Servicemen follow orders
> 
> the military has no problem killing civilians if they are ordered to do so
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some in the military, sure.  But as for most, ordering them to kill innocent American civilians isn't something they'd be willing to do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you hope
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hope based on a lot of military people I know, including in my family.  That they are defending America is a huge thing to them.  The idea they would shoot Americans and have "no problem" is just wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All their superiors have to do is tell them that the Americans they are ordered to kill are a threat to America and the drones will fly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know anyone in the military?
Click to expand...


Sure and my father was killed in the service

I just have no faith that soldiers who are trained to take orders would disobey them.  Some might but not enough to matter if the order was given


----------



## ChrisL

Skull Pilot said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some in the military, sure.  But as for most, ordering them to kill innocent American civilians isn't something they'd be willing to do
> 
> 
> 
> you hope
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hope based on a lot of military people I know, including in my family.  That they are defending America is a huge thing to them.  The idea they would shoot Americans and have "no problem" is just wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All their superiors have to do is tell them that the Americans they are ordered to kill are a threat to America and the drones will fly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know anyone in the military?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure and my father was killed in the service
> 
> I just have no faith that soldiers who are trained to take orders would disobey them.  Some might but not enough to matter if the order was given
Click to expand...


Of course they would.  They aren't brainwashed!  I know plenty of people, ex and current military members, who would never turn their weapons on American citizens.


----------



## kaz

Skull Pilot said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some in the military, sure.  But as for most, ordering them to kill innocent American civilians isn't something they'd be willing to do
> 
> 
> 
> you hope
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hope based on a lot of military people I know, including in my family.  That they are defending America is a huge thing to them.  The idea they would shoot Americans and have "no problem" is just wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All their superiors have to do is tell them that the Americans they are ordered to kill are a threat to America and the drones will fly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know anyone in the military?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure and my father was killed in the service
> 
> I just have no faith that soldiers who are trained to take orders would disobey them.  Some might but not enough to matter if the order was given
Click to expand...


Well, my family and family friends cover Vietnam to current and every branch of the military and they believe strongly in that they are defending America and Americans, not conquering it and killing them.  I believe them


----------



## Skull Pilot

ChrisL said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> you hope
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope based on a lot of military people I know, including in my family.  That they are defending America is a huge thing to them.  The idea they would shoot Americans and have "no problem" is just wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All their superiors have to do is tell them that the Americans they are ordered to kill are a threat to America and the drones will fly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know anyone in the military?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure and my father was killed in the service
> 
> I just have no faith that soldiers who are trained to take orders would disobey them.  Some might but not enough to matter if the order was given
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they would.  They aren't brainwashed!  I know plenty of people, ex and current military members, who would never turn their weapons on American citizens.
Click to expand...


Like I said not enough to matter if the order was given
All any superior officer has to do is tell them that the people to be killed are not innocent civilians ans are in fact a danger to the country.  The average soldier will believe their superior officer


----------



## Skull Pilot

kaz said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> you hope
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope based on a lot of military people I know, including in my family.  That they are defending America is a huge thing to them.  The idea they would shoot Americans and have "no problem" is just wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All their superiors have to do is tell them that the Americans they are ordered to kill are a threat to America and the drones will fly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know anyone in the military?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure and my father was killed in the service
> 
> I just have no faith that soldiers who are trained to take orders would disobey them.  Some might but not enough to matter if the order was given
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, my family and family friends cover Vietnam to current and every branch of the military and they believe strongly in that they are defending America and Americans, not conquering it and killing them.  I believe them
Click to expand...


Good for you.  I don't.  If the order was given for the military to open fire on Americans it would happen


----------



## ChrisL

Skull Pilot said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope based on a lot of military people I know, including in my family.  That they are defending America is a huge thing to them.  The idea they would shoot Americans and have "no problem" is just wrong
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All their superiors have to do is tell them that the Americans they are ordered to kill are a threat to America and the drones will fly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know anyone in the military?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure and my father was killed in the service
> 
> I just have no faith that soldiers who are trained to take orders would disobey them.  Some might but not enough to matter if the order was given
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they would.  They aren't brainwashed!  I know plenty of people, ex and current military members, who would never turn their weapons on American citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said not enough to matter if the order was given
> All any superior officer has to do is tell them that the people to be killed are not innocent civilians ans are in fact a danger to the country.  The average soldier will believe their superior officer
Click to expand...


Lol.  No they wouldn't!  Most would not.


----------



## ChrisL

Skull Pilot said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope based on a lot of military people I know, including in my family.  That they are defending America is a huge thing to them.  The idea they would shoot Americans and have "no problem" is just wrong
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All their superiors have to do is tell them that the Americans they are ordered to kill are a threat to America and the drones will fly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know anyone in the military?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure and my father was killed in the service
> 
> I just have no faith that soldiers who are trained to take orders would disobey them.  Some might but not enough to matter if the order was given
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they would.  They aren't brainwashed!  I know plenty of people, ex and current military members, who would never turn their weapons on American citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said not enough to matter if the order was given
> All any superior officer has to do is tell them that the people to be killed are not innocent civilians ans are in fact a danger to the country.  The average soldier will believe their superior officer
Click to expand...


Do you think they are robots, incapable of thinking for themselves?


----------



## Skull Pilot

ChrisL said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> All their superiors have to do is tell them that the Americans they are ordered to kill are a threat to America and the drones will fly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know anyone in the military?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure and my father was killed in the service
> 
> I just have no faith that soldiers who are trained to take orders would disobey them.  Some might but not enough to matter if the order was given
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they would.  They aren't brainwashed!  I know plenty of people, ex and current military members, who would never turn their weapons on American citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said not enough to matter if the order was given
> All any superior officer has to do is tell them that the people to be killed are not innocent civilians ans are in fact a danger to the country.  The average soldier will believe their superior officer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol.  No they wouldn't!  Most would not.
Click to expand...


Your opinion.


----------



## ChrisL

Skull Pilot said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know anyone in the military?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure and my father was killed in the service
> 
> I just have no faith that soldiers who are trained to take orders would disobey them.  Some might but not enough to matter if the order was given
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they would.  They aren't brainwashed!  I know plenty of people, ex and current military members, who would never turn their weapons on American citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said not enough to matter if the order was given
> All any superior officer has to do is tell them that the people to be killed are not innocent civilians ans are in fact a danger to the country.  The average soldier will believe their superior officer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol.  No they wouldn't!  Most would not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your opinion.
Click to expand...


I don't think you know very many military men and women.  They are people, like you and me.  They feel that it is important to defend their country, NOT their politicians.  It's just craziness to think they would turn their weapons on American citizens because somebody told them to.


----------



## Skull Pilot

ChrisL said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> All their superiors have to do is tell them that the Americans they are ordered to kill are a threat to America and the drones will fly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know anyone in the military?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure and my father was killed in the service
> 
> I just have no faith that soldiers who are trained to take orders would disobey them.  Some might but not enough to matter if the order was given
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they would.  They aren't brainwashed!  I know plenty of people, ex and current military members, who would never turn their weapons on American citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said not enough to matter if the order was given
> All any superior officer has to do is tell them that the people to be killed are not innocent civilians ans are in fact a danger to the country.  The average soldier will believe their superior officer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think they are robots, incapable of thinking for themselves?
Click to expand...


They are conditioned to follow orders.

If their superiors or the president orders them to storm a property  they will no questions asked.

Those soldiers don't know who they will be shooting at only that their superiors told them that those people were a threat

We've done it to innocent civilians before in other countries we'd do it here too


----------



## ChrisL

Skull Pilot said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know anyone in the military?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure and my father was killed in the service
> 
> I just have no faith that soldiers who are trained to take orders would disobey them.  Some might but not enough to matter if the order was given
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they would.  They aren't brainwashed!  I know plenty of people, ex and current military members, who would never turn their weapons on American citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said not enough to matter if the order was given
> All any superior officer has to do is tell them that the people to be killed are not innocent civilians ans are in fact a danger to the country.  The average soldier will believe their superior officer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think they are robots, incapable of thinking for themselves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are conditioned to follow orders.
> 
> If their superiors or the president orders them to storm a property  they will no questions asked.
> 
> Those soldiers don't know who they will be shooting at only that their superiors told them that those people were a threat
> 
> We've done it to innocent civilians before in other countries we'd do it here too
Click to expand...


Doing it in other countries is completely different.  They are people and are not going to turn on their friends and fellow countrymen.


----------



## Skull Pilot

ChrisL said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure and my father was killed in the service
> 
> I just have no faith that soldiers who are trained to take orders would disobey them.  Some might but not enough to matter if the order was given
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they would.  They aren't brainwashed!  I know plenty of people, ex and current military members, who would never turn their weapons on American citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said not enough to matter if the order was given
> All any superior officer has to do is tell them that the people to be killed are not innocent civilians ans are in fact a danger to the country.  The average soldier will believe their superior officer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol.  No they wouldn't!  Most would not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think you know very many military men and women.  They are people, like you and me.  They feel that it is important to defend their country, NOT their politicians.  It's just craziness to think they would turn their weapons on American citizens because somebody told them to.
Click to expand...


They take no oath to defend civilians they do take an oath to follow the orders of the commander in chief.

I don't know how you can be so naive as to think our government and its agents would not fire on Americans guilty of no crimes when it has happened before

We certainly have a pretty a pretty high tally killing civilians in other countries too


----------



## kaz

Skull Pilot said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope based on a lot of military people I know, including in my family.  That they are defending America is a huge thing to them.  The idea they would shoot Americans and have "no problem" is just wrong
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All their superiors have to do is tell them that the Americans they are ordered to kill are a threat to America and the drones will fly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know anyone in the military?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure and my father was killed in the service
> 
> I just have no faith that soldiers who are trained to take orders would disobey them.  Some might but not enough to matter if the order was given
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they would.  They aren't brainwashed!  I know plenty of people, ex and current military members, who would never turn their weapons on American citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said not enough to matter if the order was given
> All any superior officer has to do is tell them that the people to be killed are not innocent civilians ans are in fact a danger to the country.  The average soldier will believe their superior officer
Click to expand...


I don't think you know much about the military, personally.  But I can only go on my own experience.  I'm sorry your father died in the military, but that doesn't mean you know anything about it


----------



## Skull Pilot

ChrisL said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure and my father was killed in the service
> 
> I just have no faith that soldiers who are trained to take orders would disobey them.  Some might but not enough to matter if the order was given
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they would.  They aren't brainwashed!  I know plenty of people, ex and current military members, who would never turn their weapons on American citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said not enough to matter if the order was given
> All any superior officer has to do is tell them that the people to be killed are not innocent civilians ans are in fact a danger to the country.  The average soldier will believe their superior officer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think they are robots, incapable of thinking for themselves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are conditioned to follow orders.
> 
> If their superiors or the president orders them to storm a property  they will no questions asked.
> 
> Those soldiers don't know who they will be shooting at only that their superiors told them that those people were a threat
> 
> We've done it to innocent civilians before in other countries we'd do it here too
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doing it in other countries is completely different.  They are people and are not going to turn on their friends and fellow countrymen.
Click to expand...


Yeah right. You really think any soldier will know the people their officers tell them to shoot?

They won't


----------



## Skull Pilot

kaz said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> All their superiors have to do is tell them that the Americans they are ordered to kill are a threat to America and the drones will fly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know anyone in the military?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure and my father was killed in the service
> 
> I just have no faith that soldiers who are trained to take orders would disobey them.  Some might but not enough to matter if the order was given
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they would.  They aren't brainwashed!  I know plenty of people, ex and current military members, who would never turn their weapons on American citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said not enough to matter if the order was given
> All any superior officer has to do is tell them that the people to be killed are not innocent civilians ans are in fact a danger to the country.  The average soldier will believe their superior officer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think you know much about the military, personally.  But I can only go on my own experience
Click to expand...


I can only go by history


----------



## kaz

Skull Pilot said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope based on a lot of military people I know, including in my family.  That they are defending America is a huge thing to them.  The idea they would shoot Americans and have "no problem" is just wrong
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All their superiors have to do is tell them that the Americans they are ordered to kill are a threat to America and the drones will fly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know anyone in the military?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure and my father was killed in the service
> 
> I just have no faith that soldiers who are trained to take orders would disobey them.  Some might but not enough to matter if the order was given
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, my family and family friends cover Vietnam to current and every branch of the military and they believe strongly in that they are defending America and Americans, not conquering it and killing them.  I believe them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good for you.  I don't.  If the order was given for the military to open fire on Americans it would happen
Click to expand...


Well, you've just severely limited the scope and left out a lot of assumptions.  I took your argument as the military is indifferent to conquering the American people, I didn't take it as there could be an incident.  If that's all you meant, then sure, it's possible


----------



## williepete

Skull Pilot said:


> All any superior officer has to do is tell them that the people to be killed are not innocent civilians ans are in fact a danger to the country.  *The average soldier will believe their superior officer*



How'd that work in Vietnam? Heard of the term "fragging".

I started out enlisted before I was commissioned an officer. There's nothing magic about an officer that would make any enlisted man believe him or obey him without doubt. Enlisted and officer alike are trained in the laws of armed conflict. Obeying an illegal order does not protect you under the law.

Any officer ordering his men to kill American citizens is as illegal as it gets. The officer giving the order to kill civilians is by far more likely to be the one killed than civilians. Take that to the bank.  

American military men are Americans first, last and always. Wearing the uniform doesn't turn them into mindless robots. You didn't serve so I understand why you'll never understand.


----------



## kaz

Skull Pilot said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know anyone in the military?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure and my father was killed in the service
> 
> I just have no faith that soldiers who are trained to take orders would disobey them.  Some might but not enough to matter if the order was given
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they would.  They aren't brainwashed!  I know plenty of people, ex and current military members, who would never turn their weapons on American citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said not enough to matter if the order was given
> All any superior officer has to do is tell them that the people to be killed are not innocent civilians ans are in fact a danger to the country.  The average soldier will believe their superior officer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol.  No they wouldn't!  Most would not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your opinion.
Click to expand...


That's all you're offering, your opinion.  American soldiers are very aware that following certain orders makes you a war criminal


----------



## kaz

Skull Pilot said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know anyone in the military?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure and my father was killed in the service
> 
> I just have no faith that soldiers who are trained to take orders would disobey them.  Some might but not enough to matter if the order was given
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they would.  They aren't brainwashed!  I know plenty of people, ex and current military members, who would never turn their weapons on American citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said not enough to matter if the order was given
> All any superior officer has to do is tell them that the people to be killed are not innocent civilians ans are in fact a danger to the country.  The average soldier will believe their superior officer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think they are robots, incapable of thinking for themselves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are conditioned to follow orders.
> 
> If their superiors or the president orders them to storm a property  they will no questions asked.
> 
> Those soldiers don't know who they will be shooting at only that their superiors told them that those people were a threat
> 
> We've done it to innocent civilians before in other countries we'd do it here too
Click to expand...


God, corps, country.  Granted that's specifically the marines, but that's the military view in general.  I think you're thinking of the Nazis with following orders being above what they are fighting for


----------



## Skull Pilot

williepete said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> All any superior officer has to do is tell them that the people to be killed are not innocent civilians ans are in fact a danger to the country.  *The average soldier will believe their superior officer*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How'd that work in Vietnam? Heard of the term "fragging".
> 
> I started out enlisted before I was commissioned an officer. There's nothing magic about an officer that would make any enlisted man believe him or obey him without doubt. Enlisted and officer alike are trained in the laws of armed conflict. Obeying an illegal order does not protect you under the law.
> 
> Any officer ordering his men to kill American citizens is as illegal as it gets. The officer giving the order to kill civilians is by far more likely to be the one killed than civilians. Take that to the bank.
> 
> American military men are Americans first, last and always. Wearing the uniform doesn't turn them into mindless robots. You didn't serve so I understand why you'll never understand.
Click to expand...


Tell that to all the civilians killed in Nam

And no I didn't and I wouldn't.

The fucking government sent my dad off to die  for nothing in a game of political brinkmanship.  So I don't owe this country anything


----------



## Skull Pilot

kaz said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure and my father was killed in the service
> 
> I just have no faith that soldiers who are trained to take orders would disobey them.  Some might but not enough to matter if the order was given
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they would.  They aren't brainwashed!  I know plenty of people, ex and current military members, who would never turn their weapons on American citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said not enough to matter if the order was given
> All any superior officer has to do is tell them that the people to be killed are not innocent civilians ans are in fact a danger to the country.  The average soldier will believe their superior officer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol.  No they wouldn't!  Most would not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's all you're offering, your opinion.  American soldiers are very aware that following certain orders makes you a war criminal
Click to expand...


Only if the government that ordered you to fire will prosecute you for it


----------



## Skull Pilot

kaz said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure and my father was killed in the service
> 
> I just have no faith that soldiers who are trained to take orders would disobey them.  Some might but not enough to matter if the order was given
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they would.  They aren't brainwashed!  I know plenty of people, ex and current military members, who would never turn their weapons on American citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said not enough to matter if the order was given
> All any superior officer has to do is tell them that the people to be killed are not innocent civilians ans are in fact a danger to the country.  The average soldier will believe their superior officer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think they are robots, incapable of thinking for themselves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are conditioned to follow orders.
> 
> If their superiors or the president orders them to storm a property  they will no questions asked.
> 
> Those soldiers don't know who they will be shooting at only that their superiors told them that those people were a threat
> 
> We've done it to innocent civilians before in other countries we'd do it here too
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God, corps, country.  Granted that's specifically the marines, but that's the military view in general.  I think you're thinking of the Nazis with following orders being above what they are fighting for
Click to expand...


Soldiers are sent to fight wars the government wants them to fight not the ones they want to fight


----------



## kaz

Skull Pilot said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know anyone in the military?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure and my father was killed in the service
> 
> I just have no faith that soldiers who are trained to take orders would disobey them.  Some might but not enough to matter if the order was given
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they would.  They aren't brainwashed!  I know plenty of people, ex and current military members, who would never turn their weapons on American citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said not enough to matter if the order was given
> All any superior officer has to do is tell them that the people to be killed are not innocent civilians ans are in fact a danger to the country.  The average soldier will believe their superior officer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think you know much about the military, personally.  But I can only go on my own experience
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can only go by history
Click to expand...


OK, that makes sense.  Name all the times the US military conquered the American people


----------



## Skull Pilot

kaz said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure and my father was killed in the service
> 
> I just have no faith that soldiers who are trained to take orders would disobey them.  Some might but not enough to matter if the order was given
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they would.  They aren't brainwashed!  I know plenty of people, ex and current military members, who would never turn their weapons on American citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said not enough to matter if the order was given
> All any superior officer has to do is tell them that the people to be killed are not innocent civilians ans are in fact a danger to the country.  The average soldier will believe their superior officer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think you know much about the military, personally.  But I can only go on my own experience
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can only go by history
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, that makes sense.  Name all the times the US military conquered the American people
Click to expand...


I never said anything about conquering did I

I said killing.

big difference

The military or the national guard would have no problem firing on Americans if they were ordered to.

The guy piloting a drone from a bunker would have no problem dropping a bomb in the US


----------



## kaz

Skull Pilot said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they would.  They aren't brainwashed!  I know plenty of people, ex and current military members, who would never turn their weapons on American citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said not enough to matter if the order was given
> All any superior officer has to do is tell them that the people to be killed are not innocent civilians ans are in fact a danger to the country.  The average soldier will believe their superior officer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think they are robots, incapable of thinking for themselves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are conditioned to follow orders.
> 
> If their superiors or the president orders them to storm a property  they will no questions asked.
> 
> Those soldiers don't know who they will be shooting at only that their superiors told them that those people were a threat
> 
> We've done it to innocent civilians before in other countries we'd do it here too
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God, corps, country.  Granted that's specifically the marines, but that's the military view in general.  I think you're thinking of the Nazis with following orders being above what they are fighting for
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Soldiers are sent to fight wars the government wants them to fight not the ones they want to fight
Click to expand...


I agree, though I have no idea what point you think you're making on that one


----------



## kaz

Skull Pilot said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they would.  They aren't brainwashed!  I know plenty of people, ex and current military members, who would never turn their weapons on American citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said not enough to matter if the order was given
> All any superior officer has to do is tell them that the people to be killed are not innocent civilians ans are in fact a danger to the country.  The average soldier will believe their superior officer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think you know much about the military, personally.  But I can only go on my own experience
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can only go by history
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, that makes sense.  Name all the times the US military conquered the American people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said anything about conquering did I
> 
> I said killing.
> 
> big difference
> 
> The military or the national guard would have no problem firing on Americans if they were ordered to.
> 
> The guy piloting a drone from a bunker would have no problem dropping a bomb in the US
Click to expand...


OK, then I'm good.  If all you're saying is that there could be an incident where a few innocent people get shot then that's clearly true.  I won't go back and word parse your posts, but you made it sound like you were talking about a lot more than that.  And from Chris's replies, I believe she took it that way too.

Kent State could happen again.  True


----------



## ChrisL

Good Lord.


----------



## williepete

Skull Pilot said:


> The military or the national guard would have no problem firing on Americans if they were ordered to.
> 
> The guy piloting a drone from a bunker would have no problem dropping a bomb in the US



You're just wrong and frankly out of your depth.

I disobeyed three general orders when I was on active duty. It was obvious to everyone and nobody said a word about it. I was right and the orders were wrong. Nothing happened. Disobeying one of the general orders on multiple occasions actually brought me more respect from a certain population of my squadron at the time.

There's a fantasy robot military image living rent free in your mind. That doesn't mean it exists in reality.


----------



## kaz

Skull Pilot said:


> williepete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> All any superior officer has to do is tell them that the people to be killed are not innocent civilians ans are in fact a danger to the country.  *The average soldier will believe their superior officer*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How'd that work in Vietnam? Heard of the term "fragging".
> 
> I started out enlisted before I was commissioned an officer. There's nothing magic about an officer that would make any enlisted man believe him or obey him without doubt. Enlisted and officer alike are trained in the laws of armed conflict. Obeying an illegal order does not protect you under the law.
> 
> Any officer ordering his men to kill American citizens is as illegal as it gets. The officer giving the order to kill civilians is by far more likely to be the one killed than civilians. Take that to the bank.
> 
> American military men are Americans first, last and always. Wearing the uniform doesn't turn them into mindless robots. You didn't serve so I understand why you'll never understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell that to all the civilians killed in Nam
> 
> And no I didn't and I wouldn't.
> 
> The fucking government sent my dad off to die  for nothing in a game of political brinkmanship.  So I don't owe this country anything
Click to expand...


I totally agree.  The war criminal in Vietnam was LBJ who sent our military over there, then tied their hands.  Then he kept it going as his economic policy.  I'm not absolving everyone else, but he was the one behind it.  Every American who died in Vietnam was murdered by the American government.  You either fight a war or you leave.

One family friend was a fighter pilot in Vietnam.  He flew over the factories every day making weapons to kill Americans.  Not only was he not allowed to attack them, but if he'd fired one bullet, they would have court martialed him.  It made him sick.  Again, nothing I said in this discussion was in any way intended to be disrespectful of your father.  I'm just standing up for the dozens of people I know or who I knew who fought in the US military in every war since WWI.


----------



## Flash

QuickHitCurepon said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> You believe in those filthy ass government background checks for firearms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are so upset, just pitch a tent at a gun show. Good luck!
Click to expand...



Have you ever even been to a gun show?  Do you have a clue what you are talking about?


----------



## Flash

kaz said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> williepete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> All any superior officer has to do is tell them that the people to be killed are not innocent civilians ans are in fact a danger to the country.  *The average soldier will believe their superior officer*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How'd that work in Vietnam? Heard of the term "fragging".
> 
> I started out enlisted before I was commissioned an officer. There's nothing magic about an officer that would make any enlisted man believe him or obey him without doubt. Enlisted and officer alike are trained in the laws of armed conflict. Obeying an illegal order does not protect you under the law.
> 
> Any officer ordering his men to kill American citizens is as illegal as it gets. The officer giving the order to kill civilians is by far more likely to be the one killed than civilians. Take that to the bank.
> 
> American military men are Americans first, last and always. Wearing the uniform doesn't turn them into mindless robots. You didn't serve so I understand why you'll never understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell that to all the civilians killed in Nam
> 
> And no I didn't and I wouldn't.
> 
> The fucking government sent my dad off to die  for nothing in a game of political brinkmanship.  So I don't owe this country anything
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I totally agree.  The war criminal in Vietnam was LBJ who sent our military over there, then tied their hands.  Then he kept it going as his economic policy.  I'm not absolving everyone else, but he was the one behind it.  Every American who died in Vietnam was murdered by the American government.  You either fight a war or you leave.
> 
> One family friend was a fighter pilot in Vietnam.  He flew over the factories every day making weapons to kill Americans.  Not only was he not allowed to attack them, but if he'd fired one bullet, they would have court martialed him.  It made him sick.  Again, nothing I said in this discussion was in any way intended to be disrespectful of your father.  I'm just standing up for the dozens of people I know or who I knew who fought in the US military in every war since WWI.
Click to expand...



War sucks doesn't it?

Roosevelt sent Americans off to kill German and Japanese citizens including children.  What else is new?

Lincoln sent the filthy Union Army to kill Americans and burn down American cities.  

Some of the "heroes" of WWII (like Patton and Eisenhower) attacked and killed American veterans in the Bonus camp.

Too bad the American people elected that Democrat LBJ in 1964, wasn't it?  Barry Goldwater actually believed in non interventionism as a real Conservative.

Lets just hope that American troops never fire upon American citizens.  If there was a popular uprising some will and some won't.  What we do know is that American troops took firearms away from otherwise law abiding citizens trying to protect their homes during the aftermath of Katrina and that was despicable.  

As long as American citizens have the right to keep and bear arms then they hold the power to remove despots from office and that is a good thing as envisioned by our Founding Fathers.  Whether we have the courage of a nation to do the right thing and what kind of opposition we would get from the government thugs are different questions.


----------



## M14 Shooter

QuickHitCurepon said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, unlike you I believe in innocent until proven guilty
> 
> 
> 
> So, just to be clear...
> GWB and Dick Cheney are -not- war criminals.
> Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course, they are.
Click to expand...

Ah. So you do NOT believe in innocent until proven guilty.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

M14 Shooter said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, unlike you I believe in innocent until proven guilty
> 
> 
> 
> So, just to be clear...
> GWB and Dick Cheney are -not- war criminals.
> Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course, they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah. So you do NOT believe in innocent until proven guilty.
Click to expand...


Why even sweat it.


----------



## M14 Shooter

QuickHitCurepon said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, unlike you I believe in innocent until proven guilty
> 
> 
> 
> So, just to be clear...
> GWB and Dick Cheney are -not- war criminals.
> Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course, they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah. So you do NOT believe in innocent until proven guilty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why even sweat it.
Click to expand...

Yes...  and, in your opinion, people need not be proven guilty to be guilty.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

M14 Shooter said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, unlike you I believe in innocent until proven guilty
> 
> 
> 
> So, just to be clear...
> GWB and Dick Cheney are -not- war criminals.
> Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course, they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah. So you do NOT believe in innocent until proven guilty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why even sweat it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes...  and, in your opinion, people need not be proven guilty to be guilty.
Click to expand...


Did you pull that idea out of a hat? 

I will tell you what... Quickly browse through the original Zimmerman thread, where I have hundreds of posts, and tell me if you find ANY hint of the assertion you have made.  

The best of luck to you. 

The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

Until then and until when you quote me of ANYTHING of worth to you, your assertion is wholly invalid.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

Mr. millimeter Shooter, there is always an exception to the rule or law. Nixon, Bush, Cheney and Hillary are some examples.

I also believe Obama was guilty of tax evasion. There was a story during his first campaign that the Justice Department was considering putting him in jail for it. Although, the story did not last very long and most people forgot about it. I will try to find a link to the story, if you ask for it.


----------



## M14 Shooter

QuickHitCurepon said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, just to be clear...
> GWB and Dick Cheney are -not- war criminals.
> Right?
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah. So you do NOT believe in innocent until proven guilty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why even sweat it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes...  and, in your opinion, people need not be proven guilty to be guilty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will tell you what... Quickly browse through the original Zimmerman thread, where I have hundreds of posts, and tell me if you find ANY hint of the assertion you have made.
Click to expand...

No need -- I have it here, quoted above.

Me:
*So, just to be clear...GWB and Dick Cheney are -not- war criminals.*

You:
*Of course, they are.*

Thus, you do NOT believe in innocent until proven guilty.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

M14 Shooter said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, they are.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah. So you do NOT believe in innocent until proven guilty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why even sweat it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes...  and, in your opinion, people need not be proven guilty to be guilty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will tell you what... Quickly browse through the original Zimmerman thread, where I have hundreds of posts, and tell me if you find ANY hint of the assertion you have made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No need -- I have it here, quoted above.
> 
> Me:
> *So, just to be clear...GWB and Dick Cheney are -not- war criminals.*
> 
> You:
> *Of course, they are.*
> 
> Thus, you do NOT believe in innocent until proven guilty.
Click to expand...


I made a highly ambiguous statement which has to be taken at face value, but if you graduated first grade, you would understand that the conclusion YOU made came from your own head and ONLY your own head.


----------



## M14 Shooter

QuickHitCurepon said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah. So you do NOT believe in innocent until proven guilty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why even sweat it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes...  and, in your opinion, people need not be proven guilty to be guilty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will tell you what... Quickly browse through the original Zimmerman thread, where I have hundreds of posts, and tell me if you find ANY hint of the assertion you have made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No need -- I have it here, quoted above.
> 
> Me:
> *So, just to be clear...GWB and Dick Cheney are -not- war criminals.*
> 
> You:
> *Of course, they are.*
> 
> Thus, you do NOT believe in innocent until proven guilty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I made a highly ambiguous statement which has to be taken at face value, but if you graduated first grade, you would understand that the conclusion YOU made came from your own head and ONLY your own head.
Click to expand...

:yawn:
I tire of your petulance.
Do you you or do you not believe that Bush and Cheney are war criminals?
Have they been convicted of war crimes?


----------



## KissMy

M14 Shooter said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, unlike you I believe in innocent until proven guilty
> 
> 
> 
> So, just to be clear...
> GWB and Dick Cheney are -not- war criminals.
> Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course, they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah. So you do NOT believe in innocent until proven guilty.
Click to expand...

They were proven guilty. Look it up.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

M14 Shooter said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why even sweat it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes...  and, in your opinion, people need not be proven guilty to be guilty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will tell you what... Quickly browse through the original Zimmerman thread, where I have hundreds of posts, and tell me if you find ANY hint of the assertion you have made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No need -- I have it here, quoted above.
> 
> Me:
> *So, just to be clear...GWB and Dick Cheney are -not- war criminals.*
> 
> You:
> *Of course, they are.*
> 
> Thus, you do NOT believe in innocent until proven guilty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I made a highly ambiguous statement which has to be taken at face value, but if you graduated first grade, you would understand that the conclusion YOU made came from your own head and ONLY your own head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> :yawn:
> I tire of your petulance.
> Do you you or do you not believe that Bush and Cheney are war criminals?
> Have they been convicted of war crimes?
Click to expand...


You made yourself zonk, by asking moronic questions.

Yes, of course, I believe Bush and Cheney are war criminals. Each worse than Genghis Kahn.

Bush made an ultimatum to the Taliban after 9-11, one he knew by heart they could not keep. It took us more than ten years to kill Bin Laden. How in the world could the Taliban have turned over Bin Laden? Tell me that! They _could not _have and _never_ could in a million years. The Taliban had NO control over Bin Laden, no more than we did at the time. Actually, we had far more control over Bin Laden, with our better intelligence, the Rangers ready to go and Blackhawks and fighters also at the ready. It would have been the simplest thing in the world to take out Bin Landen then while he was contained to a certain area in Afghanistan. We could have done it and contained it to a small area, and the Taliban would have been none the wiser. But nooooooooo, Mr. Bush had to start a war and scatter the Taliban like ants. If you follow my reasong, which is almost as sound as it gets, anyone would conclude, Bush did it that way so he could kill millions of Muslims, start more major wars, hype his legacy, and with a little luck control the entire ME, and probably he had his sights at the U.S. not long from then ruling the world.

I started a thread on the forum I was on before this one. It was right before our invasion of Libya, and about how, with the invasion of Libya, it was fairly plain to all the U.S. wanted to rule the world, when we invaded Libya. I got a some replies, but no one took it seriously. However, it may take longer than they dreamed it would, but the U.S. is still in lockstep on its way to ruling the world.


----------



## Brambo

TheOldSchool said:


> It's definitely not the most important amendment, like most conservatives argue, but it's not obsolete.  We're the United Freakin States.  We were founded on a revolutionary crazy notion that people are allowed to be as free as they want.
> 
> If you take away that crazy, then we're closer to being like the French.  And no one wants that.


They are so free they can go to prison for 20 years for smoking pot!

And until a couple years ago couldn't marry the same sex!

Now their right to use whatever bathroom they deem appropriate is threatened!

THATS SO FREE BRO.


----------



## Brambo

Lakhota said:


> *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means.*
Click to expand...

Your modern musket won't win a war against a tyrannical Federal Army.

So you just proved the 2nd Amendment is WORTHLESS.


----------



## dannyboys

Brambo said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's definitely not the most important amendment, like most conservatives argue, but it's not obsolete.  We're the United Freakin States.  We were founded on a revolutionary crazy notion that people are allowed to be as free as they want.
> 
> If you take away that crazy, then we're closer to being like the French.  And no one wants that.
> 
> 
> 
> They are so free they can go to prison for 20 years for smoking pot!
> 
> And until a couple years ago couldn't marry the same sex!
> 
> Now their right to use whatever bathroom they deem appropriate is threatened!
> 
> THATS SO FREE BRO.
Click to expand...

That's enough of your drivel
Permanent Ignore asshole!


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

Cheney is simply a war criminal for backing Bush every step of the way, and _we know_ he is a cold-blooded murderer. Cheney fired a shotgun directly at the chest of a fellow hunter. I still remember this story, and the impression I got was he was aiming for the hunter's head. He knew damn well what he was doing. "I'm the greatest vice-president ever, who sits behind the throne of the greatest president ever..." "And I can do whatever the fuck I want as long as I keep it low key.

Cheney Says He's to Blame in Shooting of Fellow Hunter


----------



## Brambo

dannyboys said:


> Brambo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's definitely not the most important amendment, like most conservatives argue, but it's not obsolete.  We're the United Freakin States.  We were founded on a revolutionary crazy notion that people are allowed to be as free as they want.
> 
> If you take away that crazy, then we're closer to being like the French.  And no one wants that.
> 
> 
> 
> They are so free they can go to prison for 20 years for smoking pot!
> 
> And until a couple years ago couldn't marry the same sex!
> 
> Now their right to use whatever bathroom they deem appropriate is threatened!
> 
> THATS SO FREE BRO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's enough of your drivel
> Permanent Ignore asshole!
Click to expand...

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.

I love it when a conservatard abandons intellectual challenges to their stupid bubble.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

Brambo said:


> dannyboys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brambo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's definitely not the most important amendment, like most conservatives argue, but it's not obsolete.  We're the United Freakin States.  We were founded on a revolutionary crazy notion that people are allowed to be as free as they want.
> 
> If you take away that crazy, then we're closer to being like the French.  And no one wants that.
> 
> 
> 
> They are so free they can go to prison for 20 years for smoking pot!
> 
> And until a couple years ago couldn't marry the same sex!
> 
> Now their right to use whatever bathroom they deem appropriate is threatened!
> 
> THATS SO FREE BRO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's enough of your drivel
> Permanent Ignore asshole!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.
> 
> I love it when a conservatard abandons intellectual challenges to their stupid bubble.
Click to expand...


You won't laugh as our laws tighten again and again to deal with the terroristic threat, and then there are unruly citizens simply trying to live their life, drive to the store or look at a cop sideways. It will be like a noose tightening around your neck. Still think it is funny. dope

BTW I spent a good time in intelligence and have a lifelong friend who worked closely with the DIA.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

M14 Shooter said:


> Yes... and, in your opinion, people need not be proven guilty to be guilty.



You were damn lucky I understood what you were getting at. 

BTW "lucky" is one of the ten most ambiguous words ever coined. Just in case you are still confused.


----------



## M14 Shooter

QuickHitCurepon said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> :yawn:
> I tire of your petulance.
> Do you you or do you not believe that Bush and Cheney are war criminals?
> Have they been convicted of war crimes?
> 
> 
> 
> You made yourself zonk, by asking moronic questions.
> Yes, of course, I believe Bush and Cheney are war criminals.
Click to expand...

They have not been proven guilty of war crimes.
Thus, you do not believe in innocence until proven guilty.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Brambo said:


> Your modern musket won't win a war against a tyrannical Federal Army.
> So you just proved the 2nd Amendment is WORTHLESS.


Explain, then, how that tyrannical federal army lost the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

M14 Shooter said:


> They have not been proven guilty of war crimes.





 Yes they have.


They have been proven guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt... In the court of public opinion.

Keep grasping at straws though, Mr. Crap-in-a-bucket.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

M14 Shooter said:


> Thus, you do not believe in innocence until proven guilty.



Unless you want to continue going off-topic, the two of us have only discussed the guilt or innocence of presidents, past, present or future. Of course, I have always believed in the 5th Amendment and the right to be regarded as innocent, until you are proven guilty in a court of law.

Because there has been no precedent set yet for holding a president accountable for his or her crimes, the debate about THAT is weak sauce, when you have someone like M14S repeat over and over the same lame diatribe.

And to keep harping, about bringing a president to justice, through our court system is simply pie in the sky false hope. Each and every president is connected up the ass. In our lifetimes, a U.S. president will never spend a day in jail.


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> QuickHitCurepon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> :yawn:
> I tire of your petulance.
> Do you you or do you not believe that Bush and Cheney are war criminals?
> Have they been convicted of war crimes?
> 
> 
> 
> You made yourself zonk, by asking moronic questions.
> Yes, of course, I believe Bush and Cheney are war criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They have not been proven guilty of war crimes.
> Thus, you do not believe in innocence until proven guilty.
Click to expand...


By your_ reasoning _Hitler was not a war criminal.


----------



## M14 Shooter

QuickHitCurepon said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> They have not been proven guilty of war crimes.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they have.
> They have been proven guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt... In the court of public opinion.
Click to expand...

Impressive your ability to lie to yourself.



> Of course, I have always believed in the 5th Amendment and the right to be regarded as innocent, until you are proven guilty in a court of law.


This is also.obviously, a lie -- according to you, the "court of public opinion" is sufficient


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> By your_ reasoning _Hitler was not a war criminal.


You are either guilty until proven innocent, or not.
Can't have it both ways, unless you decide to lie to yourself.
Thus is, of course, easy for you to do.


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> By your_ reasoning _Hitler was not a war criminal.
> 
> 
> 
> You are either guilty until proven innocent, or not.
> Can't have it both ways, unless you decide to lie to yourself.
> Thus is, of course, easy for you to do.
Click to expand...


So, in your opinion, Hitler was NOT a war criminal.  I suspect you and the neo nazis are the only ones who hold such an opinion.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> By your_ reasoning _Hitler was not a war criminal.
> 
> 
> 
> You are either guilty until proven innocent, or not.
> Can't have it both ways, unless you decide to lie to yourself.
> Thus is, of course, easy for you to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, in your opinion, Hitler was NOT a war criminal.
Click to expand...

In your usual mindless nonsense, you managed to hit on the point.
- Hitler is a war criminal 
- I think Hitler is a war criminal
These statements are not the same.
I'm sure you'll need this explained.


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> By your_ reasoning _Hitler was not a war criminal.
> 
> 
> 
> You are either guilty until proven innocent, or not.
> Can't have it both ways, unless you decide to lie to yourself.
> Thus is, of course, easy for you to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, in your opinion, Hitler was NOT a war criminal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In your usual mindless nonsense, you managed to hit on the point.
> - Hitler is a war criminal
> - I think Hitler is a war criminal
> These statements are not the same.
> I'm sure you'll need this explained.
Click to expand...


Of course I don't need you to explain anything to me.  Hitler was a war criminal, what you think matters not - thinking is not your forte.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> By your_ reasoning _Hitler was not a war criminal.
> 
> 
> 
> You are either guilty until proven innocent, or not.
> Can't have it both ways, unless you decide to lie to yourself.
> Thus is, of course, easy for you to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, in your opinion, Hitler was NOT a war criminal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In your usual mindless nonsense, you managed to hit on the point.
> - Hitler is a war criminal
> - I think Hitler is a war criminal
> These statements are not the same.
> I'm sure you'll need this explained.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course I don't need you to explain anything to me.
Click to expand...

This, is, quite obviously, a lie.


> thinking is not your forte.


Says the Foolish Child.


----------



## P@triot

It's very clear - by progressive standards - that law enforcement officer must relinquish their firearms immediately. Not only are they shooting poor, innocent, angelic people in the streets, but they are also committing suicide with firearms.

Officials: Mississippi Police Chief Shoots Himself Outside Station Just After Suspension


----------



## P@triot

Thank God we still have the right to keep and bear arms. Yet _another_ mass murder averted thanks to an armed citizen...

Hero who stopped ISIS mall attacker is making liberals CRAZY - Allen B. West - AllenBWest.com


----------



## P@triot

Just imagine if this officer was unarmed as progressives want all citizens to be....

Police: Man Attacks Officer With Meat Cleaver Near New York’s Madison Square Garden


----------



## P@triot

Yet another crime prevented thanks to armed citizens...

Gun-Wielding Woman Saves Husband From Armed Robbers


----------



## P@triot

Thank God for our right to keep and bear arms. These two ladies are alive and unharmed because of that right...

Armed intruders kicked in the door. What they found was a woman opening fire.


----------



## P@triot




----------



## Lakhota

When will the 2nd Amendment be updated?


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Lakhota said:


> When will the 2nd Amendment be updated?








You're absolutely right the 2nd Amendment needs to be updated so that the legal residents can purchase the same or similar equipment that law enforcement officials in the United States are allowed to have in their arsenals.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Rustic

Lakhota said:


> When will the 2nd Amendment be updated?


Washington Redskin, stay out of the firewater


----------



## Flash

Lakhota said:


> When will the 2nd Amendment be updated?




There is absolutely no need to update *"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"*.

The only update that would be necessary is add some kind of criminal charges against anybody that infringed upon that right.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Lakhota said:


> When will the 2nd Amendment be updated?



President Clinton will work toward....oh, right, never mind.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Flash said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> When will the 2nd Amendment be updated?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is absolutely no need to update *"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"*.
> 
> The only update that would be necessary is add some kind of criminal charges against anybody that infringed upon that right.
Click to expand...


Well, only the govt can infringe upon the constitutional right. What about all the other rights then? The same, you infringe you face prosecution? Like, if you infringe on equality under the law? Like preventing gay marriage?


----------



## hadit

frigidweirdo said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> When will the 2nd Amendment be updated?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is absolutely no need to update *"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"*.
> 
> The only update that would be necessary is add some kind of criminal charges against anybody that infringed upon that right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, only the govt can infringe upon the constitutional right. What about all the other rights then? The same, you infringe you face prosecution? Like, if you infringe on equality under the law? Like preventing gay marriage?
Click to expand...

That's already happening.


----------



## frigidweirdo

hadit said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> When will the 2nd Amendment be updated?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is absolutely no need to update *"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"*.
> 
> The only update that would be necessary is add some kind of criminal charges against anybody that infringed upon that right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, only the govt can infringe upon the constitutional right. What about all the other rights then? The same, you infringe you face prosecution? Like, if you infringe on equality under the law? Like preventing gay marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's already happening.
Click to expand...


Not really. Churches don't have to perform gay marries, etc.


----------



## hadit

frigidweirdo said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> When will the 2nd Amendment be updated?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is absolutely no need to update *"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"*.
> 
> The only update that would be necessary is add some kind of criminal charges against anybody that infringed upon that right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, only the govt can infringe upon the constitutional right. What about all the other rights then? The same, you infringe you face prosecution? Like, if you infringe on equality under the law? Like preventing gay marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's already happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really. Churches don't have to perform gay marries, etc.
Click to expand...

Kim Davis.


----------



## Flash

frigidweirdo said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> When will the 2nd Amendment be updated?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is absolutely no need to update *"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"*.
> 
> The only update that would be necessary is add some kind of criminal charges against anybody that infringed upon that right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, only the govt can infringe upon the constitutional right. What about all the other rights then? The same, you infringe you face prosecution? Like, if you infringe on equality under the law? Like preventing gay marriage?
Click to expand...



The government can't infringe upon any right that the Constitution says it can't infringe upon.  Pretty straightforward, isn't it?


----------



## frigidweirdo

hadit said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> When will the 2nd Amendment be updated?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is absolutely no need to update *"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"*.
> 
> The only update that would be necessary is add some kind of criminal charges against anybody that infringed upon that right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, only the govt can infringe upon the constitutional right. What about all the other rights then? The same, you infringe you face prosecution? Like, if you infringe on equality under the law? Like preventing gay marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's already happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really. Churches don't have to perform gay marries, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Kim Davis.
Click to expand...


She was in trouble for not doing her job.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Flash said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> When will the 2nd Amendment be updated?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is absolutely no need to update *"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"*.
> 
> The only update that would be necessary is add some kind of criminal charges against anybody that infringed upon that right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, only the govt can infringe upon the constitutional right. What about all the other rights then? The same, you infringe you face prosecution? Like, if you infringe on equality under the law? Like preventing gay marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The government can't infringe upon any right that the Constitution says it can't infringe upon.  Pretty straightforward, isn't it?
Click to expand...


Can't it? 

The 2A, well, they can take guns of prisoners, the insane, anyone really who has been through due process. Seems they can and seems it's not pretty straight forward.


----------



## Flash

frigidweirdo said:


> [Q
> 
> 
> Can't it?
> 
> The 2A, well, they can take guns of prisoners, the insane, anyone really who has been through due process. Seems they can and seems it's not pretty straight forward.



The government can do all kinds of oppression but that doesn't change the fact that the Constitution clearly states that the "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", does it?


----------



## hadit

frigidweirdo said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is absolutely no need to update *"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"*.
> 
> The only update that would be necessary is add some kind of criminal charges against anybody that infringed upon that right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, only the govt can infringe upon the constitutional right. What about all the other rights then? The same, you infringe you face prosecution? Like, if you infringe on equality under the law? Like preventing gay marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's already happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really. Churches don't have to perform gay marries, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Kim Davis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She was in trouble for not doing her job.
Click to expand...

Your quote is, in part, "you infringe you face prosecution".  She did, and did.  You may have been focused on churches, but people HAVE faced prosecution for infringing on the rights of homosexuals to get "married".


----------



## emilynghiem

Lakhota said:


> When will the 2nd Amendment be updated?



Dear Lakhota
if people come to agreement that right to bear arms comes INHERENTLY with responsibility
for teaching training and enforcing Constitutional laws as the context that this article is included within,
then maybe we don't NEED to rewrite, revise or amend anything. Just DON'T take either the Second or First Amendment "out of context" with the rest of the Bill of Rights, but respect due process, and rights and protections of others, and no violations or abuses would occur! (If they
do then exercise due process/right to petition and redress/resolve the grievances, by the spirit of Constitutional laws and ethics.) If we follow laws in full context, we don't violate rights of others, but respect equal protection of the laws and due process for others as we invoke ourselves!

We can change our interpretation of how we teach the Bible without touching a single word in it.
And same with the US Constitution.

If you notice a LOT of the problems of unconstitutional violations come from EXTRA constitutional entities:
* corporations are not bound by the Bill of Rights
* media
* parties
* religious or other business/nonprofit organizations that wield
COLLECTIVE influence resources and authority BEYOND that of a single individual

So we as people need as much protection from overreaching and "oppression of due process
and equal civil rights" from these other COLLECTIVE entities that can do the same harm
as COLLECTIVE govt for which the Bill of Rights was incorporated to check against.

THAT'S where we need mass education and reform.
And it may not come from changing Constitutional laws but
changing how we teach and enforce them as CIVIL DEMOCRATIC STANDARDS, on all levels of society and relations
and not just within govt or courts.


----------



## Deleted member 61768

Lakhota said:


> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
Click to expand...



Not as long as I have breath, my bolt action snipers rifle, and all those years of training the U.S. Government paid those nice guys with funny Green caps to train me. I spent 6 years in colleges and universities and have a brain of my own to make my decisions. Some liberals say if the Supreme  Court rules on something that ends it but I say B.S. as the U.S. Supreme Court once ruled Slavery Constitutional in the United States so that obviously did not end it now did it. I have my own beliefs for which I will fight and die. Do you?


----------



## regent

None of our rights are without restrictions.


----------



## Flash

frigidweirdo said:


> [
> Can't it?
> 
> The 2A, well, they can take guns of prisoners, the insane, anyone really who has been through due process. Seems they can and seems it's not pretty straight forward.




I will be willing to give up my Constitutional right to keep and bear arms upon arrest if the stupid Moon Bats agree not to advocate taking my right to keep and bear arms away from me because somebody else uses a firearm either unsafely or in a crime.  Agree?


----------



## Flash

regent said:


> None of our rights are without restrictions.




"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" pretty well limits the restrictions to a very minimal amount.

The problem with defining "reasonable limits" is that it opens the door to the Moon Bats to go batshit crazy like we see in the commie states like California, New York, Mass etc.

We can't trust the Moon Bats with the definition of reasonable because they wouldn't know what that word meant if it bit them in the ass.

The Moon Bats do not have an agenda of reasonable restrictions.  They have an agenda of taking away the right to keep and bears arms from the American people.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Lakhota said:


> Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited  never have been and never will be  Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star



Just as government's authority to control personal weapons is not unlimited. Never has been and never will be. The People are more likely to replace government than they are the 2nd Amendment. And rightly so.


----------



## Flash

There should never be a law against the possession of a firearm under any circumstances.

The governmental restrictions should be focused on using firearms for an unlawful purpose, not the possession, carrying or using it for lawful purposes.   .


----------



## Deleted member 61768

Flash said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Can't it?
> 
> The 2A, well, they can take guns of prisoners, the insane, anyone really who has been through due process. Seems they can and seems it's not pretty straight forward.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will be willing to give up my Constitutional right to keep and bear arms upon arrest if the stupid Moon Bats agree not to advocate taking my right to keep and bear arms away from me because somebody else uses a firearm either unsafely or in a crime.  Agree?
Click to expand...


I am a firearms expert with several arms, booby traps, knives and will not yield to any man or government my G_d given rights. I will not be alive upon this earth many more moons however anyone who takes me for granted makes a fatal mistake because though I may be much slower I know more ways to sent my enemies to meet their maker than when I was 21.


----------



## Deleted member 61768

9thIDdoc said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited  never have been and never will be  Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as government's authority to control personal weapons is not unlimited. Never has been and never will be. The People are more likely to replace government than they are the 2nd Amendment. And rightly so.
Click to expand...



Amen Brother!!!


----------



## Deleted member 61768

Flash said:


> There should never be a law against the possession of a firearm under any circumstances.
> 
> The governmental restrictions should be focused on using firearms for an unlawful purpose, not the possession, carrying or using it for lawful purposes.   .



My sentiments exactly!


----------



## Richard-H

I'd be curious to hear what a linguistic expert had to say about the second amendment. It doesn't seem to be a correct sentence:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The pro-gun people seem to interpret it as:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed."
"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Two separate statements.

The single statement:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Seems to mean that 'a well regulated militia' is what satisfies the condition of 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms', not individual gun ownership.

There has to be some reason why these two were combined into a single sentence - some relation. It's almost as though something got left out in the middle.

But I'm not a linguistic expert....


----------



## hadit

Richard-H said:


> I'd be curious to hear what a linguistic expert had to say about the second amendment. It doesn't seem to be a correct sentence:
> 
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> The pro-gun people seem to interpret it as:
> 
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed."
> "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Two separate statements.
> 
> The single statement:
> 
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Seems to mean that 'a well regulated militia' is what satisfies the condition of 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms', not individual gun ownership.
> 
> There has to be some reason why these two were combined into a single sentence - some relation. It's almost as though something got left out in the middle.
> 
> But I'm not a linguistic expert....


The SC, supposedly much more adept in understanding the Constitution than any of us, has ruled that it applies to private ownership.


----------



## Deleted member 61768

Richard-H said:


> I'd be curious to hear what a linguistic expert had to say about the second amendment. It doesn't seem to be a correct sentence:
> 
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> The pro-gun people seem to interpret it as:
> 
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed."
> "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Two separate statements.
> 
> The single statement:
> 
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Seems to mean that 'a well regulated militia' is what satisfies the condition of 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms', not individual gun ownership.
> 
> There has to be some reason why these two were combined into a single sentence - some relation. It's almost as though something got left out in the middle.
> 
> But I'm not a linguistic expert....




Try reading the documents surrounding the writing of the Second Amendment as well as what what was going on at the time that was of concern to the Founding Fathers to put the document into context of the time.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Flash said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Q
> 
> 
> Can't it?
> 
> The 2A, well, they can take guns of prisoners, the insane, anyone really who has been through due process. Seems they can and seems it's not pretty straight forward.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The government can do all kinds of oppression but that doesn't change the fact that the Constitution clearly states that the "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", does it?
Click to expand...


It does. So why do you think that after due process, the RKBA is infringed? 

The reality is the US govt is NOT breaking the constitution when doing this. The simple fact is that all rights are seen as having limits. The "shall not be infringed" would be assumed to mean before due process. There was never, ever a time when criminals in prison were seen as having their guns with them. Incarceration is a punishment and you CAN have your rights infringed upon while in prison. Not all. Cruel and unusual punishment is one of those, because it actually refers to criminals in the first place.


----------



## frigidweirdo

hadit said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, only the govt can infringe upon the constitutional right. What about all the other rights then? The same, you infringe you face prosecution? Like, if you infringe on equality under the law? Like preventing gay marriage?
> 
> 
> 
> That's already happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really. Churches don't have to perform gay marries, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Kim Davis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She was in trouble for not doing her job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your quote is, in part, "you infringe you face prosecution".  She did, and did.  You may have been focused on churches, but people HAVE faced prosecution for infringing on the rights of homosexuals to get "married".
Click to expand...


Fine, but that doesn't mean that everyone who infringes gets prosecuted. Also, she was working for the government. Has anyone been prosecuted who didn't work for the govt? No, probably not.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Flash said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Can't it?
> 
> The 2A, well, they can take guns of prisoners, the insane, anyone really who has been through due process. Seems they can and seems it's not pretty straight forward.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will be willing to give up my Constitutional right to keep and bear arms upon arrest if the stupid Moon Bats agree not to advocate taking my right to keep and bear arms away from me because somebody else uses a firearm either unsafely or in a crime.  Agree?
Click to expand...


What are you going on about? Do try and be serious.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Paparock said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Can't it?
> 
> The 2A, well, they can take guns of prisoners, the insane, anyone really who has been through due process. Seems they can and seems it's not pretty straight forward.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will be willing to give up my Constitutional right to keep and bear arms upon arrest if the stupid Moon Bats agree not to advocate taking my right to keep and bear arms away from me because somebody else uses a firearm either unsafely or in a crime.  Agree?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am a firearms expert with several arms, booby traps, knives and will not yield to any man or government my G_d given rights. I will not be alive upon this earth many more moons however anyone who takes me for granted makes a fatal mistake because though I may be much slower I know more ways to sent my enemies to meet their maker than when I was 21.
Click to expand...


God given rights? You think God gave you the right to have a gun? Er....


----------



## Flash

frigidweirdo said:


> [Q
> 
> What are you going on about? Do try and be serious.



I asked a very simple question that you didn't answer..

If I agree that the government has the right to deny the RTBA to somebody that is arrested would you agree that the the government should not take away my RTBA because somebody else uses a firearm illegally?

Why should my Constitutional rights be restricted because somebody else commits crimes?

That is a valid question.  Do you have the intellectual honesty to answer it?


----------



## Flash

frigidweirdo said:


> [
> 
> God given rights? You think God gave you the right to have a gun? Er....



The people that wrote the rules for this country established their beliefs that God has given us all inalienable rights that the filthy ass government should not infringe upon.  Our Constitutional Republic lays out some of those rights in the Bill of Rights.  Included in that is the right to keep and bear arms.  Why do you have a problem with Liberty?  Are you stupid, confused or is it that you simply don't like the concept of Liberty?


----------



## frigidweirdo

Flash said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Q
> 
> What are you going on about? Do try and be serious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked a very simple question that you didn't answer..
> 
> If I agree that the government has the right to deny the RTBA to somebody that is arrested would you agree that the the government should not take away my RTBA because somebody else uses a firearm illegally?
> 
> Why should my Constitutional rights be restricted because somebody else commits crimes?
> 
> That is a valid question.  Do you have the intellectual honesty to answer it?
Click to expand...


Just because a question is simple, doesn't mean it's sensible. Don't come at me and talk about "intellectual honesty". If you want to play silly games, go find someone who's interested in silly games. 

To answer the parts where you are not doing silly shit, which in this case appears to be the line beginning with "Why....", I didn't say Constitutional rights should be restricted because someone else commits crimes.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Flash said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> God given rights? You think God gave you the right to have a gun? Er....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The people that wrote the rules for this country established their beliefs that God has given us all inalienable rights that the filthy ass government should not infringe upon.  Our Constitutional Republic lays out some of those rights in the Bill of Rights.  Included in that is the right to keep and bear arms.  Why do you have a problem with Liberty?  Are you stupid, confused or is it that you simply don't like the concept of Liberty?
Click to expand...


Fine. Their belief. Does a belief make something so? If I believe the moon is made from cheese, does the moon suddenly become made of cheese? 

As for you silly games below asking why I have a problem with liberty, you're making too many assumptions about me, which you don't know the answer to. Again, stop with the silly games or I'm done with you.


----------



## 2aguy

Flash said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> God given rights? You think God gave you the right to have a gun? Er....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The people that wrote the rules for this country established their beliefs that God has given us all inalienable rights that the filthy ass government should not infringe upon.  Our Constitutional Republic lays out some of those rights in the Bill of Rights.  Included in that is the right to keep and bear arms.  Why do you have a problem with Liberty?  Are you stupid, confused or is it that you simply don't like the concept of Liberty?
Click to expand...



all of the above....


----------



## Flash

frigidweirdo said:


> [
> 
> 
> Just because a question is simple, doesn't mean it's sensible. Don't come at me and talk about "intellectual honesty". If you want to play silly games, go find someone who's interested in silly games.
> 
> To answer the parts where you are not doing silly shit, which in this case appears to be the line beginning with "Why....", I didn't say Constitutional rights should be restricted because someone else commits crimes.



So you agree with me that the government should not pass laws to restrict my Constitutional right to keep and bear arms because some non law abiding shithead abuses the right.

Good, we are making progress.  However, I need to warn you.  You need to be careful lest you get kicked out of the Moon Bat Guild.  They don't like shit like that.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Flash said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> Just because a question is simple, doesn't mean it's sensible. Don't come at me and talk about "intellectual honesty". If you want to play silly games, go find someone who's interested in silly games.
> 
> To answer the parts where you are not doing silly shit, which in this case appears to be the line beginning with "Why....", I didn't say Constitutional rights should be restricted because someone else commits crimes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree with me that the government should not pass laws to restrict my Constitutional right to keep and bear arms because some non law abiding shithead abuses the right.
> 
> Good, we are making progress.  However, I need to warn you.  You need to be careful lest you get kicked out of the Moon Bat Guild.  They don't like shit like that.
Click to expand...


Ah, insults. Like I said, more shit and I'm done with you. I've not reached "I'm done with you" part. Bye.


----------



## Flash

frigidweirdo said:


> [QU
> 
> 
> Fine. Their belief. Does a belief make something so? If I believe the moon is made from cheese, does the moon suddenly become made of cheese?
> 
> As for you silly games below asking why I have a problem with liberty, you're making too many assumptions about me, which you don't know the answer to. Again, stop with the silly games or I'm done with you.




Well, yea Moon Bat.  We are talking about the Founding Fathers of this country.  They are the ones that established the rules.  Do you even know that?  If you don't like the rules then go some place else.  I hear Venezuela is a socialist paradise for you Moon Bats.  It is lovely this time of year.  No pesty right to keep and bear arms there.

My assumption about you (based upon what I have seen you post) is that you are a confused and dumbass Moon Bat that has no appreciation for the Constitution.

I f I am wrong all you have to do is show me that you do understand what "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means.  You sure have hell have not demonstrated it so far in this thread.

Just stop being a dumbass.  It makes you look like a fool.


----------



## Flash

frigidweirdo said:


> [
> 
> 
> Ah, insults. Like I said, more shit and I'm done with you. I've not reached "I'm done with you" part. Bye.



You deserve insults because you don't understand the basic Liberties of which this country was founded upon.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Richard-H said:


> I'd be curious to hear what a linguistic expert had to say about the second amendment. It doesn't seem to be a correct sentence:
> 
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> The pro-gun people seem to interpret it as:
> 
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed."
> "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Two separate statements.
> 
> The single statement:
> 
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Seems to mean that 'a well regulated militia' is what satisfies the condition of 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms', not individual gun ownership.
> 
> There has to be some reason why these two were combined into a single sentence - some relation. It's almost as though something got left out in the middle.
> 
> But I'm not a linguistic expert....



_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Seems to mean that 'a well regulated militia' is what satisfies the condition of 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms', not individual gun ownership.
_

Problems with that:
It is plain that the "Bill of Rights" enumerated *individua*l rights. Nowhere else are the Rights referred to considered communal rather individual. We have a free press but that by itself does not satisfy the individual's right of free speech.
"Militia" as it was known to the people of the time simply meant "armed civilian" so it is individual either way you look at it. 

Who Were The Minute Men - Minute Man National Historical Park (U.S. National Park Service)

_*According to Massachusetts colonial law, all able-bodied men between the ages of 16 and 60 were required to keep a serviceable firearm and serve in a part-time citizen army called the militia. 
*
_


----------



## frigidweirdo

Flash said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> Ah, insults. Like I said, more shit and I'm done with you. I've not reached "I'm done with you" part. Bye.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You deserve insults because you don't understand the basic Liberties of which this country was founded upon.
Click to expand...


Well that one got you on the ignore list. Grow up.


----------



## Flash

frigidweirdo said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> Ah, insults. Like I said, more shit and I'm done with you. I've not reached "I'm done with you" part. Bye.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You deserve insults because you don't understand the basic Liberties of which this country was founded upon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that one got you on the ignore list. Grow up.
Click to expand...



That is fine.  No loss.  You didn't post anything worthwhile and you sure as hell didn't answer the simple question I asked you..  Like all Moon Bats you are confused about a great many things.


----------



## turtledude

regent said:


> None of our rights are without restrictions.


that's a bullshit cop out.  the federal government has no power to properly infringe on rights in areas that the government has no power delegated to it.


----------



## turtledude

Richard-H said:


> I'd be curious to hear what a linguistic expert had to say about the second amendment. It doesn't seem to be a correct sentence:
> 
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> The pro-gun people seem to interpret it as:
> 
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed."
> "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Two separate statements.
> 
> The single statement:
> 
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Seems to mean that 'a well regulated militia' is what satisfies the condition of 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms', not individual gun ownership.
> 
> There has to be some reason why these two were combined into a single sentence - some relation. It's almost as though something got left out in the middle.
> 
> But I'm not a linguistic expert....



uh you appear ignorant of many things including the fact that there is NO DOUBT that the founders believed that the right they RECOGNIZED with the second amendment is one that PRE-EXISTS government.

NOW HOW CAN YOU CLAIM that a right that pre-exists GOVERNMENT can only vest if you are a member of a government regulated entity?


----------



## Marion Morrison

Lakhota said:


> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
Click to expand...


Your gun-grabbing OP is duly noted and dismissed.

My next will be a Ruger American Predator, and I will put a suppressor on it.


----------



## danielpalos

Lakhota said:


> When will the 2nd Amendment be updated?



dears, our Founding Fathers did an Most Excellent job at the Convention with our supreme law of the land. There is no thing, ambiguous about our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land, including our Second Article of Amendment.


----------



## turtledude

danielpalos said:


> dears, our Founding Fathers did an Most Excellent job at the Convention with our supreme law of the land. There is no thing, ambiguous about our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land, including our Second Article of Amendment.


its too bad your attempt to appear clever requires you to call the second amendment something other than what every legal scholar in the country calls it

of course you aren't a legal scholar nor do you have any training in legal scholarship.  So you attempt to cover up your complete ignorance on the subject by pretending you have some secret knowledge by calling the second amendment the second article of amendment

go to Yale Law school and then get back to me-I get tired of listening to your ignorant bullshit that you post all over the net you stupid fraud


----------



## Deleted member 61768

frigidweirdo said:


> Paparock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Can't it?
> 
> The 2A, well, they can take guns of prisoners, the insane, anyone really who has been through due process. Seems they can and seems it's not pretty straight forward.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will be willing to give up my Constitutional right to keep and bear arms upon arrest if the stupid Moon Bats agree not to advocate taking my right to keep and bear arms away from me because somebody else uses a firearm either unsafely or in a crime.  Agree?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am a firearms expert with several arms, booby traps, knives and will not yield to any man or government my G_d given rights. I will not be alive upon this earth many more moons however anyone who takes me for granted makes a fatal mistake because though I may be much slower I know more ways to sent my enemies to meet their maker than when I was 21.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God given rights? You think God gave you the right to have a gun? Er....
Click to expand...


Oh please do try to be serious. Have you not at least tried to study the documents surrounding the writing of the Constitution? It is hard to discuss a subject with someone that does not have at least a basic understanding of American History. Get a good university level book on American Constitutional History and read up please.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Paparock said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paparock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Can't it?
> 
> The 2A, well, they can take guns of prisoners, the insane, anyone really who has been through due process. Seems they can and seems it's not pretty straight forward.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will be willing to give up my Constitutional right to keep and bear arms upon arrest if the stupid Moon Bats agree not to advocate taking my right to keep and bear arms away from me because somebody else uses a firearm either unsafely or in a crime.  Agree?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am a firearms expert with several arms, booby traps, knives and will not yield to any man or government my G_d given rights. I will not be alive upon this earth many more moons however anyone who takes me for granted makes a fatal mistake because though I may be much slower I know more ways to sent my enemies to meet their maker than when I was 21.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God given rights? You think God gave you the right to have a gun? Er....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh please do try to be serious. Have you not at least tried to study the documents surrounding the writing of the Constitution? It is hard to discuss a subject with someone that does not have at least a basic understanding of American History. Get a good university level book on American Constitutional History and read up please.
Click to expand...


Yes.

The simple fact is that all the rights protected by the Constitution were made by man. I can prove this. I can go through English history and show you the Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights, and then on to the US Bill of Rights and at EVERY STAGE it was MAN that made these things. It was man who made the philosophical argument for rights. There's no god or God there. 

The Founding Fathers made freedom of religion an important part of the new country, and freedom of religion means you don't have to follow any god at all. So, it wasn't just those who believed in a god that got the rights, or were given the rights, it was everyone (well, we know it wasn't everyone, but you get the point) and not based on religion. So, based on what came before, based on what the founders said, it was clearly MAN who gave people rights.


----------



## turtledude

frigidweirdo said:


> Yes.
> 
> The simple fact is that all the rights protected by the Constitution were made by man. I can prove this. I can go through English history and show you the Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights, and then on to the US Bill of Rights and at EVERY STAGE it was MAN that made these things. It was man who made the philosophical argument for rights. There's no god or God there.
> 
> The Founding Fathers made freedom of religion an important part of the new country, and freedom of religion means you don't have to follow any god at all. So, it wasn't just those who believed in a god that got the rights, or were given the rights, it was everyone (well, we know it wasn't everyone, but you get the point) and not based on religion. So, based on what came before, based on what the founders said, it was clearly MAN who gave people rights.



many bannerrhoids try to denigrate the second amendment by making this argument which is worthless.  What is important is the scope of the second amendment and that scope is based on what the founders believed.


----------



## frigidweirdo

turtledude said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> The simple fact is that all the rights protected by the Constitution were made by man. I can prove this. I can go through English history and show you the Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights, and then on to the US Bill of Rights and at EVERY STAGE it was MAN that made these things. It was man who made the philosophical argument for rights. There's no god or God there.
> 
> The Founding Fathers made freedom of religion an important part of the new country, and freedom of religion means you don't have to follow any god at all. So, it wasn't just those who believed in a god that got the rights, or were given the rights, it was everyone (well, we know it wasn't everyone, but you get the point) and not based on religion. So, based on what came before, based on what the founders said, it was clearly MAN who gave people rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> many bannerrhoids try to denigrate the second amendment by making this argument which is worthless.  What is important is the scope of the second amendment and that scope is based on what the founders believed.
Click to expand...


And what did the founders believe?

Did the Founders believe in freedom of religion where someone DID NOT have to believe in a God in order to be protected by rights?


----------



## turtledude

frigidweirdo said:


> And what did the founders believe?
> 
> Did the Founders believe in freedom of religion where someone DID NOT have to believe in a God in order to be protected by rights?


the founders believed that all free men, from the dawn of time, had a natural right of self defense.


----------



## turtledude

I know judge King and he's a hard core anti gun liberal appointed by Democrats.  its a stupid decision and hopefully a trump supreme court will throw it out


----------



## turtledude

its also based on lies calling them weapons of war

that alone is proof how dishonest the gun banners are


----------



## frigidweirdo

turtledude said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what did the founders believe?
> 
> Did the Founders believe in freedom of religion where someone DID NOT have to believe in a God in order to be protected by rights?
> 
> 
> 
> the founders believed that all free men, from the dawn of time, had a natural right of self defense.
Click to expand...


You didn't answer my question. 

Secondly the 2A has nothing to do with self defense, but don't let the facts get in the way.


----------



## turtledude

BREAKING: Fourth Circuit Upholds Maryland Rifle, Magazine Ban - The Truth About Guns

idiotic decision.  I suspect the supremes will overturn it


----------



## turtledude

frigidweirdo said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what did the founders believe?
> 
> Did the Founders believe in freedom of religion where someone DID NOT have to believe in a God in order to be protected by rights?
> 
> 
> 
> the founders believed that all free men, from the dawn of time, had a natural right of self defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't answer my question.
> 
> Secondly the 2A has nothing to do with self defense, but don't let the facts get in the way.
Click to expand...


you have a yale law degree and taught constitutional law?

I didn't think so, so shut the fuck up. You're an ignorant nobody and you are wrong


----------



## Lakhota

*‘Military-Style’ Firearms Aren’t Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules*

An appeals court upheld a Maryland ban on a wide range of popular semiautomatic weapons.

WASHINGTON ― A federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday that a Maryland ban on assault-style rifles and large-capacity magazines isn’t subject to the Constitution’s right to keep and bear arms.

The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond, Virginia, reconsidered a divided ruling issued last year that found citizens have a “fundamental right” to own these weapons, and that laws restricting the right deserve the toughest level of constitutional scrutiny.

Writing for a nine-judge majority, U.S. Circuit Judge Robert King said that weapons such as M-16s and the kind that “are most useful in military service” aren’t protected by the Second Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the landmark District of Columbia v. Heller decision. That ruling limited the right to ownership of handguns for self-defense within the home.

“Put simply,” King wrote, “we have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war that the Heller decision explicitly excluded from such coverage.”

The court separately rejected claims that Maryland’s assault weapons ban violated the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

*More: ‘Military-Style’ Firearms Aren’t Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules*

It'a about time!  The 2nd Amendment is confusing and outdated.  In fact - it's obsolete.  

*SCOTUS declines to review Connecticut ban on assault weapons.*


----------



## frigidweirdo

turtledude said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what did the founders believe?
> 
> Did the Founders believe in freedom of religion where someone DID NOT have to believe in a God in order to be protected by rights?
> 
> 
> 
> the founders believed that all free men, from the dawn of time, had a natural right of self defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't answer my question.
> 
> Secondly the 2A has nothing to do with self defense, but don't let the facts get in the way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you have a yale law degree and taught constitutional law?
> 
> I didn't think so, so shut the fuck up. You're an ignorant nobody and you are wrong
Click to expand...


I'm sorry, what the hell are you going on about?

You have no idea what I do have. Even if I did have such a degree and had taught that I wouldn't be telling you. Having those doesn't make an argument better or worse. So, why the hell bother bring something that has nothing to do with this topic up? 

If I were ignorant and you were the scholarly one, you'd have more to say than "shut up".


----------



## Flash

Paparock said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paparock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Can't it?
> 
> The 2A, well, they can take guns of prisoners, the insane, anyone really who has been through due process. Seems they can and seems it's not pretty straight forward.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will be willing to give up my Constitutional right to keep and bear arms upon arrest if the stupid Moon Bats agree not to advocate taking my right to keep and bear arms away from me because somebody else uses a firearm either unsafely or in a crime.  Agree?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am a firearms expert with several arms, booby traps, knives and will not yield to any man or government my G_d given rights. I will not be alive upon this earth many more moons however anyone who takes me for granted makes a fatal mistake because though I may be much slower I know more ways to sent my enemies to meet their maker than when I was 21.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God given rights? You think God gave you the right to have a gun? Er....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh please do try to be serious. Have you not at least tried to study the documents surrounding the writing of the Constitution? It is hard to discuss a subject with someone that does not have at least a basic understanding of American History. Get a good university level book on American Constitutional History and read up please.
Click to expand...



He doesn't even have to get a college level book.  High school level would be fine.


----------



## Flash

turtledude said:


> BREAKING: Fourth Circuit Upholds Maryland Rifle, Magazine Ban - The Truth About Guns
> 
> idiotic decision.  I suspect the supremes will overturn it




That was one of the worst justifications ever for limiting the right to keep and bear arms.

To come to that conclusion they had to come up with a convoluted interpretation of _Heller_ and to ignore _Miller_, which says that the Second Amendment protects civilians using weapons in general use by the military. 

In addition to that the stupid Moon Bat judges don't understand the difference between an AR-15 and a M-16 and they forget to mention that the NFA allows civilians to own M-16s providing they pay that stupid $200 tax.


----------



## danielpalos

turtledude said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dears, our Founding Fathers did an Most Excellent job at the Convention with our supreme law of the land. There is no thing, ambiguous about our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land, including our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> its too bad your attempt to appear clever requires you to call the second amendment something other than what every legal scholar in the country calls it
> 
> of course you aren't a legal scholar nor do you have any training in legal scholarship.  So you attempt to cover up your complete ignorance on the subject by pretending you have some secret knowledge by calling the second amendment the second article of amendment
> 
> go to Yale Law school and then get back to me-I get tired of listening to your ignorant bullshit that you post all over the net you stupid fraud
Click to expand...

dear; 10USC311 is also, federal law.  why not, "get legal" to federal law?


----------



## danielpalos

turtledude said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what did the founders believe?
> 
> Did the Founders believe in freedom of religion where someone DID NOT have to believe in a God in order to be protected by rights?
> 
> 
> 
> the founders believed that all free men, from the dawn of time, had a natural right of self defense.
Click to expand...

natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, and available via Due Process.


----------



## danielpalos

turtledude said:


> its also based on lies calling them weapons of war
> 
> that alone is proof how dishonest the gun banners are


do we really Only need two classes of Arms?

one for the organized militia 

and

one for the unorganized militia?


----------



## Rustic

danielpalos said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> its also based on lies calling them weapons of war
> 
> that alone is proof how dishonest the gun banners are
> 
> 
> 
> do we really Only need two classes of Arms?
> 
> one for the organized militia
> 
> and
> 
> one for the unorganized militia?
Click to expand...

Frivolous gun control laws kill people… Fact


----------



## easyt65

'The Right To BEAR Arms'?




Cosmetic Surgery gone too far?!

What a stupid thread....


----------



## hadit

frigidweirdo said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's already happening.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really. Churches don't have to perform gay marries, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Kim Davis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She was in trouble for not doing her job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your quote is, in part, "you infringe you face prosecution".  She did, and did.  You may have been focused on churches, but people HAVE faced prosecution for infringing on the rights of homosexuals to get "married".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fine, but that doesn't mean that everyone who infringes gets prosecuted. Also, she was working for the government. Has anyone been prosecuted who didn't work for the govt? No, probably not.
Click to expand...

Prosecuted in what way?  Business owners who refuse to serve homosexual customers have wound up in court and been fined heavily.  Where are the goal posts moving next, to prison time only?


----------



## Flash

danielpalos said:


> [Q
> 
> dear; 10USC311 is also, federal law.  why not, "get legal" to federal law?



Speaking of getting legal to Federal law why didn't Obama require that the illegals "get legal" by enforcing the immigration laws of the US?


----------



## hadit

9thIDdoc said:


> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be curious to hear what a linguistic expert had to say about the second amendment. It doesn't seem to be a correct sentence:
> 
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> The pro-gun people seem to interpret it as:
> 
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed."
> "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Two separate statements.
> 
> The single statement:
> 
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Seems to mean that 'a well regulated militia' is what satisfies the condition of 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms', not individual gun ownership.
> 
> There has to be some reason why these two were combined into a single sentence - some relation. It's almost as though something got left out in the middle.
> 
> But I'm not a linguistic expert....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Seems to mean that 'a well regulated militia' is what satisfies the condition of 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms', not individual gun ownership.
> _
> 
> Problems with that:
> It is plain that the "Bill of Rights" enumerated *individua*l rights. Nowhere else are the Rights referred to considered communal rather individual. We have a free press but that by itself does not satisfy the individual's right of free speech.
> "Militia" as it was known to the people of the time simply meant "armed civilian" so it is individual either way you look at it.
> 
> Who Were The Minute Men - Minute Man National Historical Park (U.S. National Park Service)
> 
> _*According to Massachusetts colonial law, all able-bodied men between the ages of 16 and 60 were required to keep a serviceable firearm and serve in a part-time citizen army called the militia.
> *_
Click to expand...

We really don't even have to explain that ourselves, since the SC already has.


----------



## easyt65




----------



## Cellblock2429

Lakhota said:


> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
Click to expand...


/---- Shut down the newspapers because the First Amendment is a relic too.


----------



## 2aguy

Lakhota said:


> *‘Military-Style’ Firearms Aren’t Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules*
> 
> An appeals court upheld a Maryland ban on a wide range of popular semiautomatic weapons.
> 
> WASHINGTON ― A federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday that a Maryland ban on assault-style rifles and large-capacity magazines isn’t subject to the Constitution’s right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond, Virginia, reconsidered a divided ruling issued last year that found citizens have a “fundamental right” to own these weapons, and that laws restricting the right deserve the toughest level of constitutional scrutiny.
> 
> Writing for a nine-judge majority, U.S. Circuit Judge Robert King said that weapons such as M-16s and the kind that “are most useful in military service” aren’t protected by the Second Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the landmark District of Columbia v. Heller decision. That ruling limited the right to ownership of handguns for self-defense within the home.
> 
> “Put simply,” King wrote, “we have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war that the Heller decision explicitly excluded from such coverage.”
> 
> The court separately rejected claims that Maryland’s assault weapons ban violated the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
> 
> *More: ‘Military-Style’ Firearms Aren’t Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules*
> 
> It'a about time!  The 2nd Amendment is confusing and outdated.  In fact - it's obsolete.
> 
> *SCOTUS declines to review Connecticut ban on assault weapons.*




It is as valuable now as it was then...there is nothing legal in the decision by these judges........AR-15s all by themselves total over 8 million rifles...they are "in common use" as Heller points out..they are not weapons of war, and there is no right to limit magazine size since they are not a problem, therefore do not need a court to limit them....


----------



## frigidweirdo

hadit said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really. Churches don't have to perform gay marries, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Kim Davis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She was in trouble for not doing her job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your quote is, in part, "you infringe you face prosecution".  She did, and did.  You may have been focused on churches, but people HAVE faced prosecution for infringing on the rights of homosexuals to get "married".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fine, but that doesn't mean that everyone who infringes gets prosecuted. Also, she was working for the government. Has anyone been prosecuted who didn't work for the govt? No, probably not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prosecuted in what way?  Business owners who refuse to serve homosexual customers have wound up in court and been fined heavily.  Where are the goal posts moving next, to prison time only?
Click to expand...


But those who refuse to serve homosexuals are breaking certain laws. These laws have been made to protect people's rights, however this isn't what is being spoken about here, as far as I can tell. The point was simply that if you infringed on someone's rights you'd get prosecuted. Rather than simply just breaking a law and being prosecuted for break such a law.


----------



## hadit

frigidweirdo said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kim Davis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She was in trouble for not doing her job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your quote is, in part, "you infringe you face prosecution".  She did, and did.  You may have been focused on churches, but people HAVE faced prosecution for infringing on the rights of homosexuals to get "married".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fine, but that doesn't mean that everyone who infringes gets prosecuted. Also, she was working for the government. Has anyone been prosecuted who didn't work for the govt? No, probably not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prosecuted in what way?  Business owners who refuse to serve homosexual customers have wound up in court and been fined heavily.  Where are the goal posts moving next, to prison time only?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But those who refuse to serve homosexuals are breaking certain laws. These laws have been made to protect people's rights, however this isn't what is being spoken about here, as far as I can tell. The point was simply that if you infringed on someone's rights you'd get prosecuted. Rather than simply just breaking a law and being prosecuted for break such a law.
Click to expand...

If I hear you right, you're talking about violating a right that is not encoded into law.  If that is the case, which rights are you talking about?


----------



## Flash

2aguy said:


> [
> 
> 
> 
> It is as valuable now as it was then...there is nothing legal in the decision by these judges........AR-15s all by themselves total over 8 million rifles...they are "in common use" as Heller points out..they are not weapons of war, and there is no right to limit magazine size since they are not a problem, therefore do not need a court to limit them....




Exactly!

I have 24 AR-15s and have never used them war.  They are instruments for recreation and for defense as envisioned by our Founding Fathers.

The one M-16 I have, which has been used by the military, is properly licensed under the NFA regulations.   If I lived in Connecticut then the dumbass court would say that the filthy as state government could deny me the standard capacity magazines that are a part of the weapon platform.  How dumb is that?

That was a terrible decision and in conflict with the intent of both _Heller_ and _McDonald_ not to mention _Miller _where the Supreme Court especially said the Second applies to military type weapons.  .  The Supreme Court said that that Miller's sawed off shotgun was not protected under the Second because it was not a weapon in general use by the military.  They were wrong because the military did use sawed off shotguns in WWI but the Justices were unaware of that, mainly because Miller didn't show up for court that day to defend his position.

Dumbass Libtard Moon Bat judges.  This country is crawling with the vermin.


----------



## Lakhota

*‘Military-Style’ Firearms Aren’t Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules*

Finally, a federal court uses some common sense.  The 2nd Amendment is old, confusing, outdated, and obsolete.  It's about time someone sent all those little Rambos a clear message.


----------



## Flash

Lakhota said:


> *‘Military-Style’ Firearms Aren’t Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules*
> 
> Finally, a federal court uses some common sense.  The 2nd Amendment is old, confusing, outdated, and obsolete.  It's about time someone sent all those little Rambos a clear message.




No stupid Moon Bat.  That was a terrible decision.  It had no basis in fact.  Go back and read some of the previous posts about the convoluted decision to that came out of the Libtard Court.

What is confusing is how you filthy ass Moon Bats have no understanding of the Constitution or the concept of liberty.  We can't believe there are people as misinformed and low information as people like you.  It is mind boggling.


----------



## rich stacy

Lakhota said:


> *‘Military-Style’ Firearms Aren’t Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules*
> 
> Finally, a federal court uses some common sense.  The 2nd Amendment is old, confusing, outdated, and obsolete.  It's about time someone sent all those little Rambos a clear message.


The appeals court 2nd district was ruling on the constitutional objection, not the wisdom.  We have seen the 2nd amendment go from protecting the militia, and through it all the able bodied citizens, to it eroding down to an individual right of defense.

Heller v DC saw the 2nd applied as an individual right of self defense, with a nod to existing gun laws as prudent acts of government.  The 1968 gun control act took many if not all "weapons of war" out of the hands of individuals, but not retroactively.


----------



## rich stacy

Flash said:


> The one M-16 I have, which has been used by the military, is properly licensed under the NFA regulations.   If I lived in Connecticut then the dumbass court would say that the filthy as state government could deny me the standard capacity magazines that are a part of the weapon platform.  How dumb is that?



It is long held law that states can set a wide variety of limits on the sporting use of weapons. From the type and size of ammunition used in hunting, to their load capacity.  Yours becomes an argument the government shouldn't put limits on arms for non-sporting purposes. That someone should be able to defend their castle with whatever they want.


----------



## Flash

rich stacy said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one M-16 I have, which has been used by the military, is properly licensed under the NFA regulations.   If I lived in Connecticut then the dumbass court would say that the filthy as state government could deny me the standard capacity magazines that are a part of the weapon platform.  How dumb is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is long held law that states can set a wide variety of limits on the sporting use of weapons. From the type and size of ammunition used in hunting, to their load capacity.  Yours becomes an argument the government shouldn't put limits on arms for non-sporting purposes. That someone should be able to defend their castle with whatever they want.
Click to expand...



My position is that the government (Federal State Local) should never infringe upon the possession of any firearm or weapon.  They should regulate the illegal use of the firearm in a crime but never infringe upon the possession.


----------



## turtledude

Lakhota said:


> *‘Military-Style’ Firearms Aren’t Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules*
> 
> Finally, a federal court uses some common sense.  The 2nd Amendment is old, confusing, outdated, and obsolete.  It's about time someone sent all those little Rambos a clear message.


your attitude is why this issue will probably result in a civil war. The bannerrhoid movement is like cancer-a malignancy that will never stop until it is totally destroyed by patriots.  And the good news is, when the shit hits the fan, the patriotic gun owners will win that battle decisively


----------



## 2aguy

Weapons of war is not the standard.......they can't make something up and call it the law....considering, as David French points out the M1 Garand...and actual weapon used in war, is not banned by the Massachuestts law but the AR-15......a weapon never used in war...is......

the 4th is out of control....they are not judges they are activists dressing up in robes....


----------



## Rustic

2aguy said:


> Weapons of war is not the standard.......they can't make something up and call it the law....considering, as David French points out the M1 Garand...and actual weapon used in war, is not banned by the Massachuestts law but the AR-15......a weapon never used in war...is......
> 
> the 4th is out of control....they are not judges they are activists dressing up in robes....


I guess ignorance is bliss… Because anyone with any common sense that has actually looked at the facts knows the Ar15 is nothing more than a sporting rifle. It would never pass muster in the military… Fact


----------



## 9thIDdoc

The Supreme Court trumps lower courts.
The whole idea that there is some mythical class of weapons that are "military style" is, and always has been, simply idiotic. Can anyone think of a weapon that _hasn't_ been used by the military?


----------



## 2aguy

9thIDdoc said:


> The Supreme Court trumps lower courts.
> The whole idea that there is some mythical class of weapons that are "military style" is, and always has been, simply idiotic. Can anyone think of a weapon that _hasn't_ been used by the military?




The 4th made up a news standard without regard to the law...especially legal Precedent going back all the way to before our founding.....and they even ignored their own prior findings....


----------



## turtledude

2aguy said:


> Weapons of war is not the standard.......they can't make something up and call it the law....considering, as David French points out the M1 Garand...and actual weapon used in war, is not banned by the Massachuestts law but the AR-15......a weapon never used in war...is......
> 
> the 4th is out of control....they are not judges they are activists dressing up in robes....


they need to be impeached before they start a civil war. They are enemies of the constitution and dishonest pettifoggers


----------



## Flash

9thIDdoc said:


> The Supreme Court trumps lower courts.
> The whole idea that there is some mythical class of weapons that are "military style" is, and always has been, simply idiotic. Can anyone think of a weapon that _hasn't_ been used by the military?




You have an excellent point and I am not disagreeing but actually the Supreme Court in the _Miller_ case declared that a short barreled shotgun was not a military weapon so therefore not protected under the Second and therefore Miller was guilty as charge of violating the NFA laws.

They were wrong because the US Army used short barreled shotguns in WWI but it is still in the record.  Courts do funny things sometimes.


----------



## 2aguy

Flash said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court trumps lower courts.
> The whole idea that there is some mythical class of weapons that are "military style" is, and always has been, simply idiotic. Can anyone think of a weapon that _hasn't_ been used by the military?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have an excellent point and I am not disagreeing but actually the Supreme Court in the _Miller_ case declared that a short barreled shotgun was not a military weapon so therefore not protected under the Second and therefore Miller was guilty as charge of violating the NFA laws.
> 
> They were wrong because the US Army used short barreled shotguns in WWI but it is still in the record.  Courts do funny things sometimes.
Click to expand...



If you look at Miller...it was made up law too...the defendants didin't even show up so the Government made their own case and the Court made up their own rule......


----------



## turtledude

Flash said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court trumps lower courts.
> The whole idea that there is some mythical class of weapons that are "military style" is, and always has been, simply idiotic. Can anyone think of a weapon that _hasn't_ been used by the military?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have an excellent point and I am not disagreeing but actually the Supreme Court in the _Miller_ case declared that a short barreled shotgun was not a military weapon so therefore not protected under the Second and therefore Miller was guilty as charge of violating the NFA laws.
> 
> They were wrong because the US Army used short barreled shotguns in WWI but it is still in the record.  Courts do funny things sometimes.
Click to expand...


Miller was a conspiracy between the prosecutor an anti gun judge and the US Government to uphold what most people knew was an unconstitutional law so this case was created to allow the FDR lapdogs to sustain a law that was a blatant rape of the tenth and second amendment.


----------



## turtledude

2aguy said:


> If you look at Miller...it was made up law too...the defendants didin't even show up so the Government made their own case and the Court made up their own rule......



No part of the American jurisprudential fabric is more based on fraud, dishonesty and outright avoidance of the constitution than federal gun control.  Its a fraud, its illegal, and its based on the attitude of power hungry shitheads that The federal government NEEDED the power to ban and restrict firearms and THUS such a power was found to exist when it is clear that the founders never intended such a power and no amendment allowing such a power was ever passed.  Anyone who claims that federal gun control is a proper power of congress is essentially rejecting the constitution and should be seen as an enemy of our rights


----------



## hadit

Lakhota said:


> *‘Military-Style’ Firearms Aren’t Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules*
> 
> Finally, a federal court uses some common sense.  The 2nd Amendment is old, confusing, outdated, and obsolete.  It's about time someone sent all those little Rambos a clear message.


So change it, don't ignore it.


----------



## Lakhota

hadit said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *‘Military-Style’ Firearms Aren’t Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules*
> 
> Finally, a federal court uses some common sense.  The 2nd Amendment is old, confusing, outdated, and obsolete.  It's about time someone sent all those little Rambos a clear message.
> 
> 
> 
> So change it, don't ignore it.
Click to expand...


It takes time to change the wording - but the courts have watered down its vague meaning several times.


----------



## hadit

Lakhota said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *‘Military-Style’ Firearms Aren’t Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules*
> 
> Finally, a federal court uses some common sense.  The 2nd Amendment is old, confusing, outdated, and obsolete.  It's about time someone sent all those little Rambos a clear message.
> 
> 
> 
> So change it, don't ignore it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It takes time to change the wording - but the courts have watered down its vague meaning several times.
Click to expand...

The SC has strengthened it, but you still can't ignore it.  Change it if you don't like it.


----------



## danielpalos

Rustic said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> its also based on lies calling them weapons of war
> 
> that alone is proof how dishonest the gun banners are
> 
> 
> 
> do we really Only need two classes of Arms?
> 
> one for the organized militia
> 
> and
> 
> one for the unorganized militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Frivolous gun control laws kill people… Fact
Click to expand...

Only two categories; is not frivolous.  

Or, 

should we create a new offense; _disturbing the domestic Tranquility and security of a free State, while being unorganized militia?
_
Better_ aqueducts, _better_ roads, _and more_ well regulated _militia, is always the answer.


----------



## Rustic

Lakhota said:


> *‘Military-Style’ Firearms Aren’t Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules*
> 
> Finally, a federal court uses some common sense.  The 2nd Amendment is old, confusing, outdated, and obsolete.  It's about time someone sent all those little Rambos a clear message.



Washington Redskin,
Drunk fuckers like yourself have no comprehension of the difference between a sporting rifle in the military grade weapon.
Stay out of the firewater you fucking drunk Indian


----------



## Rustic

danielpalos said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> its also based on lies calling them weapons of war
> 
> that alone is proof how dishonest the gun banners are
> 
> 
> 
> do we really Only need two classes of Arms?
> 
> one for the organized militia
> 
> and
> 
> one for the unorganized militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Frivolous gun control laws kill people… Fact
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only two categories; is not frivolous.
> 
> Or,
> 
> should we create a new offense; _disturbing the domestic Tranquility and security of a free State, while being unorganized militia?
> _
> Better_ aqueducts, _better_ roads, _and more_ well regulated _militia, is always the answer.
Click to expand...

You start messing with the most important part of the constitution which happens to be the second amendment… It only hurts the country and helps the federal government control people they disagree with… Fact


----------



## danielpalos

Rustic said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> its also based on lies calling them weapons of war
> 
> that alone is proof how dishonest the gun banners are
> 
> 
> 
> do we really Only need two classes of Arms?
> 
> one for the organized militia
> 
> and
> 
> one for the unorganized militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Frivolous gun control laws kill people… Fact
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only two categories; is not frivolous.
> 
> Or,
> 
> should we create a new offense; _disturbing the domestic Tranquility and security of a free State, while being unorganized militia?
> _
> Better_ aqueducts, _better_ roads, _and more_ well regulated _militia, is always the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You start messing with the most important part of the constitution which happens to be the second amendment… It only hurts the country and helps the federal government control people they disagree with… Fact
Click to expand...

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law or economics.

We have a Second Amendment; why do we have Any security problems in our free States?


----------



## Clementine

Lakhota said:


> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
Click to expand...




Meanwhile, the left supported Obama when he armed radical Muslims and allowed assault weapons to be sold to drug cartels.    

Criminals have guns and always will, therefore, I will not surrender mine.    If you want to be a victim, then don't buy a gun.    Have a baseball bat handy when a gang of thugs kicks your door in.


----------



## turtledude

danielpalos said:


> [
> Nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law or economics.
> 
> We have a Second Amendment; why do we have Any security problems in our free States?


no one takes a troll like you seriously 

you are completely clueless about constitutional theory


----------



## frigidweirdo

Lakhota said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *‘Military-Style’ Firearms Aren’t Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules*
> 
> Finally, a federal court uses some common sense.  The 2nd Amendment is old, confusing, outdated, and obsolete.  It's about time someone sent all those little Rambos a clear message.
> 
> 
> 
> So change it, don't ignore it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It takes time to change the wording - but the courts have watered down its vague meaning several times.
Click to expand...


How have they watered down the meaning?

The right to keep arms prevents the govt from stopping individuals owning arms before due process, and the right to bear arms prevents the govt from stopping individuals from being in the militia.

The latter they solved with the unorganized militia. All males between 18-45 or something like that are automatically in the militia. There are few instances of before due process taking away of arms, but not that much.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Clementine said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, the left supported Obama when he armed radical Muslims and allowed assault weapons to be sold to drug cartels.
> 
> Criminals have guns and always will, therefore, I will not surrender mine.    If you want to be a victim, then don't buy a gun.    Have a baseball bat handy when a gang of thugs kicks your door in.
Click to expand...


Then again you're more likely to be the victim in the US than in Europe.


----------



## danielpalos

turtledude said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law or economics.
> 
> We have a Second Amendment; why do we have Any security problems in our free States?
> 
> 
> 
> no one takes a troll like you seriously
> 
> you are completely clueless about constitutional theory
Click to expand...

only those who are full of fallacy, say that.


----------



## turtledude

danielpalos said:


> only those who are full of fallacy, say that.


you're widely seen around the net as a complete moron who just makes shit up in order to troll. You have admitted you haven't any training in the law and that you are a rank amateur in constitutional scholarship.  You're nothing more than a leftwing masterbaiter and a joke


----------



## danielpalos

turtledude said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> only those who are full of fallacy, say that.
> 
> 
> 
> you're widely seen around the net as a complete moron who just makes shit up in order to troll. You have admitted you haven't any training in the law and that you are a rank amateur in constitutional scholarship.  You're nothing more than a leftwing masterbaiter and a joke
Click to expand...

did you know that diversion is usually considered a fallacy; you either have valid arguments for rebuttal, or you don't.

and,

local chics are welcome to call me on my happy camper policy, whenever they want.  

full body massage with happy ending, one to three hours at a time.


----------



## rich stacy

turtledude said:


> No part of the American jurisprudential fabric is more based on fraud, dishonesty and outright avoidance of the constitution than federal gun control.  Its a fraud, its illegal, and its based on the attitude of power hungry shitheads that The federal government NEEDED the power to ban and restrict firearms and THUS such a power was found to exist when it is clear that the founders never intended such a power and no amendment allowing such a power was ever passed.  Anyone who claims that federal gun control is a proper power of congress is essentially rejecting the constitution and should be seen as an enemy of our rights



United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) was followed by Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)


----------



## danielpalos

rich stacy said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> No part of the American jurisprudential fabric is more based on fraud, dishonesty and outright avoidance of the constitution than federal gun control.  Its a fraud, its illegal, and its based on the attitude of power hungry shitheads that The federal government NEEDED the power to ban and restrict firearms and THUS such a power was found to exist when it is clear that the founders never intended such a power and no amendment allowing such a power was ever passed.  Anyone who claims that federal gun control is a proper power of congress is essentially rejecting the constitution and should be seen as an enemy of our rights
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) was followed by Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)
Click to expand...

A fallacy of composition?  Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, and available via Due Process.


----------



## turtledude

rich stacy said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> No part of the American jurisprudential fabric is more based on fraud, dishonesty and outright avoidance of the constitution than federal gun control.  Its a fraud, its illegal, and its based on the attitude of power hungry shitheads that The federal government NEEDED the power to ban and restrict firearms and THUS such a power was found to exist when it is clear that the founders never intended such a power and no amendment allowing such a power was ever passed.  Anyone who claims that federal gun control is a proper power of congress is essentially rejecting the constitution and should be seen as an enemy of our rights
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) was followed by Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)
Click to expand...

yep I know that.  the Miller case was a fraud and it didn't even give any argument why the federal government had such power-it merely ASSUMED IT DID and then pretended that the second amendment didn't stop that power


----------



## turtledude

danielpalos said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> only those who are full of fallacy, say that.
> 
> 
> 
> you're widely seen around the net as a complete moron who just makes shit up in order to troll. You have admitted you haven't any training in the law and that you are a rank amateur in constitutional scholarship.  You're nothing more than a leftwing masterbaiter and a joke
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> did you know that diversion is usually considered a fallacy; you either have valid arguments for rebuttal, or you don't.
> 
> and,
> 
> local chics are welcome to call me on my happy camper policy, whenever they want.
> 
> full body massage with happy ending, one to three hours at a time.
Click to expand...

you're an idiot Daniel. You've been banned on numerous sites and you are well known for making crap up that you never ever can support


----------



## danielpalos

turtledude said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> only those who are full of fallacy, say that.
> 
> 
> 
> you're widely seen around the net as a complete moron who just makes shit up in order to troll. You have admitted you haven't any training in the law and that you are a rank amateur in constitutional scholarship.  You're nothing more than a leftwing masterbaiter and a joke
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> did you know that diversion is usually considered a fallacy; you either have valid arguments for rebuttal, or you don't.
> 
> and,
> 
> local chics are welcome to call me on my happy camper policy, whenever they want.
> 
> full body massage with happy ending, one to three hours at a time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you're an idiot Daniel. You've been banned on numerous sites and you are well known for making crap up that you never ever can support
Click to expand...

only the full of fallacy right wingers say that;  are they too socialist to compete with better arguments at lower cost?  let's ask boss or ding.


----------



## Lakhota

Time to rewrite the crazy old 2nd Amendment.


----------



## turtledude

Lakhota said:


> Time to rewrite the crazy old 2nd Amendment.




Yes, it should read like this


Congress shall make no law nor regulation pertaining to the right of the people collectively and individually, to keep, bear, possess, use or otherwise acquire arms.  Any Federal official who attempts to interfere with said right shall be deemed guilty o high treason and shall be treated as a traitor


----------



## hadit

Lakhota said:


> Time to rewrite the crazy old 2nd Amendment.


Good luck with that.


----------



## rich stacy

turtledude said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time to rewrite the crazy old 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it should read like this
> 
> 
> Congress shall make no law nor regulation pertaining to the right of the people collectively and individually, to keep, bear, possess, use or otherwise acquire arms.  Any Federal official who attempts to interfere with said right shall be deemed guilty o high treason and shall be treated as a traitor
Click to expand...


Unless so specified, constitutional amendments aren't retroactive. So even if you pass a new 2nd amendment, the NFA 1932 and CGA 1968 still remain the law of the land.

If you made such a 2nd amendment retroactive, you open up a can of worms overturning everything from the SALT treaty to keeping terrorists from getting WMD's.


----------



## danielpalos

Lakhota said:


> Time to rewrite the crazy old 2nd Amendment.


There is nothing ambiguous about our supreme law of the land; including our Second Amendment.


----------



## turtledude

rich stacy said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time to rewrite the crazy old 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it should read like this
> 
> 
> Congress shall make no law nor regulation pertaining to the right of the people collectively and individually, to keep, bear, possess, use or otherwise acquire arms.  Any Federal official who attempts to interfere with said right shall be deemed guilty o high treason and shall be treated as a traitor
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless so specified, constitutional amendments aren't retroactive. So even if you pass a new 2nd amendment, the NFA 1932 and CGA 1968 still remain the law of the land.
> 
> If you made such a 2nd amendment retroactive, you open up a can of worms overturning everything from the SALT treaty to keeping terrorists from getting WMD's.
Click to expand...

even scalia was afraid to properly interpret the commerce clause since a proper interpretation not only would wipe away gun control but 

Title VII
Title IX
Social Security
Obama Care
Medicare
Medicaid

which is why many conservative jurists are dishonest about gun control


----------



## M14 Shooter

rich stacy said:


> Unless so specified, constitutional amendments aren't retroactive. So even if you pass a new 2nd amendment, the NFA 1932 and CGA 1968 still remain the law of the land.


Until overturned by the court applying said amendment to them.
Fortunately, we don't need  "new" amendment for that.


----------



## Cellblock2429

waltky said:


> Maybe not obsolete but antiquated, out of date...
> 
> ... it needs to be updated to reflect the times...
> 
> ... and the threat of overkill firepower...
> 
> ... for the average citizen.



/---- well using your gun grabbing logic all of the original amendments were written at the same time and all are antiquated- using you Gun Grabbing logic.


----------



## Little-Acorn

rich stacy said:


> Unless so specified, constitutional amendments aren't retroactive. So even if you pass a new 2nd amendment, the NFA 1932 and CGA 1968 still remain the law of the land.


Keep dreaming.

That's like saying, when the Emancipation Proclamation was issued, and later the 13th amendment was ratified, it meant people couldn't bring "new" people into slavery any more, but the people who were already slaves in the U.S. had to stay that way.

Liberals come up with the weirdest Fake Laws to try to get  their way sometimes.


----------



## Little-Acorn

rich stacy said:


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


Two funny things about this case:

1.) It ruled that military-style weapons are definitely protected by the 2nd amendment. But the government has spent vast amounts of time trying to restrict or ban exactly those kinds of weapons (so-called "assault weapons") for years, in direct violation of the US v. Miller ruling... and are still trying today!

2.) When US v. Miller was heard by the Supreme Court, _no one showed up for the defense._ Miller didn't show up, his lawyer didn't show up, nobody wrote any "Friends of the court" briefings or anything else for Miller's side. (Miller was found dead in a stream bed a few weeks later, with four pistol bullets in his chest). Only the government prosecutors showed up. The other side of the Courtroom was _completely empty._

The prosecutors took advantage of this huge windfall, and read several flat lies into the record ( a. The 2nd protects only military-style weapons, b. Miller's short-barreled shotgun was not similar to a military weapon, c. The 2nd only protected members of the military or militia etc.). Since nobody was there to refute them, the Justices rubber-stamped these lies into an Opinion that ruled against the absent Miller.

US v. Miller was one of the most complete miscarriages of justice ever seen in the history of the U.S.

 In case you were wondering why the government has been so careful to NEVER re-examine the Miller case, now you know. If the Miller case were ever brought up for re-examination, with both sides present this time, it would be overturned in five minutes. And all the court rulings that used it as a basis, would quickly fall like dominos... and that's nearly all of the "gun control" cases.


----------



## danielpalos

Little-Acorn said:


> rich stacy said:
> 
> 
> 
> United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
> 
> 
> 
> Two funny things about this case:
> 
> 1.) It ruled that military-style weapons are definitely protected by the 2nd amendment. But the government has spent vast amounts of time trying to restrict or ban exactly those kinds of weapons (so-called "assault weapons") for years, in direct violation of the US v. Miller ruling... and are still trying today!
> 
> 2.) When US v. Miller was heard by the Supreme Court, _no one showed up for the defense._ Miller didn't show up, his lawyer didn't show up, nobody wrote any "Friends of the court" briefings or anything else for Miller's side. (Miller was found dead in a stream bed a few weeks later, with four pistol bullets in his chest). Only the government prosecutors showed up. The other side of the Courtroom was _completely empty._
> 
> The prosecutors took advantage of this huge windfall, and read several flat lies into the record ( a. The 2nd protects only military-style weapons, b. Miller's short-barreled shotgun was not similar to a military weapon, c. The 2nd only protected members of the military or militia etc.). Since nobody was there to refute them, the Justices rubber-stamped these lies into an Opinion that ruled against the absent Miller.
> 
> US v. Miller was one of the most complete miscarriages of justice ever seen in the history of the U.S.
> 
> In case you were wondering why the government has been so careful to NEVER re-examine the Miller case, now you know. If the Miller case were ever brought up for re-examination, with both sides present this time, it would be overturned in five minutes. And all the court rulings that used it as a basis, would quickly fall like dominos... and that's nearly all of the "gun control" cases.
Click to expand...

It wasn't a Second Amendment issue, it was a Commerce Clause issue.


----------



## Skull Pilot

regent said:


> None of our rights are without restrictions.


only the ones that shall not be infringed


----------



## Little-Acorn

Little-Acorn said:


> Liberals come up with the weirdest Fake Laws to try to get  their way sometimes.





danielpalos said:


> It wasn't a Second Amendment issue, it was a Commerce Clause issue.



Look! There goes another one!


----------



## Daryl Hunt

I agree.  We have the right to arm bears.


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of our rights are without restrictions.
> 
> 
> 
> only the ones that shall not be infringed
Click to expand...

Only well regulated militia of the People are necessary, and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.


----------



## danielpalos

Little-Acorn said:


> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals come up with the weirdest Fake Laws to try to get  their way sometimes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't a Second Amendment issue, it was a Commerce Clause issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look! There goes another one!
Click to expand...

The security of a free State was not involved nor was it about well regulated militia of the People being Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union;

thus,

it is a Commerce Clause issue not a Second Amendment issue.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of our rights are without restrictions.
> 
> 
> 
> only the ones that shall not be infringed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the People are necessary, and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.
Click to expand...


If a change is made to the 2nd amendment, I vote to change it to "Right Arm Bears".  That would give bear hunting a whole new take on things.


----------



## Rustic

Lakhota said:


> Time to rewrite the crazy old 2nd Amendment.


Washington Redskin,
Not going to happen, Jack weed


----------



## Little-Acorn

Little-Acorn said:


> Liberals come up with the weirdest Fake Laws to try to get  their way sometimes.





danielpalos said:


> Only well regulated militia of the People are necessary, and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.


Look! There goes another one!


----------



## M14 Shooter

Little-Acorn said:


> US v. Miller was one of the most complete miscarriages of justice ever seen in the history of the U.S.


The most important part of Miller, in bold:





The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.


----------



## danielpalos

Daryl Hunt said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of our rights are without restrictions.
> 
> 
> 
> only the ones that shall not be infringed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the People are necessary, and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If a change is made to the 2nd amendment, I vote to change it to "Right Arm Bears".  That would give bear hunting a whole new take on things.
Click to expand...

i vote women should be able to bare their Arms and their breasts, in public.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

danielpalos said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of our rights are without restrictions.
> 
> 
> 
> only the ones that shall not be infringed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the People are necessary, and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If a change is made to the 2nd amendment, I vote to change it to "Right Arm Bears".  That would give bear hunting a whole new take on things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i vote women should be able to bare their Arms and their breasts, in public.
Click to expand...


Boulder has a pending piece of legislature that would allow that.  Not saying I support that.


----------



## danielpalos

Daryl Hunt said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of our rights are without restrictions.
> 
> 
> 
> only the ones that shall not be infringed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the People are necessary, and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If a change is made to the 2nd amendment, I vote to change it to "Right Arm Bears".  That would give bear hunting a whole new take on things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i vote women should be able to bare their Arms and their breasts, in public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boulder has a pending piece of legislature that would allow that.  Not saying I support that.
Click to expand...

don't believe in equal rights?


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> i vote women should be able to bare their Arms and their breasts, in public.


Including your mother? Including your daughter? Typical left-wing dirt-bag turning women into nothing but sexual objects. You're pathetic danielpalos. This is so immature.

And spare us the even more immature "I was only kidding" crap. That's what you hatriots say every time someone points out how disgusting you people are.


----------



## P@triot

Lakhota said:


> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week


Thank God the 2nd Amendment is *no*t "obsolete" and *never* will be. An officer's life was saved the other day because most people aren't as ignorant as you are...

Watch: Cellphone footage captures armed citizen saving deputy by shooting his attacker


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> i vote women should be able to bare their Arms and their breasts, in public.
> 
> 
> 
> Including your mother? Including your daughter? Typical left-wing dirt-bag turning women into nothing but sexual objects. You're pathetic danielpalos. This is so immature.
> 
> And spare us the even more immature "I was only kidding" crap. That's what you hatriots say every time someone points out how disgusting you people are.
Click to expand...

i won't complain; i will try to be, Patriotic.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> 
> 
> Thank God the 2nd Amendment is *no*t "obsolete" and *never* will be. An officer's life was saved the other day because most people aren't as ignorant as you are...
> 
> Watch: Cellphone footage captures armed citizen saving deputy by shooting his attacker
Click to expand...

more, rather than less, well regulated militia in the crowd could have simply rushed the guy, with no Arms use.


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> 
> 
> Thank God the 2nd Amendment is *no*t "obsolete" and *never* will be. An officer's life was saved the other day because most people aren't as ignorant as you are...
> 
> Watch: Cellphone footage captures armed citizen saving deputy by shooting his attacker
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> more, rather than less, well regulated militia in the crowd could have simply rushed the guy, with no Arms use.
Click to expand...

yeah why don't you lead the charge ?


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> 
> 
> Thank God the 2nd Amendment is *no*t "obsolete" and *never* will be. An officer's life was saved the other day because most people aren't as ignorant as you are...
> 
> Watch: Cellphone footage captures armed citizen saving deputy by shooting his attacker
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> more, rather than less, well regulated militia in the crowd could have simply rushed the guy, with no Arms use.
Click to expand...

The problem is - pussies like you don't "rush the guy" (as you so eloquently put it  ). Left-wing cowards sit in their vehicle and watch. As we saw in the video - which dozens of motorists sat there and did *nothing *(just like you would).

The 2nd Amendment is here to stay, snowflake. Deal with it or get the hell out of our country.


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> 
> 
> Thank God the 2nd Amendment is *no*t "obsolete" and *never* will be. An officer's life was saved the other day because most people aren't as ignorant as you are...
> 
> Watch: Cellphone footage captures armed citizen saving deputy by shooting his attacker
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> more, rather than less, well regulated militia in the crowd could have simply rushed the guy, with no Arms use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yeah why don't you lead the charge ?
Click to expand...

i wasn't there; there were plenty of people with cell phone cameras.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> 
> 
> Thank God the 2nd Amendment is *no*t "obsolete" and *never* will be. An officer's life was saved the other day because most people aren't as ignorant as you are...
> 
> Watch: Cellphone footage captures armed citizen saving deputy by shooting his attacker
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> more, rather than less, well regulated militia in the crowd could have simply rushed the guy, with no Arms use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem is - pussies like you don't "rush the guy" (as you so eloquently put it  ). Left-wing cowards sit in their vehicle and watch. As we saw in the video - which dozens of motorists sat there and did *nothing *(just like you would).
> 
> The 2nd Amendment is here to stay, snowflake. Deal with it or get the hell out of our country.
Click to expand...

Only gun lovers who have to shoot and maybe kill someone?


----------



## Daryl Hunt

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> 
> 
> Thank God the 2nd Amendment is *no*t "obsolete" and *never* will be. An officer's life was saved the other day because most people aren't as ignorant as you are...
> 
> Watch: Cellphone footage captures armed citizen saving deputy by shooting his attacker
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> more, rather than less, well regulated militia in the crowd could have simply rushed the guy, with no Arms use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem is - pussies like you don't "rush the guy" (as you so eloquently put it  ). Left-wing cowards sit in their vehicle and watch. As we saw in the video - which dozens of motorists sat there and did *nothing *(just like you would).
> 
> The 2nd Amendment is here to stay, snowflake. Deal with it or get the hell out of our country.
Click to expand...


Sometimes, doing nothing is the best practice.  I know of at least one gun  toting nutcase that if something goes down (like a simple robbing) I am going to find something and conk him on the head.  The Moron will go into hero mode.  As long as they just take the money, do nothing.  Let the cops take it from there.  Heroes in war get others killed.

This "Snowflake" doesn't need a gun to get by day to day.  Of course, the question being, do I or do I Not have a gun.


----------



## danielpalos

No one practices carrying handcuffs.  That is the problem.


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> 
> 
> Thank God the 2nd Amendment is *no*t "obsolete" and *never* will be. An officer's life was saved the other day because most people aren't as ignorant as you are...
> 
> Watch: Cellphone footage captures armed citizen saving deputy by shooting his attacker
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> more, rather than less, well regulated militia in the crowd could have simply rushed the guy, with no Arms use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yeah why don't you lead the charge ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i wasn't there; there were plenty of people with cell phone cameras.
Click to expand...


so if it happens when you happen to be outside and not in Mommy's basement jerking off you'll be the first guy to charge a shooter right?


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> 
> 
> Thank God the 2nd Amendment is *no*t "obsolete" and *never* will be. An officer's life was saved the other day because most people aren't as ignorant as you are...
> 
> Watch: Cellphone footage captures armed citizen saving deputy by shooting his attacker
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> more, rather than less, well regulated militia in the crowd could have simply rushed the guy, with no Arms use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yeah why don't you lead the charge ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i wasn't there; there were plenty of people with cell phone cameras.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so if it happens when you happen to be outside and not in Mommy's basement jerking off you'll be the first guy to charge a shooter right?
Click to expand...

it depends on the situation.  however, from a, hypothetical "tactical" perspective, simply "diving into the guy" would probably knock the guy off of the officer and give the officer enough time to recover; and proceed with any further, coercive use of force of the State.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank God the 2nd Amendment is *no*t "obsolete" and *never* will be. An officer's life was saved the other day because most people aren't as ignorant as you are...
> 
> Watch: Cellphone footage captures armed citizen saving deputy by shooting his attacker
> 
> 
> 
> more, rather than less, well regulated militia in the crowd could have simply rushed the guy, with no Arms use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yeah why don't you lead the charge ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i wasn't there; there were plenty of people with cell phone cameras.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so if it happens when you happen to be outside and not in Mommy's basement jerking off you'll be the first guy to charge a shooter right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it depends on the situation.  however, from a, hypothetical "tactical" perspective, simply "diving into the guy" would probably knock the guy off of the officer and give the officer enough time to recover; and proceed with any further, coercive use of force of the State.
Click to expand...


More than likely  it will get both you and the Officer killed.  You need to allow the Officer to control the situation.


----------



## danielpalos

Daryl Hunt said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> more, rather than less, well regulated militia in the crowd could have simply rushed the guy, with no Arms use.
> 
> 
> 
> yeah why don't you lead the charge ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i wasn't there; there were plenty of people with cell phone cameras.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so if it happens when you happen to be outside and not in Mommy's basement jerking off you'll be the first guy to charge a shooter right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it depends on the situation.  however, from a, hypothetical "tactical" perspective, simply "diving into the guy" would probably knock the guy off of the officer and give the officer enough time to recover; and proceed with any further, coercive use of force of the State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More than likely  it will get both you and the Officer killed.  You need to allow the Officer to control the situation.
Click to expand...

wouldn't a gun, potentially do the same thing?


----------



## Daryl Hunt

danielpalos said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeah why don't you lead the charge ?
> 
> 
> 
> i wasn't there; there were plenty of people with cell phone cameras.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so if it happens when you happen to be outside and not in Mommy's basement jerking off you'll be the first guy to charge a shooter right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it depends on the situation.  however, from a, hypothetical "tactical" perspective, simply "diving into the guy" would probably knock the guy off of the officer and give the officer enough time to recover; and proceed with any further, coercive use of force of the State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More than likely  it will get both you and the Officer killed.  You need to allow the Officer to control the situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wouldn't a gun, potentially do the same thing?
Click to expand...


There is a better than average chance that it will just mess things up.  You decide to draw your weapon, the bad guy shoots the cop (or civilian) and then turns it on you.  A drawn weapon is faster than one coming out of the holster.  There is a better than 50% chance that  you just got the cop and yourself (and maybe others) killed in the process. 

Heroes normally get others killed around them.  According to an old retired LA Chief of Police, the bad guy is probably better with his weapon than you will be.  And he won't care if innocents die in the process so he won't hesitate.


----------



## Clementine

Lakhota said:


> Time to rewrite the crazy old 2nd Amendment.




Only to make it clear that we have the right not to die at the hands of home invaders or anyone who seeks to harm us.

If I hear someone kick my door in during the night, I will shoot them.    I know libs would rather I have no means to defend myself but you guys are incapable of thinking things through.


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank God the 2nd Amendment is *no*t "obsolete" and *never* will be. An officer's life was saved the other day because most people aren't as ignorant as you are...
> 
> Watch: Cellphone footage captures armed citizen saving deputy by shooting his attacker
> 
> 
> 
> more, rather than less, well regulated militia in the crowd could have simply rushed the guy, with no Arms use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yeah why don't you lead the charge ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i wasn't there; there were plenty of people with cell phone cameras.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so if it happens when you happen to be outside and not in Mommy's basement jerking off you'll be the first guy to charge a shooter right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it depends on the situation.  however, from a, hypothetical "tactical" perspective, simply "diving into the guy" would probably knock the guy off of the officer and give the officer enough time to recover; and proceed with any further, coercive use of force of the State.
Click to expand...


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> it depends on the situation.  however, from a, hypothetical "tactical" perspective, simply "diving into the guy" would *probably* knock the guy off of the officer and give the officer enough time to recover; and proceed with any further, coercive use of force of the State.


It is always wise to rely on "probably" in life and death situations... 

Let me ask you something snowflake - what if the officer is incapacitated? What if he is unconscious? Or if his arm is broken? You knock the guy off (idiotic to say the least), the officer can't help you, the guy gets up and stabs you to death. Then what, snowflake?


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> i wasn't there; there were plenty of people with cell phone cameras.


Exactly. And *not* _one_ of them intervened on the officers behalf other than the armed citizen. Why? Because they are all a bunch of pussies like _you_.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> No one practices carrying handcuffs.  That is the problem.


Do you? So you are admitting that _you_ are part of the *problem*? Shocking...


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> i vote women should be able to bare their Arms and their breasts, in public.
> 
> 
> 
> Including your mother? Including your daughter? Typical left-wing dirt-bag turning women into nothing but sexual objects. You're pathetic danielpalos. This is so immature.
> 
> And spare us the even more immature "I was only kidding" crap. That's what you hatriots say every time someone points out how disgusting you people are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *i won't complain*; i will try to be, Patriotic.
Click to expand...

So by your own admission - you won't complain about your mother and your daughter bearing their breasts in public? Tell us again just how sick and disturbed you are? Your scree name should be Norman Bates.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Only gun lovers who have to shoot and maybe kill someone?


To *save* an officer's _life_? Yeah. Hell yeah. That's why the law permits it, you dumb-ass.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Clementine said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time to rewrite the crazy old 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only to make it clear that we have the right not to die at the hands of home invaders or anyone who seeks to harm us.
> 
> If I hear someone kick my door in during the night, I will shoot them.    I know libs would rather I have no means to defend myself but you guys are incapable of thinking things through.
Click to expand...


And I don't know of one single "Liberal......spit on floor" that has tried to take that right away from.  Protecting your home and family shall not be taken, period.

But walking around with your weapon on the street is NOT protecting your home and family.  You think that afternoon you spent to get your permit is training enough.  Not even close.  The Bad Guy is still more qualified with his gun than you are.  He has one real big advantage.  He won't hesitate.  The normal american (you do claim to be normal don't you) will hesitate.  If you don't have that built in hesitation then you are more dangerous to those around you than the bad guy.

I just love the new insult, "Snowflake".  You nutcases can do better than that.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it depends on the situation.  however, from a, hypothetical "tactical" perspective, simply "diving into the guy" would *probably* knock the guy off of the officer and give the officer enough time to recover; and proceed with any further, coercive use of force of the State.
> 
> 
> 
> It is always wise to rely on "probably" in life and death situations...
> 
> Let me ask you something snowflake - what if the officer is incapacitated? What if he is unconscious? Or if his arm is broken? You knock the guy off (idiotic to say the least), the officer can't help you, the guy gets up and stabs you to death. Then what, snowflake?
Click to expand...


What Ifs are a wonderful thing.  Whatif you he is armed with a deadman's switch on a pocket nuke.  You can whatif until the cows come home.  Especially if you call anyone just north of an Axe Murder a snowflake.


----------



## Clementine

Daryl Hunt said:


> And I don't know of one single "Liberal......spit on floor" that has tried to take that right away from.  Protecting your home and family shall not be taken, period.
> 
> But walking around with your weapon on the street is NOT protecting your home and family.  You think that afternoon you spent to get your permit is training enough.  Not even close.  The Bad Guy is still more qualified with his gun than you are.  He has one real big advantage.  He won't hesitate.  The normal american (you do claim to be normal don't you) will hesitate.  If you don't have that built in hesitation then you are more dangerous to those around you than the bad guy.
> 
> I just love the new insult, "Snowflake".  You nutcases can do better than that.



You assume a lot and know so little.  

Hillary was clear about her feelings toward the second amendment.   She doesn't believe it gives people the right to own guns.   And she intended to fight against it every chance she got.

So, yes, some Dems want to take our guns away.   Period.    So, we would not have them to protect our homes, which is how most would use them.

Criminals are experienced with guns.   And they will always have them.    There have been instances, most recently at a church, where concealed carry was allowed because it was not a gun-free zone (as if that exists in the eyes of criminals), where people with concealed guns managed to save lives.   Two people were shot outside the church but the gunman was immediately taken down when he entered the church.    Look it up yourself since the liberal media never reports the positive when it comes to legal gun owners.


----------



## 2aguy

Daryl Hunt said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> i wasn't there; there were plenty of people with cell phone cameras.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so if it happens when you happen to be outside and not in Mommy's basement jerking off you'll be the first guy to charge a shooter right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it depends on the situation.  however, from a, hypothetical "tactical" perspective, simply "diving into the guy" would probably knock the guy off of the officer and give the officer enough time to recover; and proceed with any further, coercive use of force of the State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More than likely  it will get both you and the Officer killed.  You need to allow the Officer to control the situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wouldn't a gun, potentially do the same thing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a better than average chance that it will just mess things up.  You decide to draw your weapon, the bad guy shoots the cop (or civilian) and then turns it on you.  A drawn weapon is faster than one coming out of the holster.  There is a better than 50% chance that  you just got the cop and yourself (and maybe others) killed in the process.
> 
> Heroes normally get others killed around them.  According to an old retired LA Chief of Police, the bad guy is probably better with his weapon than you will be.  And he won't care if innocents die in the process so he won't hesitate.
Click to expand...



Wow....you don't know what you are talking about....in any way shape or form....

In most self defense....it doesn't happen the way you described...at all...the robber...has to decide the moment he sees you drawing your weapon if he is going to go from robbery to murder....you on the other hand are simply executing a physical motion after having made the decision which he can't see......he suffers from the same thing someone on defense suffers, a mental pause....

And the odds are...he isn't better than you with your weapon...at worst, you are at the same level, more than likely he is less effective since as a criminal, with a criminal record, his options for actually practicing with his weapon are extremely limited....and he isn't a criminal because he likes doing work...and training with a gun is actual work

Heroes don't normally get the people around them killed...that is talking out of your ass.......

You have no idea what you are talking about...please...do some research into actual self defense with guns....you will learn how much you don't know...


----------



## 2aguy

Clementine said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I don't know of one single "Liberal......spit on floor" that has tried to take that right away from.  Protecting your home and family shall not be taken, period.
> 
> But walking around with your weapon on the street is NOT protecting your home and family.  You think that afternoon you spent to get your permit is training enough.  Not even close.  The Bad Guy is still more qualified with his gun than you are.  He has one real big advantage.  He won't hesitate.  The normal american (you do claim to be normal don't you) will hesitate.  If you don't have that built in hesitation then you are more dangerous to those around you than the bad guy.
> 
> I just love the new insult, "Snowflake".  You nutcases can do better than that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You assume a lot and know so little.
> 
> Hillary was clear about her feelings toward the second amendment.   She doesn't believe it gives people the right to own guns.   And she intended to fight against it every chance she got.
> 
> So, yes, some Dems want to take our guns away.   Period.    So, we would not have them to protect our homes, which is how most would use them.
> 
> Criminals are experienced with guns.   And they will always have them.    There have been instances, most recently at a church, where concealed carry was allowed because it was not a gun-free zone (as if that exists in the eyes of criminals), where people with concealed guns managed to save lives.   Two people were shot outside the church but the gunman was immediately taken down when he entered the church.    Look it up yourself since the liberal media never reports the positive when it comes to legal gun owners.
Click to expand...



Hilary had a plan to use court decisions to get her way by suing gun makers ...and getting them to settle in court and limit themselves.....I have posted this plan which is documented at the Clinton Library....


----------



## 2aguy

Little-Acorn said:


> rich stacy said:
> 
> 
> 
> United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
> 
> 
> 
> Two funny things about this case:
> 
> 1.) It ruled that military-style weapons are definitely protected by the 2nd amendment. But the government has spent vast amounts of time trying to restrict or ban exactly those kinds of weapons (so-called "assault weapons") for years, in direct violation of the US v. Miller ruling... and are still trying today!
> 
> 2.) When US v. Miller was heard by the Supreme Court, _no one showed up for the defense._ Miller didn't show up, his lawyer didn't show up, nobody wrote any "Friends of the court" briefings or anything else for Miller's side. (Miller was found dead in a stream bed a few weeks later, with four pistol bullets in his chest). Only the government prosecutors showed up. The other side of the Courtroom was _completely empty._
> 
> The prosecutors took advantage of this huge windfall, and read several flat lies into the record ( a. The 2nd protects only military-style weapons, b. Miller's short-barreled shotgun was not similar to a military weapon, c. The 2nd only protected members of the military or militia etc.). Since nobody was there to refute them, the Justices rubber-stamped these lies into an Opinion that ruled against the absent Miller.
> 
> US v. Miller was one of the most complete miscarriages of justice ever seen in the history of the U.S.
> 
> In case you were wondering why the government has been so careful to NEVER re-examine the Miller case, now you know. If the Miller case were ever brought up for re-examination, with both sides present this time, it would be overturned in five minutes. And all the court rulings that used it as a basis, would quickly fall like dominos... and that's nearly all of the "gun control" cases.
Click to expand...



If you read the story on Miller...at the time.....the short barreled shot gun was used by soldiers guarding prisoners during World War 1...so even there they got it wrong.....

Miller was wrong in most everything...


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Clementine said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I don't know of one single "Liberal......spit on floor" that has tried to take that right away from.  Protecting your home and family shall not be taken, period.
> 
> But walking around with your weapon on the street is NOT protecting your home and family.  You think that afternoon you spent to get your permit is training enough.  Not even close.  The Bad Guy is still more qualified with his gun than you are.  He has one real big advantage.  He won't hesitate.  The normal american (you do claim to be normal don't you) will hesitate.  If you don't have that built in hesitation then you are more dangerous to those around you than the bad guy.
> 
> I just love the new insult, "Snowflake".  You nutcases can do better than that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You assume a lot and know so little.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am retired Military.  And I have that hesitation.  It took a bit to get it back.  We don't need killers walking the streets.  Without that hesitation you would be a killer if you walked around armed all the time.
Click to expand...




> Hillary was clear about her feelings toward the second amendment.   She doesn't believe it gives people the right to own guns.   And she intended to fight against it every chance she got.



You said the same thing for 8 years under Clinton and then 8 more years under Obama.  Fewer and fewer people aren't buying your BS every day.  You are using Fear Tactics.  Don't you think we have had enough of the fear and hate already?




> So, yes, some Dems want to take our guns away.   Period.    So, we would not have them to protect our homes, which is how most would use them.



And some Reps want to arm and kill everyone that doesn't agree with them.  What's your point?



> Criminals are experienced with guns.   And they will always have them.    There have been instances, most recently at a church, where concealed carry was allowed because it was not a gun-free zone (as if that exists in the eyes of criminals), where people with concealed guns managed to save lives.   Two people were shot outside the church but the gunman was immediately taken down when he entered the church.    Look it up yourself since the liberal media never reports the positive when it comes to legal gun owners.



You want to hear something funny?  Gunshows are gun free zones.  If a school can't be a gun free zone then we need to make all gun shows where all can carry loaded weapons.  I wonder  why your own kind force Gun Shows to be guns free?  Again, the Hate and Fear tactics have been unmasked.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

[SIZE=4][B][URL='http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/2aguy.50072/']2aguy[/URL][/B][/SIZE] said:


> Hilary had a plan to use court decisions to get her way by suing gun makers ...and getting them to settle in court and limit themselves.....I have posted this plan which is documented at the Clinton Library....



She and others want the gun manufacturers held liable when their own negligence in what they produce causes harm or death.

The NRA (bow down, mortal) has fought safety being built into guns.  Care to discuss some of those?  Making a car that is unsafe gets the manufacturer into deep trouble.  Guns should be no different.  Shoot, Blenders have adequate safety standards.  Table Saws are now getting a safety feature that won't allow them to cut your fingers off.  One of the biggest pain in the ass and yet the most safe thing on a 1911 is the grip safety.  Yet, they allow the High Power Semi Autos to be made and spread throughout the land.  Even the safety on that one is unsafe.  It's just plain junk.  Drop a High Power with it's safety on and even with the slide locked (a real joke) and find out what happens.  You, too, can plunk down 150 bucks and buy a high power semi auto in many calibers.

What makes a gun less regulated than a Toaster?[/QUOTE]


----------



## 2aguy

Daryl Hunt said:


> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I don't know of one single "Liberal......spit on floor" that has tried to take that right away from.  Protecting your home and family shall not be taken, period.
> 
> But walking around with your weapon on the street is NOT protecting your home and family.  You think that afternoon you spent to get your permit is training enough.  Not even close.  The Bad Guy is still more qualified with his gun than you are.  He has one real big advantage.  He won't hesitate.  The normal american (you do claim to be normal don't you) will hesitate.  If you don't have that built in hesitation then you are more dangerous to those around you than the bad guy.
> 
> I just love the new insult, "Snowflake".  You nutcases can do better than that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You assume a lot and know so little.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am retired Military.  And I have that hesitation.  It took a bit to get it back.  We don't need killers walking the streets.  Without that hesitation you would be a killer if you walked around armed all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hillary was clear about her feelings toward the second amendment.   She doesn't believe it gives people the right to own guns.   And she intended to fight against it every chance she got.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said the same thing for 8 years under Clinton and then 8 more years under Obama.  Fewer and fewer people aren't buying your BS every day.  You are using Fear Tactics.  Don't you think we have had enough of the fear and hate already?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, yes, some Dems want to take our guns away.   Period.    So, we would not have them to protect our homes, which is how most would use them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And some Reps want to arm and kill everyone that doesn't agree with them.  What's your point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Criminals are experienced with guns.   And they will always have them.    There have been instances, most recently at a church, where concealed carry was allowed because it was not a gun-free zone (as if that exists in the eyes of criminals), where people with concealed guns managed to save lives.   Two people were shot outside the church but the gunman was immediately taken down when he entered the church.    Look it up yourself since the liberal media never reports the positive when it comes to legal gun owners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want to hear something funny?  Gunshows are gun free zones.  If a school can't be a gun free zone then we need to make all gun shows where all can carry loaded weapons.  I wonder  why your own kind force Gun Shows to be guns free?  Again, the Hate and Fear tactics have been unmasked.
Click to expand...


You want to hear something funny?  Gunshows are gun free zones.

If they are gun free, moron, it is because of local ordinances......not because of the participants, moron.  The NRA convention allowed carry at the convention, moron.....

And this is what hilary had planned if she had won......

Articles: Hillary: Impose Gun Control by Judicial Fiat



Hillary’s focus on repealing the PLCAA seems strange: it’s been on the books for eleven years, it was passed by 2-1 bipartisan majorities (65-31 Senate, 283-144 House), and every suit it has blocked is one that should never have been filed. Yet oppose it Hillary does. Her campaign webpage proposes to “Take on the gun lobby by removing the industry’s sweeping legal protection for illegal and irresponsible actions (which makes it almost impossible for people to hold them accountable), and revoking licenses from dealers who break the law.” She told the Bridgeport _News_ that “as president, I would lead the charge to repeal this law.” In Iowa, she called the PLCAA “one of the most egregious, wrong, pieces of legislation that ever passed the Congress.”

But, even given her anti-gun beliefs, why does Hillary place so high a priority on repealing some eleven-year-old statute?

The papers found in her husband’s presidential archives in Little Rock show why the lawsuits that the PLCAA stopped were so important to his anti-gun plans. A January 2000 question and answer document, probably meant to prepare Bill Clinton for a press conference, asks about his involvement in the lawsuits against the gun industry. It suggests as an answer that he “intends to engage the gun industry in negotiations” to “achieve meaningful reforms to the way the gun industry does business.” The memo suggests he close with “We want real reforms that will improve the public safety and save lives.”

This is noteworthy: the Clinton White House did not see the lawsuits’ purpose as winning money, but as a means to pressure the gun industry into adopting the Clinton “reforms.” What might those reforms have been?

The Clinton Presidential Archives answered that question, too. In December 1999, the “Office of the Deputy Secretary” (presumably of Treasury) had sent a fax to the fax line for Clinton’s White House Domestic Policy Council. The fax laid out a proposed settlement of the legal cases. The terms were very well designed. They would have given the antigun movements all the victories that it had been unable to win in Congress over the past twenty years! Moreover, the terms would be imposed by a court order, not by a statute. That meant that any violation could be prosecuted as a contempt of court, by the parties to the lawsuit rather than by the government. A future Congress could not repeal the judgment, and a future White House could not block its enforcement. The settlement would have a permanent existence outside the democratic process.

The terms were extensive and drastic:

Gun manufacturers must stop producing firearms (rifle, pistol, or shotguns) that could accept detachable magazines holding more than ten rounds. In practice, since there is no way to design a detachable-magazine firearm that cannot take larger magazines, this would mean ceasing production of all firearms with detachable magazines. No more semiauto handguns.

The manufacturers would be required to stop production of magazines holding more than ten rounds.

Manufacturers must also stop production of firearms with polymer frames. All handguns made must meet importation standards (long barrels, target sights, etc.).

After five years, manufacturers must produce nothing but “smart guns” (that is, using “authorized user technology”).

But those conditions were just the beginning. The next requirement was the key to regulating all licensed firearms dealers, as well. The manufacturers must agree to sell only to distributors and dealers who agreed to comply with the standards set for distributors and dealers. Thus dealers would were not parties to the lawsuits would be forced to comply, upon pain of being unable to buy inventory.

The dealers in turn must agree:

They’d make no sales at gun shows, and no sales over internet.

They’d hold their customers to one-gun-a-month, for all types of guns, not just handguns.

They would not sell used or new magazines holding more than ten rounds.

They would not sell any firearm that fell within the definitions of the 1994 “assault weapon ban,” even if the ban expired.

They must prove they have a minimum inventory of each manufacturers’ product, and that they derive a majority of their revenue from firearms or sporting equipment sales. No more small town hardware store dealers, and no more WalMarts with gun sections.

The manufacturers would be required to pay for a “monitor,” a person to make sure the settlement was enforced. The monitor would create a “sales data clearinghouse,” to which the manufacturers, distributors, and dealers must report each gun sale, thus creating a registration system, outside of the government and thus not covered by the Privacy Act.

The monitor would have the authority to hire investigators, inspect dealer records without notice, and to “conduct undercover sting operations.” The monitor would thus serve as a private BATFE, without the legal restrictions that bind that agency, and paid for by the gun industry itself.

The manufacturers must cut off any dealer who failed to comply, and whenever BATFE traced a gun to a dealer, the dealer would be presumed guilty unless he could prove himself innocent. (BATFE encourages police departments to trace every firearm that comes into their hands, including firearms turned in, lost and found, and recovered from thieves. As a result, it performs over 300,000 traces a year. Thus, this term would lead to many dealers being cut off and forced to prove their innocence on a regular basis).

Gun registration, one gun a month, magazines limited to ten rounds, no Glocks, no guns with detachable magazines (in effect, no semiauto handguns), no dealers at gun shows, an “assault weapon ban” in perpetuity, no internet sales. In short, the movement to restrict gun owners would have achieved, in one stroke, every objective it had labored for over the years -- indeed, it would have achieved some that (a ban on semiauto handguns) that were so bold it had never dared to propose them. All this would be achieved without the messy necessity of winning a majority vote in Congress.

And....moron...the 4th Circuit Court of appeals just ruled that "military weapons" are not protected by the 2nd Amendment....and you are too stupid to know this happened and how dangerous this ruling is to the right to bear arms...since every single firearm created has pretty much been a military weapon...from the pump action shotgun to the lever action rifle...to the bolt action rifle to the 6 shot revolver.......

And in order to make that ruling...the 4th ignored all previous Supreme Court rulings on the subject and made up the idea that military weapons aren't protected....you know....the original purpose of the 2nd Amendment.....

You have no clue what you are talking about....


----------



## 2aguy

Daryl Hunt said:


> [SIZE=4][B][URL='http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/2aguy.50072/']2aguy[/URL][/B][/SIZE] said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hilary had a plan to use court decisions to get her way by suing gun makers ...and getting them to settle in court and limit themselves.....I have posted this plan which is documented at the Clinton Library....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She and others want the gun manufacturers held liable when their own negligence in what they produce causes harm or death.
> 
> The NRA (bow down, mortal) has fought safety being built into guns.  Care to discuss some of those?  Making a car that is unsafe gets the manufacturer into deep trouble.  Guns should be no different.  Shoot, Blenders have adequate safety standards.  Table Saws are now getting a safety feature that won't allow them to cut your fingers off.  One of the biggest pain in the ass and yet the most safe thing on a 1911 is the grip safety.  Yet, they allow the High Power Semi Autos to be made and spread throughout the land.  Even the safety on that one is unsafe.  It's just plain junk.  Drop a High Power with it's safety on and even with the slide locked (a real joke) and find out what happens.  You, too, can plunk down 150 bucks and buy a high power semi auto in many calibers.
> 
> What makes a gun less regulated than a Toaster?
Click to expand...

[/QUOTE]


Boy....you are stupid.....  Guns have safety features you moron......

Do you even understand anything about guns?  From your post it is obvious you don't know anything about them or the law covering actual problems with guns.......

You really are too stupid to post on this topic.....


----------



## Daryl Hunt

2aguy said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [SIZE=4][B][URL='http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/2aguy.50072/']2aguy[/URL][/B][/SIZE] said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hilary had a plan to use court decisions to get her way by suing gun makers ...and getting them to settle in court and limit themselves.....I have posted this plan which is documented at the Clinton Library....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She and others want the gun manufacturers held liable when their own negligence in what they produce causes harm or death.
> 
> The NRA (bow down, mortal) has fought safety being built into guns.  Care to discuss some of those?  Making a car that is unsafe gets the manufacturer into deep trouble.  Guns should be no different.  Shoot, Blenders have adequate safety standards.  Table Saws are now getting a safety feature that won't allow them to cut your fingers off.  One of the biggest pain in the ass and yet the most safe thing on a 1911 is the grip safety.  Yet, they allow the High Power Semi Autos to be made and spread throughout the land.  Even the safety on that one is unsafe.  It's just plain junk.  Drop a High Power with it's safety on and even with the slide locked (a real joke) and find out what happens.  You, too, can plunk down 150 bucks and buy a high power semi auto in many calibers.
> 
> What makes a gun less regulated than a Toaster?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Boy....you are stupid.....  Guns have safety features you moron......

Do you even understand anything about guns?  From your post it is obvious you don't know anything about them or the law covering actual problems with guns.......

You really are too stupid to post on this topic.....[/QUOTE]

You either sell yourself long or everyone else short.  FACT:  The States are passing gun controls that YOU think are Unconstitional.  Hillary has nothing to do with this.  It's the States.  Of course, the States are having the mass shootings.  What is the one thing that ALL Mass shootings have in common?  Large capacity mags.  What does many states have in place?  Putting a Max of 10, 15 or 20 round clips.  

We ain't buying what you are selling anymore.  Your Fear and Hate got Trump elected.  Are you capable of feeling shame?

I am done with you, criminal.


----------



## danielpalos

Clementine said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time to rewrite the crazy old 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only to make it clear that we have the right not to die at the hands of home invaders or anyone who seeks to harm us.
> 
> If I hear someone kick my door in during the night, I will shoot them.    I know libs would rather I have no means to defend myself but you guys are incapable of thinking things through.
Click to expand...

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

We don't have a One Nation government.


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> more, rather than less, well regulated militia in the crowd could have simply rushed the guy, with no Arms use.
> 
> 
> 
> yeah why don't you lead the charge ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i wasn't there; there were plenty of people with cell phone cameras.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so if it happens when you happen to be outside and not in Mommy's basement jerking off you'll be the first guy to charge a shooter right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it depends on the situation.  however, from a, hypothetical "tactical" perspective, simply "diving into the guy" would probably knock the guy off of the officer and give the officer enough time to recover; and proceed with any further, coercive use of force of the State.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

at least until i can build a keep.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one practices carrying handcuffs.  That is the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you? So you are admitting that _you_ are part of the *problem*? Shocking...
Click to expand...

did we ever find out what the perpetrator's problem was?  

why would someone prefer to get shot rather than give up peacefully during times of peace?


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only gun lovers who have to shoot and maybe kill someone?
> 
> 
> 
> To *save* an officer's _life_? Yeah. Hell yeah. That's why the law permits it, you dumb-ass.
Click to expand...

it is about non-lethal methods versus lethal methods.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one practices carrying handcuffs.  That is the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you? So you are admitting that _you_ are part of the *problem*? Shocking...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> did we ever find out what the perpetrator's problem was?
> 
> why would someone prefer to get shot rather than give up peacefully during times of peace?
Click to expand...

He may have been a wanted felon. He may have been out of his mind on crystal meth or cocaine. He might have had a death wish. We can speculate ALL day. The *fact* is - he assaulted a police officer and the officer was on his back, pinned, and in serious trouble. Thank God the U.S. Constitution permits citizens to keep and bear arms. It saved that officers life.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only gun lovers who have to shoot and maybe kill someone?
> 
> 
> 
> To *save* an officer's _life_? Yeah. Hell yeah. That's why the law permits it, you dumb-ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about non-lethal methods versus lethal methods.
Click to expand...

No....it's about common sense (us) vs. idiotic ideology (you).


----------



## danielpalos

Clementine said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I don't know of one single "Liberal......spit on floor" that has tried to take that right away from.  Protecting your home and family shall not be taken, period.
> 
> But walking around with your weapon on the street is NOT protecting your home and family.  You think that afternoon you spent to get your permit is training enough.  Not even close.  The Bad Guy is still more qualified with his gun than you are.  He has one real big advantage.  He won't hesitate.  The normal american (you do claim to be normal don't you) will hesitate.  If you don't have that built in hesitation then you are more dangerous to those around you than the bad guy.
> 
> I just love the new insult, "Snowflake".  You nutcases can do better than that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You assume a lot and know so little.
> 
> Hillary was clear about her feelings toward the second amendment.   She doesn't believe it gives people the right to own guns.   And she intended to fight against it every chance she got.
> 
> So, yes, some Dems want to take our guns away.   Period.    So, we would not have them to protect our homes, which is how most would use them.
> 
> Criminals are experienced with guns.   And they will always have them.    There have been instances, most recently at a church, where concealed carry was allowed because it was not a gun-free zone (as if that exists in the eyes of criminals), where people with concealed guns managed to save lives.   Two people were shot outside the church but the gunman was immediately taken down when he entered the church.    Look it up yourself since the liberal media never reports the positive when it comes to legal gun owners.
Click to expand...

why have any gun laws at all.  there would be no, criminal gun lovers.


----------



## Marion Morrison

frigidweirdo said:


> Paparock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paparock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Can't it?
> 
> The 2A, well, they can take guns of prisoners, the insane, anyone really who has been through due process. Seems they can and seems it's not pretty straight forward.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will be willing to give up my Constitutional right to keep and bear arms upon arrest if the stupid Moon Bats agree not to advocate taking my right to keep and bear arms away from me because somebody else uses a firearm either unsafely or in a crime.  Agree?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am a firearms expert with several arms, booby traps, knives and will not yield to any man or government my G_d given rights. I will not be alive upon this earth many more moons however anyone who takes me for granted makes a fatal mistake because though I may be much slower I know more ways to sent my enemies to meet their maker than when I was 21.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God given rights? You think God gave you the right to have a gun? Er....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh please do try to be serious. Have you not at least tried to study the documents surrounding the writing of the Constitution? It is hard to discuss a subject with someone that does not have at least a basic understanding of American History. Get a good university level book on American Constitutional History and read up please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> The simple fact is that all the rights protected by the Constitution were made by man. I can prove this. I can go through English history and show you the Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights, and then on to the US Bill of Rights and at EVERY STAGE it was MAN that made these things. It was man who made the philosophical argument for rights. There's no god or God there.
> 
> The Founding Fathers made freedom of religion an important part of the new country, and freedom of religion means you don't have to follow any god at all. So, it wasn't just those who believed in a god that got the rights, or were given the rights, it was everyone (well, we know it wasn't everyone, but you get the point) and not based on religion. So, based on what came before, based on what the founders said, it was clearly MAN who gave people rights.
Click to expand...


My, what a statist view you have.

Apparently you missed the "God-given right" thing.

The concept of it may not penetrate your PC-stricken brain. That doesn't mean it's not a valid concept; only that you're too indoctrinated to realize it.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one practices carrying handcuffs.  That is the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you? So you are admitting that _you_ are part of the *problem*? Shocking...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> did we ever find out what the perpetrator's problem was?
> 
> why would someone prefer to get shot rather than give up peacefully during times of peace?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He may have been a wanted felon. He may have been out of his mind on crystal meth or cocaine. He might have had a death wish. We can speculate ALL day. The *fact* is - he assaulted a police officer and the officer was on his back, pinned, and in serious trouble. Thank God the U.S. Constitution permits citizens to keep and bear arms. It saved that officers life.
Click to expand...

why was the perpetrator "worrying" and not, _being happy_, to such an extent, he had to "rebel against authority"?


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> why have any gun laws at all.


Exactly. The U.S. Constitution doesn't permit it. They only exist because of you left-wing hatriots and your fascist desire to control everyone and everything.


----------



## esthermoon

Lakhota said:


> I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed.  It's just a matter of time...


It seem it's not simple amending the US Constitution 

Constitutional Amendment Process | National Archives


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only gun lovers who have to shoot and maybe kill someone?
> 
> 
> 
> To *save* an officer's _life_? Yeah. Hell yeah. That's why the law permits it, you dumb-ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about non-lethal methods versus lethal methods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No....it's about common sense (us) vs. idiotic ideology (you).
Click to expand...

no, it isn't.  it is about non-lethal methods versus lethal methods.

gun lovers merely happen to like, lethal methods.


----------



## esthermoon

Lakhota said:


> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
Click to expand...

I think it's a good amendment because you have the right to bear arms and nobody can deprive you of your right. 
Here if you have a little knife even at night you can get arrested


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> why was the perpetrator "worrying" and not, _being happy_, to such an extent, he had to "rebel against authority"?


Probably because he has to live in a country where *liberty* is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution but constantly stripped by left-wing hatriot fascists.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> why have any gun laws at all.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. The U.S. Constitution doesn't permit it. They only exist because of you left-wing hatriots and your fascist desire to control everyone and everything.
Click to expand...

i don't take the right wing seriously about the law, from Inception.

natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.


----------



## P@triot

esthermoon said:


> Here if you have a little knife even at night you can get arrested


Man....I couldn't handle that. At all. Authoritarian stuff like that would make me snap. I'll be damned if someone is going to tell me what I can and can't carry on me.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> i don't take the right wing seriously about the law, from Inception.


That's ok snowflake - nobody takes you seriously about _anything_. The fact that you don't even know that "i" is a proper pronoun which should be capitalized or that the first letter of any sentence is capitalized illustrates your limited IQ.


----------



## esthermoon

P@triot said:


> esthermoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here if you have a little knife even at night you can get arrested
> 
> 
> 
> Man....I couldn't handle that. At all. Authoritarian stuff like that would make me snap. I'll be damned if someone is going to tell me what I can and can't carry on me.
Click to expand...

I can hear you. But here in Vietnam every single gun or knife is not allowed unless you're a policeman, or a soldier or a "vip" member of the Party


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> why was the perpetrator "worrying" and not, _being happy_, to such an extent, he had to "rebel against authority"?
> 
> 
> 
> Probably because he has to live in a country where *liberty* is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution but constantly stripped by left-wing hatriot fascists.
Click to expand...

why was that Person not home having a peaceful time with family and friends?


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> why was the perpetrator "worrying" and not, _being happy_, to such an extent, he had to "rebel against authority"?
> 
> 
> 
> Probably because he has to live in a country where *liberty* is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution but constantly stripped by left-wing hatriot fascists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why was that Person not home having a peaceful time with family and friends?
Click to expand...

Failed left-wing policy probably cost him both his job and his home. I know it did that to a LOT of people. Barack Obama sure got extremely wealthy though - didn't he?


----------



## Billo_Really

I could care less about the 2nd amendment.

It didn't do any good at Ruby Ridge.


----------



## P@triot

Billo_Really said:


> I could care less about the 2nd amendment.


And the American people could care less that you care less about the 2nd Amendment!


Billo_Really said:


> It didn't do any good at Ruby Ridge.


Thank you for illustrating why enforcing the U.S. Constitution and government limited to their powers are so important.


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeah why don't you lead the charge ?
> 
> 
> 
> i wasn't there; there were plenty of people with cell phone cameras.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so if it happens when you happen to be outside and not in Mommy's basement jerking off you'll be the first guy to charge a shooter right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it depends on the situation.  however, from a, hypothetical "tactical" perspective, simply "diving into the guy" would probably knock the guy off of the officer and give the officer enough time to recover; and proceed with any further, coercive use of force of the State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> at least until i can build a keep.
Click to expand...

you have to get a job first


----------



## 2aguy

Daryl Hunt said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [SIZE=4][B][URL='http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/2aguy.50072/']2aguy[/URL][/B][/SIZE] said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hilary had a plan to use court decisions to get her way by suing gun makers ...and getting them to settle in court and limit themselves.....I have posted this plan which is documented at the Clinton Library....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She and others want the gun manufacturers held liable when their own negligence in what they produce causes harm or death.
> 
> The NRA (bow down, mortal) has fought safety being built into guns.  Care to discuss some of those?  Making a car that is unsafe gets the manufacturer into deep trouble.  Guns should be no different.  Shoot, Blenders have adequate safety standards.  Table Saws are now getting a safety feature that won't allow them to cut your fingers off.  One of the biggest pain in the ass and yet the most safe thing on a 1911 is the grip safety.  Yet, they allow the High Power Semi Autos to be made and spread throughout the land.  Even the safety on that one is unsafe.  It's just plain junk.  Drop a High Power with it's safety on and even with the slide locked (a real joke) and find out what happens.  You, too, can plunk down 150 bucks and buy a high power semi auto in many calibers.
> 
> What makes a gun less regulated than a Toaster?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Boy....you are stupid.....  Guns have safety features you moron......
> 
> Do you even understand anything about guns?  From your post it is obvious you don't know anything about them or the law covering actual problems with guns.......
> 
> You really are too stupid to post on this topic.....
Click to expand...


You either sell yourself long or everyone else short.  FACT:  The States are passing gun controls that YOU think are Unconstitional.  Hillary has nothing to do with this.  It's the States.  Of course, the States are having the mass shootings.  What is the one thing that ALL Mass shootings have in common?  Large capacity mags.  What does many states have in place?  Putting a Max of 10, 15 or 20 round clips. 

We ain't buying what you are selling anymore.  Your Fear and Hate got Trump elected.  Are you capable of feeling shame?

I am done with you, criminal.[/QUOTE]


You have no idea what you are talking about....magazine capacity has nothing to do with the problem of mass public shootings.........there is actual research into this idea...it is a fake idea, it is simply another way that anti gunners want to backdoor ban as many types of guns as they can....

Large-Capacity Magazines and the Casualty Counts in Mass Shootings: The Plausibility of Linkages by Gary  Kleck :: SSRN

Do bans on large-capacity magazines (LCMs) for semiautomatic firearms have significant potential for reducing the number of deaths and injuries in mass shootings? 

The most common rationale for an effect of LCM use is that they allow mass killers to fire many rounds without reloading. 
*LCMs are used is less than 1/3 of 1% of mass shootings. *

News accounts of 23 shootings in which more than six people were killed or wounded and LCMs were used, occurring in the U.S. in 1994-2013, were examined.

 There was only one incident in which the shooter may have been stopped by bystander intervention when he tried to reload.


*In all of these 23 incidents the shooter possessed either multiple guns or multiple magazines, meaning that the shooter, even if denied LCMs, could have continued firing without significant interruption by either switching loaded guns or by changing smaller loaded magazines with only a 2-4 second delay for each magazine change. *
*Finally, the data indicate that mass shooters maintain slow enough rates of fire such that the time needed to reload would not increase the time between shots and thus the time available for prospective victims to escape.*

*--------*

We did not employ the oft-used definition of “mass murder” as a homicide in which four or more victims were killed, because most of these involve just four to six victims (Duwe 2007), which could therefore have involved as few as six rounds fired, a number that shooters using even ordinary revolvers are capable of firing without reloading.

 LCMs obviously cannot help shooters who fire no more rounds than could be fired without LCMs, so the inclusion of “nonaffectable” cases with only four to six victims would dilute the sample, reducing the percent of sample incidents in which an LCM might have affected the number of casualties.

 Further, had we studied only homicides with four or more dead victims, drawn from the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports, we would have missed cases in which huge numbers of people were shot, and huge numbers of rounds were fired, but three or fewer of the victims died.


 For example, in one widely publicized shooting carried out in Los Angeles on February 28, 1997, two bank robbers shot a total of 18 people - surely a mass shooting by any reasonable standard (Table 1). 

Yet, because none of the people they shot died, this incident would not qualify as a mass murder (or even murder of any kind).

 Exclusion of such incidents would bias the sample against the proposition that LCM use increases the number of victims by excluding incidents with large numbers of victims. We also excluded shootings in which more than six persons were shot over the entire course of the incident but shootings occurred in multiple locations with no more than six people shot in any one of the locations, and substantial periods of time intervened between episodes of shooting. An example is the series of killings committed by Rodrick Dantzler on July 7, 2011. 

Once eligible incidents were identified, we searched through news accounts for details related to whether the use of LCMs could have influenced the casualty counts.

 Specifically, we searched for 

(1) the number of magazines in the shooter’s immediate possession, 

(2) the capacity of the largest magazine, 

(3) the number of guns in the shooter’s immediate possession during the incident, 

(4) the types of guns possessed, 

(5) whether the shooter reloaded during the incident, 

(6) the number of rounds fired,

 (7) the duration of the shooting from the first shot fired to the last, and (8) whether anyone intervened to stop the shooter. 

Findings How Many Mass Shootings were Committed Using LCMs?

 We identified 23 total incidents in which more than six people were shot at a single time and place in the U.S. from 1994 through 2013 and that were known to involve use of any magazines with capacities over ten rounds.


 Table 1 summarizes key details of the LCMinvolved mass shootings relevant to the issues addressed in this paper. 

(Table 1 about here) What fraction of all mass shootings involve LCMs?

There is no comprehensive listing of all mass shootings available for the entire 1994-2013 period, but the most extensive one currently available is at the Shootingtracker.com website, which only began its coverage in 2013. 

-----

How Often Have Bystanders Intervened While a Mass Shooter Was Trying to Reload?

 First, we consider the issue of how many times people have disrupted a mass shooting while the shooter was trying to load a detachable magazine into a semiautomatic gun.

 Note that 16 it is irrelevant whether interveners have stopped a shooter while trying to reload some other type of gun, using other kinds of magazines, since we are addressing the potential significance of restrictions on the capacity of detachable magazines which are used only with semiautomatic firearms. 

Thus, bystander intervention directed at shooters using other types of guns that take much longer to reload than a semiautomatic gun using detachable magazines could not provide any guidance as to the likelihood of bystander intervention when the shooter was using a semiautomatic gun equipped with detachable magazines that can be reloaded very quickly.

 Prospective interveners would presumably be more likely to tackle a shooter who took a long time to reload than one who took only 2-4 seconds to do so. 

Likewise, bystander interventions that occurred at a time when the shooter was not reloading (e.g., when he was struggling with a defective gun or magazine) are irrelevant, since that kind of intervention could occur regardless of what kinds of magazines or firearms the shooter was using. 


It is the need to reload detachable magazines sooner and more often that differentiates shooters using smaller detachable magazines from those using larger ones. 

For the period 1994-2013 inclusive, we identified three mass shooting incidents in which it was claimed that interveners disrupted the shooting by tackling the shooter while he was trying to reload. 

In only one of the three cases, however, did interveners actually tackle the shooter while he may have been reloading a semiautomatic firearm.

 In one of the incidents, the weapon in question was a shotgun that had to be reloaded by inserting one shotshell at a time into the weapon (Knoxville News Sentinel “Takedown of Alleged Shooter Recounted” July 29, 2008, regarding a shooting in Knoxville, TN on July 27, 2008), and so the incident is irrelevant to the effects of detachable LCMs.


 In another incident, occurring in Springfield, Oregon on May 21, 1998, the shooter, Kip Kinkel, was using a semiautomatic gun, and he was tackled by bystanders, but not while he was reloading.

 After exhausting the ammunition in one gun, the shooter started 17 firing another loaded gun, one of three firearms he had with him.

 The first intervener was shot in the hand in the course of wresting this still-loaded gun away from the shooter (The (Portland) Oregonian, May 23, 1998). 


The final case occurred in Tucson, AZ on January 8, 2011. 

This is the shooting in which Jared Loughner attempted to assassinate Representative Gabrielle Giffords.

 The shooter was using a semiautomatic firearm and was tackled by bystanders, purportedly while trying to reload a detachable magazine. 

Even in this case, however, there were important uncertainties. 

According to one news account, one bystander “grabbed a full magazine” that the shooter dropped, and two others helped subdue him (Associated Press, January 9, 2011). 

It is not, however, clear whether this bystander intervention was facilitated because

 (1) the shooter was reloading, or because 

(2) the shooter stopping firing when his gun or magazine failed to function properly. 

Eyewitness testimony, including that of the interveners, was inconsistent as to exactly why or how the intervention transpired in Giffords shooting.

 One intervener insisted that he was sure the shooter had exhausted the ammunition in the first magazine (and thus was about to reload) because he saw the gun’s slide locked back – a condition he believed could only occur with this particular firearm after the last round is fired. 

In fact, this can also happen when the guns jams, i.e. fails to chamber the next round (Salzgeber 2014; Morrill 2014).

 Complicating matters further, the New York Times reported that the spring on the second magazine was broken, presumably rendering it incapable of functioning. 

Their story’s headline and text characterized this mechanical failure as “perhaps the only fortunate event of the day” (New York Times “A Single, Terrifying Moment: Shots, Scuffle, Some Luck,” January 10, 2011, p. A1)

. If the New York Times account was accurate, the shooter would not have been able to continue shooting with that magazine even if no one had stopped him from loading it into his gun. 

Detachable magazines of any size can malfunction, which would at least temporarily stop a prospective mass shooter from firing, and thereby provide an opportunity for bystanders to stop the shooter. 
It is possible that the bystander intervention in the Tucson case could have occurred regardless of what size magazines the shooter possessed, since a shooter struggling with a defective small-capacity magazine would be just as vulnerable to disruption as one struggling with a defective large-capacity magazine. Thus, it remains unclear whether the shooter was reloading when the bystanders tackled him.
-----
The offenders in LCM-involved mass shootings were also known to have reloaded during 14 of the 23 (61%) incidents with magazine holding over 10 rounds. 

The shooters were known to have not reloaded in another two of these 20 incidents and it could not be determined if they reloaded in the remaining seven incidents. 

Thus, even if the shooters had been denied LCMs, we know that most of them definitely would have been able to reload smaller detachable magazines without interference from bystanders since they in fact did change magazines. 

The fact that this percentage is less than 100% should not, however, be interpreted to mean that the shooters were unable to reload in the other nine incidents. 

It is possible that the shooters could also have reloaded in many of these nine shootings, but chose not to do so, or did not need to do so in order to fire all the rounds they wanted to fire. This is consistent with the fact that there has been at most only one mass shootings in twenty years in which reloading a semiautomatic firearm might have been blocked by bystanders intervening and thereby stopping the shooter from doing all the shooting he wanted to do. All we know is that in two incidents the shooter did not reload, and news accounts of seven other incidents did not mention whether the offender reloaded.

----

For example, a story in the Hartford Courant about the Sandy Hook elementary school killings in 2012 was headlined “Shooter Paused, and Six Escaped,” the text asserting that as many as six children may have survived because the shooter paused to reload (December 23, 2012). ''

The author of the story, however, went on to concede that this was just a speculation by an unnamed source, and that it was also possible that some children simply escaped when the killer was shooting other children. 

There was no reliable evidence that the pauses were due to the shooter reloading, rather than his guns jamming or the shooter simply choosing to pause his shooting while his gun was still loaded. 

The plausibility of the “victims escape” rationale depends on the average rates of fire that shooters in mass shootings typically maintain.

 If they fire very fast, the 2-4 seconds it takes to change box-type detachable magazines could produce a slowing of the rate of fire that the shooters otherwise would have maintained without the magazine changes, increasing the average time between rounds fired and potentially allowing more victims to escape during the betweenshot intervals.

 On the other hand, if mass shooters fire their guns with the average interval between shots lasting more than 2-4 seconds, the pauses due to additional magazine changes would be no longer than the pauses the shooter typically took between shots even when not reloading. 

In that case, there would be no more opportunity for potential victims to escape than there would have been without the additional magazine changes

-----

In sum, in nearly all LCM-involved mass shootings, the time it takes to reload a detachable magazine is no greater than the average time between shots that the shooter takes anyway when not reloading. 

Consequently, there is no affirmative evidence that reloading detachable magazines slows mass shooters’ rates of fire, and thus no affirmative evidence that the number of victims who could escape the killers due to additional pauses in the shooting is increased by the shooter’s need to change magazines.


----------



## Flash

2aguy said:


> [Q
> 
> 
> You have no idea what you are talking about....magazine capacity has nothing to do with the problem of mass public shootings.........there is actual research into this idea...it is a fake idea, it is simply another way that anti gunners want to backdoor ban as many types of guns as they can....
> 
> Large-Capacity Magazines and the Casualty Counts in Mass Shootings: The Plausibility of Linkages by Gary  Kleck :: SSRN
> 
> Do bans on large-capacity magazines (LCMs) for semiautomatic firearms have significant potential for reducing the number of deaths and injuries in mass shootings?
> 
> The most common rationale for an effect of LCM use is that they allow mass killers to fire many rounds without reloading.
> *LCMs are used is less than 1/3 of 1% of mass shootings. *
> 
> News accounts of 23 shootings in which more than six people were killed or wounded and LCMs were used, occurring in the U.S. in 1994-2013, were examined.
> 
> There was only one incident in which the shooter may have been stopped by bystander intervention when he tried to reload.
> 
> 
> *In all of these 23 incidents the shooter possessed either multiple guns or multiple magazines, meaning that the shooter, even if denied LCMs, could have continued firing without significant interruption by either switching loaded guns or by changing smaller loaded magazines with only a 2-4 second delay for each magazine change. *
> *Finally, the data indicate that mass shooters maintain slow enough rates of fire such that the time needed to reload would not increase the time between shots and thus the time available for prospective victims to escape.*
> 
> *--------*
> 
> We did not employ the oft-used definition of “mass murder” as a homicide in which four or more victims were killed, because most of these involve just four to six victims (Duwe 2007), which could therefore have involved as few as six rounds fired, a number that shooters using even ordinary revolvers are capable of firing without reloading.
> 
> LCMs obviously cannot help shooters who fire no more rounds than could be fired without LCMs, so the inclusion of “nonaffectable” cases with only four to six victims would dilute the sample, reducing the percent of sample incidents in which an LCM might have affected the number of casualties.
> 
> Further, had we studied only homicides with four or more dead victims, drawn from the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports, we would have missed cases in which huge numbers of people were shot, and huge numbers of rounds were fired, but three or fewer of the victims died.
> 
> 
> For example, in one widely publicized shooting carried out in Los Angeles on February 28, 1997, two bank robbers shot a total of 18 people - surely a mass shooting by any reasonable standard (Table 1).
> 
> Yet, because none of the people they shot died, this incident would not qualify as a mass murder (or even murder of any kind).
> 
> Exclusion of such incidents would bias the sample against the proposition that LCM use increases the number of victims by excluding incidents with large numbers of victims. We also excluded shootings in which more than six persons were shot over the entire course of the incident but shootings occurred in multiple locations with no more than six people shot in any one of the locations, and substantial periods of time intervened between episodes of shooting. An example is the series of killings committed by Rodrick Dantzler on July 7, 2011.
> 
> Once eligible incidents were identified, we searched through news accounts for details related to whether the use of LCMs could have influenced the casualty counts.
> 
> Specifically, we searched for
> 
> (1) the number of magazines in the shooter’s immediate possession,
> 
> (2) the capacity of the largest magazine,
> 
> (3) the number of guns in the shooter’s immediate possession during the incident,
> 
> (4) the types of guns possessed,
> 
> (5) whether the shooter reloaded during the incident,
> 
> (6) the number of rounds fired,
> 
> (7) the duration of the shooting from the first shot fired to the last, and (8) whether anyone intervened to stop the shooter.
> 
> Findings How Many Mass Shootings were Committed Using LCMs?
> 
> We identified 23 total incidents in which more than six people were shot at a single time and place in the U.S. from 1994 through 2013 and that were known to involve use of any magazines with capacities over ten rounds.
> 
> 
> Table 1 summarizes key details of the LCMinvolved mass shootings relevant to the issues addressed in this paper.
> 
> (Table 1 about here) What fraction of all mass shootings involve LCMs?
> 
> There is no comprehensive listing of all mass shootings available for the entire 1994-2013 period, but the most extensive one currently available is at the Shootingtracker.com website, which only began its coverage in 2013.
> 
> -----
> 
> How Often Have Bystanders Intervened While a Mass Shooter Was Trying to Reload?
> 
> First, we consider the issue of how many times people have disrupted a mass shooting while the shooter was trying to load a detachable magazine into a semiautomatic gun.
> 
> Note that 16 it is irrelevant whether interveners have stopped a shooter while trying to reload some other type of gun, using other kinds of magazines, since we are addressing the potential significance of restrictions on the capacity of detachable magazines which are used only with semiautomatic firearms.
> 
> Thus, bystander intervention directed at shooters using other types of guns that take much longer to reload than a semiautomatic gun using detachable magazines could not provide any guidance as to the likelihood of bystander intervention when the shooter was using a semiautomatic gun equipped with detachable magazines that can be reloaded very quickly.
> 
> Prospective interveners would presumably be more likely to tackle a shooter who took a long time to reload than one who took only 2-4 seconds to do so.
> 
> Likewise, bystander interventions that occurred at a time when the shooter was not reloading (e.g., when he was struggling with a defective gun or magazine) are irrelevant, since that kind of intervention could occur regardless of what kinds of magazines or firearms the shooter was using.
> 
> 
> It is the need to reload detachable magazines sooner and more often that differentiates shooters using smaller detachable magazines from those using larger ones.
> 
> For the period 1994-2013 inclusive, we identified three mass shooting incidents in which it was claimed that interveners disrupted the shooting by tackling the shooter while he was trying to reload.
> 
> In only one of the three cases, however, did interveners actually tackle the shooter while he may have been reloading a semiautomatic firearm.
> 
> In one of the incidents, the weapon in question was a shotgun that had to be reloaded by inserting one shotshell at a time into the weapon (Knoxville News Sentinel “Takedown of Alleged Shooter Recounted” July 29, 2008, regarding a shooting in Knoxville, TN on July 27, 2008), and so the incident is irrelevant to the effects of detachable LCMs.
> 
> 
> In another incident, occurring in Springfield, Oregon on May 21, 1998, the shooter, Kip Kinkel, was using a semiautomatic gun, and he was tackled by bystanders, but not while he was reloading.
> 
> After exhausting the ammunition in one gun, the shooter started 17 firing another loaded gun, one of three firearms he had with him.
> 
> The first intervener was shot in the hand in the course of wresting this still-loaded gun away from the shooter (The (Portland) Oregonian, May 23, 1998).
> 
> 
> The final case occurred in Tucson, AZ on January 8, 2011.
> 
> This is the shooting in which Jared Loughner attempted to assassinate Representative Gabrielle Giffords.
> 
> The shooter was using a semiautomatic firearm and was tackled by bystanders, purportedly while trying to reload a detachable magazine.
> 
> Even in this case, however, there were important uncertainties.
> 
> According to one news account, one bystander “grabbed a full magazine” that the shooter dropped, and two others helped subdue him (Associated Press, January 9, 2011).
> 
> It is not, however, clear whether this bystander intervention was facilitated because
> 
> (1) the shooter was reloading, or because
> 
> (2) the shooter stopping firing when his gun or magazine failed to function properly.
> 
> Eyewitness testimony, including that of the interveners, was inconsistent as to exactly why or how the intervention transpired in Giffords shooting.
> 
> One intervener insisted that he was sure the shooter had exhausted the ammunition in the first magazine (and thus was about to reload) because he saw the gun’s slide locked back – a condition he believed could only occur with this particular firearm after the last round is fired.
> 
> In fact, this can also happen when the guns jams, i.e. fails to chamber the next round (Salzgeber 2014; Morrill 2014).
> 
> Complicating matters further, the New York Times reported that the spring on the second magazine was broken, presumably rendering it incapable of functioning.
> 
> Their story’s headline and text characterized this mechanical failure as “perhaps the only fortunate event of the day” (New York Times “A Single, Terrifying Moment: Shots, Scuffle, Some Luck,” January 10, 2011, p. A1)
> 
> . If the New York Times account was accurate, the shooter would not have been able to continue shooting with that magazine even if no one had stopped him from loading it into his gun.
> 
> Detachable magazines of any size can malfunction, which would at least temporarily stop a prospective mass shooter from firing, and thereby provide an opportunity for bystanders to stop the shooter.
> It is possible that the bystander intervention in the Tucson case could have occurred regardless of what size magazines the shooter possessed, since a shooter struggling with a defective small-capacity magazine would be just as vulnerable to disruption as one struggling with a defective large-capacity magazine. Thus, it remains unclear whether the shooter was reloading when the bystanders tackled him.
> -----
> The offenders in LCM-involved mass shootings were also known to have reloaded during 14 of the 23 (61%) incidents with magazine holding over 10 rounds.
> 
> The shooters were known to have not reloaded in another two of these 20 incidents and it could not be determined if they reloaded in the remaining seven incidents.
> 
> Thus, even if the shooters had been denied LCMs, we know that most of them definitely would have been able to reload smaller detachable magazines without interference from bystanders since they in fact did change magazines.
> 
> The fact that this percentage is less than 100% should not, however, be interpreted to mean that the shooters were unable to reload in the other nine incidents.
> 
> It is possible that the shooters could also have reloaded in many of these nine shootings, but chose not to do so, or did not need to do so in order to fire all the rounds they wanted to fire. This is consistent with the fact that there has been at most only one mass shootings in twenty years in which reloading a semiautomatic firearm might have been blocked by bystanders intervening and thereby stopping the shooter from doing all the shooting he wanted to do. All we know is that in two incidents the shooter did not reload, and news accounts of seven other incidents did not mention whether the offender reloaded.
> 
> ----
> 
> For example, a story in the Hartford Courant about the Sandy Hook elementary school killings in 2012 was headlined “Shooter Paused, and Six Escaped,” the text asserting that as many as six children may have survived because the shooter paused to reload (December 23, 2012). ''
> 
> The author of the story, however, went on to concede that this was just a speculation by an unnamed source, and that it was also possible that some children simply escaped when the killer was shooting other children.
> 
> There was no reliable evidence that the pauses were due to the shooter reloading, rather than his guns jamming or the shooter simply choosing to pause his shooting while his gun was still loaded.
> 
> The plausibility of the “victims escape” rationale depends on the average rates of fire that shooters in mass shootings typically maintain.
> 
> If they fire very fast, the 2-4 seconds it takes to change box-type detachable magazines could produce a slowing of the rate of fire that the shooters otherwise would have maintained without the magazine changes, increasing the average time between rounds fired and potentially allowing more victims to escape during the betweenshot intervals.
> 
> On the other hand, if mass shooters fire their guns with the average interval between shots lasting more than 2-4 seconds, the pauses due to additional magazine changes would be no longer than the pauses the shooter typically took between shots even when not reloading.
> 
> In that case, there would be no more opportunity for potential victims to escape than there would have been without the additional magazine changes
> 
> -----
> 
> In sum, in nearly all LCM-involved mass shootings, the time it takes to reload a detachable magazine is no greater than the average time between shots that the shooter takes anyway when not reloading.
> 
> Consequently, there is no affirmative evidence that reloading detachable magazines slows mass shooters’ rates of fire, and thus no affirmative evidence that the number of victims who could escape the killers due to additional pauses in the shooting is increased by the shooter’s need to change magazines.




Don't confuse these Moon Bats with facts.  You will just upset them and they will have to run to their safe place, put on their pink pussy hat and call you a Nazi.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Daryl Hunt said:


> [SIZE=4][B][URL='http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/2aguy.50072/']2aguy[/URL][/B][/SIZE] said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hilary had a plan to use court decisions to get her way by suing gun makers ...and getting them to settle in court and limit themselves.....I have posted this plan which is documented at the Clinton Library....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She and others want the gun manufacturers held liable when their own negligence in what they produce causes harm or death.
> 
> The NRA (bow down, mortal) has fought safety being built into guns.  Care to discuss some of those?  Making a car that is unsafe gets the manufacturer into deep trouble.  Guns should be no different.  Shoot, Blenders have adequate safety standards.  Table Saws are now getting a safety feature that won't allow them to cut your fingers off.  One of the biggest pain in the ass and yet the most safe thing on a 1911 is the grip safety.  Yet, they allow the High Power Semi Autos to be made and spread throughout the land.  Even the safety on that one is unsafe.  It's just plain junk.  Drop a High Power with it's safety on and even with the slide locked (a real joke) and find out what happens.  You, too, can plunk down 150 bucks and buy a high power semi auto in many calibers.
> 
> What makes a gun less regulated than a Toaster?
Click to expand...


*Making a car that is unsafe gets the manufacturer into deep trouble. Guns should be no different.*

Which guns are unsafe? Link?

*What makes a gun less regulated than a Toaster?*

Your imagination.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> why was the perpetrator "worrying" and not, _being happy_, to such an extent, he had to "rebel against authority"?
> 
> 
> 
> Probably because he has to live in a country where *liberty* is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution but constantly stripped by left-wing hatriot fascists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why was that Person not home having a peaceful time with family and friends?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Failed left-wing policy probably cost him both his job and his home. I know it did that to a LOT of people. Barack Obama sure got extremely wealthy though - didn't he?
Click to expand...

why can we afford a war on drugs, and not unemployment compensation, simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States?


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> i wasn't there; there were plenty of people with cell phone cameras.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so if it happens when you happen to be outside and not in Mommy's basement jerking off you'll be the first guy to charge a shooter right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it depends on the situation.  however, from a, hypothetical "tactical" perspective, simply "diving into the guy" would probably knock the guy off of the officer and give the officer enough time to recover; and proceed with any further, coercive use of force of the State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> at least until i can build a keep.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have to get a job first
Click to expand...

why do you think i am advocating for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis; to learn how to build a keep, and put keep building on my resume.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> why was the perpetrator "worrying" and not, _being happy_, to such an extent, he had to "rebel against authority"?
> 
> 
> 
> Probably because he has to live in a country where *liberty* is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution but constantly stripped by left-wing hatriot fascists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why was that Person not home having a peaceful time with family and friends?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Failed left-wing policy probably cost him both his job and his home. I know it did that to a LOT of people. Barack Obama sure got extremely wealthy though - didn't he?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why can we afford a war on drugs, and not unemployment compensation, simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States?
Click to expand...


*and not unemployment compensation, simply for being unemployed*

Sorry, dude, we're still not gonna give you unemployment compensation just because you never had a job.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> why can we afford a war on drugs, and not unemployment compensation, simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States?


Because drugs are crime. And we have to fund law enforcement. However, at-will unemployment is an idiot committing a self-inflicted wound. Take care of your finances, have money stacked away, and you can quit your job. If not, get your ass to work. Society is not supporting you. That is your job as a big boy or girl.

That being said - I do *not* agree with a federal agency for drugs as that is not the constitutional responsibility of the federal government. It should be handled by each individual state.


----------



## ScienceRocks

I believe sane people should be able to have guns....


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have to get a job first
> 
> 
> 
> why do you think i am advocating for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis; to learn how to build a keep, and put keep building on my resume.
Click to expand...

_What_? How does getting paid by the federal government to *quit* your job help your résumé?!? Are you not aware that most employers don't look for people who quit their jobs?!?


----------



## P@triot

Matthew said:


> I believe sane people should be able to have guns....


Well that eliminates you...


----------



## task0778

Matthew said:


> I believe sane people should be able to have guns....



Couple of things.   I got no problem with trying to ensure the mentally ill or insane people don't have weapons, and I can also see law enforcement officials temporarily removing a person's firearms with a warrant from the bench.   Then a judge can hold a hearing to determine if the person should get his/her weapons back or not.

Other thing is, if I knew for a fact that a person(s) breaking into my home would take my stuff and leave me and my family unharmed, I'd not need a gun.   I don't want to kill somebody over money or property, neither of which I have my of anyway.   Even a miscreant's life is ot mine to take, or shouldn't be.   But I think that is not the case and so to protect myself and my loved ones I own some weapons and keep them at home.   And if it comes down to him or me, it's gonna be him.


----------



## Markle

waltky said:


> Maybe not obsolete but antiquated, out of date...
> 
> ... it needs to be updated to reflect the times...
> 
> ... and the threat of overkill firepower...
> 
> ... for the average citizen.



Never happen.  Repeat, NEVER.  If you have any doubts, please see the Red States.  






You might as well move on to something relevant to Progressives.  You know, like welcoming men into women's rooms.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Marion Morrison said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paparock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paparock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will be willing to give up my Constitutional right to keep and bear arms upon arrest if the stupid Moon Bats agree not to advocate taking my right to keep and bear arms away from me because somebody else uses a firearm either unsafely or in a crime.  Agree?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am a firearms expert with several arms, booby traps, knives and will not yield to any man or government my G_d given rights. I will not be alive upon this earth many more moons however anyone who takes me for granted makes a fatal mistake because though I may be much slower I know more ways to sent my enemies to meet their maker than when I was 21.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God given rights? You think God gave you the right to have a gun? Er....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh please do try to be serious. Have you not at least tried to study the documents surrounding the writing of the Constitution? It is hard to discuss a subject with someone that does not have at least a basic understanding of American History. Get a good university level book on American Constitutional History and read up please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> The simple fact is that all the rights protected by the Constitution were made by man. I can prove this. I can go through English history and show you the Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights, and then on to the US Bill of Rights and at EVERY STAGE it was MAN that made these things. It was man who made the philosophical argument for rights. There's no god or God there.
> 
> The Founding Fathers made freedom of religion an important part of the new country, and freedom of religion means you don't have to follow any god at all. So, it wasn't just those who believed in a god that got the rights, or were given the rights, it was everyone (well, we know it wasn't everyone, but you get the point) and not based on religion. So, based on what came before, based on what the founders said, it was clearly MAN who gave people rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My, what a statist view you have.
> 
> Apparently you missed the "God-given right" thing.
> 
> The concept of it may not penetrate your PC-stricken brain. That doesn't mean it's not a valid concept; only that you're too indoctrinated to realize it.
Click to expand...


God given right, but I also have the right not to believe in God. Great. 

I know what rights are, you can pretend they are god given, but you can't force this on me. So......?


----------



## Marion Morrison

frigidweirdo said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paparock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paparock said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am a firearms expert with several arms, booby traps, knives and will not yield to any man or government my G_d given rights. I will not be alive upon this earth many more moons however anyone who takes me for granted makes a fatal mistake because though I may be much slower I know more ways to sent my enemies to meet their maker than when I was 21.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God given rights? You think God gave you the right to have a gun? Er....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh please do try to be serious. Have you not at least tried to study the documents surrounding the writing of the Constitution? It is hard to discuss a subject with someone that does not have at least a basic understanding of American History. Get a good university level book on American Constitutional History and read up please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> The simple fact is that all the rights protected by the Constitution were made by man. I can prove this. I can go through English history and show you the Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights, and then on to the US Bill of Rights and at EVERY STAGE it was MAN that made these things. It was man who made the philosophical argument for rights. There's no god or God there.
> 
> The Founding Fathers made freedom of religion an important part of the new country, and freedom of religion means you don't have to follow any god at all. So, it wasn't just those who believed in a god that got the rights, or were given the rights, it was everyone (well, we know it wasn't everyone, but you get the point) and not based on religion. So, based on what came before, based on what the founders said, it was clearly MAN who gave people rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My, what a statist view you have.
> 
> Apparently you missed the "God-given right" thing.
> 
> The concept of it may not penetrate your PC-stricken brain. That doesn't mean it's not a valid concept; only that you're too indoctrinated to realize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God given right, but I also have the right not to believe in God. Great.
> 
> I know what rights are, you can pretend they are god given, but you can't force this on me. So......?
Click to expand...


I reckon you believe the state gave you your rights, which makes you one sad sack sorry person.

You ever seen a state baby firsthand?

I have. That's not something that can be integrated into society.
They need to remain locked up indefinitely.

Any state babies wander into my neighborhood and I'll shoot them in the head immediately. If you disagree, you should be put into the cell with one for 48 hours.


----------



## The Original Tree

All I want to know is that if Healthcare is a right and the Government is supposed to provide it for everyone according to Lefty then where the Phuck is my Free Gun?


----------



## Marion Morrison

The Original Tree said:


> All I want to know is that if Healthcare is a right and the Government is supposed to provide it for everyone according to Lefty then where the Phuck is my Free Gun?



You get no phree guns, those you have to pay for, mister. I did get a free onem, once.

It's a British .303 I got plenty other guns. Some shoot bigger bullets,even.

1950 rounds, I somehow feel I should update them.I'd like to stick a scope on it.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Marion Morrison said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paparock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> God given rights? You think God gave you the right to have a gun? Er....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please do try to be serious. Have you not at least tried to study the documents surrounding the writing of the Constitution? It is hard to discuss a subject with someone that does not have at least a basic understanding of American History. Get a good university level book on American Constitutional History and read up please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> The simple fact is that all the rights protected by the Constitution were made by man. I can prove this. I can go through English history and show you the Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights, and then on to the US Bill of Rights and at EVERY STAGE it was MAN that made these things. It was man who made the philosophical argument for rights. There's no god or God there.
> 
> The Founding Fathers made freedom of religion an important part of the new country, and freedom of religion means you don't have to follow any god at all. So, it wasn't just those who believed in a god that got the rights, or were given the rights, it was everyone (well, we know it wasn't everyone, but you get the point) and not based on religion. So, based on what came before, based on what the founders said, it was clearly MAN who gave people rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My, what a statist view you have.
> 
> Apparently you missed the "God-given right" thing.
> 
> The concept of it may not penetrate your PC-stricken brain. That doesn't mean it's not a valid concept; only that you're too indoctrinated to realize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God given right, but I also have the right not to believe in God. Great.
> 
> I know what rights are, you can pretend they are god given, but you can't force this on me. So......?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I reckon you believe the state gave you your rights, which makes you one sad sack sorry person.
> 
> You ever seen a state baby firsthand?
> 
> I have. That's not something that can be integrated into society.
> They need to remain locked up indefinitely.
> 
> Any state babies wander into my neighborhood and I'll shoot them in the head immediately. If you disagree, you should be put into the cell with one for 48 hours.
Click to expand...


I believe that any person who uses A) attacks and B) assumptions instead of a proper argument, isn't worth talking to.


----------



## Marion Morrison

frigidweirdo said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paparock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please do try to be serious. Have you not at least tried to study the documents surrounding the writing of the Constitution? It is hard to discuss a subject with someone that does not have at least a basic understanding of American History. Get a good university level book on American Constitutional History and read up please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> The simple fact is that all the rights protected by the Constitution were made by man. I can prove this. I can go through English history and show you the Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights, and then on to the US Bill of Rights and at EVERY STAGE it was MAN that made these things. It was man who made the philosophical argument for rights. There's no god or God there.
> 
> The Founding Fathers made freedom of religion an important part of the new country, and freedom of religion means you don't have to follow any god at all. So, it wasn't just those who believed in a god that got the rights, or were given the rights, it was everyone (well, we know it wasn't everyone, but you get the point) and not based on religion. So, based on what came before, based on what the founders said, it was clearly MAN who gave people rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My, what a statist view you have.
> 
> Apparently you missed the "God-given right" thing.
> 
> The concept of it may not penetrate your PC-stricken brain. That doesn't mean it's not a valid concept; only that you're too indoctrinated to realize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God given right, but I also have the right not to believe in God. Great.
> 
> I know what rights are, you can pretend they are god given, but you can't force this on me. So......?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I reckon you believe the state gave you your rights, which makes you one sad sack sorry person.
> 
> You ever seen a state baby firsthand?
> 
> I have. That's not something that can be integrated into society.
> They need to remain locked up indefinitely.
> 
> Any state babies wander into my neighborhood and I'll shoot them in the head immediately. If you disagree, you should be put into the cell with one for 48 hours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe that any person who uses A) attacks and B) assumptions instead of a proper argument, isn't worth talking to.
Click to expand...


I believe a) you're a moron

b) Your opinion is irrelevant

I know I have 20 rounds of 9mm hot FMJ copper lead for you.


----------



## The Original Tree

Well can't the Government give me some kind of "gun card" if not an actual gun?

Lefty should be ok with kicking in some tax dollars to buy me a gun, shouldn't he?





Marion Morrison said:


> The Original Tree said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I want to know is that if Healthcare is a right and the Government is supposed to provide it for everyone according to Lefty then where the Phuck is my Free Gun?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You get no phree guns, those you have to pay for, mister. I did get a free onem, once.
> 
> It's a British .303
Click to expand...


----------



## frigidweirdo

Marion Morrison said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> The simple fact is that all the rights protected by the Constitution were made by man. I can prove this. I can go through English history and show you the Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights, and then on to the US Bill of Rights and at EVERY STAGE it was MAN that made these things. It was man who made the philosophical argument for rights. There's no god or God there.
> 
> The Founding Fathers made freedom of religion an important part of the new country, and freedom of religion means you don't have to follow any god at all. So, it wasn't just those who believed in a god that got the rights, or were given the rights, it was everyone (well, we know it wasn't everyone, but you get the point) and not based on religion. So, based on what came before, based on what the founders said, it was clearly MAN who gave people rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My, what a statist view you have.
> 
> Apparently you missed the "God-given right" thing.
> 
> The concept of it may not penetrate your PC-stricken brain. That doesn't mean it's not a valid concept; only that you're too indoctrinated to realize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God given right, but I also have the right not to believe in God. Great.
> 
> I know what rights are, you can pretend they are god given, but you can't force this on me. So......?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I reckon you believe the state gave you your rights, which makes you one sad sack sorry person.
> 
> You ever seen a state baby firsthand?
> 
> I have. That's not something that can be integrated into society.
> They need to remain locked up indefinitely.
> 
> Any state babies wander into my neighborhood and I'll shoot them in the head immediately. If you disagree, you should be put into the cell with one for 48 hours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe that any person who uses A) attacks and B) assumptions instead of a proper argument, isn't worth talking to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe a) you're a moron
> 
> b) Your opinion is irrelevant
> 
> I know I have 20 rounds of 9mm hot FMJ copper lead for you.
Click to expand...


Fine, ignore list.


----------



## Marion Morrison

frigidweirdo said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> My, what a statist view you have.
> 
> Apparently you missed the "God-given right" thing.
> 
> The concept of it may not penetrate your PC-stricken brain. That doesn't mean it's not a valid concept; only that you're too indoctrinated to realize it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God given right, but I also have the right not to believe in God. Great.
> 
> I know what rights are, you can pretend they are god given, but you can't force this on me. So......?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I reckon you believe the state gave you your rights, which makes you one sad sack sorry person.
> 
> You ever seen a state baby firsthand?
> 
> I have. That's not something that can be integrated into society.
> They need to remain locked up indefinitely.
> 
> Any state babies wander into my neighborhood and I'll shoot them in the head immediately. If you disagree, you should be put into the cell with one for 48 hours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe that any person who uses A) attacks and B) assumptions instead of a proper argument, isn't worth talking to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe a) you're a moron
> 
> b) Your opinion is irrelevant
> 
> I know I have 20 rounds of 9mm hot FMJ copper lead for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fine, ignore list.
Click to expand...


Yeah, You're a douche for certain. I hope you encounter a state baby soon.If I do, I'm killing it. That doesn't make me a bad man,

It just makes me cognizant of how bad state babies are.


----------



## Wyld Kard

Lakhota said:


> Time to rewrite the crazy old 2nd Amendment.



Wrong.

Time to stop whining about something that isn't going to change, so get used to it dumbass.


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> so if it happens when you happen to be outside and not in Mommy's basement jerking off you'll be the first guy to charge a shooter right?
> 
> 
> 
> it depends on the situation.  however, from a, hypothetical "tactical" perspective, simply "diving into the guy" would probably knock the guy off of the officer and give the officer enough time to recover; and proceed with any further, coercive use of force of the State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> at least until i can build a keep.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have to get a job first
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why do you think i am advocating for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis; to learn how to build a keep, and put keep building on my resume.
Click to expand...

being unemployed and collecting welfare is not a resume builder


----------



## Skull Pilot

frigidweirdo said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paparock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paparock said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am a firearms expert with several arms, booby traps, knives and will not yield to any man or government my G_d given rights. I will not be alive upon this earth many more moons however anyone who takes me for granted makes a fatal mistake because though I may be much slower I know more ways to sent my enemies to meet their maker than when I was 21.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God given rights? You think God gave you the right to have a gun? Er....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh please do try to be serious. Have you not at least tried to study the documents surrounding the writing of the Constitution? It is hard to discuss a subject with someone that does not have at least a basic understanding of American History. Get a good university level book on American Constitutional History and read up please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> The simple fact is that all the rights protected by the Constitution were made by man. I can prove this. I can go through English history and show you the Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights, and then on to the US Bill of Rights and at EVERY STAGE it was MAN that made these things. It was man who made the philosophical argument for rights. There's no god or God there.
> 
> The Founding Fathers made freedom of religion an important part of the new country, and freedom of religion means you don't have to follow any god at all. So, it wasn't just those who believed in a god that got the rights, or were given the rights, it was everyone (well, we know it wasn't everyone, but you get the point) and not based on religion. So, based on what came before, based on what the founders said, it was clearly MAN who gave people rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My, what a statist view you have.
> 
> Apparently you missed the "God-given right" thing.
> 
> The concept of it may not penetrate your PC-stricken brain. That doesn't mean it's not a valid concept; only that you're too indoctrinated to realize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God given right, but I also have the right not to believe in God. Great.
> 
> I know what rights are, you can pretend they are god given, but you can't force this on me. So......?
Click to expand...


well the Declaration says all men are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights

it says nothing about god.  If you believe you parents and the process of evolution created you then that's where your rights originate.

The point is that your rights exist simply because you exist


----------



## frigidweirdo

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paparock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> God given rights? You think God gave you the right to have a gun? Er....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please do try to be serious. Have you not at least tried to study the documents surrounding the writing of the Constitution? It is hard to discuss a subject with someone that does not have at least a basic understanding of American History. Get a good university level book on American Constitutional History and read up please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> The simple fact is that all the rights protected by the Constitution were made by man. I can prove this. I can go through English history and show you the Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights, and then on to the US Bill of Rights and at EVERY STAGE it was MAN that made these things. It was man who made the philosophical argument for rights. There's no god or God there.
> 
> The Founding Fathers made freedom of religion an important part of the new country, and freedom of religion means you don't have to follow any god at all. So, it wasn't just those who believed in a god that got the rights, or were given the rights, it was everyone (well, we know it wasn't everyone, but you get the point) and not based on religion. So, based on what came before, based on what the founders said, it was clearly MAN who gave people rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My, what a statist view you have.
> 
> Apparently you missed the "God-given right" thing.
> 
> The concept of it may not penetrate your PC-stricken brain. That doesn't mean it's not a valid concept; only that you're too indoctrinated to realize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God given right, but I also have the right not to believe in God. Great.
> 
> I know what rights are, you can pretend they are god given, but you can't force this on me. So......?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well the Declaration says all men are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights
> 
> it says nothing about god.  If you believe you parents and the process of evolution created you then that's where your rights originate.
> 
> The point is that your rights exist simply because you exist
Click to expand...


Fine, man says that rights come from a creator, or a God or whoever. Great. But that's man speaking. So, man made the theory of rights, and then decided to impose their religion on it.... well.... that doesn't stop it coming from human beings. 

We can see the evolution of rights. In 1AD rights didn't exist, and nor did 1AD. We made them both. We can look from the Magna Carta, through the English Bill of Rights to the US Bill of Rights how they have developed and changed.

The Founding Fathers DEBATED the wording and what should and what should not be in the Bill of Rights. That means they helped shape them. They were humans, last I heard.


----------



## Skull Pilot

frigidweirdo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paparock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please do try to be serious. Have you not at least tried to study the documents surrounding the writing of the Constitution? It is hard to discuss a subject with someone that does not have at least a basic understanding of American History. Get a good university level book on American Constitutional History and read up please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> The simple fact is that all the rights protected by the Constitution were made by man. I can prove this. I can go through English history and show you the Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights, and then on to the US Bill of Rights and at EVERY STAGE it was MAN that made these things. It was man who made the philosophical argument for rights. There's no god or God there.
> 
> The Founding Fathers made freedom of religion an important part of the new country, and freedom of religion means you don't have to follow any god at all. So, it wasn't just those who believed in a god that got the rights, or were given the rights, it was everyone (well, we know it wasn't everyone, but you get the point) and not based on religion. So, based on what came before, based on what the founders said, it was clearly MAN who gave people rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My, what a statist view you have.
> 
> Apparently you missed the "God-given right" thing.
> 
> The concept of it may not penetrate your PC-stricken brain. That doesn't mean it's not a valid concept; only that you're too indoctrinated to realize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God given right, but I also have the right not to believe in God. Great.
> 
> I know what rights are, you can pretend they are god given, but you can't force this on me. So......?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well the Declaration says all men are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights
> 
> it says nothing about god.  If you believe you parents and the process of evolution created you then that's where your rights originate.
> 
> The point is that your rights exist simply because you exist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fine, man says that rights come from a creator, or a God or whoever. Great. But that's man speaking. So, man made the theory of rights, and then decided to impose their religion on it.... well.... that doesn't stop it coming from human beings.
> 
> We can see the evolution of rights. In 1AD rights didn't exist, and nor did 1AD. We made them both. We can look from the Magna Carta, through the English Bill of Rights to the US Bill of Rights how they have developed and changed.
> 
> The Founding Fathers DEBATED the wording and what should and what should not be in the Bill of Rights. That means they helped shape them. They were humans, last I heard.
Click to expand...


doesn't change the fact that even if you believe evolution created man that rights are acknowledged to be inherent in human beings as much as DNA is.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> The simple fact is that all the rights protected by the Constitution were made by man. I can prove this. I can go through English history and show you the Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights, and then on to the US Bill of Rights and at EVERY STAGE it was MAN that made these things. It was man who made the philosophical argument for rights. There's no god or God there.
> 
> The Founding Fathers made freedom of religion an important part of the new country, and freedom of religion means you don't have to follow any god at all. So, it wasn't just those who believed in a god that got the rights, or were given the rights, it was everyone (well, we know it wasn't everyone, but you get the point) and not based on religion. So, based on what came before, based on what the founders said, it was clearly MAN who gave people rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My, what a statist view you have.
> 
> Apparently you missed the "God-given right" thing.
> 
> The concept of it may not penetrate your PC-stricken brain. That doesn't mean it's not a valid concept; only that you're too indoctrinated to realize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God given right, but I also have the right not to believe in God. Great.
> 
> I know what rights are, you can pretend they are god given, but you can't force this on me. So......?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well the Declaration says all men are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights
> 
> it says nothing about god.  If you believe you parents and the process of evolution created you then that's where your rights originate.
> 
> The point is that your rights exist simply because you exist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fine, man says that rights come from a creator, or a God or whoever. Great. But that's man speaking. So, man made the theory of rights, and then decided to impose their religion on it.... well.... that doesn't stop it coming from human beings.
> 
> We can see the evolution of rights. In 1AD rights didn't exist, and nor did 1AD. We made them both. We can look from the Magna Carta, through the English Bill of Rights to the US Bill of Rights how they have developed and changed.
> 
> The Founding Fathers DEBATED the wording and what should and what should not be in the Bill of Rights. That means they helped shape them. They were humans, last I heard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> doesn't change the fact that even if you believe evolution created man that rights are acknowledged to be inherent in human beings as much as DNA is.
Click to expand...


It also doesn't change the fact that other people believe that rights are man made and that history shows they are man made. I don't care if some people believe they are from some kind of creator, it doesn't make it true just because someone believes it.


----------



## Skull Pilot

frigidweirdo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> My, what a statist view you have.
> 
> Apparently you missed the "God-given right" thing.
> 
> The concept of it may not penetrate your PC-stricken brain. That doesn't mean it's not a valid concept; only that you're too indoctrinated to realize it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God given right, but I also have the right not to believe in God. Great.
> 
> I know what rights are, you can pretend they are god given, but you can't force this on me. So......?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well the Declaration says all men are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights
> 
> it says nothing about god.  If you believe you parents and the process of evolution created you then that's where your rights originate.
> 
> The point is that your rights exist simply because you exist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fine, man says that rights come from a creator, or a God or whoever. Great. But that's man speaking. So, man made the theory of rights, and then decided to impose their religion on it.... well.... that doesn't stop it coming from human beings.
> 
> We can see the evolution of rights. In 1AD rights didn't exist, and nor did 1AD. We made them both. We can look from the Magna Carta, through the English Bill of Rights to the US Bill of Rights how they have developed and changed.
> 
> The Founding Fathers DEBATED the wording and what should and what should not be in the Bill of Rights. That means they helped shape them. They were humans, last I heard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> doesn't change the fact that even if you believe evolution created man that rights are acknowledged to be inherent in human beings as much as DNA is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It also doesn't change the fact that other people believe that rights are man made and that history shows they are man made. I don't care if some people believe they are from some kind of creator, it doesn't make it true just because someone believes it.
Click to expand...


the acknowledgement in the Declaration was that rights were not made but were already extant in the person from the moment of birth


----------



## frigidweirdo

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> God given right, but I also have the right not to believe in God. Great.
> 
> I know what rights are, you can pretend they are god given, but you can't force this on me. So......?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well the Declaration says all men are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights
> 
> it says nothing about god.  If you believe you parents and the process of evolution created you then that's where your rights originate.
> 
> The point is that your rights exist simply because you exist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fine, man says that rights come from a creator, or a God or whoever. Great. But that's man speaking. So, man made the theory of rights, and then decided to impose their religion on it.... well.... that doesn't stop it coming from human beings.
> 
> We can see the evolution of rights. In 1AD rights didn't exist, and nor did 1AD. We made them both. We can look from the Magna Carta, through the English Bill of Rights to the US Bill of Rights how they have developed and changed.
> 
> The Founding Fathers DEBATED the wording and what should and what should not be in the Bill of Rights. That means they helped shape them. They were humans, last I heard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> doesn't change the fact that even if you believe evolution created man that rights are acknowledged to be inherent in human beings as much as DNA is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It also doesn't change the fact that other people believe that rights are man made and that history shows they are man made. I don't care if some people believe they are from some kind of creator, it doesn't make it true just because someone believes it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the acknowledgement in the Declaration was that rights were not made but were already extant in the person from the moment of birth
Click to expand...


Yes, I know. Again, does writing something down make it true?


----------



## Skull Pilot

frigidweirdo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> well the Declaration says all men are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights
> 
> it says nothing about god.  If you believe you parents and the process of evolution created you then that's where your rights originate.
> 
> The point is that your rights exist simply because you exist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fine, man says that rights come from a creator, or a God or whoever. Great. But that's man speaking. So, man made the theory of rights, and then decided to impose their religion on it.... well.... that doesn't stop it coming from human beings.
> 
> We can see the evolution of rights. In 1AD rights didn't exist, and nor did 1AD. We made them both. We can look from the Magna Carta, through the English Bill of Rights to the US Bill of Rights how they have developed and changed.
> 
> The Founding Fathers DEBATED the wording and what should and what should not be in the Bill of Rights. That means they helped shape them. They were humans, last I heard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> doesn't change the fact that even if you believe evolution created man that rights are acknowledged to be inherent in human beings as much as DNA is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It also doesn't change the fact that other people believe that rights are man made and that history shows they are man made. I don't care if some people believe they are from some kind of creator, it doesn't make it true just because someone believes it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the acknowledgement in the Declaration was that rights were not made but were already extant in the person from the moment of birth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I know. Again, does writing something down make it true?
Click to expand...


It's not the writing it's the idea behind it.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fine, man says that rights come from a creator, or a God or whoever. Great. But that's man speaking. So, man made the theory of rights, and then decided to impose their religion on it.... well.... that doesn't stop it coming from human beings.
> 
> We can see the evolution of rights. In 1AD rights didn't exist, and nor did 1AD. We made them both. We can look from the Magna Carta, through the English Bill of Rights to the US Bill of Rights how they have developed and changed.
> 
> The Founding Fathers DEBATED the wording and what should and what should not be in the Bill of Rights. That means they helped shape them. They were humans, last I heard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> doesn't change the fact that even if you believe evolution created man that rights are acknowledged to be inherent in human beings as much as DNA is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It also doesn't change the fact that other people believe that rights are man made and that history shows they are man made. I don't care if some people believe they are from some kind of creator, it doesn't make it true just because someone believes it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the acknowledgement in the Declaration was that rights were not made but were already extant in the person from the moment of birth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I know. Again, does writing something down make it true?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not the writing it's the idea behind it.
Click to expand...


Sure it is. 

But does the idea change if rights are God Given, or if they were developed by humans? 

No, not really. Rights are something more fundamental than laws. In the constitution those rights are really something the govt can't take away. It doesn't matter if you think they're from God, or just made by humans. As long as the actual thing works.

It's like teaching kids. You can put their name on the board, but the name on the board doesn't do anything unless you follow it up with the actual discipline that goes behind it, right? 

I just prefer to tell people what something is, rather than dress it up and treat them like a fool.


----------



## Skull Pilot

frigidweirdo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> doesn't change the fact that even if you believe evolution created man that rights are acknowledged to be inherent in human beings as much as DNA is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It also doesn't change the fact that other people believe that rights are man made and that history shows they are man made. I don't care if some people believe they are from some kind of creator, it doesn't make it true just because someone believes it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the acknowledgement in the Declaration was that rights were not made but were already extant in the person from the moment of birth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I know. Again, does writing something down make it true?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not the writing it's the idea behind it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure it is.
> 
> But does the idea change if rights are God Given, or if they were developed by humans?
> 
> No, not really. Rights are something more fundamental than laws. In the constitution those rights are really something the govt can't take away. It doesn't matter if you think they're from God, or just made by humans. As long as the actual thing works.
> 
> It's like teaching kids. You can put their name on the board, but the name on the board doesn't do anything unless you follow it up with the actual discipline that goes behind it, right?
> 
> I just prefer to tell people what something is, rather than dress it up and treat them like a fool.
Click to expand...

I never said they were god given I said they are as much a part of our existence as is our DNA
That is the idea behind the words.

In the 18th century they didn't have the vocabulary or the knowledge we do now so of course the words that conveyed the idea are both eloquent in the idea yet clumsy in the execution


----------



## Flash

Wildcard said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time to rewrite the crazy old 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Time to stop whining about something that isn't going to change, so get used to it dumbass.
Click to expand...



Lakhota is a confused Moon Bat.  If anything is crazy it would be a crazy old Moon Bat asshole that don't understand Liberty.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fine, man says that rights come from a creator, or a God or whoever. Great. But that's man speaking. So, man made the theory of rights, and then decided to impose their religion on it.... well.... that doesn't stop it coming from human beings.
> 
> We can see the evolution of rights. In 1AD rights didn't exist, and nor did 1AD. We made them both. We can look from the Magna Carta, through the English Bill of Rights to the US Bill of Rights how they have developed and changed.
> 
> The Founding Fathers DEBATED the wording and what should and what should not be in the Bill of Rights. That means they helped shape them. They were humans, last I heard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> doesn't change the fact that even if you believe evolution created man that rights are acknowledged to be inherent in human beings as much as DNA is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It also doesn't change the fact that other people believe that rights are man made and that history shows they are man made. I don't care if some people believe they are from some kind of creator, it doesn't make it true just because someone believes it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the acknowledgement in the Declaration was that rights were not made but were already extant in the person from the moment of birth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I know. Again, does writing something down make it true?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not the writing it's the idea behind it.
Click to expand...



--LOL he is not going to ever be able to grasp what the forefathers meant 

just not wired for such 

--LOL


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> why was the perpetrator "worrying" and not, _being happy_, to such an extent, he had to "rebel against authority"?
> 
> 
> 
> Probably because he has to live in a country where *liberty* is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution but constantly stripped by left-wing hatriot fascists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why was that Person not home having a peaceful time with family and friends?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Failed left-wing policy probably cost him both his job and his home. I know it did that to a LOT of people. Barack Obama sure got extremely wealthy though - didn't he?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why can we afford a war on drugs, and not unemployment compensation, simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States?
Click to expand...

And there it is, the inevitable lament.  We get it, you want to get paid for not working.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It also doesn't change the fact that other people believe that rights are man made and that history shows they are man made. I don't care if some people believe they are from some kind of creator, it doesn't make it true just because someone believes it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the acknowledgement in the Declaration was that rights were not made but were already extant in the person from the moment of birth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I know. Again, does writing something down make it true?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not the writing it's the idea behind it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure it is.
> 
> But does the idea change if rights are God Given, or if they were developed by humans?
> 
> No, not really. Rights are something more fundamental than laws. In the constitution those rights are really something the govt can't take away. It doesn't matter if you think they're from God, or just made by humans. As long as the actual thing works.
> 
> It's like teaching kids. You can put their name on the board, but the name on the board doesn't do anything unless you follow it up with the actual discipline that goes behind it, right?
> 
> I just prefer to tell people what something is, rather than dress it up and treat them like a fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said they were god given I said they are as much a part of our existence as is our DNA
> That is the idea behind the words.
> 
> In the 18th century they didn't have the vocabulary or the knowledge we do now so of course the words that conveyed the idea are both eloquent in the idea yet clumsy in the execution
Click to expand...


Well the problem is they are a part of US existence, and yet people will sweep them aside and treat them as nothing if it doesn't suit their agenda.

How many times in the past 20 years have I stated what the 2A means, backed it up with evidence, only to have someone find this inconvenient and then just go off on one about this that or the other that is convenient for them, but has nothing to back it up? Countless.


----------



## Skull Pilot

frigidweirdo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> the acknowledgement in the Declaration was that rights were not made but were already extant in the person from the moment of birth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I know. Again, does writing something down make it true?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not the writing it's the idea behind it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure it is.
> 
> But does the idea change if rights are God Given, or if they were developed by humans?
> 
> No, not really. Rights are something more fundamental than laws. In the constitution those rights are really something the govt can't take away. It doesn't matter if you think they're from God, or just made by humans. As long as the actual thing works.
> 
> It's like teaching kids. You can put their name on the board, but the name on the board doesn't do anything unless you follow it up with the actual discipline that goes behind it, right?
> 
> I just prefer to tell people what something is, rather than dress it up and treat them like a fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said they were god given I said they are as much a part of our existence as is our DNA
> That is the idea behind the words.
> 
> In the 18th century they didn't have the vocabulary or the knowledge we do now so of course the words that conveyed the idea are both eloquent in the idea yet clumsy in the execution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the problem is they are a part of US existence, and yet people will sweep them aside and treat them as nothing if it doesn't suit their agenda.
> 
> How many times in the past 20 years have I stated what the 2A means, backed it up with evidence, only to have someone find this inconvenient and then just go off on one about this that or the other that is convenient for them, but has nothing to back it up? Countless.
Click to expand...


what does it mean?

other than the people have the right to keep and bear arms that is


----------



## frigidweirdo

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I know. Again, does writing something down make it true?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not the writing it's the idea behind it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure it is.
> 
> But does the idea change if rights are God Given, or if they were developed by humans?
> 
> No, not really. Rights are something more fundamental than laws. In the constitution those rights are really something the govt can't take away. It doesn't matter if you think they're from God, or just made by humans. As long as the actual thing works.
> 
> It's like teaching kids. You can put their name on the board, but the name on the board doesn't do anything unless you follow it up with the actual discipline that goes behind it, right?
> 
> I just prefer to tell people what something is, rather than dress it up and treat them like a fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said they were god given I said they are as much a part of our existence as is our DNA
> That is the idea behind the words.
> 
> In the 18th century they didn't have the vocabulary or the knowledge we do now so of course the words that conveyed the idea are both eloquent in the idea yet clumsy in the execution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the problem is they are a part of US existence, and yet people will sweep them aside and treat them as nothing if it doesn't suit their agenda.
> 
> How many times in the past 20 years have I stated what the 2A means, backed it up with evidence, only to have someone find this inconvenient and then just go off on one about this that or the other that is convenient for them, but has nothing to back it up? Countless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what does it mean?
> 
> other than the people have the right to keep and bear arms that is
Click to expand...


What it doesn't mean.

The right to bear arms is not the right to carry guns around with. 
The right can also be infringed. These are the two most common mistakes people make.

The right to keep arms is the right to own guns. The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. The 2A prevents the US federal govt (and now state govts) from preventing you from being able to own arms, this does not mean they can't ban certain weapons, just that you have to be able to get guns, and the they can't prevent you from being in the militia, hence why the made the Dick Act and stuck all males aged 17-45 in the "unorganized militia". Rather convenient.


----------



## 2aguy

frigidweirdo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not the writing it's the idea behind it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it is.
> 
> But does the idea change if rights are God Given, or if they were developed by humans?
> 
> No, not really. Rights are something more fundamental than laws. In the constitution those rights are really something the govt can't take away. It doesn't matter if you think they're from God, or just made by humans. As long as the actual thing works.
> 
> It's like teaching kids. You can put their name on the board, but the name on the board doesn't do anything unless you follow it up with the actual discipline that goes behind it, right?
> 
> I just prefer to tell people what something is, rather than dress it up and treat them like a fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said they were god given I said they are as much a part of our existence as is our DNA
> That is the idea behind the words.
> 
> In the 18th century they didn't have the vocabulary or the knowledge we do now so of course the words that conveyed the idea are both eloquent in the idea yet clumsy in the execution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the problem is they are a part of US existence, and yet people will sweep them aside and treat them as nothing if it doesn't suit their agenda.
> 
> How many times in the past 20 years have I stated what the 2A means, backed it up with evidence, only to have someone find this inconvenient and then just go off on one about this that or the other that is convenient for them, but has nothing to back it up? Countless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what does it mean?
> 
> other than the people have the right to keep and bear arms that is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What it doesn't mean.
> 
> The right to bear arms is not the right to carry guns around with.
> The right can also be infringed. These are the two most common mistakes people make.
> 
> The right to keep arms is the right to own guns. The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. The 2A prevents the US federal govt (and now state govts) from preventing you from being able to own arms, this does not mean they can't ban certain weapons, just that you have to be able to get guns, and the they can't prevent you from being in the militia, hence why the made the Dick Act and stuck all males aged 17-45 in the "unorganized militia". Rather convenient.
Click to expand...



Sorry......you haven't shown any such thing......even the Supreme Court says you are wrong...the Heller, Caetano, and Miller decisions at the very least, show you are wrong......and as to infringing.....no one disagrees with you...we disagree with you when it comes to how much is allowed......we all agree criminals and the dangerously mentally ill can be kept away from guns...but beyond that...you are wrong.


----------



## Skull Pilot

frigidweirdo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not the writing it's the idea behind it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it is.
> 
> But does the idea change if rights are God Given, or if they were developed by humans?
> 
> No, not really. Rights are something more fundamental than laws. In the constitution those rights are really something the govt can't take away. It doesn't matter if you think they're from God, or just made by humans. As long as the actual thing works.
> 
> It's like teaching kids. You can put their name on the board, but the name on the board doesn't do anything unless you follow it up with the actual discipline that goes behind it, right?
> 
> I just prefer to tell people what something is, rather than dress it up and treat them like a fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said they were god given I said they are as much a part of our existence as is our DNA
> That is the idea behind the words.
> 
> In the 18th century they didn't have the vocabulary or the knowledge we do now so of course the words that conveyed the idea are both eloquent in the idea yet clumsy in the execution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the problem is they are a part of US existence, and yet people will sweep them aside and treat them as nothing if it doesn't suit their agenda.
> 
> How many times in the past 20 years have I stated what the 2A means, backed it up with evidence, only to have someone find this inconvenient and then just go off on one about this that or the other that is convenient for them, but has nothing to back it up? Countless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what does it mean?
> 
> other than the people have the right to keep and bear arms that is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What it doesn't mean.
> 
> The right to bear arms is not the right to carry guns around with.
> The right can also be infringed. These are the two most common mistakes people make.
> 
> The right to keep arms is the right to own guns. The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. The 2A prevents the US federal govt (and now state govts) from preventing you from being able to own arms, this does not mean they can't ban certain weapons, just that you have to be able to get guns, and the they can't prevent you from being in the militia, hence why the made the Dick Act and stuck all males aged 17-45 in the "unorganized militia". Rather convenient.
Click to expand...


the right to bear arms has nothing to do with a militia
the militia is secondary to the right to keep and bear arms


----------



## Skull Pilot

J. Neil Schulman: The Unabridged Second Amendment


----------



## 2aguy

frigidweirdo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not the writing it's the idea behind it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it is.
> 
> But does the idea change if rights are God Given, or if they were developed by humans?
> 
> No, not really. Rights are something more fundamental than laws. In the constitution those rights are really something the govt can't take away. It doesn't matter if you think they're from God, or just made by humans. As long as the actual thing works.
> 
> It's like teaching kids. You can put their name on the board, but the name on the board doesn't do anything unless you follow it up with the actual discipline that goes behind it, right?
> 
> I just prefer to tell people what something is, rather than dress it up and treat them like a fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said they were god given I said they are as much a part of our existence as is our DNA
> That is the idea behind the words.
> 
> In the 18th century they didn't have the vocabulary or the knowledge we do now so of course the words that conveyed the idea are both eloquent in the idea yet clumsy in the execution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the problem is they are a part of US existence, and yet people will sweep them aside and treat them as nothing if it doesn't suit their agenda.
> 
> How many times in the past 20 years have I stated what the 2A means, backed it up with evidence, only to have someone find this inconvenient and then just go off on one about this that or the other that is convenient for them, but has nothing to back it up? Countless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what does it mean?
> 
> other than the people have the right to keep and bear arms that is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What it doesn't mean.
> 
> The right to bear arms is not the right to carry guns around with.
> The right can also be infringed. These are the two most common mistakes people make.
> 
> The right to keep arms is the right to own guns. The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. The 2A prevents the US federal govt (and now state govts) from preventing you from being able to own arms, this does not mean they can't ban certain weapons, just that you have to be able to get guns, and the they can't prevent you from being in the militia, hence why the made the Dick Act and stuck all males aged 17-45 in the "unorganized militia". Rather convenient.
Click to expand...



This is just from Heller.....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf


*Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.” We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans. *

*-------*
Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.” 

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

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. 

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), *the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.*


----------



## frigidweirdo

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it is.
> 
> But does the idea change if rights are God Given, or if they were developed by humans?
> 
> No, not really. Rights are something more fundamental than laws. In the constitution those rights are really something the govt can't take away. It doesn't matter if you think they're from God, or just made by humans. As long as the actual thing works.
> 
> It's like teaching kids. You can put their name on the board, but the name on the board doesn't do anything unless you follow it up with the actual discipline that goes behind it, right?
> 
> I just prefer to tell people what something is, rather than dress it up and treat them like a fool.
> 
> 
> 
> I never said they were god given I said they are as much a part of our existence as is our DNA
> That is the idea behind the words.
> 
> In the 18th century they didn't have the vocabulary or the knowledge we do now so of course the words that conveyed the idea are both eloquent in the idea yet clumsy in the execution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the problem is they are a part of US existence, and yet people will sweep them aside and treat them as nothing if it doesn't suit their agenda.
> 
> How many times in the past 20 years have I stated what the 2A means, backed it up with evidence, only to have someone find this inconvenient and then just go off on one about this that or the other that is convenient for them, but has nothing to back it up? Countless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what does it mean?
> 
> other than the people have the right to keep and bear arms that is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What it doesn't mean.
> 
> The right to bear arms is not the right to carry guns around with.
> The right can also be infringed. These are the two most common mistakes people make.
> 
> The right to keep arms is the right to own guns. The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. The 2A prevents the US federal govt (and now state govts) from preventing you from being able to own arms, this does not mean they can't ban certain weapons, just that you have to be able to get guns, and the they can't prevent you from being in the militia, hence why the made the Dick Act and stuck all males aged 17-45 in the "unorganized militia". Rather convenient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the right to bear arms has nothing to do with a militia
> the militia is secondary to the right to keep and bear arms
Click to expand...


Well, you're wrong and I'm going to prove you're wrong.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

This is a document from the debates in the House on the future Second Amendment.

Mr Gerry said: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

This was about a clause of the future Second Amendment that read: "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

Then Mr Gerry said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

Yeah, the same person used "militia duty" and "bear arms" synonymously. Go figure. 

Then "Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

So, we have "render military service", "militia duty" and "bear arms" all meaning the same thing. 

In fact in different versions of what would become the 2A, "bear arms" and "render military service" would replace each other. 


June 8th 1789

"but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

August 17th 1789

"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

August 24th 1789

"but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

August 25th 1789

"but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."

So, it has a lot to do with the militia, actually.

But then, I'm willing to see what evidence you have, though, I do have a lot more to go on than just this, this is just a start...


----------



## frigidweirdo

Skull Pilot said:


> J. Neil Schulman: The Unabridged Second Amendment



Yeah. partisan nonsense half of it.


----------



## 2aguy

frigidweirdo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said they were god given I said they are as much a part of our existence as is our DNA
> That is the idea behind the words.
> 
> In the 18th century they didn't have the vocabulary or the knowledge we do now so of course the words that conveyed the idea are both eloquent in the idea yet clumsy in the execution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well the problem is they are a part of US existence, and yet people will sweep them aside and treat them as nothing if it doesn't suit their agenda.
> 
> How many times in the past 20 years have I stated what the 2A means, backed it up with evidence, only to have someone find this inconvenient and then just go off on one about this that or the other that is convenient for them, but has nothing to back it up? Countless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what does it mean?
> 
> other than the people have the right to keep and bear arms that is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What it doesn't mean.
> 
> The right to bear arms is not the right to carry guns around with.
> The right can also be infringed. These are the two most common mistakes people make.
> 
> The right to keep arms is the right to own guns. The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. The 2A prevents the US federal govt (and now state govts) from preventing you from being able to own arms, this does not mean they can't ban certain weapons, just that you have to be able to get guns, and the they can't prevent you from being in the militia, hence why the made the Dick Act and stuck all males aged 17-45 in the "unorganized militia". Rather convenient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the right to bear arms has nothing to do with a militia
> the militia is secondary to the right to keep and bear arms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you're wrong and I'm going to prove you're wrong.
> 
> Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> This is a document from the debates in the House on the future Second Amendment.
> 
> Mr Gerry said: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."
> 
> This was about a clause of the future Second Amendment that read: "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> Then Mr Gerry said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."
> 
> Yeah, the same person used "militia duty" and "bear arms" synonymously. Go figure.
> 
> Then "Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""
> 
> So, we have "render military service", "militia duty" and "bear arms" all meaning the same thing.
> 
> In fact in different versions of what would become the 2A, "bear arms" and "render military service" would replace each other.
> 
> 
> June 8th 1789
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
> 
> August 17th 1789
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> August 24th 1789
> 
> "but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
> 
> August 25th 1789
> 
> "but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."
> 
> So, it has a lot to do with the militia, actually.
> 
> But then, I'm willing to see what evidence you have, though, I do have a lot more to go on than just this, this is just a start...
Click to expand...



Wow....you didn't eat breakfast this morning did you?  Those quotes say nothing about the right to bear arms.....at all, other than religious people don't have to be forced into the militia.....you have no point.....

Considering bearing arms and militia service are two different things in your quotes.......wow, the stupid is strong with you ......

Please....leave this topic to the grown ups....


----------



## 2aguy

frigidweirdo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said they were god given I said they are as much a part of our existence as is our DNA
> That is the idea behind the words.
> 
> In the 18th century they didn't have the vocabulary or the knowledge we do now so of course the words that conveyed the idea are both eloquent in the idea yet clumsy in the execution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well the problem is they are a part of US existence, and yet people will sweep them aside and treat them as nothing if it doesn't suit their agenda.
> 
> How many times in the past 20 years have I stated what the 2A means, backed it up with evidence, only to have someone find this inconvenient and then just go off on one about this that or the other that is convenient for them, but has nothing to back it up? Countless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what does it mean?
> 
> other than the people have the right to keep and bear arms that is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What it doesn't mean.
> 
> The right to bear arms is not the right to carry guns around with.
> The right can also be infringed. These are the two most common mistakes people make.
> 
> The right to keep arms is the right to own guns. The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. The 2A prevents the US federal govt (and now state govts) from preventing you from being able to own arms, this does not mean they can't ban certain weapons, just that you have to be able to get guns, and the they can't prevent you from being in the militia, hence why the made the Dick Act and stuck all males aged 17-45 in the "unorganized militia". Rather convenient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the right to bear arms has nothing to do with a militia
> the militia is secondary to the right to keep and bear arms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you're wrong and I'm going to prove you're wrong.
> 
> Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> This is a document from the debates in the House on the future Second Amendment.
> 
> Mr Gerry said: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."
> 
> This was about a clause of the future Second Amendment that read: "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> Then Mr Gerry said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."
> 
> Yeah, the same person used "militia duty" and "bear arms" synonymously. Go figure.
> 
> Then "Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""
> 
> So, we have "render military service", "militia duty" and "bear arms" all meaning the same thing.
> 
> In fact in different versions of what would become the 2A, "bear arms" and "render military service" would replace each other.
> 
> 
> June 8th 1789
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
> 
> August 17th 1789
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> August 24th 1789
> 
> "but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
> 
> August 25th 1789
> 
> "but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."
> 
> So, it has a lot to do with the militia, actually.
> 
> But then, I'm willing to see what evidence you have, though, I do have a lot more to go on than just this, this is just a start...
Click to expand...



PLease....read Heller, Miller and Caetano.....

This is just from Heller.....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf


*Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.” We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans. *

*-------*
Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.” 

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

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. 

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), *the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.*


----------



## The Original Tree

This is all explained here.  Lefty has no clue what he is talking about.
The Affordable Gun Care Act


----------



## frigidweirdo

The Original Tree said:


> This is all explained here.  Lefty has no clue what he is talking about.
> The Affordable Gun Care Act



Funny how it's always someone else explaining it....


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> why was the perpetrator "worrying" and not, _being happy_, to such an extent, he had to "rebel against authority"?
> 
> 
> 
> Probably because he has to live in a country where *liberty* is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution but constantly stripped by left-wing hatriot fascists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why was that Person not home having a peaceful time with family and friends?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Failed left-wing policy probably cost him both his job and his home. I know it did that to a LOT of people. Barack Obama sure got extremely wealthy though - didn't he?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why can we afford a war on drugs, and not unemployment compensation, simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *and not unemployment compensation, simply for being unemployed*
> 
> Sorry, dude, we're still not gonna give you unemployment compensation just because you never had a job.
Click to expand...

employment is at-will, not for-cause; and, edd should have to prove such a relationship exists, at law.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> why can we afford a war on drugs, and not unemployment compensation, simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States?
> 
> 
> 
> Because drugs are crime. And we have to fund law enforcement. However, at-will unemployment is an idiot committing a self-inflicted wound. Take care of your finances, have money stacked away, and you can quit your job. If not, get your ass to work. Society is not supporting you. That is your job as a big boy or girl.
> 
> That being said - I do *not* agree with a federal agency for drugs as that is not the constitutional responsibility of the federal government. It should be handled by each individual state.
Click to expand...

there is no Prohibition clause in our federal Constitution since the repeal of that historical mistake, last millennium.

And, the law is the law, don't advocate for being illegal to some laws, but not others.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> i don't take the right wing seriously about the law, from Inception.
> 
> 
> 
> That's ok snowflake - nobody takes you seriously about _anything_. The fact that you don't even know that "i" is a proper pronoun which should be capitalized or that the first letter of any sentence is capitalized illustrates your limited IQ.
Click to expand...

having nothing but fallacy for your Cause, means you are literally, incredible.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have to get a job first
> 
> 
> 
> why do you think i am advocating for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis; to learn how to build a keep, and put keep building on my resume.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _What_? How does getting paid by the federal government to *quit* your job help your résumé?!? Are you not aware that most employers don't look for people who quit their jobs?!?
Click to expand...

why do you think i am advocating for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis; to learn how to build a keep, and put keep building on my resume.

it takes money to build a keep, even for fun and practice.


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it depends on the situation.  however, from a, hypothetical "tactical" perspective, simply "diving into the guy" would probably knock the guy off of the officer and give the officer enough time to recover; and proceed with any further, coercive use of force of the State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> at least until i can build a keep.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have to get a job first
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why do you think i am advocating for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis; to learn how to build a keep, and put keep building on my resume.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> being unemployed and collecting welfare is not a resume builder
Click to expand...

learning how to build a keep and putting it on my resume, does help, "build" that resume.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> why was the perpetrator "worrying" and not, _being happy_, to such an extent, he had to "rebel against authority"?
> 
> 
> 
> Probably because he has to live in a country where *liberty* is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution but constantly stripped by left-wing hatriot fascists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why was that Person not home having a peaceful time with family and friends?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Failed left-wing policy probably cost him both his job and his home. I know it did that to a LOT of people. Barack Obama sure got extremely wealthy though - didn't he?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why can we afford a war on drugs, and not unemployment compensation, simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And there it is, the inevitable lament.  We get it, you want to get paid for not working.
Click to expand...

full employment of capital resources; what a concept.  

only fools and horses, should Have to work.


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it is.
> 
> But does the idea change if rights are God Given, or if they were developed by humans?
> 
> No, not really. Rights are something more fundamental than laws. In the constitution those rights are really something the govt can't take away. It doesn't matter if you think they're from God, or just made by humans. As long as the actual thing works.
> 
> It's like teaching kids. You can put their name on the board, but the name on the board doesn't do anything unless you follow it up with the actual discipline that goes behind it, right?
> 
> I just prefer to tell people what something is, rather than dress it up and treat them like a fool.
> 
> 
> 
> I never said they were god given I said they are as much a part of our existence as is our DNA
> That is the idea behind the words.
> 
> In the 18th century they didn't have the vocabulary or the knowledge we do now so of course the words that conveyed the idea are both eloquent in the idea yet clumsy in the execution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the problem is they are a part of US existence, and yet people will sweep them aside and treat them as nothing if it doesn't suit their agenda.
> 
> How many times in the past 20 years have I stated what the 2A means, backed it up with evidence, only to have someone find this inconvenient and then just go off on one about this that or the other that is convenient for them, but has nothing to back it up? Countless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what does it mean?
> 
> other than the people have the right to keep and bear arms that is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What it doesn't mean.
> 
> The right to bear arms is not the right to carry guns around with.
> The right can also be infringed. These are the two most common mistakes people make.
> 
> The right to keep arms is the right to own guns. The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. The 2A prevents the US federal govt (and now state govts) from preventing you from being able to own arms, this does not mean they can't ban certain weapons, just that you have to be able to get guns, and the they can't prevent you from being in the militia, hence why the made the Dick Act and stuck all males aged 17-45 in the "unorganized militia". Rather convenient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the right to bear arms has nothing to do with a militia
> the militia is secondary to the right to keep and bear arms
Click to expand...

Our Second  Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State; it has Every Thing, to do with well regulated militia; who must not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


----------



## Skull Pilot

frigidweirdo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said they were god given I said they are as much a part of our existence as is our DNA
> That is the idea behind the words.
> 
> In the 18th century they didn't have the vocabulary or the knowledge we do now so of course the words that conveyed the idea are both eloquent in the idea yet clumsy in the execution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well the problem is they are a part of US existence, and yet people will sweep them aside and treat them as nothing if it doesn't suit their agenda.
> 
> How many times in the past 20 years have I stated what the 2A means, backed it up with evidence, only to have someone find this inconvenient and then just go off on one about this that or the other that is convenient for them, but has nothing to back it up? Countless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what does it mean?
> 
> other than the people have the right to keep and bear arms that is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What it doesn't mean.
> 
> The right to bear arms is not the right to carry guns around with.
> The right can also be infringed. These are the two most common mistakes people make.
> 
> The right to keep arms is the right to own guns. The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. The 2A prevents the US federal govt (and now state govts) from preventing you from being able to own arms, this does not mean they can't ban certain weapons, just that you have to be able to get guns, and the they can't prevent you from being in the militia, hence why the made the Dick Act and stuck all males aged 17-45 in the "unorganized militia". Rather convenient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the right to bear arms has nothing to do with a militia
> the militia is secondary to the right to keep and bear arms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you're wrong and I'm going to prove you're wrong.
> 
> Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> This is a document from the debates in the House on the future Second Amendment.
> 
> Mr Gerry said: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."
> 
> This was about a clause of the future Second Amendment that read: "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> Then Mr Gerry said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."
> 
> Yeah, the same person used "militia duty" and "bear arms" synonymously. Go figure.
> 
> Then "Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""
> 
> So, we have "render military service", "militia duty" and "bear arms" all meaning the same thing.
> 
> In fact in different versions of what would become the 2A, "bear arms" and "render military service" would replace each other.
> 
> 
> June 8th 1789
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
> 
> August 17th 1789
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> August 24th 1789
> 
> "but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
> 
> August 25th 1789
> 
> "but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."
> 
> So, it has a lot to do with the militia, actually.
> 
> But then, I'm willing to see what evidence you have, though, I do have a lot more to go on than just this, this is just a start...
Click to expand...


the debate  over the terms is not necessarily the meaning of the amendment.  The fact is that those other terms you mention are not in the amendment itself.  There is no qualification that bearing arms equals serving in the militia
compelling military service is conscription.

It seems you have the draft and the militia confused

The militia was the people and the people not just the government were empowered to protect the free state by being allowed to keep and bear arms


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> J. Neil Schulman: The Unabridged Second Amendment


Just a fallacy of composition, that is all.

We have a Second Article of Amendment, it is not a, Constitution, unto itself.


----------



## danielpalos

2aguy said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it is.
> 
> But does the idea change if rights are God Given, or if they were developed by humans?
> 
> No, not really. Rights are something more fundamental than laws. In the constitution those rights are really something the govt can't take away. It doesn't matter if you think they're from God, or just made by humans. As long as the actual thing works.
> 
> It's like teaching kids. You can put their name on the board, but the name on the board doesn't do anything unless you follow it up with the actual discipline that goes behind it, right?
> 
> I just prefer to tell people what something is, rather than dress it up and treat them like a fool.
> 
> 
> 
> I never said they were god given I said they are as much a part of our existence as is our DNA
> That is the idea behind the words.
> 
> In the 18th century they didn't have the vocabulary or the knowledge we do now so of course the words that conveyed the idea are both eloquent in the idea yet clumsy in the execution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the problem is they are a part of US existence, and yet people will sweep them aside and treat them as nothing if it doesn't suit their agenda.
> 
> How many times in the past 20 years have I stated what the 2A means, backed it up with evidence, only to have someone find this inconvenient and then just go off on one about this that or the other that is convenient for them, but has nothing to back it up? Countless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what does it mean?
> 
> other than the people have the right to keep and bear arms that is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What it doesn't mean.
> 
> The right to bear arms is not the right to carry guns around with.
> The right can also be infringed. These are the two most common mistakes people make.
> 
> The right to keep arms is the right to own guns. The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. The 2A prevents the US federal govt (and now state govts) from preventing you from being able to own arms, this does not mean they can't ban certain weapons, just that you have to be able to get guns, and the they can't prevent you from being in the militia, hence why the made the Dick Act and stuck all males aged 17-45 in the "unorganized militia". Rather convenient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is just from Heller.....
> 
> https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
> 
> 
> *Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.” We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans. *
> 
> *-------*
> Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”
> 
> *We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans. *
> 
> Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.
> 
> We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), *the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.*
Click to expand...

Our Second Amendment has nothing to with natural rights; the intent and purpose, is in the first clause.


----------



## Skull Pilot

frigidweirdo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> J. Neil Schulman: The Unabridged Second Amendment
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah. partisan nonsense half of it.
Click to expand...


so the dissection of the language and grammar is partisan?

it doesn't matter who asked the questions you know that don't you

it's the answers and explanation of the expert that matter


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> J. Neil Schulman: The Unabridged Second Amendment
> 
> 
> 
> Just a fallacy of composition, that is all.
> 
> We have a Second Article of Amendment, it is not a, Constitution, unto itself.
Click to expand...

we do not have a second article of amendment

 we have the bill of rights that consists of separate amendments to the constitution.


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> at least until i can build a keep.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have to get a job first
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why do you think i am advocating for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis; to learn how to build a keep, and put keep building on my resume.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> being unemployed and collecting welfare is not a resume builder
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> learning how to build a keep and putting it on my resume, does help, "build" that resume.
Click to expand...

yeah go apply for a job and put that as an accomplishment

that resume will hit the circular file before you get out of the interview


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Probably because he has to live in a country where *liberty* is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution but constantly stripped by left-wing hatriot fascists.
> 
> 
> 
> why was that Person not home having a peaceful time with family and friends?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Failed left-wing policy probably cost him both his job and his home. I know it did that to a LOT of people. Barack Obama sure got extremely wealthy though - didn't he?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why can we afford a war on drugs, and not unemployment compensation, simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And there it is, the inevitable lament.  We get it, you want to get paid for not working.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> full employment of capital resources; what a concept.
> 
> only fools and horses, should Have to work.
Click to expand...

And those who want to eat.


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well the problem is they are a part of US existence, and yet people will sweep them aside and treat them as nothing if it doesn't suit their agenda.
> 
> How many times in the past 20 years have I stated what the 2A means, backed it up with evidence, only to have someone find this inconvenient and then just go off on one about this that or the other that is convenient for them, but has nothing to back it up? Countless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what does it mean?
> 
> other than the people have the right to keep and bear arms that is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What it doesn't mean.
> 
> The right to bear arms is not the right to carry guns around with.
> The right can also be infringed. These are the two most common mistakes people make.
> 
> The right to keep arms is the right to own guns. The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. The 2A prevents the US federal govt (and now state govts) from preventing you from being able to own arms, this does not mean they can't ban certain weapons, just that you have to be able to get guns, and the they can't prevent you from being in the militia, hence why the made the Dick Act and stuck all males aged 17-45 in the "unorganized militia". Rather convenient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the right to bear arms has nothing to do with a militia
> the militia is secondary to the right to keep and bear arms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you're wrong and I'm going to prove you're wrong.
> 
> Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> This is a document from the debates in the House on the future Second Amendment.
> 
> Mr Gerry said: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."
> 
> This was about a clause of the future Second Amendment that read: "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> Then Mr Gerry said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."
> 
> Yeah, the same person used "militia duty" and "bear arms" synonymously. Go figure.
> 
> Then "Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""
> 
> So, we have "render military service", "militia duty" and "bear arms" all meaning the same thing.
> 
> In fact in different versions of what would become the 2A, "bear arms" and "render military service" would replace each other.
> 
> 
> June 8th 1789
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
> 
> August 17th 1789
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> August 24th 1789
> 
> "but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
> 
> August 25th 1789
> 
> "but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."
> 
> So, it has a lot to do with the militia, actually.
> 
> But then, I'm willing to see what evidence you have, though, I do have a lot more to go on than just this, this is just a start...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the debate  over the terms is not necessarily the meaning of the amendment.  The fact is that those other terms you mention are not in the amendment itself.  There is no qualification that bearing arms equals serving in the militia
> compelling military service is conscription.
> 
> It seems you have the draft and the militia confused
> 
> The militia was the people and the people not just the government were empowered to protect the free state by being allowed to keep and bear arms
Click to expand...

well regulated, is a "limiting qualifier".  all of the militia of the United States is not well regulated, and therefor, unnecessary to the security of a free State, and may be Infringed as a result, by well regulated militia, for the security and domestic tranquility needs of our free States.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Probably because he has to live in a country where *liberty* is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution but constantly stripped by left-wing hatriot fascists.
> 
> 
> 
> why was that Person not home having a peaceful time with family and friends?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Failed left-wing policy probably cost him both his job and his home. I know it did that to a LOT of people. Barack Obama sure got extremely wealthy though - didn't he?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why can we afford a war on drugs, and not unemployment compensation, simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And there it is, the inevitable lament.  We get it, you want to get paid for not working.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> full employment of capital resources; what a concept.
> 
> only fools and horses, should Have to work.
Click to expand...

Paying people who are not working is most emphatically NOT "full employment of capital resources".  You're not using words right.


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> J. Neil Schulman: The Unabridged Second Amendment
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah. partisan nonsense half of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so the dissection of the language and grammar is partisan?
> 
> it doesn't matter who asked the questions you know that don't you
> 
> it's the answers and explanation of the expert that matter
Click to expand...

Your "expert" has only a fallacy of composition.


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> J. Neil Schulman: The Unabridged Second Amendment
> 
> 
> 
> Just a fallacy of composition, that is all.
> 
> We have a Second Article of Amendment, it is not a, Constitution, unto itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we do not have a second article of amendment
> 
> we have the bill of rights that consists of separate amendments to the constitution.
Click to expand...

yes, dear; we have a Second Article of Amendment to our federal Constitution.  

It is Not, a Constitution, unto Itself.


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> at least until i can build a keep.
> 
> 
> 
> you have to get a job first
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why do you think i am advocating for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis; to learn how to build a keep, and put keep building on my resume.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> being unemployed and collecting welfare is not a resume builder
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> learning how to build a keep and putting it on my resume, does help, "build" that resume.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yeah go apply for a job and put that as an accomplishment
> 
> that resume will hit the circular file before you get out of the interview
Click to expand...

i could claim I had to learn it, not from the "ground up, but from the basement up".  Some managers may find that initiative, "something to work with".


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> why was that Person not home having a peaceful time with family and friends?
> 
> 
> 
> Failed left-wing policy probably cost him both his job and his home. I know it did that to a LOT of people. Barack Obama sure got extremely wealthy though - didn't he?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why can we afford a war on drugs, and not unemployment compensation, simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And there it is, the inevitable lament.  We get it, you want to get paid for not working.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> full employment of capital resources; what a concept.
> 
> only fools and horses, should Have to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And those who want to eat.
Click to expand...

we have laws; why not be legal to our very own, at-will employment laws, for at-will unemployment compensation purposes.

that way, we can improve the efficiency of our economy, at the same time.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Failed left-wing policy probably cost him both his job and his home. I know it did that to a LOT of people. Barack Obama sure got extremely wealthy though - didn't he?
> 
> 
> 
> why can we afford a war on drugs, and not unemployment compensation, simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And there it is, the inevitable lament.  We get it, you want to get paid for not working.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> full employment of capital resources; what a concept.
> 
> only fools and horses, should Have to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And those who want to eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have laws; why not be legal to our very own, at-will employment laws, for at-will unemployment compensation purposes.
> 
> that way, we can improve the efficiency of our economy, at the same time.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant to the point that it is better to be producer than a taker.  Producers help society, takers do not.

Takers by definition are not those unable to work, but those who choose not to work.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> why can we afford a war on drugs, and not unemployment compensation, simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States?
> 
> 
> 
> And there it is, the inevitable lament.  We get it, you want to get paid for not working.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> full employment of capital resources; what a concept.
> 
> only fools and horses, should Have to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And those who want to eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have laws; why not be legal to our very own, at-will employment laws, for at-will unemployment compensation purposes.
> 
> that way, we can improve the efficiency of our economy, at the same time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant to the point that it is better to be producer than a taker.  Producers help society, takers do not.
> 
> Takers by definition are not those unable to work, but those who choose not to work.
Click to expand...

Only in your special pleading; propaganda and rhetoric is no substitute for economics.

it is about full employment of capital resources; and correcting for capitalism's natural rate of inefficiency regarding full employment of (capital) resources in the market for labor.

Capital must circulate under any form of capitalism.  Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is that natural rate of inefficiency regarding capital resources and the circulation of capital in our economy.

We could be solving simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States and improving the capital efficiency of those markets, at the same time.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there it is, the inevitable lament.  We get it, you want to get paid for not working.
> 
> 
> 
> full employment of capital resources; what a concept.
> 
> only fools and horses, should Have to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And those who want to eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have laws; why not be legal to our very own, at-will employment laws, for at-will unemployment compensation purposes.
> 
> that way, we can improve the efficiency of our economy, at the same time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant to the point that it is better to be producer than a taker.  Producers help society, takers do not.
> 
> Takers by definition are not those unable to work, but those who choose not to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only in your special pleading; propaganda and rhetoric is no substitute for economics.
> 
> it is about full employment of capital resources; and correcting for capitalism's natural rate of inefficiency regarding full employment of (capital) resources in the market for labor.
> 
> Capital must circulate under any form of capitalism.  Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is that natural rate of inefficiency regarding capital resources and the circulation of capital in our economy.
> 
> We could be solving simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States and improving the capital efficiency of those markets, at the same time.
Click to expand...

Dude, once again you're reduced to flinging around the same worn out meaningless slogans that you don't even understand.  Paying someone to not work is welfare, it's not "full employment of (capital) resources in the market for labor".  Face it, you end up here every single time, you can't explain what it is you're trying to say, and you only end up looking foolish.  Just stop.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> full employment of capital resources; what a concept.
> 
> only fools and horses, should Have to work.
> 
> 
> 
> And those who want to eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have laws; why not be legal to our very own, at-will employment laws, for at-will unemployment compensation purposes.
> 
> that way, we can improve the efficiency of our economy, at the same time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant to the point that it is better to be producer than a taker.  Producers help society, takers do not.
> 
> Takers by definition are not those unable to work, but those who choose not to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only in your special pleading; propaganda and rhetoric is no substitute for economics.
> 
> it is about full employment of capital resources; and correcting for capitalism's natural rate of inefficiency regarding full employment of (capital) resources in the market for labor.
> 
> Capital must circulate under any form of capitalism.  Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is that natural rate of inefficiency regarding capital resources and the circulation of capital in our economy.
> 
> We could be solving simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States and improving the capital efficiency of those markets, at the same time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, once again you're reduced to flinging around the same worn out meaningless slogans that you don't even understand.  Paying someone to not work is welfare, it's not "full employment of (capital) resources in the market for labor".  Face it, you end up here every single time, you can't explain what it is you're trying to say, and you only end up looking foolish.  Just stop.
Click to expand...


He's saying he should get unemployment benefits for sitting in his Mom's basement growing weed.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> only fools and horses, should Have to work.


Nobody said you *have* to work. Feel free not to. But the rest of us are *not* supporting your pathetic ass.

By the way - PETA would vehemently disagree with you on the horses. They believe your worthless ass should be put to work to care for the horses. Just say'n little buddy...


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there it is, the inevitable lament.  We get it, you want to get paid for not working.
> 
> 
> 
> full employment of capital resources; what a concept.
> 
> only fools and horses, should Have to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And those who want to eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have laws; why not be legal to our very own, at-will employment laws, for at-will unemployment compensation purposes.
> 
> that way, we can improve the efficiency of our economy, at the same time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant to the point that it is better to be producer than a taker.  Producers help society, takers do not.
> 
> Takers by definition are not those unable to work, but those who choose not to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only in your special pleading; propaganda and rhetoric is no substitute for economics.
> 
> it is about full employment of capital resources; and correcting for capitalism's natural rate of inefficiency regarding full employment of (capital) resources in the market for labor.
> 
> Capital must circulate under any form of capitalism.  Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is that natural rate of inefficiency regarding capital resources and the circulation of capital in our economy.
> 
> We could be solving simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States and improving the capital efficiency of those markets, at the same time.
Click to expand...

You don't understand what that means and why it doesn't apply.


----------



## hadit

Toddsterpatriot said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> And those who want to eat.
> 
> 
> 
> we have laws; why not be legal to our very own, at-will employment laws, for at-will unemployment compensation purposes.
> 
> that way, we can improve the efficiency of our economy, at the same time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant to the point that it is better to be producer than a taker.  Producers help society, takers do not.
> 
> Takers by definition are not those unable to work, but those who choose not to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only in your special pleading; propaganda and rhetoric is no substitute for economics.
> 
> it is about full employment of capital resources; and correcting for capitalism's natural rate of inefficiency regarding full employment of (capital) resources in the market for labor.
> 
> Capital must circulate under any form of capitalism.  Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is that natural rate of inefficiency regarding capital resources and the circulation of capital in our economy.
> 
> We could be solving simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States and improving the capital efficiency of those markets, at the same time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, once again you're reduced to flinging around the same worn out meaningless slogans that you don't even understand.  Paying someone to not work is welfare, it's not "full employment of (capital) resources in the market for labor".  Face it, you end up here every single time, you can't explain what it is you're trying to say, and you only end up looking foolish.  Just stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's saying he should get unemployment benefits for sitting in his Mom's basement growing weed.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is the correct motorcycle.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have to get a job first
> 
> 
> 
> why do you think i am advocating for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis; to learn how to build a keep, and put keep building on my resume.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _What_? How does getting paid by the federal government to *quit* your job help your résumé?!? Are you not aware that most employers don't look for people who quit their jobs?!?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why do you think i am advocating for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis; to learn how to build a keep, and put keep building on my resume.
> 
> it takes money to build a keep, even for fun and practice.
Click to expand...

If it takes money - go *earn* it snowflake. Why is this concept so mind-boggling for you?


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> what does it mean?
> 
> other than the people have the right to keep and bear arms that is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What it doesn't mean.
> 
> The right to bear arms is not the right to carry guns around with.
> The right can also be infringed. These are the two most common mistakes people make.
> 
> The right to keep arms is the right to own guns. The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. The 2A prevents the US federal govt (and now state govts) from preventing you from being able to own arms, this does not mean they can't ban certain weapons, just that you have to be able to get guns, and the they can't prevent you from being in the militia, hence why the made the Dick Act and stuck all males aged 17-45 in the "unorganized militia". Rather convenient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the right to bear arms has nothing to do with a militia
> the militia is secondary to the right to keep and bear arms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you're wrong and I'm going to prove you're wrong.
> 
> Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> This is a document from the debates in the House on the future Second Amendment.
> 
> Mr Gerry said: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."
> 
> This was about a clause of the future Second Amendment that read: "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> Then Mr Gerry said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."
> 
> Yeah, the same person used "militia duty" and "bear arms" synonymously. Go figure.
> 
> Then "Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""
> 
> So, we have "render military service", "militia duty" and "bear arms" all meaning the same thing.
> 
> In fact in different versions of what would become the 2A, "bear arms" and "render military service" would replace each other.
> 
> 
> June 8th 1789
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
> 
> August 17th 1789
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> August 24th 1789
> 
> "but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
> 
> August 25th 1789
> 
> "but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."
> 
> So, it has a lot to do with the militia, actually.
> 
> But then, I'm willing to see what evidence you have, though, I do have a lot more to go on than just this, this is just a start...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the debate  over the terms is not necessarily the meaning of the amendment.  The fact is that those other terms you mention are not in the amendment itself.  There is no qualification that bearing arms equals serving in the militia
> compelling military service is conscription.
> 
> It seems you have the draft and the militia confused
> 
> The militia was the people and the people not just the government were empowered to protect the free state by being allowed to keep and bear arms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well regulated, is a "limiting qualifier".  all of the militia of the United States is not well regulated, and therefor, unnecessary to the security of a free State, and may be Infringed as a result, by well regulated militia, for the security and domestic tranquility needs of our free States.
Click to expand...

what do you think well regulated meant in the 18th century?


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> J. Neil Schulman: The Unabridged Second Amendment
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah. partisan nonsense half of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so the dissection of the language and grammar is partisan?
> 
> it doesn't matter who asked the questions you know that don't you
> 
> it's the answers and explanation of the expert that matter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your "expert" has only a fallacy of composition.
Click to expand...



He's on the usage panel of the _American Heritage Dictionary_, and _Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary_ frequently cites him as an expert.

I'll bet you an entire year of your salary that he knows more about the English language than you

even if I lose it won't cost me 10 bucks


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have to get a job first
> 
> 
> 
> why do you think i am advocating for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis; to learn how to build a keep, and put keep building on my resume.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> being unemployed and collecting welfare is not a resume builder
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> learning how to build a keep and putting it on my resume, does help, "build" that resume.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yeah go apply for a job and put that as an accomplishment
> 
> that resume will hit the circular file before you get out of the interview
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i could claim I had to learn it, not from the "ground up, but from the basement up".  Some managers may find that initiative, "something to work with".
Click to expand...


learn what?

How to jerk off with either hand?

you call that a 3 way right?


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> full employment of capital resources; what a concept.
> 
> only fools and horses, should Have to work.
> 
> 
> 
> And those who want to eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have laws; why not be legal to our very own, at-will employment laws, for at-will unemployment compensation purposes.
> 
> that way, we can improve the efficiency of our economy, at the same time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant to the point that it is better to be producer than a taker.  Producers help society, takers do not.
> 
> Takers by definition are not those unable to work, but those who choose not to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only in your special pleading; propaganda and rhetoric is no substitute for economics.
> 
> it is about full employment of capital resources; and correcting for capitalism's natural rate of inefficiency regarding full employment of (capital) resources in the market for labor.
> 
> Capital must circulate under any form of capitalism.  Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is that natural rate of inefficiency regarding capital resources and the circulation of capital in our economy.
> 
> We could be solving simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States and improving the capital efficiency of those markets, at the same time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, once again you're reduced to flinging around the same worn out meaningless slogans that you don't even understand.  Paying someone to not work is welfare, it's not "full employment of (capital) resources in the market for labor".  Face it, you end up here every single time, you can't explain what it is you're trying to say, and you only end up looking foolish.  Just stop.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is a form of full employment of capital resources simply Because, Capital does and must Circulate.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> only fools and horses, should Have to work.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody said you *have* to work. Feel free not to. But the rest of us are *not* supporting your pathetic ass.
> 
> By the way - PETA would vehemently disagree with you on the horses. They believe your worthless ass should be put to work to care for the horses. Just say'n little buddy...
Click to expand...

equal protection of the law can get, "thrown under the buss" in favor of your extra-legal, national socialism?


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> full employment of capital resources; what a concept.
> 
> only fools and horses, should Have to work.
> 
> 
> 
> And those who want to eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have laws; why not be legal to our very own, at-will employment laws, for at-will unemployment compensation purposes.
> 
> that way, we can improve the efficiency of our economy, at the same time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant to the point that it is better to be producer than a taker.  Producers help society, takers do not.
> 
> Takers by definition are not those unable to work, but those who choose not to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only in your special pleading; propaganda and rhetoric is no substitute for economics.
> 
> it is about full employment of capital resources; and correcting for capitalism's natural rate of inefficiency regarding full employment of (capital) resources in the market for labor.
> 
> Capital must circulate under any form of capitalism.  Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is that natural rate of inefficiency regarding capital resources and the circulation of capital in our economy.
> 
> We could be solving simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States and improving the capital efficiency of those markets, at the same time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't understand what that means and why it doesn't apply.
Click to expand...

Yes, it does.  You simply have nothing but repeal instead of any form of better solution at lower cost; typical for the, right wing.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have to get a job first
> 
> 
> 
> why do you think i am advocating for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis; to learn how to build a keep, and put keep building on my resume.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _What_? How does getting paid by the federal government to *quit* your job help your résumé?!? Are you not aware that most employers don't look for people who quit their jobs?!?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why do you think i am advocating for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis; to learn how to build a keep, and put keep building on my resume.
> 
> it takes money to build a keep, even for fun and practice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it takes money - go *earn* it snowflake. Why is this concept so mind-boggling for you?
Click to expand...

I have a work ethic; no employers are offering a bonus to go work and employ my, "historical work ethic from the Age of Iron".


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What it doesn't mean.
> 
> The right to bear arms is not the right to carry guns around with.
> The right can also be infringed. These are the two most common mistakes people make.
> 
> The right to keep arms is the right to own guns. The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. The 2A prevents the US federal govt (and now state govts) from preventing you from being able to own arms, this does not mean they can't ban certain weapons, just that you have to be able to get guns, and the they can't prevent you from being in the militia, hence why the made the Dick Act and stuck all males aged 17-45 in the "unorganized militia". Rather convenient.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the right to bear arms has nothing to do with a militia
> the militia is secondary to the right to keep and bear arms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you're wrong and I'm going to prove you're wrong.
> 
> Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> This is a document from the debates in the House on the future Second Amendment.
> 
> Mr Gerry said: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."
> 
> This was about a clause of the future Second Amendment that read: "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> Then Mr Gerry said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."
> 
> Yeah, the same person used "militia duty" and "bear arms" synonymously. Go figure.
> 
> Then "Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""
> 
> So, we have "render military service", "militia duty" and "bear arms" all meaning the same thing.
> 
> In fact in different versions of what would become the 2A, "bear arms" and "render military service" would replace each other.
> 
> 
> June 8th 1789
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
> 
> August 17th 1789
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> August 24th 1789
> 
> "but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
> 
> August 25th 1789
> 
> "but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."
> 
> So, it has a lot to do with the militia, actually.
> 
> But then, I'm willing to see what evidence you have, though, I do have a lot more to go on than just this, this is just a start...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the debate  over the terms is not necessarily the meaning of the amendment.  The fact is that those other terms you mention are not in the amendment itself.  There is no qualification that bearing arms equals serving in the militia
> compelling military service is conscription.
> 
> It seems you have the draft and the militia confused
> 
> The militia was the people and the people not just the government were empowered to protect the free state by being allowed to keep and bear arms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well regulated, is a "limiting qualifier".  all of the militia of the United States is not well regulated, and therefor, unnecessary to the security of a free State, and may be Infringed as a result, by well regulated militia, for the security and domestic tranquility needs of our free States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what do you think well regulated meant in the 18th century?
Click to expand...

Who cares.  Only the right wing prefers to appeal to ignorance of the law in favor of their propaganda and rhetoric, from dictionaries instead of encyclopedias.

Wellness of Regulation must be Prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States.  It is a power delegated, in Article 1, Section 8.


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> J. Neil Schulman: The Unabridged Second Amendment
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah. partisan nonsense half of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so the dissection of the language and grammar is partisan?
> 
> it doesn't matter who asked the questions you know that don't you
> 
> it's the answers and explanation of the expert that matter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your "expert" has only a fallacy of composition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He's on the usage panel of the _American Heritage Dictionary_, and _Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary_ frequently cites him as an expert.
> 
> I'll bet you an entire year of your salary that he knows more about the English language than you
> 
> even if I lose it won't cost me 10 bucks
Click to expand...

Your "expert" has only a fallacy of composition.  Our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.  It really is, that simple.


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> why do you think i am advocating for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis; to learn how to build a keep, and put keep building on my resume.
> 
> 
> 
> being unemployed and collecting welfare is not a resume builder
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> learning how to build a keep and putting it on my resume, does help, "build" that resume.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yeah go apply for a job and put that as an accomplishment
> 
> that resume will hit the circular file before you get out of the interview
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i could claim I had to learn it, not from the "ground up, but from the basement up".  Some managers may find that initiative, "something to work with".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> learn what?
> 
> How to jerk off with either hand?
> 
> you call that a 3 way right?
Click to expand...

no, i call it practicing ambidexterity, to help ward off Alzheimer's.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Failed left-wing policy probably cost him both his job and his home. I know it did that to a LOT of people. Barack Obama sure got extremely wealthy though - didn't he?
> 
> 
> 
> why can we afford a war on drugs, and not unemployment compensation, simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And there it is, the inevitable lament.  We get it, you want to get paid for not working.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> full employment of capital resources; what a concept.
> 
> only fools and horses, should Have to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And those who want to eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have laws; why not be legal to our very own, at-will employment laws, for at-will unemployment compensation purposes.
> 
> that way, we can improve the efficiency of our economy, at the same time.
Click to expand...


Paying unemployable clowns, because they refuse to work, does not improve the efficiency of an economy.


----------



## tycho1572

I thought of this thread after reading this story.....
Armed stranger saves police officer during deadly shootout - CNN.com

There's another vid in the link.

People should always have a right to protect themselves, and others.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> I have a work ethic; no employers are offering a bonus to go work and employ my, "historical work ethic from the Age of Iron".


You have no work ethic. None. At all. You're *lazy*. And you want society to provide for you (to which a rational person would ask - why don't _you_ provide for society?). And the fact that you _think_ you need a "bonus" to just show up for work is as freaking hilarious as it is tragic.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> You simply have nothing but repeal instead of any form of better solution at lower cost; typical for the, right wing.


There is no better "solution" at no better cost than free-market capitalism. It *works* _flawlessly_ every time. But therein lies the problem for you. The word "*work*". It's something you don't want to do. But you're too stupid to see the contradiction in your ideology. You're insisting that others provide for you. Well, they don't want to work any more than you do. So why aren't you forced to provide for them? Let's do that instead. You get up and work all day and then you turn over the fruits of that labor to those that don't want to work. Deal?


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> why can we afford a war on drugs, and not unemployment compensation, simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States?
> 
> 
> 
> And there it is, the inevitable lament.  We get it, you want to get paid for not working.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> full employment of capital resources; what a concept.
> 
> only fools and horses, should Have to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And those who want to eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have laws; why not be legal to our very own, at-will employment laws, for at-will unemployment compensation purposes.
> 
> that way, we can improve the efficiency of our economy, at the same time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Paying unemployable clowns, because they refuse to work, does not improve the efficiency of an economy.
Click to expand...

yes, it does; capital must circulate under any form of capitalism, regardless of any work ethic.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there it is, the inevitable lament.  We get it, you want to get paid for not working.
> 
> 
> 
> full employment of capital resources; what a concept.
> 
> only fools and horses, should Have to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And those who want to eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have laws; why not be legal to our very own, at-will employment laws, for at-will unemployment compensation purposes.
> 
> that way, we can improve the efficiency of our economy, at the same time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Paying unemployable clowns, because they refuse to work, does not improve the efficiency of an economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, it does; capital must circulate under any form of capitalism, regardless of any work ethic.
Click to expand...


Nah. Capital never has to flow thru your hands for capitalism to work.
It certainly doesn't have to be handed to you to make capitalism efficient.


----------



## tycho1572

Another illegal committing a serious crime. 

Good luck with your arguments, libs.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well the problem is they are a part of US existence, and yet people will sweep them aside and treat them as nothing if it doesn't suit their agenda.
> 
> How many times in the past 20 years have I stated what the 2A means, backed it up with evidence, only to have someone find this inconvenient and then just go off on one about this that or the other that is convenient for them, but has nothing to back it up? Countless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what does it mean?
> 
> other than the people have the right to keep and bear arms that is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What it doesn't mean.
> 
> The right to bear arms is not the right to carry guns around with.
> The right can also be infringed. These are the two most common mistakes people make.
> 
> The right to keep arms is the right to own guns. The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. The 2A prevents the US federal govt (and now state govts) from preventing you from being able to own arms, this does not mean they can't ban certain weapons, just that you have to be able to get guns, and the they can't prevent you from being in the militia, hence why the made the Dick Act and stuck all males aged 17-45 in the "unorganized militia". Rather convenient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the right to bear arms has nothing to do with a militia
> the militia is secondary to the right to keep and bear arms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you're wrong and I'm going to prove you're wrong.
> 
> Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> This is a document from the debates in the House on the future Second Amendment.
> 
> Mr Gerry said: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."
> 
> This was about a clause of the future Second Amendment that read: "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> Then Mr Gerry said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."
> 
> Yeah, the same person used "militia duty" and "bear arms" synonymously. Go figure.
> 
> Then "Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""
> 
> So, we have "render military service", "militia duty" and "bear arms" all meaning the same thing.
> 
> In fact in different versions of what would become the 2A, "bear arms" and "render military service" would replace each other.
> 
> 
> June 8th 1789
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
> 
> August 17th 1789
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> August 24th 1789
> 
> "but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
> 
> August 25th 1789
> 
> "but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."
> 
> So, it has a lot to do with the militia, actually.
> 
> But then, I'm willing to see what evidence you have, though, I do have a lot more to go on than just this, this is just a start...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the debate  over the terms is not necessarily the meaning of the amendment.  The fact is that those other terms you mention are not in the amendment itself.  There is no qualification that bearing arms equals serving in the militia
> compelling military service is conscription.
> 
> It seems you have the draft and the militia confused
> 
> The militia was the people and the people not just the government were empowered to protect the free state by being allowed to keep and bear arms
Click to expand...


I'm not sure what your point is here.

The right to be in the militia is NOT forcing someone to be in the militia. They considered making a clause that would excuse people from militia duty, but they rejected it. I'm not confused at all. 

The point being made was that "render military service" "militia duty" and "bear arms" were used synonymously by the Founding Fathers. If that is the case, then it is clear that they did not mean a right to walk around with guns, they meant something else. What?

Well it's clear.

The right to keep arms is the right to own weapons, so in the event of an emergency the militia has a ready supply of weaponry that isn't connected to the govt. 
The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia, so in the event of an emergency the militia has a ready supply of personnel not connected to the govt to use those weapons. 

Okay, so, you say "The militia was the people and the people not just the government were empowered to protect the free state by being allowed to keep and bear arms"

How would individuals being able to walk around with guns help the free state? It doesn't. How does an individual having the right to be in the militia help the free state? Well, it helps massively, doesn't it? Having a militia which the govt cannot prevent because the individuals have a right to be in the militia..... well.... it's clear, or it's clear to me. 

Also, if "bear arms" meant carry arms, why did Presser say "

*We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265]   and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
*
and why did Heller confirm this? The Supreme Court says "bear arms" is not carrying arms around.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> J. Neil Schulman: The Unabridged Second Amendment
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah. partisan nonsense half of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so the dissection of the language and grammar is partisan?
> 
> it doesn't matter who asked the questions you know that don't you
> 
> it's the answers and explanation of the expert that matter
Click to expand...


No, the dissection of the language and grammar is done in a manner which doesn't tell you much at all. Why did he miss out the one document that shows that "bear arms" means something else? It's partisan, the conclusion is something they want to hear, and they've ignored facts in order to get there.


----------



## 12icer

Actually someone Needs to go to remedial English comp. There is a NO militia restriction.  It say The right of the PEOPLE to KEEP, and BEAR arms shall not be infringed. It does neither describe the type, nor the power of the arms. The separation of the two clauses means they are separate in thought and they are tied loosely in the overall idea. If the meaning was to keep a militia it would not have the comma. The MILITIA clause is something that should scare liberals anyway, it means to keep the people free sometimes they need a militia to keep oppressive government under control, Logical since they just defeated a MONARCHY. twist and turn as you like liberals the meaning had been clear to everyone till 1968. Most people understand the reason liberal lying dimshits want to disarm the people. That is why gun sales to little old ladies go WAY UP when you try to ban them.  As for ASSAULT RIFLES. they are just MILITARY weapons. They are fully automatic, designed to hold down a large group of enemies so that they may be attacked easier. The semi auto versions are just like the Browning hunting rifles, and the Williams design they take their actions from. There are much deadlier guns out there than what YOU call the "assault" rifle.


----------



## frigidweirdo

12icer said:


> Actually someone Needs to go to remedial English comp. There is a NO militia restriction.  It say The right of the PEOPLE to KEEP, and BEAR arms shall not be infringed. It does neither describe the type, nor the power of the arms. The separation of the two clauses means they are separate in thought and they are tied loosely in the overall idea. If the meaning was to keep a militia it would not have the comma. The MILITIA clause is something that should scare liberals anyway, it means to keep the people free sometimes they need a militia to keep oppressive government under control, Logical since they just defeated a MONARCHY. twist and turn as you like liberals the meaning had been clear to everyone till 1968. Most people understand the reason liberal lying dimshits want to disarm the people. That is why gun sales to little old ladies go WAY UP when you try to ban them.  As for ASSAULT RIFLES. they are just MILITARY weapons. They are fully automatic, designed to hold down a large group of enemies so that they may be attacked easier. The semi auto versions are just like the Browning hunting rifles, and the Williams design they take their actions from. There are much deadlier guns out there than what YOU call the "assault" rifle.



Hilarious.

I didn't say there was a militia restriction at all. Did you not read what I wrote? You're telling me I have a problem with English, and yet you've managed to read something that isn't there.


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have to get a job first
> 
> 
> 
> why do you think i am advocating for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis; to learn how to build a keep, and put keep building on my resume.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _What_? How does getting paid by the federal government to *quit* your job help your résumé?!? Are you not aware that most employers don't look for people who quit their jobs?!?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why do you think i am advocating for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis; to learn how to build a keep, and put keep building on my resume.
> 
> it takes money to build a keep, even for fun and practice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it takes money - go *earn* it snowflake. Why is this concept so mind-boggling for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have a work ethic; no employers are offering a bonus to go work and employ my, "historical work ethic from the Age of Iron".
Click to expand...

no one who wants to get paid for not working has a work ethic


----------



## frigidweirdo

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> why do you think i am advocating for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis; to learn how to build a keep, and put keep building on my resume.
> 
> 
> 
> _What_? How does getting paid by the federal government to *quit* your job help your résumé?!? Are you not aware that most employers don't look for people who quit their jobs?!?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why do you think i am advocating for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis; to learn how to build a keep, and put keep building on my resume.
> 
> it takes money to build a keep, even for fun and practice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it takes money - go *earn* it snowflake. Why is this concept so mind-boggling for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have a work ethic; no employers are offering a bonus to go work and employ my, "historical work ethic from the Age of Iron".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no one who wants to get paid for not working has a work ethic
Click to expand...


I have a work ethic, I'd love to get paid for not working. I'd love to win the lottery and not have to work.


----------



## Skull Pilot

frigidweirdo said:


> 12icer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually someone Needs to go to remedial English comp. There is a NO militia restriction.  It say The right of the PEOPLE to KEEP, and BEAR arms shall not be infringed. It does neither describe the type, nor the power of the arms. The separation of the two clauses means they are separate in thought and they are tied loosely in the overall idea. If the meaning was to keep a militia it would not have the comma. The MILITIA clause is something that should scare liberals anyway, it means to keep the people free sometimes they need a militia to keep oppressive government under control, Logical since they just defeated a MONARCHY. twist and turn as you like liberals the meaning had been clear to everyone till 1968. Most people understand the reason liberal lying dimshits want to disarm the people. That is why gun sales to little old ladies go WAY UP when you try to ban them.  As for ASSAULT RIFLES. they are just MILITARY weapons. They are fully automatic, designed to hold down a large group of enemies so that they may be attacked easier. The semi auto versions are just like the Browning hunting rifles, and the Williams design they take their actions from. There are much deadlier guns out there than what YOU call the "assault" rifle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hilarious.
> 
> I didn't say there was a militia restriction at all. Did you not read what I wrote? You're telling me I have a problem with English, and yet you've managed to read something that isn't there.
Click to expand...

no you just said bearing arms doesn't mean people can carry weapons unless they are doing it in service to a militia

that sounds like a restriction to me


----------



## Skull Pilot

frigidweirdo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> _What_? How does getting paid by the federal government to *quit* your job help your résumé?!? Are you not aware that most employers don't look for people who quit their jobs?!?
> 
> 
> 
> why do you think i am advocating for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis; to learn how to build a keep, and put keep building on my resume.
> 
> it takes money to build a keep, even for fun and practice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it takes money - go *earn* it snowflake. Why is this concept so mind-boggling for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have a work ethic; no employers are offering a bonus to go work and employ my, "historical work ethic from the Age of Iron".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no one who wants to get paid for not working has a work ethic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a work ethic, I'd love to get paid for not working. I'd love to win the lottery and not have to work.
Click to expand...


having money and not having to work is a hell of a lot different than wanting to get paid for doing nothing


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> the right to bear arms has nothing to do with a militia
> the militia is secondary to the right to keep and bear arms
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you're wrong and I'm going to prove you're wrong.
> 
> Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> This is a document from the debates in the House on the future Second Amendment.
> 
> Mr Gerry said: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."
> 
> This was about a clause of the future Second Amendment that read: "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> Then Mr Gerry said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."
> 
> Yeah, the same person used "militia duty" and "bear arms" synonymously. Go figure.
> 
> Then "Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""
> 
> So, we have "render military service", "militia duty" and "bear arms" all meaning the same thing.
> 
> In fact in different versions of what would become the 2A, "bear arms" and "render military service" would replace each other.
> 
> 
> June 8th 1789
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
> 
> August 17th 1789
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> August 24th 1789
> 
> "but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
> 
> August 25th 1789
> 
> "but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."
> 
> So, it has a lot to do with the militia, actually.
> 
> But then, I'm willing to see what evidence you have, though, I do have a lot more to go on than just this, this is just a start...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the debate  over the terms is not necessarily the meaning of the amendment.  The fact is that those other terms you mention are not in the amendment itself.  There is no qualification that bearing arms equals serving in the militia
> compelling military service is conscription.
> 
> It seems you have the draft and the militia confused
> 
> The militia was the people and the people not just the government were empowered to protect the free state by being allowed to keep and bear arms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well regulated, is a "limiting qualifier".  all of the militia of the United States is not well regulated, and therefor, unnecessary to the security of a free State, and may be Infringed as a result, by well regulated militia, for the security and domestic tranquility needs of our free States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what do you think well regulated meant in the 18th century?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who cares.  Only the right wing prefers to appeal to ignorance of the law in favor of their propaganda and rhetoric, from dictionaries instead of encyclopedias.
> 
> Wellness of Regulation must be Prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States.  It is a power delegated, in Article 1, Section 8.
Click to expand...


well you don't care because you think the shit you make up trumps historical record


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> J. Neil Schulman: The Unabridged Second Amendment
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah. partisan nonsense half of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so the dissection of the language and grammar is partisan?
> 
> it doesn't matter who asked the questions you know that don't you
> 
> it's the answers and explanation of the expert that matter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your "expert" has only a fallacy of composition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He's on the usage panel of the _American Heritage Dictionary_, and _Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary_ frequently cites him as an expert.
> 
> I'll bet you an entire year of your salary that he knows more about the English language than you
> 
> even if I lose it won't cost me 10 bucks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your "expert" has only a fallacy of composition.  Our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.  It really is, that simple.
Click to expand...

 show me the dictionary or literary journals that cite you as a language expert


----------



## frigidweirdo

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 12icer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually someone Needs to go to remedial English comp. There is a NO militia restriction.  It say The right of the PEOPLE to KEEP, and BEAR arms shall not be infringed. It does neither describe the type, nor the power of the arms. The separation of the two clauses means they are separate in thought and they are tied loosely in the overall idea. If the meaning was to keep a militia it would not have the comma. The MILITIA clause is something that should scare liberals anyway, it means to keep the people free sometimes they need a militia to keep oppressive government under control, Logical since they just defeated a MONARCHY. twist and turn as you like liberals the meaning had been clear to everyone till 1968. Most people understand the reason liberal lying dimshits want to disarm the people. That is why gun sales to little old ladies go WAY UP when you try to ban them.  As for ASSAULT RIFLES. they are just MILITARY weapons. They are fully automatic, designed to hold down a large group of enemies so that they may be attacked easier. The semi auto versions are just like the Browning hunting rifles, and the Williams design they take their actions from. There are much deadlier guns out there than what YOU call the "assault" rifle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hilarious.
> 
> I didn't say there was a militia restriction at all. Did you not read what I wrote? You're telling me I have a problem with English, and yet you've managed to read something that isn't there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no you just said bearing arms doesn't mean people can carry weapons unless they are doing it in service to a militia
> 
> that sounds like a restriction to me
Click to expand...


Er.. no, I did not. 

You can go looking for where I said that, and you'll keep looking until you give up because I did not say that. 

What I did say, if you'd been paying attention, was that the right to keep arms is the right of people to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply of weaponry in times of need. 

I also said the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia so the militia has a ready supply of personnel in times of need. 

If you don't understand this concept, ask me, don't go off assuming I said things you didn't read.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> why do you think i am advocating for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis; to learn how to build a keep, and put keep building on my resume.
> 
> it takes money to build a keep, even for fun and practice.
> 
> 
> 
> If it takes money - go *earn* it snowflake. Why is this concept so mind-boggling for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have a work ethic; no employers are offering a bonus to go work and employ my, "historical work ethic from the Age of Iron".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no one who wants to get paid for not working has a work ethic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a work ethic, I'd love to get paid for not working. I'd love to win the lottery and not have to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> having money and not having to work is a hell of a lot different than wanting to get paid for doing nothing
Click to expand...


Sure, it's different. But then again I get paid for having holidays. In other words I get paid for doing nothing. Is that wrong of me?


----------



## Skull Pilot

frigidweirdo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> what does it mean?
> 
> other than the people have the right to keep and bear arms that is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What it doesn't mean.
> 
> The right to bear arms is not the right to carry guns around with.
> The right can also be infringed. These are the two most common mistakes people make.
> 
> The right to keep arms is the right to own guns. The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. The 2A prevents the US federal govt (and now state govts) from preventing you from being able to own arms, this does not mean they can't ban certain weapons, just that you have to be able to get guns, and the they can't prevent you from being in the militia, hence why the made the Dick Act and stuck all males aged 17-45 in the "unorganized militia". Rather convenient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the right to bear arms has nothing to do with a militia
> the militia is secondary to the right to keep and bear arms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you're wrong and I'm going to prove you're wrong.
> 
> Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> This is a document from the debates in the House on the future Second Amendment.
> 
> Mr Gerry said: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."
> 
> This was about a clause of the future Second Amendment that read: "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> Then Mr Gerry said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."
> 
> Yeah, the same person used "militia duty" and "bear arms" synonymously. Go figure.
> 
> Then "Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""
> 
> So, we have "render military service", "militia duty" and "bear arms" all meaning the same thing.
> 
> In fact in different versions of what would become the 2A, "bear arms" and "render military service" would replace each other.
> 
> 
> June 8th 1789
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
> 
> August 17th 1789
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> August 24th 1789
> 
> "but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
> 
> August 25th 1789
> 
> "but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."
> 
> So, it has a lot to do with the militia, actually.
> 
> But then, I'm willing to see what evidence you have, though, I do have a lot more to go on than just this, this is just a start...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the debate  over the terms is not necessarily the meaning of the amendment.  The fact is that those other terms you mention are not in the amendment itself.  There is no qualification that bearing arms equals serving in the militia
> compelling military service is conscription.
> 
> It seems you have the draft and the militia confused
> 
> The militia was the people and the people not just the government were empowered to protect the free state by being allowed to keep and bear arms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what your point is here.
> 
> The right to be in the militia is NOT forcing someone to be in the militia. They considered making a clause that would excuse people from militia duty, but they rejected it. I'm not confused at all.
> 
> The point being made was that "render military service" "militia duty" and "bear arms" were used synonymously by the Founding Fathers. If that is the case, then it is clear that they did not mean a right to walk around with guns, they meant something else. What?
> 
> Well it's clear.
> 
> The right to keep arms is the right to own weapons, so in the event of an emergency the militia has a ready supply of weaponry that isn't connected to the govt.
> The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia, so in the event of an emergency the militia has a ready supply of personnel not connected to the govt to use those weapons.
> 
> Okay, so, you say "The militia was the people and the people not just the government were empowered to protect the free state by being allowed to keep and bear arms"
> 
> How would individuals being able to walk around with guns help the free state? It doesn't. How does an individual having the right to be in the militia help the free state? Well, it helps massively, doesn't it? Having a militia which the govt cannot prevent because the individuals have a right to be in the militia..... well.... it's clear, or it's clear to me.
> 
> Also, if "bear arms" meant carry arms, why did Presser say "
> 
> *We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265]   and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
> *
> and why did Heller confirm this? The Supreme Court says "bear arms" is not carrying arms around.
Click to expand...


You have not proven that the right to bear arms is the right to be in a militia.

one does not have to be in a militia to keep and bear arms.  tell me what good does keeping a weapon do if you can only use it in service of a militia?


----------



## frigidweirdo

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah. partisan nonsense half of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so the dissection of the language and grammar is partisan?
> 
> it doesn't matter who asked the questions you know that don't you
> 
> it's the answers and explanation of the expert that matter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your "expert" has only a fallacy of composition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He's on the usage panel of the _American Heritage Dictionary_, and _Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary_ frequently cites him as an expert.
> 
> I'll bet you an entire year of your salary that he knows more about the English language than you
> 
> even if I lose it won't cost me 10 bucks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your "expert" has only a fallacy of composition.  Our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.  It really is, that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> show me the dictionary or literary journals that cite you as a language expert
Click to expand...


You're banging your head against the wall talking to that one. I put him on ignore ages ago because he'll just go around and around in circles ignore anything and everything you say.


----------



## Skull Pilot

frigidweirdo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it takes money - go *earn* it snowflake. Why is this concept so mind-boggling for you?
> 
> 
> 
> I have a work ethic; no employers are offering a bonus to go work and employ my, "historical work ethic from the Age of Iron".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no one who wants to get paid for not working has a work ethic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a work ethic, I'd love to get paid for not working. I'd love to win the lottery and not have to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> having money and not having to work is a hell of a lot different than wanting to get paid for doing nothing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it's different. But then again I get paid for having holidays. In other words I get paid for doing nothing. Is that wrong of me?
Click to expand...


holidays are an accepted part of a compensation package.

some people get more paid holidays that others

but you have to have a job to get those don't you?


----------



## frigidweirdo

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What it doesn't mean.
> 
> The right to bear arms is not the right to carry guns around with.
> The right can also be infringed. These are the two most common mistakes people make.
> 
> The right to keep arms is the right to own guns. The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. The 2A prevents the US federal govt (and now state govts) from preventing you from being able to own arms, this does not mean they can't ban certain weapons, just that you have to be able to get guns, and the they can't prevent you from being in the militia, hence why the made the Dick Act and stuck all males aged 17-45 in the "unorganized militia". Rather convenient.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the right to bear arms has nothing to do with a militia
> the militia is secondary to the right to keep and bear arms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you're wrong and I'm going to prove you're wrong.
> 
> Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> This is a document from the debates in the House on the future Second Amendment.
> 
> Mr Gerry said: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."
> 
> This was about a clause of the future Second Amendment that read: "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> Then Mr Gerry said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."
> 
> Yeah, the same person used "militia duty" and "bear arms" synonymously. Go figure.
> 
> Then "Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""
> 
> So, we have "render military service", "militia duty" and "bear arms" all meaning the same thing.
> 
> In fact in different versions of what would become the 2A, "bear arms" and "render military service" would replace each other.
> 
> 
> June 8th 1789
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
> 
> August 17th 1789
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> August 24th 1789
> 
> "but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
> 
> August 25th 1789
> 
> "but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."
> 
> So, it has a lot to do with the militia, actually.
> 
> But then, I'm willing to see what evidence you have, though, I do have a lot more to go on than just this, this is just a start...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the debate  over the terms is not necessarily the meaning of the amendment.  The fact is that those other terms you mention are not in the amendment itself.  There is no qualification that bearing arms equals serving in the militia
> compelling military service is conscription.
> 
> It seems you have the draft and the militia confused
> 
> The militia was the people and the people not just the government were empowered to protect the free state by being allowed to keep and bear arms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what your point is here.
> 
> The right to be in the militia is NOT forcing someone to be in the militia. They considered making a clause that would excuse people from militia duty, but they rejected it. I'm not confused at all.
> 
> The point being made was that "render military service" "militia duty" and "bear arms" were used synonymously by the Founding Fathers. If that is the case, then it is clear that they did not mean a right to walk around with guns, they meant something else. What?
> 
> Well it's clear.
> 
> The right to keep arms is the right to own weapons, so in the event of an emergency the militia has a ready supply of weaponry that isn't connected to the govt.
> The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia, so in the event of an emergency the militia has a ready supply of personnel not connected to the govt to use those weapons.
> 
> Okay, so, you say "The militia was the people and the people not just the government were empowered to protect the free state by being allowed to keep and bear arms"
> 
> How would individuals being able to walk around with guns help the free state? It doesn't. How does an individual having the right to be in the militia help the free state? Well, it helps massively, doesn't it? Having a militia which the govt cannot prevent because the individuals have a right to be in the militia..... well.... it's clear, or it's clear to me.
> 
> Also, if "bear arms" meant carry arms, why did Presser say "
> 
> *We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265]   and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
> *
> and why did Heller confirm this? The Supreme Court says "bear arms" is not carrying arms around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have not proven that the right to bear arms is the right to be in a militia.
> 
> one does not have to be in a militia to keep and bear arms.  tell me what good does keeping a weapon do if you can only use it in service of a militia?
Click to expand...



Proven? How much proof do you need? 

First you have the founding fathers using "bear arms", "render military service" and "militia duty" synonymously.

But you've decided to ignore the founding fathers. How about George Washington? Will you ignore him? 

*SENTIMENTS ON A PEACE ESTABLISHMENT, 1783*

George Washington


"every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America... from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls,"

"by making it universally reputable to bear Arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the performance of Military duties; in fine, by keeping up in Peace "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia," we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country.“

Then you have the Supreme Court. 


ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1897)

_“_the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;”


PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)

"*We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265]   and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."


District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

"(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes."
*
Even Heller upheld the Presser case. 

Now I asked you for your evidence and you've posted NOTHING. That's because there isn't anything. There's NO EVIDENCE that the right to bear arms is the right to carry arms around. Even if there were, the Supreme Court has ruled that this isn't the case. Even if that were so, the Founding Fathers clearly wrote the amendment with the thought that "bear arms" meant "render military service" or "militia duty".


Also, AGAIN. I have NOT SAID you have to be in the militia to have the right to keep arms, or the right to bear arms. In fact, it makes no sense. How could you have the right to bear arms, but you have to be in the militia to have the right to be in the militia? No idiot would write such a statement, and I certainly have not said that this is the case, and yet you keep pounding away fighting some ghost that isn't there. Why don't you try READING what the FUCK I WRITE. Because it's getting rather annoying to have to keep explaining something, not when asked to clarify, but when told I said something which I clearly did not say.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a work ethic; no employers are offering a bonus to go work and employ my, "historical work ethic from the Age of Iron".
> 
> 
> 
> no one who wants to get paid for not working has a work ethic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a work ethic, I'd love to get paid for not working. I'd love to win the lottery and not have to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> having money and not having to work is a hell of a lot different than wanting to get paid for doing nothing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it's different. But then again I get paid for having holidays. In other words I get paid for doing nothing. Is that wrong of me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> holidays are an accepted part of a compensation package.
> 
> some people get more paid holidays that others
> 
> but you have to have a job to get those don't you?
Click to expand...


Sure, but maybe you should have been a bit more specific about what you were talking about. You weren't talking about people getting money for not working, but people who don't have jobs being given money by the government for not working. 

Though even then you have those who can't work, who can't currently get a job and have paid into the system for unemployment benefits, and then you have lazy bastards who don't do anything. The latter is far different to the former.


----------



## Skull Pilot

frigidweirdo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> the right to bear arms has nothing to do with a militia
> the militia is secondary to the right to keep and bear arms
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you're wrong and I'm going to prove you're wrong.
> 
> Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> This is a document from the debates in the House on the future Second Amendment.
> 
> Mr Gerry said: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."
> 
> This was about a clause of the future Second Amendment that read: "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> Then Mr Gerry said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."
> 
> Yeah, the same person used "militia duty" and "bear arms" synonymously. Go figure.
> 
> Then "Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""
> 
> So, we have "render military service", "militia duty" and "bear arms" all meaning the same thing.
> 
> In fact in different versions of what would become the 2A, "bear arms" and "render military service" would replace each other.
> 
> 
> June 8th 1789
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
> 
> August 17th 1789
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> August 24th 1789
> 
> "but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
> 
> August 25th 1789
> 
> "but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."
> 
> So, it has a lot to do with the militia, actually.
> 
> But then, I'm willing to see what evidence you have, though, I do have a lot more to go on than just this, this is just a start...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the debate  over the terms is not necessarily the meaning of the amendment.  The fact is that those other terms you mention are not in the amendment itself.  There is no qualification that bearing arms equals serving in the militia
> compelling military service is conscription.
> 
> It seems you have the draft and the militia confused
> 
> The militia was the people and the people not just the government were empowered to protect the free state by being allowed to keep and bear arms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what your point is here.
> 
> The right to be in the militia is NOT forcing someone to be in the militia. They considered making a clause that would excuse people from militia duty, but they rejected it. I'm not confused at all.
> 
> The point being made was that "render military service" "militia duty" and "bear arms" were used synonymously by the Founding Fathers. If that is the case, then it is clear that they did not mean a right to walk around with guns, they meant something else. What?
> 
> Well it's clear.
> 
> The right to keep arms is the right to own weapons, so in the event of an emergency the militia has a ready supply of weaponry that isn't connected to the govt.
> The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia, so in the event of an emergency the militia has a ready supply of personnel not connected to the govt to use those weapons.
> 
> Okay, so, you say "The militia was the people and the people not just the government were empowered to protect the free state by being allowed to keep and bear arms"
> 
> How would individuals being able to walk around with guns help the free state? It doesn't. How does an individual having the right to be in the militia help the free state? Well, it helps massively, doesn't it? Having a militia which the govt cannot prevent because the individuals have a right to be in the militia..... well.... it's clear, or it's clear to me.
> 
> Also, if "bear arms" meant carry arms, why did Presser say "
> 
> *We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265]   and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
> *
> and why did Heller confirm this? The Supreme Court says "bear arms" is not carrying arms around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have not proven that the right to bear arms is the right to be in a militia.
> 
> one does not have to be in a militia to keep and bear arms.  tell me what good does keeping a weapon do if you can only use it in service of a militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Proven? How much proof do you need?
> 
> First you have the founding fathers using "bear arms", "render military service" and "militia duty" synonymously.
> 
> But you've decided to ignore the founding fathers. How about George Washington? Will you ignore him?
> 
> *SENTIMENTS ON A PEACE ESTABLISHMENT, 1783*
> 
> George Washington
> 
> 
> "every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America... from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls,"
> 
> "by making it universally reputable to bear Arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the performance of Military duties; in fine, by keeping up in Peace "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia," we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country.“
> 
> Then you have the Supreme Court.
> 
> 
> ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1897)
> 
> _“_the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;”
> 
> 
> PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)
> 
> "*We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265]   and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
> 
> 
> District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
> 
> "(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes."
> *
> Even Heller upheld the Presser case.
> 
> Now I asked you for your evidence and you've posted NOTHING. That's because there isn't anything. There's NO EVIDENCE that the right to bear arms is the right to carry arms around. Even if there were, the Supreme Court has ruled that this isn't the case. Even if that were so, the Founding Fathers clearly wrote the amendment with the thought that "bear arms" meant "render military service" or "militia duty".
> 
> 
> Also, AGAIN. I have NOT SAID you have to be in the militia to have the right to keep arms, or the right to bear arms. In fact, it makes no sense. How could you have the right to bear arms, but you have to be in the militia to have the right to be in the militia? No idiot would write such a statement, and I certainly have not said that this is the case, and yet you keep pounding away fighting some ghost that isn't there. Why don't you try READING what the FUCK I WRITE. Because it's getting rather annoying to have to keep explaining something, not when asked to clarify, but when told I said something which I clearly did not say.
Click to expand...


they used it but did not specify that in the second amendment.

if the purpose of the second was to limit the bearing of arms solely to service in a militia it would have said that


----------



## Skull Pilot

frigidweirdo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> no one who wants to get paid for not working has a work ethic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a work ethic, I'd love to get paid for not working. I'd love to win the lottery and not have to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> having money and not having to work is a hell of a lot different than wanting to get paid for doing nothing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it's different. But then again I get paid for having holidays. In other words I get paid for doing nothing. Is that wrong of me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> holidays are an accepted part of a compensation package.
> 
> some people get more paid holidays that others
> 
> but you have to have a job to get those don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, but maybe you should have been a bit more specific about what you were talking about. You weren't talking about people getting money for not working, but people who don't have jobs being given money by the government for not working.
> 
> Though even then you have those who can't work, who can't currently get a job and have paid into the system for unemployment benefits, and then you have lazy bastards who don't do anything. The latter is far different to the former.
Click to expand...


employees do not pay into unemployment

employers do via federal and state unemployment taxes

The benefits *paid* to jobless *workers* are financed through federal and state*unemployment* taxes *paid* by *employers*. Every state's *unemployment* system bases the employer's tax rate on the amount of benefits *paid* to former *workers*. Your actions affect your tax rate.May 2, 2016

The Unemployment Benefits System:  How it Works and When to Contest a Claim | BizFilings Toolkit


----------



## frigidweirdo

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you're wrong and I'm going to prove you're wrong.
> 
> Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> This is a document from the debates in the House on the future Second Amendment.
> 
> Mr Gerry said: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."
> 
> This was about a clause of the future Second Amendment that read: "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> Then Mr Gerry said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."
> 
> Yeah, the same person used "militia duty" and "bear arms" synonymously. Go figure.
> 
> Then "Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""
> 
> So, we have "render military service", "militia duty" and "bear arms" all meaning the same thing.
> 
> In fact in different versions of what would become the 2A, "bear arms" and "render military service" would replace each other.
> 
> 
> June 8th 1789
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
> 
> August 17th 1789
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> August 24th 1789
> 
> "but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
> 
> August 25th 1789
> 
> "but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."
> 
> So, it has a lot to do with the militia, actually.
> 
> But then, I'm willing to see what evidence you have, though, I do have a lot more to go on than just this, this is just a start...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the debate  over the terms is not necessarily the meaning of the amendment.  The fact is that those other terms you mention are not in the amendment itself.  There is no qualification that bearing arms equals serving in the militia
> compelling military service is conscription.
> 
> It seems you have the draft and the militia confused
> 
> The militia was the people and the people not just the government were empowered to protect the free state by being allowed to keep and bear arms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what your point is here.
> 
> The right to be in the militia is NOT forcing someone to be in the militia. They considered making a clause that would excuse people from militia duty, but they rejected it. I'm not confused at all.
> 
> The point being made was that "render military service" "militia duty" and "bear arms" were used synonymously by the Founding Fathers. If that is the case, then it is clear that they did not mean a right to walk around with guns, they meant something else. What?
> 
> Well it's clear.
> 
> The right to keep arms is the right to own weapons, so in the event of an emergency the militia has a ready supply of weaponry that isn't connected to the govt.
> The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia, so in the event of an emergency the militia has a ready supply of personnel not connected to the govt to use those weapons.
> 
> Okay, so, you say "The militia was the people and the people not just the government were empowered to protect the free state by being allowed to keep and bear arms"
> 
> How would individuals being able to walk around with guns help the free state? It doesn't. How does an individual having the right to be in the militia help the free state? Well, it helps massively, doesn't it? Having a militia which the govt cannot prevent because the individuals have a right to be in the militia..... well.... it's clear, or it's clear to me.
> 
> Also, if "bear arms" meant carry arms, why did Presser say "
> 
> *We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265]   and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
> *
> and why did Heller confirm this? The Supreme Court says "bear arms" is not carrying arms around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have not proven that the right to bear arms is the right to be in a militia.
> 
> one does not have to be in a militia to keep and bear arms.  tell me what good does keeping a weapon do if you can only use it in service of a militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Proven? How much proof do you need?
> 
> First you have the founding fathers using "bear arms", "render military service" and "militia duty" synonymously.
> 
> But you've decided to ignore the founding fathers. How about George Washington? Will you ignore him?
> 
> *SENTIMENTS ON A PEACE ESTABLISHMENT, 1783*
> 
> George Washington
> 
> 
> "every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America... from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls,"
> 
> "by making it universally reputable to bear Arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the performance of Military duties; in fine, by keeping up in Peace "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia," we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country.“
> 
> Then you have the Supreme Court.
> 
> 
> ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1897)
> 
> _“_the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;”
> 
> 
> PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)
> 
> "*We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265]   and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
> 
> 
> District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
> 
> "(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes."
> *
> Even Heller upheld the Presser case.
> 
> Now I asked you for your evidence and you've posted NOTHING. That's because there isn't anything. There's NO EVIDENCE that the right to bear arms is the right to carry arms around. Even if there were, the Supreme Court has ruled that this isn't the case. Even if that were so, the Founding Fathers clearly wrote the amendment with the thought that "bear arms" meant "render military service" or "militia duty".
> 
> 
> Also, AGAIN. I have NOT SAID you have to be in the militia to have the right to keep arms, or the right to bear arms. In fact, it makes no sense. How could you have the right to bear arms, but you have to be in the militia to have the right to be in the militia? No idiot would write such a statement, and I certainly have not said that this is the case, and yet you keep pounding away fighting some ghost that isn't there. Why don't you try READING what the FUCK I WRITE. Because it's getting rather annoying to have to keep explaining something, not when asked to clarify, but when told I said something which I clearly did not say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they used it but did not specify that in the second amendment.
> 
> if the purpose of the second was to limit the bearing of arms solely to service in a militia it would have said that
Click to expand...


"it", what is "it"? I wrote a long post, am I supposed to know what "it" is when you use it without context?

But, the amendment DID say that.

It's like saying that the amendment doesn't talk about guns, but only arms, if they had meant guns, wouldn't they have said guns? You argument makes no sense.

When "bear arms" means "render military service" or "militia duty", and then you complain when they didn't write "militia duty", you have to wonder how much you don't want this to be true, how much of this FACT you're willing to ignore. 

Do you accept that the founding fathers saw "bear arms" "render military service" and "militia duty" synonymously? Or are you rejecting this?


----------



## frigidweirdo

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a work ethic, I'd love to get paid for not working. I'd love to win the lottery and not have to work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> having money and not having to work is a hell of a lot different than wanting to get paid for doing nothing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it's different. But then again I get paid for having holidays. In other words I get paid for doing nothing. Is that wrong of me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> holidays are an accepted part of a compensation package.
> 
> some people get more paid holidays that others
> 
> but you have to have a job to get those don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, but maybe you should have been a bit more specific about what you were talking about. You weren't talking about people getting money for not working, but people who don't have jobs being given money by the government for not working.
> 
> Though even then you have those who can't work, who can't currently get a job and have paid into the system for unemployment benefits, and then you have lazy bastards who don't do anything. The latter is far different to the former.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> employees do not pay into unemployment
> 
> employers do via federal and state unemployment taxes
> 
> The benefits *paid* to jobless *workers* are financed through federal and state*unemployment* taxes *paid* by *employers*. Every state's *unemployment* system bases the employer's tax rate on the amount of benefits *paid* to former *workers*. Your actions affect your tax rate.May 2, 2016
> 
> The Unemployment Benefits System:  How it Works and When to Contest a Claim | BizFilings Toolkit
Click to expand...


This has nothing to do with this topic, and I'm not going to argue over this either. You just need to be clearer about your language.


----------



## Skull Pilot

frigidweirdo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> the debate  over the terms is not necessarily the meaning of the amendment.  The fact is that those other terms you mention are not in the amendment itself.  There is no qualification that bearing arms equals serving in the militia
> compelling military service is conscription.
> 
> It seems you have the draft and the militia confused
> 
> The militia was the people and the people not just the government were empowered to protect the free state by being allowed to keep and bear arms
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what your point is here.
> 
> The right to be in the militia is NOT forcing someone to be in the militia. They considered making a clause that would excuse people from militia duty, but they rejected it. I'm not confused at all.
> 
> The point being made was that "render military service" "militia duty" and "bear arms" were used synonymously by the Founding Fathers. If that is the case, then it is clear that they did not mean a right to walk around with guns, they meant something else. What?
> 
> Well it's clear.
> 
> The right to keep arms is the right to own weapons, so in the event of an emergency the militia has a ready supply of weaponry that isn't connected to the govt.
> The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia, so in the event of an emergency the militia has a ready supply of personnel not connected to the govt to use those weapons.
> 
> Okay, so, you say "The militia was the people and the people not just the government were empowered to protect the free state by being allowed to keep and bear arms"
> 
> How would individuals being able to walk around with guns help the free state? It doesn't. How does an individual having the right to be in the militia help the free state? Well, it helps massively, doesn't it? Having a militia which the govt cannot prevent because the individuals have a right to be in the militia..... well.... it's clear, or it's clear to me.
> 
> Also, if "bear arms" meant carry arms, why did Presser say "
> 
> *We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265]   and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
> *
> and why did Heller confirm this? The Supreme Court says "bear arms" is not carrying arms around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have not proven that the right to bear arms is the right to be in a militia.
> 
> one does not have to be in a militia to keep and bear arms.  tell me what good does keeping a weapon do if you can only use it in service of a militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Proven? How much proof do you need?
> 
> First you have the founding fathers using "bear arms", "render military service" and "militia duty" synonymously.
> 
> But you've decided to ignore the founding fathers. How about George Washington? Will you ignore him?
> 
> *SENTIMENTS ON A PEACE ESTABLISHMENT, 1783*
> 
> George Washington
> 
> 
> "every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America... from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls,"
> 
> "by making it universally reputable to bear Arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the performance of Military duties; in fine, by keeping up in Peace "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia," we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country.“
> 
> Then you have the Supreme Court.
> 
> 
> ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1897)
> 
> _“_the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;”
> 
> 
> PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)
> 
> "*We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265]   and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
> 
> 
> District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
> 
> "(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes."
> *
> Even Heller upheld the Presser case.
> 
> Now I asked you for your evidence and you've posted NOTHING. That's because there isn't anything. There's NO EVIDENCE that the right to bear arms is the right to carry arms around. Even if there were, the Supreme Court has ruled that this isn't the case. Even if that were so, the Founding Fathers clearly wrote the amendment with the thought that "bear arms" meant "render military service" or "militia duty".
> 
> 
> Also, AGAIN. I have NOT SAID you have to be in the militia to have the right to keep arms, or the right to bear arms. In fact, it makes no sense. How could you have the right to bear arms, but you have to be in the militia to have the right to be in the militia? No idiot would write such a statement, and I certainly have not said that this is the case, and yet you keep pounding away fighting some ghost that isn't there. Why don't you try READING what the FUCK I WRITE. Because it's getting rather annoying to have to keep explaining something, not when asked to clarify, but when told I said something which I clearly did not say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they used it but did not specify that in the second amendment.
> 
> if the purpose of the second was to limit the bearing of arms solely to service in a militia it would have said that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "it", what is "it"? I wrote a long post, am I supposed to know what "it" is when you use it without context?
> 
> But, the amendment DID say that.
> 
> It's like saying that the amendment doesn't talk about guns, but only arms, if they had meant guns, wouldn't they have said guns? You argument makes no sense.
> 
> When "bear arms" means "render military service" or "militia duty", and then you complain when they didn't write "militia duty", you have to wonder how much you don't want this to be true, how much of this FACT you're willing to ignore.
> 
> Do you accept that the founding fathers saw "bear arms" "render military service" and "militia duty" synonymously? Or are you rejecting this?
Click to expand...


The right to bear was not restricted by service to a militia.  If it was then a gun could be owned but never used unless serving in the militia

you really think that is the intent of the second amendment?


----------



## Skull Pilot

frigidweirdo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> having money and not having to work is a hell of a lot different than wanting to get paid for doing nothing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, it's different. But then again I get paid for having holidays. In other words I get paid for doing nothing. Is that wrong of me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> holidays are an accepted part of a compensation package.
> 
> some people get more paid holidays that others
> 
> but you have to have a job to get those don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, but maybe you should have been a bit more specific about what you were talking about. You weren't talking about people getting money for not working, but people who don't have jobs being given money by the government for not working.
> 
> Though even then you have those who can't work, who can't currently get a job and have paid into the system for unemployment benefits, and then you have lazy bastards who don't do anything. The latter is far different to the former.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> employees do not pay into unemployment
> 
> employers do via federal and state unemployment taxes
> 
> The benefits *paid* to jobless *workers* are financed through federal and state*unemployment* taxes *paid* by *employers*. Every state's *unemployment* system bases the employer's tax rate on the amount of benefits *paid* to former *workers*. Your actions affect your tax rate.May 2, 2016
> 
> The Unemployment Benefits System:  How it Works and When to Contest a Claim | BizFilings Toolkit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This has nothing to do with this topic, and I'm not going to argue over this either. You just need to be clearer about your language.
Click to expand...

hey you're the one who said employees pay into the system  they don't


----------



## frigidweirdo

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what your point is here.
> 
> The right to be in the militia is NOT forcing someone to be in the militia. They considered making a clause that would excuse people from militia duty, but they rejected it. I'm not confused at all.
> 
> The point being made was that "render military service" "militia duty" and "bear arms" were used synonymously by the Founding Fathers. If that is the case, then it is clear that they did not mean a right to walk around with guns, they meant something else. What?
> 
> Well it's clear.
> 
> The right to keep arms is the right to own weapons, so in the event of an emergency the militia has a ready supply of weaponry that isn't connected to the govt.
> The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia, so in the event of an emergency the militia has a ready supply of personnel not connected to the govt to use those weapons.
> 
> Okay, so, you say "The militia was the people and the people not just the government were empowered to protect the free state by being allowed to keep and bear arms"
> 
> How would individuals being able to walk around with guns help the free state? It doesn't. How does an individual having the right to be in the militia help the free state? Well, it helps massively, doesn't it? Having a militia which the govt cannot prevent because the individuals have a right to be in the militia..... well.... it's clear, or it's clear to me.
> 
> Also, if "bear arms" meant carry arms, why did Presser say "
> 
> *We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265]   and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
> *
> and why did Heller confirm this? The Supreme Court says "bear arms" is not carrying arms around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have not proven that the right to bear arms is the right to be in a militia.
> 
> one does not have to be in a militia to keep and bear arms.  tell me what good does keeping a weapon do if you can only use it in service of a militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Proven? How much proof do you need?
> 
> First you have the founding fathers using "bear arms", "render military service" and "militia duty" synonymously.
> 
> But you've decided to ignore the founding fathers. How about George Washington? Will you ignore him?
> 
> *SENTIMENTS ON A PEACE ESTABLISHMENT, 1783*
> 
> George Washington
> 
> 
> "every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America... from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls,"
> 
> "by making it universally reputable to bear Arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the performance of Military duties; in fine, by keeping up in Peace "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia," we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country.“
> 
> Then you have the Supreme Court.
> 
> 
> ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1897)
> 
> _“_the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;”
> 
> 
> PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)
> 
> "*We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265]   and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
> 
> 
> District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
> 
> "(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes."
> *
> Even Heller upheld the Presser case.
> 
> Now I asked you for your evidence and you've posted NOTHING. That's because there isn't anything. There's NO EVIDENCE that the right to bear arms is the right to carry arms around. Even if there were, the Supreme Court has ruled that this isn't the case. Even if that were so, the Founding Fathers clearly wrote the amendment with the thought that "bear arms" meant "render military service" or "militia duty".
> 
> 
> Also, AGAIN. I have NOT SAID you have to be in the militia to have the right to keep arms, or the right to bear arms. In fact, it makes no sense. How could you have the right to bear arms, but you have to be in the militia to have the right to be in the militia? No idiot would write such a statement, and I certainly have not said that this is the case, and yet you keep pounding away fighting some ghost that isn't there. Why don't you try READING what the FUCK I WRITE. Because it's getting rather annoying to have to keep explaining something, not when asked to clarify, but when told I said something which I clearly did not say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they used it but did not specify that in the second amendment.
> 
> if the purpose of the second was to limit the bearing of arms solely to service in a militia it would have said that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "it", what is "it"? I wrote a long post, am I supposed to know what "it" is when you use it without context?
> 
> But, the amendment DID say that.
> 
> It's like saying that the amendment doesn't talk about guns, but only arms, if they had meant guns, wouldn't they have said guns? You argument makes no sense.
> 
> When "bear arms" means "render military service" or "militia duty", and then you complain when they didn't write "militia duty", you have to wonder how much you don't want this to be true, how much of this FACT you're willing to ignore.
> 
> Do you accept that the founding fathers saw "bear arms" "render military service" and "militia duty" synonymously? Or are you rejecting this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to bear was not restricted by service to a militia.  If it was then a gun could be owned but never used unless serving in the militia
> 
> you really think that is the intent of the second amendment?
Click to expand...


Fucking hell. How many times do I have to say this? I HAVE NOT SAID THAT THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS WAS RESTRICTED TO MILITIA SERVICE.

The right to bear arms IS MILITIA SERVICE. 

What do you think the intent of the 2A is?

The right to stick a gun up your ass?


----------



## Skull Pilot

frigidweirdo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have not proven that the right to bear arms is the right to be in a militia.
> 
> one does not have to be in a militia to keep and bear arms.  tell me what good does keeping a weapon do if you can only use it in service of a militia?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proven? How much proof do you need?
> 
> First you have the founding fathers using "bear arms", "render military service" and "militia duty" synonymously.
> 
> But you've decided to ignore the founding fathers. How about George Washington? Will you ignore him?
> 
> *SENTIMENTS ON A PEACE ESTABLISHMENT, 1783*
> 
> George Washington
> 
> 
> "every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America... from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls,"
> 
> "by making it universally reputable to bear Arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the performance of Military duties; in fine, by keeping up in Peace "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia," we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country.“
> 
> Then you have the Supreme Court.
> 
> 
> ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1897)
> 
> _“_the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;”
> 
> 
> PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)
> 
> "*We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265]   and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
> 
> 
> District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
> 
> "(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes."
> *
> Even Heller upheld the Presser case.
> 
> Now I asked you for your evidence and you've posted NOTHING. That's because there isn't anything. There's NO EVIDENCE that the right to bear arms is the right to carry arms around. Even if there were, the Supreme Court has ruled that this isn't the case. Even if that were so, the Founding Fathers clearly wrote the amendment with the thought that "bear arms" meant "render military service" or "militia duty".
> 
> 
> Also, AGAIN. I have NOT SAID you have to be in the militia to have the right to keep arms, or the right to bear arms. In fact, it makes no sense. How could you have the right to bear arms, but you have to be in the militia to have the right to be in the militia? No idiot would write such a statement, and I certainly have not said that this is the case, and yet you keep pounding away fighting some ghost that isn't there. Why don't you try READING what the FUCK I WRITE. Because it's getting rather annoying to have to keep explaining something, not when asked to clarify, but when told I said something which I clearly did not say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they used it but did not specify that in the second amendment.
> 
> if the purpose of the second was to limit the bearing of arms solely to service in a militia it would have said that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "it", what is "it"? I wrote a long post, am I supposed to know what "it" is when you use it without context?
> 
> But, the amendment DID say that.
> 
> It's like saying that the amendment doesn't talk about guns, but only arms, if they had meant guns, wouldn't they have said guns? You argument makes no sense.
> 
> When "bear arms" means "render military service" or "militia duty", and then you complain when they didn't write "militia duty", you have to wonder how much you don't want this to be true, how much of this FACT you're willing to ignore.
> 
> Do you accept that the founding fathers saw "bear arms" "render military service" and "militia duty" synonymously? Or are you rejecting this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to bear was not restricted by service to a militia.  If it was then a gun could be owned but never used unless serving in the militia
> 
> you really think that is the intent of the second amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fucking hell. How many times do I have to say this? I HAVE NOT SAID THAT THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS WAS RESTRICTED TO MILITIA SERVICE.
> 
> The right to bear arms IS MILITIA SERVICE.
> 
> What do you think the intent of the 2A is?
> 
> The right to stick a gun up your ass?
Click to expand...


so you can only bear arms in the service of a militia

You are saying that an individual does nor have a right to carry a weapon because bearing arms doesn't mean carry a weapon it means serving in the militia.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what your point is here.
> 
> The right to be in the militia is NOT forcing someone to be in the militia. They considered making a clause that would excuse people from militia duty, but they rejected it. I'm not confused at all.
> 
> The point being made was that "render military service" "militia duty" and "bear arms" were used synonymously by the Founding Fathers. If that is the case, then it is clear that they did not mean a right to walk around with guns, they meant something else. What?
> 
> Well it's clear.
> 
> The right to keep arms is the right to own weapons, so in the event of an emergency the militia has a ready supply of weaponry that isn't connected to the govt.
> The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia, so in the event of an emergency the militia has a ready supply of personnel not connected to the govt to use those weapons.
> 
> Okay, so, you say "The militia was the people and the people not just the government were empowered to protect the free state by being allowed to keep and bear arms"
> 
> How would individuals being able to walk around with guns help the free state? It doesn't. How does an individual having the right to be in the militia help the free state? Well, it helps massively, doesn't it? Having a militia which the govt cannot prevent because the individuals have a right to be in the militia..... well.... it's clear, or it's clear to me.
> 
> Also, if "bear arms" meant carry arms, why did Presser say "
> 
> *We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265]   and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
> *
> and why did Heller confirm this? The Supreme Court says "bear arms" is not carrying arms around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have not proven that the right to bear arms is the right to be in a militia.
> 
> one does not have to be in a militia to keep and bear arms.  tell me what good does keeping a weapon do if you can only use it in service of a militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Proven? How much proof do you need?
> 
> First you have the founding fathers using "bear arms", "render military service" and "militia duty" synonymously.
> 
> But you've decided to ignore the founding fathers. How about George Washington? Will you ignore him?
> 
> *SENTIMENTS ON A PEACE ESTABLISHMENT, 1783*
> 
> George Washington
> 
> 
> "every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America... from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls,"
> 
> "by making it universally reputable to bear Arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the performance of Military duties; in fine, by keeping up in Peace "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia," we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country.“
> 
> Then you have the Supreme Court.
> 
> 
> ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1897)
> 
> _“_the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;”
> 
> 
> PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)
> 
> "*We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265]   and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
> 
> 
> District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
> 
> "(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes."
> *
> Even Heller upheld the Presser case.
> 
> Now I asked you for your evidence and you've posted NOTHING. That's because there isn't anything. There's NO EVIDENCE that the right to bear arms is the right to carry arms around. Even if there were, the Supreme Court has ruled that this isn't the case. Even if that were so, the Founding Fathers clearly wrote the amendment with the thought that "bear arms" meant "render military service" or "militia duty".
> 
> 
> Also, AGAIN. I have NOT SAID you have to be in the militia to have the right to keep arms, or the right to bear arms. In fact, it makes no sense. How could you have the right to bear arms, but you have to be in the militia to have the right to be in the militia? No idiot would write such a statement, and I certainly have not said that this is the case, and yet you keep pounding away fighting some ghost that isn't there. Why don't you try READING what the FUCK I WRITE. Because it's getting rather annoying to have to keep explaining something, not when asked to clarify, but when told I said something which I clearly did not say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they used it but did not specify that in the second amendment.
> 
> if the purpose of the second was to limit the bearing of arms solely to service in a militia it would have said that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "it", what is "it"? I wrote a long post, am I supposed to know what "it" is when you use it without context?
> 
> But, the amendment DID say that.
> 
> It's like saying that the amendment doesn't talk about guns, but only arms, if they had meant guns, wouldn't they have said guns? You argument makes no sense.
> 
> When "bear arms" means "render military service" or "militia duty", and then you complain when they didn't write "militia duty", you have to wonder how much you don't want this to be true, how much of this FACT you're willing to ignore.
> 
> Do you accept that the founding fathers saw "bear arms" "render military service" and "militia duty" synonymously? Or are you rejecting this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to bear was not restricted by service to a militia.  If it was then a gun could be owned but never used unless serving in the militia
> 
> you really think that is the intent of the second amendment?
Click to expand...


The founding fathers made the right to free speech so that people could talk about politics. This does not mean you have to talk about politics to have your right to free speech. 

The right to bear arms exists so the security of the state is protected. To do this you need a well regulated militia. To have a militia you need individuals to be in the militia, and you need weapons. You need both of these that are not subject to attacks from the federal govt. So, they protected the right to own weapons, so there is a ready supply of weapons the US federal govt could not take away, and also a ready supply of people to use them.

If they protected the weapons ONLY, then the feds could just ban people being in the militia. They have guns, but they couldn't legitimately use them in the militia. So, what's the point?


----------



## frigidweirdo

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proven? How much proof do you need?
> 
> First you have the founding fathers using "bear arms", "render military service" and "militia duty" synonymously.
> 
> But you've decided to ignore the founding fathers. How about George Washington? Will you ignore him?
> 
> *SENTIMENTS ON A PEACE ESTABLISHMENT, 1783*
> 
> George Washington
> 
> 
> "every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America... from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls,"
> 
> "by making it universally reputable to bear Arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the performance of Military duties; in fine, by keeping up in Peace "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia," we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country.“
> 
> Then you have the Supreme Court.
> 
> 
> ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1897)
> 
> _“_the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;”
> 
> 
> PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)
> 
> "*We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265]   and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
> 
> 
> District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
> 
> "(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes."
> *
> Even Heller upheld the Presser case.
> 
> Now I asked you for your evidence and you've posted NOTHING. That's because there isn't anything. There's NO EVIDENCE that the right to bear arms is the right to carry arms around. Even if there were, the Supreme Court has ruled that this isn't the case. Even if that were so, the Founding Fathers clearly wrote the amendment with the thought that "bear arms" meant "render military service" or "militia duty".
> 
> 
> Also, AGAIN. I have NOT SAID you have to be in the militia to have the right to keep arms, or the right to bear arms. In fact, it makes no sense. How could you have the right to bear arms, but you have to be in the militia to have the right to be in the militia? No idiot would write such a statement, and I certainly have not said that this is the case, and yet you keep pounding away fighting some ghost that isn't there. Why don't you try READING what the FUCK I WRITE. Because it's getting rather annoying to have to keep explaining something, not when asked to clarify, but when told I said something which I clearly did not say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they used it but did not specify that in the second amendment.
> 
> if the purpose of the second was to limit the bearing of arms solely to service in a militia it would have said that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "it", what is "it"? I wrote a long post, am I supposed to know what "it" is when you use it without context?
> 
> But, the amendment DID say that.
> 
> It's like saying that the amendment doesn't talk about guns, but only arms, if they had meant guns, wouldn't they have said guns? You argument makes no sense.
> 
> When "bear arms" means "render military service" or "militia duty", and then you complain when they didn't write "militia duty", you have to wonder how much you don't want this to be true, how much of this FACT you're willing to ignore.
> 
> Do you accept that the founding fathers saw "bear arms" "render military service" and "militia duty" synonymously? Or are you rejecting this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to bear was not restricted by service to a militia.  If it was then a gun could be owned but never used unless serving in the militia
> 
> you really think that is the intent of the second amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fucking hell. How many times do I have to say this? I HAVE NOT SAID THAT THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS WAS RESTRICTED TO MILITIA SERVICE.
> 
> The right to bear arms IS MILITIA SERVICE.
> 
> What do you think the intent of the 2A is?
> 
> The right to stick a gun up your ass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so you can only bear arms in the service of a militia
> 
> You are saying that an individual does nor have a right to carry a weapon because bearing arms doesn't mean carry a weapon it means serving in the militia.
Click to expand...


"bear arms" means "militia duty".

So, you just said "so you can only do militia duty in the service of the militia", yes, you can only be in the militia in the militia. 

Yes, I'm saying an individual does NOT have a right to carry a weapon around. Presser seemed to make that clear, and Heller confirmed this. 

You can't have a license for a right. So carry and conceal permits would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL. And yet the NRA supports carry and conceal permits. Go figure. Why would they do this if there were a right to carry arms? 

Think about it.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> And those who want to eat.
> 
> 
> 
> we have laws; why not be legal to our very own, at-will employment laws, for at-will unemployment compensation purposes.
> 
> that way, we can improve the efficiency of our economy, at the same time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant to the point that it is better to be producer than a taker.  Producers help society, takers do not.
> 
> Takers by definition are not those unable to work, but those who choose not to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only in your special pleading; propaganda and rhetoric is no substitute for economics.
> 
> it is about full employment of capital resources; and correcting for capitalism's natural rate of inefficiency regarding full employment of (capital) resources in the market for labor.
> 
> Capital must circulate under any form of capitalism.  Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is that natural rate of inefficiency regarding capital resources and the circulation of capital in our economy.
> 
> We could be solving simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States and improving the capital efficiency of those markets, at the same time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, once again you're reduced to flinging around the same worn out meaningless slogans that you don't even understand.  Paying someone to not work is welfare, it's not "full employment of (capital) resources in the market for labor".  Face it, you end up here every single time, you can't explain what it is you're trying to say, and you only end up looking foolish.  Just stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is a form of full employment of capital resources simply Because, Capital does and must Circulate.
Click to expand...

If you're not working, you're not employed.  Full stop.


----------



## Skull Pilot

frigidweirdo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> they used it but did not specify that in the second amendment.
> 
> if the purpose of the second was to limit the bearing of arms solely to service in a militia it would have said that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "it", what is "it"? I wrote a long post, am I supposed to know what "it" is when you use it without context?
> 
> But, the amendment DID say that.
> 
> It's like saying that the amendment doesn't talk about guns, but only arms, if they had meant guns, wouldn't they have said guns? You argument makes no sense.
> 
> When "bear arms" means "render military service" or "militia duty", and then you complain when they didn't write "militia duty", you have to wonder how much you don't want this to be true, how much of this FACT you're willing to ignore.
> 
> Do you accept that the founding fathers saw "bear arms" "render military service" and "militia duty" synonymously? Or are you rejecting this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to bear was not restricted by service to a militia.  If it was then a gun could be owned but never used unless serving in the militia
> 
> you really think that is the intent of the second amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fucking hell. How many times do I have to say this? I HAVE NOT SAID THAT THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS WAS RESTRICTED TO MILITIA SERVICE.
> 
> The right to bear arms IS MILITIA SERVICE.
> 
> What do you think the intent of the 2A is?
> 
> The right to stick a gun up your ass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so you can only bear arms in the service of a militia
> 
> You are saying that an individual does nor have a right to carry a weapon because bearing arms doesn't mean carry a weapon it means serving in the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "bear arms" means "militia duty".
> 
> So, you just said "so you can only do militia duty in the service of the militia", yes, you can only be in the militia in the militia.
> 
> Yes, I'm saying an individual does NOT have a right to carry a weapon around. Presser seemed to make that clear, and Heller confirmed this.
> 
> You can't have a license for a right. So carry and conceal permits would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL. And yet the NRA supports carry and conceal permits. Go figure. Why would they do this if there were a right to carry arms?
> 
> Think about it.
Click to expand...

there are states that do not require a permit for concealed carry


----------



## frigidweirdo

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> "it", what is "it"? I wrote a long post, am I supposed to know what "it" is when you use it without context?
> 
> But, the amendment DID say that.
> 
> It's like saying that the amendment doesn't talk about guns, but only arms, if they had meant guns, wouldn't they have said guns? You argument makes no sense.
> 
> When "bear arms" means "render military service" or "militia duty", and then you complain when they didn't write "militia duty", you have to wonder how much you don't want this to be true, how much of this FACT you're willing to ignore.
> 
> Do you accept that the founding fathers saw "bear arms" "render military service" and "militia duty" synonymously? Or are you rejecting this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right to bear was not restricted by service to a militia.  If it was then a gun could be owned but never used unless serving in the militia
> 
> you really think that is the intent of the second amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fucking hell. How many times do I have to say this? I HAVE NOT SAID THAT THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS WAS RESTRICTED TO MILITIA SERVICE.
> 
> The right to bear arms IS MILITIA SERVICE.
> 
> What do you think the intent of the 2A is?
> 
> The right to stick a gun up your ass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so you can only bear arms in the service of a militia
> 
> You are saying that an individual does nor have a right to carry a weapon because bearing arms doesn't mean carry a weapon it means serving in the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "bear arms" means "militia duty".
> 
> So, you just said "so you can only do militia duty in the service of the militia", yes, you can only be in the militia in the militia.
> 
> Yes, I'm saying an individual does NOT have a right to carry a weapon around. Presser seemed to make that clear, and Heller confirmed this.
> 
> You can't have a license for a right. So carry and conceal permits would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL. And yet the NRA supports carry and conceal permits. Go figure. Why would they do this if there were a right to carry arms?
> 
> Think about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there are states that do not require a permit for concealed carry
Click to expand...


So what? What the hell does this have to do with the argument? You just decided that because I wrote "carry and conceal permit" you'd come up with a fun fact of the day which includes "carry and conceal permit"? Wow. 

Did you really not get my point at all?


----------



## Johann

This thread needs to be locked and a new one initiated. 359 pages, i'm not reading all that. fuck that.

Having said that, with Liberal rioters attacking unarmed, peaceable people in the streets and 'black lives matter' protesters burning their towns down, the second amendment is as relevant as it was in the 18th century when we used it to defend our freedom from a tyrannical monarch.


----------



## Rustic

The Second Amendment is the most sacred part of the constitution… Fact


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> full employment of capital resources; what a concept.
> 
> only fools and horses, should Have to work.
> 
> 
> 
> And those who want to eat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have laws; why not be legal to our very own, at-will employment laws, for at-will unemployment compensation purposes.
> 
> that way, we can improve the efficiency of our economy, at the same time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Paying unemployable clowns, because they refuse to work, does not improve the efficiency of an economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, it does; capital must circulate under any form of capitalism, regardless of any work ethic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah. Capital never has to flow thru your hands for capitalism to work.
> It certainly doesn't have to be handed to you to make capitalism efficient.
Click to expand...

yes, it does; simply for the market based metrics.  only the right wing, merely claims to be for capitalism, except when it interferes with their national socialism.


----------



## danielpalos

12icer said:


> Actually someone Needs to go to remedial English comp. There is a NO militia restriction.  It say The right of the PEOPLE to KEEP, and BEAR arms shall not be infringed. It does neither describe the type, nor the power of the arms. The separation of the two clauses means they are separate in thought and they are tied loosely in the overall idea. If the meaning was to keep a militia it would not have the comma. The MILITIA clause is something that should scare liberals anyway, it means to keep the people free sometimes they need a militia to keep oppressive government under control, Logical since they just defeated a MONARCHY. twist and turn as you like liberals the meaning had been clear to everyone till 1968. Most people understand the reason liberal lying dimshits want to disarm the people. That is why gun sales to little old ladies go WAY UP when you try to ban them.  As for ASSAULT RIFLES. they are just MILITARY weapons. They are fully automatic, designed to hold down a large group of enemies so that they may be attacked easier. The semi auto versions are just like the Browning hunting rifles, and the Williams design they take their actions from. There are much deadlier guns out there than what YOU call the "assault" rifle.


The People are the Militia.


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> why do you think i am advocating for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis; to learn how to build a keep, and put keep building on my resume.
> 
> 
> 
> _What_? How does getting paid by the federal government to *quit* your job help your résumé?!? Are you not aware that most employers don't look for people who quit their jobs?!?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why do you think i am advocating for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis; to learn how to build a keep, and put keep building on my resume.
> 
> it takes money to build a keep, even for fun and practice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it takes money - go *earn* it snowflake. Why is this concept so mind-boggling for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have a work ethic; no employers are offering a bonus to go work and employ my, "historical work ethic from the Age of Iron".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no one who wants to get paid for not working has a work ethic
Click to expand...

silly; i just want to, "get compensated" for Capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment on at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

I do not subscribe to forms of, "wage slavery" merely so the rich, can get richer, faster.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Johann said:


> This thread needs to be locked and a new one initiated. 359 pages, i'm not reading all that. fuck that.
> 
> Having said that, with Liberal rioters attacking unarmed, peaceable people in the streets and 'black lives matter' protesters burning their towns down, the second amendment is as relevant as it was in the 18th century when we used it to defend our freedom from a tyrannical monarch.



Except that you don't understand that the 2A does not provide you with a right to self defense. There is a right to self defense, it's just not written in the Bill of Rights. Why? Well, mainly because the Bill of Rights prevents the govt from doing things, rather than empowering you. The rights in the Bill of Rights are there for a reason. Free speech is there so you can talk politics. Freedom of religion so religion doesn't take over government. The 2A is for when the govt goes bad. It's all govt related, and self defense isn't govt related, so doesn't appear, even though it's acknowledged as a right. 

You can also use your guns to defend yourself, but you can use anything, it doesn't have to be a gun. Just because the 2A says "arms" doesn't mean that this is "self defense".


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 12icer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually someone Needs to go to remedial English comp. There is a NO militia restriction.  It say The right of the PEOPLE to KEEP, and BEAR arms shall not be infringed. It does neither describe the type, nor the power of the arms. The separation of the two clauses means they are separate in thought and they are tied loosely in the overall idea. If the meaning was to keep a militia it would not have the comma. The MILITIA clause is something that should scare liberals anyway, it means to keep the people free sometimes they need a militia to keep oppressive government under control, Logical since they just defeated a MONARCHY. twist and turn as you like liberals the meaning had been clear to everyone till 1968. Most people understand the reason liberal lying dimshits want to disarm the people. That is why gun sales to little old ladies go WAY UP when you try to ban them.  As for ASSAULT RIFLES. they are just MILITARY weapons. They are fully automatic, designed to hold down a large group of enemies so that they may be attacked easier. The semi auto versions are just like the Browning hunting rifles, and the Williams design they take their actions from. There are much deadlier guns out there than what YOU call the "assault" rifle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hilarious.
> 
> I didn't say there was a militia restriction at all. Did you not read what I wrote? You're telling me I have a problem with English, and yet you've managed to read something that isn't there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no you just said bearing arms doesn't mean people can carry weapons unless they are doing it in service to a militia
> 
> that sounds like a restriction to me
Click to expand...

The Only restriction is that, Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> why do you think i am advocating for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis; to learn how to build a keep, and put keep building on my resume.
> 
> it takes money to build a keep, even for fun and practice.
> 
> 
> 
> If it takes money - go *earn* it snowflake. Why is this concept so mind-boggling for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have a work ethic; no employers are offering a bonus to go work and employ my, "historical work ethic from the Age of Iron".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no one who wants to get paid for not working has a work ethic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a work ethic, I'd love to get paid for not working. I'd love to win the lottery and not have to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> having money and not having to work is a hell of a lot different than wanting to get paid for doing nothing
Click to expand...

capitalism is public policy.  Capitalism has a, Natural Rate of Unemployment.

getting compensated for that, can simplify employment relationships and improve the efficiency of our economy.


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you're wrong and I'm going to prove you're wrong.
> 
> Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> This is a document from the debates in the House on the future Second Amendment.
> 
> Mr Gerry said: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."
> 
> This was about a clause of the future Second Amendment that read: "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> Then Mr Gerry said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."
> 
> Yeah, the same person used "militia duty" and "bear arms" synonymously. Go figure.
> 
> Then "Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""
> 
> So, we have "render military service", "militia duty" and "bear arms" all meaning the same thing.
> 
> In fact in different versions of what would become the 2A, "bear arms" and "render military service" would replace each other.
> 
> 
> June 8th 1789
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
> 
> August 17th 1789
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> August 24th 1789
> 
> "but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
> 
> August 25th 1789
> 
> "but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."
> 
> So, it has a lot to do with the militia, actually.
> 
> But then, I'm willing to see what evidence you have, though, I do have a lot more to go on than just this, this is just a start...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the debate  over the terms is not necessarily the meaning of the amendment.  The fact is that those other terms you mention are not in the amendment itself.  There is no qualification that bearing arms equals serving in the militia
> compelling military service is conscription.
> 
> It seems you have the draft and the militia confused
> 
> The militia was the people and the people not just the government were empowered to protect the free state by being allowed to keep and bear arms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well regulated, is a "limiting qualifier".  all of the militia of the United States is not well regulated, and therefor, unnecessary to the security of a free State, and may be Infringed as a result, by well regulated militia, for the security and domestic tranquility needs of our free States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what do you think well regulated meant in the 18th century?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who cares.  Only the right wing prefers to appeal to ignorance of the law in favor of their propaganda and rhetoric, from dictionaries instead of encyclopedias.
> 
> Wellness of Regulation must be Prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States.  It is a power delegated, in Article 1, Section 8.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well you don't care because you think the shit you make up trumps historical record
Click to expand...

Wellness of Regulation must be Prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States. It is a power delegated, in Article 1, Section 8.


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah. partisan nonsense half of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so the dissection of the language and grammar is partisan?
> 
> it doesn't matter who asked the questions you know that don't you
> 
> it's the answers and explanation of the expert that matter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your "expert" has only a fallacy of composition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He's on the usage panel of the _American Heritage Dictionary_, and _Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary_ frequently cites him as an expert.
> 
> I'll bet you an entire year of your salary that he knows more about the English language than you
> 
> even if I lose it won't cost me 10 bucks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your "expert" has only a fallacy of composition.  Our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.  It really is, that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> show me the dictionary or literary journals that cite you as a language expert
Click to expand...

It is all in our federal Constitution.


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What it doesn't mean.
> 
> The right to bear arms is not the right to carry guns around with.
> The right can also be infringed. These are the two most common mistakes people make.
> 
> The right to keep arms is the right to own guns. The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. The 2A prevents the US federal govt (and now state govts) from preventing you from being able to own arms, this does not mean they can't ban certain weapons, just that you have to be able to get guns, and the they can't prevent you from being in the militia, hence why the made the Dick Act and stuck all males aged 17-45 in the "unorganized militia". Rather convenient.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the right to bear arms has nothing to do with a militia
> the militia is secondary to the right to keep and bear arms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you're wrong and I'm going to prove you're wrong.
> 
> Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> This is a document from the debates in the House on the future Second Amendment.
> 
> Mr Gerry said: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."
> 
> This was about a clause of the future Second Amendment that read: "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> Then Mr Gerry said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."
> 
> Yeah, the same person used "militia duty" and "bear arms" synonymously. Go figure.
> 
> Then "Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""
> 
> So, we have "render military service", "militia duty" and "bear arms" all meaning the same thing.
> 
> In fact in different versions of what would become the 2A, "bear arms" and "render military service" would replace each other.
> 
> 
> June 8th 1789
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
> 
> August 17th 1789
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> August 24th 1789
> 
> "but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
> 
> August 25th 1789
> 
> "but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."
> 
> So, it has a lot to do with the militia, actually.
> 
> But then, I'm willing to see what evidence you have, though, I do have a lot more to go on than just this, this is just a start...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the debate  over the terms is not necessarily the meaning of the amendment.  The fact is that those other terms you mention are not in the amendment itself.  There is no qualification that bearing arms equals serving in the militia
> compelling military service is conscription.
> 
> It seems you have the draft and the militia confused
> 
> The militia was the people and the people not just the government were empowered to protect the free state by being allowed to keep and bear arms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what your point is here.
> 
> The right to be in the militia is NOT forcing someone to be in the militia. They considered making a clause that would excuse people from militia duty, but they rejected it. I'm not confused at all.
> 
> The point being made was that "render military service" "militia duty" and "bear arms" were used synonymously by the Founding Fathers. If that is the case, then it is clear that they did not mean a right to walk around with guns, they meant something else. What?
> 
> Well it's clear.
> 
> The right to keep arms is the right to own weapons, so in the event of an emergency the militia has a ready supply of weaponry that isn't connected to the govt.
> The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia, so in the event of an emergency the militia has a ready supply of personnel not connected to the govt to use those weapons.
> 
> Okay, so, you say "The militia was the people and the people not just the government were empowered to protect the free state by being allowed to keep and bear arms"
> 
> How would individuals being able to walk around with guns help the free state? It doesn't. How does an individual having the right to be in the militia help the free state? Well, it helps massively, doesn't it? Having a militia which the govt cannot prevent because the individuals have a right to be in the militia..... well.... it's clear, or it's clear to me.
> 
> Also, if "bear arms" meant carry arms, why did Presser say "
> 
> *We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265]   and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
> *
> and why did Heller confirm this? The Supreme Court says "bear arms" is not carrying arms around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have not proven that the right to bear arms is the right to be in a militia.
> 
> one does not have to be in a militia to keep and bear arms.  tell me what good does keeping a weapon do if you can only use it in service of a militia?
Click to expand...

Natural rights are recognized and secured in our State Constitutions.  Protection of self and property, is a natural right. 

Our Second Article of Amendment declares that Only well regulated militia of the entire People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; not natural rights.


----------



## danielpalos

frigidweirdo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> so the dissection of the language and grammar is partisan?
> 
> it doesn't matter who asked the questions you know that don't you
> 
> it's the answers and explanation of the expert that matter
> 
> 
> 
> Your "expert" has only a fallacy of composition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He's on the usage panel of the _American Heritage Dictionary_, and _Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary_ frequently cites him as an expert.
> 
> I'll bet you an entire year of your salary that he knows more about the English language than you
> 
> even if I lose it won't cost me 10 bucks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your "expert" has only a fallacy of composition.  Our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.  It really is, that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> show me the dictionary or literary journals that cite you as a language expert
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're banging your head against the wall talking to that one. I put him on ignore ages ago because he'll just go around and around in circles ignore anything and everything you say.
Click to expand...

i don't resort to fallacy for my Causes; unlike the nine hundred ninety-nine.


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a work ethic; no employers are offering a bonus to go work and employ my, "historical work ethic from the Age of Iron".
> 
> 
> 
> no one who wants to get paid for not working has a work ethic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a work ethic, I'd love to get paid for not working. I'd love to win the lottery and not have to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> having money and not having to work is a hell of a lot different than wanting to get paid for doing nothing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it's different. But then again I get paid for having holidays. In other words I get paid for doing nothing. Is that wrong of me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> holidays are an accepted part of a compensation package.
> 
> some people get more paid holidays that others
> 
> but you have to have a job to get those don't you?
Click to expand...

compensation for doing nothing; i got it.  

being, civic, is a "job unto itself" and sometimes, its Only reward.  We have a better understanding of economics, now.


----------



## danielpalos

frigidweirdo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> no one who wants to get paid for not working has a work ethic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a work ethic, I'd love to get paid for not working. I'd love to win the lottery and not have to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> having money and not having to work is a hell of a lot different than wanting to get paid for doing nothing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it's different. But then again I get paid for having holidays. In other words I get paid for doing nothing. Is that wrong of me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> holidays are an accepted part of a compensation package.
> 
> some people get more paid holidays that others
> 
> but you have to have a job to get those don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, but maybe you should have been a bit more specific about what you were talking about. You weren't talking about people getting money for not working, but people who don't have jobs being given money by the government for not working.
> 
> Though even then you have those who can't work, who can't currently get a job and have paid into the system for unemployment benefits, and then you have lazy bastards who don't do anything. The latter is far different to the former.
Click to expand...

Capitalism relies on capital morals for a price; socialism requires social morals for free.  The right wing, never gets it.


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you're wrong and I'm going to prove you're wrong.
> 
> Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> This is a document from the debates in the House on the future Second Amendment.
> 
> Mr Gerry said: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."
> 
> This was about a clause of the future Second Amendment that read: "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> Then Mr Gerry said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."
> 
> Yeah, the same person used "militia duty" and "bear arms" synonymously. Go figure.
> 
> Then "Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""
> 
> So, we have "render military service", "militia duty" and "bear arms" all meaning the same thing.
> 
> In fact in different versions of what would become the 2A, "bear arms" and "render military service" would replace each other.
> 
> 
> June 8th 1789
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
> 
> August 17th 1789
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> August 24th 1789
> 
> "but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
> 
> August 25th 1789
> 
> "but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."
> 
> So, it has a lot to do with the militia, actually.
> 
> But then, I'm willing to see what evidence you have, though, I do have a lot more to go on than just this, this is just a start...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the debate  over the terms is not necessarily the meaning of the amendment.  The fact is that those other terms you mention are not in the amendment itself.  There is no qualification that bearing arms equals serving in the militia
> compelling military service is conscription.
> 
> It seems you have the draft and the militia confused
> 
> The militia was the people and the people not just the government were empowered to protect the free state by being allowed to keep and bear arms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what your point is here.
> 
> The right to be in the militia is NOT forcing someone to be in the militia. They considered making a clause that would excuse people from militia duty, but they rejected it. I'm not confused at all.
> 
> The point being made was that "render military service" "militia duty" and "bear arms" were used synonymously by the Founding Fathers. If that is the case, then it is clear that they did not mean a right to walk around with guns, they meant something else. What?
> 
> Well it's clear.
> 
> The right to keep arms is the right to own weapons, so in the event of an emergency the militia has a ready supply of weaponry that isn't connected to the govt.
> The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia, so in the event of an emergency the militia has a ready supply of personnel not connected to the govt to use those weapons.
> 
> Okay, so, you say "The militia was the people and the people not just the government were empowered to protect the free state by being allowed to keep and bear arms"
> 
> How would individuals being able to walk around with guns help the free state? It doesn't. How does an individual having the right to be in the militia help the free state? Well, it helps massively, doesn't it? Having a militia which the govt cannot prevent because the individuals have a right to be in the militia..... well.... it's clear, or it's clear to me.
> 
> Also, if "bear arms" meant carry arms, why did Presser say "
> 
> *We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265]   and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
> *
> and why did Heller confirm this? The Supreme Court says "bear arms" is not carrying arms around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have not proven that the right to bear arms is the right to be in a militia.
> 
> one does not have to be in a militia to keep and bear arms.  tell me what good does keeping a weapon do if you can only use it in service of a militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Proven? How much proof do you need?
> 
> First you have the founding fathers using "bear arms", "render military service" and "militia duty" synonymously.
> 
> But you've decided to ignore the founding fathers. How about George Washington? Will you ignore him?
> 
> *SENTIMENTS ON A PEACE ESTABLISHMENT, 1783*
> 
> George Washington
> 
> 
> "every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America... from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls,"
> 
> "by making it universally reputable to bear Arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the performance of Military duties; in fine, by keeping up in Peace "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia," we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country.“
> 
> Then you have the Supreme Court.
> 
> 
> ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1897)
> 
> _“_the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;”
> 
> 
> PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)
> 
> "*We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265]   and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
> 
> 
> District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
> 
> "(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes."
> *
> Even Heller upheld the Presser case.
> 
> Now I asked you for your evidence and you've posted NOTHING. That's because there isn't anything. There's NO EVIDENCE that the right to bear arms is the right to carry arms around. Even if there were, the Supreme Court has ruled that this isn't the case. Even if that were so, the Founding Fathers clearly wrote the amendment with the thought that "bear arms" meant "render military service" or "militia duty".
> 
> 
> Also, AGAIN. I have NOT SAID you have to be in the militia to have the right to keep arms, or the right to bear arms. In fact, it makes no sense. How could you have the right to bear arms, but you have to be in the militia to have the right to be in the militia? No idiot would write such a statement, and I certainly have not said that this is the case, and yet you keep pounding away fighting some ghost that isn't there. Why don't you try READING what the FUCK I WRITE. Because it's getting rather annoying to have to keep explaining something, not when asked to clarify, but when told I said something which I clearly did not say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they used it but did not specify that in the second amendment.
> 
> if the purpose of the second was to limit the bearing of arms solely to service in a militia it would have said that
Click to expand...

it merely says, that well regulated militia of the entire and whole People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms, for the security needs of their State or the Union.


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a work ethic, I'd love to get paid for not working. I'd love to win the lottery and not have to work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> having money and not having to work is a hell of a lot different than wanting to get paid for doing nothing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it's different. But then again I get paid for having holidays. In other words I get paid for doing nothing. Is that wrong of me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> holidays are an accepted part of a compensation package.
> 
> some people get more paid holidays that others
> 
> but you have to have a job to get those don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, but maybe you should have been a bit more specific about what you were talking about. You weren't talking about people getting money for not working, but people who don't have jobs being given money by the government for not working.
> 
> Though even then you have those who can't work, who can't currently get a job and have paid into the system for unemployment benefits, and then you have lazy bastards who don't do anything. The latter is far different to the former.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> employees do not pay into unemployment
> 
> employers do via federal and state unemployment taxes
> 
> The benefits *paid* to jobless *workers* are financed through federal and state*unemployment* taxes *paid* by *employers*. Every state's *unemployment* system bases the employer's tax rate on the amount of benefits *paid* to former *workers*. Your actions affect your tax rate.May 2, 2016
> 
> The Unemployment Benefits System:  How it Works and When to Contest a Claim | BizFilings Toolkit
Click to expand...

A general tax on Firms is cheaper.

And, we have a federal Doctrine in American law and State laws regarding the legal concept of employment at will.  Or, employment at the will of either party. 

Our current regime is why some on the left, make fun of some on the right, for complaining about illegals to our own laws.


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what your point is here.
> 
> The right to be in the militia is NOT forcing someone to be in the militia. They considered making a clause that would excuse people from militia duty, but they rejected it. I'm not confused at all.
> 
> The point being made was that "render military service" "militia duty" and "bear arms" were used synonymously by the Founding Fathers. If that is the case, then it is clear that they did not mean a right to walk around with guns, they meant something else. What?
> 
> Well it's clear.
> 
> The right to keep arms is the right to own weapons, so in the event of an emergency the militia has a ready supply of weaponry that isn't connected to the govt.
> The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia, so in the event of an emergency the militia has a ready supply of personnel not connected to the govt to use those weapons.
> 
> Okay, so, you say "The militia was the people and the people not just the government were empowered to protect the free state by being allowed to keep and bear arms"
> 
> How would individuals being able to walk around with guns help the free state? It doesn't. How does an individual having the right to be in the militia help the free state? Well, it helps massively, doesn't it? Having a militia which the govt cannot prevent because the individuals have a right to be in the militia..... well.... it's clear, or it's clear to me.
> 
> Also, if "bear arms" meant carry arms, why did Presser say "
> 
> *We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265]   and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
> *
> and why did Heller confirm this? The Supreme Court says "bear arms" is not carrying arms around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have not proven that the right to bear arms is the right to be in a militia.
> 
> one does not have to be in a militia to keep and bear arms.  tell me what good does keeping a weapon do if you can only use it in service of a militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Proven? How much proof do you need?
> 
> First you have the founding fathers using "bear arms", "render military service" and "militia duty" synonymously.
> 
> But you've decided to ignore the founding fathers. How about George Washington? Will you ignore him?
> 
> *SENTIMENTS ON A PEACE ESTABLISHMENT, 1783*
> 
> George Washington
> 
> 
> "every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America... from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls,"
> 
> "by making it universally reputable to bear Arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the performance of Military duties; in fine, by keeping up in Peace "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia," we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country.“
> 
> Then you have the Supreme Court.
> 
> 
> ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1897)
> 
> _“_the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;”
> 
> 
> PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)
> 
> "*We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265]   and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
> 
> 
> District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
> 
> "(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes."
> *
> Even Heller upheld the Presser case.
> 
> Now I asked you for your evidence and you've posted NOTHING. That's because there isn't anything. There's NO EVIDENCE that the right to bear arms is the right to carry arms around. Even if there were, the Supreme Court has ruled that this isn't the case. Even if that were so, the Founding Fathers clearly wrote the amendment with the thought that "bear arms" meant "render military service" or "militia duty".
> 
> 
> Also, AGAIN. I have NOT SAID you have to be in the militia to have the right to keep arms, or the right to bear arms. In fact, it makes no sense. How could you have the right to bear arms, but you have to be in the militia to have the right to be in the militia? No idiot would write such a statement, and I certainly have not said that this is the case, and yet you keep pounding away fighting some ghost that isn't there. Why don't you try READING what the FUCK I WRITE. Because it's getting rather annoying to have to keep explaining something, not when asked to clarify, but when told I said something which I clearly did not say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they used it but did not specify that in the second amendment.
> 
> if the purpose of the second was to limit the bearing of arms solely to service in a militia it would have said that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "it", what is "it"? I wrote a long post, am I supposed to know what "it" is when you use it without context?
> 
> But, the amendment DID say that.
> 
> It's like saying that the amendment doesn't talk about guns, but only arms, if they had meant guns, wouldn't they have said guns? You argument makes no sense.
> 
> When "bear arms" means "render military service" or "militia duty", and then you complain when they didn't write "militia duty", you have to wonder how much you don't want this to be true, how much of this FACT you're willing to ignore.
> 
> Do you accept that the founding fathers saw "bear arms" "render military service" and "militia duty" synonymously? Or are you rejecting this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to bear was not restricted by service to a militia.  If it was then a gun could be owned but never used unless serving in the militia
> 
> you really think that is the intent of the second amendment?
Click to expand...

The security needs of a free State and the Union; not, natural rights.


----------



## Skull Pilot

frigidweirdo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right to bear was not restricted by service to a militia.  If it was then a gun could be owned but never used unless serving in the militia
> 
> you really think that is the intent of the second amendment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fucking hell. How many times do I have to say this? I HAVE NOT SAID THAT THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS WAS RESTRICTED TO MILITIA SERVICE.
> 
> The right to bear arms IS MILITIA SERVICE.
> 
> What do you think the intent of the 2A is?
> 
> The right to stick a gun up your ass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so you can only bear arms in the service of a militia
> 
> You are saying that an individual does nor have a right to carry a weapon because bearing arms doesn't mean carry a weapon it means serving in the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "bear arms" means "militia duty".
> 
> So, you just said "so you can only do militia duty in the service of the militia", yes, you can only be in the militia in the militia.
> 
> Yes, I'm saying an individual does NOT have a right to carry a weapon around. Presser seemed to make that clear, and Heller confirmed this.
> 
> You can't have a license for a right. So carry and conceal permits would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL. And yet the NRA supports carry and conceal permits. Go figure. Why would they do this if there were a right to carry arms?
> 
> Think about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there are states that do not require a permit for concealed carry
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what? What the hell does this have to do with the argument? You just decided that because I wrote "carry and conceal permit" you'd come up with a fun fact of the day which includes "carry and conceal permit"? Wow.
> 
> Did you really not get my point at all?
Click to expand...


I understand your point I happen to disagree

if the only rights you had as far as firearms are concerned is keeping one in your home or using it in service to the militia then one could keep but never use a gun outside the home unless called upon by the militia

is that what you think the second amendment says?


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> we have laws; why not be legal to our very own, at-will employment laws, for at-will unemployment compensation purposes.
> 
> that way, we can improve the efficiency of our economy, at the same time.
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant to the point that it is better to be producer than a taker.  Producers help society, takers do not.
> 
> Takers by definition are not those unable to work, but those who choose not to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only in your special pleading; propaganda and rhetoric is no substitute for economics.
> 
> it is about full employment of capital resources; and correcting for capitalism's natural rate of inefficiency regarding full employment of (capital) resources in the market for labor.
> 
> Capital must circulate under any form of capitalism.  Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is that natural rate of inefficiency regarding capital resources and the circulation of capital in our economy.
> 
> We could be solving simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States and improving the capital efficiency of those markets, at the same time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, once again you're reduced to flinging around the same worn out meaningless slogans that you don't even understand.  Paying someone to not work is welfare, it's not "full employment of (capital) resources in the market for labor".  Face it, you end up here every single time, you can't explain what it is you're trying to say, and you only end up looking foolish.  Just stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is a form of full employment of capital resources simply Because, Capital does and must Circulate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you're not working, you're not employed.  Full stop.
Click to expand...

Capitalism doesn't care about a work ethic, and neither do the laws of demand and supply.

Capital Must Circulate, under Any form of Capitalism.


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> having money and not having to work is a hell of a lot different than wanting to get paid for doing nothing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, it's different. But then again I get paid for having holidays. In other words I get paid for doing nothing. Is that wrong of me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> holidays are an accepted part of a compensation package.
> 
> some people get more paid holidays that others
> 
> but you have to have a job to get those don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, but maybe you should have been a bit more specific about what you were talking about. You weren't talking about people getting money for not working, but people who don't have jobs being given money by the government for not working.
> 
> Though even then you have those who can't work, who can't currently get a job and have paid into the system for unemployment benefits, and then you have lazy bastards who don't do anything. The latter is far different to the former.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> employees do not pay into unemployment
> 
> employers do via federal and state unemployment taxes
> 
> The benefits *paid* to jobless *workers* are financed through federal and state*unemployment* taxes *paid* by *employers*. Every state's *unemployment* system bases the employer's tax rate on the amount of benefits *paid* to former *workers*. Your actions affect your tax rate.May 2, 2016
> 
> The Unemployment Benefits System:  How it Works and When to Contest a Claim | BizFilings Toolkit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A general tax on Firms is cheaper.
> 
> And, we have a federal Doctrine in American law and State laws regarding the legal concept of employment at will.  Or, employment at the will of either party.
> 
> Our current regime is why some on the left, make fun of some on the right, for complaining about illegals to our own laws.
Click to expand...

my god you thick idiot

ALL business already pay both state and federal unemployment taxes


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have not proven that the right to bear arms is the right to be in a militia.
> 
> one does not have to be in a militia to keep and bear arms.  tell me what good does keeping a weapon do if you can only use it in service of a militia?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proven? How much proof do you need?
> 
> First you have the founding fathers using "bear arms", "render military service" and "militia duty" synonymously.
> 
> But you've decided to ignore the founding fathers. How about George Washington? Will you ignore him?
> 
> *SENTIMENTS ON A PEACE ESTABLISHMENT, 1783*
> 
> George Washington
> 
> 
> "every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America... from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls,"
> 
> "by making it universally reputable to bear Arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the performance of Military duties; in fine, by keeping up in Peace "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia," we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country.“
> 
> Then you have the Supreme Court.
> 
> 
> ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1897)
> 
> _“_the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;”
> 
> 
> PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)
> 
> "*We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265]   and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
> 
> 
> District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
> 
> "(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes."
> *
> Even Heller upheld the Presser case.
> 
> Now I asked you for your evidence and you've posted NOTHING. That's because there isn't anything. There's NO EVIDENCE that the right to bear arms is the right to carry arms around. Even if there were, the Supreme Court has ruled that this isn't the case. Even if that were so, the Founding Fathers clearly wrote the amendment with the thought that "bear arms" meant "render military service" or "militia duty".
> 
> 
> Also, AGAIN. I have NOT SAID you have to be in the militia to have the right to keep arms, or the right to bear arms. In fact, it makes no sense. How could you have the right to bear arms, but you have to be in the militia to have the right to be in the militia? No idiot would write such a statement, and I certainly have not said that this is the case, and yet you keep pounding away fighting some ghost that isn't there. Why don't you try READING what the FUCK I WRITE. Because it's getting rather annoying to have to keep explaining something, not when asked to clarify, but when told I said something which I clearly did not say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they used it but did not specify that in the second amendment.
> 
> if the purpose of the second was to limit the bearing of arms solely to service in a militia it would have said that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "it", what is "it"? I wrote a long post, am I supposed to know what "it" is when you use it without context?
> 
> But, the amendment DID say that.
> 
> It's like saying that the amendment doesn't talk about guns, but only arms, if they had meant guns, wouldn't they have said guns? You argument makes no sense.
> 
> When "bear arms" means "render military service" or "militia duty", and then you complain when they didn't write "militia duty", you have to wonder how much you don't want this to be true, how much of this FACT you're willing to ignore.
> 
> Do you accept that the founding fathers saw "bear arms" "render military service" and "militia duty" synonymously? Or are you rejecting this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to bear was not restricted by service to a militia.  If it was then a gun could be owned but never used unless serving in the militia
> 
> you really think that is the intent of the second amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The security needs of a free State and the Union; not, natural rights.
Click to expand...

the bill of rights is about the people not the states not the federal government.

It is a very clear list of rights that belong to the people not the government


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> _What_? How does getting paid by the federal government to *quit* your job help your résumé?!? Are you not aware that most employers don't look for people who quit their jobs?!?
> 
> 
> 
> why do you think i am advocating for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis; to learn how to build a keep, and put keep building on my resume.
> 
> it takes money to build a keep, even for fun and practice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it takes money - go *earn* it snowflake. Why is this concept so mind-boggling for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have a work ethic; no employers are offering a bonus to go work and employ my, "historical work ethic from the Age of Iron".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no one who wants to get paid for not working has a work ethic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> silly; i just want to, "get compensated" for Capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment on at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> I do not subscribe to forms of, "wage slavery" merely so the rich, can get richer, faster.
Click to expand...


you don't get compensated for sitting on your ass in Mommy's basement

that is a fact of life you must accept if you ever want to be considered an adult


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> so the dissection of the language and grammar is partisan?
> 
> it doesn't matter who asked the questions you know that don't you
> 
> it's the answers and explanation of the expert that matter
> 
> 
> 
> Your "expert" has only a fallacy of composition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He's on the usage panel of the _American Heritage Dictionary_, and _Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary_ frequently cites him as an expert.
> 
> I'll bet you an entire year of your salary that he knows more about the English language than you
> 
> even if I lose it won't cost me 10 bucks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your "expert" has only a fallacy of composition.  Our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.  It really is, that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> show me the dictionary or literary journals that cite you as a language expert
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is all in our federal Constitution.
Click to expand...


show me where you have been cited as an expert in the English language


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, it's different. But then again I get paid for having holidays. In other words I get paid for doing nothing. Is that wrong of me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> holidays are an accepted part of a compensation package.
> 
> some people get more paid holidays that others
> 
> but you have to have a job to get those don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, but maybe you should have been a bit more specific about what you were talking about. You weren't talking about people getting money for not working, but people who don't have jobs being given money by the government for not working.
> 
> Though even then you have those who can't work, who can't currently get a job and have paid into the system for unemployment benefits, and then you have lazy bastards who don't do anything. The latter is far different to the former.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> employees do not pay into unemployment
> 
> employers do via federal and state unemployment taxes
> 
> The benefits *paid* to jobless *workers* are financed through federal and state*unemployment* taxes *paid* by *employers*. Every state's *unemployment* system bases the employer's tax rate on the amount of benefits *paid* to former *workers*. Your actions affect your tax rate.May 2, 2016
> 
> The Unemployment Benefits System:  How it Works and When to Contest a Claim | BizFilings Toolkit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A general tax on Firms is cheaper.
> 
> And, we have a federal Doctrine in American law and State laws regarding the legal concept of employment at will.  Or, employment at the will of either party.
> 
> Our current regime is why some on the left, make fun of some on the right, for complaining about illegals to our own laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> my god you thick idiot
> 
> ALL business already pay both state and federal unemployment taxes
Click to expand...

A general tax on Firms is cheaper.

why do You have a problem lowering our Tax burden?


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proven? How much proof do you need?
> 
> First you have the founding fathers using "bear arms", "render military service" and "militia duty" synonymously.
> 
> But you've decided to ignore the founding fathers. How about George Washington? Will you ignore him?
> 
> *SENTIMENTS ON A PEACE ESTABLISHMENT, 1783*
> 
> George Washington
> 
> 
> "every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America... from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls,"
> 
> "by making it universally reputable to bear Arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the performance of Military duties; in fine, by keeping up in Peace "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia," we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country.“
> 
> Then you have the Supreme Court.
> 
> 
> ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1897)
> 
> _“_the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;”
> 
> 
> PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)
> 
> "*We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265]   and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
> 
> 
> District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
> 
> "(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes."
> *
> Even Heller upheld the Presser case.
> 
> Now I asked you for your evidence and you've posted NOTHING. That's because there isn't anything. There's NO EVIDENCE that the right to bear arms is the right to carry arms around. Even if there were, the Supreme Court has ruled that this isn't the case. Even if that were so, the Founding Fathers clearly wrote the amendment with the thought that "bear arms" meant "render military service" or "militia duty".
> 
> 
> Also, AGAIN. I have NOT SAID you have to be in the militia to have the right to keep arms, or the right to bear arms. In fact, it makes no sense. How could you have the right to bear arms, but you have to be in the militia to have the right to be in the militia? No idiot would write such a statement, and I certainly have not said that this is the case, and yet you keep pounding away fighting some ghost that isn't there. Why don't you try READING what the FUCK I WRITE. Because it's getting rather annoying to have to keep explaining something, not when asked to clarify, but when told I said something which I clearly did not say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they used it but did not specify that in the second amendment.
> 
> if the purpose of the second was to limit the bearing of arms solely to service in a militia it would have said that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "it", what is "it"? I wrote a long post, am I supposed to know what "it" is when you use it without context?
> 
> But, the amendment DID say that.
> 
> It's like saying that the amendment doesn't talk about guns, but only arms, if they had meant guns, wouldn't they have said guns? You argument makes no sense.
> 
> When "bear arms" means "render military service" or "militia duty", and then you complain when they didn't write "militia duty", you have to wonder how much you don't want this to be true, how much of this FACT you're willing to ignore.
> 
> Do you accept that the founding fathers saw "bear arms" "render military service" and "militia duty" synonymously? Or are you rejecting this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to bear was not restricted by service to a militia.  If it was then a gun could be owned but never used unless serving in the militia
> 
> you really think that is the intent of the second amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The security needs of a free State and the Union; not, natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the bill of rights is about the people not the states not the federal government.
> 
> It is a very clear list of rights that belong to the people not the government
Click to expand...

States' rights is also included, then.


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> why do you think i am advocating for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis; to learn how to build a keep, and put keep building on my resume.
> 
> it takes money to build a keep, even for fun and practice.
> 
> 
> 
> If it takes money - go *earn* it snowflake. Why is this concept so mind-boggling for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have a work ethic; no employers are offering a bonus to go work and employ my, "historical work ethic from the Age of Iron".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no one who wants to get paid for not working has a work ethic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> silly; i just want to, "get compensated" for Capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment on at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> I do not subscribe to forms of, "wage slavery" merely so the rich, can get richer, faster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you don't get compensated for sitting on your ass in Mommy's basement
> 
> that is a fact of life you must accept if you ever want to be considered an adult
Click to expand...

it is about equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept of employment, at the will of either party.

You don't really care about the law, so, why should I take You seriously when You complain about illegals to our own laws.


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your "expert" has only a fallacy of composition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's on the usage panel of the _American Heritage Dictionary_, and _Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary_ frequently cites him as an expert.
> 
> I'll bet you an entire year of your salary that he knows more about the English language than you
> 
> even if I lose it won't cost me 10 bucks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your "expert" has only a fallacy of composition.  Our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.  It really is, that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> show me the dictionary or literary journals that cite you as a language expert
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is all in our federal Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> show me where you have been cited as an expert in the English language
Click to expand...

Our Founding Fathers did an Most Excellent job at the Convention, with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.  There is No Thing, ambiguous, at all.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> And those who want to eat.
> 
> 
> 
> we have laws; why not be legal to our very own, at-will employment laws, for at-will unemployment compensation purposes.
> 
> that way, we can improve the efficiency of our economy, at the same time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Paying unemployable clowns, because they refuse to work, does not improve the efficiency of an economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, it does; capital must circulate under any form of capitalism, regardless of any work ethic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah. Capital never has to flow thru your hands for capitalism to work.
> It certainly doesn't have to be handed to you to make capitalism efficient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, it does; simply for the market based metrics.  only the right wing, merely claims to be for capitalism, except when it interferes with their national socialism.
Click to expand...


*yes, it does;*

No. The economy doesn't depend on handing money to unemployables.
Taxing the successful to hand money to you does not improve economic efficiency.
*
simply for the market based metrics*

Gibberish.

*only the right wing, merely claims to be for capitalism,*

Only the lift-wing claims handouts aid capitalism.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> _What_? How does getting paid by the federal government to *quit* your job help your résumé?!? Are you not aware that most employers don't look for people who quit their jobs?!?
> 
> 
> 
> why do you think i am advocating for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis; to learn how to build a keep, and put keep building on my resume.
> 
> it takes money to build a keep, even for fun and practice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it takes money - go *earn* it snowflake. Why is this concept so mind-boggling for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have a work ethic; no employers are offering a bonus to go work and employ my, "historical work ethic from the Age of Iron".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no one who wants to get paid for not working has a work ethic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> silly; i just want to, "get compensated" for Capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment on at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> I do not subscribe to forms of, "wage slavery" merely so the rich, can get richer, faster.
Click to expand...

*
i just want to, "get compensated" for Capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment on at-will basis in our at-will employment States.*

You're already receiving your deserved compensation for not working. Zero.

*I do not subscribe to forms of, "wage slavery" merely so the rich, can get richer, faster.*

No need to worry about that, your value added is zero.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> we have laws; why not be legal to our very own, at-will employment laws, for at-will unemployment compensation purposes.
> 
> that way, we can improve the efficiency of our economy, at the same time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paying unemployable clowns, because they refuse to work, does not improve the efficiency of an economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, it does; capital must circulate under any form of capitalism, regardless of any work ethic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah. Capital never has to flow thru your hands for capitalism to work.
> It certainly doesn't have to be handed to you to make capitalism efficient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, it does; simply for the market based metrics.  only the right wing, merely claims to be for capitalism, except when it interferes with their national socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *yes, it does;*
> 
> No. The economy doesn't depend on handing money to unemployables.
> Taxing the successful to hand money to you does not improve economic efficiency.
> *
> simply for the market based metrics*
> 
> Gibberish.
> 
> *only the right wing, merely claims to be for capitalism,*
> 
> Only the lift-wing claims handouts aid capitalism.
Click to expand...

dude; we have Capitalism, for the "realism" of objective, market based metrics; not the subjectiveness, of right wing social policies, on a national basis.

only the fantastical right wing can claim, "market based metrics", is "gibberish".

just socialism bailing out capitalism, like usual; since 1929.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Paying unemployable clowns, because they refuse to work, does not improve the efficiency of an economy.
> 
> 
> 
> yes, it does; capital must circulate under any form of capitalism, regardless of any work ethic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah. Capital never has to flow thru your hands for capitalism to work.
> It certainly doesn't have to be handed to you to make capitalism efficient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, it does; simply for the market based metrics.  only the right wing, merely claims to be for capitalism, except when it interferes with their national socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *yes, it does;*
> 
> No. The economy doesn't depend on handing money to unemployables.
> Taxing the successful to hand money to you does not improve economic efficiency.
> *
> simply for the market based metrics*
> 
> Gibberish.
> 
> *only the right wing, merely claims to be for capitalism,*
> 
> Only the lift-wing claims handouts aid capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude; we have Capitalism, for the "realism" of objective, market based metrics; not the subjectiveness, of right wing social policies, on a national basis.
> 
> only the fantastical right wing can claim, "market based metrics", is "gibberish".
> 
> just socialism bailing out capitalism, like usual; since 1929.
Click to expand...


Capitalism doesn't need handouts for stoners.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, it does; capital must circulate under any form of capitalism, regardless of any work ethic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nah. Capital never has to flow thru your hands for capitalism to work.
> It certainly doesn't have to be handed to you to make capitalism efficient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, it does; simply for the market based metrics.  only the right wing, merely claims to be for capitalism, except when it interferes with their national socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *yes, it does;*
> 
> No. The economy doesn't depend on handing money to unemployables.
> Taxing the successful to hand money to you does not improve economic efficiency.
> *
> simply for the market based metrics*
> 
> Gibberish.
> 
> *only the right wing, merely claims to be for capitalism,*
> 
> Only the lift-wing claims handouts aid capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude; we have Capitalism, for the "realism" of objective, market based metrics; not the subjectiveness, of right wing social policies, on a national basis.
> 
> only the fantastical right wing can claim, "market based metrics", is "gibberish".
> 
> just socialism bailing out capitalism, like usual; since 1929.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Capitalism doesn't need handouts for stoners.
Click to expand...

Hooverville, really is that lazy.  

Socialism requires social morals for free, not capital morals for a capital price.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nah. Capital never has to flow thru your hands for capitalism to work.
> It certainly doesn't have to be handed to you to make capitalism efficient.
> 
> 
> 
> yes, it does; simply for the market based metrics.  only the right wing, merely claims to be for capitalism, except when it interferes with their national socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *yes, it does;*
> 
> No. The economy doesn't depend on handing money to unemployables.
> Taxing the successful to hand money to you does not improve economic efficiency.
> *
> simply for the market based metrics*
> 
> Gibberish.
> 
> *only the right wing, merely claims to be for capitalism,*
> 
> Only the lift-wing claims handouts aid capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude; we have Capitalism, for the "realism" of objective, market based metrics; not the subjectiveness, of right wing social policies, on a national basis.
> 
> only the fantastical right wing can claim, "market based metrics", is "gibberish".
> 
> just socialism bailing out capitalism, like usual; since 1929.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Capitalism doesn't need handouts for stoners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hooverville, really is that lazy.
> 
> Socialism requires social morals for free, not capital morals for a capital price.
Click to expand...


Gibberish.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, it does; simply for the market based metrics.  only the right wing, merely claims to be for capitalism, except when it interferes with their national socialism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *yes, it does;*
> 
> No. The economy doesn't depend on handing money to unemployables.
> Taxing the successful to hand money to you does not improve economic efficiency.
> *
> simply for the market based metrics*
> 
> Gibberish.
> 
> *only the right wing, merely claims to be for capitalism,*
> 
> Only the lift-wing claims handouts aid capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude; we have Capitalism, for the "realism" of objective, market based metrics; not the subjectiveness, of right wing social policies, on a national basis.
> 
> only the fantastical right wing can claim, "market based metrics", is "gibberish".
> 
> just socialism bailing out capitalism, like usual; since 1929.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Capitalism doesn't need handouts for stoners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hooverville, really is that lazy.
> 
> Socialism requires social morals for free, not capital morals for a capital price.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gibberish.
Click to expand...

Now you know why I cannot confide in your sincerity.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *yes, it does;*
> 
> No. The economy doesn't depend on handing money to unemployables.
> Taxing the successful to hand money to you does not improve economic efficiency.
> *
> simply for the market based metrics*
> 
> Gibberish.
> 
> *only the right wing, merely claims to be for capitalism,*
> 
> Only the lift-wing claims handouts aid capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> dude; we have Capitalism, for the "realism" of objective, market based metrics; not the subjectiveness, of right wing social policies, on a national basis.
> 
> only the fantastical right wing can claim, "market based metrics", is "gibberish".
> 
> just socialism bailing out capitalism, like usual; since 1929.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Capitalism doesn't need handouts for stoners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hooverville, really is that lazy.
> 
> Socialism requires social morals for free, not capital morals for a capital price.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gibberish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you know why I cannot confide in your sincerity.
Click to expand...


I'm sincerely mocking your gibberish.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dude; we have Capitalism, for the "realism" of objective, market based metrics; not the subjectiveness, of right wing social policies, on a national basis.
> 
> only the fantastical right wing can claim, "market based metrics", is "gibberish".
> 
> just socialism bailing out capitalism, like usual; since 1929.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism doesn't need handouts for stoners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hooverville, really is that lazy.
> 
> Socialism requires social morals for free, not capital morals for a capital price.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gibberish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you know why I cannot confide in your sincerity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sincerely mocking your gibberish.
Click to expand...

thank you for admitting you have nothing but fallacy, in the public domain.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism doesn't need handouts for stoners.
> 
> 
> 
> Hooverville, really is that lazy.
> 
> Socialism requires social morals for free, not capital morals for a capital price.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gibberish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you know why I cannot confide in your sincerity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sincerely mocking your gibberish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> thank you for admitting you have nothing but fallacy, in the public domain.
Click to expand...


Thanks for your gibberish. It's amusing.


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it takes money - go *earn* it snowflake. Why is this concept so mind-boggling for you?
> 
> 
> 
> I have a work ethic; no employers are offering a bonus to go work and employ my, "historical work ethic from the Age of Iron".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no one who wants to get paid for not working has a work ethic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> silly; i just want to, "get compensated" for Capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment on at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> I do not subscribe to forms of, "wage slavery" merely so the rich, can get richer, faster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you don't get compensated for sitting on your ass in Mommy's basement
> 
> that is a fact of life you must accept if you ever want to be considered an adult
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept of employment, at the will of either party.
> 
> You don't really care about the law, so, why should I take You seriously when You complain about illegals to our own laws.
Click to expand...


I don't complain about illegals I merely state that all illegal aliens re criminals by definition

how can you say you care about the law if you don't agree with that fact?

And it's your choice not to work so it is your choice not to earn any money that's not my fault so I shouldn't have to pay your lazy ass a dime


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> silly; i just want to, "get compensated" for Capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment on *at-will basis* in our at-will employment States.


It's hard for one to wrap their mind around such a bizarre and absurd statement. Compensated for _what_? *Quitting*? Do you understand the concept of compensation? Perhaps you don't understand what that word means?

*compensation *[kom-puh n-sey-shuh n] 
1. the act or state of compensating, as by rewarding someone for *service*
2. something given or received as an equivalent for *services*

When you quit your job - you are no longer providing a service to the company that was paying you. Yet you irrationally and absurdly believe that they should continue to pay you. So ask yourself - if your landscaper stopped cutting your grass, would you continue to pay them? If your dry cleaner stopped cleaning your clothes, would you continue to pay them? If your water company shut off the water to your house, would you continue to pay them?

No? Then you are a dirt-bag hypocrite. You want to take from everyone else but you don't want to give.


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a work ethic; no employers are offering a bonus to go work and employ my, "historical work ethic from the Age of Iron".
> 
> 
> 
> no one who wants to get paid for not working has a work ethic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> silly; i just want to, "get compensated" for Capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment on at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> I do not subscribe to forms of, "wage slavery" merely so the rich, can get richer, faster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you don't get compensated for sitting on your ass in Mommy's basement
> 
> that is a fact of life you must accept if you ever want to be considered an adult
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept of employment, at the will of either party.
> 
> You don't really care about the law, so, why should I take You seriously when You complain about illegals to our own laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't complain about illegals I merely state that all illegal aliens re criminals by definition
> 
> how can you say you care about the law if you don't agree with that fact?
> 
> And it's your choice not to work so it is your choice not to earn any money that's not my fault so I shouldn't have to pay your lazy ass a dime
Click to expand...

so, you don't care about State laws regarding employment at will; how about a federal Doctrine in American law?  don't complain; be Patriotic and legal to our own laws.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> silly; i just want to, "get compensated" for Capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment on *at-will basis* in our at-will employment States.
> 
> 
> 
> It's hard for one to wrap their mind around such a bizarre and absurd statement. Compensated for _what_? *Quitting*? Do you understand the concept of compensation? Perhaps you don't understand what that word means?
> 
> *compensation *[kom-puh n-sey-shuh n]
> 1. the act or state of compensating, as by rewarding someone for *service*
> 2. something given or received as an equivalent for *services*
> 
> When you quit your job - you are no longer providing a service to the company that was paying you. Yet you irrationally and absurdly believe that they should continue to pay you. So ask yourself - if your landscaper stopped cutting your grass, would you continue to pay them? If your dry cleaner stopped cleaning your clothes, would you continue to pay them? If your water company shut off the water to your house, would you continue to pay them?
> 
> No? Then you are a dirt-bag hypocrite. You want to take from everyone else but you don't want to give.
Click to expand...

compensation for Capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment.  Capitalism is public policy; eminent domain applies.


----------



## hadit

I think we broke him.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> silly; i just want to, "get compensated" for Capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment on *at-will basis* in our at-will employment States.
> 
> 
> 
> It's hard for one to wrap their mind around such a bizarre and absurd statement. Compensated for _what_? *Quitting*? Do you understand the concept of compensation? Perhaps you don't understand what that word means?
> 
> *compensation *[kom-puh n-sey-shuh n]
> 1. the act or state of compensating, as by rewarding someone for *service*
> 2. something given or received as an equivalent for *services*
> 
> When you quit your job - you are no longer providing a service to the company that was paying you. Yet you irrationally and absurdly believe that they should continue to pay you. So ask yourself - if your landscaper stopped cutting your grass, would you continue to pay them? If your dry cleaner stopped cleaning your clothes, would you continue to pay them? If your water company shut off the water to your house, would you continue to pay them?
> 
> No? Then you are a dirt-bag hypocrite. You want to take from everyone else but you don't want to give.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> compensation for Capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment.  Capitalism is public policy; eminent domain applies.
Click to expand...

*
compensation for Capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment*

Why would you, or any other unemployable person, be compensated for that? Spell it out. 

*Capitalism is public policy; eminent domain applies.*

It's clear you don't understand eminent domain either.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

hadit said:


> I think we broke him.



He's never held a job, he was broke long before we met him.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> silly; i just want to, "get compensated" for Capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment on *at-will basis* in our at-will employment States.
> 
> 
> 
> It's hard for one to wrap their mind around such a bizarre and absurd statement. Compensated for _what_? *Quitting*? Do you understand the concept of compensation? Perhaps you don't understand what that word means?
> 
> *compensation *[kom-puh n-sey-shuh n]
> 1. the act or state of compensating, as by rewarding someone for *service*
> 2. something given or received as an equivalent for *services*
> 
> When you quit your job - you are no longer providing a service to the company that was paying you. Yet you irrationally and absurdly believe that they should continue to pay you. So ask yourself - if your landscaper stopped cutting your grass, would you continue to pay them? If your dry cleaner stopped cleaning your clothes, would you continue to pay them? If your water company shut off the water to your house, would you continue to pay them?
> 
> No? Then you are a dirt-bag hypocrite. You want to take from everyone else but you don't want to give.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> compensation for Capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment.  Capitalism is public policy; eminent domain applies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> compensation for Capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment*
> 
> Why would you, or any other unemployable person, be compensated for that? Spell it out.
> 
> *Capitalism is public policy; eminent domain applies.*
> 
> It's clear you don't understand eminent domain either.
Click to expand...

I have already Told You and the right wing, over two hundred and fifty times.  It is about, full employment of capital resources on an at-will basis.  In effect, it would be a form of "guaranteed income" that acts like an, "oil pump" to ensure capital circulates under our form of Capitalism.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think we broke him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's never held a job, he was broke long before we met him.
Click to expand...

solving for capitalism's, natural rate of inefficiencies, is what socialism well regulated, can always be good for.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> silly; i just want to, "get compensated" for Capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment on *at-will basis* in our at-will employment States.
> 
> 
> 
> It's hard for one to wrap their mind around such a bizarre and absurd statement. Compensated for _what_? *Quitting*? Do you understand the concept of compensation? Perhaps you don't understand what that word means?
> 
> *compensation *[kom-puh n-sey-shuh n]
> 1. the act or state of compensating, as by rewarding someone for *service*
> 2. something given or received as an equivalent for *services*
> 
> When you quit your job - you are no longer providing a service to the company that was paying you. Yet you irrationally and absurdly believe that they should continue to pay you. So ask yourself - if your landscaper stopped cutting your grass, would you continue to pay them? If your dry cleaner stopped cleaning your clothes, would you continue to pay them? If your water company shut off the water to your house, would you continue to pay them?
> 
> No? Then you are a dirt-bag hypocrite. You want to take from everyone else but you don't want to give.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> compensation for Capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment.  Capitalism is public policy; eminent domain applies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> compensation for Capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment*
> 
> Why would you, or any other unemployable person, be compensated for that? Spell it out.
> 
> *Capitalism is public policy; eminent domain applies.*
> 
> It's clear you don't understand eminent domain either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have already Told You and the right wing, over two hundred and fifty times.  It is about, full employment of capital resources on an at-will basis.  In effect, it would be a form of "guaranteed income" that acts like an, "oil pump" to ensure capital circulates under our form of Capitalism.
Click to expand...

*
It is about, full employment of capital resources on an at-will basis.* 

Yes. And wasting capital by handing it to you does not use it more efficiently.
*
In effect, it would be a form of "guaranteed income"*

That doesn't add a single dollar to GDP.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think we broke him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's never held a job, he was broke long before we met him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> solving for capitalism's, natural rate of inefficiencies, is what socialism well regulated, can always be good for.
Click to expand...


Socialism doesn't solve capitalism's inefficiencies.


----------



## task0778

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think we broke him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's never held a job, he was broke long before we met him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> solving for capitalism's, natural rate of inefficiencies, is what socialism well regulated, can always be good for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Socialism doesn't solve capitalism's inefficiencies.
Click to expand...


Socialism doesn't solve anything.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fucking hell. How many times do I have to say this? I HAVE NOT SAID THAT THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS WAS RESTRICTED TO MILITIA SERVICE.
> 
> The right to bear arms IS MILITIA SERVICE.
> 
> What do you think the intent of the 2A is?
> 
> The right to stick a gun up your ass?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so you can only bear arms in the service of a militia
> 
> You are saying that an individual does nor have a right to carry a weapon because bearing arms doesn't mean carry a weapon it means serving in the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "bear arms" means "militia duty".
> 
> So, you just said "so you can only do militia duty in the service of the militia", yes, you can only be in the militia in the militia.
> 
> Yes, I'm saying an individual does NOT have a right to carry a weapon around. Presser seemed to make that clear, and Heller confirmed this.
> 
> You can't have a license for a right. So carry and conceal permits would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL. And yet the NRA supports carry and conceal permits. Go figure. Why would they do this if there were a right to carry arms?
> 
> Think about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there are states that do not require a permit for concealed carry
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what? What the hell does this have to do with the argument? You just decided that because I wrote "carry and conceal permit" you'd come up with a fun fact of the day which includes "carry and conceal permit"? Wow.
> 
> Did you really not get my point at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand your point I happen to disagree
> 
> if the only rights you had as far as firearms are concerned is keeping one in your home or using it in service to the militia then one could keep but never use a gun outside the home unless called upon by the militia
> 
> is that what you think the second amendment says?
Click to expand...


You disagree, but you have no evidence to back your claim up. You're simply believing what you want to believe and ignoring ALL OF THE EVIDENCE. All of it. 

You don't have a right to take a dump. But you can. 

You don't need rights to be able to do something. Rights are something considered fundamental. 

What the 2A does is prevent the US federal govt from stopping you being able to own weapons and being in the militia. But you can use your guns because the law says so, in many states. 

Your argument isn't logical. Because then so many things you do on a daily basis are not protected by rights would also not make sense to you. But somehow they do. 

But again. You have provided NO EVIDENCE for your view. Not one single source of evidence to suggest that there is some "right to carry arms".

Even when I've shown the founding fathers saw "bear arms" as "render military service" and "militia duty", even with the Supreme Court saying that carrying arms is not protected by the Second Amendment and the latest case backing Presser up within the last decade. Even with the NRA supporting carry and conceal permits, which, if they were protected by a right, then you wouldn't need a permit in the first place, but they do. 

And you're just like "This isn't convenient for my view, so I'm going to ignore it all and believe something that is convenient". 

So what's the point of all this discussion then if you're not even going to accept facts?


----------



## frigidweirdo

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proven? How much proof do you need?
> 
> First you have the founding fathers using "bear arms", "render military service" and "militia duty" synonymously.
> 
> But you've decided to ignore the founding fathers. How about George Washington? Will you ignore him?
> 
> *SENTIMENTS ON A PEACE ESTABLISHMENT, 1783*
> 
> George Washington
> 
> 
> "every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America... from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls,"
> 
> "by making it universally reputable to bear Arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the performance of Military duties; in fine, by keeping up in Peace "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia," we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country.“
> 
> Then you have the Supreme Court.
> 
> 
> ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1897)
> 
> _“_the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;”
> 
> 
> PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)
> 
> "*We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265]   and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
> 
> 
> District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
> 
> "(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes."
> *
> Even Heller upheld the Presser case.
> 
> Now I asked you for your evidence and you've posted NOTHING. That's because there isn't anything. There's NO EVIDENCE that the right to bear arms is the right to carry arms around. Even if there were, the Supreme Court has ruled that this isn't the case. Even if that were so, the Founding Fathers clearly wrote the amendment with the thought that "bear arms" meant "render military service" or "militia duty".
> 
> 
> Also, AGAIN. I have NOT SAID you have to be in the militia to have the right to keep arms, or the right to bear arms. In fact, it makes no sense. How could you have the right to bear arms, but you have to be in the militia to have the right to be in the militia? No idiot would write such a statement, and I certainly have not said that this is the case, and yet you keep pounding away fighting some ghost that isn't there. Why don't you try READING what the FUCK I WRITE. Because it's getting rather annoying to have to keep explaining something, not when asked to clarify, but when told I said something which I clearly did not say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they used it but did not specify that in the second amendment.
> 
> if the purpose of the second was to limit the bearing of arms solely to service in a militia it would have said that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "it", what is "it"? I wrote a long post, am I supposed to know what "it" is when you use it without context?
> 
> But, the amendment DID say that.
> 
> It's like saying that the amendment doesn't talk about guns, but only arms, if they had meant guns, wouldn't they have said guns? You argument makes no sense.
> 
> When "bear arms" means "render military service" or "militia duty", and then you complain when they didn't write "militia duty", you have to wonder how much you don't want this to be true, how much of this FACT you're willing to ignore.
> 
> Do you accept that the founding fathers saw "bear arms" "render military service" and "militia duty" synonymously? Or are you rejecting this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to bear was not restricted by service to a militia.  If it was then a gun could be owned but never used unless serving in the militia
> 
> you really think that is the intent of the second amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The security needs of a free State and the Union; not, natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the bill of rights is about the people not the states not the federal government.
> 
> It is a very clear list of rights that belong to the people not the government
Click to expand...


Totally wrong. The Bill of Rights is about the govt. 

It basically states what the government cannot do.


----------



## Marion Morrison

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> i don't take the right wing seriously about the law, from Inception.
> 
> 
> 
> That's ok snowflake - nobody takes you seriously about _anything_. The fact that you don't even know that "i" is a proper pronoun which should be capitalized or that the first letter of any sentence is capitalized illustrates your limited IQ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> having nothing but fallacy for your Cause, means you are literally, incredible.
Click to expand...


It appears by your English skills that you are literacy incapable.

Your best bet is to not try to read something and give us your interpretation as you are barely literate.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> silly; i just want to, "get compensated" for Capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment on *at-will basis* in our at-will employment States.
> 
> 
> 
> It's hard for one to wrap their mind around such a bizarre and absurd statement. Compensated for _what_? *Quitting*? Do you understand the concept of compensation? Perhaps you don't understand what that word means?
> 
> *compensation *[kom-puh n-sey-shuh n]
> 1. the act or state of compensating, as by rewarding someone for *service*
> 2. something given or received as an equivalent for *services*
> 
> When you quit your job - you are no longer providing a service to the company that was paying you. Yet you irrationally and absurdly believe that they should continue to pay you. So ask yourself - if your landscaper stopped cutting your grass, would you continue to pay them? If your dry cleaner stopped cleaning your clothes, would you continue to pay them? If your water company shut off the water to your house, would you continue to pay them?
> 
> No? Then you are a dirt-bag hypocrite. You want to take from everyone else but you don't want to give.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> compensation for Capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment.  Capitalism is public policy; eminent domain applies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> compensation for Capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment*
> 
> Why would you, or any other unemployable person, be compensated for that? Spell it out.
> 
> *Capitalism is public policy; eminent domain applies.*
> 
> It's clear you don't understand eminent domain either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have already Told You and the right wing, over two hundred and fifty times.  It is about, full employment of capital resources on an at-will basis.  In effect, it would be a form of "guaranteed income" that acts like an, "oil pump" to ensure capital circulates under our form of Capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> It is about, full employment of capital resources on an at-will basis.*
> 
> Yes. And wasting capital by handing it to you does not use it more efficiently.
> *
> In effect, it would be a form of "guaranteed income"*
> 
> That doesn't add a single dollar to GDP.
Click to expand...


I love your sarcasm. 

Do you not really believe in capitalism and a positive economic multiplier effect?


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think we broke him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's never held a job, he was broke long before we met him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> solving for capitalism's, natural rate of inefficiencies, is what socialism well regulated, can always be good for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Socialism doesn't solve capitalism's inefficiencies.
Click to expand...

It solved for Hooverville.  Our right wing complains our poor are not really poor enough by true, capital, third world Standards, and should be made to, "suffer" more as a result.


----------



## danielpalos

task0778 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think we broke him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's never held a job, he was broke long before we met him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> solving for capitalism's, natural rate of inefficiencies, is what socialism well regulated, can always be good for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Socialism doesn't solve capitalism's inefficiencies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Socialism doesn't solve anything.
Click to expand...


Government is Socialism.


----------



## danielpalos

Marion Morrison said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> i don't take the right wing seriously about the law, from Inception.
> 
> 
> 
> That's ok snowflake - nobody takes you seriously about _anything_. The fact that you don't even know that "i" is a proper pronoun which should be capitalized or that the first letter of any sentence is capitalized illustrates your limited IQ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> having nothing but fallacy for your Cause, means you are literally, incredible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It appears by your English skills that you are literacy incapable.
> 
> Your best bet is to not try to read something and give us your interpretation as you are barely literate.
Click to expand...

Only well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bear Arms for their State or the Union, regardless of All of the other ones.  Is that simple enough for the right wing?


----------



## ScienceRocks

danielpalos said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think we broke him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's never held a job, he was broke long before we met him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> solving for capitalism's, natural rate of inefficiencies, is what socialism well regulated, can always be good for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Socialism doesn't solve capitalism's inefficiencies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Socialism doesn't solve anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Government is Socialism.
Click to expand...


Civilization is socialism...It working together and living with each other....Paving that road for all, police, military, educating our children, etc.


----------



## task0778

Matthew said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's never held a job, he was broke long before we met him.
> 
> 
> 
> solving for capitalism's, natural rate of inefficiencies, is what socialism well regulated, can always be good for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Socialism doesn't solve capitalism's inefficiencies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Socialism doesn't solve anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Government is Socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Civilization is socialism...It working together and living with each other....Paving that road for all, police, military, educating our children, etc.
Click to expand...


It appears that you don't really know what socialism is.


----------



## danielpalos

Matthew said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's never held a job, he was broke long before we met him.
> 
> 
> 
> solving for capitalism's, natural rate of inefficiencies, is what socialism well regulated, can always be good for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Socialism doesn't solve capitalism's inefficiencies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Socialism doesn't solve anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Government is Socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Civilization is socialism...It working together and living with each other....Paving that road for all, police, military, educating our children, etc.
Click to expand...

try convincing the right wing; they "habitually, round-file the memo".


----------



## Marion Morrison

danielpalos said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> i don't take the right wing seriously about the law, from Inception.
> 
> 
> 
> That's ok snowflake - nobody takes you seriously about _anything_. The fact that you don't even know that "i" is a proper pronoun which should be capitalized or that the first letter of any sentence is capitalized illustrates your limited IQ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> having nothing but fallacy for your Cause, means you are literally, incredible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It appears by your English skills that you are literacy incapable.
> 
> Your best bet is to not try to read something and give us your interpretation as you are barely literate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Only well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bear Arms for their State or the Union, regardless of All of the other ones.  Is that simple enough for the right wing?*
Click to expand...



Where did you copy that silly-ass text from?

"Well-regulated" Means "In proper working order" and every citizen is the militia. The End.

From your own words:  "The entire people may not have their right to bear arms infringed upon"

Is that simple enough for you? Oh! you want to limit other people's rights. Let's call a spade a spade here now.

Whose right to bear arms is it you wish to limit?


----------



## danielpalos

task0778 said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> solving for capitalism's, natural rate of inefficiencies, is what socialism well regulated, can always be good for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism doesn't solve capitalism's inefficiencies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Socialism doesn't solve anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Government is Socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Civilization is socialism...It working together and living with each other....Paving that road for all, police, military, educating our children, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It appears that you don't really know what socialism is.
Click to expand...

why do you believe you do?


----------



## danielpalos

Marion Morrison said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> i don't take the right wing seriously about the law, from Inception.
> 
> 
> 
> That's ok snowflake - nobody takes you seriously about _anything_. The fact that you don't even know that "i" is a proper pronoun which should be capitalized or that the first letter of any sentence is capitalized illustrates your limited IQ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> having nothing but fallacy for your Cause, means you are literally, incredible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It appears by your English skills that you are literacy incapable.
> 
> Your best bet is to not try to read something and give us your interpretation as you are barely literate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Only well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bear Arms for their State or the Union, regardless of All of the other ones.  Is that simple enough for the right wing?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you copy that silly-ass text from?
> 
> "Well-regulated" Means "In proper working order" and every citizen is the militia. The End.
> 
> From your own words:  "The entire people may not have their right to bear arms infringed upon"
> 
> Is that simple enough for you? Oh! you want to limit other people's rights. Let's call a spade a spade here now.
> 
> Whose right to bear arms is it you wish to limit?
Click to expand...

the alleged right of, _infidels_, _protestants_, and _renegades_, to our supreme law of the land, to practice their custom and habit if it impairs the security and domestic tranquility of our free States.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's hard for one to wrap their mind around such a bizarre and absurd statement. Compensated for _what_? *Quitting*? Do you understand the concept of compensation? Perhaps you don't understand what that word means?
> 
> *compensation *[kom-puh n-sey-shuh n]
> 1. the act or state of compensating, as by rewarding someone for *service*
> 2. something given or received as an equivalent for *services*
> 
> When you quit your job - you are no longer providing a service to the company that was paying you. Yet you irrationally and absurdly believe that they should continue to pay you. So ask yourself - if your landscaper stopped cutting your grass, would you continue to pay them? If your dry cleaner stopped cleaning your clothes, would you continue to pay them? If your water company shut off the water to your house, would you continue to pay them?
> 
> No? Then you are a dirt-bag hypocrite. You want to take from everyone else but you don't want to give.
> 
> 
> 
> compensation for Capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment.  Capitalism is public policy; eminent domain applies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> compensation for Capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment*
> 
> Why would you, or any other unemployable person, be compensated for that? Spell it out.
> 
> *Capitalism is public policy; eminent domain applies.*
> 
> It's clear you don't understand eminent domain either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have already Told You and the right wing, over two hundred and fifty times.  It is about, full employment of capital resources on an at-will basis.  In effect, it would be a form of "guaranteed income" that acts like an, "oil pump" to ensure capital circulates under our form of Capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> It is about, full employment of capital resources on an at-will basis.*
> 
> Yes. And wasting capital by handing it to you does not use it more efficiently.
> *
> In effect, it would be a form of "guaranteed income"*
> 
> That doesn't add a single dollar to GDP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love your sarcasm.
> 
> Do you not really believe in capitalism and a positive economic multiplier effect?
Click to expand...


Handing you money for not working is not capitalism.
Handing you money for not working has a negative multiplier effect.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> compensation for Capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment.  Capitalism is public policy; eminent domain applies.
> 
> 
> 
> *
> compensation for Capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment*
> 
> Why would you, or any other unemployable person, be compensated for that? Spell it out.
> 
> *Capitalism is public policy; eminent domain applies.*
> 
> It's clear you don't understand eminent domain either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have already Told You and the right wing, over two hundred and fifty times.  It is about, full employment of capital resources on an at-will basis.  In effect, it would be a form of "guaranteed income" that acts like an, "oil pump" to ensure capital circulates under our form of Capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> It is about, full employment of capital resources on an at-will basis.*
> 
> Yes. And wasting capital by handing it to you does not use it more efficiently.
> *
> In effect, it would be a form of "guaranteed income"*
> 
> That doesn't add a single dollar to GDP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love your sarcasm.
> 
> Do you not really believe in capitalism and a positive economic multiplier effect?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Handing you money for not working is not capitalism.
> Handing you money for not working has a negative multiplier effect.
Click to expand...

nothing but propaganda and rhetoric.  

it about market based metrics and circulating capital; that, produces a positive multiplier effect. 

Here is the analogy:



> For if liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost.--Aristotle


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *compensation for Capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment*
> 
> Why would you, or any other unemployable person, be compensated for that? Spell it out.
> 
> *Capitalism is public policy; eminent domain applies.*
> 
> It's clear you don't understand eminent domain either.
> 
> 
> 
> I have already Told You and the right wing, over two hundred and fifty times.  It is about, full employment of capital resources on an at-will basis.  In effect, it would be a form of "guaranteed income" that acts like an, "oil pump" to ensure capital circulates under our form of Capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> It is about, full employment of capital resources on an at-will basis.*
> 
> Yes. And wasting capital by handing it to you does not use it more efficiently.
> *
> In effect, it would be a form of "guaranteed income"*
> 
> That doesn't add a single dollar to GDP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love your sarcasm.
> 
> Do you not really believe in capitalism and a positive economic multiplier effect?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Handing you money for not working is not capitalism.
> Handing you money for not working has a negative multiplier effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing but propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> it about market based metrics and circulating capital; that, produces a positive multiplier effect.
> 
> Here is the analogy:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For if liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost.--Aristotle
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



*it about market based metrics and circulating capital; that, produces a positive multiplier effect.
*
Why do you feel that handing you money for not working would have a positive multiplier?
Why would handing you money increase GDP?

Aristotle wasn't talking about handouts to the lazy.


----------



## task0778

danielpalos said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism doesn't solve capitalism's inefficiencies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism doesn't solve anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Government is Socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Civilization is socialism...It working together and living with each other....Paving that road for all, police, military, educating our children, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It appears that you don't really know what socialism is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why do you believe you do?
Click to expand...


Most people define socialism as governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. The idea under socialism is that the government determines and  provides its citizens with the things it believes that they need.   These days there are quite a few young people who think there's nothing wrong with that, that it sounds cool.   Except it isn't and this is why: 

It gives too much power to too few people.   Ever hear the saying that absolute power corrupts absolutely?   Well it does, in every single  case where it exists or existed at one time, life totally sucks for the average citizen and he/she has no say in changing anything.   It's not like the distribution is equitable or fair, those at the top of the power chain get the most and best of everything while everyone else gets very little.   At least in a democratic society you have the opportunity to advance and get rich like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs did.   Ain't happening in a socialist state, you stay where you are unless you know somebody or rat out somebody.  Freedoms of speech and the press and the right to assemble are all gone;  you do exactly what the gov't tells you or you find yourself in a prison.   Or maybe dead, and I'm not joking.   Take a look at how Cuba or North Korea or Venezuela are doing these days.   Life ain't cool if you live there.

Simply put, socialism takes away the liberty to decide how you wish to spend your money; it presupposes you are not smart enough to decide what you need. Your income was yours to spend as you wish. Now it is the government’s, and it will provide for you what it thinks you need.   You tell me:  is it fair to bust your ass working hard only to see the gov't take all you have earned and give you back what it decides you need and give the rest to somebody else who screwed around?    And you have no rights, you aren't living in a society that enjoys the rules of law where everyone is supposed to be equal.   In a socialistic state the law benefits those who serve it best rather than what's right or honest.    Socialism in reality is about coercion and force, you don't get to do what you want with your life.   You do what you're told.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> the alleged right of, _infidels_, _protestants_, and _renegades_, to our supreme law of the land, to practice their custom and habit if it impairs the security and domestic tranquility of our free States.


The _only_ thing impairing "the domestic tranquility of our free states" are you fascist left-wing hatriots who want to shred the U.S. Constitution, trample on liberty, and control everyone else because your small and insignificant lives make you hunger for power.


----------



## Skull Pilot

frigidweirdo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> so you can only bear arms in the service of a militia
> 
> You are saying that an individual does nor have a right to carry a weapon because bearing arms doesn't mean carry a weapon it means serving in the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "bear arms" means "militia duty".
> 
> So, you just said "so you can only do militia duty in the service of the militia", yes, you can only be in the militia in the militia.
> 
> Yes, I'm saying an individual does NOT have a right to carry a weapon around. Presser seemed to make that clear, and Heller confirmed this.
> 
> You can't have a license for a right. So carry and conceal permits would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL. And yet the NRA supports carry and conceal permits. Go figure. Why would they do this if there were a right to carry arms?
> 
> Think about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there are states that do not require a permit for concealed carry
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what? What the hell does this have to do with the argument? You just decided that because I wrote "carry and conceal permit" you'd come up with a fun fact of the day which includes "carry and conceal permit"? Wow.
> 
> Did you really not get my point at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand your point I happen to disagree
> 
> if the only rights you had as far as firearms are concerned is keeping one in your home or using it in service to the militia then one could keep but never use a gun outside the home unless called upon by the militia
> 
> is that what you think the second amendment says?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You disagree, but you have no evidence to back your claim up. You're simply believing what you want to believe and ignoring ALL OF THE EVIDENCE. All of it.
> 
> You don't have a right to take a dump. But you can.
> 
> You don't need rights to be able to do something. Rights are something considered fundamental.
> 
> What the 2A does is prevent the US federal govt from stopping you being able to own weapons and being in the militia. But you can use your guns because the law says so, in many states.
> 
> Your argument isn't logical. Because then so many things you do on a daily basis are not protected by rights would also not make sense to you. But somehow they do.
> 
> But again. You have provided NO EVIDENCE for your view. Not one single source of evidence to suggest that there is some "right to carry arms".
> 
> Even when I've shown the founding fathers saw "bear arms" as "render military service" and "militia duty", even with the Supreme Court saying that carrying arms is not protected by the Second Amendment and the latest case backing Presser up within the last decade. Even with the NRA supporting carry and conceal permits, which, if they were protected by a right, then you wouldn't need a permit in the first place, but they do.
> 
> And you're just like "This isn't convenient for my view, so I'm going to ignore it all and believe something that is convenient".
> 
> So what's the point of all this discussion then if you're not even going to accept facts?
Click to expand...

but in your interpretation you have no right to use a firearm for any purpose other than serving in the militia

which means you have no right to use a firearm for self defense

and FYI I gave you an analysis of the Second by an acknowledged expert in the usage of the English language.


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> no one who wants to get paid for not working has a work ethic
> 
> 
> 
> silly; i just want to, "get compensated" for Capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment on at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> I do not subscribe to forms of, "wage slavery" merely so the rich, can get richer, faster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you don't get compensated for sitting on your ass in Mommy's basement
> 
> that is a fact of life you must accept if you ever want to be considered an adult
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept of employment, at the will of either party.
> 
> You don't really care about the law, so, why should I take You seriously when You complain about illegals to our own laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't complain about illegals I merely state that all illegal aliens re criminals by definition
> 
> how can you say you care about the law if you don't agree with that fact?
> 
> And it's your choice not to work so it is your choice not to earn any money that's not my fault so I shouldn't have to pay your lazy ass a dime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so, you don't care about State laws regarding employment at will; how about a federal Doctrine in American law?  don't complain; be Patriotic and legal to our own laws.
Click to expand...


What state law says you have the right to a paycheck if you choose to be unemployed?


----------



## Skull Pilot

frigidweirdo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> they used it but did not specify that in the second amendment.
> 
> if the purpose of the second was to limit the bearing of arms solely to service in a militia it would have said that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "it", what is "it"? I wrote a long post, am I supposed to know what "it" is when you use it without context?
> 
> But, the amendment DID say that.
> 
> It's like saying that the amendment doesn't talk about guns, but only arms, if they had meant guns, wouldn't they have said guns? You argument makes no sense.
> 
> When "bear arms" means "render military service" or "militia duty", and then you complain when they didn't write "militia duty", you have to wonder how much you don't want this to be true, how much of this FACT you're willing to ignore.
> 
> Do you accept that the founding fathers saw "bear arms" "render military service" and "militia duty" synonymously? Or are you rejecting this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to bear was not restricted by service to a militia.  If it was then a gun could be owned but never used unless serving in the militia
> 
> you really think that is the intent of the second amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The security needs of a free State and the Union; not, natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the bill of rights is about the people not the states not the federal government.
> 
> It is a very clear list of rights that belong to the people not the government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Totally wrong. The Bill of Rights is about the govt.
> 
> It basically states what the government cannot do.
Click to expand...


and it cannot violate the rights of the people

so it is about protecting the rights of the people from government overstep

It's called the Bill of Rights and rights belong to the people.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> "bear arms" means "militia duty".
> 
> So, you just said "so you can only do militia duty in the service of the militia", yes, you can only be in the militia in the militia.
> 
> Yes, I'm saying an individual does NOT have a right to carry a weapon around. Presser seemed to make that clear, and Heller confirmed this.
> 
> You can't have a license for a right. So carry and conceal permits would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL. And yet the NRA supports carry and conceal permits. Go figure. Why would they do this if there were a right to carry arms?
> 
> Think about it.
> 
> 
> 
> there are states that do not require a permit for concealed carry
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what? What the hell does this have to do with the argument? You just decided that because I wrote "carry and conceal permit" you'd come up with a fun fact of the day which includes "carry and conceal permit"? Wow.
> 
> Did you really not get my point at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand your point I happen to disagree
> 
> if the only rights you had as far as firearms are concerned is keeping one in your home or using it in service to the militia then one could keep but never use a gun outside the home unless called upon by the militia
> 
> is that what you think the second amendment says?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You disagree, but you have no evidence to back your claim up. You're simply believing what you want to believe and ignoring ALL OF THE EVIDENCE. All of it.
> 
> You don't have a right to take a dump. But you can.
> 
> You don't need rights to be able to do something. Rights are something considered fundamental.
> 
> What the 2A does is prevent the US federal govt from stopping you being able to own weapons and being in the militia. But you can use your guns because the law says so, in many states.
> 
> Your argument isn't logical. Because then so many things you do on a daily basis are not protected by rights would also not make sense to you. But somehow they do.
> 
> But again. You have provided NO EVIDENCE for your view. Not one single source of evidence to suggest that there is some "right to carry arms".
> 
> Even when I've shown the founding fathers saw "bear arms" as "render military service" and "militia duty", even with the Supreme Court saying that carrying arms is not protected by the Second Amendment and the latest case backing Presser up within the last decade. Even with the NRA supporting carry and conceal permits, which, if they were protected by a right, then you wouldn't need a permit in the first place, but they do.
> 
> And you're just like "This isn't convenient for my view, so I'm going to ignore it all and believe something that is convenient".
> 
> So what's the point of all this discussion then if you're not even going to accept facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but in your interpretation you have no right to use a firearm for any purpose other than serving in the militia
> 
> which means you have no right to use a firearm for self defense
> 
> and FYI I gave you an analysis of the Second by an acknowledged expert in the usage of the English language.
Click to expand...


Well, yes, from the 2A. 

There's a right to self defense but it's not to be found in the 2A. 

Think about it. What are the first words of the 2A? Is it "self defence" or "militia"? 

Yes, you gave me someone else's view, you posted a link, you didn't even bother to write anything for yourself. FYI I don't count that as anything. Make your OWN argument, if I wanted to talk to the person who wrote that article, I'd talk to them. 

FYI you didn't prove anything.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> "it", what is "it"? I wrote a long post, am I supposed to know what "it" is when you use it without context?
> 
> But, the amendment DID say that.
> 
> It's like saying that the amendment doesn't talk about guns, but only arms, if they had meant guns, wouldn't they have said guns? You argument makes no sense.
> 
> When "bear arms" means "render military service" or "militia duty", and then you complain when they didn't write "militia duty", you have to wonder how much you don't want this to be true, how much of this FACT you're willing to ignore.
> 
> Do you accept that the founding fathers saw "bear arms" "render military service" and "militia duty" synonymously? Or are you rejecting this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right to bear was not restricted by service to a militia.  If it was then a gun could be owned but never used unless serving in the militia
> 
> you really think that is the intent of the second amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The security needs of a free State and the Union; not, natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the bill of rights is about the people not the states not the federal government.
> 
> It is a very clear list of rights that belong to the people not the government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Totally wrong. The Bill of Rights is about the govt.
> 
> It basically states what the government cannot do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and it cannot violate the rights of the people
> 
> so it is about protecting the rights of the people from government overstep
> 
> It's called the Bill of Rights and rights belong to the people.
Click to expand...


Well, yes, it can't violate the rights, but it can infringe upon them. 

Rights can "belong" to whoever you like, the Constitution doesn't give rights, it merely prevents the govt from doing certain things.


----------



## Skull Pilot

frigidweirdo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> there are states that do not require a permit for concealed carry
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what? What the hell does this have to do with the argument? You just decided that because I wrote "carry and conceal permit" you'd come up with a fun fact of the day which includes "carry and conceal permit"? Wow.
> 
> Did you really not get my point at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand your point I happen to disagree
> 
> if the only rights you had as far as firearms are concerned is keeping one in your home or using it in service to the militia then one could keep but never use a gun outside the home unless called upon by the militia
> 
> is that what you think the second amendment says?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You disagree, but you have no evidence to back your claim up. You're simply believing what you want to believe and ignoring ALL OF THE EVIDENCE. All of it.
> 
> You don't have a right to take a dump. But you can.
> 
> You don't need rights to be able to do something. Rights are something considered fundamental.
> 
> What the 2A does is prevent the US federal govt from stopping you being able to own weapons and being in the militia. But you can use your guns because the law says so, in many states.
> 
> Your argument isn't logical. Because then so many things you do on a daily basis are not protected by rights would also not make sense to you. But somehow they do.
> 
> But again. You have provided NO EVIDENCE for your view. Not one single source of evidence to suggest that there is some "right to carry arms".
> 
> Even when I've shown the founding fathers saw "bear arms" as "render military service" and "militia duty", even with the Supreme Court saying that carrying arms is not protected by the Second Amendment and the latest case backing Presser up within the last decade. Even with the NRA supporting carry and conceal permits, which, if they were protected by a right, then you wouldn't need a permit in the first place, but they do.
> 
> And you're just like "This isn't convenient for my view, so I'm going to ignore it all and believe something that is convenient".
> 
> So what's the point of all this discussion then if you're not even going to accept facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but in your interpretation you have no right to use a firearm for any purpose other than serving in the militia
> 
> which means you have no right to use a firearm for self defense
> 
> and FYI I gave you an analysis of the Second by an acknowledged expert in the usage of the English language.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, yes, from the 2A.
> 
> There's a right to self defense but it's not to be found in the 2A.
> 
> Think about it. What are the first words of the 2A? Is it "self defence" or "militia"?
> 
> Yes, you gave me someone else's view, you posted a link, you didn't even bother to write anything for yourself. FYI I don't count that as anything. Make your OWN argument, if I wanted to talk to the person who wrote that article, I'd talk to them.
> 
> FYI you didn't prove anything.
Click to expand...


Neither did you.
You gave me your opinion on what the framers meant and unless you can say that "bear arms " meant exclusively military service you haven't proven anything.

One example of the term Bear arms used in reference to non military service negates your argument

and here is a refute to your bear arms as a military only

What did it mean to 'bear arms' in 1791?


----------



## Skull Pilot

frigidweirdo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right to bear was not restricted by service to a militia.  If it was then a gun could be owned but never used unless serving in the militia
> 
> you really think that is the intent of the second amendment?
> 
> 
> 
> The security needs of a free State and the Union; not, natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the bill of rights is about the people not the states not the federal government.
> 
> It is a very clear list of rights that belong to the people not the government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Totally wrong. The Bill of Rights is about the govt.
> 
> It basically states what the government cannot do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and it cannot violate the rights of the people
> 
> so it is about protecting the rights of the people from government overstep
> 
> It's called the Bill of Rights and rights belong to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, yes, it can't violate the rights, but it can infringe upon them.
> 
> Rights can "belong" to whoever you like, the Constitution doesn't give rights, it merely prevents the govt from doing certain things.
Click to expand...


and one right particular shall not be infringed

the right of the people to keep and bear arms

it is the only right of the people mentioned in the Bill of Rights for which   the term "shall not be infringed" was used


----------



## frigidweirdo

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what? What the hell does this have to do with the argument? You just decided that because I wrote "carry and conceal permit" you'd come up with a fun fact of the day which includes "carry and conceal permit"? Wow.
> 
> Did you really not get my point at all?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand your point I happen to disagree
> 
> if the only rights you had as far as firearms are concerned is keeping one in your home or using it in service to the militia then one could keep but never use a gun outside the home unless called upon by the militia
> 
> is that what you think the second amendment says?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You disagree, but you have no evidence to back your claim up. You're simply believing what you want to believe and ignoring ALL OF THE EVIDENCE. All of it.
> 
> You don't have a right to take a dump. But you can.
> 
> You don't need rights to be able to do something. Rights are something considered fundamental.
> 
> What the 2A does is prevent the US federal govt from stopping you being able to own weapons and being in the militia. But you can use your guns because the law says so, in many states.
> 
> Your argument isn't logical. Because then so many things you do on a daily basis are not protected by rights would also not make sense to you. But somehow they do.
> 
> But again. You have provided NO EVIDENCE for your view. Not one single source of evidence to suggest that there is some "right to carry arms".
> 
> Even when I've shown the founding fathers saw "bear arms" as "render military service" and "militia duty", even with the Supreme Court saying that carrying arms is not protected by the Second Amendment and the latest case backing Presser up within the last decade. Even with the NRA supporting carry and conceal permits, which, if they were protected by a right, then you wouldn't need a permit in the first place, but they do.
> 
> And you're just like "This isn't convenient for my view, so I'm going to ignore it all and believe something that is convenient".
> 
> So what's the point of all this discussion then if you're not even going to accept facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but in your interpretation you have no right to use a firearm for any purpose other than serving in the militia
> 
> which means you have no right to use a firearm for self defense
> 
> and FYI I gave you an analysis of the Second by an acknowledged expert in the usage of the English language.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, yes, from the 2A.
> 
> There's a right to self defense but it's not to be found in the 2A.
> 
> Think about it. What are the first words of the 2A? Is it "self defence" or "militia"?
> 
> Yes, you gave me someone else's view, you posted a link, you didn't even bother to write anything for yourself. FYI I don't count that as anything. Make your OWN argument, if I wanted to talk to the person who wrote that article, I'd talk to them.
> 
> FYI you didn't prove anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither did you.
> You gave me your opinion on what the framers meant and unless you can say that "bear arms " meant exclusively military service you haven't proven anything.
> 
> One example of the term Bear arms used in reference to non military service negates your argument
> 
> and here is a refute to your bear arms as a military only
> 
> What did it mean to 'bear arms' in 1791?
Click to expand...


Are you fucking kidding me? I presented loads of evidence and you're just doing what all the other people who find it inconvenient for their desire to have something else do. They dismiss it, ignore it. Pretend that their zero evidence is more than the founding fathers. 

I showed you where it is totally clear that "bear arms" means "render military service" and "militia duty", in fact I even showed you where they switched between the two in different draft versions. 

Look, I'm not going to fuck around here. I presented evidence that you have not refuted at all. You've presented NOTHING.

I'm not going to go around wasting my time trying to convince someone who is willing to ignore the truth. 

So, until you decide you want to debate PROPERLY, I'm not wasting my time with you. If you want to wallow in ignorance, that's your problem. If you want to know the truth, then you can debate with me.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The security needs of a free State and the Union; not, natural rights.
> 
> 
> 
> the bill of rights is about the people not the states not the federal government.
> 
> It is a very clear list of rights that belong to the people not the government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Totally wrong. The Bill of Rights is about the govt.
> 
> It basically states what the government cannot do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and it cannot violate the rights of the people
> 
> so it is about protecting the rights of the people from government overstep
> 
> It's called the Bill of Rights and rights belong to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, yes, it can't violate the rights, but it can infringe upon them.
> 
> Rights can "belong" to whoever you like, the Constitution doesn't give rights, it merely prevents the govt from doing certain things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and one right particular shall not be infringed
> 
> the right of the people to keep and bear arms
> 
> it is the only right of the people mentioned in the Bill of Rights for which   the term "shall not be infringed" was used
Click to expand...


Yeah, let criminals have guns, let those in prisons have guns, let the insane have guns, because it shall not be infringed.

Oh, come on.


----------



## Skull Pilot

frigidweirdo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand your point I happen to disagree
> 
> if the only rights you had as far as firearms are concerned is keeping one in your home or using it in service to the militia then one could keep but never use a gun outside the home unless called upon by the militia
> 
> is that what you think the second amendment says?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You disagree, but you have no evidence to back your claim up. You're simply believing what you want to believe and ignoring ALL OF THE EVIDENCE. All of it.
> 
> You don't have a right to take a dump. But you can.
> 
> You don't need rights to be able to do something. Rights are something considered fundamental.
> 
> What the 2A does is prevent the US federal govt from stopping you being able to own weapons and being in the militia. But you can use your guns because the law says so, in many states.
> 
> Your argument isn't logical. Because then so many things you do on a daily basis are not protected by rights would also not make sense to you. But somehow they do.
> 
> But again. You have provided NO EVIDENCE for your view. Not one single source of evidence to suggest that there is some "right to carry arms".
> 
> Even when I've shown the founding fathers saw "bear arms" as "render military service" and "militia duty", even with the Supreme Court saying that carrying arms is not protected by the Second Amendment and the latest case backing Presser up within the last decade. Even with the NRA supporting carry and conceal permits, which, if they were protected by a right, then you wouldn't need a permit in the first place, but they do.
> 
> And you're just like "This isn't convenient for my view, so I'm going to ignore it all and believe something that is convenient".
> 
> So what's the point of all this discussion then if you're not even going to accept facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but in your interpretation you have no right to use a firearm for any purpose other than serving in the militia
> 
> which means you have no right to use a firearm for self defense
> 
> and FYI I gave you an analysis of the Second by an acknowledged expert in the usage of the English language.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, yes, from the 2A.
> 
> There's a right to self defense but it's not to be found in the 2A.
> 
> Think about it. What are the first words of the 2A? Is it "self defence" or "militia"?
> 
> Yes, you gave me someone else's view, you posted a link, you didn't even bother to write anything for yourself. FYI I don't count that as anything. Make your OWN argument, if I wanted to talk to the person who wrote that article, I'd talk to them.
> 
> FYI you didn't prove anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither did you.
> You gave me your opinion on what the framers meant and unless you can say that "bear arms " meant exclusively military service you haven't proven anything.
> 
> One example of the term Bear arms used in reference to non military service negates your argument
> 
> and here is a refute to your bear arms as a military only
> 
> What did it mean to 'bear arms' in 1791?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you fucking kidding me? I presented loads of evidence and you're just doing what all the other people who find it inconvenient for their desire to have something else do. They dismiss it, ignore it. Pretend that their zero evidence is more than the founding fathers.
> 
> I showed you where it is totally clear that "bear arms" means "render military service" and "militia duty", in fact I even showed you where they switched between the two in different draft versions.
> 
> Look, I'm not going to fuck around here. I presented evidence that you have not refuted at all. You've presented NOTHING.
> 
> I'm not going to go around wasting my time trying to convince someone who is willing to ignore the truth.
> 
> So, until you decide you want to debate PROPERLY, I'm not wasting my time with you. If you want to wallow in ignorance, that's your problem. If you want to know the truth, then you can debate with me.
Click to expand...


totally clear but not exclusive

and FYI no one has the right to be in the militia (military)( since their application can be denied by the government for a host of reasons

As far back as the first SCOTUS the Second was regarded as protecting individual rights to keep and bear arms

James Wilson an original SCOTUS Justice

Significantly, the Second Amendment did not grant or bestow any right on the people; instead, it simply recognized and provided what Constitution signer James Wilson called “a new security” for the right of self-defense that God had already bestowed on every individual. [2]

The right to bear arms in self defense is an INDIVIDUAL right


----------



## frigidweirdo

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You disagree, but you have no evidence to back your claim up. You're simply believing what you want to believe and ignoring ALL OF THE EVIDENCE. All of it.
> 
> You don't have a right to take a dump. But you can.
> 
> You don't need rights to be able to do something. Rights are something considered fundamental.
> 
> What the 2A does is prevent the US federal govt from stopping you being able to own weapons and being in the militia. But you can use your guns because the law says so, in many states.
> 
> Your argument isn't logical. Because then so many things you do on a daily basis are not protected by rights would also not make sense to you. But somehow they do.
> 
> But again. You have provided NO EVIDENCE for your view. Not one single source of evidence to suggest that there is some "right to carry arms".
> 
> Even when I've shown the founding fathers saw "bear arms" as "render military service" and "militia duty", even with the Supreme Court saying that carrying arms is not protected by the Second Amendment and the latest case backing Presser up within the last decade. Even with the NRA supporting carry and conceal permits, which, if they were protected by a right, then you wouldn't need a permit in the first place, but they do.
> 
> And you're just like "This isn't convenient for my view, so I'm going to ignore it all and believe something that is convenient".
> 
> So what's the point of all this discussion then if you're not even going to accept facts?
> 
> 
> 
> but in your interpretation you have no right to use a firearm for any purpose other than serving in the militia
> 
> which means you have no right to use a firearm for self defense
> 
> and FYI I gave you an analysis of the Second by an acknowledged expert in the usage of the English language.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, yes, from the 2A.
> 
> There's a right to self defense but it's not to be found in the 2A.
> 
> Think about it. What are the first words of the 2A? Is it "self defence" or "militia"?
> 
> Yes, you gave me someone else's view, you posted a link, you didn't even bother to write anything for yourself. FYI I don't count that as anything. Make your OWN argument, if I wanted to talk to the person who wrote that article, I'd talk to them.
> 
> FYI you didn't prove anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither did you.
> You gave me your opinion on what the framers meant and unless you can say that "bear arms " meant exclusively military service you haven't proven anything.
> 
> One example of the term Bear arms used in reference to non military service negates your argument
> 
> and here is a refute to your bear arms as a military only
> 
> What did it mean to 'bear arms' in 1791?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you fucking kidding me? I presented loads of evidence and you're just doing what all the other people who find it inconvenient for their desire to have something else do. They dismiss it, ignore it. Pretend that their zero evidence is more than the founding fathers.
> 
> I showed you where it is totally clear that "bear arms" means "render military service" and "militia duty", in fact I even showed you where they switched between the two in different draft versions.
> 
> Look, I'm not going to fuck around here. I presented evidence that you have not refuted at all. You've presented NOTHING.
> 
> I'm not going to go around wasting my time trying to convince someone who is willing to ignore the truth.
> 
> So, until you decide you want to debate PROPERLY, I'm not wasting my time with you. If you want to wallow in ignorance, that's your problem. If you want to know the truth, then you can debate with me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> totally clear but not exclusive
> 
> and FYI no one has the right to be in the militia (military)( since their application can be denied by the government for a host of reasons
> 
> As far back as the first SCOTUS the Second was regarded as protecting individual rights to keep and bear arms
> 
> James Wilson an original SCOTUS Justice
> 
> Significantly, the Second Amendment did not grant or bestow any right on the people; instead, it simply recognized and provided what Constitution signer James Wilson called “a new security” for the right of self-defense that God had already bestowed on every individual. [2]
> 
> The right to bear arms in self defense is an INDIVIDUAL right
Click to expand...


"totally clear", right, so you're rejecting something that is totally clear?

"but no exclusive"..... which means what?

You're wrong about the right to be in the militia. Why do you think they made the Dick Act in 1902? All 17-45 years are in the unorganized militia. The govt can reject you from being in the NATIONAL GUARD, it didn't apply to the states, they could kick you out if they wanted. But they made the Dick Act as a convenient way of getting around the right to bear arms, so they could make the National Guard. Without what they did, yes, people would have been able to demand to be in the National Guard. Now the govt can say, but, but, but, you're in the unorganized militia.

Why else do you think they made a militia that DOESN'T DO ANYTHING?????? 

Why did you bring up the individual issue? This has nothing to do with what we've spoken about at all. But all of a sudden you feel the need to bring it up. Yes, the 2A, like all other parts of the Bil of Rights, protects individuals. We don't need to argue about this any more, we agree with this. 

Individuals have the right to be in the militia. 

"Significantly, the Second Amendment did not grant or bestow any right on the people; instead, it simply recognized and provided what Constitution signer James Wilson called “a new security” for the right of self-defense that God had already bestowed on every individual. [2]"

Wait, is this a quote? If you're going to quote shit, QUOTE IT, it needs QUOTATION MARKS, otherwise you're saying it, and your claim to have written it, in which case it's plagiarism.

Also, like I said before, the Bill of Rights doesn't give rights, it merely prevents the govt from doing things that would potentially infringe on your rights. We've done this already. Your non-quote/quote that you didn't quote doesn't bring anything new here. 

There is a right to self defense, this right does NOT come from the 2A. The right to self defense is the same as the right to privacy, not in the Constitution but assumed to exist and the Supreme Court has stated that it is protected by the Bill of Rights, just not the 2A. 

There is not "right to bear arms in self defense", that would imply there isn't a right to defend yourself in any other way. There is a right to own weapons. There is a right to self defense. And you are able, BY LAW, to use those guns you can own in self defense, just as you can use a TV, your fists, a dead man's penis, whatever the fuck you can physically use to try and defend yourself. There is not a right to a TV simply because you can defend yourself with it. So why would there be a right to a gun simply because you can defend yourself with it? There isn't. There IS a right to own a weapon, but it doesn't come from the right to self defense. 


https://wallbuilders.com/founders-second-amendment/#_edn2


----------



## Skull Pilot

frigidweirdo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> but in your interpretation you have no right to use a firearm for any purpose other than serving in the militia
> 
> which means you have no right to use a firearm for self defense
> 
> and FYI I gave you an analysis of the Second by an acknowledged expert in the usage of the English language.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, yes, from the 2A.
> 
> There's a right to self defense but it's not to be found in the 2A.
> 
> Think about it. What are the first words of the 2A? Is it "self defence" or "militia"?
> 
> Yes, you gave me someone else's view, you posted a link, you didn't even bother to write anything for yourself. FYI I don't count that as anything. Make your OWN argument, if I wanted to talk to the person who wrote that article, I'd talk to them.
> 
> FYI you didn't prove anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither did you.
> You gave me your opinion on what the framers meant and unless you can say that "bear arms " meant exclusively military service you haven't proven anything.
> 
> One example of the term Bear arms used in reference to non military service negates your argument
> 
> and here is a refute to your bear arms as a military only
> 
> What did it mean to 'bear arms' in 1791?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you fucking kidding me? I presented loads of evidence and you're just doing what all the other people who find it inconvenient for their desire to have something else do. They dismiss it, ignore it. Pretend that their zero evidence is more than the founding fathers.
> 
> I showed you where it is totally clear that "bear arms" means "render military service" and "militia duty", in fact I even showed you where they switched between the two in different draft versions.
> 
> Look, I'm not going to fuck around here. I presented evidence that you have not refuted at all. You've presented NOTHING.
> 
> I'm not going to go around wasting my time trying to convince someone who is willing to ignore the truth.
> 
> So, until you decide you want to debate PROPERLY, I'm not wasting my time with you. If you want to wallow in ignorance, that's your problem. If you want to know the truth, then you can debate with me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> totally clear but not exclusive
> 
> and FYI no one has the right to be in the militia (military)( since their application can be denied by the government for a host of reasons
> 
> As far back as the first SCOTUS the Second was regarded as protecting individual rights to keep and bear arms
> 
> James Wilson an original SCOTUS Justice
> 
> Significantly, the Second Amendment did not grant or bestow any right on the people; instead, it simply recognized and provided what Constitution signer James Wilson called “a new security” for the right of self-defense that God had already bestowed on every individual. [2]
> 
> The right to bear arms in self defense is an INDIVIDUAL right
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "totally clear", right, so you're rejecting something that is totally clear?
> 
> "but no exclusive"..... which means what?
> 
> You're wrong about the right to be in the militia. Why do you think they made the Dick Act in 1902? All 17-45 years are in the unorganized militia. The govt can reject you from being in the NATIONAL GUARD, it didn't apply to the states, they could kick you out if they wanted. But they made the Dick Act as a convenient way of getting around the right to bear arms, so they could make the National Guard. Without what they did, yes, people would have been able to demand to be in the National Guard. Now the govt can say, but, but, but, you're in the unorganized militia.
> 
> Why else do you think they made a militia that DOESN'T DO ANYTHING??????
> 
> Why did you bring up the individual issue? This has nothing to do with what we've spoken about at all. But all of a sudden you feel the need to bring it up. Yes, the 2A, like all other parts of the Bil of Rights, protects individuals. We don't need to argue about this any more, we agree with this.
> 
> Individuals have the right to be in the militia.
> 
> "Significantly, the Second Amendment did not grant or bestow any right on the people; instead, it simply recognized and provided what Constitution signer James Wilson called “a new security” for the right of self-defense that God had already bestowed on every individual. [2]"
> 
> Wait, is this a quote? If you're going to quote shit, QUOTE IT, it needs QUOTATION MARKS, otherwise you're saying it, and your claim to have written it, in which case it's plagiarism.
> 
> Also, like I said before, the Bill of Rights doesn't give rights, it merely prevents the govt from doing things that would potentially infringe on your rights. We've done this already. Your non-quote/quote that you didn't quote doesn't bring anything new here.
> 
> There is a right to self defense, this right does NOT come from the 2A. The right to self defense is the same as the right to privacy, not in the Constitution but assumed to exist and the Supreme Court has stated that it is protected by the Bill of Rights, just not the 2A.
> 
> There is not "right to bear arms in self defense", that would imply there isn't a right to defend yourself in any other way. There is a right to own weapons. There is a right to self defense. And you are able, BY LAW, to use those guns you can own in self defense, just as you can use a TV, your fists, a dead man's penis, whatever the fuck you can physically use to try and defend yourself. There is not a right to a TV simply because you can defend yourself with it. So why would there be a right to a gun simply because you can defend yourself with it? There isn't. There IS a right to own a weapon, but it doesn't come from the right to self defense.
Click to expand...


so according to you the intent of the framers was to restrict the bearing of arms solely to service in the militia

therefore while you have the right to self preservation you do not have the right to carry a firearm to be used to defend yourself

you really think that was the intent?

The rights protected in the Bill of Rights are not collective rights

By using the term an unorganized militia you negate the entire collective argument that bear arms means solely militia service in the sense that I can call my self a member of an unorganized militia and therefore bear arms everywhere I go

therefore my individual right to keep and bear arms (concealed or open carry) is intact and cannot be infringed


----------



## Rustic

frigidweirdo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> the bill of rights is about the people not the states not the federal government.
> 
> It is a very clear list of rights that belong to the people not the government
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Totally wrong. The Bill of Rights is about the govt.
> 
> It basically states what the government cannot do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and it cannot violate the rights of the people
> 
> so it is about protecting the rights of the people from government overstep
> 
> It's called the Bill of Rights and rights belong to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, yes, it can't violate the rights, but it can infringe upon them.
> 
> Rights can "belong" to whoever you like, the Constitution doesn't give rights, it merely prevents the govt from doing certain things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and one right particular shall not be infringed
> 
> the right of the people to keep and bear arms
> 
> it is the only right of the people mentioned in the Bill of Rights for which   the term "shall not be infringed" was used
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, let criminals have guns, let those in prisons have guns, let the insane have guns, because it shall not be infringed.
> 
> Oh, come on.
Click to expand...

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data."


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have already Told You and the right wing, over two hundred and fifty times.  It is about, full employment of capital resources on an at-will basis.  In effect, it would be a form of "guaranteed income" that acts like an, "oil pump" to ensure capital circulates under our form of Capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> *
> It is about, full employment of capital resources on an at-will basis.*
> 
> Yes. And wasting capital by handing it to you does not use it more efficiently.
> *
> In effect, it would be a form of "guaranteed income"*
> 
> That doesn't add a single dollar to GDP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love your sarcasm.
> 
> Do you not really believe in capitalism and a positive economic multiplier effect?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Handing you money for not working is not capitalism.
> Handing you money for not working has a negative multiplier effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing but propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> it about market based metrics and circulating capital; that, produces a positive multiplier effect.
> 
> Here is the analogy:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For if liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost.--Aristotle
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *it about market based metrics and circulating capital; that, produces a positive multiplier effect.
> *
> Why do you feel that handing you money for not working would have a positive multiplier?
> Why would handing you money increase GDP?
> 
> Aristotle wasn't talking about handouts to the lazy.
Click to expand...

Because it would be spent, keeping You employed.  Any more silly questions.


----------



## danielpalos

task0778 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism doesn't solve anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government is Socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Civilization is socialism...It working together and living with each other....Paving that road for all, police, military, educating our children, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It appears that you don't really know what socialism is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why do you believe you do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most people define socialism as governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. The idea under socialism is that the government determines and  provides its citizens with the things it believes that they need.   These days there are quite a few young people who think there's nothing wrong with that, that it sounds cool.   Except it isn't and this is why:
Click to expand...

Socialism is Government.  Our fiscal policies, and our alleged wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror; are command economics.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the alleged right of, _infidels_, _protestants_, and _renegades_, to our supreme law of the land, to practice their custom and habit if it impairs the security and domestic tranquility of our free States.
> 
> 
> 
> The _only_ thing impairing "the domestic tranquility of our free states" are you fascist left-wing hatriots who want to shred the U.S. Constitution, trample on liberty, and control everyone else because your small and insignificant lives make you hunger for power.
Click to expand...

projecting much whenever it is not specifically about guns?  it is the right wing that has no problem "throwing equal protection of the law, and capitalism, under the buss, when it interferes with their socialism on a national basis."


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> silly; i just want to, "get compensated" for Capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment on at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> I do not subscribe to forms of, "wage slavery" merely so the rich, can get richer, faster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you don't get compensated for sitting on your ass in Mommy's basement
> 
> that is a fact of life you must accept if you ever want to be considered an adult
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept of employment, at the will of either party.
> 
> You don't really care about the law, so, why should I take You seriously when You complain about illegals to our own laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't complain about illegals I merely state that all illegal aliens re criminals by definition
> 
> how can you say you care about the law if you don't agree with that fact?
> 
> And it's your choice not to work so it is your choice not to earn any money that's not my fault so I shouldn't have to pay your lazy ass a dime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so, you don't care about State laws regarding employment at will; how about a federal Doctrine in American law?  don't complain; be Patriotic and legal to our own laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What state law says you have the right to a paycheck if you choose to be unemployed?
Click to expand...

A federal doctrine in American law and our own State laws regarding the legal concept of employment at will.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It is about, full employment of capital resources on an at-will basis.*
> 
> Yes. And wasting capital by handing it to you does not use it more efficiently.
> *
> In effect, it would be a form of "guaranteed income"*
> 
> That doesn't add a single dollar to GDP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love your sarcasm.
> 
> Do you not really believe in capitalism and a positive economic multiplier effect?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Handing you money for not working is not capitalism.
> Handing you money for not working has a negative multiplier effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing but propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> it about market based metrics and circulating capital; that, produces a positive multiplier effect.
> 
> Here is the analogy:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For if liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost.--Aristotle
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *it about market based metrics and circulating capital; that, produces a positive multiplier effect.
> *
> Why do you feel that handing you money for not working would have a positive multiplier?
> Why would handing you money increase GDP?
> 
> Aristotle wasn't talking about handouts to the lazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it would be spent, keeping You employed.  Any more silly questions.
Click to expand...


*Because it would be spent, keeping You employed.*

DERP!

*Any more silly questions.*

Yes. Why do you feel money not handed to the lazy doesn't get spent?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> you don't get compensated for sitting on your ass in Mommy's basement
> 
> that is a fact of life you must accept if you ever want to be considered an adult
> 
> 
> 
> it is about equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept of employment, at the will of either party.
> 
> You don't really care about the law, so, why should I take You seriously when You complain about illegals to our own laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't complain about illegals I merely state that all illegal aliens re criminals by definition
> 
> how can you say you care about the law if you don't agree with that fact?
> 
> And it's your choice not to work so it is your choice not to earn any money that's not my fault so I shouldn't have to pay your lazy ass a dime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so, you don't care about State laws regarding employment at will; how about a federal Doctrine in American law?  don't complain; be Patriotic and legal to our own laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What state law says you have the right to a paycheck if you choose to be unemployed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A federal doctrine in American law and our own State laws regarding the legal concept of employment at will.
Click to expand...


Employment at will doesn't involve handouts for the lazy.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love your sarcasm.
> 
> Do you not really believe in capitalism and a positive economic multiplier effect?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Handing you money for not working is not capitalism.
> Handing you money for not working has a negative multiplier effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nothing but propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> it about market based metrics and circulating capital; that, produces a positive multiplier effect.
> 
> Here is the analogy:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For if liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost.--Aristotle
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *it about market based metrics and circulating capital; that, produces a positive multiplier effect.
> *
> Why do you feel that handing you money for not working would have a positive multiplier?
> Why would handing you money increase GDP?
> 
> Aristotle wasn't talking about handouts to the lazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it would be spent, keeping You employed.  Any more silly questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Because it would be spent, keeping You employed.*
> 
> DERP!
> 
> *Any more silly questions.*
> 
> Yes. Why do you feel money not handed to the lazy doesn't get spent?
Click to expand...

silly.  it is about full employment of capital resources.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is about equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept of employment, at the will of either party.
> 
> You don't really care about the law, so, why should I take You seriously when You complain about illegals to our own laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't complain about illegals I merely state that all illegal aliens re criminals by definition
> 
> how can you say you care about the law if you don't agree with that fact?
> 
> And it's your choice not to work so it is your choice not to earn any money that's not my fault so I shouldn't have to pay your lazy ass a dime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so, you don't care about State laws regarding employment at will; how about a federal Doctrine in American law?  don't complain; be Patriotic and legal to our own laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What state law says you have the right to a paycheck if you choose to be unemployed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A federal doctrine in American law and our own State laws regarding the legal concept of employment at will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Employment at will doesn't involve handouts for the lazy.
Click to expand...

so, i have to be rich to get a bailout?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Handing you money for not working is not capitalism.
> Handing you money for not working has a negative multiplier effect.
> 
> 
> 
> nothing but propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> it about market based metrics and circulating capital; that, produces a positive multiplier effect.
> 
> Here is the analogy:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For if liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost.--Aristotle
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *it about market based metrics and circulating capital; that, produces a positive multiplier effect.
> *
> Why do you feel that handing you money for not working would have a positive multiplier?
> Why would handing you money increase GDP?
> 
> Aristotle wasn't talking about handouts to the lazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it would be spent, keeping You employed.  Any more silly questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Because it would be spent, keeping You employed.*
> 
> DERP!
> 
> *Any more silly questions.*
> 
> Yes. Why do you feel money not handed to the lazy doesn't get spent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> silly.  it is about full employment of capital resources.
Click to expand...


Yes, your claim that handouts better employ capital is silly. And stupid.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't complain about illegals I merely state that all illegal aliens re criminals by definition
> 
> how can you say you care about the law if you don't agree with that fact?
> 
> And it's your choice not to work so it is your choice not to earn any money that's not my fault so I shouldn't have to pay your lazy ass a dime
> 
> 
> 
> so, you don't care about State laws regarding employment at will; how about a federal Doctrine in American law?  don't complain; be Patriotic and legal to our own laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What state law says you have the right to a paycheck if you choose to be unemployed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A federal doctrine in American law and our own State laws regarding the legal concept of employment at will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Employment at will doesn't involve handouts for the lazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so, i have to be rich to get a bailout?
Click to expand...


When are you going to repay your bailout?

What interest rate are you willing to pay?


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> projecting much whenever it is not specifically about guns?  it is the right wing that has no problem "throwing equal protection of the law, and capitalism, under the buss, when it interferes with *their socialism on a national basis*."


As opposed to what? Socialism on a regional basis? 

Again genius...socialism is _exclusively_ left-wing.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> so, i have to be rich to get a bailout?


So you advocate for socialism, Barack Obama delivers it, and then you whine about it?


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> silly.  it is about full employment of capital resources.


Capital resources are *best* "employed" on production - *not* on paying you to sit around to do nothing.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> nothing but propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> it about market based metrics and circulating capital; that, produces a positive multiplier effect.
> 
> Here is the analogy:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *it about market based metrics and circulating capital; that, produces a positive multiplier effect.
> *
> Why do you feel that handing you money for not working would have a positive multiplier?
> Why would handing you money increase GDP?
> 
> Aristotle wasn't talking about handouts to the lazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it would be spent, keeping You employed.  Any more silly questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Because it would be spent, keeping You employed.*
> 
> DERP!
> 
> *Any more silly questions.*
> 
> Yes. Why do you feel money not handed to the lazy doesn't get spent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> silly.  it is about full employment of capital resources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, your claim that handouts better employ capital is silly. And stupid.
Click to expand...

Capital must circulate under any form of capitalism.  Unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States can solve simple poverty.

There should be no homelessness due to simple poverty, in the US.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> so, you don't care about State laws regarding employment at will; how about a federal Doctrine in American law?  don't complain; be Patriotic and legal to our own laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What state law says you have the right to a paycheck if you choose to be unemployed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A federal doctrine in American law and our own State laws regarding the legal concept of employment at will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Employment at will doesn't involve handouts for the lazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so, i have to be rich to get a bailout?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When are you going to repay your bailout?
> 
> What interest rate are you willing to pay?
Click to expand...

A positive multiplier effect of two to one.  Two dollars in economic multiplication for every one dollar spent on unemployment compensation.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> projecting much whenever it is not specifically about guns?  it is the right wing that has no problem "throwing equal protection of the law, and capitalism, under the buss, when it interferes with *their socialism on a national basis*."
> 
> 
> 
> As opposed to what? Socialism on a regional basis?
> 
> Again genius...socialism is _exclusively_ left-wing.
Click to expand...

liberal socialism is left wing; national socialism is to the right of that.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> so, i have to be rich to get a bailout?
> 
> 
> 
> So you advocate for socialism, Barack Obama delivers it, and then you whine about it?
Click to expand...

i needed to make the income qualification, first.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> silly.  it is about full employment of capital resources.
> 
> 
> 
> Capital resources are *best* "employed" on production - *not* on paying you to sit around to do nothing.
Click to expand...

dear, Only capital must circulate.  I will make sure, capital does not sit around and be lazy.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> What state law says you have the right to a paycheck if you choose to be unemployed?
> 
> 
> 
> A federal doctrine in American law and our own State laws regarding the legal concept of employment at will.
Click to expand...

He didn't ask you to Google a few terms and throw them out in a weak and transparent attempt to make think people you sound "smart". He asked you _what_ *law*? Since you can't cite the law - that confirms what we all already knew. No such law exists.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> so, i have to be rich to get a bailout?
> 
> 
> 
> So you advocate for socialism, Barack Obama delivers it, and then you whine about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i needed to make the income qualification, first.
Click to expand...

And you'll never do that sitting around.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> I will make sure, capital does not sit around and be lazy.


If you're concerned about currency "circulating" take a $1 bill, a $5 bill, a $10 bill, and a $20 bill and trade them with your best friend or a neighbor every day for the same denominations. There! You just circulated currency! Problem solved.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> What state law says you have the right to a paycheck if you choose to be unemployed?
> 
> 
> 
> A federal doctrine in American law and our own State laws regarding the legal concept of employment at will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He didn't ask you to Google a few terms and throw them out in a weak and transparent attempt to make think people you sound "smart". He asked you _what_ *law*? Since you can't cite the law - that confirms what we all already knew. No such law exists.
Click to expand...

I cited a federal Doctrine in American law and our State laws regarding the legal concept of employment at will.  What part of that do y'all, not understand?

EDD should be required to establish a for-cause employment relationship to deny and disparage unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> so, i have to be rich to get a bailout?
> 
> 
> 
> So you advocate for socialism, Barack Obama delivers it, and then you whine about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i needed to make the income qualification, first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you'll never do that sitting around.
Click to expand...

i practice typing, arguing, and am doing research into forming an LLC.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will make sure, capital does not sit around and be lazy.
> 
> 
> 
> If you're concerned about currency "circulating" take a $1 bill, a $5 bill, a $10 bill, and a $20 bill and trade them with your best friend or a neighbor every day for the same denominations. There! You just circulated currency! Problem solved.
Click to expand...

that is why, nobody should take the right wing seriously about economics.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, yes, from the 2A.
> 
> There's a right to self defense but it's not to be found in the 2A.
> 
> Think about it. What are the first words of the 2A? Is it "self defence" or "militia"?
> 
> Yes, you gave me someone else's view, you posted a link, you didn't even bother to write anything for yourself. FYI I don't count that as anything. Make your OWN argument, if I wanted to talk to the person who wrote that article, I'd talk to them.
> 
> FYI you didn't prove anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither did you.
> You gave me your opinion on what the framers meant and unless you can say that "bear arms " meant exclusively military service you haven't proven anything.
> 
> One example of the term Bear arms used in reference to non military service negates your argument
> 
> and here is a refute to your bear arms as a military only
> 
> What did it mean to 'bear arms' in 1791?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you fucking kidding me? I presented loads of evidence and you're just doing what all the other people who find it inconvenient for their desire to have something else do. They dismiss it, ignore it. Pretend that their zero evidence is more than the founding fathers.
> 
> I showed you where it is totally clear that "bear arms" means "render military service" and "militia duty", in fact I even showed you where they switched between the two in different draft versions.
> 
> Look, I'm not going to fuck around here. I presented evidence that you have not refuted at all. You've presented NOTHING.
> 
> I'm not going to go around wasting my time trying to convince someone who is willing to ignore the truth.
> 
> So, until you decide you want to debate PROPERLY, I'm not wasting my time with you. If you want to wallow in ignorance, that's your problem. If you want to know the truth, then you can debate with me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> totally clear but not exclusive
> 
> and FYI no one has the right to be in the militia (military)( since their application can be denied by the government for a host of reasons
> 
> As far back as the first SCOTUS the Second was regarded as protecting individual rights to keep and bear arms
> 
> James Wilson an original SCOTUS Justice
> 
> Significantly, the Second Amendment did not grant or bestow any right on the people; instead, it simply recognized and provided what Constitution signer James Wilson called “a new security” for the right of self-defense that God had already bestowed on every individual. [2]
> 
> The right to bear arms in self defense is an INDIVIDUAL right
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "totally clear", right, so you're rejecting something that is totally clear?
> 
> "but no exclusive"..... which means what?
> 
> You're wrong about the right to be in the militia. Why do you think they made the Dick Act in 1902? All 17-45 years are in the unorganized militia. The govt can reject you from being in the NATIONAL GUARD, it didn't apply to the states, they could kick you out if they wanted. But they made the Dick Act as a convenient way of getting around the right to bear arms, so they could make the National Guard. Without what they did, yes, people would have been able to demand to be in the National Guard. Now the govt can say, but, but, but, you're in the unorganized militia.
> 
> Why else do you think they made a militia that DOESN'T DO ANYTHING??????
> 
> Why did you bring up the individual issue? This has nothing to do with what we've spoken about at all. But all of a sudden you feel the need to bring it up. Yes, the 2A, like all other parts of the Bil of Rights, protects individuals. We don't need to argue about this any more, we agree with this.
> 
> Individuals have the right to be in the militia.
> 
> "Significantly, the Second Amendment did not grant or bestow any right on the people; instead, it simply recognized and provided what Constitution signer James Wilson called “a new security” for the right of self-defense that God had already bestowed on every individual. [2]"
> 
> Wait, is this a quote? If you're going to quote shit, QUOTE IT, it needs QUOTATION MARKS, otherwise you're saying it, and your claim to have written it, in which case it's plagiarism.
> 
> Also, like I said before, the Bill of Rights doesn't give rights, it merely prevents the govt from doing things that would potentially infringe on your rights. We've done this already. Your non-quote/quote that you didn't quote doesn't bring anything new here.
> 
> There is a right to self defense, this right does NOT come from the 2A. The right to self defense is the same as the right to privacy, not in the Constitution but assumed to exist and the Supreme Court has stated that it is protected by the Bill of Rights, just not the 2A.
> 
> There is not "right to bear arms in self defense", that would imply there isn't a right to defend yourself in any other way. There is a right to own weapons. There is a right to self defense. And you are able, BY LAW, to use those guns you can own in self defense, just as you can use a TV, your fists, a dead man's penis, whatever the fuck you can physically use to try and defend yourself. There is not a right to a TV simply because you can defend yourself with it. So why would there be a right to a gun simply because you can defend yourself with it? There isn't. There IS a right to own a weapon, but it doesn't come from the right to self defense.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so according to you the intent of the framers was to restrict the bearing of arms solely to service in the militia
> 
> therefore while you have the right to self preservation you do not have the right to carry a firearm to be used to defend yourself
> 
> you really think that was the intent?
> 
> The rights protected in the Bill of Rights are not collective rights
> 
> By using the term an unorganized militia you negate the entire collective argument that bear arms means solely militia service in the sense that I can call my self a member of an unorganized militia and therefore bear arms everywhere I go
> 
> therefore my individual right to keep and bear arms (concealed or open carry) is intact and cannot be infringed
Click to expand...


No, that is not what I said.

What I said what that the "right to bear arms" is "militia duty". 

Carrying arms around in the US is legal in some places and not legal in other places. This has NOTHING to do with the 2A. 

Why are you going on about collective and individual rights again for? 

I'm using the term "unorganized militia" because, er... because the US CONGRESS WROTE A LAW THAT USES THIS. It's not hard to understand, is it? 

Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia

Here's the law on Wikipedia.

"The *Militia Act of 1903* (32 Stat. 775), also known as "The Efficiency in Militia Act of 1903", also known as the *Dick Act,"

"Dick championed the Militia Act of 1903, which became known as the Dick Act. This law repealed the Militia Acts of 1792 and designated the militia [per Title 10, Section 311] as two groups: the Unorganized Militia, which included all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45, and the Organized Militia, which included state militia (National Guard) units receiving federal support."
*
Two groups, one was the "Unorganized Militia", all males aged 17-45 and the National Guard. 

I did not make up the "unorganized militia", the US govt did. 

I never, EVER used the collective argument, and I have no fucking idea why the hell you're even talking about it. In fact, when people start acting like they're talking to someone else, and not responding to what I have said, it annoys me. 

Yes, your individual right to keep arms (own weapons) and bear arms (be in the militia) cannot be infringed before due process.

Well, unless of course you think criminals and the insane should be able to own weapons and be in the militia. Do you want the insane to not have their right to be in the militia infringed upon? 

The problem here is, I know what you'll do. You're making a connection with the second amendment carrying guns around, which the Supreme Court has said in Presser, and backed up in Heller, is NOT protected by the 2A. But the Supreme Court says you're wrong, the Founding Father say you're wrong, and I'm telling you that you are wrong.

You have two rights that are protected by the 2A. There might be other rights out there. There are other freedoms, but the 2A does not deal with these. You can go take a crap right now. The 2A doesn't protect this. Nor does it protect carrying arms around with you, but you can still do it. You don't need the 2A to protect something for you in order to be able to do it, you do so many things every day that are not protected by the 2A. And one of those might be carrying arms around.


----------



## task0778

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> What state law says you have the right to a paycheck if you choose to be unemployed?
> 
> 
> 
> A federal doctrine in American law and our own State laws regarding the legal concept of employment at will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Employment at will doesn't involve handouts for the lazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so, i have to be rich to get a bailout?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When are you going to repay your bailout?
> 
> What interest rate are you willing to pay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A positive multiplier effect of two to one.  Two dollars in economic multiplication for every one dollar spent on unemployment compensation.
Click to expand...


The CBO came out with a report a few years back that estimates the multiplier effect to be anywhere from $.70 up to $1.90, depending on the model you use.   The problem is that if UE benefits become indefinite that you end up creating an unhealthy dependency in a person who gradually loses his/her skill set.   Or it disincentivizes people from working on getting a skill set in the first place.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will make sure, capital does not sit around and be lazy.
> 
> 
> 
> If you're concerned about currency "circulating" take a $1 bill, a $5 bill, a $10 bill, and a $20 bill and trade them with your best friend or a neighbor every day for the same denominations. There! You just circulated currency! Problem solved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is why, nobody should take the right wing seriously about economics.
Click to expand...

Your'e the idiot who thinks capital should be used on lazy people sitting at home so it can be "circulated". You're _completely_ clueless about basic economics. I just proved it. And it left you with no intelligent response.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> I cited a federal Doctrine in American law and our State laws regarding the legal concept of employment at will.  What part of that do y'all, not understand?


You didn't cite _anything_ snowflake. What is the *law*? Give the name of the law. Or the section of the statute. You've got nothing (as always).


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will make sure, capital does not sit around and be lazy.
> 
> 
> 
> If you're concerned about currency "circulating" take a $1 bill, a $5 bill, a $10 bill, and a $20 bill and trade them with your best friend or a neighbor every day for the same denominations. There! You just circulated currency! Problem solved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is why, nobody should take the right wing seriously about economics.
Click to expand...

Lets put your economic theory to test, snowflake. You go get a job (for once) and then pay me to sit at home. I assure you that I will "circulate" your currency. I'll buy flat screens for myself. iPads. Maybe take a vacation or two. I give you my word that I won't save a dime of it. And then lets see how it all works out. Ok? Deal?

No? Why not? You're too lazy to work? Why? I thought you said that this is how economies work best? Remember? Your hilarious theories on "command economies"? So I *command* _you_ to go to work and then supply me with 50% of what you bring home (and it damn well better be enough for me to spend money and get some cool shit).


----------



## danielpalos

task0778 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> A federal doctrine in American law and our own State laws regarding the legal concept of employment at will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Employment at will doesn't involve handouts for the lazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so, i have to be rich to get a bailout?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When are you going to repay your bailout?
> 
> What interest rate are you willing to pay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A positive multiplier effect of two to one.  Two dollars in economic multiplication for every one dollar spent on unemployment compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The CBO came out with a report a few years back that estimates the multiplier effect to be anywhere from $.70 up to $1.90, depending on the model you use.   The problem is that if UE benefits become indefinite that you end up creating an unhealthy dependency in a person who gradually loses his/her skill set.   Or it disincentivizes people from working on getting a skill set in the first place.
Click to expand...

A report I read claimed a positive multiplier of two dollars for every one dollar spent.

You make it seem like the laws of demand and supply will stop working with UE compensation under any form of capitalism.  Capital must circulate; that is what achieves the positive multiplication effect.

In any case, why do you believe that persons on unemployment compensation, instead of means tested welfare, will not try to improve themselves to become more marketable?


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will make sure, capital does not sit around and be lazy.
> 
> 
> 
> If you're concerned about currency "circulating" take a $1 bill, a $5 bill, a $10 bill, and a $20 bill and trade them with your best friend or a neighbor every day for the same denominations. There! You just circulated currency! Problem solved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is why, nobody should take the right wing seriously about economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your'e the idiot who thinks capital should be used on lazy people sitting at home so it can be "circulated". You're _completely_ clueless about basic economics. I just proved it. And it left you with no intelligent response.
Click to expand...

just clueless and Causeless?  why appeal to emotion instead of reason, otherwise.

capital must circulate to achieve a positive multiplication effect.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I cited a federal Doctrine in American law and our State laws regarding the legal concept of employment at will.  What part of that do y'all, not understand?
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't cite _anything_ snowflake. What is the *law*? Give the name of the law. Or the section of the statute. You've got nothing (as always).
Click to expand...

I cited a _federal Doctrine_ in American law and our _State laws_ (CA Labor Code 2922) regarding the legal concept of employment at will. What part of that do y'all, not understand?


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will make sure, capital does not sit around and be lazy.
> 
> 
> 
> If you're concerned about currency "circulating" take a $1 bill, a $5 bill, a $10 bill, and a $20 bill and trade them with your best friend or a neighbor every day for the same denominations. There! You just circulated currency! Problem solved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is why, nobody should take the right wing seriously about economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lets put your economic theory to test, snowflake. You go get a job (for once) and then pay me to sit at home. I assure you that I will "circulate" your currency. I'll buy flat screens for myself. iPads. Maybe take a vacation or two. I give you my word that I won't save a dime of it. And then lets see how it all works out. Ok? Deal?
> 
> No? Why not? You're too lazy to work? Why? I thought you said that this is how economies work best? Remember? Your hilarious theories on "command economies"? So I *command* _you_ to go to work and then supply me with 50% of what you bring home (and it damn well better be enough for me to spend money and get some cool shit).
Click to expand...

just special pleading? 

let's try my example, instead:

we could be improving the efficiency of our economy by reducing reliance on more socialized, means tested welfare.

Recourse to unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States means we could be solving simple poverty on an at-will basis.

There should be no homelessness in our at-will employment States, with recourse to equal protection of the law.


----------



## task0778

danielpalos said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Employment at will doesn't involve handouts for the lazy.
> 
> 
> 
> so, i have to be rich to get a bailout?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When are you going to repay your bailout?
> 
> What interest rate are you willing to pay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A positive multiplier effect of two to one.  Two dollars in economic multiplication for every one dollar spent on unemployment compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The CBO came out with a report a few years back that estimates the multiplier effect to be anywhere from $.70 up to $1.90, depending on the model you use.   The problem is that if UE benefits become indefinite that you end up creating an unhealthy dependency in a person who gradually loses his/her skill set.   Or it disincentivizes people from working on getting a skill set in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A report I read claimed a positive multiplier of two dollars for every one dollar spent.
> 
> You make it seem like the laws of demand and supply will stop working with UE compensation under any form of capitalism.  Capital must circulate; that is what achieves the positive multiplication effect.
> 
> In any case, why do you believe that persons on unemployment compensation, instead of means tested welfare, will not try to improve themselves to become more marketable?
Click to expand...


My point is that the multiplier effect is somewhat in doubt, depending maybe on the current economic conditions which as you no doubt know will fluctuate.   I am not suggesting by any means that the laws of supply and demand will stop working, but I will suggest that when you give an unemployed person UE benefits the chances are he/she is going to pay the bills first and maybe save a little bit if they can for when those benefits expire.   

I do not mean to imply that every employed person who gets a UE check will stop trying to improve their marketability, but I do think that some will wait until the benefits expire before doing so.   And how many people do that probably depends at least in part on whether they believe the benefits will be extended and then extended again.   And no doubt it also depends on the availability of a decent job, which IMHO is going to get better over Trump's 1st term than it did under Obama.


----------



## danielpalos

task0778 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> so, i have to be rich to get a bailout?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When are you going to repay your bailout?
> 
> What interest rate are you willing to pay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A positive multiplier effect of two to one.  Two dollars in economic multiplication for every one dollar spent on unemployment compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The CBO came out with a report a few years back that estimates the multiplier effect to be anywhere from $.70 up to $1.90, depending on the model you use.   The problem is that if UE benefits become indefinite that you end up creating an unhealthy dependency in a person who gradually loses his/her skill set.   Or it disincentivizes people from working on getting a skill set in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A report I read claimed a positive multiplier of two dollars for every one dollar spent.
> 
> You make it seem like the laws of demand and supply will stop working with UE compensation under any form of capitalism.  Capital must circulate; that is what achieves the positive multiplication effect.
> 
> In any case, why do you believe that persons on unemployment compensation, instead of means tested welfare, will not try to improve themselves to become more marketable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point is that the multiplier effect is somewhat in doubt, depending maybe on the current economic conditions which as you no doubt know will fluctuate.   I am not suggesting by any means that the laws of supply and demand will stop working, but I will suggest that when you give an unemployed person UE benefits the chances are he/she is going to pay the bills first and maybe save a little bit if they can for when those benefits expire.
> 
> I do not mean to imply that every employed person who gets a UE check will stop trying to improve their marketability, but I do think that some will wait until the benefits expire before doing so.   And how many people do that probably depends at least in part on whether they believe the benefits will be extended and then extended again.   And no doubt it also depends on the availability of a decent job, which IMHO is going to get better over Trump's 1st term than it did under Obama.
Click to expand...

The point is, UE benefits should only expire when capitalism's natural rate of unemployment expires.


----------



## task0778

danielpalos said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> When are you going to repay your bailout?
> 
> What interest rate are you willing to pay?
> 
> 
> 
> A positive multiplier effect of two to one.  Two dollars in economic multiplication for every one dollar spent on unemployment compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The CBO came out with a report a few years back that estimates the multiplier effect to be anywhere from $.70 up to $1.90, depending on the model you use.   The problem is that if UE benefits become indefinite that you end up creating an unhealthy dependency in a person who gradually loses his/her skill set.   Or it disincentivizes people from working on getting a skill set in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A report I read claimed a positive multiplier of two dollars for every one dollar spent.
> 
> You make it seem like the laws of demand and supply will stop working with UE compensation under any form of capitalism.  Capital must circulate; that is what achieves the positive multiplication effect.
> 
> In any case, why do you believe that persons on unemployment compensation, instead of means tested welfare, will not try to improve themselves to become more marketable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point is that the multiplier effect is somewhat in doubt, depending maybe on the current economic conditions which as you no doubt know will fluctuate.   I am not suggesting by any means that the laws of supply and demand will stop working, but I will suggest that when you give an unemployed person UE benefits the chances are he/she is going to pay the bills first and maybe save a little bit if they can for when those benefits expire.
> 
> I do not mean to imply that every employed person who gets a UE check will stop trying to improve their marketability, but I do think that some will wait until the benefits expire before doing so.   And how many people do that probably depends at least in part on whether they believe the benefits will be extended and then extended again.   And no doubt it also depends on the availability of a decent job, which IMHO is going to get better over Trump's 1st term than it did under Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point is, UE benefits should only expire when capitalism's natural rate of unemployment expires.
Click to expand...


Which is right about now, isn't it?   The Fed says that rate should be between 4.7 and 5.8%, which is where we are now.   So these days nobody should get extended UE benefits, 26 weeks and you're done, right?

_*Definition: *The natural rate of unemployment is a combination of frictional, structural and surplus unemployment. Even a healthy economy will have this level of unemployment because workers are always coming and going, looking for better jobs. This jobless status, until they find that new job, is the natural rate of unemployment. 

The Federal Reserve estimates that this rate is between 4.7 percent and 5.8 percent._


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> capital must circulate to achieve a positive multiplication effect.


So as I stated snowflake - exchange denominations with a neighbor. Boom! Circulation.

This is literally how left-wing hatriots view economics


----------



## danielpalos

task0778 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> A positive multiplier effect of two to one.  Two dollars in economic multiplication for every one dollar spent on unemployment compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The CBO came out with a report a few years back that estimates the multiplier effect to be anywhere from $.70 up to $1.90, depending on the model you use.   The problem is that if UE benefits become indefinite that you end up creating an unhealthy dependency in a person who gradually loses his/her skill set.   Or it disincentivizes people from working on getting a skill set in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A report I read claimed a positive multiplier of two dollars for every one dollar spent.
> 
> You make it seem like the laws of demand and supply will stop working with UE compensation under any form of capitalism.  Capital must circulate; that is what achieves the positive multiplication effect.
> 
> In any case, why do you believe that persons on unemployment compensation, instead of means tested welfare, will not try to improve themselves to become more marketable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point is that the multiplier effect is somewhat in doubt, depending maybe on the current economic conditions which as you no doubt know will fluctuate.   I am not suggesting by any means that the laws of supply and demand will stop working, but I will suggest that when you give an unemployed person UE benefits the chances are he/she is going to pay the bills first and maybe save a little bit if they can for when those benefits expire.
> 
> I do not mean to imply that every employed person who gets a UE check will stop trying to improve their marketability, but I do think that some will wait until the benefits expire before doing so.   And how many people do that probably depends at least in part on whether they believe the benefits will be extended and then extended again.   And no doubt it also depends on the availability of a decent job, which IMHO is going to get better over Trump's 1st term than it did under Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point is, UE benefits should only expire when capitalism's natural rate of unemployment expires.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is right about now, isn't it?   The Fed says that rate should be between 4.7 and 5.8%, which is where we are now.   So these days nobody should get extended UE benefits, 26 weeks and you're done, right?
> 
> _*Definition: *The natural rate of unemployment is a combination of frictional, structural and surplus unemployment. Even a healthy economy will have this level of unemployment because workers are always coming and going, looking for better jobs. This jobless status, until they find that new job, is the natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> The Federal Reserve estimates that this rate is between 4.7 percent and 5.8 percent._
Click to expand...

It is only natural for the bottom line of capitalists, not labor.  UE benefits should only expire when labor gets hired.


----------



## task0778

danielpalos said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The CBO came out with a report a few years back that estimates the multiplier effect to be anywhere from $.70 up to $1.90, depending on the model you use.   The problem is that if UE benefits become indefinite that you end up creating an unhealthy dependency in a person who gradually loses his/her skill set.   Or it disincentivizes people from working on getting a skill set in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> A report I read claimed a positive multiplier of two dollars for every one dollar spent.
> 
> You make it seem like the laws of demand and supply will stop working with UE compensation under any form of capitalism.  Capital must circulate; that is what achieves the positive multiplication effect.
> 
> In any case, why do you believe that persons on unemployment compensation, instead of means tested welfare, will not try to improve themselves to become more marketable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point is that the multiplier effect is somewhat in doubt, depending maybe on the current economic conditions which as you no doubt know will fluctuate.   I am not suggesting by any means that the laws of supply and demand will stop working, but I will suggest that when you give an unemployed person UE benefits the chances are he/she is going to pay the bills first and maybe save a little bit if they can for when those benefits expire.
> 
> I do not mean to imply that every employed person who gets a UE check will stop trying to improve their marketability, but I do think that some will wait until the benefits expire before doing so.   And how many people do that probably depends at least in part on whether they believe the benefits will be extended and then extended again.   And no doubt it also depends on the availability of a decent job, which IMHO is going to get better over Trump's 1st term than it did under Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point is, UE benefits should only expire when capitalism's natural rate of unemployment expires.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is right about now, isn't it?   The Fed says that rate should be between 4.7 and 5.8%, which is where we are now.   So these days nobody should get extended UE benefits, 26 weeks and you're done, right?
> 
> _*Definition: *The natural rate of unemployment is a combination of frictional, structural and surplus unemployment. Even a healthy economy will have this level of unemployment because workers are always coming and going, looking for better jobs. This jobless status, until they find that new job, is the natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> The Federal Reserve estimates that this rate is between 4.7 percent and 5.8 percent._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is only natural for the bottom line of capitalists, not labor.  UE benefits should only expire when labor gets hired.
Click to expand...


So you are actually advocating for permanent lifetime UE benefits if a person never gets a job?


----------



## danielpalos

task0778 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> A report I read claimed a positive multiplier of two dollars for every one dollar spent.
> 
> You make it seem like the laws of demand and supply will stop working with UE compensation under any form of capitalism.  Capital must circulate; that is what achieves the positive multiplication effect.
> 
> In any case, why do you believe that persons on unemployment compensation, instead of means tested welfare, will not try to improve themselves to become more marketable?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My point is that the multiplier effect is somewhat in doubt, depending maybe on the current economic conditions which as you no doubt know will fluctuate.   I am not suggesting by any means that the laws of supply and demand will stop working, but I will suggest that when you give an unemployed person UE benefits the chances are he/she is going to pay the bills first and maybe save a little bit if they can for when those benefits expire.
> 
> I do not mean to imply that every employed person who gets a UE check will stop trying to improve their marketability, but I do think that some will wait until the benefits expire before doing so.   And how many people do that probably depends at least in part on whether they believe the benefits will be extended and then extended again.   And no doubt it also depends on the availability of a decent job, which IMHO is going to get better over Trump's 1st term than it did under Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point is, UE benefits should only expire when capitalism's natural rate of unemployment expires.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is right about now, isn't it?   The Fed says that rate should be between 4.7 and 5.8%, which is where we are now.   So these days nobody should get extended UE benefits, 26 weeks and you're done, right?
> 
> _*Definition: *The natural rate of unemployment is a combination of frictional, structural and surplus unemployment. Even a healthy economy will have this level of unemployment because workers are always coming and going, looking for better jobs. This jobless status, until they find that new job, is the natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> The Federal Reserve estimates that this rate is between 4.7 percent and 5.8 percent._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is only natural for the bottom line of capitalists, not labor.  UE benefits should only expire when labor gets hired.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are actually advocating for permanent lifetime UE benefits if a person never gets a job?
Click to expand...

Capital must circulate, regardless.  What part of that do you not get?  

Let's assume that we end our statutory minimum wage in favor of a minimum wage to not participate in the market for labor.

How many Persons would prefer to stay poor on an at-will basis, if all they need do, is something market friendly that pays?


----------



## task0778

danielpalos said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My point is that the multiplier effect is somewhat in doubt, depending maybe on the current economic conditions which as you no doubt know will fluctuate.   I am not suggesting by any means that the laws of supply and demand will stop working, but I will suggest that when you give an unemployed person UE benefits the chances are he/she is going to pay the bills first and maybe save a little bit if they can for when those benefits expire.
> 
> I do not mean to imply that every employed person who gets a UE check will stop trying to improve their marketability, but I do think that some will wait until the benefits expire before doing so.   And how many people do that probably depends at least in part on whether they believe the benefits will be extended and then extended again.   And no doubt it also depends on the availability of a decent job, which IMHO is going to get better over Trump's 1st term than it did under Obama.
> 
> 
> 
> The point is, UE benefits should only expire when capitalism's natural rate of unemployment expires.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is right about now, isn't it?   The Fed says that rate should be between 4.7 and 5.8%, which is where we are now.   So these days nobody should get extended UE benefits, 26 weeks and you're done, right?
> 
> _*Definition: *The natural rate of unemployment is a combination of frictional, structural and surplus unemployment. Even a healthy economy will have this level of unemployment because workers are always coming and going, looking for better jobs. This jobless status, until they find that new job, is the natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> The Federal Reserve estimates that this rate is between 4.7 percent and 5.8 percent._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is only natural for the bottom line of capitalists, not labor.  UE benefits should only expire when labor gets hired.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are actually advocating for permanent lifetime UE benefits if a person never gets a job?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capital must circulate, regardless.  What part of that do you not get?
> 
> Let's assume that we end our statutory minimum wage in favor of a minimum wage to not participate in the market for labor.
> 
> How many Persons would prefer to stay poor on an at-will basis, if all they need do, is something market friendly that pays?
Click to expand...


I am aware that capital needs to circulate, no need to get snippy.   However, I think you are overestimating the amount of circulation you get from UE benefits, and BTW you didn't answer my question:

" So you are actually advocating for permanent lifetime UE benefits if a person never gets a job? "

Finally, I am sure most people would not prefer to stay poor, but I am also sure that many of them can't or won't take steps to become worth more in the job market.   Why should they if they're getting a free ride for doing nothing for the rest of their lives?


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> you don't get compensated for sitting on your ass in Mommy's basement
> 
> that is a fact of life you must accept if you ever want to be considered an adult
> 
> 
> 
> it is about equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept of employment, at the will of either party.
> 
> You don't really care about the law, so, why should I take You seriously when You complain about illegals to our own laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't complain about illegals I merely state that all illegal aliens re criminals by definition
> 
> how can you say you care about the law if you don't agree with that fact?
> 
> And it's your choice not to work so it is your choice not to earn any money that's not my fault so I shouldn't have to pay your lazy ass a dime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so, you don't care about State laws regarding employment at will; how about a federal Doctrine in American law?  don't complain; be Patriotic and legal to our own laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What state law says you have the right to a paycheck if you choose to be unemployed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A federal doctrine in American law and our own State laws regarding the legal concept of employment at will.
Click to expand...

which law and be specific


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Handing you money for not working is not capitalism.
> Handing you money for not working has a negative multiplier effect.
> 
> 
> 
> nothing but propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> it about market based metrics and circulating capital; that, produces a positive multiplier effect.
> 
> Here is the analogy:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For if liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost.--Aristotle
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *it about market based metrics and circulating capital; that, produces a positive multiplier effect.
> *
> Why do you feel that handing you money for not working would have a positive multiplier?
> Why would handing you money increase GDP?
> 
> Aristotle wasn't talking about handouts to the lazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it would be spent, keeping You employed.  Any more silly questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Because it would be spent, keeping You employed.*
> 
> DERP!
> 
> *Any more silly questions.*
> 
> Yes. Why do you feel money not handed to the lazy doesn't get spent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> silly.  it is about full employment of capital resources.
Click to expand...

you are not a resource


----------



## Skull Pilot

frigidweirdo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither did you.
> You gave me your opinion on what the framers meant and unless you can say that "bear arms " meant exclusively military service you haven't proven anything.
> 
> One example of the term Bear arms used in reference to non military service negates your argument
> 
> and here is a refute to your bear arms as a military only
> 
> What did it mean to 'bear arms' in 1791?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you fucking kidding me? I presented loads of evidence and you're just doing what all the other people who find it inconvenient for their desire to have something else do. They dismiss it, ignore it. Pretend that their zero evidence is more than the founding fathers.
> 
> I showed you where it is totally clear that "bear arms" means "render military service" and "militia duty", in fact I even showed you where they switched between the two in different draft versions.
> 
> Look, I'm not going to fuck around here. I presented evidence that you have not refuted at all. You've presented NOTHING.
> 
> I'm not going to go around wasting my time trying to convince someone who is willing to ignore the truth.
> 
> So, until you decide you want to debate PROPERLY, I'm not wasting my time with you. If you want to wallow in ignorance, that's your problem. If you want to know the truth, then you can debate with me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> totally clear but not exclusive
> 
> and FYI no one has the right to be in the militia (military)( since their application can be denied by the government for a host of reasons
> 
> As far back as the first SCOTUS the Second was regarded as protecting individual rights to keep and bear arms
> 
> James Wilson an original SCOTUS Justice
> 
> Significantly, the Second Amendment did not grant or bestow any right on the people; instead, it simply recognized and provided what Constitution signer James Wilson called “a new security” for the right of self-defense that God had already bestowed on every individual. [2]
> 
> The right to bear arms in self defense is an INDIVIDUAL right
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "totally clear", right, so you're rejecting something that is totally clear?
> 
> "but no exclusive"..... which means what?
> 
> You're wrong about the right to be in the militia. Why do you think they made the Dick Act in 1902? All 17-45 years are in the unorganized militia. The govt can reject you from being in the NATIONAL GUARD, it didn't apply to the states, they could kick you out if they wanted. But they made the Dick Act as a convenient way of getting around the right to bear arms, so they could make the National Guard. Without what they did, yes, people would have been able to demand to be in the National Guard. Now the govt can say, but, but, but, you're in the unorganized militia.
> 
> Why else do you think they made a militia that DOESN'T DO ANYTHING??????
> 
> Why did you bring up the individual issue? This has nothing to do with what we've spoken about at all. But all of a sudden you feel the need to bring it up. Yes, the 2A, like all other parts of the Bil of Rights, protects individuals. We don't need to argue about this any more, we agree with this.
> 
> Individuals have the right to be in the militia.
> 
> "Significantly, the Second Amendment did not grant or bestow any right on the people; instead, it simply recognized and provided what Constitution signer James Wilson called “a new security” for the right of self-defense that God had already bestowed on every individual. [2]"
> 
> Wait, is this a quote? If you're going to quote shit, QUOTE IT, it needs QUOTATION MARKS, otherwise you're saying it, and your claim to have written it, in which case it's plagiarism.
> 
> Also, like I said before, the Bill of Rights doesn't give rights, it merely prevents the govt from doing things that would potentially infringe on your rights. We've done this already. Your non-quote/quote that you didn't quote doesn't bring anything new here.
> 
> There is a right to self defense, this right does NOT come from the 2A. The right to self defense is the same as the right to privacy, not in the Constitution but assumed to exist and the Supreme Court has stated that it is protected by the Bill of Rights, just not the 2A.
> 
> There is not "right to bear arms in self defense", that would imply there isn't a right to defend yourself in any other way. There is a right to own weapons. There is a right to self defense. And you are able, BY LAW, to use those guns you can own in self defense, just as you can use a TV, your fists, a dead man's penis, whatever the fuck you can physically use to try and defend yourself. There is not a right to a TV simply because you can defend yourself with it. So why would there be a right to a gun simply because you can defend yourself with it? There isn't. There IS a right to own a weapon, but it doesn't come from the right to self defense.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so according to you the intent of the framers was to restrict the bearing of arms solely to service in the militia
> 
> therefore while you have the right to self preservation you do not have the right to carry a firearm to be used to defend yourself
> 
> you really think that was the intent?
> 
> The rights protected in the Bill of Rights are not collective rights
> 
> By using the term an unorganized militia you negate the entire collective argument that bear arms means solely militia service in the sense that I can call my self a member of an unorganized militia and therefore bear arms everywhere I go
> 
> therefore my individual right to keep and bear arms (concealed or open carry) is intact and cannot be infringed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that is not what I said.
> 
> What I said what that the "right to bear arms" is "militia duty".
> 
> Carrying arms around in the US is legal in some places and not legal in other places. This has NOTHING to do with the 2A.
> 
> Why are you going on about collective and individual rights again for?
> 
> I'm using the term "unorganized militia" because, er... because the US CONGRESS WROTE A LAW THAT USES THIS. It's not hard to understand, is it?
> 
> Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia
> 
> Here's the law on Wikipedia.
> 
> "The *Militia Act of 1903* (32 Stat. 775), also known as "The Efficiency in Militia Act of 1903", also known as the *Dick Act,"
> 
> "Dick championed the Militia Act of 1903, which became known as the Dick Act. This law repealed the Militia Acts of 1792 and designated the militia [per Title 10, Section 311] as two groups: the Unorganized Militia, which included all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45, and the Organized Militia, which included state militia (National Guard) units receiving federal support."
> *
> Two groups, one was the "Unorganized Militia", all males aged 17-45 and the National Guard.
> 
> I did not make up the "unorganized militia", the US govt did.
> 
> I never, EVER used the collective argument, and I have no fucking idea why the hell you're even talking about it. In fact, when people start acting like they're talking to someone else, and not responding to what I have said, it annoys me.
> 
> Yes, your individual right to keep arms (own weapons) and bear arms (be in the militia) cannot be infringed before due process.
> 
> Well, unless of course you think criminals and the insane should be able to own weapons and be in the militia. Do you want the insane to not have their right to be in the militia infringed upon?
> 
> The problem here is, I know what you'll do. You're making a connection with the second amendment carrying guns around, which the Supreme Court has said in Presser, and backed up in Heller, is NOT protected by the 2A. But the Supreme Court says you're wrong, the Founding Father say you're wrong, and I'm telling you that you are wrong.
> 
> You have two rights that are protected by the 2A. There might be other rights out there. There are other freedoms, but the 2A does not deal with these. You can go take a crap right now. The 2A doesn't protect this. Nor does it protect carrying arms around with you, but you can still do it. You don't need the 2A to protect something for you in order to be able to do it, you do so many things every day that are not protected by the 2A. And one of those might be carrying arms around.
Click to expand...

yes 2 rights

to right to keep arms and the right to bear arms.  But since even in the 18th century bear meant to carry then I can carry a firearm regardless of service to a militia


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *it about market based metrics and circulating capital; that, produces a positive multiplier effect.
> *
> Why do you feel that handing you money for not working would have a positive multiplier?
> Why would handing you money increase GDP?
> 
> Aristotle wasn't talking about handouts to the lazy.
> 
> 
> 
> Because it would be spent, keeping You employed.  Any more silly questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Because it would be spent, keeping You employed.*
> 
> DERP!
> 
> *Any more silly questions.*
> 
> Yes. Why do you feel money not handed to the lazy doesn't get spent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> silly.  it is about full employment of capital resources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, your claim that handouts better employ capital is silly. And stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capital must circulate under any form of capitalism.  Unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States can solve simple poverty.
> 
> There should be no homelessness due to simple poverty, in the US.
Click to expand...


*Capital must circulate under any form of capitalism.*

It does.

*Unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States can solve simple poverty.*

So can getting off your ass and getting a job.

Your claim that handouts better employ capital is silly. And stupid


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> What state law says you have the right to a paycheck if you choose to be unemployed?
> 
> 
> 
> A federal doctrine in American law and our own State laws regarding the legal concept of employment at will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Employment at will doesn't involve handouts for the lazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so, i have to be rich to get a bailout?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When are you going to repay your bailout?
> 
> What interest rate are you willing to pay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A positive multiplier effect of two to one.  Two dollars in economic multiplication for every one dollar spent on unemployment compensation.
Click to expand...


*A positive multiplier effect of two to one.*

Prove it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My point is that the multiplier effect is somewhat in doubt, depending maybe on the current economic conditions which as you no doubt know will fluctuate.   I am not suggesting by any means that the laws of supply and demand will stop working, but I will suggest that when you give an unemployed person UE benefits the chances are he/she is going to pay the bills first and maybe save a little bit if they can for when those benefits expire.
> 
> I do not mean to imply that every employed person who gets a UE check will stop trying to improve their marketability, but I do think that some will wait until the benefits expire before doing so.   And how many people do that probably depends at least in part on whether they believe the benefits will be extended and then extended again.   And no doubt it also depends on the availability of a decent job, which IMHO is going to get better over Trump's 1st term than it did under Obama.
> 
> 
> 
> The point is, UE benefits should only expire when capitalism's natural rate of unemployment expires.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is right about now, isn't it?   The Fed says that rate should be between 4.7 and 5.8%, which is where we are now.   So these days nobody should get extended UE benefits, 26 weeks and you're done, right?
> 
> _*Definition: *The natural rate of unemployment is a combination of frictional, structural and surplus unemployment. Even a healthy economy will have this level of unemployment because workers are always coming and going, looking for better jobs. This jobless status, until they find that new job, is the natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> The Federal Reserve estimates that this rate is between 4.7 percent and 5.8 percent._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is only natural for the bottom line of capitalists, not labor.  UE benefits should only expire when labor gets hired.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are actually advocating for permanent lifetime UE benefits if a person never gets a job?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capital must circulate, regardless.  What part of that do you not get?
> 
> Let's assume that we end our statutory minimum wage in favor of a minimum wage to not participate in the market for labor.
> 
> How many Persons would prefer to stay poor on an at-will basis, if all they need do, is something market friendly that pays?
Click to expand...


*Capital must circulate, regardless*

Failing to hand you a check for sitting on your ass is not impairing the efficient circulation of capital one iota.


----------



## danielpalos

task0778 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is, UE benefits should only expire when capitalism's natural rate of unemployment expires.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is right about now, isn't it?   The Fed says that rate should be between 4.7 and 5.8%, which is where we are now.   So these days nobody should get extended UE benefits, 26 weeks and you're done, right?
> 
> _*Definition: *The natural rate of unemployment is a combination of frictional, structural and surplus unemployment. Even a healthy economy will have this level of unemployment because workers are always coming and going, looking for better jobs. This jobless status, until they find that new job, is the natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> The Federal Reserve estimates that this rate is between 4.7 percent and 5.8 percent._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is only natural for the bottom line of capitalists, not labor.  UE benefits should only expire when labor gets hired.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are actually advocating for permanent lifetime UE benefits if a person never gets a job?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capital must circulate, regardless.  What part of that do you not get?
> 
> Let's assume that we end our statutory minimum wage in favor of a minimum wage to not participate in the market for labor.
> 
> How many Persons would prefer to stay poor on an at-will basis, if all they need do, is something market friendly that pays?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am aware that capital needs to circulate, no need to get snippy.   However, I think you are overestimating the amount of circulation you get from UE benefits, and BTW you didn't answer my question:
> 
> " So you are actually advocating for permanent lifetime UE benefits if a person never gets a job? "
> 
> Finally, I am sure most people would not prefer to stay poor, but I am also sure that many of them can't or won't take steps to become worth more in the job market.   Why should they if they're getting a free ride for doing nothing for the rest of their lives?
Click to expand...

How would the private sector be worse off, if all potential customers have money to circulate?

You are the one making the claim that Persons who are not Religious, would prefer to stay poor on an at-will basis.

Capital simply makes it easier for labor to become employed, if they want to work.


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is about equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept of employment, at the will of either party.
> 
> You don't really care about the law, so, why should I take You seriously when You complain about illegals to our own laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't complain about illegals I merely state that all illegal aliens re criminals by definition
> 
> how can you say you care about the law if you don't agree with that fact?
> 
> And it's your choice not to work so it is your choice not to earn any money that's not my fault so I shouldn't have to pay your lazy ass a dime
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so, you don't care about State laws regarding employment at will; how about a federal Doctrine in American law?  don't complain; be Patriotic and legal to our own laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What state law says you have the right to a paycheck if you choose to be unemployed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A federal doctrine in American law and our own State laws regarding the legal concept of employment at will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> which law and be specific
Click to expand...

let's go with the federal doctrine.  edd should be required to show for-cause employment to deny or disparage UE benefits in our at-will employment State.


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> nothing but propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> it about market based metrics and circulating capital; that, produces a positive multiplier effect.
> 
> Here is the analogy:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *it about market based metrics and circulating capital; that, produces a positive multiplier effect.
> *
> Why do you feel that handing you money for not working would have a positive multiplier?
> Why would handing you money increase GDP?
> 
> Aristotle wasn't talking about handouts to the lazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it would be spent, keeping You employed.  Any more silly questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Because it would be spent, keeping You employed.*
> 
> DERP!
> 
> *Any more silly questions.*
> 
> Yes. Why do you feel money not handed to the lazy doesn't get spent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> silly.  it is about full employment of capital resources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are not a resource
Click to expand...

market based metrics is about our capital reality.  no wonder the right wing, has nothing but economic fantasy.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it would be spent, keeping You employed.  Any more silly questions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Because it would be spent, keeping You employed.*
> 
> DERP!
> 
> *Any more silly questions.*
> 
> Yes. Why do you feel money not handed to the lazy doesn't get spent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> silly.  it is about full employment of capital resources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, your claim that handouts better employ capital is silly. And stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capital must circulate under any form of capitalism.  Unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States can solve simple poverty.
> 
> There should be no homelessness due to simple poverty, in the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Capital must circulate under any form of capitalism.*
> 
> It does.
> 
> *Unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States can solve simple poverty.*
> 
> So can getting off your ass and getting a job.
> 
> Your claim that handouts better employ capital is silly. And stupid
Click to expand...

Nothing but fallacy instead of solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment?


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> A federal doctrine in American law and our own State laws regarding the legal concept of employment at will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Employment at will doesn't involve handouts for the lazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so, i have to be rich to get a bailout?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When are you going to repay your bailout?
> 
> What interest rate are you willing to pay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A positive multiplier effect of two to one.  Two dollars in economic multiplication for every one dollar spent on unemployment compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *A positive multiplier effect of two to one.*
> 
> Prove it.
Click to expand...

All talk just to be clueless and Causeless?



> *Summary: The Role of Unemployment as an Automatic Stabilizer During a Recession*--https://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/eta/eta20101615fs.htm


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is, UE benefits should only expire when capitalism's natural rate of unemployment expires.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is right about now, isn't it?   The Fed says that rate should be between 4.7 and 5.8%, which is where we are now.   So these days nobody should get extended UE benefits, 26 weeks and you're done, right?
> 
> _*Definition: *The natural rate of unemployment is a combination of frictional, structural and surplus unemployment. Even a healthy economy will have this level of unemployment because workers are always coming and going, looking for better jobs. This jobless status, until they find that new job, is the natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> The Federal Reserve estimates that this rate is between 4.7 percent and 5.8 percent._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is only natural for the bottom line of capitalists, not labor.  UE benefits should only expire when labor gets hired.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are actually advocating for permanent lifetime UE benefits if a person never gets a job?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capital must circulate, regardless.  What part of that do you not get?
> 
> Let's assume that we end our statutory minimum wage in favor of a minimum wage to not participate in the market for labor.
> 
> How many Persons would prefer to stay poor on an at-will basis, if all they need do, is something market friendly that pays?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Capital must circulate, regardless*
> 
> Failing to hand you a check for sitting on your ass is not impairing the efficient circulation of capital one iota.
Click to expand...

any lack in demand means less need for supply.

only the right wing, never gets it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Because it would be spent, keeping You employed.*
> 
> DERP!
> 
> *Any more silly questions.*
> 
> Yes. Why do you feel money not handed to the lazy doesn't get spent?
> 
> 
> 
> silly.  it is about full employment of capital resources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, your claim that handouts better employ capital is silly. And stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capital must circulate under any form of capitalism.  Unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States can solve simple poverty.
> 
> There should be no homelessness due to simple poverty, in the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Capital must circulate under any form of capitalism.*
> 
> It does.
> 
> *Unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States can solve simple poverty.*
> 
> So can getting off your ass and getting a job.
> 
> Your claim that handouts better employ capital is silly. And stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing but fallacy instead of solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment?
Click to expand...


Nothing but gibberish from you.
The natural rate of unemployment is not a problem. It is simply a fact.
The natural rate of unemployment will not be fixed by handouts to unemployables.
Your "idea" would not help the economy or GDP, in fact it would reduce GDP.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Employment at will doesn't involve handouts for the lazy.
> 
> 
> 
> so, i have to be rich to get a bailout?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When are you going to repay your bailout?
> 
> What interest rate are you willing to pay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A positive multiplier effect of two to one.  Two dollars in economic multiplication for every one dollar spent on unemployment compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *A positive multiplier effect of two to one.*
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All talk just to be clueless and Causeless?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Summary: The Role of Unemployment as an Automatic Stabilizer During a Recession*--https://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/eta/eta20101615fs.htm
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I agree, when it comes to economics, you're clueless.

*The Role of Unemployment as an Automatic Stabilizer During a Recession
*
And?  Besides having zero to do with your "idea"?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is right about now, isn't it?   The Fed says that rate should be between 4.7 and 5.8%, which is where we are now.   So these days nobody should get extended UE benefits, 26 weeks and you're done, right?
> 
> _*Definition: *The natural rate of unemployment is a combination of frictional, structural and surplus unemployment. Even a healthy economy will have this level of unemployment because workers are always coming and going, looking for better jobs. This jobless status, until they find that new job, is the natural rate of unemployment.
> 
> The Federal Reserve estimates that this rate is between 4.7 percent and 5.8 percent._
> 
> 
> 
> It is only natural for the bottom line of capitalists, not labor.  UE benefits should only expire when labor gets hired.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are actually advocating for permanent lifetime UE benefits if a person never gets a job?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capital must circulate, regardless.  What part of that do you not get?
> 
> Let's assume that we end our statutory minimum wage in favor of a minimum wage to not participate in the market for labor.
> 
> How many Persons would prefer to stay poor on an at-will basis, if all they need do, is something market friendly that pays?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Capital must circulate, regardless*
> 
> Failing to hand you a check for sitting on your ass is not impairing the efficient circulation of capital one iota.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> any lack in demand means less need for supply.
> 
> only the right wing, never gets it.
Click to expand...


Paying people to not supply work......is inefficient use of capital.

Only the lazy never get it.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> silly.  it is about full employment of capital resources.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, your claim that handouts better employ capital is silly. And stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capital must circulate under any form of capitalism.  Unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States can solve simple poverty.
> 
> There should be no homelessness due to simple poverty, in the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Capital must circulate under any form of capitalism.*
> 
> It does.
> 
> *Unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States can solve simple poverty.*
> 
> So can getting off your ass and getting a job.
> 
> Your claim that handouts better employ capital is silly. And stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing but fallacy instead of solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing but gibberish from you.
> The natural rate of unemployment is not a problem. It is simply a fact.
> The natural rate of unemployment will not be fixed by handouts to unemployables.
> Your "idea" would not help the economy or GDP, in fact it would reduce GDP.
Click to expand...

1929 is a proven fact; socialism has been bailing capitalism ever since, is also, a proven fact.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> so, i have to be rich to get a bailout?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When are you going to repay your bailout?
> 
> What interest rate are you willing to pay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A positive multiplier effect of two to one.  Two dollars in economic multiplication for every one dollar spent on unemployment compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *A positive multiplier effect of two to one.*
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All talk just to be clueless and Causeless?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Summary: The Role of Unemployment as an Automatic Stabilizer During a Recession*--https://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/eta/eta20101615fs.htm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree, when it comes to economics, you're clueless.
> 
> *The Role of Unemployment as an Automatic Stabilizer During a Recession
> *
> And?  Besides having zero to do with your "idea"?
Click to expand...

it is about solving simple poverty to ensure full employment of capital resources and, a wealth of nations.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is only natural for the bottom line of capitalists, not labor.  UE benefits should only expire when labor gets hired.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are actually advocating for permanent lifetime UE benefits if a person never gets a job?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capital must circulate, regardless.  What part of that do you not get?
> 
> Let's assume that we end our statutory minimum wage in favor of a minimum wage to not participate in the market for labor.
> 
> How many Persons would prefer to stay poor on an at-will basis, if all they need do, is something market friendly that pays?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Capital must circulate, regardless*
> 
> Failing to hand you a check for sitting on your ass is not impairing the efficient circulation of capital one iota.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> any lack in demand means less need for supply.
> 
> only the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Paying people to not supply work......is inefficient use of capital.
> 
> Only the lazy never get it.
Click to expand...

Capital doesn't care; only the right wing, never gets it.  Capital must circulate under any form of Capitalism.


----------



## task0778

So Daniel, one more time:  are you actually advocating for permanent lifetime UE benefits if a person never gets a job?

You implied it, but have dodged the question thus far.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, your claim that handouts better employ capital is silly. And stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> Capital must circulate under any form of capitalism.  Unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States can solve simple poverty.
> 
> There should be no homelessness due to simple poverty, in the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Capital must circulate under any form of capitalism.*
> 
> It does.
> 
> *Unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States can solve simple poverty.*
> 
> So can getting off your ass and getting a job.
> 
> Your claim that handouts better employ capital is silly. And stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing but fallacy instead of solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing but gibberish from you.
> The natural rate of unemployment is not a problem. It is simply a fact.
> The natural rate of unemployment will not be fixed by handouts to unemployables.
> Your "idea" would not help the economy or GDP, in fact it would reduce GDP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1929 is a proven fact; socialism has been bailing capitalism ever since, is also, a proven fact.
Click to expand...


FDR's socialist ideas certainly deserve some of the credit for lengthening the Depression.
Bailing out capitalism? LOL! Hardly.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> When are you going to repay your bailout?
> 
> What interest rate are you willing to pay?
> 
> 
> 
> A positive multiplier effect of two to one.  Two dollars in economic multiplication for every one dollar spent on unemployment compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *A positive multiplier effect of two to one.*
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All talk just to be clueless and Causeless?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Summary: The Role of Unemployment as an Automatic Stabilizer During a Recession*--https://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/eta/eta20101615fs.htm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree, when it comes to economics, you're clueless.
> 
> *The Role of Unemployment as an Automatic Stabilizer During a Recession
> *
> And?  Besides having zero to do with your "idea"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about solving simple poverty to ensure full employment of capital resources and, a wealth of nations.
Click to expand...


"Solving poverty" isn't the same thing as using capital efficiently.
Handouts to unemployables will not improve efficiency or help GDP.


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't complain about illegals I merely state that all illegal aliens re criminals by definition
> 
> how can you say you care about the law if you don't agree with that fact?
> 
> And it's your choice not to work so it is your choice not to earn any money that's not my fault so I shouldn't have to pay your lazy ass a dime
> 
> 
> 
> so, you don't care about State laws regarding employment at will; how about a federal Doctrine in American law?  don't complain; be Patriotic and legal to our own laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What state law says you have the right to a paycheck if you choose to be unemployed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A federal doctrine in American law and our own State laws regarding the legal concept of employment at will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> which law and be specific
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> let's go with the federal doctrine.  edd should be required to show for-cause employment to deny or disparage UE benefits in our at-will employment State.
Click to expand...

so what's the law

give me all the info


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *it about market based metrics and circulating capital; that, produces a positive multiplier effect.
> *
> Why do you feel that handing you money for not working would have a positive multiplier?
> Why would handing you money increase GDP?
> 
> Aristotle wasn't talking about handouts to the lazy.
> 
> 
> 
> Because it would be spent, keeping You employed.  Any more silly questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Because it would be spent, keeping You employed.*
> 
> DERP!
> 
> *Any more silly questions.*
> 
> Yes. Why do you feel money not handed to the lazy doesn't get spent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> silly.  it is about full employment of capital resources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are not a resource
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> market based metrics is about our capital reality.  no wonder the right wing, has nothing but economic fantasy.
Click to expand...


and you are still not a resource.

you are a drain on the economy


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are actually advocating for permanent lifetime UE benefits if a person never gets a job?
> 
> 
> 
> Capital must circulate, regardless.  What part of that do you not get?
> 
> Let's assume that we end our statutory minimum wage in favor of a minimum wage to not participate in the market for labor.
> 
> How many Persons would prefer to stay poor on an at-will basis, if all they need do, is something market friendly that pays?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Capital must circulate, regardless*
> 
> Failing to hand you a check for sitting on your ass is not impairing the efficient circulation of capital one iota.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> any lack in demand means less need for supply.
> 
> only the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Paying people to not supply work......is inefficient use of capital.
> 
> Only the lazy never get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capital doesn't care; only the right wing, never gets it.  Capital must circulate under any form of Capitalism.
Click to expand...


I agree, capital doesn't care about your silly "ideas".
And it certainly doesn't need to be circulated thru your hands for efficiency.


----------



## task0778

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, your claim that handouts better employ capital is silly. And stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> Capital must circulate under any form of capitalism.  Unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States can solve simple poverty.
> 
> There should be no homelessness due to simple poverty, in the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Capital must circulate under any form of capitalism.*
> 
> It does.
> 
> *Unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States can solve simple poverty.*
> 
> So can getting off your ass and getting a job.
> 
> Your claim that handouts better employ capital is silly. And stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing but fallacy instead of solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing but gibberish from you.
> The natural rate of unemployment is not a problem. It is simply a fact.
> The natural rate of unemployment will not be fixed by handouts to unemployables.
> Your "idea" would not help the economy or GDP, in fact it would reduce GDP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1929 is a proven fact; *socialism has been bailing capitalism ever since, is also, a proven fact*.
Click to expand...


Actually, that is an unproven opinion.   Which you are entitled to, but the fact is that the Great Depression was still going strong in 1939 when WWII pretty much broke out.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you fucking kidding me? I presented loads of evidence and you're just doing what all the other people who find it inconvenient for their desire to have something else do. They dismiss it, ignore it. Pretend that their zero evidence is more than the founding fathers.
> 
> I showed you where it is totally clear that "bear arms" means "render military service" and "militia duty", in fact I even showed you where they switched between the two in different draft versions.
> 
> Look, I'm not going to fuck around here. I presented evidence that you have not refuted at all. You've presented NOTHING.
> 
> I'm not going to go around wasting my time trying to convince someone who is willing to ignore the truth.
> 
> So, until you decide you want to debate PROPERLY, I'm not wasting my time with you. If you want to wallow in ignorance, that's your problem. If you want to know the truth, then you can debate with me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> totally clear but not exclusive
> 
> and FYI no one has the right to be in the militia (military)( since their application can be denied by the government for a host of reasons
> 
> As far back as the first SCOTUS the Second was regarded as protecting individual rights to keep and bear arms
> 
> James Wilson an original SCOTUS Justice
> 
> Significantly, the Second Amendment did not grant or bestow any right on the people; instead, it simply recognized and provided what Constitution signer James Wilson called “a new security” for the right of self-defense that God had already bestowed on every individual. [2]
> 
> The right to bear arms in self defense is an INDIVIDUAL right
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "totally clear", right, so you're rejecting something that is totally clear?
> 
> "but no exclusive"..... which means what?
> 
> You're wrong about the right to be in the militia. Why do you think they made the Dick Act in 1902? All 17-45 years are in the unorganized militia. The govt can reject you from being in the NATIONAL GUARD, it didn't apply to the states, they could kick you out if they wanted. But they made the Dick Act as a convenient way of getting around the right to bear arms, so they could make the National Guard. Without what they did, yes, people would have been able to demand to be in the National Guard. Now the govt can say, but, but, but, you're in the unorganized militia.
> 
> Why else do you think they made a militia that DOESN'T DO ANYTHING??????
> 
> Why did you bring up the individual issue? This has nothing to do with what we've spoken about at all. But all of a sudden you feel the need to bring it up. Yes, the 2A, like all other parts of the Bil of Rights, protects individuals. We don't need to argue about this any more, we agree with this.
> 
> Individuals have the right to be in the militia.
> 
> "Significantly, the Second Amendment did not grant or bestow any right on the people; instead, it simply recognized and provided what Constitution signer James Wilson called “a new security” for the right of self-defense that God had already bestowed on every individual. [2]"
> 
> Wait, is this a quote? If you're going to quote shit, QUOTE IT, it needs QUOTATION MARKS, otherwise you're saying it, and your claim to have written it, in which case it's plagiarism.
> 
> Also, like I said before, the Bill of Rights doesn't give rights, it merely prevents the govt from doing things that would potentially infringe on your rights. We've done this already. Your non-quote/quote that you didn't quote doesn't bring anything new here.
> 
> There is a right to self defense, this right does NOT come from the 2A. The right to self defense is the same as the right to privacy, not in the Constitution but assumed to exist and the Supreme Court has stated that it is protected by the Bill of Rights, just not the 2A.
> 
> There is not "right to bear arms in self defense", that would imply there isn't a right to defend yourself in any other way. There is a right to own weapons. There is a right to self defense. And you are able, BY LAW, to use those guns you can own in self defense, just as you can use a TV, your fists, a dead man's penis, whatever the fuck you can physically use to try and defend yourself. There is not a right to a TV simply because you can defend yourself with it. So why would there be a right to a gun simply because you can defend yourself with it? There isn't. There IS a right to own a weapon, but it doesn't come from the right to self defense.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so according to you the intent of the framers was to restrict the bearing of arms solely to service in the militia
> 
> therefore while you have the right to self preservation you do not have the right to carry a firearm to be used to defend yourself
> 
> you really think that was the intent?
> 
> The rights protected in the Bill of Rights are not collective rights
> 
> By using the term an unorganized militia you negate the entire collective argument that bear arms means solely militia service in the sense that I can call my self a member of an unorganized militia and therefore bear arms everywhere I go
> 
> therefore my individual right to keep and bear arms (concealed or open carry) is intact and cannot be infringed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that is not what I said.
> 
> What I said what that the "right to bear arms" is "militia duty".
> 
> Carrying arms around in the US is legal in some places and not legal in other places. This has NOTHING to do with the 2A.
> 
> Why are you going on about collective and individual rights again for?
> 
> I'm using the term "unorganized militia" because, er... because the US CONGRESS WROTE A LAW THAT USES THIS. It's not hard to understand, is it?
> 
> Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia
> 
> Here's the law on Wikipedia.
> 
> "The *Militia Act of 1903* (32 Stat. 775), also known as "The Efficiency in Militia Act of 1903", also known as the *Dick Act,"
> 
> "Dick championed the Militia Act of 1903, which became known as the Dick Act. This law repealed the Militia Acts of 1792 and designated the militia [per Title 10, Section 311] as two groups: the Unorganized Militia, which included all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45, and the Organized Militia, which included state militia (National Guard) units receiving federal support."
> *
> Two groups, one was the "Unorganized Militia", all males aged 17-45 and the National Guard.
> 
> I did not make up the "unorganized militia", the US govt did.
> 
> I never, EVER used the collective argument, and I have no fucking idea why the hell you're even talking about it. In fact, when people start acting like they're talking to someone else, and not responding to what I have said, it annoys me.
> 
> Yes, your individual right to keep arms (own weapons) and bear arms (be in the militia) cannot be infringed before due process.
> 
> Well, unless of course you think criminals and the insane should be able to own weapons and be in the militia. Do you want the insane to not have their right to be in the militia infringed upon?
> 
> The problem here is, I know what you'll do. You're making a connection with the second amendment carrying guns around, which the Supreme Court has said in Presser, and backed up in Heller, is NOT protected by the 2A. But the Supreme Court says you're wrong, the Founding Father say you're wrong, and I'm telling you that you are wrong.
> 
> You have two rights that are protected by the 2A. There might be other rights out there. There are other freedoms, but the 2A does not deal with these. You can go take a crap right now. The 2A doesn't protect this. Nor does it protect carrying arms around with you, but you can still do it. You don't need the 2A to protect something for you in order to be able to do it, you do so many things every day that are not protected by the 2A. And one of those might be carrying arms around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes 2 rights
> 
> to right to keep arms and the right to bear arms.  But since even in the 18th century bear meant to carry then I can carry a firearm regardless of service to a militia
Click to expand...


"bear" means carry, but "bear arms" doesn't. Also the Supreme Court hasn't interpreted it the way you want, they've kept it at what it is, hence why they said Presser is still relevant. 

But again, you've rejected ALL FACTS and decided what you "believe". What's the point of coming on here if you're just going to make stuff up and decide this is the truth?


----------



## danielpalos

task0778 said:


> So Daniel, one more time:  are you actually advocating for permanent lifetime UE benefits if a person never gets a job?
> 
> You implied it, but have dodged the question thus far.


Yes.  That is a requirement unless you can solve for capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment.  Capital must circulate even if socialism has to bailout capitalism, to do it.

However, how many Persons who are not Religious, would be prefer to stay poor on an at-will basis.

Any form of fraud, denies and disparages Your contention.


----------



## 2aguy

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, your claim that handouts better employ capital is silly. And stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> Capital must circulate under any form of capitalism.  Unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States can solve simple poverty.
> 
> There should be no homelessness due to simple poverty, in the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Capital must circulate under any form of capitalism.*
> 
> It does.
> 
> *Unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States can solve simple poverty.*
> 
> So can getting off your ass and getting a job.
> 
> Your claim that handouts better employ capital is silly. And stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing but fallacy instead of solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing but gibberish from you.
> The natural rate of unemployment is not a problem. It is simply a fact.
> The natural rate of unemployment will not be fixed by handouts to unemployables.
> Your "idea" would not help the economy or GDP, in fact it would reduce GDP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1929 is a proven fact; socialism has been bailing capitalism ever since, is also, a proven fact.
Click to expand...



Not a proven fact..as was pointed out...FDRs socialism and attacks on Business lengthened and deepened the depression...no other depression had been as severe as that one because his depression was the only one where the government started interfering......


----------



## 2aguy

frigidweirdo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> totally clear but not exclusive
> 
> and FYI no one has the right to be in the militia (military)( since their application can be denied by the government for a host of reasons
> 
> As far back as the first SCOTUS the Second was regarded as protecting individual rights to keep and bear arms
> 
> James Wilson an original SCOTUS Justice
> 
> Significantly, the Second Amendment did not grant or bestow any right on the people; instead, it simply recognized and provided what Constitution signer James Wilson called “a new security” for the right of self-defense that God had already bestowed on every individual. [2]
> 
> The right to bear arms in self defense is an INDIVIDUAL right
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "totally clear", right, so you're rejecting something that is totally clear?
> 
> "but no exclusive"..... which means what?
> 
> You're wrong about the right to be in the militia. Why do you think they made the Dick Act in 1902? All 17-45 years are in the unorganized militia. The govt can reject you from being in the NATIONAL GUARD, it didn't apply to the states, they could kick you out if they wanted. But they made the Dick Act as a convenient way of getting around the right to bear arms, so they could make the National Guard. Without what they did, yes, people would have been able to demand to be in the National Guard. Now the govt can say, but, but, but, you're in the unorganized militia.
> 
> Why else do you think they made a militia that DOESN'T DO ANYTHING??????
> 
> Why did you bring up the individual issue? This has nothing to do with what we've spoken about at all. But all of a sudden you feel the need to bring it up. Yes, the 2A, like all other parts of the Bil of Rights, protects individuals. We don't need to argue about this any more, we agree with this.
> 
> Individuals have the right to be in the militia.
> 
> "Significantly, the Second Amendment did not grant or bestow any right on the people; instead, it simply recognized and provided what Constitution signer James Wilson called “a new security” for the right of self-defense that God had already bestowed on every individual. [2]"
> 
> Wait, is this a quote? If you're going to quote shit, QUOTE IT, it needs QUOTATION MARKS, otherwise you're saying it, and your claim to have written it, in which case it's plagiarism.
> 
> Also, like I said before, the Bill of Rights doesn't give rights, it merely prevents the govt from doing things that would potentially infringe on your rights. We've done this already. Your non-quote/quote that you didn't quote doesn't bring anything new here.
> 
> There is a right to self defense, this right does NOT come from the 2A. The right to self defense is the same as the right to privacy, not in the Constitution but assumed to exist and the Supreme Court has stated that it is protected by the Bill of Rights, just not the 2A.
> 
> There is not "right to bear arms in self defense", that would imply there isn't a right to defend yourself in any other way. There is a right to own weapons. There is a right to self defense. And you are able, BY LAW, to use those guns you can own in self defense, just as you can use a TV, your fists, a dead man's penis, whatever the fuck you can physically use to try and defend yourself. There is not a right to a TV simply because you can defend yourself with it. So why would there be a right to a gun simply because you can defend yourself with it? There isn't. There IS a right to own a weapon, but it doesn't come from the right to self defense.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so according to you the intent of the framers was to restrict the bearing of arms solely to service in the militia
> 
> therefore while you have the right to self preservation you do not have the right to carry a firearm to be used to defend yourself
> 
> you really think that was the intent?
> 
> The rights protected in the Bill of Rights are not collective rights
> 
> By using the term an unorganized militia you negate the entire collective argument that bear arms means solely militia service in the sense that I can call my self a member of an unorganized militia and therefore bear arms everywhere I go
> 
> therefore my individual right to keep and bear arms (concealed or open carry) is intact and cannot be infringed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that is not what I said.
> 
> What I said what that the "right to bear arms" is "militia duty".
> 
> Carrying arms around in the US is legal in some places and not legal in other places. This has NOTHING to do with the 2A.
> 
> Why are you going on about collective and individual rights again for?
> 
> I'm using the term "unorganized militia" because, er... because the US CONGRESS WROTE A LAW THAT USES THIS. It's not hard to understand, is it?
> 
> Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia
> 
> Here's the law on Wikipedia.
> 
> "The *Militia Act of 1903* (32 Stat. 775), also known as "The Efficiency in Militia Act of 1903", also known as the *Dick Act,"
> 
> "Dick championed the Militia Act of 1903, which became known as the Dick Act. This law repealed the Militia Acts of 1792 and designated the militia [per Title 10, Section 311] as two groups: the Unorganized Militia, which included all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45, and the Organized Militia, which included state militia (National Guard) units receiving federal support."
> *
> Two groups, one was the "Unorganized Militia", all males aged 17-45 and the National Guard.
> 
> I did not make up the "unorganized militia", the US govt did.
> 
> I never, EVER used the collective argument, and I have no fucking idea why the hell you're even talking about it. In fact, when people start acting like they're talking to someone else, and not responding to what I have said, it annoys me.
> 
> Yes, your individual right to keep arms (own weapons) and bear arms (be in the militia) cannot be infringed before due process.
> 
> Well, unless of course you think criminals and the insane should be able to own weapons and be in the militia. Do you want the insane to not have their right to be in the militia infringed upon?
> 
> The problem here is, I know what you'll do. You're making a connection with the second amendment carrying guns around, which the Supreme Court has said in Presser, and backed up in Heller, is NOT protected by the 2A. But the Supreme Court says you're wrong, the Founding Father say you're wrong, and I'm telling you that you are wrong.
> 
> You have two rights that are protected by the 2A. There might be other rights out there. There are other freedoms, but the 2A does not deal with these. You can go take a crap right now. The 2A doesn't protect this. Nor does it protect carrying arms around with you, but you can still do it. You don't need the 2A to protect something for you in order to be able to do it, you do so many things every day that are not protected by the 2A. And one of those might be carrying arms around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes 2 rights
> 
> to right to keep arms and the right to bear arms.  But since even in the 18th century bear meant to carry then I can carry a firearm regardless of service to a militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "bear" means carry, but "bear arms" doesn't. Also the Supreme Court hasn't interpreted it the way you want, they've kept it at what it is, hence why they said Presser is still relevant.
> 
> But again, you've rejected ALL FACTS and decided what you "believe". What's the point of coming on here if you're just going to make stuff up and decide this is the truth?
Click to expand...



No...you have rejected all facts....and reality....

From Heller...the most recent decision....from the Supreme Court....notice who they cite in Heller in regard to the meaning of Bearing Arms....Social Justice justice Ginsberg....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf


Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.” We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans. 

*-------*
Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.” 

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

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. 

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), *the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.*

*--------*

*n Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” I*


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capital must circulate under any form of capitalism.  Unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States can solve simple poverty.
> 
> There should be no homelessness due to simple poverty, in the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Capital must circulate under any form of capitalism.*
> 
> It does.
> 
> *Unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States can solve simple poverty.*
> 
> So can getting off your ass and getting a job.
> 
> Your claim that handouts better employ capital is silly. And stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing but fallacy instead of solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing but gibberish from you.
> The natural rate of unemployment is not a problem. It is simply a fact.
> The natural rate of unemployment will not be fixed by handouts to unemployables.
> Your "idea" would not help the economy or GDP, in fact it would reduce GDP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1929 is a proven fact; socialism has been bailing capitalism ever since, is also, a proven fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FDR's socialist ideas certainly deserve some of the credit for lengthening the Depression.
> Bailing out capitalism? LOL! Hardly.
Click to expand...

Some of those polices are still with us today, bailing capitalism everyday.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> A positive multiplier effect of two to one.  Two dollars in economic multiplication for every one dollar spent on unemployment compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *A positive multiplier effect of two to one.*
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All talk just to be clueless and Causeless?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Summary: The Role of Unemployment as an Automatic Stabilizer During a Recession*--https://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/eta/eta20101615fs.htm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree, when it comes to economics, you're clueless.
> 
> *The Role of Unemployment as an Automatic Stabilizer During a Recession
> *
> And?  Besides having zero to do with your "idea"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about solving simple poverty to ensure full employment of capital resources and, a wealth of nations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Solving poverty" isn't the same thing as using capital efficiently.
> Handouts to unemployables will not improve efficiency or help GDP.
Click to expand...

In this case, it is.  It is correcting for Capitalism's natural rate of inefficiency, on an at-will basis.  It is as market friendly as it gets, under any form of capitalism.


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> so, you don't care about State laws regarding employment at will; how about a federal Doctrine in American law?  don't complain; be Patriotic and legal to our own laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What state law says you have the right to a paycheck if you choose to be unemployed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A federal doctrine in American law and our own State laws regarding the legal concept of employment at will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> which law and be specific
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> let's go with the federal doctrine.  edd should be required to show for-cause employment to deny or disparage UE benefits in our at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so what's the law
> 
> give me all the info
Click to expand...

employment at will, is the law.


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it would be spent, keeping You employed.  Any more silly questions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Because it would be spent, keeping You employed.*
> 
> DERP!
> 
> *Any more silly questions.*
> 
> Yes. Why do you feel money not handed to the lazy doesn't get spent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> silly.  it is about full employment of capital resources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are not a resource
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> market based metrics is about our capital reality.  no wonder the right wing, has nothing but economic fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and you are still not a resource.
> 
> you are a drain on the economy
Click to expand...

projecting much, with your usual, nothing but fallacy?


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capital must circulate, regardless.  What part of that do you not get?
> 
> Let's assume that we end our statutory minimum wage in favor of a minimum wage to not participate in the market for labor.
> 
> How many Persons would prefer to stay poor on an at-will basis, if all they need do, is something market friendly that pays?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Capital must circulate, regardless*
> 
> Failing to hand you a check for sitting on your ass is not impairing the efficient circulation of capital one iota.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> any lack in demand means less need for supply.
> 
> only the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Paying people to not supply work......is inefficient use of capital.
> 
> Only the lazy never get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capital doesn't care; only the right wing, never gets it.  Capital must circulate under any form of Capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree, capital doesn't care about your silly "ideas".
> And it certainly doesn't need to be circulated thru your hands for efficiency.
Click to expand...

sure it does; for the market based metrics.  only socialism eschews market based metrics, for national policies.


----------



## danielpalos

task0778 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capital must circulate under any form of capitalism.  Unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States can solve simple poverty.
> 
> There should be no homelessness due to simple poverty, in the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Capital must circulate under any form of capitalism.*
> 
> It does.
> 
> *Unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States can solve simple poverty.*
> 
> So can getting off your ass and getting a job.
> 
> Your claim that handouts better employ capital is silly. And stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing but fallacy instead of solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing but gibberish from you.
> The natural rate of unemployment is not a problem. It is simply a fact.
> The natural rate of unemployment will not be fixed by handouts to unemployables.
> Your "idea" would not help the economy or GDP, in fact it would reduce GDP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1929 is a proven fact; *socialism has been bailing capitalism ever since, is also, a proven fact*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, that is an unproven opinion.   Which you are entitled to, but the fact is that the Great Depression was still going strong in 1939 when WWII pretty much broke out.
Click to expand...

You make my point for me; it was the outright "communism" of our wartime economy, that solved our depression problem.


----------



## danielpalos

2aguy said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capital must circulate under any form of capitalism.  Unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States can solve simple poverty.
> 
> There should be no homelessness due to simple poverty, in the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Capital must circulate under any form of capitalism.*
> 
> It does.
> 
> *Unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States can solve simple poverty.*
> 
> So can getting off your ass and getting a job.
> 
> Your claim that handouts better employ capital is silly. And stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing but fallacy instead of solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing but gibberish from you.
> The natural rate of unemployment is not a problem. It is simply a fact.
> The natural rate of unemployment will not be fixed by handouts to unemployables.
> Your "idea" would not help the economy or GDP, in fact it would reduce GDP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1929 is a proven fact; socialism has been bailing capitalism ever since, is also, a proven fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not a proven fact..as was pointed out...FDRs socialism and attacks on Business lengthened and deepened the depression...no other depression had been as severe as that one because his depression was the only one where the government started interfering......
Click to expand...

1929 actually happened.  Hooverville did not do anything.  We still have public policies from that era, to "bailout capitalism", today.  And, according to some on the right, merely having a central bank, means capitalism failed.


----------



## Skull Pilot

frigidweirdo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> totally clear but not exclusive
> 
> and FYI no one has the right to be in the militia (military)( since their application can be denied by the government for a host of reasons
> 
> As far back as the first SCOTUS the Second was regarded as protecting individual rights to keep and bear arms
> 
> James Wilson an original SCOTUS Justice
> 
> Significantly, the Second Amendment did not grant or bestow any right on the people; instead, it simply recognized and provided what Constitution signer James Wilson called “a new security” for the right of self-defense that God had already bestowed on every individual. [2]
> 
> The right to bear arms in self defense is an INDIVIDUAL right
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "totally clear", right, so you're rejecting something that is totally clear?
> 
> "but no exclusive"..... which means what?
> 
> You're wrong about the right to be in the militia. Why do you think they made the Dick Act in 1902? All 17-45 years are in the unorganized militia. The govt can reject you from being in the NATIONAL GUARD, it didn't apply to the states, they could kick you out if they wanted. But they made the Dick Act as a convenient way of getting around the right to bear arms, so they could make the National Guard. Without what they did, yes, people would have been able to demand to be in the National Guard. Now the govt can say, but, but, but, you're in the unorganized militia.
> 
> Why else do you think they made a militia that DOESN'T DO ANYTHING??????
> 
> Why did you bring up the individual issue? This has nothing to do with what we've spoken about at all. But all of a sudden you feel the need to bring it up. Yes, the 2A, like all other parts of the Bil of Rights, protects individuals. We don't need to argue about this any more, we agree with this.
> 
> Individuals have the right to be in the militia.
> 
> "Significantly, the Second Amendment did not grant or bestow any right on the people; instead, it simply recognized and provided what Constitution signer James Wilson called “a new security” for the right of self-defense that God had already bestowed on every individual. [2]"
> 
> Wait, is this a quote? If you're going to quote shit, QUOTE IT, it needs QUOTATION MARKS, otherwise you're saying it, and your claim to have written it, in which case it's plagiarism.
> 
> Also, like I said before, the Bill of Rights doesn't give rights, it merely prevents the govt from doing things that would potentially infringe on your rights. We've done this already. Your non-quote/quote that you didn't quote doesn't bring anything new here.
> 
> There is a right to self defense, this right does NOT come from the 2A. The right to self defense is the same as the right to privacy, not in the Constitution but assumed to exist and the Supreme Court has stated that it is protected by the Bill of Rights, just not the 2A.
> 
> There is not "right to bear arms in self defense", that would imply there isn't a right to defend yourself in any other way. There is a right to own weapons. There is a right to self defense. And you are able, BY LAW, to use those guns you can own in self defense, just as you can use a TV, your fists, a dead man's penis, whatever the fuck you can physically use to try and defend yourself. There is not a right to a TV simply because you can defend yourself with it. So why would there be a right to a gun simply because you can defend yourself with it? There isn't. There IS a right to own a weapon, but it doesn't come from the right to self defense.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so according to you the intent of the framers was to restrict the bearing of arms solely to service in the militia
> 
> therefore while you have the right to self preservation you do not have the right to carry a firearm to be used to defend yourself
> 
> you really think that was the intent?
> 
> The rights protected in the Bill of Rights are not collective rights
> 
> By using the term an unorganized militia you negate the entire collective argument that bear arms means solely militia service in the sense that I can call my self a member of an unorganized militia and therefore bear arms everywhere I go
> 
> therefore my individual right to keep and bear arms (concealed or open carry) is intact and cannot be infringed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that is not what I said.
> 
> What I said what that the "right to bear arms" is "militia duty".
> 
> Carrying arms around in the US is legal in some places and not legal in other places. This has NOTHING to do with the 2A.
> 
> Why are you going on about collective and individual rights again for?
> 
> I'm using the term "unorganized militia" because, er... because the US CONGRESS WROTE A LAW THAT USES THIS. It's not hard to understand, is it?
> 
> Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia
> 
> Here's the law on Wikipedia.
> 
> "The *Militia Act of 1903* (32 Stat. 775), also known as "The Efficiency in Militia Act of 1903", also known as the *Dick Act,"
> 
> "Dick championed the Militia Act of 1903, which became known as the Dick Act. This law repealed the Militia Acts of 1792 and designated the militia [per Title 10, Section 311] as two groups: the Unorganized Militia, which included all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45, and the Organized Militia, which included state militia (National Guard) units receiving federal support."
> *
> Two groups, one was the "Unorganized Militia", all males aged 17-45 and the National Guard.
> 
> I did not make up the "unorganized militia", the US govt did.
> 
> I never, EVER used the collective argument, and I have no fucking idea why the hell you're even talking about it. In fact, when people start acting like they're talking to someone else, and not responding to what I have said, it annoys me.
> 
> Yes, your individual right to keep arms (own weapons) and bear arms (be in the militia) cannot be infringed before due process.
> 
> Well, unless of course you think criminals and the insane should be able to own weapons and be in the militia. Do you want the insane to not have their right to be in the militia infringed upon?
> 
> The problem here is, I know what you'll do. You're making a connection with the second amendment carrying guns around, which the Supreme Court has said in Presser, and backed up in Heller, is NOT protected by the 2A. But the Supreme Court says you're wrong, the Founding Father say you're wrong, and I'm telling you that you are wrong.
> 
> You have two rights that are protected by the 2A. There might be other rights out there. There are other freedoms, but the 2A does not deal with these. You can go take a crap right now. The 2A doesn't protect this. Nor does it protect carrying arms around with you, but you can still do it. You don't need the 2A to protect something for you in order to be able to do it, you do so many things every day that are not protected by the 2A. And one of those might be carrying arms around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes 2 rights
> 
> to right to keep arms and the right to bear arms.  But since even in the 18th century bear meant to carry then I can carry a firearm regardless of service to a militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "bear" means carry, but "bear arms" doesn't. Also the Supreme Court hasn't interpreted it the way you want, they've kept it at what it is, hence why they said Presser is still relevant.
> 
> But again, you've rejected ALL FACTS and decided what you "believe". What's the point of coming on here if you're just going to make stuff up and decide this is the truth?
Click to expand...


bear arms does not mean solely serve in the militia or military either.

The Second was always meant as an individual right in fact an amendment that specified "for the common defense" was rejected so much for your notion that bear arms meant military service exclusoively

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution Guarantees an Individual Right To Keep and Bear Arms

Sir William Blackstone, an authoritative source of the common law for colonists and, therefore, a dominant influence on the drafters of the original Constitution and its Bill of Rights, set forth in his Commentaries the absolute rights of individuals as: personal security, personal liberty, and possession of private property, I _Blackstone Commentaries_ 129, these absolute rights being protected by the individual's right to have and use arms for self-preservation and defense. As Blackstone observed, individual citizens were therefore entitled to exercise their "natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> What state law says you have the right to a paycheck if you choose to be unemployed?
> 
> 
> 
> A federal doctrine in American law and our own State laws regarding the legal concept of employment at will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> which law and be specific
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> let's go with the federal doctrine.  edd should be required to show for-cause employment to deny or disparage UE benefits in our at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so what's the law
> 
> give me all the info
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> employment at will, is the law.
Click to expand...


give me the statute number


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Because it would be spent, keeping You employed.*
> 
> DERP!
> 
> *Any more silly questions.*
> 
> Yes. Why do you feel money not handed to the lazy doesn't get spent?
> 
> 
> 
> silly.  it is about full employment of capital resources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are not a resource
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> market based metrics is about our capital reality.  no wonder the right wing, has nothing but economic fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and you are still not a resource.
> 
> you are a drain on the economy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> projecting much, with your usual, nothing but fallacy?
Click to expand...


that's funny.

I'm not the one who insists on getting paid for not working.
I pay more in taxes in one year than you make in 3 years of that I have no doubt


----------



## frigidweirdo

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> "totally clear", right, so you're rejecting something that is totally clear?
> 
> "but no exclusive"..... which means what?
> 
> You're wrong about the right to be in the militia. Why do you think they made the Dick Act in 1902? All 17-45 years are in the unorganized militia. The govt can reject you from being in the NATIONAL GUARD, it didn't apply to the states, they could kick you out if they wanted. But they made the Dick Act as a convenient way of getting around the right to bear arms, so they could make the National Guard. Without what they did, yes, people would have been able to demand to be in the National Guard. Now the govt can say, but, but, but, you're in the unorganized militia.
> 
> Why else do you think they made a militia that DOESN'T DO ANYTHING??????
> 
> Why did you bring up the individual issue? This has nothing to do with what we've spoken about at all. But all of a sudden you feel the need to bring it up. Yes, the 2A, like all other parts of the Bil of Rights, protects individuals. We don't need to argue about this any more, we agree with this.
> 
> Individuals have the right to be in the militia.
> 
> "Significantly, the Second Amendment did not grant or bestow any right on the people; instead, it simply recognized and provided what Constitution signer James Wilson called “a new security” for the right of self-defense that God had already bestowed on every individual. [2]"
> 
> Wait, is this a quote? If you're going to quote shit, QUOTE IT, it needs QUOTATION MARKS, otherwise you're saying it, and your claim to have written it, in which case it's plagiarism.
> 
> Also, like I said before, the Bill of Rights doesn't give rights, it merely prevents the govt from doing things that would potentially infringe on your rights. We've done this already. Your non-quote/quote that you didn't quote doesn't bring anything new here.
> 
> There is a right to self defense, this right does NOT come from the 2A. The right to self defense is the same as the right to privacy, not in the Constitution but assumed to exist and the Supreme Court has stated that it is protected by the Bill of Rights, just not the 2A.
> 
> There is not "right to bear arms in self defense", that would imply there isn't a right to defend yourself in any other way. There is a right to own weapons. There is a right to self defense. And you are able, BY LAW, to use those guns you can own in self defense, just as you can use a TV, your fists, a dead man's penis, whatever the fuck you can physically use to try and defend yourself. There is not a right to a TV simply because you can defend yourself with it. So why would there be a right to a gun simply because you can defend yourself with it? There isn't. There IS a right to own a weapon, but it doesn't come from the right to self defense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so according to you the intent of the framers was to restrict the bearing of arms solely to service in the militia
> 
> therefore while you have the right to self preservation you do not have the right to carry a firearm to be used to defend yourself
> 
> you really think that was the intent?
> 
> The rights protected in the Bill of Rights are not collective rights
> 
> By using the term an unorganized militia you negate the entire collective argument that bear arms means solely militia service in the sense that I can call my self a member of an unorganized militia and therefore bear arms everywhere I go
> 
> therefore my individual right to keep and bear arms (concealed or open carry) is intact and cannot be infringed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that is not what I said.
> 
> What I said what that the "right to bear arms" is "militia duty".
> 
> Carrying arms around in the US is legal in some places and not legal in other places. This has NOTHING to do with the 2A.
> 
> Why are you going on about collective and individual rights again for?
> 
> I'm using the term "unorganized militia" because, er... because the US CONGRESS WROTE A LAW THAT USES THIS. It's not hard to understand, is it?
> 
> Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia
> 
> Here's the law on Wikipedia.
> 
> "The *Militia Act of 1903* (32 Stat. 775), also known as "The Efficiency in Militia Act of 1903", also known as the *Dick Act,"
> 
> "Dick championed the Militia Act of 1903, which became known as the Dick Act. This law repealed the Militia Acts of 1792 and designated the militia [per Title 10, Section 311] as two groups: the Unorganized Militia, which included all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45, and the Organized Militia, which included state militia (National Guard) units receiving federal support."
> *
> Two groups, one was the "Unorganized Militia", all males aged 17-45 and the National Guard.
> 
> I did not make up the "unorganized militia", the US govt did.
> 
> I never, EVER used the collective argument, and I have no fucking idea why the hell you're even talking about it. In fact, when people start acting like they're talking to someone else, and not responding to what I have said, it annoys me.
> 
> Yes, your individual right to keep arms (own weapons) and bear arms (be in the militia) cannot be infringed before due process.
> 
> Well, unless of course you think criminals and the insane should be able to own weapons and be in the militia. Do you want the insane to not have their right to be in the militia infringed upon?
> 
> The problem here is, I know what you'll do. You're making a connection with the second amendment carrying guns around, which the Supreme Court has said in Presser, and backed up in Heller, is NOT protected by the 2A. But the Supreme Court says you're wrong, the Founding Father say you're wrong, and I'm telling you that you are wrong.
> 
> You have two rights that are protected by the 2A. There might be other rights out there. There are other freedoms, but the 2A does not deal with these. You can go take a crap right now. The 2A doesn't protect this. Nor does it protect carrying arms around with you, but you can still do it. You don't need the 2A to protect something for you in order to be able to do it, you do so many things every day that are not protected by the 2A. And one of those might be carrying arms around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes 2 rights
> 
> to right to keep arms and the right to bear arms.  But since even in the 18th century bear meant to carry then I can carry a firearm regardless of service to a militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "bear" means carry, but "bear arms" doesn't. Also the Supreme Court hasn't interpreted it the way you want, they've kept it at what it is, hence why they said Presser is still relevant.
> 
> But again, you've rejected ALL FACTS and decided what you "believe". What's the point of coming on here if you're just going to make stuff up and decide this is the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> bear arms does not mean solely serve in the militia or military either.
> 
> The Second was always meant as an individual right in fact an amendment that specified "for the common defense" was rejected so much for your notion that bear arms meant military service exclusoively
> 
> The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution Guarantees an Individual Right To Keep and Bear Arms
> 
> Sir William Blackstone, an authoritative source of the common law for colonists and, therefore, a dominant influence on the drafters of the original Constitution and its Bill of Rights, set forth in his Commentaries the absolute rights of individuals as: personal security, personal liberty, and possession of private property, I _Blackstone Commentaries_ 129, these absolute rights being protected by the individual's right to have and use arms for self-preservation and defense. As Blackstone observed, individual citizens were therefore entitled to exercise their "natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."
Click to expand...


No, it doesn't.

However "stool" doesn't mean just a wooden three legged object for sitting on.

Take two examples:

"The doctor look at his stool to see if he had any problems" and "he sat on the three legged wooden stool". 

You know the first isn't the doctor taking a look at his three legged wooden seat, and you know the second isn't him sitting on a three legged shit. It's about CONTEXT.

Now, tell me the context of "bear arms" in the Second Amendment. 

Is it A) the founding fathers said "bear arms" was synonymous with "render military service" and "militia duty". Also the Supreme Court has rejected "bear arms" meaning carrying guns around as being protected by the 2A in Presser. Also in a Amendment which begins with "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of the free state". Also the Dick Act created an "unorganized militia" which fits perfectly in with this whole view. 

or B) The founding fathers said "bear arms" means "carry guns around with you". Also the Supreme Court has rejected that "Bear arms" meaning "militia duty". Also in an Amendment which begins with "Individuals carrying guns around with them in daily life is necessary for the security of the free state". Also the Dick Act created a dancing troop of gay NRA members wearing pink tutus and singing YMCA to make everyone happy?

Which is is? Tell me.

Context is the key to the English language, many words have different meanings and you can tell the meaning by the context. 

You keep going off about the 2A being individual. Have I ever contested this? No. So why do you keep bring it up? 

Actually I know the answer, it's because it's something you think you can fight me on and win. The problem you have is, again, I NEVER SAID IT WAS COLLECTIVE. It's individual. I got it. I knew this decades ago. So what? Stop bring it up. It's not an issue here.


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> "totally clear", right, so you're rejecting something that is totally clear?
> 
> "but no exclusive"..... which means what?
> 
> You're wrong about the right to be in the militia. Why do you think they made the Dick Act in 1902? All 17-45 years are in the unorganized militia. The govt can reject you from being in the NATIONAL GUARD, it didn't apply to the states, they could kick you out if they wanted. But they made the Dick Act as a convenient way of getting around the right to bear arms, so they could make the National Guard. Without what they did, yes, people would have been able to demand to be in the National Guard. Now the govt can say, but, but, but, you're in the unorganized militia.
> 
> Why else do you think they made a militia that DOESN'T DO ANYTHING??????
> 
> Why did you bring up the individual issue? This has nothing to do with what we've spoken about at all. But all of a sudden you feel the need to bring it up. Yes, the 2A, like all other parts of the Bil of Rights, protects individuals. We don't need to argue about this any more, we agree with this.
> 
> Individuals have the right to be in the militia.
> 
> "Significantly, the Second Amendment did not grant or bestow any right on the people; instead, it simply recognized and provided what Constitution signer James Wilson called “a new security” for the right of self-defense that God had already bestowed on every individual. [2]"
> 
> Wait, is this a quote? If you're going to quote shit, QUOTE IT, it needs QUOTATION MARKS, otherwise you're saying it, and your claim to have written it, in which case it's plagiarism.
> 
> Also, like I said before, the Bill of Rights doesn't give rights, it merely prevents the govt from doing things that would potentially infringe on your rights. We've done this already. Your non-quote/quote that you didn't quote doesn't bring anything new here.
> 
> There is a right to self defense, this right does NOT come from the 2A. The right to self defense is the same as the right to privacy, not in the Constitution but assumed to exist and the Supreme Court has stated that it is protected by the Bill of Rights, just not the 2A.
> 
> There is not "right to bear arms in self defense", that would imply there isn't a right to defend yourself in any other way. There is a right to own weapons. There is a right to self defense. And you are able, BY LAW, to use those guns you can own in self defense, just as you can use a TV, your fists, a dead man's penis, whatever the fuck you can physically use to try and defend yourself. There is not a right to a TV simply because you can defend yourself with it. So why would there be a right to a gun simply because you can defend yourself with it? There isn't. There IS a right to own a weapon, but it doesn't come from the right to self defense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so according to you the intent of the framers was to restrict the bearing of arms solely to service in the militia
> 
> therefore while you have the right to self preservation you do not have the right to carry a firearm to be used to defend yourself
> 
> you really think that was the intent?
> 
> The rights protected in the Bill of Rights are not collective rights
> 
> By using the term an unorganized militia you negate the entire collective argument that bear arms means solely militia service in the sense that I can call my self a member of an unorganized militia and therefore bear arms everywhere I go
> 
> therefore my individual right to keep and bear arms (concealed or open carry) is intact and cannot be infringed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that is not what I said.
> 
> What I said what that the "right to bear arms" is "militia duty".
> 
> Carrying arms around in the US is legal in some places and not legal in other places. This has NOTHING to do with the 2A.
> 
> Why are you going on about collective and individual rights again for?
> 
> I'm using the term "unorganized militia" because, er... because the US CONGRESS WROTE A LAW THAT USES THIS. It's not hard to understand, is it?
> 
> Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia
> 
> Here's the law on Wikipedia.
> 
> "The *Militia Act of 1903* (32 Stat. 775), also known as "The Efficiency in Militia Act of 1903", also known as the *Dick Act,"
> 
> "Dick championed the Militia Act of 1903, which became known as the Dick Act. This law repealed the Militia Acts of 1792 and designated the militia [per Title 10, Section 311] as two groups: the Unorganized Militia, which included all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45, and the Organized Militia, which included state militia (National Guard) units receiving federal support."
> *
> Two groups, one was the "Unorganized Militia", all males aged 17-45 and the National Guard.
> 
> I did not make up the "unorganized militia", the US govt did.
> 
> I never, EVER used the collective argument, and I have no fucking idea why the hell you're even talking about it. In fact, when people start acting like they're talking to someone else, and not responding to what I have said, it annoys me.
> 
> Yes, your individual right to keep arms (own weapons) and bear arms (be in the militia) cannot be infringed before due process.
> 
> Well, unless of course you think criminals and the insane should be able to own weapons and be in the militia. Do you want the insane to not have their right to be in the militia infringed upon?
> 
> The problem here is, I know what you'll do. You're making a connection with the second amendment carrying guns around, which the Supreme Court has said in Presser, and backed up in Heller, is NOT protected by the 2A. But the Supreme Court says you're wrong, the Founding Father say you're wrong, and I'm telling you that you are wrong.
> 
> You have two rights that are protected by the 2A. There might be other rights out there. There are other freedoms, but the 2A does not deal with these. You can go take a crap right now. The 2A doesn't protect this. Nor does it protect carrying arms around with you, but you can still do it. You don't need the 2A to protect something for you in order to be able to do it, you do so many things every day that are not protected by the 2A. And one of those might be carrying arms around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes 2 rights
> 
> to right to keep arms and the right to bear arms.  But since even in the 18th century bear meant to carry then I can carry a firearm regardless of service to a militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "bear" means carry, but "bear arms" doesn't. Also the Supreme Court hasn't interpreted it the way you want, they've kept it at what it is, hence why they said Presser is still relevant.
> 
> But again, you've rejected ALL FACTS and decided what you "believe". What's the point of coming on here if you're just going to make stuff up and decide this is the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> bear arms does not mean solely serve in the militia or military either.
> 
> The Second was always meant as an individual right in fact an amendment that specified "for the common defense" was rejected so much for your notion that bear arms meant military service exclusoively
> 
> The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution Guarantees an Individual Right To Keep and Bear Arms
> 
> Sir William Blackstone, an authoritative source of the common law for colonists and, therefore, a dominant influence on the drafters of the original Constitution and its Bill of Rights, set forth in his Commentaries the absolute rights of individuals as: personal security, personal liberty, and possession of private property, I _Blackstone Commentaries_ 129, these absolute rights being protected by the individual's right to have and use arms for self-preservation and defense. As Blackstone observed, individual citizens were therefore entitled to exercise their "natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."
Click to expand...

natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions (not our Second Amendment) and available via Due Process.


----------



## 2aguy

danielpalos said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Capital must circulate under any form of capitalism.*
> 
> It does.
> 
> *Unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States can solve simple poverty.*
> 
> So can getting off your ass and getting a job.
> 
> Your claim that handouts better employ capital is silly. And stupid
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing but fallacy instead of solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing but gibberish from you.
> The natural rate of unemployment is not a problem. It is simply a fact.
> The natural rate of unemployment will not be fixed by handouts to unemployables.
> Your "idea" would not help the economy or GDP, in fact it would reduce GDP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1929 is a proven fact; *socialism has been bailing capitalism ever since, is also, a proven fact*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, that is an unproven opinion.   Which you are entitled to, but the fact is that the Great Depression was still going strong in 1939 when WWII pretty much broke out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You make my point for me; it was the outright "communism" of our wartime economy, that solved our depression problem.
Click to expand...



No...it wasn't....it was the fact that the industrial base of Europe was destroyed by the war, while we still had ours intact....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Daniel, one more time:  are you actually advocating for permanent lifetime UE benefits if a person never gets a job?
> 
> You implied it, but have dodged the question thus far.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  That is a requirement unless you can solve for capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment.  Capital must circulate even if socialism has to bailout capitalism, to do it.
> 
> However, how many Persons who are not Religious, would be prefer to stay poor on an at-will basis.
> 
> Any form of fraud, denies and disparages Your contention.
Click to expand...


*Yes. That is a requirement unless you can solve for capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment.*

Another example of why we can't listen to the left on economics.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Capital must circulate under any form of capitalism.*
> 
> It does.
> 
> *Unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States can solve simple poverty.*
> 
> So can getting off your ass and getting a job.
> 
> Your claim that handouts better employ capital is silly. And stupid
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing but fallacy instead of solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing but gibberish from you.
> The natural rate of unemployment is not a problem. It is simply a fact.
> The natural rate of unemployment will not be fixed by handouts to unemployables.
> Your "idea" would not help the economy or GDP, in fact it would reduce GDP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1929 is a proven fact; socialism has been bailing capitalism ever since, is also, a proven fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FDR's socialist ideas certainly deserve some of the credit for lengthening the Depression.
> Bailing out capitalism? LOL! Hardly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some of those polices are still with us today, bailing capitalism everyday.
Click to expand...


Yes. It's difficult to rollback socialism, no matter how damaging.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *A positive multiplier effect of two to one.*
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> All talk just to be clueless and Causeless?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Summary: The Role of Unemployment as an Automatic Stabilizer During a Recession*--https://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/eta/eta20101615fs.htm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree, when it comes to economics, you're clueless.
> 
> *The Role of Unemployment as an Automatic Stabilizer During a Recession
> *
> And?  Besides having zero to do with your "idea"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about solving simple poverty to ensure full employment of capital resources and, a wealth of nations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Solving poverty" isn't the same thing as using capital efficiently.
> Handouts to unemployables will not improve efficiency or help GDP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In this case, it is.  It is correcting for Capitalism's natural rate of inefficiency, on an at-will basis.  It is as market friendly as it gets, under any form of capitalism.
Click to expand...

*
In this case, it is. It is correcting for Capitalism's natural rate of inefficiency*

The fact that you think the natural rate is inefficiency and that any inefficiency can be reduced by government is amusing.

And no, handouts to unemployables are not market friendly.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Capital must circulate, regardless*
> 
> Failing to hand you a check for sitting on your ass is not impairing the efficient circulation of capital one iota.
> 
> 
> 
> any lack in demand means less need for supply.
> 
> only the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Paying people to not supply work......is inefficient use of capital.
> 
> Only the lazy never get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capital doesn't care; only the right wing, never gets it.  Capital must circulate under any form of Capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree, capital doesn't care about your silly "ideas".
> And it certainly doesn't need to be circulated thru your hands for efficiency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sure it does; for the market based metrics.  only socialism eschews market based metrics, for national policies.
Click to expand...


No, the government does not need to hand you money for the economy to be efficient.

Explain these "market based metrics" that demand you receive handouts.


----------



## danielpalos

2aguy said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing but fallacy instead of solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing but gibberish from you.
> The natural rate of unemployment is not a problem. It is simply a fact.
> The natural rate of unemployment will not be fixed by handouts to unemployables.
> Your "idea" would not help the economy or GDP, in fact it would reduce GDP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1929 is a proven fact; *socialism has been bailing capitalism ever since, is also, a proven fact*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, that is an unproven opinion.   Which you are entitled to, but the fact is that the Great Depression was still going strong in 1939 when WWII pretty much broke out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You make my point for me; it was the outright "communism" of our wartime economy, that solved our depression problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No...it wasn't....it was the fact that the industrial base of Europe was destroyed by the war, while we still had ours intact....
Click to expand...

that helped; however, capitalism merely requires a profit motive, not morals or ethics; thus, when it _really matters_, we resort to socialism, not capitalism.

and, it was the "outright communism of our wartime economy" that "cured" our Great Depression.



> From the beginning of preparedness in 1939 through the peak of war production in 1944, American leaders recognized that the stakes were too high to permit the war economy to grow in an unfettered, laissez-faire manner. American manufacturers, for instance, could not be trusted to stop producing consumer goods and to start producing materiel for the war effort. To organize the growing economy and to ensure that it produced the goods needed for war, the federal government spawned an array of mobilization agencies which not only often purchased goods (or arranged their purchase by the Army and Navy), but which in practice closely directed those goods’ manufacture and heavily influenced the operation of private companies and whole industries.--https://eh.net/encyclopedia/the-american-economy-during-world-war-ii/


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> task0778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Daniel, one more time:  are you actually advocating for permanent lifetime UE benefits if a person never gets a job?
> 
> You implied it, but have dodged the question thus far.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  That is a requirement unless you can solve for capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment.  Capital must circulate even if socialism has to bailout capitalism, to do it.
> 
> However, how many Persons who are not Religious, would be prefer to stay poor on an at-will basis.
> 
> Any form of fraud, denies and disparages Your contention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Yes. That is a requirement unless you can solve for capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment.*
> 
> Another example of why we can't listen to the left on economics.
Click to expand...

nothing but repeal instead of better solutions at lower cost.  how typical of the right wing.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing but fallacy instead of solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing but gibberish from you.
> The natural rate of unemployment is not a problem. It is simply a fact.
> The natural rate of unemployment will not be fixed by handouts to unemployables.
> Your "idea" would not help the economy or GDP, in fact it would reduce GDP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1929 is a proven fact; socialism has been bailing capitalism ever since, is also, a proven fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FDR's socialist ideas certainly deserve some of the credit for lengthening the Depression.
> Bailing out capitalism? LOL! Hardly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some of those polices are still with us today, bailing capitalism everyday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. It's difficult to rollback socialism, no matter how damaging.
Click to expand...

lol.  our drug war is pure socialism.  only the right wing, never gets it.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> All talk just to be clueless and Causeless?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, when it comes to economics, you're clueless.
> 
> *The Role of Unemployment as an Automatic Stabilizer During a Recession
> *
> And?  Besides having zero to do with your "idea"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about solving simple poverty to ensure full employment of capital resources and, a wealth of nations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Solving poverty" isn't the same thing as using capital efficiently.
> Handouts to unemployables will not improve efficiency or help GDP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In this case, it is.  It is correcting for Capitalism's natural rate of inefficiency, on an at-will basis.  It is as market friendly as it gets, under any form of capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> In this case, it is. It is correcting for Capitalism's natural rate of inefficiency*
> 
> The fact that you think the natural rate is inefficiency and that any inefficiency can be reduced by government is amusing.
> 
> And no, handouts to unemployables are not market friendly.
Click to expand...

yet, unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis, will engender a positive multiplier effect to enable us to achieve gains from capital productivity.

only the right wing, prefers their social policies on a national basis.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> any lack in demand means less need for supply.
> 
> only the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paying people to not supply work......is inefficient use of capital.
> 
> Only the lazy never get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capital doesn't care; only the right wing, never gets it.  Capital must circulate under any form of Capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree, capital doesn't care about your silly "ideas".
> And it certainly doesn't need to be circulated thru your hands for efficiency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sure it does; for the market based metrics.  only socialism eschews market based metrics, for national policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the government does not need to hand you money for the economy to be efficient.
> 
> Explain these "market based metrics" that demand you receive handouts.
Click to expand...

it is called, equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept of employment at will.  labor has the legal right to quit on an at-will basis and still receive unemployment benefits.  only the right wing prefers their socialism on a national basis.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, when it comes to economics, you're clueless.
> 
> *The Role of Unemployment as an Automatic Stabilizer During a Recession
> *
> And?  Besides having zero to do with your "idea"?
> 
> 
> 
> it is about solving simple poverty to ensure full employment of capital resources and, a wealth of nations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Solving poverty" isn't the same thing as using capital efficiently.
> Handouts to unemployables will not improve efficiency or help GDP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In this case, it is.  It is correcting for Capitalism's natural rate of inefficiency, on an at-will basis.  It is as market friendly as it gets, under any form of capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> In this case, it is. It is correcting for Capitalism's natural rate of inefficiency*
> 
> The fact that you think the natural rate is inefficiency and that any inefficiency can be reduced by government is amusing.
> 
> And no, handouts to unemployables are not market friendly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yet, unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis, will engender a positive multiplier effect to enable us to achieve gains from capital productivity.
> 
> only the right wing, prefers their social policies on a national basis.
Click to expand...


*will engender a positive multiplier effect to enable us to achieve gains from capital productivity.*

Wrong. Open ended unemployment compensation not tied to work will reduce employment and GDP.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Paying people to not supply work......is inefficient use of capital.
> 
> Only the lazy never get it.
> 
> 
> 
> Capital doesn't care; only the right wing, never gets it.  Capital must circulate under any form of Capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree, capital doesn't care about your silly "ideas".
> And it certainly doesn't need to be circulated thru your hands for efficiency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sure it does; for the market based metrics.  only socialism eschews market based metrics, for national policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the government does not need to hand you money for the economy to be efficient.
> 
> Explain these "market based metrics" that demand you receive handouts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is called, equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept of employment at will.  labor has the legal right to quit on an at-will basis and still receive unemployment benefits.  only the right wing prefers their socialism on a national basis.
Click to expand...


*it is called, equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept of employment at will.*

You have equal protection. What you don't have, and never will, is unlimited hand outs for not working.

*labor has the legal right to quit on an at-will basis *

Yes.

*and still receive unemployment benefits.*

Wrong. Hilariously wrong.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is about solving simple poverty to ensure full employment of capital resources and, a wealth of nations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Solving poverty" isn't the same thing as using capital efficiently.
> Handouts to unemployables will not improve efficiency or help GDP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In this case, it is.  It is correcting for Capitalism's natural rate of inefficiency, on an at-will basis.  It is as market friendly as it gets, under any form of capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> In this case, it is. It is correcting for Capitalism's natural rate of inefficiency*
> 
> The fact that you think the natural rate is inefficiency and that any inefficiency can be reduced by government is amusing.
> 
> And no, handouts to unemployables are not market friendly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yet, unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis, will engender a positive multiplier effect to enable us to achieve gains from capital productivity.
> 
> only the right wing, prefers their social policies on a national basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *will engender a positive multiplier effect to enable us to achieve gains from capital productivity.*
> 
> Wrong. Open ended unemployment compensation not tied to work will reduce employment and GDP.
Click to expand...

Yes, it will.  It will also mean, better credit ratings.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capital doesn't care; only the right wing, never gets it.  Capital must circulate under any form of Capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, capital doesn't care about your silly "ideas".
> And it certainly doesn't need to be circulated thru your hands for efficiency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sure it does; for the market based metrics.  only socialism eschews market based metrics, for national policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the government does not need to hand you money for the economy to be efficient.
> 
> Explain these "market based metrics" that demand you receive handouts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is called, equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept of employment at will.  labor has the legal right to quit on an at-will basis and still receive unemployment benefits.  only the right wing prefers their socialism on a national basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *it is called, equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept of employment at will.*
> 
> You have equal protection. What you don't have, and never will, is unlimited hand outs for not working.
> 
> *labor has the legal right to quit on an at-will basis *
> 
> Yes.
> 
> *and still receive unemployment benefits.*
> 
> Wrong. Hilariously wrong.
Click to expand...

why be legal to the law?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Solving poverty" isn't the same thing as using capital efficiently.
> Handouts to unemployables will not improve efficiency or help GDP.
> 
> 
> 
> In this case, it is.  It is correcting for Capitalism's natural rate of inefficiency, on an at-will basis.  It is as market friendly as it gets, under any form of capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> In this case, it is. It is correcting for Capitalism's natural rate of inefficiency*
> 
> The fact that you think the natural rate is inefficiency and that any inefficiency can be reduced by government is amusing.
> 
> And no, handouts to unemployables are not market friendly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yet, unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis, will engender a positive multiplier effect to enable us to achieve gains from capital productivity.
> 
> only the right wing, prefers their social policies on a national basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *will engender a positive multiplier effect to enable us to achieve gains from capital productivity.*
> 
> Wrong. Open ended unemployment compensation not tied to work will reduce employment and GDP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it will.  It will also mean, better credit ratings.
Click to expand...


Of course giving you free money will improve your credit rating.
But it would be bad for the country. Bad for GDP.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, capital doesn't care about your silly "ideas".
> And it certainly doesn't need to be circulated thru your hands for efficiency.
> 
> 
> 
> sure it does; for the market based metrics.  only socialism eschews market based metrics, for national policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the government does not need to hand you money for the economy to be efficient.
> 
> Explain these "market based metrics" that demand you receive handouts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is called, equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept of employment at will.  labor has the legal right to quit on an at-will basis and still receive unemployment benefits.  only the right wing prefers their socialism on a national basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *it is called, equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept of employment at will.*
> 
> You have equal protection. What you don't have, and never will, is unlimited hand outs for not working.
> 
> *labor has the legal right to quit on an at-will basis *
> 
> Yes.
> 
> *and still receive unemployment benefits.*
> 
> Wrong. Hilariously wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why be legal to the law?
Click to expand...


Why be gibberish?


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> In this case, it is.  It is correcting for Capitalism's natural rate of inefficiency, on an at-will basis.  It is as market friendly as it gets, under any form of capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> *
> In this case, it is. It is correcting for Capitalism's natural rate of inefficiency*
> 
> The fact that you think the natural rate is inefficiency and that any inefficiency can be reduced by government is amusing.
> 
> And no, handouts to unemployables are not market friendly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yet, unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis, will engender a positive multiplier effect to enable us to achieve gains from capital productivity.
> 
> only the right wing, prefers their social policies on a national basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *will engender a positive multiplier effect to enable us to achieve gains from capital productivity.*
> 
> Wrong. Open ended unemployment compensation not tied to work will reduce employment and GDP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it will.  It will also mean, better credit ratings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course giving you free money will improve your credit rating.
> But it would be bad for the country. Bad for GDP.
Click to expand...

the right wing never gets it, if it is not a waste of money.  

UE compensation is simply, more cost effective than means tested welfare.  We could be lowering our tax burden and improving the efficiency of our economy.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> sure it does; for the market based metrics.  only socialism eschews market based metrics, for national policies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the government does not need to hand you money for the economy to be efficient.
> 
> Explain these "market based metrics" that demand you receive handouts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is called, equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept of employment at will.  labor has the legal right to quit on an at-will basis and still receive unemployment benefits.  only the right wing prefers their socialism on a national basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *it is called, equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept of employment at will.*
> 
> You have equal protection. What you don't have, and never will, is unlimited hand outs for not working.
> 
> *labor has the legal right to quit on an at-will basis *
> 
> Yes.
> 
> *and still receive unemployment benefits.*
> 
> Wrong. Hilariously wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why be legal to the law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why be gibberish?
Click to expand...

don't complain; be legal to federal law?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *In this case, it is. It is correcting for Capitalism's natural rate of inefficiency*
> 
> The fact that you think the natural rate is inefficiency and that any inefficiency can be reduced by government is amusing.
> 
> And no, handouts to unemployables are not market friendly.
> 
> 
> 
> yet, unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis, will engender a positive multiplier effect to enable us to achieve gains from capital productivity.
> 
> only the right wing, prefers their social policies on a national basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *will engender a positive multiplier effect to enable us to achieve gains from capital productivity.*
> 
> Wrong. Open ended unemployment compensation not tied to work will reduce employment and GDP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it will.  It will also mean, better credit ratings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course giving you free money will improve your credit rating.
> But it would be bad for the country. Bad for GDP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the right wing never gets it, if it is not a waste of money.
> 
> UE compensation is simply, more cost effective than means tested welfare.  We could be lowering our tax burden and improving the efficiency of our economy.
Click to expand...


*UE compensation is simply, more cost effective than means tested welfare.*

Because it's time limited, limited number of recipients and paid for by employers.
Turning it into endless welfare would boost unemployment, balloon government spending and shrink GDP.

I know, that sounds like the perfect liberal program.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the government does not need to hand you money for the economy to be efficient.
> 
> Explain these "market based metrics" that demand you receive handouts.
> 
> 
> 
> it is called, equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept of employment at will.  labor has the legal right to quit on an at-will basis and still receive unemployment benefits.  only the right wing prefers their socialism on a national basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *it is called, equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept of employment at will.*
> 
> You have equal protection. What you don't have, and never will, is unlimited hand outs for not working.
> 
> *labor has the legal right to quit on an at-will basis *
> 
> Yes.
> 
> *and still receive unemployment benefits.*
> 
> Wrong. Hilariously wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why be legal to the law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why be gibberish?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> don't complain; be legal to federal law?
Click to expand...


Federal law = no handouts to unemployables. Why be illegal?


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> yet, unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis, will engender a positive multiplier effect to enable us to achieve gains from capital productivity.
> 
> only the right wing, prefers their social policies on a national basis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *will engender a positive multiplier effect to enable us to achieve gains from capital productivity.*
> 
> Wrong. Open ended unemployment compensation not tied to work will reduce employment and GDP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it will.  It will also mean, better credit ratings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course giving you free money will improve your credit rating.
> But it would be bad for the country. Bad for GDP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the right wing never gets it, if it is not a waste of money.
> 
> UE compensation is simply, more cost effective than means tested welfare.  We could be lowering our tax burden and improving the efficiency of our economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *UE compensation is simply, more cost effective than means tested welfare.*
> 
> Because it's time limited, limited number of recipients and paid for by employers.
> Turning it into endless welfare would boost unemployment, balloon government spending and shrink GDP.
> 
> I know, that sounds like the perfect liberal program.
Click to expand...

employment at will is not, time limited.  only for-cause unemployment compensation should be limited by the for-cause employment criteria.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is called, equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept of employment at will.  labor has the legal right to quit on an at-will basis and still receive unemployment benefits.  only the right wing prefers their socialism on a national basis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *it is called, equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept of employment at will.*
> 
> You have equal protection. What you don't have, and never will, is unlimited hand outs for not working.
> 
> *labor has the legal right to quit on an at-will basis *
> 
> Yes.
> 
> *and still receive unemployment benefits.*
> 
> Wrong. Hilariously wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why be legal to the law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why be gibberish?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> don't complain; be legal to federal law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Federal law = no handouts to unemployables. Why be illegal?
Click to expand...

Federal law = Overturning DC v Heller on federal law, supremacy grounds.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *will engender a positive multiplier effect to enable us to achieve gains from capital productivity.*
> 
> Wrong. Open ended unemployment compensation not tied to work will reduce employment and GDP.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it will.  It will also mean, better credit ratings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course giving you free money will improve your credit rating.
> But it would be bad for the country. Bad for GDP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the right wing never gets it, if it is not a waste of money.
> 
> UE compensation is simply, more cost effective than means tested welfare.  We could be lowering our tax burden and improving the efficiency of our economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *UE compensation is simply, more cost effective than means tested welfare.*
> 
> Because it's time limited, limited number of recipients and paid for by employers.
> Turning it into endless welfare would boost unemployment, balloon government spending and shrink GDP.
> 
> I know, that sounds like the perfect liberal program.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> employment at will is not, time limited.  only for-cause unemployment compensation should be limited by the for-cause employment criteria.
Click to expand...

*
employment at will is not, time limited.*

UE is.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *it is called, equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept of employment at will.*
> 
> You have equal protection. What you don't have, and never will, is unlimited hand outs for not working.
> 
> *labor has the legal right to quit on an at-will basis *
> 
> Yes.
> 
> *and still receive unemployment benefits.*
> 
> Wrong. Hilariously wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> why be legal to the law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why be gibberish?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> don't complain; be legal to federal law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Federal law = no handouts to unemployables. Why be illegal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Federal law = Overturning DC v Heller on federal law, supremacy grounds.
Click to expand...


Federal law = get a job.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it will.  It will also mean, better credit ratings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course giving you free money will improve your credit rating.
> But it would be bad for the country. Bad for GDP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the right wing never gets it, if it is not a waste of money.
> 
> UE compensation is simply, more cost effective than means tested welfare.  We could be lowering our tax burden and improving the efficiency of our economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *UE compensation is simply, more cost effective than means tested welfare.*
> 
> Because it's time limited, limited number of recipients and paid for by employers.
> Turning it into endless welfare would boost unemployment, balloon government spending and shrink GDP.
> 
> I know, that sounds like the perfect liberal program.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> employment at will is not, time limited.  only for-cause unemployment compensation should be limited by the for-cause employment criteria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> employment at will is not, time limited.*
> 
> UE is.
Click to expand...

On what grounds, in an at-will employment State?


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> why be legal to the law?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why be gibberish?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> don't complain; be legal to federal law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Federal law = no handouts to unemployables. Why be illegal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Federal law = Overturning DC v Heller on federal law, supremacy grounds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Federal law = get a job.
Click to expand...

nobody should take the national socialist right wing seriously about economics or the law.

Federal law = Individual Liberty and employment at the will of either party in our at-will employment States.


----------



## task0778

there is nothing 'socialist' about conservatives.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course giving you free money will improve your credit rating.
> But it would be bad for the country. Bad for GDP.
> 
> 
> 
> the right wing never gets it, if it is not a waste of money.
> 
> UE compensation is simply, more cost effective than means tested welfare.  We could be lowering our tax burden and improving the efficiency of our economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *UE compensation is simply, more cost effective than means tested welfare.*
> 
> Because it's time limited, limited number of recipients and paid for by employers.
> Turning it into endless welfare would boost unemployment, balloon government spending and shrink GDP.
> 
> I know, that sounds like the perfect liberal program.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> employment at will is not, time limited.  only for-cause unemployment compensation should be limited by the for-cause employment criteria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> employment at will is not, time limited.*
> 
> UE is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On what grounds, in an at-will employment State?
Click to expand...


By the rules of the states.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why be gibberish?
> 
> 
> 
> don't complain; be legal to federal law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Federal law = no handouts to unemployables. Why be illegal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Federal law = Overturning DC v Heller on federal law, supremacy grounds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Federal law = get a job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nobody should take the national socialist right wing seriously about economics or the law.
> 
> Federal law = Individual Liberty and employment at the will of either party in our at-will employment States.
Click to expand...


*nobody should take the national socialist right wing seriously about economics or the law.*

Coming from a clown who thinks handouts are needed for efficiency.....hilarious!!!

*and employment at the will of either party in our at-will employment States.*

Yup. Quit if you want. No cash for you.


----------



## Rustic

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *it is called, equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept of employment at will.*
> 
> You have equal protection. What you don't have, and never will, is unlimited hand outs for not working.
> 
> *labor has the legal right to quit on an at-will basis *
> 
> Yes.
> 
> *and still receive unemployment benefits.*
> 
> Wrong. Hilariously wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> why be legal to the law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why be gibberish?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> don't complain; be legal to federal law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Federal law = no handouts to unemployables. Why be illegal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Federal law = Overturning DC v Heller on federal law, supremacy grounds.
Click to expand...

Does your pussy hurt?


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the right wing never gets it, if it is not a waste of money.
> 
> UE compensation is simply, more cost effective than means tested welfare.  We could be lowering our tax burden and improving the efficiency of our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *UE compensation is simply, more cost effective than means tested welfare.*
> 
> Because it's time limited, limited number of recipients and paid for by employers.
> Turning it into endless welfare would boost unemployment, balloon government spending and shrink GDP.
> 
> I know, that sounds like the perfect liberal program.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> employment at will is not, time limited.  only for-cause unemployment compensation should be limited by the for-cause employment criteria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> employment at will is not, time limited.*
> 
> UE is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On what grounds, in an at-will employment State?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By the rules of the states.
Click to expand...

States have laws regarding employment relationships.  Employment at will is State law in most US States.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *UE compensation is simply, more cost effective than means tested welfare.*
> 
> Because it's time limited, limited number of recipients and paid for by employers.
> Turning it into endless welfare would boost unemployment, balloon government spending and shrink GDP.
> 
> I know, that sounds like the perfect liberal program.
> 
> 
> 
> employment at will is not, time limited.  only for-cause unemployment compensation should be limited by the for-cause employment criteria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> employment at will is not, time limited.*
> 
> UE is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On what grounds, in an at-will employment State?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By the rules of the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> States have laws regarding employment relationships.  Employment at will is State law in most US States.
Click to expand...


And unemployment compensation for quitters or never workers is law in none of them.


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> so according to you the intent of the framers was to restrict the bearing of arms solely to service in the militia
> 
> therefore while you have the right to self preservation you do not have the right to carry a firearm to be used to defend yourself
> 
> you really think that was the intent?
> 
> The rights protected in the Bill of Rights are not collective rights
> 
> By using the term an unorganized militia you negate the entire collective argument that bear arms means solely militia service in the sense that I can call my self a member of an unorganized militia and therefore bear arms everywhere I go
> 
> therefore my individual right to keep and bear arms (concealed or open carry) is intact and cannot be infringed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that is not what I said.
> 
> What I said what that the "right to bear arms" is "militia duty".
> 
> Carrying arms around in the US is legal in some places and not legal in other places. This has NOTHING to do with the 2A.
> 
> Why are you going on about collective and individual rights again for?
> 
> I'm using the term "unorganized militia" because, er... because the US CONGRESS WROTE A LAW THAT USES THIS. It's not hard to understand, is it?
> 
> Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia
> 
> Here's the law on Wikipedia.
> 
> "The *Militia Act of 1903* (32 Stat. 775), also known as "The Efficiency in Militia Act of 1903", also known as the *Dick Act,"
> 
> "Dick championed the Militia Act of 1903, which became known as the Dick Act. This law repealed the Militia Acts of 1792 and designated the militia [per Title 10, Section 311] as two groups: the Unorganized Militia, which included all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45, and the Organized Militia, which included state militia (National Guard) units receiving federal support."
> *
> Two groups, one was the "Unorganized Militia", all males aged 17-45 and the National Guard.
> 
> I did not make up the "unorganized militia", the US govt did.
> 
> I never, EVER used the collective argument, and I have no fucking idea why the hell you're even talking about it. In fact, when people start acting like they're talking to someone else, and not responding to what I have said, it annoys me.
> 
> Yes, your individual right to keep arms (own weapons) and bear arms (be in the militia) cannot be infringed before due process.
> 
> Well, unless of course you think criminals and the insane should be able to own weapons and be in the militia. Do you want the insane to not have their right to be in the militia infringed upon?
> 
> The problem here is, I know what you'll do. You're making a connection with the second amendment carrying guns around, which the Supreme Court has said in Presser, and backed up in Heller, is NOT protected by the 2A. But the Supreme Court says you're wrong, the Founding Father say you're wrong, and I'm telling you that you are wrong.
> 
> You have two rights that are protected by the 2A. There might be other rights out there. There are other freedoms, but the 2A does not deal with these. You can go take a crap right now. The 2A doesn't protect this. Nor does it protect carrying arms around with you, but you can still do it. You don't need the 2A to protect something for you in order to be able to do it, you do so many things every day that are not protected by the 2A. And one of those might be carrying arms around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes 2 rights
> 
> to right to keep arms and the right to bear arms.  But since even in the 18th century bear meant to carry then I can carry a firearm regardless of service to a militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "bear" means carry, but "bear arms" doesn't. Also the Supreme Court hasn't interpreted it the way you want, they've kept it at what it is, hence why they said Presser is still relevant.
> 
> But again, you've rejected ALL FACTS and decided what you "believe". What's the point of coming on here if you're just going to make stuff up and decide this is the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> bear arms does not mean solely serve in the militia or military either.
> 
> The Second was always meant as an individual right in fact an amendment that specified "for the common defense" was rejected so much for your notion that bear arms meant military service exclusoively
> 
> The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution Guarantees an Individual Right To Keep and Bear Arms
> 
> Sir William Blackstone, an authoritative source of the common law for colonists and, therefore, a dominant influence on the drafters of the original Constitution and its Bill of Rights, set forth in his Commentaries the absolute rights of individuals as: personal security, personal liberty, and possession of private property, I _Blackstone Commentaries_ 129, these absolute rights being protected by the individual's right to have and use arms for self-preservation and defense. As Blackstone observed, individual citizens were therefore entitled to exercise their "natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions (not our Second Amendment) and available via Due Process.
Click to expand...


wrong
The Bill of rights is part of the US Constitution and is the basis of our protection from government violating our rights


----------



## Skull Pilot

frigidweirdo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> so according to you the intent of the framers was to restrict the bearing of arms solely to service in the militia
> 
> therefore while you have the right to self preservation you do not have the right to carry a firearm to be used to defend yourself
> 
> you really think that was the intent?
> 
> The rights protected in the Bill of Rights are not collective rights
> 
> By using the term an unorganized militia you negate the entire collective argument that bear arms means solely militia service in the sense that I can call my self a member of an unorganized militia and therefore bear arms everywhere I go
> 
> therefore my individual right to keep and bear arms (concealed or open carry) is intact and cannot be infringed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that is not what I said.
> 
> What I said what that the "right to bear arms" is "militia duty".
> 
> Carrying arms around in the US is legal in some places and not legal in other places. This has NOTHING to do with the 2A.
> 
> Why are you going on about collective and individual rights again for?
> 
> I'm using the term "unorganized militia" because, er... because the US CONGRESS WROTE A LAW THAT USES THIS. It's not hard to understand, is it?
> 
> Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia
> 
> Here's the law on Wikipedia.
> 
> "The *Militia Act of 1903* (32 Stat. 775), also known as "The Efficiency in Militia Act of 1903", also known as the *Dick Act,"
> 
> "Dick championed the Militia Act of 1903, which became known as the Dick Act. This law repealed the Militia Acts of 1792 and designated the militia [per Title 10, Section 311] as two groups: the Unorganized Militia, which included all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45, and the Organized Militia, which included state militia (National Guard) units receiving federal support."
> *
> Two groups, one was the "Unorganized Militia", all males aged 17-45 and the National Guard.
> 
> I did not make up the "unorganized militia", the US govt did.
> 
> I never, EVER used the collective argument, and I have no fucking idea why the hell you're even talking about it. In fact, when people start acting like they're talking to someone else, and not responding to what I have said, it annoys me.
> 
> Yes, your individual right to keep arms (own weapons) and bear arms (be in the militia) cannot be infringed before due process.
> 
> Well, unless of course you think criminals and the insane should be able to own weapons and be in the militia. Do you want the insane to not have their right to be in the militia infringed upon?
> 
> The problem here is, I know what you'll do. You're making a connection with the second amendment carrying guns around, which the Supreme Court has said in Presser, and backed up in Heller, is NOT protected by the 2A. But the Supreme Court says you're wrong, the Founding Father say you're wrong, and I'm telling you that you are wrong.
> 
> You have two rights that are protected by the 2A. There might be other rights out there. There are other freedoms, but the 2A does not deal with these. You can go take a crap right now. The 2A doesn't protect this. Nor does it protect carrying arms around with you, but you can still do it. You don't need the 2A to protect something for you in order to be able to do it, you do so many things every day that are not protected by the 2A. And one of those might be carrying arms around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes 2 rights
> 
> to right to keep arms and the right to bear arms.  But since even in the 18th century bear meant to carry then I can carry a firearm regardless of service to a militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "bear" means carry, but "bear arms" doesn't. Also the Supreme Court hasn't interpreted it the way you want, they've kept it at what it is, hence why they said Presser is still relevant.
> 
> But again, you've rejected ALL FACTS and decided what you "believe". What's the point of coming on here if you're just going to make stuff up and decide this is the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> bear arms does not mean solely serve in the militia or military either.
> 
> The Second was always meant as an individual right in fact an amendment that specified "for the common defense" was rejected so much for your notion that bear arms meant military service exclusoively
> 
> The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution Guarantees an Individual Right To Keep and Bear Arms
> 
> Sir William Blackstone, an authoritative source of the common law for colonists and, therefore, a dominant influence on the drafters of the original Constitution and its Bill of Rights, set forth in his Commentaries the absolute rights of individuals as: personal security, personal liberty, and possession of private property, I _Blackstone Commentaries_ 129, these absolute rights being protected by the individual's right to have and use arms for self-preservation and defense. As Blackstone observed, individual citizens were therefore entitled to exercise their "natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't.
> 
> However "stool" doesn't mean just a wooden three legged object for sitting on.
> 
> Take two examples:
> 
> "The doctor look at his stool to see if he had any problems" and "he sat on the three legged wooden stool".
> 
> You know the first isn't the doctor taking a look at his three legged wooden seat, and you know the second isn't him sitting on a three legged shit. It's about CONTEXT.
> 
> Now, tell me the context of "bear arms" in the Second Amendment.
> 
> Is it A) the founding fathers said "bear arms" was synonymous with "render military service" and "militia duty". Also the Supreme Court has rejected "bear arms" meaning carrying guns around as being protected by the 2A in Presser. Also in a Amendment which begins with "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of the free state". Also the Dick Act created an "unorganized militia" which fits perfectly in with this whole view.
> 
> or B) The founding fathers said "bear arms" means "carry guns around with you". Also the Supreme Court has rejected that "Bear arms" meaning "militia duty". Also in an Amendment which begins with "Individuals carrying guns around with them in daily life is necessary for the security of the free state". Also the Dick Act created a dancing troop of gay NRA members wearing pink tutus and singing YMCA to make everyone happy?
> 
> Which is is? Tell me.
> 
> Context is the key to the English language, many words have different meanings and you can tell the meaning by the context.
> 
> You keep going off about the 2A being individual. Have I ever contested this? No. So why do you keep bring it up?
> 
> Actually I know the answer, it's because it's something you think you can fight me on and win. The problem you have is, again, I NEVER SAID IT WAS COLLECTIVE. It's individual. I got it. I knew this decades ago. So what? Stop bring it up. It's not an issue here.
Click to expand...


you said the right to bear arms only applies to service in a militia not an individual right to carry a firearm for self defense


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *UE compensation is simply, more cost effective than means tested welfare.*
> 
> Because it's time limited, limited number of recipients and paid for by employers.
> Turning it into endless welfare would boost unemployment, balloon government spending and shrink GDP.
> 
> I know, that sounds like the perfect liberal program.
> 
> 
> 
> employment at will is not, time limited.  only for-cause unemployment compensation should be limited by the for-cause employment criteria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> employment at will is not, time limited.*
> 
> UE is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On what grounds, in an at-will employment State?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By the rules of the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> States have laws regarding employment relationships.  Employment at will is State law in most US States.
Click to expand...

Employment At Will: What Does It Mean?

You don't seem to understand what at will employment means

 An at-will employee can be fired at any time, for any reason (except for a few illegal reasons, spelled out below). If the employer decides to let you go, that's the end of your job--and you have very limited legal rights to fight your termination.

So you see you have to have a job to be considered at at will employee

it doesn't mean you can choose not to work and still get paid


----------



## frigidweirdo

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that is not what I said.
> 
> What I said what that the "right to bear arms" is "militia duty".
> 
> Carrying arms around in the US is legal in some places and not legal in other places. This has NOTHING to do with the 2A.
> 
> Why are you going on about collective and individual rights again for?
> 
> I'm using the term "unorganized militia" because, er... because the US CONGRESS WROTE A LAW THAT USES THIS. It's not hard to understand, is it?
> 
> Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia
> 
> Here's the law on Wikipedia.
> 
> "The *Militia Act of 1903* (32 Stat. 775), also known as "The Efficiency in Militia Act of 1903", also known as the *Dick Act,"
> 
> "Dick championed the Militia Act of 1903, which became known as the Dick Act. This law repealed the Militia Acts of 1792 and designated the militia [per Title 10, Section 311] as two groups: the Unorganized Militia, which included all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45, and the Organized Militia, which included state militia (National Guard) units receiving federal support."
> *
> Two groups, one was the "Unorganized Militia", all males aged 17-45 and the National Guard.
> 
> I did not make up the "unorganized militia", the US govt did.
> 
> I never, EVER used the collective argument, and I have no fucking idea why the hell you're even talking about it. In fact, when people start acting like they're talking to someone else, and not responding to what I have said, it annoys me.
> 
> Yes, your individual right to keep arms (own weapons) and bear arms (be in the militia) cannot be infringed before due process.
> 
> Well, unless of course you think criminals and the insane should be able to own weapons and be in the militia. Do you want the insane to not have their right to be in the militia infringed upon?
> 
> The problem here is, I know what you'll do. You're making a connection with the second amendment carrying guns around, which the Supreme Court has said in Presser, and backed up in Heller, is NOT protected by the 2A. But the Supreme Court says you're wrong, the Founding Father say you're wrong, and I'm telling you that you are wrong.
> 
> You have two rights that are protected by the 2A. There might be other rights out there. There are other freedoms, but the 2A does not deal with these. You can go take a crap right now. The 2A doesn't protect this. Nor does it protect carrying arms around with you, but you can still do it. You don't need the 2A to protect something for you in order to be able to do it, you do so many things every day that are not protected by the 2A. And one of those might be carrying arms around.
> 
> 
> 
> yes 2 rights
> 
> to right to keep arms and the right to bear arms.  But since even in the 18th century bear meant to carry then I can carry a firearm regardless of service to a militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "bear" means carry, but "bear arms" doesn't. Also the Supreme Court hasn't interpreted it the way you want, they've kept it at what it is, hence why they said Presser is still relevant.
> 
> But again, you've rejected ALL FACTS and decided what you "believe". What's the point of coming on here if you're just going to make stuff up and decide this is the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> bear arms does not mean solely serve in the militia or military either.
> 
> The Second was always meant as an individual right in fact an amendment that specified "for the common defense" was rejected so much for your notion that bear arms meant military service exclusoively
> 
> The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution Guarantees an Individual Right To Keep and Bear Arms
> 
> Sir William Blackstone, an authoritative source of the common law for colonists and, therefore, a dominant influence on the drafters of the original Constitution and its Bill of Rights, set forth in his Commentaries the absolute rights of individuals as: personal security, personal liberty, and possession of private property, I _Blackstone Commentaries_ 129, these absolute rights being protected by the individual's right to have and use arms for self-preservation and defense. As Blackstone observed, individual citizens were therefore entitled to exercise their "natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't.
> 
> However "stool" doesn't mean just a wooden three legged object for sitting on.
> 
> Take two examples:
> 
> "The doctor look at his stool to see if he had any problems" and "he sat on the three legged wooden stool".
> 
> You know the first isn't the doctor taking a look at his three legged wooden seat, and you know the second isn't him sitting on a three legged shit. It's about CONTEXT.
> 
> Now, tell me the context of "bear arms" in the Second Amendment.
> 
> Is it A) the founding fathers said "bear arms" was synonymous with "render military service" and "militia duty". Also the Supreme Court has rejected "bear arms" meaning carrying guns around as being protected by the 2A in Presser. Also in a Amendment which begins with "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of the free state". Also the Dick Act created an "unorganized militia" which fits perfectly in with this whole view.
> 
> or B) The founding fathers said "bear arms" means "carry guns around with you". Also the Supreme Court has rejected that "Bear arms" meaning "militia duty". Also in an Amendment which begins with "Individuals carrying guns around with them in daily life is necessary for the security of the free state". Also the Dick Act created a dancing troop of gay NRA members wearing pink tutus and singing YMCA to make everyone happy?
> 
> Which is is? Tell me.
> 
> Context is the key to the English language, many words have different meanings and you can tell the meaning by the context.
> 
> You keep going off about the 2A being individual. Have I ever contested this? No. So why do you keep bring it up?
> 
> Actually I know the answer, it's because it's something you think you can fight me on and win. The problem you have is, again, I NEVER SAID IT WAS COLLECTIVE. It's individual. I got it. I knew this decades ago. So what? Stop bring it up. It's not an issue here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you said the right to bear arms only applies to service in a militia not an individual right to carry a firearm for self defense
Click to expand...


I'm not sure where the problem here is. 

Does the 2A say "self defense" at all? No, it does not. 

Why do you think a Amendment that talks ONLY about the MILITIA suddenly protects a right to self defense? 

The problem you have is you see the word "arms" and you assume that it protects EVERYTHING you can do with arms. It doesn't. 

An individual has the right to be in the militia. The US federal govt CANNOT prevent AN INDIVIDUAL being in the militia. Do you understand this? This has NOTHING to do with any collective. 

To get around this protection, they literally made an "unorganized militia" and stuck all males 17-45 in it. If a female DEMANDED to be in the militia, she'd be told to go to the "unorganized militia".


Think about it from this perspective. 

The amendment say "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state", so, they're talking about the militia, what's the best way of protecting the militia from govt abuse? Well, protect individuals being able to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply, and protect individuals being in the militia so they can use those arms in the militia. 

What does carrying arms around have to do with the militia? It has nothing to do with it at all. So, why would they write an amendment about protecting the militia, and then protect the right to wear pink tutus? They didn't, nor did they protect the right to walk around with guns. 

There will be times where carrying guns IS PROTECTED. For example in the buying and selling of guns (but such guns don't need to be loaded, and could be in a box) or when militia duty is involved. 

But an individual having the right to be in the militia is NOT A COLLECTIVE RIGHT.


----------



## Skull Pilot

frigidweirdo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes 2 rights
> 
> to right to keep arms and the right to bear arms.  But since even in the 18th century bear meant to carry then I can carry a firearm regardless of service to a militia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "bear" means carry, but "bear arms" doesn't. Also the Supreme Court hasn't interpreted it the way you want, they've kept it at what it is, hence why they said Presser is still relevant.
> 
> But again, you've rejected ALL FACTS and decided what you "believe". What's the point of coming on here if you're just going to make stuff up and decide this is the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> bear arms does not mean solely serve in the militia or military either.
> 
> The Second was always meant as an individual right in fact an amendment that specified "for the common defense" was rejected so much for your notion that bear arms meant military service exclusoively
> 
> The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution Guarantees an Individual Right To Keep and Bear Arms
> 
> Sir William Blackstone, an authoritative source of the common law for colonists and, therefore, a dominant influence on the drafters of the original Constitution and its Bill of Rights, set forth in his Commentaries the absolute rights of individuals as: personal security, personal liberty, and possession of private property, I _Blackstone Commentaries_ 129, these absolute rights being protected by the individual's right to have and use arms for self-preservation and defense. As Blackstone observed, individual citizens were therefore entitled to exercise their "natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't.
> 
> However "stool" doesn't mean just a wooden three legged object for sitting on.
> 
> Take two examples:
> 
> "The doctor look at his stool to see if he had any problems" and "he sat on the three legged wooden stool".
> 
> You know the first isn't the doctor taking a look at his three legged wooden seat, and you know the second isn't him sitting on a three legged shit. It's about CONTEXT.
> 
> Now, tell me the context of "bear arms" in the Second Amendment.
> 
> Is it A) the founding fathers said "bear arms" was synonymous with "render military service" and "militia duty". Also the Supreme Court has rejected "bear arms" meaning carrying guns around as being protected by the 2A in Presser. Also in a Amendment which begins with "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of the free state". Also the Dick Act created an "unorganized militia" which fits perfectly in with this whole view.
> 
> or B) The founding fathers said "bear arms" means "carry guns around with you". Also the Supreme Court has rejected that "Bear arms" meaning "militia duty". Also in an Amendment which begins with "Individuals carrying guns around with them in daily life is necessary for the security of the free state". Also the Dick Act created a dancing troop of gay NRA members wearing pink tutus and singing YMCA to make everyone happy?
> 
> Which is is? Tell me.
> 
> Context is the key to the English language, many words have different meanings and you can tell the meaning by the context.
> 
> You keep going off about the 2A being individual. Have I ever contested this? No. So why do you keep bring it up?
> 
> Actually I know the answer, it's because it's something you think you can fight me on and win. The problem you have is, again, I NEVER SAID IT WAS COLLECTIVE. It's individual. I got it. I knew this decades ago. So what? Stop bring it up. It's not an issue here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you said the right to bear arms only applies to service in a militia not an individual right to carry a firearm for self defense
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure where the problem here is.
> 
> Does the 2A say "self defense" at all? No, it does not.
> 
> Why do you think a Amendment that talks ONLY about the MILITIA suddenly protects a right to self defense?
> 
> The problem you have is you see the word "arms" and you assume that it protects EVERYTHING you can do with arms. It doesn't.
> 
> An individual has the right to be in the militia. The US federal govt CANNOT prevent AN INDIVIDUAL being in the militia. Do you understand this? This has NOTHING to do with any collective.
> 
> To get around this protection, they literally made an "unorganized militia" and stuck all males 17-45 in it. If a female DEMANDED to be in the militia, she'd be told to go to the "unorganized militia".
> 
> 
> Think about it from this perspective.
> 
> The amendment say "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state", so, they're talking about the militia, what's the best way of protecting the militia from govt abuse? Well, protect individuals being able to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply, and protect individuals being in the militia so they can use those arms in the militia.
> 
> What does carrying arms around have to do with the militia? It has nothing to do with it at all. So, why would they write an amendment about protecting the militia, and then protect the right to wear pink tutus? They didn't, nor did they protect the right to walk around with guns.
> 
> There will be times where carrying guns IS PROTECTED. For example in the buying and selling of guns (but such guns don't need to be loaded, and could be in a box) or when militia duty is involved.
> 
> But an individual having the right to be in the militia is NOT A COLLECTIVE RIGHT.
Click to expand...


The subject of the Second is not the militia it the people.  A militia is mentioned yes but it is not the operative phrase.

Any deconstruction of the language shows that.

You are stuck on the term bear arms as meaning only military service.
It also means to simply be armed as well.

Heller upheld this interpretation


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> employment at will is not, time limited.  only for-cause unemployment compensation should be limited by the for-cause employment criteria.
> 
> 
> 
> *
> employment at will is not, time limited.*
> 
> UE is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On what grounds, in an at-will employment State?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By the rules of the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> States have laws regarding employment relationships.  Employment at will is State law in most US States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And unemployment compensation for quitters or never workers is law in none of them.
Click to expand...

at-will is at-will, baby.  only the right wing, never gets it.


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> "bear" means carry, but "bear arms" doesn't. Also the Supreme Court hasn't interpreted it the way you want, they've kept it at what it is, hence why they said Presser is still relevant.
> 
> But again, you've rejected ALL FACTS and decided what you "believe". What's the point of coming on here if you're just going to make stuff up and decide this is the truth?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear arms does not mean solely serve in the militia or military either.
> 
> The Second was always meant as an individual right in fact an amendment that specified "for the common defense" was rejected so much for your notion that bear arms meant military service exclusoively
> 
> The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution Guarantees an Individual Right To Keep and Bear Arms
> 
> Sir William Blackstone, an authoritative source of the common law for colonists and, therefore, a dominant influence on the drafters of the original Constitution and its Bill of Rights, set forth in his Commentaries the absolute rights of individuals as: personal security, personal liberty, and possession of private property, I _Blackstone Commentaries_ 129, these absolute rights being protected by the individual's right to have and use arms for self-preservation and defense. As Blackstone observed, individual citizens were therefore entitled to exercise their "natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't.
> 
> However "stool" doesn't mean just a wooden three legged object for sitting on.
> 
> Take two examples:
> 
> "The doctor look at his stool to see if he had any problems" and "he sat on the three legged wooden stool".
> 
> You know the first isn't the doctor taking a look at his three legged wooden seat, and you know the second isn't him sitting on a three legged shit. It's about CONTEXT.
> 
> Now, tell me the context of "bear arms" in the Second Amendment.
> 
> Is it A) the founding fathers said "bear arms" was synonymous with "render military service" and "militia duty". Also the Supreme Court has rejected "bear arms" meaning carrying guns around as being protected by the 2A in Presser. Also in a Amendment which begins with "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of the free state". Also the Dick Act created an "unorganized militia" which fits perfectly in with this whole view.
> 
> or B) The founding fathers said "bear arms" means "carry guns around with you". Also the Supreme Court has rejected that "Bear arms" meaning "militia duty". Also in an Amendment which begins with "Individuals carrying guns around with them in daily life is necessary for the security of the free state". Also the Dick Act created a dancing troop of gay NRA members wearing pink tutus and singing YMCA to make everyone happy?
> 
> Which is is? Tell me.
> 
> Context is the key to the English language, many words have different meanings and you can tell the meaning by the context.
> 
> You keep going off about the 2A being individual. Have I ever contested this? No. So why do you keep bring it up?
> 
> Actually I know the answer, it's because it's something you think you can fight me on and win. The problem you have is, again, I NEVER SAID IT WAS COLLECTIVE. It's individual. I got it. I knew this decades ago. So what? Stop bring it up. It's not an issue here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you said the right to bear arms only applies to service in a militia not an individual right to carry a firearm for self defense
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure where the problem here is.
> 
> Does the 2A say "self defense" at all? No, it does not.
> 
> Why do you think a Amendment that talks ONLY about the MILITIA suddenly protects a right to self defense?
> 
> The problem you have is you see the word "arms" and you assume that it protects EVERYTHING you can do with arms. It doesn't.
> 
> An individual has the right to be in the militia. The US federal govt CANNOT prevent AN INDIVIDUAL being in the militia. Do you understand this? This has NOTHING to do with any collective.
> 
> To get around this protection, they literally made an "unorganized militia" and stuck all males 17-45 in it. If a female DEMANDED to be in the militia, she'd be told to go to the "unorganized militia".
> 
> 
> Think about it from this perspective.
> 
> The amendment say "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state", so, they're talking about the militia, what's the best way of protecting the militia from govt abuse? Well, protect individuals being able to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply, and protect individuals being in the militia so they can use those arms in the militia.
> 
> What does carrying arms around have to do with the militia? It has nothing to do with it at all. So, why would they write an amendment about protecting the militia, and then protect the right to wear pink tutus? They didn't, nor did they protect the right to walk around with guns.
> 
> There will be times where carrying guns IS PROTECTED. For example in the buying and selling of guns (but such guns don't need to be loaded, and could be in a box) or when militia duty is involved.
> 
> But an individual having the right to be in the militia is NOT A COLLECTIVE RIGHT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The subject of the Second is not the militia it the people.  A militia is mentioned yes but it is not the operative phrase.
> 
> Any deconstruction of the language shows that.
> 
> You are stuck on the term bear arms as meaning only military service.
> It also means to simply be armed as well.
> 
> Heller upheld this interpretation
Click to expand...

lol.  the first clause has the Intent and Purpose for the second clause.  there are no natural rights recognized or secured in our Second Article of Amendment.


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> bear arms does not mean solely serve in the militia or military either.
> 
> The Second was always meant as an individual right in fact an amendment that specified "for the common defense" was rejected so much for your notion that bear arms meant military service exclusoively
> 
> The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution Guarantees an Individual Right To Keep and Bear Arms
> 
> Sir William Blackstone, an authoritative source of the common law for colonists and, therefore, a dominant influence on the drafters of the original Constitution and its Bill of Rights, set forth in his Commentaries the absolute rights of individuals as: personal security, personal liberty, and possession of private property, I _Blackstone Commentaries_ 129, these absolute rights being protected by the individual's right to have and use arms for self-preservation and defense. As Blackstone observed, individual citizens were therefore entitled to exercise their "natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't.
> 
> However "stool" doesn't mean just a wooden three legged object for sitting on.
> 
> Take two examples:
> 
> "The doctor look at his stool to see if he had any problems" and "he sat on the three legged wooden stool".
> 
> You know the first isn't the doctor taking a look at his three legged wooden seat, and you know the second isn't him sitting on a three legged shit. It's about CONTEXT.
> 
> Now, tell me the context of "bear arms" in the Second Amendment.
> 
> Is it A) the founding fathers said "bear arms" was synonymous with "render military service" and "militia duty". Also the Supreme Court has rejected "bear arms" meaning carrying guns around as being protected by the 2A in Presser. Also in a Amendment which begins with "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of the free state". Also the Dick Act created an "unorganized militia" which fits perfectly in with this whole view.
> 
> or B) The founding fathers said "bear arms" means "carry guns around with you". Also the Supreme Court has rejected that "Bear arms" meaning "militia duty". Also in an Amendment which begins with "Individuals carrying guns around with them in daily life is necessary for the security of the free state". Also the Dick Act created a dancing troop of gay NRA members wearing pink tutus and singing YMCA to make everyone happy?
> 
> Which is is? Tell me.
> 
> Context is the key to the English language, many words have different meanings and you can tell the meaning by the context.
> 
> You keep going off about the 2A being individual. Have I ever contested this? No. So why do you keep bring it up?
> 
> Actually I know the answer, it's because it's something you think you can fight me on and win. The problem you have is, again, I NEVER SAID IT WAS COLLECTIVE. It's individual. I got it. I knew this decades ago. So what? Stop bring it up. It's not an issue here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you said the right to bear arms only applies to service in a militia not an individual right to carry a firearm for self defense
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure where the problem here is.
> 
> Does the 2A say "self defense" at all? No, it does not.
> 
> Why do you think a Amendment that talks ONLY about the MILITIA suddenly protects a right to self defense?
> 
> The problem you have is you see the word "arms" and you assume that it protects EVERYTHING you can do with arms. It doesn't.
> 
> An individual has the right to be in the militia. The US federal govt CANNOT prevent AN INDIVIDUAL being in the militia. Do you understand this? This has NOTHING to do with any collective.
> 
> To get around this protection, they literally made an "unorganized militia" and stuck all males 17-45 in it. If a female DEMANDED to be in the militia, she'd be told to go to the "unorganized militia".
> 
> 
> Think about it from this perspective.
> 
> The amendment say "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state", so, they're talking about the militia, what's the best way of protecting the militia from govt abuse? Well, protect individuals being able to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply, and protect individuals being in the militia so they can use those arms in the militia.
> 
> What does carrying arms around have to do with the militia? It has nothing to do with it at all. So, why would they write an amendment about protecting the militia, and then protect the right to wear pink tutus? They didn't, nor did they protect the right to walk around with guns.
> 
> There will be times where carrying guns IS PROTECTED. For example in the buying and selling of guns (but such guns don't need to be loaded, and could be in a box) or when militia duty is involved.
> 
> But an individual having the right to be in the militia is NOT A COLLECTIVE RIGHT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The subject of the Second is not the militia it the people.  A militia is mentioned yes but it is not the operative phrase.
> 
> Any deconstruction of the language shows that.
> 
> You are stuck on the term bear arms as meaning only military service.
> It also means to simply be armed as well.
> 
> Heller upheld this interpretation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  the first clause has the Intent and Purpose for the second clause.  there are no natural rights recognized or secured in our Second Article of Amendment.
Click to expand...


the rights to keep and bear arms are specifically mentioned in the Second Amendment

And there is no second article of amendment


----------



## frigidweirdo

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> "bear" means carry, but "bear arms" doesn't. Also the Supreme Court hasn't interpreted it the way you want, they've kept it at what it is, hence why they said Presser is still relevant.
> 
> But again, you've rejected ALL FACTS and decided what you "believe". What's the point of coming on here if you're just going to make stuff up and decide this is the truth?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear arms does not mean solely serve in the militia or military either.
> 
> The Second was always meant as an individual right in fact an amendment that specified "for the common defense" was rejected so much for your notion that bear arms meant military service exclusoively
> 
> The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution Guarantees an Individual Right To Keep and Bear Arms
> 
> Sir William Blackstone, an authoritative source of the common law for colonists and, therefore, a dominant influence on the drafters of the original Constitution and its Bill of Rights, set forth in his Commentaries the absolute rights of individuals as: personal security, personal liberty, and possession of private property, I _Blackstone Commentaries_ 129, these absolute rights being protected by the individual's right to have and use arms for self-preservation and defense. As Blackstone observed, individual citizens were therefore entitled to exercise their "natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't.
> 
> However "stool" doesn't mean just a wooden three legged object for sitting on.
> 
> Take two examples:
> 
> "The doctor look at his stool to see if he had any problems" and "he sat on the three legged wooden stool".
> 
> You know the first isn't the doctor taking a look at his three legged wooden seat, and you know the second isn't him sitting on a three legged shit. It's about CONTEXT.
> 
> Now, tell me the context of "bear arms" in the Second Amendment.
> 
> Is it A) the founding fathers said "bear arms" was synonymous with "render military service" and "militia duty". Also the Supreme Court has rejected "bear arms" meaning carrying guns around as being protected by the 2A in Presser. Also in a Amendment which begins with "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of the free state". Also the Dick Act created an "unorganized militia" which fits perfectly in with this whole view.
> 
> or B) The founding fathers said "bear arms" means "carry guns around with you". Also the Supreme Court has rejected that "Bear arms" meaning "militia duty". Also in an Amendment which begins with "Individuals carrying guns around with them in daily life is necessary for the security of the free state". Also the Dick Act created a dancing troop of gay NRA members wearing pink tutus and singing YMCA to make everyone happy?
> 
> Which is is? Tell me.
> 
> Context is the key to the English language, many words have different meanings and you can tell the meaning by the context.
> 
> You keep going off about the 2A being individual. Have I ever contested this? No. So why do you keep bring it up?
> 
> Actually I know the answer, it's because it's something you think you can fight me on and win. The problem you have is, again, I NEVER SAID IT WAS COLLECTIVE. It's individual. I got it. I knew this decades ago. So what? Stop bring it up. It's not an issue here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you said the right to bear arms only applies to service in a militia not an individual right to carry a firearm for self defense
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure where the problem here is.
> 
> Does the 2A say "self defense" at all? No, it does not.
> 
> Why do you think a Amendment that talks ONLY about the MILITIA suddenly protects a right to self defense?
> 
> The problem you have is you see the word "arms" and you assume that it protects EVERYTHING you can do with arms. It doesn't.
> 
> An individual has the right to be in the militia. The US federal govt CANNOT prevent AN INDIVIDUAL being in the militia. Do you understand this? This has NOTHING to do with any collective.
> 
> To get around this protection, they literally made an "unorganized militia" and stuck all males 17-45 in it. If a female DEMANDED to be in the militia, she'd be told to go to the "unorganized militia".
> 
> 
> Think about it from this perspective.
> 
> The amendment say "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state", so, they're talking about the militia, what's the best way of protecting the militia from govt abuse? Well, protect individuals being able to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply, and protect individuals being in the militia so they can use those arms in the militia.
> 
> What does carrying arms around have to do with the militia? It has nothing to do with it at all. So, why would they write an amendment about protecting the militia, and then protect the right to wear pink tutus? They didn't, nor did they protect the right to walk around with guns.
> 
> There will be times where carrying guns IS PROTECTED. For example in the buying and selling of guns (but such guns don't need to be loaded, and could be in a box) or when militia duty is involved.
> 
> But an individual having the right to be in the militia is NOT A COLLECTIVE RIGHT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The subject of the Second is not the militia it the people.  A militia is mentioned yes but it is not the operative phrase.
> 
> Any deconstruction of the language shows that.
> 
> You are stuck on the term bear arms as meaning only military service.
> It also means to simply be armed as well.
> 
> Heller upheld this interpretation
Click to expand...


Er... right... whatever. 

So why does it begin with "A well regulated militia...." and not "the people"? 

The amendment protects two rights, the rights are included in the Bill of Rights for the reason stated at the beginning of the Amendment. 

But hey, you still haven't posted one single piece of evidence yet to support your claim.

It doesn't need to be the operative phrase.

The point here is, the right to keep arms is so individuals can own weapons for when the militia might need them and they can be in the militia so the militia has personnel for when it might need them. The whole point of the first part is the reason it protects the rights in the first place. 

I'm stuck on the term meaning only "military service" because this is A) how it was intended and B) how the Supreme Court recognizes it today. 

Where does it mean "simply to be armed"? Why would Heller uphold a previous case, Presser, which specifically said carrying arms around was NOT protected by the 2nd Amendment?


----------



## Skull Pilot

frigidweirdo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> bear arms does not mean solely serve in the militia or military either.
> 
> The Second was always meant as an individual right in fact an amendment that specified "for the common defense" was rejected so much for your notion that bear arms meant military service exclusoively
> 
> The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution Guarantees an Individual Right To Keep and Bear Arms
> 
> Sir William Blackstone, an authoritative source of the common law for colonists and, therefore, a dominant influence on the drafters of the original Constitution and its Bill of Rights, set forth in his Commentaries the absolute rights of individuals as: personal security, personal liberty, and possession of private property, I _Blackstone Commentaries_ 129, these absolute rights being protected by the individual's right to have and use arms for self-preservation and defense. As Blackstone observed, individual citizens were therefore entitled to exercise their "natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't.
> 
> However "stool" doesn't mean just a wooden three legged object for sitting on.
> 
> Take two examples:
> 
> "The doctor look at his stool to see if he had any problems" and "he sat on the three legged wooden stool".
> 
> You know the first isn't the doctor taking a look at his three legged wooden seat, and you know the second isn't him sitting on a three legged shit. It's about CONTEXT.
> 
> Now, tell me the context of "bear arms" in the Second Amendment.
> 
> Is it A) the founding fathers said "bear arms" was synonymous with "render military service" and "militia duty". Also the Supreme Court has rejected "bear arms" meaning carrying guns around as being protected by the 2A in Presser. Also in a Amendment which begins with "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of the free state". Also the Dick Act created an "unorganized militia" which fits perfectly in with this whole view.
> 
> or B) The founding fathers said "bear arms" means "carry guns around with you". Also the Supreme Court has rejected that "Bear arms" meaning "militia duty". Also in an Amendment which begins with "Individuals carrying guns around with them in daily life is necessary for the security of the free state". Also the Dick Act created a dancing troop of gay NRA members wearing pink tutus and singing YMCA to make everyone happy?
> 
> Which is is? Tell me.
> 
> Context is the key to the English language, many words have different meanings and you can tell the meaning by the context.
> 
> You keep going off about the 2A being individual. Have I ever contested this? No. So why do you keep bring it up?
> 
> Actually I know the answer, it's because it's something you think you can fight me on and win. The problem you have is, again, I NEVER SAID IT WAS COLLECTIVE. It's individual. I got it. I knew this decades ago. So what? Stop bring it up. It's not an issue here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you said the right to bear arms only applies to service in a militia not an individual right to carry a firearm for self defense
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure where the problem here is.
> 
> Does the 2A say "self defense" at all? No, it does not.
> 
> Why do you think a Amendment that talks ONLY about the MILITIA suddenly protects a right to self defense?
> 
> The problem you have is you see the word "arms" and you assume that it protects EVERYTHING you can do with arms. It doesn't.
> 
> An individual has the right to be in the militia. The US federal govt CANNOT prevent AN INDIVIDUAL being in the militia. Do you understand this? This has NOTHING to do with any collective.
> 
> To get around this protection, they literally made an "unorganized militia" and stuck all males 17-45 in it. If a female DEMANDED to be in the militia, she'd be told to go to the "unorganized militia".
> 
> 
> Think about it from this perspective.
> 
> The amendment say "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state", so, they're talking about the militia, what's the best way of protecting the militia from govt abuse? Well, protect individuals being able to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply, and protect individuals being in the militia so they can use those arms in the militia.
> 
> What does carrying arms around have to do with the militia? It has nothing to do with it at all. So, why would they write an amendment about protecting the militia, and then protect the right to wear pink tutus? They didn't, nor did they protect the right to walk around with guns.
> 
> There will be times where carrying guns IS PROTECTED. For example in the buying and selling of guns (but such guns don't need to be loaded, and could be in a box) or when militia duty is involved.
> 
> But an individual having the right to be in the militia is NOT A COLLECTIVE RIGHT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The subject of the Second is not the militia it the people.  A militia is mentioned yes but it is not the operative phrase.
> 
> Any deconstruction of the language shows that.
> 
> You are stuck on the term bear arms as meaning only military service.
> It also means to simply be armed as well.
> 
> Heller upheld this interpretation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Er... right... whatever.
> 
> So why does it begin with "A well regulated militia...." and not "the people"?
> 
> The amendment protects two rights, the rights are included in the Bill of Rights for the reason stated at the beginning of the Amendment.
> 
> But hey, you still haven't posted one single piece of evidence yet to support your claim.
> 
> It doesn't need to be the operative phrase.
> 
> The point here is, the right to keep arms is so individuals can own weapons for when the militia might need them and they can be in the militia so the militia has personnel for when it might need them. The whole point of the first part is the reason it protects the rights in the first place.
> 
> I'm stuck on the term meaning only "military service" because this is A) how it was intended and B) how the Supreme Court recognizes it today.
> 
> Where does it mean "simply to be armed"? Why would Heller uphold a previous case, Presser, which specifically said carrying arms around was NOT protected by the 2nd Amendment?
Click to expand...


to bear arms has more than one meaning you are solely focused on the one you think it means


----------



## frigidweirdo

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't.
> 
> However "stool" doesn't mean just a wooden three legged object for sitting on.
> 
> Take two examples:
> 
> "The doctor look at his stool to see if he had any problems" and "he sat on the three legged wooden stool".
> 
> You know the first isn't the doctor taking a look at his three legged wooden seat, and you know the second isn't him sitting on a three legged shit. It's about CONTEXT.
> 
> Now, tell me the context of "bear arms" in the Second Amendment.
> 
> Is it A) the founding fathers said "bear arms" was synonymous with "render military service" and "militia duty". Also the Supreme Court has rejected "bear arms" meaning carrying guns around as being protected by the 2A in Presser. Also in a Amendment which begins with "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of the free state". Also the Dick Act created an "unorganized militia" which fits perfectly in with this whole view.
> 
> or B) The founding fathers said "bear arms" means "carry guns around with you". Also the Supreme Court has rejected that "Bear arms" meaning "militia duty". Also in an Amendment which begins with "Individuals carrying guns around with them in daily life is necessary for the security of the free state". Also the Dick Act created a dancing troop of gay NRA members wearing pink tutus and singing YMCA to make everyone happy?
> 
> Which is is? Tell me.
> 
> Context is the key to the English language, many words have different meanings and you can tell the meaning by the context.
> 
> You keep going off about the 2A being individual. Have I ever contested this? No. So why do you keep bring it up?
> 
> Actually I know the answer, it's because it's something you think you can fight me on and win. The problem you have is, again, I NEVER SAID IT WAS COLLECTIVE. It's individual. I got it. I knew this decades ago. So what? Stop bring it up. It's not an issue here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you said the right to bear arms only applies to service in a militia not an individual right to carry a firearm for self defense
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure where the problem here is.
> 
> Does the 2A say "self defense" at all? No, it does not.
> 
> Why do you think a Amendment that talks ONLY about the MILITIA suddenly protects a right to self defense?
> 
> The problem you have is you see the word "arms" and you assume that it protects EVERYTHING you can do with arms. It doesn't.
> 
> An individual has the right to be in the militia. The US federal govt CANNOT prevent AN INDIVIDUAL being in the militia. Do you understand this? This has NOTHING to do with any collective.
> 
> To get around this protection, they literally made an "unorganized militia" and stuck all males 17-45 in it. If a female DEMANDED to be in the militia, she'd be told to go to the "unorganized militia".
> 
> 
> Think about it from this perspective.
> 
> The amendment say "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state", so, they're talking about the militia, what's the best way of protecting the militia from govt abuse? Well, protect individuals being able to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply, and protect individuals being in the militia so they can use those arms in the militia.
> 
> What does carrying arms around have to do with the militia? It has nothing to do with it at all. So, why would they write an amendment about protecting the militia, and then protect the right to wear pink tutus? They didn't, nor did they protect the right to walk around with guns.
> 
> There will be times where carrying guns IS PROTECTED. For example in the buying and selling of guns (but such guns don't need to be loaded, and could be in a box) or when militia duty is involved.
> 
> But an individual having the right to be in the militia is NOT A COLLECTIVE RIGHT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The subject of the Second is not the militia it the people.  A militia is mentioned yes but it is not the operative phrase.
> 
> Any deconstruction of the language shows that.
> 
> You are stuck on the term bear arms as meaning only military service.
> It also means to simply be armed as well.
> 
> Heller upheld this interpretation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Er... right... whatever.
> 
> So why does it begin with "A well regulated militia...." and not "the people"?
> 
> The amendment protects two rights, the rights are included in the Bill of Rights for the reason stated at the beginning of the Amendment.
> 
> But hey, you still haven't posted one single piece of evidence yet to support your claim.
> 
> It doesn't need to be the operative phrase.
> 
> The point here is, the right to keep arms is so individuals can own weapons for when the militia might need them and they can be in the militia so the militia has personnel for when it might need them. The whole point of the first part is the reason it protects the rights in the first place.
> 
> I'm stuck on the term meaning only "military service" because this is A) how it was intended and B) how the Supreme Court recognizes it today.
> 
> Where does it mean "simply to be armed"? Why would Heller uphold a previous case, Presser, which specifically said carrying arms around was NOT protected by the 2nd Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> to bear arms has more than one meaning you are solely focused on the one you think it means
Click to expand...


I got that, I dealt with that.

Again, stool has different meanings, does that mean if I say "He sat on the stool" it has to mean he sat on the shit simply because you decided it means that.

What do you think the founding fathers wanted "bear arms" in the 2nd Amendment to mean?

A) Render military service and militia duty, or B) carry arms around that has nothing to do with the militia at all? 

We know the amendment is about the militia, EVERYTHING they said in the House was about the militia. Why then do you think they were talking about self defense? So you have a single piece of evidence to suggest this? No, you don't. You have nothing, you're clutching at straws.

Let's look:

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

_"Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."_

Okay, why would Mr Gerry say that carrying arms around would secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government? It's clear here that the amendment was designed to protect the thing that stops the mal-administration of the government. That was the militia. 

_"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."_

Again, the language is pretty clear that they were not talking about individual self defense, but the protection of the militia. 

A lot of the debate centered around a clause which didn't make it in. It was designed to say that individuals who had religious scruples, would not have to go into the militia.

"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.""

No, why would they force individuals who were religiously scrupulous from carry arms around with them? Seriously, why? It's like having a clause that was "religiously scrupulous people do not have to carry a cat on their head".

When in the time of the US govt was an individual ever forced to carry arms around with them? Never, not before this amendment, not after, not under British rule, not under US rule.

So, please, tell me how the hell they'd come up with the idea of protecting religiously scrupulous people from doing something that didn't need to be protected, when the WHOLE of the language related to this points to not forcing individuals to be in the militia? Please, explain this one.


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't.
> 
> However "stool" doesn't mean just a wooden three legged object for sitting on.
> 
> Take two examples:
> 
> "The doctor look at his stool to see if he had any problems" and "he sat on the three legged wooden stool".
> 
> You know the first isn't the doctor taking a look at his three legged wooden seat, and you know the second isn't him sitting on a three legged shit. It's about CONTEXT.
> 
> Now, tell me the context of "bear arms" in the Second Amendment.
> 
> Is it A) the founding fathers said "bear arms" was synonymous with "render military service" and "militia duty". Also the Supreme Court has rejected "bear arms" meaning carrying guns around as being protected by the 2A in Presser. Also in a Amendment which begins with "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of the free state". Also the Dick Act created an "unorganized militia" which fits perfectly in with this whole view.
> 
> or B) The founding fathers said "bear arms" means "carry guns around with you". Also the Supreme Court has rejected that "Bear arms" meaning "militia duty". Also in an Amendment which begins with "Individuals carrying guns around with them in daily life is necessary for the security of the free state". Also the Dick Act created a dancing troop of gay NRA members wearing pink tutus and singing YMCA to make everyone happy?
> 
> Which is is? Tell me.
> 
> Context is the key to the English language, many words have different meanings and you can tell the meaning by the context.
> 
> You keep going off about the 2A being individual. Have I ever contested this? No. So why do you keep bring it up?
> 
> Actually I know the answer, it's because it's something you think you can fight me on and win. The problem you have is, again, I NEVER SAID IT WAS COLLECTIVE. It's individual. I got it. I knew this decades ago. So what? Stop bring it up. It's not an issue here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you said the right to bear arms only applies to service in a militia not an individual right to carry a firearm for self defense
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure where the problem here is.
> 
> Does the 2A say "self defense" at all? No, it does not.
> 
> Why do you think a Amendment that talks ONLY about the MILITIA suddenly protects a right to self defense?
> 
> The problem you have is you see the word "arms" and you assume that it protects EVERYTHING you can do with arms. It doesn't.
> 
> An individual has the right to be in the militia. The US federal govt CANNOT prevent AN INDIVIDUAL being in the militia. Do you understand this? This has NOTHING to do with any collective.
> 
> To get around this protection, they literally made an "unorganized militia" and stuck all males 17-45 in it. If a female DEMANDED to be in the militia, she'd be told to go to the "unorganized militia".
> 
> 
> Think about it from this perspective.
> 
> The amendment say "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state", so, they're talking about the militia, what's the best way of protecting the militia from govt abuse? Well, protect individuals being able to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply, and protect individuals being in the militia so they can use those arms in the militia.
> 
> What does carrying arms around have to do with the militia? It has nothing to do with it at all. So, why would they write an amendment about protecting the militia, and then protect the right to wear pink tutus? They didn't, nor did they protect the right to walk around with guns.
> 
> There will be times where carrying guns IS PROTECTED. For example in the buying and selling of guns (but such guns don't need to be loaded, and could be in a box) or when militia duty is involved.
> 
> But an individual having the right to be in the militia is NOT A COLLECTIVE RIGHT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The subject of the Second is not the militia it the people.  A militia is mentioned yes but it is not the operative phrase.
> 
> Any deconstruction of the language shows that.
> 
> You are stuck on the term bear arms as meaning only military service.
> It also means to simply be armed as well.
> 
> Heller upheld this interpretation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  the first clause has the Intent and Purpose for the second clause.  there are no natural rights recognized or secured in our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the rights to keep and bear arms are specifically mentioned in the Second Amendment
> 
> And there is no second article of amendment
Click to expand...

Nobody should take the right wing seriously about the law, or economics.

Any Contract can have Articles of Amendment.  Our federal Constitution, does just that. 

The People are the Militia.  Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, are necessary to the security of a free State, and may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


----------



## Skull Pilot

frigidweirdo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> you said the right to bear arms only applies to service in a militia not an individual right to carry a firearm for self defense
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure where the problem here is.
> 
> Does the 2A say "self defense" at all? No, it does not.
> 
> Why do you think a Amendment that talks ONLY about the MILITIA suddenly protects a right to self defense?
> 
> The problem you have is you see the word "arms" and you assume that it protects EVERYTHING you can do with arms. It doesn't.
> 
> An individual has the right to be in the militia. The US federal govt CANNOT prevent AN INDIVIDUAL being in the militia. Do you understand this? This has NOTHING to do with any collective.
> 
> To get around this protection, they literally made an "unorganized militia" and stuck all males 17-45 in it. If a female DEMANDED to be in the militia, she'd be told to go to the "unorganized militia".
> 
> 
> Think about it from this perspective.
> 
> The amendment say "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state", so, they're talking about the militia, what's the best way of protecting the militia from govt abuse? Well, protect individuals being able to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply, and protect individuals being in the militia so they can use those arms in the militia.
> 
> What does carrying arms around have to do with the militia? It has nothing to do with it at all. So, why would they write an amendment about protecting the militia, and then protect the right to wear pink tutus? They didn't, nor did they protect the right to walk around with guns.
> 
> There will be times where carrying guns IS PROTECTED. For example in the buying and selling of guns (but such guns don't need to be loaded, and could be in a box) or when militia duty is involved.
> 
> But an individual having the right to be in the militia is NOT A COLLECTIVE RIGHT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The subject of the Second is not the militia it the people.  A militia is mentioned yes but it is not the operative phrase.
> 
> Any deconstruction of the language shows that.
> 
> You are stuck on the term bear arms as meaning only military service.
> It also means to simply be armed as well.
> 
> Heller upheld this interpretation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Er... right... whatever.
> 
> So why does it begin with "A well regulated militia...." and not "the people"?
> 
> The amendment protects two rights, the rights are included in the Bill of Rights for the reason stated at the beginning of the Amendment.
> 
> But hey, you still haven't posted one single piece of evidence yet to support your claim.
> 
> It doesn't need to be the operative phrase.
> 
> The point here is, the right to keep arms is so individuals can own weapons for when the militia might need them and they can be in the militia so the militia has personnel for when it might need them. The whole point of the first part is the reason it protects the rights in the first place.
> 
> I'm stuck on the term meaning only "military service" because this is A) how it was intended and B) how the Supreme Court recognizes it today.
> 
> Where does it mean "simply to be armed"? Why would Heller uphold a previous case, Presser, which specifically said carrying arms around was NOT protected by the 2nd Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> to bear arms has more than one meaning you are solely focused on the one you think it means
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I got that, I dealt with that.
> 
> Again, stool has different meanings, does that mean if I say "He sat on the stool" it has to mean he sat on the shit simply because you decided it means that.
> 
> What do you think the founding fathers wanted "bear arms" in the 2nd Amendment to mean?
> 
> A) Render military service and militia duty, or B) carry arms around that has nothing to do with the militia at all?
> 
> We know the amendment is about the militia, EVERYTHING they said in the House was about the militia. Why then do you think they were talking about self defense? So you have a single piece of evidence to suggest this? No, you don't. You have nothing, you're clutching at straws.
> 
> Let's look:
> 
> Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> _"Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."_
> 
> Okay, why would Mr Gerry say that carrying arms around would secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government? It's clear here that the amendment was designed to protect the thing that stops the mal-administration of the government. That was the militia.
> 
> _"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."_
> 
> Again, the language is pretty clear that they were not talking about individual self defense, but the protection of the militia.
> 
> A lot of the debate centered around a clause which didn't make it in. It was designed to say that individuals who had religious scruples, would not have to go into the militia.
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.""
> 
> No, why would they force individuals who were religiously scrupulous from carry arms around with them? Seriously, why? It's like having a clause that was "religiously scrupulous people do not have to carry a cat on their head".
> 
> When in the time of the US govt was an individual ever forced to carry arms around with them? Never, not before this amendment, not after, not under British rule, not under US rule.
> 
> So, please, tell me how the hell they'd come up with the idea of protecting religiously scrupulous people from doing something that didn't need to be protected, when the WHOLE of the language related to this points to not forcing individuals to be in the militia? Please, explain this one.
Click to expand...


it's quite clear when one looks at other statements and documents that the second was meant to allow an individual to keep and bear arms regardless of militia service

* Thomas Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law (1880)*

*   The Constitution. -- By the Second Amendment to the Constitution it is declared that, "a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."



             The amendment, like most other provisions in the Constitution, has a history.  It was adopted with some modification and enlargement from the English Bill of Rights of 1688, where it stood as a protest against arbitrary action of the overturned dynasty in disarming the people, and as a pledge of the new rulers that this tyrannical action should cease.  The right declared was meant to be a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and as a necessary and efficient means of regaining rights when temporarily overturned by usurpation.



  The Right is General. -- It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent.  The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon.  But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check.  The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose.  But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order.
*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *employment at will is not, time limited.*
> 
> UE is.
> 
> 
> 
> On what grounds, in an at-will employment State?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By the rules of the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> States have laws regarding employment relationships.  Employment at will is State law in most US States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And unemployment compensation for quitters or never workers is law in none of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> at-will is at-will, baby.  only the right wing, never gets it.
Click to expand...


And unemployed, not getting a check is unemployed, not getting a check.
Only lazy morons never get it.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure where the problem here is.
> 
> Does the 2A say "self defense" at all? No, it does not.
> 
> Why do you think a Amendment that talks ONLY about the MILITIA suddenly protects a right to self defense?
> 
> The problem you have is you see the word "arms" and you assume that it protects EVERYTHING you can do with arms. It doesn't.
> 
> An individual has the right to be in the militia. The US federal govt CANNOT prevent AN INDIVIDUAL being in the militia. Do you understand this? This has NOTHING to do with any collective.
> 
> To get around this protection, they literally made an "unorganized militia" and stuck all males 17-45 in it. If a female DEMANDED to be in the militia, she'd be told to go to the "unorganized militia".
> 
> 
> Think about it from this perspective.
> 
> The amendment say "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state", so, they're talking about the militia, what's the best way of protecting the militia from govt abuse? Well, protect individuals being able to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply, and protect individuals being in the militia so they can use those arms in the militia.
> 
> What does carrying arms around have to do with the militia? It has nothing to do with it at all. So, why would they write an amendment about protecting the militia, and then protect the right to wear pink tutus? They didn't, nor did they protect the right to walk around with guns.
> 
> There will be times where carrying guns IS PROTECTED. For example in the buying and selling of guns (but such guns don't need to be loaded, and could be in a box) or when militia duty is involved.
> 
> But an individual having the right to be in the militia is NOT A COLLECTIVE RIGHT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The subject of the Second is not the militia it the people.  A militia is mentioned yes but it is not the operative phrase.
> 
> Any deconstruction of the language shows that.
> 
> You are stuck on the term bear arms as meaning only military service.
> It also means to simply be armed as well.
> 
> Heller upheld this interpretation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Er... right... whatever.
> 
> So why does it begin with "A well regulated militia...." and not "the people"?
> 
> The amendment protects two rights, the rights are included in the Bill of Rights for the reason stated at the beginning of the Amendment.
> 
> But hey, you still haven't posted one single piece of evidence yet to support your claim.
> 
> It doesn't need to be the operative phrase.
> 
> The point here is, the right to keep arms is so individuals can own weapons for when the militia might need them and they can be in the militia so the militia has personnel for when it might need them. The whole point of the first part is the reason it protects the rights in the first place.
> 
> I'm stuck on the term meaning only "military service" because this is A) how it was intended and B) how the Supreme Court recognizes it today.
> 
> Where does it mean "simply to be armed"? Why would Heller uphold a previous case, Presser, which specifically said carrying arms around was NOT protected by the 2nd Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> to bear arms has more than one meaning you are solely focused on the one you think it means
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I got that, I dealt with that.
> 
> Again, stool has different meanings, does that mean if I say "He sat on the stool" it has to mean he sat on the shit simply because you decided it means that.
> 
> What do you think the founding fathers wanted "bear arms" in the 2nd Amendment to mean?
> 
> A) Render military service and militia duty, or B) carry arms around that has nothing to do with the militia at all?
> 
> We know the amendment is about the militia, EVERYTHING they said in the House was about the militia. Why then do you think they were talking about self defense? So you have a single piece of evidence to suggest this? No, you don't. You have nothing, you're clutching at straws.
> 
> Let's look:
> 
> Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> _"Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."_
> 
> Okay, why would Mr Gerry say that carrying arms around would secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government? It's clear here that the amendment was designed to protect the thing that stops the mal-administration of the government. That was the militia.
> 
> _"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."_
> 
> Again, the language is pretty clear that they were not talking about individual self defense, but the protection of the militia.
> 
> A lot of the debate centered around a clause which didn't make it in. It was designed to say that individuals who had religious scruples, would not have to go into the militia.
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.""
> 
> No, why would they force individuals who were religiously scrupulous from carry arms around with them? Seriously, why? It's like having a clause that was "religiously scrupulous people do not have to carry a cat on their head".
> 
> When in the time of the US govt was an individual ever forced to carry arms around with them? Never, not before this amendment, not after, not under British rule, not under US rule.
> 
> So, please, tell me how the hell they'd come up with the idea of protecting religiously scrupulous people from doing something that didn't need to be protected, when the WHOLE of the language related to this points to not forcing individuals to be in the militia? Please, explain this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it's quite clear when one looks at other statements and documents that the second was meant to allow an individual to keep and bear arms regardless of militia service
> 
> * Thomas Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law (1880)*
> 
> *   The Constitution. -- By the Second Amendment to the Constitution it is declared that, "a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> 
> 
> The amendment, like most other provisions in the Constitution, has a history.  It was adopted with some modification and enlargement from the English Bill of Rights of 1688, where it stood as a protest against arbitrary action of the overturned dynasty in disarming the people, and as a pledge of the new rulers that this tyrannical action should cease.  The right declared was meant to be a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and as a necessary and efficient means of regaining rights when temporarily overturned by usurpation.
> 
> 
> 
> The Right is General. -- It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent.  The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon.  But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check.  The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose.  But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order.*
Click to expand...


Wait, which time when I said it's individual DID YOU NOT GET? You're clearly not reading what I write. 

You're throwing quotes at me for no reason. We're not debating whether it's individual or not because you say it's individual, and I say it's individual, and yet you seem to feel comfortable arguing that it's individual, but who the fuck are you arguing with? 

Get with the program dude, reply to WHAT I WRITE.


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure where the problem here is.
> 
> Does the 2A say "self defense" at all? No, it does not.
> 
> Why do you think a Amendment that talks ONLY about the MILITIA suddenly protects a right to self defense?
> 
> The problem you have is you see the word "arms" and you assume that it protects EVERYTHING you can do with arms. It doesn't.
> 
> An individual has the right to be in the militia. The US federal govt CANNOT prevent AN INDIVIDUAL being in the militia. Do you understand this? This has NOTHING to do with any collective.
> 
> To get around this protection, they literally made an "unorganized militia" and stuck all males 17-45 in it. If a female DEMANDED to be in the militia, she'd be told to go to the "unorganized militia".
> 
> 
> Think about it from this perspective.
> 
> The amendment say "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state", so, they're talking about the militia, what's the best way of protecting the militia from govt abuse? Well, protect individuals being able to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply, and protect individuals being in the militia so they can use those arms in the militia.
> 
> What does carrying arms around have to do with the militia? It has nothing to do with it at all. So, why would they write an amendment about protecting the militia, and then protect the right to wear pink tutus? They didn't, nor did they protect the right to walk around with guns.
> 
> There will be times where carrying guns IS PROTECTED. For example in the buying and selling of guns (but such guns don't need to be loaded, and could be in a box) or when militia duty is involved.
> 
> But an individual having the right to be in the militia is NOT A COLLECTIVE RIGHT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The subject of the Second is not the militia it the people.  A militia is mentioned yes but it is not the operative phrase.
> 
> Any deconstruction of the language shows that.
> 
> You are stuck on the term bear arms as meaning only military service.
> It also means to simply be armed as well.
> 
> Heller upheld this interpretation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Er... right... whatever.
> 
> So why does it begin with "A well regulated militia...." and not "the people"?
> 
> The amendment protects two rights, the rights are included in the Bill of Rights for the reason stated at the beginning of the Amendment.
> 
> But hey, you still haven't posted one single piece of evidence yet to support your claim.
> 
> It doesn't need to be the operative phrase.
> 
> The point here is, the right to keep arms is so individuals can own weapons for when the militia might need them and they can be in the militia so the militia has personnel for when it might need them. The whole point of the first part is the reason it protects the rights in the first place.
> 
> I'm stuck on the term meaning only "military service" because this is A) how it was intended and B) how the Supreme Court recognizes it today.
> 
> Where does it mean "simply to be armed"? Why would Heller uphold a previous case, Presser, which specifically said carrying arms around was NOT protected by the 2nd Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> to bear arms has more than one meaning you are solely focused on the one you think it means
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I got that, I dealt with that.
> 
> Again, stool has different meanings, does that mean if I say "He sat on the stool" it has to mean he sat on the shit simply because you decided it means that.
> 
> What do you think the founding fathers wanted "bear arms" in the 2nd Amendment to mean?
> 
> A) Render military service and militia duty, or B) carry arms around that has nothing to do with the militia at all?
> 
> We know the amendment is about the militia, EVERYTHING they said in the House was about the militia. Why then do you think they were talking about self defense? So you have a single piece of evidence to suggest this? No, you don't. You have nothing, you're clutching at straws.
> 
> Let's look:
> 
> Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> _"Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."_
> 
> Okay, why would Mr Gerry say that carrying arms around would secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government? It's clear here that the amendment was designed to protect the thing that stops the mal-administration of the government. That was the militia.
> 
> _"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."_
> 
> Again, the language is pretty clear that they were not talking about individual self defense, but the protection of the militia.
> 
> A lot of the debate centered around a clause which didn't make it in. It was designed to say that individuals who had religious scruples, would not have to go into the militia.
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.""
> 
> No, why would they force individuals who were religiously scrupulous from carry arms around with them? Seriously, why? It's like having a clause that was "religiously scrupulous people do not have to carry a cat on their head".
> 
> When in the time of the US govt was an individual ever forced to carry arms around with them? Never, not before this amendment, not after, not under British rule, not under US rule.
> 
> So, please, tell me how the hell they'd come up with the idea of protecting religiously scrupulous people from doing something that didn't need to be protected, when the WHOLE of the language related to this points to not forcing individuals to be in the militia? Please, explain this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it's quite clear when one looks at other statements and documents that the second was meant to allow an individual to keep and bear arms regardless of militia service
> 
> * Thomas Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law (1880)*
> 
> *   The Constitution. -- By the Second Amendment to the Constitution it is declared that, "a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> 
> 
> The amendment, like most other provisions in the Constitution, has a history.  It was adopted with some modification and enlargement from the English Bill of Rights of 1688, where it stood as a protest against arbitrary action of the overturned dynasty in disarming the people, and as a pledge of the new rulers that this tyrannical action should cease.  The right declared was meant to be a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and as a necessary and efficient means of regaining rights when temporarily overturned by usurpation.
> 
> 
> 
> The Right is General. -- It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent.  The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon.  But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check.  The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose.  But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order.*
Click to expand...

The Intent and Purpose of our Second Amendment, is in the first clause.  Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> On what grounds, in an at-will employment State?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the rules of the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> States have laws regarding employment relationships.  Employment at will is State law in most US States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And unemployment compensation for quitters or never workers is law in none of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> at-will is at-will, baby.  only the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And unemployed, not getting a check is unemployed, not getting a check.
> Only lazy morons never get it.
Click to expand...

employment at the will of either party, not just the employer, for unemployment compensation purposes.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the rules of the states.
> 
> 
> 
> States have laws regarding employment relationships.  Employment at will is State law in most US States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And unemployment compensation for quitters or never workers is law in none of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> at-will is at-will, baby.  only the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And unemployed, not getting a check is unemployed, not getting a check.
> Only lazy morons never get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> employment at the will of either party, not just the employer, for unemployment compensation purposes.
Click to expand...


*employment at the will of either party, not just the employer,*

Absolutely!!

*for unemployment compensation purposes*

Never!!


----------



## Skull Pilot

frigidweirdo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The subject of the Second is not the militia it the people.  A militia is mentioned yes but it is not the operative phrase.
> 
> Any deconstruction of the language shows that.
> 
> You are stuck on the term bear arms as meaning only military service.
> It also means to simply be armed as well.
> 
> Heller upheld this interpretation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Er... right... whatever.
> 
> So why does it begin with "A well regulated militia...." and not "the people"?
> 
> The amendment protects two rights, the rights are included in the Bill of Rights for the reason stated at the beginning of the Amendment.
> 
> But hey, you still haven't posted one single piece of evidence yet to support your claim.
> 
> It doesn't need to be the operative phrase.
> 
> The point here is, the right to keep arms is so individuals can own weapons for when the militia might need them and they can be in the militia so the militia has personnel for when it might need them. The whole point of the first part is the reason it protects the rights in the first place.
> 
> I'm stuck on the term meaning only "military service" because this is A) how it was intended and B) how the Supreme Court recognizes it today.
> 
> Where does it mean "simply to be armed"? Why would Heller uphold a previous case, Presser, which specifically said carrying arms around was NOT protected by the 2nd Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> to bear arms has more than one meaning you are solely focused on the one you think it means
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I got that, I dealt with that.
> 
> Again, stool has different meanings, does that mean if I say "He sat on the stool" it has to mean he sat on the shit simply because you decided it means that.
> 
> What do you think the founding fathers wanted "bear arms" in the 2nd Amendment to mean?
> 
> A) Render military service and militia duty, or B) carry arms around that has nothing to do with the militia at all?
> 
> We know the amendment is about the militia, EVERYTHING they said in the House was about the militia. Why then do you think they were talking about self defense? So you have a single piece of evidence to suggest this? No, you don't. You have nothing, you're clutching at straws.
> 
> Let's look:
> 
> Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> _"Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."_
> 
> Okay, why would Mr Gerry say that carrying arms around would secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government? It's clear here that the amendment was designed to protect the thing that stops the mal-administration of the government. That was the militia.
> 
> _"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."_
> 
> Again, the language is pretty clear that they were not talking about individual self defense, but the protection of the militia.
> 
> A lot of the debate centered around a clause which didn't make it in. It was designed to say that individuals who had religious scruples, would not have to go into the militia.
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.""
> 
> No, why would they force individuals who were religiously scrupulous from carry arms around with them? Seriously, why? It's like having a clause that was "religiously scrupulous people do not have to carry a cat on their head".
> 
> When in the time of the US govt was an individual ever forced to carry arms around with them? Never, not before this amendment, not after, not under British rule, not under US rule.
> 
> So, please, tell me how the hell they'd come up with the idea of protecting religiously scrupulous people from doing something that didn't need to be protected, when the WHOLE of the language related to this points to not forcing individuals to be in the militia? Please, explain this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it's quite clear when one looks at other statements and documents that the second was meant to allow an individual to keep and bear arms regardless of militia service
> 
> * Thomas Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law (1880)*
> 
> *   The Constitution. -- By the Second Amendment to the Constitution it is declared that, "a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> 
> 
> The amendment, like most other provisions in the Constitution, has a history.  It was adopted with some modification and enlargement from the English Bill of Rights of 1688, where it stood as a protest against arbitrary action of the overturned dynasty in disarming the people, and as a pledge of the new rulers that this tyrannical action should cease.  The right declared was meant to be a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and as a necessary and efficient means of regaining rights when temporarily overturned by usurpation.
> 
> 
> 
> The Right is General. -- It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent.  The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon.  But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check.  The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose.  But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait, which time when I said it's individual DID YOU NOT GET? You're clearly not reading what I write.
> 
> You're throwing quotes at me for no reason. We're not debating whether it's individual or not because you say it's individual, and I say it's individual, and yet you seem to feel comfortable arguing that it's individual, but who the fuck are you arguing with?
> 
> Get with the program dude, reply to WHAT I WRITE.
Click to expand...


your saying a person does not have the right to carry a firearm unless it's in service to the militia

if you can only carry a firearm while serving in the militia it is not an individual right


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The subject of the Second is not the militia it the people.  A militia is mentioned yes but it is not the operative phrase.
> 
> Any deconstruction of the language shows that.
> 
> You are stuck on the term bear arms as meaning only military service.
> It also means to simply be armed as well.
> 
> Heller upheld this interpretation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Er... right... whatever.
> 
> So why does it begin with "A well regulated militia...." and not "the people"?
> 
> The amendment protects two rights, the rights are included in the Bill of Rights for the reason stated at the beginning of the Amendment.
> 
> But hey, you still haven't posted one single piece of evidence yet to support your claim.
> 
> It doesn't need to be the operative phrase.
> 
> The point here is, the right to keep arms is so individuals can own weapons for when the militia might need them and they can be in the militia so the militia has personnel for when it might need them. The whole point of the first part is the reason it protects the rights in the first place.
> 
> I'm stuck on the term meaning only "military service" because this is A) how it was intended and B) how the Supreme Court recognizes it today.
> 
> Where does it mean "simply to be armed"? Why would Heller uphold a previous case, Presser, which specifically said carrying arms around was NOT protected by the 2nd Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> to bear arms has more than one meaning you are solely focused on the one you think it means
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I got that, I dealt with that.
> 
> Again, stool has different meanings, does that mean if I say "He sat on the stool" it has to mean he sat on the shit simply because you decided it means that.
> 
> What do you think the founding fathers wanted "bear arms" in the 2nd Amendment to mean?
> 
> A) Render military service and militia duty, or B) carry arms around that has nothing to do with the militia at all?
> 
> We know the amendment is about the militia, EVERYTHING they said in the House was about the militia. Why then do you think they were talking about self defense? So you have a single piece of evidence to suggest this? No, you don't. You have nothing, you're clutching at straws.
> 
> Let's look:
> 
> Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> _"Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."_
> 
> Okay, why would Mr Gerry say that carrying arms around would secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government? It's clear here that the amendment was designed to protect the thing that stops the mal-administration of the government. That was the militia.
> 
> _"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."_
> 
> Again, the language is pretty clear that they were not talking about individual self defense, but the protection of the militia.
> 
> A lot of the debate centered around a clause which didn't make it in. It was designed to say that individuals who had religious scruples, would not have to go into the militia.
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.""
> 
> No, why would they force individuals who were religiously scrupulous from carry arms around with them? Seriously, why? It's like having a clause that was "religiously scrupulous people do not have to carry a cat on their head".
> 
> When in the time of the US govt was an individual ever forced to carry arms around with them? Never, not before this amendment, not after, not under British rule, not under US rule.
> 
> So, please, tell me how the hell they'd come up with the idea of protecting religiously scrupulous people from doing something that didn't need to be protected, when the WHOLE of the language related to this points to not forcing individuals to be in the militia? Please, explain this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it's quite clear when one looks at other statements and documents that the second was meant to allow an individual to keep and bear arms regardless of militia service
> 
> * Thomas Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law (1880)*
> 
> *   The Constitution. -- By the Second Amendment to the Constitution it is declared that, "a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> 
> 
> The amendment, like most other provisions in the Constitution, has a history.  It was adopted with some modification and enlargement from the English Bill of Rights of 1688, where it stood as a protest against arbitrary action of the overturned dynasty in disarming the people, and as a pledge of the new rulers that this tyrannical action should cease.  The right declared was meant to be a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and as a necessary and efficient means of regaining rights when temporarily overturned by usurpation.
> 
> 
> 
> The Right is General. -- It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent.  The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon.  But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check.  The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose.  But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Intent and Purpose of our Second Amendment, is in the first clause.  Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.
Click to expand...

the intent of the Second Amenddment was to allow citizens to own and carry firearms


----------



## frigidweirdo

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Er... right... whatever.
> 
> So why does it begin with "A well regulated militia...." and not "the people"?
> 
> The amendment protects two rights, the rights are included in the Bill of Rights for the reason stated at the beginning of the Amendment.
> 
> But hey, you still haven't posted one single piece of evidence yet to support your claim.
> 
> It doesn't need to be the operative phrase.
> 
> The point here is, the right to keep arms is so individuals can own weapons for when the militia might need them and they can be in the militia so the militia has personnel for when it might need them. The whole point of the first part is the reason it protects the rights in the first place.
> 
> I'm stuck on the term meaning only "military service" because this is A) how it was intended and B) how the Supreme Court recognizes it today.
> 
> Where does it mean "simply to be armed"? Why would Heller uphold a previous case, Presser, which specifically said carrying arms around was NOT protected by the 2nd Amendment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> to bear arms has more than one meaning you are solely focused on the one you think it means
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I got that, I dealt with that.
> 
> Again, stool has different meanings, does that mean if I say "He sat on the stool" it has to mean he sat on the shit simply because you decided it means that.
> 
> What do you think the founding fathers wanted "bear arms" in the 2nd Amendment to mean?
> 
> A) Render military service and militia duty, or B) carry arms around that has nothing to do with the militia at all?
> 
> We know the amendment is about the militia, EVERYTHING they said in the House was about the militia. Why then do you think they were talking about self defense? So you have a single piece of evidence to suggest this? No, you don't. You have nothing, you're clutching at straws.
> 
> Let's look:
> 
> Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> _"Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."_
> 
> Okay, why would Mr Gerry say that carrying arms around would secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government? It's clear here that the amendment was designed to protect the thing that stops the mal-administration of the government. That was the militia.
> 
> _"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."_
> 
> Again, the language is pretty clear that they were not talking about individual self defense, but the protection of the militia.
> 
> A lot of the debate centered around a clause which didn't make it in. It was designed to say that individuals who had religious scruples, would not have to go into the militia.
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.""
> 
> No, why would they force individuals who were religiously scrupulous from carry arms around with them? Seriously, why? It's like having a clause that was "religiously scrupulous people do not have to carry a cat on their head".
> 
> When in the time of the US govt was an individual ever forced to carry arms around with them? Never, not before this amendment, not after, not under British rule, not under US rule.
> 
> So, please, tell me how the hell they'd come up with the idea of protecting religiously scrupulous people from doing something that didn't need to be protected, when the WHOLE of the language related to this points to not forcing individuals to be in the militia? Please, explain this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it's quite clear when one looks at other statements and documents that the second was meant to allow an individual to keep and bear arms regardless of militia service
> 
> * Thomas Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law (1880)*
> 
> *   The Constitution. -- By the Second Amendment to the Constitution it is declared that, "a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> 
> 
> The amendment, like most other provisions in the Constitution, has a history.  It was adopted with some modification and enlargement from the English Bill of Rights of 1688, where it stood as a protest against arbitrary action of the overturned dynasty in disarming the people, and as a pledge of the new rulers that this tyrannical action should cease.  The right declared was meant to be a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and as a necessary and efficient means of regaining rights when temporarily overturned by usurpation.
> 
> 
> 
> The Right is General. -- It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent.  The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon.  But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check.  The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose.  But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait, which time when I said it's individual DID YOU NOT GET? You're clearly not reading what I write.
> 
> You're throwing quotes at me for no reason. We're not debating whether it's individual or not because you say it's individual, and I say it's individual, and yet you seem to feel comfortable arguing that it's individual, but who the fuck are you arguing with?
> 
> Get with the program dude, reply to WHAT I WRITE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your saying a person does not have the right to carry a firearm unless it's in service to the militia
> 
> if you can only carry a firearm while serving in the militia it is not an individual right
Click to expand...


No, I did not. A person doesn't have a right to carry a firearm at all. 

The right is the right to be in the militia, not the right to carry a firearm.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Er... right... whatever.
> 
> So why does it begin with "A well regulated militia...." and not "the people"?
> 
> The amendment protects two rights, the rights are included in the Bill of Rights for the reason stated at the beginning of the Amendment.
> 
> But hey, you still haven't posted one single piece of evidence yet to support your claim.
> 
> It doesn't need to be the operative phrase.
> 
> The point here is, the right to keep arms is so individuals can own weapons for when the militia might need them and they can be in the militia so the militia has personnel for when it might need them. The whole point of the first part is the reason it protects the rights in the first place.
> 
> I'm stuck on the term meaning only "military service" because this is A) how it was intended and B) how the Supreme Court recognizes it today.
> 
> Where does it mean "simply to be armed"? Why would Heller uphold a previous case, Presser, which specifically said carrying arms around was NOT protected by the 2nd Amendment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> to bear arms has more than one meaning you are solely focused on the one you think it means
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I got that, I dealt with that.
> 
> Again, stool has different meanings, does that mean if I say "He sat on the stool" it has to mean he sat on the shit simply because you decided it means that.
> 
> What do you think the founding fathers wanted "bear arms" in the 2nd Amendment to mean?
> 
> A) Render military service and militia duty, or B) carry arms around that has nothing to do with the militia at all?
> 
> We know the amendment is about the militia, EVERYTHING they said in the House was about the militia. Why then do you think they were talking about self defense? So you have a single piece of evidence to suggest this? No, you don't. You have nothing, you're clutching at straws.
> 
> Let's look:
> 
> Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> _"Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."_
> 
> Okay, why would Mr Gerry say that carrying arms around would secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government? It's clear here that the amendment was designed to protect the thing that stops the mal-administration of the government. That was the militia.
> 
> _"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."_
> 
> Again, the language is pretty clear that they were not talking about individual self defense, but the protection of the militia.
> 
> A lot of the debate centered around a clause which didn't make it in. It was designed to say that individuals who had religious scruples, would not have to go into the militia.
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.""
> 
> No, why would they force individuals who were religiously scrupulous from carry arms around with them? Seriously, why? It's like having a clause that was "religiously scrupulous people do not have to carry a cat on their head".
> 
> When in the time of the US govt was an individual ever forced to carry arms around with them? Never, not before this amendment, not after, not under British rule, not under US rule.
> 
> So, please, tell me how the hell they'd come up with the idea of protecting religiously scrupulous people from doing something that didn't need to be protected, when the WHOLE of the language related to this points to not forcing individuals to be in the militia? Please, explain this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it's quite clear when one looks at other statements and documents that the second was meant to allow an individual to keep and bear arms regardless of militia service
> 
> * Thomas Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law (1880)*
> 
> *   The Constitution. -- By the Second Amendment to the Constitution it is declared that, "a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> 
> 
> The amendment, like most other provisions in the Constitution, has a history.  It was adopted with some modification and enlargement from the English Bill of Rights of 1688, where it stood as a protest against arbitrary action of the overturned dynasty in disarming the people, and as a pledge of the new rulers that this tyrannical action should cease.  The right declared was meant to be a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and as a necessary and efficient means of regaining rights when temporarily overturned by usurpation.
> 
> 
> 
> The Right is General. -- It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent.  The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon.  But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check.  The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose.  But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Intent and Purpose of our Second Amendment, is in the first clause.  Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the intent of the Second Amenddment was to allow citizens to own and carry firearms
Click to expand...


To own, not to carry. You haven't shown one single thing that shows a right to carry firearms.

What purpose would a right to carry firearms have? 

Every right in the Bill of Rights has a purpose, except the one you've made up.


----------



## Skull Pilot

frigidweirdo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> to bear arms has more than one meaning you are solely focused on the one you think it means
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I got that, I dealt with that.
> 
> Again, stool has different meanings, does that mean if I say "He sat on the stool" it has to mean he sat on the shit simply because you decided it means that.
> 
> What do you think the founding fathers wanted "bear arms" in the 2nd Amendment to mean?
> 
> A) Render military service and militia duty, or B) carry arms around that has nothing to do with the militia at all?
> 
> We know the amendment is about the militia, EVERYTHING they said in the House was about the militia. Why then do you think they were talking about self defense? So you have a single piece of evidence to suggest this? No, you don't. You have nothing, you're clutching at straws.
> 
> Let's look:
> 
> Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> _"Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."_
> 
> Okay, why would Mr Gerry say that carrying arms around would secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government? It's clear here that the amendment was designed to protect the thing that stops the mal-administration of the government. That was the militia.
> 
> _"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."_
> 
> Again, the language is pretty clear that they were not talking about individual self defense, but the protection of the militia.
> 
> A lot of the debate centered around a clause which didn't make it in. It was designed to say that individuals who had religious scruples, would not have to go into the militia.
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.""
> 
> No, why would they force individuals who were religiously scrupulous from carry arms around with them? Seriously, why? It's like having a clause that was "religiously scrupulous people do not have to carry a cat on their head".
> 
> When in the time of the US govt was an individual ever forced to carry arms around with them? Never, not before this amendment, not after, not under British rule, not under US rule.
> 
> So, please, tell me how the hell they'd come up with the idea of protecting religiously scrupulous people from doing something that didn't need to be protected, when the WHOLE of the language related to this points to not forcing individuals to be in the militia? Please, explain this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it's quite clear when one looks at other statements and documents that the second was meant to allow an individual to keep and bear arms regardless of militia service
> 
> * Thomas Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law (1880)*
> 
> *   The Constitution. -- By the Second Amendment to the Constitution it is declared that, "a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> 
> 
> The amendment, like most other provisions in the Constitution, has a history.  It was adopted with some modification and enlargement from the English Bill of Rights of 1688, where it stood as a protest against arbitrary action of the overturned dynasty in disarming the people, and as a pledge of the new rulers that this tyrannical action should cease.  The right declared was meant to be a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and as a necessary and efficient means of regaining rights when temporarily overturned by usurpation.
> 
> 
> 
> The Right is General. -- It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent.  The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon.  But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check.  The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose.  But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Intent and Purpose of our Second Amendment, is in the first clause.  Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the intent of the Second Amenddment was to allow citizens to own and carry firearms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To own, not to carry. You haven't shown one single thing that shows a right to carry firearms.
> 
> What purpose would a right to carry firearms have?
> 
> Every right in the Bill of Rights has a purpose, except the one you've made up.
Click to expand...


keep and bear

own and carry


----------



## Skull Pilot

frigidweirdo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> to bear arms has more than one meaning you are solely focused on the one you think it means
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I got that, I dealt with that.
> 
> Again, stool has different meanings, does that mean if I say "He sat on the stool" it has to mean he sat on the shit simply because you decided it means that.
> 
> What do you think the founding fathers wanted "bear arms" in the 2nd Amendment to mean?
> 
> A) Render military service and militia duty, or B) carry arms around that has nothing to do with the militia at all?
> 
> We know the amendment is about the militia, EVERYTHING they said in the House was about the militia. Why then do you think they were talking about self defense? So you have a single piece of evidence to suggest this? No, you don't. You have nothing, you're clutching at straws.
> 
> Let's look:
> 
> Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> _"Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."_
> 
> Okay, why would Mr Gerry say that carrying arms around would secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government? It's clear here that the amendment was designed to protect the thing that stops the mal-administration of the government. That was the militia.
> 
> _"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."_
> 
> Again, the language is pretty clear that they were not talking about individual self defense, but the protection of the militia.
> 
> A lot of the debate centered around a clause which didn't make it in. It was designed to say that individuals who had religious scruples, would not have to go into the militia.
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.""
> 
> No, why would they force individuals who were religiously scrupulous from carry arms around with them? Seriously, why? It's like having a clause that was "religiously scrupulous people do not have to carry a cat on their head".
> 
> When in the time of the US govt was an individual ever forced to carry arms around with them? Never, not before this amendment, not after, not under British rule, not under US rule.
> 
> So, please, tell me how the hell they'd come up with the idea of protecting religiously scrupulous people from doing something that didn't need to be protected, when the WHOLE of the language related to this points to not forcing individuals to be in the militia? Please, explain this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it's quite clear when one looks at other statements and documents that the second was meant to allow an individual to keep and bear arms regardless of militia service
> 
> * Thomas Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law (1880)*
> 
> *   The Constitution. -- By the Second Amendment to the Constitution it is declared that, "a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> 
> 
> The amendment, like most other provisions in the Constitution, has a history.  It was adopted with some modification and enlargement from the English Bill of Rights of 1688, where it stood as a protest against arbitrary action of the overturned dynasty in disarming the people, and as a pledge of the new rulers that this tyrannical action should cease.  The right declared was meant to be a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and as a necessary and efficient means of regaining rights when temporarily overturned by usurpation.
> 
> 
> 
> The Right is General. -- It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent.  The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon.  But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check.  The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose.  But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Intent and Purpose of our Second Amendment, is in the first clause.  Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the intent of the Second Amenddment was to allow citizens to own and carry firearms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To own, not to carry. You haven't shown one single thing that shows a right to carry firearms.
> 
> What purpose would a right to carry firearms have?
> 
> Every right in the Bill of Rights has a purpose, except the one you've made up.
Click to expand...


there was an acknowledged right to self preservation by the framers


----------



## Skull Pilot

Sir William Blackstone, an authoritative source of the common law for colonists and, therefore, a dominant influence on the drafters of the original Constitution and its Bill of Rights, set forth in his Commentaries the absolute rights of individuals as: personal security, personal liberty, and possession of private property, I Blackstone Commentaries 129, these absolute rights being protected by the individual's right to have and use arms for self-preservation and defense. A


----------



## frigidweirdo

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I got that, I dealt with that.
> 
> Again, stool has different meanings, does that mean if I say "He sat on the stool" it has to mean he sat on the shit simply because you decided it means that.
> 
> What do you think the founding fathers wanted "bear arms" in the 2nd Amendment to mean?
> 
> A) Render military service and militia duty, or B) carry arms around that has nothing to do with the militia at all?
> 
> We know the amendment is about the militia, EVERYTHING they said in the House was about the militia. Why then do you think they were talking about self defense? So you have a single piece of evidence to suggest this? No, you don't. You have nothing, you're clutching at straws.
> 
> Let's look:
> 
> Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> _"Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."_
> 
> Okay, why would Mr Gerry say that carrying arms around would secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government? It's clear here that the amendment was designed to protect the thing that stops the mal-administration of the government. That was the militia.
> 
> _"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."_
> 
> Again, the language is pretty clear that they were not talking about individual self defense, but the protection of the militia.
> 
> A lot of the debate centered around a clause which didn't make it in. It was designed to say that individuals who had religious scruples, would not have to go into the militia.
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.""
> 
> No, why would they force individuals who were religiously scrupulous from carry arms around with them? Seriously, why? It's like having a clause that was "religiously scrupulous people do not have to carry a cat on their head".
> 
> When in the time of the US govt was an individual ever forced to carry arms around with them? Never, not before this amendment, not after, not under British rule, not under US rule.
> 
> So, please, tell me how the hell they'd come up with the idea of protecting religiously scrupulous people from doing something that didn't need to be protected, when the WHOLE of the language related to this points to not forcing individuals to be in the militia? Please, explain this one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's quite clear when one looks at other statements and documents that the second was meant to allow an individual to keep and bear arms regardless of militia service
> 
> * Thomas Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law (1880)*
> 
> *   The Constitution. -- By the Second Amendment to the Constitution it is declared that, "a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> 
> 
> The amendment, like most other provisions in the Constitution, has a history.  It was adopted with some modification and enlargement from the English Bill of Rights of 1688, where it stood as a protest against arbitrary action of the overturned dynasty in disarming the people, and as a pledge of the new rulers that this tyrannical action should cease.  The right declared was meant to be a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and as a necessary and efficient means of regaining rights when temporarily overturned by usurpation.
> 
> 
> 
> The Right is General. -- It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent.  The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon.  But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check.  The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose.  But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Intent and Purpose of our Second Amendment, is in the first clause.  Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the intent of the Second Amenddment was to allow citizens to own and carry firearms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To own, not to carry. You haven't shown one single thing that shows a right to carry firearms.
> 
> What purpose would a right to carry firearms have?
> 
> Every right in the Bill of Rights has a purpose, except the one you've made up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> keep and bear
> 
> own and carry
Click to expand...


Haven't we done this TWICE already?

Stool... 

"A piece of feces."

Does this mean whenever someone writes stool that it always means a piece of feces? No, it doesn't.

Just because something CAN mean something, doesn't mean it DOES mean something.

And again, you've provided NO EVIDENCE for any of this. You've seen what the founding fathers said, and you've seen that "bear arms" is synonymous with "render military service" and "militia duty", so what's the problem?

I know the problem is that the truth is inconvenient for you.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I got that, I dealt with that.
> 
> Again, stool has different meanings, does that mean if I say "He sat on the stool" it has to mean he sat on the shit simply because you decided it means that.
> 
> What do you think the founding fathers wanted "bear arms" in the 2nd Amendment to mean?
> 
> A) Render military service and militia duty, or B) carry arms around that has nothing to do with the militia at all?
> 
> We know the amendment is about the militia, EVERYTHING they said in the House was about the militia. Why then do you think they were talking about self defense? So you have a single piece of evidence to suggest this? No, you don't. You have nothing, you're clutching at straws.
> 
> Let's look:
> 
> Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> _"Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."_
> 
> Okay, why would Mr Gerry say that carrying arms around would secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government? It's clear here that the amendment was designed to protect the thing that stops the mal-administration of the government. That was the militia.
> 
> _"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."_
> 
> Again, the language is pretty clear that they were not talking about individual self defense, but the protection of the militia.
> 
> A lot of the debate centered around a clause which didn't make it in. It was designed to say that individuals who had religious scruples, would not have to go into the militia.
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.""
> 
> No, why would they force individuals who were religiously scrupulous from carry arms around with them? Seriously, why? It's like having a clause that was "religiously scrupulous people do not have to carry a cat on their head".
> 
> When in the time of the US govt was an individual ever forced to carry arms around with them? Never, not before this amendment, not after, not under British rule, not under US rule.
> 
> So, please, tell me how the hell they'd come up with the idea of protecting religiously scrupulous people from doing something that didn't need to be protected, when the WHOLE of the language related to this points to not forcing individuals to be in the militia? Please, explain this one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's quite clear when one looks at other statements and documents that the second was meant to allow an individual to keep and bear arms regardless of militia service
> 
> * Thomas Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law (1880)*
> 
> *   The Constitution. -- By the Second Amendment to the Constitution it is declared that, "a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> 
> 
> The amendment, like most other provisions in the Constitution, has a history.  It was adopted with some modification and enlargement from the English Bill of Rights of 1688, where it stood as a protest against arbitrary action of the overturned dynasty in disarming the people, and as a pledge of the new rulers that this tyrannical action should cease.  The right declared was meant to be a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and as a necessary and efficient means of regaining rights when temporarily overturned by usurpation.
> 
> 
> 
> The Right is General. -- It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent.  The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon.  But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check.  The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose.  But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Intent and Purpose of our Second Amendment, is in the first clause.  Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the intent of the Second Amenddment was to allow citizens to own and carry firearms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To own, not to carry. You haven't shown one single thing that shows a right to carry firearms.
> 
> What purpose would a right to carry firearms have?
> 
> Every right in the Bill of Rights has a purpose, except the one you've made up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> there was an acknowledged right to self preservation by the framers
Click to expand...


Okay. So what does this have to do with the Second Amendment?

What does a right to self defense have to do with the Second Amendment. 

We're not discussing whether there's a right to self defense, I think both of us acknowledge this is the case. 

You CAN carry guns in many parts of the US, depending on STATE LAW and sometimes federal law too. Just because you CAN DO SOMETHING doesn't mean it's protected by the Second Amendment. 

Let's make it easy, i ask questions, you answer yes or no.

Does the Second Amendment say anything about a right to self defense?


----------



## Skull Pilot

frigidweirdo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> it's quite clear when one looks at other statements and documents that the second was meant to allow an individual to keep and bear arms regardless of militia service
> 
> * Thomas Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law (1880)*
> 
> *   The Constitution. -- By the Second Amendment to the Constitution it is declared that, "a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> 
> 
> The amendment, like most other provisions in the Constitution, has a history.  It was adopted with some modification and enlargement from the English Bill of Rights of 1688, where it stood as a protest against arbitrary action of the overturned dynasty in disarming the people, and as a pledge of the new rulers that this tyrannical action should cease.  The right declared was meant to be a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and as a necessary and efficient means of regaining rights when temporarily overturned by usurpation.
> 
> 
> 
> The Right is General. -- It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent.  The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon.  But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check.  The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose.  But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order.*
> 
> 
> 
> The Intent and Purpose of our Second Amendment, is in the first clause.  Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the intent of the Second Amenddment was to allow citizens to own and carry firearms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To own, not to carry. You haven't shown one single thing that shows a right to carry firearms.
> 
> What purpose would a right to carry firearms have?
> 
> Every right in the Bill of Rights has a purpose, except the one you've made up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> keep and bear
> 
> own and carry
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haven't we done this TWICE already?
> 
> Stool...
> 
> "A piece of feces."
> 
> Does this mean whenever someone writes stool that it always means a piece of feces? No, it doesn't.
> 
> Just because something CAN mean something, doesn't mean it DOES mean something.
> 
> And again, you've provided NO EVIDENCE for any of this. You've seen what the founding fathers said, and you've seen that "bear arms" is synonymous with "render military service" and "militia duty", so what's the problem?
> 
> I know the problem is that the truth is inconvenient for you.
Click to expand...

and you are the authority on what it does mean huh?

tell me then why is the word Arms in the second capitalized if it is part of the phrase bear arms which you say means exclusively military service?


----------



## Skull Pilot

frigidweirdo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> it's quite clear when one looks at other statements and documents that the second was meant to allow an individual to keep and bear arms regardless of militia service
> 
> * Thomas Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law (1880)*
> 
> *   The Constitution. -- By the Second Amendment to the Constitution it is declared that, "a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> 
> 
> The amendment, like most other provisions in the Constitution, has a history.  It was adopted with some modification and enlargement from the English Bill of Rights of 1688, where it stood as a protest against arbitrary action of the overturned dynasty in disarming the people, and as a pledge of the new rulers that this tyrannical action should cease.  The right declared was meant to be a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and as a necessary and efficient means of regaining rights when temporarily overturned by usurpation.
> 
> 
> 
> The Right is General. -- It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent.  The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon.  But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check.  The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose.  But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order.*
> 
> 
> 
> The Intent and Purpose of our Second Amendment, is in the first clause.  Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the intent of the Second Amenddment was to allow citizens to own and carry firearms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To own, not to carry. You haven't shown one single thing that shows a right to carry firearms.
> 
> What purpose would a right to carry firearms have?
> 
> Every right in the Bill of Rights has a purpose, except the one you've made up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> there was an acknowledged right to self preservation by the framers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay. So what does this have to do with the Second Amendment?
> 
> What does a right to self defense have to do with the Second Amendment.
> 
> We're not discussing whether there's a right to self defense, I think both of us acknowledge this is the case.
> 
> You CAN carry guns in many parts of the US, depending on STATE LAW and sometimes federal law too. Just because you CAN DO SOMETHING doesn't mean it's protected by the Second Amendment.
> 
> Let's make it easy, i ask questions, you answer yes or no.
> 
> Does the Second Amendment say anything about a right to self defense?
Click to expand...

there was an acknowledged right to use firearms for self defense


----------



## frigidweirdo

Skull Pilot said:


> Sir William Blackstone, an authoritative source of the common law for colonists and, therefore, a dominant influence on the drafters of the original Constitution and its Bill of Rights, set forth in his Commentaries the absolute rights of individuals as: personal security, personal liberty, and possession of private property, I Blackstone Commentaries 129, these absolute rights being protected by the individual's right to have and use arms for self-preservation and defense. A



First, you'd have been better of going to the actual source of Blackstone's commentaries, rather than quoting someone interpreting something.

Amendment II: William Blackstone, Commentaries 1:139

"5. The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law."

"arms for their defence"

What does this say? Does this say arms for their own personal defence, or arms for their defence as a collective unit? 

"and such as are allowed by law."

What does this say? Well, it says it's not a right. If it were a right, then no law could prevent it, but he's saying that the law can impose on this "right"...

Basically what you have there, if you'd have gone to the source first

You source says "
Clearly evident in this statement is Blackstone's recognition that the exercise of an individual's absolute rights could be imperiled by a standing army as well as by private individuals,"

Which again implies that this is about a collective self defense of the militia, rather than individual personal self defense. 

Though the issue here the Second Amendment and NOT the right to self defense, wouldn't you agree?


----------



## Skull Pilot

the ninth amendment

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

you are violating the ninth with your interpretation of the second


----------



## frigidweirdo

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Intent and Purpose of our Second Amendment, is in the first clause.  Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.
> 
> 
> 
> the intent of the Second Amenddment was to allow citizens to own and carry firearms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To own, not to carry. You haven't shown one single thing that shows a right to carry firearms.
> 
> What purpose would a right to carry firearms have?
> 
> Every right in the Bill of Rights has a purpose, except the one you've made up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> keep and bear
> 
> own and carry
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haven't we done this TWICE already?
> 
> Stool...
> 
> "A piece of feces."
> 
> Does this mean whenever someone writes stool that it always means a piece of feces? No, it doesn't.
> 
> Just because something CAN mean something, doesn't mean it DOES mean something.
> 
> And again, you've provided NO EVIDENCE for any of this. You've seen what the founding fathers said, and you've seen that "bear arms" is synonymous with "render military service" and "militia duty", so what's the problem?
> 
> I know the problem is that the truth is inconvenient for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and you are the authority on what it does mean huh?
> 
> tell me then why is the word Arms in the second capitalized if it is part of the phrase bear arms which you say means exclusively military service?
Click to expand...


Wow wow wow. Stop with this shit. I'm not going to talk to you on this if you start using crappy deflecting nonsense like "and you are the authority on what it does mean huh?" 

I'm here, I'm making my case, I'm backing it up with evidence and I have been VERY PATIENT with you, so don't go there. 

Why is the word Arms capitalized?

Well maybe someone got bored.






Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

You can look at it closer on that link. 

It's larger, and it would appear to be capitalized if you look at the first "a" in the text, but different from the modern "A".

However look at the text, "Militia" is capitalized. "State" is capitalized. Why? I have no idea. It certainly doesn't follow the rules of modern English, but this wasn't modern English.

The first amendment has "Government" capitalized, the Third has "Soldier" capitalized as well as "Owner".

Why? It would seem to be style. Certainly it doesn't seem to have any meaning whatsoever, unless of course you can enlighten me on it. 

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

Certainly through the process of discussing the future Amendment, they didn't capitalize it at all:

""A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.""

Though I don't have the original image at hand. 

But you just seem to be digging at something, and I feel that you don't actually have anything. 

But again, a question: 

In the discussions in the House for the future Second Amendment, did the founders use "bear arms" synonymously with anything other than "render military service" and "Militia duty"?


----------



## frigidweirdo

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Intent and Purpose of our Second Amendment, is in the first clause.  Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.
> 
> 
> 
> the intent of the Second Amenddment was to allow citizens to own and carry firearms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To own, not to carry. You haven't shown one single thing that shows a right to carry firearms.
> 
> What purpose would a right to carry firearms have?
> 
> Every right in the Bill of Rights has a purpose, except the one you've made up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> there was an acknowledged right to self preservation by the framers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay. So what does this have to do with the Second Amendment?
> 
> What does a right to self defense have to do with the Second Amendment.
> 
> We're not discussing whether there's a right to self defense, I think both of us acknowledge this is the case.
> 
> You CAN carry guns in many parts of the US, depending on STATE LAW and sometimes federal law too. Just because you CAN DO SOMETHING doesn't mean it's protected by the Second Amendment.
> 
> Let's make it easy, i ask questions, you answer yes or no.
> 
> Does the Second Amendment say anything about a right to self defense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there was an acknowledged right to use firearms for self defense
Click to expand...


So what? What's your point here? What does this have to do with the Second Amendment?


----------



## frigidweirdo

Skull Pilot said:


> the ninth amendment
> 
> The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
> 
> you are violating the ninth with your interpretation of the second



Oh my God, your arguments are getting worse and worse.

First, the Constitution concerns the Federal Govt, sorry to tell you but I am not the Federal Govt. I cannot infringe on your Second Amendment rights, only the govt can. This is something so fundamental, that I can't believe you even said it. 

I can interpret things however I like and it will not violate any constitutional right EVER. 

Second, this Amendment basically says that A) these Amendments are LIMITS on Federal power, and B) that just because something isn't in this Bill of Rights, it doesn't mean it's not a right, and it doesn't mean the Federal govt has the power to infringe upon that right. 

Again, there's no fucking way in hell I can infringe or violate your right through this. It's about the govt.


----------



## Skull Pilot

frigidweirdo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> the intent of the Second Amenddment was to allow citizens to own and carry firearms
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To own, not to carry. You haven't shown one single thing that shows a right to carry firearms.
> 
> What purpose would a right to carry firearms have?
> 
> Every right in the Bill of Rights has a purpose, except the one you've made up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> there was an acknowledged right to self preservation by the framers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay. So what does this have to do with the Second Amendment?
> 
> What does a right to self defense have to do with the Second Amendment.
> 
> We're not discussing whether there's a right to self defense, I think both of us acknowledge this is the case.
> 
> You CAN carry guns in many parts of the US, depending on STATE LAW and sometimes federal law too. Just because you CAN DO SOMETHING doesn't mean it's protected by the Second Amendment.
> 
> Let's make it easy, i ask questions, you answer yes or no.
> 
> Does the Second Amendment say anything about a right to self defense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there was an acknowledged right to use firearms for self defense
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what? What's your point here? What does this have to do with the Second Amendment?
Click to expand...


you say the second does not give anyone the right to carry a gun for self defense

I disagree but the ninth also states the people retain rights not enumerated in the Constitution
and there was an acknowledged right to self defense and self preservation not specifically mentioned in the Constitution

so carrying a gun that you have the right to own for self defense is a right of the people as well


----------



## Skull Pilot

frigidweirdo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> the ninth amendment
> 
> The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
> 
> you are violating the ninth with your interpretation of the second
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my God, your arguments are getting worse and worse.
> 
> First, the Constitution concerns the Federal Govt, sorry to tell you but I am not the Federal Govt. I cannot infringe on your Second Amendment rights, only the govt can. This is something so fundamental, that I can't believe you even said it.
> 
> I can interpret things however I like and it will not violate any constitutional right EVER.
> 
> Second, this Amendment basically says that A) these Amendments are LIMITS on Federal power, and B) that just because something isn't in this Bill of Rights, it doesn't mean it's not a right, and it doesn't mean the Federal govt has the power to infringe upon that right.
> 
> Again, there's no fucking way in hell I can infringe or violate your right through this. It's about the govt.
Click to expand...

where did I say anything about YOU violating my rights?
Your interpretation of the second violates the ninth by saying a right doesn't exist simply because it's not specifically mentioned

and the point of the second is that the GOVERNMENT cannot infringe the right to keep and bear arms


----------



## frigidweirdo

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> To own, not to carry. You haven't shown one single thing that shows a right to carry firearms.
> 
> What purpose would a right to carry firearms have?
> 
> Every right in the Bill of Rights has a purpose, except the one you've made up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there was an acknowledged right to self preservation by the framers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay. So what does this have to do with the Second Amendment?
> 
> What does a right to self defense have to do with the Second Amendment.
> 
> We're not discussing whether there's a right to self defense, I think both of us acknowledge this is the case.
> 
> You CAN carry guns in many parts of the US, depending on STATE LAW and sometimes federal law too. Just because you CAN DO SOMETHING doesn't mean it's protected by the Second Amendment.
> 
> Let's make it easy, i ask questions, you answer yes or no.
> 
> Does the Second Amendment say anything about a right to self defense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there was an acknowledged right to use firearms for self defense
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what? What's your point here? What does this have to do with the Second Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you say the second does not give anyone the right to carry a gun for self defense
> 
> I disagree but the ninth also states the people retain rights not enumerated in the Constitution
> and there was an acknowledged right to self defense and self preservation not specifically mentioned in the Constitution
> 
> so carrying a gun that you have the right to own for self defense is a right of the people as well
Click to expand...


You disagree because..... what evidence do you have to disagree? Because you've presented NO evidence of this.

Yes, the NINTH (The ninth amendment is not the Second Amendment) says there are other rights, like the right to self defense, which are still rights no matter that they haven't been included in the Bill of Rights. 

The question is this: Is it possible to defend yourself without a gun? 

Second question is this: If you can defend yourself with something, does it automatically get protected under the Ninth Amendment?


----------



## Skull Pilot

frigidweirdo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> there was an acknowledged right to self preservation by the framers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay. So what does this have to do with the Second Amendment?
> 
> What does a right to self defense have to do with the Second Amendment.
> 
> We're not discussing whether there's a right to self defense, I think both of us acknowledge this is the case.
> 
> You CAN carry guns in many parts of the US, depending on STATE LAW and sometimes federal law too. Just because you CAN DO SOMETHING doesn't mean it's protected by the Second Amendment.
> 
> Let's make it easy, i ask questions, you answer yes or no.
> 
> Does the Second Amendment say anything about a right to self defense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there was an acknowledged right to use firearms for self defense
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what? What's your point here? What does this have to do with the Second Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you say the second does not give anyone the right to carry a gun for self defense
> 
> I disagree but the ninth also states the people retain rights not enumerated in the Constitution
> and there was an acknowledged right to self defense and self preservation not specifically mentioned in the Constitution
> 
> so carrying a gun that you have the right to own for self defense is a right of the people as well
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You disagree because..... what evidence do you have to disagree? Because you've presented NO evidence of this.
> 
> Yes, the NINTH (The ninth amendment is not the Second Amendment) says there are other rights, like the right to self defense, which are still rights no matter that they haven't been included in the Bill of Rights.
> 
> The question is this: Is it possible to defend yourself without a gun?
> 
> Second question is this: If you can defend yourself with something, does it automatically get protected under the Ninth Amendment?
Click to expand...


It is up to the individual to decide what means are best to defend himself


----------



## frigidweirdo

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> the ninth amendment
> 
> The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
> 
> you are violating the ninth with your interpretation of the second
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my God, your arguments are getting worse and worse.
> 
> First, the Constitution concerns the Federal Govt, sorry to tell you but I am not the Federal Govt. I cannot infringe on your Second Amendment rights, only the govt can. This is something so fundamental, that I can't believe you even said it.
> 
> I can interpret things however I like and it will not violate any constitutional right EVER.
> 
> Second, this Amendment basically says that A) these Amendments are LIMITS on Federal power, and B) that just because something isn't in this Bill of Rights, it doesn't mean it's not a right, and it doesn't mean the Federal govt has the power to infringe upon that right.
> 
> Again, there's no fucking way in hell I can infringe or violate your right through this. It's about the govt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> where did I say anything about YOU violating my rights?
> Your interpretation of the second violates the ninth by saying a right doesn't exist simply because it's not specifically mentioned
> 
> and the point of the second is that the GOVERNMENT cannot infringe the right to keep and bear arms
Click to expand...


Where did you say anything about me violating your rights? 

HERE: "you are violating the ninth with your interpretation of the second"

Okay, so I have a right to kill you. If you say it isn't so, you're violating the ninth. Are we in agreement?


----------



## frigidweirdo

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay. So what does this have to do with the Second Amendment?
> 
> What does a right to self defense have to do with the Second Amendment.
> 
> We're not discussing whether there's a right to self defense, I think both of us acknowledge this is the case.
> 
> You CAN carry guns in many parts of the US, depending on STATE LAW and sometimes federal law too. Just because you CAN DO SOMETHING doesn't mean it's protected by the Second Amendment.
> 
> Let's make it easy, i ask questions, you answer yes or no.
> 
> Does the Second Amendment say anything about a right to self defense?
> 
> 
> 
> there was an acknowledged right to use firearms for self defense
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what? What's your point here? What does this have to do with the Second Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you say the second does not give anyone the right to carry a gun for self defense
> 
> I disagree but the ninth also states the people retain rights not enumerated in the Constitution
> and there was an acknowledged right to self defense and self preservation not specifically mentioned in the Constitution
> 
> so carrying a gun that you have the right to own for self defense is a right of the people as well
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You disagree because..... what evidence do you have to disagree? Because you've presented NO evidence of this.
> 
> Yes, the NINTH (The ninth amendment is not the Second Amendment) says there are other rights, like the right to self defense, which are still rights no matter that they haven't been included in the Bill of Rights.
> 
> The question is this: Is it possible to defend yourself without a gun?
> 
> Second question is this: If you can defend yourself with something, does it automatically get protected under the Ninth Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is up to the individual to decide what means are best to defend himself
Click to expand...


You didn't answer my question. 

If you can defend yourself with something, does that object suddenly become protected?


----------



## Skull Pilot

frigidweirdo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> the ninth amendment
> 
> The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
> 
> you are violating the ninth with your interpretation of the second
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my God, your arguments are getting worse and worse.
> 
> First, the Constitution concerns the Federal Govt, sorry to tell you but I am not the Federal Govt. I cannot infringe on your Second Amendment rights, only the govt can. This is something so fundamental, that I can't believe you even said it.
> 
> I can interpret things however I like and it will not violate any constitutional right EVER.
> 
> Second, this Amendment basically says that A) these Amendments are LIMITS on Federal power, and B) that just because something isn't in this Bill of Rights, it doesn't mean it's not a right, and it doesn't mean the Federal govt has the power to infringe upon that right.
> 
> Again, there's no fucking way in hell I can infringe or violate your right through this. It's about the govt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> where did I say anything about YOU violating my rights?
> Your interpretation of the second violates the ninth by saying a right doesn't exist simply because it's not specifically mentioned
> 
> and the point of the second is that the GOVERNMENT cannot infringe the right to keep and bear arms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did you say anything about me violating your rights?
> 
> HERE: "you are violating the ninth with your interpretation of the second"
> 
> Okay, so I have a right to kill you. If you say it isn't so, you're violating the ninth. Are we in agreement?
Click to expand...


I never said you violated my rights I said your interpretation of one amendment violates another amendment

you have no power to violate my rights


----------



## Skull Pilot

frigidweirdo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> there was an acknowledged right to use firearms for self defense
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what? What's your point here? What does this have to do with the Second Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you say the second does not give anyone the right to carry a gun for self defense
> 
> I disagree but the ninth also states the people retain rights not enumerated in the Constitution
> and there was an acknowledged right to self defense and self preservation not specifically mentioned in the Constitution
> 
> so carrying a gun that you have the right to own for self defense is a right of the people as well
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You disagree because..... what evidence do you have to disagree? Because you've presented NO evidence of this.
> 
> Yes, the NINTH (The ninth amendment is not the Second Amendment) says there are other rights, like the right to self defense, which are still rights no matter that they haven't been included in the Bill of Rights.
> 
> The question is this: Is it possible to defend yourself without a gun?
> 
> Second question is this: If you can defend yourself with something, does it automatically get protected under the Ninth Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is up to the individual to decide what means are best to defend himself
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't answer my question.
> 
> If you can defend yourself with something, does that object suddenly become protected?
Click to expand...



It should


----------



## frigidweirdo

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> the ninth amendment
> 
> The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
> 
> you are violating the ninth with your interpretation of the second
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my God, your arguments are getting worse and worse.
> 
> First, the Constitution concerns the Federal Govt, sorry to tell you but I am not the Federal Govt. I cannot infringe on your Second Amendment rights, only the govt can. This is something so fundamental, that I can't believe you even said it.
> 
> I can interpret things however I like and it will not violate any constitutional right EVER.
> 
> Second, this Amendment basically says that A) these Amendments are LIMITS on Federal power, and B) that just because something isn't in this Bill of Rights, it doesn't mean it's not a right, and it doesn't mean the Federal govt has the power to infringe upon that right.
> 
> Again, there's no fucking way in hell I can infringe or violate your right through this. It's about the govt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> where did I say anything about YOU violating my rights?
> Your interpretation of the second violates the ninth by saying a right doesn't exist simply because it's not specifically mentioned
> 
> and the point of the second is that the GOVERNMENT cannot infringe the right to keep and bear arms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did you say anything about me violating your rights?
> 
> HERE: "you are violating the ninth with your interpretation of the second"
> 
> Okay, so I have a right to kill you. If you say it isn't so, you're violating the ninth. Are we in agreement?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said you violated my rights I said your interpretation of one amendment violates another amendment
> 
> you have no power to violate my rights
Click to expand...


How can I violate an Amendment of the Bill of Rights? I'm not part of the Federal govt. 

Second, if I'm violating the Amendment, and the Amendment is about rights, then what am I violating? It must be rights. And I'd assume that if there is a right and EVERYONE has that right, then I'm violating YOUR right. 

I have lots of power to violate your rights, thank you.

I can kill you. That power alone takes away ALL OF YOUR RIGHTS.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what? What's your point here? What does this have to do with the Second Amendment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you say the second does not give anyone the right to carry a gun for self defense
> 
> I disagree but the ninth also states the people retain rights not enumerated in the Constitution
> and there was an acknowledged right to self defense and self preservation not specifically mentioned in the Constitution
> 
> so carrying a gun that you have the right to own for self defense is a right of the people as well
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You disagree because..... what evidence do you have to disagree? Because you've presented NO evidence of this.
> 
> Yes, the NINTH (The ninth amendment is not the Second Amendment) says there are other rights, like the right to self defense, which are still rights no matter that they haven't been included in the Bill of Rights.
> 
> The question is this: Is it possible to defend yourself without a gun?
> 
> Second question is this: If you can defend yourself with something, does it automatically get protected under the Ninth Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is up to the individual to decide what means are best to defend himself
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't answer my question.
> 
> If you can defend yourself with something, does that object suddenly become protected?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It should
Click to expand...


"It should" means it doesn't/ Right, thank you.

So, if an object doesn't automatically get protected simply because you can defend yourself with it, does this mean that the right to self defense protects your right to own a weapon? The answer is no. The right to keep arms protects your right to own a weapon, not the right to self defense. Why? Because the right to self defense is the right to defend yourself, not the right to own things. It's an ACTION, not ownership.


----------



## Skull Pilot

frigidweirdo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> the ninth amendment
> 
> The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
> 
> you are violating the ninth with your interpretation of the second
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my God, your arguments are getting worse and worse.
> 
> First, the Constitution concerns the Federal Govt, sorry to tell you but I am not the Federal Govt. I cannot infringe on your Second Amendment rights, only the govt can. This is something so fundamental, that I can't believe you even said it.
> 
> I can interpret things however I like and it will not violate any constitutional right EVER.
> 
> Second, this Amendment basically says that A) these Amendments are LIMITS on Federal power, and B) that just because something isn't in this Bill of Rights, it doesn't mean it's not a right, and it doesn't mean the Federal govt has the power to infringe upon that right.
> 
> Again, there's no fucking way in hell I can infringe or violate your right through this. It's about the govt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> where did I say anything about YOU violating my rights?
> Your interpretation of the second violates the ninth by saying a right doesn't exist simply because it's not specifically mentioned
> 
> and the point of the second is that the GOVERNMENT cannot infringe the right to keep and bear arms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did you say anything about me violating your rights?
> 
> HERE: "you are violating the ninth with your interpretation of the second"
> 
> Okay, so I have a right to kill you. If you say it isn't so, you're violating the ninth. Are we in agreement?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said you violated my rights I said your interpretation of one amendment violates another amendment
> 
> you have no power to violate my rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can I violate an Amendment of the Bill of Rights? I'm not part of the Federal govt.
> 
> Second, if I'm violating the Amendment, and the Amendment is about rights, then what am I violating? It must be rights. And I'd assume that if there is a right and EVERYONE has that right, then I'm violating YOUR right.
> 
> I have lots of power to violate your rights, thank you.
> 
> I can kill you. That power alone takes away ALL OF YOUR RIGHTS.
Click to expand...


fine

your interpretation of the second contradicts the ninth


----------



## Skull Pilot

frigidweirdo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> you say the second does not give anyone the right to carry a gun for self defense
> 
> I disagree but the ninth also states the people retain rights not enumerated in the Constitution
> and there was an acknowledged right to self defense and self preservation not specifically mentioned in the Constitution
> 
> so carrying a gun that you have the right to own for self defense is a right of the people as well
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You disagree because..... what evidence do you have to disagree? Because you've presented NO evidence of this.
> 
> Yes, the NINTH (The ninth amendment is not the Second Amendment) says there are other rights, like the right to self defense, which are still rights no matter that they haven't been included in the Bill of Rights.
> 
> The question is this: Is it possible to defend yourself without a gun?
> 
> Second question is this: If you can defend yourself with something, does it automatically get protected under the Ninth Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is up to the individual to decide what means are best to defend himself
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't answer my question.
> 
> If you can defend yourself with something, does that object suddenly become protected?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It should
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "It should" means it doesn't/ Right, thank you.
> 
> So, if an object doesn't automatically get protected simply because you can defend yourself with it, does this mean that the right to self defense protects your right to own a weapon? The answer is no. The right to keep arms protects your right to own a weapon, not the right to self defense. Why? Because the right to self defense is the right to defend yourself, not the right to own things. It's an ACTION, not ownership.
Click to expand...


I already have the right to own a firearm and you acknowledged that right

using a firearm is an action of self defense


----------



## frigidweirdo

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my God, your arguments are getting worse and worse.
> 
> First, the Constitution concerns the Federal Govt, sorry to tell you but I am not the Federal Govt. I cannot infringe on your Second Amendment rights, only the govt can. This is something so fundamental, that I can't believe you even said it.
> 
> I can interpret things however I like and it will not violate any constitutional right EVER.
> 
> Second, this Amendment basically says that A) these Amendments are LIMITS on Federal power, and B) that just because something isn't in this Bill of Rights, it doesn't mean it's not a right, and it doesn't mean the Federal govt has the power to infringe upon that right.
> 
> Again, there's no fucking way in hell I can infringe or violate your right through this. It's about the govt.
> 
> 
> 
> where did I say anything about YOU violating my rights?
> Your interpretation of the second violates the ninth by saying a right doesn't exist simply because it's not specifically mentioned
> 
> and the point of the second is that the GOVERNMENT cannot infringe the right to keep and bear arms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did you say anything about me violating your rights?
> 
> HERE: "you are violating the ninth with your interpretation of the second"
> 
> Okay, so I have a right to kill you. If you say it isn't so, you're violating the ninth. Are we in agreement?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said you violated my rights I said your interpretation of one amendment violates another amendment
> 
> you have no power to violate my rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can I violate an Amendment of the Bill of Rights? I'm not part of the Federal govt.
> 
> Second, if I'm violating the Amendment, and the Amendment is about rights, then what am I violating? It must be rights. And I'd assume that if there is a right and EVERYONE has that right, then I'm violating YOUR right.
> 
> I have lots of power to violate your rights, thank you.
> 
> I can kill you. That power alone takes away ALL OF YOUR RIGHTS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> fine
> 
> your interpretation of the second contradicts the ninth
Click to expand...


But it doesn't. How can it contradict the ninth? 

Again, the CONSTITUTION is about the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. 

The Bill of Rights LIMITS FEDERAL POWER.

The Constitution itself tells the govt what powers it has and doesn't have.

I AM NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.


----------



## Skull Pilot

frigidweirdo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> where did I say anything about YOU violating my rights?
> Your interpretation of the second violates the ninth by saying a right doesn't exist simply because it's not specifically mentioned
> 
> and the point of the second is that the GOVERNMENT cannot infringe the right to keep and bear arms
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you say anything about me violating your rights?
> 
> HERE: "you are violating the ninth with your interpretation of the second"
> 
> Okay, so I have a right to kill you. If you say it isn't so, you're violating the ninth. Are we in agreement?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said you violated my rights I said your interpretation of one amendment violates another amendment
> 
> you have no power to violate my rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can I violate an Amendment of the Bill of Rights? I'm not part of the Federal govt.
> 
> Second, if I'm violating the Amendment, and the Amendment is about rights, then what am I violating? It must be rights. And I'd assume that if there is a right and EVERYONE has that right, then I'm violating YOUR right.
> 
> I have lots of power to violate your rights, thank you.
> 
> I can kill you. That power alone takes away ALL OF YOUR RIGHTS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> fine
> 
> your interpretation of the second contradicts the ninth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But it doesn't. How can it contradict the ninth?
> 
> Again, the CONSTITUTION is about the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
> 
> The Bill of Rights LIMITS FEDERAL POWER.
> 
> The Constitution itself tells the govt what powers it has and doesn't have.
> 
> I AM NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
Click to expand...


you say there is no right to carry a gun

The ninth specifically states not all rights of the people are listed in the constitutions so there is a right to carry a weapon


----------



## frigidweirdo

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You disagree because..... what evidence do you have to disagree? Because you've presented NO evidence of this.
> 
> Yes, the NINTH (The ninth amendment is not the Second Amendment) says there are other rights, like the right to self defense, which are still rights no matter that they haven't been included in the Bill of Rights.
> 
> The question is this: Is it possible to defend yourself without a gun?
> 
> Second question is this: If you can defend yourself with something, does it automatically get protected under the Ninth Amendment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is up to the individual to decide what means are best to defend himself
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't answer my question.
> 
> If you can defend yourself with something, does that object suddenly become protected?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It should
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "It should" means it doesn't/ Right, thank you.
> 
> So, if an object doesn't automatically get protected simply because you can defend yourself with it, does this mean that the right to self defense protects your right to own a weapon? The answer is no. The right to keep arms protects your right to own a weapon, not the right to self defense. Why? Because the right to self defense is the right to defend yourself, not the right to own things. It's an ACTION, not ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already have the right to own a firearm and you acknowledged that right
> 
> using a firearm is an action of self defense
Click to expand...


Okay... and you're putting 2 and 2 together and making 64.... so..... what? 

You have the right to own a gun. 

The state you are in might say you are allowed to carry your gun unconcealed. They might say you're allowed to carry it concealed. So what? What does this have to do with the Second Amendment?

Again, just because something isn't protected, doesn't mean you can't do it. 

You can legally use guns to defend yourself in many places. That does not mean you have a right to carry guns. It means you're legally ALLOWED to carry guns.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you say anything about me violating your rights?
> 
> HERE: "you are violating the ninth with your interpretation of the second"
> 
> Okay, so I have a right to kill you. If you say it isn't so, you're violating the ninth. Are we in agreement?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said you violated my rights I said your interpretation of one amendment violates another amendment
> 
> you have no power to violate my rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can I violate an Amendment of the Bill of Rights? I'm not part of the Federal govt.
> 
> Second, if I'm violating the Amendment, and the Amendment is about rights, then what am I violating? It must be rights. And I'd assume that if there is a right and EVERYONE has that right, then I'm violating YOUR right.
> 
> I have lots of power to violate your rights, thank you.
> 
> I can kill you. That power alone takes away ALL OF YOUR RIGHTS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> fine
> 
> your interpretation of the second contradicts the ninth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But it doesn't. How can it contradict the ninth?
> 
> Again, the CONSTITUTION is about the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
> 
> The Bill of Rights LIMITS FEDERAL POWER.
> 
> The Constitution itself tells the govt what powers it has and doesn't have.
> 
> I AM NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you say there is no right to carry a gun
> 
> The ninth specifically states not all rights of the people are listed in the constitutions so there is a right to carry a weapon
Click to expand...


Yes it does. 

However you've jumped from that, to somehow I'm contradicting the amendment. 

I say there's a right to kill you. Does that make it so? Who decides whether there's a right or not? You? No.....

The reality is that rights are fictional in the first place. They exist because we exist, we make them exist. In the UK there is not considered to be a right to keep and bear arms, but the US says there is, and says all people in the world have it.

Does that mean the right exists in the UK? Not really, it doesn't exist at all, expect on paper. 

So it's about law. A right is something higher than the law, the govt can't just change it tomorrow, it takes time. 

So, does the govt give you a right to carry arms? No, it does not.


----------



## Skull Pilot

frigidweirdo said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said you violated my rights I said your interpretation of one amendment violates another amendment
> 
> you have no power to violate my rights
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can I violate an Amendment of the Bill of Rights? I'm not part of the Federal govt.
> 
> Second, if I'm violating the Amendment, and the Amendment is about rights, then what am I violating? It must be rights. And I'd assume that if there is a right and EVERYONE has that right, then I'm violating YOUR right.
> 
> I have lots of power to violate your rights, thank you.
> 
> I can kill you. That power alone takes away ALL OF YOUR RIGHTS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> fine
> 
> your interpretation of the second contradicts the ninth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But it doesn't. How can it contradict the ninth?
> 
> Again, the CONSTITUTION is about the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
> 
> The Bill of Rights LIMITS FEDERAL POWER.
> 
> The Constitution itself tells the govt what powers it has and doesn't have.
> 
> I AM NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you say there is no right to carry a gun
> 
> The ninth specifically states not all rights of the people are listed in the constitutions so there is a right to carry a weapon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it does.
> 
> However you've jumped from that, to somehow I'm contradicting the amendment.
> 
> I say there's a right to kill you. Does that make it so? Who decides whether there's a right or not? You? No.....
> 
> The reality is that rights are fictional in the first place. They exist because we exist, we make them exist. In the UK there is not considered to be a right to keep and bear arms, but the US says there is, and says all people in the world have it.
> 
> Does that mean the right exists in the UK? Not really, it doesn't exist at all, expect on paper.
> 
> So it's about law. A right is something higher than the law, the govt can't just change it tomorrow, it takes time.
> 
> So, does the govt give you a right to carry arms? No, it does not.
Click to expand...


look it's your opinion that people don't have the right to carry a gun

I disagree.

I have the right to keep a gun there is no restriction on where I may keep that gun so I can keep it on my person or IOW bear arms


----------



## frigidweirdo

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can I violate an Amendment of the Bill of Rights? I'm not part of the Federal govt.
> 
> Second, if I'm violating the Amendment, and the Amendment is about rights, then what am I violating? It must be rights. And I'd assume that if there is a right and EVERYONE has that right, then I'm violating YOUR right.
> 
> I have lots of power to violate your rights, thank you.
> 
> I can kill you. That power alone takes away ALL OF YOUR RIGHTS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fine
> 
> your interpretation of the second contradicts the ninth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But it doesn't. How can it contradict the ninth?
> 
> Again, the CONSTITUTION is about the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
> 
> The Bill of Rights LIMITS FEDERAL POWER.
> 
> The Constitution itself tells the govt what powers it has and doesn't have.
> 
> I AM NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you say there is no right to carry a gun
> 
> The ninth specifically states not all rights of the people are listed in the constitutions so there is a right to carry a weapon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it does.
> 
> However you've jumped from that, to somehow I'm contradicting the amendment.
> 
> I say there's a right to kill you. Does that make it so? Who decides whether there's a right or not? You? No.....
> 
> The reality is that rights are fictional in the first place. They exist because we exist, we make them exist. In the UK there is not considered to be a right to keep and bear arms, but the US says there is, and says all people in the world have it.
> 
> Does that mean the right exists in the UK? Not really, it doesn't exist at all, expect on paper.
> 
> So it's about law. A right is something higher than the law, the govt can't just change it tomorrow, it takes time.
> 
> So, does the govt give you a right to carry arms? No, it does not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> look it's your opinion that people don't have the right to carry a gun
> 
> I disagree.
> 
> I have the right to keep a gun there is no restriction on where I may keep that gun so I can keep it on my person or IOW bear arms
Click to expand...


Okay, it's my opinion based on LOTS OF FACTS, and it's your opinion it's not based on NOTHING.

There's the difference. 

You have what you want to believe is true, nothing shows you that what you want to believe is true, so you just ignore the facts and go with what you want. 

Yes, you have the right to OWN a weapon, and your govt doesn't restrict where you take it. But somehow you equate being able to do something as a protected right. Maybe you should become a wizard or something, they're good at making stuff out of nothing, I've heard.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> States have laws regarding employment relationships.  Employment at will is State law in most US States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And unemployment compensation for quitters or never workers is law in none of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> at-will is at-will, baby.  only the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And unemployed, not getting a check is unemployed, not getting a check.
> Only lazy morons never get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> employment at the will of either party, not just the employer, for unemployment compensation purposes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *employment at the will of either party, not just the employer,*
> 
> Absolutely!!
> 
> *for unemployment compensation purposes*
> 
> Never!!
Click to expand...

should we ask for truth in legislative advertising in "at-will employment States" and "right to work States"?


----------



## usmbguest5318

OT:
The right time to bare arms will be upon us soon enough in the Northern Hemisphere.

I'm sure Trumpkins will be more than happy to avail themselves of that opportunity.


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Er... right... whatever.
> 
> So why does it begin with "A well regulated militia...." and not "the people"?
> 
> The amendment protects two rights, the rights are included in the Bill of Rights for the reason stated at the beginning of the Amendment.
> 
> But hey, you still haven't posted one single piece of evidence yet to support your claim.
> 
> It doesn't need to be the operative phrase.
> 
> The point here is, the right to keep arms is so individuals can own weapons for when the militia might need them and they can be in the militia so the militia has personnel for when it might need them. The whole point of the first part is the reason it protects the rights in the first place.
> 
> I'm stuck on the term meaning only "military service" because this is A) how it was intended and B) how the Supreme Court recognizes it today.
> 
> Where does it mean "simply to be armed"? Why would Heller uphold a previous case, Presser, which specifically said carrying arms around was NOT protected by the 2nd Amendment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> to bear arms has more than one meaning you are solely focused on the one you think it means
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I got that, I dealt with that.
> 
> Again, stool has different meanings, does that mean if I say "He sat on the stool" it has to mean he sat on the shit simply because you decided it means that.
> 
> What do you think the founding fathers wanted "bear arms" in the 2nd Amendment to mean?
> 
> A) Render military service and militia duty, or B) carry arms around that has nothing to do with the militia at all?
> 
> We know the amendment is about the militia, EVERYTHING they said in the House was about the militia. Why then do you think they were talking about self defense? So you have a single piece of evidence to suggest this? No, you don't. You have nothing, you're clutching at straws.
> 
> Let's look:
> 
> Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> _"Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."_
> 
> Okay, why would Mr Gerry say that carrying arms around would secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government? It's clear here that the amendment was designed to protect the thing that stops the mal-administration of the government. That was the militia.
> 
> _"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."_
> 
> Again, the language is pretty clear that they were not talking about individual self defense, but the protection of the militia.
> 
> A lot of the debate centered around a clause which didn't make it in. It was designed to say that individuals who had religious scruples, would not have to go into the militia.
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.""
> 
> No, why would they force individuals who were religiously scrupulous from carry arms around with them? Seriously, why? It's like having a clause that was "religiously scrupulous people do not have to carry a cat on their head".
> 
> When in the time of the US govt was an individual ever forced to carry arms around with them? Never, not before this amendment, not after, not under British rule, not under US rule.
> 
> So, please, tell me how the hell they'd come up with the idea of protecting religiously scrupulous people from doing something that didn't need to be protected, when the WHOLE of the language related to this points to not forcing individuals to be in the militia? Please, explain this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it's quite clear when one looks at other statements and documents that the second was meant to allow an individual to keep and bear arms regardless of militia service
> 
> * Thomas Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law (1880)*
> 
> *   The Constitution. -- By the Second Amendment to the Constitution it is declared that, "a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> 
> 
> The amendment, like most other provisions in the Constitution, has a history.  It was adopted with some modification and enlargement from the English Bill of Rights of 1688, where it stood as a protest against arbitrary action of the overturned dynasty in disarming the people, and as a pledge of the new rulers that this tyrannical action should cease.  The right declared was meant to be a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and as a necessary and efficient means of regaining rights when temporarily overturned by usurpation.
> 
> 
> 
> The Right is General. -- It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent.  The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon.  But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check.  The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose.  But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait, which time when I said it's individual DID YOU NOT GET? You're clearly not reading what I write.
> 
> You're throwing quotes at me for no reason. We're not debating whether it's individual or not because you say it's individual, and I say it's individual, and yet you seem to feel comfortable arguing that it's individual, but who the fuck are you arguing with?
> 
> Get with the program dude, reply to WHAT I WRITE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your saying a person does not have the right to carry a firearm unless it's in service to the militia
> 
> if you can only carry a firearm while serving in the militia it is not an individual right
Click to expand...

The right to not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union, only belongs to well regulated militia of the whole and entire People.  There are no, Individual rights in our Second Amendment.

Natural rights such as defense of Self and private Property, is secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Er... right... whatever.
> 
> So why does it begin with "A well regulated militia...." and not "the people"?
> 
> The amendment protects two rights, the rights are included in the Bill of Rights for the reason stated at the beginning of the Amendment.
> 
> But hey, you still haven't posted one single piece of evidence yet to support your claim.
> 
> It doesn't need to be the operative phrase.
> 
> The point here is, the right to keep arms is so individuals can own weapons for when the militia might need them and they can be in the militia so the militia has personnel for when it might need them. The whole point of the first part is the reason it protects the rights in the first place.
> 
> I'm stuck on the term meaning only "military service" because this is A) how it was intended and B) how the Supreme Court recognizes it today.
> 
> Where does it mean "simply to be armed"? Why would Heller uphold a previous case, Presser, which specifically said carrying arms around was NOT protected by the 2nd Amendment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> to bear arms has more than one meaning you are solely focused on the one you think it means
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I got that, I dealt with that.
> 
> Again, stool has different meanings, does that mean if I say "He sat on the stool" it has to mean he sat on the shit simply because you decided it means that.
> 
> What do you think the founding fathers wanted "bear arms" in the 2nd Amendment to mean?
> 
> A) Render military service and militia duty, or B) carry arms around that has nothing to do with the militia at all?
> 
> We know the amendment is about the militia, EVERYTHING they said in the House was about the militia. Why then do you think they were talking about self defense? So you have a single piece of evidence to suggest this? No, you don't. You have nothing, you're clutching at straws.
> 
> Let's look:
> 
> Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> _"Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."_
> 
> Okay, why would Mr Gerry say that carrying arms around would secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government? It's clear here that the amendment was designed to protect the thing that stops the mal-administration of the government. That was the militia.
> 
> _"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."_
> 
> Again, the language is pretty clear that they were not talking about individual self defense, but the protection of the militia.
> 
> A lot of the debate centered around a clause which didn't make it in. It was designed to say that individuals who had religious scruples, would not have to go into the militia.
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.""
> 
> No, why would they force individuals who were religiously scrupulous from carry arms around with them? Seriously, why? It's like having a clause that was "religiously scrupulous people do not have to carry a cat on their head".
> 
> When in the time of the US govt was an individual ever forced to carry arms around with them? Never, not before this amendment, not after, not under British rule, not under US rule.
> 
> So, please, tell me how the hell they'd come up with the idea of protecting religiously scrupulous people from doing something that didn't need to be protected, when the WHOLE of the language related to this points to not forcing individuals to be in the militia? Please, explain this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it's quite clear when one looks at other statements and documents that the second was meant to allow an individual to keep and bear arms regardless of militia service
> 
> * Thomas Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law (1880)*
> 
> *   The Constitution. -- By the Second Amendment to the Constitution it is declared that, "a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> 
> 
> The amendment, like most other provisions in the Constitution, has a history.  It was adopted with some modification and enlargement from the English Bill of Rights of 1688, where it stood as a protest against arbitrary action of the overturned dynasty in disarming the people, and as a pledge of the new rulers that this tyrannical action should cease.  The right declared was meant to be a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and as a necessary and efficient means of regaining rights when temporarily overturned by usurpation.
> 
> 
> 
> The Right is General. -- It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent.  The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon.  But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check.  The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose.  But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Intent and Purpose of our Second Amendment, is in the first clause.  Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the intent of the Second Amenddment was to allow citizens to own and carry firearms
Click to expand...

No, it isn't.  The Intent and Purpose for the Second Clause, is in the First Clause.

Our Second Article of Amendment, "leads from the front, not from the rear".


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lakhota said:


> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
Click to expand...


More to the point, do I care whether you and _The Week_ think it's obsolete?  And do you have any clue as to the proper, legal procedure for handling it if it IS?


----------



## Cecilie1200

waltky said:


> Maybe not obsolete but antiquated, out of date...
> 
> ... it needs to be updated to reflect the times...
> 
> ... and the threat of overkill firepower...
> 
> ... for the average citizen.



Fine.  Get right on "updating" it to "reflect the times", and let us know if you can get anything like the agreement and support you need _through the proper channels_ to get that accomplished.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lakhota said:


> I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed.  It's just a matter of time...



Not if you halfwit leftists keep trying to just define it out of existence, instead of going about it legally.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

Lakhota said:


> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
Click to expand...

Morning rosie...I see you've chosen to forego any pretense of "not trying to take away our second amendment rights", by going with an article that spells out clearly that anyone who says otherwise is lying...kudos for your honesty...there is no cherry picking our constitution, for instance, referring to the 2nd amendment as a "relic" as though it has any meaning in this debate is at the very least misleading as the first amendment is even older and based on "relic theory" would therefore  make it even less relevant than the second amendment...and no amendment has been more "recklessly invoked" than the first amendment...but as a constitutionalist I am bound by [as well as pro] first and second amendment championing...as some very wise men once said:


"_A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._"

no one has ever said it better.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lakhota said:


> Trying to live modern life according to the Constitution is much like trying to live modern life according to the Bible.  Both are subject to vast interpretation.



No, no they aren't.  You just WANT them to be, because you don't like having legal and moral strictures on your selfish behavior, and you know you have zero chance of actually convincing people to agree with you outright.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lakhota said:


> Anyone here belong to a militia?  Know anyone who belongs to a militia?  I don't...



Do you even know what a militia is, in terms of the Constitution?  Would you recognize one if it fell on you?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lakhota said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has human nature changed?
> 
> Have people stopped doing evil things and threatening innocent people?
> 
> Have politicians learned to respect the sovereignty of the people and stop trying to micromanage their existence?
> 
> If not, then of course it isn't obsolete. You'd have to be an idiot to think that or completely ignorant of the purpose of the Second amendment which is to protect our right to self defense and prevent tyranny and oppression.
> 
> When the people fear the government, we have tyranny. When the government fears it's people, then we have freedom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your NaziCon rant doesn't address the OP.  Do you belong to a militia?  Why isn't the 2nd Amendment obsolete?
Click to expand...


Once again, do you have any clue what the Constitution means by "militia"?  Are you so grammatically ignorant that you erroneously think the first phrase of that Amendment is in any way a modifier of the rest of it?

Your second question is easy to answer.  It isn't obsolete for the simple reason that it has _never been legally changed or repealed_.  If it was obsolete (ie. the people no longer wanted it), they would have amended the Constitution to get rid of it.  They haven't, and aren't going to, so they obviously still want it, ergo it isn't obsolete.


----------



## danielpalos

Frankeneinstein said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Morning rosie...I see you've chosen to forego any pretense of "not trying to take away our second amendment rights", by going with an article that spells out clearly that anyone who says otherwise is lying...kudos for your honesty...there is no cherry picking our constitution, for instance, referring to the 2nd amendment as a "relic" as though it has any meaning in this debate is at the very least misleading as the first amendment is even older and based on "relic theory" would therefore  make it even less relevant than the second amendment...and no amendment has been more "recklessly invoked" than the first amendment...but as a constitutionalist I am bound by [as well as pro] first and second amendment championing...as some very wise men once said:
> 
> 
> "_A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._"
> 
> no one has ever said it better.
Click to expand...

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in _Debates in Virginia Convention on 
Ratification of the Constitution_, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788


----------



## Cecilie1200

Sarah G said:


> Wingnuts haven't said or done anything to convince anyone that assualt weapons are a part of the second ammendment so in that way, yes, it is obsolete.



Translation:  "They've said A LOT of things that prove it, but I will NEVER be convinced, even if God Almighty comes down with James Madison and George Mason in tow to tell me otherwise.  It is obsolete because I don't want it, so there!"


----------



## Frankeneinstein

danielpalos said:


> Frankeneinstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Morning rosie...I see you've chosen to forego any pretense of "not trying to take away our second amendment rights", by going with an article that spells out clearly that anyone who says otherwise is lying...kudos for your honesty...there is no cherry picking our constitution, for instance, referring to the 2nd amendment as a "relic" as though it has any meaning in this debate is at the very least misleading as the first amendment is even older and based on "relic theory" would therefore  make it even less relevant than the second amendment...and no amendment has been more "recklessly invoked" than the first amendment...but as a constitutionalist I am bound by [as well as pro] first and second amendment championing...as some very wise men once said:
> 
> 
> "_A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._"
> 
> no one has ever said it better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in _Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution_, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
Click to expand...

I appreciate the quote, does it have relevance to my post other than to validate it?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Xelor said:


> OT:
> The right time to bare arms will be upon us soon enough in the Northern Hemisphere.
> 
> I'm sure Trumpkins will be more than happy to avail themselves of that opportunity.



If your misinterpretation of homophones is a joke, it's lame and pathetic.  If you really don't know the difference, then it's even more lame and pathetic.


----------



## danielpalos

Cecilie1200 said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wingnuts haven't said or done anything to convince anyone that assualt weapons are a part of the second ammendment so in that way, yes, it is obsolete.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation:  "They've said A LOT of things that prove it, but I will NEVER be convinced, even if God Almighty comes down with James Madison and George Mason in tow to tell me otherwise.  It is obsolete because I don't want it, so there!"
Click to expand...

gun lovers have to convince their own State lawmakers, they are not just a bunch of flakes with guns.


----------



## danielpalos

Frankeneinstein said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frankeneinstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Morning rosie...I see you've chosen to forego any pretense of "not trying to take away our second amendment rights", by going with an article that spells out clearly that anyone who says otherwise is lying...kudos for your honesty...there is no cherry picking our constitution, for instance, referring to the 2nd amendment as a "relic" as though it has any meaning in this debate is at the very least misleading as the first amendment is even older and based on "relic theory" would therefore  make it even less relevant than the second amendment...and no amendment has been more "recklessly invoked" than the first amendment...but as a constitutionalist I am bound by [as well as pro] first and second amendment championing...as some very wise men once said:
> 
> 
> "_A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._"
> 
> no one has ever said it better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in _Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution_, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I appreciate the quote, does it have relevance to my post other than to validate it?
Click to expand...

Only well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State; not, the unorganized militia.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

danielpalos said:


> Frankeneinstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frankeneinstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Morning rosie...I see you've chosen to forego any pretense of "not trying to take away our second amendment rights", by going with an article that spells out clearly that anyone who says otherwise is lying...kudos for your honesty...there is no cherry picking our constitution, for instance, referring to the 2nd amendment as a "relic" as though it has any meaning in this debate is at the very least misleading as the first amendment is even older and based on "relic theory" would therefore  make it even less relevant than the second amendment...and no amendment has been more "recklessly invoked" than the first amendment...but as a constitutionalist I am bound by [as well as pro] first and second amendment championing...as some very wise men once said:
> 
> 
> "_A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._"
> 
> no one has ever said it better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in _Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution_, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I appreciate the quote, does it have relevance to my post other than to validate it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State; not, the unorganized militia.
Click to expand...

Where does it say "only"?,  what does "keep" mean?, and why the comma between the two sentences  if not to show grammatically that the two are not necessary to be one and the same in order to have both and how would law makers be able to enact gun control without infringing upon those rights?...what it really means is that any attempt to infringe on that rihgt is an attack on the 2nd amendment and the constitution itself which this thread/the OP correctly pointed out.


----------



## danielpalos

Frankeneinstein said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frankeneinstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frankeneinstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> 
> 
> Morning rosie...I see you've chosen to forego any pretense of "not trying to take away our second amendment rights", by going with an article that spells out clearly that anyone who says otherwise is lying...kudos for your honesty...there is no cherry picking our constitution, for instance, referring to the 2nd amendment as a "relic" as though it has any meaning in this debate is at the very least misleading as the first amendment is even older and based on "relic theory" would therefore  make it even less relevant than the second amendment...and no amendment has been more "recklessly invoked" than the first amendment...but as a constitutionalist I am bound by [as well as pro] first and second amendment championing...as some very wise men once said:
> 
> 
> "_A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._"
> 
> no one has ever said it better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in _Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution_, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I appreciate the quote, does it have relevance to my post other than to validate it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State; not, the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where does it say "only"?,  what does "keep" mean?, and why the comma between the two sentences  if not to show grammatically that the two are not necessary to be one and the same in order to have both and how would law makers be able to enact gun control without infringing upon those rights?...what it really means is that any attempt to infringe on that rihgt is an attack on the 2nd amendment and the constitution itself which this thread/the OP correctly pointed out.
Click to expand...

Our social Contract has specific terms; not just hearsay and soothsay, like the right wing.

Well regulated militia, is specifically in our social Contract as a Contractual Term.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

danielpalos said:


> Frankeneinstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frankeneinstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frankeneinstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> Morning rosie...I see you've chosen to forego any pretense of "not trying to take away our second amendment rights", by going with an article that spells out clearly that anyone who says otherwise is lying...kudos for your honesty...there is no cherry picking our constitution, for instance, referring to the 2nd amendment as a "relic" as though it has any meaning in this debate is at the very least misleading as the first amendment is even older and based on "relic theory" would therefore  make it even less relevant than the second amendment...and no amendment has been more "recklessly invoked" than the first amendment...but as a constitutionalist I am bound by [as well as pro] first and second amendment championing...as some very wise men once said:
> 
> 
> "_A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._"
> 
> no one has ever said it better.
> 
> 
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in _Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution_, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I appreciate the quote, does it have relevance to my post other than to validate it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State; not, the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where does it say "only"?,  what does "keep" mean?, and why the comma between the two sentences  if not to show grammatically that the two are not necessary to be one and the same in order to have both and how would law makers be able to enact gun control without infringing upon those rights?...what it really means is that any attempt to infringe on that rihgt is an attack on the 2nd amendment and the constitution itself which this thread/the OP correctly pointed out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our social Contract has specific terms; not just hearsay and soothsay, like the right wing.
> 
> Well regulated militia, is specifically in our social Contract as a Contractual Term.
Click to expand...

does that contract apply to "keep" and bear arms as well?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And unemployment compensation for quitters or never workers is law in none of them.
> 
> 
> 
> at-will is at-will, baby.  only the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And unemployed, not getting a check is unemployed, not getting a check.
> Only lazy morons never get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> employment at the will of either party, not just the employer, for unemployment compensation purposes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *employment at the will of either party, not just the employer,*
> 
> Absolutely!!
> 
> *for unemployment compensation purposes*
> 
> Never!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> should we ask for truth in legislative advertising in "at-will employment States" and "right to work States"?
Click to expand...


Ask for whatever you like.
I'm sure you'll be just as successful as you are when you ask for handouts for not working.


----------



## danielpalos

Frankeneinstein said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frankeneinstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frankeneinstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in _Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution_, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> 
> 
> I appreciate the quote, does it have relevance to my post other than to validate it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State; not, the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where does it say "only"?,  what does "keep" mean?, and why the comma between the two sentences  if not to show grammatically that the two are not necessary to be one and the same in order to have both and how would law makers be able to enact gun control without infringing upon those rights?...what it really means is that any attempt to infringe on that rihgt is an attack on the 2nd amendment and the constitution itself which this thread/the OP correctly pointed out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our social Contract has specific terms; not just hearsay and soothsay, like the right wing.
> 
> Well regulated militia, is specifically in our social Contract as a Contractual Term.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> does that contract apply to "keep" and bear arms as well?
Click to expand...

Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> at-will is at-will, baby.  only the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And unemployed, not getting a check is unemployed, not getting a check.
> Only lazy morons never get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> employment at the will of either party, not just the employer, for unemployment compensation purposes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *employment at the will of either party, not just the employer,*
> 
> Absolutely!!
> 
> *for unemployment compensation purposes*
> 
> Never!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> should we ask for truth in legislative advertising in "at-will employment States" and "right to work States"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ask for whatever you like.
> I'm sure you'll be just as successful as you are when you ask for handouts for not working.
Click to expand...

I am advocating, being legal to our own laws, simply for the sake of public morals.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

danielpalos said:


> Frankeneinstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frankeneinstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frankeneinstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> I appreciate the quote, does it have relevance to my post other than to validate it?
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State; not, the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where does it say "only"?,  what does "keep" mean?, and why the comma between the two sentences  if not to show grammatically that the two are not necessary to be one and the same in order to have both and how would law makers be able to enact gun control without infringing upon those rights?...what it really means is that any attempt to infringe on that rihgt is an attack on the 2nd amendment and the constitution itself which this thread/the OP correctly pointed out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our social Contract has specific terms; not just hearsay and soothsay, like the right wing.
> 
> Well regulated militia, is specifically in our social Contract as a Contractual Term.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> does that contract apply to "keep" and bear arms as well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
Click to expand...

Whole lotta translation in your posts, don't see anything you are claiming coming from the second amendment...What do they mean by "keep"...and if your interpretation has any merit why do we need a constitutional amendment for this translation:


> shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union


It would seem that every government in the world gives that "right", even/especially the most tyrannical.


----------



## danielpalos

Frankeneinstein said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frankeneinstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frankeneinstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State; not, the unorganized militia.
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say "only"?,  what does "keep" mean?, and why the comma between the two sentences  if not to show grammatically that the two are not necessary to be one and the same in order to have both and how would law makers be able to enact gun control without infringing upon those rights?...what it really means is that any attempt to infringe on that rihgt is an attack on the 2nd amendment and the constitution itself which this thread/the OP correctly pointed out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our social Contract has specific terms; not just hearsay and soothsay, like the right wing.
> 
> Well regulated militia, is specifically in our social Contract as a Contractual Term.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> does that contract apply to "keep" and bear arms as well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whole lotta translation in your posts, don't see anything you are claiming coming from the second amendment...What do they mean by "keep"...and if your interpretation has any merit why do we need a constitutional amendment for this translation:
> 
> 
> 
> shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It would seem that every government in the world gives that "right", even/especially the most tyrannical.
Click to expand...

Keep and bear means exactly that.  It is not the same nor synonymous with, acquire and possess.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And unemployed, not getting a check is unemployed, not getting a check.
> Only lazy morons never get it.
> 
> 
> 
> employment at the will of either party, not just the employer, for unemployment compensation purposes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *employment at the will of either party, not just the employer,*
> 
> Absolutely!!
> 
> *for unemployment compensation purposes*
> 
> Never!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> should we ask for truth in legislative advertising in "at-will employment States" and "right to work States"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ask for whatever you like.
> I'm sure you'll be just as successful as you are when you ask for handouts for not working.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am advocating, being legal to our own laws, simply for the sake of public morals.
Click to expand...


Yup. Our own laws say no unemployment benefits if you quit or never worked. Morally.


----------



## Little-Acorn

danielpalos said:


> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


Wow.

I didn't know you could produce a completely twisted pretzel with a keyboard. 

I stand corrected.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> employment at the will of either party, not just the employer, for unemployment compensation purposes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *employment at the will of either party, not just the employer,*
> 
> Absolutely!!
> 
> *for unemployment compensation purposes*
> 
> Never!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> should we ask for truth in legislative advertising in "at-will employment States" and "right to work States"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ask for whatever you like.
> I'm sure you'll be just as successful as you are when you ask for handouts for not working.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am advocating, being legal to our own laws, simply for the sake of public morals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup. Our own laws say no unemployment benefits if you quit or never worked. Morally.
Click to expand...

which laws?  we have a federal Doctrine in American law, and State laws regarding the concept of employment at the will of either party, not just the employer for unemployment compensation purposes.


----------



## danielpalos

Little-Acorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.
> 
> I didn't know you could produce a completely twisted pretzel with a keyboard.
> 
> I stand corrected.
Click to expand...

I learned how to do it, arguing with the right wing.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *employment at the will of either party, not just the employer,*
> 
> Absolutely!!
> 
> *for unemployment compensation purposes*
> 
> Never!!
> 
> 
> 
> should we ask for truth in legislative advertising in "at-will employment States" and "right to work States"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ask for whatever you like.
> I'm sure you'll be just as successful as you are when you ask for handouts for not working.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am advocating, being legal to our own laws, simply for the sake of public morals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup. Our own laws say no unemployment benefits if you quit or never worked. Morally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> which laws?  we have a federal Doctrine in American law, and State laws regarding the concept of employment at the will of either party, not just the employer for unemployment compensation purposes.
Click to expand...



*which laws?*

All of them.

*we have a federal Doctrine in American law, and State laws regarding the concept of employment at the will of either party,*

And none of that gives you unemployment if you quit or if you never worked.
Your "idea" is a non-starter in all 50 states plus DC!!!

*not just the employer for unemployment compensation purposes*

Guidelines for UE are clearly spelled out. You don't qualify. Clearly. Or morally.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> should we ask for truth in legislative advertising in "at-will employment States" and "right to work States"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ask for whatever you like.
> I'm sure you'll be just as successful as you are when you ask for handouts for not working.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am advocating, being legal to our own laws, simply for the sake of public morals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup. Our own laws say no unemployment benefits if you quit or never worked. Morally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> which laws?  we have a federal Doctrine in American law, and State laws regarding the concept of employment at the will of either party, not just the employer for unemployment compensation purposes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *which laws?*
> 
> All of them.
> 
> *we have a federal Doctrine in American law, and State laws regarding the concept of employment at the will of either party,*
> 
> And none of that gives you unemployment if you quit or if you never worked.
> Your "idea" is a non-starter in all 50 states plus DC!!!
> 
> *not just the employer for unemployment compensation purposes*
> 
> Guidelines for UE are clearly spelled out. You don't qualify. Clearly. Or morally.
Click to expand...

employment is at will.  edd should be required to show a for-cause employment relationship to deny or disparage unemployment benefits in any at-will employment State.  it really is that simple.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ask for whatever you like.
> I'm sure you'll be just as successful as you are when you ask for handouts for not working.
> 
> 
> 
> I am advocating, being legal to our own laws, simply for the sake of public morals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup. Our own laws say no unemployment benefits if you quit or never worked. Morally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> which laws?  we have a federal Doctrine in American law, and State laws regarding the concept of employment at the will of either party, not just the employer for unemployment compensation purposes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *which laws?*
> 
> All of them.
> 
> *we have a federal Doctrine in American law, and State laws regarding the concept of employment at the will of either party,*
> 
> And none of that gives you unemployment if you quit or if you never worked.
> Your "idea" is a non-starter in all 50 states plus DC!!!
> 
> *not just the employer for unemployment compensation purposes*
> 
> Guidelines for UE are clearly spelled out. You don't qualify. Clearly. Or morally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> employment is at will.  edd should be required to show a for-cause employment relationship to deny or disparage unemployment benefits in any at-will employment State.  it really is that simple.
Click to expand...

*
employment is at will.*

And unemployment benefits are not. It really is that simple.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am advocating, being legal to our own laws, simply for the sake of public morals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup. Our own laws say no unemployment benefits if you quit or never worked. Morally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> which laws?  we have a federal Doctrine in American law, and State laws regarding the concept of employment at the will of either party, not just the employer for unemployment compensation purposes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *which laws?*
> 
> All of them.
> 
> *we have a federal Doctrine in American law, and State laws regarding the concept of employment at the will of either party,*
> 
> And none of that gives you unemployment if you quit or if you never worked.
> Your "idea" is a non-starter in all 50 states plus DC!!!
> 
> *not just the employer for unemployment compensation purposes*
> 
> Guidelines for UE are clearly spelled out. You don't qualify. Clearly. Or morally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> employment is at will.  edd should be required to show a for-cause employment relationship to deny or disparage unemployment benefits in any at-will employment State.  it really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> employment is at will.*
> 
> And unemployment benefits are not. It really is that simple.
Click to expand...

California is an at-will employment State.  Should we draft a letter to our State legislature, and simply ask them to do their Job, and faithfully execute a federal Doctrine in American law and our very own State laws regarding employment at will, for unemployment compensation purposes?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup. Our own laws say no unemployment benefits if you quit or never worked. Morally.
> 
> 
> 
> which laws?  we have a federal Doctrine in American law, and State laws regarding the concept of employment at the will of either party, not just the employer for unemployment compensation purposes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *which laws?*
> 
> All of them.
> 
> *we have a federal Doctrine in American law, and State laws regarding the concept of employment at the will of either party,*
> 
> And none of that gives you unemployment if you quit or if you never worked.
> Your "idea" is a non-starter in all 50 states plus DC!!!
> 
> *not just the employer for unemployment compensation purposes*
> 
> Guidelines for UE are clearly spelled out. You don't qualify. Clearly. Or morally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> employment is at will.  edd should be required to show a for-cause employment relationship to deny or disparage unemployment benefits in any at-will employment State.  it really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> employment is at will.*
> 
> And unemployment benefits are not. It really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> California is an at-will employment State.  Should we draft a letter to our State legislature, and simply ask them to do their Job, and faithfully execute a federal Doctrine in American law and our very own State laws regarding employment at will, for unemployment compensation purposes?
Click to expand...


*California is an at-will employment State.*

California is not an at-will employment benefits State. None are.

*Should we draft a letter to our State legislature, and simply ask them to do their Job,*

Sure. Let me know when they stop laughing.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> which laws?  we have a federal Doctrine in American law, and State laws regarding the concept of employment at the will of either party, not just the employer for unemployment compensation purposes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *which laws?*
> 
> All of them.
> 
> *we have a federal Doctrine in American law, and State laws regarding the concept of employment at the will of either party,*
> 
> And none of that gives you unemployment if you quit or if you never worked.
> Your "idea" is a non-starter in all 50 states plus DC!!!
> 
> *not just the employer for unemployment compensation purposes*
> 
> Guidelines for UE are clearly spelled out. You don't qualify. Clearly. Or morally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> employment is at will.  edd should be required to show a for-cause employment relationship to deny or disparage unemployment benefits in any at-will employment State.  it really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> employment is at will.*
> 
> And unemployment benefits are not. It really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> California is an at-will employment State.  Should we draft a letter to our State legislature, and simply ask them to do their Job, and faithfully execute a federal Doctrine in American law and our very own State laws regarding employment at will, for unemployment compensation purposes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *California is an at-will employment State.*
> 
> California is not an at-will employment benefits State. None are.
> 
> *Should we draft a letter to our State legislature, and simply ask them to do their Job,*
> 
> Sure. Let me know when they stop laughing.
Click to expand...

How can that be, without being illegal to a federal doctrine and State laws regarding the concept of employment at will?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *which laws?*
> 
> All of them.
> 
> *we have a federal Doctrine in American law, and State laws regarding the concept of employment at the will of either party,*
> 
> And none of that gives you unemployment if you quit or if you never worked.
> Your "idea" is a non-starter in all 50 states plus DC!!!
> 
> *not just the employer for unemployment compensation purposes*
> 
> Guidelines for UE are clearly spelled out. You don't qualify. Clearly. Or morally.
> 
> 
> 
> employment is at will.  edd should be required to show a for-cause employment relationship to deny or disparage unemployment benefits in any at-will employment State.  it really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> employment is at will.*
> 
> And unemployment benefits are not. It really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> California is an at-will employment State.  Should we draft a letter to our State legislature, and simply ask them to do their Job, and faithfully execute a federal Doctrine in American law and our very own State laws regarding employment at will, for unemployment compensation purposes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *California is an at-will employment State.*
> 
> California is not an at-will employment benefits State. None are.
> 
> *Should we draft a letter to our State legislature, and simply ask them to do their Job,*
> 
> Sure. Let me know when they stop laughing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can that be, without being illegal to a federal doctrine and State laws regarding the concept of employment at will?
Click to expand...


How can states refuse to give unemployment benefits to those who quit or refuse to work? Easily.

You should sue! Let me know how that works out.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> employment is at will.  edd should be required to show a for-cause employment relationship to deny or disparage unemployment benefits in any at-will employment State.  it really is that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> *
> employment is at will.*
> 
> And unemployment benefits are not. It really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> California is an at-will employment State.  Should we draft a letter to our State legislature, and simply ask them to do their Job, and faithfully execute a federal Doctrine in American law and our very own State laws regarding employment at will, for unemployment compensation purposes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *California is an at-will employment State.*
> 
> California is not an at-will employment benefits State. None are.
> 
> *Should we draft a letter to our State legislature, and simply ask them to do their Job,*
> 
> Sure. Let me know when they stop laughing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can that be, without being illegal to a federal doctrine and State laws regarding the concept of employment at will?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can states refuse to give unemployment benefits to those who quit or refuse to work? Easily.
> 
> You should sue! Let me know how that works out.
Click to expand...

Should I use a federal doctrine, in my argument?


> At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *employment is at will.*
> 
> And unemployment benefits are not. It really is that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> California is an at-will employment State.  Should we draft a letter to our State legislature, and simply ask them to do their Job, and faithfully execute a federal Doctrine in American law and our very own State laws regarding employment at will, for unemployment compensation purposes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *California is an at-will employment State.*
> 
> California is not an at-will employment benefits State. None are.
> 
> *Should we draft a letter to our State legislature, and simply ask them to do their Job,*
> 
> Sure. Let me know when they stop laughing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can that be, without being illegal to a federal doctrine and State laws regarding the concept of employment at will?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can states refuse to give unemployment benefits to those who quit or refuse to work? Easily.
> 
> You should sue! Let me know how that works out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Should I use a federal doctrine, in my argument?
> 
> 
> 
> At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


*Should I use a federal doctrine, in my argument?*

Whichever argument works best....perhaps, I'm lazy but still want money....gimme!

*At-will employment is generally described as follows
*
Thanks for the info! You may have noticed, it didn't mention unemployment benefits.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> California is an at-will employment State.  Should we draft a letter to our State legislature, and simply ask them to do their Job, and faithfully execute a federal Doctrine in American law and our very own State laws regarding employment at will, for unemployment compensation purposes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *California is an at-will employment State.*
> 
> California is not an at-will employment benefits State. None are.
> 
> *Should we draft a letter to our State legislature, and simply ask them to do their Job,*
> 
> Sure. Let me know when they stop laughing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can that be, without being illegal to a federal doctrine and State laws regarding the concept of employment at will?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can states refuse to give unemployment benefits to those who quit or refuse to work? Easily.
> 
> You should sue! Let me know how that works out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Should I use a federal doctrine, in my argument?
> 
> 
> 
> At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Should I use a federal doctrine, in my argument?*
> 
> Whichever argument works best....perhaps, I'm lazy but still want money....gimme!
> 
> *At-will employment is generally described as follows
> *
> Thanks for the info! You may have noticed, it didn't mention unemployment benefits.
Click to expand...

what reason is there to deny or disparage unemployment benefits on an at=will basis in our at-will employment States?

EDD should be legal to the law, and be required to show for-cause employment criteria to deny or disparage unemployment benefits on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *California is an at-will employment State.*
> 
> California is not an at-will employment benefits State. None are.
> 
> *Should we draft a letter to our State legislature, and simply ask them to do their Job,*
> 
> Sure. Let me know when they stop laughing.
> 
> 
> 
> How can that be, without being illegal to a federal doctrine and State laws regarding the concept of employment at will?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can states refuse to give unemployment benefits to those who quit or refuse to work? Easily.
> 
> You should sue! Let me know how that works out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Should I use a federal doctrine, in my argument?
> 
> 
> 
> At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Should I use a federal doctrine, in my argument?*
> 
> Whichever argument works best....perhaps, I'm lazy but still want money....gimme!
> 
> *At-will employment is generally described as follows
> *
> Thanks for the info! You may have noticed, it didn't mention unemployment benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what reason is there to deny or disparage unemployment benefits on an at=will basis in our at-will employment States?
> 
> EDD should be legal to the law, and be required to show for-cause employment criteria to deny or disparage unemployment benefits on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
Click to expand...


*what reason is there to deny or disparage unemployment benefits*

Because they're only for people who worked and were laid off, not for cause.

*EDD should be legal to the law,*

EDD follows the law and doesn't pay quitters or never workers. You're out of luck.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Lakhota said:


> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
Click to expand...


the govt of Venezuela recently took away guns and now the people have to revolt against the liberal govt with sticks and stones!!

* 
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government" 

-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334*


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can that be, without being illegal to a federal doctrine and State laws regarding the concept of employment at will?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can states refuse to give unemployment benefits to those who quit or refuse to work? Easily.
> 
> You should sue! Let me know how that works out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Should I use a federal doctrine, in my argument?
> 
> 
> 
> At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Should I use a federal doctrine, in my argument?*
> 
> Whichever argument works best....perhaps, I'm lazy but still want money....gimme!
> 
> *At-will employment is generally described as follows
> *
> Thanks for the info! You may have noticed, it didn't mention unemployment benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what reason is there to deny or disparage unemployment benefits on an at=will basis in our at-will employment States?
> 
> EDD should be legal to the law, and be required to show for-cause employment criteria to deny or disparage unemployment benefits on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *what reason is there to deny or disparage unemployment benefits*
> 
> Because they're only for people who worked and were laid off, not for cause.
> 
> *EDD should be legal to the law,*
> 
> EDD follows the law and doesn't pay quitters or never workers. You're out of luck.
Click to expand...

Why not be moral and legal to a federal doctrine and your own State law regarding the legal concept of employment at will; instead of merely, "hating the poor" through administrative laws.


----------



## danielpalos

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the govt of Venezuela recently took away guns and now the people have to revolt against the liberal govt with sticks and stones!!
> 
> *
> "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
> 
> -- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334*
Click to expand...

Our First Amendment is First, not Second.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can states refuse to give unemployment benefits to those who quit or refuse to work? Easily.
> 
> You should sue! Let me know how that works out.
> 
> 
> 
> Should I use a federal doctrine, in my argument?
> 
> 
> 
> At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Should I use a federal doctrine, in my argument?*
> 
> Whichever argument works best....perhaps, I'm lazy but still want money....gimme!
> 
> *At-will employment is generally described as follows
> *
> Thanks for the info! You may have noticed, it didn't mention unemployment benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what reason is there to deny or disparage unemployment benefits on an at=will basis in our at-will employment States?
> 
> EDD should be legal to the law, and be required to show for-cause employment criteria to deny or disparage unemployment benefits on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *what reason is there to deny or disparage unemployment benefits*
> 
> Because they're only for people who worked and were laid off, not for cause.
> 
> *EDD should be legal to the law,*
> 
> EDD follows the law and doesn't pay quitters or never workers. You're out of luck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why not be moral and legal to a federal doctrine and your own State law regarding the legal concept of employment at will; instead of merely, "hating the poor" through administrative laws.
Click to expand...


Their refusal to pay you is both moral and legal.
Employment at will has nothing to do with unemployment benefits for quitters or never workers.
I don't hate you because you're poor.
I don't even hate you because you're a lazy whiner.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Should I use a federal doctrine, in my argument?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Should I use a federal doctrine, in my argument?*
> 
> Whichever argument works best....perhaps, I'm lazy but still want money....gimme!
> 
> *At-will employment is generally described as follows
> *
> Thanks for the info! You may have noticed, it didn't mention unemployment benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what reason is there to deny or disparage unemployment benefits on an at=will basis in our at-will employment States?
> 
> EDD should be legal to the law, and be required to show for-cause employment criteria to deny or disparage unemployment benefits on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *what reason is there to deny or disparage unemployment benefits*
> 
> Because they're only for people who worked and were laid off, not for cause.
> 
> *EDD should be legal to the law,*
> 
> EDD follows the law and doesn't pay quitters or never workers. You're out of luck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why not be moral and legal to a federal doctrine and your own State law regarding the legal concept of employment at will; instead of merely, "hating the poor" through administrative laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their refusal to pay you is both moral and legal.
> Employment at will has nothing to do with unemployment benefits for quitters or never workers.
> I don't hate you because you're poor.
> I don't even hate you because you're a lazy whiner.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't.   It is setting a Bad example for less fortunate illegals.


----------



## skookerasbil

gun grabbing has never been more unpopular than it is in 2017.............actually, nobody is caring about it at the present time. Probably the only other voter concern more boring is global warming right now.


----------



## westwall

danielpalos said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the govt of Venezuela recently took away guns and now the people have to revolt against the liberal govt with sticks and stones!!
> 
> *
> "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
> 
> -- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our First Amendment is First, not Second.
Click to expand...







The First would already be gone were it not for the Second.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Should I use a federal doctrine, in my argument?*
> 
> Whichever argument works best....perhaps, I'm lazy but still want money....gimme!
> 
> *At-will employment is generally described as follows
> *
> Thanks for the info! You may have noticed, it didn't mention unemployment benefits.
> 
> 
> 
> what reason is there to deny or disparage unemployment benefits on an at=will basis in our at-will employment States?
> 
> EDD should be legal to the law, and be required to show for-cause employment criteria to deny or disparage unemployment benefits on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *what reason is there to deny or disparage unemployment benefits*
> 
> Because they're only for people who worked and were laid off, not for cause.
> 
> *EDD should be legal to the law,*
> 
> EDD follows the law and doesn't pay quitters or never workers. You're out of luck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why not be moral and legal to a federal doctrine and your own State law regarding the legal concept of employment at will; instead of merely, "hating the poor" through administrative laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their refusal to pay you is both moral and legal.
> Employment at will has nothing to do with unemployment benefits for quitters or never workers.
> I don't hate you because you're poor.
> I don't even hate you because you're a lazy whiner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it isn't.   It is setting a Bad example for less fortunate illegals.
Click to expand...


*No, it isn't.*

Prove it.

*It is setting a Bad example for less fortunate illegals.*

They need to return home. The example we set by not paying you is not relevant.


----------



## danielpalos

westwall said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the govt of Venezuela recently took away guns and now the people have to revolt against the liberal govt with sticks and stones!!
> 
> *
> "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
> 
> -- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our First Amendment is First, not Second.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The First would already be gone were it not for the Second.
Click to expand...

No, it wouldn't, except in right wing fantasy.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> what reason is there to deny or disparage unemployment benefits on an at=will basis in our at-will employment States?
> 
> EDD should be legal to the law, and be required to show for-cause employment criteria to deny or disparage unemployment benefits on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *what reason is there to deny or disparage unemployment benefits*
> 
> Because they're only for people who worked and were laid off, not for cause.
> 
> *EDD should be legal to the law,*
> 
> EDD follows the law and doesn't pay quitters or never workers. You're out of luck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why not be moral and legal to a federal doctrine and your own State law regarding the legal concept of employment at will; instead of merely, "hating the poor" through administrative laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their refusal to pay you is both moral and legal.
> Employment at will has nothing to do with unemployment benefits for quitters or never workers.
> I don't hate you because you're poor.
> I don't even hate you because you're a lazy whiner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it isn't.   It is setting a Bad example for less fortunate illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *No, it isn't.*
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> *It is setting a Bad example for less fortunate illegals.*
> 
> They need to return home. The example we set by not paying you is not relevant.
Click to expand...

The is employment at the will of either party; can you prove otherwise?

Being illegal to our own laws, is just plain abominable.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *what reason is there to deny or disparage unemployment benefits*
> 
> Because they're only for people who worked and were laid off, not for cause.
> 
> *EDD should be legal to the law,*
> 
> EDD follows the law and doesn't pay quitters or never workers. You're out of luck.
> 
> 
> 
> Why not be moral and legal to a federal doctrine and your own State law regarding the legal concept of employment at will; instead of merely, "hating the poor" through administrative laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their refusal to pay you is both moral and legal.
> Employment at will has nothing to do with unemployment benefits for quitters or never workers.
> I don't hate you because you're poor.
> I don't even hate you because you're a lazy whiner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it isn't.   It is setting a Bad example for less fortunate illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *No, it isn't.*
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> *It is setting a Bad example for less fortunate illegals.*
> 
> They need to return home. The example we set by not paying you is not relevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The is employment at the will of either party; can you prove otherwise?
> 
> Being illegal to our own laws, is just plain abominable.
Click to expand...

*
The is employment at the will of either party;*

Exactly.
And unemployment benefits are not.

*Being illegal to our own laws, is just plain abominable.
*
Your gibberish will not help you get unemployment benefits you don't deserve.


----------



## Tom Horn

This thread is almost 5 years old.


----------



## Lakhota

Even radical Antonin Scalia said the 2nd Amendment has limitations.


----------



## P@triot

Lakhota said:


> Even radical Antonin Scalia said the 2nd Amendment has limitations.


It says it all that Lakhota believes anyone who upholds the U.S. Constitution is a "radical". That's how bat-shit crazy she is.


----------



## Rustic

More frivolous gun laws are never reasonable...


----------



## Flash

Lakhota said:


> Even radical Antonin Scalia said the 2nd Amendment has limitations.




Yea but he is not around to tell us what the limitations are, is he?  I suspect his limitations and the limitations of you filthy ass Libtard Moon Bats are very different. What we know he did say was that the Second Amendment was an individual right protected by the Constitution of the United States.  He also said that according to the Bill of Rights Libtard DC and Libtard Chicago did not have the authority to prevent Mr. Heller and Mr McDonald from possessing firearms.  Most Liberals hate that interpretation.


----------



## 2aguy

Lakhota said:


> Even radical Antonin Scalia said the 2nd Amendment has limitations.




Yeah....he said that felons can't have guns, and he said the dangerously mentally ill can't have guns.......he also said the First Amendment also has limitations......

You guys keep think he said something he didn't say....


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not be moral and legal to a federal doctrine and your own State law regarding the legal concept of employment at will; instead of merely, "hating the poor" through administrative laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their refusal to pay you is both moral and legal.
> Employment at will has nothing to do with unemployment benefits for quitters or never workers.
> I don't hate you because you're poor.
> I don't even hate you because you're a lazy whiner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it isn't.   It is setting a Bad example for less fortunate illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *No, it isn't.*
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> *It is setting a Bad example for less fortunate illegals.*
> 
> They need to return home. The example we set by not paying you is not relevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The is employment at the will of either party; can you prove otherwise?
> 
> Being illegal to our own laws, is just plain abominable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> The is employment at the will of either party;*
> 
> Exactly.
> And unemployment benefits are not.
> 
> *Being illegal to our own laws, is just plain abominable.
> *
> Your gibberish will not help you get unemployment benefits you don't deserve.
Click to expand...

It should be found unlawful to deny and disparage unemployment compensation to Labor, simply for being unemployed in any at-will employment State.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lakhota said:


> Even radical Antonin Scalia said the 2nd Amendment has limitations.


 
Everything has limitations.  The limitations you leftist dweebs want - also known as "non-existent" - are not them.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their refusal to pay you is both moral and legal.
> Employment at will has nothing to do with unemployment benefits for quitters or never workers.
> I don't hate you because you're poor.
> I don't even hate you because you're a lazy whiner.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't.   It is setting a Bad example for less fortunate illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *No, it isn't.*
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> *It is setting a Bad example for less fortunate illegals.*
> 
> They need to return home. The example we set by not paying you is not relevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The is employment at the will of either party; can you prove otherwise?
> 
> Being illegal to our own laws, is just plain abominable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> The is employment at the will of either party;*
> 
> Exactly.
> And unemployment benefits are not.
> 
> *Being illegal to our own laws, is just plain abominable.
> *
> Your gibberish will not help you get unemployment benefits you don't deserve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It should be found unlawful to deny and disparage unemployment compensation to Labor, simply for being unemployed in any at-will employment State.
Click to expand...


Get a job, hippie.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't.   It is setting a Bad example for less fortunate illegals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *No, it isn't.*
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> *It is setting a Bad example for less fortunate illegals.*
> 
> They need to return home. The example we set by not paying you is not relevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The is employment at the will of either party; can you prove otherwise?
> 
> Being illegal to our own laws, is just plain abominable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> The is employment at the will of either party;*
> 
> Exactly.
> And unemployment benefits are not.
> 
> *Being illegal to our own laws, is just plain abominable.
> *
> Your gibberish will not help you get unemployment benefits you don't deserve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It should be found unlawful to deny and disparage unemployment compensation to Labor, simply for being unemployed in any at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Get a job, hippie.
Click to expand...

I prefer, equal protection of the law.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *No, it isn't.*
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> *It is setting a Bad example for less fortunate illegals.*
> 
> They need to return home. The example we set by not paying you is not relevant.
> 
> 
> 
> The is employment at the will of either party; can you prove otherwise?
> 
> Being illegal to our own laws, is just plain abominable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> The is employment at the will of either party;*
> 
> Exactly.
> And unemployment benefits are not.
> 
> *Being illegal to our own laws, is just plain abominable.
> *
> Your gibberish will not help you get unemployment benefits you don't deserve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It should be found unlawful to deny and disparage unemployment compensation to Labor, simply for being unemployed in any at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Get a job, hippie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I prefer, equal protection of the law.
Click to expand...


Legally, you have no right to unemployment benefits for never working or for quitting.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The is employment at the will of either party; can you prove otherwise?
> 
> Being illegal to our own laws, is just plain abominable.
> 
> 
> 
> *
> The is employment at the will of either party;*
> 
> Exactly.
> And unemployment benefits are not.
> 
> *Being illegal to our own laws, is just plain abominable.
> *
> Your gibberish will not help you get unemployment benefits you don't deserve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It should be found unlawful to deny and disparage unemployment compensation to Labor, simply for being unemployed in any at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Get a job, hippie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I prefer, equal protection of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Legally, you have no right to unemployment benefits for never working or for quitting.
Click to expand...

Says the letter of a federal Doctrine and State, statutory law?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The is employment at the will of either party;*
> 
> Exactly.
> And unemployment benefits are not.
> 
> *Being illegal to our own laws, is just plain abominable.
> *
> Your gibberish will not help you get unemployment benefits you don't deserve.
> 
> 
> 
> It should be found unlawful to deny and disparage unemployment compensation to Labor, simply for being unemployed in any at-will employment State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Get a job, hippie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I prefer, equal protection of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Legally, you have no right to unemployment benefits for never working or for quitting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the letter of a federal Doctrine and State, statutory law?
Click to expand...


Says the regulations of every state re unemployment benefits. Sorry.

If you had an example of a law supporting your claim to benefits, you'd have posted it by now.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It should be found unlawful to deny and disparage unemployment compensation to Labor, simply for being unemployed in any at-will employment State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get a job, hippie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I prefer, equal protection of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Legally, you have no right to unemployment benefits for never working or for quitting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the letter of a federal Doctrine and State, statutory law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the regulations of every state re unemployment benefits. Sorry.
> 
> If you had an example of a law supporting your claim to benefits, you'd have posted it by now.
Click to expand...

A Conflict of Laws, you claim.

Should I ask California for an, Order to Show Cause; on why unequal protection of the law should be tolerated?


----------



## emilynghiem

Lakhota said:


> Even radical Antonin Scalia said the 2nd Amendment has limitations.



Of course, Lakhota, 
nobody can abuse a law or right to violate another law or right under the same law.

So the right to bear arms comes with responsibility to exercise that WITHIN
the bounds of Constitutional law enforcement, due process and defense.

The first Amendment includes free exercise of religion,
right to peaceably assemble and petition for redress of grievances.

So other rights, such as free speech or right to bear arms or
free exercise of religion itself, cannot be "taken out of context"
and ABUSED where it violates the rights of others to peace and
security in our persons houses and effects, including due process BEFORE depriving anyone of liberty.

If we respected each other's rights to begin with,
maybe we wouldn't fight so hard to try to CONTROL or change laws
"because of FEAR that other people are ABUSING those rights or freedoms."

We'd just focus on ENFORCING the laws WE ALREADY HAVE
to prevent abuses INSTEAD OF TRYING TO TAKE RIGHTS AWAY FROM EACH OTHER.


----------



## emilynghiem

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get a job, hippie.
> 
> 
> 
> I prefer, equal protection of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Legally, you have no right to unemployment benefits for never working or for quitting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the letter of a federal Doctrine and State, statutory law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the regulations of every state re unemployment benefits. Sorry.
> 
> If you had an example of a law supporting your claim to benefits, you'd have posted it by now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A Conflict of Laws, you claim.
> 
> Should I ask California for an, Order to Show Cause; on why unequal protection of the law should be tolerated?
Click to expand...


Dear danielpalos
I think you have the right idea.

We do need to petition parties to STOP "discrimination by creed" by
unequal enforcement of "equal protection of the laws"

Examples:
1. unequal enforcement when it comes to protecting beliefs
either for or against gay marriage, or beliefs about homosexuality
which is not yet scientifically proven to be either "genetically determined" 
or a "choice of behavior" but remains FAITH BASED on BOTH SIDES.
So neither side can claim unequal protection through govt, which should remain NEUTRAL
since both sides are equally FAITH BASED and not proven by science.
same with Transgender and other LGBT issues beliefs or policies that rely on FAITH BASED assertions.
Govt should remain NEUTRAL
and treat expressions and beliefs regarding homosexuality/transgender orientation
the SAME as Muslim, Christian or other Spiritual beliefs for which NOBODY should
be harassed, abused, punished or pressured to change because of govt policies or penalties.

2. beliefs about
right to life
being treated unequally as beliefs about
right to health care
Either implement both, ban both from govt, or allow a separation of taxes
so taxpayers can choose to fund either policy based on their beliefs and free choice.

But punishing and banning one while incorporating
the other as mandatory and subject to fines if people don't comply,
even if doing so would violate their Constitutional beliefs that govt is not
authorized to regulate health care decisions and finances of taxpayers in these matters,
is "discriminating by creed"

3. so why not call out the Democratic party for pushing
political beliefs through govt that other people can't be forced
to comply with but have equal right to their own political beliefs
which should be 'equally protected under law" from "discrimination by creed"


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get a job, hippie.
> 
> 
> 
> I prefer, equal protection of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Legally, you have no right to unemployment benefits for never working or for quitting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the letter of a federal Doctrine and State, statutory law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the regulations of every state re unemployment benefits. Sorry.
> 
> If you had an example of a law supporting your claim to benefits, you'd have posted it by now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A Conflict of Laws, you claim.
> 
> Should I ask California for an, Order to Show Cause; on why unequal protection of the law should be tolerated?
Click to expand...


*A Conflict of Laws, you claim.*

Not at all. A conflict between your feeling of what the law should be and the reality of the actual law.

*Should I ask California for an, Order to Show Cause; on why unequal protection of the law should be tolerated?*

By all means. Be sure to post their mocking response to you.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get a job, hippie.
> 
> 
> 
> I prefer, equal protection of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Legally, you have no right to unemployment benefits for never working or for quitting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the letter of a federal Doctrine and State, statutory law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the regulations of every state re unemployment benefits. Sorry.
> 
> If you had an example of a law supporting your claim to benefits, you'd have posted it by now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A Conflict of Laws, you claim.
> 
> Should I ask California for an, Order to Show Cause; on why unequal protection of the law should be tolerated?
Click to expand...

We've been over this.  Anyone who is unemployed because they were laid off from work can get unemployment compensation.  All is equal under the law.  You don't get UE because you voluntarily don't want to work.  You might as well try to get disability benefits while healthy and able to work.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I prefer, equal protection of the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Legally, you have no right to unemployment benefits for never working or for quitting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the letter of a federal Doctrine and State, statutory law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the regulations of every state re unemployment benefits. Sorry.
> 
> If you had an example of a law supporting your claim to benefits, you'd have posted it by now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A Conflict of Laws, you claim.
> 
> Should I ask California for an, Order to Show Cause; on why unequal protection of the law should be tolerated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *A Conflict of Laws, you claim.*
> 
> Not at all. A conflict between your feeling of what the law should be and the reality of the actual law.
> 
> *Should I ask California for an, Order to Show Cause; on why unequal protection of the law should be tolerated?*
> 
> By all means. Be sure to post their mocking response to you.
Click to expand...

The law is, employment at will.  that means, employment at the will of either party.  there can be no attainder to that legal concept.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I prefer, equal protection of the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Legally, you have no right to unemployment benefits for never working or for quitting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the letter of a federal Doctrine and State, statutory law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the regulations of every state re unemployment benefits. Sorry.
> 
> If you had an example of a law supporting your claim to benefits, you'd have posted it by now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A Conflict of Laws, you claim.
> 
> Should I ask California for an, Order to Show Cause; on why unequal protection of the law should be tolerated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We've been over this.  Anyone who is unemployed because they were laid off from work can get unemployment compensation.  All is equal under the law.  You don't get UE because you voluntarily don't want to work.  You might as well try to get disability benefits while healthy and able to work.
Click to expand...

employment is at will.

_any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work._


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Legally, you have no right to unemployment benefits for never working or for quitting.
> 
> 
> 
> Says the letter of a federal Doctrine and State, statutory law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the regulations of every state re unemployment benefits. Sorry.
> 
> If you had an example of a law supporting your claim to benefits, you'd have posted it by now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A Conflict of Laws, you claim.
> 
> Should I ask California for an, Order to Show Cause; on why unequal protection of the law should be tolerated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We've been over this.  Anyone who is unemployed because they were laid off from work can get unemployment compensation.  All is equal under the law.  You don't get UE because you voluntarily don't want to work.  You might as well try to get disability benefits while healthy and able to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> employment is at will.
> 
> _any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work._
Click to expand...

Of course, equality under that law.  That's not what you want, though.  You want to get paid even if you decide not to work.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says the letter of a federal Doctrine and State, statutory law?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the regulations of every state re unemployment benefits. Sorry.
> 
> If you had an example of a law supporting your claim to benefits, you'd have posted it by now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A Conflict of Laws, you claim.
> 
> Should I ask California for an, Order to Show Cause; on why unequal protection of the law should be tolerated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We've been over this.  Anyone who is unemployed because they were laid off from work can get unemployment compensation.  All is equal under the law.  You don't get UE because you voluntarily don't want to work.  You might as well try to get disability benefits while healthy and able to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> employment is at will.
> 
> _any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course, equality under that law.  That's not what you want, though.  You want to get paid even if you decide not to work.
Click to expand...

I don't believe in "wage slavery" and want it abolished, unlike the right wing; who like to "hate on the poor" and help the "rich get richer and the poor get poorer, via Institutional means."


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says the regulations of every state re unemployment benefits. Sorry.
> 
> If you had an example of a law supporting your claim to benefits, you'd have posted it by now.
> 
> 
> 
> A Conflict of Laws, you claim.
> 
> Should I ask California for an, Order to Show Cause; on why unequal protection of the law should be tolerated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We've been over this.  Anyone who is unemployed because they were laid off from work can get unemployment compensation.  All is equal under the law.  You don't get UE because you voluntarily don't want to work.  You might as well try to get disability benefits while healthy and able to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> employment is at will.
> 
> _any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course, equality under that law.  That's not what you want, though.  You want to get paid even if you decide not to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't believe in "wage slavery" and want it abolished, unlike the right wing; who like to "hate on the poor" and help the "rich get richer and the poor get poorer, via Institutional means."
Click to expand...

You don't have to earn a wage.  There are consequences to that choice, but you have that choice.

The consequence is that society won't support you.

Finally, stop posting vacuous slogans.  They don't mean anything and don't advance your point.  In short, they backfire on you.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Conflict of Laws, you claim.
> 
> Should I ask California for an, Order to Show Cause; on why unequal protection of the law should be tolerated?
> 
> 
> 
> We've been over this.  Anyone who is unemployed because they were laid off from work can get unemployment compensation.  All is equal under the law.  You don't get UE because you voluntarily don't want to work.  You might as well try to get disability benefits while healthy and able to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> employment is at will.
> 
> _any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course, equality under that law.  That's not what you want, though.  You want to get paid even if you decide not to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't believe in "wage slavery" and want it abolished, unlike the right wing; who like to "hate on the poor" and help the "rich get richer and the poor get poorer, via Institutional means."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't have to earn a wage.  There are consequences to that choice, but you have that choice.
> 
> The consequence is that society won't support you.
> 
> Finally, stop posting vacuous slogans.  They don't mean anything and don't advance your point.  In short, they backfire on you.
Click to expand...

Just Standard, "right wing hate on the poor" in the Age of Corporate Welfare, right wingers?  How charitable.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've been over this.  Anyone who is unemployed because they were laid off from work can get unemployment compensation.  All is equal under the law.  You don't get UE because you voluntarily don't want to work.  You might as well try to get disability benefits while healthy and able to work.
> 
> 
> 
> employment is at will.
> 
> _any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course, equality under that law.  That's not what you want, though.  You want to get paid even if you decide not to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't believe in "wage slavery" and want it abolished, unlike the right wing; who like to "hate on the poor" and help the "rich get richer and the poor get poorer, via Institutional means."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't have to earn a wage.  There are consequences to that choice, but you have that choice.
> 
> The consequence is that society won't support you.
> 
> Finally, stop posting vacuous slogans.  They don't mean anything and don't advance your point.  In short, they backfire on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just Standard, "right wing hate on the poor" in the Age of Corporate Welfare, right wingers?  How charitable.
Click to expand...

If you're poor because you choose not to work, there is a solution that doesn't require society to do anything at all.  It requires effort from you, though, so many stoners living in their parents' basements and posting vacuous slogans online won't take it.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> employment is at will.
> 
> _any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work._
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, equality under that law.  That's not what you want, though.  You want to get paid even if you decide not to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't believe in "wage slavery" and want it abolished, unlike the right wing; who like to "hate on the poor" and help the "rich get richer and the poor get poorer, via Institutional means."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't have to earn a wage.  There are consequences to that choice, but you have that choice.
> 
> The consequence is that society won't support you.
> 
> Finally, stop posting vacuous slogans.  They don't mean anything and don't advance your point.  In short, they backfire on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just Standard, "right wing hate on the poor" in the Age of Corporate Welfare, right wingers?  How charitable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you're poor because you choose not to work, there is a solution that doesn't require society to do anything at all.  It requires effort from you, though, so many stoners living in their parents' basements and posting vacuous slogans online won't take it.
Click to expand...

dude; you are simply resorting to right wing propaganda and rhetoric.  our current president wants to make the rich richer and the poor, poorer, via Public Policy.  You can't, "blame the poor", any more.


----------



## Thinker101

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, equality under that law.  That's not what you want, though.  You want to get paid even if you decide not to work.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe in "wage slavery" and want it abolished, unlike the right wing; who like to "hate on the poor" and help the "rich get richer and the poor get poorer, via Institutional means."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't have to earn a wage.  There are consequences to that choice, but you have that choice.
> 
> The consequence is that society won't support you.
> 
> Finally, stop posting vacuous slogans.  They don't mean anything and don't advance your point.  In short, they backfire on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just Standard, "right wing hate on the poor" in the Age of Corporate Welfare, right wingers?  How charitable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you're poor because you choose not to work, there is a solution that doesn't require society to do anything at all.  It requires effort from you, though, so many stoners living in their parents' basements and posting vacuous slogans online won't take it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude; you are simply resorting to right wing propaganda and rhetoric.  our current president wants to make the rich richer and the poor, poorer, via Public Policy.  You can't, "blame the poor", any more.
Click to expand...


Says the person that resorts to left wing propaganda and rhetoric.


----------



## Rustic

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, equality under that law.  That's not what you want, though.  You want to get paid even if you decide not to work.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe in "wage slavery" and want it abolished, unlike the right wing; who like to "hate on the poor" and help the "rich get richer and the poor get poorer, via Institutional means."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't have to earn a wage.  There are consequences to that choice, but you have that choice.
> 
> The consequence is that society won't support you.
> 
> Finally, stop posting vacuous slogans.  They don't mean anything and don't advance your point.  In short, they backfire on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just Standard, "right wing hate on the poor" in the Age of Corporate Welfare, right wingers?  How charitable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you're poor because you choose not to work, there is a solution that doesn't require society to do anything at all.  It requires effort from you, though, so many stoners living in their parents' basements and posting vacuous slogans online won't take it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude; you are simply resorting to right wing propaganda and rhetoric.  our current president wants to make the rich richer and the poor, poorer, via Public Policy.  You can't, "blame the poor", any more.
Click to expand...

You don't have to take it from somebody else to make yourself successful… That's the fatal flaw with socialism.
Envy rules your sorry ass motherfuckers lives… LOL


----------



## danielpalos

Thinker101 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe in "wage slavery" and want it abolished, unlike the right wing; who like to "hate on the poor" and help the "rich get richer and the poor get poorer, via Institutional means."
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have to earn a wage.  There are consequences to that choice, but you have that choice.
> 
> The consequence is that society won't support you.
> 
> Finally, stop posting vacuous slogans.  They don't mean anything and don't advance your point.  In short, they backfire on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just Standard, "right wing hate on the poor" in the Age of Corporate Welfare, right wingers?  How charitable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you're poor because you choose not to work, there is a solution that doesn't require society to do anything at all.  It requires effort from you, though, so many stoners living in their parents' basements and posting vacuous slogans online won't take it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude; you are simply resorting to right wing propaganda and rhetoric.  our current president wants to make the rich richer and the poor, poorer, via Public Policy.  You can't, "blame the poor", any more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the person that resorts to left wing propaganda and rhetoric.
Click to expand...

our current president wants to make the rich richer and the poor, poorer, via Public Policy. You can't, "blame the poor", any more.


----------



## danielpalos

Rustic said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe in "wage slavery" and want it abolished, unlike the right wing; who like to "hate on the poor" and help the "rich get richer and the poor get poorer, via Institutional means."
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have to earn a wage.  There are consequences to that choice, but you have that choice.
> 
> The consequence is that society won't support you.
> 
> Finally, stop posting vacuous slogans.  They don't mean anything and don't advance your point.  In short, they backfire on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just Standard, "right wing hate on the poor" in the Age of Corporate Welfare, right wingers?  How charitable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you're poor because you choose not to work, there is a solution that doesn't require society to do anything at all.  It requires effort from you, though, so many stoners living in their parents' basements and posting vacuous slogans online won't take it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude; you are simply resorting to right wing propaganda and rhetoric.  our current president wants to make the rich richer and the poor, poorer, via Public Policy.  You can't, "blame the poor", any more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't have to take it from somebody else to make yourself successful… That's the fatal flaw with socialism.
> Envy rules your sorry ass motherfuckers lives… LOL
Click to expand...

our current president wants to make the rich richer and the poor, poorer, via Public Policy. You can't, "blame the poor", any more.


----------



## Rustic

danielpalos said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have to earn a wage.  There are consequences to that choice, but you have that choice.
> 
> The consequence is that society won't support you.
> 
> Finally, stop posting vacuous slogans.  They don't mean anything and don't advance your point.  In short, they backfire on you.
> 
> 
> 
> Just Standard, "right wing hate on the poor" in the Age of Corporate Welfare, right wingers?  How charitable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you're poor because you choose not to work, there is a solution that doesn't require society to do anything at all.  It requires effort from you, though, so many stoners living in their parents' basements and posting vacuous slogans online won't take it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude; you are simply resorting to right wing propaganda and rhetoric.  our current president wants to make the rich richer and the poor, poorer, via Public Policy.  You can't, "blame the poor", any more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't have to take it from somebody else to make yourself successful… That's the fatal flaw with socialism.
> Envy rules your sorry ass motherfuckers lives… LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> our current president wants to make the rich richer and the poor, poorer, via Public Policy. You can't, "blame the poor", any more.
Click to expand...

Robin Hood was a crook


----------



## Thinker101

danielpalos said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have to earn a wage.  There are consequences to that choice, but you have that choice.
> 
> The consequence is that society won't support you.
> 
> Finally, stop posting vacuous slogans.  They don't mean anything and don't advance your point.  In short, they backfire on you.
> 
> 
> 
> Just Standard, "right wing hate on the poor" in the Age of Corporate Welfare, right wingers?  How charitable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you're poor because you choose not to work, there is a solution that doesn't require society to do anything at all.  It requires effort from you, though, so many stoners living in their parents' basements and posting vacuous slogans online won't take it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude; you are simply resorting to right wing propaganda and rhetoric.  our current president wants to make the rich richer and the poor, poorer, via Public Policy.  You can't, "blame the poor", any more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't have to take it from somebody else to make yourself successful… That's the fatal flaw with socialism.
> Envy rules your sorry ass motherfuckers lives… LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> our current president wants to make the rich richer and the poor, poorer, via Public Policy. You can't, "blame the poor", any more.
Click to expand...


Obama was a crook, Hillary was a crook...and both probably still are.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Legally, you have no right to unemployment benefits for never working or for quitting.
> 
> 
> 
> Says the letter of a federal Doctrine and State, statutory law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the regulations of every state re unemployment benefits. Sorry.
> 
> If you had an example of a law supporting your claim to benefits, you'd have posted it by now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A Conflict of Laws, you claim.
> 
> Should I ask California for an, Order to Show Cause; on why unequal protection of the law should be tolerated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *A Conflict of Laws, you claim.*
> 
> Not at all. A conflict between your feeling of what the law should be and the reality of the actual law.
> 
> *Should I ask California for an, Order to Show Cause; on why unequal protection of the law should be tolerated?*
> 
> By all means. Be sure to post their mocking response to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law is, employment at will.  that means, employment at the will of either party.  there can be no attainder to that legal concept.
Click to expand...


*The law is, employment at will.*

Exactly. The law isn't UE benefits at will.


----------



## danielpalos

Rustic said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just Standard, "right wing hate on the poor" in the Age of Corporate Welfare, right wingers?  How charitable.
> 
> 
> 
> If you're poor because you choose not to work, there is a solution that doesn't require society to do anything at all.  It requires effort from you, though, so many stoners living in their parents' basements and posting vacuous slogans online won't take it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude; you are simply resorting to right wing propaganda and rhetoric.  our current president wants to make the rich richer and the poor, poorer, via Public Policy.  You can't, "blame the poor", any more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't have to take it from somebody else to make yourself successful… That's the fatal flaw with socialism.
> Envy rules your sorry ass motherfuckers lives… LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> our current president wants to make the rich richer and the poor, poorer, via Public Policy. You can't, "blame the poor", any more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Robin Hood was a crook
Click to expand...

A rich guy can "purchase" public office and "make himself richer while making the poor, poorer, is better?"


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says the letter of a federal Doctrine and State, statutory law?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the regulations of every state re unemployment benefits. Sorry.
> 
> If you had an example of a law supporting your claim to benefits, you'd have posted it by now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A Conflict of Laws, you claim.
> 
> Should I ask California for an, Order to Show Cause; on why unequal protection of the law should be tolerated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *A Conflict of Laws, you claim.*
> 
> Not at all. A conflict between your feeling of what the law should be and the reality of the actual law.
> 
> *Should I ask California for an, Order to Show Cause; on why unequal protection of the law should be tolerated?*
> 
> By all means. Be sure to post their mocking response to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law is, employment at will.  that means, employment at the will of either party.  there can be no attainder to that legal concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The law is, employment at will.*
> 
> Exactly. The law isn't UE benefits at will.
Click to expand...

There is no basis to deny or disparage benefits on an at-will basis, but for, "right wing, political hate on the poor."


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says the regulations of every state re unemployment benefits. Sorry.
> 
> If you had an example of a law supporting your claim to benefits, you'd have posted it by now.
> 
> 
> 
> A Conflict of Laws, you claim.
> 
> Should I ask California for an, Order to Show Cause; on why unequal protection of the law should be tolerated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *A Conflict of Laws, you claim.*
> 
> Not at all. A conflict between your feeling of what the law should be and the reality of the actual law.
> 
> *Should I ask California for an, Order to Show Cause; on why unequal protection of the law should be tolerated?*
> 
> By all means. Be sure to post their mocking response to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law is, employment at will.  that means, employment at the will of either party.  there can be no attainder to that legal concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The law is, employment at will.*
> 
> Exactly. The law isn't UE benefits at will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no basis to deny or disparage benefits on an at-will basis, but for, "right wing, political hate on the poor."
Click to expand...


*There is no basis to deny or disparage benefits on an at-will basis*

Sure there is. UE isn't for quitters or never workers.

You have no state law or regulation that says it is, or you'd have posted it already.


----------



## Rustic

danielpalos said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're poor because you choose not to work, there is a solution that doesn't require society to do anything at all.  It requires effort from you, though, so many stoners living in their parents' basements and posting vacuous slogans online won't take it.
> 
> 
> 
> dude; you are simply resorting to right wing propaganda and rhetoric.  our current president wants to make the rich richer and the poor, poorer, via Public Policy.  You can't, "blame the poor", any more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't have to take it from somebody else to make yourself successful… That's the fatal flaw with socialism.
> Envy rules your sorry ass motherfuckers lives… LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> our current president wants to make the rich richer and the poor, poorer, via Public Policy. You can't, "blame the poor", any more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Robin Hood was a crook
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A rich guy can "purchase" public office and "make himself richer while making the poor, poorer, is better?"
Click to expand...

 That sounds like an excuse, taking money from someone else never improves one's life. You don't need to take from the successful, make your own wealth.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Conflict of Laws, you claim.
> 
> Should I ask California for an, Order to Show Cause; on why unequal protection of the law should be tolerated?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *A Conflict of Laws, you claim.*
> 
> Not at all. A conflict between your feeling of what the law should be and the reality of the actual law.
> 
> *Should I ask California for an, Order to Show Cause; on why unequal protection of the law should be tolerated?*
> 
> By all means. Be sure to post their mocking response to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The law is, employment at will.  that means, employment at the will of either party.  there can be no attainder to that legal concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The law is, employment at will.*
> 
> Exactly. The law isn't UE benefits at will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no basis to deny or disparage benefits on an at-will basis, but for, "right wing, political hate on the poor."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *There is no basis to deny or disparage benefits on an at-will basis*
> 
> Sure there is. UE isn't for quitters or never workers.
> 
> You have no state law or regulation that says it is, or you'd have posted it already.
Click to expand...

Employment at will is defined by federal Doctrine in American law.


----------



## danielpalos

Rustic said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dude; you are simply resorting to right wing propaganda and rhetoric.  our current president wants to make the rich richer and the poor, poorer, via Public Policy.  You can't, "blame the poor", any more.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have to take it from somebody else to make yourself successful… That's the fatal flaw with socialism.
> Envy rules your sorry ass motherfuckers lives… LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> our current president wants to make the rich richer and the poor, poorer, via Public Policy. You can't, "blame the poor", any more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Robin Hood was a crook
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A rich guy can "purchase" public office and "make himself richer while making the poor, poorer, is better?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That sounds like an excuse, taking money from someone else never improves one's life. You don't need to take from the successful, make your own wealth.
Click to expand...

Republicans plan massive cuts to programs for the poor


----------



## Rustic

danielpalos said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have to take it from somebody else to make yourself successful… That's the fatal flaw with socialism.
> Envy rules your sorry ass motherfuckers lives… LOL
> 
> 
> 
> our current president wants to make the rich richer and the poor, poorer, via Public Policy. You can't, "blame the poor", any more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Robin Hood was a crook
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A rich guy can "purchase" public office and "make himself richer while making the poor, poorer, is better?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That sounds like an excuse, taking money from someone else never improves one's life. You don't need to take from the successful, make your own wealth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Republicans plan massive cuts to programs for the poor
Click to expand...

Handouts have never made anyone's life better… Just visit an Indian reservation sometime. It makes life much worse


----------



## Divine Wind

Lakhota said:


> Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited....


Do  you believe your rights are granted by the Constitution or that you have those rights and listing them in the Constitution is simply a means to limit government?


----------



## danielpalos

Rustic said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> our current president wants to make the rich richer and the poor, poorer, via Public Policy. You can't, "blame the poor", any more.
> 
> 
> 
> Robin Hood was a crook
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A rich guy can "purchase" public office and "make himself richer while making the poor, poorer, is better?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That sounds like an excuse, taking money from someone else never improves one's life. You don't need to take from the successful, make your own wealth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Republicans plan massive cuts to programs for the poor
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Handouts have never made anyone's life better… Just visit an Indian reservation sometime. It makes life much worse
Click to expand...

Private charity only covers multitudes of sins, not simple poverty.  You confuse the issue.  That is why I never take the right wing seriously about economics, but for, "twice a day".


----------



## danielpalos

Divine.Wind said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited....
> 
> 
> 
> Do  you believe your rights are granted by the Constitution or that you have those rights and listing them in the Constitution is simply a means to limit government?
Click to expand...

Our Second Amendment limits government.


----------



## Rustic

Currently the federal government does not work for us, we work for the federal government. They are spending all of our money…


----------



## danielpalos

Rustic said:


> Currently the federal government does not work for us, we work for the federal government. They are spending all of our money…


end the drug war, right wingers.


----------



## Cellblock2429

meson said:


> Yipper it's as obsolete as a muzzle loader imho.



/--- Libs also agree freedom of the press is obsolete since newspapers no longer use the Franklin printing press or crow quill pen. Shut her down. 


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## Cellblock2429

Lakhota said:


> Trying to live modern life according to the Constitution is much like trying to live modern life according to the Bible.  Both are subject to vast interpretation.



/---- What year did the Bible become obsolete? 


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## Rustic

danielpalos said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Robin Hood was a crook
> 
> 
> 
> A rich guy can "purchase" public office and "make himself richer while making the poor, poorer, is better?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That sounds like an excuse, taking money from someone else never improves one's life. You don't need to take from the successful, make your own wealth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Republicans plan massive cuts to programs for the poor
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Handouts have never made anyone's life better… Just visit an Indian reservation sometime. It makes life much worse
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Private charity only covers multitudes of sins, not simple poverty.  You confuse the issue.  That is why I never take the right wing seriously about economics, but for, "twice a day".
Click to expand...

The federal government is not here to help… Optimally it's supposed to be not seen and not heard…


----------



## Rustic

Cellblock2429 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trying to live modern life according to the Constitution is much like trying to live modern life according to the Bible.  Both are subject to vast interpretation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> /---- What year did the Bible become obsolete?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
Click to expand...

The Bible is a Christian thing they just don't understand… LOL


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> A rich guy can "purchase" public office and "make himself richer while making the poor, poorer, is better?"


Snowflake, wealthy people *cannot* "purchase" a public office. They must run for office and they only way they can win is if they receive more votes. Hell, the last presidential election should have taught you that much. Hitlery tried like hell to purchase the White House and got her ass kicked.

http://nypost.com/2016/12/09/hillary-clintons-losing-campaign-cost-a-record-1-2b/


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> There is no basis to deny or disparage benefits on an at-will basis, but for, "right wing, political hate on the poor."


There is no basis to even have government "benefits". Check the U.S. Constitution just once, snowflake.

This is why *nobody* takes the left seriously about politics, economics, current events, government, the U.S. Constitution, business, history, or facts.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Employment at will is defined by federal Doctrine in American law.


Exactly, snowflake. However, benefits at will are *not*. Thanks for playing. You may go now.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Private charity only covers multitudes of sins, not simple poverty.


1. That is simply *not* true. As usual, you were caught lying.

2. Even if that *were* true (and again, it's not) - so? Do you have a point? There is no such thing as a poverty-free nation. Stop being an immature idealist and study economics before commenting.

This is why *nobody* takes the left seriously about politics, economics, current events, government, the U.S. Constitution, business, history, or facts.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Republicans plan massive cuts to programs for the poor


Yeah snowflake. We're *$20 trillion* in debt thanks to you selfish, greedy, lazy, anti-American fascists. We have to stop the bleeding that you people cause or we will collapse like you caused the former U.S.S.R. to do.


----------



## danielpalos

Rustic said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> A rich guy can "purchase" public office and "make himself richer while making the poor, poorer, is better?"
> 
> 
> 
> That sounds like an excuse, taking money from someone else never improves one's life. You don't need to take from the successful, make your own wealth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Republicans plan massive cuts to programs for the poor
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Handouts have never made anyone's life better… Just visit an Indian reservation sometime. It makes life much worse
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Private charity only covers multitudes of sins, not simple poverty.  You confuse the issue.  That is why I never take the right wing seriously about economics, but for, "twice a day".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The federal government is not here to help… Optimally it's supposed to be not seen and not heard…
Click to expand...

why reduce foodstamps and not drug war spending?


----------



## Rustic

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans plan massive cuts to programs for the poor
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah snowflake. We're *$20 trillion* in debt thanks to you selfish, greedy, lazy, anti-American fascists. We have to stop the bleeding that you people cause or we will collapse like you caused the former U.S.S.R. to do.
Click to expand...

This country is paying debt with more debt... and yet the federal government still thinks that it can live outside of its means. 
And simple truth is this country is broke…


----------



## Rustic

danielpalos said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> That sounds like an excuse, taking money from someone else never improves one's life. You don't need to take from the successful, make your own wealth.
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans plan massive cuts to programs for the poor
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Handouts have never made anyone's life better… Just visit an Indian reservation sometime. It makes life much worse
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Private charity only covers multitudes of sins, not simple poverty.  You confuse the issue.  That is why I never take the right wing seriously about economics, but for, "twice a day".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The federal government is not here to help… Optimally it's supposed to be not seen and not heard…
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why reduce foodstamps and not drug war spending?
Click to expand...

Why not a eliminate everything but the basics? We are an overtaxed society and the federal government is a liability


----------



## danielpalos

Rustic said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans plan massive cuts to programs for the poor
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah snowflake. We're *$20 trillion* in debt thanks to you selfish, greedy, lazy, anti-American fascists. We have to stop the bleeding that you people cause or we will collapse like you caused the former U.S.S.R. to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This country is paying debt with more debt... and yet the federal government still thinks that it can live outside of its means.
> And simple truth is this country is broke…
Click to expand...

tax cuts only lead to more debt.


----------



## danielpalos

Rustic said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans plan massive cuts to programs for the poor
> 
> 
> 
> Handouts have never made anyone's life better… Just visit an Indian reservation sometime. It makes life much worse
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Private charity only covers multitudes of sins, not simple poverty.  You confuse the issue.  That is why I never take the right wing seriously about economics, but for, "twice a day".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The federal government is not here to help… Optimally it's supposed to be not seen and not heard…
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why reduce foodstamps and not drug war spending?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why not a eliminate everything but the basics? We are an overtaxed society and the federal government is a liability
Click to expand...

Start with the drug war, right wingers.


----------



## Rustic

danielpalos said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans plan massive cuts to programs for the poor
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah snowflake. We're *$20 trillion* in debt thanks to you selfish, greedy, lazy, anti-American fascists. We have to stop the bleeding that you people cause or we will collapse like you caused the former U.S.S.R. to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This country is paying debt with more debt... and yet the federal government still thinks that it can live outside of its means.
> And simple truth is this country is broke…
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> tax cuts only lead to more debt.
Click to expand...

 That cannot be, you cannot claim something that is not there. The vast bulk of the federal government spending is socialist entitlement programs... we obviously cannot afford them.


----------



## Rustic

danielpalos said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Handouts have never made anyone's life better… Just visit an Indian reservation sometime. It makes life much worse
> 
> 
> 
> Private charity only covers multitudes of sins, not simple poverty.  You confuse the issue.  That is why I never take the right wing seriously about economics, but for, "twice a day".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The federal government is not here to help… Optimally it's supposed to be not seen and not heard…
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why reduce foodstamps and not drug war spending?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why not a eliminate everything but the basics? We are an overtaxed society and the federal government is a liability
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Start with the drug war, right wingers.
Click to expand...







Why not start with the big parts of the pie… Social Security and Medicare. They are eating this country alive


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> tax cuts only lead to more debt.


Spending leads to more debt, snowflake. That's why we are cutting *spending*. We really don't care if your selfish, greedy, lazy ass doesn't like it. We don't. You can leave any time you want.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Start with the drug war, right wingers.


How about we start with *everything* that is unconstitutional? Social Security, Welfare, food stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, government subsidized housing, etc.

We would have the national debt paid off in less than a decade and still do it while cutting taxes.


----------



## Rustic

Until taxes are collected they are not the federal government's to claim...


----------



## danielpalos

Rustic said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans plan massive cuts to programs for the poor
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah snowflake. We're *$20 trillion* in debt thanks to you selfish, greedy, lazy, anti-American fascists. We have to stop the bleeding that you people cause or we will collapse like you caused the former U.S.S.R. to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This country is paying debt with more debt... and yet the federal government still thinks that it can live outside of its means.
> And simple truth is this country is broke…
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> tax cuts only lead to more debt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That cannot be, you cannot claim something that is not there. The vast bulk of the federal government spending is socialist entitlement programs... we obviously cannot afford them.
Click to expand...

end the drug war, right wingers.


----------



## danielpalos

Rustic said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Private charity only covers multitudes of sins, not simple poverty.  You confuse the issue.  That is why I never take the right wing seriously about economics, but for, "twice a day".
> 
> 
> 
> The federal government is not here to help… Optimally it's supposed to be not seen and not heard…
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why reduce foodstamps and not drug war spending?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why not a eliminate everything but the basics? We are an overtaxed society and the federal government is a liability
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Start with the drug war, right wingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not start with the big parts of the pie… Social Security and Medicare. They are eating this country alive
Click to expand...

end the drug war first, not social spending for the poor.


----------



## Rustic

danielpalos said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans plan massive cuts to programs for the poor
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah snowflake. We're *$20 trillion* in debt thanks to you selfish, greedy, lazy, anti-American fascists. We have to stop the bleeding that you people cause or we will collapse like you caused the former U.S.S.R. to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This country is paying debt with more debt... and yet the federal government still thinks that it can live outside of its means.
> And simple truth is this country is broke…
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> tax cuts only lead to more debt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That cannot be, you cannot claim something that is not there. The vast bulk of the federal government spending is socialist entitlement programs... we obviously cannot afford them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> end the drug war, right wingers.
Click to expand...

The country has much bigger fish to fry… They can't be toking up all the time. Lol


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> tax cuts only lead to more debt.
> 
> 
> 
> Spending leads to more debt, snowflake. That's why we are cutting *spending*. We really don't care if your selfish, greedy, lazy ass doesn't like it. We don't. You can leave any time you want.
Click to expand...

end the drug war on your watch, right wingers.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Start with the drug war, right wingers.
> 
> 
> 
> How about we start with *everything* that is unconstitutional? Social Security, Welfare, food stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, government subsidized housing, etc.
> 
> We would have the national debt paid off in less than a decade and still do it while cutting taxes.
Click to expand...

start with the drug war.  all talk and no action?


----------



## danielpalos

Rustic said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah snowflake. We're *$20 trillion* in debt thanks to you selfish, greedy, lazy, anti-American fascists. We have to stop the bleeding that you people cause or we will collapse like you caused the former U.S.S.R. to do.
> 
> 
> 
> This country is paying debt with more debt... and yet the federal government still thinks that it can live outside of its means.
> And simple truth is this country is broke…
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> tax cuts only lead to more debt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That cannot be, you cannot claim something that is not there. The vast bulk of the federal government spending is socialist entitlement programs... we obviously cannot afford them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> end the drug war, right wingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The country has much bigger fish to fry… They can't be toking up all the time. Lol
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't.


----------



## Rustic

danielpalos said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> This country is paying debt with more debt... and yet the federal government still thinks that it can live outside of its means.
> And simple truth is this country is broke…
> 
> 
> 
> tax cuts only lead to more debt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That cannot be, you cannot claim something that is not there. The vast bulk of the federal government spending is socialist entitlement programs... we obviously cannot afford them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> end the drug war, right wingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The country has much bigger fish to fry… They can't be toking up all the time. Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't.
Click to expand...

Actually it does, urban areas have made their bed. Now they have to sleep in it


----------



## danielpalos

Rustic said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> tax cuts only lead to more debt.
> 
> 
> 
> That cannot be, you cannot claim something that is not there. The vast bulk of the federal government spending is socialist entitlement programs... we obviously cannot afford them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> end the drug war, right wingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The country has much bigger fish to fry… They can't be toking up all the time. Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually it does, urban areas have made their bed. Now they have to sleep in it
Click to expand...

stop whining about social spending on the poor, right wingers.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> end the drug war first, not social spending for the poor.


We honestly don't care what you think unless you can provide a rational argument for why you think that. And so far, you haven't been able to do that. Hell, you haven't even tried. Simply repeating "end the drug war right-wingers" over and over and over is senseless. Especially since Obama and the Dumbocrats had complete and total control over the federal government in all of 2009 and 2010 and didn't end _anything_. They didn't even discuss it.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Start with the drug war, right wingers.
> 
> 
> 
> How about we start with *everything* that is unconstitutional? Social Security, Welfare, food stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, government subsidized housing, etc.
> 
> We would have the national debt paid off in less than a decade and still do it while cutting taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *start* with the drug war.  all talk and no action?
Click to expand...

_Why_? Simply because you love getting high? Sorry, you're going to have to do better than that for anyone to listen.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> stop whining about social spending on the poor, right wingers.


It's collapsing our nation (just like it did to the former U.S.S.R., to Cuba, to Cambodia, to Ethiopia, etc.). Stop being selfish, greedy, and lazy.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> end the drug war first, not social spending for the poor.
> 
> 
> 
> We honestly don't care what you think unless you can provide a rational argument for why you think that. And so far, you haven't been able to do that. Hell, you haven't even tried. Simply repeating "end the drug war right-wingers" over and over and over is senseless. Especially since Obama and the Dumbocrats had complete and total control over the federal government in all of 2009 and 2010 and didn't end _anything_. They didn't even discuss it.
Click to expand...

social spending for the poor promotes the general welfare; there is no drug war clause.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Start with the drug war, right wingers.
> 
> 
> 
> How about we start with *everything* that is unconstitutional? Social Security, Welfare, food stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, government subsidized housing, etc.
> 
> We would have the national debt paid off in less than a decade and still do it while cutting taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *start* with the drug war.  all talk and no action?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Why_? Simply because you love getting high? Sorry, you're going to have to do better than that for anyone to listen.
Click to expand...

why should any illegals care more about the law, than You?


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> stop whining about social spending on the poor, right wingers.
> 
> 
> 
> It's collapsing our nation (just like it did to the former U.S.S.R., to Cuba, to Cambodia, to Ethiopia, etc.). Stop being selfish, greedy, and lazy.
Click to expand...

our drug war is doing that.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> social spending for the poor promotes the general welfare; there is no drug war clause.


It is in the interest of the "General Welfare" to prevent drugs and crime! _Oops_....



(two can play your immature game, snowflake. If you're going to abuse the "General Welfare" clause for your communist agenda, then so will I)


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> why should any illegals care more about the law, than You?


Illegals *don't* care about the law, snowflake. That's what makes them _illegals_.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> stop whining about social spending on the poor, right wingers.
> 
> 
> 
> It's collapsing our nation (just like it did to the former U.S.S.R., to Cuba, to Cambodia, to Ethiopia, etc.). Stop being selfish, greedy, and lazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> our drug war is doing that.
Click to expand...

Sorry...we spend over $1 trillion per year on social programs. We spent a "whopping" $15 billion on the war on drugs in 2010. Want to try again, snowflake?


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> social spending for the poor promotes the general welfare; there is no drug war clause.
> 
> 
> 
> It is in the interest of the "General Welfare" to prevent drugs and crime! _Oops_....
> 
> 
> 
> (two can play your immature game, snowflake. If you're going to abuse the "General Welfare" clause for your communist agenda, then so will I)
Click to expand...

crime is one thing; we have a Second Amendment.  There is no drug war clause in the Republican Doctrine, snowflakes (to your own doctrine).


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> why should any illegals care more about the law, than You?
> 
> 
> 
> Illegals *don't* care about the law, snowflake. That's what makes them _illegals_.
Click to expand...

our drug war is illegal; you don't care; why should less fortunate illegals care more than you.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> stop whining about social spending on the poor, right wingers.
> 
> 
> 
> It's collapsing our nation (just like it did to the former U.S.S.R., to Cuba, to Cambodia, to Ethiopia, etc.). Stop being selfish, greedy, and lazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> our drug war is doing that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry...we spend over $1 trillion per year on social programs. We spent a "whopping" $15 billion on the war on drugs in 2010. Want to try again, snowflake?
Click to expand...

Our wars on crime, drugs, and terror have to be listed under defense spending, first; then, we can take the right wing seriously.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> crime is one thing; we have a Second Amendment.  There is no drug war clause in the Republican Doctrine, snowflakes (to your own doctrine).


The 2nd Amendment doesn't even address "crime", snowflake. And the "General Welfare" clause covers the drug war according to *you*. Thanks for playing!


----------



## The Derp

Don't know why there is all this confusion.  The Founders agreed; everyone has a right to bear arms:


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> why should any illegals care more about the law, than You?
> 
> 
> 
> Illegals *don't* care about the law, snowflake. That's what makes them _illegals_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> our drug war is illegal; you don't care; why should less fortunate illegals care more than you.
Click to expand...

I do care. Fortunately for all of us, the "General Welfare" clause covers the drug war according to *you*.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Our wars on crime, drugs, and terror have to be listed under defense spending, first; then, we can take the right wing seriously.


Why? Neither crime nor narcotics (which are one in the same) are defense. Terrorism is and is already covered.

Thank God you lied about the U.S. Constitution and covered the drug war under the "General Welfare" clause for society! That was very helpful to the rest of us. I can see you're pissed about it, but oh well. That's what happens when you knowingly try to fuck people over by lying about the law.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> crime is one thing; we have a Second Amendment.  There is no drug war clause in the Republican Doctrine, snowflakes (to your own doctrine).
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd Amendment doesn't even address "crime", snowflake. And the "General Welfare" clause covers the drug war according to *you*. Thanks for playing!
Click to expand...

Yes, it does; why do you believe it doesn't; other than typical, right wing cluelessness and Causelessness.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> why should any illegals care more about the law, than You?
> 
> 
> 
> Illegals *don't* care about the law, snowflake. That's what makes them _illegals_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> our drug war is illegal; you don't care; why should less fortunate illegals care more than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do care. Fortunately for all of us, the "General Welfare" clause covers the drug war according to *you*.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't; only social spending on the poor, does that.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our wars on crime, drugs, and terror have to be listed under defense spending, first; then, we can take the right wing seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> Why? Neither crime nor narcotics (which are one in the same) are defense. Terrorism is and is already covered.
> 
> Thank God you lied about the U.S. Constitution and covered the drug war under the "General Welfare" clause for society! That was very helpful to the rest of us. I can see you're pissed about it, but oh well. That's what happens when you knowingly try to fuck people over by lying about the law.
Click to expand...

You simply don't understand the usage of words; the general badfare is all the right wing has.


----------



## Dr Grump

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our wars on crime, drugs, and terror have to be listed under defense spending, first; then, we can take the right wing seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> Why? Neither crime nor narcotics (which are one in the same) are defense. Terrorism is and is already covered.
> 
> Thank God you lied about the U.S. Constitution and covered the drug war under the "General Welfare" clause for society! That was very helpful to the rest of us. I can see you're pissed about it, but oh well. That's what happens when you knowingly try to fuck people over by lying about the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You simply don't understand the usage of words; the general badfare is all the right wing has.
Click to expand...


I think you'll find as you go through this board engaging with the likes of Patriot, he/she doesn't know much about anything...


----------



## P@triot

Dr Grump said:


> I think you'll find as you go through this board engaging with the likes of Patriot, he/she doesn't know much about anything...


Says the dimwit Aussie who thinks the number of states won by a presidential candidate is "irrelevant".


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> You simply don't understand the usage of words; the general badfare is all the right wing has.


You're attacking your *own* _position_... 

It is in the "General Welfare" of the United States to stop the manufacturing, sales, and consumption of narcotics!



Why do lefties lose their shit when we finally give in to what they want?


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You simply don't understand the usage of words; the general badfare is all the right wing has.
> 
> 
> 
> You're attacking your *own* _position_...
> 
> It is in the "General Welfare" of the United States to stop the manufacturing, sales, and consumption of narcotics!
> 
> 
> 
> Why do lefties lose their shit when we finally give in to what they want?
Click to expand...

The general welfare does not mean the general badfare; the common offense and the general warfare, does that.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *A Conflict of Laws, you claim.*
> 
> Not at all. A conflict between your feeling of what the law should be and the reality of the actual law.
> 
> *Should I ask California for an, Order to Show Cause; on why unequal protection of the law should be tolerated?*
> 
> By all means. Be sure to post their mocking response to you.
> 
> 
> 
> The law is, employment at will.  that means, employment at the will of either party.  there can be no attainder to that legal concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The law is, employment at will.*
> 
> Exactly. The law isn't UE benefits at will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no basis to deny or disparage benefits on an at-will basis, but for, "right wing, political hate on the poor."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *There is no basis to deny or disparage benefits on an at-will basis*
> 
> Sure there is. UE isn't for quitters or never workers.
> 
> You have no state law or regulation that says it is, or you'd have posted it already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Employment at will is defined by federal Doctrine in American law.
Click to expand...


And that's why you aren't eligible for UE benefits.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The law is, employment at will.  that means, employment at the will of either party.  there can be no attainder to that legal concept.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The law is, employment at will.*
> 
> Exactly. The law isn't UE benefits at will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no basis to deny or disparage benefits on an at-will basis, but for, "right wing, political hate on the poor."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *There is no basis to deny or disparage benefits on an at-will basis*
> 
> Sure there is. UE isn't for quitters or never workers.
> 
> You have no state law or regulation that says it is, or you'd have posted it already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Employment at will is defined by federal Doctrine in American law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that's why you aren't eligible for UE benefits.
Click to expand...

for-cause criteria in our at-will employment States?


----------



## Dr Grump

P@triot said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you'll find as you go through this board engaging with the likes of Patriot, he/she doesn't know much about anything...
> 
> 
> 
> Says the dimwit Aussie who thinks the number of states won by a presidential candidate is "irrelevant".
Click to expand...


I'm not Australian. And I never said that My Little Fake News Petal...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The law is, employment at will.*
> 
> Exactly. The law isn't UE benefits at will.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no basis to deny or disparage benefits on an at-will basis, but for, "right wing, political hate on the poor."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *There is no basis to deny or disparage benefits on an at-will basis*
> 
> Sure there is. UE isn't for quitters or never workers.
> 
> You have no state law or regulation that says it is, or you'd have posted it already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Employment at will is defined by federal Doctrine in American law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that's why you aren't eligible for UE benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> for-cause criteria in our at-will employment States?
Click to expand...


UE isn't for quitters or never workers.

You have no state law or regulation that says it is, or you'd have posted it already.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no basis to deny or disparage benefits on an at-will basis, but for, "right wing, political hate on the poor."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *There is no basis to deny or disparage benefits on an at-will basis*
> 
> Sure there is. UE isn't for quitters or never workers.
> 
> You have no state law or regulation that says it is, or you'd have posted it already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Employment at will is defined by federal Doctrine in American law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that's why you aren't eligible for UE benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> for-cause criteria in our at-will employment States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> UE isn't for quitters or never workers.
> 
> You have no state law or regulation that says it is, or you'd have posted it already.
Click to expand...

It is a social safety net and more cost effective than welfare; stop whining about taxes for social spending, right wingers.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Robin Hood was a crook
> 
> 
> 
> A rich guy can "purchase" public office and "make himself richer while making the poor, poorer, is better?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That sounds like an excuse, taking money from someone else never improves one's life. You don't need to take from the successful, make your own wealth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Republicans plan massive cuts to programs for the poor
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Handouts have never made anyone's life better… Just visit an Indian reservation sometime. It makes life much worse
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Private charity only covers multitudes of sins, not simple poverty.  You confuse the issue.  That is why I never take the right wing seriously about economics, but for, "twice a day".
Click to expand...

And once again, you've been painted into a corner and have resorted to flailing around, spouting inane, meaningless slogans.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *There is no basis to deny or disparage benefits on an at-will basis*
> 
> Sure there is. UE isn't for quitters or never workers.
> 
> You have no state law or regulation that says it is, or you'd have posted it already.
> 
> 
> 
> Employment at will is defined by federal Doctrine in American law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that's why you aren't eligible for UE benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> for-cause criteria in our at-will employment States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> UE isn't for quitters or never workers.
> 
> You have no state law or regulation that says it is, or you'd have posted it already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a social safety net and more cost effective than welfare; stop whining about taxes for social spending, right wingers.
Click to expand...

*
It is a social safety net*

But it's not for quitters or never workers.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> A rich guy can "purchase" public office and "make himself richer while making the poor, poorer, is better?"
> 
> 
> 
> That sounds like an excuse, taking money from someone else never improves one's life. You don't need to take from the successful, make your own wealth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Republicans plan massive cuts to programs for the poor
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Handouts have never made anyone's life better… Just visit an Indian reservation sometime. It makes life much worse
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Private charity only covers multitudes of sins, not simple poverty.  You confuse the issue.  That is why I never take the right wing seriously about economics, but for, "twice a day".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And once again, you've been painted into a corner and have resorted to flailing around, spouting inane, meaningless slogans.
Click to expand...

Solving simple poverty, promotes the general welfare; that is the bottom line.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Employment at will is defined by federal Doctrine in American law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that's why you aren't eligible for UE benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> for-cause criteria in our at-will employment States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> UE isn't for quitters or never workers.
> 
> You have no state law or regulation that says it is, or you'd have posted it already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a social safety net and more cost effective than welfare; stop whining about taxes for social spending, right wingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> It is a social safety net*
> 
> But it's not for quitters or never workers.
Click to expand...

The bottom line is, solving simple poverty; it is termed and styled, a solution.  No wonder the right wing, never gets it.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> That sounds like an excuse, taking money from someone else never improves one's life. You don't need to take from the successful, make your own wealth.
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans plan massive cuts to programs for the poor
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Handouts have never made anyone's life better… Just visit an Indian reservation sometime. It makes life much worse
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Private charity only covers multitudes of sins, not simple poverty.  You confuse the issue.  That is why I never take the right wing seriously about economics, but for, "twice a day".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And once again, you've been painted into a corner and have resorted to flailing around, spouting inane, meaningless slogans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Solving simple poverty, promotes the general welfare; that is the bottom line.
Click to expand...

And you haven't stopped.  When you're in a deep hole, the best advice is to stop digging.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that's why you aren't eligible for UE benefits.
> 
> 
> 
> for-cause criteria in our at-will employment States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> UE isn't for quitters or never workers.
> 
> You have no state law or regulation that says it is, or you'd have posted it already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a social safety net and more cost effective than welfare; stop whining about taxes for social spending, right wingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> It is a social safety net*
> 
> But it's not for quitters or never workers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The bottom line is, solving simple poverty; it is termed and styled, a solution.  No wonder the right wing, never gets it.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans plan massive cuts to programs for the poor
> 
> 
> 
> Handouts have never made anyone's life better… Just visit an Indian reservation sometime. It makes life much worse
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Private charity only covers multitudes of sins, not simple poverty.  You confuse the issue.  That is why I never take the right wing seriously about economics, but for, "twice a day".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And once again, you've been painted into a corner and have resorted to flailing around, spouting inane, meaningless slogans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Solving simple poverty, promotes the general welfare; that is the bottom line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you haven't stopped.  When you're in a deep hole, the best advice is to stop digging.
Click to expand...

Yes, it does; You have to Prove it doesn't.  lol.  the right wing is merely, too inferior to do any such Thing.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> for-cause criteria in our at-will employment States?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UE isn't for quitters or never workers.
> 
> You have no state law or regulation that says it is, or you'd have posted it already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a social safety net and more cost effective than welfare; stop whining about taxes for social spending, right wingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> It is a social safety net*
> 
> But it's not for quitters or never workers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The bottom line is, solving simple poverty; it is termed and styled, a solution.  No wonder the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense.
Click to expand...

It is the bottom line; you have nothing but fallacy, and prove it in every argument.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Handouts have never made anyone's life better… Just visit an Indian reservation sometime. It makes life much worse
> 
> 
> 
> Private charity only covers multitudes of sins, not simple poverty.  You confuse the issue.  That is why I never take the right wing seriously about economics, but for, "twice a day".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And once again, you've been painted into a corner and have resorted to flailing around, spouting inane, meaningless slogans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Solving simple poverty, promotes the general welfare; that is the bottom line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you haven't stopped.  When you're in a deep hole, the best advice is to stop digging.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it does; You have to Prove it doesn't.  lol.  the right wing is merely, too inferior to do any such Thing.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> UE isn't for quitters or never workers.
> 
> You have no state law or regulation that says it is, or you'd have posted it already.
> 
> 
> 
> It is a social safety net and more cost effective than welfare; stop whining about taxes for social spending, right wingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> It is a social safety net*
> 
> But it's not for quitters or never workers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The bottom line is, solving simple poverty; it is termed and styled, a solution.  No wonder the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is the bottom line; you have nothing but fallacy, and prove it in every argument.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.


----------



## danielpalos

Thank you for ceding the argument and the point, with your, nothing but, "nonsense" instead of a valid argument.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that's why you aren't eligible for UE benefits.
> 
> 
> 
> for-cause criteria in our at-will employment States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> UE isn't for quitters or never workers.
> 
> You have no state law or regulation that says it is, or you'd have posted it already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a social safety net and more cost effective than welfare; stop whining about taxes for social spending, right wingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> It is a social safety net*
> 
> But it's not for quitters or never workers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The bottom line is, solving simple poverty; it is termed and styled, a solution.  No wonder the right wing, never gets it.
Click to expand...


Paying people who quit or never worked will increase poverty.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> Thank you for ceding the argument and the point, with your, nothing but, "nonsense" instead of a valid argument.


Nonsense is all that your posts deserve when you get to the flailing uselessly, spouting meaningless slogans point.  Make a cogent argument and you might get a more substantive response.  Until then, nonsense.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> for-cause criteria in our at-will employment States?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UE isn't for quitters or never workers.
> 
> You have no state law or regulation that says it is, or you'd have posted it already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a social safety net and more cost effective than welfare; stop whining about taxes for social spending, right wingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> It is a social safety net*
> 
> But it's not for quitters or never workers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The bottom line is, solving simple poverty; it is termed and styled, a solution.  No wonder the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Paying people who quit or never worked will increase poverty.
Click to expand...

Of course it will, it only and merely, takes money.  Only the right wing is that clueless and that Causeless about Capitalism.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for ceding the argument and the point, with your, nothing but, "nonsense" instead of a valid argument.
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense is all that your posts deserve when you get to the flailing uselessly, spouting meaningless slogans point.  Make a cogent argument and you might get a more substantive response.  Until then, nonsense.
Click to expand...

You have only fallacy, not a valid rebuttal.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> UE isn't for quitters or never workers.
> 
> You have no state law or regulation that says it is, or you'd have posted it already.
> 
> 
> 
> It is a social safety net and more cost effective than welfare; stop whining about taxes for social spending, right wingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> It is a social safety net*
> 
> But it's not for quitters or never workers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The bottom line is, solving simple poverty; it is termed and styled, a solution.  No wonder the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Paying people who quit or never worked will increase poverty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it will, it only and merely, takes money.  Only the right wing is that clueless and that Causeless about Capitalism.
Click to expand...


All the money previously spent on welfare hasn't eliminated poverty.
Paying slackers won't end it either.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a social safety net and more cost effective than welfare; stop whining about taxes for social spending, right wingers.
> 
> 
> 
> *
> It is a social safety net*
> 
> But it's not for quitters or never workers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The bottom line is, solving simple poverty; it is termed and styled, a solution.  No wonder the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Paying people who quit or never worked will increase poverty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it will, it only and merely, takes money.  Only the right wing is that clueless and that Causeless about Capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the money previously spent on welfare hasn't eliminated poverty.
> Paying slackers won't end it either.
Click to expand...

It is all about, the plan, Stan.  Y'all only have, lousy social plans not _fine_ capital plans, like the right wing should always have, to be "taken seriously under Any form of Capitalism."


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It is a social safety net*
> 
> But it's not for quitters or never workers.
> 
> 
> 
> The bottom line is, solving simple poverty; it is termed and styled, a solution.  No wonder the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Paying people who quit or never worked will increase poverty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it will, it only and merely, takes money.  Only the right wing is that clueless and that Causeless about Capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the money previously spent on welfare hasn't eliminated poverty.
> Paying slackers won't end it either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is all about, the plan, Stan.  Y'all only have, lousy social plans not _fine_ capital plans, like the right wing should always have, to be "taken seriously under Any form of Capitalism."
Click to expand...

*
It is all about, the plan, Stan.*

I know. Your plan is to never work and collect UE benefits.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bottom line is, solving simple poverty; it is termed and styled, a solution.  No wonder the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paying people who quit or never worked will increase poverty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it will, it only and merely, takes money.  Only the right wing is that clueless and that Causeless about Capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the money previously spent on welfare hasn't eliminated poverty.
> Paying slackers won't end it either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is all about, the plan, Stan.  Y'all only have, lousy social plans not _fine_ capital plans, like the right wing should always have, to be "taken seriously under Any form of Capitalism."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> It is all about, the plan, Stan.*
> 
> I know. Your plan is to never work and collect UE benefits.
Click to expand...

Why should You care how much I make in the stock market; if I can "quit on an at-will basis", for unemployment compensation purposes.

Comity means, the poor have to care how much the rich make and pay in taxes.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Paying people who quit or never worked will increase poverty.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it will, it only and merely, takes money.  Only the right wing is that clueless and that Causeless about Capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the money previously spent on welfare hasn't eliminated poverty.
> Paying slackers won't end it either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is all about, the plan, Stan.  Y'all only have, lousy social plans not _fine_ capital plans, like the right wing should always have, to be "taken seriously under Any form of Capitalism."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> It is all about, the plan, Stan.*
> 
> I know. Your plan is to never work and collect UE benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should You care how much I make in the stock market; if I can "quit on an at-will basis", for unemployment compensation purposes.
> 
> Comity means, the poor have to care how much the rich make and pay in taxes.
Click to expand...


*Why should You care how much I make in the stock market*

I don't care about your imaginary portfolio.
Or the UE benefits you'll never collect.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it will, it only and merely, takes money.  Only the right wing is that clueless and that Causeless about Capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All the money previously spent on welfare hasn't eliminated poverty.
> Paying slackers won't end it either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is all about, the plan, Stan.  Y'all only have, lousy social plans not _fine_ capital plans, like the right wing should always have, to be "taken seriously under Any form of Capitalism."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> It is all about, the plan, Stan.*
> 
> I know. Your plan is to never work and collect UE benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should You care how much I make in the stock market; if I can "quit on an at-will basis", for unemployment compensation purposes.
> 
> Comity means, the poor have to care how much the rich make and pay in taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Why should You care how much I make in the stock market*
> 
> I don't care about your imaginary portfolio.
> Or the UE benefits you'll never collect.
Click to expand...

Why do you care if a person collects unemployment compensation at fourteen dollars an hour, with a fifteen dollar minimum wage; but for, "right wing hate on the poor"?

Only lousy capitalists won't make it; capital Darwinism, all the way right wingers!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the money previously spent on welfare hasn't eliminated poverty.
> Paying slackers won't end it either.
> 
> 
> 
> It is all about, the plan, Stan.  Y'all only have, lousy social plans not _fine_ capital plans, like the right wing should always have, to be "taken seriously under Any form of Capitalism."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> It is all about, the plan, Stan.*
> 
> I know. Your plan is to never work and collect UE benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should You care how much I make in the stock market; if I can "quit on an at-will basis", for unemployment compensation purposes.
> 
> Comity means, the poor have to care how much the rich make and pay in taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Why should You care how much I make in the stock market*
> 
> I don't care about your imaginary portfolio.
> Or the UE benefits you'll never collect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you care if a person collects unemployment compensation at fourteen dollars an hour, with a fifteen dollar minimum wage; but for, "right wing hate on the poor"?
> 
> Only lousy capitalists won't make it; capital Darwinism, all the way right wingers!
Click to expand...


*Why do you care if a person collects unemployment compensation at fourteen dollars an hour*

Paying quitters and never workers unemployment compensation is bad economics and bad for state finances.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is all about, the plan, Stan.  Y'all only have, lousy social plans not _fine_ capital plans, like the right wing should always have, to be "taken seriously under Any form of Capitalism."
> 
> 
> 
> *
> It is all about, the plan, Stan.*
> 
> I know. Your plan is to never work and collect UE benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should You care how much I make in the stock market; if I can "quit on an at-will basis", for unemployment compensation purposes.
> 
> Comity means, the poor have to care how much the rich make and pay in taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Why should You care how much I make in the stock market*
> 
> I don't care about your imaginary portfolio.
> Or the UE benefits you'll never collect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you care if a person collects unemployment compensation at fourteen dollars an hour, with a fifteen dollar minimum wage; but for, "right wing hate on the poor"?
> 
> Only lousy capitalists won't make it; capital Darwinism, all the way right wingers!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Why do you care if a person collects unemployment compensation at fourteen dollars an hour*
> 
> Paying quitters and never workers unemployment compensation is bad economics and bad for state finances.
Click to expand...

Capital doesn't care; or, we could not have persons who have declared bankruptcies, elected.  Why do you?

The poor should not have to care how much the rich make.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for ceding the argument and the point, with your, nothing but, "nonsense" instead of a valid argument.
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense is all that your posts deserve when you get to the flailing uselessly, spouting meaningless slogans point.  Make a cogent argument and you might get a more substantive response.  Until then, nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have only fallacy, not a valid rebuttal.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for ceding the argument and the point, with your, nothing but, "nonsense" instead of a valid argument.
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense is all that your posts deserve when you get to the flailing uselessly, spouting meaningless slogans point.  Make a cogent argument and you might get a more substantive response.  Until then, nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have only fallacy, not a valid rebuttal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense.
Click to expand...

Why do you care if a person collects unemployment compensation at fourteen dollars an hour, with a fifteen dollar minimum wage; but for, "right wing hate on the poor"?

Only lousy capitalists won't make it; capital Darwinism, all the way right wingers!


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for ceding the argument and the point, with your, nothing but, "nonsense" instead of a valid argument.
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense is all that your posts deserve when you get to the flailing uselessly, spouting meaningless slogans point.  Make a cogent argument and you might get a more substantive response.  Until then, nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have only fallacy, not a valid rebuttal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you care if a person collects unemployment compensation at fourteen dollars an hour, with a fifteen dollar minimum wage; but for, "right wing hate on the poor"?
> 
> Only lousy capitalists won't make it; capital Darwinism, all the way right wingers!
Click to expand...

Nonsense.


----------



## danielpalos

Only lousy capitalists won't make it; capital Darwinism, all the way right wingers!


----------



## Papageorgio

danielpalos said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're poor because you choose not to work, there is a solution that doesn't require society to do anything at all.  It requires effort from you, though, so many stoners living in their parents' basements and posting vacuous slogans online won't take it.
> 
> 
> 
> dude; you are simply resorting to right wing propaganda and rhetoric.  our current president wants to make the rich richer and the poor, poorer, via Public Policy.  You can't, "blame the poor", any more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't have to take it from somebody else to make yourself successful… That's the fatal flaw with socialism.
> Envy rules your sorry ass motherfuckers lives… LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> our current president wants to make the rich richer and the poor, poorer, via Public Policy. You can't, "blame the poor", any more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Robin Hood was a crook
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A rich guy can "purchase" public office and "make himself richer while making the poor, poorer, is better?"
Click to expand...


Long been that way, look at Clinton, Gore and Obama. They all have participated in this game and yet you claim it is right wingers.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> Only lousy capitalists won't make it; capital Darwinism, all the way right wingers!


Nonsense.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only lousy capitalists won't make it; capital Darwinism, all the way right wingers!
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
Click to expand...

Only the right wing has, "non sense".  The left may have, "full sense".


----------



## Rustic

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only lousy capitalists won't make it; capital Darwinism, all the way right wingers!
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the right wing has, "non sense".  The left may have, "full sense".
Click to expand...

The Left really want other people to pay for their shit… Fact


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only lousy capitalists won't make it; capital Darwinism, all the way right wingers!
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the right wing has, "non sense".  The left may have, "full sense".
Click to expand...

You're more garbled than usual.  Put the bong down and go outside for a walk.


----------



## danielpalos

Rustic said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only lousy capitalists won't make it; capital Darwinism, all the way right wingers!
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the right wing has, "non sense".  The left may have, "full sense".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Left really want other people to pay for their shit… Fact
Click to expand...

You need, fullsense, not nonsense.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only lousy capitalists won't make it; capital Darwinism, all the way right wingers!
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the right wing has, "non sense".  The left may have, "full sense".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're more garbled than usual.  Put the bong down and go outside for a walk.
Click to expand...

you don't have enough, fullsense, only nonsense?


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only lousy capitalists won't make it; capital Darwinism, all the way right wingers!
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the right wing has, "non sense".  The left may have, "full sense".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're more garbled than usual.  Put the bong down and go outside for a walk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you don't have enough, fullsense, only nonsense?
Click to expand...

No, I really mean it.  Put the bong down.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only lousy capitalists won't make it; capital Darwinism, all the way right wingers!
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the right wing has, "non sense".  The left may have, "full sense".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're more garbled than usual.  Put the bong down and go outside for a walk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you don't have enough, fullsense, only nonsense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I really mean it.  Put the bong down.
Click to expand...

dude; i am on my second ounce and You still have no Thing but red herrings.  how worth-less is that in the non-porn sector?


----------



## Lakhota

Time for reasonable gun control.  Also time to update the confusing and obsolete 2nd Amendment.


----------



## 2aguy

Lakhota said:


> Time for reasonable gun control.  Also time to update the confusing and obsolete 2nd Amendment.




Yeah...name that reasonable gun control....you guys never seem to get past just typing the words "reasonable gun control" before you go silent.....


----------



## westwall

Lakhota said:


> Time for reasonable gun control.  Also time to update the confusing and obsolete 2nd Amendment.







Time for you stop with the infantile responses.  If Paris didn't show that your whole thought process is a failure then you are stupider than I thought.  That or intellectually dishonest.


----------



## task0778

westwall said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time for reasonable gun control.  Also time to update the confusing and obsolete 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Time for you stop with the infantile responses.  If Paris didn't show that your whole thought process is a failure then you are stupider than I thought.  That or intellectually dishonest.
Click to expand...


Or both.


----------



## P@triot

Lakhota said:


> Time for reasonable gun control.  Also time to update the confusing and obsolete 2nd Amendment.


Time for you to leave the U.S. Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

2aguy said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time for reasonable gun control.  Also time to update the confusing and obsolete 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...name that reasonable gun control....you guys never seem to get past just typing the words "reasonable gun control" before you go silent.....
Click to expand...


Reasonable Gun laws.  Forget the "Control" BS.  The ONLY reason that the LV had over 400 casualties was that Nevada is a friggin free for all for weapons.  The shooter was able to buy multiple weapons and thousands of rounds in  a very short time.  What we don't need to do is to make it easier for some fruitcake to get all that amassed.  It's just too easy to prevent.  

Now, that would be a good start.


----------



## Lakhota

P@triot said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time for reasonable gun control.  Also time to update the confusing and obsolete 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> Time for you to leave the U.S. Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
Click to expand...


That ain't how it works, sparky.  We use the ballot box and laws.


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time for reasonable gun control.  Also time to update the confusing and obsolete 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...name that reasonable gun control....you guys never seem to get past just typing the words "reasonable gun control" before you go silent.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reasonable Gun laws.  Forget the "Control" BS.  The ONLY reason that the LV had over 400 casualties was that Nevada is a friggin free for all for weapons.  The shooter was able to buy multiple weapons and thousands of rounds in  a very short time.  What we don't need to do is to make it easier for some fruitcake to get all that amassed.  It's just too easy to prevent.
> 
> Now, that would be a good start.
Click to expand...







Yeah your ideas worked so well for the 130+ in Paris.


----------



## 2aguy

westwall said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time for reasonable gun control.  Also time to update the confusing and obsolete 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...name that reasonable gun control....you guys never seem to get past just typing the words "reasonable gun control" before you go silent.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reasonable Gun laws.  Forget the "Control" BS.  The ONLY reason that the LV had over 400 casualties was that Nevada is a friggin free for all for weapons.  The shooter was able to buy multiple weapons and thousands of rounds in  a very short time.  What we don't need to do is to make it easier for some fruitcake to get all that amassed.  It's just too easy to prevent.
> 
> Now, that would be a good start.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah your ideas worked so well for the 130+ in Paris.
Click to expand...



If you count Charlie Hebdo...at least 142...but you also have other shootings by muslims against Jewish people so the count is even higher, and they all used illegal, fully automatic weapons....


----------



## Lakhota

I've heard some gun nuts say that gun violence is a small price to pay for having the 2nd Amendment.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Lakhota said:


> Time for reasonable gun control.  Also time to update the confusing and obsolete 2nd Amendment.


We have reasonable gun control

Felons and the adjudicated mentally ill cannot buy guns.


----------



## Lakhota

Skull Pilot said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time for reasonable gun control.  Also time to update the confusing and obsolete 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> We have reasonable gun control
> 
> Felons and the adjudicated mentally ill cannot buy guns.
Click to expand...


Not true.  The NRA even protects felons and mentally ill.  Also, the NICS system is not fed accurate and timely information.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Lakhota said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time for reasonable gun control.  Also time to update the confusing and obsolete 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> We have reasonable gun control
> 
> Felons and the adjudicated mentally ill cannot buy guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true.  The NRA even protects felons and mentally ill.  Also, the NICS system is not fed accurate and timely information.
Click to expand...

The laws exist.

it doesn't matter what the NRA supports or doesn't support.

The NRA is not a law making or law enforcement entity


----------



## Lakhota

Skull Pilot said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time for reasonable gun control.  Also time to update the confusing and obsolete 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> We have reasonable gun control
> 
> Felons and the adjudicated mentally ill cannot buy guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true.  The NRA even protects felons and mentally ill.  Also, the NICS system is not fed accurate and timely information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The laws exist.
> 
> it doesn't matter what the NRA supports or doesn't support.
> 
> The NRA is not a law making or law enforcement entity
Click to expand...


That's hilariously stupid.  Apparently you don't follow gun legislation very closely.

*5 charts that show how powerful the National Rifle Association is ...*
5 charts that show how powerful the NRA is - 290k -similar pages
Oct 9, 2017 *...* Many *gun control* advocates blame the *NRA's* aggressive lobbying ... the *NRA's* *influence* remains a contentious and dominant aspect of the ...
*How the NRA wields its influence - CNN - CNN.com*
How the NRA wields its influence - CNN - 434k - similar pages
Jan 10, 2013 *...* No new *gun laws*. The *NRA* has made its position clear, even in the wake of America's most recent gun debate. Here's a look at how it has ...
*NRA-Backed Gun Laws Have Found Success In State Legislatures ...*
http://www.npr.org / 2017 / 10 / 05 / 555859571 / nra-backed-gun-laws-have... - similar pages
Oct 5, 2017 *...* Journalist Mike Spies says the *NRA's* push to allow *guns* on college ... the National *Rifle* Association's *influence* on state policy and *politics*, and ...


----------



## Skull Pilot

Lakhota said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time for reasonable gun control.  Also time to update the confusing and obsolete 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> We have reasonable gun control
> 
> Felons and the adjudicated mentally ill cannot buy guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true.  The NRA even protects felons and mentally ill.  Also, the NICS system is not fed accurate and timely information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The laws exist.
> 
> it doesn't matter what the NRA supports or doesn't support.
> 
> The NRA is not a law making or law enforcement entity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's hilariously stupid.  Apparently you don't follow gun legislation very closely.
Click to expand...


More closely than you.

And at least I know the difference between entities that are  sanctioned law making and enforcement bodies and those that aren't


----------



## hunarcy

Lakhota said:


> I've heard some gun nuts say that gun violence is a small price to pay for having the 2nd Amendment.



And I have heard some anti-gun cowards say everyone should give up their rights because a few abuse the right.


----------



## hunarcy

Lakhota said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time for reasonable gun control.  Also time to update the confusing and obsolete 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> We have reasonable gun control
> 
> Felons and the adjudicated mentally ill cannot buy guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true.  The NRA even protects felons and mentally ill.  Also, the NICS system is not fed accurate and timely information.
Click to expand...


If you have to lie to make a point, you don't really have a point.


----------



## danielpalos

Our Second Amendment is not obsolete.  We merely need to improve the ratio of well regulated militia to unorganized militia.


----------



## The Derp

So thoughts and prayers didn't work.


----------



## danielpalos

The Derp said:


> So thoughts and prayers didn't work.


It is a start.  We should start to blame Commanders in Chief of State militias.

We have, a Second Amendment.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Our Second Amendment is not obsolete.  We merely need to improve the ratio of well regulated militia to unorganized militia.



Unorganized militia also have the right to keep and bear arms.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

Lakhota said:


> *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means.*



Maybe, but when the Supreme Court says it means something other than what the Constitution intended for it to mean, then that's the whole point of it.....

Time to remove the treasonous SOBs.

Otherwise, it is We The People who have foregone the protections and opted for rule by tyranny.

THE REASON we are even at a point in history when 5 people could ignore the Constitution is because of complacency, laziness and passiveness....of GOOD men while evil men are at work.



http://www.constitution.org/powright.htm

It is not your right to step aside while evil men over rule the Constitution.....

*Constitutional duties of persons under U.S. or State jurisdiction:*[7]

(1) To obey laws that are constitutional and applied within their proper jurisdiction and according to their intent.

(2) To comply with the terms of legal contracts to which one is a party.

(3) To tell the truth under oath.

*Constitutional duties of citizens under U.S. or State jurisdiction:*[7]

(1) To preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.[6]

(2) To help enforce laws and practices that are constitutional and applied within their proper jurisdiction and according to their intent, and to resist those which are not.

(3) To serve on juries, and to render verdicts according to the constitutionality, jurisdiction, and applicability of statute and common law, and the facts of the case.

*Constitutional duties of able-bodied citizens under U.S. or State jurisdiction:*[7]

(1) To defend the U.S. or State, individually and through service in the Militia.

(2) To keep and bear arms.[18]

(3) To exercise general police powers to defend the community and enforce the laws, subject to legal orders of higher-ranking officials when present.[17]


----------



## Frankeneinstein

Lakhota said:


> Time for reasonable gun control. Also time to update the confusing and obsolete 2nd Amendment.


If you did not have a liberal education it would not be the least bit confusing...perhaps it is time to look at the real cause of violence in America, liberalism, so while we are looking at basic freedoms to be ignored it may be time to outlaw it as a legal political cause, any reasonable person can easily draw the conclusion that gun crimes skyrocked after the conservative 50's when the liberal 60's took center stage, anyone who cannot see that should not be advocating for things like "reasonable" gun control since it is obvious they are not interested in being reasonable.


----------



## The Derp

Frankeneinstein said:


> If you did not have a liberal education it would not be the least bit confusing...perhaps it is time to look at the real cause of violence in America, liberalism, so while we are looking at basic freedoms to be ignored it may be time to outlaw it as a legal political cause, any reasonable person can easily draw the conclusion that gun crimes skyrocked after the conservative 50's when the liberal 60's took center stage, anyone who cannot see that should not be advocating for things like "reasonable" gun control since it is obvious they are not interested in being reasonable.



Despite Conservative fear-mongering, there is no violent crime epidemic in this country.  Violent crime rates are at or near all-time lows.  What causes an increase in violent crime is _*poverty*_.  

Everything you are saying is bullshit.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

The Derp said:


> If you did not have a liberal education it would not be the least bit confusing...perhaps it is time to look at the real cause of violence in America, liberalism, so while we are looking at basic freedoms to be ignored it may be time to outlaw it as a legal political cause, any reasonable person can easily draw the conclusion that gun crimes skyrocked after the conservative 50's when the liberal 60's took center stage, anyone who cannot see that should not be advocating for things like "reasonable" gun control since it is obvious they are not interested in being reasonable.





> Despite Conservative fear-mongering, there is no violent crime epidemic in this country.  Violent crime rates are at or near all-time lows.



and gun ownership at an all-time high




> What causes an increase in violent crime is _*poverty*_.



as long as you understand that blaming guns is not the reason then you are helping to make the rights point



> Everything you are saying is bullshit.



everything you said  better dismisses the lefts claims...not the rights...good job[/QUOTE]


----------



## The Derp

Frankeneinstein said:


> and gun ownership at an all-time high



There are _*fewer*_ gun owners today than there were 20 years ago.  




Frankeneinstein said:


> as long as you understand that blaming guns is not the reason then you are helping to make the rights point



Blaming guns is not the reason of what?  Can you try to speak English and not run your Russian words through a Google translator, please?




Frankeneinstein said:


> everything you said  better dismisses the lefts claims...not the rights...good job



I never said what you think I said.  You're just a troll employing Russian Active Measures.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

The Derp said:


> Blaming guns is not the reason of what?



the left blaming them for violent crime silly, that's what is being argued, at first I could not figure out why you were so willing to blame something other than guns, now I get it, you had no idea what it is that was being argued



> Can you try to speak English and not run your Russian words through a Google translator, please?


lol, so you really did not understand what it was you were calling "incorrect and bullspit"...is that right?



> I never said what you think I said.


which is what?



> You're just a troll employing Russian Active Measures.


you addressed me first, now you feel like you're in over your head and are looking desperately for a way out, the fact that you choose a failed cnn fake news tactic to try and make your escape shows the depths of that desperation


----------



## Daryl Hunt

I already said one thing that would slow down the legal aquisition of bulk Ammo.  Now, let's move onto another factor.  The rate of fire.

You will notice that only one style of semi auto is used in the mass killings and that is the AR-15 and copies.  The problem here is that they are based on 600 to 700 rate of fire full autos.  That means that when work arounds are found that they can still have a tremendous rate of fire.  Even the US Army, Marines and Navy has reduced theirs to a 3 shot limit per trigger pull.  The Air Force still uses the Fully Automatic version.

Now, you will notice something like the Remington 750 isn't the gun of choice.  While it's a semi auto as well, it has a cyclic rate of about 200 rounds a minute.  I think there is also an AR looking Rem 750 based weapon that looks similiar to an AR.  But it's not the weapon of choice.

The fact that the AR-15 looks like the full auto M-16 really ins't the factor.  It's they high rate of potential cyclic rate of fire it has makes it ideal for modification or work arounds for mass killings.


----------



## Papageorgio

Lakhota said:


> Time for reasonable gun control.  Also time to update the confusing and obsolete 2nd Amendment.



Lol! Sure float meaningless ideas.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is not obsolete.  We merely need to improve the ratio of well regulated militia to unorganized militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unorganized militia also have the right to keep and bear arms.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant.  We simply need to regulate well, more gun lovers who cause problems with their guns.

Better _aqueducts_, better _roads_, and more _well regulated_ militia, is Always the answer.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is not obsolete.  We merely need to improve the ratio of well regulated militia to unorganized militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unorganized militia also have the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant.  We simply need to regulate well, more gun lovers who cause problems with their guns.
> 
> Better _aqueducts_, better _roads_, and more _well regulated_ militia, is Always the answer.
Click to expand...


Regulate how? Be specific.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is not obsolete.  We merely need to improve the ratio of well regulated militia to unorganized militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unorganized militia also have the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant.  We simply need to regulate well, more gun lovers who cause problems with their guns.
> 
> Better _aqueducts_, better _roads_, and more _well regulated_ militia, is Always the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Regulate how? Be specific.
Click to expand...

Gun lovers should be, "made corrigible", through wellness of regulation with a local State militia unit; should they have to explain their presence before the Judicature, and Only have an inferior argument.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is not obsolete.  We merely need to improve the ratio of well regulated militia to unorganized militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unorganized militia also have the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant.  We simply need to regulate well, more gun lovers who cause problems with their guns.
> 
> Better _aqueducts_, better _roads_, and more _well regulated_ militia, is Always the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Regulate how? Be specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gun lovers should be, "made corrigible", through wellness of regulation with a local State militia unit; should they have to explain their presence before the Judicature, and Only have an inferior argument.
Click to expand...


There is no requirement to affiliate with a government militia in order to exercise your right to own weapons.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is not obsolete.  We merely need to improve the ratio of well regulated militia to unorganized militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unorganized militia also have the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant.  We simply need to regulate well, more gun lovers who cause problems with their guns.
> 
> Better _aqueducts_, better _roads_, and more _well regulated_ militia, is Always the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Regulate how? Be specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gun lovers should be, "made corrigible", through wellness of regulation with a local State militia unit; should they have to explain their presence before the Judicature, and Only have an inferior argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no requirement to affiliate with a government militia in order to exercise your right to own weapons.
Click to expand...

I am not saying there is, for natural rights purposes.  The common defense could, "dictate otherwise", but for the right wing being so clueless and so Causeless, on a potentially, for-profit basis.


----------



## hunarcy

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is not obsolete.  We merely need to improve the ratio of well regulated militia to unorganized militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unorganized militia also have the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant.  We simply need to regulate well, more gun lovers who cause problems with their guns.
> 
> Better _aqueducts_, better _roads_, and more _well regulated_ militia, is Always the answer.
Click to expand...


If you weren't just a troll, I'd point out that "well-regulate" as used in the 1700's meant in good working order.

Meaning of the phrase "well-regulated"


----------



## P@triot

Lakhota said:


> That ain't how it works, sparky.  We use the ballot box and laws.


_That_ ain’t how it works, spanky. We have this thing called the U.S. Constitution. It protects us from you bat-shit crazy communists. Vote all you want sweetie, our guns aren’t going anywhere.

Incidentally, I noted how conspicuously silent you were last week when people were murdered by a person in an automobile. Speaks volumes. You don’t care about human life. You care about control - and that starts by disarming people.


----------



## P@triot

Daryl Hunt said:


> The ONLY reason that the LV had *over* *400 casualties* was that Nevada is a friggin free for all for weapons.


The only reason someone as astoundingly ignorant as you is allowed to spread misinformation is because of the 1st Amendment.

There has *never* been a mass shooting that caused 100 people to die - much less 400 you dimwit.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Daryl Hunt said:


> It's just too easy to prevent.
> 
> Now, that would be a good start.


actually impossible to prevent  with 400  million guns out there often in the hands of values free, atheist, liberal Americans. Bush 41 wanted a kinder, gentler, traditional, Republican, Christian America  like the one he knew as a child. That is the only way to go back to a peaceful  Donna Reed Republican culture and away from a Democratic Grand Theft Auto culture.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Lakhota said:


> Time for reasonable gun control.  Also time to update the confusing and obsolete 2nd Amendment.



update? you mean since liberal govt is bigger and more threatening than ever, since social norms are broken down more than ever  you want citizens to have even more weapons with which to defend themselves?


_George Washington's address to the second session of the First U.S. Congress:_


"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty, teeth and keystone under independence. The church, the plow, the prairie wagon and citizens' firearms are indelibly related. From the hour the pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that, to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. Every corner of this land knows firearms, and more than 99 and 99/100 percent of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil influence. They deserve a place of honor with all that's good. When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour."



* 
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government" 

-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334*


*Alexander Hamilton:* "...that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties 
of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms." 
(Federalist Paper #29)

"Little more can be


----------



## danielpalos

hunarcy said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is not obsolete.  We merely need to improve the ratio of well regulated militia to unorganized militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unorganized militia also have the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant.  We simply need to regulate well, more gun lovers who cause problems with their guns.
> 
> Better _aqueducts_, better _roads_, and more _well regulated_ militia, is Always the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you weren't just a troll, I'd point out that "well-regulate" as used in the 1700's meant in good working order.
> 
> Meaning of the phrase "well-regulated"
Click to expand...

So what; all You have is an appeal to ignorance of the law.

Wellness of regulation for the militia of the United States must be _prescribed_ by our federal 
Congress.



> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> So what; all You have is an appeal to ignorance of the law.


You are constantly misusing "appeal to ignorance."

The Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy, or Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam, is one where the proponent of an argument attempts to bolster the argument's veracity by pointing out that no evidence can be presented to the contrary.

Example:  God exists because you cannot prove God does not exist.

Because of this fallacy, the scientific method demands that a theory be disprovable.

Now.  Please, stop misusing that term.



danielpalos said:


> Wellness of regulation for the militia of the United States must be _prescribed_ by our federal
> Congress.


Says who?

Are you referring to the 2nd Amendment when you say this is required?  Because, if you are, you again ignore the rules of construction and interpretation, which demand otherwise.  The Amendment must be read in a fashion that gives meaning and effect to all words and phrases.   You cannot place emphases on a "well-regulated militia" while ignoring the operative clause prohibiting infringement.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Daryl Hunt said:


> I already said one thing that would slow down the legal aquisition of bulk Ammo.  Now, let's move onto another factor.  The rate of fire.
> 
> You will notice that only one style of semi auto is used in the mass killings and that is the AR-15 and copies.  The problem here is that they are based on 600 to 700 rate of fire full autos.  That means that when work arounds are found that they can still have a tremendous rate of fire.  Even the US Army, Marines and Navy has reduced theirs to a 3 shot limit per trigger pull.  The Air Force still uses the Fully Automatic version.
> 
> Now, you will notice something like the Remington 750 isn't the gun of choice.  While it's a semi auto as well, it has a cyclic rate of about 200 rounds a minute.  I think there is also an AR looking Rem 750 based weapon that looks similiar to an AR.  But it's not the weapon of choice.
> 
> The fact that the AR-15 looks like the full auto M-16 really ins't the factor.  It's they high rate of potential cyclic rate of fire it has makes it ideal for modification or work arounds for mass killings.



I know when I am right.  The Ultra Rightees and Ultra Lefties, both, are quiet about it.


----------



## Crixus

Lakhota said:


> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
Click to expand...





The Supreme Court already ruled on this. Your articles mean nothing, or as much as your opinion on the issue


----------



## hunarcy

danielpalos said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is not obsolete.  We merely need to improve the ratio of well regulated militia to unorganized militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unorganized militia also have the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant.  We simply need to regulate well, more gun lovers who cause problems with their guns.
> 
> Better _aqueducts_, better _roads_, and more _well regulated_ militia, is Always the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you weren't just a troll, I'd point out that "well-regulate" as used in the 1700's meant in good working order.
> 
> Meaning of the phrase "well-regulated"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what; all You have is an appeal to ignorance of the law.
> 
> Wellness of regulation for the militia of the United States must be _prescribed_ by our federal
> Congress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


As I said, just a troll.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what; all You have is an appeal to ignorance of the law.
> 
> 
> 
> You are constantly misusing "appeal to ignorance."
> 
> The Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy, or Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam, is one where the proponent of an argument attempts to bolster the argument's veracity by pointing out that no evidence can be presented to the contrary.
> 
> Example:  God exists because you cannot prove God does not exist.
> 
> Because of this fallacy, the scientific method demands that a theory be disprovable.
> 
> Now.  Please, stop misusing that term.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wellness of regulation for the militia of the United States must be _prescribed_ by our federal
> Congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says who?
> 
> Are you referring to the 2nd Amendment when you say this is required?  Because, if you are, you again ignore the rules of construction and interpretation, which demand otherwise.  The Amendment must be read in a fashion that gives meaning and effect to all words and phrases.   You cannot place emphases on a "well-regulated militia" while ignoring the operative clause prohibiting infringement.
Click to expand...

Says our Constitution; only the right wing is that clueless and that Causeless, for political purposes.

_To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;_


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> _George Washington's address to the second session of the First U.S. Congress:_
> 
> 
> "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty, teeth and keystone under independence. The church, the plow, the prairie wagon and citizens' firearms are indelibly related. From the hour the pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that, to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. Every corner of this land knows firearms, and more than 99 and 99/100 percent of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil influence. They deserve a place of honor with all that's good. When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour."


That's a great quote, and one can hardly doubt that Washington held those same convictions after reading his other writings on the individual right to bear arms.   He would likely give his approval of that message....but he didn't say that.  It was incorrectly attributed to him.  

That came from a 1926 article written by  C.S. Wheatley and published in Hunter-Trader-Trapper.  Wheatley cited Washington's State of The Union Address, where Washington said:

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined;— to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent others, for essential, particularly for military supplies."

That statement, nonetheless, demonstrates Washington's belief that citizens should be independently armed with equal firepower to that of a standing army.  Washington. like James Madison, but unlike Jefferson and other Anti-Federalists, supported a standing army.  Yet he and every other Founding Father to comment on a standing army recognized its potential instrumentality for tyranny.  

I Washington's actual quote, the word "disciplined" as used there, means "taught" or given instruction.  He wanted the people to design and manufacture their firearms, for military use.  In telling Congress this, Washington is signaling to Congress that the people should remain armed, but that he eventually wants a standing army.  See the paragraphs above and below that paragraph:

___
"Among the many interesting objects, which will engage your attention, that of providing for the *common defence* will merit particular regard.— *To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.*—

*"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined;— to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent others, for essential, particularly for military supplies.*

"*The proper establishment of the Troops which may be deemed indispensible*, will be entitled to mature consideration.— In the arrangements, which may be made respecting it, it will be of importance to conciliate the comfortable support of the Officers and Soldiers with a due regard to economy."
__

Bootney's translation:

If we want to avoid war, we need to look like we are ready for war.  

Not to take away from our current militia system.  Free people should be armed and taught how to fight.  Their safety requires that they should be able to independently manufacture their own military-grade weapons and supplies.

But, we should start to consider raising a standing army and paying officers to maintain it. 

But, I digress...


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Says our Constitution; only the right wing is that clueless and that Causeless, for political purposes.
> 
> _To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;_


Once again, you fail to give the Constitution and all of its Amendments proper construction and interpretation, giving meaning to all words and phrases, and not reading it in a fashion that renders some words or phrases meaningless.


----------



## Crixus

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> _George Washington's address to the second session of the First U.S. Congress:_
> 
> 
> "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty, teeth and keystone under independence. The church, the plow, the prairie wagon and citizens' firearms are indelibly related. From the hour the pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that, to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. Every corner of this land knows firearms, and more than 99 and 99/100 percent of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil influence. They deserve a place of honor with all that's good. When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour."
> 
> 
> 
> That's a great quote, and one can hardly doubt that Washington held those same convictions after reading his other writings on the individual right to bear arms.   He would likely give his approval of that message....but he didn't say that.  It was incorrectly attributed to him.
> 
> That came from a 1926 article written by  C.S. Wheatley and published in Hunter-Trader-Trapper.  Wheatley cited Washington's State of The Union Address, where Washington said:
> 
> "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined;— to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent others, for essential, particularly for military supplies."
> 
> That statement, nonetheless, demonstrates Washington's belief that citizens should be independently armed with equal firepower to that of a standing army.  Washington. like James Madison, but unlike Jefferson and other Anti-Federalists, supported a standing army.  Yet he and every other Founding Father to comment on a standing army recognized its potential instrumentality for tyranny.
> 
> I Washington's actual quote, the word "disciplined" as used there, means "taught" or given instruction.  He wanted the people to design and manufacture their firearms, for military use.  In telling Congress this, Washington is signaling to Congress that the people should remain armed, but that he eventually wants a standing army.  See the paragraphs above and below that paragraph:
> 
> ___
> "Among the many interesting objects, which will engage your attention, that of providing for the *common defence* will merit particular regard.— *To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.*—
> 
> *"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined;— to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent others, for essential, particularly for military supplies.*
> 
> "*The proper establishment of the Troops which may be deemed indispensible*, will be entitled to mature consideration.— In the arrangements, which may be made respecting it, it will be of importance to conciliate the comfortable support of the Officers and Soldiers with a due regard to economy."
> __
> 
> Bootney's translation:
> 
> If we want to avoid war, we need to look like we are ready for war.
> 
> Not to take away from our current militia system.  Free people should be armed and taught how to fight.  Their safety requires that they should be able to independently manufacture their own military-grade weapons and supplies.
> 
> But, we should start to consider raising a standing army and paying officers to maintain it.
> 
> But, I digress...
Click to expand...




Our society is to fat and lazy. Stroke and infarction would kill off 99% of that army in three days.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says our Constitution; only the right wing is that clueless and that Causeless, for political purposes.
> 
> _To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;_
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, you fail to give the Constitution and all of its Amendments proper construction and interpretation, giving meaning to all words and phrases, and not reading it in a fashion that renders some words or phrases meaningless.
Click to expand...

nope; that is just right wing legal fantasy;

_To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;_


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> nope; that is just right wing legal fantasy;
> 
> _To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;_


Remember, you said this:a


danielpalos said:


> Wellness of regulation for the militia of the United States must be _prescribed_ by our federal Congress.


After you said this:


danielpalos said:


> Irrelevant. We simply need to regulate well, more gun lovers who cause problems with their guns.
> 
> Better _aqueducts_, better _roads_, and more _well regulated_ militia, is Always the answer.


Further, you said this:


danielpalos said:


> Our Second Amendment is not obsolete. We merely need to improve the ratio of well regulated militia to unorganized militia


You are trying to give meaning to the "well-regulated" phrase of the 2nd Amendment in a fashion that renders the "right...shall not be infringed" meaningless. 

You are attempting to construe a well-regulated militia as the intent of the 2nd Amendment, which would either render Article 1 of the Constitution on militias meaningless, or make the 2nd Amendment a mere redundancy.  Either way, such an interpretation that renders the phrase "right...shall not be infringed" meaningless is an improper one.

Now, tell me again how this is just "right wing legal fantasy" and rattle off your clueless and causeless bullshit.


----------



## danielpalos

Well regulated militia are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Well regulated militia are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.



And neither type of militia in any way limits our right to keep and bear arms.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Crixus said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court already ruled on this. Your articles mean nothing, or as much as your opinion on the issue
Click to expand...


The ruling was, and I paraphrase:

In its June 26 decision, a 5-4 majority of the *Supreme Court ruled* that the *Second Amendment* confers an individual right to keep and bear arms, and that the D.C. provisions banning handguns and requiring firearms in the home disassembled or locked violate this right.Jun 26, 2015

SCOTUS can only rule using the 1934 Firearms law which is, and again I paraphrase:

*National Firearms Act of 1934*. The first attempt at federal *gun*-control *legislation*, the *National Firearms Act* (NFA) only covered two specific types of *guns*: machine *guns* and short-barrel *firearms*, including sawed-off shotguns.

The last ruling was not about the hand guns, it was about the rifles and shotguns.  And it upheld the right to own those same handguns.  But it also upheld the right to regulate their carrying on the street requiring a CCW or some type of permit.

While the State does not have the right to ban and confiscate those arms, it does have the right to regulate them.  The Federal Government does not.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Well regulated militia are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.


The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, regardless of the manner of organization of a militia.


----------



## Crixus

Daryl Hunt said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court already ruled on this. Your articles mean nothing, or as much as your opinion on the issue
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The ruling was, and I paraphrase:
> 
> In its June 26 decision, a 5-4 majority of the *Supreme Court ruled* that the *Second Amendment* confers an individual right to keep and bear arms, and that the D.C. provisions banning handguns and requiring firearms in the home disassembled or locked violate this right.Jun 26, 2015
> 
> SCOTUS can only rule using the 1934 Firearms law which is, and again I paraphrase:
> 
> *National Firearms Act of 1934*. The first attempt at federal *gun*-control *legislation*, the *National Firearms Act* (NFA) only covered two specific types of *guns*: machine *guns* and short-barrel *firearms*, including sawed-off shotguns.
> 
> The last ruling was not about the hand guns, it was about the rifles and shotguns.  And it upheld the right to own those same handguns.  But it also upheld the right to regulate their carrying on the street requiring a CCW or some type of permit.
> 
> While the State does not have the right to ban and confiscate those arms, it does have the right to regulate them.  The Federal Government does not.
Click to expand...




Like California. You can own AR’s (or could) but pretty much it had to conform to the 92 crime bill stuff as well as permanently attaching the magazine. This is where we got the “bullet button”.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.
> 
> 
> 
> The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, regardless of the manner of organization of a militia.
Click to expand...

Only in right wing fantasy.

The People are the Militia; You are either, well regulated or you are not.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> The People are the Militia; You are either, well regulated or you are not.


The word "people" does not mean "militia" nor the reverse.  The right is not the militia's.  It's the right of the people.  The Heller Court made it abundantly clear that it is not a collective right, but an individual right.

Regulation, whether it be well or unwell, makes not a gnat's dick difference.  

I am not well regulated.  I am still am a person.  I still have the right.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

The right of who?

Militia?  

Government?

First Class?

The right of WHO?

What about that right?  It shall not be what?

This is so old and annoying.  

I propose that anyone who tries to disarm the people shall be summarily executed.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia; You are either, well regulated or you are not.
> 
> 
> 
> The word "people" does not mean "militia" nor the reverse.  The right is not the militia's.  It's the right of the people.  The Heller Court made it abundantly clear that it is not a collective right, but an individual right.
> 
> Regulation, whether it be well or unwell, makes not a gnat's dick difference.
> 
> I am not well regulated.  I am still am a person.  I still have the right.
Click to expand...

In the case of the US, it does.  the People are the Militia.  You are either, well regulated or you are not.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> In the case of the US, it does. the People are the Militia. You are either, well regulated or you are not.


Cool.

Still doesn't change "the right of the people (me)...shall not be infringed" does it?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> n the case of the US, it does. the People are the Militia. You are either, well regulated or you are not.


...and this further demonstrates my earlier comment.  You believe that People and Militia are used interchangeably.  

Only the Militia has the right to assembly?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> In the case of the US, it does. the People are the Militia. You are either, well regulated or you are not.


And, again on this comment, the People are the Militia?  

How does that change the right of the people?  What difference does it make?  The right of the People/Militia is the same.  People (individuals) right shall not be infringed.  You have not changed anything with this argument.

Well-regulated, in this context does not mean GUN REGULATIONS.  It means training.

So, if you are truly concerned with getting this well-regulated thing done, you should be getting free training and arming of all citizens and get the fuck out of our way.


----------



## turtledude

Lakhota said:


> Time for reasonable gun control.  Also time to update the confusing and obsolete 2nd Amendment.



reasonable gun control is only laws that change things for criminals.  your idea of reasonable gun control are laws that ONLY RESTRICT what honest gun owners can do. that is not reasonable at all.


----------



## turtledude

Daryl Hunt said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time for reasonable gun control.  Also time to update the confusing and obsolete 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...name that reasonable gun control....you guys never seem to get past just typing the words "reasonable gun control" before you go silent.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reasonable Gun laws.  Forget the "Control" BS.  The ONLY reason that the LV had over 400 casualties was that Nevada is a friggin free for all for weapons.  The shooter was able to buy multiple weapons and thousands of rounds in  a very short time.  What we don't need to do is to make it easier for some fruitcake to get all that amassed.  It's just too easy to prevent.
> 
> Now, that would be a good start.
Click to expand...


so in your "learned opinion" a man with two planes, a pilots license and a net worth of several million dollars wouldn't be able to get weapons if  you had your pet laws in place?


----------



## turtledude

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only lousy capitalists won't make it; capital Darwinism, all the way right wingers!
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the right wing has, "non sense".  The left may have, "full sense".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're more garbled than usual.  Put the bong down and go outside for a walk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you don't have enough, fullsense, only nonsense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I really mean it.  Put the bong down.
Click to expand...


he doesn't do bongs  he's an artificial intelligence program created by a PhD candidate who doesn't speak English as his first or second or even third language


----------



## ChrisL

turtledude said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> Only the right wing has, "non sense".  The left may have, "full sense".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're more garbled than usual.  Put the bong down and go outside for a walk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you don't have enough, fullsense, only nonsense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I really mean it.  Put the bong down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> he doesn't do bongs  he's an artificial intelligence program created by a PhD candidate who doesn't speak English as his first or second or even third language
Click to expand...


IOW, a typical liberal poster.


----------



## hadit

turtledude said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> Only the right wing has, "non sense".  The left may have, "full sense".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're more garbled than usual.  Put the bong down and go outside for a walk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you don't have enough, fullsense, only nonsense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I really mean it.  Put the bong down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> he doesn't do bongs  he's an artificial intelligence program created by a PhD candidate who doesn't speak English as his first or second or even third language
Click to expand...


I think the candidate should fail.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the case of the US, it does. the People are the Militia. You are either, well regulated or you are not.
> 
> 
> 
> Cool.
> 
> Still doesn't change "the right of the people (me)...shall not be infringed" does it?
Click to expand...

For natural rights or the security of a free State?


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> n the case of the US, it does. the People are the Militia. You are either, well regulated or you are not.
> 
> 
> 
> ...and this further demonstrates my earlier comment.  You believe that People and Militia are used interchangeably.
> 
> Only the Militia has the right to assembly?
Click to expand...

irrelevant special pleading.  Only the right wing, does that.

There is no "right to arms to fight tyranny" in the US; we have the political process.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the case of the US, it does. the People are the Militia. You are either, well regulated or you are not.
> 
> 
> 
> And, again on this comment, the People are the Militia?
> 
> How does that change the right of the people?  What difference does it make?  The right of the People/Militia is the same.  People (individuals) right shall not be infringed.  You have not changed anything with this argument.
> 
> Well-regulated, in this context does not mean GUN REGULATIONS.  It means training.
> 
> So, if you are truly concerned with getting this well-regulated thing done, you should be getting free training and arming of all citizens and get the fuck out of our way.
Click to expand...

dear, the whole and entire difference, is wellness of regulation.

Only the unorganized militia and gun lovers, whine about not being able to keep and bear Arms, in public venues.


----------



## danielpalos

turtledude said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time for reasonable gun control.  Also time to update the confusing and obsolete 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> reasonable gun control is only laws that change things for criminals.  your idea of reasonable gun control are laws that ONLY RESTRICT what honest gun owners can do. that is not reasonable at all.
Click to expand...


Well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State, the unorganized militia and gun lovers, not so much.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time for reasonable gun control.  Also time to update the confusing and obsolete 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> reasonable gun control is only laws that change things for criminals.  your idea of reasonable gun control are laws that ONLY RESTRICT what honest gun owners can do. that is not reasonable at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State, the unorganized militia and gun lovers, not so much.
Click to expand...


And yet, fuck you, we have the right to own guns as well.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time for reasonable gun control.  Also time to update the confusing and obsolete 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> reasonable gun control is only laws that change things for criminals.  your idea of reasonable gun control are laws that ONLY RESTRICT what honest gun owners can do. that is not reasonable at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State, the unorganized militia and gun lovers, not so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet, fuck you, we have the right to own guns as well.
Click to expand...

so what; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; defense of self and property is not covered by our Second Amendment.


----------



## KissMy

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the case of the US, it does. the People are the Militia. You are either, well regulated or you are not.
> 
> 
> 
> Cool.
> 
> Still doesn't change "the right of the people (me)...shall not be infringed" does it?
Click to expand...


Can n!ggers have a F-15 armed with a B-61 Nuclear Bomb & fly it over your house?


----------



## Rustic

Buy more guns and ammo...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time for reasonable gun control.  Also time to update the confusing and obsolete 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> reasonable gun control is only laws that change things for criminals.  your idea of reasonable gun control are laws that ONLY RESTRICT what honest gun owners can do. that is not reasonable at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State, the unorganized militia and gun lovers, not so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet, fuck you, we have the right to own guns as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so what; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; defense of self and property is not covered by our Second Amendment.
Click to expand...


*so what; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed
*
You are incorrect. Again.

*when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union;
*
My right does not require state or union.
*
defense of self and property is not covered by our Second Amendment
*
You are incorrect. Again.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time for reasonable gun control.  Also time to update the confusing and obsolete 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> reasonable gun control is only laws that change things for criminals.  your idea of reasonable gun control are laws that ONLY RESTRICT what honest gun owners can do. that is not reasonable at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State, the unorganized militia and gun lovers, not so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet, fuck you, we have the right to own guns as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so what; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; defense of self and property is not covered by our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *so what; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed
> *
> You are incorrect. Again.
> 
> *when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union;
> *
> My right does not require state or union.
> *
> defense of self and property is not covered by our Second Amendment
> *
> You are incorrect. Again.
Click to expand...

Nope; it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> reasonable gun control is only laws that change things for criminals.  your idea of reasonable gun control are laws that ONLY RESTRICT what honest gun owners can do. that is not reasonable at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State, the unorganized militia and gun lovers, not so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet, fuck you, we have the right to own guns as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so what; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; defense of self and property is not covered by our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *so what; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed
> *
> You are incorrect. Again.
> 
> *when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union;
> *
> My right does not require state or union.
> *
> defense of self and property is not covered by our Second Amendment
> *
> You are incorrect. Again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope; it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.
Click to expand...


That's not what the Supreme Court says, and their opinion overrules yours.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State, the unorganized militia and gun lovers, not so much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, fuck you, we have the right to own guns as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so what; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; defense of self and property is not covered by our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *so what; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed
> *
> You are incorrect. Again.
> 
> *when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union;
> *
> My right does not require state or union.
> *
> defense of self and property is not covered by our Second Amendment
> *
> You are incorrect. Again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope; it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not what the Supreme Court says, and their opinion overrules yours.
Click to expand...

The People are the Militia; You are either, well regulated or you are not.

It really is that simple, except to the disingenuous, right wing.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> reasonable gun control is only laws that change things for criminals.  your idea of reasonable gun control are laws that ONLY RESTRICT what honest gun owners can do. that is not reasonable at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State, the unorganized militia and gun lovers, not so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet, fuck you, we have the right to own guns as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so what; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; defense of self and property is not covered by our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *so what; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed
> *
> You are incorrect. Again.
> 
> *when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union;
> *
> My right does not require state or union.
> *
> defense of self and property is not covered by our Second Amendment
> *
> You are incorrect. Again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope; it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.
Click to expand...

*
it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary
*
The word "only" is not in that amendment, doofus.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, fuck you, we have the right to own guns as well.
> 
> 
> 
> so what; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; defense of self and property is not covered by our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *so what; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed
> *
> You are incorrect. Again.
> 
> *when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union;
> *
> My right does not require state or union.
> *
> defense of self and property is not covered by our Second Amendment
> *
> You are incorrect. Again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope; it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not what the Supreme Court says, and their opinion overrules yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia; You are either, well regulated or you are not.
> 
> It really is that simple, except to the disingenuous, right wing.
Click to expand...


You do know, don't you, that you're arguing against the SC and not me?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> so what; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; defense of self and property is not covered by our Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *so what; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed
> *
> You are incorrect. Again.
> 
> *when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union;
> *
> My right does not require state or union.
> *
> defense of self and property is not covered by our Second Amendment
> *
> You are incorrect. Again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope; it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not what the Supreme Court says, and their opinion overrules yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia; You are either, well regulated or you are not.
> 
> It really is that simple, except to the disingenuous, right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do know, don't you, that you're arguing against the SC and not me?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


He is arguing with several voices in his head.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

So, based on my analysis,  all federal and state gun laws are unconstitutional.  Federal laws are unconstitutional because they DIRECTLY violate the plain language of the 2nd Amendment.  States had the authority to infringe on the right, until the 14th Amendment made the 2nd Amendment also apply to the States.


----------



## Papageorgio

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> reasonable gun control is only laws that change things for criminals.  your idea of reasonable gun control are laws that ONLY RESTRICT what honest gun owners can do. that is not reasonable at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State, the unorganized militia and gun lovers, not so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet, fuck you, we have the right to own guns as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so what; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; defense of self and property is not covered by our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *so what; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed
> *
> You are incorrect. Again.
> 
> *when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union;
> *
> My right does not require state or union.
> *
> defense of self and property is not covered by our Second Amendment
> *
> You are incorrect. Again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope; it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.
Click to expand...


Where in the Second Amendment does it use the word "only"? 

It says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Notice the comma after the word State? It means an independent clause or statement. 

The Supreme Court has on many occasions has upheld the right of the people to keep and bear arms, because that is the correct reading of the 2nd Amendment.


----------



## Lakhota

“It’s not about the Second Amendment.”

*Faith Hill And Tim McGraw Take Aim At The NRA And Demand Gun Control*

I agree!  Thank you!  It's good to hear from some country music stars who aren't batshit crazy.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Who gives a fuck what Faith Hill thinks?

Machine guns, bitches.


----------



## Little-Acorn

(sigh)

And the liberals are ONCE AGAIN trying to pretend this has no already been pointed out to them, including in this very thread. Some of the same ones who have had this pointed out to the explicitly, are once again pretending the never heard of it.

And here they are, still trying to pretend that the 2nd says weapons are only for militias.


----------



## Little-Acorn

(sigh)

And the liberals are ONCE AGAIN trying to pretend this has no already been pointed out to them, including in this very thread. Some of the same ones who have had this pointed out to the explicitly, are once again pretending the never heard of it.

Maybe they think enough people have forgotten how the liberals have been proven wrong, and that enough time has passed that they can now tart re-statig it as though it had become the truth.

OK, for the 2259th time:


J. Neil Schulman The Unabridged Second Amendment

The Unabridged Second Amendment

by J. Neil Schulman

If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan, right? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwarzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?

That was the question I asked A.C. Brocki, editorial coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers — who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of American Usage and Style: The Consensus.

A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of Professor Copperud's expertise.

Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.

He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award.

That sounds like an expert to me.

After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent the following letter:

"I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.

"The text of the Second Amendment is, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State', is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary."

My letter framed several questions about the test of the Second Amendment, then concluded:

"I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance."

After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the follow analysis (into which I have inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

"In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"

[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."

[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"

[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."

[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"

[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

[Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"

[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."

[Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,' 'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"

[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."

[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated."

[Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary tot he security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'

[Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.'

"My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,

"(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and

"(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people to keep and read Books' only to 'a well-educated electorate' — for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?"

[Copperud:] "(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

"(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation."

Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."

So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all governments formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.

As I write this, the attempted coup against constitutional government in the Soviet Union has failed, apparently because the will of the people in that part of the world to be free from capricious tyranny is stronger than the old guard's desire to maintain a monopoly on dictatorial power.

And here in the United States, elected lawmakers, judges, and appointed officials who are pledged to defend the Constitution of the United States ignore, marginalize, or prevaricate about the Second Amendment routinely. American citizens are put in American prisons for carrying arms, owning arms of forbidden sorts, or failing to satisfy bureaucratic requirements regarding the owning and carrying of firearms — all of which is an abridgement of the unconditional right of the people to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Constitution.

And even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), staunch defender of the rest of the Bill of Rights, stands by and does nothing.

It seems it is up to those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms to preserve that right. No one else will. No one else can. Will we beg our elected representatives not to take away our rights, and continue regarding them as representing us if they do? Will we continue obeying judges who decide that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what it says it means but means whatever they say it means in their Orwellian doublespeak?

Or will be simply keep and bear the arms of our choice, as the Constitution of the United States promises us we can, and pledge that we will defend that promise with our lives, our fortuned, and our sacred honor?

-------------------------------------------------------

(C) 1991 by The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation. Informational reproduction of the entire article is hereby authorized provided the author, The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation are credited. All other rights reserved.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State, the unorganized militia and gun lovers, not so much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, fuck you, we have the right to own guns as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so what; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; defense of self and property is not covered by our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *so what; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed
> *
> You are incorrect. Again.
> 
> *when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union;
> *
> My right does not require state or union.
> *
> defense of self and property is not covered by our Second Amendment
> *
> You are incorrect. Again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope; it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary
> *
> The word "only" is not in that amendment, doofus.
Click to expand...

well regulated is specifically mentioned, not omitted.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> so what; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; defense of self and property is not covered by our Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *so what; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed
> *
> You are incorrect. Again.
> 
> *when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union;
> *
> My right does not require state or union.
> *
> defense of self and property is not covered by our Second Amendment
> *
> You are incorrect. Again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope; it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not what the Supreme Court says, and their opinion overrules yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia; You are either, well regulated or you are not.
> 
> It really is that simple, except to the disingenuous, right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do know, don't you, that you're arguing against the SC and not me?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

The People are the Militia; You are either, well regulated or you are not.


----------



## danielpalos

Little-Acorn said:


> (sigh)
> 
> And the liberals are ONCE AGAIN trying to pretend this has no already been pointed out to them, including in this very thread. Some of the same ones who have had this pointed out to the explicitly, are once again pretending the never heard of it.
> 
> Maybe they think enough people have forgotten how the liberals have been proven wrong, and that enough time has passed that they can now tart re-statig it as though it had become the truth.
> 
> OK, for the 2259th time:
> 
> 
> J. Neil Schulman The Unabridged Second Amendment
> 
> The Unabridged Second Amendment
> 
> by J. Neil Schulman
> 
> If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan, right? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwarzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?
> 
> That was the question I asked A.C. Brocki, editorial coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers — who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of American Usage and Style: The Consensus.
> 
> A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of Professor Copperud's expertise.
> 
> Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.
> 
> He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award.
> 
> That sounds like an expert to me.
> 
> After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent the following letter:
> 
> "I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.
> 
> "The text of the Second Amendment is, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'
> 
> "The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State', is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'
> 
> "I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary."
> 
> My letter framed several questions about the test of the Second Amendment, then concluded:
> 
> "I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance."
> 
> After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the follow analysis (into which I have inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> [Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.
> 
> "In reply to your numbered questions:
> 
> [Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"
> 
> [Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."
> 
> [Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"
> 
> [Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."
> 
> [Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"
> 
> [Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."
> 
> [Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"
> 
> [Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."
> 
> [Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,' 'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"
> 
> [Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."
> 
> [Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated."
> 
> [Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary tot he security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'
> 
> [Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,
> 
> "A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.'
> 
> "My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,
> 
> "(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and
> 
> "(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people to keep and read Books' only to 'a well-educated electorate' — for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?"
> 
> [Copperud:] "(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.
> 
> "(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation."
> 
> Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."
> 
> So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all governments formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.
> 
> As I write this, the attempted coup against constitutional government in the Soviet Union has failed, apparently because the will of the people in that part of the world to be free from capricious tyranny is stronger than the old guard's desire to maintain a monopoly on dictatorial power.
> 
> And here in the United States, elected lawmakers, judges, and appointed officials who are pledged to defend the Constitution of the United States ignore, marginalize, or prevaricate about the Second Amendment routinely. American citizens are put in American prisons for carrying arms, owning arms of forbidden sorts, or failing to satisfy bureaucratic requirements regarding the owning and carrying of firearms — all of which is an abridgement of the unconditional right of the people to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Constitution.
> 
> And even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), staunch defender of the rest of the Bill of Rights, stands by and does nothing.
> 
> It seems it is up to those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms to preserve that right. No one else will. No one else can. Will we beg our elected representatives not to take away our rights, and continue regarding them as representing us if they do? Will we continue obeying judges who decide that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what it says it means but means whatever they say it means in their Orwellian doublespeak?
> 
> Or will be simply keep and bear the arms of our choice, as the Constitution of the United States promises us we can, and pledge that we will defend that promise with our lives, our fortuned, and our sacred honor?
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (C) 1991 by The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation. Informational reproduction of the entire article is hereby authorized provided the author, The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation are credited. All other rights reserved.


Fallacies of composition are worth-less, when no porn is involved.

The People are the Militia; You are either, well regulated or you are not.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *so what; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed
> *
> You are incorrect. Again.
> 
> *when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union;
> *
> My right does not require state or union.
> *
> defense of self and property is not covered by our Second Amendment
> *
> You are incorrect. Again.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope; it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not what the Supreme Court says, and their opinion overrules yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia; You are either, well regulated or you are not.
> 
> It really is that simple, except to the disingenuous, right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do know, don't you, that you're arguing against the SC and not me?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.
> 
> The People are the Militia; You are either, well regulated or you are not.
Click to expand...


The SC overrules you. You're simply wrong.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, fuck you, we have the right to own guns as well.
> 
> 
> 
> so what; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; defense of self and property is not covered by our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *so what; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed
> *
> You are incorrect. Again.
> 
> *when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union;
> *
> My right does not require state or union.
> *
> defense of self and property is not covered by our Second Amendment
> *
> You are incorrect. Again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope; it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary
> *
> The word "only" is not in that amendment, doofus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well regulated is specifically mentioned, not omitted.
Click to expand...


The right is the people's, not the militia's.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope; it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what the Supreme Court says, and their opinion overrules yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia; You are either, well regulated or you are not.
> 
> It really is that simple, except to the disingenuous, right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do know, don't you, that you're arguing against the SC and not me?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.
> 
> The People are the Militia; You are either, well regulated or you are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC overrules you. You're simply wrong.
Click to expand...

The People are the Militia; You are either, well regulated or you are not.

This is ratified, federal doctrine:

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in _Debates in Virginia Convention on 
Ratification of the Constitution_, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> so what; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; defense of self and property is not covered by our Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *so what; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed
> *
> You are incorrect. Again.
> 
> *when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union;
> *
> My right does not require state or union.
> *
> defense of self and property is not covered by our Second Amendment
> *
> You are incorrect. Again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope; it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary
> *
> The word "only" is not in that amendment, doofus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well regulated is specifically mentioned, not omitted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right is the people's, not the militia's.
Click to expand...

The People are the Militia; you are either, well regulated or you are not.


----------



## tycho1572

Let us know when you’re ever in this position, Lakhota .....


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> The People are the Militia; you are either, well regulated or you are not.


The 2nd does not call for a well-regulated militia.  It calls for the government to keep its greasy, slimy hands off the people's guns. 

We are getting machine guns without being in any well-regulated militia, and there is not a goddamn thing you can do about it but bitch, moan, and bellyache. 

We have wiped the floor with your goose-stepping commie arguments and you still keep repeating the same bullshit.  We can do this all day, but at some point:


----------



## frigidweirdo

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope; it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what the Supreme Court says, and their opinion overrules yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia; You are either, well regulated or you are not.
> 
> It really is that simple, except to the disingenuous, right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do know, don't you, that you're arguing against the SC and not me?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.
> 
> The People are the Militia; You are either, well regulated or you are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC overrules you. You're simply wrong.
Click to expand...


The SC has upheld Presser, which says 

"We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."


----------



## tycho1572




----------



## frigidweirdo

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia; you are either, well regulated or you are not.
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd does not call for a well-regulated militia.  It calls for the government to keep its greasy, slimy hands of the people's guns.
> 
> We are getting machine guns without being in any well-regulated militia, and there is not a goddamn thing you can do about it but bitch, moan, and bellyache.
> 
> We have wiped the floor with your goose-stepping commie arguments and you still keep repeating the same bullshit.  We can do this all day, but at some point:
Click to expand...


No one's wiped the floor with my arguments, usually when people debate with me on the 2A, they start either insulting or simply stop talking because they can't find a single piece of evidence to back them up.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

frigidweirdo said:


> No one's wiped the floor with my arguments, usually when people debate with me on the 2A, they start either insulting or simply stop talking because they can't find a single piece of evidence to back them up.


Are you arguing that the right requires membership in a militia?   I was talking to Dannyboy.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one's wiped the floor with my arguments, usually when people debate with me on the 2A, they start either insulting or simply stop talking because they can't find a single piece of evidence to back them up.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you arguing that the right requires membership in a militia?   I was talking to Dannyboy.
Click to expand...


No, I'm not. However your post implied that the right always defeat the left, in fact the right is very willing to ignore facts to fit its agenda on this issue. 

The reality is the Dick Act made the unorganized militia in order for individuals to be in the militia without being in the National Guard. Therefore all males aged 18-45 are automatically in the militia anyway. They made this law because they knew the 2A protected the right to be in the militia (right to bear arms).


----------



## Yarddog

Lakhota said:


> *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means.*
Click to expand...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *so what; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed
> *
> You are incorrect. Again.
> 
> *when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union;
> *
> My right does not require state or union.
> *
> defense of self and property is not covered by our Second Amendment
> *
> You are incorrect. Again.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope; it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary
> *
> The word "only" is not in that amendment, doofus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well regulated is specifically mentioned, not omitted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right is the people's, not the militia's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia; you are either, well regulated or you are not.
Click to expand...




danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *so what; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed
> *
> You are incorrect. Again.
> 
> *when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union;
> *
> My right does not require state or union.
> *
> defense of self and property is not covered by our Second Amendment
> *
> You are incorrect. Again.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope; it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary
> *
> The word "only" is not in that amendment, doofus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well regulated is specifically mentioned, not omitted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right is the people's, not the militia's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia; you are either, well regulated or you are not.
Click to expand...


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, *the right of the people* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The people have the right.
In a militia, not in a militia, well regulated, unregulated, poorly regulated or overregulated, the people have the right.


----------



## Papageorgio

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, fuck you, we have the right to own guns as well.
> 
> 
> 
> so what; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; defense of self and property is not covered by our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *so what; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed
> *
> You are incorrect. Again.
> 
> *when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union;
> *
> My right does not require state or union.
> *
> defense of self and property is not covered by our Second Amendment
> *
> You are incorrect. Again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope; it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary
> *
> The word "only" is not in that amendment, doofus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well regulated is specifically mentioned, not omitted.
Click to expand...


Read the 2nd Amendment. See where the comma is placed. You can’t be as uneducated in the English language as you are trying to pretend.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Papageorgio said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> so what; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; defense of self and property is not covered by our Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *so what; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed
> *
> You are incorrect. Again.
> 
> *when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union;
> *
> My right does not require state or union.
> *
> defense of self and property is not covered by our Second Amendment
> *
> You are incorrect. Again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope; it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary
> *
> The word "only" is not in that amendment, doofus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well regulated is specifically mentioned, not omitted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read the 2nd Amendment. See where the comma is placed. You can’t be as uneducated in the English language as you are trying to pretend.
Click to expand...


When you consider all the weed he smokes, he's lost any previous education in English he may have once had.


----------



## Crixus

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *so what; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed
> *
> You are incorrect. Again.
> 
> *when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union;
> *
> My right does not require state or union.
> *
> defense of self and property is not covered by our Second Amendment
> *
> You are incorrect. Again.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope; it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary
> *
> The word "only" is not in that amendment, doofus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well regulated is specifically mentioned, not omitted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read the 2nd Amendment. See where the comma is placed. You can’t be as uneducated in the English language as you are trying to pretend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you consider all the weed he smokes, he's lost any previous education in English he may have once had.
Click to expand...




Hey, stick to guns and leave the devils lettuce out of this.


----------



## turtledude

Lakhota said:


> “It’s not about the Second Amendment.”
> 
> *Faith Hill And Tim McGraw Take Aim At The NRA And Demand Gun Control*
> 
> I agree!  Thank you!  It's good to hear from some country music stars who aren't batshit crazy.



why should anyone give  flying fuck what they say.  I don't read Guns and Ammo magazine to learn about country music so why would I listen to those two concerning gun issues?


----------



## turtledude

danielpalos said:


> [
> so what; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; defense of self and property is not covered by our Second Amendment.



Look, I realize the computer science PHD candidate who created  you doesn't speak English as his first, second or third language, but tell him to use a better chip so you actually sound like you are an attempt to ape an American human


----------



## frigidweirdo

turtledude said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “It’s not about the Second Amendment.”
> 
> *Faith Hill And Tim McGraw Take Aim At The NRA And Demand Gun Control*
> 
> I agree!  Thank you!  It's good to hear from some country music stars who aren't batshit crazy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why should anyone give  flying fuck what they say.  I don't read Guns and Ammo magazine to learn about country music so why would I listen to those two concerning gun issues?
Click to expand...


And why should anyone listen to you either?


----------



## ChrisL

frigidweirdo said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “It’s not about the Second Amendment.”
> 
> *Faith Hill And Tim McGraw Take Aim At The NRA And Demand Gun Control*
> 
> I agree!  Thank you!  It's good to hear from some country music stars who aren't batshit crazy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why should anyone give  flying fuck what they say.  I don't read Guns and Ammo magazine to learn about country music so why would I listen to those two concerning gun issues?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And why should anyone listen to you either?
Click to expand...


Because he is an instructor and a coach for shooting sports and is a person with vast experience in firearms and safety.


----------



## turtledude

frigidweirdo said:


> [
> 
> 
> 
> And why should anyone listen to you either?



uh because I was or still am

1) a licensed attorney for 33 years

2) 30 years a prosecutor-24 at the DOJ 

3) a constitutional scholar who lectures at law schools etc on the second amendment

4) former US Shooting team member, former multiple All-American teams

5) firearms instructor at my DOJ component

6) highest firearms rating-USMS-Distinguished expert

that's why


----------



## frigidweirdo

turtledude said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> 
> And why should anyone listen to you either?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uh because I was or still am
> 
> 1) a licensed attorney for 33 years
> 
> 2) 30 years a prosecutor-24 at the DOJ
> 
> 3) a constitutional scholar who lectures at law schools etc on the second amendment
> 
> 4) former US Shooting team member, former multiple All-American teams
> 
> 5) firearms instructor at my DOJ component
> 
> 6) highest firearms rating-USMS-Distinguished expert
> 
> that's why
Click to expand...


I still don't see why I should listen to you.

I think you're biased. 

Do you think the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia or not?


----------



## turtledude

frigidweirdo said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> 
> And why should anyone listen to you either?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uh because I was or still am
> 
> 1) a licensed attorney for 33 years
> 
> 2) 30 years a prosecutor-24 at the DOJ
> 
> 3) a constitutional scholar who lectures at law schools etc on the second amendment
> 
> 4) former US Shooting team member, former multiple All-American teams
> 
> 5) firearms instructor at my DOJ component
> 
> 6) highest firearms rating-USMS-Distinguished expert
> 
> that's why
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I still don't see why I should listen to you.
> 
> I think you're biased.
> 
> Do you think the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia or not?
Click to expand...



there is no right to be in the militia  the right the founders sought to guarantee with the second amendment was a right they believe man was endowed with by the creator-the right of self defense and thus the right to be armed.   You don't need to listen to me since I doubt you are able to comprehend the sort of stuff I post about


----------



## frigidweirdo

turtledude said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> 
> And why should anyone listen to you either?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uh because I was or still am
> 
> 1) a licensed attorney for 33 years
> 
> 2) 30 years a prosecutor-24 at the DOJ
> 
> 3) a constitutional scholar who lectures at law schools etc on the second amendment
> 
> 4) former US Shooting team member, former multiple All-American teams
> 
> 5) firearms instructor at my DOJ component
> 
> 6) highest firearms rating-USMS-Distinguished expert
> 
> that's why
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I still don't see why I should listen to you.
> 
> I think you're biased.
> 
> Do you think the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> there is no right to be in the militia  the right the founders sought to guarantee with the second amendment was a right they believe man was endowed with by the creator-the right of self defense and thus the right to be armed.   You don't need to listen to me since I doubt you are able to comprehend the sort of stuff I post about
Click to expand...


So here's me asking a question, how can a guy end up going to teach the Second Amendment at law schools when he doesn't know what the Amendment means?

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

Have a look at this document. I'm seriously hoping you've seen this, I mean, you can't be teaching about the Second Amendment without having seen this.

"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

This was what they were talking about. I assume you've seen this, it wasn't put into the Amendment at the end, and they give the reasoning why.

Now Mr Gerry said:

"Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

I've seen plenty of people ignore this, but no one has ever actually taken this information in and been able to come out the other side saying that "bear arms" in the 2A saying that it doesn't mean "militia duty". 

It's pretty clear here that Mr Gerry is using the term "militia duty" synonymously with "bear arms", right?

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

Then you have Mr Jackson using the term "render military service" as synonymous to "bear arms". 

Also Mr Jackson said:

"Mr. Jackson did not expect that all the people of the United States would turn Quakers or Moravians; consequently, one part would have to defend the other in case of invasion. Now this, in his opinion, was unjust, unless the constitution secured an equivalent: for this reason he moved to amend the clause, by inserting at the end of it, "upon paying an equivalent, to be established by law.""

Now, are they talking about "bear arms" to mean people walking around with guns, or people serving in the militia? And if it is the former, then why would individuals who are opposed to walking around with guns have to pay an equivalent? Especially when it says "would have to defend the other in case of invasion"?

It all seems pretty clear.

Now, from a language point of view, "bear" CAN mean carry, right?

However "stool" can mean feces or it can mean wooden seat without a back.

So, if I say, "the doctor asked him to sit on the stool", we're going to think the second option, and if we say "the doctor asked to see his stool sample" we're going to think the former. 

English language can have words mean the same thing, but CONTEXT tells us which is right and which is wrong. 

The Second Amendment's context is "A well regulated militia", not "Joe wants a gun to go down to the shops", so why would it mean "carry" How does carrying a gun around with you protect the militia? It's simple, it doesn't.

Now, as a supposed Second Amendment Scholar, someone who talks to people in Law Schools about this, what do you think?


----------



## turtledude

frigidweirdo said:


> [
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So here's me asking a question, how can a guy end up going to teach the Second Amendment at law schools when he doesn't know what the Amendment means?
> 
> Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> Have a look at this document. I'm seriously hoping you've seen this, I mean, you can't be teaching about the Second Amendment without having seen this.
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> This was what they were talking about. I assume you've seen this, it wasn't put into the Amendment at the end, and they give the reasoning why.
> 
> Now Mr Gerry said:
> 
> "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."
> 
> I've seen plenty of people ignore this, but no one has ever actually taken this information in and been able to come out the other side saying that "bear arms" in the 2A saying that it doesn't mean "militia duty".
> 
> It's pretty clear here that Mr Gerry is using the term "militia duty" synonymously with "bear arms", right?
> 
> "Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""
> 
> Then you have Mr Jackson using the term "render military service" as synonymous to "bear arms".
> 
> Also Mr Jackson said:
> 
> "Mr. Jackson did not expect that all the people of the United States would turn Quakers or Moravians; consequently, one part would have to defend the other in case of invasion. Now this, in his opinion, was unjust, unless the constitution secured an equivalent: for this reason he moved to amend the clause, by inserting at the end of it, "upon paying an equivalent, to be established by law.""
> 
> Now, are they talking about "bear arms" to mean people walking around with guns, or people serving in the militia? And if it is the former, then why would individuals who are opposed to walking around with guns have to pay an equivalent? Especially when it says "would have to defend the other in case of invasion"?
> 
> It all seems pretty clear.
> 
> Now, from a language point of view, "bear" CAN mean carry, right?
> 
> However "stool" can mean feces or it can mean wooden seat without a back.
> 
> So, if I say, "the doctor asked him to sit on the stool", we're going to think the second option, and if we say "the doctor asked to see his stool sample" we're going to think the former.
> 
> English language can have words mean the same thing, but CONTEXT tells us which is right and which is wrong.
> 
> The Second Amendment's context is "A well regulated militia", not "Joe wants a gun to go down to the shops", so why would it mean "carry" How does carrying a gun around with you protect the militia? It's simple, it doesn't.
> 
> Now, as a supposed Second Amendment Scholar, someone who talks to people in Law Schools about this, what do you think?



who exactly did you quote is an actual legal scholar?  you apparently have no clue what you are talking about.  the second amendment was merely recognizing a pre-existing right that man had from the dawn of time and to say it has something to do with the "right" to be in government service is beyond stupid

could you point me to your article from the Yale Law Journal or a similar publication where you set this theory out?


----------



## ChrisL

frigidweirdo said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> 
> And why should anyone listen to you either?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uh because I was or still am
> 
> 1) a licensed attorney for 33 years
> 
> 2) 30 years a prosecutor-24 at the DOJ
> 
> 3) a constitutional scholar who lectures at law schools etc on the second amendment
> 
> 4) former US Shooting team member, former multiple All-American teams
> 
> 5) firearms instructor at my DOJ component
> 
> 6) highest firearms rating-USMS-Distinguished expert
> 
> that's why
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I still don't see why I should listen to you.
> 
> I think you're biased.
> 
> Do you think the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> there is no right to be in the militia  the right the founders sought to guarantee with the second amendment was a right they believe man was endowed with by the creator-the right of self defense and thus the right to be armed.   You don't need to listen to me since I doubt you are able to comprehend the sort of stuff I post about
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So here's me asking a question, how can a guy end up going to teach the Second Amendment at law schools when he doesn't know what the Amendment means?
> 
> Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> Have a look at this document. I'm seriously hoping you've seen this, I mean, you can't be teaching about the Second Amendment without having seen this.
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> This was what they were talking about. I assume you've seen this, it wasn't put into the Amendment at the end, and they give the reasoning why.
> 
> Now Mr Gerry said:
> 
> "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."
> 
> I've seen plenty of people ignore this, but no one has ever actually taken this information in and been able to come out the other side saying that "bear arms" in the 2A saying that it doesn't mean "militia duty".
> 
> It's pretty clear here that Mr Gerry is using the term "militia duty" synonymously with "bear arms", right?
> 
> "Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""
> 
> Then you have Mr Jackson using the term "render military service" as synonymous to "bear arms".
> 
> Also Mr Jackson said:
> 
> "Mr. Jackson did not expect that all the people of the United States would turn Quakers or Moravians; consequently, one part would have to defend the other in case of invasion. Now this, in his opinion, was unjust, unless the constitution secured an equivalent: for this reason he moved to amend the clause, by inserting at the end of it, "upon paying an equivalent, to be established by law.""
> 
> Now, are they talking about "bear arms" to mean people walking around with guns, or people serving in the militia? And if it is the former, then why would individuals who are opposed to walking around with guns have to pay an equivalent? Especially when it says "would have to defend the other in case of invasion"?
> 
> It all seems pretty clear.
> 
> Now, from a language point of view, "bear" CAN mean carry, right?
> 
> However "stool" can mean feces or it can mean wooden seat without a back.
> 
> So, if I say, "the doctor asked him to sit on the stool", we're going to think the second option, and if we say "the doctor asked to see his stool sample" we're going to think the former.
> 
> English language can have words mean the same thing, but CONTEXT tells us which is right and which is wrong.
> 
> The Second Amendment's context is "A well regulated militia", not "Joe wants a gun to go down to the shops", so why would it mean "carry" How does carrying a gun around with you protect the militia? It's simple, it doesn't.
> 
> Now, as a supposed Second Amendment Scholar, someone who talks to people in Law Schools about this, what do you think?
Click to expand...


If you had ever bothered to read up on the founders' intent on the 2nd amendment, they made it quite CLEAR what they meant in the federalist papers.  That every individual has a RIGHT to bear arms for hunting, for self defense, for defense of the nation.  Every able bodied citizen was considered a part of the "militia" back then.  They didn't want to have a central army controlled by the feds!


----------



## frigidweirdo

turtledude said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So here's me asking a question, how can a guy end up going to teach the Second Amendment at law schools when he doesn't know what the Amendment means?
> 
> Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> Have a look at this document. I'm seriously hoping you've seen this, I mean, you can't be teaching about the Second Amendment without having seen this.
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> This was what they were talking about. I assume you've seen this, it wasn't put into the Amendment at the end, and they give the reasoning why.
> 
> Now Mr Gerry said:
> 
> "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."
> 
> I've seen plenty of people ignore this, but no one has ever actually taken this information in and been able to come out the other side saying that "bear arms" in the 2A saying that it doesn't mean "militia duty".
> 
> It's pretty clear here that Mr Gerry is using the term "militia duty" synonymously with "bear arms", right?
> 
> "Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""
> 
> Then you have Mr Jackson using the term "render military service" as synonymous to "bear arms".
> 
> Also Mr Jackson said:
> 
> "Mr. Jackson did not expect that all the people of the United States would turn Quakers or Moravians; consequently, one part would have to defend the other in case of invasion. Now this, in his opinion, was unjust, unless the constitution secured an equivalent: for this reason he moved to amend the clause, by inserting at the end of it, "upon paying an equivalent, to be established by law.""
> 
> Now, are they talking about "bear arms" to mean people walking around with guns, or people serving in the militia? And if it is the former, then why would individuals who are opposed to walking around with guns have to pay an equivalent? Especially when it says "would have to defend the other in case of invasion"?
> 
> It all seems pretty clear.
> 
> Now, from a language point of view, "bear" CAN mean carry, right?
> 
> However "stool" can mean feces or it can mean wooden seat without a back.
> 
> So, if I say, "the doctor asked him to sit on the stool", we're going to think the second option, and if we say "the doctor asked to see his stool sample" we're going to think the former.
> 
> English language can have words mean the same thing, but CONTEXT tells us which is right and which is wrong.
> 
> The Second Amendment's context is "A well regulated militia", not "Joe wants a gun to go down to the shops", so why would it mean "carry" How does carrying a gun around with you protect the militia? It's simple, it doesn't.
> 
> Now, as a supposed Second Amendment Scholar, someone who talks to people in Law Schools about this, what do you think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> who exactly did you quote is an actual legal scholar?  you apparently have no clue what you are talking about.  the second amendment was merely recognizing a pre-existing right that man had from the dawn of time and to say it has something to do with the "right" to be in government service is beyond stupid
> 
> could you point me to your article from the Yale Law Journal or a similar publication where you set this theory out?
Click to expand...


Haha, nice deflection, but I'm not buying it. Like I said, most people try and slip and slide out of this.

I expected you to spend a little more time on it. 

This is a document FROM THE FOUNDING FATHERS>

Come on, let's have a go. This is MY ARGUMENT, I'm not pointing to someone else's argument. This is mine. You think your "legal expertise" is better than mine, then bring it on. Or do you feel that I've just shown you something you don't know and you want to hide?

What do you think the Founding Fathers thought "bear arms" meant?


----------



## turtledude

frigidweirdo said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So here's me asking a question, how can a guy end up going to teach the Second Amendment at law schools when he doesn't know what the Amendment means?
> 
> Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> Have a look at this document. I'm seriously hoping you've seen this, I mean, you can't be teaching about the Second Amendment without having seen this.
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> This was what they were talking about. I assume you've seen this, it wasn't put into the Amendment at the end, and they give the reasoning why.
> 
> Now Mr Gerry said:
> 
> "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."
> 
> I've seen plenty of people ignore this, but no one has ever actually taken this information in and been able to come out the other side saying that "bear arms" in the 2A saying that it doesn't mean "militia duty".
> 
> It's pretty clear here that Mr Gerry is using the term "militia duty" synonymously with "bear arms", right?
> 
> "Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""
> 
> Then you have Mr Jackson using the term "render military service" as synonymous to "bear arms".
> 
> Also Mr Jackson said:
> 
> "Mr. Jackson did not expect that all the people of the United States would turn Quakers or Moravians; consequently, one part would have to defend the other in case of invasion. Now this, in his opinion, was unjust, unless the constitution secured an equivalent: for this reason he moved to amend the clause, by inserting at the end of it, "upon paying an equivalent, to be established by law.""
> 
> Now, are they talking about "bear arms" to mean people walking around with guns, or people serving in the militia? And if it is the former, then why would individuals who are opposed to walking around with guns have to pay an equivalent? Especially when it says "would have to defend the other in case of invasion"?
> 
> It all seems pretty clear.
> 
> Now, from a language point of view, "bear" CAN mean carry, right?
> 
> However "stool" can mean feces or it can mean wooden seat without a back.
> 
> So, if I say, "the doctor asked him to sit on the stool", we're going to think the second option, and if we say "the doctor asked to see his stool sample" we're going to think the former.
> 
> English language can have words mean the same thing, but CONTEXT tells us which is right and which is wrong.
> 
> The Second Amendment's context is "A well regulated militia", not "Joe wants a gun to go down to the shops", so why would it mean "carry" How does carrying a gun around with you protect the militia? It's simple, it doesn't.
> 
> Now, as a supposed Second Amendment Scholar, someone who talks to people in Law Schools about this, what do you think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> who exactly did you quote is an actual legal scholar?  you apparently have no clue what you are talking about.  the second amendment was merely recognizing a pre-existing right that man had from the dawn of time and to say it has something to do with the "right" to be in government service is beyond stupid
> 
> could you point me to your article from the Yale Law Journal or a similar publication where you set this theory out?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haha, nice deflection, but I'm not buying it. Like I said, most people try and slip and slide out of this.
> 
> I expected you to spend a little more time on it.
> 
> This is a document FROM THE FOUNDING FATHERS>
> 
> Come on, let's have a go. This is MY ARGUMENT, I'm not pointing to someone else's argument. This is mine. You think your "legal expertise" is better than mine, then bring it on. Or do you feel that I've just shown you something you don't know and you want to hide?
> 
> What do you think the Founding Fathers thought "bear arms" meant?
Click to expand...


why are you ignoring "Keep"  

I have a great idea-I have stated what the second amendment means  every leading scholar of the time-St George Tucker being the most prominent, agrees that it was an individual right  Every major constitutional scholar today does too-Van Alstpyne, Calabresi, Amar, Levinson, Volokh Koppel and even Laurence Tribe.  

so what do you claim it was

why would the citizens need a bill of rights provision saying they can serve in the federal army?


----------



## turtledude

BTW frigidweirdo-do you have a law degree?


----------



## ChrisL

turtledude said:


> BTW frigidweirdo-do you have a law degree?



They don't need no stinkin degrees!


----------



## Lakhota

turtledude said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> 
> And why should anyone listen to you either?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uh because I was or still am
> 
> 1) a licensed attorney for 33 years
> 
> 2) 30 years a prosecutor-24 at the DOJ
> 
> 3) a constitutional scholar who lectures at law schools etc on the second amendment
> 
> 4) former US Shooting team member, former multiple All-American teams
> 
> 5) firearms instructor at my DOJ component
> 
> 6) highest firearms rating-USMS-Distinguished expert
> 
> that's why
Click to expand...


Damn, you're right up there with Dale Smith - another world class windbag.


----------



## ChrisL

The 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

Modern debates about the Second Amendment have focused on whether it protects a private right of individuals to keep and bear arms, or a right that can be exercised only through militia organizations like the National Guard. This question, however, was not even raised until long after the Bill of Rights was adopted.

Many in the Founding generation believed that governments are prone to use soldiers to oppress the people. English history suggested that this risk could be controlled by permitting the government to raise armies (consisting of full-time paid troops) only when needed to fight foreign adversaries. For other purposes, such as responding to sudden invasions or other emergencies, the government could rely on a militia that consisted of ordinary civilians who supplied their own weapons and received some part-time, unpaid military training.

The onset of war does not always allow time to raise and train an army, and the Revolutionary War showed that militia forces could not be relied on for national defense. The Constitutional Convention therefore decided that the federal government should have almost unfettered authority to establish peacetime standing armies and to regulate the militia.

This massive shift of power from the states to the federal government generated one of the chief objections to the proposed Constitution. Anti-Federalists argued that the proposed Constitution would take from the states their principal means of defense against federal usurpation. The Federalists responded that fears of federal oppression were overblown, in part because the American people were armed and would be almost impossible to subdue through military force.

Implicit in the debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists were two shared assumptions. First, that the proposed new Constitution gave the federal government almost total legal authority over the army and militia. Second, that the federal government should not have any authority at all to disarm the citizenry. They disagreed only about whether an armed populace could adequately deter federal oppression.

The Second Amendment conceded nothing to the Anti-Federalists’ desire to sharply curtail the military power of the federal government, which would have required substantial changes in the original Constitution. *Yet the Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion.*


----------



## ChrisL

Lakhota said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> 
> And why should anyone listen to you either?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uh because I was or still am
> 
> 1) a licensed attorney for 33 years
> 
> 2) 30 years a prosecutor-24 at the DOJ
> 
> 3) a constitutional scholar who lectures at law schools etc on the second amendment
> 
> 4) former US Shooting team member, former multiple All-American teams
> 
> 5) firearms instructor at my DOJ component
> 
> 6) highest firearms rating-USMS-Distinguished expert
> 
> that's why
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damn, you're right up there with Dale Smith - another world class windbag.
Click to expand...


Why?  He is just showing that he is more informed on the matter than many of you will ever be.  He has probably forgotten more than you will ever know.  Lol.  So, now you have someone who actually knows what he is talking about and you don't like that.    Surprising.


----------



## Lakhota

ChrisL said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> 
> And why should anyone listen to you either?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uh because I was or still am
> 
> 1) a licensed attorney for 33 years
> 
> 2) 30 years a prosecutor-24 at the DOJ
> 
> 3) a constitutional scholar who lectures at law schools etc on the second amendment
> 
> 4) former US Shooting team member, former multiple All-American teams
> 
> 5) firearms instructor at my DOJ component
> 
> 6) highest firearms rating-USMS-Distinguished expert
> 
> that's why
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damn, you're right up there with Dale Smith - another world class windbag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why?  He is just showing that he is more informed on the matter than many of you will ever be.  He has probably forgotten more than you will ever know.  Lol.  So, now you have someone who actually knows what he is talking about and you don't like that.    Surprising.
Click to expand...


Duh, this ain't my first rodeo with turtledud.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

ChrisL said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> 
> And why should anyone listen to you either?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uh because I was or still am
> 
> 1) a licensed attorney for 33 years
> 
> 2) 30 years a prosecutor-24 at the DOJ
> 
> 3) a constitutional scholar who lectures at law schools etc on the second amendment
> 
> 4) former US Shooting team member, former multiple All-American teams
> 
> 5) firearms instructor at my DOJ component
> 
> 6) highest firearms rating-USMS-Distinguished expert
> 
> that's why
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damn, you're right up there with Dale Smith - another world class windbag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why?  He is just showing that he is more informed on the matter than many of you will ever be.  He has probably forgotten more than you will ever know.  Lol.  So, now you have someone who actually knows what he is talking about and you don't like that.    Surprising.
Click to expand...

Yes – everyone on the internet is truthful and honest, they are exactly who they day they are…


----------



## ChrisL

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> 
> And why should anyone listen to you either?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uh because I was or still am
> 
> 1) a licensed attorney for 33 years
> 
> 2) 30 years a prosecutor-24 at the DOJ
> 
> 3) a constitutional scholar who lectures at law schools etc on the second amendment
> 
> 4) former US Shooting team member, former multiple All-American teams
> 
> 5) firearms instructor at my DOJ component
> 
> 6) highest firearms rating-USMS-Distinguished expert
> 
> that's why
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damn, you're right up there with Dale Smith - another world class windbag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why?  He is just showing that he is more informed on the matter than many of you will ever be.  He has probably forgotten more than you will ever know.  Lol.  So, now you have someone who actually knows what he is talking about and you don't like that.    Surprising.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes – everyone on the internet is truthful and honest, they are exactly who they day they are…
Click to expand...


I've known and been friends with TurtleDude for about 5 years.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

ChrisL said:


> The 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
> 
> Modern debates about the Second Amendment have focused on whether it protects a private right of individuals to keep and bear arms, or a right that can be exercised only through militia organizations like the National Guard. This question, however, was not even raised until long after the Bill of Rights was adopted.
> 
> Many in the Founding generation believed that governments are prone to use soldiers to oppress the people. English history suggested that this risk could be controlled by permitting the government to raise armies (consisting of full-time paid troops) only when needed to fight foreign adversaries. For other purposes, such as responding to sudden invasions or other emergencies, the government could rely on a militia that consisted of ordinary civilians who supplied their own weapons and received some part-time, unpaid military training.
> 
> The onset of war does not always allow time to raise and train an army, and the Revolutionary War showed that militia forces could not be relied on for national defense. The Constitutional Convention therefore decided that the federal government should have almost unfettered authority to establish peacetime standing armies and to regulate the militia.
> 
> This massive shift of power from the states to the federal government generated one of the chief objections to the proposed Constitution. Anti-Federalists argued that the proposed Constitution would take from the states their principal means of defense against federal usurpation. The Federalists responded that fears of federal oppression were overblown, in part because the American people were armed and would be almost impossible to subdue through military force.
> 
> Implicit in the debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists were two shared assumptions. First, that the proposed new Constitution gave the federal government almost total legal authority over the army and militia. Second, that the federal government should not have any authority at all to disarm the citizenry. They disagreed only about whether an armed populace could adequately deter federal oppression.
> 
> The Second Amendment conceded nothing to the Anti-Federalists’ desire to sharply curtail the military power of the federal government, which would have required substantial changes in the original Constitution. *Yet the Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion.*


From your link:

‘Notwithstanding the lengthy opinions in _Heller_ and _McDonald_, they technically ruled only that government may not ban the possession of handguns by civilians in their homes. Heller tentatively suggested a list of “presumptively lawful” regulations, including bans on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, bans on carrying firearms in “sensitive places” such as schools and government buildings, laws restricting the commercial sale of arms, bans on the concealed carry of firearms, and bans on weapons “not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.”’  

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.

The Amendment recognizes an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense.

It also reaffirms the fact that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited, that government has the authority to enact regulatory measures with regard to firearms, provided those measures comport with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

The problem is that there are far too many on the right who harbor the ridiculous, wrongheaded notion that the Second Amendment is ‘absolute,’ opposing reasonable, appropriate, and Constitutional regulatory measures, and attempting to justify that opposition with inane lies and baseless slippery slope fallacies.


----------



## ChrisL

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
> 
> Modern debates about the Second Amendment have focused on whether it protects a private right of individuals to keep and bear arms, or a right that can be exercised only through militia organizations like the National Guard. This question, however, was not even raised until long after the Bill of Rights was adopted.
> 
> Many in the Founding generation believed that governments are prone to use soldiers to oppress the people. English history suggested that this risk could be controlled by permitting the government to raise armies (consisting of full-time paid troops) only when needed to fight foreign adversaries. For other purposes, such as responding to sudden invasions or other emergencies, the government could rely on a militia that consisted of ordinary civilians who supplied their own weapons and received some part-time, unpaid military training.
> 
> The onset of war does not always allow time to raise and train an army, and the Revolutionary War showed that militia forces could not be relied on for national defense. The Constitutional Convention therefore decided that the federal government should have almost unfettered authority to establish peacetime standing armies and to regulate the militia.
> 
> This massive shift of power from the states to the federal government generated one of the chief objections to the proposed Constitution. Anti-Federalists argued that the proposed Constitution would take from the states their principal means of defense against federal usurpation. The Federalists responded that fears of federal oppression were overblown, in part because the American people were armed and would be almost impossible to subdue through military force.
> 
> Implicit in the debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists were two shared assumptions. First, that the proposed new Constitution gave the federal government almost total legal authority over the army and militia. Second, that the federal government should not have any authority at all to disarm the citizenry. They disagreed only about whether an armed populace could adequately deter federal oppression.
> 
> The Second Amendment conceded nothing to the Anti-Federalists’ desire to sharply curtail the military power of the federal government, which would have required substantial changes in the original Constitution. *Yet the Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion.*
> 
> 
> 
> From your link:
> 
> ‘Notwithstanding the lengthy opinions in _Heller_ and _McDonald_, they technically ruled only that government may not ban the possession of handguns by civilians in their homes. Heller tentatively suggested a list of “presumptively lawful” regulations, including bans on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, bans on carrying firearms in “sensitive places” such as schools and government buildings, laws restricting the commercial sale of arms, bans on the concealed carry of firearms, and bans on weapons “not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.”’
> 
> The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.
> 
> The Amendment recognizes an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense.
> 
> It also reaffirms the fact that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited, that government has the authority to enact regulatory measures with regard to firearms, provided those measures comport with Second Amendment jurisprudence.
> 
> The problem is that there are far too many on the right who harbor the ridiculous, wrongheaded notion that the Second Amendment is ‘absolute,’ opposing reasonable, appropriate, and Constitutional regulatory measures, and attempting to justify that opposition with inane lies and baseless slippery slope fallacies.
Click to expand...


the founders are CLEAR about why they enacted the second amendment and the bill of rights.  To LIMIT the federal government.  These are considered natural human rights.  It is my right to use a firearm to defend myself and my property, no matter how frightened you are.  Your fear is irrelevant when it comes to our rights.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Americans overwhelmingly support universal background checks, including a majority of gun owners:

RELEASE: Gun Owners Overwhelmingly Support Background Checks, See NRA as Out of Touch, New Poll Finds - Center for American Progress

Universal background checks have been upheld as Constitutional by the courts, yet the NRA continues to oppose UBCs for no valid, logical reason.

Current Federal firearm law allows for intrastate firearm transactions between two state residents to be conducted absent a background check.

Although legal, private intrastate firearm sales increase the likelihood of prohibited persons obtaining a firearm, which would otherwise be prevented if private intrastate transactions required a form 4473 and NICS database review.


----------



## frigidweirdo

turtledude said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So here's me asking a question, how can a guy end up going to teach the Second Amendment at law schools when he doesn't know what the Amendment means?
> 
> Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> Have a look at this document. I'm seriously hoping you've seen this, I mean, you can't be teaching about the Second Amendment without having seen this.
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> This was what they were talking about. I assume you've seen this, it wasn't put into the Amendment at the end, and they give the reasoning why.
> 
> Now Mr Gerry said:
> 
> "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."
> 
> I've seen plenty of people ignore this, but no one has ever actually taken this information in and been able to come out the other side saying that "bear arms" in the 2A saying that it doesn't mean "militia duty".
> 
> It's pretty clear here that Mr Gerry is using the term "militia duty" synonymously with "bear arms", right?
> 
> "Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""
> 
> Then you have Mr Jackson using the term "render military service" as synonymous to "bear arms".
> 
> Also Mr Jackson said:
> 
> "Mr. Jackson did not expect that all the people of the United States would turn Quakers or Moravians; consequently, one part would have to defend the other in case of invasion. Now this, in his opinion, was unjust, unless the constitution secured an equivalent: for this reason he moved to amend the clause, by inserting at the end of it, "upon paying an equivalent, to be established by law.""
> 
> Now, are they talking about "bear arms" to mean people walking around with guns, or people serving in the militia? And if it is the former, then why would individuals who are opposed to walking around with guns have to pay an equivalent? Especially when it says "would have to defend the other in case of invasion"?
> 
> It all seems pretty clear.
> 
> Now, from a language point of view, "bear" CAN mean carry, right?
> 
> However "stool" can mean feces or it can mean wooden seat without a back.
> 
> So, if I say, "the doctor asked him to sit on the stool", we're going to think the second option, and if we say "the doctor asked to see his stool sample" we're going to think the former.
> 
> English language can have words mean the same thing, but CONTEXT tells us which is right and which is wrong.
> 
> The Second Amendment's context is "A well regulated militia", not "Joe wants a gun to go down to the shops", so why would it mean "carry" How does carrying a gun around with you protect the militia? It's simple, it doesn't.
> 
> Now, as a supposed Second Amendment Scholar, someone who talks to people in Law Schools about this, what do you think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> who exactly did you quote is an actual legal scholar?  you apparently have no clue what you are talking about.  the second amendment was merely recognizing a pre-existing right that man had from the dawn of time and to say it has something to do with the "right" to be in government service is beyond stupid
> 
> could you point me to your article from the Yale Law Journal or a similar publication where you set this theory out?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haha, nice deflection, but I'm not buying it. Like I said, most people try and slip and slide out of this.
> 
> I expected you to spend a little more time on it.
> 
> This is a document FROM THE FOUNDING FATHERS>
> 
> Come on, let's have a go. This is MY ARGUMENT, I'm not pointing to someone else's argument. This is mine. You think your "legal expertise" is better than mine, then bring it on. Or do you feel that I've just shown you something you don't know and you want to hide?
> 
> What do you think the Founding Fathers thought "bear arms" meant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why are you ignoring "Keep"
> 
> I have a great idea-I have stated what the second amendment means  every leading scholar of the time-St George Tucker being the most prominent, agrees that it was an individual right  Every major constitutional scholar today does too-Van Alstpyne, Calabresi, Amar, Levinson, Volokh Koppel and even Laurence Tribe.
> 
> so what do you claim it was
> 
> why would the citizens need a bill of rights provision saying they can serve in the federal army?
Click to expand...


I'm not ignoring "keep", I'm just not talking about keep. 

I've asked you questions, I've asked TWICE NOW, and you CLAIM to be a legal scholar who goes into law schools and your first response "do you have anything from a legal scholar?" and the second one is "why do you ignore keep?" 

Why don't you answer the questions? In theory, being so knowledgeable, this should be easy. So why are you deflecting?


----------



## frigidweirdo

turtledude said:


> BTW frigidweirdo-do you have a law degree?



Does it matter whether I have a law degree or not? 

For one, I'm not going to tell you, for the simple reason that people on forums like this jump on anything you say and use it to attack. I won't give you that pleasure. 

I have an argument. My argument is pretty solid, you seemingly can't get past it and you claim all these high credentials.... 

So you either can deal with my argument, or you can't.

I ask again, what do you think the Founding Fathers think "bear arms" means?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

frigidweirdo said:


> I ask again, what do you think the Founding Fathers think "bear arms" means


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

To bear means many things.

It could mean produce, as in "bear fruit"

It could mean give information  or speak, as in "bear testimony" or "bear witness"

But, the only reasonable contextual meaning of "bear arms" is "carry guns."

I would love to hear a retarded argument that it means something else.  Can't wait for this one.

I can see it now:

Dannyboy:  "Bear only means, when two well-regulated militia love each other, they sometime express that love in a physical way.  9 months later..."


----------



## 2aguy

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Americans overwhelmingly support universal background checks, including a majority of gun owners:
> 
> RELEASE: Gun Owners Overwhelmingly Support Background Checks, See NRA as Out of Touch, New Poll Finds - Center for American Progress
> 
> Universal background checks have been upheld as Constitutional by the courts, yet the NRA continues to oppose UBCs for no valid, logical reason.
> 
> Current Federal firearm law allows for intrastate firearm transactions between two state residents to be conducted absent a background check.
> 
> Although legal, private intrastate firearm sales increase the likelihood of prohibited persons obtaining a firearm, which would otherwise be prevented if private intrastate transactions required a form 4473 and NICS database review.




Yeah...Americans who have no idea what Background checks mean.  If you poll those same people, most of them probably think we don't have any background checks.......

There is a valid reason to oppose universal background checks, the only way they can pretend to make them work is with universal gun registration......and that is the last step the anti gunners need to ban and confiscate guns when they get enough political power.

And no, criminals do not get their guns from private sales...they get them from stealing, or buy using people who can pass a background check and they buy them from gun stores, where they have to pass the current federal background check.....

That you continue to push these lies shows that you are a vile person....


----------



## 2aguy

frigidweirdo said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> 
> And why should anyone listen to you either?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uh because I was or still am
> 
> 1) a licensed attorney for 33 years
> 
> 2) 30 years a prosecutor-24 at the DOJ
> 
> 3) a constitutional scholar who lectures at law schools etc on the second amendment
> 
> 4) former US Shooting team member, former multiple All-American teams
> 
> 5) firearms instructor at my DOJ component
> 
> 6) highest firearms rating-USMS-Distinguished expert
> 
> that's why
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I still don't see why I should listen to you.
> 
> I think you're biased.
> 
> Do you think the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> there is no right to be in the militia  the right the founders sought to guarantee with the second amendment was a right they believe man was endowed with by the creator-the right of self defense and thus the right to be armed.   You don't need to listen to me since I doubt you are able to comprehend the sort of stuff I post about
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So here's me asking a question, how can a guy end up going to teach the Second Amendment at law schools when he doesn't know what the Amendment means?
> 
> Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> Have a look at this document. I'm seriously hoping you've seen this, I mean, you can't be teaching about the Second Amendment without having seen this.
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> This was what they were talking about. I assume you've seen this, it wasn't put into the Amendment at the end, and they give the reasoning why.
> 
> Now Mr Gerry said:
> 
> "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."
> 
> I've seen plenty of people ignore this, but no one has ever actually taken this information in and been able to come out the other side saying that "bear arms" in the 2A saying that it doesn't mean "militia duty".
> 
> It's pretty clear here that Mr Gerry is using the term "militia duty" synonymously with "bear arms", right?
> 
> "Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""
> 
> Then you have Mr Jackson using the term "render military service" as synonymous to "bear arms".
> 
> Also Mr Jackson said:
> 
> "Mr. Jackson did not expect that all the people of the United States would turn Quakers or Moravians; consequently, one part would have to defend the other in case of invasion. Now this, in his opinion, was unjust, unless the constitution secured an equivalent: for this reason he moved to amend the clause, by inserting at the end of it, "upon paying an equivalent, to be established by law.""
> 
> Now, are they talking about "bear arms" to mean people walking around with guns, or people serving in the militia? And if it is the former, then why would individuals who are opposed to walking around with guns have to pay an equivalent? Especially when it says "would have to defend the other in case of invasion"?
> 
> It all seems pretty clear.
> 
> Now, from a language point of view, "bear" CAN mean carry, right?
> 
> However "stool" can mean feces or it can mean wooden seat without a back.
> 
> So, if I say, "the doctor asked him to sit on the stool", we're going to think the second option, and if we say "the doctor asked to see his stool sample" we're going to think the former.
> 
> English language can have words mean the same thing, but CONTEXT tells us which is right and which is wrong.
> 
> The Second Amendment's context is "A well regulated militia", not "Joe wants a gun to go down to the shops", so why would it mean "carry" How does carrying a gun around with you protect the militia? It's simple, it doesn't.
> 
> Now, as a supposed Second Amendment Scholar, someone who talks to people in Law Schools about this, what do you think?
Click to expand...


I've seen plenty of people ignore this, but no one has ever actually taken this information in and been able to come out the other side saying that "bear arms" in the 2A saying that it doesn't mean "militia duty". 



You mean except for the Supreme Court?  Except for them...right?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf



Page 21...

Thus, the right secured in 1689 as a result of the Stuarts’ abuses was by the time of the founding understood to be an *individual right protecting against both public and private violence. *

--------------



We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), *the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.*

*--------*

n Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” I

---



3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. 

-----------




-------------

*In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. *

The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment: Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” 8 

*It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carry ing a weapon in an organized military unit.*

 Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s armsbearing right, for example,* as a recognition of the natural right of defense “of one’s person or house”—what he called the law of “self preservation.”*




As the most important early American edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries (by the law professor and former Antifederalist St. George Tucker) made clear in the notes to the description of the arms right, Americans understood the “right of self-preservation” as permitting a citizen to “repe[l] force by force” when “the intervention of society in his behalf, may be too late to prevent an injury.”



-----------

*There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms*

-------------------------------
*participation in a structured military organization. From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that “bear arms” had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. *

*Page 19

c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. 
---------*


----------



## 2aguy

frigidweirdo said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> 
> And why should anyone listen to you either?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uh because I was or still am
> 
> 1) a licensed attorney for 33 years
> 
> 2) 30 years a prosecutor-24 at the DOJ
> 
> 3) a constitutional scholar who lectures at law schools etc on the second amendment
> 
> 4) former US Shooting team member, former multiple All-American teams
> 
> 5) firearms instructor at my DOJ component
> 
> 6) highest firearms rating-USMS-Distinguished expert
> 
> that's why
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I still don't see why I should listen to you.
> 
> I think you're biased.
> 
> Do you think the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> there is no right to be in the militia  the right the founders sought to guarantee with the second amendment was a right they believe man was endowed with by the creator-the right of self defense and thus the right to be armed.   You don't need to listen to me since I doubt you are able to comprehend the sort of stuff I post about
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So here's me asking a question, how can a guy end up going to teach the Second Amendment at law schools when he doesn't know what the Amendment means?
> 
> Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> Have a look at this document. I'm seriously hoping you've seen this, I mean, you can't be teaching about the Second Amendment without having seen this.
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> This was what they were talking about. I assume you've seen this, it wasn't put into the Amendment at the end, and they give the reasoning why.
> 
> Now Mr Gerry said:
> 
> "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."
> 
> I've seen plenty of people ignore this, but no one has ever actually taken this information in and been able to come out the other side saying that "bear arms" in the 2A saying that it doesn't mean "militia duty".
> 
> It's pretty clear here that Mr Gerry is using the term "militia duty" synonymously with "bear arms", right?
> 
> "Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""
> 
> Then you have Mr Jackson using the term "render military service" as synonymous to "bear arms".
> 
> Also Mr Jackson said:
> 
> "Mr. Jackson did not expect that all the people of the United States would turn Quakers or Moravians; consequently, one part would have to defend the other in case of invasion. Now this, in his opinion, was unjust, unless the constitution secured an equivalent: for this reason he moved to amend the clause, by inserting at the end of it, "upon paying an equivalent, to be established by law.""
> 
> Now, are they talking about "bear arms" to mean people walking around with guns, or people serving in the militia? And if it is the former, then why would individuals who are opposed to walking around with guns have to pay an equivalent? Especially when it says "would have to defend the other in case of invasion"?
> 
> It all seems pretty clear.
> 
> Now, from a language point of view, "bear" CAN mean carry, right?
> 
> However "stool" can mean feces or it can mean wooden seat without a back.
> 
> So, if I say, "the doctor asked him to sit on the stool", we're going to think the second option, and if we say "the doctor asked to see his stool sample" we're going to think the former.
> 
> English language can have words mean the same thing, but CONTEXT tells us which is right and which is wrong.
> 
> The Second Amendment's context is "A well regulated militia", not "Joe wants a gun to go down to the shops", so why would it mean "carry" How does carrying a gun around with you protect the militia? It's simple, it doesn't.
> 
> Now, as a supposed Second Amendment Scholar, someone who talks to people in Law Schools about this, what do you think?
Click to expand...



You don't know what you are talking about.....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Page 19.....

A pre exisitng right

We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed . . . .”16


----------



## sakinago

Lakhota said:


> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
Click to expand...


You are making assumptions about why the militia was necessary to the free state. That reason being, as stated by our founders many different times and many different ways, was that a free state does not exist when government has a monopoly of force. This is why the militia was necessary, a paramilitary force, made up of civilians, lead by civilians. In case some government force either tries some sort of coup against the government, or government itself using the military to control, subdue, or roll over on the civilian population. The constitution/BOR has no real power, except for the second amendment where We The People are all armed, and able to defend ourselves and our rights from whatever person or persons that wish to take them away, especially including. Government is not going to make widely unpopular tyrannical laws if it can’t control the population that’s armed. 

An armed population is also a deterrent against invading forces, since one army could defeat another army on any given battlefield...but then you’d have to try deal with an entire population that’s also armed, which is just a logistical, and tactical nightmare. E.G. france pretty much started prepping for WW2 almost right after WW1, and it turned out to be wise to do so (problem was they prepped for another WW1, and warfare had drastically changed), but they still had very stout defenses along their boarder near Germany. The Nazis however went around the line, and the French/British weren’t prepared for blitzkrieg, and the Nazis quickly took France out of the fight by taking Paris very quickly. And that was it for the mighty nation of Frances in WW2, the army lost so the country and citizens lost as well. But there’s a smaller neighbor in Switzerland that Germany never attempted to touch despite having a weaker military, no allies, and A LOT to loot to fund the war effort. Why because the Swiss are all heavily armed as well as trained. Afghanistan guerrilla warfare doesn’t hold a candle to what the Swiss could do to an invading force. The Nazis invaded every single other neighbor that wasn’t cooperating, and looted the bejeezus out of them...but they didn’t touch the Swiss, and it wasn’t because the swiss are neutral and hitler respected that.  

There is also the issue of natural rights (like most of the BOR is based off of) including the right to self defense, which is natural. You do not have to be a victim, it’s not natural to be a victim. It’s natural for you to have free will, to have your own thoughts and express those thoughts, to have your own privacy and property, and also to defend yourself, with lethal force if need be. I don’t know who would argue with that. This is America we do not judge YOU based on what somebody else did with something they own (I.e. gun, car, knife, computer, whatever). You are not assumed to be a killer just because you own something that can kill, and this includes guns. As long as you don’t use it in a bad way, you have every right to defend yourself with a gun no matter what the attacker is carrying (usually without having to fire a shot). The attacked could be friggen Lebron James with a bat, even if you had a bat as well, your not gonna win that one. With a gun, a midget could win that match (probably without having to fire a shot). 

All these reasons make the second amendment a no brainer. Just because you don’t foresee our government going rogue, just means you are very short sighted with short term memory, even to the present day world around you. We just saw an attempted coup a year ago in a 1st world, modern NATO ally. 35 years ago the Soviet’s were rolling into countries that couldn’t do squat about it because the citizens weren’t armed. Cubans are still screwed and can’t do anything against the military aristocracy, and our southern neighbors are also screwed living in a democracy with loads of gun control, but can’t do anything against their corrupt government and their country is more dangerous than the war zone afghanistan. Yet in the US gun sales, gun ownership, and ccws have skyrocketed, since the 90s, yet gun crime has dropped 50% in the same time period...and people are still claiming guns are the problem?


----------



## Cellblock2429

waltky said:


> Maybe not obsolete but antiquated, out of date...
> 
> ... it needs to be updated to reflect the times...
> 
> ... and the threat of overkill firepower...
> 
> ... for the average citizen.


/—-/ and who, pray tell, will make that decision?


----------



## 2aguy

sakinago said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are making assumptions about why the militia was necessary to the free state. That reason being, as stated by our founders many different times and many different ways, was that a free state does not exist when government has a monopoly of force. This is why the militia was necessary, a paramilitary force, made up of civilians, lead by civilians. In case some government force either tries some sort of coup against the government, or government itself using the military to control, subdue, or roll over on the civilian population. The constitution/BOR has no real power, except for the second amendment where We The People are all armed, and able to defend ourselves and our rights from whatever person or persons that wish to take them away, especially including. Government is not going to make widely unpopular tyrannical laws if it can’t control the population that’s armed.
> 
> An armed population is also a deterrent against invading forces, since one army could defeat another army on any given battlefield...but then you’d have to try deal with an entire population that’s also armed, which is just a logistical, and tactical nightmare. E.G. france pretty much started prepping for WW2 almost right after WW1, and it turned out to be wise to do so (problem was they prepped for another WW1, and warfare had drastically changed), but they still had very stout defenses along their boarder near Germany. The Nazis however went around the line, and the French/British weren’t prepared for blitzkrieg, and the Nazis quickly took France out of the fight by taking Paris very quickly. And that was it for the mighty nation of Frances in WW2, the army lost so the country and citizens lost as well. But there’s a smaller neighbor in Switzerland that Germany never attempted to touch despite having a weaker military, no allies, and A LOT to loot to fund the war effort. Why because the Swiss are all heavily armed as well as trained. Afghanistan guerrilla warfare doesn’t hold a candle to what the Swiss could do to an invading force. The Nazis invaded every single other neighbor that wasn’t cooperating, and looted the bejeezus out of them...but they didn’t touch the Swiss, and it wasn’t because the swiss are neutral and hitler respected that.
> 
> There is also the issue of natural rights (like most of the BOR is based off of) including the right to self defense, which is natural. You do not have to be a victim, it’s not natural to be a victim. It’s natural for you to have free will, to have your own thoughts and express those thoughts, to have your own privacy and property, and also to defend yourself, with lethal force if need be. I don’t know who would argue with that. This is America we do not judge YOU based on what somebody else did with something they own (I.e. gun, car, knife, computer, whatever). You are not assumed to be a killer just because you own something that can kill, and this includes guns. As long as you don’t use it in a bad way, you have every right to defend yourself with a gun no matter what the attacker is carrying (usually without having to fire a shot). The attacked could be friggen Lebron James with a bat, even if you had a bat as well, your not gonna win that one. With a gun, a midget could win that match (probably without having to fire a shot).
> 
> All these reasons make the second amendment a no brainer. Just because you don’t foresee our government going rogue, just means you are very short sighted with short term memory, even to the present day world around you. We just saw an attempted coup a year ago in a 1st world, modern NATO ally. 35 years ago the Soviet’s were rolling into countries that couldn’t do squat about it because the citizens weren’t armed. Cubans are still screwed and can’t do anything against the military aristocracy, and our southern neighbors are also screwed living in a democracy with loads of gun control, but can’t do anything against their corrupt government and their country is more dangerous than the war zone afghanistan. Yet in the US gun sales, gun ownership, and ccws have skyrocketed, since the 90s, yet gun crime has dropped 50% in the same time period...and people are still claiming guns are the problem?
Click to expand...



And had Europe not disarmed their people, the Germans could never have launched World War 2.....they could never have held the territory they captured if they faced half a million armed, pissed off locals in every country.


----------



## sakinago

2aguy said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are making assumptions about why the militia was necessary to the free state. That reason being, as stated by our founders many different times and many different ways, was that a free state does not exist when government has a monopoly of force. This is why the militia was necessary, a paramilitary force, made up of civilians, lead by civilians. In case some government force either tries some sort of coup against the government, or government itself using the military to control, subdue, or roll over on the civilian population. The constitution/BOR has no real power, except for the second amendment where We The People are all armed, and able to defend ourselves and our rights from whatever person or persons that wish to take them away, especially including. Government is not going to make widely unpopular tyrannical laws if it can’t control the population that’s armed.
> 
> An armed population is also a deterrent against invading forces, since one army could defeat another army on any given battlefield...but then you’d have to try deal with an entire population that’s also armed, which is just a logistical, and tactical nightmare. E.G. france pretty much started prepping for WW2 almost right after WW1, and it turned out to be wise to do so (problem was they prepped for another WW1, and warfare had drastically changed), but they still had very stout defenses along their boarder near Germany. The Nazis however went around the line, and the French/British weren’t prepared for blitzkrieg, and the Nazis quickly took France out of the fight by taking Paris very quickly. And that was it for the mighty nation of Frances in WW2, the army lost so the country and citizens lost as well. But there’s a smaller neighbor in Switzerland that Germany never attempted to touch despite having a weaker military, no allies, and A LOT to loot to fund the war effort. Why because the Swiss are all heavily armed as well as trained. Afghanistan guerrilla warfare doesn’t hold a candle to what the Swiss could do to an invading force. The Nazis invaded every single other neighbor that wasn’t cooperating, and looted the bejeezus out of them...but they didn’t touch the Swiss, and it wasn’t because the swiss are neutral and hitler respected that.
> 
> There is also the issue of natural rights (like most of the BOR is based off of) including the right to self defense, which is natural. You do not have to be a victim, it’s not natural to be a victim. It’s natural for you to have free will, to have your own thoughts and express those thoughts, to have your own privacy and property, and also to defend yourself, with lethal force if need be. I don’t know who would argue with that. This is America we do not judge YOU based on what somebody else did with something they own (I.e. gun, car, knife, computer, whatever). You are not assumed to be a killer just because you own something that can kill, and this includes guns. As long as you don’t use it in a bad way, you have every right to defend yourself with a gun no matter what the attacker is carrying (usually without having to fire a shot). The attacked could be friggen Lebron James with a bat, even if you had a bat as well, your not gonna win that one. With a gun, a midget could win that match (probably without having to fire a shot).
> 
> All these reasons make the second amendment a no brainer. Just because you don’t foresee our government going rogue, just means you are very short sighted with short term memory, even to the present day world around you. We just saw an attempted coup a year ago in a 1st world, modern NATO ally. 35 years ago the Soviet’s were rolling into countries that couldn’t do squat about it because the citizens weren’t armed. Cubans are still screwed and can’t do anything against the military aristocracy, and our southern neighbors are also screwed living in a democracy with loads of gun control, but can’t do anything against their corrupt government and their country is more dangerous than the war zone afghanistan. Yet in the US gun sales, gun ownership, and ccws have skyrocketed, since the 90s, yet gun crime has dropped 50% in the same time period...and people are still claiming guns are the problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And had Europe not disarmed their people, the Germans could never have launched World War 2.....they could never have held the territory they captured if they faced half a million armed, pissed off locals in every country.
Click to expand...

When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: _"Stick to the Devil you know."_ 

Rudyard Kipling, Gods of the Copybook Headings.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> To bear means many things.
> 
> It could mean produce, as in "bear fruit"
> 
> It could mean give information  or speak, as in "bear testimony" or "bear witness"
> 
> But, the only reasonable contextual meaning of "bear arms" is "carry guns."
> 
> I would love to hear a retarded argument that it means something else.  Can't wait for this one.
> 
> I can see it now:
> 
> Dannyboy:  "Bear only means, when two well-regulated militia love each other, they sometime express that love in a physical way.  9 months later..."



The funniest one is to give birth, apparently the right think you have a right to give birth to guns.


----------



## Cellblock2429

2aguy said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are making assumptions about why the militia was necessary to the free state. That reason being, as stated by our founders many different times and many different ways, was that a free state does not exist when government has a monopoly of force. This is why the militia was necessary, a paramilitary force, made up of civilians, lead by civilians. In case some government force either tries some sort of coup against the government, or government itself using the military to control, subdue, or roll over on the civilian population. The constitution/BOR has no real power, except for the second amendment where We The People are all armed, and able to defend ourselves and our rights from whatever person or persons that wish to take them away, especially including. Government is not going to make widely unpopular tyrannical laws if it can’t control the population that’s armed.
> 
> An armed population is also a deterrent against invading forces, since one army could defeat another army on any given battlefield...but then you’d have to try deal with an entire population that’s also armed, which is just a logistical, and tactical nightmare. E.G. france pretty much started prepping for WW2 almost right after WW1, and it turned out to be wise to do so (problem was they prepped for another WW1, and warfare had drastically changed), but they still had very stout defenses along their boarder near Germany. The Nazis however went around the line, and the French/British weren’t prepared for blitzkrieg, and the Nazis quickly took France out of the fight by taking Paris very quickly. And that was it for the mighty nation of Frances in WW2, the army lost so the country and citizens lost as well. But there’s a smaller neighbor in Switzerland that Germany never attempted to touch despite having a weaker military, no allies, and A LOT to loot to fund the war effort. Why because the Swiss are all heavily armed as well as trained. Afghanistan guerrilla warfare doesn’t hold a candle to what the Swiss could do to an invading force. The Nazis invaded every single other neighbor that wasn’t cooperating, and looted the bejeezus out of them...but they didn’t touch the Swiss, and it wasn’t because the swiss are neutral and hitler respected that.
> 
> There is also the issue of natural rights (like most of the BOR is based off of) including the right to self defense, which is natural. You do not have to be a victim, it’s not natural to be a victim. It’s natural for you to have free will, to have your own thoughts and express those thoughts, to have your own privacy and property, and also to defend yourself, with lethal force if need be. I don’t know who would argue with that. This is America we do not judge YOU based on what somebody else did with something they own (I.e. gun, car, knife, computer, whatever). You are not assumed to be a killer just because you own something that can kill, and this includes guns. As long as you don’t use it in a bad way, you have every right to defend yourself with a gun no matter what the attacker is carrying (usually without having to fire a shot). The attacked could be friggen Lebron James with a bat, even if you had a bat as well, your not gonna win that one. With a gun, a midget could win that match (probably without having to fire a shot).
> 
> All these reasons make the second amendment a no brainer. Just because you don’t foresee our government going rogue, just means you are very short sighted with short term memory, even to the present day world around you. We just saw an attempted coup a year ago in a 1st world, modern NATO ally. 35 years ago the Soviet’s were rolling into countries that couldn’t do squat about it because the citizens weren’t armed. Cubans are still screwed and can’t do anything against the military aristocracy, and our southern neighbors are also screwed living in a democracy with loads of gun control, but can’t do anything against their corrupt government and their country is more dangerous than the war zone afghanistan. Yet in the US gun sales, gun ownership, and ccws have skyrocketed, since the 90s, yet gun crime has dropped 50% in the same time period...and people are still claiming guns are the problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And had Europe not disarmed their people, the Germans could never have launched World War 2.....they could never have held the territory they captured if they faced half a million armed, pissed off locals in every country.
Click to expand...

/—-/ So true. After WWI, Britan banned guns. When the Germans attacked 20 years later, they had to beg the US for any guns we could send them. And no one knew how to shoot well except the military and police. They scrambled to teach folks. Of course after WWII the Brits banned guns again.


----------



## Cellblock2429

frigidweirdo said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> To bear means many things.
> 
> It could mean produce, as in "bear fruit"
> 
> It could mean give information  or speak, as in "bear testimony" or "bear witness"
> 
> But, the only reasonable contextual meaning of "bear arms" is "carry guns."
> 
> I would love to hear a retarded argument that it means something else.  Can't wait for this one.
> 
> I can see it now:
> 
> Dannyboy:  "Bear only means, when two well-regulated militia love each other, they sometime express that love in a physical way.  9 months later..."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The funniest one is to give birth, apparently the right think you have a right to give birth to guns.
Click to expand...

/----/ That is idiotic even by your low standards.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what the Supreme Court says, and their opinion overrules yours.
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia; You are either, well regulated or you are not.
> 
> It really is that simple, except to the disingenuous, right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do know, don't you, that you're arguing against the SC and not me?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.
> 
> The People are the Militia; You are either, well regulated or you are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC overrules you. You're simply wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia; You are either, well regulated or you are not.
> 
> This is ratified, federal doctrine:
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in _Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution_, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
Click to expand...


Take it up with the SC. Obviously, they know less than you do about the Constitution and need educating.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

sakinago said:


> You are making assumptions about why the militia was necessary to the free state. That reason being, as stated by our founders many different times and many different ways, was that *a free state does not exist when government has a monopoly of force.*


*BOOOOOM!!!*

Print that on a fucking t-shirt!!!

*...a free state does not exist when government has a monopoly of force.*
*~sakinago*


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

frigidweirdo said:


> The funniest one is to give birth, apparently the right think you have a right to give birth to guns.


Actually, if by "give birth" you mean create, yes, we have the right to create our own guns.  That tradition goes all the way back to the beginning.

From Washington's first State of the Union Address 1790:

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined;— to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent others, for essential, particularly for military supplies."

But, we also have the right to fuck our guns, which I do frequently.  Why, just last night, I was fucking my AK, when my grandfather's Remington 788 walked in and got hotly jealous.   

Poor Remmy.  I have neglected her.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia; you are either, well regulated or you are not.
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd does not call for a well-regulated militia.  It calls for the government to keep its greasy, slimy hands off the people's guns.
> 
> We are getting machine guns without being in any well-regulated militia, and there is not a goddamn thing you can do about it but bitch, moan, and bellyache.
> 
> We have wiped the floor with your goose-stepping commie arguments and you still keep repeating the same bullshit.  We can do this all day, but at some point:
Click to expand...

Only in your own fantasy of special pleading.

The People are the Militia; the People who are well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.


----------



## danielpalos

frigidweirdo said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what the Supreme Court says, and their opinion overrules yours.
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia; You are either, well regulated or you are not.
> 
> It really is that simple, except to the disingenuous, right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do know, don't you, that you're arguing against the SC and not me?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.
> 
> The People are the Militia; You are either, well regulated or you are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC overrules you. You're simply wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC has upheld Presser, which says
> 
> "We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
Click to expand...

So what; Only well regulated militia are authorized their colors, standard, banners, and guidons.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one's wiped the floor with my arguments, usually when people debate with me on the 2A, they start either insulting or simply stop talking because they can't find a single piece of evidence to back them up.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you arguing that the right requires membership in a militia?   I was talking to Dannyboy.
Click to expand...

The absolute, literal right belongs to the militia of the People who are well regulated, not the membership of the Militia of the People who are the unorganized militia.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope; it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.
> 
> 
> 
> *
> it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary
> *
> The word "only" is not in that amendment, doofus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well regulated is specifically mentioned, not omitted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right is the people's, not the militia's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia; you are either, well regulated or you are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope; it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary
> *
> The word "only" is not in that amendment, doofus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well regulated is specifically mentioned, not omitted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right is the people's, not the militia's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia; you are either, well regulated or you are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, *the right of the people* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> The people have the right.
> In a militia, not in a militia, well regulated, unregulated, poorly regulated or overregulated, the people have the right.
Click to expand...

States have Commanders in Chief of the State militia; there are no well regulated "civilian" militias, Only unorganized militia of gun lovers of the People.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia; You are either, well regulated or you are not.
> 
> It really is that simple, except to the disingenuous, right wing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do know, don't you, that you're arguing against the SC and not me?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.
> 
> The People are the Militia; You are either, well regulated or you are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SC overrules you. You're simply wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia; You are either, well regulated or you are not.
> 
> This is ratified, federal doctrine:
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in _Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution_, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take it up with the SC. Obviously, they know less than you do about the Constitution and need educating.
Click to expand...

It never came up.  

I already know I have the Supreme answer.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> The absolute, literal right belongs to the militia of the People who are well regulated, not the membership of the Militia of the People who are the unorganized militia.


Bullshit.  Cite your source for such nonsense.

Now, back to my gun love-making.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> So what; Only well regulated militia are authorized their colors, standard, banners, and guidons.


Source?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> The People are the Militia; the People who are well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.


I don't give a rat fuck what is necessary for the security of a free state.  The people have the right.  Not the militia.  NOTHING about the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted to mean anything BUT the right belonging to the people.  

If you believe otherwise, cite your source.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what; Only well regulated militia are authorized their colors, standard, banners, and guidons.
> 
> 
> 
> Source?
Click to expand...

Congress must prescribe wellness of regulation for the Militia of the United States, it is enumerated in Article 1, Section 8.  

Gun lovers are simply unorganized militia for Second Amendment purposes.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia; the People who are well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't give a rat fuck what is necessary for the security of a free state.  The people have the right.  Not the militia.  NOTHING about the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted to mean anything BUT the right belonging to the people.
> 
> If you believe otherwise, cite your source.
Click to expand...

Just clueless and Causeless; I got it, right winger.

The People are the Militia.  What part of that do you not comprehend, yet?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> The People are the Militia. What part of that do you not comprehend, yet?


Who has the right?

I don't care if the people are fucking fence posts, the right of the people shall not be infringed. 

When I get my machine gun, you are going to love it.  I promise.

Are you mad that I have weapons of war?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Gun lovers are simply unorganized militia for Second Amendment purposes.


Which still prohibits the federal government (and state governments, via the 14th Amendment) from infringing on the right of the clueless and causeless, gun-fucking white people you hate.

It pisses you off that we can put down your communist plot.


Cry bitch.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

We have guns, bitches.

Cry about it.


I love how much it pisses off you fucking commies.  

I'm going to go fuck my shotgun now.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gun lovers are simply unorganized militia for Second Amendment purposes.
> 
> 
> 
> Which still prohibits the federal government (and state governments, via the 14th Amendment) from infringing on the right of the clueless and causeless, gun-fucking white people you hate.
> 
> It pisses you off that we can put down your communist polt.
> 
> 
> Cry bitch.
Click to expand...

Not at all; 

we must distinguish between natural rights and the security needs of a free State; if you want to quibble.

Natural rights are for the unorganized militia, not the organized and well regulated militias of the People of the United States.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> We have guns, bitches.
> 
> Cry about it.
> 
> 
> I love how much it pisses off you fucking commies.
> 
> I'm going to go fuck my shotgun now.


so what; I don't mind joining a militia, becoming well regulated, and asking for weapons qualification on bazookas or grenade launchers; a bazookanier or a grenadier.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> so what; I don't mind joining a militia, becoming well regulated, and asking for weapons qualification on bazookas or grenade launchers; a bazookanier or a grenadier.


Most of us don't mind either.  It will not happen because the left will demonize and ridicule anyone who does, by making them out to be crazy, anti-government separatists. 

If you really are willing to allow us access to all weapons, as long as we are getting military training and adhere to proper regulatory precautions on the use and storage of our military-grade weapons, then you and I are on the same team. 

I will ALWAYS support and advocate good training and proper safety practices.  You will find that 99.99% of gun owners and advocates are the same.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia; the People who are well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't give a rat fuck what is necessary for the security of a free state.  The people have the right.  Not the militia.  NOTHING about the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted to mean anything BUT the right belonging to the people.
> 
> If you believe otherwise, cite your source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just clueless and Causeless; I got it, right winger.
> 
> The People are the Militia.  What part of that do you not comprehend, yet?
Click to expand...


You're deliberately ignoring the SC. Any reason why you're being so obtuse?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

hadit said:


> You're deliberately ignoring the SC. Any reason why you're being so obtuse?


Well, if he is arguing that we should join a militia, get training, and follow strict storage and safety rules in the possession of our military-grade weapons, I have no problem with that position.  


Somehow, I don't think that's what he means, because he argues from a position that makes him appear like a gun-grabbing commie.  His lack of response to post #4186 stating his agreement confirms my suspicion.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary
> *
> The word "only" is not in that amendment, doofus.
> 
> 
> 
> well regulated is specifically mentioned, not omitted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right is the people's, not the militia's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia; you are either, well regulated or you are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary
> *
> The word "only" is not in that amendment, doofus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well regulated is specifically mentioned, not omitted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right is the people's, not the militia's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia; you are either, well regulated or you are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, *the right of the people* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> The people have the right.
> In a militia, not in a militia, well regulated, unregulated, poorly regulated or overregulated, the people have the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> States have Commanders in Chief of the State militia; there are no well regulated "civilian" militias, Only unorganized militia of gun lovers of the People.
Click to expand...


So what? It is a right of the people, not a right of the militia.


----------



## 2aguy

Cellblock2429 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are making assumptions about why the militia was necessary to the free state. That reason being, as stated by our founders many different times and many different ways, was that a free state does not exist when government has a monopoly of force. This is why the militia was necessary, a paramilitary force, made up of civilians, lead by civilians. In case some government force either tries some sort of coup against the government, or government itself using the military to control, subdue, or roll over on the civilian population. The constitution/BOR has no real power, except for the second amendment where We The People are all armed, and able to defend ourselves and our rights from whatever person or persons that wish to take them away, especially including. Government is not going to make widely unpopular tyrannical laws if it can’t control the population that’s armed.
> 
> An armed population is also a deterrent against invading forces, since one army could defeat another army on any given battlefield...but then you’d have to try deal with an entire population that’s also armed, which is just a logistical, and tactical nightmare. E.G. france pretty much started prepping for WW2 almost right after WW1, and it turned out to be wise to do so (problem was they prepped for another WW1, and warfare had drastically changed), but they still had very stout defenses along their boarder near Germany. The Nazis however went around the line, and the French/British weren’t prepared for blitzkrieg, and the Nazis quickly took France out of the fight by taking Paris very quickly. And that was it for the mighty nation of Frances in WW2, the army lost so the country and citizens lost as well. But there’s a smaller neighbor in Switzerland that Germany never attempted to touch despite having a weaker military, no allies, and A LOT to loot to fund the war effort. Why because the Swiss are all heavily armed as well as trained. Afghanistan guerrilla warfare doesn’t hold a candle to what the Swiss could do to an invading force. The Nazis invaded every single other neighbor that wasn’t cooperating, and looted the bejeezus out of them...but they didn’t touch the Swiss, and it wasn’t because the swiss are neutral and hitler respected that.
> 
> There is also the issue of natural rights (like most of the BOR is based off of) including the right to self defense, which is natural. You do not have to be a victim, it’s not natural to be a victim. It’s natural for you to have free will, to have your own thoughts and express those thoughts, to have your own privacy and property, and also to defend yourself, with lethal force if need be. I don’t know who would argue with that. This is America we do not judge YOU based on what somebody else did with something they own (I.e. gun, car, knife, computer, whatever). You are not assumed to be a killer just because you own something that can kill, and this includes guns. As long as you don’t use it in a bad way, you have every right to defend yourself with a gun no matter what the attacker is carrying (usually without having to fire a shot). The attacked could be friggen Lebron James with a bat, even if you had a bat as well, your not gonna win that one. With a gun, a midget could win that match (probably without having to fire a shot).
> 
> All these reasons make the second amendment a no brainer. Just because you don’t foresee our government going rogue, just means you are very short sighted with short term memory, even to the present day world around you. We just saw an attempted coup a year ago in a 1st world, modern NATO ally. 35 years ago the Soviet’s were rolling into countries that couldn’t do squat about it because the citizens weren’t armed. Cubans are still screwed and can’t do anything against the military aristocracy, and our southern neighbors are also screwed living in a democracy with loads of gun control, but can’t do anything against their corrupt government and their country is more dangerous than the war zone afghanistan. Yet in the US gun sales, gun ownership, and ccws have skyrocketed, since the 90s, yet gun crime has dropped 50% in the same time period...and people are still claiming guns are the problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And had Europe not disarmed their people, the Germans could never have launched World War 2.....they could never have held the territory they captured if they faced half a million armed, pissed off locals in every country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /—-/ So true. After WWI, Britan banned guns. When the Germans attacked 20 years later, they had to beg the US for any guns we could send them. And no one knew how to shoot well except the military and police. They scrambled to teach folks. Of course after WWII the Brits banned guns again.
Click to expand...



Yes...that is what is just freaking crazy...they saw what the German socialists did to 12 million Europeans.....they saw what the communists did to 25 million people, and the Chinese, cambodians.......and they still allowed themselves to be disarmed...that is fucking stupid.....


----------



## 2aguy

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're deliberately ignoring the SC. Any reason why you're being so obtuse?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if he is arguing that we should join a militia, get training, and follow strict storage and safety rules in the possession of our military-grade weapons, I have no problem with that position.
> 
> 
> Somehow, I don't think that's what he means, because he argues from a position that makes him appear like a gun-grabbing commie.  His lack of response to post #4186 stating his agreement confirms my suspicion.
Click to expand...



It is more than an appearance of being a gun grabbing commie, it is who he actually is....


----------



## Cellblock2429

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have guns, bitches.
> 
> Cry about it.
> 
> 
> I love how much it pisses off you fucking commies.
> 
> I'm going to go fuck my shotgun now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so what; I don't mind joining a militia, becoming well regulated, and asking for weapons qualification on bazookas or grenade launchers; a bazookanier or a grenadier.
Click to expand...

/——/ I want to be trained on a WWII Sherman. The cannon and 50 Cals can be disabled. I just want it to help my commute on the Long Island Expressway


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Toddsterpatriot said:


> So what? It is a right of the people, not a right of the militia.


If I understand danielpalos correctly, he is saying that a person's right to keep and bear arms absolutely shall not be infringed, as long as:
1.  the person is actively participating in an organized local militia (other than the national guard), 
2.  gets regular training, and 
3.  follows safety rules on the use and storage of military-grade weapons.

then, I will concede, as long as membership in a local militia is not unreasonably restricted to anyone who applies.  (It can't work as a defacto infringement.)  Also, those not in a local militia should still have the right to keep and bear arms, but that right can be infringed for safety purposes (like banning full-autos ect).

I have yet to confirm if that is what dannyboy actually believes.


----------



## turtledude

2aguy said:


> Yeah...Americans who have no idea what Background checks mean.  If you poll those same people, most of them probably think we don't have any background checks.......
> 
> There is a valid reason to oppose universal background checks, the only way they can pretend to make them work is with universal gun registration......and that is the last step the anti gunners need to ban and confiscate guns when they get enough political power.
> 
> And no, criminals do not get their guns from private sales...they get them from stealing, or buy using people who can pass a background check and they buy them from gun stores, where they have to pass the current federal background check.....
> 
> That you continue to push these lies shows that you are a vile person....



Bannerhoid pollsters ask questions like this

DO YOU SUPPORT UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS THAT KEEP FELONS FROM BUYING GUNS?

and people say yes because they are too stupid to understand that UBGCs don't do squat to keep felons from getting guns.


----------



## turtledude

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> If I understand danielpalos correctly, he is saying that a person's right to keep and bear arms absolutely shall not be infringed, as long as:
> 1.  the person is actively participating in an organized local militia (other than the national guard),
> 2.  gets regular training, and
> 3.  follows safety rules on the use and storage of military-grade weapons.
> 
> then, I will concede, as long as membership in a local militia is not unreasonably restricted to anyone who applies.  (It can't work as a defacto infringement.)  Also, those not in a local militia should still have the right to keep and bear arms, but that right can be infringed for safety purposes (like banning full-autos ect).
> 
> I have yet to confirm if that is what dannyboy actually believes.



militia duty is not  requirement.  Full autos that police are issued are covered as well and so is the general issue rifle that the infantry has.  DanielTrollus has no clue what he says-he doesn't understand his own claims


----------



## turtledude

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
> 
> Modern debates about the Second Amendment have focused on whether it protects a private right of individuals to keep and bear arms, or a right that can be exercised only through militia organizations like the National Guard. This question, however, was not even raised until long after the Bill of Rights was adopted.
> 
> Many in the Founding generation believed that governments are prone to use soldiers to oppress the people. English history suggested that this risk could be controlled by permitting the government to raise armies (consisting of full-time paid troops) only when needed to fight foreign adversaries. For other purposes, such as responding to sudden invasions or other emergencies, the government could rely on a militia that consisted of ordinary civilians who supplied their own weapons and received some part-time, unpaid military training.
> 
> The onset of war does not always allow time to raise and train an army, and the Revolutionary War showed that militia forces could not be relied on for national defense. The Constitutional Convention therefore decided that the federal government should have almost unfettered authority to establish peacetime standing armies and to regulate the militia.
> 
> This massive shift of power from the states to the federal government generated one of the chief objections to the proposed Constitution. Anti-Federalists argued that the proposed Constitution would take from the states their principal means of defense against federal usurpation. The Federalists responded that fears of federal oppression were overblown, in part because the American people were armed and would be almost impossible to subdue through military force.
> 
> Implicit in the debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists were two shared assumptions. First, that the proposed new Constitution gave the federal government almost total legal authority over the army and militia. Second, that the federal government should not have any authority at all to disarm the citizenry. They disagreed only about whether an armed populace could adequately deter federal oppression.
> 
> The Second Amendment conceded nothing to the Anti-Federalists’ desire to sharply curtail the military power of the federal government, which would have required substantial changes in the original Constitution. *Yet the Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion.*
> 
> 
> 
> From your link:
> 
> ‘Notwithstanding the lengthy opinions in _Heller_ and _McDonald_, they technically ruled only that government may not ban the possession of handguns by civilians in their homes. Heller tentatively suggested a list of “presumptively lawful” regulations, including bans on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, bans on carrying firearms in “sensitive places” such as schools and government buildings, laws restricting the commercial sale of arms, bans on the concealed carry of firearms, and bans on weapons “not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.”’
> 
> The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.
> 
> The Amendment recognizes an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense.
> 
> It also reaffirms the fact that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited, that government has the authority to enact regulatory measures with regard to firearms, provided those measures comport with Second Amendment jurisprudence.
> 
> *The problem is that there are far too many on the right who harbor the ridiculous, wrongheaded notion that the Second Amendment is ‘absolute,’ opposing reasonable, appropriate, and Constitutional regulatory measures, and attempting to justify that opposition with inane lies and baseless slippery slope fallacies.*
Click to expand...


since Article ONE, SECTION 8 has no delegation of any power to the federal government to impose "reasonable, appropriate measures, they cannot be constitutional


----------



## 2aguy

turtledude said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...Americans who have no idea what Background checks mean.  If you poll those same people, most of them probably think we don't have any background checks.......
> 
> There is a valid reason to oppose universal background checks, the only way they can pretend to make them work is with universal gun registration......and that is the last step the anti gunners need to ban and confiscate guns when they get enough political power.
> 
> And no, criminals do not get their guns from private sales...they get them from stealing, or buy using people who can pass a background check and they buy them from gun stores, where they have to pass the current federal background check.....
> 
> That you continue to push these lies shows that you are a vile person....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bannerhoid pollsters ask questions like this
> 
> DO YOU SUPPORT UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS THAT KEEP FELONS FROM BUYING GUNS?
> 
> and people say yes because they are too stupid to understand that UBGCs don't do squat to keep felons from getting guns.
Click to expand...



Exactly.....notice how they don't tell the person....in order to get UBCs you will have to register with the government ....


----------



## frigidweirdo

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The funniest one is to give birth, apparently the right think you have a right to give birth to guns.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, if by "give birth" you mean create, yes, we have the right to create our own guns.  That tradition goes all the way back to the beginning.
> 
> From Washington's first State of the Union Address 1790:
> 
> "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined;— to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent others, for essential, particularly for military supplies."
> 
> But, we also have the right to fuck our guns, which I do frequently.  Why, just last night, I was fucking my AK, when my grandfather's Remington 788 walked in and got hotly jealous.
> 
> Poor Remmy.  I have neglected her.
Click to expand...


Actually no, I don't mean to create. I mean to give birth as in giving birth to a baby. Like it comes out of the womb.


----------



## frigidweirdo

turtledude said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So here's me asking a question, how can a guy end up going to teach the Second Amendment at law schools when he doesn't know what the Amendment means?
> 
> Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> Have a look at this document. I'm seriously hoping you've seen this, I mean, you can't be teaching about the Second Amendment without having seen this.
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> This was what they were talking about. I assume you've seen this, it wasn't put into the Amendment at the end, and they give the reasoning why.
> 
> Now Mr Gerry said:
> 
> "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."
> 
> I've seen plenty of people ignore this, but no one has ever actually taken this information in and been able to come out the other side saying that "bear arms" in the 2A saying that it doesn't mean "militia duty".
> 
> It's pretty clear here that Mr Gerry is using the term "militia duty" synonymously with "bear arms", right?
> 
> "Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""
> 
> Then you have Mr Jackson using the term "render military service" as synonymous to "bear arms".
> 
> Also Mr Jackson said:
> 
> "Mr. Jackson did not expect that all the people of the United States would turn Quakers or Moravians; consequently, one part would have to defend the other in case of invasion. Now this, in his opinion, was unjust, unless the constitution secured an equivalent: for this reason he moved to amend the clause, by inserting at the end of it, "upon paying an equivalent, to be established by law.""
> 
> Now, are they talking about "bear arms" to mean people walking around with guns, or people serving in the militia? And if it is the former, then why would individuals who are opposed to walking around with guns have to pay an equivalent? Especially when it says "would have to defend the other in case of invasion"?
> 
> It all seems pretty clear.
> 
> Now, from a language point of view, "bear" CAN mean carry, right?
> 
> However "stool" can mean feces or it can mean wooden seat without a back.
> 
> So, if I say, "the doctor asked him to sit on the stool", we're going to think the second option, and if we say "the doctor asked to see his stool sample" we're going to think the former.
> 
> English language can have words mean the same thing, but CONTEXT tells us which is right and which is wrong.
> 
> The Second Amendment's context is "A well regulated militia", not "Joe wants a gun to go down to the shops", so why would it mean "carry" How does carrying a gun around with you protect the militia? It's simple, it doesn't.
> 
> Now, as a supposed Second Amendment Scholar, someone who talks to people in Law Schools about this, what do you think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> who exactly did you quote is an actual legal scholar?  you apparently have no clue what you are talking about.  the second amendment was merely recognizing a pre-existing right that man had from the dawn of time and to say it has something to do with the "right" to be in government service is beyond stupid
> 
> could you point me to your article from the Yale Law Journal or a similar publication where you set this theory out?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haha, nice deflection, but I'm not buying it. Like I said, most people try and slip and slide out of this.
> 
> I expected you to spend a little more time on it.
> 
> This is a document FROM THE FOUNDING FATHERS>
> 
> Come on, let's have a go. This is MY ARGUMENT, I'm not pointing to someone else's argument. This is mine. You think your "legal expertise" is better than mine, then bring it on. Or do you feel that I've just shown you something you don't know and you want to hide?
> 
> What do you think the Founding Fathers thought "bear arms" meant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why are you ignoring "Keep"
> 
> I have a great idea-I have stated what the second amendment means  every leading scholar of the time-St George Tucker being the most prominent, agrees that it was an individual right  Every major constitutional scholar today does too-Van Alstpyne, Calabresi, Amar, Levinson, Volokh Koppel and even Laurence Tribe.
> 
> so what do you claim it was
> 
> why would the citizens need a bill of rights provision saying they can serve in the federal army?
Click to expand...


So, am I being ignored now? Claiming all this stuff, and yet can't talk about one document?


----------



## turtledude

frigidweirdo said:


> So, am I being ignored now? Claiming all this stuff, and yet can't talk about one document?



NOt relevant.

It doesn't have any impact on what I have said


----------



## ChrisL

frigidweirdo said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So here's me asking a question, how can a guy end up going to teach the Second Amendment at law schools when he doesn't know what the Amendment means?
> 
> Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> Have a look at this document. I'm seriously hoping you've seen this, I mean, you can't be teaching about the Second Amendment without having seen this.
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> This was what they were talking about. I assume you've seen this, it wasn't put into the Amendment at the end, and they give the reasoning why.
> 
> Now Mr Gerry said:
> 
> "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."
> 
> I've seen plenty of people ignore this, but no one has ever actually taken this information in and been able to come out the other side saying that "bear arms" in the 2A saying that it doesn't mean "militia duty".
> 
> It's pretty clear here that Mr Gerry is using the term "militia duty" synonymously with "bear arms", right?
> 
> "Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""
> 
> Then you have Mr Jackson using the term "render military service" as synonymous to "bear arms".
> 
> Also Mr Jackson said:
> 
> "Mr. Jackson did not expect that all the people of the United States would turn Quakers or Moravians; consequently, one part would have to defend the other in case of invasion. Now this, in his opinion, was unjust, unless the constitution secured an equivalent: for this reason he moved to amend the clause, by inserting at the end of it, "upon paying an equivalent, to be established by law.""
> 
> Now, are they talking about "bear arms" to mean people walking around with guns, or people serving in the militia? And if it is the former, then why would individuals who are opposed to walking around with guns have to pay an equivalent? Especially when it says "would have to defend the other in case of invasion"?
> 
> It all seems pretty clear.
> 
> Now, from a language point of view, "bear" CAN mean carry, right?
> 
> However "stool" can mean feces or it can mean wooden seat without a back.
> 
> So, if I say, "the doctor asked him to sit on the stool", we're going to think the second option, and if we say "the doctor asked to see his stool sample" we're going to think the former.
> 
> English language can have words mean the same thing, but CONTEXT tells us which is right and which is wrong.
> 
> The Second Amendment's context is "A well regulated militia", not "Joe wants a gun to go down to the shops", so why would it mean "carry" How does carrying a gun around with you protect the militia? It's simple, it doesn't.
> 
> Now, as a supposed Second Amendment Scholar, someone who talks to people in Law Schools about this, what do you think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> who exactly did you quote is an actual legal scholar?  you apparently have no clue what you are talking about.  the second amendment was merely recognizing a pre-existing right that man had from the dawn of time and to say it has something to do with the "right" to be in government service is beyond stupid
> 
> could you point me to your article from the Yale Law Journal or a similar publication where you set this theory out?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haha, nice deflection, but I'm not buying it. Like I said, most people try and slip and slide out of this.
> 
> I expected you to spend a little more time on it.
> 
> This is a document FROM THE FOUNDING FATHERS>
> 
> Come on, let's have a go. This is MY ARGUMENT, I'm not pointing to someone else's argument. This is mine. You think your "legal expertise" is better than mine, then bring it on. Or do you feel that I've just shown you something you don't know and you want to hide?
> 
> What do you think the Founding Fathers thought "bear arms" meant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why are you ignoring "Keep"
> 
> I have a great idea-I have stated what the second amendment means  every leading scholar of the time-St George Tucker being the most prominent, agrees that it was an individual right  Every major constitutional scholar today does too-Van Alstpyne, Calabresi, Amar, Levinson, Volokh Koppel and even Laurence Tribe.
> 
> so what do you claim it was
> 
> why would the citizens need a bill of rights provision saying they can serve in the federal army?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, am I being ignored now? Claiming all this stuff, and yet can't talk about one document?
Click to expand...


He is smart to ignore your stupid argument.  The second amendment states KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.  

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, *the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  *

And just to cover what I already know is coming and which has already probably been explained to you and your goofball friends a bajillion times . . . 

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

The following are taken from the _Oxford English Dictionary_, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."


1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
*
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.*


----------



## frigidweirdo

turtledude said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, am I being ignored now? Claiming all this stuff, and yet can't talk about one document?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOt relevant.
> 
> It doesn't have any impact on what I have said
Click to expand...


This is embarrassing right?

A guy who's boasting that he goes to LAW SCHOOLS to talk about the Second Amendment, and you can't even talk to ME about this one document. 

Of course this document is relevant. This is the process the Founding Fathers took in order to come to the final conclusion about what the Second Amendment means.

You don't have ANY evidence that "bear arms" means "carry arms" and you have this document among other documents and Supreme Court decisions that I haven't even presented yet that points to "bear arms" being the right of individuals to be in the militia.

And you, with your massive resume of stuff and you can't even discuss this. 

It's a big WOW from me.


----------



## turtledude

frigidweirdo said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, am I being ignored now? Claiming all this stuff, and yet can't talk about one document?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOt relevant.
> 
> It doesn't have any impact on what I have said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is embarrassing right?
> 
> A guy who's boasting that he goes to LAW SCHOOLS to talk about the Second Amendment, and you can't even talk to ME about this one document.
> 
> Of course this document is relevant. This is the process the Founding Fathers took in order to come to the final conclusion about what the Second Amendment means.
> 
> You don't have ANY evidence that "bear arms" means "carry arms" and you have this document among other documents and Supreme Court decisions that I haven't even presented yet that points to "bear arms" being the right of individuals to be in the militia.
> 
> And you, with your massive resume of stuff and you can't even discuss this.
> 
> It's a big WOW from me.
Click to expand...


you are being anal and stupid.  

what was the pre-existing natural right the founders sought to guarantee with the second amendment?


----------



## frigidweirdo

turtledude said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, am I being ignored now? Claiming all this stuff, and yet can't talk about one document?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOt relevant.
> 
> It doesn't have any impact on what I have said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is embarrassing right?
> 
> A guy who's boasting that he goes to LAW SCHOOLS to talk about the Second Amendment, and you can't even talk to ME about this one document.
> 
> Of course this document is relevant. This is the process the Founding Fathers took in order to come to the final conclusion about what the Second Amendment means.
> 
> You don't have ANY evidence that "bear arms" means "carry arms" and you have this document among other documents and Supreme Court decisions that I haven't even presented yet that points to "bear arms" being the right of individuals to be in the militia.
> 
> And you, with your massive resume of stuff and you can't even discuss this.
> 
> It's a big WOW from me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you are being anal and stupid.
> 
> what was the pre-existing natural right the founders sought to guarantee with the second amendment?
Click to expand...


No, I'm not being anal or stupid. I presented my case, I used the document to back myself up with. You haven't even spoken about it. You've done everything in your power to avoid talking about what I have said. Now you're on to words like "anal and stupid", when will the insults come? Like I said, it happens ever time. Why? Because it's not in your AGENDA to accept the FACTS.

You can say it's a "per-existing natural right", but the reality is it doesn't matter.

We're dealing with the SECOND AMENDMENT. We both know that this merely protects what is seen as the right. Whether it's a right or not is neither here nor there. We're dealing with the document that protects what people feel is the right.

Now, what rights does the 2A protect? 

Well, the founding fathers said that the "right to bear arms", the right they are protecting, is the right to be in the militia. This is what the SECOND AMENDMENT says. Right?


----------



## turtledude

frigidweirdo said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, am I being ignored now? Claiming all this stuff, and yet can't talk about one document?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOt relevant.
> 
> It doesn't have any impact on what I have said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is embarrassing right?
> 
> A guy who's boasting that he goes to LAW SCHOOLS to talk about the Second Amendment, and you can't even talk to ME about this one document.
> 
> Of course this document is relevant. This is the process the Founding Fathers took in order to come to the final conclusion about what the Second Amendment means.
> 
> You don't have ANY evidence that "bear arms" means "carry arms" and you have this document among other documents and Supreme Court decisions that I haven't even presented yet that points to "bear arms" being the right of individuals to be in the militia.
> 
> And you, with your massive resume of stuff and you can't even discuss this.
> 
> It's a big WOW from me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you are being anal and stupid.
> 
> what was the pre-existing natural right the founders sought to guarantee with the second amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm not being anal or stupid. I presented my case, I used the document to back myself up with. You haven't even spoken about it. You've done everything in your power to avoid talking about what I have said. Now you're on to words like "anal and stupid", when will the insults come? Like I said, it happens ever time. Why? Because it's not in your AGENDA to accept the FACTS.
> 
> You can say it's a "per-existing natural right", but the reality is it doesn't matter.
> 
> We're dealing with the SECOND AMENDMENT. We both know that this merely protects what is seen as the right. Whether it's a right or not is neither here nor there. We're dealing with the document that protects what people feel is the right.
> 
> Now, what rights does the 2A protect?
> 
> Well, the founding fathers said that the "right to bear arms", the right they are protecting, is the right to be in the militia. This is what the SECOND AMENDMENT says. Right?
Click to expand...


you're a moron.  you are too stupid to understand that a natural right that pre-exists government does not involve a "right" to serve the government


----------



## frigidweirdo

turtledude said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, am I being ignored now? Claiming all this stuff, and yet can't talk about one document?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOt relevant.
> 
> It doesn't have any impact on what I have said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is embarrassing right?
> 
> A guy who's boasting that he goes to LAW SCHOOLS to talk about the Second Amendment, and you can't even talk to ME about this one document.
> 
> Of course this document is relevant. This is the process the Founding Fathers took in order to come to the final conclusion about what the Second Amendment means.
> 
> You don't have ANY evidence that "bear arms" means "carry arms" and you have this document among other documents and Supreme Court decisions that I haven't even presented yet that points to "bear arms" being the right of individuals to be in the militia.
> 
> And you, with your massive resume of stuff and you can't even discuss this.
> 
> It's a big WOW from me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you are being anal and stupid.
> 
> what was the pre-existing natural right the founders sought to guarantee with the second amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm not being anal or stupid. I presented my case, I used the document to back myself up with. You haven't even spoken about it. You've done everything in your power to avoid talking about what I have said. Now you're on to words like "anal and stupid", when will the insults come? Like I said, it happens ever time. Why? Because it's not in your AGENDA to accept the FACTS.
> 
> You can say it's a "per-existing natural right", but the reality is it doesn't matter.
> 
> We're dealing with the SECOND AMENDMENT. We both know that this merely protects what is seen as the right. Whether it's a right or not is neither here nor there. We're dealing with the document that protects what people feel is the right.
> 
> Now, what rights does the 2A protect?
> 
> Well, the founding fathers said that the "right to bear arms", the right they are protecting, is the right to be in the militia. This is what the SECOND AMENDMENT says. Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you're a moron.  you are too stupid to understand that a natural right that pre-exists government does not involve a "right" to serve the government
Click to expand...


I predicted it, didn't I?

I said the insults would come.

How is it that I'm the moron? 

I ask you about a historical document and you can't respond.

There's no way on this planet that you're a lawyer, no way on this planet that you go to law schools and talk about the Second Amendment. 

Now go take your insults and FUCK OFF>


----------



## ChrisL

frigidweirdo said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> NOt relevant.
> 
> It doesn't have any impact on what I have said
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is embarrassing right?
> 
> A guy who's boasting that he goes to LAW SCHOOLS to talk about the Second Amendment, and you can't even talk to ME about this one document.
> 
> Of course this document is relevant. This is the process the Founding Fathers took in order to come to the final conclusion about what the Second Amendment means.
> 
> You don't have ANY evidence that "bear arms" means "carry arms" and you have this document among other documents and Supreme Court decisions that I haven't even presented yet that points to "bear arms" being the right of individuals to be in the militia.
> 
> And you, with your massive resume of stuff and you can't even discuss this.
> 
> It's a big WOW from me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you are being anal and stupid.
> 
> what was the pre-existing natural right the founders sought to guarantee with the second amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm not being anal or stupid. I presented my case, I used the document to back myself up with. You haven't even spoken about it. You've done everything in your power to avoid talking about what I have said. Now you're on to words like "anal and stupid", when will the insults come? Like I said, it happens ever time. Why? Because it's not in your AGENDA to accept the FACTS.
> 
> You can say it's a "per-existing natural right", but the reality is it doesn't matter.
> 
> We're dealing with the SECOND AMENDMENT. We both know that this merely protects what is seen as the right. Whether it's a right or not is neither here nor there. We're dealing with the document that protects what people feel is the right.
> 
> Now, what rights does the 2A protect?
> 
> Well, the founding fathers said that the "right to bear arms", the right they are protecting, is the right to be in the militia. This is what the SECOND AMENDMENT says. Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you're a moron.  you are too stupid to understand that a natural right that pre-exists government does not involve a "right" to serve the government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I predicted it, didn't I?
> 
> I said the insults would come.
> 
> How is it that I'm the moron?
> 
> I ask you about a historical document and you can't respond.
> 
> There's no way on this planet that you're a lawyer, no way on this planet that you go to law schools and talk about the Second Amendment.
> 
> Now go take your insults and FUCK OFF>
Click to expand...


^^^

Triggered.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> so what; I don't mind joining a militia, becoming well regulated, and asking for weapons qualification on bazookas or grenade launchers; a bazookanier or a grenadier.
> 
> 
> 
> Most of us don't mind either.  It will not happen because the left will demonize and ridicule anyone who does, by making them out to be crazy, anti-government separatists.
> 
> If you really are willing to allow us access to all weapons, as long as we are getting military training and adhere to proper regulatory precautions on the use and storage of our military-grade weapons, then you and I are on the same team.
> 
> I will ALWAYS support and advocate good training and proper safety practices.  You will find that 99.99% of gun owners and advocates are the same.
Click to expand...

Not the left wing; we don't need reductions to social services for alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror; we have a Second Amendment.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia; the People who are well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't give a rat fuck what is necessary for the security of a free state.  The people have the right.  Not the militia.  NOTHING about the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted to mean anything BUT the right belonging to the people.
> 
> If you believe otherwise, cite your source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just clueless and Causeless; I got it, right winger.
> 
> The People are the Militia.  What part of that do you not comprehend, yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're deliberately ignoring the SC. Any reason why you're being so obtuse?
Click to expand...

You don't know what you are talking about.  The supreme court said no such thing.  

The People are the Militia.  You are either, well regulated or you are not.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State, the unorganized militia and gun lovers, not so much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, fuck you, we have the right to own guns as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so what; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; defense of self and property is not covered by our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *so what; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed
> *
> You are incorrect. Again.
> 
> *when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union;
> *
> My right does not require state or union.
> *
> defense of self and property is not covered by our Second Amendment
> *
> You are incorrect. Again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope; it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary
> *
> The word "only" is not in that amendment, doofus.
Click to expand...

Limited and express powers, dears.  Only the right wing, never gets it.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *so what; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed
> *
> You are incorrect. Again.
> 
> *when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union;
> *
> My right does not require state or union.
> *
> defense of self and property is not covered by our Second Amendment
> *
> You are incorrect. Again.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope; it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not what the Supreme Court says, and their opinion overrules yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia; You are either, well regulated or you are not.
> 
> It really is that simple, except to the disingenuous, right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do know, don't you, that you're arguing against the SC and not me?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is arguing with several voices in his head.
Click to expand...

I used to be bipolar; the right wing is so full of fallacy, I had to argue with myself.  Now I have a "dual core" processor.  Thanks, right wingers.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> So, based on my analysis,  all federal and state gun laws are unconstitutional.  Federal laws are unconstitutional because they DIRECTLY violate the plain language of the 2nd Amendment.  States had the authority to infringe on the right, until the 14th Amendment made the 2nd Amendment also apply to the States.


The plain language states, well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State, and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


----------



## danielpalos

Papageorgio said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State, the unorganized militia and gun lovers, not so much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, fuck you, we have the right to own guns as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so what; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; defense of self and property is not covered by our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *so what; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed
> *
> You are incorrect. Again.
> 
> *when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union;
> *
> My right does not require state or union.
> *
> defense of self and property is not covered by our Second Amendment
> *
> You are incorrect. Again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope; it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where in the Second Amendment does it use the word "only"?
> 
> It says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Notice the comma after the word State? It means an independent clause or statement.
> 
> The Supreme Court has on many occasions has upheld the right of the people to keep and bear arms, because that is the correct reading of the 2nd Amendment.
Click to expand...

Express and Limited powers.  Only well regulated militia of the People are Necessary, and shall not be Infringed as a result.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> well regulated is specifically mentioned, not omitted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right is the people's, not the militia's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia; you are either, well regulated or you are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> well regulated is specifically mentioned, not omitted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right is the people's, not the militia's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia; you are either, well regulated or you are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, *the right of the people* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> The people have the right.
> In a militia, not in a militia, well regulated, unregulated, poorly regulated or overregulated, the people have the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> States have Commanders in Chief of the State militia; there are no well regulated "civilian" militias, Only unorganized militia of gun lovers of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what? It is a right of the people, not a right of the militia.
Click to expand...

It is the right of the People, who are well regulated militia.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what? It is a right of the people, not a right of the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> If I understand danielpalos correctly, he is saying that a person's right to keep and bear arms absolutely shall not be infringed, as long as:
> 1.  the person is actively participating in an organized local militia (other than the national guard),
> 2.  gets regular training, and
> 3.  follows safety rules on the use and storage of military-grade weapons.
> 
> then, I will concede, as long as membership in a local militia is not unreasonably restricted to anyone who applies.  (It can't work as a defacto infringement.)  Also, those not in a local militia should still have the right to keep and bear arms, but that right can be infringed for safety purposes (like banning full-autos ect).
> 
> I have yet to confirm if that is what dannyboy actually believes.
Click to expand...

nope; well regulated militia are authorized their own colors, standards, banners, and guidons; by our Government.


----------



## danielpalos

turtledude said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I understand danielpalos correctly, he is saying that a person's right to keep and bear arms absolutely shall not be infringed, as long as:
> 1.  the person is actively participating in an organized local militia (other than the national guard),
> 2.  gets regular training, and
> 3.  follows safety rules on the use and storage of military-grade weapons.
> 
> then, I will concede, as long as membership in a local militia is not unreasonably restricted to anyone who applies.  (It can't work as a defacto infringement.)  Also, those not in a local militia should still have the right to keep and bear arms, but that right can be infringed for safety purposes (like banning full-autos ect).
> 
> I have yet to confirm if that is what dannyboy actually believes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> militia duty is not  requirement.  Full autos that police are issued are covered as well and so is the general issue rifle that the infantry has.  DanielTrollus has no clue what he says-he doesn't understand his own claims
Click to expand...

lol.  TurtleTroll has nothing but repeal, like usual.

The People who are well regulated Militia, shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


----------



## danielpalos

turtledude said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
> 
> Modern debates about the Second Amendment have focused on whether it protects a private right of individuals to keep and bear arms, or a right that can be exercised only through militia organizations like the National Guard. This question, however, was not even raised until long after the Bill of Rights was adopted.
> 
> Many in the Founding generation believed that governments are prone to use soldiers to oppress the people. English history suggested that this risk could be controlled by permitting the government to raise armies (consisting of full-time paid troops) only when needed to fight foreign adversaries. For other purposes, such as responding to sudden invasions or other emergencies, the government could rely on a militia that consisted of ordinary civilians who supplied their own weapons and received some part-time, unpaid military training.
> 
> The onset of war does not always allow time to raise and train an army, and the Revolutionary War showed that militia forces could not be relied on for national defense. The Constitutional Convention therefore decided that the federal government should have almost unfettered authority to establish peacetime standing armies and to regulate the militia.
> 
> This massive shift of power from the states to the federal government generated one of the chief objections to the proposed Constitution. Anti-Federalists argued that the proposed Constitution would take from the states their principal means of defense against federal usurpation. The Federalists responded that fears of federal oppression were overblown, in part because the American people were armed and would be almost impossible to subdue through military force.
> 
> Implicit in the debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists were two shared assumptions. First, that the proposed new Constitution gave the federal government almost total legal authority over the army and militia. Second, that the federal government should not have any authority at all to disarm the citizenry. They disagreed only about whether an armed populace could adequately deter federal oppression.
> 
> The Second Amendment conceded nothing to the Anti-Federalists’ desire to sharply curtail the military power of the federal government, which would have required substantial changes in the original Constitution. *Yet the Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion.*
> 
> 
> 
> From your link:
> 
> ‘Notwithstanding the lengthy opinions in _Heller_ and _McDonald_, they technically ruled only that government may not ban the possession of handguns by civilians in their homes. Heller tentatively suggested a list of “presumptively lawful” regulations, including bans on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, bans on carrying firearms in “sensitive places” such as schools and government buildings, laws restricting the commercial sale of arms, bans on the concealed carry of firearms, and bans on weapons “not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.”’
> 
> The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.
> 
> The Amendment recognizes an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense.
> 
> It also reaffirms the fact that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited, that government has the authority to enact regulatory measures with regard to firearms, provided those measures comport with Second Amendment jurisprudence.
> 
> *The problem is that there are far too many on the right who harbor the ridiculous, wrongheaded notion that the Second Amendment is ‘absolute,’ opposing reasonable, appropriate, and Constitutional regulatory measures, and attempting to justify that opposition with inane lies and baseless slippery slope fallacies.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> since Article ONE, SECTION 8 has no delegation of any power to the federal government to impose "reasonable, appropriate measures, they cannot be constitutional
Click to expand...

Necessary and Proper, are the terms and conditions, used in our supreme law of the land.


----------



## danielpalos

2aguy said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...Americans who have no idea what Background checks mean.  If you poll those same people, most of them probably think we don't have any background checks.......
> 
> There is a valid reason to oppose universal background checks, the only way they can pretend to make them work is with universal gun registration......and that is the last step the anti gunners need to ban and confiscate guns when they get enough political power.
> 
> And no, criminals do not get their guns from private sales...they get them from stealing, or buy using people who can pass a background check and they buy them from gun stores, where they have to pass the current federal background check.....
> 
> That you continue to push these lies shows that you are a vile person....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bannerhoid pollsters ask questions like this
> 
> DO YOU SUPPORT UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS THAT KEEP FELONS FROM BUYING GUNS?
> 
> and people say yes because they are too stupid to understand that UBGCs don't do squat to keep felons from getting guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.....notice how they don't tell the person....in order to get UBCs you will have to register with the government ....
Click to expand...

If I were a gun lover, I would prefer a posse register so I could love my gun in public, and be available for law enforcement.  Regulators assemble!


----------



## danielpalos

turtledude said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, am I being ignored now? Claiming all this stuff, and yet can't talk about one document?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOt relevant.
> 
> It doesn't have any impact on what I have said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is embarrassing right?
> 
> A guy who's boasting that he goes to LAW SCHOOLS to talk about the Second Amendment, and you can't even talk to ME about this one document.
> 
> Of course this document is relevant. This is the process the Founding Fathers took in order to come to the final conclusion about what the Second Amendment means.
> 
> You don't have ANY evidence that "bear arms" means "carry arms" and you have this document among other documents and Supreme Court decisions that I haven't even presented yet that points to "bear arms" being the right of individuals to be in the militia.
> 
> And you, with your massive resume of stuff and you can't even discuss this.
> 
> It's a big WOW from me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you are being anal and stupid.
> 
> what was the pre-existing natural right the founders sought to guarantee with the second amendment?
Click to expand...

Only means something within State jurisdiction; our federal Constitution is not about natural rights; it is the Supreme Code Law of the land.


----------



## danielpalos

frigidweirdo said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, am I being ignored now? Claiming all this stuff, and yet can't talk about one document?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOt relevant.
> 
> It doesn't have any impact on what I have said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is embarrassing right?
> 
> A guy who's boasting that he goes to LAW SCHOOLS to talk about the Second Amendment, and you can't even talk to ME about this one document.
> 
> Of course this document is relevant. This is the process the Founding Fathers took in order to come to the final conclusion about what the Second Amendment means.
> 
> You don't have ANY evidence that "bear arms" means "carry arms" and you have this document among other documents and Supreme Court decisions that I haven't even presented yet that points to "bear arms" being the right of individuals to be in the militia.
> 
> And you, with your massive resume of stuff and you can't even discuss this.
> 
> It's a big WOW from me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you are being anal and stupid.
> 
> what was the pre-existing natural right the founders sought to guarantee with the second amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm not being anal or stupid. I presented my case, I used the document to back myself up with. You haven't even spoken about it. You've done everything in your power to avoid talking about what I have said. Now you're on to words like "anal and stupid", when will the insults come? Like I said, it happens ever time. Why? Because it's not in your AGENDA to accept the FACTS.
> 
> You can say it's a "per-existing natural right", but the reality is it doesn't matter.
> 
> We're dealing with the SECOND AMENDMENT. We both know that this merely protects what is seen as the right. Whether it's a right or not is neither here nor there. We're dealing with the document that protects what people feel is the right.
> 
> Now, what rights does the 2A protect?
> 
> Well, the founding fathers said that the "right to bear arms", the right they are protecting, is the right to be in the militia. This is what the SECOND AMENDMENT says. Right?
Click to expand...

It is current federal doctrine and practice, to not Infringe well regulated militia when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia; the People who are well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't give a rat fuck what is necessary for the security of a free state.  The people have the right.  Not the militia.  NOTHING about the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted to mean anything BUT the right belonging to the people.
> 
> If you believe otherwise, cite your source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just clueless and Causeless; I got it, right winger.
> 
> The People are the Militia.  What part of that do you not comprehend, yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're deliberately ignoring the SC. Any reason why you're being so obtuse?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about.  The supreme court said no such thing.
> 
> The People are the Militia.  You are either, well regulated or you are not.
Click to expand...


Yes they did. Look it up.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia; the People who are well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't give a rat fuck what is necessary for the security of a free state.  The people have the right.  Not the militia.  NOTHING about the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted to mean anything BUT the right belonging to the people.
> 
> If you believe otherwise, cite your source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just clueless and Causeless; I got it, right winger.
> 
> The People are the Militia.  What part of that do you not comprehend, yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're deliberately ignoring the SC. Any reason why you're being so obtuse?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about.  The supreme court said no such thing.
> 
> The People are the Militia.  You are either, well regulated or you are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they did. Look it up.
Click to expand...

Nope; The Supreme Court merely fixed a Precedent for ignoring the "prefatory clause or paragraph", for the "operative clause or paragraph".

I believe they Only get away with it, Because they are (senior) Elders.


----------



## turtledude

frigidweirdo said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> NOt relevant.
> 
> It doesn't have any impact on what I have said
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is embarrassing right?
> 
> A guy who's boasting that he goes to LAW SCHOOLS to talk about the Second Amendment, and you can't even talk to ME about this one document.
> 
> Of course this document is relevant. This is the process the Founding Fathers took in order to come to the final conclusion about what the Second Amendment means.
> 
> You don't have ANY evidence that "bear arms" means "carry arms" and you have this document among other documents and Supreme Court decisions that I haven't even presented yet that points to "bear arms" being the right of individuals to be in the militia.
> 
> And you, with your massive resume of stuff and you can't even discuss this.
> 
> It's a big WOW from me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you are being anal and stupid.
> 
> what was the pre-existing natural right the founders sought to guarantee with the second amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm not being anal or stupid. I presented my case, I used the document to back myself up with. You haven't even spoken about it. You've done everything in your power to avoid talking about what I have said. Now you're on to words like "anal and stupid", when will the insults come? Like I said, it happens ever time. Why? Because it's not in your AGENDA to accept the FACTS.
> 
> You can say it's a "per-existing natural right", but the reality is it doesn't matter.
> 
> We're dealing with the SECOND AMENDMENT. We both know that this merely protects what is seen as the right. Whether it's a right or not is neither here nor there. We're dealing with the document that protects what people feel is the right.
> 
> Now, what rights does the 2A protect?
> 
> Well, the founding fathers said that the "right to bear arms", the right they are protecting, is the right to be in the militia. This is what the SECOND AMENDMENT says. Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you're a moron.  you are too stupid to understand that a natural right that pre-exists government does not involve a "right" to serve the government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I predicted it, didn't I?
> 
> I said the insults would come.
> 
> How is it that I'm the moron?
> 
> I ask you about a historical document and you can't respond.
> 
> There's no way on this planet that you're a lawyer, no way on this planet that you go to law schools and talk about the Second Amendment.
> 
> Now go take your insults and FUCK OFF>
Click to expand...


you're another low grade moron who wants to prove to himself he is smart so you post some irrelevant nonsense and pretend its intelligent.  that document means nothing and the fact that you don't understand why, explains why you are so stupid


----------



## turtledude

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia; the People who are well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't give a rat fuck what is necessary for the security of a free state.  The people have the right.  Not the militia.  NOTHING about the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted to mean anything BUT the right belonging to the people.
> 
> If you believe otherwise, cite your source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just clueless and Causeless; I got it, right winger.
> 
> The People are the Militia.  What part of that do you not comprehend, yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're deliberately ignoring the SC. Any reason why you're being so obtuse?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about.  The supreme court said no such thing.
> 
> The People are the Militia.  You are either, well regulated or you are not.
Click to expand...

ah its DanielTrollus-the artificial intelligence program whose creator didn't quite get English down


----------



## turtledude

frigidweirdo said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, am I being ignored now? Claiming all this stuff, and yet can't talk about one document?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOt relevant.
> 
> It doesn't have any impact on what I have said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is embarrassing right?
> 
> A guy who's boasting that he goes to LAW SCHOOLS to talk about the Second Amendment, and you can't even talk to ME about this one document.
> 
> Of course this document is relevant. This is the process the Founding Fathers took in order to come to the final conclusion about what the Second Amendment means.
> 
> You don't have ANY evidence that "bear arms" means "carry arms" and you have this document among other documents and Supreme Court decisions that I haven't even presented yet that points to "bear arms" being the right of individuals to be in the militia.
> 
> And you, with your massive resume of stuff and you can't even discuss this.
> 
> It's a big WOW from me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you are being anal and stupid.
> 
> what was the pre-existing natural right the founders sought to guarantee with the second amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm not being anal or stupid. I presented my case, I used the document to back myself up with. You haven't even spoken about it. You've done everything in your power to avoid talking about what I have said. Now you're on to words like "anal and stupid", when will the insults come? Like I said, it happens ever time. Why? Because it's not in your AGENDA to accept the FACTS.
> 
> You can say it's a "per-existing natural right", but the reality is it doesn't matter.
> 
> We're dealing with the SECOND AMENDMENT. We both know that this merely protects what is seen as the right. Whether it's a right or not is neither here nor there. We're dealing with the document that protects what people feel is the right.
> 
> Now, what rights does the 2A protect?
> 
> Well, the founding fathers said that the "right to bear arms", the right they are protecting, is the right to be in the militia. This is what the SECOND AMENDMENT says. Right?
Click to expand...



there is no right to be in the Militia once congress grabbed complete control over that with the militia act.  the right is that free citizens can be armed free of federal interference  You're just another gun banning moron who wants to reinterpret the 2A to meet your stupid bannerrhoid schemes


----------



## turtledude

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, fuck you, we have the right to own guns as well.
> 
> 
> 
> so what; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; defense of self and property is not covered by our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *so what; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed
> *
> You are incorrect. Again.
> 
> *when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union;
> *
> My right does not require state or union.
> *
> defense of self and property is not covered by our Second Amendment
> *
> You are incorrect. Again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope; it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary
> *
> The word "only" is not in that amendment, doofus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Limited and express powers, dears.  Only the right wing, never gets it.
Click to expand...


you're a fraud, a troll and a liar DanielTrollus.  You admitted many times on many forums you haven't any legal training.  It shows.  Stick to talking about soap operas, or something that you might know about


----------



## turtledude

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope; it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what the Supreme Court says, and their opinion overrules yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia; You are either, well regulated or you are not.
> 
> It really is that simple, except to the disingenuous, right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do know, don't you, that you're arguing against the SC and not me?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is arguing with several voices in his head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I used to be bipolar; the right wing is so full of fallacy, I had to argue with myself.  Now I have a "dual core" processor.  Thanks, right wingers.
Click to expand...


I told people you were an AI Program!!


----------



## danielpalos

turtledude said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia; the People who are well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't give a rat fuck what is necessary for the security of a free state.  The people have the right.  Not the militia.  NOTHING about the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted to mean anything BUT the right belonging to the people.
> 
> If you believe otherwise, cite your source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just clueless and Causeless; I got it, right winger.
> 
> The People are the Militia.  What part of that do you not comprehend, yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're deliberately ignoring the SC. Any reason why you're being so obtuse?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about.  The supreme court said no such thing.
> 
> The People are the Militia.  You are either, well regulated or you are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ah its DanielTrollus-the artificial intelligence program whose creator didn't quite get English down
Click to expand...

Nothing but continuance, diversion, and other forms of fallacies from the right wing.


----------



## danielpalos

turtledude said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, am I being ignored now? Claiming all this stuff, and yet can't talk about one document?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOt relevant.
> 
> It doesn't have any impact on what I have said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is embarrassing right?
> 
> A guy who's boasting that he goes to LAW SCHOOLS to talk about the Second Amendment, and you can't even talk to ME about this one document.
> 
> Of course this document is relevant. This is the process the Founding Fathers took in order to come to the final conclusion about what the Second Amendment means.
> 
> You don't have ANY evidence that "bear arms" means "carry arms" and you have this document among other documents and Supreme Court decisions that I haven't even presented yet that points to "bear arms" being the right of individuals to be in the militia.
> 
> And you, with your massive resume of stuff and you can't even discuss this.
> 
> It's a big WOW from me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you are being anal and stupid.
> 
> what was the pre-existing natural right the founders sought to guarantee with the second amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm not being anal or stupid. I presented my case, I used the document to back myself up with. You haven't even spoken about it. You've done everything in your power to avoid talking about what I have said. Now you're on to words like "anal and stupid", when will the insults come? Like I said, it happens ever time. Why? Because it's not in your AGENDA to accept the FACTS.
> 
> You can say it's a "per-existing natural right", but the reality is it doesn't matter.
> 
> We're dealing with the SECOND AMENDMENT. We both know that this merely protects what is seen as the right. Whether it's a right or not is neither here nor there. We're dealing with the document that protects what people feel is the right.
> 
> Now, what rights does the 2A protect?
> 
> Well, the founding fathers said that the "right to bear arms", the right they are protecting, is the right to be in the militia. This is what the SECOND AMENDMENT says. Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> there is no right to be in the Militia once congress grabbed complete control over that with the militia act.  the right is that free citizens can be armed free of federal interference  You're just another gun banning moron who wants to reinterpret the 2A to meet your stupid bannerrhoid schemes
Click to expand...

You have to be banned from the militia.  It is a "natural right you are born with"; to Be, the Militia of your State or the Union.


----------



## danielpalos

turtledude said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> so what; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; defense of self and property is not covered by our Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *so what; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed
> *
> You are incorrect. Again.
> 
> *when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union;
> *
> My right does not require state or union.
> *
> defense of self and property is not covered by our Second Amendment
> *
> You are incorrect. Again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope; it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary
> *
> The word "only" is not in that amendment, doofus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Limited and express powers, dears.  Only the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you're a fraud, a troll and a liar DanielTrollus.  You admitted many times on many forums you haven't any legal training.  It shows.  Stick to talking about soap operas, or something that you might know about
Click to expand...

too bad You are on the right wing, and this is not, one of your, twice a day moments.

Limited and express powers, dears. Only the right wing, never gets it.


----------



## danielpalos

turtledude said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what the Supreme Court says, and their opinion overrules yours.
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia; You are either, well regulated or you are not.
> 
> It really is that simple, except to the disingenuous, right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do know, don't you, that you're arguing against the SC and not me?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is arguing with several voices in his head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I used to be bipolar; the right wing is so full of fallacy, I had to argue with myself.  Now I have a "dual core" processor.  Thanks, right wingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told people you were an AI Program!!
Click to expand...

Yes, you have.  Nothing but diversions instead of valid argument; it really is all the right wing has.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't give a rat fuck what is necessary for the security of a free state.  The people have the right.  Not the militia.  NOTHING about the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted to mean anything BUT the right belonging to the people.
> 
> If you believe otherwise, cite your source.
> 
> 
> 
> Just clueless and Causeless; I got it, right winger.
> 
> The People are the Militia.  What part of that do you not comprehend, yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're deliberately ignoring the SC. Any reason why you're being so obtuse?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about.  The supreme court said no such thing.
> 
> The People are the Militia.  You are either, well regulated or you are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they did. Look it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope; The Supreme Court merely fixed a Precedent for ignoring the "prefatory clause or paragraph", for the "operative clause or paragraph".
> 
> I believe they Only get away with it, Because they are (senior) Elders.
Click to expand...

So, they disagree with you and you hold your opinion to be superior to theirs.

IOW, you're wrong, you know you're wrong, but you're doubling down on being wrong.


----------



## hadit

turtledude said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what the Supreme Court says, and their opinion overrules yours.
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia; You are either, well regulated or you are not.
> 
> It really is that simple, except to the disingenuous, right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do know, don't you, that you're arguing against the SC and not me?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is arguing with several voices in his head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I used to be bipolar; the right wing is so full of fallacy, I had to argue with myself.  Now I have a "dual core" processor.  Thanks, right wingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told people you were an AI Program!!
Click to expand...

Watch the incoherence increase to a state of virtual chaos when he paints himself into a corner.  Then he stops, goes away for a few weeks, and comes back, pretending that nothing happened.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia; You are either, well regulated or you are not.
> 
> It really is that simple, except to the disingenuous, right wing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do know, don't you, that you're arguing against the SC and not me?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is arguing with several voices in his head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I used to be bipolar; the right wing is so full of fallacy, I had to argue with myself.  Now I have a "dual core" processor.  Thanks, right wingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told people you were an AI Program!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Watch the incoherence increase to a state of virtual chaos when he paints himself into a corner.  Then he stops, goes away for a few weeks, and comes back, pretending that nothing happened.
Click to expand...

Nope; The Supreme Court merely fixed a Precedent for ignoring the "prefatory clause or paragraph", for the "operative clause or paragraph".

Paragraph (2) Only applies to the unorganized militia when they are considered, "civilians" unconnected with militia service, well regulated.



> (2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.



Well regulated Militia of the People of a State or the Union, enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment.


----------



## Cellblock2429

sakinago said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are making assumptions about why the militia was necessary to the free state. That reason being, as stated by our founders many different times and many different ways, was that a free state does not exist when government has a monopoly of force. This is why the militia was necessary, a paramilitary force, made up of civilians, lead by civilians. In case some government force either tries some sort of coup against the government, or government itself using the military to control, subdue, or roll over on the civilian population. The constitution/BOR has no real power, except for the second amendment where We The People are all armed, and able to defend ourselves and our rights from whatever person or persons that wish to take them away, especially including. Government is not going to make widely unpopular tyrannical laws if it can’t control the population that’s armed.
> 
> An armed population is also a deterrent against invading forces, since one army could defeat another army on any given battlefield...but then you’d have to try deal with an entire population that’s also armed, which is just a logistical, and tactical nightmare. E.G. france pretty much started prepping for WW2 almost right after WW1, and it turned out to be wise to do so (problem was they prepped for another WW1, and warfare had drastically changed), but they still had very stout defenses along their boarder near Germany. The Nazis however went around the line, and the French/British weren’t prepared for blitzkrieg, and the Nazis quickly took France out of the fight by taking Paris very quickly. And that was it for the mighty nation of Frances in WW2, the army lost so the country and citizens lost as well. But there’s a smaller neighbor in Switzerland that Germany never attempted to touch despite having a weaker military, no allies, and A LOT to loot to fund the war effort. Why because the Swiss are all heavily armed as well as trained. Afghanistan guerrilla warfare doesn’t hold a candle to what the Swiss could do to an invading force. The Nazis invaded every single other neighbor that wasn’t cooperating, and looted the bejeezus out of them...but they didn’t touch the Swiss, and it wasn’t because the swiss are neutral and hitler respected that.
> 
> There is also the issue of natural rights (like most of the BOR is based off of) including the right to self defense, which is natural. You do not have to be a victim, it’s not natural to be a victim. It’s natural for you to have free will, to have your own thoughts and express those thoughts, to have your own privacy and property, and also to defend yourself, with lethal force if need be. I don’t know who would argue with that. This is America we do not judge YOU based on what somebody else did with something they own (I.e. gun, car, knife, computer, whatever). You are not assumed to be a killer just because you own something that can kill, and this includes guns. As long as you don’t use it in a bad way, you have every right to defend yourself with a gun no matter what the attacker is carrying (usually without having to fire a shot). The attacked could be friggen Lebron James with a bat, even if you had a bat as well, your not gonna win that one. With a gun, a midget could win that match (probably without having to fire a shot).
> 
> All these reasons make the second amendment a no brainer. Just because you don’t foresee our government going rogue, just means you are very short sighted with short term memory, even to the present day world around you. We just saw an attempted coup a year ago in a 1st world, modern NATO ally. 35 years ago the Soviet’s were rolling into countries that couldn’t do squat about it because the citizens weren’t armed. Cubans are still screwed and can’t do anything against the military aristocracy, and our southern neighbors are also screwed living in a democracy with loads of gun control, but can’t do anything against their corrupt government and their country is more dangerous than the war zone afghanistan. Yet in the US gun sales, gun ownership, and ccws have skyrocketed, since the 90s, yet gun crime has dropped 50% in the same time period...and people are still claiming guns are the problem?
Click to expand...

/----/ What amazes me about the Gun Grabbers is their willingness to use a microscope and original intent to justify their view of the 2nd Amendment, yet when it comes to the Constitutionality of abortion rights they dismiss it with an "Oh that's covered by the Good and Plenty Clause of the Constitution. No further discussion is necessary."


----------



## danielpalos

Cellblock2429 said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are making assumptions about why the militia was necessary to the free state. That reason being, as stated by our founders many different times and many different ways, was that a free state does not exist when government has a monopoly of force. This is why the militia was necessary, a paramilitary force, made up of civilians, lead by civilians. In case some government force either tries some sort of coup against the government, or government itself using the military to control, subdue, or roll over on the civilian population. The constitution/BOR has no real power, except for the second amendment where We The People are all armed, and able to defend ourselves and our rights from whatever person or persons that wish to take them away, especially including. Government is not going to make widely unpopular tyrannical laws if it can’t control the population that’s armed.
> 
> An armed population is also a deterrent against invading forces, since one army could defeat another army on any given battlefield...but then you’d have to try deal with an entire population that’s also armed, which is just a logistical, and tactical nightmare. E.G. france pretty much started prepping for WW2 almost right after WW1, and it turned out to be wise to do so (problem was they prepped for another WW1, and warfare had drastically changed), but they still had very stout defenses along their boarder near Germany. The Nazis however went around the line, and the French/British weren’t prepared for blitzkrieg, and the Nazis quickly took France out of the fight by taking Paris very quickly. And that was it for the mighty nation of Frances in WW2, the army lost so the country and citizens lost as well. But there’s a smaller neighbor in Switzerland that Germany never attempted to touch despite having a weaker military, no allies, and A LOT to loot to fund the war effort. Why because the Swiss are all heavily armed as well as trained. Afghanistan guerrilla warfare doesn’t hold a candle to what the Swiss could do to an invading force. The Nazis invaded every single other neighbor that wasn’t cooperating, and looted the bejeezus out of them...but they didn’t touch the Swiss, and it wasn’t because the swiss are neutral and hitler respected that.
> 
> There is also the issue of natural rights (like most of the BOR is based off of) including the right to self defense, which is natural. You do not have to be a victim, it’s not natural to be a victim. It’s natural for you to have free will, to have your own thoughts and express those thoughts, to have your own privacy and property, and also to defend yourself, with lethal force if need be. I don’t know who would argue with that. This is America we do not judge YOU based on what somebody else did with something they own (I.e. gun, car, knife, computer, whatever). You are not assumed to be a killer just because you own something that can kill, and this includes guns. As long as you don’t use it in a bad way, you have every right to defend yourself with a gun no matter what the attacker is carrying (usually without having to fire a shot). The attacked could be friggen Lebron James with a bat, even if you had a bat as well, your not gonna win that one. With a gun, a midget could win that match (probably without having to fire a shot).
> 
> All these reasons make the second amendment a no brainer. Just because you don’t foresee our government going rogue, just means you are very short sighted with short term memory, even to the present day world around you. We just saw an attempted coup a year ago in a 1st world, modern NATO ally. 35 years ago the Soviet’s were rolling into countries that couldn’t do squat about it because the citizens weren’t armed. Cubans are still screwed and can’t do anything against the military aristocracy, and our southern neighbors are also screwed living in a democracy with loads of gun control, but can’t do anything against their corrupt government and their country is more dangerous than the war zone afghanistan. Yet in the US gun sales, gun ownership, and ccws have skyrocketed, since the 90s, yet gun crime has dropped 50% in the same time period...and people are still claiming guns are the problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ What amazes me about the Gun Grabbers is their willingness to use a microscope and original intent to justify their view of the 2nd Amendment, yet when it comes to the Constitutionality of abortion rights they dismiss it with an "Oh that's covered by the Good and Plenty Clause of the Constitution. No further discussion is necessary."
Click to expand...

then, dears, get some social morals for free and stop whining about taxes.


----------



## Cellblock2429

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia; the People who are well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't give a rat fuck what is necessary for the security of a free state.  The people have the right.  Not the militia.  NOTHING about the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted to mean anything BUT the right belonging to the people.
> 
> If you believe otherwise, cite your source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just clueless and Causeless; I got it, right winger.
> 
> The People are the Militia.  What part of that do you not comprehend, yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're deliberately ignoring the SC. Any reason why you're being so obtuse?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about.  The supreme court said no such thing.
> 
> The People are the Militia.  You are either, well regulated or you are not.
Click to expand...

/----/ It's settled science -- err I mean settled law:
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held, in a 5–4 decision, that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. Due to Washington, D.C.'s special status as a federal district, the decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment's protections are incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states,[1] which was addressed two years later by McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) in which it was found that they are. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.[2]

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia.[3][4] The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the Regulations Act was an unconstitutional ban, and struck down the portion of the Regulations Act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock". Prior to this decision the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 also restricted residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975.


----------



## danielpalos

Cellblock2429 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia; the People who are well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't give a rat fuck what is necessary for the security of a free state.  The people have the right.  Not the militia.  NOTHING about the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted to mean anything BUT the right belonging to the people.
> 
> If you believe otherwise, cite your source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just clueless and Causeless; I got it, right winger.
> 
> The People are the Militia.  What part of that do you not comprehend, yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're deliberately ignoring the SC. Any reason why you're being so obtuse?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about.  The supreme court said no such thing.
> 
> The People are the Militia.  You are either, well regulated or you are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ It's settled science -- err I mean settled law:
> District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held, in a 5–4 decision, that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. Due to Washington, D.C.'s special status as a federal district, the decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment's protections are incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states,[1] which was addressed two years later by McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) in which it was found that they are. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.[2]
> 
> On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia.[3][4] The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the Regulations Act was an unconstitutional ban, and struck down the portion of the Regulations Act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock". Prior to this decision the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 also restricted residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975.
Click to expand...

That can Only happen in a vacuum of special pleading.  Our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process; it is a part of the Doctrine of Separation of Powers.

The subject of Arms for the Militia is enumerated, Socialized, for the Militia of the United States:



> To provide for organizing, _arming_, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;



Well regulated Militias of the United States get their wellness of regulation prescribed by our federal Congress.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't give a rat fuck what is necessary for the security of a free state.  The people have the right.  Not the militia.  NOTHING about the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted to mean anything BUT the right belonging to the people.
> 
> If you believe otherwise, cite your source.
> 
> 
> 
> Just clueless and Causeless; I got it, right winger.
> 
> The People are the Militia.  What part of that do you not comprehend, yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're deliberately ignoring the SC. Any reason why you're being so obtuse?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about.  The supreme court said no such thing.
> 
> The People are the Militia.  You are either, well regulated or you are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ It's settled science -- err I mean settled law:
> District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held, in a 5–4 decision, that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. Due to Washington, D.C.'s special status as a federal district, the decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment's protections are incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states,[1] which was addressed two years later by McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) in which it was found that they are. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.[2]
> 
> On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia.[3][4] The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the Regulations Act was an unconstitutional ban, and struck down the portion of the Regulations Act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock". Prior to this decision the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 also restricted residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That can Only happen in a vacuum of special pleading.  Our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.
> 
> Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process; it is a part of the Doctrine of Separation of Powers.
> 
> The subject of Arms for the Militia is enumerated, Socialized, for the Militia of the United States:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To provide for organizing, _arming_, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well regulated Militias of the United States get their wellness of regulation prescribed by our federal Congress.
Click to expand...


And the incoherence rises, soon to be followed by diversion and a sudden departure.


----------



## Papageorgio

danielpalos said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, fuck you, we have the right to own guns as well.
> 
> 
> 
> so what; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; defense of self and property is not covered by our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *so what; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed
> *
> You are incorrect. Again.
> 
> *when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union;
> *
> My right does not require state or union.
> *
> defense of self and property is not covered by our Second Amendment
> *
> You are incorrect. Again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope; it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where in the Second Amendment does it use the word "only"?
> 
> It says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Notice the comma after the word State? It means an independent clause or statement.
> 
> The Supreme Court has on many occasions has upheld the right of the people to keep and bear arms, because that is the correct reading of the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Express and Limited powers.  Only well regulated militia of the People are Necessary, and shall not be Infringed as a result.
Click to expand...


The comma in the statement says you are misinterpreting the Constitution, do you have anything other than your same old canned responses that have been proven through the Supreme Court as being wrong?


----------



## boedicca

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do know, don't you, that you're arguing against the SC and not me?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is arguing with several voices in his head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I used to be bipolar; the right wing is so full of fallacy, I had to argue with myself.  Now I have a "dual core" processor.  Thanks, right wingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told people you were an AI Program!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Watch the incoherence increase to a state of virtual chaos when he paints himself into a corner.  Then he stops, goes away for a few weeks, and comes back, pretending that nothing happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope; The Supreme Court merely fixed a Precedent for ignoring the "prefatory clause or paragraph", for the "operative clause or paragraph".
> 
> Paragraph (2) Only applies to the unorganized militia when they are considered, "civilians" unconnected with militia service, well regulated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well regulated Militia of the People of a State or the Union, enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment.
Click to expand...



That is not a proper interpretation.  The Bill of Rights enumerates individual, not collective rights.  It is not necessary to be part of a militia to own a gun.    But congrats on googling up something that fits your POV.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, fuck you, we have the right to own guns as well.
> 
> 
> 
> so what; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; defense of self and property is not covered by our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *so what; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed
> *
> You are incorrect. Again.
> 
> *when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union;
> *
> My right does not require state or union.
> *
> defense of self and property is not covered by our Second Amendment
> *
> You are incorrect. Again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope; it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary
> *
> The word "only" is not in that amendment, doofus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Limited and express powers, dears.  Only the right wing, never gets it.
Click to expand...


Exactly. Glad you sobered up enough to admit you were wrong.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right is the people's, not the militia's.
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia; you are either, well regulated or you are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right is the people's, not the militia's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia; you are either, well regulated or you are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, *the right of the people* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> The people have the right.
> In a militia, not in a militia, well regulated, unregulated, poorly regulated or overregulated, the people have the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> States have Commanders in Chief of the State militia; there are no well regulated "civilian" militias, Only unorganized militia of gun lovers of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what? It is a right of the people, not a right of the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is the right of the People, who are well regulated militia.
Click to expand...

*
It is the right of the People
*
Exactly! Are you in rehab?


----------



## turtledude

Cellblock2429 said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are making assumptions about why the militia was necessary to the free state. That reason being, as stated by our founders many different times and many different ways, was that a free state does not exist when government has a monopoly of force. This is why the militia was necessary, a paramilitary force, made up of civilians, lead by civilians. In case some government force either tries some sort of coup against the government, or government itself using the military to control, subdue, or roll over on the civilian population. The constitution/BOR has no real power, except for the second amendment where We The People are all armed, and able to defend ourselves and our rights from whatever person or persons that wish to take them away, especially including. Government is not going to make widely unpopular tyrannical laws if it can’t control the population that’s armed.
> 
> An armed population is also a deterrent against invading forces, since one army could defeat another army on any given battlefield...but then you’d have to try deal with an entire population that’s also armed, which is just a logistical, and tactical nightmare. E.G. france pretty much started prepping for WW2 almost right after WW1, and it turned out to be wise to do so (problem was they prepped for another WW1, and warfare had drastically changed), but they still had very stout defenses along their boarder near Germany. The Nazis however went around the line, and the French/British weren’t prepared for blitzkrieg, and the Nazis quickly took France out of the fight by taking Paris very quickly. And that was it for the mighty nation of Frances in WW2, the army lost so the country and citizens lost as well. But there’s a smaller neighbor in Switzerland that Germany never attempted to touch despite having a weaker military, no allies, and A LOT to loot to fund the war effort. Why because the Swiss are all heavily armed as well as trained. Afghanistan guerrilla warfare doesn’t hold a candle to what the Swiss could do to an invading force. The Nazis invaded every single other neighbor that wasn’t cooperating, and looted the bejeezus out of them...but they didn’t touch the Swiss, and it wasn’t because the swiss are neutral and hitler respected that.
> 
> There is also the issue of natural rights (like most of the BOR is based off of) including the right to self defense, which is natural. You do not have to be a victim, it’s not natural to be a victim. It’s natural for you to have free will, to have your own thoughts and express those thoughts, to have your own privacy and property, and also to defend yourself, with lethal force if need be. I don’t know who would argue with that. This is America we do not judge YOU based on what somebody else did with something they own (I.e. gun, car, knife, computer, whatever). You are not assumed to be a killer just because you own something that can kill, and this includes guns. As long as you don’t use it in a bad way, you have every right to defend yourself with a gun no matter what the attacker is carrying (usually without having to fire a shot). The attacked could be friggen Lebron James with a bat, even if you had a bat as well, your not gonna win that one. With a gun, a midget could win that match (probably without having to fire a shot).
> 
> All these reasons make the second amendment a no brainer. Just because you don’t foresee our government going rogue, just means you are very short sighted with short term memory, even to the present day world around you. We just saw an attempted coup a year ago in a 1st world, modern NATO ally. 35 years ago the Soviet’s were rolling into countries that couldn’t do squat about it because the citizens weren’t armed. Cubans are still screwed and can’t do anything against the military aristocracy, and our southern neighbors are also screwed living in a democracy with loads of gun control, but can’t do anything against their corrupt government and their country is more dangerous than the war zone afghanistan. Yet in the US gun sales, gun ownership, and ccws have skyrocketed, since the 90s, yet gun crime has dropped 50% in the same time period...and people are still claiming guns are the problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ What amazes me about the Gun Grabbers is their willingness to use a microscope and original intent to justify their view of the 2nd Amendment, yet when it comes to the Constitutionality of abortion rights they dismiss it with an "Oh that's covered by the Good and Plenty Clause of the Constitution. No further discussion is necessary."
Click to expand...



worse yet, buying into the commerce clause contortion FDR and his pet monkeys in black robes engaged in


----------



## Papageorgio

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia; you are either, well regulated or you are not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia; you are either, well regulated or you are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, *the right of the people* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> The people have the right.
> In a militia, not in a militia, well regulated, unregulated, poorly regulated or overregulated, the people have the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> States have Commanders in Chief of the State militia; there are no well regulated "civilian" militias, Only unorganized militia of gun lovers of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what? It is a right of the people, not a right of the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is the right of the People, who are well regulated militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> It is the right of the People
> *
> Exactly! Are you in rehab?
Click to expand...


It’s obvious he has no idea what he is talking about, all he has are talking points that have failed over and over. His education seems to be limited to whatever the DNC tells him to believe.


----------



## sakinago

danielpalos said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are making assumptions about why the militia was necessary to the free state. That reason being, as stated by our founders many different times and many different ways, was that a free state does not exist when government has a monopoly of force. This is why the militia was necessary, a paramilitary force, made up of civilians, lead by civilians. In case some government force either tries some sort of coup against the government, or government itself using the military to control, subdue, or roll over on the civilian population. The constitution/BOR has no real power, except for the second amendment where We The People are all armed, and able to defend ourselves and our rights from whatever person or persons that wish to take them away, especially including. Government is not going to make widely unpopular tyrannical laws if it can’t control the population that’s armed.
> 
> An armed population is also a deterrent against invading forces, since one army could defeat another army on any given battlefield...but then you’d have to try deal with an entire population that’s also armed, which is just a logistical, and tactical nightmare. E.G. france pretty much started prepping for WW2 almost right after WW1, and it turned out to be wise to do so (problem was they prepped for another WW1, and warfare had drastically changed), but they still had very stout defenses along their boarder near Germany. The Nazis however went around the line, and the French/British weren’t prepared for blitzkrieg, and the Nazis quickly took France out of the fight by taking Paris very quickly. And that was it for the mighty nation of Frances in WW2, the army lost so the country and citizens lost as well. But there’s a smaller neighbor in Switzerland that Germany never attempted to touch despite having a weaker military, no allies, and A LOT to loot to fund the war effort. Why because the Swiss are all heavily armed as well as trained. Afghanistan guerrilla warfare doesn’t hold a candle to what the Swiss could do to an invading force. The Nazis invaded every single other neighbor that wasn’t cooperating, and looted the bejeezus out of them...but they didn’t touch the Swiss, and it wasn’t because the swiss are neutral and hitler respected that.
> 
> There is also the issue of natural rights (like most of the BOR is based off of) including the right to self defense, which is natural. You do not have to be a victim, it’s not natural to be a victim. It’s natural for you to have free will, to have your own thoughts and express those thoughts, to have your own privacy and property, and also to defend yourself, with lethal force if need be. I don’t know who would argue with that. This is America we do not judge YOU based on what somebody else did with something they own (I.e. gun, car, knife, computer, whatever). You are not assumed to be a killer just because you own something that can kill, and this includes guns. As long as you don’t use it in a bad way, you have every right to defend yourself with a gun no matter what the attacker is carrying (usually without having to fire a shot). The attacked could be friggen Lebron James with a bat, even if you had a bat as well, your not gonna win that one. With a gun, a midget could win that match (probably without having to fire a shot).
> 
> All these reasons make the second amendment a no brainer. Just because you don’t foresee our government going rogue, just means you are very short sighted with short term memory, even to the present day world around you. We just saw an attempted coup a year ago in a 1st world, modern NATO ally. 35 years ago the Soviet’s were rolling into countries that couldn’t do squat about it because the citizens weren’t armed. Cubans are still screwed and can’t do anything against the military aristocracy, and our southern neighbors are also screwed living in a democracy with loads of gun control, but can’t do anything against their corrupt government and their country is more dangerous than the war zone afghanistan. Yet in the US gun sales, gun ownership, and ccws have skyrocketed, since the 90s, yet gun crime has dropped 50% in the same time period...and people are still claiming guns are the problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ What amazes me about the Gun Grabbers is their willingness to use a microscope and original intent to justify their view of the 2nd Amendment, yet when it comes to the Constitutionality of abortion rights they dismiss it with an "Oh that's covered by the Good and Plenty Clause of the Constitution. No further discussion is necessary."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> then, dears, get some social morals for free and stop whining about taxes.
Click to expand...

Wow talk about the moby dick of red herrings


----------



## hadit

Papageorgio said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, *the right of the people* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> The people have the right.
> In a militia, not in a militia, well regulated, unregulated, poorly regulated or overregulated, the people have the right.
> 
> 
> 
> States have Commanders in Chief of the State militia; there are no well regulated "civilian" militias, Only unorganized militia of gun lovers of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what? It is a right of the people, not a right of the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is the right of the People, who are well regulated militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> It is the right of the People
> *
> Exactly! Are you in rehab?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It’s obvious he has no idea what he is talking about, all he has are talking points that have failed over and over. His education seems to be limited to whatever the DNC tells him to believe.
Click to expand...


And the more obvious that becomes, the less coherent his posts become. I get the image of a robot spluttering and showing sparks everywhere when it's presented with incontrovertable eminence that its programming is wrong.


----------



## sakinago

hadit said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> States have Commanders in Chief of the State militia; there are no well regulated "civilian" militias, Only unorganized militia of gun lovers of the People.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what? It is a right of the people, not a right of the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is the right of the People, who are well regulated militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> It is the right of the People
> *
> Exactly! Are you in rehab?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It’s obvious he has no idea what he is talking about, all he has are talking points that have failed over and over. His education seems to be limited to whatever the DNC tells him to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the more obvious that becomes, the less coherent his posts become. I get the image of a robot spluttering and showing sparks everywhere when it's presented with incontrovertable eminence that its programming is wrong.
Click to expand...

It really does, it’s like the more facts you throw his way, the more he wants to use big words, but he doesn’t have the vocabulary for, so he just goes for lofty abstract generalizations that he doesn’t even comprehend...just as long as he can string together a few medium sized words referencing a concept that’s distracts from the original point. It’s an utterly stupid tactic, unless you feel like the people you are debating know less than you, but he should know at this point they don’t...but you got to keep stroking that ego even when you’re wrong.


----------



## frigidweirdo

turtledude said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is embarrassing right?
> 
> A guy who's boasting that he goes to LAW SCHOOLS to talk about the Second Amendment, and you can't even talk to ME about this one document.
> 
> Of course this document is relevant. This is the process the Founding Fathers took in order to come to the final conclusion about what the Second Amendment means.
> 
> You don't have ANY evidence that "bear arms" means "carry arms" and you have this document among other documents and Supreme Court decisions that I haven't even presented yet that points to "bear arms" being the right of individuals to be in the militia.
> 
> And you, with your massive resume of stuff and you can't even discuss this.
> 
> It's a big WOW from me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you are being anal and stupid.
> 
> what was the pre-existing natural right the founders sought to guarantee with the second amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm not being anal or stupid. I presented my case, I used the document to back myself up with. You haven't even spoken about it. You've done everything in your power to avoid talking about what I have said. Now you're on to words like "anal and stupid", when will the insults come? Like I said, it happens ever time. Why? Because it's not in your AGENDA to accept the FACTS.
> 
> You can say it's a "per-existing natural right", but the reality is it doesn't matter.
> 
> We're dealing with the SECOND AMENDMENT. We both know that this merely protects what is seen as the right. Whether it's a right or not is neither here nor there. We're dealing with the document that protects what people feel is the right.
> 
> Now, what rights does the 2A protect?
> 
> Well, the founding fathers said that the "right to bear arms", the right they are protecting, is the right to be in the militia. This is what the SECOND AMENDMENT says. Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you're a moron.  you are too stupid to understand that a natural right that pre-exists government does not involve a "right" to serve the government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I predicted it, didn't I?
> 
> I said the insults would come.
> 
> How is it that I'm the moron?
> 
> I ask you about a historical document and you can't respond.
> 
> There's no way on this planet that you're a lawyer, no way on this planet that you go to law schools and talk about the Second Amendment.
> 
> Now go take your insults and FUCK OFF>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you're another low grade moron who wants to prove to himself he is smart so you post some irrelevant nonsense and pretend its intelligent.  that document means nothing and the fact that you don't understand why, explains why you are so stupid
Click to expand...


Oh please. 

I've set out my case. You can't argue it.

You're the one insulting, not me. 

Irrelevant nonsense? What the Founding Father said concerning the term "bear arms" is irrelevant? 

No, it's not irrelevant, in fact it's extremely irrelevant, however it doesn't fit your agenda. 

Seriously dude, you've made up this bullshit about being a lawyer, come off it. 

You didn't try and argue you case. I mean, would a lawyer go into court and be like "no your honor, the defense lawyer's a moron"

YOU HAVE NOTHING. No argument. I said you'd pull the insults out of your ass, and you're pulling the insults out of your ass. 

If the definition of "moron" to you is someone who has an argument, then fine. But really, you're not a lawyer and you probably only go to law school to serve them food.


----------



## frigidweirdo

turtledude said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, am I being ignored now? Claiming all this stuff, and yet can't talk about one document?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOt relevant.
> 
> It doesn't have any impact on what I have said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is embarrassing right?
> 
> A guy who's boasting that he goes to LAW SCHOOLS to talk about the Second Amendment, and you can't even talk to ME about this one document.
> 
> Of course this document is relevant. This is the process the Founding Fathers took in order to come to the final conclusion about what the Second Amendment means.
> 
> You don't have ANY evidence that "bear arms" means "carry arms" and you have this document among other documents and Supreme Court decisions that I haven't even presented yet that points to "bear arms" being the right of individuals to be in the militia.
> 
> And you, with your massive resume of stuff and you can't even discuss this.
> 
> It's a big WOW from me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you are being anal and stupid.
> 
> what was the pre-existing natural right the founders sought to guarantee with the second amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm not being anal or stupid. I presented my case, I used the document to back myself up with. You haven't even spoken about it. You've done everything in your power to avoid talking about what I have said. Now you're on to words like "anal and stupid", when will the insults come? Like I said, it happens ever time. Why? Because it's not in your AGENDA to accept the FACTS.
> 
> You can say it's a "per-existing natural right", but the reality is it doesn't matter.
> 
> We're dealing with the SECOND AMENDMENT. We both know that this merely protects what is seen as the right. Whether it's a right or not is neither here nor there. We're dealing with the document that protects what people feel is the right.
> 
> Now, what rights does the 2A protect?
> 
> Well, the founding fathers said that the "right to bear arms", the right they are protecting, is the right to be in the militia. This is what the SECOND AMENDMENT says. Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> there is no right to be in the Militia once congress grabbed complete control over that with the militia act.  the right is that free citizens can be armed free of federal interference  You're just another gun banning moron who wants to reinterpret the 2A to meet your stupid bannerrhoid schemes
Click to expand...


Then answer this one. 

In 1903 they made the Dick Act. 

Lawyers would know where to find this act, so I'm posting this here so you can find it. Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia

This was basically to make the National Guard. They wanted the National Guard to professionalize the Militia. The militia had shown itself to be ineffective at dealing with some of the wars that the US had been fighting. 

They also made the "unorganized militia". Why? What was the purpose of making the "unorganized militia"? 

Why bother to go to the trouble to say to men aged 17 to 45 are in the militia, but it's a militia that has no command, has no purpose, they can't join together and do anything, it's a name with no substance? 

The simple answer is this. They knew that if they made the National Guard and excluded individuals from the National Guard, they could DEMAND to be in the National Guard because they had a right to be in the militia. They had a right to "render military service" in the militia and "militia duty".

So they made an "unorganized militia" so that these people couldn't demand this, because they're already in the militia. 

Unless of course you, as a fake lawyer, can find any reason for the "unorganized militia" to have been placed into law.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

turtledude said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are making assumptions about why the militia was necessary to the free state. That reason being, as stated by our founders many different times and many different ways, was that a free state does not exist when government has a monopoly of force. This is why the militia was necessary, a paramilitary force, made up of civilians, lead by civilians. In case some government force either tries some sort of coup against the government, or government itself using the military to control, subdue, or roll over on the civilian population. The constitution/BOR has no real power, except for the second amendment where We The People are all armed, and able to defend ourselves and our rights from whatever person or persons that wish to take them away, especially including. Government is not going to make widely unpopular tyrannical laws if it can’t control the population that’s armed.
> 
> An armed population is also a deterrent against invading forces, since one army could defeat another army on any given battlefield...but then you’d have to try deal with an entire population that’s also armed, which is just a logistical, and tactical nightmare. E.G. france pretty much started prepping for WW2 almost right after WW1, and it turned out to be wise to do so (problem was they prepped for another WW1, and warfare had drastically changed), but they still had very stout defenses along their boarder near Germany. The Nazis however went around the line, and the French/British weren’t prepared for blitzkrieg, and the Nazis quickly took France out of the fight by taking Paris very quickly. And that was it for the mighty nation of Frances in WW2, the army lost so the country and citizens lost as well. But there’s a smaller neighbor in Switzerland that Germany never attempted to touch despite having a weaker military, no allies, and A LOT to loot to fund the war effort. Why because the Swiss are all heavily armed as well as trained. Afghanistan guerrilla warfare doesn’t hold a candle to what the Swiss could do to an invading force. The Nazis invaded every single other neighbor that wasn’t cooperating, and looted the bejeezus out of them...but they didn’t touch the Swiss, and it wasn’t because the swiss are neutral and hitler respected that.
> 
> There is also the issue of natural rights (like most of the BOR is based off of) including the right to self defense, which is natural. You do not have to be a victim, it’s not natural to be a victim. It’s natural for you to have free will, to have your own thoughts and express those thoughts, to have your own privacy and property, and also to defend yourself, with lethal force if need be. I don’t know who would argue with that. This is America we do not judge YOU based on what somebody else did with something they own (I.e. gun, car, knife, computer, whatever). You are not assumed to be a killer just because you own something that can kill, and this includes guns. As long as you don’t use it in a bad way, you have every right to defend yourself with a gun no matter what the attacker is carrying (usually without having to fire a shot). The attacked could be friggen Lebron James with a bat, even if you had a bat as well, your not gonna win that one. With a gun, a midget could win that match (probably without having to fire a shot).
> 
> All these reasons make the second amendment a no brainer. Just because you don’t foresee our government going rogue, just means you are very short sighted with short term memory, even to the present day world around you. We just saw an attempted coup a year ago in a 1st world, modern NATO ally. 35 years ago the Soviet’s were rolling into countries that couldn’t do squat about it because the citizens weren’t armed. Cubans are still screwed and can’t do anything against the military aristocracy, and our southern neighbors are also screwed living in a democracy with loads of gun control, but can’t do anything against their corrupt government and their country is more dangerous than the war zone afghanistan. Yet in the US gun sales, gun ownership, and ccws have skyrocketed, since the 90s, yet gun crime has dropped 50% in the same time period...and people are still claiming guns are the problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ What amazes me about the Gun Grabbers is their willingness to use a microscope and original intent to justify their view of the 2nd Amendment, yet when it comes to the Constitutionality of abortion rights they dismiss it with an "Oh that's covered by the Good and Plenty Clause of the Constitution. No further discussion is necessary."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> worse yet, buying into the commerce clause contortion FDR and his pet monkeys in black robes engaged in
Click to expand...

The ridiculous, reactionary right.

Your anachronistic fantasy of returning to a _Lochner_ era regulatory paradigm is as childish as it is untenable.


----------



## sakinago

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are making assumptions about why the militia was necessary to the free state. That reason being, as stated by our founders many different times and many different ways, was that a free state does not exist when government has a monopoly of force. This is why the militia was necessary, a paramilitary force, made up of civilians, lead by civilians. In case some government force either tries some sort of coup against the government, or government itself using the military to control, subdue, or roll over on the civilian population. The constitution/BOR has no real power, except for the second amendment where We The People are all armed, and able to defend ourselves and our rights from whatever person or persons that wish to take them away, especially including. Government is not going to make widely unpopular tyrannical laws if it can’t control the population that’s armed.
> 
> An armed population is also a deterrent against invading forces, since one army could defeat another army on any given battlefield...but then you’d have to try deal with an entire population that’s also armed, which is just a logistical, and tactical nightmare. E.G. france pretty much started prepping for WW2 almost right after WW1, and it turned out to be wise to do so (problem was they prepped for another WW1, and warfare had drastically changed), but they still had very stout defenses along their boarder near Germany. The Nazis however went around the line, and the French/British weren’t prepared for blitzkrieg, and the Nazis quickly took France out of the fight by taking Paris very quickly. And that was it for the mighty nation of Frances in WW2, the army lost so the country and citizens lost as well. But there’s a smaller neighbor in Switzerland that Germany never attempted to touch despite having a weaker military, no allies, and A LOT to loot to fund the war effort. Why because the Swiss are all heavily armed as well as trained. Afghanistan guerrilla warfare doesn’t hold a candle to what the Swiss could do to an invading force. The Nazis invaded every single other neighbor that wasn’t cooperating, and looted the bejeezus out of them...but they didn’t touch the Swiss, and it wasn’t because the swiss are neutral and hitler respected that.
> 
> There is also the issue of natural rights (like most of the BOR is based off of) including the right to self defense, which is natural. You do not have to be a victim, it’s not natural to be a victim. It’s natural for you to have free will, to have your own thoughts and express those thoughts, to have your own privacy and property, and also to defend yourself, with lethal force if need be. I don’t know who would argue with that. This is America we do not judge YOU based on what somebody else did with something they own (I.e. gun, car, knife, computer, whatever). You are not assumed to be a killer just because you own something that can kill, and this includes guns. As long as you don’t use it in a bad way, you have every right to defend yourself with a gun no matter what the attacker is carrying (usually without having to fire a shot). The attacked could be friggen Lebron James with a bat, even if you had a bat as well, your not gonna win that one. With a gun, a midget could win that match (probably without having to fire a shot).
> 
> All these reasons make the second amendment a no brainer. Just because you don’t foresee our government going rogue, just means you are very short sighted with short term memory, even to the present day world around you. We just saw an attempted coup a year ago in a 1st world, modern NATO ally. 35 years ago the Soviet’s were rolling into countries that couldn’t do squat about it because the citizens weren’t armed. Cubans are still screwed and can’t do anything against the military aristocracy, and our southern neighbors are also screwed living in a democracy with loads of gun control, but can’t do anything against their corrupt government and their country is more dangerous than the war zone afghanistan. Yet in the US gun sales, gun ownership, and ccws have skyrocketed, since the 90s, yet gun crime has dropped 50% in the same time period...and people are still claiming guns are the problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ What amazes me about the Gun Grabbers is their willingness to use a microscope and original intent to justify their view of the 2nd Amendment, yet when it comes to the Constitutionality of abortion rights they dismiss it with an "Oh that's covered by the Good and Plenty Clause of the Constitution. No further discussion is necessary."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> worse yet, buying into the commerce clause contortion FDR and his pet monkeys in black robes engaged in
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The ridiculous, reactionary right.
> 
> Your anachronistic fantasy of returning to a _Lochner_ era regulatory paradigm is as childish as it is untenable.
Click to expand...

Here’s an example of someone trying to use big words to make them look smarter but it actually has the opposite effect (this is well documented). 

What is more realistic...deporting all Mexicans or getting rid of all guns?


----------



## sakinago

Thank you Seth McFarland (if you can’t tell I’m still watching fox after the cowboys game). Get the Simpson’s off, McFarland is a leftist that surrounds himself with the strawman to keep his world going...but is somehow more reasonable than the world we live in today (which he is satiring as we speak in family guy now)


----------



## turtledude

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are making assumptions about why the militia was necessary to the free state. That reason being, as stated by our founders many different times and many different ways, was that a free state does not exist when government has a monopoly of force. This is why the militia was necessary, a paramilitary force, made up of civilians, lead by civilians. In case some government force either tries some sort of coup against the government, or government itself using the military to control, subdue, or roll over on the civilian population. The constitution/BOR has no real power, except for the second amendment where We The People are all armed, and able to defend ourselves and our rights from whatever person or persons that wish to take them away, especially including. Government is not going to make widely unpopular tyrannical laws if it can’t control the population that’s armed.
> 
> An armed population is also a deterrent against invading forces, since one army could defeat another army on any given battlefield...but then you’d have to try deal with an entire population that’s also armed, which is just a logistical, and tactical nightmare. E.G. france pretty much started prepping for WW2 almost right after WW1, and it turned out to be wise to do so (problem was they prepped for another WW1, and warfare had drastically changed), but they still had very stout defenses along their boarder near Germany. The Nazis however went around the line, and the French/British weren’t prepared for blitzkrieg, and the Nazis quickly took France out of the fight by taking Paris very quickly. And that was it for the mighty nation of Frances in WW2, the army lost so the country and citizens lost as well. But there’s a smaller neighbor in Switzerland that Germany never attempted to touch despite having a weaker military, no allies, and A LOT to loot to fund the war effort. Why because the Swiss are all heavily armed as well as trained. Afghanistan guerrilla warfare doesn’t hold a candle to what the Swiss could do to an invading force. The Nazis invaded every single other neighbor that wasn’t cooperating, and looted the bejeezus out of them...but they didn’t touch the Swiss, and it wasn’t because the swiss are neutral and hitler respected that.
> 
> There is also the issue of natural rights (like most of the BOR is based off of) including the right to self defense, which is natural. You do not have to be a victim, it’s not natural to be a victim. It’s natural for you to have free will, to have your own thoughts and express those thoughts, to have your own privacy and property, and also to defend yourself, with lethal force if need be. I don’t know who would argue with that. This is America we do not judge YOU based on what somebody else did with something they own (I.e. gun, car, knife, computer, whatever). You are not assumed to be a killer just because you own something that can kill, and this includes guns. As long as you don’t use it in a bad way, you have every right to defend yourself with a gun no matter what the attacker is carrying (usually without having to fire a shot). The attacked could be friggen Lebron James with a bat, even if you had a bat as well, your not gonna win that one. With a gun, a midget could win that match (probably without having to fire a shot).
> 
> All these reasons make the second amendment a no brainer. Just because you don’t foresee our government going rogue, just means you are very short sighted with short term memory, even to the present day world around you. We just saw an attempted coup a year ago in a 1st world, modern NATO ally. 35 years ago the Soviet’s were rolling into countries that couldn’t do squat about it because the citizens weren’t armed. Cubans are still screwed and can’t do anything against the military aristocracy, and our southern neighbors are also screwed living in a democracy with loads of gun control, but can’t do anything against their corrupt government and their country is more dangerous than the war zone afghanistan. Yet in the US gun sales, gun ownership, and ccws have skyrocketed, since the 90s, yet gun crime has dropped 50% in the same time period...and people are still claiming guns are the problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ What amazes me about the Gun Grabbers is their willingness to use a microscope and original intent to justify their view of the 2nd Amendment, yet when it comes to the Constitutionality of abortion rights they dismiss it with an "Oh that's covered by the Good and Plenty Clause of the Constitution. No further discussion is necessary."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> worse yet, buying into the commerce clause contortion FDR and his pet monkeys in black robes engaged in
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The ridiculous, reactionary right.
> 
> Your anachronistic fantasy of returning to a _Lochner_ era regulatory paradigm is as childish as it is untenable.
Click to expand...


The wish I really had a law degree from a school that matters.


----------



## turtledude

frigidweirdo said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are being anal and stupid.
> 
> what was the pre-existing natural right the founders sought to guarantee with the second amendment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm not being anal or stupid. I presented my case, I used the document to back myself up with. You haven't even spoken about it. You've done everything in your power to avoid talking about what I have said. Now you're on to words like "anal and stupid", when will the insults come? Like I said, it happens ever time. Why? Because it's not in your AGENDA to accept the FACTS.
> 
> You can say it's a "per-existing natural right", but the reality is it doesn't matter.
> 
> We're dealing with the SECOND AMENDMENT. We both know that this merely protects what is seen as the right. Whether it's a right or not is neither here nor there. We're dealing with the document that protects what people feel is the right.
> 
> Now, what rights does the 2A protect?
> 
> Well, the founding fathers said that the "right to bear arms", the right they are protecting, is the right to be in the militia. This is what the SECOND AMENDMENT says. Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you're a moron.  you are too stupid to understand that a natural right that pre-exists government does not involve a "right" to serve the government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I predicted it, didn't I?
> 
> I said the insults would come.
> 
> How is it that I'm the moron?
> 
> I ask you about a historical document and you can't respond.
> 
> There's no way on this planet that you're a lawyer, no way on this planet that you go to law schools and talk about the Second Amendment.
> 
> Now go take your insults and FUCK OFF>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you're another low grade moron who wants to prove to himself he is smart so you post some irrelevant nonsense and pretend its intelligent.  that document means nothing and the fact that you don't understand why, explains why you are so stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh please.
> 
> I've set out my case. You can't argue it.
> 
> You're the one insulting, not me.
> 
> Irrelevant nonsense? What the Founding Father said concerning the term "bear arms" is irrelevant?
> 
> No, it's not irrelevant, in fact it's extremely irrelevant, however it doesn't fit your agenda.
> 
> Seriously dude, you've made up this bullshit about being a lawyer, come off it.
> 
> You didn't try and argue you case. I mean, would a lawyer go into court and be like "no your honor, the defense lawyer's a moron"
> 
> YOU HAVE NOTHING. No argument. I said you'd pull the insults out of your ass, and you're pulling the insults out of your ass.
> 
> If the definition of "moron" to you is someone who has an argument, then fine. But really, you're not a lawyer and you probably only go to law school to serve them food.
Click to expand...



you sound like one of those sovereign citizen types.    how can a right that pre-exists government require membership in a government entity to vest?


----------



## turtledude

frigidweirdo said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> NOt relevant.
> 
> It doesn't have any impact on what I have said
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is embarrassing right?
> 
> A guy who's boasting that he goes to LAW SCHOOLS to talk about the Second Amendment, and you can't even talk to ME about this one document.
> 
> Of course this document is relevant. This is the process the Founding Fathers took in order to come to the final conclusion about what the Second Amendment means.
> 
> You don't have ANY evidence that "bear arms" means "carry arms" and you have this document among other documents and Supreme Court decisions that I haven't even presented yet that points to "bear arms" being the right of individuals to be in the militia.
> 
> And you, with your massive resume of stuff and you can't even discuss this.
> 
> It's a big WOW from me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you are being anal and stupid.
> 
> what was the pre-existing natural right the founders sought to guarantee with the second amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm not being anal or stupid. I presented my case, I used the document to back myself up with. You haven't even spoken about it. You've done everything in your power to avoid talking about what I have said. Now you're on to words like "anal and stupid", when will the insults come? Like I said, it happens ever time. Why? Because it's not in your AGENDA to accept the FACTS.
> 
> You can say it's a "per-existing natural right", but the reality is it doesn't matter.
> 
> We're dealing with the SECOND AMENDMENT. We both know that this merely protects what is seen as the right. Whether it's a right or not is neither here nor there. We're dealing with the document that protects what people feel is the right.
> 
> Now, what rights does the 2A protect?
> 
> Well, the founding fathers said that the "right to bear arms", the right they are protecting, is the right to be in the militia. This is what the SECOND AMENDMENT says. Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> there is no right to be in the Militia once congress grabbed complete control over that with the militia act.  the right is that free citizens can be armed free of federal interference  You're just another gun banning moron who wants to reinterpret the 2A to meet your stupid bannerrhoid schemes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then answer this one.
> 
> In 1903 they made the Dick Act.
> 
> Lawyers would know where to find this act, so I'm posting this here so you can find it. Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia
> 
> This was basically to make the National Guard. They wanted the National Guard to professionalize the Militia. The militia had shown itself to be ineffective at dealing with some of the wars that the US had been fighting.
> 
> They also made the "unorganized militia". Why? What was the purpose of making the "unorganized militia"?
> 
> Why bother to go to the trouble to say to men aged 17 to 45 are in the militia, but it's a militia that has no command, has no purpose, they can't join together and do anything, it's a name with no substance?
> 
> The simple answer is this. They knew that if they made the National Guard and excluded individuals from the National Guard, they could DEMAND to be in the National Guard because they had a right to be in the militia. They had a right to "render military service" in the militia and "militia duty".
> 
> So they made an "unorganized militia" so that these people couldn't demand this, because they're already in the militia.
> 
> Unless of course you, as a fake lawyer, can find any reason for the "unorganized militia" to have been placed into law.
Click to expand...



damn you're one dumb MF.  Why don't women have this same right?  or those over the age of 45. what other constitutional right disappears based on not having a swinging dick or being over 45 in age


----------



## frigidweirdo

turtledude said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm not being anal or stupid. I presented my case, I used the document to back myself up with. You haven't even spoken about it. You've done everything in your power to avoid talking about what I have said. Now you're on to words like "anal and stupid", when will the insults come? Like I said, it happens ever time. Why? Because it's not in your AGENDA to accept the FACTS.
> 
> You can say it's a "per-existing natural right", but the reality is it doesn't matter.
> 
> We're dealing with the SECOND AMENDMENT. We both know that this merely protects what is seen as the right. Whether it's a right or not is neither here nor there. We're dealing with the document that protects what people feel is the right.
> 
> Now, what rights does the 2A protect?
> 
> Well, the founding fathers said that the "right to bear arms", the right they are protecting, is the right to be in the militia. This is what the SECOND AMENDMENT says. Right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you're a moron.  you are too stupid to understand that a natural right that pre-exists government does not involve a "right" to serve the government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I predicted it, didn't I?
> 
> I said the insults would come.
> 
> How is it that I'm the moron?
> 
> I ask you about a historical document and you can't respond.
> 
> There's no way on this planet that you're a lawyer, no way on this planet that you go to law schools and talk about the Second Amendment.
> 
> Now go take your insults and FUCK OFF>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you're another low grade moron who wants to prove to himself he is smart so you post some irrelevant nonsense and pretend its intelligent.  that document means nothing and the fact that you don't understand why, explains why you are so stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh please.
> 
> I've set out my case. You can't argue it.
> 
> You're the one insulting, not me.
> 
> Irrelevant nonsense? What the Founding Father said concerning the term "bear arms" is irrelevant?
> 
> No, it's not irrelevant, in fact it's extremely irrelevant, however it doesn't fit your agenda.
> 
> Seriously dude, you've made up this bullshit about being a lawyer, come off it.
> 
> You didn't try and argue you case. I mean, would a lawyer go into court and be like "no your honor, the defense lawyer's a moron"
> 
> YOU HAVE NOTHING. No argument. I said you'd pull the insults out of your ass, and you're pulling the insults out of your ass.
> 
> If the definition of "moron" to you is someone who has an argument, then fine. But really, you're not a lawyer and you probably only go to law school to serve them food.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you sound like one of those sovereign citizen types.    how can a right that pre-exists government require membership in a government entity to vest?
Click to expand...


And again, you're unable to talk about my argument. I couldn't give a fuck what you think I sound like. 

No matter whether you think there's a pre-existing right or not, we're not talking about the pre-existing right, are we? We're talking about the SECOND AMENDMENT. The Second Amendment is there to PROTECT what people see as the pre-existing right. So, it doesn't matter whether you think there's a right or not, the Second Amendment exists and it is the law.

We're talking about LAW, you're supposed to be a LAWYER, ever noticed that the word LAWYER contains the word LAW and not the words pre-existing rights?


----------



## frigidweirdo

turtledude said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is embarrassing right?
> 
> A guy who's boasting that he goes to LAW SCHOOLS to talk about the Second Amendment, and you can't even talk to ME about this one document.
> 
> Of course this document is relevant. This is the process the Founding Fathers took in order to come to the final conclusion about what the Second Amendment means.
> 
> You don't have ANY evidence that "bear arms" means "carry arms" and you have this document among other documents and Supreme Court decisions that I haven't even presented yet that points to "bear arms" being the right of individuals to be in the militia.
> 
> And you, with your massive resume of stuff and you can't even discuss this.
> 
> It's a big WOW from me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you are being anal and stupid.
> 
> what was the pre-existing natural right the founders sought to guarantee with the second amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm not being anal or stupid. I presented my case, I used the document to back myself up with. You haven't even spoken about it. You've done everything in your power to avoid talking about what I have said. Now you're on to words like "anal and stupid", when will the insults come? Like I said, it happens ever time. Why? Because it's not in your AGENDA to accept the FACTS.
> 
> You can say it's a "per-existing natural right", but the reality is it doesn't matter.
> 
> We're dealing with the SECOND AMENDMENT. We both know that this merely protects what is seen as the right. Whether it's a right or not is neither here nor there. We're dealing with the document that protects what people feel is the right.
> 
> Now, what rights does the 2A protect?
> 
> Well, the founding fathers said that the "right to bear arms", the right they are protecting, is the right to be in the militia. This is what the SECOND AMENDMENT says. Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> there is no right to be in the Militia once congress grabbed complete control over that with the militia act.  the right is that free citizens can be armed free of federal interference  You're just another gun banning moron who wants to reinterpret the 2A to meet your stupid bannerrhoid schemes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then answer this one.
> 
> In 1903 they made the Dick Act.
> 
> Lawyers would know where to find this act, so I'm posting this here so you can find it. Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia
> 
> This was basically to make the National Guard. They wanted the National Guard to professionalize the Militia. The militia had shown itself to be ineffective at dealing with some of the wars that the US had been fighting.
> 
> They also made the "unorganized militia". Why? What was the purpose of making the "unorganized militia"?
> 
> Why bother to go to the trouble to say to men aged 17 to 45 are in the militia, but it's a militia that has no command, has no purpose, they can't join together and do anything, it's a name with no substance?
> 
> The simple answer is this. They knew that if they made the National Guard and excluded individuals from the National Guard, they could DEMAND to be in the National Guard because they had a right to be in the militia. They had a right to "render military service" in the militia and "militia duty".
> 
> So they made an "unorganized militia" so that these people couldn't demand this, because they're already in the militia.
> 
> Unless of course you, as a fake lawyer, can find any reason for the "unorganized militia" to have been placed into law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> damn you're one dumb MF.  Why don't women have this same right?  or those over the age of 45. what other constitutional right disappears based on not having a swinging dick or being over 45 in age
Click to expand...


Again, your argument is an insult. 

Try not insulting and I might discuss your point.


----------



## francoHFW

TheOldSchool said:


> It's definitely not the most important amendment, like most conservatives argue, but it's not obsolete.  We're the United Freakin States.  We were founded on a revolutionary crazy notion that people are allowed to be as free as they want.
> 
> If you take away that crazy, then we're closer to being like the French.  And no one wants that.


Who you know nothing about, hater dupe


----------



## Markle

frigidweirdo said:


> You don't have ANY evidence that "bear arms" means "carry arms"



What?  You're just being facetious...aren't you?


----------



## turtledude

frigidweirdo said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> you're a moron.  you are too stupid to understand that a natural right that pre-exists government does not involve a "right" to serve the government
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I predicted it, didn't I?
> 
> I said the insults would come.
> 
> How is it that I'm the moron?
> 
> I ask you about a historical document and you can't respond.
> 
> There's no way on this planet that you're a lawyer, no way on this planet that you go to law schools and talk about the Second Amendment.
> 
> Now go take your insults and FUCK OFF>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you're another low grade moron who wants to prove to himself he is smart so you post some irrelevant nonsense and pretend its intelligent.  that document means nothing and the fact that you don't understand why, explains why you are so stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh please.
> 
> I've set out my case. You can't argue it.
> 
> You're the one insulting, not me.
> 
> Irrelevant nonsense? What the Founding Father said concerning the term "bear arms" is irrelevant?
> 
> No, it's not irrelevant, in fact it's extremely irrelevant, however it doesn't fit your agenda.
> 
> Seriously dude, you've made up this bullshit about being a lawyer, come off it.
> 
> You didn't try and argue you case. I mean, would a lawyer go into court and be like "no your honor, the defense lawyer's a moron"
> 
> YOU HAVE NOTHING. No argument. I said you'd pull the insults out of your ass, and you're pulling the insults out of your ass.
> 
> If the definition of "moron" to you is someone who has an argument, then fine. But really, you're not a lawyer and you probably only go to law school to serve them food.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you sound like one of those sovereign citizen types.    how can a right that pre-exists government require membership in a government entity to vest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And again, you're unable to talk about my argument. I couldn't give a fuck what you think I sound like.
> 
> No matter whether you think there's a pre-existing right or not, we're not talking about the pre-existing right, are we? We're talking about the SECOND AMENDMENT. The Second Amendment is there to PROTECT what people see as the pre-existing right. So, it doesn't matter whether you think there's a right or not, the Second Amendment exists and it is the law.
> 
> We're talking about LAW, you're supposed to be a LAWYER, ever noticed that the word LAWYER contains the word LAW and not the words pre-existing rights?
Click to expand...


you're an idiot, when you write a law review article for the Yale Law Journal where you establish that the second amendment is a "right to join a militia" let me know


----------



## turtledude

frigidweirdo said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are being anal and stupid.
> 
> what was the pre-existing natural right the founders sought to guarantee with the second amendment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm not being anal or stupid. I presented my case, I used the document to back myself up with. You haven't even spoken about it. You've done everything in your power to avoid talking about what I have said. Now you're on to words like "anal and stupid", when will the insults come? Like I said, it happens ever time. Why? Because it's not in your AGENDA to accept the FACTS.
> 
> You can say it's a "per-existing natural right", but the reality is it doesn't matter.
> 
> We're dealing with the SECOND AMENDMENT. We both know that this merely protects what is seen as the right. Whether it's a right or not is neither here nor there. We're dealing with the document that protects what people feel is the right.
> 
> Now, what rights does the 2A protect?
> 
> Well, the founding fathers said that the "right to bear arms", the right they are protecting, is the right to be in the militia. This is what the SECOND AMENDMENT says. Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> there is no right to be in the Militia once congress grabbed complete control over that with the militia act.  the right is that free citizens can be armed free of federal interference  You're just another gun banning moron who wants to reinterpret the 2A to meet your stupid bannerrhoid schemes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then answer this one.
> 
> In 1903 they made the Dick Act.
> 
> Lawyers would know where to find this act, so I'm posting this here so you can find it. Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia
> 
> This was basically to make the National Guard. They wanted the National Guard to professionalize the Militia. The militia had shown itself to be ineffective at dealing with some of the wars that the US had been fighting.
> 
> They also made the "unorganized militia". Why? What was the purpose of making the "unorganized militia"?
> 
> Why bother to go to the trouble to say to men aged 17 to 45 are in the militia, but it's a militia that has no command, has no purpose, they can't join together and do anything, it's a name with no substance?
> 
> The simple answer is this. They knew that if they made the National Guard and excluded individuals from the National Guard, they could DEMAND to be in the National Guard because they had a right to be in the militia. They had a right to "render military service" in the militia and "militia duty".
> 
> So they made an "unorganized militia" so that these people couldn't demand this, because they're already in the militia.
> 
> Unless of course you, as a fake lawyer, can find any reason for the "unorganized militia" to have been placed into law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> damn you're one dumb MF.  Why don't women have this same right?  or those over the age of 45. what other constitutional right disappears based on not having a swinging dick or being over 45 in age
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, your argument is an insult.
> 
> Try not insulting and I might discuss your point.
Click to expand...


how can a right that existed before government be based on joining a government entity


----------



## frigidweirdo

turtledude said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I predicted it, didn't I?
> 
> I said the insults would come.
> 
> How is it that I'm the moron?
> 
> I ask you about a historical document and you can't respond.
> 
> There's no way on this planet that you're a lawyer, no way on this planet that you go to law schools and talk about the Second Amendment.
> 
> Now go take your insults and FUCK OFF>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you're another low grade moron who wants to prove to himself he is smart so you post some irrelevant nonsense and pretend its intelligent.  that document means nothing and the fact that you don't understand why, explains why you are so stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh please.
> 
> I've set out my case. You can't argue it.
> 
> You're the one insulting, not me.
> 
> Irrelevant nonsense? What the Founding Father said concerning the term "bear arms" is irrelevant?
> 
> No, it's not irrelevant, in fact it's extremely irrelevant, however it doesn't fit your agenda.
> 
> Seriously dude, you've made up this bullshit about being a lawyer, come off it.
> 
> You didn't try and argue you case. I mean, would a lawyer go into court and be like "no your honor, the defense lawyer's a moron"
> 
> YOU HAVE NOTHING. No argument. I said you'd pull the insults out of your ass, and you're pulling the insults out of your ass.
> 
> If the definition of "moron" to you is someone who has an argument, then fine. But really, you're not a lawyer and you probably only go to law school to serve them food.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you sound like one of those sovereign citizen types.    how can a right that pre-exists government require membership in a government entity to vest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And again, you're unable to talk about my argument. I couldn't give a fuck what you think I sound like.
> 
> No matter whether you think there's a pre-existing right or not, we're not talking about the pre-existing right, are we? We're talking about the SECOND AMENDMENT. The Second Amendment is there to PROTECT what people see as the pre-existing right. So, it doesn't matter whether you think there's a right or not, the Second Amendment exists and it is the law.
> 
> We're talking about LAW, you're supposed to be a LAWYER, ever noticed that the word LAWYER contains the word LAW and not the words pre-existing rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you're an idiot, when you write a law review article for the Yale Law Journal where you establish that the second amendment is a "right to join a militia" let me know
Click to expand...


Insults again.

You come on to a forum like this, insult, claim to be a lawyer, claim to talk at law schools, then demand that you'll only discuss the Second Amendment with people who have written articles for the Yale Law Journal.

Oh, please.....

You can't actually debate a source from the FOUNDING FATHERS, and yet claim to be so big, and yet you're on THIS WEBSITE.


----------



## frigidweirdo

turtledude said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm not being anal or stupid. I presented my case, I used the document to back myself up with. You haven't even spoken about it. You've done everything in your power to avoid talking about what I have said. Now you're on to words like "anal and stupid", when will the insults come? Like I said, it happens ever time. Why? Because it's not in your AGENDA to accept the FACTS.
> 
> You can say it's a "per-existing natural right", but the reality is it doesn't matter.
> 
> We're dealing with the SECOND AMENDMENT. We both know that this merely protects what is seen as the right. Whether it's a right or not is neither here nor there. We're dealing with the document that protects what people feel is the right.
> 
> Now, what rights does the 2A protect?
> 
> Well, the founding fathers said that the "right to bear arms", the right they are protecting, is the right to be in the militia. This is what the SECOND AMENDMENT says. Right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is no right to be in the Militia once congress grabbed complete control over that with the militia act.  the right is that free citizens can be armed free of federal interference  You're just another gun banning moron who wants to reinterpret the 2A to meet your stupid bannerrhoid schemes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then answer this one.
> 
> In 1903 they made the Dick Act.
> 
> Lawyers would know where to find this act, so I'm posting this here so you can find it. Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia
> 
> This was basically to make the National Guard. They wanted the National Guard to professionalize the Militia. The militia had shown itself to be ineffective at dealing with some of the wars that the US had been fighting.
> 
> They also made the "unorganized militia". Why? What was the purpose of making the "unorganized militia"?
> 
> Why bother to go to the trouble to say to men aged 17 to 45 are in the militia, but it's a militia that has no command, has no purpose, they can't join together and do anything, it's a name with no substance?
> 
> The simple answer is this. They knew that if they made the National Guard and excluded individuals from the National Guard, they could DEMAND to be in the National Guard because they had a right to be in the militia. They had a right to "render military service" in the militia and "militia duty".
> 
> So they made an "unorganized militia" so that these people couldn't demand this, because they're already in the militia.
> 
> Unless of course you, as a fake lawyer, can find any reason for the "unorganized militia" to have been placed into law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> damn you're one dumb MF.  Why don't women have this same right?  or those over the age of 45. what other constitutional right disappears based on not having a swinging dick or being over 45 in age
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, your argument is an insult.
> 
> Try not insulting and I might discuss your point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> how can a right that existed before government be based on joining a government entity
Click to expand...


Did the right exist before government? What is a right? 

A right is merely a thought of human beings. Someone says a right exists, so it therefore exists. 

It doesn't matter. This is about the SECOND AMENDMENT. Had the founding fathers not written the Second Amendment, we wouldn't be talking about a right to keep and bear arms.

However, the Founding Fathers DID write the Second Amendment, they DID discuss the Second Amendment before passing it, they did Amendment it numerous times before passing it. 

They wrote there was a right to bear arms, and I've shown you lots of evidence to suggest what they wanted to protect was the right to be in the militia.

What evidence you've provided suggests.... NOTHING because you haven't made a single argument that wasn't "you have to be in the Yale Law Journal for me to discuss things with you" or "I'm deflecting" or "I'm still deflecting" or "I won't talk to you" or "insult, insult, I'm a lawyer and all I've got is this t-shirt insulting you".

Wow.


----------



## emilynghiem

frigidweirdo said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, am I being ignored now? Claiming all this stuff, and yet can't talk about one document?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOt relevant.
> 
> It doesn't have any impact on what I have said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is embarrassing right?
> 
> A guy who's boasting that he goes to LAW SCHOOLS to talk about the Second Amendment, and you can't even talk to ME about this one document.
> 
> Of course this document is relevant. This is the process the Founding Fathers took in order to come to the final conclusion about what the Second Amendment means.
> 
> You don't have ANY evidence that "bear arms" means "carry arms" and you have this document among other documents and Supreme Court decisions that I haven't even presented yet that points to "bear arms" being the right of individuals to be in the militia.
> 
> And you, with your massive resume of stuff and you can't even discuss this.
> 
> It's a big WOW from me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you are being anal and stupid.
> 
> what was the pre-existing natural right the founders sought to guarantee with the second amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm not being anal or stupid. I presented my case, I used the document to back myself up with. You haven't even spoken about it. You've done everything in your power to avoid talking about what I have said. Now you're on to words like "anal and stupid", when will the insults come? Like I said, it happens ever time. Why? Because it's not in your AGENDA to accept the FACTS.
> 
> You can say it's a "per-existing natural right", but the reality is it doesn't matter.
> 
> We're dealing with the SECOND AMENDMENT. We both know that this merely protects what is seen as the right. Whether it's a right or not is neither here nor there. We're dealing with the document that protects what people feel is the right.
> 
> Now, what rights does the 2A protect?
> 
> Well, the founding fathers said that the "right to bear arms", the right they are protecting, is the right to be in the militia. This is what the SECOND AMENDMENT says. Right?
Click to expand...

Dear frigidweirdo
The way it is worded, why can't it continue to mean both?
At the time the Bill of Rights was passed some states didn't even have state militias. So those people invoking that same right would have to do so independently. Some people might consider all the Revolutionary fighters to be militia, while others could have been independent citizens invoking political rights to defend themselves against oppressive govt tyranny turning against its own people. 

Isn't the common factor that the people bearing arms were acting in the spirit of Defending and Enforcing Constitutional laws not seeking to violate rights and freedoms of any other people?

Can we agree that the right of the people means law abiding citizens?
Then regardless if these are official militia, or just independent citizens such as the men who shot and stopped the shooter in Texas, wouldn't that call for citizens to be trained in safe law enforcement?

The NRA already promotes training as part of the responsibility of gun ownership. So if police and military require standard screening and training in order to use firearms why not encourage this for all law abiding citizens to promote public safety security and compliance ?


----------



## easyt65

The govt who wants to take your guns is ths same govt that...

- Illegally spied on Americans, on reporters, on the media, on the US Senate, and in the USSC...

- illegally used the IRS to target Americans that opposed the re-election of the party leader in office

- Who destroyed the US health care system while lying to Americans, putting into place a steppi g-stone system designed to fail and lead to single payer

- Abandoned 4 Americans to die at the hands of Al Qaeda - who slaughtered 3,000 Americans on 9/11/01, the same terrorists they helped take over their own country

- Auded, abetted, financed, supplied, armed, trained, defended, and protected ISIS, Al Qaeda, The Muslim Brotherhood, Mexican Drug Cartels, violent illegals who preyed on US citizens, and Sanctuary cities...

- Who killed a US citizen without due process abroad...

- Who set a new historic record for illegal non-compliance with the FOIA and Federal Records Act in order to keep what they were doing secret, hidden from US citizens these politicians work for...

- Protected perjurers, influence peddlers, pedophiles, traitors, and people who selfishly endangered our national security...

- Who are so fiscally irresponsible they put us Trillions in debt....

....and this isn't even all....

...and dumbass liberal sheep qant to hand over all our weapons / rights to this same government?!

Bwuhahaha...

...actually, that's pretty damn scary.

-


----------



## frigidweirdo

emilynghiem said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, am I being ignored now? Claiming all this stuff, and yet can't talk about one document?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOt relevant.
> 
> It doesn't have any impact on what I have said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is embarrassing right?
> 
> A guy who's boasting that he goes to LAW SCHOOLS to talk about the Second Amendment, and you can't even talk to ME about this one document.
> 
> Of course this document is relevant. This is the process the Founding Fathers took in order to come to the final conclusion about what the Second Amendment means.
> 
> You don't have ANY evidence that "bear arms" means "carry arms" and you have this document among other documents and Supreme Court decisions that I haven't even presented yet that points to "bear arms" being the right of individuals to be in the militia.
> 
> And you, with your massive resume of stuff and you can't even discuss this.
> 
> It's a big WOW from me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you are being anal and stupid.
> 
> what was the pre-existing natural right the founders sought to guarantee with the second amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm not being anal or stupid. I presented my case, I used the document to back myself up with. You haven't even spoken about it. You've done everything in your power to avoid talking about what I have said. Now you're on to words like "anal and stupid", when will the insults come? Like I said, it happens ever time. Why? Because it's not in your AGENDA to accept the FACTS.
> 
> You can say it's a "per-existing natural right", but the reality is it doesn't matter.
> 
> We're dealing with the SECOND AMENDMENT. We both know that this merely protects what is seen as the right. Whether it's a right or not is neither here nor there. We're dealing with the document that protects what people feel is the right.
> 
> Now, what rights does the 2A protect?
> 
> Well, the founding fathers said that the "right to bear arms", the right they are protecting, is the right to be in the militia. This is what the SECOND AMENDMENT says. Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo
> The way it is worded, why can't it continue to mean both?
> At the time the Bill of Rights was passed some states didn't even have state militias. So those people invoking that same right would have to do so independently. Some people might consider all the Revolutionary fighters to be militia, while others could have been independent citizens invoking political rights to defend themselves against oppressive govt tyranny turning against its own people.
> 
> Isn't the common factor that the people bearing arms were acting in the spirit of Defending and Enforcing Constitutional laws not seeking to violate rights and freedoms of any other people?
> 
> Can we agree that the right of the people means law abiding citizens?
> Then regardless if these are official militia, or just independent citizens such as the men who shot and stopped the shooter in Texas, wouldn't that call for citizens to be trained in safe law enforcement?
> 
> The NRA already promotes training as part of the responsibility of gun ownership. So if police and military require standard screening and training in order to use firearms why not encourage this for all law abiding citizens to promote public safety security and compliance ?
Click to expand...


Okay, the way it's worded it could mean both. This is why my argument isn't just "it says this in the dictionary, so I'm going to cherry pick which one I want and then ignore everything else."

The Founding Fathers were pretty clear and the Supreme Court has been pretty clear about it too. 

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

This document pretty much sums it up. 

"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." Was the clause they were discussing

Mr Gerry said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

Now, we have "bear arms" being used synonymously with "militia duty" AND "render military service".

Not only that we have Mr Jackson saying that people who didn't "bear arms" should pay an equivalent. Do you think the Founding Fathers would have demanded that people who don't "carry" firearms around with them on a daily basis pay an equivalent? Would you feel like being stopped by the police, being checked to see if you had your gun on you, and then being fined if you didn't? 

Also, can you find any example of any Founding Father suggesting this? Because I've never, ever seen such a thing.

It makes no sense.

This Amendment is about protecting the militia. 

If individuals are allowed to own guns, then the US federal govt cannot take these guns away, thereby destroying the militia.
Guns don't kill people, people do.

You need people in the militia. So they protected the right of people to be in the militia, so it has personnel to use the guns that it protects.

What's the point of protecting people walking around with guns if they can't be in the militia?

Also the Dick Act 1903 made the "unorganized militia" which basically put people into the militia so they couldn't demand to be in the National Guard. How much discipline would there be in the National Guard if you could demand to be in it? 

Also there were different versions of the Second Amendment.

"June 8th 1789

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


"August 17th 1789

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

Again, using "bear arms" and "render military service" synonymously.

Also in Presser the US Supreme Court said:

"*We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265]   and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms.*"

So, if there's a right to carry arms, then you could get together with a bunch of buddies and drill or parade with those arms in the city. But the Supreme Court in 1886 said there was no right to carry arms. And also the Heller case recently reaffirmed the Presser case. 


ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1897)


_“_the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;”

This case said that laws preventing carrying concealed weapons do not infringe on the Second Amendment. Well, if there were a right to carry arms, this wouldn't be the case.

I have tons of evidence to show that "bear arms" in the Second Amendment means "render military service" or "militia duty".


----------



## frigidweirdo

emilynghiem said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, am I being ignored now? Claiming all this stuff, and yet can't talk about one document?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOt relevant.
> 
> It doesn't have any impact on what I have said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is embarrassing right?
> 
> A guy who's boasting that he goes to LAW SCHOOLS to talk about the Second Amendment, and you can't even talk to ME about this one document.
> 
> Of course this document is relevant. This is the process the Founding Fathers took in order to come to the final conclusion about what the Second Amendment means.
> 
> You don't have ANY evidence that "bear arms" means "carry arms" and you have this document among other documents and Supreme Court decisions that I haven't even presented yet that points to "bear arms" being the right of individuals to be in the militia.
> 
> And you, with your massive resume of stuff and you can't even discuss this.
> 
> It's a big WOW from me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you are being anal and stupid.
> 
> what was the pre-existing natural right the founders sought to guarantee with the second amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm not being anal or stupid. I presented my case, I used the document to back myself up with. You haven't even spoken about it. You've done everything in your power to avoid talking about what I have said. Now you're on to words like "anal and stupid", when will the insults come? Like I said, it happens ever time. Why? Because it's not in your AGENDA to accept the FACTS.
> 
> You can say it's a "per-existing natural right", but the reality is it doesn't matter.
> 
> We're dealing with the SECOND AMENDMENT. We both know that this merely protects what is seen as the right. Whether it's a right or not is neither here nor there. We're dealing with the document that protects what people feel is the right.
> 
> Now, what rights does the 2A protect?
> 
> Well, the founding fathers said that the "right to bear arms", the right they are protecting, is the right to be in the militia. This is what the SECOND AMENDMENT says. Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo
> The way it is worded, why can't it continue to mean both?
> At the time the Bill of Rights was passed some states didn't even have state militias. So those people invoking that same right would have to do so independently. Some people might consider all the Revolutionary fighters to be militia, while others could have been independent citizens invoking political rights to defend themselves against oppressive govt tyranny turning against its own people.
> 
> Isn't the common factor that the people bearing arms were acting in the spirit of Defending and Enforcing Constitutional laws not seeking to violate rights and freedoms of any other people?
> 
> Can we agree that the right of the people means law abiding citizens?
> Then regardless if these are official militia, or just independent citizens such as the men who shot and stopped the shooter in Texas, wouldn't that call for citizens to be trained in safe law enforcement?
> 
> The NRA already promotes training as part of the responsibility of gun ownership. So if police and military require standard screening and training in order to use firearms why not encourage this for all law abiding citizens to promote public safety security and compliance ?
Click to expand...


To answer the other points. 

Which states didn't have a militia by 1789? 

In the American Revolutionary War you had militias from:


1 Connecticut
2 Delaware
3 Georgia
4 Maryland
5 Massachusetts
6 New Hampshire
7 New Jersey
8 New York
9 North Carolina
10 Pennsylvania
11 Rhode Island
12 South Carolina
13 Vermont
14 Virginia
That's 14 colonies, by 1789 there were still only 13 states in the Union, Vermont not being in the country at that point. 


List of United States militia units in the American Revolutionary War - Wikipedia

No, we can't agree that the right is for "law abiding people" only. The theory of rights says that rights can be INFRINGED UPON when someone is found guilty, through due process, of committing a crime or being found insane. Criminals retain their rights in prison, they're just infringed upon. 

You can encourage whatever you like with regards to training to use guns. However it doesn't change the fact that the "right to bear arms" is the right to be in the militia.


----------



## francoHFW

easyt65 said:


> The govt who wants to take your guns is ths same govt that...
> 
> - Illegally spied on Americans, on reporters, on the media, on the US Senate, and in the USSC...
> 
> - illegally used the IRS to target Americans that opposed the re-election of the party leader in office
> 
> - Who destroyed the US health care system while lying to Americans, putting into place a steppi g-stone system designed to fail and lead to single payer
> 
> - Abandoned 4 Americans to die at the hands of Al Qaeda - who slaughtered 3,000 Americans on 9/11/01, the same terrorists they helped take over their own country
> 
> - Auded, abetted, financed, supplied, armed, trained, defended, and protected ISIS, Al Qaeda, The Muslim Brotherhood, Mexican Drug Cartels, violent illegals who preyed on US citizens, and Sanctuary cities...
> 
> - Who killed a US citizen without due process abroad...
> 
> - Who set a new historic record for illegal non-compliance with the FOIA and Federal Records Act in order to keep what they were doing secret, hidden from US citizens these politicians work for...
> 
> - Protected perjurers, influence peddlers, pedophiles, traitors, and people who selfishly endangered our national security...
> 
> - Who are so fiscally irresponsible they put us Trillions in debt....
> 
> ....and this isn't even all....
> 
> ...and dumbass liberal sheep qant to hand over all our weapons / rights to this same government?!
> 
> Bwuhahaha...
> 
> ...actually, that's pretty damn scary.
> 
> -


Very hypothetical and idea at the moment but even in the article about Australia they only took one fifth of the guns in Australia the assault weapons I believe basically and hand guns. All anybody wants is no automatics of any kind and background checks. Of course you're in favor of States being able to ban assault weapons as a states rights person? LOL


----------



## Markle

*Second Amendment - U.S. Constitution.*
*Second Amendment - Bearing Arms*
Amendment Text | Annotations

*A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Please note, the single sentence contains, of all things, COMMAS.

13 Rules For Using Commas Without Looking Like An Idiot


*

Christina Sterbenz

Sep. 17, 2013, 11:39
*Contrary to popular belief, commas don't just signify pauses in a sentence*.

In fact, precise rules govern when to use this punctuation mark. When followed, they lay the groundwork for clear written communication.

We've compiled a list of all of the times when you need the mighty comma.

*1. Use a comma before any coordinating conjunction (and, but, for, or, nor, so, yet) that links two independent clauses.*

Example: "I went running, and I saw a duck."

You may need to learn a few grammatical terms to understand this one.

An independent clause is a unit of grammatical organization that includes both a subject and verb and can stand on its own as a sentence. In the previous example, "I went running" and "I saw a duck" are both independent clauses, and "and" is the coordinating conjunction that connects them. Consequently, we insert a comma.

If we were to eliminate the second "I" from that example, the second clause would lack a subject, making it not a clause at all. In that case, it would no longer need a comma: "I went running and saw a duck."

*2. Use a comma after a dependent clause that starts a sentence.*

Example: "When I went running, I saw a duck."

A dependent clause is a grammatical unit that contains both subject and verb but cannot stand on its own, like "When I went running ..."

Commas always follow these clauses at the start of a sentence. If a dependent clause ends the sentence, however, it no longer requires a comma. Only use a comma to separate a dependent clause at the end of a sentence for added emphasis, usually when negation occurs.

*3. Use commas to offset appositives from the rest of the sentence.*

Appositives act as synonyms for a juxtaposed word or phrase. For example, "While running, I saw a mallard, a kind of duck." "A kind of duck" is the appositive, which gives more information about "a mallard."

If the appositive occurs in the middle of the sentence, both sides of the phrase need a comma. As in, "A mallard, a kind of duck, attacked me."

Don't let the length of an appositive scare you. As long as the phrase somehow gives more information about its predecessor, you usually need a comma.

"A mallard, the kind of duck I saw when I went running, attacked me."

There's one exception to this rule. Don't offset a phrase that gives necessary information to the sentence. Usually, commas surround a non-essential clause or phrase. For example, "The duck that attacked me scared my friend" doesn't require any commas. Even though the phrase "that attacked me" describes "the duck," it provides essential information to the sentence. Otherwise, no one would know why the duck scared your friend. Clauses that begin with "that" are usually essential to the sentence and do not require commas.

*4. Use commas to separate items in a series. *

For example, "I saw a duck, a magician, and a liquor store when I went running."

That last comma, known as the serial comma, Oxford comma, or Harvard comma, causes serious controversy. Although many consider it unnecessary, others, including Business Insider, insist on its use to reduce ambiguity.

Internet meme that demonstrates its necessity perfectly. The sentence, "We invited the strippers, JFK, and Stalin," means the speaker sent three separate invitations: one to some strippers, one to JFK, and one to Stalin. The version without the Oxford comma, however, takes on an entirely different meaning, potentially suggesting that only one invitation was sent — to two strippers named JFK and Stalin. Witness: "We invited the strippers, JFK and Stalin.
*
5. Use a comma after introductory adverbs.*

"Finally, I went running."

"Unsurprisingly, I saw a duck when I went running."

Many adverbs end in "ly" and answer the question "how?" How did someone do something? How did something happen? Adverbs that don't end in "ly," such as "when" or "while," usually introduce a dependent clause, which rule number two in this post already covered.

Also insert a comma when "however" starts a sentence, too. Phrases like "on the other hand" and "furthermore" also fall into this category.

Also insert a comma when "however" starts a sentence, too. Phrases like "on the other hand" and "furthermore" also fall into this category.

Starting a sentence with "however," however, is discouraged by many careful writers. A better method would be to use "however" within a sentence after the phrase you want to negate, as in the previous sentence.

*6. Use a comma when attributing quotes.*

The rule for where the comma goes, however, depends on where attribution comes.

If attribution comes before the quote, place the comma outside the quotations marks. The runner said, "I saw a duck."

If attribution comes after the quote, put the comma inside the quotation marks. "I saw a duck," said the runner.

*7. Use a comma to separate each element in an address. Also use a comma after a city-state combination within a sentence.*

"I work at 257 Park Ave. South, New York, N.Y. 10010."

"Cleveland, Ohio, is a great city." 

*8. Also use a comma to separate the elements in a full date (weekday, month and day, and year). Also separate a combination of those elements from the rest of the sentence with commas. *

"March 15, 2013, was a strange day." Even if you add a weekday, keep the comma after "2013."

"Friday, March 15, 2013, was a strange day." 

"Friday, March 15, was a strange day."

You don't need to add a comma when the sentence mentions only the month and year. "March 2013 was a strange month."

*9. Use a comma when the first word of the sentence is freestanding "yes" or "no."*

"Yes, I saw a duck when I went running."

"No, the duck didn't bite me."

*10. Use a comma when directly addressing someone or something in a sentence.*

My editor often asks, "Christina, is that article up yet?"

Another clever meme shows the problem with incorrect placement of this comma. "Stop clubbing baby seals" reads like an order to desist harming infant mammals of the seal variety. The version with a comma, however, instructs them to stop attending hip dance clubs. "Stop clubbing, baby seals."

*11. Use a comma between two adjectives that modify the same noun.*

For example: "I saw the big, mean duck when I went running."

Only coordinate adjectives require a comma between them. Two adjectives are coordinate if you can answer yes to both of these questions: 1. Does the sentence still make sense if you reverse the order of the words? 2. Does the sentence still make sense if you insert "and" between the words?

Since "I saw the mean, big duck " and "I saw the big and mean duck" both sound fine, you need the comma.

Sentences with non-coordinate adjectives, however, don't require a comma. For example, "I lay under the powerful summer sun." "Powerful" describes "summer sun" as a whole phrase. This often occurs with adjunct nouns, a phrase where a noun acts as an adjective describing another noun — like "chicken soup" or "dance club." 

*12. Use a comma to offset negation in a sentence.*

For example: "I saw a duck, not a baby seal, when I went running."

In this case, you still need the comma if the negation occurs at the end of the sentence. "I saw a baby seal, not a duck."

Also use commas when any distinct shift occurs in the sentence or thought process. "The cloud looked like an animal, perhaps a baby seal."

*13. Use commas before every sequence of three numbers when writing a number larger than 999. (Two exceptions are writing years and house numbers.)*

For example, 10,000 or 1,304,687.

That concludes today's lesson.


----------



## Markle

frigidweirdo said:


> I have tons of evidence to show that "bear arms" in the Second Amendment means "render military service" or "militia duty".



That is a lie.  You are simply a Troll.  You and your simple cohorts.  

*bear arms
DEFINITION*

*carry firearms.*
wear or display a coat of arms.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Markle said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have tons of evidence to show that "bear arms" in the Second Amendment means "render military service" or "militia duty".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a lie.  You are simply a Troll.  You and your simple cohorts.
> 
> *bear arms
> DEFINITION*
> 
> *carry firearms.*
> wear or display a coat of arms.
Click to expand...


I lie? Come off it.

Bear means LOTS of things.

bear | Definition of bear in US English by Oxford Dictionaries

1) carry
2) support
3) endure
4) give birth to
5) turn and proceed in a specific direction

Now, there are five completely different meanings here. Are you suggesting here that it's ALL OF THEM? 

Simply because it CAN BE endure, it MUST BE endure? No, that's illogical.

How do we know the difference? Context. 

1) _‘the warriors bore lances tipped with iron’
2) ‘walls that cannot bear a stone vault’
3) ‘she bore the pain stoically’
4) ‘she bore six daughters’
5) ‘bear left and follow the old road’
_
Now under your logic this is what happens

1) The warriors carried lances tipped with iron
2) walls that cannot carry a stone vault
3) she carried the pain stoically
4) she carried six daughters
5) carry left and follow the old road

The reality is that it's not the case, is it? 

The context of the Second Amendment is "A well regulated militia", not "self defense of individuals" 

Sorry, but you're wrong.


----------



## Markle

frigidweirdo said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have tons of evidence to show that "bear arms" in the Second Amendment means "render military service" or "militia duty".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a lie.  You are simply a Troll.  You and your simple cohorts.
> 
> *bear arms
> DEFINITION*
> 
> *carry firearms.*
> wear or display a coat of arms.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I lie? Come off it.
> 
> Bear means LOTS of things.
> 
> bear | Definition of bear in US English by Oxford Dictionaries
> 
> 1) carry
> 2) support
> 3) endure
> 4) give birth to
> 5) turn and proceed in a specific direction
> 
> Now, there are five completely different meanings here. Are you suggesting here that it's ALL OF THEM?
> 
> Simply because it CAN BE endure, it MUST BE endure? No, that's illogical.
> 
> How do we know the difference? Context.
> 
> 1) _‘the warriors bore lances tipped with iron’
> 2) ‘walls that cannot bear a stone vault’
> 3) ‘she bore the pain stoically’
> 4) ‘she bore six daughters’
> 5) ‘bear left and follow the old road’
> _
> Now under your logic this is what happens
> 
> 1) The warriors carried lances tipped with iron
> 2) walls that cannot carry a stone vault
> 3) she carried the pain stoically
> 4) she carried six daughters
> 5) carry left and follow the old road
> 
> The reality is that it's not the case, is it?
> 
> The context of the Second Amendment is "A well regulated militia", not "self defense of individuals"
> 
> Sorry, but you're wrong.
Click to expand...


You missed punctuation in school, didn't you?  Quite a few other classes in English too.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Markle said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have tons of evidence to show that "bear arms" in the Second Amendment means "render military service" or "militia duty".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a lie.  You are simply a Troll.  You and your simple cohorts.
> 
> *bear arms
> DEFINITION*
> 
> *carry firearms.*
> wear or display a coat of arms.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I lie? Come off it.
> 
> Bear means LOTS of things.
> 
> bear | Definition of bear in US English by Oxford Dictionaries
> 
> 1) carry
> 2) support
> 3) endure
> 4) give birth to
> 5) turn and proceed in a specific direction
> 
> Now, there are five completely different meanings here. Are you suggesting here that it's ALL OF THEM?
> 
> Simply because it CAN BE endure, it MUST BE endure? No, that's illogical.
> 
> How do we know the difference? Context.
> 
> 1) _‘the warriors bore lances tipped with iron’
> 2) ‘walls that cannot bear a stone vault’
> 3) ‘she bore the pain stoically’
> 4) ‘she bore six daughters’
> 5) ‘bear left and follow the old road’
> _
> Now under your logic this is what happens
> 
> 1) The warriors carried lances tipped with iron
> 2) walls that cannot carry a stone vault
> 3) she carried the pain stoically
> 4) she carried six daughters
> 5) carry left and follow the old road
> 
> The reality is that it's not the case, is it?
> 
> The context of the Second Amendment is "A well regulated militia", not "self defense of individuals"
> 
> Sorry, but you're wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You missed punctuation in school, didn't you?  Quite a few other classes in English too.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry, what the fuck?

You have a problem with my English? Which part of my English exactly?

Punctuation doesn't play a part in all of this at all. 

Whether there are commas or there aren't commas, the Second Amendment still has the "right to...bear arms". The right is still in context of the rest of the Amendment whether there's punctuation or not.

The context is still with what the founding father said, and they used the term "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service" and "militia duty".

No matter how you try and bully your way through this, I know what I'm talking about.


----------



## ChrisL

frigidweirdo said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have tons of evidence to show that "bear arms" in the Second Amendment means "render military service" or "militia duty".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a lie.  You are simply a Troll.  You and your simple cohorts.
> 
> *bear arms
> DEFINITION*
> 
> *carry firearms.*
> wear or display a coat of arms.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I lie? Come off it.
> 
> Bear means LOTS of things.
> 
> bear | Definition of bear in US English by Oxford Dictionaries
> 
> 1) carry
> 2) support
> 3) endure
> 4) give birth to
> 5) turn and proceed in a specific direction
> 
> Now, there are five completely different meanings here. Are you suggesting here that it's ALL OF THEM?
> 
> Simply because it CAN BE endure, it MUST BE endure? No, that's illogical.
> 
> How do we know the difference? Context.
> 
> 1) _‘the warriors bore lances tipped with iron’
> 2) ‘walls that cannot bear a stone vault’
> 3) ‘she bore the pain stoically’
> 4) ‘she bore six daughters’
> 5) ‘bear left and follow the old road’
> _
> Now under your logic this is what happens
> 
> 1) The warriors carried lances tipped with iron
> 2) walls that cannot carry a stone vault
> 3) she carried the pain stoically
> 4) she carried six daughters
> 5) carry left and follow the old road
> 
> The reality is that it's not the case, is it?
> 
> The context of the Second Amendment is "A well regulated militia", not "self defense of individuals"
> 
> Sorry, but you're wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You missed punctuation in school, didn't you?  Quite a few other classes in English too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, what the fuck?
> 
> You have a problem with my English? Which part of my English exactly?
> 
> Punctuation doesn't play a part in all of this at all.
> 
> Whether there are commas or there aren't commas, the Second Amendment still has the "right to...bear arms". The right is still in context of the rest of the Amendment whether there's punctuation or not.
> 
> The context is still with what the founding father said, and they used the term "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service" and "militia duty".
> 
> No matter how you try and bully your way through this, I know what I'm talking about.
Click to expand...


This idiot is jumping through hoops to try to change the meaning of the 2nd amendment.  This is a perfect example of why you should NEVER trust a leftist.  Lol!  A perfect demonstration of willful ignorance about our rights.


----------



## ChrisL

frigidweirdo said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have tons of evidence to show that "bear arms" in the Second Amendment means "render military service" or "militia duty".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a lie.  You are simply a Troll.  You and your simple cohorts.
> 
> *bear arms
> DEFINITION*
> 
> *carry firearms.*
> wear or display a coat of arms.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I lie? Come off it.
> 
> Bear means LOTS of things.
> 
> bear | Definition of bear in US English by Oxford Dictionaries
> 
> 1) carry
> 2) support
> 3) endure
> 4) give birth to
> 5) turn and proceed in a specific direction
> 
> Now, there are five completely different meanings here. Are you suggesting here that it's ALL OF THEM?
> 
> Simply because it CAN BE endure, it MUST BE endure? No, that's illogical.
> 
> How do we know the difference? Context.
> 
> 1) _‘the warriors bore lances tipped with iron’
> 2) ‘walls that cannot bear a stone vault’
> 3) ‘she bore the pain stoically’
> 4) ‘she bore six daughters’
> 5) ‘bear left and follow the old road’
> _
> Now under your logic this is what happens
> 
> 1) The warriors carried lances tipped with iron
> 2) walls that cannot carry a stone vault
> 3) she carried the pain stoically
> 4) she carried six daughters
> 5) carry left and follow the old road
> 
> The reality is that it's not the case, is it?
> 
> The context of the Second Amendment is "A well regulated militia", not "self defense of individuals"
> 
> Sorry, but you're wrong.
Click to expand...


Holy shitskies.  This guy is a complete idiot.  Apparently, one of the dumbest fuckers on this board.  I just can't even believe it.  Lol. 

It says right in the FEDERALIST PAPERS that self defense is one of the MAIN reasons for the right to bear and keep arms, you ninny.


----------



## ChrisL

frigidweirdo said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have tons of evidence to show that "bear arms" in the Second Amendment means "render military service" or "militia duty".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a lie.  You are simply a Troll.  You and your simple cohorts.
> 
> *bear arms
> DEFINITION*
> 
> *carry firearms.*
> wear or display a coat of arms.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I lie? Come off it.
> 
> Bear means LOTS of things.
> 
> bear | Definition of bear in US English by Oxford Dictionaries
> 
> 1) carry
> 2) support
> 3) endure
> 4) give birth to
> 5) turn and proceed in a specific direction
> 
> Now, there are five completely different meanings here. Are you suggesting here that it's ALL OF THEM?
> 
> Simply because it CAN BE endure, it MUST BE endure? No, that's illogical.
> 
> How do we know the difference? Context.
> 
> 1) _‘the warriors bore lances tipped with iron’
> 2) ‘walls that cannot bear a stone vault’
> 3) ‘she bore the pain stoically’
> 4) ‘she bore six daughters’
> 5) ‘bear left and follow the old road’
> _
> Now under your logic this is what happens
> 
> 1) The warriors carried lances tipped with iron
> 2) walls that cannot carry a stone vault
> 3) she carried the pain stoically
> 4) she carried six daughters
> 5) carry left and follow the old road
> 
> The reality is that it's not the case, is it?
> 
> The context of the Second Amendment is "A well regulated militia", not "self defense of individuals"
> 
> Sorry, but you're wrong.
Click to expand...


Pathetic beyond belief.  The founders have clearly outlined in the federalist papers just what their goals were.  Before you make one more post on this topic and make an even bigger fool out of yourself, you should read them and educate yourself.  The "militia" means ALL ABLE BODIED MEN who are citizens of the United States.  

James Madison - 

*"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."*


----------



## ChrisL

In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson asserts that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness), it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish said government, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. It seems here apparent that Jefferson considered the right to abolish or alter one’s government a primary right and indeed a right which must be kept by the people if they are to expect their government to function properly and within its afforded sphere of delegated powers.  

Publius also recognized the preeminence of the right of man over his government. In Federalist 28, Alexander Hamilton (as Publius) claims that the people’s right of self-defense (defending oneself against unlawful infringement by his government) is “original.” That the right of self-defense is “original” means that it existed before the formation of the state.  

In fact, it may be said that the state was created by man to unite himself with others with a common view of the good, and as a result of the commonality of that view, the state became a defensive organization to protect its members from intrusion by men of opposing views. Hamilton asserts that since the right of the people to defend themselves cannot be taken from them, that right will always be a means of controlling those by whom they are governed.  

In the republic of the United States, citizens elect representatives. However, if the elected representatives of the people betray their constituents, the people have the inherent right to divest those representatives of their “artificial strength of government.”

The Founding Fathers believed that the power of government was artificial because citizens of a republic elect representatives to do for them what is by nature under their own dominion. Alexander Hamilton explained this principle thus: “The right of colonists, therefore, to exercise a legislative power, is an inherent right. It is founded upon the right of all men to freedom and happiness.”

Federalist Papers and the Right of "Self-Defense"


----------



## ChrisL

The second amendment and the right to self defense are a couple of the most important FOUNDING PRINCIPLES of this country.  If you don't like freedom, then there are plenty of other countries that have governments that you can gladly surrender your rights to for a false sense of "safety."  If you don't like freedom, then the solution is simple.  MOVE.


----------



## frigidweirdo

ChrisL said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have tons of evidence to show that "bear arms" in the Second Amendment means "render military service" or "militia duty".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a lie.  You are simply a Troll.  You and your simple cohorts.
> 
> *bear arms
> DEFINITION*
> 
> *carry firearms.*
> wear or display a coat of arms.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I lie? Come off it.
> 
> Bear means LOTS of things.
> 
> bear | Definition of bear in US English by Oxford Dictionaries
> 
> 1) carry
> 2) support
> 3) endure
> 4) give birth to
> 5) turn and proceed in a specific direction
> 
> Now, there are five completely different meanings here. Are you suggesting here that it's ALL OF THEM?
> 
> Simply because it CAN BE endure, it MUST BE endure? No, that's illogical.
> 
> How do we know the difference? Context.
> 
> 1) _‘the warriors bore lances tipped with iron’
> 2) ‘walls that cannot bear a stone vault’
> 3) ‘she bore the pain stoically’
> 4) ‘she bore six daughters’
> 5) ‘bear left and follow the old road’
> _
> Now under your logic this is what happens
> 
> 1) The warriors carried lances tipped with iron
> 2) walls that cannot carry a stone vault
> 3) she carried the pain stoically
> 4) she carried six daughters
> 5) carry left and follow the old road
> 
> The reality is that it's not the case, is it?
> 
> The context of the Second Amendment is "A well regulated militia", not "self defense of individuals"
> 
> Sorry, but you're wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You missed punctuation in school, didn't you?  Quite a few other classes in English too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, what the fuck?
> 
> You have a problem with my English? Which part of my English exactly?
> 
> Punctuation doesn't play a part in all of this at all.
> 
> Whether there are commas or there aren't commas, the Second Amendment still has the "right to...bear arms". The right is still in context of the rest of the Amendment whether there's punctuation or not.
> 
> The context is still with what the founding father said, and they used the term "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service" and "militia duty".
> 
> No matter how you try and bully your way through this, I know what I'm talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This idiot is jumping through hoops to try to change the meaning of the 2nd amendment.  This is a perfect example of why you should NEVER trust a leftist.  Lol!  A perfect demonstration of willful ignorance about our rights.
Click to expand...


What am I trying to change?

I'm sourcing the FOUNDING FATHERS.

I'm certain you don't really know what I'm talking about though.


----------



## frigidweirdo

ChrisL said:


> The second amendment and the right to self defense are a couple of the most important FOUNDING PRINCIPLES of this country.  If you don't like freedom, then there are plenty of other countries that have governments that you can gladly surrender your rights to for a false sense of "safety."  If you don't like freedom, then the solution is simple.  MOVE.



So, where does it mention self defense in the US Constitution?


----------



## emilynghiem

frigidweirdo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> NOt relevant.
> 
> It doesn't have any impact on what I have said
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is embarrassing right?
> 
> A guy who's boasting that he goes to LAW SCHOOLS to talk about the Second Amendment, and you can't even talk to ME about this one document.
> 
> Of course this document is relevant. This is the process the Founding Fathers took in order to come to the final conclusion about what the Second Amendment means.
> 
> You don't have ANY evidence that "bear arms" means "carry arms" and you have this document among other documents and Supreme Court decisions that I haven't even presented yet that points to "bear arms" being the right of individuals to be in the militia.
> 
> And you, with your massive resume of stuff and you can't even discuss this.
> 
> It's a big WOW from me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you are being anal and stupid.
> 
> what was the pre-existing natural right the founders sought to guarantee with the second amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm not being anal or stupid. I presented my case, I used the document to back myself up with. You haven't even spoken about it. You've done everything in your power to avoid talking about what I have said. Now you're on to words like "anal and stupid", when will the insults come? Like I said, it happens ever time. Why? Because it's not in your AGENDA to accept the FACTS.
> 
> You can say it's a "per-existing natural right", but the reality is it doesn't matter.
> 
> We're dealing with the SECOND AMENDMENT. We both know that this merely protects what is seen as the right. Whether it's a right or not is neither here nor there. We're dealing with the document that protects what people feel is the right.
> 
> Now, what rights does the 2A protect?
> 
> Well, the founding fathers said that the "right to bear arms", the right they are protecting, is the right to be in the militia. This is what the SECOND AMENDMENT says. Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo
> The way it is worded, why can't it continue to mean both?
> At the time the Bill of Rights was passed some states didn't even have state militias. So those people invoking that same right would have to do so independently. Some people might consider all the Revolutionary fighters to be militia, while others could have been independent citizens invoking political rights to defend themselves against oppressive govt tyranny turning against its own people.
> 
> Isn't the common factor that the people bearing arms were acting in the spirit of Defending and Enforcing Constitutional laws not seeking to violate rights and freedoms of any other people?
> 
> Can we agree that the right of the people means law abiding citizens?
> Then regardless if these are official militia, or just independent citizens such as the men who shot and stopped the shooter in Texas, wouldn't that call for citizens to be trained in safe law enforcement?
> 
> The NRA already promotes training as part of the responsibility of gun ownership. So if police and military require standard screening and training in order to use firearms why not encourage this for all law abiding citizens to promote public safety security and compliance ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To answer the other points.
> 
> Which states didn't have a militia by 1789?
> 
> In the American Revolutionary War you had militias from:
> 
> 
> 1 Connecticut
> 2 Delaware
> 3 Georgia
> 4 Maryland
> 5 Massachusetts
> 6 New Hampshire
> 7 New Jersey
> 8 New York
> 9 North Carolina
> 10 Pennsylvania
> 11 Rhode Island
> 12 South Carolina
> 13 Vermont
> 14 Virginia
> That's 14 colonies, by 1789 there were still only 13 states in the Union, Vermont not being in the country at that point.
> 
> 
> List of United States militia units in the American Revolutionary War - Wikipedia
> 
> No, we can't agree that the right is for "law abiding people" only. The theory of rights says that rights can be INFRINGED UPON when someone is found guilty, through due process, of committing a crime or being found insane. Criminals retain their rights in prison, they're just infringed upon.
> 
> You can encourage whatever you like with regards to training to use guns. However it doesn't change the fact that the "right to bear arms" is the right to be in the militia.
Click to expand...


Dear frigidweirdo 
I applaud you in citing historical backing for the interpretation you support that
(a) right to bear arms applies to militia members (b) right of the people is not limited to just citizens
(though I would still argue with you that the intent must be law abiding, or else it threatens the right of people to security in their
homes and equal protection of the laws if the law supported arms used for breaking laws; I argue by the very spirit of the laws,
the meaning has to be for defending rights and laws and not for violating them, or it contradicts the very reason for having laws)

Here are some citations that show AT LEAST both interpretations on both points are equally arguable.
By the same "religious freedom" and protection of your creed from discrimination,
then neither can govt be abused to EXCLUDE the interpretation of others either;
the same principles that defend YOUR interpretation and beliefs also protect other interpretations.

So again, it would Contradict the laws themselves if you were to impose YOUR interpretation
at the EXCLUSION of others who have equal if not MORE backing historically than yours does.

I have argued, quite unpopularly, that by religious freedom you and others of your belief
have equal right to defend your interpretation.  So good job with that, but it still does not give
you the right to supercede or exclude the interpretations of others which have even MORE established historical backing that is more consistent with the rest
of the history and meaning of the Constitution and natural laws.

I am all for defending and including the beliefs and opinions of the minority,
and believe you have equal right to your interpretation, or the First Amendment and Fourteenth would be violated.

(A)
10 PENNSYLVANIA
had no militia due largely in part to the Quaker/Pacifist active influence among the population

Of Arms and the Law: Leonard Levy's "Origins of the Bill of Rights"

*Leonard Levy's "Origins of the Bill of Rights"*
POSTED BY DAVID HARDY · 22 AUGUST 2005 04:27 PM
Just got Leonard Levy's "Origins of the Bill of Rights." (He's the late, great legal historian who some years ago won the Pulitzer for his history of the 5th Amendment). Levy devotes an entire chapter to the Second Amendment, arguing that it's an individual right. He says that the claim that Miller v. US ruled for a collective right "misleads." He rejects claims that "bear arms" (as opposed to "keep") relates only to military use, pointing out that the Pennsylvania minority's demand for a bill of rights used "bear arms" to describe use in self-defense and even hunting, and that PA at the point in time was the only State without a militia organization (the large Quaker population and its passifism accounting for that).

A WII vet himself, Levy added that "If all that was meant was the right to be a soldier or to serve in the military, whether in the militia or in the army, it would hardly be a cherished right and would never have reached constitutional status in the Bill of Rights. The 'right' to be a soldier does not make much sense."

(B) RE: law abiding citizens interpretation
NONCITIZENS AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT

Mixed interpretations, over noncitizens, where courts have been split.
the traditional interpretation was citizens, and the growing population and political inclusion of noncitizens
may have challenged this interpretation, as we are seeing today with immigration laws challenging
the equal rights and protections of citizens vs. noncitizens.

From my experience and understanding of natural laws, there is more consensus that
the purpose would be for complying with law and not violating laws; as it makes no
sense that the law would support enabling criminals or "enemies of the law/state" to commit violations.
That would be the equivalent of "aiding and abetting" to give arms to anyone with criminal intent.
it would violate the right of people to security in their persons houses and effects,
and threaten the equal protections to defend any such right to use arms with the intent of breaking laws.
But since govt cannot prove intent until after there is due process and someone is convicted,
then the law cannot try to prescribe this. But by natural laws, and the spirit of the law, I find
there is no question that people agree that the law does NOT INTEND to enable abuse of arms to commit crimes
and violate rights of others. the objections I have found involve due process, in that there is no way to 
police intent in advance or it would start infringing on rights and liberties. But the spirit of the law would imply
the legal use of arms is for defense of law not for violations, that's just common sense of what people would consent to.

(C) as for how to deal with these dual interpretations

1. I see no problem in some people believing in organized militia
and others being okay with individual gun ownership as long as there is proper
training in the laws, procedures of law enforcement where people follow the same
procedures as the police so there is no question on who is complying or not,
and possibly introducing the idea of insurance required in case of abuse or accidents,
similar to car insurance that is decided by state.

2. for criminal disorders or incompetence that poses dangers to public health and safety,
I believe that better means of reporting abuses and threats for standard screening
could be agreed upon per district on the level of civic or neighborhood associations
that can pass their own ordinances against drug abuse or dangerous dogs or 
requirements for screening/training for gun owners. If the local organizations
decide democratically where all residents agree to the standards they elect to
comply with and enforce, that can be completely constitutional for them to choose.

What people don't want is for outside authority to dictate what standards or
interpretations can regulate their rights etc. So if people agree and elect these
freely, then any interpretation or standard can be chosen for enforcement by consent of those residents.
Including how to report potential threats, require screening or counseling for dangerous conditions
found, or mediate and resolve conflicts by consent of the parties in order to reside in such a district that
has implemented such a policy by agreement of the property owners and residents in order to live there.

I don't have a problem with accommodating diverse interpretations,
but don't think it is constitutional to abuse govt to impose one or the other
where it threatens people of different beliefs or excludes them from public policy
which should protect and represent people regardless of beliefs and interpretations.
We just can't be in the business of imposing on each other's beliefs,
or that also violates Constitutional rights and protections under the First, Fourteenth and other Amendments.


----------



## frigidweirdo

ChrisL said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have tons of evidence to show that "bear arms" in the Second Amendment means "render military service" or "militia duty".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a lie.  You are simply a Troll.  You and your simple cohorts.
> 
> *bear arms
> DEFINITION*
> 
> *carry firearms.*
> wear or display a coat of arms.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I lie? Come off it.
> 
> Bear means LOTS of things.
> 
> bear | Definition of bear in US English by Oxford Dictionaries
> 
> 1) carry
> 2) support
> 3) endure
> 4) give birth to
> 5) turn and proceed in a specific direction
> 
> Now, there are five completely different meanings here. Are you suggesting here that it's ALL OF THEM?
> 
> Simply because it CAN BE endure, it MUST BE endure? No, that's illogical.
> 
> How do we know the difference? Context.
> 
> 1) _‘the warriors bore lances tipped with iron’
> 2) ‘walls that cannot bear a stone vault’
> 3) ‘she bore the pain stoically’
> 4) ‘she bore six daughters’
> 5) ‘bear left and follow the old road’
> _
> Now under your logic this is what happens
> 
> 1) The warriors carried lances tipped with iron
> 2) walls that cannot carry a stone vault
> 3) she carried the pain stoically
> 4) she carried six daughters
> 5) carry left and follow the old road
> 
> The reality is that it's not the case, is it?
> 
> The context of the Second Amendment is "A well regulated militia", not "self defense of individuals"
> 
> Sorry, but you're wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pathetic beyond belief.  The founders have clearly outlined in the federalist papers just what their goals were.  Before you make one more post on this topic and make an even bigger fool out of yourself, you should read them and educate yourself.  The "militia" means ALL ABLE BODIED MEN who are citizens of the United States.
> 
> James Madison -
> 
> *"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."*
Click to expand...


Okay then, seeing as I've sourced the Founding Fathers, the US Supreme Court in the 1880s and the 2000s, where's YOUR EVIDENCE? 

Pathetic is attacking people with nothing.


----------



## easyt65

francoHFW said:


> easyt65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The govt who wants to take your guns is ths same govt that...
> 
> - Illegally spied on Americans, on reporters, on the media, on the US Senate, and in the USSC...
> 
> - illegally used the IRS to target Americans that opposed the re-election of the party leader in office
> 
> - Who destroyed the US health care system while lying to Americans, putting into place a steppi g-stone system designed to fail and lead to single payer
> 
> - Abandoned 4 Americans to die at the hands of Al Qaeda - who slaughtered 3,000 Americans on 9/11/01, the same terrorists they helped take over their own country
> 
> - Auded, abetted, financed, supplied, armed, trained, defended, and protected ISIS, Al Qaeda, The Muslim Brotherhood, Mexican Drug Cartels, violent illegals who preyed on US citizens, and Sanctuary cities...
> 
> - Who killed a US citizen without due process abroad...
> 
> - Who set a new historic record for illegal non-compliance with the FOIA and Federal Records Act in order to keep what they were doing secret, hidden from US citizens these politicians work for...
> 
> - Protected perjurers, influence peddlers, pedophiles, traitors, and people who selfishly endangered our national security...
> 
> - Who are so fiscally irresponsible they put us Trillions in debt....
> 
> ....and this isn't even all....
> 
> ...and dumbass liberal sheep qant to hand over all our weapons / rights to this same government?!
> 
> Bwuhahaha...
> 
> ...actually, that's pretty damn scary.
> 
> -
> 
> 
> 
> Very hypothetical and idea at the moment but even in the article about Australia they only took one fifth of the guns in Australia the assault weapons I believe basically and hand guns. All anybody wants is no automatics of any kind and background checks. Of course you're in favor of States being able to ban assault weapons as a states rights person? LOL
Click to expand...

Hypothetical, my ass. The govt that seeks to limit strip our rights to bare arms DID all of that - victimizing American citizens, aiding our enemies, and making us less safe.

And as pointed out, thete is no such thing as an 'assault weapon'.  It is a term made up by the same people who seek to limit or strip the 2nd Amendment....the same govt that came up with BS 'Carbon Credits'.


----------



## ChrisL

frigidweirdo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have tons of evidence to show that "bear arms" in the Second Amendment means "render military service" or "militia duty".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a lie.  You are simply a Troll.  You and your simple cohorts.
> 
> *bear arms
> DEFINITION*
> 
> *carry firearms.*
> wear or display a coat of arms.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I lie? Come off it.
> 
> Bear means LOTS of things.
> 
> bear | Definition of bear in US English by Oxford Dictionaries
> 
> 1) carry
> 2) support
> 3) endure
> 4) give birth to
> 5) turn and proceed in a specific direction
> 
> Now, there are five completely different meanings here. Are you suggesting here that it's ALL OF THEM?
> 
> Simply because it CAN BE endure, it MUST BE endure? No, that's illogical.
> 
> How do we know the difference? Context.
> 
> 1) _‘the warriors bore lances tipped with iron’
> 2) ‘walls that cannot bear a stone vault’
> 3) ‘she bore the pain stoically’
> 4) ‘she bore six daughters’
> 5) ‘bear left and follow the old road’
> _
> Now under your logic this is what happens
> 
> 1) The warriors carried lances tipped with iron
> 2) walls that cannot carry a stone vault
> 3) she carried the pain stoically
> 4) she carried six daughters
> 5) carry left and follow the old road
> 
> The reality is that it's not the case, is it?
> 
> The context of the Second Amendment is "A well regulated militia", not "self defense of individuals"
> 
> Sorry, but you're wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pathetic beyond belief.  The founders have clearly outlined in the federalist papers just what their goals were.  Before you make one more post on this topic and make an even bigger fool out of yourself, you should read them and educate yourself.  The "militia" means ALL ABLE BODIED MEN who are citizens of the United States.
> 
> James Madison -
> 
> *"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay then, seeing as I've sourced the Founding Fathers, the US Supreme Court in the 1880s and the 2000s, where's YOUR EVIDENCE?
> 
> Pathetic is attacking people with nothing.
Click to expand...


Your twisting words is not a valid citation of anything.  I am the one who has cited the founding fathers and intent and words.  

*Thomas Jefferson, of Virginia:*
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” — Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” — Jefferson`s “Commonplace Book,” 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

*George Mason, of Virginia:*
“[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually.”. . . I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” — Virginia`s U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788

“That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free state.” — Within Mason`s declaration of “the essential and unalienable Rights of the People,” — later adopted by the Virginia ratification convention, 1788
*Samuel Adams, of Massachusetts:*
“The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.” — Massachusetts` U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788

*William Grayson, of Virginia:*
“[A] string of amendments were presented to the lower House; these altogether respected personal liberty.” — Letter to Patrick Henry, June 12, 1789, referring to the introduction of what became the Bill of Rights

*Richard Henry Lee, of Virginia:*
“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms… The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle.” — Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer, 1788

*James Madison, of Virginia:*
The Constitution preserves “the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” — The Federalist, No. 46

*Tench Coxe, of Pennsylvania:*
“The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them.” — An American Citizen, Oct. 21, 1787

“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” — The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

“As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” — Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

*Noah Webster, of Pennsylvania:*
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power.” — An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787

*Alexander Hamilton, of New York:*
“_f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens.” — The Federalist, No. 29

*Thomas Paine, of Pennsylvania:*
“[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.” — Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775

*Fisher Ames, of Massachusetts:*
“The rights of conscience, of bearing arms, of changing the government, are declared to be inherent in the people.” — Letter to F.R. Minoe, June 12, 1789

*Elbridge Gerry, of Massachusetts:*
“What, sir, is the use of militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . . Whenever Government means to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise a standing army upon its ruins.” — Debate, U.S. House of Representatives, August 17, 1789



*Patrick Henry, of Virginia:*
*“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel.” *— Virginia`s U.S. Constitution ratification convention_


----------



## frigidweirdo

emilynghiem said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is embarrassing right?
> 
> A guy who's boasting that he goes to LAW SCHOOLS to talk about the Second Amendment, and you can't even talk to ME about this one document.
> 
> Of course this document is relevant. This is the process the Founding Fathers took in order to come to the final conclusion about what the Second Amendment means.
> 
> You don't have ANY evidence that "bear arms" means "carry arms" and you have this document among other documents and Supreme Court decisions that I haven't even presented yet that points to "bear arms" being the right of individuals to be in the militia.
> 
> And you, with your massive resume of stuff and you can't even discuss this.
> 
> It's a big WOW from me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you are being anal and stupid.
> 
> what was the pre-existing natural right the founders sought to guarantee with the second amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm not being anal or stupid. I presented my case, I used the document to back myself up with. You haven't even spoken about it. You've done everything in your power to avoid talking about what I have said. Now you're on to words like "anal and stupid", when will the insults come? Like I said, it happens ever time. Why? Because it's not in your AGENDA to accept the FACTS.
> 
> You can say it's a "per-existing natural right", but the reality is it doesn't matter.
> 
> We're dealing with the SECOND AMENDMENT. We both know that this merely protects what is seen as the right. Whether it's a right or not is neither here nor there. We're dealing with the document that protects what people feel is the right.
> 
> Now, what rights does the 2A protect?
> 
> Well, the founding fathers said that the "right to bear arms", the right they are protecting, is the right to be in the militia. This is what the SECOND AMENDMENT says. Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo
> The way it is worded, why can't it continue to mean both?
> At the time the Bill of Rights was passed some states didn't even have state militias. So those people invoking that same right would have to do so independently. Some people might consider all the Revolutionary fighters to be militia, while others could have been independent citizens invoking political rights to defend themselves against oppressive govt tyranny turning against its own people.
> 
> Isn't the common factor that the people bearing arms were acting in the spirit of Defending and Enforcing Constitutional laws not seeking to violate rights and freedoms of any other people?
> 
> Can we agree that the right of the people means law abiding citizens?
> Then regardless if these are official militia, or just independent citizens such as the men who shot and stopped the shooter in Texas, wouldn't that call for citizens to be trained in safe law enforcement?
> 
> The NRA already promotes training as part of the responsibility of gun ownership. So if police and military require standard screening and training in order to use firearms why not encourage this for all law abiding citizens to promote public safety security and compliance ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To answer the other points.
> 
> Which states didn't have a militia by 1789?
> 
> In the American Revolutionary War you had militias from:
> 
> 
> 1 Connecticut
> 2 Delaware
> 3 Georgia
> 4 Maryland
> 5 Massachusetts
> 6 New Hampshire
> 7 New Jersey
> 8 New York
> 9 North Carolina
> 10 Pennsylvania
> 11 Rhode Island
> 12 South Carolina
> 13 Vermont
> 14 Virginia
> That's 14 colonies, by 1789 there were still only 13 states in the Union, Vermont not being in the country at that point.
> 
> 
> List of United States militia units in the American Revolutionary War - Wikipedia
> 
> No, we can't agree that the right is for "law abiding people" only. The theory of rights says that rights can be INFRINGED UPON when someone is found guilty, through due process, of committing a crime or being found insane. Criminals retain their rights in prison, they're just infringed upon.
> 
> You can encourage whatever you like with regards to training to use guns. However it doesn't change the fact that the "right to bear arms" is the right to be in the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo
> I applaud you in citing historical backing for the interpretation you support that
> (a) right to bear arms applies to militia members (b) right of the people is not limited to just citizens
> (though I would still argue with you that the intent must be law abiding, or else it threatens the right of people to security in their
> homes and equal protection of the laws if the law supported arms used for breaking laws; I argue by the very spirit of the laws,
> the meaning has to be for defending rights and laws and not for violating them, or it contradicts the very reason for having laws)
> 
> Here are some citations that show AT LEAST both interpretations on both points are equally arguable.
> By the same "religious freedom" and protection of your creed from discrimination,
> then neither can govt be abused to EXCLUDE the interpretation of others either;
> the same principles that defend YOUR interpretation and beliefs also protect other interpretations.
> 
> So again, it would Contradict the laws themselves if you were to impose YOUR interpretation
> at the EXCLUSION of others who have equal if not MORE backing historically than yours does.
> 
> I have argued, quite unpopularly, that by religious freedom you and others of your belief
> have equal right to defend your interpretation.  So good job with that, but it still does not give
> you the right to supercede or exclude the interpretations of others which have even MORE established historical backing that is more consistent with the rest
> of the history and meaning of the Constitution and natural laws.
> 
> I am all for defending and including the beliefs and opinions of the minority,
> and believe you have equal right to your interpretation, or the First Amendment and Fourteenth would be violated.
> 
> (A)
> 10 PENNSYLVANIA
> had no militia due largely in part to the Quaker/Pacifist active influence among the population
> 
> Of Arms and the Law: Leonard Levy's "Origins of the Bill of Rights"
> 
> *Leonard Levy's "Origins of the Bill of Rights"*
> POSTED BY DAVID HARDY · 22 AUGUST 2005 04:27 PM
> Just got Leonard Levy's "Origins of the Bill of Rights." (He's the late, great legal historian who some years ago won the Pulitzer for his history of the 5th Amendment). Levy devotes an entire chapter to the Second Amendment, arguing that it's an individual right. He says that the claim that Miller v. US ruled for a collective right "misleads." He rejects claims that "bear arms" (as opposed to "keep") relates only to military use, pointing out that the Pennsylvania minority's demand for a bill of rights used "bear arms" to describe use in self-defense and even hunting, and that PA at the point in time was the only State without a militia organization (the large Quaker population and its passifism accounting for that).
> 
> A WII vet himself, Levy added that "If all that was meant was the right to be a soldier or to serve in the military, whether in the militia or in the army, it would hardly be a cherished right and would never have reached constitutional status in the Bill of Rights. The 'right' to be a soldier does not make much sense."
> 
> (B) RE: law abiding citizens interpretation
> NONCITIZENS AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT
> 
> Mixed interpretations, over noncitizens, where courts have been split.
> the traditional interpretation was citizens, and the growing population and political inclusion of noncitizens
> may have challenged this interpretation, as we are seeing today with immigration laws challenging
> the equal rights and protections of citizens vs. noncitizens.
> 
> From my experience and understanding of natural laws, there is more consensus that
> the purpose would be for complying with law and not violating laws; as it makes no
> sense that the law would support enabling criminals or "enemies of the law/state" to commit violations.
> That would be the equivalent of "aiding and abetting" to give arms to anyone with criminal intent.
> it would violate the right of people to security in their persons houses and effects,
> and threaten the equal protections to defend any such right to use arms with the intent of breaking laws.
> But since govt cannot prove intent until after there is due process and someone is convicted,
> then the law cannot try to prescribe this. But by natural laws, and the spirit of the law, I find
> there is no question that people agree that the law does NOT INTEND to enable abuse of arms to commit crimes
> and violate rights of others. the objections I have found involve due process, in that there is no way to
> police intent in advance or it would start infringing on rights and liberties. But the spirit of the law would imply
> the legal use of arms is for defense of law not for violations, that's just common sense of what people would consent to.
> 
> (C) as for how to deal with these dual interpretations
> 
> 1. I see no problem in some people believing in organized militia
> and others being okay with individual gun ownership as long as there is proper
> training in the laws, procedures of law enforcement where people follow the same
> procedures as the police so there is no question on who is complying or not,
> and possibly introducing the idea of insurance required in case of abuse or accidents,
> similar to car insurance that is decided by state.
> 
> 2. for criminal disorders or incompetence that poses dangers to public health and safety,
> I believe that better means of reporting abuses and threats for standard screening
> could be agreed upon per district on the level of civic or neighborhood associations
> that can pass their own ordinances against drug abuse or dangerous dogs or
> requirements for screening/training for gun owners. If the local organizations
> decide democratically where all residents agree to the standards they elect to
> comply with and enforce, that can be completely constitutional for them to choose.
> 
> What people don't want is for outside authority to dictate what standards or
> interpretations can regulate their rights etc. So if people agree and elect these
> freely, then any interpretation or standard can be chosen for enforcement by consent of those residents.
> Including how to report potential threats, require screening or counseling for dangerous conditions
> found, or mediate and resolve conflicts by consent of the parties in order to reside in such a district that
> has implemented such a policy by agreement of the property owners and residents in order to live there.
> 
> I don't have a problem with accommodating diverse interpretations,
> but don't think it is constitutional to abuse govt to impose one or the other
> where it threatens people of different beliefs or excludes them from public policy
> which should protect and represent people regardless of beliefs and interpretations.
> We just can't be in the business of imposing on each other's beliefs,
> or that also violates Constitutional rights and protections under the First, Fourteenth and other Amendments.
Click to expand...


Well, you want the right to be just for law abiding. However a right is ONLY a right when EVERYONE has the right, otherwise it's a privilege, it's that simple.

This doesn't mean criminals can't have that right infringed upon.

Well, if anyone, I mean ANYONE can show me anything that takes away my interpretation, which isn't based on what I want, but on what I've seen. Usually I get people just throwing insults because they can't argue with me. 

People have the right to argue as they like, they have the right to be wrong. 

Pennsylvania had the 111th infantry regiment. It fought in the War of Independence and changed names through time. 

111th Infantry Regiment (United States) - Wikipedia

"

747 Constituted 7 December 1747 by official recognition of the Associators, founded 21 November 1747 in Philadelphia by Benjamin Franklin.
1747 Organized 29 December 1747 as Associated Regiment of Foot of Philadelphia.
1775 Reorganized as Associates of the City and Liberties of Philadelphia, with five Battalions.
1777 Reorganized as the Philadelphia Brigade of Militia, commanded by Brigadier General John Cadwalader.
1793 Reorganized 11 April 1793 as Volunteer Infantry Elements of 1st Brigade, 1st Division Pennsylvania Militia.
1814 Volunteer Infantry Companies of 1st Brigade reorganized as 1st Regiment, Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry, commanded by Colonel Clement C. Biddle; entered federal service 24 August 1814 and relieved 4 January 1815.
1816 Reorganized 19 March 1816 as Volunteer Infantry Elements of 1st Division."

Now what we have here might be that the militia disbanded and was then reorganized in times of need. Which is exactly what a Militia is. You don't need a militia in order to have the right to be in the militia. When people feel the need for a militia, it can be reorganized and then individuals will join the militia. 
At the time people weren't fervent about their 2A rights as they are now. It was all practical. You have the right to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply, but the reality was that individuals had weapons as a general part of their daily life, hunting as a source of food must have been great at the time, seeing as most people lived in rural areas. When things demanded it was your DUTY to join the militia. However they were protecting the militia so they made it your right as well as your duty. 

You think I'm imposing my view on others? Well you can think that, I'm not too bothered. However all I'm doing is taking historical documents and using it to show what the Founding Fathers thought. That the vast majority of people (who also have agendas) will ignore these documents is quite telling.


----------



## emilynghiem

frigidweirdo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are being anal and stupid.
> 
> what was the pre-existing natural right the founders sought to guarantee with the second amendment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm not being anal or stupid. I presented my case, I used the document to back myself up with. You haven't even spoken about it. You've done everything in your power to avoid talking about what I have said. Now you're on to words like "anal and stupid", when will the insults come? Like I said, it happens ever time. Why? Because it's not in your AGENDA to accept the FACTS.
> 
> You can say it's a "per-existing natural right", but the reality is it doesn't matter.
> 
> We're dealing with the SECOND AMENDMENT. We both know that this merely protects what is seen as the right. Whether it's a right or not is neither here nor there. We're dealing with the document that protects what people feel is the right.
> 
> Now, what rights does the 2A protect?
> 
> Well, the founding fathers said that the "right to bear arms", the right they are protecting, is the right to be in the militia. This is what the SECOND AMENDMENT says. Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo
> The way it is worded, why can't it continue to mean both?
> At the time the Bill of Rights was passed some states didn't even have state militias. So those people invoking that same right would have to do so independently. Some people might consider all the Revolutionary fighters to be militia, while others could have been independent citizens invoking political rights to defend themselves against oppressive govt tyranny turning against its own people.
> 
> Isn't the common factor that the people bearing arms were acting in the spirit of Defending and Enforcing Constitutional laws not seeking to violate rights and freedoms of any other people?
> 
> Can we agree that the right of the people means law abiding citizens?
> Then regardless if these are official militia, or just independent citizens such as the men who shot and stopped the shooter in Texas, wouldn't that call for citizens to be trained in safe law enforcement?
> 
> The NRA already promotes training as part of the responsibility of gun ownership. So if police and military require standard screening and training in order to use firearms why not encourage this for all law abiding citizens to promote public safety security and compliance ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To answer the other points.
> 
> Which states didn't have a militia by 1789?
> 
> In the American Revolutionary War you had militias from:
> 
> 
> 1 Connecticut
> 2 Delaware
> 3 Georgia
> 4 Maryland
> 5 Massachusetts
> 6 New Hampshire
> 7 New Jersey
> 8 New York
> 9 North Carolina
> 10 Pennsylvania
> 11 Rhode Island
> 12 South Carolina
> 13 Vermont
> 14 Virginia
> That's 14 colonies, by 1789 there were still only 13 states in the Union, Vermont not being in the country at that point.
> 
> 
> List of United States militia units in the American Revolutionary War - Wikipedia
> 
> No, we can't agree that the right is for "law abiding people" only. The theory of rights says that rights can be INFRINGED UPON when someone is found guilty, through due process, of committing a crime or being found insane. Criminals retain their rights in prison, they're just infringed upon.
> 
> You can encourage whatever you like with regards to training to use guns. However it doesn't change the fact that the "right to bear arms" is the right to be in the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo
> I applaud you in citing historical backing for the interpretation you support that
> (a) right to bear arms applies to militia members (b) right of the people is not limited to just citizens
> (though I would still argue with you that the intent must be law abiding, or else it threatens the right of people to security in their
> homes and equal protection of the laws if the law supported arms used for breaking laws; I argue by the very spirit of the laws,
> the meaning has to be for defending rights and laws and not for violating them, or it contradicts the very reason for having laws)
> 
> Here are some citations that show AT LEAST both interpretations on both points are equally arguable.
> By the same "religious freedom" and protection of your creed from discrimination,
> then neither can govt be abused to EXCLUDE the interpretation of others either;
> the same principles that defend YOUR interpretation and beliefs also protect other interpretations.
> 
> So again, it would Contradict the laws themselves if you were to impose YOUR interpretation
> at the EXCLUSION of others who have equal if not MORE backing historically than yours does.
> 
> I have argued, quite unpopularly, that by religious freedom you and others of your belief
> have equal right to defend your interpretation.  So good job with that, but it still does not give
> you the right to supercede or exclude the interpretations of others which have even MORE established historical backing that is more consistent with the rest
> of the history and meaning of the Constitution and natural laws.
> 
> I am all for defending and including the beliefs and opinions of the minority,
> and believe you have equal right to your interpretation, or the First Amendment and Fourteenth would be violated.
> 
> (A)
> 10 PENNSYLVANIA
> had no militia due largely in part to the Quaker/Pacifist active influence among the population
> 
> Of Arms and the Law: Leonard Levy's "Origins of the Bill of Rights"
> 
> *Leonard Levy's "Origins of the Bill of Rights"*
> POSTED BY DAVID HARDY · 22 AUGUST 2005 04:27 PM
> Just got Leonard Levy's "Origins of the Bill of Rights." (He's the late, great legal historian who some years ago won the Pulitzer for his history of the 5th Amendment). Levy devotes an entire chapter to the Second Amendment, arguing that it's an individual right. He says that the claim that Miller v. US ruled for a collective right "misleads." He rejects claims that "bear arms" (as opposed to "keep") relates only to military use, pointing out that the Pennsylvania minority's demand for a bill of rights used "bear arms" to describe use in self-defense and even hunting, and that PA at the point in time was the only State without a militia organization (the large Quaker population and its passifism accounting for that).
> 
> A WII vet himself, Levy added that "If all that was meant was the right to be a soldier or to serve in the military, whether in the militia or in the army, it would hardly be a cherished right and would never have reached constitutional status in the Bill of Rights. The 'right' to be a soldier does not make much sense."
> 
> (B) RE: law abiding citizens interpretation
> NONCITIZENS AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT
> 
> Mixed interpretations, over noncitizens, where courts have been split.
> the traditional interpretation was citizens, and the growing population and political inclusion of noncitizens
> may have challenged this interpretation, as we are seeing today with immigration laws challenging
> the equal rights and protections of citizens vs. noncitizens.
> 
> From my experience and understanding of natural laws, there is more consensus that
> the purpose would be for complying with law and not violating laws; as it makes no
> sense that the law would support enabling criminals or "enemies of the law/state" to commit violations.
> That would be the equivalent of "aiding and abetting" to give arms to anyone with criminal intent.
> it would violate the right of people to security in their persons houses and effects,
> and threaten the equal protections to defend any such right to use arms with the intent of breaking laws.
> But since govt cannot prove intent until after there is due process and someone is convicted,
> then the law cannot try to prescribe this. But by natural laws, and the spirit of the law, I find
> there is no question that people agree that the law does NOT INTEND to enable abuse of arms to commit crimes
> and violate rights of others. the objections I have found involve due process, in that there is no way to
> police intent in advance or it would start infringing on rights and liberties. But the spirit of the law would imply
> the legal use of arms is for defense of law not for violations, that's just common sense of what people would consent to.
> 
> (C) as for how to deal with these dual interpretations
> 
> 1. I see no problem in some people believing in organized militia
> and others being okay with individual gun ownership as long as there is proper
> training in the laws, procedures of law enforcement where people follow the same
> procedures as the police so there is no question on who is complying or not,
> and possibly introducing the idea of insurance required in case of abuse or accidents,
> similar to car insurance that is decided by state.
> 
> 2. for criminal disorders or incompetence that poses dangers to public health and safety,
> I believe that better means of reporting abuses and threats for standard screening
> could be agreed upon per district on the level of civic or neighborhood associations
> that can pass their own ordinances against drug abuse or dangerous dogs or
> requirements for screening/training for gun owners. If the local organizations
> decide democratically where all residents agree to the standards they elect to
> comply with and enforce, that can be completely constitutional for them to choose.
> 
> What people don't want is for outside authority to dictate what standards or
> interpretations can regulate their rights etc. So if people agree and elect these
> freely, then any interpretation or standard can be chosen for enforcement by consent of those residents.
> Including how to report potential threats, require screening or counseling for dangerous conditions
> found, or mediate and resolve conflicts by consent of the parties in order to reside in such a district that
> has implemented such a policy by agreement of the property owners and residents in order to live there.
> 
> I don't have a problem with accommodating diverse interpretations,
> but don't think it is constitutional to abuse govt to impose one or the other
> where it threatens people of different beliefs or excludes them from public policy
> which should protect and represent people regardless of beliefs and interpretations.
> We just can't be in the business of imposing on each other's beliefs,
> or that also violates Constitutional rights and protections under the First, Fourteenth and other Amendments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you want the right to be just for law abiding. However a right is ONLY a right when EVERYONE has the right, otherwise it's a privilege, it's that simple.
> 
> This doesn't mean criminals can't have that right infringed upon.
> 
> Well, if anyone, I mean ANYONE can show me anything that takes away my interpretation, which isn't based on what I want, but on what I've seen. Usually I get people just throwing insults because they can't argue with me.
> 
> People have the right to argue as they like, they have the right to be wrong.
> 
> Pennsylvania had the 111th infantry regiment. It fought in the War of Independence and changed names through time.
> 
> 111th Infantry Regiment (United States) - Wikipedia
> 
> "
> 
> 747 Constituted 7 December 1747 by official recognition of the Associators, founded 21 November 1747 in Philadelphia by Benjamin Franklin.
> 1747 Organized 29 December 1747 as Associated Regiment of Foot of Philadelphia.
> 1775 Reorganized as Associates of the City and Liberties of Philadelphia, with five Battalions.
> 1777 Reorganized as the Philadelphia Brigade of Militia, commanded by Brigadier General John Cadwalader.
> 1793 Reorganized 11 April 1793 as Volunteer Infantry Elements of 1st Brigade, 1st Division Pennsylvania Militia.
> 1814 Volunteer Infantry Companies of 1st Brigade reorganized as 1st Regiment, Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry, commanded by Colonel Clement C. Biddle; entered federal service 24 August 1814 and relieved 4 January 1815.
> 1816 Reorganized 19 March 1816 as Volunteer Infantry Elements of 1st Division."
> 
> Now what we have here might be that the militia disbanded and was then reorganized in times of need. Which is exactly what a Militia is. You don't need a militia in order to have the right to be in the militia. When people feel the need for a militia, it can be reorganized and then individuals will join the militia.
> At the time people weren't fervent about their 2A rights as they are now. It was all practical. You have the right to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply, but the reality was that individuals had weapons as a general part of their daily life, hunting as a source of food must have been great at the time, seeing as most people lived in rural areas. When things demanded it was your DUTY to join the militia. However they were protecting the militia so they made it your right as well as your duty.
> 
> You think I'm imposing my view on others? Well you can think that, I'm not too bothered. However all I'm doing is taking historical documents and using it to show what the Founding Fathers thought. That the vast majority of people (who also have agendas) will ignore these documents is quite telling.
Click to expand...


Very good frigidweirdo you have presented the best backing and historical justification
for the interpretation you support which I have seen up to this point.

Again, I still believe you have the right to your interpretation even without any such backing,
but by the nature of religious freedom and equal protection of the laws from discrimination by creed.

In order to protect the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to security and protections of the law,
I find it legally necessary to educate and train all citizens and residents in Constitutional law enforcement and ethics.

Otherwise if people do not have knowledge or experience with the laws and ethics that the public and community agrees to enforce,
that is what causes breaches of the peace, abuses and violations.

So my definition of what is necessary for citizenship IS based on teaching people to be law abiding
and to use that educational, training and conflict resolution process to SCREEN for criminal disorders, illnesses or other incompetence
that would render someone "disabled" or "unable" to comply with laws without additional assistance, guardianship or supervision.

Those are my beliefs which I equally defend my right to exercise and enforce by
the same First and Fourteenth Amendment I would invoke to protect yours.

The difference I have found, is that I am willing to do the work and invest the resources
and set up the system in order to enforce the interpretation I support.

However, I find too many other people NOT willing to pay the cost or consequences of
THEIR interpretations. That is why people argue against gun rights because there is no responsibility for the cost of abuse.
Or against abortion rights or prolife beliefs where the advocates aren't taking responsibility for the costs to enforce those policies.

frigidweirdo are you REALLY willing to shoulder the cost to enforce your interpretation?

I have described what I believe it will take to ensure the right to bear arms is
exercised within a  "law abiding" environment that is constitutional where it
is locally elected and enforced.

What about what you are asking, to require people to join militias?

Would you be okay with the proposal to reward districts for reduced
crime rates by the residents working WITH police and military to
offer the SAME training and screening for all citizens/residents seeking to bear arms?

That's not the same as joining a militia to have the same training and screening.
I suggest adding this to the neighborhood or district policies, or giving tax
breaks where communities effectively reduce crime and can invest those
dollars into their schools or programs for daycare, health care or elderly care
as an incentive to promote LAW ABIDING citizenry. 

So I would focus on compliance with laws by education, training and job creation,
and not so much on "joining an official militia" unless you count citizen patrols and security training?

I still see it more as citizen based, not as militia run.

The militia, even the "first responders" cannot be the only ones trained
and relied upon for emergency response and criminal activity.

frigidweirdo as recent events in Texas showed, with both widespread
storms and flooding that sent independent teams to do rescue work,
and with the mass shooting that required citizens to intervene since
there were no police, we will always need active citizens IN ADDITION
to any such "militia" or dedicated emergency/first responders.

But if you want to call these a form of "trained militia" then you
and I are just using different terms for the same concept of
having trained citizens to ensure enforcement of laws and safety.

I just don't see everyone agreeing to be REQUIRED to join a militia
group, though I could see people agreeing to uniform neighborhood
ordinances when they are equally involved in the process of making that policy
that represents the residents and owners in that community.
If this takes the form of a "militia" then fine, but if it just means all
community members agree to work with police to go through the
same training to understand and comply with the same procedures,
that doesn't necessarily mean JOINING the police or militia to be enforcing the same
policies and standards for security in that district.

So I would think my interpretation is more inclusive of
yours and others, while yours would exclude people who don't
agree with the condition of joining a militia. 

And the interpretation that includes more people's beliefs equally
would seem to me to be more constitutionally consistent
by not discriminating or excluding
but by accommodating and protecting people equally
regardless of their beliefs and interpretations.


----------



## frigidweirdo

emilynghiem said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm not being anal or stupid. I presented my case, I used the document to back myself up with. You haven't even spoken about it. You've done everything in your power to avoid talking about what I have said. Now you're on to words like "anal and stupid", when will the insults come? Like I said, it happens ever time. Why? Because it's not in your AGENDA to accept the FACTS.
> 
> You can say it's a "per-existing natural right", but the reality is it doesn't matter.
> 
> We're dealing with the SECOND AMENDMENT. We both know that this merely protects what is seen as the right. Whether it's a right or not is neither here nor there. We're dealing with the document that protects what people feel is the right.
> 
> Now, what rights does the 2A protect?
> 
> Well, the founding fathers said that the "right to bear arms", the right they are protecting, is the right to be in the militia. This is what the SECOND AMENDMENT says. Right?
> 
> 
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo
> The way it is worded, why can't it continue to mean both?
> At the time the Bill of Rights was passed some states didn't even have state militias. So those people invoking that same right would have to do so independently. Some people might consider all the Revolutionary fighters to be militia, while others could have been independent citizens invoking political rights to defend themselves against oppressive govt tyranny turning against its own people.
> 
> Isn't the common factor that the people bearing arms were acting in the spirit of Defending and Enforcing Constitutional laws not seeking to violate rights and freedoms of any other people?
> 
> Can we agree that the right of the people means law abiding citizens?
> Then regardless if these are official militia, or just independent citizens such as the men who shot and stopped the shooter in Texas, wouldn't that call for citizens to be trained in safe law enforcement?
> 
> The NRA already promotes training as part of the responsibility of gun ownership. So if police and military require standard screening and training in order to use firearms why not encourage this for all law abiding citizens to promote public safety security and compliance ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To answer the other points.
> 
> Which states didn't have a militia by 1789?
> 
> In the American Revolutionary War you had militias from:
> 
> 
> 1 Connecticut
> 2 Delaware
> 3 Georgia
> 4 Maryland
> 5 Massachusetts
> 6 New Hampshire
> 7 New Jersey
> 8 New York
> 9 North Carolina
> 10 Pennsylvania
> 11 Rhode Island
> 12 South Carolina
> 13 Vermont
> 14 Virginia
> That's 14 colonies, by 1789 there were still only 13 states in the Union, Vermont not being in the country at that point.
> 
> 
> List of United States militia units in the American Revolutionary War - Wikipedia
> 
> No, we can't agree that the right is for "law abiding people" only. The theory of rights says that rights can be INFRINGED UPON when someone is found guilty, through due process, of committing a crime or being found insane. Criminals retain their rights in prison, they're just infringed upon.
> 
> You can encourage whatever you like with regards to training to use guns. However it doesn't change the fact that the "right to bear arms" is the right to be in the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo
> I applaud you in citing historical backing for the interpretation you support that
> (a) right to bear arms applies to militia members (b) right of the people is not limited to just citizens
> (though I would still argue with you that the intent must be law abiding, or else it threatens the right of people to security in their
> homes and equal protection of the laws if the law supported arms used for breaking laws; I argue by the very spirit of the laws,
> the meaning has to be for defending rights and laws and not for violating them, or it contradicts the very reason for having laws)
> 
> Here are some citations that show AT LEAST both interpretations on both points are equally arguable.
> By the same "religious freedom" and protection of your creed from discrimination,
> then neither can govt be abused to EXCLUDE the interpretation of others either;
> the same principles that defend YOUR interpretation and beliefs also protect other interpretations.
> 
> So again, it would Contradict the laws themselves if you were to impose YOUR interpretation
> at the EXCLUSION of others who have equal if not MORE backing historically than yours does.
> 
> I have argued, quite unpopularly, that by religious freedom you and others of your belief
> have equal right to defend your interpretation.  So good job with that, but it still does not give
> you the right to supercede or exclude the interpretations of others which have even MORE established historical backing that is more consistent with the rest
> of the history and meaning of the Constitution and natural laws.
> 
> I am all for defending and including the beliefs and opinions of the minority,
> and believe you have equal right to your interpretation, or the First Amendment and Fourteenth would be violated.
> 
> (A)
> 10 PENNSYLVANIA
> had no militia due largely in part to the Quaker/Pacifist active influence among the population
> 
> Of Arms and the Law: Leonard Levy's "Origins of the Bill of Rights"
> 
> *Leonard Levy's "Origins of the Bill of Rights"*
> POSTED BY DAVID HARDY · 22 AUGUST 2005 04:27 PM
> Just got Leonard Levy's "Origins of the Bill of Rights." (He's the late, great legal historian who some years ago won the Pulitzer for his history of the 5th Amendment). Levy devotes an entire chapter to the Second Amendment, arguing that it's an individual right. He says that the claim that Miller v. US ruled for a collective right "misleads." He rejects claims that "bear arms" (as opposed to "keep") relates only to military use, pointing out that the Pennsylvania minority's demand for a bill of rights used "bear arms" to describe use in self-defense and even hunting, and that PA at the point in time was the only State without a militia organization (the large Quaker population and its passifism accounting for that).
> 
> A WII vet himself, Levy added that "If all that was meant was the right to be a soldier or to serve in the military, whether in the militia or in the army, it would hardly be a cherished right and would never have reached constitutional status in the Bill of Rights. The 'right' to be a soldier does not make much sense."
> 
> (B) RE: law abiding citizens interpretation
> NONCITIZENS AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT
> 
> Mixed interpretations, over noncitizens, where courts have been split.
> the traditional interpretation was citizens, and the growing population and political inclusion of noncitizens
> may have challenged this interpretation, as we are seeing today with immigration laws challenging
> the equal rights and protections of citizens vs. noncitizens.
> 
> From my experience and understanding of natural laws, there is more consensus that
> the purpose would be for complying with law and not violating laws; as it makes no
> sense that the law would support enabling criminals or "enemies of the law/state" to commit violations.
> That would be the equivalent of "aiding and abetting" to give arms to anyone with criminal intent.
> it would violate the right of people to security in their persons houses and effects,
> and threaten the equal protections to defend any such right to use arms with the intent of breaking laws.
> But since govt cannot prove intent until after there is due process and someone is convicted,
> then the law cannot try to prescribe this. But by natural laws, and the spirit of the law, I find
> there is no question that people agree that the law does NOT INTEND to enable abuse of arms to commit crimes
> and violate rights of others. the objections I have found involve due process, in that there is no way to
> police intent in advance or it would start infringing on rights and liberties. But the spirit of the law would imply
> the legal use of arms is for defense of law not for violations, that's just common sense of what people would consent to.
> 
> (C) as for how to deal with these dual interpretations
> 
> 1. I see no problem in some people believing in organized militia
> and others being okay with individual gun ownership as long as there is proper
> training in the laws, procedures of law enforcement where people follow the same
> procedures as the police so there is no question on who is complying or not,
> and possibly introducing the idea of insurance required in case of abuse or accidents,
> similar to car insurance that is decided by state.
> 
> 2. for criminal disorders or incompetence that poses dangers to public health and safety,
> I believe that better means of reporting abuses and threats for standard screening
> could be agreed upon per district on the level of civic or neighborhood associations
> that can pass their own ordinances against drug abuse or dangerous dogs or
> requirements for screening/training for gun owners. If the local organizations
> decide democratically where all residents agree to the standards they elect to
> comply with and enforce, that can be completely constitutional for them to choose.
> 
> What people don't want is for outside authority to dictate what standards or
> interpretations can regulate their rights etc. So if people agree and elect these
> freely, then any interpretation or standard can be chosen for enforcement by consent of those residents.
> Including how to report potential threats, require screening or counseling for dangerous conditions
> found, or mediate and resolve conflicts by consent of the parties in order to reside in such a district that
> has implemented such a policy by agreement of the property owners and residents in order to live there.
> 
> I don't have a problem with accommodating diverse interpretations,
> but don't think it is constitutional to abuse govt to impose one or the other
> where it threatens people of different beliefs or excludes them from public policy
> which should protect and represent people regardless of beliefs and interpretations.
> We just can't be in the business of imposing on each other's beliefs,
> or that also violates Constitutional rights and protections under the First, Fourteenth and other Amendments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you want the right to be just for law abiding. However a right is ONLY a right when EVERYONE has the right, otherwise it's a privilege, it's that simple.
> 
> This doesn't mean criminals can't have that right infringed upon.
> 
> Well, if anyone, I mean ANYONE can show me anything that takes away my interpretation, which isn't based on what I want, but on what I've seen. Usually I get people just throwing insults because they can't argue with me.
> 
> People have the right to argue as they like, they have the right to be wrong.
> 
> Pennsylvania had the 111th infantry regiment. It fought in the War of Independence and changed names through time.
> 
> 111th Infantry Regiment (United States) - Wikipedia
> 
> "
> 
> 747 Constituted 7 December 1747 by official recognition of the Associators, founded 21 November 1747 in Philadelphia by Benjamin Franklin.
> 1747 Organized 29 December 1747 as Associated Regiment of Foot of Philadelphia.
> 1775 Reorganized as Associates of the City and Liberties of Philadelphia, with five Battalions.
> 1777 Reorganized as the Philadelphia Brigade of Militia, commanded by Brigadier General John Cadwalader.
> 1793 Reorganized 11 April 1793 as Volunteer Infantry Elements of 1st Brigade, 1st Division Pennsylvania Militia.
> 1814 Volunteer Infantry Companies of 1st Brigade reorganized as 1st Regiment, Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry, commanded by Colonel Clement C. Biddle; entered federal service 24 August 1814 and relieved 4 January 1815.
> 1816 Reorganized 19 March 1816 as Volunteer Infantry Elements of 1st Division."
> 
> Now what we have here might be that the militia disbanded and was then reorganized in times of need. Which is exactly what a Militia is. You don't need a militia in order to have the right to be in the militia. When people feel the need for a militia, it can be reorganized and then individuals will join the militia.
> At the time people weren't fervent about their 2A rights as they are now. It was all practical. You have the right to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply, but the reality was that individuals had weapons as a general part of their daily life, hunting as a source of food must have been great at the time, seeing as most people lived in rural areas. When things demanded it was your DUTY to join the militia. However they were protecting the militia so they made it your right as well as your duty.
> 
> You think I'm imposing my view on others? Well you can think that, I'm not too bothered. However all I'm doing is taking historical documents and using it to show what the Founding Fathers thought. That the vast majority of people (who also have agendas) will ignore these documents is quite telling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very good frigidweirdo you have presented the best backing and historical justification
> for the interpretation you support which I have seen up to this point.
> 
> Again, I still believe you have the right to your interpretation even without any such backing,
> but by the nature of religious freedom and equal protection of the laws from discrimination by creed.
> 
> In order to protect the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to security and protections of the law,
> I find it legally necessary to educate and train all citizens and residents in Constitutional law enforcement and ethics.
> 
> Otherwise if people do not have knowledge or experience with the laws and ethics that the public and community agrees to enforce,
> that is what causes breaches of the peace, abuses and violations.
> 
> So my definition of what is necessary for citizenship IS based on teaching people to be law abiding
> and to use that educational, training and conflict resolution process to SCREEN for criminal disorders, illnesses or other incompetence
> that would render someone "disabled" or "unable" to comply with laws without additional assistance, guardianship or supervision.
> 
> Those are my beliefs which I equally defend my right to exercise and enforce by
> the same First and Fourteenth Amendment I would invoke to protect yours.
> 
> The difference I have found, is that I am willing to do the work and invest the resources
> and set up the system in order to enforce the interpretation I support.
> 
> However, I find too many other people NOT willing to pay the cost or consequences of
> THEIR interpretations. That is why people argue against gun rights because there is no responsibility for the cost of abuse.
> Or against abortion rights or prolife beliefs where the advocates aren't taking responsibility for the costs to enforce those policies.
> 
> frigidweirdo are you REALLY willing to shoulder the cost to enforce your interpretation?
> 
> I have described what I believe it will take to ensure the right to bear arms is
> exercised within a  "law abiding" environment that is constitutional where it
> is locally elected and enforced.
> 
> What about what you are asking, to require people to join militias?
> 
> Would you be okay with the proposal to reward districts for reduced
> crime rates by the residents working WITH police and military to
> offer the SAME training and screening for all citizens/residents seeking to bear arms?
> 
> That's not the same as joining a militia to have the same training and screening.
> I suggest adding this to the neighborhood or district policies, or giving tax
> breaks where communities effectively reduce crime and can invest those
> dollars into their schools or programs for daycare, health care or elderly care
> as an incentive to promote LAW ABIDING citizenry.
> 
> So I would focus on compliance with laws by education, training and job creation,
> and not so much on "joining an official militia" unless you count citizen patrols and security training?
> 
> I still see it more as citizen based, not as militia run.
> 
> The militia, even the "first responders" cannot be the only ones trained
> and relied upon for emergency response and criminal activity.
> 
> frigidweirdo as recent events in Texas showed, with both widespread
> storms and flooding that sent independent teams to do rescue work,
> and with the mass shooting that required citizens to intervene since
> there were no police, we will always need active citizens IN ADDITION
> to any such "militia" or dedicated emergency/first responders.
> 
> But if you want to call these a form of "trained militia" then you
> and I are just using different terms for the same concept of
> having trained citizens to ensure enforcement of laws and safety.
> 
> I just don't see everyone agreeing to be REQUIRED to join a militia
> group, though I could see people agreeing to uniform neighborhood
> ordinances when they are equally involved in the process of making that policy
> that represents the residents and owners in that community.
> If this takes the form of a "militia" then fine, but if it just means all
> community members agree to work with police to go through the
> same training to understand and comply with the same procedures,
> that doesn't necessarily mean JOINING the police or militia to be enforcing the same
> policies and standards for security in that district.
> 
> So I would think my interpretation is more inclusive of
> yours and others, while yours would exclude people who don't
> agree with the condition of joining a militia.
> 
> And the interpretation that includes more people's beliefs equally
> would seem to me to be more constitutionally consistent
> by not discriminating or excluding
> but by accommodating and protecting people equally
> regardless of their beliefs and interpretations.
Click to expand...


I think the first problem here is that you take me for someone who has an interpretation in order to fit an agenda. The closest you're going to get there is that my agenda is the truth. 

I didn't decide this to be the truth, I just found out that it WAS THE TRUTH. 

If you really want to get to the places where it's not about truth but it's about how you think something would work in the future, then this topic enlarges itself massively. But this topic is about one single thing. I have said plenty of times what I think the biggest problem is in the US, and why the gun issue will never be solved, nor any other problem. The electoral system. 

However your points that Texas shows that people need guns, my point would be that in the UK and most of the Western World, these things don't usually happen, except in the US. 

The reality is that in the US you are four times more likely to die with your gun that you are in the UK to die without a gun.

135 police officers died in the line of duty last year in the US, zero died in the UK. All police officers in the US are armed. 

You think your interpretation is more inclusive, I think my interpretation is the truth.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Commie Lib Dictionary---

Bear Arms:


To give up all your guns.


----------



## frigidweirdo

ChrisL said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have tons of evidence to show that "bear arms" in the Second Amendment means "render military service" or "militia duty".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a lie.  You are simply a Troll.  You and your simple cohorts.
> 
> *bear arms
> DEFINITION*
> 
> *carry firearms.*
> wear or display a coat of arms.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I lie? Come off it.
> 
> Bear means LOTS of things.
> 
> bear | Definition of bear in US English by Oxford Dictionaries
> 
> 1) carry
> 2) support
> 3) endure
> 4) give birth to
> 5) turn and proceed in a specific direction
> 
> Now, there are five completely different meanings here. Are you suggesting here that it's ALL OF THEM?
> 
> Simply because it CAN BE endure, it MUST BE endure? No, that's illogical.
> 
> How do we know the difference? Context.
> 
> 1) _‘the warriors bore lances tipped with iron’
> 2) ‘walls that cannot bear a stone vault’
> 3) ‘she bore the pain stoically’
> 4) ‘she bore six daughters’
> 5) ‘bear left and follow the old road’
> _
> Now under your logic this is what happens
> 
> 1) The warriors carried lances tipped with iron
> 2) walls that cannot carry a stone vault
> 3) she carried the pain stoically
> 4) she carried six daughters
> 5) carry left and follow the old road
> 
> The reality is that it's not the case, is it?
> 
> The context of the Second Amendment is "A well regulated militia", not "self defense of individuals"
> 
> Sorry, but you're wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pathetic beyond belief.  The founders have clearly outlined in the federalist papers just what their goals were.  Before you make one more post on this topic and make an even bigger fool out of yourself, you should read them and educate yourself.  The "militia" means ALL ABLE BODIED MEN who are citizens of the United States.
> 
> James Madison -
> 
> *"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay then, seeing as I've sourced the Founding Fathers, the US Supreme Court in the 1880s and the 2000s, where's YOUR EVIDENCE?
> 
> Pathetic is attacking people with nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your twisting words is not a valid citation of anything.  I am the one who has cited the founding fathers and intent and words.
> 
> *Thomas Jefferson, of Virginia:*
> “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” — Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776
> 
> “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” — Jefferson`s “Commonplace Book,” 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764
> 
> *George Mason, of Virginia:*
> “[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually.”. . . I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” — Virginia`s U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788
> 
> “That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free state.” — Within Mason`s declaration of “the essential and unalienable Rights of the People,” — later adopted by the Virginia ratification convention, 1788
> *Samuel Adams, of Massachusetts:*
> “The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.” — Massachusetts` U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788
> 
> *William Grayson, of Virginia:*
> “[A] string of amendments were presented to the lower House; these altogether respected personal liberty.” — Letter to Patrick Henry, June 12, 1789, referring to the introduction of what became the Bill of Rights
> 
> *Richard Henry Lee, of Virginia:*
> “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms… The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle.” — Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer, 1788
> 
> *James Madison, of Virginia:*
> The Constitution preserves “the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” — The Federalist, No. 46
> 
> *Tench Coxe, of Pennsylvania:*
> “The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them.” — An American Citizen, Oct. 21, 1787
> 
> “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” — The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788
> 
> “As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” — Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789
> 
> *Noah Webster, of Pennsylvania:*
> “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power.” — An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787
> 
> *Alexander Hamilton, of New York:*
> “_f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens.” — The Federalist, No. 29
> 
> *Thomas Paine, of Pennsylvania:*
> “[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.” — Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775
> 
> *Fisher Ames, of Massachusetts:*
> “The rights of conscience, of bearing arms, of changing the government, are declared to be inherent in the people.” — Letter to F.R. Minoe, June 12, 1789
> 
> *Elbridge Gerry, of Massachusetts:*
> “What, sir, is the use of militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . . Whenever Government means to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise a standing army upon its ruins.” — Debate, U.S. House of Representatives, August 17, 1789
> 
> 
> 
> *Patrick Henry, of Virginia:*
> *“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel.” *— Virginia`s U.S. Constitution ratification convention_
Click to expand...


I'm sorry, which twisting of words did I do? I'll accept any evidence on your part from my posts. 

Your quotes are just quotes. What do they mean?

I'm talking about the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. Not the right to keep arms. 

Your first quote from Jefferson has nothing to do with the the right to bear arms.
Your second quote has nothing to do with the right to bear arms.
Your third quote has nothing to do with the right to bear arms.

In fact none of your quotes have anything to do with what I've said. Not one thing.

Oh please, you don't even know what I'm talking about. You've picked up some quotes from a gun website and you've copied and pasted them and hoped that you were making a point about what I was saying, and you failed, big style. 

I'm wondering if you've even bothered to read what I wrote, it seems to be a big problem on websites like this. People like you see that someone has a different view of things, and then they think they understand what is being said without even reading it. Because they think there are only two ways of thinking, your way and the other way, so you don't even read it.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just clueless and Causeless; I got it, right winger.
> 
> The People are the Militia.  What part of that do you not comprehend, yet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're deliberately ignoring the SC. Any reason why you're being so obtuse?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about.  The supreme court said no such thing.
> 
> The People are the Militia.  You are either, well regulated or you are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ It's settled science -- err I mean settled law:
> District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held, in a 5–4 decision, that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. Due to Washington, D.C.'s special status as a federal district, the decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment's protections are incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states,[1] which was addressed two years later by McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) in which it was found that they are. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.[2]
> 
> On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia.[3][4] The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the Regulations Act was an unconstitutional ban, and struck down the portion of the Regulations Act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock". Prior to this decision the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 also restricted residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That can Only happen in a vacuum of special pleading.  Our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.
> 
> Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process; it is a part of the Doctrine of Separation of Powers.
> 
> The subject of Arms for the Militia is enumerated, Socialized, for the Militia of the United States:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To provide for organizing, _arming_, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well regulated Militias of the United States get their wellness of regulation prescribed by our federal Congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the incoherence rises, soon to be followed by diversion and a sudden departure.
Click to expand...

Nothing but repeal, right wingers?


----------



## danielpalos

Papageorgio said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> so what; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; defense of self and property is not covered by our Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *so what; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed
> *
> You are incorrect. Again.
> 
> *when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union;
> *
> My right does not require state or union.
> *
> defense of self and property is not covered by our Second Amendment
> *
> You are incorrect. Again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope; it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where in the Second Amendment does it use the word "only"?
> 
> It says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Notice the comma after the word State? It means an independent clause or statement.
> 
> The Supreme Court has on many occasions has upheld the right of the people to keep and bear arms, because that is the correct reading of the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Express and Limited powers.  Only well regulated militia of the People are Necessary, and shall not be Infringed as a result.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The comma in the statement says you are misinterpreting the Constitution, do you have anything other than your same old canned responses that have been proven through the Supreme Court as being wrong?
Click to expand...

Means nothing since our Second Amendment is not a Constitution Unto itself.  But, merely the Second Article of Amendment.


----------



## danielpalos

boedicca said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> He is arguing with several voices in his head.
> 
> 
> 
> I used to be bipolar; the right wing is so full of fallacy, I had to argue with myself.  Now I have a "dual core" processor.  Thanks, right wingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told people you were an AI Program!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Watch the incoherence increase to a state of virtual chaos when he paints himself into a corner.  Then he stops, goes away for a few weeks, and comes back, pretending that nothing happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope; The Supreme Court merely fixed a Precedent for ignoring the "prefatory clause or paragraph", for the "operative clause or paragraph".
> 
> Paragraph (2) Only applies to the unorganized militia when they are considered, "civilians" unconnected with militia service, well regulated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well regulated Militia of the People of a State or the Union, enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a proper interpretation.  The Bill of Rights enumerates individual, not collective rights.  It is not necessary to be part of a militia to own a gun.    But congrats on googling up something that fits your POV.
Click to expand...

Only in right wing conspiracy theory.  Our Second Amendment has nothing to do with natural rights, and has everything to do with what is necessary to the security of a free State.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> so what; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; defense of self and property is not covered by our Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *so what; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed
> *
> You are incorrect. Again.
> 
> *when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union;
> *
> My right does not require state or union.
> *
> defense of self and property is not covered by our Second Amendment
> *
> You are incorrect. Again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope; it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary
> *
> The word "only" is not in that amendment, doofus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Limited and express powers, dears.  Only the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly. Glad you sobered up enough to admit you were wrong.
Click to expand...

It says, well regulated militia are necessary for the security of a free State not the unorganized militia.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia; you are either, well regulated or you are not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia; you are either, well regulated or you are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, *the right of the people* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> The people have the right.
> In a militia, not in a militia, well regulated, unregulated, poorly regulated or overregulated, the people have the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> States have Commanders in Chief of the State militia; there are no well regulated "civilian" militias, Only unorganized militia of gun lovers of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what? It is a right of the people, not a right of the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is the right of the People, who are well regulated militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> It is the right of the People
> *
> Exactly! Are you in rehab?
Click to expand...

The People=The Militia; why are You, not in rehab.


----------



## danielpalos

sakinago said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are making assumptions about why the militia was necessary to the free state. That reason being, as stated by our founders many different times and many different ways, was that a free state does not exist when government has a monopoly of force. This is why the militia was necessary, a paramilitary force, made up of civilians, lead by civilians. In case some government force either tries some sort of coup against the government, or government itself using the military to control, subdue, or roll over on the civilian population. The constitution/BOR has no real power, except for the second amendment where We The People are all armed, and able to defend ourselves and our rights from whatever person or persons that wish to take them away, especially including. Government is not going to make widely unpopular tyrannical laws if it can’t control the population that’s armed.
> 
> An armed population is also a deterrent against invading forces, since one army could defeat another army on any given battlefield...but then you’d have to try deal with an entire population that’s also armed, which is just a logistical, and tactical nightmare. E.G. france pretty much started prepping for WW2 almost right after WW1, and it turned out to be wise to do so (problem was they prepped for another WW1, and warfare had drastically changed), but they still had very stout defenses along their boarder near Germany. The Nazis however went around the line, and the French/British weren’t prepared for blitzkrieg, and the Nazis quickly took France out of the fight by taking Paris very quickly. And that was it for the mighty nation of Frances in WW2, the army lost so the country and citizens lost as well. But there’s a smaller neighbor in Switzerland that Germany never attempted to touch despite having a weaker military, no allies, and A LOT to loot to fund the war effort. Why because the Swiss are all heavily armed as well as trained. Afghanistan guerrilla warfare doesn’t hold a candle to what the Swiss could do to an invading force. The Nazis invaded every single other neighbor that wasn’t cooperating, and looted the bejeezus out of them...but they didn’t touch the Swiss, and it wasn’t because the swiss are neutral and hitler respected that.
> 
> There is also the issue of natural rights (like most of the BOR is based off of) including the right to self defense, which is natural. You do not have to be a victim, it’s not natural to be a victim. It’s natural for you to have free will, to have your own thoughts and express those thoughts, to have your own privacy and property, and also to defend yourself, with lethal force if need be. I don’t know who would argue with that. This is America we do not judge YOU based on what somebody else did with something they own (I.e. gun, car, knife, computer, whatever). You are not assumed to be a killer just because you own something that can kill, and this includes guns. As long as you don’t use it in a bad way, you have every right to defend yourself with a gun no matter what the attacker is carrying (usually without having to fire a shot). The attacked could be friggen Lebron James with a bat, even if you had a bat as well, your not gonna win that one. With a gun, a midget could win that match (probably without having to fire a shot).
> 
> All these reasons make the second amendment a no brainer. Just because you don’t foresee our government going rogue, just means you are very short sighted with short term memory, even to the present day world around you. We just saw an attempted coup a year ago in a 1st world, modern NATO ally. 35 years ago the Soviet’s were rolling into countries that couldn’t do squat about it because the citizens weren’t armed. Cubans are still screwed and can’t do anything against the military aristocracy, and our southern neighbors are also screwed living in a democracy with loads of gun control, but can’t do anything against their corrupt government and their country is more dangerous than the war zone afghanistan. Yet in the US gun sales, gun ownership, and ccws have skyrocketed, since the 90s, yet gun crime has dropped 50% in the same time period...and people are still claiming guns are the problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ What amazes me about the Gun Grabbers is their willingness to use a microscope and original intent to justify their view of the 2nd Amendment, yet when it comes to the Constitutionality of abortion rights they dismiss it with an "Oh that's covered by the Good and Plenty Clause of the Constitution. No further discussion is necessary."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> then, dears, get some social morals for free and stop whining about taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow talk about the moby dick of red herrings
Click to expand...

lol.  Not enough morals to go around in Nexus 6, with Zardoz and the _incorrigibles_?

We would not need as much government, if the right were as moral as they claim, and insisted on Only the Cost, of Ten simple Commandments.


----------



## danielpalos

turtledude said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm not being anal or stupid. I presented my case, I used the document to back myself up with. You haven't even spoken about it. You've done everything in your power to avoid talking about what I have said. Now you're on to words like "anal and stupid", when will the insults come? Like I said, it happens ever time. Why? Because it's not in your AGENDA to accept the FACTS.
> 
> You can say it's a "per-existing natural right", but the reality is it doesn't matter.
> 
> We're dealing with the SECOND AMENDMENT. We both know that this merely protects what is seen as the right. Whether it's a right or not is neither here nor there. We're dealing with the document that protects what people feel is the right.
> 
> Now, what rights does the 2A protect?
> 
> Well, the founding fathers said that the "right to bear arms", the right they are protecting, is the right to be in the militia. This is what the SECOND AMENDMENT says. Right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is no right to be in the Militia once congress grabbed complete control over that with the militia act.  the right is that free citizens can be armed free of federal interference  You're just another gun banning moron who wants to reinterpret the 2A to meet your stupid bannerrhoid schemes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then answer this one.
> 
> In 1903 they made the Dick Act.
> 
> Lawyers would know where to find this act, so I'm posting this here so you can find it. Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia
> 
> This was basically to make the National Guard. They wanted the National Guard to professionalize the Militia. The militia had shown itself to be ineffective at dealing with some of the wars that the US had been fighting.
> 
> They also made the "unorganized militia". Why? What was the purpose of making the "unorganized militia"?
> 
> Why bother to go to the trouble to say to men aged 17 to 45 are in the militia, but it's a militia that has no command, has no purpose, they can't join together and do anything, it's a name with no substance?
> 
> The simple answer is this. They knew that if they made the National Guard and excluded individuals from the National Guard, they could DEMAND to be in the National Guard because they had a right to be in the militia. They had a right to "render military service" in the militia and "militia duty".
> 
> So they made an "unorganized militia" so that these people couldn't demand this, because they're already in the militia.
> 
> Unless of course you, as a fake lawyer, can find any reason for the "unorganized militia" to have been placed into law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> damn you're one dumb MF.  Why don't women have this same right?  or those over the age of 45. what other constitutional right disappears based on not having a swinging dick or being over 45 in age
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, your argument is an insult.
> 
> Try not insulting and I might discuss your point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> how can a right that existed before government be based on joining a government entity
Click to expand...

lol.  it is in our Second Amendment.  Only well regulated militia are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.


----------



## Skull Pilot

frigidweirdo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo
> The way it is worded, why can't it continue to mean both?
> At the time the Bill of Rights was passed some states didn't even have state militias. So those people invoking that same right would have to do so independently. Some people might consider all the Revolutionary fighters to be militia, while others could have been independent citizens invoking political rights to defend themselves against oppressive govt tyranny turning against its own people.
> 
> Isn't the common factor that the people bearing arms were acting in the spirit of Defending and Enforcing Constitutional laws not seeking to violate rights and freedoms of any other people?
> 
> Can we agree that the right of the people means law abiding citizens?
> Then regardless if these are official militia, or just independent citizens such as the men who shot and stopped the shooter in Texas, wouldn't that call for citizens to be trained in safe law enforcement?
> 
> The NRA already promotes training as part of the responsibility of gun ownership. So if police and military require standard screening and training in order to use firearms why not encourage this for all law abiding citizens to promote public safety security and compliance ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To answer the other points.
> 
> Which states didn't have a militia by 1789?
> 
> In the American Revolutionary War you had militias from:
> 
> 
> 1 Connecticut
> 2 Delaware
> 3 Georgia
> 4 Maryland
> 5 Massachusetts
> 6 New Hampshire
> 7 New Jersey
> 8 New York
> 9 North Carolina
> 10 Pennsylvania
> 11 Rhode Island
> 12 South Carolina
> 13 Vermont
> 14 Virginia
> That's 14 colonies, by 1789 there were still only 13 states in the Union, Vermont not being in the country at that point.
> 
> 
> List of United States militia units in the American Revolutionary War - Wikipedia
> 
> No, we can't agree that the right is for "law abiding people" only. The theory of rights says that rights can be INFRINGED UPON when someone is found guilty, through due process, of committing a crime or being found insane. Criminals retain their rights in prison, they're just infringed upon.
> 
> You can encourage whatever you like with regards to training to use guns. However it doesn't change the fact that the "right to bear arms" is the right to be in the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo
> I applaud you in citing historical backing for the interpretation you support that
> (a) right to bear arms applies to militia members (b) right of the people is not limited to just citizens
> (though I would still argue with you that the intent must be law abiding, or else it threatens the right of people to security in their
> homes and equal protection of the laws if the law supported arms used for breaking laws; I argue by the very spirit of the laws,
> the meaning has to be for defending rights and laws and not for violating them, or it contradicts the very reason for having laws)
> 
> Here are some citations that show AT LEAST both interpretations on both points are equally arguable.
> By the same "religious freedom" and protection of your creed from discrimination,
> then neither can govt be abused to EXCLUDE the interpretation of others either;
> the same principles that defend YOUR interpretation and beliefs also protect other interpretations.
> 
> So again, it would Contradict the laws themselves if you were to impose YOUR interpretation
> at the EXCLUSION of others who have equal if not MORE backing historically than yours does.
> 
> I have argued, quite unpopularly, that by religious freedom you and others of your belief
> have equal right to defend your interpretation.  So good job with that, but it still does not give
> you the right to supercede or exclude the interpretations of others which have even MORE established historical backing that is more consistent with the rest
> of the history and meaning of the Constitution and natural laws.
> 
> I am all for defending and including the beliefs and opinions of the minority,
> and believe you have equal right to your interpretation, or the First Amendment and Fourteenth would be violated.
> 
> (A)
> 10 PENNSYLVANIA
> had no militia due largely in part to the Quaker/Pacifist active influence among the population
> 
> Of Arms and the Law: Leonard Levy's "Origins of the Bill of Rights"
> 
> *Leonard Levy's "Origins of the Bill of Rights"*
> POSTED BY DAVID HARDY · 22 AUGUST 2005 04:27 PM
> Just got Leonard Levy's "Origins of the Bill of Rights." (He's the late, great legal historian who some years ago won the Pulitzer for his history of the 5th Amendment). Levy devotes an entire chapter to the Second Amendment, arguing that it's an individual right. He says that the claim that Miller v. US ruled for a collective right "misleads." He rejects claims that "bear arms" (as opposed to "keep") relates only to military use, pointing out that the Pennsylvania minority's demand for a bill of rights used "bear arms" to describe use in self-defense and even hunting, and that PA at the point in time was the only State without a militia organization (the large Quaker population and its passifism accounting for that).
> 
> A WII vet himself, Levy added that "If all that was meant was the right to be a soldier or to serve in the military, whether in the militia or in the army, it would hardly be a cherished right and would never have reached constitutional status in the Bill of Rights. The 'right' to be a soldier does not make much sense."
> 
> (B) RE: law abiding citizens interpretation
> NONCITIZENS AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT
> 
> Mixed interpretations, over noncitizens, where courts have been split.
> the traditional interpretation was citizens, and the growing population and political inclusion of noncitizens
> may have challenged this interpretation, as we are seeing today with immigration laws challenging
> the equal rights and protections of citizens vs. noncitizens.
> 
> From my experience and understanding of natural laws, there is more consensus that
> the purpose would be for complying with law and not violating laws; as it makes no
> sense that the law would support enabling criminals or "enemies of the law/state" to commit violations.
> That would be the equivalent of "aiding and abetting" to give arms to anyone with criminal intent.
> it would violate the right of people to security in their persons houses and effects,
> and threaten the equal protections to defend any such right to use arms with the intent of breaking laws.
> But since govt cannot prove intent until after there is due process and someone is convicted,
> then the law cannot try to prescribe this. But by natural laws, and the spirit of the law, I find
> there is no question that people agree that the law does NOT INTEND to enable abuse of arms to commit crimes
> and violate rights of others. the objections I have found involve due process, in that there is no way to
> police intent in advance or it would start infringing on rights and liberties. But the spirit of the law would imply
> the legal use of arms is for defense of law not for violations, that's just common sense of what people would consent to.
> 
> (C) as for how to deal with these dual interpretations
> 
> 1. I see no problem in some people believing in organized militia
> and others being okay with individual gun ownership as long as there is proper
> training in the laws, procedures of law enforcement where people follow the same
> procedures as the police so there is no question on who is complying or not,
> and possibly introducing the idea of insurance required in case of abuse or accidents,
> similar to car insurance that is decided by state.
> 
> 2. for criminal disorders or incompetence that poses dangers to public health and safety,
> I believe that better means of reporting abuses and threats for standard screening
> could be agreed upon per district on the level of civic or neighborhood associations
> that can pass their own ordinances against drug abuse or dangerous dogs or
> requirements for screening/training for gun owners. If the local organizations
> decide democratically where all residents agree to the standards they elect to
> comply with and enforce, that can be completely constitutional for them to choose.
> 
> What people don't want is for outside authority to dictate what standards or
> interpretations can regulate their rights etc. So if people agree and elect these
> freely, then any interpretation or standard can be chosen for enforcement by consent of those residents.
> Including how to report potential threats, require screening or counseling for dangerous conditions
> found, or mediate and resolve conflicts by consent of the parties in order to reside in such a district that
> has implemented such a policy by agreement of the property owners and residents in order to live there.
> 
> I don't have a problem with accommodating diverse interpretations,
> but don't think it is constitutional to abuse govt to impose one or the other
> where it threatens people of different beliefs or excludes them from public policy
> which should protect and represent people regardless of beliefs and interpretations.
> We just can't be in the business of imposing on each other's beliefs,
> or that also violates Constitutional rights and protections under the First, Fourteenth and other Amendments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you want the right to be just for law abiding. However a right is ONLY a right when EVERYONE has the right, otherwise it's a privilege, it's that simple.
> 
> This doesn't mean criminals can't have that right infringed upon.
> 
> Well, if anyone, I mean ANYONE can show me anything that takes away my interpretation, which isn't based on what I want, but on what I've seen. Usually I get people just throwing insults because they can't argue with me.
> 
> People have the right to argue as they like, they have the right to be wrong.
> 
> Pennsylvania had the 111th infantry regiment. It fought in the War of Independence and changed names through time.
> 
> 111th Infantry Regiment (United States) - Wikipedia
> 
> "
> 
> 747 Constituted 7 December 1747 by official recognition of the Associators, founded 21 November 1747 in Philadelphia by Benjamin Franklin.
> 1747 Organized 29 December 1747 as Associated Regiment of Foot of Philadelphia.
> 1775 Reorganized as Associates of the City and Liberties of Philadelphia, with five Battalions.
> 1777 Reorganized as the Philadelphia Brigade of Militia, commanded by Brigadier General John Cadwalader.
> 1793 Reorganized 11 April 1793 as Volunteer Infantry Elements of 1st Brigade, 1st Division Pennsylvania Militia.
> 1814 Volunteer Infantry Companies of 1st Brigade reorganized as 1st Regiment, Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry, commanded by Colonel Clement C. Biddle; entered federal service 24 August 1814 and relieved 4 January 1815.
> 1816 Reorganized 19 March 1816 as Volunteer Infantry Elements of 1st Division."
> 
> Now what we have here might be that the militia disbanded and was then reorganized in times of need. Which is exactly what a Militia is. You don't need a militia in order to have the right to be in the militia. When people feel the need for a militia, it can be reorganized and then individuals will join the militia.
> At the time people weren't fervent about their 2A rights as they are now. It was all practical. You have the right to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply, but the reality was that individuals had weapons as a general part of their daily life, hunting as a source of food must have been great at the time, seeing as most people lived in rural areas. When things demanded it was your DUTY to join the militia. However they were protecting the militia so they made it your right as well as your duty.
> 
> You think I'm imposing my view on others? Well you can think that, I'm not too bothered. However all I'm doing is taking historical documents and using it to show what the Founding Fathers thought. That the vast majority of people (who also have agendas) will ignore these documents is quite telling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very good frigidweirdo you have presented the best backing and historical justification
> for the interpretation you support which I have seen up to this point.
> 
> Again, I still believe you have the right to your interpretation even without any such backing,
> but by the nature of religious freedom and equal protection of the laws from discrimination by creed.
> 
> In order to protect the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to security and protections of the law,
> I find it legally necessary to educate and train all citizens and residents in Constitutional law enforcement and ethics.
> 
> Otherwise if people do not have knowledge or experience with the laws and ethics that the public and community agrees to enforce,
> that is what causes breaches of the peace, abuses and violations.
> 
> So my definition of what is necessary for citizenship IS based on teaching people to be law abiding
> and to use that educational, training and conflict resolution process to SCREEN for criminal disorders, illnesses or other incompetence
> that would render someone "disabled" or "unable" to comply with laws without additional assistance, guardianship or supervision.
> 
> Those are my beliefs which I equally defend my right to exercise and enforce by
> the same First and Fourteenth Amendment I would invoke to protect yours.
> 
> The difference I have found, is that I am willing to do the work and invest the resources
> and set up the system in order to enforce the interpretation I support.
> 
> However, I find too many other people NOT willing to pay the cost or consequences of
> THEIR interpretations. That is why people argue against gun rights because there is no responsibility for the cost of abuse.
> Or against abortion rights or prolife beliefs where the advocates aren't taking responsibility for the costs to enforce those policies.
> 
> frigidweirdo are you REALLY willing to shoulder the cost to enforce your interpretation?
> 
> I have described what I believe it will take to ensure the right to bear arms is
> exercised within a  "law abiding" environment that is constitutional where it
> is locally elected and enforced.
> 
> What about what you are asking, to require people to join militias?
> 
> Would you be okay with the proposal to reward districts for reduced
> crime rates by the residents working WITH police and military to
> offer the SAME training and screening for all citizens/residents seeking to bear arms?
> 
> That's not the same as joining a militia to have the same training and screening.
> I suggest adding this to the neighborhood or district policies, or giving tax
> breaks where communities effectively reduce crime and can invest those
> dollars into their schools or programs for daycare, health care or elderly care
> as an incentive to promote LAW ABIDING citizenry.
> 
> So I would focus on compliance with laws by education, training and job creation,
> and not so much on "joining an official militia" unless you count citizen patrols and security training?
> 
> I still see it more as citizen based, not as militia run.
> 
> The militia, even the "first responders" cannot be the only ones trained
> and relied upon for emergency response and criminal activity.
> 
> frigidweirdo as recent events in Texas showed, with both widespread
> storms and flooding that sent independent teams to do rescue work,
> and with the mass shooting that required citizens to intervene since
> there were no police, we will always need active citizens IN ADDITION
> to any such "militia" or dedicated emergency/first responders.
> 
> But if you want to call these a form of "trained militia" then you
> and I are just using different terms for the same concept of
> having trained citizens to ensure enforcement of laws and safety.
> 
> I just don't see everyone agreeing to be REQUIRED to join a militia
> group, though I could see people agreeing to uniform neighborhood
> ordinances when they are equally involved in the process of making that policy
> that represents the residents and owners in that community.
> If this takes the form of a "militia" then fine, but if it just means all
> community members agree to work with police to go through the
> same training to understand and comply with the same procedures,
> that doesn't necessarily mean JOINING the police or militia to be enforcing the same
> policies and standards for security in that district.
> 
> So I would think my interpretation is more inclusive of
> yours and others, while yours would exclude people who don't
> agree with the condition of joining a militia.
> 
> And the interpretation that includes more people's beliefs equally
> would seem to me to be more constitutionally consistent
> by not discriminating or excluding
> but by accommodating and protecting people equally
> regardless of their beliefs and interpretations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the first problem here is that you take me for someone who has an interpretation in order to fit an agenda. The closest you're going to get there is that my agenda is the truth.
> 
> I didn't decide this to be the truth, I just found out that it WAS THE TRUTH.
> 
> If you really want to get to the places where it's not about truth but it's about how you think something would work in the future, then this topic enlarges itself massively. But this topic is about one single thing. I have said plenty of times what I think the biggest problem is in the US, and why the gun issue will never be solved, nor any other problem. The electoral system.
> 
> However your points that Texas shows that people need guns, my point would be that in the UK and most of the Western World, these things don't usually happen, except in the US.
> 
> The reality is that in the US you are four times more likely to die with your gun that you are in the UK to die without a gun.
> 
> 135 police officers died in the line of duty last year in the US, zero died in the UK. All police officers in the US are armed.
> 
> You think your interpretation is more inclusive, I think my interpretation is the truth.
Click to expand...


And you are twice as likely to be the victim of an assault or rape in the UK than in the USA.

And what you think I 'need" is your agenda.

I and I alone determine what I need not you.


----------



## turtledude

frigidweirdo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have tons of evidence to show that "bear arms" in the Second Amendment means "render military service" or "militia duty".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a lie.  You are simply a Troll.  You and your simple cohorts.
> 
> *bear arms
> DEFINITION*
> 
> *carry firearms.*
> wear or display a coat of arms.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I lie? Come off it.
> 
> Bear means LOTS of things.
> 
> bear | Definition of bear in US English by Oxford Dictionaries
> 
> 1) carry
> 2) support
> 3) endure
> 4) give birth to
> 5) turn and proceed in a specific direction
> 
> Now, there are five completely different meanings here. Are you suggesting here that it's ALL OF THEM?
> 
> Simply because it CAN BE endure, it MUST BE endure? No, that's illogical.
> 
> How do we know the difference? Context.
> 
> 1) _‘the warriors bore lances tipped with iron’
> 2) ‘walls that cannot bear a stone vault’
> 3) ‘she bore the pain stoically’
> 4) ‘she bore six daughters’
> 5) ‘bear left and follow the old road’
> _
> Now under your logic this is what happens
> 
> 1) The warriors carried lances tipped with iron
> 2) walls that cannot carry a stone vault
> 3) she carried the pain stoically
> 4) she carried six daughters
> 5) carry left and follow the old road
> 
> The reality is that it's not the case, is it?
> 
> The context of the Second Amendment is "A well regulated militia", not "self defense of individuals"
> 
> Sorry, but you're wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pathetic beyond belief.  The founders have clearly outlined in the federalist papers just what their goals were.  Before you make one more post on this topic and make an even bigger fool out of yourself, you should read them and educate yourself.  The "militia" means ALL ABLE BODIED MEN who are citizens of the United States.
> 
> James Madison -
> 
> *"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay then, seeing as I've sourced the Founding Fathers, the US Supreme Court in the 1880s and the 2000s, where's YOUR EVIDENCE?
> 
> Pathetic is attacking people with nothing.
Click to expand...


what is pathetic is denying the obvious 

you should read the CRUIKSHANK CASE-that destroys your nonsense


----------



## turtledude

danielpalos said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is no right to be in the Militia once congress grabbed complete control over that with the militia act.  the right is that free citizens can be armed free of federal interference  You're just another gun banning moron who wants to reinterpret the 2A to meet your stupid bannerrhoid schemes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then answer this one.
> 
> In 1903 they made the Dick Act.
> 
> Lawyers would know where to find this act, so I'm posting this here so you can find it. Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia
> 
> This was basically to make the National Guard. They wanted the National Guard to professionalize the Militia. The militia had shown itself to be ineffective at dealing with some of the wars that the US had been fighting.
> 
> They also made the "unorganized militia". Why? What was the purpose of making the "unorganized militia"?
> 
> Why bother to go to the trouble to say to men aged 17 to 45 are in the militia, but it's a militia that has no command, has no purpose, they can't join together and do anything, it's a name with no substance?
> 
> The simple answer is this. They knew that if they made the National Guard and excluded individuals from the National Guard, they could DEMAND to be in the National Guard because they had a right to be in the militia. They had a right to "render military service" in the militia and "militia duty".
> 
> So they made an "unorganized militia" so that these people couldn't demand this, because they're already in the militia.
> 
> Unless of course you, as a fake lawyer, can find any reason for the "unorganized militia" to have been placed into law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> damn you're one dumb MF.  Why don't women have this same right?  or those over the age of 45. what other constitutional right disappears based on not having a swinging dick or being over 45 in age
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, your argument is an insult.
> 
> Try not insulting and I might discuss your point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> how can a right that existed before government be based on joining a government entity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  it is in our Second Amendment.  Only well regulated militia are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.
Click to expand...


you need to tell your programmer to work on your language skills


----------



## danielpalos

turtledude said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then answer this one.
> 
> In 1903 they made the Dick Act.
> 
> Lawyers would know where to find this act, so I'm posting this here so you can find it. Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia
> 
> This was basically to make the National Guard. They wanted the National Guard to professionalize the Militia. The militia had shown itself to be ineffective at dealing with some of the wars that the US had been fighting.
> 
> They also made the "unorganized militia". Why? What was the purpose of making the "unorganized militia"?
> 
> Why bother to go to the trouble to say to men aged 17 to 45 are in the militia, but it's a militia that has no command, has no purpose, they can't join together and do anything, it's a name with no substance?
> 
> The simple answer is this. They knew that if they made the National Guard and excluded individuals from the National Guard, they could DEMAND to be in the National Guard because they had a right to be in the militia. They had a right to "render military service" in the militia and "militia duty".
> 
> So they made an "unorganized militia" so that these people couldn't demand this, because they're already in the militia.
> 
> Unless of course you, as a fake lawyer, can find any reason for the "unorganized militia" to have been placed into law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> damn you're one dumb MF.  Why don't women have this same right?  or those over the age of 45. what other constitutional right disappears based on not having a swinging dick or being over 45 in age
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, your argument is an insult.
> 
> Try not insulting and I might discuss your point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> how can a right that existed before government be based on joining a government entity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  it is in our Second Amendment.  Only well regulated militia are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you need to tell your programmer to work on your language skills
Click to expand...

Thank you for not being bright enough to have a valid rebuttal, and for ceding the point and the argument, as a result.


----------



## turtledude

danielpalos said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *so what; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed
> *
> You are incorrect. Again.
> 
> *when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union;
> *
> My right does not require state or union.
> *
> defense of self and property is not covered by our Second Amendment
> *
> You are incorrect. Again.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope; it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where in the Second Amendment does it use the word "only"?
> 
> It says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Notice the comma after the word State? It means an independent clause or statement.
> 
> The Supreme Court has on many occasions has upheld the right of the people to keep and bear arms, because that is the correct reading of the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Express and Limited powers.  Only well regulated militia of the People are Necessary, and shall not be Infringed as a result.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The comma in the statement says you are misinterpreting the Constitution, do you have anything other than your same old canned responses that have been proven through the Supreme Court as being wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Means nothing since our Second Amendment is not a Constitution Unto itself.  But, merely the Second Article of Amendment.
Click to expand...



there is that error in your programming again . Its called the second amendment , troll, not the second ARTICLE of Amendment.  Have your programmer PM Me and I will explain it to him


----------



## turtledude

danielpalos said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> damn you're one dumb MF.  Why don't women have this same right?  or those over the age of 45. what other constitutional right disappears based on not having a swinging dick or being over 45 in age
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, your argument is an insult.
> 
> Try not insulting and I might discuss your point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> how can a right that existed before government be based on joining a government entity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  it is in our Second Amendment.  Only well regulated militia are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you need to tell your programmer to work on your language skills
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for not being bright enough to have a valid rebuttal, and for ceding the point and the argument, as a result.
Click to expand...



you have admitted, several times you don't have a law degree, and your use of English is n affected erroneous version which demonstrates your programmer is not a native speaker


----------



## Skull Pilot

turtledude said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope; it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where in the Second Amendment does it use the word "only"?
> 
> It says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Notice the comma after the word State? It means an independent clause or statement.
> 
> The Supreme Court has on many occasions has upheld the right of the people to keep and bear arms, because that is the correct reading of the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Express and Limited powers.  Only well regulated militia of the People are Necessary, and shall not be Infringed as a result.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The comma in the statement says you are misinterpreting the Constitution, do you have anything other than your same old canned responses that have been proven through the Supreme Court as being wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Means nothing since our Second Amendment is not a Constitution Unto itself.  But, merely the Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> there is that error in your programming again . Its called the second amendment , troll, not the second ARTICLE of Amendment.  Have your programmer PM Me and I will explain it to him
Click to expand...

You're wasting your time with DP


----------



## danielpalos

turtledude said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope; it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where in the Second Amendment does it use the word "only"?
> 
> It says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Notice the comma after the word State? It means an independent clause or statement.
> 
> The Supreme Court has on many occasions has upheld the right of the people to keep and bear arms, because that is the correct reading of the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Express and Limited powers.  Only well regulated militia of the People are Necessary, and shall not be Infringed as a result.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The comma in the statement says you are misinterpreting the Constitution, do you have anything other than your same old canned responses that have been proven through the Supreme Court as being wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Means nothing since our Second Amendment is not a Constitution Unto itself.  But, merely the Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> there is that error in your programming again . Its called the second amendment , troll, not the second ARTICLE of Amendment.  Have your programmer PM Me and I will explain it to him
Click to expand...

Yes, it is the Second Article of Amendment to our federal Constitution. 

Only the clueless and the Causeless, don't know that.


----------



## danielpalos

turtledude said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, your argument is an insult.
> 
> Try not insulting and I might discuss your point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how can a right that existed before government be based on joining a government entity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  it is in our Second Amendment.  Only well regulated militia are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you need to tell your programmer to work on your language skills
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for not being bright enough to have a valid rebuttal, and for ceding the point and the argument, as a result.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you have admitted, several times you don't have a law degree, and your use of English is n affected erroneous version which demonstrates your programmer is not a native speaker
Click to expand...

I also don't resort to fallacies, unlike the right wing.


----------



## turtledude

danielpalos said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> how can a right that existed before government be based on joining a government entity
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  it is in our Second Amendment.  Only well regulated militia are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you need to tell your programmer to work on your language skills
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for not being bright enough to have a valid rebuttal, and for ceding the point and the argument, as a result.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you have admitted, several times you don't have a law degree, and your use of English is n affected erroneous version which demonstrates your programmer is not a native speaker
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I also don't resort to fallacies, unlike the right wing.
Click to expand...


I don't like resorting to artificial intelligence programs masquerading as posters.


----------



## Cellblock2429

danielpalos said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are making assumptions about why the militia was necessary to the free state. That reason being, as stated by our founders many different times and many different ways, was that a free state does not exist when government has a monopoly of force. This is why the militia was necessary, a paramilitary force, made up of civilians, lead by civilians. In case some government force either tries some sort of coup against the government, or government itself using the military to control, subdue, or roll over on the civilian population. The constitution/BOR has no real power, except for the second amendment where We The People are all armed, and able to defend ourselves and our rights from whatever person or persons that wish to take them away, especially including. Government is not going to make widely unpopular tyrannical laws if it can’t control the population that’s armed.
> 
> An armed population is also a deterrent against invading forces, since one army could defeat another army on any given battlefield...but then you’d have to try deal with an entire population that’s also armed, which is just a logistical, and tactical nightmare. E.G. france pretty much started prepping for WW2 almost right after WW1, and it turned out to be wise to do so (problem was they prepped for another WW1, and warfare had drastically changed), but they still had very stout defenses along their boarder near Germany. The Nazis however went around the line, and the French/British weren’t prepared for blitzkrieg, and the Nazis quickly took France out of the fight by taking Paris very quickly. And that was it for the mighty nation of Frances in WW2, the army lost so the country and citizens lost as well. But there’s a smaller neighbor in Switzerland that Germany never attempted to touch despite having a weaker military, no allies, and A LOT to loot to fund the war effort. Why because the Swiss are all heavily armed as well as trained. Afghanistan guerrilla warfare doesn’t hold a candle to what the Swiss could do to an invading force. The Nazis invaded every single other neighbor that wasn’t cooperating, and looted the bejeezus out of them...but they didn’t touch the Swiss, and it wasn’t because the swiss are neutral and hitler respected that.
> 
> There is also the issue of natural rights (like most of the BOR is based off of) including the right to self defense, which is natural. You do not have to be a victim, it’s not natural to be a victim. It’s natural for you to have free will, to have your own thoughts and express those thoughts, to have your own privacy and property, and also to defend yourself, with lethal force if need be. I don’t know who would argue with that. This is America we do not judge YOU based on what somebody else did with something they own (I.e. gun, car, knife, computer, whatever). You are not assumed to be a killer just because you own something that can kill, and this includes guns. As long as you don’t use it in a bad way, you have every right to defend yourself with a gun no matter what the attacker is carrying (usually without having to fire a shot). The attacked could be friggen Lebron James with a bat, even if you had a bat as well, your not gonna win that one. With a gun, a midget could win that match (probably without having to fire a shot).
> 
> All these reasons make the second amendment a no brainer. Just because you don’t foresee our government going rogue, just means you are very short sighted with short term memory, even to the present day world around you. We just saw an attempted coup a year ago in a 1st world, modern NATO ally. 35 years ago the Soviet’s were rolling into countries that couldn’t do squat about it because the citizens weren’t armed. Cubans are still screwed and can’t do anything against the military aristocracy, and our southern neighbors are also screwed living in a democracy with loads of gun control, but can’t do anything against their corrupt government and their country is more dangerous than the war zone afghanistan. Yet in the US gun sales, gun ownership, and ccws have skyrocketed, since the 90s, yet gun crime has dropped 50% in the same time period...and people are still claiming guns are the problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ What amazes me about the Gun Grabbers is their willingness to use a microscope and original intent to justify their view of the 2nd Amendment, yet when it comes to the Constitutionality of abortion rights they dismiss it with an "Oh that's covered by the Good and Plenty Clause of the Constitution. No further discussion is necessary."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> then, dears, get some social morals for free and stop whining about taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow talk about the moby dick of red herrings
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Not enough morals to go around in Nexus 6, with Zardoz and the _incorrigibles_?
> 
> We would not need as much government, if the right were as moral as they claim, and insisted on Only the Cost, of Ten simple Commandments.
Click to expand...

/----/ "...." That makes no sense even by a dim bulb like you.


----------



## danielpalos

turtledude said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  it is in our Second Amendment.  Only well regulated militia are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you need to tell your programmer to work on your language skills
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for not being bright enough to have a valid rebuttal, and for ceding the point and the argument, as a result.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you have admitted, several times you don't have a law degree, and your use of English is n affected erroneous version which demonstrates your programmer is not a native speaker
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I also don't resort to fallacies, unlike the right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't like resorting to artificial intelligence programs masquerading as posters.
Click to expand...

I have a valid argument and don't resort to fallacies; see the difference.

Thanks for ceding the point and the argument, You couldn't come up with.


----------



## danielpalos

Cellblock2429 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are making assumptions about why the militia was necessary to the free state. That reason being, as stated by our founders many different times and many different ways, was that a free state does not exist when government has a monopoly of force. This is why the militia was necessary, a paramilitary force, made up of civilians, lead by civilians. In case some government force either tries some sort of coup against the government, or government itself using the military to control, subdue, or roll over on the civilian population. The constitution/BOR has no real power, except for the second amendment where We The People are all armed, and able to defend ourselves and our rights from whatever person or persons that wish to take them away, especially including. Government is not going to make widely unpopular tyrannical laws if it can’t control the population that’s armed.
> 
> An armed population is also a deterrent against invading forces, since one army could defeat another army on any given battlefield...but then you’d have to try deal with an entire population that’s also armed, which is just a logistical, and tactical nightmare. E.G. france pretty much started prepping for WW2 almost right after WW1, and it turned out to be wise to do so (problem was they prepped for another WW1, and warfare had drastically changed), but they still had very stout defenses along their boarder near Germany. The Nazis however went around the line, and the French/British weren’t prepared for blitzkrieg, and the Nazis quickly took France out of the fight by taking Paris very quickly. And that was it for the mighty nation of Frances in WW2, the army lost so the country and citizens lost as well. But there’s a smaller neighbor in Switzerland that Germany never attempted to touch despite having a weaker military, no allies, and A LOT to loot to fund the war effort. Why because the Swiss are all heavily armed as well as trained. Afghanistan guerrilla warfare doesn’t hold a candle to what the Swiss could do to an invading force. The Nazis invaded every single other neighbor that wasn’t cooperating, and looted the bejeezus out of them...but they didn’t touch the Swiss, and it wasn’t because the swiss are neutral and hitler respected that.
> 
> There is also the issue of natural rights (like most of the BOR is based off of) including the right to self defense, which is natural. You do not have to be a victim, it’s not natural to be a victim. It’s natural for you to have free will, to have your own thoughts and express those thoughts, to have your own privacy and property, and also to defend yourself, with lethal force if need be. I don’t know who would argue with that. This is America we do not judge YOU based on what somebody else did with something they own (I.e. gun, car, knife, computer, whatever). You are not assumed to be a killer just because you own something that can kill, and this includes guns. As long as you don’t use it in a bad way, you have every right to defend yourself with a gun no matter what the attacker is carrying (usually without having to fire a shot). The attacked could be friggen Lebron James with a bat, even if you had a bat as well, your not gonna win that one. With a gun, a midget could win that match (probably without having to fire a shot).
> 
> All these reasons make the second amendment a no brainer. Just because you don’t foresee our government going rogue, just means you are very short sighted with short term memory, even to the present day world around you. We just saw an attempted coup a year ago in a 1st world, modern NATO ally. 35 years ago the Soviet’s were rolling into countries that couldn’t do squat about it because the citizens weren’t armed. Cubans are still screwed and can’t do anything against the military aristocracy, and our southern neighbors are also screwed living in a democracy with loads of gun control, but can’t do anything against their corrupt government and their country is more dangerous than the war zone afghanistan. Yet in the US gun sales, gun ownership, and ccws have skyrocketed, since the 90s, yet gun crime has dropped 50% in the same time period...and people are still claiming guns are the problem?
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ What amazes me about the Gun Grabbers is their willingness to use a microscope and original intent to justify their view of the 2nd Amendment, yet when it comes to the Constitutionality of abortion rights they dismiss it with an "Oh that's covered by the Good and Plenty Clause of the Constitution. No further discussion is necessary."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> then, dears, get some social morals for free and stop whining about taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow talk about the moby dick of red herrings
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Not enough morals to go around in Nexus 6, with Zardoz and the _incorrigibles_?
> 
> We would not need as much government, if the right were as moral as they claim, and insisted on Only the Cost, of Ten simple Commandments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ "...." That makes no sense even by a dim bulb like you.
Click to expand...

Are you on the right wing?


----------



## Cellblock2429

danielpalos said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is no right to be in the Militia once congress grabbed complete control over that with the militia act.  the right is that free citizens can be armed free of federal interference  You're just another gun banning moron who wants to reinterpret the 2A to meet your stupid bannerrhoid schemes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then answer this one.
> 
> In 1903 they made the Dick Act.
> 
> Lawyers would know where to find this act, so I'm posting this here so you can find it. Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia
> 
> This was basically to make the National Guard. They wanted the National Guard to professionalize the Militia. The militia had shown itself to be ineffective at dealing with some of the wars that the US had been fighting.
> 
> They also made the "unorganized militia". Why? What was the purpose of making the "unorganized militia"?
> 
> Why bother to go to the trouble to say to men aged 17 to 45 are in the militia, but it's a militia that has no command, has no purpose, they can't join together and do anything, it's a name with no substance?
> 
> The simple answer is this. They knew that if they made the National Guard and excluded individuals from the National Guard, they could DEMAND to be in the National Guard because they had a right to be in the militia. They had a right to "render military service" in the militia and "militia duty".
> 
> So they made an "unorganized militia" so that these people couldn't demand this, because they're already in the militia.
> 
> Unless of course you, as a fake lawyer, can find any reason for the "unorganized militia" to have been placed into law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> damn you're one dumb MF.  Why don't women have this same right?  or those over the age of 45. what other constitutional right disappears based on not having a swinging dick or being over 45 in age
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, your argument is an insult.
> 
> Try not insulting and I might discuss your point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> how can a right that existed before government be based on joining a government entity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  it is in our Second Amendment.  Only well regulated militia are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.
Click to expand...

/-------/ "Only well regulated militia"   Please point out the word ONLY in the 2nd Amendment and I'll turn in my gun at the next buy back program.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


----------



## danielpalos

Cellblock2429 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then answer this one.
> 
> In 1903 they made the Dick Act.
> 
> Lawyers would know where to find this act, so I'm posting this here so you can find it. Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia
> 
> This was basically to make the National Guard. They wanted the National Guard to professionalize the Militia. The militia had shown itself to be ineffective at dealing with some of the wars that the US had been fighting.
> 
> They also made the "unorganized militia". Why? What was the purpose of making the "unorganized militia"?
> 
> Why bother to go to the trouble to say to men aged 17 to 45 are in the militia, but it's a militia that has no command, has no purpose, they can't join together and do anything, it's a name with no substance?
> 
> The simple answer is this. They knew that if they made the National Guard and excluded individuals from the National Guard, they could DEMAND to be in the National Guard because they had a right to be in the militia. They had a right to "render military service" in the militia and "militia duty".
> 
> So they made an "unorganized militia" so that these people couldn't demand this, because they're already in the militia.
> 
> Unless of course you, as a fake lawyer, can find any reason for the "unorganized militia" to have been placed into law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> damn you're one dumb MF.  Why don't women have this same right?  or those over the age of 45. what other constitutional right disappears based on not having a swinging dick or being over 45 in age
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, your argument is an insult.
> 
> Try not insulting and I might discuss your point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> how can a right that existed before government be based on joining a government entity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  it is in our Second Amendment.  Only well regulated militia are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /-------/ "Only well regulated militia"   Please point out the word ONLY in the 2nd Amendment and I'll turn in my gun at the next buy back program.
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Click to expand...

Our Constitution is one of limited and express powers. 

Well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State, nowhere is it claimed, the unorganized militia is as necessary.


----------



## Cellblock2429

danielpalos said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ What amazes me about the Gun Grabbers is their willingness to use a microscope and original intent to justify their view of the 2nd Amendment, yet when it comes to the Constitutionality of abortion rights they dismiss it with an "Oh that's covered by the Good and Plenty Clause of the Constitution. No further discussion is necessary."
> 
> 
> 
> then, dears, get some social morals for free and stop whining about taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow talk about the moby dick of red herrings
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Not enough morals to go around in Nexus 6, with Zardoz and the _incorrigibles_?
> 
> We would not need as much government, if the right were as moral as they claim, and insisted on Only the Cost, of Ten simple Commandments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ "...." That makes no sense even by a dim bulb like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you on the right wing?
Click to expand...

/----/ Is English your second language? It doesn't make you a bad person if it is, just difficult to communicate with.


----------



## Cellblock2429

danielpalos said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> damn you're one dumb MF.  Why don't women have this same right?  or those over the age of 45. what other constitutional right disappears based on not having a swinging dick or being over 45 in age
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, your argument is an insult.
> 
> Try not insulting and I might discuss your point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> how can a right that existed before government be based on joining a government entity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  it is in our Second Amendment.  Only well regulated militia are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /-------/ "Only well regulated militia"   Please point out the word ONLY in the 2nd Amendment and I'll turn in my gun at the next buy back program.
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is one of limited and express powers.
> 
> Well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State, nowhere is it claimed, the unorganized militia is as necessary.
Click to expand...

/----/ Who is calling for an unorganized militia? And I still don't see the word ONLY anywhere in the 2nd Amendment.


----------



## danielpalos

Cellblock2429 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> then, dears, get some social morals for free and stop whining about taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow talk about the moby dick of red herrings
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Not enough morals to go around in Nexus 6, with Zardoz and the _incorrigibles_?
> 
> We would not need as much government, if the right were as moral as they claim, and insisted on Only the Cost, of Ten simple Commandments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ "...." That makes no sense even by a dim bulb like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you on the right wing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ Is English your second language? It doesn't make you a bad person if it is, just difficult to communicate with.
Click to expand...

Only Original Sinners in Nexus 6, are that clueless and that Causeless.


lol. Not enough morals to go around in Nexus 6, with Zardoz and the _incorrigibles_?

We would not need as much government, if the right were as moral as they claim, and insisted on Only the Cost, of Ten simple Commandments.


----------



## danielpalos

Cellblock2429 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, your argument is an insult.
> 
> Try not insulting and I might discuss your point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how can a right that existed before government be based on joining a government entity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  it is in our Second Amendment.  Only well regulated militia are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /-------/ "Only well regulated militia"   Please point out the word ONLY in the 2nd Amendment and I'll turn in my gun at the next buy back program.
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is one of limited and express powers.
> 
> Well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State, nowhere is it claimed, the unorganized militia is as necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ Who is calling for an unorganized militia? And I still don't see the word ONLY anywhere in the 2nd Amendment.
Click to expand...

Only the right wing is that clueless and that Causeless.

I don't see any mention of the unorganized militia as being necessary to the security of a free State, only well regulated militia.


----------



## ChrisL

Cellblock2429 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> then, dears, get some social morals for free and stop whining about taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow talk about the moby dick of red herrings
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Not enough morals to go around in Nexus 6, with Zardoz and the _incorrigibles_?
> 
> We would not need as much government, if the right were as moral as they claim, and insisted on Only the Cost, of Ten simple Commandments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ "...." That makes no sense even by a dim bulb like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you on the right wing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ Is English your second language? It doesn't make you a bad person if it is, just difficult to communicate with.
Click to expand...


You are just wasting your time.  The poster is apparently mentally challenged and will not understand so you are better off ignoring him.


----------



## Redfish

If guns were banned, only criminals and the government would have guns.  Would that make you libs sleep better?


----------



## ChrisL

Redfish said:


> If guns were banned, only criminals and the government would have guns.  Would that make you libs sleep better?



Probably.  The liberals love their government caretakers or mommies.  Really, if they need or want a baby sitter, by all means, but they shouldn't think the rest of us do.  The rest of us are responsible adults who want to take care of ourselves.


----------



## Cellblock2429

frigidweirdo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The second amendment and the right to self defense are a couple of the most important FOUNDING PRINCIPLES of this country.  If you don't like freedom, then there are plenty of other countries that have governments that you can gladly surrender your rights to for a false sense of "safety."  If you don't like freedom, then the solution is simple.  MOVE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, where does it mention self defense in the US Constitution?
Click to expand...

/
/----/ How about in the first paragraph: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,>>>>>>>>> provide for the common defense,<<<<<< promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

And "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is a well-known phrase in the United States Declaration of Independence.

And there is this: The right of self-defense (also called, when it applies to the defense of another, alter ego defense, defense of others, defense of a third person) is the right for people to use reasonable force or defensive force, for the purpose of defending one's own life or the lives of others, including, in certain circumstances, the use of deadly force.[1]
If a defendant uses defensive force because of a threat of deadly or grievous harm by the other person, or a reasonable perception of such harm, the defendant is said to have a "perfect self-defense" justification.[2] If defendant uses defensive force because of such a perception, and the perception is not reasonable, the defendant may have an "imperfect self-defense" as an excuse.[2]

Any more questions?


----------



## turtledude

danielpalos said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> how can a right that existed before government be based on joining a government entity
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  it is in our Second Amendment.  Only well regulated militia are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /-------/ "Only well regulated militia"   Please point out the word ONLY in the 2nd Amendment and I'll turn in my gun at the next buy back program.
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is one of limited and express powers.
> 
> Well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State, nowhere is it claimed, the unorganized militia is as necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ Who is calling for an unorganized militia? And I still don't see the word ONLY anywhere in the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the right wing is that clueless and that Causeless.
> 
> I don't see any mention of the unorganized militia as being necessary to the security of a free State, only well regulated militia.
Click to expand...

that's because you are clueless and brainless.  The right of the people to keep and bear arms is a guarantee of a natural individual right


----------



## danielpalos

Well regulated militia are declared necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be infringed, as a result.


----------



## Cellblock2429

Redfish said:


> If guns were banned, only criminals and the government would have guns.  Would that make you libs sleep better?


/----/  Yes it would


----------



## danielpalos

turtledude said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  it is in our Second Amendment.  Only well regulated militia are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.
> 
> 
> 
> /-------/ "Only well regulated militia"   Please point out the word ONLY in the 2nd Amendment and I'll turn in my gun at the next buy back program.
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is one of limited and express powers.
> 
> Well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State, nowhere is it claimed, the unorganized militia is as necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ Who is calling for an unorganized militia? And I still don't see the word ONLY anywhere in the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the right wing is that clueless and that Causeless.
> 
> I don't see any mention of the unorganized militia as being necessary to the security of a free State, only well regulated militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that's because you are clueless and brainless.  The right of the people to keep and bear arms is a guarantee of a natural individual right
Click to expand...

You are confusing natural rights with militia service, well regulated.

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available, via Due Process in our federal Constitution.


----------



## danielpalos

Nothing but fallacy, is all the right wing has.  How moral is that.


----------



## ChrisL

turtledude said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  it is in our Second Amendment.  Only well regulated militia are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.
> 
> 
> 
> /-------/ "Only well regulated militia"   Please point out the word ONLY in the 2nd Amendment and I'll turn in my gun at the next buy back program.
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is one of limited and express powers.
> 
> Well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State, nowhere is it claimed, the unorganized militia is as necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ Who is calling for an unorganized militia? And I still don't see the word ONLY anywhere in the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the right wing is that clueless and that Causeless.
> 
> I don't see any mention of the unorganized militia as being necessary to the security of a free State, only well regulated militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that's because you are clueless and brainless.  The right of the people to keep and bear arms is a guarantee of a natural individual right
Click to expand...


Stop picking on the mentally challenged.  It is better to ignore him.  He doesn't even know what he is saying.  We know it doesn't say anything about a well organized militia.  I have already proven that the founders consider the militia all the people/citizens of the United States.  The ones who don't understand this already are mentally challenged, and that is why they will continue to lose and lose bigly.


----------



## danielpalos

Thank y'all for ceding the point and the argument; by not being able to, "stand your argumentative ground".


----------



## ChrisL

The Bill of Rights is a document that strictly limits the federal government's reach.  EVERYTHING contained within it is about limitations on government power.  The founders made it quite clear that they believed every citizen of the United States had a natural right to self defense, defense of their property and their land, and also their nation against tyranny using the most sophisticated weapons available so that government could never become tyrannical.  The first step towards tyranny is to disarm the populace.


----------



## hunarcy

frigidweirdo said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have tons of evidence to show that "bear arms" in the Second Amendment means "render military service" or "militia duty".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a lie.  You are simply a Troll.  You and your simple cohorts.
> 
> *bear arms
> DEFINITION*
> 
> *carry firearms.*
> wear or display a coat of arms.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I lie? Come off it.
> 
> Bear means LOTS of things.
> 
> bear | Definition of bear in US English by Oxford Dictionaries
> 
> 1) carry
> 2) support
> 3) endure
> 4) give birth to
> 5) turn and proceed in a specific direction
> 
> Now, there are five completely different meanings here. Are you suggesting here that it's ALL OF THEM?
> 
> Simply because it CAN BE endure, it MUST BE endure? No, that's illogical.
> 
> How do we know the difference? Context.
> 
> 1) _‘the warriors bore lances tipped with iron’
> 2) ‘walls that cannot bear a stone vault’
> 3) ‘she bore the pain stoically’
> 4) ‘she bore six daughters’
> 5) ‘bear left and follow the old road’
> _
> Now under your logic this is what happens
> 
> 1) The warriors carried lances tipped with iron
> 2) walls that cannot carry a stone vault
> 3) she carried the pain stoically
> 4) she carried six daughters
> 5) carry left and follow the old road
> 
> The reality is that it's not the case, is it?
> 
> The context of the Second Amendment is "A well regulated militia", not "self defense of individuals"
> 
> Sorry, but you're wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You missed punctuation in school, didn't you?  Quite a few other classes in English too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, what the fuck?
> 
> You have a problem with my English? Which part of my English exactly?
> 
> Punctuation doesn't play a part in all of this at all.
> 
> Whether there are commas or there aren't commas, the Second Amendment still has the "right to...bear arms". The right is still in context of the rest of the Amendment whether there's punctuation or not.
> 
> The context is still with what the founding father said, and they used the term "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service" and "militia duty".
> 
> No matter how you try and bully your way through this, I know what I'm talking about.
Click to expand...


No matter how much you deny it, punctuation matters and the emphasis is not on the dependent clause, it is on the independent clause and while have been academians in the past that have tried to torture the Amendment to say what you wish it would say, the right belongs to THE PEOPLE and it shall not be infringed.


----------



## hunarcy

danielpalos said:


> Thank y'all for ceding the point and the argument; by not being able to, "stand your argumentative ground".



No one ceded the point.  They recognized the futility of arguing with a mindless troll.  Your dogged repeating of your made up "points" did not make them right.  Bye.


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> The Bill of Rights is a document that strictly limits the federal government's reach.  EVERYTHING contained within it is about limitations on government power.  The founders made it quite clear that they believed every citizen of the United States had a natural right to self defense, defense of their property and their land, and also their nation against tyranny using the most sophisticated weapons available so that government could never become tyrannical.  The first step towards tyranny is to disarm the populace.


Yes, our Second Amendment is limited to the security of a free State, not natural rights.


----------



## danielpalos

hunarcy said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank y'all for ceding the point and the argument; by not being able to, "stand your argumentative ground".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one ceded the point.  They recognized the futility of arguing with a mindless troll.  Your dogged repeating of your made up "points" did not make them right.  Bye.
Click to expand...

In other words, you are just clueless and Cause less.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *so what; only well regulated militia may not be Infringed
> *
> You are incorrect. Again.
> 
> *when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union;
> *
> My right does not require state or union.
> *
> defense of self and property is not covered by our Second Amendment
> *
> You are incorrect. Again.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope; it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary
> *
> The word "only" is not in that amendment, doofus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Limited and express powers, dears.  Only the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly. Glad you sobered up enough to admit you were wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It says, well regulated militia are necessary for the security of a free State not the unorganized militia.
Click to expand...


Yes, the right of the people.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, *the right of the people* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> The people have the right.
> In a militia, not in a militia, well regulated, unregulated, poorly regulated or overregulated, the people have the right.
> 
> 
> 
> States have Commanders in Chief of the State militia; there are no well regulated "civilian" militias, Only unorganized militia of gun lovers of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what? It is a right of the people, not a right of the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is the right of the People, who are well regulated militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> It is the right of the People
> *
> Exactly! Are you in rehab?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People=The Militia; why are You, not in rehab.
Click to expand...


You were making sense. Briefly.
I thought you were off the drugs.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Daniel, 

If I understand your argument correctly, the right shall not be infringed if we belong to a well-regulated militia.  By "shall not be infringed" the founders meant no restrictions on any arms.  

So, if we form a militia here in North Texas, and we become well-regulated, do we get machine guns, bazookas, grenade launchers, claymores, etc.?


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope; it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.
> 
> 
> 
> *
> it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary
> *
> The word "only" is not in that amendment, doofus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Limited and express powers, dears.  Only the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly. Glad you sobered up enough to admit you were wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It says, well regulated militia are necessary for the security of a free State not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the right of the people.
Click to expand...

The right of well regulated militia not the unorganized militia of the People.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> States have Commanders in Chief of the State militia; there are no well regulated "civilian" militias, Only unorganized militia of gun lovers of the People.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what? It is a right of the people, not a right of the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is the right of the People, who are well regulated militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> It is the right of the People
> *
> Exactly! Are you in rehab?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People=The Militia; why are You, not in rehab.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were making sense. Briefly.
> I thought you were off the drugs.
Click to expand...

Lol, You are the one with nothing but fallacy instead of a valid argument.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Daniel,
> 
> If I understand your argument correctly, the right shall not be infringed if we belong to a well-regulated militia.  By "shall not be infringed" the founders meant no restrictions on any arms.
> 
> So, if we form a militia here in North Texas, and we become well-regulated, do we get machine guns, bazookas, grenade launchers, claymores, etc.?


It Only applies literally to well regulated militia of the People not the unorganized militia of the People.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *it says so in our Second Amendment; only well regulated militias of the People are necessary
> *
> The word "only" is not in that amendment, doofus.
> 
> 
> 
> Limited and express powers, dears.  Only the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly. Glad you sobered up enough to admit you were wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It says, well regulated militia are necessary for the security of a free State not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the right of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right of well regulated militia not the unorganized militia of the People.
Click to expand...


Nope. The 2nd Amendment doesn't say right of the militia.
Nor does it mention restricting the right of the people to those in any militia.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what? It is a right of the people, not a right of the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> It is the right of the People, who are well regulated militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> It is the right of the People
> *
> Exactly! Are you in rehab?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People=The Militia; why are You, not in rehab.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were making sense. Briefly.
> I thought you were off the drugs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol, You are the one with nothing but fallacy instead of a valid argument.
Click to expand...


And you're on drugs.


----------



## Cellblock2429

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Daniel,
> 
> If I understand your argument correctly, the right shall not be infringed if we belong to a well-regulated militia.  By "shall not be infringed" the founders meant no restrictions on any arms.
> 
> So, if we form a militia here in North Texas, and we become well-regulated, do we get machine guns, bazookas, grenade launchers, claymores, etc.?


/——/ I used to work with a guy like Daniel. He’d take a ridiculous position on a topic and wear you down with nonsensical analogies, contradictory  points and when you finally threw your hands up in frustration and walked away he’d say, “See you can't refute my position. Admit I’m right.” Then he’d sit there with a smug grin on his face.


----------



## hunarcy

danielpalos said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank y'all for ceding the point and the argument; by not being able to, "stand your argumentative ground".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one ceded the point.  They recognized the futility of arguing with a mindless troll.  Your dogged repeating of your made up "points" did not make them right.  Bye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, you are just clueless and Cause less.
Click to expand...


In other words, I know that the only way to deal with a troll is to ignore their rants...as I now ignore yours.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Limited and express powers, dears.  Only the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. Glad you sobered up enough to admit you were wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It says, well regulated militia are necessary for the security of a free State not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the right of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right of well regulated militia not the unorganized militia of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. The 2nd Amendment doesn't say right of the militia.
> Nor does it mention restricting the right of the people to those in any militia.
Click to expand...

Yes, it does. Well regulated militia  of the People are declared Necessary, not the People who are the unorganized militia.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. Glad you sobered up enough to admit you were wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> It says, well regulated militia are necessary for the security of a free State not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the right of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right of well regulated militia not the unorganized militia of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. The 2nd Amendment doesn't say right of the militia.
> Nor does it mention restricting the right of the people to those in any militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it does. Well regulated militia  of the People are declared Necessary, not the People who are the unorganized militia.
Click to expand...


*Yes, it does.
*
No it doesn't.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It says, well regulated militia are necessary for the security of a free State not the unorganized militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the right of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right of well regulated militia not the unorganized militia of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. The 2nd Amendment doesn't say right of the militia.
> Nor does it mention restricting the right of the people to those in any militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it does. Well regulated militia  of the People are declared Necessary, not the People who are the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Yes, it does.
> *
> No it doesn't.
Click to expand...

The People are the militia.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the right of the people.
> 
> 
> 
> The right of well regulated militia not the unorganized militia of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. The 2nd Amendment doesn't say right of the militia.
> Nor does it mention restricting the right of the people to those in any militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it does. Well regulated militia  of the People are declared Necessary, not the People who are the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Yes, it does.
> *
> No it doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the militia.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Yes, it does. Well regulated militia of the People are declared Necessary, not the People who are the unorganized militia.


So, what does it mean to be well-regulated?



No response odds?  Any guesses?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

I am well-regulated.  I am a person (singular of People).  I am therefore in the militia, according to Daniel.  

Therefore, my right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  

Therefore, gimme my fucking machine gun.  

Thank you.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both."
*— William Rawle*_, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829)_

That guy must be wrong.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

"Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
_*-- Tench Coxe,*_ _in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution_

That can't be right.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
*--Noah Webster, *_An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787)._

Noah Webster must have been a damn fool, that dictionary-making son of a bitch.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

"Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; *nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion*. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it."
*--Richard Henry Lee,*_ The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788._

Oh, shit!!!  The lefty communist arguments keep getting shot down by the founders.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> Thank y'all for ceding the point and the argument; by not being able to, "stand your argumentative ground".



We're near the end on this subject. I've seen this before, and the only thing left is total delirium.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

" ... but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights ..."
*-- Alexander Hamilton*_ speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29_

Who?  What the F does that guy know?


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right of well regulated militia not the unorganized militia of the People.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. The 2nd Amendment doesn't say right of the militia.
> Nor does it mention restricting the right of the people to those in any militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it does. Well regulated militia  of the People are declared Necessary, not the People who are the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Yes, it does.
> *
> No it doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *the right of the people to keep* and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...

The People who are a well regulated militia.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
*-- Patrick Henry*_, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836_

What?  Nothing about the well-regulated militia having the right?  That can't be true.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does. Well regulated militia of the People are declared Necessary, not the People who are the unorganized militia.
> 
> 
> 
> So, what does it mean to be well-regulated?
> 
> 
> 
> No response odds?  Any guesses?
Click to expand...

That is up to Congress.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> That is up to Congress.


No.  See post #4356.

They specifically didn't want Congress to have control.  




"The great object is, that every man be armed ... Every one who is able may have a gun."
*-- Patrick Henry*_, Elliot, p.3:386_

That doesn't sound like a militia right to me.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> I am well-regulated.  I am a person (singular of People).  I am therefore in the militia, according to Daniel.
> 
> Therefore, my right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Therefore, gimme my fucking machine gun.
> 
> Thank you.


No, you are not. Well regulated militia are authorized their own colors, standards, banners and guidons.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
> *--Noah Webster, *_An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787)._
> 
> Noah Webster must have been a damn fool, that dictionary-making son of a bitch.


The unorganized militia is not declared necessary to the security of a free State.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> The unorganized militia is not declared necessary to the security of a free State.


Did you even read the motherfucking quote?

Quit "appealing to ignorance" and read the damn quotes.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is up to Congress.
> 
> 
> 
> No.  See post #4356.
> 
> They specifically didn't want Congress to have control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The great object is, that every man be armed ... Every one who is able may have a gun."
> *-- Patrick Henry*_, Elliot, p.3:386_
> 
> That doesn't sound like a militia right to me.
Click to expand...

Right wing propaganda. Congress must prescribe wellness of regulation for the militia of the United States.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

You never respond to the evidence, do you?


"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress ... to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.... "
*--Samuel Adams*

So, how is that the militia and not citizens?  "Splain that to me.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Respond to this one:

"The great object is, that every man be armed ... Every one who is able may have a gun."
*-- Patrick Henry*_, Elliot, p.3:386_


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Here it is again. 

"The great object is, that every man be armed ... Every one who is able may have a gun."
*-- Patrick Henry*_, Elliot, p.3:386_


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The unorganized militia is not declared necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you even read the motherfucking quote?
> 
> Quit "appealing to ignorance" and read the damn quotes.
Click to expand...

Yes. You have nothing but repeal. 

Can you cite where in our Second Amendment it states that the People who are the unorganized militia are necessary to the security of a free State.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Right wing propaganda. Congress must prescribe wellness of regulation for the militia of the United States.


Quoting the framers of the constitution is right wing propaganda?



Just give up, dude.  You lose.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Respond to this one:
> 
> "The great object is, that every man be armed ... Every one who is able may have a gun."
> *-- Patrick Henry*_, Elliot, p.3:386_


It used to make more sense.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right wing propaganda. Congress must prescribe wellness of regulation for the militia of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> Quoting the framers of the constitution is right wing propaganda?
> 
> 
> 
> Just give up, dude.  You lose.
Click to expand...

Yes, when I am citing our Constitution.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Can you cite where in our Second Amendment it states that the People who are the unorganized militia are necessary to the security of a free State.


"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." 
*--James Madison, *_The Federalist Papers, No. 46_

Nothing in the 2A says that a well-regulated militia is necessary for the right to bear arms.  Look at Madison's quote and respond, motherfucker.

Quit avoiding the founders' words.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> It used to make more sense.


So, I am right?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Yes, when I am citing our Constitution.


When you are ass-backwards bullshit interpreting it?

WE must look at the words of the authors to shove your bullshit interpretations straight up your ass.  Which I have.

VICTORY


----------



## Cellblock2429

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does. Well regulated militia of the People are declared Necessary, not the People who are the unorganized militia.
> 
> 
> 
> So, what does it mean to be well-regulated?
> 
> 
> 
> No response odds?  Any guesses?
Click to expand...

/----/ "So, what does it mean to be well-regulated?"   It means the soldiers get plenty of fiber in their diet.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Daniel?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. The 2nd Amendment doesn't say right of the militia.
> Nor does it mention restricting the right of the people to those in any militia.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does. Well regulated militia  of the People are declared Necessary, not the People who are the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Yes, it does.
> *
> No it doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *the right of the people to keep* and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People who are a well regulated militia.
Click to expand...


Except it doesn't say that.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... " 
*-- Samuel Adams,*_ Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)_

That pretty much says it all right there, eh Daniel?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
> *--Noah Webster, *_An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787)._
> 
> Noah Webster must have been a damn fool, that dictionary-making son of a bitch.
> 
> 
> 
> The unorganized militia is not declared necessary to the security of a free State.
Click to expand...


And yet, they're allowed. And have the right to keep and bear arms.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

I am just going to keep quoting these two until danielpalos responds to them:

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... "
_*-- Samuel Adams,* Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)_


"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
_*--James Madison, *The Federalist Papers, No. 46_


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Daniel????

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... "
_*-- Samuel Adams,* Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)_


"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
_*--James Madison, *The Federalist Papers, No. 46_


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Daniel?

Why do you run when we prove that your interpretation is bullshit?  

Come back and face the music.

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... "
_*-- Samuel Adams,* Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)_


"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
_*--James Madison, *The Federalist Papers, No. 46_


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Daniel san?  Doko e?  

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... "
_*-- Samuel Adams,* Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)_


"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
_*--James Madison, *The Federalist Papers, No. 46_


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Daniel-san?  

Omae wa doko e?  

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... "
_*-- Samuel Adams,* Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)_


"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
_*--James Madison, *The Federalist Papers, No. 46_


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Does Daniel ever respond when we provide quotes from founders that demonstrate their intent, which is hostile to his interpretation?  Has he ever questioned or provided contrary information evidencing intent?

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... "
_*-- Samuel Adams,* Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)_


"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
_*--James Madison, *The Federalist Papers, No. 46_


----------



## Cellblock2429

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Here it is again.
> 
> "The great object is, that every man be armed ... Every one who is able may have a gun."
> *-- Patrick Henry*_, Elliot, p.3:386_


/——/ Gun grabbers are not rational.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you cite where in our Second Amendment it states that the People who are the unorganized militia are necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> 
> 
> "[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
> *--James Madison, *_The Federalist Papers, No. 46_
> 
> Nothing in the 2A says that a well-regulated militia is necessary for the right to bear arms.  Look at Madison's quote and respond, motherfucker.
> 
> Quit avoiding the founders' words.
Click to expand...

I am not claiming that. Only well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State, and shall not be Infringed, as a result.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, when I am citing our Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> When you are ass-backwards bullshit interpreting it?
> 
> WE must look at the words of the authors to shove your bullshit interpretations straight up your ass.  Which I have.
> 
> VICTORY
Click to expand...

You have to cite how, not just claim it.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It used to make more sense.
> 
> 
> 
> So, I am right?
Click to expand...

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State, not an Individual right to not be Infringed.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State, not an Individual right to not be Infringed.


But, then, how do you explain this?

That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... "
_*-- Samuel Adams,* Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)_


"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
_*--James Madison, *The Federalist Papers, No. 46_


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> I am just going to keep quoting these two until danielpalos responds to them:
> 
> "That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... "
> _*-- Samuel Adams,* Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)_
> 
> 
> "[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
> _*--James Madison, *The Federalist Papers, No. 46_


Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, and available via Due Process. 

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not Individual rights.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State, not an Individual right to not be Infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> But, then, how do you explain this?
> 
> That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... "
> _*-- Samuel Adams,* Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)_
> 
> 
> "[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
> _*--James Madison, *The Federalist Papers, No. 46_
Click to expand...

Has nothing to do with our Second Amendment.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> You have to cite how, not just claim it.


What about this:

That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... "
_*-- Samuel Adams,* Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)_


"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
_*--James Madison, *The Federalist Papers, No. 46_


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Has nothing to do with our Second Amendment.


Then, what the fuck are they talking about, genius?



That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... "
_*-- Samuel Adams,* Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)_


"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
_*--James Madison, *The Federalist Papers, No. 46_


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

So, danielpalos argues that this:

"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
_*--James Madison, *The Federalist Papers, No. 46_

has nothing to do with our 2nd Amendment.



 

Keep digging, danny.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

I am going to let this quote sink in for you, Daniel-san:

"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
_*--James Madison, *The Federalist Papers, No. 46_


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

No response to this below?

"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
_*--James Madison, *The Federalist Papers, No. 46_


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have to cite how, not just claim it.
> 
> 
> 
> What about this:
> 
> That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... "
> _*-- Samuel Adams,* Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)_
> 
> 
> "[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
> _*--James Madison, *The Federalist Papers, No. 46_
Click to expand...

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions not our Second Amendment.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has nothing to do with our Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> Then, what the fuck are they talking about, genius?
> 
> 
> 
> That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... "
> _*-- Samuel Adams,* Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)_
> 
> 
> "[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
> _*--James Madison, *The Federalist Papers, No. 46_
Click to expand...

Nothing to do with our Second Amendment.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

The 2A was intended to limit Congress and prevent Congress from infringing on our individual rights because of those two quotes.

You have been destroyed.  Lick my asshole.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> So, danielpalos argues that this:
> 
> "[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
> _*--James Madison, *The Federalist Papers, No. 46_
> 
> has nothing to do with our 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep digging, danny.


Yup. Only well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> I am going to let this quote sink in for you, Daniel-san:
> 
> "[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
> _*--James Madison, *The Federalist Papers, No. 46_


Well regulated militia are People too.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions not our Second Amendment.


And, who told you that bullshit?  Source?  Cite?  Quote?

You are pulling it out of your ass.

I give you quotes and you give me bullshit.

 

Victory is mine.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Well regulated militia are People too.


So?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Doea anyone want to defend daniel in his failure to source his opinions?


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
> *--Noah Webster, *_An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787)._
> 
> Noah Webster must have been a damn fool, that dictionary-making son of a bitch.
> 
> 
> 
> The unorganized militia is not declared necessary to the security of a free State.
Click to expand...


Dementia is setting in.


----------



## frigidweirdo

turtledude said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have tons of evidence to show that "bear arms" in the Second Amendment means "render military service" or "militia duty".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a lie.  You are simply a Troll.  You and your simple cohorts.
> 
> *bear arms
> DEFINITION*
> 
> *carry firearms.*
> wear or display a coat of arms.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I lie? Come off it.
> 
> Bear means LOTS of things.
> 
> bear | Definition of bear in US English by Oxford Dictionaries
> 
> 1) carry
> 2) support
> 3) endure
> 4) give birth to
> 5) turn and proceed in a specific direction
> 
> Now, there are five completely different meanings here. Are you suggesting here that it's ALL OF THEM?
> 
> Simply because it CAN BE endure, it MUST BE endure? No, that's illogical.
> 
> How do we know the difference? Context.
> 
> 1) _‘the warriors bore lances tipped with iron’
> 2) ‘walls that cannot bear a stone vault’
> 3) ‘she bore the pain stoically’
> 4) ‘she bore six daughters’
> 5) ‘bear left and follow the old road’
> _
> Now under your logic this is what happens
> 
> 1) The warriors carried lances tipped with iron
> 2) walls that cannot carry a stone vault
> 3) she carried the pain stoically
> 4) she carried six daughters
> 5) carry left and follow the old road
> 
> The reality is that it's not the case, is it?
> 
> The context of the Second Amendment is "A well regulated militia", not "self defense of individuals"
> 
> Sorry, but you're wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pathetic beyond belief.  The founders have clearly outlined in the federalist papers just what their goals were.  Before you make one more post on this topic and make an even bigger fool out of yourself, you should read them and educate yourself.  The "militia" means ALL ABLE BODIED MEN who are citizens of the United States.
> 
> James Madison -
> 
> *"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay then, seeing as I've sourced the Founding Fathers, the US Supreme Court in the 1880s and the 2000s, where's YOUR EVIDENCE?
> 
> Pathetic is attacking people with nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what is pathetic is denying the obvious
> 
> you should read the CRUIKSHANK CASE-that destroys your nonsense
Click to expand...


I should read it? Apparently this is YOUR argument, and your argument isn't to go get the part of Cruikshank that destroys my argument, but to tell me that it does. 

Bullshit. If it destroyed my argument, you'd have posted it here.


----------



## frigidweirdo

turtledude said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, your argument is an insult.
> 
> Try not insulting and I might discuss your point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how can a right that existed before government be based on joining a government entity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  it is in our Second Amendment.  Only well regulated militia are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you need to tell your programmer to work on your language skills
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for not being bright enough to have a valid rebuttal, and for ceding the point and the argument, as a result.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you have admitted, several times you don't have a law degree, and your use of English is n affected erroneous version which demonstrates your programmer is not a native speaker
Click to expand...


Says a person who can't make an argument, can't respond in an adult fashion to an argument and spends most of his time insulting people and boasting about how great he is.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Cellblock2429 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The second amendment and the right to self defense are a couple of the most important FOUNDING PRINCIPLES of this country.  If you don't like freedom, then there are plenty of other countries that have governments that you can gladly surrender your rights to for a false sense of "safety."  If you don't like freedom, then the solution is simple.  MOVE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, where does it mention self defense in the US Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /
> /----/ How about in the first paragraph: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,>>>>>>>>> provide for the common defense,<<<<<< promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
> 
> And "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is a well-known phrase in the United States Declaration of Independence.
> 
> And there is this: The right of self-defense (also called, when it applies to the defense of another, alter ego defense, defense of others, defense of a third person) is the right for people to use reasonable force or defensive force, for the purpose of defending one's own life or the lives of others, including, in certain circumstances, the use of deadly force.[1]
> If a defendant uses defensive force because of a threat of deadly or grievous harm by the other person, or a reasonable perception of such harm, the defendant is said to have a "perfect self-defense" justification.[2] If defendant uses defensive force because of such a perception, and the perception is not reasonable, the defendant may have an "imperfect self-defense" as an excuse.[2]
> 
> Any more questions?
Click to expand...


Common defense is, by definition, something people do TOGETHER..... self defense is, by definition, something you do ALONE. 

But well done on providing evidence that has nothing to do with what I said. 

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, does self defense make you happier?

Actually self defense is in the Constitution. The biggest problem here is that those people who demand that self defense is in the Constitution are the very same people who argue in other topics that if it's not written specifically in the US Constitution, it's not valid (and therefore Supreme Court justices are "making law"). 

It's in the Constitution in the 10th Amendment. 

Funny how you missed that one.


----------



## frigidweirdo

hunarcy said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have tons of evidence to show that "bear arms" in the Second Amendment means "render military service" or "militia duty".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a lie.  You are simply a Troll.  You and your simple cohorts.
> 
> *bear arms
> DEFINITION*
> 
> *carry firearms.*
> wear or display a coat of arms.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I lie? Come off it.
> 
> Bear means LOTS of things.
> 
> bear | Definition of bear in US English by Oxford Dictionaries
> 
> 1) carry
> 2) support
> 3) endure
> 4) give birth to
> 5) turn and proceed in a specific direction
> 
> Now, there are five completely different meanings here. Are you suggesting here that it's ALL OF THEM?
> 
> Simply because it CAN BE endure, it MUST BE endure? No, that's illogical.
> 
> How do we know the difference? Context.
> 
> 1) _‘the warriors bore lances tipped with iron’
> 2) ‘walls that cannot bear a stone vault’
> 3) ‘she bore the pain stoically’
> 4) ‘she bore six daughters’
> 5) ‘bear left and follow the old road’
> _
> Now under your logic this is what happens
> 
> 1) The warriors carried lances tipped with iron
> 2) walls that cannot carry a stone vault
> 3) she carried the pain stoically
> 4) she carried six daughters
> 5) carry left and follow the old road
> 
> The reality is that it's not the case, is it?
> 
> The context of the Second Amendment is "A well regulated militia", not "self defense of individuals"
> 
> Sorry, but you're wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You missed punctuation in school, didn't you?  Quite a few other classes in English too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, what the fuck?
> 
> You have a problem with my English? Which part of my English exactly?
> 
> Punctuation doesn't play a part in all of this at all.
> 
> Whether there are commas or there aren't commas, the Second Amendment still has the "right to...bear arms". The right is still in context of the rest of the Amendment whether there's punctuation or not.
> 
> The context is still with what the founding father said, and they used the term "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service" and "militia duty".
> 
> No matter how you try and bully your way through this, I know what I'm talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No matter how much you deny it, punctuation matters and the emphasis is not on the dependent clause, it is on the independent clause and while have been academians in the past that have tried to torture the Amendment to say what you wish it would say, the right belongs to THE PEOPLE and it shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...


I didn't say punctuation doesn't matter.

I'm saying in the Second Amendment it doesn't matter. Or more specifically the two commas that may or may not exist.

You can have "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." as ratified by the states or "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." as was going through Congress. 

The two extra commas don't change anything in the meaning. 

But trying to pretend that this does anything is wrong.

The first half of the Amendment doesn't do anything. It merely says WHY the right to keep arms and the right to bear arms are important.

Now, think about this. The Amendment is about the militia. The Amendment says a militia is important. It doesn't say TV is important, it doesn't say breathing is important, it doesn't say a lot of things. But it does say THE MILITIA. 

This is CONTEXT. 

The right to keep arms is the right of individuals to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply of weapons that the US federal govt cannot take away.
The right to bear arms is the right of individuals to be in the militia so the militia has a ready supply of personnel to use those weapons. 

A militia without guns is not "a well regulated militia", nor is a militia without personnel. 

However a militia without individuals walking around in the streets with their guns is the same as it would be if they were walking about with their guns.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> "The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both."
> *— William Rawle*_, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829)_
> 
> That guy must be wrong.


Well regulated militia are People too.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions not our Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> And, who told you that bullshit?  Source?  Cite?  Quote?
> 
> You are pulling it out of your ass.
> 
> I give you quotes and you give me bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> Victory is mine.
Click to expand...

Simply being clueless and Causeless does not mean that you are right. 

Read your State Constitution.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia are People too.
> 
> 
> 
> So?
Click to expand...

Those People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


----------



## turtledude

frigidweirdo said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a lie.  You are simply a Troll.  You and your simple cohorts.
> 
> *bear arms
> DEFINITION*
> 
> *carry firearms.*
> wear or display a coat of arms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I lie? Come off it.
> 
> Bear means LOTS of things.
> 
> bear | Definition of bear in US English by Oxford Dictionaries
> 
> 1) carry
> 2) support
> 3) endure
> 4) give birth to
> 5) turn and proceed in a specific direction
> 
> Now, there are five completely different meanings here. Are you suggesting here that it's ALL OF THEM?
> 
> Simply because it CAN BE endure, it MUST BE endure? No, that's illogical.
> 
> How do we know the difference? Context.
> 
> 1) _‘the warriors bore lances tipped with iron’
> 2) ‘walls that cannot bear a stone vault’
> 3) ‘she bore the pain stoically’
> 4) ‘she bore six daughters’
> 5) ‘bear left and follow the old road’
> _
> Now under your logic this is what happens
> 
> 1) The warriors carried lances tipped with iron
> 2) walls that cannot carry a stone vault
> 3) she carried the pain stoically
> 4) she carried six daughters
> 5) carry left and follow the old road
> 
> The reality is that it's not the case, is it?
> 
> The context of the Second Amendment is "A well regulated militia", not "self defense of individuals"
> 
> Sorry, but you're wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pathetic beyond belief.  The founders have clearly outlined in the federalist papers just what their goals were.  Before you make one more post on this topic and make an even bigger fool out of yourself, you should read them and educate yourself.  The "militia" means ALL ABLE BODIED MEN who are citizens of the United States.
> 
> James Madison -
> 
> *"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay then, seeing as I've sourced the Founding Fathers, the US Supreme Court in the 1880s and the 2000s, where's YOUR EVIDENCE?
> 
> Pathetic is attacking people with nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what is pathetic is denying the obvious
> 
> you should read the CRUIKSHANK CASE-that destroys your nonsense
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I should read it? Apparently this is YOUR argument, and your argument isn't to go get the part of Cruikshank that destroys my argument, but to tell me that it does.
> 
> Bullshit. If it destroyed my argument, you'd have posted it here.
Click to expand...



1) you don't have a law degree

2) you don' t understand Cruikshank

3) you don't understand the entire foundation for the bill of rights

4) you don't understand the concept of natural rights and/or natural law

5) you don't understand that natural rights are not dependent on government nor membership in a governmentally controlled militia

6) you don' t understand what the founders stated

7) you don't understand that the RKBA also applies to people who are neither subject to the call up or eligible to serve in the militia


----------



## turtledude

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both."
> *— William Rawle*_, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829)_
> 
> That guy must be wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia are People too.
Click to expand...


artificial intelligence programs masquerading as posters are not people


----------



## turtledude

frigidweirdo said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> how can a right that existed before government be based on joining a government entity
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  it is in our Second Amendment.  Only well regulated militia are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you need to tell your programmer to work on your language skills
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for not being bright enough to have a valid rebuttal, and for ceding the point and the argument, as a result.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you have admitted, several times you don't have a law degree, and your use of English is n affected erroneous version which demonstrates your programmer is not a native speaker
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says a person who can't make an argument, can't respond in an adult fashion to an argument and spends most of his time insulting people and boasting about how great he is.
Click to expand...


posing posters like you aren't really worthy opponents for people like me.  You don't even understand the concept of a pre-existing right


----------



## danielpalos

turtledude said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both."
> *— William Rawle*_, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829)_
> 
> That guy must be wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia are People too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> artificial intelligence programs masquerading as posters are not people
Click to expand...

Nothing but diversión is all the right wing has


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Read your State Constitution.


I did.  You want to explain how that makes you right about natural rights and the constitution, dumbass?  

You don't know shit.


----------



## danielpalos

Did you read the declaration of rights?


----------



## frigidweirdo

turtledude said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I lie? Come off it.
> 
> Bear means LOTS of things.
> 
> bear | Definition of bear in US English by Oxford Dictionaries
> 
> 1) carry
> 2) support
> 3) endure
> 4) give birth to
> 5) turn and proceed in a specific direction
> 
> Now, there are five completely different meanings here. Are you suggesting here that it's ALL OF THEM?
> 
> Simply because it CAN BE endure, it MUST BE endure? No, that's illogical.
> 
> How do we know the difference? Context.
> 
> 1) _‘the warriors bore lances tipped with iron’
> 2) ‘walls that cannot bear a stone vault’
> 3) ‘she bore the pain stoically’
> 4) ‘she bore six daughters’
> 5) ‘bear left and follow the old road’
> _
> Now under your logic this is what happens
> 
> 1) The warriors carried lances tipped with iron
> 2) walls that cannot carry a stone vault
> 3) she carried the pain stoically
> 4) she carried six daughters
> 5) carry left and follow the old road
> 
> The reality is that it's not the case, is it?
> 
> The context of the Second Amendment is "A well regulated militia", not "self defense of individuals"
> 
> Sorry, but you're wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pathetic beyond belief.  The founders have clearly outlined in the federalist papers just what their goals were.  Before you make one more post on this topic and make an even bigger fool out of yourself, you should read them and educate yourself.  The "militia" means ALL ABLE BODIED MEN who are citizens of the United States.
> 
> James Madison -
> 
> *"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay then, seeing as I've sourced the Founding Fathers, the US Supreme Court in the 1880s and the 2000s, where's YOUR EVIDENCE?
> 
> Pathetic is attacking people with nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what is pathetic is denying the obvious
> 
> you should read the CRUIKSHANK CASE-that destroys your nonsense
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I should read it? Apparently this is YOUR argument, and your argument isn't to go get the part of Cruikshank that destroys my argument, but to tell me that it does.
> 
> Bullshit. If it destroyed my argument, you'd have posted it here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1) you don't have a law degree
> 
> 2) you don' t understand Cruikshank
> 
> 3) you don't understand the entire foundation for the bill of rights
> 
> 4) you don't understand the concept of natural rights and/or natural law
> 
> 5) you don't understand that natural rights are not dependent on government nor membership in a governmentally controlled militia
> 
> 6) you don' t understand what the founders stated
> 
> 7) you don't understand that the RKBA also applies to people who are neither subject to the call up or eligible to serve in the militia
Click to expand...


1) you don't know whether I have a law degree or not
2) You don't know whether I understand cruikshank or not

Shit dude, this is more bravado from you. No substance but plenty of complete and utter bullshit.

Here's the deal.

I set out my argument using sources to back myself up. You couldn't argue against this
You claim to have an argument but you won't provide the argument, and then say this is me not understanding something
You insult all the time.

The ONLY reason I haven't put your sorry ass on ignore is because I'm having too much fun watching you make a complete spectacle of yourself. 

You haven't said ANYTHING of substance in ANY SINGLE POST. Nothing. A lawyer you are not.


----------



## frigidweirdo

turtledude said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  it is in our Second Amendment.  Only well regulated militia are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the unorganized militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you need to tell your programmer to work on your language skills
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for not being bright enough to have a valid rebuttal, and for ceding the point and the argument, as a result.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you have admitted, several times you don't have a law degree, and your use of English is n affected erroneous version which demonstrates your programmer is not a native speaker
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says a person who can't make an argument, can't respond in an adult fashion to an argument and spends most of his time insulting people and boasting about how great he is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> posing posters like you aren't really worthy opponents for people like me.  You don't even understand the concept of a pre-existing right
Click to expand...


Hahahaha, funny dude.


----------



## emilynghiem

frigidweirdo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo
> The way it is worded, why can't it continue to mean both?
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo
> The way it is worded, why can't it continue to mean both?
> At the time the Bill of Rights was passed some states didn't even have state militias. So those people invoking that same right would have to do so independently. Some people might consider all the Revolutionary fighters to be militia, while others could have been independent citizens invoking political rights to defend themselves against oppressive govt tyranny turning against its own people.
> 
> Isn't the common factor that the people bearing arms were acting in the spirit of Defending and Enforcing Constitutional laws not seeking to violate rights and freedoms of any other people?
> 
> Can we agree that the right of the people means law abiding citizens?
> Then regardless if these are official militia, or just independent citizens such as the men who shot and stopped the shooter in Texas, wouldn't that call for citizens to be trained in safe law enforcement?
> 
> The NRA already promotes training as part of the responsibility of gun ownership. So if police and military require standard screening and training in order to use firearms why not encourage this for all law abiding citizens to promote public safety security and compliance ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To answer the other points.
> 
> Which states didn't have a militia by 1789?
> 
> In the American Revolutionary War you had militias from:
> 
> 
> 1 Connecticut
> 2 Delaware
> 3 Georgia
> 4 Maryland
> 5 Massachusetts
> 6 New Hampshire
> 7 New Jersey
> 8 New York
> 9 North Carolina
> 10 Pennsylvania
> 11 Rhode Island
> 12 South Carolina
> 13 Vermont
> 14 Virginia
> That's 14 colonies, by 1789 there were still only 13 states in the Union, Vermont not being in the country at that point.
> 
> 
> List of United States militia units in the American Revolutionary War - Wikipedia
> 
> No, we can't agree that the right is for "law abiding people" only. The theory of rights says that rights can be INFRINGED UPON when someone is found guilty, through due process, of committing a crime or being found insane. Criminals retain their rights in prison, they're just infringed upon.
> 
> You can encourage whatever you like with regards to training to use guns. However it doesn't change the fact that the "right to bear arms" is the right to be in the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo
> I applaud you in citing historical backing for the interpretation you support that
> (a) right to bear arms applies to militia members (b) right of the people is not limited to just citizens
> (though I would still argue with you that the intent must be law abiding, or else it threatens the right of people to security in their
> homes and equal protection of the laws if the law supported arms used for breaking laws; I argue by the very spirit of the laws,
> the meaning has to be for defending rights and laws and not for violating them, or it contradicts the very reason for having laws)
> 
> Here are some citations that show AT LEAST both interpretations on both points are equally arguable.
> By the same "religious freedom" and protection of your creed from discrimination,
> then neither can govt be abused to EXCLUDE the interpretation of others either;
> the same principles that defend YOUR interpretation and beliefs also protect other interpretations.
> 
> So again, it would Contradict the laws themselves if you were to impose YOUR interpretation
> at the EXCLUSION of others who have equal if not MORE backing historically than yours does.
> 
> I have argued, quite unpopularly, that by religious freedom you and others of your belief
> have equal right to defend your interpretation.  So good job with that, but it still does not give
> you the right to supercede or exclude the interpretations of others which have even MORE established historical backing that is more consistent with the rest
> of the history and meaning of the Constitution and natural laws.
> 
> I am all for defending and including the beliefs and opinions of the minority,
> and believe you have equal right to your interpretation, or the First Amendment and Fourteenth would be violated.
> 
> (A)
> 10 PENNSYLVANIA
> had no militia due largely in part to the Quaker/Pacifist active influence among the population
> 
> Of Arms and the Law: Leonard Levy's "Origins of the Bill of Rights"
> 
> *Leonard Levy's "Origins of the Bill of Rights"*
> POSTED BY DAVID HARDY · 22 AUGUST 2005 04:27 PM
> Just got Leonard Levy's "Origins of the Bill of Rights." (He's the late, great legal historian who some years ago won the Pulitzer for his history of the 5th Amendment). Levy devotes an entire chapter to the Second Amendment, arguing that it's an individual right. He says that the claim that Miller v. US ruled for a collective right "misleads." He rejects claims that "bear arms" (as opposed to "keep") relates only to military use, pointing out that the Pennsylvania minority's demand for a bill of rights used "bear arms" to describe use in self-defense and even hunting, and that PA at the point in time was the only State without a militia organization (the large Quaker population and its passifism accounting for that).
> 
> A WII vet himself, Levy added that "If all that was meant was the right to be a soldier or to serve in the military, whether in the militia or in the army, it would hardly be a cherished right and would never have reached constitutional status in the Bill of Rights. The 'right' to be a soldier does not make much sense."
> 
> (B) RE: law abiding citizens interpretation
> NONCITIZENS AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT
> 
> Mixed interpretations, over noncitizens, where courts have been split.
> the traditional interpretation was citizens, and the growing population and political inclusion of noncitizens
> may have challenged this interpretation, as we are seeing today with immigration laws challenging
> the equal rights and protections of citizens vs. noncitizens.
> 
> From my experience and understanding of natural laws, there is more consensus that
> the purpose would be for complying with law and not violating laws; as it makes no
> sense that the law would support enabling criminals or "enemies of the law/state" to commit violations.
> That would be the equivalent of "aiding and abetting" to give arms to anyone with criminal intent.
> it would violate the right of people to security in their persons houses and effects,
> and threaten the equal protections to defend any such right to use arms with the intent of breaking laws.
> But since govt cannot prove intent until after there is due process and someone is convicted,
> then the law cannot try to prescribe this. But by natural laws, and the spirit of the law, I find
> there is no question that people agree that the law does NOT INTEND to enable abuse of arms to commit crimes
> and violate rights of others. the objections I have found involve due process, in that there is no way to
> police intent in advance or it would start infringing on rights and liberties. But the spirit of the law would imply
> the legal use of arms is for defense of law not for violations, that's just common sense of what people would consent to.
> 
> (C) as for how to deal with these dual interpretations
> 
> 1. I see no problem in some people believing in organized militia
> and others being okay with individual gun ownership as long as there is proper
> training in the laws, procedures of law enforcement where people follow the same
> procedures as the police so there is no question on who is complying or not,
> and possibly introducing the idea of insurance required in case of abuse or accidents,
> similar to car insurance that is decided by state.
> 
> 2. for criminal disorders or incompetence that poses dangers to public health and safety,
> I believe that better means of reporting abuses and threats for standard screening
> could be agreed upon per district on the level of civic or neighborhood associations
> that can pass their own ordinances against drug abuse or dangerous dogs or
> requirements for screening/training for gun owners. If the local organizations
> decide democratically where all residents agree to the standards they elect to
> comply with and enforce, that can be completely constitutional for them to choose.
> 
> What people don't want is for outside authority to dictate what standards or
> interpretations can regulate their rights etc. So if people agree and elect these
> freely, then any interpretation or standard can be chosen for enforcement by consent of those residents.
> Including how to report potential threats, require screening or counseling for dangerous conditions
> found, or mediate and resolve conflicts by consent of the parties in order to reside in such a district that
> has implemented such a policy by agreement of the property owners and residents in order to live there.
> 
> I don't have a problem with accommodating diverse interpretations,
> but don't think it is constitutional to abuse govt to impose one or the other
> where it threatens people of different beliefs or excludes them from public policy
> which should protect and represent people regardless of beliefs and interpretations.
> We just can't be in the business of imposing on each other's beliefs,
> or that also violates Constitutional rights and protections under the First, Fourteenth and other Amendments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you want the right to be just for law abiding. However a right is ONLY a right when EVERYONE has the right, otherwise it's a privilege, it's that simple.
> 
> This doesn't mean criminals can't have that right infringed upon.
> 
> Well, if anyone, I mean ANYONE can show me anything that takes away my interpretation, which isn't based on what I want, but on what I've seen. Usually I get people just throwing insults because they can't argue with me.
> 
> People have the right to argue as they like, they have the right to be wrong.
> 
> Pennsylvania had the 111th infantry regiment. It fought in the War of Independence and changed names through time.
> 
> 111th Infantry Regiment (United States) - Wikipedia
> 
> "
> 
> 747 Constituted 7 December 1747 by official recognition of the Associators, founded 21 November 1747 in Philadelphia by Benjamin Franklin.
> 1747 Organized 29 December 1747 as Associated Regiment of Foot of Philadelphia.
> 1775 Reorganized as Associates of the City and Liberties of Philadelphia, with five Battalions.
> 1777 Reorganized as the Philadelphia Brigade of Militia, commanded by Brigadier General John Cadwalader.
> 1793 Reorganized 11 April 1793 as Volunteer Infantry Elements of 1st Brigade, 1st Division Pennsylvania Militia.
> 1814 Volunteer Infantry Companies of 1st Brigade reorganized as 1st Regiment, Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry, commanded by Colonel Clement C. Biddle; entered federal service 24 August 1814 and relieved 4 January 1815.
> 1816 Reorganized 19 March 1816 as Volunteer Infantry Elements of 1st Division."
> 
> Now what we have here might be that the militia disbanded and was then reorganized in times of need. Which is exactly what a Militia is. You don't need a militia in order to have the right to be in the militia. When people feel the need for a militia, it can be reorganized and then individuals will join the militia.
> At the time people weren't fervent about their 2A rights as they are now. It was all practical. You have the right to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply, but the reality was that individuals had weapons as a general part of their daily life, hunting as a source of food must have been great at the time, seeing as most people lived in rural areas. When things demanded it was your DUTY to join the militia. However they were protecting the militia so they made it your right as well as your duty.
> 
> You think I'm imposing my view on others? Well you can think that, I'm not too bothered. However all I'm doing is taking historical documents and using it to show what the Founding Fathers thought. That the vast majority of people (who also have agendas) will ignore these documents is quite telling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very good frigidweirdo you have presented the best backing and historical justification
> for the interpretation you support which I have seen up to this point.
> 
> Again, I still believe you have the right to your interpretation even without any such backing,
> but by the nature of religious freedom and equal protection of the laws from discrimination by creed.
> 
> In order to protect the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to security and protections of the law,
> I find it legally necessary to educate and train all citizens and residents in Constitutional law enforcement and ethics.
> 
> Otherwise if people do not have knowledge or experience with the laws and ethics that the public and community agrees to enforce,
> that is what causes breaches of the peace, abuses and violations.
> 
> So my definition of what is necessary for citizenship IS based on teaching people to be law abiding
> and to use that educational, training and conflict resolution process to SCREEN for criminal disorders, illnesses or other incompetence
> that would render someone "disabled" or "unable" to comply with laws without additional assistance, guardianship or supervision.
> 
> Those are my beliefs which I equally defend my right to exercise and enforce by
> the same First and Fourteenth Amendment I would invoke to protect yours.
> 
> The difference I have found, is that I am willing to do the work and invest the resources
> and set up the system in order to enforce the interpretation I support.
> 
> However, I find too many other people NOT willing to pay the cost or consequences of
> THEIR interpretations. That is why people argue against gun rights because there is no responsibility for the cost of abuse.
> Or against abortion rights or prolife beliefs where the advocates aren't taking responsibility for the costs to enforce those policies.
> 
> frigidweirdo are you REALLY willing to shoulder the cost to enforce your interpretation?
> 
> I have described what I believe it will take to ensure the right to bear arms is
> exercised within a  "law abiding" environment that is constitutional where it
> is locally elected and enforced.
> 
> What about what you are asking, to require people to join militias?
> 
> Would you be okay with the proposal to reward districts for reduced
> crime rates by the residents working WITH police and military to
> offer the SAME training and screening for all citizens/residents seeking to bear arms?
> 
> That's not the same as joining a militia to have the same training and screening.
> I suggest adding this to the neighborhood or district policies, or giving tax
> breaks where communities effectively reduce crime and can invest those
> dollars into their schools or programs for daycare, health care or elderly care
> as an incentive to promote LAW ABIDING citizenry.
> 
> So I would focus on compliance with laws by education, training and job creation,
> and not so much on "joining an official militia" unless you count citizen patrols and security training?
> 
> I still see it more as citizen based, not as militia run.
> 
> The militia, even the "first responders" cannot be the only ones trained
> and relied upon for emergency response and criminal activity.
> 
> frigidweirdo as recent events in Texas showed, with both widespread
> storms and flooding that sent independent teams to do rescue work,
> and with the mass shooting that required citizens to intervene since
> there were no police, we will always need active citizens IN ADDITION
> to any such "militia" or dedicated emergency/first responders.
> 
> But if you want to call these a form of "trained militia" then you
> and I are just using different terms for the same concept of
> having trained citizens to ensure enforcement of laws and safety.
> 
> I just don't see everyone agreeing to be REQUIRED to join a militia
> group, though I could see people agreeing to uniform neighborhood
> ordinances when they are equally involved in the process of making that policy
> that represents the residents and owners in that community.
> If this takes the form of a "militia" then fine, but if it just means all
> community members agree to work with police to go through the
> same training to understand and comply with the same procedures,
> that doesn't necessarily mean JOINING the police or militia to be enforcing the same
> policies and standards for security in that district.
> 
> So I would think my interpretation is more inclusive of
> yours and others, while yours would exclude people who don't
> agree with the condition of joining a militia.
> 
> And the interpretation that includes more people's beliefs equally
> would seem to me to be more constitutionally consistent
> by not discriminating or excluding
> but by accommodating and protecting people equally
> regardless of their beliefs and interpretations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the first problem here is that you take me for someone who has an interpretation in order to fit an agenda. The closest you're going to get there is that my agenda is the truth.
> 
> I didn't decide this to be the truth, I just found out that it WAS THE TRUTH.
> 
> If you really want to get to the places where it's not about truth but it's about how you think something would work in the future, then this topic enlarges itself massively. But this topic is about one single thing. I have said plenty of times what I think the biggest problem is in the US, and why the gun issue will never be solved, nor any other problem. The electoral system.
> 
> However your points that Texas shows that people need guns, my point would be that in the UK and most of the Western World, these things don't usually happen, except in the US.
> 
> The reality is that in the US you are four times more likely to die with your gun that you are in the UK to die without a gun.
> 
> 135 police officers died in the line of duty last year in the US, zero died in the UK. All police officers in the US are armed.
> 
> You think your interpretation is more inclusive, I think my interpretation is the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't the common factor that the people bearing arms were acting in the spirit of Defending and Enforcing Constitutional laws not seeking to violate rights and freedoms of any other people?
> 
> Can we agree that the right of the people means law abiding citizens?
> Then regardless if these are official militia, or just independent citizens such as the men who shot and stopped the shooter in Texas, wouldn't that call for citizens to be trained in safe law enforcement?
> 
> The NRA already promotes training as part of the responsibility of gun ownership. So if police and military require standard screening and training in order to use firearms why not encourage this for all law abiding citizens to promote public safety security and compliance ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To answer the other points.
> 
> Which states didn't have a militia by 1789?
> 
> In the American Revolutionary War you had militias from:
> 
> 
> 1 Connecticut
> 2 Delaware
> 3 Georgia
> 4 Maryland
> 5 Massachusetts
> 6 New Hampshire
> 7 New Jersey
> 8 New York
> 9 North Carolina
> 10 Pennsylvania
> 11 Rhode Island
> 12 South Carolina
> 13 Vermont
> 14 Virginia
> That's 14 colonies, by 1789 there were still only 13 states in the Union, Vermont not being in the country at that point.
> 
> 
> List of United States militia units in the American Revolutionary War - Wikipedia
> 
> No, we can't agree that the right is for "law abiding people" only. The theory of rights says that rights can be INFRINGED UPON when someone is found guilty, through due process, of committing a crime or being found insane. Criminals retain their rights in prison, they're just infringed upon.
> 
> You can encourage whatever you like with regards to training to use guns. However it doesn't change the fact that the "right to bear arms" is the right to be in the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo
> I applaud you in citing historical backing for the interpretation you support that
> (a) right to bear arms applies to militia members (b) right of the people is not limited to just citizens
> (though I would still argue with you that the intent must be law abiding, or else it threatens the right of people to security in their
> homes and equal protection of the laws if the law supported arms used for breaking laws; I argue by the very spirit of the laws,
> the meaning has to be for defending rights and laws and not for violating them, or it contradicts the very reason for having laws)
> 
> Here are some citations that show AT LEAST both interpretations on both points are equally arguable.
> By the same "religious freedom" and protection of your creed from discrimination,
> then neither can govt be abused to EXCLUDE the interpretation of others either;
> the same principles that defend YOUR interpretation and beliefs also protect other interpretations.
> 
> So again, it would Contradict the laws themselves if you were to impose YOUR interpretation
> at the EXCLUSION of others who have equal if not MORE backing historically than yours does.
> 
> I have argued, quite unpopularly, that by religious freedom you and others of your belief
> have equal right to defend your interpretation.  So good job with that, but it still does not give
> you the right to supercede or exclude the interpretations of others which have even MORE established historical backing that is more consistent with the rest
> of the history and meaning of the Constitution and natural laws.
> 
> I am all for defending and including the beliefs and opinions of the minority,
> and believe you have equal right to your interpretation, or the First Amendment and Fourteenth would be violated.
> 
> (A)
> 10 PENNSYLVANIA
> had no militia due largely in part to the Quaker/Pacifist active influence among the population
> 
> Of Arms and the Law: Leonard Levy's "Origins of the Bill of Rights"
> 
> *Leonard Levy's "Origins of the Bill of Rights"*
> POSTED BY DAVID HARDY · 22 AUGUST 2005 04:27 PM
> Just got Leonard Levy's "Origins of the Bill of Rights." (He's the late, great legal historian who some years ago won the Pulitzer for his history of the 5th Amendment). Levy devotes an entire chapter to the Second Amendment, arguing that it's an individual right. He says that the claim that Miller v. US ruled for a collective right "misleads." He rejects claims that "bear arms" (as opposed to "keep") relates only to military use, pointing out that the Pennsylvania minority's demand for a bill of rights used "bear arms" to describe use in self-defense and even hunting, and that PA at the point in time was the only State without a militia organization (the large Quaker population and its passifism accounting for that).
> 
> A WII vet himself, Levy added that "If all that was meant was the right to be a soldier or to serve in the military, whether in the militia or in the army, it would hardly be a cherished right and would never have reached constitutional status in the Bill of Rights. The 'right' to be a soldier does not make much sense."
> 
> (B) RE: law abiding citizens interpretation
> NONCITIZENS AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT
> 
> Mixed interpretations, over noncitizens, where courts have been split.
> the traditional interpretation was citizens, and the growing population and political inclusion of noncitizens
> may have challenged this interpretation, as we are seeing today with immigration laws challenging
> the equal rights and protections of citizens vs. noncitizens.
> 
> From my experience and understanding of natural laws, there is more consensus that
> the purpose would be for complying with law and not violating laws; as it makes no
> sense that the law would support enabling criminals or "enemies of the law/state" to commit violations.
> That would be the equivalent of "aiding and abetting" to give arms to anyone with criminal intent.
> it would violate the right of people to security in their persons houses and effects,
> and threaten the equal protections to defend any such right to use arms with the intent of breaking laws.
> But since govt cannot prove intent until after there is due process and someone is convicted,
> then the law cannot try to prescribe this. But by natural laws, and the spirit of the law, I find
> there is no question that people agree that the law does NOT INTEND to enable abuse of arms to commit crimes
> and violate rights of others. the objections I have found involve due process, in that there is no way to
> police intent in advance or it would start infringing on rights and liberties. But the spirit of the law would imply
> the legal use of arms is for defense of law not for violations, that's just common sense of what people would consent to.
> 
> (C) as for how to deal with these dual interpretations
> 
> 1. I see no problem in some people believing in organized militia
> and others being okay with individual gun ownership as long as there is proper
> training in the laws, procedures of law enforcement where people follow the same
> procedures as the police so there is no question on who is complying or not,
> and possibly introducing the idea of insurance required in case of abuse or accidents,
> similar to car insurance that is decided by state.
> 
> 2. for criminal disorders or incompetence that poses dangers to public health and safety,
> I believe that better means of reporting abuses and threats for standard screening
> could be agreed upon per district on the level of civic or neighborhood associations
> that can pass their own ordinances against drug abuse or dangerous dogs or
> requirements for screening/training for gun owners. If the local organizations
> decide democratically where all residents agree to the standards they elect to
> comply with and enforce, that can be completely constitutional for them to choose.
> 
> What people don't want is for outside authority to dictate what standards or
> interpretations can regulate their rights etc. So if people agree and elect these
> freely, then any interpretation or standard can be chosen for enforcement by consent of those residents.
> Including how to report potential threats, require screening or counseling for dangerous conditions
> found, or mediate and resolve conflicts by consent of the parties in order to reside in such a district that
> has implemented such a policy by agreement of the property owners and residents in order to live there.
> 
> I don't have a problem with accommodating diverse interpretations,
> but don't think it is constitutional to abuse govt to impose one or the other
> where it threatens people of different beliefs or excludes them from public policy
> which should protect and represent people regardless of beliefs and interpretations.
> We just can't be in the business of imposing on each other's beliefs,
> or that also violates Constitutional rights and protections under the First, Fourteenth and other Amendments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you want the right to be just for law abiding. However a right is ONLY a right when EVERYONE has the right, otherwise it's a privilege, it's that simple.
> 
> This doesn't mean criminals can't have that right infringed upon.
> 
> Well, if anyone, I mean ANYONE can show me anything that takes away my interpretation, which isn't based on what I want, but on what I've seen. Usually I get people just throwing insults because they can't argue with me.
> 
> People have the right to argue as they like, they have the right to be wrong.
> 
> Pennsylvania had the 111th infantry regiment. It fought in the War of Independence and changed names through time.
> 
> 111th Infantry Regiment (United States) - Wikipedia
> 
> "
> 
> 747 Constituted 7 December 1747 by official recognition of the Associators, founded 21 November 1747 in Philadelphia by Benjamin Franklin.
> 1747 Organized 29 December 1747 as Associated Regiment of Foot of Philadelphia.
> 1775 Reorganized as Associates of the City and Liberties of Philadelphia, with five Battalions.
> 1777 Reorganized as the Philadelphia Brigade of Militia, commanded by Brigadier General John Cadwalader.
> 1793 Reorganized 11 April 1793 as Volunteer Infantry Elements of 1st Brigade, 1st Division Pennsylvania Militia.
> 1814 Volunteer Infantry Companies of 1st Brigade reorganized as 1st Regiment, Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry, commanded by Colonel Clement C. Biddle; entered federal service 24 August 1814 and relieved 4 January 1815.
> 1816 Reorganized 19 March 1816 as Volunteer Infantry Elements of 1st Division."
> 
> Now what we have here might be that the militia disbanded and was then reorganized in times of need. Which is exactly what a Militia is. You don't need a militia in order to have the right to be in the militia. When people feel the need for a militia, it can be reorganized and then individuals will join the militia.
> At the time people weren't fervent about their 2A rights as they are now. It was all practical. You have the right to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply, but the reality was that individuals had weapons as a general part of their daily life, hunting as a source of food must have been great at the time, seeing as most people lived in rural areas. When things demanded it was your DUTY to join the militia. However they were protecting the militia so they made it your right as well as your duty.
> 
> You think I'm imposing my view on others? Well you can think that, I'm not too bothered. However all I'm doing is taking historical documents and using it to show what the Founding Fathers thought. That the vast majority of people (who also have agendas) will ignore these documents is quite telling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very good frigidweirdo you have presented the best backing and historical justification
> for the interpretation you support which I have seen up to this point.
> 
> Again, I still believe you have the right to your interpretation even without any such backing,
> but by the nature of religious freedom and equal protection of the laws from discrimination by creed.
> 
> In order to protect the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to security and protections of the law,
> I find it legally necessary to educate and train all citizens and residents in Constitutional law enforcement and ethics.
> 
> Otherwise if people do not have knowledge or experience with the laws and ethics that the public and community agrees to enforce,
> that is what causes breaches of the peace, abuses and violations.
> 
> So my definition of what is necessary for citizenship IS based on teaching people to be law abiding
> and to use that educational, training and conflict resolution process to SCREEN for criminal disorders, illnesses or other incompetence
> that would render someone "disabled" or "unable" to comply with laws without additional assistance, guardianship or supervision.
> 
> Those are my beliefs which I equally defend my right to exercise and enforce by
> the same First and Fourteenth Amendment I would invoke to protect yours.
> 
> The difference I have found, is that I am willing to do the work and invest the resources
> and set up the system in order to enforce the interpretation I support.
> 
> However, I find too many other people NOT willing to pay the cost or consequences of
> THEIR interpretations. That is why people argue against gun rights because there is no responsibility for the cost of abuse.
> Or against abortion rights or prolife beliefs where the advocates aren't taking responsibility for the costs to enforce those policies.
> 
> frigidweirdo are you REALLY willing to shoulder the cost to enforce your interpretation?
> 
> I have described what I believe it will take to ensure the right to bear arms is
> exercised within a  "law abiding" environment that is constitutional where it
> is locally elected and enforced.
> 
> What about what you are asking, to require people to join militias?
> 
> Would you be okay with the proposal to reward districts for reduced
> crime rates by the residents working WITH police and military to
> offer the SAME training and screening for all citizens/residents seeking to bear arms?
> 
> That's not the same as joining a militia to have the same training and screening.
> I suggest adding this to the neighborhood or district policies, or giving tax
> breaks where communities effectively reduce crime and can invest those
> dollars into their schools or programs for daycare, health care or elderly care
> as an incentive to promote LAW ABIDING citizenry.
> 
> So I would focus on compliance with laws by education, training and job creation,
> and not so much on "joining an official militia" unless you count citizen patrols and security training?
> 
> I still see it more as citizen based, not as militia run.
> 
> The militia, even the "first responders" cannot be the only ones trained
> and relied upon for emergency response and criminal activity.
> 
> frigidweirdo as recent events in Texas showed, with both widespread
> storms and flooding that sent independent teams to do rescue work,
> and with the mass shooting that required citizens to intervene since
> there were no police, we will always need active citizens IN ADDITION
> to any such "militia" or dedicated emergency/first responders.
> 
> But if you want to call these a form of "trained militia" then you
> and I are just using different terms for the same concept of
> having trained citizens to ensure enforcement of laws and safety.
> 
> I just don't see everyone agreeing to be REQUIRED to join a militia
> group, though I could see people agreeing to uniform neighborhood
> ordinances when they are equally involved in the process of making that policy
> that represents the residents and owners in that community.
> If this takes the form of a "militia" then fine, but if it just means all
> community members agree to work with police to go through the
> same training to understand and comply with the same procedures,
> that doesn't necessarily mean JOINING the police or militia to be enforcing the same
> policies and standards for security in that district.
> 
> So I would think my interpretation is more inclusive of
> yours and others, while yours would exclude people who don't
> agree with the condition of joining a militia.
> 
> And the interpretation that includes more people's beliefs equally
> would seem to me to be more constitutionally consistent
> by not discriminating or excluding
> but by accommodating and protecting people equally
> regardless of their beliefs and interpretations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the first problem here is that you take me for someone who has an interpretation in order to fit an agenda. The closest you're going to get there is that my agenda is the truth.
> 
> I didn't decide this to be the truth, I just found out that it WAS THE TRUTH.
> 
> If you really want to get to the places where it's not about truth but it's about how you think something would work in the future, then this topic enlarges itself massively. But this topic is about one single thing. I have said plenty of times what I think the biggest problem is in the US, and why the gun issue will never be solved, nor any other problem. The electoral system.
> 
> However your points that Texas shows that people need guns, my point would be that in the UK and most of the Western World, these things don't usually happen, except in the US.
> 
> The reality is that in the US you are four times more likely to die with your gun that you are in the UK to die without a gun.
> 
> 135 police officers died in the line of duty last year in the US, zero died in the UK. All police officers in the US are armed.
> 
> You think your interpretation is more inclusive, I think my interpretation is the truth.
Click to expand...


To tell you the honest truth, frigidweirdo
I'm sure the founders back then argued this same way, didn't agree either,
and ended up with the law written as it was to accommodate BOTH.
So it BOTH included the right of people individually
FOR STATES THAT AGREED TO PASS LAWS RESPECTING THAT WAY
as well as allowed for state militias
FOR STATES THAT AGREED TO PASS LAWS BASED ON THAT.

The common factor was the STATES would pass laws
and not the Feds controlling all the access to arms,
because that's what they feared would get corrupted,oppressive and tyrannical
if there wasn't some check against Federal abuse of collective authority.

SEE below:


			
				1 said:
			
		

> These interpretations tend to lean in one of two ways. The first is that the amendment was meant to ensure that individuals have the absolute right to own firearms; the second is that the amendment was meant to ensure that States could form, arm, and maintain their own militias. Either way, it is a bar to federal action only, because the 2nd Amendment has not been incorporated by the Supreme Court to apply to the states. This means that within its own constitution, a state may be as restrictive or non-restrictive as it wishes to be in the regulation of firearms; likewise, private rules and regulations may prohibit or encourage firearms. For example, if a housing association wishes to bar any firearm from being held within its borders, it is free to do so.



As the founders fought the same arguments we have today re Federal vs. State authority, I'm sure they disagreed and argued about who had the right to bear arms
in this same divided context. (I also read into certain state histories with issues over Catholics having equal right to bear arms because of the fear of abuse/violent crime.)

As for the citation on PA, I apologize for not looking up the direct reference previously
so I cited wrong online. (My excuse is my copy of Levy's "Origin of the Bill of Rights" got rescued from the flood and stashed in storage, so I took a shortcut and tried to search for a paraphrase instead of getting the source verbatim, Sorry!)

The CORRECT statement is that PA didn't have a state militia at the time of its STATE constitution which cited the right to bear arms, so clearly the STATE law on the right to bear arms didn't refer to state militia because they didn't have one. Sorry I miscited that.

Here is the corrected explanation:


			
				2 said:
			
		

> In the state constitutions written around the time of the Declaration of Independence, the right to bear arms was presented in different ways. The Articles of Confederation specified that the states should maintain their militias, but did not mention a right to bear arms. Thus, any such protections would have to come from state law. The Virginia Declaration of Rights, though it mentioned the militia, did not mention a right to bear arms — the right might be implied, since the state did not furnish weapons for militiamen. The constitutions of North Carolina and Massachusetts did guarantee the right, to ensure proper defense of the states. *The constitution of Pennsylvania guaranteed the right with no mention of the militia (at the time, Pennsylvania had no organized militia)*. One of the arguments of the Anti-Federalists during the ratification debates was that the new nation did not arm the militias, an odd argument since neither did the U.S. under the Articles. Finally, Madison's original proposal for the Bill of Rights mentioned the individual right much more directly than the final result that came out of Congress.



Constitutional Topic: The Second Amendment - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

frigidweirdo thank you for at least explaining the history behind your conclusion.
I usually get the explanation that the big fear at the time was the British Crown and forces
taking away weapons from the colonists in order to keep them subordinated.
So the same fear was that if Federal govt required only militia to have weapons
that same scenario could happen of abusing militia to oppress the people.
That's the usual argument in favor of individuals retaining the right to check and defend against that as well!

But since you challenge that, I asked another source
and got yet another explanation I hadn't heard before:
If state militia had the right to take arms against federal govt
then the fight for Southern secession would have been legal.
I kinda get that argument, but still see it as whoever is enforcing
laws is in the right, and whoever is abusing force to violate laws
is what makes it unlawful.  In the case of the Civil War there was
right and wrong on both sides: slavery was a violation of natural
laws by which people should have equal protections of rights,
but the federal govt should have respected the sovereign
consent of states and settled the conflict peaceably without force.
The fact both sides resorted to force ends up violating protections on both sides
because they both failed to resolve the conflicts peaceably by democratic process.

So I don't follow that argument
as easily as I do the historical argument
that the Second Amendment was influenced
by colonists having to take up arms to stop
oppression by collective govt, so they didn't want
to concede this right to bear arms to any higher govt that could become corrupted.

You can believe you have the truth
but so do people who cite history to argue the other way.

Again, honestly, I believe this is the same boat
the founders were in who didn't agree either
on federal vs. state authority and the right of the people.


----------



## frigidweirdo

emilynghiem said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> To answer the other points.
> 
> Which states didn't have a militia by 1789?
> 
> In the American Revolutionary War you had militias from:
> 
> 
> 1 Connecticut
> 2 Delaware
> 3 Georgia
> 4 Maryland
> 5 Massachusetts
> 6 New Hampshire
> 7 New Jersey
> 8 New York
> 9 North Carolina
> 10 Pennsylvania
> 11 Rhode Island
> 12 South Carolina
> 13 Vermont
> 14 Virginia
> That's 14 colonies, by 1789 there were still only 13 states in the Union, Vermont not being in the country at that point.
> 
> 
> List of United States militia units in the American Revolutionary War - Wikipedia
> 
> No, we can't agree that the right is for "law abiding people" only. The theory of rights says that rights can be INFRINGED UPON when someone is found guilty, through due process, of committing a crime or being found insane. Criminals retain their rights in prison, they're just infringed upon.
> 
> You can encourage whatever you like with regards to training to use guns. However it doesn't change the fact that the "right to bear arms" is the right to be in the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo
> I applaud you in citing historical backing for the interpretation you support that
> (a) right to bear arms applies to militia members (b) right of the people is not limited to just citizens
> (though I would still argue with you that the intent must be law abiding, or else it threatens the right of people to security in their
> homes and equal protection of the laws if the law supported arms used for breaking laws; I argue by the very spirit of the laws,
> the meaning has to be for defending rights and laws and not for violating them, or it contradicts the very reason for having laws)
> 
> Here are some citations that show AT LEAST both interpretations on both points are equally arguable.
> By the same "religious freedom" and protection of your creed from discrimination,
> then neither can govt be abused to EXCLUDE the interpretation of others either;
> the same principles that defend YOUR interpretation and beliefs also protect other interpretations.
> 
> So again, it would Contradict the laws themselves if you were to impose YOUR interpretation
> at the EXCLUSION of others who have equal if not MORE backing historically than yours does.
> 
> I have argued, quite unpopularly, that by religious freedom you and others of your belief
> have equal right to defend your interpretation.  So good job with that, but it still does not give
> you the right to supercede or exclude the interpretations of others which have even MORE established historical backing that is more consistent with the rest
> of the history and meaning of the Constitution and natural laws.
> 
> I am all for defending and including the beliefs and opinions of the minority,
> and believe you have equal right to your interpretation, or the First Amendment and Fourteenth would be violated.
> 
> (A)
> 10 PENNSYLVANIA
> had no militia due largely in part to the Quaker/Pacifist active influence among the population
> 
> Of Arms and the Law: Leonard Levy's "Origins of the Bill of Rights"
> 
> *Leonard Levy's "Origins of the Bill of Rights"*
> POSTED BY DAVID HARDY · 22 AUGUST 2005 04:27 PM
> Just got Leonard Levy's "Origins of the Bill of Rights." (He's the late, great legal historian who some years ago won the Pulitzer for his history of the 5th Amendment). Levy devotes an entire chapter to the Second Amendment, arguing that it's an individual right. He says that the claim that Miller v. US ruled for a collective right "misleads." He rejects claims that "bear arms" (as opposed to "keep") relates only to military use, pointing out that the Pennsylvania minority's demand for a bill of rights used "bear arms" to describe use in self-defense and even hunting, and that PA at the point in time was the only State without a militia organization (the large Quaker population and its passifism accounting for that).
> 
> A WII vet himself, Levy added that "If all that was meant was the right to be a soldier or to serve in the military, whether in the militia or in the army, it would hardly be a cherished right and would never have reached constitutional status in the Bill of Rights. The 'right' to be a soldier does not make much sense."
> 
> (B) RE: law abiding citizens interpretation
> NONCITIZENS AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT
> 
> Mixed interpretations, over noncitizens, where courts have been split.
> the traditional interpretation was citizens, and the growing population and political inclusion of noncitizens
> may have challenged this interpretation, as we are seeing today with immigration laws challenging
> the equal rights and protections of citizens vs. noncitizens.
> 
> From my experience and understanding of natural laws, there is more consensus that
> the purpose would be for complying with law and not violating laws; as it makes no
> sense that the law would support enabling criminals or "enemies of the law/state" to commit violations.
> That would be the equivalent of "aiding and abetting" to give arms to anyone with criminal intent.
> it would violate the right of people to security in their persons houses and effects,
> and threaten the equal protections to defend any such right to use arms with the intent of breaking laws.
> But since govt cannot prove intent until after there is due process and someone is convicted,
> then the law cannot try to prescribe this. But by natural laws, and the spirit of the law, I find
> there is no question that people agree that the law does NOT INTEND to enable abuse of arms to commit crimes
> and violate rights of others. the objections I have found involve due process, in that there is no way to
> police intent in advance or it would start infringing on rights and liberties. But the spirit of the law would imply
> the legal use of arms is for defense of law not for violations, that's just common sense of what people would consent to.
> 
> (C) as for how to deal with these dual interpretations
> 
> 1. I see no problem in some people believing in organized militia
> and others being okay with individual gun ownership as long as there is proper
> training in the laws, procedures of law enforcement where people follow the same
> procedures as the police so there is no question on who is complying or not,
> and possibly introducing the idea of insurance required in case of abuse or accidents,
> similar to car insurance that is decided by state.
> 
> 2. for criminal disorders or incompetence that poses dangers to public health and safety,
> I believe that better means of reporting abuses and threats for standard screening
> could be agreed upon per district on the level of civic or neighborhood associations
> that can pass their own ordinances against drug abuse or dangerous dogs or
> requirements for screening/training for gun owners. If the local organizations
> decide democratically where all residents agree to the standards they elect to
> comply with and enforce, that can be completely constitutional for them to choose.
> 
> What people don't want is for outside authority to dictate what standards or
> interpretations can regulate their rights etc. So if people agree and elect these
> freely, then any interpretation or standard can be chosen for enforcement by consent of those residents.
> Including how to report potential threats, require screening or counseling for dangerous conditions
> found, or mediate and resolve conflicts by consent of the parties in order to reside in such a district that
> has implemented such a policy by agreement of the property owners and residents in order to live there.
> 
> I don't have a problem with accommodating diverse interpretations,
> but don't think it is constitutional to abuse govt to impose one or the other
> where it threatens people of different beliefs or excludes them from public policy
> which should protect and represent people regardless of beliefs and interpretations.
> We just can't be in the business of imposing on each other's beliefs,
> or that also violates Constitutional rights and protections under the First, Fourteenth and other Amendments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you want the right to be just for law abiding. However a right is ONLY a right when EVERYONE has the right, otherwise it's a privilege, it's that simple.
> 
> This doesn't mean criminals can't have that right infringed upon.
> 
> Well, if anyone, I mean ANYONE can show me anything that takes away my interpretation, which isn't based on what I want, but on what I've seen. Usually I get people just throwing insults because they can't argue with me.
> 
> People have the right to argue as they like, they have the right to be wrong.
> 
> Pennsylvania had the 111th infantry regiment. It fought in the War of Independence and changed names through time.
> 
> 111th Infantry Regiment (United States) - Wikipedia
> 
> "
> 
> 747 Constituted 7 December 1747 by official recognition of the Associators, founded 21 November 1747 in Philadelphia by Benjamin Franklin.
> 1747 Organized 29 December 1747 as Associated Regiment of Foot of Philadelphia.
> 1775 Reorganized as Associates of the City and Liberties of Philadelphia, with five Battalions.
> 1777 Reorganized as the Philadelphia Brigade of Militia, commanded by Brigadier General John Cadwalader.
> 1793 Reorganized 11 April 1793 as Volunteer Infantry Elements of 1st Brigade, 1st Division Pennsylvania Militia.
> 1814 Volunteer Infantry Companies of 1st Brigade reorganized as 1st Regiment, Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry, commanded by Colonel Clement C. Biddle; entered federal service 24 August 1814 and relieved 4 January 1815.
> 1816 Reorganized 19 March 1816 as Volunteer Infantry Elements of 1st Division."
> 
> Now what we have here might be that the militia disbanded and was then reorganized in times of need. Which is exactly what a Militia is. You don't need a militia in order to have the right to be in the militia. When people feel the need for a militia, it can be reorganized and then individuals will join the militia.
> At the time people weren't fervent about their 2A rights as they are now. It was all practical. You have the right to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply, but the reality was that individuals had weapons as a general part of their daily life, hunting as a source of food must have been great at the time, seeing as most people lived in rural areas. When things demanded it was your DUTY to join the militia. However they were protecting the militia so they made it your right as well as your duty.
> 
> You think I'm imposing my view on others? Well you can think that, I'm not too bothered. However all I'm doing is taking historical documents and using it to show what the Founding Fathers thought. That the vast majority of people (who also have agendas) will ignore these documents is quite telling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very good frigidweirdo you have presented the best backing and historical justification
> for the interpretation you support which I have seen up to this point.
> 
> Again, I still believe you have the right to your interpretation even without any such backing,
> but by the nature of religious freedom and equal protection of the laws from discrimination by creed.
> 
> In order to protect the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to security and protections of the law,
> I find it legally necessary to educate and train all citizens and residents in Constitutional law enforcement and ethics.
> 
> Otherwise if people do not have knowledge or experience with the laws and ethics that the public and community agrees to enforce,
> that is what causes breaches of the peace, abuses and violations.
> 
> So my definition of what is necessary for citizenship IS based on teaching people to be law abiding
> and to use that educational, training and conflict resolution process to SCREEN for criminal disorders, illnesses or other incompetence
> that would render someone "disabled" or "unable" to comply with laws without additional assistance, guardianship or supervision.
> 
> Those are my beliefs which I equally defend my right to exercise and enforce by
> the same First and Fourteenth Amendment I would invoke to protect yours.
> 
> The difference I have found, is that I am willing to do the work and invest the resources
> and set up the system in order to enforce the interpretation I support.
> 
> However, I find too many other people NOT willing to pay the cost or consequences of
> THEIR interpretations. That is why people argue against gun rights because there is no responsibility for the cost of abuse.
> Or against abortion rights or prolife beliefs where the advocates aren't taking responsibility for the costs to enforce those policies.
> 
> frigidweirdo are you REALLY willing to shoulder the cost to enforce your interpretation?
> 
> I have described what I believe it will take to ensure the right to bear arms is
> exercised within a  "law abiding" environment that is constitutional where it
> is locally elected and enforced.
> 
> What about what you are asking, to require people to join militias?
> 
> Would you be okay with the proposal to reward districts for reduced
> crime rates by the residents working WITH police and military to
> offer the SAME training and screening for all citizens/residents seeking to bear arms?
> 
> That's not the same as joining a militia to have the same training and screening.
> I suggest adding this to the neighborhood or district policies, or giving tax
> breaks where communities effectively reduce crime and can invest those
> dollars into their schools or programs for daycare, health care or elderly care
> as an incentive to promote LAW ABIDING citizenry.
> 
> So I would focus on compliance with laws by education, training and job creation,
> and not so much on "joining an official militia" unless you count citizen patrols and security training?
> 
> I still see it more as citizen based, not as militia run.
> 
> The militia, even the "first responders" cannot be the only ones trained
> and relied upon for emergency response and criminal activity.
> 
> frigidweirdo as recent events in Texas showed, with both widespread
> storms and flooding that sent independent teams to do rescue work,
> and with the mass shooting that required citizens to intervene since
> there were no police, we will always need active citizens IN ADDITION
> to any such "militia" or dedicated emergency/first responders.
> 
> But if you want to call these a form of "trained militia" then you
> and I are just using different terms for the same concept of
> having trained citizens to ensure enforcement of laws and safety.
> 
> I just don't see everyone agreeing to be REQUIRED to join a militia
> group, though I could see people agreeing to uniform neighborhood
> ordinances when they are equally involved in the process of making that policy
> that represents the residents and owners in that community.
> If this takes the form of a "militia" then fine, but if it just means all
> community members agree to work with police to go through the
> same training to understand and comply with the same procedures,
> that doesn't necessarily mean JOINING the police or militia to be enforcing the same
> policies and standards for security in that district.
> 
> So I would think my interpretation is more inclusive of
> yours and others, while yours would exclude people who don't
> agree with the condition of joining a militia.
> 
> And the interpretation that includes more people's beliefs equally
> would seem to me to be more constitutionally consistent
> by not discriminating or excluding
> but by accommodating and protecting people equally
> regardless of their beliefs and interpretations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the first problem here is that you take me for someone who has an interpretation in order to fit an agenda. The closest you're going to get there is that my agenda is the truth.
> 
> I didn't decide this to be the truth, I just found out that it WAS THE TRUTH.
> 
> If you really want to get to the places where it's not about truth but it's about how you think something would work in the future, then this topic enlarges itself massively. But this topic is about one single thing. I have said plenty of times what I think the biggest problem is in the US, and why the gun issue will never be solved, nor any other problem. The electoral system.
> 
> However your points that Texas shows that people need guns, my point would be that in the UK and most of the Western World, these things don't usually happen, except in the US.
> 
> The reality is that in the US you are four times more likely to die with your gun that you are in the UK to die without a gun.
> 
> 135 police officers died in the line of duty last year in the US, zero died in the UK. All police officers in the US are armed.
> 
> You think your interpretation is more inclusive, I think my interpretation is the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To tell you the honest truth, frigidweirdo
> I'm sure the founders back then argued this same way, didn't agree either,
> and ended up with the law written as it was to accommodate BOTH.
> So it BOTH included the right of people individually
> FOR STATES THAT AGREED TO PASS LAWS RESPECTING THAT WAY
> as well as allowed for state militias
> FOR STATES THAT AGREED TO PASS LAWS BASED ON THAT.
> 
> The common factor was the STATES would pass laws
> and not the Feds controlling all the access to arms,
> because that's what they feared would get corrupted,oppressive and tyrannical
> if there wasn't some check against Federal abuse of collective authority.
> 
> SEE below:
> 
> 
> 
> 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These interpretations tend to lean in one of two ways. The first is that the amendment was meant to ensure that individuals have the absolute right to own firearms; the second is that the amendment was meant to ensure that States could form, arm, and maintain their own militias. Either way, it is a bar to federal action only, because the 2nd Amendment has not been incorporated by the Supreme Court to apply to the states. This means that within its own constitution, a state may be as restrictive or non-restrictive as it wishes to be in the regulation of firearms; likewise, private rules and regulations may prohibit or encourage firearms. For example, if a housing association wishes to bar any firearm from being held within its borders, it is free to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As the founders fought the same arguments we have today re Federal vs. State authority, I'm sure they disagreed and argued about who had the right to bear arms
> in this same divided context. (I also read into certain state histories with issues over Catholics having equal right to bear arms because of the fear of abuse/violent crime.)
> 
> As for the citation on PA, I apologize for not looking up the direct reference previously
> so I cited wrong online. (My excuse is my copy of Levy's "Origin of the Bill of Rights" got rescued from the flood and stashed in storage, so I took a shortcut and tried to search for a paraphrase instead of getting the source verbatim, Sorry!)
> 
> The CORRECT statement is that PA didn't have a state militia at the time of its STATE constitution which cited the right to bear arms, so clearly the STATE law on the right to bear arms didn't refer to state militia because they didn't have one. Sorry I miscited that.
> 
> Here is the corrected explanation:
> 
> 
> 
> 2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the state constitutions written around the time of the Declaration of Independence, the right to bear arms was presented in different ways. The Articles of Confederation specified that the states should maintain their militias, but did not mention a right to bear arms. Thus, any such protections would have to come from state law. The Virginia Declaration of Rights, though it mentioned the militia, did not mention a right to bear arms — the right might be implied, since the state did not furnish weapons for militiamen. The constitutions of North Carolina and Massachusetts did guarantee the right, to ensure proper defense of the states. *The constitution of Pennsylvania guaranteed the right with no mention of the militia (at the time, Pennsylvania had no organized militia)*. One of the arguments of the Anti-Federalists during the ratification debates was that the new nation did not arm the militias, an odd argument since neither did the U.S. under the Articles. Finally, Madison's original proposal for the Bill of Rights mentioned the individual right much more directly than the final result that came out of Congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Constitutional Topic: The Second Amendment - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
> 
> frigidweirdo thank you for at least explaining the history behind your conclusion.
> I usually get the explanation that the big fear at the time was the British Crown and forces
> taking away weapons from the colonists in order to keep them subordinated.
> So the same fear was that if Federal govt required only militia to have weapons
> that same scenario could happen of abusing militia to oppress the people.
> That's the usual argument in favor of individuals retaining the right to check and defend against that as well!
> 
> But since you challenge that, I asked another source
> and got yet another explanation I hadn't heard before:
> If state militia had the right to take arms against federal govt
> then the fight for Southern secession would have been legal.
> I kinda get that argument, but still see it as whoever is enforcing
> laws is in the right, and whoever is abusing force to violate laws
> is what makes it unlawful.  In the case of the Civil War there was
> right and wrong on both sides: slavery was a violation of natural
> laws by which people should have equal protections of rights,
> but the federal govt should have respected the sovereign
> consent of states and settled the conflict peaceably without force.
> The fact both sides resorted to force ends up violating protections on both sides
> because they both failed to resolve the conflicts peaceably by democratic process.
> 
> So I don't follow that argument
> as easily as I do the historical argument
> that the Second Amendment was influenced
> by colonists having to take up arms to stop
> oppression by collective govt, so they didn't want
> to concede this right to bear arms to any higher govt that could become corrupted.
> 
> You can believe you have the truth
> but so do people who cite history to argue the other way.
> 
> Again, honestly, I believe this is the same boat
> the founders were in who didn't agree either
> on federal vs. state authority and the right of the people.
Click to expand...


I'm sure the Founding Fathers did disagree on many things. I'm sure they didn't disagree on the term "sun" for the sun. 

Bear arms was used in the manner I have shown all over the place, and the Supreme Court has upheld that meaning for hundreds of years.

I mean, if you have anything where "bear arms" didn't mean this, then by all means show it and try and put it into your argument that it doesn't mean that in the Second Amendment. However, when looking at historical documents, when looking at logic, it always means the same thing.

Here's a question.

The context of the Second Amendment is the militia. Why would you go and protect a right to carry guns which doesn't protect the militia, and why wouldn't protect the individual's right to be in the militia when you've just protected his right to own guns so the militia has guns?

Guns don't kill people, people do. A militia full of guns but no people is pointless, right?


----------



## ChrisL

frigidweirdo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo
> I applaud you in citing historical backing for the interpretation you support that
> (a) right to bear arms applies to militia members (b) right of the people is not limited to just citizens
> (though I would still argue with you that the intent must be law abiding, or else it threatens the right of people to security in their
> homes and equal protection of the laws if the law supported arms used for breaking laws; I argue by the very spirit of the laws,
> the meaning has to be for defending rights and laws and not for violating them, or it contradicts the very reason for having laws)
> 
> Here are some citations that show AT LEAST both interpretations on both points are equally arguable.
> By the same "religious freedom" and protection of your creed from discrimination,
> then neither can govt be abused to EXCLUDE the interpretation of others either;
> the same principles that defend YOUR interpretation and beliefs also protect other interpretations.
> 
> So again, it would Contradict the laws themselves if you were to impose YOUR interpretation
> at the EXCLUSION of others who have equal if not MORE backing historically than yours does.
> 
> I have argued, quite unpopularly, that by religious freedom you and others of your belief
> have equal right to defend your interpretation.  So good job with that, but it still does not give
> you the right to supercede or exclude the interpretations of others which have even MORE established historical backing that is more consistent with the rest
> of the history and meaning of the Constitution and natural laws.
> 
> I am all for defending and including the beliefs and opinions of the minority,
> and believe you have equal right to your interpretation, or the First Amendment and Fourteenth would be violated.
> 
> (A)
> 10 PENNSYLVANIA
> had no militia due largely in part to the Quaker/Pacifist active influence among the population
> 
> Of Arms and the Law: Leonard Levy's "Origins of the Bill of Rights"
> 
> *Leonard Levy's "Origins of the Bill of Rights"*
> POSTED BY DAVID HARDY · 22 AUGUST 2005 04:27 PM
> Just got Leonard Levy's "Origins of the Bill of Rights." (He's the late, great legal historian who some years ago won the Pulitzer for his history of the 5th Amendment). Levy devotes an entire chapter to the Second Amendment, arguing that it's an individual right. He says that the claim that Miller v. US ruled for a collective right "misleads." He rejects claims that "bear arms" (as opposed to "keep") relates only to military use, pointing out that the Pennsylvania minority's demand for a bill of rights used "bear arms" to describe use in self-defense and even hunting, and that PA at the point in time was the only State without a militia organization (the large Quaker population and its passifism accounting for that).
> 
> A WII vet himself, Levy added that "If all that was meant was the right to be a soldier or to serve in the military, whether in the militia or in the army, it would hardly be a cherished right and would never have reached constitutional status in the Bill of Rights. The 'right' to be a soldier does not make much sense."
> 
> (B) RE: law abiding citizens interpretation
> NONCITIZENS AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT
> 
> Mixed interpretations, over noncitizens, where courts have been split.
> the traditional interpretation was citizens, and the growing population and political inclusion of noncitizens
> may have challenged this interpretation, as we are seeing today with immigration laws challenging
> the equal rights and protections of citizens vs. noncitizens.
> 
> From my experience and understanding of natural laws, there is more consensus that
> the purpose would be for complying with law and not violating laws; as it makes no
> sense that the law would support enabling criminals or "enemies of the law/state" to commit violations.
> That would be the equivalent of "aiding and abetting" to give arms to anyone with criminal intent.
> it would violate the right of people to security in their persons houses and effects,
> and threaten the equal protections to defend any such right to use arms with the intent of breaking laws.
> But since govt cannot prove intent until after there is due process and someone is convicted,
> then the law cannot try to prescribe this. But by natural laws, and the spirit of the law, I find
> there is no question that people agree that the law does NOT INTEND to enable abuse of arms to commit crimes
> and violate rights of others. the objections I have found involve due process, in that there is no way to
> police intent in advance or it would start infringing on rights and liberties. But the spirit of the law would imply
> the legal use of arms is for defense of law not for violations, that's just common sense of what people would consent to.
> 
> (C) as for how to deal with these dual interpretations
> 
> 1. I see no problem in some people believing in organized militia
> and others being okay with individual gun ownership as long as there is proper
> training in the laws, procedures of law enforcement where people follow the same
> procedures as the police so there is no question on who is complying or not,
> and possibly introducing the idea of insurance required in case of abuse or accidents,
> similar to car insurance that is decided by state.
> 
> 2. for criminal disorders or incompetence that poses dangers to public health and safety,
> I believe that better means of reporting abuses and threats for standard screening
> could be agreed upon per district on the level of civic or neighborhood associations
> that can pass their own ordinances against drug abuse or dangerous dogs or
> requirements for screening/training for gun owners. If the local organizations
> decide democratically where all residents agree to the standards they elect to
> comply with and enforce, that can be completely constitutional for them to choose.
> 
> What people don't want is for outside authority to dictate what standards or
> interpretations can regulate their rights etc. So if people agree and elect these
> freely, then any interpretation or standard can be chosen for enforcement by consent of those residents.
> Including how to report potential threats, require screening or counseling for dangerous conditions
> found, or mediate and resolve conflicts by consent of the parties in order to reside in such a district that
> has implemented such a policy by agreement of the property owners and residents in order to live there.
> 
> I don't have a problem with accommodating diverse interpretations,
> but don't think it is constitutional to abuse govt to impose one or the other
> where it threatens people of different beliefs or excludes them from public policy
> which should protect and represent people regardless of beliefs and interpretations.
> We just can't be in the business of imposing on each other's beliefs,
> or that also violates Constitutional rights and protections under the First, Fourteenth and other Amendments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you want the right to be just for law abiding. However a right is ONLY a right when EVERYONE has the right, otherwise it's a privilege, it's that simple.
> 
> This doesn't mean criminals can't have that right infringed upon.
> 
> Well, if anyone, I mean ANYONE can show me anything that takes away my interpretation, which isn't based on what I want, but on what I've seen. Usually I get people just throwing insults because they can't argue with me.
> 
> People have the right to argue as they like, they have the right to be wrong.
> 
> Pennsylvania had the 111th infantry regiment. It fought in the War of Independence and changed names through time.
> 
> 111th Infantry Regiment (United States) - Wikipedia
> 
> "
> 
> 747 Constituted 7 December 1747 by official recognition of the Associators, founded 21 November 1747 in Philadelphia by Benjamin Franklin.
> 1747 Organized 29 December 1747 as Associated Regiment of Foot of Philadelphia.
> 1775 Reorganized as Associates of the City and Liberties of Philadelphia, with five Battalions.
> 1777 Reorganized as the Philadelphia Brigade of Militia, commanded by Brigadier General John Cadwalader.
> 1793 Reorganized 11 April 1793 as Volunteer Infantry Elements of 1st Brigade, 1st Division Pennsylvania Militia.
> 1814 Volunteer Infantry Companies of 1st Brigade reorganized as 1st Regiment, Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry, commanded by Colonel Clement C. Biddle; entered federal service 24 August 1814 and relieved 4 January 1815.
> 1816 Reorganized 19 March 1816 as Volunteer Infantry Elements of 1st Division."
> 
> Now what we have here might be that the militia disbanded and was then reorganized in times of need. Which is exactly what a Militia is. You don't need a militia in order to have the right to be in the militia. When people feel the need for a militia, it can be reorganized and then individuals will join the militia.
> At the time people weren't fervent about their 2A rights as they are now. It was all practical. You have the right to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply, but the reality was that individuals had weapons as a general part of their daily life, hunting as a source of food must have been great at the time, seeing as most people lived in rural areas. When things demanded it was your DUTY to join the militia. However they were protecting the militia so they made it your right as well as your duty.
> 
> You think I'm imposing my view on others? Well you can think that, I'm not too bothered. However all I'm doing is taking historical documents and using it to show what the Founding Fathers thought. That the vast majority of people (who also have agendas) will ignore these documents is quite telling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very good frigidweirdo you have presented the best backing and historical justification
> for the interpretation you support which I have seen up to this point.
> 
> Again, I still believe you have the right to your interpretation even without any such backing,
> but by the nature of religious freedom and equal protection of the laws from discrimination by creed.
> 
> In order to protect the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to security and protections of the law,
> I find it legally necessary to educate and train all citizens and residents in Constitutional law enforcement and ethics.
> 
> Otherwise if people do not have knowledge or experience with the laws and ethics that the public and community agrees to enforce,
> that is what causes breaches of the peace, abuses and violations.
> 
> So my definition of what is necessary for citizenship IS based on teaching people to be law abiding
> and to use that educational, training and conflict resolution process to SCREEN for criminal disorders, illnesses or other incompetence
> that would render someone "disabled" or "unable" to comply with laws without additional assistance, guardianship or supervision.
> 
> Those are my beliefs which I equally defend my right to exercise and enforce by
> the same First and Fourteenth Amendment I would invoke to protect yours.
> 
> The difference I have found, is that I am willing to do the work and invest the resources
> and set up the system in order to enforce the interpretation I support.
> 
> However, I find too many other people NOT willing to pay the cost or consequences of
> THEIR interpretations. That is why people argue against gun rights because there is no responsibility for the cost of abuse.
> Or against abortion rights or prolife beliefs where the advocates aren't taking responsibility for the costs to enforce those policies.
> 
> frigidweirdo are you REALLY willing to shoulder the cost to enforce your interpretation?
> 
> I have described what I believe it will take to ensure the right to bear arms is
> exercised within a  "law abiding" environment that is constitutional where it
> is locally elected and enforced.
> 
> What about what you are asking, to require people to join militias?
> 
> Would you be okay with the proposal to reward districts for reduced
> crime rates by the residents working WITH police and military to
> offer the SAME training and screening for all citizens/residents seeking to bear arms?
> 
> That's not the same as joining a militia to have the same training and screening.
> I suggest adding this to the neighborhood or district policies, or giving tax
> breaks where communities effectively reduce crime and can invest those
> dollars into their schools or programs for daycare, health care or elderly care
> as an incentive to promote LAW ABIDING citizenry.
> 
> So I would focus on compliance with laws by education, training and job creation,
> and not so much on "joining an official militia" unless you count citizen patrols and security training?
> 
> I still see it more as citizen based, not as militia run.
> 
> The militia, even the "first responders" cannot be the only ones trained
> and relied upon for emergency response and criminal activity.
> 
> frigidweirdo as recent events in Texas showed, with both widespread
> storms and flooding that sent independent teams to do rescue work,
> and with the mass shooting that required citizens to intervene since
> there were no police, we will always need active citizens IN ADDITION
> to any such "militia" or dedicated emergency/first responders.
> 
> But if you want to call these a form of "trained militia" then you
> and I are just using different terms for the same concept of
> having trained citizens to ensure enforcement of laws and safety.
> 
> I just don't see everyone agreeing to be REQUIRED to join a militia
> group, though I could see people agreeing to uniform neighborhood
> ordinances when they are equally involved in the process of making that policy
> that represents the residents and owners in that community.
> If this takes the form of a "militia" then fine, but if it just means all
> community members agree to work with police to go through the
> same training to understand and comply with the same procedures,
> that doesn't necessarily mean JOINING the police or militia to be enforcing the same
> policies and standards for security in that district.
> 
> So I would think my interpretation is more inclusive of
> yours and others, while yours would exclude people who don't
> agree with the condition of joining a militia.
> 
> And the interpretation that includes more people's beliefs equally
> would seem to me to be more constitutionally consistent
> by not discriminating or excluding
> but by accommodating and protecting people equally
> regardless of their beliefs and interpretations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the first problem here is that you take me for someone who has an interpretation in order to fit an agenda. The closest you're going to get there is that my agenda is the truth.
> 
> I didn't decide this to be the truth, I just found out that it WAS THE TRUTH.
> 
> If you really want to get to the places where it's not about truth but it's about how you think something would work in the future, then this topic enlarges itself massively. But this topic is about one single thing. I have said plenty of times what I think the biggest problem is in the US, and why the gun issue will never be solved, nor any other problem. The electoral system.
> 
> However your points that Texas shows that people need guns, my point would be that in the UK and most of the Western World, these things don't usually happen, except in the US.
> 
> The reality is that in the US you are four times more likely to die with your gun that you are in the UK to die without a gun.
> 
> 135 police officers died in the line of duty last year in the US, zero died in the UK. All police officers in the US are armed.
> 
> You think your interpretation is more inclusive, I think my interpretation is the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To tell you the honest truth, frigidweirdo
> I'm sure the founders back then argued this same way, didn't agree either,
> and ended up with the law written as it was to accommodate BOTH.
> So it BOTH included the right of people individually
> FOR STATES THAT AGREED TO PASS LAWS RESPECTING THAT WAY
> as well as allowed for state militias
> FOR STATES THAT AGREED TO PASS LAWS BASED ON THAT.
> 
> The common factor was the STATES would pass laws
> and not the Feds controlling all the access to arms,
> because that's what they feared would get corrupted,oppressive and tyrannical
> if there wasn't some check against Federal abuse of collective authority.
> 
> SEE below:
> 
> 
> 
> 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These interpretations tend to lean in one of two ways. The first is that the amendment was meant to ensure that individuals have the absolute right to own firearms; the second is that the amendment was meant to ensure that States could form, arm, and maintain their own militias. Either way, it is a bar to federal action only, because the 2nd Amendment has not been incorporated by the Supreme Court to apply to the states. This means that within its own constitution, a state may be as restrictive or non-restrictive as it wishes to be in the regulation of firearms; likewise, private rules and regulations may prohibit or encourage firearms. For example, if a housing association wishes to bar any firearm from being held within its borders, it is free to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As the founders fought the same arguments we have today re Federal vs. State authority, I'm sure they disagreed and argued about who had the right to bear arms
> in this same divided context. (I also read into certain state histories with issues over Catholics having equal right to bear arms because of the fear of abuse/violent crime.)
> 
> As for the citation on PA, I apologize for not looking up the direct reference previously
> so I cited wrong online. (My excuse is my copy of Levy's "Origin of the Bill of Rights" got rescued from the flood and stashed in storage, so I took a shortcut and tried to search for a paraphrase instead of getting the source verbatim, Sorry!)
> 
> The CORRECT statement is that PA didn't have a state militia at the time of its STATE constitution which cited the right to bear arms, so clearly the STATE law on the right to bear arms didn't refer to state militia because they didn't have one. Sorry I miscited that.
> 
> Here is the corrected explanation:
> 
> 
> 
> 2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the state constitutions written around the time of the Declaration of Independence, the right to bear arms was presented in different ways. The Articles of Confederation specified that the states should maintain their militias, but did not mention a right to bear arms. Thus, any such protections would have to come from state law. The Virginia Declaration of Rights, though it mentioned the militia, did not mention a right to bear arms — the right might be implied, since the state did not furnish weapons for militiamen. The constitutions of North Carolina and Massachusetts did guarantee the right, to ensure proper defense of the states. *The constitution of Pennsylvania guaranteed the right with no mention of the militia (at the time, Pennsylvania had no organized militia)*. One of the arguments of the Anti-Federalists during the ratification debates was that the new nation did not arm the militias, an odd argument since neither did the U.S. under the Articles. Finally, Madison's original proposal for the Bill of Rights mentioned the individual right much more directly than the final result that came out of Congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Constitutional Topic: The Second Amendment - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
> 
> frigidweirdo thank you for at least explaining the history behind your conclusion.
> I usually get the explanation that the big fear at the time was the British Crown and forces
> taking away weapons from the colonists in order to keep them subordinated.
> So the same fear was that if Federal govt required only militia to have weapons
> that same scenario could happen of abusing militia to oppress the people.
> That's the usual argument in favor of individuals retaining the right to check and defend against that as well!
> 
> But since you challenge that, I asked another source
> and got yet another explanation I hadn't heard before:
> If state militia had the right to take arms against federal govt
> then the fight for Southern secession would have been legal.
> I kinda get that argument, but still see it as whoever is enforcing
> laws is in the right, and whoever is abusing force to violate laws
> is what makes it unlawful.  In the case of the Civil War there was
> right and wrong on both sides: slavery was a violation of natural
> laws by which people should have equal protections of rights,
> but the federal govt should have respected the sovereign
> consent of states and settled the conflict peaceably without force.
> The fact both sides resorted to force ends up violating protections on both sides
> because they both failed to resolve the conflicts peaceably by democratic process.
> 
> So I don't follow that argument
> as easily as I do the historical argument
> that the Second Amendment was influenced
> by colonists having to take up arms to stop
> oppression by collective govt, so they didn't want
> to concede this right to bear arms to any higher govt that could become corrupted.
> 
> You can believe you have the truth
> but so do people who cite history to argue the other way.
> 
> Again, honestly, I believe this is the same boat
> the founders were in who didn't agree either
> on federal vs. state authority and the right of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure the Founding Fathers did disagree on many things. I'm sure they didn't disagree on the term "sun" for the sun.
> 
> Bear arms was used in the manner I have shown all over the place, and the Supreme Court has upheld that meaning for hundreds of years.
> 
> I mean, if you have anything where "bear arms" didn't mean this, then by all means show it and try and put it into your argument that it doesn't mean that in the Second Amendment. However, when looking at historical documents, when looking at logic, it always means the same thing.
> 
> Here's a question.
> 
> The context of the Second Amendment is the militia. Why would you go and protect a right to carry guns which doesn't protect the militia, and why wouldn't protect the individual's right to be in the militia when you've just protected his right to own guns so the militia has guns?
> 
> Guns don't kill people, people do. A militia full of guns but no people is pointless, right?
Click to expand...


You haven't cited anything.  All you've done is try to twist definitions to fit your agenda.  Not working since I've already posted the proper definitions and the words of the founders themselves regarding the 2nd amendment.  THEY made their thoughts on this issue quite clear.  So, that is why nobody takes a fool like you seriously.  Now go put everyone on ignore and pout away, you little sissy.


----------



## ChrisL

I mean really, shall I quote the founding fathers EXACT words yet again so that this moron can just ignore it and go on being a dumbfuck?  What a douchebag.  I really hate this poster.  Lol.


----------



## ChrisL

frigidweirdo said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pathetic beyond belief.  The founders have clearly outlined in the federalist papers just what their goals were.  Before you make one more post on this topic and make an even bigger fool out of yourself, you should read them and educate yourself.  The "militia" means ALL ABLE BODIED MEN who are citizens of the United States.
> 
> James Madison -
> 
> *"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay then, seeing as I've sourced the Founding Fathers, the US Supreme Court in the 1880s and the 2000s, where's YOUR EVIDENCE?
> 
> Pathetic is attacking people with nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what is pathetic is denying the obvious
> 
> you should read the CRUIKSHANK CASE-that destroys your nonsense
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I should read it? Apparently this is YOUR argument, and your argument isn't to go get the part of Cruikshank that destroys my argument, but to tell me that it does.
> 
> Bullshit. If it destroyed my argument, you'd have posted it here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1) you don't have a law degree
> 
> 2) you don' t understand Cruikshank
> 
> 3) you don't understand the entire foundation for the bill of rights
> 
> 4) you don't understand the concept of natural rights and/or natural law
> 
> 5) you don't understand that natural rights are not dependent on government nor membership in a governmentally controlled militia
> 
> 6) you don' t understand what the founders stated
> 
> 7) you don't understand that the RKBA also applies to people who are neither subject to the call up or eligible to serve in the militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1) you don't know whether I have a law degree or not
> 2) You don't know whether I understand cruikshank or not
> 
> Shit dude, this is more bravado from you. No substance but plenty of complete and utter bullshit.
> 
> Here's the deal.
> 
> I set out my argument using sources to back myself up. You couldn't argue against this
> You claim to have an argument but you won't provide the argument, and then say this is me not understanding something
> You insult all the time.
> 
> The ONLY reason I haven't put your sorry ass on ignore is because I'm having too much fun watching you make a complete spectacle of yourself.
> 
> You haven't said ANYTHING of substance in ANY SINGLE POST. Nothing. A lawyer you are not.
Click to expand...


You are the one with nothing of substance.  Stop personally attacking TurtleDude just because he knows a boatload about this topic than you could ever know, and this is quite obvious to everyone.  You are just an ignorant twat leftist POS who doesn't understand that the PEOPLE run the government and the United States. The people are in charge of the government, not the other way around.  The government doesn't dictate us our rights.  WE dictate to them.  Got it lackey?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

ChrisL said:


> I mean really, shall I quote the founding fathers EXACT words yet again so that this moron can just ignore it and go on being a dumbfuck?  What a douchebag.  I really hate this poster.  Lol.


You’re in no position to refer to someone else as a ‘moron’ while exhibiting your own ignorance – in this case you’re ignorant of the fact that the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

And the ‘exact words’ of the Framers can be found only in that case law.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

ChrisL said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay then, seeing as I've sourced the Founding Fathers, the US Supreme Court in the 1880s and the 2000s, where's YOUR EVIDENCE?
> 
> Pathetic is attacking people with nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what is pathetic is denying the obvious
> 
> you should read the CRUIKSHANK CASE-that destroys your nonsense
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I should read it? Apparently this is YOUR argument, and your argument isn't to go get the part of Cruikshank that destroys my argument, but to tell me that it does.
> 
> Bullshit. If it destroyed my argument, you'd have posted it here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1) you don't have a law degree
> 
> 2) you don' t understand Cruikshank
> 
> 3) you don't understand the entire foundation for the bill of rights
> 
> 4) you don't understand the concept of natural rights and/or natural law
> 
> 5) you don't understand that natural rights are not dependent on government nor membership in a governmentally controlled militia
> 
> 6) you don' t understand what the founders stated
> 
> 7) you don't understand that the RKBA also applies to people who are neither subject to the call up or eligible to serve in the militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1) you don't know whether I have a law degree or not
> 2) You don't know whether I understand cruikshank or not
> 
> Shit dude, this is more bravado from you. No substance but plenty of complete and utter bullshit.
> 
> Here's the deal.
> 
> I set out my argument using sources to back myself up. You couldn't argue against this
> You claim to have an argument but you won't provide the argument, and then say this is me not understanding something
> You insult all the time.
> 
> The ONLY reason I haven't put your sorry ass on ignore is because I'm having too much fun watching you make a complete spectacle of yourself.
> 
> You haven't said ANYTHING of substance in ANY SINGLE POST. Nothing. A lawyer you are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one with nothing of substance.  Stop personally attacking TurtleDude just because he knows a boatload about this topic than you could ever know, and this is quite obvious to everyone.  You are just an ignorant twat leftist POS who doesn't understand that the PEOPLE run the government and the United States. The people are in charge of the government, not the other way around.  The government doesn't dictate us our rights.  WE dictate to them.  Got it lackey?
Click to expand...

That you believe an anonymous message board poster is being ‘truthful’ is both pathetic and amusing.


----------



## ChrisL

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mean really, shall I quote the founding fathers EXACT words yet again so that this moron can just ignore it and go on being a dumbfuck?  What a douchebag.  I really hate this poster.  Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> You’re in no position to refer to someone else as a ‘moron’ while exhibiting your own ignorance – in this case you’re ignorant of the fact that the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.
> 
> And the ‘exact words’ of the Framers can be found only in that case law.
Click to expand...


BS.  The founders made their views on the second amendment quite clear in ALL the papers related to the constitution, the minutes of their discussions about it, etc.  

Are you trying to argue that the founders wanted the government to be in charge of our 2nd amendment right, which was thought by the founders to be a GOD GIVEN or a NATURAL right?


----------



## ChrisL

A natural right is one that exists before the formation of governments.  The founders knew that the first step towards tyranny is the disarming of the citizens.  They believed that the people had the right to keep and bear arms for hunting, for self defense of themselves, their families, their land, their property, to fight against tyranny and to fight against invasions.  It is all quite clearly stated in the written records of their meetings and discussions and debates.  You have no argument.  All you have is your dishonest twisting of words and definitions.  As soon as a person does a little research into what the founding fathers actually SAID about the 2nd amendment, it is quite clear just what kind of dishonest little jerks you people are.  I don't trust you, and nobody should.  No way in hell would anyone in their right minds give up one of their rights because of you sniveling little cowards.


----------



## ChrisL

This is much, much more than a "disagreement."  This is an assault on one of my freedoms as an American citizen, and that is why I have absolutely NO respect for the anti-rights movement.  They are dishonest.  Pretty much everything they claim is lies and twisting of words and dishonesty.  They are traitors to us, to our country, to our freedom.  They are nothing but cowards.  

Don't trust them, don't believe them.  Do some research into what the founding fathers ACTUALLY believed about the 2nd amendment and how important it was to freedom.  It is one of the most important amendments in the BoR.  There is a good reason why it was #2 on the list.  

The BoR is NOT about government limitations on citizen rights.  The BoR is about the people and their rights and how WE control the government.  WE are the government.  WE are the ones in charge here in America.  The government does not tell us which rights we can practice.  RIGHTS are not granted by governments.  They are recognized by governments.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

ChrisL said:


> This is much, much more than a "disagreement."  This is an assault on one of my freedoms as an American citizen, and that is why I have absolutely NO respect for the anti-rights movement.  They are dishonest.  Pretty much everything they claim is lies and twisting of words and dishonesty.  They are traitors to us, to our country, to our freedom.  They are nothing but cowards.
> 
> Don't trust them, don't believe them.  Do some research into what the founding fathers ACTUALLY believed about the 2nd amendment and how important it was to freedom.  It is one of the most important amendments in the BoR.  There is a good reason why it was #2 on the list.
> 
> The BoR is NOT about government limitations on citizen rights.  The BoR is about the people and their rights and how WE control the government.  WE are the government.  WE are the ones in charge here in America.  The government does not tell us which rights we can practice.  RIGHTS are not granted by governments.  They are recognized by governments.


It is not just a disagreement, I agree.  It is WAR. 

Freedom lovers, 

You are witnessing the attack on your liberty from within by the communists.  They do not believe in free speech, press, or assembly.  They do not want you to have freedom of religion.  They do not love individual libery. 

All of your rights are are at risk, and they are pushing to rid you of the one freedom that protects all others.

Is a violent response justified?


----------



## Cellblock2429

frigidweirdo said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The second amendment and the right to self defense are a couple of the most important FOUNDING PRINCIPLES of this country.  If you don't like freedom, then there are plenty of other countries that have governments that you can gladly surrender your rights to for a false sense of "safety."  If you don't like freedom, then the solution is simple.  MOVE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, where does it mention self defense in the US Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /
> /----/ How about in the first paragraph: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,>>>>>>>>> provide for the common defense,<<<<<< promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
> 
> And "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is a well-known phrase in the United States Declaration of Independence.
> 
> And there is this: The right of self-defense (also called, when it applies to the defense of another, alter ego defense, defense of others, defense of a third person) is the right for people to use reasonable force or defensive force, for the purpose of defending one's own life or the lives of others, including, in certain circumstances, the use of deadly force.[1]
> If a defendant uses defensive force because of a threat of deadly or grievous harm by the other person, or a reasonable perception of such harm, the defendant is said to have a "perfect self-defense" justification.[2] If defendant uses defensive force because of such a perception, and the perception is not reasonable, the defendant may have an "imperfect self-defense" as an excuse.[2]
> 
> Any more questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Common defense is, by definition, something people do TOGETHER..... self defense is, by definition, something you do ALONE.
> 
> But well done on providing evidence that has nothing to do with what I said.
> 
> Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, does self defense make you happier?
> 
> Actually self defense is in the Constitution. The biggest problem here is that those people who demand that self defense is in the Constitution are the very same people who argue in other topics that if it's not written specifically in the US Constitution, it's not valid (and therefore Supreme Court justices are "making law").
> 
> It's in the Constitution in the 10th Amendment.
> 
> Funny how you missed that one.
Click to expand...

/----/ I never understood what motivates the gun grabbers.  Did you know prior to 1964, gun safety classes were taught at many High Schools and students could bring their rifles to class? Nobody had a problem with it back then.  But now Libs are rabid attackers of the 2nd Amendment.  Why?


----------



## emilynghiem

frigidweirdo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Q hi inUOTE="frigidweirdo, post: 18579540, member: 47831"]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo
> I applaud you in citing historical backing for the interpretation you support that
> (a) right to bear arms applies to militia members (b) right of the people is not limited to just citizens
> (though I would still argue with you that the intent must be law abiding, or else it threatens the right of people to security in their
> homes and equal protection of the laws if the law supported arms used for breaking laws; I argue by the very spirit of the laws,
> the meaning has to be for defending rights and laws and not for violating them, or it contradicts the very reason for having laws)
> 
> Here are some citations that show AT LEAST both interpretations on both points are equally arguable.
> By the same "religious freedom" and protection of your creed from discrimination,
> then neither can govt be abused to EXCLUDE the interpretation of others either;
> the same principles that defend YOUR interpretation and beliefs also protect other interpretations.
> 
> So again, it would Contradict the laws themselves if you were to impose YOUR interpretation
> at the EXCLUSION of others who have equal if not MORE backing historically than yours does.
> 
> I have argued, quite unpopularly, that by religious freedom you and others of your belief
> have equal right to defend your interpretation.  So good job with that, but it still does not give
> you the right to supercede or exclude the interpretations of others which have even MORE established historical backing that is more consistent with the rest
> of the history and meaning of the Constitution and natural laws.
> 
> I am all for defending and including the beliefs and opinions of the minority,
> and believe you have equal right to your interpretation, or the First Amendment and Fourteenth would be violated.
> 
> (A)
> 10 PENNSYLVANIA
> had no militia due largely in part to the Quaker/Pacifist active influence among the population
> 
> Of Arms and the Law: Leonard Levy's "Origins of the Bill of Rights"
> 
> *Leonard Levy's "Origins of the Bill of Rights"*
> POSTED BY DAVID HARDY · 22 AUGUST 2005 04:27 PM
> Just got Leonard Levy's "Origins of the Bill of Rights." (He's the late, great legal historian who some years ago won the Pulitzer for his history of the 5th Amendment). Levy devotes an entire chapter to the Second Amendment, arguing that it's an individual right. He says that the claim that Miller v. US ruled for a collective right "misleads." He rejects claims that "bear arms" (as opposed to "keep") relates only to military use, pointing out that the Pennsylvania minority's demand for a bill of rights used "bear arms" to describe use in self-defense and even hunting, and that PA at the point in time was the only State without a militia organization (the large Quaker population and its passifism accounting for that).
> 
> A WII vet himself, Levy added that "If all that was meant was the right to be a soldier or to serve in the military, whether in the militia or in the army, it would hardly be a cherished right and would never have reached constitutional status in the Bill of Rights. The 'right' to be a soldier does not make much sense."
> 
> (B) RE: law abiding citizens interpretation
> NONCITIZENS AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT
> 
> Mixed interpretations, over noncitizens, where courts have been split.
> the traditional interpretation was citizens, and the growing population and political inclusion of noncitizens
> may have challenged this interpretation, as we are seeing today with immigration laws challenging
> the equal rights and protections of citizens vs. noncitizens.
> 
> From my experience and understanding of natural laws, there is more consensus that
> the purpose would be for complying with law and not violating laws; as it makes no
> sense that the law would support enabling criminals or "enemies of the law/state" to commit violations.
> That would be the equivalent of "aiding and abetting" to give arms to anyone with criminal intent.
> it would violate the right of people to security in their persons houses and effects,
> and threaten the equal protections to defend any such right to use arms with the intent of breaking laws.
> But since govt cannot prove intent until after there is due process and someone is convicted,
> then the law cannot try to prescribe this. But by natural laws, and the spirit of the law, I find
> there is no question that people agree that the law does NOT INTEND to enable abuse of arms to commit crimes
> and violate rights of others. the objections I have found involve due process, in that there is no way to
> police intent in advance or it would start infringing on rights and liberties. But the spirit of the law would imply
> the legal use of arms is for defense of law not for violations, that's just common sense of what people would consent to.
> 
> (C) as for how to deal with these dual interpretations
> 
> 1. I see no problem in some people believing in organized militia
> and others being okay with individual gun ownership as long as there is proper
> training in the laws, procedures of law enforcement where people follow the same
> procedures as the police so there is no question on who is complying or not,
> and possibly introducing the idea of insurance required in case of abuse or accidents,
> similar to car insurance that is decided by state.
> 
> 2. for criminal disorders or incompetence that poses dangers to public health and safety,
> I believe that better means of reporting abuses and threats for standard screening
> could be agreed upon per district on the level of civic or neighborhood associations
> that can pass their own ordinances against drug abuse or dangerous dogs or
> requirements for screening/training for gun owners. If the local organizations
> decide democratically where all residents agree to the standards they elect to
> comply with and enforce, that can be completely constitutional for them to choose.
> 
> What people don't want is for outside authority to dictate what standards or
> interpretations can regulate their rights etc. So if people agree and elect these
> freely, then any interpretation or standard can be chosen for enforcement by consent of those residents.
> Including how to report potential threats, require screening or counseling for dangerous conditions
> found, or mediate and resolve conflicts by consent of the parties in order to reside in such a district that
> has implemented such a policy by agreement of the property owners and residents in order to live there.
> 
> I don't have a problem with accommodating diverse interpretations,
> but don't think it is constitutional to abuse govt to impose one or the other
> where it threatens people of different beliefs or excludes them from public policy
> which should protect and represent people regardless of beliefs and interpretations.
> We just can't be in the business of imposing on each other's beliefs,
> or that also violates Constitutional rights and protections under the First, Fourteenth and other Amendments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you want the right to be just for law abiding. However a right is ONLY a right when EVERYONE has the right, otherwise it's a privilege, it's that simple.
> 
> This doesn't mean criminals can't have that right infringed upon.
> 
> Well, if anyone, I mean ANYONE can show me anything that takes away my interpretation, which isn't based on what I want, but on what I've seen. Usually I get people just throwing insults because they can't argue with me.
> 
> People have the right to argue as they like, they have the right to be wrong.
> 
> Pennsylvania had the 111th infantry regiment. It fought in the War of Independence and changed names through time.
> 
> 111th Infantry Regiment (United States) - Wikipedia
> 
> "
> 
> 747 Constituted 7 December 1747 by official recognition of the Associators, founded 21 November 1747 in Philadelphia by Benjamin Franklin.
> 1747 Organized 29 December 1747 as Associated Regiment of Foot of Philadelphia.
> 1775 Reorganized as Associates of the City and Liberties of Philadelphia, with five Battalions.
> 1777 Reorganized as the Philadelphia Brigade of Militia, commanded by Brigadier General John Cadwalader.
> 1793 Reorganized 11 April 1793 as Volunteer Infantry Elements of 1st Brigade, 1st Division Pennsylvania Militia.
> 1814 Volunteer Infantry Companies of 1st Brigade reorganized as 1st Regiment, Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry, commanded by Colonel Clement C. Biddle; entered federal service 24 August 1814 and relieved 4 January 1815.
> 1816 Reorganized 19 March 1816 as Volunteer Infantry Elements of 1st Division."
> 
> Now what we have here might be that the militia disbanded and was then reorganized in times of need. Which is exactly what a Militia is. You don't need a militia in order to have the right to be in the militia. When people feel the need for a militia, it can be reorganized and then individuals will join the militia.
> At the time people weren't fervent about their 2A rights as they are now. It was all practical. You have the right to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply, but the reality was that individuals had weapons as a general part of their daily life, hunting as a source of food must have been great at the time, seeing as most people lived in rural areas. When things demanded it was your DUTY to join the militia. However they were protecting the militia so they made it your right as well as your duty.
> 
> You think I'm imposing my view on others? Well you can think that, I'm not too bothered. However all I'm doing is taking historical documents and using it to show what the Founding Fathers thought. That the vast majority of people (who also have agendas) will ignore these documents is quite telling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very good frigidweirdo you have presented the best backing and historical justification
> for the interpretation you support which I have seen up to this point.
> 
> Again, I still believe you have the right to your interpretation even without any such backing,
> but by the nature of religious freedom and equal protection of the laws from discrimination by creed.
> 
> In order to protect the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to security and protections of the law,
> I find it legally necessary to educate and train all citizens and residents in Constitutional law enforcement and ethics.
> 
> Otherwise if people do not have knowledge or experience with the laws and ethics that the public and community agrees to enforce,
> that is what causes breaches of the peace, abuses and violations.
> 
> So my definition of what is necessary for citizenship IS based on teaching people to be law abiding
> and to use that educational, training and conflict resolution process to SCREEN for criminal disorders, illnesses or other incompetence
> that would render someone "disabled" or "unable" to comply with laws without additional assistance, guardianship or supervision.
> 
> Those are my beliefs which I equally defend my right to exercise and enforce by
> the same First and Fourteenth Amendment I would invoke to protect yours.
> 
> The difference I have found, is that I am willing to do the work and invest the resources
> and set up the system in order to enforce the interpretation I support.
> 
> However, I find too many other people NOT willing to pay the cost or consequences of
> THEIR interpretations. That is why people argue against gun rights because there is no responsibility for the cost of abuse.
> Or against abortion rights or prolife beliefs where the advocates aren't taking responsibility for the costs to enforce those policies.
> 
> frigidweirdo are you REALLY willing to shoulder the cost to enforce your interpretation?
> 
> I have described what I believe it will take to ensure the right to bear arms is
> exercised within a  "law abiding" environment that is constitutional where it
> is locally elected and enforced.
> 
> What about what you are asking, to require people to join militias?
> 
> Would you be okay with the proposal to reward districts for reduced
> crime rates by the residents working WITH police and military to
> offer the SAME training and screening for all citizens/residents seeking to bear arms?
> 
> That's not the same as joining a militia to have the same training and screening.
> I suggest adding this to the neighborhood or district policies, or giving tax
> breaks where communities effectively reduce crime and can invest those
> dollars into their schools or programs for daycare, health care or elderly care
> as an incentive to promote LAW ABIDING citizenry.
> 
> So I would focus on compliance with laws by education, training and job creation,
> and not so much on "joining an official militia" unless you count citizen patrols and security training?
> 
> I still see it more as citizen based, not as militia run.
> 
> The militia, even the "first responders" cannot be the only ones trained
> and relied upon for emergency response and criminal activity.
> 
> frigidweirdo as recent events in Texas showed, with both widespread
> storms and flooding that sent independent teams to do rescue work,
> and with the mass shooting that required citizens to intervene since
> there were no police, we will always need active citizens IN ADDITION
> to any such "militia" or dedicated emergency/first responders.
> 
> But if you want to call these a form of "trained militia" then you
> and I are just using different terms for the same concept of
> having trained citizens to ensure enforcement of laws and safety.
> 
> I just don't see everyone agreeing to be REQUIRED to join a militia
> group, though I could see people agreeing to uniform neighborhood
> ordinances when they are equally involved in the process of making that policy
> that represents the residents and owners in that community.
> If this takes the form of a "militia" then fine, but if it just means all
> community members agree to work with police to go through the
> same training to understand and comply with the same procedures,
> that doesn't necessarily mean JOINING the police or militia to be enforcing the same
> policies and standards for security in that district.
> 
> So I would think my interpretation is more inclusive of
> yours and others, while yours would exclude people who don't
> agree with the condition of joining a militia.
> 
> And the interpretation that includes more people's beliefs equally
> would seem to me to be more constitutionally consistent
> by not discriminating or excluding
> but by accommodating and protecting people equally
> regardless of their beliefs and interpretations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the first problem here is that you take me for someone who has an interpretation in order to fit an agenda. The closest you're going to get there is that my agenda is the truth.
> 
> I didn't decide this to be the truth, I just found out that it WAS THE TRUTH.
> 
> If you really want to get to the places where it's not about truth but it's about how you think something would work in the future, then this topic enlarges itself massively. But this topic is about one single thing. I have said plenty of times what I think the biggest problem is in the US, and why the gun issue will never be solved, nor any other problem. The electoral system.
> 
> However your points that Texas shows that people need guns, my point would be that in the UK and most of the Western World, these things don't usually happen, except in the US.
> 
> The reality is that in the US you are four times more likely to die with your gun that you are in the UK to die without a gun.
> 
> 135 police officers died in the line of duty last year in the US, zero died in the UK. All police officers in the US are armed.
> 
> You think your interpretation is more inclusive, I think my interpretation is the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To tell you the honest truth, frigidweirdo
> I'm sure the founders back then argued this same way, didn't agree either,
> and ended up with the law written as it was to accommodate BOTH.
> So it BOTH included the right of people individually
> FOR STATES THAT AGREED TO PASS LAWS RESPECTING THAT WAY
> as well as allowed for state militias
> FOR STATES THAT AGREED TO PASS LAWS BASED ON THAT.
> 
> The common factor was the STATES would pass laws
> and not the Feds controlling all the access to arms,
> because that's what they feared would get corrupted,oppressive and tyrannical
> if there wasn't some check against Federal abuse of collective authority.
> 
> SEE below:
> 
> 
> 
> 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These interpretations tend to lean in one of two ways. The first is that the amendment was meant to ensure that individuals have the absolute right to own firearms; the second is that the amendment was meant to ensure that States could form, arm, and maintain their own militias. Either way, it is a bar to federal action only, because the 2nd Amendment has not been incorporated by the Supreme Court to apply to the states. This means that within its own constitution, a state may be as restrictive or non-restrictive as it wishes to be in the regulation of firearms; likewise, private rules and regulations may prohibit or encourage firearms. For example, if a housing association wishes to bar any firearm from being held within its borders, it is free to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As the founders fought the same arguments we have today re Federal vs. State authority, I'm sure they disagreed and argued about who had the right to bear arms
> in this same divided context. (I also read into certain state histories with issues over Catholics having equal right to bear arms because of the fear of abuse/violent crime.)
> 
> As for the citation on PA, I apologize for not looking up the direct reference previously
> so I cited wrong online. (My excuse is my copy of Levy's "Origin of the Bill of Rights" got rescued from the flood and stashed in storage, so I took a shortcut and tried to search for a paraphrase instead of getting the source verbatim, Sorry!)
> 
> The CORRECT statement is that PA didn't have a state militia at the time of its STATE constitution which cited the right to bear arms, so clearly the STATE law on the right to bear arms didn't refer to state militia because they didn't have one. Sorry I miscited that.
> 
> Here is the corrected explanation:
> 
> 
> 
> 2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the state constitutions written around the time of the Declaration of Independence, the right to bear arms was presented in different ways. The Articles of Confederation specified that the states should maintain their militias, but did not mention a right to bear arms. Thus, any such protections would have to come from state law. The Virginia Declaration of Rights, though it mentioned the militia, did not mention a right to bear arms — the right might be implied, since the state did not furnish weapons for militiamen. The constitutions of North Carolina and Massachusetts did guarantee the right, to ensure proper defense of the states. *The constitution of Pennsylvania guaranteed the right with no mention of the militia (at the time, Pennsylvania had no organized militia)*. One of the arguments of the Anti-Federalists during the ratification debates was that the new nation did not arm the militias, an odd argument since neither did the U.S. under the Articles. Finally, Madison's original proposal for the Bill of Rights mentioned the individual right much more directly than the final result that came out of Congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Constitutional Topic: The Second Amendment - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
> 
> frigidweirdo thank you for at least explaining the history behind your conclusion.
> I usually get the explanation that the big fear at the time was the British Crown and forces
> taking away weapons from the colonists in order to keep them subordinated.
> So the same fear was that if Federal govt required only militia to have weapons
> that same scenario could happen of abusing militia to oppress the people.
> That's the usual argument in favor of individuals retaining the right to check and defend against that as well!
> 
> But since you challenge that, I asked another source
> and got yet another explanation I hadn't heard before:
> If state militia had the right to take arms against federal govt
> then the fight for Southern secession would have been legal.
> I kinda get that argument, but still see it as whoever is enforcing
> laws is in the right, and whoever is abusing force to violate laws
> is what makes it unlawful.  In the case of the Civil War there was
> right and wrong on both sides: slavery was a violation of natural
> laws by which people should have equal protections of rights,
> but the federal govt should have respected the sovereign
> consent of states and settled the conflict peaceably without force.
> The fact both sides resorted to force ends up violating protections on both sides
> because they both failed to resolve the conflicts peaceably by democratic process.
> 
> So I don't follow that argument
> as easily as I do the historical argument
> that the Second Amendment was influenced
> by colonists having to take up arms to stop
> oppression by collective govt, so they didn't want
> to concede this right to bear arms to any higher govt that could become corrupted.
> 
> You can believe you have the truth
> but so do people who cite history to argue the other way.
> 
> Again, honestly, I believe this is the same boat
> the founders were in who didn't agree either
> on federal vs. state authority and the right of the people.
Click to expand...


I'm sure the Founding Fathers did disagree on many things. I'm sure they didn't disagree on the term "sun" for the sun.

Bear arms was used in the manner I have shown all over the place, and the Supreme Court has upheld that meaning for hundreds of years.

I mean, if you have anything where "bear arms" didn't mean this, then by all means show it and try and put it into your argument that it doesn't mean that in the Second Amendment. However, when looking at historical documents, when looking at logic, it always means the same thing.

Here's a question.

The context of the Second Amendment is the militia. Why would you go and protect a right to carry guns which doesn't protect the militia, and why wouldn't protect the individual's right to be in the militia when you've just protected his right to own guns so the militia has guns?

Guns don't kill people, people do. A militia full of guns but no people is pointless, right?[/QUOTE]
Hi frigidweirdo
1. In the case of PA state law their Constitution included the right to bear arms when PA did not have an organized militia
2. James Madison more clearly defended the right to bear arms as meaning individual not militia. Given how hard people like him defend their beliefs and won't let laws get passed that diminish them in any way, Madison and others would not have allowed this right as they saw it to be whittled down by the writing of such a law. They wouldn't agree to endorse it if it excluded or failed to enforce the principle they believed in defending.
3. The HELLER case in DC court 2008 also lays out where the interpretations have come from.

So frigidweirdo at most you can say the truth you defend is equal to the truth the other side defends. Both sides look at the same history and same law and still believe the truth as they see it. I believe it was written that way so both sides can still defend their beliefs which truth prevails, whether intentionally or not, it allows both beliefs to be equally defended and enforced using the same law.

The difference with me is I don't have a conflict with either side defending their beliefs and the truth they see in the law and history. If you have problems accommodating each other's beliefs, that's your problem and your refusal to accommodate each other! I am happy to accommodate both under the same law exactly as written.

So I believe that approach is more consistent Constitutionally with the First Fourteenth and other amendments and laws, civil rights laws on not discriminating by Creed, and the Code of ethics on not putting loyalty to party personal word or other things before duty to the public . The public includes people who believe that either one or the other interpretation is the truth as you do.

It is not fair ethical or Constitutional to exclude one for the other.

So that's what makes the inclusive approach different. I favor the individual rights interpretation but equally include the militia one.

My question to you is why can't you do the same?

I can believe in both creation and evolution and accommodate both, so why can't others do the same?

I can believe some homosexuality orientation or transgender identity is a choice that can change and some cases are inherently in someone's spiritual identity and process and may not ever be able to change. Why can't both be included equally?

Even if it is true that someone cannot change, if that isn't proven to someone of a different belief, they still have equal right to their beliefs whether that's true or not. The govt and laws can't be abused to force one on the other, but people have the right to consent to change their minds by free will and not be harassed or punished for their beliefs.

With you frigidweirdo I can't tell if your defensiveness over your side is just a reaction against others who have been attacking you for arguing for that. If so I do apologize on behalf of others, and don't believe it is right to bully or attack people or treat them less than equal because of conflicts like this. If you are just trying to defend yourself and the truth from attack then I understand and respect that.

But if your intent is to IMPOSE what you find to be true against the will consent and free choice of others to change their minds, then no, I don't support or recommend political bullying to coerce others. That is equally disrespectful when it's done to you as it is if you or I would do that to others.

I believe in an environment and commitment to equal inclusion we can better share the information and history and respect ppl free choice to examine understand and accept either explanation or both as I have no problem doing to accommodate all people equally regardless of view point.

Thank you for trying to use reason and sorry if you've found yourself under personal attack in the process. I join your efforts to steer clear of that bullying harassing approach and applaud you in sticking to historical legal and rational explanations of where these views are coming from

Keep up the good work and may all views be equally respected and included in that context and process of reaching a shared understanding to resolve past conflicts. Thanks frigidweirdo


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Cellblock2429 said:


> never understood what motivates the gun grabbers. Did you know prior to 1964, gun safety classes were taught at many High Schools and students could bring their rifles to class? Nobody had a problem with it back then. But now Libs are rabid attackers of the 2nd Am


Commies.


----------



## hunarcy

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does. Well regulated militia of the People are declared Necessary, not the People who are the unorganized militia.
> 
> 
> 
> So, what does it mean to be well-regulated?
> 
> 
> 
> No response odds?  Any guesses?
Click to expand...


In good working order


----------



## hunarcy

frigidweirdo said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a lie.  You are simply a Troll.  You and your simple cohorts.
> 
> *bear arms
> DEFINITION*
> 
> *carry firearms.*
> wear or display a coat of arms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I lie? Come off it.
> 
> Bear means LOTS of things.
> 
> bear | Definition of bear in US English by Oxford Dictionaries
> 
> 1) carry
> 2) support
> 3) endure
> 4) give birth to
> 5) turn and proceed in a specific direction
> 
> Now, there are five completely different meanings here. Are you suggesting here that it's ALL OF THEM?
> 
> Simply because it CAN BE endure, it MUST BE endure? No, that's illogical.
> 
> How do we know the difference? Context.
> 
> 1) _‘the warriors bore lances tipped with iron’
> 2) ‘walls that cannot bear a stone vault’
> 3) ‘she bore the pain stoically’
> 4) ‘she bore six daughters’
> 5) ‘bear left and follow the old road’
> _
> Now under your logic this is what happens
> 
> 1) The warriors carried lances tipped with iron
> 2) walls that cannot carry a stone vault
> 3) she carried the pain stoically
> 4) she carried six daughters
> 5) carry left and follow the old road
> 
> The reality is that it's not the case, is it?
> 
> The context of the Second Amendment is "A well regulated militia", not "self defense of individuals"
> 
> Sorry, but you're wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You missed punctuation in school, didn't you?  Quite a few other classes in English too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, what the fuck?
> 
> You have a problem with my English? Which part of my English exactly?
> 
> Punctuation doesn't play a part in all of this at all.
> 
> Whether there are commas or there aren't commas, the Second Amendment still has the "right to...bear arms". The right is still in context of the rest of the Amendment whether there's punctuation or not.
> 
> The context is still with what the founding father said, and they used the term "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service" and "militia duty".
> 
> No matter how you try and bully your way through this, I know what I'm talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No matter how much you deny it, punctuation matters and the emphasis is not on the dependent clause, it is on the independent clause and while have been academians in the past that have tried to torture the Amendment to say what you wish it would say, the right belongs to THE PEOPLE and it shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say punctuation doesn't matter.
> 
> I'm saying in the Second Amendment it doesn't matter. Or more specifically the two commas that may or may not exist.
> 
> You can have "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." as ratified by the states or "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." as was going through Congress.
> 
> The two extra commas don't change anything in the meaning.
> 
> But trying to pretend that this does anything is wrong.
> 
> The first half of the Amendment doesn't do anything. It merely says WHY the right to keep arms and the right to bear arms are important.
> 
> Now, think about this. The Amendment is about the militia. The Amendment says a militia is important. It doesn't say TV is important, it doesn't say breathing is important, it doesn't say a lot of things. But it does say THE MILITIA.
> 
> This is CONTEXT.
> 
> The right to keep arms is the right of individuals to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply of weapons that the US federal govt cannot take away.
> The right to bear arms is the right of individuals to be in the militia so the militia has a ready supply of personnel to use those weapons.
> 
> A militia without guns is not "a well regulated militia", nor is a militia without personnel.
> 
> However a militia without individuals walking around in the streets with their guns is the same as it would be if they were walking about with their guns.
Click to expand...


*sigh*  Here is the context.  The wording of the Second Amendment does emphasize the importance of the militia, but the Right is reserved to the PEOPLE.  If they had wanted the right reserved only to the militia, they could have said the right of the militia to keep and bear arms...they'd already proven they can spell it.   The Second is not ABOUT the militia, it's about the right of the People.


----------



## turtledude

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> what is pathetic is denying the obvious
> 
> you should read the CRUIKSHANK CASE-that destroys your nonsense
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I should read it? Apparently this is YOUR argument, and your argument isn't to go get the part of Cruikshank that destroys my argument, but to tell me that it does.
> 
> Bullshit. If it destroyed my argument, you'd have posted it here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1) you don't have a law degree
> 
> 2) you don' t understand Cruikshank
> 
> 3) you don't understand the entire foundation for the bill of rights
> 
> 4) you don't understand the concept of natural rights and/or natural law
> 
> 5) you don't understand that natural rights are not dependent on government nor membership in a governmentally controlled militia
> 
> 6) you don' t understand what the founders stated
> 
> 7) you don't understand that the RKBA also applies to people who are neither subject to the call up or eligible to serve in the militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1) you don't know whether I have a law degree or not
> 2) You don't know whether I understand cruikshank or not
> 
> Shit dude, this is more bravado from you. No substance but plenty of complete and utter bullshit.
> 
> Here's the deal.
> 
> I set out my argument using sources to back myself up. You couldn't argue against this
> You claim to have an argument but you won't provide the argument, and then say this is me not understanding something
> You insult all the time.
> 
> The ONLY reason I haven't put your sorry ass on ignore is because I'm having too much fun watching you make a complete spectacle of yourself.
> 
> You haven't said ANYTHING of substance in ANY SINGLE POST. Nothing. A lawyer you are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one with nothing of substance.  Stop personally attacking TurtleDude just because he knows a boatload about this topic than you could ever know, and this is quite obvious to everyone.  You are just an ignorant twat leftist POS who doesn't understand that the PEOPLE run the government and the United States. The people are in charge of the government, not the other way around.  The government doesn't dictate us our rights.  WE dictate to them.  Got it lackey?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That you believe an anonymous message board poster is being ‘truthful’ is both pathetic and amusing.
Click to expand...


well I know your posts are full of shit and you are a blow hard because you post nonsense.  Chris knows me personally so you should stop pretending what you know and what she doesn't know.  It must make you mad to understand that some of us who have actually taught at law schools can see what a gaping fraud you are


----------



## turtledude

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mean really, shall I quote the founding fathers EXACT words yet again so that this moron can just ignore it and go on being a dumbfuck?  What a douchebag.  I really hate this poster.  Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> You’re in no position to refer to someone else as a ‘moron’ while exhibiting your own ignorance – in this case you’re ignorant of the fact that the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.
> 
> And the ‘exact words’ of the Framers can be found only in that case law.
Click to expand...

hey moron, the exact words of the founders are found in their notes, writings and the constitution


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

turtledude said:


> hey moron, the exact words of the founders are found in their notes, writings and the constitution


So, he wants us to only look at the very limited amount of case law, rather than the context and other writings of the founders to determine the intent when they are obviously trying to force an ambiguity on clear. plain text with clear meaning. 

It's not our side trying to cram this alleged, fake ambiguity down the throats of the gun-grabbing, commie left.  Instead, we're "forced" to look to the founders' intent to shut down all this "must be well regulated" bullshit.  All my quotes have made intent as clear as angle tits.  I am waiting (and waiting) for some sort of contrary intent quote the communists on this thread can find from a founding father showing the intent to be anything other than a limit on Congress' ability to infringe on the individual right to keep and carry arms.  So far, dick.

Still waiting.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Founders' intent matters, because if we show that they intended  no federal infringement of individual rights to keep and carry arms (or no federal authority), all current federal gun laws are facially unconstitutional, as is the F portion of the BATF.  

Don't like it?   Amend the constitution.  Otherwise, the original text and intent apply, and all federal gun laws should be immediately struck down.

Likewise, via the 14th Amendment, all State gun laws will be struck down.  

A change REQUIRES a constitutional amendment.  Just because you commies are too pussy to try it, or can't get it done, is not an excuse to fuck up the Constitution and shit on it.


----------



## frigidweirdo

hunarcy said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I lie? Come off it.
> 
> Bear means LOTS of things.
> 
> bear | Definition of bear in US English by Oxford Dictionaries
> 
> 1) carry
> 2) support
> 3) endure
> 4) give birth to
> 5) turn and proceed in a specific direction
> 
> Now, there are five completely different meanings here. Are you suggesting here that it's ALL OF THEM?
> 
> Simply because it CAN BE endure, it MUST BE endure? No, that's illogical.
> 
> How do we know the difference? Context.
> 
> 1) _‘the warriors bore lances tipped with iron’
> 2) ‘walls that cannot bear a stone vault’
> 3) ‘she bore the pain stoically’
> 4) ‘she bore six daughters’
> 5) ‘bear left and follow the old road’
> _
> Now under your logic this is what happens
> 
> 1) The warriors carried lances tipped with iron
> 2) walls that cannot carry a stone vault
> 3) she carried the pain stoically
> 4) she carried six daughters
> 5) carry left and follow the old road
> 
> The reality is that it's not the case, is it?
> 
> The context of the Second Amendment is "A well regulated militia", not "self defense of individuals"
> 
> Sorry, but you're wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You missed punctuation in school, didn't you?  Quite a few other classes in English too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, what the fuck?
> 
> You have a problem with my English? Which part of my English exactly?
> 
> Punctuation doesn't play a part in all of this at all.
> 
> Whether there are commas or there aren't commas, the Second Amendment still has the "right to...bear arms". The right is still in context of the rest of the Amendment whether there's punctuation or not.
> 
> The context is still with what the founding father said, and they used the term "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service" and "militia duty".
> 
> No matter how you try and bully your way through this, I know what I'm talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No matter how much you deny it, punctuation matters and the emphasis is not on the dependent clause, it is on the independent clause and while have been academians in the past that have tried to torture the Amendment to say what you wish it would say, the right belongs to THE PEOPLE and it shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say punctuation doesn't matter.
> 
> I'm saying in the Second Amendment it doesn't matter. Or more specifically the two commas that may or may not exist.
> 
> You can have "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." as ratified by the states or "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." as was going through Congress.
> 
> The two extra commas don't change anything in the meaning.
> 
> But trying to pretend that this does anything is wrong.
> 
> The first half of the Amendment doesn't do anything. It merely says WHY the right to keep arms and the right to bear arms are important.
> 
> Now, think about this. The Amendment is about the militia. The Amendment says a militia is important. It doesn't say TV is important, it doesn't say breathing is important, it doesn't say a lot of things. But it does say THE MILITIA.
> 
> This is CONTEXT.
> 
> The right to keep arms is the right of individuals to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply of weapons that the US federal govt cannot take away.
> The right to bear arms is the right of individuals to be in the militia so the militia has a ready supply of personnel to use those weapons.
> 
> A militia without guns is not "a well regulated militia", nor is a militia without personnel.
> 
> However a militia without individuals walking around in the streets with their guns is the same as it would be if they were walking about with their guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *sigh*  Here is the context.  The wording of the Second Amendment does emphasize the importance of the militia, but the Right is reserved to the PEOPLE.  If they had wanted the right reserved only to the militia, they could have said the right of the militia to keep and bear arms...they'd already proven they can spell it.   The Second is not ABOUT the militia, it's about the right of the People.
Click to expand...


Sigh. What I find is that people on this forum often end up arguing what they're comfortable arguing with. They often decide what the other person is saying BEFORE they're bothered to read what the other person has said, and therefore don't need to read what the other person has said as they BELIEVE they know what has been said.

Yes, the Second Amendment emphasizes the importance of the militia. Why? Because the Amendment is ABOUT THE MILITIA. 

You say the right is reserved to the people. Yet I wrote "The right to keep arms is the right of individuals" and "The right to bear arms is the right of individuals" and you're attacking me for saying it's not the right of individuals. Are you fucking serious? 


Here's the other deal, let's see if you bother to read this.

Each right in the US Bill of Rights is there for a reason. The reason is politics. 

The First Amendment has the right to freedom of religion, right to protest and right of freedom of speech and the press. All of these are protected in the First Amendment because of their impact on politics. 

Freedom of speech so you can talk about politics, freedom to protest so you can protest politicians, freedom of religion so there isn't a state religion. 

Of course individuals can use their freedom of speech in other ways, there is no limit on the freedom of speech to just politics. 

However in the Bill of Rights there is no protection of the right to walk. The right to breathe. The right to eat food. The right to play games. There are so many things NOT PROTECTED, and that's because they're not directly connected with politics. Hence the 10th Amendment. 

The Second Amendment is about the militia. That's what it starts with "A well regulated militia..." It protects the militia by protecting individuals.


----------



## frigidweirdo

turtledude said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I should read it? Apparently this is YOUR argument, and your argument isn't to go get the part of Cruikshank that destroys my argument, but to tell me that it does.
> 
> Bullshit. If it destroyed my argument, you'd have posted it here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) you don't have a law degree
> 
> 2) you don' t understand Cruikshank
> 
> 3) you don't understand the entire foundation for the bill of rights
> 
> 4) you don't understand the concept of natural rights and/or natural law
> 
> 5) you don't understand that natural rights are not dependent on government nor membership in a governmentally controlled militia
> 
> 6) you don' t understand what the founders stated
> 
> 7) you don't understand that the RKBA also applies to people who are neither subject to the call up or eligible to serve in the militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1) you don't know whether I have a law degree or not
> 2) You don't know whether I understand cruikshank or not
> 
> Shit dude, this is more bravado from you. No substance but plenty of complete and utter bullshit.
> 
> Here's the deal.
> 
> I set out my argument using sources to back myself up. You couldn't argue against this
> You claim to have an argument but you won't provide the argument, and then say this is me not understanding something
> You insult all the time.
> 
> The ONLY reason I haven't put your sorry ass on ignore is because I'm having too much fun watching you make a complete spectacle of yourself.
> 
> You haven't said ANYTHING of substance in ANY SINGLE POST. Nothing. A lawyer you are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one with nothing of substance.  Stop personally attacking TurtleDude just because he knows a boatload about this topic than you could ever know, and this is quite obvious to everyone.  You are just an ignorant twat leftist POS who doesn't understand that the PEOPLE run the government and the United States. The people are in charge of the government, not the other way around.  The government doesn't dictate us our rights.  WE dictate to them.  Got it lackey?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That you believe an anonymous message board poster is being ‘truthful’ is both pathetic and amusing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well I know your posts are full of shit and you are a blow hard because you post nonsense.  Chris knows me personally so you should stop pretending what you know and what she doesn't know.  It must make you mad to understand that some of us who have actually taught at law schools can see what a gaping fraud you are
Click to expand...


Haha, how ironic.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Founders' intent matters, because if we show that they intended  no federal infringement of individual rights to keep and carry arms (or no federal authority), all current federal gun laws are facially unconstitutional, as is the F portion of the BATF.
> 
> Don't like it?   Amend the constitution.  Otherwise, the original text and intent apply, and all federal gun laws should be immediately struck down.
> 
> Likewise, via the 14th Amendment, all State gun laws will be struck down.
> 
> A change REQUIRES a constitutional amendment.  Just because you commies are too pussy to try it, or can't get it done, is not an excuse to fuck up the Constitution and shit on it.



No, but their intent for the 2A wasn't carry arms. Clearly, their intent for "bear arms" was "render military service" and "militia duty".


----------



## frigidweirdo

turtledude said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mean really, shall I quote the founding fathers EXACT words yet again so that this moron can just ignore it and go on being a dumbfuck?  What a douchebag.  I really hate this poster.  Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> You’re in no position to refer to someone else as a ‘moron’ while exhibiting your own ignorance – in this case you’re ignorant of the fact that the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.
> 
> And the ‘exact words’ of the Framers can be found only in that case law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hey moron, the exact words of the founders are found in their notes, writings and the constitution
Click to expand...


Which I showed to you and you ignored. 

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

Mr Gerry, founding father of the USA said that "bear arms" was "militia duty". 

Mr Jackson, founding father of the USA said that "bear arms" was "render military service" 

Mr Washington, founding father of the USA and first President of the USA said in Sentiments on a Peace Establishment said:


"every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America... from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls,"

"by making it universally reputable to bear Arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the performance of Military duties; in fine, by keeping up in Peace "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia," we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country.“

Yep, he said "bear Arms" was "Military duties".


----------



## tycho1572

Im good with people having a way to defend themselves......


----------



## tycho1572

Libs can whine and cry all they want.


----------



## frigidweirdo

emilynghiem said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Q hi inUOTE="frigidweirdo, post: 18579540, member: 47831"]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo
> I applaud you in citing historical backing for the interpretation you support that
> (a) right to bear arms applies to militia members (b) right of the people is not limited to just citizens
> (though I would still argue with you that the intent must be law abiding, or else it threatens the right of people to security in their
> homes and equal protection of the laws if the law supported arms used for breaking laws; I argue by the very spirit of the laws,
> the meaning has to be for defending rights and laws and not for violating them, or it contradicts the very reason for having laws)
> 
> Here are some citations that show AT LEAST both interpretations on both points are equally arguable.
> By the same "religious freedom" and protection of your creed from discrimination,
> then neither can govt be abused to EXCLUDE the interpretation of others either;
> the same principles that defend YOUR interpretation and beliefs also protect other interpretations.
> 
> So again, it would Contradict the laws themselves if you were to impose YOUR interpretation
> at the EXCLUSION of others who have equal if not MORE backing historically than yours does.
> 
> I have argued, quite unpopularly, that by religious freedom you and others of your belief
> have equal right to defend your interpretation.  So good job with that, but it still does not give
> you the right to supercede or exclude the interpretations of others which have even MORE established historical backing that is more consistent with the rest
> of the history and meaning of the Constitution and natural laws.
> 
> I am all for defending and including the beliefs and opinions of the minority,
> and believe you have equal right to your interpretation, or the First Amendment and Fourteenth would be violated.
> 
> (A)
> 10 PENNSYLVANIA
> had no militia due largely in part to the Quaker/Pacifist active influence among the population
> 
> Of Arms and the Law: Leonard Levy's "Origins of the Bill of Rights"
> 
> *Leonard Levy's "Origins of the Bill of Rights"*
> POSTED BY DAVID HARDY · 22 AUGUST 2005 04:27 PM
> Just got Leonard Levy's "Origins of the Bill of Rights." (He's the late, great legal historian who some years ago won the Pulitzer for his history of the 5th Amendment). Levy devotes an entire chapter to the Second Amendment, arguing that it's an individual right. He says that the claim that Miller v. US ruled for a collective right "misleads." He rejects claims that "bear arms" (as opposed to "keep") relates only to military use, pointing out that the Pennsylvania minority's demand for a bill of rights used "bear arms" to describe use in self-defense and even hunting, and that PA at the point in time was the only State without a militia organization (the large Quaker population and its passifism accounting for that).
> 
> A WII vet himself, Levy added that "If all that was meant was the right to be a soldier or to serve in the military, whether in the militia or in the army, it would hardly be a cherished right and would never have reached constitutional status in the Bill of Rights. The 'right' to be a soldier does not make much sense."
> 
> (B) RE: law abiding citizens interpretation
> NONCITIZENS AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT
> 
> Mixed interpretations, over noncitizens, where courts have been split.
> the traditional interpretation was citizens, and the growing population and political inclusion of noncitizens
> may have challenged this interpretation, as we are seeing today with immigration laws challenging
> the equal rights and protections of citizens vs. noncitizens.
> 
> From my experience and understanding of natural laws, there is more consensus that
> the purpose would be for complying with law and not violating laws; as it makes no
> sense that the law would support enabling criminals or "enemies of the law/state" to commit violations.
> That would be the equivalent of "aiding and abetting" to give arms to anyone with criminal intent.
> it would violate the right of people to security in their persons houses and effects,
> and threaten the equal protections to defend any such right to use arms with the intent of breaking laws.
> But since govt cannot prove intent until after there is due process and someone is convicted,
> then the law cannot try to prescribe this. But by natural laws, and the spirit of the law, I find
> there is no question that people agree that the law does NOT INTEND to enable abuse of arms to commit crimes
> and violate rights of others. the objections I have found involve due process, in that there is no way to
> police intent in advance or it would start infringing on rights and liberties. But the spirit of the law would imply
> the legal use of arms is for defense of law not for violations, that's just common sense of what people would consent to.
> 
> (C) as for how to deal with these dual interpretations
> 
> 1. I see no problem in some people believing in organized militia
> and others being okay with individual gun ownership as long as there is proper
> training in the laws, procedures of law enforcement where people follow the same
> procedures as the police so there is no question on who is complying or not,
> and possibly introducing the idea of insurance required in case of abuse or accidents,
> similar to car insurance that is decided by state.
> 
> 2. for criminal disorders or incompetence that poses dangers to public health and safety,
> I believe that better means of reporting abuses and threats for standard screening
> could be agreed upon per district on the level of civic or neighborhood associations
> that can pass their own ordinances against drug abuse or dangerous dogs or
> requirements for screening/training for gun owners. If the local organizations
> decide democratically where all residents agree to the standards they elect to
> comply with and enforce, that can be completely constitutional for them to choose.
> 
> What people don't want is for outside authority to dictate what standards or
> interpretations can regulate their rights etc. So if people agree and elect these
> freely, then any interpretation or standard can be chosen for enforcement by consent of those residents.
> Including how to report potential threats, require screening or counseling for dangerous conditions
> found, or mediate and resolve conflicts by consent of the parties in order to reside in such a district that
> has implemented such a policy by agreement of the property owners and residents in order to live there.
> 
> I don't have a problem with accommodating diverse interpretations,
> but don't think it is constitutional to abuse govt to impose one or the other
> where it threatens people of different beliefs or excludes them from public policy
> which should protect and represent people regardless of beliefs and interpretations.
> We just can't be in the business of imposing on each other's beliefs,
> or that also violates Constitutional rights and protections under the First, Fourteenth and other Amendments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you want the right to be just for law abiding. However a right is ONLY a right when EVERYONE has the right, otherwise it's a privilege, it's that simple.
> 
> This doesn't mean criminals can't have that right infringed upon.
> 
> Well, if anyone, I mean ANYONE can show me anything that takes away my interpretation, which isn't based on what I want, but on what I've seen. Usually I get people just throwing insults because they can't argue with me.
> 
> People have the right to argue as they like, they have the right to be wrong.
> 
> Pennsylvania had the 111th infantry regiment. It fought in the War of Independence and changed names through time.
> 
> 111th Infantry Regiment (United States) - Wikipedia
> 
> "
> 
> 747 Constituted 7 December 1747 by official recognition of the Associators, founded 21 November 1747 in Philadelphia by Benjamin Franklin.
> 1747 Organized 29 December 1747 as Associated Regiment of Foot of Philadelphia.
> 1775 Reorganized as Associates of the City and Liberties of Philadelphia, with five Battalions.
> 1777 Reorganized as the Philadelphia Brigade of Militia, commanded by Brigadier General John Cadwalader.
> 1793 Reorganized 11 April 1793 as Volunteer Infantry Elements of 1st Brigade, 1st Division Pennsylvania Militia.
> 1814 Volunteer Infantry Companies of 1st Brigade reorganized as 1st Regiment, Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry, commanded by Colonel Clement C. Biddle; entered federal service 24 August 1814 and relieved 4 January 1815.
> 1816 Reorganized 19 March 1816 as Volunteer Infantry Elements of 1st Division."
> 
> Now what we have here might be that the militia disbanded and was then reorganized in times of need. Which is exactly what a Militia is. You don't need a militia in order to have the right to be in the militia. When people feel the need for a militia, it can be reorganized and then individuals will join the militia.
> At the time people weren't fervent about their 2A rights as they are now. It was all practical. You have the right to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply, but the reality was that individuals had weapons as a general part of their daily life, hunting as a source of food must have been great at the time, seeing as most people lived in rural areas. When things demanded it was your DUTY to join the militia. However they were protecting the militia so they made it your right as well as your duty.
> 
> You think I'm imposing my view on others? Well you can think that, I'm not too bothered. However all I'm doing is taking historical documents and using it to show what the Founding Fathers thought. That the vast majority of people (who also have agendas) will ignore these documents is quite telling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very good frigidweirdo you have presented the best backing and historical justification
> for the interpretation you support which I have seen up to this point.
> 
> Again, I still believe you have the right to your interpretation even without any such backing,
> but by the nature of religious freedom and equal protection of the laws from discrimination by creed.
> 
> In order to protect the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to security and protections of the law,
> I find it legally necessary to educate and train all citizens and residents in Constitutional law enforcement and ethics.
> 
> Otherwise if people do not have knowledge or experience with the laws and ethics that the public and community agrees to enforce,
> that is what causes breaches of the peace, abuses and violations.
> 
> So my definition of what is necessary for citizenship IS based on teaching people to be law abiding
> and to use that educational, training and conflict resolution process to SCREEN for criminal disorders, illnesses or other incompetence
> that would render someone "disabled" or "unable" to comply with laws without additional assistance, guardianship or supervision.
> 
> Those are my beliefs which I equally defend my right to exercise and enforce by
> the same First and Fourteenth Amendment I would invoke to protect yours.
> 
> The difference I have found, is that I am willing to do the work and invest the resources
> and set up the system in order to enforce the interpretation I support.
> 
> However, I find too many other people NOT willing to pay the cost or consequences of
> THEIR interpretations. That is why people argue against gun rights because there is no responsibility for the cost of abuse.
> Or against abortion rights or prolife beliefs where the advocates aren't taking responsibility for the costs to enforce those policies.
> 
> frigidweirdo are you REALLY willing to shoulder the cost to enforce your interpretation?
> 
> I have described what I believe it will take to ensure the right to bear arms is
> exercised within a  "law abiding" environment that is constitutional where it
> is locally elected and enforced.
> 
> What about what you are asking, to require people to join militias?
> 
> Would you be okay with the proposal to reward districts for reduced
> crime rates by the residents working WITH police and military to
> offer the SAME training and screening for all citizens/residents seeking to bear arms?
> 
> That's not the same as joining a militia to have the same training and screening.
> I suggest adding this to the neighborhood or district policies, or giving tax
> breaks where communities effectively reduce crime and can invest those
> dollars into their schools or programs for daycare, health care or elderly care
> as an incentive to promote LAW ABIDING citizenry.
> 
> So I would focus on compliance with laws by education, training and job creation,
> and not so much on "joining an official militia" unless you count citizen patrols and security training?
> 
> I still see it more as citizen based, not as militia run.
> 
> The militia, even the "first responders" cannot be the only ones trained
> and relied upon for emergency response and criminal activity.
> 
> frigidweirdo as recent events in Texas showed, with both widespread
> storms and flooding that sent independent teams to do rescue work,
> and with the mass shooting that required citizens to intervene since
> there were no police, we will always need active citizens IN ADDITION
> to any such "militia" or dedicated emergency/first responders.
> 
> But if you want to call these a form of "trained militia" then you
> and I are just using different terms for the same concept of
> having trained citizens to ensure enforcement of laws and safety.
> 
> I just don't see everyone agreeing to be REQUIRED to join a militia
> group, though I could see people agreeing to uniform neighborhood
> ordinances when they are equally involved in the process of making that policy
> that represents the residents and owners in that community.
> If this takes the form of a "militia" then fine, but if it just means all
> community members agree to work with police to go through the
> same training to understand and comply with the same procedures,
> that doesn't necessarily mean JOINING the police or militia to be enforcing the same
> policies and standards for security in that district.
> 
> So I would think my interpretation is more inclusive of
> yours and others, while yours would exclude people who don't
> agree with the condition of joining a militia.
> 
> And the interpretation that includes more people's beliefs equally
> would seem to me to be more constitutionally consistent
> by not discriminating or excluding
> but by accommodating and protecting people equally
> regardless of their beliefs and interpretations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the first problem here is that you take me for someone who has an interpretation in order to fit an agenda. The closest you're going to get there is that my agenda is the truth.
> 
> I didn't decide this to be the truth, I just found out that it WAS THE TRUTH.
> 
> If you really want to get to the places where it's not about truth but it's about how you think something would work in the future, then this topic enlarges itself massively. But this topic is about one single thing. I have said plenty of times what I think the biggest problem is in the US, and why the gun issue will never be solved, nor any other problem. The electoral system.
> 
> However your points that Texas shows that people need guns, my point would be that in the UK and most of the Western World, these things don't usually happen, except in the US.
> 
> The reality is that in the US you are four times more likely to die with your gun that you are in the UK to die without a gun.
> 
> 135 police officers died in the line of duty last year in the US, zero died in the UK. All police officers in the US are armed.
> 
> You think your interpretation is more inclusive, I think my interpretation is the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To tell you the honest truth, frigidweirdo
> I'm sure the founders back then argued this same way, didn't agree either,
> and ended up with the law written as it was to accommodate BOTH.
> So it BOTH included the right of people individually
> FOR STATES THAT AGREED TO PASS LAWS RESPECTING THAT WAY
> as well as allowed for state militias
> FOR STATES THAT AGREED TO PASS LAWS BASED ON THAT.
> 
> The common factor was the STATES would pass laws
> and not the Feds controlling all the access to arms,
> because that's what they feared would get corrupted,oppressive and tyrannical
> if there wasn't some check against Federal abuse of collective authority.
> 
> SEE below:
> 
> 
> 
> 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These interpretations tend to lean in one of two ways. The first is that the amendment was meant to ensure that individuals have the absolute right to own firearms; the second is that the amendment was meant to ensure that States could form, arm, and maintain their own militias. Either way, it is a bar to federal action only, because the 2nd Amendment has not been incorporated by the Supreme Court to apply to the states. This means that within its own constitution, a state may be as restrictive or non-restrictive as it wishes to be in the regulation of firearms; likewise, private rules and regulations may prohibit or encourage firearms. For example, if a housing association wishes to bar any firearm from being held within its borders, it is free to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As the founders fought the same arguments we have today re Federal vs. State authority, I'm sure they disagreed and argued about who had the right to bear arms
> in this same divided context. (I also read into certain state histories with issues over Catholics having equal right to bear arms because of the fear of abuse/violent crime.)
> 
> As for the citation on PA, I apologize for not looking up the direct reference previously
> so I cited wrong online. (My excuse is my copy of Levy's "Origin of the Bill of Rights" got rescued from the flood and stashed in storage, so I took a shortcut and tried to search for a paraphrase instead of getting the source verbatim, Sorry!)
> 
> The CORRECT statement is that PA didn't have a state militia at the time of its STATE constitution which cited the right to bear arms, so clearly the STATE law on the right to bear arms didn't refer to state militia because they didn't have one. Sorry I miscited that.
> 
> Here is the corrected explanation:
> 
> 
> 
> 2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the state constitutions written around the time of the Declaration of Independence, the right to bear arms was presented in different ways. The Articles of Confederation specified that the states should maintain their militias, but did not mention a right to bear arms. Thus, any such protections would have to come from state law. The Virginia Declaration of Rights, though it mentioned the militia, did not mention a right to bear arms — the right might be implied, since the state did not furnish weapons for militiamen. The constitutions of North Carolina and Massachusetts did guarantee the right, to ensure proper defense of the states. *The constitution of Pennsylvania guaranteed the right with no mention of the militia (at the time, Pennsylvania had no organized militia)*. One of the arguments of the Anti-Federalists during the ratification debates was that the new nation did not arm the militias, an odd argument since neither did the U.S. under the Articles. Finally, Madison's original proposal for the Bill of Rights mentioned the individual right much more directly than the final result that came out of Congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Constitutional Topic: The Second Amendment - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
> 
> frigidweirdo thank you for at least explaining the history behind your conclusion.
> I usually get the explanation that the big fear at the time was the British Crown and forces
> taking away weapons from the colonists in order to keep them subordinated.
> So the same fear was that if Federal govt required only militia to have weapons
> that same scenario could happen of abusing militia to oppress the people.
> That's the usual argument in favor of individuals retaining the right to check and defend against that as well!
> 
> But since you challenge that, I asked another source
> and got yet another explanation I hadn't heard before:
> If state militia had the right to take arms against federal govt
> then the fight for Southern secession would have been legal.
> I kinda get that argument, but still see it as whoever is enforcing
> laws is in the right, and whoever is abusing force to violate laws
> is what makes it unlawful.  In the case of the Civil War there was
> right and wrong on both sides: slavery was a violation of natural
> laws by which people should have equal protections of rights,
> but the federal govt should have respected the sovereign
> consent of states and settled the conflict peaceably without force.
> The fact both sides resorted to force ends up violating protections on both sides
> because they both failed to resolve the conflicts peaceably by democratic process.
> 
> So I don't follow that argument
> as easily as I do the historical argument
> that the Second Amendment was influenced
> by colonists having to take up arms to stop
> oppression by collective govt, so they didn't want
> to concede this right to bear arms to any higher govt that could become corrupted.
> 
> You can believe you have the truth
> but so do people who cite history to argue the other way.
> 
> Again, honestly, I believe this is the same boat
> the founders were in who didn't agree either
> on federal vs. state authority and the right of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure the Founding Fathers did disagree on many things. I'm sure they didn't disagree on the term "sun" for the sun.
> 
> Bear arms was used in the manner I have shown all over the place, and the Supreme Court has upheld that meaning for hundreds of years.
> 
> I mean, if you have anything where "bear arms" didn't mean this, then by all means show it and try and put it into your argument that it doesn't mean that in the Second Amendment. However, when looking at historical documents, when looking at logic, it always means the same thing.
> 
> Here's a question.
> 
> The context of the Second Amendment is the militia. Why would you go and protect a right to carry guns which doesn't protect the militia, and why wouldn't protect the individual's right to be in the militia when you've just protected his right to own guns so the militia has guns?
> 
> Guns don't kill people, people do. A militia full of guns but no people is pointless, right?
Click to expand...

Hi frigidweirdo
1. In the case of PA state law their Constitution included the right to bear arms when PA did not have an organized militia
2. James Madison more clearly defended the right to bear arms as meaning individual not militia. Given how hard people like him defend their beliefs and won't let laws get passed that diminish them in any way, Madison and others would not have allowed this right as they saw it to be whittled down by the writing of such a law. They wouldn't agree to endorse it if it excluded or failed to enforce the principle they believed in defending.
3. The HELLER case in DC court 2008 also lays out where the interpretations have come from.

So frigidweirdo at most you can say the truth you defend is equal to the truth the other side defends. Both sides look at the same history and same law and still believe the truth as they see it. I believe it was written that way so both sides can still defend their beliefs which truth prevails, whether intentionally or not, it allows both beliefs to be equally defended and enforced using the same law.

The difference with me is I don't have a conflict with either side defending their beliefs and the truth they see in the law and history. If you have problems accommodating each other's beliefs, that's your problem and your refusal to accommodate each other! I am happy to accommodate both under the same law exactly as written.

So I believe that approach is more consistent Constitutionally with the First Fourteenth and other amendments and laws, civil rights laws on not discriminating by Creed, and the Code of ethics on not putting loyalty to party personal word or other things before duty to the public . The public includes people who believe that either one or the other interpretation is the truth as you do.

It is not fair ethical or Constitutional to exclude one for the other.

So that's what makes the inclusive approach different. I favor the individual rights interpretation but equally include the militia one.

My question to you is why can't you do the same?

I can believe in both creation and evolution and accommodate both, so why can't others do the same?

I can believe some homosexuality orientation or transgender identity is a choice that can change and some cases are inherently in someone's spiritual identity and process and may not ever be able to change. Why can't both be included equally?

Even if it is true that someone cannot change, if that isn't proven to someone of a different belief, they still have equal right to their beliefs whether that's true or not. The govt and laws can't be abused to force one on the other, but people have the right to consent to change their minds by free will and not be harassed or punished for their beliefs.

With you frigidweirdo I can't tell if your defensiveness over your side is just a reaction against others who have been attacking you for arguing for that. If so I do apologize on behalf of others, and don't believe it is right to bully or attack people or treat them less than equal because of conflicts like this. If you are just trying to defend yourself and the truth from attack then I understand and respect that.

But if your intent is to IMPOSE what you find to be true against the will consent and free choice of others to change their minds, then no, I don't support or recommend political bullying to coerce others. That is equally disrespectful when it's done to you as it is if you or I would do that to others.

I believe in an environment and commitment to equal inclusion we can better share the information and history and respect ppl free choice to examine understand and accept either explanation or both as I have no problem doing to accommodate all people equally regardless of view point.

Thank you for trying to use reason and sorry if you've found yourself under personal attack in the process. I join your efforts to steer clear of that bullying harassing approach and applaud you in sticking to historical legal and rational explanations of where these views are coming from

Keep up the good work and may all views be equally respected and included in that context and process of reaching a shared understanding to resolve past conflicts. Thanks frigidweirdo[/QUOTE]

Basically your argument appears to be this.

If you have one person saying the sun is the sun, and another person saying the sun is his head, then I should be willing to accommodate that sun is both the sun and his head. 

Er... what? clearly the person who thinks the sun is his head is wrong. 

I also know that people who say the right to bear arms is the right to carry arms are wrong. It's that simple. I'm not going to accommodate someone's made up belief simply so they can push their own agenda, when they're clearly wrong. Sorry.

The "truth" on the other side is made up because it's convenient. It has NO BASIS IN REALITY. 

Every time I present FACTS, they get IGNORED and instead they post stuff that has no relevance at all.

Take the person who posted lots of Founding Father quotes about the right to keep arms to prove that I was wrong about the right to bear arms. Er.... what? It's like saying this pear is nice, therefore that apple has to be nice too. Logical?


----------



## danielpalos

frigidweirdo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo
> I applaud you in citing historical backing for the interpretation you support that
> (a) right to bear arms applies to militia members (b) right of the people is not limited to just citizens
> (though I would still argue with you that the intent must be law abiding, or else it threatens the right of people to security in their
> homes and equal protection of the laws if the law supported arms used for breaking laws; I argue by the very spirit of the laws,
> the meaning has to be for defending rights and laws and not for violating them, or it contradicts the very reason for having laws)
> 
> Here are some citations that show AT LEAST both interpretations on both points are equally arguable.
> By the same "religious freedom" and protection of your creed from discrimination,
> then neither can govt be abused to EXCLUDE the interpretation of others either;
> the same principles that defend YOUR interpretation and beliefs also protect other interpretations.
> 
> So again, it would Contradict the laws themselves if you were to impose YOUR interpretation
> at the EXCLUSION of others who have equal if not MORE backing historically than yours does.
> 
> I have argued, quite unpopularly, that by religious freedom you and others of your belief
> have equal right to defend your interpretation.  So good job with that, but it still does not give
> you the right to supercede or exclude the interpretations of others which have even MORE established historical backing that is more consistent with the rest
> of the history and meaning of the Constitution and natural laws.
> 
> I am all for defending and including the beliefs and opinions of the minority,
> and believe you have equal right to your interpretation, or the First Amendment and Fourteenth would be violated.
> 
> (A)
> 10 PENNSYLVANIA
> had no militia due largely in part to the Quaker/Pacifist active influence among the population
> 
> Of Arms and the Law: Leonard Levy's "Origins of the Bill of Rights"
> 
> *Leonard Levy's "Origins of the Bill of Rights"*
> POSTED BY DAVID HARDY · 22 AUGUST 2005 04:27 PM
> Just got Leonard Levy's "Origins of the Bill of Rights." (He's the late, great legal historian who some years ago won the Pulitzer for his history of the 5th Amendment). Levy devotes an entire chapter to the Second Amendment, arguing that it's an individual right. He says that the claim that Miller v. US ruled for a collective right "misleads." He rejects claims that "bear arms" (as opposed to "keep") relates only to military use, pointing out that the Pennsylvania minority's demand for a bill of rights used "bear arms" to describe use in self-defense and even hunting, and that PA at the point in time was the only State without a militia organization (the large Quaker population and its passifism accounting for that).
> 
> A WII vet himself, Levy added that "If all that was meant was the right to be a soldier or to serve in the military, whether in the militia or in the army, it would hardly be a cherished right and would never have reached constitutional status in the Bill of Rights. The 'right' to be a soldier does not make much sense."
> 
> (B) RE: law abiding citizens interpretation
> NONCITIZENS AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT
> 
> Mixed interpretations, over noncitizens, where courts have been split.
> the traditional interpretation was citizens, and the growing population and political inclusion of noncitizens
> may have challenged this interpretation, as we are seeing today with immigration laws challenging
> the equal rights and protections of citizens vs. noncitizens.
> 
> From my experience and understanding of natural laws, there is more consensus that
> the purpose would be for complying with law and not violating laws; as it makes no
> sense that the law would support enabling criminals or "enemies of the law/state" to commit violations.
> That would be the equivalent of "aiding and abetting" to give arms to anyone with criminal intent.
> it would violate the right of people to security in their persons houses and effects,
> and threaten the equal protections to defend any such right to use arms with the intent of breaking laws.
> But since govt cannot prove intent until after there is due process and someone is convicted,
> then the law cannot try to prescribe this. But by natural laws, and the spirit of the law, I find
> there is no question that people agree that the law does NOT INTEND to enable abuse of arms to commit crimes
> and violate rights of others. the objections I have found involve due process, in that there is no way to
> police intent in advance or it would start infringing on rights and liberties. But the spirit of the law would imply
> the legal use of arms is for defense of law not for violations, that's just common sense of what people would consent to.
> 
> (C) as for how to deal with these dual interpretations
> 
> 1. I see no problem in some people believing in organized militia
> and others being okay with individual gun ownership as long as there is proper
> training in the laws, procedures of law enforcement where people follow the same
> procedures as the police so there is no question on who is complying or not,
> and possibly introducing the idea of insurance required in case of abuse or accidents,
> similar to car insurance that is decided by state.
> 
> 2. for criminal disorders or incompetence that poses dangers to public health and safety,
> I believe that better means of reporting abuses and threats for standard screening
> could be agreed upon per district on the level of civic or neighborhood associations
> that can pass their own ordinances against drug abuse or dangerous dogs or
> requirements for screening/training for gun owners. If the local organizations
> decide democratically where all residents agree to the standards they elect to
> comply with and enforce, that can be completely constitutional for them to choose.
> 
> What people don't want is for outside authority to dictate what standards or
> interpretations can regulate their rights etc. So if people agree and elect these
> freely, then any interpretation or standard can be chosen for enforcement by consent of those residents.
> Including how to report potential threats, require screening or counseling for dangerous conditions
> found, or mediate and resolve conflicts by consent of the parties in order to reside in such a district that
> has implemented such a policy by agreement of the property owners and residents in order to live there.
> 
> I don't have a problem with accommodating diverse interpretations,
> but don't think it is constitutional to abuse govt to impose one or the other
> where it threatens people of different beliefs or excludes them from public policy
> which should protect and represent people regardless of beliefs and interpretations.
> We just can't be in the business of imposing on each other's beliefs,
> or that also violates Constitutional rights and protections under the First, Fourteenth and other Amendments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you want the right to be just for law abiding. However a right is ONLY a right when EVERYONE has the right, otherwise it's a privilege, it's that simple.
> 
> This doesn't mean criminals can't have that right infringed upon.
> 
> Well, if anyone, I mean ANYONE can show me anything that takes away my interpretation, which isn't based on what I want, but on what I've seen. Usually I get people just throwing insults because they can't argue with me.
> 
> People have the right to argue as they like, they have the right to be wrong.
> 
> Pennsylvania had the 111th infantry regiment. It fought in the War of Independence and changed names through time.
> 
> 111th Infantry Regiment (United States) - Wikipedia
> 
> "
> 
> 747 Constituted 7 December 1747 by official recognition of the Associators, founded 21 November 1747 in Philadelphia by Benjamin Franklin.
> 1747 Organized 29 December 1747 as Associated Regiment of Foot of Philadelphia.
> 1775 Reorganized as Associates of the City and Liberties of Philadelphia, with five Battalions.
> 1777 Reorganized as the Philadelphia Brigade of Militia, commanded by Brigadier General John Cadwalader.
> 1793 Reorganized 11 April 1793 as Volunteer Infantry Elements of 1st Brigade, 1st Division Pennsylvania Militia.
> 1814 Volunteer Infantry Companies of 1st Brigade reorganized as 1st Regiment, Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry, commanded by Colonel Clement C. Biddle; entered federal service 24 August 1814 and relieved 4 January 1815.
> 1816 Reorganized 19 March 1816 as Volunteer Infantry Elements of 1st Division."
> 
> Now what we have here might be that the militia disbanded and was then reorganized in times of need. Which is exactly what a Militia is. You don't need a militia in order to have the right to be in the militia. When people feel the need for a militia, it can be reorganized and then individuals will join the militia.
> At the time people weren't fervent about their 2A rights as they are now. It was all practical. You have the right to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply, but the reality was that individuals had weapons as a general part of their daily life, hunting as a source of food must have been great at the time, seeing as most people lived in rural areas. When things demanded it was your DUTY to join the militia. However they were protecting the militia so they made it your right as well as your duty.
> 
> You think I'm imposing my view on others? Well you can think that, I'm not too bothered. However all I'm doing is taking historical documents and using it to show what the Founding Fathers thought. That the vast majority of people (who also have agendas) will ignore these documents is quite telling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very good frigidweirdo you have presented the best backing and historical justification
> for the interpretation you support which I have seen up to this point.
> 
> Again, I still believe you have the right to your interpretation even without any such backing,
> but by the nature of religious freedom and equal protection of the laws from discrimination by creed.
> 
> In order to protect the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to security and protections of the law,
> I find it legally necessary to educate and train all citizens and residents in Constitutional law enforcement and ethics.
> 
> Otherwise if people do not have knowledge or experience with the laws and ethics that the public and community agrees to enforce,
> that is what causes breaches of the peace, abuses and violations.
> 
> So my definition of what is necessary for citizenship IS based on teaching people to be law abiding
> and to use that educational, training and conflict resolution process to SCREEN for criminal disorders, illnesses or other incompetence
> that would render someone "disabled" or "unable" to comply with laws without additional assistance, guardianship or supervision.
> 
> Those are my beliefs which I equally defend my right to exercise and enforce by
> the same First and Fourteenth Amendment I would invoke to protect yours.
> 
> The difference I have found, is that I am willing to do the work and invest the resources
> and set up the system in order to enforce the interpretation I support.
> 
> However, I find too many other people NOT willing to pay the cost or consequences of
> THEIR interpretations. That is why people argue against gun rights because there is no responsibility for the cost of abuse.
> Or against abortion rights or prolife beliefs where the advocates aren't taking responsibility for the costs to enforce those policies.
> 
> frigidweirdo are you REALLY willing to shoulder the cost to enforce your interpretation?
> 
> I have described what I believe it will take to ensure the right to bear arms is
> exercised within a  "law abiding" environment that is constitutional where it
> is locally elected and enforced.
> 
> What about what you are asking, to require people to join militias?
> 
> Would you be okay with the proposal to reward districts for reduced
> crime rates by the residents working WITH police and military to
> offer the SAME training and screening for all citizens/residents seeking to bear arms?
> 
> That's not the same as joining a militia to have the same training and screening.
> I suggest adding this to the neighborhood or district policies, or giving tax
> breaks where communities effectively reduce crime and can invest those
> dollars into their schools or programs for daycare, health care or elderly care
> as an incentive to promote LAW ABIDING citizenry.
> 
> So I would focus on compliance with laws by education, training and job creation,
> and not so much on "joining an official militia" unless you count citizen patrols and security training?
> 
> I still see it more as citizen based, not as militia run.
> 
> The militia, even the "first responders" cannot be the only ones trained
> and relied upon for emergency response and criminal activity.
> 
> frigidweirdo as recent events in Texas showed, with both widespread
> storms and flooding that sent independent teams to do rescue work,
> and with the mass shooting that required citizens to intervene since
> there were no police, we will always need active citizens IN ADDITION
> to any such "militia" or dedicated emergency/first responders.
> 
> But if you want to call these a form of "trained militia" then you
> and I are just using different terms for the same concept of
> having trained citizens to ensure enforcement of laws and safety.
> 
> I just don't see everyone agreeing to be REQUIRED to join a militia
> group, though I could see people agreeing to uniform neighborhood
> ordinances when they are equally involved in the process of making that policy
> that represents the residents and owners in that community.
> If this takes the form of a "militia" then fine, but if it just means all
> community members agree to work with police to go through the
> same training to understand and comply with the same procedures,
> that doesn't necessarily mean JOINING the police or militia to be enforcing the same
> policies and standards for security in that district.
> 
> So I would think my interpretation is more inclusive of
> yours and others, while yours would exclude people who don't
> agree with the condition of joining a militia.
> 
> And the interpretation that includes more people's beliefs equally
> would seem to me to be more constitutionally consistent
> by not discriminating or excluding
> but by accommodating and protecting people equally
> regardless of their beliefs and interpretations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the first problem here is that you take me for someone who has an interpretation in order to fit an agenda. The closest you're going to get there is that my agenda is the truth.
> 
> I didn't decide this to be the truth, I just found out that it WAS THE TRUTH.
> 
> If you really want to get to the places where it's not about truth but it's about how you think something would work in the future, then this topic enlarges itself massively. But this topic is about one single thing. I have said plenty of times what I think the biggest problem is in the US, and why the gun issue will never be solved, nor any other problem. The electoral system.
> 
> However your points that Texas shows that people need guns, my point would be that in the UK and most of the Western World, these things don't usually happen, except in the US.
> 
> The reality is that in the US you are four times more likely to die with your gun that you are in the UK to die without a gun.
> 
> 135 police officers died in the line of duty last year in the US, zero died in the UK. All police officers in the US are armed.
> 
> You think your interpretation is more inclusive, I think my interpretation is the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To tell you the honest truth, frigidweirdo
> I'm sure the founders back then argued this same way, didn't agree either,
> and ended up with the law written as it was to accommodate BOTH.
> So it BOTH included the right of people individually
> FOR STATES THAT AGREED TO PASS LAWS RESPECTING THAT WAY
> as well as allowed for state militias
> FOR STATES THAT AGREED TO PASS LAWS BASED ON THAT.
> 
> The common factor was the STATES would pass laws
> and not the Feds controlling all the access to arms,
> because that's what they feared would get corrupted,oppressive and tyrannical
> if there wasn't some check against Federal abuse of collective authority.
> 
> SEE below:
> 
> 
> 
> 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These interpretations tend to lean in one of two ways. The first is that the amendment was meant to ensure that individuals have the absolute right to own firearms; the second is that the amendment was meant to ensure that States could form, arm, and maintain their own militias. Either way, it is a bar to federal action only, because the 2nd Amendment has not been incorporated by the Supreme Court to apply to the states. This means that within its own constitution, a state may be as restrictive or non-restrictive as it wishes to be in the regulation of firearms; likewise, private rules and regulations may prohibit or encourage firearms. For example, if a housing association wishes to bar any firearm from being held within its borders, it is free to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As the founders fought the same arguments we have today re Federal vs. State authority, I'm sure they disagreed and argued about who had the right to bear arms
> in this same divided context. (I also read into certain state histories with issues over Catholics having equal right to bear arms because of the fear of abuse/violent crime.)
> 
> As for the citation on PA, I apologize for not looking up the direct reference previously
> so I cited wrong online. (My excuse is my copy of Levy's "Origin of the Bill of Rights" got rescued from the flood and stashed in storage, so I took a shortcut and tried to search for a paraphrase instead of getting the source verbatim, Sorry!)
> 
> The CORRECT statement is that PA didn't have a state militia at the time of its STATE constitution which cited the right to bear arms, so clearly the STATE law on the right to bear arms didn't refer to state militia because they didn't have one. Sorry I miscited that.
> 
> Here is the corrected explanation:
> 
> 
> 
> 2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the state constitutions written around the time of the Declaration of Independence, the right to bear arms was presented in different ways. The Articles of Confederation specified that the states should maintain their militias, but did not mention a right to bear arms. Thus, any such protections would have to come from state law. The Virginia Declaration of Rights, though it mentioned the militia, did not mention a right to bear arms — the right might be implied, since the state did not furnish weapons for militiamen. The constitutions of North Carolina and Massachusetts did guarantee the right, to ensure proper defense of the states. *The constitution of Pennsylvania guaranteed the right with no mention of the militia (at the time, Pennsylvania had no organized militia)*. One of the arguments of the Anti-Federalists during the ratification debates was that the new nation did not arm the militias, an odd argument since neither did the U.S. under the Articles. Finally, Madison's original proposal for the Bill of Rights mentioned the individual right much more directly than the final result that came out of Congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Constitutional Topic: The Second Amendment - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
> 
> frigidweirdo thank you for at least explaining the history behind your conclusion.
> I usually get the explanation that the big fear at the time was the British Crown and forces
> taking away weapons from the colonists in order to keep them subordinated.
> So the same fear was that if Federal govt required only militia to have weapons
> that same scenario could happen of abusing militia to oppress the people.
> That's the usual argument in favor of individuals retaining the right to check and defend against that as well!
> 
> But since you challenge that, I asked another source
> and got yet another explanation I hadn't heard before:
> If state militia had the right to take arms against federal govt
> then the fight for Southern secession would have been legal.
> I kinda get that argument, but still see it as whoever is enforcing
> laws is in the right, and whoever is abusing force to violate laws
> is what makes it unlawful.  In the case of the Civil War there was
> right and wrong on both sides: slavery was a violation of natural
> laws by which people should have equal protections of rights,
> but the federal govt should have respected the sovereign
> consent of states and settled the conflict peaceably without force.
> The fact both sides resorted to force ends up violating protections on both sides
> because they both failed to resolve the conflicts peaceably by democratic process.
> 
> So I don't follow that argument
> as easily as I do the historical argument
> that the Second Amendment was influenced
> by colonists having to take up arms to stop
> oppression by collective govt, so they didn't want
> to concede this right to bear arms to any higher govt that could become corrupted.
> 
> You can believe you have the truth
> but so do people who cite history to argue the other way.
> 
> Again, honestly, I believe this is the same boat
> the founders were in who didn't agree either
> on federal vs. state authority and the right of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure the Founding Fathers did disagree on many things. I'm sure they didn't disagree on the term "sun" for the sun.
> 
> Bear arms was used in the manner I have shown all over the place, and the Supreme Court has upheld that meaning for hundreds of years.
> 
> I mean, if you have anything where "bear arms" didn't mean this, then by all means show it and try and put it into your argument that it doesn't mean that in the Second Amendment. However, when looking at historical documents, when looking at logic, it always means the same thing.
> 
> Here's a question.
> 
> The context of the Second Amendment is the militia. Why would you go and protect a right to carry guns which doesn't protect the militia, and why wouldn't protect the individual's right to be in the militia when you've just protected his right to own guns so the militia has guns?
> 
> Guns don't kill people, people do. A militia full of guns but no people is pointless, right?
Click to expand...

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State, not natural rights.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

frigidweirdo said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mean really, shall I quote the founding fathers EXACT words yet again so that this moron can just ignore it and go on being a dumbfuck?  What a douchebag.  I really hate this poster.  Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> You’re in no position to refer to someone else as a ‘moron’ while exhibiting your own ignorance – in this case you’re ignorant of the fact that the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.
> 
> And the ‘exact words’ of the Framers can be found only in that case law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hey moron, the exact words of the founders are found in their notes, writings and the constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which I showed to you and you ignored.
> 
> Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> Mr Gerry, founding father of the USA said that "bear arms" was "militia duty".
> 
> Mr Jackson, founding father of the USA said that "bear arms" was "render military service"
> 
> Mr Washington, founding father of the USA and first President of the USA said in Sentiments on a Peace Establishment said:
> 
> 
> "every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America... from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls,"
> 
> "by making it universally reputable to bear Arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the performance of Military duties; in fine, by keeping up in Peace "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia," we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country.“
> 
> Yep, he said "bear Arms" was "Military duties".
Click to expand...

That does not help your argument, even if we accept your interpretation by those out-of-context quotes (whivh we don’t) because you forgot about the “keep” part.

Further, in Washington’s first State if the Union Address, he said:

“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.”


There can be NO QUESTION Washington’s intent.  You can try to spin it all day, but to bear means to carry.  To carry guns in defense of your nation is militia service.  It does not take away from out proposed meaning.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State, not natural rights.


This mindless statement, with no authoritative backing, deservrse this level of response:  Nuh uhh!


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mean really, shall I quote the founding fathers EXACT words yet again so that this moron can just ignore it and go on being a dumbfuck?  What a douchebag.  I really hate this poster.  Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> You’re in no position to refer to someone else as a ‘moron’ while exhibiting your own ignorance – in this case you’re ignorant of the fact that the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.
> 
> And the ‘exact words’ of the Framers can be found only in that case law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BS.  The founders made their views on the second amendment quite clear in ALL the papers related to the constitution, the minutes of their discussions about it, etc.
> 
> Are you trying to argue that the founders wanted the government to be in charge of our 2nd amendment right, which was thought by the founders to be a GOD GIVEN or a NATURAL right?
Click to expand...

Only natural rights are, "god given"; our Constitution only secures the rights ceded by us to our elected representatives.


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> A natural right is one that exists before the formation of governments.  The founders knew that the first step towards tyranny is the disarming of the citizens.  They believed that the people had the right to keep and bear arms for hunting, for self defense of themselves, their families, their land, their property, to fight against tyranny and to fight against invasions.  It is all quite clearly stated in the written records of their meetings and discussions and debates.  You have no argument.  All you have is your dishonest twisting of words and definitions.  As soon as a person does a little research into what the founding fathers actually SAID about the 2nd amendment, it is quite clear just what kind of dishonest little jerks you people are.  I don't trust you, and nobody should.  No way in hell would anyone in their right minds give up one of their rights because of you sniveling little cowards.


dear, right wingers; God did not give us our Constitution.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is much, much more than a "disagreement."  This is an assault on one of my freedoms as an American citizen, and that is why I have absolutely NO respect for the anti-rights movement.  They are dishonest.  Pretty much everything they claim is lies and twisting of words and dishonesty.  They are traitors to us, to our country, to our freedom.  They are nothing but cowards.
> 
> Don't trust them, don't believe them.  Do some research into what the founding fathers ACTUALLY believed about the 2nd amendment and how important it was to freedom.  It is one of the most important amendments in the BoR.  There is a good reason why it was #2 on the list.
> 
> The BoR is NOT about government limitations on citizen rights.  The BoR is about the people and their rights and how WE control the government.  WE are the government.  WE are the ones in charge here in America.  The government does not tell us which rights we can practice.  RIGHTS are not granted by governments.  They are recognized by governments.
> 
> 
> 
> It is not just a disagreement, I agree.  It is WAR.
> 
> Freedom lovers,
> 
> You are witnessing the attack on your liberty from within by the communists.  They do not believe in free speech, press, or assembly.  They do not want you to have freedom of religion.  They do not love individual libery.
> 
> All of your rights are are at risk, and they are pushing to rid you of the one freedom that protects all others.
> 
> Is a violent response justified?
Click to expand...

Just right wing, hearsay and soothsay.


----------



## danielpalos

Cellblock2429 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The second amendment and the right to self defense are a couple of the most important FOUNDING PRINCIPLES of this country.  If you don't like freedom, then there are plenty of other countries that have governments that you can gladly surrender your rights to for a false sense of "safety."  If you don't like freedom, then the solution is simple.  MOVE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, where does it mention self defense in the US Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /
> /----/ How about in the first paragraph: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,>>>>>>>>> provide for the common defense,<<<<<< promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
> 
> And "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is a well-known phrase in the United States Declaration of Independence.
> 
> And there is this: The right of self-defense (also called, when it applies to the defense of another, alter ego defense, defense of others, defense of a third person) is the right for people to use reasonable force or defensive force, for the purpose of defending one's own life or the lives of others, including, in certain circumstances, the use of deadly force.[1]
> If a defendant uses defensive force because of a threat of deadly or grievous harm by the other person, or a reasonable perception of such harm, the defendant is said to have a "perfect self-defense" justification.[2] If defendant uses defensive force because of such a perception, and the perception is not reasonable, the defendant may have an "imperfect self-defense" as an excuse.[2]
> 
> Any more questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Common defense is, by definition, something people do TOGETHER..... self defense is, by definition, something you do ALONE.
> 
> But well done on providing evidence that has nothing to do with what I said.
> 
> Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, does self defense make you happier?
> 
> Actually self defense is in the Constitution. The biggest problem here is that those people who demand that self defense is in the Constitution are the very same people who argue in other topics that if it's not written specifically in the US Constitution, it's not valid (and therefore Supreme Court justices are "making law").
> 
> It's in the Constitution in the 10th Amendment.
> 
> Funny how you missed that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ I never understood what motivates the gun grabbers.  Did you know prior to 1964, gun safety classes were taught at many High Schools and students could bring their rifles to class? Nobody had a problem with it back then.  But now Libs are rabid attackers of the 2nd Amendment.  Why?
Click to expand...

Wars on Crime, Drugs, and Terror; that is what happened.


----------



## danielpalos

hunarcy said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does. Well regulated militia of the People are declared Necessary, not the People who are the unorganized militia.
> 
> 
> 
> So, what does it mean to be well-regulated?
> 
> 
> 
> No response odds?  Any guesses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In good working order
Click to expand...

Nope; Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States.


----------



## danielpalos

hunarcy said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I lie? Come off it.
> 
> Bear means LOTS of things.
> 
> bear | Definition of bear in US English by Oxford Dictionaries
> 
> 1) carry
> 2) support
> 3) endure
> 4) give birth to
> 5) turn and proceed in a specific direction
> 
> Now, there are five completely different meanings here. Are you suggesting here that it's ALL OF THEM?
> 
> Simply because it CAN BE endure, it MUST BE endure? No, that's illogical.
> 
> How do we know the difference? Context.
> 
> 1) _‘the warriors bore lances tipped with iron’
> 2) ‘walls that cannot bear a stone vault’
> 3) ‘she bore the pain stoically’
> 4) ‘she bore six daughters’
> 5) ‘bear left and follow the old road’
> _
> Now under your logic this is what happens
> 
> 1) The warriors carried lances tipped with iron
> 2) walls that cannot carry a stone vault
> 3) she carried the pain stoically
> 4) she carried six daughters
> 5) carry left and follow the old road
> 
> The reality is that it's not the case, is it?
> 
> The context of the Second Amendment is "A well regulated militia", not "self defense of individuals"
> 
> Sorry, but you're wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You missed punctuation in school, didn't you?  Quite a few other classes in English too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, what the fuck?
> 
> You have a problem with my English? Which part of my English exactly?
> 
> Punctuation doesn't play a part in all of this at all.
> 
> Whether there are commas or there aren't commas, the Second Amendment still has the "right to...bear arms". The right is still in context of the rest of the Amendment whether there's punctuation or not.
> 
> The context is still with what the founding father said, and they used the term "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service" and "militia duty".
> 
> No matter how you try and bully your way through this, I know what I'm talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No matter how much you deny it, punctuation matters and the emphasis is not on the dependent clause, it is on the independent clause and while have been academians in the past that have tried to torture the Amendment to say what you wish it would say, the right belongs to THE PEOPLE and it shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say punctuation doesn't matter.
> 
> I'm saying in the Second Amendment it doesn't matter. Or more specifically the two commas that may or may not exist.
> 
> You can have "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." as ratified by the states or "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." as was going through Congress.
> 
> The two extra commas don't change anything in the meaning.
> 
> But trying to pretend that this does anything is wrong.
> 
> The first half of the Amendment doesn't do anything. It merely says WHY the right to keep arms and the right to bear arms are important.
> 
> Now, think about this. The Amendment is about the militia. The Amendment says a militia is important. It doesn't say TV is important, it doesn't say breathing is important, it doesn't say a lot of things. But it does say THE MILITIA.
> 
> This is CONTEXT.
> 
> The right to keep arms is the right of individuals to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply of weapons that the US federal govt cannot take away.
> The right to bear arms is the right of individuals to be in the militia so the militia has a ready supply of personnel to use those weapons.
> 
> A militia without guns is not "a well regulated militia", nor is a militia without personnel.
> 
> However a militia without individuals walking around in the streets with their guns is the same as it would be if they were walking about with their guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *sigh*  Here is the context.  The wording of the Second Amendment does emphasize the importance of the militia, but the Right is reserved to the PEOPLE.  If they had wanted the right reserved only to the militia, they could have said the right of the militia to keep and bear arms...they'd already proven they can spell it.   The Second is not ABOUT the militia, it's about the right of the People.
Click to expand...

Only the right wing is that clueless and that Causeless; there is no reservation in the militia; the People are the Militia; you are either, well regulated or you are not.


----------



## danielpalos

turtledude said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I should read it? Apparently this is YOUR argument, and your argument isn't to go get the part of Cruikshank that destroys my argument, but to tell me that it does.
> 
> Bullshit. If it destroyed my argument, you'd have posted it here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) you don't have a law degree
> 
> 2) you don' t understand Cruikshank
> 
> 3) you don't understand the entire foundation for the bill of rights
> 
> 4) you don't understand the concept of natural rights and/or natural law
> 
> 5) you don't understand that natural rights are not dependent on government nor membership in a governmentally controlled militia
> 
> 6) you don' t understand what the founders stated
> 
> 7) you don't understand that the RKBA also applies to people who are neither subject to the call up or eligible to serve in the militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1) you don't know whether I have a law degree or not
> 2) You don't know whether I understand cruikshank or not
> 
> Shit dude, this is more bravado from you. No substance but plenty of complete and utter bullshit.
> 
> Here's the deal.
> 
> I set out my argument using sources to back myself up. You couldn't argue against this
> You claim to have an argument but you won't provide the argument, and then say this is me not understanding something
> You insult all the time.
> 
> The ONLY reason I haven't put your sorry ass on ignore is because I'm having too much fun watching you make a complete spectacle of yourself.
> 
> You haven't said ANYTHING of substance in ANY SINGLE POST. Nothing. A lawyer you are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one with nothing of substance.  Stop personally attacking TurtleDude just because he knows a boatload about this topic than you could ever know, and this is quite obvious to everyone.  You are just an ignorant twat leftist POS who doesn't understand that the PEOPLE run the government and the United States. The people are in charge of the government, not the other way around.  The government doesn't dictate us our rights.  WE dictate to them.  Got it lackey?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That you believe an anonymous message board poster is being ‘truthful’ is both pathetic and amusing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well I know your posts are full of shit and you are a blow hard because you post nonsense.  Chris knows me personally so you should stop pretending what you know and what she doesn't know.  It must make you mad to understand that some of us who have actually taught at law schools can see what a gaping fraud you are
Click to expand...

dude; You have nothing but appeals to ignorance, not the law.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Founders' intent matters, because if we show that they intended  no federal infringement of individual rights to keep and carry arms (or no federal authority), all current federal gun laws are facially unconstitutional, as is the F portion of the BATF.
> 
> Don't like it?   Amend the constitution.  Otherwise, the original text and intent apply, and all federal gun laws should be immediately struck down.
> 
> Likewise, via the 14th Amendment, all State gun laws will be struck down.
> 
> A change REQUIRES a constitutional amendment.  Just because you commies are too pussy to try it, or can't get it done, is not an excuse to fuck up the Constitution and shit on it.


Yes, right winger; Intent matters, that is why they included an Intent and Purpose Clause.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mean really, shall I quote the founding fathers EXACT words yet again so that this moron can just ignore it and go on being a dumbfuck?  What a douchebag.  I really hate this poster.  Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> You’re in no position to refer to someone else as a ‘moron’ while exhibiting your own ignorance – in this case you’re ignorant of the fact that the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.
> 
> And the ‘exact words’ of the Framers can be found only in that case law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hey moron, the exact words of the founders are found in their notes, writings and the constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which I showed to you and you ignored.
> 
> Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> Mr Gerry, founding father of the USA said that "bear arms" was "militia duty".
> 
> Mr Jackson, founding father of the USA said that "bear arms" was "render military service"
> 
> Mr Washington, founding father of the USA and first President of the USA said in Sentiments on a Peace Establishment said:
> 
> 
> "every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America... from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls,"
> 
> "by making it universally reputable to bear Arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the performance of Military duties; in fine, by keeping up in Peace "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia," we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country.“
> 
> Yep, he said "bear Arms" was "Military duties".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That does not help your argument, even if we accept your interpretation by those out-of-context quotes (whivh we don’t) because you forgot about the “keep” part.
> 
> Further, in Washington’s first State if the Union Address, he said:
> 
> “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.”
> 
> 
> There can be NO QUESTION Washington’s intent.  You can try to spin it all day, but to bear means to carry.  To carry guns in defense of your nation is militia service.  It does not take away from out proposed meaning.
Click to expand...


Out of context quotes huh?

What can be MORE IN CONTEXT than a document of House members discussing the Second Amendment?

Carry guns in defense of your nation is militia service. Carry guns because you feel like it in the street IS NOT MILITIA SERVICE and Presser pointed that one out. 


_"We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265]   and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."_

When the Supreme Court says that drilling or parading with arms in cities is NOT PROTECTED by the Second Amendment, then what?

In DC v. Heller the court said:

"None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither _United States v. Cruikshank_, 92 U. S. 542, nor _Presser v. Illinois_, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation."

Yep, they upheld Presser.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State, not natural rights.
> 
> 
> 
> This mindless statement, with no authoritative backing, deservrse this level of response:  Nuh uhh!
Click to expand...

More than yours.  The Second Amendment has an Intent and Purpose clause.

Only the right wing is that, clueless and that Causeless.


----------



## turtledude

frigidweirdo said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Founders' intent matters, because if we show that they intended  no federal infringement of individual rights to keep and carry arms (or no federal authority), all current federal gun laws are facially unconstitutional, as is the F portion of the BATF.
> 
> Don't like it?   Amend the constitution.  Otherwise, the original text and intent apply, and all federal gun laws should be immediately struck down.
> 
> Likewise, via the 14th Amendment, all State gun laws will be struck down.
> 
> A change REQUIRES a constitutional amendment.  Just because you commies are too pussy to try it, or can't get it done, is not an excuse to fuck up the Constitution and shit on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but their intent for the 2A wasn't carry arms. Clearly, their intent for "bear arms" was "render military service" and "militia duty".
Click to expand...


bullshit, and why do you ignore keep and bear?


----------



## turtledude

danielpalos said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> A natural right is one that exists before the formation of governments.  The founders knew that the first step towards tyranny is the disarming of the citizens.  They believed that the people had the right to keep and bear arms for hunting, for self defense of themselves, their families, their land, their property, to fight against tyranny and to fight against invasions.  It is all quite clearly stated in the written records of their meetings and discussions and debates.  You have no argument.  All you have is your dishonest twisting of words and definitions.  As soon as a person does a little research into what the founding fathers actually SAID about the 2nd amendment, it is quite clear just what kind of dishonest little jerks you people are.  I don't trust you, and nobody should.  No way in hell would anyone in their right minds give up one of their rights because of you sniveling little cowards.
> 
> 
> 
> dear, right wingers; God did not give us our Constitution.
Click to expand...


nor did artificial intelligence programs masquerading as posters


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Wars on Crime, Drugs, and Terror; that is what happened.


Who the fuck are you and what have you done with danielpalos?  I agree.


----------



## frigidweirdo

turtledude said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Founders' intent matters, because if we show that they intended  no federal infringement of individual rights to keep and carry arms (or no federal authority), all current federal gun laws are facially unconstitutional, as is the F portion of the BATF.
> 
> Don't like it?   Amend the constitution.  Otherwise, the original text and intent apply, and all federal gun laws should be immediately struck down.
> 
> Likewise, via the 14th Amendment, all State gun laws will be struck down.
> 
> A change REQUIRES a constitutional amendment.  Just because you commies are too pussy to try it, or can't get it done, is not an excuse to fuck up the Constitution and shit on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but their intent for the 2A wasn't carry arms. Clearly, their intent for "bear arms" was "render military service" and "militia duty".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> bullshit, and why do you ignore keep and bear?
Click to expand...


I don't ignore it. This is all you have, trying to claim I ignore it. I'm talking about the right to bear arms. I'm not going to include the Super Bowl winner of 1968, does this mean I'm ignoring it? 

If it's bullshit then why did Mr Gerry, Mr Jackson AND Mr Washington say it was so? 

Who am I going to believe, some keyboard cowboy who claims to be a lawyer, yet doesn't write like one, or three of the Founding Fathers.... hmmm... difficult choice but the Founding Fathers pip you slightly.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> More than yours. The Second Amendment has an Intent and Purpose clause


Can you point to some legal analysis or Court opinion with such a holding?  Because, that is contrary to the plain language of the Amendment, placing too much emphasis on one part, in a fashion that renders the other meaningless.  You are trying to establish an ambiguity out of plain language.  We entertain your bullshit attempts at ambiguity and beat your ass with the founders' own words demonstrating their intent.  You provide NOTHING to the contrary but your catch phrases.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

frigidweirdo said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Founders' intent matters, because if we show that they intended  no federal infringement of individual rights to keep and carry arms (or no federal authority), all current federal gun laws are facially unconstitutional, as is the F portion of the BATF.
> 
> Don't like it?   Amend the constitution.  Otherwise, the original text and intent apply, and all federal gun laws should be immediately struck down.
> 
> Likewise, via the 14th Amendment, all State gun laws will be struck down.
> 
> A change REQUIRES a constitutional amendment.  Just because you commies are too pussy to try it, or can't get it done, is not an excuse to fuck up the Constitution and shit on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but their intent for the 2A wasn't carry arms. Clearly, their intent for "bear arms" was "render military service" and "militia duty".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> bullshit, and why do you ignore keep and bear?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't ignore it. This is all you have, trying to claim I ignore it. I'm talking about the right to bear arms. I'm not going to include the Super Bowl winner of 1968, does this mean I'm ignoring it?
> 
> If it's bullshit then why did Mr Gerry, Mr Jackson AND Mr Washington say it was so?
> 
> Who am I going to believe, some keyboard cowboy who claims to be a lawyer, yet doesn't write like one, or three of the Founding Fathers.... hmmm... difficult choice but the Founding Fathers pip you slightly.
Click to expand...

Even though that argument is demostrably bullshit, and even if we concede that point (which we don't) the Amndment says, "KEEP and bear arms." 

Next you're gonna make up some bullshit about the word keep not meaning FUCKING "KEEP" but some other nonsense.


You communists are so predictable.  You are never getting out guns and starting your Bolshevik overthrow, so you can just give it up now.  We will fucking smoke your commie asses.  In fact, please try.  Please.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Nope; Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States


The wellness of regulation?  


But it says the infringmentness of rightsness, which specifically excludes Congress, and I have provided quotes from both Madison AND Jefferson SPECIFICALLY stating the intentness to prohibit Congress from infringing on the right.  I am fucking tired of posting those quotes, so why don't you respond to them or shut the fuck up.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Founders' intent matters, because if we show that they intended  no federal infringement of individual rights to keep and carry arms (or no federal authority), all current federal gun laws are facially unconstitutional, as is the F portion of the BATF.
> 
> Don't like it?   Amend the constitution.  Otherwise, the original text and intent apply, and all federal gun laws should be immediately struck down.
> 
> Likewise, via the 14th Amendment, all State gun laws will be struck down.
> 
> A change REQUIRES a constitutional amendment.  Just because you commies are too pussy to try it, or can't get it done, is not an excuse to fuck up the Constitution and shit on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but their intent for the 2A wasn't carry arms. Clearly, their intent for "bear arms" was "render military service" and "militia duty".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> bullshit, and why do you ignore keep and bear?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't ignore it. This is all you have, trying to claim I ignore it. I'm talking about the right to bear arms. I'm not going to include the Super Bowl winner of 1968, does this mean I'm ignoring it?
> 
> If it's bullshit then why did Mr Gerry, Mr Jackson AND Mr Washington say it was so?
> 
> Who am I going to believe, some keyboard cowboy who claims to be a lawyer, yet doesn't write like one, or three of the Founding Fathers.... hmmm... difficult choice but the Founding Fathers pip you slightly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even though that argument is demostrably bullshit, and even if we concede that point (which we don't) the Amndment says, "KEEP and bear arms."
> 
> Next you're gonna make up some bullshit about the word keep not meaning FUCKING "KEEP" but some other nonsense.
> 
> 
> You communists are so predictable.  You are never getting out guns and starting your Bolshevik overthrow, so you can just give it up now.  We will fucking smoke your commie asses.  In fact, please try.  Please.
Click to expand...


So which part of my argument is "bullshit"?

The Amendment says "the right to keep and bear arms"

Is this one right or is this two rights?

For example, the First Amendment

"or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Is this one right or two rights? It has "and" in between, but clearly you have the right to peacefully assemble and the right to petition the government. However they only say the term "right" one time.

The 4A

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,"

Do you have a right to be secure in your person? Yes. Do you have a right to be secure in your houses? Yes. Different rights.

Bear arms and keep arms are two different things. So there are two different protections of those rights. However efficiency suggests that you can place them next to each other and use the term "right" one time.

Certainly in the document I have showed you the Founding Fathers were dealing with the right to bear arms and not the right to keep arms.

The drafts of the Second Amendment had a clause which said either "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." or "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

You see that one time they spoke about being compelled to "bear arms", not to "keep and bear arms", and the other compelled to "render military service". 

No, I'm not going to make some bullshit up about keep not meaning keep.

Try this. Stool means two things. A shit, and a wooden backless seat. 

"The doctor told him to sit on the stool", does context tell you that "stool" is a shit, or a wooden seat? I mean you have doctor in there, doctors look at stools all the time, so much be shit right? Or maybe not. Who would sit on a shit? So we're going to use context to understand.

"bear" means lots of different things. However it's CLEAR (unless you have your head up your ass) from lots of documents from that time, that "bear arms" as a term, means "render military service" and "militia duty".


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

frigidweirdo said:


> Yep, they upheld Presser.




do you even know what the Court is taling about?  _Heller_ was a confirmation that we have an individual right.  All the Court was saying is that _Presser _did not prevent such a ruling that WE HAVE AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT.  

To what?  

KEEP

Keep

Say it with me....Keeeeeep.

Are you going to give me a lesson on the meaning of KEEP????


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

frigidweirdo said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Founders' intent matters, because if we show that they intended  no federal infringement of individual rights to keep and carry arms (or no federal authority), all current federal gun laws are facially unconstitutional, as is the F portion of the BATF.
> 
> Don't like it?   Amend the constitution.  Otherwise, the original text and intent apply, and all federal gun laws should be immediately struck down.
> 
> Likewise, via the 14th Amendment, all State gun laws will be struck down.
> 
> A change REQUIRES a constitutional amendment.  Just because you commies are too pussy to try it, or can't get it done, is not an excuse to fuck up the Constitution and shit on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but their intent for the 2A wasn't carry arms. Clearly, their intent for "bear arms" was "render military service" and "militia duty".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> bullshit, and why do you ignore keep and bear?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't ignore it. This is all you have, trying to claim I ignore it. I'm talking about the right to bear arms. I'm not going to include the Super Bowl winner of 1968, does this mean I'm ignoring it?
> 
> If it's bullshit then why did Mr Gerry, Mr Jackson AND Mr Washington say it was so?
> 
> Who am I going to believe, some keyboard cowboy who claims to be a lawyer, yet doesn't write like one, or three of the Founding Fathers.... hmmm... difficult choice but the Founding Fathers pip you slightly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even though that argument is demostrably bullshit, and even if we concede that point (which we don't) the Amndment says, "KEEP and bear arms."
> 
> Next you're gonna make up some bullshit about the word keep not meaning FUCKING "KEEP" but some other nonsense.
> 
> 
> You communists are so predictable.  You are never getting out guns and starting your Bolshevik overthrow, so you can just give it up now.  We will fucking smoke your commie asses.  In fact, please try.  Please.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So which part of my argument is "bullshit"?
> 
> The Amendment says "the right to keep and bear arms"
> 
> Is this one right or is this two rights?
> 
> For example, the First Amendment
> 
> "or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
> 
> Is this one right or two rights? It has "and" in between, but clearly you have the right to peacefully assemble and the right to petition the government. However they only say the term "right" one time.
> 
> The 4A
> 
> "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,"
> 
> Do you have a right to be secure in your person? Yes. Do you have a right to be secure in your houses? Yes. Different rights.
> 
> Bear arms and keep arms are two different things. So there are two different protections of those rights. However efficiency suggests that you can place them next to each other and use the term "right" one time.
> 
> Certainly in the document I have showed you the Founding Fathers were dealing with the right to bear arms and not the right to keep arms.
> 
> The drafts of the Second Amendment had a clause which said either "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." or "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
> 
> You see that one time they spoke about being compelled to "bear arms", not to "keep and bear arms", and the other compelled to "render military service".
> 
> No, I'm not going to make some bullshit up about keep not meaning keep.
> 
> Try this. Stool means two things. A shit, and a wooden backless seat.
> 
> "The doctor told him to sit on the stool", does context tell you that "stool" is a shit, or a wooden seat? I mean you have doctor in there, doctors look at stools all the time, so much be shit right? Or maybe not. Who would sit on a shit? So we're going to use context to understand.
> 
> "bear" means lots of different things. However it's CLEAR (unless you have your head up your ass) from lots of documents from that time, that "bear arms" as a term, means "render military service" and "militia duty".
Click to expand...

KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP

_Heller_ confirmed the individual right to KEEP arms.

You are trying to meld the term "keep" with the word "bear" but if you do that,  the _Heller_ holding makes the right to "bear" an individual right, requiring one to keep arms in order to do so.  
 
The mental gynastics is glorious.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

If the argument is that we do not have the right to carry arms, keeping them is rather pointless, no?  Of course, we have them for the purpose of defending our nation.  We have never surrendered that right and duty.  A standing army does not render obsolete the need of armed citizens, as my Washington quote explicitly states.  Washington was actually arguing for a standing army to supplement the people.  

Citizens bearing arms in defense of our nation is STILL a necessity.  

No matter what, a holding that a local law prohibiting armed mobs from randomly marching in the street is not an infringement on the right, but when you have communists trying to grab all guns and prevent KEEPING them, we have to push back.


----------



## ChrisL

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, but their intent for the 2A wasn't carry arms. Clearly, their intent for "bear arms" was "render military service" and "militia duty".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit, and why do you ignore keep and bear?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't ignore it. This is all you have, trying to claim I ignore it. I'm talking about the right to bear arms. I'm not going to include the Super Bowl winner of 1968, does this mean I'm ignoring it?
> 
> If it's bullshit then why did Mr Gerry, Mr Jackson AND Mr Washington say it was so?
> 
> Who am I going to believe, some keyboard cowboy who claims to be a lawyer, yet doesn't write like one, or three of the Founding Fathers.... hmmm... difficult choice but the Founding Fathers pip you slightly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even though that argument is demostrably bullshit, and even if we concede that point (which we don't) the Amndment says, "KEEP and bear arms."
> 
> Next you're gonna make up some bullshit about the word keep not meaning FUCKING "KEEP" but some other nonsense.
> 
> 
> You communists are so predictable.  You are never getting out guns and starting your Bolshevik overthrow, so you can just give it up now.  We will fucking smoke your commie asses.  In fact, please try.  Please.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So which part of my argument is "bullshit"?
> 
> The Amendment says "the right to keep and bear arms"
> 
> Is this one right or is this two rights?
> 
> For example, the First Amendment
> 
> "or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
> 
> Is this one right or two rights? It has "and" in between, but clearly you have the right to peacefully assemble and the right to petition the government. However they only say the term "right" one time.
> 
> The 4A
> 
> "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,"
> 
> Do you have a right to be secure in your person? Yes. Do you have a right to be secure in your houses? Yes. Different rights.
> 
> Bear arms and keep arms are two different things. So there are two different protections of those rights. However efficiency suggests that you can place them next to each other and use the term "right" one time.
> 
> Certainly in the document I have showed you the Founding Fathers were dealing with the right to bear arms and not the right to keep arms.
> 
> The drafts of the Second Amendment had a clause which said either "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." or "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
> 
> You see that one time they spoke about being compelled to "bear arms", not to "keep and bear arms", and the other compelled to "render military service".
> 
> No, I'm not going to make some bullshit up about keep not meaning keep.
> 
> Try this. Stool means two things. A shit, and a wooden backless seat.
> 
> "The doctor told him to sit on the stool", does context tell you that "stool" is a shit, or a wooden seat? I mean you have doctor in there, doctors look at stools all the time, so much be shit right? Or maybe not. Who would sit on a shit? So we're going to use context to understand.
> 
> "bear" means lots of different things. However it's CLEAR (unless you have your head up your ass) from lots of documents from that time, that "bear arms" as a term, means "render military service" and "militia duty".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP
> 
> _Heller_ confirmed the individual right to KEEP arms.
> 
> You are trying to meld the term "keep" with the word "bear" but if you do that,  the _Heller_ holding makes the right to "bear" an individual right, requiring one to keep arms in order to do so.
> 
> The mental gynastics is glorious.
Click to expand...


Maybe keep doesn't really mean keep if you are a leftist.


----------



## turtledude

the anti gun morons' leader is at it again

WATCH: Joe Biden Says Man Who Stopped Texas Church Shooter Never Should Have Had That Gun


----------



## emilynghiem

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mean really, shall I quote the founding fathers EXACT words yet again so that this moron can just ignore it and go on being a dumbfuck?  What a douchebag.  I really hate this poster.  Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> You’re in no position to refer to someone else as a ‘moron’ while exhibiting your own ignorance – in this case you’re ignorant of the fact that the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.
> 
> And the ‘exact words’ of the Framers can be found only in that case law.
Click to expand...

Whoa C_Clayton_Jones
while I agree with you on admonishing ChrisL for the namecalling, that is not only unfair and hurtful to the person attacked but distracting to the argument and discussion, 
You've mixed in a similar attack on ChrisL for supposedly being
"ignorant"
that the Constitution depends on case law determined by the Supreme Court.

Both your view and the one that Conservative Constitutionalists defend
(ie limited govt where the Natural Laws and Rights are inherent
by human nature, and are made "statutory" through the Constitution,
but remain INALIENABLE and do NOT depend on govt to exist)
are BOTH political beliefs.

If you don't see that your take on law is equally a belief
as is the Constitutional belief in limited govt and laws
as social contracts being  based on CONSENT of the people,
then you are also NOT in a position to call ChrisL ignorant either.

It seems people on both sides tend to ignore and discount each
other's right to their own beliefs on this!

But THANKS C_Clayton_Jones 
for at least using a proper description "ignorant"
and avoiding namecalling which is a step up;
though I DON'T think that is a fair call either,
just because people are of different beliefs politically.

Two wrongs don't make a right.
But at least you didn't namecall so thanks for showing more respect!


----------



## emilynghiem

ChrisL said:


> A natural right is one that exists before the formation of governments.  The founders knew that the first step towards tyranny is the disarming of the citizens.  They believed that the people had the right to keep and bear arms for hunting, for self defense of themselves, their families, their land, their property, to fight against tyranny and to fight against invasions.  It is all quite clearly stated in the written records of their meetings and discussions and debates.  You have no argument.  All you have is your dishonest twisting of words and definitions.  As soon as a person does a little research into what the founding fathers actually SAID about the 2nd amendment, it is quite clear just what kind of dishonest little jerks you people are.  I don't trust you, and nobody should.  No way in hell would anyone in their right minds give up one of their rights because of you sniveling little cowards.



Yes and no ChrisL
Yes we have natural rights to free will and consent, due process,
and "right of defense" but with the right to bear arms,
this becomes more politically tied to the process of law enforcement and has added responsibilities that aren't naturally occurring.

Speech, free will, life these are naturally occurring.

When it comes to arms, these are man made means of defense.
The right to bear arms cannot be taken out of context with the
rest of the Constitution that defines other rights freedoms and protections
that cannot be violated while invoking the right to bear arms.

So while I agree with you that the right of defense, the right
of security, etc. are naturally occurring, I would argue
that the right to bear arms is tied into the rest of the Constitution
and the process of law enforcement and due process.

It cannot be invoked outside the context of defending and upholding the law
which depends on the consent of the people and parties to that contract.

So it does stem from natural rights, but guns/firearms are part of manmade society
and thus go into further implications than basic principles of human nature
that exist and operate independent of physical circumstances and factors like guns.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, they upheld Presser.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> do you even know what the Court is taling about?  _Heller_ was a confirmation that we have an individual right.  All the Court was saying is that _Presser _did not prevent such a ruling that WE HAVE AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT.
> 
> To what?
> 
> KEEP
> 
> Keep
> 
> Say it with me....Keeeeeep.
> 
> Are you going to give me a lesson on the meaning of KEEP????
Click to expand...


Yes, I know what the Court is talking about. I also know what it means to reaffirm a past court case. 

Think about this. The court was talking about an individual argument for the Second Amendment. 

" 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53."

This is what the Supreme Court says, it says that you have a right to possess a firearm unconnected with militia service. Here's their little slight of hand. They then say "and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes", which basically means that you can use your gun if the law says so. Self defense exists as a right, just not in the 2A, you can use a gun (2nd Amendment) to defend yourself (not Second Amendment but elsewhere).

What they've done is make the gun nuts think one thing, when actually all they've said is "you can use your gun lawfully", which is blatantly obvious. 

Now, back to the point, they say you can use your arms for "traditionally lawful purposes" and that the Presser case doesn't refute "the individual-rights interpretation." which is what they're talking about. Which means when Presser says "We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms." Therefore the Court is saying that drilling or parading with arms in cities and towns is not protected by the Second Amendment. 

And it said keep and it said "use arms for lawful purposes". Now, carrying guns around, they just said it's not a right protected by the Second Amendment. Boom.


----------



## westwall

emilynghiem said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> A natural right is one that exists before the formation of governments.  The founders knew that the first step towards tyranny is the disarming of the citizens.  They believed that the people had the right to keep and bear arms for hunting, for self defense of themselves, their families, their land, their property, to fight against tyranny and to fight against invasions.  It is all quite clearly stated in the written records of their meetings and discussions and debates.  You have no argument.  All you have is your dishonest twisting of words and definitions.  As soon as a person does a little research into what the founding fathers actually SAID about the 2nd amendment, it is quite clear just what kind of dishonest little jerks you people are.  I don't trust you, and nobody should.  No way in hell would anyone in their right minds give up one of their rights because of you sniveling little cowards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and no ChrisL
> Yes we have natural rights to free will and consent, due process,
> and "right of defense" but with the right to bear arms,
> this becomes more politically tied to the process of law enforcement and has added responsibilities that aren't naturally occurring.
> 
> Speech, free will, life these are naturally occurring.
> 
> When it comes to arms, these are man made means of defense.
> The right to bear arms cannot be taken out of context with the
> rest of the Constitution that defines other rights freedoms and protections
> that cannot be violated while invoking the right to bear arms.
> 
> So while I agree with you that the right of defense, the right
> of security, etc. are naturally occurring, I would argue
> that the right to bear arms is tied into the rest of the Constitution
> and the process of law enforcement and due process.
> 
> It cannot be invoked outside the context of defending and upholding the law
> which depends on the consent of the people and parties to that contract.
> 
> So it does stem from natural rights, but guns/firearms are part of manmade society
> and thus go into further implications than basic principles of human nature
> that exist and operate independent of physical circumstances and factors like guns.
Click to expand...







Incorrect.  The COTUS doesn't grant any Right.  It merely enumerates those Rights that we are born with.  The Bill of Rights is nine limitations on what government can do and one final option.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, but their intent for the 2A wasn't carry arms. Clearly, their intent for "bear arms" was "render military service" and "militia duty".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit, and why do you ignore keep and bear?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't ignore it. This is all you have, trying to claim I ignore it. I'm talking about the right to bear arms. I'm not going to include the Super Bowl winner of 1968, does this mean I'm ignoring it?
> 
> If it's bullshit then why did Mr Gerry, Mr Jackson AND Mr Washington say it was so?
> 
> Who am I going to believe, some keyboard cowboy who claims to be a lawyer, yet doesn't write like one, or three of the Founding Fathers.... hmmm... difficult choice but the Founding Fathers pip you slightly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even though that argument is demostrably bullshit, and even if we concede that point (which we don't) the Amndment says, "KEEP and bear arms."
> 
> Next you're gonna make up some bullshit about the word keep not meaning FUCKING "KEEP" but some other nonsense.
> 
> 
> You communists are so predictable.  You are never getting out guns and starting your Bolshevik overthrow, so you can just give it up now.  We will fucking smoke your commie asses.  In fact, please try.  Please.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So which part of my argument is "bullshit"?
> 
> The Amendment says "the right to keep and bear arms"
> 
> Is this one right or is this two rights?
> 
> For example, the First Amendment
> 
> "or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
> 
> Is this one right or two rights? It has "and" in between, but clearly you have the right to peacefully assemble and the right to petition the government. However they only say the term "right" one time.
> 
> The 4A
> 
> "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,"
> 
> Do you have a right to be secure in your person? Yes. Do you have a right to be secure in your houses? Yes. Different rights.
> 
> Bear arms and keep arms are two different things. So there are two different protections of those rights. However efficiency suggests that you can place them next to each other and use the term "right" one time.
> 
> Certainly in the document I have showed you the Founding Fathers were dealing with the right to bear arms and not the right to keep arms.
> 
> The drafts of the Second Amendment had a clause which said either "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." or "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
> 
> You see that one time they spoke about being compelled to "bear arms", not to "keep and bear arms", and the other compelled to "render military service".
> 
> No, I'm not going to make some bullshit up about keep not meaning keep.
> 
> Try this. Stool means two things. A shit, and a wooden backless seat.
> 
> "The doctor told him to sit on the stool", does context tell you that "stool" is a shit, or a wooden seat? I mean you have doctor in there, doctors look at stools all the time, so much be shit right? Or maybe not. Who would sit on a shit? So we're going to use context to understand.
> 
> "bear" means lots of different things. However it's CLEAR (unless you have your head up your ass) from lots of documents from that time, that "bear arms" as a term, means "render military service" and "militia duty".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP
> 
> _Heller_ confirmed the individual right to KEEP arms.
> 
> You are trying to meld the term "keep" with the word "bear" but if you do that,  the _Heller_ holding makes the right to "bear" an individual right, requiring one to keep arms in order to do so.
> 
> The mental gynastics is glorious.
Click to expand...


Well, again, Heller said " 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53."

Which is a little more than just keep, right? 

No, actually I'm not trying to meld the term "keep" with the world "bear" at all. In fact I've been accused (I forget by whom) that I was doing the exact opposite recently. There are two rights, the right to bear and the right to keep. I've been clearly talking about the right to BEAR arms here, rather than keep, so how the hell you get into "mental gynastics" about saying I'm doing something I've clearly not been doing for the whole time, is down right ridiculous.

Heller upheld the Presser court case. This is a case which says that parading with arms in the street is not protected by either the right to keep nor the right to bear arms. This case basically said there is no right to carry arms. 

No one has ever struck this case down. Not Heller, Heller actually said the Presser case is still very much the law of the land.


----------



## westwall

frigidweirdo said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, they upheld Presser.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> do you even know what the Court is taling about?  _Heller_ was a confirmation that we have an individual right.  All the Court was saying is that _Presser _did not prevent such a ruling that WE HAVE AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT.
> 
> To what?
> 
> KEEP
> 
> Keep
> 
> Say it with me....Keeeeeep.
> 
> Are you going to give me a lesson on the meaning of KEEP????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I know what the Court is talking about. I also know what it means to reaffirm a past court case.
> 
> Think about this. The court was talking about an individual argument for the Second Amendment.
> 
> " 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53."
> 
> This is what the Supreme Court says, it says that you have a right to possess a firearm unconnected with militia service. Here's their little slight of hand. They then say "and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes", which basically means that you can use your gun if the law says so. Self defense exists as a right, just not in the 2A, you can use a gun (2nd Amendment) to defend yourself (not Second Amendment but elsewhere).
> 
> What they've done is make the gun nuts think one thing, when actually all they've said is "you can use your gun lawfully", which is blatantly obvious.
> 
> Now, back to the point, they say you can use your arms for "traditionally lawful purposes" and that the Presser case doesn't refute "the individual-rights interpretation." which is what they're talking about. Which means when Presser says "We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms." Therefore the Court is saying that drilling or parading with arms in cities and towns is not protected by the Second Amendment.
> 
> And it said keep and it said "use arms for lawful purposes". Now, carrying guns around, they just said it's not a right protected by the Second Amendment. Boom.
Click to expand...










Here is the entire decision for US V MILLER.  It shows quite plainly that the 2nd Amendment is to provide for CIVILIANS to show up when called with MILITARY WEAPONS.  


"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. _Aymette v. State,_ 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.


"With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they

Page 307 U. S. 179

were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia -- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."


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


----------



## emilynghiem

frigidweirdo said:


> Basically your argument appears to be this.
> 
> If you have one person saying the sun is the sun, and another person saying the sun is his head, then I should be willing to accommodate that sun is both the sun and his head.
> 
> Er... what? clearly the person who thinks the sun is his head is wrong.
> 
> I also know that people who say the right to bear arms is the right to carry arms are wrong. It's that simple. I'm not going to accommodate someone's made up belief simply so they can push their own agenda, when they're clearly wrong. Sorry.
> 
> The "truth" on the other side is made up because it's convenient. It has NO BASIS IN REALITY.
> 
> Every time I present FACTS, they get IGNORED and instead they post stuff that has no relevance at all.
> 
> Take the person who posted lots of Founding Father quotes about the right to keep arms to prove that I was wrong about the right to bear arms. Er.... what? It's like saying this pear is nice, therefore that apple has to be nice too. Logical?



Hi frigidweirdo
in this case I'd guess at least 70% of the historian and legal arguments I've seen
are in favor of the "individual right to bear arms" interpretation
being the equivalent of saying the sun is the sun
and believe that the "militia" interpretation
is the equivalent of saying sun means your head.

And less than 30% of the historical and legal arguments I've read
are used to defend what you are saying that
the "militia" argument is the right one and the other is fabricated
for convenience, belief, preference, or some other political or personal agenda
and not based on historical records/facts.

Can I ask you why you reject the following two arguments
1. the whole context and reason for the Constitution and Bill of Rights
was to ensure there wasn't govt oppression of people, given that
the War for Independence included the very dangerous tactic of
the govt in power confiscating the arms from citizens. The big fight
that still remains over the Constitution is centralized govt vs.
rights of people and states not to be overruled and abused by
a greater collective authority and force which is the nature of govt
to become corrupted.
So this whole historical background, culture and reasoning behind
having Constitutional limits and checks on govt SPEAKS to NOT
giving up power of the people to organized govt. So the idea is not
to let the federal govt control the arms, and this includes organized
militia not getting so close to the govt it becomes part of that. So the
check on that is the people who retain right to bear arms to prevent that.

2. Are you including James Madison's arguments about the importance
of the right to bear arms and individual rights?
Are you saying this was cut out of the 2nd Amendment where it only
applies to organized militia and completely leaves out the arguments
for individual rights?

That's where you lose me. Given the fact that
1. America just fought a war and only succeeded because the people both individually and fighting as organized soldiers were able to access and use weapons against greater armed forces.
2. Advocates who didn't trust govt, and always wanted the people to have check against govt abuses would NEVER agree to concessions that took power from the people and gave it to govt without consent and democratic process.

I am very open minded to including what you believe to be the truth
equally with the majority who wouldn't, and who would say YOU are the
one saying the sun is your head; but as open minded as I am, you cannot
convince me that these Founders and Revolutionaries would ever agree
to give up their right to bear arms to organized govt to regulate through militia
as a requirement.

And if you cannot convince me, I imagine the rest will never change their
beliefs that are even more exclusive and closed, with no room at all for
your arguments although my approach can include yours without issue.

So you are dealing with the majority arguments saying
you are the anomaly or discrepancy arguing your head is the sun
while they are equally confident as you are that they are saying the sun is the sun.

Given the tenacity and battles fought over federalism and how to
prevent the same oppression from overregulating the people,
you will have a hard time convincing me much more convincing others
that these people would ever agree to your interpretation.

As hard as people reject that now, the wounds of war
and fear of being disarmed by an overbearing govt
were even more magnified back then. If you can't
convince people now, how could you me or anyone have convinced
the people then to give up their right to bear arms to
govt and militia regulations. Sorry but those beliefs are too strongly
embedded, and if people won't give them up now,
they certainly wouldn't do it back then when the risk of
being overpowered was still fresh in fueling great rifts over
this same historical issue.


----------



## emilynghiem

danielpalos said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> A natural right is one that exists before the formation of governments.  The founders knew that the first step towards tyranny is the disarming of the citizens.  They believed that the people had the right to keep and bear arms for hunting, for self defense of themselves, their families, their land, their property, to fight against tyranny and to fight against invasions.  It is all quite clearly stated in the written records of their meetings and discussions and debates.  You have no argument.  All you have is your dishonest twisting of words and definitions.  As soon as a person does a little research into what the founding fathers actually SAID about the 2nd amendment, it is quite clear just what kind of dishonest little jerks you people are.  I don't trust you, and nobody should.  No way in hell would anyone in their right minds give up one of their rights because of you sniveling little cowards.
> 
> 
> 
> dear, right wingers; God did not give us our Constitution.
Click to expand...

Dear danielpalos
What this means is 
a. natural laws that exist by human nature, and by how our conscience works as social creature, are inherent and self-existent. in secular terms this comes from NATURE in religious terms it comes from GOD. if you take GOD to mean forces of life or nature, that's the same source these "human rights and laws" come from regardless which term you use
b. The Constitution attempted to put into written words and social contracts or laws
the PRINCIPLES and concepts that naturally exist when trying to define just and peaceful relations between people for law and order

This is like the "laws of physics" that exist by nature of the universe and energy/matter in the world; but man's language in writing these "laws" down in SYMBOLS or words
becomes man made language for the laws we didn't make up either.

What ChrisL and I are both saying is that even
without manmade language for the laws,
the PRINCIPLES behind the laws exist on their own.
That just comes with the way human conscience
and relations work. We all want freedom, peace justice security.
So the laws we write are to express and defend those
naturally occurring principles and concepts that are
inherent in human nature, regardless how we write or express those in words or laws.


----------



## frigidweirdo

emilynghiem said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Basically your argument appears to be this.
> 
> If you have one person saying the sun is the sun, and another person saying the sun is his head, then I should be willing to accommodate that sun is both the sun and his head.
> 
> Er... what? clearly the person who thinks the sun is his head is wrong.
> 
> I also know that people who say the right to bear arms is the right to carry arms are wrong. It's that simple. I'm not going to accommodate someone's made up belief simply so they can push their own agenda, when they're clearly wrong. Sorry.
> 
> The "truth" on the other side is made up because it's convenient. It has NO BASIS IN REALITY.
> 
> Every time I present FACTS, they get IGNORED and instead they post stuff that has no relevance at all.
> 
> Take the person who posted lots of Founding Father quotes about the right to keep arms to prove that I was wrong about the right to bear arms. Er.... what? It's like saying this pear is nice, therefore that apple has to be nice too. Logical?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi frigidweirdo
> in this case I'd say about 60-70% of the historian and legal arguments
> are in favor of the "individual right to bear arms" interpretation
> being the equivalent of saying the sun is the sun
> and believe that the "militia" interpretation
> is the equivalent of saying sun means your head.
> 
> And only 30-40% of the historical and legal arguments
> are used to defend what you are saying that
> the "militia" argument is the right one and the other is fabricated
> for convenience, belief, preference, or some other political or personal agenda
> and not based on historical records/facts.
> 
> Can I ask you why you reject the following two arguments
> 1. the whole context and reason for the Constitution and Bill of Rights
> was to ensure there wasn't govt oppression of people, given that
> the War for Independence included the very dangerous tactic of
> the govt in power confiscating the arms from citizens. The big fight
> that still remains over the Constitution is centralized govt vs.
> rights of people and states not to be overruled and abused by
> a greater collective authority and force which is the nature of govt
> to become corrupted.
> So this whole historical background, culture and reasoning behind
> having Constitutional limits and checks on govt SPEAKS to NOT
> giving up power of the people to organized govt. So the idea is not
> to let the federal govt control the arms, and this includes organized
> militia not getting so close to the govt it becomes part of that. So the
> check on that is the people who retain right to bear arms to prevent that.
> 
> 2. Are you including James Madison's arguments about the importance
> of the right to bear arms and individual rights?
> Are you saying this was cut out of the 2nd Amendment where it only
> applies to organized militia and completely leaves out the arguments
> for individual rights?
> 
> That's where you lose me. Given the fact that
> 1. America just fought a war and only succeeded because the people both individually and fighting as organized soldiers were able to access and use weapons against greater armed forces.
> 2. Advocates who didn't trust govt, and always wanted the people to have check against govt abuses would NEVER agree to concessions that took power from the people and gave it to govt without consent and democratic process.
> 
> I am very open minded to including what you believe to be the truth
> equally with the majority who wouldn't, and who would say YOU are the
> one saying the sun is your head; but as open minded as I am, you cannot
> convince me that these Founders and Revolutionaries would ever agree
> to give up their right to bear arms to organized govt to regulate through militia
> as a requirement.
> 
> And if you cannot convince me, I imagine the rest will never change their
> beliefs that are even more exclusive and closed, with no room at all for
> your arguments although my approach can include yours without issue.
> 
> So you are dealing with the majority arguments saying
> you are the anomaly or discrepancy arguing your head is the sun
> while they are equally confident as you are that they are saying the sun is the sun.
> 
> Given the tenacity and battles fought over federalism and how to
> prevent the same oppression from overregulating the people,
> you will have a hard time convincing me much more convincing others
> that these people would ever agree to your interpretation.
> 
> As hard as people reject that now, the wounds of war
> and fear of being disarmed by an overbearing govt
> were even more magnified back then. If you can't
> convince people now, how could you me or anyone have convinced
> the people then to give up their right to bear arms to
> govt and militia regulations. Sorry but those beliefs are too strongly
> embedded, and if people won't give them up now,
> they certainly wouldn't do it back then when the risk of
> being overpowered was still fresh in fueling great rifts over
> this same historical issue.
Click to expand...



I'm not really sure why you've brought up the individual v. collective argument. Is anyone arguing the collective argument? I'm certainly not.

So you've written a whole long post on something that has absolutely nothing to do with what I've been speaking about. So I'm afraid I can't really respond other than tell you what I've already said.


----------



## emilynghiem

frigidweirdo said:


> Well, again, Heller said " 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53."
> .....
> Heller upheld the Presser court case. This is a case which says that parading with arms in the street is not protected by either the right to keep nor the right to bear arms. This case basically said there is no right to carry arms.
> 
> No one has ever struck this case down. Not Heller, Heller actually said the Presser case is still very much the law of the land.



Dear frigidweirdo 
A. if you are citing Heller as above, doesn't that reinforce the individual right interpretation?
Or is your argument that this interpretation came later
and is not the original intent?

B. as for Presser saying there is no right to carry arme and this is the law of the land
because it hasn't been struck down

what about new laws like conceal and carry.

new laws can be passed and that's not the same as striking down previous court cases.

Also regardless of what laws are written or rulings are made,
I've heard of cases where local sheriffs refuse to enforce certain gun laws
they deem to be unconstitutional and against their oath to uphold the law.

So just because a ruling hasn't been challenged or struck down yet,
doesn't mean it bears the same weight as the rest of "the law of the land"
'


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

emilynghiem said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, again, Heller said " 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53."
> .....
> Heller upheld the Presser court case. This is a case which says that parading with arms in the street is not protected by either the right to keep nor the right to bear arms. This case basically said there is no right to carry arms.
> 
> No one has ever struck this case down. Not Heller, Heller actually said the Presser case is still very much the law of the land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo
> A. if you are citing Heller as above, doesn't that reinforce the individual right interpretation?
> Or is your argument that this interpretation came later
> and is not the original intent?
> 
> B. as for Presser saying there is no right to carry arme and this is the law of the land
> because it hasn't been struck down
> 
> what about new laws like conceal and carry.
> 
> new laws can be passed and that's not the same as striking down previous court cases.
> 
> Also regardless of what laws are written or rulings are made,
> I've heard of cases where local sheriffs refuse to enforce certain gun laws
> they deem to be unconstitutional and against their oath to uphold the law.
> 
> So just because a ruling hasn't been challenged or struck down yet,
> doesn't mean it bears the same weight as the rest of "the law of the land"
> '
Click to expand...

Wrong.

Laws and measures are presumed to be Constitutional until such time as the Supreme Court rules otherwise, and are considered to be the law of the land. (see _US v. Morrison_ (2000))

Any local official who refuses to enforce a just and proper law is in violation of the Constitution and his oath of office. (see _Cooper v. Aaron_ (1958))

Local authorities don’t have the authority to ‘deem’ any measure Constitutional or un-Constitutional – their opinion as to the constitutionality of a law they’re entrusted to enforce is irrelevant.


----------



## turtledude

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Wrong.
> 
> Laws and measures are presumed to be Constitutional until such time as the Supreme Court rules otherwise, and are considered to be the law of the land. (see _US v. Morrison_ (2000))
> 
> Any local official who refuses to enforce *a just and proper law *is in violation of the Constitution and his oath of office. (see _Cooper v. Aaron_ (1958))
> 
> Local authorities don’t have the authority to ‘deem’ any measure Constitutional or un-Constitutional – their opinion as to the constitutionality of a law they’re entrusted to enforce is irrelevant.



that's the catch. some laws are patently unjust and improper


----------



## frigidweirdo

emilynghiem said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, again, Heller said " 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53."
> .....
> Heller upheld the Presser court case. This is a case which says that parading with arms in the street is not protected by either the right to keep nor the right to bear arms. This case basically said there is no right to carry arms.
> 
> No one has ever struck this case down. Not Heller, Heller actually said the Presser case is still very much the law of the land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo
> A. if you are citing Heller as above, doesn't that reinforce the individual right interpretation?
> Or is your argument that this interpretation came later
> and is not the original intent?
> 
> B. as for Presser saying there is no right to carry arme and this is the law of the land
> because it hasn't been struck down
> 
> what about new laws like conceal and carry.
> 
> new laws can be passed and that's not the same as striking down previous court cases.
> 
> Also regardless of what laws are written or rulings are made,
> I've heard of cases where local sheriffs refuse to enforce certain gun laws
> they deem to be unconstitutional and against their oath to uphold the law.
> 
> So just because a ruling hasn't been challenged or struck down yet,
> doesn't mean it bears the same weight as the rest of "the law of the land"
> '
Click to expand...


I'm citing Heller, as I explained before, because Heller uses the Presser case in which they said: "We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

This therefore states that carrying guns around with you is NOT protected by the Second Amendment. 

The person I was talking to was basically saying that Heller only deals with the right to KEEP arms and not the right to bear arms, which is only half true as in the Heller case they basically tried to expand on the right to keep arms. 

No, Presser says there is no CONSTITUTIONAL protection to carry arms. Laws and the Constitution are two completely different things. You can legally breathe, but there's nothing in the Constitution that protects your breathing. You can watch TV, nothing in the Constitution protects that. 

Carry and conceal permits actually PROVE there is no right to carry arms, because if there were, then there would be no need for permits, and yet the NRA backs carry and conceal permits. Why? Because they KNOW that there is no right to carry arms and they'd never send a case forwards because they know it would get rejected and then people would know there's no right to carry arms. The NRA are happy to let people wallow in their ignorance on this one. 

Well, actually, yes, if a ruling hasn't been struck down, then the Federal Courts should follow precedent.


----------



## turtledude

frigidweirdo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, again, Heller said " 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53."
> .....
> Heller upheld the Presser court case. This is a case which says that parading with arms in the street is not protected by either the right to keep nor the right to bear arms. This case basically said there is no right to carry arms.
> 
> No one has ever struck this case down. Not Heller, Heller actually said the Presser case is still very much the law of the land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo
> A. if you are citing Heller as above, doesn't that reinforce the individual right interpretation?
> Or is your argument that this interpretation came later
> and is not the original intent?
> 
> B. as for Presser saying there is no right to carry arme and this is the law of the land
> because it hasn't been struck down
> 
> what about new laws like conceal and carry.
> 
> new laws can be passed and that's not the same as striking down previous court cases.
> 
> Also regardless of what laws are written or rulings are made,
> I've heard of cases where local sheriffs refuse to enforce certain gun laws
> they deem to be unconstitutional and against their oath to uphold the law.
> 
> So just because a ruling hasn't been challenged or struck down yet,
> doesn't mean it bears the same weight as the rest of "the law of the land"
> '
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm citing Heller, as I explained before, because Heller uses the Presser case in which they said: "We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
> 
> This therefore states that carrying guns around with you is NOT protected by the Second Amendment.
> 
> The person I was talking to was basically saying that Heller only deals with the right to KEEP arms and not the right to bear arms, which is only half true as in the Heller case they basically tried to expand on the right to keep arms.
> 
> No, Presser says there is no CONSTITUTIONAL protection to carry arms. Laws and the Constitution are two completely different things. You can legally breathe, but there's nothing in the Constitution that protects your breathing. You can watch TV, nothing in the Constitution protects that.
> 
> Carry and conceal permits actually PROVE there is no right to carry arms, because if there were, then there would be no need for permits, and yet the NRA backs carry and conceal permits. Why? Because they KNOW that there is no right to carry arms and they'd never send a case forwards because they know it would get rejected and then people would know there's no right to carry arms. The NRA are happy to let people wallow in their ignorance on this one.
> 
> Well, actually, yes, if a ruling hasn't been struck down, then the Federal Courts should follow precedent.
Click to expand...


what causes your inaccurate misunderstandings about the constitution and gun rights and what causes you to be anti gun?


----------



## frigidweirdo

turtledude said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, again, Heller said " 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53."
> .....
> Heller upheld the Presser court case. This is a case which says that parading with arms in the street is not protected by either the right to keep nor the right to bear arms. This case basically said there is no right to carry arms.
> 
> No one has ever struck this case down. Not Heller, Heller actually said the Presser case is still very much the law of the land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo
> A. if you are citing Heller as above, doesn't that reinforce the individual right interpretation?
> Or is your argument that this interpretation came later
> and is not the original intent?
> 
> B. as for Presser saying there is no right to carry arme and this is the law of the land
> because it hasn't been struck down
> 
> what about new laws like conceal and carry.
> 
> new laws can be passed and that's not the same as striking down previous court cases.
> 
> Also regardless of what laws are written or rulings are made,
> I've heard of cases where local sheriffs refuse to enforce certain gun laws
> they deem to be unconstitutional and against their oath to uphold the law.
> 
> So just because a ruling hasn't been challenged or struck down yet,
> doesn't mean it bears the same weight as the rest of "the law of the land"
> '
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm citing Heller, as I explained before, because Heller uses the Presser case in which they said: "We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
> 
> This therefore states that carrying guns around with you is NOT protected by the Second Amendment.
> 
> The person I was talking to was basically saying that Heller only deals with the right to KEEP arms and not the right to bear arms, which is only half true as in the Heller case they basically tried to expand on the right to keep arms.
> 
> No, Presser says there is no CONSTITUTIONAL protection to carry arms. Laws and the Constitution are two completely different things. You can legally breathe, but there's nothing in the Constitution that protects your breathing. You can watch TV, nothing in the Constitution protects that.
> 
> Carry and conceal permits actually PROVE there is no right to carry arms, because if there were, then there would be no need for permits, and yet the NRA backs carry and conceal permits. Why? Because they KNOW that there is no right to carry arms and they'd never send a case forwards because they know it would get rejected and then people would know there's no right to carry arms. The NRA are happy to let people wallow in their ignorance on this one.
> 
> Well, actually, yes, if a ruling hasn't been struck down, then the Federal Courts should follow precedent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what causes your inaccurate misunderstandings about the constitution and gun rights and what causes you to be anti gun?
Click to expand...


Oh, now it's "inaccurate misunderstanding" is it?

Well, seeing as YOU can't even debate back, I'd say it's not ME who has the misunderstandings.

If it were that easy to fight back, you'd have done so, instead of deflecting and insulting.


----------



## westwall

frigidweirdo said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, again, Heller said " 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53."
> .....
> Heller upheld the Presser court case. This is a case which says that parading with arms in the street is not protected by either the right to keep nor the right to bear arms. This case basically said there is no right to carry arms.
> 
> No one has ever struck this case down. Not Heller, Heller actually said the Presser case is still very much the law of the land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo
> A. if you are citing Heller as above, doesn't that reinforce the individual right interpretation?
> Or is your argument that this interpretation came later
> and is not the original intent?
> 
> B. as for Presser saying there is no right to carry arme and this is the law of the land
> because it hasn't been struck down
> 
> what about new laws like conceal and carry.
> 
> new laws can be passed and that's not the same as striking down previous court cases.
> 
> Also regardless of what laws are written or rulings are made,
> I've heard of cases where local sheriffs refuse to enforce certain gun laws
> they deem to be unconstitutional and against their oath to uphold the law.
> 
> So just because a ruling hasn't been challenged or struck down yet,
> doesn't mean it bears the same weight as the rest of "the law of the land"
> '
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm citing Heller, as I explained before, because Heller uses the Presser case in which they said: "We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
> 
> This therefore states that carrying guns around with you is NOT protected by the Second Amendment.
> 
> The person I was talking to was basically saying that Heller only deals with the right to KEEP arms and not the right to bear arms, which is only half true as in the Heller case they basically tried to expand on the right to keep arms.
> 
> No, Presser says there is no CONSTITUTIONAL protection to carry arms. Laws and the Constitution are two completely different things. You can legally breathe, but there's nothing in the Constitution that protects your breathing. You can watch TV, nothing in the Constitution protects that.
> 
> Carry and conceal permits actually PROVE there is no right to carry arms, because if there were, then there would be no need for permits, and yet the NRA backs carry and conceal permits. Why? Because they KNOW that there is no right to carry arms and they'd never send a case forwards because they know it would get rejected and then people would know there's no right to carry arms. The NRA are happy to let people wallow in their ignorance on this one.
> 
> Well, actually, yes, if a ruling hasn't been struck down, then the Federal Courts should follow precedent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what causes your inaccurate misunderstandings about the constitution and gun rights and what causes you to be anti gun?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, now it's "inaccurate misunderstanding" is it?
> 
> Well, seeing as YOU can't even debate back, I'd say it's not ME who has the misunderstandings.
> 
> If it were that easy to fight back, you'd have done so, instead of deflecting and insulting.
Click to expand...







I countered your argument with the US V Miller decision.  I wonder why you ignore that?


----------



## frigidweirdo

westwall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, again, Heller said " 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53."
> .....
> Heller upheld the Presser court case. This is a case which says that parading with arms in the street is not protected by either the right to keep nor the right to bear arms. This case basically said there is no right to carry arms.
> 
> No one has ever struck this case down. Not Heller, Heller actually said the Presser case is still very much the law of the land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo
> A. if you are citing Heller as above, doesn't that reinforce the individual right interpretation?
> Or is your argument that this interpretation came later
> and is not the original intent?
> 
> B. as for Presser saying there is no right to carry arme and this is the law of the land
> because it hasn't been struck down
> 
> what about new laws like conceal and carry.
> 
> new laws can be passed and that's not the same as striking down previous court cases.
> 
> Also regardless of what laws are written or rulings are made,
> I've heard of cases where local sheriffs refuse to enforce certain gun laws
> they deem to be unconstitutional and against their oath to uphold the law.
> 
> So just because a ruling hasn't been challenged or struck down yet,
> doesn't mean it bears the same weight as the rest of "the law of the land"
> '
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm citing Heller, as I explained before, because Heller uses the Presser case in which they said: "We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
> 
> This therefore states that carrying guns around with you is NOT protected by the Second Amendment.
> 
> The person I was talking to was basically saying that Heller only deals with the right to KEEP arms and not the right to bear arms, which is only half true as in the Heller case they basically tried to expand on the right to keep arms.
> 
> No, Presser says there is no CONSTITUTIONAL protection to carry arms. Laws and the Constitution are two completely different things. You can legally breathe, but there's nothing in the Constitution that protects your breathing. You can watch TV, nothing in the Constitution protects that.
> 
> Carry and conceal permits actually PROVE there is no right to carry arms, because if there were, then there would be no need for permits, and yet the NRA backs carry and conceal permits. Why? Because they KNOW that there is no right to carry arms and they'd never send a case forwards because they know it would get rejected and then people would know there's no right to carry arms. The NRA are happy to let people wallow in their ignorance on this one.
> 
> Well, actually, yes, if a ruling hasn't been struck down, then the Federal Courts should follow precedent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what causes your inaccurate misunderstandings about the constitution and gun rights and what causes you to be anti gun?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, now it's "inaccurate misunderstanding" is it?
> 
> Well, seeing as YOU can't even debate back, I'd say it's not ME who has the misunderstandings.
> 
> If it were that easy to fight back, you'd have done so, instead of deflecting and insulting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I countered your argument with the US V Miller decision.  I wonder why you ignore that?
Click to expand...


Let me see. You'd be on ignore if you were a moderator. So I choose to manually ignore you. I don't have any time for you. It's that simple.


----------



## Papageorgio

frigidweirdo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo
> A. if you are citing Heller as above, doesn't that reinforce the individual right interpretation?
> Or is your argument that this interpretation came later
> and is not the original intent?
> 
> B. as for Presser saying there is no right to carry arme and this is the law of the land
> because it hasn't been struck down
> 
> what about new laws like conceal and carry.
> 
> new laws can be passed and that's not the same as striking down previous court cases.
> 
> Also regardless of what laws are written or rulings are made,
> I've heard of cases where local sheriffs refuse to enforce certain gun laws
> they deem to be unconstitutional and against their oath to uphold the law.
> 
> So just because a ruling hasn't been challenged or struck down yet,
> doesn't mean it bears the same weight as the rest of "the law of the land"
> '
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm citing Heller, as I explained before, because Heller uses the Presser case in which they said: "We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
> 
> This therefore states that carrying guns around with you is NOT protected by the Second Amendment.
> 
> The person I was talking to was basically saying that Heller only deals with the right to KEEP arms and not the right to bear arms, which is only half true as in the Heller case they basically tried to expand on the right to keep arms.
> 
> No, Presser says there is no CONSTITUTIONAL protection to carry arms. Laws and the Constitution are two completely different things. You can legally breathe, but there's nothing in the Constitution that protects your breathing. You can watch TV, nothing in the Constitution protects that.
> 
> Carry and conceal permits actually PROVE there is no right to carry arms, because if there were, then there would be no need for permits, and yet the NRA backs carry and conceal permits. Why? Because they KNOW that there is no right to carry arms and they'd never send a case forwards because they know it would get rejected and then people would know there's no right to carry arms. The NRA are happy to let people wallow in their ignorance on this one.
> 
> Well, actually, yes, if a ruling hasn't been struck down, then the Federal Courts should follow precedent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what causes your inaccurate misunderstandings about the constitution and gun rights and what causes you to be anti gun?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, now it's "inaccurate misunderstanding" is it?
> 
> Well, seeing as YOU can't even debate back, I'd say it's not ME who has the misunderstandings.
> 
> If it were that easy to fight back, you'd have done so, instead of deflecting and insulting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I countered your argument with the US V Miller decision.  I wonder why you ignore that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me see. You'd be on ignore if you were a moderator. So I choose to manually ignore you. I don't have any time for you. It's that simple.
Click to expand...


Translation: westwall provided a great argument I can’t refute so he manually put him on ignore, yet still reads westwall’s post. Now, that is one for the books.


----------



## danielpalos

turtledude said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> A natural right is one that exists before the formation of governments.  The founders knew that the first step towards tyranny is the disarming of the citizens.  They believed that the people had the right to keep and bear arms for hunting, for self defense of themselves, their families, their land, their property, to fight against tyranny and to fight against invasions.  It is all quite clearly stated in the written records of their meetings and discussions and debates.  You have no argument.  All you have is your dishonest twisting of words and definitions.  As soon as a person does a little research into what the founding fathers actually SAID about the 2nd amendment, it is quite clear just what kind of dishonest little jerks you people are.  I don't trust you, and nobody should.  No way in hell would anyone in their right minds give up one of their rights because of you sniveling little cowards.
> 
> 
> 
> dear, right wingers; God did not give us our Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nor did artificial intelligence programs masquerading as posters
Click to expand...

don't need, God given rights for a Good argument.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> More than yours. The Second Amendment has an Intent and Purpose clause
> 
> 
> 
> Can you point to some legal analysis or Court opinion with such a holding?  Because, that is contrary to the plain language of the Amendment, placing too much emphasis on one part, in a fashion that renders the other meaningless.  You are trying to establish an ambiguity out of plain language.  We entertain your bullshit attempts at ambiguity and beat your ass with the founders' own words demonstrating their intent.  You provide NOTHING to the contrary but your catch phrases.
Click to expand...

Dude, there is only one reason for an Intent and Purpose clause.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope; Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States
> 
> 
> 
> The wellness of regulation?
> 
> 
> But it says the infringmentness of rightsness, which specifically excludes Congress, and I have provided quotes from both Madison AND Jefferson SPECIFICALLY stating the intentness to prohibit Congress from infringing on the right.  I am fucking tired of posting those quotes, so why don't you respond to them or shut the fuck up.
Click to expand...

Because they are on the right wing, and clueless and Causeless as a result.

Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States.  

It is clearly enumerated in Article 1, Section 8.


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit, and why do you ignore keep and bear?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't ignore it. This is all you have, trying to claim I ignore it. I'm talking about the right to bear arms. I'm not going to include the Super Bowl winner of 1968, does this mean I'm ignoring it?
> 
> If it's bullshit then why did Mr Gerry, Mr Jackson AND Mr Washington say it was so?
> 
> Who am I going to believe, some keyboard cowboy who claims to be a lawyer, yet doesn't write like one, or three of the Founding Fathers.... hmmm... difficult choice but the Founding Fathers pip you slightly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even though that argument is demostrably bullshit, and even if we concede that point (which we don't) the Amndment says, "KEEP and bear arms."
> 
> Next you're gonna make up some bullshit about the word keep not meaning FUCKING "KEEP" but some other nonsense.
> 
> 
> You communists are so predictable.  You are never getting out guns and starting your Bolshevik overthrow, so you can just give it up now.  We will fucking smoke your commie asses.  In fact, please try.  Please.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So which part of my argument is "bullshit"?
> 
> The Amendment says "the right to keep and bear arms"
> 
> Is this one right or is this two rights?
> 
> For example, the First Amendment
> 
> "or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
> 
> Is this one right or two rights? It has "and" in between, but clearly you have the right to peacefully assemble and the right to petition the government. However they only say the term "right" one time.
> 
> The 4A
> 
> "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,"
> 
> Do you have a right to be secure in your person? Yes. Do you have a right to be secure in your houses? Yes. Different rights.
> 
> Bear arms and keep arms are two different things. So there are two different protections of those rights. However efficiency suggests that you can place them next to each other and use the term "right" one time.
> 
> Certainly in the document I have showed you the Founding Fathers were dealing with the right to bear arms and not the right to keep arms.
> 
> The drafts of the Second Amendment had a clause which said either "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." or "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
> 
> You see that one time they spoke about being compelled to "bear arms", not to "keep and bear arms", and the other compelled to "render military service".
> 
> No, I'm not going to make some bullshit up about keep not meaning keep.
> 
> Try this. Stool means two things. A shit, and a wooden backless seat.
> 
> "The doctor told him to sit on the stool", does context tell you that "stool" is a shit, or a wooden seat? I mean you have doctor in there, doctors look at stools all the time, so much be shit right? Or maybe not. Who would sit on a shit? So we're going to use context to understand.
> 
> "bear" means lots of different things. However it's CLEAR (unless you have your head up your ass) from lots of documents from that time, that "bear arms" as a term, means "render military service" and "militia duty".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP
> 
> _Heller_ confirmed the individual right to KEEP arms.
> 
> You are trying to meld the term "keep" with the word "bear" but if you do that,  the _Heller_ holding makes the right to "bear" an individual right, requiring one to keep arms in order to do so.
> 
> The mental gynastics is glorious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe keep doesn't really mean keep if you are a leftist.
Click to expand...

Keep and bear is not, acquire and possess.


----------



## emilynghiem

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, again, Heller said " 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53."
> .....
> Heller upheld the Presser court case. This is a case which says that parading with arms in the street is not protected by either the right to keep nor the right to bear arms. This case basically said there is no right to carry arms.
> 
> No one has ever struck this case down. Not Heller, Heller actually said the Presser case is still very much the law of the land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo
> A. if you are citing Heller as above, doesn't that reinforce the individual right interpretation?
> Or is your argument that this interpretation came later
> and is not the original intent?
> 
> B. as for Presser saying there is no right to carry arme and this is the law of the land
> because it hasn't been struck down
> 
> what about new laws like conceal and carry.
> 
> new laws can be passed and that's not the same as striking down previous court cases.
> 
> Also regardless of what laws are written or rulings are made,
> I've heard of cases where local sheriffs refuse to enforce certain gun laws
> they deem to be unconstitutional and against their oath to uphold the law.
> 
> So just because a ruling hasn't been challenged or struck down yet,
> doesn't mean it bears the same weight as the rest of "the law of the land"
> '
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Laws and measures are presumed to be Constitutional until such time as the Supreme Court rules otherwise, and are considered to be the law of the land. (see _US v. Morrison_ (2000))
> 
> Any local official who refuses to enforce a just and proper law is in violation of the Constitution and his oath of office. (see _Cooper v. Aaron_ (1958))
> 
> Local authorities don’t have the authority to ‘deem’ any measure Constitutional or un-Constitutional – their opinion as to the constitutionality of a law they’re entrusted to enforce is irrelevant.
Click to expand...


C_Clayton_Jones
This shows the deep separation in beliefs between
people like you the liberals who came from the
school of thought of Rousseau and 
the conservatives who came from the
school of thought of Locke.

Both schools of thought exist and have always existed,
and argued just as you do that the other is invalid.

All I can do to explain to you is that the other school of thought,
that the law resides with the people as the final authority
and check on govt, those people EQUALLY SAY THAT YOU
AND YOUR BELIEFS are the problem and are NOT valid
but your belief in Liberalism.  

So at best, the two tie.
But in the end, where your beliefs stop and keep depending
on Govt to change, that's where the CONSERVATIVE approach
of the people being ultimately in charge end up DOING ALL THE WORK TO MAKE THE CHANGES IN GOVT  while the liberals and the Republicans who also started relying on this liberal approach "wait on others to change govt first."

So it still lands on the OTHER school of thought, where
people are in charge of what becomes public policy.

NOTE: another source of bias may be that I'm from and live in Texas where our Constitution states the authority of the people even stronger. So if you don't have this in your state, or in your state of mind as I do as a Native Texan, that also reinforces where our separate biases depart along the traditional historic split between the govt imposing the will of the people and the govt reflecting the consent of the governed as the basis of laws and contracts.  If the people do not consent, it doesn't carry the full weight and authority of law but is subject to change. And where you and I disagree is what do we do in the MEANTIME while a contested law has been passed or ruled on while it is still argued as UNCONSTITUTIONAL, do the people have the right to enforce otherwise? History has shown cases where this has happened, and I attribute that to human nature.

C_Clayton_Jones you are basically trying to legislate against human nature, where I've never met any human being who didn't rebel against even govt authority when that entity was enforcing policies that violated basic human rights and natural laws. So in the end, when in conflict, people revert back to our human nature and will refuse to comply with unjust laws. 

The founders knew this, especially advocates like Jefferson, they weren't perfect in their application of it to all cases and all people, but they basically knew the conscience of the people would be the final check on govt that would always tend to run amok toward tyranny because of the nature of collective entities
running over individuals.  

But I understand, the secular minds who don't account for a higher nature or power driving human nature as the source of the laws will depend on just the SECULAR govt to establish what is law. That is the nature and belief of liberal secularism taken to that extreme. And likewise the conservative Constitutionalists place the power of the people as the default, and the govt is supposed to reflect what we consent to authorize as public law, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

These two schools have always existed and fought to check and balance each other.  But I find that one is a SUBSET of the other. If everything depended on GOVT to change then nothing would ever change. Change has always come from the PEOPLE to use the democratic system to reform govt UNTIL IT TRULY REFLECTS THE CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE.

The liberal view of depending on govt to decide public policy
thus always relies on the conservative approach, and that's why the liberals continue to play the victim/oppressed role That's what you get when you rely on "official govt" and not the people as the ultimate authority of law, you get a SUBSET, while the greater public that includes ALL people, not just ones with  political representation through govt, are the broader source of power.

See quote from Texas Bill of Rights below, that may explain why the bias between us is even more pronounced:

Sec. 2.  INHERENT POLITICAL POWER; REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT.  *All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit.  The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.*

The closest I have found is in the Declaration of Independence:
*That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.*

This is probably why some opponents criticized Jefferson as coming across as Anarchist, because taking the risk that the people will, on their own, have the jurisprudence to reform and enforce laws in a LAWFUL CIVIL manner when taking on this responsibility is scary to those, especially like you, who do not trust people and use govt to check people; while the conservative view is not to trust collective centralized govt and use people to check that! Both are right, both need to check the other, but the govt is a subset of the people, so ultimately it will ALWAYS be up to the people to check govt, not the other way which will become incestuous with conflicts of interest where the govt will cease to check itself against abuses once the people in power have and want to keep their way and impose it on everyone else outside positions of power. That has always been the struggle of humanity and institutionalized laws.

And it has always come to the people to change things whenever the corruption of either church or state got stuck in a loop because of the private interests in power monopolizing it!

the founders KNEW this, and that's why they demanded that govt not interfere with freedom of the press, free exercise of religion, and due process of the people open so the people could always use our democratic freedoms by nature as a check on govt.   And that's what we've ALWAYS used when the people didn't agree or consent to what got passed through govt.


----------



## danielpalos

emilynghiem said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> A natural right is one that exists before the formation of governments.  The founders knew that the first step towards tyranny is the disarming of the citizens.  They believed that the people had the right to keep and bear arms for hunting, for self defense of themselves, their families, their land, their property, to fight against tyranny and to fight against invasions.  It is all quite clearly stated in the written records of their meetings and discussions and debates.  You have no argument.  All you have is your dishonest twisting of words and definitions.  As soon as a person does a little research into what the founding fathers actually SAID about the 2nd amendment, it is quite clear just what kind of dishonest little jerks you people are.  I don't trust you, and nobody should.  No way in hell would anyone in their right minds give up one of their rights because of you sniveling little cowards.
> 
> 
> 
> dear, right wingers; God did not give us our Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear danielpalos
> What this means is
> a. natural laws that exist by human nature, and by how our conscience works as social creature, are inherent and self-existent. in secular terms this comes from NATURE in religious terms it comes from GOD. if you take GOD to mean forces of life or nature, that's the same source these "human rights and laws" come from regardless which term you use
> b. The Constitution attempted to put into written words and social contracts or laws
> the PRINCIPLES and concepts that naturally exist when trying to define just and peaceful relations between people for law and order
> 
> This is like the "laws of physics" that exist by nature of the universe and energy/matter in the world; but man's language in writing these "laws" down in SYMBOLS or words
> becomes man made language for the laws we didn't make up either.
> 
> What ChrisL and I are both saying is that even
> without manmade language for the laws,
> the PRINCIPLES behind the laws exist on their own.
> That just comes with the way human conscience
> and relations work. We all want freedom, peace justice security.
> So the laws we write are to express and defend those
> naturally occurring principles and concepts that are
> inherent in human nature, regardless how we write or express those in words or laws.
Click to expand...

The point is our Constitution is political, not divine.


----------



## turtledude

westwall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, again, Heller said " 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53."
> .....
> Heller upheld the Presser court case. This is a case which says that parading with arms in the street is not protected by either the right to keep nor the right to bear arms. This case basically said there is no right to carry arms.
> 
> No one has ever struck this case down. Not Heller, Heller actually said the Presser case is still very much the law of the land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo
> A. if you are citing Heller as above, doesn't that reinforce the individual right interpretation?
> Or is your argument that this interpretation came later
> and is not the original intent?
> 
> B. as for Presser saying there is no right to carry arme and this is the law of the land
> because it hasn't been struck down
> 
> what about new laws like conceal and carry.
> 
> new laws can be passed and that's not the same as striking down previous court cases.
> 
> Also regardless of what laws are written or rulings are made,
> I've heard of cases where local sheriffs refuse to enforce certain gun laws
> they deem to be unconstitutional and against their oath to uphold the law.
> 
> So just because a ruling hasn't been challenged or struck down yet,
> doesn't mean it bears the same weight as the rest of "the law of the land"
> '
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm citing Heller, as I explained before, because Heller uses the Presser case in which they said: "We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
> 
> This therefore states that carrying guns around with you is NOT protected by the Second Amendment.
> 
> The person I was talking to was basically saying that Heller only deals with the right to KEEP arms and not the right to bear arms, which is only half true as in the Heller case they basically tried to expand on the right to keep arms.
> 
> No, Presser says there is no CONSTITUTIONAL protection to carry arms. Laws and the Constitution are two completely different things. You can legally breathe, but there's nothing in the Constitution that protects your breathing. You can watch TV, nothing in the Constitution protects that.
> 
> Carry and conceal permits actually PROVE there is no right to carry arms, because if there were, then there would be no need for permits, and yet the NRA backs carry and conceal permits. Why? Because they KNOW that there is no right to carry arms and they'd never send a case forwards because they know it would get rejected and then people would know there's no right to carry arms. The NRA are happy to let people wallow in their ignorance on this one.
> 
> Well, actually, yes, if a ruling hasn't been struck down, then the Federal Courts should follow precedent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what causes your inaccurate misunderstandings about the constitution and gun rights and what causes you to be anti gun?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, now it's "inaccurate misunderstanding" is it?
> 
> Well, seeing as YOU can't even debate back, I'd say it's not ME who has the misunderstandings.
> 
> If it were that easy to fight back, you'd have done so, instead of deflecting and insulting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I countered your argument with the US V Miller decision.  I wonder why you ignore that?
Click to expand...


because it bitch-slaps frigid's faux argument


----------



## turtledude

danielpalos said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't ignore it. This is all you have, trying to claim I ignore it. I'm talking about the right to bear arms. I'm not going to include the Super Bowl winner of 1968, does this mean I'm ignoring it?
> 
> If it's bullshit then why did Mr Gerry, Mr Jackson AND Mr Washington say it was so?
> 
> Who am I going to believe, some keyboard cowboy who claims to be a lawyer, yet doesn't write like one, or three of the Founding Fathers.... hmmm... difficult choice but the Founding Fathers pip you slightly.
> 
> 
> 
> Even though that argument is demostrably bullshit, and even if we concede that point (which we don't) the Amndment says, "KEEP and bear arms."
> 
> Next you're gonna make up some bullshit about the word keep not meaning FUCKING "KEEP" but some other nonsense.
> 
> 
> You communists are so predictable.  You are never getting out guns and starting your Bolshevik overthrow, so you can just give it up now.  We will fucking smoke your commie asses.  In fact, please try.  Please.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So which part of my argument is "bullshit"?
> 
> The Amendment says "the right to keep and bear arms"
> 
> Is this one right or is this two rights?
> 
> For example, the First Amendment
> 
> "or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
> 
> Is this one right or two rights? It has "and" in between, but clearly you have the right to peacefully assemble and the right to petition the government. However they only say the term "right" one time.
> 
> The 4A
> 
> "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,"
> 
> Do you have a right to be secure in your person? Yes. Do you have a right to be secure in your houses? Yes. Different rights.
> 
> Bear arms and keep arms are two different things. So there are two different protections of those rights. However efficiency suggests that you can place them next to each other and use the term "right" one time.
> 
> Certainly in the document I have showed you the Founding Fathers were dealing with the right to bear arms and not the right to keep arms.
> 
> The drafts of the Second Amendment had a clause which said either "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." or "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
> 
> You see that one time they spoke about being compelled to "bear arms", not to "keep and bear arms", and the other compelled to "render military service".
> 
> No, I'm not going to make some bullshit up about keep not meaning keep.
> 
> Try this. Stool means two things. A shit, and a wooden backless seat.
> 
> "The doctor told him to sit on the stool", does context tell you that "stool" is a shit, or a wooden seat? I mean you have doctor in there, doctors look at stools all the time, so much be shit right? Or maybe not. Who would sit on a shit? So we're going to use context to understand.
> 
> "bear" means lots of different things. However it's CLEAR (unless you have your head up your ass) from lots of documents from that time, that "bear arms" as a term, means "render military service" and "militia duty".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP
> 
> _Heller_ confirmed the individual right to KEEP arms.
> 
> You are trying to meld the term "keep" with the word "bear" but if you do that,  the _Heller_ holding makes the right to "bear" an individual right, requiring one to keep arms in order to do so.
> 
> The mental gynastics is glorious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe keep doesn't really mean keep if you are a leftist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Keep and bear is not, acquire and possess.
Click to expand...


horsecrap and if you want to be so literally, how does "commerce among the several states" give congress any power over individual citizens who are not engaging in "commerce among the several states"


----------



## ChrisL

turtledude said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even though that argument is demostrably bullshit, and even if we concede that point (which we don't) the Amndment says, "KEEP and bear arms."
> 
> Next you're gonna make up some bullshit about the word keep not meaning FUCKING "KEEP" but some other nonsense.
> 
> 
> You communists are so predictable.  You are never getting out guns and starting your Bolshevik overthrow, so you can just give it up now.  We will fucking smoke your commie asses.  In fact, please try.  Please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So which part of my argument is "bullshit"?
> 
> The Amendment says "the right to keep and bear arms"
> 
> Is this one right or is this two rights?
> 
> For example, the First Amendment
> 
> "or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
> 
> Is this one right or two rights? It has "and" in between, but clearly you have the right to peacefully assemble and the right to petition the government. However they only say the term "right" one time.
> 
> The 4A
> 
> "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,"
> 
> Do you have a right to be secure in your person? Yes. Do you have a right to be secure in your houses? Yes. Different rights.
> 
> Bear arms and keep arms are two different things. So there are two different protections of those rights. However efficiency suggests that you can place them next to each other and use the term "right" one time.
> 
> Certainly in the document I have showed you the Founding Fathers were dealing with the right to bear arms and not the right to keep arms.
> 
> The drafts of the Second Amendment had a clause which said either "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." or "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
> 
> You see that one time they spoke about being compelled to "bear arms", not to "keep and bear arms", and the other compelled to "render military service".
> 
> No, I'm not going to make some bullshit up about keep not meaning keep.
> 
> Try this. Stool means two things. A shit, and a wooden backless seat.
> 
> "The doctor told him to sit on the stool", does context tell you that "stool" is a shit, or a wooden seat? I mean you have doctor in there, doctors look at stools all the time, so much be shit right? Or maybe not. Who would sit on a shit? So we're going to use context to understand.
> 
> "bear" means lots of different things. However it's CLEAR (unless you have your head up your ass) from lots of documents from that time, that "bear arms" as a term, means "render military service" and "militia duty".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP
> 
> _Heller_ confirmed the individual right to KEEP arms.
> 
> You are trying to meld the term "keep" with the word "bear" but if you do that,  the _Heller_ holding makes the right to "bear" an individual right, requiring one to keep arms in order to do so.
> 
> The mental gynastics is glorious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe keep doesn't really mean keep if you are a leftist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Keep and bear is not, acquire and possess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> horsecrap and if you want to be so literally, how does "commerce among the several states" give congress any power over individual citizens who are not engaging in "commerce among the several states"
Click to expand...


Keep does mean possess anyhow.  Lol.  I don't know why you continue to argue with this retard.  He is clearly retarded.


----------



## ChrisL

turtledude said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even though that argument is demostrably bullshit, and even if we concede that point (which we don't) the Amndment says, "KEEP and bear arms."
> 
> Next you're gonna make up some bullshit about the word keep not meaning FUCKING "KEEP" but some other nonsense.
> 
> 
> You communists are so predictable.  You are never getting out guns and starting your Bolshevik overthrow, so you can just give it up now.  We will fucking smoke your commie asses.  In fact, please try.  Please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So which part of my argument is "bullshit"?
> 
> The Amendment says "the right to keep and bear arms"
> 
> Is this one right or is this two rights?
> 
> For example, the First Amendment
> 
> "or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
> 
> Is this one right or two rights? It has "and" in between, but clearly you have the right to peacefully assemble and the right to petition the government. However they only say the term "right" one time.
> 
> The 4A
> 
> "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,"
> 
> Do you have a right to be secure in your person? Yes. Do you have a right to be secure in your houses? Yes. Different rights.
> 
> Bear arms and keep arms are two different things. So there are two different protections of those rights. However efficiency suggests that you can place them next to each other and use the term "right" one time.
> 
> Certainly in the document I have showed you the Founding Fathers were dealing with the right to bear arms and not the right to keep arms.
> 
> The drafts of the Second Amendment had a clause which said either "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." or "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
> 
> You see that one time they spoke about being compelled to "bear arms", not to "keep and bear arms", and the other compelled to "render military service".
> 
> No, I'm not going to make some bullshit up about keep not meaning keep.
> 
> Try this. Stool means two things. A shit, and a wooden backless seat.
> 
> "The doctor told him to sit on the stool", does context tell you that "stool" is a shit, or a wooden seat? I mean you have doctor in there, doctors look at stools all the time, so much be shit right? Or maybe not. Who would sit on a shit? So we're going to use context to understand.
> 
> "bear" means lots of different things. However it's CLEAR (unless you have your head up your ass) from lots of documents from that time, that "bear arms" as a term, means "render military service" and "militia duty".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP
> 
> _Heller_ confirmed the individual right to KEEP arms.
> 
> You are trying to meld the term "keep" with the word "bear" but if you do that,  the _Heller_ holding makes the right to "bear" an individual right, requiring one to keep arms in order to do so.
> 
> The mental gynastics is glorious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe keep doesn't really mean keep if you are a leftist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Keep and bear is not, acquire and possess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> horsecrap and if you want to be so literally, how does "commerce among the several states" give congress any power over individual citizens who are not engaging in "commerce among the several states"
Click to expand...


If you encourage him, he will reply with the exact same nonsense that he always posts, all of which has been already established as lies and dishonesty many, many, many times.  He is either retarded or a troll.


----------



## danielpalos

turtledude said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even though that argument is demostrably bullshit, and even if we concede that point (which we don't) the Amndment says, "KEEP and bear arms."
> 
> Next you're gonna make up some bullshit about the word keep not meaning FUCKING "KEEP" but some other nonsense.
> 
> 
> You communists are so predictable.  You are never getting out guns and starting your Bolshevik overthrow, so you can just give it up now.  We will fucking smoke your commie asses.  In fact, please try.  Please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So which part of my argument is "bullshit"?
> 
> The Amendment says "the right to keep and bear arms"
> 
> Is this one right or is this two rights?
> 
> For example, the First Amendment
> 
> "or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
> 
> Is this one right or two rights? It has "and" in between, but clearly you have the right to peacefully assemble and the right to petition the government. However they only say the term "right" one time.
> 
> The 4A
> 
> "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,"
> 
> Do you have a right to be secure in your person? Yes. Do you have a right to be secure in your houses? Yes. Different rights.
> 
> Bear arms and keep arms are two different things. So there are two different protections of those rights. However efficiency suggests that you can place them next to each other and use the term "right" one time.
> 
> Certainly in the document I have showed you the Founding Fathers were dealing with the right to bear arms and not the right to keep arms.
> 
> The drafts of the Second Amendment had a clause which said either "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." or "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
> 
> You see that one time they spoke about being compelled to "bear arms", not to "keep and bear arms", and the other compelled to "render military service".
> 
> No, I'm not going to make some bullshit up about keep not meaning keep.
> 
> Try this. Stool means two things. A shit, and a wooden backless seat.
> 
> "The doctor told him to sit on the stool", does context tell you that "stool" is a shit, or a wooden seat? I mean you have doctor in there, doctors look at stools all the time, so much be shit right? Or maybe not. Who would sit on a shit? So we're going to use context to understand.
> 
> "bear" means lots of different things. However it's CLEAR (unless you have your head up your ass) from lots of documents from that time, that "bear arms" as a term, means "render military service" and "militia duty".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP
> 
> _Heller_ confirmed the individual right to KEEP arms.
> 
> You are trying to meld the term "keep" with the word "bear" but if you do that,  the _Heller_ holding makes the right to "bear" an individual right, requiring one to keep arms in order to do so.
> 
> The mental gynastics is glorious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe keep doesn't really mean keep if you are a leftist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Keep and bear is not, acquire and possess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> horsecrap and if you want to be so literally, how does "commerce among the several states" give congress any power over individual citizens who are not engaging in "commerce among the several states"
Click to expand...

Not the same.  California uses acquire and possess to secure natural rights, not keep and bear.


----------



## emilynghiem

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope; Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States
> 
> 
> 
> The wellness of regulation?
> 
> 
> But it says the infringmentness of rightsness, which specifically excludes Congress, and I have provided quotes from both Madison AND Jefferson SPECIFICALLY stating the intentness to prohibit Congress from infringing on the right.  I am fucking tired of posting those quotes, so why don't you respond to them or shut the fuck up.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because they are on the right wing, and clueless and Causeless as a result.
> 
> Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States.
> 
> It is clearly enumerated in Article 1, Section 8.
Click to expand...


No, because the Bill of Rights was to define the rights of the PEOPLE that the federal govt and Congress COULD NOT infringe upon. 

The objectors who would otherwise have REFUSED to ratify the Constitution giving powers to centralized federal govt, only agreed if the Bill of Rights was going to be added as a CONDITION where it delineated the rights of INDIVIDUALS.

So all the things they DIDN'T WANT federal govt to abuse or control, were spelled out in the Bill of Rights to make sure there was an agreement NOT TO GO THERE.

I'm sure danielpalos these same arguments existed back then, with advocates defenders and opponents on both sides fighting just as fiercely.  

So I find it more and more telling, more interesting and "not an accident" that the 2nd Amendment would be written where BOTH SIDES can claim their interpretation equally. 

This tells me even more we should leave it written exactly as is. At least both sides can defend their views on this, so it is more
fair and inclusive of all people regardless which side they take!

Thank you danielpalos and especially frigidweirdo

Thanks to you I can clearly see where the people like you
are getting that the people bearing arms is "directly tied" to the intro clause about well regulated militia.

I am even more glad then ever that I can see and support
both sides, so that I can better fulfill the commitment to be equally inclusive and defend the rights of all people regardless of belief.  I am so grateful that I can do this, because if I were
like you or like your opponents, who could only see one side
and truly believe the other is invalid and doesn't count legally,
I would be MISERABLE AS FU.  

I would not be able to have peace of mind knowing the other group is out there, and wasting all my energy trying to defend my view while denouncing the other; while they do the same.

So glad I can sincerely appreciate embrace and defend both sides and the equal right to exercise and establish that interpretation. I do this by sticking with the general interpretation that invoking the right to bear arms requires doing so within the Context of the rest of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. So this automatically requires people to be LAW ABIDING and respect the equal constitutional rights freedoms and protections of others, to defend the law and not to violate it, including the respect and protection of EQUAL BELIEFS of people from discrimination and infringement. So I can live with both, within that context.

Anyone seeking to impose their views and violate the beliefs of others by exclusion or bullying, I cannot go there by conscience.
I can only seek to include and protect people's beliefs and free choice whether or how to change their views to resolve conflicts with others.

So glad I take this approach.

Thank you for reinforcing how important it is, since there is clear validity on your side of the fence and how and why you interpret it that way, even holding it to be the only truth, while the other interpretation is political and a lie.

It makes me even more curious about my friend who came from the view you take, then changed from reading the history and decided the historical context DOES endorse the conservative interpretation of the rights belonging to the people, and coming to a similar conclusion as I have that although this is the predominant interpretation, there is still room for the interpretation of the right to bear arms within regulated militia only.

So he and I both agree to keep it open both ways, but he came from your viewpoint and opened up to even acknowledge that the other interpretation is actually more consistent historically; and I come from the conservative interpretation but keep the floor open to include other beliefs and interpretations equally.

He and I both agree that history points to the conservative interpretation; but inclusion and respect for our fellow Democrats and liberals, of course we are always going to include our constituents and not exclude those beliefs as the hardcore conservatives who aim to attack and discredit liberals.

You may never be able to see beyond right to bear arms within a regulated militia only, but I hope you would AT LEAST open up to ACCOMMODATE the beliefs in people bearing arms individually, ie as long as it's done within the inseparable context of defending the laws and protections of others and not violating any laws, since I am asking those other advocates to accommodate YOUR beliefs that it means militia only.

The only way I've seen people budge on their beliefs, from exclusion to inclusion of others, is if they are treated the same way. So that's the most I could hope or expect to change here, a move toward equal inclusion in order to gain respect for your beliefs that are always going to be in the minority, because people believe in themselves and their judgment to make decisions more than they believe in others running govt and "organized regulations." they have to be involved or feel represented in the decisions on regulations before they trust it, so it always lands on the people.


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So which part of my argument is "bullshit"?
> 
> The Amendment says "the right to keep and bear arms"
> 
> Is this one right or is this two rights?
> 
> For example, the First Amendment
> 
> "or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
> 
> Is this one right or two rights? It has "and" in between, but clearly you have the right to peacefully assemble and the right to petition the government. However they only say the term "right" one time.
> 
> The 4A
> 
> "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,"
> 
> Do you have a right to be secure in your person? Yes. Do you have a right to be secure in your houses? Yes. Different rights.
> 
> Bear arms and keep arms are two different things. So there are two different protections of those rights. However efficiency suggests that you can place them next to each other and use the term "right" one time.
> 
> Certainly in the document I have showed you the Founding Fathers were dealing with the right to bear arms and not the right to keep arms.
> 
> The drafts of the Second Amendment had a clause which said either "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." or "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
> 
> You see that one time they spoke about being compelled to "bear arms", not to "keep and bear arms", and the other compelled to "render military service".
> 
> No, I'm not going to make some bullshit up about keep not meaning keep.
> 
> Try this. Stool means two things. A shit, and a wooden backless seat.
> 
> "The doctor told him to sit on the stool", does context tell you that "stool" is a shit, or a wooden seat? I mean you have doctor in there, doctors look at stools all the time, so much be shit right? Or maybe not. Who would sit on a shit? So we're going to use context to understand.
> 
> "bear" means lots of different things. However it's CLEAR (unless you have your head up your ass) from lots of documents from that time, that "bear arms" as a term, means "render military service" and "militia duty".
> 
> 
> 
> KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP
> 
> _Heller_ confirmed the individual right to KEEP arms.
> 
> You are trying to meld the term "keep" with the word "bear" but if you do that,  the _Heller_ holding makes the right to "bear" an individual right, requiring one to keep arms in order to do so.
> 
> The mental gynastics is glorious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe keep doesn't really mean keep if you are a leftist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Keep and bear is not, acquire and possess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> horsecrap and if you want to be so literally, how does "commerce among the several states" give congress any power over individual citizens who are not engaging in "commerce among the several states"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep does mean possess anyhow.  Lol.  I don't know why you continue to argue with this retard.  He is clearly retarded.
Click to expand...

not exactly the same.  Keep and bear is for martial purpose not defense of self and property.


----------



## ChrisL

turtledude said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even though that argument is demostrably bullshit, and even if we concede that point (which we don't) the Amndment says, "KEEP and bear arms."
> 
> Next you're gonna make up some bullshit about the word keep not meaning FUCKING "KEEP" but some other nonsense.
> 
> 
> You communists are so predictable.  You are never getting out guns and starting your Bolshevik overthrow, so you can just give it up now.  We will fucking smoke your commie asses.  In fact, please try.  Please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So which part of my argument is "bullshit"?
> 
> The Amendment says "the right to keep and bear arms"
> 
> Is this one right or is this two rights?
> 
> For example, the First Amendment
> 
> "or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
> 
> Is this one right or two rights? It has "and" in between, but clearly you have the right to peacefully assemble and the right to petition the government. However they only say the term "right" one time.
> 
> The 4A
> 
> "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,"
> 
> Do you have a right to be secure in your person? Yes. Do you have a right to be secure in your houses? Yes. Different rights.
> 
> Bear arms and keep arms are two different things. So there are two different protections of those rights. However efficiency suggests that you can place them next to each other and use the term "right" one time.
> 
> Certainly in the document I have showed you the Founding Fathers were dealing with the right to bear arms and not the right to keep arms.
> 
> The drafts of the Second Amendment had a clause which said either "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." or "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
> 
> You see that one time they spoke about being compelled to "bear arms", not to "keep and bear arms", and the other compelled to "render military service".
> 
> No, I'm not going to make some bullshit up about keep not meaning keep.
> 
> Try this. Stool means two things. A shit, and a wooden backless seat.
> 
> "The doctor told him to sit on the stool", does context tell you that "stool" is a shit, or a wooden seat? I mean you have doctor in there, doctors look at stools all the time, so much be shit right? Or maybe not. Who would sit on a shit? So we're going to use context to understand.
> 
> "bear" means lots of different things. However it's CLEAR (unless you have your head up your ass) from lots of documents from that time, that "bear arms" as a term, means "render military service" and "militia duty".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP
> 
> _Heller_ confirmed the individual right to KEEP arms.
> 
> You are trying to meld the term "keep" with the word "bear" but if you do that,  the _Heller_ holding makes the right to "bear" an individual right, requiring one to keep arms in order to do so.
> 
> The mental gynastics is glorious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe keep doesn't really mean keep if you are a leftist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Keep and bear is not, acquire and possess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> horsecrap and if you want to be so literally, how does "commerce among the several states" give congress any power over individual citizens who are not engaging in "commerce among the several states"
Click to expand...


Sweetie, his arguments are SO bad, they are not even worth a response from you, seriously.


----------



## danielpalos

emilynghiem said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope; Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States
> 
> 
> 
> The wellness of regulation?
> 
> 
> But it says the infringmentness of rightsness, which specifically excludes Congress, and I have provided quotes from both Madison AND Jefferson SPECIFICALLY stating the intentness to prohibit Congress from infringing on the right.  I am fucking tired of posting those quotes, so why don't you respond to them or shut the fuck up.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because they are on the right wing, and clueless and Causeless as a result.
> 
> Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States.
> 
> It is clearly enumerated in Article 1, Section 8.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, because the Bill of Rights was to define the rights of the PEOPLE that the federal govt and Congress COULD NOT infringe upon.
> 
> The objectors who would otherwise have REFUSED to ratify the Constitution giving powers to centralized federal govt, only agreed if the Bill of Rights was going to be added as a CONDITION where it delineated the rights of INDIVIDUALS.
> 
> So all the things they DIDN'T WANT federal govt to abuse or control, were spelled out in the Bill of Rights to make sure there was an agreement NOT TO GO THERE.
> 
> I'm sure danielpalos these same arguments existed back then, with advocates defenders and opponents on both sides fighting just as fiercely.
> 
> So I find it more and more telling, more interesting and "not an accident" that the 2nd Amendment would be written where BOTH SIDES can claim their interpretation equally.
> 
> This tells me even more we should leave it written exactly as is. At least both sides can defend their views on this, so it is more
> fair and inclusive of all people regardless which side they take!
> 
> Thank you danielpalos and especially frigidweirdo
> 
> Thanks to you I can clearly see where the people like you
> are getting that the people bearing arms is "directly tied" to the intro clause about well regulated militia.
> 
> I am even more glad then ever that I can see and support
> both sides, so that I can better fulfill the commitment to be equally inclusive and defend the rights of all people regardless of belief.  I am so grateful that I can do this, because if I were
> like you or like your opponents, who could only see one side
> and truly believe the other is invalid and doesn't count legally,
> I would be MISERABLE AS FU.
> 
> I would not be able to have peace of mind knowing the other group is out there, and wasting all my energy trying to defend my view while denouncing the other; while they do the same.
> 
> So glad I can sincerely appreciate embrace and defend both sides and the equal right to exercise and establish that interpretation. I do this by sticking with the general interpretation that invoking the right to bear arms requires doing so within the Context of the rest of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. So this automatically requires people to be LAW ABIDING and respect the equal constitutional rights freedoms and protections of others, to defend the law and not to violate it, including the respect and protection of EQUAL BELIEFS of people from discrimination and infringement. So I can live with both, within that context.
> 
> Anyone seeking to impose their views and violate the beliefs of others by exclusion or bullying, I cannot go there by conscience.
> I can only seek to include and protect people's beliefs and free choice whether or how to change their views to resolve conflicts with others.
> 
> So glad I take this approach.
> 
> Thank you for reinforcing how important it is, since there is clear validity on your side of the fence and how and why you interpret it that way, even holding it to be the only truth, while the other interpretation is political and a lie.
> 
> It makes me even more curious about my friend who came from the view you take, then changed from reading the history and decided the historical context DOES endorse the conservative interpretation of the rights belonging to the people, and coming to a similar conclusion as I have that although this is the predominant interpretation, there is still room for the interpretation of the right to bear arms within regulated militia only.
> 
> So he and I both agree to keep it open both ways, but he came from your viewpoint and opened up to even acknowledge that the other interpretation is actually more consistent historically; and I come from the conservative interpretation but keep the floor open to include other beliefs and interpretations equally.
> 
> He and I both agree that history points to the conservative interpretation; but inclusion and respect for our fellow Democrats and liberals, of course we are always going to include our constituents and not exclude those beliefs as the hardcore conservatives who aim to attack and discredit liberals.
> 
> You may never be able to see beyond right to bear arms within a regulated militia only, but I hope you would AT LEAST open up to ACCOMMODATE the beliefs in people bearing arms individually, ie as long as it's done within the inseparable context of defending the laws and protections of others and not violating any laws, since I am asking those other advocates to accommodate YOUR beliefs that it means militia only.
> 
> The only way I've seen people budge on their beliefs, from exclusion to inclusion of others, is if they are treated the same way. So that's the most I could hope or expect to change here, a move toward equal inclusion in order to gain respect for your beliefs that are always going to be in the minority, because people believe in themselves and their judgment to make decisions more than they believe in others running govt and "organized regulations." they have to be involved or feel represented in the decisions on regulations before they trust it, so it always lands on the people.
Click to expand...

Our Second Amendment is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural rights.


----------



## danielpalos

ChrisL said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So which part of my argument is "bullshit"?
> 
> The Amendment says "the right to keep and bear arms"
> 
> Is this one right or is this two rights?
> 
> For example, the First Amendment
> 
> "or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
> 
> Is this one right or two rights? It has "and" in between, but clearly you have the right to peacefully assemble and the right to petition the government. However they only say the term "right" one time.
> 
> The 4A
> 
> "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,"
> 
> Do you have a right to be secure in your person? Yes. Do you have a right to be secure in your houses? Yes. Different rights.
> 
> Bear arms and keep arms are two different things. So there are two different protections of those rights. However efficiency suggests that you can place them next to each other and use the term "right" one time.
> 
> Certainly in the document I have showed you the Founding Fathers were dealing with the right to bear arms and not the right to keep arms.
> 
> The drafts of the Second Amendment had a clause which said either "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." or "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
> 
> You see that one time they spoke about being compelled to "bear arms", not to "keep and bear arms", and the other compelled to "render military service".
> 
> No, I'm not going to make some bullshit up about keep not meaning keep.
> 
> Try this. Stool means two things. A shit, and a wooden backless seat.
> 
> "The doctor told him to sit on the stool", does context tell you that "stool" is a shit, or a wooden seat? I mean you have doctor in there, doctors look at stools all the time, so much be shit right? Or maybe not. Who would sit on a shit? So we're going to use context to understand.
> 
> "bear" means lots of different things. However it's CLEAR (unless you have your head up your ass) from lots of documents from that time, that "bear arms" as a term, means "render military service" and "militia duty".
> 
> 
> 
> KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP
> 
> _Heller_ confirmed the individual right to KEEP arms.
> 
> You are trying to meld the term "keep" with the word "bear" but if you do that,  the _Heller_ holding makes the right to "bear" an individual right, requiring one to keep arms in order to do so.
> 
> The mental gynastics is glorious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe keep doesn't really mean keep if you are a leftist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Keep and bear is not, acquire and possess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> horsecrap and if you want to be so literally, how does "commerce among the several states" give congress any power over individual citizens who are not engaging in "commerce among the several states"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sweetie, his arguments are SO bad, they are not even worth a response from you, seriously.
Click to expand...

go ahead; don't respond and cede the point and the argument y'all were not, "worth enough" to make.


----------



## westwall

danielpalos said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't ignore it. This is all you have, trying to claim I ignore it. I'm talking about the right to bear arms. I'm not going to include the Super Bowl winner of 1968, does this mean I'm ignoring it?
> 
> If it's bullshit then why did Mr Gerry, Mr Jackson AND Mr Washington say it was so?
> 
> Who am I going to believe, some keyboard cowboy who claims to be a lawyer, yet doesn't write like one, or three of the Founding Fathers.... hmmm... difficult choice but the Founding Fathers pip you slightly.
> 
> 
> 
> Even though that argument is demostrably bullshit, and even if we concede that point (which we don't) the Amndment says, "KEEP and bear arms."
> 
> Next you're gonna make up some bullshit about the word keep not meaning FUCKING "KEEP" but some other nonsense.
> 
> 
> You communists are so predictable.  You are never getting out guns and starting your Bolshevik overthrow, so you can just give it up now.  We will fucking smoke your commie asses.  In fact, please try.  Please.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So which part of my argument is "bullshit"?
> 
> The Amendment says "the right to keep and bear arms"
> 
> Is this one right or is this two rights?
> 
> For example, the First Amendment
> 
> "or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
> 
> Is this one right or two rights? It has "and" in between, but clearly you have the right to peacefully assemble and the right to petition the government. However they only say the term "right" one time.
> 
> The 4A
> 
> "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,"
> 
> Do you have a right to be secure in your person? Yes. Do you have a right to be secure in your houses? Yes. Different rights.
> 
> Bear arms and keep arms are two different things. So there are two different protections of those rights. However efficiency suggests that you can place them next to each other and use the term "right" one time.
> 
> Certainly in the document I have showed you the Founding Fathers were dealing with the right to bear arms and not the right to keep arms.
> 
> The drafts of the Second Amendment had a clause which said either "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." or "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
> 
> You see that one time they spoke about being compelled to "bear arms", not to "keep and bear arms", and the other compelled to "render military service".
> 
> No, I'm not going to make some bullshit up about keep not meaning keep.
> 
> Try this. Stool means two things. A shit, and a wooden backless seat.
> 
> "The doctor told him to sit on the stool", does context tell you that "stool" is a shit, or a wooden seat? I mean you have doctor in there, doctors look at stools all the time, so much be shit right? Or maybe not. Who would sit on a shit? So we're going to use context to understand.
> 
> "bear" means lots of different things. However it's CLEAR (unless you have your head up your ass) from lots of documents from that time, that "bear arms" as a term, means "render military service" and "militia duty".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP
> 
> _Heller_ confirmed the individual right to KEEP arms.
> 
> You are trying to meld the term "keep" with the word "bear" but if you do that,  the _Heller_ holding makes the right to "bear" an individual right, requiring one to keep arms in order to do so.
> 
> The mental gynastics is glorious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe keep doesn't really mean keep if you are a leftist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Keep and bear is not, acquire and possess.
Click to expand...










It is in every language I know of on this planet.  You must be from a different planet.


----------



## westwall

danielpalos said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope; Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States
> 
> 
> 
> The wellness of regulation?
> 
> 
> But it says the infringmentness of rightsness, which specifically excludes Congress, and I have provided quotes from both Madison AND Jefferson SPECIFICALLY stating the intentness to prohibit Congress from infringing on the right.  I am fucking tired of posting those quotes, so why don't you respond to them or shut the fuck up.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because they are on the right wing, and clueless and Causeless as a result.
> 
> Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States.
> 
> It is clearly enumerated in Article 1, Section 8.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, because the Bill of Rights was to define the rights of the PEOPLE that the federal govt and Congress COULD NOT infringe upon.
> 
> The objectors who would otherwise have REFUSED to ratify the Constitution giving powers to centralized federal govt, only agreed if the Bill of Rights was going to be added as a CONDITION where it delineated the rights of INDIVIDUALS.
> 
> So all the things they DIDN'T WANT federal govt to abuse or control, were spelled out in the Bill of Rights to make sure there was an agreement NOT TO GO THERE.
> 
> I'm sure danielpalos these same arguments existed back then, with advocates defenders and opponents on both sides fighting just as fiercely.
> 
> So I find it more and more telling, more interesting and "not an accident" that the 2nd Amendment would be written where BOTH SIDES can claim their interpretation equally.
> 
> This tells me even more we should leave it written exactly as is. At least both sides can defend their views on this, so it is more
> fair and inclusive of all people regardless which side they take!
> 
> Thank you danielpalos and especially frigidweirdo
> 
> Thanks to you I can clearly see where the people like you
> are getting that the people bearing arms is "directly tied" to the intro clause about well regulated militia.
> 
> I am even more glad then ever that I can see and support
> both sides, so that I can better fulfill the commitment to be equally inclusive and defend the rights of all people regardless of belief.  I am so grateful that I can do this, because if I were
> like you or like your opponents, who could only see one side
> and truly believe the other is invalid and doesn't count legally,
> I would be MISERABLE AS FU.
> 
> I would not be able to have peace of mind knowing the other group is out there, and wasting all my energy trying to defend my view while denouncing the other; while they do the same.
> 
> So glad I can sincerely appreciate embrace and defend both sides and the equal right to exercise and establish that interpretation. I do this by sticking with the general interpretation that invoking the right to bear arms requires doing so within the Context of the rest of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. So this automatically requires people to be LAW ABIDING and respect the equal constitutional rights freedoms and protections of others, to defend the law and not to violate it, including the respect and protection of EQUAL BELIEFS of people from discrimination and infringement. So I can live with both, within that context.
> 
> Anyone seeking to impose their views and violate the beliefs of others by exclusion or bullying, I cannot go there by conscience.
> I can only seek to include and protect people's beliefs and free choice whether or how to change their views to resolve conflicts with others.
> 
> So glad I take this approach.
> 
> Thank you for reinforcing how important it is, since there is clear validity on your side of the fence and how and why you interpret it that way, even holding it to be the only truth, while the other interpretation is political and a lie.
> 
> It makes me even more curious about my friend who came from the view you take, then changed from reading the history and decided the historical context DOES endorse the conservative interpretation of the rights belonging to the people, and coming to a similar conclusion as I have that although this is the predominant interpretation, there is still room for the interpretation of the right to bear arms within regulated militia only.
> 
> So he and I both agree to keep it open both ways, but he came from your viewpoint and opened up to even acknowledge that the other interpretation is actually more consistent historically; and I come from the conservative interpretation but keep the floor open to include other beliefs and interpretations equally.
> 
> He and I both agree that history points to the conservative interpretation; but inclusion and respect for our fellow Democrats and liberals, of course we are always going to include our constituents and not exclude those beliefs as the hardcore conservatives who aim to attack and discredit liberals.
> 
> You may never be able to see beyond right to bear arms within a regulated militia only, but I hope you would AT LEAST open up to ACCOMMODATE the beliefs in people bearing arms individually, ie as long as it's done within the inseparable context of defending the laws and protections of others and not violating any laws, since I am asking those other advocates to accommodate YOUR beliefs that it means militia only.
> 
> The only way I've seen people budge on their beliefs, from exclusion to inclusion of others, is if they are treated the same way. So that's the most I could hope or expect to change here, a move toward equal inclusion in order to gain respect for your beliefs that are always going to be in the minority, because people believe in themselves and their judgment to make decisions more than they believe in others running govt and "organized regulations." they have to be involved or feel represented in the decisions on regulations before they trust it, so it always lands on the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural rights.
Click to expand...








You have already been schooled on this repeatedly.  You are wrong.  You know you are wrong yet you keep repeating the same tired old memes.  Time for you to get some new material.


----------



## ChrisL

westwall said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope; Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States
> 
> 
> 
> The wellness of regulation?
> 
> 
> But it says the infringmentness of rightsness, which specifically excludes Congress, and I have provided quotes from both Madison AND Jefferson SPECIFICALLY stating the intentness to prohibit Congress from infringing on the right.  I am fucking tired of posting those quotes, so why don't you respond to them or shut the fuck up.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because they are on the right wing, and clueless and Causeless as a result.
> 
> Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States.
> 
> It is clearly enumerated in Article 1, Section 8.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, because the Bill of Rights was to define the rights of the PEOPLE that the federal govt and Congress COULD NOT infringe upon.
> 
> The objectors who would otherwise have REFUSED to ratify the Constitution giving powers to centralized federal govt, only agreed if the Bill of Rights was going to be added as a CONDITION where it delineated the rights of INDIVIDUALS.
> 
> So all the things they DIDN'T WANT federal govt to abuse or control, were spelled out in the Bill of Rights to make sure there was an agreement NOT TO GO THERE.
> 
> I'm sure danielpalos these same arguments existed back then, with advocates defenders and opponents on both sides fighting just as fiercely.
> 
> So I find it more and more telling, more interesting and "not an accident" that the 2nd Amendment would be written where BOTH SIDES can claim their interpretation equally.
> 
> This tells me even more we should leave it written exactly as is. At least both sides can defend their views on this, so it is more
> fair and inclusive of all people regardless which side they take!
> 
> Thank you danielpalos and especially frigidweirdo
> 
> Thanks to you I can clearly see where the people like you
> are getting that the people bearing arms is "directly tied" to the intro clause about well regulated militia.
> 
> I am even more glad then ever that I can see and support
> both sides, so that I can better fulfill the commitment to be equally inclusive and defend the rights of all people regardless of belief.  I am so grateful that I can do this, because if I were
> like you or like your opponents, who could only see one side
> and truly believe the other is invalid and doesn't count legally,
> I would be MISERABLE AS FU.
> 
> I would not be able to have peace of mind knowing the other group is out there, and wasting all my energy trying to defend my view while denouncing the other; while they do the same.
> 
> So glad I can sincerely appreciate embrace and defend both sides and the equal right to exercise and establish that interpretation. I do this by sticking with the general interpretation that invoking the right to bear arms requires doing so within the Context of the rest of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. So this automatically requires people to be LAW ABIDING and respect the equal constitutional rights freedoms and protections of others, to defend the law and not to violate it, including the respect and protection of EQUAL BELIEFS of people from discrimination and infringement. So I can live with both, within that context.
> 
> Anyone seeking to impose their views and violate the beliefs of others by exclusion or bullying, I cannot go there by conscience.
> I can only seek to include and protect people's beliefs and free choice whether or how to change their views to resolve conflicts with others.
> 
> So glad I take this approach.
> 
> Thank you for reinforcing how important it is, since there is clear validity on your side of the fence and how and why you interpret it that way, even holding it to be the only truth, while the other interpretation is political and a lie.
> 
> It makes me even more curious about my friend who came from the view you take, then changed from reading the history and decided the historical context DOES endorse the conservative interpretation of the rights belonging to the people, and coming to a similar conclusion as I have that although this is the predominant interpretation, there is still room for the interpretation of the right to bear arms within regulated militia only.
> 
> So he and I both agree to keep it open both ways, but he came from your viewpoint and opened up to even acknowledge that the other interpretation is actually more consistent historically; and I come from the conservative interpretation but keep the floor open to include other beliefs and interpretations equally.
> 
> He and I both agree that history points to the conservative interpretation; but inclusion and respect for our fellow Democrats and liberals, of course we are always going to include our constituents and not exclude those beliefs as the hardcore conservatives who aim to attack and discredit liberals.
> 
> You may never be able to see beyond right to bear arms within a regulated militia only, but I hope you would AT LEAST open up to ACCOMMODATE the beliefs in people bearing arms individually, ie as long as it's done within the inseparable context of defending the laws and protections of others and not violating any laws, since I am asking those other advocates to accommodate YOUR beliefs that it means militia only.
> 
> The only way I've seen people budge on their beliefs, from exclusion to inclusion of others, is if they are treated the same way. So that's the most I could hope or expect to change here, a move toward equal inclusion in order to gain respect for your beliefs that are always going to be in the minority, because people believe in themselves and their judgment to make decisions more than they believe in others running govt and "organized regulations." they have to be involved or feel represented in the decisions on regulations before they trust it, so it always lands on the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have already been schooled on this repeatedly.  You are wrong.  You know you are wrong yet you keep repeating the same tired old memes.  Time for you to get some new material.
Click to expand...


The bot needs reprogramming ASAP!


----------



## westwall

frigidweirdo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo
> A. if you are citing Heller as above, doesn't that reinforce the individual right interpretation?
> Or is your argument that this interpretation came later
> and is not the original intent?
> 
> B. as for Presser saying there is no right to carry arme and this is the law of the land
> because it hasn't been struck down
> 
> what about new laws like conceal and carry.
> 
> new laws can be passed and that's not the same as striking down previous court cases.
> 
> Also regardless of what laws are written or rulings are made,
> I've heard of cases where local sheriffs refuse to enforce certain gun laws
> they deem to be unconstitutional and against their oath to uphold the law.
> 
> So just because a ruling hasn't been challenged or struck down yet,
> doesn't mean it bears the same weight as the rest of "the law of the land"
> '
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm citing Heller, as I explained before, because Heller uses the Presser case in which they said: "We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
> 
> This therefore states that carrying guns around with you is NOT protected by the Second Amendment.
> 
> The person I was talking to was basically saying that Heller only deals with the right to KEEP arms and not the right to bear arms, which is only half true as in the Heller case they basically tried to expand on the right to keep arms.
> 
> No, Presser says there is no CONSTITUTIONAL protection to carry arms. Laws and the Constitution are two completely different things. You can legally breathe, but there's nothing in the Constitution that protects your breathing. You can watch TV, nothing in the Constitution protects that.
> 
> Carry and conceal permits actually PROVE there is no right to carry arms, because if there were, then there would be no need for permits, and yet the NRA backs carry and conceal permits. Why? Because they KNOW that there is no right to carry arms and they'd never send a case forwards because they know it would get rejected and then people would know there's no right to carry arms. The NRA are happy to let people wallow in their ignorance on this one.
> 
> Well, actually, yes, if a ruling hasn't been struck down, then the Federal Courts should follow precedent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what causes your inaccurate misunderstandings about the constitution and gun rights and what causes you to be anti gun?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, now it's "inaccurate misunderstanding" is it?
> 
> Well, seeing as YOU can't even debate back, I'd say it's not ME who has the misunderstandings.
> 
> If it were that easy to fight back, you'd have done so, instead of deflecting and insulting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I countered your argument with the US V Miller decision.  I wonder why you ignore that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me see. You'd be on ignore if you were a moderator. So I choose to manually ignore you. I don't have any time for you. It's that simple.
Click to expand...









Oh?  I see.  When presented by facts that completely destroy your meme you flee.  i get it.  Then by all means go someplace else.  This Board is for adults to discuss things.  I am sure there are play pens out there for those of your ilk.


----------



## emilynghiem

danielpalos said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So which part of my argument is "bullshit"?
> 
> The Amendment says "the right to keep and bear arms"
> 
> Is this one right or is this two rights?
> 
> For example, the First Amendment
> 
> "or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
> 
> Is this one right or two rights? It has "and" in between, but clearly you have the right to peacefully assemble and the right to petition the government. However they only say the term "right" one time.
> 
> The 4A
> 
> "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,"
> 
> Do you have a right to be secure in your person? Yes. Do you have a right to be secure in your houses? Yes. Different rights.
> 
> Bear arms and keep arms are two different things. So there are two different protections of those rights. However efficiency suggests that you can place them next to each other and use the term "right" one time.
> 
> Certainly in the document I have showed you the Founding Fathers were dealing with the right to bear arms and not the right to keep arms.
> 
> The drafts of the Second Amendment had a clause which said either "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." or "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
> 
> You see that one time they spoke about being compelled to "bear arms", not to "keep and bear arms", and the other compelled to "render military service".
> 
> No, I'm not going to make some bullshit up about keep not meaning keep.
> 
> Try this. Stool means two things. A shit, and a wooden backless seat.
> 
> "The doctor told him to sit on the stool", does context tell you that "stool" is a shit, or a wooden seat? I mean you have doctor in there, doctors look at stools all the time, so much be shit right? Or maybe not. Who would sit on a shit? So we're going to use context to understand.
> 
> "bear" means lots of different things. However it's CLEAR (unless you have your head up your ass) from lots of documents from that time, that "bear arms" as a term, means "render military service" and "militia duty".
> 
> 
> 
> KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP
> 
> _Heller_ confirmed the individual right to KEEP arms.
> 
> You are trying to meld the term "keep" with the word "bear" but if you do that,  the _Heller_ holding makes the right to "bear" an individual right, requiring one to keep arms in order to do so.
> 
> The mental gynastics is glorious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe keep doesn't really mean keep if you are a leftist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Keep and bear is not, acquire and possess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> horsecrap and if you want to be so literally, how does "commerce among the several states" give congress any power over individual citizens who are not engaging in "commerce among the several states"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not the same.  California uses acquire and possess to secure natural rights, not keep and bear.
Click to expand...


Sure danielpalos
And that's why Californians who vote on CA law
remain separate from Texans who vote on TX law.

Why can't we do the same here?
If one set of people want to live under policies
where right to bear arms is only through well regulated
militia, you have every right to set that up in districts
or states where you have representation. Many people
and groups have done so, either by their own national
guards, rangers, or security patrols or watches per neighborhood.

You are free to hire or fire your own police if you want to set this up for your neighborhood, civic association or district
similar to college campuses or companies with their own
security staff under their own local regulations.

But that shouldn't affect other people's equal freedom
to regulate or elect their own standards on bearing arms
and defending laws and security where THEY have representation.

I could even see church-run districts calling for spiritual healing, screening, diagnosis and treatment to weed out dangerous abuse or mental illness and criminal disorders, so that NOBODY clearly sick would get a hold of guns who isn't legally competent and law abiding to begin with, they wouldn't be able to live in the district without medical supervision if there was any such blatant risk of criminal abuse to violate laws, that the people could catch locally by setting up means for screening and reviewing complaints or threats. Who knows, after the TX church shooting, even the military might look into the methods of spiritual healing used to SCREEN people for mental problems where people like the shooter in that case would have been required to get help early on, and kept in detention under supervision until his conditions normalized if ever.

With better screening, then not even the "organized militia or military" would allow the criminal element to go unchecked and result in abuse of firearms outside or against the law.

That needs to be addressed even if we did restrict firearms to only regulated organizations!

Each group of people has equal rights to representation in whatever policies they believe establish freedom and security in a just way.

Thanks danielpalos you reinforce even more
why it's so important to let the PEOPLE decide
and let the govt laws FOLLOW from what the people
consent to, so that the contracts we make are legally binding
and enforceable by authority and consent of the people affected.


----------



## danielpalos

westwall said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even though that argument is demostrably bullshit, and even if we concede that point (which we don't) the Amndment says, "KEEP and bear arms."
> 
> Next you're gonna make up some bullshit about the word keep not meaning FUCKING "KEEP" but some other nonsense.
> 
> 
> You communists are so predictable.  You are never getting out guns and starting your Bolshevik overthrow, so you can just give it up now.  We will fucking smoke your commie asses.  In fact, please try.  Please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So which part of my argument is "bullshit"?
> 
> The Amendment says "the right to keep and bear arms"
> 
> Is this one right or is this two rights?
> 
> For example, the First Amendment
> 
> "or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
> 
> Is this one right or two rights? It has "and" in between, but clearly you have the right to peacefully assemble and the right to petition the government. However they only say the term "right" one time.
> 
> The 4A
> 
> "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,"
> 
> Do you have a right to be secure in your person? Yes. Do you have a right to be secure in your houses? Yes. Different rights.
> 
> Bear arms and keep arms are two different things. So there are two different protections of those rights. However efficiency suggests that you can place them next to each other and use the term "right" one time.
> 
> Certainly in the document I have showed you the Founding Fathers were dealing with the right to bear arms and not the right to keep arms.
> 
> The drafts of the Second Amendment had a clause which said either "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." or "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
> 
> You see that one time they spoke about being compelled to "bear arms", not to "keep and bear arms", and the other compelled to "render military service".
> 
> No, I'm not going to make some bullshit up about keep not meaning keep.
> 
> Try this. Stool means two things. A shit, and a wooden backless seat.
> 
> "The doctor told him to sit on the stool", does context tell you that "stool" is a shit, or a wooden seat? I mean you have doctor in there, doctors look at stools all the time, so much be shit right? Or maybe not. Who would sit on a shit? So we're going to use context to understand.
> 
> "bear" means lots of different things. However it's CLEAR (unless you have your head up your ass) from lots of documents from that time, that "bear arms" as a term, means "render military service" and "militia duty".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP
> 
> _Heller_ confirmed the individual right to KEEP arms.
> 
> You are trying to meld the term "keep" with the word "bear" but if you do that,  the _Heller_ holding makes the right to "bear" an individual right, requiring one to keep arms in order to do so.
> 
> The mental gynastics is glorious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe keep doesn't really mean keep if you are a leftist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Keep and bear is not, acquire and possess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is in e very language I know of on this planet.  You must be from a different planet.
Click to expand...

Acquire and possess is not the same as keep and bear; keep and bear is Only used in our Second Amendment with context being the security of a free State.

The right wing on this board merely has inferior reading comprehension.


----------



## danielpalos

westwall said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope; Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States
> 
> 
> 
> The wellness of regulation?
> 
> 
> But it says the infringmentness of rightsness, which specifically excludes Congress, and I have provided quotes from both Madison AND Jefferson SPECIFICALLY stating the intentness to prohibit Congress from infringing on the right.  I am fucking tired of posting those quotes, so why don't you respond to them or shut the fuck up.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because they are on the right wing, and clueless and Causeless as a result.
> 
> Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States.
> 
> It is clearly enumerated in Article 1, Section 8.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, because the Bill of Rights was to define the rights of the PEOPLE that the federal govt and Congress COULD NOT infringe upon.
> 
> The objectors who would otherwise have REFUSED to ratify the Constitution giving powers to centralized federal govt, only agreed if the Bill of Rights was going to be added as a CONDITION where it delineated the rights of INDIVIDUALS.
> 
> So all the things they DIDN'T WANT federal govt to abuse or control, were spelled out in the Bill of Rights to make sure there was an agreement NOT TO GO THERE.
> 
> I'm sure danielpalos these same arguments existed back then, with advocates defenders and opponents on both sides fighting just as fiercely.
> 
> So I find it more and more telling, more interesting and "not an accident" that the 2nd Amendment would be written where BOTH SIDES can claim their interpretation equally.
> 
> This tells me even more we should leave it written exactly as is. At least both sides can defend their views on this, so it is more
> fair and inclusive of all people regardless which side they take!
> 
> Thank you danielpalos and especially frigidweirdo
> 
> Thanks to you I can clearly see where the people like you
> are getting that the people bearing arms is "directly tied" to the intro clause about well regulated militia.
> 
> I am even more glad then ever that I can see and support
> both sides, so that I can better fulfill the commitment to be equally inclusive and defend the rights of all people regardless of belief.  I am so grateful that I can do this, because if I were
> like you or like your opponents, who could only see one side
> and truly believe the other is invalid and doesn't count legally,
> I would be MISERABLE AS FU.
> 
> I would not be able to have peace of mind knowing the other group is out there, and wasting all my energy trying to defend my view while denouncing the other; while they do the same.
> 
> So glad I can sincerely appreciate embrace and defend both sides and the equal right to exercise and establish that interpretation. I do this by sticking with the general interpretation that invoking the right to bear arms requires doing so within the Context of the rest of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. So this automatically requires people to be LAW ABIDING and respect the equal constitutional rights freedoms and protections of others, to defend the law and not to violate it, including the respect and protection of EQUAL BELIEFS of people from discrimination and infringement. So I can live with both, within that context.
> 
> Anyone seeking to impose their views and violate the beliefs of others by exclusion or bullying, I cannot go there by conscience.
> I can only seek to include and protect people's beliefs and free choice whether or how to change their views to resolve conflicts with others.
> 
> So glad I take this approach.
> 
> Thank you for reinforcing how important it is, since there is clear validity on your side of the fence and how and why you interpret it that way, even holding it to be the only truth, while the other interpretation is political and a lie.
> 
> It makes me even more curious about my friend who came from the view you take, then changed from reading the history and decided the historical context DOES endorse the conservative interpretation of the rights belonging to the people, and coming to a similar conclusion as I have that although this is the predominant interpretation, there is still room for the interpretation of the right to bear arms within regulated militia only.
> 
> So he and I both agree to keep it open both ways, but he came from your viewpoint and opened up to even acknowledge that the other interpretation is actually more consistent historically; and I come from the conservative interpretation but keep the floor open to include other beliefs and interpretations equally.
> 
> He and I both agree that history points to the conservative interpretation; but inclusion and respect for our fellow Democrats and liberals, of course we are always going to include our constituents and not exclude those beliefs as the hardcore conservatives who aim to attack and discredit liberals.
> 
> You may never be able to see beyond right to bear arms within a regulated militia only, but I hope you would AT LEAST open up to ACCOMMODATE the beliefs in people bearing arms individually, ie as long as it's done within the inseparable context of defending the laws and protections of others and not violating any laws, since I am asking those other advocates to accommodate YOUR beliefs that it means militia only.
> 
> The only way I've seen people budge on their beliefs, from exclusion to inclusion of others, is if they are treated the same way. So that's the most I could hope or expect to change here, a move toward equal inclusion in order to gain respect for your beliefs that are always going to be in the minority, because people believe in themselves and their judgment to make decisions more than they believe in others running govt and "organized regulations." they have to be involved or feel represented in the decisions on regulations before they trust it, so it always lands on the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have already been schooled on this repeatedly.  You are wrong.  You know you are wrong yet you keep repeating the same tired old memes.  Time for you to get some new material.
Click to expand...

dude; nobody should take the right wing seriously about law or politics.

Our Second Amendment is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural rights.

It says so, in the Intent and Purpose clause.


----------



## emilynghiem

westwall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm citing Heller, as I explained before, because Heller uses the Presser case in which they said: "We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
> 
> This therefore states that carrying guns around with you is NOT protected by the Second Amendment.
> 
> The person I was talking to was basically saying that Heller only deals with the right to KEEP arms and not the right to bear arms, which is only half true as in the Heller case they basically tried to expand on the right to keep arms.
> 
> No, Presser says there is no CONSTITUTIONAL protection to carry arms. Laws and the Constitution are two completely different things. You can legally breathe, but there's nothing in the Constitution that protects your breathing. You can watch TV, nothing in the Constitution protects that.
> 
> Carry and conceal permits actually PROVE there is no right to carry arms, because if there were, then there would be no need for permits, and yet the NRA backs carry and conceal permits. Why? Because they KNOW that there is no right to carry arms and they'd never send a case forwards because they know it would get rejected and then people would know there's no right to carry arms. The NRA are happy to let people wallow in their ignorance on this one.
> 
> Well, actually, yes, if a ruling hasn't been struck down, then the Federal Courts should follow precedent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what causes your inaccurate misunderstandings about the constitution and gun rights and what causes you to be anti gun?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, now it's "inaccurate misunderstanding" is it?
> 
> Well, seeing as YOU can't even debate back, I'd say it's not ME who has the misunderstandings.
> 
> If it were that easy to fight back, you'd have done so, instead of deflecting and insulting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I countered your argument with the US V Miller decision.  I wonder why you ignore that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me see. You'd be on ignore if you were a moderator. So I choose to manually ignore you. I don't have any time for you. It's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh?  I see.  When presented by facts that completely destroy your meme you flee.  i get it.  Then by all means go someplace else.  This Board is for adults to discuss things.  I am sure there are play pens out there for those of your ilk.
Click to expand...


westwall I think you and frigidweirdo do much
better sticking to content. When you start engaging in the
same juvenile jabs at people not principles and points,
I can't much tell the difference between you and whom you criticize.

I personally thought frigidweirdo was doing quite well citing historical reasoning, even though I disagree and believe this is taken out of context with the obvious greater philosophy and foundation behind America's independence and Constitutional traditions.

May I ask you both NOT to personally attack and district,
and to PLEASE stick with the historical citations that you
both have been providing which I find edifying and enlightening.

Please continue with that, and not the other which I understand may be just to take a break from the heavy intellectual discourse. Maybe it's just human to exchange a few punches
before getting back to work...


----------



## westwall

danielpalos said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> The wellness of regulation?
> 
> 
> But it says the infringmentness of rightsness, which specifically excludes Congress, and I have provided quotes from both Madison AND Jefferson SPECIFICALLY stating the intentness to prohibit Congress from infringing on the right.  I am fucking tired of posting those quotes, so why don't you respond to them or shut the fuck up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they are on the right wing, and clueless and Causeless as a result.
> 
> Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States.
> 
> It is clearly enumerated in Article 1, Section 8.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, because the Bill of Rights was to define the rights of the PEOPLE that the federal govt and Congress COULD NOT infringe upon.
> 
> The objectors who would otherwise have REFUSED to ratify the Constitution giving powers to centralized federal govt, only agreed if the Bill of Rights was going to be added as a CONDITION where it delineated the rights of INDIVIDUALS.
> 
> So all the things they DIDN'T WANT federal govt to abuse or control, were spelled out in the Bill of Rights to make sure there was an agreement NOT TO GO THERE.
> 
> I'm sure danielpalos these same arguments existed back then, with advocates defenders and opponents on both sides fighting just as fiercely.
> 
> So I find it more and more telling, more interesting and "not an accident" that the 2nd Amendment would be written where BOTH SIDES can claim their interpretation equally.
> 
> This tells me even more we should leave it written exactly as is. At least both sides can defend their views on this, so it is more
> fair and inclusive of all people regardless which side they take!
> 
> Thank you danielpalos and especially frigidweirdo
> 
> Thanks to you I can clearly see where the people like you
> are getting that the people bearing arms is "directly tied" to the intro clause about well regulated militia.
> 
> I am even more glad then ever that I can see and support
> both sides, so that I can better fulfill the commitment to be equally inclusive and defend the rights of all people regardless of belief.  I am so grateful that I can do this, because if I were
> like you or like your opponents, who could only see one side
> and truly believe the other is invalid and doesn't count legally,
> I would be MISERABLE AS FU.
> 
> I would not be able to have peace of mind knowing the other group is out there, and wasting all my energy trying to defend my view while denouncing the other; while they do the same.
> 
> So glad I can sincerely appreciate embrace and defend both sides and the equal right to exercise and establish that interpretation. I do this by sticking with the general interpretation that invoking the right to bear arms requires doing so within the Context of the rest of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. So this automatically requires people to be LAW ABIDING and respect the equal constitutional rights freedoms and protections of others, to defend the law and not to violate it, including the respect and protection of EQUAL BELIEFS of people from discrimination and infringement. So I can live with both, within that context.
> 
> Anyone seeking to impose their views and violate the beliefs of others by exclusion or bullying, I cannot go there by conscience.
> I can only seek to include and protect people's beliefs and free choice whether or how to change their views to resolve conflicts with others.
> 
> So glad I take this approach.
> 
> Thank you for reinforcing how important it is, since there is clear validity on your side of the fence and how and why you interpret it that way, even holding it to be the only truth, while the other interpretation is political and a lie.
> 
> It makes me even more curious about my friend who came from the view you take, then changed from reading the history and decided the historical context DOES endorse the conservative interpretation of the rights belonging to the people, and coming to a similar conclusion as I have that although this is the predominant interpretation, there is still room for the interpretation of the right to bear arms within regulated militia only.
> 
> So he and I both agree to keep it open both ways, but he came from your viewpoint and opened up to even acknowledge that the other interpretation is actually more consistent historically; and I come from the conservative interpretation but keep the floor open to include other beliefs and interpretations equally.
> 
> He and I both agree that history points to the conservative interpretation; but inclusion and respect for our fellow Democrats and liberals, of course we are always going to include our constituents and not exclude those beliefs as the hardcore conservatives who aim to attack and discredit liberals.
> 
> You may never be able to see beyond right to bear arms within a regulated militia only, but I hope you would AT LEAST open up to ACCOMMODATE the beliefs in people bearing arms individually, ie as long as it's done within the inseparable context of defending the laws and protections of others and not violating any laws, since I am asking those other advocates to accommodate YOUR beliefs that it means militia only.
> 
> The only way I've seen people budge on their beliefs, from exclusion to inclusion of others, is if they are treated the same way. So that's the most I could hope or expect to change here, a move toward equal inclusion in order to gain respect for your beliefs that are always going to be in the minority, because people believe in themselves and their judgment to make decisions more than they believe in others running govt and "organized regulations." they have to be involved or feel represented in the decisions on regulations before they trust it, so it always lands on the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have already been schooled on this repeatedly.  You are wrong.  You know you are wrong yet you keep repeating the same tired old memes.  Time for you to get some new material.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude; nobody should take the right wing seriously about law or politics.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural rights.
> 
> It says so, in the Intent and Purpose clause.
Click to expand...









Indeed.  And it also states quite emphatically that the "Right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".  What part of that sentence do you not understand?


----------



## westwall

He has alr


emilynghiem said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> what causes your inaccurate misunderstandings about the constitution and gun rights and what causes you to be anti gun?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, now it's "inaccurate misunderstanding" is it?
> 
> Well, seeing as YOU can't even debate back, I'd say it's not ME who has the misunderstandings.
> 
> If it were that easy to fight back, you'd have done so, instead of deflecting and insulting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I countered your argument with the US V Miller decision.  I wonder why you ignore that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me see. You'd be on ignore if you were a moderator. So I choose to manually ignore you. I don't have any time for you. It's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh?  I see.  When presented by facts that completely destroy your meme you flee.  i get it.  Then by all means go someplace else.  This Board is for adults to discuss things.  I am sure there are play pens out there for those of your ilk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> westwall I think you and frigidweirdo do much
> better sticking to content. When you start engaging in the
> same juvenile jabs at people not principles and points,
> I can't much tell the difference between you and whom you criticize.
> 
> I personally thought frigidweirdo was doing quite well citing historical reasoning, even though I disagree and believe this is taken out of context with the obvious greater philosophy and foundation behind America's independence and Constitutional traditions.
> 
> May I ask you both NOT to personally attack and district,
> and to PLEASE stick with the historical citations that you
> both have been providing which I find edifying and enlightening.
> 
> Please continue with that, and not the other which I understand may be just to take a break from the heavy intellectual discourse. Maybe it's just human to exchange a few punches
> before getting back to work...
Click to expand...







He has already been shown the pertinent historical documents that refute his arguments.  He ignores them, thus he is not engaging in legit discourse so he is not worthy of any sort of consideration.


----------



## ChrisL

emilynghiem said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> what causes your inaccurate misunderstandings about the constitution and gun rights and what causes you to be anti gun?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, now it's "inaccurate misunderstanding" is it?
> 
> Well, seeing as YOU can't even debate back, I'd say it's not ME who has the misunderstandings.
> 
> If it were that easy to fight back, you'd have done so, instead of deflecting and insulting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I countered your argument with the US V Miller decision.  I wonder why you ignore that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me see. You'd be on ignore if you were a moderator. So I choose to manually ignore you. I don't have any time for you. It's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh?  I see.  When presented by facts that completely destroy your meme you flee.  i get it.  Then by all means go someplace else.  This Board is for adults to discuss things.  I am sure there are play pens out there for those of your ilk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> westwall I think you and frigidweirdo do much
> better sticking to content. When you start engaging in the
> same juvenile jabs at people not principles and points,
> I can't much tell the difference between you and whom you criticize.
> 
> I personally thought frigidweirdo was doing quite well citing historical reasoning, even though I disagree and believe this is taken out of context with the obvious greater philosophy and foundation behind America's independence and Constitutional traditions.
> 
> May I ask you both NOT to personally attack and district,
> and to PLEASE stick with the historical citations that you
> both have been providing which I find edifying and enlightening.
> 
> Please continue with that, and not the other which I understand may be just to take a break from the heavy intellectual discourse. Maybe it's just human to exchange a few punches
> before getting back to work...
Click to expand...


What don't you understand about the fact that he is lying and twisting words only?  There is nothing reasonable about his arguments.    He is a traitor to the United States citizenry and nothing more than that, as is anyone who is going to stand in the way of us practicing our NATURAL rights.


----------



## hunarcy

frigidweirdo said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> You missed punctuation in school, didn't you?  Quite a few other classes in English too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, what the fuck?
> 
> You have a problem with my English? Which part of my English exactly?
> 
> Punctuation doesn't play a part in all of this at all.
> 
> Whether there are commas or there aren't commas, the Second Amendment still has the "right to...bear arms". The right is still in context of the rest of the Amendment whether there's punctuation or not.
> 
> The context is still with what the founding father said, and they used the term "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service" and "militia duty".
> 
> No matter how you try and bully your way through this, I know what I'm talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No matter how much you deny it, punctuation matters and the emphasis is not on the dependent clause, it is on the independent clause and while have been academians in the past that have tried to torture the Amendment to say what you wish it would say, the right belongs to THE PEOPLE and it shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say punctuation doesn't matter.
> 
> I'm saying in the Second Amendment it doesn't matter. Or more specifically the two commas that may or may not exist.
> 
> You can have "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." as ratified by the states or "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." as was going through Congress.
> 
> The two extra commas don't change anything in the meaning.
> 
> But trying to pretend that this does anything is wrong.
> 
> The first half of the Amendment doesn't do anything. It merely says WHY the right to keep arms and the right to bear arms are important.
> 
> Now, think about this. The Amendment is about the militia. The Amendment says a militia is important. It doesn't say TV is important, it doesn't say breathing is important, it doesn't say a lot of things. But it does say THE MILITIA.
> 
> This is CONTEXT.
> 
> The right to keep arms is the right of individuals to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply of weapons that the US federal govt cannot take away.
> The right to bear arms is the right of individuals to be in the militia so the militia has a ready supply of personnel to use those weapons.
> 
> A militia without guns is not "a well regulated militia", nor is a militia without personnel.
> 
> However a militia without individuals walking around in the streets with their guns is the same as it would be if they were walking about with their guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *sigh*  Here is the context.  The wording of the Second Amendment does emphasize the importance of the militia, but the Right is reserved to the PEOPLE.  If they had wanted the right reserved only to the militia, they could have said the right of the militia to keep and bear arms...they'd already proven they can spell it.   The Second is not ABOUT the militia, it's about the right of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sigh. What I find is that people on this forum often end up arguing what they're comfortable arguing with. They often decide what the other person is saying BEFORE they're bothered to read what the other person has said, and therefore don't need to read what the other person has said as they BELIEVE they know what has been said.
> 
> Yes, the Second Amendment emphasizes the importance of the militia. Why? Because the Amendment is ABOUT THE MILITIA.
> 
> You say the right is reserved to the people. Yet I wrote "The right to keep arms is the right of individuals" and "The right to bear arms is the right of individuals" and you're attacking me for saying it's not the right of individuals. Are you fucking serious?
> 
> 
> Here's the other deal, let's see if you bother to read this.
> 
> Each right in the US Bill of Rights is there for a reason. The reason is politics.
> 
> The First Amendment has the right to freedom of religion, right to protest and right of freedom of speech and the press. All of these are protected in the First Amendment because of their impact on politics.
> 
> Freedom of speech so you can talk about politics, freedom to protest so you can protest politicians, freedom of religion so there isn't a state religion.
> 
> Of course individuals can use their freedom of speech in other ways, there is no limit on the freedom of speech to just politics.
> 
> However in the Bill of Rights there is no protection of the right to walk. The right to breathe. The right to eat food. The right to play games. There are so many things NOT PROTECTED, and that's because they're not directly connected with politics. Hence the 10th Amendment.
> 
> The Second Amendment is about the militia. That's what it starts with "A well regulated militia..." It protects the militia by protecting individuals.
Click to expand...


No, it's NOT about the militia.  It's about the Right of the People, or as you insist, the right of individuals, to keep and bear arms.  The dependent clause about the militia is just one justification for the 2nd Amendment.


----------



## danielpalos

westwall said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because they are on the right wing, and clueless and Causeless as a result.
> 
> Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States.
> 
> It is clearly enumerated in Article 1, Section 8.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, because the Bill of Rights was to define the rights of the PEOPLE that the federal govt and Congress COULD NOT infringe upon.
> 
> The objectors who would otherwise have REFUSED to ratify the Constitution giving powers to centralized federal govt, only agreed if the Bill of Rights was going to be added as a CONDITION where it delineated the rights of INDIVIDUALS.
> 
> So all the things they DIDN'T WANT federal govt to abuse or control, were spelled out in the Bill of Rights to make sure there was an agreement NOT TO GO THERE.
> 
> I'm sure danielpalos these same arguments existed back then, with advocates defenders and opponents on both sides fighting just as fiercely.
> 
> So I find it more and more telling, more interesting and "not an accident" that the 2nd Amendment would be written where BOTH SIDES can claim their interpretation equally.
> 
> This tells me even more we should leave it written exactly as is. At least both sides can defend their views on this, so it is more
> fair and inclusive of all people regardless which side they take!
> 
> Thank you danielpalos and especially frigidweirdo
> 
> Thanks to you I can clearly see where the people like you
> are getting that the people bearing arms is "directly tied" to the intro clause about well regulated militia.
> 
> I am even more glad then ever that I can see and support
> both sides, so that I can better fulfill the commitment to be equally inclusive and defend the rights of all people regardless of belief.  I am so grateful that I can do this, because if I were
> like you or like your opponents, who could only see one side
> and truly believe the other is invalid and doesn't count legally,
> I would be MISERABLE AS FU.
> 
> I would not be able to have peace of mind knowing the other group is out there, and wasting all my energy trying to defend my view while denouncing the other; while they do the same.
> 
> So glad I can sincerely appreciate embrace and defend both sides and the equal right to exercise and establish that interpretation. I do this by sticking with the general interpretation that invoking the right to bear arms requires doing so within the Context of the rest of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. So this automatically requires people to be LAW ABIDING and respect the equal constitutional rights freedoms and protections of others, to defend the law and not to violate it, including the respect and protection of EQUAL BELIEFS of people from discrimination and infringement. So I can live with both, within that context.
> 
> Anyone seeking to impose their views and violate the beliefs of others by exclusion or bullying, I cannot go there by conscience.
> I can only seek to include and protect people's beliefs and free choice whether or how to change their views to resolve conflicts with others.
> 
> So glad I take this approach.
> 
> Thank you for reinforcing how important it is, since there is clear validity on your side of the fence and how and why you interpret it that way, even holding it to be the only truth, while the other interpretation is political and a lie.
> 
> It makes me even more curious about my friend who came from the view you take, then changed from reading the history and decided the historical context DOES endorse the conservative interpretation of the rights belonging to the people, and coming to a similar conclusion as I have that although this is the predominant interpretation, there is still room for the interpretation of the right to bear arms within regulated militia only.
> 
> So he and I both agree to keep it open both ways, but he came from your viewpoint and opened up to even acknowledge that the other interpretation is actually more consistent historically; and I come from the conservative interpretation but keep the floor open to include other beliefs and interpretations equally.
> 
> He and I both agree that history points to the conservative interpretation; but inclusion and respect for our fellow Democrats and liberals, of course we are always going to include our constituents and not exclude those beliefs as the hardcore conservatives who aim to attack and discredit liberals.
> 
> You may never be able to see beyond right to bear arms within a regulated militia only, but I hope you would AT LEAST open up to ACCOMMODATE the beliefs in people bearing arms individually, ie as long as it's done within the inseparable context of defending the laws and protections of others and not violating any laws, since I am asking those other advocates to accommodate YOUR beliefs that it means militia only.
> 
> The only way I've seen people budge on their beliefs, from exclusion to inclusion of others, is if they are treated the same way. So that's the most I could hope or expect to change here, a move toward equal inclusion in order to gain respect for your beliefs that are always going to be in the minority, because people believe in themselves and their judgment to make decisions more than they believe in others running govt and "organized regulations." they have to be involved or feel represented in the decisions on regulations before they trust it, so it always lands on the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have already been schooled on this repeatedly.  You are wrong.  You know you are wrong yet you keep repeating the same tired old memes.  Time for you to get some new material.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude; nobody should take the right wing seriously about law or politics.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural rights.
> 
> It says so, in the Intent and Purpose clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed.  And it also states quite emphatically that the "Right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".  What part of that sentence do you not understand?
Click to expand...

Only well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

the unorganized militia may be infringed.


----------



## danielpalos

westwall said:


> He has alr
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, now it's "inaccurate misunderstanding" is it?
> 
> Well, seeing as YOU can't even debate back, I'd say it's not ME who has the misunderstandings.
> 
> If it were that easy to fight back, you'd have done so, instead of deflecting and insulting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I countered your argument with the US V Miller decision.  I wonder why you ignore that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me see. You'd be on ignore if you were a moderator. So I choose to manually ignore you. I don't have any time for you. It's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh?  I see.  When presented by facts that completely destroy your meme you flee.  i get it.  Then by all means go someplace else.  This Board is for adults to discuss things.  I am sure there are play pens out there for those of your ilk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> westwall I think you and frigidweirdo do much
> better sticking to content. When you start engaging in the
> same juvenile jabs at people not principles and points,
> I can't much tell the difference between you and whom you criticize.
> 
> I personally thought frigidweirdo was doing quite well citing historical reasoning, even though I disagree and believe this is taken out of context with the obvious greater philosophy and foundation behind America's independence and Constitutional traditions.
> 
> May I ask you both NOT to personally attack and district,
> and to PLEASE stick with the historical citations that you
> both have been providing which I find edifying and enlightening.
> 
> Please continue with that, and not the other which I understand may be just to take a break from the heavy intellectual discourse. Maybe it's just human to exchange a few punches
> before getting back to work...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He has already been shown the pertinent historical documents that refute his arguments.  He ignores them, thus he is not engaging in legit discourse so he is not worthy of any sort of consideration.
Click to expand...

nobody takes the right wing seriously about politics or the law.


----------



## ChrisL

emilynghiem said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP
> 
> _Heller_ confirmed the individual right to KEEP arms.
> 
> You are trying to meld the term "keep" with the word "bear" but if you do that,  the _Heller_ holding makes the right to "bear" an individual right, requiring one to keep arms in order to do so.
> 
> The mental gynastics is glorious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe keep doesn't really mean keep if you are a leftist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Keep and bear is not, acquire and possess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> horsecrap and if you want to be so literally, how does "commerce among the several states" give congress any power over individual citizens who are not engaging in "commerce among the several states"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not the same.  California uses acquire and possess to secure natural rights, not keep and bear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure danielpalos
> And that's why Californians who vote on CA law
> remain separate from Texans who vote on TX law.
> 
> Why can't we do the same here?
> If one set of people want to live under policies
> where right to bear arms is only through well regulated
> militia, you have every right to set that up in districts
> or states where you have representation. Many people
> and groups have done so, either by their own national
> guards, rangers, or security patrols or watches per neighborhood.
> 
> You are free to hire or fire your own police if you want to set this up for your neighborhood, civic association or district
> similar to college campuses or companies with their own
> security staff under their own local regulations.
> 
> But that shouldn't affect other people's equal freedom
> to regulate or elect their own standards on bearing arms
> and defending laws and security where THEY have representation.
> 
> I could even see church-run districts calling for spiritual healing, screening, diagnosis and treatment to weed out dangerous abuse or mental illness and criminal disorders, so that NOBODY clearly sick would get a hold of guns who isn't legally competent and law abiding to begin with, they wouldn't be able to live in the district without medical supervision if there was any such blatant risk of criminal abuse to violate laws, that the people could catch locally by setting up means for screening and reviewing complaints or threats. Who knows, after the TX church shooting, even the military might look into the methods of spiritual healing used to SCREEN people for mental problems where people like the shooter in that case would have been required to get help early on, and kept in detention under supervision until his conditions normalized if ever.
> 
> With better screening, then not even the "organized militia or military" would allow the criminal element to go unchecked and result in abuse of firearms outside or against the law.
> 
> That needs to be addressed even if we did restrict firearms to only regulated organizations!
> 
> Each group of people has equal rights to representation in whatever policies they believe establish freedom and security in a just way.
> 
> Thanks danielpalos you reinforce even more
> why it's so important to let the PEOPLE decide
> and let the govt laws FOLLOW from what the people
> consent to, so that the contracts we make are legally binding
> and enforceable by authority and consent of the people affected.
Click to expand...


No citizen group has the right to deny an individual the right to keep and bear arms either.  It is a right!


----------



## westwall

danielpalos said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, because the Bill of Rights was to define the rights of the PEOPLE that the federal govt and Congress COULD NOT infringe upon.
> 
> The objectors who would otherwise have REFUSED to ratify the Constitution giving powers to centralized federal govt, only agreed if the Bill of Rights was going to be added as a CONDITION where it delineated the rights of INDIVIDUALS.
> 
> So all the things they DIDN'T WANT federal govt to abuse or control, were spelled out in the Bill of Rights to make sure there was an agreement NOT TO GO THERE.
> 
> I'm sure danielpalos these same arguments existed back then, with advocates defenders and opponents on both sides fighting just as fiercely.
> 
> So I find it more and more telling, more interesting and "not an accident" that the 2nd Amendment would be written where BOTH SIDES can claim their interpretation equally.
> 
> This tells me even more we should leave it written exactly as is. At least both sides can defend their views on this, so it is more
> fair and inclusive of all people regardless which side they take!
> 
> Thank you danielpalos and especially frigidweirdo
> 
> Thanks to you I can clearly see where the people like you
> are getting that the people bearing arms is "directly tied" to the intro clause about well regulated militia.
> 
> I am even more glad then ever that I can see and support
> both sides, so that I can better fulfill the commitment to be equally inclusive and defend the rights of all people regardless of belief.  I am so grateful that I can do this, because if I were
> like you or like your opponents, who could only see one side
> and truly believe the other is invalid and doesn't count legally,
> I would be MISERABLE AS FU.
> 
> I would not be able to have peace of mind knowing the other group is out there, and wasting all my energy trying to defend my view while denouncing the other; while they do the same.
> 
> So glad I can sincerely appreciate embrace and defend both sides and the equal right to exercise and establish that interpretation. I do this by sticking with the general interpretation that invoking the right to bear arms requires doing so within the Context of the rest of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. So this automatically requires people to be LAW ABIDING and respect the equal constitutional rights freedoms and protections of others, to defend the law and not to violate it, including the respect and protection of EQUAL BELIEFS of people from discrimination and infringement. So I can live with both, within that context.
> 
> Anyone seeking to impose their views and violate the beliefs of others by exclusion or bullying, I cannot go there by conscience.
> I can only seek to include and protect people's beliefs and free choice whether or how to change their views to resolve conflicts with others.
> 
> So glad I take this approach.
> 
> Thank you for reinforcing how important it is, since there is clear validity on your side of the fence and how and why you interpret it that way, even holding it to be the only truth, while the other interpretation is political and a lie.
> 
> It makes me even more curious about my friend who came from the view you take, then changed from reading the history and decided the historical context DOES endorse the conservative interpretation of the rights belonging to the people, and coming to a similar conclusion as I have that although this is the predominant interpretation, there is still room for the interpretation of the right to bear arms within regulated militia only.
> 
> So he and I both agree to keep it open both ways, but he came from your viewpoint and opened up to even acknowledge that the other interpretation is actually more consistent historically; and I come from the conservative interpretation but keep the floor open to include other beliefs and interpretations equally.
> 
> He and I both agree that history points to the conservative interpretation; but inclusion and respect for our fellow Democrats and liberals, of course we are always going to include our constituents and not exclude those beliefs as the hardcore conservatives who aim to attack and discredit liberals.
> 
> You may never be able to see beyond right to bear arms within a regulated militia only, but I hope you would AT LEAST open up to ACCOMMODATE the beliefs in people bearing arms individually, ie as long as it's done within the inseparable context of defending the laws and protections of others and not violating any laws, since I am asking those other advocates to accommodate YOUR beliefs that it means militia only.
> 
> The only way I've seen people budge on their beliefs, from exclusion to inclusion of others, is if they are treated the same way. So that's the most I could hope or expect to change here, a move toward equal inclusion in order to gain respect for your beliefs that are always going to be in the minority, because people believe in themselves and their judgment to make decisions more than they believe in others running govt and "organized regulations." they have to be involved or feel represented in the decisions on regulations before they trust it, so it always lands on the people.
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have already been schooled on this repeatedly.  You are wrong.  You know you are wrong yet you keep repeating the same tired old memes.  Time for you to get some new material.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude; nobody should take the right wing seriously about law or politics.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural rights.
> 
> It says so, in the Intent and Purpose clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed.  And it also states quite emphatically that the "Right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".  What part of that sentence do you not understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> the unorganized militia may be infringed.
Click to expand...






I refer you to the aforementioned US V MILLER case, who's entire ruling I have provided for you that refutes your statement point by point and IS a Supreme Court judgement.


----------



## emilynghiem

danielpalos said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> The wellness of regulation?
> 
> 
> But it says the infringmentness of rightsness, which specifically excludes Congress, and I have provided quotes from both Madison AND Jefferson SPECIFICALLY stating the intentness to prohibit Congress from infringing on the right.  I am fucking tired of posting those quotes, so why don't you respond to them or shut the fuck up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they are on the right wing, and clueless and Causeless as a result.
> 
> Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States.
> 
> It is clearly enumerated in Article 1, Section 8.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, because the Bill of Rights was to define the rights of the PEOPLE that the federal govt and Congress COULD NOT infringe upon.
> 
> The objectors who would otherwise have REFUSED to ratify the Constitution giving powers to centralized federal govt, only agreed if the Bill of Rights was going to be added as a CONDITION where it delineated the rights of INDIVIDUALS.
> 
> So all the things they DIDN'T WANT federal govt to abuse or control, were spelled out in the Bill of Rights to make sure there was an agreement NOT TO GO THERE.
> 
> I'm sure danielpalos these same arguments existed back then, with advocates defenders and opponents on both sides fighting just as fiercely.
> 
> So I find it more and more telling, more interesting and "not an accident" that the 2nd Amendment would be written where BOTH SIDES can claim their interpretation equally.
> 
> This tells me even more we should leave it written exactly as is. At least both sides can defend their views on this, so it is more
> fair and inclusive of all people regardless which side they take!
> 
> Thank you danielpalos and especially frigidweirdo
> 
> Thanks to you I can clearly see where the people like you
> are getting that the people bearing arms is "directly tied" to the intro clause about well regulated militia.
> 
> I am even more glad then ever that I can see and support
> both sides, so that I can better fulfill the commitment to be equally inclusive and defend the rights of all people regardless of belief.  I am so grateful that I can do this, because if I were
> like you or like your opponents, who could only see one side
> and truly believe the other is invalid and doesn't count legally,
> I would be MISERABLE AS FU.
> 
> I would not be able to have peace of mind knowing the other group is out there, and wasting all my energy trying to defend my view while denouncing the other; while they do the same.
> 
> So glad I can sincerely appreciate embrace and defend both sides and the equal right to exercise and establish that interpretation. I do this by sticking with the general interpretation that invoking the right to bear arms requires doing so within the Context of the rest of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. So this automatically requires people to be LAW ABIDING and respect the equal constitutional rights freedoms and protections of others, to defend the law and not to violate it, including the respect and protection of EQUAL BELIEFS of people from discrimination and infringement. So I can live with both, within that context.
> 
> Anyone seeking to impose their views and violate the beliefs of others by exclusion or bullying, I cannot go there by conscience.
> I can only seek to include and protect people's beliefs and free choice whether or how to change their views to resolve conflicts with others.
> 
> So glad I take this approach.
> 
> Thank you for reinforcing how important it is, since there is clear validity on your side of the fence and how and why you interpret it that way, even holding it to be the only truth, while the other interpretation is political and a lie.
> 
> It makes me even more curious about my friend who came from the view you take, then changed from reading the history and decided the historical context DOES endorse the conservative interpretation of the rights belonging to the people, and coming to a similar conclusion as I have that although this is the predominant interpretation, there is still room for the interpretation of the right to bear arms within regulated militia only.
> 
> So he and I both agree to keep it open both ways, but he came from your viewpoint and opened up to even acknowledge that the other interpretation is actually more consistent historically; and I come from the conservative interpretation but keep the floor open to include other beliefs and interpretations equally.
> 
> He and I both agree that history points to the conservative interpretation; but inclusion and respect for our fellow Democrats and liberals, of course we are always going to include our constituents and not exclude those beliefs as the hardcore conservatives who aim to attack and discredit liberals.
> 
> You may never be able to see beyond right to bear arms within a regulated militia only, but I hope you would AT LEAST open up to ACCOMMODATE the beliefs in people bearing arms individually, ie as long as it's done within the inseparable context of defending the laws and protections of others and not violating any laws, since I am asking those other advocates to accommodate YOUR beliefs that it means militia only.
> 
> The only way I've seen people budge on their beliefs, from exclusion to inclusion of others, is if they are treated the same way. So that's the most I could hope or expect to change here, a move toward equal inclusion in order to gain respect for your beliefs that are always going to be in the minority, because people believe in themselves and their judgment to make decisions more than they believe in others running govt and "organized regulations." they have to be involved or feel represented in the decisions on regulations before they trust it, so it always lands on the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have already been schooled on this repeatedly.  You are wrong.  You know you are wrong yet you keep repeating the same tired old memes.  Time for you to get some new material.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude; nobody should take the right wing seriously about law or politics.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural rights.
> 
> It says so, in the Intent and Purpose clause.
Click to expand...


Dear danielpalos or Dear God
Whoever answers this between the two:

Do you NOT get the entire Constitutional context
and beliefs that went into the Constitution and Bill of Rights?

You act like these longstanding beliefs
are totally nonexistent and inconsequential
with no substance or place in history at all?

No wonder you make liberals look like clueless fools.

That's like the people who assume all Christianity
is made up, so all the good and historical contributions
to the world by Christians "doesn't count."

????

The whole context and spirit of why the founders
fought all odds to put together the Constitution
was to put into writing the SELF EXISTENT truths
about human nature and what it takes to govern
ourselves as civilly and democratically as possible,
including the process of representation in reforming
and defending due process when accusations of wrong
come up and need to be managed by checked rules.

Dear Jesus, too!

We all need freedom of speech and the right to petition,
to ensure due process is not controlled and violated
by a collective authority vested in centralized govt
that too easily gets abused and runs amok.

danielpalos these rights did not come from the Constitution
and do not depend on that. it depends on our AGREEMENT
to ENFORCE these principles that exist as part of the
laws of human nature. All humans need these, not just
US citizens or residents under the Constitution which is
the written statutory form of these laws established historically
and enforced by education and agreement to follow consistent precedents (while people dissent when we disagree with precendents or govt laws/rulings we argue are inconsistent and violate equal rights and freedoms).

These rights and freedoms exist as part of human nature,
with or without the Constitution which ENFORCED them in a written system of laws and democratic process so we could
COMMUNICATE in an organized fashion. 

Do you not get these traditions at all?
I understand if you don't BELIEVE in this yourself.

My question at this point is why can't you include
and acknowledge that the conservatives and Constitutionalists who BELIEVE this explanation of human nature and Constitutional history
ARE valid and not just made up garbage
that you don't consider having any substance or value at all!

????

Can you tell me why you don't consider 
any of this to be valid as a BELIEF?


----------



## danielpalos

hunarcy said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, what the fuck?
> 
> You have a problem with my English? Which part of my English exactly?
> 
> Punctuation doesn't play a part in all of this at all.
> 
> Whether there are commas or there aren't commas, the Second Amendment still has the "right to...bear arms". The right is still in context of the rest of the Amendment whether there's punctuation or not.
> 
> The context is still with what the founding father said, and they used the term "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service" and "militia duty".
> 
> No matter how you try and bully your way through this, I know what I'm talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how much you deny it, punctuation matters and the emphasis is not on the dependent clause, it is on the independent clause and while have been academians in the past that have tried to torture the Amendment to say what you wish it would say, the right belongs to THE PEOPLE and it shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say punctuation doesn't matter.
> 
> I'm saying in the Second Amendment it doesn't matter. Or more specifically the two commas that may or may not exist.
> 
> You can have "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." as ratified by the states or "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." as was going through Congress.
> 
> The two extra commas don't change anything in the meaning.
> 
> But trying to pretend that this does anything is wrong.
> 
> The first half of the Amendment doesn't do anything. It merely says WHY the right to keep arms and the right to bear arms are important.
> 
> Now, think about this. The Amendment is about the militia. The Amendment says a militia is important. It doesn't say TV is important, it doesn't say breathing is important, it doesn't say a lot of things. But it does say THE MILITIA.
> 
> This is CONTEXT.
> 
> The right to keep arms is the right of individuals to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply of weapons that the US federal govt cannot take away.
> The right to bear arms is the right of individuals to be in the militia so the militia has a ready supply of personnel to use those weapons.
> 
> A militia without guns is not "a well regulated militia", nor is a militia without personnel.
> 
> However a militia without individuals walking around in the streets with their guns is the same as it would be if they were walking about with their guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *sigh*  Here is the context.  The wording of the Second Amendment does emphasize the importance of the militia, but the Right is reserved to the PEOPLE.  If they had wanted the right reserved only to the militia, they could have said the right of the militia to keep and bear arms...they'd already proven they can spell it.   The Second is not ABOUT the militia, it's about the right of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sigh. What I find is that people on this forum often end up arguing what they're comfortable arguing with. They often decide what the other person is saying BEFORE they're bothered to read what the other person has said, and therefore don't need to read what the other person has said as they BELIEVE they know what has been said.
> 
> Yes, the Second Amendment emphasizes the importance of the militia. Why? Because the Amendment is ABOUT THE MILITIA.
> 
> You say the right is reserved to the people. Yet I wrote "The right to keep arms is the right of individuals" and "The right to bear arms is the right of individuals" and you're attacking me for saying it's not the right of individuals. Are you fucking serious?
> 
> 
> Here's the other deal, let's see if you bother to read this.
> 
> Each right in the US Bill of Rights is there for a reason. The reason is politics.
> 
> The First Amendment has the right to freedom of religion, right to protest and right of freedom of speech and the press. All of these are protected in the First Amendment because of their impact on politics.
> 
> Freedom of speech so you can talk about politics, freedom to protest so you can protest politicians, freedom of religion so there isn't a state religion.
> 
> Of course individuals can use their freedom of speech in other ways, there is no limit on the freedom of speech to just politics.
> 
> However in the Bill of Rights there is no protection of the right to walk. The right to breathe. The right to eat food. The right to play games. There are so many things NOT PROTECTED, and that's because they're not directly connected with politics. Hence the 10th Amendment.
> 
> The Second Amendment is about the militia. That's what it starts with "A well regulated militia..." It protects the militia by protecting individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's NOT about the militia.  It's about the Right of the People, or as you insist, the right of individuals, to keep and bear arms.  The dependent clause about the militia is just one justification for the 2nd Amendment.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, regardless of All of the Other Ones.


----------



## westwall

danielpalos said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> He has alr
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> I countered your argument with the US V Miller decision.  I wonder why you ignore that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me see. You'd be on ignore if you were a moderator. So I choose to manually ignore you. I don't have any time for you. It's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh?  I see.  When presented by facts that completely destroy your meme you flee.  i get it.  Then by all means go someplace else.  This Board is for adults to discuss things.  I am sure there are play pens out there for those of your ilk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> westwall I think you and frigidweirdo do much
> better sticking to content. When you start engaging in the
> same juvenile jabs at people not principles and points,
> I can't much tell the difference between you and whom you criticize.
> 
> I personally thought frigidweirdo was doing quite well citing historical reasoning, even though I disagree and believe this is taken out of context with the obvious greater philosophy and foundation behind America's independence and Constitutional traditions.
> 
> May I ask you both NOT to personally attack and district,
> and to PLEASE stick with the historical citations that you
> both have been providing which I find edifying and enlightening.
> 
> Please continue with that, and not the other which I understand may be just to take a break from the heavy intellectual discourse. Maybe it's just human to exchange a few punches
> before getting back to work...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He has already been shown the pertinent historical documents that refute his arguments.  He ignores them, thus he is not engaging in legit discourse so he is not worthy of any sort of consideration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nobody takes the right wing seriously about politics or the law.
Click to expand...






As we don't take trolls like you seriously, either.


----------



## westwall

danielpalos said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how much you deny it, punctuation matters and the emphasis is not on the dependent clause, it is on the independent clause and while have been academians in the past that have tried to torture the Amendment to say what you wish it would say, the right belongs to THE PEOPLE and it shall not be infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say punctuation doesn't matter.
> 
> I'm saying in the Second Amendment it doesn't matter. Or more specifically the two commas that may or may not exist.
> 
> You can have "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." as ratified by the states or "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." as was going through Congress.
> 
> The two extra commas don't change anything in the meaning.
> 
> But trying to pretend that this does anything is wrong.
> 
> The first half of the Amendment doesn't do anything. It merely says WHY the right to keep arms and the right to bear arms are important.
> 
> Now, think about this. The Amendment is about the militia. The Amendment says a militia is important. It doesn't say TV is important, it doesn't say breathing is important, it doesn't say a lot of things. But it does say THE MILITIA.
> 
> This is CONTEXT.
> 
> The right to keep arms is the right of individuals to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply of weapons that the US federal govt cannot take away.
> The right to bear arms is the right of individuals to be in the militia so the militia has a ready supply of personnel to use those weapons.
> 
> A militia without guns is not "a well regulated militia", nor is a militia without personnel.
> 
> However a militia without individuals walking around in the streets with their guns is the same as it would be if they were walking about with their guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *sigh*  Here is the context.  The wording of the Second Amendment does emphasize the importance of the militia, but the Right is reserved to the PEOPLE.  If they had wanted the right reserved only to the militia, they could have said the right of the militia to keep and bear arms...they'd already proven they can spell it.   The Second is not ABOUT the militia, it's about the right of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sigh. What I find is that people on this forum often end up arguing what they're comfortable arguing with. They often decide what the other person is saying BEFORE they're bothered to read what the other person has said, and therefore don't need to read what the other person has said as they BELIEVE they know what has been said.
> 
> Yes, the Second Amendment emphasizes the importance of the militia. Why? Because the Amendment is ABOUT THE MILITIA.
> 
> You say the right is reserved to the people. Yet I wrote "The right to keep arms is the right of individuals" and "The right to bear arms is the right of individuals" and you're attacking me for saying it's not the right of individuals. Are you fucking serious?
> 
> 
> Here's the other deal, let's see if you bother to read this.
> 
> Each right in the US Bill of Rights is there for a reason. The reason is politics.
> 
> The First Amendment has the right to freedom of religion, right to protest and right of freedom of speech and the press. All of these are protected in the First Amendment because of their impact on politics.
> 
> Freedom of speech so you can talk about politics, freedom to protest so you can protest politicians, freedom of religion so there isn't a state religion.
> 
> Of course individuals can use their freedom of speech in other ways, there is no limit on the freedom of speech to just politics.
> 
> However in the Bill of Rights there is no protection of the right to walk. The right to breathe. The right to eat food. The right to play games. There are so many things NOT PROTECTED, and that's because they're not directly connected with politics. Hence the 10th Amendment.
> 
> The Second Amendment is about the militia. That's what it starts with "A well regulated militia..." It protects the militia by protecting individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's NOT about the militia.  It's about the Right of the People, or as you insist, the right of individuals, to keep and bear arms.  The dependent clause about the militia is just one justification for the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, regardless of All of the Other Ones.
Click to expand...






Do not respond here again until you have read the US v MIller document I provided.  Then I want to hear your twisted reasoning on why we should ignore a Supreme Court decision.


----------



## danielpalos

westwall said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have already been schooled on this repeatedly.  You are wrong.  You know you are wrong yet you keep repeating the same tired old memes.  Time for you to get some new material.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude; nobody should take the right wing seriously about law or politics.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural rights.
> 
> It says so, in the Intent and Purpose clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed.  And it also states quite emphatically that the "Right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".  What part of that sentence do you not understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> the unorganized militia may be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I refer you to the aforementioned US V MILLER case, who's entire ruling I have provided for you that refutes your statement point by point and IS a Supreme Court judgement.
Click to expand...

That ruling was in error; must have been, right wingers involved.

The People are the Militia; You are either well regulated or unorganized.


----------



## danielpalos

westwall said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> He has alr
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me see. You'd be on ignore if you were a moderator. So I choose to manually ignore you. I don't have any time for you. It's that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh?  I see.  When presented by facts that completely destroy your meme you flee.  i get it.  Then by all means go someplace else.  This Board is for adults to discuss things.  I am sure there are play pens out there for those of your ilk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> westwall I think you and frigidweirdo do much
> better sticking to content. When you start engaging in the
> same juvenile jabs at people not principles and points,
> I can't much tell the difference between you and whom you criticize.
> 
> I personally thought frigidweirdo was doing quite well citing historical reasoning, even though I disagree and believe this is taken out of context with the obvious greater philosophy and foundation behind America's independence and Constitutional traditions.
> 
> May I ask you both NOT to personally attack and district,
> and to PLEASE stick with the historical citations that you
> both have been providing which I find edifying and enlightening.
> 
> Please continue with that, and not the other which I understand may be just to take a break from the heavy intellectual discourse. Maybe it's just human to exchange a few punches
> before getting back to work...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He has already been shown the pertinent historical documents that refute his arguments.  He ignores them, thus he is not engaging in legit discourse so he is not worthy of any sort of consideration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nobody takes the right wing seriously about politics or the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As we don't take trolls like you seriously, either.
Click to expand...

Only the clueless and the Causeless say that.  Otherwise, y'all would have a valid argument.


----------



## ChrisL

emilynghiem said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because they are on the right wing, and clueless and Causeless as a result.
> 
> Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States.
> 
> It is clearly enumerated in Article 1, Section 8.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, because the Bill of Rights was to define the rights of the PEOPLE that the federal govt and Congress COULD NOT infringe upon.
> 
> The objectors who would otherwise have REFUSED to ratify the Constitution giving powers to centralized federal govt, only agreed if the Bill of Rights was going to be added as a CONDITION where it delineated the rights of INDIVIDUALS.
> 
> So all the things they DIDN'T WANT federal govt to abuse or control, were spelled out in the Bill of Rights to make sure there was an agreement NOT TO GO THERE.
> 
> I'm sure danielpalos these same arguments existed back then, with advocates defenders and opponents on both sides fighting just as fiercely.
> 
> So I find it more and more telling, more interesting and "not an accident" that the 2nd Amendment would be written where BOTH SIDES can claim their interpretation equally.
> 
> This tells me even more we should leave it written exactly as is. At least both sides can defend their views on this, so it is more
> fair and inclusive of all people regardless which side they take!
> 
> Thank you danielpalos and especially frigidweirdo
> 
> Thanks to you I can clearly see where the people like you
> are getting that the people bearing arms is "directly tied" to the intro clause about well regulated militia.
> 
> I am even more glad then ever that I can see and support
> both sides, so that I can better fulfill the commitment to be equally inclusive and defend the rights of all people regardless of belief.  I am so grateful that I can do this, because if I were
> like you or like your opponents, who could only see one side
> and truly believe the other is invalid and doesn't count legally,
> I would be MISERABLE AS FU.
> 
> I would not be able to have peace of mind knowing the other group is out there, and wasting all my energy trying to defend my view while denouncing the other; while they do the same.
> 
> So glad I can sincerely appreciate embrace and defend both sides and the equal right to exercise and establish that interpretation. I do this by sticking with the general interpretation that invoking the right to bear arms requires doing so within the Context of the rest of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. So this automatically requires people to be LAW ABIDING and respect the equal constitutional rights freedoms and protections of others, to defend the law and not to violate it, including the respect and protection of EQUAL BELIEFS of people from discrimination and infringement. So I can live with both, within that context.
> 
> Anyone seeking to impose their views and violate the beliefs of others by exclusion or bullying, I cannot go there by conscience.
> I can only seek to include and protect people's beliefs and free choice whether or how to change their views to resolve conflicts with others.
> 
> So glad I take this approach.
> 
> Thank you for reinforcing how important it is, since there is clear validity on your side of the fence and how and why you interpret it that way, even holding it to be the only truth, while the other interpretation is political and a lie.
> 
> It makes me even more curious about my friend who came from the view you take, then changed from reading the history and decided the historical context DOES endorse the conservative interpretation of the rights belonging to the people, and coming to a similar conclusion as I have that although this is the predominant interpretation, there is still room for the interpretation of the right to bear arms within regulated militia only.
> 
> So he and I both agree to keep it open both ways, but he came from your viewpoint and opened up to even acknowledge that the other interpretation is actually more consistent historically; and I come from the conservative interpretation but keep the floor open to include other beliefs and interpretations equally.
> 
> He and I both agree that history points to the conservative interpretation; but inclusion and respect for our fellow Democrats and liberals, of course we are always going to include our constituents and not exclude those beliefs as the hardcore conservatives who aim to attack and discredit liberals.
> 
> You may never be able to see beyond right to bear arms within a regulated militia only, but I hope you would AT LEAST open up to ACCOMMODATE the beliefs in people bearing arms individually, ie as long as it's done within the inseparable context of defending the laws and protections of others and not violating any laws, since I am asking those other advocates to accommodate YOUR beliefs that it means militia only.
> 
> The only way I've seen people budge on their beliefs, from exclusion to inclusion of others, is if they are treated the same way. So that's the most I could hope or expect to change here, a move toward equal inclusion in order to gain respect for your beliefs that are always going to be in the minority, because people believe in themselves and their judgment to make decisions more than they believe in others running govt and "organized regulations." they have to be involved or feel represented in the decisions on regulations before they trust it, so it always lands on the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have already been schooled on this repeatedly.  You are wrong.  You know you are wrong yet you keep repeating the same tired old memes.  Time for you to get some new material.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude; nobody should take the right wing seriously about law or politics.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural rights.
> 
> It says so, in the Intent and Purpose clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear danielpalos or Dear God
> Whoever answers this between the two:
> 
> Do you NOT get the entire Constitutional context
> and beliefs that went into the Constitution and Bill of Rights?
> 
> You act like these longstanding beliefs
> are totally nonexistent and inconsequential
> with no substance or place in history at all?
> 
> No wonder you make liberals look like clueless fools.
> 
> That's like the people who assume all Christianity
> is made up, so all the good and historical contributions
> to the world by Christians "doesn't count."
> 
> ????
> 
> The whole context and spirit of why the founders
> fought all odds to put together the Constitution
> was to put into writing the SELF EXISTENT truths
> about human nature and what it takes to govern
> ourselves as civilly and democratically as possible,
> including the process of representation in reforming
> and defending due process when accusations of wrong
> come up and need to be managed by checked rules.
> 
> Dear Jesus, too!
> 
> We all need freedom of speech and the right to petition,
> to ensure due process is not controlled and violated
> by a collective authority vested in centralized govt
> that too easily gets abused and runs amok.
> 
> danielpalos these rights did not come from the Constitution
> and do not depend on that. it depends on our AGREEMENT
> to ENFORCE these principles that exist as part of the
> laws of human nature. All humans need these, not just
> US citizens or residents under the Constitution which is
> the written statutory form of these laws established historically
> and enforced by education and agreement to follow consistent precedents (while people dissent when we disagree with precendents or govt laws/rulings we argue are inconsistent and violate equal rights and freedoms).
> 
> These rights and freedoms exist as part of human nature,
> with or without the Constitution which ENFORCED them in a written system of laws and democratic process so we could
> COMMUNICATE in an organized fashion.
> 
> Do you not get these traditions at all?
> I understand if you don't BELIEVE in this yourself.
> 
> My question at this point is why can't you include
> and acknowledge that the conservatives and Constitutionalists who BELIEVE this explanation of human nature and Constitutional history
> ARE valid and not just made up garbage
> that you don't consider having any substance or value at all!
> 
> ????
> 
> Can you tell me why you don't consider
> any of this to be valid as a BELIEF?
Click to expand...


Don't hold your breath for an answer that makes any sense.  You will suffocate.


----------



## emilynghiem

ChrisL said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe keep doesn't really mean keep if you are a leftist.
> 
> 
> 
> Keep and bear is not, acquire and possess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> horsecrap and if you want to be so literally, how does "commerce among the several states" give congress any power over individual citizens who are not engaging in "commerce among the several states"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not the same.  California uses acquire and possess to secure natural rights, not keep and bear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure danielpalos
> And that's why Californians who vote on CA law
> remain separate from Texans who vote on TX law.
> 
> Why can't we do the same here?
> If one set of people want to live under policies
> where right to bear arms is only through well regulated
> militia, you have every right to set that up in districts
> or states where you have representation. Many people
> and groups have done so, either by their own national
> guards, rangers, or security patrols or watches per neighborhood.
> 
> You are free to hire or fire your own police if you want to set this up for your neighborhood, civic association or district
> similar to college campuses or companies with their own
> security staff under their own local regulations.
> 
> But that shouldn't affect other people's equal freedom
> to regulate or elect their own standards on bearing arms
> and defending laws and security where THEY have representation.
> 
> I could even see church-run districts calling for spiritual healing, screening, diagnosis and treatment to weed out dangerous abuse or mental illness and criminal disorders, so that NOBODY clearly sick would get a hold of guns who isn't legally competent and law abiding to begin with, they wouldn't be able to live in the district without medical supervision if there was any such blatant risk of criminal abuse to violate laws, that the people could catch locally by setting up means for screening and reviewing complaints or threats. Who knows, after the TX church shooting, even the military might look into the methods of spiritual healing used to SCREEN people for mental problems where people like the shooter in that case would have been required to get help early on, and kept in detention under supervision until his conditions normalized if ever.
> 
> With better screening, then not even the "organized militia or military" would allow the criminal element to go unchecked and result in abuse of firearms outside or against the law.
> 
> That needs to be addressed even if we did restrict firearms to only regulated organizations!
> 
> Each group of people has equal rights to representation in whatever policies they believe establish freedom and security in a just way.
> 
> Thanks danielpalos you reinforce even more
> why it's so important to let the PEOPLE decide
> and let the govt laws FOLLOW from what the people
> consent to, so that the contracts we make are legally binding
> and enforceable by authority and consent of the people affected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No citizen group has the right to deny an individual the right to keep and bear arms either.  It is a right!
Click to expand...


Yes and no ChrisL
Citizens have equal right to disarm a criminal
who is abusing firearms to commit a crime or threaten to.
You don't have to be police or military
to do this. 

But you are right that you cannot violate or deprive rights
without due process; they do have to prove they are posing danger and have criminal intent. 

Of course there are complications in proving "fear of danger or death" that even police are questioned and contested for invoking.

But citizens as individuals or groups do have rights to defense, to security, and to lawfully use firearms for the purpose of security and to prevent violations of law.


----------



## westwall

danielpalos said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have already been schooled on this repeatedly.  You are wrong.  You know you are wrong yet you keep repeating the same tired old memes.  Time for you to get some new material.
> 
> 
> 
> dude; nobody should take the right wing seriously about law or politics.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural rights.
> 
> It says so, in the Intent and Purpose clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed.  And it also states quite emphatically that the "Right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".  What part of that sentence do you not understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> the unorganized militia may be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I refer you to the aforementioned US V MILLER case, who's entire ruling I have provided for you that refutes your statement point by point and IS a Supreme Court judgement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That ruling was in error; must have been, right wingers involved.
> 
> The People are the Militia; You are either well regulated or unorganized.
Click to expand...







Yes, the People are the militia and they were expected to bring their own weapons with them.  I find it amusing that you think the government, the ultimate example of force in a country would have needed to enumerate a Right for itself to be able to defend itself........................ from itself?   Your "argument" is laughable.


----------



## emilynghiem

danielpalos said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> He has alr
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh?  I see.  When presented by facts that completely destroy your meme you flee.  i get it.  Then by all means go someplace else.  This Board is for adults to discuss things.  I am sure there are play pens out there for those of your ilk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall I think you and frigidweirdo do much
> better sticking to content. When you start engaging in the
> same juvenile jabs at people not principles and points,
> I can't much tell the difference between you and whom you criticize.
> 
> I personally thought frigidweirdo was doing quite well citing historical reasoning, even though I disagree and believe this is taken out of context with the obvious greater philosophy and foundation behind America's independence and Constitutional traditions.
> 
> May I ask you both NOT to personally attack and district,
> and to PLEASE stick with the historical citations that you
> both have been providing which I find edifying and enlightening.
> 
> Please continue with that, and not the other which I understand may be just to take a break from the heavy intellectual discourse. Maybe it's just human to exchange a few punches
> before getting back to work...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He has already been shown the pertinent historical documents that refute his arguments.  He ignores them, thus he is not engaging in legit discourse so he is not worthy of any sort of consideration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nobody takes the right wing seriously about politics or the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As we don't take trolls like you seriously, either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the clueless and the Causeless say that.  Otherwise, y'all would have a valid argument.
Click to expand...


Do you understand you come across the same way
danielpalos


----------



## danielpalos

emilynghiem said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because they are on the right wing, and clueless and Causeless as a result.
> 
> Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States.
> 
> It is clearly enumerated in Article 1, Section 8.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, because the Bill of Rights was to define the rights of the PEOPLE that the federal govt and Congress COULD NOT infringe upon.
> 
> The objectors who would otherwise have REFUSED to ratify the Constitution giving powers to centralized federal govt, only agreed if the Bill of Rights was going to be added as a CONDITION where it delineated the rights of INDIVIDUALS.
> 
> So all the things they DIDN'T WANT federal govt to abuse or control, were spelled out in the Bill of Rights to make sure there was an agreement NOT TO GO THERE.
> 
> I'm sure danielpalos these same arguments existed back then, with advocates defenders and opponents on both sides fighting just as fiercely.
> 
> So I find it more and more telling, more interesting and "not an accident" that the 2nd Amendment would be written where BOTH SIDES can claim their interpretation equally.
> 
> This tells me even more we should leave it written exactly as is. At least both sides can defend their views on this, so it is more
> fair and inclusive of all people regardless which side they take!
> 
> Thank you danielpalos and especially frigidweirdo
> 
> Thanks to you I can clearly see where the people like you
> are getting that the people bearing arms is "directly tied" to the intro clause about well regulated militia.
> 
> I am even more glad then ever that I can see and support
> both sides, so that I can better fulfill the commitment to be equally inclusive and defend the rights of all people regardless of belief.  I am so grateful that I can do this, because if I were
> like you or like your opponents, who could only see one side
> and truly believe the other is invalid and doesn't count legally,
> I would be MISERABLE AS FU.
> 
> I would not be able to have peace of mind knowing the other group is out there, and wasting all my energy trying to defend my view while denouncing the other; while they do the same.
> 
> So glad I can sincerely appreciate embrace and defend both sides and the equal right to exercise and establish that interpretation. I do this by sticking with the general interpretation that invoking the right to bear arms requires doing so within the Context of the rest of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. So this automatically requires people to be LAW ABIDING and respect the equal constitutional rights freedoms and protections of others, to defend the law and not to violate it, including the respect and protection of EQUAL BELIEFS of people from discrimination and infringement. So I can live with both, within that context.
> 
> Anyone seeking to impose their views and violate the beliefs of others by exclusion or bullying, I cannot go there by conscience.
> I can only seek to include and protect people's beliefs and free choice whether or how to change their views to resolve conflicts with others.
> 
> So glad I take this approach.
> 
> Thank you for reinforcing how important it is, since there is clear validity on your side of the fence and how and why you interpret it that way, even holding it to be the only truth, while the other interpretation is political and a lie.
> 
> It makes me even more curious about my friend who came from the view you take, then changed from reading the history and decided the historical context DOES endorse the conservative interpretation of the rights belonging to the people, and coming to a similar conclusion as I have that although this is the predominant interpretation, there is still room for the interpretation of the right to bear arms within regulated militia only.
> 
> So he and I both agree to keep it open both ways, but he came from your viewpoint and opened up to even acknowledge that the other interpretation is actually more consistent historically; and I come from the conservative interpretation but keep the floor open to include other beliefs and interpretations equally.
> 
> He and I both agree that history points to the conservative interpretation; but inclusion and respect for our fellow Democrats and liberals, of course we are always going to include our constituents and not exclude those beliefs as the hardcore conservatives who aim to attack and discredit liberals.
> 
> You may never be able to see beyond right to bear arms within a regulated militia only, but I hope you would AT LEAST open up to ACCOMMODATE the beliefs in people bearing arms individually, ie as long as it's done within the inseparable context of defending the laws and protections of others and not violating any laws, since I am asking those other advocates to accommodate YOUR beliefs that it means militia only.
> 
> The only way I've seen people budge on their beliefs, from exclusion to inclusion of others, is if they are treated the same way. So that's the most I could hope or expect to change here, a move toward equal inclusion in order to gain respect for your beliefs that are always going to be in the minority, because people believe in themselves and their judgment to make decisions more than they believe in others running govt and "organized regulations." they have to be involved or feel represented in the decisions on regulations before they trust it, so it always lands on the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have already been schooled on this repeatedly.  You are wrong.  You know you are wrong yet you keep repeating the same tired old memes.  Time for you to get some new material.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude; nobody should take the right wing seriously about law or politics.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural rights.
> 
> It says so, in the Intent and Purpose clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear danielpalos or Dear God
> Whoever answers this between the two:
> 
> Do you NOT get the entire Constitutional context
> and beliefs that went into the Constitution and Bill of Rights?
> 
> You act like these longstanding beliefs
> are totally nonexistent and inconsequential
> with no substance or place in history at all?
> 
> No wonder you make liberals look like clueless fools.
> 
> That's like the people who assume all Christianity
> is made up, so all the good and historical contributions
> to the world by Christians "doesn't count."
> 
> ????
> 
> The whole context and spirit of why the founders
> fought all odds to put together the Constitution
> was to put into writing the SELF EXISTENT truths
> about human nature and what it takes to govern
> ourselves as civilly and democratically as possible,
> including the process of representation in reforming
> and defending due process when accusations of wrong
> come up and need to be managed by checked rules.
> 
> Dear Jesus, too!
> 
> We all need freedom of speech and the right to petition,
> to ensure due process is not controlled and violated
> by a collective authority vested in centralized govt
> that too easily gets abused and runs amok.
> 
> danielpalos these rights did not come from the Constitution
> and do not depend on that. it depends on our AGREEMENT
> to ENFORCE these principles that exist as part of the
> laws of human nature. All humans need these, not just
> US citizens or residents under the Constitution which is
> the written statutory form of these laws established historically
> and enforced by education and agreement to follow consistent precedents (while people dissent when we disagree with precendents or govt laws/rulings we argue are inconsistent and violate equal rights and freedoms).
> 
> These rights and freedoms exist as part of human nature,
> with or without the Constitution which ENFORCED them in a written system of laws and democratic process so we could
> COMMUNICATE in an organized fashion.
> 
> Do you not get these traditions at all?
> I understand if you don't BELIEVE in this yourself.
> 
> My question at this point is why can't you include
> and acknowledge that the conservatives and Constitutionalists who BELIEVE this explanation of human nature and Constitutional history
> ARE valid and not just made up garbage
> that you don't consider having any substance or value at all!
> 
> ????
> 
> Can you tell me why you don't consider
> any of this to be valid as a BELIEF?
Click to expand...

dear right wingers; we already have Ten Commandments from a God.

Our Constitution is a political instrument for political animals, that is all.


----------



## ChrisL

emilynghiem said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep and bear is not, acquire and possess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> horsecrap and if you want to be so literally, how does "commerce among the several states" give congress any power over individual citizens who are not engaging in "commerce among the several states"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not the same.  California uses acquire and possess to secure natural rights, not keep and bear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure danielpalos
> And that's why Californians who vote on CA law
> remain separate from Texans who vote on TX law.
> 
> Why can't we do the same here?
> If one set of people want to live under policies
> where right to bear arms is only through well regulated
> militia, you have every right to set that up in districts
> or states where you have representation. Many people
> and groups have done so, either by their own national
> guards, rangers, or security patrols or watches per neighborhood.
> 
> You are free to hire or fire your own police if you want to set this up for your neighborhood, civic association or district
> similar to college campuses or companies with their own
> security staff under their own local regulations.
> 
> But that shouldn't affect other people's equal freedom
> to regulate or elect their own standards on bearing arms
> and defending laws and security where THEY have representation.
> 
> I could even see church-run districts calling for spiritual healing, screening, diagnosis and treatment to weed out dangerous abuse or mental illness and criminal disorders, so that NOBODY clearly sick would get a hold of guns who isn't legally competent and law abiding to begin with, they wouldn't be able to live in the district without medical supervision if there was any such blatant risk of criminal abuse to violate laws, that the people could catch locally by setting up means for screening and reviewing complaints or threats. Who knows, after the TX church shooting, even the military might look into the methods of spiritual healing used to SCREEN people for mental problems where people like the shooter in that case would have been required to get help early on, and kept in detention under supervision until his conditions normalized if ever.
> 
> With better screening, then not even the "organized militia or military" would allow the criminal element to go unchecked and result in abuse of firearms outside or against the law.
> 
> That needs to be addressed even if we did restrict firearms to only regulated organizations!
> 
> Each group of people has equal rights to representation in whatever policies they believe establish freedom and security in a just way.
> 
> Thanks danielpalos you reinforce even more
> why it's so important to let the PEOPLE decide
> and let the govt laws FOLLOW from what the people
> consent to, so that the contracts we make are legally binding
> and enforceable by authority and consent of the people affected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No citizen group has the right to deny an individual the right to keep and bear arms either.  It is a right!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes and no ChrisL
> Citizens have equal right to disarm a criminal
> who is abusing firearms to commit a crime or threaten to.
> You don't have to be police or military
> to do this.
> 
> But you are right that you cannot violate or deprive rights
> without due process; they do have to prove they are posing danger and have criminal intent.
> 
> Of course there are complications in proving "fear of danger or death" that even police are questioned and contested for invoking.
> 
> But citizens as individuals or groups do have rights to defense, to security, and to lawfully use firearms for the purpose of security and to prevent violations of law.
Click to expand...


A criminal, sure.  But that's not what these posters want.  They want everyone disarmed because of the actions of a few lunatics.  Maybe they are projecting and don't trust themselves enough to own and use a firearm responsibly or maybe they are cowards?  I don't really know, but I do know this much.  We will not give up any of our rights to government or citizens traitors without a fight!


----------



## danielpalos

westwall said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dude; nobody should take the right wing seriously about law or politics.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural rights.
> 
> It says so, in the Intent and Purpose clause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed.  And it also states quite emphatically that the "Right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".  What part of that sentence do you not understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> the unorganized militia may be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I refer you to the aforementioned US V MILLER case, who's entire ruling I have provided for you that refutes your statement point by point and IS a Supreme Court judgement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That ruling was in error; must have been, right wingers involved.
> 
> The People are the Militia; You are either well regulated or unorganized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the People are the militia and they were expected to bring their own weapons with them.  I find it amusing that you think the government, the ultimate example of force in a country would have needed to enumerate a Right for itself to be able to defend itself........................ from itself?   Your "argument" is laughable.
Click to expand...

Only well regulated militia had to muster.  Only the right wing, never gets it.


----------



## danielpalos

emilynghiem said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> He has alr
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> westwall I think you and frigidweirdo do much
> better sticking to content. When you start engaging in the
> same juvenile jabs at people not principles and points,
> I can't much tell the difference between you and whom you criticize.
> 
> I personally thought frigidweirdo was doing quite well citing historical reasoning, even though I disagree and believe this is taken out of context with the obvious greater philosophy and foundation behind America's independence and Constitutional traditions.
> 
> May I ask you both NOT to personally attack and district,
> and to PLEASE stick with the historical citations that you
> both have been providing which I find edifying and enlightening.
> 
> Please continue with that, and not the other which I understand may be just to take a break from the heavy intellectual discourse. Maybe it's just human to exchange a few punches
> before getting back to work...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He has already been shown the pertinent historical documents that refute his arguments.  He ignores them, thus he is not engaging in legit discourse so he is not worthy of any sort of consideration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nobody takes the right wing seriously about politics or the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As we don't take trolls like you seriously, either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the clueless and the Causeless say that.  Otherwise, y'all would have a valid argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you understand you come across the same way
> danielpalos
Click to expand...

Dear Persons of the Opposing View,

I also resort to the fewest fallacies.


----------



## westwall

danielpalos said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have already been schooled on this repeatedly.  You are wrong.  You know you are wrong yet you keep repeating the same tired old memes.  Time for you to get some new material.
> 
> 
> 
> dude; nobody should take the right wing seriously about law or politics.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural rights.
> 
> It says so, in the Intent and Purpose clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed.  And it also states quite emphatically that the "Right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".  What part of that sentence do you not understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> the unorganized militia may be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I refer you to the aforementioned US V MILLER case, who's entire ruling I have provided for you that refutes your statement point by point and IS a Supreme Court judgement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That ruling was in error; must have been, right wingers involved.
> 
> The People are the Militia; You are either well regulated or unorganized.
Click to expand...







Both the House, the Senate, and the POTUS were solid left wingers.  The Court was evenly split.  As usual you are factually wrong.


----------



## westwall

danielpalos said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> He has alr
> He has already been shown the pertinent historical documents that refute his arguments.  He ignores them, thus he is not engaging in legit discourse so he is not worthy of any sort of consideration.
> 
> 
> 
> nobody takes the right wing seriously about politics or the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As we don't take trolls like you seriously, either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the clueless and the Causeless say that.  Otherwise, y'all would have a valid argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you understand you come across the same way
> danielpalos
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Persons of the Opposing View,
> 
> I also resort to the fewest fallacies.
Click to expand...






That's funny, you ignore well known fact so your entire argument is one HUUUUGE fallacy.


----------



## westwall

danielpalos said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed.  And it also states quite emphatically that the "Right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".  What part of that sentence do you not understand?
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> the unorganized militia may be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I refer you to the aforementioned US V MILLER case, who's entire ruling I have provided for you that refutes your statement point by point and IS a Supreme Court judgement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That ruling was in error; must have been, right wingers involved.
> 
> The People are the Militia; You are either well regulated or unorganized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the People are the militia and they were expected to bring their own weapons with them.  I find it amusing that you think the government, the ultimate example of force in a country would have needed to enumerate a Right for itself to be able to defend itself........................ from itself?   Your "argument" is laughable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia had to muster.  Only the right wing, never gets it.
Click to expand...





What did "well regulated" mean back then?  You have already been shown what it meant, so how are you going to twist that?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States.
> 
> It is clearly enumerated in Article 1, Section 8.


Then, why add a 2nd Amendment if it is only there to provide for the wellness of regulating a militia?  Your interpretation either renders the 2A redundant or renders it meaningless.  

Article 1, Section 8:

_To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for *organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia*, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of *training the Militia* according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
_
So, Section 8 authorizes Congress to prescribe laws to organize, arm, and discipline or train the militia.

2nd Amendment:

_"A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
_
If Congress has the power to ARM the militia, that power preempts any state or local authority.  Congress would also have the exclusive authority to NOT arm the militia, right?  That power is exclusive to Congress, like enforcing immigration laws (where States like Texas have to just bend over and take all sorts of illegal immigration sodomy).  

If the purpose of 2A is to provide for a well regulated militia, why does  Art. 1, Section 8 already authorizes Congress to train, discipline, and ARM a militia?  

THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE BEEN SAYING!!!

The right of the people (whether belonging to a militia or not) shall not be infringed, meaning Congress is specifically excluded from infringing on that right.  Congress has the authority to organize, train, and arm a militia, and such is necessary to the security of a free state.  But, because Congress has that power, Congress shall not have the power to take arms away from the people.

It's the very fear the founders expressed in giving Congress the power to raise an army, and the very protection the founders intended.  

I am not going to re-quote all the founders again.  You have never addressed their comments, because you cannot.  You have been defeated and all you can do is rattle off "causeless and Clueless" bullshit. 

I don't want to hear or read another goddamn word from you unless you explain your reasoning.  If you cannot respond with some explanation by the framers proving your interpretation to be correct, you are nothing but a troll.  

 I am going to put you on ignore if you don't respond with some sort of historical authority from the founders justifying your interpretation of 2A verses Art. 1, Sec.8.


----------



## ChrisL

The thing is that the founding fathers did not believe in the government "regulating" the people.  They said so in their own damn words.  This just proves that the leftists are liars and creeping incrementalist gun banners who want to take away the rights of their fellow citizens because they are BAD people, government lackeys.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

ChrisL said:


> If you encourage him, he will reply with the exact same nonsense that he always posts, all of which has been already established as lies and dishonesty many, many, many times. He is either retarded or a troll.


I am starting to think he is a huge troll.

If I get nothing from this dude but the same bullshit "wellness of regulation" and "clueless and Causeless" with no historical substance justifying his interpretation, his ass is going on ignore.


----------



## francoHFW

After 30 years of b******* misinformation propaganda and the NRA going batshit, 1 wonders when the semi insane GOP voters will come back to the Civilized world. All people need is hunting guns to protect themselves. Our country is close to insane at this point. The hero in this case should not be allowed assault rifles because that would have stopped the mentally ill guy from having an assault rifle. Duh.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

francoHFW said:


> After 30 years of b******* misinformation propaganda and the NRA going batshit, 1 wonders when the semi insane GOP voters will come back to the Civilized world. All people need is hunting guns to protect themselves. Our country is close to insane at this point. The hero in this case should not be allowed assault rifles because that would have stopped the mentally ill guy from having an assault rifle. Duh.


Okay.  Call for a constitutional convention.  Congress was not given the Constitutional authority to regulate firearms, but they are doing it anyway.  Change the Constitution, and you can get your way.


----------



## francoHFW

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> After 30 years of b******* misinformation propaganda and the NRA going batshit, 1 wonders when the semi insane GOP voters will come back to the Civilized world. All people need is hunting guns to protect themselves. Our country is close to insane at this point. The hero in this case should not be allowed assault rifles because that would have stopped the mentally ill guy from having an assault rifle. Duh.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay.  Call for a constitutional convention.  Congress was not given the Constitutional authority to regulate firearms, but they are doing it anyway.  Change the Constitution, and you can get your way.
Click to expand...

We have already had plenty of Regulation until the last 20 years of insanity, so no such thing is needed.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

francoHFW said:


> We have already had plenty of Regulation until the last 20 years of insanity, so no such thing is needed.


The Scary-Looking Weapons Ban?  


I bought a post-ban civilian AK-47 for dirt cheap.  Looked exactly like this one: 





This is what the pre-ban civilian AK looked like:





That's what the Scary-Looking Gun Ban (Assault Weapons Ban) did.  

JACK SHIT!!!

It didn't effect crime either.  

Admit that you want to infringe on the right of Americans to have guns.  Just admit it, so we can go ahead and have this war.  This death by a thousand cuts bullshit is OVER.  We want full repeal, and let States make their own gun laws, as was intended.


----------



## emilynghiem

danielpalos said:


> Yes, it is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, regardless of All of the Other Ones.



REGARDLESS? no, in ADDITION to, as part of the greater
body of Constitutional laws and principles.

You must be sarcastic here
There is even an Amendment that specifies enumeration of rights is not to disparage others.

But seriously danielpalos you do make a point
that DOES WORK with Conservatives and Constitutionalists:

You are RIGHT that no law including the Second Amendment
can be "taken out of context" with the REST of the Constitutional laws.

This is also why I make the argument that both sides'
political beliefs on this MUST BE EQUALLY included
represented and protected from exclusion or discrimination.

Because OTHERWISE it would VIOLATE the
First and Fourteenth Amendments on equal protection
of the laws including religious freedom.

So danielpalos both you and others have equal right
to exercise and defend your respective political beliefs.
If we are REALLY to enforce equal Constitutional protections
for ALL PEOPLE REGARDLESS OF CREED.

Thanks for showing why this is so important danielpalos
if people like me didn't include and respect your beliefs equally
you would be excluded from expressing and exercising them!

So by the same token, those with opposing beliefs and
interpretations from yours equally invoke the same freedom
to DEFEND THEIR INTERPRETATION AND BELIEFS FROM YOURS.

I hope you get this point.
Maybe frigidweirdo will get it
and understand why it's so hard for Conservatives to
accommodate and include "views they believe to be WRONG":
when frigidweirdo and apparently you
have the same difficulty acknowledging valid rights
to believe YOU believe are wrong as well!

I hope the irony isn't lost on you
and that you are both intelligent to see that this is mutual
where both sides struggle to manage conflicts with beliefs
they believe are just plain wrong and have no standing
to be taken seriously! My goodness, please tell me
you get this even where you don't agree with the opposing beliefs!

I don't have to agree with your and frigidweirdo's statements
views and beliefs to defend your right to those equally under
Constitutional principles ethics and standards;
am I the only one willing to do that here? 

Good ness!!!!


----------



## emilynghiem

Dear Bootney Lee Farnsworth and westwall
since you both seem better at presenting the historical citations:

Can you please do the same and help spell out the argument that a Libertarian friend tried to explain to me?
The argument was something along the lines
that if the 2nd Amendment is about state militia taking arms against
the federal govt, then that means the insurrection of the states against the federal union would have been legal.

Otherwise, the implication is that the state militias would be aligned with federal govt in enforcing the laws from that controlling entity, so the taking up of arms to oppose criminal abuse or tyranny would lie with the people.

He was saying "you can't have it both ways."
I got it when he explained it, but can't repeat it back the way he did in detail.
Can you do that? It's like understanding the language when someone else speaks it, but not being fluent enough to repeat back or speak myself. But if someone else does, I get it.

This argument went a bit over my head, but I thought it might work better.
Can you reconstruct the argument based on my description of it? Thanks!


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

emilynghiem said:


> Dear Bootney Lee Farnsworth and westwall
> since you both seem better at presenting the historical citations:
> 
> Can you please do the same and help spell out the argument that a Libertarian friend tried to explain to me?
> The argument was something along the lines
> that if the 2nd Amendment is about state militia taking arms against
> the federal govt, then that means the insurrection of the states against the federal union would have been legal.
> 
> Otherwise, the implication is that the state militias would be aligned with federal govt in enforcing the laws from that controlling entity, so the taking up of arms to oppose criminal abuse or tyranny would lie with the people.
> 
> He was saying "you can't have it both ways."
> I got it when he explained it, but can't repeat it back the way he did in detail.
> Can you do that? It's like understanding the language when someone else speaks it, but not being fluent enough to repeat back or speak myself. But if someone else does, I get it.
> 
> This argument went a bit over my head, but I thought it might work better.
> Can you reconstruct the argument based on my description of it? Thanks!


Article 1, Section 8:

"The Congress shall have Power To....

(whole bunch of stuff)

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, *suppress Insurrections* and repel Invasions;

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, *and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States*, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

Then you have Article 1, Section 10:

"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;...

"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

Then, the 9th Amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Then, the 10th Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."


The States did not have the power to raise an army or "keep troops" without the consent of Congress.  States were also restricted in the power to enter into agreements with each other or form confederations.  So, States could not take up arms against the federal government, even though the question about whether they could leave the Union was still undecided until the 1860s. 

The 9th Amendment prohibits the Constitution from being interpreted in a way that denies the people their pre-existing rights, or "natural rights"  that existed before government existed.  We the people created the government.   A natural right of the people is self-determination, and thereby, self-governance.  We can vote out a government we don't like.  If that government refuses to get out, we force it, with guns. 

Am I on topic?


----------



## francoHFW

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have already had plenty of Regulation until the last 20 years of insanity, so no such thing is needed.
> 
> 
> 
> The Scary-Looking Weapons Ban?
> 
> 
> I bought a post-ban civilian AK-47 for dirt cheap.  Looked exactly like this one:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is what the pre-ban civilian AK looked like:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what the Scary-Looking Gun Ban (Assault Weapons Ban) did.
> 
> JACK SHIT!!!
> 
> It didn't effect crime either.
> 
> Admit that you want to infringe on the right of Americans to have guns.  Just admit it, so we can go ahead and have this war.  This death by a thousand cuts bullshit is OVER.  We want full repeal, and let States make their own gun laws, as was intended.
Click to expand...

nobody needs an army machine gun or anything that looks like it. they are advertised that way now you're a man now your Macho now you can kill . We should also make armor illegal and cut the Macho bulshit. You can hunt and you can defend your house with a all kinds of Rifle hunting rifles and shotguns. You assholes are deluded and aren't going to save us from tyranny. Absolute brainwashed fear mongered right-wing insanity.


----------



## francoHFW

francoHFW said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have already had plenty of Regulation until the last 20 years of insanity, so no such thing is needed.
> 
> 
> 
> The Scary-Looking Weapons Ban?
> 
> 
> I bought a post-ban civilian AK-47 for dirt cheap.  Looked exactly like this one:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is what the pre-ban civilian AK looked like:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what the Scary-Looking Gun Ban (Assault Weapons Ban) did.
> 
> JACK SHIT!!!
> 
> It didn't effect crime either.
> 
> Admit that you want to infringe on the right of Americans to have guns.  Just admit it, so we can go ahead and have this war.  This death by a thousand cuts bullshit is OVER.  We want full repeal, and let States make their own gun laws, as was intended.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nobody needs an army machine gun or anything that looks like it. they are advertised that way now you're a man now your Macho now you can kill . We should also make armor illegal and cut the Macho bulshit. You can hunt and you can defend your house with a all kinds of Rifle hunting rifles and shotguns. You assholes are deluded and aren't going to save us from tyranny. Absolute brainwashed fear mongered right-wing insanity.
Click to expand...

No imentally ill person should have guns especially a collection of military assault weapons with bump stocks...


----------



## francoHFW

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> After 30 years of b******* misinformation propaganda and the NRA going batshit, 1 wonders when the semi insane GOP voters will come back to the Civilized world. All people need is hunting guns to protect themselves. Our country is close to insane at this point. The hero in this case should not be allowed assault rifles because that would have stopped the mentally ill guy from having an assault rifle. Duh.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay.  Call for a constitutional convention.  Congress was not given the Constitutional authority to regulate firearms, but they are doing it anyway.  Change the Constitution, and you can get your way.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court says regulation is just fine. I think I'll go with them, not you're brainwashed far right bulshit thank you very much LOL


----------



## frigidweirdo

turtledude said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo
> A. if you are citing Heller as above, doesn't that reinforce the individual right interpretation?
> Or is your argument that this interpretation came later
> and is not the original intent?
> 
> B. as for Presser saying there is no right to carry arme and this is the law of the land
> because it hasn't been struck down
> 
> what about new laws like conceal and carry.
> 
> new laws can be passed and that's not the same as striking down previous court cases.
> 
> Also regardless of what laws are written or rulings are made,
> I've heard of cases where local sheriffs refuse to enforce certain gun laws
> they deem to be unconstitutional and against their oath to uphold the law.
> 
> So just because a ruling hasn't been challenged or struck down yet,
> doesn't mean it bears the same weight as the rest of "the law of the land"
> '
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm citing Heller, as I explained before, because Heller uses the Presser case in which they said: "We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
> 
> This therefore states that carrying guns around with you is NOT protected by the Second Amendment.
> 
> The person I was talking to was basically saying that Heller only deals with the right to KEEP arms and not the right to bear arms, which is only half true as in the Heller case they basically tried to expand on the right to keep arms.
> 
> No, Presser says there is no CONSTITUTIONAL protection to carry arms. Laws and the Constitution are two completely different things. You can legally breathe, but there's nothing in the Constitution that protects your breathing. You can watch TV, nothing in the Constitution protects that.
> 
> Carry and conceal permits actually PROVE there is no right to carry arms, because if there were, then there would be no need for permits, and yet the NRA backs carry and conceal permits. Why? Because they KNOW that there is no right to carry arms and they'd never send a case forwards because they know it would get rejected and then people would know there's no right to carry arms. The NRA are happy to let people wallow in their ignorance on this one.
> 
> Well, actually, yes, if a ruling hasn't been struck down, then the Federal Courts should follow precedent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what causes your inaccurate misunderstandings about the constitution and gun rights and what causes you to be anti gun?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, now it's "inaccurate misunderstanding" is it?
> 
> Well, seeing as YOU can't even debate back, I'd say it's not ME who has the misunderstandings.
> 
> If it were that easy to fight back, you'd have done so, instead of deflecting and insulting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I countered your argument with the US V Miller decision.  I wonder why you ignore that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> because it bitch-slaps frigid's faux argument
Click to expand...


I gave my response, you can go and look at it. You can also go see how many times I've replied to Westwall in the last few years.... you won't find anything. 

I could argue what he said, but I choose not to.

Now, when it comes to YOU, I'm wondering why you have been unable to answer my initial question. Every time you duck and dive and attack in order to not answer a SIMPLE question about a document from the Founding Fathers.....

Law degree, my ass.


----------



## frigidweirdo

emilynghiem said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope; Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States
> 
> 
> 
> The wellness of regulation?
> 
> 
> But it says the infringmentness of rightsness, which specifically excludes Congress, and I have provided quotes from both Madison AND Jefferson SPECIFICALLY stating the intentness to prohibit Congress from infringing on the right.  I am fucking tired of posting those quotes, so why don't you respond to them or shut the fuck up.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because they are on the right wing, and clueless and Causeless as a result.
> 
> Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States.
> 
> It is clearly enumerated in Article 1, Section 8.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, because the Bill of Rights was to define the rights of the PEOPLE that the federal govt and Congress COULD NOT infringe upon.
> 
> The objectors who would otherwise have REFUSED to ratify the Constitution giving powers to centralized federal govt, only agreed if the Bill of Rights was going to be added as a CONDITION where it delineated the rights of INDIVIDUALS.
> 
> So all the things they DIDN'T WANT federal govt to abuse or control, were spelled out in the Bill of Rights to make sure there was an agreement NOT TO GO THERE.
> 
> I'm sure danielpalos these same arguments existed back then, with advocates defenders and opponents on both sides fighting just as fiercely.
> 
> So I find it more and more telling, more interesting and "not an accident" that the 2nd Amendment would be written where BOTH SIDES can claim their interpretation equally.
> 
> This tells me even more we should leave it written exactly as is. At least both sides can defend their views on this, so it is more
> fair and inclusive of all people regardless which side they take!
> 
> Thank you danielpalos and especially frigidweirdo
> 
> Thanks to you I can clearly see where the people like you
> are getting that the people bearing arms is "directly tied" to the intro clause about well regulated militia.
> 
> I am even more glad then ever that I can see and support
> both sides, so that I can better fulfill the commitment to be equally inclusive and defend the rights of all people regardless of belief.  I am so grateful that I can do this, because if I were
> like you or like your opponents, who could only see one side
> and truly believe the other is invalid and doesn't count legally,
> I would be MISERABLE AS FU.
> 
> I would not be able to have peace of mind knowing the other group is out there, and wasting all my energy trying to defend my view while denouncing the other; while they do the same.
> 
> So glad I can sincerely appreciate embrace and defend both sides and the equal right to exercise and establish that interpretation. I do this by sticking with the general interpretation that invoking the right to bear arms requires doing so within the Context of the rest of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. So this automatically requires people to be LAW ABIDING and respect the equal constitutional rights freedoms and protections of others, to defend the law and not to violate it, including the respect and protection of EQUAL BELIEFS of people from discrimination and infringement. So I can live with both, within that context.
> 
> Anyone seeking to impose their views and violate the beliefs of others by exclusion or bullying, I cannot go there by conscience.
> I can only seek to include and protect people's beliefs and free choice whether or how to change their views to resolve conflicts with others.
> 
> So glad I take this approach.
> 
> Thank you for reinforcing how important it is, since there is clear validity on your side of the fence and how and why you interpret it that way, even holding it to be the only truth, while the other interpretation is political and a lie.
> 
> It makes me even more curious about my friend who came from the view you take, then changed from reading the history and decided the historical context DOES endorse the conservative interpretation of the rights belonging to the people, and coming to a similar conclusion as I have that although this is the predominant interpretation, there is still room for the interpretation of the right to bear arms within regulated militia only.
> 
> So he and I both agree to keep it open both ways, but he came from your viewpoint and opened up to even acknowledge that the other interpretation is actually more consistent historically; and I come from the conservative interpretation but keep the floor open to include other beliefs and interpretations equally.
> 
> He and I both agree that history points to the conservative interpretation; but inclusion and respect for our fellow Democrats and liberals, of course we are always going to include our constituents and not exclude those beliefs as the hardcore conservatives who aim to attack and discredit liberals.
> 
> You may never be able to see beyond right to bear arms within a regulated militia only, but I hope you would AT LEAST open up to ACCOMMODATE the beliefs in people bearing arms individually, ie as long as it's done within the inseparable context of defending the laws and protections of others and not violating any laws, since I am asking those other advocates to accommodate YOUR beliefs that it means militia only.
> 
> The only way I've seen people budge on their beliefs, from exclusion to inclusion of others, is if they are treated the same way. So that's the most I could hope or expect to change here, a move toward equal inclusion in order to gain respect for your beliefs that are always going to be in the minority, because people believe in themselves and their judgment to make decisions more than they believe in others running govt and "organized regulations." they have to be involved or feel represented in the decisions on regulations before they trust it, so it always lands on the people.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry Emily, I really don't see how you have come to the conclusion that "the people bearing arms is "directly tied" to the intro clause about well regulated militia." 

I didn't say that. I'm worried that you're not understanding what I'm writing, or worried even more that you're not reading what I'm writing and just thinking you know what I'm saying.

I'll explain.

The right to keep arms is the right of individuals to own weapons. The reason why this is protected in the 2A is so that it protects the militia. The US federal govt could call people up into federal service, then take away their guns while there. The 2A prevents this.

An individual gets to keep guns when not in the militia too. The reason for the protection is the militia, but this doesn't limit ownership to militia membership in any way. 

Why? Well, because this would destroy the militia. The militia needs a ready supply of arms in times of need, you take them away from individuals in times with no need, then in times of need there is no need.

The same for the right to bear arms. You have a right to be in the militia in times of quiet and in times of need. Without people being in the militia in times of quiet, then in times of need it might be impossible to get into the militia.


----------



## Skull Pilot

francoHFW said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have already had plenty of Regulation until the last 20 years of insanity, so no such thing is needed.
> 
> 
> 
> The Scary-Looking Weapons Ban?
> 
> 
> I bought a post-ban civilian AK-47 for dirt cheap.  Looked exactly like this one:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is what the pre-ban civilian AK looked like:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what the Scary-Looking Gun Ban (Assault Weapons Ban) did.
> 
> JACK SHIT!!!
> 
> It didn't effect crime either.
> 
> Admit that you want to infringe on the right of Americans to have guns.  Just admit it, so we can go ahead and have this war.  This death by a thousand cuts bullshit is OVER.  We want full repeal, and let States make their own gun laws, as was intended.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nobody needs an army machine gun or anything that looks like it. they are advertised that way now you're a man now your Macho now you can kill . We should also make armor illegal and cut the Macho bulshit. You can hunt and you can defend your house with a all kinds of Rifle hunting rifles and shotguns. You assholes are deluded and aren't going to save us from tyranny. Absolute brainwashed fear mongered right-wing insanity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No imentally ill person should have guns especially a collection of military assault weapons with bump stocks...
Click to expand...

Anyone who is adjudicated mentally ill cannot own firearms.


----------



## Skull Pilot

frigidweirdo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> what causes your inaccurate misunderstandings about the constitution and gun rights and what causes you to be anti gun?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, now it's "inaccurate misunderstanding" is it?
> 
> Well, seeing as YOU can't even debate back, I'd say it's not ME who has the misunderstandings.
> 
> If it were that easy to fight back, you'd have done so, instead of deflecting and insulting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I countered your argument with the US V Miller decision.  I wonder why you ignore that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me see. You'd be on ignore if you were a moderator. So I choose to manually ignore you. I don't have any time for you. It's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh?  I see.  When presented by facts that completely destroy your meme you flee.  i get it.  Then by all means go someplace else.  This Board is for adults to discuss things.  I am sure there are play pens out there for those of your ilk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This baiting is the EXACT reason why people hate you and want to put you on ignore. The exact reason why you should NOT be a moderator on this site.
Click to expand...

Only pussies put people on ignore


----------



## francoHFW

Skull Pilot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have already had plenty of Regulation until the last 20 years of insanity, so no such thing is needed.
> 
> 
> 
> The Scary-Looking Weapons Ban?
> 
> 
> I bought a post-ban civilian AK-47 for dirt cheap.  Looked exactly like this one:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is what the pre-ban civilian AK looked like:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what the Scary-Looking Gun Ban (Assault Weapons Ban) did.
> 
> JACK SHIT!!!
> 
> It didn't effect crime either.
> 
> Admit that you want to infringe on the right of Americans to have guns.  Just admit it, so we can go ahead and have this war.  This death by a thousand cuts bullshit is OVER.  We want full repeal, and let States make their own gun laws, as was intended.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nobody needs an army machine gun or anything that looks like it. they are advertised that way now you're a man now your Macho now you can kill . We should also make armor illegal and cut the Macho bulshit. You can hunt and you can defend your house with a all kinds of Rifle hunting rifles and shotguns. You assholes are deluded and aren't going to save us from tyranny. Absolute brainwashed fear mongered right-wing insanity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No imentally ill person should have guns especially a collection of military assault weapons with bump stocks...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone who is adjudicated mentally ill cannot own firearms.
Click to expand...

Supposedly, in a perfect world, if you're an idiot


----------



## frigidweirdo

hunarcy said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, what the fuck?
> 
> You have a problem with my English? Which part of my English exactly?
> 
> Punctuation doesn't play a part in all of this at all.
> 
> Whether there are commas or there aren't commas, the Second Amendment still has the "right to...bear arms". The right is still in context of the rest of the Amendment whether there's punctuation or not.
> 
> The context is still with what the founding father said, and they used the term "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service" and "militia duty".
> 
> No matter how you try and bully your way through this, I know what I'm talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how much you deny it, punctuation matters and the emphasis is not on the dependent clause, it is on the independent clause and while have been academians in the past that have tried to torture the Amendment to say what you wish it would say, the right belongs to THE PEOPLE and it shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say punctuation doesn't matter.
> 
> I'm saying in the Second Amendment it doesn't matter. Or more specifically the two commas that may or may not exist.
> 
> You can have "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." as ratified by the states or "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." as was going through Congress.
> 
> The two extra commas don't change anything in the meaning.
> 
> But trying to pretend that this does anything is wrong.
> 
> The first half of the Amendment doesn't do anything. It merely says WHY the right to keep arms and the right to bear arms are important.
> 
> Now, think about this. The Amendment is about the militia. The Amendment says a militia is important. It doesn't say TV is important, it doesn't say breathing is important, it doesn't say a lot of things. But it does say THE MILITIA.
> 
> This is CONTEXT.
> 
> The right to keep arms is the right of individuals to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply of weapons that the US federal govt cannot take away.
> The right to bear arms is the right of individuals to be in the militia so the militia has a ready supply of personnel to use those weapons.
> 
> A militia without guns is not "a well regulated militia", nor is a militia without personnel.
> 
> However a militia without individuals walking around in the streets with their guns is the same as it would be if they were walking about with their guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *sigh*  Here is the context.  The wording of the Second Amendment does emphasize the importance of the militia, but the Right is reserved to the PEOPLE.  If they had wanted the right reserved only to the militia, they could have said the right of the militia to keep and bear arms...they'd already proven they can spell it.   The Second is not ABOUT the militia, it's about the right of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sigh. What I find is that people on this forum often end up arguing what they're comfortable arguing with. They often decide what the other person is saying BEFORE they're bothered to read what the other person has said, and therefore don't need to read what the other person has said as they BELIEVE they know what has been said.
> 
> Yes, the Second Amendment emphasizes the importance of the militia. Why? Because the Amendment is ABOUT THE MILITIA.
> 
> You say the right is reserved to the people. Yet I wrote "The right to keep arms is the right of individuals" and "The right to bear arms is the right of individuals" and you're attacking me for saying it's not the right of individuals. Are you fucking serious?
> 
> 
> Here's the other deal, let's see if you bother to read this.
> 
> Each right in the US Bill of Rights is there for a reason. The reason is politics.
> 
> The First Amendment has the right to freedom of religion, right to protest and right of freedom of speech and the press. All of these are protected in the First Amendment because of their impact on politics.
> 
> Freedom of speech so you can talk about politics, freedom to protest so you can protest politicians, freedom of religion so there isn't a state religion.
> 
> Of course individuals can use their freedom of speech in other ways, there is no limit on the freedom of speech to just politics.
> 
> However in the Bill of Rights there is no protection of the right to walk. The right to breathe. The right to eat food. The right to play games. There are so many things NOT PROTECTED, and that's because they're not directly connected with politics. Hence the 10th Amendment.
> 
> The Second Amendment is about the militia. That's what it starts with "A well regulated militia..." It protects the militia by protecting individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's NOT about the militia.  It's about the Right of the People, or as you insist, the right of individuals, to keep and bear arms.  The dependent clause about the militia is just one justification for the 2nd Amendment.
Click to expand...


Yes, the first part is the justification for putting the protection of the right in the first place. 

Now, you have an amendment which is in the US Constitution in order to protect the militia. 

You have the Founding Fathers talking about the term "bear arms" to mean "render military service" and "militia duty". 

You do NOT have the Founding Fathers talking about the term "bear arms" to mean carrying arms around.

You have the Supreme Court saying that the right to bear arms does not mean carrying arms around. 

You do NOT have the Supreme Court saying the 2A protects carrying arms around. 

So, which part makes you think "bear arms" means "carrying guns around"? 

I'm confused at how people can take such evidence and then be like "nah, I don't like it, I'll ignore it ALL".


----------



## frigidweirdo

emilynghiem said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, regardless of All of the Other Ones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> REGARDLESS? no, in ADDITION to, as part of the greater
> body of Constitutional laws and principles.
> 
> You must be sarcastic here
> There is even an Amendment that specifies enumeration of rights is not to disparage others.
> 
> But seriously danielpalos you do make a point
> that DOES WORK with Conservatives and Constitutionalists:
> 
> You are RIGHT that no law including the Second Amendment
> can be "taken out of context" with the REST of the Constitutional laws.
> 
> This is also why I make the argument that both sides'
> political beliefs on this MUST BE EQUALLY included
> represented and protected from exclusion or discrimination.
> 
> Because OTHERWISE it would VIOLATE the
> First and Fourteenth Amendments on equal protection
> of the laws including religious freedom.
> 
> So danielpalos both you and others have equal right
> to exercise and defend your respective political beliefs.
> If we are REALLY to enforce equal Constitutional protections
> for ALL PEOPLE REGARDLESS OF CREED.
> 
> Thanks for showing why this is so important danielpalos
> if people like me didn't include and respect your beliefs equally
> you would be excluded from expressing and exercising them!
> 
> So by the same token, those with opposing beliefs and
> interpretations from yours equally invoke the same freedom
> to DEFEND THEIR INTERPRETATION AND BELIEFS FROM YOURS.
> 
> I hope you get this point.
> Maybe frigidweirdo will get it
> and understand why it's so hard for Conservatives to
> accommodate and include "views they believe to be WRONG":
> when frigidweirdo and apparently you
> have the same difficulty acknowledging valid rights
> to believe YOU believe are wrong as well!
> 
> I hope the irony isn't lost on you
> and that you are both intelligent to see that this is mutual
> where both sides struggle to manage conflicts with beliefs
> they believe are just plain wrong and have no standing
> to be taken seriously! My goodness, please tell me
> you get this even where you don't agree with the opposing beliefs!
> 
> I don't have to agree with your and frigidweirdo's statements
> views and beliefs to defend your right to those equally under
> Constitutional principles ethics and standards;
> am I the only one willing to do that here?
> 
> Good ness!!!!
Click to expand...


The problem here Emily is that laws have been made. You disagree with the laws, so you pretend that the laws mean something different to what they actually mean in order to promote your own view on the matter. 

Everything I have said is backed up with plenty of evidence. Everything you have said has been backed up with almost nothing other than your own opinion.


----------



## danielpalos

westwall said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dude; nobody should take the right wing seriously about law or politics.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural rights.
> 
> It says so, in the Intent and Purpose clause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed.  And it also states quite emphatically that the "Right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".  What part of that sentence do you not understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> the unorganized militia may be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I refer you to the aforementioned US V MILLER case, who's entire ruling I have provided for you that refutes your statement point by point and IS a Supreme Court judgement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That ruling was in error; must have been, right wingers involved.
> 
> The People are the Militia; You are either well regulated or unorganized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both the House, the Senate, and the POTUS were solid left wingers.  The Court was evenly split.  As usual you are factually wrong.
Click to expand...

You must be on the right wing.  How can I be factually wrong, by stating that the People are the Militia; you are either well regulated or you are not.

Only well regulated militia of the People are declared necessary.


----------



## danielpalos

westwall said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> nobody takes the right wing seriously about politics or the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As we don't take trolls like you seriously, either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the clueless and the Causeless say that.  Otherwise, y'all would have a valid argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you understand you come across the same way
> danielpalos
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear Persons of the Opposing View,
> 
> I also resort to the fewest fallacies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's funny, you ignore well known fact so your entire argument is one HUUUUGE fallacy.
Click to expand...

Projecting much, right wingers; nothing but repeal is worthless.


----------



## westwall

danielpalos said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed.  And it also states quite emphatically that the "Right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".  What part of that sentence do you not understand?
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> the unorganized militia may be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I refer you to the aforementioned US V MILLER case, who's entire ruling I have provided for you that refutes your statement point by point and IS a Supreme Court judgement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That ruling was in error; must have been, right wingers involved.
> 
> The People are the Militia; You are either well regulated or unorganized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both the House, the Senate, and the POTUS were solid left wingers.  The Court was evenly split.  As usual you are factually wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You must be on the right wing.  How can I be factually wrong, by stating that the People are the Militia; you are either well regulated or you are not.
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the People are declared necessary.
Click to expand...








You still are avoiding what the meaning of "well regulated" was, back then.  I have already shown you what it meant.  Why do you not address that fact?  Hmmm?  Mayhaps because it destroys your entire argument....  Naaaaah  it couldn't be that easy could it....


----------



## danielpalos

westwall said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> the unorganized militia may be infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I refer you to the aforementioned US V MILLER case, who's entire ruling I have provided for you that refutes your statement point by point and IS a Supreme Court judgement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That ruling was in error; must have been, right wingers involved.
> 
> The People are the Militia; You are either well regulated or unorganized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the People are the militia and they were expected to bring their own weapons with them.  I find it amusing that you think the government, the ultimate example of force in a country would have needed to enumerate a Right for itself to be able to defend itself........................ from itself?   Your "argument" is laughable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia had to muster.  Only the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What did "well regulated" mean back then?  You have already been shown what it meant, so how are you going to twist that?
Click to expand...

Well regulated means whatever Congress says it means; only the right wing appeals to ignorance of the law and claim they are for the, "gospel Truth".


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States.
> 
> It is clearly enumerated in Article 1, Section 8.
> 
> 
> 
> Then, why add a 2nd Amendment if it is only there to provide for the wellness of regulating a militia?  Your interpretation either renders the 2A redundant or renders it meaningless.
> 
> Article 1, Section 8:
> 
> _To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> 
> To provide for *organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia*, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of *training the Militia* according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> _
> So, Section 8 authorizes Congress to prescribe laws to organize, arm, and discipline or train the militia.
> 
> 2nd Amendment:
> 
> _"A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> _
> If Congress has the power to ARM the militia, that power preempts any state or local authority.  Congress would also have the exclusive authority to NOT arm the militia, right?  That power is exclusive to Congress, like enforcing immigration laws (where States like Texas have to just bend over and take all sorts of illegal immigration sodomy).
> 
> If the purpose of 2A is to provide for a well regulated militia, why does  Art. 1, Section 8 already authorizes Congress to train, discipline, and ARM a militia?
> 
> THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE BEEN SAYING!!!
> 
> The right of the people (whether belonging to a militia or not) shall not be infringed, meaning Congress is specifically excluded from infringing on that right.  Congress has the authority to organize, train, and arm a militia, and such is necessary to the security of a free state.  But, because Congress has that power, Congress shall not have the power to take arms away from the people.
> 
> It's the very fear the founders expressed in giving Congress the power to raise an army, and the very protection the founders intended.
> 
> I am not going to re-quote all the founders again.  You have never addressed their comments, because you cannot.  You have been defeated and all you can do is rattle off "causeless and Clueless" bullshit.
> 
> I don't want to hear or read another goddamn word from you unless you explain your reasoning.  If you cannot respond with some explanation by the framers proving your interpretation to be correct, you are nothing but a troll.
> 
> I am going to put you on ignore if you don't respond with some sort of historical authority from the founders justifying your interpretation of 2A verses Art. 1, Sec.8.
Click to expand...

The Point is, the subject of Arms for the Militia is declared socialized.  There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.


----------



## emilynghiem

francoHFW said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have already had plenty of Regulation until the last 20 years of insanity, so no such thing is needed.
> 
> 
> 
> The Scary-Looking Weapons Ban?
> 
> 
> I bought a post-ban civilian AK-47 for dirt cheap.  Looked exactly like this one:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is what the pre-ban civilian AK looked like:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what the Scary-Looking Gun Ban (Assault Weapons Ban) did.
> 
> JACK SHIT!!!
> 
> It didn't effect crime either.
> 
> Admit that you want to infringe on the right of Americans to have guns.  Just admit it, so we can go ahead and have this war.  This death by a thousand cuts bullshit is OVER.  We want full repeal, and let States make their own gun laws, as was intended.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nobody needs an army machine gun or anything that looks like it. they are advertised that way now you're a man now your Macho now you can kill . We should also make armor illegal and cut the Macho bulshit. You can hunt and you can defend your house with a all kinds of Rifle hunting rifles and shotguns. You assholes are deluded and aren't going to save us from tyranny. Absolute brainwashed fear mongered right-wing insanity.
Click to expand...


Hi francoHFW
I guess it's like the abortion argument
If you disagree with the choice, then don't have one!


----------



## westwall

danielpalos said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> I refer you to the aforementioned US V MILLER case, who's entire ruling I have provided for you that refutes your statement point by point and IS a Supreme Court judgement.
> 
> 
> 
> That ruling was in error; must have been, right wingers involved.
> 
> The People are the Militia; You are either well regulated or unorganized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the People are the militia and they were expected to bring their own weapons with them.  I find it amusing that you think the government, the ultimate example of force in a country would have needed to enumerate a Right for itself to be able to defend itself........................ from itself?   Your "argument" is laughable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia had to muster.  Only the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What did "well regulated" mean back then?  You have already been shown what it meant, so how are you going to twist that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated means whatever Congress says it means; only the right wing appeals to ignorance of the law and claim they are for the, "gospel Truth".
Click to expand...








No, it means whatever the DICTIONARY says it means.  That's why dictionary's get written.  Here is the original meaning of the phrase, that has already been shown to you, and which you continue to ignore.  


The following are taken from the _*Oxford English Dictionary*_, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us *well-regulated* Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all *well-regulated* courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a *well-regulated* clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every *well-regulated* person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her *well-regulated* mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every *well-regulated* American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

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


----------



## turtledude

danielpalos said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed.  And it also states quite emphatically that the "Right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".  What part of that sentence do you not understand?
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> the unorganized militia may be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I refer you to the aforementioned US V MILLER case, who's entire ruling I have provided for you that refutes your statement point by point and IS a Supreme Court judgement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That ruling was in error; must have been, right wingers involved.
> 
> The People are the Militia; You are either well regulated or unorganized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both the House, the Senate, and the POTUS were solid left wingers.  The Court was evenly split.  As usual you are factually wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You must be on the right wing.  How can I be factually wrong, by stating that the People are the Militia; you are either well regulated or you are not.
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the People are declared necessary.
Click to expand...

when is your programmer going to fix your chip?  your English is irregular and makes no sense


----------



## westwall

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States.
> 
> It is clearly enumerated in Article 1, Section 8.
> 
> 
> 
> Then, why add a 2nd Amendment if it is only there to provide for the wellness of regulating a militia?  Your interpretation either renders the 2A redundant or renders it meaningless.
> 
> Article 1, Section 8:
> 
> _To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> 
> To provide for *organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia*, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of *training the Militia* according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> _
> So, Section 8 authorizes Congress to prescribe laws to organize, arm, and discipline or train the militia.
> 
> 2nd Amendment:
> 
> _"A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> _
> If Congress has the power to ARM the militia, that power preempts any state or local authority.  Congress would also have the exclusive authority to NOT arm the militia, right?  That power is exclusive to Congress, like enforcing immigration laws (where States like Texas have to just bend over and take all sorts of illegal immigration sodomy).
> 
> If the purpose of 2A is to provide for a well regulated militia, why does  Art. 1, Section 8 already authorizes Congress to train, discipline, and ARM a militia?
> 
> THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE BEEN SAYING!!!
> 
> The right of the people (whether belonging to a militia or not) shall not be infringed, meaning Congress is specifically excluded from infringing on that right.  Congress has the authority to organize, train, and arm a militia, and such is necessary to the security of a free state.  But, because Congress has that power, Congress shall not have the power to take arms away from the people.
> 
> It's the very fear the founders expressed in giving Congress the power to raise an army, and the very protection the founders intended.
> 
> I am not going to re-quote all the founders again.  You have never addressed their comments, because you cannot.  You have been defeated and all you can do is rattle off "causeless and Clueless" bullshit.
> 
> I don't want to hear or read another goddamn word from you unless you explain your reasoning.  If you cannot respond with some explanation by the framers proving your interpretation to be correct, you are nothing but a troll.
> 
> I am going to put you on ignore if you don't respond with some sort of historical authority from the founders justifying your interpretation of 2A verses Art. 1, Sec.8.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Point is, the subject of Arms for the Militia is declared socialized.  There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.
Click to expand...






Factually wrong as you have been shown REPEATEDLY.  It truly is amazing how divorced from reality you are.  I find it amusing the mental gymnastics you must contort yourself into that you can even begin to think that the Bill of Rights enumerates all of these INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, but then they keep one for the government.  As completely laughable a position as you can get.


----------



## hunarcy

frigidweirdo said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how much you deny it, punctuation matters and the emphasis is not on the dependent clause, it is on the independent clause and while have been academians in the past that have tried to torture the Amendment to say what you wish it would say, the right belongs to THE PEOPLE and it shall not be infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say punctuation doesn't matter.
> 
> I'm saying in the Second Amendment it doesn't matter. Or more specifically the two commas that may or may not exist.
> 
> You can have "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." as ratified by the states or "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." as was going through Congress.
> 
> The two extra commas don't change anything in the meaning.
> 
> But trying to pretend that this does anything is wrong.
> 
> The first half of the Amendment doesn't do anything. It merely says WHY the right to keep arms and the right to bear arms are important.
> 
> Now, think about this. The Amendment is about the militia. The Amendment says a militia is important. It doesn't say TV is important, it doesn't say breathing is important, it doesn't say a lot of things. But it does say THE MILITIA.
> 
> This is CONTEXT.
> 
> The right to keep arms is the right of individuals to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply of weapons that the US federal govt cannot take away.
> The right to bear arms is the right of individuals to be in the militia so the militia has a ready supply of personnel to use those weapons.
> 
> A militia without guns is not "a well regulated militia", nor is a militia without personnel.
> 
> However a militia without individuals walking around in the streets with their guns is the same as it would be if they were walking about with their guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *sigh*  Here is the context.  The wording of the Second Amendment does emphasize the importance of the militia, but the Right is reserved to the PEOPLE.  If they had wanted the right reserved only to the militia, they could have said the right of the militia to keep and bear arms...they'd already proven they can spell it.   The Second is not ABOUT the militia, it's about the right of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sigh. What I find is that people on this forum often end up arguing what they're comfortable arguing with. They often decide what the other person is saying BEFORE they're bothered to read what the other person has said, and therefore don't need to read what the other person has said as they BELIEVE they know what has been said.
> 
> Yes, the Second Amendment emphasizes the importance of the militia. Why? Because the Amendment is ABOUT THE MILITIA.
> 
> You say the right is reserved to the people. Yet I wrote "The right to keep arms is the right of individuals" and "The right to bear arms is the right of individuals" and you're attacking me for saying it's not the right of individuals. Are you fucking serious?
> 
> 
> Here's the other deal, let's see if you bother to read this.
> 
> Each right in the US Bill of Rights is there for a reason. The reason is politics.
> 
> The First Amendment has the right to freedom of religion, right to protest and right of freedom of speech and the press. All of these are protected in the First Amendment because of their impact on politics.
> 
> Freedom of speech so you can talk about politics, freedom to protest so you can protest politicians, freedom of religion so there isn't a state religion.
> 
> Of course individuals can use their freedom of speech in other ways, there is no limit on the freedom of speech to just politics.
> 
> However in the Bill of Rights there is no protection of the right to walk. The right to breathe. The right to eat food. The right to play games. There are so many things NOT PROTECTED, and that's because they're not directly connected with politics. Hence the 10th Amendment.
> 
> The Second Amendment is about the militia. That's what it starts with "A well regulated militia..." It protects the militia by protecting individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's NOT about the militia.  It's about the Right of the People, or as you insist, the right of individuals, to keep and bear arms.  The dependent clause about the militia is just one justification for the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the first part is the justification for putting the protection of the right in the first place.
> 
> Now, you have an amendment which is in the US Constitution in order to protect the militia.
> 
> You have the Founding Fathers talking about the term "bear arms" to mean "render military service" and "militia duty".
> 
> You do NOT have the Founding Fathers talking about the term "bear arms" to mean carrying arms around.
> 
> You have the Supreme Court saying that the right to bear arms does not mean carrying arms around.
> 
> You do NOT have the Supreme Court saying the 2A protects carrying arms around.
> 
> So, which part makes you think "bear arms" means "carrying guns around"?
> 
> I'm confused at how people can take such evidence and then be like "nah, I don't like it, I'll ignore it ALL".
Click to expand...


I know you are just determined to change the subject, but since I haven't said a word about "carrying guns around", I'll just leave you to your fantasy.


----------



## turtledude

danielpalos said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, because the Bill of Rights was to define the rights of the PEOPLE that the federal govt and Congress COULD NOT infringe upon.
> 
> The objectors who would otherwise have REFUSED to ratify the Constitution giving powers to centralized federal govt, only agreed if the Bill of Rights was going to be added as a CONDITION where it delineated the rights of INDIVIDUALS.
> 
> So all the things they DIDN'T WANT federal govt to abuse or control, were spelled out in the Bill of Rights to make sure there was an agreement NOT TO GO THERE.
> 
> I'm sure danielpalos these same arguments existed back then, with advocates defenders and opponents on both sides fighting just as fiercely.
> 
> So I find it more and more telling, more interesting and "not an accident" that the 2nd Amendment would be written where BOTH SIDES can claim their interpretation equally.
> 
> This tells me even more we should leave it written exactly as is. At least both sides can defend their views on this, so it is more
> fair and inclusive of all people regardless which side they take!
> 
> Thank you danielpalos and especially frigidweirdo
> 
> Thanks to you I can clearly see where the people like you
> are getting that the people bearing arms is "directly tied" to the intro clause about well regulated militia.
> 
> I am even more glad then ever that I can see and support
> both sides, so that I can better fulfill the commitment to be equally inclusive and defend the rights of all people regardless of belief.  I am so grateful that I can do this, because if I were
> like you or like your opponents, who could only see one side
> and truly believe the other is invalid and doesn't count legally,
> I would be MISERABLE AS FU.
> 
> I would not be able to have peace of mind knowing the other group is out there, and wasting all my energy trying to defend my view while denouncing the other; while they do the same.
> 
> So glad I can sincerely appreciate embrace and defend both sides and the equal right to exercise and establish that interpretation. I do this by sticking with the general interpretation that invoking the right to bear arms requires doing so within the Context of the rest of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. So this automatically requires people to be LAW ABIDING and respect the equal constitutional rights freedoms and protections of others, to defend the law and not to violate it, including the respect and protection of EQUAL BELIEFS of people from discrimination and infringement. So I can live with both, within that context.
> 
> Anyone seeking to impose their views and violate the beliefs of others by exclusion or bullying, I cannot go there by conscience.
> I can only seek to include and protect people's beliefs and free choice whether or how to change their views to resolve conflicts with others.
> 
> So glad I take this approach.
> 
> Thank you for reinforcing how important it is, since there is clear validity on your side of the fence and how and why you interpret it that way, even holding it to be the only truth, while the other interpretation is political and a lie.
> 
> It makes me even more curious about my friend who came from the view you take, then changed from reading the history and decided the historical context DOES endorse the conservative interpretation of the rights belonging to the people, and coming to a similar conclusion as I have that although this is the predominant interpretation, there is still room for the interpretation of the right to bear arms within regulated militia only.
> 
> So he and I both agree to keep it open both ways, but he came from your viewpoint and opened up to even acknowledge that the other interpretation is actually more consistent historically; and I come from the conservative interpretation but keep the floor open to include other beliefs and interpretations equally.
> 
> He and I both agree that history points to the conservative interpretation; but inclusion and respect for our fellow Democrats and liberals, of course we are always going to include our constituents and not exclude those beliefs as the hardcore conservatives who aim to attack and discredit liberals.
> 
> You may never be able to see beyond right to bear arms within a regulated militia only, but I hope you would AT LEAST open up to ACCOMMODATE the beliefs in people bearing arms individually, ie as long as it's done within the inseparable context of defending the laws and protections of others and not violating any laws, since I am asking those other advocates to accommodate YOUR beliefs that it means militia only.
> 
> The only way I've seen people budge on their beliefs, from exclusion to inclusion of others, is if they are treated the same way. So that's the most I could hope or expect to change here, a move toward equal inclusion in order to gain respect for your beliefs that are always going to be in the minority, because people believe in themselves and their judgment to make decisions more than they believe in others running govt and "organized regulations." they have to be involved or feel represented in the decisions on regulations before they trust it, so it always lands on the people.
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have already been schooled on this repeatedly.  You are wrong.  You know you are wrong yet you keep repeating the same tired old memes.  Time for you to get some new material.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude; nobody should take the right wing seriously about law or politics.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural rights.
> 
> It says so, in the Intent and Purpose clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed.  And it also states quite emphatically that the "Right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".  What part of that sentence do you not understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> the unorganized militia may be infringed.
Click to expand...

 sorry R2D2  militias don't have rights, people do.  the right of individual people cannot be infringed.


----------



## sakinago

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States.
> 
> It is clearly enumerated in Article 1, Section 8.
> 
> 
> 
> Then, why add a 2nd Amendment if it is only there to provide for the wellness of regulating a militia?  Your interpretation either renders the 2A redundant or renders it meaningless.
> 
> Article 1, Section 8:
> 
> _To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> 
> To provide for *organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia*, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of *training the Militia* according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> _
> So, Section 8 authorizes Congress to prescribe laws to organize, arm, and discipline or train the militia.
> 
> 2nd Amendment:
> 
> _"A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> _
> If Congress has the power to ARM the militia, that power preempts any state or local authority.  Congress would also have the exclusive authority to NOT arm the militia, right?  That power is exclusive to Congress, like enforcing immigration laws (where States like Texas have to just bend over and take all sorts of illegal immigration sodomy).
> 
> If the purpose of 2A is to provide for a well regulated militia, why does  Art. 1, Section 8 already authorizes Congress to train, discipline, and ARM a militia?
> 
> THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE BEEN SAYING!!!
> 
> The right of the people (whether belonging to a militia or not) shall not be infringed, meaning Congress is specifically excluded from infringing on that right.  Congress has the authority to organize, train, and arm a militia, and such is necessary to the security of a free state.  But, because Congress has that power, Congress shall not have the power to take arms away from the people.
> 
> It's the very fear the founders expressed in giving Congress the power to raise an army, and the very protection the founders intended.
> 
> I am not going to re-quote all the founders again.  You have never addressed their comments, because you cannot.  You have been defeated and all you can do is rattle off "causeless and Clueless" bullshit.
> 
> I don't want to hear or read another goddamn word from you unless you explain your reasoning.  If you cannot respond with some explanation by the framers proving your interpretation to be correct, you are nothing but a troll.
> 
> I am going to put you on ignore if you don't respond with some sort of historical authority from the founders justifying your interpretation of 2A verses Art. 1, Sec.8.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Point is, the subject of Arms for the Militia is declared socialized.  There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.
Click to expand...

Except for the word people...


----------



## emilynghiem

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States.
> 
> It is clearly enumerated in Article 1, Section 8.
> 
> 
> 
> Then, why add a 2nd Amendment if it is only there to provide for the wellness of regulating a militia?  Your interpretation either renders the 2A redundant or renders it meaningless.
> 
> Article 1, Section 8:
> 
> _To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> 
> To provide for *organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia*, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of *training the Militia* according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> _
> So, Section 8 authorizes Congress to prescribe laws to organize, arm, and discipline or train the militia.
> 
> 2nd Amendment:
> 
> _"A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> _
> If Congress has the power to ARM the militia, that power preempts any state or local authority.  Congress would also have the exclusive authority to NOT arm the militia, right?  That power is exclusive to Congress, like enforcing immigration laws (where States like Texas have to just bend over and take all sorts of illegal immigration sodomy).
> 
> If the purpose of 2A is to provide for a well regulated militia, why does  Art. 1, Section 8 already authorizes Congress to train, discipline, and ARM a militia?
> 
> THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE BEEN SAYING!!!
> 
> The right of the people (whether belonging to a militia or not) shall not be infringed, meaning Congress is specifically excluded from infringing on that right.  Congress has the authority to organize, train, and arm a militia, and such is necessary to the security of a free state.  But, because Congress has that power, Congress shall not have the power to take arms away from the people.
> 
> It's the very fear the founders expressed in giving Congress the power to raise an army, and the very protection the founders intended.
> 
> I am not going to re-quote all the founders again.  You have never addressed their comments, because you cannot.  You have been defeated and all you can do is rattle off "causeless and Clueless" bullshit.
> 
> I don't want to hear or read another goddamn word from you unless you explain your reasoning.  If you cannot respond with some explanation by the framers proving your interpretation to be correct, you are nothing but a troll.
> 
> I am going to put you on ignore if you don't respond with some sort of historical authority from the founders justifying your interpretation of 2A verses Art. 1, Sec.8.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Point is, the subject of Arms for the Militia is declared socialized.  There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.
Click to expand...


Dear danielpalos
do you REALLY believe that ALL the people who crafted and passed this law
would ALL AGREE to the militia-only interpretation?

When people TODAY don't even "all agree"

What makes you think they would have agreed back
then if CLEARLY the two schools of thought don't agree now!

The more we argue and totally believe in our respective beliefs, that tells me so did the people split in two schools of thought back then.

They even had the equivalent of what we argue over today, over who counts as a citizen with rights. Today we argue if immigrants have equal rights as "humans" as citizens. Back then there was issue with Catholics or other people not considered equal or trustworthy to uphold the laws if they were to bear arms.

So if we can't even agree today, and these separate factions INSIST their respective interpretations ARE the truth that the laws should represent, isn't that clear the same thing would be going on back then? And there would be the same two factions, so the law came out the way it did to accommodate BOTH that would equally insist on THEIR way and REFUSE to compromise to let the other way prevail and exclude them.


----------



## emilynghiem

frigidweirdo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, regardless of All of the Other Ones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> REGARDLESS? no, in ADDITION to, as part of the greater
> body of Constitutional laws and principles.
> 
> You must be sarcastic here
> There is even an Amendment that specifies enumeration of rights is not to disparage others.
> 
> But seriously danielpalos you do make a point
> that DOES WORK with Conservatives and Constitutionalists:
> 
> You are RIGHT that no law including the Second Amendment
> can be "taken out of context" with the REST of the Constitutional laws.
> 
> This is also why I make the argument that both sides'
> political beliefs on this MUST BE EQUALLY included
> represented and protected from exclusion or discrimination.
> 
> Because OTHERWISE it would VIOLATE the
> First and Fourteenth Amendments on equal protection
> of the laws including religious freedom.
> 
> So danielpalos both you and others have equal right
> to exercise and defend your respective political beliefs.
> If we are REALLY to enforce equal Constitutional protections
> for ALL PEOPLE REGARDLESS OF CREED.
> 
> Thanks for showing why this is so important danielpalos
> if people like me didn't include and respect your beliefs equally
> you would be excluded from expressing and exercising them!
> 
> So by the same token, those with opposing beliefs and
> interpretations from yours equally invoke the same freedom
> to DEFEND THEIR INTERPRETATION AND BELIEFS FROM YOURS.
> 
> I hope you get this point.
> Maybe frigidweirdo will get it
> and understand why it's so hard for Conservatives to
> accommodate and include "views they believe to be WRONG":
> when frigidweirdo and apparently you
> have the same difficulty acknowledging valid rights
> to believe YOU believe are wrong as well!
> 
> I hope the irony isn't lost on you
> and that you are both intelligent to see that this is mutual
> where both sides struggle to manage conflicts with beliefs
> they believe are just plain wrong and have no standing
> to be taken seriously! My goodness, please tell me
> you get this even where you don't agree with the opposing beliefs!
> 
> I don't have to agree with your and frigidweirdo's statements
> views and beliefs to defend your right to those equally under
> Constitutional principles ethics and standards;
> am I the only one willing to do that here?
> 
> Good ness!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem here Emily is that laws have been made. You disagree with the laws, so you pretend that the laws mean something different to what they actually mean in order to promote your own view on the matter.
> 
> Everything I have said is backed up with plenty of evidence. Everything you have said has been backed up with almost nothing other than your own opinion.
Click to expand...


Hi frigidweirdo
1. and the same is said of your interpretation, where the opposing view also says the law was written to mean individual rights, and the historical arguments and reasoning of the founders back up THAT view.

2. I agree with the law as written. I think it is interesting that both sides can interpret the same laws and justify their own beliefs/interpretations.

So I don't disagree with the law.

I disagree with either side imposing their interpretation to the point of demeaning or discriminating against people of the other view.


----------



## danielpalos

westwall said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> That ruling was in error; must have been, right wingers involved.
> 
> The People are the Militia; You are either well regulated or unorganized.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the People are the militia and they were expected to bring their own weapons with them.  I find it amusing that you think the government, the ultimate example of force in a country would have needed to enumerate a Right for itself to be able to defend itself........................ from itself?   Your "argument" is laughable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia had to muster.  Only the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What did "well regulated" mean back then?  You have already been shown what it meant, so how are you going to twist that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated means whatever Congress says it means; only the right wing appeals to ignorance of the law and claim they are for the, "gospel Truth".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it means whatever the DICTIONARY says it means.  That's why dictionary's get written.  Here is the original meaning of the phrase, that has already been shown to you, and which you continue to ignore.
> 
> 
> The following are taken from the _*Oxford English Dictionary*_, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
> 
> 1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us *well-regulated* Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
> 
> 1714: "The practice of all *well-regulated* courts of justice in the world."
> 
> 1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a *well-regulated* clock and a true sun dial."
> 
> 1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every *well-regulated* person will blame the Mayor."
> 
> 1862: "It appeared to her *well-regulated* mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
> 
> 1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every *well-regulated* American embryo city."
> 
> The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
> 
> http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't.  Congress has to prescribe, well regulated, for the militia of the United States.


----------



## danielpalos

turtledude said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> the unorganized militia may be infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I refer you to the aforementioned US V MILLER case, who's entire ruling I have provided for you that refutes your statement point by point and IS a Supreme Court judgement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That ruling was in error; must have been, right wingers involved.
> 
> The People are the Militia; You are either well regulated or unorganized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both the House, the Senate, and the POTUS were solid left wingers.  The Court was evenly split.  As usual you are factually wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You must be on the right wing.  How can I be factually wrong, by stating that the People are the Militia; you are either well regulated or you are not.
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the People are declared necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when is your programmer going to fix your chip?  your English is irregular and makes no sense
Click to expand...

Who cares; y'all have, nothing but repeal, anyway.


----------



## danielpalos

westwall said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States.
> 
> It is clearly enumerated in Article 1, Section 8.
> 
> 
> 
> Then, why add a 2nd Amendment if it is only there to provide for the wellness of regulating a militia?  Your interpretation either renders the 2A redundant or renders it meaningless.
> 
> Article 1, Section 8:
> 
> _To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> 
> To provide for *organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia*, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of *training the Militia* according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> _
> So, Section 8 authorizes Congress to prescribe laws to organize, arm, and discipline or train the militia.
> 
> 2nd Amendment:
> 
> _"A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> _
> If Congress has the power to ARM the militia, that power preempts any state or local authority.  Congress would also have the exclusive authority to NOT arm the militia, right?  That power is exclusive to Congress, like enforcing immigration laws (where States like Texas have to just bend over and take all sorts of illegal immigration sodomy).
> 
> If the purpose of 2A is to provide for a well regulated militia, why does  Art. 1, Section 8 already authorizes Congress to train, discipline, and ARM a militia?
> 
> THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE BEEN SAYING!!!
> 
> The right of the people (whether belonging to a militia or not) shall not be infringed, meaning Congress is specifically excluded from infringing on that right.  Congress has the authority to organize, train, and arm a militia, and such is necessary to the security of a free state.  But, because Congress has that power, Congress shall not have the power to take arms away from the people.
> 
> It's the very fear the founders expressed in giving Congress the power to raise an army, and the very protection the founders intended.
> 
> I am not going to re-quote all the founders again.  You have never addressed their comments, because you cannot.  You have been defeated and all you can do is rattle off "causeless and Clueless" bullshit.
> 
> I don't want to hear or read another goddamn word from you unless you explain your reasoning.  If you cannot respond with some explanation by the framers proving your interpretation to be correct, you are nothing but a troll.
> 
> I am going to put you on ignore if you don't respond with some sort of historical authority from the founders justifying your interpretation of 2A verses Art. 1, Sec.8.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Point is, the subject of Arms for the Militia is declared socialized.  There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Factually wrong as you have been shown REPEATEDLY.  It truly is amazing how divorced from reality you are.  I find it amusing the mental gymnastics you must contort yourself into that you can even begin to think that the Bill of Rights enumerates all of these INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, but then they keep one for the government.  As completely laughable a position as you can get.
Click to expand...

dude; You do not know what you are talking about.  

The subject of Arms is declared socialized in Article 1, Section 8.  It really is that simple.


----------



## danielpalos

turtledude said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have already been schooled on this repeatedly.  You are wrong.  You know you are wrong yet you keep repeating the same tired old memes.  Time for you to get some new material.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude; nobody should take the right wing seriously about law or politics.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural rights.
> 
> It says so, in the Intent and Purpose clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed.  And it also states quite emphatically that the "Right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".  What part of that sentence do you not understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> the unorganized militia may be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sorry R2D2  militias don't have rights, people do.  the right of individual people cannot be infringed.
Click to expand...

The People are the Militia, bozo.


----------



## westwall

danielpalos said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States.
> 
> It is clearly enumerated in Article 1, Section 8.
> 
> 
> 
> Then, why add a 2nd Amendment if it is only there to provide for the wellness of regulating a militia?  Your interpretation either renders the 2A redundant or renders it meaningless.
> 
> Article 1, Section 8:
> 
> _To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> 
> To provide for *organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia*, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of *training the Militia* according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> _
> So, Section 8 authorizes Congress to prescribe laws to organize, arm, and discipline or train the militia.
> 
> 2nd Amendment:
> 
> _"A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> _
> If Congress has the power to ARM the militia, that power preempts any state or local authority.  Congress would also have the exclusive authority to NOT arm the militia, right?  That power is exclusive to Congress, like enforcing immigration laws (where States like Texas have to just bend over and take all sorts of illegal immigration sodomy).
> 
> If the purpose of 2A is to provide for a well regulated militia, why does  Art. 1, Section 8 already authorizes Congress to train, discipline, and ARM a militia?
> 
> THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE BEEN SAYING!!!
> 
> The right of the people (whether belonging to a militia or not) shall not be infringed, meaning Congress is specifically excluded from infringing on that right.  Congress has the authority to organize, train, and arm a militia, and such is necessary to the security of a free state.  But, because Congress has that power, Congress shall not have the power to take arms away from the people.
> 
> It's the very fear the founders expressed in giving Congress the power to raise an army, and the very protection the founders intended.
> 
> I am not going to re-quote all the founders again.  You have never addressed their comments, because you cannot.  You have been defeated and all you can do is rattle off "causeless and Clueless" bullshit.
> 
> I don't want to hear or read another goddamn word from you unless you explain your reasoning.  If you cannot respond with some explanation by the framers proving your interpretation to be correct, you are nothing but a troll.
> 
> I am going to put you on ignore if you don't respond with some sort of historical authority from the founders justifying your interpretation of 2A verses Art. 1, Sec.8.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Point is, the subject of Arms for the Militia is declared socialized.  There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Factually wrong as you have been shown REPEATEDLY.  It truly is amazing how divorced from reality you are.  I find it amusing the mental gymnastics you must contort yourself into that you can even begin to think that the Bill of Rights enumerates all of these INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, but then they keep one for the government.  As completely laughable a position as you can get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude; You do not know what you are talking about.
> 
> The subject of Arms is declared socialized in Article 1, Section 8.  It really is that simple.
Click to expand...









Only if you don't understand the English language, or are delusional.  Or, to put it another way, if your position were indeed correct, then our firearms would have been confiscated decades ago.


----------



## danielpalos

sakinago said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States.
> 
> It is clearly enumerated in Article 1, Section 8.
> 
> 
> 
> Then, why add a 2nd Amendment if it is only there to provide for the wellness of regulating a militia?  Your interpretation either renders the 2A redundant or renders it meaningless.
> 
> Article 1, Section 8:
> 
> _To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> 
> To provide for *organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia*, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of *training the Militia* according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> _
> So, Section 8 authorizes Congress to prescribe laws to organize, arm, and discipline or train the militia.
> 
> 2nd Amendment:
> 
> _"A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> _
> If Congress has the power to ARM the militia, that power preempts any state or local authority.  Congress would also have the exclusive authority to NOT arm the militia, right?  That power is exclusive to Congress, like enforcing immigration laws (where States like Texas have to just bend over and take all sorts of illegal immigration sodomy).
> 
> If the purpose of 2A is to provide for a well regulated militia, why does  Art. 1, Section 8 already authorizes Congress to train, discipline, and ARM a militia?
> 
> THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE BEEN SAYING!!!
> 
> The right of the people (whether belonging to a militia or not) shall not be infringed, meaning Congress is specifically excluded from infringing on that right.  Congress has the authority to organize, train, and arm a militia, and such is necessary to the security of a free state.  But, because Congress has that power, Congress shall not have the power to take arms away from the people.
> 
> It's the very fear the founders expressed in giving Congress the power to raise an army, and the very protection the founders intended.
> 
> I am not going to re-quote all the founders again.  You have never addressed their comments, because you cannot.  You have been defeated and all you can do is rattle off "causeless and Clueless" bullshit.
> 
> I don't want to hear or read another goddamn word from you unless you explain your reasoning.  If you cannot respond with some explanation by the framers proving your interpretation to be correct, you are nothing but a troll.
> 
> I am going to put you on ignore if you don't respond with some sort of historical authority from the founders justifying your interpretation of 2A verses Art. 1, Sec.8.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Point is, the subject of Arms for the Militia is declared socialized.  There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except for the word people...
Click to expand...

The People, not the Person.  There are no Individual rights.  The People are the Militia.


----------



## westwall

danielpalos said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the People are the militia and they were expected to bring their own weapons with them.  I find it amusing that you think the government, the ultimate example of force in a country would have needed to enumerate a Right for itself to be able to defend itself........................ from itself?   Your "argument" is laughable.
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia had to muster.  Only the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What did "well regulated" mean back then?  You have already been shown what it meant, so how are you going to twist that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated means whatever Congress says it means; only the right wing appeals to ignorance of the law and claim they are for the, "gospel Truth".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it means whatever the DICTIONARY says it means.  That's why dictionary's get written.  Here is the original meaning of the phrase, that has already been shown to you, and which you continue to ignore.
> 
> 
> The following are taken from the _*Oxford English Dictionary*_, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
> 
> 1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us *well-regulated* Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
> 
> 1714: "The practice of all *well-regulated* courts of justice in the world."
> 
> 1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a *well-regulated* clock and a true sun dial."
> 
> 1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every *well-regulated* person will blame the Mayor."
> 
> 1862: "It appeared to her *well-regulated* mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
> 
> 1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every *well-regulated* American embryo city."
> 
> The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
> 
> http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't.  Congress has to prescribe, well regulated, for the militia of the United States.
Click to expand...









Wrongo again O.  It's amazing how ignorant of history, the law, and the COTUS you truly are.


----------



## danielpalos

emilynghiem said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States.
> 
> It is clearly enumerated in Article 1, Section 8.
> 
> 
> 
> Then, why add a 2nd Amendment if it is only there to provide for the wellness of regulating a militia?  Your interpretation either renders the 2A redundant or renders it meaningless.
> 
> Article 1, Section 8:
> 
> _To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> 
> To provide for *organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia*, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of *training the Militia* according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> _
> So, Section 8 authorizes Congress to prescribe laws to organize, arm, and discipline or train the militia.
> 
> 2nd Amendment:
> 
> _"A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> _
> If Congress has the power to ARM the militia, that power preempts any state or local authority.  Congress would also have the exclusive authority to NOT arm the militia, right?  That power is exclusive to Congress, like enforcing immigration laws (where States like Texas have to just bend over and take all sorts of illegal immigration sodomy).
> 
> If the purpose of 2A is to provide for a well regulated militia, why does  Art. 1, Section 8 already authorizes Congress to train, discipline, and ARM a militia?
> 
> THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE BEEN SAYING!!!
> 
> The right of the people (whether belonging to a militia or not) shall not be infringed, meaning Congress is specifically excluded from infringing on that right.  Congress has the authority to organize, train, and arm a militia, and such is necessary to the security of a free state.  But, because Congress has that power, Congress shall not have the power to take arms away from the people.
> 
> It's the very fear the founders expressed in giving Congress the power to raise an army, and the very protection the founders intended.
> 
> I am not going to re-quote all the founders again.  You have never addressed their comments, because you cannot.  You have been defeated and all you can do is rattle off "causeless and Clueless" bullshit.
> 
> I don't want to hear or read another goddamn word from you unless you explain your reasoning.  If you cannot respond with some explanation by the framers proving your interpretation to be correct, you are nothing but a troll.
> 
> I am going to put you on ignore if you don't respond with some sort of historical authority from the founders justifying your interpretation of 2A verses Art. 1, Sec.8.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Point is, the subject of Arms for the Militia is declared socialized.  There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear danielpalos
> do you REALLY believe that ALL the people who crafted and passed this law
> would ALL AGREE to the militia-only interpretation?
> 
> When people TODAY don't even "all agree"
> 
> What makes you think they would have agreed back
> then if CLEARLY the two schools of thought don't agree now!
> 
> The more we argue and totally believe in our respective beliefs, that tells me so did the people split in two schools of thought back then.
> 
> They even had the equivalent of what we argue over today, over who counts as a citizen with rights. Today we argue if immigrants have equal rights as "humans" as citizens. Back then there was issue with Catholics or other people not considered equal or trustworthy to uphold the laws if they were to bear arms.
> 
> So if we can't even agree today, and these separate factions INSIST their respective interpretations ARE the truth that the laws should represent, isn't that clear the same thing would be going on back then? And there would be the same two factions, so the law came out the way it did to accommodate BOTH that would equally insist on THEIR way and REFUSE to compromise to let the other way prevail and exclude them.
Click to expand...

Only the clueless and the Causeless say that.  The People are the Militia.  What part of that do y'all not understand?


----------



## westwall

danielpalos said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States.
> 
> It is clearly enumerated in Article 1, Section 8.
> 
> 
> 
> Then, why add a 2nd Amendment if it is only there to provide for the wellness of regulating a militia?  Your interpretation either renders the 2A redundant or renders it meaningless.
> 
> Article 1, Section 8:
> 
> _To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> 
> To provide for *organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia*, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of *training the Militia* according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> _
> So, Section 8 authorizes Congress to prescribe laws to organize, arm, and discipline or train the militia.
> 
> 2nd Amendment:
> 
> _"A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> _
> If Congress has the power to ARM the militia, that power preempts any state or local authority.  Congress would also have the exclusive authority to NOT arm the militia, right?  That power is exclusive to Congress, like enforcing immigration laws (where States like Texas have to just bend over and take all sorts of illegal immigration sodomy).
> 
> If the purpose of 2A is to provide for a well regulated militia, why does  Art. 1, Section 8 already authorizes Congress to train, discipline, and ARM a militia?
> 
> THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE BEEN SAYING!!!
> 
> The right of the people (whether belonging to a militia or not) shall not be infringed, meaning Congress is specifically excluded from infringing on that right.  Congress has the authority to organize, train, and arm a militia, and such is necessary to the security of a free state.  But, because Congress has that power, Congress shall not have the power to take arms away from the people.
> 
> It's the very fear the founders expressed in giving Congress the power to raise an army, and the very protection the founders intended.
> 
> I am not going to re-quote all the founders again.  You have never addressed their comments, because you cannot.  You have been defeated and all you can do is rattle off "causeless and Clueless" bullshit.
> 
> I don't want to hear or read another goddamn word from you unless you explain your reasoning.  If you cannot respond with some explanation by the framers proving your interpretation to be correct, you are nothing but a troll.
> 
> I am going to put you on ignore if you don't respond with some sort of historical authority from the founders justifying your interpretation of 2A verses Art. 1, Sec.8.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Point is, the subject of Arms for the Militia is declared socialized.  There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except for the word people...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People, not the Person.  There are no Individual rights.  The People are the Militia.
Click to expand...









Yep.  You don't understand the English language.  That is abundantly clear.  Of course you are a self described Federalist, and they were for an authoritarian government.  it was because of them that the 2nd was a REQUIREMENT, as a part of the Bill of Rights, for the COTUS to be accepted.


----------



## frigidweirdo

hunarcy said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say punctuation doesn't matter.
> 
> I'm saying in the Second Amendment it doesn't matter. Or more specifically the two commas that may or may not exist.
> 
> You can have "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." as ratified by the states or "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." as was going through Congress.
> 
> The two extra commas don't change anything in the meaning.
> 
> But trying to pretend that this does anything is wrong.
> 
> The first half of the Amendment doesn't do anything. It merely says WHY the right to keep arms and the right to bear arms are important.
> 
> Now, think about this. The Amendment is about the militia. The Amendment says a militia is important. It doesn't say TV is important, it doesn't say breathing is important, it doesn't say a lot of things. But it does say THE MILITIA.
> 
> This is CONTEXT.
> 
> The right to keep arms is the right of individuals to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply of weapons that the US federal govt cannot take away.
> The right to bear arms is the right of individuals to be in the militia so the militia has a ready supply of personnel to use those weapons.
> 
> A militia without guns is not "a well regulated militia", nor is a militia without personnel.
> 
> However a militia without individuals walking around in the streets with their guns is the same as it would be if they were walking about with their guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *sigh*  Here is the context.  The wording of the Second Amendment does emphasize the importance of the militia, but the Right is reserved to the PEOPLE.  If they had wanted the right reserved only to the militia, they could have said the right of the militia to keep and bear arms...they'd already proven they can spell it.   The Second is not ABOUT the militia, it's about the right of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sigh. What I find is that people on this forum often end up arguing what they're comfortable arguing with. They often decide what the other person is saying BEFORE they're bothered to read what the other person has said, and therefore don't need to read what the other person has said as they BELIEVE they know what has been said.
> 
> Yes, the Second Amendment emphasizes the importance of the militia. Why? Because the Amendment is ABOUT THE MILITIA.
> 
> You say the right is reserved to the people. Yet I wrote "The right to keep arms is the right of individuals" and "The right to bear arms is the right of individuals" and you're attacking me for saying it's not the right of individuals. Are you fucking serious?
> 
> 
> Here's the other deal, let's see if you bother to read this.
> 
> Each right in the US Bill of Rights is there for a reason. The reason is politics.
> 
> The First Amendment has the right to freedom of religion, right to protest and right of freedom of speech and the press. All of these are protected in the First Amendment because of their impact on politics.
> 
> Freedom of speech so you can talk about politics, freedom to protest so you can protest politicians, freedom of religion so there isn't a state religion.
> 
> Of course individuals can use their freedom of speech in other ways, there is no limit on the freedom of speech to just politics.
> 
> However in the Bill of Rights there is no protection of the right to walk. The right to breathe. The right to eat food. The right to play games. There are so many things NOT PROTECTED, and that's because they're not directly connected with politics. Hence the 10th Amendment.
> 
> The Second Amendment is about the militia. That's what it starts with "A well regulated militia..." It protects the militia by protecting individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's NOT about the militia.  It's about the Right of the People, or as you insist, the right of individuals, to keep and bear arms.  The dependent clause about the militia is just one justification for the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the first part is the justification for putting the protection of the right in the first place.
> 
> Now, you have an amendment which is in the US Constitution in order to protect the militia.
> 
> You have the Founding Fathers talking about the term "bear arms" to mean "render military service" and "militia duty".
> 
> You do NOT have the Founding Fathers talking about the term "bear arms" to mean carrying arms around.
> 
> You have the Supreme Court saying that the right to bear arms does not mean carrying arms around.
> 
> You do NOT have the Supreme Court saying the 2A protects carrying arms around.
> 
> So, which part makes you think "bear arms" means "carrying guns around"?
> 
> I'm confused at how people can take such evidence and then be like "nah, I don't like it, I'll ignore it ALL".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know you are just determined to change the subject, but since I haven't said a word about "carrying guns around", I'll just leave you to your fantasy.
Click to expand...


Right now I'm making the case that "bear arms" means "render military service" and "militia duty". 

If you jump into someone else's conversation and then complain that you did not say something that is the debate, then that's your problem.

There appear, at this point, to be two argument.

The first is mine, backed up with sources from the Founding Fathers, the Supreme Court, you name it.

The second is that "bear arms" means carry arms. 

The only evidence for this is that "bear" can mean "carry" therefore it MUST mean carry even though there are 5 different definitions for the term "bear" and that if you ignore all of my evidence, then there's no evidence to suggest that "bear arms" means carry arms. 

Would you care to join this discussion or not?


----------



## westwall

danielpalos said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States.
> 
> It is clearly enumerated in Article 1, Section 8.
> 
> 
> 
> Then, why add a 2nd Amendment if it is only there to provide for the wellness of regulating a militia?  Your interpretation either renders the 2A redundant or renders it meaningless.
> 
> Article 1, Section 8:
> 
> _To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> 
> To provide for *organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia*, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of *training the Militia* according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> _
> So, Section 8 authorizes Congress to prescribe laws to organize, arm, and discipline or train the militia.
> 
> 2nd Amendment:
> 
> _"A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> _
> If Congress has the power to ARM the militia, that power preempts any state or local authority.  Congress would also have the exclusive authority to NOT arm the militia, right?  That power is exclusive to Congress, like enforcing immigration laws (where States like Texas have to just bend over and take all sorts of illegal immigration sodomy).
> 
> If the purpose of 2A is to provide for a well regulated militia, why does  Art. 1, Section 8 already authorizes Congress to train, discipline, and ARM a militia?
> 
> THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE BEEN SAYING!!!
> 
> The right of the people (whether belonging to a militia or not) shall not be infringed, meaning Congress is specifically excluded from infringing on that right.  Congress has the authority to organize, train, and arm a militia, and such is necessary to the security of a free state.  But, because Congress has that power, Congress shall not have the power to take arms away from the people.
> 
> It's the very fear the founders expressed in giving Congress the power to raise an army, and the very protection the founders intended.
> 
> I am not going to re-quote all the founders again.  You have never addressed their comments, because you cannot.  You have been defeated and all you can do is rattle off "causeless and Clueless" bullshit.
> 
> I don't want to hear or read another goddamn word from you unless you explain your reasoning.  If you cannot respond with some explanation by the framers proving your interpretation to be correct, you are nothing but a troll.
> 
> I am going to put you on ignore if you don't respond with some sort of historical authority from the founders justifying your interpretation of 2A verses Art. 1, Sec.8.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Point is, the subject of Arms for the Militia is declared socialized.  There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear danielpalos
> do you REALLY believe that ALL the people who crafted and passed this law
> would ALL AGREE to the militia-only interpretation?
> 
> When people TODAY don't even "all agree"
> 
> What makes you think they would have agreed back
> then if CLEARLY the two schools of thought don't agree now!
> 
> The more we argue and totally believe in our respective beliefs, that tells me so did the people split in two schools of thought back then.
> 
> They even had the equivalent of what we argue over today, over who counts as a citizen with rights. Today we argue if immigrants have equal rights as "humans" as citizens. Back then there was issue with Catholics or other people not considered equal or trustworthy to uphold the laws if they were to bear arms.
> 
> So if we can't even agree today, and these separate factions INSIST their respective interpretations ARE the truth that the laws should represent, isn't that clear the same thing would be going on back then? And there would be the same two factions, so the law came out the way it did to accommodate BOTH that would equally insist on THEIR way and REFUSE to compromise to let the other way prevail and exclude them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the clueless and the Causeless say that.  The People are the Militia.  What part of that do y'all not understand?
Click to expand...






No, silly person.  It is you who either don't understand, or you are simply intellectually dishonest.  I will go with the latter as you are nothing more than a one trick pony bleating about that which you have no clue.

Run along little sheep, run along.


----------



## frigidweirdo

turtledude said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have already been schooled on this repeatedly.  You are wrong.  You know you are wrong yet you keep repeating the same tired old memes.  Time for you to get some new material.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude; nobody should take the right wing seriously about law or politics.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural rights.
> 
> It says so, in the Intent and Purpose clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed.  And it also states quite emphatically that the "Right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".  What part of that sentence do you not understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> the unorganized militia may be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sorry R2D2  militias don't have rights, people do.  the right of individual people cannot be infringed.
Click to expand...


But the Second Amendment doesn't give the right, does it? 

The Second Amendment PROTECTS the right.


----------



## turtledude

danielpalos said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States.
> 
> It is clearly enumerated in Article 1, Section 8.
> 
> 
> 
> Then, why add a 2nd Amendment if it is only there to provide for the wellness of regulating a militia?  Your interpretation either renders the 2A redundant or renders it meaningless.
> 
> Article 1, Section 8:
> 
> _To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> 
> To provide for *organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia*, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of *training the Militia* according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> _
> So, Section 8 authorizes Congress to prescribe laws to organize, arm, and discipline or train the militia.
> 
> 2nd Amendment:
> 
> _"A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> _
> If Congress has the power to ARM the militia, that power preempts any state or local authority.  Congress would also have the exclusive authority to NOT arm the militia, right?  That power is exclusive to Congress, like enforcing immigration laws (where States like Texas have to just bend over and take all sorts of illegal immigration sodomy).
> 
> If the purpose of 2A is to provide for a well regulated militia, why does  Art. 1, Section 8 already authorizes Congress to train, discipline, and ARM a militia?
> 
> THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE BEEN SAYING!!!
> 
> The right of the people (whether belonging to a militia or not) shall not be infringed, meaning Congress is specifically excluded from infringing on that right.  Congress has the authority to organize, train, and arm a militia, and such is necessary to the security of a free state.  But, because Congress has that power, Congress shall not have the power to take arms away from the people.
> 
> It's the very fear the founders expressed in giving Congress the power to raise an army, and the very protection the founders intended.
> 
> I am not going to re-quote all the founders again.  You have never addressed their comments, because you cannot.  You have been defeated and all you can do is rattle off "causeless and Clueless" bullshit.
> 
> I don't want to hear or read another goddamn word from you unless you explain your reasoning.  If you cannot respond with some explanation by the framers proving your interpretation to be correct, you are nothing but a troll.
> 
> I am going to put you on ignore if you don't respond with some sort of historical authority from the founders justifying your interpretation of 2A verses Art. 1, Sec.8.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Point is, the subject of Arms for the Militia is declared socialized.  There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Factually wrong as you have been shown REPEATEDLY.  It truly is amazing how divorced from reality you are.  I find it amusing the mental gymnastics you must contort yourself into that you can even begin to think that the Bill of Rights enumerates all of these INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, but then they keep one for the government.  As completely laughable a position as you can get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude; You do not know what you are talking about.
> 
> The subject of Arms is declared socialized in Article 1, Section 8.  It really is that simple.
Click to expand...



chip's not working.  you haven't a clue of what your maker programmed you to say


----------



## danielpalos

westwall said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States.
> 
> It is clearly enumerated in Article 1, Section 8.
> 
> 
> 
> Then, why add a 2nd Amendment if it is only there to provide for the wellness of regulating a militia?  Your interpretation either renders the 2A redundant or renders it meaningless.
> 
> Article 1, Section 8:
> 
> _To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> 
> To provide for *organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia*, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of *training the Militia* according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> _
> So, Section 8 authorizes Congress to prescribe laws to organize, arm, and discipline or train the militia.
> 
> 2nd Amendment:
> 
> _"A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> _
> If Congress has the power to ARM the militia, that power preempts any state or local authority.  Congress would also have the exclusive authority to NOT arm the militia, right?  That power is exclusive to Congress, like enforcing immigration laws (where States like Texas have to just bend over and take all sorts of illegal immigration sodomy).
> 
> If the purpose of 2A is to provide for a well regulated militia, why does  Art. 1, Section 8 already authorizes Congress to train, discipline, and ARM a militia?
> 
> THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE BEEN SAYING!!!
> 
> The right of the people (whether belonging to a militia or not) shall not be infringed, meaning Congress is specifically excluded from infringing on that right.  Congress has the authority to organize, train, and arm a militia, and such is necessary to the security of a free state.  But, because Congress has that power, Congress shall not have the power to take arms away from the people.
> 
> It's the very fear the founders expressed in giving Congress the power to raise an army, and the very protection the founders intended.
> 
> I am not going to re-quote all the founders again.  You have never addressed their comments, because you cannot.  You have been defeated and all you can do is rattle off "causeless and Clueless" bullshit.
> 
> I don't want to hear or read another goddamn word from you unless you explain your reasoning.  If you cannot respond with some explanation by the framers proving your interpretation to be correct, you are nothing but a troll.
> 
> I am going to put you on ignore if you don't respond with some sort of historical authority from the founders justifying your interpretation of 2A verses Art. 1, Sec.8.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Point is, the subject of Arms for the Militia is declared socialized.  There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except for the word people...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People, not the Person.  There are no Individual rights.  The People are the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.  You don't understand the English language.  That is abundantly clear.  Of course you are a self described Federalist, and they were for an authoritarian government.  it was because of them that the 2nd was a REQUIREMENT, as a part of the Bill of Rights, for the COTUS to be accepted.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant to the current topic.  The People are the Militia.  The subject of Arms for the militia is declared socialized in Article 1, Section 8.


----------



## turtledude

frigidweirdo said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have already been schooled on this repeatedly.  You are wrong.  You know you are wrong yet you keep repeating the same tired old memes.  Time for you to get some new material.
> 
> 
> 
> dude; nobody should take the right wing seriously about law or politics.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural rights.
> 
> It says so, in the Intent and Purpose clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed.  And it also states quite emphatically that the "Right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".  What part of that sentence do you not understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> the unorganized militia may be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sorry R2D2  militias don't have rights, people do.  the right of individual people cannot be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the Second Amendment doesn't give the right, does it?
> 
> The Second Amendment PROTECTS the right.
Click to expand...

yep, you must have read Cruikshank and my buddy St George Tucker


----------



## turtledude

danielpalos said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then, why add a 2nd Amendment if it is only there to provide for the wellness of regulating a militia?  Your interpretation either renders the 2A redundant or renders it meaningless.
> 
> Article 1, Section 8:
> 
> _To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> 
> To provide for *organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia*, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of *training the Militia* according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> _
> So, Section 8 authorizes Congress to prescribe laws to organize, arm, and discipline or train the militia.
> 
> 2nd Amendment:
> 
> _"A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> _
> If Congress has the power to ARM the militia, that power preempts any state or local authority.  Congress would also have the exclusive authority to NOT arm the militia, right?  That power is exclusive to Congress, like enforcing immigration laws (where States like Texas have to just bend over and take all sorts of illegal immigration sodomy).
> 
> If the purpose of 2A is to provide for a well regulated militia, why does  Art. 1, Section 8 already authorizes Congress to train, discipline, and ARM a militia?
> 
> THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE BEEN SAYING!!!
> 
> The right of the people (whether belonging to a militia or not) shall not be infringed, meaning Congress is specifically excluded from infringing on that right.  Congress has the authority to organize, train, and arm a militia, and such is necessary to the security of a free state.  But, because Congress has that power, Congress shall not have the power to take arms away from the people.
> 
> It's the very fear the founders expressed in giving Congress the power to raise an army, and the very protection the founders intended.
> 
> I am not going to re-quote all the founders again.  You have never addressed their comments, because you cannot.  You have been defeated and all you can do is rattle off "causeless and Clueless" bullshit.
> 
> I don't want to hear or read another goddamn word from you unless you explain your reasoning.  If you cannot respond with some explanation by the framers proving your interpretation to be correct, you are nothing but a troll.
> 
> I am going to put you on ignore if you don't respond with some sort of historical authority from the founders justifying your interpretation of 2A verses Art. 1, Sec.8.
> 
> 
> 
> The Point is, the subject of Arms for the Militia is declared socialized.  There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except for the word people...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People, not the Person.  There are no Individual rights.  The People are the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.  You don't understand the English language.  That is abundantly clear.  Of course you are a self described Federalist, and they were for an authoritarian government.  it was because of them that the 2nd was a REQUIREMENT, as a part of the Bill of Rights, for the COTUS to be accepted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant to the current topic.  The People are the Militia.  The subject of Arms for the militia is declared socialized in Article 1, Section 8.
Click to expand...

 where did the founders ever use the term "socialized"


----------



## danielpalos

westwall said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States.
> 
> It is clearly enumerated in Article 1, Section 8.
> 
> 
> 
> Then, why add a 2nd Amendment if it is only there to provide for the wellness of regulating a militia?  Your interpretation either renders the 2A redundant or renders it meaningless.
> 
> Article 1, Section 8:
> 
> _To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> 
> To provide for *organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia*, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of *training the Militia* according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> _
> So, Section 8 authorizes Congress to prescribe laws to organize, arm, and discipline or train the militia.
> 
> 2nd Amendment:
> 
> _"A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> _
> If Congress has the power to ARM the militia, that power preempts any state or local authority.  Congress would also have the exclusive authority to NOT arm the militia, right?  That power is exclusive to Congress, like enforcing immigration laws (where States like Texas have to just bend over and take all sorts of illegal immigration sodomy).
> 
> If the purpose of 2A is to provide for a well regulated militia, why does  Art. 1, Section 8 already authorizes Congress to train, discipline, and ARM a militia?
> 
> THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE BEEN SAYING!!!
> 
> The right of the people (whether belonging to a militia or not) shall not be infringed, meaning Congress is specifically excluded from infringing on that right.  Congress has the authority to organize, train, and arm a militia, and such is necessary to the security of a free state.  But, because Congress has that power, Congress shall not have the power to take arms away from the people.
> 
> It's the very fear the founders expressed in giving Congress the power to raise an army, and the very protection the founders intended.
> 
> I am not going to re-quote all the founders again.  You have never addressed their comments, because you cannot.  You have been defeated and all you can do is rattle off "causeless and Clueless" bullshit.
> 
> I don't want to hear or read another goddamn word from you unless you explain your reasoning.  If you cannot respond with some explanation by the framers proving your interpretation to be correct, you are nothing but a troll.
> 
> I am going to put you on ignore if you don't respond with some sort of historical authority from the founders justifying your interpretation of 2A verses Art. 1, Sec.8.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Point is, the subject of Arms for the Militia is declared socialized.  There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear danielpalos
> do you REALLY believe that ALL the people who crafted and passed this law
> would ALL AGREE to the militia-only interpretation?
> 
> When people TODAY don't even "all agree"
> 
> What makes you think they would have agreed back
> then if CLEARLY the two schools of thought don't agree now!
> 
> The more we argue and totally believe in our respective beliefs, that tells me so did the people split in two schools of thought back then.
> 
> They even had the equivalent of what we argue over today, over who counts as a citizen with rights. Today we argue if immigrants have equal rights as "humans" as citizens. Back then there was issue with Catholics or other people not considered equal or trustworthy to uphold the laws if they were to bear arms.
> 
> So if we can't even agree today, and these separate factions INSIST their respective interpretations ARE the truth that the laws should represent, isn't that clear the same thing would be going on back then? And there would be the same two factions, so the law came out the way it did to accommodate BOTH that would equally insist on THEIR way and REFUSE to compromise to let the other way prevail and exclude them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the clueless and the Causeless say that.  The People are the Militia.  What part of that do y'all not understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, silly person.  It is you who either don't understand, or you are simply intellectually dishonest.  I will go with the latter as you are nothing more than a one trick pony bleating about that which you have no clue.
> 
> Run along little sheep, run along.
Click to expand...

Nothing but diversion, right wingers?

The People are the Militia.  Well regulated militia of the People are declared necessary.

It really is that simple, except to the right wing.


----------



## danielpalos

frigidweirdo said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have already been schooled on this repeatedly.  You are wrong.  You know you are wrong yet you keep repeating the same tired old memes.  Time for you to get some new material.
> 
> 
> 
> dude; nobody should take the right wing seriously about law or politics.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural rights.
> 
> It says so, in the Intent and Purpose clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed.  And it also states quite emphatically that the "Right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".  What part of that sentence do you not understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> the unorganized militia may be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sorry R2D2  militias don't have rights, people do.  the right of individual people cannot be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the Second Amendment doesn't give the right, does it?
> 
> The Second Amendment PROTECTS the right.
Click to expand...

Yes, it says well regulated militia of the People are necessary to the security of a free State.  It does not say the unorganized militia is necessary.


----------



## emilynghiem

westwall said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States.
> 
> It is clearly enumerated in Article 1, Section 8.
> 
> 
> 
> Then, why add a 2nd Amendment if it is only there to provide for the wellness of regulating a militia?  Your interpretation either renders the 2A redundant or renders it meaningless.
> 
> Article 1, Section 8:
> 
> _To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> 
> To provide for *organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia*, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of *training the Militia* according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> _
> So, Section 8 authorizes Congress to prescribe laws to organize, arm, and discipline or train the militia.
> 
> 2nd Amendment:
> 
> _"A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> _
> If Congress has the power to ARM the militia, that power preempts any state or local authority.  Congress would also have the exclusive authority to NOT arm the militia, right?  That power is exclusive to Congress, like enforcing immigration laws (where States like Texas have to just bend over and take all sorts of illegal immigration sodomy).
> 
> If the purpose of 2A is to provide for a well regulated militia, why does  Art. 1, Section 8 already authorizes Congress to train, discipline, and ARM a militia?
> 
> THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE BEEN SAYING!!!
> 
> The right of the people (whether belonging to a militia or not) shall not be infringed, meaning Congress is specifically excluded from infringing on that right.  Congress has the authority to organize, train, and arm a militia, and such is necessary to the security of a free state.  But, because Congress has that power, Congress shall not have the power to take arms away from the people.
> 
> It's the very fear the founders expressed in giving Congress the power to raise an army, and the very protection the founders intended.
> 
> I am not going to re-quote all the founders again.  You have never addressed their comments, because you cannot.  You have been defeated and all you can do is rattle off "causeless and Clueless" bullshit.
> 
> I don't want to hear or read another goddamn word from you unless you explain your reasoning.  If you cannot respond with some explanation by the framers proving your interpretation to be correct, you are nothing but a troll.
> 
> I am going to put you on ignore if you don't respond with some sort of historical authority from the founders justifying your interpretation of 2A verses Art. 1, Sec.8.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Point is, the subject of Arms for the Militia is declared socialized.  There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear danielpalos
> do you REALLY believe that ALL the people who crafted and passed this law
> would ALL AGREE to the militia-only interpretation?
> 
> When people TODAY don't even "all agree"
> 
> What makes you think they would have agreed back
> then if CLEARLY the two schools of thought don't agree now!
> 
> The more we argue and totally believe in our respective beliefs, that tells me so did the people split in two schools of thought back then.
> 
> They even had the equivalent of what we argue over today, over who counts as a citizen with rights. Today we argue if immigrants have equal rights as "humans" as citizens. Back then there was issue with Catholics or other people not considered equal or trustworthy to uphold the laws if they were to bear arms.
> 
> So if we can't even agree today, and these separate factions INSIST their respective interpretations ARE the truth that the laws should represent, isn't that clear the same thing would be going on back then? And there would be the same two factions, so the law came out the way it did to accommodate BOTH that would equally insist on THEIR way and REFUSE to compromise to let the other way prevail and exclude them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the clueless and the Causeless say that.  The People are the Militia.  What part of that do y'all not understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, silly person.  It is you who either don't understand, or you are simply intellectually dishonest.  I will go with the latter as you are nothing more than a one trick pony bleating about that which you have no clue.
> 
> Run along little sheep, run along.
Click to expand...


Dear westwall to be as fair and understanding as I can be,
I'd say the reason behind their views is they really truly BELIEVE
this to be the truth. Just like Christians KNOW God to be true
and just can't understand anything else or less. And how atheists
or secular nontheists just KNOW you don't need a God or Jesus,
and the religions that insist on that just must be wrong because
otherwise it leaves people out who just don't think that way.

Both sides truly believe they are expressing the truth, and
the other ways are projecting something else that isn't universal or
absolute truth. 

Honestly westwall they just can't help but seeing it that way.
Just like atheists can't help it.
Or Christians can't help it.

The people who can't wrap their minds around same sex marriage
or see gender as anything by genetically chromosomal
can't help that.

The people who see gender as internally relative
and culturally subjective can't help that either.

When it comes to deep seated beliefs, insulting or attacking
people for whatever reason they have those view or whatever
ways they are able or UNABLE to explain why they do,
none of that helps or changes anything.

The main thing is neither should govt or laws be abused
to penalize people for beliefs they just can't help.
If that's what they believe, they have equal right to exercise
and express their views without penalty or discrimination by govt,
THEY JUST CAN'T ABUSE GOVT TO IMPOSE THEM EITHER.

I don't get it, I really hoped people could at least
SEE that both sides have their own beliefs.
But by their beliefs, they really believe their way is historically
true and can't see how the other sides beliefs have any validity.

And that is part of their beliefs!
Similar to the right to health care folks who can't see it 
any other way but it must be through govt in order to
be established equally for all people. That's their belief, too.

They think that is natural, similar to how ChrisL was
arguing the right to bear arms is natural.

These political beliefs are something else!


----------



## danielpalos

turtledude said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Point is, the subject of Arms for the Militia is declared socialized.  There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> Except for the word people...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People, not the Person.  There are no Individual rights.  The People are the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.  You don't understand the English language.  That is abundantly clear.  Of course you are a self described Federalist, and they were for an authoritarian government.  it was because of them that the 2nd was a REQUIREMENT, as a part of the Bill of Rights, for the COTUS to be accepted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant to the current topic.  The People are the Militia.  The subject of Arms for the militia is declared socialized in Article 1, Section 8.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> where did the founders ever use the term "socialized"
Click to expand...

irrelevant to the discussion; the right wing has nothing but diversion and want to be taken seriously.


----------



## emilynghiem

danielpalos said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then, why add a 2nd Amendment if it is only there to provide for the wellness of regulating a militia?  Your interpretation either renders the 2A redundant or renders it meaningless.
> 
> Article 1, Section 8:
> 
> _To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> 
> To provide for *organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia*, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of *training the Militia* according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> _
> So, Section 8 authorizes Congress to prescribe laws to organize, arm, and discipline or train the militia.
> 
> 2nd Amendment:
> 
> _"A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> _
> If Congress has the power to ARM the militia, that power preempts any state or local authority.  Congress would also have the exclusive authority to NOT arm the militia, right?  That power is exclusive to Congress, like enforcing immigration laws (where States like Texas have to just bend over and take all sorts of illegal immigration sodomy).
> 
> If the purpose of 2A is to provide for a well regulated militia, why does  Art. 1, Section 8 already authorizes Congress to train, discipline, and ARM a militia?
> 
> THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE BEEN SAYING!!!
> 
> The right of the people (whether belonging to a militia or not) shall not be infringed, meaning Congress is specifically excluded from infringing on that right.  Congress has the authority to organize, train, and arm a militia, and such is necessary to the security of a free state.  But, because Congress has that power, Congress shall not have the power to take arms away from the people.
> 
> It's the very fear the founders expressed in giving Congress the power to raise an army, and the very protection the founders intended.
> 
> I am not going to re-quote all the founders again.  You have never addressed their comments, because you cannot.  You have been defeated and all you can do is rattle off "causeless and Clueless" bullshit.
> 
> I don't want to hear or read another goddamn word from you unless you explain your reasoning.  If you cannot respond with some explanation by the framers proving your interpretation to be correct, you are nothing but a troll.
> 
> I am going to put you on ignore if you don't respond with some sort of historical authority from the founders justifying your interpretation of 2A verses Art. 1, Sec.8.
> 
> 
> 
> The Point is, the subject of Arms for the Militia is declared socialized.  There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear danielpalos
> do you REALLY believe that ALL the people who crafted and passed this law
> would ALL AGREE to the militia-only interpretation?
> 
> When people TODAY don't even "all agree"
> 
> What makes you think they would have agreed back
> then if CLEARLY the two schools of thought don't agree now!
> 
> The more we argue and totally believe in our respective beliefs, that tells me so did the people split in two schools of thought back then.
> 
> They even had the equivalent of what we argue over today, over who counts as a citizen with rights. Today we argue if immigrants have equal rights as "humans" as citizens. Back then there was issue with Catholics or other people not considered equal or trustworthy to uphold the laws if they were to bear arms.
> 
> So if we can't even agree today, and these separate factions INSIST their respective interpretations ARE the truth that the laws should represent, isn't that clear the same thing would be going on back then? And there would be the same two factions, so the law came out the way it did to accommodate BOTH that would equally insist on THEIR way and REFUSE to compromise to let the other way prevail and exclude them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the clueless and the Causeless say that.  The People are the Militia.  What part of that do y'all not understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, silly person.  It is you who either don't understand, or you are simply intellectually dishonest.  I will go with the latter as you are nothing more than a one trick pony bleating about that which you have no clue.
> 
> Run along little sheep, run along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing but diversion, right wingers?
> 
> The People are the Militia.  Well regulated militia of the People are declared necessary.
> 
> It really is that simple, except to the right wing.
Click to expand...


Dear danielpalos
It's the liberals I have found who can't separate state and federal govt
but treat all govt the same.

The conservatives tend to distinguish federal from state, and state from people (though they do generally trust the states to be closer to the people than the federal govt which is more about governing relations across all states)

The same Constitutional BELIEFS that rights are inherent among PEOPLE FIRST, as HUMAN BEINGS under natural laws, clearly distinguish PEOPLE
from either state or federal govt.

so danielpalos you would have to understanding THIS concept,
to include the belief or concept of natural rights that people are born with
in order to understand the distinction here that you are dismissing.


----------



## danielpalos

emilynghiem said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Point is, the subject of Arms for the Militia is declared socialized.  There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear danielpalos
> do you REALLY believe that ALL the people who crafted and passed this law
> would ALL AGREE to the militia-only interpretation?
> 
> When people TODAY don't even "all agree"
> 
> What makes you think they would have agreed back
> then if CLEARLY the two schools of thought don't agree now!
> 
> The more we argue and totally believe in our respective beliefs, that tells me so did the people split in two schools of thought back then.
> 
> They even had the equivalent of what we argue over today, over who counts as a citizen with rights. Today we argue if immigrants have equal rights as "humans" as citizens. Back then there was issue with Catholics or other people not considered equal or trustworthy to uphold the laws if they were to bear arms.
> 
> So if we can't even agree today, and these separate factions INSIST their respective interpretations ARE the truth that the laws should represent, isn't that clear the same thing would be going on back then? And there would be the same two factions, so the law came out the way it did to accommodate BOTH that would equally insist on THEIR way and REFUSE to compromise to let the other way prevail and exclude them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the clueless and the Causeless say that.  The People are the Militia.  What part of that do y'all not understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, silly person.  It is you who either don't understand, or you are simply intellectually dishonest.  I will go with the latter as you are nothing more than a one trick pony bleating about that which you have no clue.
> 
> Run along little sheep, run along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing but diversion, right wingers?
> 
> The People are the Militia.  Well regulated militia of the People are declared necessary.
> 
> It really is that simple, except to the right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear danielpalos
> It's the liberals I have found who can't separate state and federal govt
> but treat all govt the same.
> 
> The conservatives tend to distinguish federal from state, and state from people (though they do generally trust the states to be closer to the people than the federal govt which is more about governing relations across all states)
> 
> The same Constitutional BELIEFS that rights are inherent among PEOPLE FIRST, as HUMAN BEINGS under natural laws, clearly distinguish PEOPLE
> from either state or federal govt.
> 
> so danielpalos you would have to understanding THIS concept,
> to include the belief or concept of natural rights that people are born with
> in order to understand the distinction here that you are dismissing.
Click to expand...

The right wing talks a good game, but they are just socialists and don't know it.

At least, some on the left are trying to be poets, and know it.

Our Second Amendment is not about natural rights, but about what is necessary to the security of a free State.


----------



## Papageorgio

danielpalos said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't ignore it. This is all you have, trying to claim I ignore it. I'm talking about the right to bear arms. I'm not going to include the Super Bowl winner of 1968, does this mean I'm ignoring it?
> 
> If it's bullshit then why did Mr Gerry, Mr Jackson AND Mr Washington say it was so?
> 
> Who am I going to believe, some keyboard cowboy who claims to be a lawyer, yet doesn't write like one, or three of the Founding Fathers.... hmmm... difficult choice but the Founding Fathers pip you slightly.
> 
> 
> 
> Even though that argument is demostrably bullshit, and even if we concede that point (which we don't) the Amndment says, "KEEP and bear arms."
> 
> Next you're gonna make up some bullshit about the word keep not meaning FUCKING "KEEP" but some other nonsense.
> 
> 
> You communists are so predictable.  You are never getting out guns and starting your Bolshevik overthrow, so you can just give it up now.  We will fucking smoke your commie asses.  In fact, please try.  Please.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So which part of my argument is "bullshit"?
> 
> The Amendment says "the right to keep and bear arms"
> 
> Is this one right or is this two rights?
> 
> For example, the First Amendment
> 
> "or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
> 
> Is this one right or two rights? It has "and" in between, but clearly you have the right to peacefully assemble and the right to petition the government. However they only say the term "right" one time.
> 
> The 4A
> 
> "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,"
> 
> Do you have a right to be secure in your person? Yes. Do you have a right to be secure in your houses? Yes. Different rights.
> 
> Bear arms and keep arms are two different things. So there are two different protections of those rights. However efficiency suggests that you can place them next to each other and use the term "right" one time.
> 
> Certainly in the document I have showed you the Founding Fathers were dealing with the right to bear arms and not the right to keep arms.
> 
> The drafts of the Second Amendment had a clause which said either "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." or "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
> 
> You see that one time they spoke about being compelled to "bear arms", not to "keep and bear arms", and the other compelled to "render military service".
> 
> No, I'm not going to make some bullshit up about keep not meaning keep.
> 
> Try this. Stool means two things. A shit, and a wooden backless seat.
> 
> "The doctor told him to sit on the stool", does context tell you that "stool" is a shit, or a wooden seat? I mean you have doctor in there, doctors look at stools all the time, so much be shit right? Or maybe not. Who would sit on a shit? So we're going to use context to understand.
> 
> "bear" means lots of different things. However it's CLEAR (unless you have your head up your ass) from lots of documents from that time, that "bear arms" as a term, means "render military service" and "militia duty".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP
> 
> _Heller_ confirmed the individual right to KEEP arms.
> 
> You are trying to meld the term "keep" with the word "bear" but if you do that,  the _Heller_ holding makes the right to "bear" an individual right, requiring one to keep arms in order to do so.
> 
> The mental gynastics is glorious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe keep doesn't really mean keep if you are a leftist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Keep and bear is not, acquire and possess.
Click to expand...


The founders and Constitution say otherwise if you were a real American.


----------



## frigidweirdo

turtledude said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dude; nobody should take the right wing seriously about law or politics.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural rights.
> 
> It says so, in the Intent and Purpose clause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed.  And it also states quite emphatically that the "Right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".  What part of that sentence do you not understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> the unorganized militia may be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sorry R2D2  militias don't have rights, people do.  the right of individual people cannot be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the Second Amendment doesn't give the right, does it?
> 
> The Second Amendment PROTECTS the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yep, you must have read Cruikshank and my buddy St George Tucker
Click to expand...


I've read Cruikshank, I'm just waiting for your argument on it. 

Go read Harry Potter, somewhere in one of those books there's some evidence for my argument. When you've found that piece of evidence, I'll tell you what my argument is......

Are you up for that? Because that's what shit you're sending to me.


----------



## danielpalos

Papageorgio said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even though that argument is demostrably bullshit, and even if we concede that point (which we don't) the Amndment says, "KEEP and bear arms."
> 
> Next you're gonna make up some bullshit about the word keep not meaning FUCKING "KEEP" but some other nonsense.
> 
> 
> You communists are so predictable.  You are never getting out guns and starting your Bolshevik overthrow, so you can just give it up now.  We will fucking smoke your commie asses.  In fact, please try.  Please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So which part of my argument is "bullshit"?
> 
> The Amendment says "the right to keep and bear arms"
> 
> Is this one right or is this two rights?
> 
> For example, the First Amendment
> 
> "or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
> 
> Is this one right or two rights? It has "and" in between, but clearly you have the right to peacefully assemble and the right to petition the government. However they only say the term "right" one time.
> 
> The 4A
> 
> "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,"
> 
> Do you have a right to be secure in your person? Yes. Do you have a right to be secure in your houses? Yes. Different rights.
> 
> Bear arms and keep arms are two different things. So there are two different protections of those rights. However efficiency suggests that you can place them next to each other and use the term "right" one time.
> 
> Certainly in the document I have showed you the Founding Fathers were dealing with the right to bear arms and not the right to keep arms.
> 
> The drafts of the Second Amendment had a clause which said either "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." or "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
> 
> You see that one time they spoke about being compelled to "bear arms", not to "keep and bear arms", and the other compelled to "render military service".
> 
> No, I'm not going to make some bullshit up about keep not meaning keep.
> 
> Try this. Stool means two things. A shit, and a wooden backless seat.
> 
> "The doctor told him to sit on the stool", does context tell you that "stool" is a shit, or a wooden seat? I mean you have doctor in there, doctors look at stools all the time, so much be shit right? Or maybe not. Who would sit on a shit? So we're going to use context to understand.
> 
> "bear" means lots of different things. However it's CLEAR (unless you have your head up your ass) from lots of documents from that time, that "bear arms" as a term, means "render military service" and "militia duty".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP
> 
> _Heller_ confirmed the individual right to KEEP arms.
> 
> You are trying to meld the term "keep" with the word "bear" but if you do that,  the _Heller_ holding makes the right to "bear" an individual right, requiring one to keep arms in order to do so.
> 
> The mental gynastics is glorious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe keep doesn't really mean keep if you are a leftist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Keep and bear is not, acquire and possess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The founders and Constitution say otherwise if you were a real American.
Click to expand...

Where?  Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

I have danielpalos on ignore.  Let me guess:

"Only Congress can determine the wellness of regulation of the milipeople or rhe peoplitia.  Clueless and Causeless right wing morons fail to understand my reasoning which is backed soley by my buzzwors."

Did I get it right?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> I have danielpalos on ignore.  Let me guess:
> 
> "Only Congress can determine the wellness of regulation of the milipeople or rhe peoplitia.  Clueless and Causeless right wing morons fail to understand my reasoning which is backed soley by my buzzwors."
> 
> Did I get it right?


The right is inherent.  The Constitutiondoes not grant the right, but protects the people from the federal government.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have danielpalos on ignore.  Let me guess:
> 
> "Only Congress can determine the wellness of regulation of the milipeople or rhe peoplitia.  Clueless and Causeless right wing morons fail to understand my reasoning which is backed soley by my buzzwors."
> 
> Did I get it right?
> 
> 
> 
> The right is inherent.  The Constitutiondoes not grant the right, but protects the people from the federal government.
Click to expand...

Yes, well regulated militia of the People shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos is the first poster I have ignored.  Interesting. I do't have to read his repeated, unsupported bullshit.  Just "Show Ignored Content"


"Clueless and Causeless" 

"Wellness of regulation"

"Peoplitia"....of the people...


----------



## danielpalos

Like I have been saying for a while now; the right wing has nothing but diversion.


----------



## westwall

danielpalos said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then, why add a 2nd Amendment if it is only there to provide for the wellness of regulating a militia?  Your interpretation either renders the 2A redundant or renders it meaningless.
> 
> Article 1, Section 8:
> 
> _To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> 
> To provide for *organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia*, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of *training the Militia* according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> _
> So, Section 8 authorizes Congress to prescribe laws to organize, arm, and discipline or train the militia.
> 
> 2nd Amendment:
> 
> _"A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> _
> If Congress has the power to ARM the militia, that power preempts any state or local authority.  Congress would also have the exclusive authority to NOT arm the militia, right?  That power is exclusive to Congress, like enforcing immigration laws (where States like Texas have to just bend over and take all sorts of illegal immigration sodomy).
> 
> If the purpose of 2A is to provide for a well regulated militia, why does  Art. 1, Section 8 already authorizes Congress to train, discipline, and ARM a militia?
> 
> THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE BEEN SAYING!!!
> 
> The right of the people (whether belonging to a militia or not) shall not be infringed, meaning Congress is specifically excluded from infringing on that right.  Congress has the authority to organize, train, and arm a militia, and such is necessary to the security of a free state.  But, because Congress has that power, Congress shall not have the power to take arms away from the people.
> 
> It's the very fear the founders expressed in giving Congress the power to raise an army, and the very protection the founders intended.
> 
> I am not going to re-quote all the founders again.  You have never addressed their comments, because you cannot.  You have been defeated and all you can do is rattle off "causeless and Clueless" bullshit.
> 
> I don't want to hear or read another goddamn word from you unless you explain your reasoning.  If you cannot respond with some explanation by the framers proving your interpretation to be correct, you are nothing but a troll.
> 
> I am going to put you on ignore if you don't respond with some sort of historical authority from the founders justifying your interpretation of 2A verses Art. 1, Sec.8.
> 
> 
> 
> The Point is, the subject of Arms for the Militia is declared socialized.  There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear danielpalos
> do you REALLY believe that ALL the people who crafted and passed this law
> would ALL AGREE to the militia-only interpretation?
> 
> When people TODAY don't even "all agree"
> 
> What makes you think they would have agreed back
> then if CLEARLY the two schools of thought don't agree now!
> 
> The more we argue and totally believe in our respective beliefs, that tells me so did the people split in two schools of thought back then.
> 
> They even had the equivalent of what we argue over today, over who counts as a citizen with rights. Today we argue if immigrants have equal rights as "humans" as citizens. Back then there was issue with Catholics or other people not considered equal or trustworthy to uphold the laws if they were to bear arms.
> 
> So if we can't even agree today, and these separate factions INSIST their respective interpretations ARE the truth that the laws should represent, isn't that clear the same thing would be going on back then? And there would be the same two factions, so the law came out the way it did to accommodate BOTH that would equally insist on THEIR way and REFUSE to compromise to let the other way prevail and exclude them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the clueless and the Causeless say that.  The People are the Militia.  What part of that do y'all not understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, silly person.  It is you who either don't understand, or you are simply intellectually dishonest.  I will go with the latter as you are nothing more than a one trick pony bleating about that which you have no clue.
> 
> Run along little sheep, run along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing but diversion, right wingers?
> 
> The People are the Militia.  Well regulated militia of the People are declared necessary.
> 
> It really is that simple, except to the right wing.
Click to expand...







No, it's pretty obvious that it is you who are the defective one.  Like I stated previously, if it were your opinion that was correct the ruling elite would have disarmed us decades ago.  As they haven't I think it is safe to say that the 2nd is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT.


----------



## westwall

emilynghiem said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then, why add a 2nd Amendment if it is only there to provide for the wellness of regulating a militia?  Your interpretation either renders the 2A redundant or renders it meaningless.
> 
> Article 1, Section 8:
> 
> _To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> 
> To provide for *organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia*, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of *training the Militia* according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> _
> So, Section 8 authorizes Congress to prescribe laws to organize, arm, and discipline or train the militia.
> 
> 2nd Amendment:
> 
> _"A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> _
> If Congress has the power to ARM the militia, that power preempts any state or local authority.  Congress would also have the exclusive authority to NOT arm the militia, right?  That power is exclusive to Congress, like enforcing immigration laws (where States like Texas have to just bend over and take all sorts of illegal immigration sodomy).
> 
> If the purpose of 2A is to provide for a well regulated militia, why does  Art. 1, Section 8 already authorizes Congress to train, discipline, and ARM a militia?
> 
> THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE BEEN SAYING!!!
> 
> The right of the people (whether belonging to a militia or not) shall not be infringed, meaning Congress is specifically excluded from infringing on that right.  Congress has the authority to organize, train, and arm a militia, and such is necessary to the security of a free state.  But, because Congress has that power, Congress shall not have the power to take arms away from the people.
> 
> It's the very fear the founders expressed in giving Congress the power to raise an army, and the very protection the founders intended.
> 
> I am not going to re-quote all the founders again.  You have never addressed their comments, because you cannot.  You have been defeated and all you can do is rattle off "causeless and Clueless" bullshit.
> 
> I don't want to hear or read another goddamn word from you unless you explain your reasoning.  If you cannot respond with some explanation by the framers proving your interpretation to be correct, you are nothing but a troll.
> 
> I am going to put you on ignore if you don't respond with some sort of historical authority from the founders justifying your interpretation of 2A verses Art. 1, Sec.8.
> 
> 
> 
> The Point is, the subject of Arms for the Militia is declared socialized.  There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear danielpalos
> do you REALLY believe that ALL the people who crafted and passed this law
> would ALL AGREE to the militia-only interpretation?
> 
> When people TODAY don't even "all agree"
> 
> What makes you think they would have agreed back
> then if CLEARLY the two schools of thought don't agree now!
> 
> The more we argue and totally believe in our respective beliefs, that tells me so did the people split in two schools of thought back then.
> 
> They even had the equivalent of what we argue over today, over who counts as a citizen with rights. Today we argue if immigrants have equal rights as "humans" as citizens. Back then there was issue with Catholics or other people not considered equal or trustworthy to uphold the laws if they were to bear arms.
> 
> So if we can't even agree today, and these separate factions INSIST their respective interpretations ARE the truth that the laws should represent, isn't that clear the same thing would be going on back then? And there would be the same two factions, so the law came out the way it did to accommodate BOTH that would equally insist on THEIR way and REFUSE to compromise to let the other way prevail and exclude them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the clueless and the Causeless say that.  The People are the Militia.  What part of that do y'all not understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, silly person.  It is you who either don't understand, or you are simply intellectually dishonest.  I will go with the latter as you are nothing more than a one trick pony bleating about that which you have no clue.
> 
> Run along little sheep, run along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear westwall to be as fair and understanding as I can be,
> I'd say the reason behind their views is they really truly BELIEVE
> this to be the truth. Just like Christians KNOW God to be true
> and just can't understand anything else or less. And how atheists
> or secular nontheists just KNOW you don't need a God or Jesus,
> and the religions that insist on that just must be wrong because
> otherwise it leaves people out who just don't think that way.
> 
> Both sides truly believe they are expressing the truth, and
> the other ways are projecting something else that isn't universal or
> absolute truth.
> 
> Honestly westwall they just can't help but seeing it that way.
> Just like atheists can't help it.
> Or Christians can't help it.
> 
> The people who can't wrap their minds around same sex marriage
> or see gender as anything by genetically chromosomal
> can't help that.
> 
> The people who see gender as internally relative
> and culturally subjective can't help that either.
> 
> When it comes to deep seated beliefs, insulting or attacking
> people for whatever reason they have those view or whatever
> ways they are able or UNABLE to explain why they do,
> none of that helps or changes anything.
> 
> The main thing is neither should govt or laws be abused
> to penalize people for beliefs they just can't help.
> If that's what they believe, they have equal right to exercise
> and express their views without penalty or discrimination by govt,
> THEY JUST CAN'T ABUSE GOVT TO IMPOSE THEM EITHER.
> 
> I don't get it, I really hoped people could at least
> SEE that both sides have their own beliefs.
> But by their beliefs, they really believe their way is historically
> true and can't see how the other sides beliefs have any validity.
> 
> And that is part of their beliefs!
> Similar to the right to health care folks who can't see it
> any other way but it must be through govt in order to
> be established equally for all people. That's their belief, too.
> 
> They think that is natural, similar to how ChrisL was
> arguing the right to bear arms is natural.
> 
> These political beliefs are something else!
Click to expand...







I disagree with you.  They are authoritarians at heart.  dp here even proudly proclaims his Federalist viewpoint.  Thus they will lie, cheat, and steal, to get their way.  The more government power the better in their view.


----------



## westwall

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have danielpalos on ignore.  Let me guess:
> 
> "Only Congress can determine the wellness of regulation of the milipeople or rhe peoplitia.  Clueless and Causeless right wing morons fail to understand my reasoning which is backed soley by my buzzwors."
> 
> Did I get it right?
> 
> 
> 
> The right is inherent.  The Constitutiondoes not grant the right, but protects the people from the federal government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the People shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
Click to expand...









Yeppers, a government granting itself the right to defend itself from itself.  It takes a special kind of stupid to push that particular line of "thought".


----------



## turtledude

danielpalos said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> I refer you to the aforementioned US V MILLER case, who's entire ruling I have provided for you that refutes your statement point by point and IS a Supreme Court judgement.
> 
> 
> 
> That ruling was in error; must have been, right wingers involved.
> 
> The People are the Militia; You are either well regulated or unorganized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both the House, the Senate, and the POTUS were solid left wingers.  The Court was evenly split.  As usual you are factually wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You must be on the right wing.  How can I be factually wrong, by stating that the People are the Militia; you are either well regulated or you are not.
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the People are declared necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when is your programmer going to fix your chip?  your English is irregular and makes no sense
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who cares; y'all have, nothing but repeal, anyway.
Click to expand...

What I have that you have admitted you don' have,  R2D2 is a degree in political science and Law from the very best programs in the USA.  and I understand the constitution, its history, its meaning and its purpose.  and guess what, your program is deficient.  You don't know much of anything about this topic


----------



## turtledude

frigidweirdo said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed.  And it also states quite emphatically that the "Right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".  What part of that sentence do you not understand?
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> the unorganized militia may be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sorry R2D2  militias don't have rights, people do.  the right of individual people cannot be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the Second Amendment doesn't give the right, does it?
> 
> The Second Amendment PROTECTS the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yep, you must have read Cruikshank and my buddy St George Tucker
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've read Cruikshank, I'm just waiting for your argument on it.
> 
> Go read Harry Potter, somewhere in one of those books there's some evidence for my argument. When you've found that piece of evidence, I'll tell you what my argument is......
> 
> Are you up for that? Because that's what shit you're sending to me.
Click to expand...

 you're just another contrarian troll with a coloring of populist, who is hateful of those who are well educated in the law, because you are not.  Harry Potter-WTF?  Cruikshank notes that the founders did not create a right but merely recognized it and it was a not a right created by the constitution.  Meaning its a right endowed by the creator and membership in a government created organization is not needed for that right to vest


----------



## frigidweirdo

turtledude said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> the unorganized militia may be infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> sorry R2D2  militias don't have rights, people do.  the right of individual people cannot be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the Second Amendment doesn't give the right, does it?
> 
> The Second Amendment PROTECTS the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yep, you must have read Cruikshank and my buddy St George Tucker
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've read Cruikshank, I'm just waiting for your argument on it.
> 
> Go read Harry Potter, somewhere in one of those books there's some evidence for my argument. When you've found that piece of evidence, I'll tell you what my argument is......
> 
> Are you up for that? Because that's what shit you're sending to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you're just another contrarian troll with a coloring of populist, who is hateful of those who are well educated in the law, because you are not.  Harry Potter-WTF?  Cruikshank notes that the founders did not create a right but merely recognized it and it was a not a right created by the constitution.  Meaning its a right endowed by the creator and membership in a government created organization is not needed for that right to vest
Click to expand...


Oh come off it. How can I be a troll? You haven't answered the FIRST question I've asked. Every time you just duck and dive. 

So, your whole point about Cruikshank was something I already knew in the first place. Oh, wow. Big news everyone, the sun rises in the morning..... 

The problem with your "argument" is that we're discussing the SECOND AMENDMENT. The PROTECT of the right.




frigidweirdo said:


> But the Second Amendment doesn't give the right, does it?
> 
> The Second Amendment PROTECTS the right.



See, I already said that today to someone else. Go figure. 

The Second Amendment protects WHAT? The Second Amendment is Constitutional LAW, the LAW means something and protects something within the realms of CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. 

It doesn't matter whether you think the right existed before or not. We're not discussing the right, we're discussing the Constitutional PROTECTION of that right.


----------



## turtledude

frigidweirdo said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> sorry R2D2  militias don't have rights, people do.  the right of individual people cannot be infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the Second Amendment doesn't give the right, does it?
> 
> The Second Amendment PROTECTS the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yep, you must have read Cruikshank and my buddy St George Tucker
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've read Cruikshank, I'm just waiting for your argument on it.
> 
> Go read Harry Potter, somewhere in one of those books there's some evidence for my argument. When you've found that piece of evidence, I'll tell you what my argument is......
> 
> Are you up for that? Because that's what shit you're sending to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you're just another contrarian troll with a coloring of populist, who is hateful of those who are well educated in the law, because you are not.  Harry Potter-WTF?  Cruikshank notes that the founders did not create a right but merely recognized it and it was a not a right created by the constitution.  Meaning its a right endowed by the creator and membership in a government created organization is not needed for that right to vest
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh come off it. How can I be a troll? You haven't answered the FIRST question I've asked. Every time you just duck and dive.
> 
> So, your whole point about Cruikshank was something I already knew in the first place. Oh, wow. Big news everyone, the sun rises in the morning.....
> 
> The problem with your "argument" is that we're discussing the SECOND AMENDMENT. The PROTECT of the right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the Second Amendment doesn't give the right, does it?
> 
> The Second Amendment PROTECTS the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, I already said that today to someone else. Go figure.
> 
> The Second Amendment protects WHAT? The Second Amendment is Constitutional LAW, the LAW means something and protects something within the realms of CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
> 
> It doesn't matter whether you think the right existed before or not. We're not discussing the right, we're discussing the Constitutional PROTECTION of that right.
Click to expand...

lets cut the crap. do you believe the founders intended that the federal government have any gun control powers


----------



## frigidweirdo

turtledude said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> That ruling was in error; must have been, right wingers involved.
> 
> The People are the Militia; You are either well regulated or unorganized.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both the House, the Senate, and the POTUS were solid left wingers.  The Court was evenly split.  As usual you are factually wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You must be on the right wing.  How can I be factually wrong, by stating that the People are the Militia; you are either well regulated or you are not.
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the People are declared necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when is your programmer going to fix your chip?  your English is irregular and makes no sense
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who cares; y'all have, nothing but repeal, anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I have that you have admitted you don' have,  R2D2 is a degree in political science and Law from the very best programs in the USA.  and I understand the constitution, its history, its meaning and its purpose.  and guess what, your program is deficient.  You don't know much of anything about this topic
Click to expand...


Hilarious. 

A guy who can't argue for shit claiming to have lots of stuff.

Fuck you, I have a PhD in the right bear arms, I have a triple PhD in potato management and I won the Nobel Prize for knowing the most about the Second Amendment. What do you have?


----------



## frigidweirdo

turtledude said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the Second Amendment doesn't give the right, does it?
> 
> The Second Amendment PROTECTS the right.
> 
> 
> 
> yep, you must have read Cruikshank and my buddy St George Tucker
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've read Cruikshank, I'm just waiting for your argument on it.
> 
> Go read Harry Potter, somewhere in one of those books there's some evidence for my argument. When you've found that piece of evidence, I'll tell you what my argument is......
> 
> Are you up for that? Because that's what shit you're sending to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you're just another contrarian troll with a coloring of populist, who is hateful of those who are well educated in the law, because you are not.  Harry Potter-WTF?  Cruikshank notes that the founders did not create a right but merely recognized it and it was a not a right created by the constitution.  Meaning its a right endowed by the creator and membership in a government created organization is not needed for that right to vest
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh come off it. How can I be a troll? You haven't answered the FIRST question I've asked. Every time you just duck and dive.
> 
> So, your whole point about Cruikshank was something I already knew in the first place. Oh, wow. Big news everyone, the sun rises in the morning.....
> 
> The problem with your "argument" is that we're discussing the SECOND AMENDMENT. The PROTECT of the right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the Second Amendment doesn't give the right, does it?
> 
> The Second Amendment PROTECTS the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, I already said that today to someone else. Go figure.
> 
> The Second Amendment protects WHAT? The Second Amendment is Constitutional LAW, the LAW means something and protects something within the realms of CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
> 
> It doesn't matter whether you think the right existed before or not. We're not discussing the right, we're discussing the Constitutional PROTECTION of that right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lets cut the crap. do you believe the founders intended that the federal government have any gun control powers
Click to expand...


Well that's not a simple answer is it?

Firstly the US Constitution has the power to be Amendment. So.... from that point the Founders left open the possibility that the Constitution could be changed.

Secondly, the right to KEEP arms protects individuals to own arms. It doesn't protect them to own ALL arms and has generally been interpreted to mean "militia type" weapons or weapons useful for the militia. 

However in the modern day the US militia (National Guard) has a lot of high tech weaponry that people don't think would be a good idea in the hands of individuals. What are people going to do with field artillery? Well in war against the US govt, I have no doubt it would be useful. So, why don't individuals have such weaponry? 

The Founders lived in a time where weaponry was similar between Armed Forces weaponry and hunting weaponry. The modern era has changed at a lot.

Do you think the NRA supports "the right" of people to have field artillery and F-16s? No, they don't fight for this.They fight for handguns and perhaps other guns, but mostly guns.

What the Second Amendment protects is the right of individuals to own weapons. However the 2A doesn't prevent the US govt from banning certain types of weaponry, as long as individual can get their hands on weaponry that is not too expensive, then the right isn't being infringed upon.

But I asked a question about the right to BEAR arms. This is the right to KEEP arms. 

Funny how you've moved it back into your comfort zone.

I answered your question, are you going to answer mine? It's been like a week and you've refused to answer.

Mr Gerry said that "bear arms" was "militia duty", Mr Jackson said it was "render military service". Mr Washington used the term synonymously with "render military service". The draft versions of the Second Amendment flitted between "bear arms" and "render military service" for their last clause which was removed from the Amendment because the Founding Fathers had a problem with it. Some of them, like Mr Jackson called for those who wouldn't bear arms to pay an equivalent. Why would govt require people to pay an equivalent for not carrying guns around? 
The Supreme Court in Presser said that parading with guns was NOT protected by either the right to keep arms or the right to bear arms. The Heller case affirmed the Presser case. 

All you have is a Supreme Court case that basically says that the Second Amendment only applies to the Federal government (though things have basically changed recently on this count, to include state governments) which means if I take your gun away, I am NOT infringing on your right to keep or bear arms. 

That's all you have. 

I have loads. You have nothing. 

So my question is, what did Mr Gerry mean when he said:

"Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head." in relation to the clause that said: "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

Do you think Mr Gerry was talking about "bear arms" to mean "carry arms" or "militia duty"?


----------



## turtledude

frigidweirdo said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both the House, the Senate, and the POTUS were solid left wingers.  The Court was evenly split.  As usual you are factually wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> You must be on the right wing.  How can I be factually wrong, by stating that the People are the Militia; you are either well regulated or you are not.
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the People are declared necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when is your programmer going to fix your chip?  your English is irregular and makes no sense
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who cares; y'all have, nothing but repeal, anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I have that you have admitted you don' have,  R2D2 is a degree in political science and Law from the very best programs in the USA.  and I understand the constitution, its history, its meaning and its purpose.  and guess what, your program is deficient.  You don't know much of anything about this topic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hilarious.
> 
> A guy who can't argue for shit claiming to have lots of stuff.
> 
> Fuck you, I have a PhD in the right bear arms, I have a triple PhD in potato management and I won the Nobel Prize for knowing the most about the Second Amendment. What do you have?
Click to expand...


I figured that would be like spraying troll-b-gone.  Yo don't have any clue do you?  you bannerrhoids come up with all sorts of ways to reinterpret the second amendment to allow your gun banning schemes.


----------



## turtledude

frigidweirdo said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> yep, you must have read Cruikshank and my buddy St George Tucker
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've read Cruikshank, I'm just waiting for your argument on it.
> 
> Go read Harry Potter, somewhere in one of those books there's some evidence for my argument. When you've found that piece of evidence, I'll tell you what my argument is......
> 
> Are you up for that? Because that's what shit you're sending to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you're just another contrarian troll with a coloring of populist, who is hateful of those who are well educated in the law, because you are not.  Harry Potter-WTF?  Cruikshank notes that the founders did not create a right but merely recognized it and it was a not a right created by the constitution.  Meaning its a right endowed by the creator and membership in a government created organization is not needed for that right to vest
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh come off it. How can I be a troll? You haven't answered the FIRST question I've asked. Every time you just duck and dive.
> 
> So, your whole point about Cruikshank was something I already knew in the first place. Oh, wow. Big news everyone, the sun rises in the morning.....
> 
> The problem with your "argument" is that we're discussing the SECOND AMENDMENT. The PROTECT of the right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the Second Amendment doesn't give the right, does it?
> 
> The Second Amendment PROTECTS the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, I already said that today to someone else. Go figure.
> 
> The Second Amendment protects WHAT? The Second Amendment is Constitutional LAW, the LAW means something and protects something within the realms of CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
> 
> It doesn't matter whether you think the right existed before or not. We're not discussing the right, we're discussing the Constitutional PROTECTION of that right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lets cut the crap. do you believe the founders intended that the federal government have any gun control powers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that's not a simple answer is it?
> 
> Firstly the US Constitution has the power to be Amendment. So.... from that point the Founders left open the possibility that the Constitution could be changed.
> 
> Secondly, the right to KEEP arms protects individuals to own arms. It doesn't protect them to own ALL arms and has generally been interpreted to mean "militia type" weapons or weapons useful for the militia.
> 
> However in the modern day the US militia (National Guard) has a lot of high tech weaponry that people don't think would be a good idea in the hands of individuals. What are people going to do with field artillery? Well in war against the US govt, I have no doubt it would be useful. So, why don't individuals have such weaponry?
> 
> The Founders lived in a time where weaponry was similar between Armed Forces weaponry and hunting weaponry. The modern era has changed at a lot.
> 
> Do you think the NRA supports "the right" of people to have field artillery and F-16s? No, they don't fight for this.They fight for handguns and perhaps other guns, but mostly guns.
> 
> What the Second Amendment protects is the right of individuals to own weapons. However the 2A doesn't prevent the US govt from banning certain types of weaponry, as long as individual can get their hands on weaponry that is not too expensive, then the right isn't being infringed upon.
> 
> But I asked a question about the right to BEAR arms. This is the right to KEEP arms.
> 
> Funny how you've moved it back into your comfort zone.
> 
> I answered your question, are you going to answer mine? It's been like a week and you've refused to answer.
> 
> Mr Gerry said that "bear arms" was "militia duty", Mr Jackson said it was "render military service". Mr Washington used the term synonymously with "render military service". The draft versions of the Second Amendment flitted between "bear arms" and "render military service" for their last clause which was removed from the Amendment because the Founding Fathers had a problem with it. Some of them, like Mr Jackson called for those who wouldn't bear arms to pay an equivalent. Why would govt require people to pay an equivalent for not carrying guns around?
> The Supreme Court in Presser said that parading with guns was NOT protected by either the right to keep arms or the right to bear arms. The Heller case affirmed the Presser case.
> 
> All you have is a Supreme Court case that basically says that the Second Amendment only applies to the Federal government (though things have basically changed recently on this count, to include state governments) which means if I take your gun away, I am NOT infringing on your right to keep or bear arms.
> 
> That's all you have.
> 
> I have loads. You have nothing.
> 
> So my question is, what did Mr Gerry mean when he said:
> 
> "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head." in relation to the clause that said: "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> Do you think Mr Gerry was talking about "bear arms" to mean "carry arms" or "militia duty"?
Click to expand...

complete fail-its not about what the people can do its what the government can do and where was the government given ANY power to regulate what arms you could

KEEP
BEAR
OWN
MAKE
BUY
USE
BARTER
TRADE
SELL
GIFT
CARRY
etc


----------



## frigidweirdo

turtledude said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must be on the right wing.  How can I be factually wrong, by stating that the People are the Militia; you are either well regulated or you are not.
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the People are declared necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> when is your programmer going to fix your chip?  your English is irregular and makes no sense
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who cares; y'all have, nothing but repeal, anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I have that you have admitted you don' have,  R2D2 is a degree in political science and Law from the very best programs in the USA.  and I understand the constitution, its history, its meaning and its purpose.  and guess what, your program is deficient.  You don't know much of anything about this topic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hilarious.
> 
> A guy who can't argue for shit claiming to have lots of stuff.
> 
> Fuck you, I have a PhD in the right bear arms, I have a triple PhD in potato management and I won the Nobel Prize for knowing the most about the Second Amendment. What do you have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I figured that would be like spraying troll-b-gone.  Yo don't have any clue do you?  you bannerrhoids come up with all sorts of ways to reinterpret the second amendment to allow your gun banning schemes.
Click to expand...


You insult all the time. 



turtledude said:


> My kid has stuff in cages that is smarter than you are





turtledude said:


> you're an *idiot*





turtledude said:


> Portman is an *idiot*? LOL that 's funny coming from the forum's biggest *dullard*





turtledude said:


> you're an *idiot*.  we need to bankrupt the plaintiffs for filing idiotic lawsuits





turtledude said:


> listen *moron*.  assault weapons are rarely used in murders.  Less than two percent of all homicides involve the class of firearms that "assault weapons" are a sub part of. Hammers and knives, fists and baseball bats are used in more murders than the style of firearms that cause you to void in your panties.
> 
> so you are both a *moron* and a liar.  You hear the word "assault weapon" and your bladder fails.  because you are ignorant of firearms, and a leftwing *idiot* who hates the NRA and its support of conservative candidates.  That is what motivates your *stupidity*



I could go on all day. I only looked up the world "idiot", and I got 49 responses. This is part of your "debate strategy" no doubt. Come off it, you claim to be a lawyer. 

I'm not reinterpreting the Constitution. I've backed up EVERYTHING I've said. You've backed up almost nothing, and then when you do it's irrelevant.


----------



## frigidweirdo

turtledude said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've read Cruikshank, I'm just waiting for your argument on it.
> 
> Go read Harry Potter, somewhere in one of those books there's some evidence for my argument. When you've found that piece of evidence, I'll tell you what my argument is......
> 
> Are you up for that? Because that's what shit you're sending to me.
> 
> 
> 
> you're just another contrarian troll with a coloring of populist, who is hateful of those who are well educated in the law, because you are not.  Harry Potter-WTF?  Cruikshank notes that the founders did not create a right but merely recognized it and it was a not a right created by the constitution.  Meaning its a right endowed by the creator and membership in a government created organization is not needed for that right to vest
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh come off it. How can I be a troll? You haven't answered the FIRST question I've asked. Every time you just duck and dive.
> 
> So, your whole point about Cruikshank was something I already knew in the first place. Oh, wow. Big news everyone, the sun rises in the morning.....
> 
> The problem with your "argument" is that we're discussing the SECOND AMENDMENT. The PROTECT of the right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the Second Amendment doesn't give the right, does it?
> 
> The Second Amendment PROTECTS the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, I already said that today to someone else. Go figure.
> 
> The Second Amendment protects WHAT? The Second Amendment is Constitutional LAW, the LAW means something and protects something within the realms of CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
> 
> It doesn't matter whether you think the right existed before or not. We're not discussing the right, we're discussing the Constitutional PROTECTION of that right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lets cut the crap. do you believe the founders intended that the federal government have any gun control powers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that's not a simple answer is it?
> 
> Firstly the US Constitution has the power to be Amendment. So.... from that point the Founders left open the possibility that the Constitution could be changed.
> 
> Secondly, the right to KEEP arms protects individuals to own arms. It doesn't protect them to own ALL arms and has generally been interpreted to mean "militia type" weapons or weapons useful for the militia.
> 
> However in the modern day the US militia (National Guard) has a lot of high tech weaponry that people don't think would be a good idea in the hands of individuals. What are people going to do with field artillery? Well in war against the US govt, I have no doubt it would be useful. So, why don't individuals have such weaponry?
> 
> The Founders lived in a time where weaponry was similar between Armed Forces weaponry and hunting weaponry. The modern era has changed at a lot.
> 
> Do you think the NRA supports "the right" of people to have field artillery and F-16s? No, they don't fight for this.They fight for handguns and perhaps other guns, but mostly guns.
> 
> What the Second Amendment protects is the right of individuals to own weapons. However the 2A doesn't prevent the US govt from banning certain types of weaponry, as long as individual can get their hands on weaponry that is not too expensive, then the right isn't being infringed upon.
> 
> But I asked a question about the right to BEAR arms. This is the right to KEEP arms.
> 
> Funny how you've moved it back into your comfort zone.
> 
> I answered your question, are you going to answer mine? It's been like a week and you've refused to answer.
> 
> Mr Gerry said that "bear arms" was "militia duty", Mr Jackson said it was "render military service". Mr Washington used the term synonymously with "render military service". The draft versions of the Second Amendment flitted between "bear arms" and "render military service" for their last clause which was removed from the Amendment because the Founding Fathers had a problem with it. Some of them, like Mr Jackson called for those who wouldn't bear arms to pay an equivalent. Why would govt require people to pay an equivalent for not carrying guns around?
> The Supreme Court in Presser said that parading with guns was NOT protected by either the right to keep arms or the right to bear arms. The Heller case affirmed the Presser case.
> 
> All you have is a Supreme Court case that basically says that the Second Amendment only applies to the Federal government (though things have basically changed recently on this count, to include state governments) which means if I take your gun away, I am NOT infringing on your right to keep or bear arms.
> 
> That's all you have.
> 
> I have loads. You have nothing.
> 
> So my question is, what did Mr Gerry mean when he said:
> 
> "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head." in relation to the clause that said: "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> Do you think Mr Gerry was talking about "bear arms" to mean "carry arms" or "militia duty"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> complete fail-its not about what the people can do its what the government can do and where was the government given ANY power to regulate what arms you could
> 
> KEEP
> BEAR
> OWN
> MAKE
> BUY
> USE
> BARTER
> TRADE
> SELL
> GIFT
> CARRY
> etc
Click to expand...


I didn't say it wasn't. 

The Constitution is about the powers of the US Federal government.

The Bill of Rights is about the limits of power on the US Federal govt. 

So what?

So it means that the US Federal govt cannot infringe on the right of people to bear arms.

So what does "bear arms" mean?

It means "render military service" and "militia duty". 

I've proven this. 

Whether individuals can carry weapons is not an issue of the Second Amendment. I don't need a Constitutional right to be able to do something. However we're talking about what the US govt is specifically unable to do due to the SECOND AMENDMENT.


----------



## Skull Pilot

francoHFW said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have already had plenty of Regulation until the last 20 years of insanity, so no such thing is needed.
> 
> 
> 
> The Scary-Looking Weapons Ban?
> 
> 
> I bought a post-ban civilian AK-47 for dirt cheap.  Looked exactly like this one:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is what the pre-ban civilian AK looked like:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what the Scary-Looking Gun Ban (Assault Weapons Ban) did.
> 
> JACK SHIT!!!
> 
> It didn't effect crime either.
> 
> Admit that you want to infringe on the right of Americans to have guns.  Just admit it, so we can go ahead and have this war.  This death by a thousand cuts bullshit is OVER.  We want full repeal, and let States make their own gun laws, as was intended.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nobody needs an army machine gun or anything that looks like it. they are advertised that way now you're a man now your Macho now you can kill . We should also make armor illegal and cut the Macho bulshit. You can hunt and you can defend your house with a all kinds of Rifle hunting rifles and shotguns. You assholes are deluded and aren't going to save us from tyranny. Absolute brainwashed fear mongered right-wing insanity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No imentally ill person should have guns especially a collection of military assault weapons with bump stocks...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone who is adjudicated mentally ill cannot own firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Supposedly, in a perfect world, if you're an idiot
Click to expand...

So it's not the fact that there are no gun laws but rather the fact that they are not enforced


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

frigidweirdo said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> you're just another contrarian troll with a coloring of populist, who is hateful of those who are well educated in the law, because you are not.  Harry Potter-WTF?  Cruikshank notes that the founders did not create a right but merely recognized it and it was a not a right created by the constitution.  Meaning its a right endowed by the creator and membership in a government created organization is not needed for that right to vest
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh come off it. How can I be a troll? You haven't answered the FIRST question I've asked. Every time you just duck and dive.
> 
> So, your whole point about Cruikshank was something I already knew in the first place. Oh, wow. Big news everyone, the sun rises in the morning.....
> 
> The problem with your "argument" is that we're discussing the SECOND AMENDMENT. The PROTECT of the right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the Second Amendment doesn't give the right, does it?
> 
> The Second Amendment PROTECTS the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, I already said that today to someone else. Go figure.
> 
> The Second Amendment protects WHAT? The Second Amendment is Constitutional LAW, the LAW means something and protects something within the realms of CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
> 
> It doesn't matter whether you think the right existed before or not. We're not discussing the right, we're discussing the Constitutional PROTECTION of that right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lets cut the crap. do you believe the founders intended that the federal government have any gun control powers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that's not a simple answer is it?
> 
> Firstly the US Constitution has the power to be Amendment. So.... from that point the Founders left open the possibility that the Constitution could be changed.
> 
> Secondly, the right to KEEP arms protects individuals to own arms. It doesn't protect them to own ALL arms and has generally been interpreted to mean "militia type" weapons or weapons useful for the militia.
> 
> However in the modern day the US militia (National Guard) has a lot of high tech weaponry that people don't think would be a good idea in the hands of individuals. What are people going to do with field artillery? Well in war against the US govt, I have no doubt it would be useful. So, why don't individuals have such weaponry?
> 
> The Founders lived in a time where weaponry was similar between Armed Forces weaponry and hunting weaponry. The modern era has changed at a lot.
> 
> Do you think the NRA supports "the right" of people to have field artillery and F-16s? No, they don't fight for this.They fight for handguns and perhaps other guns, but mostly guns.
> 
> What the Second Amendment protects is the right of individuals to own weapons. However the 2A doesn't prevent the US govt from banning certain types of weaponry, as long as individual can get their hands on weaponry that is not too expensive, then the right isn't being infringed upon.
> 
> But I asked a question about the right to BEAR arms. This is the right to KEEP arms.
> 
> Funny how you've moved it back into your comfort zone.
> 
> I answered your question, are you going to answer mine? It's been like a week and you've refused to answer.
> 
> Mr Gerry said that "bear arms" was "militia duty", Mr Jackson said it was "render military service". Mr Washington used the term synonymously with "render military service". The draft versions of the Second Amendment flitted between "bear arms" and "render military service" for their last clause which was removed from the Amendment because the Founding Fathers had a problem with it. Some of them, like Mr Jackson called for those who wouldn't bear arms to pay an equivalent. Why would govt require people to pay an equivalent for not carrying guns around?
> The Supreme Court in Presser said that parading with guns was NOT protected by either the right to keep arms or the right to bear arms. The Heller case affirmed the Presser case.
> 
> All you have is a Supreme Court case that basically says that the Second Amendment only applies to the Federal government (though things have basically changed recently on this count, to include state governments) which means if I take your gun away, I am NOT infringing on your right to keep or bear arms.
> 
> That's all you have.
> 
> I have loads. You have nothing.
> 
> So my question is, what did Mr Gerry mean when he said:
> 
> "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head." in relation to the clause that said: "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> Do you think Mr Gerry was talking about "bear arms" to mean "carry arms" or "militia duty"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> complete fail-its not about what the people can do its what the government can do and where was the government given ANY power to regulate what arms you could
> 
> KEEP
> BEAR
> OWN
> MAKE
> BUY
> USE
> BARTER
> TRADE
> SELL
> GIFT
> CARRY
> etc
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say it wasn't.
> 
> The Constitution is about the powers of the US Federal government.
> 
> The Bill of Rights is about the limits of power on the US Federal govt.
> 
> So what?
> 
> So it means that the US Federal govt cannot infringe on the right of people to bear arms.
> 
> So what does "bear arms" mean?
> 
> It means "render military service" and "militia duty".
> 
> I've proven this.
> 
> Whether individuals can carry weapons is not an issue of the Second Amendment. I don't need a Constitutional right to be able to do something. However we're talking about what the US govt is specifically unable to do due to the SECOND AMENDMENT.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with you on the meaning of "bear" as it applies to the 2nd, but at least you are making sense, or making a legitimate argument.  I appreciate that.


I think "bear" means to carry.  I think Congress has acted improperly for decades, given the 2nd, 9th, and 10th Amendments.

State and local governments had the authority to limilt time, place, and manner of carrying arms.  _Cruikshank _made that clear._  Presser _held that the 2A is an individual right, not a militia right, holding a law or action by local governments preventing militias from marching the streets with guns was not an infringement od this individual right.  States also had the authority to limit the type of arms one could keep.  But, now that is questionable, given the "privileges and immunities" clause of the 14th Amendment.

The SCOTUS has allowed Congressional overreach, refusing to directly address the relationship between Amendments 2, 9, 10, and 14, as they relate to Congressional authority to regulate firearms., or at least I have not seen such a decision, with my limited study on The Court's decisions on the topic,.  _Cruikshank _came close, but they were deciding whether to uphold the convictions of Klansmen under the Enforcement Act of 1870.  The Court overturned those convictions, holding that the 14th Amendment applies to States, not individuals, and that the 2nd only limits Congress.  But, I am always open to a discussion on SCOTUS opinions.

The question I have about your interpretation of "bear" arms goes to intent.  Why would the founders feel compelled to preserve the right to take up arms in a militia or render military service.  That was not a right, but a duty. 

Which interpretation makes more sense?

The right of the people to keep arms and (the duty) render military service shall not be infringed, or the right to keep and carry arms?

There is no ambiguity.  Attaching a "military service" interpreataion to "bear" goes against the plain meaning of the text in the Amendment.  The word "bear" in this context means to carry.  They may have used the word in the context of military service, but that use also meant to carry, or to take up arms.  I could see your interpretation working in the context od the right to take up arms as needed, for whatever ligitimate purpose, but that would also be a stretch, give the attitudes and practices of the day, where packing a pistol was as common as carrying a wallet and mobile phone is today. 

If the intended meaning of the word "bear" means military service, and not to carry on one's person, why would the founders limit Congrass on the right to keep arms, but leave Congress with the authority to prevent individuals from waling around armed, which was a very common practice at the time?  That angle makes no sense.

Nor does the interpretation that the phrase "keep amd carry" has a singular legal meaning, like "sell and convey" or "null and void" when there is no precident for such an interpretation, and when doing so renders the 2nd or Art. 1, Sec. 8 meaningless, ineffective, or redundant. 

I think we can all agree that the 2nd preserves the individual right by excluding Congress from any arms regulation, given both the _Presser_ and  _Cruikshank _decisions.


----------



## danielpalos

westwall said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Point is, the subject of Arms for the Militia is declared socialized.  There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear danielpalos
> do you REALLY believe that ALL the people who crafted and passed this law
> would ALL AGREE to the militia-only interpretation?
> 
> When people TODAY don't even "all agree"
> 
> What makes you think they would have agreed back
> then if CLEARLY the two schools of thought don't agree now!
> 
> The more we argue and totally believe in our respective beliefs, that tells me so did the people split in two schools of thought back then.
> 
> They even had the equivalent of what we argue over today, over who counts as a citizen with rights. Today we argue if immigrants have equal rights as "humans" as citizens. Back then there was issue with Catholics or other people not considered equal or trustworthy to uphold the laws if they were to bear arms.
> 
> So if we can't even agree today, and these separate factions INSIST their respective interpretations ARE the truth that the laws should represent, isn't that clear the same thing would be going on back then? And there would be the same two factions, so the law came out the way it did to accommodate BOTH that would equally insist on THEIR way and REFUSE to compromise to let the other way prevail and exclude them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the clueless and the Causeless say that.  The People are the Militia.  What part of that do y'all not understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, silly person.  It is you who either don't understand, or you are simply intellectually dishonest.  I will go with the latter as you are nothing more than a one trick pony bleating about that which you have no clue.
> 
> Run along little sheep, run along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing but diversion, right wingers?
> 
> The People are the Militia.  Well regulated militia of the People are declared necessary.
> 
> It really is that simple, except to the right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's pretty obvious that it is you who are the defective one.  Like I stated previously, if it were your opinion that was correct the ruling elite would have disarmed us decades ago.  As they haven't I think it is safe to say that the 2nd is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT.
Click to expand...

why do y'all waste your time with politics; gossip girls is what y'all are best at.

Well regulated militia of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


----------



## danielpalos

westwall said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Point is, the subject of Arms for the Militia is declared socialized.  There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear danielpalos
> do you REALLY believe that ALL the people who crafted and passed this law
> would ALL AGREE to the militia-only interpretation?
> 
> When people TODAY don't even "all agree"
> 
> What makes you think they would have agreed back
> then if CLEARLY the two schools of thought don't agree now!
> 
> The more we argue and totally believe in our respective beliefs, that tells me so did the people split in two schools of thought back then.
> 
> They even had the equivalent of what we argue over today, over who counts as a citizen with rights. Today we argue if immigrants have equal rights as "humans" as citizens. Back then there was issue with Catholics or other people not considered equal or trustworthy to uphold the laws if they were to bear arms.
> 
> So if we can't even agree today, and these separate factions INSIST their respective interpretations ARE the truth that the laws should represent, isn't that clear the same thing would be going on back then? And there would be the same two factions, so the law came out the way it did to accommodate BOTH that would equally insist on THEIR way and REFUSE to compromise to let the other way prevail and exclude them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the clueless and the Causeless say that.  The People are the Militia.  What part of that do y'all not understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Federalists have good arguments, unlike republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> No, silly person.  It is you who either don't understand, or you are simply intellectually dishonest.  I will go with the latter as you are nothing more than a one trick pony bleating about that which you have no clue.
> 
> Run along little sheep, run along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear westwall to be as fair and understanding as I can be,
> I'd say the reason behind their views is they really truly BELIEVE
> this to be the truth. Just like Christians KNOW God to be true
> and just can't understand anything else or less. And how atheists
> or secular nontheists just KNOW you don't need a God or Jesus,
> and the religions that insist on that just must be wrong because
> otherwise it leaves people out who just don't think that way.
> 
> Both sides truly believe they are expressing the truth, and
> the other ways are projecting something else that isn't universal or
> absolute truth.
> 
> Honestly westwall they just can't help but seeing it that way.
> Just like atheists can't help it.
> Or Christians can't help it.
> 
> The people who can't wrap their minds around same sex marriage
> or see gender as anything by genetically chromosomal
> can't help that.
> 
> The people who see gender as internally relative
> and culturally subjective can't help that either.
> 
> When it comes to deep seated beliefs, insulting or attacking
> people for whatever reason they have those view or whatever
> ways they are able or UNABLE to explain why they do,
> none of that helps or changes anything.
> 
> The main thing is neither should govt or laws be abused
> to penalize people for beliefs they just can't help.
> If that's what they believe, they have equal right to exercise
> and express their views without penalty or discrimination by govt,
> THEY JUST CAN'T ABUSE GOVT TO IMPOSE THEM EITHER.
> 
> I don't get it, I really hoped people could at least
> SEE that both sides have their own beliefs.
> But by their beliefs, they really believe their way is historically
> true and can't see how the other sides beliefs have any validity.
> 
> And that is part of their beliefs!
> Similar to the right to health care folks who can't see it
> any other way but it must be through govt in order to
> be established equally for all people. That's their belief, too.
> 
> They think that is natural, similar to how ChrisL was
> arguing the right to bear arms is natural.
> 
> These political beliefs are something else!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with you.  They are authoritarians at heart.  dp here even proudly proclaims his Federalist viewpoint.  Thus they will lie, cheat, and steal, to get their way.  The more government power the better in their view.
Click to expand...


Federalists have good arguments, unlike republicans.


----------



## danielpalos

westwall said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have danielpalos on ignore.  Let me guess:
> 
> "Only Congress can determine the wellness of regulation of the milipeople or rhe peoplitia.  Clueless and Causeless right wing morons fail to understand my reasoning which is backed soley by my buzzwors."
> 
> Did I get it right?
> 
> 
> 
> The right is inherent.  The Constitutiondoes not grant the right, but protects the people from the federal government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the People shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeppers, a government granting itself the right to defend itself from itself.  It takes a special kind of stupid to push that particular line of "thought".
Click to expand...

Like during the war between the States?  Individuals are usually just criminals, not well regulated militia.


----------



## danielpalos

turtledude said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> That ruling was in error; must have been, right wingers involved.
> 
> The People are the Militia; You are either well regulated or unorganized.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both the House, the Senate, and the POTUS were solid left wingers.  The Court was evenly split.  As usual you are factually wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You must be on the right wing.  How can I be factually wrong, by stating that the People are the Militia; you are either well regulated or you are not.
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the People are declared necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when is your programmer going to fix your chip?  your English is irregular and makes no sense
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who cares; y'all have, nothing but repeal, anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I have that you have admitted you don' have,  R2D2 is a degree in political science and Law from the very best programs in the USA.  and I understand the constitution, its history, its meaning and its purpose.  and guess what, your program is deficient.  You don't know much of anything about this topic
Click to expand...

I took political science in school.  You and most of the right wing have nothing but fallacy instead of any valid arguments.

The People are the Militia.  That makes me right even if I am on the left, and you right wingers, just plain wrong; like usual.


----------



## danielpalos

turtledude said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> the unorganized militia may be infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> sorry R2D2  militias don't have rights, people do.  the right of individual people cannot be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the Second Amendment doesn't give the right, does it?
> 
> The Second Amendment PROTECTS the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yep, you must have read Cruikshank and my buddy St George Tucker
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've read Cruikshank, I'm just waiting for your argument on it.
> 
> Go read Harry Potter, somewhere in one of those books there's some evidence for my argument. When you've found that piece of evidence, I'll tell you what my argument is......
> 
> Are you up for that? Because that's what shit you're sending to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you're just another contrarian troll with a coloring of populist, who is hateful of those who are well educated in the law, because you are not.  Harry Potter-WTF?  Cruikshank notes that the founders did not create a right but merely recognized it and it was a not a right created by the constitution.  Meaning its a right endowed by the creator and membership in a government created organization is not needed for that right to vest
Click to expand...

natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our federal Constitution.


----------



## danielpalos

turtledude said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the Second Amendment doesn't give the right, does it?
> 
> The Second Amendment PROTECTS the right.
> 
> 
> 
> yep, you must have read Cruikshank and my buddy St George Tucker
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've read Cruikshank, I'm just waiting for your argument on it.
> 
> Go read Harry Potter, somewhere in one of those books there's some evidence for my argument. When you've found that piece of evidence, I'll tell you what my argument is......
> 
> Are you up for that? Because that's what shit you're sending to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you're just another contrarian troll with a coloring of populist, who is hateful of those who are well educated in the law, because you are not.  Harry Potter-WTF?  Cruikshank notes that the founders did not create a right but merely recognized it and it was a not a right created by the constitution.  Meaning its a right endowed by the creator and membership in a government created organization is not needed for that right to vest
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh come off it. How can I be a troll? You haven't answered the FIRST question I've asked. Every time you just duck and dive.
> 
> So, your whole point about Cruikshank was something I already knew in the first place. Oh, wow. Big news everyone, the sun rises in the morning.....
> 
> The problem with your "argument" is that we're discussing the SECOND AMENDMENT. The PROTECT of the right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the Second Amendment doesn't give the right, does it?
> 
> The Second Amendment PROTECTS the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, I already said that today to someone else. Go figure.
> 
> The Second Amendment protects WHAT? The Second Amendment is Constitutional LAW, the LAW means something and protects something within the realms of CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
> 
> It doesn't matter whether you think the right existed before or not. We're not discussing the right, we're discussing the Constitutional PROTECTION of that right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lets cut the crap. do you believe the founders intended that the federal government have any gun control powers
Click to expand...

they do have gun control powers in the federal districts.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh come off it. How can I be a troll? You haven't answered the FIRST question I've asked. Every time you just duck and dive.
> 
> So, your whole point about Cruikshank was something I already knew in the first place. Oh, wow. Big news everyone, the sun rises in the morning.....
> 
> The problem with your "argument" is that we're discussing the SECOND AMENDMENT. The PROTECT of the right.
> 
> 
> See, I already said that today to someone else. Go figure.
> 
> The Second Amendment protects WHAT? The Second Amendment is Constitutional LAW, the LAW means something and protects something within the realms of CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
> 
> It doesn't matter whether you think the right existed before or not. We're not discussing the right, we're discussing the Constitutional PROTECTION of that right.
> 
> 
> 
> lets cut the crap. do you believe the founders intended that the federal government have any gun control powers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that's not a simple answer is it?
> 
> Firstly the US Constitution has the power to be Amendment. So.... from that point the Founders left open the possibility that the Constitution could be changed.
> 
> Secondly, the right to KEEP arms protects individuals to own arms. It doesn't protect them to own ALL arms and has generally been interpreted to mean "militia type" weapons or weapons useful for the militia.
> 
> However in the modern day the US militia (National Guard) has a lot of high tech weaponry that people don't think would be a good idea in the hands of individuals. What are people going to do with field artillery? Well in war against the US govt, I have no doubt it would be useful. So, why don't individuals have such weaponry?
> 
> The Founders lived in a time where weaponry was similar between Armed Forces weaponry and hunting weaponry. The modern era has changed at a lot.
> 
> Do you think the NRA supports "the right" of people to have field artillery and F-16s? No, they don't fight for this.They fight for handguns and perhaps other guns, but mostly guns.
> 
> What the Second Amendment protects is the right of individuals to own weapons. However the 2A doesn't prevent the US govt from banning certain types of weaponry, as long as individual can get their hands on weaponry that is not too expensive, then the right isn't being infringed upon.
> 
> But I asked a question about the right to BEAR arms. This is the right to KEEP arms.
> 
> Funny how you've moved it back into your comfort zone.
> 
> I answered your question, are you going to answer mine? It's been like a week and you've refused to answer.
> 
> Mr Gerry said that "bear arms" was "militia duty", Mr Jackson said it was "render military service". Mr Washington used the term synonymously with "render military service". The draft versions of the Second Amendment flitted between "bear arms" and "render military service" for their last clause which was removed from the Amendment because the Founding Fathers had a problem with it. Some of them, like Mr Jackson called for those who wouldn't bear arms to pay an equivalent. Why would govt require people to pay an equivalent for not carrying guns around?
> The Supreme Court in Presser said that parading with guns was NOT protected by either the right to keep arms or the right to bear arms. The Heller case affirmed the Presser case.
> 
> All you have is a Supreme Court case that basically says that the Second Amendment only applies to the Federal government (though things have basically changed recently on this count, to include state governments) which means if I take your gun away, I am NOT infringing on your right to keep or bear arms.
> 
> That's all you have.
> 
> I have loads. You have nothing.
> 
> So my question is, what did Mr Gerry mean when he said:
> 
> "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head." in relation to the clause that said: "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> Do you think Mr Gerry was talking about "bear arms" to mean "carry arms" or "militia duty"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> complete fail-its not about what the people can do its what the government can do and where was the government given ANY power to regulate what arms you could
> 
> KEEP
> BEAR
> OWN
> MAKE
> BUY
> USE
> BARTER
> TRADE
> SELL
> GIFT
> CARRY
> etc
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say it wasn't.
> 
> The Constitution is about the powers of the US Federal government.
> 
> The Bill of Rights is about the limits of power on the US Federal govt.
> 
> So what?
> 
> So it means that the US Federal govt cannot infringe on the right of people to bear arms.
> 
> So what does "bear arms" mean?
> 
> It means "render military service" and "militia duty".
> 
> I've proven this.
> 
> Whether individuals can carry weapons is not an issue of the Second Amendment. I don't need a Constitutional right to be able to do something. However we're talking about what the US govt is specifically unable to do due to the SECOND AMENDMENT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't agree with you on the meaning of "bear" as it applies to the 2nd, but at least you are making sense, or making a legitimate argument.  I appreciate that.
> 
> 
> I think "bear" means to carry.  I think Congress has acted improperly for decades, given the 2nd, 9th, and 10th Amendments.
> 
> State and local governments had the authority to limilt time, place, and manner of carrying arms.  _Cruikshank _made that clear._  Presser _held that the 2A is an individual right, not a militia right, holding a law or action by local governments preventing militias from marching the streets with guns was not an infringement od this individual right.  States also had the authority to limit the type of arms one could keep.  But, now that is questionable, given the "privileges and immunities" clause of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> The SCOTUS has allowed Congressional overreach, refusing to directly address the relationship between Amendments 2, 9, 10, and 14, as they relate to Congressional authority to regulate firearms., or at least I have not seen such a decision, with my limited study on The Court's decisions on the topic,.  _Cruikshank _came close, but they were deciding whether to uphold the convictions of Klansmen under the Enforcement Act of 1870.  The Court overturned those convictions, holding that the 14th Amendment applies to States, not individuals, and that the 2nd only limits Congress.  But, I am always open to a discussion on SCOTUS opinions.
> 
> The question I have about your interpretation of "bear" arms goes to intent.  Why would the founders feel compelled to preserve the right to take up arms in a militia or render military service.  That was not a right, but a duty.
> 
> Which interpretation makes more sense?
> 
> The right of the people to keep arms and (the duty) render military service shall not be infringed, or the right to keep and carry arms?
> 
> There is no ambiguity.  Attaching a "military service" interpreataion to "bear" goes against the plain meaning of the text in the Amendment.  The word "bear" in this context means to carry.  They may have used the word in the context of military service, but that use also meant to carry, or to take up arms.  I could see your interpretation working in the context od the right to take up arms as needed, for whatever ligitimate purpose, but that would also be a stretch, give the attitudes and practices of the day, where packing a pistol was as common as carrying a wallet and mobile phone is today.
> 
> If the intended meaning of the word "bear" means military service, and not to carry on one's person, why would the founders limit Congrass on the right to keep arms, but leave Congress with the authority to prevent individuals from waling around armed, which was a very common practice at the time?  That angle makes no sense.
> 
> Nor does the interpretation that the phrase "keep amd carry" has a singular legal meaning, like "sell and convey" or "null and void" when there is no precident for such an interpretation, and when doing so renders the 2nd or Art. 1, Sec. 8 meaningless, ineffective, or redundant.
> 
> I think we can all agree that the 2nd preserves the individual right by excluding Congress from any arms regulation, given both the _Presser_ and  _Cruikshank _decisions.
Click to expand...


Yes, I get that a lot of people "don't agree".

However the point is they don't WANT to agree. You can present all the evidence in the world, but people like this will always reject what isn't convenient. 

Okay. Your first point is that "bear" means "carry". It does. But it also means to have a child among other things.

My point here is that context is important. I've used the word "stool" as a perfect example. It means a shit and it means a wooden backless seat. 

"The doctor asked him to sit on the stool", you use context to imply that it means the wooden backless seat rather than the shit, wouldn't you say? 

The context of the "bear arms" is the Amendment starts with "A well regulated militia" and what does people carrying arms around in the streets have to do with the militia? 

In the past the 2A was ONLY a limit of the Federal government. The Supreme Court hardly ever got cases for incorporation. But now that has changed. 

The Inevitable Incorporation of the Second Amendment.

This article from 2010 shows this. 

Okay you say "Why would the founders feel compelled to preserve the right to take up arms in a militia or render military service. That was not a right, but a duty."

It's actually easy to explain and logical. 

I agree that it's a duty. If you read the debates in Congress which I have been using as my main source for my argument, you'll see they spoke about this quite a bit and wanted people to pay an equivalent. Why pay an equivalent for those who wouldn't walk around with guns? You'd literally be forcing people to be armed all the time. The Founding Fathers would never have done that. People didn't want that level of interference in their lives.

But here's the issue why they wanted to protect a duty.

The US Federal government could call up militia troops to federal duty.The feds had the power to arm the militia when in federal duty and also the power to DISARM the same people. It's in Article 1 Section 8. 

But even easier than this:

The right to keep arms is the right of individuals to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply of weaponry that the feds couldn't touch. 

The right to bear arms is the right of individuals to be in the militia so the militia has a ready supply of personnel to use the weapons. 

Without personnel the militia is nothing. Without arms the militia is nothing. They go hand in hand.

Now, ask yourself this question. What purpose does making a right to carry guns around give? It doesn't. It doesn't protect the militia, it doesn't help the militia. 

Many things could have been protected in the Bill of Rights, but the reality was all of them had a purpose. Now you're trying to say the right to bear arms has not purpose other than because individuals want to. Then why didn't they protect the right to drink water? The right to breathe air? So many things that serve no purpose. 

Imagine this. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the free state, the right of the people to drink water and breathe air shall not be infringed." 

Everyone would think the Founding Fathers were smoking some heavy shit. It makes not sense. And it makes no sense to have "the right of the people to keep arms and to walk around town with their gun stuck down their pants".



No only does your argument make no sense, but you've also failed to back it up with a single document. On the other hand I have PROOF, I mean, unless you're willing to stick your head up your ass, you can't deny what is said in the document I provided. 

"bear arms" is used synonymously with "render military service" and "militia duty" and is NOT used synonymously with "walk around with guns." It's that simple.


----------



## danielpalos

This can be found in New York's, State Constitution:

_The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
_
The People are the Militia; You are either, well regulated or unorganized.


----------



## emilynghiem

danielpalos said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the People are the militia and they were expected to bring their own weapons with them.  I find it amusing that you think the government, the ultimate example of force in a country would have needed to enumerate a Right for itself to be able to defend itself........................ from itself?   Your "argument" is laughable.
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia had to muster.  Only the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What did "well regulated" mean back then?  You have already been shown what it meant, so how are you going to twist that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated means whatever Congress says it means; only the right wing appeals to ignorance of the law and claim they are for the, "gospel Truth".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it means whatever the DICTIONARY says it means.  That's why dictionary's get written.  Here is the original meaning of the phrase, that has already been shown to you, and which you continue to ignore.
> 
> 
> The following are taken from the _*Oxford English Dictionary*_, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
> 
> 1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us *well-regulated* Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
> 
> 1714: "The practice of all *well-regulated* courts of justice in the world."
> 
> 1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a *well-regulated* clock and a true sun dial."
> 
> 1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every *well-regulated* person will blame the Mayor."
> 
> 1862: "It appeared to her *well-regulated* mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
> 
> 1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every *well-regulated* American embryo city."
> 
> The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
> 
> Meaning of the phrase "well-regulated"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't.  Congress has to prescribe, well regulated, for the militia of the United States.
Click to expand...


???? Dear danielpalos
No, the Bill of Rights did not come from the Congressional level.
The Second Amendment was part of the Bill of Rights that was
added as a condition to get certain states to agree to ratify the
Constitution. So while all the States and their reps had a say in
how the 2nd and other Amendments were written in order to go
through the national process of being added to the Constitution,
the whole spirit and point of the CONTENTS of the Bill of Rights
is to define INDIVIDUAL rights that belong to STATES and PEOPLE
NOT TO FEDERAL GOVT WHICH IS ALREADY DEFINED IN THE CONSTITUTION PROPER.

I see you don't get the very spirit and purpose for the Bill of Rights.

I feel sorry for you and anyone who has to argue or try to explain this to you.

It is as difficult as trying to explain why God and Jesus are universally
important to humanity, while dealing with an atheist who doesn't see or experience what these things mean.

Not your fault, I just feel bad that this has created such ill will and distrust
when it really is a matter of people's individual beliefs. Similar to how people can't help identifying as gay or straight, transgender or cis whatever.

If you just don't believe in individual people having that right, but only states or in your case you believe federal govt is the regulating authority,
then that's your belief.  I can respect that, but strongly urge you to do the same and respect the beliefs of others, without demeaning namecalling and insults, if you expect to be taken seriously either!

The natural law that  you cannot argue exists regardless of legal system or religion is the Natural Law of Reciprocity or the Golden Rule.

danielpalos if you want others to respect you
take you seriously and include and protect YOUR views beliefs
and arguments, then if you treat them with that same
respect and inclusion, people tend to reciprocate.

If you seek to abuse govt to abridge prohibit exclude DISPARAGE
or otherwise Discriminate against others of different or opposing beliefs,
guess what? They become defensive of their rights and will do the 
same to you as a defense mechanism.

this is human nature. that's what is meant by natural laws.
We operate that way by Conscience, by our naturally born free will.

So whenever you or I or anyone, especially a religious or political group, threatens to control, change, or regulate the beliefs or will of another person or group, that person or group will respond exactly as you and I would do,
and defend that position.

So the Golden Rule applies. If you want to reach a respectable solution that accommodates your views, it is just common sense and practical wisdom
to accommodate the views of others, and to respect their consent and beliefs, as you want your own beliefs and consent to be respected!

The Golden Rule of reciprocity appears in every major religion.
Ironically the worst place where I see it omitted or even negated
is in Constitutional laws, where people teach a separation of people
from govt to the point where we do not teach people to enforce the same rules for govt that we want for ourselves. We keep teaching that the responsibilities for law lie with govt and give more power there than to the people. So you wonder why people aren't equal. The ones with a chance at equality are the people taught to empower themselves with equal authority as anyone else either inside or outside a position of authority. We all have a right to petition until grievances are redressed so that we share equal voice in decisions on any level that we wish to participate and take responsibility.
As individuals, we have that, but not as govt where govt is limited between state, federal or local jurisdiction. So the people always have more power than the govt because we aren't limited to just one branch or one level.

What is missing is learning to treat others and respect the rights of others as we would want enforced for ourselves. The Constitution doesn't come out and say that, we have to figure that part out for ourselves. 

Again it's a natural law, that what we do unto others comes back to us.
Whether you call this reaping what you sow, the laws of karma or cause and effect, the laws of justice and peace.  The Bill of Rights defines and protects the TOOLS we need from free speech and press, right to petition and due process; but doesn't require in writing that the people follow the laws if they want to invoke them.  Again that is already inherent in the natural laws that people invoke without relying on any religion or set of laws to do it. That naturally occurs, and we live by these natural laws every day, in all relations. What we give is what we get.  We attract the very reactions that we instigate with our own actions.  

If you can understand the Golden Rule, then we have a chance to work with all people of all beliefs, and teach respect for contrasting beliefs while we work toward a solution that includes these respectively, so that none need to suffer compromise or threat to trounce on them.

We'd have to work on a local and state level, and I think by working with the NRA on training and screening procedures per police force or per military or state entity, we can do the equivalent of "well regulated militia" on a state local or national level, while respecting the consent of the people REGARDLESS OF THEIR BELIEFS, including the diehards who don't believe in either federal or state authority regulating arms. We can still work with those extremes of the spectrum if we can work with the extreme that you believe in that federal govt or Congress is the authority on this.

I know many more people who would only agree and barely agree if it was the local people deciding for themselves what procedures or policies would be used to ensure arms aren't abused for criminal intent or purposes. And they tend to be very big on not depriving rights without due process to prove that someone shouldn't have access to guns. So there is that extreme that those people have equal right to as you do to your beliefs.

Are you okay with this concept that given the contrasting political beliefs,
a solution should be crafted that accommodates people of all beliefs equally?

Do you agree with the spirit of the contract that in order to respect and include your arguments beliefs and interpretations, the same should be
afforded to other citizens like you who aren't trying to abuse such rights and protections to commit or enable abuse of laws or authority to infringe on the same of anyone else, but to defend the laws for all people agreeing on this purpose?

Thanks danielpalos
and CC also to frigidweirdo
If you both and I can agree on an approach of equal inclusion
I would be happy to work with you on a task force to address
the NRA and state governors on agreed approaches that
don't violate or impose on anyone's beliefs regardless how
diverse or conflicting. We can work around these state by state,
district by district, and agency by agnecy where each local
jurisdiction can agree and participate in forming their own policies
to ensure safety whie respecting the rights and beliefs of all people
under that jurisdiction, even where their beliefs are in the same conflict
that we are finding here. We must still work together on equal inclusion
if we are going to fulfill the standards and purpose of Constitutional laws protecting the rights of people and states from infringement, no matter how we frame or define these, based on our respective beliefs and arguments.

Thank you!


----------



## emilynghiem

frigidweirdo said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> lets cut the crap. do you believe the founders intended that the federal government have any gun control powers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's not a simple answer is it?
> 
> Firstly the US Constitution has the power to be Amendment. So.... from that point the Founders left open the possibility that the Constitution could be changed.
> 
> Secondly, the right to KEEP arms protects individuals to own arms. It doesn't protect them to own ALL arms and has generally been interpreted to mean "militia type" weapons or weapons useful for the militia.
> 
> However in the modern day the US militia (National Guard) has a lot of high tech weaponry that people don't think would be a good idea in the hands of individuals. What are people going to do with field artillery? Well in war against the US govt, I have no doubt it would be useful. So, why don't individuals have such weaponry?
> 
> The Founders lived in a time where weaponry was similar between Armed Forces weaponry and hunting weaponry. The modern era has changed at a lot.
> 
> Do you think the NRA supports "the right" of people to have field artillery and F-16s? No, they don't fight for this.They fight for handguns and perhaps other guns, but mostly guns.
> 
> What the Second Amendment protects is the right of individuals to own weapons. However the 2A doesn't prevent the US govt from banning certain types of weaponry, as long as individual can get their hands on weaponry that is not too expensive, then the right isn't being infringed upon.
> 
> But I asked a question about the right to BEAR arms. This is the right to KEEP arms.
> 
> Funny how you've moved it back into your comfort zone.
> 
> I answered your question, are you going to answer mine? It's been like a week and you've refused to answer.
> 
> Mr Gerry said that "bear arms" was "militia duty", Mr Jackson said it was "render military service". Mr Washington used the term synonymously with "render military service". The draft versions of the Second Amendment flitted between "bear arms" and "render military service" for their last clause which was removed from the Amendment because the Founding Fathers had a problem with it. Some of them, like Mr Jackson called for those who wouldn't bear arms to pay an equivalent. Why would govt require people to pay an equivalent for not carrying guns around?
> The Supreme Court in Presser said that parading with guns was NOT protected by either the right to keep arms or the right to bear arms. The Heller case affirmed the Presser case.
> 
> All you have is a Supreme Court case that basically says that the Second Amendment only applies to the Federal government (though things have basically changed recently on this count, to include state governments) which means if I take your gun away, I am NOT infringing on your right to keep or bear arms.
> 
> That's all you have.
> 
> I have loads. You have nothing.
> 
> So my question is, what did Mr Gerry mean when he said:
> 
> "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head." in relation to the clause that said: "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> Do you think Mr Gerry was talking about "bear arms" to mean "carry arms" or "militia duty"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> complete fail-its not about what the people can do its what the government can do and where was the government given ANY power to regulate what arms you could
> 
> KEEP
> BEAR
> OWN
> MAKE
> BUY
> USE
> BARTER
> TRADE
> SELL
> GIFT
> CARRY
> etc
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say it wasn't.
> 
> The Constitution is about the powers of the US Federal government.
> 
> The Bill of Rights is about the limits of power on the US Federal govt.
> 
> So what?
> 
> So it means that the US Federal govt cannot infringe on the right of people to bear arms.
> 
> So what does "bear arms" mean?
> 
> It means "render military service" and "militia duty".
> 
> I've proven this.
> 
> Whether individuals can carry weapons is not an issue of the Second Amendment. I don't need a Constitutional right to be able to do something. However we're talking about what the US govt is specifically unable to do due to the SECOND AMENDMENT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't agree with you on the meaning of "bear" as it applies to the 2nd, but at least you are making sense, or making a legitimate argument.  I appreciate that.
> 
> 
> I think "bear" means to carry.  I think Congress has acted improperly for decades, given the 2nd, 9th, and 10th Amendments.
> 
> State and local governments had the authority to limilt time, place, and manner of carrying arms.  _Cruikshank _made that clear._  Presser _held that the 2A is an individual right, not a militia right, holding a law or action by local governments preventing militias from marching the streets with guns was not an infringement od this individual right.  States also had the authority to limit the type of arms one could keep.  But, now that is questionable, given the "privileges and immunities" clause of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> The SCOTUS has allowed Congressional overreach, refusing to directly address the relationship between Amendments 2, 9, 10, and 14, as they relate to Congressional authority to regulate firearms., or at least I have not seen such a decision, with my limited study on The Court's decisions on the topic,.  _Cruikshank _came close, but they were deciding whether to uphold the convictions of Klansmen under the Enforcement Act of 1870.  The Court overturned those convictions, holding that the 14th Amendment applies to States, not individuals, and that the 2nd only limits Congress.  But, I am always open to a discussion on SCOTUS opinions.
> 
> The question I have about your interpretation of "bear" arms goes to intent.  Why would the founders feel compelled to preserve the right to take up arms in a militia or render military service.  That was not a right, but a duty.
> 
> Which interpretation makes more sense?
> 
> The right of the people to keep arms and (the duty) render military service shall not be infringed, or the right to keep and carry arms?
> 
> There is no ambiguity.  Attaching a "military service" interpreataion to "bear" goes against the plain meaning of the text in the Amendment.  The word "bear" in this context means to carry.  They may have used the word in the context of military service, but that use also meant to carry, or to take up arms.  I could see your interpretation working in the context od the right to take up arms as needed, for whatever ligitimate purpose, but that would also be a stretch, give the attitudes and practices of the day, where packing a pistol was as common as carrying a wallet and mobile phone is today.
> 
> If the intended meaning of the word "bear" means military service, and not to carry on one's person, why would the founders limit Congrass on the right to keep arms, but leave Congress with the authority to prevent individuals from waling around armed, which was a very common practice at the time?  That angle makes no sense.
> 
> Nor does the interpretation that the phrase "keep amd carry" has a singular legal meaning, like "sell and convey" or "null and void" when there is no precident for such an interpretation, and when doing so renders the 2nd or Art. 1, Sec. 8 meaningless, ineffective, or redundant.
> 
> I think we can all agree that the 2nd preserves the individual right by excluding Congress from any arms regulation, given both the _Presser_ and  _Cruikshank _decisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I get that a lot of people "don't agree".
> 
> However the point is they don't WANT to agree. You can present all the evidence in the world, but people like this will always reject what isn't convenient.
> 
> Okay. Your first point is that "bear" means "carry". It does. But it also means to have a child among other things.
> 
> My point here is that context is important. I've used the word "stool" as a perfect example. It means a shit and it means a wooden backless seat.
> 
> "The doctor asked him to sit on the stool", you use context to imply that it means the wooden backless seat rather than the shit, wouldn't you say?
> 
> The context of the "bear arms" is the Amendment starts with "A well regulated militia" and what does people carrying arms around in the streets have to do with the militia?
> 
> In the past the 2A was ONLY a limit of the Federal government. The Supreme Court hardly ever got cases for incorporation. But now that has changed.
> 
> The Inevitable Incorporation of the Second Amendment.
> 
> This article from 2010 shows this.
> 
> Okay you say "Why would the founders feel compelled to preserve the right to take up arms in a militia or render military service. That was not a right, but a duty."
> 
> It's actually easy to explain and logical.
> 
> I agree that it's a duty. If you read the debates in Congress which I have been using as my main source for my argument, you'll see they spoke about this quite a bit and wanted people to pay an equivalent. Why pay an equivalent for those who wouldn't walk around with guns? You'd literally be forcing people to be armed all the time. The Founding Fathers would never have done that. People didn't want that level of interference in their lives.
> 
> But here's the issue why they wanted to protect a duty.
> 
> The US Federal government could call up militia troops to federal duty.The feds had the power to arm the militia when in federal duty and also the power to DISARM the same people. It's in Article 1 Section 8.
> 
> But even easier than this:
> 
> The right to keep arms is the right of individuals to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply of weaponry that the feds couldn't touch.
> 
> The right to bear arms is the right of individuals to be in the militia so the militia has a ready supply of personnel to use the weapons.
> 
> Without personnel the militia is nothing. Without arms the militia is nothing. They go hand in hand.
> 
> Now, ask yourself this question. What purpose does making a right to carry guns around give? It doesn't. It doesn't protect the militia, it doesn't help the militia.
> 
> Many things could have been protected in the Bill of Rights, but the reality was all of them had a purpose. Now you're trying to say the right to bear arms has not purpose other than because individuals want to. Then why didn't they protect the right to drink water? The right to breathe air? So many things that serve no purpose.
> 
> Imagine this. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the free state, the right of the people to drink water and breathe air shall not be infringed."
> 
> Everyone would think the Founding Fathers were smoking some heavy shit. It makes not sense. And it makes no sense to have "the right of the people to keep arms and to walk around town with their gun stuck down their pants".
> 
> 
> 
> No only does your argument make no sense, but you've also failed to back it up with a single document. On the other hand I have PROOF, I mean, unless you're willing to stick your head up your ass, you can't deny what is said in the document I provided.
> 
> "bear arms" is used synonymously with "render military service" and "militia duty" and is NOT used synonymously with "walk around with guns." It's that simple.
Click to expand...


Dear frigidweirdo
1. Wantingn or not wanting to agree is not a condition required by law to defend the right of equal protection of beliefs and due process to defend them from infringement
2. However, you are indirectly referring to natural laws, that by nature of social relations between humans, if you are not looking to resolve conflicts but to reject, by nature, people will tend to reject you and not seek to resolve things either. If you don't have faith that an agreement can be reached, it's that much harder to convince anyone else to have faith.
So the conflict and rejection goes in circles. By natural law, people don't want to be forced to change by an outside party or influence, especially a hostile competing one! That is part of natural law, so yes it affects the process.
3. Please see msg above to DP. I believe you and I and possibly DP care enough about this issue to start an initiative to address these conflicts and propose solutions that would allow freedom for people of all views or arguments to reach agreement on local levels. The point would be to resolve and redress grievances so there can be agreement that the policies in place would PREVENT the abuses and violations feared as putting people at risk, but would NOT violate or impose on either beliefs that federal state or other govt does or does not have authority to regulate firearms, or any variation of those beliefs on either side, for or against.

As for people who refuse to agree or have no faith, they will probably participate as objectors voting on the proposals yay or nay, but not actively pursuing the conflict resolution and working through the objections to find better alternatives that don't get a nay.  People play different roles, and some just want to play the judge that rules yes or no, and have no interest or ability to do the work to reach a mutually agreed solution that doesn't compromise the consent of anyone affected by that policy decision.

As long as people have their role in the process, they will not feel left out.
We just don't all play the same roles, and can't get discouraged or judge each other for that. We just have to make sure the naysayers who play that role don't block up the conflict resolution process for the ones earnestly trying to work through objections and find ways around those.

I've seen this consensus process fail when the Greens tried to facilitate meetings for Occupy, so the key I learned is to keep the objectors and their role separate from the facilitators. There has to be agreement to resolve the reasons for objections, but that doesn't always come from the objectors themselves.  It's like separating the judicial from the legislative process. This same separation of powers happens among people trying to form a group decision.  There are ways to manage the different roles, so it doesn't obstruct the democratic process of redressing grievances and arriving at an agreement on law and contract decisions among a diverse group. it just takes careful facilitation to include all people of diverse beliefs and roles.

Better to start small, show how this can work, and then present it as a model to a larger group and encourage others to replicate the same process.

Each group may arrive at a different decision because of the makeup of the people that decision represents. But it is important to teach inclusion of beliefs, as well as the approach to conflict that varies as well, as you point out. Thank you FW and I hope we can work together to create a model for this

See other msg that I should have addressed to you as well.
Yours truly, Emily


----------



## danielpalos

emilynghiem said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia had to muster.  Only the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What did "well regulated" mean back then?  You have already been shown what it meant, so how are you going to twist that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated means whatever Congress says it means; only the right wing appeals to ignorance of the law and claim they are for the, "gospel Truth".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it means whatever the DICTIONARY says it means.  That's why dictionary's get written.  Here is the original meaning of the phrase, that has already been shown to you, and which you continue to ignore.
> 
> 
> The following are taken from the _*Oxford English Dictionary*_, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
> 
> 1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us *well-regulated* Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
> 
> 1714: "The practice of all *well-regulated* courts of justice in the world."
> 
> 1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a *well-regulated* clock and a true sun dial."
> 
> 1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every *well-regulated* person will blame the Mayor."
> 
> 1862: "It appeared to her *well-regulated* mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
> 
> 1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every *well-regulated* American embryo city."
> 
> The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
> 
> Meaning of the phrase "well-regulated"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't.  Congress has to prescribe, well regulated, for the militia of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ???? Dear danielpalos
> No, the Bill of Rights did not come from the Congressional level.
> The Second Amendment was part of the Bill of Rights that was
> added as a condition to get certain states to agree to ratify the
> Constitution. So while all the States and their reps had a say in
> how the 2nd and other Amendments were written in order to go
> through the national process of being added to the Constitution,
> the whole spirit and point of the CONTENTS of the Bill of Rights
> is to define INDIVIDUAL rights that belong to STATES and PEOPLE
> NOT TO FEDERAL GOVT WHICH IS ALREADY DEFINED IN THE CONSTITUTION PROPER.
> 
> I see you don't get the very spirit and purpose for the Bill of Rights.
> 
> I feel sorry for you and anyone who has to argue or try to explain this to you.
> 
> It is as difficult as trying to explain why God and Jesus are universally
> important to humanity, while dealing with an atheist who doesn't see or experience what these things mean.
> 
> Not your fault, I just feel bad that this has created such ill will and distrust
> when it really is a matter of people's individual beliefs. Similar to how people can't help identifying as gay or straight, transgender or cis whatever.
> 
> If you just don't believe in individual people having that right, but only states or in your case you believe federal govt is the regulating authority,
> then that's your belief.  I can respect that, but strongly urge you to do the same and respect the beliefs of others, without demeaning namecalling and insults, if you expect to be taken seriously either!
> 
> The natural law that  you cannot argue exists regardless of legal system or religion is the Natural Law of Reciprocity or the Golden Rule.
> 
> danielpalos if you want others to respect you
> take you seriously and include and protect YOUR views beliefs
> and arguments, then if you treat them with that same
> respect and inclusion, people tend to reciprocate.
> 
> If you seek to abuse govt to abridge prohibit exclude DISPARAGE
> or otherwise Discriminate against others of different or opposing beliefs,
> guess what? They become defensive of their rights and will do the
> same to you as a defense mechanism.
> 
> this is human nature. that's what is meant by natural laws.
> We operate that way by Conscience, by our naturally born free will.
> 
> So whenever you or I or anyone, especially a religious or political group, threatens to control, change, or regulate the beliefs or will of another person or group, that person or group will respond exactly as you and I would do,
> and defend that position.
> 
> So the Golden Rule applies. If you want to reach a respectable solution that accommodates your views, it is just common sense and practical wisdom
> to accommodate the views of others, and to respect their consent and beliefs, as you want your own beliefs and consent to be respected!
> 
> The Golden Rule of reciprocity appears in every major religion.
> Ironically the worst place where I see it omitted or even negated
> is in Constitutional laws, where people teach a separation of people
> from govt to the point where we do not teach people to enforce the same rules for govt that we want for ourselves. We keep teaching that the responsibilities for law lie with govt and give more power there than to the people. So you wonder why people aren't equal. The ones with a chance at equality are the people taught to empower themselves with equal authority as anyone else either inside or outside a position of authority. We all have a right to petition until grievances are redressed so that we share equal voice in decisions on any level that we wish to participate and take responsibility.
> As individuals, we have that, but not as govt where govt is limited between state, federal or local jurisdiction. So the people always have more power than the govt because we aren't limited to just one branch or one level.
> 
> What is missing is learning to treat others and respect the rights of others as we would want enforced for ourselves. The Constitution doesn't come out and say that, we have to figure that part out for ourselves.
> 
> Again it's a natural law, that what we do unto others comes back to us.
> Whether you call this reaping what you sow, the laws of karma or cause and effect, the laws of justice and peace.  The Bill of Rights defines and protects the TOOLS we need from free speech and press, right to petition and due process; but doesn't require in writing that the people follow the laws if they want to invoke them.  Again that is already inherent in the natural laws that people invoke without relying on any religion or set of laws to do it. That naturally occurs, and we live by these natural laws every day, in all relations. What we give is what we get.  We attract the very reactions that we instigate with our own actions.
> 
> If you can understand the Golden Rule, then we have a chance to work with all people of all beliefs, and teach respect for contrasting beliefs while we work toward a solution that includes these respectively, so that none need to suffer compromise or threat to trounce on them.
> 
> We'd have to work on a local and state level, and I think by working with the NRA on training and screening procedures per police force or per military or state entity, we can do the equivalent of "well regulated militia" on a state local or national level, while respecting the consent of the people REGARDLESS OF THEIR BELIEFS, including the diehards who don't believe in either federal or state authority regulating arms. We can still work with those extremes of the spectrum if we can work with the extreme that you believe in that federal govt or Congress is the authority on this.
> 
> I know many more people who would only agree and barely agree if it was the local people deciding for themselves what procedures or policies would be used to ensure arms aren't abused for criminal intent or purposes. And they tend to be very big on not depriving rights without due process to prove that someone shouldn't have access to guns. So there is that extreme that those people have equal right to as you do to your beliefs.
> 
> Are you okay with this concept that given the contrasting political beliefs,
> a solution should be crafted that accommodates people of all beliefs equally?
> 
> Do you agree with the spirit of the contract that in order to respect and include your arguments beliefs and interpretations, the same should be
> afforded to other citizens like you who aren't trying to abuse such rights and protections to commit or enable abuse of laws or authority to infringe on the same of anyone else, but to defend the laws for all people agreeing on this purpose?
> 
> Thanks danielpalos
> and CC also to frigidweirdo
> If you both and I can agree on an approach of equal inclusion
> I would be happy to work with you on a task force to address
> the NRA and state governors on agreed approaches that
> don't violate or impose on anyone's beliefs regardless how
> diverse or conflicting. We can work around these state by state,
> district by district, and agency by agnecy where each local
> jurisdiction can agree and participate in forming their own policies
> to ensure safety whie respecting the rights and beliefs of all people
> under that jurisdiction, even where their beliefs are in the same conflict
> that we are finding here. We must still work together on equal inclusion
> if we are going to fulfill the standards and purpose of Constitutional laws protecting the rights of people and states from infringement, no matter how we frame or define these, based on our respective beliefs and arguments.
> 
> Thank you!
Click to expand...

dear, you don't know what you are talking about.  Congress must prescribe, "wellness of regulation" for the Militia of the United States.

Only the clueless and the Causeless gainsay that contention.


----------



## emilynghiem

danielpalos said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> I refer you to the aforementioned US V MILLER case, who's entire ruling I have provided for you that refutes your statement point by point and IS a Supreme Court judgement.
> 
> 
> 
> That ruling was in error; must have been, right wingers involved.
> 
> The People are the Militia; You are either well regulated or unorganized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both the House, the Senate, and the POTUS were solid left wingers.  The Court was evenly split.  As usual you are factually wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You must be on the right wing.  How can I be factually wrong, by stating that the People are the Militia; you are either well regulated or you are not.
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the People are declared necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when is your programmer going to fix your chip?  your English is irregular and makes no sense
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who cares; y'all have, nothing but repeal, anyway.
Click to expand...


Dear danielpalos
Not true. the GOP has been arguing for VA reform and that's another way
to reform health care starting with govt programs and expanding to serve
the greater population.

The Democrats keep demanding to ban executions.
Do you think they have a plan in place to replace that with?
No. The option of life imprisonment puts guards at risk by inmates
who have no reason left not to kill or cause further problems since
they already would have the maximum.

there needs to be the option of something else such as deportation
and exchange with prisons developed with Mexico to "exchange"
law abiding immigrants with people who commit capital crimes.
That's one suggestion I've proposed.

I believe Democrats can also come up with better plans than
the mandates argued as unconstitutional.

What I propose is Democrats work on prison reforms
and transforming those facilities and resources toward
sustainable health care not just for inmates but the greater population.

and GOP can invest their taxes for health care into VA reform
and focus there before expanding to provide services for
other elderly disabled and people in need "in addition" to veterans
which would have first priority.

How does this apply to the OP on gun regulations:
1. the same concept of RESPECTING both political beliefs
would solve this health care problem as it would the divide over gun control
let people of separate political beliefs pursue their own solutions for
their collective membership and not interfere with people of other beliefs.
allow both to separate their beliefs, and fund the policies they believe in 

2. the same solution of spiritual healing that can cure medical and physical conditions also helps in diagnosing treating managing or curing
criminal illness abuse and addictive disorders
that are the problem with policing guns to keep them out of 
the hands of dangerous people that haven't committed crimes yet
or those who have abuses on record but aren't being properly screened and barred

Because spiritual healing still requires voluntary participation and choice,
even in cases where it has been studied and documented medically,
this cannot be legislated on a federal level. Perhaps the funding of researh
and development medically can be orchestrated through federal or state govt,
such as an alternative to funding stem cell or marijuana research that is equaly contested as biased, but the choice of implementing endorsing or participating
in such therapy would only work as a free choice. Even the spiritual healing practioners and teachers who train people in teams will attest it only works by free choice to accept and ask help for forgiveness as the key factor in order for the healing to work.

3. further note: the same spiritual healing process also would affect the relationsihps externally between the political forces competing over policy. So it has an outward effect as well, not only just internally on the issue of cost-effective means of reducing the burden of health care and addressing the mental illness screening with gun policies and criminal prevention.


----------



## danielpalos

emilynghiem said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> That ruling was in error; must have been, right wingers involved.
> 
> The People are the Militia; You are either well regulated or unorganized.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both the House, the Senate, and the POTUS were solid left wingers.  The Court was evenly split.  As usual you are factually wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You must be on the right wing.  How can I be factually wrong, by stating that the People are the Militia; you are either well regulated or you are not.
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the People are declared necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when is your programmer going to fix your chip?  your English is irregular and makes no sense
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who cares; y'all have, nothing but repeal, anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear danielpalos
> Not true. the GOP has been arguing for VA reform and that's another way
> to reform health care starting with govt programs and expanding to serve
> the greater population.
> 
> The Democrats keep demanding to ban executions.
> Do you think they have a plan in place to replace that with?
> No. The option of life imprisonment puts guards at risk by inmates
> who have no reason left not to kill or cause further problems since
> they already would have the maximum.
> 
> there needs to be the option of something else such as deportation
> and exchange with prisons developed with Mexico to "exchange"
> law abiding immigrants with people who commit capital crimes.
> That's one suggestion I've proposed.
> 
> I believe Democrats can also come up with better plans than
> the mandates argued as unconstitutional.
> 
> What I propose is Democrats work on prison reforms
> and transforming those facilities and resources toward
> sustainable health care not just for inmates but the greater population.
> 
> and GOP can invest their taxes for health care into VA reform
> and focus there before expanding to provide services for
> other elderly disabled and people in need "in addition" to veterans
> which would have first priority.
> 
> How does this apply to the OP on gun regulations:
> 1. the same concept of RESPECTING both political beliefs
> would solve this health care problem as it would the divide over gun control
> let people of separate political beliefs pursue their own solutions for
> their collective membership and not interfere with people of other beliefs.
> allow both to separate their beliefs, and fund the policies they believe in
> 
> 2. the same solution of spiritual healing that can cure medical and physical conditions also helps in diagnosing treating managing or curing
> criminal illness abuse and addictive disorders
> that are the problem with policing guns to keep them out of
> the hands of dangerous people that haven't committed crimes yet
> or those who have abuses on record but aren't being properly screened and barred
> 
> Because spiritual healing still requires voluntary participation and choice,
> even in cases where it has been studied and documented medically,
> this cannot be legislated on a federal level. Perhaps the funding of researh
> and development medically can be orchestrated through federal or state govt,
> such as an alternative to funding stem cell or marijuana research that is equaly contested as biased, but the choice of implementing endorsing or participating
> in such therapy would only work as a free choice. Even the spiritual healing practioners and teachers who train people in teams will attest it only works by free choice to accept and ask help for forgiveness as the key factor in order for the healing to work.
> 
> 3. further note: the same spiritual healing process also would affect the relationsihps externally between the political forces competing over policy. So it has an outward effect as well, not only just internally on the issue of cost-effective means of reducing the burden of health care and addressing the mental illness screening with gun policies and criminal prevention.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant to this discussion.  maybe it should be in a health care thread.


----------



## hunarcy

frigidweirdo said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> *sigh*  Here is the context.  The wording of the Second Amendment does emphasize the importance of the militia, but the Right is reserved to the PEOPLE.  If they had wanted the right reserved only to the militia, they could have said the right of the militia to keep and bear arms...they'd already proven they can spell it.   The Second is not ABOUT the militia, it's about the right of the People.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh. What I find is that people on this forum often end up arguing what they're comfortable arguing with. They often decide what the other person is saying BEFORE they're bothered to read what the other person has said, and therefore don't need to read what the other person has said as they BELIEVE they know what has been said.
> 
> Yes, the Second Amendment emphasizes the importance of the militia. Why? Because the Amendment is ABOUT THE MILITIA.
> 
> You say the right is reserved to the people. Yet I wrote "The right to keep arms is the right of individuals" and "The right to bear arms is the right of individuals" and you're attacking me for saying it's not the right of individuals. Are you fucking serious?
> 
> 
> Here's the other deal, let's see if you bother to read this.
> 
> Each right in the US Bill of Rights is there for a reason. The reason is politics.
> 
> The First Amendment has the right to freedom of religion, right to protest and right of freedom of speech and the press. All of these are protected in the First Amendment because of their impact on politics.
> 
> Freedom of speech so you can talk about politics, freedom to protest so you can protest politicians, freedom of religion so there isn't a state religion.
> 
> Of course individuals can use their freedom of speech in other ways, there is no limit on the freedom of speech to just politics.
> 
> However in the Bill of Rights there is no protection of the right to walk. The right to breathe. The right to eat food. The right to play games. There are so many things NOT PROTECTED, and that's because they're not directly connected with politics. Hence the 10th Amendment.
> 
> The Second Amendment is about the militia. That's what it starts with "A well regulated militia..." It protects the militia by protecting individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's NOT about the militia.  It's about the Right of the People, or as you insist, the right of individuals, to keep and bear arms.  The dependent clause about the militia is just one justification for the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the first part is the justification for putting the protection of the right in the first place.
> 
> Now, you have an amendment which is in the US Constitution in order to protect the militia.
> 
> You have the Founding Fathers talking about the term "bear arms" to mean "render military service" and "militia duty".
> 
> You do NOT have the Founding Fathers talking about the term "bear arms" to mean carrying arms around.
> 
> You have the Supreme Court saying that the right to bear arms does not mean carrying arms around.
> 
> You do NOT have the Supreme Court saying the 2A protects carrying arms around.
> 
> So, which part makes you think "bear arms" means "carrying guns around"?
> 
> I'm confused at how people can take such evidence and then be like "nah, I don't like it, I'll ignore it ALL".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know you are just determined to change the subject, but since I haven't said a word about "carrying guns around", I'll just leave you to your fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right now I'm making the case that "bear arms" means "render military service" and "militia duty".
> 
> If you jump into someone else's conversation and then complain that you did not say something that is the debate, then that's your problem.
> 
> There appear, at this point, to be two argument.
> 
> The first is mine, backed up with sources from the Founding Fathers, the Supreme Court, you name it.
> 
> The second is that "bear arms" means carry arms.
> 
> The only evidence for this is that "bear" can mean "carry" therefore it MUST mean carry even though there are 5 different definitions for the term "bear" and that if you ignore all of my evidence, then there's no evidence to suggest that "bear arms" means carry arms.
> 
> Would you care to join this discussion or not?
Click to expand...


In that you ignorantly continue to insist that it's all about the military service, I have no interest in engaging your delusion.  

I will point out that the Miller decision was based on the idea that a sawed off shotgun was not standard military weaponry, which implies that standard military weaponry should be in the hands of the People.  That is why fully automatic weapons aren't banned.  Just taxed with a special tax.


----------



## emilynghiem

danielpalos said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> What did "well regulated" mean back then?  You have already been shown what it meant, so how are you going to twist that?
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated means whatever Congress says it means; only the right wing appeals to ignorance of the law and claim they are for the, "gospel Truth".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it means whatever the DICTIONARY says it means.  That's why dictionary's get written.  Here is the original meaning of the phrase, that has already been shown to you, and which you continue to ignore.
> 
> 
> The following are taken from the _*Oxford English Dictionary*_, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
> 
> 1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us *well-regulated* Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
> 
> 1714: "The practice of all *well-regulated* courts of justice in the world."
> 
> 1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a *well-regulated* clock and a true sun dial."
> 
> 1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every *well-regulated* person will blame the Mayor."
> 
> 1862: "It appeared to her *well-regulated* mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
> 
> 1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every *well-regulated* American embryo city."
> 
> The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
> 
> Meaning of the phrase "well-regulated"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't.  Congress has to prescribe, well regulated, for the militia of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ???? Dear danielpalos
> No, the Bill of Rights did not come from the Congressional level.
> The Second Amendment was part of the Bill of Rights that was
> added as a condition to get certain states to agree to ratify the
> Constitution. So while all the States and their reps had a say in
> how the 2nd and other Amendments were written in order to go
> through the national process of being added to the Constitution,
> the whole spirit and point of the CONTENTS of the Bill of Rights
> is to define INDIVIDUAL rights that belong to STATES and PEOPLE
> NOT TO FEDERAL GOVT WHICH IS ALREADY DEFINED IN THE CONSTITUTION PROPER.
> 
> I see you don't get the very spirit and purpose for the Bill of Rights.
> 
> I feel sorry for you and anyone who has to argue or try to explain this to you.
> 
> It is as difficult as trying to explain why God and Jesus are universally
> important to humanity, while dealing with an atheist who doesn't see or experience what these things mean.
> 
> Not your fault, I just feel bad that this has created such ill will and distrust
> when it really is a matter of people's individual beliefs. Similar to how people can't help identifying as gay or straight, transgender or cis whatever.
> 
> If you just don't believe in individual people having that right, but only states or in your case you believe federal govt is the regulating authority,
> then that's your belief.  I can respect that, but strongly urge you to do the same and respect the beliefs of others, without demeaning namecalling and insults, if you expect to be taken seriously either!
> 
> The natural law that  you cannot argue exists regardless of legal system or religion is the Natural Law of Reciprocity or the Golden Rule.
> 
> danielpalos if you want others to respect you
> take you seriously and include and protect YOUR views beliefs
> and arguments, then if you treat them with that same
> respect and inclusion, people tend to reciprocate.
> 
> If you seek to abuse govt to abridge prohibit exclude DISPARAGE
> or otherwise Discriminate against others of different or opposing beliefs,
> guess what? They become defensive of their rights and will do the
> same to you as a defense mechanism.
> 
> this is human nature. that's what is meant by natural laws.
> We operate that way by Conscience, by our naturally born free will.
> 
> So whenever you or I or anyone, especially a religious or political group, threatens to control, change, or regulate the beliefs or will of another person or group, that person or group will respond exactly as you and I would do,
> and defend that position.
> 
> So the Golden Rule applies. If you want to reach a respectable solution that accommodates your views, it is just common sense and practical wisdom
> to accommodate the views of others, and to respect their consent and beliefs, as you want your own beliefs and consent to be respected!
> 
> The Golden Rule of reciprocity appears in every major religion.
> Ironically the worst place where I see it omitted or even negated
> is in Constitutional laws, where people teach a separation of people
> from govt to the point where we do not teach people to enforce the same rules for govt that we want for ourselves. We keep teaching that the responsibilities for law lie with govt and give more power there than to the people. So you wonder why people aren't equal. The ones with a chance at equality are the people taught to empower themselves with equal authority as anyone else either inside or outside a position of authority. We all have a right to petition until grievances are redressed so that we share equal voice in decisions on any level that we wish to participate and take responsibility.
> As individuals, we have that, but not as govt where govt is limited between state, federal or local jurisdiction. So the people always have more power than the govt because we aren't limited to just one branch or one level.
> 
> What is missing is learning to treat others and respect the rights of others as we would want enforced for ourselves. The Constitution doesn't come out and say that, we have to figure that part out for ourselves.
> 
> Again it's a natural law, that what we do unto others comes back to us.
> Whether you call this reaping what you sow, the laws of karma or cause and effect, the laws of justice and peace.  The Bill of Rights defines and protects the TOOLS we need from free speech and press, right to petition and due process; but doesn't require in writing that the people follow the laws if they want to invoke them.  Again that is already inherent in the natural laws that people invoke without relying on any religion or set of laws to do it. That naturally occurs, and we live by these natural laws every day, in all relations. What we give is what we get.  We attract the very reactions that we instigate with our own actions.
> 
> If you can understand the Golden Rule, then we have a chance to work with all people of all beliefs, and teach respect for contrasting beliefs while we work toward a solution that includes these respectively, so that none need to suffer compromise or threat to trounce on them.
> 
> We'd have to work on a local and state level, and I think by working with the NRA on training and screening procedures per police force or per military or state entity, we can do the equivalent of "well regulated militia" on a state local or national level, while respecting the consent of the people REGARDLESS OF THEIR BELIEFS, including the diehards who don't believe in either federal or state authority regulating arms. We can still work with those extremes of the spectrum if we can work with the extreme that you believe in that federal govt or Congress is the authority on this.
> 
> I know many more people who would only agree and barely agree if it was the local people deciding for themselves what procedures or policies would be used to ensure arms aren't abused for criminal intent or purposes. And they tend to be very big on not depriving rights without due process to prove that someone shouldn't have access to guns. So there is that extreme that those people have equal right to as you do to your beliefs.
> 
> Are you okay with this concept that given the contrasting political beliefs,
> a solution should be crafted that accommodates people of all beliefs equally?
> 
> Do you agree with the spirit of the contract that in order to respect and include your arguments beliefs and interpretations, the same should be
> afforded to other citizens like you who aren't trying to abuse such rights and protections to commit or enable abuse of laws or authority to infringe on the same of anyone else, but to defend the laws for all people agreeing on this purpose?
> 
> Thanks danielpalos
> and CC also to frigidweirdo
> If you both and I can agree on an approach of equal inclusion
> I would be happy to work with you on a task force to address
> the NRA and state governors on agreed approaches that
> don't violate or impose on anyone's beliefs regardless how
> diverse or conflicting. We can work around these state by state,
> district by district, and agency by agnecy where each local
> jurisdiction can agree and participate in forming their own policies
> to ensure safety whie respecting the rights and beliefs of all people
> under that jurisdiction, even where their beliefs are in the same conflict
> that we are finding here. We must still work together on equal inclusion
> if we are going to fulfill the standards and purpose of Constitutional laws protecting the rights of people and states from infringement, no matter how we frame or define these, based on our respective beliefs and arguments.
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, you don't know what you are talking about.  Congress must prescribe, "wellness of regulation" for the Militia of the United States.
> 
> Only the clueless and the Causeless gainsay that contention.
Click to expand...


No danielpalos sorry
the local police, the state rangers and other such entities
have their own local rules. These can't be "in conflict"
with the Constitution as previously cited above (see Bootney Lee Farnsworth 
verbatim citations with emphasis added to show where these apply to federal
The Right To Bear Arms)
but that doesn't mean the federal regulates them from the top down.

I guess you are one of those people who does not
make a distinction between state and federal govt.

If the feds were in charge of all the things the states
can do locally, we'd be in a bigger mess than we are now.

The feds cannot handle the demand over three states plus PR
over hurricane disaster relief affecting indivudals and businesses.
The demand is too great, and has to be allocated to the states.

Or the people would not get any help waiting in one long line
for federal employees to manage all those decisions.

Same with health care. Same with crime and gun controls.

None of the people or state level agencies shoudl be in the
business of "violating" or conflicting with Constitutional and
national laws But that's NOT the same as federal govt 
regulating them!

I find it ironic danielpalos that you argue for your position.
but if it were TRULY the federal govt in charge of regulations,
and if the opposite viewpoint were the one the federal govt took,
then YOUR VIEWPOINT could be ruled as being in violation
of the Constitutional laws and their intent.

so just be glad that isn't how it works.

Of course people and states have the right to regulate themselves
as long as it doesn't violate equal Constitutional protections of others.

So far no states or federal govt has passed any law making it illegal
for people of your belief to influence the regulations on guns.

But if you argue that the federal govt would have a right to regulate 
for the states, then that could mean taking away your right to influence
such legislation as part of federal regulations!

you think that wouldn't happen? What do you think happened when Obama and Congress passed and signed the health care mandates FINING people with PENALTIES who didn't have the right to contest or vote on that change in law. The belief that federal govt could regulate health care to that extent was imposed
on everyone else under penalty of law, masked as a tax bill when it wasn't passed and voted on in Congress as a tax bill or the vote would have failed. it was passed as  a health bill where that interpretation failed in court.

if you believe in federal govt legislating and regulating to this extent, with no distinction from state govt that represents the local populations separately from the other states doing the same,
then I would argue for your right to be under that if you believe in it.

But that does not give you the right to impose this belief
on others who separate state jurisdiction from federal.
Govt on all levels should still respect Constitutional laws for all people.
But that's not the same as federal regulations from the top down
being inseparable from state jurisdiction.

I'm sorry you don't make this distinction.

It's ironic to me that imposing your beliefs on everyone else
would in itself be a violation of the Constitution
were it not for the SEPARATION of the levels
of federal, state and people. So just by the fact you can make
your argument and have the freedom to do so, comes from the
very separation of authority that allows people and states that freedom.


----------



## emilynghiem

danielpalos said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both the House, the Senate, and the POTUS were solid left wingers.  The Court was evenly split.  As usual you are factually wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> You must be on the right wing.  How can I be factually wrong, by stating that the People are the Militia; you are either well regulated or you are not.
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the People are declared necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when is your programmer going to fix your chip?  your English is irregular and makes no sense
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who cares; y'all have, nothing but repeal, anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear danielpalos
> Not true. the GOP has been arguing for VA reform and that's another way
> to reform health care starting with govt programs and expanding to serve
> the greater population.
> 
> The Democrats keep demanding to ban executions.
> Do you think they have a plan in place to replace that with?
> No. The option of life imprisonment puts guards at risk by inmates
> who have no reason left not to kill or cause further problems since
> they already would have the maximum.
> 
> there needs to be the option of something else such as deportation
> and exchange with prisons developed with Mexico to "exchange"
> law abiding immigrants with people who commit capital crimes.
> That's one suggestion I've proposed.
> 
> I believe Democrats can also come up with better plans than
> the mandates argued as unconstitutional.
> 
> What I propose is Democrats work on prison reforms
> and transforming those facilities and resources toward
> sustainable health care not just for inmates but the greater population.
> 
> and GOP can invest their taxes for health care into VA reform
> and focus there before expanding to provide services for
> other elderly disabled and people in need "in addition" to veterans
> which would have first priority.
> 
> How does this apply to the OP on gun regulations:
> 1. the same concept of RESPECTING both political beliefs
> would solve this health care problem as it would the divide over gun control
> let people of separate political beliefs pursue their own solutions for
> their collective membership and not interfere with people of other beliefs.
> allow both to separate their beliefs, and fund the policies they believe in
> 
> 2. the same solution of spiritual healing that can cure medical and physical conditions also helps in diagnosing treating managing or curing
> criminal illness abuse and addictive disorders
> that are the problem with policing guns to keep them out of
> the hands of dangerous people that haven't committed crimes yet
> or those who have abuses on record but aren't being properly screened and barred
> 
> Because spiritual healing still requires voluntary participation and choice,
> even in cases where it has been studied and documented medically,
> this cannot be legislated on a federal level. Perhaps the funding of researh
> and development medically can be orchestrated through federal or state govt,
> such as an alternative to funding stem cell or marijuana research that is equaly contested as biased, but the choice of implementing endorsing or participating
> in such therapy would only work as a free choice. Even the spiritual healing practioners and teachers who train people in teams will attest it only works by free choice to accept and ask help for forgiveness as the key factor in order for the healing to work.
> 
> 3. further note: the same spiritual healing process also would affect the relationsihps externally between the political forces competing over policy. So it has an outward effect as well, not only just internally on the issue of cost-effective means of reducing the burden of health care and addressing the mental illness screening with gun policies and criminal prevention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant to this discussion.  maybe it should be in a health care thread.
Click to expand...


Dear danielpalos
How it applies is
1. it shows the same inability to separate state govt from federal
in both cases of health care and gun policies.
This shows it's an issue of political belief, independent of which issue
the belief is applied to.
2. the solution of using spiritual healing to address criminal abuses
for prevention of gun violence by proper screening
affects both gun policies and health care costs.

the reason this is KEY to gun policies: the solution to mental illness
can only be addressed LOCALLY. it cannot be regulated federally.
So that's a big factor in resolving issues of who regulates gun policies.
The solutions point to LOCAL jurisdiction. and yes this will affect health care as well.


----------



## danielpalos

emilynghiem said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated means whatever Congress says it means; only the right wing appeals to ignorance of the law and claim they are for the, "gospel Truth".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it means whatever the DICTIONARY says it means.  That's why dictionary's get written.  Here is the original meaning of the phrase, that has already been shown to you, and which you continue to ignore.
> 
> 
> The following are taken from the _*Oxford English Dictionary*_, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
> 
> 1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us *well-regulated* Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
> 
> 1714: "The practice of all *well-regulated* courts of justice in the world."
> 
> 1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a *well-regulated* clock and a true sun dial."
> 
> 1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every *well-regulated* person will blame the Mayor."
> 
> 1862: "It appeared to her *well-regulated* mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
> 
> 1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every *well-regulated* American embryo city."
> 
> The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
> 
> Meaning of the phrase "well-regulated"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't.  Congress has to prescribe, well regulated, for the militia of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ???? Dear danielpalos
> No, the Bill of Rights did not come from the Congressional level.
> The Second Amendment was part of the Bill of Rights that was
> added as a condition to get certain states to agree to ratify the
> Constitution. So while all the States and their reps had a say in
> how the 2nd and other Amendments were written in order to go
> through the national process of being added to the Constitution,
> the whole spirit and point of the CONTENTS of the Bill of Rights
> is to define INDIVIDUAL rights that belong to STATES and PEOPLE
> NOT TO FEDERAL GOVT WHICH IS ALREADY DEFINED IN THE CONSTITUTION PROPER.
> 
> I see you don't get the very spirit and purpose for the Bill of Rights.
> 
> I feel sorry for you and anyone who has to argue or try to explain this to you.
> 
> It is as difficult as trying to explain why God and Jesus are universally
> important to humanity, while dealing with an atheist who doesn't see or experience what these things mean.
> 
> Not your fault, I just feel bad that this has created such ill will and distrust
> when it really is a matter of people's individual beliefs. Similar to how people can't help identifying as gay or straight, transgender or cis whatever.
> 
> If you just don't believe in individual people having that right, but only states or in your case you believe federal govt is the regulating authority,
> then that's your belief.  I can respect that, but strongly urge you to do the same and respect the beliefs of others, without demeaning namecalling and insults, if you expect to be taken seriously either!
> 
> The natural law that  you cannot argue exists regardless of legal system or religion is the Natural Law of Reciprocity or the Golden Rule.
> 
> danielpalos if you want others to respect you
> take you seriously and include and protect YOUR views beliefs
> and arguments, then if you treat them with that same
> respect and inclusion, people tend to reciprocate.
> 
> If you seek to abuse govt to abridge prohibit exclude DISPARAGE
> or otherwise Discriminate against others of different or opposing beliefs,
> guess what? They become defensive of their rights and will do the
> same to you as a defense mechanism.
> 
> this is human nature. that's what is meant by natural laws.
> We operate that way by Conscience, by our naturally born free will.
> 
> So whenever you or I or anyone, especially a religious or political group, threatens to control, change, or regulate the beliefs or will of another person or group, that person or group will respond exactly as you and I would do,
> and defend that position.
> 
> So the Golden Rule applies. If you want to reach a respectable solution that accommodates your views, it is just common sense and practical wisdom
> to accommodate the views of others, and to respect their consent and beliefs, as you want your own beliefs and consent to be respected!
> 
> The Golden Rule of reciprocity appears in every major religion.
> Ironically the worst place where I see it omitted or even negated
> is in Constitutional laws, where people teach a separation of people
> from govt to the point where we do not teach people to enforce the same rules for govt that we want for ourselves. We keep teaching that the responsibilities for law lie with govt and give more power there than to the people. So you wonder why people aren't equal. The ones with a chance at equality are the people taught to empower themselves with equal authority as anyone else either inside or outside a position of authority. We all have a right to petition until grievances are redressed so that we share equal voice in decisions on any level that we wish to participate and take responsibility.
> As individuals, we have that, but not as govt where govt is limited between state, federal or local jurisdiction. So the people always have more power than the govt because we aren't limited to just one branch or one level.
> 
> What is missing is learning to treat others and respect the rights of others as we would want enforced for ourselves. The Constitution doesn't come out and say that, we have to figure that part out for ourselves.
> 
> Again it's a natural law, that what we do unto others comes back to us.
> Whether you call this reaping what you sow, the laws of karma or cause and effect, the laws of justice and peace.  The Bill of Rights defines and protects the TOOLS we need from free speech and press, right to petition and due process; but doesn't require in writing that the people follow the laws if they want to invoke them.  Again that is already inherent in the natural laws that people invoke without relying on any religion or set of laws to do it. That naturally occurs, and we live by these natural laws every day, in all relations. What we give is what we get.  We attract the very reactions that we instigate with our own actions.
> 
> If you can understand the Golden Rule, then we have a chance to work with all people of all beliefs, and teach respect for contrasting beliefs while we work toward a solution that includes these respectively, so that none need to suffer compromise or threat to trounce on them.
> 
> We'd have to work on a local and state level, and I think by working with the NRA on training and screening procedures per police force or per military or state entity, we can do the equivalent of "well regulated militia" on a state local or national level, while respecting the consent of the people REGARDLESS OF THEIR BELIEFS, including the diehards who don't believe in either federal or state authority regulating arms. We can still work with those extremes of the spectrum if we can work with the extreme that you believe in that federal govt or Congress is the authority on this.
> 
> I know many more people who would only agree and barely agree if it was the local people deciding for themselves what procedures or policies would be used to ensure arms aren't abused for criminal intent or purposes. And they tend to be very big on not depriving rights without due process to prove that someone shouldn't have access to guns. So there is that extreme that those people have equal right to as you do to your beliefs.
> 
> Are you okay with this concept that given the contrasting political beliefs,
> a solution should be crafted that accommodates people of all beliefs equally?
> 
> Do you agree with the spirit of the contract that in order to respect and include your arguments beliefs and interpretations, the same should be
> afforded to other citizens like you who aren't trying to abuse such rights and protections to commit or enable abuse of laws or authority to infringe on the same of anyone else, but to defend the laws for all people agreeing on this purpose?
> 
> Thanks danielpalos
> and CC also to frigidweirdo
> If you both and I can agree on an approach of equal inclusion
> I would be happy to work with you on a task force to address
> the NRA and state governors on agreed approaches that
> don't violate or impose on anyone's beliefs regardless how
> diverse or conflicting. We can work around these state by state,
> district by district, and agency by agnecy where each local
> jurisdiction can agree and participate in forming their own policies
> to ensure safety whie respecting the rights and beliefs of all people
> under that jurisdiction, even where their beliefs are in the same conflict
> that we are finding here. We must still work together on equal inclusion
> if we are going to fulfill the standards and purpose of Constitutional laws protecting the rights of people and states from infringement, no matter how we frame or define these, based on our respective beliefs and arguments.
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, you don't know what you are talking about.  Congress must prescribe, "wellness of regulation" for the Militia of the United States.
> 
> Only the clueless and the Causeless gainsay that contention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No danielpalos sorry
> the local police, the state rangers and other such entities
> have their own local rules. These can't be "in conflict"
> with the Constitution as previously cited above (see Bootney Lee Farnsworth
> verbatim citations with emphasis added to show where these apply to federal
> The Right To Bear Arms)
> but that doesn't mean the federal regulates them from the top down.
> 
> I guess you are one of those people who does not
> make a distinction between state and federal govt.
> 
> If the feds were in charge of all the things the states
> can do locally, we'd be in a bigger mess than we are now.
> 
> The feds cannot handle the demand over three states plus PR
> over hurricane disaster relief affecting indivudals and businesses.
> The demand is too great, and has to be allocated to the states.
> 
> Or the people would not get any help waiting in one long line
> for federal employees to manage all those decisions.
> 
> Same with health care. Same with crime and gun controls.
> 
> None of the people or state level agencies shoudl be in the
> business of "violating" or conflicting with Constitutional and
> national laws But that's NOT the same as federal govt
> regulating them!
> 
> I find it ironic danielpalos that you argue for your position.
> but if it were TRULY the federal govt in charge of regulations,
> and if the opposite viewpoint were the one the federal govt took,
> then YOUR VIEWPOINT could be ruled as being in violation
> of the Constitutional laws and their intent.
> 
> so just be glad that isn't how it works.
> 
> Of course people and states have the right to regulate themselves
> as long as it doesn't violate equal Constitutional protections of others.
> 
> So far no states or federal govt has passed any law making it illegal
> for people of your belief to influence the regulations on guns.
> 
> But if you argue that the federal govt would have a right to regulate
> for the states, then that could mean taking away your right to influence
> such legislation as part of federal regulations!
> 
> you think that wouldn't happen? What do you think happened when Obama and Congress passed and signed the health care mandates FINING people with PENALTIES who didn't have the right to contest or vote on that change in law. The belief that federal govt could regulate health care to that extent was imposed
> on everyone else under penalty of law, masked as a tax bill when it wasn't passed and voted on in Congress as a tax bill or the vote would have failed. it was passed as  a health bill where that interpretation failed in court.
> 
> if you believe in federal govt legislating and regulating to this extent, with no distinction from state govt that represents the local populations separately from the other states doing the same,
> then I would argue for your right to be under that if you believe in it.
> 
> But that does not give you the right to impose this belief
> on others who separate state jurisdiction from federal.
> Govt on all levels should still respect Constitutional laws for all people.
> But that's not the same as federal regulations from the top down
> being inseparable from state jurisdiction.
> 
> I'm sorry you don't make this distinction.
> 
> It's ironic to me that imposing your beliefs on everyone else
> would in itself be a violation of the Constitution
> were it not for the SEPARATION of the levels
> of federal, state and people. So just by the fact you can make
> your argument and have the freedom to do so, comes from the
> very separation of authority that allows people and states that freedom.
Click to expand...

Dear, Only Congress can prescribe "well regulated" to the Militia of the United States.


----------



## danielpalos

emilynghiem said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must be on the right wing.  How can I be factually wrong, by stating that the People are the Militia; you are either well regulated or you are not.
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the People are declared necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> when is your programmer going to fix your chip?  your English is irregular and makes no sense
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who cares; y'all have, nothing but repeal, anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear danielpalos
> Not true. the GOP has been arguing for VA reform and that's another way
> to reform health care starting with govt programs and expanding to serve
> the greater population.
> 
> The Democrats keep demanding to ban executions.
> Do you think they have a plan in place to replace that with?
> No. The option of life imprisonment puts guards at risk by inmates
> who have no reason left not to kill or cause further problems since
> they already would have the maximum.
> 
> there needs to be the option of something else such as deportation
> and exchange with prisons developed with Mexico to "exchange"
> law abiding immigrants with people who commit capital crimes.
> That's one suggestion I've proposed.
> 
> I believe Democrats can also come up with better plans than
> the mandates argued as unconstitutional.
> 
> What I propose is Democrats work on prison reforms
> and transforming those facilities and resources toward
> sustainable health care not just for inmates but the greater population.
> 
> and GOP can invest their taxes for health care into VA reform
> and focus there before expanding to provide services for
> other elderly disabled and people in need "in addition" to veterans
> which would have first priority.
> 
> How does this apply to the OP on gun regulations:
> 1. the same concept of RESPECTING both political beliefs
> would solve this health care problem as it would the divide over gun control
> let people of separate political beliefs pursue their own solutions for
> their collective membership and not interfere with people of other beliefs.
> allow both to separate their beliefs, and fund the policies they believe in
> 
> 2. the same solution of spiritual healing that can cure medical and physical conditions also helps in diagnosing treating managing or curing
> criminal illness abuse and addictive disorders
> that are the problem with policing guns to keep them out of
> the hands of dangerous people that haven't committed crimes yet
> or those who have abuses on record but aren't being properly screened and barred
> 
> Because spiritual healing still requires voluntary participation and choice,
> even in cases where it has been studied and documented medically,
> this cannot be legislated on a federal level. Perhaps the funding of researh
> and development medically can be orchestrated through federal or state govt,
> such as an alternative to funding stem cell or marijuana research that is equaly contested as biased, but the choice of implementing endorsing or participating
> in such therapy would only work as a free choice. Even the spiritual healing practioners and teachers who train people in teams will attest it only works by free choice to accept and ask help for forgiveness as the key factor in order for the healing to work.
> 
> 3. further note: the same spiritual healing process also would affect the relationsihps externally between the political forces competing over policy. So it has an outward effect as well, not only just internally on the issue of cost-effective means of reducing the burden of health care and addressing the mental illness screening with gun policies and criminal prevention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant to this discussion.  maybe it should be in a health care thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear danielpalos
> How it applies is
> 1. it shows the same inability to separate state govt from federal
> in both cases of health care and gun policies.
> This shows it's an issue of political belief, independent of which issue
> the belief is applied to.
> 2. the solution of using spiritual healing to address criminal abuses
> for prevention of gun violence by proper screening
> affects both gun policies and health care costs.
> 
> the reason this is KEY to gun policies: the solution to mental illness
> can only be addressed LOCALLY. it cannot be regulated federally.
> So that's a big factor in resolving issues of who regulates gun policies.
> The solutions point to LOCAL jurisdiction. and yes this will affect health care as well.
Click to expand...

I believe we don't need our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror Because we have a Second Amendment.


----------



## BluesLegend

Its not rocket science, "*the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed*" go ahead gun control nuts throw yourselves against that slab of granite.


----------



## BluesLegend

Have you noticed gun control advocates who claim the vast majority of the country agrees with them, have not attempted to amend the Constitutions 2nd amendment? If they really had the votes and support of the people they would have done so already.


----------



## danielpalos

BluesLegend said:


> Its not rocket science, "*the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed*" go ahead gun control nuts throw yourselves against that slab of granite.


Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)


----------



## danielpalos

BluesLegend said:


> Have you noticed gun control advocates who claim the vast majority of the country agrees with them, have not attempted to amend the Constitutions 2nd amendment? If they really had the votes and support of the people they would have done so already.


Why bother; Only the right wing is clueless and Causeless about what our Second Amendment means.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

frigidweirdo said:


> However the point is they don't WANT to agree. You can present all the evidence in the world, but people like this will always reject what isn't convenient.


I appreciate you making actual arguments. Despite my asshole-ish demeanor on this forum, I am not opposed to an honest discussion and will consider your points.  I am a liberty-first guy, so you can understand my tendencies.  



frigidweirdo said:


> Many things could have been protected in the Bill of Rights, but the reality was all of them had a purpose. Now you're trying to say the right to bear arms has not purpose other than because individuals want to. Then why didn't they protect the right to drink water? The right to breathe air? So many things that serve no purpose.


They did protect the right to drink water, and all other natural rights, in the 9th Amendment.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The right to keep arms and carry them on your person was a well-established natural right at the time. (please tell me you are not going to make me provide a source for this).   Current law is not inconsistent with this argument on the limits of Congress regarding arms, as States had banned the open carry of firearms many years ago, but to my knowledge, there is no federal ban on the open or concealed carry of firearms.  I could be wrong, and will admit my mistake readily.


frigidweirdo said:


> No only does your argument make no sense, but you've also failed to back it up with a single document. On the other hand I have PROOF, I mean, unless you're willing to stick your head up your ass, you can't deny what is said in the document I provided.


I apologize, but I have not seen the document to which you are referring.  Could you post a link again?  Thanks. 

I am not opposed to reviewing any evidence anyone has to offer.  

Understand, as I said, I am a liberty-first guy.  I label myself a libertarian for convenience, but I am really a classic liberal.  

I believe our founders were also classic liberals.  They believed in government by and for the people.  I have provided documentation, that our founders all understood the right to possess and carry arms to be a natural right, that existed before governments.  

I have provided quotes from the founders that support my argument that they intended the people to be armed as a security against government, to keep government in line and working for the people.  

Your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment may be correct, but given the history of the right, and the intent of the 9th Amendment, the right to keep and carry was not to be infringed by Congress, but remained the authority of the States.


----------



## BluesLegend

danielpalos said:


> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its not rocket science, "*the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed*" go ahead gun control nuts throw yourselves against that slab of granite.
> 
> 
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> (Source: Illinois Constitution.)
Click to expand...


LMAO does the US Constitution say "Subject only to the police power"


----------



## BluesLegend

danielpalos said:


> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you noticed gun control advocates who claim the vast majority of the country agrees with them, have not attempted to amend the Constitutions 2nd amendment? If they really had the votes and support of the people they would have done so already.
> 
> 
> 
> Why bother; Only the right wing is clueless and Causeless about what our Second Amendment means.
Click to expand...


The SCOTUS disagrees with you, tissue? We have the 2nd amendment and you don't have the votes to amend it, sucks to be you.


----------



## danielpalos

BluesLegend said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its not rocket science, "*the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed*" go ahead gun control nuts throw yourselves against that slab of granite.
> 
> 
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> (Source: Illinois Constitution.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO does the US Constitution say "Subject only to the police power"
Click to expand...

Well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State.  Not the unorganized militia.


----------



## emilynghiem

BluesLegend said:


> Its not rocket science, "*the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed*" go ahead gun control nuts throw yourselves against that slab of granite.



Yes BluesLegend Even if, as DP and FW argue, that the "state militias" are the standard of regulation,
that would still need the STATES to regulate this. the part that the Federal Govt regulates was already
provided as BLW cited in a previous post as well. The Right To Bear Arms

It seems DP contests this and still argues the federal govt is the authority on regulating arms through state militias.
danielpalos frigidweirdo Bootney Lee Farnsworth

I guess it makes sense, since the state govt ends up balancing the rights and beliefs of their local populations
with the nationalized Constitutional rights and protections, it ultimately does land on the state level to pass laws that satisfy BOTH.
BOTH the Constitutional/national levels of law and the beliefs and arguments of the people on local levels.

DP calls this federal regulations when the laws  have to meet Constitutional standards.
I call it the PEOPLE deciding public policy through both the state and federal levels so there is no conflict on any level.

I don't know if I'm the only one here doing this: but I treat both the view of separating people/state/federal govt
and the view of defending Constitutional rights and beliefs as federal govt authority
as POLITICAL BELIEFS equally protected from infringement under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Because of the nature of liberals who wait until federal govt Courts and Congress endorse something as law,
this interpretation of "free exercise of religion" and "creed" as including "political beliefs" 
is FOREIGN or NONEXISTENT/INVALID to others
who don't automatically claim the right to INTERPRET these laws as INCLUDING "political beliefs" and treating them equally as "religious beliefs."

So funny and frustrating at the same time.

If you lose your sense of humor about this circular predicament, on the level of Shakespearean tragic dark comedy.
no wonder people get abusive and violent. It's maddening and crazymaking
and both sides accuse the other of being the crazy ones!


----------



## westwall

danielpalos said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear danielpalos
> do you REALLY believe that ALL the people who crafted and passed this law
> would ALL AGREE to the militia-only interpretation?
> 
> When people TODAY don't even "all agree"
> 
> What makes you think they would have agreed back
> then if CLEARLY the two schools of thought don't agree now!
> 
> The more we argue and totally believe in our respective beliefs, that tells me so did the people split in two schools of thought back then.
> 
> They even had the equivalent of what we argue over today, over who counts as a citizen with rights. Today we argue if immigrants have equal rights as "humans" as citizens. Back then there was issue with Catholics or other people not considered equal or trustworthy to uphold the laws if they were to bear arms.
> 
> So if we can't even agree today, and these separate factions INSIST their respective interpretations ARE the truth that the laws should represent, isn't that clear the same thing would be going on back then? And there would be the same two factions, so the law came out the way it did to accommodate BOTH that would equally insist on THEIR way and REFUSE to compromise to let the other way prevail and exclude them.
> 
> 
> 
> Only the clueless and the Causeless say that.  The People are the Militia.  What part of that do y'all not understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, silly person.  It is you who either don't understand, or you are simply intellectually dishonest.  I will go with the latter as you are nothing more than a one trick pony bleating about that which you have no clue.
> 
> Run along little sheep, run along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing but diversion, right wingers?
> 
> The People are the Militia.  Well regulated militia of the People are declared necessary.
> 
> It really is that simple, except to the right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's pretty obvious that it is you who are the defective one.  Like I stated previously, if it were your opinion that was correct the ruling elite would have disarmed us decades ago.  As they haven't I think it is safe to say that the 2nd is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why do y'all waste your time with politics; gossip girls is what y'all are best at.
> 
> Well regulated militia of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
Click to expand...








But no person may have a weapon when they are at home?  That's funny.  Truly funny.  Especially in light of the US v Miller decision I gave you.


----------



## BluesLegend

emilynghiem said:


> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its not rocket science, "*the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed*" go ahead gun control nuts throw yourselves against that slab of granite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes BluesLegend Even if, as DP and FW argue, that the "state militias" are the standard of regulation,
> that would still need the STATES to regulate this. the part that the Federal Govt regulates was already
> provided as BLW cited in a previous post as well. The Right To Bear Arms
> 
> It seems DP contests this and still argues the federal govt is the authority on regulating arms through state militias.
> danielpalos frigidweirdo Bootney Lee Farnsworth
> 
> I guess it makes sense, since the state govt ends up balancing the rights and beliefs of their local populations
> with the nationalized Constitutional rights and protections, it ultimately does land on the state level to pass laws that satisfy BOTH.
> BOTH the Constitutional/national levels of law and the beliefs and arguments of the people on local levels.
> 
> DP calls this federal regulations when the laws  have to meet Constitutional standards.
> I call it the PEOPLE deciding public policy through both the state and federal levels so there is no conflict on any level.
> 
> I don't know if I'm the only one here doing this: but I treat both the view of separating people/state/federal govt
> and the view of defending Constitutional rights and beliefs as federal govt authority
> as POLITICAL BELIEFS equally protected from infringement under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
> 
> Because of the nature of liberals who wait until federal govt Courts and Congress endorse something as law,
> this interpretation of "free exercise of religion" and "creed" as including "political beliefs"
> is FOREIGN or NONEXISTENT/INVALID to others
> who don't automatically claim the right to INTERPRET these laws as INCLUDING "political beliefs" and treating them equally as "religious beliefs."
> 
> So funny and frustrating at the same time.
> 
> If you lose your sense of humor about this circular predicament, on the level of Shakespearean tragic dark comedy.
> no wonder people get abusive and violent. It's maddening and crazymaking
> and both sides accuse the other of being the crazy ones!
Click to expand...


The 2nd amendment is clear if you understand that when it was written, in many countries it was unlawful for common citizens to possess arms, or they were subject to seizure leaving the common people defenseless when facing tyrannical monarchies and dictators.


----------



## BluesLegend

westwall said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only the clueless and the Causeless say that.  The People are the Militia.  What part of that do y'all not understand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, silly person.  It is you who either don't understand, or you are simply intellectually dishonest.  I will go with the latter as you are nothing more than a one trick pony bleating about that which you have no clue.
> 
> Run along little sheep, run along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing but diversion, right wingers?
> 
> The People are the Militia.  Well regulated militia of the People are declared necessary.
> 
> It really is that simple, except to the right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's pretty obvious that it is you who are the defective one.  Like I stated previously, if it were your opinion that was correct the ruling elite would have disarmed us decades ago.  As they haven't I think it is safe to say that the 2nd is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why do y'all waste your time with politics; gossip girls is what y'all are best at.
> 
> Well regulated militia of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But no person may have a weapon when they are at home?  That's funny.  Truly funny.  Especially in light of the US v Miller decision I gave you.
Click to expand...


The SCOTUS made that crystal clear.


----------



## turtledude

danielpalos said:


> Dear, Only Congress can prescribe "well regulated" to the Militia of the United States.



So R2D2-you are claiming the second amendment grants congress powers?


----------



## turtledude

danielpalos said:


> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you noticed gun control advocates who claim the vast majority of the country agrees with them, have not attempted to amend the Constitutions 2nd amendment? If they really had the votes and support of the people they would have done so already.
> 
> 
> 
> Why bother; Only the right wing is clueless and Causeless about what our Second Amendment means.
Click to expand...


wrong R2D2.  the second amendment guarantees the right of citizens to keep and bear arms and is a blanket negative restriction on the federal government to interfere with that


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you noticed gun control advocates who claim the vast majority of the country agrees with them, have not attempted to amend the Constitutions 2nd amendment? If they really had the votes and support of the people they would have done so already.
> 
> 
> 
> Why bother; Only the right wing is clueless and Causeless about what our Second Amendment means.
Click to expand...


And the Supreme Court. Don't forget them. They disagree with you too.


----------



## danielpalos

westwall said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only the clueless and the Causeless say that.  The People are the Militia.  What part of that do y'all not understand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, silly person.  It is you who either don't understand, or you are simply intellectually dishonest.  I will go with the latter as you are nothing more than a one trick pony bleating about that which you have no clue.
> 
> Run along little sheep, run along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing but diversion, right wingers?
> 
> The People are the Militia.  Well regulated militia of the People are declared necessary.
> 
> It really is that simple, except to the right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's pretty obvious that it is you who are the defective one.  Like I stated previously, if it were your opinion that was correct the ruling elite would have disarmed us decades ago.  As they haven't I think it is safe to say that the 2nd is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why do y'all waste your time with politics; gossip girls is what y'all are best at.
> 
> Well regulated militia of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But no person may have a weapon when they are at home?  That's funny.  Truly funny.  Especially in light of the US v Miller decision I gave you.
Click to expand...

The unorganized militia is Infringed all the time.  Gun control laws are for them, not the organized militias.


----------



## danielpalos

turtledude said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear, Only Congress can prescribe "well regulated" to the Militia of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So R2D2-you are claiming the second amendment grants congress powers?
Click to expand...

These powers are delegated to Congress:

_To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;_


----------



## danielpalos

turtledude said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you noticed gun control advocates who claim the vast majority of the country agrees with them, have not attempted to amend the Constitutions 2nd amendment? If they really had the votes and support of the people they would have done so already.
> 
> 
> 
> Why bother; Only the right wing is clueless and Causeless about what our Second Amendment means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wrong R2D2.  the second amendment guarantees the right of citizens to keep and bear arms and is a blanket negative restriction on the federal government to interfere with that
Click to expand...

A well regulated militia is necessary, the unorganized militia is not declared necessary in our Second Amendment.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you noticed gun control advocates who claim the vast majority of the country agrees with them, have not attempted to amend the Constitutions 2nd amendment? If they really had the votes and support of the people they would have done so already.
> 
> 
> 
> Why bother; Only the right wing is clueless and Causeless about what our Second Amendment means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the Supreme Court. Don't forget them. They disagree with you too.
Click to expand...


that ruling was in error. The People are the Militia. You are either, well regulated or you are not.  Nobody is unconnected with the militia; only militia service, well regulated.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you noticed gun control advocates who claim the vast majority of the country agrees with them, have not attempted to amend the Constitutions 2nd amendment? If they really had the votes and support of the people they would have done so already.
> 
> 
> 
> Why bother; Only the right wing is clueless and Causeless about what our Second Amendment means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the Supreme Court. Don't forget them. They disagree with you too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that ruling was in error. The People are the Militia. You are either, well regulated or you are not.  Nobody is unconnected with the militia; only militia service, well regulated.
Click to expand...


Right.  Your legal opinion is better, sharper, more educated and weightier then theirs is.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you noticed gun control advocates who claim the vast majority of the country agrees with them, have not attempted to amend the Constitutions 2nd amendment? If they really had the votes and support of the people they would have done so already.
> 
> 
> 
> Why bother; Only the right wing is clueless and Causeless about what our Second Amendment means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the Supreme Court. Don't forget them. They disagree with you too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that ruling was in error. The People are the Militia. You are either, well regulated or you are not.  Nobody is unconnected with the militia; only militia service, well regulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right.  Your legal opinion is better, sharper, more educated and weightier then theirs is.
Click to expand...

All they did was appeal to ignorance, not the law.

The People are the Militia. 



> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.



New York State Constitution.

Well regulated militia is also a States' right secured by our Second Amendment.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you noticed gun control advocates who claim the vast majority of the country agrees with them, have not attempted to amend the Constitutions 2nd amendment? If they really had the votes and support of the people they would have done so already.
> 
> 
> 
> Why bother; Only the right wing is clueless and Causeless about what our Second Amendment means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the Supreme Court. Don't forget them. They disagree with you too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that ruling was in error. The People are the Militia. You are either, well regulated or you are not.  Nobody is unconnected with the militia; only militia service, well regulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right.  Your legal opinion is better, sharper, more educated and weightier then theirs is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All they did was appeal to ignorance, not the law.
> 
> The People are the Militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> New York State Constitution.
> 
> Well regulated militia is also a States' right secured by our Second Amendment.
Click to expand...


And, if course, your opinion is superior to theirs. I'd like to see you say exactly that.


----------



## turtledude

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why bother; Only the right wing is clueless and Causeless about what our Second Amendment means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the Supreme Court. Don't forget them. They disagree with you too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that ruling was in error. The People are the Militia. You are either, well regulated or you are not.  Nobody is unconnected with the militia; only militia service, well regulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right.  Your legal opinion is better, sharper, more educated and weightier then theirs is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All they did was appeal to ignorance, not the law.
> 
> The People are the Militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> New York State Constitution.
> 
> Well regulated militia is also a States' right secured by our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, if course, your opinion is superior to theirs. I'd like to see you say exactly that.
Click to expand...


R2D2 has admitted several times he doesn't have any legal training.  HE just makes stuff up because he's a left wing bannerrhoid and pretends that the second amendment doesn't prevent  such things


----------



## westwall

danielpalos said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you noticed gun control advocates who claim the vast majority of the country agrees with them, have not attempted to amend the Constitutions 2nd amendment? If they really had the votes and support of the people they would have done so already.
> 
> 
> 
> Why bother; Only the right wing is clueless and Causeless about what our Second Amendment means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wrong R2D2.  the second amendment guarantees the right of citizens to keep and bear arms and is a blanket negative restriction on the federal government to interfere with that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A well regulated militia is necessary, the unorganized militia is not declared necessary in our Second Amendment.
Click to expand...








The unorganized militia is the only militia we had back then.  Historically you are wrong.  Factually you are wrong, philosophically you are wrong, and philologically you are wrong.  Basically you haven't got a rope to even piss up, you are so wrong.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why bother; Only the right wing is clueless and Causeless about what our Second Amendment means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the Supreme Court. Don't forget them. They disagree with you too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that ruling was in error. The People are the Militia. You are either, well regulated or you are not.  Nobody is unconnected with the militia; only militia service, well regulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right.  Your legal opinion is better, sharper, more educated and weightier then theirs is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All they did was appeal to ignorance, not the law.
> 
> The People are the Militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> New York State Constitution.
> 
> Well regulated militia is also a States' right secured by our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, if course, your opinion is superior to theirs. I'd like to see you say exactly that.
Click to expand...

I have a supreme argument, not merely a superior argument.


----------



## danielpalos

westwall said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you noticed gun control advocates who claim the vast majority of the country agrees with them, have not attempted to amend the Constitutions 2nd amendment? If they really had the votes and support of the people they would have done so already.
> 
> 
> 
> Why bother; Only the right wing is clueless and Causeless about what our Second Amendment means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wrong R2D2.  the second amendment guarantees the right of citizens to keep and bear arms and is a blanket negative restriction on the federal government to interfere with that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A well regulated militia is necessary, the unorganized militia is not declared necessary in our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The unorganized militia is the only militia we had back then.  Historically you are wrong.  Factually you are wrong, philosophically you are wrong, and philologically you are wrong.  Basically you haven't got a rope to even piss up, you are so wrong.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't.  Did you not read any of the Militia Acts?  

The right wing is simply, clueless and Causeless.


----------



## turtledude

danielpalos said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you noticed gun control advocates who claim the vast majority of the country agrees with them, have not attempted to amend the Constitutions 2nd amendment? If they really had the votes and support of the people they would have done so already.
> 
> 
> 
> Why bother; Only the right wing is clueless and Causeless about what our Second Amendment means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wrong R2D2.  the second amendment guarantees the right of citizens to keep and bear arms and is a blanket negative restriction on the federal government to interfere with that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A well regulated militia is necessary, the unorganized militia is not declared necessary in our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The unorganized militia is the only militia we had back then.  Historically you are wrong.  Factually you are wrong, philosophically you are wrong, and philologically you are wrong.  Basically you haven't got a rope to even piss up, you are so wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it isn't.  Did you not read any of the Militia Acts?
> 
> The right wing is simply, clueless and Causeless.
Click to expand...

i have R2D2 and they have nothing to do with the rights of private citizens to own whatever firearms they want


----------



## danielpalos

Paragraph (2) of DC v Heller tells the rest of the story.  Paragraph (1) is merely the, Intent and Purpose statement.


----------



## westwall

danielpalos said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you noticed gun control advocates who claim the vast majority of the country agrees with them, have not attempted to amend the Constitutions 2nd amendment? If they really had the votes and support of the people they would have done so already.
> 
> 
> 
> Why bother; Only the right wing is clueless and Causeless about what our Second Amendment means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wrong R2D2.  the second amendment guarantees the right of citizens to keep and bear arms and is a blanket negative restriction on the federal government to interfere with that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A well regulated militia is necessary, the unorganized militia is not declared necessary in our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The unorganized militia is the only militia we had back then.  Historically you are wrong.  Factually you are wrong, philosophically you are wrong, and philologically you are wrong.  Basically you haven't got a rope to even piss up, you are so wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it isn't.  Did you not read any of the Militia Acts?
> 
> The right wing is simply, clueless and Causeless.
Click to expand...






Of course I have.  Please point to the section where they supercede and revise the COTUS.  Be specific.  And you must have missed this section of the Militia Act.  The blue part is the important part.

"Each dragoon *to furnish himself with a serviceable horse, at least fourteen hands and an half high, a good saddle, bridle, mail-pillion and valise, holster, and a best plate and crupper, a pair of boots and spurs; a pair of pistols, a sabre, and a cartouchbox to contain twelve cartridges for pistols. *


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the Supreme Court. Don't forget them. They disagree with you too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that ruling was in error. The People are the Militia. You are either, well regulated or you are not.  Nobody is unconnected with the militia; only militia service, well regulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right.  Your legal opinion is better, sharper, more educated and weightier then theirs is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All they did was appeal to ignorance, not the law.
> 
> The People are the Militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> New York State Constitution.
> 
> Well regulated militia is also a States' right secured by our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, if course, your opinion is superior to theirs. I'd like to see you say exactly that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have a supreme argument, not merely a superior argument.
Click to expand...


A legend in your own mind.


----------



## turtledude

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> that ruling was in error. The People are the Militia. You are either, well regulated or you are not.  Nobody is unconnected with the militia; only militia service, well regulated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right.  Your legal opinion is better, sharper, more educated and weightier then theirs is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All they did was appeal to ignorance, not the law.
> 
> The People are the Militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> New York State Constitution.
> 
> Well regulated militia is also a States' right secured by our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, if course, your opinion is superior to theirs. I'd like to see you say exactly that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have a supreme argument, not merely a superior argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A legend in your own mind.
Click to expand...


a very small fish in a puddle it would appear


----------



## westwall

turtledude said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right.  Your legal opinion is better, sharper, more educated and weightier then theirs is.
> 
> 
> 
> All they did was appeal to ignorance, not the law.
> 
> The People are the Militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> New York State Constitution.
> 
> Well regulated militia is also a States' right secured by our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, if course, your opinion is superior to theirs. I'd like to see you say exactly that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have a supreme argument, not merely a superior argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A legend in your own mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> a very small fish in a puddle it would appear
Click to expand...






More like an amoeba.  When presented with evidence that blows his BS out of the water he flee's.  Typical progressive.


----------



## danielpalos

westwall said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why bother; Only the right wing is clueless and Causeless about what our Second Amendment means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wrong R2D2.  the second amendment guarantees the right of citizens to keep and bear arms and is a blanket negative restriction on the federal government to interfere with that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A well regulated militia is necessary, the unorganized militia is not declared necessary in our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The unorganized militia is the only militia we had back then.  Historically you are wrong.  Factually you are wrong, philosophically you are wrong, and philologically you are wrong.  Basically you haven't got a rope to even piss up, you are so wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it isn't.  Did you not read any of the Militia Acts?
> 
> The right wing is simply, clueless and Causeless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I have.  Please point to the section where they supercede and revise the COTUS.  Be specific.  And you must have missed this section of the Militia Act.  The blue part is the important part.
> 
> "Each dragoon *to furnish himself with a serviceable horse, at least fourteen hands and an half high, a good saddle, bridle, mail-pillion and valise, holster, and a best plate and crupper, a pair of boots and spurs; a pair of pistols, a sabre, and a cartouchbox to contain twelve cartridges for pistols. *
Click to expand...

And, they had to muster and present Arms.


----------



## frigidweirdo

emilynghiem said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's not a simple answer is it?
> 
> Firstly the US Constitution has the power to be Amendment. So.... from that point the Founders left open the possibility that the Constitution could be changed.
> 
> Secondly, the right to KEEP arms protects individuals to own arms. It doesn't protect them to own ALL arms and has generally been interpreted to mean "militia type" weapons or weapons useful for the militia.
> 
> However in the modern day the US militia (National Guard) has a lot of high tech weaponry that people don't think would be a good idea in the hands of individuals. What are people going to do with field artillery? Well in war against the US govt, I have no doubt it would be useful. So, why don't individuals have such weaponry?
> 
> The Founders lived in a time where weaponry was similar between Armed Forces weaponry and hunting weaponry. The modern era has changed at a lot.
> 
> Do you think the NRA supports "the right" of people to have field artillery and F-16s? No, they don't fight for this.They fight for handguns and perhaps other guns, but mostly guns.
> 
> What the Second Amendment protects is the right of individuals to own weapons. However the 2A doesn't prevent the US govt from banning certain types of weaponry, as long as individual can get their hands on weaponry that is not too expensive, then the right isn't being infringed upon.
> 
> But I asked a question about the right to BEAR arms. This is the right to KEEP arms.
> 
> Funny how you've moved it back into your comfort zone.
> 
> I answered your question, are you going to answer mine? It's been like a week and you've refused to answer.
> 
> Mr Gerry said that "bear arms" was "militia duty", Mr Jackson said it was "render military service". Mr Washington used the term synonymously with "render military service". The draft versions of the Second Amendment flitted between "bear arms" and "render military service" for their last clause which was removed from the Amendment because the Founding Fathers had a problem with it. Some of them, like Mr Jackson called for those who wouldn't bear arms to pay an equivalent. Why would govt require people to pay an equivalent for not carrying guns around?
> The Supreme Court in Presser said that parading with guns was NOT protected by either the right to keep arms or the right to bear arms. The Heller case affirmed the Presser case.
> 
> All you have is a Supreme Court case that basically says that the Second Amendment only applies to the Federal government (though things have basically changed recently on this count, to include state governments) which means if I take your gun away, I am NOT infringing on your right to keep or bear arms.
> 
> That's all you have.
> 
> I have loads. You have nothing.
> 
> So my question is, what did Mr Gerry mean when he said:
> 
> "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head." in relation to the clause that said: "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> Do you think Mr Gerry was talking about "bear arms" to mean "carry arms" or "militia duty"?
> 
> 
> 
> complete fail-its not about what the people can do its what the government can do and where was the government given ANY power to regulate what arms you could
> 
> KEEP
> BEAR
> OWN
> MAKE
> BUY
> USE
> BARTER
> TRADE
> SELL
> GIFT
> CARRY
> etc
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say it wasn't.
> 
> The Constitution is about the powers of the US Federal government.
> 
> The Bill of Rights is about the limits of power on the US Federal govt.
> 
> So what?
> 
> So it means that the US Federal govt cannot infringe on the right of people to bear arms.
> 
> So what does "bear arms" mean?
> 
> It means "render military service" and "militia duty".
> 
> I've proven this.
> 
> Whether individuals can carry weapons is not an issue of the Second Amendment. I don't need a Constitutional right to be able to do something. However we're talking about what the US govt is specifically unable to do due to the SECOND AMENDMENT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't agree with you on the meaning of "bear" as it applies to the 2nd, but at least you are making sense, or making a legitimate argument.  I appreciate that.
> 
> 
> I think "bear" means to carry.  I think Congress has acted improperly for decades, given the 2nd, 9th, and 10th Amendments.
> 
> State and local governments had the authority to limilt time, place, and manner of carrying arms.  _Cruikshank _made that clear._  Presser _held that the 2A is an individual right, not a militia right, holding a law or action by local governments preventing militias from marching the streets with guns was not an infringement od this individual right.  States also had the authority to limit the type of arms one could keep.  But, now that is questionable, given the "privileges and immunities" clause of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> The SCOTUS has allowed Congressional overreach, refusing to directly address the relationship between Amendments 2, 9, 10, and 14, as they relate to Congressional authority to regulate firearms., or at least I have not seen such a decision, with my limited study on The Court's decisions on the topic,.  _Cruikshank _came close, but they were deciding whether to uphold the convictions of Klansmen under the Enforcement Act of 1870.  The Court overturned those convictions, holding that the 14th Amendment applies to States, not individuals, and that the 2nd only limits Congress.  But, I am always open to a discussion on SCOTUS opinions.
> 
> The question I have about your interpretation of "bear" arms goes to intent.  Why would the founders feel compelled to preserve the right to take up arms in a militia or render military service.  That was not a right, but a duty.
> 
> Which interpretation makes more sense?
> 
> The right of the people to keep arms and (the duty) render military service shall not be infringed, or the right to keep and carry arms?
> 
> There is no ambiguity.  Attaching a "military service" interpreataion to "bear" goes against the plain meaning of the text in the Amendment.  The word "bear" in this context means to carry.  They may have used the word in the context of military service, but that use also meant to carry, or to take up arms.  I could see your interpretation working in the context od the right to take up arms as needed, for whatever ligitimate purpose, but that would also be a stretch, give the attitudes and practices of the day, where packing a pistol was as common as carrying a wallet and mobile phone is today.
> 
> If the intended meaning of the word "bear" means military service, and not to carry on one's person, why would the founders limit Congrass on the right to keep arms, but leave Congress with the authority to prevent individuals from waling around armed, which was a very common practice at the time?  That angle makes no sense.
> 
> Nor does the interpretation that the phrase "keep amd carry" has a singular legal meaning, like "sell and convey" or "null and void" when there is no precident for such an interpretation, and when doing so renders the 2nd or Art. 1, Sec. 8 meaningless, ineffective, or redundant.
> 
> I think we can all agree that the 2nd preserves the individual right by excluding Congress from any arms regulation, given both the _Presser_ and  _Cruikshank _decisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I get that a lot of people "don't agree".
> 
> However the point is they don't WANT to agree. You can present all the evidence in the world, but people like this will always reject what isn't convenient.
> 
> Okay. Your first point is that "bear" means "carry". It does. But it also means to have a child among other things.
> 
> My point here is that context is important. I've used the word "stool" as a perfect example. It means a shit and it means a wooden backless seat.
> 
> "The doctor asked him to sit on the stool", you use context to imply that it means the wooden backless seat rather than the shit, wouldn't you say?
> 
> The context of the "bear arms" is the Amendment starts with "A well regulated militia" and what does people carrying arms around in the streets have to do with the militia?
> 
> In the past the 2A was ONLY a limit of the Federal government. The Supreme Court hardly ever got cases for incorporation. But now that has changed.
> 
> The Inevitable Incorporation of the Second Amendment.
> 
> This article from 2010 shows this.
> 
> Okay you say "Why would the founders feel compelled to preserve the right to take up arms in a militia or render military service. That was not a right, but a duty."
> 
> It's actually easy to explain and logical.
> 
> I agree that it's a duty. If you read the debates in Congress which I have been using as my main source for my argument, you'll see they spoke about this quite a bit and wanted people to pay an equivalent. Why pay an equivalent for those who wouldn't walk around with guns? You'd literally be forcing people to be armed all the time. The Founding Fathers would never have done that. People didn't want that level of interference in their lives.
> 
> But here's the issue why they wanted to protect a duty.
> 
> The US Federal government could call up militia troops to federal duty.The feds had the power to arm the militia when in federal duty and also the power to DISARM the same people. It's in Article 1 Section 8.
> 
> But even easier than this:
> 
> The right to keep arms is the right of individuals to own weapons so the militia has a ready supply of weaponry that the feds couldn't touch.
> 
> The right to bear arms is the right of individuals to be in the militia so the militia has a ready supply of personnel to use the weapons.
> 
> Without personnel the militia is nothing. Without arms the militia is nothing. They go hand in hand.
> 
> Now, ask yourself this question. What purpose does making a right to carry guns around give? It doesn't. It doesn't protect the militia, it doesn't help the militia.
> 
> Many things could have been protected in the Bill of Rights, but the reality was all of them had a purpose. Now you're trying to say the right to bear arms has not purpose other than because individuals want to. Then why didn't they protect the right to drink water? The right to breathe air? So many things that serve no purpose.
> 
> Imagine this. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the free state, the right of the people to drink water and breathe air shall not be infringed."
> 
> Everyone would think the Founding Fathers were smoking some heavy shit. It makes not sense. And it makes no sense to have "the right of the people to keep arms and to walk around town with their gun stuck down their pants".
> 
> 
> 
> No only does your argument make no sense, but you've also failed to back it up with a single document. On the other hand I have PROOF, I mean, unless you're willing to stick your head up your ass, you can't deny what is said in the document I provided.
> 
> "bear arms" is used synonymously with "render military service" and "militia duty" and is NOT used synonymously with "walk around with guns." It's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo
> 1. Wantingn or not wanting to agree is not a condition required by law to defend the right of equal protection of beliefs and due process to defend them from infringement
> 2. However, you are indirectly referring to natural laws, that by nature of social relations between humans, if you are not looking to resolve conflicts but to reject, by nature, people will tend to reject you and not seek to resolve things either. If you don't have faith that an agreement can be reached, it's that much harder to convince anyone else to have faith.
> So the conflict and rejection goes in circles. By natural law, people don't want to be forced to change by an outside party or influence, especially a hostile competing one! That is part of natural law, so yes it affects the process.
> 3. Please see msg above to DP. I believe you and I and possibly DP care enough about this issue to start an initiative to address these conflicts and propose solutions that would allow freedom for people of all views or arguments to reach agreement on local levels. The point would be to resolve and redress grievances so there can be agreement that the policies in place would PREVENT the abuses and violations feared as putting people at risk, but would NOT violate or impose on either beliefs that federal state or other govt does or does not have authority to regulate firearms, or any variation of those beliefs on either side, for or against.
> 
> As for people who refuse to agree or have no faith, they will probably participate as objectors voting on the proposals yay or nay, but not actively pursuing the conflict resolution and working through the objections to find better alternatives that don't get a nay.  People play different roles, and some just want to play the judge that rules yes or no, and have no interest or ability to do the work to reach a mutually agreed solution that doesn't compromise the consent of anyone affected by that policy decision.
> 
> As long as people have their role in the process, they will not feel left out.
> We just don't all play the same roles, and can't get discouraged or judge each other for that. We just have to make sure the naysayers who play that role don't block up the conflict resolution process for the ones earnestly trying to work through objections and find ways around those.
> 
> I've seen this consensus process fail when the Greens tried to facilitate meetings for Occupy, so the key I learned is to keep the objectors and their role separate from the facilitators. There has to be agreement to resolve the reasons for objections, but that doesn't always come from the objectors themselves.  It's like separating the judicial from the legislative process. This same separation of powers happens among people trying to form a group decision.  There are ways to manage the different roles, so it doesn't obstruct the democratic process of redressing grievances and arriving at an agreement on law and contract decisions among a diverse group. it just takes careful facilitation to include all people of diverse beliefs and roles.
> 
> Better to start small, show how this can work, and then present it as a model to a larger group and encourage others to replicate the same process.
> 
> Each group may arrive at a different decision because of the makeup of the people that decision represents. But it is important to teach inclusion of beliefs, as well as the approach to conflict that varies as well, as you point out. Thank you FW and I hope we can work together to create a model for this
> 
> See other msg that I should have addressed to you as well.
> Yours truly, Emily
Click to expand...


I really don't see what you want to say other than you can't argue with the evidence that I've provided, so your tactic appears to be that I should go half way and accept your made up stuff because you're not willing to accept undeniable evidence.

I don't think so.


----------



## westwall

danielpalos said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> wrong R2D2.  the second amendment guarantees the right of citizens to keep and bear arms and is a blanket negative restriction on the federal government to interfere with that
> 
> 
> 
> A well regulated militia is necessary, the unorganized militia is not declared necessary in our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The unorganized militia is the only militia we had back then.  Historically you are wrong.  Factually you are wrong, philosophically you are wrong, and philologically you are wrong.  Basically you haven't got a rope to even piss up, you are so wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it isn't.  Did you not read any of the Militia Acts?
> 
> The right wing is simply, clueless and Causeless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I have.  Please point to the section where they supercede and revise the COTUS.  Be specific.  And you must have missed this section of the Militia Act.  The blue part is the important part.
> 
> "Each dragoon *to furnish himself with a serviceable horse, at least fourteen hands and an half high, a good saddle, bridle, mail-pillion and valise, holster, and a best plate and crupper, a pair of boots and spurs; a pair of pistols, a sabre, and a cartouchbox to contain twelve cartridges for pistols. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And, they had to muster and present Arms.
Click to expand...








And the WEAPONS WERE THEIRS!  Not the governments.  Now feel free to run along loser...


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said something. but I don't have to read it.  

"Show Ignored Content"



Lemme guess:

"The wellness of Clueless and Causeless bearing of military service by the peoplitia is organized."


----------



## frigidweirdo

hunarcy said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh. What I find is that people on this forum often end up arguing what they're comfortable arguing with. They often decide what the other person is saying BEFORE they're bothered to read what the other person has said, and therefore don't need to read what the other person has said as they BELIEVE they know what has been said.
> 
> Yes, the Second Amendment emphasizes the importance of the militia. Why? Because the Amendment is ABOUT THE MILITIA.
> 
> You say the right is reserved to the people. Yet I wrote "The right to keep arms is the right of individuals" and "The right to bear arms is the right of individuals" and you're attacking me for saying it's not the right of individuals. Are you fucking serious?
> 
> 
> Here's the other deal, let's see if you bother to read this.
> 
> Each right in the US Bill of Rights is there for a reason. The reason is politics.
> 
> The First Amendment has the right to freedom of religion, right to protest and right of freedom of speech and the press. All of these are protected in the First Amendment because of their impact on politics.
> 
> Freedom of speech so you can talk about politics, freedom to protest so you can protest politicians, freedom of religion so there isn't a state religion.
> 
> Of course individuals can use their freedom of speech in other ways, there is no limit on the freedom of speech to just politics.
> 
> However in the Bill of Rights there is no protection of the right to walk. The right to breathe. The right to eat food. The right to play games. There are so many things NOT PROTECTED, and that's because they're not directly connected with politics. Hence the 10th Amendment.
> 
> The Second Amendment is about the militia. That's what it starts with "A well regulated militia..." It protects the militia by protecting individuals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's NOT about the militia.  It's about the Right of the People, or as you insist, the right of individuals, to keep and bear arms.  The dependent clause about the militia is just one justification for the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the first part is the justification for putting the protection of the right in the first place.
> 
> Now, you have an amendment which is in the US Constitution in order to protect the militia.
> 
> You have the Founding Fathers talking about the term "bear arms" to mean "render military service" and "militia duty".
> 
> You do NOT have the Founding Fathers talking about the term "bear arms" to mean carrying arms around.
> 
> You have the Supreme Court saying that the right to bear arms does not mean carrying arms around.
> 
> You do NOT have the Supreme Court saying the 2A protects carrying arms around.
> 
> So, which part makes you think "bear arms" means "carrying guns around"?
> 
> I'm confused at how people can take such evidence and then be like "nah, I don't like it, I'll ignore it ALL".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know you are just determined to change the subject, but since I haven't said a word about "carrying guns around", I'll just leave you to your fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right now I'm making the case that "bear arms" means "render military service" and "militia duty".
> 
> If you jump into someone else's conversation and then complain that you did not say something that is the debate, then that's your problem.
> 
> There appear, at this point, to be two argument.
> 
> The first is mine, backed up with sources from the Founding Fathers, the Supreme Court, you name it.
> 
> The second is that "bear arms" means carry arms.
> 
> The only evidence for this is that "bear" can mean "carry" therefore it MUST mean carry even though there are 5 different definitions for the term "bear" and that if you ignore all of my evidence, then there's no evidence to suggest that "bear arms" means carry arms.
> 
> Would you care to join this discussion or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In that you ignorantly continue to insist that it's all about the military service, I have no interest in engaging your delusion.
> 
> I will point out that the Miller decision was based on the idea that a sawed off shotgun was not standard military weaponry, which implies that standard military weaponry should be in the hands of the People.  That is why fully automatic weapons aren't banned.  Just taxed with a special tax.
Click to expand...


Ignorantly? I've posted the evidence. You've posted only your thoughts. 

Yes, Miller was about the RIGHT TO KEEP ARMS. We're talking about the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. 

Do you have any evidence, any logic, anything that suggests the right to bear arms means "carry arms"? Anything?

Well, artillery is standard military weaponry. Almost all militaries in the world have artillery. Should I be allowed to have artillery in my yard?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

frigidweirdo said:


> Do you have any evidence, any logic, anything that suggests the right to bear arms means "carry arms"? Anything?


"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, _Commonplace Book_ (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

There can hardly be a question, at least about what Thomas Jefferson believed regarding the right to carry meaning ACTUALLY CARRY on your person, rather than your interpretation of military service.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

Jefferson seemed to anticipate the left's attack on the plain language of the 2nd.


----------



## Soupnazi630

Lakhota said:


> I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed.  It's just a matter of time...


That is ridiculous.

It will not be changed in the foreseeable future.

Regardless of how much left wing politicians WISH to change it the outcry would be to loud and powerful. Even without the protection of the NRA.

Sorry but your claim it will be changed is nonsense and shows ignorance of how Americans feel about the subject.

The second is neither antiquated or obsolete any more than the first is.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> However the point is they don't WANT to agree. You can present all the evidence in the world, but people like this will always reject what isn't convenient.
> 
> 
> 
> I appreciate you making actual arguments. Despite my asshole-ish demeanor on this forum, I am not opposed to an honest discussion and will consider your points.  I am a liberty-first guy, so you can understand my tendencies.
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many things could have been protected in the Bill of Rights, but the reality was all of them had a purpose. Now you're trying to say the right to bear arms has not purpose other than because individuals want to. Then why didn't they protect the right to drink water? The right to breathe air? So many things that serve no purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did protect the right to drink water, and all other natural rights, in the 9th Amendment.
> 
> "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
> 
> The right to keep arms and carry them on your person was a well-established natural right at the time. (please tell me you are not going to make me provide a source for this).   Current law is not inconsistent with this argument on the limits of Congress regarding arms, as States had banned the open carry of firearms many years ago, but to my knowledge, there is no federal ban on the open or concealed carry of firearms.  I could be wrong, and will admit my mistake readily.
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No only does your argument make no sense, but you've also failed to back it up with a single document. On the other hand I have PROOF, I mean, unless you're willing to stick your head up your ass, you can't deny what is said in the document I provided.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I apologize, but I have not seen the document to which you are referring.  Could you post a link again?  Thanks.
> 
> I am not opposed to reviewing any evidence anyone has to offer.
> 
> Understand, as I said, I am a liberty-first guy.  I label myself a libertarian for convenience, but I am really a classic liberal.
> 
> I believe our founders were also classic liberals.  They believed in government by and for the people.  I have provided documentation, that our founders all understood the right to possess and carry arms to be a natural right, that existed before governments.
> 
> I have provided quotes from the founders that support my argument that they intended the people to be armed as a security against government, to keep government in line and working for the people.
> 
> Your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment may be correct, but given the history of the right, and the intent of the 9th Amendment, the right to keep and carry was not to be infringed by Congress, but remained the authority of the States.
Click to expand...


Okay, fine, they protected a lot of stuff in the 9th Amendment. Now, what's the difference between all the things they protected in the 1st to 8th Amendments and those in the 9th Amendment? 

Drinking water doesn't impact the govt. It's just a general day to day thing. The things protected were things where the Americans had had grievances with the British. Now, there hadn't been grievances about carrying arms around. 

But here's the thing. I'm not saying there isn't a right to self defense, for example. I'm just saying it isn't in the Second Amendment. 

Yes, I'm going to make you source your claim. You made the argument. I want to see it. Where is there evidence of a right to carry arms around. Also I want evidence that the Founding Fathers felt the need to put this into an Amendment which starts "A well regulated militia".

Though the latter would be preferable because even with a right to carry arms around, it's still not in the Second Amendment. 

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

This is the document I've been referring to.

Here are the relevant parts

"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

Mr Gerry: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

Mr Jackson: "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent."

And there's more, these are just prove what I'm saying.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any evidence, any logic, anything that suggests the right to bear arms means "carry arms"? Anything?
> 
> 
> 
> "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
> - Thomas Jefferson, _Commonplace Book_ (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
> 
> There can hardly be a question, at least about what Thomas Jefferson believed regarding the right to carry meaning ACTUALLY CARRY on your person, rather than your interpretation of military service.
Click to expand...


Well, what you've shown is that Jefferson thought that people should be able to carry arms. Nothing about "bear arms" there.

Yes, Jefferson thought it carry on your person but he didn't use the term "bear arms", so your quote doesn't help you case in the slightest.


----------



## cnm

TheOldSchool said:


> We were founded on a revolutionary crazy notion that people are allowed to be as free as they want.


More like founded on the notion that Brit treaties with Iroquois didn't count.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

frigidweirdo said:


> Now, there hadn't been grievances about carrying arms around.


I disagree with that.  The Gun Powder Incident  in of 1774 in Virginia and the Powder Alarm in Massachusetts played a DIRECT role in causing The Revolution.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

frigidweirdo said:


> Well, what you've shown is that Jefferson thought that people should be able to carry arms. Nothing about "bear arms" there.
> 
> Yes, Jefferson thought it carry on your person but he didn't use the term "bear arms", so your quote doesn't help you case in the slightest.


You cannot be serious.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, there hadn't been grievances about carrying arms around.
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with that.  The Gun Powder Incident  in of 1774 in Virginia and the Powder Alarm in Massachusetts played a DIRECT role in causing The Revolution.
Click to expand...


Well, what I said I wasn't sure if it were the right way of saying it. 

But basically there are reasons for those things in the Bill or Rights, and the 2A is clearly about protecting the militia, not about protecting carrying of arms.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, what you've shown is that Jefferson thought that people should be able to carry arms. Nothing about "bear arms" there.
> 
> Yes, Jefferson thought it carry on your person but he didn't use the term "bear arms", so your quote doesn't help you case in the slightest.
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot be serious.
Click to expand...


Yes, I'm being serious. Nothing you have said shows the term "bear arms" being used.

All you're showing is that people thought about carrying arms. 

Your quote doesn't do anything to suggest "bear arms" means "carry arms".


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

frigidweirdo said:


> Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution


That was a debate over how they would allow those who objected to "bearing arms" in the context of militia service.  NOTHING about that debate unequivocally excludes the meaning of "carry" arms being an individual right.  In other words, your source sucks.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> 
> 
> That was a debate over how they would allow those who objected to "bearing arms" in the context of militia service.  NOTHING about that debate unequivocally excludes the meaning of "carry" arms being an individual right.  In other words, your source sucks.
Click to expand...


No, you're right that it doesn't show a negative. Proving negatives can be quite hard. 

But you're wrong about my source sucking. 

Basically in this source they use the term "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service" and "militia duty". In fact in different draft versions of the Second Amendment they substituted "bear arms" with "render military service". 

So, I have proof that the Founding Fathers were using the term "bear arms" to mean something. 

But this is why I'm asking you for evidence that "bear arms" means "carry guns around". 

Because I have evidence it means a right to be in a militia and you DON'T have evidence to back up your case. 

So, I'm asking again. 

Do you have any evidence that suggests "bear arms" means "carry arms around"?


----------



## 2aguy

frigidweirdo said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> 
> 
> That was a debate over how they would allow those who objected to "bearing arms" in the context of militia service.  NOTHING about that debate unequivocally excludes the meaning of "carry" arms being an individual right.  In other words, your source sucks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you're right that it doesn't show a negative. Proving negatives can be quite hard.
> 
> But you're wrong about my source sucking.
> 
> Basically in this source they use the term "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service" and "militia duty". In fact in different draft versions of the Second Amendment they substituted "bear arms" with "render military service".
> 
> So, I have proof that the Founding Fathers were using the term "bear arms" to mean something.
> 
> But this is why I'm asking you for evidence that "bear arms" means "carry guns around".
> 
> Because I have evidence it means a right to be in a militia and you DON'T have evidence to back up your case.
> 
> So, I'm asking again.
> 
> Do you have any evidence that suggests "bear arms" means "carry arms around"?
Click to expand...



Yes....you are pretending that the Heller decision, and it's detailed explanation of the phrasing of the 2nd Amendment doesn't exist....


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

frigidweirdo said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, what you've shown is that Jefferson thought that people should be able to carry arms. Nothing about "bear arms" there.
> 
> Yes, Jefferson thought it carry on your person but he didn't use the term "bear arms", so your quote doesn't help you case in the slightest.
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot be serious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I'm being serious. Nothing you have said shows the term "bear arms" being used.
> 
> All you're showing is that people thought about carrying arms.
> 
> Your quote doesn't do anything to suggest "bear arms" means "carry arms".
Click to expand...

*Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 1790 - Wikisource, the free online library*

Pennsylvania Constitution, adopted in 1790
Article V
Section 21
"That the right of citizens to bear arms, in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned."

Adopted at or near the time of the U.S. Constitution.  "Bear arms" UNEQUIVOCALLY means "carry" unless you are calling self-defense military service.


----------



## 2aguy

frigidweirdo said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> 
> 
> That was a debate over how they would allow those who objected to "bearing arms" in the context of militia service.  NOTHING about that debate unequivocally excludes the meaning of "carry" arms being an individual right.  In other words, your source sucks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you're right that it doesn't show a negative. Proving negatives can be quite hard.
> 
> But you're wrong about my source sucking.
> 
> Basically in this source they use the term "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service" and "militia duty". In fact in different draft versions of the Second Amendment they substituted "bear arms" with "render military service".
> 
> So, I have proof that the Founding Fathers were using the term "bear arms" to mean something.
> 
> But this is why I'm asking you for evidence that "bear arms" means "carry guns around".
> 
> Because I have evidence it means a right to be in a militia and you DON'T have evidence to back up your case.
> 
> So, I'm asking again.
> 
> Do you have any evidence that suggests "bear arms" means "carry arms around"?
Click to expand...



Yeah....except you don't know what you are talking about....

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 US 570 - Supreme Court 2008 - Google Scholar



**2793 At the time of the founding, as now, to "bear" meant to "carry." See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed.1989) (hereinafter Oxford). When used with "arms," however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation. *

In _Muscarello v. United States,_ 524 U.S. 125, 118 S.Ct. 1911, 141 L.Ed.2d 111 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of "carries a firearm" in a federal criminal statute, Justice GINSBURG wrote that "urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution's Second Amendment . . . indicate: `wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.'" _Id.,_ at 143, 118 S.Ct. 1911 (dissenting opinion) (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed.1990)). We think that Justice GINSBURG accurately captured the natural meaning of "bear arms." Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of "offensive or defensive action," it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization.

From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that "bear arms" had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, "bear arms" was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment: nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to "bear arms in defense of themselves and the state" or "bear arms in defense of himself and the state."[8] It is clear from those formulations that "bear arms" did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit. Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution's arms-bearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense "of one's person or house"—what he called the law of "self preservation." 2 Collected Works of James Wilson 1142, and n. x (K. Hall & M. Hall eds.2007) (citing Pa. Const., Art. IX, § 21 (1790)); see also T. Walker, Introduction to American Law 198 (1837) 2794*2794 ("Thus the right of self-defence [is] guaranteed by the [Ohio] constitution"); see also _id.,_ at 157 (equating Second Amendment with that provision of the Ohio Constitution). That was also the interpretation of those state constitutional provisions adopted by pre-Civil War state courts.[9] These provisions demonstrate—again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that "bear arms" was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia.

The phrase "bear Arms" also had at the time of the founding an idiomatic meaning that was significantly different from its natural meaning: "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight" or "to wage war." See Linguists' Brief 18; _post,_ at 2827 - 2828 (STEVENS, J., dissenting). But it _unequivocally_ bore that idiomatic meaning only when followed by the preposition "against," which was in turn followed by the target of the hostilities. See 2 Oxford 21. (That is how, for example, our Declaration of Independence ¶ 28 used the phrase: "He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country . . . .") Every example given by petitioners' _amici_ for the idiomatic meaning of "bear arms" from the founding period either includes the preposition "against" or is not clearly idiomatic. See Linguists' Brief 18-23. Without the preposition, "bear arms" normally meant (as it continues to mean today) what Justice GINSBURG's opinion in _Muscarello_ said.

In any event, the meaning of "bear arms" that petitioners and Justice STEVENS propose is _not even_ the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby "bear arms" connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. But it is easy to see why petitioners and the dissent are driven to the hybrid definition. Giving "bear Arms" its idiomatic meaning would cause the protected right to consist of the right to be a soldier or to wage war—an absurdity that no commentator has ever endorsed. See L. Levy, Origins of the Bill of Rights 135 (1999). Worse still, the phrase "keep and bear Arms" would be incoherent. The word "Arms" would have two different meanings at once: "weapons" (as the object of "keep") and (as the object of "bear") one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying "He filled and kicked the bucket" to mean "He filled the bucket and died." Grotesque.

Petitioners justify their limitation of "bear arms" to the military context by pointing out the unremarkable fact that it was often used in that context—the same mistake they made with respect to "keep arms." It is especially unremarkable that the phrase was often used in a military context in the federal legal sources (such as records of congressional debate) that have been the focus of petitioners' inquiry. Those sources would have had little occasion to use it _except_ in discussions about the standing army and the militia. And the phrases used primarily in those military discussions include not only "bear arms" but also "carry arms," "possess arms," and "have arms"—though no one 2795*2795 thinks that those _other_ phrases also had special military meanings. See Barnett, Was the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Conditioned on Service in an Organized Militia? 83 Texas L.Rev. 237, 261 (2004). The common references to those "fit to bear arms" in congressional discussions about the militia are matched by use of the same phrase in the few nonmilitary federal contexts where the concept would be relevant. See, _e.g.,_ 30 Journals of Continental Congress 349-351 (J. Fitzpatrick ed.1934). Other legal sources frequently used "bear arms" in nonmilitary contexts.[10] Cunningham's legal dictionary, cited above, gave as an example of its usage a sentence unrelated to military affairs ("Servants and labourers shall use bows and arrows on _Sundays,_ & c. and not bear other arms"). And if one looks beyond legal sources, "bear arms" was frequently used in nonmilitary contexts. See Cramer & Olson, What Did "Bear Arms" Mean in the Second Amendment? 6 Georgetown J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 511 (2008) (identifying numerous nonmilitary uses of "bear arms" from the founding period).

Justice STEVENS points to a study by _amici_ supposedly showing that the phrase "bear arms" was most frequently used in the military context. See _post,_ at 2828 - 2829, n. 9; Linguists' Brief 24. Of course, as we have said, the fact that the phrase was commonly used in a particular context does not show that it is limited to that context, and, in any event, we have given many sources where the phrase was used in nonmilitary contexts. Moreover, the study's collection appears to include (who knows how many times) the idiomatic phrase "bear arms against," which is irrelevant. The _amici_ also dismiss examples such as "`bear arms . . . for the purpose of killing game'" because those uses are "expressly qualified." Linguists' Brief 24. (Justice STEVENS uses the same excuse for dismissing the state constitutional provisions analogous to the Second Amendment that identify private-use purposes for which the individual right can be asserted. See _post,_ at 2828.) That analysis is faulty. A purposive qualifying phrase that contradicts the word or phrase it modifies is unknown this side of the looking glass 2796*2796 (except, apparently, in some courses on linguistics). If "bear arms" means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage ("for the purpose of self-defense" or "to make war against the King"). But if "bear arms" means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add "for the purpose of killing game." The right "to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game" is worthy of the Mad Hatter. Thus, these purposive qualifying phrases positively establish that "to bear arms" is not limited to military use.[11]


----------



## 2aguy

frigidweirdo said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> 
> 
> That was a debate over how they would allow those who objected to "bearing arms" in the context of militia service.  NOTHING about that debate unequivocally excludes the meaning of "carry" arms being an individual right.  In other words, your source sucks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you're right that it doesn't show a negative. Proving negatives can be quite hard.
> 
> But you're wrong about my source sucking.
> 
> Basically in this source they use the term "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service" and "militia duty". In fact in different draft versions of the Second Amendment they substituted "bear arms" with "render military service".
> 
> So, I have proof that the Founding Fathers were using the term "bear arms" to mean something.
> 
> But this is why I'm asking you for evidence that "bear arms" means "carry guns around".
> 
> Because I have evidence it means a right to be in a militia and you DON'T have evidence to back up your case.
> 
> So, I'm asking again.
> 
> Do you have any evidence that suggests "bear arms" means "carry arms around"?
Click to expand...



Even Supreme Court justice and anti gunner Ruth "buzzy" Ginzburg says you are fucking clueless....

In _Muscarello v. United States,_ 524 U.S. 125, 118 S.Ct. 1911, 141 L.Ed.2d 111 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of "carries a firearm" in a federal criminal statute, *Justice GINSBURG wrote that "urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution's Second Amendment . . . indicate: `wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.'"* _Id.,_ at 143, 118 S.Ct. 1911 (dissenting opinion) (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed.1990)). We think that Justice GINSBURG accurately captured the natural meaning of "bear arms." 

*Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of "offensive or defensive action," it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization.*


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

This is one of the contemplated drafts in your source for "bear" meaning "military service."

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

Why would it say "render military service in person" if "bear arms" means military service?


----------



## frigidweirdo

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, what you've shown is that Jefferson thought that people should be able to carry arms. Nothing about "bear arms" there.
> 
> Yes, Jefferson thought it carry on your person but he didn't use the term "bear arms", so your quote doesn't help you case in the slightest.
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot be serious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I'm being serious. Nothing you have said shows the term "bear arms" being used.
> 
> All you're showing is that people thought about carrying arms.
> 
> Your quote doesn't do anything to suggest "bear arms" means "carry arms".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 1790 - Wikisource, the free online library*
> 
> Pennsylvania Constition, adopted in 1790
> Article V
> Section 21
> "That the right of citizens to bear arms, in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned."
> 
> Adopted at or near the time of the U.S. Constitution.  "Bear arms" UNEQUIVOCALLY carry, unless you are calling self-defense military service.
Click to expand...


Hey, you found it. I didn't think you would. I was going to show it to you after a while. There's also another one. 

Now, here's the question. 

Does "themselves" refer to individuals defending themselves through self defense, or does it refer to the citizens as a whole defending themselves (as a whole) from external attack?

I haven't found anything that suggests either way. It's a problem. Mostly for you because you can't show it's individual self defense. 

In fact, that it's so similar to the Second Amendment, it would suggest that "bear arms" means "render military service". 

So, I wouldn't say it's "UNEQUIVOCALLY carry". 

"themselves" refers to "the people" so, if the people are defending the people, what are they doing?

Also it was in the Constitution of 1776.


----------



## westwall

frigidweirdo said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, what you've shown is that Jefferson thought that people should be able to carry arms. Nothing about "bear arms" there.
> 
> Yes, Jefferson thought it carry on your person but he didn't use the term "bear arms", so your quote doesn't help you case in the slightest.
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot be serious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I'm being serious. Nothing you have said shows the term "bear arms" being used.
> 
> All you're showing is that people thought about carrying arms.
> 
> Your quote doesn't do anything to suggest "bear arms" means "carry arms".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 1790 - Wikisource, the free online library*
> 
> Pennsylvania Constition, adopted in 1790
> Article V
> Section 21
> "That the right of citizens to bear arms, in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned."
> 
> Adopted at or near the time of the U.S. Constitution.  "Bear arms" UNEQUIVOCALLY carry, unless you are calling self-defense military service.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, you found it. I didn't think you would. I was going to show it to you after a while. There's also another one.
> 
> Now, here's the question.
> 
> Does "themselves" refer to individuals defending themselves through self defense, or does it refer to the citizens as a whole defending themselves (as a whole) from external attack?
> 
> I haven't found anything that suggests either way. It's a problem. Mostly for you because you can't show it's individual self defense.
> 
> In fact, that it's so similar to the Second Amendment, it would suggest that "bear arms" means "render military service".
> 
> So, I wouldn't say it's "UNEQUIVOCALLY carry".
> 
> "themselves" refers to "the people" so, if the people are defending the people, what are they doing?
> 
> Also it was in the Constitution of 1776.
Click to expand...







Your "reasoning" is every bit as retarded as asking what the definition of "IS" is..


----------



## frigidweirdo

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> This is one of the contemplated drafts in your source for "bear" meaning "military service."
> 
> "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: *but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms*, *shall be compelled to render military service in person.*
> 
> Why would it say "render military service in person" if "bear arms" means military service?



Different versions of the Amendment


*June 8th 1789

 but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.


August 17th 1789


but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.
'

August 24th 1789


but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.*

Now, render military service in person was taken out of the Amendment and replaced with "bear arms", and then "bear arms" was replaced by "render military service". Why? No idea. However it seems to be synonymous, as shown by how Mr Jerry and Mr Jackson spoke. 

But basically what you have here is militia duty. You'd render military service in the militia, individually, in person.


----------



## turtledude

frigidweirdo said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, what you've shown is that Jefferson thought that people should be able to carry arms. Nothing about "bear arms" there.
> 
> Yes, Jefferson thought it carry on your person but he didn't use the term "bear arms", so your quote doesn't help you case in the slightest.
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot be serious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I'm being serious. Nothing you have said shows the term "bear arms" being used.
> 
> All you're showing is that people thought about carrying arms.
> 
> Your quote doesn't do anything to suggest "bear arms" means "carry arms".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 1790 - Wikisource, the free online library*
> 
> Pennsylvania Constition, adopted in 1790
> Article V
> Section 21
> "That the right of citizens to bear arms, in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned."
> 
> Adopted at or near the time of the U.S. Constitution.  "Bear arms" UNEQUIVOCALLY carry, unless you are calling self-defense military service.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, you found it. I didn't think you would. I was going to show it to you after a while. There's also another one.
> 
> Now, here's the question.
> 
> Does "themselves" refer to individuals defending themselves through self defense, or does it refer to the citizens as a whole defending themselves (as a whole) from external attack?
> 
> I haven't found anything that suggests either way. It's a problem. Mostly for you because you can't show it's individual self defense.
> 
> In fact, that it's so similar to the Second Amendment, it would suggest that "bear arms" means "render military service".
> 
> So, I wouldn't say it's "UNEQUIVOCALLY carry".
> 
> "themselves" refers to "the people" so, if the people are defending the people, what are they doing?
> 
> Also it was in the Constitution of 1776.
Click to expand...



frigidweirdo-do you go through all these contortions because you want to pretend that bannerrhoid gun laws are actually not contrary to the wishes of the founders?  what is your purpose for this tortured analysis of the second?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

frigidweirdo said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, what you've shown is that Jefferson thought that people should be able to carry arms. Nothing about "bear arms" there.
> 
> Yes, Jefferson thought it carry on your person but he didn't use the term "bear arms", so your quote doesn't help you case in the slightest.
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot be serious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I'm being serious. Nothing you have said shows the term "bear arms" being used.
> 
> All you're showing is that people thought about carrying arms.
> 
> Your quote doesn't do anything to suggest "bear arms" means "carry arms".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 1790 - Wikisource, the free online library*
> 
> Pennsylvania Constition, adopted in 1790
> Article V
> Section 21
> "That the right of citizens to bear arms, in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned."
> 
> Adopted at or near the time of the U.S. Constitution.  "Bear arms" UNEQUIVOCALLY carry, unless you are calling self-defense military service.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, you found it. I didn't think you would. I was going to show it to you after a while. There's also another one.
> 
> Now, here's the question.
> 
> Does "themselves" refer to individuals defending themselves through self defense, or does it refer to the citizens as a whole defending themselves (as a whole) from external attack?
> 
> I haven't found anything that suggests either way. It's a problem. Mostly for you because you can't show it's individual self defense.
> 
> In fact, that it's so similar to the Second Amendment, it would suggest that "bear arms" means "render military service".
> 
> So, I wouldn't say it's "UNEQUIVOCALLY carry".
> 
> "themselves" refers to "the people" so, if the people are defending the people, what are they doing?
> 
> Also it was in the Constitution of 1776.
Click to expand...

Yeah, okay.  Not unequivocally, but "themselves" means collective?  Really?

It's as if you are searching for a reason to distort the meaning of the 2nd.  Why not just accept it and go about trying to amend the constitution?  This war of words is starting to look desperate.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, what you've shown is that Jefferson thought that people should be able to carry arms. Nothing about "bear arms" there.
> 
> Yes, Jefferson thought it carry on your person but he didn't use the term "bear arms", so your quote doesn't help you case in the slightest.
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot be serious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I'm being serious. Nothing you have said shows the term "bear arms" being used.
> 
> All you're showing is that people thought about carrying arms.
> 
> Your quote doesn't do anything to suggest "bear arms" means "carry arms".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 1790 - Wikisource, the free online library*
> 
> Pennsylvania Constitution, adopted in 1790
> Article V
> Section 21
> "That the right of citizens to bear arms, in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned."
> 
> Adopted at or near the time of the U.S. Constitution.  "Bear arms" UNEQUIVOCALLY means "carry" unless you are calling self-defense military service.
Click to expand...


Just to add


Amendment II: William Blackstone, Commentaries 1:139



*"William Blackstone, Commentaries 1:139*

1765
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




5. The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st. 2. c. 2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."

Here we have "having arms for *their* defence" and then he talks about the "natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression." 

What does this mean? Self defense for individuals or self defense for "the people", for "the state", for society?

Certainly the term "resistance" seem to be the collective. "self-preservation" could go either way. However the last part about "restrain the violence of oppression" appears to talk about the govt oppressing people, rather than someone trying to rob you.


----------



## frigidweirdo

turtledude said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, what you've shown is that Jefferson thought that people should be able to carry arms. Nothing about "bear arms" there.
> 
> Yes, Jefferson thought it carry on your person but he didn't use the term "bear arms", so your quote doesn't help you case in the slightest.
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot be serious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I'm being serious. Nothing you have said shows the term "bear arms" being used.
> 
> All you're showing is that people thought about carrying arms.
> 
> Your quote doesn't do anything to suggest "bear arms" means "carry arms".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 1790 - Wikisource, the free online library*
> 
> Pennsylvania Constition, adopted in 1790
> Article V
> Section 21
> "That the right of citizens to bear arms, in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned."
> 
> Adopted at or near the time of the U.S. Constitution.  "Bear arms" UNEQUIVOCALLY carry, unless you are calling self-defense military service.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, you found it. I didn't think you would. I was going to show it to you after a while. There's also another one.
> 
> Now, here's the question.
> 
> Does "themselves" refer to individuals defending themselves through self defense, or does it refer to the citizens as a whole defending themselves (as a whole) from external attack?
> 
> I haven't found anything that suggests either way. It's a problem. Mostly for you because you can't show it's individual self defense.
> 
> In fact, that it's so similar to the Second Amendment, it would suggest that "bear arms" means "render military service".
> 
> So, I wouldn't say it's "UNEQUIVOCALLY carry".
> 
> "themselves" refers to "the people" so, if the people are defending the people, what are they doing?
> 
> Also it was in the Constitution of 1776.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo-do you go through all these contortions because you want to pretend that bannerrhoid gun laws are actually not contrary to the wishes of the founders?  what is your purpose for this tortured analysis of the second?
Click to expand...


No, my purpose is to find the truth. 

I'm not someone with an agenda here, like everyone else. I'm more interested in using my brain than trying to show everyone how great I am because I can insult like a little child.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

frigidweirdo said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is one of the contemplated drafts in your source for "bear" meaning "military service."
> 
> "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: *but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms*, *shall be compelled to render military service in person.*
> 
> Why would it say "render military service in person" if "bear arms" means military service?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Different versions of the Amendment
> 
> 
> *June 8th 1789
> 
> but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
> 
> 
> August 17th 1789
> 
> 
> but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.
> '
> 
> August 24th 1789
> 
> 
> but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.*
> 
> Now, render military service in person was taken out of the Amendment and replaced with "bear arms", and then "bear arms" was replaced by "render military service". Why? No idea. However it seems to be synonymous, as shown by how Mr Jerry and Mr Jackson spoke.
> 
> But basically what you have here is militia duty. You'd render military service in the militia, individually, in person.
Click to expand...

Again, those different drafts use military service in a distinct fashion from bearing arms.

Why not simply accept the more ordinary meaning of "bear arms" and go about trying to amend the constitution?   The war over the text only puts honest observers on guard that you are trying to trick them, and drives them into the arms of the gun lobby.  

Gun grabbers want an honest discussion, but come to the table trying to tell us the 2nd's text means something other than the plain meaning.  Drop the act.  Be honest that you want to disarm everyone, and let the chips fall.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, what you've shown is that Jefferson thought that people should be able to carry arms. Nothing about "bear arms" there.
> 
> Yes, Jefferson thought it carry on your person but he didn't use the term "bear arms", so your quote doesn't help you case in the slightest.
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot be serious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I'm being serious. Nothing you have said shows the term "bear arms" being used.
> 
> All you're showing is that people thought about carrying arms.
> 
> Your quote doesn't do anything to suggest "bear arms" means "carry arms".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 1790 - Wikisource, the free online library*
> 
> Pennsylvania Constition, adopted in 1790
> Article V
> Section 21
> "That the right of citizens to bear arms, in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned."
> 
> Adopted at or near the time of the U.S. Constitution.  "Bear arms" UNEQUIVOCALLY carry, unless you are calling self-defense military service.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, you found it. I didn't think you would. I was going to show it to you after a while. There's also another one.
> 
> Now, here's the question.
> 
> Does "themselves" refer to individuals defending themselves through self defense, or does it refer to the citizens as a whole defending themselves (as a whole) from external attack?
> 
> I haven't found anything that suggests either way. It's a problem. Mostly for you because you can't show it's individual self defense.
> 
> In fact, that it's so similar to the Second Amendment, it would suggest that "bear arms" means "render military service".
> 
> So, I wouldn't say it's "UNEQUIVOCALLY carry".
> 
> "themselves" refers to "the people" so, if the people are defending the people, what are they doing?
> 
> Also it was in the Constitution of 1776.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, okay.  Not unequivocally, but "themselves" means collective?  Really?
> 
> It's as if you are searching for a reason to distort the meaning of the 2nd.  Why not just accept it and go about trying to amend the constitution?  This war of words is starting to look desperate.
Click to expand...


What does "themselves" mean?

It's rather vague.

It's an object pronoun. What would you replace "themselves" with here? What does it mean? What does it refer to? It refers to "the people". Are the people individual or a collective? They can be both.

themselves | Definition of themselves in US English by Oxford Dictionaries

"reflexive 
Used as the object of a verb or preposition to refer to a group of people or things previously mentioned as the subject of the clause.

_‘countries unable to look after themselves’"
_
In the example here, each individual country can't look after itself. "Itself" being the object pronoun. So, they use the plural which is "themselves". 
_
Themselves definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

"
They all seemed to be enjoying themselves.
The men talked amongst themselves.
All artists have part of themselves that they can never share with anyone else."

Well this has fucked up and gone italic forever. Great.

Anyway the first one is "enjoying themselves", collective but contains individuals.

The second one, the men are talking among themselves, it's impossible to talk among yourself. So it's collective and not individual. 

Like I said, it can be both, ambiguous, because it refers to "them", which can be collective or individual collective. 

But you trying to attack me for a "war of words", seriously dude, I'm making my case. If you can't be bothered, just say so and I won't waste my time with you. I really don't come on here to be fucked around. You might not agree with me, fine, but everything I say is logical. _


----------



## emilynghiem

danielpalos said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it means whatever the DICTIONARY says it means.  That's why dictionary's get written.  Here is the original meaning of the phrase, that has already been shown to you, and which you continue to ignore.
> 
> 
> The following are taken from the _*Oxford English Dictionary*_, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
> 
> 1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us *well-regulated* Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
> 
> 1714: "The practice of all *well-regulated* courts of justice in the world."
> 
> 1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a *well-regulated* clock and a true sun dial."
> 
> 1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every *well-regulated* person will blame the Mayor."
> 
> 1862: "It appeared to her *well-regulated* mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
> 
> 1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every *well-regulated* American embryo city."
> 
> The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
> 
> Meaning of the phrase "well-regulated"
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't.  Congress has to prescribe, well regulated, for the militia of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ???? Dear danielpalos
> No, the Bill of Rights did not come from the Congressional level.
> The Second Amendment was part of the Bill of Rights that was
> added as a condition to get certain states to agree to ratify the
> Constitution. So while all the States and their reps had a say in
> how the 2nd and other Amendments were written in order to go
> through the national process of being added to the Constitution,
> the whole spirit and point of the CONTENTS of the Bill of Rights
> is to define INDIVIDUAL rights that belong to STATES and PEOPLE
> NOT TO FEDERAL GOVT WHICH IS ALREADY DEFINED IN THE CONSTITUTION PROPER.
> 
> I see you don't get the very spirit and purpose for the Bill of Rights.
> 
> I feel sorry for you and anyone who has to argue or try to explain this to you.
> 
> It is as difficult as trying to explain why God and Jesus are universally
> important to humanity, while dealing with an atheist who doesn't see or experience what these things mean.
> 
> Not your fault, I just feel bad that this has created such ill will and distrust
> when it really is a matter of people's individual beliefs. Similar to how people can't help identifying as gay or straight, transgender or cis whatever.
> 
> If you just don't believe in individual people having that right, but only states or in your case you believe federal govt is the regulating authority,
> then that's your belief.  I can respect that, but strongly urge you to do the same and respect the beliefs of others, without demeaning namecalling and insults, if you expect to be taken seriously either!
> 
> The natural law that  you cannot argue exists regardless of legal system or religion is the Natural Law of Reciprocity or the Golden Rule.
> 
> danielpalos if you want others to respect you
> take you seriously and include and protect YOUR views beliefs
> and arguments, then if you treat them with that same
> respect and inclusion, people tend to reciprocate.
> 
> If you seek to abuse govt to abridge prohibit exclude DISPARAGE
> or otherwise Discriminate against others of different or opposing beliefs,
> guess what? They become defensive of their rights and will do the
> same to you as a defense mechanism.
> 
> this is human nature. that's what is meant by natural laws.
> We operate that way by Conscience, by our naturally born free will.
> 
> So whenever you or I or anyone, especially a religious or political group, threatens to control, change, or regulate the beliefs or will of another person or group, that person or group will respond exactly as you and I would do,
> and defend that position.
> 
> So the Golden Rule applies. If you want to reach a respectable solution that accommodates your views, it is just common sense and practical wisdom
> to accommodate the views of others, and to respect their consent and beliefs, as you want your own beliefs and consent to be respected!
> 
> The Golden Rule of reciprocity appears in every major religion.
> Ironically the worst place where I see it omitted or even negated
> is in Constitutional laws, where people teach a separation of people
> from govt to the point where we do not teach people to enforce the same rules for govt that we want for ourselves. We keep teaching that the responsibilities for law lie with govt and give more power there than to the people. So you wonder why people aren't equal. The ones with a chance at equality are the people taught to empower themselves with equal authority as anyone else either inside or outside a position of authority. We all have a right to petition until grievances are redressed so that we share equal voice in decisions on any level that we wish to participate and take responsibility.
> As individuals, we have that, but not as govt where govt is limited between state, federal or local jurisdiction. So the people always have more power than the govt because we aren't limited to just one branch or one level.
> 
> What is missing is learning to treat others and respect the rights of others as we would want enforced for ourselves. The Constitution doesn't come out and say that, we have to figure that part out for ourselves.
> 
> Again it's a natural law, that what we do unto others comes back to us.
> Whether you call this reaping what you sow, the laws of karma or cause and effect, the laws of justice and peace.  The Bill of Rights defines and protects the TOOLS we need from free speech and press, right to petition and due process; but doesn't require in writing that the people follow the laws if they want to invoke them.  Again that is already inherent in the natural laws that people invoke without relying on any religion or set of laws to do it. That naturally occurs, and we live by these natural laws every day, in all relations. What we give is what we get.  We attract the very reactions that we instigate with our own actions.
> 
> If you can understand the Golden Rule, then we have a chance to work with all people of all beliefs, and teach respect for contrasting beliefs while we work toward a solution that includes these respectively, so that none need to suffer compromise or threat to trounce on them.
> 
> We'd have to work on a local and state level, and I think by working with the NRA on training and screening procedures per police force or per military or state entity, we can do the equivalent of "well regulated militia" on a state local or national level, while respecting the consent of the people REGARDLESS OF THEIR BELIEFS, including the diehards who don't believe in either federal or state authority regulating arms. We can still work with those extremes of the spectrum if we can work with the extreme that you believe in that federal govt or Congress is the authority on this.
> 
> I know many more people who would only agree and barely agree if it was the local people deciding for themselves what procedures or policies would be used to ensure arms aren't abused for criminal intent or purposes. And they tend to be very big on not depriving rights without due process to prove that someone shouldn't have access to guns. So there is that extreme that those people have equal right to as you do to your beliefs.
> 
> Are you okay with this concept that given the contrasting political beliefs,
> a solution should be crafted that accommodates people of all beliefs equally?
> 
> Do you agree with the spirit of the contract that in order to respect and include your arguments beliefs and interpretations, the same should be
> afforded to other citizens like you who aren't trying to abuse such rights and protections to commit or enable abuse of laws or authority to infringe on the same of anyone else, but to defend the laws for all people agreeing on this purpose?
> 
> Thanks danielpalos
> and CC also to frigidweirdo
> If you both and I can agree on an approach of equal inclusion
> I would be happy to work with you on a task force to address
> the NRA and state governors on agreed approaches that
> don't violate or impose on anyone's beliefs regardless how
> diverse or conflicting. We can work around these state by state,
> district by district, and agency by agnecy where each local
> jurisdiction can agree and participate in forming their own policies
> to ensure safety whie respecting the rights and beliefs of all people
> under that jurisdiction, even where their beliefs are in the same conflict
> that we are finding here. We must still work together on equal inclusion
> if we are going to fulfill the standards and purpose of Constitutional laws protecting the rights of people and states from infringement, no matter how we frame or define these, based on our respective beliefs and arguments.
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, you don't know what you are talking about.  Congress must prescribe, "wellness of regulation" for the Militia of the United States.
> 
> Only the clueless and the Causeless gainsay that contention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No danielpalos sorry
> the local police, the state rangers and other such entities
> have their own local rules. These can't be "in conflict"
> with the Constitution as previously cited above (see Bootney Lee Farnsworth
> verbatim citations with emphasis added to show where these apply to federal
> The Right To Bear Arms)
> but that doesn't mean the federal regulates them from the top down.
> 
> I guess you are one of those people who does not
> make a distinction between state and federal govt.
> 
> If the feds were in charge of all the things the states
> can do locally, we'd be in a bigger mess than we are now.
> 
> The feds cannot handle the demand over three states plus PR
> over hurricane disaster relief affecting indivudals and businesses.
> The demand is too great, and has to be allocated to the states.
> 
> Or the people would not get any help waiting in one long line
> for federal employees to manage all those decisions.
> 
> Same with health care. Same with crime and gun controls.
> 
> None of the people or state level agencies shoudl be in the
> business of "violating" or conflicting with Constitutional and
> national laws But that's NOT the same as federal govt
> regulating them!
> 
> I find it ironic danielpalos that you argue for your position.
> but if it were TRULY the federal govt in charge of regulations,
> and if the opposite viewpoint were the one the federal govt took,
> then YOUR VIEWPOINT could be ruled as being in violation
> of the Constitutional laws and their intent.
> 
> so just be glad that isn't how it works.
> 
> Of course people and states have the right to regulate themselves
> as long as it doesn't violate equal Constitutional protections of others.
> 
> So far no states or federal govt has passed any law making it illegal
> for people of your belief to influence the regulations on guns.
> 
> But if you argue that the federal govt would have a right to regulate
> for the states, then that could mean taking away your right to influence
> such legislation as part of federal regulations!
> 
> you think that wouldn't happen? What do you think happened when Obama and Congress passed and signed the health care mandates FINING people with PENALTIES who didn't have the right to contest or vote on that change in law. The belief that federal govt could regulate health care to that extent was imposed
> on everyone else under penalty of law, masked as a tax bill when it wasn't passed and voted on in Congress as a tax bill or the vote would have failed. it was passed as  a health bill where that interpretation failed in court.
> 
> if you believe in federal govt legislating and regulating to this extent, with no distinction from state govt that represents the local populations separately from the other states doing the same,
> then I would argue for your right to be under that if you believe in it.
> 
> But that does not give you the right to impose this belief
> on others who separate state jurisdiction from federal.
> Govt on all levels should still respect Constitutional laws for all people.
> But that's not the same as federal regulations from the top down
> being inseparable from state jurisdiction.
> 
> I'm sorry you don't make this distinction.
> 
> It's ironic to me that imposing your beliefs on everyone else
> would in itself be a violation of the Constitution
> were it not for the SEPARATION of the levels
> of federal, state and people. So just by the fact you can make
> your argument and have the freedom to do so, comes from the
> very separation of authority that allows people and states that freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear, Only Congress can prescribe "well regulated" to the Militia of the United States.
Click to expand...

Yes danielpalos it is Not argued against but Agreed that the federal govt regulates the US Military . That's why I referred to Bootney's citations that specify what the federal government regulates in the body of the Constitution. No one is contesting that.

As for local groups, the States grant charters to entities that operate within their jurisdictions. Some entities are an extension  of US military but some are local to states or cities. Citizen patrols have been organized and supervised by neighborhood associations and local police working with citizens.   

danielpalos I don't know if you saw the news stories about the citizens and business owners in Korea Town who had to take up their own arms to patrol their district to prevent looting and rioters from burning down their stores, but the LA police had made the decision not to respond to any 911 calls for 24 hours and just let the fires and mob crime go on at it's height because they would be overwhelmed and endangered . 

When Harvey flooding hit multiple areas at once all around Houston, there weren't enough law enforcement nor access to roads to police the homes and neighborhoods so there was a lot of looting in vulnerable districts. I know ppl personally that witnessed or suffered losses. 
So this business of only depending on federally regulated law enforcement is not even practical or realistic.

There was a huge difference between Katrina response and Harvey because local citizens took action in their own districts until govt help and responders could organize and intervene.

How many more people would have died if we all waited on federal govt to manage regulate and coordinate everything.

Sorry danielpalos but as diverse as the populations and community systems are across cities and states in America, we need local organization and leadership to represent and meet those needs and demand s. The way human nature works, people need vested ownership in their own programs to ensure accountability and effectiveness. 

You may think you want federal govt regulating everything centrally but that is only true when the system Agrees with your beliefs and represents you. The minute federal regulations dictate things against your beliefs, then you and/or others will demand freedom to represent and protect what you believe in from govt imposing otherwise.  

So even if you believe in govt regulating these laws federally, it still lands on the people. And just like you who defend your beliefs and arguments, so will the people argue for individual and state rights not to be dictated by federal govt.

Those opponents will fight just as hard to defend their beliefs and interpretation as you do. So you can believe and defend your position as much as you want, but so does the other side have equal right to theirs. So where both sides disagree, it will still land on the people to decide how to resolve the conflict and create policy that satisfies both. It will still come from the people first, before policy is implemented or reformed on either the state or federal levels. The ppl must consent, and you will not get believers in individual rights to agree with your interpretation or belief in giving up those rights to federal govt to regulate on behalf of states.

You can choose to give up your rights to govt, by your own beliefs , but you have no right to compel others to in violation of their rights and beliefs. Only if people commit a crime for which they are convicted by due process can they be deprived of freedom as prescribed by law.

 So good luck convincing ppl to give up their rights and beliefs for yours!


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

frigidweirdo said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot be serious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I'm being serious. Nothing you have said shows the term "bear arms" being used.
> 
> All you're showing is that people thought about carrying arms.
> 
> Your quote doesn't do anything to suggest "bear arms" means "carry arms".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 1790 - Wikisource, the free online library*
> 
> Pennsylvania Constition, adopted in 1790
> Article V
> Section 21
> "That the right of citizens to bear arms, in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned."
> 
> Adopted at or near the time of the U.S. Constitution.  "Bear arms" UNEQUIVOCALLY carry, unless you are calling self-defense military service.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, you found it. I didn't think you would. I was going to show it to you after a while. There's also another one.
> 
> Now, here's the question.
> 
> Does "themselves" refer to individuals defending themselves through self defense, or does it refer to the citizens as a whole defending themselves (as a whole) from external attack?
> 
> I haven't found anything that suggests either way. It's a problem. Mostly for you because you can't show it's individual self defense.
> 
> In fact, that it's so similar to the Second Amendment, it would suggest that "bear arms" means "render military service".
> 
> So, I wouldn't say it's "UNEQUIVOCALLY carry".
> 
> "themselves" refers to "the people" so, if the people are defending the people, what are they doing?
> 
> Also it was in the Constitution of 1776.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, okay.  Not unequivocally, but "themselves" means collective?  Really?
> 
> It's as if you are searching for a reason to distort the meaning of the 2nd.  Why not just accept it and go about trying to amend the constitution?  This war of words is starting to look desperate.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does "themselves" mean?
> 
> It's rather vague.
> 
> It's an object pronoun. What would you replace "themselves" with here? What does it mean? What does it refer to? It refers to "the people". Are the people individual or a collective? They can be both.
> 
> themselves | Definition of themselves in US English by Oxford Dictionaries
> 
> "reflexive
> Used as the object of a verb or preposition to refer to a group of people or things previously mentioned as the subject of the clause.
> 
> _‘countries unable to look after themselves’"
> _
> In the example here, each individual country can't look after itself. "Itself" being the object pronoun. So, they use the plural which is "themselves".
> _
> Themselves definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary
> 
> "
> They all seemed to be enjoying themselves.
> The men talked amongst themselves.
> All artists have part of themselves that they can never share with anyone else."
> 
> Well this has fucked up and gone italic forever. Great.
> 
> Anyway the first one is "enjoying themselves", collective but contains individuals.
> 
> The second one, the men are talking among themselves, it's impossible to talk among yourself. So it's collective and not individual.
> 
> Like I said, it can be both, ambiguous, because it refers to "them", which can be collective or individual collective.
> 
> But you trying to attack me for a "war of words", seriously dude, I'm making my case. If you can't be bothered, just say so and I won't waste my time with you. I really don't come on here to be fucked around. You might not agree with me, fine, but everything I say is logical. _
Click to expand...

I didn't intend any hostility in the "war of words" comment.  I was offering an alternative course.  

Have you ever heard "that depends on what your meaning of 'is' is"?   That word game is automatically associated with pettifogging.  It appears dishonest.  That was my point.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is one of the contemplated drafts in your source for "bear" meaning "military service."
> 
> "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: *but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms*, *shall be compelled to render military service in person.*
> 
> Why would it say "render military service in person" if "bear arms" means military service?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Different versions of the Amendment
> 
> 
> *June 8th 1789
> 
> but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
> 
> 
> August 17th 1789
> 
> 
> but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.
> '
> 
> August 24th 1789
> 
> 
> but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.*
> 
> Now, render military service in person was taken out of the Amendment and replaced with "bear arms", and then "bear arms" was replaced by "render military service". Why? No idea. However it seems to be synonymous, as shown by how Mr Jerry and Mr Jackson spoke.
> 
> But basically what you have here is militia duty. You'd render military service in the militia, individually, in person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, those different drafts use military service in a distinct fashion from bearing arms.
> 
> Why not simply accept the more ordinary meaning of "bear arms" and go about trying to amend the constitution?   The war over the text only puts honest observers on guard that you are trying to trick them, and drives them into the arms of the gun lobby.
> 
> Gun grabbers want an honest discussion, but come to the table trying to tell us the 2nd's text means something other than the plain meaning.  Drop the act.  Be honest that you want to disarm everyone, and let the chips fall.
Click to expand...


Look. You have these drafts. Then you have what Mr Gerry and Mr Jackson said. 

Mr Gerry said: "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head.

Remember, this is in response to "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

Mr Gerry was worried that if you make a law that says people shall not be compelled to bear arms, or as Mr Gerry says "militia duty", then the federal govt can declare someone religiously scrupulous and then declare that they can't bear arms, or carry out their militia duty.

Here, "bear arms" and "militia duty" are quite clearly synonymous. They mean the same thing. Mr Gerry has simply chosen to speak using different words.

Do you agree?

Mr Jackson is the same.

Why not accept the "ordinary mean of "bear arms""? Wow, is that your argument? "Why don't you just accept my argument which I can't back up with much, instead of your evidence filled argument?"

Er..... what? Seriously? 

I don't accept an argument that I see as false. I see it as an agenda filled argument, and every time I discuss this with people, they HAVE TO ignore huge swathes of HISTORY and EVIDENCE and LOGIC. Go figure.


----------



## turtledude

frigidweirdo said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot be serious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I'm being serious. Nothing you have said shows the term "bear arms" being used.
> 
> All you're showing is that people thought about carrying arms.
> 
> Your quote doesn't do anything to suggest "bear arms" means "carry arms".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 1790 - Wikisource, the free online library*
> 
> Pennsylvania Constition, adopted in 1790
> Article V
> Section 21
> "That the right of citizens to bear arms, in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned."
> 
> Adopted at or near the time of the U.S. Constitution.  "Bear arms" UNEQUIVOCALLY carry, unless you are calling self-defense military service.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, you found it. I didn't think you would. I was going to show it to you after a while. There's also another one.
> 
> Now, here's the question.
> 
> Does "themselves" refer to individuals defending themselves through self defense, or does it refer to the citizens as a whole defending themselves (as a whole) from external attack?
> 
> I haven't found anything that suggests either way. It's a problem. Mostly for you because you can't show it's individual self defense.
> 
> In fact, that it's so similar to the Second Amendment, it would suggest that "bear arms" means "render military service".
> 
> So, I wouldn't say it's "UNEQUIVOCALLY carry".
> 
> "themselves" refers to "the people" so, if the people are defending the people, what are they doing?
> 
> Also it was in the Constitution of 1776.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo-do you go through all these contortions because you want to pretend that bannerrhoid gun laws are actually not contrary to the wishes of the founders?  what is your purpose for this tortured analysis of the second?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, my purpose is to find the truth.
> 
> I'm not someone with an agenda here, like everyone else. I'm more interested in using my brain than trying to show everyone how great I am because I can insult like a little child.
Click to expand...

 I call bullshit on that.  you sound like just another bannerrhoid hoping to pretend that the second amendment allows your bannerrhoid schemes


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

frigidweirdo said:


> Remember, this is in response to "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."


"Bear arms" can mean carry a gun in that context.  

That's the problem.  It could mean carry a gun or weapon in the context of that entire discussion.  It's not proof that "bear arms" exclusively means military service.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I'm being serious. Nothing you have said shows the term "bear arms" being used.
> 
> All you're showing is that people thought about carrying arms.
> 
> Your quote doesn't do anything to suggest "bear arms" means "carry arms".
> 
> 
> 
> *Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 1790 - Wikisource, the free online library*
> 
> Pennsylvania Constition, adopted in 1790
> Article V
> Section 21
> "That the right of citizens to bear arms, in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned."
> 
> Adopted at or near the time of the U.S. Constitution.  "Bear arms" UNEQUIVOCALLY carry, unless you are calling self-defense military service.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, you found it. I didn't think you would. I was going to show it to you after a while. There's also another one.
> 
> Now, here's the question.
> 
> Does "themselves" refer to individuals defending themselves through self defense, or does it refer to the citizens as a whole defending themselves (as a whole) from external attack?
> 
> I haven't found anything that suggests either way. It's a problem. Mostly for you because you can't show it's individual self defense.
> 
> In fact, that it's so similar to the Second Amendment, it would suggest that "bear arms" means "render military service".
> 
> So, I wouldn't say it's "UNEQUIVOCALLY carry".
> 
> "themselves" refers to "the people" so, if the people are defending the people, what are they doing?
> 
> Also it was in the Constitution of 1776.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, okay.  Not unequivocally, but "themselves" means collective?  Really?
> 
> It's as if you are searching for a reason to distort the meaning of the 2nd.  Why not just accept it and go about trying to amend the constitution?  This war of words is starting to look desperate.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does "themselves" mean?
> 
> It's rather vague.
> 
> It's an object pronoun. What would you replace "themselves" with here? What does it mean? What does it refer to? It refers to "the people". Are the people individual or a collective? They can be both.
> 
> themselves | Definition of themselves in US English by Oxford Dictionaries
> 
> "reflexive
> Used as the object of a verb or preposition to refer to a group of people or things previously mentioned as the subject of the clause.
> 
> _‘countries unable to look after themselves’"
> _
> In the example here, each individual country can't look after itself. "Itself" being the object pronoun. So, they use the plural which is "themselves".
> _
> Themselves definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary
> 
> "
> They all seemed to be enjoying themselves.
> The men talked amongst themselves.
> All artists have part of themselves that they can never share with anyone else."
> 
> Well this has fucked up and gone italic forever. Great.
> 
> Anyway the first one is "enjoying themselves", collective but contains individuals.
> 
> The second one, the men are talking among themselves, it's impossible to talk among yourself. So it's collective and not individual.
> 
> Like I said, it can be both, ambiguous, because it refers to "them", which can be collective or individual collective.
> 
> But you trying to attack me for a "war of words", seriously dude, I'm making my case. If you can't be bothered, just say so and I won't waste my time with you. I really don't come on here to be fucked around. You might not agree with me, fine, but everything I say is logical. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't intend any hostility in the "war of words" comment.  I was offering an alternative course.
> 
> Have you ever heard "that depends on what your meaning of 'is' is"?   That word game is automatically associated with pettifogging.  It appears dishonest.  That was my point.
Click to expand...


Let's try this again.

The term "stool". 

"The doctor asked him to produce a stool sample"
"The doctor asked him to sit on the stool"

Does the first one mean the doctor wants the patient to cut a piece of the wooden backless seat and give it to the doctor?

Does the second one mean the doctor wants the patient to sit on a shit?

Context. 

The context of the 2A is the militia. The Founding Fathers wanted to protect the militia. I'll show you it's so.

"Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

So, if they have this clause, they could prevent individuals being in the militia and therefore destroy the Constitution. 

He also said:

"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward. The Assembly of Massachusetts, seeing the rapid progress that administration were making to divest them of their inherent privileges, endeavored to counteract them by the organization of the militia; but they were always defeated by the influence of the Crown."

In fact the whole document is about preserving the militia, because they thought the militia was the most important thing to protect from the mal-administration of the government. 

Why then insert something that has nothing to do with the militia? 

You think my word game is dishonest. Yet I can PROVE that the term "bear arms" means "render military service" and "militia duty", I've got documents from George Washington, Congressmen in the House debating this very thing, the Supreme Court, and you've got scraps that you have to really try hard to interpret to meet your meaning.

So, I'd suggest it's YOU who is being dishonest.When shown the FACTS you still push for your AGENDA, and your agenda demands that "bear arms" means "carry arms". But there's nothing much there to actually prove it.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember, this is in response to "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> 
> 
> "Bear arms" can mean carry a gun in that context.
> 
> That's the problem.  It could mean carry a gun or weapon in the context of that entire discussion.  It's not proof that "bear arms" exclusively means military service.
Click to expand...


Yes, "bear" CAN mean carry. 

"stool" CAN mean shit. Does that mean when I say "The doctor told him to sit on the stool" that it MUST mean "shit"?

Come on. "bear" has five different meanings. How can it mean ALL of those.

You basically have the right to give birth to a gun, just because "bear" CAN mean "give birth", oh please.


----------



## frigidweirdo

turtledude said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I'm being serious. Nothing you have said shows the term "bear arms" being used.
> 
> All you're showing is that people thought about carrying arms.
> 
> Your quote doesn't do anything to suggest "bear arms" means "carry arms".
> 
> 
> 
> *Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 1790 - Wikisource, the free online library*
> 
> Pennsylvania Constition, adopted in 1790
> Article V
> Section 21
> "That the right of citizens to bear arms, in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned."
> 
> Adopted at or near the time of the U.S. Constitution.  "Bear arms" UNEQUIVOCALLY carry, unless you are calling self-defense military service.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, you found it. I didn't think you would. I was going to show it to you after a while. There's also another one.
> 
> Now, here's the question.
> 
> Does "themselves" refer to individuals defending themselves through self defense, or does it refer to the citizens as a whole defending themselves (as a whole) from external attack?
> 
> I haven't found anything that suggests either way. It's a problem. Mostly for you because you can't show it's individual self defense.
> 
> In fact, that it's so similar to the Second Amendment, it would suggest that "bear arms" means "render military service".
> 
> So, I wouldn't say it's "UNEQUIVOCALLY carry".
> 
> "themselves" refers to "the people" so, if the people are defending the people, what are they doing?
> 
> Also it was in the Constitution of 1776.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo-do you go through all these contortions because you want to pretend that bannerrhoid gun laws are actually not contrary to the wishes of the founders?  what is your purpose for this tortured analysis of the second?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, my purpose is to find the truth.
> 
> I'm not someone with an agenda here, like everyone else. I'm more interested in using my brain than trying to show everyone how great I am because I can insult like a little child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I call bullshit on that.  you sound like just another bannerrhoid hoping to pretend that the second amendment allows your bannerrhoid schemes
Click to expand...


Do whatever the fuck you like. You could try having an argument that makes sense, but you don't want to. 

You haven't even answered my first question yet. And yet you claim to be lawyer. Look at Bootney Lee Farnsworth, he's at least discussing the issues I bring up. You haven't even managed that.


----------



## turtledude

frigidweirdo said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 1790 - Wikisource, the free online library*
> 
> Pennsylvania Constition, adopted in 1790
> Article V
> Section 21
> "That the right of citizens to bear arms, in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned."
> 
> Adopted at or near the time of the U.S. Constitution.  "Bear arms" UNEQUIVOCALLY carry, unless you are calling self-defense military service.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, you found it. I didn't think you would. I was going to show it to you after a while. There's also another one.
> 
> Now, here's the question.
> 
> Does "themselves" refer to individuals defending themselves through self defense, or does it refer to the citizens as a whole defending themselves (as a whole) from external attack?
> 
> I haven't found anything that suggests either way. It's a problem. Mostly for you because you can't show it's individual self defense.
> 
> In fact, that it's so similar to the Second Amendment, it would suggest that "bear arms" means "render military service".
> 
> So, I wouldn't say it's "UNEQUIVOCALLY carry".
> 
> "themselves" refers to "the people" so, if the people are defending the people, what are they doing?
> 
> Also it was in the Constitution of 1776.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo-do you go through all these contortions because you want to pretend that bannerrhoid gun laws are actually not contrary to the wishes of the founders?  what is your purpose for this tortured analysis of the second?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, my purpose is to find the truth.
> 
> I'm not someone with an agenda here, like everyone else. I'm more interested in using my brain than trying to show everyone how great I am because I can insult like a little child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I call bullshit on that.  you sound like just another bannerrhoid hoping to pretend that the second amendment allows your bannerrhoid schemes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do whatever the fuck you like. You could try having an argument that makes sense, but you don't want to.
> 
> You haven't even answered my first question yet. And yet you claim to be lawyer. Look at Bootney Lee Farnsworth, he's at least discussing the issues I bring up. You haven't even managed that.
Click to expand...

 because your nonsense has been put to bed so many times before.  you think that your stupid arguments are novel?


----------



## frigidweirdo

turtledude said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, you found it. I didn't think you would. I was going to show it to you after a while. There's also another one.
> 
> Now, here's the question.
> 
> Does "themselves" refer to individuals defending themselves through self defense, or does it refer to the citizens as a whole defending themselves (as a whole) from external attack?
> 
> I haven't found anything that suggests either way. It's a problem. Mostly for you because you can't show it's individual self defense.
> 
> In fact, that it's so similar to the Second Amendment, it would suggest that "bear arms" means "render military service".
> 
> So, I wouldn't say it's "UNEQUIVOCALLY carry".
> 
> "themselves" refers to "the people" so, if the people are defending the people, what are they doing?
> 
> Also it was in the Constitution of 1776.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo-do you go through all these contortions because you want to pretend that bannerrhoid gun laws are actually not contrary to the wishes of the founders?  what is your purpose for this tortured analysis of the second?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, my purpose is to find the truth.
> 
> I'm not someone with an agenda here, like everyone else. I'm more interested in using my brain than trying to show everyone how great I am because I can insult like a little child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I call bullshit on that.  you sound like just another bannerrhoid hoping to pretend that the second amendment allows your bannerrhoid schemes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do whatever the fuck you like. You could try having an argument that makes sense, but you don't want to.
> 
> You haven't even answered my first question yet. And yet you claim to be lawyer. Look at Bootney Lee Farnsworth, he's at least discussing the issues I bring up. You haven't even managed that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> because your nonsense has been put to bed so many times before.  you think that your stupid arguments are novel?
Click to expand...


Haha, hilarious.

Okay, I've had enough. I played with you, you couldn't produce even the slightest thing. You're a bullshitter and going on ignore so I don't have to suffer the paint of your crap.

Go enjoy telling people how you're a lawyer, and when you finish High School, you might even get a job in as a waiter or something. 

Bye.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

I am going to change the words "bear arms" to "carry" or "carry a gun" and see how it works contextually:

The House again resolved itself into a committee, Mr.Boudinot in the chair, on the proposed amendments to the constitution. The third clause of the fourth proposition in the report was taken into consideration, being as follows: "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and *carry *arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to *carry a gun*."

Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from *carrying a gun*.
(_*this paragraph is rather damning to your argument)*_

What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward. The Assembly of Massachusetts, seeing the rapid progress that administration were making to divest them of their inherent privileges, endeavored to counteract them by the organization of the militia; but they were always defeated by the influence of the Crown.

Mr. Seney wished to know what question there was before the committee, in order to ascertain the point upon which the gentleman was speaking.

Mr. Gerry replied that he meant to make a motion, as he disapproved of the words as they read. He then proceeded. No attempts that they made were successful, until they engaged in the struggle which emancipated them at once from their thraldom. Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. For this reason, he wished the words to be altered so as to be confined to persons belonging to a religious sect scrupulous of *carrying a gun*.

Mr. Jackson did not expect that all the people of the United States would turn Quakers or Moravians; consequently, one part would have to defend the other in case of invasion. Now this, in his opinion, was unjust, unless the constitution secured an equivalent: for this reason he moved to amend the clause, by inserting at the end of it, "upon paying an equivalent, to be established by law."

Mr. Smith, of South Carolina, inquired what were the words used by the conventions respecting this amendment. If the gentleman would conform to what was proposed by Virginia and Carolina, he would second him. He thought they were to be excused provided they found a substitute.

Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of *carrying a gun*, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent."

Mr. Sherman conceived it difficult to modify the clause and make it better. It is well known that those who are religiously scrupulous of *carrying a gun*, are equally scrupulous of getting substitutes or paying an equivalent. Many of them would rather die than do either one or the other; but he did not see an absolute necessity for a clause of this kind. We do not live under an arbitrary Government, said he, and the States, respectively, will have the government of the militia, unless when called into actual service; besides, it would not do to alter it so as to exclude the whole of any sect, because there are men amongst the Quakers who will turn out, notwithstanding the religious principles of the society, and defend the cause of their country. Certainly it will be improper to prevent the exercise of such favorable dispositions, at least whilst it is the practice of nations to determine their contests by the slaughter of their citizens and subjects.

Mr. Vining hoped the clause would be suffered to remain as it stood, because he saw no use in it if it was amended so as to compel a man to find a substitute, which, with respect to the Government, was the same as if the person himself turned out to fight.

Mr. Stone inquired what the words "religiously scrupulous" had reference to: was it of *carrying a gun*? If it was, it ought so to be expressed.

Mr. Benson moved to have the words "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to *carry a gun*," struck out. He would always leave it to the benevolence of the Legislature, for, modify it as you please, it will be impossible to express it in such a manner as to clear it from ambiguity. No man can claim this indulgence of right. It may be a religious persuasion, but it is no natural right, and therefore ought to be left to the discretion of the Government. If this stands part of the constitution, it will be a question before the Judiciary on every regulation you make with respect to the organization of the militia, whether it comports with this declaration or not. It is extremely injudicious to intermix matters of doubt with fundamentals.

I have no reason to believe but the Legislature will always possess humanity enough to indulge this class of citizens in a matter they are so desirous of; but they ought to be left to their discretion.

The motion for striking out the whole clause being seconded, was put, and decided in the negative--22 members voting for it, and 24 against it.

Mr. Gerry objected to the first part of the clause, on account of the uncertainty with which it is expressed. A well regulated militia being the best security of a free State, admitted an idea that a standing army was a secondary one. It ought to read, "a well regulated militia, trained to arms;" in which case it would become the duty of the Government to provide this security, and furnish a greater certainty of its being done.

Mr. Gerry's motion not being seconded, the question was put on the clause as reported; which being adopted,

Mr. Burke proposed to add to the clause just agreed to, an amendment to the following effect: "A standing army of regular troops in time of peace is dangerous to public liberty, and such shall not be raised or kept up in time of peace but from necessity, and for the security of the people, nor then without the consent of two-thirds of the members present of both Houses; and in all cases the military shall be subordinate to the civil authority." This being seconded.

Mr. Vining asked whether this was to be considered as an addition to the last clause, or an amendment by itself. If the former, he would remind the gentleman the clause was decided; if the latter, it was improper to introduce new matter, as the House had referred the report specially to the Committee of the whole.

Mr. Burke feared that, what with being trammelled in rules, and the apparent disposition of the committee, he should not be able to get them to consider any amendment; he submitted to such proceeding because he could not help himself.

Mr. Hartley thought the amendment in order, and was ready to give his opinion on it. He hoped the people of America would always be satisfied with having a majority to govern. He never wished to see two-thirds or three-fourths required, because it might put it in the power of a small minority to govern the whole Union.

[_20 Aug._]

Mr. Scott objected to the clause in the sixth amendment, "No person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to *carry a gun*." He observed that if this becomes part of the constitution, such persons can neither be called upon for their services, nor can an equivalent be demanded; it is also attended with still further difficulties, for a militia can never be depended upon. This would lead to the violation of another article in the constitution, which secures to the people the right of *keeping *arms, and in this case recourse must be had to a standing army. I conceive it, said he, to be a legislative right altogether. There are many sects I know, who are religiously scrupulous in this respect; I do not mean to deprive them of any indulgence the law affords; my design is to guard against those who are of no religion. It has been urged that religion is on the decline; if so, the argument is more strong in my favor, for when the time comes that religion shall be discarded, the generality of persons will have recourse to these pretexts to get excused from bearing arms.

Mr. Boudinot thought the provision in the clause, or something similar to it, was necessary. Can any dependence, said he, be placed in men who are conscientious in this respect? or what justice can there be in compelling them to *carry a gun*, when, according to their religious principles, t*hey would rather die than use them*? He adverted to several instances of oppression on this point, that occurred during the war. In forming a militia, an effectual defence ought to be calculated, and no characters of this religious description ought to be compelled to take up arms. I hope that in establishing this Government, we may show the world that proper care is taken that the Government may not interfere with the religious sentiments of any person. Now, by striking out the clause, people may be led to believe that there is an intention in the General Government to compel all its citizens to *carry a gun*.


----------



## emilynghiem

frigidweirdo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope; Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States
> 
> 
> 
> The wellness of regulation?
> 
> 
> But it says the infringmentness of rightsness, which specifically excludes Congress, and I have provided quotes from both Madison AND Jefferson SPECIFICALLY stating the intentness to prohibit Congress from infringing on the right.  I am fucking tired of posting those quotes, so why don't you respond to them or shut the fuck up.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because they are on the right wing, and clueless and Causeless as a result.
> 
> Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States.
> 
> It is clearly enumerated in Article 1, Section 8.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, because the Bill of Rights was to define the rights of the PEOPLE that the federal govt and Congress COULD NOT infringe upon.
> 
> The objectors who would otherwise have REFUSED to ratify the Constitution giving powers to centralized federal govt, only agreed if the Bill of Rights was going to be added as a CONDITION where it delineated the rights of INDIVIDUALS.
> 
> So all the things they DIDN'T WANT federal govt to abuse or control, were spelled out in the Bill of Rights to make sure there was an agreement NOT TO GO THERE.
> 
> I'm sure danielpalos these same arguments existed back then, with advocates defenders and opponents on both sides fighting just as fiercely.
> 
> So I find it more and more telling, more interesting and "not an accident" that the 2nd Amendment would be written where BOTH SIDES can claim their interpretation equally.
> 
> This tells me even more we should leave it written exactly as is. At least both sides can defend their views on this, so it is more
> fair and inclusive of all people regardless which side they take!
> 
> Thank you danielpalos and especially frigidweirdo
> 
> Thanks to you I can clearly see where the people like you
> are getting that the people bearing arms is "directly tied" to the intro clause about well regulated militia.
> 
> I am even more glad then ever that I can see and support
> both sides, so that I can better fulfill the commitment to be equally inclusive and defend the rights of all people regardless of belief.  I am so grateful that I can do this, because if I were
> like you or like your opponents, who could only see one side
> and truly believe the other is invalid and doesn't count legally,
> I would be MISERABLE AS FU.
> 
> I would not be able to have peace of mind knowing the other group is out there, and wasting all my energy trying to defend my view while denouncing the other; while they do the same.
> 
> So glad I can sincerely appreciate embrace and defend both sides and the equal right to exercise and establish that interpretation. I do this by sticking with the general interpretation that invoking the right to bear arms requires doing so within the Context of the rest of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. So this automatically requires people to be LAW ABIDING and respect the equal constitutional rights freedoms and protections of others, to defend the law and not to violate it, including the respect and protection of EQUAL BELIEFS of people from discrimination and infringement. So I can live with both, within that context.
> 
> Anyone seeking to impose their views and violate the beliefs of others by exclusion or bullying, I cannot go there by conscience.
> I can only seek to include and protect people's beliefs and free choice whether or how to change their views to resolve conflicts with others.
> 
> So glad I take this approach.
> 
> Thank you for reinforcing how important it is, since there is clear validity on your side of the fence and how and why you interpret it that way, even holding it to be the only truth, while the other interpretation is political and a lie.
> 
> It makes me even more curious about my friend who came from the view you take, then changed from reading the history and decided the historical context DOES endorse the conservative interpretation of the rights belonging to the people, and coming to a similar conclusion as I have that although this is the predominant interpretation, there is still room for the interpretation of the right to bear arms within regulated militia only.
> 
> So he and I both agree to keep it open both ways, but he came from your viewpoint and opened up to even acknowledge that the other interpretation is actually more consistent historically; and I come from the conservative interpretation but keep the floor open to include other beliefs and interpretations equally.
> 
> He and I both agree that history points to the conservative interpretation; but inclusion and respect for our fellow Democrats and liberals, of course we are always going to include our constituents and not exclude those beliefs as the hardcore conservatives who aim to attack and discredit liberals.
> 
> You may never be able to see beyond right to bear arms within a regulated militia only, but I hope you would AT LEAST open up to ACCOMMODATE the beliefs in people bearing arms individually, ie as long as it's done within the inseparable context of defending the laws and protections of others and not violating any laws, since I am asking those other advocates to accommodate YOUR beliefs that it means militia only.
> 
> The only way I've seen people budge on their beliefs, from exclusion to inclusion of others, is if they are treated the same way. So that's the most I could hope or expect to change here, a move toward equal inclusion in order to gain respect for your beliefs that are always going to be in the minority, because people believe in themselves and their judgment to make decisions more than they believe in others running govt and "organized regulations." they have to be involved or feel represented in the decisions on regulations before they trust it, so it always lands on the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry Emily, I really don't see how you have come to the conclusion that "the people bearing arms is "directly tied" to the intro clause about well regulated militia."
> 
> I didn't say that. I'm worried that you're not understanding what I'm writing, or worried even more that you're not reading what I'm writing and just thinking you know what I'm saying.
> 
> I'll explain.
> 
> The right to keep arms is the right of individuals to own weapons. The reason why this is protected in the 2A is so that it protects the militia. The US federal govt could call people up into federal service, then take away their guns while there. The 2A prevents this.
> 
> An individual gets to keep guns when not in the militia too. The reason for the protection is the militia, but this doesn't limit ownership to militia membership in any way.
> 
> Why? Well, because this would destroy the militia. The militia needs a ready supply of arms in times of need, you take them away from individuals in times with no need, then in times of need there is no need.
> 
> The same for the right to bear arms. You have a right to be in the militia in times of quiet and in times of need. Without people being in the militia in times of quiet, then in times of need it might be impossible to get into the militia.
Click to expand...


Hi frigidweirdo and thanks for clarifying and explaining in depth and detail
So are you saying that
individuals have the right to keep arms
but only to bear arms within a govt regulated militia?


----------



## hunarcy

frigidweirdo said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's NOT about the militia.  It's about the Right of the People, or as you insist, the right of individuals, to keep and bear arms.  The dependent clause about the militia is just one justification for the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the first part is the justification for putting the protection of the right in the first place.
> 
> Now, you have an amendment which is in the US Constitution in order to protect the militia.
> 
> You have the Founding Fathers talking about the term "bear arms" to mean "render military service" and "militia duty".
> 
> You do NOT have the Founding Fathers talking about the term "bear arms" to mean carrying arms around.
> 
> You have the Supreme Court saying that the right to bear arms does not mean carrying arms around.
> 
> You do NOT have the Supreme Court saying the 2A protects carrying arms around.
> 
> So, which part makes you think "bear arms" means "carrying guns around"?
> 
> I'm confused at how people can take such evidence and then be like "nah, I don't like it, I'll ignore it ALL".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know you are just determined to change the subject, but since I haven't said a word about "carrying guns around", I'll just leave you to your fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right now I'm making the case that "bear arms" means "render military service" and "militia duty".
> 
> If you jump into someone else's conversation and then complain that you did not say something that is the debate, then that's your problem.
> 
> There appear, at this point, to be two argument.
> 
> The first is mine, backed up with sources from the Founding Fathers, the Supreme Court, you name it.
> 
> The second is that "bear arms" means carry arms.
> 
> The only evidence for this is that "bear" can mean "carry" therefore it MUST mean carry even though there are 5 different definitions for the term "bear" and that if you ignore all of my evidence, then there's no evidence to suggest that "bear arms" means carry arms.
> 
> Would you care to join this discussion or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In that you ignorantly continue to insist that it's all about the military service, I have no interest in engaging your delusion.
> 
> I will point out that the Miller decision was based on the idea that a sawed off shotgun was not standard military weaponry, which implies that standard military weaponry should be in the hands of the People.  That is why fully automatic weapons aren't banned.  Just taxed with a special tax.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ignorantly? I've posted the evidence. You've posted only your thoughts.
> 
> Yes, Miller was about the RIGHT TO KEEP ARMS. We're talking about the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.
> 
> Do you have any evidence, any logic, anything that suggests the right to bear arms means "carry arms"? Anything?
> 
> Well, artillery is standard military weaponry. Almost all militaries in the world have artillery. Should I be allowed to have artillery in my yard?
Click to expand...


Hopefully your questions will be answered.  Constitution Check: What does it mean that there is a right to “bear” guns? - National Constitution Center

Oh, and honestly, Miller would imply that yes you should be allowed to have artillery.  I'm sure that I can't support someone like you having artillery, but Miller's implication that weapons useful to the military is all that is protected seems clear.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> I am going to change the words "bear arms" to "carry" or "carry a gun" and see how it works contextually:
> 
> The House again resolved itself into a committee, Mr.Boudinot in the chair, on the proposed amendments to the constitution. The third clause of the fourth proposition in the report was taken into consideration, being as follows: "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and *carry *arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to *carry a gun*."
> 
> Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from *carrying a gun*.
> (_*this paragraph is rather damning to your argument)*_
> 
> What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward. The Assembly of Massachusetts, seeing the rapid progress that administration were making to divest them of their inherent privileges, endeavored to counteract them by the organization of the militia; but they were always defeated by the influence of the Crown.
> 
> Mr. Seney wished to know what question there was before the committee, in order to ascertain the point upon which the gentleman was speaking.
> 
> Mr. Gerry replied that he meant to make a motion, as he disapproved of the words as they read. He then proceeded. No attempts that they made were successful, until they engaged in the struggle which emancipated them at once from their thraldom. Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. For this reason, he wished the words to be altered so as to be confined to persons belonging to a religious sect scrupulous of *carrying a gun*.
> 
> Mr. Jackson did not expect that all the people of the United States would turn Quakers or Moravians; consequently, one part would have to defend the other in case of invasion. Now this, in his opinion, was unjust, unless the constitution secured an equivalent: for this reason he moved to amend the clause, by inserting at the end of it, "upon paying an equivalent, to be established by law."
> 
> Mr. Smith, of South Carolina, inquired what were the words used by the conventions respecting this amendment. If the gentleman would conform to what was proposed by Virginia and Carolina, he would second him. He thought they were to be excused provided they found a substitute.
> 
> Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of *carrying a gun*, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent."
> 
> Mr. Sherman conceived it difficult to modify the clause and make it better. It is well known that those who are religiously scrupulous of *carrying a gun*, are equally scrupulous of getting substitutes or paying an equivalent. Many of them would rather die than do either one or the other; but he did not see an absolute necessity for a clause of this kind. We do not live under an arbitrary Government, said he, and the States, respectively, will have the government of the militia, unless when called into actual service; besides, it would not do to alter it so as to exclude the whole of any sect, because there are men amongst the Quakers who will turn out, notwithstanding the religious principles of the society, and defend the cause of their country. Certainly it will be improper to prevent the exercise of such favorable dispositions, at least whilst it is the practice of nations to determine their contests by the slaughter of their citizens and subjects.
> 
> Mr. Vining hoped the clause would be suffered to remain as it stood, because he saw no use in it if it was amended so as to compel a man to find a substitute, which, with respect to the Government, was the same as if the person himself turned out to fight.
> 
> Mr. Stone inquired what the words "religiously scrupulous" had reference to: was it of *carrying a gun*? If it was, it ought so to be expressed.
> 
> Mr. Benson moved to have the words "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to *carry a gun*," struck out. He would always leave it to the benevolence of the Legislature, for, modify it as you please, it will be impossible to express it in such a manner as to clear it from ambiguity. No man can claim this indulgence of right. It may be a religious persuasion, but it is no natural right, and therefore ought to be left to the discretion of the Government. If this stands part of the constitution, it will be a question before the Judiciary on every regulation you make with respect to the organization of the militia, whether it comports with this declaration or not. It is extremely injudicious to intermix matters of doubt with fundamentals.
> 
> I have no reason to believe but the Legislature will always possess humanity enough to indulge this class of citizens in a matter they are so desirous of; but they ought to be left to their discretion.
> 
> The motion for striking out the whole clause being seconded, was put, and decided in the negative--22 members voting for it, and 24 against it.
> 
> Mr. Gerry objected to the first part of the clause, on account of the uncertainty with which it is expressed. A well regulated militia being the best security of a free State, admitted an idea that a standing army was a secondary one. It ought to read, "a well regulated militia, trained to arms;" in which case it would become the duty of the Government to provide this security, and furnish a greater certainty of its being done.
> 
> Mr. Gerry's motion not being seconded, the question was put on the clause as reported; which being adopted,
> 
> Mr. Burke proposed to add to the clause just agreed to, an amendment to the following effect: "A standing army of regular troops in time of peace is dangerous to public liberty, and such shall not be raised or kept up in time of peace but from necessity, and for the security of the people, nor then without the consent of two-thirds of the members present of both Houses; and in all cases the military shall be subordinate to the civil authority." This being seconded.
> 
> Mr. Vining asked whether this was to be considered as an addition to the last clause, or an amendment by itself. If the former, he would remind the gentleman the clause was decided; if the latter, it was improper to introduce new matter, as the House had referred the report specially to the Committee of the whole.
> 
> Mr. Burke feared that, what with being trammelled in rules, and the apparent disposition of the committee, he should not be able to get them to consider any amendment; he submitted to such proceeding because he could not help himself.
> 
> Mr. Hartley thought the amendment in order, and was ready to give his opinion on it. He hoped the people of America would always be satisfied with having a majority to govern. He never wished to see two-thirds or three-fourths required, because it might put it in the power of a small minority to govern the whole Union.
> 
> [_20 Aug._]
> 
> Mr. Scott objected to the clause in the sixth amendment, "No person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to *carry a gun*." He observed that if this becomes part of the constitution, such persons can neither be called upon for their services, nor can an equivalent be demanded; it is also attended with still further difficulties, for a militia can never be depended upon. This would lead to the violation of another article in the constitution, which secures to the people the right of *keeping *arms, and in this case recourse must be had to a standing army. I conceive it, said he, to be a legislative right altogether. There are many sects I know, who are religiously scrupulous in this respect; I do not mean to deprive them of any indulgence the law affords; my design is to guard against those who are of no religion. It has been urged that religion is on the decline; if so, the argument is more strong in my favor, for when the time comes that religion shall be discarded, the generality of persons will have recourse to these pretexts to get excused from bearing arms.
> 
> Mr. Boudinot thought the provision in the clause, or something similar to it, was necessary. Can any dependence, said he, be placed in men who are conscientious in this respect? or what justice can there be in compelling them to *carry a gun*, when, according to their religious principles, t*hey would rather die than use them*? He adverted to several instances of oppression on this point, that occurred during the war. In forming a militia, an effectual defence ought to be calculated, and no characters of this religious description ought to be compelled to take up arms. I hope that in establishing this Government, we may show the world that proper care is taken that the Government may not interfere with the religious sentiments of any person. Now, by striking out the clause, people may be led to believe that there is an intention in the General Government to compel all its citizens to *carry a gun*.



Okay

1) Why would the Founding Fathers COMPEL a person to carry guns with them at all time? I mean, you wake up at 3am and need to go to the outhouse to take a shit, and on the way a policeman stops you and asks why you don't have a gun. Then they fine you for not having a gun.

Can you find any evidence, outside of militia duty of federal service, where the Founding Fathers wanted individuals to be compelled to carry arms with them? 

I'm thinking you can't. I've never seen such a thing.

2) Okay, the reasons for this was they wanted to say "either you bear arms, or you pay an equivalent", again, why would people be compelled to pay money so they wouldn't have to carry guns around with them in the streets?

Again, any evidence for this? No. 

I could go on and on. 

There's no reason for the Founding Fathers to compel people to carry guns.


----------



## frigidweirdo

emilynghiem said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope; Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States
> 
> 
> 
> The wellness of regulation?
> 
> 
> But it says the infringmentness of rightsness, which specifically excludes Congress, and I have provided quotes from both Madison AND Jefferson SPECIFICALLY stating the intentness to prohibit Congress from infringing on the right.  I am fucking tired of posting those quotes, so why don't you respond to them or shut the fuck up.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because they are on the right wing, and clueless and Causeless as a result.
> 
> Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States.
> 
> It is clearly enumerated in Article 1, Section 8.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, because the Bill of Rights was to define the rights of the PEOPLE that the federal govt and Congress COULD NOT infringe upon.
> 
> The objectors who would otherwise have REFUSED to ratify the Constitution giving powers to centralized federal govt, only agreed if the Bill of Rights was going to be added as a CONDITION where it delineated the rights of INDIVIDUALS.
> 
> So all the things they DIDN'T WANT federal govt to abuse or control, were spelled out in the Bill of Rights to make sure there was an agreement NOT TO GO THERE.
> 
> I'm sure danielpalos these same arguments existed back then, with advocates defenders and opponents on both sides fighting just as fiercely.
> 
> So I find it more and more telling, more interesting and "not an accident" that the 2nd Amendment would be written where BOTH SIDES can claim their interpretation equally.
> 
> This tells me even more we should leave it written exactly as is. At least both sides can defend their views on this, so it is more
> fair and inclusive of all people regardless which side they take!
> 
> Thank you danielpalos and especially frigidweirdo
> 
> Thanks to you I can clearly see where the people like you
> are getting that the people bearing arms is "directly tied" to the intro clause about well regulated militia.
> 
> I am even more glad then ever that I can see and support
> both sides, so that I can better fulfill the commitment to be equally inclusive and defend the rights of all people regardless of belief.  I am so grateful that I can do this, because if I were
> like you or like your opponents, who could only see one side
> and truly believe the other is invalid and doesn't count legally,
> I would be MISERABLE AS FU.
> 
> I would not be able to have peace of mind knowing the other group is out there, and wasting all my energy trying to defend my view while denouncing the other; while they do the same.
> 
> So glad I can sincerely appreciate embrace and defend both sides and the equal right to exercise and establish that interpretation. I do this by sticking with the general interpretation that invoking the right to bear arms requires doing so within the Context of the rest of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. So this automatically requires people to be LAW ABIDING and respect the equal constitutional rights freedoms and protections of others, to defend the law and not to violate it, including the respect and protection of EQUAL BELIEFS of people from discrimination and infringement. So I can live with both, within that context.
> 
> Anyone seeking to impose their views and violate the beliefs of others by exclusion or bullying, I cannot go there by conscience.
> I can only seek to include and protect people's beliefs and free choice whether or how to change their views to resolve conflicts with others.
> 
> So glad I take this approach.
> 
> Thank you for reinforcing how important it is, since there is clear validity on your side of the fence and how and why you interpret it that way, even holding it to be the only truth, while the other interpretation is political and a lie.
> 
> It makes me even more curious about my friend who came from the view you take, then changed from reading the history and decided the historical context DOES endorse the conservative interpretation of the rights belonging to the people, and coming to a similar conclusion as I have that although this is the predominant interpretation, there is still room for the interpretation of the right to bear arms within regulated militia only.
> 
> So he and I both agree to keep it open both ways, but he came from your viewpoint and opened up to even acknowledge that the other interpretation is actually more consistent historically; and I come from the conservative interpretation but keep the floor open to include other beliefs and interpretations equally.
> 
> He and I both agree that history points to the conservative interpretation; but inclusion and respect for our fellow Democrats and liberals, of course we are always going to include our constituents and not exclude those beliefs as the hardcore conservatives who aim to attack and discredit liberals.
> 
> You may never be able to see beyond right to bear arms within a regulated militia only, but I hope you would AT LEAST open up to ACCOMMODATE the beliefs in people bearing arms individually, ie as long as it's done within the inseparable context of defending the laws and protections of others and not violating any laws, since I am asking those other advocates to accommodate YOUR beliefs that it means militia only.
> 
> The only way I've seen people budge on their beliefs, from exclusion to inclusion of others, is if they are treated the same way. So that's the most I could hope or expect to change here, a move toward equal inclusion in order to gain respect for your beliefs that are always going to be in the minority, because people believe in themselves and their judgment to make decisions more than they believe in others running govt and "organized regulations." they have to be involved or feel represented in the decisions on regulations before they trust it, so it always lands on the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry Emily, I really don't see how you have come to the conclusion that "the people bearing arms is "directly tied" to the intro clause about well regulated militia."
> 
> I didn't say that. I'm worried that you're not understanding what I'm writing, or worried even more that you're not reading what I'm writing and just thinking you know what I'm saying.
> 
> I'll explain.
> 
> The right to keep arms is the right of individuals to own weapons. The reason why this is protected in the 2A is so that it protects the militia. The US federal govt could call people up into federal service, then take away their guns while there. The 2A prevents this.
> 
> An individual gets to keep guns when not in the militia too. The reason for the protection is the militia, but this doesn't limit ownership to militia membership in any way.
> 
> Why? Well, because this would destroy the militia. The militia needs a ready supply of arms in times of need, you take them away from individuals in times with no need, then in times of need there is no need.
> 
> The same for the right to bear arms. You have a right to be in the militia in times of quiet and in times of need. Without people being in the militia in times of quiet, then in times of need it might be impossible to get into the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi frigidweirdo and thanks for clarifying and explaining in depth and detail
> So are you saying that
> individuals have the right to keep arms
> but only to bear arms within a govt regulated militia?
Click to expand...


Not really.

I'm saying individuals have a right to keep arms and individuals have a right to be in the militia. 

Basically what you just said is "but only to be in the militia within a govt regulated militia", well, yes, there is only one Militia you can belong to and that's your state militia where the state appoints the officers.

The Founding Fathers didn't want to have tinpot armies appearing everywhere. That wouldn't be a good force, it would threaten the Constitution and good government and may not prevent bad government.

There is a right to self defense, and with that a right to carry guns LAWFULLY (ie, if they make a law preventing it, then you can't, so much for a right huh?) but it's just not in the Second Amendment, because the Second Amendment isn't about self defense.

Had it started "self defence is an important right for individual citizens, the right of the people to keep and bear arms" then I might agree with your stance. But it doesn't.


----------



## frigidweirdo

hunarcy said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the first part is the justification for putting the protection of the right in the first place.
> 
> Now, you have an amendment which is in the US Constitution in order to protect the militia.
> 
> You have the Founding Fathers talking about the term "bear arms" to mean "render military service" and "militia duty".
> 
> You do NOT have the Founding Fathers talking about the term "bear arms" to mean carrying arms around.
> 
> You have the Supreme Court saying that the right to bear arms does not mean carrying arms around.
> 
> You do NOT have the Supreme Court saying the 2A protects carrying arms around.
> 
> So, which part makes you think "bear arms" means "carrying guns around"?
> 
> I'm confused at how people can take such evidence and then be like "nah, I don't like it, I'll ignore it ALL".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know you are just determined to change the subject, but since I haven't said a word about "carrying guns around", I'll just leave you to your fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right now I'm making the case that "bear arms" means "render military service" and "militia duty".
> 
> If you jump into someone else's conversation and then complain that you did not say something that is the debate, then that's your problem.
> 
> There appear, at this point, to be two argument.
> 
> The first is mine, backed up with sources from the Founding Fathers, the Supreme Court, you name it.
> 
> The second is that "bear arms" means carry arms.
> 
> The only evidence for this is that "bear" can mean "carry" therefore it MUST mean carry even though there are 5 different definitions for the term "bear" and that if you ignore all of my evidence, then there's no evidence to suggest that "bear arms" means carry arms.
> 
> Would you care to join this discussion or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In that you ignorantly continue to insist that it's all about the military service, I have no interest in engaging your delusion.
> 
> I will point out that the Miller decision was based on the idea that a sawed off shotgun was not standard military weaponry, which implies that standard military weaponry should be in the hands of the People.  That is why fully automatic weapons aren't banned.  Just taxed with a special tax.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ignorantly? I've posted the evidence. You've posted only your thoughts.
> 
> Yes, Miller was about the RIGHT TO KEEP ARMS. We're talking about the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.
> 
> Do you have any evidence, any logic, anything that suggests the right to bear arms means "carry arms"? Anything?
> 
> Well, artillery is standard military weaponry. Almost all militaries in the world have artillery. Should I be allowed to have artillery in my yard?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hopefully your questions will be answered.  Constitution Check: What does it mean that there is a right to “bear” guns? - National Constitution Center
> 
> Oh, and honestly, Miller would imply that yes you should be allowed to have artillery.  I'm sure that I can't support someone like you having artillery, but Miller's implication that weapons useful to the military is all that is protected seems clear.
Click to expand...


No, I'm not doing that. Either you provide your argument, or don't bother. I'm not arguing with some person on that website. Copy and paste the relevant parts that support YOUR argument, I'm debating with YOU.


----------



## emilynghiem

danielpalos said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dude; nobody should take the right wing seriously about law or politics.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural rights.
> 
> It says so, in the Intent and Purpose clause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed.  And it also states quite emphatically that the "Right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".  What part of that sentence do you not understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> the unorganized militia may be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sorry R2D2  militias don't have rights, people do.  the right of individual people cannot be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the Second Amendment doesn't give the right, does it?
> 
> The Second Amendment PROTECTS the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it says well regulated militia of the People are necessary to the security of a free State.  It does not say the unorganized militia is necessary.
Click to expand...


Then why didn't it say the right of those MEMBERS to bear arms.

I always thought the concept could be interpreted both ways.

That the well regulated militia could refer to the federal military being necessary as well.  So because of the existence of armed forces, then to check these, all the people need the right to bear arms so that authority is not abused to the point of oppression by military force.

Again danielpalos given the disagreements that continue today,
it is no wonder the law was passed as written, so that both sides' beliefs
can be interpreted and defended from the same passage as worded!

*In general danielpalos if you look at America's history, and especially if you look at Texas history including being an independent Republic that fought many wars, there has always been a tradition of independent citizens bearing arms to defend laws and rights on their own. *

Texas could NOT have joined the union with any such interpretation
you are stating that Federal Govt would regulate the right to bear arms
by regulating Miltia and restricting guns to that context!

Yours truly,
Emily
Glad to live in Texas!*

** *_Maybe I am biased from being brought up in this culture of "rugged independence and self-governance" and with the teaching of Constitutional laws and traditions based on Natural Laws that came from God first and were put into written contracts in order for people to check the authority of govt._


----------



## emilynghiem

frigidweirdo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> The wellness of regulation?
> 
> 
> But it says the infringmentness of rightsness, which specifically excludes Congress, and I have provided quotes from both Madison AND Jefferson SPECIFICALLY stating the intentness to prohibit Congress from infringing on the right.  I am fucking tired of posting those quotes, so why don't you respond to them or shut the fuck up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they are on the right wing, and clueless and Causeless as a result.
> 
> Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States.
> 
> It is clearly enumerated in Article 1, Section 8.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, because the Bill of Rights was to define the rights of the PEOPLE that the federal govt and Congress COULD NOT infringe upon.
> 
> The objectors who would otherwise have REFUSED to ratify the Constitution giving powers to centralized federal govt, only agreed if the Bill of Rights was going to be added as a CONDITION where it delineated the rights of INDIVIDUALS.
> 
> So all the things they DIDN'T WANT federal govt to abuse or control, were spelled out in the Bill of Rights to make sure there was an agreement NOT TO GO THERE.
> 
> I'm sure danielpalos these same arguments existed back then, with advocates defenders and opponents on both sides fighting just as fiercely.
> 
> So I find it more and more telling, more interesting and "not an accident" that the 2nd Amendment would be written where BOTH SIDES can claim their interpretation equally.
> 
> This tells me even more we should leave it written exactly as is. At least both sides can defend their views on this, so it is more
> fair and inclusive of all people regardless which side they take!
> 
> Thank you danielpalos and especially frigidweirdo
> 
> Thanks to you I can clearly see where the people like you
> are getting that the people bearing arms is "directly tied" to the intro clause about well regulated militia.
> 
> I am even more glad then ever that I can see and support
> both sides, so that I can better fulfill the commitment to be equally inclusive and defend the rights of all people regardless of belief.  I am so grateful that I can do this, because if I were
> like you or like your opponents, who could only see one side
> and truly believe the other is invalid and doesn't count legally,
> I would be MISERABLE AS FU.
> 
> I would not be able to have peace of mind knowing the other group is out there, and wasting all my energy trying to defend my view while denouncing the other; while they do the same.
> 
> So glad I can sincerely appreciate embrace and defend both sides and the equal right to exercise and establish that interpretation. I do this by sticking with the general interpretation that invoking the right to bear arms requires doing so within the Context of the rest of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. So this automatically requires people to be LAW ABIDING and respect the equal constitutional rights freedoms and protections of others, to defend the law and not to violate it, including the respect and protection of EQUAL BELIEFS of people from discrimination and infringement. So I can live with both, within that context.
> 
> Anyone seeking to impose their views and violate the beliefs of others by exclusion or bullying, I cannot go there by conscience.
> I can only seek to include and protect people's beliefs and free choice whether or how to change their views to resolve conflicts with others.
> 
> So glad I take this approach.
> 
> Thank you for reinforcing how important it is, since there is clear validity on your side of the fence and how and why you interpret it that way, even holding it to be the only truth, while the other interpretation is political and a lie.
> 
> It makes me even more curious about my friend who came from the view you take, then changed from reading the history and decided the historical context DOES endorse the conservative interpretation of the rights belonging to the people, and coming to a similar conclusion as I have that although this is the predominant interpretation, there is still room for the interpretation of the right to bear arms within regulated militia only.
> 
> So he and I both agree to keep it open both ways, but he came from your viewpoint and opened up to even acknowledge that the other interpretation is actually more consistent historically; and I come from the conservative interpretation but keep the floor open to include other beliefs and interpretations equally.
> 
> He and I both agree that history points to the conservative interpretation; but inclusion and respect for our fellow Democrats and liberals, of course we are always going to include our constituents and not exclude those beliefs as the hardcore conservatives who aim to attack and discredit liberals.
> 
> You may never be able to see beyond right to bear arms within a regulated militia only, but I hope you would AT LEAST open up to ACCOMMODATE the beliefs in people bearing arms individually, ie as long as it's done within the inseparable context of defending the laws and protections of others and not violating any laws, since I am asking those other advocates to accommodate YOUR beliefs that it means militia only.
> 
> The only way I've seen people budge on their beliefs, from exclusion to inclusion of others, is if they are treated the same way. So that's the most I could hope or expect to change here, a move toward equal inclusion in order to gain respect for your beliefs that are always going to be in the minority, because people believe in themselves and their judgment to make decisions more than they believe in others running govt and "organized regulations." they have to be involved or feel represented in the decisions on regulations before they trust it, so it always lands on the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry Emily, I really don't see how you have come to the conclusion that "the people bearing arms is "directly tied" to the intro clause about well regulated militia."
> 
> I didn't say that. I'm worried that you're not understanding what I'm writing, or worried even more that you're not reading what I'm writing and just thinking you know what I'm saying.
> 
> I'll explain.
> 
> The right to keep arms is the right of individuals to own weapons. The reason why this is protected in the 2A is so that it protects the militia. The US federal govt could call people up into federal service, then take away their guns while there. The 2A prevents this.
> 
> An individual gets to keep guns when not in the militia too. The reason for the protection is the militia, but this doesn't limit ownership to militia membership in any way.
> 
> Why? Well, because this would destroy the militia. The militia needs a ready supply of arms in times of need, you take them away from individuals in times with no need, then in times of need there is no need.
> 
> The same for the right to bear arms. You have a right to be in the militia in times of quiet and in times of need. Without people being in the militia in times of quiet, then in times of need it might be impossible to get into the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi frigidweirdo and thanks for clarifying and explaining in depth and detail
> So are you saying that
> individuals have the right to keep arms
> but only to bear arms within a govt regulated militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really.
> 
> I'm saying individuals have a right to keep arms and individuals have a right to be in the militia.
> 
> Basically what you just said is "but only to be in the militia within a govt regulated militia", well, yes, there is only one Militia you can belong to and that's your state militia where the state appoints the officers.
> 
> The Founding Fathers didn't want to have tinpot armies appearing everywhere. That wouldn't be a good force, it would threaten the Constitution and good government and may not prevent bad government.
> 
> There is a right to self defense, and with that a right to carry guns LAWFULLY (ie, if they make a law preventing it, then you can't, so much for a right huh?) but it's just not in the Second Amendment, because the Second Amendment isn't about self defense.
> 
> Had it started "self defence is an important right for individual citizens, the right of the people to keep and bear arms" then I might agree with your stance. But it doesn't.
Click to expand...


Okay frigidweirdo so you do believe in the right of self defense of individuals to carry/bear arms lawfully but you just don't believe in citing the Second Amendment to justify that. That's fair.

I also agree that the right is limited to LAWFULLY.

So it looks like where we disagree is on how the Second Amendment is used or abused.

That's understandable also, since I also "stretch" the use of the given language in the Bill of Rights in order to EXPRESS natural laws underlying these principles.

So I also use more liberty in interpretations that go beyond history and tradition.

For example, I have used "right peaceably to assemble" more liberally to mean the right to peace in public, and not to be subjected to a breach or disruption of the people by other people's abusive, violent or threatening actions.

That's not the usual interpretation, but when dealing with natural laws, I either cite that passage or the "right to security in persons houses and effects" to mean the right of people to have security and protection from unlawful threats of violating their rights. This goes beyond just GOVT not infringing, but people respecting each other's rights and not threatening violations on each other!

I interpret "the right to petition for redress of grievances" more broadly than just govt, but among people if we are to be our own govt and resolve our own issues.

I understand that other people may not accept or follow these broader generalized interpretations, but that is the closest I can come when trying to explain the natural law principles underlying the Bill of Rights. I use free exercise of religion to mean free will and both political and religious beliefs equally, which is not established precedent either. But that to me is closer to reflecting natural laws that cover the broader scope of what people will defend of their free will, consent, beliefs etc.

As long as we agree on principles and the spirit of the laws, that is the main thing.
people will not all agree on language, so that is relative anyway.

I'm glad we agree more than disagree on the spirit of the laws.
The other differences I can deal with, as long as we get the same meaning
overall.  

Thanks for explaining, and in the future, I would strongly suggest
you make it clear that you do believe in the individual rights lawfully invoked.

If you emphasize this as clearly as you did here,
then it's clear you are not threatening other people's core beliefs,
but just stating historical disagreement on WHERE the law
defines or protects this.  You are not negating the principle
but just the language and law being cited. 

Thank you very much and I hope you find more
success in reconciling with others by focusing on the
spirit and principles of the laws where you agree first,
before addressing the differences and disagreements.

If more people understood that you are not dismissing
the content of the principles but just the letter of the law being cited,
you should be heard and received more readily!


----------



## westwall

frigidweirdo said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is one of the contemplated drafts in your source for "bear" meaning "military service."
> 
> "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: *but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms*, *shall be compelled to render military service in person.*
> 
> Why would it say "render military service in person" if "bear arms" means military service?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Different versions of the Amendment
> 
> 
> *June 8th 1789
> 
> but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
> 
> 
> August 17th 1789
> 
> 
> but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.
> '
> 
> August 24th 1789
> 
> 
> but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.*
> 
> Now, render military service in person was taken out of the Amendment and replaced with "bear arms", and then "bear arms" was replaced by "render military service". Why? No idea. However it seems to be synonymous, as shown by how Mr Jerry and Mr Jackson spoke.
> 
> But basically what you have here is militia duty. You'd render military service in the militia, individually, in person.
Click to expand...









Because the wording was convoluted.  The passage here is for the Quakers (pacifists) who would not fight.  However they would give medical aid etc.  You need to read more history.


----------



## frigidweirdo

emilynghiem said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed.  And it also states quite emphatically that the "Right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".  What part of that sentence do you not understand?
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> the unorganized militia may be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sorry R2D2  militias don't have rights, people do.  the right of individual people cannot be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the Second Amendment doesn't give the right, does it?
> 
> The Second Amendment PROTECTS the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it says well regulated militia of the People are necessary to the security of a free State.  It does not say the unorganized militia is necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why didn't it say the right of those MEMBERS to bear arms.
> 
> I always thought the concept could be interpreted both ways.
> 
> That the well regulated militia could refer to the federal military being necessary as well.  So because of the existence of armed forces, then to check these, all the people need the right to bear arms so that authority is not abused to the point of oppression by military force.
> 
> Again danielpalos given the disagreements that continue today,
> it is no wonder the law was passed as written, so that both sides' beliefs
> can be interpreted and defended from the same passage as worded!
> 
> *In general danielpalos if you look at America's history, and especially if you look at Texas history including being an independent Republic that fought many wars, there has always been a tradition of independent citizens bearing arms to defend laws and rights on their own. *
> 
> Texas could NOT have joined the union with any such interpretation
> you are stating that Federal Govt would regulate the right to bear arms
> by regulating Miltia and restricting guns to that context!
> 
> Yours truly,
> Emily
> Glad to live in Texas!*
> 
> ** *_Maybe I am biased from being brought up in this culture of "rugged independence and self-governance" and with the teaching of Constitutional laws and traditions based on Natural Laws that came from God first and were put into written contracts in order for people to check the authority of govt._
Click to expand...


Because it's not the right of "members" to bear arms. 

You have a right to be in the militia regardless of whether you are a member.

I mean that would be pretty pointless, wouldn't it?

The militia is there to protect against mal-administration of the govt, but the govt could prevent people being a part of the militia. Thereby stopping the militia being an effective force.

The reason an individual's right to keep arms is protect is so that in TIMES OF NEED they could use, or lend, their guns in or to the Militia. If you say only members of the militia are allowed to keep arms, then the militia would have no guns in times of need. 

The same for militia personnel.


----------



## frigidweirdo

emilynghiem said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because they are on the right wing, and clueless and Causeless as a result.
> 
> Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States.
> 
> It is clearly enumerated in Article 1, Section 8.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, because the Bill of Rights was to define the rights of the PEOPLE that the federal govt and Congress COULD NOT infringe upon.
> 
> The objectors who would otherwise have REFUSED to ratify the Constitution giving powers to centralized federal govt, only agreed if the Bill of Rights was going to be added as a CONDITION where it delineated the rights of INDIVIDUALS.
> 
> So all the things they DIDN'T WANT federal govt to abuse or control, were spelled out in the Bill of Rights to make sure there was an agreement NOT TO GO THERE.
> 
> I'm sure danielpalos these same arguments existed back then, with advocates defenders and opponents on both sides fighting just as fiercely.
> 
> So I find it more and more telling, more interesting and "not an accident" that the 2nd Amendment would be written where BOTH SIDES can claim their interpretation equally.
> 
> This tells me even more we should leave it written exactly as is. At least both sides can defend their views on this, so it is more
> fair and inclusive of all people regardless which side they take!
> 
> Thank you danielpalos and especially frigidweirdo
> 
> Thanks to you I can clearly see where the people like you
> are getting that the people bearing arms is "directly tied" to the intro clause about well regulated militia.
> 
> I am even more glad then ever that I can see and support
> both sides, so that I can better fulfill the commitment to be equally inclusive and defend the rights of all people regardless of belief.  I am so grateful that I can do this, because if I were
> like you or like your opponents, who could only see one side
> and truly believe the other is invalid and doesn't count legally,
> I would be MISERABLE AS FU.
> 
> I would not be able to have peace of mind knowing the other group is out there, and wasting all my energy trying to defend my view while denouncing the other; while they do the same.
> 
> So glad I can sincerely appreciate embrace and defend both sides and the equal right to exercise and establish that interpretation. I do this by sticking with the general interpretation that invoking the right to bear arms requires doing so within the Context of the rest of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. So this automatically requires people to be LAW ABIDING and respect the equal constitutional rights freedoms and protections of others, to defend the law and not to violate it, including the respect and protection of EQUAL BELIEFS of people from discrimination and infringement. So I can live with both, within that context.
> 
> Anyone seeking to impose their views and violate the beliefs of others by exclusion or bullying, I cannot go there by conscience.
> I can only seek to include and protect people's beliefs and free choice whether or how to change their views to resolve conflicts with others.
> 
> So glad I take this approach.
> 
> Thank you for reinforcing how important it is, since there is clear validity on your side of the fence and how and why you interpret it that way, even holding it to be the only truth, while the other interpretation is political and a lie.
> 
> It makes me even more curious about my friend who came from the view you take, then changed from reading the history and decided the historical context DOES endorse the conservative interpretation of the rights belonging to the people, and coming to a similar conclusion as I have that although this is the predominant interpretation, there is still room for the interpretation of the right to bear arms within regulated militia only.
> 
> So he and I both agree to keep it open both ways, but he came from your viewpoint and opened up to even acknowledge that the other interpretation is actually more consistent historically; and I come from the conservative interpretation but keep the floor open to include other beliefs and interpretations equally.
> 
> He and I both agree that history points to the conservative interpretation; but inclusion and respect for our fellow Democrats and liberals, of course we are always going to include our constituents and not exclude those beliefs as the hardcore conservatives who aim to attack and discredit liberals.
> 
> You may never be able to see beyond right to bear arms within a regulated militia only, but I hope you would AT LEAST open up to ACCOMMODATE the beliefs in people bearing arms individually, ie as long as it's done within the inseparable context of defending the laws and protections of others and not violating any laws, since I am asking those other advocates to accommodate YOUR beliefs that it means militia only.
> 
> The only way I've seen people budge on their beliefs, from exclusion to inclusion of others, is if they are treated the same way. So that's the most I could hope or expect to change here, a move toward equal inclusion in order to gain respect for your beliefs that are always going to be in the minority, because people believe in themselves and their judgment to make decisions more than they believe in others running govt and "organized regulations." they have to be involved or feel represented in the decisions on regulations before they trust it, so it always lands on the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry Emily, I really don't see how you have come to the conclusion that "the people bearing arms is "directly tied" to the intro clause about well regulated militia."
> 
> I didn't say that. I'm worried that you're not understanding what I'm writing, or worried even more that you're not reading what I'm writing and just thinking you know what I'm saying.
> 
> I'll explain.
> 
> The right to keep arms is the right of individuals to own weapons. The reason why this is protected in the 2A is so that it protects the militia. The US federal govt could call people up into federal service, then take away their guns while there. The 2A prevents this.
> 
> An individual gets to keep guns when not in the militia too. The reason for the protection is the militia, but this doesn't limit ownership to militia membership in any way.
> 
> Why? Well, because this would destroy the militia. The militia needs a ready supply of arms in times of need, you take them away from individuals in times with no need, then in times of need there is no need.
> 
> The same for the right to bear arms. You have a right to be in the militia in times of quiet and in times of need. Without people being in the militia in times of quiet, then in times of need it might be impossible to get into the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi frigidweirdo and thanks for clarifying and explaining in depth and detail
> So are you saying that
> individuals have the right to keep arms
> but only to bear arms within a govt regulated militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really.
> 
> I'm saying individuals have a right to keep arms and individuals have a right to be in the militia.
> 
> Basically what you just said is "but only to be in the militia within a govt regulated militia", well, yes, there is only one Militia you can belong to and that's your state militia where the state appoints the officers.
> 
> The Founding Fathers didn't want to have tinpot armies appearing everywhere. That wouldn't be a good force, it would threaten the Constitution and good government and may not prevent bad government.
> 
> There is a right to self defense, and with that a right to carry guns LAWFULLY (ie, if they make a law preventing it, then you can't, so much for a right huh?) but it's just not in the Second Amendment, because the Second Amendment isn't about self defense.
> 
> Had it started "self defence is an important right for individual citizens, the right of the people to keep and bear arms" then I might agree with your stance. But it doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay frigidweirdo so you do believe in the right of self defense of individuals to carry/bear arms lawfully but you just don't believe in citing the Second Amendment to justify that. That's fair.
> 
> I also agree that the right is limited to LAWFULLY.
> 
> So it looks like where we disagree is on how the Second Amendment is used or abused.
> 
> That's understandable also, since I also "stretch" the use of the given language in the Bill of Rights in order to EXPRESS natural laws underlying these principles.
> 
> So I also use more liberty in interpretations that go beyond history and tradition.
> 
> For example, I have used "right peaceably to assemble" more liberally to mean the right to peace in public, and not to be subjected to a breach or disruption of the people by other people's abusive, violent or threatening actions.
> 
> That's not the usual interpretation, but when dealing with natural laws, I either cite that passage or the "right to security in persons houses and effects" to mean the right of people to have security and protection from unlawful threats of violating their rights. This goes beyond just GOVT not infringing, but people respecting each other's rights and not threatening violations on each other!
> 
> I interpret "the right to petition for redress of grievances" more broadly than just govt, but among people if we are to be our own govt and resolve our own issues.
> 
> I understand that other people may not accept or follow these broader generalized interpretations, but that is the closest I can come when trying to explain the natural law principles underlying the Bill of Rights. I use free exercise of religion to mean free will and both political and religious beliefs equally, which is not established precedent either. But that to me is closer to reflecting natural laws that cover the broader scope of what people will defend of their free will, consent, beliefs etc.
> 
> As long as we agree on principles and the spirit of the laws, that is the main thing.
> people will not all agree on language, so that is relative anyway.
> 
> I'm glad we agree more than disagree on the spirit of the laws.
> The other differences I can deal with, as long as we get the same meaning
> overall.
> 
> Thanks for explaining, and in the future, I would strongly suggest
> you make it clear that you do believe in the individual rights lawfully invoked.
> 
> If you emphasize this as clearly as you did here,
> then it's clear you are not threatening other people's core beliefs,
> but just stating historical disagreement on WHERE the law
> defines or protects this.  You are not negating the principle
> but just the language and law being cited.
> 
> Thank you very much and I hope you find more
> success in reconciling with others by focusing on the
> spirit and principles of the laws where you agree first,
> before addressing the differences and disagreements.
> 
> If more people understood that you are not dismissing
> the content of the principles but just the letter of the law being cited,
> you should be heard and received more readily!
Click to expand...


I agree there's a right to self defense. As for carrying guns, it's not really a right. I know this because the NRA supports carry and conceal permits. If you need a permit to carry guns, then it's not a right, but a privilege, it's allowed by law in certain circumstances.

Well, I am threatening people's core beliefs. The first belief being that they know everything and don't need to be told. There are so many people on forums like this who just "believe" and don't take any time to understand.


----------



## emilynghiem

frigidweirdo said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am going to change the words "bear arms" to "carry" or "carry a gun" and see how it works contextually:
> 
> The House again resolved itself into a committee, Mr.Boudinot in the chair, on the proposed amendments to the constitution. The third clause of the fourth proposition in the report was taken into consideration, being as follows: "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and *carry *arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to *carry a gun*."
> 
> Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from *carrying a gun*.
> (_*this paragraph is rather damning to your argument)*_
> 
> What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward. The Assembly of Massachusetts, seeing the rapid progress that administration were making to divest them of their inherent privileges, endeavored to counteract them by the organization of the militia; but they were always defeated by the influence of the Crown.
> 
> Mr. Seney wished to know what question there was before the committee, in order to ascertain the point upon which the gentleman was speaking.
> 
> Mr. Gerry replied that he meant to make a motion, as he disapproved of the words as they read. He then proceeded. No attempts that they made were successful, until they engaged in the struggle which emancipated them at once from their thraldom. Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. For this reason, he wished the words to be altered so as to be confined to persons belonging to a religious sect scrupulous of *carrying a gun*.
> 
> Mr. Jackson did not expect that all the people of the United States would turn Quakers or Moravians; consequently, one part would have to defend the other in case of invasion. Now this, in his opinion, was unjust, unless the constitution secured an equivalent: for this reason he moved to amend the clause, by inserting at the end of it, "upon paying an equivalent, to be established by law."
> 
> Mr. Smith, of South Carolina, inquired what were the words used by the conventions respecting this amendment. If the gentleman would conform to what was proposed by Virginia and Carolina, he would second him. He thought they were to be excused provided they found a substitute.
> 
> Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of *carrying a gun*, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent."
> 
> Mr. Sherman conceived it difficult to modify the clause and make it better. It is well known that those who are religiously scrupulous of *carrying a gun*, are equally scrupulous of getting substitutes or paying an equivalent. Many of them would rather die than do either one or the other; but he did not see an absolute necessity for a clause of this kind. We do not live under an arbitrary Government, said he, and the States, respectively, will have the government of the militia, unless when called into actual service; besides, it would not do to alter it so as to exclude the whole of any sect, because there are men amongst the Quakers who will turn out, notwithstanding the religious principles of the society, and defend the cause of their country. Certainly it will be improper to prevent the exercise of such favorable dispositions, at least whilst it is the practice of nations to determine their contests by the slaughter of their citizens and subjects.
> 
> Mr. Vining hoped the clause would be suffered to remain as it stood, because he saw no use in it if it was amended so as to compel a man to find a substitute, which, with respect to the Government, was the same as if the person himself turned out to fight.
> 
> Mr. Stone inquired what the words "religiously scrupulous" had reference to: was it of *carrying a gun*? If it was, it ought so to be expressed.
> 
> Mr. Benson moved to have the words "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to *carry a gun*," struck out. He would always leave it to the benevolence of the Legislature, for, modify it as you please, it will be impossible to express it in such a manner as to clear it from ambiguity. No man can claim this indulgence of right. It may be a religious persuasion, but it is no natural right, and therefore ought to be left to the discretion of the Government. If this stands part of the constitution, it will be a question before the Judiciary on every regulation you make with respect to the organization of the militia, whether it comports with this declaration or not. It is extremely injudicious to intermix matters of doubt with fundamentals.
> 
> I have no reason to believe but the Legislature will always possess humanity enough to indulge this class of citizens in a matter they are so desirous of; but they ought to be left to their discretion.
> 
> The motion for striking out the whole clause being seconded, was put, and decided in the negative--22 members voting for it, and 24 against it.
> 
> Mr. Gerry objected to the first part of the clause, on account of the uncertainty with which it is expressed. A well regulated militia being the best security of a free State, admitted an idea that a standing army was a secondary one. It ought to read, "a well regulated militia, trained to arms;" in which case it would become the duty of the Government to provide this security, and furnish a greater certainty of its being done.
> 
> Mr. Gerry's motion not being seconded, the question was put on the clause as reported; which being adopted,
> 
> Mr. Burke proposed to add to the clause just agreed to, an amendment to the following effect: "A standing army of regular troops in time of peace is dangerous to public liberty, and such shall not be raised or kept up in time of peace but from necessity, and for the security of the people, nor then without the consent of two-thirds of the members present of both Houses; and in all cases the military shall be subordinate to the civil authority." This being seconded.
> 
> Mr. Vining asked whether this was to be considered as an addition to the last clause, or an amendment by itself. If the former, he would remind the gentleman the clause was decided; if the latter, it was improper to introduce new matter, as the House had referred the report specially to the Committee of the whole.
> 
> Mr. Burke feared that, what with being trammelled in rules, and the apparent disposition of the committee, he should not be able to get them to consider any amendment; he submitted to such proceeding because he could not help himself.
> 
> Mr. Hartley thought the amendment in order, and was ready to give his opinion on it. He hoped the people of America would always be satisfied with having a majority to govern. He never wished to see two-thirds or three-fourths required, because it might put it in the power of a small minority to govern the whole Union.
> 
> [_20 Aug._]
> 
> Mr. Scott objected to the clause in the sixth amendment, "No person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to *carry a gun*." He observed that if this becomes part of the constitution, such persons can neither be called upon for their services, nor can an equivalent be demanded; it is also attended with still further difficulties, for a militia can never be depended upon. This would lead to the violation of another article in the constitution, which secures to the people the right of *keeping *arms, and in this case recourse must be had to a standing army. I conceive it, said he, to be a legislative right altogether. There are many sects I know, who are religiously scrupulous in this respect; I do not mean to deprive them of any indulgence the law affords; my design is to guard against those who are of no religion. It has been urged that religion is on the decline; if so, the argument is more strong in my favor, for when the time comes that religion shall be discarded, the generality of persons will have recourse to these pretexts to get excused from bearing arms.
> 
> Mr. Boudinot thought the provision in the clause, or something similar to it, was necessary. Can any dependence, said he, be placed in men who are conscientious in this respect? or what justice can there be in compelling them to *carry a gun*, when, according to their religious principles, t*hey would rather die than use them*? He adverted to several instances of oppression on this point, that occurred during the war. In forming a militia, an effectual defence ought to be calculated, and no characters of this religious description ought to be compelled to take up arms. I hope that in establishing this Government, we may show the world that proper care is taken that the Government may not interfere with the religious sentiments of any person. Now, by striking out the clause, people may be led to believe that there is an intention in the General Government to compel all its citizens to *carry a gun*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay
> 
> 1) Why would the Founding Fathers COMPEL a person to carry guns with them at all time? I mean, you wake up at 3am and need to go to the outhouse to take a shit, and on the way a policeman stops you and asks why you don't have a gun. Then they fine you for not having a gun.
> 
> Can you find any evidence, outside of militia duty of federal service, where the Founding Fathers wanted individuals to be compelled to carry arms with them?
> 
> I'm thinking you can't. I've never seen such a thing.
> 
> 2) Okay, the reasons for this was they wanted to say "either you bear arms, or you pay an equivalent", again, why would people be compelled to pay money so they wouldn't have to carry guns around with them in the streets?
> 
> Again, any evidence for this? No.
> 
> I could go on and on.
> 
> There's no reason for the Founding Fathers to compel people to carry guns.
Click to expand...


Dear frigidweirdo

I thought the Founders were worried about giving authority to Federal govt to control the armed forces without check coming from states and people.

The British forces did practice impressment of captured American sailors and forcing them to fight for the Crown.

Given the fear of having arms confiscated by controlling govt, 
that is why I tend to believe the intent of the Founders was to preserve
the right of the PEOPLE to fight against abuses especially tyrannical
abuse of govt powers to unfairly oppress individuals.

Now given your previous clarification 
my understanding is you do support the right of citizens
to self defense within lawful use of arms,
so where we disagree is on the context and intent
of the Second Amendment, literally, which you do not
see or use as applying to individual rights to self defense
or engaging in law enforcement outsides the "regulated militia" context.

As long as we agree on the spirit of the laws,
If the language we use differs, I am okay adapting to 
each person's way of expressing that so we can still
reach agreement on the content and principles of what is lawful.


----------



## emilynghiem

frigidweirdo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> the unorganized militia may be infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> sorry R2D2  militias don't have rights, people do.  the right of individual people cannot be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the Second Amendment doesn't give the right, does it?
> 
> The Second Amendment PROTECTS the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it says well regulated militia of the People are necessary to the security of a free State.  It does not say the unorganized militia is necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why didn't it say the right of those MEMBERS to bear arms.
> 
> I always thought the concept could be interpreted both ways.
> 
> That the well regulated militia could refer to the federal military being necessary as well.  So because of the existence of armed forces, then to check these, all the people need the right to bear arms so that authority is not abused to the point of oppression by military force.
> 
> Again danielpalos given the disagreements that continue today,
> it is no wonder the law was passed as written, so that both sides' beliefs
> can be interpreted and defended from the same passage as worded!
> 
> *In general danielpalos if you look at America's history, and especially if you look at Texas history including being an independent Republic that fought many wars, there has always been a tradition of independent citizens bearing arms to defend laws and rights on their own. *
> 
> Texas could NOT have joined the union with any such interpretation
> you are stating that Federal Govt would regulate the right to bear arms
> by regulating Miltia and restricting guns to that context!
> 
> Yours truly,
> Emily
> Glad to live in Texas!*
> 
> ** *_Maybe I am biased from being brought up in this culture of "rugged independence and self-governance" and with the teaching of Constitutional laws and traditions based on Natural Laws that came from God first and were put into written contracts in order for people to check the authority of govt._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it's not the right of "members" to bear arms.
> 
> You have a right to be in the militia regardless of whether you are a member.
> 
> I mean that would be pretty pointless, wouldn't it?
> 
> The militia is there to protect against mal-administration of the govt, but the govt could prevent people being a part of the militia. Thereby stopping the militia being an effective force.
> 
> The reason an individual's right to keep arms is protect is so that in TIMES OF NEED they could use, or lend, their guns in or to the Militia. If you say only members of the militia are allowed to keep arms, then the militia would have no guns in times of need.
> 
> The same for militia personnel.
Click to expand...


????
RE: 
"You have a right to be in the militia regardless of whether you are a member."
That's what I mean, if you are IN the militia that is what I mean by being a member.


----------



## Marion Morrison

Never in the history of the US have so many people allegedly taken so many innocent lives in one year.

The year after Trump was elected.

There's no way these goings on are not organized by people that want to do away with gun rights (2nd amendment).

Every attack is aimed squarely at the 2nd amendment. I don't need the government to keep me safe.

I can keep myself safe, thank you. Because I have guns.

When you only have seconds, the police are minutes away.

Funny how they responded to a strange knock on my door 3x faster than the Las Vegas mass shooter. ( If that even happened).


It may have, but if it did, no one man perpetrated that, their hand is overplayed there.


----------



## ChrisL

frigidweirdo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> the unorganized militia may be infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> sorry R2D2  militias don't have rights, people do.  the right of individual people cannot be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the Second Amendment doesn't give the right, does it?
> 
> The Second Amendment PROTECTS the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it says well regulated militia of the People are necessary to the security of a free State.  It does not say the unorganized militia is necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why didn't it say the right of those MEMBERS to bear arms.
> 
> I always thought the concept could be interpreted both ways.
> 
> That the well regulated militia could refer to the federal military being necessary as well.  So because of the existence of armed forces, then to check these, all the people need the right to bear arms so that authority is not abused to the point of oppression by military force.
> 
> Again danielpalos given the disagreements that continue today,
> it is no wonder the law was passed as written, so that both sides' beliefs
> can be interpreted and defended from the same passage as worded!
> 
> *In general danielpalos if you look at America's history, and especially if you look at Texas history including being an independent Republic that fought many wars, there has always been a tradition of independent citizens bearing arms to defend laws and rights on their own. *
> 
> Texas could NOT have joined the union with any such interpretation
> you are stating that Federal Govt would regulate the right to bear arms
> by regulating Miltia and restricting guns to that context!
> 
> Yours truly,
> Emily
> Glad to live in Texas!*
> 
> ** *_Maybe I am biased from being brought up in this culture of "rugged independence and self-governance" and with the teaching of Constitutional laws and traditions based on Natural Laws that came from God first and were put into written contracts in order for people to check the authority of govt._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it's not the right of "members" to bear arms.
> 
> You have a right to be in the militia regardless of whether you are a member.
> 
> I mean that would be pretty pointless, wouldn't it?
> 
> The militia is there to protect against mal-administration of the govt, but the govt could prevent people being a part of the militia. Thereby stopping the militia being an effective force.
> 
> The reason an individual's right to keep arms is protect is so that in TIMES OF NEED they could use, or lend, their guns in or to the Militia. If you say only members of the militia are allowed to keep arms, then the militia would have no guns in times of need.
> 
> The same for militia personnel.
Click to expand...


As the founders stated numerous times in the papers that describe the constitution, the militia is made of the PEOPLE, the entirety of the PEOPLE of the US.  You are doing nothing but willfully lying to twist the 2nd amendment which is in the BILL OF RIGHTS (which means the right of the people) to mean what YOU want it to mean.  Educate yourself because you are foolish and ignorant.


----------



## ChrisL

From the founding fathers themselves . . . 

"To disarm the people..._s the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788_


----------



## emilynghiem

frigidweirdo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, because the Bill of Rights was to define the rights of the PEOPLE that the federal govt and Congress COULD NOT infringe upon.
> 
> The objectors who would otherwise have REFUSED to ratify the Constitution giving powers to centralized federal govt, only agreed if the Bill of Rights was going to be added as a CONDITION where it delineated the rights of INDIVIDUALS.
> 
> So all the things they DIDN'T WANT federal govt to abuse or control, were spelled out in the Bill of Rights to make sure there was an agreement NOT TO GO THERE.
> 
> I'm sure danielpalos these same arguments existed back then, with advocates defenders and opponents on both sides fighting just as fiercely.
> 
> So I find it more and more telling, more interesting and "not an accident" that the 2nd Amendment would be written where BOTH SIDES can claim their interpretation equally.
> 
> This tells me even more we should leave it written exactly as is. At least both sides can defend their views on this, so it is more
> fair and inclusive of all people regardless which side they take!
> 
> Thank you danielpalos and especially frigidweirdo
> 
> Thanks to you I can clearly see where the people like you
> are getting that the people bearing arms is "directly tied" to the intro clause about well regulated militia.
> 
> I am even more glad then ever that I can see and support
> both sides, so that I can better fulfill the commitment to be equally inclusive and defend the rights of all people regardless of belief.  I am so grateful that I can do this, because if I were
> like you or like your opponents, who could only see one side
> and truly believe the other is invalid and doesn't count legally,
> I would be MISERABLE AS FU.
> 
> I would not be able to have peace of mind knowing the other group is out there, and wasting all my energy trying to defend my view while denouncing the other; while they do the same.
> 
> So glad I can sincerely appreciate embrace and defend both sides and the equal right to exercise and establish that interpretation. I do this by sticking with the general interpretation that invoking the right to bear arms requires doing so within the Context of the rest of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. So this automatically requires people to be LAW ABIDING and respect the equal constitutional rights freedoms and protections of others, to defend the law and not to violate it, including the respect and protection of EQUAL BELIEFS of people from discrimination and infringement. So I can live with both, within that context.
> 
> Anyone seeking to impose their views and violate the beliefs of others by exclusion or bullying, I cannot go there by conscience.
> I can only seek to include and protect people's beliefs and free choice whether or how to change their views to resolve conflicts with others.
> 
> So glad I take this approach.
> 
> Thank you for reinforcing how important it is, since there is clear validity on your side of the fence and how and why you interpret it that way, even holding it to be the only truth, while the other interpretation is political and a lie.
> 
> It makes me even more curious about my friend who came from the view you take, then changed from reading the history and decided the historical context DOES endorse the conservative interpretation of the rights belonging to the people, and coming to a similar conclusion as I have that although this is the predominant interpretation, there is still room for the interpretation of the right to bear arms within regulated militia only.
> 
> So he and I both agree to keep it open both ways, but he came from your viewpoint and opened up to even acknowledge that the other interpretation is actually more consistent historically; and I come from the conservative interpretation but keep the floor open to include other beliefs and interpretations equally.
> 
> He and I both agree that history points to the conservative interpretation; but inclusion and respect for our fellow Democrats and liberals, of course we are always going to include our constituents and not exclude those beliefs as the hardcore conservatives who aim to attack and discredit liberals.
> 
> You may never be able to see beyond right to bear arms within a regulated militia only, but I hope you would AT LEAST open up to ACCOMMODATE the beliefs in people bearing arms individually, ie as long as it's done within the inseparable context of defending the laws and protections of others and not violating any laws, since I am asking those other advocates to accommodate YOUR beliefs that it means militia only.
> 
> The only way I've seen people budge on their beliefs, from exclusion to inclusion of others, is if they are treated the same way. So that's the most I could hope or expect to change here, a move toward equal inclusion in order to gain respect for your beliefs that are always going to be in the minority, because people believe in themselves and their judgment to make decisions more than they believe in others running govt and "organized regulations." they have to be involved or feel represented in the decisions on regulations before they trust it, so it always lands on the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry Emily, I really don't see how you have come to the conclusion that "the people bearing arms is "directly tied" to the intro clause about well regulated militia."
> 
> I didn't say that. I'm worried that you're not understanding what I'm writing, or worried even more that you're not reading what I'm writing and just thinking you know what I'm saying.
> 
> I'll explain.
> 
> The right to keep arms is the right of individuals to own weapons. The reason why this is protected in the 2A is so that it protects the militia. The US federal govt could call people up into federal service, then take away their guns while there. The 2A prevents this.
> 
> An individual gets to keep guns when not in the militia too. The reason for the protection is the militia, but this doesn't limit ownership to militia membership in any way.
> 
> Why? Well, because this would destroy the militia. The militia needs a ready supply of arms in times of need, you take them away from individuals in times with no need, then in times of need there is no need.
> 
> The same for the right to bear arms. You have a right to be in the militia in times of quiet and in times of need. Without people being in the militia in times of quiet, then in times of need it might be impossible to get into the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi frigidweirdo and thanks for clarifying and explaining in depth and detail
> So are you saying that
> individuals have the right to keep arms
> but only to bear arms within a govt regulated militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really.
> 
> I'm saying individuals have a right to keep arms and individuals have a right to be in the militia.
> 
> Basically what you just said is "but only to be in the militia within a govt regulated militia", well, yes, there is only one Militia you can belong to and that's your state militia where the state appoints the officers.
> 
> The Founding Fathers didn't want to have tinpot armies appearing everywhere. That wouldn't be a good force, it would threaten the Constitution and good government and may not prevent bad government.
> 
> There is a right to self defense, and with that a right to carry guns LAWFULLY (ie, if they make a law preventing it, then you can't, so much for a right huh?) but it's just not in the Second Amendment, because the Second Amendment isn't about self defense.
> 
> Had it started "self defence is an important right for individual citizens, the right of the people to keep and bear arms" then I might agree with your stance. But it doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay frigidweirdo so you do believe in the right of self defense of individuals to carry/bear arms lawfully but you just don't believe in citing the Second Amendment to justify that. That's fair.
> 
> I also agree that the right is limited to LAWFULLY.
> 
> So it looks like where we disagree is on how the Second Amendment is used or abused.
> 
> That's understandable also, since I also "stretch" the use of the given language in the Bill of Rights in order to EXPRESS natural laws underlying these principles.
> 
> So I also use more liberty in interpretations that go beyond history and tradition.
> 
> For example, I have used "right peaceably to assemble" more liberally to mean the right to peace in public, and not to be subjected to a breach or disruption of the people by other people's abusive, violent or threatening actions.
> 
> That's not the usual interpretation, but when dealing with natural laws, I either cite that passage or the "right to security in persons houses and effects" to mean the right of people to have security and protection from unlawful threats of violating their rights. This goes beyond just GOVT not infringing, but people respecting each other's rights and not threatening violations on each other!
> 
> I interpret "the right to petition for redress of grievances" more broadly than just govt, but among people if we are to be our own govt and resolve our own issues.
> 
> I understand that other people may not accept or follow these broader generalized interpretations, but that is the closest I can come when trying to explain the natural law principles underlying the Bill of Rights. I use free exercise of religion to mean free will and both political and religious beliefs equally, which is not established precedent either. But that to me is closer to reflecting natural laws that cover the broader scope of what people will defend of their free will, consent, beliefs etc.
> 
> As long as we agree on principles and the spirit of the laws, that is the main thing.
> people will not all agree on language, so that is relative anyway.
> 
> I'm glad we agree more than disagree on the spirit of the laws.
> The other differences I can deal with, as long as we get the same meaning
> overall.
> 
> Thanks for explaining, and in the future, I would strongly suggest
> you make it clear that you do believe in the individual rights lawfully invoked.
> 
> If you emphasize this as clearly as you did here,
> then it's clear you are not threatening other people's core beliefs,
> but just stating historical disagreement on WHERE the law
> defines or protects this.  You are not negating the principle
> but just the language and law being cited.
> 
> Thank you very much and I hope you find more
> success in reconciling with others by focusing on the
> spirit and principles of the laws where you agree first,
> before addressing the differences and disagreements.
> 
> If more people understood that you are not dismissing
> the content of the principles but just the letter of the law being cited,
> you should be heard and received more readily!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree there's a right to self defense. As for carrying guns, it's not really a right. I know this because the NRA supports carry and conceal permits. If you need a permit to carry guns, then it's not a right, but a privilege, it's allowed by law in certain circumstances.
> 
> Well, I am threatening people's core beliefs. The first belief being that they know everything and don't need to be told. There are so many people on forums like this who just "believe" and don't take any time to understand.
Click to expand...


No, you are not like danielpalos that is completely NEGATING the core beliefs.

compared with that, you are more like disagreeing over
the "letter of the law" while maintaining the same spirit.

If people mistake you for someone arguing for what danielpalos
is saying, then yes, you would come across as negating their beliefs.

you are closer to expressing the same basic principles
but just don't agree on the laws/language used to justify or defend those points.

Thus I think you will be more successful overall frigidweirdo
it's not just a matter of people taking the time to understand
but your taking the time to explain as you spelled out with me.

That wasn't clear in your previous messages,
so I hope you START with those clarifications from now on
instead of waiting until the last 20 pages of messages
to figure out where we actually agreed and where we differed.

The points and spirit of agreement are much greater
than the differences which are resolvable in that context.

Thanks again and I hope it gets easier from here on!


----------



## ChrisL

The "militia" IS the people, the citizens of the United States.  This is stated MANY times in the discussion of the 2nd amendment by the founding fathers.  There.  K?  End of discussion on THAT matter.


----------



## Marion Morrison

ChrisL said:


> The "militia" IS the people, the citizens of the United States.  This is stated MANY times in the discussion of the 2nd amendment by the founding fathers.  There.  K?  End of discussion on THAT matter.



Until the next 3 walls of meaningless text, you mean. Brace yourself.


----------



## frigidweirdo

emilynghiem said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am going to change the words "bear arms" to "carry" or "carry a gun" and see how it works contextually:
> 
> The House again resolved itself into a committee, Mr.Boudinot in the chair, on the proposed amendments to the constitution. The third clause of the fourth proposition in the report was taken into consideration, being as follows: "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and *carry *arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to *carry a gun*."
> 
> Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from *carrying a gun*.
> (_*this paragraph is rather damning to your argument)*_
> 
> What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward. The Assembly of Massachusetts, seeing the rapid progress that administration were making to divest them of their inherent privileges, endeavored to counteract them by the organization of the militia; but they were always defeated by the influence of the Crown.
> 
> Mr. Seney wished to know what question there was before the committee, in order to ascertain the point upon which the gentleman was speaking.
> 
> Mr. Gerry replied that he meant to make a motion, as he disapproved of the words as they read. He then proceeded. No attempts that they made were successful, until they engaged in the struggle which emancipated them at once from their thraldom. Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. For this reason, he wished the words to be altered so as to be confined to persons belonging to a religious sect scrupulous of *carrying a gun*.
> 
> Mr. Jackson did not expect that all the people of the United States would turn Quakers or Moravians; consequently, one part would have to defend the other in case of invasion. Now this, in his opinion, was unjust, unless the constitution secured an equivalent: for this reason he moved to amend the clause, by inserting at the end of it, "upon paying an equivalent, to be established by law."
> 
> Mr. Smith, of South Carolina, inquired what were the words used by the conventions respecting this amendment. If the gentleman would conform to what was proposed by Virginia and Carolina, he would second him. He thought they were to be excused provided they found a substitute.
> 
> Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of *carrying a gun*, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent."
> 
> Mr. Sherman conceived it difficult to modify the clause and make it better. It is well known that those who are religiously scrupulous of *carrying a gun*, are equally scrupulous of getting substitutes or paying an equivalent. Many of them would rather die than do either one or the other; but he did not see an absolute necessity for a clause of this kind. We do not live under an arbitrary Government, said he, and the States, respectively, will have the government of the militia, unless when called into actual service; besides, it would not do to alter it so as to exclude the whole of any sect, because there are men amongst the Quakers who will turn out, notwithstanding the religious principles of the society, and defend the cause of their country. Certainly it will be improper to prevent the exercise of such favorable dispositions, at least whilst it is the practice of nations to determine their contests by the slaughter of their citizens and subjects.
> 
> Mr. Vining hoped the clause would be suffered to remain as it stood, because he saw no use in it if it was amended so as to compel a man to find a substitute, which, with respect to the Government, was the same as if the person himself turned out to fight.
> 
> Mr. Stone inquired what the words "religiously scrupulous" had reference to: was it of *carrying a gun*? If it was, it ought so to be expressed.
> 
> Mr. Benson moved to have the words "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to *carry a gun*," struck out. He would always leave it to the benevolence of the Legislature, for, modify it as you please, it will be impossible to express it in such a manner as to clear it from ambiguity. No man can claim this indulgence of right. It may be a religious persuasion, but it is no natural right, and therefore ought to be left to the discretion of the Government. If this stands part of the constitution, it will be a question before the Judiciary on every regulation you make with respect to the organization of the militia, whether it comports with this declaration or not. It is extremely injudicious to intermix matters of doubt with fundamentals.
> 
> I have no reason to believe but the Legislature will always possess humanity enough to indulge this class of citizens in a matter they are so desirous of; but they ought to be left to their discretion.
> 
> The motion for striking out the whole clause being seconded, was put, and decided in the negative--22 members voting for it, and 24 against it.
> 
> Mr. Gerry objected to the first part of the clause, on account of the uncertainty with which it is expressed. A well regulated militia being the best security of a free State, admitted an idea that a standing army was a secondary one. It ought to read, "a well regulated militia, trained to arms;" in which case it would become the duty of the Government to provide this security, and furnish a greater certainty of its being done.
> 
> Mr. Gerry's motion not being seconded, the question was put on the clause as reported; which being adopted,
> 
> Mr. Burke proposed to add to the clause just agreed to, an amendment to the following effect: "A standing army of regular troops in time of peace is dangerous to public liberty, and such shall not be raised or kept up in time of peace but from necessity, and for the security of the people, nor then without the consent of two-thirds of the members present of both Houses; and in all cases the military shall be subordinate to the civil authority." This being seconded.
> 
> Mr. Vining asked whether this was to be considered as an addition to the last clause, or an amendment by itself. If the former, he would remind the gentleman the clause was decided; if the latter, it was improper to introduce new matter, as the House had referred the report specially to the Committee of the whole.
> 
> Mr. Burke feared that, what with being trammelled in rules, and the apparent disposition of the committee, he should not be able to get them to consider any amendment; he submitted to such proceeding because he could not help himself.
> 
> Mr. Hartley thought the amendment in order, and was ready to give his opinion on it. He hoped the people of America would always be satisfied with having a majority to govern. He never wished to see two-thirds or three-fourths required, because it might put it in the power of a small minority to govern the whole Union.
> 
> [_20 Aug._]
> 
> Mr. Scott objected to the clause in the sixth amendment, "No person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to *carry a gun*." He observed that if this becomes part of the constitution, such persons can neither be called upon for their services, nor can an equivalent be demanded; it is also attended with still further difficulties, for a militia can never be depended upon. This would lead to the violation of another article in the constitution, which secures to the people the right of *keeping *arms, and in this case recourse must be had to a standing army. I conceive it, said he, to be a legislative right altogether. There are many sects I know, who are religiously scrupulous in this respect; I do not mean to deprive them of any indulgence the law affords; my design is to guard against those who are of no religion. It has been urged that religion is on the decline; if so, the argument is more strong in my favor, for when the time comes that religion shall be discarded, the generality of persons will have recourse to these pretexts to get excused from bearing arms.
> 
> Mr. Boudinot thought the provision in the clause, or something similar to it, was necessary. Can any dependence, said he, be placed in men who are conscientious in this respect? or what justice can there be in compelling them to *carry a gun*, when, according to their religious principles, t*hey would rather die than use them*? He adverted to several instances of oppression on this point, that occurred during the war. In forming a militia, an effectual defence ought to be calculated, and no characters of this religious description ought to be compelled to take up arms. I hope that in establishing this Government, we may show the world that proper care is taken that the Government may not interfere with the religious sentiments of any person. Now, by striking out the clause, people may be led to believe that there is an intention in the General Government to compel all its citizens to *carry a gun*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay
> 
> 1) Why would the Founding Fathers COMPEL a person to carry guns with them at all time? I mean, you wake up at 3am and need to go to the outhouse to take a shit, and on the way a policeman stops you and asks why you don't have a gun. Then they fine you for not having a gun.
> 
> Can you find any evidence, outside of militia duty of federal service, where the Founding Fathers wanted individuals to be compelled to carry arms with them?
> 
> I'm thinking you can't. I've never seen such a thing.
> 
> 2) Okay, the reasons for this was they wanted to say "either you bear arms, or you pay an equivalent", again, why would people be compelled to pay money so they wouldn't have to carry guns around with them in the streets?
> 
> Again, any evidence for this? No.
> 
> I could go on and on.
> 
> There's no reason for the Founding Fathers to compel people to carry guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo
> 
> I thought the Founders were worried about giving authority to Federal govt to control the armed forces without check coming from states and people.
> 
> The British forces did practice impressment of captured American sailors and forcing them to fight for the Crown.
> 
> Given the fear of having arms confiscated by controlling govt,
> that is why I tend to believe the intent of the Founders was to preserve
> the right of the PEOPLE to fight against abuses especially tyrannical
> abuse of govt powers to unfairly oppress individuals.
> 
> Now given your previous clarification
> my understanding is you do support the right of citizens
> to self defense within lawful use of arms,
> so where we disagree is on the context and intent
> of the Second Amendment, literally, which you do not
> see or use as applying to individual rights to self defense
> or engaging in law enforcement outsides the "regulated militia" context.
> 
> As long as we agree on the spirit of the laws,
> If the language we use differs, I am okay adapting to
> each person's way of expressing that so we can still
> reach agreement on the content and principles of what is lawful.
Click to expand...


Yes, they were. And to have a check and balance against the Federal Armed forces, you have the militia. 

But THE militia, not militias, not a bunch of criminals posing as militias. They set out the militia and how it would function in Article 1 Section 8.

I'm not sure where you think the language differs.

There's clearly a BIG difference between protecting the right of individuals to be in the militia and protecting the right to carry guns around.

With the latter you DON'T protect the right of individuals to be in the militia, therefore the militia is an ineffective tool against govt mal-administration, and in the words of Mr Gerry 'What's the point?' (well not his words, but more or least meant this.)


----------



## Marion Morrison

frigidweirdo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am going to change the words "bear arms" to "carry" or "carry a gun" and see how it works contextually:
> 
> The House again resolved itself into a committee, Mr.Boudinot in the chair, on the proposed amendments to the constitution. The third clause of the fourth proposition in the report was taken into consideration, being as follows: "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and *carry *arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to *carry a gun*."
> 
> Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from *carrying a gun*.
> (_*this paragraph is rather damning to your argument)*_
> 
> What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward. The Assembly of Massachusetts, seeing the rapid progress that administration were making to divest them of their inherent privileges, endeavored to counteract them by the organization of the militia; but they were always defeated by the influence of the Crown.
> 
> Mr. Seney wished to know what question there was before the committee, in order to ascertain the point upon which the gentleman was speaking.
> 
> Mr. Gerry replied that he meant to make a motion, as he disapproved of the words as they read. He then proceeded. No attempts that they made were successful, until they engaged in the struggle which emancipated them at once from their thraldom. Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. For this reason, he wished the words to be altered so as to be confined to persons belonging to a religious sect scrupulous of *carrying a gun*.
> 
> Mr. Jackson did not expect that all the people of the United States would turn Quakers or Moravians; consequently, one part would have to defend the other in case of invasion. Now this, in his opinion, was unjust, unless the constitution secured an equivalent: for this reason he moved to amend the clause, by inserting at the end of it, "upon paying an equivalent, to be established by law."
> 
> Mr. Smith, of South Carolina, inquired what were the words used by the conventions respecting this amendment. If the gentleman would conform to what was proposed by Virginia and Carolina, he would second him. He thought they were to be excused provided they found a substitute.
> 
> Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of *carrying a gun*, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent."
> 
> Mr. Sherman conceived it difficult to modify the clause and make it better. It is well known that those who are religiously scrupulous of *carrying a gun*, are equally scrupulous of getting substitutes or paying an equivalent. Many of them would rather die than do either one or the other; but he did not see an absolute necessity for a clause of this kind. We do not live under an arbitrary Government, said he, and the States, respectively, will have the government of the militia, unless when called into actual service; besides, it would not do to alter it so as to exclude the whole of any sect, because there are men amongst the Quakers who will turn out, notwithstanding the religious principles of the society, and defend the cause of their country. Certainly it will be improper to prevent the exercise of such favorable dispositions, at least whilst it is the practice of nations to determine their contests by the slaughter of their citizens and subjects.
> 
> Mr. Vining hoped the clause would be suffered to remain as it stood, because he saw no use in it if it was amended so as to compel a man to find a substitute, which, with respect to the Government, was the same as if the person himself turned out to fight.
> 
> Mr. Stone inquired what the words "religiously scrupulous" had reference to: was it of *carrying a gun*? If it was, it ought so to be expressed.
> 
> Mr. Benson moved to have the words "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to *carry a gun*," struck out. He would always leave it to the benevolence of the Legislature, for, modify it as you please, it will be impossible to express it in such a manner as to clear it from ambiguity. No man can claim this indulgence of right. It may be a religious persuasion, but it is no natural right, and therefore ought to be left to the discretion of the Government. If this stands part of the constitution, it will be a question before the Judiciary on every regulation you make with respect to the organization of the militia, whether it comports with this declaration or not. It is extremely injudicious to intermix matters of doubt with fundamentals.
> 
> I have no reason to believe but the Legislature will always possess humanity enough to indulge this class of citizens in a matter they are so desirous of; but they ought to be left to their discretion.
> 
> The motion for striking out the whole clause being seconded, was put, and decided in the negative--22 members voting for it, and 24 against it.
> 
> Mr. Gerry objected to the first part of the clause, on account of the uncertainty with which it is expressed. A well regulated militia being the best security of a free State, admitted an idea that a standing army was a secondary one. It ought to read, "a well regulated militia, trained to arms;" in which case it would become the duty of the Government to provide this security, and furnish a greater certainty of its being done.
> 
> Mr. Gerry's motion not being seconded, the question was put on the clause as reported; which being adopted,
> 
> Mr. Burke proposed to add to the clause just agreed to, an amendment to the following effect: "A standing army of regular troops in time of peace is dangerous to public liberty, and such shall not be raised or kept up in time of peace but from necessity, and for the security of the people, nor then without the consent of two-thirds of the members present of both Houses; and in all cases the military shall be subordinate to the civil authority." This being seconded.
> 
> Mr. Vining asked whether this was to be considered as an addition to the last clause, or an amendment by itself. If the former, he would remind the gentleman the clause was decided; if the latter, it was improper to introduce new matter, as the House had referred the report specially to the Committee of the whole.
> 
> Mr. Burke feared that, what with being trammelled in rules, and the apparent disposition of the committee, he should not be able to get them to consider any amendment; he submitted to such proceeding because he could not help himself.
> 
> Mr. Hartley thought the amendment in order, and was ready to give his opinion on it. He hoped the people of America would always be satisfied with having a majority to govern. He never wished to see two-thirds or three-fourths required, because it might put it in the power of a small minority to govern the whole Union.
> 
> [_20 Aug._]
> 
> Mr. Scott objected to the clause in the sixth amendment, "No person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to *carry a gun*." He observed that if this becomes part of the constitution, such persons can neither be called upon for their services, nor can an equivalent be demanded; it is also attended with still further difficulties, for a militia can never be depended upon. This would lead to the violation of another article in the constitution, which secures to the people the right of *keeping *arms, and in this case recourse must be had to a standing army. I conceive it, said he, to be a legislative right altogether. There are many sects I know, who are religiously scrupulous in this respect; I do not mean to deprive them of any indulgence the law affords; my design is to guard against those who are of no religion. It has been urged that religion is on the decline; if so, the argument is more strong in my favor, for when the time comes that religion shall be discarded, the generality of persons will have recourse to these pretexts to get excused from bearing arms.
> 
> Mr. Boudinot thought the provision in the clause, or something similar to it, was necessary. Can any dependence, said he, be placed in men who are conscientious in this respect? or what justice can there be in compelling them to *carry a gun*, when, according to their religious principles, t*hey would rather die than use them*? He adverted to several instances of oppression on this point, that occurred during the war. In forming a militia, an effectual defence ought to be calculated, and no characters of this religious description ought to be compelled to take up arms. I hope that in establishing this Government, we may show the world that proper care is taken that the Government may not interfere with the religious sentiments of any person. Now, by striking out the clause, people may be led to believe that there is an intention in the General Government to compel all its citizens to *carry a gun*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay
> 
> 1) Why would the Founding Fathers COMPEL a person to carry guns with them at all time? I mean, you wake up at 3am and need to go to the outhouse to take a shit, and on the way a policeman stops you and asks why you don't have a gun. Then they fine you for not having a gun.
> 
> Can you find any evidence, outside of militia duty of federal service, where the Founding Fathers wanted individuals to be compelled to carry arms with them?
> 
> I'm thinking you can't. I've never seen such a thing.
> 
> 2) Okay, the reasons for this was they wanted to say "either you bear arms, or you pay an equivalent", again, why would people be compelled to pay money so they wouldn't have to carry guns around with them in the streets?
> 
> Again, any evidence for this? No.
> 
> I could go on and on.
> 
> There's no reason for the Founding Fathers to compel people to carry guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo
> 
> I thought the Founders were worried about giving authority to Federal govt to control the armed forces without check coming from states and people.
> 
> The British forces did practice impressment of captured American sailors and forcing them to fight for the Crown.
> 
> Given the fear of having arms confiscated by controlling govt,
> that is why I tend to believe the intent of the Founders was to preserve
> the right of the PEOPLE to fight against abuses especially tyrannical
> abuse of govt powers to unfairly oppress individuals.
> 
> Now given your previous clarification
> my understanding is you do support the right of citizens
> to self defense within lawful use of arms,
> so where we disagree is on the context and intent
> of the Second Amendment, literally, which you do not
> see or use as applying to individual rights to self defense
> or engaging in law enforcement outsides the "regulated militia" context.
> 
> As long as we agree on the spirit of the laws,
> If the language we use differs, I am okay adapting to
> each person's way of expressing that so we can still
> reach agreement on the content and principles of what is lawful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they were. And to have a check and balance against the Federal Armed forces, you have the militia.
> 
> But THE militia, not militias, not a bunch of criminals posing as militias. They set out the militia and how it would function in Article 1 Section 8.
> 
> I'm not sure where you think the language differs.
> 
> There's clearly a BIG difference between protecting the right of individuals to be in the militia and protecting the right to carry guns around.
> 
> With the latter you DON'T protect the right of individuals to be in the militia, therefore the militia is an ineffective tool against govt mal-administration, and in the words of Mr Gerry 'What's the point?' (well not his words, but more or least meant this.)
Click to expand...


My, what a wobbly spin.

You're an idiot.

The militia is every capable citizen, jackass.

Now go read some more about "Endowed by their Creator" and give us your warped interpretation of that.


----------



## frigidweirdo

emilynghiem said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry Emily, I really don't see how you have come to the conclusion that "the people bearing arms is "directly tied" to the intro clause about well regulated militia."
> 
> I didn't say that. I'm worried that you're not understanding what I'm writing, or worried even more that you're not reading what I'm writing and just thinking you know what I'm saying.
> 
> I'll explain.
> 
> The right to keep arms is the right of individuals to own weapons. The reason why this is protected in the 2A is so that it protects the militia. The US federal govt could call people up into federal service, then take away their guns while there. The 2A prevents this.
> 
> An individual gets to keep guns when not in the militia too. The reason for the protection is the militia, but this doesn't limit ownership to militia membership in any way.
> 
> Why? Well, because this would destroy the militia. The militia needs a ready supply of arms in times of need, you take them away from individuals in times with no need, then in times of need there is no need.
> 
> The same for the right to bear arms. You have a right to be in the militia in times of quiet and in times of need. Without people being in the militia in times of quiet, then in times of need it might be impossible to get into the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi frigidweirdo and thanks for clarifying and explaining in depth and detail
> So are you saying that
> individuals have the right to keep arms
> but only to bear arms within a govt regulated militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really.
> 
> I'm saying individuals have a right to keep arms and individuals have a right to be in the militia.
> 
> Basically what you just said is "but only to be in the militia within a govt regulated militia", well, yes, there is only one Militia you can belong to and that's your state militia where the state appoints the officers.
> 
> The Founding Fathers didn't want to have tinpot armies appearing everywhere. That wouldn't be a good force, it would threaten the Constitution and good government and may not prevent bad government.
> 
> There is a right to self defense, and with that a right to carry guns LAWFULLY (ie, if they make a law preventing it, then you can't, so much for a right huh?) but it's just not in the Second Amendment, because the Second Amendment isn't about self defense.
> 
> Had it started "self defence is an important right for individual citizens, the right of the people to keep and bear arms" then I might agree with your stance. But it doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay frigidweirdo so you do believe in the right of self defense of individuals to carry/bear arms lawfully but you just don't believe in citing the Second Amendment to justify that. That's fair.
> 
> I also agree that the right is limited to LAWFULLY.
> 
> So it looks like where we disagree is on how the Second Amendment is used or abused.
> 
> That's understandable also, since I also "stretch" the use of the given language in the Bill of Rights in order to EXPRESS natural laws underlying these principles.
> 
> So I also use more liberty in interpretations that go beyond history and tradition.
> 
> For example, I have used "right peaceably to assemble" more liberally to mean the right to peace in public, and not to be subjected to a breach or disruption of the people by other people's abusive, violent or threatening actions.
> 
> That's not the usual interpretation, but when dealing with natural laws, I either cite that passage or the "right to security in persons houses and effects" to mean the right of people to have security and protection from unlawful threats of violating their rights. This goes beyond just GOVT not infringing, but people respecting each other's rights and not threatening violations on each other!
> 
> I interpret "the right to petition for redress of grievances" more broadly than just govt, but among people if we are to be our own govt and resolve our own issues.
> 
> I understand that other people may not accept or follow these broader generalized interpretations, but that is the closest I can come when trying to explain the natural law principles underlying the Bill of Rights. I use free exercise of religion to mean free will and both political and religious beliefs equally, which is not established precedent either. But that to me is closer to reflecting natural laws that cover the broader scope of what people will defend of their free will, consent, beliefs etc.
> 
> As long as we agree on principles and the spirit of the laws, that is the main thing.
> people will not all agree on language, so that is relative anyway.
> 
> I'm glad we agree more than disagree on the spirit of the laws.
> The other differences I can deal with, as long as we get the same meaning
> overall.
> 
> Thanks for explaining, and in the future, I would strongly suggest
> you make it clear that you do believe in the individual rights lawfully invoked.
> 
> If you emphasize this as clearly as you did here,
> then it's clear you are not threatening other people's core beliefs,
> but just stating historical disagreement on WHERE the law
> defines or protects this.  You are not negating the principle
> but just the language and law being cited.
> 
> Thank you very much and I hope you find more
> success in reconciling with others by focusing on the
> spirit and principles of the laws where you agree first,
> before addressing the differences and disagreements.
> 
> If more people understood that you are not dismissing
> the content of the principles but just the letter of the law being cited,
> you should be heard and received more readily!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree there's a right to self defense. As for carrying guns, it's not really a right. I know this because the NRA supports carry and conceal permits. If you need a permit to carry guns, then it's not a right, but a privilege, it's allowed by law in certain circumstances.
> 
> Well, I am threatening people's core beliefs. The first belief being that they know everything and don't need to be told. There are so many people on forums like this who just "believe" and don't take any time to understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you are not like danielpalos that is completely NEGATING the core beliefs.
> 
> compared with that, you are more like disagreeing over
> the "letter of the law" while maintaining the same spirit.
> 
> If people mistake you for someone arguing for what danielpalos
> is saying, then yes, you would come across as negating their beliefs.
> 
> you are closer to expressing the same basic principles
> but just don't agree on the laws/language used to justify or defend those points.
> 
> Thus I think you will be more successful overall frigidweirdo
> it's not just a matter of people taking the time to understand
> but your taking the time to explain as you spelled out with me.
> 
> That wasn't clear in your previous messages,
> so I hope you START with those clarifications from now on
> instead of waiting until the last 20 pages of messages
> to figure out where we actually agreed and where we differed.
> 
> The points and spirit of agreement are much greater
> than the differences which are resolvable in that context.
> 
> Thanks again and I hope it gets easier from here on!
Click to expand...


Well yes, I'm like that. The problem is most people AREN'T like that.

People come on here and say how much the Bill of Rights and human rights and all of that means to them, so they can keep their guns. Talk about gay marriage and other such freedoms and they'll be totally opposed. Rights are meaningless, who cares? It's basically them wanting what they can get and they'll use any argument to get it.

This is why they don't like what I'm saying about "bear arms" and will ignore all the evidence. Because A) they don't understand and B) they don't care to understand.


----------



## frigidweirdo

emilynghiem said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> sorry R2D2  militias don't have rights, people do.  the right of individual people cannot be infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the Second Amendment doesn't give the right, does it?
> 
> The Second Amendment PROTECTS the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it says well regulated militia of the People are necessary to the security of a free State.  It does not say the unorganized militia is necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why didn't it say the right of those MEMBERS to bear arms.
> 
> I always thought the concept could be interpreted both ways.
> 
> That the well regulated militia could refer to the federal military being necessary as well.  So because of the existence of armed forces, then to check these, all the people need the right to bear arms so that authority is not abused to the point of oppression by military force.
> 
> Again danielpalos given the disagreements that continue today,
> it is no wonder the law was passed as written, so that both sides' beliefs
> can be interpreted and defended from the same passage as worded!
> 
> *In general danielpalos if you look at America's history, and especially if you look at Texas history including being an independent Republic that fought many wars, there has always been a tradition of independent citizens bearing arms to defend laws and rights on their own. *
> 
> Texas could NOT have joined the union with any such interpretation
> you are stating that Federal Govt would regulate the right to bear arms
> by regulating Miltia and restricting guns to that context!
> 
> Yours truly,
> Emily
> Glad to live in Texas!*
> 
> ** *_Maybe I am biased from being brought up in this culture of "rugged independence and self-governance" and with the teaching of Constitutional laws and traditions based on Natural Laws that came from God first and were put into written contracts in order for people to check the authority of govt._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it's not the right of "members" to bear arms.
> 
> You have a right to be in the militia regardless of whether you are a member.
> 
> I mean that would be pretty pointless, wouldn't it?
> 
> The militia is there to protect against mal-administration of the govt, but the govt could prevent people being a part of the militia. Thereby stopping the militia being an effective force.
> 
> The reason an individual's right to keep arms is protect is so that in TIMES OF NEED they could use, or lend, their guns in or to the Militia. If you say only members of the militia are allowed to keep arms, then the militia would have no guns in times of need.
> 
> The same for militia personnel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ????
> RE:
> "You have a right to be in the militia regardless of whether you are a member."
> That's what I mean, if you are IN the militia that is what I mean by being a member.
Click to expand...


Yes, so you have a right to be in the militia whether you're in the militia or not in the militia. That's why it's a right. You can't have rights for some people and not others, they're not rights, they're privileges.


----------



## emilynghiem

frigidweirdo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am going to change the words "bear arms" to "carry" or "carry a gun" and see how it works contextually:
> 
> The House again resolved itself into a committee, Mr.Boudinot in the chair, on the proposed amendments to the constitution. The third clause of the fourth proposition in the report was taken into consideration, being as follows: "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and *carry *arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to *carry a gun*."
> 
> Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from *carrying a gun*.
> (_*this paragraph is rather damning to your argument)*_
> 
> What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward. The Assembly of Massachusetts, seeing the rapid progress that administration were making to divest them of their inherent privileges, endeavored to counteract them by the organization of the militia; but they were always defeated by the influence of the Crown.
> 
> Mr. Seney wished to know what question there was before the committee, in order to ascertain the point upon which the gentleman was speaking.
> 
> Mr. Gerry replied that he meant to make a motion, as he disapproved of the words as they read. He then proceeded. No attempts that they made were successful, until they engaged in the struggle which emancipated them at once from their thraldom. Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. For this reason, he wished the words to be altered so as to be confined to persons belonging to a religious sect scrupulous of *carrying a gun*.
> 
> Mr. Jackson did not expect that all the people of the United States would turn Quakers or Moravians; consequently, one part would have to defend the other in case of invasion. Now this, in his opinion, was unjust, unless the constitution secured an equivalent: for this reason he moved to amend the clause, by inserting at the end of it, "upon paying an equivalent, to be established by law."
> 
> Mr. Smith, of South Carolina, inquired what were the words used by the conventions respecting this amendment. If the gentleman would conform to what was proposed by Virginia and Carolina, he would second him. He thought they were to be excused provided they found a substitute.
> 
> Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of *carrying a gun*, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent."
> 
> Mr. Sherman conceived it difficult to modify the clause and make it better. It is well known that those who are religiously scrupulous of *carrying a gun*, are equally scrupulous of getting substitutes or paying an equivalent. Many of them would rather die than do either one or the other; but he did not see an absolute necessity for a clause of this kind. We do not live under an arbitrary Government, said he, and the States, respectively, will have the government of the militia, unless when called into actual service; besides, it would not do to alter it so as to exclude the whole of any sect, because there are men amongst the Quakers who will turn out, notwithstanding the religious principles of the society, and defend the cause of their country. Certainly it will be improper to prevent the exercise of such favorable dispositions, at least whilst it is the practice of nations to determine their contests by the slaughter of their citizens and subjects.
> 
> Mr. Vining hoped the clause would be suffered to remain as it stood, because he saw no use in it if it was amended so as to compel a man to find a substitute, which, with respect to the Government, was the same as if the person himself turned out to fight.
> 
> Mr. Stone inquired what the words "religiously scrupulous" had reference to: was it of *carrying a gun*? If it was, it ought so to be expressed.
> 
> Mr. Benson moved to have the words "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to *carry a gun*," struck out. He would always leave it to the benevolence of the Legislature, for, modify it as you please, it will be impossible to express it in such a manner as to clear it from ambiguity. No man can claim this indulgence of right. It may be a religious persuasion, but it is no natural right, and therefore ought to be left to the discretion of the Government. If this stands part of the constitution, it will be a question before the Judiciary on every regulation you make with respect to the organization of the militia, whether it comports with this declaration or not. It is extremely injudicious to intermix matters of doubt with fundamentals.
> 
> I have no reason to believe but the Legislature will always possess humanity enough to indulge this class of citizens in a matter they are so desirous of; but they ought to be left to their discretion.
> 
> The motion for striking out the whole clause being seconded, was put, and decided in the negative--22 members voting for it, and 24 against it.
> 
> Mr. Gerry objected to the first part of the clause, on account of the uncertainty with which it is expressed. A well regulated militia being the best security of a free State, admitted an idea that a standing army was a secondary one. It ought to read, "a well regulated militia, trained to arms;" in which case it would become the duty of the Government to provide this security, and furnish a greater certainty of its being done.
> 
> Mr. Gerry's motion not being seconded, the question was put on the clause as reported; which being adopted,
> 
> Mr. Burke proposed to add to the clause just agreed to, an amendment to the following effect: "A standing army of regular troops in time of peace is dangerous to public liberty, and such shall not be raised or kept up in time of peace but from necessity, and for the security of the people, nor then without the consent of two-thirds of the members present of both Houses; and in all cases the military shall be subordinate to the civil authority." This being seconded.
> 
> Mr. Vining asked whether this was to be considered as an addition to the last clause, or an amendment by itself. If the former, he would remind the gentleman the clause was decided; if the latter, it was improper to introduce new matter, as the House had referred the report specially to the Committee of the whole.
> 
> Mr. Burke feared that, what with being trammelled in rules, and the apparent disposition of the committee, he should not be able to get them to consider any amendment; he submitted to such proceeding because he could not help himself.
> 
> Mr. Hartley thought the amendment in order, and was ready to give his opinion on it. He hoped the people of America would always be satisfied with having a majority to govern. He never wished to see two-thirds or three-fourths required, because it might put it in the power of a small minority to govern the whole Union.
> 
> [_20 Aug._]
> 
> Mr. Scott objected to the clause in the sixth amendment, "No person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to *carry a gun*." He observed that if this becomes part of the constitution, such persons can neither be called upon for their services, nor can an equivalent be demanded; it is also attended with still further difficulties, for a militia can never be depended upon. This would lead to the violation of another article in the constitution, which secures to the people the right of *keeping *arms, and in this case recourse must be had to a standing army. I conceive it, said he, to be a legislative right altogether. There are many sects I know, who are religiously scrupulous in this respect; I do not mean to deprive them of any indulgence the law affords; my design is to guard against those who are of no religion. It has been urged that religion is on the decline; if so, the argument is more strong in my favor, for when the time comes that religion shall be discarded, the generality of persons will have recourse to these pretexts to get excused from bearing arms.
> 
> Mr. Boudinot thought the provision in the clause, or something similar to it, was necessary. Can any dependence, said he, be placed in men who are conscientious in this respect? or what justice can there be in compelling them to *carry a gun*, when, according to their religious principles, t*hey would rather die than use them*? He adverted to several instances of oppression on this point, that occurred during the war. In forming a militia, an effectual defence ought to be calculated, and no characters of this religious description ought to be compelled to take up arms. I hope that in establishing this Government, we may show the world that proper care is taken that the Government may not interfere with the religious sentiments of any person. Now, by striking out the clause, people may be led to believe that there is an intention in the General Government to compel all its citizens to *carry a gun*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay
> 
> 1) Why would the Founding Fathers COMPEL a person to carry guns with them at all time? I mean, you wake up at 3am and need to go to the outhouse to take a shit, and on the way a policeman stops you and asks why you don't have a gun. Then they fine you for not having a gun.
> 
> Can you find any evidence, outside of militia duty of federal service, where the Founding Fathers wanted individuals to be compelled to carry arms with them?
> 
> I'm thinking you can't. I've never seen such a thing.
> 
> 2) Okay, the reasons for this was they wanted to say "either you bear arms, or you pay an equivalent", again, why would people be compelled to pay money so they wouldn't have to carry guns around with them in the streets?
> 
> Again, any evidence for this? No.
> 
> I could go on and on.
> 
> There's no reason for the Founding Fathers to compel people to carry guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo
> 
> I thought the Founders were worried about giving authority to Federal govt to control the armed forces without check coming from states and people.
> 
> The British forces did practice impressment of captured American sailors and forcing them to fight for the Crown.
> 
> Given the fear of having arms confiscated by controlling govt,
> that is why I tend to believe the intent of the Founders was to preserve
> the right of the PEOPLE to fight against abuses especially tyrannical
> abuse of govt powers to unfairly oppress individuals.
> 
> Now given your previous clarification
> my understanding is you do support the right of citizens
> to self defense within lawful use of arms,
> so where we disagree is on the context and intent
> of the Second Amendment, literally, which you do not
> see or use as applying to individual rights to self defense
> or engaging in law enforcement outsides the "regulated militia" context.
> 
> As long as we agree on the spirit of the laws,
> If the language we use differs, I am okay adapting to
> each person's way of expressing that so we can still
> reach agreement on the content and principles of what is lawful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they were. And to have a check and balance against the Federal Armed forces, you have the militia.
> 
> But THE militia, not militias, not a bunch of criminals posing as militias. They set out the militia and how it would function in Article 1 Section 8.
> 
> I'm not sure where you think the language differs.
> 
> There's clearly a BIG difference between protecting the right of individuals to be in the militia and protecting the right to carry guns around.
> 
> With the latter you DON'T protect the right of individuals to be in the militia, therefore the militia is an ineffective tool against govt mal-administration, and in the words of Mr Gerry 'What's the point?' (well not his words, but more or least meant this.)
Click to expand...


Well frigidweirdo if you take what you are saying and what ChrisL posted, the culture I am used to in Texas is more like all citizens having the right to "be in the militia without being a formal member"

It IS like people acting as "militia" and not as criminal or lawless individuals.

So the common factor we might agree on is whether people are defending law instead of violating it.  And where we still seem to disagree is how literal we are with the term "militia."  If it is the equivalent of people then there is no reason to haggle. As long as we agree the people should be law abiding and not abuse arms for lawlessness.


----------



## Marion Morrison

frigidweirdo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the Second Amendment doesn't give the right, does it?
> 
> The Second Amendment PROTECTS the right.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it says well regulated militia of the People are necessary to the security of a free State.  It does not say the unorganized militia is necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why didn't it say the right of those MEMBERS to bear arms.
> 
> I always thought the concept could be interpreted both ways.
> 
> That the well regulated militia could refer to the federal military being necessary as well.  So because of the existence of armed forces, then to check these, all the people need the right to bear arms so that authority is not abused to the point of oppression by military force.
> 
> Again danielpalos given the disagreements that continue today,
> it is no wonder the law was passed as written, so that both sides' beliefs
> can be interpreted and defended from the same passage as worded!
> 
> *In general danielpalos if you look at America's history, and especially if you look at Texas history including being an independent Republic that fought many wars, there has always been a tradition of independent citizens bearing arms to defend laws and rights on their own. *
> 
> Texas could NOT have joined the union with any such interpretation
> you are stating that Federal Govt would regulate the right to bear arms
> by regulating Miltia and restricting guns to that context!
> 
> Yours truly,
> Emily
> Glad to live in Texas!*
> 
> ** *_Maybe I am biased from being brought up in this culture of "rugged independence and self-governance" and with the teaching of Constitutional laws and traditions based on Natural Laws that came from God first and were put into written contracts in order for people to check the authority of govt._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it's not the right of "members" to bear arms.
> 
> You have a right to be in the militia regardless of whether you are a member.
> 
> I mean that would be pretty pointless, wouldn't it?
> 
> The militia is there to protect against mal-administration of the govt, but the govt could prevent people being a part of the militia. Thereby stopping the militia being an effective force.
> 
> The reason an individual's right to keep arms is protect is so that in TIMES OF NEED they could use, or lend, their guns in or to the Militia. If you say only members of the militia are allowed to keep arms, then the militia would have no guns in times of need.
> 
> The same for militia personnel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ????
> RE:
> "You have a right to be in the militia regardless of whether you are a member."
> That's what I mean, if you are IN the militia that is what I mean by being a member.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, so you have a right to be in the militia whether you're in the militia or not in the militia. That's why it's a right. You can't have rights for some people and not others, they're not rights, they're privileges.
Click to expand...


Inalienable rights are not privileges.


----------



## frigidweirdo

emilynghiem said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am going to change the words "bear arms" to "carry" or "carry a gun" and see how it works contextually:
> 
> The House again resolved itself into a committee, Mr.Boudinot in the chair, on the proposed amendments to the constitution. The third clause of the fourth proposition in the report was taken into consideration, being as follows: "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and *carry *arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to *carry a gun*."
> 
> Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from *carrying a gun*.
> (_*this paragraph is rather damning to your argument)*_
> 
> What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward. The Assembly of Massachusetts, seeing the rapid progress that administration were making to divest them of their inherent privileges, endeavored to counteract them by the organization of the militia; but they were always defeated by the influence of the Crown.
> 
> Mr. Seney wished to know what question there was before the committee, in order to ascertain the point upon which the gentleman was speaking.
> 
> Mr. Gerry replied that he meant to make a motion, as he disapproved of the words as they read. He then proceeded. No attempts that they made were successful, until they engaged in the struggle which emancipated them at once from their thraldom. Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. For this reason, he wished the words to be altered so as to be confined to persons belonging to a religious sect scrupulous of *carrying a gun*.
> 
> Mr. Jackson did not expect that all the people of the United States would turn Quakers or Moravians; consequently, one part would have to defend the other in case of invasion. Now this, in his opinion, was unjust, unless the constitution secured an equivalent: for this reason he moved to amend the clause, by inserting at the end of it, "upon paying an equivalent, to be established by law."
> 
> Mr. Smith, of South Carolina, inquired what were the words used by the conventions respecting this amendment. If the gentleman would conform to what was proposed by Virginia and Carolina, he would second him. He thought they were to be excused provided they found a substitute.
> 
> Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of *carrying a gun*, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent."
> 
> Mr. Sherman conceived it difficult to modify the clause and make it better. It is well known that those who are religiously scrupulous of *carrying a gun*, are equally scrupulous of getting substitutes or paying an equivalent. Many of them would rather die than do either one or the other; but he did not see an absolute necessity for a clause of this kind. We do not live under an arbitrary Government, said he, and the States, respectively, will have the government of the militia, unless when called into actual service; besides, it would not do to alter it so as to exclude the whole of any sect, because there are men amongst the Quakers who will turn out, notwithstanding the religious principles of the society, and defend the cause of their country. Certainly it will be improper to prevent the exercise of such favorable dispositions, at least whilst it is the practice of nations to determine their contests by the slaughter of their citizens and subjects.
> 
> Mr. Vining hoped the clause would be suffered to remain as it stood, because he saw no use in it if it was amended so as to compel a man to find a substitute, which, with respect to the Government, was the same as if the person himself turned out to fight.
> 
> Mr. Stone inquired what the words "religiously scrupulous" had reference to: was it of *carrying a gun*? If it was, it ought so to be expressed.
> 
> Mr. Benson moved to have the words "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to *carry a gun*," struck out. He would always leave it to the benevolence of the Legislature, for, modify it as you please, it will be impossible to express it in such a manner as to clear it from ambiguity. No man can claim this indulgence of right. It may be a religious persuasion, but it is no natural right, and therefore ought to be left to the discretion of the Government. If this stands part of the constitution, it will be a question before the Judiciary on every regulation you make with respect to the organization of the militia, whether it comports with this declaration or not. It is extremely injudicious to intermix matters of doubt with fundamentals.
> 
> I have no reason to believe but the Legislature will always possess humanity enough to indulge this class of citizens in a matter they are so desirous of; but they ought to be left to their discretion.
> 
> The motion for striking out the whole clause being seconded, was put, and decided in the negative--22 members voting for it, and 24 against it.
> 
> Mr. Gerry objected to the first part of the clause, on account of the uncertainty with which it is expressed. A well regulated militia being the best security of a free State, admitted an idea that a standing army was a secondary one. It ought to read, "a well regulated militia, trained to arms;" in which case it would become the duty of the Government to provide this security, and furnish a greater certainty of its being done.
> 
> Mr. Gerry's motion not being seconded, the question was put on the clause as reported; which being adopted,
> 
> Mr. Burke proposed to add to the clause just agreed to, an amendment to the following effect: "A standing army of regular troops in time of peace is dangerous to public liberty, and such shall not be raised or kept up in time of peace but from necessity, and for the security of the people, nor then without the consent of two-thirds of the members present of both Houses; and in all cases the military shall be subordinate to the civil authority." This being seconded.
> 
> Mr. Vining asked whether this was to be considered as an addition to the last clause, or an amendment by itself. If the former, he would remind the gentleman the clause was decided; if the latter, it was improper to introduce new matter, as the House had referred the report specially to the Committee of the whole.
> 
> Mr. Burke feared that, what with being trammelled in rules, and the apparent disposition of the committee, he should not be able to get them to consider any amendment; he submitted to such proceeding because he could not help himself.
> 
> Mr. Hartley thought the amendment in order, and was ready to give his opinion on it. He hoped the people of America would always be satisfied with having a majority to govern. He never wished to see two-thirds or three-fourths required, because it might put it in the power of a small minority to govern the whole Union.
> 
> [_20 Aug._]
> 
> Mr. Scott objected to the clause in the sixth amendment, "No person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to *carry a gun*." He observed that if this becomes part of the constitution, such persons can neither be called upon for their services, nor can an equivalent be demanded; it is also attended with still further difficulties, for a militia can never be depended upon. This would lead to the violation of another article in the constitution, which secures to the people the right of *keeping *arms, and in this case recourse must be had to a standing army. I conceive it, said he, to be a legislative right altogether. There are many sects I know, who are religiously scrupulous in this respect; I do not mean to deprive them of any indulgence the law affords; my design is to guard against those who are of no religion. It has been urged that religion is on the decline; if so, the argument is more strong in my favor, for when the time comes that religion shall be discarded, the generality of persons will have recourse to these pretexts to get excused from bearing arms.
> 
> Mr. Boudinot thought the provision in the clause, or something similar to it, was necessary. Can any dependence, said he, be placed in men who are conscientious in this respect? or what justice can there be in compelling them to *carry a gun*, when, according to their religious principles, t*hey would rather die than use them*? He adverted to several instances of oppression on this point, that occurred during the war. In forming a militia, an effectual defence ought to be calculated, and no characters of this religious description ought to be compelled to take up arms. I hope that in establishing this Government, we may show the world that proper care is taken that the Government may not interfere with the religious sentiments of any person. Now, by striking out the clause, people may be led to believe that there is an intention in the General Government to compel all its citizens to *carry a gun*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay
> 
> 1) Why would the Founding Fathers COMPEL a person to carry guns with them at all time? I mean, you wake up at 3am and need to go to the outhouse to take a shit, and on the way a policeman stops you and asks why you don't have a gun. Then they fine you for not having a gun.
> 
> Can you find any evidence, outside of militia duty of federal service, where the Founding Fathers wanted individuals to be compelled to carry arms with them?
> 
> I'm thinking you can't. I've never seen such a thing.
> 
> 2) Okay, the reasons for this was they wanted to say "either you bear arms, or you pay an equivalent", again, why would people be compelled to pay money so they wouldn't have to carry guns around with them in the streets?
> 
> Again, any evidence for this? No.
> 
> I could go on and on.
> 
> There's no reason for the Founding Fathers to compel people to carry guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo
> 
> I thought the Founders were worried about giving authority to Federal govt to control the armed forces without check coming from states and people.
> 
> The British forces did practice impressment of captured American sailors and forcing them to fight for the Crown.
> 
> Given the fear of having arms confiscated by controlling govt,
> that is why I tend to believe the intent of the Founders was to preserve
> the right of the PEOPLE to fight against abuses especially tyrannical
> abuse of govt powers to unfairly oppress individuals.
> 
> Now given your previous clarification
> my understanding is you do support the right of citizens
> to self defense within lawful use of arms,
> so where we disagree is on the context and intent
> of the Second Amendment, literally, which you do not
> see or use as applying to individual rights to self defense
> or engaging in law enforcement outsides the "regulated militia" context.
> 
> As long as we agree on the spirit of the laws,
> If the language we use differs, I am okay adapting to
> each person's way of expressing that so we can still
> reach agreement on the content and principles of what is lawful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they were. And to have a check and balance against the Federal Armed forces, you have the militia.
> 
> But THE militia, not militias, not a bunch of criminals posing as militias. They set out the militia and how it would function in Article 1 Section 8.
> 
> I'm not sure where you think the language differs.
> 
> There's clearly a BIG difference between protecting the right of individuals to be in the militia and protecting the right to carry guns around.
> 
> With the latter you DON'T protect the right of individuals to be in the militia, therefore the militia is an ineffective tool against govt mal-administration, and in the words of Mr Gerry 'What's the point?' (well not his words, but more or least meant this.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well frigidweirdo if you take what you are saying and what ChrisL posted, the culture I am used to in Texas is more like all citizens having the right to "be in the militia without being a formal member"
> 
> It IS like people acting as "militia" and not as criminal or lawless individuals.
> 
> So the common factor we might agree on is whether people are defending law instead of violating it.  And where we still seem to disagree is how literal we are with the term "militia."  If it is the equivalent of people then there is no reason to haggle. As long as we agree the people should be law abiding and not abuse arms for lawlessness.
Click to expand...


The militia is explained in Article 1 Section 8. If what you have isn't like that, then it's not the militia, and there's no protection to be in such an organization.


----------



## emilynghiem

Marion Morrison said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it says well regulated militia of the People are necessary to the security of a free State.  It does not say the unorganized militia is necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why didn't it say the right of those MEMBERS to bear arms.
> 
> I always thought the concept could be interpreted both ways.
> 
> That the well regulated militia could refer to the federal military being necessary as well.  So because of the existence of armed forces, then to check these, all the people need the right to bear arms so that authority is not abused to the point of oppression by military force.
> 
> Again danielpalos given the disagreements that continue today,
> it is no wonder the law was passed as written, so that both sides' beliefs
> can be interpreted and defended from the same passage as worded!
> 
> *In general danielpalos if you look at America's history, and especially if you look at Texas history including being an independent Republic that fought many wars, there has always been a tradition of independent citizens bearing arms to defend laws and rights on their own. *
> 
> Texas could NOT have joined the union with any such interpretation
> you are stating that Federal Govt would regulate the right to bear arms
> by regulating Miltia and restricting guns to that context!
> 
> Yours truly,
> Emily
> Glad to live in Texas!*
> 
> ** *_Maybe I am biased from being brought up in this culture of "rugged independence and self-governance" and with the teaching of Constitutional laws and traditions based on Natural Laws that came from God first and were put into written contracts in order for people to check the authority of govt._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it's not the right of "members" to bear arms.
> 
> You have a right to be in the militia regardless of whether you are a member.
> 
> I mean that would be pretty pointless, wouldn't it?
> 
> The militia is there to protect against mal-administration of the govt, but the govt could prevent people being a part of the militia. Thereby stopping the militia being an effective force.
> 
> The reason an individual's right to keep arms is protect is so that in TIMES OF NEED they could use, or lend, their guns in or to the Militia. If you say only members of the militia are allowed to keep arms, then the militia would have no guns in times of need.
> 
> The same for militia personnel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ????
> RE:
> "You have a right to be in the militia regardless of whether you are a member."
> That's what I mean, if you are IN the militia that is what I mean by being a member.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, so you have a right to be in the militia whether you're in the militia or not in the militia. That's why it's a right. You can't have rights for some people and not others, they're not rights, they're privileges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Inalienable rights are not privileges.
Click to expand...


Dear Marion Morrison
i would say "right to defense" is inalienable and naturally occuring; but right to bear arms involves man made weapons that require lawful agreements. Similar to why "right to life" is naturally occurring but "right to health care" involves man made resources that require consent of other people affected.


----------



## turtledude

frigidweirdo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the Second Amendment doesn't give the right, does it?
> 
> The Second Amendment PROTECTS the right.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it says well regulated militia of the People are necessary to the security of a free State.  It does not say the unorganized militia is necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why didn't it say the right of those MEMBERS to bear arms.
> 
> I always thought the concept could be interpreted both ways.
> 
> That the well regulated militia could refer to the federal military being necessary as well.  So because of the existence of armed forces, then to check these, all the people need the right to bear arms so that authority is not abused to the point of oppression by military force.
> 
> Again danielpalos given the disagreements that continue today,
> it is no wonder the law was passed as written, so that both sides' beliefs
> can be interpreted and defended from the same passage as worded!
> 
> *In general danielpalos if you look at America's history, and especially if you look at Texas history including being an independent Republic that fought many wars, there has always been a tradition of independent citizens bearing arms to defend laws and rights on their own. *
> 
> Texas could NOT have joined the union with any such interpretation
> you are stating that Federal Govt would regulate the right to bear arms
> by regulating Miltia and restricting guns to that context!
> 
> Yours truly,
> Emily
> Glad to live in Texas!*
> 
> ** *_Maybe I am biased from being brought up in this culture of "rugged independence and self-governance" and with the teaching of Constitutional laws and traditions based on Natural Laws that came from God first and were put into written contracts in order for people to check the authority of govt._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it's not the right of "members" to bear arms.
> 
> You have a right to be in the militia regardless of whether you are a member.
> 
> I mean that would be pretty pointless, wouldn't it?
> 
> The militia is there to protect against mal-administration of the govt, but the govt could prevent people being a part of the militia. Thereby stopping the militia being an effective force.
> 
> The reason an individual's right to keep arms is protect is so that in TIMES OF NEED they could use, or lend, their guns in or to the Militia. If you say only members of the militia are allowed to keep arms, then the militia would have no guns in times of need.
> 
> The same for militia personnel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ????
> RE:
> "You have a right to be in the militia regardless of whether you are a member."
> That's what I mean, if you are IN the militia that is what I mean by being a member.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, so you have a right to be in the militia whether you're in the militia or not in the militia. That's why it's a right. You can't have rights for some people and not others, they're not rights, they're privileges.
Click to expand...


where does any part of the bill of rights say you have to be in the militia?  women don't,  men over a certain age don't


----------



## ChrisL

emilynghiem said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why didn't it say the right of those MEMBERS to bear arms.
> 
> I always thought the concept could be interpreted both ways.
> 
> That the well regulated militia could refer to the federal military being necessary as well.  So because of the existence of armed forces, then to check these, all the people need the right to bear arms so that authority is not abused to the point of oppression by military force.
> 
> Again danielpalos given the disagreements that continue today,
> it is no wonder the law was passed as written, so that both sides' beliefs
> can be interpreted and defended from the same passage as worded!
> 
> *In general danielpalos if you look at America's history, and especially if you look at Texas history including being an independent Republic that fought many wars, there has always been a tradition of independent citizens bearing arms to defend laws and rights on their own. *
> 
> Texas could NOT have joined the union with any such interpretation
> you are stating that Federal Govt would regulate the right to bear arms
> by regulating Miltia and restricting guns to that context!
> 
> Yours truly,
> Emily
> Glad to live in Texas!*
> 
> ** *_Maybe I am biased from being brought up in this culture of "rugged independence and self-governance" and with the teaching of Constitutional laws and traditions based on Natural Laws that came from God first and were put into written contracts in order for people to check the authority of govt._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's not the right of "members" to bear arms.
> 
> You have a right to be in the militia regardless of whether you are a member.
> 
> I mean that would be pretty pointless, wouldn't it?
> 
> The militia is there to protect against mal-administration of the govt, but the govt could prevent people being a part of the militia. Thereby stopping the militia being an effective force.
> 
> The reason an individual's right to keep arms is protect is so that in TIMES OF NEED they could use, or lend, their guns in or to the Militia. If you say only members of the militia are allowed to keep arms, then the militia would have no guns in times of need.
> 
> The same for militia personnel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ????
> RE:
> "You have a right to be in the militia regardless of whether you are a member."
> That's what I mean, if you are IN the militia that is what I mean by being a member.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, so you have a right to be in the militia whether you're in the militia or not in the militia. That's why it's a right. You can't have rights for some people and not others, they're not rights, they're privileges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Inalienable rights are not privileges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Marion Morrison
> i would say "right to defense" is inalienable and naturally occuring; but right to bear arms involves man made weapons that require lawful agreements. Similar to why "right to life" is naturally occurring but "right to health care" involves man made resources that require consent of other people affected.
Click to expand...


There is NO question if you've read the accompanying paperwork to the Constitution.  The founders are clear that their intent is that every able bodied American citizen was to bear arms.  In fact, they were EXPECTED to.


----------



## Markle

frigidweirdo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am going to change the words "bear arms" to "carry" or "carry a gun" and see how it works contextually:
> 
> The House again resolved itself into a committee, Mr.Boudinot in the chair, on the proposed amendments to the constitution. The third clause of the fourth proposition in the report was taken into consideration, being as follows: "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and *carry *arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to *carry a gun*."
> 
> Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from *carrying a gun*.
> (_*this paragraph is rather damning to your argument)*_
> 
> What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward. The Assembly of Massachusetts, seeing the rapid progress that administration were making to divest them of their inherent privileges, endeavored to counteract them by the organization of the militia; but they were always defeated by the influence of the Crown.
> 
> Mr. Seney wished to know what question there was before the committee, in order to ascertain the point upon which the gentleman was speaking.
> 
> Mr. Gerry replied that he meant to make a motion, as he disapproved of the words as they read. He then proceeded. No attempts that they made were successful, until they engaged in the struggle which emancipated them at once from their thraldom. Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. For this reason, he wished the words to be altered so as to be confined to persons belonging to a religious sect scrupulous of *carrying a gun*.
> 
> Mr. Jackson did not expect that all the people of the United States would turn Quakers or Moravians; consequently, one part would have to defend the other in case of invasion. Now this, in his opinion, was unjust, unless the constitution secured an equivalent: for this reason he moved to amend the clause, by inserting at the end of it, "upon paying an equivalent, to be established by law."
> 
> Mr. Smith, of South Carolina, inquired what were the words used by the conventions respecting this amendment. If the gentleman would conform to what was proposed by Virginia and Carolina, he would second him. He thought they were to be excused provided they found a substitute.
> 
> Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of *carrying a gun*, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent."
> 
> Mr. Sherman conceived it difficult to modify the clause and make it better. It is well known that those who are religiously scrupulous of *carrying a gun*, are equally scrupulous of getting substitutes or paying an equivalent. Many of them would rather die than do either one or the other; but he did not see an absolute necessity for a clause of this kind. We do not live under an arbitrary Government, said he, and the States, respectively, will have the government of the militia, unless when called into actual service; besides, it would not do to alter it so as to exclude the whole of any sect, because there are men amongst the Quakers who will turn out, notwithstanding the religious principles of the society, and defend the cause of their country. Certainly it will be improper to prevent the exercise of such favorable dispositions, at least whilst it is the practice of nations to determine their contests by the slaughter of their citizens and subjects.
> 
> Mr. Vining hoped the clause would be suffered to remain as it stood, because he saw no use in it if it was amended so as to compel a man to find a substitute, which, with respect to the Government, was the same as if the person himself turned out to fight.
> 
> Mr. Stone inquired what the words "religiously scrupulous" had reference to: was it of *carrying a gun*? If it was, it ought so to be expressed.
> 
> Mr. Benson moved to have the words "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to *carry a gun*," struck out. He would always leave it to the benevolence of the Legislature, for, modify it as you please, it will be impossible to express it in such a manner as to clear it from ambiguity. No man can claim this indulgence of right. It may be a religious persuasion, but it is no natural right, and therefore ought to be left to the discretion of the Government. If this stands part of the constitution, it will be a question before the Judiciary on every regulation you make with respect to the organization of the militia, whether it comports with this declaration or not. It is extremely injudicious to intermix matters of doubt with fundamentals.
> 
> I have no reason to believe but the Legislature will always possess humanity enough to indulge this class of citizens in a matter they are so desirous of; but they ought to be left to their discretion.
> 
> The motion for striking out the whole clause being seconded, was put, and decided in the negative--22 members voting for it, and 24 against it.
> 
> Mr. Gerry objected to the first part of the clause, on account of the uncertainty with which it is expressed. A well regulated militia being the best security of a free State, admitted an idea that a standing army was a secondary one. It ought to read, "a well regulated militia, trained to arms;" in which case it would become the duty of the Government to provide this security, and furnish a greater certainty of its being done.
> 
> Mr. Gerry's motion not being seconded, the question was put on the clause as reported; which being adopted,
> 
> Mr. Burke proposed to add to the clause just agreed to, an amendment to the following effect: "A standing army of regular troops in time of peace is dangerous to public liberty, and such shall not be raised or kept up in time of peace but from necessity, and for the security of the people, nor then without the consent of two-thirds of the members present of both Houses; and in all cases the military shall be subordinate to the civil authority." This being seconded.
> 
> Mr. Vining asked whether this was to be considered as an addition to the last clause, or an amendment by itself. If the former, he would remind the gentleman the clause was decided; if the latter, it was improper to introduce new matter, as the House had referred the report specially to the Committee of the whole.
> 
> Mr. Burke feared that, what with being trammelled in rules, and the apparent disposition of the committee, he should not be able to get them to consider any amendment; he submitted to such proceeding because he could not help himself.
> 
> Mr. Hartley thought the amendment in order, and was ready to give his opinion on it. He hoped the people of America would always be satisfied with having a majority to govern. He never wished to see two-thirds or three-fourths required, because it might put it in the power of a small minority to govern the whole Union.
> 
> [_20 Aug._]
> 
> Mr. Scott objected to the clause in the sixth amendment, "No person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to *carry a gun*." He observed that if this becomes part of the constitution, such persons can neither be called upon for their services, nor can an equivalent be demanded; it is also attended with still further difficulties, for a militia can never be depended upon. This would lead to the violation of another article in the constitution, which secures to the people the right of *keeping *arms, and in this case recourse must be had to a standing army. I conceive it, said he, to be a legislative right altogether. There are many sects I know, who are religiously scrupulous in this respect; I do not mean to deprive them of any indulgence the law affords; my design is to guard against those who are of no religion. It has been urged that religion is on the decline; if so, the argument is more strong in my favor, for when the time comes that religion shall be discarded, the generality of persons will have recourse to these pretexts to get excused from bearing arms.
> 
> Mr. Boudinot thought the provision in the clause, or something similar to it, was necessary. Can any dependence, said he, be placed in men who are conscientious in this respect? or what justice can there be in compelling them to *carry a gun*, when, according to their religious principles, t*hey would rather die than use them*? He adverted to several instances of oppression on this point, that occurred during the war. In forming a militia, an effectual defence ought to be calculated, and no characters of this religious description ought to be compelled to take up arms. I hope that in establishing this Government, we may show the world that proper care is taken that the Government may not interfere with the religious sentiments of any person. Now, by striking out the clause, people may be led to believe that there is an intention in the General Government to compel all its citizens to *carry a gun*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay
> 
> 1) Why would the Founding Fathers COMPEL a person to carry guns with them at all time? I mean, you wake up at 3am and need to go to the outhouse to take a shit, and on the way a policeman stops you and asks why you don't have a gun. Then they fine you for not having a gun.
> 
> Can you find any evidence, outside of militia duty of federal service, where the Founding Fathers wanted individuals to be compelled to carry arms with them?
> 
> I'm thinking you can't. I've never seen such a thing.
> 
> 2) Okay, the reasons for this was they wanted to say "either you bear arms, or you pay an equivalent", again, why would people be compelled to pay money so they wouldn't have to carry guns around with them in the streets?
> 
> Again, any evidence for this? No.
> 
> I could go on and on.
> 
> There's no reason for the Founding Fathers to compel people to carry guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo
> 
> I thought the Founders were worried about giving authority to Federal govt to control the armed forces without check coming from states and people.
> 
> The British forces did practice impressment of captured American sailors and forcing them to fight for the Crown.
> 
> Given the fear of having arms confiscated by controlling govt,
> that is why I tend to believe the intent of the Founders was to preserve
> the right of the PEOPLE to fight against abuses especially tyrannical
> abuse of govt powers to unfairly oppress individuals.
> 
> Now given your previous clarification
> my understanding is you do support the right of citizens
> to self defense within lawful use of arms,
> so where we disagree is on the context and intent
> of the Second Amendment, literally, which you do not
> see or use as applying to individual rights to self defense
> or engaging in law enforcement outsides the "regulated militia" context.
> 
> As long as we agree on the spirit of the laws,
> If the language we use differs, I am okay adapting to
> each person's way of expressing that so we can still
> reach agreement on the content and principles of what is lawful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they were. And to have a check and balance against the Federal Armed forces, you have the militia.
> 
> But THE militia, not militias, not a bunch of criminals posing as militias. They set out the militia and how it would function in Article 1 Section 8.
> 
> I'm not sure where you think the language differs.
> 
> There's clearly a BIG difference between protecting the right of individuals to be in the militia and protecting the right to carry guns around.
> 
> With the latter you DON'T protect the right of individuals to be in the militia, therefore the militia is an ineffective tool against govt mal-administration, and in the words of Mr Gerry 'What's the point?' (well not his words, but more or least meant this.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well frigidweirdo if you take what you are saying and what ChrisL posted, the culture I am used to in Texas is more like all citizens having the right to "be in the militia without being a formal member"
> 
> It IS like people acting as "militia" and not as criminal or lawless individuals.
> 
> So the common factor we might agree on is whether people are defending law instead of violating it.  And where we still seem to disagree is how literal we are with the term "militia."  If it is the equivalent of people then there is no reason to haggle. As long as we agree the people should be law abiding and not abuse arms for lawlessness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The militia is explained in Article 1 Section 8. If what you have isn't like that, then it's not the militia, and there's no protection to be in such an organization.
Click to expand...


----------



## ChrisL

turtledude said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it says well regulated militia of the People are necessary to the security of a free State.  It does not say the unorganized militia is necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why didn't it say the right of those MEMBERS to bear arms.
> 
> I always thought the concept could be interpreted both ways.
> 
> That the well regulated militia could refer to the federal military being necessary as well.  So because of the existence of armed forces, then to check these, all the people need the right to bear arms so that authority is not abused to the point of oppression by military force.
> 
> Again danielpalos given the disagreements that continue today,
> it is no wonder the law was passed as written, so that both sides' beliefs
> can be interpreted and defended from the same passage as worded!
> 
> *In general danielpalos if you look at America's history, and especially if you look at Texas history including being an independent Republic that fought many wars, there has always been a tradition of independent citizens bearing arms to defend laws and rights on their own. *
> 
> Texas could NOT have joined the union with any such interpretation
> you are stating that Federal Govt would regulate the right to bear arms
> by regulating Miltia and restricting guns to that context!
> 
> Yours truly,
> Emily
> Glad to live in Texas!*
> 
> ** *_Maybe I am biased from being brought up in this culture of "rugged independence and self-governance" and with the teaching of Constitutional laws and traditions based on Natural Laws that came from God first and were put into written contracts in order for people to check the authority of govt._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it's not the right of "members" to bear arms.
> 
> You have a right to be in the militia regardless of whether you are a member.
> 
> I mean that would be pretty pointless, wouldn't it?
> 
> The militia is there to protect against mal-administration of the govt, but the govt could prevent people being a part of the militia. Thereby stopping the militia being an effective force.
> 
> The reason an individual's right to keep arms is protect is so that in TIMES OF NEED they could use, or lend, their guns in or to the Militia. If you say only members of the militia are allowed to keep arms, then the militia would have no guns in times of need.
> 
> The same for militia personnel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ????
> RE:
> "You have a right to be in the militia regardless of whether you are a member."
> That's what I mean, if you are IN the militia that is what I mean by being a member.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, so you have a right to be in the militia whether you're in the militia or not in the militia. That's why it's a right. You can't have rights for some people and not others, they're not rights, they're privileges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> where does any part of the bill of rights say you have to be in the militia?  women don't,  men over a certain age don't
Click to expand...


I would call his argument "desperate measures" on his part because he has failed so miserably to make any kind of valid argument whatsoever, going from the definition of "keep" to the definition of "militia," he has been shot down in every way (pun intended )


----------



## emilynghiem

danielpalos said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> What did "well regulated" mean back then?  You have already been shown what it meant, so how are you going to twist that?
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated means whatever Congress says it means; only the right wing appeals to ignorance of the law and claim they are for the, "gospel Truth".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it means whatever the DICTIONARY says it means.  That's why dictionary's get written.  Here is the original meaning of the phrase, that has already been shown to you, and which you continue to ignore.
> 
> 
> The following are taken from the _*Oxford English Dictionary*_, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
> 
> 1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us *well-regulated* Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
> 
> 1714: "The practice of all *well-regulated* courts of justice in the world."
> 
> 1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a *well-regulated* clock and a true sun dial."
> 
> 1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every *well-regulated* person will blame the Mayor."
> 
> 1862: "It appeared to her *well-regulated* mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
> 
> 1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every *well-regulated* American embryo city."
> 
> The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
> 
> Meaning of the phrase "well-regulated"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't.  Congress has to prescribe, well regulated, for the militia of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ???? Dear danielpalos
> No, the Bill of Rights did not come from the Congressional level.
> The Second Amendment was part of the Bill of Rights that was
> added as a condition to get certain states to agree to ratify the
> Constitution. So while all the States and their reps had a say in
> how the 2nd and other Amendments were written in order to go
> through the national process of being added to the Constitution,
> the whole spirit and point of the CONTENTS of the Bill of Rights
> is to define INDIVIDUAL rights that belong to STATES and PEOPLE
> NOT TO FEDERAL GOVT WHICH IS ALREADY DEFINED IN THE CONSTITUTION PROPER.
> 
> I see you don't get the very spirit and purpose for the Bill of Rights.
> 
> I feel sorry for you and anyone who has to argue or try to explain this to you.
> 
> It is as difficult as trying to explain why God and Jesus are universally
> important to humanity, while dealing with an atheist who doesn't see or experience what these things mean.
> 
> Not your fault, I just feel bad that this has created such ill will and distrust
> when it really is a matter of people's individual beliefs. Similar to how people can't help identifying as gay or straight, transgender or cis whatever.
> 
> If you just don't believe in individual people having that right, but only states or in your case you believe federal govt is the regulating authority,
> then that's your belief.  I can respect that, but strongly urge you to do the same and respect the beliefs of others, without demeaning namecalling and insults, if you expect to be taken seriously either!
> 
> The natural law that  you cannot argue exists regardless of legal system or religion is the Natural Law of Reciprocity or the Golden Rule.
> 
> danielpalos if you want others to respect you
> take you seriously and include and protect YOUR views beliefs
> and arguments, then if you treat them with that same
> respect and inclusion, people tend to reciprocate.
> 
> If you seek to abuse govt to abridge prohibit exclude DISPARAGE
> or otherwise Discriminate against others of different or opposing beliefs,
> guess what? They become defensive of their rights and will do the
> same to you as a defense mechanism.
> 
> this is human nature. that's what is meant by natural laws.
> We operate that way by Conscience, by our naturally born free will.
> 
> So whenever you or I or anyone, especially a religious or political group, threatens to control, change, or regulate the beliefs or will of another person or group, that person or group will respond exactly as you and I would do,
> and defend that position.
> 
> So the Golden Rule applies. If you want to reach a respectable solution that accommodates your views, it is just common sense and practical wisdom
> to accommodate the views of others, and to respect their consent and beliefs, as you want your own beliefs and consent to be respected!
> 
> The Golden Rule of reciprocity appears in every major religion.
> Ironically the worst place where I see it omitted or even negated
> is in Constitutional laws, where people teach a separation of people
> from govt to the point where we do not teach people to enforce the same rules for govt that we want for ourselves. We keep teaching that the responsibilities for law lie with govt and give more power there than to the people. So you wonder why people aren't equal. The ones with a chance at equality are the people taught to empower themselves with equal authority as anyone else either inside or outside a position of authority. We all have a right to petition until grievances are redressed so that we share equal voice in decisions on any level that we wish to participate and take responsibility.
> As individuals, we have that, but not as govt where govt is limited between state, federal or local jurisdiction. So the people always have more power than the govt because we aren't limited to just one branch or one level.
> 
> What is missing is learning to treat others and respect the rights of others as we would want enforced for ourselves. The Constitution doesn't come out and say that, we have to figure that part out for ourselves.
> 
> Again it's a natural law, that what we do unto others comes back to us.
> Whether you call this reaping what you sow, the laws of karma or cause and effect, the laws of justice and peace.  The Bill of Rights defines and protects the TOOLS we need from free speech and press, right to petition and due process; but doesn't require in writing that the people follow the laws if they want to invoke them.  Again that is already inherent in the natural laws that people invoke without relying on any religion or set of laws to do it. That naturally occurs, and we live by these natural laws every day, in all relations. What we give is what we get.  We attract the very reactions that we instigate with our own actions.
> 
> If you can understand the Golden Rule, then we have a chance to work with all people of all beliefs, and teach respect for contrasting beliefs while we work toward a solution that includes these respectively, so that none need to suffer compromise or threat to trounce on them.
> 
> We'd have to work on a local and state level, and I think by working with the NRA on training and screening procedures per police force or per military or state entity, we can do the equivalent of "well regulated militia" on a state local or national level, while respecting the consent of the people REGARDLESS OF THEIR BELIEFS, including the diehards who don't believe in either federal or state authority regulating arms. We can still work with those extremes of the spectrum if we can work with the extreme that you believe in that federal govt or Congress is the authority on this.
> 
> I know many more people who would only agree and barely agree if it was the local people deciding for themselves what procedures or policies would be used to ensure arms aren't abused for criminal intent or purposes. And they tend to be very big on not depriving rights without due process to prove that someone shouldn't have access to guns. So there is that extreme that those people have equal right to as you do to your beliefs.
> 
> Are you okay with this concept that given the contrasting political beliefs,
> a solution should be crafted that accommodates people of all beliefs equally?
> 
> Do you agree with the spirit of the contract that in order to respect and include your arguments beliefs and interpretations, the same should be
> afforded to other citizens like you who aren't trying to abuse such rights and protections to commit or enable abuse of laws or authority to infringe on the same of anyone else, but to defend the laws for all people agreeing on this purpose?
> 
> Thanks danielpalos
> and CC also to frigidweirdo
> If you both and I can agree on an approach of equal inclusion
> I would be happy to work with you on a task force to address
> the NRA and state governors on agreed approaches that
> don't violate or impose on anyone's beliefs regardless how
> diverse or conflicting. We can work around these state by state,
> district by district, and agency by agnecy where each local
> jurisdiction can agree and participate in forming their own policies
> to ensure safety whie respecting the rights and beliefs of all people
> under that jurisdiction, even where their beliefs are in the same conflict
> that we are finding here. We must still work together on equal inclusion
> if we are going to fulfill the standards and purpose of Constitutional laws protecting the rights of people and states from infringement, no matter how we frame or define these, based on our respective beliefs and arguments.
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, you don't know what you are talking about.  Congress must prescribe, "wellness of regulation" for the Militia of the United States.
> 
> Only the clueless and the Causeless gainsay that contention.
Click to expand...


No danielpalos sorry
the local police, the state rangers and other such entities
have their own local rules. These can't be "in conflict"
with the Constitution as previously cited above (see


Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> After 30 years of b******* misinformation propaganda and the NRA going batshit, 1 wonders when the semi insane GOP voters will come back to the Civilized world. All people need is hunting guns to protect themselves. Our country is close to insane at this point. The hero in this case should not be allowed assault rifles because that would have stopped the mentally ill guy from having an assault rifle. Duh.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay.  Call for a constitutional convention.  Congress was not given the Constitutional authority to regulate firearms, but they are doing it anyway.  Change the Constitution, and you can get your way.
Click to expand...


Dear Bootney Lee Farnsworth 
If I were going to call for a Constitutional convention, it would be over this whole problem with competing "political beliefs" including how to separate policies and programs by party, similar to an agreement to keep religious agenda out of govt but with political religions, and how to resolve conflicts BEFORE they end up in Congress or Courts, backlogging the democratic process, reducing election campaigns to bullying tactics, and/or costing taxpayers for flawed policies that have to be contested or corrected after such decisions were made by govt instead of addressing the objections in advance.


----------



## emilynghiem

danielpalos said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have danielpalos on ignore.  Let me guess:
> 
> "Only Congress can determine the wellness of regulation of the milipeople or rhe peoplitia.  Clueless and Causeless right wing morons fail to understand my reasoning which is backed soley by my buzzwors."
> 
> Did I get it right?
> 
> 
> 
> The right is inherent.  The Constitutiondoes not grant the right, but protects the people from the federal government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the People shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeppers, a government granting itself the right to defend itself from itself.  It takes a special kind of stupid to push that particular line of "thought".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like during the war between the States?  Individuals are usually just criminals, not well regulated militia.
Click to expand...


What danielpalos ???

Just because YOU are associating individual rights with criminal intent doesn't mean that's what other people mean by individual rights!

Again, maybe my Texas bias is showing. But the people who commit crimes are doing so because of criminal intent, not because they are acting as individuals.

And that goes for police, govt and military officials also known for abusing their power or positions to violate rights and laws.

Just being part of a regulated group doesn't ensure they will be law abiding.

Just being individual and NOT part of a group doesn't imply unlawful intent or actions either!

The common factor is whether someone, either individually or as part of a group, is DEFENDING the law, and/or using firearms to defend the law.

And from what I am used to seeing, the people who defend the true spirit and meaning of Constitution tend to be responsible and law abiding.  They tend NOT to want federal govt to dictate or overregulate people's lives and freedom; not out of criminal intent but the opposite motivation of WANTING to PRESERVE rights and freedoms which requires RESPONSIBILITY.

So they aim even harder to ensure they are following and enforcing the laws in order to protect their rights. 

Maybe you've seen otherwise in your experiences???


----------



## Papageorgio

danielpalos said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So which part of my argument is "bullshit"?
> 
> The Amendment says "the right to keep and bear arms"
> 
> Is this one right or is this two rights?
> 
> For example, the First Amendment
> 
> "or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
> 
> Is this one right or two rights? It has "and" in between, but clearly you have the right to peacefully assemble and the right to petition the government. However they only say the term "right" one time.
> 
> The 4A
> 
> "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,"
> 
> Do you have a right to be secure in your person? Yes. Do you have a right to be secure in your houses? Yes. Different rights.
> 
> Bear arms and keep arms are two different things. So there are two different protections of those rights. However efficiency suggests that you can place them next to each other and use the term "right" one time.
> 
> Certainly in the document I have showed you the Founding Fathers were dealing with the right to bear arms and not the right to keep arms.
> 
> The drafts of the Second Amendment had a clause which said either "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." or "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
> 
> You see that one time they spoke about being compelled to "bear arms", not to "keep and bear arms", and the other compelled to "render military service".
> 
> No, I'm not going to make some bullshit up about keep not meaning keep.
> 
> Try this. Stool means two things. A shit, and a wooden backless seat.
> 
> "The doctor told him to sit on the stool", does context tell you that "stool" is a shit, or a wooden seat? I mean you have doctor in there, doctors look at stools all the time, so much be shit right? Or maybe not. Who would sit on a shit? So we're going to use context to understand.
> 
> "bear" means lots of different things. However it's CLEAR (unless you have your head up your ass) from lots of documents from that time, that "bear arms" as a term, means "render military service" and "militia duty".
> 
> 
> 
> KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP
> 
> _Heller_ confirmed the individual right to KEEP arms.
> 
> You are trying to meld the term "keep" with the word "bear" but if you do that,  the _Heller_ holding makes the right to "bear" an individual right, requiring one to keep arms in order to do so.
> 
> The mental gynastics is glorious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe keep doesn't really mean keep if you are a leftist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Keep and bear is not, acquire and possess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The founders and Constitution say otherwise if you were a real American.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where?  Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.
Click to expand...


Could you expound on that thought.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

frigidweirdo said:


> Why would the Founding Fathers COMPEL a person to carry guns with them at all time? I mean, you wake up at 3am and need to go to the outhouse to take a shit, and on the way a policeman stops you and asks why you don't have a gun. Then they fine you for not havi


They wouldn't.  Your entire argument is
Bear arms = military service

Your reasoning is that because they (allegedly) used the term "bear arms" in a synonomys manner with military service, what they really ment by "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" means the right to keep arms and serve in the military.

*Well, read this again:*

"Mr. Boudinot thought the provision in the clause, or something similar to it, was necessary. Can any dependence, said he, be placed in men who are conscientious in this respect? or what justice can there be in compelling them to bear arms, when, according to their religious principles, t*hey would rather die than use them*? He adverted to several instances of oppression on this point, that occurred during the war. In forming a militia, an effectual defence ought to be calculated, and no characters of this religious description ought to be compelled to take up arms. I hope that in establishing this Government, we may show the world that proper care is taken that the Government may not interfere with the religious sentiments of any person. Now, by striking out the clause, people may be led to believe that there is an intention in the General Government to compel all its citizens to bear arms."

Use what?  Arms?  Not military service, but use guns. 

So, are you arguning that bear arms means use guns?  Because that's how Mr. Boudinot used the term.  He was referring to guns specifically, and their use. 

Bear arms means use guns.

You are right.  We don't have the right to keep and carry.  We have the right to keep and employ the use of guns...anytime we want...shall not be infringed.  You pinted yourself into that corner.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

My right to shoot my motherfucking guns shall not be infringed.  I will shoot them any fucking time, any fucking place I want!!!

It was used that way in the debates.  Therefore, bear arms means use guns.  Use means shoot.  I can shoot my guns anytime, anywhere, goddammit.


Wanna re-think your argument?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

...or we could compromise.  You can agree that bear arms means to carry, not shoot.  It's up to you.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would the Founding Fathers COMPEL a person to carry guns with them at all time? I mean, you wake up at 3am and need to go to the outhouse to take a shit, and on the way a policeman stops you and asks why you don't have a gun. Then they fine you for not havi
> 
> 
> 
> They wouldn't.  Your entire argument is
> Bear arms = military service
> 
> Your reasoning is that because they (allegedly) used the term "bear arms" in a synonomys manner with military service, what they really ment by "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" means the right to keep arms and serve in the military.
> 
> *Well, read this again:*
> 
> "Mr. Boudinot thought the provision in the clause, or something similar to it, was necessary. Can any dependence, said he, be placed in men who are conscientious in this respect? or what justice can there be in compelling them to bear arms, when, according to their religious principles, t*hey would rather die than use them*? He adverted to several instances of oppression on this point, that occurred during the war. In forming a militia, an effectual defence ought to be calculated, and no characters of this religious description ought to be compelled to take up arms. I hope that in establishing this Government, we may show the world that proper care is taken that the Government may not interfere with the religious sentiments of any person. Now, by striking out the clause, people may be led to believe that there is an intention in the General Government to compel all its citizens to bear arms."
> 
> Use what?  Arms?  Not military service, but use guns.
> 
> So, are you arguning that bear arms means use guns?  Because that's how Mr. Boudinot used the term.  He was referring to guns specifically, and their use.
> 
> Bear arms means use guns.
> 
> You are right.  We don't have the right to keep and carry.  We have the right to keep and employ the use of guns...anytime we want...shall not be infringed.  You pinted yourself into that corner.
Click to expand...


No, my argument is bear arms - militia duty. 

Allegedly used "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service" and "militia duty"? How is it allegedly? It's there, plain for everyone to see, I've mentioned it a hundred times and you've never been able to show that it's not. 

Your Mr Boudinot quote, I'm not really sure you have a point at all. Use what? Use arms of course. In the militia use use arms. 

In his quote he said "He adverted to several instances of oppression on this point, that occurred during the war." War? Yes, war. In war you use guns. Some people are religiously scrupulous of using guns, which means they're also religiously scrupulous of going to war. 

However you're in the militia or the military in order to be going to war, right?

The guns and the war and all of that stuff are all bound up in the same thing. 

"In forming a militia, an effectual defence ought to be calculated, and no characters of this religious description ought to be compelled to take up arms."

Then he says this. In forming a militia, an effectual defence.....

Then "compelled to take up arms", this is rather different to "carrying arms", take up arms, sounds rather military to me.

You haven't made much of a case for carry being a right.

If it were a right, the NRA wouldn't stand for carry and conceal permits for a RIGHT, now would they?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

frigidweirdo said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would the Founding Fathers COMPEL a person to carry guns with them at all time? I mean, you wake up at 3am and need to go to the outhouse to take a shit, and on the way a policeman stops you and asks why you don't have a gun. Then they fine you for not havi
> 
> 
> 
> They wouldn't.  Your entire argument is
> Bear arms = military service
> 
> Your reasoning is that because they (allegedly) used the term "bear arms" in a synonomys manner with military service, what they really ment by "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" means the right to keep arms and serve in the military.
> 
> *Well, read this again:*
> 
> "Mr. Boudinot thought the provision in the clause, or something similar to it, was necessary. Can any dependence, said he, be placed in men who are conscientious in this respect? or what justice can there be in compelling them to bear arms, when, according to their religious principles, t*hey would rather die than use them*? He adverted to several instances of oppression on this point, that occurred during the war. In forming a militia, an effectual defence ought to be calculated, and no characters of this religious description ought to be compelled to take up arms. I hope that in establishing this Government, we may show the world that proper care is taken that the Government may not interfere with the religious sentiments of any person. Now, by striking out the clause, people may be led to believe that there is an intention in the General Government to compel all its citizens to bear arms."
> 
> Use what?  Arms?  Not military service, but use guns.
> 
> So, are you arguning that bear arms means use guns?  Because that's how Mr. Boudinot used the term.  He was referring to guns specifically, and their use.
> 
> Bear arms means use guns.
> 
> You are right.  We don't have the right to keep and carry.  We have the right to keep and employ the use of guns...anytime we want...shall not be infringed.  You pinted yourself into that corner.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, my argument is bear arms - militia duty.
> 
> Allegedly used "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service" and "militia duty"? How is it allegedly? It's there, plain for everyone to see, I've mentioned it a hundred times and you've never been able to show that it's not.
> 
> Your Mr Boudinot quote, I'm not really sure you have a point at all. Use what? Use arms of course. In the militia use use arms.
> 
> In his quote he said "He adverted to several instances of oppression on this point, that occurred during the war." War? Yes, war. In war you use guns. Some people are religiously scrupulous of using guns, which means they're also religiously scrupulous of going to war.
> 
> However you're in the militia or the military in order to be going to war, right?
> 
> The guns and the war and all of that stuff are all bound up in the same thing.
> 
> "In forming a militia, an effectual defence ought to be calculated, and no characters of this religious description ought to be compelled to take up arms."
> 
> Then he says this. In forming a militia, an effectual defence.....
> 
> Then "compelled to take up arms", this is rather different to "carrying arms", take up arms, sounds rather military to me.
> 
> You haven't made much of a case for carry being a right.
> 
> If it were a right, the NRA wouldn't stand for carry and conceal permits for a RIGHT, now would they?
Click to expand...

No. I am show how your interpritation of "bear arms" exclusively meaning military service, fails when it means "use" in that quote.  Not military dudty.  USE.

Your argument that bear arms means militarty duty in the 2A is discredited, not only by its use in that context as aright, not a duty, but also by the quote above, where compelling someone to bear arms, when they would rather die than *use* arms.  It is a completely separate meaning in that quote, because he is spacifically refurring to the use of arms, not military duty. 

If you cannot at least concede that the above quote weakens your militarty-duty argument, then we are done talking.  You are unreasonable and have made up your mind on the topic, regardless of the evidence.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would the Founding Fathers COMPEL a person to carry guns with them at all time? I mean, you wake up at 3am and need to go to the outhouse to take a shit, and on the way a policeman stops you and asks why you don't have a gun. Then they fine you for not havi
> 
> 
> 
> They wouldn't.  Your entire argument is
> Bear arms = military service
> 
> Your reasoning is that because they (allegedly) used the term "bear arms" in a synonomys manner with military service, what they really ment by "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" means the right to keep arms and serve in the military.
> 
> *Well, read this again:*
> 
> "Mr. Boudinot thought the provision in the clause, or something similar to it, was necessary. Can any dependence, said he, be placed in men who are conscientious in this respect? or what justice can there be in compelling them to bear arms, when, according to their religious principles, t*hey would rather die than use them*? He adverted to several instances of oppression on this point, that occurred during the war. In forming a militia, an effectual defence ought to be calculated, and no characters of this religious description ought to be compelled to take up arms. I hope that in establishing this Government, we may show the world that proper care is taken that the Government may not interfere with the religious sentiments of any person. Now, by striking out the clause, people may be led to believe that there is an intention in the General Government to compel all its citizens to bear arms."
> 
> Use what?  Arms?  Not military service, but use guns.
> 
> So, are you arguning that bear arms means use guns?  Because that's how Mr. Boudinot used the term.  He was referring to guns specifically, and their use.
> 
> Bear arms means use guns.
> 
> You are right.  We don't have the right to keep and carry.  We have the right to keep and employ the use of guns...anytime we want...shall not be infringed.  You pinted yourself into that corner.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, my argument is bear arms - militia duty.
> 
> Allegedly used "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service" and "militia duty"? How is it allegedly? It's there, plain for everyone to see, I've mentioned it a hundred times and you've never been able to show that it's not.
> 
> Your Mr Boudinot quote, I'm not really sure you have a point at all. Use what? Use arms of course. In the militia use use arms.
> 
> In his quote he said "He adverted to several instances of oppression on this point, that occurred during the war." War? Yes, war. In war you use guns. Some people are religiously scrupulous of using guns, which means they're also religiously scrupulous of going to war.
> 
> However you're in the militia or the military in order to be going to war, right?
> 
> The guns and the war and all of that stuff are all bound up in the same thing.
> 
> "In forming a militia, an effectual defence ought to be calculated, and no characters of this religious description ought to be compelled to take up arms."
> 
> Then he says this. In forming a militia, an effectual defence.....
> 
> Then "compelled to take up arms", this is rather different to "carrying arms", take up arms, sounds rather military to me.
> 
> You haven't made much of a case for carry being a right.
> 
> If it were a right, the NRA wouldn't stand for carry and conceal permits for a RIGHT, now would they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. I am show how your interpritation of "bear arms" exclusively meaning military service, fails when it means "use" in that quote.  Not military dudty.  USE.
> 
> Your argument that bear arms means militarty duty in the 2A is discredited, not only by its use in that context as aright, not a duty, but also by the quote above, where compelling someone to bear arms, when they would rather die than *use* arms.  It is a completely separate meaning in that quote, because he is spacifically refurring to the use of arms, not military duty.
> 
> If you cannot at least concede that the above quote weakens your militarty-duty argument, then we are done talking.  You are unreasonable and have made up your mind on the topic, regardless of the evidence.
Click to expand...


No, I don't see how it fails at all. 

You can use arms, you can bear arms. When you are in the militia you are bearing arms. The "arms" part is guns, especially in relation to 1789. You can bear arms and use arms. 

The "bear arms" comes from the term "carry", however "bear arms" together means "militia duty" or "render military service". Literally you're carrying arms in military service. It doesn't mean to carry arms in civilian life. 

You say my argument is discredited, er.. no, it's not. You're throwing sticks and hoping one of them hits, they're not hitting. Then you're telling me they hit. 

Fine, if you expect me to agree with your very loose argument, when you've been ignoring my very strong argument, and then you're going to walk away because I won't agree without your argument, then go. I don't care. 

I'd have walked away from you a long time ago. But I didn't. 

You don't learn by demanding people agree with you.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

So, to recap:

The 2A  states, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Argument:  "Bear Arms" does not mean "carry" in that context.  See House of Rep. debates on the 2nd, where they use "bear arms" in the context of a military duty, rather than a right.  

Counter:  In part of that very debate, one guy says "what justice can there be in compelling them to bear arms, when, according to their religious principles, they would rather die than use them?"  In that context, "bearing arms" is not referring to military duty, but to the objects themselves, when he mentions their objection to using them.

Bear arms refers to the arms themselves in the same source proffered as evidence the term means military duty  in the 2md.  Coupled with it being called a right in the 2nd, the military duty argument falls apart.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

I don't expect you to agree with my overall position.  I do expect a reasonable person to concede points that are clear.  I agree that "bear arms" means to render military service or refers to a militia duty in some context.


frigidweirdo said:


> The "bear arms" comes from the term "carry", however "bear arms" together means "militia duty" or "render military service". Literally you're carrying arms in military service. It doesn't mean to carry arms in civilian life.


This is all I was asking you to concede.  Bear arms means carry, at least some of the time, or is not exclusively used to mean militia duty or military service. 

Where we disagree is its use in the context of the 2nd, where it is cast as a right, not militia duty or a rendering of military service.  It is expressed as a right.  My argument is that it can't mean militia duty when it is cast or phrased as such, which leaves it to other interpretations.   The only reasonable interpretation in that context is to carry.

You may disagree, but you cannot claim that military service or militia duty was clearly the intent, based on your source.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> I don't expect you to agree with my overall position.  I do expect a reasonable person to concede points that are clear.  I agree that "bear arms" means to render military service or refers to a militia duty in some context.
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "bear arms" comes from the term "carry", however "bear arms" together means "militia duty" or "render military service". Literally you're carrying arms in military service. It doesn't mean to carry arms in civilian life.
> 
> 
> 
> This is all I was asking you to concede.  Bear arms means carry, at least some of the time, or is not exclusively used to mean militia duty or military service.
> 
> Where we disagree is its use in the context of the 2nd, where it is cast as a right, not militia duty or a rendering of military service.  It is expressed as a right.  My argument is that it can't mean militia duty when it is cast or phrased as such, which leaves it to other interpretations.   The only reasonable interpretation in that context is to carry.
> 
> You may disagree, but you cannot claim that military service or militia duty was clearly the intent, based on your source.
Click to expand...


Well, if it's clear, I'll let you know.

My points have been far clearer than yours, so it makes me wonder why you're not bowing down at my feet, seeing how this is how you'd expect me to react.

No "bear" can mean carry. "bear arms" could mean carry arms. However there are times when people use phrases to mean something different to the usual meaning, and we have here a situation where the Founding Fathers were using the term "bear arms" to mean "militia duty" and "render military service", and not just in this document, but elsewhere.

Now, the nearest thing you have to getting "bear arms" to mean "walk around with guns" is where something could be read both ways. Beyond that there's no logic in your argument.

Why the hell would the Founding Fathers A) protect the right of individuals to carry guns around with them in an Amendment about the Militia? What does an individual carrying guns around have to do with the militia exactly? B) why they therefore would not protect one of the two things a militia needs in order to function when you have some of the Founding Fathers basically saying "if you put this clause into the Constitution then there's no point in having the amendment because the militia will be totally useless" and C) the NRA supports carry and conceal permits which would be complete UNNECESSARY if there were a right recognized to walk around with guns and D) why the Supreme Court said there is no right in the Second Amendment that protects the carrying of arms.

Oh, I can claim that "bear arms" means "militia duty" and "render military service" because this is EXACTLY what my source says. And also I have the backing of my A) B) C) and D) to make a very strong argument. What you have, I'll concede, is not very much and mostly throwing sticks and hoping the hit something, which they don't.


----------



## hunarcy

frigidweirdo said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would the Founding Fathers COMPEL a person to carry guns with them at all time? I mean, you wake up at 3am and need to go to the outhouse to take a shit, and on the way a policeman stops you and asks why you don't have a gun. Then they fine you for not havi
> 
> 
> 
> They wouldn't.  Your entire argument is
> Bear arms = military service
> 
> Your reasoning is that because they (allegedly) used the term "bear arms" in a synonomys manner with military service, what they really ment by "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" means the right to keep arms and serve in the military.
> 
> *Well, read this again:*
> 
> "Mr. Boudinot thought the provision in the clause, or something similar to it, was necessary. Can any dependence, said he, be placed in men who are conscientious in this respect? or what justice can there be in compelling them to bear arms, when, according to their religious principles, t*hey would rather die than use them*? He adverted to several instances of oppression on this point, that occurred during the war. In forming a militia, an effectual defence ought to be calculated, and no characters of this religious description ought to be compelled to take up arms. I hope that in establishing this Government, we may show the world that proper care is taken that the Government may not interfere with the religious sentiments of any person. Now, by striking out the clause, people may be led to believe that there is an intention in the General Government to compel all its citizens to bear arms."
> 
> Use what?  Arms?  Not military service, but use guns.
> 
> So, are you arguning that bear arms means use guns?  Because that's how Mr. Boudinot used the term.  He was referring to guns specifically, and their use.
> 
> Bear arms means use guns.
> 
> You are right.  We don't have the right to keep and carry.  We have the right to keep and employ the use of guns...anytime we want...shall not be infringed.  You pinted yourself into that corner.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, my argument is bear arms - militia duty.
> 
> Allegedly used "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service" and "militia duty"? How is it allegedly? It's there, plain for everyone to see, I've mentioned it a hundred times and you've never been able to show that it's not.
> 
> Your Mr Boudinot quote, I'm not really sure you have a point at all. Use what? Use arms of course. In the militia use use arms.
> 
> In his quote he said "He adverted to several instances of oppression on this point, that occurred during the war." War? Yes, war. In war you use guns. Some people are religiously scrupulous of using guns, which means they're also religiously scrupulous of going to war.
> 
> However you're in the militia or the military in order to be going to war, right?
> 
> The guns and the war and all of that stuff are all bound up in the same thing.
> 
> "In forming a militia, an effectual defence ought to be calculated, and no characters of this religious description ought to be compelled to take up arms."
> 
> Then he says this. In forming a militia, an effectual defence.....
> 
> Then "compelled to take up arms", this is rather different to "carrying arms", take up arms, sounds rather military to me.
> 
> You haven't made much of a case for carry being a right.
> 
> If it were a right, the NRA wouldn't stand for carry and conceal permits for a RIGHT, now would they?
Click to expand...


bear means to carry.  Your imagination cannot create an alternate meaning to support what you want to believe.


----------



## hunarcy

frigidweirdo said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't expect you to agree with my overall position.  I do expect a reasonable person to concede points that are clear.  I agree that "bear arms" means to render military service or refers to a militia duty in some context.
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "bear arms" comes from the term "carry", however "bear arms" together means "militia duty" or "render military service". Literally you're carrying arms in military service. It doesn't mean to carry arms in civilian life.
> 
> 
> 
> This is all I was asking you to concede.  Bear arms means carry, at least some of the time, or is not exclusively used to mean militia duty or military service.
> 
> Where we disagree is its use in the context of the 2nd, where it is cast as a right, not militia duty or a rendering of military service.  It is expressed as a right.  My argument is that it can't mean militia duty when it is cast or phrased as such, which leaves it to other interpretations.   The only reasonable interpretation in that context is to carry.
> 
> You may disagree, but you cannot claim that military service or militia duty was clearly the intent, based on your source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if it's clear, I'll let you know.
> 
> My points have been far clearer than yours, so it makes me wonder why you're not bowing down at my feet, seeing how this is how you'd expect me to react.
> 
> No "bear" can mean carry. "bear arms" could mean carry arms. However there are times when people use phrases to mean something different to the usual meaning, and we have here a situation where the Founding Fathers were using the term "bear arms" to mean "militia duty" and "render military service", and not just in this document, but elsewhere.
> 
> Now, the nearest thing you have to getting "bear arms" to mean "walk around with guns" is where something could be read both ways. Beyond that there's no logic in your argument.
> 
> Why the hell would the Founding Fathers A) protect the right of individuals to carry guns around with them in an Amendment about the Militia? What does an individual carrying guns around have to do with the militia exactly? B) why they therefore would not protect one of the two things a militia needs in order to function when you have some of the Founding Fathers basically saying "if you put this clause into the Constitution then there's no point in having the amendment because the militia will be totally useless" and C) the NRA supports carry and conceal permits which would be complete UNNECESSARY if there were a right recognized to walk around with guns and D) why the Supreme Court said there is no right in the Second Amendment that protects the carrying of arms.
> 
> Oh, I can claim that "bear arms" means "militia duty" and "render military service" because this is EXACTLY what my source says. And also I have the backing of my A) B) C) and D) to make a very strong argument. What you have, I'll concede, is not very much and mostly throwing sticks and hoping the hit something, which they don't.
Click to expand...


"Why the hell would the Founding Fathers A) protect the right of individuals to carry guns around with them in an Amendment about the Militia?"

Very good.  Because no matter what you want to believe, the right is reserved to the PEOPLE, not the militia.


----------



## danielpalos

frigidweirdo said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am going to change the words "bear arms" to "carry" or "carry a gun" and see how it works contextually:
> 
> The House again resolved itself into a committee, Mr.Boudinot in the chair, on the proposed amendments to the constitution. The third clause of the fourth proposition in the report was taken into consideration, being as follows: "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and *carry *arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to *carry a gun*."
> 
> Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from *carrying a gun*.
> (_*this paragraph is rather damning to your argument)*_
> 
> What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward. The Assembly of Massachusetts, seeing the rapid progress that administration were making to divest them of their inherent privileges, endeavored to counteract them by the organization of the militia; but they were always defeated by the influence of the Crown.
> 
> Mr. Seney wished to know what question there was before the committee, in order to ascertain the point upon which the gentleman was speaking.
> 
> Mr. Gerry replied that he meant to make a motion, as he disapproved of the words as they read. He then proceeded. No attempts that they made were successful, until they engaged in the struggle which emancipated them at once from their thraldom. Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. For this reason, he wished the words to be altered so as to be confined to persons belonging to a religious sect scrupulous of *carrying a gun*.
> 
> Mr. Jackson did not expect that all the people of the United States would turn Quakers or Moravians; consequently, one part would have to defend the other in case of invasion. Now this, in his opinion, was unjust, unless the constitution secured an equivalent: for this reason he moved to amend the clause, by inserting at the end of it, "upon paying an equivalent, to be established by law."
> 
> Mr. Smith, of South Carolina, inquired what were the words used by the conventions respecting this amendment. If the gentleman would conform to what was proposed by Virginia and Carolina, he would second him. He thought they were to be excused provided they found a substitute.
> 
> Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of *carrying a gun*, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent."
> 
> Mr. Sherman conceived it difficult to modify the clause and make it better. It is well known that those who are religiously scrupulous of *carrying a gun*, are equally scrupulous of getting substitutes or paying an equivalent. Many of them would rather die than do either one or the other; but he did not see an absolute necessity for a clause of this kind. We do not live under an arbitrary Government, said he, and the States, respectively, will have the government of the militia, unless when called into actual service; besides, it would not do to alter it so as to exclude the whole of any sect, because there are men amongst the Quakers who will turn out, notwithstanding the religious principles of the society, and defend the cause of their country. Certainly it will be improper to prevent the exercise of such favorable dispositions, at least whilst it is the practice of nations to determine their contests by the slaughter of their citizens and subjects.
> 
> Mr. Vining hoped the clause would be suffered to remain as it stood, because he saw no use in it if it was amended so as to compel a man to find a substitute, which, with respect to the Government, was the same as if the person himself turned out to fight.
> 
> Mr. Stone inquired what the words "religiously scrupulous" had reference to: was it of *carrying a gun*? If it was, it ought so to be expressed.
> 
> Mr. Benson moved to have the words "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to *carry a gun*," struck out. He would always leave it to the benevolence of the Legislature, for, modify it as you please, it will be impossible to express it in such a manner as to clear it from ambiguity. No man can claim this indulgence of right. It may be a religious persuasion, but it is no natural right, and therefore ought to be left to the discretion of the Government. If this stands part of the constitution, it will be a question before the Judiciary on every regulation you make with respect to the organization of the militia, whether it comports with this declaration or not. It is extremely injudicious to intermix matters of doubt with fundamentals.
> 
> I have no reason to believe but the Legislature will always possess humanity enough to indulge this class of citizens in a matter they are so desirous of; but they ought to be left to their discretion.
> 
> The motion for striking out the whole clause being seconded, was put, and decided in the negative--22 members voting for it, and 24 against it.
> 
> Mr. Gerry objected to the first part of the clause, on account of the uncertainty with which it is expressed. A well regulated militia being the best security of a free State, admitted an idea that a standing army was a secondary one. It ought to read, "a well regulated militia, trained to arms;" in which case it would become the duty of the Government to provide this security, and furnish a greater certainty of its being done.
> 
> Mr. Gerry's motion not being seconded, the question was put on the clause as reported; which being adopted,
> 
> Mr. Burke proposed to add to the clause just agreed to, an amendment to the following effect: "A standing army of regular troops in time of peace is dangerous to public liberty, and such shall not be raised or kept up in time of peace but from necessity, and for the security of the people, nor then without the consent of two-thirds of the members present of both Houses; and in all cases the military shall be subordinate to the civil authority." This being seconded.
> 
> Mr. Vining asked whether this was to be considered as an addition to the last clause, or an amendment by itself. If the former, he would remind the gentleman the clause was decided; if the latter, it was improper to introduce new matter, as the House had referred the report specially to the Committee of the whole.
> 
> Mr. Burke feared that, what with being trammelled in rules, and the apparent disposition of the committee, he should not be able to get them to consider any amendment; he submitted to such proceeding because he could not help himself.
> 
> Mr. Hartley thought the amendment in order, and was ready to give his opinion on it. He hoped the people of America would always be satisfied with having a majority to govern. He never wished to see two-thirds or three-fourths required, because it might put it in the power of a small minority to govern the whole Union.
> 
> [_20 Aug._]
> 
> Mr. Scott objected to the clause in the sixth amendment, "No person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to *carry a gun*." He observed that if this becomes part of the constitution, such persons can neither be called upon for their services, nor can an equivalent be demanded; it is also attended with still further difficulties, for a militia can never be depended upon. This would lead to the violation of another article in the constitution, which secures to the people the right of *keeping *arms, and in this case recourse must be had to a standing army. I conceive it, said he, to be a legislative right altogether. There are many sects I know, who are religiously scrupulous in this respect; I do not mean to deprive them of any indulgence the law affords; my design is to guard against those who are of no religion. It has been urged that religion is on the decline; if so, the argument is more strong in my favor, for when the time comes that religion shall be discarded, the generality of persons will have recourse to these pretexts to get excused from bearing arms.
> 
> Mr. Boudinot thought the provision in the clause, or something similar to it, was necessary. Can any dependence, said he, be placed in men who are conscientious in this respect? or what justice can there be in compelling them to *carry a gun*, when, according to their religious principles, t*hey would rather die than use them*? He adverted to several instances of oppression on this point, that occurred during the war. In forming a militia, an effectual defence ought to be calculated, and no characters of this religious description ought to be compelled to take up arms. I hope that in establishing this Government, we may show the world that proper care is taken that the Government may not interfere with the religious sentiments of any person. Now, by striking out the clause, people may be led to believe that there is an intention in the General Government to compel all its citizens to *carry a gun*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay
> 
> 1) Why would the Founding Fathers COMPEL a person to carry guns with them at all time? I mean, you wake up at 3am and need to go to the outhouse to take a shit, and on the way a policeman stops you and asks why you don't have a gun. Then they fine you for not having a gun.
> 
> Can you find any evidence, outside of militia duty of federal service, where the Founding Fathers wanted individuals to be compelled to carry arms with them?
> 
> I'm thinking you can't. I've never seen such a thing.
> 
> 2) Okay, the reasons for this was they wanted to say "either you bear arms, or you pay an equivalent", again, why would people be compelled to pay money so they wouldn't have to carry guns around with them in the streets?
> 
> Again, any evidence for this? No.
> 
> I could go on and on.
> 
> There's no reason for the Founding Fathers to compel people to carry guns.
Click to expand...

I am advocating for a Ninth Amendment, right to not keep and bear Arms and draft gun lovers, first.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> So, to recap:
> 
> The 2A  states, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> 
> Argument:  "Bear Arms" does not mean "carry" in that context.  See House of Rep. debates on the 2nd, where they use "bear arms" in the context of a military duty, rather than a right.
> 
> Counter:  In part of that very debate, one guy says "what justice can there be in compelling them to bear arms, when, according to their religious principles, they would rather die than use them?"  In that context, "bearing arms" is not referring to military duty, but to the objects themselves, when he mentions their objection to using them.
> 
> Bear arms refers to the arms themselves in the same source proffered as evidence the term means military duty  in the 2md.  Coupled with it being called a right in the 2nd, the military duty argument falls apart.


Only if you omit the fact that the People are the militia. Well regulated militia of the People are necessary to the security of a free State and those people shall not be infringed.


----------



## danielpalos

hunarcy said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't expect you to agree with my overall position.  I do expect a reasonable person to concede points that are clear.  I agree that "bear arms" means to render military service or refers to a militia duty in some context.
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "bear arms" comes from the term "carry", however "bear arms" together means "militia duty" or "render military service". Literally you're carrying arms in military service. It doesn't mean to carry arms in civilian life.
> 
> 
> 
> This is all I was asking you to concede.  Bear arms means carry, at least some of the time, or is not exclusively used to mean militia duty or military service.
> 
> Where we disagree is its use in the context of the 2nd, where it is cast as a right, not militia duty or a rendering of military service.  It is expressed as a right.  My argument is that it can't mean militia duty when it is cast or phrased as such, which leaves it to other interpretations.   The only reasonable interpretation in that context is to carry.
> 
> You may disagree, but you cannot claim that military service or militia duty was clearly the intent, based on your source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if it's clear, I'll let you know.
> 
> My points have been far clearer than yours, so it makes me wonder why you're not bowing down at my feet, seeing how this is how you'd expect me to react.
> 
> No "bear" can mean carry. "bear arms" could mean carry arms. However there are times when people use phrases to mean something different to the usual meaning, and we have here a situation where the Founding Fathers were using the term "bear arms" to mean "militia duty" and "render military service", and not just in this document, but elsewhere.
> 
> Now, the nearest thing you have to getting "bear arms" to mean "walk around with guns" is where something could be read both ways. Beyond that there's no logic in your argument.
> 
> Why the hell would the Founding Fathers A) protect the right of individuals to carry guns around with them in an Amendment about the Militia? What does an individual carrying guns around have to do with the militia exactly? B) why they therefore would not protect one of the two things a militia needs in order to function when you have some of the Founding Fathers basically saying "if you put this clause into the Constitution then there's no point in having the amendment because the militia will be totally useless" and C) the NRA supports carry and conceal permits which would be complete UNNECESSARY if there were a right recognized to walk around with guns and D) why the Supreme Court said there is no right in the Second Amendment that protects the carrying of arms.
> 
> Oh, I can claim that "bear arms" means "militia duty" and "render military service" because this is EXACTLY what my source says. And also I have the backing of my A) B) C) and D) to make a very strong argument. What you have, I'll concede, is not very much and mostly throwing sticks and hoping the hit something, which they don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Why the hell would the Founding Fathers A) protect the right of individuals to carry guns around with them in an Amendment about the Militia?"
> 
> Very good.  Because no matter what you want to believe, the right is reserved to the PEOPLE, not the militia.
Click to expand...

The People are the Militia.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

frigidweirdo said:


> No "bear" can mean carry. "bear arms" could mean carry arms. However there are times when people use phrases to mean *something different to the usual meaning*, and we have here a situation where the Founding Fathers were using the term "bear arms" to mean "militia duty" and "render military service", and not just in this document, but elsewhere.


But before we even look back to their intent:

"We begin with the familiar canon of statutory construction that the starting point for interpreting a statute is the language of the statute itself. Absent a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary, that language must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive.:" Consumer Product Safety Commission et al. v. GTE Sylvania, Inc. et al.,447 U.S. 102 (1980). "n interpreting a statute a court should always turn to one cardinal canon before all others. . . .[C]ourts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there." Connecticut Nat'l Bank v. Germain, 112 S. Ct. 1146, 1149 (1992). Indeed, "when the words of a statute are unambiguous, then, this first canon is also the last: 'judicial inquiry is complete.'" 503 U.S. 249, 254.

You are trying to give the words keep and bear arms a meaning that is not ordinary or usual in that context, especially given the expression is stated as a right, not a duty.  No one has ever expressed a right to be compelled into military service or a right to pay taxes.  The ordinary meaning of compelling military service is a duty.  Because "bear arms" could be used both ways, the language itself is clear regarding duty verses right. 

I don't think we even get to a discussion about legislative intent, because there is no ambiguity, but I will go ahead and entertain your argument and assume there is an ambiguity, despite such an exercise being unnecessary under the circumstances. 

Get me a source where some founder at that time expressed a legal duty as a right, and I will take a hard look.


----------



## danielpalos

The People are the militia. No one is unconnected with the militia.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

frigidweirdo said:


> Why the hell would the Founding Fathers





frigidweirdo said:


> A) protect the right of individuals to carry guns around with them in an Amendment about the Militia? What does an individual carrying guns around have to do with the militia exactly?


Because, when read as a whole, the effect is NOT to establish a militia.  We end up here every fucking time.  IT IS NOT ABOUT ESTABLISHING OR ARMING A MILITIA.  That is already done in Art. 1, Sec. 8.  

The effect of the Amendment is prohibiting the federal government from infringing on pre-existing rights.  Those are the right to keep and the right to bear. It makes no difference whether those arms would be used in a militia.  It is a protection of those pre-existing rights.  



frigidweirdo said:


> B) why they therefore would not protect one of the two things a militia needs in order to function when you have some of the Founding Fathers basically saying "if you put this clause into the Constitution then there's no point in having the amendment because the militia will be totally useless"


I don't follow your point.  

Congress was granted the power to organize, arm, and "discipline" or train, a militia in Art.1, Sec.8.  The people wouldn't need to be armed i Congress could arm them.


frigidweirdo said:


> C) the NRA supports carry and conceal permits which would be complete UNNECESSARY if there were a right recognized to walk around with guns and


Or, the NRA is trying to restore what we should already have, by doing what it does best.  Lobbying.  The NRA is doing what you are doing, but in reverse  Piecemeal restoration, instead of piecemeal erosion. 


frigidweirdo said:


> D) why the Supreme Court said there is no right in the Second Amendment that protects the carrying of arms.


When?  I call bullshit.   You can't be referring to _Presser_, because the Court specifically HELD that the 2nd Amendment is a prohibition against Congress, and that Illinois was under no such prohibition.  If you are trying to tie _Presser_ to the 2nd, you are mistaken.


----------



## turtledude

danielpalos said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am going to change the words "bear arms" to "carry" or "carry a gun" and see how it works contextually:
> 
> The House again resolved itself into a committee, Mr.Boudinot in the chair, on the proposed amendments to the constitution. The third clause of the fourth proposition in the report was taken into consideration, being as follows: "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and *carry *arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to *carry a gun*."
> 
> Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from *carrying a gun*.
> (_*this paragraph is rather damning to your argument)*_
> 
> What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward. The Assembly of Massachusetts, seeing the rapid progress that administration were making to divest them of their inherent privileges, endeavored to counteract them by the organization of the militia; but they were always defeated by the influence of the Crown.
> 
> Mr. Seney wished to know what question there was before the committee, in order to ascertain the point upon which the gentleman was speaking.
> 
> Mr. Gerry replied that he meant to make a motion, as he disapproved of the words as they read. He then proceeded. No attempts that they made were successful, until they engaged in the struggle which emancipated them at once from their thraldom. Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. For this reason, he wished the words to be altered so as to be confined to persons belonging to a religious sect scrupulous of *carrying a gun*.
> 
> Mr. Jackson did not expect that all the people of the United States would turn Quakers or Moravians; consequently, one part would have to defend the other in case of invasion. Now this, in his opinion, was unjust, unless the constitution secured an equivalent: for this reason he moved to amend the clause, by inserting at the end of it, "upon paying an equivalent, to be established by law."
> 
> Mr. Smith, of South Carolina, inquired what were the words used by the conventions respecting this amendment. If the gentleman would conform to what was proposed by Virginia and Carolina, he would second him. He thought they were to be excused provided they found a substitute.
> 
> Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of *carrying a gun*, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent."
> 
> Mr. Sherman conceived it difficult to modify the clause and make it better. It is well known that those who are religiously scrupulous of *carrying a gun*, are equally scrupulous of getting substitutes or paying an equivalent. Many of them would rather die than do either one or the other; but he did not see an absolute necessity for a clause of this kind. We do not live under an arbitrary Government, said he, and the States, respectively, will have the government of the militia, unless when called into actual service; besides, it would not do to alter it so as to exclude the whole of any sect, because there are men amongst the Quakers who will turn out, notwithstanding the religious principles of the society, and defend the cause of their country. Certainly it will be improper to prevent the exercise of such favorable dispositions, at least whilst it is the practice of nations to determine their contests by the slaughter of their citizens and subjects.
> 
> Mr. Vining hoped the clause would be suffered to remain as it stood, because he saw no use in it if it was amended so as to compel a man to find a substitute, which, with respect to the Government, was the same as if the person himself turned out to fight.
> 
> Mr. Stone inquired what the words "religiously scrupulous" had reference to: was it of *carrying a gun*? If it was, it ought so to be expressed.
> 
> Mr. Benson moved to have the words "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to *carry a gun*," struck out. He would always leave it to the benevolence of the Legislature, for, modify it as you please, it will be impossible to express it in such a manner as to clear it from ambiguity. No man can claim this indulgence of right. It may be a religious persuasion, but it is no natural right, and therefore ought to be left to the discretion of the Government. If this stands part of the constitution, it will be a question before the Judiciary on every regulation you make with respect to the organization of the militia, whether it comports with this declaration or not. It is extremely injudicious to intermix matters of doubt with fundamentals.
> 
> I have no reason to believe but the Legislature will always possess humanity enough to indulge this class of citizens in a matter they are so desirous of; but they ought to be left to their discretion.
> 
> The motion for striking out the whole clause being seconded, was put, and decided in the negative--22 members voting for it, and 24 against it.
> 
> Mr. Gerry objected to the first part of the clause, on account of the uncertainty with which it is expressed. A well regulated militia being the best security of a free State, admitted an idea that a standing army was a secondary one. It ought to read, "a well regulated militia, trained to arms;" in which case it would become the duty of the Government to provide this security, and furnish a greater certainty of its being done.
> 
> Mr. Gerry's motion not being seconded, the question was put on the clause as reported; which being adopted,
> 
> Mr. Burke proposed to add to the clause just agreed to, an amendment to the following effect: "A standing army of regular troops in time of peace is dangerous to public liberty, and such shall not be raised or kept up in time of peace but from necessity, and for the security of the people, nor then without the consent of two-thirds of the members present of both Houses; and in all cases the military shall be subordinate to the civil authority." This being seconded.
> 
> Mr. Vining asked whether this was to be considered as an addition to the last clause, or an amendment by itself. If the former, he would remind the gentleman the clause was decided; if the latter, it was improper to introduce new matter, as the House had referred the report specially to the Committee of the whole.
> 
> Mr. Burke feared that, what with being trammelled in rules, and the apparent disposition of the committee, he should not be able to get them to consider any amendment; he submitted to such proceeding because he could not help himself.
> 
> Mr. Hartley thought the amendment in order, and was ready to give his opinion on it. He hoped the people of America would always be satisfied with having a majority to govern. He never wished to see two-thirds or three-fourths required, because it might put it in the power of a small minority to govern the whole Union.
> 
> [_20 Aug._]
> 
> Mr. Scott objected to the clause in the sixth amendment, "No person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to *carry a gun*." He observed that if this becomes part of the constitution, such persons can neither be called upon for their services, nor can an equivalent be demanded; it is also attended with still further difficulties, for a militia can never be depended upon. This would lead to the violation of another article in the constitution, which secures to the people the right of *keeping *arms, and in this case recourse must be had to a standing army. I conceive it, said he, to be a legislative right altogether. There are many sects I know, who are religiously scrupulous in this respect; I do not mean to deprive them of any indulgence the law affords; my design is to guard against those who are of no religion. It has been urged that religion is on the decline; if so, the argument is more strong in my favor, for when the time comes that religion shall be discarded, the generality of persons will have recourse to these pretexts to get excused from bearing arms.
> 
> Mr. Boudinot thought the provision in the clause, or something similar to it, was necessary. Can any dependence, said he, be placed in men who are conscientious in this respect? or what justice can there be in compelling them to *carry a gun*, when, according to their religious principles, t*hey would rather die than use them*? He adverted to several instances of oppression on this point, that occurred during the war. In forming a militia, an effectual defence ought to be calculated, and no characters of this religious description ought to be compelled to take up arms. I hope that in establishing this Government, we may show the world that proper care is taken that the Government may not interfere with the religious sentiments of any person. Now, by striking out the clause, people may be led to believe that there is an intention in the General Government to compel all its citizens to *carry a gun*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay
> 
> 1) Why would the Founding Fathers COMPEL a person to carry guns with them at all time? I mean, you wake up at 3am and need to go to the outhouse to take a shit, and on the way a policeman stops you and asks why you don't have a gun. Then they fine you for not having a gun.
> 
> Can you find any evidence, outside of militia duty of federal service, where the Founding Fathers wanted individuals to be compelled to carry arms with them?
> 
> I'm thinking you can't. I've never seen such a thing.
> 
> 2) Okay, the reasons for this was they wanted to say "either you bear arms, or you pay an equivalent", again, why would people be compelled to pay money so they wouldn't have to carry guns around with them in the streets?
> 
> Again, any evidence for this? No.
> 
> I could go on and on.
> 
> There's no reason for the Founding Fathers to compel people to carry guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am advocating for a Ninth Amendment, right to not keep and bear Arms and draft gun lovers, first.
Click to expand...


that's idiotic R2D2.  if the thought of keeping or bearing firearms causes you to void in your panties, then by all means don't own a gun.


----------



## frigidweirdo

hunarcy said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would the Founding Fathers COMPEL a person to carry guns with them at all time? I mean, you wake up at 3am and need to go to the outhouse to take a shit, and on the way a policeman stops you and asks why you don't have a gun. Then they fine you for not havi
> 
> 
> 
> They wouldn't.  Your entire argument is
> Bear arms = military service
> 
> Your reasoning is that because they (allegedly) used the term "bear arms" in a synonomys manner with military service, what they really ment by "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" means the right to keep arms and serve in the military.
> 
> *Well, read this again:*
> 
> "Mr. Boudinot thought the provision in the clause, or something similar to it, was necessary. Can any dependence, said he, be placed in men who are conscientious in this respect? or what justice can there be in compelling them to bear arms, when, according to their religious principles, t*hey would rather die than use them*? He adverted to several instances of oppression on this point, that occurred during the war. In forming a militia, an effectual defence ought to be calculated, and no characters of this religious description ought to be compelled to take up arms. I hope that in establishing this Government, we may show the world that proper care is taken that the Government may not interfere with the religious sentiments of any person. Now, by striking out the clause, people may be led to believe that there is an intention in the General Government to compel all its citizens to bear arms."
> 
> Use what?  Arms?  Not military service, but use guns.
> 
> So, are you arguning that bear arms means use guns?  Because that's how Mr. Boudinot used the term.  He was referring to guns specifically, and their use.
> 
> Bear arms means use guns.
> 
> You are right.  We don't have the right to keep and carry.  We have the right to keep and employ the use of guns...anytime we want...shall not be infringed.  You pinted yourself into that corner.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, my argument is bear arms - militia duty.
> 
> Allegedly used "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service" and "militia duty"? How is it allegedly? It's there, plain for everyone to see, I've mentioned it a hundred times and you've never been able to show that it's not.
> 
> Your Mr Boudinot quote, I'm not really sure you have a point at all. Use what? Use arms of course. In the militia use use arms.
> 
> In his quote he said "He adverted to several instances of oppression on this point, that occurred during the war." War? Yes, war. In war you use guns. Some people are religiously scrupulous of using guns, which means they're also religiously scrupulous of going to war.
> 
> However you're in the militia or the military in order to be going to war, right?
> 
> The guns and the war and all of that stuff are all bound up in the same thing.
> 
> "In forming a militia, an effectual defence ought to be calculated, and no characters of this religious description ought to be compelled to take up arms."
> 
> Then he says this. In forming a militia, an effectual defence.....
> 
> Then "compelled to take up arms", this is rather different to "carrying arms", take up arms, sounds rather military to me.
> 
> You haven't made much of a case for carry being a right.
> 
> If it were a right, the NRA wouldn't stand for carry and conceal permits for a RIGHT, now would they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> bear means to carry.  Your imagination cannot create an alternate meaning to support what you want to believe.
Click to expand...


Yes, it does.

And stool means a shit. Doesn't mean because it CAN mean shit, it DOES mean shit.

There are at least five separate meanings of the word "bear", one means to give birth to, does that mean because it can mean "give birth to guns" that this MUST be what it means?

Give me a break, this is simple English.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No "bear" can mean carry. "bear arms" could mean carry arms. However there are times when people use phrases to mean *something different to the usual meaning*, and we have here a situation where the Founding Fathers were using the term "bear arms" to mean "militia duty" and "render military service", and not just in this document, but elsewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> But before we even look back to their intent:
> 
> "We begin with the familiar canon of statutory construction that the starting point for interpreting a statute is the language of the statute itself. Absent a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary, that language must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive.:" Consumer Product Safety Commission et al. v. GTE Sylvania, Inc. et al.,447 U.S. 102 (1980). "n interpreting a statute a court should always turn to one cardinal canon before all others. . . .[C]ourts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there." Connecticut Nat'l Bank v. Germain, 112 S. Ct. 1146, 1149 (1992). Indeed, "when the words of a statute are unambiguous, then, this first canon is also the last: 'judicial inquiry is complete.'" 503 U.S. 249, 254.
> 
> You are trying to give the words keep and bear arms a meaning that is not ordinary or usual in that context, especially given the expression is stated as a right, not a duty.  No one has ever expressed a right to be compelled into military service or a right to pay taxes.  The ordinary meaning of compelling military service is a duty.  Because "bear arms" could be used both ways, the language itself is clear regarding duty verses right.
> 
> I don't think we even get to a discussion about legislative intent, because there is no ambiguity, but I will go ahead and entertain your argument and assume there is an ambiguity, despite such an exercise being unnecessary under the circumstances.
> 
> Get me a source where some founder at that time expressed a legal duty as a right, and I will take a hard look.
Click to expand...


I've given you such a source. We've been talking about it for ages. 

I don't have time now, but I'll send you Washington's Peace Establishment thing later.

As for "ordinary language", come on, it was written in 1789.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why the hell would the Founding Fathers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> A) protect the right of individuals to carry guns around with them in an Amendment about the Militia? What does an individual carrying guns around have to do with the militia exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because, when read as a whole, the effect is NOT to establish a militia.  We end up here every fucking time.  IT IS NOT ABOUT ESTABLISHING OR ARMING A MILITIA.  That is already done in Art. 1, Sec. 8.
> 
> The effect of the Amendment is prohibiting the federal government from infringing on pre-existing rights.  Those are the right to keep and the right to bear. It makes no difference whether those arms would be used in a militia.  It is a protection of those pre-existing rights.
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> B) why they therefore would not protect one of the two things a militia needs in order to function when you have some of the Founding Fathers basically saying "if you put this clause into the Constitution then there's no point in having the amendment because the militia will be totally useless"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't follow your point.
> 
> Congress was granted the power to organize, arm, and "discipline" or train, a militia in Art.1, Sec.8.  The people wouldn't need to be armed i Congress could arm them.
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> C) the NRA supports carry and conceal permits which would be complete UNNECESSARY if there were a right recognized to walk around with guns and
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or, the NRA is trying to restore what we should already have, by doing what it does best.  Lobbying.  The NRA is doing what you are doing, but in reverse  Piecemeal restoration, instead of piecemeal erosion.
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> D) why the Supreme Court said there is no right in the Second Amendment that protects the carrying of arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When?  I call bullshit.   You can't be referring to _Presser_, because the Court specifically HELD that the 2nd Amendment is a prohibition against Congress, and that Illinois was under no such prohibition.  If you are trying to tie _Presser_ to the 2nd, you are mistaken.
Click to expand...



The problem you have with your argument is that A) I haven't said it's about establishing a militia. B) article 1 section 8 is about arming the militia by THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. 

You're basically saying the militia doesn't need to be armed because the militia has the federal govt to arm it, but the militia is supposed to be a check and balance on the federal govt. So, what happens if the militia isn't armed by the Federal govt? Er.. there's no militia and there's no check on the Federal govt. 

So what's the point of the militia then? 

Mr Gerry said: "This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed.

In other words, if there's mal-administration from the govt, EVER, then we don't need to have such protections of rights.

"Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself."

Okay, the clause being that last clause that never made it into the final version. How would "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." destroy the Constitution itself exactly?

I'll leave that for you to answer. 

Yes, the Amendment is there to protect pre-existing rights. What pre-existing rights does the 2A protect? The right to lick one's own ass? No, it's not in there. To carry arms around in the streets? No. It's not in there. To be in the militia? Yes. 

The point you don't follow is basically what I've just said above, what Mr Gerry speaks about.

The NRA doesn't lobby to get rid of carry and conceal permits, as far as I know. They know what it means, and they make sure you people don't. They know they'd get kicked in the Supreme Court.

I know what Presser is, and I know Presser said that the 2A doesn't protect people from drilling with arms in cities and towns.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No "bear" can mean carry. "bear arms" could mean carry arms. However there are times when people use phrases to mean *something different to the usual meaning*, and we have here a situation where the Founding Fathers were using the term "bear arms" to mean "militia duty" and "render military service", and not just in this document, but elsewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> But before we even look back to their intent:
> 
> "We begin with the familiar canon of statutory construction that the starting point for interpreting a statute is the language of the statute itself. Absent a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary, that language must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive.:" Consumer Product Safety Commission et al. v. GTE Sylvania, Inc. et al.,447 U.S. 102 (1980). "n interpreting a statute a court should always turn to one cardinal canon before all others. . . .[C]ourts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there." Connecticut Nat'l Bank v. Germain, 112 S. Ct. 1146, 1149 (1992). Indeed, "when the words of a statute are unambiguous, then, this first canon is also the last: 'judicial inquiry is complete.'" 503 U.S. 249, 254.
> 
> You are trying to give the words keep and bear arms a meaning that is not ordinary or usual in that context, especially given the expression is stated as a right, not a duty.  No one has ever expressed a right to be compelled into military service or a right to pay taxes.  The ordinary meaning of compelling military service is a duty.  Because "bear arms" could be used both ways, the language itself is clear regarding duty verses right.
> 
> I don't think we even get to a discussion about legislative intent, because there is no ambiguity, but I will go ahead and entertain your argument and assume there is an ambiguity, despite such an exercise being unnecessary under the circumstances.
> 
> Get me a source where some founder at that time expressed a legal duty as a right, and I will take a hard look.
Click to expand...


*SENTIMENTS ON A PEACE ESTABLISHMENT, 1783*


"every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America... from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls,"



"by making it universally reputable to bear Arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the performance of Military duties; in fine, by keeping up in Peace "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia," we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country.“

Washington says that militia duty is a duty and everyone should be "borne on the Militia Rolls", borne being the past of "bear"

He uses a lot of the language that would become the Second Amendment. "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia" and uses "Military duties" such as Mr Gerry was speaking about.


----------



## emilynghiem

frigidweirdo said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would the Founding Fathers COMPEL a person to carry guns with them at all time? I mean, you wake up at 3am and need to go to the outhouse to take a shit, and on the way a policeman stops you and asks why you don't have a gun. Then they fine you for not havi
> 
> 
> 
> They wouldn't.  Your entire argument is
> Bear arms = military service
> 
> Your reasoning is that because they (allegedly) used the term "bear arms" in a synonomys manner with military service, what they really ment by "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" means the right to keep arms and serve in the military.
> 
> *Well, read this again:*
> 
> "Mr. Boudinot thought the provision in the clause, or something similar to it, was necessary. Can any dependence, said he, be placed in men who are conscientious in this respect? or what justice can there be in compelling them to bear arms, when, according to their religious principles, t*hey would rather die than use them*? He adverted to several instances of oppression on this point, that occurred during the war. In forming a militia, an effectual defence ought to be calculated, and no characters of this religious description ought to be compelled to take up arms. I hope that in establishing this Government, we may show the world that proper care is taken that the Government may not interfere with the religious sentiments of any person. Now, by striking out the clause, people may be led to believe that there is an intention in the General Government to compel all its citizens to bear arms."
> 
> Use what?  Arms?  Not military service, but use guns.
> 
> So, are you arguning that bear arms means use guns?  Because that's how Mr. Boudinot used the term.  He was referring to guns specifically, and their use.
> 
> Bear arms means use guns.
> 
> You are right.  We don't have the right to keep and carry.  We have the right to keep and employ the use of guns...anytime we want...shall not be infringed.  You pinted yourself into that corner.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, my argument is bear arms - militia duty.
> 
> Allegedly used "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service" and "militia duty"? How is it allegedly? It's there, plain for everyone to see, I've mentioned it a hundred times and you've never been able to show that it's not.
> 
> Your Mr Boudinot quote, I'm not really sure you have a point at all. Use what? Use arms of course. In the militia use use arms.
> 
> In his quote he said "He adverted to several instances of oppression on this point, that occurred during the war." War? Yes, war. In war you use guns. Some people are religiously scrupulous of using guns, which means they're also religiously scrupulous of going to war.
> 
> However you're in the militia or the military in order to be going to war, right?
> 
> The guns and the war and all of that stuff are all bound up in the same thing.
> 
> "In forming a militia, an effectual defence ought to be calculated, and no characters of this religious description ought to be compelled to take up arms."
> 
> Then he says this. In forming a militia, an effectual defence.....
> 
> Then "compelled to take up arms", this is rather different to "carrying arms", take up arms, sounds rather military to me.
> 
> You haven't made much of a case for carry being a right.
> 
> If it were a right, the NRA wouldn't stand for carry and conceal permits for a RIGHT, now would they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. I am show how your interpritation of "bear arms" exclusively meaning military service, fails when it means "use" in that quote.  Not military dudty.  USE.
> 
> Your argument that bear arms means militarty duty in the 2A is discredited, not only by its use in that context as aright, not a duty, but also by the quote above, where compelling someone to bear arms, when they would rather die than *use* arms.  It is a completely separate meaning in that quote, because he is spacifically refurring to the use of arms, not military duty.
> 
> If you cannot at least concede that the above quote weakens your militarty-duty argument, then we are done talking.  You are unreasonable and have made up your mind on the topic, regardless of the evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't see how it fails at all.
> 
> You can use arms, you can bear arms. When you are in the militia you are bearing arms. The "arms" part is guns, especially in relation to 1789. You can bear arms and use arms.
> 
> The "bear arms" comes from the term "carry", however "bear arms" together means "militia duty" or "render military service". Literally you're carrying arms in military service. It doesn't mean to carry arms in civilian life.
> 
> You say my argument is discredited, er.. no, it's not. You're throwing sticks and hoping one of them hits, they're not hitting. Then you're telling me they hit.
> 
> Fine, if you expect me to agree with your very loose argument, when you've been ignoring my very strong argument, and then you're going to walk away because I won't agree without your argument, then go. I don't care.
> 
> I'd have walked away from you a long time ago. But I didn't.
> 
> You don't learn by demanding people agree with you.
Click to expand...


Dear frigidweirdo 
I also got lost over "being in the militia" the "RIGHT TO BE in the militia"
is this like saying the right to choose abortion is different from the actual abortion?
I understand the difference when it comes to abortion,
because not punishing or depriving the "freedom of choice" is different from arguing over the actual abortion and consequences.

I can understand if your concern is having the FREEDOM and not being either compelled or barred.

But where we seem to disagree is whether the
"right to bear arms" WITHIN and as INTENDED specifically in the SECOND AMENDMENT
is only referring to militia, to state or govt regulated militia
and does not refer to individual use or carrying of arms.

I think this is as blurry and RELATIVE to people
as how ChrisL pointed out that ALL people are basically part of
the "militia" in POLICING govt and DEFENDING laws from infringement,
which is like saying "all people ARE the govt." 

But people vary on where they SEPARATE people from govt,
and in this case, militia from people and militia from govt.
danielpalos frames militia only within federal authority and regs approved through Congress.

The difference with me is I invoke more of the conservative type approach
that natural laws and authority of govt "are derived" from the PEOPLE.
So if PEOPLE CHOOSE to follow and enforce Constitutional laws,
I still call that the PEOPLE doing it as INDIVIDUALS
but others would call it "federal govt" imposing those Constitutional regs from the top down.

So we can be talking "close enough" about the  SAME THINGS:
we ALL agree we want the Constitutional laws enforced and followed
but one set of people tends to frame this in terms of PEOPLE enforcing those laws "individually"
and the other set tends to frame this in terms of GOVT laws.

Where we AGREE on the SPIRIT of the laws being respected,
does it MATTER if we put the emphasis on the PEOPLE or the GOVT.
If ideally these should agree anyway in order to enforce laws by agreement?

With you frigidweirdo, I see we agree "close enough"
that it's not as important to "haggle" over whether we are talking about
FORMAL militia, individual people, or govt.  You and I pretty much agree
that people have a right of self-defense, and everything else is just
people's personal interpretation or argument "where to draw the line between people and govt."

But people like danielpalos REALLY REALLY Get in trouble
by not making a distinction between federal, state and people
where it puts WAY too much responsibility on the federal level
that this conflicts with those of us who put more of the weight on the level of people.

You and I would end up "mediating or facilitating" between people like
danielpalos who go too far with centralizing the power in the hands of federal govt 
(so much that it risks abuse without check)
vs. people who go to the opposite extreme and give so much power and freedom to the people
that is also risks abuse without check.

Those people who go to opposite extremes are going to conflict with each other.

So that leaves those like you and me, and others who can "accommodate" both.
And we STILL need AGREEMENT on policy to be neutral and mutual
where BOTH of those other extremes will still see that THEIR ways are satisfied,
not excluded or imposed upon by the other bias.

I think you could work with people to reach such an agreement,
but we may have to be FLEXIBLE and not be so literal where we haggle over that
instead of agreeing on the spirit of the laws and principles. The language can
be flexed, we don't all have to agree how to word and interpret laws literally,
but just work around those differences in order to communicate with the laws
we already have, and before we attempt to write out any more laws or regulations.

We certainly need to accommodate what words or laws mean to people, especially where these differ,
or we will never be able to communicate effectively, much less write other laws or agreements together!
We NEED to know and include "where laws or words MEAN different things to different people"
which is like working with dialects of the same language, and making sure we are on the same page.

Thanks for this, I can see enough where you are coming from
to know we COULD work the rest out. Where you and others like you
draw the line between militia and people is still not perfectly clear to me,
but I already run into similar with people on both sides of the argument, 
so it's just more of the same but a slightly different flavor.

When I talked with my bf brother about people being law abiding,
he demanded to know HOW is this going to be decided what is law abiding.
And I said that is up to the local people, do they want to go with their community,
their neighborhood? Their district, city or state? some people want to go all the
way to the federal level and agree what is law abiding. But clearly I believe in 
people teaching and enforcing Constitutional laws and due process locally.
Everyone I have met may have a different level of where they represent authority,
and where they draw the line between people and govt, or people and militia, or militia and govt.

As long as each locale forms a consensus on law enforcement among the people
there affected by policy, there should be localized security.  
The same solutions may not work for each district, depending on their populations.

If you want to see consensus across the board, nationally, it would have to be broad
enough to include BOTH extremes of viewpoints/arguments, and allow equally for
those who believe in top down govt regulations/enforcement, and grassroots up people first.

So as long as we all agree on the principles and spirit of law enforcement,
and are equally opposed to "abuse of power" whether by govt or people (or militia),
then we should be able to organize in groups to form agreements throughout each district or state
on how to set up policing of bearing arms for "self defense", defending laws, etc. so these are not abused.


----------



## emilynghiem

frigidweirdo said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would the Founding Fathers COMPEL a person to carry guns with them at all time? I mean, you wake up at 3am and need to go to the outhouse to take a shit, and on the way a policeman stops you and asks why you don't have a gun. Then they fine you for not havi
> 
> 
> 
> They wouldn't.  Your entire argument is
> Bear arms = military service
> 
> Your reasoning is that because they (allegedly) used the term "bear arms" in a synonomys manner with military service, what they really ment by "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" means the right to keep arms and serve in the military.
> 
> *Well, read this again:*
> 
> "Mr. Boudinot thought the provision in the clause, or something similar to it, was necessary. Can any dependence, said he, be placed in men who are conscientious in this respect? or what justice can there be in compelling them to bear arms, when, according to their religious principles, t*hey would rather die than use them*? He adverted to several instances of oppression on this point, that occurred during the war. In forming a militia, an effectual defence ought to be calculated, and no characters of this religious description ought to be compelled to take up arms. I hope that in establishing this Government, we may show the world that proper care is taken that the Government may not interfere with the religious sentiments of any person. Now, by striking out the clause, people may be led to believe that there is an intention in the General Government to compel all its citizens to bear arms."
> 
> Use what?  Arms?  Not military service, but use guns.
> 
> So, are you arguning that bear arms means use guns?  Because that's how Mr. Boudinot used the term.  He was referring to guns specifically, and their use.
> 
> Bear arms means use guns.
> 
> You are right.  We don't have the right to keep and carry.  We have the right to keep and employ the use of guns...anytime we want...shall not be infringed.  You pinted yourself into that corner.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, my argument is bear arms - militia duty.
> 
> Allegedly used "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service" and "militia duty"? How is it allegedly? It's there, plain for everyone to see, I've mentioned it a hundred times and you've never been able to show that it's not.
> 
> Your Mr Boudinot quote, I'm not really sure you have a point at all. Use what? Use arms of course. In the militia use use arms.
> 
> In his quote he said "He adverted to several instances of oppression on this point, that occurred during the war." War? Yes, war. In war you use guns. Some people are religiously scrupulous of using guns, which means they're also religiously scrupulous of going to war.
> 
> However you're in the militia or the military in order to be going to war, right?
> 
> The guns and the war and all of that stuff are all bound up in the same thing.
> 
> "In forming a militia, an effectual defence ought to be calculated, and no characters of this religious description ought to be compelled to take up arms."
> 
> Then he says this. In forming a militia, an effectual defence.....
> 
> Then "compelled to take up arms", this is rather different to "carrying arms", take up arms, sounds rather military to me.
> 
> You haven't made much of a case for carry being a right.
> 
> If it were a right, the NRA wouldn't stand for carry and conceal permits for a RIGHT, now would they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> bear means to carry.  Your imagination cannot create an alternate meaning to support what you want to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it does.
> 
> And stool means a shit. Doesn't mean because it CAN mean shit, it DOES mean shit.
> 
> There are at least five separate meanings of the word "bear", one means to give birth to, does that mean because it can mean "give birth to guns" that this MUST be what it means?
> 
> Give me a break, this is simple English.
Click to expand...


Can we agree frigidweirdo the purpose of the Second Amendment
is the federal govt will not totally deprive people of the right to bear arms.

And where people disagree is to what extent either
a. the rules of the militia apply to the people
or
b. the federal govt still regulates either the militia or the people
(but just can't deprive this right completely)

Is that assessment close enough? To where people generally agree
and where the conflicts lie.

If so, this sounds similar to the free exercise clause and the THREE issues there
1. not ESTABLISHING it by govt (and certainly NOT COMPELLING it as you and others discuss here)
2. not PROHIBITING totally
3. but to what degree can govt enforce "conditions" or "regulations"
Example: a religion that has people killing or harming others to "exorcise them from demons"
or depriving medical care to save the life of a child under the age of legal consent
(or in the case of ACA penalizing people for not complying with mandates that violate
their Constitutional beliefs but exempting "only certain religious members" from taxes while fining others)
(also this business of barring Christian exercise or expression in relation to public property, policy or institutions
but ENDORSING LGBT beliefs, expressions and exercise to the point of PENALIZING others with conflicting beliefs)

If we can at least agree the govt should neither prohibit nor compel,
then we can focus on where the majority of arguments lie
is on what level and to what extent can the actual "exercise" of bearing arms
be "regulated" for the purpose of preventing ABUSE that would violate law.

The tricky part here, if we don't agree on the meaning of federal/Constitutional law,
then both sides can go in circles arguing "not to violate that" where they don't even agree in the first place.

What I suggest here, is to let each person have their OWN layout of where they draw the lines
between federal, militia, and people, and stick within their OWN paradigm or framework.

These do NOT have to agree COMPLETELY with the next person.
Or you'll waste all day arguing what shade of grey is closer to black than white.
We'd have to pick apart each person's system by the PIXELS and use their OWN system for THEM to follow.
And group people by pixelation so at least those folks can communicate and agree with each other
what are violations or what is proper regulations UNDER THEIR WAY of delineating federal/militia/people.

Then mediate between the subgroups and try to manage a consensus that
accommodates all these ways, so everyone can access representation by their system or the closest to it.

It doesn't have to be perfectly 100% as long as people AGREE it's close enough for them to feel secure and included.

Thanks frigidweirdo I think someone like you could help orchestrate
such groups and help communicate between them. You may specialize
in this particular area more than I do.  I'm more into explaining how to
separate the religious and political beliefs in general, but don't go into
as much historical detail as you and others here are able to discuss in depth.

The fact you have differences is actually good, that defines and maps out the
logistics of what we are facing. Most people can't get past the skin and you
are getting into the meat of the matter. So this is excellent, and I welcome
all the contributions especially where these disagree. We need to know what
we are dealing with beneath the surface if we are going to do "reconstructive"
surgery and align arteries with arteries and veins with veins so the system works
even with different functions of the arteries and veins going in opposite directions.

We just need to organize people of like beliefs, and we can deal with both schools of thoughts,
and all variations thereof.

Thanks you frigidweirdo and please do consider seriously
my proposal to form a task force on mediating these differences
instead of people bullying back and forth and attacking each other's party members and leaders over this.
We need equal inclusion, not dominating one belief system over another.
And we can work out all other differences and conflicts from there!

Thanks for spelling out how you see it, which helps TREMENDOUSLY!!!
I don't even get or follow it all, but see as long as you get it you can explain to others.


----------



## emilynghiem

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> My right to shoot my motherfucking guns shall not be infringed.  I will shoot them any fucking time, any fucking place I want!!!
> 
> It was used that way in the debates.  Therefore, bear arms means use guns.  Use means shoot.  I can shoot my guns anytime, anywhere, goddammit.
> 
> 
> Wanna re-think your argument?



Yes Bootney Lee Farnsworth
but you as a respecter of Constitutional law
would not abuse such use of guns to commit crimes and violate laws.
You would still do so within the bounds of respecting the same Constitutional rights freedoms and protections of others.

So that's the difference. now how do we define that difference?
I see you already make that distinction between defending laws and violalting them
because YOU as a CITIZEN BELIEVE in respecting those same standards.

People like danielpalos do NOT call this or trust this as individual choice,
but depend on "federal govt regulations" to ensure against abuses and violations.

How would YOU describe your individual discretion in not abusing guns to break laws?
It doesn't REALLY require "top down policing from federal regulations" does it?
Aren't people as individuals fully capable of AGREEING to follow the same
Constitutional laws in the Bill of Rights, and not VIOLATE due process or equal protections/security
of others by abusing guns "Unlawfully"

I am arguing that people are able to enforce such agreements among ourselves
and don't require the "federal govt" to regulate us, we can do so locally.

I call it agreeing that the right of the people to bear arms
inherently involves the context of 
being "law abiding" and defending Constitutional laws and protections
ie not abusing arms to violate these.

If we all agreed NOT to violate rights and laws, would it really matter
if we are saying this is coming from the PEOPLE
or if it is enforcing "Constitutional laws on the federal level."

Aren't we enforcing the same principles of law, and both arguing not to abuse arms to violate laws?


----------



## frigidweirdo

emilynghiem said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would the Founding Fathers COMPEL a person to carry guns with them at all time? I mean, you wake up at 3am and need to go to the outhouse to take a shit, and on the way a policeman stops you and asks why you don't have a gun. Then they fine you for not havi
> 
> 
> 
> They wouldn't.  Your entire argument is
> Bear arms = military service
> 
> Your reasoning is that because they (allegedly) used the term "bear arms" in a synonomys manner with military service, what they really ment by "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" means the right to keep arms and serve in the military.
> 
> *Well, read this again:*
> 
> "Mr. Boudinot thought the provision in the clause, or something similar to it, was necessary. Can any dependence, said he, be placed in men who are conscientious in this respect? or what justice can there be in compelling them to bear arms, when, according to their religious principles, t*hey would rather die than use them*? He adverted to several instances of oppression on this point, that occurred during the war. In forming a militia, an effectual defence ought to be calculated, and no characters of this religious description ought to be compelled to take up arms. I hope that in establishing this Government, we may show the world that proper care is taken that the Government may not interfere with the religious sentiments of any person. Now, by striking out the clause, people may be led to believe that there is an intention in the General Government to compel all its citizens to bear arms."
> 
> Use what?  Arms?  Not military service, but use guns.
> 
> So, are you arguning that bear arms means use guns?  Because that's how Mr. Boudinot used the term.  He was referring to guns specifically, and their use.
> 
> Bear arms means use guns.
> 
> You are right.  We don't have the right to keep and carry.  We have the right to keep and employ the use of guns...anytime we want...shall not be infringed.  You pinted yourself into that corner.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, my argument is bear arms - militia duty.
> 
> Allegedly used "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service" and "militia duty"? How is it allegedly? It's there, plain for everyone to see, I've mentioned it a hundred times and you've never been able to show that it's not.
> 
> Your Mr Boudinot quote, I'm not really sure you have a point at all. Use what? Use arms of course. In the militia use use arms.
> 
> In his quote he said "He adverted to several instances of oppression on this point, that occurred during the war." War? Yes, war. In war you use guns. Some people are religiously scrupulous of using guns, which means they're also religiously scrupulous of going to war.
> 
> However you're in the militia or the military in order to be going to war, right?
> 
> The guns and the war and all of that stuff are all bound up in the same thing.
> 
> "In forming a militia, an effectual defence ought to be calculated, and no characters of this religious description ought to be compelled to take up arms."
> 
> Then he says this. In forming a militia, an effectual defence.....
> 
> Then "compelled to take up arms", this is rather different to "carrying arms", take up arms, sounds rather military to me.
> 
> You haven't made much of a case for carry being a right.
> 
> If it were a right, the NRA wouldn't stand for carry and conceal permits for a RIGHT, now would they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. I am show how your interpritation of "bear arms" exclusively meaning military service, fails when it means "use" in that quote.  Not military dudty.  USE.
> 
> Your argument that bear arms means militarty duty in the 2A is discredited, not only by its use in that context as aright, not a duty, but also by the quote above, where compelling someone to bear arms, when they would rather die than *use* arms.  It is a completely separate meaning in that quote, because he is spacifically refurring to the use of arms, not military duty.
> 
> If you cannot at least concede that the above quote weakens your militarty-duty argument, then we are done talking.  You are unreasonable and have made up your mind on the topic, regardless of the evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't see how it fails at all.
> 
> You can use arms, you can bear arms. When you are in the militia you are bearing arms. The "arms" part is guns, especially in relation to 1789. You can bear arms and use arms.
> 
> The "bear arms" comes from the term "carry", however "bear arms" together means "militia duty" or "render military service". Literally you're carrying arms in military service. It doesn't mean to carry arms in civilian life.
> 
> You say my argument is discredited, er.. no, it's not. You're throwing sticks and hoping one of them hits, they're not hitting. Then you're telling me they hit.
> 
> Fine, if you expect me to agree with your very loose argument, when you've been ignoring my very strong argument, and then you're going to walk away because I won't agree without your argument, then go. I don't care.
> 
> I'd have walked away from you a long time ago. But I didn't.
> 
> You don't learn by demanding people agree with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo
> I also got lost over "being in the militia" the "RIGHT TO BE in the militia"
> is this like saying the right to choose abortion is different from the actual abortion?
> I understand the difference when it comes to abortion,
> because not punishing or depriving the "freedom of choice" is different from arguing over the actual abortion and consequences.
> 
> I can understand if your concern is having the FREEDOM and not being either compelled or barred.
> 
> But where we seem to disagree is whether the
> "right to bear arms" WITHIN and as INTENDED specifically in the SECOND AMENDMENT
> is only referring to militia, to state or govt regulated militia
> and does not refer to individual use or carrying of arms.
> 
> I think this is as blurry and RELATIVE to people
> as how ChrisL pointed out that ALL people are basically part of
> the "militia" in POLICING govt and DEFENDING laws from infringement,
> which is like saying "all people ARE the govt."
> 
> But people vary on where they SEPARATE people from govt,
> and in this case, militia from people and militia from govt.
> danielpalos frames militia only within federal authority and regs approved through Congress.
> 
> The difference with me is I invoke more of the conservative type approach
> that natural laws and authority of govt "are derived" from the PEOPLE.
> So if PEOPLE CHOOSE to follow and enforce Constitutional laws,
> I still call that the PEOPLE doing it as INDIVIDUALS
> but others would call it "federal govt" imposing those Constitutional regs from the top down.
> 
> So we can be talking "close enough" about the  SAME THINGS:
> we ALL agree we want the Constitutional laws enforced and followed
> but one set of people tends to frame this in terms of PEOPLE enforcing those laws "individually"
> and the other set tends to frame this in terms of GOVT laws.
> 
> Where we AGREE on the SPIRIT of the laws being respected,
> does it MATTER if we put the emphasis on the PEOPLE or the GOVT.
> If ideally these should agree anyway in order to enforce laws by agreement?
> 
> With you frigidweirdo, I see we agree "close enough"
> that it's not as important to "haggle" over whether we are talking about
> FORMAL militia, individual people, or govt.  You and I pretty much agree
> that people have a right of self-defense, and everything else is just
> people's personal interpretation or argument "where to draw the line between people and govt."
> 
> But people like danielpalos REALLY REALLY Get in trouble
> by not making a distinction between federal, state and people
> where it puts WAY too much responsibility on the federal level
> that this conflicts with those of us who put more of the weight on the level of people.
> 
> You and I would end up "mediating or facilitating" between people like
> danielpalos who go too far with centralizing the power in the hands of federal govt
> (so much that it risks abuse without check)
> vs. people who go to the opposite extreme and give so much power and freedom to the people
> that is also risks abuse without check.
> 
> Those people who go to opposite extremes are going to conflict with each other.
> 
> So that leaves those like you and me, and others who can "accommodate" both.
> And we STILL need AGREEMENT on policy to be neutral and mutual
> where BOTH of those other extremes will still see that THEIR ways are satisfied,
> not excluded or imposed upon by the other bias.
> 
> I think you could work with people to reach such an agreement,
> but we may have to be FLEXIBLE and not be so literal where we haggle over that
> instead of agreeing on the spirit of the laws and principles. The language can
> be flexed, we don't all have to agree how to word and interpret laws literally,
> but just work around those differences in order to communicate with the laws
> we already have, and before we attempt to write out any more laws or regulations.
> 
> We certainly need to accommodate what words or laws mean to people, especially where these differ,
> or we will never be able to communicate effectively, much less write other laws or agreements together!
> We NEED to know and include "where laws or words MEAN different things to different people"
> which is like working with dialects of the same language, and making sure we are on the same page.
> 
> Thanks for this, I can see enough where you are coming from
> to know we COULD work the rest out. Where you and others like you
> draw the line between militia and people is still not perfectly clear to me,
> but I already run into similar with people on both sides of the argument,
> so it's just more of the same but a slightly different flavor.
> 
> When I talked with my bf brother about people being law abiding,
> he demanded to know HOW is this going to be decided what is law abiding.
> And I said that is up to the local people, do they want to go with their community,
> their neighborhood? Their district, city or state? some people want to go all the
> way to the federal level and agree what is law abiding. But clearly I believe in
> people teaching and enforcing Constitutional laws and due process locally.
> Everyone I have met may have a different level of where they represent authority,
> and where they draw the line between people and govt, or people and militia, or militia and govt.
> 
> As long as each locale forms a consensus on law enforcement among the people
> there affected by policy, there should be localized security.
> The same solutions may not work for each district, depending on their populations.
> 
> If you want to see consensus across the board, nationally, it would have to be broad
> enough to include BOTH extremes of viewpoints/arguments, and allow equally for
> those who believe in top down govt regulations/enforcement, and grassroots up people first.
> 
> So as long as we all agree on the principles and spirit of law enforcement,
> and are equally opposed to "abuse of power" whether by govt or people (or militia),
> then we should be able to organize in groups to form agreements throughout each district or state
> on how to set up policing of bearing arms for "self defense", defending laws, etc. so these are not abused.
Click to expand...


I'm not really sure why you're making a distinction between being in the militia and the right to be in the militia. 

A right is a human construction to demand power from those who have power. It started in England when the right didn't want the king to have so much power over them, so they literally took power from king when they had the chance. 

All a right says is "I have this power, you don't"

If I have the right to be in the militia, it means the govt doesn't have the power to stop me being in the militia.

Are all people the militia? More or less. It was accepted at the time that males aged 17-45 would be the militia, hence why the Dick Act made the "unorganized militia" and put all those in this age group and gender into this militia. 

The reason they made the National Guard was because the militia wasn't good at waring. So the National Guard is more professional and more disciplined and better at waring.

The US used to be a country of defense, now it's a country of attack.


----------



## frigidweirdo

emilynghiem said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would the Founding Fathers COMPEL a person to carry guns with them at all time? I mean, you wake up at 3am and need to go to the outhouse to take a shit, and on the way a policeman stops you and asks why you don't have a gun. Then they fine you for not havi
> 
> 
> 
> They wouldn't.  Your entire argument is
> Bear arms = military service
> 
> Your reasoning is that because they (allegedly) used the term "bear arms" in a synonomys manner with military service, what they really ment by "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" means the right to keep arms and serve in the military.
> 
> *Well, read this again:*
> 
> "Mr. Boudinot thought the provision in the clause, or something similar to it, was necessary. Can any dependence, said he, be placed in men who are conscientious in this respect? or what justice can there be in compelling them to bear arms, when, according to their religious principles, t*hey would rather die than use them*? He adverted to several instances of oppression on this point, that occurred during the war. In forming a militia, an effectual defence ought to be calculated, and no characters of this religious description ought to be compelled to take up arms. I hope that in establishing this Government, we may show the world that proper care is taken that the Government may not interfere with the religious sentiments of any person. Now, by striking out the clause, people may be led to believe that there is an intention in the General Government to compel all its citizens to bear arms."
> 
> Use what?  Arms?  Not military service, but use guns.
> 
> So, are you arguning that bear arms means use guns?  Because that's how Mr. Boudinot used the term.  He was referring to guns specifically, and their use.
> 
> Bear arms means use guns.
> 
> You are right.  We don't have the right to keep and carry.  We have the right to keep and employ the use of guns...anytime we want...shall not be infringed.  You pinted yourself into that corner.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, my argument is bear arms - militia duty.
> 
> Allegedly used "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service" and "militia duty"? How is it allegedly? It's there, plain for everyone to see, I've mentioned it a hundred times and you've never been able to show that it's not.
> 
> Your Mr Boudinot quote, I'm not really sure you have a point at all. Use what? Use arms of course. In the militia use use arms.
> 
> In his quote he said "He adverted to several instances of oppression on this point, that occurred during the war." War? Yes, war. In war you use guns. Some people are religiously scrupulous of using guns, which means they're also religiously scrupulous of going to war.
> 
> However you're in the militia or the military in order to be going to war, right?
> 
> The guns and the war and all of that stuff are all bound up in the same thing.
> 
> "In forming a militia, an effectual defence ought to be calculated, and no characters of this religious description ought to be compelled to take up arms."
> 
> Then he says this. In forming a militia, an effectual defence.....
> 
> Then "compelled to take up arms", this is rather different to "carrying arms", take up arms, sounds rather military to me.
> 
> You haven't made much of a case for carry being a right.
> 
> If it were a right, the NRA wouldn't stand for carry and conceal permits for a RIGHT, now would they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> bear means to carry.  Your imagination cannot create an alternate meaning to support what you want to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it does.
> 
> And stool means a shit. Doesn't mean because it CAN mean shit, it DOES mean shit.
> 
> There are at least five separate meanings of the word "bear", one means to give birth to, does that mean because it can mean "give birth to guns" that this MUST be what it means?
> 
> Give me a break, this is simple English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can we agree frigidweirdo the purpose of the Second Amendment
> is the federal govt will not totally deprive people of the right to bear arms.
> 
> And where people disagree is to what extent either
> a. the rules of the militia apply to the people
> or
> b. the federal govt still regulates either the militia or the people
> (but just can't deprive this right completely)
> 
> Is that assessment close enough? To where people generally agree
> and where the conflicts lie.
> 
> If so, this sounds similar to the free exercise clause and the THREE issues there
> 1. not ESTABLISHING it by govt (and certainly NOT COMPELLING it as you and others discuss here)
> 2. not PROHIBITING totally
> 3. but to what degree can govt enforce "conditions" or "regulations"
> Example: a religion that has people killing or harming others to "exorcise them from demons"
> or depriving medical care to save the life of a child under the age of legal consent
> (or in the case of ACA penalizing people for not complying with mandates that violate
> their Constitutional beliefs but exempting "only certain religious members" from taxes while fining others)
> (also this business of barring Christian exercise or expression in relation to public property, policy or institutions
> but ENDORSING LGBT beliefs, expressions and exercise to the point of PENALIZING others with conflicting beliefs)
> 
> If we can at least agree the govt should neither prohibit nor compel,
> then we can focus on where the majority of arguments lie
> is on what level and to what extent can the actual "exercise" of bearing arms
> be "regulated" for the purpose of preventing ABUSE that would violate law.
> 
> The tricky part here, if we don't agree on the meaning of federal/Constitutional law,
> then both sides can go in circles arguing "not to violate that" where they don't even agree in the first place.
> 
> What I suggest here, is to let each person have their OWN layout of where they draw the lines
> between federal, militia, and people, and stick within their OWN paradigm or framework.
> 
> These do NOT have to agree COMPLETELY with the next person.
> Or you'll waste all day arguing what shade of grey is closer to black than white.
> We'd have to pick apart each person's system by the PIXELS and use their OWN system for THEM to follow.
> And group people by pixelation so at least those folks can communicate and agree with each other
> what are violations or what is proper regulations UNDER THEIR WAY of delineating federal/militia/people.
> 
> Then mediate between the subgroups and try to manage a consensus that
> accommodates all these ways, so everyone can access representation by their system or the closest to it.
> 
> It doesn't have to be perfectly 100% as long as people AGREE it's close enough for them to feel secure and included.
> 
> Thanks frigidweirdo I think someone like you could help orchestrate
> such groups and help communicate between them. You may specialize
> in this particular area more than I do.  I'm more into explaining how to
> separate the religious and political beliefs in general, but don't go into
> as much historical detail as you and others here are able to discuss in depth.
> 
> The fact you have differences is actually good, that defines and maps out the
> logistics of what we are facing. Most people can't get past the skin and you
> are getting into the meat of the matter. So this is excellent, and I welcome
> all the contributions especially where these disagree. We need to know what
> we are dealing with beneath the surface if we are going to do "reconstructive"
> surgery and align arteries with arteries and veins with veins so the system works
> even with different functions of the arteries and veins going in opposite directions.
> 
> We just need to organize people of like beliefs, and we can deal with both schools of thoughts,
> and all variations thereof.
> 
> Thanks you frigidweirdo and please do consider seriously
> my proposal to form a task force on mediating these differences
> instead of people bullying back and forth and attacking each other's party members and leaders over this.
> We need equal inclusion, not dominating one belief system over another.
> And we can work out all other differences and conflicts from there!
> 
> Thanks for spelling out how you see it, which helps TREMENDOUSLY!!!
> I don't even get or follow it all, but see as long as you get it you can explain to others.
Click to expand...


The issue here is the meaning of the term "bear arms".

On the one hand you have people with an agenda twisting history to meet their agenda, ignoring almost all of the facts, pretending the English language is rigid and doing whatever the hell they want. 

On the other hand you have facts, logic and an argument.

You want a task force to mediate on this? 

What?


----------



## danielpalos

emilynghiem said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed.  And it also states quite emphatically that the "Right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".  What part of that sentence do you not understand?
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> the unorganized militia may be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sorry R2D2  militias don't have rights, people do.  the right of individual people cannot be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the Second Amendment doesn't give the right, does it?
> 
> The Second Amendment PROTECTS the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it says well regulated militia of the People are necessary to the security of a free State.  It does not say the unorganized militia is necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why didn't it say the right of those MEMBERS to bear arms.
> 
> I always thought the concept could be interpreted both ways.
> 
> That the well regulated militia could refer to the federal military being necessary as well.  So because of the existence of armed forces, then to check these, all the people need the right to bear arms so that authority is not abused to the point of oppression by military force.
> 
> Again danielpalos given the disagreements that continue today,
> it is no wonder the law was passed as written, so that both sides' beliefs
> can be interpreted and defended from the same passage as worded!
> 
> *In general danielpalos if you look at America's history, and especially if you look at Texas history including being an independent Republic that fought many wars, there has always been a tradition of independent citizens bearing arms to defend laws and rights on their own. *
> 
> Texas could NOT have joined the union with any such interpretation
> you are stating that Federal Govt would regulate the right to bear arms
> by regulating Miltia and restricting guns to that context!
> 
> Yours truly,
> Emily
> Glad to live in Texas!*
> 
> ** *_Maybe I am biased from being brought up in this culture of "rugged independence and self-governance" and with the teaching of Constitutional laws and traditions based on Natural Laws that came from God first and were put into written contracts in order for people to check the authority of govt._
Click to expand...

It does. Well regulated militia are necessary. The unorganized militia is not declared necessary. Paragraph (2) of DC v Heller said so.


----------



## there4eyeM

Are sales taxes on firearms and ammunition against the Second Amendment?


----------



## Papageorgio

danielpalos said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am going to change the words "bear arms" to "carry" or "carry a gun" and see how it works contextually:
> 
> The House again resolved itself into a committee, Mr.Boudinot in the chair, on the proposed amendments to the constitution. The third clause of the fourth proposition in the report was taken into consideration, being as follows: "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and *carry *arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to *carry a gun*."
> 
> Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from *carrying a gun*.
> (_*this paragraph is rather damning to your argument)*_
> 
> What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward. The Assembly of Massachusetts, seeing the rapid progress that administration were making to divest them of their inherent privileges, endeavored to counteract them by the organization of the militia; but they were always defeated by the influence of the Crown.
> 
> Mr. Seney wished to know what question there was before the committee, in order to ascertain the point upon which the gentleman was speaking.
> 
> Mr. Gerry replied that he meant to make a motion, as he disapproved of the words as they read. He then proceeded. No attempts that they made were successful, until they engaged in the struggle which emancipated them at once from their thraldom. Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. For this reason, he wished the words to be altered so as to be confined to persons belonging to a religious sect scrupulous of *carrying a gun*.
> 
> Mr. Jackson did not expect that all the people of the United States would turn Quakers or Moravians; consequently, one part would have to defend the other in case of invasion. Now this, in his opinion, was unjust, unless the constitution secured an equivalent: for this reason he moved to amend the clause, by inserting at the end of it, "upon paying an equivalent, to be established by law."
> 
> Mr. Smith, of South Carolina, inquired what were the words used by the conventions respecting this amendment. If the gentleman would conform to what was proposed by Virginia and Carolina, he would second him. He thought they were to be excused provided they found a substitute.
> 
> Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of *carrying a gun*, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent."
> 
> Mr. Sherman conceived it difficult to modify the clause and make it better. It is well known that those who are religiously scrupulous of *carrying a gun*, are equally scrupulous of getting substitutes or paying an equivalent. Many of them would rather die than do either one or the other; but he did not see an absolute necessity for a clause of this kind. We do not live under an arbitrary Government, said he, and the States, respectively, will have the government of the militia, unless when called into actual service; besides, it would not do to alter it so as to exclude the whole of any sect, because there are men amongst the Quakers who will turn out, notwithstanding the religious principles of the society, and defend the cause of their country. Certainly it will be improper to prevent the exercise of such favorable dispositions, at least whilst it is the practice of nations to determine their contests by the slaughter of their citizens and subjects.
> 
> Mr. Vining hoped the clause would be suffered to remain as it stood, because he saw no use in it if it was amended so as to compel a man to find a substitute, which, with respect to the Government, was the same as if the person himself turned out to fight.
> 
> Mr. Stone inquired what the words "religiously scrupulous" had reference to: was it of *carrying a gun*? If it was, it ought so to be expressed.
> 
> Mr. Benson moved to have the words "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to *carry a gun*," struck out. He would always leave it to the benevolence of the Legislature, for, modify it as you please, it will be impossible to express it in such a manner as to clear it from ambiguity. No man can claim this indulgence of right. It may be a religious persuasion, but it is no natural right, and therefore ought to be left to the discretion of the Government. If this stands part of the constitution, it will be a question before the Judiciary on every regulation you make with respect to the organization of the militia, whether it comports with this declaration or not. It is extremely injudicious to intermix matters of doubt with fundamentals.
> 
> I have no reason to believe but the Legislature will always possess humanity enough to indulge this class of citizens in a matter they are so desirous of; but they ought to be left to their discretion.
> 
> The motion for striking out the whole clause being seconded, was put, and decided in the negative--22 members voting for it, and 24 against it.
> 
> Mr. Gerry objected to the first part of the clause, on account of the uncertainty with which it is expressed. A well regulated militia being the best security of a free State, admitted an idea that a standing army was a secondary one. It ought to read, "a well regulated militia, trained to arms;" in which case it would become the duty of the Government to provide this security, and furnish a greater certainty of its being done.
> 
> Mr. Gerry's motion not being seconded, the question was put on the clause as reported; which being adopted,
> 
> Mr. Burke proposed to add to the clause just agreed to, an amendment to the following effect: "A standing army of regular troops in time of peace is dangerous to public liberty, and such shall not be raised or kept up in time of peace but from necessity, and for the security of the people, nor then without the consent of two-thirds of the members present of both Houses; and in all cases the military shall be subordinate to the civil authority." This being seconded.
> 
> Mr. Vining asked whether this was to be considered as an addition to the last clause, or an amendment by itself. If the former, he would remind the gentleman the clause was decided; if the latter, it was improper to introduce new matter, as the House had referred the report specially to the Committee of the whole.
> 
> Mr. Burke feared that, what with being trammelled in rules, and the apparent disposition of the committee, he should not be able to get them to consider any amendment; he submitted to such proceeding because he could not help himself.
> 
> Mr. Hartley thought the amendment in order, and was ready to give his opinion on it. He hoped the people of America would always be satisfied with having a majority to govern. He never wished to see two-thirds or three-fourths required, because it might put it in the power of a small minority to govern the whole Union.
> 
> [_20 Aug._]
> 
> Mr. Scott objected to the clause in the sixth amendment, "No person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to *carry a gun*." He observed that if this becomes part of the constitution, such persons can neither be called upon for their services, nor can an equivalent be demanded; it is also attended with still further difficulties, for a militia can never be depended upon. This would lead to the violation of another article in the constitution, which secures to the people the right of *keeping *arms, and in this case recourse must be had to a standing army. I conceive it, said he, to be a legislative right altogether. There are many sects I know, who are religiously scrupulous in this respect; I do not mean to deprive them of any indulgence the law affords; my design is to guard against those who are of no religion. It has been urged that religion is on the decline; if so, the argument is more strong in my favor, for when the time comes that religion shall be discarded, the generality of persons will have recourse to these pretexts to get excused from bearing arms.
> 
> Mr. Boudinot thought the provision in the clause, or something similar to it, was necessary. Can any dependence, said he, be placed in men who are conscientious in this respect? or what justice can there be in compelling them to *carry a gun*, when, according to their religious principles, t*hey would rather die than use them*? He adverted to several instances of oppression on this point, that occurred during the war. In forming a militia, an effectual defence ought to be calculated, and no characters of this religious description ought to be compelled to take up arms. I hope that in establishing this Government, we may show the world that proper care is taken that the Government may not interfere with the religious sentiments of any person. Now, by striking out the clause, people may be led to believe that there is an intention in the General Government to compel all its citizens to *carry a gun*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay
> 
> 1) Why would the Founding Fathers COMPEL a person to carry guns with them at all time? I mean, you wake up at 3am and need to go to the outhouse to take a shit, and on the way a policeman stops you and asks why you don't have a gun. Then they fine you for not having a gun.
> 
> Can you find any evidence, outside of militia duty of federal service, where the Founding Fathers wanted individuals to be compelled to carry arms with them?
> 
> I'm thinking you can't. I've never seen such a thing.
> 
> 2) Okay, the reasons for this was they wanted to say "either you bear arms, or you pay an equivalent", again, why would people be compelled to pay money so they wouldn't have to carry guns around with them in the streets?
> 
> Again, any evidence for this? No.
> 
> I could go on and on.
> 
> There's no reason for the Founding Fathers to compel people to carry guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am advocating for a Ninth Amendment, right to not keep and bear Arms and draft gun lovers, first.
Click to expand...


We already have the right not to keep and bear arms. Your second part is a violation on due process and is unconstitutional. You are just a dumb bot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## turtledude

danielpalos said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> the unorganized militia may be infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> sorry R2D2  militias don't have rights, people do.  the right of individual people cannot be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the Second Amendment doesn't give the right, does it?
> 
> The Second Amendment PROTECTS the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it says well regulated militia of the People are necessary to the security of a free State.  It does not say the unorganized militia is necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why didn't it say the right of those MEMBERS to bear arms.
> 
> I always thought the concept could be interpreted both ways.
> 
> That the well regulated militia could refer to the federal military being necessary as well.  So because of the existence of armed forces, then to check these, all the people need the right to bear arms so that authority is not abused to the point of oppression by military force.
> 
> Again danielpalos given the disagreements that continue today,
> it is no wonder the law was passed as written, so that both sides' beliefs
> can be interpreted and defended from the same passage as worded!
> 
> *In general danielpalos if you look at America's history, and especially if you look at Texas history including being an independent Republic that fought many wars, there has always been a tradition of independent citizens bearing arms to defend laws and rights on their own. *
> 
> Texas could NOT have joined the union with any such interpretation
> you are stating that Federal Govt would regulate the right to bear arms
> by regulating Miltia and restricting guns to that context!
> 
> Yours truly,
> Emily
> Glad to live in Texas!*
> 
> ** *_Maybe I am biased from being brought up in this culture of "rugged independence and self-governance" and with the teaching of Constitutional laws and traditions based on Natural Laws that came from God first and were put into written contracts in order for people to check the authority of govt._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It does. Well regulated militia are necessary. The unorganized militia is not declared necessary. Paragraph (2) of DC v Heller said so.
Click to expand...

 wrong R2D2/


----------



## turtledude

there4eyeM said:


> Are sales taxes on firearms and ammunition against the Second Amendment?


 No, as long as the taxes are no different than those levied on other goods


----------



## danielpalos

Papageorgio said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am going to change the words "bear arms" to "carry" or "carry a gun" and see how it works contextually:
> 
> The House again resolved itself into a committee, Mr.Boudinot in the chair, on the proposed amendments to the constitution. The third clause of the fourth proposition in the report was taken into consideration, being as follows: "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and *carry *arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to *carry a gun*."
> 
> Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from *carrying a gun*.
> (_*this paragraph is rather damning to your argument)*_
> 
> What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward. The Assembly of Massachusetts, seeing the rapid progress that administration were making to divest them of their inherent privileges, endeavored to counteract them by the organization of the militia; but they were always defeated by the influence of the Crown.
> 
> Mr. Seney wished to know what question there was before the committee, in order to ascertain the point upon which the gentleman was speaking.
> 
> Mr. Gerry replied that he meant to make a motion, as he disapproved of the words as they read. He then proceeded. No attempts that they made were successful, until they engaged in the struggle which emancipated them at once from their thraldom. Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. For this reason, he wished the words to be altered so as to be confined to persons belonging to a religious sect scrupulous of *carrying a gun*.
> 
> Mr. Jackson did not expect that all the people of the United States would turn Quakers or Moravians; consequently, one part would have to defend the other in case of invasion. Now this, in his opinion, was unjust, unless the constitution secured an equivalent: for this reason he moved to amend the clause, by inserting at the end of it, "upon paying an equivalent, to be established by law."
> 
> Mr. Smith, of South Carolina, inquired what were the words used by the conventions respecting this amendment. If the gentleman would conform to what was proposed by Virginia and Carolina, he would second him. He thought they were to be excused provided they found a substitute.
> 
> Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of *carrying a gun*, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent."
> 
> Mr. Sherman conceived it difficult to modify the clause and make it better. It is well known that those who are religiously scrupulous of *carrying a gun*, are equally scrupulous of getting substitutes or paying an equivalent. Many of them would rather die than do either one or the other; but he did not see an absolute necessity for a clause of this kind. We do not live under an arbitrary Government, said he, and the States, respectively, will have the government of the militia, unless when called into actual service; besides, it would not do to alter it so as to exclude the whole of any sect, because there are men amongst the Quakers who will turn out, notwithstanding the religious principles of the society, and defend the cause of their country. Certainly it will be improper to prevent the exercise of such favorable dispositions, at least whilst it is the practice of nations to determine their contests by the slaughter of their citizens and subjects.
> 
> Mr. Vining hoped the clause would be suffered to remain as it stood, because he saw no use in it if it was amended so as to compel a man to find a substitute, which, with respect to the Government, was the same as if the person himself turned out to fight.
> 
> Mr. Stone inquired what the words "religiously scrupulous" had reference to: was it of *carrying a gun*? If it was, it ought so to be expressed.
> 
> Mr. Benson moved to have the words "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to *carry a gun*," struck out. He would always leave it to the benevolence of the Legislature, for, modify it as you please, it will be impossible to express it in such a manner as to clear it from ambiguity. No man can claim this indulgence of right. It may be a religious persuasion, but it is no natural right, and therefore ought to be left to the discretion of the Government. If this stands part of the constitution, it will be a question before the Judiciary on every regulation you make with respect to the organization of the militia, whether it comports with this declaration or not. It is extremely injudicious to intermix matters of doubt with fundamentals.
> 
> I have no reason to believe but the Legislature will always possess humanity enough to indulge this class of citizens in a matter they are so desirous of; but they ought to be left to their discretion.
> 
> The motion for striking out the whole clause being seconded, was put, and decided in the negative--22 members voting for it, and 24 against it.
> 
> Mr. Gerry objected to the first part of the clause, on account of the uncertainty with which it is expressed. A well regulated militia being the best security of a free State, admitted an idea that a standing army was a secondary one. It ought to read, "a well regulated militia, trained to arms;" in which case it would become the duty of the Government to provide this security, and furnish a greater certainty of its being done.
> 
> Mr. Gerry's motion not being seconded, the question was put on the clause as reported; which being adopted,
> 
> Mr. Burke proposed to add to the clause just agreed to, an amendment to the following effect: "A standing army of regular troops in time of peace is dangerous to public liberty, and such shall not be raised or kept up in time of peace but from necessity, and for the security of the people, nor then without the consent of two-thirds of the members present of both Houses; and in all cases the military shall be subordinate to the civil authority." This being seconded.
> 
> Mr. Vining asked whether this was to be considered as an addition to the last clause, or an amendment by itself. If the former, he would remind the gentleman the clause was decided; if the latter, it was improper to introduce new matter, as the House had referred the report specially to the Committee of the whole.
> 
> Mr. Burke feared that, what with being trammelled in rules, and the apparent disposition of the committee, he should not be able to get them to consider any amendment; he submitted to such proceeding because he could not help himself.
> 
> Mr. Hartley thought the amendment in order, and was ready to give his opinion on it. He hoped the people of America would always be satisfied with having a majority to govern. He never wished to see two-thirds or three-fourths required, because it might put it in the power of a small minority to govern the whole Union.
> 
> [_20 Aug._]
> 
> Mr. Scott objected to the clause in the sixth amendment, "No person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to *carry a gun*." He observed that if this becomes part of the constitution, such persons can neither be called upon for their services, nor can an equivalent be demanded; it is also attended with still further difficulties, for a militia can never be depended upon. This would lead to the violation of another article in the constitution, which secures to the people the right of *keeping *arms, and in this case recourse must be had to a standing army. I conceive it, said he, to be a legislative right altogether. There are many sects I know, who are religiously scrupulous in this respect; I do not mean to deprive them of any indulgence the law affords; my design is to guard against those who are of no religion. It has been urged that religion is on the decline; if so, the argument is more strong in my favor, for when the time comes that religion shall be discarded, the generality of persons will have recourse to these pretexts to get excused from bearing arms.
> 
> Mr. Boudinot thought the provision in the clause, or something similar to it, was necessary. Can any dependence, said he, be placed in men who are conscientious in this respect? or what justice can there be in compelling them to *carry a gun*, when, according to their religious principles, t*hey would rather die than use them*? He adverted to several instances of oppression on this point, that occurred during the war. In forming a militia, an effectual defence ought to be calculated, and no characters of this religious description ought to be compelled to take up arms. I hope that in establishing this Government, we may show the world that proper care is taken that the Government may not interfere with the religious sentiments of any person. Now, by striking out the clause, people may be led to believe that there is an intention in the General Government to compel all its citizens to *carry a gun*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay
> 
> 1) Why would the Founding Fathers COMPEL a person to carry guns with them at all time? I mean, you wake up at 3am and need to go to the outhouse to take a shit, and on the way a policeman stops you and asks why you don't have a gun. Then they fine you for not having a gun.
> 
> Can you find any evidence, outside of militia duty of federal service, where the Founding Fathers wanted individuals to be compelled to carry arms with them?
> 
> I'm thinking you can't. I've never seen such a thing.
> 
> 2) Okay, the reasons for this was they wanted to say "either you bear arms, or you pay an equivalent", again, why would people be compelled to pay money so they wouldn't have to carry guns around with them in the streets?
> 
> Again, any evidence for this? No.
> 
> I could go on and on.
> 
> There's no reason for the Founding Fathers to compel people to carry guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am advocating for a Ninth Amendment, right to not keep and bear Arms and draft gun lovers, first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We already have the right not to keep and bear arms. Your second part is a violation on due process and is unconstitutional. You are just a dumb bot.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Well regulated gun lovers may be necessary to the security of a free State.


----------



## danielpalos

turtledude said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> sorry R2D2  militias don't have rights, people do.  the right of individual people cannot be infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the Second Amendment doesn't give the right, does it?
> 
> The Second Amendment PROTECTS the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it says well regulated militia of the People are necessary to the security of a free State.  It does not say the unorganized militia is necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why didn't it say the right of those MEMBERS to bear arms.
> 
> I always thought the concept could be interpreted both ways.
> 
> That the well regulated militia could refer to the federal military being necessary as well.  So because of the existence of armed forces, then to check these, all the people need the right to bear arms so that authority is not abused to the point of oppression by military force.
> 
> Again danielpalos given the disagreements that continue today,
> it is no wonder the law was passed as written, so that both sides' beliefs
> can be interpreted and defended from the same passage as worded!
> 
> *In general danielpalos if you look at America's history, and especially if you look at Texas history including being an independent Republic that fought many wars, there has always been a tradition of independent citizens bearing arms to defend laws and rights on their own. *
> 
> Texas could NOT have joined the union with any such interpretation
> you are stating that Federal Govt would regulate the right to bear arms
> by regulating Miltia and restricting guns to that context!
> 
> Yours truly,
> Emily
> Glad to live in Texas!*
> 
> ** *_Maybe I am biased from being brought up in this culture of "rugged independence and self-governance" and with the teaching of Constitutional laws and traditions based on Natural Laws that came from God first and were put into written contracts in order for people to check the authority of govt._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It does. Well regulated militia are necessary. The unorganized militia is not declared necessary. Paragraph (2) of DC v Heller said so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong R2D2/
Click to expand...

Are you claiming paragraph (2) is not relevant?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos - ignored member:



> You are ignoring content by this member.  Show Ignored Content.


Lemme guess:

"The clueless and causeless wellness of regulation of the peoplitia's right to preform a collective military duty of dying for the United States shall not be infringed except when unorganized."


----------



## Papageorgio

danielpalos said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am going to change the words "bear arms" to "carry" or "carry a gun" and see how it works contextually:
> 
> The House again resolved itself into a committee, Mr.Boudinot in the chair, on the proposed amendments to the constitution. The third clause of the fourth proposition in the report was taken into consideration, being as follows: "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and *carry *arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to *carry a gun*."
> 
> Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from *carrying a gun*.
> (_*this paragraph is rather damning to your argument)*_
> 
> What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward. The Assembly of Massachusetts, seeing the rapid progress that administration were making to divest them of their inherent privileges, endeavored to counteract them by the organization of the militia; but they were always defeated by the influence of the Crown.
> 
> Mr. Seney wished to know what question there was before the committee, in order to ascertain the point upon which the gentleman was speaking.
> 
> Mr. Gerry replied that he meant to make a motion, as he disapproved of the words as they read. He then proceeded. No attempts that they made were successful, until they engaged in the struggle which emancipated them at once from their thraldom. Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. For this reason, he wished the words to be altered so as to be confined to persons belonging to a religious sect scrupulous of *carrying a gun*.
> 
> Mr. Jackson did not expect that all the people of the United States would turn Quakers or Moravians; consequently, one part would have to defend the other in case of invasion. Now this, in his opinion, was unjust, unless the constitution secured an equivalent: for this reason he moved to amend the clause, by inserting at the end of it, "upon paying an equivalent, to be established by law."
> 
> Mr. Smith, of South Carolina, inquired what were the words used by the conventions respecting this amendment. If the gentleman would conform to what was proposed by Virginia and Carolina, he would second him. He thought they were to be excused provided they found a substitute.
> 
> Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of *carrying a gun*, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent."
> 
> Mr. Sherman conceived it difficult to modify the clause and make it better. It is well known that those who are religiously scrupulous of *carrying a gun*, are equally scrupulous of getting substitutes or paying an equivalent. Many of them would rather die than do either one or the other; but he did not see an absolute necessity for a clause of this kind. We do not live under an arbitrary Government, said he, and the States, respectively, will have the government of the militia, unless when called into actual service; besides, it would not do to alter it so as to exclude the whole of any sect, because there are men amongst the Quakers who will turn out, notwithstanding the religious principles of the society, and defend the cause of their country. Certainly it will be improper to prevent the exercise of such favorable dispositions, at least whilst it is the practice of nations to determine their contests by the slaughter of their citizens and subjects.
> 
> Mr. Vining hoped the clause would be suffered to remain as it stood, because he saw no use in it if it was amended so as to compel a man to find a substitute, which, with respect to the Government, was the same as if the person himself turned out to fight.
> 
> Mr. Stone inquired what the words "religiously scrupulous" had reference to: was it of *carrying a gun*? If it was, it ought so to be expressed.
> 
> Mr. Benson moved to have the words "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to *carry a gun*," struck out. He would always leave it to the benevolence of the Legislature, for, modify it as you please, it will be impossible to express it in such a manner as to clear it from ambiguity. No man can claim this indulgence of right. It may be a religious persuasion, but it is no natural right, and therefore ought to be left to the discretion of the Government. If this stands part of the constitution, it will be a question before the Judiciary on every regulation you make with respect to the organization of the militia, whether it comports with this declaration or not. It is extremely injudicious to intermix matters of doubt with fundamentals.
> 
> I have no reason to believe but the Legislature will always possess humanity enough to indulge this class of citizens in a matter they are so desirous of; but they ought to be left to their discretion.
> 
> The motion for striking out the whole clause being seconded, was put, and decided in the negative--22 members voting for it, and 24 against it.
> 
> Mr. Gerry objected to the first part of the clause, on account of the uncertainty with which it is expressed. A well regulated militia being the best security of a free State, admitted an idea that a standing army was a secondary one. It ought to read, "a well regulated militia, trained to arms;" in which case it would become the duty of the Government to provide this security, and furnish a greater certainty of its being done.
> 
> Mr. Gerry's motion not being seconded, the question was put on the clause as reported; which being adopted,
> 
> Mr. Burke proposed to add to the clause just agreed to, an amendment to the following effect: "A standing army of regular troops in time of peace is dangerous to public liberty, and such shall not be raised or kept up in time of peace but from necessity, and for the security of the people, nor then without the consent of two-thirds of the members present of both Houses; and in all cases the military shall be subordinate to the civil authority." This being seconded.
> 
> Mr. Vining asked whether this was to be considered as an addition to the last clause, or an amendment by itself. If the former, he would remind the gentleman the clause was decided; if the latter, it was improper to introduce new matter, as the House had referred the report specially to the Committee of the whole.
> 
> Mr. Burke feared that, what with being trammelled in rules, and the apparent disposition of the committee, he should not be able to get them to consider any amendment; he submitted to such proceeding because he could not help himself.
> 
> Mr. Hartley thought the amendment in order, and was ready to give his opinion on it. He hoped the people of America would always be satisfied with having a majority to govern. He never wished to see two-thirds or three-fourths required, because it might put it in the power of a small minority to govern the whole Union.
> 
> [_20 Aug._]
> 
> Mr. Scott objected to the clause in the sixth amendment, "No person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to *carry a gun*." He observed that if this becomes part of the constitution, such persons can neither be called upon for their services, nor can an equivalent be demanded; it is also attended with still further difficulties, for a militia can never be depended upon. This would lead to the violation of another article in the constitution, which secures to the people the right of *keeping *arms, and in this case recourse must be had to a standing army. I conceive it, said he, to be a legislative right altogether. There are many sects I know, who are religiously scrupulous in this respect; I do not mean to deprive them of any indulgence the law affords; my design is to guard against those who are of no religion. It has been urged that religion is on the decline; if so, the argument is more strong in my favor, for when the time comes that religion shall be discarded, the generality of persons will have recourse to these pretexts to get excused from bearing arms.
> 
> Mr. Boudinot thought the provision in the clause, or something similar to it, was necessary. Can any dependence, said he, be placed in men who are conscientious in this respect? or what justice can there be in compelling them to *carry a gun*, when, according to their religious principles, t*hey would rather die than use them*? He adverted to several instances of oppression on this point, that occurred during the war. In forming a militia, an effectual defence ought to be calculated, and no characters of this religious description ought to be compelled to take up arms. I hope that in establishing this Government, we may show the world that proper care is taken that the Government may not interfere with the religious sentiments of any person. Now, by striking out the clause, people may be led to believe that there is an intention in the General Government to compel all its citizens to *carry a gun*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay
> 
> 1) Why would the Founding Fathers COMPEL a person to carry guns with them at all time? I mean, you wake up at 3am and need to go to the outhouse to take a shit, and on the way a policeman stops you and asks why you don't have a gun. Then they fine you for not having a gun.
> 
> Can you find any evidence, outside of militia duty of federal service, where the Founding Fathers wanted individuals to be compelled to carry arms with them?
> 
> I'm thinking you can't. I've never seen such a thing.
> 
> 2) Okay, the reasons for this was they wanted to say "either you bear arms, or you pay an equivalent", again, why would people be compelled to pay money so they wouldn't have to carry guns around with them in the streets?
> 
> Again, any evidence for this? No.
> 
> I could go on and on.
> 
> There's no reason for the Founding Fathers to compel people to carry guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am advocating for a Ninth Amendment, right to not keep and bear Arms and draft gun lovers, first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We already have the right not to keep and bear arms. Your second part is a violation on due process and is unconstitutional. You are just a dumb bot.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated gun lovers may be necessary to the security of a free State.
Click to expand...


Not sure what you are trying to say, sorry.


----------



## turtledude

danielpalos said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the Second Amendment doesn't give the right, does it?
> 
> The Second Amendment PROTECTS the right.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it says well regulated militia of the People are necessary to the security of a free State.  It does not say the unorganized militia is necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why didn't it say the right of those MEMBERS to bear arms.
> 
> I always thought the concept could be interpreted both ways.
> 
> That the well regulated militia could refer to the federal military being necessary as well.  So because of the existence of armed forces, then to check these, all the people need the right to bear arms so that authority is not abused to the point of oppression by military force.
> 
> Again danielpalos given the disagreements that continue today,
> it is no wonder the law was passed as written, so that both sides' beliefs
> can be interpreted and defended from the same passage as worded!
> 
> *In general danielpalos if you look at America's history, and especially if you look at Texas history including being an independent Republic that fought many wars, there has always been a tradition of independent citizens bearing arms to defend laws and rights on their own. *
> 
> Texas could NOT have joined the union with any such interpretation
> you are stating that Federal Govt would regulate the right to bear arms
> by regulating Miltia and restricting guns to that context!
> 
> Yours truly,
> Emily
> Glad to live in Texas!*
> 
> ** *_Maybe I am biased from being brought up in this culture of "rugged independence and self-governance" and with the teaching of Constitutional laws and traditions based on Natural Laws that came from God first and were put into written contracts in order for people to check the authority of govt._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It does. Well regulated militia are necessary. The unorganized militia is not declared necessary. Paragraph (2) of DC v Heller said so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong R2D2/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you claiming paragraph (2) is not relevant?
Click to expand...

you're not relevant R2D2


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

The organized, clue-full regulation of wellnitude of the cause-full peop-litia's collective right to be compelled to fight a war shall not be infringed.


----------



## turtledude

danielpalos said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am going to change the words "bear arms" to "carry" or "carry a gun" and see how it works contextually:
> 
> The House again resolved itself into a committee, Mr.Boudinot in the chair, on the proposed amendments to the constitution. The third clause of the fourth proposition in the report was taken into consideration, being as follows: "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and *carry *arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to *carry a gun*."
> 
> Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from *carrying a gun*.
> (_*this paragraph is rather damning to your argument)*_
> 
> What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward. The Assembly of Massachusetts, seeing the rapid progress that administration were making to divest them of their inherent privileges, endeavored to counteract them by the organization of the militia; but they were always defeated by the influence of the Crown.
> 
> Mr. Seney wished to know what question there was before the committee, in order to ascertain the point upon which the gentleman was speaking.
> 
> Mr. Gerry replied that he meant to make a motion, as he disapproved of the words as they read. He then proceeded. No attempts that they made were successful, until they engaged in the struggle which emancipated them at once from their thraldom. Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. For this reason, he wished the words to be altered so as to be confined to persons belonging to a religious sect scrupulous of *carrying a gun*.
> 
> Mr. Jackson did not expect that all the people of the United States would turn Quakers or Moravians; consequently, one part would have to defend the other in case of invasion. Now this, in his opinion, was unjust, unless the constitution secured an equivalent: for this reason he moved to amend the clause, by inserting at the end of it, "upon paying an equivalent, to be established by law."
> 
> Mr. Smith, of South Carolina, inquired what were the words used by the conventions respecting this amendment. If the gentleman would conform to what was proposed by Virginia and Carolina, he would second him. He thought they were to be excused provided they found a substitute.
> 
> Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of *carrying a gun*, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent."
> 
> Mr. Sherman conceived it difficult to modify the clause and make it better. It is well known that those who are religiously scrupulous of *carrying a gun*, are equally scrupulous of getting substitutes or paying an equivalent. Many of them would rather die than do either one or the other; but he did not see an absolute necessity for a clause of this kind. We do not live under an arbitrary Government, said he, and the States, respectively, will have the government of the militia, unless when called into actual service; besides, it would not do to alter it so as to exclude the whole of any sect, because there are men amongst the Quakers who will turn out, notwithstanding the religious principles of the society, and defend the cause of their country. Certainly it will be improper to prevent the exercise of such favorable dispositions, at least whilst it is the practice of nations to determine their contests by the slaughter of their citizens and subjects.
> 
> Mr. Vining hoped the clause would be suffered to remain as it stood, because he saw no use in it if it was amended so as to compel a man to find a substitute, which, with respect to the Government, was the same as if the person himself turned out to fight.
> 
> Mr. Stone inquired what the words "religiously scrupulous" had reference to: was it of *carrying a gun*? If it was, it ought so to be expressed.
> 
> Mr. Benson moved to have the words "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to *carry a gun*," struck out. He would always leave it to the benevolence of the Legislature, for, modify it as you please, it will be impossible to express it in such a manner as to clear it from ambiguity. No man can claim this indulgence of right. It may be a religious persuasion, but it is no natural right, and therefore ought to be left to the discretion of the Government. If this stands part of the constitution, it will be a question before the Judiciary on every regulation you make with respect to the organization of the militia, whether it comports with this declaration or not. It is extremely injudicious to intermix matters of doubt with fundamentals.
> 
> I have no reason to believe but the Legislature will always possess humanity enough to indulge this class of citizens in a matter they are so desirous of; but they ought to be left to their discretion.
> 
> The motion for striking out the whole clause being seconded, was put, and decided in the negative--22 members voting for it, and 24 against it.
> 
> Mr. Gerry objected to the first part of the clause, on account of the uncertainty with which it is expressed. A well regulated militia being the best security of a free State, admitted an idea that a standing army was a secondary one. It ought to read, "a well regulated militia, trained to arms;" in which case it would become the duty of the Government to provide this security, and furnish a greater certainty of its being done.
> 
> Mr. Gerry's motion not being seconded, the question was put on the clause as reported; which being adopted,
> 
> Mr. Burke proposed to add to the clause just agreed to, an amendment to the following effect: "A standing army of regular troops in time of peace is dangerous to public liberty, and such shall not be raised or kept up in time of peace but from necessity, and for the security of the people, nor then without the consent of two-thirds of the members present of both Houses; and in all cases the military shall be subordinate to the civil authority." This being seconded.
> 
> Mr. Vining asked whether this was to be considered as an addition to the last clause, or an amendment by itself. If the former, he would remind the gentleman the clause was decided; if the latter, it was improper to introduce new matter, as the House had referred the report specially to the Committee of the whole.
> 
> Mr. Burke feared that, what with being trammelled in rules, and the apparent disposition of the committee, he should not be able to get them to consider any amendment; he submitted to such proceeding because he could not help himself.
> 
> Mr. Hartley thought the amendment in order, and was ready to give his opinion on it. He hoped the people of America would always be satisfied with having a majority to govern. He never wished to see two-thirds or three-fourths required, because it might put it in the power of a small minority to govern the whole Union.
> 
> [_20 Aug._]
> 
> Mr. Scott objected to the clause in the sixth amendment, "No person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to *carry a gun*." He observed that if this becomes part of the constitution, such persons can neither be called upon for their services, nor can an equivalent be demanded; it is also attended with still further difficulties, for a militia can never be depended upon. This would lead to the violation of another article in the constitution, which secures to the people the right of *keeping *arms, and in this case recourse must be had to a standing army. I conceive it, said he, to be a legislative right altogether. There are many sects I know, who are religiously scrupulous in this respect; I do not mean to deprive them of any indulgence the law affords; my design is to guard against those who are of no religion. It has been urged that religion is on the decline; if so, the argument is more strong in my favor, for when the time comes that religion shall be discarded, the generality of persons will have recourse to these pretexts to get excused from bearing arms.
> 
> Mr. Boudinot thought the provision in the clause, or something similar to it, was necessary. Can any dependence, said he, be placed in men who are conscientious in this respect? or what justice can there be in compelling them to *carry a gun*, when, according to their religious principles, t*hey would rather die than use them*? He adverted to several instances of oppression on this point, that occurred during the war. In forming a militia, an effectual defence ought to be calculated, and no characters of this religious description ought to be compelled to take up arms. I hope that in establishing this Government, we may show the world that proper care is taken that the Government may not interfere with the religious sentiments of any person. Now, by striking out the clause, people may be led to believe that there is an intention in the General Government to compel all its citizens to *carry a gun*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay
> 
> 1) Why would the Founding Fathers COMPEL a person to carry guns with them at all time? I mean, you wake up at 3am and need to go to the outhouse to take a shit, and on the way a policeman stops you and asks why you don't have a gun. Then they fine you for not having a gun.
> 
> Can you find any evidence, outside of militia duty of federal service, where the Founding Fathers wanted individuals to be compelled to carry arms with them?
> 
> I'm thinking you can't. I've never seen such a thing.
> 
> 2) Okay, the reasons for this was they wanted to say "either you bear arms, or you pay an equivalent", again, why would people be compelled to pay money so they wouldn't have to carry guns around with them in the streets?
> 
> Again, any evidence for this? No.
> 
> I could go on and on.
> 
> There's no reason for the Founding Fathers to compel people to carry guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am advocating for a Ninth Amendment, right to not keep and bear Arms and draft gun lovers, first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We already have the right not to keep and bear arms. Your second part is a violation on due process and is unconstitutional. You are just a dumb bot.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated gun lovers may be necessary to the security of a free State.
Click to expand...


artificial intelligence bots masquerading as posters are not necessary to the free flow of discussion.  Rather, such bots are best seen as "Mordacs"-preventers of Information


----------



## turtledude

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> The organized, clue-full regulation of wellnitude of the cause-full peop-litia's collective right to be compelled to fight a war shall not be infringed.



the rights of people as proper persons as opposed to corporate citizens, to keep and program bots, is not necessary for a natural right of warfare discussion, therefore sovereign citizens can create artificial intelligence cyborgs pursuant to natural law


----------



## emilynghiem

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> The organized, clue-full regulation of wellnitude of the cause-full peop-litia's collective right to be compelled to fight a war shall not be infringed.



"A big unchecked govt -- being necessary to justify more taxes, outnumber Republicans, and scare NRA members into stockpiling more weapons -- the right of Liberals shall not be infringed in demanding all control of guns be entrusted to federal govt, except when protesting police and calling them racist pigs."


----------



## hunarcy

frigidweirdo said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would the Founding Fathers COMPEL a person to carry guns with them at all time? I mean, you wake up at 3am and need to go to the outhouse to take a shit, and on the way a policeman stops you and asks why you don't have a gun. Then they fine you for not havi
> 
> 
> 
> They wouldn't.  Your entire argument is
> Bear arms = military service
> 
> Your reasoning is that because they (allegedly) used the term "bear arms" in a synonomys manner with military service, what they really ment by "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" means the right to keep arms and serve in the military.
> 
> *Well, read this again:*
> 
> "Mr. Boudinot thought the provision in the clause, or something similar to it, was necessary. Can any dependence, said he, be placed in men who are conscientious in this respect? or what justice can there be in compelling them to bear arms, when, according to their religious principles, t*hey would rather die than use them*? He adverted to several instances of oppression on this point, that occurred during the war. In forming a militia, an effectual defence ought to be calculated, and no characters of this religious description ought to be compelled to take up arms. I hope that in establishing this Government, we may show the world that proper care is taken that the Government may not interfere with the religious sentiments of any person. Now, by striking out the clause, people may be led to believe that there is an intention in the General Government to compel all its citizens to bear arms."
> 
> Use what?  Arms?  Not military service, but use guns.
> 
> So, are you arguning that bear arms means use guns?  Because that's how Mr. Boudinot used the term.  He was referring to guns specifically, and their use.
> 
> Bear arms means use guns.
> 
> You are right.  We don't have the right to keep and carry.  We have the right to keep and employ the use of guns...anytime we want...shall not be infringed.  You pinted yourself into that corner.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, my argument is bear arms - militia duty.
> 
> Allegedly used "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service" and "militia duty"? How is it allegedly? It's there, plain for everyone to see, I've mentioned it a hundred times and you've never been able to show that it's not.
> 
> Your Mr Boudinot quote, I'm not really sure you have a point at all. Use what? Use arms of course. In the militia use use arms.
> 
> In his quote he said "He adverted to several instances of oppression on this point, that occurred during the war." War? Yes, war. In war you use guns. Some people are religiously scrupulous of using guns, which means they're also religiously scrupulous of going to war.
> 
> However you're in the militia or the military in order to be going to war, right?
> 
> The guns and the war and all of that stuff are all bound up in the same thing.
> 
> "In forming a militia, an effectual defence ought to be calculated, and no characters of this religious description ought to be compelled to take up arms."
> 
> Then he says this. In forming a militia, an effectual defence.....
> 
> Then "compelled to take up arms", this is rather different to "carrying arms", take up arms, sounds rather military to me.
> 
> You haven't made much of a case for carry being a right.
> 
> If it were a right, the NRA wouldn't stand for carry and conceal permits for a RIGHT, now would they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> bear means to carry.  Your imagination cannot create an alternate meaning to support what you want to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it does.
> 
> And stool means a shit. Doesn't mean because it CAN mean shit, it DOES mean shit.
> 
> There are at least five separate meanings of the word "bear", one means to give birth to, does that mean because it can mean "give birth to guns" that this MUST be what it means?
> 
> Give me a break, this is simple English.
Click to expand...


Sadly, you are absolutely wasting time because you know only one definition applies.  Glad I was out of town.


----------



## hunarcy

frigidweirdo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> They wouldn't.  Your entire argument is
> Bear arms = military service
> 
> Your reasoning is that because they (allegedly) used the term "bear arms" in a synonomys manner with military service, what they really ment by "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" means the right to keep arms and serve in the military.
> 
> *Well, read this again:*
> 
> "Mr. Boudinot thought the provision in the clause, or something similar to it, was necessary. Can any dependence, said he, be placed in men who are conscientious in this respect? or what justice can there be in compelling them to bear arms, when, according to their religious principles, t*hey would rather die than use them*? He adverted to several instances of oppression on this point, that occurred during the war. In forming a militia, an effectual defence ought to be calculated, and no characters of this religious description ought to be compelled to take up arms. I hope that in establishing this Government, we may show the world that proper care is taken that the Government may not interfere with the religious sentiments of any person. Now, by striking out the clause, people may be led to believe that there is an intention in the General Government to compel all its citizens to bear arms."
> 
> Use what?  Arms?  Not military service, but use guns.
> 
> So, are you arguning that bear arms means use guns?  Because that's how Mr. Boudinot used the term.  He was referring to guns specifically, and their use.
> 
> Bear arms means use guns.
> 
> You are right.  We don't have the right to keep and carry.  We have the right to keep and employ the use of guns...anytime we want...shall not be infringed.  You pinted yourself into that corner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, my argument is bear arms - militia duty.
> 
> Allegedly used "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service" and "militia duty"? How is it allegedly? It's there, plain for everyone to see, I've mentioned it a hundred times and you've never been able to show that it's not.
> 
> Your Mr Boudinot quote, I'm not really sure you have a point at all. Use what? Use arms of course. In the militia use use arms.
> 
> In his quote he said "He adverted to several instances of oppression on this point, that occurred during the war." War? Yes, war. In war you use guns. Some people are religiously scrupulous of using guns, which means they're also religiously scrupulous of going to war.
> 
> However you're in the militia or the military in order to be going to war, right?
> 
> The guns and the war and all of that stuff are all bound up in the same thing.
> 
> "In forming a militia, an effectual defence ought to be calculated, and no characters of this religious description ought to be compelled to take up arms."
> 
> Then he says this. In forming a militia, an effectual defence.....
> 
> Then "compelled to take up arms", this is rather different to "carrying arms", take up arms, sounds rather military to me.
> 
> You haven't made much of a case for carry being a right.
> 
> If it were a right, the NRA wouldn't stand for carry and conceal permits for a RIGHT, now would they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> bear means to carry.  Your imagination cannot create an alternate meaning to support what you want to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it does.
> 
> And stool means a shit. Doesn't mean because it CAN mean shit, it DOES mean shit.
> 
> There are at least five separate meanings of the word "bear", one means to give birth to, does that mean because it can mean "give birth to guns" that this MUST be what it means?
> 
> Give me a break, this is simple English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can we agree frigidweirdo the purpose of the Second Amendment
> is the federal govt will not totally deprive people of the right to bear arms.
> 
> And where people disagree is to what extent either
> a. the rules of the militia apply to the people
> or
> b. the federal govt still regulates either the militia or the people
> (but just can't deprive this right completely)
> 
> Is that assessment close enough? To where people generally agree
> and where the conflicts lie.
> 
> If so, this sounds similar to the free exercise clause and the THREE issues there
> 1. not ESTABLISHING it by govt (and certainly NOT COMPELLING it as you and others discuss here)
> 2. not PROHIBITING totally
> 3. but to what degree can govt enforce "conditions" or "regulations"
> Example: a religion that has people killing or harming others to "exorcise them from demons"
> or depriving medical care to save the life of a child under the age of legal consent
> (or in the case of ACA penalizing people for not complying with mandates that violate
> their Constitutional beliefs but exempting "only certain religious members" from taxes while fining others)
> (also this business of barring Christian exercise or expression in relation to public property, policy or institutions
> but ENDORSING LGBT beliefs, expressions and exercise to the point of PENALIZING others with conflicting beliefs)
> 
> If we can at least agree the govt should neither prohibit nor compel,
> then we can focus on where the majority of arguments lie
> is on what level and to what extent can the actual "exercise" of bearing arms
> be "regulated" for the purpose of preventing ABUSE that would violate law.
> 
> The tricky part here, if we don't agree on the meaning of federal/Constitutional law,
> then both sides can go in circles arguing "not to violate that" where they don't even agree in the first place.
> 
> What I suggest here, is to let each person have their OWN layout of where they draw the lines
> between federal, militia, and people, and stick within their OWN paradigm or framework.
> 
> These do NOT have to agree COMPLETELY with the next person.
> Or you'll waste all day arguing what shade of grey is closer to black than white.
> We'd have to pick apart each person's system by the PIXELS and use their OWN system for THEM to follow.
> And group people by pixelation so at least those folks can communicate and agree with each other
> what are violations or what is proper regulations UNDER THEIR WAY of delineating federal/militia/people.
> 
> Then mediate between the subgroups and try to manage a consensus that
> accommodates all these ways, so everyone can access representation by their system or the closest to it.
> 
> It doesn't have to be perfectly 100% as long as people AGREE it's close enough for them to feel secure and included.
> 
> Thanks frigidweirdo I think someone like you could help orchestrate
> such groups and help communicate between them. You may specialize
> in this particular area more than I do.  I'm more into explaining how to
> separate the religious and political beliefs in general, but don't go into
> as much historical detail as you and others here are able to discuss in depth.
> 
> The fact you have differences is actually good, that defines and maps out the
> logistics of what we are facing. Most people can't get past the skin and you
> are getting into the meat of the matter. So this is excellent, and I welcome
> all the contributions especially where these disagree. We need to know what
> we are dealing with beneath the surface if we are going to do "reconstructive"
> surgery and align arteries with arteries and veins with veins so the system works
> even with different functions of the arteries and veins going in opposite directions.
> 
> We just need to organize people of like beliefs, and we can deal with both schools of thoughts,
> and all variations thereof.
> 
> Thanks you frigidweirdo and please do consider seriously
> my proposal to form a task force on mediating these differences
> instead of people bullying back and forth and attacking each other's party members and leaders over this.
> We need equal inclusion, not dominating one belief system over another.
> And we can work out all other differences and conflicts from there!
> 
> Thanks for spelling out how you see it, which helps TREMENDOUSLY!!!
> I don't even get or follow it all, but see as long as you get it you can explain to others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issue here is the meaning of the term "bear arms".
> 
> On the one hand you have people with an agenda twisting history to meet their agenda, ignoring almost all of the facts, pretending the English language is rigid and doing whatever the hell they want.
> 
> On the other hand you have facts, logic and an argument.
> 
> You want a task force to mediate on this?
> 
> What?
Click to expand...


YOU are the one with an agenda that is trying to twist things and ignoring facts.


----------



## frigidweirdo

hunarcy said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would the Founding Fathers COMPEL a person to carry guns with them at all time? I mean, you wake up at 3am and need to go to the outhouse to take a shit, and on the way a policeman stops you and asks why you don't have a gun. Then they fine you for not havi
> 
> 
> 
> They wouldn't.  Your entire argument is
> Bear arms = military service
> 
> Your reasoning is that because they (allegedly) used the term "bear arms" in a synonomys manner with military service, what they really ment by "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" means the right to keep arms and serve in the military.
> 
> *Well, read this again:*
> 
> "Mr. Boudinot thought the provision in the clause, or something similar to it, was necessary. Can any dependence, said he, be placed in men who are conscientious in this respect? or what justice can there be in compelling them to bear arms, when, according to their religious principles, t*hey would rather die than use them*? He adverted to several instances of oppression on this point, that occurred during the war. In forming a militia, an effectual defence ought to be calculated, and no characters of this religious description ought to be compelled to take up arms. I hope that in establishing this Government, we may show the world that proper care is taken that the Government may not interfere with the religious sentiments of any person. Now, by striking out the clause, people may be led to believe that there is an intention in the General Government to compel all its citizens to bear arms."
> 
> Use what?  Arms?  Not military service, but use guns.
> 
> So, are you arguning that bear arms means use guns?  Because that's how Mr. Boudinot used the term.  He was referring to guns specifically, and their use.
> 
> Bear arms means use guns.
> 
> You are right.  We don't have the right to keep and carry.  We have the right to keep and employ the use of guns...anytime we want...shall not be infringed.  You pinted yourself into that corner.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, my argument is bear arms - militia duty.
> 
> Allegedly used "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service" and "militia duty"? How is it allegedly? It's there, plain for everyone to see, I've mentioned it a hundred times and you've never been able to show that it's not.
> 
> Your Mr Boudinot quote, I'm not really sure you have a point at all. Use what? Use arms of course. In the militia use use arms.
> 
> In his quote he said "He adverted to several instances of oppression on this point, that occurred during the war." War? Yes, war. In war you use guns. Some people are religiously scrupulous of using guns, which means they're also religiously scrupulous of going to war.
> 
> However you're in the militia or the military in order to be going to war, right?
> 
> The guns and the war and all of that stuff are all bound up in the same thing.
> 
> "In forming a militia, an effectual defence ought to be calculated, and no characters of this religious description ought to be compelled to take up arms."
> 
> Then he says this. In forming a militia, an effectual defence.....
> 
> Then "compelled to take up arms", this is rather different to "carrying arms", take up arms, sounds rather military to me.
> 
> You haven't made much of a case for carry being a right.
> 
> If it were a right, the NRA wouldn't stand for carry and conceal permits for a RIGHT, now would they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> bear means to carry.  Your imagination cannot create an alternate meaning to support what you want to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it does.
> 
> And stool means a shit. Doesn't mean because it CAN mean shit, it DOES mean shit.
> 
> There are at least five separate meanings of the word "bear", one means to give birth to, does that mean because it can mean "give birth to guns" that this MUST be what it means?
> 
> Give me a break, this is simple English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sadly, you are absolutely wasting time because you know only one definition applies.  Glad I was out of town.
Click to expand...


I know all of the definitions of "bear", I also know how the Founding Fathers used the term "bear arms", and it's pretty clear to anyone who doesn't have their head stuck up their ass.


----------



## frigidweirdo

hunarcy said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, my argument is bear arms - militia duty.
> 
> Allegedly used "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service" and "militia duty"? How is it allegedly? It's there, plain for everyone to see, I've mentioned it a hundred times and you've never been able to show that it's not.
> 
> Your Mr Boudinot quote, I'm not really sure you have a point at all. Use what? Use arms of course. In the militia use use arms.
> 
> In his quote he said "He adverted to several instances of oppression on this point, that occurred during the war." War? Yes, war. In war you use guns. Some people are religiously scrupulous of using guns, which means they're also religiously scrupulous of going to war.
> 
> However you're in the militia or the military in order to be going to war, right?
> 
> The guns and the war and all of that stuff are all bound up in the same thing.
> 
> "In forming a militia, an effectual defence ought to be calculated, and no characters of this religious description ought to be compelled to take up arms."
> 
> Then he says this. In forming a militia, an effectual defence.....
> 
> Then "compelled to take up arms", this is rather different to "carrying arms", take up arms, sounds rather military to me.
> 
> You haven't made much of a case for carry being a right.
> 
> If it were a right, the NRA wouldn't stand for carry and conceal permits for a RIGHT, now would they?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear means to carry.  Your imagination cannot create an alternate meaning to support what you want to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it does.
> 
> And stool means a shit. Doesn't mean because it CAN mean shit, it DOES mean shit.
> 
> There are at least five separate meanings of the word "bear", one means to give birth to, does that mean because it can mean "give birth to guns" that this MUST be what it means?
> 
> Give me a break, this is simple English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can we agree frigidweirdo the purpose of the Second Amendment
> is the federal govt will not totally deprive people of the right to bear arms.
> 
> And where people disagree is to what extent either
> a. the rules of the militia apply to the people
> or
> b. the federal govt still regulates either the militia or the people
> (but just can't deprive this right completely)
> 
> Is that assessment close enough? To where people generally agree
> and where the conflicts lie.
> 
> If so, this sounds similar to the free exercise clause and the THREE issues there
> 1. not ESTABLISHING it by govt (and certainly NOT COMPELLING it as you and others discuss here)
> 2. not PROHIBITING totally
> 3. but to what degree can govt enforce "conditions" or "regulations"
> Example: a religion that has people killing or harming others to "exorcise them from demons"
> or depriving medical care to save the life of a child under the age of legal consent
> (or in the case of ACA penalizing people for not complying with mandates that violate
> their Constitutional beliefs but exempting "only certain religious members" from taxes while fining others)
> (also this business of barring Christian exercise or expression in relation to public property, policy or institutions
> but ENDORSING LGBT beliefs, expressions and exercise to the point of PENALIZING others with conflicting beliefs)
> 
> If we can at least agree the govt should neither prohibit nor compel,
> then we can focus on where the majority of arguments lie
> is on what level and to what extent can the actual "exercise" of bearing arms
> be "regulated" for the purpose of preventing ABUSE that would violate law.
> 
> The tricky part here, if we don't agree on the meaning of federal/Constitutional law,
> then both sides can go in circles arguing "not to violate that" where they don't even agree in the first place.
> 
> What I suggest here, is to let each person have their OWN layout of where they draw the lines
> between federal, militia, and people, and stick within their OWN paradigm or framework.
> 
> These do NOT have to agree COMPLETELY with the next person.
> Or you'll waste all day arguing what shade of grey is closer to black than white.
> We'd have to pick apart each person's system by the PIXELS and use their OWN system for THEM to follow.
> And group people by pixelation so at least those folks can communicate and agree with each other
> what are violations or what is proper regulations UNDER THEIR WAY of delineating federal/militia/people.
> 
> Then mediate between the subgroups and try to manage a consensus that
> accommodates all these ways, so everyone can access representation by their system or the closest to it.
> 
> It doesn't have to be perfectly 100% as long as people AGREE it's close enough for them to feel secure and included.
> 
> Thanks frigidweirdo I think someone like you could help orchestrate
> such groups and help communicate between them. You may specialize
> in this particular area more than I do.  I'm more into explaining how to
> separate the religious and political beliefs in general, but don't go into
> as much historical detail as you and others here are able to discuss in depth.
> 
> The fact you have differences is actually good, that defines and maps out the
> logistics of what we are facing. Most people can't get past the skin and you
> are getting into the meat of the matter. So this is excellent, and I welcome
> all the contributions especially where these disagree. We need to know what
> we are dealing with beneath the surface if we are going to do "reconstructive"
> surgery and align arteries with arteries and veins with veins so the system works
> even with different functions of the arteries and veins going in opposite directions.
> 
> We just need to organize people of like beliefs, and we can deal with both schools of thoughts,
> and all variations thereof.
> 
> Thanks you frigidweirdo and please do consider seriously
> my proposal to form a task force on mediating these differences
> instead of people bullying back and forth and attacking each other's party members and leaders over this.
> We need equal inclusion, not dominating one belief system over another.
> And we can work out all other differences and conflicts from there!
> 
> Thanks for spelling out how you see it, which helps TREMENDOUSLY!!!
> I don't even get or follow it all, but see as long as you get it you can explain to others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issue here is the meaning of the term "bear arms".
> 
> On the one hand you have people with an agenda twisting history to meet their agenda, ignoring almost all of the facts, pretending the English language is rigid and doing whatever the hell they want.
> 
> On the other hand you have facts, logic and an argument.
> 
> You want a task force to mediate on this?
> 
> What?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOU are the one with an agenda that is trying to twist things and ignoring facts.
Click to expand...


What facts would I be ignoring then?


----------



## hunarcy

frigidweirdo said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> They wouldn't.  Your entire argument is
> Bear arms = military service
> 
> Your reasoning is that because they (allegedly) used the term "bear arms" in a synonomys manner with military service, what they really ment by "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" means the right to keep arms and serve in the military.
> 
> *Well, read this again:*
> 
> "Mr. Boudinot thought the provision in the clause, or something similar to it, was necessary. Can any dependence, said he, be placed in men who are conscientious in this respect? or what justice can there be in compelling them to bear arms, when, according to their religious principles, t*hey would rather die than use them*? He adverted to several instances of oppression on this point, that occurred during the war. In forming a militia, an effectual defence ought to be calculated, and no characters of this religious description ought to be compelled to take up arms. I hope that in establishing this Government, we may show the world that proper care is taken that the Government may not interfere with the religious sentiments of any person. Now, by striking out the clause, people may be led to believe that there is an intention in the General Government to compel all its citizens to bear arms."
> 
> Use what?  Arms?  Not military service, but use guns.
> 
> So, are you arguning that bear arms means use guns?  Because that's how Mr. Boudinot used the term.  He was referring to guns specifically, and their use.
> 
> Bear arms means use guns.
> 
> You are right.  We don't have the right to keep and carry.  We have the right to keep and employ the use of guns...anytime we want...shall not be infringed.  You pinted yourself into that corner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, my argument is bear arms - militia duty.
> 
> Allegedly used "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service" and "militia duty"? How is it allegedly? It's there, plain for everyone to see, I've mentioned it a hundred times and you've never been able to show that it's not.
> 
> Your Mr Boudinot quote, I'm not really sure you have a point at all. Use what? Use arms of course. In the militia use use arms.
> 
> In his quote he said "He adverted to several instances of oppression on this point, that occurred during the war." War? Yes, war. In war you use guns. Some people are religiously scrupulous of using guns, which means they're also religiously scrupulous of going to war.
> 
> However you're in the militia or the military in order to be going to war, right?
> 
> The guns and the war and all of that stuff are all bound up in the same thing.
> 
> "In forming a militia, an effectual defence ought to be calculated, and no characters of this religious description ought to be compelled to take up arms."
> 
> Then he says this. In forming a militia, an effectual defence.....
> 
> Then "compelled to take up arms", this is rather different to "carrying arms", take up arms, sounds rather military to me.
> 
> You haven't made much of a case for carry being a right.
> 
> If it were a right, the NRA wouldn't stand for carry and conceal permits for a RIGHT, now would they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> bear means to carry.  Your imagination cannot create an alternate meaning to support what you want to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it does.
> 
> And stool means a shit. Doesn't mean because it CAN mean shit, it DOES mean shit.
> 
> There are at least five separate meanings of the word "bear", one means to give birth to, does that mean because it can mean "give birth to guns" that this MUST be what it means?
> 
> Give me a break, this is simple English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sadly, you are absolutely wasting time because you know only one definition applies.  Glad I was out of town.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know all of the definitions of "bear", I also know how the Founding Fathers used the term "bear arms", and it's pretty clear to anyone who doesn't have their head stuck up their ass.
Click to expand...


Then you should apologize for wasting our time and pull your head out of your ass.  Happy Thanksgiving.


----------



## hunarcy

frigidweirdo said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> bear means to carry.  Your imagination cannot create an alternate meaning to support what you want to believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does.
> 
> And stool means a shit. Doesn't mean because it CAN mean shit, it DOES mean shit.
> 
> There are at least five separate meanings of the word "bear", one means to give birth to, does that mean because it can mean "give birth to guns" that this MUST be what it means?
> 
> Give me a break, this is simple English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can we agree frigidweirdo the purpose of the Second Amendment
> is the federal govt will not totally deprive people of the right to bear arms.
> 
> And where people disagree is to what extent either
> a. the rules of the militia apply to the people
> or
> b. the federal govt still regulates either the militia or the people
> (but just can't deprive this right completely)
> 
> Is that assessment close enough? To where people generally agree
> and where the conflicts lie.
> 
> If so, this sounds similar to the free exercise clause and the THREE issues there
> 1. not ESTABLISHING it by govt (and certainly NOT COMPELLING it as you and others discuss here)
> 2. not PROHIBITING totally
> 3. but to what degree can govt enforce "conditions" or "regulations"
> Example: a religion that has people killing or harming others to "exorcise them from demons"
> or depriving medical care to save the life of a child under the age of legal consent
> (or in the case of ACA penalizing people for not complying with mandates that violate
> their Constitutional beliefs but exempting "only certain religious members" from taxes while fining others)
> (also this business of barring Christian exercise or expression in relation to public property, policy or institutions
> but ENDORSING LGBT beliefs, expressions and exercise to the point of PENALIZING others with conflicting beliefs)
> 
> If we can at least agree the govt should neither prohibit nor compel,
> then we can focus on where the majority of arguments lie
> is on what level and to what extent can the actual "exercise" of bearing arms
> be "regulated" for the purpose of preventing ABUSE that would violate law.
> 
> The tricky part here, if we don't agree on the meaning of federal/Constitutional law,
> then both sides can go in circles arguing "not to violate that" where they don't even agree in the first place.
> 
> What I suggest here, is to let each person have their OWN layout of where they draw the lines
> between federal, militia, and people, and stick within their OWN paradigm or framework.
> 
> These do NOT have to agree COMPLETELY with the next person.
> Or you'll waste all day arguing what shade of grey is closer to black than white.
> We'd have to pick apart each person's system by the PIXELS and use their OWN system for THEM to follow.
> And group people by pixelation so at least those folks can communicate and agree with each other
> what are violations or what is proper regulations UNDER THEIR WAY of delineating federal/militia/people.
> 
> Then mediate between the subgroups and try to manage a consensus that
> accommodates all these ways, so everyone can access representation by their system or the closest to it.
> 
> It doesn't have to be perfectly 100% as long as people AGREE it's close enough for them to feel secure and included.
> 
> Thanks frigidweirdo I think someone like you could help orchestrate
> such groups and help communicate between them. You may specialize
> in this particular area more than I do.  I'm more into explaining how to
> separate the religious and political beliefs in general, but don't go into
> as much historical detail as you and others here are able to discuss in depth.
> 
> The fact you have differences is actually good, that defines and maps out the
> logistics of what we are facing. Most people can't get past the skin and you
> are getting into the meat of the matter. So this is excellent, and I welcome
> all the contributions especially where these disagree. We need to know what
> we are dealing with beneath the surface if we are going to do "reconstructive"
> surgery and align arteries with arteries and veins with veins so the system works
> even with different functions of the arteries and veins going in opposite directions.
> 
> We just need to organize people of like beliefs, and we can deal with both schools of thoughts,
> and all variations thereof.
> 
> Thanks you frigidweirdo and please do consider seriously
> my proposal to form a task force on mediating these differences
> instead of people bullying back and forth and attacking each other's party members and leaders over this.
> We need equal inclusion, not dominating one belief system over another.
> And we can work out all other differences and conflicts from there!
> 
> Thanks for spelling out how you see it, which helps TREMENDOUSLY!!!
> I don't even get or follow it all, but see as long as you get it you can explain to others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issue here is the meaning of the term "bear arms".
> 
> On the one hand you have people with an agenda twisting history to meet their agenda, ignoring almost all of the facts, pretending the English language is rigid and doing whatever the hell they want.
> 
> On the other hand you have facts, logic and an argument.
> 
> You want a task force to mediate on this?
> 
> What?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOU are the one with an agenda that is trying to twist things and ignoring facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What facts would I be ignoring then?
Click to expand...


The definition for bear arms, for example.  You really are so determined to be pedantic that I'm starting to pity you.  I hope your Thanksgiving is a good one.


----------



## frigidweirdo

hunarcy said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, my argument is bear arms - militia duty.
> 
> Allegedly used "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service" and "militia duty"? How is it allegedly? It's there, plain for everyone to see, I've mentioned it a hundred times and you've never been able to show that it's not.
> 
> Your Mr Boudinot quote, I'm not really sure you have a point at all. Use what? Use arms of course. In the militia use use arms.
> 
> In his quote he said "He adverted to several instances of oppression on this point, that occurred during the war." War? Yes, war. In war you use guns. Some people are religiously scrupulous of using guns, which means they're also religiously scrupulous of going to war.
> 
> However you're in the militia or the military in order to be going to war, right?
> 
> The guns and the war and all of that stuff are all bound up in the same thing.
> 
> "In forming a militia, an effectual defence ought to be calculated, and no characters of this religious description ought to be compelled to take up arms."
> 
> Then he says this. In forming a militia, an effectual defence.....
> 
> Then "compelled to take up arms", this is rather different to "carrying arms", take up arms, sounds rather military to me.
> 
> You haven't made much of a case for carry being a right.
> 
> If it were a right, the NRA wouldn't stand for carry and conceal permits for a RIGHT, now would they?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear means to carry.  Your imagination cannot create an alternate meaning to support what you want to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it does.
> 
> And stool means a shit. Doesn't mean because it CAN mean shit, it DOES mean shit.
> 
> There are at least five separate meanings of the word "bear", one means to give birth to, does that mean because it can mean "give birth to guns" that this MUST be what it means?
> 
> Give me a break, this is simple English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sadly, you are absolutely wasting time because you know only one definition applies.  Glad I was out of town.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know all of the definitions of "bear", I also know how the Founding Fathers used the term "bear arms", and it's pretty clear to anyone who doesn't have their head stuck up their ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you should apologize for wasting our time and pull your head out of your ass.  Happy Thanksgiving.
Click to expand...


I'll tell you what, I'll put your ass on ignore. How about that.You go run along and kill some injuns, and then when you get back, I'll be out of your sorry life. 

Bye.


----------



## turtledude

frigidweirdo said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> bear means to carry.  Your imagination cannot create an alternate meaning to support what you want to believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does.
> 
> And stool means a shit. Doesn't mean because it CAN mean shit, it DOES mean shit.
> 
> There are at least five separate meanings of the word "bear", one means to give birth to, does that mean because it can mean "give birth to guns" that this MUST be what it means?
> 
> Give me a break, this is simple English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sadly, you are absolutely wasting time because you know only one definition applies.  Glad I was out of town.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know all of the definitions of "bear", I also know how the Founding Fathers used the term "bear arms", and it's pretty clear to anyone who doesn't have their head stuck up their ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you should apologize for wasting our time and pull your head out of your ass.  Happy Thanksgiving.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll tell you what, I'll put your ass on ignore. How about that.You go run along and kill some injuns, and then when you get back, I'll be out of your sorry life.
> 
> Bye.
Click to expand...


don't go away mad, just go away


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lakhota said:


> Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited  never have been and never will be  Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star



That phrase "shall not be infringed" really confuses you, huh?  Probably the presence of a two-syllable word.


----------



## Cecilie1200

waltky said:


> Maybe not obsolete but antiquated, out of date...
> 
> ... it needs to be updated to reflect the times...
> 
> ... and the threat of overkill firepower...
> 
> ... for the average citizen.



Nope.

Nope.

And nope.


----------



## Cecilie1200

TheOldSchool said:


> It's definitely not the most important amendment, like most conservatives argue, but it's not obsolete.  We're the United Freakin States.  We were founded on a revolutionary crazy notion that people are allowed to be as free as they want.
> 
> If you take away that crazy, then we're closer to being like the French.  And no one wants that.



Important is an utterly subjective term, since it depends on the priorities of the person.  To many people, it IS the most important.  To anyone with a knowlege of history and human nature, it is definitely as important as any.  To people who lounge in their easy chairs, assuming that their freedom is simply a law of nature, like winter following summer, it is negligible.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lakhota said:


> I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed.  It's just a matter of time...



Yes, it is ALWAYS only a matter of time before the tyrants show up and demolish freedoms that have been neglected and allowed to erode.  Thanks for warning us of your designs on totalitarianism.


----------



## Lakhota

*Las Vegas Shooter Fired More Than 1,100 Rounds, Police Say*

Sensible gun control could solve that problem.  Ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.  Maybe even ban semi-automatic weapons for civilian use.


----------



## emilynghiem

Lakhota said:


> *Las Vegas Shooter Fired More Than 1,100 Rounds, Police Say*
> 
> Sensible gun control could solve that problem.  Ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.  Maybe even ban semi-automatic weapons for civilian use.



Sure Lakhota
As if banning and regulating abortions is going to prevent unwanted pregnancies that cause abortions.
Last I checked, the argument against this was people were going to get abortions anyway.
So making them illegal isn't going to solve the problems CAUSING the abortions.

Banning guns isn't going to solve the problem of mental and criminal illness
behind abusing weapons for crimes whether murder-suicide, mass shootings, etc.

However, Lakhota, if you want to make it a requirement
that people who buy these specialized firearms
get insurance, screening or licensing through an agreed institution,
including the NRA if they want to take on responsibility for screening
and gun insurance, then perhaps the requirement could be agreed on
to use spiritual healing methods for diagnosing, treating and curing mental disorders.

That wouldn't be a ban, but an agreed process of screening for mental illness.
If the NRA doesn't agree with govt doing this and setting up regulations,
maybe they should be in charge of screening and insuring their own members
under rules they agree would ensure Constitutional compliance and not abuses.


----------



## turtledude

Lakhota said:


> *Las Vegas Shooter Fired More Than 1,100 Rounds, Police Say*
> 
> Sensible gun control could solve that problem.  Ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.  Maybe even ban semi-automatic weapons for civilian use.



you're an idiot.  almost every modern handgun used by civilian police is semi auto.  stupid moron.


----------



## turtledude

emilynghiem said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Las Vegas Shooter Fired More Than 1,100 Rounds, Police Say*
> 
> Sensible gun control could solve that problem.  Ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.  Maybe even ban semi-automatic weapons for civilian use.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Lakhota
> As if banning and regulating abortions is going to prevent unwanted pregnancies that cause abortions.
> Last I checked, the argument against this was people were going to get abortions anyway.
> So making them illegal isn't going to solve the problems CAUSING the abortions.
Click to expand...


society would be better if morons who want to ban stuff were seen as social pariahs and shunned by intelligent people.  Chief Lying Dog is a hard core bannerrhoid idiot


----------



## frigidweirdo

Cecilie1200 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited  never have been and never will be  Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That phrase "shall not be infringed" really confuses you, huh?  Probably the presence of a two-syllable word.
Click to expand...


Confuses me. How come the insane can't have guns, or prisoners?


----------



## emilynghiem

turtledude said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Las Vegas Shooter Fired More Than 1,100 Rounds, Police Say*
> 
> Sensible gun control could solve that problem.  Ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.  Maybe even ban semi-automatic weapons for civilian use.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure Lakhota
> As if banning and regulating abortions is going to prevent unwanted pregnancies that cause abortions.
> Last I checked, the argument against this was people were going to get abortions anyway.
> So making them illegal isn't going to solve the problems CAUSING the abortions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> society would be better if morons who want to ban stuff were seen as social pariahs and shunned by intelligent people.  Chief Lying Dog is a hard core bannerrhoid idiot
Click to expand...


Simple turtledude just hold liberals such as Lakhota
to their own self-proclaimed standards when it comes to abortion.
Demand that these political beliefs be treated equally,
instead of arguing to regulate one while deregulating the other.

Let's address the real conflicts and solutions to the real causes and problems
instead of arguing over how to regulate the symptoms "after the fact."


----------



## 2aguy

Lakhota said:


> *Las Vegas Shooter Fired More Than 1,100 Rounds, Police Say*
> 
> Sensible gun control could solve that problem.  Ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.  Maybe even ban semi-automatic weapons for civilian use.




And you have been shown that he could have killed more people using a rental truck...

1,100 round of ammunition fired....58 murdered.

1 rental truck in 5 minutes....89 murdered.  so you must of course think that all trucks must be banned now...right?  Since one rental truck murdered more people than the 6 mass public shootings in 2016 combined...right?

And of course you have been shown that magazine capacity has no bearing on the murder rate in mass shootings, and rental trucks are deadlier than rifles......as are knives.....which murder over 1,500 people every single year.....


----------



## emilynghiem

frigidweirdo said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited  never have been and never will be  Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That phrase "shall not be infringed" really confuses you, huh?  Probably the presence of a two-syllable word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Confuses me. How come the insane can't have guns, or prisoners?
Click to expand...


Because if people are not legally competent, they require a guardian
to be legally responsible for them including them having access to guns or using them.

As for prisoners, if the crime for which you are convicted calls for deprivation of liberty and freedom
then you can lose rights by the laws.

In general, right of the people implies law abiding citizens.
you call this well-regulated militia, but it means citizens who commit to uphold and defend the laws not violate them.

Prisoners, being convicted of crimes, have violated laws and thus merit loss of liberties.
If people are found to be insane and not able to comply with laws, 
they can also lose their rights to guardianship.

NOTE: in cases of PTSD for victims of rape or other crimes,
or in cases of veterans, this is still contested if such "mental ill" conditions
should render such people barred from defending themselves with guns.

This isn't so clear cut.


----------



## 2aguy

Lakhota said:


> *Las Vegas Shooter Fired More Than 1,100 Rounds, Police Say*
> 
> Sensible gun control could solve that problem.  Ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.  Maybe even ban semi-automatic weapons for civilian use.




Hey genius...do you realize that there has only been one year since 1982 where guns used in mass public shootings murdered more people than a rental truck?  

So according to your standard...all rental trucks now need to be banned...right?

US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation

*US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation*


*Rental Truck in Nice, France.......86 murdered,  459 injured...*

*2016......71*
2015......37
2014..... 9
2013..... 36
2012..... 72
2011..... 19
2010....9
2009...39
2008...18
2007...54
2006...21
2005...17
2004...5
2003...7
2002...not listed by mother jones
2001...5
2000...7
1999...42
1998...14
1997...9
1996...6
1995...6
1994....5
1993...23
1992...9
1991...35
1990...10
1989...15
1988...7
1987...6
1986...15
1985...(none listed)
1984...28
1983 (none listed)
1982...8


----------



## frigidweirdo

emilynghiem said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited  never have been and never will be  Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That phrase "shall not be infringed" really confuses you, huh?  Probably the presence of a two-syllable word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Confuses me. How come the insane can't have guns, or prisoners?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because if people are not legally competent, they require a guardian
> to be legally responsible for them including them having access to guns or using them.
> 
> As for prisoners, if the crime for which you are convicted calls for deprivation of liberty and freedom
> then you can lose rights by the laws.
> 
> In general, right of the people implies law abiding citizens.
> you call this well-regulated militia, but it means citizens who commit to uphold and defend the laws not violate them.
> 
> Prisoners, being convicted of crimes, have violated laws and thus merit loss of liberties.
> If people are found to be insane and not able to comply with laws,
> they can also lose their rights to guardianship.
> 
> NOTE: in cases of PTSD for victims of rape or other crimes,
> or in cases of veterans, this is still contested if such "mental ill" conditions
> should render such people barred from defending themselves with guns.
> 
> This isn't so clear cut.
Click to expand...


The argument being presented is that it says "shall not be infringed", and therefore this means that the right to keep and bear arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED EVER.

Which is rubbish, right? 

So the 2A says "shall not be infringed" but this means that it CAN BE infringed upon.


----------



## turtledude

frigidweirdo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited  never have been and never will be  Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That phrase "shall not be infringed" really confuses you, huh?  Probably the presence of a two-syllable word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Confuses me. How come the insane can't have guns, or prisoners?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because if people are not legally competent, they require a guardian
> to be legally responsible for them including them having access to guns or using them.
> 
> As for prisoners, if the crime for which you are convicted calls for deprivation of liberty and freedom
> then you can lose rights by the laws.
> 
> In general, right of the people implies law abiding citizens.
> you call this well-regulated militia, but it means citizens who commit to uphold and defend the laws not violate them.
> 
> Prisoners, being convicted of crimes, have violated laws and thus merit loss of liberties.
> If people are found to be insane and not able to comply with laws,
> they can also lose their rights to guardianship.
> 
> NOTE: in cases of PTSD for victims of rape or other crimes,
> or in cases of veterans, this is still contested if such "mental ill" conditions
> should render such people barred from defending themselves with guns.
> 
> This isn't so clear cut.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The argument being presented is that it says "shall not be infringed", and therefore this means that the right to keep and bear arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED EVER.
> 
> Which is rubbish, right?
> 
> So the 2A says "shall not be infringed" but this means that it CAN BE infringed upon.
Click to expand...

merely shows how dishonest the FDR administration was


----------



## turtledude

Lots of constitutional rights can be "infringed" upon with due process of law

prisoners lose the right of assembly, among other things.  BFD


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Cecilie1200 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited  never have been and never will be  Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That phrase "shall not be infringed" really confuses you, huh?  Probably the presence of a two-syllable word.
Click to expand...

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment. 

“But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’ 

What clearly confuses you and other conservatives is the fact that the Second Amendment right is not ‘unlimited,’ it is subject to restrictions by government, as is the case with other rights, provided those restriction comport with Second Amendment jurisprudence.


----------



## 2aguy

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited  never have been and never will be  Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That phrase "shall not be infringed" really confuses you, huh?  Probably the presence of a two-syllable word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.
> 
> “But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’
> 
> What clearly confuses you and other conservatives is the fact that the Second Amendment right is not ‘unlimited,’ it is subject to restrictions by government, as is the case with other rights, provided those restriction comport with Second Amendment jurisprudence.
Click to expand...



You still haven't explained the 4th Circuit Court ruling in Kolbe...and how it shows you don't know what you are talking about.....


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

frigidweirdo said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited  never have been and never will be  Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That phrase "shall not be infringed" really confuses you, huh?  Probably the presence of a two-syllable word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Confuses me. How come the insane can't have guns, or prisoners?
Click to expand...

Those designated as prohibited persons because they were adjudicated to be mentally ill or because they are convicted felons are examples of Constitutional restrictions consistent with Second Amendment case law.


----------



## turtledude

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited  never have been and never will be  Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That phrase "shall not be infringed" really confuses you, huh?  Probably the presence of a two-syllable word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.
> 
> “But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’
> 
> What clearly confuses you and other conservatives is the fact that the Second Amendment right is not ‘unlimited,’ it is subject to restrictions by government, as is the case with other rights, provided those restriction comport with Second Amendment jurisprudence.
Click to expand...


no one denies dishonest infringements on the second amendment by the FDR court.  what honest students of constitutional law do is admit or acknowledge those infringements run counter to the second and tenth amendments rather than pretending the FDR encroachments were based on the intent, words, or intent of the founders


----------



## turtledude

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited  never have been and never will be  Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That phrase "shall not be infringed" really confuses you, huh?  Probably the presence of a two-syllable word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Confuses me. How come the insane can't have guns, or prisoners?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those designated as prohibited persons because they were adjudicated to be mentally ill or because they are convicted felons are examples of Constitutional restrictions consistent with Second Amendment case law.
Click to expand...


yep and completely counter to the second and tenth amendments based on the dishonest and mutated expansion of the commerce clause by an administration and a court that dishonored their oaths of office.


----------



## 2aguy

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited  never have been and never will be  Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That phrase "shall not be infringed" really confuses you, huh?  Probably the presence of a two-syllable word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.
> 
> “But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’
> 
> What clearly confuses you and other conservatives is the fact that the Second Amendment right is not ‘unlimited,’ it is subject to restrictions by government, as is the case with other rights, provided those restriction comport with Second Amendment jurisprudence.
Click to expand...



Except the liberal circuit courts keep ignoring 2nd amendment jurisprudence.....


----------



## turtledude

2aguy said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited  never have been and never will be  Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That phrase "shall not be infringed" really confuses you, huh?  Probably the presence of a two-syllable word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.
> 
> “But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’
> 
> What clearly confuses you and other conservatives is the fact that the Second Amendment right is not ‘unlimited,’ it is subject to restrictions by government, as is the case with other rights, provided those restriction comport with Second Amendment jurisprudence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still haven't explained the 4th Circuit Court ruling in Kolbe...and how it shows you don't know what you are talking about.....
Click to expand...



He's pretty much a joke in my mind and unlike him, I actually have taught constitutional law at ABA accredited law schools


----------



## emilynghiem

frigidweirdo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited  never have been and never will be  Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That phrase "shall not be infringed" really confuses you, huh?  Probably the presence of a two-syllable word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Confuses me. How come the insane can't have guns, or prisoners?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because if people are not legally competent, they require a guardian
> to be legally responsible for them including them having access to guns or using them.
> 
> As for prisoners, if the crime for which you are convicted calls for deprivation of liberty and freedom
> then you can lose rights by the laws.
> 
> In general, right of the people implies law abiding citizens.
> you call this well-regulated militia, but it means citizens who commit to uphold and defend the laws not violate them.
> 
> Prisoners, being convicted of crimes, have violated laws and thus merit loss of liberties.
> If people are found to be insane and not able to comply with laws,
> they can also lose their rights to guardianship.
> 
> NOTE: in cases of PTSD for victims of rape or other crimes,
> or in cases of veterans, this is still contested if such "mental ill" conditions
> should render such people barred from defending themselves with guns.
> 
> This isn't so clear cut.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The argument being presented is that it says "shall not be infringed", and therefore this means that the right to keep and bear arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED EVER.
> 
> Which is rubbish, right?
> 
> So the 2A says "shall not be infringed" but this means that it CAN BE infringed upon.
Click to expand...


Dear frigidweirdo
All that is missing is that we agree on limits on laws and rights,
similar to agreements on the freedom of speech and press
that cannot be abused to commit slander, libel, harassment, fraud, misrepresentation etc.

As stated before, no laws can be "taken out of context" and abused
so as to violate OTHER laws that are also within the same Bill of Rights and Constitution.

So it is not considered an infringement to check the exercise of rights
by OTHER laws and principles such as 
* the right to security in our persons houses and effects
* the equal right to protection of the laws
* the right to due process and not to be deprived of rights and liberties
unless convicted by law of a crime for which the law prescribes such a penalty

Enforcing other parts of the same laws as one context
is NOT generally seen as infringing on those rights.

Again this is what I mean by "the right of the people" as inherently 
implying "law abiding citizens" or for the purpose of "defending not violating" the law.
You can call this "well regulated militia"
and people like ChrisL may argue we both mean the PEOPLE
who play that role of policing govt, regardless if you call it militia or "the people who are the government."

Enforcing other laws to check each other
isn't counted as infringement.
We just have to AGREE and resolved any perceived
conflicts, so we AGREE this is ENFORCING laws
and not violating Constitutional rights and principles.


----------



## frigidweirdo

emilynghiem said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited  never have been and never will be  Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That phrase "shall not be infringed" really confuses you, huh?  Probably the presence of a two-syllable word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Confuses me. How come the insane can't have guns, or prisoners?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because if people are not legally competent, they require a guardian
> to be legally responsible for them including them having access to guns or using them.
> 
> As for prisoners, if the crime for which you are convicted calls for deprivation of liberty and freedom
> then you can lose rights by the laws.
> 
> In general, right of the people implies law abiding citizens.
> you call this well-regulated militia, but it means citizens who commit to uphold and defend the laws not violate them.
> 
> Prisoners, being convicted of crimes, have violated laws and thus merit loss of liberties.
> If people are found to be insane and not able to comply with laws,
> they can also lose their rights to guardianship.
> 
> NOTE: in cases of PTSD for victims of rape or other crimes,
> or in cases of veterans, this is still contested if such "mental ill" conditions
> should render such people barred from defending themselves with guns.
> 
> This isn't so clear cut.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The argument being presented is that it says "shall not be infringed", and therefore this means that the right to keep and bear arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED EVER.
> 
> Which is rubbish, right?
> 
> So the 2A says "shall not be infringed" but this means that it CAN BE infringed upon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo
> All that is missing is that we agree on limits on laws and rights,
> similar to agreements on the freedom of speech and press
> that cannot be abused to commit slander, libel, harassment, fraud, misrepresentation etc.
> 
> As stated before, no laws can be "taken out of context" and abused
> so as to violate OTHER laws that are also within the same Bill of Rights and Constitution.
> 
> So it is not considered an infringement to check the exercise of rights
> by OTHER laws and principles such as
> * the right to security in our persons houses and effects
> * the equal right to protection of the laws
> * the right to due process and not to be deprived of rights and liberties
> unless convicted by law of a crime for which the law prescribes such a penalty
> 
> Enforcing other parts of the same laws as one context
> is NOT generally seen as infringing on those rights.
> 
> Again this is what I mean by "the right of the people" as inherently
> implying "law abiding citizens" or for the purpose of "defending not violating" the law.
> You can call this "well regulated militia"
> and people like ChrisL may argue we both mean the PEOPLE
> who play that role of policing govt, regardless if you call it militia or "the people who are the government."
> 
> Enforcing other laws to check each other
> isn't counted as infringement.
> We just have to AGREE and resolved any perceived
> conflicts, so we AGREE this is ENFORCING laws
> and not violating Constitutional rights and principles.
Click to expand...


So we agree that "shall no be infringed" doesn't mean that it can't be infringed upon? good.


----------



## emilynghiem

2aguy said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited  never have been and never will be  Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That phrase "shall not be infringed" really confuses you, huh?  Probably the presence of a two-syllable word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.
> 
> “But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’
> 
> What clearly confuses you and other conservatives is the fact that the Second Amendment right is not ‘unlimited,’ it is subject to restrictions by government, as is the case with other rights, provided those restriction comport with Second Amendment jurisprudence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Except the liberal circuit courts keep ignoring 2nd amendment jurisprudence.....
Click to expand...


Dear 2aguy
that's only where judges are letting their biases by political beliefs
interfere with their ability to judge the law on Constitutional grounds.

This happens on both left and right.
We the people really should organize across party lines
to put a stop to this practice of mixing and imposing
political beliefs with public govt policy and decisions.

As long as we just argue and blame the OTHER party for doing that,
and then those opponents do the same, we get nowhere.
Both sides compete to discredit the other so no grievances get redressed, just denied.

However guess what happens when BOTH sides, left and right,
unite as witnesses to wrongs on both sides of the fence.
If we complain TOGETHER then maybe we can be heard
and taken seriously. When we agree to take ourselves seriously
and quit discounting the claims and complaints of one group by the other.

When we the people agree to redress our common grievances,
then govt has to follow suit.


----------



## 2aguy

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited  never have been and never will be  Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That phrase "shall not be infringed" really confuses you, huh?  Probably the presence of a two-syllable word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.
> 
> “But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’
> 
> What clearly confuses you and other conservatives is the fact that the Second Amendment right is not ‘unlimited,’ it is subject to restrictions by government, as is the case with other rights, provided those restriction comport with Second Amendment jurisprudence.
Click to expand...



Please explain the finding in Heller....

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

*(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

----

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

---

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. 

But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right. 
*
And the 4th Circuit completely ignoring Heller.....and intentionally getting it wrong....they out and out lie about what Heller said about M-16 rifles......

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141945A.P.pdf

*We conclude — contrary to the nowvacated decision of our prior panel — that the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are not protected by the Second Amendment. That is, we are convinced that the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are among those arms that are “like” “M-16 rifles” — “weapons that are most useful in military service” — which the Heller Court singled out as being beyond the Second Amendment’s reach.*

Heller didn't say that....


----------



## emilynghiem

frigidweirdo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That phrase "shall not be infringed" really confuses you, huh?  Probably the presence of a two-syllable word.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Confuses me. How come the insane can't have guns, or prisoners?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because if people are not legally competent, they require a guardian
> to be legally responsible for them including them having access to guns or using them.
> 
> As for prisoners, if the crime for which you are convicted calls for deprivation of liberty and freedom
> then you can lose rights by the laws.
> 
> In general, right of the people implies law abiding citizens.
> you call this well-regulated militia, but it means citizens who commit to uphold and defend the laws not violate them.
> 
> Prisoners, being convicted of crimes, have violated laws and thus merit loss of liberties.
> If people are found to be insane and not able to comply with laws,
> they can also lose their rights to guardianship.
> 
> NOTE: in cases of PTSD for victims of rape or other crimes,
> or in cases of veterans, this is still contested if such "mental ill" conditions
> should render such people barred from defending themselves with guns.
> 
> This isn't so clear cut.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The argument being presented is that it says "shall not be infringed", and therefore this means that the right to keep and bear arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED EVER.
> 
> Which is rubbish, right?
> 
> So the 2A says "shall not be infringed" but this means that it CAN BE infringed upon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo
> All that is missing is that we agree on limits on laws and rights,
> similar to agreements on the freedom of speech and press
> that cannot be abused to commit slander, libel, harassment, fraud, misrepresentation etc.
> 
> As stated before, no laws can be "taken out of context" and abused
> so as to violate OTHER laws that are also within the same Bill of Rights and Constitution.
> 
> So it is not considered an infringement to check the exercise of rights
> by OTHER laws and principles such as
> * the right to security in our persons houses and effects
> * the equal right to protection of the laws
> * the right to due process and not to be deprived of rights and liberties
> unless convicted by law of a crime for which the law prescribes such a penalty
> 
> Enforcing other parts of the same laws as one context
> is NOT generally seen as infringing on those rights.
> 
> Again this is what I mean by "the right of the people" as inherently
> implying "law abiding citizens" or for the purpose of "defending not violating" the law.
> You can call this "well regulated militia"
> and people like ChrisL may argue we both mean the PEOPLE
> who play that role of policing govt, regardless if you call it militia or "the people who are the government."
> 
> Enforcing other laws to check each other
> isn't counted as infringement.
> We just have to AGREE and resolved any perceived
> conflicts, so we AGREE this is ENFORCING laws
> and not violating Constitutional rights and principles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we agree that "shall no be infringed" doesn't mean that it can't be infringed upon? good.
Click to expand...


We agree more than disagree but the terms you use
is what throws people off  frigidweirdo

I'd say it more like if you are infringing on the rights of others
by abusing or threatening to abuse weapons, then that's YOU
infringing your own rights.  For example, if you abuse "free exercise of religion"
to sacrifice animals or people, that violates other laws, you end up
getting convicted and incarcerated. Well you can't complain that it's
the govt prohibiting you from practicing your religion. Part of your practice
violated OTHER LAWS. So it wasn't about infringing on your religion,
but about your actions that broke OTHER LAWS.

If this is explained in that context frigidweirdo
we would find we agree more than no, and avoid getting stuck in conflict over
the terminology you use that just invokes rejection when people hear that.

You just need a good facilitator to translate back and forth
and you'd be fine. The terms you use are going to shut people
down where they don't hear you. I can look past that and get to
what you mean but most people can't or won't do that much work to listen to you.


----------



## frigidweirdo

emilynghiem said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Confuses me. How come the insane can't have guns, or prisoners?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because if people are not legally competent, they require a guardian
> to be legally responsible for them including them having access to guns or using them.
> 
> As for prisoners, if the crime for which you are convicted calls for deprivation of liberty and freedom
> then you can lose rights by the laws.
> 
> In general, right of the people implies law abiding citizens.
> you call this well-regulated militia, but it means citizens who commit to uphold and defend the laws not violate them.
> 
> Prisoners, being convicted of crimes, have violated laws and thus merit loss of liberties.
> If people are found to be insane and not able to comply with laws,
> they can also lose their rights to guardianship.
> 
> NOTE: in cases of PTSD for victims of rape or other crimes,
> or in cases of veterans, this is still contested if such "mental ill" conditions
> should render such people barred from defending themselves with guns.
> 
> This isn't so clear cut.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The argument being presented is that it says "shall not be infringed", and therefore this means that the right to keep and bear arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED EVER.
> 
> Which is rubbish, right?
> 
> So the 2A says "shall not be infringed" but this means that it CAN BE infringed upon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo
> All that is missing is that we agree on limits on laws and rights,
> similar to agreements on the freedom of speech and press
> that cannot be abused to commit slander, libel, harassment, fraud, misrepresentation etc.
> 
> As stated before, no laws can be "taken out of context" and abused
> so as to violate OTHER laws that are also within the same Bill of Rights and Constitution.
> 
> So it is not considered an infringement to check the exercise of rights
> by OTHER laws and principles such as
> * the right to security in our persons houses and effects
> * the equal right to protection of the laws
> * the right to due process and not to be deprived of rights and liberties
> unless convicted by law of a crime for which the law prescribes such a penalty
> 
> Enforcing other parts of the same laws as one context
> is NOT generally seen as infringing on those rights.
> 
> Again this is what I mean by "the right of the people" as inherently
> implying "law abiding citizens" or for the purpose of "defending not violating" the law.
> You can call this "well regulated militia"
> and people like ChrisL may argue we both mean the PEOPLE
> who play that role of policing govt, regardless if you call it militia or "the people who are the government."
> 
> Enforcing other laws to check each other
> isn't counted as infringement.
> We just have to AGREE and resolved any perceived
> conflicts, so we AGREE this is ENFORCING laws
> and not violating Constitutional rights and principles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we agree that "shall no be infringed" doesn't mean that it can't be infringed upon? good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We agree more than disagree but the terms you use
> is what throws people off  frigidweirdo
> 
> I'd say it more like if you are infringing on the rights of others
> by abusing or threatening to abuse weapons, then that's YOU
> infringing your own rights.  For example, if you abuse "free exercise of religion"
> to sacrifice animals or people, that violates other laws, you end up
> getting convicted and incarcerated. Well you can't complain that it's
> the govt prohibiting you from practicing your religion. Part of your practice
> violated OTHER LAWS. So it wasn't about infringing on your religion,
> but about your actions that broke OTHER LAWS.
> 
> If this is explained in that context frigidweirdo
> we would find we agree more than no, and avoid getting stuck in conflict over
> the terminology you use that just invokes rejection when people hear that.
> 
> You just need a good facilitator to translate back and forth
> and you'd be fine. The terms you use are going to shut people
> down where they don't hear you. I can look past that and get to
> what you mean but most people can't or won't do that much work to listen to you.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure exactly what language you thin it is that throws other people off. It's a simple yes or no here, either the RKBA "shall not be infringed" EVER, or it shall be infringed. There are no two ways about it, right?


----------



## hunarcy

frigidweirdo said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> bear means to carry.  Your imagination cannot create an alternate meaning to support what you want to believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does.
> 
> And stool means a shit. Doesn't mean because it CAN mean shit, it DOES mean shit.
> 
> There are at least five separate meanings of the word "bear", one means to give birth to, does that mean because it can mean "give birth to guns" that this MUST be what it means?
> 
> Give me a break, this is simple English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sadly, you are absolutely wasting time because you know only one definition applies.  Glad I was out of town.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know all of the definitions of "bear", I also know how the Founding Fathers used the term "bear arms", and it's pretty clear to anyone who doesn't have their head stuck up their ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you should apologize for wasting our time and pull your head out of your ass.  Happy Thanksgiving.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll tell you what, I'll put your ass on ignore. How about that.You go run along and kill some injuns, and then when you get back, I'll be out of your sorry life.
> 
> Bye.
Click to expand...


LMAO!  Isn't that how all trolls react when confronted with the truth?  Yes it is.


----------



## sakinago

danielpalos said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then, why add a 2nd Amendment if it is only there to provide for the wellness of regulating a militia?  Your interpretation either renders the 2A redundant or renders it meaningless.
> 
> Article 1, Section 8:
> 
> _To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> 
> To provide for *organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia*, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of *training the Militia* according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> _
> So, Section 8 authorizes Congress to prescribe laws to organize, arm, and discipline or train the militia.
> 
> 2nd Amendment:
> 
> _"A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> _
> If Congress has the power to ARM the militia, that power preempts any state or local authority.  Congress would also have the exclusive authority to NOT arm the militia, right?  That power is exclusive to Congress, like enforcing immigration laws (where States like Texas have to just bend over and take all sorts of illegal immigration sodomy).
> 
> If the purpose of 2A is to provide for a well regulated militia, why does  Art. 1, Section 8 already authorizes Congress to train, discipline, and ARM a militia?
> 
> THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE BEEN SAYING!!!
> 
> The right of the people (whether belonging to a militia or not) shall not be infringed, meaning Congress is specifically excluded from infringing on that right.  Congress has the authority to organize, train, and arm a militia, and such is necessary to the security of a free state.  But, because Congress has that power, Congress shall not have the power to take arms away from the people.
> 
> It's the very fear the founders expressed in giving Congress the power to raise an army, and the very protection the founders intended.
> 
> I am not going to re-quote all the founders again.  You have never addressed their comments, because you cannot.  You have been defeated and all you can do is rattle off "causeless and Clueless" bullshit.
> 
> I don't want to hear or read another goddamn word from you unless you explain your reasoning.  If you cannot respond with some explanation by the framers proving your interpretation to be correct, you are nothing but a troll.
> 
> I am going to put you on ignore if you don't respond with some sort of historical authority from the founders justifying your interpretation of 2A verses Art. 1, Sec.8.
> 
> 
> 
> The Point is, the subject of Arms for the Militia is declared socialized.  There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear danielpalos
> do you REALLY believe that ALL the people who crafted and passed this law
> would ALL AGREE to the militia-only interpretation?
> 
> When people TODAY don't even "all agree"
> 
> What makes you think they would have agreed back
> then if CLEARLY the two schools of thought don't agree now!
> 
> The more we argue and totally believe in our respective beliefs, that tells me so did the people split in two schools of thought back then.
> 
> They even had the equivalent of what we argue over today, over who counts as a citizen with rights. Today we argue if immigrants have equal rights as "humans" as citizens. Back then there was issue with Catholics or other people not considered equal or trustworthy to uphold the laws if they were to bear arms.
> 
> So if we can't even agree today, and these separate factions INSIST their respective interpretations ARE the truth that the laws should represent, isn't that clear the same thing would be going on back then? And there would be the same two factions, so the law came out the way it did to accommodate BOTH that would equally insist on THEIR way and REFUSE to compromise to let the other way prevail and exclude them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the clueless and the Causeless say that.  The People are the Militia.  What part of that do y'all not understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, silly person.  It is you who either don't understand, or you are simply intellectually dishonest.  I will go with the latter as you are nothing more than a one trick pony bleating about that which you have no clue.
> 
> Run along little sheep, run along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing but diversion, right wingers?
> 
> The People are the Militia.  Well regulated militia of the People are declared necessary.
> 
> It really is that simple, except to the right wing.
Click to expand...


The people are the people, if it had meant militia over people, it would’ve said militia.


----------



## westwall

sakinago said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Point is, the subject of Arms for the Militia is declared socialized.  There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear danielpalos
> do you REALLY believe that ALL the people who crafted and passed this law
> would ALL AGREE to the militia-only interpretation?
> 
> When people TODAY don't even "all agree"
> 
> What makes you think they would have agreed back
> then if CLEARLY the two schools of thought don't agree now!
> 
> The more we argue and totally believe in our respective beliefs, that tells me so did the people split in two schools of thought back then.
> 
> They even had the equivalent of what we argue over today, over who counts as a citizen with rights. Today we argue if immigrants have equal rights as "humans" as citizens. Back then there was issue with Catholics or other people not considered equal or trustworthy to uphold the laws if they were to bear arms.
> 
> So if we can't even agree today, and these separate factions INSIST their respective interpretations ARE the truth that the laws should represent, isn't that clear the same thing would be going on back then? And there would be the same two factions, so the law came out the way it did to accommodate BOTH that would equally insist on THEIR way and REFUSE to compromise to let the other way prevail and exclude them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the clueless and the Causeless say that.  The People are the Militia.  What part of that do y'all not understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, silly person.  It is you who either don't understand, or you are simply intellectually dishonest.  I will go with the latter as you are nothing more than a one trick pony bleating about that which you have no clue.
> 
> Run along little sheep, run along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing but diversion, right wingers?
> 
> The People are the Militia.  Well regulated militia of the People are declared necessary.
> 
> It really is that simple, except to the right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The people are the people, if it had meant militia over people, it would’ve said militia.
Click to expand...






He's a troll.  Ignore him.


----------



## emilynghiem

frigidweirdo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because if people are not legally competent, they require a guardian
> to be legally responsible for them including them having access to guns or using them.
> 
> As for prisoners, if the crime for which you are convicted calls for deprivation of liberty and freedom
> then you can lose rights by the laws.
> 
> In general, right of the people implies law abiding citizens.
> you call this well-regulated militia, but it means citizens who commit to uphold and defend the laws not violate them.
> 
> Prisoners, being convicted of crimes, have violated laws and thus merit loss of liberties.
> If people are found to be insane and not able to comply with laws,
> they can also lose their rights to guardianship.
> 
> NOTE: in cases of PTSD for victims of rape or other crimes,
> or in cases of veterans, this is still contested if such "mental ill" conditions
> should render such people barred from defending themselves with guns.
> 
> This isn't so clear cut.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The argument being presented is that it says "shall not be infringed", and therefore this means that the right to keep and bear arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED EVER.
> 
> Which is rubbish, right?
> 
> So the 2A says "shall not be infringed" but this means that it CAN BE infringed upon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo
> All that is missing is that we agree on limits on laws and rights,
> similar to agreements on the freedom of speech and press
> that cannot be abused to commit slander, libel, harassment, fraud, misrepresentation etc.
> 
> As stated before, no laws can be "taken out of context" and abused
> so as to violate OTHER laws that are also within the same Bill of Rights and Constitution.
> 
> So it is not considered an infringement to check the exercise of rights
> by OTHER laws and principles such as
> * the right to security in our persons houses and effects
> * the equal right to protection of the laws
> * the right to due process and not to be deprived of rights and liberties
> unless convicted by law of a crime for which the law prescribes such a penalty
> 
> Enforcing other parts of the same laws as one context
> is NOT generally seen as infringing on those rights.
> 
> Again this is what I mean by "the right of the people" as inherently
> implying "law abiding citizens" or for the purpose of "defending not violating" the law.
> You can call this "well regulated militia"
> and people like ChrisL may argue we both mean the PEOPLE
> who play that role of policing govt, regardless if you call it militia or "the people who are the government."
> 
> Enforcing other laws to check each other
> isn't counted as infringement.
> We just have to AGREE and resolved any perceived
> conflicts, so we AGREE this is ENFORCING laws
> and not violating Constitutional rights and principles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we agree that "shall no be infringed" doesn't mean that it can't be infringed upon? good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We agree more than disagree but the terms you use
> is what throws people off  frigidweirdo
> 
> I'd say it more like if you are infringing on the rights of others
> by abusing or threatening to abuse weapons, then that's YOU
> infringing your own rights.  For example, if you abuse "free exercise of religion"
> to sacrifice animals or people, that violates other laws, you end up
> getting convicted and incarcerated. Well you can't complain that it's
> the govt prohibiting you from practicing your religion. Part of your practice
> violated OTHER LAWS. So it wasn't about infringing on your religion,
> but about your actions that broke OTHER LAWS.
> 
> If this is explained in that context frigidweirdo
> we would find we agree more than no, and avoid getting stuck in conflict over
> the terminology you use that just invokes rejection when people hear that.
> 
> You just need a good facilitator to translate back and forth
> and you'd be fine. The terms you use are going to shut people
> down where they don't hear you. I can look past that and get to
> what you mean but most people can't or won't do that much work to listen to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure exactly what language you thin it is that throws other people off. It's a simple yes or no here, either the RKBA "shall not be infringed" EVER, or it shall be infringed. There are no two ways about it, right?
Click to expand...


----------



## emilynghiem

Hi @


frigidweirdo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because if people are not legally competent, they require a guardian
> to be legally responsible for them including them having access to guns or using them.
> 
> As for prisoners, if the crime for which you are convicted calls for deprivation of liberty and freedom
> then you can lose rights by the laws.
> 
> In general, right of the people implies law abiding citizens.
> you call this well-regulated militia, but it means citizens who commit to uphold and defend the laws not violate them.
> 
> Prisoners, being convicted of crimes, have violated laws and thus merit loss of liberties.
> If people are found to be insane and not able to comply with laws,
> they can also lose their rights to guardianship.
> 
> NOTE: in cases of PTSD for victims of rape or other crimes,
> or in cases of veterans, this is still contested if such "mental ill" conditions
> should render such people barred from defending themselves with guns.
> 
> This isn't so clear cut.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The argument being presented is that it says "shall not be infringed", and therefore this means that the right to keep and bear arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED EVER.
> 
> Which is rubbish, right?
> 
> So the 2A says "shall not be infringed" but this means that it CAN BE infringed upon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo
> All that is missing is that we agree on limits on laws and rights,
> similar to agreements on the freedom of speech and press
> that cannot be abused to commit slander, libel, harassment, fraud, misrepresentation etc.
> 
> As stated before, no laws can be "taken out of context" and abused
> so as to violate OTHER laws that are also within the same Bill of Rights and Constitution.
> 
> So it is not considered an infringement to check the exercise of rights
> by OTHER laws and principles such as
> * the right to security in our persons houses and effects
> * the equal right to protection of the laws
> * the right to due process and not to be deprived of rights and liberties
> unless convicted by law of a crime for which the law prescribes such a penalty
> 
> Enforcing other parts of the same laws as one context
> is NOT generally seen as infringing on those rights.
> 
> Again this is what I mean by "the right of the people" as inherently
> implying "law abiding citizens" or for the purpose of "defending not violating" the law.
> You can call this "well regulated militia"
> and people like ChrisL may argue we both mean the PEOPLE
> who play that role of policing govt, regardless if you call it militia or "the people who are the government."
> 
> Enforcing other laws to check each other
> isn't counted as infringement.
> We just have to AGREE and resolved any perceived
> conflicts, so we AGREE this is ENFORCING laws
> and not violating Constitutional rights and principles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we agree that "shall no be infringed" doesn't mean that it can't be infringed upon? good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We agree more than disagree but the terms you use
> is what throws people off  frigidweirdo
> 
> I'd say it more like if you are infringing on the rights of others
> by abusing or threatening to abuse weapons, then that's YOU
> infringing your own rights.  For example, if you abuse "free exercise of religion"
> to sacrifice animals or people, that violates other laws, you end up
> getting convicted and incarcerated. Well you can't complain that it's
> the govt prohibiting you from practicing your religion. Part of your practice
> violated OTHER LAWS. So it wasn't about infringing on your religion,
> but about your actions that broke OTHER LAWS.
> 
> If this is explained in that context frigidweirdo
> we would find we agree more than no, and avoid getting stuck in conflict over
> the terminology you use that just invokes rejection when people hear that.
> 
> You just need a good facilitator to translate back and forth
> and you'd be fine. The terms you use are going to shut people
> down where they don't hear you. I can look past that and get to
> what you mean but most people can't or won't do that much work to listen to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure exactly what language you thin it is that throws other people off. It's a simple yes or no here, either the RKBA "shall not be infringed" EVER, or it shall be infringed. There are no two ways about it, right?
Click to expand...

Hi frigidweirdo: you are asking this question from a biased context so no it isn't straightforward yet. We'd both have to get within the same context and then we'd readily agree, but we're not quite there yet.
1. Given that you already don't use the 2nd amendment to mean individual gun rights while other ppl do, discussing this with you is like feeding everything through a filter and translating it into common terms we would both use to mean the same things. Clearly this means not using the Constitutional laws as literal, that you and I already don't interpret or use the same way, or that's why we end up talking past each other. 
2. I am trying to find a way to communicate on the same wavelength or page as you, so when you and I do agree on a common context then yes we will be able to connect and agree on principles instead of talking past each other .
3. At this point I am still trying to find that common ground.  Can I throw out two more questions to you to get your feedback on how you see or say these things:
(A) how do you describe the difference between someone forfeiting their own rights because of violating or abusing the law vs. Other people abusing govt authority to deprive rights from people who have not committed any crime or abuse that warrants deprivation of liberty. Can I see how you describe that distinction in your own words or your explanation using Constitutional laws and terms 
(B) how do you describe the difference between regulations or laws that people consent to implement and agree to enforce vs. Regulations they argue as unconstitutional because they don't consent to it and it violates their beliefs. How would you describe that in legal or constitutional terms. 

Thanks I just need to map out how you say and explain these things since we don't use laws the same way. In order to ensure we are accurate aligned and in tune on the same page, I would have to adapt to your system sort of like calibration on sensitive instruments to prevent misreading. Thanks!


----------



## frigidweirdo

emilynghiem said:


> Hi @
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The argument being presented is that it says "shall not be infringed", and therefore this means that the right to keep and bear arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED EVER.
> 
> Which is rubbish, right?
> 
> So the 2A says "shall not be infringed" but this means that it CAN BE infringed upon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo
> All that is missing is that we agree on limits on laws and rights,
> similar to agreements on the freedom of speech and press
> that cannot be abused to commit slander, libel, harassment, fraud, misrepresentation etc.
> 
> As stated before, no laws can be "taken out of context" and abused
> so as to violate OTHER laws that are also within the same Bill of Rights and Constitution.
> 
> So it is not considered an infringement to check the exercise of rights
> by OTHER laws and principles such as
> * the right to security in our persons houses and effects
> * the equal right to protection of the laws
> * the right to due process and not to be deprived of rights and liberties
> unless convicted by law of a crime for which the law prescribes such a penalty
> 
> Enforcing other parts of the same laws as one context
> is NOT generally seen as infringing on those rights.
> 
> Again this is what I mean by "the right of the people" as inherently
> implying "law abiding citizens" or for the purpose of "defending not violating" the law.
> You can call this "well regulated militia"
> and people like ChrisL may argue we both mean the PEOPLE
> who play that role of policing govt, regardless if you call it militia or "the people who are the government."
> 
> Enforcing other laws to check each other
> isn't counted as infringement.
> We just have to AGREE and resolved any perceived
> conflicts, so we AGREE this is ENFORCING laws
> and not violating Constitutional rights and principles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we agree that "shall no be infringed" doesn't mean that it can't be infringed upon? good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We agree more than disagree but the terms you use
> is what throws people off  frigidweirdo
> 
> I'd say it more like if you are infringing on the rights of others
> by abusing or threatening to abuse weapons, then that's YOU
> infringing your own rights.  For example, if you abuse "free exercise of religion"
> to sacrifice animals or people, that violates other laws, you end up
> getting convicted and incarcerated. Well you can't complain that it's
> the govt prohibiting you from practicing your religion. Part of your practice
> violated OTHER LAWS. So it wasn't about infringing on your religion,
> but about your actions that broke OTHER LAWS.
> 
> If this is explained in that context frigidweirdo
> we would find we agree more than no, and avoid getting stuck in conflict over
> the terminology you use that just invokes rejection when people hear that.
> 
> You just need a good facilitator to translate back and forth
> and you'd be fine. The terms you use are going to shut people
> down where they don't hear you. I can look past that and get to
> what you mean but most people can't or won't do that much work to listen to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure exactly what language you thin it is that throws other people off. It's a simple yes or no here, either the RKBA "shall not be infringed" EVER, or it shall be infringed. There are no two ways about it, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hi frigidweirdo: you are asking this question from a biased context so no it isn't straightforward yet. We'd both have to get within the same context and then we'd readily agree, but we're not quite there yet.
> 1. Given that you already don't use the 2nd amendment to mean individual gun rights while other ppl do, discussing this with you is like feeding everything through a filter and translating it into common terms we would both use to mean the same things. Clearly this means not using the Constitutional laws as literal, that you and I already don't interpret or use the same way, or that's why we end up talking past each other.
> 2. I am trying to find a way to communicate on the same wavelength or page as you, so when you and I do agree on a common context then yes we will be able to connect and agree on principles instead of talking past each other .
> 3. At this point I am still trying to find that common ground.  Can I throw out two more questions to you to get your feedback on how you see or say these things:
> (A) how do you describe the difference between someone forfeiting their own rights because of violating or abusing the law vs. Other people abusing govt authority to deprive rights from people who have not committed any crime or abuse that warrants deprivation of liberty. Can I see how you describe that distinction in your own words or your explanation using Constitutional laws and terms
> (B) how do you describe the difference between regulations or laws that people consent to implement and agree to enforce vs. Regulations they argue as unconstitutional because they don't consent to it and it violates their beliefs. How would you describe that in legal or constitutional terms.
> 
> Thanks I just need to map out how you say and explain these things since we don't use laws the same way. In order to ensure we are accurate aligned and in tune on the same page, I would have to adapt to your system sort of like calibration on sensitive instruments to prevent misreading. Thanks!
Click to expand...


How is it biased? 

It's simple fact. 

Here's the biggest problem. People have basically been told they're anti-gun control. This means they feel they have to be anti-every single gun control measure going. Yet they'll support criminals and the insane not having guns. But no one tells them this is gun control, so they're happy. 

They use "shall not be infringed" as a manner in which to express their "you can't do any gun control" sort of thing. I'm merely pointing out that in reality, there is gun control, and they support some gun control. 

Until you have them accepting such a thing, there's no point in really talking.


----------



## sakinago

frigidweirdo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi @
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo
> All that is missing is that we agree on limits on laws and rights,
> similar to agreements on the freedom of speech and press
> that cannot be abused to commit slander, libel, harassment, fraud, misrepresentation etc.
> 
> As stated before, no laws can be "taken out of context" and abused
> so as to violate OTHER laws that are also within the same Bill of Rights and Constitution.
> 
> So it is not considered an infringement to check the exercise of rights
> by OTHER laws and principles such as
> * the right to security in our persons houses and effects
> * the equal right to protection of the laws
> * the right to due process and not to be deprived of rights and liberties
> unless convicted by law of a crime for which the law prescribes such a penalty
> 
> Enforcing other parts of the same laws as one context
> is NOT generally seen as infringing on those rights.
> 
> Again this is what I mean by "the right of the people" as inherently
> implying "law abiding citizens" or for the purpose of "defending not violating" the law.
> You can call this "well regulated militia"
> and people like ChrisL may argue we both mean the PEOPLE
> who play that role of policing govt, regardless if you call it militia or "the people who are the government."
> 
> Enforcing other laws to check each other
> isn't counted as infringement.
> We just have to AGREE and resolved any perceived
> conflicts, so we AGREE this is ENFORCING laws
> and not violating Constitutional rights and principles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we agree that "shall no be infringed" doesn't mean that it can't be infringed upon? good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We agree more than disagree but the terms you use
> is what throws people off  frigidweirdo
> 
> I'd say it more like if you are infringing on the rights of others
> by abusing or threatening to abuse weapons, then that's YOU
> infringing your own rights.  For example, if you abuse "free exercise of religion"
> to sacrifice animals or people, that violates other laws, you end up
> getting convicted and incarcerated. Well you can't complain that it's
> the govt prohibiting you from practicing your religion. Part of your practice
> violated OTHER LAWS. So it wasn't about infringing on your religion,
> but about your actions that broke OTHER LAWS.
> 
> If this is explained in that context frigidweirdo
> we would find we agree more than no, and avoid getting stuck in conflict over
> the terminology you use that just invokes rejection when people hear that.
> 
> You just need a good facilitator to translate back and forth
> and you'd be fine. The terms you use are going to shut people
> down where they don't hear you. I can look past that and get to
> what you mean but most people can't or won't do that much work to listen to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure exactly what language you thin it is that throws other people off. It's a simple yes or no here, either the RKBA "shall not be infringed" EVER, or it shall be infringed. There are no two ways about it, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hi frigidweirdo: you are asking this question from a biased context so no it isn't straightforward yet. We'd both have to get within the same context and then we'd readily agree, but we're not quite there yet.
> 1. Given that you already don't use the 2nd amendment to mean individual gun rights while other ppl do, discussing this with you is like feeding everything through a filter and translating it into common terms we would both use to mean the same things. Clearly this means not using the Constitutional laws as literal, that you and I already don't interpret or use the same way, or that's why we end up talking past each other.
> 2. I am trying to find a way to communicate on the same wavelength or page as you, so when you and I do agree on a common context then yes we will be able to connect and agree on principles instead of talking past each other .
> 3. At this point I am still trying to find that common ground.  Can I throw out two more questions to you to get your feedback on how you see or say these things:
> (A) how do you describe the difference between someone forfeiting their own rights because of violating or abusing the law vs. Other people abusing govt authority to deprive rights from people who have not committed any crime or abuse that warrants deprivation of liberty. Can I see how you describe that distinction in your own words or your explanation using Constitutional laws and terms
> (B) how do you describe the difference between regulations or laws that people consent to implement and agree to enforce vs. Regulations they argue as unconstitutional because they don't consent to it and it violates their beliefs. How would you describe that in legal or constitutional terms.
> 
> Thanks I just need to map out how you say and explain these things since we don't use laws the same way. In order to ensure we are accurate aligned and in tune on the same page, I would have to adapt to your system sort of like calibration on sensitive instruments to prevent misreading. Thanks!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is it biased?
> 
> It's simple fact.
> 
> Here's the biggest problem. People have basically been told they're anti-gun control. This means they feel they have to be anti-every single gun control measure going. Yet they'll support criminals and the insane not having guns. But no one tells them this is gun control, so they're happy.
> 
> They use "shall not be infringed" as a manner in which to express their "you can't do any gun control" sort of thing. I'm merely pointing out that in reality, there is gun control, and they support some gun control.
> 
> Until you have them accepting such a thing, there's no point in really talking.
Click to expand...

I’m actually against banning the right for life, I feel if you do the crime, pay the time, but that’s it. After your sentence is up, you get your rights back, no more criminal records on job apps outside of a select few careers like schools, and maybe hospitals. But pay the time, and you get your life and your rights back and you no longer have to be at a major disadvantage the rest of your life. 

The whole “insane” claim, is an incredibly slippery slope. Many of these mass shooter have gone undiagnosed. Many have a pretty standard diagnosis that millions upon millions of Americans have. It’s not right to take the rights of the many away on account of the vast minority...that’s just not at all a free country. Even if you still added these known diagnosis under gun control (even though an extreme minority carry the crimes out) your still gonna have plenty of undiagnosed folks committing murders, like paddock, like roof. And then you’ll still have the sane, just fanatical still carrying out mass murder, like the San Bernardino shooter, the pulse night club, fort hood, etc. etc....that law wouldn’t actually do anything outside of infringe on the rights on a vast majority of people, who are still citizens, just not as healthy as you and I. Nope this is one of the few issue I completely agree with the ACLU on. As well as their stance against the no fly lists. That’s not at all the standard we hold in our constitution.


----------



## emilynghiem

frigidweirdo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi @
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo
> All that is missing is that we agree on limits on laws and rights,
> similar to agreements on the freedom of speech and press
> that cannot be abused to commit slander, libel, harassment, fraud, misrepresentation etc.
> 
> As stated before, no laws can be "taken out of context" and abused
> so as to violate OTHER laws that are also within the same Bill of Rights and Constitution.
> 
> So it is not considered an infringement to check the exercise of rights
> by OTHER laws and principles such as
> * the right to security in our persons houses and effects
> * the equal right to protection of the laws
> * the right to due process and not to be deprived of rights and liberties
> unless convicted by law of a crime for which the law prescribes such a penalty
> 
> Enforcing other parts of the same laws as one context
> is NOT generally seen as infringing on those rights.
> 
> Again this is what I mean by "the right of the people" as inherently
> implying "law abiding citizens" or for the purpose of "defending not violating" the law.
> You can call this "well regulated militia"
> and people like ChrisL may argue we both mean the PEOPLE
> who play that role of policing govt, regardless if you call it militia or "the people who are the government."
> 
> Enforcing other laws to check each other
> isn't counted as infringement.
> We just have to AGREE and resolved any perceived
> conflicts, so we AGREE this is ENFORCING laws
> and not violating Constitutional rights and principles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we agree that "shall no be infringed" doesn't mean that it can't be infringed upon? good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We agree more than disagree but the terms you use
> is what throws people off  frigidweirdo
> 
> I'd say it more like if you are infringing on the rights of others
> by abusing or threatening to abuse weapons, then that's YOU
> infringing your own rights.  For example, if you abuse "free exercise of religion"
> to sacrifice animals or people, that violates other laws, you end up
> getting convicted and incarcerated. Well you can't complain that it's
> the govt prohibiting you from practicing your religion. Part of your practice
> violated OTHER LAWS. So it wasn't about infringing on your religion,
> but about your actions that broke OTHER LAWS.
> 
> If this is explained in that context frigidweirdo
> we would find we agree more than no, and avoid getting stuck in conflict over
> the terminology you use that just invokes rejection when people hear that.
> 
> You just need a good facilitator to translate back and forth
> and you'd be fine. The terms you use are going to shut people
> down where they don't hear you. I can look past that and get to
> what you mean but most people can't or won't do that much work to listen to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure exactly what language you thin it is that throws other people off. It's a simple yes or no here, either the RKBA "shall not be infringed" EVER, or it shall be infringed. There are no two ways about it, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hi frigidweirdo: you are asking this question from a biased context so no it isn't straightforward yet. We'd both have to get within the same context and then we'd readily agree, but we're not quite there yet.
> 1. Given that you already don't use the 2nd amendment to mean individual gun rights while other ppl do, discussing this with you is like feeding everything through a filter and translating it into common terms we would both use to mean the same things. Clearly this means not using the Constitutional laws as literal, that you and I already don't interpret or use the same way, or that's why we end up talking past each other.
> 2. I am trying to find a way to communicate on the same wavelength or page as you, so when you and I do agree on a common context then yes we will be able to connect and agree on principles instead of talking past each other .
> 3. At this point I am still trying to find that common ground.  Can I throw out two more questions to you to get your feedback on how you see or say these things:
> (A) how do you describe the difference between someone forfeiting their own rights because of violating or abusing the law vs. Other people abusing govt authority to deprive rights from people who have not committed any crime or abuse that warrants deprivation of liberty. Can I see how you describe that distinction in your own words or your explanation using Constitutional laws and terms
> (B) how do you describe the difference between regulations or laws that people consent to implement and agree to enforce vs. Regulations they argue as unconstitutional because they don't consent to it and it violates their beliefs. How would you describe that in legal or constitutional terms.
> 
> Thanks I just need to map out how you say and explain these things since we don't use laws the same way. In order to ensure we are accurate aligned and in tune on the same page, I would have to adapt to your system sort of like calibration on sensitive instruments to prevent misreading. Thanks!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is it biased?
> 
> It's simple fact.
> 
> Here's the biggest problem. People have basically been told they're anti-gun control. This means they feel they have to be anti-every single gun control measure going. Yet they'll support criminals and the insane not having guns. But no one tells them this is gun control, so they're happy.
> 
> They use "shall not be infringed" as a manner in which to express their "you can't do any gun control" sort of thing. I'm merely pointing out that in reality, there is gun control, and they support some gun control.
> 
> Until you have them accepting such a thing, there's no point in really talking.
Click to expand...


Dear frigidweirdo
You made it clear, the bias is mutual.
You interpret the right of the people to mean well regulated militia.
Other people do not. And other people like ChrisL even interpret
the militia to mean ALL THE PEOPLE.

So if people are not interpreting that law the same way,
where the words do not mean the same thing,
then OF COURSE the word 'infringe' is going to mean different things
because there are at least 3 different STARTING CONTEXTS going on.

That's why these different people with different biases on what the
law means or what we mean when we cite the law
end up "talking past each other" We aren't even using the law
the same way, to mean the same things, so of course
our words are not going to carry the same connotations!
They are coming from 2-4 different contexts.

That is what I mean by there being a bias.

C. Let me describe it another way:

The difference in context and connotation is as different as trying to argue
does the govt have authority to "infringe on the right of people to HAVE SEX"
vs.
"can the govt make laws about RAPE"

Rape is different from sex between consenting adults.

So the govt can criminalize rape and bar that
but that ISN'T THE SAME as "infringing on the right to have sex"

The same way people would be able to make their own decision, without govt regulation, on whether or not to have sex, that is ALREADY WITHIN the context of
CONSENSUAL relations and DOES NOT MEAN things like abuse,
adult-child relations or mentally or physically impaired people who cannot consent, etc.

The "context" of law-abiding/consent is already given, implied or ASSUMED.

If someone is arguing from the BIAS that "sex should only be within LEGAL MARRIAGE ONLY" then the statements will come out different from
someone arguing that ALL legally competent adults have freedom to make decisions whether to have sex with each other WITHOUT govt regulating that.

So this mutual bias would create a similar conflict if
one person argues that "the right to have sex" is LIMITED to just people WITHIN MARRIAGE, and others are saying NO it's a matter of being CONSENSUAL
between legally and mentally competent adults.

They will not agree if govt has authority to "infringe on the right to have sex" by enforcing laws requiring marriage, but they could agree the govt has authority to ban rape and abuse which "isn't the same as infringing on the right to have sex"

Does that analogy explain better how
biases affect how we communicate the meaning of infringement/regulation
where people are coming at this from different CONTEXTS.

I know this analogy isn't perfect.

But can you use it, and apply it back to the case we are discussing
about where we agree or disagree on well regulated militia and govt.


----------



## frigidweirdo

emilynghiem said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi @
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we agree that "shall no be infringed" doesn't mean that it can't be infringed upon? good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We agree more than disagree but the terms you use
> is what throws people off  frigidweirdo
> 
> I'd say it more like if you are infringing on the rights of others
> by abusing or threatening to abuse weapons, then that's YOU
> infringing your own rights.  For example, if you abuse "free exercise of religion"
> to sacrifice animals or people, that violates other laws, you end up
> getting convicted and incarcerated. Well you can't complain that it's
> the govt prohibiting you from practicing your religion. Part of your practice
> violated OTHER LAWS. So it wasn't about infringing on your religion,
> but about your actions that broke OTHER LAWS.
> 
> If this is explained in that context frigidweirdo
> we would find we agree more than no, and avoid getting stuck in conflict over
> the terminology you use that just invokes rejection when people hear that.
> 
> You just need a good facilitator to translate back and forth
> and you'd be fine. The terms you use are going to shut people
> down where they don't hear you. I can look past that and get to
> what you mean but most people can't or won't do that much work to listen to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure exactly what language you thin it is that throws other people off. It's a simple yes or no here, either the RKBA "shall not be infringed" EVER, or it shall be infringed. There are no two ways about it, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hi frigidweirdo: you are asking this question from a biased context so no it isn't straightforward yet. We'd both have to get within the same context and then we'd readily agree, but we're not quite there yet.
> 1. Given that you already don't use the 2nd amendment to mean individual gun rights while other ppl do, discussing this with you is like feeding everything through a filter and translating it into common terms we would both use to mean the same things. Clearly this means not using the Constitutional laws as literal, that you and I already don't interpret or use the same way, or that's why we end up talking past each other.
> 2. I am trying to find a way to communicate on the same wavelength or page as you, so when you and I do agree on a common context then yes we will be able to connect and agree on principles instead of talking past each other .
> 3. At this point I am still trying to find that common ground.  Can I throw out two more questions to you to get your feedback on how you see or say these things:
> (A) how do you describe the difference between someone forfeiting their own rights because of violating or abusing the law vs. Other people abusing govt authority to deprive rights from people who have not committed any crime or abuse that warrants deprivation of liberty. Can I see how you describe that distinction in your own words or your explanation using Constitutional laws and terms
> (B) how do you describe the difference between regulations or laws that people consent to implement and agree to enforce vs. Regulations they argue as unconstitutional because they don't consent to it and it violates their beliefs. How would you describe that in legal or constitutional terms.
> 
> Thanks I just need to map out how you say and explain these things since we don't use laws the same way. In order to ensure we are accurate aligned and in tune on the same page, I would have to adapt to your system sort of like calibration on sensitive instruments to prevent misreading. Thanks!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is it biased?
> 
> It's simple fact.
> 
> Here's the biggest problem. People have basically been told they're anti-gun control. This means they feel they have to be anti-every single gun control measure going. Yet they'll support criminals and the insane not having guns. But no one tells them this is gun control, so they're happy.
> 
> They use "shall not be infringed" as a manner in which to express their "you can't do any gun control" sort of thing. I'm merely pointing out that in reality, there is gun control, and they support some gun control.
> 
> Until you have them accepting such a thing, there's no point in really talking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo
> You made it clear, the bias is mutual.
> You interpret the right of the people to mean well regulated militia.
> Other people do not. And other people like ChrisL even interpret
> the militia to mean ALL THE PEOPLE.
> 
> So if people are not interpreting that law the same way,
> where the words do not mean the same thing,
> then OF COURSE the word 'infringe' is going to mean different things
> because there are at least 3 different STARTING CONTEXTS going on.
> 
> That's why these different people with different biases on what the
> law means or what we mean when we cite the law
> end up "talking past each other" We aren't even using the law
> the same way, to mean the same things, so of course
> our words are not going to carry the same connotations!
> They are coming from 2-4 different contexts.
> 
> That is what I mean by there being a bias.
> 
> C. Let me describe it another way:
> 
> The difference in context and connotation is as different as trying to argue
> does the govt have authority to "infringe on the right of people to HAVE SEX"
> vs.
> "can the govt make laws about RAPE"
> 
> Rape is different from sex between consenting adults.
> 
> So the govt can criminalize rape and bar that
> but that ISN'T THE SAME as "infringing on the right to have sex"
> 
> The same way people would be able to make their own decision, without govt regulation, on whether or not to have sex, that is ALREADY WITHIN the context of
> CONSENSUAL relations and DOES NOT MEAN things like abuse,
> adult-child relations or mentally or physically impaired people who cannot consent, etc.
> 
> The "context" of law-abiding/consent is already given, implied or ASSUMED.
> 
> If someone is arguing from the BIAS that "sex should only be within LEGAL MARRIAGE ONLY" then the statements will come out different from
> someone arguing that ALL legally competent adults have freedom to make decisions whether to have sex with each other WITHOUT govt regulating that.
> 
> So this mutual bias would create a similar conflict if
> one person argues that "the right to have sex" is LIMITED to just people WITHIN MARRIAGE, and others are saying NO it's a matter of being CONSENSUAL
> between legally and mentally competent adults.
> 
> They will not agree if govt has authority to "infringe on the right to have sex" by enforcing laws requiring marriage, but they could agree the govt has authority to ban rape and abuse which "isn't the same as infringing on the right to have sex"
> 
> Does that analogy explain better how
> biases affect how we communicate the meaning of infringement/regulation
> where people are coming at this from different CONTEXTS.
> 
> I know this analogy isn't perfect.
> 
> But can you use it, and apply it back to the case we are discussing
> about where we agree or disagree on well regulated militia and govt.
Click to expand...



I'm sorry, but I don't think you've been paying too much attention if you think I said "the people" is "the well regulated militia", and I don't understand how you could have come to such a conclusion. 

The militia can be all the people. Right now the militia is all males 17-45 in the "unorganized militia" and anyone in the National Guard.

So, bias it isn't, it's people not understanding what I'm writing.


----------



## ChrisL

emilynghiem said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi @
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we agree that "shall no be infringed" doesn't mean that it can't be infringed upon? good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We agree more than disagree but the terms you use
> is what throws people off  frigidweirdo
> 
> I'd say it more like if you are infringing on the rights of others
> by abusing or threatening to abuse weapons, then that's YOU
> infringing your own rights.  For example, if you abuse "free exercise of religion"
> to sacrifice animals or people, that violates other laws, you end up
> getting convicted and incarcerated. Well you can't complain that it's
> the govt prohibiting you from practicing your religion. Part of your practice
> violated OTHER LAWS. So it wasn't about infringing on your religion,
> but about your actions that broke OTHER LAWS.
> 
> If this is explained in that context frigidweirdo
> we would find we agree more than no, and avoid getting stuck in conflict over
> the terminology you use that just invokes rejection when people hear that.
> 
> You just need a good facilitator to translate back and forth
> and you'd be fine. The terms you use are going to shut people
> down where they don't hear you. I can look past that and get to
> what you mean but most people can't or won't do that much work to listen to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure exactly what language you thin it is that throws other people off. It's a simple yes or no here, either the RKBA "shall not be infringed" EVER, or it shall be infringed. There are no two ways about it, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hi frigidweirdo: you are asking this question from a biased context so no it isn't straightforward yet. We'd both have to get within the same context and then we'd readily agree, but we're not quite there yet.
> 1. Given that you already don't use the 2nd amendment to mean individual gun rights while other ppl do, discussing this with you is like feeding everything through a filter and translating it into common terms we would both use to mean the same things. Clearly this means not using the Constitutional laws as literal, that you and I already don't interpret or use the same way, or that's why we end up talking past each other.
> 2. I am trying to find a way to communicate on the same wavelength or page as you, so when you and I do agree on a common context then yes we will be able to connect and agree on principles instead of talking past each other .
> 3. At this point I am still trying to find that common ground.  Can I throw out two more questions to you to get your feedback on how you see or say these things:
> (A) how do you describe the difference between someone forfeiting their own rights because of violating or abusing the law vs. Other people abusing govt authority to deprive rights from people who have not committed any crime or abuse that warrants deprivation of liberty. Can I see how you describe that distinction in your own words or your explanation using Constitutional laws and terms
> (B) how do you describe the difference between regulations or laws that people consent to implement and agree to enforce vs. Regulations they argue as unconstitutional because they don't consent to it and it violates their beliefs. How would you describe that in legal or constitutional terms.
> 
> Thanks I just need to map out how you say and explain these things since we don't use laws the same way. In order to ensure we are accurate aligned and in tune on the same page, I would have to adapt to your system sort of like calibration on sensitive instruments to prevent misreading. Thanks!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is it biased?
> 
> It's simple fact.
> 
> Here's the biggest problem. People have basically been told they're anti-gun control. This means they feel they have to be anti-every single gun control measure going. Yet they'll support criminals and the insane not having guns. But no one tells them this is gun control, so they're happy.
> 
> They use "shall not be infringed" as a manner in which to express their "you can't do any gun control" sort of thing. I'm merely pointing out that in reality, there is gun control, and they support some gun control.
> 
> Until you have them accepting such a thing, there's no point in really talking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo
> You made it clear, the bias is mutual.
> You interpret the right of the people to mean well regulated militia.
> Other people do not. And other people like ChrisL even interpret
> the militia to mean ALL THE PEOPLE.
> 
> So if people are not interpreting that law the same way,
> where the words do not mean the same thing,
> then OF COURSE the word 'infringe' is going to mean different things
> because there are at least 3 different STARTING CONTEXTS going on.
> 
> That's why these different people with different biases on what the
> law means or what we mean when we cite the law
> end up "talking past each other" We aren't even using the law
> the same way, to mean the same things, so of course
> our words are not going to carry the same connotations!
> They are coming from 2-4 different contexts.
> 
> That is what I mean by there being a bias.
> 
> C. Let me describe it another way:
> 
> The difference in context and connotation is as different as trying to argue
> does the govt have authority to "infringe on the right of people to HAVE SEX"
> vs.
> "can the govt make laws about RAPE"
> 
> Rape is different from sex between consenting adults.
> 
> So the govt can criminalize rape and bar that
> but that ISN'T THE SAME as "infringing on the right to have sex"
> 
> The same way people would be able to make their own decision, without govt regulation, on whether or not to have sex, that is ALREADY WITHIN the context of
> CONSENSUAL relations and DOES NOT MEAN things like abuse,
> adult-child relations or mentally or physically impaired people who cannot consent, etc.
> 
> The "context" of law-abiding/consent is already given, implied or ASSUMED.
> 
> If someone is arguing from the BIAS that "sex should only be within LEGAL MARRIAGE ONLY" then the statements will come out different from
> someone arguing that ALL legally competent adults have freedom to make decisions whether to have sex with each other WITHOUT govt regulating that.
> 
> So this mutual bias would create a similar conflict if
> one person argues that "the right to have sex" is LIMITED to just people WITHIN MARRIAGE, and others are saying NO it's a matter of being CONSENSUAL
> between legally and mentally competent adults.
> 
> They will not agree if govt has authority to "infringe on the right to have sex" by enforcing laws requiring marriage, but they could agree the govt has authority to ban rape and abuse which "isn't the same as infringing on the right to have sex"
> 
> Does that analogy explain better how
> biases affect how we communicate the meaning of infringement/regulation
> where people are coming at this from different CONTEXTS.
> 
> I know this analogy isn't perfect.
> 
> But can you use it, and apply it back to the case we are discussing
> about where we agree or disagree on well regulated militia and govt.
Click to expand...


The thing is Emily, I did not interpret it.  I read the founding fathers' own words.  They clearly state that was their intent.  There is NO question about it.  That is why you cannot trust, like or respect anyone who tries to convince you otherwise.  They are very dishonest and traitors to the American people.  End of story.


----------



## ChrisL

What it means is that the people have the right to form a militia if they feel their government has infringed on their rights, and for that and other purposes, they have the right to bear arms.


----------



## sakinago

frigidweirdo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi @
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> We agree more than disagree but the terms you use
> is what throws people off  frigidweirdo
> 
> I'd say it more like if you are infringing on the rights of others
> by abusing or threatening to abuse weapons, then that's YOU
> infringing your own rights.  For example, if you abuse "free exercise of religion"
> to sacrifice animals or people, that violates other laws, you end up
> getting convicted and incarcerated. Well you can't complain that it's
> the govt prohibiting you from practicing your religion. Part of your practice
> violated OTHER LAWS. So it wasn't about infringing on your religion,
> but about your actions that broke OTHER LAWS.
> 
> If this is explained in that context frigidweirdo
> we would find we agree more than no, and avoid getting stuck in conflict over
> the terminology you use that just invokes rejection when people hear that.
> 
> You just need a good facilitator to translate back and forth
> and you'd be fine. The terms you use are going to shut people
> down where they don't hear you. I can look past that and get to
> what you mean but most people can't or won't do that much work to listen to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure exactly what language you thin it is that throws other people off. It's a simple yes or no here, either the RKBA "shall not be infringed" EVER, or it shall be infringed. There are no two ways about it, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hi frigidweirdo: you are asking this question from a biased context so no it isn't straightforward yet. We'd both have to get within the same context and then we'd readily agree, but we're not quite there yet.
> 1. Given that you already don't use the 2nd amendment to mean individual gun rights while other ppl do, discussing this with you is like feeding everything through a filter and translating it into common terms we would both use to mean the same things. Clearly this means not using the Constitutional laws as literal, that you and I already don't interpret or use the same way, or that's why we end up talking past each other.
> 2. I am trying to find a way to communicate on the same wavelength or page as you, so when you and I do agree on a common context then yes we will be able to connect and agree on principles instead of talking past each other .
> 3. At this point I am still trying to find that common ground.  Can I throw out two more questions to you to get your feedback on how you see or say these things:
> (A) how do you describe the difference between someone forfeiting their own rights because of violating or abusing the law vs. Other people abusing govt authority to deprive rights from people who have not committed any crime or abuse that warrants deprivation of liberty. Can I see how you describe that distinction in your own words or your explanation using Constitutional laws and terms
> (B) how do you describe the difference between regulations or laws that people consent to implement and agree to enforce vs. Regulations they argue as unconstitutional because they don't consent to it and it violates their beliefs. How would you describe that in legal or constitutional terms.
> 
> Thanks I just need to map out how you say and explain these things since we don't use laws the same way. In order to ensure we are accurate aligned and in tune on the same page, I would have to adapt to your system sort of like calibration on sensitive instruments to prevent misreading. Thanks!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is it biased?
> 
> It's simple fact.
> 
> Here's the biggest problem. People have basically been told they're anti-gun control. This means they feel they have to be anti-every single gun control measure going. Yet they'll support criminals and the insane not having guns. But no one tells them this is gun control, so they're happy.
> 
> They use "shall not be infringed" as a manner in which to express their "you can't do any gun control" sort of thing. I'm merely pointing out that in reality, there is gun control, and they support some gun control.
> 
> Until you have them accepting such a thing, there's no point in really talking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo
> You made it clear, the bias is mutual.
> You interpret the right of the people to mean well regulated militia.
> Other people do not. And other people like ChrisL even interpret
> the militia to mean ALL THE PEOPLE.
> 
> So if people are not interpreting that law the same way,
> where the words do not mean the same thing,
> then OF COURSE the word 'infringe' is going to mean different things
> because there are at least 3 different STARTING CONTEXTS going on.
> 
> That's why these different people with different biases on what the
> law means or what we mean when we cite the law
> end up "talking past each other" We aren't even using the law
> the same way, to mean the same things, so of course
> our words are not going to carry the same connotations!
> They are coming from 2-4 different contexts.
> 
> That is what I mean by there being a bias.
> 
> C. Let me describe it another way:
> 
> The difference in context and connotation is as different as trying to argue
> does the govt have authority to "infringe on the right of people to HAVE SEX"
> vs.
> "can the govt make laws about RAPE"
> 
> Rape is different from sex between consenting adults.
> 
> So the govt can criminalize rape and bar that
> but that ISN'T THE SAME as "infringing on the right to have sex"
> 
> The same way people would be able to make their own decision, without govt regulation, on whether or not to have sex, that is ALREADY WITHIN the context of
> CONSENSUAL relations and DOES NOT MEAN things like abuse,
> adult-child relations or mentally or physically impaired people who cannot consent, etc.
> 
> The "context" of law-abiding/consent is already given, implied or ASSUMED.
> 
> If someone is arguing from the BIAS that "sex should only be within LEGAL MARRIAGE ONLY" then the statements will come out different from
> someone arguing that ALL legally competent adults have freedom to make decisions whether to have sex with each other WITHOUT govt regulating that.
> 
> So this mutual bias would create a similar conflict if
> one person argues that "the right to have sex" is LIMITED to just people WITHIN MARRIAGE, and others are saying NO it's a matter of being CONSENSUAL
> between legally and mentally competent adults.
> 
> They will not agree if govt has authority to "infringe on the right to have sex" by enforcing laws requiring marriage, but they could agree the govt has authority to ban rape and abuse which "isn't the same as infringing on the right to have sex"
> 
> Does that analogy explain better how
> biases affect how we communicate the meaning of infringement/regulation
> where people are coming at this from different CONTEXTS.
> 
> I know this analogy isn't perfect.
> 
> But can you use it, and apply it back to the case we are discussing
> about where we agree or disagree on well regulated militia and govt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but I don't think you've been paying too much attention if you think I said "the people" is "the well regulated militia", and I don't understand how you could have come to such a conclusion.
> 
> The militia can be all the people. Right now the militia is all males 17-45 in the "unorganized militia" and anyone in the National Guard.
> 
> So, bias it isn't, it's people not understanding what I'm writing.
Click to expand...

But you’re taking the phrasing both out of its historical context, and what the founders actually said they meant by the 2nd. The militia was neccessary to the free state because an armed population is a counter to possible tyranny, foreign and domestic. So because a well armed and trained population is necessary to the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If the founder were worried about an invasion, and defending the country, they would’ve opted for a standing army instead. Much more effective at fighting against other armies than a militia (led and controlled by civilians) which was like herding cats and aiming them at a battlefield. But they were very much against a standing army because it could be used in a coup type of situation or used by the state to keep its population in line.


----------



## frigidweirdo

sakinago said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi @
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure exactly what language you thin it is that throws other people off. It's a simple yes or no here, either the RKBA "shall not be infringed" EVER, or it shall be infringed. There are no two ways about it, right?
> 
> 
> 
> Hi frigidweirdo: you are asking this question from a biased context so no it isn't straightforward yet. We'd both have to get within the same context and then we'd readily agree, but we're not quite there yet.
> 1. Given that you already don't use the 2nd amendment to mean individual gun rights while other ppl do, discussing this with you is like feeding everything through a filter and translating it into common terms we would both use to mean the same things. Clearly this means not using the Constitutional laws as literal, that you and I already don't interpret or use the same way, or that's why we end up talking past each other.
> 2. I am trying to find a way to communicate on the same wavelength or page as you, so when you and I do agree on a common context then yes we will be able to connect and agree on principles instead of talking past each other .
> 3. At this point I am still trying to find that common ground.  Can I throw out two more questions to you to get your feedback on how you see or say these things:
> (A) how do you describe the difference between someone forfeiting their own rights because of violating or abusing the law vs. Other people abusing govt authority to deprive rights from people who have not committed any crime or abuse that warrants deprivation of liberty. Can I see how you describe that distinction in your own words or your explanation using Constitutional laws and terms
> (B) how do you describe the difference between regulations or laws that people consent to implement and agree to enforce vs. Regulations they argue as unconstitutional because they don't consent to it and it violates their beliefs. How would you describe that in legal or constitutional terms.
> 
> Thanks I just need to map out how you say and explain these things since we don't use laws the same way. In order to ensure we are accurate aligned and in tune on the same page, I would have to adapt to your system sort of like calibration on sensitive instruments to prevent misreading. Thanks!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is it biased?
> 
> It's simple fact.
> 
> Here's the biggest problem. People have basically been told they're anti-gun control. This means they feel they have to be anti-every single gun control measure going. Yet they'll support criminals and the insane not having guns. But no one tells them this is gun control, so they're happy.
> 
> They use "shall not be infringed" as a manner in which to express their "you can't do any gun control" sort of thing. I'm merely pointing out that in reality, there is gun control, and they support some gun control.
> 
> Until you have them accepting such a thing, there's no point in really talking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo
> You made it clear, the bias is mutual.
> You interpret the right of the people to mean well regulated militia.
> Other people do not. And other people like ChrisL even interpret
> the militia to mean ALL THE PEOPLE.
> 
> So if people are not interpreting that law the same way,
> where the words do not mean the same thing,
> then OF COURSE the word 'infringe' is going to mean different things
> because there are at least 3 different STARTING CONTEXTS going on.
> 
> That's why these different people with different biases on what the
> law means or what we mean when we cite the law
> end up "talking past each other" We aren't even using the law
> the same way, to mean the same things, so of course
> our words are not going to carry the same connotations!
> They are coming from 2-4 different contexts.
> 
> That is what I mean by there being a bias.
> 
> C. Let me describe it another way:
> 
> The difference in context and connotation is as different as trying to argue
> does the govt have authority to "infringe on the right of people to HAVE SEX"
> vs.
> "can the govt make laws about RAPE"
> 
> Rape is different from sex between consenting adults.
> 
> So the govt can criminalize rape and bar that
> but that ISN'T THE SAME as "infringing on the right to have sex"
> 
> The same way people would be able to make their own decision, without govt regulation, on whether or not to have sex, that is ALREADY WITHIN the context of
> CONSENSUAL relations and DOES NOT MEAN things like abuse,
> adult-child relations or mentally or physically impaired people who cannot consent, etc.
> 
> The "context" of law-abiding/consent is already given, implied or ASSUMED.
> 
> If someone is arguing from the BIAS that "sex should only be within LEGAL MARRIAGE ONLY" then the statements will come out different from
> someone arguing that ALL legally competent adults have freedom to make decisions whether to have sex with each other WITHOUT govt regulating that.
> 
> So this mutual bias would create a similar conflict if
> one person argues that "the right to have sex" is LIMITED to just people WITHIN MARRIAGE, and others are saying NO it's a matter of being CONSENSUAL
> between legally and mentally competent adults.
> 
> They will not agree if govt has authority to "infringe on the right to have sex" by enforcing laws requiring marriage, but they could agree the govt has authority to ban rape and abuse which "isn't the same as infringing on the right to have sex"
> 
> Does that analogy explain better how
> biases affect how we communicate the meaning of infringement/regulation
> where people are coming at this from different CONTEXTS.
> 
> I know this analogy isn't perfect.
> 
> But can you use it, and apply it back to the case we are discussing
> about where we agree or disagree on well regulated militia and govt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but I don't think you've been paying too much attention if you think I said "the people" is "the well regulated militia", and I don't understand how you could have come to such a conclusion.
> 
> The militia can be all the people. Right now the militia is all males 17-45 in the "unorganized militia" and anyone in the National Guard.
> 
> So, bias it isn't, it's people not understanding what I'm writing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you’re taking the phrasing both out of its historical context, and what the founders actually said they meant by the 2nd. The militia was neccessary to the free state because an armed population is a counter to possible tyranny, foreign and domestic. So because a well armed and trained population is necessary to the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If the founder were worried about an invasion, and defending the country, they would’ve opted for a standing army instead. Much more effective at fighting against other armies than a militia (led and controlled by civilians) which was like herding cats and aiming them at a battlefield. But they were very much against a standing army because it could be used in a coup type of situation or used by the state to keep its population in line.
Click to expand...


No, I'm not. 

I think you're arguing against a generic view of the 2A, and not what I actually think. You could have written this post in response to 100 replies on this forum, and no one would know the difference.

The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. I know this because the FOUNDING FATHERS said so, and I have the documents to prove it.


----------



## sakinago

frigidweirdo said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi @
> Hi frigidweirdo: you are asking this question from a biased context so no it isn't straightforward yet. We'd both have to get within the same context and then we'd readily agree, but we're not quite there yet.
> 1. Given that you already don't use the 2nd amendment to mean individual gun rights while other ppl do, discussing this with you is like feeding everything through a filter and translating it into common terms we would both use to mean the same things. Clearly this means not using the Constitutional laws as literal, that you and I already don't interpret or use the same way, or that's why we end up talking past each other.
> 2. I am trying to find a way to communicate on the same wavelength or page as you, so when you and I do agree on a common context then yes we will be able to connect and agree on principles instead of talking past each other .
> 3. At this point I am still trying to find that common ground.  Can I throw out two more questions to you to get your feedback on how you see or say these things:
> (A) how do you describe the difference between someone forfeiting their own rights because of violating or abusing the law vs. Other people abusing govt authority to deprive rights from people who have not committed any crime or abuse that warrants deprivation of liberty. Can I see how you describe that distinction in your own words or your explanation using Constitutional laws and terms
> (B) how do you describe the difference between regulations or laws that people consent to implement and agree to enforce vs. Regulations they argue as unconstitutional because they don't consent to it and it violates their beliefs. How would you describe that in legal or constitutional terms.
> 
> Thanks I just need to map out how you say and explain these things since we don't use laws the same way. In order to ensure we are accurate aligned and in tune on the same page, I would have to adapt to your system sort of like calibration on sensitive instruments to prevent misreading. Thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is it biased?
> 
> It's simple fact.
> 
> Here's the biggest problem. People have basically been told they're anti-gun control. This means they feel they have to be anti-every single gun control measure going. Yet they'll support criminals and the insane not having guns. But no one tells them this is gun control, so they're happy.
> 
> They use "shall not be infringed" as a manner in which to express their "you can't do any gun control" sort of thing. I'm merely pointing out that in reality, there is gun control, and they support some gun control.
> 
> Until you have them accepting such a thing, there's no point in really talking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo
> You made it clear, the bias is mutual.
> You interpret the right of the people to mean well regulated militia.
> Other people do not. And other people like ChrisL even interpret
> the militia to mean ALL THE PEOPLE.
> 
> So if people are not interpreting that law the same way,
> where the words do not mean the same thing,
> then OF COURSE the word 'infringe' is going to mean different things
> because there are at least 3 different STARTING CONTEXTS going on.
> 
> That's why these different people with different biases on what the
> law means or what we mean when we cite the law
> end up "talking past each other" We aren't even using the law
> the same way, to mean the same things, so of course
> our words are not going to carry the same connotations!
> They are coming from 2-4 different contexts.
> 
> That is what I mean by there being a bias.
> 
> C. Let me describe it another way:
> 
> The difference in context and connotation is as different as trying to argue
> does the govt have authority to "infringe on the right of people to HAVE SEX"
> vs.
> "can the govt make laws about RAPE"
> 
> Rape is different from sex between consenting adults.
> 
> So the govt can criminalize rape and bar that
> but that ISN'T THE SAME as "infringing on the right to have sex"
> 
> The same way people would be able to make their own decision, without govt regulation, on whether or not to have sex, that is ALREADY WITHIN the context of
> CONSENSUAL relations and DOES NOT MEAN things like abuse,
> adult-child relations or mentally or physically impaired people who cannot consent, etc.
> 
> The "context" of law-abiding/consent is already given, implied or ASSUMED.
> 
> If someone is arguing from the BIAS that "sex should only be within LEGAL MARRIAGE ONLY" then the statements will come out different from
> someone arguing that ALL legally competent adults have freedom to make decisions whether to have sex with each other WITHOUT govt regulating that.
> 
> So this mutual bias would create a similar conflict if
> one person argues that "the right to have sex" is LIMITED to just people WITHIN MARRIAGE, and others are saying NO it's a matter of being CONSENSUAL
> between legally and mentally competent adults.
> 
> They will not agree if govt has authority to "infringe on the right to have sex" by enforcing laws requiring marriage, but they could agree the govt has authority to ban rape and abuse which "isn't the same as infringing on the right to have sex"
> 
> Does that analogy explain better how
> biases affect how we communicate the meaning of infringement/regulation
> where people are coming at this from different CONTEXTS.
> 
> I know this analogy isn't perfect.
> 
> But can you use it, and apply it back to the case we are discussing
> about where we agree or disagree on well regulated militia and govt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but I don't think you've been paying too much attention if you think I said "the people" is "the well regulated militia", and I don't understand how you could have come to such a conclusion.
> 
> The militia can be all the people. Right now the militia is all males 17-45 in the "unorganized militia" and anyone in the National Guard.
> 
> So, bias it isn't, it's people not understanding what I'm writing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you’re taking the phrasing both out of its historical context, and what the founders actually said they meant by the 2nd. The militia was neccessary to the free state because an armed population is a counter to possible tyranny, foreign and domestic. So because a well armed and trained population is necessary to the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If the founder were worried about an invasion, and defending the country, they would’ve opted for a standing army instead. Much more effective at fighting against other armies than a militia (led and controlled by civilians) which was like herding cats and aiming them at a battlefield. But they were very much against a standing army because it could be used in a coup type of situation or used by the state to keep its population in line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm not.
> 
> I think you're arguing against a generic view of the 2A, and not what I actually think. You could have written this post in response to 100 replies on this forum, and no one would know the difference.
> 
> The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. I know this because the FOUNDING FATHERS said so, and I have the documents to prove it.
Click to expand...

For that to be the case you’d have to greatly jumble the wording 2nd amendment. What the founders are saying is that the militia (civilian led and controlled military, not controlled by government) is necessary to the free state, therefore the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon by the government. The militia was necessary because it was an armed CIVILIAN force, and a government is not going to force its will upon armed people...which a free society is one where the government is not forcing its will onto people. With what you’re saying you still have to disregard the whole “the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” That’s about as clear as it gets. If you want gun control you have to repeal the 2nd amendment. 

This is what the founders talked about, over and over. It’s not about protecting the state, it’s about protecting the people, or in other words government not messing with the right of people to protect themselves from whatever might threaten their rights or life.


----------



## Flash

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> [QU
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.
> 
> “But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’
> 
> What clearly confuses you and other conservatives is the fact that the Second Amendment right is not ‘unlimited,’ it is subject to restrictions by government, as is the case with other rights, provided those restriction comport with Second Amendment jurisprudence.




The problem is that the stupid Liberals go bat shit crazy when putting limitations on the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

I could give many example but there was an arrest last week of a woman from another state passing trough New York that that had a legal gun to be used for the protection of her children.  She did not use the gun in an illegal manner or threaten anybody.  It was in her car.  She was arrested for the mere possession of a firearm and if that ain't "infringing" then nothing is. 

A guy had his firearms confiscated because he went to see a doctor about insomnia.  A veteran was arrested because he had two unloaded standard AR magazines in the trunk of his car.  In commie Kalifornia you can't buy ammo after the 1st of the year unless it goes to a licensed firearms dealer and you go through a background check.  The list of Liberal stupidity with "limitations" on the constitutional right goes on and on.

Liberals cannot ever be trusted with anything and their stupid interpretation of "reasonable" gun laws is certainly no exception. 

Liberals hate the idea of armed citizens being a strong enough force to be a threat to their precious government and that is the real reason they hate the Second Amendment.


----------



## sakinago

Flash said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> [QU
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.
> 
> “But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’
> 
> What clearly confuses you and other conservatives is the fact that the Second Amendment right is not ‘unlimited,’ it is subject to restrictions by government, as is the case with other rights, provided those restriction comport with Second Amendment jurisprudence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that the stupid Liberals go bat shit crazy when putting limitations on the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> I could give many example but there was an arrest last week of a woman from another state passing trough New York that that had a legal gun to be used for the protection of her children.  She did not use the gun in an illegal manner or threaten anybody.  It was in her car.  She was arrested for the mere possession of a firearm and if that ain't "infringing" then nothing is.
> 
> A guy had his firearms confiscated because he went to see a doctor about insomnia.  A veteran was arrested because he had two unloaded standard AR magazines in the trunk of his car.  In commie Kalifornia you can't buy ammo after the 1st of the year unless it goes to a licensed firearms dealer and you go through a background check.  The list of Liberal stupidity with "limitations" on the constitutional right goes on and on.
> 
> Liberals cannot ever be trusted with anything and their stupid interpretation of "reasonable" gun laws is certainly no exception.
> 
> Liberals hate the idea of armed citizens being a strong enough force to be a threat to their precious government and that is the real reason they hate the Second Amendment.
Click to expand...

Yup these are all infringements. It’s not about “keeping the guns out of the hands of bad people,” it’s about limiting the entire populace, and swinging the hammer hard when they slip up. It’s about making guns into scary grim reapers.


----------



## Flash

sakinago said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> [QU
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.
> 
> “But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’
> 
> What clearly confuses you and other conservatives is the fact that the Second Amendment right is not ‘unlimited,’ it is subject to restrictions by government, as is the case with other rights, provided those restriction comport with Second Amendment jurisprudence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that the stupid Liberals go bat shit crazy when putting limitations on the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> I could give many example but there was an arrest last week of a woman from another state passing trough New York that that had a legal gun to be used for the protection of her children.  She did not use the gun in an illegal manner or threaten anybody.  It was in her car.  She was arrested for the mere possession of a firearm and if that ain't "infringing" then nothing is.
> 
> A guy had his firearms confiscated because he went to see a doctor about insomnia.  A veteran was arrested because he had two unloaded standard AR magazines in the trunk of his car.  In commie Kalifornia you can't buy ammo after the 1st of the year unless it goes to a licensed firearms dealer and you go through a background check.  The list of Liberal stupidity with "limitations" on the constitutional right goes on and on.
> 
> Liberals cannot ever be trusted with anything and their stupid interpretation of "reasonable" gun laws is certainly no exception.
> 
> Liberals hate the idea of armed citizens being a strong enough force to be a threat to their precious government and that is the real reason they hate the Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup these are all infringements. It’s not about “keeping the guns out of the hands of bad people,” it’s about limiting the entire populace, and swinging the hammer hard when they slip up. It’s about making guns into scary grim reapers.
Click to expand...



The lady that got arrested in New York was not a bad person.  She was only considered a bad person because the stupid idiots in New York passed the infamous "SAFE Act" which made her a criminal for the mere possession of a firearm, which is blatantly an infringement upon her Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.  She committed no crime with the gun other than possession.  In fact when she was arrested it was in her car.  It was not even on her person.  How stupid is that?  Like I said, you can never trust Liberals with our freedoms.  They will always do the wrong thing.

I don't want the filthy out of control corrupt politically correct government putting limitation on my Constitutional rights, do you?

The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to establish a basic set of rights that the government can't infringe upon.  If the government can infringe then the Bill of Rights isn't worth the parchment it is written on, is it?  .


----------



## sakinago

Flash said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> [QU
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.
> 
> “But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’
> 
> What clearly confuses you and other conservatives is the fact that the Second Amendment right is not ‘unlimited,’ it is subject to restrictions by government, as is the case with other rights, provided those restriction comport with Second Amendment jurisprudence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that the stupid Liberals go bat shit crazy when putting limitations on the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> I could give many example but there was an arrest last week of a woman from another state passing trough New York that that had a legal gun to be used for the protection of her children.  She did not use the gun in an illegal manner or threaten anybody.  It was in her car.  She was arrested for the mere possession of a firearm and if that ain't "infringing" then nothing is.
> 
> A guy had his firearms confiscated because he went to see a doctor about insomnia.  A veteran was arrested because he had two unloaded standard AR magazines in the trunk of his car.  In commie Kalifornia you can't buy ammo after the 1st of the year unless it goes to a licensed firearms dealer and you go through a background check.  The list of Liberal stupidity with "limitations" on the constitutional right goes on and on.
> 
> Liberals cannot ever be trusted with anything and their stupid interpretation of "reasonable" gun laws is certainly no exception.
> 
> Liberals hate the idea of armed citizens being a strong enough force to be a threat to their precious government and that is the real reason they hate the Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup these are all infringements. It’s not about “keeping the guns out of the hands of bad people,” it’s about limiting the entire populace, and swinging the hammer hard when they slip up. It’s about making guns into scary grim reapers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The lady that got arrested in New York was not a bad person.  She was only considered a bad person because the stupid idiots in New York passed the infamous "SAFE Act" which made her a criminal for the mere possession of a firearm, which is blatantly an infringement upon her Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.  She committed no crime with the gun other than possession.  In fact when she was arrested it was in her car.  It was not even on her person.  How stupid is that?  Like I said, you can never trust Liberals with our freedoms.  They will always do the wrong thing.
> 
> I don't want the filthy out of control corrupt politically correct government putting limitation on my Constitutional rights, do you?
> 
> The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to establish a basic set of rights that the government can't infringe upon.  If the government can infringe then the Bill of Rights isn't worth the parchment it is written on, is it?  .
Click to expand...

And the 2nd is the amendment to ensure the existence of the other amendments. It’s a pure transfer of power into the hands of the civilians, like a free state requires.


----------



## 2aguy

frigidweirdo said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi @
> Hi frigidweirdo: you are asking this question from a biased context so no it isn't straightforward yet. We'd both have to get within the same context and then we'd readily agree, but we're not quite there yet.
> 1. Given that you already don't use the 2nd amendment to mean individual gun rights while other ppl do, discussing this with you is like feeding everything through a filter and translating it into common terms we would both use to mean the same things. Clearly this means not using the Constitutional laws as literal, that you and I already don't interpret or use the same way, or that's why we end up talking past each other.
> 2. I am trying to find a way to communicate on the same wavelength or page as you, so when you and I do agree on a common context then yes we will be able to connect and agree on principles instead of talking past each other .
> 3. At this point I am still trying to find that common ground.  Can I throw out two more questions to you to get your feedback on how you see or say these things:
> (A) how do you describe the difference between someone forfeiting their own rights because of violating or abusing the law vs. Other people abusing govt authority to deprive rights from people who have not committed any crime or abuse that warrants deprivation of liberty. Can I see how you describe that distinction in your own words or your explanation using Constitutional laws and terms
> (B) how do you describe the difference between regulations or laws that people consent to implement and agree to enforce vs. Regulations they argue as unconstitutional because they don't consent to it and it violates their beliefs. How would you describe that in legal or constitutional terms.
> 
> Thanks I just need to map out how you say and explain these things since we don't use laws the same way. In order to ensure we are accurate aligned and in tune on the same page, I would have to adapt to your system sort of like calibration on sensitive instruments to prevent misreading. Thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is it biased?
> 
> It's simple fact.
> 
> Here's the biggest problem. People have basically been told they're anti-gun control. This means they feel they have to be anti-every single gun control measure going. Yet they'll support criminals and the insane not having guns. But no one tells them this is gun control, so they're happy.
> 
> They use "shall not be infringed" as a manner in which to express their "you can't do any gun control" sort of thing. I'm merely pointing out that in reality, there is gun control, and they support some gun control.
> 
> Until you have them accepting such a thing, there's no point in really talking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo
> You made it clear, the bias is mutual.
> You interpret the right of the people to mean well regulated militia.
> Other people do not. And other people like ChrisL even interpret
> the militia to mean ALL THE PEOPLE.
> 
> So if people are not interpreting that law the same way,
> where the words do not mean the same thing,
> then OF COURSE the word 'infringe' is going to mean different things
> because there are at least 3 different STARTING CONTEXTS going on.
> 
> That's why these different people with different biases on what the
> law means or what we mean when we cite the law
> end up "talking past each other" We aren't even using the law
> the same way, to mean the same things, so of course
> our words are not going to carry the same connotations!
> They are coming from 2-4 different contexts.
> 
> That is what I mean by there being a bias.
> 
> C. Let me describe it another way:
> 
> The difference in context and connotation is as different as trying to argue
> does the govt have authority to "infringe on the right of people to HAVE SEX"
> vs.
> "can the govt make laws about RAPE"
> 
> Rape is different from sex between consenting adults.
> 
> So the govt can criminalize rape and bar that
> but that ISN'T THE SAME as "infringing on the right to have sex"
> 
> The same way people would be able to make their own decision, without govt regulation, on whether or not to have sex, that is ALREADY WITHIN the context of
> CONSENSUAL relations and DOES NOT MEAN things like abuse,
> adult-child relations or mentally or physically impaired people who cannot consent, etc.
> 
> The "context" of law-abiding/consent is already given, implied or ASSUMED.
> 
> If someone is arguing from the BIAS that "sex should only be within LEGAL MARRIAGE ONLY" then the statements will come out different from
> someone arguing that ALL legally competent adults have freedom to make decisions whether to have sex with each other WITHOUT govt regulating that.
> 
> So this mutual bias would create a similar conflict if
> one person argues that "the right to have sex" is LIMITED to just people WITHIN MARRIAGE, and others are saying NO it's a matter of being CONSENSUAL
> between legally and mentally competent adults.
> 
> They will not agree if govt has authority to "infringe on the right to have sex" by enforcing laws requiring marriage, but they could agree the govt has authority to ban rape and abuse which "isn't the same as infringing on the right to have sex"
> 
> Does that analogy explain better how
> biases affect how we communicate the meaning of infringement/regulation
> where people are coming at this from different CONTEXTS.
> 
> I know this analogy isn't perfect.
> 
> But can you use it, and apply it back to the case we are discussing
> about where we agree or disagree on well regulated militia and govt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but I don't think you've been paying too much attention if you think I said "the people" is "the well regulated militia", and I don't understand how you could have come to such a conclusion.
> 
> The militia can be all the people. Right now the militia is all males 17-45 in the "unorganized militia" and anyone in the National Guard.
> 
> So, bias it isn't, it's people not understanding what I'm writing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you’re taking the phrasing both out of its historical context, and what the founders actually said they meant by the 2nd. The militia was neccessary to the free state because an armed population is a counter to possible tyranny, foreign and domestic. So because a well armed and trained population is necessary to the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If the founder were worried about an invasion, and defending the country, they would’ve opted for a standing army instead. Much more effective at fighting against other armies than a militia (led and controlled by civilians) which was like herding cats and aiming them at a battlefield. But they were very much against a standing army because it could be used in a coup type of situation or used by the state to keep its population in line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm not.
> 
> I think you're arguing against a generic view of the 2A, and not what I actually think. You could have written this post in response to 100 replies on this forum, and no one would know the difference.
> 
> The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. I know this because the FOUNDING FATHERS said so, and I have the documents to prove it.
Click to expand...



You can repeat that as much as you like but it will never make it even remotely true.....


----------



## Flash

2aguy said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is it biased?
> 
> It's simple fact.
> 
> Here's the biggest problem. People have basically been told they're anti-gun control. This means they feel they have to be anti-every single gun control measure going. Yet they'll support criminals and the insane not having guns. But no one tells them this is gun control, so they're happy.
> 
> They use "shall not be infringed" as a manner in which to express their "you can't do any gun control" sort of thing. I'm merely pointing out that in reality, there is gun control, and they support some gun control.
> 
> Until you have them accepting such a thing, there's no point in really talking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo
> You made it clear, the bias is mutual.
> You interpret the right of the people to mean well regulated militia.
> Other people do not. And other people like ChrisL even interpret
> the militia to mean ALL THE PEOPLE.
> 
> So if people are not interpreting that law the same way,
> where the words do not mean the same thing,
> then OF COURSE the word 'infringe' is going to mean different things
> because there are at least 3 different STARTING CONTEXTS going on.
> 
> That's why these different people with different biases on what the
> law means or what we mean when we cite the law
> end up "talking past each other" We aren't even using the law
> the same way, to mean the same things, so of course
> our words are not going to carry the same connotations!
> They are coming from 2-4 different contexts.
> 
> That is what I mean by there being a bias.
> 
> C. Let me describe it another way:
> 
> The difference in context and connotation is as different as trying to argue
> does the govt have authority to "infringe on the right of people to HAVE SEX"
> vs.
> "can the govt make laws about RAPE"
> 
> Rape is different from sex between consenting adults.
> 
> So the govt can criminalize rape and bar that
> but that ISN'T THE SAME as "infringing on the right to have sex"
> 
> The same way people would be able to make their own decision, without govt regulation, on whether or not to have sex, that is ALREADY WITHIN the context of
> CONSENSUAL relations and DOES NOT MEAN things like abuse,
> adult-child relations or mentally or physically impaired people who cannot consent, etc.
> 
> The "context" of law-abiding/consent is already given, implied or ASSUMED.
> 
> If someone is arguing from the BIAS that "sex should only be within LEGAL MARRIAGE ONLY" then the statements will come out different from
> someone arguing that ALL legally competent adults have freedom to make decisions whether to have sex with each other WITHOUT govt regulating that.
> 
> So this mutual bias would create a similar conflict if
> one person argues that "the right to have sex" is LIMITED to just people WITHIN MARRIAGE, and others are saying NO it's a matter of being CONSENSUAL
> between legally and mentally competent adults.
> 
> They will not agree if govt has authority to "infringe on the right to have sex" by enforcing laws requiring marriage, but they could agree the govt has authority to ban rape and abuse which "isn't the same as infringing on the right to have sex"
> 
> Does that analogy explain better how
> biases affect how we communicate the meaning of infringement/regulation
> where people are coming at this from different CONTEXTS.
> 
> I know this analogy isn't perfect.
> 
> But can you use it, and apply it back to the case we are discussing
> about where we agree or disagree on well regulated militia and govt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but I don't think you've been paying too much attention if you think I said "the people" is "the well regulated militia", and I don't understand how you could have come to such a conclusion.
> 
> The militia can be all the people. Right now the militia is all males 17-45 in the "unorganized militia" and anyone in the National Guard.
> 
> So, bias it isn't, it's people not understanding what I'm writing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you’re taking the phrasing both out of its historical context, and what the founders actually said they meant by the 2nd. The militia was neccessary to the free state because an armed population is a counter to possible tyranny, foreign and domestic. So because a well armed and trained population is necessary to the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If the founder were worried about an invasion, and defending the country, they would’ve opted for a standing army instead. Much more effective at fighting against other armies than a militia (led and controlled by civilians) which was like herding cats and aiming them at a battlefield. But they were very much against a standing army because it could be used in a coup type of situation or used by the state to keep its population in line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm not.
> 
> I think you're arguing against a generic view of the 2A, and not what I actually think. You could have written this post in response to 100 replies on this forum, and no one would know the difference.
> 
> The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. I know this because the FOUNDING FATHERS said so, and I have the documents to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can repeat that as much as you like but it will never make it even remotely true.....
Click to expand...



The _Heller_ case settled that misinterpretation once and for all by declaring that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.  These stupid Moon Bats simply don't want to accept it..  

They are as confused about the "militia" wording as they are about the definition of "well regulated".   Good thing Scalia set the record straight, isn't it?


----------



## emilynghiem

2aguy said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is it biased?
> 
> It's simple fact.
> 
> Here's the biggest problem. People have basically been told they're anti-gun control. This means they feel they have to be anti-every single gun control measure going. Yet they'll support criminals and the insane not having guns. But no one tells them this is gun control, so they're happy.
> 
> They use "shall not be infringed" as a manner in which to express their "you can't do any gun control" sort of thing. I'm merely pointing out that in reality, there is gun control, and they support some gun control.
> 
> Until you have them accepting such a thing, there's no point in really talking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo
> You made it clear, the bias is mutual.
> You interpret the right of the people to mean well regulated militia.
> Other people do not. And other people like ChrisL even interpret
> the militia to mean ALL THE PEOPLE.
> 
> So if people are not interpreting that law the same way,
> where the words do not mean the same thing,
> then OF COURSE the word 'infringe' is going to mean different things
> because there are at least 3 different STARTING CONTEXTS going on.
> 
> That's why these different people with different biases on what the
> law means or what we mean when we cite the law
> end up "talking past each other" We aren't even using the law
> the same way, to mean the same things, so of course
> our words are not going to carry the same connotations!
> They are coming from 2-4 different contexts.
> 
> That is what I mean by there being a bias.
> 
> C. Let me describe it another way:
> 
> The difference in context and connotation is as different as trying to argue
> does the govt have authority to "infringe on the right of people to HAVE SEX"
> vs.
> "can the govt make laws about RAPE"
> 
> Rape is different from sex between consenting adults.
> 
> So the govt can criminalize rape and bar that
> but that ISN'T THE SAME as "infringing on the right to have sex"
> 
> The same way people would be able to make their own decision, without govt regulation, on whether or not to have sex, that is ALREADY WITHIN the context of
> CONSENSUAL relations and DOES NOT MEAN things like abuse,
> adult-child relations or mentally or physically impaired people who cannot consent, etc.
> 
> The "context" of law-abiding/consent is already given, implied or ASSUMED.
> 
> If someone is arguing from the BIAS that "sex should only be within LEGAL MARRIAGE ONLY" then the statements will come out different from
> someone arguing that ALL legally competent adults have freedom to make decisions whether to have sex with each other WITHOUT govt regulating that.
> 
> So this mutual bias would create a similar conflict if
> one person argues that "the right to have sex" is LIMITED to just people WITHIN MARRIAGE, and others are saying NO it's a matter of being CONSENSUAL
> between legally and mentally competent adults.
> 
> They will not agree if govt has authority to "infringe on the right to have sex" by enforcing laws requiring marriage, but they could agree the govt has authority to ban rape and abuse which "isn't the same as infringing on the right to have sex"
> 
> Does that analogy explain better how
> biases affect how we communicate the meaning of infringement/regulation
> where people are coming at this from different CONTEXTS.
> 
> I know this analogy isn't perfect.
> 
> But can you use it, and apply it back to the case we are discussing
> about where we agree or disagree on well regulated militia and govt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but I don't think you've been paying too much attention if you think I said "the people" is "the well regulated militia", and I don't understand how you could have come to such a conclusion.
> 
> The militia can be all the people. Right now the militia is all males 17-45 in the "unorganized militia" and anyone in the National Guard.
> 
> So, bias it isn't, it's people not understanding what I'm writing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you’re taking the phrasing both out of its historical context, and what the founders actually said they meant by the 2nd. The militia was neccessary to the free state because an armed population is a counter to possible tyranny, foreign and domestic. So because a well armed and trained population is necessary to the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If the founder were worried about an invasion, and defending the country, they would’ve opted for a standing army instead. Much more effective at fighting against other armies than a militia (led and controlled by civilians) which was like herding cats and aiming them at a battlefield. But they were very much against a standing army because it could be used in a coup type of situation or used by the state to keep its population in line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm not.
> 
> I think you're arguing against a generic view of the 2A, and not what I actually think. You could have written this post in response to 100 replies on this forum, and no one would know the difference.
> 
> The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. I know this because the FOUNDING FATHERS said so, and I have the documents to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can repeat that as much as you like but it will never make it even remotely true.....
Click to expand...


For you 2aguy and others with your political beliefs and interpretation/understanding of the laws.
Neither will you and me preaching our beliefs
are going to change how frigidweirdo believes either!

So why not accept that we have two different schools of thought and beliefs here.
And those branch off into 4, given what frigidweirdo and ChrisL added on how they see it.

We are not going to change each other's minds or beliefs
by preaching and defending our own. We'll just deadlock
because each of us has equal right and responsibility for our own beliefs.

Question remains
how do we make public policy that reflects represents and includes
this diversity of beliefs including the conflicts and still protect everyone equally?


----------



## 2aguy

emilynghiem said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo
> You made it clear, the bias is mutual.
> You interpret the right of the people to mean well regulated militia.
> Other people do not. And other people like ChrisL even interpret
> the militia to mean ALL THE PEOPLE.
> 
> So if people are not interpreting that law the same way,
> where the words do not mean the same thing,
> then OF COURSE the word 'infringe' is going to mean different things
> because there are at least 3 different STARTING CONTEXTS going on.
> 
> That's why these different people with different biases on what the
> law means or what we mean when we cite the law
> end up "talking past each other" We aren't even using the law
> the same way, to mean the same things, so of course
> our words are not going to carry the same connotations!
> They are coming from 2-4 different contexts.
> 
> That is what I mean by there being a bias.
> 
> C. Let me describe it another way:
> 
> The difference in context and connotation is as different as trying to argue
> does the govt have authority to "infringe on the right of people to HAVE SEX"
> vs.
> "can the govt make laws about RAPE"
> 
> Rape is different from sex between consenting adults.
> 
> So the govt can criminalize rape and bar that
> but that ISN'T THE SAME as "infringing on the right to have sex"
> 
> The same way people would be able to make their own decision, without govt regulation, on whether or not to have sex, that is ALREADY WITHIN the context of
> CONSENSUAL relations and DOES NOT MEAN things like abuse,
> adult-child relations or mentally or physically impaired people who cannot consent, etc.
> 
> The "context" of law-abiding/consent is already given, implied or ASSUMED.
> 
> If someone is arguing from the BIAS that "sex should only be within LEGAL MARRIAGE ONLY" then the statements will come out different from
> someone arguing that ALL legally competent adults have freedom to make decisions whether to have sex with each other WITHOUT govt regulating that.
> 
> So this mutual bias would create a similar conflict if
> one person argues that "the right to have sex" is LIMITED to just people WITHIN MARRIAGE, and others are saying NO it's a matter of being CONSENSUAL
> between legally and mentally competent adults.
> 
> They will not agree if govt has authority to "infringe on the right to have sex" by enforcing laws requiring marriage, but they could agree the govt has authority to ban rape and abuse which "isn't the same as infringing on the right to have sex"
> 
> Does that analogy explain better how
> biases affect how we communicate the meaning of infringement/regulation
> where people are coming at this from different CONTEXTS.
> 
> I know this analogy isn't perfect.
> 
> But can you use it, and apply it back to the case we are discussing
> about where we agree or disagree on well regulated militia and govt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but I don't think you've been paying too much attention if you think I said "the people" is "the well regulated militia", and I don't understand how you could have come to such a conclusion.
> 
> The militia can be all the people. Right now the militia is all males 17-45 in the "unorganized militia" and anyone in the National Guard.
> 
> So, bias it isn't, it's people not understanding what I'm writing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you’re taking the phrasing both out of its historical context, and what the founders actually said they meant by the 2nd. The militia was neccessary to the free state because an armed population is a counter to possible tyranny, foreign and domestic. So because a well armed and trained population is necessary to the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If the founder were worried about an invasion, and defending the country, they would’ve opted for a standing army instead. Much more effective at fighting against other armies than a militia (led and controlled by civilians) which was like herding cats and aiming them at a battlefield. But they were very much against a standing army because it could be used in a coup type of situation or used by the state to keep its population in line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm not.
> 
> I think you're arguing against a generic view of the 2A, and not what I actually think. You could have written this post in response to 100 replies on this forum, and no one would know the difference.
> 
> The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. I know this because the FOUNDING FATHERS said so, and I have the documents to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can repeat that as much as you like but it will never make it even remotely true.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For you 2aguy and others with your political beliefs and interpretation/understanding of the laws.
> Neither will you and me preaching our beliefs
> are going to change how frigidweirdo believes either!
> 
> So why not accept that we have two different schools of thought and beliefs here.
> And those branch off into 4, given what frigidweirdo and ChrisL added on how they see it.
> 
> We are not going to change each other's minds or beliefs
> by preaching and defending our own. We'll just deadlock
> because each of us has equal right and responsibility for our own beliefs.
> 
> Question remains
> how do we make public policy that reflects represents and includes
> this diversity of beliefs including the conflicts and still protect everyone equally?
Click to expand...



I know you can't change their minds....they aren't the ones I am trying to reach.  

How do we make public policy?  We vote out every democrat that we can, and vote out every establishment republican that we can.....we also try to inform the public about the truth, the facts and the reality of gun ownership in this country.  We do those things and we will be alright.


----------



## Flash

emilynghiem said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo
> You made it clear, the bias is mutual.
> You interpret the right of the people to mean well regulated militia.
> Other people do not. And other people like ChrisL even interpret
> the militia to mean ALL THE PEOPLE.
> 
> So if people are not interpreting that law the same way,
> where the words do not mean the same thing,
> then OF COURSE the word 'infringe' is going to mean different things
> because there are at least 3 different STARTING CONTEXTS going on.
> 
> That's why these different people with different biases on what the
> law means or what we mean when we cite the law
> end up "talking past each other" We aren't even using the law
> the same way, to mean the same things, so of course
> our words are not going to carry the same connotations!
> They are coming from 2-4 different contexts.
> 
> That is what I mean by there being a bias.
> 
> C. Let me describe it another way:
> 
> The difference in context and connotation is as different as trying to argue
> does the govt have authority to "infringe on the right of people to HAVE SEX"
> vs.
> "can the govt make laws about RAPE"
> 
> Rape is different from sex between consenting adults.
> 
> So the govt can criminalize rape and bar that
> but that ISN'T THE SAME as "infringing on the right to have sex"
> 
> The same way people would be able to make their own decision, without govt regulation, on whether or not to have sex, that is ALREADY WITHIN the context of
> CONSENSUAL relations and DOES NOT MEAN things like abuse,
> adult-child relations or mentally or physically impaired people who cannot consent, etc.
> 
> The "context" of law-abiding/consent is already given, implied or ASSUMED.
> 
> If someone is arguing from the BIAS that "sex should only be within LEGAL MARRIAGE ONLY" then the statements will come out different from
> someone arguing that ALL legally competent adults have freedom to make decisions whether to have sex with each other WITHOUT govt regulating that.
> 
> So this mutual bias would create a similar conflict if
> one person argues that "the right to have sex" is LIMITED to just people WITHIN MARRIAGE, and others are saying NO it's a matter of being CONSENSUAL
> between legally and mentally competent adults.
> 
> They will not agree if govt has authority to "infringe on the right to have sex" by enforcing laws requiring marriage, but they could agree the govt has authority to ban rape and abuse which "isn't the same as infringing on the right to have sex"
> 
> Does that analogy explain better how
> biases affect how we communicate the meaning of infringement/regulation
> where people are coming at this from different CONTEXTS.
> 
> I know this analogy isn't perfect.
> 
> But can you use it, and apply it back to the case we are discussing
> about where we agree or disagree on well regulated militia and govt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but I don't think you've been paying too much attention if you think I said "the people" is "the well regulated militia", and I don't understand how you could have come to such a conclusion.
> 
> The militia can be all the people. Right now the militia is all males 17-45 in the "unorganized militia" and anyone in the National Guard.
> 
> So, bias it isn't, it's people not understanding what I'm writing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you’re taking the phrasing both out of its historical context, and what the founders actually said they meant by the 2nd. The militia was neccessary to the free state because an armed population is a counter to possible tyranny, foreign and domestic. So because a well armed and trained population is necessary to the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If the founder were worried about an invasion, and defending the country, they would’ve opted for a standing army instead. Much more effective at fighting against other armies than a militia (led and controlled by civilians) which was like herding cats and aiming them at a battlefield. But they were very much against a standing army because it could be used in a coup type of situation or used by the state to keep its population in line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm not.
> 
> I think you're arguing against a generic view of the 2A, and not what I actually think. You could have written this post in response to 100 replies on this forum, and no one would know the difference.
> 
> The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. I know this because the FOUNDING FATHERS said so, and I have the documents to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can repeat that as much as you like but it will never make it even remotely true.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For you 2aguy and others with your political beliefs and interpretation/understanding of the laws.
> Neither will you and me preaching our beliefs
> are going to change how frigidweirdo believes either!
> 
> So why not accept that we have two different schools of thought and beliefs here.
> And those branch off into 4, given what frigidweirdo and ChrisL added on how they see it.
> 
> We are not going to change each other's minds or beliefs
> by preaching and defending our own. We'll just deadlock
> because each of us has equal right and responsibility for our own beliefs.
> 
> Question remains
> how do we make public policy that reflects represents and includes
> this diversity of beliefs including the conflicts and still protect everyone equally?
Click to expand...



Fuck diversity.

If diversity means listening to these idiot Moon Bats rail about how we need to do away with our Constitutional rights then count me out. 

Liberals are not reasonable people so you can't reason with them.  Nothing is more indicative of that than the discussion on the right to keep and bear arms with the possible exception of the question of abortion on demand for the sake of convenience.


----------



## emilynghiem

Flash said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo
> You made it clear, the bias is mutual.
> You interpret the right of the people to mean well regulated militia.
> Other people do not. And other people like ChrisL even interpret
> the militia to mean ALL THE PEOPLE.
> 
> So if people are not interpreting that law the same way,
> where the words do not mean the same thing,
> then OF COURSE the word 'infringe' is going to mean different things
> because there are at least 3 different STARTING CONTEXTS going on.
> 
> That's why these different people with different biases on what the
> law means or what we mean when we cite the law
> end up "talking past each other" We aren't even using the law
> the same way, to mean the same things, so of course
> our words are not going to carry the same connotations!
> They are coming from 2-4 different contexts.
> 
> That is what I mean by there being a bias.
> 
> C. Let me describe it another way:
> 
> The difference in context and connotation is as different as trying to argue
> does the govt have authority to "infringe on the right of people to HAVE SEX"
> vs.
> "can the govt make laws about RAPE"
> 
> Rape is different from sex between consenting adults.
> 
> So the govt can criminalize rape and bar that
> but that ISN'T THE SAME as "infringing on the right to have sex"
> 
> The same way people would be able to make their own decision, without govt regulation, on whether or not to have sex, that is ALREADY WITHIN the context of
> CONSENSUAL relations and DOES NOT MEAN things like abuse,
> adult-child relations or mentally or physically impaired people who cannot consent, etc.
> 
> The "context" of law-abiding/consent is already given, implied or ASSUMED.
> 
> If someone is arguing from the BIAS that "sex should only be within LEGAL MARRIAGE ONLY" then the statements will come out different from
> someone arguing that ALL legally competent adults have freedom to make decisions whether to have sex with each other WITHOUT govt regulating that.
> 
> So this mutual bias would create a similar conflict if
> one person argues that "the right to have sex" is LIMITED to just people WITHIN MARRIAGE, and others are saying NO it's a matter of being CONSENSUAL
> between legally and mentally competent adults.
> 
> They will not agree if govt has authority to "infringe on the right to have sex" by enforcing laws requiring marriage, but they could agree the govt has authority to ban rape and abuse which "isn't the same as infringing on the right to have sex"
> 
> Does that analogy explain better how
> biases affect how we communicate the meaning of infringement/regulation
> where people are coming at this from different CONTEXTS.
> 
> I know this analogy isn't perfect.
> 
> But can you use it, and apply it back to the case we are discussing
> about where we agree or disagree on well regulated militia and govt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but I don't think you've been paying too much attention if you think I said "the people" is "the well regulated militia", and I don't understand how you could have come to such a conclusion.
> 
> The militia can be all the people. Right now the militia is all males 17-45 in the "unorganized militia" and anyone in the National Guard.
> 
> So, bias it isn't, it's people not understanding what I'm writing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you’re taking the phrasing both out of its historical context, and what the founders actually said they meant by the 2nd. The militia was neccessary to the free state because an armed population is a counter to possible tyranny, foreign and domestic. So because a well armed and trained population is necessary to the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If the founder were worried about an invasion, and defending the country, they would’ve opted for a standing army instead. Much more effective at fighting against other armies than a militia (led and controlled by civilians) which was like herding cats and aiming them at a battlefield. But they were very much against a standing army because it could be used in a coup type of situation or used by the state to keep its population in line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm not.
> 
> I think you're arguing against a generic view of the 2A, and not what I actually think. You could have written this post in response to 100 replies on this forum, and no one would know the difference.
> 
> The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. I know this because the FOUNDING FATHERS said so, and I have the documents to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can repeat that as much as you like but it will never make it even remotely true.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The _Heller_ case settled that misinterpretation once and for all by declaring that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.  These stupid Moon Bats simply don't want to accept it..
> 
> They are as confused about the "militia" wording as they are about the definition of "well regulated".   Good thing Scalia set the record straight, isn't it?
Click to expand...


Dear Flash
As a Constitutionalist who believe in consent of the governed and including political beliefs
under religious freedom,
I argue that
* the same way Christians and Constitutionalists can't be forced to accept court rulings
on right to marriage and right to health care
* neither can secularists be forced by courts or govt to accept this belief
that right to bear arms is part of natural laws given by God or nature.

If their political beliefs are excluded or discriminated against instead of included equally,
that just as unconstitutional as the mandates and rulings that violated the rights
and beliefs of people with Christian and Constitutional beliefs negated or overruled by court rulings.

What we should learn by this is to allow
individuals to retain and protect their own interpretations
AND QUIT ABUSING GOVT OR PARTY TO EXCLUDE OR DISCRIMINATE AGAINST OTHER BELIEFS.

It is constitutional to REMOVE the ban AGAINST gay marriage
but not to incorporate and enforce that institution against the beliefs of others.


It is constitutional to REMOVE gun regulations that go too far
and violate due process of laws by depriving law abiding citizens of rights who haven't
been convicted of crimes, but not to EXCLUDE people who believe in more gun regulations.

They just have to propose and back rules and procedures for screening
that ALIGN with people of the other beliefs who AGREE on effective legislation and management.

We have to accommodate each other's beliefs in order to have
constitutional laws. So it is constitutional to strike down laws that
are biased against the beliefs of others.
But not constitutional to establish a law that prohibits the beliefs of one group or another.

So citizens such as frigidweirdo or me who contests a ruling as
biased by political belief against our own beliefs,
have EVERY RIGHT to argue we should be included constitutionally.
And we have that responsibility to defend our beliefs,
we just don't have the right to impose them on others through govt
or that's equally unconstitutional.


----------



## Flash

emilynghiem said:


> [Q
> 
> We have to accommodate each other's beliefs in order to have
> constitutional laws. So it is constitutional to strike down laws that
> are biased against the beliefs of others.
> But not constitutional to establish a law that prohibits the beliefs of one group or another.
> 
> .



What I do know is that the Second Amendment is an individual right that says very clearly that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

If there is any accommodating to be done it is from they anti gun nuts that demand that my right to keep and bear arms be infringed.

There is not much accommodating that is specified in the phrase "shall not be infringed", is it?

Democrat sucks as a political institution because it is the rule of the mob for the most part.  Our Founding Fathers understood that and that is why we have a Bill of Rights.  We can't allow the mob to vote away our rights, can we?  I don't know if that is what you were saying but if that is what you are suggesting by accommodation then count me out.


----------



## sakinago

frigidweirdo said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi @
> Hi frigidweirdo: you are asking this question from a biased context so no it isn't straightforward yet. We'd both have to get within the same context and then we'd readily agree, but we're not quite there yet.
> 1. Given that you already don't use the 2nd amendment to mean individual gun rights while other ppl do, discussing this with you is like feeding everything through a filter and translating it into common terms we would both use to mean the same things. Clearly this means not using the Constitutional laws as literal, that you and I already don't interpret or use the same way, or that's why we end up talking past each other.
> 2. I am trying to find a way to communicate on the same wavelength or page as you, so when you and I do agree on a common context then yes we will be able to connect and agree on principles instead of talking past each other .
> 3. At this point I am still trying to find that common ground.  Can I throw out two more questions to you to get your feedback on how you see or say these things:
> (A) how do you describe the difference between someone forfeiting their own rights because of violating or abusing the law vs. Other people abusing govt authority to deprive rights from people who have not committed any crime or abuse that warrants deprivation of liberty. Can I see how you describe that distinction in your own words or your explanation using Constitutional laws and terms
> (B) how do you describe the difference between regulations or laws that people consent to implement and agree to enforce vs. Regulations they argue as unconstitutional because they don't consent to it and it violates their beliefs. How would you describe that in legal or constitutional terms.
> 
> Thanks I just need to map out how you say and explain these things since we don't use laws the same way. In order to ensure we are accurate aligned and in tune on the same page, I would have to adapt to your system sort of like calibration on sensitive instruments to prevent misreading. Thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is it biased?
> 
> It's simple fact.
> 
> Here's the biggest problem. People have basically been told they're anti-gun control. This means they feel they have to be anti-every single gun control measure going. Yet they'll support criminals and the insane not having guns. But no one tells them this is gun control, so they're happy.
> 
> They use "shall not be infringed" as a manner in which to express their "you can't do any gun control" sort of thing. I'm merely pointing out that in reality, there is gun control, and they support some gun control.
> 
> Until you have them accepting such a thing, there's no point in really talking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo
> You made it clear, the bias is mutual.
> You interpret the right of the people to mean well regulated militia.
> Other people do not. And other people like ChrisL even interpret
> the militia to mean ALL THE PEOPLE.
> 
> So if people are not interpreting that law the same way,
> where the words do not mean the same thing,
> then OF COURSE the word 'infringe' is going to mean different things
> because there are at least 3 different STARTING CONTEXTS going on.
> 
> That's why these different people with different biases on what the
> law means or what we mean when we cite the law
> end up "talking past each other" We aren't even using the law
> the same way, to mean the same things, so of course
> our words are not going to carry the same connotations!
> They are coming from 2-4 different contexts.
> 
> That is what I mean by there being a bias.
> 
> C. Let me describe it another way:
> 
> The difference in context and connotation is as different as trying to argue
> does the govt have authority to "infringe on the right of people to HAVE SEX"
> vs.
> "can the govt make laws about RAPE"
> 
> Rape is different from sex between consenting adults.
> 
> So the govt can criminalize rape and bar that
> but that ISN'T THE SAME as "infringing on the right to have sex"
> 
> The same way people would be able to make their own decision, without govt regulation, on whether or not to have sex, that is ALREADY WITHIN the context of
> CONSENSUAL relations and DOES NOT MEAN things like abuse,
> adult-child relations or mentally or physically impaired people who cannot consent, etc.
> 
> The "context" of law-abiding/consent is already given, implied or ASSUMED.
> 
> If someone is arguing from the BIAS that "sex should only be within LEGAL MARRIAGE ONLY" then the statements will come out different from
> someone arguing that ALL legally competent adults have freedom to make decisions whether to have sex with each other WITHOUT govt regulating that.
> 
> So this mutual bias would create a similar conflict if
> one person argues that "the right to have sex" is LIMITED to just people WITHIN MARRIAGE, and others are saying NO it's a matter of being CONSENSUAL
> between legally and mentally competent adults.
> 
> They will not agree if govt has authority to "infringe on the right to have sex" by enforcing laws requiring marriage, but they could agree the govt has authority to ban rape and abuse which "isn't the same as infringing on the right to have sex"
> 
> Does that analogy explain better how
> biases affect how we communicate the meaning of infringement/regulation
> where people are coming at this from different CONTEXTS.
> 
> I know this analogy isn't perfect.
> 
> But can you use it, and apply it back to the case we are discussing
> about where we agree or disagree on well regulated militia and govt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but I don't think you've been paying too much attention if you think I said "the people" is "the well regulated militia", and I don't understand how you could have come to such a conclusion.
> 
> The militia can be all the people. Right now the militia is all males 17-45 in the "unorganized militia" and anyone in the National Guard.
> 
> So, bias it isn't, it's people not understanding what I'm writing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you’re taking the phrasing both out of its historical context, and what the founders actually said they meant by the 2nd. The militia was neccessary to the free state because an armed population is a counter to possible tyranny, foreign and domestic. So because a well armed and trained population is necessary to the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If the founder were worried about an invasion, and defending the country, they would’ve opted for a standing army instead. Much more effective at fighting against other armies than a militia (led and controlled by civilians) which was like herding cats and aiming them at a battlefield. But they were very much against a standing army because it could be used in a coup type of situation or used by the state to keep its population in line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm not.
> 
> I think you're arguing against a generic view of the 2A, and not what I actually think. You could have written this post in response to 100 replies on this forum, and no one would know the difference.
> 
> The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. I know this because the FOUNDING FATHERS said so, and I have the documents to prove it.
Click to expand...




emilynghiem said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but I don't think you've been paying too much attention if you think I said "the people" is "the well regulated militia", and I don't understand how you could have come to such a conclusion.
> 
> The militia can be all the people. Right now the militia is all males 17-45 in the "unorganized militia" and anyone in the National Guard.
> 
> So, bias it isn't, it's people not understanding what I'm writing.
> 
> 
> 
> But you’re taking the phrasing both out of its historical context, and what the founders actually said they meant by the 2nd. The militia was neccessary to the free state because an armed population is a counter to possible tyranny, foreign and domestic. So because a well armed and trained population is necessary to the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If the founder were worried about an invasion, and defending the country, they would’ve opted for a standing army instead. Much more effective at fighting against other armies than a militia (led and controlled by civilians) which was like herding cats and aiming them at a battlefield. But they were very much against a standing army because it could be used in a coup type of situation or used by the state to keep its population in line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm not.
> 
> I think you're arguing against a generic view of the 2A, and not what I actually think. You could have written this post in response to 100 replies on this forum, and no one would know the difference.
> 
> The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. I know this because the FOUNDING FATHERS said so, and I have the documents to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can repeat that as much as you like but it will never make it even remotely true.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The _Heller_ case settled that misinterpretation once and for all by declaring that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.  These stupid Moon Bats simply don't want to accept it..
> 
> They are as confused about the "militia" wording as they are about the definition of "well regulated".   Good thing Scalia set the record straight, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Flash
> As a Constitutionalist who believe in consent of the governed and including political beliefs
> under religious freedom,
> I argue that
> * the same way Christians and Constitutionalists can't be forced to accept court rulings
> on right to marriage and right to health care
> * neither can secularists be forced by courts or govt to accept this belief
> that right to bear arms is part of natural laws given by God or nature.
> 
> If their political beliefs are excluded or discriminated against instead of included equally,
> that just as unconstitutional as the mandates and rulings that violated the rights
> and beliefs of people with Christian and Constitutional beliefs negated or overruled by court rulings.
> 
> What we should learn by this is to allow
> individuals to retain and protect their own interpretations
> AND QUIT ABUSING GOVT OR PARTY TO EXCLUDE OR DISCRIMINATE AGAINST OTHER BELIEFS.
> 
> It is constitutional to REMOVE the ban AGAINST gay marriage
> but not to incorporate and enforce that institution against the beliefs of others.
> 
> 
> It is constitutional to REMOVE gun regulations that go too far
> and violate due process of laws by depriving law abiding citizens of rights who haven't
> been convicted of crimes, but not to EXCLUDE people who believe in more gun regulations.
> 
> They just have to propose and back rules and procedures for screening
> that ALIGN with people of the other beliefs who AGREE on effective legislation and management.
> 
> We have to accommodate each other's beliefs in order to have
> constitutional laws. So it is constitutional to strike down laws that
> are biased against the beliefs of others.
> But not constitutional to establish a law that prohibits the beliefs of one group or another.
> 
> So citizens such as frigidweirdo or me who contests a ruling as
> biased by political belief against our own beliefs,
> have EVERY RIGHT to argue we should be included constitutionally.
> And we have that responsibility to defend our beliefs,
> we just don't have the right to impose them on others through govt
> or that's equally unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

not if your belief infringes on the rights of another. Just because you believe it doesn’t make it right, and doesn’t mean it should be put it into law. You have a right to your beliefs, but, once you put those beliefs into practice as law that steps on others rights, that’s no longer ok. That’s no longer equality. You doing so forces your beliefs onto others 

You have a right to keep and own a gun, any gun. Just like you have to right to own a car, or a knife, or computer, or whatever. Owning a gun (for self defense against whatever assailiant govt or other) is a natural right, as well as forming up groups is a natural right. Now if you use that gun/car/knife/computer for a crime that’s against the law since you are doing so to infringe on others rights. The difference between all of these tools mentioned and a gun is that gun is specifically mentioned in the 2nd. It’s mentioned for a reason because it’s an equalizer. And it’s also one of the first things that people seeking power go after.


----------



## Flash

sakinago said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is it biased?
> 
> It's simple fact.
> 
> Here's the biggest problem. People have basically been told they're anti-gun control. This means they feel they have to be anti-every single gun control measure going. Yet they'll support criminals and the insane not having guns. But no one tells them this is gun control, so they're happy.
> 
> They use "shall not be infringed" as a manner in which to express their "you can't do any gun control" sort of thing. I'm merely pointing out that in reality, there is gun control, and they support some gun control.
> 
> Until you have them accepting such a thing, there's no point in really talking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo
> You made it clear, the bias is mutual.
> You interpret the right of the people to mean well regulated militia.
> Other people do not. And other people like ChrisL even interpret
> the militia to mean ALL THE PEOPLE.
> 
> So if people are not interpreting that law the same way,
> where the words do not mean the same thing,
> then OF COURSE the word 'infringe' is going to mean different things
> because there are at least 3 different STARTING CONTEXTS going on.
> 
> That's why these different people with different biases on what the
> law means or what we mean when we cite the law
> end up "talking past each other" We aren't even using the law
> the same way, to mean the same things, so of course
> our words are not going to carry the same connotations!
> They are coming from 2-4 different contexts.
> 
> That is what I mean by there being a bias.
> 
> C. Let me describe it another way:
> 
> The difference in context and connotation is as different as trying to argue
> does the govt have authority to "infringe on the right of people to HAVE SEX"
> vs.
> "can the govt make laws about RAPE"
> 
> Rape is different from sex between consenting adults.
> 
> So the govt can criminalize rape and bar that
> but that ISN'T THE SAME as "infringing on the right to have sex"
> 
> The same way people would be able to make their own decision, without govt regulation, on whether or not to have sex, that is ALREADY WITHIN the context of
> CONSENSUAL relations and DOES NOT MEAN things like abuse,
> adult-child relations or mentally or physically impaired people who cannot consent, etc.
> 
> The "context" of law-abiding/consent is already given, implied or ASSUMED.
> 
> If someone is arguing from the BIAS that "sex should only be within LEGAL MARRIAGE ONLY" then the statements will come out different from
> someone arguing that ALL legally competent adults have freedom to make decisions whether to have sex with each other WITHOUT govt regulating that.
> 
> So this mutual bias would create a similar conflict if
> one person argues that "the right to have sex" is LIMITED to just people WITHIN MARRIAGE, and others are saying NO it's a matter of being CONSENSUAL
> between legally and mentally competent adults.
> 
> They will not agree if govt has authority to "infringe on the right to have sex" by enforcing laws requiring marriage, but they could agree the govt has authority to ban rape and abuse which "isn't the same as infringing on the right to have sex"
> 
> Does that analogy explain better how
> biases affect how we communicate the meaning of infringement/regulation
> where people are coming at this from different CONTEXTS.
> 
> I know this analogy isn't perfect.
> 
> But can you use it, and apply it back to the case we are discussing
> about where we agree or disagree on well regulated militia and govt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but I don't think you've been paying too much attention if you think I said "the people" is "the well regulated militia", and I don't understand how you could have come to such a conclusion.
> 
> The militia can be all the people. Right now the militia is all males 17-45 in the "unorganized militia" and anyone in the National Guard.
> 
> So, bias it isn't, it's people not understanding what I'm writing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you’re taking the phrasing both out of its historical context, and what the founders actually said they meant by the 2nd. The militia was neccessary to the free state because an armed population is a counter to possible tyranny, foreign and domestic. So because a well armed and trained population is necessary to the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If the founder were worried about an invasion, and defending the country, they would’ve opted for a standing army instead. Much more effective at fighting against other armies than a militia (led and controlled by civilians) which was like herding cats and aiming them at a battlefield. But they were very much against a standing army because it could be used in a coup type of situation or used by the state to keep its population in line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm not.
> 
> I think you're arguing against a generic view of the 2A, and not what I actually think. You could have written this post in response to 100 replies on this forum, and no one would know the difference.
> 
> The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. I know this because the FOUNDING FATHERS said so, and I have the documents to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you’re taking the phrasing both out of its historical context, and what the founders actually said they meant by the 2nd. The militia was neccessary to the free state because an armed population is a counter to possible tyranny, foreign and domestic. So because a well armed and trained population is necessary to the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If the founder were worried about an invasion, and defending the country, they would’ve opted for a standing army instead. Much more effective at fighting against other armies than a militia (led and controlled by civilians) which was like herding cats and aiming them at a battlefield. But they were very much against a standing army because it could be used in a coup type of situation or used by the state to keep its population in line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm not.
> 
> I think you're arguing against a generic view of the 2A, and not what I actually think. You could have written this post in response to 100 replies on this forum, and no one would know the difference.
> 
> The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. I know this because the FOUNDING FATHERS said so, and I have the documents to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can repeat that as much as you like but it will never make it even remotely true.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The _Heller_ case settled that misinterpretation once and for all by declaring that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.  These stupid Moon Bats simply don't want to accept it..
> 
> They are as confused about the "militia" wording as they are about the definition of "well regulated".   Good thing Scalia set the record straight, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Flash
> As a Constitutionalist who believe in consent of the governed and including political beliefs
> under religious freedom,
> I argue that
> * the same way Christians and Constitutionalists can't be forced to accept court rulings
> on right to marriage and right to health care
> * neither can secularists be forced by courts or govt to accept this belief
> that right to bear arms is part of natural laws given by God or nature.
> 
> If their political beliefs are excluded or discriminated against instead of included equally,
> that just as unconstitutional as the mandates and rulings that violated the rights
> and beliefs of people with Christian and Constitutional beliefs negated or overruled by court rulings.
> 
> What we should learn by this is to allow
> individuals to retain and protect their own interpretations
> AND QUIT ABUSING GOVT OR PARTY TO EXCLUDE OR DISCRIMINATE AGAINST OTHER BELIEFS.
> 
> It is constitutional to REMOVE the ban AGAINST gay marriage
> but not to incorporate and enforce that institution against the beliefs of others.
> 
> 
> It is constitutional to REMOVE gun regulations that go too far
> and violate due process of laws by depriving law abiding citizens of rights who haven't
> been convicted of crimes, but not to EXCLUDE people who believe in more gun regulations.
> 
> They just have to propose and back rules and procedures for screening
> that ALIGN with people of the other beliefs who AGREE on effective legislation and management.
> 
> We have to accommodate each other's beliefs in order to have
> constitutional laws. So it is constitutional to strike down laws that
> are biased against the beliefs of others.
> But not constitutional to establish a law that prohibits the beliefs of one group or another.
> 
> So citizens such as frigidweirdo or me who contests a ruling as
> biased by political belief against our own beliefs,
> have EVERY RIGHT to argue we should be included constitutionally.
> And we have that responsibility to defend our beliefs,
> we just don't have the right to impose them on others through govt
> or that's equally unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not if your belief infringes on the rights of another. Just because you believe it doesn’t make it right, and doesn’t mean it should be put it into law. You have a right to your beliefs, but, once you put those beliefs into practice as law that steps on others rights, that’s no longer ok. That’s no longer equality. You doing so forces your beliefs onto others
> 
> You have a right to keep and own a gun, any gun. Just like you have to right to own a car, or a knife, or computer, or whatever. Owning a gun (for self defense against whatever assailiant govt or other) is a natural right, as well as forming up groups is a natural right. Now if you use that gun/car/knife/computer for a crime that’s against the law since you are doing so to infringe on others rights. The difference between all of these tools mentioned and a gun is that gun is specifically mentioned in the 2nd. It’s mentioned for a reason because it’s an equalizer. And it’s also one of the first things that people seeking power go after.
Click to expand...


Excellent post!

The possession of a firearm should never be the crime.  What is illegally done with the firearm should be the crime.


----------



## hunarcy

sakinago said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Point is, the subject of Arms for the Militia is declared socialized.  There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear danielpalos
> do you REALLY believe that ALL the people who crafted and passed this law
> would ALL AGREE to the militia-only interpretation?
> 
> When people TODAY don't even "all agree"
> 
> What makes you think they would have agreed back
> then if CLEARLY the two schools of thought don't agree now!
> 
> The more we argue and totally believe in our respective beliefs, that tells me so did the people split in two schools of thought back then.
> 
> They even had the equivalent of what we argue over today, over who counts as a citizen with rights. Today we argue if immigrants have equal rights as "humans" as citizens. Back then there was issue with Catholics or other people not considered equal or trustworthy to uphold the laws if they were to bear arms.
> 
> So if we can't even agree today, and these separate factions INSIST their respective interpretations ARE the truth that the laws should represent, isn't that clear the same thing would be going on back then? And there would be the same two factions, so the law came out the way it did to accommodate BOTH that would equally insist on THEIR way and REFUSE to compromise to let the other way prevail and exclude them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the clueless and the Causeless say that.  The People are the Militia.  What part of that do y'all not understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, silly person.  It is you who either don't understand, or you are simply intellectually dishonest.  I will go with the latter as you are nothing more than a one trick pony bleating about that which you have no clue.
> 
> Run along little sheep, run along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing but diversion, right wingers?
> 
> The People are the Militia.  Well regulated militia of the People are declared necessary.
> 
> It really is that simple, except to the right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The people are the people, if it had meant militia over people, it would’ve said militia.
Click to expand...


Exactly!


----------



## hunarcy

emilynghiem said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi @
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we agree that "shall no be infringed" doesn't mean that it can't be infringed upon? good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We agree more than disagree but the terms you use
> is what throws people off  frigidweirdo
> 
> I'd say it more like if you are infringing on the rights of others
> by abusing or threatening to abuse weapons, then that's YOU
> infringing your own rights.  For example, if you abuse "free exercise of religion"
> to sacrifice animals or people, that violates other laws, you end up
> getting convicted and incarcerated. Well you can't complain that it's
> the govt prohibiting you from practicing your religion. Part of your practice
> violated OTHER LAWS. So it wasn't about infringing on your religion,
> but about your actions that broke OTHER LAWS.
> 
> If this is explained in that context frigidweirdo
> we would find we agree more than no, and avoid getting stuck in conflict over
> the terminology you use that just invokes rejection when people hear that.
> 
> You just need a good facilitator to translate back and forth
> and you'd be fine. The terms you use are going to shut people
> down where they don't hear you. I can look past that and get to
> what you mean but most people can't or won't do that much work to listen to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure exactly what language you thin it is that throws other people off. It's a simple yes or no here, either the RKBA "shall not be infringed" EVER, or it shall be infringed. There are no two ways about it, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hi frigidweirdo: you are asking this question from a biased context so no it isn't straightforward yet. We'd both have to get within the same context and then we'd readily agree, but we're not quite there yet.
> 1. Given that you already don't use the 2nd amendment to mean individual gun rights while other ppl do, discussing this with you is like feeding everything through a filter and translating it into common terms we would both use to mean the same things. Clearly this means not using the Constitutional laws as literal, that you and I already don't interpret or use the same way, or that's why we end up talking past each other.
> 2. I am trying to find a way to communicate on the same wavelength or page as you, so when you and I do agree on a common context then yes we will be able to connect and agree on principles instead of talking past each other .
> 3. At this point I am still trying to find that common ground.  Can I throw out two more questions to you to get your feedback on how you see or say these things:
> (A) how do you describe the difference between someone forfeiting their own rights because of violating or abusing the law vs. Other people abusing govt authority to deprive rights from people who have not committed any crime or abuse that warrants deprivation of liberty. Can I see how you describe that distinction in your own words or your explanation using Constitutional laws and terms
> (B) how do you describe the difference between regulations or laws that people consent to implement and agree to enforce vs. Regulations they argue as unconstitutional because they don't consent to it and it violates their beliefs. How would you describe that in legal or constitutional terms.
> 
> Thanks I just need to map out how you say and explain these things since we don't use laws the same way. In order to ensure we are accurate aligned and in tune on the same page, I would have to adapt to your system sort of like calibration on sensitive instruments to prevent misreading. Thanks!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is it biased?
> 
> It's simple fact.
> 
> Here's the biggest problem. People have basically been told they're anti-gun control. This means they feel they have to be anti-every single gun control measure going. Yet they'll support criminals and the insane not having guns. But no one tells them this is gun control, so they're happy.
> 
> They use "shall not be infringed" as a manner in which to express their "you can't do any gun control" sort of thing. I'm merely pointing out that in reality, there is gun control, and they support some gun control.
> 
> Until you have them accepting such a thing, there's no point in really talking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo
> You made it clear, the bias is mutual.
> You interpret the right of the people to mean well regulated militia.
> Other people do not. And other people like ChrisL even interpret
> the militia to mean ALL THE PEOPLE.
> 
> So if people are not interpreting that law the same way,
> where the words do not mean the same thing,
> then OF COURSE the word 'infringe' is going to mean different things
> because there are at least 3 different STARTING CONTEXTS going on.
> 
> That's why these different people with different biases on what the
> law means or what we mean when we cite the law
> end up "talking past each other" We aren't even using the law
> the same way, to mean the same things, so of course
> our words are not going to carry the same connotations!
> They are coming from 2-4 different contexts.
> 
> That is what I mean by there being a bias.
> 
> C. Let me describe it another way:
> 
> The difference in context and connotation is as different as trying to argue
> does the govt have authority to "infringe on the right of people to HAVE SEX"
> vs.
> "can the govt make laws about RAPE"
> 
> Rape is different from sex between consenting adults.
> 
> So the govt can criminalize rape and bar that
> but that ISN'T THE SAME as "infringing on the right to have sex"
> 
> The same way people would be able to make their own decision, without govt regulation, on whether or not to have sex, that is ALREADY WITHIN the context of
> CONSENSUAL relations and DOES NOT MEAN things like abuse,
> adult-child relations or mentally or physically impaired people who cannot consent, etc.
> 
> The "context" of law-abiding/consent is already given, implied or ASSUMED.
> 
> If someone is arguing from the BIAS that "sex should only be within LEGAL MARRIAGE ONLY" then the statements will come out different from
> someone arguing that ALL legally competent adults have freedom to make decisions whether to have sex with each other WITHOUT govt regulating that.
> 
> So this mutual bias would create a similar conflict if
> one person argues that "the right to have sex" is LIMITED to just people WITHIN MARRIAGE, and others are saying NO it's a matter of being CONSENSUAL
> between legally and mentally competent adults.
> 
> They will not agree if govt has authority to "infringe on the right to have sex" by enforcing laws requiring marriage, but they could agree the govt has authority to ban rape and abuse which "isn't the same as infringing on the right to have sex"
> 
> Does that analogy explain better how
> biases affect how we communicate the meaning of infringement/regulation
> where people are coming at this from different CONTEXTS.
> 
> I know this analogy isn't perfect.
> 
> But can you use it, and apply it back to the case we are discussing
> about where we agree or disagree on well regulated militia and govt.
Click to expand...


I admire your patience as you deal with that pedantic little troll.  And yes, he's a troll because he sticks doggedly to "his" definitions and versions even with confronted with other information that disproves his point of view.  He's just trying to get attention and extend the conversation when it should be concluded.


----------



## frigidweirdo

sakinago said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is it biased?
> 
> It's simple fact.
> 
> Here's the biggest problem. People have basically been told they're anti-gun control. This means they feel they have to be anti-every single gun control measure going. Yet they'll support criminals and the insane not having guns. But no one tells them this is gun control, so they're happy.
> 
> They use "shall not be infringed" as a manner in which to express their "you can't do any gun control" sort of thing. I'm merely pointing out that in reality, there is gun control, and they support some gun control.
> 
> Until you have them accepting such a thing, there's no point in really talking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo
> You made it clear, the bias is mutual.
> You interpret the right of the people to mean well regulated militia.
> Other people do not. And other people like ChrisL even interpret
> the militia to mean ALL THE PEOPLE.
> 
> So if people are not interpreting that law the same way,
> where the words do not mean the same thing,
> then OF COURSE the word 'infringe' is going to mean different things
> because there are at least 3 different STARTING CONTEXTS going on.
> 
> That's why these different people with different biases on what the
> law means or what we mean when we cite the law
> end up "talking past each other" We aren't even using the law
> the same way, to mean the same things, so of course
> our words are not going to carry the same connotations!
> They are coming from 2-4 different contexts.
> 
> That is what I mean by there being a bias.
> 
> C. Let me describe it another way:
> 
> The difference in context and connotation is as different as trying to argue
> does the govt have authority to "infringe on the right of people to HAVE SEX"
> vs.
> "can the govt make laws about RAPE"
> 
> Rape is different from sex between consenting adults.
> 
> So the govt can criminalize rape and bar that
> but that ISN'T THE SAME as "infringing on the right to have sex"
> 
> The same way people would be able to make their own decision, without govt regulation, on whether or not to have sex, that is ALREADY WITHIN the context of
> CONSENSUAL relations and DOES NOT MEAN things like abuse,
> adult-child relations or mentally or physically impaired people who cannot consent, etc.
> 
> The "context" of law-abiding/consent is already given, implied or ASSUMED.
> 
> If someone is arguing from the BIAS that "sex should only be within LEGAL MARRIAGE ONLY" then the statements will come out different from
> someone arguing that ALL legally competent adults have freedom to make decisions whether to have sex with each other WITHOUT govt regulating that.
> 
> So this mutual bias would create a similar conflict if
> one person argues that "the right to have sex" is LIMITED to just people WITHIN MARRIAGE, and others are saying NO it's a matter of being CONSENSUAL
> between legally and mentally competent adults.
> 
> They will not agree if govt has authority to "infringe on the right to have sex" by enforcing laws requiring marriage, but they could agree the govt has authority to ban rape and abuse which "isn't the same as infringing on the right to have sex"
> 
> Does that analogy explain better how
> biases affect how we communicate the meaning of infringement/regulation
> where people are coming at this from different CONTEXTS.
> 
> I know this analogy isn't perfect.
> 
> But can you use it, and apply it back to the case we are discussing
> about where we agree or disagree on well regulated militia and govt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but I don't think you've been paying too much attention if you think I said "the people" is "the well regulated militia", and I don't understand how you could have come to such a conclusion.
> 
> The militia can be all the people. Right now the militia is all males 17-45 in the "unorganized militia" and anyone in the National Guard.
> 
> So, bias it isn't, it's people not understanding what I'm writing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you’re taking the phrasing both out of its historical context, and what the founders actually said they meant by the 2nd. The militia was neccessary to the free state because an armed population is a counter to possible tyranny, foreign and domestic. So because a well armed and trained population is necessary to the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If the founder were worried about an invasion, and defending the country, they would’ve opted for a standing army instead. Much more effective at fighting against other armies than a militia (led and controlled by civilians) which was like herding cats and aiming them at a battlefield. But they were very much against a standing army because it could be used in a coup type of situation or used by the state to keep its population in line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm not.
> 
> I think you're arguing against a generic view of the 2A, and not what I actually think. You could have written this post in response to 100 replies on this forum, and no one would know the difference.
> 
> The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. I know this because the FOUNDING FATHERS said so, and I have the documents to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For that to be the case you’d have to greatly jumble the wording 2nd amendment. What the founders are saying is that the militia (civilian led and controlled military, not controlled by government) is necessary to the free state, therefore the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon by the government. The militia was necessary because it was an armed CIVILIAN force, and a government is not going to force its will upon armed people...which a free society is one where the government is not forcing its will onto people. With what you’re saying you still have to disregard the whole “the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” That’s about as clear as it gets. If you want gun control you have to repeal the 2nd amendment.
> 
> This is what the founders talked about, over and over. It’s not about protecting the state, it’s about protecting the people, or in other words government not messing with the right of people to protect themselves from whatever might threaten their rights or life.
Click to expand...


Again, I don't think you're talking to me, but to the generic view of what you think others think. 

The right to keep arms is the protection of the right from the Federal govt. 

Now, if the Federal govt were to ban, say, semi automatics, would individuals still be able to keep arms? The answer is yes. 

This is the first problem. People look at the 2A as it GIVING a right to THE PEOPLE. When in fact the 2A merely PREVENTS the US FEDERAL GOVT from doing something. It's a slight difference but has a lot of impact.

Now, the other question is, does the US federal govt have the power to take semi-automatics away? Well, they seem to have.

Also, the 2A says "shall not be infringed", so you're make the assumption that individuals can't have their right to keep arms infringed upon. The simple answer is that the US federal govt CAN infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, no matter what the Amendment says. It doesn't mean it can infringe at will. It has to go through due process first.


----------



## frigidweirdo

emilynghiem said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo
> You made it clear, the bias is mutual.
> You interpret the right of the people to mean well regulated militia.
> Other people do not. And other people like ChrisL even interpret
> the militia to mean ALL THE PEOPLE.
> 
> So if people are not interpreting that law the same way,
> where the words do not mean the same thing,
> then OF COURSE the word 'infringe' is going to mean different things
> because there are at least 3 different STARTING CONTEXTS going on.
> 
> That's why these different people with different biases on what the
> law means or what we mean when we cite the law
> end up "talking past each other" We aren't even using the law
> the same way, to mean the same things, so of course
> our words are not going to carry the same connotations!
> They are coming from 2-4 different contexts.
> 
> That is what I mean by there being a bias.
> 
> C. Let me describe it another way:
> 
> The difference in context and connotation is as different as trying to argue
> does the govt have authority to "infringe on the right of people to HAVE SEX"
> vs.
> "can the govt make laws about RAPE"
> 
> Rape is different from sex between consenting adults.
> 
> So the govt can criminalize rape and bar that
> but that ISN'T THE SAME as "infringing on the right to have sex"
> 
> The same way people would be able to make their own decision, without govt regulation, on whether or not to have sex, that is ALREADY WITHIN the context of
> CONSENSUAL relations and DOES NOT MEAN things like abuse,
> adult-child relations or mentally or physically impaired people who cannot consent, etc.
> 
> The "context" of law-abiding/consent is already given, implied or ASSUMED.
> 
> If someone is arguing from the BIAS that "sex should only be within LEGAL MARRIAGE ONLY" then the statements will come out different from
> someone arguing that ALL legally competent adults have freedom to make decisions whether to have sex with each other WITHOUT govt regulating that.
> 
> So this mutual bias would create a similar conflict if
> one person argues that "the right to have sex" is LIMITED to just people WITHIN MARRIAGE, and others are saying NO it's a matter of being CONSENSUAL
> between legally and mentally competent adults.
> 
> They will not agree if govt has authority to "infringe on the right to have sex" by enforcing laws requiring marriage, but they could agree the govt has authority to ban rape and abuse which "isn't the same as infringing on the right to have sex"
> 
> Does that analogy explain better how
> biases affect how we communicate the meaning of infringement/regulation
> where people are coming at this from different CONTEXTS.
> 
> I know this analogy isn't perfect.
> 
> But can you use it, and apply it back to the case we are discussing
> about where we agree or disagree on well regulated militia and govt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but I don't think you've been paying too much attention if you think I said "the people" is "the well regulated militia", and I don't understand how you could have come to such a conclusion.
> 
> The militia can be all the people. Right now the militia is all males 17-45 in the "unorganized militia" and anyone in the National Guard.
> 
> So, bias it isn't, it's people not understanding what I'm writing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you’re taking the phrasing both out of its historical context, and what the founders actually said they meant by the 2nd. The militia was neccessary to the free state because an armed population is a counter to possible tyranny, foreign and domestic. So because a well armed and trained population is necessary to the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If the founder were worried about an invasion, and defending the country, they would’ve opted for a standing army instead. Much more effective at fighting against other armies than a militia (led and controlled by civilians) which was like herding cats and aiming them at a battlefield. But they were very much against a standing army because it could be used in a coup type of situation or used by the state to keep its population in line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm not.
> 
> I think you're arguing against a generic view of the 2A, and not what I actually think. You could have written this post in response to 100 replies on this forum, and no one would know the difference.
> 
> The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. I know this because the FOUNDING FATHERS said so, and I have the documents to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can repeat that as much as you like but it will never make it even remotely true.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For you 2aguy and others with your political beliefs and interpretation/understanding of the laws.
> Neither will you and me preaching our beliefs
> are going to change how frigidweirdo believes either!
> 
> So why not accept that we have two different schools of thought and beliefs here.
> And those branch off into 4, given what frigidweirdo and ChrisL added on how they see it.
> 
> We are not going to change each other's minds or beliefs
> by preaching and defending our own. We'll just deadlock
> because each of us has equal right and responsibility for our own beliefs.
> 
> Question remains
> how do we make public policy that reflects represents and includes
> this diversity of beliefs including the conflicts and still protect everyone equally?
Click to expand...


Because I don't "believe". I know things. 

The reason I know and don't believe is because I came into the 2A debate with preconceived ideas, and then changed them when I saw the were wrong. Those people willing to change their views in light of new evidence don't need to believe.

The questions that do remain are similar to "why do people who have NO EVIDENCE to support their theory, keep believing in it?"


----------



## frigidweirdo

sakinago said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is it biased?
> 
> It's simple fact.
> 
> Here's the biggest problem. People have basically been told they're anti-gun control. This means they feel they have to be anti-every single gun control measure going. Yet they'll support criminals and the insane not having guns. But no one tells them this is gun control, so they're happy.
> 
> They use "shall not be infringed" as a manner in which to express their "you can't do any gun control" sort of thing. I'm merely pointing out that in reality, there is gun control, and they support some gun control.
> 
> Until you have them accepting such a thing, there's no point in really talking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo
> You made it clear, the bias is mutual.
> You interpret the right of the people to mean well regulated militia.
> Other people do not. And other people like ChrisL even interpret
> the militia to mean ALL THE PEOPLE.
> 
> So if people are not interpreting that law the same way,
> where the words do not mean the same thing,
> then OF COURSE the word 'infringe' is going to mean different things
> because there are at least 3 different STARTING CONTEXTS going on.
> 
> That's why these different people with different biases on what the
> law means or what we mean when we cite the law
> end up "talking past each other" We aren't even using the law
> the same way, to mean the same things, so of course
> our words are not going to carry the same connotations!
> They are coming from 2-4 different contexts.
> 
> That is what I mean by there being a bias.
> 
> C. Let me describe it another way:
> 
> The difference in context and connotation is as different as trying to argue
> does the govt have authority to "infringe on the right of people to HAVE SEX"
> vs.
> "can the govt make laws about RAPE"
> 
> Rape is different from sex between consenting adults.
> 
> So the govt can criminalize rape and bar that
> but that ISN'T THE SAME as "infringing on the right to have sex"
> 
> The same way people would be able to make their own decision, without govt regulation, on whether or not to have sex, that is ALREADY WITHIN the context of
> CONSENSUAL relations and DOES NOT MEAN things like abuse,
> adult-child relations or mentally or physically impaired people who cannot consent, etc.
> 
> The "context" of law-abiding/consent is already given, implied or ASSUMED.
> 
> If someone is arguing from the BIAS that "sex should only be within LEGAL MARRIAGE ONLY" then the statements will come out different from
> someone arguing that ALL legally competent adults have freedom to make decisions whether to have sex with each other WITHOUT govt regulating that.
> 
> So this mutual bias would create a similar conflict if
> one person argues that "the right to have sex" is LIMITED to just people WITHIN MARRIAGE, and others are saying NO it's a matter of being CONSENSUAL
> between legally and mentally competent adults.
> 
> They will not agree if govt has authority to "infringe on the right to have sex" by enforcing laws requiring marriage, but they could agree the govt has authority to ban rape and abuse which "isn't the same as infringing on the right to have sex"
> 
> Does that analogy explain better how
> biases affect how we communicate the meaning of infringement/regulation
> where people are coming at this from different CONTEXTS.
> 
> I know this analogy isn't perfect.
> 
> But can you use it, and apply it back to the case we are discussing
> about where we agree or disagree on well regulated militia and govt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but I don't think you've been paying too much attention if you think I said "the people" is "the well regulated militia", and I don't understand how you could have come to such a conclusion.
> 
> The militia can be all the people. Right now the militia is all males 17-45 in the "unorganized militia" and anyone in the National Guard.
> 
> So, bias it isn't, it's people not understanding what I'm writing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you’re taking the phrasing both out of its historical context, and what the founders actually said they meant by the 2nd. The militia was neccessary to the free state because an armed population is a counter to possible tyranny, foreign and domestic. So because a well armed and trained population is necessary to the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If the founder were worried about an invasion, and defending the country, they would’ve opted for a standing army instead. Much more effective at fighting against other armies than a militia (led and controlled by civilians) which was like herding cats and aiming them at a battlefield. But they were very much against a standing army because it could be used in a coup type of situation or used by the state to keep its population in line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm not.
> 
> I think you're arguing against a generic view of the 2A, and not what I actually think. You could have written this post in response to 100 replies on this forum, and no one would know the difference.
> 
> The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. I know this because the FOUNDING FATHERS said so, and I have the documents to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you’re taking the phrasing both out of its historical context, and what the founders actually said they meant by the 2nd. The militia was neccessary to the free state because an armed population is a counter to possible tyranny, foreign and domestic. So because a well armed and trained population is necessary to the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If the founder were worried about an invasion, and defending the country, they would’ve opted for a standing army instead. Much more effective at fighting against other armies than a militia (led and controlled by civilians) which was like herding cats and aiming them at a battlefield. But they were very much against a standing army because it could be used in a coup type of situation or used by the state to keep its population in line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm not.
> 
> I think you're arguing against a generic view of the 2A, and not what I actually think. You could have written this post in response to 100 replies on this forum, and no one would know the difference.
> 
> The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. I know this because the FOUNDING FATHERS said so, and I have the documents to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can repeat that as much as you like but it will never make it even remotely true.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The _Heller_ case settled that misinterpretation once and for all by declaring that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.  These stupid Moon Bats simply don't want to accept it..
> 
> They are as confused about the "militia" wording as they are about the definition of "well regulated".   Good thing Scalia set the record straight, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Flash
> As a Constitutionalist who believe in consent of the governed and including political beliefs
> under religious freedom,
> I argue that
> * the same way Christians and Constitutionalists can't be forced to accept court rulings
> on right to marriage and right to health care
> * neither can secularists be forced by courts or govt to accept this belief
> that right to bear arms is part of natural laws given by God or nature.
> 
> If their political beliefs are excluded or discriminated against instead of included equally,
> that just as unconstitutional as the mandates and rulings that violated the rights
> and beliefs of people with Christian and Constitutional beliefs negated or overruled by court rulings.
> 
> What we should learn by this is to allow
> individuals to retain and protect their own interpretations
> AND QUIT ABUSING GOVT OR PARTY TO EXCLUDE OR DISCRIMINATE AGAINST OTHER BELIEFS.
> 
> It is constitutional to REMOVE the ban AGAINST gay marriage
> but not to incorporate and enforce that institution against the beliefs of others.
> 
> 
> It is constitutional to REMOVE gun regulations that go too far
> and violate due process of laws by depriving law abiding citizens of rights who haven't
> been convicted of crimes, but not to EXCLUDE people who believe in more gun regulations.
> 
> They just have to propose and back rules and procedures for screening
> that ALIGN with people of the other beliefs who AGREE on effective legislation and management.
> 
> We have to accommodate each other's beliefs in order to have
> constitutional laws. So it is constitutional to strike down laws that
> are biased against the beliefs of others.
> But not constitutional to establish a law that prohibits the beliefs of one group or another.
> 
> So citizens such as frigidweirdo or me who contests a ruling as
> biased by political belief against our own beliefs,
> have EVERY RIGHT to argue we should be included constitutionally.
> And we have that responsibility to defend our beliefs,
> we just don't have the right to impose them on others through govt
> or that's equally unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not if your belief infringes on the rights of another. Just because you believe it doesn’t make it right, and doesn’t mean it should be put it into law. You have a right to your beliefs, but, once you put those beliefs into practice as law that steps on others rights, that’s no longer ok. That’s no longer equality. You doing so forces your beliefs onto others
> 
> You have a right to keep and own a gun, any gun. Just like you have to right to own a car, or a knife, or computer, or whatever. Owning a gun (for self defense against whatever assailiant govt or other) is a natural right, as well as forming up groups is a natural right. Now if you use that gun/car/knife/computer for a crime that’s against the law since you are doing so to infringe on others rights. The difference between all of these tools mentioned and a gun is that gun is specifically mentioned in the 2nd. It’s mentioned for a reason because it’s an equalizer. And it’s also one of the first things that people seeking power go after.
Click to expand...


The problem is your belief doesn't match reality. 

The US Constitution doesn't say anything about "guns", there is no mention of the word "gun" in the Constitution, nor the Second Amendment. It says "arms".

arms | Definition of arms in US English by Oxford Dictionaries

"Weapons and ammunition; armaments."

Arms are more than just guns. 

arms (noun) American English definition and synonyms | Macmillan Dictionary

"weapons, for example guns or bombs"

So, are you able to have ALL guns and ALL bombs? Anti-aircraft guns? Atomic bombs? F-15s? Anti-tank guns? These are all arms. 

Do you have the right to own all of these?


----------



## Little-Acorn

frigidweirdo said:


> When in fact the 2A merely PREVENTS the US FEDERAL GOVT from doing something.


And state and local governments. It has meant that ever since it was written and ratified.


> The simple answer is that the US federal govt CAN infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, no matter what the Amendment says.


A typical liberal response. If they don't like what a law clearly says, they simply announce that it doesn't say it.

If you can't refute, ignore.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Little-Acorn said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> When in fact the 2A merely PREVENTS the US FEDERAL GOVT from doing something.
> 
> 
> 
> And state and local governments. It has meant that ever since it was written and ratified.
> 
> 
> 
> The simple answer is that the US federal govt CAN infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, no matter what the Amendment says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A typical liberal response. If they don't like what a law clearly says, they simply announce that it doesn't say it.
> 
> If you can't refute, ignore.
Click to expand...


No, the Second Amendment has only recently been incorporated by the Supreme Court. In 2000 the 2A did NOT apply to the states. 

Now it applies to all levels of govt in the US. 

Okay, a "typical liberal response", your response is "typical don't pay attention to the facts or reality response".

Can the govt take away guns from the insane?
Can the govt take away guns from prisoners?

The answer is YES, the NRA SUPPORTS this, and MOST gun owners support this too. In fact most right wing gun owners often talk about people who "shouldn't have guns". It's GUN CONTROL.


----------



## Little-Acorn

frigidweirdo said:


> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> When in fact the 2A merely PREVENTS the US FEDERAL GOVT from doing something.
> 
> 
> 
> And state and local governments. It has meant that ever since it was written and ratified.
> 
> 
> 
> The simple answer is that the US federal govt CAN infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, no matter what the Amendment says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A typical liberal response. If they don't like what a law clearly says, they simply announce that it doesn't say it.
> 
> If you can't refute, ignore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the Second Amendment has only recently been incorporated by the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

So? Read what the amendment says. Incorporation wasn't necessary.


> In 2000 the 2A did NOT apply to the states.


Of course it did. Since an armed populace etc. was necessary, the right cannot be infringed. That means that if Massachusetts made a law forbidding its subjects from buying a gun, that law would infringe, and so it's unconstitutional.

Again, read what the amendment says. What else matters? Is there some law in this country that overrides the U.S. Constitution?


----------



## Little-Acorn

frigidweirdo said:


> Can the govt take away guns from the insane?
> Can the govt take away guns from prisoners?


Can a bank robber walk into a bank, threaten the teller, and take money out of the bank? Yes, he can. Happens fairly frequently. Does that mean it's legal for him to rob the bank?

Of course not, because there are laws forbidding him to do that.

Similarly, there is a law forbidding govt from infringing the right to keep and bear arms. The fact that governments do it anyway, doesn't make it any more legal than the bank robber's act makes bank robbery legal. Both violate the law.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Little-Acorn said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> When in fact the 2A merely PREVENTS the US FEDERAL GOVT from doing something.
> 
> 
> 
> And state and local governments. It has meant that ever since it was written and ratified.
> 
> 
> 
> The simple answer is that the US federal govt CAN infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, no matter what the Amendment says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A typical liberal response. If they don't like what a law clearly says, they simply announce that it doesn't say it.
> 
> If you can't refute, ignore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the Second Amendment has only recently been incorporated by the Supreme Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So? Read what the amendment says. Incorporation wasn't necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> In 2000 the 2A did NOT apply to the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it did. Since an armed populace etc. was necessary, the right cannot be infringed. That means that if Massachusetts made a law forbidding its subjects from buying a gun, that law would infringe, and so it's unconstitutional.
> 
> Again, read what the amendment says. What else matters? Is there some law in this country that overrides the U.S. Constitution?
Click to expand...


Well, sure, if you take the view that the courts don't interpret the Constitution and that the courts have the power to decide whether your view is right or wrong.

Unfortunately for your argument, this isn't the case. 

Okay then, you go prove that in 2000 the 2A was incorporated. I await your evidence.


----------



## Rustic

frigidweirdo said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo
> You made it clear, the bias is mutual.
> You interpret the right of the people to mean well regulated militia.
> Other people do not. And other people like ChrisL even interpret
> the militia to mean ALL THE PEOPLE.
> 
> So if people are not interpreting that law the same way,
> where the words do not mean the same thing,
> then OF COURSE the word 'infringe' is going to mean different things
> because there are at least 3 different STARTING CONTEXTS going on.
> 
> That's why these different people with different biases on what the
> law means or what we mean when we cite the law
> end up "talking past each other" We aren't even using the law
> the same way, to mean the same things, so of course
> our words are not going to carry the same connotations!
> They are coming from 2-4 different contexts.
> 
> That is what I mean by there being a bias.
> 
> C. Let me describe it another way:
> 
> The difference in context and connotation is as different as trying to argue
> does the govt have authority to "infringe on the right of people to HAVE SEX"
> vs.
> "can the govt make laws about RAPE"
> 
> Rape is different from sex between consenting adults.
> 
> So the govt can criminalize rape and bar that
> but that ISN'T THE SAME as "infringing on the right to have sex"
> 
> The same way people would be able to make their own decision, without govt regulation, on whether or not to have sex, that is ALREADY WITHIN the context of
> CONSENSUAL relations and DOES NOT MEAN things like abuse,
> adult-child relations or mentally or physically impaired people who cannot consent, etc.
> 
> The "context" of law-abiding/consent is already given, implied or ASSUMED.
> 
> If someone is arguing from the BIAS that "sex should only be within LEGAL MARRIAGE ONLY" then the statements will come out different from
> someone arguing that ALL legally competent adults have freedom to make decisions whether to have sex with each other WITHOUT govt regulating that.
> 
> So this mutual bias would create a similar conflict if
> one person argues that "the right to have sex" is LIMITED to just people WITHIN MARRIAGE, and others are saying NO it's a matter of being CONSENSUAL
> between legally and mentally competent adults.
> 
> They will not agree if govt has authority to "infringe on the right to have sex" by enforcing laws requiring marriage, but they could agree the govt has authority to ban rape and abuse which "isn't the same as infringing on the right to have sex"
> 
> Does that analogy explain better how
> biases affect how we communicate the meaning of infringement/regulation
> where people are coming at this from different CONTEXTS.
> 
> I know this analogy isn't perfect.
> 
> But can you use it, and apply it back to the case we are discussing
> about where we agree or disagree on well regulated militia and govt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but I don't think you've been paying too much attention if you think I said "the people" is "the well regulated militia", and I don't understand how you could have come to such a conclusion.
> 
> The militia can be all the people. Right now the militia is all males 17-45 in the "unorganized militia" and anyone in the National Guard.
> 
> So, bias it isn't, it's people not understanding what I'm writing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you’re taking the phrasing both out of its historical context, and what the founders actually said they meant by the 2nd. The militia was neccessary to the free state because an armed population is a counter to possible tyranny, foreign and domestic. So because a well armed and trained population is necessary to the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If the founder were worried about an invasion, and defending the country, they would’ve opted for a standing army instead. Much more effective at fighting against other armies than a militia (led and controlled by civilians) which was like herding cats and aiming them at a battlefield. But they were very much against a standing army because it could be used in a coup type of situation or used by the state to keep its population in line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm not.
> 
> I think you're arguing against a generic view of the 2A, and not what I actually think. You could have written this post in response to 100 replies on this forum, and no one would know the difference.
> 
> The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. I know this because the FOUNDING FATHERS said so, and I have the documents to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For that to be the case you’d have to greatly jumble the wording 2nd amendment. What the founders are saying is that the militia (civilian led and controlled military, not controlled by government) is necessary to the free state, therefore the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon by the government. The militia was necessary because it was an armed CIVILIAN force, and a government is not going to force its will upon armed people...which a free society is one where the government is not forcing its will onto people. With what you’re saying you still have to disregard the whole “the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” That’s about as clear as it gets. If you want gun control you have to repeal the 2nd amendment.
> 
> This is what the founders talked about, over and over. It’s not about protecting the state, it’s about protecting the people, or in other words government not messing with the right of people to protect themselves from whatever might threaten their rights or life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, I don't think you're talking to me, but to the generic view of what you think others think.
> 
> The right to keep arms is the protection of the right from the Federal govt.
> 
> Now, if the Federal govt were to ban, say, semi automatics, would individuals still be able to keep arms? The answer is yes.
> 
> This is the first problem. People look at the 2A as it GIVING a right to THE PEOPLE. When in fact the 2A merely PREVENTS the US FEDERAL GOVT from doing something. It's a slight difference but has a lot of impact.
> 
> Now, the other question is, does the US federal govt have the power to take semi-automatics away? Well, they seem to have.
> 
> Also, the 2A says "shall not be infringed", so you're make the assumption that individuals can't have their right to keep arms infringed upon. The simple answer is that the US federal govt CAN infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, no matter what the Amendment says. It doesn't mean it can infringe at will. It has to go through due process first.
Click to expand...

Are you stupid? Semi automatic rifles or just that sporting rifles nothing more nothing less. Dip shit


----------



## frigidweirdo

Little-Acorn said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can the govt take away guns from the insane?
> Can the govt take away guns from prisoners?
> 
> 
> 
> Can a bank robber walk into a bank, threaten the teller, and take money out of the bank? Yes, he can. Happens fairly frequently. Does that mean it's legal for him to rob the bank?
> 
> Of course not, because there are laws forbidding him to do that.
> 
> Similarly, there is a law forbidding govt from infringing the right to keep and bear arms. The fact that governments do it anyway, doesn't make it any more legal than the bank robber's act makes bank robbery legal. Both violate the law.
Click to expand...


Well, your analogy is a little off here.

Can a bank robber walk into a bank, demand money, and leave LEGALLY? Yes, he can. He can walk in with his bank card, demand the money in HIS ACCOUNT and then leave without problems. He's still a bank robber, but he didn't rob the bank this time. 

Also, perhaps he does this and the bank teller is his friend and he gets away with it.

The other point here is "what is US law?" Who decided? 

Well, first Congress makes the laws, then the Supreme Court INTERPRETS these laws. It's checks and balances. The interpretation is as important as the writing. 

You can interpret the law however you like. I can take the 2A to mean I have the right to murder someone with a gun. If I murder someone with a gun, is this legal? Just because I interpreted it this way?

No. So whose interpretation rules then?


----------



## Rustic

frigidweirdo said:


> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> When in fact the 2A merely PREVENTS the US FEDERAL GOVT from doing something.
> 
> 
> 
> And state and local governments. It has meant that ever since it was written and ratified.
> 
> 
> 
> The simple answer is that the US federal govt CAN infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, no matter what the Amendment says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A typical liberal response. If they don't like what a law clearly says, they simply announce that it doesn't say it.
> 
> If you can't refute, ignore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the Second Amendment has only recently been incorporated by the Supreme Court. In 2000 the 2A did NOT apply to the states.
> 
> Now it applies to all levels of govt in the US.
> 
> Okay, a "typical liberal response", your response is "typical don't pay attention to the facts or reality response".
> 
> Can the govt take away guns from the insane?
> Can the govt take away guns from prisoners?
> 
> The answer is YES, the NRA SUPPORTS this, and MOST gun owners support this too. In fact most right wing gun owners often talk about people who "shouldn't have guns". It's GUN CONTROL.
Click to expand...

Progressives do not get to determine firearm ownership, they have no credibility…


----------



## sakinago

frigidweirdo said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo
> You made it clear, the bias is mutual.
> You interpret the right of the people to mean well regulated militia.
> Other people do not. And other people like ChrisL even interpret
> the militia to mean ALL THE PEOPLE.
> 
> So if people are not interpreting that law the same way,
> where the words do not mean the same thing,
> then OF COURSE the word 'infringe' is going to mean different things
> because there are at least 3 different STARTING CONTEXTS going on.
> 
> That's why these different people with different biases on what the
> law means or what we mean when we cite the law
> end up "talking past each other" We aren't even using the law
> the same way, to mean the same things, so of course
> our words are not going to carry the same connotations!
> They are coming from 2-4 different contexts.
> 
> That is what I mean by there being a bias.
> 
> C. Let me describe it another way:
> 
> The difference in context and connotation is as different as trying to argue
> does the govt have authority to "infringe on the right of people to HAVE SEX"
> vs.
> "can the govt make laws about RAPE"
> 
> Rape is different from sex between consenting adults.
> 
> So the govt can criminalize rape and bar that
> but that ISN'T THE SAME as "infringing on the right to have sex"
> 
> The same way people would be able to make their own decision, without govt regulation, on whether or not to have sex, that is ALREADY WITHIN the context of
> CONSENSUAL relations and DOES NOT MEAN things like abuse,
> adult-child relations or mentally or physically impaired people who cannot consent, etc.
> 
> The "context" of law-abiding/consent is already given, implied or ASSUMED.
> 
> If someone is arguing from the BIAS that "sex should only be within LEGAL MARRIAGE ONLY" then the statements will come out different from
> someone arguing that ALL legally competent adults have freedom to make decisions whether to have sex with each other WITHOUT govt regulating that.
> 
> So this mutual bias would create a similar conflict if
> one person argues that "the right to have sex" is LIMITED to just people WITHIN MARRIAGE, and others are saying NO it's a matter of being CONSENSUAL
> between legally and mentally competent adults.
> 
> They will not agree if govt has authority to "infringe on the right to have sex" by enforcing laws requiring marriage, but they could agree the govt has authority to ban rape and abuse which "isn't the same as infringing on the right to have sex"
> 
> Does that analogy explain better how
> biases affect how we communicate the meaning of infringement/regulation
> where people are coming at this from different CONTEXTS.
> 
> I know this analogy isn't perfect.
> 
> But can you use it, and apply it back to the case we are discussing
> about where we agree or disagree on well regulated militia and govt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but I don't think you've been paying too much attention if you think I said "the people" is "the well regulated militia", and I don't understand how you could have come to such a conclusion.
> 
> The militia can be all the people. Right now the militia is all males 17-45 in the "unorganized militia" and anyone in the National Guard.
> 
> So, bias it isn't, it's people not understanding what I'm writing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you’re taking the phrasing both out of its historical context, and what the founders actually said they meant by the 2nd. The militia was neccessary to the free state because an armed population is a counter to possible tyranny, foreign and domestic. So because a well armed and trained population is necessary to the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If the founder were worried about an invasion, and defending the country, they would’ve opted for a standing army instead. Much more effective at fighting against other armies than a militia (led and controlled by civilians) which was like herding cats and aiming them at a battlefield. But they were very much against a standing army because it could be used in a coup type of situation or used by the state to keep its population in line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm not.
> 
> I think you're arguing against a generic view of the 2A, and not what I actually think. You could have written this post in response to 100 replies on this forum, and no one would know the difference.
> 
> The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. I know this because the FOUNDING FATHERS said so, and I have the documents to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For that to be the case you’d have to greatly jumble the wording 2nd amendment. What the founders are saying is that the militia (civilian led and controlled military, not controlled by government) is necessary to the free state, therefore the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon by the government. The militia was necessary because it was an armed CIVILIAN force, and a government is not going to force its will upon armed people...which a free society is one where the government is not forcing its will onto people. With what you’re saying you still have to disregard the whole “the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” That’s about as clear as it gets. If you want gun control you have to repeal the 2nd amendment.
> 
> This is what the founders talked about, over and over. It’s not about protecting the state, it’s about protecting the people, or in other words government not messing with the right of people to protect themselves from whatever might threaten their rights or life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, I don't think you're talking to me, but to the generic view of what you think others think.
> 
> The right to keep arms is the protection of the right from the Federal govt.
> 
> Now, if the Federal govt were to ban, say, semi automatics, would individuals still be able to keep arms? The answer is yes.
> 
> This is the first problem. People look at the 2A as it GIVING a right to THE PEOPLE. When in fact the 2A merely PREVENTS the US FEDERAL GOVT from doing something. It's a slight difference but has a lot of impact.
> 
> Now, the other question is, does the US federal govt have the power to take semi-automatics away? Well, they seem to have.
> 
> Also, the 2A says "shall not be infringed", so you're make the assumption that individuals can't have their right to keep arms infringed upon. The simple answer is that the US federal govt CAN infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, no matter what the Amendment says. It doesn't mean it can infringe at will. It has to go through due process first.
Click to expand...

The mental gymnastics here are wild. How you can somehow say cannot be infringed still means you can infringe...how schizo is your mind that you can use the same word, in the same phrase...and both confirm and deny what it means...all rolled up into one. Shall not be infringed, doesn’t mean unless you have a debate about it, or shall not be infringed winky face, or give it a lot of thought when you decide to infringed...it simply means shall not be infringed. 

The wording is very clear, the intentions are very clear, the historical context is very clear, how the law was put into practice at the time and in subsequent years has been very clear, and what our founders wrote about this law and where they got the idea is all very clear. Just because a government does not follow the constitution, doesn’t make it constitutional. The 2nd amendment is one of many of the BOR that have been trampled upon. Of course government is not going to admit that they are acting outside of the constitution. They did the same BS to justify rounding up and throwing people into interment camps, poisoning their own population during prohibition, and hundreds of other atrocities they carried out that were clearly against the constitution. If you want gun control legally, you have to repeal the 2nd amendment. There is no way around it. This is what pro gun control Ivy League constitutional law professors will tell you as well. You have to repeal the 2nd, it’s clear, it’s intentions were made clear by both writings and practice. Made clear by the philosophy used and followed. This all was written about extensively. Put into practice. The militia WAS NOT TO BE CONTROLLED BY THE STATE. It could be called up by the governor, but it’s still led and controlled by the local population.


----------



## Rustic

sakinago said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but I don't think you've been paying too much attention if you think I said "the people" is "the well regulated militia", and I don't understand how you could have come to such a conclusion.
> 
> The militia can be all the people. Right now the militia is all males 17-45 in the "unorganized militia" and anyone in the National Guard.
> 
> So, bias it isn't, it's people not understanding what I'm writing.
> 
> 
> 
> But you’re taking the phrasing both out of its historical context, and what the founders actually said they meant by the 2nd. The militia was neccessary to the free state because an armed population is a counter to possible tyranny, foreign and domestic. So because a well armed and trained population is necessary to the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If the founder were worried about an invasion, and defending the country, they would’ve opted for a standing army instead. Much more effective at fighting against other armies than a militia (led and controlled by civilians) which was like herding cats and aiming them at a battlefield. But they were very much against a standing army because it could be used in a coup type of situation or used by the state to keep its population in line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm not.
> 
> I think you're arguing against a generic view of the 2A, and not what I actually think. You could have written this post in response to 100 replies on this forum, and no one would know the difference.
> 
> The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. I know this because the FOUNDING FATHERS said so, and I have the documents to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For that to be the case you’d have to greatly jumble the wording 2nd amendment. What the founders are saying is that the militia (civilian led and controlled military, not controlled by government) is necessary to the free state, therefore the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon by the government. The militia was necessary because it was an armed CIVILIAN force, and a government is not going to force its will upon armed people...which a free society is one where the government is not forcing its will onto people. With what you’re saying you still have to disregard the whole “the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” That’s about as clear as it gets. If you want gun control you have to repeal the 2nd amendment.
> 
> This is what the founders talked about, over and over. It’s not about protecting the state, it’s about protecting the people, or in other words government not messing with the right of people to protect themselves from whatever might threaten their rights or life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, I don't think you're talking to me, but to the generic view of what you think others think.
> 
> The right to keep arms is the protection of the right from the Federal govt.
> 
> Now, if the Federal govt were to ban, say, semi automatics, would individuals still be able to keep arms? The answer is yes.
> 
> This is the first problem. People look at the 2A as it GIVING a right to THE PEOPLE. When in fact the 2A merely PREVENTS the US FEDERAL GOVT from doing something. It's a slight difference but has a lot of impact.
> 
> Now, the other question is, does the US federal govt have the power to take semi-automatics away? Well, they seem to have.
> 
> Also, the 2A says "shall not be infringed", so you're make the assumption that individuals can't have their right to keep arms infringed upon. The simple answer is that the US federal govt CAN infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, no matter what the Amendment says. It doesn't mean it can infringe at will. It has to go through due process first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mental gymnastics here are wild. How you can somehow say cannot be infringed still means you can infringe...how schizo is your mind that you can use the same word, in the same phrase...and both confirm and deny what it means...all rolled up into one. Shall not be infringed, doesn’t mean unless you have a debate about it, or shall not be infringed winky face, or give it a lot of thought when you decide to infringed...it simply means shall not be infringed.
> 
> The wording is very clear, the intentions are very clear, the historical context is very clear, how the law was put into practice at the time and in subsequent years has been very clear, and what our founders wrote about this law and where they got the idea is all very clear. Just because a government does not follow the constitution, doesn’t make it constitutional. The 2nd amendment is one of many of the BOR that have been trampled upon. Of course government is not going to admit that they are acting outside of the constitution. They did the same BS to justify rounding up and throwing people into interment camps, poisoning their own population during prohibition, and hundreds of other atrocities they carried out that were clearly against the constitution. If you want gun control legally, you have to repeal the 2nd amendment. There is no way around it. This is what pro gun control Ivy League constitutional law professors will tell you as well. You have to repeal the 2nd, it’s clear, it’s intentions were made clear by both writings and practice. Made clear by the philosophy used and followed. This all was written about extensively. Put into practice. The militia WAS NOT TO BE CONTROLLED BY THE STATE. It could be called up by the governor, but it’s still led and controlled by the local population.
Click to expand...

That is why progressives do not get to determine firearm ownership, they absolutely have no credibility on the matter


----------



## frigidweirdo

sakinago said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but I don't think you've been paying too much attention if you think I said "the people" is "the well regulated militia", and I don't understand how you could have come to such a conclusion.
> 
> The militia can be all the people. Right now the militia is all males 17-45 in the "unorganized militia" and anyone in the National Guard.
> 
> So, bias it isn't, it's people not understanding what I'm writing.
> 
> 
> 
> But you’re taking the phrasing both out of its historical context, and what the founders actually said they meant by the 2nd. The militia was neccessary to the free state because an armed population is a counter to possible tyranny, foreign and domestic. So because a well armed and trained population is necessary to the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If the founder were worried about an invasion, and defending the country, they would’ve opted for a standing army instead. Much more effective at fighting against other armies than a militia (led and controlled by civilians) which was like herding cats and aiming them at a battlefield. But they were very much against a standing army because it could be used in a coup type of situation or used by the state to keep its population in line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm not.
> 
> I think you're arguing against a generic view of the 2A, and not what I actually think. You could have written this post in response to 100 replies on this forum, and no one would know the difference.
> 
> The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. I know this because the FOUNDING FATHERS said so, and I have the documents to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For that to be the case you’d have to greatly jumble the wording 2nd amendment. What the founders are saying is that the militia (civilian led and controlled military, not controlled by government) is necessary to the free state, therefore the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon by the government. The militia was necessary because it was an armed CIVILIAN force, and a government is not going to force its will upon armed people...which a free society is one where the government is not forcing its will onto people. With what you’re saying you still have to disregard the whole “the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” That’s about as clear as it gets. If you want gun control you have to repeal the 2nd amendment.
> 
> This is what the founders talked about, over and over. It’s not about protecting the state, it’s about protecting the people, or in other words government not messing with the right of people to protect themselves from whatever might threaten their rights or life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, I don't think you're talking to me, but to the generic view of what you think others think.
> 
> The right to keep arms is the protection of the right from the Federal govt.
> 
> Now, if the Federal govt were to ban, say, semi automatics, would individuals still be able to keep arms? The answer is yes.
> 
> This is the first problem. People look at the 2A as it GIVING a right to THE PEOPLE. When in fact the 2A merely PREVENTS the US FEDERAL GOVT from doing something. It's a slight difference but has a lot of impact.
> 
> Now, the other question is, does the US federal govt have the power to take semi-automatics away? Well, they seem to have.
> 
> Also, the 2A says "shall not be infringed", so you're make the assumption that individuals can't have their right to keep arms infringed upon. The simple answer is that the US federal govt CAN infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, no matter what the Amendment says. It doesn't mean it can infringe at will. It has to go through due process first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mental gymnastics here are wild. How you can somehow say cannot be infringed still means you can infringe...how schizo is your mind that you can use the same word, in the same phrase...and both confirm and deny what it means...all rolled up into one. Shall not be infringed, doesn’t mean unless you have a debate about it, or shall not be infringed winky face, or give it a lot of thought when you decide to infringed...it simply means shall not be infringed.
> 
> The wording is very clear, the intentions are very clear, the historical context is very clear, how the law was put into practice at the time and in subsequent years has been very clear, and what our founders wrote about this law and where they got the idea is all very clear. Just because a government does not follow the constitution, doesn’t make it constitutional. The 2nd amendment is one of many of the BOR that have been trampled upon. Of course government is not going to admit that they are acting outside of the constitution. They did the same BS to justify rounding up and throwing people into interment camps, poisoning their own population during prohibition, and hundreds of other atrocities they carried out that were clearly against the constitution. If you want gun control legally, you have to repeal the 2nd amendment. There is no way around it. This is what pro gun control Ivy League constitutional law professors will tell you as well. You have to repeal the 2nd, it’s clear, it’s intentions were made clear by both writings and practice. Made clear by the philosophy used and followed. This all was written about extensively. Put into practice. The militia WAS NOT TO BE CONTROLLED BY THE STATE. It could be called up by the governor, but it’s still led and controlled by the local population.
Click to expand...


Well that's the point isn't it? 

I don't know how, I just know it is so. 

The question here is, do you think the Founding Fathers wanted the insane and prisoners to have guns when they wrote the 2A? 

The issue here is that ALL RIGHTS have limited. Which means ALL RIGHTS can be infringed, no matter whether you right "shall not be infringed or not".

Call it mental gymnastics all you like, it doesn't change this fact. 

You think the wording is clear? Okay, you go try and get an atomic bomb. When you can't get an atomic bomb, you go to court and say your 2A rights are being violated, and see how far you get.


----------



## Little-Acorn

*The 2nd amendment does not say "Except as provided by law". Why not?*

The 4th amendment bans searches and seizure, but not all of them: It specifically names unreasonable searches and seizures.

The 5th amendment says that no one can be jailed or executed etc... but makes an exception: unless there is "due process of law".

Even the 13th amendment that prohibits slavery or involuntary servitude, makes an exception:"except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted."

But the 2nd amendment, which forbids government from taking away or restricting our right to keep and bear arms, is conspicuously devoid of any such language. As written, it permits NO exceptions or "reasonable restrictions". Period.

Why?

There's an important characteristic of the people's right to keep and bear arms, which might explain why the 2nd is written without qualifications. It says "Since X is so, the people's RKBA cannot be taken away or restricted." Unlike the 4th, 5th, and 13th, the 2nd does NOT say "except by due process of law". And it does NOT say "unless the person is a certain type of extreme criminal", and etc.

To make up an extreme example, suppose some guy goes into a restaurant, pulls out a gun and blows away half a dozen people. The cops show up and surround him, and one cop says, "Give me your gun right now." The guy says, "Sorry, the 2nd amendment says my right to KBA cannot be taken away or restricted, PERIOD, so you have no authority to make me give you my gun." And this with gunsmoke in the air and bodies bleeding on the floor next to him.

Many of the people who wrote the 2nd were lawyers, and knew well the effect that certain words have when included, or omitted, from legislation. And yet they chose to omit ANY exceptions to the ban on government taking people's guns away. Strictly speaking, that would even include the extreme example I just gave: Cops can't take away the gun of a murderer at the scene of his crime.

Many people use this as the reason why the 2nd amendment MUST have been intended to implicitly allow for exceptions: It's impossible that the Framers could have intended for murderers to retain their weapons immediately after committing their murders. Yet a truly strict reading of the 2nd, forbids any govt official (including police) from taking the mass-murderer's gun.

So what could the Framers' intention have been, in omitting any exceptions?

Remember that it is GOVERNMENT that is being forbidden from taking away people's weapons. And the foremost reason it's forbidden, is so that the people can use them against government itself, if/when the government becomes tyrannical. And the Framers knew that if government were given even the tiniest exception, there would be a tendency to turn that tiny loophole into more and more twisted, warped excuses to take guns away anyway, far beyond the "reasonable" exception of being able to take away a mass-murderer's gun at the scene of his crime.

The only way the Framers could find of avoiding the far-greater evil of a tyrannical government disarming its people, was to make NO EXCEPTIONS WHATSOEVER to an explicit ban on government disarming even one of us.

So where does that leave us on the question of the cops taking the mass murderer's gun at the restaurant?

It's inconceivable that the Framers would want the murderer to retain his gun even as they haul him off to jail.

But it's VERY conceivable that the Framers would want government to have NOT THE SLIGHTEST EXCUSE, NO MATTER HOW "REASONABLE", to take away the weapons of their populace in general. Because the slightest excuse, the tiniest exception, could be stretched into a huge loophole. And the Framers regarded a government that could somehow finagle its way into disarming its own people, as a far greater threat than the occasional murderous nutcase in a restaurant.

And history has proven the Framers right, time and again.

Should we amend the Constitution, changing the 2nd amendment to officially empower government to take away the right of, say, murderers, to own and carry guns?

Some would think it's obvious that we should, to make the law "really" right. But consider the potential cost.

My own guess is, the Framers intended for an exception to be made in such a case... but not by any government official. The restaurant mass-murderer tells the cops they have no power to take his gun. The cop responds by cracking the guy's skull with his billy club, hard, and taking away his gun anyway. Did the cop violate the strict words of the 2nd amendment by doing so? Yes. But is there a jury in the world that will convict the cop for it? Probably not.

The Constitution puts the ultimate fate of anyone accused of breaking laws, into the hands of a JURY. A groupd of the accused guy's own peers, people pretty much like him. NOT government officials. And that was so the only people who can find, or even invent, exceptions to the law, are ordinary civilians: the ones on the jury. Today this is called "Jury Nullification". And I suggest that this is exactly what the Framers had in mind when the wrote the 2nd amendment with NO exceptions and NO "reasonable restrictions" on guns and other such weapons.

The 2nd amendment is a restriction on GOVERNMENT. But not on a jury.

So when the murderer from the restaurant brings charges against the cop for taking away his gun, the cop gets a chance to explain to a JURY why he did it. His explanation will probably take less than ten seconds. And the jury (whose members wouldn't be there if they hadn't been accepted by the cop) will certainly decide that the cop should not be found guilty of violating the clear language of the 2nd, in that case. Because the JURY (and nobody else) has the power to make "reasonable exceptions".

But at the same time, when government makes the slightest move toward disarming even a little of its populace by legislation, they can be met with the absolute, no-exceptions ban codified by the 2nd amendment. No loopholes, no "reasonable exceptions", no nothing. ANY legislation that infringes on the absolute right to KBA, is unconstitutional. Period.

I suspect that's how the Framers expected this particular law to work.

Can I prove it? No. When I meet one of the Framers, I'll ask him. Until that time, I can only guess, based on the records they have left behind... and the fact that they put NONE of the usual qualifiers, into the 2nd amendment. If anyone can come up with a better guess, I'd be happy to hear it.


----------



## sakinago

frigidweirdo said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo
> You made it clear, the bias is mutual.
> You interpret the right of the people to mean well regulated militia.
> Other people do not. And other people like ChrisL even interpret
> the militia to mean ALL THE PEOPLE.
> 
> So if people are not interpreting that law the same way,
> where the words do not mean the same thing,
> then OF COURSE the word 'infringe' is going to mean different things
> because there are at least 3 different STARTING CONTEXTS going on.
> 
> That's why these different people with different biases on what the
> law means or what we mean when we cite the law
> end up "talking past each other" We aren't even using the law
> the same way, to mean the same things, so of course
> our words are not going to carry the same connotations!
> They are coming from 2-4 different contexts.
> 
> That is what I mean by there being a bias.
> 
> C. Let me describe it another way:
> 
> The difference in context and connotation is as different as trying to argue
> does the govt have authority to "infringe on the right of people to HAVE SEX"
> vs.
> "can the govt make laws about RAPE"
> 
> Rape is different from sex between consenting adults.
> 
> So the govt can criminalize rape and bar that
> but that ISN'T THE SAME as "infringing on the right to have sex"
> 
> The same way people would be able to make their own decision, without govt regulation, on whether or not to have sex, that is ALREADY WITHIN the context of
> CONSENSUAL relations and DOES NOT MEAN things like abuse,
> adult-child relations or mentally or physically impaired people who cannot consent, etc.
> 
> The "context" of law-abiding/consent is already given, implied or ASSUMED.
> 
> If someone is arguing from the BIAS that "sex should only be within LEGAL MARRIAGE ONLY" then the statements will come out different from
> someone arguing that ALL legally competent adults have freedom to make decisions whether to have sex with each other WITHOUT govt regulating that.
> 
> So this mutual bias would create a similar conflict if
> one person argues that "the right to have sex" is LIMITED to just people WITHIN MARRIAGE, and others are saying NO it's a matter of being CONSENSUAL
> between legally and mentally competent adults.
> 
> They will not agree if govt has authority to "infringe on the right to have sex" by enforcing laws requiring marriage, but they could agree the govt has authority to ban rape and abuse which "isn't the same as infringing on the right to have sex"
> 
> Does that analogy explain better how
> biases affect how we communicate the meaning of infringement/regulation
> where people are coming at this from different CONTEXTS.
> 
> I know this analogy isn't perfect.
> 
> But can you use it, and apply it back to the case we are discussing
> about where we agree or disagree on well regulated militia and govt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but I don't think you've been paying too much attention if you think I said "the people" is "the well regulated militia", and I don't understand how you could have come to such a conclusion.
> 
> The militia can be all the people. Right now the militia is all males 17-45 in the "unorganized militia" and anyone in the National Guard.
> 
> So, bias it isn't, it's people not understanding what I'm writing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you’re taking the phrasing both out of its historical context, and what the founders actually said they meant by the 2nd. The militia was neccessary to the free state because an armed population is a counter to possible tyranny, foreign and domestic. So because a well armed and trained population is necessary to the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If the founder were worried about an invasion, and defending the country, they would’ve opted for a standing army instead. Much more effective at fighting against other armies than a militia (led and controlled by civilians) which was like herding cats and aiming them at a battlefield. But they were very much against a standing army because it could be used in a coup type of situation or used by the state to keep its population in line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm not.
> 
> I think you're arguing against a generic view of the 2A, and not what I actually think. You could have written this post in response to 100 replies on this forum, and no one would know the difference.
> 
> The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. I know this because the FOUNDING FATHERS said so, and I have the documents to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm not.
> 
> I think you're arguing against a generic view of the 2A, and not what I actually think. You could have written this post in response to 100 replies on this forum, and no one would know the difference.
> 
> The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. I know this because the FOUNDING FATHERS said so, and I have the documents to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can repeat that as much as you like but it will never make it even remotely true.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The _Heller_ case settled that misinterpretation once and for all by declaring that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.  These stupid Moon Bats simply don't want to accept it..
> 
> They are as confused about the "militia" wording as they are about the definition of "well regulated".   Good thing Scalia set the record straight, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Flash
> As a Constitutionalist who believe in consent of the governed and including political beliefs
> under religious freedom,
> I argue that
> * the same way Christians and Constitutionalists can't be forced to accept court rulings
> on right to marriage and right to health care
> * neither can secularists be forced by courts or govt to accept this belief
> that right to bear arms is part of natural laws given by God or nature.
> 
> If their political beliefs are excluded or discriminated against instead of included equally,
> that just as unconstitutional as the mandates and rulings that violated the rights
> and beliefs of people with Christian and Constitutional beliefs negated or overruled by court rulings.
> 
> What we should learn by this is to allow
> individuals to retain and protect their own interpretations
> AND QUIT ABUSING GOVT OR PARTY TO EXCLUDE OR DISCRIMINATE AGAINST OTHER BELIEFS.
> 
> It is constitutional to REMOVE the ban AGAINST gay marriage
> but not to incorporate and enforce that institution against the beliefs of others.
> 
> 
> It is constitutional to REMOVE gun regulations that go too far
> and violate due process of laws by depriving law abiding citizens of rights who haven't
> been convicted of crimes, but not to EXCLUDE people who believe in more gun regulations.
> 
> They just have to propose and back rules and procedures for screening
> that ALIGN with people of the other beliefs who AGREE on effective legislation and management.
> 
> We have to accommodate each other's beliefs in order to have
> constitutional laws. So it is constitutional to strike down laws that
> are biased against the beliefs of others.
> But not constitutional to establish a law that prohibits the beliefs of one group or another.
> 
> So citizens such as frigidweirdo or me who contests a ruling as
> biased by political belief against our own beliefs,
> have EVERY RIGHT to argue we should be included constitutionally.
> And we have that responsibility to defend our beliefs,
> we just don't have the right to impose them on others through govt
> or that's equally unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not if your belief infringes on the rights of another. Just because you believe it doesn’t make it right, and doesn’t mean it should be put it into law. You have a right to your beliefs, but, once you put those beliefs into practice as law that steps on others rights, that’s no longer ok. That’s no longer equality. You doing so forces your beliefs onto others
> 
> You have a right to keep and own a gun, any gun. Just like you have to right to own a car, or a knife, or computer, or whatever. Owning a gun (for self defense against whatever assailiant govt or other) is a natural right, as well as forming up groups is a natural right. Now if you use that gun/car/knife/computer for a crime that’s against the law since you are doing so to infringe on others rights. The difference between all of these tools mentioned and a gun is that gun is specifically mentioned in the 2nd. It’s mentioned for a reason because it’s an equalizer. And it’s also one of the first things that people seeking power go after.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is your belief doesn't match reality.
> 
> The US Constitution doesn't say anything about "guns", there is no mention of the word "gun" in the Constitution, nor the Second Amendment. It says "arms".
> 
> arms | Definition of arms in US English by Oxford Dictionaries
> 
> "Weapons and ammunition; armaments."
> 
> Arms are more than just guns.
> 
> arms (noun) American English definition and synonyms | Macmillan Dictionary
> 
> "weapons, for example guns or bombs"
> 
> So, are you able to have ALL guns and ALL bombs? Anti-aircraft guns? Atomic bombs? F-15s? Anti-tank guns? These are all arms.
> 
> Do you have the right to own all of these?
Click to expand...

Oh Jesus if you want to take it to that extreme, yes I do. But in very obvious reality a f15 or any other ridiculous scenario is not an arm. A vehicle with arms yes. But not an armament. The whole point of the 2nd was so the state did not have a monopoly of force. That the people if need be could oust the stats if they needed to.  The definition of arms even specifies “especially firearms”. However if you still want to keep twirling around with this, yes if that’s the only option, yes. The crime is not keeping and bearing it. The crime would be if you used whatever you want to insert  to infringe upon another’s life liberty or property. And I happen to know a guy who owns tanks that have appeared in many movies and shows like saving private Ryan, BoB, etc, with the photos with the actors to prove it. Obviously he’s not going on killing sprees with them. It’s a hobby for him that also makes him some money every once in a while (I doubt enough money to cover the costs of the damn things). He even had a WWII era German mobile anti air tank that can still shoot, or so he claimed. 

If you’re going to these extremes, clearly you are just throwing spaghetti up against the wall. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to break down the meaning of the 2nd. But for some reason the left has to create a bijjillion hoops to jump through so they can attempt to make a point. 

If you want gun control you have to repeal the 2nd amendment.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Little-Acorn said:


> *The 2nd amendment does not say "Except as provided by law". Why not?*
> 
> The 4th amendment bans searches and seizure, but not all of them: It specifically names unreasonable searches and seizures.
> 
> The 5th amendment says that no one can be jailed or executed etc... but makes an exception: unless there is "due process of law".
> 
> Even the 13th amendment that prohibits slavery or involuntary servitude, makes an exception:"except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted."
> 
> But the 2nd amendment, which forbids government from taking away or restricting our right to keep and bear arms, is conspicuously devoid of any such language. As written, it permits NO exceptions or "reasonable restrictions". Period.
> 
> Why?
> 
> There's an important characteristic of the people's right to keep and bear arms, which might explain why the 2nd is written without qualifications. It says "Since X is so, the people's RKBA cannot be taken away or restricted." Unlike the 4th, 5th, and 13th, the 2nd does NOT say "except by due process of law". And it does NOT say "unless the person is a certain type of extreme criminal", and etc.
> 
> To make up an extreme example, suppose some guy goes into a restaurant, pulls out a gun and blows away half a dozen people. The cops show up and surround him, and one cop says, "Give me your gun right now." The guy says, "Sorry, the 2nd amendment says my right to KBA cannot be taken away or restricted, PERIOD, so you have no authority to make me give you my gun." And this with gunsmoke in the air and bodies bleeding on the floor next to him.
> 
> Many of the people who wrote the 2nd were lawyers, and knew well the effect that certain words have when included, or omitted, from legislation. And yet they chose to omit ANY exceptions to the ban on government taking people's guns away. Strictly speaking, that would even include the extreme example I just gave: Cops can't take away the gun of a murderer at the scene of his crime.
> 
> Many people use this as the reason why the 2nd amendment MUST have been intended to implicitly allow for exceptions: It's impossible that the Framers could have intended for murderers to retain their weapons immediately after committing their murders. Yet a truly strict reading of the 2nd, forbids any govt official (including police) from taking the mass-murderer's gun.
> 
> So what could the Framers' intention have been, in omitting any exceptions?
> 
> Remember that it is GOVERNMENT that is being forbidden from taking away people's weapons. And the foremost reason it's forbidden, is so that the people can use them against government itself, if/when the government becomes tyrannical. And the Framers knew that if government were given even the tiniest exception, there would be a tendency to turn that tiny loophole into more and more twisted, warped excuses to take guns away anyway, far beyond the "reasonable" exception of being able to take away a mass-murderer's gun at the scene of his crime.
> 
> The only way the Framers could find of avoiding the far-greater evil of a tyrannical government disarming its people, was to make NO EXCEPTIONS WHATSOEVER to an explicit ban on government disarming even one of us.
> 
> So where does that leave us on the question of the cops taking the mass murderer's gun at the restaurant?
> 
> It's inconceivable that the Framers would want the murderer to retain his gun even as they haul him off to jail.
> 
> But it's VERY conceivable that the Framers would want government to have NOT THE SLIGHTEST EXCUSE, NO MATTER HOW "REASONABLE", to take away the weapons of their populace in general. Because the slightest excuse, the tiniest exception, could be stretched into a huge loophole. And the Framers regarded a government that could somehow finagle its way into disarming its own people, as a far greater threat than the occasional murderous nutcase in a restaurant.
> 
> And history has proven the Framers right, time and again.
> 
> Should we amend the Constitution, changing the 2nd amendment to officially empower government to take away the right of, say, murderers, to own and carry guns?
> 
> Some would think it's obvious that we should, to make the law "really" right. But consider the potential cost.
> 
> My own guess is, the Framers intended for an exception to be made in such a case... but not by any government official. The restaurant mass-murderer tells the cops they have no power to take his gun. The cop responds by cracking the guy's skull with his billy club, hard, and taking away his gun anyway. Did the cop violate the strict words of the 2nd amendment by doing so? Yes. But is there a jury in the world that will convict the cop for it? Probably not.
> 
> The Constitution puts the ultimate fate of anyone accused of breaking laws, into the hands of a JURY. A groupd of the accused guy's own peers, people pretty much like him. NOT government officials. And that was so the only people who can find, or even invent, exceptions to the law, are ordinary civilians: the ones on the jury. Today this is called "Jury Nullification". And I suggest that this is exactly what the Framers had in mind when the wrote the 2nd amendment with NO exceptions and NO "reasonable restrictions" on guns and other such weapons.
> 
> The 2nd amendment is a restriction on GOVERNMENT. But not on a jury.
> 
> So when the murderer from the restaurant brings charges against the cop for taking away his gun, the cop gets a chance to explain to a JURY why he did it. His explanation will probably take less than ten seconds. And the jury (whose members wouldn't be there if they hadn't been accepted by the cop) will certainly decide that the cop should not be found guilty of violating the clear language of the 2nd, in that case. Because the JURY (and nobody else) has the power to make "reasonable exceptions".
> 
> But at the same time, when government makes the slightest move toward disarming even a little of its populace by legislation, they can be met with the absolute, no-exceptions ban codified by the 2nd amendment. No loopholes, no "reasonable exceptions", no nothing. ANY legislation that infringes on the absolute right to KBA, is unconstitutional. Period.
> 
> I suspect that's how the Framers expected this particular law to work.
> 
> Can I prove it? No. When I meet one of the Framers, I'll ask him. Until that time, I can only guess, based on the records they have left behind... and the fact that they put NONE of the usual qualifiers, into the 2nd amendment. If anyone can come up with a better guess, I'd be happy to hear it.



I'd agree with most of this.

The Second Amendment cannot be infringed upon frivolously. Hence "shall not be infringed".

After due process isn't "frivolous", that's the point. 

All rights can be infringed upon after due process except those designed for prisoners, like torture.


----------



## frigidweirdo

sakinago said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but I don't think you've been paying too much attention if you think I said "the people" is "the well regulated militia", and I don't understand how you could have come to such a conclusion.
> 
> The militia can be all the people. Right now the militia is all males 17-45 in the "unorganized militia" and anyone in the National Guard.
> 
> So, bias it isn't, it's people not understanding what I'm writing.
> 
> 
> 
> But you’re taking the phrasing both out of its historical context, and what the founders actually said they meant by the 2nd. The militia was neccessary to the free state because an armed population is a counter to possible tyranny, foreign and domestic. So because a well armed and trained population is necessary to the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If the founder were worried about an invasion, and defending the country, they would’ve opted for a standing army instead. Much more effective at fighting against other armies than a militia (led and controlled by civilians) which was like herding cats and aiming them at a battlefield. But they were very much against a standing army because it could be used in a coup type of situation or used by the state to keep its population in line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm not.
> 
> I think you're arguing against a generic view of the 2A, and not what I actually think. You could have written this post in response to 100 replies on this forum, and no one would know the difference.
> 
> The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. I know this because the FOUNDING FATHERS said so, and I have the documents to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can repeat that as much as you like but it will never make it even remotely true.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The _Heller_ case settled that misinterpretation once and for all by declaring that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.  These stupid Moon Bats simply don't want to accept it..
> 
> They are as confused about the "militia" wording as they are about the definition of "well regulated".   Good thing Scalia set the record straight, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Flash
> As a Constitutionalist who believe in consent of the governed and including political beliefs
> under religious freedom,
> I argue that
> * the same way Christians and Constitutionalists can't be forced to accept court rulings
> on right to marriage and right to health care
> * neither can secularists be forced by courts or govt to accept this belief
> that right to bear arms is part of natural laws given by God or nature.
> 
> If their political beliefs are excluded or discriminated against instead of included equally,
> that just as unconstitutional as the mandates and rulings that violated the rights
> and beliefs of people with Christian and Constitutional beliefs negated or overruled by court rulings.
> 
> What we should learn by this is to allow
> individuals to retain and protect their own interpretations
> AND QUIT ABUSING GOVT OR PARTY TO EXCLUDE OR DISCRIMINATE AGAINST OTHER BELIEFS.
> 
> It is constitutional to REMOVE the ban AGAINST gay marriage
> but not to incorporate and enforce that institution against the beliefs of others.
> 
> 
> It is constitutional to REMOVE gun regulations that go too far
> and violate due process of laws by depriving law abiding citizens of rights who haven't
> been convicted of crimes, but not to EXCLUDE people who believe in more gun regulations.
> 
> They just have to propose and back rules and procedures for screening
> that ALIGN with people of the other beliefs who AGREE on effective legislation and management.
> 
> We have to accommodate each other's beliefs in order to have
> constitutional laws. So it is constitutional to strike down laws that
> are biased against the beliefs of others.
> But not constitutional to establish a law that prohibits the beliefs of one group or another.
> 
> So citizens such as frigidweirdo or me who contests a ruling as
> biased by political belief against our own beliefs,
> have EVERY RIGHT to argue we should be included constitutionally.
> And we have that responsibility to defend our beliefs,
> we just don't have the right to impose them on others through govt
> or that's equally unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not if your belief infringes on the rights of another. Just because you believe it doesn’t make it right, and doesn’t mean it should be put it into law. You have a right to your beliefs, but, once you put those beliefs into practice as law that steps on others rights, that’s no longer ok. That’s no longer equality. You doing so forces your beliefs onto others
> 
> You have a right to keep and own a gun, any gun. Just like you have to right to own a car, or a knife, or computer, or whatever. Owning a gun (for self defense against whatever assailiant govt or other) is a natural right, as well as forming up groups is a natural right. Now if you use that gun/car/knife/computer for a crime that’s against the law since you are doing so to infringe on others rights. The difference between all of these tools mentioned and a gun is that gun is specifically mentioned in the 2nd. It’s mentioned for a reason because it’s an equalizer. And it’s also one of the first things that people seeking power go after.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is your belief doesn't match reality.
> 
> The US Constitution doesn't say anything about "guns", there is no mention of the word "gun" in the Constitution, nor the Second Amendment. It says "arms".
> 
> arms | Definition of arms in US English by Oxford Dictionaries
> 
> "Weapons and ammunition; armaments."
> 
> Arms are more than just guns.
> 
> arms (noun) American English definition and synonyms | Macmillan Dictionary
> 
> "weapons, for example guns or bombs"
> 
> So, are you able to have ALL guns and ALL bombs? Anti-aircraft guns? Atomic bombs? F-15s? Anti-tank guns? These are all arms.
> 
> Do you have the right to own all of these?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh Jesus if you want to take it to that extreme, yes I do. But in very obvious reality a f15 or any other ridiculous scenario is not an arm. A vehicle with arms yes. But not an armament. The whole point of the 2nd was so the state did not have a monopoly of force. That the people if need be could oust the stats if they needed to.  The definition of arms even specifies “especially firearms”. However if you still want to keep twirling around with this, yes if that’s the only option, yes. The crime is not keeping and bearing it. The crime would be if you used whatever you want to insert  to infringe upon another’s life liberty or property. And I happen to know a guy who owns tanks that have appeared in many movies and shows like saving private Ryan, BoB, etc, with the photos with the actors to prove it. Obviously he’s not going on killing sprees with them. It’s a hobby for him that also makes him some money every once in a while (I doubt enough money to cover the costs of the damn things). He even had a WWII era German mobile anti air tank that can still shoot, or so he claimed.
> 
> If you’re going to these extremes, clearly you are just throwing spaghetti up against the wall. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to break down the meaning of the 2nd. But for some reason the left has to create a bijjillion hoops to jump through so they can attempt to make a point.
> 
> If you want gun control you have to repeal the 2nd amendment.
Click to expand...


Yes, I know why the 2A is there. Now, the question here is, would the militia benefit from having criminals or the insane in the militia? The answer is no. So AFTER due process many rights can be infringed upon.


----------



## sakinago

frigidweirdo said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you’re taking the phrasing both out of its historical context, and what the founders actually said they meant by the 2nd. The militia was neccessary to the free state because an armed population is a counter to possible tyranny, foreign and domestic. So because a well armed and trained population is necessary to the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If the founder were worried about an invasion, and defending the country, they would’ve opted for a standing army instead. Much more effective at fighting against other armies than a militia (led and controlled by civilians) which was like herding cats and aiming them at a battlefield. But they were very much against a standing army because it could be used in a coup type of situation or used by the state to keep its population in line.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm not.
> 
> I think you're arguing against a generic view of the 2A, and not what I actually think. You could have written this post in response to 100 replies on this forum, and no one would know the difference.
> 
> The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. I know this because the FOUNDING FATHERS said so, and I have the documents to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For that to be the case you’d have to greatly jumble the wording 2nd amendment. What the founders are saying is that the militia (civilian led and controlled military, not controlled by government) is necessary to the free state, therefore the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon by the government. The militia was necessary because it was an armed CIVILIAN force, and a government is not going to force its will upon armed people...which a free society is one where the government is not forcing its will onto people. With what you’re saying you still have to disregard the whole “the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” That’s about as clear as it gets. If you want gun control you have to repeal the 2nd amendment.
> 
> This is what the founders talked about, over and over. It’s not about protecting the state, it’s about protecting the people, or in other words government not messing with the right of people to protect themselves from whatever might threaten their rights or life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, I don't think you're talking to me, but to the generic view of what you think others think.
> 
> The right to keep arms is the protection of the right from the Federal govt.
> 
> Now, if the Federal govt were to ban, say, semi automatics, would individuals still be able to keep arms? The answer is yes.
> 
> This is the first problem. People look at the 2A as it GIVING a right to THE PEOPLE. When in fact the 2A merely PREVENTS the US FEDERAL GOVT from doing something. It's a slight difference but has a lot of impact.
> 
> Now, the other question is, does the US federal govt have the power to take semi-automatics away? Well, they seem to have.
> 
> Also, the 2A says "shall not be infringed", so you're make the assumption that individuals can't have their right to keep arms infringed upon. The simple answer is that the US federal govt CAN infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, no matter what the Amendment says. It doesn't mean it can infringe at will. It has to go through due process first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mental gymnastics here are wild. How you can somehow say cannot be infringed still means you can infringe...how schizo is your mind that you can use the same word, in the same phrase...and both confirm and deny what it means...all rolled up into one. Shall not be infringed, doesn’t mean unless you have a debate about it, or shall not be infringed winky face, or give it a lot of thought when you decide to infringed...it simply means shall not be infringed.
> 
> The wording is very clear, the intentions are very clear, the historical context is very clear, how the law was put into practice at the time and in subsequent years has been very clear, and what our founders wrote about this law and where they got the idea is all very clear. Just because a government does not follow the constitution, doesn’t make it constitutional. The 2nd amendment is one of many of the BOR that have been trampled upon. Of course government is not going to admit that they are acting outside of the constitution. They did the same BS to justify rounding up and throwing people into interment camps, poisoning their own population during prohibition, and hundreds of other atrocities they carried out that were clearly against the constitution. If you want gun control legally, you have to repeal the 2nd amendment. There is no way around it. This is what pro gun control Ivy League constitutional law professors will tell you as well. You have to repeal the 2nd, it’s clear, it’s intentions were made clear by both writings and practice. Made clear by the philosophy used and followed. This all was written about extensively. Put into practice. The militia WAS NOT TO BE CONTROLLED BY THE STATE. It could be called up by the governor, but it’s still led and controlled by the local population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that's the point isn't it?
> 
> I don't know how, I just know it is so.
> 
> The question here is, do you think the Founding Fathers wanted the insane and prisoners to have guns when they wrote the 2A?
> 
> The issue here is that ALL RIGHTS have limited. Which means ALL RIGHTS can be infringed, no matter whether you right "shall not be infringed or not".
> 
> Call it mental gymnastics all you like, it doesn't change this fact.
> 
> You think the wording is clear? Okay, you go try and get an atomic bomb. When you can't get an atomic bomb, you go to court and say your 2A rights are being violated, and see how far you get.
Click to expand...

Clearly not with prisoners, since they obviously forfeited their constitutionally protected rights, as evidenced by the fact they weren’t on the street walking freely, but instead in prison, and had their personal possessions removed beforehand including guns. Did that really need to be said? It should be noted that their personal possessions, including firearms, were returned after their sentence was completed.

When it comes to the “insane” we’ll thats quite the broad sweeping stroke of the brush for someone who seems so concerned about “definitions.” There are already rules in place for those that are a danger to themselves or others. It’s a high standard yes, but I prefer a high standard when it comes to holding and treating someone against their will. I happen to agree with the ACLU on this. Now how do you want to define insane? Few of the mass shooter had an actual diagnosis given before hand, and the ones who did had a fairly common diagnosis that millions of other Americans have, but it’s an overwhelmingly vast minority that actually become murderers. Now is it fair to say to all these millions of people, “because you were born with or developed a disease that you didn’t ask for...we’re going to strip your rights away” ? NO. That’s more of this collectivist BS, where instead of looking at and judging individual, and their individual actions, you lump them into a group, and judge them upon the actions of some other individuals of that group. That’s a gross miscarriage of what our justice system is supposed to be.


----------



## sakinago

frigidweirdo said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you’re taking the phrasing both out of its historical context, and what the founders actually said they meant by the 2nd. The militia was neccessary to the free state because an armed population is a counter to possible tyranny, foreign and domestic. So because a well armed and trained population is necessary to the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If the founder were worried about an invasion, and defending the country, they would’ve opted for a standing army instead. Much more effective at fighting against other armies than a militia (led and controlled by civilians) which was like herding cats and aiming them at a battlefield. But they were very much against a standing army because it could be used in a coup type of situation or used by the state to keep its population in line.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm not.
> 
> I think you're arguing against a generic view of the 2A, and not what I actually think. You could have written this post in response to 100 replies on this forum, and no one would know the difference.
> 
> The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. I know this because the FOUNDING FATHERS said so, and I have the documents to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The _Heller_ case settled that misinterpretation once and for all by declaring that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.  These stupid Moon Bats simply don't want to accept it..
> 
> They are as confused about the "militia" wording as they are about the definition of "well regulated".   Good thing Scalia set the record straight, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Flash
> As a Constitutionalist who believe in consent of the governed and including political beliefs
> under religious freedom,
> I argue that
> * the same way Christians and Constitutionalists can't be forced to accept court rulings
> on right to marriage and right to health care
> * neither can secularists be forced by courts or govt to accept this belief
> that right to bear arms is part of natural laws given by God or nature.
> 
> If their political beliefs are excluded or discriminated against instead of included equally,
> that just as unconstitutional as the mandates and rulings that violated the rights
> and beliefs of people with Christian and Constitutional beliefs negated or overruled by court rulings.
> 
> What we should learn by this is to allow
> individuals to retain and protect their own interpretations
> AND QUIT ABUSING GOVT OR PARTY TO EXCLUDE OR DISCRIMINATE AGAINST OTHER BELIEFS.
> 
> It is constitutional to REMOVE the ban AGAINST gay marriage
> but not to incorporate and enforce that institution against the beliefs of others.
> 
> 
> It is constitutional to REMOVE gun regulations that go too far
> and violate due process of laws by depriving law abiding citizens of rights who haven't
> been convicted of crimes, but not to EXCLUDE people who believe in more gun regulations.
> 
> They just have to propose and back rules and procedures for screening
> that ALIGN with people of the other beliefs who AGREE on effective legislation and management.
> 
> We have to accommodate each other's beliefs in order to have
> constitutional laws. So it is constitutional to strike down laws that
> are biased against the beliefs of others.
> But not constitutional to establish a law that prohibits the beliefs of one group or another.
> 
> So citizens such as frigidweirdo or me who contests a ruling as
> biased by political belief against our own beliefs,
> have EVERY RIGHT to argue we should be included constitutionally.
> And we have that responsibility to defend our beliefs,
> we just don't have the right to impose them on others through govt
> or that's equally unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not if your belief infringes on the rights of another. Just because you believe it doesn’t make it right, and doesn’t mean it should be put it into law. You have a right to your beliefs, but, once you put those beliefs into practice as law that steps on others rights, that’s no longer ok. That’s no longer equality. You doing so forces your beliefs onto others
> 
> You have a right to keep and own a gun, any gun. Just like you have to right to own a car, or a knife, or computer, or whatever. Owning a gun (for self defense against whatever assailiant govt or other) is a natural right, as well as forming up groups is a natural right. Now if you use that gun/car/knife/computer for a crime that’s against the law since you are doing so to infringe on others rights. The difference between all of these tools mentioned and a gun is that gun is specifically mentioned in the 2nd. It’s mentioned for a reason because it’s an equalizer. And it’s also one of the first things that people seeking power go after.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is your belief doesn't match reality.
> 
> The US Constitution doesn't say anything about "guns", there is no mention of the word "gun" in the Constitution, nor the Second Amendment. It says "arms".
> 
> arms | Definition of arms in US English by Oxford Dictionaries
> 
> "Weapons and ammunition; armaments."
> 
> Arms are more than just guns.
> 
> arms (noun) American English definition and synonyms | Macmillan Dictionary
> 
> "weapons, for example guns or bombs"
> 
> So, are you able to have ALL guns and ALL bombs? Anti-aircraft guns? Atomic bombs? F-15s? Anti-tank guns? These are all arms.
> 
> Do you have the right to own all of these?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh Jesus if you want to take it to that extreme, yes I do. But in very obvious reality a f15 or any other ridiculous scenario is not an arm. A vehicle with arms yes. But not an armament. The whole point of the 2nd was so the state did not have a monopoly of force. That the people if need be could oust the stats if they needed to.  The definition of arms even specifies “especially firearms”. However if you still want to keep twirling around with this, yes if that’s the only option, yes. The crime is not keeping and bearing it. The crime would be if you used whatever you want to insert  to infringe upon another’s life liberty or property. And I happen to know a guy who owns tanks that have appeared in many movies and shows like saving private Ryan, BoB, etc, with the photos with the actors to prove it. Obviously he’s not going on killing sprees with them. It’s a hobby for him that also makes him some money every once in a while (I doubt enough money to cover the costs of the damn things). He even had a WWII era German mobile anti air tank that can still shoot, or so he claimed.
> 
> If you’re going to these extremes, clearly you are just throwing spaghetti up against the wall. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to break down the meaning of the 2nd. But for some reason the left has to create a bijjillion hoops to jump through so they can attempt to make a point.
> 
> If you want gun control you have to repeal the 2nd amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I know why the 2A is there. Now, the question here is, would the militia benefit from having criminals or the insane in the militia? The answer is no. So AFTER due process many rights can be infringed upon.
Click to expand...

And there’s the moved goal post, and the question isn’t the milita. The mention of the militia was a qualifier, “the militia being necessary to the free state,” to the following statement of “the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” And once again that Militia was never intended to be under control of the state, but rather the people, which is why the state was told not to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear. After all, what use is a civilian controlled militia if the government could disarm it?

It’s not about what use the militia would have, it’s about government not overstepping it’s bounds.


----------



## frigidweirdo

sakinago said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm not.
> 
> I think you're arguing against a generic view of the 2A, and not what I actually think. You could have written this post in response to 100 replies on this forum, and no one would know the difference.
> 
> The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. I know this because the FOUNDING FATHERS said so, and I have the documents to prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> For that to be the case you’d have to greatly jumble the wording 2nd amendment. What the founders are saying is that the militia (civilian led and controlled military, not controlled by government) is necessary to the free state, therefore the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon by the government. The militia was necessary because it was an armed CIVILIAN force, and a government is not going to force its will upon armed people...which a free society is one where the government is not forcing its will onto people. With what you’re saying you still have to disregard the whole “the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” That’s about as clear as it gets. If you want gun control you have to repeal the 2nd amendment.
> 
> This is what the founders talked about, over and over. It’s not about protecting the state, it’s about protecting the people, or in other words government not messing with the right of people to protect themselves from whatever might threaten their rights or life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, I don't think you're talking to me, but to the generic view of what you think others think.
> 
> The right to keep arms is the protection of the right from the Federal govt.
> 
> Now, if the Federal govt were to ban, say, semi automatics, would individuals still be able to keep arms? The answer is yes.
> 
> This is the first problem. People look at the 2A as it GIVING a right to THE PEOPLE. When in fact the 2A merely PREVENTS the US FEDERAL GOVT from doing something. It's a slight difference but has a lot of impact.
> 
> Now, the other question is, does the US federal govt have the power to take semi-automatics away? Well, they seem to have.
> 
> Also, the 2A says "shall not be infringed", so you're make the assumption that individuals can't have their right to keep arms infringed upon. The simple answer is that the US federal govt CAN infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, no matter what the Amendment says. It doesn't mean it can infringe at will. It has to go through due process first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mental gymnastics here are wild. How you can somehow say cannot be infringed still means you can infringe...how schizo is your mind that you can use the same word, in the same phrase...and both confirm and deny what it means...all rolled up into one. Shall not be infringed, doesn’t mean unless you have a debate about it, or shall not be infringed winky face, or give it a lot of thought when you decide to infringed...it simply means shall not be infringed.
> 
> The wording is very clear, the intentions are very clear, the historical context is very clear, how the law was put into practice at the time and in subsequent years has been very clear, and what our founders wrote about this law and where they got the idea is all very clear. Just because a government does not follow the constitution, doesn’t make it constitutional. The 2nd amendment is one of many of the BOR that have been trampled upon. Of course government is not going to admit that they are acting outside of the constitution. They did the same BS to justify rounding up and throwing people into interment camps, poisoning their own population during prohibition, and hundreds of other atrocities they carried out that were clearly against the constitution. If you want gun control legally, you have to repeal the 2nd amendment. There is no way around it. This is what pro gun control Ivy League constitutional law professors will tell you as well. You have to repeal the 2nd, it’s clear, it’s intentions were made clear by both writings and practice. Made clear by the philosophy used and followed. This all was written about extensively. Put into practice. The militia WAS NOT TO BE CONTROLLED BY THE STATE. It could be called up by the governor, but it’s still led and controlled by the local population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that's the point isn't it?
> 
> I don't know how, I just know it is so.
> 
> The question here is, do you think the Founding Fathers wanted the insane and prisoners to have guns when they wrote the 2A?
> 
> The issue here is that ALL RIGHTS have limited. Which means ALL RIGHTS can be infringed, no matter whether you right "shall not be infringed or not".
> 
> Call it mental gymnastics all you like, it doesn't change this fact.
> 
> You think the wording is clear? Okay, you go try and get an atomic bomb. When you can't get an atomic bomb, you go to court and say your 2A rights are being violated, and see how far you get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly not with prisoners, since they obviously forfeited their constitutionally protected rights, as evidenced by the fact they weren’t on the street walking freely, but instead in prison, and had their personal possessions removed beforehand including guns. Did that really need to be said? It should be noted that their personal possessions, including firearms, were returned after their sentence was completed.
> 
> When it comes to the “insane” we’ll thats quite the broad sweeping stroke of the brush for someone who seems so concerned about “definitions.” There are already rules in place for those that are a danger to themselves or others. It’s a high standard yes, but I prefer a high standard when it comes to holding and treating someone against their will. I happen to agree with the ACLU on this. Now how do you want to define insane? Few of the mass shooter had an actual diagnosis given before hand, and the ones who did had a fairly common diagnosis that millions of other Americans have, but it’s an overwhelmingly vast minority that actually become murderers. Now is it fair to say to all these millions of people, “because you were born with or developed a disease that you didn’t ask for...we’re going to strip your rights away” ? NO. That’s more of this collectivist BS, where instead of looking at and judging individual, and their individual actions, you lump them into a group, and judge them upon the actions of some other individuals of that group. That’s a gross miscarriage of what our justice system is supposed to be.
Click to expand...


They don't FORFEIT their rights, they have them INFRINGED UPON. 

But do you agree then that prisoners can have their RKBA infringed upon?


----------



## Little-Acorn

frigidweirdo said:


> The Second Amendment cannot be infringed upon frivolously.


You get one point deducted for including an extra word that is not in the 2nd amendment, and which would change its meaning if it were included.

"Due process" IS in the 5th amendment, and was deliberately included in it, so that it gave government the authority to make exceptions. Just as it was deliberately _excluded_ from the 2nd, so that it would deliberately _forbid_ government from making exceptions to that one.

 Hence "shall not be infringed", _with no exceptions._.

This has been explained to frigidweirdo several time in this thread alone, and probably in other places. He continues to ignore it, and pretends there is some legal way for government to take away people's guns.


----------



## Little-Acorn

frigidweirdo said:


> But do you agree then that prisoners can have their RKBA infringed upon?


Nope. But they can have their guns taken away, by the method I described a few posts ago.

Can you remember what that was?


----------



## frigidweirdo

Little-Acorn said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment cannot be infringed upon frivolously.
> 
> 
> 
> You get one point deducted for including an extra word that is not in the 2nd amendment, and which would change its meaning if it were included.
> 
> "Due process" IS in the 5th amendment, and was deliberately included in it, so that it gave government the authority to make exceptions. Just as it was deliberately _excluded_ from the 2nd, so that it would deliberately _forbid_ government from making exceptions to that one.
> 
> Hence "shall not be infringed", _with no exceptions._.
> 
> This has been explained to frigidweirdo several time in this thread alone, and probably in other places. He continues to ignore it, and pretends there is some legal way for government to take away people's guns.
Click to expand...


No, I clearly don't get any points taken away.

When, since 1791, have prisoners had their guns in prison? When have those who have been found insane after due process had guns?

Come on, seeing as you think you can deduct points for this, you need the EVIDENCE.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Little-Acorn said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But do you agree then that prisoners can have their RKBA infringed upon?
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. But they can have their guns taken away, by the method I described a few posts ago.
> 
> Can you remember what that was?
Click to expand...


Er... so they can't have their guns infringed upon but they can have their guns infringed upon. Oh, great argument.


----------



## Little-Acorn

Little-Acorn said:


> You get one point deducted for including an extra word that is not in the 2nd amendment, and which would change its meaning if it were included.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I clearly don't get any points taken away.
Click to expand...

It's also typical of a liberal that he thinks he can simply change a law he doesn't like by fiat, inserting words that change its meaning, to conform to what he wishes it said instead of what it actually says.

Not much point in arguing with someone who thinks that.

Back to the subject:
The right to keep and bear arms is protected by the 2nd amendment, which forbids all governments in the U.S. from infringing. _Without exception._

The only entity in the country that can decide not to enforce a law (including a law in the Constitution) is a JURY. And it must do so on a case by case basis, deciding whether the particular law is appropriate for the particular case. I gave an example earlier, which (unsurprisingly) this liberal has carefully avoided discussing, since it refutes his personal agenda to give government the power to take away the citizens' guns in a few cases. (Which will doubtlessly expand to a few more, and then a few more etc.).

The 2nd amendment was placed in the Constitution precisely to protect us from people like this liberal, who believes that he can change a law to read whatever he wants, and then enforce his new version upon people who had no say in the process.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Little-Acorn said:


> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You get one point deducted for including an extra word that is not in the 2nd amendment, and which would change its meaning if it were included.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I clearly don't get any points taken away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's also typical of a liberal that he thinks he can simply change a law he doesn't like by fiat, inserting words that change its meaning, to conform to what he wishes it said instead of what it actually says.
> 
> Not much point in arguing with someone who thinks that.
> 
> Back to the subject:
> The right to keep and bear arms is protected by the 2nd amendment, which forbids all governments in the U.S. from infringing. _Without exception._
> 
> The only entity in the country that can decide not to enforce a law (including a law in the Constitution) is a JURY. And it must do so on a case by case basis, deciding whether the particular law is appropriate for the particular case. I gave an example earlier, which (unsurprisingly) this liberal has carefully avoided discussing, since it refutes his personal agenda to give government the power to take away the citizens' guns in a few cases. (Which will doubtlessly expand to a few more, and then a few more etc.).
> 
> The 2nd amendment was placed in the Constitution precisely to protect us from people like this liberal, who believes that he can change a law to read whatever he wants, and then enforce his new version upon people who had no say in the process.
Click to expand...


The problem is you haven't provided any evidence that in the US since 1791, that criminals in prison haven't had their guns infringed upon.

What you have done is conveniently come up with something that isn't true that they don't have their right to guns infringed upon, but something else happens. However the theory of rights says everyone has these rights and they can't be taken away, only infringed upon. Oh. 

But hey, if you want to stop talking with someone because you don't agree with them, then what's the point of being on a forum like this?

No, a jury is not the only one who can decide to ignore laws. The Supreme Court and Federal courts and State courts can also do this. They might get slapped down by those higher than them, except the Supreme Court of course, but they can ignore and DO ignore all the time. 

It's not just me that believes that criminals shouldn't have guns in prison, or that the insane shouldn't have guns. The NRA would be another body of people who believe what I believe. 

So you're basically saying the NRA is wrong on this too?


----------



## danielpalos

frigidweirdo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited  never have been and never will be  Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That phrase "shall not be infringed" really confuses you, huh?  Probably the presence of a two-syllable word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Confuses me. How come the insane can't have guns, or prisoners?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because if people are not legally competent, they require a guardian
> to be legally responsible for them including them having access to guns or using them.
> 
> As for prisoners, if the crime for which you are convicted calls for deprivation of liberty and freedom
> then you can lose rights by the laws.
> 
> In general, right of the people implies law abiding citizens.
> you call this well-regulated militia, but it means citizens who commit to uphold and defend the laws not violate them.
> 
> Prisoners, being convicted of crimes, have violated laws and thus merit loss of liberties.
> If people are found to be insane and not able to comply with laws,
> they can also lose their rights to guardianship.
> 
> NOTE: in cases of PTSD for victims of rape or other crimes,
> or in cases of veterans, this is still contested if such "mental ill" conditions
> should render such people barred from defending themselves with guns.
> 
> This isn't so clear cut.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The argument being presented is that it says "shall not be infringed", and therefore this means that the right to keep and bear arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED EVER.
> 
> Which is rubbish, right?
> 
> So the 2A says "shall not be infringed" but this means that it CAN BE infringed upon.
Click to expand...

Only well regulated militia of the People, shall not be infringed.


----------



## sakinago

frigidweirdo said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> For that to be the case you’d have to greatly jumble the wording 2nd amendment. What the founders are saying is that the militia (civilian led and controlled military, not controlled by government) is necessary to the free state, therefore the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon by the government. The militia was necessary because it was an armed CIVILIAN force, and a government is not going to force its will upon armed people...which a free society is one where the government is not forcing its will onto people. With what you’re saying you still have to disregard the whole “the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” That’s about as clear as it gets. If you want gun control you have to repeal the 2nd amendment.
> 
> This is what the founders talked about, over and over. It’s not about protecting the state, it’s about protecting the people, or in other words government not messing with the right of people to protect themselves from whatever might threaten their rights or life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I don't think you're talking to me, but to the generic view of what you think others think.
> 
> The right to keep arms is the protection of the right from the Federal govt.
> 
> Now, if the Federal govt were to ban, say, semi automatics, would individuals still be able to keep arms? The answer is yes.
> 
> This is the first problem. People look at the 2A as it GIVING a right to THE PEOPLE. When in fact the 2A merely PREVENTS the US FEDERAL GOVT from doing something. It's a slight difference but has a lot of impact.
> 
> Now, the other question is, does the US federal govt have the power to take semi-automatics away? Well, they seem to have.
> 
> Also, the 2A says "shall not be infringed", so you're make the assumption that individuals can't have their right to keep arms infringed upon. The simple answer is that the US federal govt CAN infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, no matter what the Amendment says. It doesn't mean it can infringe at will. It has to go through due process first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mental gymnastics here are wild. How you can somehow say cannot be infringed still means you can infringe...how schizo is your mind that you can use the same word, in the same phrase...and both confirm and deny what it means...all rolled up into one. Shall not be infringed, doesn’t mean unless you have a debate about it, or shall not be infringed winky face, or give it a lot of thought when you decide to infringed...it simply means shall not be infringed.
> 
> The wording is very clear, the intentions are very clear, the historical context is very clear, how the law was put into practice at the time and in subsequent years has been very clear, and what our founders wrote about this law and where they got the idea is all very clear. Just because a government does not follow the constitution, doesn’t make it constitutional. The 2nd amendment is one of many of the BOR that have been trampled upon. Of course government is not going to admit that they are acting outside of the constitution. They did the same BS to justify rounding up and throwing people into interment camps, poisoning their own population during prohibition, and hundreds of other atrocities they carried out that were clearly against the constitution. If you want gun control legally, you have to repeal the 2nd amendment. There is no way around it. This is what pro gun control Ivy League constitutional law professors will tell you as well. You have to repeal the 2nd, it’s clear, it’s intentions were made clear by both writings and practice. Made clear by the philosophy used and followed. This all was written about extensively. Put into practice. The militia WAS NOT TO BE CONTROLLED BY THE STATE. It could be called up by the governor, but it’s still led and controlled by the local population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that's the point isn't it?
> 
> I don't know how, I just know it is so.
> 
> The question here is, do you think the Founding Fathers wanted the insane and prisoners to have guns when they wrote the 2A?
> 
> The issue here is that ALL RIGHTS have limited. Which means ALL RIGHTS can be infringed, no matter whether you right "shall not be infringed or not".
> 
> Call it mental gymnastics all you like, it doesn't change this fact.
> 
> You think the wording is clear? Okay, you go try and get an atomic bomb. When you can't get an atomic bomb, you go to court and say your 2A rights are being violated, and see how far you get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly not with prisoners, since they obviously forfeited their constitutionally protected rights, as evidenced by the fact they weren’t on the street walking freely, but instead in prison, and had their personal possessions removed beforehand including guns. Did that really need to be said? It should be noted that their personal possessions, including firearms, were returned after their sentence was completed.
> 
> When it comes to the “insane” we’ll thats quite the broad sweeping stroke of the brush for someone who seems so concerned about “definitions.” There are already rules in place for those that are a danger to themselves or others. It’s a high standard yes, but I prefer a high standard when it comes to holding and treating someone against their will. I happen to agree with the ACLU on this. Now how do you want to define insane? Few of the mass shooter had an actual diagnosis given before hand, and the ones who did had a fairly common diagnosis that millions of other Americans have, but it’s an overwhelmingly vast minority that actually become murderers. Now is it fair to say to all these millions of people, “because you were born with or developed a disease that you didn’t ask for...we’re going to strip your rights away” ? NO. That’s more of this collectivist BS, where instead of looking at and judging individual, and their individual actions, you lump them into a group, and judge them upon the actions of some other individuals of that group. That’s a gross miscarriage of what our justice system is supposed to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't FORFEIT their rights, they have them INFRINGED UPON.
> 
> But do you agree then that prisoners can have their RKBA infringed upon?
Click to expand...

If you are convicted of a crime, you loose your rights. There are prisoner rights. But you’re obviously not walking free on the streets, let alone free to walk around in the prison where you please, you do not have a right to privacy, guards don’t need a warrant to search your cell. You can’t wear whatever you want, you can’t contact the outside world whenever you want, you can only see visitors at a certain time, you don’t get due process ora trial in the prison punishment system...and oh yea you can’t carry around a gun. Again do I really need to list all of this?


----------



## frigidweirdo

sakinago said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I don't think you're talking to me, but to the generic view of what you think others think.
> 
> The right to keep arms is the protection of the right from the Federal govt.
> 
> Now, if the Federal govt were to ban, say, semi automatics, would individuals still be able to keep arms? The answer is yes.
> 
> This is the first problem. People look at the 2A as it GIVING a right to THE PEOPLE. When in fact the 2A merely PREVENTS the US FEDERAL GOVT from doing something. It's a slight difference but has a lot of impact.
> 
> Now, the other question is, does the US federal govt have the power to take semi-automatics away? Well, they seem to have.
> 
> Also, the 2A says "shall not be infringed", so you're make the assumption that individuals can't have their right to keep arms infringed upon. The simple answer is that the US federal govt CAN infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, no matter what the Amendment says. It doesn't mean it can infringe at will. It has to go through due process first.
> 
> 
> 
> The mental gymnastics here are wild. How you can somehow say cannot be infringed still means you can infringe...how schizo is your mind that you can use the same word, in the same phrase...and both confirm and deny what it means...all rolled up into one. Shall not be infringed, doesn’t mean unless you have a debate about it, or shall not be infringed winky face, or give it a lot of thought when you decide to infringed...it simply means shall not be infringed.
> 
> The wording is very clear, the intentions are very clear, the historical context is very clear, how the law was put into practice at the time and in subsequent years has been very clear, and what our founders wrote about this law and where they got the idea is all very clear. Just because a government does not follow the constitution, doesn’t make it constitutional. The 2nd amendment is one of many of the BOR that have been trampled upon. Of course government is not going to admit that they are acting outside of the constitution. They did the same BS to justify rounding up and throwing people into interment camps, poisoning their own population during prohibition, and hundreds of other atrocities they carried out that were clearly against the constitution. If you want gun control legally, you have to repeal the 2nd amendment. There is no way around it. This is what pro gun control Ivy League constitutional law professors will tell you as well. You have to repeal the 2nd, it’s clear, it’s intentions were made clear by both writings and practice. Made clear by the philosophy used and followed. This all was written about extensively. Put into practice. The militia WAS NOT TO BE CONTROLLED BY THE STATE. It could be called up by the governor, but it’s still led and controlled by the local population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that's the point isn't it?
> 
> I don't know how, I just know it is so.
> 
> The question here is, do you think the Founding Fathers wanted the insane and prisoners to have guns when they wrote the 2A?
> 
> The issue here is that ALL RIGHTS have limited. Which means ALL RIGHTS can be infringed, no matter whether you right "shall not be infringed or not".
> 
> Call it mental gymnastics all you like, it doesn't change this fact.
> 
> You think the wording is clear? Okay, you go try and get an atomic bomb. When you can't get an atomic bomb, you go to court and say your 2A rights are being violated, and see how far you get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly not with prisoners, since they obviously forfeited their constitutionally protected rights, as evidenced by the fact they weren’t on the street walking freely, but instead in prison, and had their personal possessions removed beforehand including guns. Did that really need to be said? It should be noted that their personal possessions, including firearms, were returned after their sentence was completed.
> 
> When it comes to the “insane” we’ll thats quite the broad sweeping stroke of the brush for someone who seems so concerned about “definitions.” There are already rules in place for those that are a danger to themselves or others. It’s a high standard yes, but I prefer a high standard when it comes to holding and treating someone against their will. I happen to agree with the ACLU on this. Now how do you want to define insane? Few of the mass shooter had an actual diagnosis given before hand, and the ones who did had a fairly common diagnosis that millions of other Americans have, but it’s an overwhelmingly vast minority that actually become murderers. Now is it fair to say to all these millions of people, “because you were born with or developed a disease that you didn’t ask for...we’re going to strip your rights away” ? NO. That’s more of this collectivist BS, where instead of looking at and judging individual, and their individual actions, you lump them into a group, and judge them upon the actions of some other individuals of that group. That’s a gross miscarriage of what our justice system is supposed to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't FORFEIT their rights, they have them INFRINGED UPON.
> 
> But do you agree then that prisoners can have their RKBA infringed upon?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you are convicted of a crime, you loose your rights. There are prisoner rights. But you’re obviously not walking free on the streets, let alone free to walk around in the prison where you please, you do not have a right to privacy, guards don’t need a warrant to search your cell. You can’t wear whatever you want, you can’t contact the outside world whenever you want, you can only see visitors at a certain time, you don’t get due process ora trial in the prison punishment system...and oh yea you can’t carry around a gun. Again do I really need to list all of this?
Click to expand...


No, if you're convicted of a crime you don't lose, nor loose, your rights. You have the INFRINGED UPON.

Rights only exist when EVERYONE has them. If someone doesn't have rights, then no one has rights, they become privileges. 


OHCHR |  	What are Human Rights

"Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status. We are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination. These rights are all interrelated, interdependent and indivisible."

So, when someone thinks that the right to keep arms is a human right, then this means that people in China, the UK or other such countries are having this right infringed upon by their governments. The people have these rights as INHERENT within them, simply because they are human beings. Status, like prisoner status, sexual status etc does not erode these rights. 

infringe | Definition of infringe in US English by Oxford Dictionaries

"
1.1 Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
_‘his legal rights were being infringed’_"

Seems someone needs to learn about Human Rights.


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

The second amendment is actually the basic human right to self defense.


----------



## Flash

frigidweirdo said:


> [
> 
> 
> No, the Second Amendment has only recently been incorporated by the Supreme Court. In 2000 the 2A did NOT apply to the states.



It has always applied to the states.  However, it has taken court cases like _McDonald v Chicago_ to affirm it.

The right existed since the Bill of Rights was established.  Just because some stupid anti gun nut Liberals didn't understand it and it took court cases to affirm it doesn't mean that it didn't exist from the beginning.

However, if you want to be absurd and somehow claim that the Bill of Rights does not protect individual rights in the US then go ahead.   We hear silly shit like that all the time on this forum.  

Our Founding Fathers had it right to establish a Bill of Rights so that some oppressive elected body could not take away our individual God endowed liberties.  Like they suspected there would be assholes that would try to take those liberties away.  Unfortunately it has taken court cases at one time or another to incorporate almost all of the amendments in the BoRs. 

You point is really moot for any discussion on the legality of prohibiting the possession of firearms nowadays given the _McDonald_ ruling..  It is like arguing that slavery was OK before the 13th Amendment.


----------



## sakinago

frigidweirdo said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> The mental gymnastics here are wild. How you can somehow say cannot be infringed still means you can infringe...how schizo is your mind that you can use the same word, in the same phrase...and both confirm and deny what it means...all rolled up into one. Shall not be infringed, doesn’t mean unless you have a debate about it, or shall not be infringed winky face, or give it a lot of thought when you decide to infringed...it simply means shall not be infringed.
> 
> The wording is very clear, the intentions are very clear, the historical context is very clear, how the law was put into practice at the time and in subsequent years has been very clear, and what our founders wrote about this law and where they got the idea is all very clear. Just because a government does not follow the constitution, doesn’t make it constitutional. The 2nd amendment is one of many of the BOR that have been trampled upon. Of course government is not going to admit that they are acting outside of the constitution. They did the same BS to justify rounding up and throwing people into interment camps, poisoning their own population during prohibition, and hundreds of other atrocities they carried out that were clearly against the constitution. If you want gun control legally, you have to repeal the 2nd amendment. There is no way around it. This is what pro gun control Ivy League constitutional law professors will tell you as well. You have to repeal the 2nd, it’s clear, it’s intentions were made clear by both writings and practice. Made clear by the philosophy used and followed. This all was written about extensively. Put into practice. The militia WAS NOT TO BE CONTROLLED BY THE STATE. It could be called up by the governor, but it’s still led and controlled by the local population.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's the point isn't it?
> 
> I don't know how, I just know it is so.
> 
> The question here is, do you think the Founding Fathers wanted the insane and prisoners to have guns when they wrote the 2A?
> 
> The issue here is that ALL RIGHTS have limited. Which means ALL RIGHTS can be infringed, no matter whether you right "shall not be infringed or not".
> 
> Call it mental gymnastics all you like, it doesn't change this fact.
> 
> You think the wording is clear? Okay, you go try and get an atomic bomb. When you can't get an atomic bomb, you go to court and say your 2A rights are being violated, and see how far you get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly not with prisoners, since they obviously forfeited their constitutionally protected rights, as evidenced by the fact they weren’t on the street walking freely, but instead in prison, and had their personal possessions removed beforehand including guns. Did that really need to be said? It should be noted that their personal possessions, including firearms, were returned after their sentence was completed.
> 
> When it comes to the “insane” we’ll thats quite the broad sweeping stroke of the brush for someone who seems so concerned about “definitions.” There are already rules in place for those that are a danger to themselves or others. It’s a high standard yes, but I prefer a high standard when it comes to holding and treating someone against their will. I happen to agree with the ACLU on this. Now how do you want to define insane? Few of the mass shooter had an actual diagnosis given before hand, and the ones who did had a fairly common diagnosis that millions of other Americans have, but it’s an overwhelmingly vast minority that actually become murderers. Now is it fair to say to all these millions of people, “because you were born with or developed a disease that you didn’t ask for...we’re going to strip your rights away” ? NO. That’s more of this collectivist BS, where instead of looking at and judging individual, and their individual actions, you lump them into a group, and judge them upon the actions of some other individuals of that group. That’s a gross miscarriage of what our justice system is supposed to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't FORFEIT their rights, they have them INFRINGED UPON.
> 
> But do you agree then that prisoners can have their RKBA infringed upon?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you are convicted of a crime, you loose your rights. There are prisoner rights. But you’re obviously not walking free on the streets, let alone free to walk around in the prison where you please, you do not have a right to privacy, guards don’t need a warrant to search your cell. You can’t wear whatever you want, you can’t contact the outside world whenever you want, you can only see visitors at a certain time, you don’t get due process ora trial in the prison punishment system...and oh yea you can’t carry around a gun. Again do I really need to list all of this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, if you're convicted of a crime you don't lose, nor loose, your rights. You have the INFRINGED UPON.
> 
> Rights only exist when EVERYONE has them. If someone doesn't have rights, then no one has rights, they become privileges.
> 
> 
> OHCHR |      What are Human Rights
> 
> "Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status. We are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination. These rights are all interrelated, interdependent and indivisible."
> 
> So, when someone thinks that the right to keep arms is a human right, then this means that people in China, the UK or other such countries are having this right infringed upon by their governments. The people have these rights as INHERENT within them, simply because they are human beings. Status, like prisoner status, sexual status etc does not erode these rights.
> 
> infringe | Definition of infringe in US English by Oxford Dictionaries
> 
> "
> 1.1 Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
> _‘his legal rights were being infringed’_"
> 
> Seems someone needs to learn about Human Rights.
Click to expand...

Nope wrong again, you have the right to life, but if you can forfeit that right if you commit murder and are sentenced to execution. Or you can be rightfully shoot trying to escape. You have a right to be secure in your person, but in prison they can cavity search you whenever they please, or even a probationer can be searched or forced to take a drug test without probable cause. The rules change with prisoners, they forfiet those rights when they are found guilty and sentenced. They start out with these rights, when they are sentenced they loose them, and when the sentence is complete, they are supposed to regain them.


----------



## frigidweirdo

sakinago said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's the point isn't it?
> 
> I don't know how, I just know it is so.
> 
> The question here is, do you think the Founding Fathers wanted the insane and prisoners to have guns when they wrote the 2A?
> 
> The issue here is that ALL RIGHTS have limited. Which means ALL RIGHTS can be infringed, no matter whether you right "shall not be infringed or not".
> 
> Call it mental gymnastics all you like, it doesn't change this fact.
> 
> You think the wording is clear? Okay, you go try and get an atomic bomb. When you can't get an atomic bomb, you go to court and say your 2A rights are being violated, and see how far you get.
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly not with prisoners, since they obviously forfeited their constitutionally protected rights, as evidenced by the fact they weren’t on the street walking freely, but instead in prison, and had their personal possessions removed beforehand including guns. Did that really need to be said? It should be noted that their personal possessions, including firearms, were returned after their sentence was completed.
> 
> When it comes to the “insane” we’ll thats quite the broad sweeping stroke of the brush for someone who seems so concerned about “definitions.” There are already rules in place for those that are a danger to themselves or others. It’s a high standard yes, but I prefer a high standard when it comes to holding and treating someone against their will. I happen to agree with the ACLU on this. Now how do you want to define insane? Few of the mass shooter had an actual diagnosis given before hand, and the ones who did had a fairly common diagnosis that millions of other Americans have, but it’s an overwhelmingly vast minority that actually become murderers. Now is it fair to say to all these millions of people, “because you were born with or developed a disease that you didn’t ask for...we’re going to strip your rights away” ? NO. That’s more of this collectivist BS, where instead of looking at and judging individual, and their individual actions, you lump them into a group, and judge them upon the actions of some other individuals of that group. That’s a gross miscarriage of what our justice system is supposed to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't FORFEIT their rights, they have them INFRINGED UPON.
> 
> But do you agree then that prisoners can have their RKBA infringed upon?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you are convicted of a crime, you loose your rights. There are prisoner rights. But you’re obviously not walking free on the streets, let alone free to walk around in the prison where you please, you do not have a right to privacy, guards don’t need a warrant to search your cell. You can’t wear whatever you want, you can’t contact the outside world whenever you want, you can only see visitors at a certain time, you don’t get due process ora trial in the prison punishment system...and oh yea you can’t carry around a gun. Again do I really need to list all of this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, if you're convicted of a crime you don't lose, nor loose, your rights. You have the INFRINGED UPON.
> 
> Rights only exist when EVERYONE has them. If someone doesn't have rights, then no one has rights, they become privileges.
> 
> 
> OHCHR |      What are Human Rights
> 
> "Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status. We are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination. These rights are all interrelated, interdependent and indivisible."
> 
> So, when someone thinks that the right to keep arms is a human right, then this means that people in China, the UK or other such countries are having this right infringed upon by their governments. The people have these rights as INHERENT within them, simply because they are human beings. Status, like prisoner status, sexual status etc does not erode these rights.
> 
> infringe | Definition of infringe in US English by Oxford Dictionaries
> 
> "
> 1.1 Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
> _‘his legal rights were being infringed’_"
> 
> Seems someone needs to learn about Human Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope wrong again, you have the right to life, but if you can forfeit that right if you commit murder and are sentenced to execution. Or you can be rightfully shoot trying to escape. You have a right to be secure in your person, but in prison they can cavity search you whenever they please, or even a probationer can be searched or forced to take a drug test without probable cause. The rules change with prisoners, they forfiet those rights when they are found guilty and sentenced. They start out with these rights, when they are sentenced they loose them, and when the sentence is complete, they are supposed to regain them.
Click to expand...


Death is the ultimate punishment. Whether it's consistent with Human Rights is another matter entirely. Just because the US executes people, doesn't mean that Human Rights can be taken away in any other manner. This is just you hoping something sticks.

Yes, in prison you have your rights infringed upon. You don't LOSE your right to be secure in your person, you have it infringed upon. You don't have your right taken away, because if you did, there wouldn't be a right, just privileges. 

Yes, rules change with prisoners. Why? Because after DUE PROCESS you can have your rights INFRINGED UPON. 

As I showed you, the theory of human rights says humans have Human Rights inherently because they are human beings. Prisoners don't stop being human beings. 

IT'S LOSE, not loose. Fucking hell. You're trying to argue the case for something, using the English language and you don't know the difference between "I lose my shirt every day" and "My shirt is loose", one is a verb, one is an adjective, you can't use an adjective as a verb, especially when it has a completely different meaning.


----------



## frigidweirdo

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> The second amendment is actually the basic human right to self defense.



No, it's not.


----------



## sakinago

frigidweirdo said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly not with prisoners, since they obviously forfeited their constitutionally protected rights, as evidenced by the fact they weren’t on the street walking freely, but instead in prison, and had their personal possessions removed beforehand including guns. Did that really need to be said? It should be noted that their personal possessions, including firearms, were returned after their sentence was completed.
> 
> When it comes to the “insane” we’ll thats quite the broad sweeping stroke of the brush for someone who seems so concerned about “definitions.” There are already rules in place for those that are a danger to themselves or others. It’s a high standard yes, but I prefer a high standard when it comes to holding and treating someone against their will. I happen to agree with the ACLU on this. Now how do you want to define insane? Few of the mass shooter had an actual diagnosis given before hand, and the ones who did had a fairly common diagnosis that millions of other Americans have, but it’s an overwhelmingly vast minority that actually become murderers. Now is it fair to say to all these millions of people, “because you were born with or developed a disease that you didn’t ask for...we’re going to strip your rights away” ? NO. That’s more of this collectivist BS, where instead of looking at and judging individual, and their individual actions, you lump them into a group, and judge them upon the actions of some other individuals of that group. That’s a gross miscarriage of what our justice system is supposed to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They don't FORFEIT their rights, they have them INFRINGED UPON.
> 
> But do you agree then that prisoners can have their RKBA infringed upon?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you are convicted of a crime, you loose your rights. There are prisoner rights. But you’re obviously not walking free on the streets, let alone free to walk around in the prison where you please, you do not have a right to privacy, guards don’t need a warrant to search your cell. You can’t wear whatever you want, you can’t contact the outside world whenever you want, you can only see visitors at a certain time, you don’t get due process ora trial in the prison punishment system...and oh yea you can’t carry around a gun. Again do I really need to list all of this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, if you're convicted of a crime you don't lose, nor loose, your rights. You have the INFRINGED UPON.
> 
> Rights only exist when EVERYONE has them. If someone doesn't have rights, then no one has rights, they become privileges.
> 
> 
> OHCHR |      What are Human Rights
> 
> "Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status. We are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination. These rights are all interrelated, interdependent and indivisible."
> 
> So, when someone thinks that the right to keep arms is a human right, then this means that people in China, the UK or other such countries are having this right infringed upon by their governments. The people have these rights as INHERENT within them, simply because they are human beings. Status, like prisoner status, sexual status etc does not erode these rights.
> 
> infringe | Definition of infringe in US English by Oxford Dictionaries
> 
> "
> 1.1 Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
> _‘his legal rights were being infringed’_"
> 
> Seems someone needs to learn about Human Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope wrong again, you have the right to life, but if you can forfeit that right if you commit murder and are sentenced to execution. Or you can be rightfully shoot trying to escape. You have a right to be secure in your person, but in prison they can cavity search you whenever they please, or even a probationer can be searched or forced to take a drug test without probable cause. The rules change with prisoners, they forfiet those rights when they are found guilty and sentenced. They start out with these rights, when they are sentenced they loose them, and when the sentence is complete, they are supposed to regain them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Death is the ultimate punishment. Whether it's consistent with Human Rights is another matter entirely. Just because the US executes people, doesn't mean that Human Rights can be taken away in any other manner. This is just you hoping something sticks.
> 
> Yes, in prison you have your rights infringed upon. You don't LOSE your right to be secure in your person, you have it infringed upon. You don't have your right taken away, because if you did, there wouldn't be a right, just privileges.
> 
> Yes, rules change with prisoners. Why? Because after DUE PROCESS you can have your rights INFRINGED UPON.
> 
> As I showed you, the theory of human rights says humans have Human Rights inherently because they are human beings. Prisoners don't stop being human beings.
> 
> IT'S LOSE, not loose. Fucking hell. You're trying to argue the case for something, using the English language and you don't know the difference between "I lose my shirt every day" and "My shirt is loose", one is a verb, one is an adjective, you can't use an adjective as a verb, especially when it has a completely different meaning.
Click to expand...

They are not infringed upon, they are forfeit. There are still basic “humans rights”, which are different from natural rights. And there are certain rights we afford/grant to our prisoners, out of the sake of being humane. But the definition of human rights is also quite broad, and many things that many may claim as a human right, can come into direct conflict with natural rights. E.G. “I have a right to be believed.” No, you have a right to be heard, but to be believed would come into direct conflict with due process. “I have a right to free birth control.” No, you absolutely have a right to use BC, but not a right to free BC. “I have a right to feel safe from guns/offensive speech/etc.” No because that would conflict with free speech and the 2nd. “I have a right to free healthcare.” No, because that would conflict with property rights. And all these claimed “human rights” require government to positively grant them. So they’re not so much rights, but privileges. 

The natural rights on the other hand are only insured by placing negative rights onto the government, so government cannot interfere and the rights can be carried out “naturally.” E.G. “congress shall make no law,” “shall not be infringed.” 

I also see you trying to use the word infringe. This doesn’t work for a couple reasons. A. The 2nd clearly says “shall not be infringed.” B. Once infringed upon, they no longer become garunteed rights, they become revocable privileges.


----------



## emilynghiem

frigidweirdo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because if people are not legally competent, they require a guardian
> to be legally responsible for them including them having access to guns or using them.
> 
> As for prisoners, if the crime for which you are convicted calls for deprivation of liberty and freedom
> then you can lose rights by the laws.
> 
> In general, right of the people implies law abiding citizens.
> you call this well-regulated militia, but it means citizens who commit to uphold and defend the laws not violate them.
> 
> Prisoners, being convicted of crimes, have violated laws and thus merit loss of liberties.
> If people are found to be insane and not able to comply with laws,
> they can also lose their rights to guardianship.
> 
> NOTE: in cases of PTSD for victims of rape or other crimes,
> or in cases of veterans, this is still contested if such "mental ill" conditions
> should render such people barred from defending themselves with guns.
> 
> This isn't so clear cut.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The argument being presented is that it says "shall not be infringed", and therefore this means that the right to keep and bear arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED EVER.
> 
> Which is rubbish, right?
> 
> So the 2A says "shall not be infringed" but this means that it CAN BE infringed upon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo
> All that is missing is that we agree on limits on laws and rights,
> similar to agreements on the freedom of speech and press
> that cannot be abused to commit slander, libel, harassment, fraud, misrepresentation etc.
> 
> As stated before, no laws can be "taken out of context" and abused
> so as to violate OTHER laws that are also within the same Bill of Rights and Constitution.
> 
> So it is not considered an infringement to check the exercise of rights
> by OTHER laws and principles such as
> * the right to security in our persons houses and effects
> * the equal right to protection of the laws
> * the right to due process and not to be deprived of rights and liberties
> unless convicted by law of a crime for which the law prescribes such a penalty
> 
> Enforcing other parts of the same laws as one context
> is NOT generally seen as infringing on those rights.
> 
> Again this is what I mean by "the right of the people" as inherently
> implying "law abiding citizens" or for the purpose of "defending not violating" the law.
> You can call this "well regulated militia"
> and people like ChrisL may argue we both mean the PEOPLE
> who play that role of policing govt, regardless if you call it militia or "the people who are the government."
> 
> Enforcing other laws to check each other
> isn't counted as infringement.
> We just have to AGREE and resolved any perceived
> conflicts, so we AGREE this is ENFORCING laws
> and not violating Constitutional rights and principles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we agree that "shall no be infringed" doesn't mean that it can't be infringed upon? good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We agree more than disagree but the terms you use
> is what throws people off  frigidweirdo
> 
> I'd say it more like if you are infringing on the rights of others
> by abusing or threatening to abuse weapons, then that's YOU
> infringing your own rights.  For example, if you abuse "free exercise of religion"
> to sacrifice animals or people, that violates other laws, you end up
> getting convicted and incarcerated. Well you can't complain that it's
> the govt prohibiting you from practicing your religion. Part of your practice
> violated OTHER LAWS. So it wasn't about infringing on your religion,
> but about your actions that broke OTHER LAWS.
> 
> If this is explained in that context frigidweirdo
> we would find we agree more than no, and avoid getting stuck in conflict over
> the terminology you use that just invokes rejection when people hear that.
> 
> You just need a good facilitator to translate back and forth
> and you'd be fine. The terms you use are going to shut people
> down where they don't hear you. I can look past that and get to
> what you mean but most people can't or won't do that much work to listen to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure exactly what language you thin it is that throws other people off. It's a simple yes or no here, either the RKBA "shall not be infringed" EVER, or it shall be infringed. There are no two ways about it, right?
Click to expand...


Dear frigidweirdo but your concept of infringed is going to be different from what infringed means to other ppl, because you don't interpret the meaning and wording of the Second Amendment the same way. 

The example I gave for loose comparison is laws on sex marriage and rape: if someone interprets legal sex as within marriage only, that person will not see a law as "govt infringing on rights to have sex" by requiring people to be in a legal state marriage to have sex or else it's rape. One group would argue it's just govt barring rape, but the other group would say it's regulating sex. 

If that analogy doesn't work how about abortion. If one person or group interprets abortion as murder and others do not, then they end up arguing in circles because one group keeps pushing for govt to regulate murder and the other group argues the govt doesn't have the authority to regulate free choice they don't consider to be murder. 

You and others don't agree on what the law means by the right to bear arms, so your interpretations of what infringement means is going to be similarly "askew" and not aligned on the same page either.

Instead of arguing over infringement per se, you'd be better off spelling out specific rules means or process of screening registering or regulating guns for safety and crime prevention purposes. That doesn't depend on agreeing what you mean by infringement or not, because based on your interpretation alone, ppl will already consider that an infringement and oppose anything in that context which is already set up to be against their beliefs.


----------



## frigidweirdo

sakinago said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> They don't FORFEIT their rights, they have them INFRINGED UPON.
> 
> But do you agree then that prisoners can have their RKBA infringed upon?
> 
> 
> 
> If you are convicted of a crime, you loose your rights. There are prisoner rights. But you’re obviously not walking free on the streets, let alone free to walk around in the prison where you please, you do not have a right to privacy, guards don’t need a warrant to search your cell. You can’t wear whatever you want, you can’t contact the outside world whenever you want, you can only see visitors at a certain time, you don’t get due process ora trial in the prison punishment system...and oh yea you can’t carry around a gun. Again do I really need to list all of this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, if you're convicted of a crime you don't lose, nor loose, your rights. You have the INFRINGED UPON.
> 
> Rights only exist when EVERYONE has them. If someone doesn't have rights, then no one has rights, they become privileges.
> 
> 
> OHCHR |      What are Human Rights
> 
> "Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status. We are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination. These rights are all interrelated, interdependent and indivisible."
> 
> So, when someone thinks that the right to keep arms is a human right, then this means that people in China, the UK or other such countries are having this right infringed upon by their governments. The people have these rights as INHERENT within them, simply because they are human beings. Status, like prisoner status, sexual status etc does not erode these rights.
> 
> infringe | Definition of infringe in US English by Oxford Dictionaries
> 
> "
> 1.1 Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
> _‘his legal rights were being infringed’_"
> 
> Seems someone needs to learn about Human Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope wrong again, you have the right to life, but if you can forfeit that right if you commit murder and are sentenced to execution. Or you can be rightfully shoot trying to escape. You have a right to be secure in your person, but in prison they can cavity search you whenever they please, or even a probationer can be searched or forced to take a drug test without probable cause. The rules change with prisoners, they forfiet those rights when they are found guilty and sentenced. They start out with these rights, when they are sentenced they loose them, and when the sentence is complete, they are supposed to regain them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Death is the ultimate punishment. Whether it's consistent with Human Rights is another matter entirely. Just because the US executes people, doesn't mean that Human Rights can be taken away in any other manner. This is just you hoping something sticks.
> 
> Yes, in prison you have your rights infringed upon. You don't LOSE your right to be secure in your person, you have it infringed upon. You don't have your right taken away, because if you did, there wouldn't be a right, just privileges.
> 
> Yes, rules change with prisoners. Why? Because after DUE PROCESS you can have your rights INFRINGED UPON.
> 
> As I showed you, the theory of human rights says humans have Human Rights inherently because they are human beings. Prisoners don't stop being human beings.
> 
> IT'S LOSE, not loose. Fucking hell. You're trying to argue the case for something, using the English language and you don't know the difference between "I lose my shirt every day" and "My shirt is loose", one is a verb, one is an adjective, you can't use an adjective as a verb, especially when it has a completely different meaning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are not infringed upon, they are forfeit. There are still basic “humans rights”, which are different from natural rights. And there are certain rights we afford/grant to our prisoners, out of the sake of being humane. But the definition of human rights is also quite broad, and many things that many may claim as a human right, can come into direct conflict with natural rights. E.G. “I have a right to be believed.” No, you have a right to be heard, but to be believed would come into direct conflict with due process. “I have a right to free birth control.” No, you absolutely have a right to use BC, but not a right to free BC. “I have a right to feel safe from guns/offensive speech/etc.” No because that would conflict with free speech and the 2nd. “I have a right to free healthcare.” No, because that would conflict with property rights. And all these claimed “human rights” require government to positively grant them. So they’re not so much rights, but privileges.
> 
> The natural rights on the other hand are only insured by placing negative rights onto the government, so government cannot interfere and the rights can be carried out “naturally.” E.G. “congress shall make no law,” “shall not be infringed.”
> 
> I also see you trying to use the word infringe. This doesn’t work for a couple reasons. A. The 2nd clearly says “shall not be infringed.” B. Once infringed upon, they no longer become garunteed rights, they become revocable privileges.
Click to expand...


So, you think they're forfeited. Well SHOW SOME EVIDENCE.

I've shown you the UN thing that says that people don't forfeit rights, they have them as long as they are human beings. 

Yes, the biggest problem with Rights is that it's not real. They exist because we, as humans, decide they exist. 

You're talking about natural rights and human rights like they're different. They're not. Some people call them God Given Rights too, they're all the same. 

The theory, however, assumes all people have them. You can't forfeit them. It's that simple. And you can't prove otherwise.


----------



## frigidweirdo

emilynghiem said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The argument being presented is that it says "shall not be infringed", and therefore this means that the right to keep and bear arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED EVER.
> 
> Which is rubbish, right?
> 
> So the 2A says "shall not be infringed" but this means that it CAN BE infringed upon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo
> All that is missing is that we agree on limits on laws and rights,
> similar to agreements on the freedom of speech and press
> that cannot be abused to commit slander, libel, harassment, fraud, misrepresentation etc.
> 
> As stated before, no laws can be "taken out of context" and abused
> so as to violate OTHER laws that are also within the same Bill of Rights and Constitution.
> 
> So it is not considered an infringement to check the exercise of rights
> by OTHER laws and principles such as
> * the right to security in our persons houses and effects
> * the equal right to protection of the laws
> * the right to due process and not to be deprived of rights and liberties
> unless convicted by law of a crime for which the law prescribes such a penalty
> 
> Enforcing other parts of the same laws as one context
> is NOT generally seen as infringing on those rights.
> 
> Again this is what I mean by "the right of the people" as inherently
> implying "law abiding citizens" or for the purpose of "defending not violating" the law.
> You can call this "well regulated militia"
> and people like ChrisL may argue we both mean the PEOPLE
> who play that role of policing govt, regardless if you call it militia or "the people who are the government."
> 
> Enforcing other laws to check each other
> isn't counted as infringement.
> We just have to AGREE and resolved any perceived
> conflicts, so we AGREE this is ENFORCING laws
> and not violating Constitutional rights and principles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we agree that "shall no be infringed" doesn't mean that it can't be infringed upon? good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We agree more than disagree but the terms you use
> is what throws people off  frigidweirdo
> 
> I'd say it more like if you are infringing on the rights of others
> by abusing or threatening to abuse weapons, then that's YOU
> infringing your own rights.  For example, if you abuse "free exercise of religion"
> to sacrifice animals or people, that violates other laws, you end up
> getting convicted and incarcerated. Well you can't complain that it's
> the govt prohibiting you from practicing your religion. Part of your practice
> violated OTHER LAWS. So it wasn't about infringing on your religion,
> but about your actions that broke OTHER LAWS.
> 
> If this is explained in that context frigidweirdo
> we would find we agree more than no, and avoid getting stuck in conflict over
> the terminology you use that just invokes rejection when people hear that.
> 
> You just need a good facilitator to translate back and forth
> and you'd be fine. The terms you use are going to shut people
> down where they don't hear you. I can look past that and get to
> what you mean but most people can't or won't do that much work to listen to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure exactly what language you thin it is that throws other people off. It's a simple yes or no here, either the RKBA "shall not be infringed" EVER, or it shall be infringed. There are no two ways about it, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo but your concept of infringed is going to be different from what infringed means to other ppl, because you don't interpret the meaning and wording of the Second Amendment the same way.
> 
> The example I gave for loose comparison is laws on sex marriage and rape: if someone interprets legal sex as within marriage only, that person will not see a law as "govt infringing on rights to have sex" by requiring people to be in a legal state marriage to have sex or else it's rape. One group would argue it's just govt barring rape, but the other group would say it's regulating sex.
> 
> If that analogy doesn't work how about abortion. If one person or group interprets abortion as murder and others do not, then they end up arguing in circles because one group keeps pushing for govt to regulate murder and the other group argues the govt doesn't have the authority to regulate free choice they don't consider to be murder.
> 
> You and others don't agree on what the law means by the right to bear arms, so your interpretations of what infringement means is going to be similarly "askew" and not aligned on the same page either.
> 
> Instead of arguing over infringement per se, you'd be better off spelling out specific rules means or process of screening registering or regulating guns for safety and crime prevention purposes. That doesn't depend on agreeing what you mean by infringement or not, because based on your interpretation alone, ppl will already consider that an infringement and oppose anything in that context which is already set up to be against their beliefs.
Click to expand...


Well, I'm sure my concept might be different to other people's concept, because I know what it means and other people make it up. Again, I'm not going to bow down to people who just make shit up, no matter how much you think this is going to help conflict resolution. 

Yes, I agree that your examples are problematic and I've had such arguments where it's just a matter of how people think. 

But here we're dealing with something more concrete than opinion. We're dealing with how something functions in the US political system.

You might think you have a right to murder, but no matter how much you believe this, the US govt says you're wrong and if you commit murder they will hunt you down. 

Rights as a theory have been written about, they cannot be forfeited except on death of the person. It's that simple. No amount of "I don't believe this" will change this fact from being part of US law.


----------



## sakinago

frigidweirdo said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are convicted of a crime, you loose your rights. There are prisoner rights. But you’re obviously not walking free on the streets, let alone free to walk around in the prison where you please, you do not have a right to privacy, guards don’t need a warrant to search your cell. You can’t wear whatever you want, you can’t contact the outside world whenever you want, you can only see visitors at a certain time, you don’t get due process ora trial in the prison punishment system...and oh yea you can’t carry around a gun. Again do I really need to list all of this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, if you're convicted of a crime you don't lose, nor loose, your rights. You have the INFRINGED UPON.
> 
> Rights only exist when EVERYONE has them. If someone doesn't have rights, then no one has rights, they become privileges.
> 
> 
> OHCHR |      What are Human Rights
> 
> "Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status. We are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination. These rights are all interrelated, interdependent and indivisible."
> 
> So, when someone thinks that the right to keep arms is a human right, then this means that people in China, the UK or other such countries are having this right infringed upon by their governments. The people have these rights as INHERENT within them, simply because they are human beings. Status, like prisoner status, sexual status etc does not erode these rights.
> 
> infringe | Definition of infringe in US English by Oxford Dictionaries
> 
> "
> 1.1 Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
> _‘his legal rights were being infringed’_"
> 
> Seems someone needs to learn about Human Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope wrong again, you have the right to life, but if you can forfeit that right if you commit murder and are sentenced to execution. Or you can be rightfully shoot trying to escape. You have a right to be secure in your person, but in prison they can cavity search you whenever they please, or even a probationer can be searched or forced to take a drug test without probable cause. The rules change with prisoners, they forfiet those rights when they are found guilty and sentenced. They start out with these rights, when they are sentenced they loose them, and when the sentence is complete, they are supposed to regain them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Death is the ultimate punishment. Whether it's consistent with Human Rights is another matter entirely. Just because the US executes people, doesn't mean that Human Rights can be taken away in any other manner. This is just you hoping something sticks.
> 
> Yes, in prison you have your rights infringed upon. You don't LOSE your right to be secure in your person, you have it infringed upon. You don't have your right taken away, because if you did, there wouldn't be a right, just privileges.
> 
> Yes, rules change with prisoners. Why? Because after DUE PROCESS you can have your rights INFRINGED UPON.
> 
> As I showed you, the theory of human rights says humans have Human Rights inherently because they are human beings. Prisoners don't stop being human beings.
> 
> IT'S LOSE, not loose. Fucking hell. You're trying to argue the case for something, using the English language and you don't know the difference between "I lose my shirt every day" and "My shirt is loose", one is a verb, one is an adjective, you can't use an adjective as a verb, especially when it has a completely different meaning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are not infringed upon, they are forfeit. There are still basic “humans rights”, which are different from natural rights. And there are certain rights we afford/grant to our prisoners, out of the sake of being humane. But the definition of human rights is also quite broad, and many things that many may claim as a human right, can come into direct conflict with natural rights. E.G. “I have a right to be believed.” No, you have a right to be heard, but to be believed would come into direct conflict with due process. “I have a right to free birth control.” No, you absolutely have a right to use BC, but not a right to free BC. “I have a right to feel safe from guns/offensive speech/etc.” No because that would conflict with free speech and the 2nd. “I have a right to free healthcare.” No, because that would conflict with property rights. And all these claimed “human rights” require government to positively grant them. So they’re not so much rights, but privileges.
> 
> The natural rights on the other hand are only insured by placing negative rights onto the government, so government cannot interfere and the rights can be carried out “naturally.” E.G. “congress shall make no law,” “shall not be infringed.”
> 
> I also see you trying to use the word infringe. This doesn’t work for a couple reasons. A. The 2nd clearly says “shall not be infringed.” B. Once infringed upon, they no longer become garunteed rights, they become revocable privileges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you think they're forfeited. Well SHOW SOME EVIDENCE.
> 
> I've shown you the UN thing that says that people don't forfeit rights, they have them as long as they are human beings.
> 
> Yes, the biggest problem with Rights is that it's not real. They exist because we, as humans, decide they exist.
> 
> You're talking about natural rights and human rights like they're different. They're not. Some people call them God Given Rights too, they're all the same.
> 
> The theory, however, assumes all people have them. You can't forfeit them. It's that simple. And you can't prove otherwise.
Click to expand...

The evidence is in our prisoners. You can come up with whatever alternative reality you want. Their rights are forfeit, you go where they tell you, eat when they tell you, work when they tell you, wear what they tell you, you can only get what they allow you, they search you when they want to with/without your permission and without a warrant or probable cause, and if you are condemned to execution, you are killed. That’s the reality. We grant them certain privileges, those are not the same as rights. The “rights” they have are limited to being kept alive, in “livable” conditions. Outside of that, anything that can be revoked, or “infringed” as you like to state it, is not a right. You can try to argue they are rights, they’re not, that’s a misnomer, they are privileges.


----------



## frigidweirdo

sakinago said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, if you're convicted of a crime you don't lose, nor loose, your rights. You have the INFRINGED UPON.
> 
> Rights only exist when EVERYONE has them. If someone doesn't have rights, then no one has rights, they become privileges.
> 
> 
> OHCHR |      What are Human Rights
> 
> "Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status. We are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination. These rights are all interrelated, interdependent and indivisible."
> 
> So, when someone thinks that the right to keep arms is a human right, then this means that people in China, the UK or other such countries are having this right infringed upon by their governments. The people have these rights as INHERENT within them, simply because they are human beings. Status, like prisoner status, sexual status etc does not erode these rights.
> 
> infringe | Definition of infringe in US English by Oxford Dictionaries
> 
> "
> 1.1 Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
> _‘his legal rights were being infringed’_"
> 
> Seems someone needs to learn about Human Rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope wrong again, you have the right to life, but if you can forfeit that right if you commit murder and are sentenced to execution. Or you can be rightfully shoot trying to escape. You have a right to be secure in your person, but in prison they can cavity search you whenever they please, or even a probationer can be searched or forced to take a drug test without probable cause. The rules change with prisoners, they forfiet those rights when they are found guilty and sentenced. They start out with these rights, when they are sentenced they loose them, and when the sentence is complete, they are supposed to regain them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Death is the ultimate punishment. Whether it's consistent with Human Rights is another matter entirely. Just because the US executes people, doesn't mean that Human Rights can be taken away in any other manner. This is just you hoping something sticks.
> 
> Yes, in prison you have your rights infringed upon. You don't LOSE your right to be secure in your person, you have it infringed upon. You don't have your right taken away, because if you did, there wouldn't be a right, just privileges.
> 
> Yes, rules change with prisoners. Why? Because after DUE PROCESS you can have your rights INFRINGED UPON.
> 
> As I showed you, the theory of human rights says humans have Human Rights inherently because they are human beings. Prisoners don't stop being human beings.
> 
> IT'S LOSE, not loose. Fucking hell. You're trying to argue the case for something, using the English language and you don't know the difference between "I lose my shirt every day" and "My shirt is loose", one is a verb, one is an adjective, you can't use an adjective as a verb, especially when it has a completely different meaning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are not infringed upon, they are forfeit. There are still basic “humans rights”, which are different from natural rights. And there are certain rights we afford/grant to our prisoners, out of the sake of being humane. But the definition of human rights is also quite broad, and many things that many may claim as a human right, can come into direct conflict with natural rights. E.G. “I have a right to be believed.” No, you have a right to be heard, but to be believed would come into direct conflict with due process. “I have a right to free birth control.” No, you absolutely have a right to use BC, but not a right to free BC. “I have a right to feel safe from guns/offensive speech/etc.” No because that would conflict with free speech and the 2nd. “I have a right to free healthcare.” No, because that would conflict with property rights. And all these claimed “human rights” require government to positively grant them. So they’re not so much rights, but privileges.
> 
> The natural rights on the other hand are only insured by placing negative rights onto the government, so government cannot interfere and the rights can be carried out “naturally.” E.G. “congress shall make no law,” “shall not be infringed.”
> 
> I also see you trying to use the word infringe. This doesn’t work for a couple reasons. A. The 2nd clearly says “shall not be infringed.” B. Once infringed upon, they no longer become garunteed rights, they become revocable privileges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you think they're forfeited. Well SHOW SOME EVIDENCE.
> 
> I've shown you the UN thing that says that people don't forfeit rights, they have them as long as they are human beings.
> 
> Yes, the biggest problem with Rights is that it's not real. They exist because we, as humans, decide they exist.
> 
> You're talking about natural rights and human rights like they're different. They're not. Some people call them God Given Rights too, they're all the same.
> 
> The theory, however, assumes all people have them. You can't forfeit them. It's that simple. And you can't prove otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The evidence is in our prisoners. You can come up with whatever alternative reality you want. Their rights are forfeit, you go where they tell you, eat when they tell you, work when they tell you, wear what they tell you, you can only get what they allow you, they search you when they want to with/without your permission and without a warrant or probable cause, and if you are condemned to execution, you are killed. That’s the reality. We grant them certain privileges, those are not the same as rights. The “rights” they have are limited to being kept alive, in “livable” conditions. Outside of that, anything that can be revoked, or “infringed” as you like to state it, is not a right. You can try to argue they are rights, they’re not, that’s a misnomer, they are privileges.
Click to expand...


No, the evidence isn't the prisoners.

You say they've had their rights forfeited, I say they've had them infringed upon. Either way they don't have their freedom. 

Basically you have nothing. No evidence at all. Great.


----------



## emilynghiem

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> The second amendment is actually the basic human right to self defense.


TroglocratsRdumb 
I call it "right of defense".
So it applies to military and personal defense, not just self defense but defending others, and the focus is on defending laws not committing offense.

( I also believe ppl should have equal access to legal defense, as an extension of the concept , using the civil process in place of firearm weaponry, for people who don't believe in militant use of weapons but prefer a nonviolent civil approach to resolving conflicts. So that those ppl have equal legal protection as others.)


----------



## emilynghiem

frigidweirdo said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are convicted of a crime, you loose your rights. There are prisoner rights. But you’re obviously not walking free on the streets, let alone free to walk around in the prison where you please, you do not have a right to privacy, guards don’t need a warrant to search your cell. You can’t wear whatever you want, you can’t contact the outside world whenever you want, you can only see visitors at a certain time, you don’t get due process ora trial in the prison punishment system...and oh yea you can’t carry around a gun. Again do I really need to list all of this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, if you're convicted of a crime you don't lose, nor loose, your rights. You have the INFRINGED UPON.
> 
> Rights only exist when EVERYONE has them. If someone doesn't have rights, then no one has rights, they become privileges.
> 
> 
> OHCHR |      What are Human Rights
> 
> "Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status. We are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination. These rights are all interrelated, interdependent and indivisible."
> 
> So, when someone thinks that the right to keep arms is a human right, then this means that people in China, the UK or other such countries are having this right infringed upon by their governments. The people have these rights as INHERENT within them, simply because they are human beings. Status, like prisoner status, sexual status etc does not erode these rights.
> 
> infringe | Definition of infringe in US English by Oxford Dictionaries
> 
> "
> 1.1 Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
> _‘his legal rights were being infringed’_"
> 
> Seems someone needs to learn about Human Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope wrong again, you have the right to life, but if you can forfeit that right if you commit murder and are sentenced to execution. Or you can be rightfully shoot trying to escape. You have a right to be secure in your person, but in prison they can cavity search you whenever they please, or even a probationer can be searched or forced to take a drug test without probable cause. The rules change with prisoners, they forfiet those rights when they are found guilty and sentenced. They start out with these rights, when they are sentenced they loose them, and when the sentence is complete, they are supposed to regain them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Death is the ultimate punishment. Whether it's consistent with Human Rights is another matter entirely. Just because the US executes people, doesn't mean that Human Rights can be taken away in any other manner. This is just you hoping something sticks.
> 
> Yes, in prison you have your rights infringed upon. You don't LOSE your right to be secure in your person, you have it infringed upon. You don't have your right taken away, because if you did, there wouldn't be a right, just privileges.
> 
> Yes, rules change with prisoners. Why? Because after DUE PROCESS you can have your rights INFRINGED UPON.
> 
> As I showed you, the theory of human rights says humans have Human Rights inherently because they are human beings. Prisoners don't stop being human beings.
> 
> IT'S LOSE, not loose. Fucking hell. You're trying to argue the case for something, using the English language and you don't know the difference between "I lose my shirt every day" and "My shirt is loose", one is a verb, one is an adjective, you can't use an adjective as a verb, especially when it has a completely different meaning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are not infringed upon, they are forfeit. There are still basic “humans rights”, which are different from natural rights. And there are certain rights we afford/grant to our prisoners, out of the sake of being humane. But the definition of human rights is also quite broad, and many things that many may claim as a human right, can come into direct conflict with natural rights. E.G. “I have a right to be believed.” No, you have a right to be heard, but to be believed would come into direct conflict with due process. “I have a right to free birth control.” No, you absolutely have a right to use BC, but not a right to free BC. “I have a right to feel safe from guns/offensive speech/etc.” No because that would conflict with free speech and the 2nd. “I have a right to free healthcare.” No, because that would conflict with property rights. And all these claimed “human rights” require government to positively grant them. So they’re not so much rights, but privileges.
> 
> The natural rights on the other hand are only insured by placing negative rights onto the government, so government cannot interfere and the rights can be carried out “naturally.” E.G. “congress shall make no law,” “shall not be infringed.”
> 
> I also see you trying to use the word infringe. This doesn’t work for a couple reasons. A. The 2nd clearly says “shall not be infringed.” B. Once infringed upon, they no longer become garunteed rights, they become revocable privileges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you think they're forfeited. Well SHOW SOME EVIDENCE.
> 
> I've shown you the UN thing that says that people don't forfeit rights, they have them as long as they are human beings.
> 
> Yes, the biggest problem with Rights is that it's not real. They exist because we, as humans, decide they exist.
> 
> You're talking about natural rights and human rights like they're different. They're not. Some people call them God Given Rights too, they're all the same.
> 
> The theory, however, assumes all people have them. You can't forfeit them. It's that simple. And you can't prove otherwise.
Click to expand...

???
I am guessing what you mean here frigidweirdo:
Do you mean like this example:
If someone agrees to be silent and not speak at a meeting because they didn't sign up in advance to speak and the rules require that, then (a) they still retain full right to freedom of speech (b) not being able to speak is not a forfeiture or infringement but (c) they consented by "free choice" to attend the meeting run by those rules.

Is this a fair example of still having the right to free speech?

Next example:
If someone gets banned from a talk show because they cussed during a live broadcast, are you saying they still have the right to free speech but just not under that venue because they broke the rules. Are you okay with someone calling that "forfeiture" even though the person can still exercise free speech in general, so they still have that right?

Please advise on these two scenarios is this is or isn't what you mean, or if it's even close? Thanks!


----------



## emilynghiem

frigidweirdo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo
> All that is missing is that we agree on limits on laws and rights,
> similar to agreements on the freedom of speech and press
> that cannot be abused to commit slander, libel, harassment, fraud, misrepresentation etc.
> 
> As stated before, no laws can be "taken out of context" and abused
> so as to violate OTHER laws that are also within the same Bill of Rights and Constitution.
> 
> So it is not considered an infringement to check the exercise of rights
> by OTHER laws and principles such as
> * the right to security in our persons houses and effects
> * the equal right to protection of the laws
> * the right to due process and not to be deprived of rights and liberties
> unless convicted by law of a crime for which the law prescribes such a penalty
> 
> Enforcing other parts of the same laws as one context
> is NOT generally seen as infringing on those rights.
> 
> Again this is what I mean by "the right of the people" as inherently
> implying "law abiding citizens" or for the purpose of "defending not violating" the law.
> You can call this "well regulated militia"
> and people like ChrisL may argue we both mean the PEOPLE
> who play that role of policing govt, regardless if you call it militia or "the people who are the government."
> 
> Enforcing other laws to check each other
> isn't counted as infringement.
> We just have to AGREE and resolved any perceived
> conflicts, so we AGREE this is ENFORCING laws
> and not violating Constitutional rights and principles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we agree that "shall no be infringed" doesn't mean that it can't be infringed upon? good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We agree more than disagree but the terms you use
> is what throws people off  frigidweirdo
> 
> I'd say it more like if you are infringing on the rights of others
> by abusing or threatening to abuse weapons, then that's YOU
> infringing your own rights.  For example, if you abuse "free exercise of religion"
> to sacrifice animals or people, that violates other laws, you end up
> getting convicted and incarcerated. Well you can't complain that it's
> the govt prohibiting you from practicing your religion. Part of your practice
> violated OTHER LAWS. So it wasn't about infringing on your religion,
> but about your actions that broke OTHER LAWS.
> 
> If this is explained in that context frigidweirdo
> we would find we agree more than no, and avoid getting stuck in conflict over
> the terminology you use that just invokes rejection when people hear that.
> 
> You just need a good facilitator to translate back and forth
> and you'd be fine. The terms you use are going to shut people
> down where they don't hear you. I can look past that and get to
> what you mean but most people can't or won't do that much work to listen to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure exactly what language you thin it is that throws other people off. It's a simple yes or no here, either the RKBA "shall not be infringed" EVER, or it shall be infringed. There are no two ways about it, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo but your concept of infringed is going to be different from what infringed means to other ppl, because you don't interpret the meaning and wording of the Second Amendment the same way.
> 
> The example I gave for loose comparison is laws on sex marriage and rape: if someone interprets legal sex as within marriage only, that person will not see a law as "govt infringing on rights to have sex" by requiring people to be in a legal state marriage to have sex or else it's rape. One group would argue it's just govt barring rape, but the other group would say it's regulating sex.
> 
> If that analogy doesn't work how about abortion. If one person or group interprets abortion as murder and others do not, then they end up arguing in circles because one group keeps pushing for govt to regulate murder and the other group argues the govt doesn't have the authority to regulate free choice they don't consider to be murder.
> 
> You and others don't agree on what the law means by the right to bear arms, so your interpretations of what infringement means is going to be similarly "askew" and not aligned on the same page either.
> 
> Instead of arguing over infringement per se, you'd be better off spelling out specific rules means or process of screening registering or regulating guns for safety and crime prevention purposes. That doesn't depend on agreeing what you mean by infringement or not, because based on your interpretation alone, ppl will already consider that an infringement and oppose anything in that context which is already set up to be against their beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I'm sure my concept might be different to other people's concept, because I know what it means and other people make it up. Again, I'm not going to bow down to people who just make shit up, no matter how much you think this is going to help conflict resolution.
> 
> Yes, I agree that your examples are problematic and I've had such arguments where it's just a matter of how people think.
> 
> But here we're dealing with something more concrete than opinion. We're dealing with how something functions in the US political system.
> 
> You might think you have a right to murder, but no matter how much you believe this, the US govt says you're wrong and if you commit murder they will hunt you down.
> 
> Rights as a theory have been written about, they cannot be forfeited except on death of the person. It's that simple. No amount of "I don't believe this" will change this fact from being part of US law.
Click to expand...

Dear frigidweirdo 
1. Regarding no right to murder : what about ppl who consider abortion murder or executions murder. Technically if someone is innocent of a crime, contests getting a capital sentence , but is still put to death by the state, isn't that a form of murder? Isn't that a case where the state can commit murder in essence, but legally never get charged and thus get away with it
2. What about the example of someone having the right to preserve a historic item that they own. But someone steals it or vandalizes it beyond repair.

The owner no longer has the right to preserve it because it is irreparably damaged. For example if a historic house is burned to the ground and there is nothing left to rehab. 

Isn't that an example of a right that is permanently  taken away?
Or do you mean the person still has right to ownership of property "in general" (just not that particular piece of property )

Is that what you mean by always having that right and never losing it???


----------



## frigidweirdo

emilynghiem said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, if you're convicted of a crime you don't lose, nor loose, your rights. You have the INFRINGED UPON.
> 
> Rights only exist when EVERYONE has them. If someone doesn't have rights, then no one has rights, they become privileges.
> 
> 
> OHCHR |      What are Human Rights
> 
> "Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status. We are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination. These rights are all interrelated, interdependent and indivisible."
> 
> So, when someone thinks that the right to keep arms is a human right, then this means that people in China, the UK or other such countries are having this right infringed upon by their governments. The people have these rights as INHERENT within them, simply because they are human beings. Status, like prisoner status, sexual status etc does not erode these rights.
> 
> infringe | Definition of infringe in US English by Oxford Dictionaries
> 
> "
> 1.1 Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
> _‘his legal rights were being infringed’_"
> 
> Seems someone needs to learn about Human Rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope wrong again, you have the right to life, but if you can forfeit that right if you commit murder and are sentenced to execution. Or you can be rightfully shoot trying to escape. You have a right to be secure in your person, but in prison they can cavity search you whenever they please, or even a probationer can be searched or forced to take a drug test without probable cause. The rules change with prisoners, they forfiet those rights when they are found guilty and sentenced. They start out with these rights, when they are sentenced they loose them, and when the sentence is complete, they are supposed to regain them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Death is the ultimate punishment. Whether it's consistent with Human Rights is another matter entirely. Just because the US executes people, doesn't mean that Human Rights can be taken away in any other manner. This is just you hoping something sticks.
> 
> Yes, in prison you have your rights infringed upon. You don't LOSE your right to be secure in your person, you have it infringed upon. You don't have your right taken away, because if you did, there wouldn't be a right, just privileges.
> 
> Yes, rules change with prisoners. Why? Because after DUE PROCESS you can have your rights INFRINGED UPON.
> 
> As I showed you, the theory of human rights says humans have Human Rights inherently because they are human beings. Prisoners don't stop being human beings.
> 
> IT'S LOSE, not loose. Fucking hell. You're trying to argue the case for something, using the English language and you don't know the difference between "I lose my shirt every day" and "My shirt is loose", one is a verb, one is an adjective, you can't use an adjective as a verb, especially when it has a completely different meaning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are not infringed upon, they are forfeit. There are still basic “humans rights”, which are different from natural rights. And there are certain rights we afford/grant to our prisoners, out of the sake of being humane. But the definition of human rights is also quite broad, and many things that many may claim as a human right, can come into direct conflict with natural rights. E.G. “I have a right to be believed.” No, you have a right to be heard, but to be believed would come into direct conflict with due process. “I have a right to free birth control.” No, you absolutely have a right to use BC, but not a right to free BC. “I have a right to feel safe from guns/offensive speech/etc.” No because that would conflict with free speech and the 2nd. “I have a right to free healthcare.” No, because that would conflict with property rights. And all these claimed “human rights” require government to positively grant them. So they’re not so much rights, but privileges.
> 
> The natural rights on the other hand are only insured by placing negative rights onto the government, so government cannot interfere and the rights can be carried out “naturally.” E.G. “congress shall make no law,” “shall not be infringed.”
> 
> I also see you trying to use the word infringe. This doesn’t work for a couple reasons. A. The 2nd clearly says “shall not be infringed.” B. Once infringed upon, they no longer become garunteed rights, they become revocable privileges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you think they're forfeited. Well SHOW SOME EVIDENCE.
> 
> I've shown you the UN thing that says that people don't forfeit rights, they have them as long as they are human beings.
> 
> Yes, the biggest problem with Rights is that it's not real. They exist because we, as humans, decide they exist.
> 
> You're talking about natural rights and human rights like they're different. They're not. Some people call them God Given Rights too, they're all the same.
> 
> The theory, however, assumes all people have them. You can't forfeit them. It's that simple. And you can't prove otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ???
> I am guessing what you mean here frigidweirdo:
> Do you mean like this example:
> If someone agrees to be silent and not speak at a meeting because they didn't sign up in advance to speak and the rules require that, then (a) they still retain full right to freedom of speech (b) not being able to speak is not a forfeiture or infringement but (c) they consented by "free choice" to attend the meeting run by those rules.
> 
> Is this a fair example of still having the right to free speech?
> 
> Next example:
> If someone gets banned from a talk show because they cussed during a live broadcast, are you saying they still have the right to free speech but just not under that venue because they broke the rules. Are you okay with someone calling that "forfeiture" even though the person can still exercise free speech in general, so they still have that right?
> 
> Please advise on these two scenarios is this is or isn't what you mean, or if it's even close? Thanks!
Click to expand...


Not really.

The thing here is that humans are assumed to have Human Rights. A person in China has Human Rights as much as a person in the USA. A rich person the same as a poor person. An insane person the same as a lucid person. 

However there are times when society deems that some people can't be trusted with certain rights, children for example aren't deemed old enough to have full responsibilities and rights, and the insane, who can only be declared insane after due process.

Others are deemed to have broken the rules. They're laws. We don't say you're stopping being a Human Being, we're saying "you need to have punishment and part of this punishment is that your rights are limited for a period of time". This isn't forfeiture. This is infringement. When the prisoner is out of prison, some of these rights come back.

With guns, people have decided that infringement lasts a lot longer. Perhaps for life. 

Just like the assumption is that Chinese people have the right, but it's being infringed for life, the same for some, or all, convicted criminals.


----------



## frigidweirdo

emilynghiem said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we agree that "shall no be infringed" doesn't mean that it can't be infringed upon? good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We agree more than disagree but the terms you use
> is what throws people off  frigidweirdo
> 
> I'd say it more like if you are infringing on the rights of others
> by abusing or threatening to abuse weapons, then that's YOU
> infringing your own rights.  For example, if you abuse "free exercise of religion"
> to sacrifice animals or people, that violates other laws, you end up
> getting convicted and incarcerated. Well you can't complain that it's
> the govt prohibiting you from practicing your religion. Part of your practice
> violated OTHER LAWS. So it wasn't about infringing on your religion,
> but about your actions that broke OTHER LAWS.
> 
> If this is explained in that context frigidweirdo
> we would find we agree more than no, and avoid getting stuck in conflict over
> the terminology you use that just invokes rejection when people hear that.
> 
> You just need a good facilitator to translate back and forth
> and you'd be fine. The terms you use are going to shut people
> down where they don't hear you. I can look past that and get to
> what you mean but most people can't or won't do that much work to listen to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure exactly what language you thin it is that throws other people off. It's a simple yes or no here, either the RKBA "shall not be infringed" EVER, or it shall be infringed. There are no two ways about it, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo but your concept of infringed is going to be different from what infringed means to other ppl, because you don't interpret the meaning and wording of the Second Amendment the same way.
> 
> The example I gave for loose comparison is laws on sex marriage and rape: if someone interprets legal sex as within marriage only, that person will not see a law as "govt infringing on rights to have sex" by requiring people to be in a legal state marriage to have sex or else it's rape. One group would argue it's just govt barring rape, but the other group would say it's regulating sex.
> 
> If that analogy doesn't work how about abortion. If one person or group interprets abortion as murder and others do not, then they end up arguing in circles because one group keeps pushing for govt to regulate murder and the other group argues the govt doesn't have the authority to regulate free choice they don't consider to be murder.
> 
> You and others don't agree on what the law means by the right to bear arms, so your interpretations of what infringement means is going to be similarly "askew" and not aligned on the same page either.
> 
> Instead of arguing over infringement per se, you'd be better off spelling out specific rules means or process of screening registering or regulating guns for safety and crime prevention purposes. That doesn't depend on agreeing what you mean by infringement or not, because based on your interpretation alone, ppl will already consider that an infringement and oppose anything in that context which is already set up to be against their beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I'm sure my concept might be different to other people's concept, because I know what it means and other people make it up. Again, I'm not going to bow down to people who just make shit up, no matter how much you think this is going to help conflict resolution.
> 
> Yes, I agree that your examples are problematic and I've had such arguments where it's just a matter of how people think.
> 
> But here we're dealing with something more concrete than opinion. We're dealing with how something functions in the US political system.
> 
> You might think you have a right to murder, but no matter how much you believe this, the US govt says you're wrong and if you commit murder they will hunt you down.
> 
> Rights as a theory have been written about, they cannot be forfeited except on death of the person. It's that simple. No amount of "I don't believe this" will change this fact from being part of US law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo
> 1. Regarding no right to murder : what about ppl who consider abortion murder or executions murder. Technically if someone is innocent of a crime, contests getting a capital sentence , but is still put to death by the state, isn't that a form of murder? Isn't that a case where the state can commit murder in essence, but legally never get charged and thus get away with it
> 2. What about the example of someone having the right to preserve a historic item that they own. But someone steals it or vandalizes it beyond repair.
> 
> The owner no longer has the right to preserve it because it is irreparably damaged. For example if a historic house is burned to the ground and there is nothing left to rehab.
> 
> Isn't that an example of a right that is permanently  taken away?
> Or do you mean the person still has right to ownership of property "in general" (just not that particular piece of property )
> 
> Is that what you mean by always having that right and never losing it???
Click to expand...


Yes, abortion is one of those issues where it's about how you view things. The conflict is there, it's for society to make such decisions. I can have my opinion, which I do, and others will have their opinion, which they do. 

Is execution a form of murder? Yes, it's merely the term for legalized murder. 

Well, if someone steals something, then they've done something wrong. I'm not really sure where you're going with this. 

A right isn't a physical thing. It exists because we as humans exist. The right assumes EVERYONE has the rights, if not everyone has them, then it's not a right, it's a privilege. So everyone in China has the rights as much as anyone in the US. They're just infringed upon.


----------



## frigidweirdo

emilynghiem said:


> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> The second amendment is actually the basic human right to self defense.
> 
> 
> 
> TroglocratsRdumb
> I call it "right of defense".
> So it applies to military and personal defense, not just self defense but defending others, and the focus is on defending laws not committing offense.
> 
> ( I also believe ppl should have equal access to legal defense, as an extension of the concept , using the civil process in place of firearm weaponry, for people who don't believe in militant use of weapons but prefer a nonviolent civil approach to resolving conflicts. So that those ppl have equal legal protection as others.)
Click to expand...


There's a big difference between self defense and the defense of the country. The Founders made these distinctions.


----------



## sakinago

frigidweirdo said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope wrong again, you have the right to life, but if you can forfeit that right if you commit murder and are sentenced to execution. Or you can be rightfully shoot trying to escape. You have a right to be secure in your person, but in prison they can cavity search you whenever they please, or even a probationer can be searched or forced to take a drug test without probable cause. The rules change with prisoners, they forfiet those rights when they are found guilty and sentenced. They start out with these rights, when they are sentenced they loose them, and when the sentence is complete, they are supposed to regain them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Death is the ultimate punishment. Whether it's consistent with Human Rights is another matter entirely. Just because the US executes people, doesn't mean that Human Rights can be taken away in any other manner. This is just you hoping something sticks.
> 
> Yes, in prison you have your rights infringed upon. You don't LOSE your right to be secure in your person, you have it infringed upon. You don't have your right taken away, because if you did, there wouldn't be a right, just privileges.
> 
> Yes, rules change with prisoners. Why? Because after DUE PROCESS you can have your rights INFRINGED UPON.
> 
> As I showed you, the theory of human rights says humans have Human Rights inherently because they are human beings. Prisoners don't stop being human beings.
> 
> IT'S LOSE, not loose. Fucking hell. You're trying to argue the case for something, using the English language and you don't know the difference between "I lose my shirt every day" and "My shirt is loose", one is a verb, one is an adjective, you can't use an adjective as a verb, especially when it has a completely different meaning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are not infringed upon, they are forfeit. There are still basic “humans rights”, which are different from natural rights. And there are certain rights we afford/grant to our prisoners, out of the sake of being humane. But the definition of human rights is also quite broad, and many things that many may claim as a human right, can come into direct conflict with natural rights. E.G. “I have a right to be believed.” No, you have a right to be heard, but to be believed would come into direct conflict with due process. “I have a right to free birth control.” No, you absolutely have a right to use BC, but not a right to free BC. “I have a right to feel safe from guns/offensive speech/etc.” No because that would conflict with free speech and the 2nd. “I have a right to free healthcare.” No, because that would conflict with property rights. And all these claimed “human rights” require government to positively grant them. So they’re not so much rights, but privileges.
> 
> The natural rights on the other hand are only insured by placing negative rights onto the government, so government cannot interfere and the rights can be carried out “naturally.” E.G. “congress shall make no law,” “shall not be infringed.”
> 
> I also see you trying to use the word infringe. This doesn’t work for a couple reasons. A. The 2nd clearly says “shall not be infringed.” B. Once infringed upon, they no longer become garunteed rights, they become revocable privileges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you think they're forfeited. Well SHOW SOME EVIDENCE.
> 
> I've shown you the UN thing that says that people don't forfeit rights, they have them as long as they are human beings.
> 
> Yes, the biggest problem with Rights is that it's not real. They exist because we, as humans, decide they exist.
> 
> You're talking about natural rights and human rights like they're different. They're not. Some people call them God Given Rights too, they're all the same.
> 
> The theory, however, assumes all people have them. You can't forfeit them. It's that simple. And you can't prove otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The evidence is in our prisoners. You can come up with whatever alternative reality you want. Their rights are forfeit, you go where they tell you, eat when they tell you, work when they tell you, wear what they tell you, you can only get what they allow you, they search you when they want to with/without your permission and without a warrant or probable cause, and if you are condemned to execution, you are killed. That’s the reality. We grant them certain privileges, those are not the same as rights. The “rights” they have are limited to being kept alive, in “livable” conditions. Outside of that, anything that can be revoked, or “infringed” as you like to state it, is not a right. You can try to argue they are rights, they’re not, that’s a misnomer, they are privileges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the evidence isn't the prisoners.
> 
> You say they've had their rights forfeited, I say they've had them infringed upon. Either way they don't have their freedom.
> 
> Basically you have nothing. No evidence at all. Great.
Click to expand...

That’s the discussion topic...prisoners, and they absolutely are evidence. Evidence is found in reality. They forfeit their right to weapons including firearms, among many many other things. Sometimes they even loose their right to life (which is probably the most important “human right”), I mean after you loose that it kind of makes the rest of your “rights” useless. That’s not an infringement, there’s zero middle ground on right to life. I’m not getting into your asinine appeal to ignorance, in this asinine red herring, for a downhill argument.


----------



## frigidweirdo

sakinago said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Death is the ultimate punishment. Whether it's consistent with Human Rights is another matter entirely. Just because the US executes people, doesn't mean that Human Rights can be taken away in any other manner. This is just you hoping something sticks.
> 
> Yes, in prison you have your rights infringed upon. You don't LOSE your right to be secure in your person, you have it infringed upon. You don't have your right taken away, because if you did, there wouldn't be a right, just privileges.
> 
> Yes, rules change with prisoners. Why? Because after DUE PROCESS you can have your rights INFRINGED UPON.
> 
> As I showed you, the theory of human rights says humans have Human Rights inherently because they are human beings. Prisoners don't stop being human beings.
> 
> IT'S LOSE, not loose. Fucking hell. You're trying to argue the case for something, using the English language and you don't know the difference between "I lose my shirt every day" and "My shirt is loose", one is a verb, one is an adjective, you can't use an adjective as a verb, especially when it has a completely different meaning.
> 
> 
> 
> They are not infringed upon, they are forfeit. There are still basic “humans rights”, which are different from natural rights. And there are certain rights we afford/grant to our prisoners, out of the sake of being humane. But the definition of human rights is also quite broad, and many things that many may claim as a human right, can come into direct conflict with natural rights. E.G. “I have a right to be believed.” No, you have a right to be heard, but to be believed would come into direct conflict with due process. “I have a right to free birth control.” No, you absolutely have a right to use BC, but not a right to free BC. “I have a right to feel safe from guns/offensive speech/etc.” No because that would conflict with free speech and the 2nd. “I have a right to free healthcare.” No, because that would conflict with property rights. And all these claimed “human rights” require government to positively grant them. So they’re not so much rights, but privileges.
> 
> The natural rights on the other hand are only insured by placing negative rights onto the government, so government cannot interfere and the rights can be carried out “naturally.” E.G. “congress shall make no law,” “shall not be infringed.”
> 
> I also see you trying to use the word infringe. This doesn’t work for a couple reasons. A. The 2nd clearly says “shall not be infringed.” B. Once infringed upon, they no longer become garunteed rights, they become revocable privileges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you think they're forfeited. Well SHOW SOME EVIDENCE.
> 
> I've shown you the UN thing that says that people don't forfeit rights, they have them as long as they are human beings.
> 
> Yes, the biggest problem with Rights is that it's not real. They exist because we, as humans, decide they exist.
> 
> You're talking about natural rights and human rights like they're different. They're not. Some people call them God Given Rights too, they're all the same.
> 
> The theory, however, assumes all people have them. You can't forfeit them. It's that simple. And you can't prove otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The evidence is in our prisoners. You can come up with whatever alternative reality you want. Their rights are forfeit, you go where they tell you, eat when they tell you, work when they tell you, wear what they tell you, you can only get what they allow you, they search you when they want to with/without your permission and without a warrant or probable cause, and if you are condemned to execution, you are killed. That’s the reality. We grant them certain privileges, those are not the same as rights. The “rights” they have are limited to being kept alive, in “livable” conditions. Outside of that, anything that can be revoked, or “infringed” as you like to state it, is not a right. You can try to argue they are rights, they’re not, that’s a misnomer, they are privileges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the evidence isn't the prisoners.
> 
> You say they've had their rights forfeited, I say they've had them infringed upon. Either way they don't have their freedom.
> 
> Basically you have nothing. No evidence at all. Great.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s the discussion topic...prisoners, and they absolutely are evidence. Evidence is found in reality. They forfeit their right to weapons including firearms, among many many other things. Sometimes they even loose their right to life (which is probably the most important “human right”), I mean after you loose that it kind of makes the rest of your “rights” useless. That’s not an infringement, there’s zero middle ground on right to life. I’m not getting into your asinine appeal to ignorance, in this asinine red herring, for a downhill argument.
Click to expand...


No, you haven't shown they've forfeited their rights. That's the problem. 

Have the Chinese forfeited their rights? Because they also don't have certain rights. 

Prisoners have some rights while in prison, the Chinese have some rights in China. 

Again, and AGAIN and AGAIN. The UN says that all humans have HUMAN RIGHTS as a part of being a HUMAN BEING. That they don't lose these rights based on status, gender, whatever. 

You ignore this EVERY SINGLE FUCKING TIME. 

And for FUCK'S SAKE, you can't even write lose properly. How am I expecting you to actually get around to understand what the UN said?

You don't understand Human Rights, you don't understand English words, you don't understand the UN Convention of Human Rights. You understand NOTHING and yet you're here pretending to have a debate and you're going around using words like "asinine" to describe what I'm talking about. 

I'm losing my patience.


----------



## sakinago

frigidweirdo said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are not infringed upon, they are forfeit. There are still basic “humans rights”, which are different from natural rights. And there are certain rights we afford/grant to our prisoners, out of the sake of being humane. But the definition of human rights is also quite broad, and many things that many may claim as a human right, can come into direct conflict with natural rights. E.G. “I have a right to be believed.” No, you have a right to be heard, but to be believed would come into direct conflict with due process. “I have a right to free birth control.” No, you absolutely have a right to use BC, but not a right to free BC. “I have a right to feel safe from guns/offensive speech/etc.” No because that would conflict with free speech and the 2nd. “I have a right to free healthcare.” No, because that would conflict with property rights. And all these claimed “human rights” require government to positively grant them. So they’re not so much rights, but privileges.
> 
> The natural rights on the other hand are only insured by placing negative rights onto the government, so government cannot interfere and the rights can be carried out “naturally.” E.G. “congress shall make no law,” “shall not be infringed.”
> 
> I also see you trying to use the word infringe. This doesn’t work for a couple reasons. A. The 2nd clearly says “shall not be infringed.” B. Once infringed upon, they no longer become garunteed rights, they become revocable privileges.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you think they're forfeited. Well SHOW SOME EVIDENCE.
> 
> I've shown you the UN thing that says that people don't forfeit rights, they have them as long as they are human beings.
> 
> Yes, the biggest problem with Rights is that it's not real. They exist because we, as humans, decide they exist.
> 
> You're talking about natural rights and human rights like they're different. They're not. Some people call them God Given Rights too, they're all the same.
> 
> The theory, however, assumes all people have them. You can't forfeit them. It's that simple. And you can't prove otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The evidence is in our prisoners. You can come up with whatever alternative reality you want. Their rights are forfeit, you go where they tell you, eat when they tell you, work when they tell you, wear what they tell you, you can only get what they allow you, they search you when they want to with/without your permission and without a warrant or probable cause, and if you are condemned to execution, you are killed. That’s the reality. We grant them certain privileges, those are not the same as rights. The “rights” they have are limited to being kept alive, in “livable” conditions. Outside of that, anything that can be revoked, or “infringed” as you like to state it, is not a right. You can try to argue they are rights, they’re not, that’s a misnomer, they are privileges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the evidence isn't the prisoners.
> 
> You say they've had their rights forfeited, I say they've had them infringed upon. Either way they don't have their freedom.
> 
> Basically you have nothing. No evidence at all. Great.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s the discussion topic...prisoners, and they absolutely are evidence. Evidence is found in reality. They forfeit their right to weapons including firearms, among many many other things. Sometimes they even loose their right to life (which is probably the most important “human right”), I mean after you loose that it kind of makes the rest of your “rights” useless. That’s not an infringement, there’s zero middle ground on right to life. I’m not getting into your asinine appeal to ignorance, in this asinine red herring, for a downhill argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you haven't shown they've forfeited their rights. That's the problem.
> 
> Have the Chinese forfeited their rights? Because they also don't have certain rights.
> 
> Prisoners have some rights while in prison, the Chinese have some rights in China.
> 
> Again, and AGAIN and AGAIN. The UN says that all humans have HUMAN RIGHTS as a part of being a HUMAN BEING. That they don't lose these rights based on status, gender, whatever.
> 
> You ignore this EVERY SINGLE FUCKING TIME.
> 
> And for FUCK'S SAKE, you can't even write lose properly. How am I expecting you to actually get around to understand what the UN said?
> 
> You don't understand Human Rights, you don't understand English words, you don't understand the UN Convention of Human Rights. You understand NOTHING and yet you're here pretending to have a debate and you're going around using words like "asinine" to describe what I'm talking about.
> 
> I'm losing my patience.
Click to expand...

Well then, I guess every single country, with a justice system that imprisons people is in violation of international human rights laws. Kind of weird how the UN, made up of countries that all violate human rights in this way, made up some hypocritical human rights laws....

Or they justly deny them their civil rights since they found the people guilty of crimes, guilty...So when someone knowingly commits a crime, that knowingly can lead to prison, they kind of take that risk don’t they?


----------



## 2aguy

frigidweirdo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but I don't think you've been paying too much attention if you think I said "the people" is "the well regulated militia", and I don't understand how you could have come to such a conclusion.
> 
> The militia can be all the people. Right now the militia is all males 17-45 in the "unorganized militia" and anyone in the National Guard.
> 
> So, bias it isn't, it's people not understanding what I'm writing.
> 
> 
> 
> But you’re taking the phrasing both out of its historical context, and what the founders actually said they meant by the 2nd. The militia was neccessary to the free state because an armed population is a counter to possible tyranny, foreign and domestic. So because a well armed and trained population is necessary to the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If the founder were worried about an invasion, and defending the country, they would’ve opted for a standing army instead. Much more effective at fighting against other armies than a militia (led and controlled by civilians) which was like herding cats and aiming them at a battlefield. But they were very much against a standing army because it could be used in a coup type of situation or used by the state to keep its population in line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm not.
> 
> I think you're arguing against a generic view of the 2A, and not what I actually think. You could have written this post in response to 100 replies on this forum, and no one would know the difference.
> 
> The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. I know this because the FOUNDING FATHERS said so, and I have the documents to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can repeat that as much as you like but it will never make it even remotely true.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For you 2aguy and others with your political beliefs and interpretation/understanding of the laws.
> Neither will you and me preaching our beliefs
> are going to change how frigidweirdo believes either!
> 
> So why not accept that we have two different schools of thought and beliefs here.
> And those branch off into 4, given what frigidweirdo and ChrisL added on how they see it.
> 
> We are not going to change each other's minds or beliefs
> by preaching and defending our own. We'll just deadlock
> because each of us has equal right and responsibility for our own beliefs.
> 
> Question remains
> how do we make public policy that reflects represents and includes
> this diversity of beliefs including the conflicts and still protect everyone equally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because I don't "believe". I know things.
> 
> The reason I know and don't believe is because I came into the 2A debate with preconceived ideas, and then changed them when I saw the were wrong. Those people willing to change their views in light of new evidence don't need to believe.
> 
> The questions that do remain are similar to "why do people who have NO EVIDENCE to support their theory, keep believing in it?"
Click to expand...



I did too ....I used to believe in background checks and registration of guns...then I actually looked at the research, and thought about how those things actually work.....and now I understand they are pointless.....there is no evidence to support what you believe...there is only raw emotion...and that emotion is fear......


----------



## 2aguy

frigidweirdo said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear frigidweirdo
> You made it clear, the bias is mutual.
> You interpret the right of the people to mean well regulated militia.
> Other people do not. And other people like ChrisL even interpret
> the militia to mean ALL THE PEOPLE.
> 
> So if people are not interpreting that law the same way,
> where the words do not mean the same thing,
> then OF COURSE the word 'infringe' is going to mean different things
> because there are at least 3 different STARTING CONTEXTS going on.
> 
> That's why these different people with different biases on what the
> law means or what we mean when we cite the law
> end up "talking past each other" We aren't even using the law
> the same way, to mean the same things, so of course
> our words are not going to carry the same connotations!
> They are coming from 2-4 different contexts.
> 
> That is what I mean by there being a bias.
> 
> C. Let me describe it another way:
> 
> The difference in context and connotation is as different as trying to argue
> does the govt have authority to "infringe on the right of people to HAVE SEX"
> vs.
> "can the govt make laws about RAPE"
> 
> Rape is different from sex between consenting adults.
> 
> So the govt can criminalize rape and bar that
> but that ISN'T THE SAME as "infringing on the right to have sex"
> 
> The same way people would be able to make their own decision, without govt regulation, on whether or not to have sex, that is ALREADY WITHIN the context of
> CONSENSUAL relations and DOES NOT MEAN things like abuse,
> adult-child relations or mentally or physically impaired people who cannot consent, etc.
> 
> The "context" of law-abiding/consent is already given, implied or ASSUMED.
> 
> If someone is arguing from the BIAS that "sex should only be within LEGAL MARRIAGE ONLY" then the statements will come out different from
> someone arguing that ALL legally competent adults have freedom to make decisions whether to have sex with each other WITHOUT govt regulating that.
> 
> So this mutual bias would create a similar conflict if
> one person argues that "the right to have sex" is LIMITED to just people WITHIN MARRIAGE, and others are saying NO it's a matter of being CONSENSUAL
> between legally and mentally competent adults.
> 
> They will not agree if govt has authority to "infringe on the right to have sex" by enforcing laws requiring marriage, but they could agree the govt has authority to ban rape and abuse which "isn't the same as infringing on the right to have sex"
> 
> Does that analogy explain better how
> biases affect how we communicate the meaning of infringement/regulation
> where people are coming at this from different CONTEXTS.
> 
> I know this analogy isn't perfect.
> 
> But can you use it, and apply it back to the case we are discussing
> about where we agree or disagree on well regulated militia and govt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but I don't think you've been paying too much attention if you think I said "the people" is "the well regulated militia", and I don't understand how you could have come to such a conclusion.
> 
> The militia can be all the people. Right now the militia is all males 17-45 in the "unorganized militia" and anyone in the National Guard.
> 
> So, bias it isn't, it's people not understanding what I'm writing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you’re taking the phrasing both out of its historical context, and what the founders actually said they meant by the 2nd. The militia was neccessary to the free state because an armed population is a counter to possible tyranny, foreign and domestic. So because a well armed and trained population is necessary to the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If the founder were worried about an invasion, and defending the country, they would’ve opted for a standing army instead. Much more effective at fighting against other armies than a militia (led and controlled by civilians) which was like herding cats and aiming them at a battlefield. But they were very much against a standing army because it could be used in a coup type of situation or used by the state to keep its population in line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm not.
> 
> I think you're arguing against a generic view of the 2A, and not what I actually think. You could have written this post in response to 100 replies on this forum, and no one would know the difference.
> 
> The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. I know this because the FOUNDING FATHERS said so, and I have the documents to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm not.
> 
> I think you're arguing against a generic view of the 2A, and not what I actually think. You could have written this post in response to 100 replies on this forum, and no one would know the difference.
> 
> The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. I know this because the FOUNDING FATHERS said so, and I have the documents to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can repeat that as much as you like but it will never make it even remotely true.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The _Heller_ case settled that misinterpretation once and for all by declaring that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.  These stupid Moon Bats simply don't want to accept it..
> 
> They are as confused about the "militia" wording as they are about the definition of "well regulated".   Good thing Scalia set the record straight, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Flash
> As a Constitutionalist who believe in consent of the governed and including political beliefs
> under religious freedom,
> I argue that
> * the same way Christians and Constitutionalists can't be forced to accept court rulings
> on right to marriage and right to health care
> * neither can secularists be forced by courts or govt to accept this belief
> that right to bear arms is part of natural laws given by God or nature.
> 
> If their political beliefs are excluded or discriminated against instead of included equally,
> that just as unconstitutional as the mandates and rulings that violated the rights
> and beliefs of people with Christian and Constitutional beliefs negated or overruled by court rulings.
> 
> What we should learn by this is to allow
> individuals to retain and protect their own interpretations
> AND QUIT ABUSING GOVT OR PARTY TO EXCLUDE OR DISCRIMINATE AGAINST OTHER BELIEFS.
> 
> It is constitutional to REMOVE the ban AGAINST gay marriage
> but not to incorporate and enforce that institution against the beliefs of others.
> 
> 
> It is constitutional to REMOVE gun regulations that go too far
> and violate due process of laws by depriving law abiding citizens of rights who haven't
> been convicted of crimes, but not to EXCLUDE people who believe in more gun regulations.
> 
> They just have to propose and back rules and procedures for screening
> that ALIGN with people of the other beliefs who AGREE on effective legislation and management.
> 
> We have to accommodate each other's beliefs in order to have
> constitutional laws. So it is constitutional to strike down laws that
> are biased against the beliefs of others.
> But not constitutional to establish a law that prohibits the beliefs of one group or another.
> 
> So citizens such as frigidweirdo or me who contests a ruling as
> biased by political belief against our own beliefs,
> have EVERY RIGHT to argue we should be included constitutionally.
> And we have that responsibility to defend our beliefs,
> we just don't have the right to impose them on others through govt
> or that's equally unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not if your belief infringes on the rights of another. Just because you believe it doesn’t make it right, and doesn’t mean it should be put it into law. You have a right to your beliefs, but, once you put those beliefs into practice as law that steps on others rights, that’s no longer ok. That’s no longer equality. You doing so forces your beliefs onto others
> 
> You have a right to keep and own a gun, any gun. Just like you have to right to own a car, or a knife, or computer, or whatever. Owning a gun (for self defense against whatever assailiant govt or other) is a natural right, as well as forming up groups is a natural right. Now if you use that gun/car/knife/computer for a crime that’s against the law since you are doing so to infringe on others rights. The difference between all of these tools mentioned and a gun is that gun is specifically mentioned in the 2nd. It’s mentioned for a reason because it’s an equalizer. And it’s also one of the first things that people seeking power go after.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is your belief doesn't match reality.
> 
> The US Constitution doesn't say anything about "guns", there is no mention of the word "gun" in the Constitution, nor the Second Amendment. It says "arms".
> 
> arms | Definition of arms in US English by Oxford Dictionaries
> 
> "Weapons and ammunition; armaments."
> 
> Arms are more than just guns.
> 
> arms (noun) American English definition and synonyms | Macmillan Dictionary
> 
> "weapons, for example guns or bombs"
> 
> So, are you able to have ALL guns and ALL bombs? Anti-aircraft guns? Atomic bombs? F-15s? Anti-tank guns? These are all arms.
> 
> Do you have the right to own all of these?
Click to expand...



You can't "Bear" an aircraft or anti aircraft gun......or an A-bomb.......or F-15s or anti-tank guns......but as Heller states....you should actually read Heller.....


We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), *the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.*

*------*


in the course of analyzing the meaning of "carries a firearm" in a federal criminal statute, Justice GINSBURG wrote that "urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution's Second Amendment . . . indicate: `wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.'" _Id.,_ at 143, 118 S.Ct. 1911 (dissenting opinion) (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed.1990)). 


*We think that Justice GINSBURG accurately captured the natural meaning of "bear arms." Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of "offensive or defensive action," it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization.*

*From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that "bear arms" had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, "bear arms" was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. *


The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment: nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to "bear arms in defense of themselves and the state" or "bear arms in defense of himself and the state."[8] It is clear from those formulations that "bear arms" did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit. Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution's arms-bearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense "of one's person or house"—what he called the law of "self preservation." 2 Collected Works of James Wilson 1142, and n. x (K. Hall & M. Hall eds.2007) (citing Pa. Const., Art. IX, § 21 (1790)); see also T. Walker, Introduction to American Law 198 (1837) 2794*2794 ("Thus the right of self-defence [is] guaranteed by the [Ohio] constitution"); see also _id.,_ at 157 (equating Second Amendment with that provision of the Ohio Constitution). That was also the interpretation of those state constitutional provisions adopted by pre-Civil War state courts.[9] 


*These provisions demonstrate—again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that "bear arms" was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia.*


----------



## 2aguy

frigidweirdo said:


> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> When in fact the 2A merely PREVENTS the US FEDERAL GOVT from doing something.
> 
> 
> 
> And state and local governments. It has meant that ever since it was written and ratified.
> 
> 
> 
> The simple answer is that the US federal govt CAN infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, no matter what the Amendment says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A typical liberal response. If they don't like what a law clearly says, they simply announce that it doesn't say it.
> 
> If you can't refute, ignore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the Second Amendment has only recently been incorporated by the Supreme Court. In 2000 the 2A did NOT apply to the states.
> 
> Now it applies to all levels of govt in the US.
> 
> Okay, a "typical liberal response", your response is "typical don't pay attention to the facts or reality response".
> 
> Can the govt take away guns from the insane?
> Can the govt take away guns from prisoners?
> 
> The answer is YES, the NRA SUPPORTS this, and MOST gun owners support this too. In fact most right wing gun owners often talk about people who "shouldn't have guns". It's GUN CONTROL.
Click to expand...



Wrong.....please.....fucking read Heller.......the Right to Bear arms is not dependent on or created by the Bill of Rights......read Heller twit...they explain that in exact terms....


----------



## 2aguy

Flash said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> No, the Second Amendment has only recently been incorporated by the Supreme Court. In 2000 the 2A did NOT apply to the states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has always applied to the states.  However, it has taken court cases like _McDonald v Chicago_ to affirm it.
> 
> The right existed since the Bill of Rights was established.  Just because some stupid anti gun nut Liberals didn't understand it and it took court cases to affirm it doesn't mean that it didn't exist from the beginning.
> 
> However, if you want to be absurd and somehow claim that the Bill of Rights does not protect individual rights in the US then go ahead.   We hear silly shit like that all the time on this forum.
> 
> Our Founding Fathers had it right to establish a Bill of Rights so that some oppressive elected body could not take away our individual God endowed liberties.  Like they suspected there would be assholes that would try to take those liberties away.  Unfortunately it has taken court cases at one time or another to incorporate almost all of the amendments in the BoRs.
> 
> You point is really moot for any discussion on the legality of prohibiting the possession of firearms nowadays given the _McDonald_ ruling..  It is like arguing that slavery was OK before the 13th Amendment.
Click to expand...



Actually, that is innaccurate....the 2nd Amendment was not created by nor is it dependent on the "Bill of Rights" or the Constitution....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Page 19.....

A pre exisitng right

We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” 

*As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed . . . .”16 *
*----------*


----------



## tycho1572

There’s a reason why the 2nd amendment is important. Lakhota.....


----------



## Flash

2aguy said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> No, the Second Amendment has only recently been incorporated by the Supreme Court. In 2000 the 2A did NOT apply to the states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has always applied to the states.  However, it has taken court cases like _McDonald v Chicago_ to affirm it.
> 
> The right existed since the Bill of Rights was established.  Just because some stupid anti gun nut Liberals didn't understand it and it took court cases to affirm it doesn't mean that it didn't exist from the beginning.
> 
> However, if you want to be absurd and somehow claim that the Bill of Rights does not protect individual rights in the US then go ahead.   We hear silly shit like that all the time on this forum.
> 
> Our Founding Fathers had it right to establish a Bill of Rights so that some oppressive elected body could not take away our individual God endowed liberties.  Like they suspected there would be assholes that would try to take those liberties away.  Unfortunately it has taken court cases at one time or another to incorporate almost all of the amendments in the BoRs.
> 
> You point is really moot for any discussion on the legality of prohibiting the possession of firearms nowadays given the _McDonald_ ruling..  It is like arguing that slavery was OK before the 13th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, that is innaccurate....the 2nd Amendment was not created by nor is it dependent on the "Bill of Rights" or the Constitution....
> 
> https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
> 
> Page 19.....
> 
> A pre exisitng right
> 
> We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.”
> 
> *As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed . . . .”16 *
> *----------*
Click to expand...



You are correct.  It is typical to say that the BoRs "grants" us rights.  As you well articulated that is not the case.


----------



## frigidweirdo

sakinago said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you think they're forfeited. Well SHOW SOME EVIDENCE.
> 
> I've shown you the UN thing that says that people don't forfeit rights, they have them as long as they are human beings.
> 
> Yes, the biggest problem with Rights is that it's not real. They exist because we, as humans, decide they exist.
> 
> You're talking about natural rights and human rights like they're different. They're not. Some people call them God Given Rights too, they're all the same.
> 
> The theory, however, assumes all people have them. You can't forfeit them. It's that simple. And you can't prove otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence is in our prisoners. You can come up with whatever alternative reality you want. Their rights are forfeit, you go where they tell you, eat when they tell you, work when they tell you, wear what they tell you, you can only get what they allow you, they search you when they want to with/without your permission and without a warrant or probable cause, and if you are condemned to execution, you are killed. That’s the reality. We grant them certain privileges, those are not the same as rights. The “rights” they have are limited to being kept alive, in “livable” conditions. Outside of that, anything that can be revoked, or “infringed” as you like to state it, is not a right. You can try to argue they are rights, they’re not, that’s a misnomer, they are privileges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the evidence isn't the prisoners.
> 
> You say they've had their rights forfeited, I say they've had them infringed upon. Either way they don't have their freedom.
> 
> Basically you have nothing. No evidence at all. Great.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s the discussion topic...prisoners, and they absolutely are evidence. Evidence is found in reality. They forfeit their right to weapons including firearms, among many many other things. Sometimes they even loose their right to life (which is probably the most important “human right”), I mean after you loose that it kind of makes the rest of your “rights” useless. That’s not an infringement, there’s zero middle ground on right to life. I’m not getting into your asinine appeal to ignorance, in this asinine red herring, for a downhill argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you haven't shown they've forfeited their rights. That's the problem.
> 
> Have the Chinese forfeited their rights? Because they also don't have certain rights.
> 
> Prisoners have some rights while in prison, the Chinese have some rights in China.
> 
> Again, and AGAIN and AGAIN. The UN says that all humans have HUMAN RIGHTS as a part of being a HUMAN BEING. That they don't lose these rights based on status, gender, whatever.
> 
> You ignore this EVERY SINGLE FUCKING TIME.
> 
> And for FUCK'S SAKE, you can't even write lose properly. How am I expecting you to actually get around to understand what the UN said?
> 
> You don't understand Human Rights, you don't understand English words, you don't understand the UN Convention of Human Rights. You understand NOTHING and yet you're here pretending to have a debate and you're going around using words like "asinine" to describe what I'm talking about.
> 
> I'm losing my patience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well then, I guess every single country, with a justice system that imprisons people is in violation of international human rights laws. Kind of weird how the UN, made up of countries that all violate human rights in this way, made up some hypocritical human rights laws....
> 
> Or they justly deny them their civil rights since they found the people guilty of crimes, guilty...So when someone knowingly commits a crime, that knowingly can lead to prison, they kind of take that risk don’t they?
Click to expand...


Christ almighty... you seriously don't get it, do you?

It's not hard to understand that the theory of Human Rights assumes ALL people have rights that cannot be taken away, and they can only be infringed upon, is it?


----------



## sakinago

frigidweirdo said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence is in our prisoners. You can come up with whatever alternative reality you want. Their rights are forfeit, you go where they tell you, eat when they tell you, work when they tell you, wear what they tell you, you can only get what they allow you, they search you when they want to with/without your permission and without a warrant or probable cause, and if you are condemned to execution, you are killed. That’s the reality. We grant them certain privileges, those are not the same as rights. The “rights” they have are limited to being kept alive, in “livable” conditions. Outside of that, anything that can be revoked, or “infringed” as you like to state it, is not a right. You can try to argue they are rights, they’re not, that’s a misnomer, they are privileges.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the evidence isn't the prisoners.
> 
> You say they've had their rights forfeited, I say they've had them infringed upon. Either way they don't have their freedom.
> 
> Basically you have nothing. No evidence at all. Great.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s the discussion topic...prisoners, and they absolutely are evidence. Evidence is found in reality. They forfeit their right to weapons including firearms, among many many other things. Sometimes they even loose their right to life (which is probably the most important “human right”), I mean after you loose that it kind of makes the rest of your “rights” useless. That’s not an infringement, there’s zero middle ground on right to life. I’m not getting into your asinine appeal to ignorance, in this asinine red herring, for a downhill argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you haven't shown they've forfeited their rights. That's the problem.
> 
> Have the Chinese forfeited their rights? Because they also don't have certain rights.
> 
> Prisoners have some rights while in prison, the Chinese have some rights in China.
> 
> Again, and AGAIN and AGAIN. The UN says that all humans have HUMAN RIGHTS as a part of being a HUMAN BEING. That they don't lose these rights based on status, gender, whatever.
> 
> You ignore this EVERY SINGLE FUCKING TIME.
> 
> And for FUCK'S SAKE, you can't even write lose properly. How am I expecting you to actually get around to understand what the UN said?
> 
> You don't understand Human Rights, you don't understand English words, you don't understand the UN Convention of Human Rights. You understand NOTHING and yet you're here pretending to have a debate and you're going around using words like "asinine" to describe what I'm talking about.
> 
> I'm losing my patience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well then, I guess every single country, with a justice system that imprisons people is in violation of international human rights laws. Kind of weird how the UN, made up of countries that all violate human rights in this way, made up some hypocritical human rights laws....
> 
> Or they justly deny them their civil rights since they found the people guilty of crimes, guilty...So when someone knowingly commits a crime, that knowingly can lead to prison, they kind of take that risk don’t they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christ almighty... you seriously don't get it, do you?
> 
> It's not hard to understand that the theory of Human Rights assumes ALL people have rights that cannot be taken away, and they can only be infringed upon, is it?
Click to expand...

So why isn’t it a human rights violation when they are infringed upon by government? Because infringing also means taking them away. If a government silences somebody from trash talking government, infringing on their right to speech, then they’ve lost their free speech, and said government is in violation. 

Your “theory” requires/implies that human rights are not to be touched by government. No matter what. And there’s nothing a citizen can do to change that.


----------



## frigidweirdo

sakinago said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the evidence isn't the prisoners.
> 
> You say they've had their rights forfeited, I say they've had them infringed upon. Either way they don't have their freedom.
> 
> Basically you have nothing. No evidence at all. Great.
> 
> 
> 
> That’s the discussion topic...prisoners, and they absolutely are evidence. Evidence is found in reality. They forfeit their right to weapons including firearms, among many many other things. Sometimes they even loose their right to life (which is probably the most important “human right”), I mean after you loose that it kind of makes the rest of your “rights” useless. That’s not an infringement, there’s zero middle ground on right to life. I’m not getting into your asinine appeal to ignorance, in this asinine red herring, for a downhill argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you haven't shown they've forfeited their rights. That's the problem.
> 
> Have the Chinese forfeited their rights? Because they also don't have certain rights.
> 
> Prisoners have some rights while in prison, the Chinese have some rights in China.
> 
> Again, and AGAIN and AGAIN. The UN says that all humans have HUMAN RIGHTS as a part of being a HUMAN BEING. That they don't lose these rights based on status, gender, whatever.
> 
> You ignore this EVERY SINGLE FUCKING TIME.
> 
> And for FUCK'S SAKE, you can't even write lose properly. How am I expecting you to actually get around to understand what the UN said?
> 
> You don't understand Human Rights, you don't understand English words, you don't understand the UN Convention of Human Rights. You understand NOTHING and yet you're here pretending to have a debate and you're going around using words like "asinine" to describe what I'm talking about.
> 
> I'm losing my patience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well then, I guess every single country, with a justice system that imprisons people is in violation of international human rights laws. Kind of weird how the UN, made up of countries that all violate human rights in this way, made up some hypocritical human rights laws....
> 
> Or they justly deny them their civil rights since they found the people guilty of crimes, guilty...So when someone knowingly commits a crime, that knowingly can lead to prison, they kind of take that risk don’t they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christ almighty... you seriously don't get it, do you?
> 
> It's not hard to understand that the theory of Human Rights assumes ALL people have rights that cannot be taken away, and they can only be infringed upon, is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why isn’t it a human rights violation when they are infringed upon by government? Because infringing also means taking them away. If a government silences somebody from trash talking government, infringing on their right to speech, then they’ve lost their free speech, and said government is in violation.
> 
> Your “theory” requires/implies that human rights are not to be touched by government. No matter what. And there’s nothing a citizen can do to change that.
Click to expand...


DUE PROCESS.


----------



## Little-Acorn

frigidweirdo said:


> DUE PROCESS.


Which is named in the 5th amendment as an exception to some of its commands.

And conspicuously NOT named in the 2nd amendment.

The 2nd permits no exceptions to its command that the right to keep and bear armed shall not be infringed. It was carefully written that way.

The Framers (and the people who ratified the BOR) wanted government to have NO SAY WHATSOEVER in who could own and carry a gun or other weapon, and who couldn't. And they made it the Law of the Land.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Little-Acorn said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> DUE PROCESS.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is named in the 5th amendment as an exception to some of its commands.
> 
> And conspicuously NOT named in the 2nd amendment.
> 
> The 2nd permits no exceptions to its command that the right to keep and bear armed shall not be infringed. It was carefully written that way.
> 
> The Framers (and the people who ratified the BOR) wanted government to have NO SAY WHATSOEVER in who could own and carry a gun or other weapon, and who couldn't. And they made it the Law of the Land.
Click to expand...


Well, yes, the 5th Amendment is dealing with prisoners. So, it specifies something. 

Now, what's liberty? Surely liberty is freedom to do things. So, the right to keep arms is part of liberty. So, it's basically saying that you can't have your rights infringed upon without due process. 

Due Process Clause - Wikipedia

"Due process ensures the rights and equality of all citizens."


----------



## GreenBean

Lakhota said:


> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
Click to expand...

Bear arms can be dangerous when attached to a bear ... betta get a gun to defend yourself


----------



## Flash

They arrested the Seminole Hights Serial Killer in Tampa last night.  The killer bought the gun he used for the murders from a Licensed Firearms Dealer.  That he means he went through the Libtard supported national background check.

Another great example of how these background checks are absolutely worthless to prevent crime.


----------



## danielpalos

Well regulated militia are declared Necessary to the security of a free State. 

The People are the militia. 

You are either well regulated or not. 

No one is unconnected with the militia.


----------



## Flash

danielpalos said:


> Well regulated militia are declared Necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> The People are the militia.
> 
> You are either well regulated or not.
> 
> No one is unconnected with the militia.




Moon Bats are always confused about the term "well regulated".  It means well functioning.

The James Madison Research Library and Information Center

"In colonial times the term ‘well regulated’ meant ‘well functioning’ ― for this was the meaning of those words at that time, as demonstrated by the following passage from the original 1789 charter of the University of North Carolina: ‘Whereas in all well regulated governments it is the indispensable duty of every Legislatures to consult the happiness of a rising generation…’ Moreover the Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘regulated’ among other things as ‘properly disciplined;’ and it defines ‘discipline’ among other things as ‘a trained condition.’"


----------



## Markle

frigidweirdo said:


> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> The second amendment is actually the basic human right to self defense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not.
Click to expand...


----------



## Markle

frigidweirdo said:


> I'm losing my patience.



*THANK GOD! * Please take your ball and go home!


----------



## Little-Acorn

frigidweirdo said:


> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> DUE PROCESS.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is named in the 5th amendment as an exception to some of its commands.
> 
> And conspicuously NOT named in the 2nd amendment.
> 
> The 2nd permits no exceptions to its command that the right to keep and bear armed shall not be infringed. It was carefully written that way.
> 
> The Framers (and the people who ratified the BOR) wanted government to have NO SAY WHATSOEVER in who could own and carry a gun or other weapon, and who couldn't. And they made it the Law of the Land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, yes, the 5th Amendment is dealing with prisoners. So, it specifies something.
> 
> Now, what's liberty? Surely liberty is freedom to do things. So, the right to keep arms is part of liberty. So, it's basically saying that you can't have your rights infringed upon without due process.
> 
> Due Process Clause - Wikipedia
> 
> "Due process ensures the rights and equality of all citizens."
Click to expand...

The pretzel shapes you keep twisting yourself into, to try to pretend there are exceptions to the 2nd amendment's command that govt cannot infringe the RKBA, are becoming ever more twisted and weird. Is that where you get your screen name?

Sorry, it won't wash.

Some parts of the Constitution make exceptions to the commands they give, such as "_reasonable_ searches and seizures, or "deprived of life or liberty _except by due process_", etc.

The 2nd amendment isn't one of them.

Your dreaming that an exception in one place, far from a line that needed a whole new amendment to express its command, somehow extends over to that isolated amendment, is laughable. If the people who wrote and ratified it had meant such a spectacular stretch, they simply would have said so, instead of walling off the 2nd and making it as unconditional as they did. And relying on duplicitous liberals such as yourself to come along two centuries later, to decided they didn't mean what they said, and puzzle out "what I know they must have really meant even though they didn't say so".

There were very easy and straightforward ways to put exceptions into the 2nd amendment. The Framers carefully didn't use any of them.

There was a reason for that.

They wanted to make sure government (_any_ government) could have NO SAY WHATSOEVER in determining who could own and carry a gun or other weapon. So they wrote the 2nd amendment as uncompromisingly as they did, to make sure of it.

Fanatic liberals such as yourself have been hacking and twisting away at it ever since.


----------



## sakinago

danielpalos said:


> Well regulated militia are declared Necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> The People are the militia.
> 
> You are either well regulated or not.
> 
> No one is unconnected with the militia.


Then they would not have included the phrase the people. The well regulated line is a qualifier to the following line, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”


----------



## sakinago

danielpalos said:


> Well regulated militia are declared Necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> The People are the militia.
> 
> You are either well regulated or not.
> 
> No one is unconnected with the militia.


So that’s to be read as “A well regulated militia, being necassary to the free state, therefore the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infinged. Ginsburg gets it, why don’t you?


----------



## buttercup




----------



## sakinago

frigidweirdo said:


> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> DUE PROCESS.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is named in the 5th amendment as an exception to some of its commands.
> 
> And conspicuously NOT named in the 2nd amendment.
> 
> The 2nd permits no exceptions to its command that the right to keep and bear armed shall not be infringed. It was carefully written that way.
> 
> The Framers (and the people who ratified the BOR) wanted government to have NO SAY WHATSOEVER in who could own and carry a gun or other weapon, and who couldn't. And they made it the Law of the Land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, yes, the 5th Amendment is dealing with prisoners. So, it specifies something.
> 
> Now, what's liberty? Surely liberty is freedom to do things. So, the right to keep arms is part of liberty. So, it's basically saying that you can't have your rights infringed upon without due process.
> 
> Due Process Clause - Wikipedia
> 
> "Due process ensures the rights and equality of all citizens."
Click to expand...

And due process applies to an individual (or persons/group) facing accusations...if you’re trying to extend due process to mean making more gun laws, as in you give the process of making gun laws consideration...that process already exists, it’s called the bill of rights and constitution, and they state the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If due process was meant to be inserted into the 2nd, they would’ve have mentioned it, just like they did in the 5th.


----------



## frigidweirdo

sakinago said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> DUE PROCESS.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is named in the 5th amendment as an exception to some of its commands.
> 
> And conspicuously NOT named in the 2nd amendment.
> 
> The 2nd permits no exceptions to its command that the right to keep and bear armed shall not be infringed. It was carefully written that way.
> 
> The Framers (and the people who ratified the BOR) wanted government to have NO SAY WHATSOEVER in who could own and carry a gun or other weapon, and who couldn't. And they made it the Law of the Land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, yes, the 5th Amendment is dealing with prisoners. So, it specifies something.
> 
> Now, what's liberty? Surely liberty is freedom to do things. So, the right to keep arms is part of liberty. So, it's basically saying that you can't have your rights infringed upon without due process.
> 
> Due Process Clause - Wikipedia
> 
> "Due process ensures the rights and equality of all citizens."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And due process applies to an individual (or persons/group) facing accusations...if you’re trying to extend due process to mean making more gun laws, as in you give the process of making gun laws consideration...that process already exists, it’s called the bill of rights and constitution, and they state the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If due process was meant to be inserted into the 2nd, they would’ve have mentioned it, just like they did in the 5th.
Click to expand...


Oh, this tactic. Taking the word that is being spoken about and deflecting off to somewhere else.

Oh, come on.

Due process applies to the individuals, which is EXACTLY WHO THE FUCK WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. 

Look. The right to keep arms shall not be infringed. Yet it is infringed. The 5th Amendment says it can be infringed after due process and it is infringed after due process with the consent of most Americans. 

It's that simple. 

No, they wouldn't have mentioned it elsewhere, because they mentioned that ALL RIGHTS CAN BE INFRINGED AFTER DUE PROCESS in the 5th AMENDMENT. 

You're clutching at straws here, BIG TIME.


----------



## frigidweirdo

buttercup said:


>



This just shows how fucked up right wing logic is.

Hillary says she doesn't like guns. But in the US there are guns, and as long as there are guns important people need to be protected by people with guns.

I don't like guns. I went to South Africa and I bought pepper spray. However if I lived in South Africa (you'd have to make me, kicking and screaming) I'd buy a gun because this is the only way I'd feel safe.

However I prefer to live in places where I DON'T NEED A GUN.

Hillary having to be surrounded by armed people might be one reason why she doesn't like guns. 

Or probably better said, she's the eternal politician and she'll take the policies she thinks will make her win. But that's a different matter.


----------



## Markle

danielpalos said:


> Well regulated militia are declared Necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> The People are the militia.
> 
> You are either well regulated or not.
> 
> No one is unconnected with the militia.



What?  I have no association with any militia.  Why should I?


----------



## sakinago

frigidweirdo said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> DUE PROCESS.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is named in the 5th amendment as an exception to some of its commands.
> 
> And conspicuously NOT named in the 2nd amendment.
> 
> The 2nd permits no exceptions to its command that the right to keep and bear armed shall not be infringed. It was carefully written that way.
> 
> The Framers (and the people who ratified the BOR) wanted government to have NO SAY WHATSOEVER in who could own and carry a gun or other weapon, and who couldn't. And they made it the Law of the Land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, yes, the 5th Amendment is dealing with prisoners. So, it specifies something.
> 
> Now, what's liberty? Surely liberty is freedom to do things. So, the right to keep arms is part of liberty. So, it's basically saying that you can't have your rights infringed upon without due process.
> 
> Due Process Clause - Wikipedia
> 
> "Due process ensures the rights and equality of all citizens."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And due process applies to an individual (or persons/group) facing accusations...if you’re trying to extend due process to mean making more gun laws, as in you give the process of making gun laws consideration...that process already exists, it’s called the bill of rights and constitution, and they state the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If due process was meant to be inserted into the 2nd, they would’ve have mentioned it, just like they did in the 5th.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, this tactic. Taking the word that is being spoken about and deflecting off to somewhere else.
> 
> Oh, come on.
> 
> Due process applies to the individuals, which is EXACTLY WHO THE FUCK WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.
> 
> Look. The right to keep arms shall not be infringed. Yet it is infringed. The 5th Amendment says it can be infringed after due process and it is infringed after due process with the consent of most Americans.
> 
> It's that simple.
> 
> No, they wouldn't have mentioned it elsewhere, because they mentioned that ALL RIGHTS CAN BE INFRINGED AFTER DUE PROCESS in the 5th AMENDMENT.
> 
> You're clutching at straws here, BIG TIME.
Click to expand...

No I’m not, stop projecting. And this goes to what I was talking about earlier, and the 5th proves my point even more that prisoners forfeit rights. And the 5th forces government to go through due process, before they are able to imprison and revoke rights.


----------



## buttercup

frigidweirdo said:


> This just shows how fucked up right wing logic is.
> 
> Hillary says she doesn't like guns. But in the US there are guns, and as long as there are guns important people need to be protected by people with guns.
> 
> I don't like guns. I went to South Africa and I bought pepper spray. However if I lived in South Africa (you'd have to make me, kicking and screaming) I'd buy a gun because this is the only way I'd feel safe.
> 
> However I prefer to live in places where I DON'T NEED A GUN.
> 
> Hillary having to be surrounded by armed people might be one reason why she doesn't like guns.
> 
> Or probably better said, she's the eternal politician and she'll take the policies she thinks will make her win. But that's a different matter.



Um, her position is a little more than simply "not liking guns."      And why should only "important" people be protected? That statement shows the hypocrisy of liberals who talk about "equality."      All people are equal, so I hope you're not actually saying that only important people (i.e. your dear leaders) deserve protection.


----------



## sakinago

frigidweirdo said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This just shows how fucked up right wing logic is.
> 
> Hillary says she doesn't like guns. But in the US there are guns, and as long as there are guns important people need to be protected by people with guns.
> 
> I don't like guns. I went to South Africa and I bought pepper spray. However if I lived in South Africa (you'd have to make me, kicking and screaming) I'd buy a gun because this is the only way I'd feel safe.
> 
> However I prefer to live in places where I DON'T NEED A GUN.
> 
> Hillary having to be surrounded by armed people might be one reason why she doesn't like guns.
> 
> Or probably better said, she's the eternal politician and she'll take the policies she thinks will make her win. But that's a different matter.
Click to expand...

So you do want to get rid of all guns.


----------



## frigidweirdo

sakinago said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> DUE PROCESS.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is named in the 5th amendment as an exception to some of its commands.
> 
> And conspicuously NOT named in the 2nd amendment.
> 
> The 2nd permits no exceptions to its command that the right to keep and bear armed shall not be infringed. It was carefully written that way.
> 
> The Framers (and the people who ratified the BOR) wanted government to have NO SAY WHATSOEVER in who could own and carry a gun or other weapon, and who couldn't. And they made it the Law of the Land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, yes, the 5th Amendment is dealing with prisoners. So, it specifies something.
> 
> Now, what's liberty? Surely liberty is freedom to do things. So, the right to keep arms is part of liberty. So, it's basically saying that you can't have your rights infringed upon without due process.
> 
> Due Process Clause - Wikipedia
> 
> "Due process ensures the rights and equality of all citizens."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And due process applies to an individual (or persons/group) facing accusations...if you’re trying to extend due process to mean making more gun laws, as in you give the process of making gun laws consideration...that process already exists, it’s called the bill of rights and constitution, and they state the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If due process was meant to be inserted into the 2nd, they would’ve have mentioned it, just like they did in the 5th.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, this tactic. Taking the word that is being spoken about and deflecting off to somewhere else.
> 
> Oh, come on.
> 
> Due process applies to the individuals, which is EXACTLY WHO THE FUCK WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.
> 
> Look. The right to keep arms shall not be infringed. Yet it is infringed. The 5th Amendment says it can be infringed after due process and it is infringed after due process with the consent of most Americans.
> 
> It's that simple.
> 
> No, they wouldn't have mentioned it elsewhere, because they mentioned that ALL RIGHTS CAN BE INFRINGED AFTER DUE PROCESS in the 5th AMENDMENT.
> 
> You're clutching at straws here, BIG TIME.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I’m not, stop projecting. And this goes to what I was talking about earlier, and the 5th proves my point even more that prisoners forfeit rights. And the 5th forces government to go through due process, before they are able to imprison and revoke rights.
Click to expand...


You're trying to make up law as you go along. It's funny. Because you have no idea what you're talking about.

Bolling v. Sharpe (1954)

"Although the Court has not assumed to define "liberty" with any great precision, that term is not confined to mere freedom from bodily restraint. Liberty under law extends to the full range of conduct which the individual is free to pursue, and it cannot be restricted except for a proper governmental objective."

The Founding Fathers were very precise with their wording. They didn't feel the need to treat those reading the Constitution as little children. They wrote things in a manner to be understood by people who knew about law. Normal people couldn't even read in those days.

If you have one Amendment that says "rights can only be infringed upon after due process", why would you feel the need to write this in EVERY SINGLE CASE?

Also, you still haven't show once single time in US history where prisoners were allowed guns in prison. NOT ONE.


----------



## frigidweirdo

buttercup said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This just shows how fucked up right wing logic is.
> 
> Hillary says she doesn't like guns. But in the US there are guns, and as long as there are guns important people need to be protected by people with guns.
> 
> I don't like guns. I went to South Africa and I bought pepper spray. However if I lived in South Africa (you'd have to make me, kicking and screaming) I'd buy a gun because this is the only way I'd feel safe.
> 
> However I prefer to live in places where I DON'T NEED A GUN.
> 
> Hillary having to be surrounded by armed people might be one reason why she doesn't like guns.
> 
> Or probably better said, she's the eternal politician and she'll take the policies she thinks will make her win. But that's a different matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, her position is a little more than simply "not liking guns."      And why should only "important" people be protected? That statement shows the hypocrisy of liberals who talk about "equality."      All people are equal, so I hope you're not actually saying that only important people (i.e. your dear leaders) deserve protection.
Click to expand...


Fine, it's a little more than "not liking guns", but the logic is fucked up.

Taking guns away from society would probably make things SAFER. So the logic is in reverse. She's saying "we need guns to protect ourselves" but it's the guns being used to ATTACK that are the problem.


----------



## sakinago

frigidweirdo said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is named in the 5th amendment as an exception to some of its commands.
> 
> And conspicuously NOT named in the 2nd amendment.
> 
> The 2nd permits no exceptions to its command that the right to keep and bear armed shall not be infringed. It was carefully written that way.
> 
> The Framers (and the people who ratified the BOR) wanted government to have NO SAY WHATSOEVER in who could own and carry a gun or other weapon, and who couldn't. And they made it the Law of the Land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, yes, the 5th Amendment is dealing with prisoners. So, it specifies something.
> 
> Now, what's liberty? Surely liberty is freedom to do things. So, the right to keep arms is part of liberty. So, it's basically saying that you can't have your rights infringed upon without due process.
> 
> Due Process Clause - Wikipedia
> 
> "Due process ensures the rights and equality of all citizens."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And due process applies to an individual (or persons/group) facing accusations...if you’re trying to extend due process to mean making more gun laws, as in you give the process of making gun laws consideration...that process already exists, it’s called the bill of rights and constitution, and they state the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If due process was meant to be inserted into the 2nd, they would’ve have mentioned it, just like they did in the 5th.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, this tactic. Taking the word that is being spoken about and deflecting off to somewhere else.
> 
> Oh, come on.
> 
> Due process applies to the individuals, which is EXACTLY WHO THE FUCK WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.
> 
> Look. The right to keep arms shall not be infringed. Yet it is infringed. The 5th Amendment says it can be infringed after due process and it is infringed after due process with the consent of most Americans.
> 
> It's that simple.
> 
> No, they wouldn't have mentioned it elsewhere, because they mentioned that ALL RIGHTS CAN BE INFRINGED AFTER DUE PROCESS in the 5th AMENDMENT.
> 
> You're clutching at straws here, BIG TIME.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I’m not, stop projecting. And this goes to what I was talking about earlier, and the 5th proves my point even more that prisoners forfeit rights. And the 5th forces government to go through due process, before they are able to imprison and revoke rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're trying to make up law as you go along. It's funny. Because you have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Bolling v. Sharpe (1954)
> 
> "Although the Court has not assumed to define "liberty" with any great precision, that term is not confined to mere freedom from bodily restraint. Liberty under law extends to the full range of conduct which the individual is free to pursue, and it cannot be restricted except for a proper governmental objective."
> 
> The Founding Fathers were very precise with their wording. They didn't feel the need to treat those reading the Constitution as little children. They wrote things in a manner to be understood by people who knew about law. Normal people couldn't even read in those days.
> 
> If you have one Amendment that says "rights can only be infringed upon after due process", why would you feel the need to write this in EVERY SINGLE CASE?
> 
> Also, you still haven't show once single time in US history where prisoners were allowed guns in prison. NOT ONE.
Click to expand...

I never claimed that was the definition. You loose waaaaaay more liberty in prison than just the freedom to go where you please.


----------



## frigidweirdo

sakinago said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This just shows how fucked up right wing logic is.
> 
> Hillary says she doesn't like guns. But in the US there are guns, and as long as there are guns important people need to be protected by people with guns.
> 
> I don't like guns. I went to South Africa and I bought pepper spray. However if I lived in South Africa (you'd have to make me, kicking and screaming) I'd buy a gun because this is the only way I'd feel safe.
> 
> However I prefer to live in places where I DON'T NEED A GUN.
> 
> Hillary having to be surrounded by armed people might be one reason why she doesn't like guns.
> 
> Or probably better said, she's the eternal politician and she'll take the policies she thinks will make her win. But that's a different matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you do want to get rid of all guns.
Click to expand...


Not necessarily. 

I prefer society that is safer.


----------



## frigidweirdo

sakinago said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, yes, the 5th Amendment is dealing with prisoners. So, it specifies something.
> 
> Now, what's liberty? Surely liberty is freedom to do things. So, the right to keep arms is part of liberty. So, it's basically saying that you can't have your rights infringed upon without due process.
> 
> Due Process Clause - Wikipedia
> 
> "Due process ensures the rights and equality of all citizens."
> 
> 
> 
> And due process applies to an individual (or persons/group) facing accusations...if you’re trying to extend due process to mean making more gun laws, as in you give the process of making gun laws consideration...that process already exists, it’s called the bill of rights and constitution, and they state the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If due process was meant to be inserted into the 2nd, they would’ve have mentioned it, just like they did in the 5th.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, this tactic. Taking the word that is being spoken about and deflecting off to somewhere else.
> 
> Oh, come on.
> 
> Due process applies to the individuals, which is EXACTLY WHO THE FUCK WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.
> 
> Look. The right to keep arms shall not be infringed. Yet it is infringed. The 5th Amendment says it can be infringed after due process and it is infringed after due process with the consent of most Americans.
> 
> It's that simple.
> 
> No, they wouldn't have mentioned it elsewhere, because they mentioned that ALL RIGHTS CAN BE INFRINGED AFTER DUE PROCESS in the 5th AMENDMENT.
> 
> You're clutching at straws here, BIG TIME.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I’m not, stop projecting. And this goes to what I was talking about earlier, and the 5th proves my point even more that prisoners forfeit rights. And the 5th forces government to go through due process, before they are able to imprison and revoke rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're trying to make up law as you go along. It's funny. Because you have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Bolling v. Sharpe (1954)
> 
> "Although the Court has not assumed to define "liberty" with any great precision, that term is not confined to mere freedom from bodily restraint. Liberty under law extends to the full range of conduct which the individual is free to pursue, and it cannot be restricted except for a proper governmental objective."
> 
> The Founding Fathers were very precise with their wording. They didn't feel the need to treat those reading the Constitution as little children. They wrote things in a manner to be understood by people who knew about law. Normal people couldn't even read in those days.
> 
> If you have one Amendment that says "rights can only be infringed upon after due process", why would you feel the need to write this in EVERY SINGLE CASE?
> 
> Also, you still haven't show once single time in US history where prisoners were allowed guns in prison. NOT ONE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never claimed that was the definition. You loose waaaaaay more liberty in prison than just the freedom to go where you please.
Click to expand...


Loose again?

Fucking hell


----------



## sakinago

frigidweirdo said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is named in the 5th amendment as an exception to some of its commands.
> 
> And conspicuously NOT named in the 2nd amendment.
> 
> The 2nd permits no exceptions to its command that the right to keep and bear armed shall not be infringed. It was carefully written that way.
> 
> The Framers (and the people who ratified the BOR) wanted government to have NO SAY WHATSOEVER in who could own and carry a gun or other weapon, and who couldn't. And they made it the Law of the Land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, yes, the 5th Amendment is dealing with prisoners. So, it specifies something.
> 
> Now, what's liberty? Surely liberty is freedom to do things. So, the right to keep arms is part of liberty. So, it's basically saying that you can't have your rights infringed upon without due process.
> 
> Due Process Clause - Wikipedia
> 
> "Due process ensures the rights and equality of all citizens."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And due process applies to an individual (or persons/group) facing accusations...if you’re trying to extend due process to mean making more gun laws, as in you give the process of making gun laws consideration...that process already exists, it’s called the bill of rights and constitution, and they state the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If due process was meant to be inserted into the 2nd, they would’ve have mentioned it, just like they did in the 5th.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, this tactic. Taking the word that is being spoken about and deflecting off to somewhere else.
> 
> Oh, come on.
> 
> Due process applies to the individuals, which is EXACTLY WHO THE FUCK WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.
> 
> Look. The right to keep arms shall not be infringed. Yet it is infringed. The 5th Amendment says it can be infringed after due process and it is infringed after due process with the consent of most Americans.
> 
> It's that simple.
> 
> No, they wouldn't have mentioned it elsewhere, because they mentioned that ALL RIGHTS CAN BE INFRINGED AFTER DUE PROCESS in the 5th AMENDMENT.
> 
> You're clutching at straws here, BIG TIME.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I’m not, stop projecting. And this goes to what I was talking about earlier, and the 5th proves my point even more that prisoners forfeit rights. And the 5th forces government to go through due process, before they are able to imprison and revoke rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're trying to make up law as you go along. It's funny. Because you have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Bolling v. Sharpe (1954)
> 
> "Although the Court has not assumed to define "liberty" with any great precision, that term is not confined to mere freedom from bodily restraint. Liberty under law extends to the full range of conduct which the individual is free to pursue, and it cannot be restricted except for a proper governmental objective."
> 
> The Founding Fathers were very precise with their wording. They didn't feel the need to treat those reading the Constitution as little children. They wrote things in a manner to be understood by people who knew about law. Normal people couldn't even read in those days.
> 
> If you have one Amendment that says "rights can only be infringed upon after due process", why would you feel the need to write this in EVERY SINGLE CASE?
> 
> Also, you still haven't show once single time in US history where prisoners were allowed guns in prison. NOT ONE.
Click to expand...

I never claimed that was the definition. You loose waaaaaay more liberty in prison than just the freedom to go where you please.


----------



## sakinago

frigidweirdo said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> And due process applies to an individual (or persons/group) facing accusations...if you’re trying to extend due process to mean making more gun laws, as in you give the process of making gun laws consideration...that process already exists, it’s called the bill of rights and constitution, and they state the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If due process was meant to be inserted into the 2nd, they would’ve have mentioned it, just like they did in the 5th.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, this tactic. Taking the word that is being spoken about and deflecting off to somewhere else.
> 
> Oh, come on.
> 
> Due process applies to the individuals, which is EXACTLY WHO THE FUCK WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.
> 
> Look. The right to keep arms shall not be infringed. Yet it is infringed. The 5th Amendment says it can be infringed after due process and it is infringed after due process with the consent of most Americans.
> 
> It's that simple.
> 
> No, they wouldn't have mentioned it elsewhere, because they mentioned that ALL RIGHTS CAN BE INFRINGED AFTER DUE PROCESS in the 5th AMENDMENT.
> 
> You're clutching at straws here, BIG TIME.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I’m not, stop projecting. And this goes to what I was talking about earlier, and the 5th proves my point even more that prisoners forfeit rights. And the 5th forces government to go through due process, before they are able to imprison and revoke rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're trying to make up law as you go along. It's funny. Because you have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Bolling v. Sharpe (1954)
> 
> "Although the Court has not assumed to define "liberty" with any great precision, that term is not confined to mere freedom from bodily restraint. Liberty under law extends to the full range of conduct which the individual is free to pursue, and it cannot be restricted except for a proper governmental objective."
> 
> The Founding Fathers were very precise with their wording. They didn't feel the need to treat those reading the Constitution as little children. They wrote things in a manner to be understood by people who knew about law. Normal people couldn't even read in those days.
> 
> If you have one Amendment that says "rights can only be infringed upon after due process", why would you feel the need to write this in EVERY SINGLE CASE?
> 
> Also, you still haven't show once single time in US history where prisoners were allowed guns in prison. NOT ONE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never claimed that was the definition. You loose waaaaaay more liberty in prison than just the freedom to go where you please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Loose again?
> 
> Fucking hell
Click to expand...

Loose like let loose your liberty


----------



## frigidweirdo

sakinago said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, this tactic. Taking the word that is being spoken about and deflecting off to somewhere else.
> 
> Oh, come on.
> 
> Due process applies to the individuals, which is EXACTLY WHO THE FUCK WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.
> 
> Look. The right to keep arms shall not be infringed. Yet it is infringed. The 5th Amendment says it can be infringed after due process and it is infringed after due process with the consent of most Americans.
> 
> It's that simple.
> 
> No, they wouldn't have mentioned it elsewhere, because they mentioned that ALL RIGHTS CAN BE INFRINGED AFTER DUE PROCESS in the 5th AMENDMENT.
> 
> You're clutching at straws here, BIG TIME.
> 
> 
> 
> No I’m not, stop projecting. And this goes to what I was talking about earlier, and the 5th proves my point even more that prisoners forfeit rights. And the 5th forces government to go through due process, before they are able to imprison and revoke rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're trying to make up law as you go along. It's funny. Because you have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Bolling v. Sharpe (1954)
> 
> "Although the Court has not assumed to define "liberty" with any great precision, that term is not confined to mere freedom from bodily restraint. Liberty under law extends to the full range of conduct which the individual is free to pursue, and it cannot be restricted except for a proper governmental objective."
> 
> The Founding Fathers were very precise with their wording. They didn't feel the need to treat those reading the Constitution as little children. They wrote things in a manner to be understood by people who knew about law. Normal people couldn't even read in those days.
> 
> If you have one Amendment that says "rights can only be infringed upon after due process", why would you feel the need to write this in EVERY SINGLE CASE?
> 
> Also, you still haven't show once single time in US history where prisoners were allowed guns in prison. NOT ONE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never claimed that was the definition. You loose waaaaaay more liberty in prison than just the freedom to go where you please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Loose again?
> 
> Fucking hell
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Loose like let loose your liberty
Click to expand...


Uh huh? 

Look, we're looking at the very essence of words here and you can't differentiate between lose and loose.


----------



## buttercup

frigidweirdo said:


> Fine, it's a little more than "not liking guns", but the logic is fucked up.
> 
> Taking guns away from society would probably make things SAFER. So the logic is in reverse. She's saying "we need guns to protect ourselves" but it's the guns being used to ATTACK that are the problem.



When you make it more and more difficult for *law abiding* citizens to protect themselves, all you're doing is  shifting the balance of power to criminals and the government. 

It is unrealistic to say we can take guns away from society, because the only way to do that would be to turn us into a totalitarian, unfree police state... is that what you want?  And even then, criminals will still find ways to get guns, so ultimately, all you're doing is disarming good people, creating sitting ducks, and turning us into a police state where criminals and the government are empowered.


----------



## sakinago

frigidweirdo said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This just shows how fucked up right wing logic is.
> 
> Hillary says she doesn't like guns. But in the US there are guns, and as long as there are guns important people need to be protected by people with guns.
> 
> I don't like guns. I went to South Africa and I bought pepper spray. However if I lived in South Africa (you'd have to make me, kicking and screaming) I'd buy a gun because this is the only way I'd feel safe.
> 
> However I prefer to live in places where I DON'T NEED A GUN.
> 
> Hillary having to be surrounded by armed people might be one reason why she doesn't like guns.
> 
> Or probably better said, she's the eternal politician and she'll take the policies she thinks will make her win. But that's a different matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you do want to get rid of all guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not necessarily.
> 
> I prefer society that is safer.
Click to expand...

Ok but the amount of guns and gun owners has been practically been going up exponentially in the past 10-15, and crime keeps going down and down and down. This includes gun crimes. And if guns were the problem, then why is Switzerland the safest place on the planet, yet they are issued full auto assault rifles? 

The only thing that risen (crime wise) in America is mass shootings. Guns have been around since our inception...so obviously there is something else culturally that is going on. There was practically zilch up until the UT shooter (who had a brain tumor pressing up against his aggression center, knew something was off, but couldn’t stop himself). After that it was pretty sparse until columbine, then there was a trickle of mass shootings. Now they are sadly not too uncommon. I don’t know if I have every single answer to why mass shootings are on the rise, but I do think a big factor is the notariaty involved in these shootings have attracted people who find that desirable and wish to one up the previous guy. Clearly they have mental health issues, but there something else going on to. There’s a clear lack of appreciation of life, graphic violence is everywhere in our culture. Video games the walking dead, every other movie, HBO, and even network television. It’s everywhere. I’m not saying we’re all slowly turning into killers or that we need to shut it down. But clearly some cannot separate what’s reality and what’s fictional.


----------



## sakinago

frigidweirdo said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I’m not, stop projecting. And this goes to what I was talking about earlier, and the 5th proves my point even more that prisoners forfeit rights. And the 5th forces government to go through due process, before they are able to imprison and revoke rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're trying to make up law as you go along. It's funny. Because you have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Bolling v. Sharpe (1954)
> 
> "Although the Court has not assumed to define "liberty" with any great precision, that term is not confined to mere freedom from bodily restraint. Liberty under law extends to the full range of conduct which the individual is free to pursue, and it cannot be restricted except for a proper governmental objective."
> 
> The Founding Fathers were very precise with their wording. They didn't feel the need to treat those reading the Constitution as little children. They wrote things in a manner to be understood by people who knew about law. Normal people couldn't even read in those days.
> 
> If you have one Amendment that says "rights can only be infringed upon after due process", why would you feel the need to write this in EVERY SINGLE CASE?
> 
> Also, you still haven't show once single time in US history where prisoners were allowed guns in prison. NOT ONE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never claimed that was the definition. You loose waaaaaay more liberty in prison than just the freedom to go where you please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Loose again?
> 
> Fucking hell
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Loose like let loose your liberty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh huh?
> 
> Look, we're looking at the very essence of words here and you can't differentiate between lose and loose.
Click to expand...

It’s a typo, a misspelling. What I mean is I clear. Are you saying I don’t know the definition of either lose, or loose.


----------



## frigidweirdo

buttercup said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fine, it's a little more than "not liking guns", but the logic is fucked up.
> 
> Taking guns away from society would probably make things SAFER. So the logic is in reverse. She's saying "we need guns to protect ourselves" but it's the guns being used to ATTACK that are the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you make it more and more difficult for *law abiding* citizens to protect themselves, all you're doing is  shifting the balance of power to criminals and the government.
> 
> It is unrealistic to say we can take guns away from society, because the only way to do that would be to turn us into a totalitarian, unfree police state... is that what you want?  And even then, criminals will still find ways to get guns, so ultimately, all you're doing is disarming good people, creating sitting ducks, and turning us into a police state where criminals and the government are empowered.
Click to expand...


Really? 

The problem with your argument is that the US seems to have gone completely in the opposite direction.

In the US the criminals have more power because they have guns. Murders are FOUR TIMES HIGHER in the US than compared to most other First World countries. This isn't the power of the people to protect themselves. With guns, they die more often.

As for politicians. The US has a political system which leads to the rich having power over the people.


----------



## buttercup

sakinago said:


> Ok but the amount of guns and gun owners has been practically been going up exponentially in the past 10-15, and crime keeps going down and down and down. This includes gun crimes. And if guns were the problem, then why is Switzerland the safest place on the planet, yet they are issued full auto assault rifles?
> 
> The only thing that risen (crime wise) in America is mass shootings. Guns have been around since our inception...so obviously there is something else culturally that is going on. There was practically zilch up until the UT shooter (who had a brain tumor pressing up against his aggression center, knew something was off, but couldn’t stop himself). After that it was pretty sparse until columbine, then there was a trickle of mass shootings. Now they are sadly not too uncommon. I don’t know if I have every single answer to why mass shootings are on the rise, but I do think a big factor is the notariaty involved in these shootings have attracted people who find that desirable and wish to one up the previous guy. Clearly they have mental health issues, but there something else going on to. There’s a clear lack of appreciation of life, graphic violence is everywhere in our culture. Video games the walking dead, every other movie, HBO, and even network television. It’s everywhere. I’m not saying we’re all slowly turning into killers or that we need to shut it down. But clearly some cannot separate what’s reality and what’s fictional.



Although I agree that we live in a sick culture that glorifies violence… I don't believe that that is why we're having mass shootings.   There is a concerted effort to get the public to fear and hate guns, and to _willingly_ give up our rights.   Look into the Hegelian dialectic, or problem – reaction – solution.   It is also legal now to propagandize the public.  Watch this video:


----------



## buttercup

frigidweirdo said:


> Really?
> 
> The problem with your argument is that the US seems to have gone completely in the opposite direction.
> 
> In the US the criminals have more power because they have guns. Murders are FOUR TIMES HIGHER in the US than compared to most other First World countries. This isn't the power of the people to protect themselves. With guns, they die more often.
> 
> As for politicians. The US has a political system which leads to the rich having power over the people.




I think you missed the point. Yes, obviously criminals have guns, but since criminals by definition *do not obey the law,* more gun laws is not going to make a difference except for making it harder for* law-abiding* citizens to protect themselves.  There are already thousands of gun laws on the books.

So are you advocating gun confiscation for everyone on a national scale.... in other words, turning us into a police state?


----------



## sakinago

frigidweirdo said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fine, it's a little more than "not liking guns", but the logic is fucked up.
> 
> Taking guns away from society would probably make things SAFER. So the logic is in reverse. She's saying "we need guns to protect ourselves" but it's the guns being used to ATTACK that are the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you make it more and more difficult for *law abiding* citizens to protect themselves, all you're doing is  shifting the balance of power to criminals and the government.
> 
> It is unrealistic to say we can take guns away from society, because the only way to do that would be to turn us into a totalitarian, unfree police state... is that what you want?  And even then, criminals will still find ways to get guns, so ultimately, all you're doing is disarming good people, creating sitting ducks, and turning us into a police state where criminals and the government are empowered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> The problem with your argument is that the US seems to have gone completely in the opposite direction.
> 
> In the US the criminals have more power because they have guns. Murders are FOUR TIMES HIGHER in the US than compared to most other First World countries. This isn't the power of the people to protect themselves. With guns, they die more often.
> 
> As for politicians. The US has a political system which leads to the rich having power over the people.
Click to expand...

Those countries have had a lower crime rates than the US long before they implemented gun control/bans. Since they implemented them, in every single instance, MURDER RATES ALWAYS GO UP FOR THEM. Every single instance. After gun control was implemented in the UK, gun crime doubled within a decade. If you were to eliminate the 5 cities in the us with the highest gun control laws, our crime rates would pretty much equal all those countries you refer too. These countries don’t share borders with countries that are ran by drug lords, they also don’t have the war on drugs and gang crime we do. If you were to eliminate the war on drugs, or magically evaporate drugs, we would overnight become the safest country on the planet. And back to the point the left has no answer too, if guns are the problem, then why is Switzerland the safest place on the planet, yet there’s an fully automatic assault rifle in every closet...that you can strap on your shoulder while you go out and pick up some coffee.


----------



## frigidweirdo

sakinago said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This just shows how fucked up right wing logic is.
> 
> Hillary says she doesn't like guns. But in the US there are guns, and as long as there are guns important people need to be protected by people with guns.
> 
> I don't like guns. I went to South Africa and I bought pepper spray. However if I lived in South Africa (you'd have to make me, kicking and screaming) I'd buy a gun because this is the only way I'd feel safe.
> 
> However I prefer to live in places where I DON'T NEED A GUN.
> 
> Hillary having to be surrounded by armed people might be one reason why she doesn't like guns.
> 
> Or probably better said, she's the eternal politician and she'll take the policies she thinks will make her win. But that's a different matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you do want to get rid of all guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not necessarily.
> 
> I prefer society that is safer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok but the amount of guns and gun owners has been practically been going up exponentially in the past 10-15, and crime keeps going down and down and down. This includes gun crimes. And if guns were the problem, then why is Switzerland the safest place on the planet, yet they are issued full auto assault rifles?
> 
> The only thing that risen (crime wise) in America is mass shootings. Guns have been around since our inception...so obviously there is something else culturally that is going on. There was practically zilch up until the UT shooter (who had a brain tumor pressing up against his aggression center, knew something was off, but couldn’t stop himself). After that it was pretty sparse until columbine, then there was a trickle of mass shootings. Now they are sadly not too uncommon. I don’t know if I have every single answer to why mass shootings are on the rise, but I do think a big factor is the notariaty involved in these shootings have attracted people who find that desirable and wish to one up the previous guy. Clearly they have mental health issues, but there something else going on to. There’s a clear lack of appreciation of life, graphic violence is everywhere in our culture. Video games the walking dead, every other movie, HBO, and even network television. It’s everywhere. I’m not saying we’re all slowly turning into killers or that we need to shut it down. But clearly some cannot separate what’s reality and what’s fictional.
Click to expand...


Yes, and the crime keeps going down in the UK too. And in many other First World countries. So what?

Modern technology is making murders go down because people have other stuff to do. 

That doesn't mean the US's murder rate isn't too high.


----------



## frigidweirdo

buttercup said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> The problem with your argument is that the US seems to have gone completely in the opposite direction.
> 
> In the US the criminals have more power because they have guns. Murders are FOUR TIMES HIGHER in the US than compared to most other First World countries. This isn't the power of the people to protect themselves. With guns, they die more often.
> 
> As for politicians. The US has a political system which leads to the rich having power over the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you missed the point. Yes, obviously criminals have guns, but since criminals by definition *do not obey the law,* more gun laws is not going to make a difference except for making it harder for* law-abiding* citizens to protect themselves.  There are already thousands of gun laws on the books.
> 
> So are you advocating gun confiscation for everyone on a national scale.... in other words, turning us into a police state?
Click to expand...


Wait, criminals never obey the law? Oh, come off it. They might break a few laws, but then even the "law abiding" break laws on a daily basis. 

So, more guns laws aren't going to make a difference. Maybe not. Therefore you need to STOP THE SUPPLY OF GUNS. 

This is the biggest problem for guns in the US. As "law abiding" people can get guns easily, so too can criminals. Guns are an essential item. In the UK they're not. They're a luxury item for criminals, something not to be lost on frivolous crimes. 

Do you think the UK is a police state? 

What I advocate is A) reduction of guns in society (doesn't need to be all guns disappearing, about 4% of British people have guns) and B) change the political system to Proportional Representation so that people actually get to choose their politics, choose their politicians and make it harder for the rich to control everything. Then you don't need to fear the politicians you think you're electing.


----------



## sakinago

frigidweirdo said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This just shows how fucked up right wing logic is.
> 
> Hillary says she doesn't like guns. But in the US there are guns, and as long as there are guns important people need to be protected by people with guns.
> 
> I don't like guns. I went to South Africa and I bought pepper spray. However if I lived in South Africa (you'd have to make me, kicking and screaming) I'd buy a gun because this is the only way I'd feel safe.
> 
> However I prefer to live in places where I DON'T NEED A GUN.
> 
> Hillary having to be surrounded by armed people might be one reason why she doesn't like guns.
> 
> Or probably better said, she's the eternal politician and she'll take the policies she thinks will make her win. But that's a different matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you do want to get rid of all guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not necessarily.
> 
> I prefer society that is safer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok but the amount of guns and gun owners has been practically been going up exponentially in the past 10-15, and crime keeps going down and down and down. This includes gun crimes. And if guns were the problem, then why is Switzerland the safest place on the planet, yet they are issued full auto assault rifles?
> 
> The only thing that risen (crime wise) in America is mass shootings. Guns have been around since our inception...so obviously there is something else culturally that is going on. There was practically zilch up until the UT shooter (who had a brain tumor pressing up against his aggression center, knew something was off, but couldn’t stop himself). After that it was pretty sparse until columbine, then there was a trickle of mass shootings. Now they are sadly not too uncommon. I don’t know if I have every single answer to why mass shootings are on the rise, but I do think a big factor is the notariaty involved in these shootings have attracted people who find that desirable and wish to one up the previous guy. Clearly they have mental health issues, but there something else going on to. There’s a clear lack of appreciation of life, graphic violence is everywhere in our culture. Video games the walking dead, every other movie, HBO, and even network television. It’s everywhere. I’m not saying we’re all slowly turning into killers or that we need to shut it down. But clearly some cannot separate what’s reality and what’s fictional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, and the crime keeps going down in the UK too. And in many other First World countries. So what?
> 
> Modern technology is making murders go down because people have other stuff to do.
> 
> That doesn't mean the US's murder rate isn't too high.
Click to expand...

But gun crimes have doubled in the UK, weren’t they supposed to go down after gun control? Isn’t that what gun control is for?

And once again if guns are the problem, why is Switzerland the safest place on earth, with an assault rifle in every closet.


----------



## frigidweirdo

sakinago said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're trying to make up law as you go along. It's funny. Because you have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Bolling v. Sharpe (1954)
> 
> "Although the Court has not assumed to define "liberty" with any great precision, that term is not confined to mere freedom from bodily restraint. Liberty under law extends to the full range of conduct which the individual is free to pursue, and it cannot be restricted except for a proper governmental objective."
> 
> The Founding Fathers were very precise with their wording. They didn't feel the need to treat those reading the Constitution as little children. They wrote things in a manner to be understood by people who knew about law. Normal people couldn't even read in those days.
> 
> If you have one Amendment that says "rights can only be infringed upon after due process", why would you feel the need to write this in EVERY SINGLE CASE?
> 
> Also, you still haven't show once single time in US history where prisoners were allowed guns in prison. NOT ONE.
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed that was the definition. You loose waaaaaay more liberty in prison than just the freedom to go where you please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Loose again?
> 
> Fucking hell
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Loose like let loose your liberty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh huh?
> 
> Look, we're looking at the very essence of words here and you can't differentiate between lose and loose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s a typo, a misspelling. What I mean is I clear. Are you saying I don’t know the definition of either lose, or loose.
Click to expand...


No, it's not. You've done it consistently in loads of posts and I called you out on it like 4 times already. Clearly you're not reading my posts properly. It's a common mistake in people who don't spend the time to figure out whether they're writing properly or not. 

As I said, you want me to take you seriously when discussing about the meaning of words and phrases in the Constitution and you can't differentiate between loose (adj) and lose (v).


----------



## frigidweirdo

sakinago said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This just shows how fucked up right wing logic is.
> 
> Hillary says she doesn't like guns. But in the US there are guns, and as long as there are guns important people need to be protected by people with guns.
> 
> I don't like guns. I went to South Africa and I bought pepper spray. However if I lived in South Africa (you'd have to make me, kicking and screaming) I'd buy a gun because this is the only way I'd feel safe.
> 
> However I prefer to live in places where I DON'T NEED A GUN.
> 
> Hillary having to be surrounded by armed people might be one reason why she doesn't like guns.
> 
> Or probably better said, she's the eternal politician and she'll take the policies she thinks will make her win. But that's a different matter.
> 
> 
> 
> So you do want to get rid of all guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not necessarily.
> 
> I prefer society that is safer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok but the amount of guns and gun owners has been practically been going up exponentially in the past 10-15, and crime keeps going down and down and down. This includes gun crimes. And if guns were the problem, then why is Switzerland the safest place on the planet, yet they are issued full auto assault rifles?
> 
> The only thing that risen (crime wise) in America is mass shootings. Guns have been around since our inception...so obviously there is something else culturally that is going on. There was practically zilch up until the UT shooter (who had a brain tumor pressing up against his aggression center, knew something was off, but couldn’t stop himself). After that it was pretty sparse until columbine, then there was a trickle of mass shootings. Now they are sadly not too uncommon. I don’t know if I have every single answer to why mass shootings are on the rise, but I do think a big factor is the notariaty involved in these shootings have attracted people who find that desirable and wish to one up the previous guy. Clearly they have mental health issues, but there something else going on to. There’s a clear lack of appreciation of life, graphic violence is everywhere in our culture. Video games the walking dead, every other movie, HBO, and even network television. It’s everywhere. I’m not saying we’re all slowly turning into killers or that we need to shut it down. But clearly some cannot separate what’s reality and what’s fictional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, and the crime keeps going down in the UK too. And in many other First World countries. So what?
> 
> Modern technology is making murders go down because people have other stuff to do.
> 
> That doesn't mean the US's murder rate isn't too high.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But gun crimes have doubled in the UK, weren’t they supposed to go down after gun control? Isn’t that what gun control is for?
> 
> And once again if guns are the problem, why is Switzerland the safest place on earth, with an assault rifle in every closet.
Click to expand...


You don't understand the gun control in the UK. And yet you have an opinion on something you don't understand and haven't bothered to figure out yet. 

As I told you, 4% of British people own guns. Is that a gun ban? 

And you use Switzerland as "the safest place on Earth" which is fucking bullshit you pulled out of your ass, and you don't understand Switzerland either.

Time to get an education, me thinks.


----------



## sakinago

frigidweirdo said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you do want to get rid of all guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily.
> 
> I prefer society that is safer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok but the amount of guns and gun owners has been practically been going up exponentially in the past 10-15, and crime keeps going down and down and down. This includes gun crimes. And if guns were the problem, then why is Switzerland the safest place on the planet, yet they are issued full auto assault rifles?
> 
> The only thing that risen (crime wise) in America is mass shootings. Guns have been around since our inception...so obviously there is something else culturally that is going on. There was practically zilch up until the UT shooter (who had a brain tumor pressing up against his aggression center, knew something was off, but couldn’t stop himself). After that it was pretty sparse until columbine, then there was a trickle of mass shootings. Now they are sadly not too uncommon. I don’t know if I have every single answer to why mass shootings are on the rise, but I do think a big factor is the notariaty involved in these shootings have attracted people who find that desirable and wish to one up the previous guy. Clearly they have mental health issues, but there something else going on to. There’s a clear lack of appreciation of life, graphic violence is everywhere in our culture. Video games the walking dead, every other movie, HBO, and even network television. It’s everywhere. I’m not saying we’re all slowly turning into killers or that we need to shut it down. But clearly some cannot separate what’s reality and what’s fictional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, and the crime keeps going down in the UK too. And in many other First World countries. So what?
> 
> Modern technology is making murders go down because people have other stuff to do.
> 
> That doesn't mean the US's murder rate isn't too high.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But gun crimes have doubled in the UK, weren’t they supposed to go down after gun control? Isn’t that what gun control is for?
> 
> And once again if guns are the problem, why is Switzerland the safest place on earth, with an assault rifle in every closet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't understand the gun control in the UK. And yet you have an opinion on something you don't understand and haven't bothered to figure out yet.
> 
> As I told you, 4% of British people own guns. Is that a gun ban?
> 
> And you use Switzerland as "the safest place on Earth" which is fucking bullshit you pulled out of your ass, and you don't understand Switzerland either.
> 
> Time to get an education, me thinks.
Click to expand...

Never said gun ban, I said gun control with England. Still that doesn’t make a difference in the argument, since gun crime still doubled after a decade. 

And what don’t I understand about Switzerland? Switzerland is crazy safe. And you can walk around with the most “infamous” gun type to the left that they claim we need to ban, an assault rifle.


----------



## frigidweirdo

sakinago said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily.
> 
> I prefer society that is safer.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok but the amount of guns and gun owners has been practically been going up exponentially in the past 10-15, and crime keeps going down and down and down. This includes gun crimes. And if guns were the problem, then why is Switzerland the safest place on the planet, yet they are issued full auto assault rifles?
> 
> The only thing that risen (crime wise) in America is mass shootings. Guns have been around since our inception...so obviously there is something else culturally that is going on. There was practically zilch up until the UT shooter (who had a brain tumor pressing up against his aggression center, knew something was off, but couldn’t stop himself). After that it was pretty sparse until columbine, then there was a trickle of mass shootings. Now they are sadly not too uncommon. I don’t know if I have every single answer to why mass shootings are on the rise, but I do think a big factor is the notariaty involved in these shootings have attracted people who find that desirable and wish to one up the previous guy. Clearly they have mental health issues, but there something else going on to. There’s a clear lack of appreciation of life, graphic violence is everywhere in our culture. Video games the walking dead, every other movie, HBO, and even network television. It’s everywhere. I’m not saying we’re all slowly turning into killers or that we need to shut it down. But clearly some cannot separate what’s reality and what’s fictional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, and the crime keeps going down in the UK too. And in many other First World countries. So what?
> 
> Modern technology is making murders go down because people have other stuff to do.
> 
> That doesn't mean the US's murder rate isn't too high.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But gun crimes have doubled in the UK, weren’t they supposed to go down after gun control? Isn’t that what gun control is for?
> 
> And once again if guns are the problem, why is Switzerland the safest place on earth, with an assault rifle in every closet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't understand the gun control in the UK. And yet you have an opinion on something you don't understand and haven't bothered to figure out yet.
> 
> As I told you, 4% of British people own guns. Is that a gun ban?
> 
> And you use Switzerland as "the safest place on Earth" which is fucking bullshit you pulled out of your ass, and you don't understand Switzerland either.
> 
> Time to get an education, me thinks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never said gun ban, I said gun control with England. Still that doesn’t make a difference in the argument, since gun crime still doubled after a decade.
> 
> And what don’t I understand about Switzerland? Switzerland is crazy safe. And you can walk around with the most “infamous” gun type to the left that they claim we need to ban, an assault rifle.
Click to expand...


So, gun control is supposed to stop all murders or what?

The ban in 1997 was with handguns. What it was designed to stop was mass murders, because in 1996 a guy walked into a school and shot it up. Since 1997 there haven't been any like this. 

Gun murders increased due to Yardies bringing guns into the country. The UK govt decided to tackle this problem and gun murders went down again.

But, to summaries.

The UK has a murder rate 1/4 the rate of US murders.
The US has 3/4 of all murders committed with guns. About 11,000 murders a year are committed with guns. 
The UK's highest murder level with guns was just under 100 in a year. Time this by 5 and you get 500, compared to 11,000. A MASSIVE difference there.

Do it work? Yes, it works. 

Yes, Switzerland is safe. Why?

The IMF says Switzerland is number 2 in the world for GDP. So does the World Bank, the UN says it's fourth. The countries above are Luxembourg, Lichtenstein and Monaco. The latter two aren't actual countries anyway. They're more or less tax havens. Luxembourg is a financial center and has a lot of foreigners there. 

GDP is about $80,000 per person. The US is about $57,000 to put it in comparison. 

On the poverty gap index Switzerland has a rate half the US's rate. And poverty is relative, it's half the US's yet has a higher GDP. 

That's Switzerland, it's a rich country, it doesn't encourage ghettos, it doesn't ignore its social problems, it has a 7 person Executive where members are promoted from the legislature on a merit based system, rather than the US which is just a prom queen popularity contest. It's legislature is elected by proportional representation so all the people basically have a part to play in their politics, rather than forcing people into two political parties with no real choice.

All in all the differences between Switzerland and the US are that Switzerland is run by the Swiss, and in the US it's run by the rich, for the rich.

That plays a massive part here. Guns exacerbate the problems in the US.

Still, 17 our of 57 murders in Switzerland were committed with guns. It's quite a high number, in comparison. The thing is, it's murder rate is much lower.


----------



## Natural Citizen

emilynghiem said:


> Let's address the real conflicts and solutions to the real causes and problems
> instead of arguing over how to regulate the symptoms "after the fact."



This ^


----------



## sakinago

frigidweirdo said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok but the amount of guns and gun owners has been practically been going up exponentially in the past 10-15, and crime keeps going down and down and down. This includes gun crimes. And if guns were the problem, then why is Switzerland the safest place on the planet, yet they are issued full auto assault rifles?
> 
> The only thing that risen (crime wise) in America is mass shootings. Guns have been around since our inception...so obviously there is something else culturally that is going on. There was practically zilch up until the UT shooter (who had a brain tumor pressing up against his aggression center, knew something was off, but couldn’t stop himself). After that it was pretty sparse until columbine, then there was a trickle of mass shootings. Now they are sadly not too uncommon. I don’t know if I have every single answer to why mass shootings are on the rise, but I do think a big factor is the notariaty involved in these shootings have attracted people who find that desirable and wish to one up the previous guy. Clearly they have mental health issues, but there something else going on to. There’s a clear lack of appreciation of life, graphic violence is everywhere in our culture. Video games the walking dead, every other movie, HBO, and even network television. It’s everywhere. I’m not saying we’re all slowly turning into killers or that we need to shut it down. But clearly some cannot separate what’s reality and what’s fictional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and the crime keeps going down in the UK too. And in many other First World countries. So what?
> 
> Modern technology is making murders go down because people have other stuff to do.
> 
> That doesn't mean the US's murder rate isn't too high.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But gun crimes have doubled in the UK, weren’t they supposed to go down after gun control? Isn’t that what gun control is for?
> 
> And once again if guns are the problem, why is Switzerland the safest place on earth, with an assault rifle in every closet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't understand the gun control in the UK. And yet you have an opinion on something you don't understand and haven't bothered to figure out yet.
> 
> As I told you, 4% of British people own guns. Is that a gun ban?
> 
> And you use Switzerland as "the safest place on Earth" which is fucking bullshit you pulled out of your ass, and you don't understand Switzerland either.
> 
> Time to get an education, me thinks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never said gun ban, I said gun control with England. Still that doesn’t make a difference in the argument, since gun crime still doubled after a decade.
> 
> And what don’t I understand about Switzerland? Switzerland is crazy safe. And you can walk around with the most “infamous” gun type to the left that they claim we need to ban, an assault rifle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, gun control is supposed to stop all murders or what?
> 
> The ban in 1997 was with handguns. What it was designed to stop was mass murders, because in 1996 a guy walked into a school and shot it up. Since 1997 there haven't been any like this.
> 
> Gun murders increased due to Yardies bringing guns into the country. The UK govt decided to tackle this problem and gun murders went down again.
> 
> But, to summaries.
> 
> The UK has a murder rate 1/4 the rate of US murders.
> The US has 3/4 of all murders committed with guns. About 11,000 murders a year are committed with guns.
> The UK's highest murder level with guns was just under 100 in a year. Time this by 5 and you get 500, compared to 11,000. A MASSIVE difference there.
> 
> Do it work? Yes, it works.
> 
> Yes, Switzerland is safe. Why?
> 
> The IMF says Switzerland is number 2 in the world for GDP. So does the World Bank, the UN says it's fourth. The countries above are Luxembourg, Lichtenstein and Monaco. The latter two aren't actual countries anyway. They're more or less tax havens. Luxembourg is a financial center and has a lot of foreigners there.
> 
> GDP is about $80,000 per person. The US is about $57,000 to put it in comparison.
> 
> On the poverty gap index Switzerland has a rate half the US's rate. And poverty is relative, it's half the US's yet has a higher GDP.
> 
> That's Switzerland, it's a rich country, it doesn't encourage ghettos, it doesn't ignore its social problems, it has a 7 person Executive where members are promoted from the legislature on a merit based system, rather than the US which is just a prom queen popularity contest. It's legislature is elected by proportional representation so all the people basically have a part to play in their politics, rather than forcing people into two political parties with no real choice.
> 
> All in all the differences between Switzerland and the US are that Switzerland is run by the Swiss, and in the US it's run by the rich, for the rich.
> 
> That plays a massive part here. Guns exacerbate the problems in the US.
> 
> Still, 17 our of 57 murders in Switzerland were committed with guns. It's quite a high number, in comparison. The thing is, it's murder rate is much lower.
Click to expand...

So it’s not about the guns...


----------



## frigidweirdo

sakinago said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and the crime keeps going down in the UK too. And in many other First World countries. So what?
> 
> Modern technology is making murders go down because people have other stuff to do.
> 
> That doesn't mean the US's murder rate isn't too high.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But gun crimes have doubled in the UK, weren’t they supposed to go down after gun control? Isn’t that what gun control is for?
> 
> And once again if guns are the problem, why is Switzerland the safest place on earth, with an assault rifle in every closet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't understand the gun control in the UK. And yet you have an opinion on something you don't understand and haven't bothered to figure out yet.
> 
> As I told you, 4% of British people own guns. Is that a gun ban?
> 
> And you use Switzerland as "the safest place on Earth" which is fucking bullshit you pulled out of your ass, and you don't understand Switzerland either.
> 
> Time to get an education, me thinks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never said gun ban, I said gun control with England. Still that doesn’t make a difference in the argument, since gun crime still doubled after a decade.
> 
> And what don’t I understand about Switzerland? Switzerland is crazy safe. And you can walk around with the most “infamous” gun type to the left that they claim we need to ban, an assault rifle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, gun control is supposed to stop all murders or what?
> 
> The ban in 1997 was with handguns. What it was designed to stop was mass murders, because in 1996 a guy walked into a school and shot it up. Since 1997 there haven't been any like this.
> 
> Gun murders increased due to Yardies bringing guns into the country. The UK govt decided to tackle this problem and gun murders went down again.
> 
> But, to summaries.
> 
> The UK has a murder rate 1/4 the rate of US murders.
> The US has 3/4 of all murders committed with guns. About 11,000 murders a year are committed with guns.
> The UK's highest murder level with guns was just under 100 in a year. Time this by 5 and you get 500, compared to 11,000. A MASSIVE difference there.
> 
> Do it work? Yes, it works.
> 
> Yes, Switzerland is safe. Why?
> 
> The IMF says Switzerland is number 2 in the world for GDP. So does the World Bank, the UN says it's fourth. The countries above are Luxembourg, Lichtenstein and Monaco. The latter two aren't actual countries anyway. They're more or less tax havens. Luxembourg is a financial center and has a lot of foreigners there.
> 
> GDP is about $80,000 per person. The US is about $57,000 to put it in comparison.
> 
> On the poverty gap index Switzerland has a rate half the US's rate. And poverty is relative, it's half the US's yet has a higher GDP.
> 
> That's Switzerland, it's a rich country, it doesn't encourage ghettos, it doesn't ignore its social problems, it has a 7 person Executive where members are promoted from the legislature on a merit based system, rather than the US which is just a prom queen popularity contest. It's legislature is elected by proportional representation so all the people basically have a part to play in their politics, rather than forcing people into two political parties with no real choice.
> 
> All in all the differences between Switzerland and the US are that Switzerland is run by the Swiss, and in the US it's run by the rich, for the rich.
> 
> That plays a massive part here. Guns exacerbate the problems in the US.
> 
> Still, 17 our of 57 murders in Switzerland were committed with guns. It's quite a high number, in comparison. The thing is, it's murder rate is much lower.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So it’s not about the guns...
Click to expand...


Not all of it is about guns.

Guns EXACERBATE the situation. 

But I'll say this. Until the US sorts out its political system, nothing will change, nothing can change, and people will continue to die.

Things are complicated, if you try and simplify them, you'll just come to the wrong answers.


----------



## Abatis

frigidweirdo said:


> The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. I know this because the FOUNDING FATHERS said so, and I have the documents to prove it.



There is no right to be in the militia; militia membership was an obligation impressed on free white men.

There is no right for citizens to organize themselves into militia, train or drill -- see _Presser v Illinois_.

.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Abatis said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. I know this because the FOUNDING FATHERS said so, and I have the documents to prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no right to be in the militia; militia membership was an obligation impressed on free white men.
> 
> There is no right for citizens to organize themselves into militia, train or drill -- see _Presser v Illinois_.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You're looking at it from the wrong perspective. 

There was both a right and a duty. 

The duty was the state needed you.

However the Militia was seen as the ultimate check and balance against a tyrannical govt. As such a duty to fight a tyrannical govt isn't really there, because the Militia can be called up to the Federal or State govt's control.

What they wanted was a check which the people could use. Therefore it was a right, to fight against tyranny of their own government.

Now, there might have been a duty to be in the militia, but then there would have also been a duty to own arms. Was anyone COMPELLED to keep arms? No. Therefore if individuals have the right to KEEP ARMS, they also have the right to be in the militia. 

You don't understand Presser v. Illinois.

There is ONE MILITIA (or 50, depending on how you look at it), it's described in Article 1, Section 8. 

This is because they didn't want to destroy freedom by having any old militia walking around. It was a militia which had certain controls on it too.

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

This militia has state appointed officers, and training as authorized by Congress. 

This is the Militia you have a right to be in. 

We know this. 

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

In Congress Mr Gerry used "bear arms" synonymously with "militia duty" and Mr Jackson used it synonymously with "render military service". They were worried, in this instance that the feds could prevent individuals from being in the militia if they were deemed to have religious scruples, so they got rid of that particular clause of the Amendment, because they felt that it would be interpreted to give power to the feds to prevent people being in the militia. 

The whole text is about that, read it. 

Also, they made the "unorganized militia" in the Dick Act of 1903, because they knew if they made the National Guard, that individuals could demand to be in it, reducing the effectiveness of the militia. So they "unorganized militia" was a way of saying "you have your right to be in the militia, see you're already in it, so stop complaining" while keeping them away from the actual effective militia.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

frigidweirdo said:


> There was both a right and a duty.
> 
> The duty was the state needed you.
> 
> However the Militia was seen as the ultimate check and balance against a tyrannical govt. As such a duty to fight a tyrannical govt isn't really there, because the Militia can be called up to the Federal or State govt's control.
> 
> What they wanted was a check which the people could use. Therefore it was a right, to fight against tyranny of their own government.
> 
> Now, there might have been a duty to be in the militia, but then there would have also been a duty to own arms. Was anyone COMPELLED to keep arms? No. Therefore if individuals have the right to KEEP ARMS, they also have the right to be in the militia.
> 
> You don't understand Presser v. Illinois.
> 
> There is ONE MILITIA (or 50, depending on how you look at it), it's described in Article 1, Section 8.
> 
> This is because they didn't want to destroy freedom by having any old militia walking around. It was a militia which had certain controls on it too.
> 
> "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
> 
> This militia has state appointed officers, and training as authorized by Congress.
> 
> This is the Militia you have a right to be in.
> 
> We know this.
> 
> Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> In Congress Mr Gerry used "bear arms" synonymously with "militia duty" and Mr Jackson used it synonymously with "render military service". They were worried, in this instance that the feds could prevent individuals from being in the militia if they were deemed to have religious scruples, so they got rid of that particular clause of the Amendment, because they felt that it would be interpreted to give power to the feds to prevent people being in the militia.
> 
> The whole text is about that, read it.
> 
> Also, they made the "unorganized militia" in the Dick Act of 1903, because they knew if they made the National Guard, that individuals could demand to be in it, reducing the effectiveness of the militia. So they "unorganized militia" was a way of saying "you have your right to be in the militia, see you're already in it, so stop complaining" while keeping them away from the actual effective militia.


So far, I have no cause to disagree with any of your reasoning in the above post.  Well done.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

frigidweirdo said:


> The argument being presented is that it says "shall not be infringed", and therefore this means that the right to keep and bear arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED EVER.
> 
> Which is rubbish, right?
> 
> So the 2A says "shall not be infringed" but this means that it CAN BE infringed upon.


Presser clarifies it.  "Shall not be infringed" applies only to the Federal Government, not State and Local governments; however, one could argue (as I do, just to be an ass) that the "privileges and immunities" clause of the 14th Amendment applies the 2nd Amendment's complete ban on infringement to State and local governments (which is a fucked-up conundrum caused by thoughtless/careless drafting and ratifying of the 14th Amendment). 


What a beautiful irony.  The very effort to vitiate individual state sovereignty may end up beening the savior thereof (at least partially).


----------



## frigidweirdo

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The argument being presented is that it says "shall not be infringed", and therefore this means that the right to keep and bear arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED EVER.
> 
> Which is rubbish, right?
> 
> So the 2A says "shall not be infringed" but this means that it CAN BE infringed upon.
> 
> 
> 
> Presser clarifies it.  "Shall not be infringed" applies only to the Federal Government, not State and Local governments; however, one could argue (as I do, just to be an ass) that the "privileges and immunities" clause of the 14th Amendment applies the 2nd Amendment's complete ban on infringement to State and local governments (which is a fucked-up conundrum caused by thoughtless/careless drafting and ratifying of the 14th Amendment).
> 
> 
> What a beautiful irony.  The very effort to vitiate individual state sovereignty may end up beening the savior thereof (at least partially).
Click to expand...


This has changed. The 2A has only recently been made relevant for the state and local governments. 

Basically you need to write something to suggest that a right cannot be violated.

1A says "Congress shall make no law"
3A says "No soldier shall"
4A says "shall not be violated"
5A says "No person shall" "nor shall any person" 
6A manages to not do a negative
7A also
8A says "Excessive bail shall not be required" 
9A says "shall not be construed" 

Seems like the Founders wanted to mix up the wording a little bit. However Congress can make laws prohibiting free exercise of religion for those after due process. By locking them up it can limit their religious freedom. It can also decide which religions aren't really religion and prohibit such practices, like ritual executions for example. 

All of these Amendments have limits.


----------



## danielpalos

frigidweirdo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited  never have been and never will be  Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That phrase "shall not be infringed" really confuses you, huh?  Probably the presence of a two-syllable word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Confuses me. How come the insane can't have guns, or prisoners?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because if people are not legally competent, they require a guardian
> to be legally responsible for them including them having access to guns or using them.
> 
> As for prisoners, if the crime for which you are convicted calls for deprivation of liberty and freedom
> then you can lose rights by the laws.
> 
> In general, right of the people implies law abiding citizens.
> you call this well-regulated militia, but it means citizens who commit to uphold and defend the laws not violate them.
> 
> Prisoners, being convicted of crimes, have violated laws and thus merit loss of liberties.
> If people are found to be insane and not able to comply with laws,
> they can also lose their rights to guardianship.
> 
> NOTE: in cases of PTSD for victims of rape or other crimes,
> or in cases of veterans, this is still contested if such "mental ill" conditions
> should render such people barred from defending themselves with guns.
> 
> This isn't so clear cut.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The argument being presented is that it says "shall not be infringed", and therefore this means that the right to keep and bear arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED EVER.
> 
> Which is rubbish, right?
> 
> So the 2A says "shall not be infringed" but this means that it CAN BE infringed upon.
Click to expand...

Well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited  never have been and never will be  Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That phrase "shall not be infringed" really confuses you, huh?  Probably the presence of a two-syllable word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Confuses me. How come the insane can't have guns, or prisoners?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because if people are not legally competent, they require a guardian
> to be legally responsible for them including them having access to guns or using them.
> 
> As for prisoners, if the crime for which you are convicted calls for deprivation of liberty and freedom
> then you can lose rights by the laws.
> 
> In general, right of the people implies law abiding citizens.
> you call this well-regulated militia, but it means citizens who commit to uphold and defend the laws not violate them.
> 
> Prisoners, being convicted of crimes, have violated laws and thus merit loss of liberties.
> If people are found to be insane and not able to comply with laws,
> they can also lose their rights to guardianship.
> 
> NOTE: in cases of PTSD for victims of rape or other crimes,
> or in cases of veterans, this is still contested if such "mental ill" conditions
> should render such people barred from defending themselves with guns.
> 
> This isn't so clear cut.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The argument being presented is that it says "shall not be infringed", and therefore this means that the right to keep and bear arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED EVER.
> 
> Which is rubbish, right?
> 
> So the 2A says "shall not be infringed" but this means that it CAN BE infringed upon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
Click to expand...

That's a nice sentiment.  Not Constitutional, but nice.


----------



## danielpalos

Flash said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia are declared Necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> The People are the militia.
> 
> You are either well regulated or not.
> 
> No one is unconnected with the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moon Bats are always confused about the term "well regulated".  It means well functioning.
> 
> The James Madison Research Library and Information Center
> 
> "In colonial times the term ‘well regulated’ meant ‘well functioning’ ― for this was the meaning of those words at that time, as demonstrated by the following passage from the original 1789 charter of the University of North Carolina: ‘Whereas in all well regulated governments it is the indispensable duty of every Legislatures to consult the happiness of a rising generation…’ Moreover the Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘regulated’ among other things as ‘properly disciplined;’ and it defines ‘discipline’ among other things as ‘a trained condition.’"
Click to expand...

The right wing is always clueless and causeless concerning terms in our Constitution. 

Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by Congress for the Militia of the United States.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

frigidweirdo said:


> This has changed. The 2A has only recently been made relevant for the state and local governments.
> 
> Basically you need to write something to suggest that a right cannot be violated.
> 
> 1A says "Congress shall make no law"
> 3A says "No soldier shall"
> 4A says "shall not be violated"
> 5A says "No person shall" "nor shall any person"
> 6A manages to not do a negative
> 7A also
> 8A says "Excessive bail shall not be required"
> 9A says "shall not be construed"
> 
> Seems like the Founders wanted to mix up the wording a little bit. However Congress can make laws prohibiting free exercise of religion for those after due process. By locking them up it can limit their religious freedom. It can also decide which religions aren't really religion and prohibit such practices, like ritual executions for example.
> 
> All of these Amendments have limits.


But, those limits are only placed on those who have been found guilty of a crime and have lost their liberty.  

Of course all rights have limits if the specific manner of exercising those rights infringes on the liberties of others.

Carrying a gun, in and of itself, does not infringe on the liberties of others.

Keeping a machine gun does not, in and of itself, infringe on the liberties of others. 

Free speech is limited if it infringes on the liberty of others, like putting someone in direct peril by yelling fire in a crowded theater, causing people to be trampled.

The free exercise of religion is also limited if one's religion demands human sacrifice.

Due process is required before limiting one's rights, but due process alone is not sufficient.  There must also be a case-specific, compelling reason for such a limit (like criminal prosecution and conviction).  Otherwise, no rights are preserved.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That phrase "shall not be infringed" really confuses you, huh?  Probably the presence of a two-syllable word.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Confuses me. How come the insane can't have guns, or prisoners?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because if people are not legally competent, they require a guardian
> to be legally responsible for them including them having access to guns or using them.
> 
> As for prisoners, if the crime for which you are convicted calls for deprivation of liberty and freedom
> then you can lose rights by the laws.
> 
> In general, right of the people implies law abiding citizens.
> you call this well-regulated militia, but it means citizens who commit to uphold and defend the laws not violate them.
> 
> Prisoners, being convicted of crimes, have violated laws and thus merit loss of liberties.
> If people are found to be insane and not able to comply with laws,
> they can also lose their rights to guardianship.
> 
> NOTE: in cases of PTSD for victims of rape or other crimes,
> or in cases of veterans, this is still contested if such "mental ill" conditions
> should render such people barred from defending themselves with guns.
> 
> This isn't so clear cut.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The argument being presented is that it says "shall not be infringed", and therefore this means that the right to keep and bear arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED EVER.
> 
> Which is rubbish, right?
> 
> So the 2A says "shall not be infringed" but this means that it CAN BE infringed upon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a nice sentiment.  Not Constitutional, but nice.
Click to expand...

LOL. Nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law. 

It is federal doctrine and current practice.


----------



## sakinago

frigidweirdo said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> But gun crimes have doubled in the UK, weren’t they supposed to go down after gun control? Isn’t that what gun control is for?
> 
> And once again if guns are the problem, why is Switzerland the safest place on earth, with an assault rifle in every closet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand the gun control in the UK. And yet you have an opinion on something you don't understand and haven't bothered to figure out yet.
> 
> As I told you, 4% of British people own guns. Is that a gun ban?
> 
> And you use Switzerland as "the safest place on Earth" which is fucking bullshit you pulled out of your ass, and you don't understand Switzerland either.
> 
> Time to get an education, me thinks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never said gun ban, I said gun control with England. Still that doesn’t make a difference in the argument, since gun crime still doubled after a decade.
> 
> And what don’t I understand about Switzerland? Switzerland is crazy safe. And you can walk around with the most “infamous” gun type to the left that they claim we need to ban, an assault rifle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, gun control is supposed to stop all murders or what?
> 
> The ban in 1997 was with handguns. What it was designed to stop was mass murders, because in 1996 a guy walked into a school and shot it up. Since 1997 there haven't been any like this.
> 
> Gun murders increased due to Yardies bringing guns into the country. The UK govt decided to tackle this problem and gun murders went down again.
> 
> But, to summaries.
> 
> The UK has a murder rate 1/4 the rate of US murders.
> The US has 3/4 of all murders committed with guns. About 11,000 murders a year are committed with guns.
> The UK's highest murder level with guns was just under 100 in a year. Time this by 5 and you get 500, compared to 11,000. A MASSIVE difference there.
> 
> Do it work? Yes, it works.
> 
> Yes, Switzerland is safe. Why?
> 
> The IMF says Switzerland is number 2 in the world for GDP. So does the World Bank, the UN says it's fourth. The countries above are Luxembourg, Lichtenstein and Monaco. The latter two aren't actual countries anyway. They're more or less tax havens. Luxembourg is a financial center and has a lot of foreigners there.
> 
> GDP is about $80,000 per person. The US is about $57,000 to put it in comparison.
> 
> On the poverty gap index Switzerland has a rate half the US's rate. And poverty is relative, it's half the US's yet has a higher GDP.
> 
> That's Switzerland, it's a rich country, it doesn't encourage ghettos, it doesn't ignore its social problems, it has a 7 person Executive where members are promoted from the legislature on a merit based system, rather than the US which is just a prom queen popularity contest. It's legislature is elected by proportional representation so all the people basically have a part to play in their politics, rather than forcing people into two political parties with no real choice.
> 
> All in all the differences between Switzerland and the US are that Switzerland is run by the Swiss, and in the US it's run by the rich, for the rich.
> 
> That plays a massive part here. Guns exacerbate the problems in the US.
> 
> Still, 17 our of 57 murders in Switzerland were committed with guns. It's quite a high number, in comparison. The thing is, it's murder rate is much lower.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So it’s not about the guns...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not all of it is about guns.
> 
> Guns EXACERBATE the situation.
> 
> But I'll say this. Until the US sorts out its political system, nothing will change, nothing can change, and people will continue to die.
> 
> Things are complicated, if you try and simplify them, you'll just come to the wrong answers.
Click to expand...

Yea the difference here is that guns are a constitutionally protected right. Because a free society doesn’t exist where the government has a monopoly of force. It may take some time before people wake up one day and realize, “oh shit, I’m totally subject to whatever this government decides to do, and I can’t do anything about it.” This country was designed to protect the individual above all, not a group of people, not the poor vs rich, not white vs black, not blue colar vs white. You are not to be labeled/defined by some group, no matter what color you are or your background, you are to be judged as yourself, not everyone else around you. 

  We’ve done nothing but complicate the situation, and we do so to try to eliminate tragedy. There is no way to do that, you may come close with a government using an iron fist to keep its population in line, but that’s a bigger tragedy. We were given the option in this country to not be a victim. And that may mean you may need to use a gun to protect yourself. Most cases you don’t even have to fire it. And if you choose to become an assialiant we have a justice system to remedy that. 

And if guns excacerbate the situation, well crime has been dropping like a rock, while gun sales and owners keep on climbing. They aren’t exacerbating the situation now. When does that exacerbation kick in? 

And if the economics are an issue, we’ve been using government more and more and more and more and more to try to fix that issue for the past 100 years and it’s only made the situation worse. We keep complicating it. The only thing that does is grow government, since they always need more and more money to fix what they are to incompetent to do, or problems they start themselves.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Government is the cause of, and universally-proposed solution to, all of life's problems.


----------



## danielpalos

sakinago said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia are declared Necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> The People are the militia.
> 
> You are either well regulated or not.
> 
> No one is unconnected with the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> Then they would not have included the phrase the people. The well regulated line is a qualifier to the following line, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Click to expand...

The People are the militia.


----------



## danielpalos

frigidweirdo said:


> Abatis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. I know this because the FOUNDING FATHERS said so, and I have the documents to prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no right to be in the militia; militia membership was an obligation impressed on free white men.
> 
> There is no right for citizens to organize themselves into militia, train or drill -- see _Presser v Illinois_.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're looking at it from the wrong perspective.
> 
> There was both a right and a duty.
> 
> The duty was the state needed you.
> 
> However the Militia was seen as the ultimate check and balance against a tyrannical govt. As such a duty to fight a tyrannical govt isn't really there, because the Militia can be called up to the Federal or State govt's control.
> 
> What they wanted was a check which the people could use. Therefore it was a right, to fight against tyranny of their own government.
> 
> Now, there might have been a duty to be in the militia, but then there would have also been a duty to own arms. Was anyone COMPELLED to keep arms? No. Therefore if individuals have the right to KEEP ARMS, they also have the right to be in the militia.
> 
> You don't understand Presser v. Illinois.
> 
> There is ONE MILITIA (or 50, depending on how you look at it), it's described in Article 1, Section 8.
> 
> This is because they didn't want to destroy freedom by having any old militia walking around. It was a militia which had certain controls on it too.
> 
> "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
> 
> This militia has state appointed officers, and training as authorized by Congress.
> 
> This is the Militia you have a right to be in.
> 
> We know this.
> 
> Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> In Congress Mr Gerry used "bear arms" synonymously with "militia duty" and Mr Jackson used it synonymously with "render military service". They were worried, in this instance that the feds could prevent individuals from being in the militia if they were deemed to have religious scruples, so they got rid of that particular clause of the Amendment, because they felt that it would be interpreted to give power to the feds to prevent people being in the militia.
> 
> The whole text is about that, read it.
> 
> Also, they made the "unorganized militia" in the Dick Act of 1903, because they knew if they made the National Guard, that individuals could demand to be in it, reducing the effectiveness of the militia. So they "unorganized militia" was a way of saying "you have your right to be in the militia, see you're already in it, so stop complaining" while keeping them away from the actual effective militia.
Click to expand...

Only well regulated militia of the People may not be Infringed. 

Paragraph (2) of DC v. Heller only applies to the People who are the unorganized militia.


----------



## emilynghiem

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This has changed. The 2A has only recently been made relevant for the state and local governments.
> 
> Basically you need to write something to suggest that a right cannot be violated.
> 
> 1A says "Congress shall make no law"
> 3A says "No soldier shall"
> 4A says "shall not be violated"
> 5A says "No person shall" "nor shall any person"
> 6A manages to not do a negative
> 7A also
> 8A says "Excessive bail shall not be required"
> 9A says "shall not be construed"
> 
> Seems like the Founders wanted to mix up the wording a little bit. However Congress can make laws prohibiting free exercise of religion for those after due process. By locking them up it can limit their religious freedom. It can also decide which religions aren't really religion and prohibit such practices, like ritual executions for example.
> 
> All of these Amendments have limits.
> 
> 
> 
> But, those limits are only placed on those who have been found guilty of a crime and have lost their liberty.
> 
> Of course all rights have limits if the specific manner of exercising those rights infringes on the liberties of others.
> 
> Carrying a gun, in and of itself, does not infringe on the liberties of others.
> 
> Keeping a machine gun does not, in and of itself, infringe on the liberties of others.
> 
> Free speech is limited if it infringes on the liberty of others, like putting someone in direct peril by yelling fire in a crowded theater, causing people to be trampled.
> 
> The free exercise of religion is also limited if one's religion demands human sacrifice.
> 
> Due process is required before limiting one's rights, but due process alone is not sufficient.  There must also be a case-specific, compelling reason for such a limit (like criminal prosecution and conviction).  Otherwise, no rights are preserved.
Click to expand...


Yes and no Bootney Lee Farnsworth and frigidweirdo
1. with citizens bearing arms for defending law, for lawabiding purposes,
that is within the law
2. the question is people who "disrupt the peace" or "threaten security of others"
because they don't have law abiding intent and purpose, but intent to violate laws.

How do we police THAT without violating the due process/liberty/rights of LAW abiding citizens
and only screen out the DANGEROUS people who if they got into guns WOULD abridge
the right of others to safety, security and protections of the law?

We don't agree how or where to screen out the DIFFERENCE between these two.
So that's why one side argues:
you are going too far and penalizing/depriving law abiding citizens by the overreaching way you are applying the laws to restrict guns from abusers who aren't seeking to defend laws
And the other side argues:
you aren't protecting citizens from abuse of the law in the hands of criminals

The solution I recommend is to work with local districts,
between police and teachers unions, civic associations per neighborhood,
and district, city and county officials including party reps.
And work out a plan for training and screening people so these
residents in each community have an agreed plan and process among THEMSELVES.
It cannot come from the top down IMPOSED on residents
or it gets into the debate on who has authority to decide for others.
The PEOPLE affected by the local policy need to decide democratically
among themselves.

So this will include BOTH schools of thought, input from all people affected
IN THAT REGION regardless if they believe more liberal or conservative
approaches to Second Amendment rights and govt regulations.

If we break it down locally, then people have a chance to work out
a policy that assures their rights AND safety without compromising one for the other.
A good mediated agreement tends to end up with both sides giving and taking equally.
They end up finding alternative ways to resolve objections, so the sides agree it is fair,
but it usually ends up with solutions that neither side started with, but a mix of ideas they can agree on.

This is best one locally because of diversity of individuals in each district.
But the best ideas from one district can be adapted by others if they work.
They will still vary, in order to include the representation of the people actually affected.

Local police already have their own Mission Statements.
the HPD mission statement is linked here www.ethics-commission.net
So this is already localized per police, and can be expanded to each community
that hires their own police similar to campus security.

Frankly if I were a teacher or police working in a district,
I would get with my UNION and collectively DEMAND that "as a condition of employment"
in order for workers to be SAFE in a district, all residents would have to
sign agreements to follow laws, be trained to comply with procedures to avoid violent conflict, including training and access to a grievance/mediation process for reporting abuses by anyone,
and agree to screening and counseling for any complaints of abusive or addictive disorder deemed a threat by the local ordinance standards *the residents AGREE to pass and enforce.*
It has to be agreed locally, or the same argument comes up as to who has authority to dictate to others. Nobody does when it comes to PRESCREENING for dangers or abuses BEFORE any crime is committed. Preemptive/preventative policies should be VOLUNTARILY agreed to as the standard for that school campus or district that the police and residents set up for THEMSELVES.

The LAPD mission statement mentions "voluntary compliance"
so we can learn and borrow from other models
how local police apply Constitutional enforcement
to public safety at a local level. And each community would need to
work this out with their local police and AGREE what standards
and procedures to enforce and comply with so everyone agrees it is fair, safe and respects rights equally.

Both the right to bear arms, the right to due process and not depriving people of liberty
who aren't breaking laws, and the right to peace and security.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

emilynghiem said:


> Yes and no Bootney Lee Farnsworth and frigidweirdo
> 1. with citizens bearing arms for defending law, for lawabiding purposes,
> that is within the law
> 2. the question is people who "disrupt the peace" or "threaten security of others"
> because they don't have law abiding intent and purpose, but intent to violate laws.
> How do we police THAT without violating the due process/liberty/rights of LAW abiding citizens and only screen out the DANGEROUS people who if they got into guns WOULD abridge the right of others to safety, security and protections of the law?


I am reminded of _The Minority Report_.  It is a sci-fi book about these three mutants who could foresee crimes before they were committed, and based on those visions, the person who would commit the crime was arrested and prosecuted for the crime they were going to commit.    It was adapted into a Tom Cruise movie about 15 years ago.

It is impossible to predict who would commit gun crimes.  Doing so is like the bullshit done in _The Minority Report_.

I don't understand why some people cannot accept that they cannot act preemptively to prevent potential crime without serious and unjust infringements on liberty. 

The question every citizen should ask himself/herself is:

Do I want a safety guarantee or do I want a liberty guarantee?

If one wants a safety guarantee, there are plenty of nations on this planet that are suitable for such a person.  It is a delusion worthy of therapy and medication to think that such a guarantee could exist, but I think people should be free to go live a captive, subjugated lifestyle...somewhere OTHER than here.  AKA, get the fuck out, you commie.


----------



## emilynghiem

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and no Bootney Lee Farnsworth and frigidweirdo
> 1. with citizens bearing arms for defending law, for lawabiding purposes,
> that is within the law
> 2. the question is people who "disrupt the peace" or "threaten security of others"
> because they don't have law abiding intent and purpose, but intent to violate laws.
> How do we police THAT without violating the due process/liberty/rights of LAW abiding citizens and only screen out the DANGEROUS people who if they got into guns WOULD abridge the right of others to safety, security and protections of the law?
> 
> 
> 
> I am reminded of _The Minority Report_.  It is a sci-fi book about these three mutants who could foresee crimes before they were committed, and based on those visions, the person who would commit the crime was arrested and prosecuted for the crime they were going to commit.    It was adapted into a Tom Cruise movie about 15 years ago.
> 
> It is impossible to predict who would commit gun crimes.  Doing so is like the bullshit done in _The Minority Report_.
> 
> I don't understand why some people cannot accept that they cannot act preemptively to prevent potential crime without serious and unjust infringements on liberty.
> 
> The question every citizen should ask himself/herself is:
> 
> Do I want a safety guarantee or do I want a liberty guarantee?
> 
> If one wants a safety guarantee, there are plenty of nations on this planet that are suitable for such a person.  It is a delusion worthy of therapy and medication to think that such a guarantee could exist, but I think people should be free to go live a captive, subjugated lifestyle...somewhere OTHER than here.  AKA, get the fuck out, you commie.
Click to expand...


Dear Bootney Lee Farnsworth
You are assuming the screening would be for criminal reasons.
What about NEUTRAL screening for Ebola or Diabetes or Cancer?
Screening for criminal or mental disorders known to become unsafe or deadly,
including dementia or Alzheimers
DOES NOT HAVE TO GET CRIMINALIZED.

When medical science catches up and people can get prescreened
and monitored like we do with cancer stages or levels of diabetes,
this can be completely VOLUNTARY.

I agree with you it should NOT be involuntary.
I know people who lost their freedom and rights INVOLUNTARILY
because authority was abused to declare them incompetent.

So this system would set up  means to safeguard
against abuses already going on.

If we base it on medically  proven science that even
the people themselves agree to follow, then it's not forced or 
have anything to do with criminalizing it. In fact, we need to
DECRIMINALIZE illness and treat these NEUTRALLY as medical issues.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Confuses me. How come the insane can't have guns, or prisoners?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because if people are not legally competent, they require a guardian
> to be legally responsible for them including them having access to guns or using them.
> 
> As for prisoners, if the crime for which you are convicted calls for deprivation of liberty and freedom
> then you can lose rights by the laws.
> 
> In general, right of the people implies law abiding citizens.
> you call this well-regulated militia, but it means citizens who commit to uphold and defend the laws not violate them.
> 
> Prisoners, being convicted of crimes, have violated laws and thus merit loss of liberties.
> If people are found to be insane and not able to comply with laws,
> they can also lose their rights to guardianship.
> 
> NOTE: in cases of PTSD for victims of rape or other crimes,
> or in cases of veterans, this is still contested if such "mental ill" conditions
> should render such people barred from defending themselves with guns.
> 
> This isn't so clear cut.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The argument being presented is that it says "shall not be infringed", and therefore this means that the right to keep and bear arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED EVER.
> 
> Which is rubbish, right?
> 
> So the 2A says "shall not be infringed" but this means that it CAN BE infringed upon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a nice sentiment.  Not Constitutional, but nice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL. Nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law.
> 
> It is federal doctrine and current practice.
Click to expand...


I guess no one pays attention to the SC either.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because if people are not legally competent, they require a guardian
> to be legally responsible for them including them having access to guns or using them.
> 
> As for prisoners, if the crime for which you are convicted calls for deprivation of liberty and freedom
> then you can lose rights by the laws.
> 
> In general, right of the people implies law abiding citizens.
> you call this well-regulated militia, but it means citizens who commit to uphold and defend the laws not violate them.
> 
> Prisoners, being convicted of crimes, have violated laws and thus merit loss of liberties.
> If people are found to be insane and not able to comply with laws,
> they can also lose their rights to guardianship.
> 
> NOTE: in cases of PTSD for victims of rape or other crimes,
> or in cases of veterans, this is still contested if such "mental ill" conditions
> should render such people barred from defending themselves with guns.
> 
> This isn't so clear cut.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The argument being presented is that it says "shall not be infringed", and therefore this means that the right to keep and bear arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED EVER.
> 
> Which is rubbish, right?
> 
> So the 2A says "shall not be infringed" but this means that it CAN BE infringed upon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a nice sentiment.  Not Constitutional, but nice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL. Nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law.
> 
> It is federal doctrine and current practice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess no one pays attention to the SC either.
Click to expand...

Sure they do. The Supreme Court fixed the precedent of ignoring the first clause or paragraph in favor of the second clause or paragraph.


----------



## 2aguy

frigidweirdo said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This just shows how fucked up right wing logic is.
> 
> Hillary says she doesn't like guns. But in the US there are guns, and as long as there are guns important people need to be protected by people with guns.
> 
> I don't like guns. I went to South Africa and I bought pepper spray. However if I lived in South Africa (you'd have to make me, kicking and screaming) I'd buy a gun because this is the only way I'd feel safe.
> 
> However I prefer to live in places where I DON'T NEED A GUN.
> 
> Hillary having to be surrounded by armed people might be one reason why she doesn't like guns.
> 
> Or probably better said, she's the eternal politician and she'll take the policies she thinks will make her win. But that's a different matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, her position is a little more than simply "not liking guns."      And why should only "important" people be protected? That statement shows the hypocrisy of liberals who talk about "equality."      All people are equal, so I hope you're not actually saying that only important people (i.e. your dear leaders) deserve protection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fine, it's a little more than "not liking guns", but the logic is fucked up.
> 
> Taking guns away from society would probably make things SAFER. So the logic is in reverse. She's saying "we need guns to protect ourselves" but it's the guns being used to ATTACK that are the problem.
Click to expand...



We had an entire world without guns .......how did that work out at the time?  The strong raped, robbed and enslaved the weak.......guns allow the weak to fight off the strong...that is how civilization came into being.....


----------



## 2aguy

frigidweirdo said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fine, it's a little more than "not liking guns", but the logic is fucked up.
> 
> Taking guns away from society would probably make things SAFER. So the logic is in reverse. She's saying "we need guns to protect ourselves" but it's the guns being used to ATTACK that are the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you make it more and more difficult for *law abiding* citizens to protect themselves, all you're doing is  shifting the balance of power to criminals and the government.
> 
> It is unrealistic to say we can take guns away from society, because the only way to do that would be to turn us into a totalitarian, unfree police state... is that what you want?  And even then, criminals will still find ways to get guns, so ultimately, all you're doing is disarming good people, creating sitting ducks, and turning us into a police state where criminals and the government are empowered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> The problem with your argument is that the US seems to have gone completely in the opposite direction.
> 
> In the US the criminals have more power because they have guns. Murders are FOUR TIMES HIGHER in the US than compared to most other First World countries. This isn't the power of the people to protect themselves. With guns, they die more often.
> 
> As for politicians. The US has a political system which leads to the rich having power over the people.
Click to expand...



No....Britain has gone in the opposite direction, they banned and confiscated guns and now their gun crime rate and their violent crime rate are skyrocketing....

As to murder.....that is a matter of criminal culture.....our criminals murder each other more often....but again, Britain and Europe are catching up, their cultures can no longer civilize their young males, or the young males they are importing from the 3rd World....

The United States?

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600  million guns in private hands and over 16.3  million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...
--* gun murder down 49%*

*--gun crime down 75%*

*--violent crime down 72%*

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.


----------



## 2aguy

frigidweirdo said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This just shows how fucked up right wing logic is.
> 
> Hillary says she doesn't like guns. But in the US there are guns, and as long as there are guns important people need to be protected by people with guns.
> 
> I don't like guns. I went to South Africa and I bought pepper spray. However if I lived in South Africa (you'd have to make me, kicking and screaming) I'd buy a gun because this is the only way I'd feel safe.
> 
> However I prefer to live in places where I DON'T NEED A GUN.
> 
> Hillary having to be surrounded by armed people might be one reason why she doesn't like guns.
> 
> Or probably better said, she's the eternal politician and she'll take the policies she thinks will make her win. But that's a different matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you do want to get rid of all guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not necessarily.
> 
> I prefer society that is safer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok but the amount of guns and gun owners has been practically been going up exponentially in the past 10-15, and crime keeps going down and down and down. This includes gun crimes. And if guns were the problem, then why is Switzerland the safest place on the planet, yet they are issued full auto assault rifles?
> 
> The only thing that risen (crime wise) in America is mass shootings. Guns have been around since our inception...so obviously there is something else culturally that is going on. There was practically zilch up until the UT shooter (who had a brain tumor pressing up against his aggression center, knew something was off, but couldn’t stop himself). After that it was pretty sparse until columbine, then there was a trickle of mass shootings. Now they are sadly not too uncommon. I don’t know if I have every single answer to why mass shootings are on the rise, but I do think a big factor is the notariaty involved in these shootings have attracted people who find that desirable and wish to one up the previous guy. Clearly they have mental health issues, but there something else going on to. There’s a clear lack of appreciation of life, graphic violence is everywhere in our culture. Video games the walking dead, every other movie, HBO, and even network television. It’s everywhere. I’m not saying we’re all slowly turning into killers or that we need to shut it down. But clearly some cannot separate what’s reality and what’s fictional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, and the crime keeps going down in the UK too. And in many other First World countries. So what?
> 
> Modern technology is making murders go down because people have other stuff to do.
> 
> That doesn't mean the US's murder rate isn't too high.
Click to expand...



Yeah...you don't know what you are talking about...this is Britain today....far more violent than the U.S......

10 years after the ban....

Culture of violence: Gun crime goes up by 89% in a decade | Daily Mail Online

*The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year  -  a rise of 89 per cent. 
*
*The number of people injured or killed by guns, excluding air weapons, has increased from 864 in 1998/99 to a provisional figure of 1,760 in 2008/09, an increase of 104 per cent . *

Last year.....



Firearms amnesty as UK gun crime rises 27% this year

The amnesty comes less than a month after national figures revealed the number of crimes involving firearms in England and Wales increased by 27% to 6,696 in the year ending June 2017.

Gun crime in London increases by 42% - BBC News

Gun crime offences in London surged by 42% in the last year, according to official statistics.
---------------

Top trauma surgeon reveals shocking extent of London’s gun crime

A leading trauma surgeon has told how the number of patients treated for gunshot injuries at a major London hospital has doubled in the last five years. 

----

He said the hospital’s major trauma centre had seen a bigger rise in gunshot injuries compared to knife wounds and that the average age of victims was getting younger. 

-----

Last year, gun crime offences in London increased for a third year running and by 42 per cent, from 1,793 offences in 2015/16 to 2,544 offences in 2016/17. Police have seized 635 guns off the streets so far this year.

Dr Griffiths, who also teaches medical students, said: “Our numbers of victims of gun injury have doubled [since 2012]. Gunshot injuries represent about 2.5 per cent of our penetrating trauma. 

-----

*Dr Griffiths said the average age of gun crime victims needing treatment at the hospital had decreased from 25 to the mid to late teens since 2012. *

*He added that medics at the Barts Health hospital’s major trauma centre in Whitechapel had seen a bigger rise in patients with gun injuries rather than knife wounds and that most were caused by pistols or shotguns. *

Met Police commander Jim Stokley, who was also invited to speak at the meeting, said that *handguns *and shotguns were the weapons of choice and that 46 per cent of London’s gun crime discharges were gang-related.

He said: “We believe that a lot of it is associated with the drugs trade, and by that I mean people dealing drugs at street level and disagreements between different gangs.”

--------------

Violent crime on the rise in every corner of the country, figures suggest

But analysis of the figures force by force, showed the full extent of the problem, with only one constabulary, Nottinghamshire, recording a reduction in violent offences.

*The vast majority of police forces actually witnessed double digit rises in violent crime, with Northumbria posting a 95 per cent increase year on year.

Of the other forces, Durham Police recorded a 73 per cent rise; West Yorkshire was up 48 per cent; Avon and Somerset 45 per cent; Dorset 39 per cent and Warwickshire 37 per cent.

Elsewhere Humberside, South Yorkshire, Staffordshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Kent, Wiltshire and Dyfed Powys all saw violence rise by more than a quarter year on year.*


----------



## 2aguy

frigidweirdo said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> The problem with your argument is that the US seems to have gone completely in the opposite direction.
> 
> In the US the criminals have more power because they have guns. Murders are FOUR TIMES HIGHER in the US than compared to most other First World countries. This isn't the power of the people to protect themselves. With guns, they die more often.
> 
> As for politicians. The US has a political system which leads to the rich having power over the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you missed the point. Yes, obviously criminals have guns, but since criminals by definition *do not obey the law,* more gun laws is not going to make a difference except for making it harder for* law-abiding* citizens to protect themselves.  There are already thousands of gun laws on the books.
> 
> So are you advocating gun confiscation for everyone on a national scale.... in other words, turning us into a police state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait, criminals never obey the law? Oh, come off it. They might break a few laws, but then even the "law abiding" break laws on a daily basis.
> 
> So, more guns laws aren't going to make a difference. Maybe not. Therefore you need to STOP THE SUPPLY OF GUNS.
> 
> This is the biggest problem for guns in the US. As "law abiding" people can get guns easily, so too can criminals. Guns are an essential item. In the UK they're not. They're a luxury item for criminals, something not to be lost on frivolous crimes.
> 
> Do you think the UK is a police state?
> 
> What I advocate is A) reduction of guns in society (doesn't need to be all guns disappearing, about 4% of British people have guns) and B) change the political system to Proportional Representation so that people actually get to choose their politics, choose their politicians and make it harder for the rich to control everything. Then you don't need to fear the politicians you think you're electing.
Click to expand...



The U.K. is experiencing an increase in gun crime...after they banned guns......up 27% over the entire country, just last year, and up 42% in London alone....

In the U.S.....gun crime has gone down, 75%...gun murder down 49%.......violent crime down 72%...

You don't know what you are talking about.....


----------



## 2aguy

frigidweirdo said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok but the amount of guns and gun owners has been practically been going up exponentially in the past 10-15, and crime keeps going down and down and down. This includes gun crimes. And if guns were the problem, then why is Switzerland the safest place on the planet, yet they are issued full auto assault rifles?
> 
> The only thing that risen (crime wise) in America is mass shootings. Guns have been around since our inception...so obviously there is something else culturally that is going on. There was practically zilch up until the UT shooter (who had a brain tumor pressing up against his aggression center, knew something was off, but couldn’t stop himself). After that it was pretty sparse until columbine, then there was a trickle of mass shootings. Now they are sadly not too uncommon. I don’t know if I have every single answer to why mass shootings are on the rise, but I do think a big factor is the notariaty involved in these shootings have attracted people who find that desirable and wish to one up the previous guy. Clearly they have mental health issues, but there something else going on to. There’s a clear lack of appreciation of life, graphic violence is everywhere in our culture. Video games the walking dead, every other movie, HBO, and even network television. It’s everywhere. I’m not saying we’re all slowly turning into killers or that we need to shut it down. But clearly some cannot separate what’s reality and what’s fictional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and the crime keeps going down in the UK too. And in many other First World countries. So what?
> 
> Modern technology is making murders go down because people have other stuff to do.
> 
> That doesn't mean the US's murder rate isn't too high.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But gun crimes have doubled in the UK, weren’t they supposed to go down after gun control? Isn’t that what gun control is for?
> 
> And once again if guns are the problem, why is Switzerland the safest place on earth, with an assault rifle in every closet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't understand the gun control in the UK. And yet you have an opinion on something you don't understand and haven't bothered to figure out yet.
> 
> As I told you, 4% of British people own guns. Is that a gun ban?
> 
> And you use Switzerland as "the safest place on Earth" which is fucking bullshit you pulled out of your ass, and you don't understand Switzerland either.
> 
> Time to get an education, me thinks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never said gun ban, I said gun control with England. Still that doesn’t make a difference in the argument, since gun crime still doubled after a decade.
> 
> And what don’t I understand about Switzerland? Switzerland is crazy safe. And you can walk around with the most “infamous” gun type to the left that they claim we need to ban, an assault rifle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, gun control is supposed to stop all murders or what?
> 
> The ban in 1997 was with handguns. What it was designed to stop was mass murders, because in 1996 a guy walked into a school and shot it up. Since 1997 there haven't been any like this.
> 
> Gun murders increased due to Yardies bringing guns into the country. The UK govt decided to tackle this problem and gun murders went down again.
> 
> But, to summaries.
> 
> The UK has a murder rate 1/4 the rate of US murders.
> The US has 3/4 of all murders committed with guns. About 11,000 murders a year are committed with guns.
> The UK's highest murder level with guns was just under 100 in a year. Time this by 5 and you get 500, compared to 11,000. A MASSIVE difference there.
> 
> Do it work? Yes, it works.
> 
> Yes, Switzerland is safe. Why?
> 
> The IMF says Switzerland is number 2 in the world for GDP. So does the World Bank, the UN says it's fourth. The countries above are Luxembourg, Lichtenstein and Monaco. The latter two aren't actual countries anyway. They're more or less tax havens. Luxembourg is a financial center and has a lot of foreigners there.
> 
> GDP is about $80,000 per person. The US is about $57,000 to put it in comparison.
> 
> On the poverty gap index Switzerland has a rate half the US's rate. And poverty is relative, it's half the US's yet has a higher GDP.
> 
> That's Switzerland, it's a rich country, it doesn't encourage ghettos, it doesn't ignore its social problems, it has a 7 person Executive where members are promoted from the legislature on a merit based system, rather than the US which is just a prom queen popularity contest. It's legislature is elected by proportional representation so all the people basically have a part to play in their politics, rather than forcing people into two political parties with no real choice.
> 
> All in all the differences between Switzerland and the US are that Switzerland is run by the Swiss, and in the US it's run by the rich, for the rich.
> 
> That plays a massive part here. Guns exacerbate the problems in the US.
> 
> Still, 17 our of 57 murders in Switzerland were committed with guns. It's quite a high number, in comparison. The thing is, it's murder rate is much lower.
Click to expand...



You don't know what you are talking about.....Britain was averaging  a mass public shooting once every 10 years...and that didn't change....

Cumbria shootings - Wikipedia

The *Cumbria shootings* occurred on 2 June 2010 when a lone gunman, Derrick Bird, killed 12 people and injured 11 others before killing himself in Cumbria, England.

And they almost had 2 in the last two years....

Which British gun control law stopped this kid?   The only reason it wasn't a mass shooting?  He put it on facebook and the cops saw it.....

British teen sentenced to life for planned school attack



Despite some of the tightest gun control on the planet, a British man was able to acquire a handgun, extended mags and explosives as part of a plot to attack his former school.

Liam Lyburd, 19, of Newcastle upon Tyne, was sentenced to life imprisonment this week on eight charges of possessing weapons with intent to endanger life.

As noted by the BBC, Lyburd gathered a cache that included a Glock 19, three 33-round magazines, 94 hollow-point bullets, CS gas, five pipe bombs and two other improvised explosive devices despite the country’s long history of civilian arms control.

According to court documents, Lyburd planned to use the weapons in an attack on Newcastle College, from which he had been expelled two years prior for poor attendance. He was arrested last November after two Northumbria Police constables visited him at his home on a tip from an individual who encountered threats and disturbing pictures posted by Lyburd online.

Despite a defense that portrayed the reclusive man as living in a fantasy world, Lyburd was found guilty in July.

The internet-savvy teen obtained the Glock and other items through Evolution Marketplace, a successor to the Silk Road, a long-time “dark web” site in which users could buy and sell everything from illegal narcotics to munitions using Bitcoin cryptocurrency.

In court, Lyburd testified that buying the Glock was so easy it was “like buying a bar of chocolate.”

He obtained funds for his purchases through a complex extortion scheme in which he used online malware to infect computers, which he in turn held for ransom from their owners.


----------



## 2aguy

frigidweirdo said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok but the amount of guns and gun owners has been practically been going up exponentially in the past 10-15, and crime keeps going down and down and down. This includes gun crimes. And if guns were the problem, then why is Switzerland the safest place on the planet, yet they are issued full auto assault rifles?
> 
> The only thing that risen (crime wise) in America is mass shootings. Guns have been around since our inception...so obviously there is something else culturally that is going on. There was practically zilch up until the UT shooter (who had a brain tumor pressing up against his aggression center, knew something was off, but couldn’t stop himself). After that it was pretty sparse until columbine, then there was a trickle of mass shootings. Now they are sadly not too uncommon. I don’t know if I have every single answer to why mass shootings are on the rise, but I do think a big factor is the notariaty involved in these shootings have attracted people who find that desirable and wish to one up the previous guy. Clearly they have mental health issues, but there something else going on to. There’s a clear lack of appreciation of life, graphic violence is everywhere in our culture. Video games the walking dead, every other movie, HBO, and even network television. It’s everywhere. I’m not saying we’re all slowly turning into killers or that we need to shut it down. But clearly some cannot separate what’s reality and what’s fictional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and the crime keeps going down in the UK too. And in many other First World countries. So what?
> 
> Modern technology is making murders go down because people have other stuff to do.
> 
> That doesn't mean the US's murder rate isn't too high.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But gun crimes have doubled in the UK, weren’t they supposed to go down after gun control? Isn’t that what gun control is for?
> 
> And once again if guns are the problem, why is Switzerland the safest place on earth, with an assault rifle in every closet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't understand the gun control in the UK. And yet you have an opinion on something you don't understand and haven't bothered to figure out yet.
> 
> As I told you, 4% of British people own guns. Is that a gun ban?
> 
> And you use Switzerland as "the safest place on Earth" which is fucking bullshit you pulled out of your ass, and you don't understand Switzerland either.
> 
> Time to get an education, me thinks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never said gun ban, I said gun control with England. Still that doesn’t make a difference in the argument, since gun crime still doubled after a decade.
> 
> And what don’t I understand about Switzerland? Switzerland is crazy safe. And you can walk around with the most “infamous” gun type to the left that they claim we need to ban, an assault rifle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, gun control is supposed to stop all murders or what?
> 
> The ban in 1997 was with handguns. What it was designed to stop was mass murders, because in 1996 a guy walked into a school and shot it up. Since 1997 there haven't been any like this.
> 
> Gun murders increased due to Yardies bringing guns into the country. The UK govt decided to tackle this problem and gun murders went down again.
> 
> But, to summaries.
> 
> The UK has a murder rate 1/4 the rate of US murders.
> The US has 3/4 of all murders committed with guns. About 11,000 murders a year are committed with guns.
> The UK's highest murder level with guns was just under 100 in a year. Time this by 5 and you get 500, compared to 11,000. A MASSIVE difference there.
> 
> Do it work? Yes, it works.
> 
> Yes, Switzerland is safe. Why?
> 
> The IMF says Switzerland is number 2 in the world for GDP. So does the World Bank, the UN says it's fourth. The countries above are Luxembourg, Lichtenstein and Monaco. The latter two aren't actual countries anyway. They're more or less tax havens. Luxembourg is a financial center and has a lot of foreigners there.
> 
> GDP is about $80,000 per person. The US is about $57,000 to put it in comparison.
> 
> On the poverty gap index Switzerland has a rate half the US's rate. And poverty is relative, it's half the US's yet has a higher GDP.
> 
> That's Switzerland, it's a rich country, it doesn't encourage ghettos, it doesn't ignore its social problems, it has a 7 person Executive where members are promoted from the legislature on a merit based system, rather than the US which is just a prom queen popularity contest. It's legislature is elected by proportional representation so all the people basically have a part to play in their politics, rather than forcing people into two political parties with no real choice.
> 
> All in all the differences between Switzerland and the US are that Switzerland is run by the Swiss, and in the US it's run by the rich, for the rich.
> 
> That plays a massive part here. Guns exacerbate the problems in the US.
> 
> Still, 17 our of 57 murders in Switzerland were committed with guns. It's quite a high number, in comparison. The thing is, it's murder rate is much lower.
Click to expand...



Which British gun law stopped this kid from committing a mass public shooting in this school?  The reason it wasn't a school shooting...the kid changed his mind.....

Teenage boy 'took shotgun to school after being bullied for being fat'

15-year-old boy arrested for taking shotgun and ammunition into school did it because he was being bullied for being too fat, fellow pupils said.

Armed police swooped on High Lane School in Nuneaton, Warks, after receiving a call from the teenager at 9.15am.

You don't know what you are talking about when it comes to guns in Britain........


----------



## 2aguy

frigidweirdo said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok but the amount of guns and gun owners has been practically been going up exponentially in the past 10-15, and crime keeps going down and down and down. This includes gun crimes. And if guns were the problem, then why is Switzerland the safest place on the planet, yet they are issued full auto assault rifles?
> 
> The only thing that risen (crime wise) in America is mass shootings. Guns have been around since our inception...so obviously there is something else culturally that is going on. There was practically zilch up until the UT shooter (who had a brain tumor pressing up against his aggression center, knew something was off, but couldn’t stop himself). After that it was pretty sparse until columbine, then there was a trickle of mass shootings. Now they are sadly not too uncommon. I don’t know if I have every single answer to why mass shootings are on the rise, but I do think a big factor is the notariaty involved in these shootings have attracted people who find that desirable and wish to one up the previous guy. Clearly they have mental health issues, but there something else going on to. There’s a clear lack of appreciation of life, graphic violence is everywhere in our culture. Video games the walking dead, every other movie, HBO, and even network television. It’s everywhere. I’m not saying we’re all slowly turning into killers or that we need to shut it down. But clearly some cannot separate what’s reality and what’s fictional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and the crime keeps going down in the UK too. And in many other First World countries. So what?
> 
> Modern technology is making murders go down because people have other stuff to do.
> 
> That doesn't mean the US's murder rate isn't too high.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But gun crimes have doubled in the UK, weren’t they supposed to go down after gun control? Isn’t that what gun control is for?
> 
> And once again if guns are the problem, why is Switzerland the safest place on earth, with an assault rifle in every closet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't understand the gun control in the UK. And yet you have an opinion on something you don't understand and haven't bothered to figure out yet.
> 
> As I told you, 4% of British people own guns. Is that a gun ban?
> 
> And you use Switzerland as "the safest place on Earth" which is fucking bullshit you pulled out of your ass, and you don't understand Switzerland either.
> 
> Time to get an education, me thinks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never said gun ban, I said gun control with England. Still that doesn’t make a difference in the argument, since gun crime still doubled after a decade.
> 
> And what don’t I understand about Switzerland? Switzerland is crazy safe. And you can walk around with the most “infamous” gun type to the left that they claim we need to ban, an assault rifle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, gun control is supposed to stop all murders or what?
> 
> The ban in 1997 was with handguns. What it was designed to stop was mass murders, because in 1996 a guy walked into a school and shot it up. Since 1997 there haven't been any like this.
> 
> Gun murders increased due to Yardies bringing guns into the country. The UK govt decided to tackle this problem and gun murders went down again.
> 
> But, to summaries.
> 
> The UK has a murder rate 1/4 the rate of US murders.
> The US has 3/4 of all murders committed with guns. About 11,000 murders a year are committed with guns.
> The UK's highest murder level with guns was just under 100 in a year. Time this by 5 and you get 500, compared to 11,000. A MASSIVE difference there.
> 
> Do it work? Yes, it works.
> 
> Yes, Switzerland is safe. Why?
> 
> The IMF says Switzerland is number 2 in the world for GDP. So does the World Bank, the UN says it's fourth. The countries above are Luxembourg, Lichtenstein and Monaco. The latter two aren't actual countries anyway. They're more or less tax havens. Luxembourg is a financial center and has a lot of foreigners there.
> 
> GDP is about $80,000 per person. The US is about $57,000 to put it in comparison.
> 
> On the poverty gap index Switzerland has a rate half the US's rate. And poverty is relative, it's half the US's yet has a higher GDP.
> 
> That's Switzerland, it's a rich country, it doesn't encourage ghettos, it doesn't ignore its social problems, it has a 7 person Executive where members are promoted from the legislature on a merit based system, rather than the US which is just a prom queen popularity contest. It's legislature is elected by proportional representation so all the people basically have a part to play in their politics, rather than forcing people into two political parties with no real choice.
> 
> All in all the differences between Switzerland and the US are that Switzerland is run by the Swiss, and in the US it's run by the rich, for the rich.
> 
> That plays a massive part here. Guns exacerbate the problems in the US.
> 
> Still, 17 our of 57 murders in Switzerland were committed with guns. It's quite a high number, in comparison. The thing is, it's murder rate is much lower.
Click to expand...



And you still have no idea what you are talking about....too bad British police have no idea what they are talking about either...

Police reveal worrying new gun gang trend

A surge in the availability of handguns is blighting Merseyside’s criminal underworld and intensifying the brutality of gangland disputes.

*Police fear a rise in handgun shootings is making gun crime more lethal due to increased power packed by the weapons compared to shotguns.*

At least four of the 11 shootings on Merseyside in June were carried out with handguns-including the fatal blast that killed Yusuf Sonko.

*Shotguns have typically been the weapon of choice for Merseyside’s gun thugs over recent years.*

But that was because they were easier to access - thousands of shotguns are legally owned in the north west, typically in rural areas. Those collections have been known to be targeted by thieves looking to sell them on to gangs.

*Now, a rise in handguns is raising the stakes among Merseyside criminals.*

June’s most violent shootings saw handguns used. They were blasted in home raids in Seaforth and Fazakerley and at a teen on Church Road West in Walton. All three incidents saw men rushed to hospital.


----------



## 2aguy

sakinago said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily.
> 
> I prefer society that is safer.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok but the amount of guns and gun owners has been practically been going up exponentially in the past 10-15, and crime keeps going down and down and down. This includes gun crimes. And if guns were the problem, then why is Switzerland the safest place on the planet, yet they are issued full auto assault rifles?
> 
> The only thing that risen (crime wise) in America is mass shootings. Guns have been around since our inception...so obviously there is something else culturally that is going on. There was practically zilch up until the UT shooter (who had a brain tumor pressing up against his aggression center, knew something was off, but couldn’t stop himself). After that it was pretty sparse until columbine, then there was a trickle of mass shootings. Now they are sadly not too uncommon. I don’t know if I have every single answer to why mass shootings are on the rise, but I do think a big factor is the notariaty involved in these shootings have attracted people who find that desirable and wish to one up the previous guy. Clearly they have mental health issues, but there something else going on to. There’s a clear lack of appreciation of life, graphic violence is everywhere in our culture. Video games the walking dead, every other movie, HBO, and even network television. It’s everywhere. I’m not saying we’re all slowly turning into killers or that we need to shut it down. But clearly some cannot separate what’s reality and what’s fictional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, and the crime keeps going down in the UK too. And in many other First World countries. So what?
> 
> Modern technology is making murders go down because people have other stuff to do.
> 
> That doesn't mean the US's murder rate isn't too high.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But gun crimes have doubled in the UK, weren’t they supposed to go down after gun control? Isn’t that what gun control is for?
> 
> And once again if guns are the problem, why is Switzerland the safest place on earth, with an assault rifle in every closet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't understand the gun control in the UK. And yet you have an opinion on something you don't understand and haven't bothered to figure out yet.
> 
> As I told you, 4% of British people own guns. Is that a gun ban?
> 
> And you use Switzerland as "the safest place on Earth" which is fucking bullshit you pulled out of your ass, and you don't understand Switzerland either.
> 
> Time to get an education, me thinks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never said gun ban, I said gun control with England. Still that doesn’t make a difference in the argument, since gun crime still doubled after a decade.
> 
> And what don’t I understand about Switzerland? Switzerland is crazy safe. And you can walk around with the most “infamous” gun type to the left that they claim we need to ban, an assault rifle.
Click to expand...



And it keeps going up....it went up 27% last year in Britain, 42% in London alone....hand gun crime is going up massively too....


----------



## 2aguy

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and no Bootney Lee Farnsworth and frigidweirdo
> 1. with citizens bearing arms for defending law, for lawabiding purposes,
> that is within the law
> 2. the question is people who "disrupt the peace" or "threaten security of others"
> because they don't have law abiding intent and purpose, but intent to violate laws.
> How do we police THAT without violating the due process/liberty/rights of LAW abiding citizens and only screen out the DANGEROUS people who if they got into guns WOULD abridge the right of others to safety, security and protections of the law?
> 
> 
> 
> I am reminded of _The Minority Report_.  It is a sci-fi book about these three mutants who could foresee crimes before they were committed, and based on those visions, the person who would commit the crime was arrested and prosecuted for the crime they were going to commit.    It was adapted into a Tom Cruise movie about 15 years ago.
> 
> It is impossible to predict who would commit gun crimes.  Doing so is like the bullshit done in _The Minority Report_.
> 
> I don't understand why some people cannot accept that they cannot act preemptively to prevent potential crime without serious and unjust infringements on liberty.
> 
> The question every citizen should ask himself/herself is:
> 
> Do I want a safety guarantee or do I want a liberty guarantee?
> 
> If one wants a safety guarantee, there are plenty of nations on this planet that are suitable for such a person.  It is a delusion worthy of therapy and medication to think that such a guarantee could exist, but I think people should be free to go live a captive, subjugated lifestyle...somewhere OTHER than here.  AKA, get the fuck out, you commie.
Click to expand...



Actually, that isn't true.  Those who commit murder, 90% of them have long histories of crime and violence and most of them have at least one felony conviction.  The problem is this....we catch violent gun offenders, and then let them out.   They are the ones who end up committing murder with guns.  All of the research shows that in a city like Chicago...with 3 million people, there are about 1,500 people who will either shoot someone, or will be shot...and the police know who these people are......so constantly releasing violent gun offenders......repeat gun offenders, back onto the streets with less than 3 years in jail....is causing our gun crime.  We need to increase our criminal sentences for gun crimes.....and felons caught with illegal guns.  That is how you actually deal with gun violence...not by going after law abiding citizens.


----------



## Ernie S.

Lakhota said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time for reasonable gun control.  Also time to update the confusing and obsolete 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> Time for you to leave the U.S. Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That ain't how it works, sparky.  We use the ballot box and laws.
Click to expand...

That we do, dunce boy and the ballot box is why the GOP controls the executive and legislative branches of government.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This has changed. The 2A has only recently been made relevant for the state and local governments.
> 
> Basically you need to write something to suggest that a right cannot be violated.
> 
> 1A says "Congress shall make no law"
> 3A says "No soldier shall"
> 4A says "shall not be violated"
> 5A says "No person shall" "nor shall any person"
> 6A manages to not do a negative
> 7A also
> 8A says "Excessive bail shall not be required"
> 9A says "shall not be construed"
> 
> Seems like the Founders wanted to mix up the wording a little bit. However Congress can make laws prohibiting free exercise of religion for those after due process. By locking them up it can limit their religious freedom. It can also decide which religions aren't really religion and prohibit such practices, like ritual executions for example.
> 
> All of these Amendments have limits.
> 
> 
> 
> But, those limits are only placed on those who have been found guilty of a crime and have lost their liberty.
> 
> Of course all rights have limits if the specific manner of exercising those rights infringes on the liberties of others.
> 
> Carrying a gun, in and of itself, does not infringe on the liberties of others.
> 
> Keeping a machine gun does not, in and of itself, infringe on the liberties of others.
> 
> Free speech is limited if it infringes on the liberty of others, like putting someone in direct peril by yelling fire in a crowded theater, causing people to be trampled.
> 
> The free exercise of religion is also limited if one's religion demands human sacrifice.
> 
> Due process is required before limiting one's rights, but due process alone is not sufficient.  There must also be a case-specific, compelling reason for such a limit (like criminal prosecution and conviction).  Otherwise, no rights are preserved.
Click to expand...


Yes, but the argument is that the RKBA "shall not be infringed" at all, ever. Clearly wrong.

No, carrying a gun doesn't infringe on the liberties of others. Nor does taking drugs. Nor does have a nuclear bomb. Nor does being Muslim. Nor does take a knife on board with you on an airplane. Lots of things don't do anything, yet some of them are banned because they could pose a threat. 

Yes, free speech is only limited when it poses a threat. If I say something that breaks the laws of treason, what I said doesn't mean that people will die, or the National Security. But it could, so you're guilty of treason. 

Now, carrying guns around doesn't harm people, but it could. The fact that the US has a murder rate 4 times higher than most First World countries and 3/4 of all murders are with guns is telling. Threats are posed by people with guns. Just because it doesn't always result in harm to others isn't the point. How many of the things that are banned ALWAYS pose a threat?

So, if religion can be limited because Human Sacrifice takes away someone's life, why can't guns be taken away when 11,000 people are being murdered with them every year?


----------



## frigidweirdo

sakinago said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand the gun control in the UK. And yet you have an opinion on something you don't understand and haven't bothered to figure out yet.
> 
> As I told you, 4% of British people own guns. Is that a gun ban?
> 
> And you use Switzerland as "the safest place on Earth" which is fucking bullshit you pulled out of your ass, and you don't understand Switzerland either.
> 
> Time to get an education, me thinks.
> 
> 
> 
> Never said gun ban, I said gun control with England. Still that doesn’t make a difference in the argument, since gun crime still doubled after a decade.
> 
> And what don’t I understand about Switzerland? Switzerland is crazy safe. And you can walk around with the most “infamous” gun type to the left that they claim we need to ban, an assault rifle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, gun control is supposed to stop all murders or what?
> 
> The ban in 1997 was with handguns. What it was designed to stop was mass murders, because in 1996 a guy walked into a school and shot it up. Since 1997 there haven't been any like this.
> 
> Gun murders increased due to Yardies bringing guns into the country. The UK govt decided to tackle this problem and gun murders went down again.
> 
> But, to summaries.
> 
> The UK has a murder rate 1/4 the rate of US murders.
> The US has 3/4 of all murders committed with guns. About 11,000 murders a year are committed with guns.
> The UK's highest murder level with guns was just under 100 in a year. Time this by 5 and you get 500, compared to 11,000. A MASSIVE difference there.
> 
> Do it work? Yes, it works.
> 
> Yes, Switzerland is safe. Why?
> 
> The IMF says Switzerland is number 2 in the world for GDP. So does the World Bank, the UN says it's fourth. The countries above are Luxembourg, Lichtenstein and Monaco. The latter two aren't actual countries anyway. They're more or less tax havens. Luxembourg is a financial center and has a lot of foreigners there.
> 
> GDP is about $80,000 per person. The US is about $57,000 to put it in comparison.
> 
> On the poverty gap index Switzerland has a rate half the US's rate. And poverty is relative, it's half the US's yet has a higher GDP.
> 
> That's Switzerland, it's a rich country, it doesn't encourage ghettos, it doesn't ignore its social problems, it has a 7 person Executive where members are promoted from the legislature on a merit based system, rather than the US which is just a prom queen popularity contest. It's legislature is elected by proportional representation so all the people basically have a part to play in their politics, rather than forcing people into two political parties with no real choice.
> 
> All in all the differences between Switzerland and the US are that Switzerland is run by the Swiss, and in the US it's run by the rich, for the rich.
> 
> That plays a massive part here. Guns exacerbate the problems in the US.
> 
> Still, 17 our of 57 murders in Switzerland were committed with guns. It's quite a high number, in comparison. The thing is, it's murder rate is much lower.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So it’s not about the guns...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not all of it is about guns.
> 
> Guns EXACERBATE the situation.
> 
> But I'll say this. Until the US sorts out its political system, nothing will change, nothing can change, and people will continue to die.
> 
> Things are complicated, if you try and simplify them, you'll just come to the wrong answers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea the difference here is that guns are a constitutionally protected right. Because a free society doesn’t exist where the government has a monopoly of force. It may take some time before people wake up one day and realize, “oh shit, I’m totally subject to whatever this government decides to do, and I can’t do anything about it.” This country was designed to protect the individual above all, not a group of people, not the poor vs rich, not white vs black, not blue colar vs white. You are not to be labeled/defined by some group, no matter what color you are or your background, you are to be judged as yourself, not everyone else around you.
> 
> We’ve done nothing but complicate the situation, and we do so to try to eliminate tragedy. There is no way to do that, you may come close with a government using an iron fist to keep its population in line, but that’s a bigger tragedy. We were given the option in this country to not be a victim. And that may mean you may need to use a gun to protect yourself. Most cases you don’t even have to fire it. And if you choose to become an assialiant we have a justice system to remedy that.
> 
> And if guns excacerbate the situation, well crime has been dropping like a rock, while gun sales and owners keep on climbing. They aren’t exacerbating the situation now. When does that exacerbation kick in?
> 
> And if the economics are an issue, we’ve been using government more and more and more and more and more to try to fix that issue for the past 100 years and it’s only made the situation worse. We keep complicating it. The only thing that does is grow government, since they always need more and more money to fix what they are to incompetent to do, or problems they start themselves.
Click to expand...


Are you saying that the UK isn't free?

The other problem I have is that in America people should be waking up every day and saying “oh shit, I’m totally subject to whatever this government decides to do, and I can’t do anything about it.”

The rich have the govt totally controlled. They control the minds of the people, they tell them they're free, and yet take away their freedoms all the time. Two political parties to vote for, not a choice at all.

When I was going to Hong Kong last year, I read an English speaking Chinese (mainland) newspaper. Basically Beijing is controlling Hong Kong in a manner it should do based on the agreement it had with the UK. Beijing's argument was basically, you want democracy, well here's democracy, you can vote for these three people we've chosen. 

My first though was "that's bullshit, they can choose three pro-Beijing people, that's not choice" and then the more I think of it, it's the same in the US. Freedom? Come off it.


----------



## sakinago

frigidweirdo said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This has changed. The 2A has only recently been made relevant for the state and local governments.
> 
> Basically you need to write something to suggest that a right cannot be violated.
> 
> 1A says "Congress shall make no law"
> 3A says "No soldier shall"
> 4A says "shall not be violated"
> 5A says "No person shall" "nor shall any person"
> 6A manages to not do a negative
> 7A also
> 8A says "Excessive bail shall not be required"
> 9A says "shall not be construed"
> 
> Seems like the Founders wanted to mix up the wording a little bit. However Congress can make laws prohibiting free exercise of religion for those after due process. By locking them up it can limit their religious freedom. It can also decide which religions aren't really religion and prohibit such practices, like ritual executions for example.
> 
> All of these Amendments have limits.
> 
> 
> 
> But, those limits are only placed on those who have been found guilty of a crime and have lost their liberty.
> 
> Of course all rights have limits if the specific manner of exercising those rights infringes on the liberties of others.
> 
> Carrying a gun, in and of itself, does not infringe on the liberties of others.
> 
> Keeping a machine gun does not, in and of itself, infringe on the liberties of others.
> 
> Free speech is limited if it infringes on the liberty of others, like putting someone in direct peril by yelling fire in a crowded theater, causing people to be trampled.
> 
> The free exercise of religion is also limited if one's religion demands human sacrifice.
> 
> Due process is required before limiting one's rights, but due process alone is not sufficient.  There must also be a case-specific, compelling reason for such a limit (like criminal prosecution and conviction).  Otherwise, no rights are preserved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but the argument is that the RKBA "shall not be infringed" at all, ever. Clearly wrong.
> 
> No, carrying a gun doesn't infringe on the liberties of others. Nor does taking drugs. Nor does have a nuclear bomb. Nor does being Muslim. Nor does take a knife on board with you on an airplane. Lots of things don't do anything, yet some of them are banned because they could pose a threat.
> 
> Yes, free speech is only limited when it poses a threat. If I say something that breaks the laws of treason, what I said doesn't mean that people will die, or the National Security. But it could, so you're guilty of treason.
> 
> Now, carrying guns around doesn't harm people, but it could. The fact that the US has a murder rate 4 times higher than most First World countries and 3/4 of all murders are with guns is telling. Threats are posed by people with guns. Just because it doesn't always result in harm to others isn't the point. How many of the things that are banned ALWAYS pose a threat?
> 
> So, if religion can be limited because Human Sacrifice takes away someone's life, why can't guns be taken away when 11,000 people are being murdered with them every year?
Click to expand...

It’s constitutionally protected very clearly. Every single stat from our country and other shows that guns are not the problem, and that gun control is not the answer. If all you have is our murder rate vs their murder rate...apples and oranges. They don’t have anywhere near the drug war that we have, and drugs practically make up 70% of our crime. It makes up even more of our murders.


----------



## Humorme

frigidweirdo said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This has changed. The 2A has only recently been made relevant for the state and local governments.
> 
> Basically you need to write something to suggest that a right cannot be violated.
> 
> 1A says "Congress shall make no law"
> 3A says "No soldier shall"
> 4A says "shall not be violated"
> 5A says "No person shall" "nor shall any person"
> 6A manages to not do a negative
> 7A also
> 8A says "Excessive bail shall not be required"
> 9A says "shall not be construed"
> 
> Seems like the Founders wanted to mix up the wording a little bit. However Congress can make laws prohibiting free exercise of religion for those after due process. By locking them up it can limit their religious freedom. It can also decide which religions aren't really religion and prohibit such practices, like ritual executions for example.
> 
> All of these Amendments have limits.
> 
> 
> 
> But, those limits are only placed on those who have been found guilty of a crime and have lost their liberty.
> 
> Of course all rights have limits if the specific manner of exercising those rights infringes on the liberties of others.
> 
> Carrying a gun, in and of itself, does not infringe on the liberties of others.
> 
> Keeping a machine gun does not, in and of itself, infringe on the liberties of others.
> 
> Free speech is limited if it infringes on the liberty of others, like putting someone in direct peril by yelling fire in a crowded theater, causing people to be trampled.
> 
> The free exercise of religion is also limited if one's religion demands human sacrifice.
> 
> Due process is required before limiting one's rights, but due process alone is not sufficient.  There must also be a case-specific, compelling reason for such a limit (like criminal prosecution and conviction).  Otherwise, no rights are preserved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but the argument is that the RKBA "shall not be infringed" at all, ever. Clearly wrong.
> 
> No, carrying a gun doesn't infringe on the liberties of others. Nor does taking drugs. Nor does have a nuclear bomb. Nor does being Muslim. Nor does take a knife on board with you on an airplane. Lots of things don't do anything, yet some of them are banned because they could pose a threat.
> 
> Yes, free speech is only limited when it poses a threat. If I say something that breaks the laws of treason, what I said doesn't mean that people will die, or the National Security. But it could, so you're guilty of treason.
> 
> Now, carrying guns around doesn't harm people, but it could. The fact that the US has a murder rate 4 times higher than most First World countries and 3/4 of all murders are with guns is telling. Threats are posed by people with guns. Just because it doesn't always result in harm to others isn't the point. How many of the things that are banned ALWAYS pose a threat?
> 
> So, if religion can be limited because Human Sacrifice takes away someone's life, why can't guns be taken away when 11,000 people are being murdered with them every year?
Click to expand...


Your Right to Life - which means the Right, Duty, and Obligation to provide for your own safety preclude any legitimate government from outlawing guns.

Alcohol and cars cost more lives, but we aren't proposing to outlaw those... and you don't need alcohol.  A gun?  This happened in my neighborhood:

gwinnett woman kills intruder - Bing video


----------



## Humorme

sakinago said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This has changed. The 2A has only recently been made relevant for the state and local governments.
> 
> Basically you need to write something to suggest that a right cannot be violated.
> 
> 1A says "Congress shall make no law"
> 3A says "No soldier shall"
> 4A says "shall not be violated"
> 5A says "No person shall" "nor shall any person"
> 6A manages to not do a negative
> 7A also
> 8A says "Excessive bail shall not be required"
> 9A says "shall not be construed"
> 
> Seems like the Founders wanted to mix up the wording a little bit. However Congress can make laws prohibiting free exercise of religion for those after due process. By locking them up it can limit their religious freedom. It can also decide which religions aren't really religion and prohibit such practices, like ritual executions for example.
> 
> All of these Amendments have limits.
> 
> 
> 
> But, those limits are only placed on those who have been found guilty of a crime and have lost their liberty.
> 
> Of course all rights have limits if the specific manner of exercising those rights infringes on the liberties of others.
> 
> Carrying a gun, in and of itself, does not infringe on the liberties of others.
> 
> Keeping a machine gun does not, in and of itself, infringe on the liberties of others.
> 
> Free speech is limited if it infringes on the liberty of others, like putting someone in direct peril by yelling fire in a crowded theater, causing people to be trampled.
> 
> The free exercise of religion is also limited if one's religion demands human sacrifice.
> 
> Due process is required before limiting one's rights, but due process alone is not sufficient.  There must also be a case-specific, compelling reason for such a limit (like criminal prosecution and conviction).  Otherwise, no rights are preserved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but the argument is that the RKBA "shall not be infringed" at all, ever. Clearly wrong.
> 
> No, carrying a gun doesn't infringe on the liberties of others. Nor does taking drugs. Nor does have a nuclear bomb. Nor does being Muslim. Nor does take a knife on board with you on an airplane. Lots of things don't do anything, yet some of them are banned because they could pose a threat.
> 
> Yes, free speech is only limited when it poses a threat. If I say something that breaks the laws of treason, what I said doesn't mean that people will die, or the National Security. But it could, so you're guilty of treason.
> 
> Now, carrying guns around doesn't harm people, but it could. The fact that the US has a murder rate 4 times higher than most First World countries and 3/4 of all murders are with guns is telling. Threats are posed by people with guns. Just because it doesn't always result in harm to others isn't the point. How many of the things that are banned ALWAYS pose a threat?
> 
> So, if religion can be limited because Human Sacrifice takes away someone's life, why can't guns be taken away when 11,000 people are being murdered with them every year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s constitutionally protected very clearly. Every single stat from our country and other shows that guns are not the problem, and that gun control is not the answer. If all you have is our murder rate vs their murder rate...apples and oranges. They don’t have anywhere near the drug war that we have, and drugs practically make up 70% of our crime. It makes up even more of our murders.
Click to expand...



You're right and people need to look at the facts:

"_Results of the 2010 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) showed that an estimated 22.6 million, or 8.9% of Americans, aged 12 or older, were current or past month illicit drug users, The survey showed that just behind the 7 million people who had used marijuana, 5.1 million had used pain relievers. It has also been shown that only one in 6 or 17.3% of users of non-therapeutic opioids indicated that they received the drugs through a prescription from one doctor. The escalating use of therapeutic opioids shows hydrocodone topping all prescriptions with 136.7 million prescriptions in 2011, with all narcotic analgesics exceeding 238 million prescriptions. It has also been illustrated that opioid analgesics are now responsible for more deaths than the number of deaths from both suicide and motor vehicle crashes, or deaths from cocaine and heroin combined. A significant relationship exists between sales of opioid pain relievers and deaths_." 

Opioid epidemic in the United States.  - PubMed - NCBI

"_Approximately 80 percent of the global opioid supply is consumed in the United States._"

Americans still lead the world in something: Use of highly addictive opioids

Now, I could take up some bandwidth and show you that most gun violence is linked to these drugs along with SSRIs, heroin, etc.  Is the law saving people from deaths by drugs?  Wouldn't society be better served working on the drug issue than attacking the Constitution?


----------



## sakinago

frigidweirdo said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never said gun ban, I said gun control with England. Still that doesn’t make a difference in the argument, since gun crime still doubled after a decade.
> 
> And what don’t I understand about Switzerland? Switzerland is crazy safe. And you can walk around with the most “infamous” gun type to the left that they claim we need to ban, an assault rifle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, gun control is supposed to stop all murders or what?
> 
> The ban in 1997 was with handguns. What it was designed to stop was mass murders, because in 1996 a guy walked into a school and shot it up. Since 1997 there haven't been any like this.
> 
> Gun murders increased due to Yardies bringing guns into the country. The UK govt decided to tackle this problem and gun murders went down again.
> 
> But, to summaries.
> 
> The UK has a murder rate 1/4 the rate of US murders.
> The US has 3/4 of all murders committed with guns. About 11,000 murders a year are committed with guns.
> The UK's highest murder level with guns was just under 100 in a year. Time this by 5 and you get 500, compared to 11,000. A MASSIVE difference there.
> 
> Do it work? Yes, it works.
> 
> Yes, Switzerland is safe. Why?
> 
> The IMF says Switzerland is number 2 in the world for GDP. So does the World Bank, the UN says it's fourth. The countries above are Luxembourg, Lichtenstein and Monaco. The latter two aren't actual countries anyway. They're more or less tax havens. Luxembourg is a financial center and has a lot of foreigners there.
> 
> GDP is about $80,000 per person. The US is about $57,000 to put it in comparison.
> 
> On the poverty gap index Switzerland has a rate half the US's rate. And poverty is relative, it's half the US's yet has a higher GDP.
> 
> That's Switzerland, it's a rich country, it doesn't encourage ghettos, it doesn't ignore its social problems, it has a 7 person Executive where members are promoted from the legislature on a merit based system, rather than the US which is just a prom queen popularity contest. It's legislature is elected by proportional representation so all the people basically have a part to play in their politics, rather than forcing people into two political parties with no real choice.
> 
> All in all the differences between Switzerland and the US are that Switzerland is run by the Swiss, and in the US it's run by the rich, for the rich.
> 
> That plays a massive part here. Guns exacerbate the problems in the US.
> 
> Still, 17 our of 57 murders in Switzerland were committed with guns. It's quite a high number, in comparison. The thing is, it's murder rate is much lower.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So it’s not about the guns...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not all of it is about guns.
> 
> Guns EXACERBATE the situation.
> 
> But I'll say this. Until the US sorts out its political system, nothing will change, nothing can change, and people will continue to die.
> 
> Things are complicated, if you try and simplify them, you'll just come to the wrong answers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea the difference here is that guns are a constitutionally protected right. Because a free society doesn’t exist where the government has a monopoly of force. It may take some time before people wake up one day and realize, “oh shit, I’m totally subject to whatever this government decides to do, and I can’t do anything about it.” This country was designed to protect the individual above all, not a group of people, not the poor vs rich, not white vs black, not blue colar vs white. You are not to be labeled/defined by some group, no matter what color you are or your background, you are to be judged as yourself, not everyone else around you.
> 
> We’ve done nothing but complicate the situation, and we do so to try to eliminate tragedy. There is no way to do that, you may come close with a government using an iron fist to keep its population in line, but that’s a bigger tragedy. We were given the option in this country to not be a victim. And that may mean you may need to use a gun to protect yourself. Most cases you don’t even have to fire it. And if you choose to become an assialiant we have a justice system to remedy that.
> 
> And if guns excacerbate the situation, well crime has been dropping like a rock, while gun sales and owners keep on climbing. They aren’t exacerbating the situation now. When does that exacerbation kick in?
> 
> And if the economics are an issue, we’ve been using government more and more and more and more and more to try to fix that issue for the past 100 years and it’s only made the situation worse. We keep complicating it. The only thing that does is grow government, since they always need more and more money to fix what they are to incompetent to do, or problems they start themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying that the UK isn't free?
> 
> The other problem I have is that in America people should be waking up every day and saying “oh shit, I’m totally subject to whatever this government decides to do, and I can’t do anything about it.”
> 
> The rich have the govt totally controlled. They control the minds of the people, they tell them they're free, and yet take away their freedoms all the time. Two political parties to vote for, not a choice at all.
> 
> When I was going to Hong Kong last year, I read an English speaking Chinese (mainland) newspaper. Basically Beijing is controlling Hong Kong in a manner it should do based on the agreement it had with the UK. Beijing's argument was basically, you want democracy, well here's democracy, you can vote for these three people we've chosen.
> 
> My first though was "that's bullshit, they can choose three pro-Beijing people, that's not choice" and then the more I think of it, it's the same in the US. Freedom? Come off it.
Click to expand...

No the UK isn’t free, neither are we. 

And no we aren’t controlled by the rich, yes the rich are in bed with both side of govt. but that’s what happens when you give government a shit ton of power. If government doesn’t have that power, than the rich can’t really buy the government, since government can’t do much to tip the scales in their favor.  And our own government mispeant 1 trillion dollars last year (one year alone)...that’s a full third of the annual tax revenue, that’s 5% of the nations entire GDP. Now that’s not on the rich...that’s on our government. And let me make this clear, when I say mispeant, I don’t mean wasteful spending, I’m talking about payments made, or double payments made here in there, that were never supposed to be made. Again that’s not on the rich, that’s on government. You want to get rid of the rich buying govt, cut government. Restrict them, then they can’t do this bullshit.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Humorme said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This has changed. The 2A has only recently been made relevant for the state and local governments.
> 
> Basically you need to write something to suggest that a right cannot be violated.
> 
> 1A says "Congress shall make no law"
> 3A says "No soldier shall"
> 4A says "shall not be violated"
> 5A says "No person shall" "nor shall any person"
> 6A manages to not do a negative
> 7A also
> 8A says "Excessive bail shall not be required"
> 9A says "shall not be construed"
> 
> Seems like the Founders wanted to mix up the wording a little bit. However Congress can make laws prohibiting free exercise of religion for those after due process. By locking them up it can limit their religious freedom. It can also decide which religions aren't really religion and prohibit such practices, like ritual executions for example.
> 
> All of these Amendments have limits.
> 
> 
> 
> But, those limits are only placed on those who have been found guilty of a crime and have lost their liberty.
> 
> Of course all rights have limits if the specific manner of exercising those rights infringes on the liberties of others.
> 
> Carrying a gun, in and of itself, does not infringe on the liberties of others.
> 
> Keeping a machine gun does not, in and of itself, infringe on the liberties of others.
> 
> Free speech is limited if it infringes on the liberty of others, like putting someone in direct peril by yelling fire in a crowded theater, causing people to be trampled.
> 
> The free exercise of religion is also limited if one's religion demands human sacrifice.
> 
> Due process is required before limiting one's rights, but due process alone is not sufficient.  There must also be a case-specific, compelling reason for such a limit (like criminal prosecution and conviction).  Otherwise, no rights are preserved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but the argument is that the RKBA "shall not be infringed" at all, ever. Clearly wrong.
> 
> No, carrying a gun doesn't infringe on the liberties of others. Nor does taking drugs. Nor does have a nuclear bomb. Nor does being Muslim. Nor does take a knife on board with you on an airplane. Lots of things don't do anything, yet some of them are banned because they could pose a threat.
> 
> Yes, free speech is only limited when it poses a threat. If I say something that breaks the laws of treason, what I said doesn't mean that people will die, or the National Security. But it could, so you're guilty of treason.
> 
> Now, carrying guns around doesn't harm people, but it could. The fact that the US has a murder rate 4 times higher than most First World countries and 3/4 of all murders are with guns is telling. Threats are posed by people with guns. Just because it doesn't always result in harm to others isn't the point. How many of the things that are banned ALWAYS pose a threat?
> 
> So, if religion can be limited because Human Sacrifice takes away someone's life, why can't guns be taken away when 11,000 people are being murdered with them every year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your Right to Life - which means the Right, Duty, and Obligation to provide for your own safety preclude any legitimate government from outlawing guns.
> 
> Alcohol and cars cost more lives, but we aren't proposing to outlaw those... and you don't need alcohol.  A gun?  This happened in my neighborhood:
> 
> gwinnett woman kills intruder - Bing video
Click to expand...


Well, the problem here is that you could defend yourself with a whole host of weaponry. For example, I could defend myself with a F-15, Artillery, Mortars, all kinds of things that are banned.

I agree there's a right to defend yourself, this doesn't mean that you have a right to anything that you can defend yourself with.

No, I'm not saying we should outlaw guns. I'm saying they should be restricted. Just like drink driving is illegal. And more should be done to stop it from happening.


----------



## frigidweirdo

sakinago said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, gun control is supposed to stop all murders or what?
> 
> The ban in 1997 was with handguns. What it was designed to stop was mass murders, because in 1996 a guy walked into a school and shot it up. Since 1997 there haven't been any like this.
> 
> Gun murders increased due to Yardies bringing guns into the country. The UK govt decided to tackle this problem and gun murders went down again.
> 
> But, to summaries.
> 
> The UK has a murder rate 1/4 the rate of US murders.
> The US has 3/4 of all murders committed with guns. About 11,000 murders a year are committed with guns.
> The UK's highest murder level with guns was just under 100 in a year. Time this by 5 and you get 500, compared to 11,000. A MASSIVE difference there.
> 
> Do it work? Yes, it works.
> 
> Yes, Switzerland is safe. Why?
> 
> The IMF says Switzerland is number 2 in the world for GDP. So does the World Bank, the UN says it's fourth. The countries above are Luxembourg, Lichtenstein and Monaco. The latter two aren't actual countries anyway. They're more or less tax havens. Luxembourg is a financial center and has a lot of foreigners there.
> 
> GDP is about $80,000 per person. The US is about $57,000 to put it in comparison.
> 
> On the poverty gap index Switzerland has a rate half the US's rate. And poverty is relative, it's half the US's yet has a higher GDP.
> 
> That's Switzerland, it's a rich country, it doesn't encourage ghettos, it doesn't ignore its social problems, it has a 7 person Executive where members are promoted from the legislature on a merit based system, rather than the US which is just a prom queen popularity contest. It's legislature is elected by proportional representation so all the people basically have a part to play in their politics, rather than forcing people into two political parties with no real choice.
> 
> All in all the differences between Switzerland and the US are that Switzerland is run by the Swiss, and in the US it's run by the rich, for the rich.
> 
> That plays a massive part here. Guns exacerbate the problems in the US.
> 
> Still, 17 our of 57 murders in Switzerland were committed with guns. It's quite a high number, in comparison. The thing is, it's murder rate is much lower.
> 
> 
> 
> So it’s not about the guns...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not all of it is about guns.
> 
> Guns EXACERBATE the situation.
> 
> But I'll say this. Until the US sorts out its political system, nothing will change, nothing can change, and people will continue to die.
> 
> Things are complicated, if you try and simplify them, you'll just come to the wrong answers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea the difference here is that guns are a constitutionally protected right. Because a free society doesn’t exist where the government has a monopoly of force. It may take some time before people wake up one day and realize, “oh shit, I’m totally subject to whatever this government decides to do, and I can’t do anything about it.” This country was designed to protect the individual above all, not a group of people, not the poor vs rich, not white vs black, not blue colar vs white. You are not to be labeled/defined by some group, no matter what color you are or your background, you are to be judged as yourself, not everyone else around you.
> 
> We’ve done nothing but complicate the situation, and we do so to try to eliminate tragedy. There is no way to do that, you may come close with a government using an iron fist to keep its population in line, but that’s a bigger tragedy. We were given the option in this country to not be a victim. And that may mean you may need to use a gun to protect yourself. Most cases you don’t even have to fire it. And if you choose to become an assialiant we have a justice system to remedy that.
> 
> And if guns excacerbate the situation, well crime has been dropping like a rock, while gun sales and owners keep on climbing. They aren’t exacerbating the situation now. When does that exacerbation kick in?
> 
> And if the economics are an issue, we’ve been using government more and more and more and more and more to try to fix that issue for the past 100 years and it’s only made the situation worse. We keep complicating it. The only thing that does is grow government, since they always need more and more money to fix what they are to incompetent to do, or problems they start themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying that the UK isn't free?
> 
> The other problem I have is that in America people should be waking up every day and saying “oh shit, I’m totally subject to whatever this government decides to do, and I can’t do anything about it.”
> 
> The rich have the govt totally controlled. They control the minds of the people, they tell them they're free, and yet take away their freedoms all the time. Two political parties to vote for, not a choice at all.
> 
> When I was going to Hong Kong last year, I read an English speaking Chinese (mainland) newspaper. Basically Beijing is controlling Hong Kong in a manner it should do based on the agreement it had with the UK. Beijing's argument was basically, you want democracy, well here's democracy, you can vote for these three people we've chosen.
> 
> My first though was "that's bullshit, they can choose three pro-Beijing people, that's not choice" and then the more I think of it, it's the same in the US. Freedom? Come off it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No the UK isn’t free, neither are we.
> 
> And no we aren’t controlled by the rich, yes the rich are in bed with both side of govt. but that’s what happens when you give government a shit ton of power. If government doesn’t have that power, than the rich can’t really buy the government, since government can’t do much to tip the scales in their favor.  And our own government mispeant 1 trillion dollars last year (one year alone)...that’s a full third of the annual tax revenue, that’s 5% of the nations entire GDP. Now that’s not on the rich...that’s on our government. And let me make this clear, when I say mispeant, I don’t mean wasteful spending, I’m talking about payments made, or double payments made here in there, that were never supposed to be made. Again that’s not on the rich, that’s on government. You want to get rid of the rich buying govt, cut government. Restrict them, then they can’t do this bullshit.
Click to expand...


Ah, great. You have guns, but you're not free, yet it's the guns that.... what do the guns do?

Yes, you are controlled by the rich, MASSIVELY.

The issue with government is that the people have rolled over and given up.


----------



## 2aguy

frigidweirdo said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This has changed. The 2A has only recently been made relevant for the state and local governments.
> 
> Basically you need to write something to suggest that a right cannot be violated.
> 
> 1A says "Congress shall make no law"
> 3A says "No soldier shall"
> 4A says "shall not be violated"
> 5A says "No person shall" "nor shall any person"
> 6A manages to not do a negative
> 7A also
> 8A says "Excessive bail shall not be required"
> 9A says "shall not be construed"
> 
> Seems like the Founders wanted to mix up the wording a little bit. However Congress can make laws prohibiting free exercise of religion for those after due process. By locking them up it can limit their religious freedom. It can also decide which religions aren't really religion and prohibit such practices, like ritual executions for example.
> 
> All of these Amendments have limits.
> 
> 
> 
> But, those limits are only placed on those who have been found guilty of a crime and have lost their liberty.
> 
> Of course all rights have limits if the specific manner of exercising those rights infringes on the liberties of others.
> 
> Carrying a gun, in and of itself, does not infringe on the liberties of others.
> 
> Keeping a machine gun does not, in and of itself, infringe on the liberties of others.
> 
> Free speech is limited if it infringes on the liberty of others, like putting someone in direct peril by yelling fire in a crowded theater, causing people to be trampled.
> 
> The free exercise of religion is also limited if one's religion demands human sacrifice.
> 
> Due process is required before limiting one's rights, but due process alone is not sufficient.  There must also be a case-specific, compelling reason for such a limit (like criminal prosecution and conviction).  Otherwise, no rights are preserved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but the argument is that the RKBA "shall not be infringed" at all, ever. Clearly wrong.
> 
> No, carrying a gun doesn't infringe on the liberties of others. Nor does taking drugs. Nor does have a nuclear bomb. Nor does being Muslim. Nor does take a knife on board with you on an airplane. Lots of things don't do anything, yet some of them are banned because they could pose a threat.
> 
> Yes, free speech is only limited when it poses a threat. If I say something that breaks the laws of treason, what I said doesn't mean that people will die, or the National Security. But it could, so you're guilty of treason.
> 
> Now, carrying guns around doesn't harm people, but it could. The fact that the US has a murder rate 4 times higher than most First World countries and 3/4 of all murders are with guns is telling. Threats are posed by people with guns. Just because it doesn't always result in harm to others isn't the point. How many of the things that are banned ALWAYS pose a threat?
> 
> So, if religion can be limited because Human Sacrifice takes away someone's life, why can't guns be taken away when 11,000 people are being murdered with them every year?
Click to expand...


Threats are posed by people with guns. Just because it doesn't always result in harm to others isn't the point.

The people who pose a threat with guns are the ones who right now, cannot buy, own or carry them, according to current law.

why can't guns be taken away when 11,000 people are being murdered with them every year?

The people who are committing those murders.....already can't own, buy or carry a gun, under current law.  They have already had their guns taken away from them.

You want to take guns away from the 16 million people who carry guns, but don't use them for crime or murder...you want to take guns away from 90 million homes where they are not used for crime or murder....

Let's see...can you tell which number is bigger....

9,616 gun murders in 2015.......16,000,0000 people  lawfully carrying guns for self defense....

Can you tell us which number is bigger and by how much?

9,616 gun murders in 2015.....close to 400,000,000 guns in private hands that were not used for crime or murder.

Can you tell us which number is bigger and by how much?

So....why should the owners of 600,000,000 guns in 2017 give them up, because fewer than 9,000 people who can't own, buy or carry them use illegally acquired guns to commit crimes?

Do you see how dumb your argument is when the actual numbers are shown? 

And when the truth is shown....that as more Americans bought, own and carry guns....our crime rates went down, not up, can you see how silly your argument is?

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600  million guns in private hands and over 16.3  million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...
--* gun murder down 49%*

*--gun crime down 75%*

*--violent crime down 72%*

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.


----------



## 2aguy

frigidweirdo said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This has changed. The 2A has only recently been made relevant for the state and local governments.
> 
> Basically you need to write something to suggest that a right cannot be violated.
> 
> 1A says "Congress shall make no law"
> 3A says "No soldier shall"
> 4A says "shall not be violated"
> 5A says "No person shall" "nor shall any person"
> 6A manages to not do a negative
> 7A also
> 8A says "Excessive bail shall not be required"
> 9A says "shall not be construed"
> 
> Seems like the Founders wanted to mix up the wording a little bit. However Congress can make laws prohibiting free exercise of religion for those after due process. By locking them up it can limit their religious freedom. It can also decide which religions aren't really religion and prohibit such practices, like ritual executions for example.
> 
> All of these Amendments have limits.
> 
> 
> 
> But, those limits are only placed on those who have been found guilty of a crime and have lost their liberty.
> 
> Of course all rights have limits if the specific manner of exercising those rights infringes on the liberties of others.
> 
> Carrying a gun, in and of itself, does not infringe on the liberties of others.
> 
> Keeping a machine gun does not, in and of itself, infringe on the liberties of others.
> 
> Free speech is limited if it infringes on the liberty of others, like putting someone in direct peril by yelling fire in a crowded theater, causing people to be trampled.
> 
> The free exercise of religion is also limited if one's religion demands human sacrifice.
> 
> Due process is required before limiting one's rights, but due process alone is not sufficient.  There must also be a case-specific, compelling reason for such a limit (like criminal prosecution and conviction).  Otherwise, no rights are preserved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but the argument is that the RKBA "shall not be infringed" at all, ever. Clearly wrong.
> 
> No, carrying a gun doesn't infringe on the liberties of others. Nor does taking drugs. Nor does have a nuclear bomb. Nor does being Muslim. Nor does take a knife on board with you on an airplane. Lots of things don't do anything, yet some of them are banned because they could pose a threat.
> 
> Yes, free speech is only limited when it poses a threat. If I say something that breaks the laws of treason, what I said doesn't mean that people will die, or the National Security. But it could, so you're guilty of treason.
> 
> Now, carrying guns around doesn't harm people, but it could. The fact that the US has a murder rate 4 times higher than most First World countries and 3/4 of all murders are with guns is telling. Threats are posed by people with guns. Just because it doesn't always result in harm to others isn't the point. How many of the things that are banned ALWAYS pose a threat?
> 
> So, if religion can be limited because Human Sacrifice takes away someone's life, why can't guns be taken away when 11,000 people are being murdered with them every year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your Right to Life - which means the Right, Duty, and Obligation to provide for your own safety preclude any legitimate government from outlawing guns.
> 
> Alcohol and cars cost more lives, but we aren't proposing to outlaw those... and you don't need alcohol.  A gun?  This happened in my neighborhood:
> 
> gwinnett woman kills intruder - Bing video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the problem here is that you could defend yourself with a whole host of weaponry. For example, I could defend myself with a F-15, Artillery, Mortars, all kinds of things that are banned.
> 
> I agree there's a right to defend yourself, this doesn't mean that you have a right to anything that you can defend yourself with.
> 
> No, I'm not saying we should outlaw guns. I'm saying they should be restricted. Just like drink driving is illegal. And more should be done to stop it from happening.
Click to expand...



They are already restricted.....felons and the dangerously mentally ill cannot buy, own or carry them.....enforce that, and 99% of our gun crime problem goes away.....but you guys won't do that......


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lakhota said:


> *Las Vegas Shooter Fired More Than 1,100 Rounds, Police Say*
> 
> Sensible gun control could solve that problem.  Ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.  Maybe even ban semi-automatic weapons for civilian use.



Okay, a couple of things.

1)  There is no world in which I would be interested in you defining "sensible", let alone mandating it.

2)  In what way would a ban on "assault weapons" - presumably as opposed to weapons which are used to tickle people, I guess - or anything else have stopped the Las Vegas shooter?  I mean, if the extremely clear laws against killing people wasn't a deterrent, what makes you think he'd have said, "Oh, wait, it's ILLEGAL for me to have these guns.  I'd best get rid of them"?

3)  If I didn't make this question entirely clear in my previous point, what the fuck exactly is an "assault weapon"?  What do you leftist twerps even mean, or think you mean, by this?

4)  Where were high-capacity magazines even mentioned in the story you're presumably responding to?

5)  What appreciable difference do you honestly think reloading - or, since the man obviously came well-stocked and prepared, merely changing to a second, already-loaded magazine - would have made?

6)  Do you even realize how clueless about guns your remark about "ban semi-automatic weapons for civilian use" makes you sound?  I'm hardly an expert on firearms, but even I know you just telegraphed your ignorance about various types of weapons in that one sentence.


----------



## Cecilie1200

turtledude said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Las Vegas Shooter Fired More Than 1,100 Rounds, Police Say*
> 
> Sensible gun control could solve that problem.  Ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.  Maybe even ban semi-automatic weapons for civilian use.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you're an idiot.  almost every modern handgun used by civilian police is semi auto.  stupid moron.
Click to expand...


I'm trying to figure out if Lakhota is somehow thinking that "semi-automatic" refers to super-special, extra-dangerous military-esque weapons, or if he/she/it (can never remember, probably because I don't care) thinks the answer is to only allow civilians to own antique muzzle loaders for historical interest, or exactly what the hell this is all about.


----------



## Cecilie1200

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited  never have been and never will be  Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That phrase "shall not be infringed" really confuses you, huh?  Probably the presence of a two-syllable word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.
> 
> “But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’
> 
> What clearly confuses you and other conservatives is the fact that the Second Amendment right is not ‘unlimited,’ it is subject to restrictions by government, as is the case with other rights, provided those restriction comport with Second Amendment jurisprudence.
Click to expand...


No, you leftists WANT the Constitution to exist only in the context of its case law, because that means the law is whatever you tweekoids "feel" it should be at the moment, and whatever you can get a handful of unelected oligarchs to mandate.  Unfortunately for you, that is not even remotely the nation that our Founders set up, or that people want to live in.  Maybe go find a nice dictatorship somewhere that's already established to live in, instead of trying to impose one on the rest of us.

What clearly confuses YOU is that you're busy panicking over what you think conservatives believe, rather than ever actually taking the time to listen to us and comprehend what we say.  Am I going to waste time even discussing your amusingly pathetic notion that we believe any right is "unlimited", just as though it was actually a serious, thoughtful statement?  Guess.


----------



## Cecilie1200

sakinago said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Point is, the subject of Arms for the Militia is declared socialized.  There are no natural rights in our Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear danielpalos
> do you REALLY believe that ALL the people who crafted and passed this law
> would ALL AGREE to the militia-only interpretation?
> 
> When people TODAY don't even "all agree"
> 
> What makes you think they would have agreed back
> then if CLEARLY the two schools of thought don't agree now!
> 
> The more we argue and totally believe in our respective beliefs, that tells me so did the people split in two schools of thought back then.
> 
> They even had the equivalent of what we argue over today, over who counts as a citizen with rights. Today we argue if immigrants have equal rights as "humans" as citizens. Back then there was issue with Catholics or other people not considered equal or trustworthy to uphold the laws if they were to bear arms.
> 
> So if we can't even agree today, and these separate factions INSIST their respective interpretations ARE the truth that the laws should represent, isn't that clear the same thing would be going on back then? And there would be the same two factions, so the law came out the way it did to accommodate BOTH that would equally insist on THEIR way and REFUSE to compromise to let the other way prevail and exclude them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the clueless and the Causeless say that.  The People are the Militia.  What part of that do y'all not understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, silly person.  It is you who either don't understand, or you are simply intellectually dishonest.  I will go with the latter as you are nothing more than a one trick pony bleating about that which you have no clue.
> 
> Run along little sheep, run along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing but diversion, right wingers?
> 
> The People are the Militia.  Well regulated militia of the People are declared necessary.
> 
> It really is that simple, except to the right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The people are the people, if it had meant militia over people, it would’ve said militia.
Click to expand...


Precise usage of English is beyond the skills of most Americans, and nearly all leftists.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

frigidweirdo said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This has changed. The 2A has only recently been made relevant for the state and local governments.
> 
> Basically you need to write something to suggest that a right cannot be violated.
> 
> 1A says "Congress shall make no law"
> 3A says "No soldier shall"
> 4A says "shall not be violated"
> 5A says "No person shall" "nor shall any person"
> 6A manages to not do a negative
> 7A also
> 8A says "Excessive bail shall not be required"
> 9A says "shall not be construed"
> 
> Seems like the Founders wanted to mix up the wording a little bit. However Congress can make laws prohibiting free exercise of religion for those after due process. By locking them up it can limit their religious freedom. It can also decide which religions aren't really religion and prohibit such practices, like ritual executions for example.
> 
> All of these Amendments have limits.
> 
> 
> 
> But, those limits are only placed on those who have been found guilty of a crime and have lost their liberty.
> 
> Of course all rights have limits if the specific manner of exercising those rights infringes on the liberties of others.
> 
> Carrying a gun, in and of itself, does not infringe on the liberties of others.
> 
> Keeping a machine gun does not, in and of itself, infringe on the liberties of others.
> 
> Free speech is limited if it infringes on the liberty of others, like putting someone in direct peril by yelling fire in a crowded theater, causing people to be trampled.
> 
> The free exercise of religion is also limited if one's religion demands human sacrifice.
> 
> Due process is required before limiting one's rights, but due process alone is not sufficient.  There must also be a case-specific, compelling reason for such a limit (like criminal prosecution and conviction).  Otherwise, no rights are preserved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but the argument is that the RKBA "shall not be infringed" at all, ever. Clearly wrong.
> 
> No, carrying a gun doesn't infringe on the liberties of others. Nor does taking drugs. Nor does have a nuclear bomb. Nor does being Muslim. Nor does take a knife on board with you on an airplane. Lots of things don't do anything, yet some of them are banned because they could pose a threat.
> 
> Yes, free speech is only limited when it poses a threat. If I say something that breaks the laws of treason, what I said doesn't mean that people will die, or the National Security. But it could, so you're guilty of treason.
> 
> Now, carrying guns around doesn't harm people, but it could. The fact that the US has a murder rate 4 times higher than most First World countries and 3/4 of all murders are with guns is telling. Threats are posed by people with guns. Just because it doesn't always result in harm to others isn't the point. How many of the things that are banned ALWAYS pose a threat?
> 
> So, if religion can be limited because Human Sacrifice takes away someone's life, why can't guns be taken away when 11,000 people are being murdered with them every year?
Click to expand...

This is correct with regard to the fact that the Second Amendment right is not ‘unlimited,’ it is subject to restriction by government.

Actual human sacrifice as religious dogma is not protected by the Free Exercise Clause because the only outcome of such religious ‘expression’ is the unlawful death of an individual; that’s not the case with regard to possessing a firearm.

Second Amendment jurisprudence recognizes weapons as being either ‘dangerous and unusual’ or ‘in common use’; the former being subject to greater government restrictions, such as fully automatic firearms and SBRs, and the latter handguns, entitled to greater Second Amendment protections.


----------



## westwall

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This has changed. The 2A has only recently been made relevant for the state and local governments.
> 
> Basically you need to write something to suggest that a right cannot be violated.
> 
> 1A says "Congress shall make no law"
> 3A says "No soldier shall"
> 4A says "shall not be violated"
> 5A says "No person shall" "nor shall any person"
> 6A manages to not do a negative
> 7A also
> 8A says "Excessive bail shall not be required"
> 9A says "shall not be construed"
> 
> Seems like the Founders wanted to mix up the wording a little bit. However Congress can make laws prohibiting free exercise of religion for those after due process. By locking them up it can limit their religious freedom. It can also decide which religions aren't really religion and prohibit such practices, like ritual executions for example.
> 
> All of these Amendments have limits.
> 
> 
> 
> But, those limits are only placed on those who have been found guilty of a crime and have lost their liberty.
> 
> Of course all rights have limits if the specific manner of exercising those rights infringes on the liberties of others.
> 
> Carrying a gun, in and of itself, does not infringe on the liberties of others.
> 
> Keeping a machine gun does not, in and of itself, infringe on the liberties of others.
> 
> Free speech is limited if it infringes on the liberty of others, like putting someone in direct peril by yelling fire in a crowded theater, causing people to be trampled.
> 
> The free exercise of religion is also limited if one's religion demands human sacrifice.
> 
> Due process is required before limiting one's rights, but due process alone is not sufficient.  There must also be a case-specific, compelling reason for such a limit (like criminal prosecution and conviction).  Otherwise, no rights are preserved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but the argument is that the RKBA "shall not be infringed" at all, ever. Clearly wrong.
> 
> No, carrying a gun doesn't infringe on the liberties of others. Nor does taking drugs. Nor does have a nuclear bomb. Nor does being Muslim. Nor does take a knife on board with you on an airplane. Lots of things don't do anything, yet some of them are banned because they could pose a threat.
> 
> Yes, free speech is only limited when it poses a threat. If I say something that breaks the laws of treason, what I said doesn't mean that people will die, or the National Security. But it could, so you're guilty of treason.
> 
> Now, carrying guns around doesn't harm people, but it could. The fact that the US has a murder rate 4 times higher than most First World countries and 3/4 of all murders are with guns is telling. Threats are posed by people with guns. Just because it doesn't always result in harm to others isn't the point. How many of the things that are banned ALWAYS pose a threat?
> 
> So, if religion can be limited because Human Sacrifice takes away someone's life, why can't guns be taken away when 11,000 people are being murdered with them every year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is correct with regard to the fact that the Second Amendment right is not ‘unlimited,’ it is subject to restriction by government.
> 
> Actual human sacrifice as religious dogma is not protected by the Free Exercise Clause because the only outcome of such religious ‘expression’ is the unlawful death of an individual; that’s not the case with regard to possessing a firearm.
> 
> Second Amendment jurisprudence recognizes weapons as being either ‘dangerous and unusual’ or ‘in common use’; the former being subject to greater government restrictions, such as fully automatic firearms and SBRs, and the latter handguns, entitled to greater Second Amendment protections.
Click to expand...








Nope.  Machineguns are technically protected by the US V Miller decision.  SBR's and SBS's though, are subject to regulation.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This has changed. The 2A has only recently been made relevant for the state and local governments.
> 
> Basically you need to write something to suggest that a right cannot be violated.
> 
> 1A says "Congress shall make no law"
> 3A says "No soldier shall"
> 4A says "shall not be violated"
> 5A says "No person shall" "nor shall any person"
> 6A manages to not do a negative
> 7A also
> 8A says "Excessive bail shall not be required"
> 9A says "shall not be construed"
> 
> Seems like the Founders wanted to mix up the wording a little bit. However Congress can make laws prohibiting free exercise of religion for those after due process. By locking them up it can limit their religious freedom. It can also decide which religions aren't really religion and prohibit such practices, like ritual executions for example.
> 
> All of these Amendments have limits.
> 
> 
> 
> But, those limits are only placed on those who have been found guilty of a crime and have lost their liberty.
> 
> Of course all rights have limits if the specific manner of exercising those rights infringes on the liberties of others.
> 
> Carrying a gun, in and of itself, does not infringe on the liberties of others.
> 
> Keeping a machine gun does not, in and of itself, infringe on the liberties of others.
> 
> Free speech is limited if it infringes on the liberty of others, like putting someone in direct peril by yelling fire in a crowded theater, causing people to be trampled.
> 
> The free exercise of religion is also limited if one's religion demands human sacrifice.
> 
> Due process is required before limiting one's rights, but due process alone is not sufficient.  There must also be a case-specific, compelling reason for such a limit (like criminal prosecution and conviction).  Otherwise, no rights are preserved.
Click to expand...

Free speech may be limited by government when government can demonstrate a compelling reason to do so, limitations that are content-neutral – yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theater will likely cause injury or death, unrelated to the content of the ‘message’ attempting to be conveyed.  

After more than 100 years First Amendment jurisprudence has become comprehensive and inclusive, affording lawmakers the ability to craft legislation that comports with the First Amendment – that is not the case with the Second Amendment.

Second Amendment jurisprudence is in its infancy, currently evolving; in the coming decades it will likewise become comprehensive and inclusive.  

As that process advances governments and the courts must be allowed to play their respective roles in determining what laws comport with the Second Amendment and what laws do not, where measures placing limits on the Second Amendment right are neither un-Constitutional nor ‘anti-Second Amendment’ until the Supreme Court alone rules that they are.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

buttercup said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok but the amount of guns and gun owners has been practically been going up exponentially in the past 10-15, and crime keeps going down and down and down. This includes gun crimes. And if guns were the problem, then why is Switzerland the safest place on the planet, yet they are issued full auto assault rifles?
> 
> The only thing that risen (crime wise) in America is mass shootings. Guns have been around since our inception...so obviously there is something else culturally that is going on. There was practically zilch up until the UT shooter (who had a brain tumor pressing up against his aggression center, knew something was off, but couldn’t stop himself). After that it was pretty sparse until columbine, then there was a trickle of mass shootings. Now they are sadly not too uncommon. I don’t know if I have every single answer to why mass shootings are on the rise, but I do think a big factor is the notariaty involved in these shootings have attracted people who find that desirable and wish to one up the previous guy. Clearly they have mental health issues, but there something else going on to. There’s a clear lack of appreciation of life, graphic violence is everywhere in our culture. Video games the walking dead, every other movie, HBO, and even network television. It’s everywhere. I’m not saying we’re all slowly turning into killers or that we need to shut it down. But clearly some cannot separate what’s reality and what’s fictional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although I agree that we live in a sick culture that glorifies violence… I don't believe that that is why we're having mass shootings.   There is a concerted effort to get the public to fear and hate guns, and to _willingly_ give up our rights.   Look into the Hegelian dialectic, or problem – reaction – solution.   It is also legal now to propagandize the public.  Watch this video:
Click to expand...

Nonsense.

There is no ‘effort’ – ‘concerted’ or otherwise – to get the public to fear and hate guns, the notion is ridiculous, delusional, and dishonest.


----------



## frigidweirdo

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This has changed. The 2A has only recently been made relevant for the state and local governments.
> 
> Basically you need to write something to suggest that a right cannot be violated.
> 
> 1A says "Congress shall make no law"
> 3A says "No soldier shall"
> 4A says "shall not be violated"
> 5A says "No person shall" "nor shall any person"
> 6A manages to not do a negative
> 7A also
> 8A says "Excessive bail shall not be required"
> 9A says "shall not be construed"
> 
> Seems like the Founders wanted to mix up the wording a little bit. However Congress can make laws prohibiting free exercise of religion for those after due process. By locking them up it can limit their religious freedom. It can also decide which religions aren't really religion and prohibit such practices, like ritual executions for example.
> 
> All of these Amendments have limits.
> 
> 
> 
> But, those limits are only placed on those who have been found guilty of a crime and have lost their liberty.
> 
> Of course all rights have limits if the specific manner of exercising those rights infringes on the liberties of others.
> 
> Carrying a gun, in and of itself, does not infringe on the liberties of others.
> 
> Keeping a machine gun does not, in and of itself, infringe on the liberties of others.
> 
> Free speech is limited if it infringes on the liberty of others, like putting someone in direct peril by yelling fire in a crowded theater, causing people to be trampled.
> 
> The free exercise of religion is also limited if one's religion demands human sacrifice.
> 
> Due process is required before limiting one's rights, but due process alone is not sufficient.  There must also be a case-specific, compelling reason for such a limit (like criminal prosecution and conviction).  Otherwise, no rights are preserved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but the argument is that the RKBA "shall not be infringed" at all, ever. Clearly wrong.
> 
> No, carrying a gun doesn't infringe on the liberties of others. Nor does taking drugs. Nor does have a nuclear bomb. Nor does being Muslim. Nor does take a knife on board with you on an airplane. Lots of things don't do anything, yet some of them are banned because they could pose a threat.
> 
> Yes, free speech is only limited when it poses a threat. If I say something that breaks the laws of treason, what I said doesn't mean that people will die, or the National Security. But it could, so you're guilty of treason.
> 
> Now, carrying guns around doesn't harm people, but it could. The fact that the US has a murder rate 4 times higher than most First World countries and 3/4 of all murders are with guns is telling. Threats are posed by people with guns. Just because it doesn't always result in harm to others isn't the point. How many of the things that are banned ALWAYS pose a threat?
> 
> So, if religion can be limited because Human Sacrifice takes away someone's life, why can't guns be taken away when 11,000 people are being murdered with them every year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is correct with regard to the fact that the Second Amendment right is not ‘unlimited,’ it is subject to restriction by government.
> 
> Actual human sacrifice as religious dogma is not protected by the Free Exercise Clause because the only outcome of such religious ‘expression’ is the unlawful death of an individual; that’s not the case with regard to possessing a firearm.
> 
> Second Amendment jurisprudence recognizes weapons as being either ‘dangerous and unusual’ or ‘in common use’; the former being subject to greater government restrictions, such as fully automatic firearms and SBRs, and the latter handguns, entitled to greater Second Amendment protections.
Click to expand...


The problem with human sacrifice is that the outcome is "unlawful", now, imagine having a gun were "unlawful", then the only outcome of carrying a gun would be to be unlawful.


----------



## westwall

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok but the amount of guns and gun owners has been practically been going up exponentially in the past 10-15, and crime keeps going down and down and down. This includes gun crimes. And if guns were the problem, then why is Switzerland the safest place on the planet, yet they are issued full auto assault rifles?
> 
> The only thing that risen (crime wise) in America is mass shootings. Guns have been around since our inception...so obviously there is something else culturally that is going on. There was practically zilch up until the UT shooter (who had a brain tumor pressing up against his aggression center, knew something was off, but couldn’t stop himself). After that it was pretty sparse until columbine, then there was a trickle of mass shootings. Now they are sadly not too uncommon. I don’t know if I have every single answer to why mass shootings are on the rise, but I do think a big factor is the notariaty involved in these shootings have attracted people who find that desirable and wish to one up the previous guy. Clearly they have mental health issues, but there something else going on to. There’s a clear lack of appreciation of life, graphic violence is everywhere in our culture. Video games the walking dead, every other movie, HBO, and even network television. It’s everywhere. I’m not saying we’re all slowly turning into killers or that we need to shut it down. But clearly some cannot separate what’s reality and what’s fictional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although I agree that we live in a sick culture that glorifies violence… I don't believe that that is why we're having mass shootings.   There is a concerted effort to get the public to fear and hate guns, and to _willingly_ give up our rights.   Look into the Hegelian dialectic, or problem – reaction – solution.   It is also legal now to propagandize the public.  Watch this video:
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> There is no ‘effort’ – ‘concerted’ or otherwise – to get the public to fear and hate guns, the notion is ridiculous, delusional, and dishonest.
Click to expand...






Oh, yes there is.  I am far older than you and can remember when DGU's were accurately reported.  Just recently a friend of mine was forced to use his gun to defend himself from a violent drunk, ex-felon.  The newspaper somehow forgot that he used his gun to defend himself (he drew it to buy time to get away) and merely reported the criminals arrest.  So yes, there is absolutely a concerted effort to vilify guns, gun owners, and gun defensive usage.


----------



## westwall

frigidweirdo said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This has changed. The 2A has only recently been made relevant for the state and local governments.
> 
> Basically you need to write something to suggest that a right cannot be violated.
> 
> 1A says "Congress shall make no law"
> 3A says "No soldier shall"
> 4A says "shall not be violated"
> 5A says "No person shall" "nor shall any person"
> 6A manages to not do a negative
> 7A also
> 8A says "Excessive bail shall not be required"
> 9A says "shall not be construed"
> 
> Seems like the Founders wanted to mix up the wording a little bit. However Congress can make laws prohibiting free exercise of religion for those after due process. By locking them up it can limit their religious freedom. It can also decide which religions aren't really religion and prohibit such practices, like ritual executions for example.
> 
> All of these Amendments have limits.
> 
> 
> 
> But, those limits are only placed on those who have been found guilty of a crime and have lost their liberty.
> 
> Of course all rights have limits if the specific manner of exercising those rights infringes on the liberties of others.
> 
> Carrying a gun, in and of itself, does not infringe on the liberties of others.
> 
> Keeping a machine gun does not, in and of itself, infringe on the liberties of others.
> 
> Free speech is limited if it infringes on the liberty of others, like putting someone in direct peril by yelling fire in a crowded theater, causing people to be trampled.
> 
> The free exercise of religion is also limited if one's religion demands human sacrifice.
> 
> Due process is required before limiting one's rights, but due process alone is not sufficient.  There must also be a case-specific, compelling reason for such a limit (like criminal prosecution and conviction).  Otherwise, no rights are preserved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but the argument is that the RKBA "shall not be infringed" at all, ever. Clearly wrong.
> 
> No, carrying a gun doesn't infringe on the liberties of others. Nor does taking drugs. Nor does have a nuclear bomb. Nor does being Muslim. Nor does take a knife on board with you on an airplane. Lots of things don't do anything, yet some of them are banned because they could pose a threat.
> 
> Yes, free speech is only limited when it poses a threat. If I say something that breaks the laws of treason, what I said doesn't mean that people will die, or the National Security. But it could, so you're guilty of treason.
> 
> Now, carrying guns around doesn't harm people, but it could. The fact that the US has a murder rate 4 times higher than most First World countries and 3/4 of all murders are with guns is telling. Threats are posed by people with guns. Just because it doesn't always result in harm to others isn't the point. How many of the things that are banned ALWAYS pose a threat?
> 
> So, if religion can be limited because Human Sacrifice takes away someone's life, why can't guns be taken away when 11,000 people are being murdered with them every year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is correct with regard to the fact that the Second Amendment right is not ‘unlimited,’ it is subject to restriction by government.
> 
> Actual human sacrifice as religious dogma is not protected by the Free Exercise Clause because the only outcome of such religious ‘expression’ is the unlawful death of an individual; that’s not the case with regard to possessing a firearm.
> 
> Second Amendment jurisprudence recognizes weapons as being either ‘dangerous and unusual’ or ‘in common use’; the former being subject to greater government restrictions, such as fully automatic firearms and SBRs, and the latter handguns, entitled to greater Second Amendment protections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with human sacrifice is that the outcome is "unlawful", now, imagine having a gun were "unlawful", then the only outcome of carrying a gun would be to be unlawful.
Click to expand...






That is already a fact in your progressive paradises.  How come their murder rates are so high?


----------



## emilynghiem

Cecilie1200 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited  never have been and never will be  Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That phrase "shall not be infringed" really confuses you, huh?  Probably the presence of a two-syllable word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.
> 
> “But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’
> 
> What clearly confuses you and other conservatives is the fact that the Second Amendment right is not ‘unlimited,’ it is subject to restrictions by government, as is the case with other rights, provided those restriction comport with Second Amendment jurisprudence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you leftists WANT the Constitution to exist only in the context of its case law, because that means the law is whatever you tweekoids "feel" it should be at the moment, and whatever you can get a handful of unelected oligarchs to mandate.  Unfortunately for you, that is not even remotely the nation that our Founders set up, or that people want to live in.  Maybe go find a nice dictatorship somewhere that's already established to live in, instead of trying to impose one on the rest of us.
> 
> What clearly confuses YOU is that you're busy panicking over what you think conservatives believe, rather than ever actually taking the time to listen to us and comprehend what we say.  Am I going to waste time even discussing your amusingly pathetic notion that we believe any right is "unlimited", just as though it was actually a serious, thoughtful statement?  Guess.
Click to expand...


Dear @Cecile1200 and C_Clayton_Jones 
But I thought BOTH sides only go with cases, precedence and rulings
that ALIGN with their beliefs; and contest them as "unconstitutional and wrong" when they don't!
Then they attack if the other side does that, but they do it too!

This shows that people ARE coming at the law and govt
with their OWN beliefs first, then using the language of the law
to express their beliefs, or establish them through govt if the can.

The liberals tend to relate to secular justice
where it is established through agreement through govt as the central authority for the public.

The conservatives seek justice by consistent agreement with both church and state laws,
not rejecting one to hide behind the other as liberals do. But satisfying both.

I don't think liberals can help the fact they can't relate
to the bigger  universal laws beyond govt. 
Because they use the secular approach, the govt becomes their centralizing filter.

It's the way their beliefs are designed, that's how they see and use the system.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

buttercup said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> The problem with your argument is that the US seems to have gone completely in the opposite direction.
> 
> In the US the criminals have more power because they have guns. Murders are FOUR TIMES HIGHER in the US than compared to most other First World countries. This isn't the power of the people to protect themselves. With guns, they die more often.
> 
> As for politicians. The US has a political system which leads to the rich having power over the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you missed the point. Yes, obviously criminals have guns, but since criminals by definition *do not obey the law,* more gun laws is not going to make a difference except for making it harder for* law-abiding* citizens to protect themselves.  There are already thousands of gun laws on the books.
> 
> So are you advocating gun confiscation for everyone on a national scale.... in other words, turning us into a police state?
Click to expand...

Actually you have no point.

That criminals violate laws is not ‘justification’ to oppose or eliminate those laws. 

And no one advocates for 'gun confiscation,' that's another rightwing lie.


----------



## Cecilie1200

ChrisL said:


> What it means is that the people have the right to form a militia if they feel their government has infringed on their rights, and for that and other purposes, they have the right to bear arms.



Are you referring to the Second Amendment?  Because that's not, in fact, what the words mean at all.  Any junior high kid in America who makes passing grades in English class would be able to tell you this.  It isn't as though the definitions of the words, and the meaning they convey when strung together into sentences, is especially difficult to figure out.

What I'm hearing here is what you would LIKE the Second Amendment to mean, even though it contains all manner of things not actually said anywhere in there.  In other words, an interpretation.  And a really illiterate one, at that.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

sakinago said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This just shows how fucked up right wing logic is.
> 
> Hillary says she doesn't like guns. But in the US there are guns, and as long as there are guns important people need to be protected by people with guns.
> 
> I don't like guns. I went to South Africa and I bought pepper spray. However if I lived in South Africa (you'd have to make me, kicking and screaming) I'd buy a gun because this is the only way I'd feel safe.
> 
> However I prefer to live in places where I DON'T NEED A GUN.
> 
> Hillary having to be surrounded by armed people might be one reason why she doesn't like guns.
> 
> Or probably better said, she's the eternal politician and she'll take the policies she thinks will make her win. But that's a different matter.
> 
> 
> 
> So you do want to get rid of all guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not necessarily.
> 
> I prefer society that is safer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok but the amount of guns and gun owners has been practically been going up exponentially in the past 10-15, and crime keeps going down and down and down. This includes gun crimes. And if guns were the problem, then why is Switzerland the safest place on the planet, yet they are issued full auto assault rifles?
> 
> The only thing that risen (crime wise) in America is mass shootings. Guns have been around since our inception...so obviously there is something else culturally that is going on. There was practically zilch up until the UT shooter (who had a brain tumor pressing up against his aggression center, knew something was off, but couldn’t stop himself). After that it was pretty sparse until columbine, then there was a trickle of mass shootings. Now they are sadly not too uncommon. I don’t know if I have every single answer to why mass shootings are on the rise, but I do think a big factor is the notariaty involved in these shootings have attracted people who find that desirable and wish to one up the previous guy. Clearly they have mental health issues, but there something else going on to. There’s a clear lack of appreciation of life, graphic violence is everywhere in our culture. Video games the walking dead, every other movie, HBO, and even network television. It’s everywhere. I’m not saying we’re all slowly turning into killers or that we need to shut it down. But clearly some cannot separate what’s reality and what’s fictional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, and the crime keeps going down in the UK too. And in many other First World countries. So what?
> 
> Modern technology is making murders go down because people have other stuff to do.
> 
> That doesn't mean the US's murder rate isn't too high.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But gun crimes have doubled in the UK, weren’t they supposed to go down after gun control? Isn’t that what gun control is for?
> 
> And once again if guns are the problem, why is Switzerland the safest place on earth, with an assault rifle in every closet.
Click to expand...

_Post hoc_ and false comparison fallacies in one post – well done.


----------



## westwall

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> The problem with your argument is that the US seems to have gone completely in the opposite direction.
> 
> In the US the criminals have more power because they have guns. Murders are FOUR TIMES HIGHER in the US than compared to most other First World countries. This isn't the power of the people to protect themselves. With guns, they die more often.
> 
> As for politicians. The US has a political system which leads to the rich having power over the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you missed the point. Yes, obviously criminals have guns, but since criminals by definition *do not obey the law,* more gun laws is not going to make a difference except for making it harder for* law-abiding* citizens to protect themselves.  There are already thousands of gun laws on the books.
> 
> So are you advocating gun confiscation for everyone on a national scale.... in other words, turning us into a police state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually you have no point.
> 
> That criminals violate laws is not ‘justification’ to oppose or eliminate those laws.
> 
> And no one advocates for 'gun confiscation,' that's another rightwing lie.
Click to expand...


----------



## emilynghiem

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Free speech may be limited by government when government can demonstrate a compelling reason to do so, limitations that are content-neutral – yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theater will likely cause injury or death, unrelated to the content of the ‘message’ attempting to be conveyed.
> 
> ....
> As that process advances governments and the courts must be allowed to play their respective roles in determining what laws comport with the Second Amendment and what laws do not, where measures placing limits on the Second Amendment right are neither un-Constitutional nor ‘anti-Second Amendment’ until the Supreme Court alone rules that they are.



C_Clayton_Jones
A. RE: compelling interest
the other factor in this equation is people CONSENT and agree on the compelling interest.
In the case of yelling fire to disrupt an assembly,
this would violate OTHER RIGHTS within the same Bill of Rights
including right to assemble peaceably and right to security.

It is not some compelling interest outside the same laws,
such as people saying "tax revenue" is a compelling enough interest
for taking private property by eminent domain and giving it to corporations.
If people don't consent to that as a valid "compelling interest" 
it gets contested as extraconstitutional or unconstitutional abuse of govt.

Same with "right to life" based on compelling interest to protect the life of unborn
persons. Banning abortion isn't the only way to prevent it and to protect such
right to life beliefs. There are other complications that would cause OTHER rights
such as "due process" to be violated, so people DO NOT CONSENT to the faith based arguments as a compelling interest but see that as govt endorsing one belief over others.

B. as for courts being the final word
No. again, if people do not consent to a ruling that is argued as biased by beliefs,
this will undergo further contest and objection until reforms are made and agreed on that people DO consent to.

the process keeps going, whether reform through executive legislative or judicial branches of govt, until the laws reflect what people CONSENT to including what is a compelling interest,usually to protect other rights within the law that would otherwise be violated.


----------



## westwall

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you do want to get rid of all guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily.
> 
> I prefer society that is safer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok but the amount of guns and gun owners has been practically been going up exponentially in the past 10-15, and crime keeps going down and down and down. This includes gun crimes. And if guns were the problem, then why is Switzerland the safest place on the planet, yet they are issued full auto assault rifles?
> 
> The only thing that risen (crime wise) in America is mass shootings. Guns have been around since our inception...so obviously there is something else culturally that is going on. There was practically zilch up until the UT shooter (who had a brain tumor pressing up against his aggression center, knew something was off, but couldn’t stop himself). After that it was pretty sparse until columbine, then there was a trickle of mass shootings. Now they are sadly not too uncommon. I don’t know if I have every single answer to why mass shootings are on the rise, but I do think a big factor is the notariaty involved in these shootings have attracted people who find that desirable and wish to one up the previous guy. Clearly they have mental health issues, but there something else going on to. There’s a clear lack of appreciation of life, graphic violence is everywhere in our culture. Video games the walking dead, every other movie, HBO, and even network television. It’s everywhere. I’m not saying we’re all slowly turning into killers or that we need to shut it down. But clearly some cannot separate what’s reality and what’s fictional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, and the crime keeps going down in the UK too. And in many other First World countries. So what?
> 
> Modern technology is making murders go down because people have other stuff to do.
> 
> That doesn't mean the US's murder rate isn't too high.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But gun crimes have doubled in the UK, weren’t they supposed to go down after gun control? Isn’t that what gun control is for?
> 
> And once again if guns are the problem, why is Switzerland the safest place on earth, with an assault rifle in every closet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Post hoc_ and false comparison fallacies in one post – well done.
Click to expand...








Indeed, you seem to be an expert at logical fallacies.  Do you have a degree in them?


----------



## Cecilie1200

buttercup said:


>



Also, whether or not guns are the answer depends entirely on what the question is.


----------



## Cecilie1200

emilynghiem said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited  never have been and never will be  Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That phrase "shall not be infringed" really confuses you, huh?  Probably the presence of a two-syllable word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court – including the Second Amendment.
> 
> “But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’
> 
> What clearly confuses you and other conservatives is the fact that the Second Amendment right is not ‘unlimited,’ it is subject to restrictions by government, as is the case with other rights, provided those restriction comport with Second Amendment jurisprudence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you leftists WANT the Constitution to exist only in the context of its case law, because that means the law is whatever you tweekoids "feel" it should be at the moment, and whatever you can get a handful of unelected oligarchs to mandate.  Unfortunately for you, that is not even remotely the nation that our Founders set up, or that people want to live in.  Maybe go find a nice dictatorship somewhere that's already established to live in, instead of trying to impose one on the rest of us.
> 
> What clearly confuses YOU is that you're busy panicking over what you think conservatives believe, rather than ever actually taking the time to listen to us and comprehend what we say.  Am I going to waste time even discussing your amusingly pathetic notion that we believe any right is "unlimited", just as though it was actually a serious, thoughtful statement?  Guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear @Cecile1200 and C_Clayton_Jones
> But I thought BOTH sides only go with cases, precedence and rulings
> that ALIGN with their beliefs; and contest them as "unconstitutional and wrong" when they don't!
> Then they attack if the other side does that, but they do it too!
> 
> This shows that people ARE coming at the law and govt
> with their OWN beliefs first, then using the language of the law
> to express their beliefs, or establish them through govt if the can.
> 
> The liberals tend to relate to secular justice
> where it is established through agreement through govt as the central authority for the public.
> 
> The conservatives seek justice by consistent agreement with both church and state laws,
> not rejecting one to hide behind the other as liberals do. But satisfying both.
> 
> I don't think liberals can help the fact they can't relate
> to the bigger  universal laws beyond govt.
> Because they use the secular approach, the govt becomes their centralizing filter.
> 
> It's the way their beliefs are designed, that's how they see and use the system.
Click to expand...


You thought wrong.

Oh, I'll freely admit that everyone has their own beliefs and biases that can color their approach to any given situation.  This is why intelligent, thinking, rational adults should and will do their best to separate their emotions and desires from their thinking, and try to determine the facts.  This is, actually, the approach generally advocated by conservatives (real ones, not pseudo-leftists who happen to have accidentally stumbled into positions on the right, with no idea how they got there).

Also, it is fairly prominent position on the right, and has historically been the approach used, that precedent is irrelevant when it is egregiously wrong.  This is why decisions in court cases get reversed and overturned.  _Plessy v Ferguson_, as a famous example.  Where would we be if we considered ourselves irrevocably bound to a truly noxious practice, simply because it was "precedent", rather than asserting the right to refer back to the actual language and intent of a law to state that the precedent was well and truly fucked up?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Ernie S. said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time for reasonable gun control.  Also time to update the confusing and obsolete 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> Time for you to leave the U.S. Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That ain't how it works, sparky.  We use the ballot box and laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That we do, dunce boy and the ballot box is why the GOP controls the executive and legislative branches of government.
Click to expand...

And when Republicans attempt to violate the rights and protected liberties of the Americans people, those disadvantaged seek relief in court, subject solely to the rule of law, not the ignorance, hate, fear, and bigotry of Republicans.


----------



## buttercup

westwall said:


> Indeed, you seem to be an expert at logical fallacies.  Do you have a degree in them?



Ikr?  He didn't even realize that the only reason I mentioned gun confiscation was because* the person I was replying to* said "taking guns away from society" would make things safer.....and my point was that you're not going to be able to do that without confiscating all guns and turning us into a police state. I never even made the claim that people are advocating for gun confiscation, so he's either dishonest or dense.


----------



## Cecilie1200

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time for reasonable gun control.  Also time to update the confusing and obsolete 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> Time for you to leave the U.S. Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That ain't how it works, sparky.  We use the ballot box and laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That we do, dunce boy and the ballot box is why the GOP controls the executive and legislative branches of government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And when Republicans attempt to violate the rights and protected liberties of the Americans people, those disadvantaged seek relief in court, subject solely to the rule of law, not the ignorance, hate, fear, and bigotry of Republicans.
Click to expand...


"Republicans attempt to violate the rights of the people".  When, precisely, would that be?  Could you cite an example?  Would help even more if your cited example wasn't of the left's most cherished right of being an unmitigated jackass whenever and wherever they please.

Not saying you don't have the right to be an asshole.  Just suggesting that maybe that's not the one you should exercise and defend the most vigorously.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

buttercup said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This just shows how fucked up right wing logic is.
> 
> Hillary says she doesn't like guns. But in the US there are guns, and as long as there are guns important people need to be protected by people with guns.
> 
> I don't like guns. I went to South Africa and I bought pepper spray. However if I lived in South Africa (you'd have to make me, kicking and screaming) I'd buy a gun because this is the only way I'd feel safe.
> 
> However I prefer to live in places where I DON'T NEED A GUN.
> 
> Hillary having to be surrounded by armed people might be one reason why she doesn't like guns.
> 
> Or probably better said, she's the eternal politician and she'll take the policies she thinks will make her win. But that's a different matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, her position is a little more than simply "not liking guns."      And why should only "important" people be protected? That statement shows the hypocrisy of liberals who talk about "equality."      All people are equal, so I hope you're not actually saying that only important people (i.e. your dear leaders) deserve protection.
Click to expand...

Pure idiocy. 

No one is advocating that only important people be protected; consequently there is no ‘hypocrisy’ of liberals concerning equality.

Liberals support current Second Amendment jurisprudence, take no issue with citizens lawfully possessing firearms, and acknowledge the right of citizens to engage in lawful self-defense.

Indeed, it’s conservatives who are hostile to current Second Amendment jurisprudence, claiming that the Second Amendment is ‘unlimited,’ when the _Heller_ Court reaffirmed that it is not, arguing that there should be no restrictions on possessing firearms although the courts have upheld those restrictions as Constitutional, and opposing firearm regulatory measures the Supreme Court has never ruled to be in violation of the Second Amendment.


----------



## emilynghiem

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> And when Republicans attempt to violate the rights and protected liberties of the Americans people, those disadvantaged seek relief in court, subject solely to the rule of law, not the ignorance, hate, fear, and bigotry of Republicans.



^ Question, C_Clayton_Jones: ^ 
And where is this consistent enforcement of law upheld when it comes to SECULAR "beliefs" and 
freedom of choice whether to accept these or not:

* LGBT beliefs that homosexual orientation is natural and cannot change
* Beliefs in transgender identity that should be endorsed and enforced through govt, even forced on people of other beliefs; but not Christian beliefs or expressions that should be removed because "not all people share those beliefs, which can't be imposed by govt"
* beliefs in same sex marriage
* beliefs in forcing everyone under govt run health care even if that violates their Constitutional beliefs

That are all EQUALLY faith based? Where laws and penalties favoring these beliefs discriminate against people of opposing beliefs who cannot comply without violating their own beliefs?

Why are people of other beliefs SUBJECT to the harassment, bullying, namecalling, "ignorance, hate, fear, and bigotry" put out by Liberals who claim to be open to tolerance, inclusion of diversity, freedom of choice, and equal protection from discrimination for all people? Or is that only for citizens of leftist political beliefs?


----------



## frigidweirdo

emilynghiem said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> And when Republicans attempt to violate the rights and protected liberties of the Americans people, those disadvantaged seek relief in court, subject solely to the rule of law, not the ignorance, hate, fear, and bigotry of Republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^ Question, C_Clayton_Jones: ^
> And where is this consistent enforcement of law upheld when it comes to SECULAR "beliefs" and
> freedom of choice whether to accept these or not:
> 
> * LGBT beliefs that homosexual orientation is natural and cannot change
> * Beliefs in transgender identity that should be endorsed and enforced through govt, even forced on people of other beliefs; but not Christian beliefs or expressions that should be removed because "not all people share those beliefs, which can't be imposed by govt"
> * beliefs in same sex marriage
> * beliefs in forcing everyone under govt run health care even if that violates their Constitutional beliefs
> 
> That are all EQUALLY faith based? Where laws and penalties favoring these beliefs discriminate against people of opposing beliefs who cannot comply without violating their own beliefs?
> 
> Why are people of other beliefs SUBJECT to the harassment, bullying, namecalling, "ignorance, hate, fear, and bigotry" put out by Liberals who claim to be open to tolerance, inclusion of diversity, freedom of choice, and equal protection from discrimination for all people? Or is that only for citizens of leftist political beliefs?
Click to expand...


The issue here is that people should be tolerant of other people's beliefs.

Now, Christianity is an accepted thing in society. People don't get problems from being a Christian. They get problems from being gay though.

People are free to not like gay people, but they're NOT free to act upon this hatred. The same as for Christians or any other religious person. If someone attacks them for being a Christian, then they're punished, or should be.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Cecilie1200 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time for reasonable gun control.  Also time to update the confusing and obsolete 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> Time for you to leave the U.S. Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That ain't how it works, sparky.  We use the ballot box and laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That we do, dunce boy and the ballot box is why the GOP controls the executive and legislative branches of government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And when Republicans attempt to violate the rights and protected liberties of the Americans people, those disadvantaged seek relief in court, subject solely to the rule of law, not the ignorance, hate, fear, and bigotry of Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Republicans attempt to violate the rights of the people".  When, precisely, would that be?  Could you cite an example?  Would help even more if your cited example wasn't of the left's most cherished right of being an unmitigated jackass whenever and wherever they please.
> 
> Not saying you don't have the right to be an asshole.  Just suggesting that maybe that's not the one you should exercise and defend the most vigorously.
Click to expand...


Try, the war on drugs, try J-walking, try going to war and then using the fear of the enemy as an excuse for things like the Patriot Act, try opposing gay marriage....


----------



## buttercup

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Pure idiocy.
> 
> No one is advocating that only important people be protected; consequently there is no ‘hypocrisy’ of liberals concerning equality.
> 
> Liberals support current Second Amendment jurisprudence, take no issue with citizens lawfully possessing firearms, and acknowledge the right of citizens to engage in lawful self-defense.
> 
> Indeed, it’s conservatives who are hostile to current Second Amendment jurisprudence, claiming that the Second Amendment is ‘unlimited,’ when the _Heller_ Court reaffirmed that it is not, arguing that there should be no restrictions on possessing firearms although the courts have upheld those restrictions as Constitutional, and opposing firearm regulatory measures the Supreme Court has never ruled to be in violation of the Second Amendment.



Yet again you butt into a conversation and arrogantly interject something without even understanding the context. The person I was replying to said, "But in the US there are guns, and *as long as there are guns important people need to be protected by people with guns*"

That is why I *asked  *him why he only mentioned "important people," because based on his posts, he seemed to hold the position that the general public shouldn't have the same rights.

As for your claim that there is no liberal hypocrisy, are you the spokesperson for all liberals worldwide? You know them all, huh?  There are some Hollywood celebrities and others who are extremely anti-gun, yet hire private security who happen to be armed. Of course when called on it, they backtrack and change their position to not look like such hypocrites… but the bottom line is,  hypocritical limousine liberals do exist.

I get it that you're zealous about these topics, but please don't keep interjecting yourself into conversations  if you're going to misunderstand things or change what is being said. That's the second time you did that tonight.


----------



## emilynghiem

Cecilie1200 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time for reasonable gun control.  Also time to update the confusing and obsolete 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> Time for you to leave the U.S. Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That ain't how it works, sparky.  We use the ballot box and laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That we do, dunce boy and the ballot box is why the GOP controls the executive and legislative branches of government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And when Republicans attempt to violate the rights and protected liberties of the Americans people, those disadvantaged seek relief in court, subject solely to the rule of law, not the ignorance, hate, fear, and bigotry of Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Republicans attempt to violate the rights of the people".  When, precisely, would that be?  Could you cite an example?  Would help even more if your cited example wasn't of the left's most cherished right of being an unmitigated jackass whenever and wherever they please.
> 
> Not saying you don't have the right to be an asshole.  Just suggesting that maybe that's not the one you should exercise and defend the most vigorously.
Click to expand...


Dear Cecilie1200

1. Republicans in Tennessee sought to ban Mosques, which was discrimination against Muslims not treated equally as Christians under Constitutional laws. (Democrats similarly push to ban the choice of reparative therapy, and don't treat ex-gay and LGBT beliefs equally but discriminate against ex-gays while complaining about discrimination against transgender as a minority)

2. Republicans voted and defended unconstitutional bans on same sex marriage, that led to the opposite backlash and equal unconstitutional move to endorse and establish the right to marriage. BOTH involve faith based beliefs and biases regarding "marriage"; where NEITHER should be decided by govt but left to the people's free choice of beliefs.

3. Republicans continue to push prolife views and policies through govt, in violation of the equal protection of prochoice beliefs. While Democrats continue to do the same pushing right to health care through govt, in violation of Constitutional beliefs in free market choices that govt is not authorized to coerce people into under threat of penalty.
Both are unconstitutional.


----------



## westwall

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This just shows how fucked up right wing logic is.
> 
> Hillary says she doesn't like guns. But in the US there are guns, and as long as there are guns important people need to be protected by people with guns.
> 
> I don't like guns. I went to South Africa and I bought pepper spray. However if I lived in South Africa (you'd have to make me, kicking and screaming) I'd buy a gun because this is the only way I'd feel safe.
> 
> However I prefer to live in places where I DON'T NEED A GUN.
> 
> Hillary having to be surrounded by armed people might be one reason why she doesn't like guns.
> 
> Or probably better said, she's the eternal politician and she'll take the policies she thinks will make her win. But that's a different matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, her position is a little more than simply "not liking guns."      And why should only "important" people be protected? That statement shows the hypocrisy of liberals who talk about "equality."      All people are equal, so I hope you're not actually saying that only important people (i.e. your dear leaders) deserve protection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pure idiocy.
> 
> No one is advocating that only important people be protected; consequently there is no ‘hypocrisy’ of liberals concerning equality.
> 
> Liberals support current Second Amendment jurisprudence, take no issue with citizens lawfully possessing firearms, and acknowledge the right of citizens to engage in lawful self-defense.
> 
> Indeed, it’s conservatives who are hostile to current Second Amendment jurisprudence, claiming that the Second Amendment is ‘unlimited,’ when the _Heller_ Court reaffirmed that it is not, arguing that there should be no restrictions on possessing firearms although the courts have upheld those restrictions as Constitutional, and opposing firearm regulatory measures the Supreme Court has never ruled to be in violation of the Second Amendment.
Click to expand...





Advocating for?  No, probably not.  But that would be the de facto consequence.


----------



## sakinago

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok but the amount of guns and gun owners has been practically been going up exponentially in the past 10-15, and crime keeps going down and down and down. This includes gun crimes. And if guns were the problem, then why is Switzerland the safest place on the planet, yet they are issued full auto assault rifles?
> 
> The only thing that risen (crime wise) in America is mass shootings. Guns have been around since our inception...so obviously there is something else culturally that is going on. There was practically zilch up until the UT shooter (who had a brain tumor pressing up against his aggression center, knew something was off, but couldn’t stop himself). After that it was pretty sparse until columbine, then there was a trickle of mass shootings. Now they are sadly not too uncommon. I don’t know if I have every single answer to why mass shootings are on the rise, but I do think a big factor is the notariaty involved in these shootings have attracted people who find that desirable and wish to one up the previous guy. Clearly they have mental health issues, but there something else going on to. There’s a clear lack of appreciation of life, graphic violence is everywhere in our culture. Video games the walking dead, every other movie, HBO, and even network television. It’s everywhere. I’m not saying we’re all slowly turning into killers or that we need to shut it down. But clearly some cannot separate what’s reality and what’s fictional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although I agree that we live in a sick culture that glorifies violence… I don't believe that that is why we're having mass shootings.   There is a concerted effort to get the public to fear and hate guns, and to _willingly_ give up our rights.   Look into the Hegelian dialectic, or problem – reaction – solution.   It is also legal now to propagandize the public.  Watch this video:
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> There is no ‘effort’ – ‘concerted’ or otherwise – to get the public to fear and hate guns, the notion is ridiculous, delusional, and dishonest.
Click to expand...

There absolutely is. Look at the verbage used. 8 years ago the news called it a handgun...now they call it a semi-automatic gun. And since plenty of non owners don’t know what that actually means, it sounds a lot scarier than just handgun which everyone knows what that is. But they hear semi automatic and think Uzi. And look at the whole very severe punishments in school for finger guns, or LEGO guns, or anything resembling a gun. Obviously those punishements DO NOT fit the crime, what they do is to teach kids to be afraid of guns.


----------



## danielpalos

sakinago said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia are declared Necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> The People are the militia.
> 
> You are either well regulated or not.
> 
> No one is unconnected with the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> Then they would not have included the phrase the people. The well regulated line is a qualifier to the following line, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Click to expand...

The People are the militia. The qualifier is what is necessary to the security of a free State.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Disarm the military and I will accept the arbitrary infringement of my natural right to a motherfucking machine gun.  Until then....


fuck off, commies!!!


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

sakinago said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok but the amount of guns and gun owners has been practically been going up exponentially in the past 10-15, and crime keeps going down and down and down. This includes gun crimes. And if guns were the problem, then why is Switzerland the safest place on the planet, yet they are issued full auto assault rifles?
> 
> The only thing that risen (crime wise) in America is mass shootings. Guns have been around since our inception...so obviously there is something else culturally that is going on. There was practically zilch up until the UT shooter (who had a brain tumor pressing up against his aggression center, knew something was off, but couldn’t stop himself). After that it was pretty sparse until columbine, then there was a trickle of mass shootings. Now they are sadly not too uncommon. I don’t know if I have every single answer to why mass shootings are on the rise, but I do think a big factor is the notariaty involved in these shootings have attracted people who find that desirable and wish to one up the previous guy. Clearly they have mental health issues, but there something else going on to. There’s a clear lack of appreciation of life, graphic violence is everywhere in our culture. Video games the walking dead, every other movie, HBO, and even network television. It’s everywhere. I’m not saying we’re all slowly turning into killers or that we need to shut it down. But clearly some cannot separate what’s reality and what’s fictional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although I agree that we live in a sick culture that glorifies violence… I don't believe that that is why we're having mass shootings.   There is a concerted effort to get the public to fear and hate guns, and to _willingly_ give up our rights.   Look into the Hegelian dialectic, or problem – reaction – solution.   It is also legal now to propagandize the public.  Watch this video:
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> There is no ‘effort’ – ‘concerted’ or otherwise – to get the public to fear and hate guns, the notion is ridiculous, delusional, and dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There absolutely is. Look at the verbage used. 8 years ago the news called it a handgun...now they call it a semi-automatic gun. And since plenty of non owners don’t know what that actually means, it sounds a lot scarier than just handgun which everyone knows what that is. But they hear semi automatic and think Uzi. And look at the whole very severe punishments in school for finger guns, or LEGO guns, or anything resembling a gun. Obviously those punishements DO NOT fit the crime, what they do is to teach kids to be afraid of guns.
Click to expand...

My son was disciplined in kindergarten for playing guns "making a gun out of his finger."  I threatened to sue the fuck out of the school.  Luckily (for the school} I know Abernathy (lawyer/firm that represents the school district) and things were corrected. 

Make no mistake.   The motherfucking commies are running the schools and they doing everything in their goose-stepping power to rid an entire generation of guns.  It's backfiring like a motherfucker.  They would do better to preach about the goodness and righteousness of guns.  They will be out of fashion much faster.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Disarm the military and I will accept the arbitrary infringement of my natural right to a motherfucking machine gun.  Until then....
> 
> 
> fuck off, commies!!!


Infringe is not the same as disarm.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos:  "Show Ignored Content"

I think I will pass, and just guess at what it might say:

"The Right of the Federal Government to the wellness of regulation of the clueless and causeless people-litia shall not be infringed."


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos:  "Show Ignored Content"
> 
> I think I will pass, and just guess at what it might say:
> 
> "The Right of the Federal Government to the wellness of regulation of the clueless and causeless people-litia shall not be infringed."


Our Second Amendment is a States right.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Skull Pilot said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time for reasonable gun control.  Also time to update the confusing and obsolete 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> We have reasonable gun control
> 
> Felons and the adjudicated mentally ill cannot buy guns.
Click to expand...



Since when?

Say the words “close loopholes” and see what you get. 


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## sakinago

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos:  "Show Ignored Content"
> 
> I think I will pass, and just guess at what it might say:
> 
> "The Right of the Federal Government to the wellness of regulation of the clueless and causeless people-litia shall not be infringed."
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is a States right.
Click to expand...

Then it would’ve said states instead of people. Again the first phrase of the 2nd was a qualifier to the 2nd phrase of “the RKBA of the people shall not be infringed” 

To break that down for you. “Because the militia (made up and controlled by civilians) is necessary to the free state, therefore the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” 

A govenor could call upon the militia, but it was still up to the locally sourced and locally controlled militia to do as they please. If that wasn’t the case, then why did the founders 86 a standing army if it only took a power hungry  governor to organize a coup? Most (almost all) coups aren’t carried out by the entire army, usually it’s a general or group of generals or a politician with control of some generals. On top of that a governor could sick his militia onto an uppity portion of the population if he preferred to do so. You’ve just replaced one standing army with another.


----------



## turtledude

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This has changed. The 2A has only recently been made relevant for the state and local governments.
> 
> Basically you need to write something to suggest that a right cannot be violated.
> 
> 1A says "Congress shall make no law"
> 3A says "No soldier shall"
> 4A says "shall not be violated"
> 5A says "No person shall" "nor shall any person"
> 6A manages to not do a negative
> 7A also
> 8A says "Excessive bail shall not be required"
> 9A says "shall not be construed"
> 
> Seems like the Founders wanted to mix up the wording a little bit. However Congress can make laws prohibiting free exercise of religion for those after due process. By locking them up it can limit their religious freedom. It can also decide which religions aren't really religion and prohibit such practices, like ritual executions for example.
> 
> All of these Amendments have limits.
> 
> 
> 
> But, those limits are only placed on those who have been found guilty of a crime and have lost their liberty.
> 
> Of course all rights have limits if the specific manner of exercising those rights infringes on the liberties of others.
> 
> Carrying a gun, in and of itself, does not infringe on the liberties of others.
> 
> Keeping a machine gun does not, in and of itself, infringe on the liberties of others.
> 
> Free speech is limited if it infringes on the liberty of others, like putting someone in direct peril by yelling fire in a crowded theater, causing people to be trampled.
> 
> The free exercise of religion is also limited if one's religion demands human sacrifice.
> 
> Due process is required before limiting one's rights, but due process alone is not sufficient.  There must also be a case-specific, compelling reason for such a limit (like criminal prosecution and conviction).  Otherwise, no rights are preserved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but the argument is that the RKBA "shall not be infringed" at all, ever. Clearly wrong.
> 
> No, carrying a gun doesn't infringe on the liberties of others. Nor does taking drugs. Nor does have a nuclear bomb. Nor does being Muslim. Nor does take a knife on board with you on an airplane. Lots of things don't do anything, yet some of them are banned because they could pose a threat.
> 
> Yes, free speech is only limited when it poses a threat. If I say something that breaks the laws of treason, what I said doesn't mean that people will die, or the National Security. But it could, so you're guilty of treason.
> 
> Now, carrying guns around doesn't harm people, but it could. The fact that the US has a murder rate 4 times higher than most First World countries and 3/4 of all murders are with guns is telling. Threats are posed by people with guns. Just because it doesn't always result in harm to others isn't the point. How many of the things that are banned ALWAYS pose a threat?
> 
> So, if religion can be limited because Human Sacrifice takes away someone's life, why can't guns be taken away when 11,000 people are being murdered with them every year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is correct with regard to the fact that the Second Amendment right is not ‘unlimited,’ it is subject to restriction by government.
> 
> Actual human sacrifice as religious dogma is not protected by the Free Exercise Clause because the only outcome of such religious ‘expression’ is the unlawful death of an individual; that’s not the case with regard to possessing a firearm.
> 
> Second Amendment jurisprudence recognizes weapons as being either ‘dangerous and unusual’ or ‘in common use’; the former being subject to greater government restrictions, such as fully automatic firearms and SBRs, and the latter handguns, entitled to greater Second Amendment protections.
Click to expand...



we all know about the dishonest FDR administration and its bogus commerce clause end around the second and tenth amendments but can you even hint that the founders intended federal gun control


----------



## Ernie S.

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time for reasonable gun control.  Also time to update the confusing and obsolete 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> Time for you to leave the U.S. Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That ain't how it works, sparky.  We use the ballot box and laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That we do, dunce boy and the ballot box is why the GOP controls the executive and legislative branches of government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And when Republicans attempt to violate the rights and protected liberties of the Americans people, those disadvantaged seek relief in court, subject solely to the rule of law, not the ignorance, hate, fear, and bigotry of Republicans.
Click to expand...

This whole thread has been about Liberals attempting to "violate the rights and protected liberties of the Americans people." Deflection might work with other Liberals and children, but it won't cut it here.


----------



## Abatis

frigidweirdo said:


> There was both a right and a duty.
> 
> The duty was the state needed you.
> 
> However the Militia was seen as the ultimate check and balance against a tyrannical govt. As such a duty to fight a tyrannical govt isn't really there, because the Militia can be called up to the Federal or State govt's control.
> 
> What they wanted was a check which the people could use. Therefore it was a right, to fight against tyranny of their own government.



The right to be in an ad-hoc, citizen formed militia is not claimable / actionable for as long as the Constitution is in force -- there can be _*no*_ militia organized except that as set-out in Art I, §8, cl's 15 & 16. 

Yes, the people retain the right to throw off a tyrannical government, but the first step in_* that*_ is taking back the powers granted to government (including the power to organize and call-up the militia) and invalidating any protections afforded to government by the Constitution (supremacy, preemption, prosecuting sedition and treason).  So, until the people have rescinded their consent to be governed there is no right to be in a militia because the people have conferred that power/right to the federal government. 

If the people_* are*_ exercising this right to form a militia and are fighting a tyrannical government, that means the organized militia is no more, the armed forces are no more, the government, as it existed _is no more_ . . .  Simply because that government is no longer "_the government established by the Constitution_", it is something else, something foreign and dangerous -- which is why we are fighting it.



frigidweirdo said:


> Now, there might have been a duty to be in the militia, but then there would have also been a duty to own arms. Was anyone COMPELLED to keep arms? No. .



Yes.  Once *enrolled and notified *a man was required to "provide himself" with an appropriate firearm.  The Militia Act of 1792 mandates:


"That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, . . . "




frigidweirdo said:


> Therefore if individuals have the right to KEEP ARMS, they also have the right to be in the militia



The right to keep and bear arms has no relationship with militia duty or service.  The pre-existing right is recognized and secured because an armed citizenry affords the state a body of properly-situated citizens, (with arms in their hands), able to be called up at a moments notice to aid the civil government in time of need -- while the government is operating properly.  Again there is no right for citizens to form their own militia and train and drill.



frigidweirdo said:


> You don't understand Presser v. Illinois.



I understand it and I understand how the Constitution works.  There can not be a power granted like federal militia powers (a power that enjoys near field preemption) and then say that a concurrent "right" exists to do the same thing . . .   That's just not how it works and _Presser_ explains it.


"The right voluntarily to associate together as a military company or organization, or to drill or parade with arms, without, and independent of, an act of congress or law of the state authorizing the same, is not an attribute of national citizenship. Military organization and military drill and parade under arms are subjects especially under the control of the government of every country. They cannot be claimed as a right independent of law. Under our political system they are subject to the regulation and control of the state and federal governments, acting in due regard to their respective prerogatives and powers. The constitution and laws of the United States will be searched in vain for any support to the view that these rights are privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States independent of some specific legislation on the subject."



frigidweirdo said:


> There is ONE MILITIA (or 50, depending on how you look at it), it's described in Article 1, Section 8.
> 
> This is because they didn't want to destroy freedom by having any old militia walking around. It was a militia which had certain controls on it too.
> 
> "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
> 
> This militia has state appointed officers, and training as authorized by Congress.
> 
> This is the Militia you have a right to be in.



SMH . . . Now you are changing your argument from saying the people have a right to make a militia to fight a tyrannical government to now saying the people have a right to be in the organized §8 cl. 15 & 16 militia . . .    

You seem to get -here- that the *ONLY* militias allowed under law are those organized by Congress (which sets the rules of discipline and conduct and the regimen for training) and commanded by officers chosen by the state governments, . . .  and now you say there is a right to be in _*that*_ militia?

Not sure how this ridiculous premise would work, especially with the complete lack of attention and concern the states and federal government exhibited towards the organized militia.  Surely some citizen or group of citizens would have brought action against the federal and state governments for disregarding the militia and depriving the citizens this "right".  Can you point to one instance of this right being claimed and argued to compel the federal and state governments to fulfill their constitutional militia obligations?

The actual situation of being enrolled in the militia alters the status of the citizen; when one is called up some circumstances change.  Being in actual service works to roll back rights; a private citizen's 5th Amendment rights are not extended to a militia member.  If one commits a crime when an enrolled militia member in time of danger, the UCMJ is the applicable justice system.  Are you claiming a right to be court martialed?



frigidweirdo said:


> The whole text is about that, read it.



I prefer to follow the foundational constitutional principle that the right to keep and bear arms is not granted, created, given or otherwise established by the 2nd Amendment thus it does not in any manner depend on the Constitution for its existence.  Trying to "interpret" the 2nd Amendment's words to see what it "allows" citizens to do (or own), is illegitimate.

SCOTUS has been affirming this principle for going on over 140 years:


"The right . . . of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose" . . .  is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . ." (_Cruikshank_, 1876)

" . . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . ." (_Presser_, 1886)

"the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .”  (_Heller, _2008)

This principle also means that the right to arms can not be argued to have any militia conditioning or qualification placed on it.  The right can't in any manner depend on something (like the militia structure that cl. 15 & 16 sets-out) that is itself, entirely, completely dependent on the Constitution for _*its*_ existence.



frigidweirdo said:


> Also, they made the "unorganized militia" in the Dick Act of 1903, because they knew if they made the National Guard, that individuals could demand to be in it, reducing the effectiveness of the militia. So they "unorganized militia" was a way of saying "you have your right to be in the militia, see you're already in it, so stop complaining" while keeping them away from the actual effective militia.



In 24 years of debating gun rights on-line, I thought I saw it all.  

The Dick Act put the final nail in the coffin of the §8, cl. 15 & 16 militia.  It also answered unequivocally any question . . . that there are no "militia rights" for anyone (states or citizens) to claim.


----------



## Abatis

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Presser clarifies it.  "Shall not be infringed" applies only to the Federal Government, not State and Local governments; however, one could argue (as I do, just to be an ass) that the "privileges and immunities" clause of the 14th Amendment applies the 2nd Amendment's complete ban on infringement to State and local governments (which is a fucked-up conundrum caused by thoughtless/careless drafting and ratifying of the 14th Amendment).
> 
> 
> What a beautiful irony.  The very effort to vitiate individual state sovereignty may end up beening the savior thereof (at least partially).



Presser clarifies a lot but not that . . .

The 14th's "privileges or immunities" (and it's "*or*", not "and") clause was gutted by SCOTUS in _Slaughterhouse_ in 1873. 

_Presser,_ after quoting _Cruikshank_ on the federal only application of the 2nd _and_ paraphrasing that it is not granted by the 2nd thus the right does not depend on the Constitution to exist, actually goes on a expedition looking to see just how far the right to arms actually goes under the Constitution.

It says that the right to arms is enforced against state actions prohibiting the people from keeping and bearing arms, simply by the structure of the Constitution (as a Republic).  This works in reverse of "state's rights".


"It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government."

The 2nd Amendment is not what forbids governments (plural) from disarming the citizens.  It is the foundational principle of a republic, an armed citizenry and the general militia principle, that the citizens and their arms provide for the free state.


----------



## P@triot

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> And when Republicans attempt to violate the rights and protected liberties of the Americans people...


Why does CCJ think the left in the U.S. are called “Republicans”? That’s the problem with foreigners who stick their nose into discussions about U.S. politics - they have *no* idea what they are talking about.

(Psst..._stupid_...Republicans protect liberty. Dumbocrats try to end liberty)


----------



## P@triot

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Pure idiocy


True...but sadly...that’s what this board has come to expect from _you_.


----------



## sakinago

Abatis said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was both a right and a duty.
> 
> The duty was the state needed you.
> 
> However the Militia was seen as the ultimate check and balance against a tyrannical govt. As such a duty to fight a tyrannical govt isn't really there, because the Militia can be called up to the Federal or State govt's control.
> 
> What they wanted was a check which the people could use. Therefore it was a right, to fight against tyranny of their own government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right to be in an ad-hoc, citizen formed militia is not claimable / actionable for as long as the Constitution is in force -- there can be _*no*_ militia organized except that as set-out in Art I, §8, cl's 15 & 16.
> 
> Yes, the people retain the right to throw off a tyrannical government, but the first step in_* that*_ is taking back the powers granted to government (including the power to organize and call-up the militia) and invalidating any protections afforded to government by the Constitution (supremacy, preemption, prosecuting sedition and treason).  So, until the people have rescinded their consent to be governed there is no right to be in a militia because the people have conferred that power/right to the federal government.
> 
> If the people_* are*_ exercising this right to form a militia and are fighting a tyrannical government, that means the organized militia is no more, the armed forces are no more, the government, as it existed _is no more_ . . .  Simply because that government is no longer "_the government established by the Constitution_", it is something else, something foreign and dangerous -- which is why we are fighting it.
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, there might have been a duty to be in the militia, but then there would have also been a duty to own arms. Was anyone COMPELLED to keep arms? No. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  Once *enrolled and notified *a man was required to "provide himself" with an appropriate firearm.  The Militia Act of 1792 mandates:
> 
> 
> "That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, . . . "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore if individuals have the right to KEEP ARMS, they also have the right to be in the militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to keep and bear arms has no relationship with militia duty or service.  The pre-existing right is recognized and secured because an armed citizenry affords the state a body of properly-situated citizens, (with arms in their hands), able to be called up at a moments notice to aid the civil government in time of need -- while the government is operating properly.  Again there is no right for citizens to form their own militia and train and drill.
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand Presser v. Illinois.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand it and I understand how the Constitution works.  There can not be a power granted like federal militia powers (a power that enjoys near field preemption) and then say that a concurrent "right" exists to do the same thing . . .   That's just not how it works and _Presser_ explains it.
> 
> 
> "The right voluntarily to associate together as a military company or organization, or to drill or parade with arms, without, and independent of, an act of congress or law of the state authorizing the same, is not an attribute of national citizenship. Military organization and military drill and parade under arms are subjects especially under the control of the government of every country. They cannot be claimed as a right independent of law. Under our political system they are subject to the regulation and control of the state and federal governments, acting in due regard to their respective prerogatives and powers. The constitution and laws of the United States will be searched in vain for any support to the view that these rights are privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States independent of some specific legislation on the subject."
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is ONE MILITIA (or 50, depending on how you look at it), it's described in Article 1, Section 8.
> 
> This is because they didn't want to destroy freedom by having any old militia walking around. It was a militia which had certain controls on it too.
> 
> "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
> 
> This militia has state appointed officers, and training as authorized by Congress.
> 
> This is the Militia you have a right to be in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SMH . . . Now you are changing your argument from saying the people have a right to make a militia to fight a tyrannical government to now saying the people have a right to be in the organized §8 cl. 15 & 16 militia . . .
> 
> You seem to get -here- that the *ONLY* militias allowed under law are those organized by Congress (which sets the rules of discipline and conduct and the regimen for training) and commanded by officers chosen by the state governments, . . .  and now you say there is a right to be in _*that*_ militia?
> 
> Not sure how this ridiculous premise would work, especially with the complete lack of attention and concern the states and federal government exhibited towards the organized militia.  Surely some citizen or group of citizens would have brought action against the federal and state governments for disregarding the militia and depriving the citizens this "right".  Can you point to one instance of this right being claimed and argued to compel the federal and state governments to fulfill their constitutional militia obligations?
> 
> The actual situation of being enrolled in the militia alters the status of the citizen; when one is called up some circumstances change.  Being in actual service works to roll back rights; a private citizen's 5th Amendment rights are not extended to a militia member.  If one commits a crime when an enrolled militia member in time of danger, the UCMJ is the applicable justice system.  Are you claiming a right to be court martialed?
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The whole text is about that, read it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I prefer to follow the foundational constitutional principle that the right to keep and bear arms is not granted, created, given or otherwise established by the 2nd Amendment thus it does not in any manner depend on the Constitution for its existence.  Trying to "interpret" the 2nd Amendment's words to see what it "allows" citizens to do (or own), is illegitimate.
> 
> SCOTUS has been affirming this principle for going on over 140 years:
> 
> 
> "The right . . . of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose" . . .  is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . ." (_Cruikshank_, 1876)
> 
> " . . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . ." (_Presser_, 1886)
> 
> "the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .”  (_Heller, _2008)
> 
> This principle also means that the right to arms can not be argued to have any militia conditioning or qualification placed on it.  The right can't in any manner depend on something (like the militia structure that cl. 15 & 16 sets-out) that is itself, entirely, completely dependent on the Constitution for _*its*_ existence.
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, they made the "unorganized militia" in the Dick Act of 1903, because they knew if they made the National Guard, that individuals could demand to be in it, reducing the effectiveness of the militia. So they "unorganized militia" was a way of saying "you have your right to be in the militia, see you're already in it, so stop complaining" while keeping them away from the actual effective militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In 24 years of debating gun rights on-line, I thought I saw it all.
> 
> The Dick Act put the final nail in the coffin of the §8, cl. 15 & 16 militia.  It also answered unequivocally any question . . . that there are no "militia rights" for anyone (states or citizens) to claim.
Click to expand...

Im sure you’ll continue to be surprised in the future. Just when you though you’ve seen it all...


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

emilynghiem said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> And when Republicans attempt to violate the rights and protected liberties of the Americans people, those disadvantaged seek relief in court, subject solely to the rule of law, not the ignorance, hate, fear, and bigotry of Republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^ Question, C_Clayton_Jones: ^
> And where is this consistent enforcement of law upheld when it comes to SECULAR "beliefs" and
> freedom of choice whether to accept these or not:
> 
> * LGBT beliefs that homosexual orientation is natural and cannot change
> * Beliefs in transgender identity that should be endorsed and enforced through govt, even forced on people of other beliefs; but not Christian beliefs or expressions that should be removed because "not all people share those beliefs, which can't be imposed by govt"
> * beliefs in same sex marriage
> * beliefs in forcing everyone under govt run health care even if that violates their Constitutional beliefs
> 
> That are all EQUALLY faith based? Where laws and penalties favoring these beliefs discriminate against people of opposing beliefs who cannot comply without violating their own beliefs?
> 
> Why are people of other beliefs SUBJECT to the harassment, bullying, namecalling, "ignorance, hate, fear, and bigotry" put out by Liberals who claim to be open to tolerance, inclusion of diversity, freedom of choice, and equal protection from discrimination for all people? Or is that only for citizens of leftist political beliefs?
Click to expand...

As usual your post makes no sense whatsoever.

Perhaps these facts will help:

Our rights are inalienable but not absolute.

Our rights and protected liberties concern solely the relationship between government and those governed.

Government has the authority to place limits and restrictions on our rights and protected liberties consistent with Constitutional jurisprudence.

Constitutional jurisprudence evolves and develops as a consequence of the adversarial interaction between government and the courts.

Laws are presumed to be Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise; the courts will make a good faith attempt to defer to the will of the people as expressed by their elected representative who write and enact laws, but will reluctantly invalidated laws demonstrated to be un-Constitutional.

Laws enacted predicated on the ‘values’ of the people do not make those laws immune from attack by the courts, such as ‘values’ which seek to discriminate against or disadvantage gay and transgender American through force of law.

Private citizens are at liberty to practice their ‘values’ as they are not subject to Constitutional restrictions, including discriminating against gay and transgender Americans.

And no, public accommodations laws with provisions prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation do not ‘violate’ the rights of Christian business owners to indeed discriminate against gay patrons (_Smith v. Employment Division_).


----------



## frigidweirdo

Abatis said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was both a right and a duty.
> 
> The duty was the state needed you.
> 
> However the Militia was seen as the ultimate check and balance against a tyrannical govt. As such a duty to fight a tyrannical govt isn't really there, because the Militia can be called up to the Federal or State govt's control.
> 
> What they wanted was a check which the people could use. Therefore it was a right, to fight against tyranny of their own government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right to be in an ad-hoc, citizen formed militia is not claimable / actionable for as long as the Constitution is in force -- there can be _*no*_ militia organized except that as set-out in Art I, §8, cl's 15 & 16.
> 
> Yes, the people retain the right to throw off a tyrannical government, but the first step in_* that*_ is taking back the powers granted to government (including the power to organize and call-up the militia) and invalidating any protections afforded to government by the Constitution (supremacy, preemption, prosecuting sedition and treason).  So, until the people have rescinded their consent to be governed there is no right to be in a militia because the people have conferred that power/right to the federal government.
> 
> If the people_* are*_ exercising this right to form a militia and are fighting a tyrannical government, that means the organized militia is no more, the armed forces are no more, the government, as it existed _is no more_ . . .  Simply because that government is no longer "_the government established by the Constitution_", it is something else, something foreign and dangerous -- which is why we are fighting it.
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, there might have been a duty to be in the militia, but then there would have also been a duty to own arms. Was anyone COMPELLED to keep arms? No. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  Once *enrolled and notified *a man was required to "provide himself" with an appropriate firearm.  The Militia Act of 1792 mandates:
> 
> 
> "That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, . . . "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore if individuals have the right to KEEP ARMS, they also have the right to be in the militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to keep and bear arms has no relationship with militia duty or service.  The pre-existing right is recognized and secured because an armed citizenry affords the state a body of properly-situated citizens, (with arms in their hands), able to be called up at a moments notice to aid the civil government in time of need -- while the government is operating properly.  Again there is no right for citizens to form their own militia and train and drill.
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand Presser v. Illinois.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand it and I understand how the Constitution works.  There can not be a power granted like federal militia powers (a power that enjoys near field preemption) and then say that a concurrent "right" exists to do the same thing . . .   That's just not how it works and _Presser_ explains it.
> 
> 
> "The right voluntarily to associate together as a military company or organization, or to drill or parade with arms, without, and independent of, an act of congress or law of the state authorizing the same, is not an attribute of national citizenship. Military organization and military drill and parade under arms are subjects especially under the control of the government of every country. They cannot be claimed as a right independent of law. Under our political system they are subject to the regulation and control of the state and federal governments, acting in due regard to their respective prerogatives and powers. The constitution and laws of the United States will be searched in vain for any support to the view that these rights are privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States independent of some specific legislation on the subject."
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is ONE MILITIA (or 50, depending on how you look at it), it's described in Article 1, Section 8.
> 
> This is because they didn't want to destroy freedom by having any old militia walking around. It was a militia which had certain controls on it too.
> 
> "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
> 
> This militia has state appointed officers, and training as authorized by Congress.
> 
> This is the Militia you have a right to be in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SMH . . . Now you are changing your argument from saying the people have a right to make a militia to fight a tyrannical government to now saying the people have a right to be in the organized §8 cl. 15 & 16 militia . . .
> 
> You seem to get -here- that the *ONLY* militias allowed under law are those organized by Congress (which sets the rules of discipline and conduct and the regimen for training) and commanded by officers chosen by the state governments, . . .  and now you say there is a right to be in _*that*_ militia?
> 
> Not sure how this ridiculous premise would work, especially with the complete lack of attention and concern the states and federal government exhibited towards the organized militia.  Surely some citizen or group of citizens would have brought action against the federal and state governments for disregarding the militia and depriving the citizens this "right".  Can you point to one instance of this right being claimed and argued to compel the federal and state governments to fulfill their constitutional militia obligations?
> 
> The actual situation of being enrolled in the militia alters the status of the citizen; when one is called up some circumstances change.  Being in actual service works to roll back rights; a private citizen's 5th Amendment rights are not extended to a militia member.  If one commits a crime when an enrolled militia member in time of danger, the UCMJ is the applicable justice system.  Are you claiming a right to be court martialed?
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The whole text is about that, read it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I prefer to follow the foundational constitutional principle that the right to keep and bear arms is not granted, created, given or otherwise established by the 2nd Amendment thus it does not in any manner depend on the Constitution for its existence.  Trying to "interpret" the 2nd Amendment's words to see what it "allows" citizens to do (or own), is illegitimate.
> 
> SCOTUS has been affirming this principle for going on over 140 years:
> 
> 
> "The right . . . of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose" . . .  is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . ." (_Cruikshank_, 1876)
> 
> " . . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . ." (_Presser_, 1886)
> 
> "the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .”  (_Heller, _2008)
> 
> This principle also means that the right to arms can not be argued to have any militia conditioning or qualification placed on it.  The right can't in any manner depend on something (like the militia structure that cl. 15 & 16 sets-out) that is itself, entirely, completely dependent on the Constitution for _*its*_ existence.
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, they made the "unorganized militia" in the Dick Act of 1903, because they knew if they made the National Guard, that individuals could demand to be in it, reducing the effectiveness of the militia. So they "unorganized militia" was a way of saying "you have your right to be in the militia, see you're already in it, so stop complaining" while keeping them away from the actual effective militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In 24 years of debating gun rights on-line, I thought I saw it all.
> 
> The Dick Act put the final nail in the coffin of the §8, cl. 15 & 16 militia.  It also answered unequivocally any question . . . that there are no "militia rights" for anyone (states or citizens) to claim.
Click to expand...


Problem with your argument is that the Founding Fathers protected the right to be in the militia. 

The reason being that they wanted to protect the Constitution by protecting the militia.

They protected the right to keep arms so there would be a ready supply of arms. They protected the right to bear arms so there would be a ready supply of personnel to use those weapons.

"Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

Mr Gerry said this quote above. The clause he was referring to was "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

So, the govt being able to prevent people from bearing arms would give the people in power the opportunity to destroy the Constitution. HOW? By stopping them walking around with guns on a daily basis? Er.... no.

Because the next thing he says is "What, sir, is the use of a militia?" 

"Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."

When talking about "bear arms" they were taking about PROTECTING THE MILITIA by protecting individuals to "render military service". 

It's all there. 

You're twisting things.

There is not right to FORM a militia. There is a right to be in the militia as stated in Article 1 Section 8.

The Militia Act of 1792 was just that, an ACT of CONGRESS. Meaning it's not something required by the Constitution. 
You have Constitutional law, and then you have normal law. Two different things. Don't pretend that because in 1792 they made a law for something, that this was a requirement of the Constitution. In fact, if they had to make a law about it, it clearly WAS NOT in the Constitution.

I see that you say the "right to bear arms has no relationship with the militia duty or service", but I get the feeling you don't understand this. 

You don't need to be in the militia to be able to keep guns. That would defeat the whole point of the 2A which was to have a ready supply of guns outside of federal control and to have a ready supply of personnel outside of federal control.

You didn't need to be in the militia to have the right. EVERYONE had the right. However the right was to be in the militia. So those NOT IN THE MILITIA could JOIN THE MILITIA. 

Imagine saying "You can only join the militia if you're already in the militia", er..... you'd have to be a pretty fucking stupid bunch of Founding Fathers to protect something like this.

No, you clearly don't understand what Presser said.

There is no right to join up together with your mates and be a pretend militia. The right is to be in THE militia, not in A militia. Your quoting of Presser doesn't seem to do anything for your argument at all. I'm not really sure what you want to say, I just know you're wrong. 

"Now you are changing your argument from saying the people have a right to make a militia"

No, I'm not. I never said people have a right to make a militia. 

"I prefer to follow the foundational constitutional principle that the right to keep and bear arms is not granted, created, given or otherwise established by the 2nd Amendment thus it does not in any manner depend on the Constitution for its existence. Trying to "interpret" the 2nd Amendment's words to see what it "allows" citizens to do (or own), is illegitimate."

It doesn't matter whether the right is considered to exist before or not. If it's protected by the Constitution then it's protected. If the US govt doesn't recognize something, you can shout as much as you like. 

Like my right to murder. I prefer to follow the foundational constitutional principle that the right to murder is not granted, created, given or otherwise established.

Do you think they're going to listen?

In 24 years of debating online, you're still making up arguments for me. 

I'm sorry you've spent 24 years debating on line with people who have no clue. But it's just changed.

Yes, the Dick Act put the final nail in the coffin of the militia. Why?

Why did they make the Dick Act? Why did they make the "unorganized militia"? 

I've told you why. And you've just come back at me with nothing. As if they just decided "hey, I know, let's make the unorganized militia because it's my birthday tomorrow".

Oh, please. They did it for A REASON.


----------



## frigidweirdo

sakinago said:


> Abatis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was both a right and a duty.
> 
> The duty was the state needed you.
> 
> However the Militia was seen as the ultimate check and balance against a tyrannical govt. As such a duty to fight a tyrannical govt isn't really there, because the Militia can be called up to the Federal or State govt's control.
> 
> What they wanted was a check which the people could use. Therefore it was a right, to fight against tyranny of their own government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right to be in an ad-hoc, citizen formed militia is not claimable / actionable for as long as the Constitution is in force -- there can be _*no*_ militia organized except that as set-out in Art I, §8, cl's 15 & 16.
> 
> Yes, the people retain the right to throw off a tyrannical government, but the first step in_* that*_ is taking back the powers granted to government (including the power to organize and call-up the militia) and invalidating any protections afforded to government by the Constitution (supremacy, preemption, prosecuting sedition and treason).  So, until the people have rescinded their consent to be governed there is no right to be in a militia because the people have conferred that power/right to the federal government.
> 
> If the people_* are*_ exercising this right to form a militia and are fighting a tyrannical government, that means the organized militia is no more, the armed forces are no more, the government, as it existed _is no more_ . . .  Simply because that government is no longer "_the government established by the Constitution_", it is something else, something foreign and dangerous -- which is why we are fighting it.
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, there might have been a duty to be in the militia, but then there would have also been a duty to own arms. Was anyone COMPELLED to keep arms? No. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  Once *enrolled and notified *a man was required to "provide himself" with an appropriate firearm.  The Militia Act of 1792 mandates:
> 
> 
> "That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, . . . "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore if individuals have the right to KEEP ARMS, they also have the right to be in the militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to keep and bear arms has no relationship with militia duty or service.  The pre-existing right is recognized and secured because an armed citizenry affords the state a body of properly-situated citizens, (with arms in their hands), able to be called up at a moments notice to aid the civil government in time of need -- while the government is operating properly.  Again there is no right for citizens to form their own militia and train and drill.
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand Presser v. Illinois.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand it and I understand how the Constitution works.  There can not be a power granted like federal militia powers (a power that enjoys near field preemption) and then say that a concurrent "right" exists to do the same thing . . .   That's just not how it works and _Presser_ explains it.
> 
> 
> "The right voluntarily to associate together as a military company or organization, or to drill or parade with arms, without, and independent of, an act of congress or law of the state authorizing the same, is not an attribute of national citizenship. Military organization and military drill and parade under arms are subjects especially under the control of the government of every country. They cannot be claimed as a right independent of law. Under our political system they are subject to the regulation and control of the state and federal governments, acting in due regard to their respective prerogatives and powers. The constitution and laws of the United States will be searched in vain for any support to the view that these rights are privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States independent of some specific legislation on the subject."
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is ONE MILITIA (or 50, depending on how you look at it), it's described in Article 1, Section 8.
> 
> This is because they didn't want to destroy freedom by having any old militia walking around. It was a militia which had certain controls on it too.
> 
> "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
> 
> This militia has state appointed officers, and training as authorized by Congress.
> 
> This is the Militia you have a right to be in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SMH . . . Now you are changing your argument from saying the people have a right to make a militia to fight a tyrannical government to now saying the people have a right to be in the organized §8 cl. 15 & 16 militia . . .
> 
> You seem to get -here- that the *ONLY* militias allowed under law are those organized by Congress (which sets the rules of discipline and conduct and the regimen for training) and commanded by officers chosen by the state governments, . . .  and now you say there is a right to be in _*that*_ militia?
> 
> Not sure how this ridiculous premise would work, especially with the complete lack of attention and concern the states and federal government exhibited towards the organized militia.  Surely some citizen or group of citizens would have brought action against the federal and state governments for disregarding the militia and depriving the citizens this "right".  Can you point to one instance of this right being claimed and argued to compel the federal and state governments to fulfill their constitutional militia obligations?
> 
> The actual situation of being enrolled in the militia alters the status of the citizen; when one is called up some circumstances change.  Being in actual service works to roll back rights; a private citizen's 5th Amendment rights are not extended to a militia member.  If one commits a crime when an enrolled militia member in time of danger, the UCMJ is the applicable justice system.  Are you claiming a right to be court martialed?
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The whole text is about that, read it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I prefer to follow the foundational constitutional principle that the right to keep and bear arms is not granted, created, given or otherwise established by the 2nd Amendment thus it does not in any manner depend on the Constitution for its existence.  Trying to "interpret" the 2nd Amendment's words to see what it "allows" citizens to do (or own), is illegitimate.
> 
> SCOTUS has been affirming this principle for going on over 140 years:
> 
> 
> "The right . . . of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose" . . .  is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . ." (_Cruikshank_, 1876)
> 
> " . . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . ." (_Presser_, 1886)
> 
> "the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .”  (_Heller, _2008)
> 
> This principle also means that the right to arms can not be argued to have any militia conditioning or qualification placed on it.  The right can't in any manner depend on something (like the militia structure that cl. 15 & 16 sets-out) that is itself, entirely, completely dependent on the Constitution for _*its*_ existence.
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, they made the "unorganized militia" in the Dick Act of 1903, because they knew if they made the National Guard, that individuals could demand to be in it, reducing the effectiveness of the militia. So they "unorganized militia" was a way of saying "you have your right to be in the militia, see you're already in it, so stop complaining" while keeping them away from the actual effective militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In 24 years of debating gun rights on-line, I thought I saw it all.
> 
> The Dick Act put the final nail in the coffin of the §8, cl. 15 & 16 militia.  It also answered unequivocally any question . . . that there are no "militia rights" for anyone (states or citizens) to claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Im sure you’ll continue to be surprised in the future. Just when you though you’ve seen it all...
Click to expand...


Yes, he might actually learn something if he keeps his mind open. 

Those who have an agenda however, will just mock and insult.


----------



## sakinago

frigidweirdo said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abatis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was both a right and a duty.
> 
> The duty was the state needed you.
> 
> However the Militia was seen as the ultimate check and balance against a tyrannical govt. As such a duty to fight a tyrannical govt isn't really there, because the Militia can be called up to the Federal or State govt's control.
> 
> What they wanted was a check which the people could use. Therefore it was a right, to fight against tyranny of their own government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right to be in an ad-hoc, citizen formed militia is not claimable / actionable for as long as the Constitution is in force -- there can be _*no*_ militia organized except that as set-out in Art I, §8, cl's 15 & 16.
> 
> Yes, the people retain the right to throw off a tyrannical government, but the first step in_* that*_ is taking back the powers granted to government (including the power to organize and call-up the militia) and invalidating any protections afforded to government by the Constitution (supremacy, preemption, prosecuting sedition and treason).  So, until the people have rescinded their consent to be governed there is no right to be in a militia because the people have conferred that power/right to the federal government.
> 
> If the people_* are*_ exercising this right to form a militia and are fighting a tyrannical government, that means the organized militia is no more, the armed forces are no more, the government, as it existed _is no more_ . . .  Simply because that government is no longer "_the government established by the Constitution_", it is something else, something foreign and dangerous -- which is why we are fighting it.
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, there might have been a duty to be in the militia, but then there would have also been a duty to own arms. Was anyone COMPELLED to keep arms? No. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  Once *enrolled and notified *a man was required to "provide himself" with an appropriate firearm.  The Militia Act of 1792 mandates:
> 
> 
> "That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, . . . "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore if individuals have the right to KEEP ARMS, they also have the right to be in the militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to keep and bear arms has no relationship with militia duty or service.  The pre-existing right is recognized and secured because an armed citizenry affords the state a body of properly-situated citizens, (with arms in their hands), able to be called up at a moments notice to aid the civil government in time of need -- while the government is operating properly.  Again there is no right for citizens to form their own militia and train and drill.
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand Presser v. Illinois.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand it and I understand how the Constitution works.  There can not be a power granted like federal militia powers (a power that enjoys near field preemption) and then say that a concurrent "right" exists to do the same thing . . .   That's just not how it works and _Presser_ explains it.
> 
> 
> "The right voluntarily to associate together as a military company or organization, or to drill or parade with arms, without, and independent of, an act of congress or law of the state authorizing the same, is not an attribute of national citizenship. Military organization and military drill and parade under arms are subjects especially under the control of the government of every country. They cannot be claimed as a right independent of law. Under our political system they are subject to the regulation and control of the state and federal governments, acting in due regard to their respective prerogatives and powers. The constitution and laws of the United States will be searched in vain for any support to the view that these rights are privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States independent of some specific legislation on the subject."
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is ONE MILITIA (or 50, depending on how you look at it), it's described in Article 1, Section 8.
> 
> This is because they didn't want to destroy freedom by having any old militia walking around. It was a militia which had certain controls on it too.
> 
> "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
> 
> This militia has state appointed officers, and training as authorized by Congress.
> 
> This is the Militia you have a right to be in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SMH . . . Now you are changing your argument from saying the people have a right to make a militia to fight a tyrannical government to now saying the people have a right to be in the organized §8 cl. 15 & 16 militia . . .
> 
> You seem to get -here- that the *ONLY* militias allowed under law are those organized by Congress (which sets the rules of discipline and conduct and the regimen for training) and commanded by officers chosen by the state governments, . . .  and now you say there is a right to be in _*that*_ militia?
> 
> Not sure how this ridiculous premise would work, especially with the complete lack of attention and concern the states and federal government exhibited towards the organized militia.  Surely some citizen or group of citizens would have brought action against the federal and state governments for disregarding the militia and depriving the citizens this "right".  Can you point to one instance of this right being claimed and argued to compel the federal and state governments to fulfill their constitutional militia obligations?
> 
> The actual situation of being enrolled in the militia alters the status of the citizen; when one is called up some circumstances change.  Being in actual service works to roll back rights; a private citizen's 5th Amendment rights are not extended to a militia member.  If one commits a crime when an enrolled militia member in time of danger, the UCMJ is the applicable justice system.  Are you claiming a right to be court martialed?
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The whole text is about that, read it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I prefer to follow the foundational constitutional principle that the right to keep and bear arms is not granted, created, given or otherwise established by the 2nd Amendment thus it does not in any manner depend on the Constitution for its existence.  Trying to "interpret" the 2nd Amendment's words to see what it "allows" citizens to do (or own), is illegitimate.
> 
> SCOTUS has been affirming this principle for going on over 140 years:
> 
> 
> "The right . . . of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose" . . .  is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . ." (_Cruikshank_, 1876)
> 
> " . . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . ." (_Presser_, 1886)
> 
> "the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .”  (_Heller, _2008)
> 
> This principle also means that the right to arms can not be argued to have any militia conditioning or qualification placed on it.  The right can't in any manner depend on something (like the militia structure that cl. 15 & 16 sets-out) that is itself, entirely, completely dependent on the Constitution for _*its*_ existence.
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, they made the "unorganized militia" in the Dick Act of 1903, because they knew if they made the National Guard, that individuals could demand to be in it, reducing the effectiveness of the militia. So they "unorganized militia" was a way of saying "you have your right to be in the militia, see you're already in it, so stop complaining" while keeping them away from the actual effective militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In 24 years of debating gun rights on-line, I thought I saw it all.
> 
> The Dick Act put the final nail in the coffin of the §8, cl. 15 & 16 militia.  It also answered unequivocally any question . . . that there are no "militia rights" for anyone (states or citizens) to claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Im sure you’ll continue to be surprised in the future. Just when you though you’ve seen it all...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, he might actually learn something if he keeps his mind open.
> 
> Those who have an agenda however, will just mock and insult.
Click to expand...

Please tell me you aren’t honestly trying to say you have no agenda...this feels like I’m on some sort of internet candy camera. 

I have an agenda, the difference between my agenda and yours is that I wish to add freedom to the world. I want you to have more freedom, I want myself to have more freedom. I want you to have a government that you don’t have to be concerned about what policy they’re passing here or there, because they are staying out of your business. My agenda is also in line with our constitution as it was intended.


----------



## Cecilie1200

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This just shows how fucked up right wing logic is.
> 
> Hillary says she doesn't like guns. But in the US there are guns, and as long as there are guns important people need to be protected by people with guns.
> 
> I don't like guns. I went to South Africa and I bought pepper spray. However if I lived in South Africa (you'd have to make me, kicking and screaming) I'd buy a gun because this is the only way I'd feel safe.
> 
> However I prefer to live in places where I DON'T NEED A GUN.
> 
> Hillary having to be surrounded by armed people might be one reason why she doesn't like guns.
> 
> Or probably better said, she's the eternal politician and she'll take the policies she thinks will make her win. But that's a different matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, her position is a little more than simply "not liking guns."      And why should only "important" people be protected? That statement shows the hypocrisy of liberals who talk about "equality."      All people are equal, so I hope you're not actually saying that only important people (i.e. your dear leaders) deserve protection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pure idiocy.
> 
> No one is advocating that only important people be protected; consequently there is no ‘hypocrisy’ of liberals concerning equality.
> 
> Liberals support current Second Amendment jurisprudence, take no issue with citizens lawfully possessing firearms, and acknowledge the right of citizens to engage in lawful self-defense.
> 
> Indeed, it’s conservatives who are hostile to current Second Amendment jurisprudence, claiming that the Second Amendment is ‘unlimited,’ when the _Heller_ Court reaffirmed that it is not, arguing that there should be no restrictions on possessing firearms although the courts have upheld those restrictions as Constitutional, and opposing firearm regulatory measures the Supreme Court has never ruled to be in violation of the Second Amendment.
Click to expand...


Joe Biden Says Hero Who Took Down Texas Church Shooter Shouldn’t Have Had AR-15

Joe Biden would certainly be surprised to hear you consider him "no one".


----------



## Cecilie1200

emilynghiem said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time for you to leave the U.S. Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That ain't how it works, sparky.  We use the ballot box and laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That we do, dunce boy and the ballot box is why the GOP controls the executive and legislative branches of government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And when Republicans attempt to violate the rights and protected liberties of the Americans people, those disadvantaged seek relief in court, subject solely to the rule of law, not the ignorance, hate, fear, and bigotry of Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Republicans attempt to violate the rights of the people".  When, precisely, would that be?  Could you cite an example?  Would help even more if your cited example wasn't of the left's most cherished right of being an unmitigated jackass whenever and wherever they please.
> 
> Not saying you don't have the right to be an asshole.  Just suggesting that maybe that's not the one you should exercise and defend the most vigorously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Cecilie1200
> 
> 1. Republicans in Tennessee sought to ban Mosques, which was discrimination against Muslims not treated equally as Christians under Constitutional laws. (Democrats similarly push to ban the choice of reparative therapy, and don't treat ex-gay and LGBT beliefs equally but discriminate against ex-gays while complaining about discrimination against transgender as a minority)
> 
> 2. Republicans voted and defended unconstitutional bans on same sex marriage, that led to the opposite backlash and equal unconstitutional move to endorse and establish the right to marriage. BOTH involve faith based beliefs and biases regarding "marriage"; where NEITHER should be decided by govt but left to the people's free choice of beliefs.
> 
> 3. Republicans continue to push prolife views and policies through govt, in violation of the equal protection of prochoice beliefs. While Democrats continue to do the same pushing right to health care through govt, in violation of Constitutional beliefs in free market choices that govt is not authorized to coerce people into under threat of penalty.
> Both are unconstitutional.
Click to expand...


So what I'm hearing is exactly what I expected:  Republicans "violation of rights" is really just  that they're opposing your opinions, and having the unmitigated gall to think they should be allowed to do so publicly.


----------



## frigidweirdo

sakinago said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abatis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was both a right and a duty.
> 
> The duty was the state needed you.
> 
> However the Militia was seen as the ultimate check and balance against a tyrannical govt. As such a duty to fight a tyrannical govt isn't really there, because the Militia can be called up to the Federal or State govt's control.
> 
> What they wanted was a check which the people could use. Therefore it was a right, to fight against tyranny of their own government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right to be in an ad-hoc, citizen formed militia is not claimable / actionable for as long as the Constitution is in force -- there can be _*no*_ militia organized except that as set-out in Art I, §8, cl's 15 & 16.
> 
> Yes, the people retain the right to throw off a tyrannical government, but the first step in_* that*_ is taking back the powers granted to government (including the power to organize and call-up the militia) and invalidating any protections afforded to government by the Constitution (supremacy, preemption, prosecuting sedition and treason).  So, until the people have rescinded their consent to be governed there is no right to be in a militia because the people have conferred that power/right to the federal government.
> 
> If the people_* are*_ exercising this right to form a militia and are fighting a tyrannical government, that means the organized militia is no more, the armed forces are no more, the government, as it existed _is no more_ . . .  Simply because that government is no longer "_the government established by the Constitution_", it is something else, something foreign and dangerous -- which is why we are fighting it.
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, there might have been a duty to be in the militia, but then there would have also been a duty to own arms. Was anyone COMPELLED to keep arms? No. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  Once *enrolled and notified *a man was required to "provide himself" with an appropriate firearm.  The Militia Act of 1792 mandates:
> 
> 
> "That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, . . . "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore if individuals have the right to KEEP ARMS, they also have the right to be in the militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to keep and bear arms has no relationship with militia duty or service.  The pre-existing right is recognized and secured because an armed citizenry affords the state a body of properly-situated citizens, (with arms in their hands), able to be called up at a moments notice to aid the civil government in time of need -- while the government is operating properly.  Again there is no right for citizens to form their own militia and train and drill.
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand Presser v. Illinois.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand it and I understand how the Constitution works.  There can not be a power granted like federal militia powers (a power that enjoys near field preemption) and then say that a concurrent "right" exists to do the same thing . . .   That's just not how it works and _Presser_ explains it.
> 
> 
> "The right voluntarily to associate together as a military company or organization, or to drill or parade with arms, without, and independent of, an act of congress or law of the state authorizing the same, is not an attribute of national citizenship. Military organization and military drill and parade under arms are subjects especially under the control of the government of every country. They cannot be claimed as a right independent of law. Under our political system they are subject to the regulation and control of the state and federal governments, acting in due regard to their respective prerogatives and powers. The constitution and laws of the United States will be searched in vain for any support to the view that these rights are privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States independent of some specific legislation on the subject."
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is ONE MILITIA (or 50, depending on how you look at it), it's described in Article 1, Section 8.
> 
> This is because they didn't want to destroy freedom by having any old militia walking around. It was a militia which had certain controls on it too.
> 
> "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
> 
> This militia has state appointed officers, and training as authorized by Congress.
> 
> This is the Militia you have a right to be in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SMH . . . Now you are changing your argument from saying the people have a right to make a militia to fight a tyrannical government to now saying the people have a right to be in the organized §8 cl. 15 & 16 militia . . .
> 
> You seem to get -here- that the *ONLY* militias allowed under law are those organized by Congress (which sets the rules of discipline and conduct and the regimen for training) and commanded by officers chosen by the state governments, . . .  and now you say there is a right to be in _*that*_ militia?
> 
> Not sure how this ridiculous premise would work, especially with the complete lack of attention and concern the states and federal government exhibited towards the organized militia.  Surely some citizen or group of citizens would have brought action against the federal and state governments for disregarding the militia and depriving the citizens this "right".  Can you point to one instance of this right being claimed and argued to compel the federal and state governments to fulfill their constitutional militia obligations?
> 
> The actual situation of being enrolled in the militia alters the status of the citizen; when one is called up some circumstances change.  Being in actual service works to roll back rights; a private citizen's 5th Amendment rights are not extended to a militia member.  If one commits a crime when an enrolled militia member in time of danger, the UCMJ is the applicable justice system.  Are you claiming a right to be court martialed?
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The whole text is about that, read it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I prefer to follow the foundational constitutional principle that the right to keep and bear arms is not granted, created, given or otherwise established by the 2nd Amendment thus it does not in any manner depend on the Constitution for its existence.  Trying to "interpret" the 2nd Amendment's words to see what it "allows" citizens to do (or own), is illegitimate.
> 
> SCOTUS has been affirming this principle for going on over 140 years:
> 
> 
> "The right . . . of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose" . . .  is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . ." (_Cruikshank_, 1876)
> 
> " . . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . ." (_Presser_, 1886)
> 
> "the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .”  (_Heller, _2008)
> 
> This principle also means that the right to arms can not be argued to have any militia conditioning or qualification placed on it.  The right can't in any manner depend on something (like the militia structure that cl. 15 & 16 sets-out) that is itself, entirely, completely dependent on the Constitution for _*its*_ existence.
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, they made the "unorganized militia" in the Dick Act of 1903, because they knew if they made the National Guard, that individuals could demand to be in it, reducing the effectiveness of the militia. So they "unorganized militia" was a way of saying "you have your right to be in the militia, see you're already in it, so stop complaining" while keeping them away from the actual effective militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In 24 years of debating gun rights on-line, I thought I saw it all.
> 
> The Dick Act put the final nail in the coffin of the §8, cl. 15 & 16 militia.  It also answered unequivocally any question . . . that there are no "militia rights" for anyone (states or citizens) to claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Im sure you’ll continue to be surprised in the future. Just when you though you’ve seen it all...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, he might actually learn something if he keeps his mind open.
> 
> Those who have an agenda however, will just mock and insult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please tell me you aren’t honestly trying to say you have no agenda...this feels like I’m on some sort of internet candy camera.
> 
> I have an agenda, the difference between my agenda and yours is that I wish to add freedom to the world. I want you to have more freedom, I want myself to have more freedom. I want you to have a government that you don’t have to be concerned about what policy they’re passing here or there, because they are staying out of your business. My agenda is also in line with our constitution as it was intended.
Click to expand...


You have no idea what I think.

No, I have no agenda. I take the issue, I look at the facts and I come to a conclusion.

Yes, I have an agenda in other things.

Go look up on the search next to my name with "proportional representation" and then we'll see who's for more freedom or not.

Guns don't equal freedom, I'm sorry, but they don't.

As for your agenda being as the Constitution intended. That's bullshit, I know this because I present EVIDENCE that clearly shows how the Constitution was supposed to be interpreted, and you IGNORE IT. Says a lot.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

frigidweirdo said:


> Guns don't equal freedom, I'm sorry, but they don't.


They don't equal freedom, true.  They can guarantee freedom if people who have them are willing to use them when necessary.  They probably have prevented a Bolshevik revolution in the U.S. 

Guns are tools.  Nothing more. 

We shouldn't ban tools because a very small minority of people abuse them.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guns don't equal freedom, I'm sorry, but they don't.
> 
> 
> 
> They don't equal freedom, true.  They can guarantee freedom if people who have them are willing to use them when necessary.  They probably have prevented a Bolshevik revolution in the U.S.
> 
> Guns are tools.  Nothing more.
> 
> We shouldn't ban tools because a very small minority of people abuse them.
Click to expand...


No, they don't equal freedom, and often people forget what makes freedom because they think "we have guns". Well, the UK without many guns didn't have a Bolshevik revolution either. The UK has more or less the same freedoms of the US does.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

frigidweirdo said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guns don't equal freedom, I'm sorry, but they don't.
> 
> 
> 
> They don't equal freedom, true.  They can guarantee freedom if people who have them are willing to use them when necessary.  They probably have prevented a Bolshevik revolution in the U.S.
> 
> Guns are tools.  Nothing more.
> 
> We shouldn't ban tools because a very small minority of people abuse them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they don't equal freedom, and often people forget what makes freedom because they think "we have guns". Well, the UK without many guns didn't have a Bolshevik revolution either. The UK has more or less the same freedoms of the US does.
Click to expand...

UK and the US are only the same compared to NK, but that's not the issue.

Guns are tools.  They don't create freedom.  They don't rise up and defeat tyranny.  They are nothing but tools.  WE create freedom.  WE rise up.  WE act.  We just need our tools to do so, when necessary.

That's all I am saying.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guns don't equal freedom, I'm sorry, but they don't.
> 
> 
> 
> They don't equal freedom, true.  They can guarantee freedom if people who have them are willing to use them when necessary.  They probably have prevented a Bolshevik revolution in the U.S.
> 
> Guns are tools.  Nothing more.
> 
> We shouldn't ban tools because a very small minority of people abuse them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they don't equal freedom, and often people forget what makes freedom because they think "we have guns". Well, the UK without many guns didn't have a Bolshevik revolution either. The UK has more or less the same freedoms of the US does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> UK and the US are only the same compared to NK, but that's not the issue.
> 
> Guns are tools.  They don't create freedom.  They don't rise up and defeat tyranny.  They are nothing but tools.  WE create freedom.  WE rise up.  WE act.  We just need our tools to do so, when necessary.
> 
> That's all I am saying.
Click to expand...


Okay, and surely it would be better to have people thinking about who they vote for, to get politicians who will protect things. You want to rise up against a tyrannical govt, it'll probably be too late anyway, no matter whether you have guns or not.


----------



## Abatis

frigidweirdo said:


> Problem with your argument is that the Founding Fathers protected the right to be in the militia.



*How is this right exercised?* 

The obligation to perform militia duty was not impressed on everyone in the nation (only free White men); there were plenty of people excluded from simply being eligible to perform militia duty.  Do you argue that people _other_  than free white men possessed this right, or was the right restricted to only those citizens who were already obligated to perform militia duty?  If the latter, how is doing what one is legally obligated to do, in any definition familiar to the founders / framers, _a right_?  In your world is there a right to pay your taxes?

*How is this right violated?  *

Who would be the violator?  You can only be talking about a right that exists federally since states were not bound by the 2nd Amendment.  What actions by the federal government would you consider a violation of this right?

*How is this right enforced?* 

Who in the federal government would a citizen bring action against to remedy an injury of this right?  Would Congress be the defendant, for not allowing certain people to be included in the class obligated to perform militia duty?  

If this right really existed there would have been hundreds if not thousands of examples of actions being brought against the federal government, especially in the abolitionist movement.  States like Massachusetts would have certainly tested every possible interpretation, trying to extend this right to Blacks -- especially after _Dred Scott v Sandford_ since the federal exclusion from the militia was such an important part of Justice Taney's reasoning. 

After _Dred Scott_, Massachusetts proposed allowing non-Whites to serve in the Militia; the legislature passed laws in 1859 and 1860 allowing Blacks to serve; after advisory opinions from the state AG and supreme court, the governor vetoed it, not wanting a fight with the feds.  Had Blacks been enrolled, their names would have been sent to the feds in the Return of Militia.  It could be argued then that they are then liable to federal service - a powerful argument for standing to be granted in federal court, and possibly undermining the _Dred Scott_ decision.  Had your imagined right really been thought to exist, it would have been the perfect vehicle for such action, _*BUT*_ . . . Nothing????

The only thing that is more believable than your militia right fantasy is if you said you saw Jesus Christ riding sidesaddle on a rainbow farting unicorn waving a pink dildo.


----------



## Abatis

frigidweirdo said:


> You're twisting things.



I'm trying to untwist them.



frigidweirdo said:


> The Militia Act of 1792 was just that, an ACT of CONGRESS. Meaning it's not something required by the Constitution.
> You have Constitutional law, and then you have normal law. Two different things. Don't pretend that because in 1792 they made a law for something, that this was a requirement of the Constitution. In fact, if they had to make a law about it, it clearly WAS NOT in the Constitution.



Really, you can't be serious.

The Militia Act of 1792 was Congress exercising its constitutional powers to "provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia".

The Militia Act of 1792 set-out who was liable to perform militia service, how they would be armed, the command structure of the militia etc . . .



frigidweirdo said:


> Yes, the Dick Act put the final nail in the coffin of the militia. Why?
> 
> Why did they make the Dick Act? Why did they make the "unorganized militia"?
> 
> I've told you why. And you've just come back at me with nothing. As if they just decided "hey, I know, let's make the unorganized militia because it's my birthday tomorrow".
> 
> Oh, please. They did it for A REASON.




LOL.  The Congress didn't create the unorganized militia.

Those private citizens, not enrolled in any militia and not encumbered by any militia regulations, but just citizens simply capable of bearing arms, are the reserve "unorganized" militia . . .  _Presser_ acknowledged this as being an unquestionable truth of the US:


"It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states,"

.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Abatis said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Problem with your argument is that the Founding Fathers protected the right to be in the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *How is this right exercised?*
> 
> The obligation to perform militia duty was not impressed on everyone in the nation (only free White men); there were plenty of people excluded from simply being eligible to perform militia duty.  Do you argue that people _other_  than free white men possessed this right, or was the right restricted to only those citizens who were already obligated to perform militia duty?  If the latter, how is doing what one is legally obligated to do, in any definition familiar to the founders / framers, _a right_?  In your world is there a right to pay your taxes?
> 
> *How is this right violated?  *
> 
> Who would be the violator?  You can only be talking about a right that exists federally since states were not bound by the 2nd Amendment.  What actions by the federal government would you consider a violation of this right?
> 
> *How is this right enforced?*
> 
> Who in the federal government would a citizen bring action against to remedy an injury of this right?  Would Congress be the defendant, for not allowing certain people to be included in the class obligated to perform militia duty?
> 
> If this right really existed there would have been hundreds if not thousands of examples of actions being brought against the federal government, especially in the abolitionist movement.  States like Massachusetts would have certainly tested every possible interpretation, trying to extend this right to Blacks -- especially after _Dred Scott v Sandford_ since the federal exclusion from the militia was such an important part of Justice Taney's reasoning.
> 
> After _Dred Scott_, Massachusetts proposed allowing non-Whites to serve in the Militia; the legislature passed laws in 1859 and 1860 allowing Blacks to serve; after advisory opinions from the state AG and supreme court, the governor vetoed it, not wanting a fight with the feds.  Had Blacks been enrolled, their names would have been sent to the feds in the Return of Militia.  It could be argued then that they are then liable to federal service - a powerful argument for standing to be granted in federal court, and possibly undermining the _Dred Scott_ decision.  Had your imagined right really been thought to exist, it would have been the perfect vehicle for such action, _*BUT*_ . . . Nothing????
> 
> The only thing that is more believable than your militia right fantasy is if you said you saw Jesus Christ riding sidesaddle on a rainbow farting unicorn waving a pink dildo.
Click to expand...


Militia duty was considered just for men. However they made the protection for the right, and it includes all people. The reality was that they probably wouldn't have expected women to join up, but in reality they couldn't have stopped them. However society would probably have stopped them.

I mean, they said "all men are created equal" in 1776 and there was slavery in 1860 and segregation in 1950. Come on. 

The clause they wanted to put into the future 2A was that people who were religiously scrupulous couldn't be compelled to be in the militia, but everyone else could be. They feared this would mean the feds could declare who was religiously scrupulous and prevent them being in the militia, and thereby preventing ALL PEOPLE being in the militia, or at least making it ineffective. 

Does this sound like the sort of argument for preventing people from carrying guns around? Would they have required those who refused to carry guns around in the streets on a normal day to "pay an equivalent"? 

No.

A violation of the right to bear arms would be to prevent an individual from being in the militia before due process. 

The whole point would be that if tyranny had not taken over, then they would go through the court system, just like everyone else.

Look, I'm happy to debate with someone. If you want to go off on one talking about fantasy, then I'm not going to respond. 

I can back up everything I say with evidence. You've backed up nothing. Don't tell me that all my evidence is fantasy while your lack of evidence is what?


----------



## frigidweirdo

Abatis said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're twisting things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm trying to untwist them.
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Militia Act of 1792 was just that, an ACT of CONGRESS. Meaning it's not something required by the Constitution.
> You have Constitutional law, and then you have normal law. Two different things. Don't pretend that because in 1792 they made a law for something, that this was a requirement of the Constitution. In fact, if they had to make a law about it, it clearly WAS NOT in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really, you can't be serious.
> 
> The Militia Act of 1792 was Congress exercising its constitutional powers to "provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia".
> 
> The Militia Act of 1792 set-out who was liable to perform militia service, how they would be armed, the command structure of the militia etc . . .
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Dick Act put the final nail in the coffin of the militia. Why?
> 
> Why did they make the Dick Act? Why did they make the "unorganized militia"?
> 
> I've told you why. And you've just come back at me with nothing. As if they just decided "hey, I know, let's make the unorganized militia because it's my birthday tomorrow".
> 
> Oh, please. They did it for A REASON.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.  The Congress didn't create the unorganized militia.
> 
> Those private citizens, not enrolled in any militia and not encumbered by any militia regulations, but just citizens simply capable of bearing arms, are the reserve "unorganized" militia . . .  _Presser_ acknowledged this as being an unquestionable truth of the US:
> 
> 
> "It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states,"
> 
> .
Click to expand...


The militia act of 1792 was indeed the US Congress exercising its power to arm and discipline the militia. However the Constitution merely gave that power to Congress. It did NOT say in the Constitution how this arming and disciplining must be done and the Constitution DID NOT say who was in the militia. 

Unless of course you can prove a shred of evidence to back this up. 

But you can't, and we both know it. 

Congress didn't create the "unorganized militia"? I'm shocked. 

The quote you have provided says "reserve militia" not "unorganized militia". Come on. 

The Dick Act created the "unorganized militia" and the Dick Act was made in Congress, the legislature, where LEGISLATION is made.

Dick Act of 1902

"The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army."

Seems I have more evidence, you have nothing relevant.


----------



## sakinago

frigidweirdo said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abatis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was both a right and a duty.
> 
> The duty was the state needed you.
> 
> However the Militia was seen as the ultimate check and balance against a tyrannical govt. As such a duty to fight a tyrannical govt isn't really there, because the Militia can be called up to the Federal or State govt's control.
> 
> What they wanted was a check which the people could use. Therefore it was a right, to fight against tyranny of their own government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right to be in an ad-hoc, citizen formed militia is not claimable / actionable for as long as the Constitution is in force -- there can be _*no*_ militia organized except that as set-out in Art I, §8, cl's 15 & 16.
> 
> Yes, the people retain the right to throw off a tyrannical government, but the first step in_* that*_ is taking back the powers granted to government (including the power to organize and call-up the militia) and invalidating any protections afforded to government by the Constitution (supremacy, preemption, prosecuting sedition and treason).  So, until the people have rescinded their consent to be governed there is no right to be in a militia because the people have conferred that power/right to the federal government.
> 
> If the people_* are*_ exercising this right to form a militia and are fighting a tyrannical government, that means the organized militia is no more, the armed forces are no more, the government, as it existed _is no more_ . . .  Simply because that government is no longer "_the government established by the Constitution_", it is something else, something foreign and dangerous -- which is why we are fighting it.
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, there might have been a duty to be in the militia, but then there would have also been a duty to own arms. Was anyone COMPELLED to keep arms? No. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  Once *enrolled and notified *a man was required to "provide himself" with an appropriate firearm.  The Militia Act of 1792 mandates:
> 
> 
> "That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, . . . "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore if individuals have the right to KEEP ARMS, they also have the right to be in the militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to keep and bear arms has no relationship with militia duty or service.  The pre-existing right is recognized and secured because an armed citizenry affords the state a body of properly-situated citizens, (with arms in their hands), able to be called up at a moments notice to aid the civil government in time of need -- while the government is operating properly.  Again there is no right for citizens to form their own militia and train and drill.
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand Presser v. Illinois.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand it and I understand how the Constitution works.  There can not be a power granted like federal militia powers (a power that enjoys near field preemption) and then say that a concurrent "right" exists to do the same thing . . .   That's just not how it works and _Presser_ explains it.
> 
> 
> "The right voluntarily to associate together as a military company or organization, or to drill or parade with arms, without, and independent of, an act of congress or law of the state authorizing the same, is not an attribute of national citizenship. Military organization and military drill and parade under arms are subjects especially under the control of the government of every country. They cannot be claimed as a right independent of law. Under our political system they are subject to the regulation and control of the state and federal governments, acting in due regard to their respective prerogatives and powers. The constitution and laws of the United States will be searched in vain for any support to the view that these rights are privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States independent of some specific legislation on the subject."
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is ONE MILITIA (or 50, depending on how you look at it), it's described in Article 1, Section 8.
> 
> This is because they didn't want to destroy freedom by having any old militia walking around. It was a militia which had certain controls on it too.
> 
> "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
> 
> This militia has state appointed officers, and training as authorized by Congress.
> 
> This is the Militia you have a right to be in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SMH . . . Now you are changing your argument from saying the people have a right to make a militia to fight a tyrannical government to now saying the people have a right to be in the organized §8 cl. 15 & 16 militia . . .
> 
> You seem to get -here- that the *ONLY* militias allowed under law are those organized by Congress (which sets the rules of discipline and conduct and the regimen for training) and commanded by officers chosen by the state governments, . . .  and now you say there is a right to be in _*that*_ militia?
> 
> Not sure how this ridiculous premise would work, especially with the complete lack of attention and concern the states and federal government exhibited towards the organized militia.  Surely some citizen or group of citizens would have brought action against the federal and state governments for disregarding the militia and depriving the citizens this "right".  Can you point to one instance of this right being claimed and argued to compel the federal and state governments to fulfill their constitutional militia obligations?
> 
> The actual situation of being enrolled in the militia alters the status of the citizen; when one is called up some circumstances change.  Being in actual service works to roll back rights; a private citizen's 5th Amendment rights are not extended to a militia member.  If one commits a crime when an enrolled militia member in time of danger, the UCMJ is the applicable justice system.  Are you claiming a right to be court martialed?
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The whole text is about that, read it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I prefer to follow the foundational constitutional principle that the right to keep and bear arms is not granted, created, given or otherwise established by the 2nd Amendment thus it does not in any manner depend on the Constitution for its existence.  Trying to "interpret" the 2nd Amendment's words to see what it "allows" citizens to do (or own), is illegitimate.
> 
> SCOTUS has been affirming this principle for going on over 140 years:
> 
> 
> "The right . . . of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose" . . .  is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . ." (_Cruikshank_, 1876)
> 
> " . . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . ." (_Presser_, 1886)
> 
> "the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .”  (_Heller, _2008)
> 
> This principle also means that the right to arms can not be argued to have any militia conditioning or qualification placed on it.  The right can't in any manner depend on something (like the militia structure that cl. 15 & 16 sets-out) that is itself, entirely, completely dependent on the Constitution for _*its*_ existence.
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, they made the "unorganized militia" in the Dick Act of 1903, because they knew if they made the National Guard, that individuals could demand to be in it, reducing the effectiveness of the militia. So they "unorganized militia" was a way of saying "you have your right to be in the militia, see you're already in it, so stop complaining" while keeping them away from the actual effective militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In 24 years of debating gun rights on-line, I thought I saw it all.
> 
> The Dick Act put the final nail in the coffin of the §8, cl. 15 & 16 militia.  It also answered unequivocally any question . . . that there are no "militia rights" for anyone (states or citizens) to claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Im sure you’ll continue to be surprised in the future. Just when you though you’ve seen it all...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, he might actually learn something if he keeps his mind open.
> 
> Those who have an agenda however, will just mock and insult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please tell me you aren’t honestly trying to say you have no agenda...this feels like I’m on some sort of internet candy camera.
> 
> I have an agenda, the difference between my agenda and yours is that I wish to add freedom to the world. I want you to have more freedom, I want myself to have more freedom. I want you to have a government that you don’t have to be concerned about what policy they’re passing here or there, because they are staying out of your business. My agenda is also in line with our constitution as it was intended.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no idea what I think.
> 
> No, I have no agenda. I take the issue, I look at the facts and I come to a conclusion.
> 
> Yes, I have an agenda in other things.
> 
> Go look up on the search next to my name with "proportional representation" and then we'll see who's for more freedom or not.
> 
> Guns don't equal freedom, I'm sorry, but they don't.
> 
> As for your agenda being as the Constitution intended. That's bullshit, I know this because I present EVIDENCE that clearly shows how the Constitution was supposed to be interpreted, and you IGNORE IT. Says a lot.
Click to expand...

What exactly did I ignore? I’ve posted a shit ton of the writings from the founders about the second amendment/armed population/standing armies/etc, all in context, in this post. As well as a shit ton of historical references to how the 2nd was practiced, what was the militia and why it was important, the philosophy all this is based on...it’s very clear what was intended. Ivy League pro-gun control contstitutional law professors agree that if you want gun control, you have to repeal the 2nd.


----------



## frigidweirdo

sakinago said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abatis said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right to be in an ad-hoc, citizen formed militia is not claimable / actionable for as long as the Constitution is in force -- there can be _*no*_ militia organized except that as set-out in Art I, §8, cl's 15 & 16.
> 
> Yes, the people retain the right to throw off a tyrannical government, but the first step in_* that*_ is taking back the powers granted to government (including the power to organize and call-up the militia) and invalidating any protections afforded to government by the Constitution (supremacy, preemption, prosecuting sedition and treason).  So, until the people have rescinded their consent to be governed there is no right to be in a militia because the people have conferred that power/right to the federal government.
> 
> If the people_* are*_ exercising this right to form a militia and are fighting a tyrannical government, that means the organized militia is no more, the armed forces are no more, the government, as it existed _is no more_ . . .  Simply because that government is no longer "_the government established by the Constitution_", it is something else, something foreign and dangerous -- which is why we are fighting it.
> 
> Yes.  Once *enrolled and notified *a man was required to "provide himself" with an appropriate firearm.  The Militia Act of 1792 mandates:
> 
> 
> "That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, . . . "
> 
> 
> The right to keep and bear arms has no relationship with militia duty or service.  The pre-existing right is recognized and secured because an armed citizenry affords the state a body of properly-situated citizens, (with arms in their hands), able to be called up at a moments notice to aid the civil government in time of need -- while the government is operating properly.  Again there is no right for citizens to form their own militia and train and drill.
> 
> I understand it and I understand how the Constitution works.  There can not be a power granted like federal militia powers (a power that enjoys near field preemption) and then say that a concurrent "right" exists to do the same thing . . .   That's just not how it works and _Presser_ explains it.
> 
> 
> "The right voluntarily to associate together as a military company or organization, or to drill or parade with arms, without, and independent of, an act of congress or law of the state authorizing the same, is not an attribute of national citizenship. Military organization and military drill and parade under arms are subjects especially under the control of the government of every country. They cannot be claimed as a right independent of law. Under our political system they are subject to the regulation and control of the state and federal governments, acting in due regard to their respective prerogatives and powers. The constitution and laws of the United States will be searched in vain for any support to the view that these rights are privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States independent of some specific legislation on the subject."
> 
> SMH . . . Now you are changing your argument from saying the people have a right to make a militia to fight a tyrannical government to now saying the people have a right to be in the organized §8 cl. 15 & 16 militia . . .
> 
> You seem to get -here- that the *ONLY* militias allowed under law are those organized by Congress (which sets the rules of discipline and conduct and the regimen for training) and commanded by officers chosen by the state governments, . . .  and now you say there is a right to be in _*that*_ militia?
> 
> Not sure how this ridiculous premise would work, especially with the complete lack of attention and concern the states and federal government exhibited towards the organized militia.  Surely some citizen or group of citizens would have brought action against the federal and state governments for disregarding the militia and depriving the citizens this "right".  Can you point to one instance of this right being claimed and argued to compel the federal and state governments to fulfill their constitutional militia obligations?
> 
> The actual situation of being enrolled in the militia alters the status of the citizen; when one is called up some circumstances change.  Being in actual service works to roll back rights; a private citizen's 5th Amendment rights are not extended to a militia member.  If one commits a crime when an enrolled militia member in time of danger, the UCMJ is the applicable justice system.  Are you claiming a right to be court martialed?
> 
> I prefer to follow the foundational constitutional principle that the right to keep and bear arms is not granted, created, given or otherwise established by the 2nd Amendment thus it does not in any manner depend on the Constitution for its existence.  Trying to "interpret" the 2nd Amendment's words to see what it "allows" citizens to do (or own), is illegitimate.
> 
> SCOTUS has been affirming this principle for going on over 140 years:
> 
> 
> "The right . . . of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose" . . .  is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . ." (_Cruikshank_, 1876)
> 
> " . . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . ." (_Presser_, 1886)
> 
> "the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .”  (_Heller, _2008)
> 
> This principle also means that the right to arms can not be argued to have any militia conditioning or qualification placed on it.  The right can't in any manner depend on something (like the militia structure that cl. 15 & 16 sets-out) that is itself, entirely, completely dependent on the Constitution for _*its*_ existence.
> 
> In 24 years of debating gun rights on-line, I thought I saw it all.
> 
> The Dick Act put the final nail in the coffin of the §8, cl. 15 & 16 militia.  It also answered unequivocally any question . . . that there are no "militia rights" for anyone (states or citizens) to claim.
> 
> 
> 
> Im sure you’ll continue to be surprised in the future. Just when you though you’ve seen it all...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, he might actually learn something if he keeps his mind open.
> 
> Those who have an agenda however, will just mock and insult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please tell me you aren’t honestly trying to say you have no agenda...this feels like I’m on some sort of internet candy camera.
> 
> I have an agenda, the difference between my agenda and yours is that I wish to add freedom to the world. I want you to have more freedom, I want myself to have more freedom. I want you to have a government that you don’t have to be concerned about what policy they’re passing here or there, because they are staying out of your business. My agenda is also in line with our constitution as it was intended.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no idea what I think.
> 
> No, I have no agenda. I take the issue, I look at the facts and I come to a conclusion.
> 
> Yes, I have an agenda in other things.
> 
> Go look up on the search next to my name with "proportional representation" and then we'll see who's for more freedom or not.
> 
> Guns don't equal freedom, I'm sorry, but they don't.
> 
> As for your agenda being as the Constitution intended. That's bullshit, I know this because I present EVIDENCE that clearly shows how the Constitution was supposed to be interpreted, and you IGNORE IT. Says a lot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What exactly did I ignore? I’ve posted a shit ton of the writings from the founders about the second amendment/armed population/standing armies/etc, all in context, in this post. As well as a shit ton of historical references to how the 2nd was practiced, what was the militia and why it was important, the philosophy all this is based on...it’s very clear what was intended. Ivy League pro-gun control contstitutional law professors agree that if you want gun control, you have to repeal the 2nd.
Click to expand...


A shit ton of stuff that isn't relevant.

I could post Superbowl winning teams for you, and it would have no relevance for this discussion. 

As for a "shit ton", I don't remember that much. 

You ignore most of the evidence, and then present stuff which I tell you isn't relevant, and then you ignore that too. Oh, great. What a waste of fucking time.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

frigidweirdo said:


> Okay, and surely it would be better to have people thinking about who they vote for, to get politicians who will protect things. You want to rise up against a tyrannical govt, it'll probably be too late anyway, no matter whether you have guns or not.


I agree that who we vote for matters.  We need politicians who protect our freedom.

I disagree that it will be too late to rise up against a tyrannical government....until they confiscate our guns.  THEN it will be too late.

No government wants to put down massive armed insurrection.  They will do just enough to keep people calm, which is all we can hope for, but it's just barely enough.


----------



## sakinago

frigidweirdo said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Im sure you’ll continue to be surprised in the future. Just when you though you’ve seen it all...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, he might actually learn something if he keeps his mind open.
> 
> Those who have an agenda however, will just mock and insult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please tell me you aren’t honestly trying to say you have no agenda...this feels like I’m on some sort of internet candy camera.
> 
> I have an agenda, the difference between my agenda and yours is that I wish to add freedom to the world. I want you to have more freedom, I want myself to have more freedom. I want you to have a government that you don’t have to be concerned about what policy they’re passing here or there, because they are staying out of your business. My agenda is also in line with our constitution as it was intended.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no idea what I think.
> 
> No, I have no agenda. I take the issue, I look at the facts and I come to a conclusion.
> 
> Yes, I have an agenda in other things.
> 
> Go look up on the search next to my name with "proportional representation" and then we'll see who's for more freedom or not.
> 
> Guns don't equal freedom, I'm sorry, but they don't.
> 
> As for your agenda being as the Constitution intended. That's bullshit, I know this because I present EVIDENCE that clearly shows how the Constitution was supposed to be interpreted, and you IGNORE IT. Says a lot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What exactly did I ignore? I’ve posted a shit ton of the writings from the founders about the second amendment/armed population/standing armies/etc, all in context, in this post. As well as a shit ton of historical references to how the 2nd was practiced, what was the militia and why it was important, the philosophy all this is based on...it’s very clear what was intended. Ivy League pro-gun control contstitutional law professors agree that if you want gun control, you have to repeal the 2nd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A shit ton of stuff that isn't relevant.
> 
> I could post Superbowl winning teams for you, and it would have no relevance for this discussion.
> 
> As for a "shit ton", I don't remember that much.
> 
> You ignore most of the evidence, and then present stuff which I tell you isn't relevant, and then you ignore that too. Oh, great. What a waste of fucking time.
Click to expand...

I never saw a lick of evidence from you, you threatened it, but didn’t present. Not to me at least. Only thing I got from you is that you feel like guns exacerbate socioeconomic problems, and I’ve presented evidence that it isn’t at all, and that crimes are going down and down, while guns are going up and up. Your other argument is that our murder rate is higher than it is in Europe or whatever other select country you choose. I presented you with Switzerland, you said it’s not it’s not the same since it isn’t a fair comparison, while you dismiss when I say comparing us to these other countries isn’t a fair comparison either. On top of that, I’ve shown you that in these countries looking at them in a  vaccuum (which is the best way to look at them, since they’ve been safer than America even before their strict gun controls/bans) when they have implement gun control their murder rates and gun crime rates skyrocket. Your cherry picking your stats. You only try compare our murder rate to theirs, but ignore everything else.


----------



## 2aguy

sakinago said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, he might actually learn something if he keeps his mind open.
> 
> Those who have an agenda however, will just mock and insult.
> 
> 
> 
> Please tell me you aren’t honestly trying to say you have no agenda...this feels like I’m on some sort of internet candy camera.
> 
> I have an agenda, the difference between my agenda and yours is that I wish to add freedom to the world. I want you to have more freedom, I want myself to have more freedom. I want you to have a government that you don’t have to be concerned about what policy they’re passing here or there, because they are staying out of your business. My agenda is also in line with our constitution as it was intended.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no idea what I think.
> 
> No, I have no agenda. I take the issue, I look at the facts and I come to a conclusion.
> 
> Yes, I have an agenda in other things.
> 
> Go look up on the search next to my name with "proportional representation" and then we'll see who's for more freedom or not.
> 
> Guns don't equal freedom, I'm sorry, but they don't.
> 
> As for your agenda being as the Constitution intended. That's bullshit, I know this because I present EVIDENCE that clearly shows how the Constitution was supposed to be interpreted, and you IGNORE IT. Says a lot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What exactly did I ignore? I’ve posted a shit ton of the writings from the founders about the second amendment/armed population/standing armies/etc, all in context, in this post. As well as a shit ton of historical references to how the 2nd was practiced, what was the militia and why it was important, the philosophy all this is based on...it’s very clear what was intended. Ivy League pro-gun control contstitutional law professors agree that if you want gun control, you have to repeal the 2nd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A shit ton of stuff that isn't relevant.
> 
> I could post Superbowl winning teams for you, and it would have no relevance for this discussion.
> 
> As for a "shit ton", I don't remember that much.
> 
> You ignore most of the evidence, and then present stuff which I tell you isn't relevant, and then you ignore that too. Oh, great. What a waste of fucking time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never saw a lick of evidence from you, you threatened it, but didn’t present. Not to me at least. Only thing I got from you is that you feel like guns exacerbate socioeconomic problems, and I’ve presented evidence that it isn’t at all, and that crimes are going down and down, while guns are going up and up. Your other argument is that our murder rate is higher than it is in Europe or whatever other select country you choose. I presented you with Switzerland, you said it’s not it’s not the same since it isn’t a fair comparison, while you dismiss when I say comparing us to these other countries isn’t a fair comparison either. On top of that, I’ve shown you that in these countries looking at them in a  vaccuum (which is the best way to look at them, since they’ve been safer than America even before their strict gun controls/bans) when they have implement gun control their murder rates and gun crime rates skyrocket. Your cherry picking your stats. You only try compare our murder rate to theirs, but ignore everything else.
Click to expand...



The point they will not look at is the fact that up until recently, Europe has had a very different culture than the U.S......they suffered through 2 world wars....the actual pain and suffering of having their societies destroyed.....and they have been top down socieities with kings and queens......we didn't have either one.  Their history and culture was decades behind ours because of those wars.......and their social welfare states hadn't managed to destroy the family yet.

Now.....not only have their welfare states destroyed the basic family unit, they now have single teenage girls raising their poor, young males.....(see the book "Life at the bottom" about the destruction to the lower classes in England due to their welfare policies....you can see how they are exactly like our policies now....)  They also bring in violent immigrant groups from 3rd world countries.....who do not value the European cultures they are entering, and they are the ones controlling the violent drug gangs in Europe....

Add to that.....they are cutting police manpower and funding...to pay for the welfare state, and they are implementing politically correct police policies that tie the hands of their police when confronting violent minorities...just like here......

Their culture had been able to keep their murder rate low....that is no longer the case.......and the left won't believe it till the bodies start stacking up........


----------



## danielpalos

sakinago said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos:  "Show Ignored Content"
> 
> I think I will pass, and just guess at what it might say:
> 
> "The Right of the Federal Government to the wellness of regulation of the clueless and causeless people-litia shall not be infringed."
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is a States right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then it would’ve said states instead of people. Again the first phrase of the 2nd was a qualifier to the 2nd phrase of “the RKBA of the people shall not be infringed”
> 
> To break that down for you. “Because the militia (made up and controlled by civilians) is necessary to the free state, therefore the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
> 
> A govenor could call upon the militia, but it was still up to the locally sourced and locally controlled militia to do as they please. If that wasn’t the case, then why did the founders 86 a standing army if it only took a power hungry  governor to organize a coup? Most (almost all) coups aren’t carried out by the entire army, usually it’s a general or group of generals or a politician with control of some generals. On top of that a governor could sick his militia onto an uppity portion of the population if he preferred to do so. You’ve just replaced one standing army with another.
Click to expand...

The People are the militia. Well regulated militia of the People are declared Necessary to the security of a free State.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos:  "Show Ignored Content"



"the arms to bear rights of the wellness of regulation of the militia shall not be infringed"


----------



## danielpalos

The People = The Militia.

Only the right wing never gets it. 

Well regulated militia of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos: "Show Ignored Content"





"the regulationness of well, being the security of a necessary of an infringement, the clueless and causelessness of the right to keep and bare arms shall not be peopled."


----------



## danielpalos

That won't work in open Court.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos: "Show Ignored Content"


----------



## danielpalos

Thank you for ceding that point and that argument.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

What?  I can't read what you are typing.


danielpalos: "Show Ignored Content"





"the wellness of regulation is necessary for the security of a clueless and classless people."


----------



## danielpalos

Thanks for your Due Diligence, right wingers.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

daniel, I can't read your posts.  I have you on ignore.  I already know what you are going to repeat over and over again anyway.  give it a rest.


----------



## danielpalos

Not having any valid rebuttals means you lost the point and the argument.


----------



## Natural Citizen

Aye yai yai. What a thread.

Since someone mentioned states rights, I'll share a relevant and correct snippet from a great book on the topic. The American Ideal of 1776 The Twelve Basic American Principles  by Hamilton Abert Long, ©1976.

It is as follows....and all that needs to be said, really. 

_"With regard to use by the States of force, use of their Militia forces (all able-bodied males capable of bearing arms), in self-defense against any Federal usurpers seeking to oppress or dominate one or more States by force in violation of the Constitution's limits on Federal power, *Hamilton and Madison discussed at length and in detail in The Federalist (numbers *__*28*__* by Hamilton and *__*46*__* by Madison) the assumption and expectation of The Framers that all States would marshall their forces and act jointly to crush the usurpers' forces.*_

_This understanding of The Framers was shared by the members of the State Ratifying Conventions and the leaders and people in general of that day--all fearless foes of any and all enemies of Free Man in America. They believed that all true Americans must be ready to fight and die for Liberty, especially against tyrannical Federal officials who, as usurpers, violate not only the Constitution but also their oath of office: to support the Constitution only. It was also contemplated that any non-military force used by the Federal usurpers would be countered by the States' use of their own non-military forces: Sheriff's posses (__posses comitatus__) and any civilian police forces. (See also __Par. 12 of Principle 5__.)_

_The traditional American philosophy requires, as a fundamental of the system of checks and balances, that The Civil must always be in complete control of The Military. The Founders and their fellow Americans were painfully aware of the lesson of history that large standing armies are, in peacetime, potentially dangerous to the people's liberties. In 1776, the __Virginia Declaration of Rights__, for example, made this clear in these words: ". . . that standing armies in time of peace should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." Another, related element in the system of checks and balances is the requirement of the Constitution (__Article VI__) that all Federal officials--both civil and military--take an oath to support the Constitution [only]; with the result that all military officers, thus controlled fundamentally and supremely by the Constitution, must be obedient to the civil authority--chief of all the President--but only as to orders which are not violative of the Constitution. The Military are, therefore, obligated by the Constitution not only to refuse to obey any orders of Federal usurpers--automatically made by the Constitution itself null and void from the start--but to support the Constitution only, at all times and under all circumstances, as the sovereign people's fundamental law. State officials, civil and military, are likewise so required to take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States--meaning, in part, to resist Federal usurpers by all necessary means: by force in last resort._

_The truly American formula, in accordance with the traditional philosophy, for sound and enduring self-government by means of constitutionally limited government with adequate protection assured for Individual Liberty, is this: Limited and Decentralized for Liberty."_


----------



## danielpalos

Our Second Amendment is a States right.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, and surely it would be better to have people thinking about who they vote for, to get politicians who will protect things. You want to rise up against a tyrannical govt, it'll probably be too late anyway, no matter whether you have guns or not.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that who we vote for matters.  We need politicians who protect our freedom.
> 
> I disagree that it will be too late to rise up against a tyrannical government....until they confiscate our guns.  THEN it will be too late.
> 
> No government wants to put down massive armed insurrection.  They will do just enough to keep people calm, which is all we can hope for, but it's just barely enough.
Click to expand...


The problem is when people feel so secure, they don't bother to do anything. Guns giving a false sense of security? 

The biggest problem right now is that the govt can do whatever it likes as long as it doesn't violate certain things. 

Those certain things are the things the rich tell the people they want. So, the rich manage to hide all the bad stuff they're doing, the people go along with it, accept the tyranny. They currently accept the corruption. It's just one more step towards accepting the tyranny.


----------



## danielpalos

Natural Citizen said:


> Aye yai yai. What a thread.
> 
> Since someone mentioned states rights, I'll share a relevant and correct snippet from a great book on the topic. The American Ideal of 1776 The Twelve Basic American Principles  by Hamilton Abert Long, ©1976.
> 
> It is as follows....and all that needs to be said, really.
> 
> _"With regard to use by the States of force, use of their Militia forces (all able-bodied males capable of bearing arms), in self-defense against any Federal usurpers seeking to oppress or dominate one or more States by force in violation of the Constitution's limits on Federal power, *Hamilton and Madison discussed at length and in detail in The Federalist (numbers *__*28*__* by Hamilton and *__*46*__* by Madison) the assumption and expectation of The Framers that all States would marshall their forces and act jointly to crush the usurpers' forces.*_
> 
> _This understanding of The Framers was shared by the members of the State Ratifying Conventions and the leaders and people in general of that day--all fearless foes of any and all enemies of Free Man in America. They believed that all true Americans must be ready to fight and die for Liberty, especially against tyrannical Federal officials who, as usurpers, violate not only the Constitution but also their oath of office: to support the Constitution only. It was also contemplated that any non-military force used by the Federal usurpers would be countered by the States' use of their own non-military forces: Sheriff's posses (__posses comitatus__) and any civilian police forces. (See also __Par. 12 of Principle 5__.)_
> 
> _The traditional American philosophy requires, as a fundamental of the system of checks and balances, that The Civil must always be in complete control of The Military. The Founders and their fellow Americans were painfully aware of the lesson of history that large standing armies are, in peacetime, potentially dangerous to the people's liberties. In 1776, the __Virginia Declaration of Rights__, for example, made this clear in these words: ". . . that standing armies in time of peace should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." Another, related element in the system of checks and balances is the requirement of the Constitution (__Article VI__) that all Federal officials--both civil and military--take an oath to support the Constitution [only]; with the result that all military officers, thus controlled fundamentally and supremely by the Constitution, must be obedient to the civil authority--chief of all the President--but only as to orders which are not violative of the Constitution. The Military are, therefore, obligated by the Constitution not only to refuse to obey any orders of Federal usurpers--automatically made by the Constitution itself null and void from the start--but to support the Constitution only, at all times and under all circumstances, as the sovereign people's fundamental law. State officials, civil and military, are likewise so required to take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States--meaning, in part, to resist Federal usurpers by all necessary means: by force in last resort._
> 
> _The truly American formula, in accordance with the traditional philosophy, for sound and enduring self-government by means of constitutionally limited government with adequate protection assured for Individual Liberty, is this: Limited and Decentralized for Liberty."_


Only well regulated militia of the People are necessary and shall not be Infringed. 

The unorganized militia is not and may be infringed.


----------



## frigidweirdo

sakinago said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, he might actually learn something if he keeps his mind open.
> 
> Those who have an agenda however, will just mock and insult.
> 
> 
> 
> Please tell me you aren’t honestly trying to say you have no agenda...this feels like I’m on some sort of internet candy camera.
> 
> I have an agenda, the difference between my agenda and yours is that I wish to add freedom to the world. I want you to have more freedom, I want myself to have more freedom. I want you to have a government that you don’t have to be concerned about what policy they’re passing here or there, because they are staying out of your business. My agenda is also in line with our constitution as it was intended.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no idea what I think.
> 
> No, I have no agenda. I take the issue, I look at the facts and I come to a conclusion.
> 
> Yes, I have an agenda in other things.
> 
> Go look up on the search next to my name with "proportional representation" and then we'll see who's for more freedom or not.
> 
> Guns don't equal freedom, I'm sorry, but they don't.
> 
> As for your agenda being as the Constitution intended. That's bullshit, I know this because I present EVIDENCE that clearly shows how the Constitution was supposed to be interpreted, and you IGNORE IT. Says a lot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What exactly did I ignore? I’ve posted a shit ton of the writings from the founders about the second amendment/armed population/standing armies/etc, all in context, in this post. As well as a shit ton of historical references to how the 2nd was practiced, what was the militia and why it was important, the philosophy all this is based on...it’s very clear what was intended. Ivy League pro-gun control contstitutional law professors agree that if you want gun control, you have to repeal the 2nd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A shit ton of stuff that isn't relevant.
> 
> I could post Superbowl winning teams for you, and it would have no relevance for this discussion.
> 
> As for a "shit ton", I don't remember that much.
> 
> You ignore most of the evidence, and then present stuff which I tell you isn't relevant, and then you ignore that too. Oh, great. What a waste of fucking time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never saw a lick of evidence from you, you threatened it, but didn’t present. Not to me at least. Only thing I got from you is that you feel like guns exacerbate socioeconomic problems, and I’ve presented evidence that it isn’t at all, and that crimes are going down and down, while guns are going up and up. Your other argument is that our murder rate is higher than it is in Europe or whatever other select country you choose. I presented you with Switzerland, you said it’s not it’s not the same since it isn’t a fair comparison, while you dismiss when I say comparing us to these other countries isn’t a fair comparison either. On top of that, I’ve shown you that in these countries looking at them in a  vaccuum (which is the best way to look at them, since they’ve been safer than America even before their strict gun controls/bans) when they have implement gun control their murder rates and gun crime rates skyrocket. Your cherry picking your stats. You only try compare our murder rate to theirs, but ignore everything else.
Click to expand...


Well, clearly you don't have your eyes open. 

Fine you want evidence.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

If you haven't seen this, then I don't know what you've been looking at.

They were discussing the clause "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

Mr Gerry said "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

It's clear here that Mr Gerry was talking about "bear arms" and instead he used the term "militia duty". Why would he talk about giving discretionary power to exclude those from *militia duty* who have religious scruples if "bear arms" meant carrying guns around with you in the street on a normal day?

'Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""

Mr Jackson wanted to change the wording, and change "bear arms" to "render military service".

In fact during the debates the wording of the clause changed several times. 


June 8th 1789

"but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."


August 17th 1789

"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."


August 24th 1789

"but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

So, clearly here "bear arms" and "render military service" were being used synonymously. 

There is no hint in this document that "bear arms" mean "carry arms around" 

It's clear here that "bear arms" is the right to be in the militia.

In Sentiments on a Peace Establishment from 1783, George Washington said:

"every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America... from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls,"

"by making it universally reputable to bear Arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the performance of Military duties; in fine, by keeping up in Peace "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia," we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country.“

"borne on the Militia Rolls", borne being the past participle of the very "bear". It's clear here that you could be "borne on the Militia Rolls", rather than simply "bear arms" being to carry guns around.

Then he goes and says "bear arms" and then talks about "Military duties". 

Why would he say all of this if "bear arms" had the meaning of just carrying guns around with you on a normal day?

Then you have the Presser case which says 

"_We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265]   and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arm_s."

Now, if the 2A protected the right to carry guns around, why would then Supreme Court then say that carrying guns around is NOT protected by the 2A? Why then would Heller then back this up?

Then you have ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1897)

_“_the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;”

Also on top of this you have carry and conceal laws in the US. Even after the 2A has applied to the states, no one has challenged carry and conceal laws. If carrying guns is a protected right, then carry and conceal is a protected right which means you don't need carry and conceal permits.

The Fight to Bring Guns Across State Lines: The NRA’s Next Big Push, Explained

"
*By requiring states to recognize one another's gun permits, the legislation would dramatically expand where gun owners can bring their weapons.*"

NRA-ILA | NRA Backs Constitutional Concealed Carry Bill in U.S. Senate

"
*NRA Backs Constitutional Concealed Carry Bill in U.S. Senate*"

And yet the NRA is pushing for carry and conceal permits.

Now, why would the NRA be pushing for "Constitutional Concealed Carry" if it already existed? Beats me, maybe you can tell me. It must either be that the NRA has amnesia or they're just stupid. Which one are you going to choose?


And on the other hand, you have quotes which only support your opinion if you struggle really hard to make them fit.


----------



## Freewill

waltky said:


> Maybe not obsolete but antiquated, out of date...
> 
> ... it needs to be updated to reflect the times...
> 
> ... and the threat of overkill firepower...
> 
> ... for the average citizen.


Why?  Even with the mass killings by a few deranged idiots that the government allowed to get guns illegally the deaths due to gun violence is actually down.


----------



## Freewill

danielpalos said:


> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aye yai yai. What a thread.
> 
> Since someone mentioned states rights, I'll share a relevant and correct snippet from a great book on the topic. The American Ideal of 1776 The Twelve Basic American Principles  by Hamilton Abert Long, ©1976.
> 
> It is as follows....and all that needs to be said, really.
> 
> _"With regard to use by the States of force, use of their Militia forces (all able-bodied males capable of bearing arms), in self-defense against any Federal usurpers seeking to oppress or dominate one or more States by force in violation of the Constitution's limits on Federal power, *Hamilton and Madison discussed at length and in detail in The Federalist (numbers *__*28*__* by Hamilton and *__*46*__* by Madison) the assumption and expectation of The Framers that all States would marshall their forces and act jointly to crush the usurpers' forces.*_
> 
> _This understanding of The Framers was shared by the members of the State Ratifying Conventions and the leaders and people in general of that day--all fearless foes of any and all enemies of Free Man in America. They believed that all true Americans must be ready to fight and die for Liberty, especially against tyrannical Federal officials who, as usurpers, violate not only the Constitution but also their oath of office: to support the Constitution only. It was also contemplated that any non-military force used by the Federal usurpers would be countered by the States' use of their own non-military forces: Sheriff's posses (__posses comitatus__) and any civilian police forces. (See also __Par. 12 of Principle 5__.)_
> 
> _The traditional American philosophy requires, as a fundamental of the system of checks and balances, that The Civil must always be in complete control of The Military. The Founders and their fellow Americans were painfully aware of the lesson of history that large standing armies are, in peacetime, potentially dangerous to the people's liberties. In 1776, the __Virginia Declaration of Rights__, for example, made this clear in these words: ". . . that standing armies in time of peace should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." Another, related element in the system of checks and balances is the requirement of the Constitution (__Article VI__) that all Federal officials--both civil and military--take an oath to support the Constitution [only]; with the result that all military officers, thus controlled fundamentally and supremely by the Constitution, must be obedient to the civil authority--chief of all the President--but only as to orders which are not violative of the Constitution. The Military are, therefore, obligated by the Constitution not only to refuse to obey any orders of Federal usurpers--automatically made by the Constitution itself null and void from the start--but to support the Constitution only, at all times and under all circumstances, as the sovereign people's fundamental law. State officials, civil and military, are likewise so required to take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States--meaning, in part, to resist Federal usurpers by all necessary means: by force in last resort._
> 
> _The truly American formula, in accordance with the traditional philosophy, for sound and enduring self-government by means of constitutionally limited government with adequate protection assured for Individual Liberty, is this: Limited and Decentralized for Liberty."_
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the People are necessary and shall not be Infringed.
> 
> The unorganized militia is not and may be infringed.
Click to expand...

You of course para pharse it so you can get it wrong trying to sound right.

Here is the text: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

What it says, is that "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms,"  Sorry for you the commas get in the way.  Clearly the wording says the RIGHT of the PEOPLE.  Not the right of a militia.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Freewill said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aye yai yai. What a thread.
> 
> Since someone mentioned states rights, I'll share a relevant and correct snippet from a great book on the topic. The American Ideal of 1776 The Twelve Basic American Principles  by Hamilton Abert Long, ©1976.
> 
> It is as follows....and all that needs to be said, really.
> 
> _"With regard to use by the States of force, use of their Militia forces (all able-bodied males capable of bearing arms), in self-defense against any Federal usurpers seeking to oppress or dominate one or more States by force in violation of the Constitution's limits on Federal power, *Hamilton and Madison discussed at length and in detail in The Federalist (numbers *__*28*__* by Hamilton and *__*46*__* by Madison) the assumption and expectation of The Framers that all States would marshall their forces and act jointly to crush the usurpers' forces.*_
> 
> _This understanding of The Framers was shared by the members of the State Ratifying Conventions and the leaders and people in general of that day--all fearless foes of any and all enemies of Free Man in America. They believed that all true Americans must be ready to fight and die for Liberty, especially against tyrannical Federal officials who, as usurpers, violate not only the Constitution but also their oath of office: to support the Constitution only. It was also contemplated that any non-military force used by the Federal usurpers would be countered by the States' use of their own non-military forces: Sheriff's posses (__posses comitatus__) and any civilian police forces. (See also __Par. 12 of Principle 5__.)_
> 
> _The traditional American philosophy requires, as a fundamental of the system of checks and balances, that The Civil must always be in complete control of The Military. The Founders and their fellow Americans were painfully aware of the lesson of history that large standing armies are, in peacetime, potentially dangerous to the people's liberties. In 1776, the __Virginia Declaration of Rights__, for example, made this clear in these words: ". . . that standing armies in time of peace should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." Another, related element in the system of checks and balances is the requirement of the Constitution (__Article VI__) that all Federal officials--both civil and military--take an oath to support the Constitution [only]; with the result that all military officers, thus controlled fundamentally and supremely by the Constitution, must be obedient to the civil authority--chief of all the President--but only as to orders which are not violative of the Constitution. The Military are, therefore, obligated by the Constitution not only to refuse to obey any orders of Federal usurpers--automatically made by the Constitution itself null and void from the start--but to support the Constitution only, at all times and under all circumstances, as the sovereign people's fundamental law. State officials, civil and military, are likewise so required to take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States--meaning, in part, to resist Federal usurpers by all necessary means: by force in last resort._
> 
> _The truly American formula, in accordance with the traditional philosophy, for sound and enduring self-government by means of constitutionally limited government with adequate protection assured for Individual Liberty, is this: Limited and Decentralized for Liberty."_
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the People are necessary and shall not be Infringed.
> 
> The unorganized militia is not and may be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You of course para pharse it so you can get it wrong trying to sound right.
> 
> Here is the text: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> What it says, is that "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms,"  Sorry for you the commas get in the way.  Clearly the wording says the RIGHT of the PEOPLE.  Not the right of a militia.
Click to expand...


You got it all wrong. Actually it's "Talking to Daniel Palos is a danger to your brain cells, the right to put Daniel Palos on ignore shall not be infringed, not even by Rudolph the Red Nosed Hess."


----------



## sakinago

frigidweirdo said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please tell me you aren’t honestly trying to say you have no agenda...this feels like I’m on some sort of internet candy camera.
> 
> I have an agenda, the difference between my agenda and yours is that I wish to add freedom to the world. I want you to have more freedom, I want myself to have more freedom. I want you to have a government that you don’t have to be concerned about what policy they’re passing here or there, because they are staying out of your business. My agenda is also in line with our constitution as it was intended.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have no idea what I think.
> 
> No, I have no agenda. I take the issue, I look at the facts and I come to a conclusion.
> 
> Yes, I have an agenda in other things.
> 
> Go look up on the search next to my name with "proportional representation" and then we'll see who's for more freedom or not.
> 
> Guns don't equal freedom, I'm sorry, but they don't.
> 
> As for your agenda being as the Constitution intended. That's bullshit, I know this because I present EVIDENCE that clearly shows how the Constitution was supposed to be interpreted, and you IGNORE IT. Says a lot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What exactly did I ignore? I’ve posted a shit ton of the writings from the founders about the second amendment/armed population/standing armies/etc, all in context, in this post. As well as a shit ton of historical references to how the 2nd was practiced, what was the militia and why it was important, the philosophy all this is based on...it’s very clear what was intended. Ivy League pro-gun control contstitutional law professors agree that if you want gun control, you have to repeal the 2nd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A shit ton of stuff that isn't relevant.
> 
> I could post Superbowl winning teams for you, and it would have no relevance for this discussion.
> 
> As for a "shit ton", I don't remember that much.
> 
> You ignore most of the evidence, and then present stuff which I tell you isn't relevant, and then you ignore that too. Oh, great. What a waste of fucking time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never saw a lick of evidence from you, you threatened it, but didn’t present. Not to me at least. Only thing I got from you is that you feel like guns exacerbate socioeconomic problems, and I’ve presented evidence that it isn’t at all, and that crimes are going down and down, while guns are going up and up. Your other argument is that our murder rate is higher than it is in Europe or whatever other select country you choose. I presented you with Switzerland, you said it’s not it’s not the same since it isn’t a fair comparison, while you dismiss when I say comparing us to these other countries isn’t a fair comparison either. On top of that, I’ve shown you that in these countries looking at them in a  vaccuum (which is the best way to look at them, since they’ve been safer than America even before their strict gun controls/bans) when they have implement gun control their murder rates and gun crime rates skyrocket. Your cherry picking your stats. You only try compare our murder rate to theirs, but ignore everything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, clearly you don't have your eyes open.
> 
> Fine you want evidence.
> 
> Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> If you haven't seen this, then I don't know what you've been looking at.
> 
> They were discussing the clause "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> Mr Gerry said "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."
> 
> It's clear here that Mr Gerry was talking about "bear arms" and instead he used the term "militia duty". Why would he talk about giving discretionary power to exclude those from *militia duty* who have religious scruples if "bear arms" meant carrying guns around with you in the street on a normal day?
> 
> 'Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""
> 
> Mr Jackson wanted to change the wording, and change "bear arms" to "render military service".
> 
> In fact during the debates the wording of the clause changed several times.
> 
> 
> June 8th 1789
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
> 
> 
> August 17th 1789
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> 
> August 24th 1789
> 
> "but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
> 
> So, clearly here "bear arms" and "render military service" were being used synonymously.
> 
> There is no hint in this document that "bear arms" mean "carry arms around"
> 
> It's clear here that "bear arms" is the right to be in the militia.
> 
> In Sentiments on a Peace Establishment from 1783, George Washington said:
> 
> "every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America... from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls,"
> 
> "by making it universally reputable to bear Arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the performance of Military duties; in fine, by keeping up in Peace "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia," we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country.“
> 
> "borne on the Militia Rolls", borne being the past participle of the very "bear". It's clear here that you could be "borne on the Militia Rolls", rather than simply "bear arms" being to carry guns around.
> 
> Then he goes and says "bear arms" and then talks about "Military duties".
> 
> Why would he say all of this if "bear arms" had the meaning of just carrying guns around with you on a normal day?
> 
> Then you have the Presser case which says
> 
> "_We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265]   and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arm_s."
> 
> Now, if the 2A protected the right to carry guns around, why would then Supreme Court then say that carrying guns around is NOT protected by the 2A? Why then would Heller then back this up?
> 
> Then you have ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1897)
> 
> _“_the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;”
> 
> Also on top of this you have carry and conceal laws in the US. Even after the 2A has applied to the states, no one has challenged carry and conceal laws. If carrying guns is a protected right, then carry and conceal is a protected right which means you don't need carry and conceal permits.
> 
> The Fight to Bring Guns Across State Lines: The NRA’s Next Big Push, Explained
> 
> "
> *By requiring states to recognize one another's gun permits, the legislation would dramatically expand where gun owners can bring their weapons.*"
> 
> NRA-ILA | NRA Backs Constitutional Concealed Carry Bill in U.S. Senate
> 
> "
> *NRA Backs Constitutional Concealed Carry Bill in U.S. Senate*"
> 
> And yet the NRA is pushing for carry and conceal permits.
> 
> Now, why would the NRA be pushing for "Constitutional Concealed Carry" if it already existed? Beats me, maybe you can tell me. It must either be that the NRA has amnesia or they're just stupid. Which one are you going to choose?
> 
> 
> And on the other hand, you have quotes which only support your opinion if you struggle really hard to make them fit.
Click to expand...

Wow you missed a lot in your own article. Why was it again they went against a standing army? According to this article?


----------



## danielpalos

Freewill said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aye yai yai. What a thread.
> 
> Since someone mentioned states rights, I'll share a relevant and correct snippet from a great book on the topic. The American Ideal of 1776 The Twelve Basic American Principles  by Hamilton Abert Long, ©1976.
> 
> It is as follows....and all that needs to be said, really.
> 
> _"With regard to use by the States of force, use of their Militia forces (all able-bodied males capable of bearing arms), in self-defense against any Federal usurpers seeking to oppress or dominate one or more States by force in violation of the Constitution's limits on Federal power, *Hamilton and Madison discussed at length and in detail in The Federalist (numbers *__*28*__* by Hamilton and *__*46*__* by Madison) the assumption and expectation of The Framers that all States would marshall their forces and act jointly to crush the usurpers' forces.*_
> 
> _This understanding of The Framers was shared by the members of the State Ratifying Conventions and the leaders and people in general of that day--all fearless foes of any and all enemies of Free Man in America. They believed that all true Americans must be ready to fight and die for Liberty, especially against tyrannical Federal officials who, as usurpers, violate not only the Constitution but also their oath of office: to support the Constitution only. It was also contemplated that any non-military force used by the Federal usurpers would be countered by the States' use of their own non-military forces: Sheriff's posses (__posses comitatus__) and any civilian police forces. (See also __Par. 12 of Principle 5__.)_
> 
> _The traditional American philosophy requires, as a fundamental of the system of checks and balances, that The Civil must always be in complete control of The Military. The Founders and their fellow Americans were painfully aware of the lesson of history that large standing armies are, in peacetime, potentially dangerous to the people's liberties. In 1776, the __Virginia Declaration of Rights__, for example, made this clear in these words: ". . . that standing armies in time of peace should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." Another, related element in the system of checks and balances is the requirement of the Constitution (__Article VI__) that all Federal officials--both civil and military--take an oath to support the Constitution [only]; with the result that all military officers, thus controlled fundamentally and supremely by the Constitution, must be obedient to the civil authority--chief of all the President--but only as to orders which are not violative of the Constitution. The Military are, therefore, obligated by the Constitution not only to refuse to obey any orders of Federal usurpers--automatically made by the Constitution itself null and void from the start--but to support the Constitution only, at all times and under all circumstances, as the sovereign people's fundamental law. State officials, civil and military, are likewise so required to take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States--meaning, in part, to resist Federal usurpers by all necessary means: by force in last resort._
> 
> _The truly American formula, in accordance with the traditional philosophy, for sound and enduring self-government by means of constitutionally limited government with adequate protection assured for Individual Liberty, is this: Limited and Decentralized for Liberty."_
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the People are necessary and shall not be Infringed.
> 
> The unorganized militia is not and may be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You of course para pharse it so you can get it wrong trying to sound right.
> 
> Here is the text: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> What it says, is that "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms,"  Sorry for you the commas get in the way.  Clearly the wording says the RIGHT of the PEOPLE.  Not the right of a militia.
Click to expand...

The People are the militia. You are either well regulated or not.


----------



## Natural Citizen

danielpalos said:


> Only well regulated militia of the People are necessary and shall not be Infringed.
> 
> The unorganized militia is not and may be infringed.



Go back and read my post right and in the tenor which it was offered.

And read Federalist numbers 28 and 46 twice while you're there.


_




_


----------



## westwall

danielpalos said:


> Our Second Amendment is a States right.







As has been told, and PROVEN to you on multiple occasions, it is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT (that means it is a Right that individual PEOPLE are born with).  Now go away.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

Lakhota said:


> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week


Jakestarkey, a poster here and admitted left wing communist himself  claims that no one wants to do away with the second amendment, how do you explain the hypocrisy between your propaganda and his?


----------



## sakinago

danielpalos said:


> The People = The Militia.
> 
> Only the right wing never gets it.
> 
> Well regulated militia of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


Again why were the founders so scared of a standing army?


----------



## danielpalos

Natural Citizen said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the People are necessary and shall not be Infringed.
> 
> The unorganized militia is not and may be infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go back and read my post right and in the tenor which it was offered.
> 
> And read Federalist numbers 28 and 46 twice while you're there.
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
Click to expand...

You have nothing but diversion. 

The People are the militia. You are either well regulated and necessary or unorganized and unnecessary.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

danielpalos said:


> Our Second Amendment is a States right.


our constitution is national/federal


----------



## danielpalos

westwall said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is a States right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As has been told, and PROVEN to you on multiple occasions, it is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT (that means it is a Right that individual PEOPLE are born with).  Now go away.
Click to expand...

Nothing but fallacy. 

Our Second Amendment is a States right. 

It says so in the first clause.


----------



## westwall

danielpalos said:


> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the People are necessary and shall not be Infringed.
> 
> The unorganized militia is not and may be infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go back and read my post right and in the tenor which it was offered.
> 
> And read Federalist numbers 28 and 46 twice while you're there.
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but diversion.
> 
> The People are the militia. You are either well regulated and necessary or unorganized and unnecessary.
Click to expand...






You have nothing but lies.  The meaning of Well Regulated has been shown to you multiple times.  The meaning of the Militia, and who is IN the militia has likewise been shown to you multiple times.  You ignore all that has been shown to you before to spread your lies.  Lying is all you seem to be capable of doing.


----------



## danielpalos

sakinago said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People = The Militia.
> 
> Only the right wing never gets it.
> 
> Well regulated militia of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> Again why were the founders so scared of a standing army?
Click to expand...

The People are the militia.


----------



## danielpalos

Frankeneinstein said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is a States right.
> 
> 
> 
> our constitution is national/federal
Click to expand...

Individual rights aren't?


----------



## danielpalos

westwall said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the People are necessary and shall not be Infringed.
> 
> The unorganized militia is not and may be infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go back and read my post right and in the tenor which it was offered.
> 
> And read Federalist numbers 28 and 46 twice while you're there.
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but diversion.
> 
> The People are the militia. You are either well regulated and necessary or unorganized and unnecessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have nothing but lies.  The meaning of Well Regulated has been shown to you multiple times.  The meaning of the Militia, and who is IN the militia has likewise been shown to you multiple times.  You ignore all that has been shown to you before to spread your lies.  Lying is all you seem to be capable of doing.
Click to expand...

Projecting much?

Well regulated must be prescribed by Congress for the militia of the United States. 

It is in Article 1,Section 8.


----------



## Natural Citizen

danielpalos said:


> Our Second Amendment is a States right.



No. It's an Individual right. Though, the States protect the Individual's right.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

danielpalos said:


> The People are the militia.


and everyone else is their enemy






> You are either well regulated and necessary or unorganized and unnecessary.


but in either case legally allowed to arm yourself


----------



## Frankeneinstein

danielpalos said:


> Individual rights aren't?


are you pretending this has anything at all to do with my post?


----------



## westwall

danielpalos said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is a States right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As has been told, and PROVEN to you on multiple occasions, it is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT (that means it is a Right that individual PEOPLE are born with).  Now go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing but fallacy.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is a States right.
> 
> It says so in the first clause.
Click to expand...






Yes, you are indeed a lying sack of poo.  The ONLY people who claim that the 2nd is not an individual Right are socialist groups, and their members.  Go figure, they can't control the population the way they like when the population can defend itself. 

Progressives like to insist that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects a collective, rather than an individual, right to “keep and bear arms.” Or, put another way, they say that the only right Americans have to the ownership of lethal weaponry exists within the context of state-sanctioned military service. As a result, progressives conclude that there is nothing in place to stop the federal government from prohibiting the private ownership of firearms and allowing access to weapons only to those who belong to the National Guard — the modern descendant of early-American state and local militia forces.

Read more at: Of Course the Second Amendment Protects an Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms

In 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court recognized what numerous historians and legal scholars have been saying for many decades: Namely, that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution secures an individual right—not a collective one—to keep and bear arms. Yet despite this widespread legal and academic consensus, certain gun control advocates still insist on behaving as if the Second Amendment does not mean what it says.

Yes, the Second Amendment Protects Individual Rights


----------



## Natural Citizen

danielpalos said:


> Projecting much?
> 
> Well regulated must be prescribed by Congress for the militia of the United States.
> 
> It is in Article 1,Section 8.



Do you know what Federalism means?


----------



## sakinago

danielpalos said:


> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the People are necessary and shall not be Infringed.
> 
> The unorganized militia is not and may be infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go back and read my post right and in the tenor which it was offered.
> 
> And read Federalist numbers 28 and 46 twice while you're there.
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but diversion.
> 
> The People are the militia. You are either well regulated and necessary or unorganized and unnecessary.
Click to expand...

Yes the people are the militia, militia being decentralized and not under government control...if a federal statue or state statute could make laws to severely limit the capabilities of the people forming their milita (regulation the way you want to see it)...well then the militia/people have no teeth to defend themselves against the government. So if regulated meant the same thing you think you mean in these modern times, as it did back then...then the second amendment both gave the ability to arm and disarm the militia at the same time...does that make sense to you????Ho w can you not put this together? Stop repeating the same damn lines, it doesn’t make them true. You have two lines, one is “blah blah blah, if we got rid of the war on drugs, we’d blah blah blah.” Or it’s this one “you’re either well regulated or not”


----------



## westwall

danielpalos said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the People are necessary and shall not be Infringed.
> 
> The unorganized militia is not and may be infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go back and read my post right and in the tenor which it was offered.
> 
> And read Federalist numbers 28 and 46 twice while you're there.
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but diversion.
> 
> The People are the militia. You are either well regulated and necessary or unorganized and unnecessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have nothing but lies.  The meaning of Well Regulated has been shown to you multiple times.  The meaning of the Militia, and who is IN the militia has likewise been shown to you multiple times.  You ignore all that has been shown to you before to spread your lies.  Lying is all you seem to be capable of doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Projecting much?
> 
> Well regulated must be prescribed by Congress for the militia of the United States.
> 
> It is in Article 1,Section 8.
Click to expand...






Well regulated means "IN GOOD WORKING ORDER".
verb (used with object), regulated, regulating.
1.
to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.:
to regulate household expenses.
2.
to adjust to some standard or requirement, as amount, degree, etc.:
to regulate the temperature.
3.
to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation:
to regulate a watch.
4.
to put in good order:
to regulate the digestion.


the definition of well-regulated


----------



## danielpalos

Natural Citizen said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the People are necessary and shall not be Infringed.
> 
> The unorganized militia is not and may be infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go back and read my post right and in the tenor which it was offered.
> 
> And read Federalist numbers 28 and 46 twice while you're there.
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
Click to expand...

The People are the militia. Any questions?


----------



## danielpalos

sakinago said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People = The Militia.
> 
> Only the right wing never gets it.
> 
> Well regulated militia of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> Again why were the founders so scared of a standing army?
Click to expand...

Why is the right wing for socialism on a national basis?


----------



## danielpalos

westwall said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the People are necessary and shall not be Infringed.
> 
> The unorganized militia is not and may be infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go back and read my post right and in the tenor which it was offered.
> 
> And read Federalist numbers 28 and 46 twice while you're there.
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but diversion.
> 
> The People are the militia. You are either well regulated and necessary or unorganized and unnecessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have nothing but lies.  The meaning of Well Regulated has been shown to you multiple times.  The meaning of the Militia, and who is IN the militia has likewise been shown to you multiple times.  You ignore all that has been shown to you before to spread your lies.  Lying is all you seem to be capable of doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Projecting much?
> 
> Well regulated must be prescribed by Congress for the militia of the United States.
> 
> It is in Article 1,Section 8.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated means "IN GOOD WORKING ORDER".
> verb (used with object), regulated, regulating.
> 1.
> to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.:
> to regulate household expenses.
> 2.
> to adjust to some standard or requirement, as amount, degree, etc.:
> to regulate the temperature.
> 3.
> to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation:
> to regulate a watch.
> 4.
> to put in good order:
> to regulate the digestion.
> 
> 
> the definition of well-regulated
Click to expand...

So what. All you have is an appeal to ignorance. 

Congress must prescribe wellness of regulation for the militia of the United States.


----------



## sakinago

danielpalos said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People = The Militia.
> 
> Only the right wing never gets it.
> 
> Well regulated militia of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> Again why were the founders so scared of a standing army?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is the right wing for socialism on a national basis?
Click to expand...

In what way did I suggest that? Obviously you lack any valid retort, so you went with a nonsensical one. So I’ll ask again. Why would the founders create an oxymoron, paradox amendment? One that could arm and both disarm its people/militia as they saw fit?


----------



## westwall

danielpalos said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go back and read my post right and in the tenor which it was offered.
> 
> And read Federalist numbers 28 and 46 twice while you're there.
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> You have nothing but diversion.
> 
> The People are the militia. You are either well regulated and necessary or unorganized and unnecessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have nothing but lies.  The meaning of Well Regulated has been shown to you multiple times.  The meaning of the Militia, and who is IN the militia has likewise been shown to you multiple times.  You ignore all that has been shown to you before to spread your lies.  Lying is all you seem to be capable of doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Projecting much?
> 
> Well regulated must be prescribed by Congress for the militia of the United States.
> 
> It is in Article 1,Section 8.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated means "IN GOOD WORKING ORDER".
> verb (used with object), regulated, regulating.
> 1.
> to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.:
> to regulate household expenses.
> 2.
> to adjust to some standard or requirement, as amount, degree, etc.:
> to regulate the temperature.
> 3.
> to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation:
> to regulate a watch.
> 4.
> to put in good order:
> to regulate the digestion.
> 
> 
> the definition of well-regulated
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what. All you have is an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> Congress must prescribe wellness of regulation for the militia of the United States.
Click to expand...







Once upon a time you could claim ignorance.  Now based on your continued choice to ignore well known FACT, we classify you as a lying troll.  You have no facts to back up your claim, only the wishful thinking of a bunch of scumbag socialists.  

In other words, feel free to take a flying leap.


----------



## sakinago

danielpalos said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go back and read my post right and in the tenor which it was offered.
> 
> And read Federalist numbers 28 and 46 twice while you're there.
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> You have nothing but diversion.
> 
> The People are the militia. You are either well regulated and necessary or unorganized and unnecessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have nothing but lies.  The meaning of Well Regulated has been shown to you multiple times.  The meaning of the Militia, and who is IN the militia has likewise been shown to you multiple times.  You ignore all that has been shown to you before to spread your lies.  Lying is all you seem to be capable of doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Projecting much?
> 
> Well regulated must be prescribed by Congress for the militia of the United States.
> 
> It is in Article 1,Section 8.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated means "IN GOOD WORKING ORDER".
> verb (used with object), regulated, regulating.
> 1.
> to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.:
> to regulate household expenses.
> 2.
> to adjust to some standard or requirement, as amount, degree, etc.:
> to regulate the temperature.
> 3.
> to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation:
> to regulate a watch.
> 4.
> to put in good order:
> to regulate the digestion.
> 
> 
> the definition of well-regulated
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what. All you have is an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> Congress must prescribe wellness of regulation for the militia of the United States.
Click to expand...

You don’t know what that is, that wasn’t an appeal to ignorance.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

danielpalos said:


> The People are the militia. Any questions?


Yeah, the constitution deals with the rights of the people, all of the people, so why try and confuse that by pretending the founders were only referring to some people? do you really think all Americans are dumb enough to fall for that?


----------



## danielpalos

sakinago said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People = The Militia.
> 
> Only the right wing never gets it.
> 
> Well regulated militia of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> Again why were the founders so scared of a standing army?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is the right wing for socialism on a national basis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In what way did I suggest that? Obviously you lack any valid retort, so you went with a nonsensical one. So I’ll ask again. Why would the founders create an oxymoron, paradox amendment? One that could arm and both disarm its people/militia as they saw fit?
Click to expand...

They didn't. Well regulated militia of the People may not Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


----------



## danielpalos

westwall said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have nothing but diversion.
> 
> The People are the militia. You are either well regulated and necessary or unorganized and unnecessary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have nothing but lies.  The meaning of Well Regulated has been shown to you multiple times.  The meaning of the Militia, and who is IN the militia has likewise been shown to you multiple times.  You ignore all that has been shown to you before to spread your lies.  Lying is all you seem to be capable of doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Projecting much?
> 
> Well regulated must be prescribed by Congress for the militia of the United States.
> 
> It is in Article 1,Section 8.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated means "IN GOOD WORKING ORDER".
> verb (used with object), regulated, regulating.
> 1.
> to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.:
> to regulate household expenses.
> 2.
> to adjust to some standard or requirement, as amount, degree, etc.:
> to regulate the temperature.
> 3.
> to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation:
> to regulate a watch.
> 4.
> to put in good order:
> to regulate the digestion.
> 
> 
> the definition of well-regulated
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what. All you have is an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> Congress must prescribe wellness of regulation for the militia of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once upon a time you could claim ignorance.  Now based on your continued choice to ignore well known FACT, we classify you as a lying troll.  You have no facts to back up your claim, only the wishful thinking of a bunch of scumbag socialists.
> 
> In other words, feel free to take a flying leap.
Click to expand...

In other words, you got nothing.


----------



## danielpalos

sakinago said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have nothing but diversion.
> 
> The People are the militia. You are either well regulated and necessary or unorganized and unnecessary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have nothing but lies.  The meaning of Well Regulated has been shown to you multiple times.  The meaning of the Militia, and who is IN the militia has likewise been shown to you multiple times.  You ignore all that has been shown to you before to spread your lies.  Lying is all you seem to be capable of doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Projecting much?
> 
> Well regulated must be prescribed by Congress for the militia of the United States.
> 
> It is in Article 1,Section 8.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated means "IN GOOD WORKING ORDER".
> verb (used with object), regulated, regulating.
> 1.
> to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.:
> to regulate household expenses.
> 2.
> to adjust to some standard or requirement, as amount, degree, etc.:
> to regulate the temperature.
> 3.
> to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation:
> to regulate a watch.
> 4.
> to put in good order:
> to regulate the digestion.
> 
> 
> the definition of well-regulated
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what. All you have is an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> Congress must prescribe wellness of regulation for the militia of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t know what that is, that wasn’t an appeal to ignorance.
Click to expand...

Yes, I do.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

danielpalos said:


> The People are the militia. Any questions?


Yeah, I have a question that I am sure no hypocrite can answer, what "makes a well regulated militia" according to our constitution?...I bet you cannot cite the constitution word for word!!!lol


----------



## danielpalos

Frankeneinstein said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the militia. Any questions?
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the constitution deals with the rights of the people, all of the people, so why try and confuse that by pretending the founders were only referring to some people? do you really think all Americans are dumb enough to fall for that?
Click to expand...

Only some of the People are declared Necessary.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

danielpalos said:


> Only some of the People are declared Necessary.


In communism/totalitarianism sure, thats why our founders granted those rights to everyone, especially the right of individuals to defend themselves with firearms...we all know how the commies feel about that


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Laws prohibiting the open carrying of firearms are also Constitutional.

The Supreme Court refused to grant cert to a Florida case, _Norman v. Florida_.


----------



## sakinago

danielpalos said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People = The Militia.
> 
> Only the right wing never gets it.
> 
> Well regulated militia of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> Again why were the founders so scared of a standing army?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is the right wing for socialism on a national basis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In what way did I suggest that? Obviously you lack any valid retort, so you went with a nonsensical one. So I’ll ask again. Why would the founders create an oxymoron, paradox amendment? One that could arm and both disarm its people/militia as they saw fit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They didn't. Well regulated militia of the People may not Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
Click to expand...

So your just gonna add words?


----------



## Frankeneinstein

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Laws prohibiting the open carrying of firearms are also Constitutional.


Cute...federal laws?...you can pretend you are just citing law because you are out of argument, but eventually the gop is going to force these things right back to the same place that created these problems by the left, the scotus, and is going to do the same thing to you, that it did for you....are you now going to try the tired and useless tactic of asking me what I mean by that, if so I will save you all the trouble, what I mean by that is all right there for you, it is in its simplest terms, if you cannot figure it out in those words I cannot make it any easier for you.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

danielpalos said:


> They didn't. Well regulated militia of the People may not Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


I have to give you this, you are the only lefty on this forum honest enough to admit that you believe the second amendment to the constitution is trying to abolish itself


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Laws prohibiting the open carrying of firearms are also Constitutional.
> 
> The Supreme Court refused to grant cert to a Florida case, _Norman v. Florida_.


Cutting your pussy off is also Constitutional.

We can play this game all day.


----------



## sakinago

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Laws prohibiting the open carrying of firearms are also Constitutional.
> 
> The Supreme Court refused to grant cert to a Florida case, _Norman v. Florida_.


And the Supreme Court passed DOMA.


----------



## westwall

danielpalos said:


> Frankeneinstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the militia. Any questions?
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the constitution deals with the rights of the people, all of the people, so why try and confuse that by pretending the founders were only referring to some people? do you really think all Americans are dumb enough to fall for that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only some of the People are declared Necessary.
Click to expand...







Yep.  That's how progressives are.  The rest of the People, those that are deemed unnecessary, are killed off.  That's why our Founders made sure that EVERYONE was to be armed.  To keep murderous swine, like you, from being able to do your dirty work.


----------



## Little-Acorn

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Laws prohibiting the open carrying of firearms are also Constitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> Cutting your pussy off is also Constitutional.
> We can play this game all day.
Click to expand...

You're already one point ahead of c-cliton-jones. Go for it!


----------



## Little-Acorn

Frankeneinstein said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't. Well regulated militia of the People may not Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> I have to give you this, you are the only lefty on this forum honest enough to admit that you believe the second amendment to the constitution is trying to abolish itself
Click to expand...

Little danielpalos has had this shoved down his throat several times already, more than once in this very thread. Apparently he's hoping that enough time has passed since his last drubbing, that people will have forgotten how completely he was refuted, and he can start repeating his fairy tales as though they were true again.

Time to spank him again, I guess.

Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom....

-------------------------------------------

(sigh)

And the liberals are ONCE AGAIN trying to pretend this has no already been pointed out to them, including in this very thread. Some of the same ones who have had this pointed out to the explicitly, are once again pretending the never heard of it.

Maybe they think enough people have forgotten how the liberals have been proven wrong, and that enough time has passed that they can now start re-stating it as though it had become the truth.

OK, for the 2259th time:


J. Neil Schulman The Unabridged Second Amendment

The Unabridged Second Amendment

by J. Neil Schulman

If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan, right? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwarzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?

That was the question I asked A.C. Brocki, editorial coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers — who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of American Usage and Style: The Consensus.

A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of Professor Copperud's expertise.

Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.

He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award.

That sounds like an expert to me.

After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent the following letter:

"I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.

"The text of the Second Amendment is, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State', is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary."

My letter framed several questions about the test of the Second Amendment, then concluded:

"I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance."

After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the follow analysis (into which I have inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

"In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"

[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."

[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"

[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."

[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"

[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

[Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"

[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."

[Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,' 'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"

[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."

[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated."

[Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary tot he security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'

[Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.'

"My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,

"(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and

"(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people to keep and read Books' only to 'a well-educated electorate' — for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?"

[Copperud:] "(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

"(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation."

Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."

So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all governments formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.

As I write this, the attempted coup against constitutional government in the Soviet Union has failed, apparently because the will of the people in that part of the world to be free from capricious tyranny is stronger than the old guard's desire to maintain a monopoly on dictatorial power.

And here in the United States, elected lawmakers, judges, and appointed officials who are pledged to defend the Constitution of the United States ignore, marginalize, or prevaricate about the Second Amendment routinely. American citizens are put in American prisons for carrying arms, owning arms of forbidden sorts, or failing to satisfy bureaucratic requirements regarding the owning and carrying of firearms — all of which is an abridgement of the unconditional right of the people to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Constitution.

And even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), staunch defender of the rest of the Bill of Rights, stands by and does nothing.

It seems it is up to those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms to preserve that right. No one else will. No one else can. Will we beg our elected representatives not to take away our rights, and continue regarding them as representing us if they do? Will we continue obeying judges who decide that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what it says it means but means whatever they say it means in their Orwellian doublespeak?

Or will be simply keep and bear the arms of our choice, as the Constitution of the United States promises us we can, and pledge that we will defend that promise with our lives, our fortuned, and our sacred honor?

-------------------------------------------------------

(C) 1991 by The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation. Informational reproduction of the entire article is hereby authorized provided the author, The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation are credited. All other rights reserved.


----------



## danielpalos

Frankeneinstein said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only some of the People are declared Necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> In communism/totalitarianism sure, thats why our founders granted those rights to everyone, especially the right of individuals to defend themselves with firearms...we all know how the commies feel about that
Click to expand...

Well regulated militia of the People are declared Necessary.


----------



## danielpalos

sakinago said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People = The Militia.
> 
> Only the right wing never gets it.
> 
> Well regulated militia of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> Again why were the founders so scared of a standing army?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is the right wing for socialism on a national basis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In what way did I suggest that? Obviously you lack any valid retort, so you went with a nonsensical one. So I’ll ask again. Why would the founders create an oxymoron, paradox amendment? One that could arm and both disarm its people/militia as they saw fit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They didn't. Well regulated militia of the People may not Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So your just gonna add words?
Click to expand...

I have a valid argument. You have nothing but repeal.


----------



## danielpalos

Frankeneinstein said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't. Well regulated militia of the People may not Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> I have to give you this, you are the only lefty on this forum honest enough to admit that you believe the second amendment to the constitution is trying to abolish itself
Click to expand...

How so? Well regulated militia of the People are declared Necessary for the security of a free State.


----------



## danielpalos

westwall said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frankeneinstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the militia. Any questions?
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the constitution deals with the rights of the people, all of the people, so why try and confuse that by pretending the founders were only referring to some people? do you really think all Americans are dumb enough to fall for that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only some of the People are declared Necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.  That's how progressives are.  The rest of the People, those that are deemed unnecessary, are killed off.  That's why our Founders made sure that EVERYONE was to be armed.  To keep murderous swine, like you, from being able to do your dirty work.
Click to expand...

Means nothing. The law is, well regulated militia of the People are necessary.


----------



## Little-Acorn

danielpalos said:


> Only some of the People are declared Necessary.





> Well regulated militia of the People are declared Necessary.





danielpalos said:


> How so? Well regulated militia of the People are declared Necessary for the security of a free State.





danielpalos said:


> Means nothing. The law is, well regulated militia of the People are necessary.


I can almost see little danielpalos's eyes glazing over as he tries to find some talking point he can pretend actually relates to the subject he is getting whupped on.


----------



## danielpalos

Little-Acorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only some of the People are declared Necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia of the People are declared Necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can almost see little danielpalos's glassy stare as he tries to find some talking point that actually relates to the subject he is getting whupped on.
Click to expand...

The People who are declared Necessary to the security of a free State, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

danielpalos said:


> Well regulated militia of the People are declared Necessary.


you are either european or canadian, but like most of your party you are not American


----------



## danielpalos

Frankeneinstein said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia of the People are declared Necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> you are either european or canadian, but like most of your party you are not American
Click to expand...

Just clueless and Causeless, right winger?


----------



## Little-Acorn

danielpalos said:


> The People who are declared Necessary to the security of a free State, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


Hey, I think that's exactly what my copy of the 2nd amendment says, too! Word for word!

(looking more closely)

Oh, umm... no, it doesn't.

Better luck next time, kooky little danielpalos.


----------



## frigidweirdo

sakinago said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no idea what I think.
> 
> No, I have no agenda. I take the issue, I look at the facts and I come to a conclusion.
> 
> Yes, I have an agenda in other things.
> 
> Go look up on the search next to my name with "proportional representation" and then we'll see who's for more freedom or not.
> 
> Guns don't equal freedom, I'm sorry, but they don't.
> 
> As for your agenda being as the Constitution intended. That's bullshit, I know this because I present EVIDENCE that clearly shows how the Constitution was supposed to be interpreted, and you IGNORE IT. Says a lot.
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly did I ignore? I’ve posted a shit ton of the writings from the founders about the second amendment/armed population/standing armies/etc, all in context, in this post. As well as a shit ton of historical references to how the 2nd was practiced, what was the militia and why it was important, the philosophy all this is based on...it’s very clear what was intended. Ivy League pro-gun control contstitutional law professors agree that if you want gun control, you have to repeal the 2nd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A shit ton of stuff that isn't relevant.
> 
> I could post Superbowl winning teams for you, and it would have no relevance for this discussion.
> 
> As for a "shit ton", I don't remember that much.
> 
> You ignore most of the evidence, and then present stuff which I tell you isn't relevant, and then you ignore that too. Oh, great. What a waste of fucking time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never saw a lick of evidence from you, you threatened it, but didn’t present. Not to me at least. Only thing I got from you is that you feel like guns exacerbate socioeconomic problems, and I’ve presented evidence that it isn’t at all, and that crimes are going down and down, while guns are going up and up. Your other argument is that our murder rate is higher than it is in Europe or whatever other select country you choose. I presented you with Switzerland, you said it’s not it’s not the same since it isn’t a fair comparison, while you dismiss when I say comparing us to these other countries isn’t a fair comparison either. On top of that, I’ve shown you that in these countries looking at them in a  vaccuum (which is the best way to look at them, since they’ve been safer than America even before their strict gun controls/bans) when they have implement gun control their murder rates and gun crime rates skyrocket. Your cherry picking your stats. You only try compare our murder rate to theirs, but ignore everything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, clearly you don't have your eyes open.
> 
> Fine you want evidence.
> 
> Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> If you haven't seen this, then I don't know what you've been looking at.
> 
> They were discussing the clause "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> Mr Gerry said "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."
> 
> It's clear here that Mr Gerry was talking about "bear arms" and instead he used the term "militia duty". Why would he talk about giving discretionary power to exclude those from *militia duty* who have religious scruples if "bear arms" meant carrying guns around with you in the street on a normal day?
> 
> 'Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""
> 
> Mr Jackson wanted to change the wording, and change "bear arms" to "render military service".
> 
> In fact during the debates the wording of the clause changed several times.
> 
> 
> June 8th 1789
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
> 
> 
> August 17th 1789
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> 
> August 24th 1789
> 
> "but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
> 
> So, clearly here "bear arms" and "render military service" were being used synonymously.
> 
> There is no hint in this document that "bear arms" mean "carry arms around"
> 
> It's clear here that "bear arms" is the right to be in the militia.
> 
> In Sentiments on a Peace Establishment from 1783, George Washington said:
> 
> "every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America... from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls,"
> 
> "by making it universally reputable to bear Arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the performance of Military duties; in fine, by keeping up in Peace "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia," we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country.“
> 
> "borne on the Militia Rolls", borne being the past participle of the very "bear". It's clear here that you could be "borne on the Militia Rolls", rather than simply "bear arms" being to carry guns around.
> 
> Then he goes and says "bear arms" and then talks about "Military duties".
> 
> Why would he say all of this if "bear arms" had the meaning of just carrying guns around with you on a normal day?
> 
> Then you have the Presser case which says
> 
> "_We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265]   and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arm_s."
> 
> Now, if the 2A protected the right to carry guns around, why would then Supreme Court then say that carrying guns around is NOT protected by the 2A? Why then would Heller then back this up?
> 
> Then you have ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1897)
> 
> _“_the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;”
> 
> Also on top of this you have carry and conceal laws in the US. Even after the 2A has applied to the states, no one has challenged carry and conceal laws. If carrying guns is a protected right, then carry and conceal is a protected right which means you don't need carry and conceal permits.
> 
> The Fight to Bring Guns Across State Lines: The NRA’s Next Big Push, Explained
> 
> "
> *By requiring states to recognize one another's gun permits, the legislation would dramatically expand where gun owners can bring their weapons.*"
> 
> NRA-ILA | NRA Backs Constitutional Concealed Carry Bill in U.S. Senate
> 
> "
> *NRA Backs Constitutional Concealed Carry Bill in U.S. Senate*"
> 
> And yet the NRA is pushing for carry and conceal permits.
> 
> Now, why would the NRA be pushing for "Constitutional Concealed Carry" if it already existed? Beats me, maybe you can tell me. It must either be that the NRA has amnesia or they're just stupid. Which one are you going to choose?
> 
> 
> And on the other hand, you have quotes which only support your opinion if you struggle really hard to make them fit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow you missed a lot in your own article. Why was it again they went against a standing army? According to this article?
Click to expand...


I'm sorry, what? 

You asked for evidence. I presented it. Now you're saying I missed a lot.

What did I miss exactly? 

"Why was it again they went against a standing army?" What are you talking about.

"According to this article?" Which article would you be talking about?


----------



## danielpalos

Little-Acorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People who are declared Necessary to the security of a free State, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, I think that's exactly what my copy of the 2nd amendment says, too! Word for word!
> 
> (looking more closely)
> 
> Oh, umm... no, it doesn't.
> 
> Better luck next time, little danielpalos.
Click to expand...

It means that. Right wingers merely have lousy reading comprehension.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

danielpalos said:


> How so?



name one other lefty poster besides you who admits they think the second amendment is meant to abolish itself




> Well regulated militia of the People are declared Necessary for the security of a free State.


and without the addition of  "the right of the people to bear arms" and "congress shall make no law infringing on the free exercise thereof" you are the only one honest enough to admit you think the second amendment is only there to abolish itself...while silly, it is honestly silly


----------



## Frankeneinstein

danielpalos said:


> Just clueless and Causeless, right winger?


You left out pro-American


----------



## frigidweirdo

Frankeneinstein said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just clueless and Causeless, right winger?
> 
> 
> 
> You left out pro-American
Click to expand...


Pro-American? Or Pro-Right Wing American?


----------



## Frankeneinstein

frigidweirdo said:


> Pro-American? Or Pro-Right Wing American?


,well lets see how smart and honest your are...I'm a registered democrat, I voted for Obama twice, voted Johnson this past election, with one exception and I voted democrat across the board in 2017, so questioning my "pro American" under those conditions may have validity, but I will let you decide, in fact, based on that info I could hardly blame you for questioning my "pro-American" claims...but trust me, I am pro American even if they sound like that is impossible


----------



## westwall

danielpalos said:


> Frankeneinstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only some of the People are declared Necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> In communism/totalitarianism sure, thats why our founders granted those rights to everyone, especially the right of individuals to defend themselves with firearms...we all know how the commies feel about that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia of the People are declared Necessary.
Click to expand...







But all others can be killed.  We get it, you want to murder people.  You hate the fact that because they are armed you can't.  We get it.


----------



## sakinago

danielpalos said:


> Frankeneinstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only some of the People are declared Necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> In communism/totalitarianism sure, thats why our founders granted those rights to everyone, especially the right of individuals to defend themselves with firearms...we all know how the commies feel about that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia of the People are declared Necessary.
Click to expand...

Let me guess, the people are the militia. Blah blah well regulated 

Nailed it


----------



## Frankeneinstein

sakinago said:


> Let me guess, the people are the militia. Blah blah well regulated
> 
> Nailed it


lol


----------



## frigidweirdo

Frankeneinstein said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pro-American? Or Pro-Right Wing American?
> 
> 
> 
> ,well lets see how smart and honest your are...I'm a registered democrat, I voted for Obama twice, voted Johnson this past election, with one exception and I voted democrat across the board in 2017, so questioning my "pro American" under those conditions may have validity, but I will let you decide, in fact, based on that info I could hardly blame you for questioning my "pro-American" claims...but trust me, I am pro American even if they sound like that is impossible
Click to expand...


And what is pro-American exactly? 

Let me guess, it's going to be cherry picking the bits of America you like and ignoring the bits you don't like.

Take, gun crime. A part of American life. If you love America, do you love gun crime? Do you love the 50% divorce rate? Do you love that partisan politics is destroying the nation?


----------



## sakinago

frigidweirdo said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly did I ignore? I’ve posted a shit ton of the writings from the founders about the second amendment/armed population/standing armies/etc, all in context, in this post. As well as a shit ton of historical references to how the 2nd was practiced, what was the militia and why it was important, the philosophy all this is based on...it’s very clear what was intended. Ivy League pro-gun control contstitutional law professors agree that if you want gun control, you have to repeal the 2nd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A shit ton of stuff that isn't relevant.
> 
> I could post Superbowl winning teams for you, and it would have no relevance for this discussion.
> 
> As for a "shit ton", I don't remember that much.
> 
> You ignore most of the evidence, and then present stuff which I tell you isn't relevant, and then you ignore that too. Oh, great. What a waste of fucking time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never saw a lick of evidence from you, you threatened it, but didn’t present. Not to me at least. Only thing I got from you is that you feel like guns exacerbate socioeconomic problems, and I’ve presented evidence that it isn’t at all, and that crimes are going down and down, while guns are going up and up. Your other argument is that our murder rate is higher than it is in Europe or whatever other select country you choose. I presented you with Switzerland, you said it’s not it’s not the same since it isn’t a fair comparison, while you dismiss when I say comparing us to these other countries isn’t a fair comparison either. On top of that, I’ve shown you that in these countries looking at them in a  vaccuum (which is the best way to look at them, since they’ve been safer than America even before their strict gun controls/bans) when they have implement gun control their murder rates and gun crime rates skyrocket. Your cherry picking your stats. You only try compare our murder rate to theirs, but ignore everything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, clearly you don't have your eyes open.
> 
> Fine you want evidence.
> 
> Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> If you haven't seen this, then I don't know what you've been looking at.
> 
> They were discussing the clause "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> Mr Gerry said "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."
> 
> It's clear here that Mr Gerry was talking about "bear arms" and instead he used the term "militia duty". Why would he talk about giving discretionary power to exclude those from *militia duty* who have religious scruples if "bear arms" meant carrying guns around with you in the street on a normal day?
> 
> 'Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""
> 
> Mr Jackson wanted to change the wording, and change "bear arms" to "render military service".
> 
> In fact during the debates the wording of the clause changed several times.
> 
> 
> June 8th 1789
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
> 
> 
> August 17th 1789
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> 
> August 24th 1789
> 
> "but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
> 
> So, clearly here "bear arms" and "render military service" were being used synonymously.
> 
> There is no hint in this document that "bear arms" mean "carry arms around"
> 
> It's clear here that "bear arms" is the right to be in the militia.
> 
> In Sentiments on a Peace Establishment from 1783, George Washington said:
> 
> "every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America... from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls,"
> 
> "by making it universally reputable to bear Arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the performance of Military duties; in fine, by keeping up in Peace "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia," we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country.“
> 
> "borne on the Militia Rolls", borne being the past participle of the very "bear". It's clear here that you could be "borne on the Militia Rolls", rather than simply "bear arms" being to carry guns around.
> 
> Then he goes and says "bear arms" and then talks about "Military duties".
> 
> Why would he say all of this if "bear arms" had the meaning of just carrying guns around with you on a normal day?
> 
> Then you have the Presser case which says
> 
> "_We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265]   and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arm_s."
> 
> Now, if the 2A protected the right to carry guns around, why would then Supreme Court then say that carrying guns around is NOT protected by the 2A? Why then would Heller then back this up?
> 
> Then you have ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1897)
> 
> _“_the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;”
> 
> Also on top of this you have carry and conceal laws in the US. Even after the 2A has applied to the states, no one has challenged carry and conceal laws. If carrying guns is a protected right, then carry and conceal is a protected right which means you don't need carry and conceal permits.
> 
> The Fight to Bring Guns Across State Lines: The NRA’s Next Big Push, Explained
> 
> "
> *By requiring states to recognize one another's gun permits, the legislation would dramatically expand where gun owners can bring their weapons.*"
> 
> NRA-ILA | NRA Backs Constitutional Concealed Carry Bill in U.S. Senate
> 
> "
> *NRA Backs Constitutional Concealed Carry Bill in U.S. Senate*"
> 
> And yet the NRA is pushing for carry and conceal permits.
> 
> Now, why would the NRA be pushing for "Constitutional Concealed Carry" if it already existed? Beats me, maybe you can tell me. It must either be that the NRA has amnesia or they're just stupid. Which one are you going to choose?
> 
> 
> And on the other hand, you have quotes which only support your opinion if you struggle really hard to make them fit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow you missed a lot in your own article. Why was it again they went against a standing army? According to this article?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, what?
> 
> You asked for evidence. I presented it. Now you're saying I missed a lot.
> 
> What did I miss exactly?
> 
> "Why was it again they went against a standing army?" What are you talking about.
> 
> "According to this article?" Which article would you be talking about?
Click to expand...

You just repeated what I said in a question. 

Yes you provided evidence, evidence that involved discussing the militia, where they were playing around with the idea of including everyone (able bodied men) in the militia, much like Switzerland at the time and today, that our republic is based off of. This was also a discussion before the actual BOR (including the 2nd) was drafted, and since they later defined that any able bodied man was ELIGIBLE for the militia (meaning as well as practiced that it was a choice to join), that whole conversation of “what about the passivist Quaker’s” was made moot, since they decided to go with a volunteer force. In this very same “evidence” you provided, what did they say about standing armies? Try to answer the question instead of repeating it.


----------



## frigidweirdo

sakinago said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> A shit ton of stuff that isn't relevant.
> 
> I could post Superbowl winning teams for you, and it would have no relevance for this discussion.
> 
> As for a "shit ton", I don't remember that much.
> 
> You ignore most of the evidence, and then present stuff which I tell you isn't relevant, and then you ignore that too. Oh, great. What a waste of fucking time.
> 
> 
> 
> I never saw a lick of evidence from you, you threatened it, but didn’t present. Not to me at least. Only thing I got from you is that you feel like guns exacerbate socioeconomic problems, and I’ve presented evidence that it isn’t at all, and that crimes are going down and down, while guns are going up and up. Your other argument is that our murder rate is higher than it is in Europe or whatever other select country you choose. I presented you with Switzerland, you said it’s not it’s not the same since it isn’t a fair comparison, while you dismiss when I say comparing us to these other countries isn’t a fair comparison either. On top of that, I’ve shown you that in these countries looking at them in a  vaccuum (which is the best way to look at them, since they’ve been safer than America even before their strict gun controls/bans) when they have implement gun control their murder rates and gun crime rates skyrocket. Your cherry picking your stats. You only try compare our murder rate to theirs, but ignore everything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, clearly you don't have your eyes open.
> 
> Fine you want evidence.
> 
> Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> If you haven't seen this, then I don't know what you've been looking at.
> 
> They were discussing the clause "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> Mr Gerry said "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."
> 
> It's clear here that Mr Gerry was talking about "bear arms" and instead he used the term "militia duty". Why would he talk about giving discretionary power to exclude those from *militia duty* who have religious scruples if "bear arms" meant carrying guns around with you in the street on a normal day?
> 
> 'Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""
> 
> Mr Jackson wanted to change the wording, and change "bear arms" to "render military service".
> 
> In fact during the debates the wording of the clause changed several times.
> 
> 
> June 8th 1789
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
> 
> 
> August 17th 1789
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> 
> August 24th 1789
> 
> "but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
> 
> So, clearly here "bear arms" and "render military service" were being used synonymously.
> 
> There is no hint in this document that "bear arms" mean "carry arms around"
> 
> It's clear here that "bear arms" is the right to be in the militia.
> 
> In Sentiments on a Peace Establishment from 1783, George Washington said:
> 
> "every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America... from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls,"
> 
> "by making it universally reputable to bear Arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the performance of Military duties; in fine, by keeping up in Peace "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia," we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country.“
> 
> "borne on the Militia Rolls", borne being the past participle of the very "bear". It's clear here that you could be "borne on the Militia Rolls", rather than simply "bear arms" being to carry guns around.
> 
> Then he goes and says "bear arms" and then talks about "Military duties".
> 
> Why would he say all of this if "bear arms" had the meaning of just carrying guns around with you on a normal day?
> 
> Then you have the Presser case which says
> 
> "_We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265]   and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arm_s."
> 
> Now, if the 2A protected the right to carry guns around, why would then Supreme Court then say that carrying guns around is NOT protected by the 2A? Why then would Heller then back this up?
> 
> Then you have ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1897)
> 
> _“_the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;”
> 
> Also on top of this you have carry and conceal laws in the US. Even after the 2A has applied to the states, no one has challenged carry and conceal laws. If carrying guns is a protected right, then carry and conceal is a protected right which means you don't need carry and conceal permits.
> 
> The Fight to Bring Guns Across State Lines: The NRA’s Next Big Push, Explained
> 
> "
> *By requiring states to recognize one another's gun permits, the legislation would dramatically expand where gun owners can bring their weapons.*"
> 
> NRA-ILA | NRA Backs Constitutional Concealed Carry Bill in U.S. Senate
> 
> "
> *NRA Backs Constitutional Concealed Carry Bill in U.S. Senate*"
> 
> And yet the NRA is pushing for carry and conceal permits.
> 
> Now, why would the NRA be pushing for "Constitutional Concealed Carry" if it already existed? Beats me, maybe you can tell me. It must either be that the NRA has amnesia or they're just stupid. Which one are you going to choose?
> 
> 
> And on the other hand, you have quotes which only support your opinion if you struggle really hard to make them fit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow you missed a lot in your own article. Why was it again they went against a standing army? According to this article?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, what?
> 
> You asked for evidence. I presented it. Now you're saying I missed a lot.
> 
> What did I miss exactly?
> 
> "Why was it again they went against a standing army?" What are you talking about.
> 
> "According to this article?" Which article would you be talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just repeated what I said in a question.
> 
> Yes you provided evidence, evidence that involved discussing the militia, where they were playing around with the idea of including everyone (able bodied men) in the militia, much like Switzerland at the time and today, that our republic is based off of. This was also a discussion before the actual BOR (including the 2nd) was drafted, and since they later defined that any able bodied man was ELIGIBLE for the militia (meaning as well as practiced that it was a choice to join), that whole conversation of “what about the passivist Quaker’s” was made moot, since they decided to go with a volunteer force. In this very same “evidence” you provided, what did they say about standing armies? Try to answer the question instead of repeating it.
Click to expand...


So, your argument, again, is that the 2A is changed by laws? 

You've got to be kidding me. You'd get laughed out of court. 

You're telling me that the US Congress CAN CHANGE THE US CONSTITUTION without following the procedures in Article 5 of the Constitution? I think not


----------



## sakinago

danielpalos said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again why were the founders so scared of a standing army?
> 
> 
> 
> Why is the right wing for socialism on a national basis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In what way did I suggest that? Obviously you lack any valid retort, so you went with a nonsensical one. So I’ll ask again. Why would the founders create an oxymoron, paradox amendment? One that could arm and both disarm its people/militia as they saw fit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They didn't. Well regulated militia of the People may not Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So your just gonna add words?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have a valid argument. You have nothing but repeal.
Click to expand...

That doesn’t mean anything. That was straight jibberish. How high are you right now? Cut back, you probably have a very skewed self image that you’re making a lot of sense, but your not. Your like a freaking robot that you’ve given too hard a question to process, and it just keeps waving it’s arms say “can not compute, can not compute,” over and over until it’s head explodes. The only difference is that you say “people are the militia, well regulated,” and “end war on drugs, reduce spending” instead, and your head sadly never explodes, because you aren’t trying to compute anything. 

New rule for dan, don’t post high. Think about adopting that.


----------



## sakinago

frigidweirdo said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never saw a lick of evidence from you, you threatened it, but didn’t present. Not to me at least. Only thing I got from you is that you feel like guns exacerbate socioeconomic problems, and I’ve presented evidence that it isn’t at all, and that crimes are going down and down, while guns are going up and up. Your other argument is that our murder rate is higher than it is in Europe or whatever other select country you choose. I presented you with Switzerland, you said it’s not it’s not the same since it isn’t a fair comparison, while you dismiss when I say comparing us to these other countries isn’t a fair comparison either. On top of that, I’ve shown you that in these countries looking at them in a  vaccuum (which is the best way to look at them, since they’ve been safer than America even before their strict gun controls/bans) when they have implement gun control their murder rates and gun crime rates skyrocket. Your cherry picking your stats. You only try compare our murder rate to theirs, but ignore everything else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, clearly you don't have your eyes open.
> 
> Fine you want evidence.
> 
> Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> If you haven't seen this, then I don't know what you've been looking at.
> 
> They were discussing the clause "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> Mr Gerry said "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."
> 
> It's clear here that Mr Gerry was talking about "bear arms" and instead he used the term "militia duty". Why would he talk about giving discretionary power to exclude those from *militia duty* who have religious scruples if "bear arms" meant carrying guns around with you in the street on a normal day?
> 
> 'Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""
> 
> Mr Jackson wanted to change the wording, and change "bear arms" to "render military service".
> 
> In fact during the debates the wording of the clause changed several times.
> 
> 
> June 8th 1789
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
> 
> 
> August 17th 1789
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> 
> August 24th 1789
> 
> "but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
> 
> So, clearly here "bear arms" and "render military service" were being used synonymously.
> 
> There is no hint in this document that "bear arms" mean "carry arms around"
> 
> It's clear here that "bear arms" is the right to be in the militia.
> 
> In Sentiments on a Peace Establishment from 1783, George Washington said:
> 
> "every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America... from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls,"
> 
> "by making it universally reputable to bear Arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the performance of Military duties; in fine, by keeping up in Peace "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia," we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country.“
> 
> "borne on the Militia Rolls", borne being the past participle of the very "bear". It's clear here that you could be "borne on the Militia Rolls", rather than simply "bear arms" being to carry guns around.
> 
> Then he goes and says "bear arms" and then talks about "Military duties".
> 
> Why would he say all of this if "bear arms" had the meaning of just carrying guns around with you on a normal day?
> 
> Then you have the Presser case which says
> 
> "_We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265]   and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arm_s."
> 
> Now, if the 2A protected the right to carry guns around, why would then Supreme Court then say that carrying guns around is NOT protected by the 2A? Why then would Heller then back this up?
> 
> Then you have ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1897)
> 
> _“_the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;”
> 
> Also on top of this you have carry and conceal laws in the US. Even after the 2A has applied to the states, no one has challenged carry and conceal laws. If carrying guns is a protected right, then carry and conceal is a protected right which means you don't need carry and conceal permits.
> 
> The Fight to Bring Guns Across State Lines: The NRA’s Next Big Push, Explained
> 
> "
> *By requiring states to recognize one another's gun permits, the legislation would dramatically expand where gun owners can bring their weapons.*"
> 
> NRA-ILA | NRA Backs Constitutional Concealed Carry Bill in U.S. Senate
> 
> "
> *NRA Backs Constitutional Concealed Carry Bill in U.S. Senate*"
> 
> And yet the NRA is pushing for carry and conceal permits.
> 
> Now, why would the NRA be pushing for "Constitutional Concealed Carry" if it already existed? Beats me, maybe you can tell me. It must either be that the NRA has amnesia or they're just stupid. Which one are you going to choose?
> 
> 
> And on the other hand, you have quotes which only support your opinion if you struggle really hard to make them fit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow you missed a lot in your own article. Why was it again they went against a standing army? According to this article?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, what?
> 
> You asked for evidence. I presented it. Now you're saying I missed a lot.
> 
> What did I miss exactly?
> 
> "Why was it again they went against a standing army?" What are you talking about.
> 
> "According to this article?" Which article would you be talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just repeated what I said in a question.
> 
> Yes you provided evidence, evidence that involved discussing the militia, where they were playing around with the idea of including everyone (able bodied men) in the militia, much like Switzerland at the time and today, that our republic is based off of. This was also a discussion before the actual BOR (including the 2nd) was drafted, and since they later defined that any able bodied man was ELIGIBLE for the militia (meaning as well as practiced that it was a choice to join), that whole conversation of “what about the passivist Quaker’s” was made moot, since they decided to go with a volunteer force. In this very same “evidence” you provided, what did they say about standing armies? Try to answer the question instead of repeating it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, your argument, again, is that the 2A is changed by laws?
> 
> You've got to be kidding me. You'd get laughed out of court.
> 
> You're telling me that the US Congress CAN CHANGE THE US CONSTITUTION without following the procedures in Article 5 of the Constitution? I think not
Click to expand...

Nope never said that once, nor hinted, nor implied. Don’t even know where you’re getting that from. What you posted to me, was a convo, before the 2nd was even created. In that convo they debated what would go wrong if we made everyone join the militia, but what about the passivist quakers. They also stated what they feared about a standing army.


----------



## frigidweirdo

sakinago said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, clearly you don't have your eyes open.
> 
> Fine you want evidence.
> 
> Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
> 
> If you haven't seen this, then I don't know what you've been looking at.
> 
> They were discussing the clause "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> Mr Gerry said "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."
> 
> It's clear here that Mr Gerry was talking about "bear arms" and instead he used the term "militia duty". Why would he talk about giving discretionary power to exclude those from *militia duty* who have religious scruples if "bear arms" meant carrying guns around with you in the street on a normal day?
> 
> 'Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""
> 
> Mr Jackson wanted to change the wording, and change "bear arms" to "render military service".
> 
> In fact during the debates the wording of the clause changed several times.
> 
> 
> June 8th 1789
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
> 
> 
> August 17th 1789
> 
> "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> 
> August 24th 1789
> 
> "but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
> 
> So, clearly here "bear arms" and "render military service" were being used synonymously.
> 
> There is no hint in this document that "bear arms" mean "carry arms around"
> 
> It's clear here that "bear arms" is the right to be in the militia.
> 
> In Sentiments on a Peace Establishment from 1783, George Washington said:
> 
> "every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America... from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls,"
> 
> "by making it universally reputable to bear Arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the performance of Military duties; in fine, by keeping up in Peace "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia," we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country.“
> 
> "borne on the Militia Rolls", borne being the past participle of the very "bear". It's clear here that you could be "borne on the Militia Rolls", rather than simply "bear arms" being to carry guns around.
> 
> Then he goes and says "bear arms" and then talks about "Military duties".
> 
> Why would he say all of this if "bear arms" had the meaning of just carrying guns around with you on a normal day?
> 
> Then you have the Presser case which says
> 
> "_We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265]   and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arm_s."
> 
> Now, if the 2A protected the right to carry guns around, why would then Supreme Court then say that carrying guns around is NOT protected by the 2A? Why then would Heller then back this up?
> 
> Then you have ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1897)
> 
> _“_the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;”
> 
> Also on top of this you have carry and conceal laws in the US. Even after the 2A has applied to the states, no one has challenged carry and conceal laws. If carrying guns is a protected right, then carry and conceal is a protected right which means you don't need carry and conceal permits.
> 
> The Fight to Bring Guns Across State Lines: The NRA’s Next Big Push, Explained
> 
> "
> *By requiring states to recognize one another's gun permits, the legislation would dramatically expand where gun owners can bring their weapons.*"
> 
> NRA-ILA | NRA Backs Constitutional Concealed Carry Bill in U.S. Senate
> 
> "
> *NRA Backs Constitutional Concealed Carry Bill in U.S. Senate*"
> 
> And yet the NRA is pushing for carry and conceal permits.
> 
> Now, why would the NRA be pushing for "Constitutional Concealed Carry" if it already existed? Beats me, maybe you can tell me. It must either be that the NRA has amnesia or they're just stupid. Which one are you going to choose?
> 
> 
> And on the other hand, you have quotes which only support your opinion if you struggle really hard to make them fit.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow you missed a lot in your own article. Why was it again they went against a standing army? According to this article?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, what?
> 
> You asked for evidence. I presented it. Now you're saying I missed a lot.
> 
> What did I miss exactly?
> 
> "Why was it again they went against a standing army?" What are you talking about.
> 
> "According to this article?" Which article would you be talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just repeated what I said in a question.
> 
> Yes you provided evidence, evidence that involved discussing the militia, where they were playing around with the idea of including everyone (able bodied men) in the militia, much like Switzerland at the time and today, that our republic is based off of. This was also a discussion before the actual BOR (including the 2nd) was drafted, and since they later defined that any able bodied man was ELIGIBLE for the militia (meaning as well as practiced that it was a choice to join), that whole conversation of “what about the passivist Quaker’s” was made moot, since they decided to go with a volunteer force. In this very same “evidence” you provided, what did they say about standing armies? Try to answer the question instead of repeating it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, your argument, again, is that the 2A is changed by laws?
> 
> You've got to be kidding me. You'd get laughed out of court.
> 
> You're telling me that the US Congress CAN CHANGE THE US CONSTITUTION without following the procedures in Article 5 of the Constitution? I think not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope never said that once, nor hinted, nor implied. Don’t even know where you’re getting that from. What you posted to me, was a convo, before the 2nd was even created. In that convo they debated what would go wrong if we made everyone join the militia, but what about the passivist quakers. They also stated what they feared about a standing army.
Click to expand...


No, they didn't debate what would happen if they made everyone join the militia. They were talking about what if they excused people from Militia Duty because they were religiously opposed to fighting. And it was excusing people from MILITIA DUTY and not excusing people from walking about with guns. 

Yes, they feared a standing army, but also realized a standing army was necessary. On this I'm not sure what you're trying to show.


----------



## sakinago

frigidweirdo said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow you missed a lot in your own article. Why was it again they went against a standing army? According to this article?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, what?
> 
> You asked for evidence. I presented it. Now you're saying I missed a lot.
> 
> What did I miss exactly?
> 
> "Why was it again they went against a standing army?" What are you talking about.
> 
> "According to this article?" Which article would you be talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just repeated what I said in a question.
> 
> Yes you provided evidence, evidence that involved discussing the militia, where they were playing around with the idea of including everyone (able bodied men) in the militia, much like Switzerland at the time and today, that our republic is based off of. This was also a discussion before the actual BOR (including the 2nd) was drafted, and since they later defined that any able bodied man was ELIGIBLE for the militia (meaning as well as practiced that it was a choice to join), that whole conversation of “what about the passivist Quaker’s” was made moot, since they decided to go with a volunteer force. In this very same “evidence” you provided, what did they say about standing armies? Try to answer the question instead of repeating it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, your argument, again, is that the 2A is changed by laws?
> 
> You've got to be kidding me. You'd get laughed out of court.
> 
> You're telling me that the US Congress CAN CHANGE THE US CONSTITUTION without following the procedures in Article 5 of the Constitution? I think not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope never said that once, nor hinted, nor implied. Don’t even know where you’re getting that from. What you posted to me, was a convo, before the 2nd was even created. In that convo they debated what would go wrong if we made everyone join the militia, but what about the passivist quakers. They also stated what they feared about a standing army.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they didn't debate what would happen if they made everyone join the militia. They were talking about what if they excused people from Militia Duty because they were religiously opposed to fighting. And it was excusing people from MILITIA DUTY and not excusing people from walking about with guns.
> 
> Yes, they feared a standing army, but also realized a standing army was necessary. On this I'm not sure what you're trying to show.
Click to expand...

Ok but they didn’t go with a mandatory militia, so militia “duty” wasn’t a thing, since quakers weren’t obliged to join, ipso facto they didn’t have to be excused... If the militia was controlled by the state, you’ve just replaced one standing army with another. The whole point of militia was that it’s under the control of the people in their respective militia, not the state. So if need be the militia could stand up to the state (but also acted as a deterrent against the state). So if the state could “regulate” the militia, made up by the people, the 2nd is a paradoxical statement.


----------



## Freewill

danielpalos said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aye yai yai. What a thread.
> 
> Since someone mentioned states rights, I'll share a relevant and correct snippet from a great book on the topic. The American Ideal of 1776 The Twelve Basic American Principles  by Hamilton Abert Long, ©1976.
> 
> It is as follows....and all that needs to be said, really.
> 
> _"With regard to use by the States of force, use of their Militia forces (all able-bodied males capable of bearing arms), in self-defense against any Federal usurpers seeking to oppress or dominate one or more States by force in violation of the Constitution's limits on Federal power, *Hamilton and Madison discussed at length and in detail in The Federalist (numbers *__*28*__* by Hamilton and *__*46*__* by Madison) the assumption and expectation of The Framers that all States would marshall their forces and act jointly to crush the usurpers' forces.*_
> 
> _This understanding of The Framers was shared by the members of the State Ratifying Conventions and the leaders and people in general of that day--all fearless foes of any and all enemies of Free Man in America. They believed that all true Americans must be ready to fight and die for Liberty, especially against tyrannical Federal officials who, as usurpers, violate not only the Constitution but also their oath of office: to support the Constitution only. It was also contemplated that any non-military force used by the Federal usurpers would be countered by the States' use of their own non-military forces: Sheriff's posses (__posses comitatus__) and any civilian police forces. (See also __Par. 12 of Principle 5__.)_
> 
> _The traditional American philosophy requires, as a fundamental of the system of checks and balances, that The Civil must always be in complete control of The Military. The Founders and their fellow Americans were painfully aware of the lesson of history that large standing armies are, in peacetime, potentially dangerous to the people's liberties. In 1776, the __Virginia Declaration of Rights__, for example, made this clear in these words: ". . . that standing armies in time of peace should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." Another, related element in the system of checks and balances is the requirement of the Constitution (__Article VI__) that all Federal officials--both civil and military--take an oath to support the Constitution [only]; with the result that all military officers, thus controlled fundamentally and supremely by the Constitution, must be obedient to the civil authority--chief of all the President--but only as to orders which are not violative of the Constitution. The Military are, therefore, obligated by the Constitution not only to refuse to obey any orders of Federal usurpers--automatically made by the Constitution itself null and void from the start--but to support the Constitution only, at all times and under all circumstances, as the sovereign people's fundamental law. State officials, civil and military, are likewise so required to take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States--meaning, in part, to resist Federal usurpers by all necessary means: by force in last resort._
> 
> _The truly American formula, in accordance with the traditional philosophy, for sound and enduring self-government by means of constitutionally limited government with adequate protection assured for Individual Liberty, is this: Limited and Decentralized for Liberty."_
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the People are necessary and shall not be Infringed.
> 
> The unorganized militia is not and may be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You of course para pharse it so you can get it wrong trying to sound right.
> 
> Here is the text: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> What it says, is that "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms,"  Sorry for you the commas get in the way.  Clearly the wording says the RIGHT of the PEOPLE.  Not the right of a militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the militia. You are either well regulated or not.
Click to expand...


Don't know your point but it is clear, the RIGHT of the PEOPLE.


----------



## frigidweirdo

sakinago said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, what?
> 
> You asked for evidence. I presented it. Now you're saying I missed a lot.
> 
> What did I miss exactly?
> 
> "Why was it again they went against a standing army?" What are you talking about.
> 
> "According to this article?" Which article would you be talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> You just repeated what I said in a question.
> 
> Yes you provided evidence, evidence that involved discussing the militia, where they were playing around with the idea of including everyone (able bodied men) in the militia, much like Switzerland at the time and today, that our republic is based off of. This was also a discussion before the actual BOR (including the 2nd) was drafted, and since they later defined that any able bodied man was ELIGIBLE for the militia (meaning as well as practiced that it was a choice to join), that whole conversation of “what about the passivist Quaker’s” was made moot, since they decided to go with a volunteer force. In this very same “evidence” you provided, what did they say about standing armies? Try to answer the question instead of repeating it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, your argument, again, is that the 2A is changed by laws?
> 
> You've got to be kidding me. You'd get laughed out of court.
> 
> You're telling me that the US Congress CAN CHANGE THE US CONSTITUTION without following the procedures in Article 5 of the Constitution? I think not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope never said that once, nor hinted, nor implied. Don’t even know where you’re getting that from. What you posted to me, was a convo, before the 2nd was even created. In that convo they debated what would go wrong if we made everyone join the militia, but what about the passivist quakers. They also stated what they feared about a standing army.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they didn't debate what would happen if they made everyone join the militia. They were talking about what if they excused people from Militia Duty because they were religiously opposed to fighting. And it was excusing people from MILITIA DUTY and not excusing people from walking about with guns.
> 
> Yes, they feared a standing army, but also realized a standing army was necessary. On this I'm not sure what you're trying to show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok but they didn’t go with a mandatory militia, so militia “duty” wasn’t a thing, since quakers weren’t obliged to join, ipso facto they didn’t have to be excused... If the militia was controlled by the state, you’ve just replaced one standing army with another. The whole point of militia was that it’s under the control of the people in their respective militia, not the state. So if need be the militia could stand up to the state (but also acted as a deterrent against the state). So if the state could “regulate” the militia, made up by the people, the 2nd is a paradoxical statement.
Click to expand...


Right, so, they're talking about "Militia Duty" and apparently it wasn't a thing. Er... WTF are you talking about? You're just making this up as you go along, right?

At the time the US felt it was a duty of the people to be in the militia. In fact people could be called up to the Militia, it can happen today, it hasn't happened since Vietnam and they chose to go through conscription to the Armed Forces, mainly because the Militia lost credibility in the war against Mexico and a few other wars, and so it hasn't been used since, except for the National Guard. 

In fact some of the evidence I showed you showed such a thing. 

George Washington in Sentiments on a Peace Establishment said:

"every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America... from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls,"

In other words individuals should carry out their duty. 

The problem is that with FREE GOVERNMENT the people have the duty to be in the Militia to protect the country, with tyrannical govt it's the exact opposite, you need a right to prevent the tyrannical govt getting rid of the Militia. If they do get rid of the Militia, you know they're tyrannical enough to fight back. 

But the Constitution was supposed to be valid over a long period of time, while the laws were to deal with the here and now. So that's why there have been plenty of Militia Acts, the 1792 one, the Dick Act of 1903 etc etc. 

You're wrong on the whole control of the militia. 

If you allow individual groups to have their own militias, who can then try and take over the government, you put the Constitution and free government at risk. They went for a healthy medium. 

The people have the guns and personnel, and they can join the militia, but the states have the control of the officers. The theory being that if the Federal govt is tyrannical, then the states would do something to stop the tyrannical federal govt. If the states and the feds are corrupt, you're fucked anyway and you don't need to protect a militia, you just fight.


----------



## danielpalos

sakinago said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is the right wing for socialism on a national basis?
> 
> 
> 
> In what way did I suggest that? Obviously you lack any valid retort, so you went with a nonsensical one. So I’ll ask again. Why would the founders create an oxymoron, paradox amendment? One that could arm and both disarm its people/militia as they saw fit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They didn't. Well regulated militia of the People may not Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So your just gonna add words?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have a valid argument. You have nothing but repeal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That doesn’t mean anything. That was straight jibberish. How high are you right now? Cut back, you probably have a very skewed self image that you’re making a lot of sense, but your not. Your like a freaking robot that you’ve given too hard a question to process, and it just keeps waving it’s arms say “can not compute, can not compute,” over and over until it’s head explodes. The only difference is that you say “people are the militia, well regulated,” and “end war on drugs, reduce spending” instead, and your head sadly never explodes, because you aren’t trying to compute anything.
> 
> New rule for dan, don’t post high. Think about adopting that.
Click to expand...

You have nothing but diversion.


----------



## danielpalos

Freewill said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aye yai yai. What a thread.
> 
> Since someone mentioned states rights, I'll share a relevant and correct snippet from a great book on the topic. The American Ideal of 1776 The Twelve Basic American Principles  by Hamilton Abert Long, ©1976.
> 
> It is as follows....and all that needs to be said, really.
> 
> _"With regard to use by the States of force, use of their Militia forces (all able-bodied males capable of bearing arms), in self-defense against any Federal usurpers seeking to oppress or dominate one or more States by force in violation of the Constitution's limits on Federal power, *Hamilton and Madison discussed at length and in detail in The Federalist (numbers *__*28*__* by Hamilton and *__*46*__* by Madison) the assumption and expectation of The Framers that all States would marshall their forces and act jointly to crush the usurpers' forces.*_
> 
> _This understanding of The Framers was shared by the members of the State Ratifying Conventions and the leaders and people in general of that day--all fearless foes of any and all enemies of Free Man in America. They believed that all true Americans must be ready to fight and die for Liberty, especially against tyrannical Federal officials who, as usurpers, violate not only the Constitution but also their oath of office: to support the Constitution only. It was also contemplated that any non-military force used by the Federal usurpers would be countered by the States' use of their own non-military forces: Sheriff's posses (__posses comitatus__) and any civilian police forces. (See also __Par. 12 of Principle 5__.)_
> 
> _The traditional American philosophy requires, as a fundamental of the system of checks and balances, that The Civil must always be in complete control of The Military. The Founders and their fellow Americans were painfully aware of the lesson of history that large standing armies are, in peacetime, potentially dangerous to the people's liberties. In 1776, the __Virginia Declaration of Rights__, for example, made this clear in these words: ". . . that standing armies in time of peace should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." Another, related element in the system of checks and balances is the requirement of the Constitution (__Article VI__) that all Federal officials--both civil and military--take an oath to support the Constitution [only]; with the result that all military officers, thus controlled fundamentally and supremely by the Constitution, must be obedient to the civil authority--chief of all the President--but only as to orders which are not violative of the Constitution. The Military are, therefore, obligated by the Constitution not only to refuse to obey any orders of Federal usurpers--automatically made by the Constitution itself null and void from the start--but to support the Constitution only, at all times and under all circumstances, as the sovereign people's fundamental law. State officials, civil and military, are likewise so required to take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States--meaning, in part, to resist Federal usurpers by all necessary means: by force in last resort._
> 
> _The truly American formula, in accordance with the traditional philosophy, for sound and enduring self-government by means of constitutionally limited government with adequate protection assured for Individual Liberty, is this: Limited and Decentralized for Liberty."_
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the People are necessary and shall not be Infringed.
> 
> The unorganized militia is not and may be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You of course para pharse it so you can get it wrong trying to sound right.
> 
> Here is the text: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> What it says, is that "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms,"  Sorry for you the commas get in the way.  Clearly the wording says the RIGHT of the PEOPLE.  Not the right of a militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the militia. You are either well regulated or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't know your point but it is clear, the RIGHT of the PEOPLE.
Click to expand...

The People = the militia.

You are either well regulated or not.


----------



## Freewill

danielpalos said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aye yai yai. What a thread.
> 
> Since someone mentioned states rights, I'll share a relevant and correct snippet from a great book on the topic. The American Ideal of 1776 The Twelve Basic American Principles  by Hamilton Abert Long, ©1976.
> 
> It is as follows....and all that needs to be said, really.
> 
> _"With regard to use by the States of force, use of their Militia forces (all able-bodied males capable of bearing arms), in self-defense against any Federal usurpers seeking to oppress or dominate one or more States by force in violation of the Constitution's limits on Federal power, *Hamilton and Madison discussed at length and in detail in The Federalist (numbers *__*28*__* by Hamilton and *__*46*__* by Madison) the assumption and expectation of The Framers that all States would marshall their forces and act jointly to crush the usurpers' forces.*_
> 
> _This understanding of The Framers was shared by the members of the State Ratifying Conventions and the leaders and people in general of that day--all fearless foes of any and all enemies of Free Man in America. They believed that all true Americans must be ready to fight and die for Liberty, especially against tyrannical Federal officials who, as usurpers, violate not only the Constitution but also their oath of office: to support the Constitution only. It was also contemplated that any non-military force used by the Federal usurpers would be countered by the States' use of their own non-military forces: Sheriff's posses (__posses comitatus__) and any civilian police forces. (See also __Par. 12 of Principle 5__.)_
> 
> _The traditional American philosophy requires, as a fundamental of the system of checks and balances, that The Civil must always be in complete control of The Military. The Founders and their fellow Americans were painfully aware of the lesson of history that large standing armies are, in peacetime, potentially dangerous to the people's liberties. In 1776, the __Virginia Declaration of Rights__, for example, made this clear in these words: ". . . that standing armies in time of peace should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." Another, related element in the system of checks and balances is the requirement of the Constitution (__Article VI__) that all Federal officials--both civil and military--take an oath to support the Constitution [only]; with the result that all military officers, thus controlled fundamentally and supremely by the Constitution, must be obedient to the civil authority--chief of all the President--but only as to orders which are not violative of the Constitution. The Military are, therefore, obligated by the Constitution not only to refuse to obey any orders of Federal usurpers--automatically made by the Constitution itself null and void from the start--but to support the Constitution only, at all times and under all circumstances, as the sovereign people's fundamental law. State officials, civil and military, are likewise so required to take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States--meaning, in part, to resist Federal usurpers by all necessary means: by force in last resort._
> 
> _The truly American formula, in accordance with the traditional philosophy, for sound and enduring self-government by means of constitutionally limited government with adequate protection assured for Individual Liberty, is this: Limited and Decentralized for Liberty."_
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the People are necessary and shall not be Infringed.
> 
> The unorganized militia is not and may be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You of course para pharse it so you can get it wrong trying to sound right.
> 
> Here is the text: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> What it says, is that "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms,"  Sorry for you the commas get in the way.  Clearly the wording says the RIGHT of the PEOPLE.  Not the right of a militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the militia. You are either well regulated or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't know your point but it is clear, the RIGHT of the PEOPLE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People = the militia.
> 
> You are either well regulated or not.
Click to expand...


People = Right to bear arms  People = Right to form militias (whether formed or not)


----------



## danielpalos

Frankeneinstein said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just clueless and Causeless, right winger?
> 
> 
> 
> You left out pro-American
Click to expand...

Dude, being clueless and Causeless is not, pro American.


----------



## danielpalos

Freewill said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the People are necessary and shall not be Infringed.
> 
> The unorganized militia is not and may be infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> You of course para pharse it so you can get it wrong trying to sound right.
> 
> Here is the text: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> What it says, is that "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms,"  Sorry for you the commas get in the way.  Clearly the wording says the RIGHT of the PEOPLE.  Not the right of a militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the militia. You are either well regulated or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't know your point but it is clear, the RIGHT of the PEOPLE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People = the militia.
> 
> You are either well regulated or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People = Right to bear arms  People = Right to form militias (whether formed or not)
Click to expand...

Well regulated militia are declared Necessary. The unorganized militia is not. 

It really is that simple.


----------



## sakinago

frigidweirdo said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just repeated what I said in a question.
> 
> Yes you provided evidence, evidence that involved discussing the militia, where they were playing around with the idea of including everyone (able bodied men) in the militia, much like Switzerland at the time and today, that our republic is based off of. This was also a discussion before the actual BOR (including the 2nd) was drafted, and since they later defined that any able bodied man was ELIGIBLE for the militia (meaning as well as practiced that it was a choice to join), that whole conversation of “what about the passivist Quaker’s” was made moot, since they decided to go with a volunteer force. In this very same “evidence” you provided, what did they say about standing armies? Try to answer the question instead of repeating it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, your argument, again, is that the 2A is changed by laws?
> 
> You've got to be kidding me. You'd get laughed out of court.
> 
> You're telling me that the US Congress CAN CHANGE THE US CONSTITUTION without following the procedures in Article 5 of the Constitution? I think not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope never said that once, nor hinted, nor implied. Don’t even know where you’re getting that from. What you posted to me, was a convo, before the 2nd was even created. In that convo they debated what would go wrong if we made everyone join the militia, but what about the passivist quakers. They also stated what they feared about a standing army.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they didn't debate what would happen if they made everyone join the militia. They were talking about what if they excused people from Militia Duty because they were religiously opposed to fighting. And it was excusing people from MILITIA DUTY and not excusing people from walking about with guns.
> 
> Yes, they feared a standing army, but also realized a standing army was necessary. On this I'm not sure what you're trying to show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok but they didn’t go with a mandatory militia, so militia “duty” wasn’t a thing, since quakers weren’t obliged to join, ipso facto they didn’t have to be excused... If the militia was controlled by the state, you’ve just replaced one standing army with another. The whole point of militia was that it’s under the control of the people in their respective militia, not the state. So if need be the militia could stand up to the state (but also acted as a deterrent against the state). So if the state could “regulate” the militia, made up by the people, the 2nd is a paradoxical statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, so, they're talking about "Militia Duty" and apparently it wasn't a thing. Er... WTF are you talking about? You're just making this up as you go along, right?
> 
> At the time the US felt it was a duty of the people to be in the militia. In fact people could be called up to the Militia, it can happen today, it hasn't happened since Vietnam and they chose to go through conscription to the Armed Forces, mainly because the Militia lost credibility in the war against Mexico and a few other wars, and so it hasn't been used since, except for the National Guard.
> 
> In fact some of the evidence I showed you showed such a thing.
> 
> George Washington in Sentiments on a Peace Establishment said:
> 
> "every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America... from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls,"
> 
> In other words individuals should carry out their duty.
> 
> The problem is that with FREE GOVERNMENT the people have the duty to be in the Militia to protect the country, with tyrannical govt it's the exact opposite, you need a right to prevent the tyrannical govt getting rid of the Militia. If they do get rid of the Militia, you know they're tyrannical enough to fight back.
> 
> But the Constitution was supposed to be valid over a long period of time, while the laws were to deal with the here and now. So that's why there have been plenty of Militia Acts, the 1792 one, the Dick Act of 1903 etc etc.
> 
> You're wrong on the whole control of the militia.
> 
> If you allow individual groups to have their own militias, who can then try and take over the government, you put the Constitution and free government at risk. They went for a healthy medium.
> 
> The people have the guns and personnel, and they can join the militia, but the states have the control of the officers. The theory being that if the Federal govt is tyrannical, then the states would do something to stop the tyrannical federal govt. If the states and the feds are corrupt, you're fucked anyway and you don't need to protect a militia, you just fight.
Click to expand...

No no no, the militias were still independent, and a volunteer force. The governors could call upon the militia in case of invasion until a standing army was established. But the militia leaders (elected by the members of that militia) still controlled their miltias. Militias weren’t very effective against armies, because it was like herding cats having multiple smaller independently operating forces, vs a single force with a clear command structure. Having a governor call upon these forces was to help provide a little bit of structure in the situation of common defense, but the leaders still had control. So it was basically just aiming a herd of cats. So a governor could call upon his miltias against the Indians, but the leader of such and such county could say no, we like them, or we have important trade with them or whatever...or they could say yes and an individual could say I’m against this and no longer wish to be in the militia. 

And the founders were confident that militias with nefarious intentions wouldn’t be able to take over the republic, because there’d be another militia or group of militias out there to stop them. In other words they could check and balance themselves. But if the miltias collectively felt that there was governmental abuse and action was needed (enough of them would have to agree) so it would have to be pretty obvious, they could purge the tyrannical government, or get it back in line. Jefferson and other founders supposed that this wouldn’t be a totally uncommon occurrence, that it would happen every once in a while, and it kind of did in the civil war, it just wasn’t the fed, but a confed of states. 

Now if you gave 100% of power of the miltia to the governor, we’ll now you just replaced one standing army with another. Sure not a national standing army, but certainly a still powerful one enough to threaten the republic and the citizens of the state. Virginia could stake a coup, or could use its militia against its own people. Remember coups are rarely ever carried out by the entire army, it’s usually a single general and the troops loyal to him.And let’s say a town in such and such county is upset by some new statute screwing them, the governor could call up the militia in that county and surrounding ones to shut them up. And they would have to fight their own people. They no longer have a control, 1 single man had control. The founders were not about centralizing power. Localities were to hedge against the states, states were to hedge against the fed.


----------



## danielpalos

Well regulated militia of the United States get their wellness of regulation from Congress, not Individuals.


----------



## sakinago

danielpalos said:


> Well regulated militia of the United States get their wellness of regulation from Congress, not Individuals.


Except they elected their leaders. Congress/state congress’s did not.


----------



## danielpalos

Well regulated militia of the United States, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union. 

The unorganized militia may be infringed.


----------



## sakinago

danielpalos said:


> Well regulated militia of the United States, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> The unorganized militia may be infringed.


Because it makes total sense that a government would give itself the right to keep and bear arms, and that it shall not infringe upon its own right.


----------



## danielpalos

sakinago said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia of the United States get their wellness of regulation from Congress, not Individuals.
> 
> 
> 
> Except they elected their leaders. Congress/state congress’s did not.
Click to expand...

Well regulated militia of the United States are authorized their own colors, standards, banners, and guidons.


----------



## frigidweirdo

sakinago said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, your argument, again, is that the 2A is changed by laws?
> 
> You've got to be kidding me. You'd get laughed out of court.
> 
> You're telling me that the US Congress CAN CHANGE THE US CONSTITUTION without following the procedures in Article 5 of the Constitution? I think not
> 
> 
> 
> Nope never said that once, nor hinted, nor implied. Don’t even know where you’re getting that from. What you posted to me, was a convo, before the 2nd was even created. In that convo they debated what would go wrong if we made everyone join the militia, but what about the passivist quakers. They also stated what they feared about a standing army.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they didn't debate what would happen if they made everyone join the militia. They were talking about what if they excused people from Militia Duty because they were religiously opposed to fighting. And it was excusing people from MILITIA DUTY and not excusing people from walking about with guns.
> 
> Yes, they feared a standing army, but also realized a standing army was necessary. On this I'm not sure what you're trying to show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok but they didn’t go with a mandatory militia, so militia “duty” wasn’t a thing, since quakers weren’t obliged to join, ipso facto they didn’t have to be excused... If the militia was controlled by the state, you’ve just replaced one standing army with another. The whole point of militia was that it’s under the control of the people in their respective militia, not the state. So if need be the militia could stand up to the state (but also acted as a deterrent against the state). So if the state could “regulate” the militia, made up by the people, the 2nd is a paradoxical statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, so, they're talking about "Militia Duty" and apparently it wasn't a thing. Er... WTF are you talking about? You're just making this up as you go along, right?
> 
> At the time the US felt it was a duty of the people to be in the militia. In fact people could be called up to the Militia, it can happen today, it hasn't happened since Vietnam and they chose to go through conscription to the Armed Forces, mainly because the Militia lost credibility in the war against Mexico and a few other wars, and so it hasn't been used since, except for the National Guard.
> 
> In fact some of the evidence I showed you showed such a thing.
> 
> George Washington in Sentiments on a Peace Establishment said:
> 
> "every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America... from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls,"
> 
> In other words individuals should carry out their duty.
> 
> The problem is that with FREE GOVERNMENT the people have the duty to be in the Militia to protect the country, with tyrannical govt it's the exact opposite, you need a right to prevent the tyrannical govt getting rid of the Militia. If they do get rid of the Militia, you know they're tyrannical enough to fight back.
> 
> But the Constitution was supposed to be valid over a long period of time, while the laws were to deal with the here and now. So that's why there have been plenty of Militia Acts, the 1792 one, the Dick Act of 1903 etc etc.
> 
> You're wrong on the whole control of the militia.
> 
> If you allow individual groups to have their own militias, who can then try and take over the government, you put the Constitution and free government at risk. They went for a healthy medium.
> 
> The people have the guns and personnel, and they can join the militia, but the states have the control of the officers. The theory being that if the Federal govt is tyrannical, then the states would do something to stop the tyrannical federal govt. If the states and the feds are corrupt, you're fucked anyway and you don't need to protect a militia, you just fight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No no no, the militias were still independent, and a volunteer force. The governors could call upon the militia in case of invasion until a standing army was established. But the militia leaders (elected by the members of that militia) still controlled their miltias. Militias weren’t very effective against armies, because it was like herding cats having multiple smaller independently operating forces, vs a single force with a clear command structure. Having a governor call upon these forces was to help provide a little bit of structure in the situation of common defense, but the leaders still had control. So it was basically just aiming a herd of cats. So a governor could call upon his miltias against the Indians, but the leader of such and such county could say no, we like them, or we have important trade with them or whatever...or they could say yes and an individual could say I’m against this and no longer wish to be in the militia.
> 
> And the founders were confident that militias with nefarious intentions wouldn’t be able to take over the republic, because there’d be another militia or group of militias out there to stop them. In other words they could check and balance themselves. But if the miltias collectively felt that there was governmental abuse and action was needed (enough of them would have to agree) so it would have to be pretty obvious, they could purge the tyrannical government, or get it back in line. Jefferson and other founders supposed that this wouldn’t be a totally uncommon occurrence, that it would happen every once in a while, and it kind of did in the civil war, it just wasn’t the fed, but a confed of states.
> 
> Now if you gave 100% of power of the miltia to the governor, we’ll now you just replaced one standing army with another. Sure not a national standing army, but certainly a still powerful one enough to threaten the republic and the citizens of the state. Virginia could stake a coup, or could use its militia against its own people. Remember coups are rarely ever carried out by the entire army, it’s usually a single general and the troops loyal to him.And let’s say a town in such and such county is upset by some new statute screwing them, the governor could call up the militia in that county and surrounding ones to shut them up. And they would have to fight their own people. They no longer have a control, 1 single man had control. The founders were not about centralizing power. Localities were to hedge against the states, states were to hedge against the fed.
Click to expand...


I didn't say that the militias weren't volunteer, but independent, no, they weren't. Independent was a danger to country as much as a standing army. 

Before the Constitution was passed, Militias were often local affairs. However there was a change with the passing of the Constitution, Article 1 Section 8 which said: "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia,"

Now, the word "the" means "one of one" or "two of two". It didn't say "a Militia". There was one militia and Congress had the power to organize, arm and discipline this militia. There were no other militias. 

By 1789, the state could call upon the Militia, and it was THE Militia. If a bunch of drunks got together with their guns and called themselves a militia, they couldn't be called up into service. They had to join THE MILITIA and the state or the feds could disband any militia that someone decided they wanted to set up. 

West Point was created in part to deal with the problems of the militia. 

The first time the militia was used was in the Whiskey Rebellion. The Feds called up the state militias from New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania. 

For example, you have the Nauvoo Legion in Illinois

Nauvoo Legion - Wikipedia

"The *Nauvoo Legion* was a state authorized militia of the city of Nauvoo, Illinois."

"To curry political favor with the Saints, the Illinois state legislature granted Nauvoo a liberal city charter that gave the Nauvoo Legion extraordinary independence even though it was still a component of the Illinois State Militia and under the ultimate authority of the Governor of Illinois."

Even this militia was under state control, and could be called up by the feds. If it wasn't approved by the state, it wasn't part of the militia. 

So, where's the evidence that Founders thought that one militia not under state control would be controlled by other militias? 

You make the claim, BACK IT UP.

There wasn't 100% power, because people didn't have to join up the militia. In the Whiskey Rebellion they struggled to get enough people to go, and actually had rebellions in Virginia when they tried to draft up the militia. The point here is also that the feds COULD try and called up EVERY SINGLE MALE in the country to federal service. It was their power, they could force people into the Militia.


----------



## danielpalos

Our Second Amendment is a States right.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

"The wellness of regulation, being necessary for a clueless and causelese state, rhe right of the Militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."


----------



## Frankeneinstein

frigidweirdo said:


> And what is pro-American exactly?



lol...notice that only liberals ever have to ask that question



> Let me guess, it's going to be cherry picking the bits of America you like and ignoring the bits you don't like.



and of course you could not be more wrong about it

[/quote]Take, gun crime. A part of American life. If you love America, do you love gun crime? Do you love the 50% divorce rate? Do you love that partisan politics is destroying the nation?[/QUOTE]

it's interesting that you use examples of things that have grown to severe problematic proportions since liberalism infected the country in the 60's, prior to that none of those things were true, prior to that [the 60's] your statement would accurately be described as a lie...folks on the right from both parties were warning that what you describe above was going to happen if we did not kill liberalism/communism in the womb...so if you are really interested in what is pro-American you can start your research there.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Frankeneinstein said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what is pro-American exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol...notice that only liberals ever have to ask that question
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me guess, it's going to be cherry picking the bits of America you like and ignoring the bits you don't like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and of course you could not be more wrong about it
Click to expand...

Take, gun crime. A part of American life. If you love America, do you love gun crime? Do you love the 50% divorce rate? Do you love that partisan politics is destroying the nation?[/QUOTE]

it's interesting that you use examples of things that have grown to severe problematic proportions since liberalism infected the country in the 60's, prior to that none of those things were true, prior to that [the 60's] your statement would accurately be described as a lie...folks on the right from both parties were warning that what you describe above was going to happen if we did not kill liberalism/communism in the womb...so if you are really interested in what is pro-American you can start your research there.[/QUOTE]

Probably because Liberals don't go around bastardizing language at will, so why would the right need to ask such things?

So, the problems exist because liberalism exists? Er... liberalism has existed for a long time.

But let's see. Liberalism got rid of segregation. I'm going to assume, from your post, that you oppose this and it's the "fucking liberals" being "dogooders" in getting rid of segregation that allowed black to use the same bathrooms as white people that is UNAMERICAN LIBERAL SHIT or some fucking nonsense like that.

I guess you liked it back in the day when people could murder a black person and they'd then stick the murdered black person in prison and blame it all on him. "He tripped and then attacked me with his dead had your 'onor".


----------



## Taz

The right to bear arms, ok, but there's no right to bullets. So ban them. 


 3...2...1...


----------



## Frankeneinstein

danielpalos said:


> Dude, being clueless and Causeless is not, pro American.


is that your way of saying that is why you are not pro-American


----------



## danielpalos

Frankeneinstein said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, being clueless and Causeless is not, pro American.
> 
> 
> 
> is that your way of saying that is why you are not pro-American
Click to expand...

You don't know the difference.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

frigidweirdo said:


> So, the problems exist because liberalism exists?



60's style liberalism



> Er... liberalism has existed for a long time.



real American liberalism, not communism hiding behind the liberal moniker that infected the left during the 60's



> But let's see. Liberalism got rid of segregation. I'm going to assume, from your post, that you oppose this and it's the "fucking liberals" being "dogooders" in getting rid of segregation that allowed black to use the same bathrooms as white people that is UNAMERICAN LIBERAL SHIT or some fucking nonsense like that.



it was democrats that tried to prevent those things, see "Hillary's" 'mentor' [her words] Robert Byrd [an active member of the KKK at one time]  and see George Wallace and most of the politicians who ordered the use of attack dogs, alomst exclusively democrat, the reason you do not know that is because of their party afilliation they were all given free passes, including "hillary's mentor"



> I guess you liked it back in the day when people could murder a black person and they'd then stick the murdered black person in prison and blame it all on him. "He tripped and then attacked me with his dead had your 'onor".



ah, the familiar "racist" retort, hard to defend myself here as I am a democrat, but that is what liberals do, you should have that post tattooed on you, it is quite ridiculous and yet very typical of 60's style liberal education, I would be ashamed of myself and start cracking the books if I thought like that..."murdered and then stuck in prison"? is that a typo? or was it just the obligatory "racist" portion of your discussion with anyone who loves America


----------



## Frankeneinstein

frigidweirdo said:


> So, the problems exist because liberalism exists?



60's style liberalism



> Er... liberalism has existed for a long time.



real American liberalism, not communism hiding behind the liberal moniker that infected the left during the 60's



> But let's see. Liberalism got rid of segregation. I'm going to assume, from your post, that you oppose this and it's the "fucking liberals" being "dogooders" in getting rid of segregation that allowed black to use the same bathrooms as white people that is UNAMERICAN LIBERAL SHIT or some fucking nonsense like that.



it was democrats that tried to prevent those things, see "Hillary's" 'mentor' [her words] Robert Byrd [an active member of the KKK at one time]  and see George Wallace and most of the politicians who ordered the use of attack dogs, alomst exclusively democrat, the reason you do not know that is because of their party afilliation they were all given free passes, including hillary's mentor



> I guess you liked it back in the day when people could murder a black person and they'd then stick the murdered black person in prison and blame it all on him. "He tripped and then attacked me with his dead had your 'onor".



ah, the familiar "racist" retort, hard to defend myself here as I am a democrat, but that is what liberals do, you should have that post tattooed on you, it is quite ridiculous and yet very typical of 60's style liberal education, I would be ashamed of myself and start cracking the books if I thought like that..."murdered and then stuck in prison"? is that a typo? or was it just the obligatory "racist" portion of your discussion with anyone who loves America


danielpalos said:


> You don't know the difference.


is it the lack of a question mark in my last post what/that confuses you??????


----------



## frigidweirdo

Frankeneinstein said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, the problems exist because liberalism exists?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 60's style liberalism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Er... liberalism has existed for a long time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> real American liberalism, not communism hiding behind the liberal moniker that infected the left during the 60's
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But let's see. Liberalism got rid of segregation. I'm going to assume, from your post, that you oppose this and it's the "fucking liberals" being "dogooders" in getting rid of segregation that allowed black to use the same bathrooms as white people that is UNAMERICAN LIBERAL SHIT or some fucking nonsense like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it was democrats that tried to prevent those things, see "Hillary's" 'mentor' [her words] Robert Byrd [an active member of the KKK at one time]  and see George Wallace and most of the politicians who ordered the use of attack dogs, alomst exclusively democrat, the reason you do not know that is because of their party afilliation they were all given free passes, including hillary's mentor
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you liked it back in the day when people could murder a black person and they'd then stick the murdered black person in prison and blame it all on him. "He tripped and then attacked me with his dead had your 'onor".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ah, the familiar "racist" retort, hard to defend myself here as I am a democrat, but that is what liberals do, you should have that post tattooed on you, it is quite ridiculous and yet very typical of 60's style liberal education, I would be ashamed of myself and start cracking the books if I thought like that..."murdered and then stuck in prison"? is that a typo? or was it just the obligatory "racist" portion of your discussion with anyone who loves America
Click to expand...


Well, just to save you and me some time, I'll just say what you're saying is bullshit. Not total bullshit, but bullshit. Mainly because you'll ignore the problems the Republicans have caused, and bullshit because I know you're looking at it in a simplistic way and can't possibly know the reality.


----------



## danielpalos

Frankeneinstein said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, the problems exist because liberalism exists?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 60's style liberalism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Er... liberalism has existed for a long time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> real American liberalism, not communism hiding behind the liberal moniker that infected the left during the 60's
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But let's see. Liberalism got rid of segregation. I'm going to assume, from your post, that you oppose this and it's the "fucking liberals" being "dogooders" in getting rid of segregation that allowed black to use the same bathrooms as white people that is UNAMERICAN LIBERAL SHIT or some fucking nonsense like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it was democrats that tried to prevent those things, see "Hillary's" 'mentor' [her words] Robert Byrd [an active member of the KKK at one time]  and see George Wallace and most of the politicians who ordered the use of attack dogs, alomst exclusively democrat, the reason you do not know that is because of their party afilliation they were all given free passes, including hillary's mentor
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you liked it back in the day when people could murder a black person and they'd then stick the murdered black person in prison and blame it all on him. "He tripped and then attacked me with his dead had your 'onor".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ah, the familiar "racist" retort, hard to defend myself here as I am a democrat, but that is what liberals do, you should have that post tattooed on you, it is quite ridiculous and yet very typical of 60's style liberal education, I would be ashamed of myself and start cracking the books if I thought like that..."murdered and then stuck in prison"? is that a typo? or was it just the obligatory "racist" portion of your discussion with anyone who loves America
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> is it the lack of a question mark in my last post what/that confuses you??????
Click to expand...

I am not the one confused.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

frigidweirdo said:


> Well, just to save you and me some time, I'll just say what you're saying is bullshit. Not total bullshit, but bullshit. Mainly because you'll ignore the problems the Republicans have caused, and bullshit because I know you're looking at it in a simplistic way and can't possibly know the reality.


no, the reason you will  "JUST SAY: What you're saying is bullshit" is because once the race card is not in play that is all you have left.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Frankeneinstein said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, just to save you and me some time, I'll just say what you're saying is bullshit. Not total bullshit, but bullshit. Mainly because you'll ignore the problems the Republicans have caused, and bullshit because I know you're looking at it in a simplistic way and can't possibly know the reality.
> 
> 
> 
> no, the reason you will  "JUST SAY: What you're saying is bullshit" is because once the race card is not in play that is all you have left.
Click to expand...


Except, if you could read, I didn't say you were a racist. Oh, oppsie, missed that one, didn't you?


----------



## Frankeneinstein

frigidweirdo said:


> Except, if you could read, I didn't say you were a racist. Oh, oppsie, missed that one, didn't you?


and now we are at the pretend portion of the liberal discussion that turns to answering points/posts they wish were said/asked instead of what was actually said/asked.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Frankeneinstein said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except, if you could read, I didn't say you were a racist. Oh, oppsie, missed that one, didn't you?
> 
> 
> 
> and now we are at the pretend portion of the liberal discussion that turns to answering points/posts they wish were said/asked instead of what was actually said/asked.
Click to expand...


Okay, here's the point where I ask you what I said. 

Or how about fuck off, I'm not interested in your bullshit. Bye.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

The Derp said:


> Despite Conservative fear-mongering, there is no violent crime epidemic in this country.  Violent crime rates are at or near all-time lows.  What causes an increase in violent crime is _*poverty*_.
> Everything you are saying is bullshit.



Sure, and any young white girl or boy can safely set up a lemonade stand in Chicago's south side or sell GS cookies there.

You know, you snowflakes are so gullible you believe everything a government report (or the media) throws at you.
Talk to COPS who are out there working the streets every frickin day if you want the TRUTH.

The Sheriffs helicopter is out almost every night these days.  Most days too.    They had to add a new helicopter just to keep up
Guess you are not aware of the Opioid and drug crisis across the country.   Yep, Leftist Utopia...no crime.....leave your doors unlocked and your valuables in your car also.  It's safe...right?

Violent crime is NOT at an all time low.   GEEZ


----------



## Frankeneinstein

frigidweirdo said:


> Okay, here's the point where I ask you what I said.
> 
> Or how about fuck off, I'm not interested in your bullshit. Bye.


like I said, or as I always say, no race card to play, no discussion to be had


----------



## frigidweirdo

Frankeneinstein said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, here's the point where I ask you what I said.
> 
> Or how about fuck off, I'm not interested in your bullshit. Bye.
> 
> 
> 
> like I said, or as I always say, no race card to play, no discussion to be had
Click to expand...


As I've said to others, come on here and act like a twat, get on ignore.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

frigidweirdo said:


> As I've said to others, come on here and act like a twat, get on ignore.


Your diploma is showing


----------



## Frankeneinstein

frigidweirdo said:


> As I've said to others, come on here and act like a twat, get on ignore.


lemme guess, because you consider yourself a liberal you do not consider that  to be misogynist language nor yourself a misogynist for using it? is that right?...tell the truth now, or you can ignore it if the truth escapes you


----------



## danielpalos

frigidweirdo said:


> Frankeneinstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, just to save you and me some time, I'll just say what you're saying is bullshit. Not total bullshit, but bullshit. Mainly because you'll ignore the problems the Republicans have caused, and bullshit because I know you're looking at it in a simplistic way and can't possibly know the reality.
> 
> 
> 
> no, the reason you will  "JUST SAY: What you're saying is bullshit" is because once the race card is not in play that is all you have left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except, if you could read, I didn't say you were a racist. Oh, oppsie, missed that one, didn't you?
Click to expand...




sakinago said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia of the United States, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> The unorganized militia may be infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> Because it makes total sense that a government would give itself the right to keep and bear arms, and that it shall not infringe upon its own right.
Click to expand...

The right wing is just clueless and Causeless. We have a representative Republic.


----------



## Lakhota

When will the carnage end?  Time to rewrite the archaic 2nd Amendment.


----------



## Cellblock2429

Lakhota said:


> When will the carnage end?  Time to rewrite the archaic 2nd Amendment.


/—-/ We need to pass laws against murder that criminals will obey.


----------



## mikegriffith1

Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, and Fidel Castro all agreed that private gun ownership is barbaric and unnecessary. Uncle Sam assured the American Indians that it was not in their best interest to own guns. Hitler disarmed Jewish citizens. You guys are in great company.


----------



## Lakhota

mikegriffith1 said:


> Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, and Fidel Castro all agreed that private gun ownership is barbaric and unnecessary. Uncle Sam assured the American Indians that it was not in their best interest to own guns. Hitler disarmed Jewish citizens. You guys are in great company.



No, gun ownership by responsible people isn't barbaric.  I cherish my guns - but I want sensible gun laws and enforcement.


----------



## Cellblock2429

Lakhota said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, and Fidel Castro all agreed that private gun ownership is barbaric and unnecessary. Uncle Sam assured the American Indians that it was not in their best interest to own guns. Hitler disarmed Jewish citizens. You guys are in great company.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, gun ownership by responsible people isn't barbaric.  I cherish my guns - but I want sensible gun laws and enforcement.
Click to expand...

/——/ sensible gun laws = registration = confiscation


----------



## Lakhota

Cellblock2429 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, and Fidel Castro all agreed that private gun ownership is barbaric and unnecessary. Uncle Sam assured the American Indians that it was not in their best interest to own guns. Hitler disarmed Jewish citizens. You guys are in great company.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, gun ownership by responsible people isn't barbaric.  I cherish my guns - but I want sensible gun laws and enforcement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ sensible gun laws = registration = confiscation
Click to expand...


You mean like Trump is doing with DACA?


----------



## westwall

Lakhota said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, and Fidel Castro all agreed that private gun ownership is barbaric and unnecessary. Uncle Sam assured the American Indians that it was not in their best interest to own guns. Hitler disarmed Jewish citizens. You guys are in great company.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, gun ownership by responsible people isn't barbaric.  I cherish my guns - but I want sensible gun laws and enforcement.
Click to expand...






No, you don't.  You want a police state, but then all stalinists do.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lakhota said:


> When will the carnage end?  Time to rewrite the archaic 2nd Amendment.



So that we're even more at the mercy of criminals?  What a grand idea.  Because I'm sure they'll obey a law universally banning guns, even though they ignore the law universally banning murder.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Cellblock2429 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> When will the carnage end?  Time to rewrite the archaic 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> /—-/ We need to pass laws against murder that criminals will obey.
Click to expand...


By definition, criminals don't obey laws.  That's what makes them criminals.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lakhota said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, and Fidel Castro all agreed that private gun ownership is barbaric and unnecessary. Uncle Sam assured the American Indians that it was not in their best interest to own guns. Hitler disarmed Jewish citizens. You guys are in great company.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, gun ownership by responsible people isn't barbaric.  I cherish my guns - but I want sensible gun laws and enforcement.
Click to expand...


Such as?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lakhota said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, and Fidel Castro all agreed that private gun ownership is barbaric and unnecessary. Uncle Sam assured the American Indians that it was not in their best interest to own guns. Hitler disarmed Jewish citizens. You guys are in great company.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, gun ownership by responsible people isn't barbaric.  I cherish my guns - but I want sensible gun laws and enforcement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ sensible gun laws = registration = confiscation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean like Trump is doing with DACA?
Click to expand...


So you want "sensible laws" when it comes to guns, but you're opposed to sensible laws when it comes to illegal aliens?


----------



## Wyatt earp

Lakhota said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, and Fidel Castro all agreed that private gun ownership is barbaric and unnecessary. Uncle Sam assured the American Indians that it was not in their best interest to own guns. Hitler disarmed Jewish citizens. You guys are in great company.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, gun ownership by responsible people isn't barbaric.  I cherish my guns - but I want sensible gun laws and enforcement.
Click to expand...




Lakhota if we enforced the gun laws on the books you couldn't own one...

We all know you are mentally unstable..


Gun Control Act of 1968 - Wikipedia


----------



## Lakhota

Cecilie1200 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, and Fidel Castro all agreed that private gun ownership is barbaric and unnecessary. Uncle Sam assured the American Indians that it was not in their best interest to own guns. Hitler disarmed Jewish citizens. You guys are in great company.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, gun ownership by responsible people isn't barbaric.  I cherish my guns - but I want sensible gun laws and enforcement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ sensible gun laws = registration = confiscation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean like Trump is doing with DACA?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you want "sensible laws" when it comes to guns, but you're opposed to sensible laws when it comes to illegal aliens?
Click to expand...


Duh, this thread is about arms.  Try to focus...


----------



## Wyatt earp

Cecilie1200 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, and Fidel Castro all agreed that private gun ownership is barbaric and unnecessary. Uncle Sam assured the American Indians that it was not in their best interest to own guns. Hitler disarmed Jewish citizens. You guys are in great company.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, gun ownership by responsible people isn't barbaric.  I cherish my guns - but I want sensible gun laws and enforcement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ sensible gun laws = registration = confiscation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean like Trump is doing with DACA?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you want "sensible laws" when it comes to guns, but you're opposed to sensible laws when it comes to illegal aliens?
Click to expand...




But they are not illegal Mexicans they are "undocumented citizens" 


.


----------



## Humorme

Lakhota said:


> When will the carnage end?  Time to rewrite the archaic 2nd Amendment.



What you want is much like closing the barn door after the cows have gotten out.

The Second Amendment has little to do with the root of the problem.


----------



## Lakhota

Cecilie1200 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, and Fidel Castro all agreed that private gun ownership is barbaric and unnecessary. Uncle Sam assured the American Indians that it was not in their best interest to own guns. Hitler disarmed Jewish citizens. You guys are in great company.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, gun ownership by responsible people isn't barbaric.  I cherish my guns - but I want sensible gun laws and enforcement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such as?
Click to expand...


Food for thought...






https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ence-politicians-dont/?utm_term=.294d748b05ce


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lakhota said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, and Fidel Castro all agreed that private gun ownership is barbaric and unnecessary. Uncle Sam assured the American Indians that it was not in their best interest to own guns. Hitler disarmed Jewish citizens. You guys are in great company.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, gun ownership by responsible people isn't barbaric.  I cherish my guns - but I want sensible gun laws and enforcement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ sensible gun laws = registration = confiscation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean like Trump is doing with DACA?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you want "sensible laws" when it comes to guns, but you're opposed to sensible laws when it comes to illegal aliens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Duh, this thread is about arms.  Try to focus...
Click to expand...


Duh, YOU brought up DACA, not me.


----------



## Issa

Some all they need is a trip outside the US to see for themselves the civilisation and how people are leaving safe and don' on their way to work or school. 

Before moving to the US, I was told some Americans are too ignorant about the outside world and love their guns because thry are paranoid and are bombarded by propaganda. True and true.


----------



## Papageorgio

Lakhota said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, and Fidel Castro all agreed that private gun ownership is barbaric and unnecessary. Uncle Sam assured the American Indians that it was not in their best interest to own guns. Hitler disarmed Jewish citizens. You guys are in great company.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, gun ownership by responsible people isn't barbaric.  I cherish my guns - but I want sensible gun laws and enforcement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ sensible gun laws = registration = confiscation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean like Trump is doing with DACA?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you want "sensible laws" when it comes to guns, but you're opposed to sensible laws when it comes to illegal aliens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Duh, this thread is about arms.  Try to focus...
Click to expand...


Dumb ass, you brought up DACA. Try to focus...


----------



## Papageorgio

Issa said:


> Some all they need is a trip outside the US to see for themselves the civilisation and how people are leaving safe and don' on their way to work or school.
> 
> Before moving to the US, I was told some Americans are too ignorant about the outside world and love their guns because thry are paranoid and are bombarded by propaganda. True and true.



I’m sure you will find what you are looking for, most people do.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lakhota said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, and Fidel Castro all agreed that private gun ownership is barbaric and unnecessary. Uncle Sam assured the American Indians that it was not in their best interest to own guns. Hitler disarmed Jewish citizens. You guys are in great company.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, gun ownership by responsible people isn't barbaric.  I cherish my guns - but I want sensible gun laws and enforcement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such as?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Food for thought...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ence-politicians-dont/?utm_term=.294d748b05ce
Click to expand...

Don't give a fuck.

Not one inch.


----------



## Lakhota

Amen!


----------



## Lakhota

Amen!


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lakhota said:


> Amen!


I don't believe in god.

I believe in GUNS.  

I am glad you will be frightened when I have 3 or 4 machine guns.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lakhota said:


> Amen!


And fuck all you.

We don't give a rat fuck.  

NOT ONE INCH


----------



## asaratis

Papageorgio said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, gun ownership by responsible people isn't barbaric.  I cherish my guns - but I want sensible gun laws and enforcement.
> 
> 
> 
> /——/ sensible gun laws = registration = confiscation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean like Trump is doing with DACA?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you want "sensible laws" when it comes to guns, but you're opposed to sensible laws when it comes to illegal aliens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Duh, this thread is about arms.  Try to focus...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dumb ass, you brought up DACA. Try to focus...
Click to expand...

Liberal shitheads can't help it.  They are conditioned to divert arguments in order to keep from having to make a legitimate point concerning the topic.


----------



## petro

Guess I will repost this from CDZ today.


petro said:


> I would rather see a conversation about how our culture and education system has been failing males for the last several decades. How our society feels the need to overmedicate youth.
> Our failure to keep dangerous mentally ill people from harming others. A permissive culture that glorifies violence from movies to video games with imagery no youth should be absorbing at a young age. A culture where personal responsibility died long ago.
> 
> This crap didn't happen during my school years and no one would have even entertained the idea.
> Our culture is sick, and our youth are the victims.
> 
> Will there be an actual discussion? No, easier to blame a gun.


----------



## Lakhota

Yep, this is our Congress...


----------



## 2aguy

Lakhota said:


> Yep, this is our Congress...




That's easy.....you end gun free zones.  That keeps these monsters away.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lakhota said:


> Yep, this is our Congress...


Shoot Back


----------



## asaratis

Lakhota said:


> Yep, this is our Congress...


He didn't say that, you disingenuous, liberal piece of shit.


----------



## asaratis

2aguy said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, this is our Congress...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's easy.....you end gun free zones.  That keeps these monsters away.
Click to expand...

That's why there are so many black on black shootings in Chicago.


----------



## Lakhota

asaratis said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, this is our Congress...
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't say that, you disingenuous, liberal piece of shit.
Click to expand...


Duh, but it matches his actual stance on gun control.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lakhota said:


> Duh, but it matches his actual stance on gun control.


Which is the correct stance.

Not one cocksucking inch.


----------



## Lakhota

Anyone remember Charlton Heston?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lakhota said:


> Anyone remember Charlton Heston?


Won't somebody PLEASE think of THE CHILDREN!!!!


Fuck you.


We're not doing gun control, bitch.  It's over.  You lose.


----------



## Issa

Papageorgio said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some all they need is a trip outside the US to see for themselves the civilisation and how people are leaving safe and don' on their way to work or school.
> 
> Before moving to the US, I was told some Americans are too ignorant about the outside world and love their guns because thry are paranoid and are bombarded by propaganda. True and true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I’m sure you will find what you are looking for, most people do.
Click to expand...

It is sad. That the culture of owning guns is deeply rooted in the US...some think that there can be no decent life without owning guns. Ridiculous!!!


----------



## asaratis

Lakhota said:


> Anyone remember Charlton Heston?


More fake news.  You fucked up liberals are true masters of lying.


----------



## Humorme

petro said:


> Guess I will repost this from CDZ today.
> 
> 
> petro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would rather see a conversation about how our culture and education system has been failing males for the last several decades. How our society feels the need to overmedicate youth.
> Our failure to keep dangerous mentally ill people from harming others. A permissive culture that glorifies violence from movies to video games with imagery no youth should be absorbing at a young age. A culture where personal responsibility died long ago.
> 
> This crap didn't happen during my school years and no one would have even entertained the idea.
> Our culture is sick, and our youth are the victims.
> 
> Will there be an actual discussion? No, easier to blame a gun.
Click to expand...


I think too many people would be too lazy to click on the article.  Allow me:

 would rather see a conversation about how our culture and education system has been failing males for the last several decades. How our society feels the need to overmedicate youth.
Our failure to keep dangerous mentally ill people from harming others. A permissive culture that glorifies violence from movies to video games with imagery no youth should be absorbing at a young age. A culture where personal responsibility died long ago.

This crap didn't happen during my school years and no one would have even entertained the idea.
Our culture is sick, and our youth are the victims.

Will there be an actual discussion? No, easier to blame a gun.


----------



## asaratis

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone remember Charlton Heston?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Won't somebody PLEASE think of THE CHILDREN!!!!
> 
> 
> Fuck you.
> 
> 
> We're not doing gun control, bitch.  It's over.  You lose.
Click to expand...

We all do our children favors when we teach them how and when to shoot.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Issa said:


> It is sad. That the culture of owning guns is deeply rooted in the US...some think that there can be no decent life without owning guns. Ridiculous!!!


And there's not a goddamn thing your commie ass can do about it, but bitch, cry, bellyache, and sob into your appletini.

not one inch


----------



## Humorme

asaratis said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone remember Charlton Heston?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More fake news.  You fucked up liberals are true masters of lying.
Click to expand...



I remember Charlatan Heston. He was FOR gun control.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

A message from Milo:


----------



## Lakhota

asaratis said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone remember Charlton Heston?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Won't somebody PLEASE think of THE CHILDREN!!!!
> 
> 
> Fuck you.
> 
> 
> We're not doing gun control, bitch.  It's over.  You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We all do our children favors when we teach them how and when to shoot.
Click to expand...


Yeah, so long as you teach them all the other decent values along with shooting.


----------



## Lakhota

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> A message from Milo:



Oh, fuck, now I'm gonna be sick seeing that little puke.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lakhota said:


> Yeah, so long as you teach them all the other decent values along with shooting.


What?  You think we don't?


----------



## asaratis

Lakhota said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone remember Charlton Heston?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Won't somebody PLEASE think of THE CHILDREN!!!!
> 
> 
> Fuck you.
> 
> 
> We're not doing gun control, bitch.  It's over.  You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We all do our children favors when we teach them how and when to shoot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, so long as you teach them all the other decent values along with shooting.
Click to expand...

...and you can't do that without guns, dummy.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lakhota said:


> Oh, fuck, now I'm gonna be sick seeing that little puke.


Good.

I love that you hate him.

He's right.  

Shoot back.   That's the only solution.  Which means.....more guns.


----------



## Issa

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is sad. That the culture of owning guns is deeply rooted in the US...some think that there can be no decent life without owning guns. Ridiculous!!!
> 
> 
> 
> And there's not a goddamn thing your commie ass can do about it, but bitch, cry, bellyache, and sob into your appletini.
> 
> not one inch
Click to expand...

1 ain't a commie. Yes I do...there will come a day where guns will be abolished just like in other civilised countries. Is a law that's too old and it doesn't correspond to this time and age.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Issa said:


> 1 ain't a commie. Yes I do there will come a day where guns will be abolished just like in other civilised countries. Is a law that's too old and it doesn't correspond to this time and age.


War first.  We'll all go down shooting if we must.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Issa said:


> 1 ain't a commie.


I don't believe you.


----------



## Issa

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1 ain't a commie. Yes I do there will come a day where guns will be abolished just like in other civilised countries. Is a law that's too old and it doesn't correspond to this time and age.
> 
> 
> 
> War first.  We'll all go down shooting if we must.
Click to expand...

Go back to your play station kid.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Issa said:


> Go back to your play station kid.


Fuck you.  Go back to your dildo, Nancy.

We will never give in.  Ever.  

Give it up.


----------



## Issa

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go back to your play station kid.
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you.  Go back to your dildo, Nancy.
> 
> We will never give in.  Ever.
> 
> Give it up.
Click to expand...

Not now but in the future it will happen. It's inevitable. With the migrants fertility rate and civilisation reaching the US and spreading it will happen. Red necks still think it's 18th century.


----------



## Rustic

Lakhota said:


> Amen!


----------



## Rustic

Lakhota said:


> Amen!


Washington redskin, People kill people not firearms. Anyway Trump and Congress are not listen to silly little drunk injuns... lol


----------



## Rustic

Issa said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is sad. That the culture of owning guns is deeply rooted in the US...some think that there can be no decent life without owning guns. Ridiculous!!!
> 
> 
> 
> And there's not a goddamn thing your commie ass can do about it, but bitch, cry, bellyache, and sob into your appletini.
> 
> not one inch
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1 ain't a commie. Yes I do...there will come a day where guns will be abolished just like in other civilised countries. Is a law that's too old and it doesn't correspond to this time and age.
Click to expand...

Dream on bed wetter


----------



## Rustic

Issa said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go back to your play station kid.
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you.  Go back to your dildo, Nancy.
> 
> We will never give in.  Ever.
> 
> Give it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not now but in the future it will happen. It's inevitable. With the migrants fertility rate and civilisation reaching the US and spreading it will happen. Red necks still think it's 18th century.
Click to expand...

Pussy


----------



## Papageorgio

Issa said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some all they need is a trip outside the US to see for themselves the civilisation and how people are leaving safe and don' on their way to work or school.
> 
> Before moving to the US, I was told some Americans are too ignorant about the outside world and love their guns because thry are paranoid and are bombarded by propaganda. True and true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I’m sure you will find what you are looking for, most people do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is sad. That the culture of owning guns is deeply rooted in the US...some think that there can be no decent life without owning guns. Ridiculous!!!
Click to expand...


What is wrong with a person owning a gun? It is a right, It’s a choice, who determines who’s choice is right?r

You will find what you are looking for.


----------



## Moonglow




----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Moonglow said:


>







Bare Arms?


----------



## Moonglow

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bare Arms?
Click to expand...

He's got toothpicks compared to mine...


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Milo....with the AK and the Louis Vuitton purse....








Shoot back.


----------



## Lakhota

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, so long as you teach them all the other decent values along with shooting.
> 
> 
> 
> What?  You think we don't?
Click to expand...


Yep, I think a lot of you don't.  Do you have decent values?


----------



## Lakhota

Does anyone honestly believe the 2nd Amendment reflects today's reality?  Seriously?






*Confusion -- the wording of the Second Amendment*


----------



## Rustic

Lakhota said:


> Does anyone honestly believe the 2nd Amendment reflects today's reality?  Seriously?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Confusion -- the wording of the Second Amendment*


Washington Redskin... taken in the context of the time it was written. 
Only thing you need to know is “shall not be infringed”
Stay out of the fucking fire water


----------



## Issa

Papageorgio said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some all they need is a trip outside the US to see for themselves the civilisation and how people are leaving safe and don' on their way to work or school.
> 
> Before moving to the US, I was told some Americans are too ignorant about the outside world and love their guns because thry are paranoid and are bombarded by propaganda. True and true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I’m sure you will find what you are looking for, most people do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is sad. That the culture of owning guns is deeply rooted in the US...some think that there can be no decent life without owning guns. Ridiculous!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is wrong with a person owning a gun? It is a right, It’s a choice, who determines who’s choice is right?r
> 
> You will find what you are looking for.
Click to expand...

Guns unable crazies and those under certain circumstances to do greater harm to society. Stats are here we should follow the rest of the world. 
Those who didn' live here and came to this country are trying to explain to you guys that less guns less fatalities. Why is it so hard to understand ?


----------



## Rustic

Issa said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some all they need is a trip outside the US to see for themselves the civilisation and how people are leaving safe and don' on their way to work or school.
> 
> Before moving to the US, I was told some Americans are too ignorant about the outside world and love their guns because thry are paranoid and are bombarded by propaganda. True and true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I’m sure you will find what you are looking for, most people do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is sad. That the culture of owning guns is deeply rooted in the US...some think that there can be no decent life without owning guns. Ridiculous!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is wrong with a person owning a gun? It is a right, It’s a choice, who determines who’s choice is right?r
> 
> You will find what you are looking for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guns unable crazies and those under certain circumstances to do greater harm to society. Stats are here we should follow the rest of the world.
> Those who didn' live here and came to this country are trying to explain to you guys that less guns less fatalities. Why is it so hard to understand ?
Click to expand...

Firearm violence is a non-issue in this country... We have much bigger fish to fry take your pick.
2018 Real Time Death Statistics in America


----------



## Issa

Rustic said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go back to your play station kid.
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you.  Go back to your dildo, Nancy.
> 
> We will never give in.  Ever.
> 
> Give it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not now but in the future it will happen. It's inevitable. With the migrants fertility rate and civilisation reaching the US and spreading it will happen. Red necks still think it's 18th century.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pussy
Click to expand...

Pussy are those who have guns. 
Ame4ican society is so infested with the love for guns and violence. Time to get civilised Mr redneck.


----------



## Rustic

Issa said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go back to your play station kid.
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you.  Go back to your dildo, Nancy.
> 
> We will never give in.  Ever.
> 
> Give it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not now but in the future it will happen. It's inevitable. With the migrants fertility rate and civilisation reaching the US and spreading it will happen. Red necks still think it's 18th century.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pussy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pussy are those who have guns.
> Ame4ican society is so infested with the love for guns and violence. Time to get civilised Mr redneck.
Click to expand...

People kill people not firearms, firearms have no control over people. Someone’s firearm ownership is not your fucking business it’s none of my business and it’s certainly none of the federal government’s business.
It’s best if you stay in seclusion in your safe space... snowflake


----------



## emilynghiem

Lakhota said:


> Does anyone honestly believe the 2nd Amendment reflects today's reality?  Seriously?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Confusion -- the wording of the Second Amendment*


Yes Lakhota 
The way it is worded, both sides can get the interpretation they want out of it. So it's perfect just as written.
Divine or magic?


----------



## Lakhota

emilynghiem said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone honestly believe the 2nd Amendment reflects today's reality?  Seriously?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Confusion -- the wording of the Second Amendment*
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Lakhota
> The way it is worded, both sides can get the interpretation they want out of it. So it's perfect just as written.
> Divine or magic?
Click to expand...


In other words - it's as fucked up as the Bible.


----------



## Issa

Rustic said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go back to your play station kid.
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you.  Go back to your dildo, Nancy.
> 
> We will never give in.  Ever.
> 
> Give it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not now but in the future it will happen. It's inevitable. With the migrants fertility rate and civilisation reaching the US and spreading it will happen. Red necks still think it's 18th century.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pussy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pussy are those who have guns.
> Ame4ican society is so infested with the love for guns and violence. Time to get civilised Mr redneck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People kill people not firearms, firearms have no control over people. Someone’s firearm ownership is not your fucking business it’s none of my business and it’s certainly none of the federal government’s business.
> It’s best if you stay in seclusion in your safe space... snowflake
Click to expand...

I will give you a simple example and please read carefully. 

I grew up in Morocco and visited Europe on regular basis. 
In morocco in schools we were just like most teenagers active and hot headed and so forth, we got in fights some went so far to bringing knives to retaliate not once one died. You know why not only guns are extinct but we value human life and we werent  exposed to too much violence from movies and TV like kids here. 

Same goes in road rages , workplace problems the most that happens is a fist fight. Now if guns were available I'm sure they would be used. Same goes for Europe and other parts of the world

The US is fucked in the ass for not letting go guns and the love for fire arms. The death toll is up there with countries that are at war like Syria and Iraq.


----------



## Papageorgio

Issa said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some all they need is a trip outside the US to see for themselves the civilisation and how people are leaving safe and don' on their way to work or school.
> 
> Before moving to the US, I was told some Americans are too ignorant about the outside world and love their guns because thry are paranoid and are bombarded by propaganda. True and true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I’m sure you will find what you are looking for, most people do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is sad. That the culture of owning guns is deeply rooted in the US...some think that there can be no decent life without owning guns. Ridiculous!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is wrong with a person owning a gun? It is a right, It’s a choice, who determines who’s choice is right?r
> 
> You will find what you are looking for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guns unable crazies and those under certain circumstances to do greater harm to society. Stats are here we should follow the rest of the world.
> Those who didn' live here and came to this country are trying to explain to you guys that less guns less fatalities. Why is it so hard to understand ?
Click to expand...


“Crazies”? You mean people with mental disorders? 

When I was in school the stupidest thing that would happen is one stupid kid would do some idiotic thing and next thing you know is that activity would be suspended 100 kids because of the inappropriate actions of just on kid. The was the dumbest logic ever. That is what is going on today. The actions of a few, and the rest are going to punished? Absolutely moronic.

We do you get to dictate what I or my neighbor can and can’t do? You don’t like guns, fine, why does that give you the right to someone else’s right away?


----------



## Papageorgio

Issa said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go back to your play station kid.
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you.  Go back to your dildo, Nancy.
> 
> We will never give in.  Ever.
> 
> Give it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not now but in the future it will happen. It's inevitable. With the migrants fertility rate and civilisation reaching the US and spreading it will happen. Red necks still think it's 18th century.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pussy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pussy are those who have guns.
> Ame4ican society is so infested with the love for guns and violence. Time to get civilised Mr redneck.
Click to expand...


Wow, using a racial slur, I’m not surprised, ignorant people usually resort to racial slurs to try to make the,selves look better, it doesn’t really work, it just confirms you are an ignorant bigot.

There you go, wanting to push your values onto others, pretty intolerant and narrow minded of you. 

Get off your ass anode go change the law, it’s that easy. I guarantee the legal fight you will have will be big.

If you want a gun, I have no issue, you want to take others guns illegally, I have an issue.

You have failed to prove why your right or opinion gets to trump the next guy’s right or opinion, last I checked your opinion isn’t any better than the next guy.


----------



## Papageorgio

Issa said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you.  Go back to your dildo, Nancy.
> 
> We will never give in.  Ever.
> 
> Give it up.
> 
> 
> 
> Not now but in the future it will happen. It's inevitable. With the migrants fertility rate and civilisation reaching the US and spreading it will happen. Red necks still think it's 18th century.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pussy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pussy are those who have guns.
> Ame4ican society is so infested with the love for guns and violence. Time to get civilised Mr redneck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People kill people not firearms, firearms have no control over people. Someone’s firearm ownership is not your fucking business it’s none of my business and it’s certainly none of the federal government’s business.
> It’s best if you stay in seclusion in your safe space... snowflake
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will give you a simple example and please read carefully.
> 
> I grew up in Morocco and visited Europe on regular basis.
> In morocco in schools we were just like most teenagers active and hot headed and so forth, we got in fights some went so far to bringing knives to retaliate not once one died. You know why not only guns are extinct but we value human life and we werent  exposed to too much violence from movies and TV like kids here.
> 
> Same goes in road rages , workplace problems the most that happens is a fist fight. Now if guns were available I'm sure they would be used. Same goes for Europe and other parts of the world
> 
> The US is fucked in the ass for not letting go guns and the love for fire arms. The death toll is up there with countries that are at war like Syria and Iraq.
Click to expand...


All my years in school no one shot or stabbed anyone. Jr. High there were fights, high school I can’t think of any once we got that age. Back then, you were allowed to have your rifles in your truck on your gun rack. Still no one shot. We did lose three kids in car accidents and a family lost two children in a house fire. All my years working, not once did I ever hear or see a fist fight. Maybe we need to look at limiting drivers license to only a people and the rest of us need to find other modes of transportation, or we could lower speed limits to 35 on the highway, that would surely cut down on deaths.


----------



## Issa

Papageorgio said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go back to your play station kid.
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you.  Go back to your dildo, Nancy.
> 
> We will never give in.  Ever.
> 
> Give it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not now but in the future it will happen. It's inevitable. With the migrants fertility rate and civilisation reaching the US and spreading it will happen. Red necks still think it's 18th century.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pussy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pussy are those who have guns.
> Ame4ican society is so infested with the love for guns and violence. Time to get civilised Mr redneck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, using a racial slur, I’m not surprised, ignorant people usually resort to racial slurs to try to make the,selves look better, it doesn’t really work, it just confirms you are an ignorant bigot.
> 
> There you go, wanting to push your values onto others, pretty intolerant and narrow minded of you.
> 
> Get off your ass anode go change the law, it’s that easy. I guarantee the legal fight you will have will be big.
> 
> If you want a gun, I have no issue, you want to take others guns illegally, I have an issue.
> 
> You have failed to prove why your right or opinion gets to trump the next guy’s right or opinion, last I checked your opinion isn’t any better than the next guy.
Click to expand...

Very simple...less guns no access to guns less mass shootings and fewer Americans are killed. Most countries don' have this madness, I lived in one and visited dozens. Me and my kids will champion for guns to be banned and limited because seing kids, civilians put down everyday in the US is a very sad and disturbing thing. Why does it happen mostly only in the US?


----------



## Papageorgio

Issa said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you.  Go back to your dildo, Nancy.
> 
> We will never give in.  Ever.
> 
> Give it up.
> 
> 
> 
> Not now but in the future it will happen. It's inevitable. With the migrants fertility rate and civilisation reaching the US and spreading it will happen. Red necks still think it's 18th century.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pussy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pussy are those who have guns.
> Ame4ican society is so infested with the love for guns and violence. Time to get civilised Mr redneck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, using a racial slur, I’m not surprised, ignorant people usually resort to racial slurs to try to make the,selves look better, it doesn’t really work, it just confirms you are an ignorant bigot.
> 
> There you go, wanting to push your values onto others, pretty intolerant and narrow minded of you.
> 
> Get off your ass anode go change the law, it’s that easy. I guarantee the legal fight you will have will be big.
> 
> If you want a gun, I have no issue, you want to take others guns illegally, I have an issue.
> 
> You have failed to prove why your right or opinion gets to trump the next guy’s right or opinion, last I checked your opinion isn’t any better than the next guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Very simple...less guns no access to guns less mass shootings and fewer Americans are killed. Most countries don' have this madness, I lived in one and visited dozens. Me and my kids will champion for guns to be banned and limited because seing kids, civilians put down everyday in the US is a very sad and disturbing thing. Why does it happen mostly only in the US?
Click to expand...


Again, your opinion doesn’t give you the right to force your opinion onto others, you have failed to answer the question three times. 

You want to try to ban guns and make it a family issue, fine by me. I support your freedom to try to change the law. Have at it. 

Freedom has risks, freedom has choices, I am for both, you aren’t.


----------



## Issa

Papageorgio said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not now but in the future it will happen. It's inevitable. With the migrants fertility rate and civilisation reaching the US and spreading it will happen. Red necks still think it's 18th century.
> 
> 
> 
> Pussy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pussy are those who have guns.
> Ame4ican society is so infested with the love for guns and violence. Time to get civilised Mr redneck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, using a racial slur, I’m not surprised, ignorant people usually resort to racial slurs to try to make the,selves look better, it doesn’t really work, it just confirms you are an ignorant bigot.
> 
> There you go, wanting to push your values onto others, pretty intolerant and narrow minded of you.
> 
> Get off your ass anode go change the law, it’s that easy. I guarantee the legal fight you will have will be big.
> 
> If you want a gun, I have no issue, you want to take others guns illegally, I have an issue.
> 
> You have failed to prove why your right or opinion gets to trump the next guy’s right or opinion, last I checked your opinion isn’t any better than the next guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Very simple...less guns no access to guns less mass shootings and fewer Americans are killed. Most countries don' have this madness, I lived in one and visited dozens. Me and my kids will champion for guns to be banned and limited because seing kids, civilians put down everyday in the US is a very sad and disturbing thing. Why does it happen mostly only in the US?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, your opinion doesn’t give you the right to force your opinion onto others, you have failed to answer the question three times.
> 
> You want to try to ban guns and make it a family issue, fine by me. I support your freedom to try to change the law. Have at it.
> 
> Freedom has risks, freedom has choices, I am for both, you aren’t.
Click to expand...

You need to travel more outside the US and have a grasp of sanity and civility and most importantly safety. You'l have a different view...this freedom bullshit is getting old. Kids and people have been dying by the thousands.


----------



## Papageorgio

Issa said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pussy
> 
> 
> 
> Pussy are those who have guns.
> Ame4ican society is so infested with the love for guns and violence. Time to get civilised Mr redneck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, using a racial slur, I’m not surprised, ignorant people usually resort to racial slurs to try to make the,selves look better, it doesn’t really work, it just confirms you are an ignorant bigot.
> 
> There you go, wanting to push your values onto others, pretty intolerant and narrow minded of you.
> 
> Get off your ass anode go change the law, it’s that easy. I guarantee the legal fight you will have will be big.
> 
> If you want a gun, I have no issue, you want to take others guns illegally, I have an issue.
> 
> You have failed to prove why your right or opinion gets to trump the next guy’s right or opinion, last I checked your opinion isn’t any better than the next guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Very simple...less guns no access to guns less mass shootings and fewer Americans are killed. Most countries don' have this madness, I lived in one and visited dozens. Me and my kids will champion for guns to be banned and limited because seing kids, civilians put down everyday in the US is a very sad and disturbing thing. Why does it happen mostly only in the US?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, your opinion doesn’t give you the right to force your opinion onto others, you have failed to answer the question three times.
> 
> You want to try to ban guns and make it a family issue, fine by me. I support your freedom to try to change the law. Have at it.
> 
> Freedom has risks, freedom has choices, I am for both, you aren’t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to travel more outside the US and have a grasp of sanity and civility and most importantly safety. You'l have a different view...this freedom bullshit is getting old. Kids and people have been dying by the thousands.
Click to expand...


Been to other countries and my freedoms are not bullshit. You can do what you want with your freedoms, but you leave mine alone. 

I had a son who lived in London and traveled all over the world for work. He just moved back to the states and went and bought a gun. 

Again you avoid the question, what makes your opinion any better or worse than the next guy?


----------



## Issa

Papageorgio said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pussy are those who have guns.
> Ame4ican society is so infested with the love for guns and violence. Time to get civilised Mr redneck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, using a racial slur, I’m not surprised, ignorant people usually resort to racial slurs to try to make the,selves look better, it doesn’t really work, it just confirms you are an ignorant bigot.
> 
> There you go, wanting to push your values onto others, pretty intolerant and narrow minded of you.
> 
> Get off your ass anode go change the law, it’s that easy. I guarantee the legal fight you will have will be big.
> 
> If you want a gun, I have no issue, you want to take others guns illegally, I have an issue.
> 
> You have failed to prove why your right or opinion gets to trump the next guy’s right or opinion, last I checked your opinion isn’t any better than the next guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Very simple...less guns no access to guns less mass shootings and fewer Americans are killed. Most countries don' have this madness, I lived in one and visited dozens. Me and my kids will champion for guns to be banned and limited because seing kids, civilians put down everyday in the US is a very sad and disturbing thing. Why does it happen mostly only in the US?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, your opinion doesn’t give you the right to force your opinion onto others, you have failed to answer the question three times.
> 
> You want to try to ban guns and make it a family issue, fine by me. I support your freedom to try to change the law. Have at it.
> 
> Freedom has risks, freedom has choices, I am for both, you aren’t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to travel more outside the US and have a grasp of sanity and civility and most importantly safety. You'l have a different view...this freedom bullshit is getting old. Kids and people have been dying by the thousands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Been to other countries and my freedoms are not bullshit. You can do what you want with your freedoms, but you leave mine alone.
> 
> I had a son who lived in London and traveled all over the world for work. He just moved back to the states and went and bought a gun.
> 
> Again you avoid the question, what makes your opinion any better or worse than the next guy?
Click to expand...

My opinion about guns is better because the stats are on my side, less access to guns less fatalities it's very simple. Since your son traveled the world tell him if he ever felt the need to own a gun overseas, and get back to me. This country is deep to its knees in violence you guys who grew up here are numb to the violence and dead bodies, be it kids or adults you got used to it. We the ones who lived in safer countries, tell you it can be achievable by simple banning guns.....and i'm very confident one day it'll be a reality and the US will taste the safety like other countries.


----------



## Rustic

Issa said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you.  Go back to your dildo, Nancy.
> 
> We will never give in.  Ever.
> 
> Give it up.
> 
> 
> 
> Not now but in the future it will happen. It's inevitable. With the migrants fertility rate and civilisation reaching the US and spreading it will happen. Red necks still think it's 18th century.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pussy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pussy are those who have guns.
> Ame4ican society is so infested with the love for guns and violence. Time to get civilised Mr redneck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People kill people not firearms, firearms have no control over people. Someone’s firearm ownership is not your fucking business it’s none of my business and it’s certainly none of the federal government’s business.
> It’s best if you stay in seclusion in your safe space... snowflake
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will give you a simple example and please read carefully.
> 
> I grew up in Morocco and visited Europe on regular basis.
> In morocco in schools we were just like most teenagers active and hot headed and so forth, we got in fights some went so far to bringing knives to retaliate not once one died. You know why not only guns are extinct but we value human life and we werent  exposed to too much violence from movies and TV like kids here.
> 
> Same goes in road rages , workplace problems the most that happens is a fist fight. Now if guns were available I'm sure they would be used. Same goes for Europe and other parts of the world
> 
> The US is fucked in the ass for not letting go guns and the love for fire arms. The death toll is up there with countries that are at war like Syria and Iraq.
Click to expand...

Again, firearms have zero control over people. Rural areas in this country have many, many more firearms than people, and no violence crime to speak of. And very lenient gun laws...
Urban areas have strict gun laws... therefore are awash in violent crime.


----------



## Rustic

Issa said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you.  Go back to your dildo, Nancy.
> 
> We will never give in.  Ever.
> 
> Give it up.
> 
> 
> 
> Not now but in the future it will happen. It's inevitable. With the migrants fertility rate and civilisation reaching the US and spreading it will happen. Red necks still think it's 18th century.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pussy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pussy are those who have guns.
> Ame4ican society is so infested with the love for guns and violence. Time to get civilised Mr redneck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, using a racial slur, I’m not surprised, ignorant people usually resort to racial slurs to try to make the,selves look better, it doesn’t really work, it just confirms you are an ignorant bigot.
> 
> There you go, wanting to push your values onto others, pretty intolerant and narrow minded of you.
> 
> Get off your ass anode go change the law, it’s that easy. I guarantee the legal fight you will have will be big.
> 
> If you want a gun, I have no issue, you want to take others guns illegally, I have an issue.
> 
> You have failed to prove why your right or opinion gets to trump the next guy’s right or opinion, last I checked your opinion isn’t any better than the next guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Very simple...less guns no access to guns less mass shootings and fewer Americans are killed. Most countries don' have this madness, I lived in one and visited dozens. Me and my kids will champion for guns to be banned and limited because seing kids, civilians put down everyday in the US is a very sad and disturbing thing. Why does it happen mostly only in the US?
Click to expand...

Not only are you a coward, you are misinformed. Firearms are the least of our worries asshole... lol


----------



## Papageorgio

Issa said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, using a racial slur, I’m not surprised, ignorant people usually resort to racial slurs to try to make the,selves look better, it doesn’t really work, it just confirms you are an ignorant bigot.
> 
> There you go, wanting to push your values onto others, pretty intolerant and narrow minded of you.
> 
> Get off your ass anode go change the law, it’s that easy. I guarantee the legal fight you will have will be big.
> 
> If you want a gun, I have no issue, you want to take others guns illegally, I have an issue.
> 
> You have failed to prove why your right or opinion gets to trump the next guy’s right or opinion, last I checked your opinion isn’t any better than the next guy.
> 
> 
> 
> Very simple...less guns no access to guns less mass shootings and fewer Americans are killed. Most countries don' have this madness, I lived in one and visited dozens. Me and my kids will champion for guns to be banned and limited because seing kids, civilians put down everyday in the US is a very sad and disturbing thing. Why does it happen mostly only in the US?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, your opinion doesn’t give you the right to force your opinion onto others, you have failed to answer the question three times.
> 
> You want to try to ban guns and make it a family issue, fine by me. I support your freedom to try to change the law. Have at it.
> 
> Freedom has risks, freedom has choices, I am for both, you aren’t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to travel more outside the US and have a grasp of sanity and civility and most importantly safety. You'l have a different view...this freedom bullshit is getting old. Kids and people have been dying by the thousands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Been to other countries and my freedoms are not bullshit. You can do what you want with your freedoms, but you leave mine alone.
> 
> I had a son who lived in London and traveled all over the world for work. He just moved back to the states and went and bought a gun.
> 
> Again you avoid the question, what makes your opinion any better or worse than the next guy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My opinion about guns is better because the stats are on my side, less access to guns less fatalities it's very simple. Since your son traveled the world tell him if he ever felt the need to own a gun overseas, and get back to me. This country is deep to its knees in violence you guys who grew up here are numb to the violence and dead bodies, be it kids or adults you got used to it. We the ones who lived in safer countries, tell you it can be achievable by simple banning guns.....and i'm very confident one day it'll be a reality and the US will taste the safety like other countries.
Click to expand...


I can get stats that are on “my side”. 

My son doesn’t own a gun because he feels a need to own a gun, he likes to go to the firing range and send a few off. As far safety, I’ll ask him if he feels safer here or in other countries, my guess is he will say he feels safe most anywhere.


----------



## Rustic

Issa said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pussy
> 
> 
> 
> Pussy are those who have guns.
> Ame4ican society is so infested with the love for guns and violence. Time to get civilised Mr redneck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, using a racial slur, I’m not surprised, ignorant people usually resort to racial slurs to try to make the,selves look better, it doesn’t really work, it just confirms you are an ignorant bigot.
> 
> There you go, wanting to push your values onto others, pretty intolerant and narrow minded of you.
> 
> Get off your ass anode go change the law, it’s that easy. I guarantee the legal fight you will have will be big.
> 
> If you want a gun, I have no issue, you want to take others guns illegally, I have an issue.
> 
> You have failed to prove why your right or opinion gets to trump the next guy’s right or opinion, last I checked your opinion isn’t any better than the next guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Very simple...less guns no access to guns less mass shootings and fewer Americans are killed. Most countries don' have this madness, I lived in one and visited dozens. Me and my kids will champion for guns to be banned and limited because seing kids, civilians put down everyday in the US is a very sad and disturbing thing. Why does it happen mostly only in the US?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, your opinion doesn’t give you the right to force your opinion onto others, you have failed to answer the question three times.
> 
> You want to try to ban guns and make it a family issue, fine by me. I support your freedom to try to change the law. Have at it.
> 
> Freedom has risks, freedom has choices, I am for both, you aren’t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to travel more outside the US and have a grasp of sanity and civility and most importantly safety. You'l have a different view...this freedom bullshit is getting old. Kids and people have been dying by the thousands.
Click to expand...

Fuck your European socialism, I would rather die than live under that shit… No such thing as any sort of freedom and individuality there. Here in rural America I don’t even have to lock my doors. And for over two hundred years “the right to bear arms” has served this country great, and has been the backbone of the constitution.


----------



## Rustic

Issa said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, using a racial slur, I’m not surprised, ignorant people usually resort to racial slurs to try to make the,selves look better, it doesn’t really work, it just confirms you are an ignorant bigot.
> 
> There you go, wanting to push your values onto others, pretty intolerant and narrow minded of you.
> 
> Get off your ass anode go change the law, it’s that easy. I guarantee the legal fight you will have will be big.
> 
> If you want a gun, I have no issue, you want to take others guns illegally, I have an issue.
> 
> You have failed to prove why your right or opinion gets to trump the next guy’s right or opinion, last I checked your opinion isn’t any better than the next guy.
> 
> 
> 
> Very simple...less guns no access to guns less mass shootings and fewer Americans are killed. Most countries don' have this madness, I lived in one and visited dozens. Me and my kids will champion for guns to be banned and limited because seing kids, civilians put down everyday in the US is a very sad and disturbing thing. Why does it happen mostly only in the US?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, your opinion doesn’t give you the right to force your opinion onto others, you have failed to answer the question three times.
> 
> You want to try to ban guns and make it a family issue, fine by me. I support your freedom to try to change the law. Have at it.
> 
> Freedom has risks, freedom has choices, I am for both, you aren’t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to travel more outside the US and have a grasp of sanity and civility and most importantly safety. You'l have a different view...this freedom bullshit is getting old. Kids and people have been dying by the thousands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Been to other countries and my freedoms are not bullshit. You can do what you want with your freedoms, but you leave mine alone.
> 
> I had a son who lived in London and traveled all over the world for work. He just moved back to the states and went and bought a gun.
> 
> Again you avoid the question, what makes your opinion any better or worse than the next guy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My opinion about guns is better because the stats are on my side, less access to guns less fatalities it's very simple. Since your son traveled the world tell him if he ever felt the need to own a gun overseas, and get back to me. This country is deep to its knees in violence you guys who grew up here are numb to the violence and dead bodies, be it kids or adults you got used to it. We the ones who lived in safer countries, tell you it can be achievable by simple banning guns.....and i'm very confident one day it'll be a reality and the US will taste the safety like other countries.
Click to expand...

Lol
Violence is only prevalent in Urban progressive controlled areas you stupid ass motherfucker. So shove your fucking gun laws Up ass you cowardly little fuck...

Rural areas of America are awash in firearms... no violent crime to speak of.
Just because firearms make you uncomfortable does not mean that you get the right to force that fucking Cowardly shit on other people...


----------



## ScienceRocks

If you're a man you should have to take HRT in order to own guns.

This would help you to control your violent impulses.


----------



## Issa

Papageorgio said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very simple...less guns no access to guns less mass shootings and fewer Americans are killed. Most countries don' have this madness, I lived in one and visited dozens. Me and my kids will champion for guns to be banned and limited because seing kids, civilians put down everyday in the US is a very sad and disturbing thing. Why does it happen mostly only in the US?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, your opinion doesn’t give you the right to force your opinion onto others, you have failed to answer the question three times.
> 
> You want to try to ban guns and make it a family issue, fine by me. I support your freedom to try to change the law. Have at it.
> 
> Freedom has risks, freedom has choices, I am for both, you aren’t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to travel more outside the US and have a grasp of sanity and civility and most importantly safety. You'l have a different view...this freedom bullshit is getting old. Kids and people have been dying by the thousands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Been to other countries and my freedoms are not bullshit. You can do what you want with your freedoms, but you leave mine alone.
> 
> I had a son who lived in London and traveled all over the world for work. He just moved back to the states and went and bought a gun.
> 
> Again you avoid the question, what makes your opinion any better or worse than the next guy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My opinion about guns is better because the stats are on my side, less access to guns less fatalities it's very simple. Since your son traveled the world tell him if he ever felt the need to own a gun overseas, and get back to me. This country is deep to its knees in violence you guys who grew up here are numb to the violence and dead bodies, be it kids or adults you got used to it. We the ones who lived in safer countries, tell you it can be achievable by simple banning guns.....and i'm very confident one day it'll be a reality and the US will taste the safety like other countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can get stats that are on “my side”.
> 
> My son doesn’t own a gun because he feels a need to own a gun, he likes to go to the firing range and send a few off. As far safety, I’ll ask him if he feels safer here or in other countries, my guess is he will say he feels safe most anywhere.
Click to expand...


So he doesn't feel a need to own one but he owns one?....just pray that one day he doesn't go nuts and use it against himself or a loved one. Because stats are here to support that gun owners are most likely to get hurt with their own or hurt someone within the household.


----------



## Issa

Rustic said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pussy are those who have guns.
> Ame4ican society is so infested with the love for guns and violence. Time to get civilised Mr redneck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, using a racial slur, I’m not surprised, ignorant people usually resort to racial slurs to try to make the,selves look better, it doesn’t really work, it just confirms you are an ignorant bigot.
> 
> There you go, wanting to push your values onto others, pretty intolerant and narrow minded of you.
> 
> Get off your ass anode go change the law, it’s that easy. I guarantee the legal fight you will have will be big.
> 
> If you want a gun, I have no issue, you want to take others guns illegally, I have an issue.
> 
> You have failed to prove why your right or opinion gets to trump the next guy’s right or opinion, last I checked your opinion isn’t any better than the next guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Very simple...less guns no access to guns less mass shootings and fewer Americans are killed. Most countries don' have this madness, I lived in one and visited dozens. Me and my kids will champion for guns to be banned and limited because seing kids, civilians put down everyday in the US is a very sad and disturbing thing. Why does it happen mostly only in the US?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, your opinion doesn’t give you the right to force your opinion onto others, you have failed to answer the question three times.
> 
> You want to try to ban guns and make it a family issue, fine by me. I support your freedom to try to change the law. Have at it.
> 
> Freedom has risks, freedom has choices, I am for both, you aren’t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to travel more outside the US and have a grasp of sanity and civility and most importantly safety. You'l have a different view...this freedom bullshit is getting old. Kids and people have been dying by the thousands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck your European socialism, I would rather die than live under that shit… No such thing as any sort of freedom and individuality there. Here in rural America I don’t even have to lock my doors. And for over two hundred years “the right to bear arms” has served this country great, and has been the backbone of the constitution.
Click to expand...

Calm down Rambo.


----------



## Rustic

Issa said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, using a racial slur, I’m not surprised, ignorant people usually resort to racial slurs to try to make the,selves look better, it doesn’t really work, it just confirms you are an ignorant bigot.
> 
> There you go, wanting to push your values onto others, pretty intolerant and narrow minded of you.
> 
> Get off your ass anode go change the law, it’s that easy. I guarantee the legal fight you will have will be big.
> 
> If you want a gun, I have no issue, you want to take others guns illegally, I have an issue.
> 
> You have failed to prove why your right or opinion gets to trump the next guy’s right or opinion, last I checked your opinion isn’t any better than the next guy.
> 
> 
> 
> Very simple...less guns no access to guns less mass shootings and fewer Americans are killed. Most countries don' have this madness, I lived in one and visited dozens. Me and my kids will champion for guns to be banned and limited because seing kids, civilians put down everyday in the US is a very sad and disturbing thing. Why does it happen mostly only in the US?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, your opinion doesn’t give you the right to force your opinion onto others, you have failed to answer the question three times.
> 
> You want to try to ban guns and make it a family issue, fine by me. I support your freedom to try to change the law. Have at it.
> 
> Freedom has risks, freedom has choices, I am for both, you aren’t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to travel more outside the US and have a grasp of sanity and civility and most importantly safety. You'l have a different view...this freedom bullshit is getting old. Kids and people have been dying by the thousands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck your European socialism, I would rather die than live under that shit… No such thing as any sort of freedom and individuality there. Here in rural America I don’t even have to lock my doors. And for over two hundred years “the right to bear arms” has served this country great, and has been the backbone of the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Calm down Rambo.
Click to expand...

Lol
You’re the one calling for martial law...
Firearm violence is a non-issue in most of this country, the only places were it is out of control is urban, progressive controlled areas. You fuckers of made your bed now you have to sleep in it...
More frivolous gun laws equal more violent crime… Fact


----------



## Issa

Rustic said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very simple...less guns no access to guns less mass shootings and fewer Americans are killed. Most countries don' have this madness, I lived in one and visited dozens. Me and my kids will champion for guns to be banned and limited because seing kids, civilians put down everyday in the US is a very sad and disturbing thing. Why does it happen mostly only in the US?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, your opinion doesn’t give you the right to force your opinion onto others, you have failed to answer the question three times.
> 
> You want to try to ban guns and make it a family issue, fine by me. I support your freedom to try to change the law. Have at it.
> 
> Freedom has risks, freedom has choices, I am for both, you aren’t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to travel more outside the US and have a grasp of sanity and civility and most importantly safety. You'l have a different view...this freedom bullshit is getting old. Kids and people have been dying by the thousands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Been to other countries and my freedoms are not bullshit. You can do what you want with your freedoms, but you leave mine alone.
> 
> I had a son who lived in London and traveled all over the world for work. He just moved back to the states and went and bought a gun.
> 
> Again you avoid the question, what makes your opinion any better or worse than the next guy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My opinion about guns is better because the stats are on my side, less access to guns less fatalities it's very simple. Since your son traveled the world tell him if he ever felt the need to own a gun overseas, and get back to me. This country is deep to its knees in violence you guys who grew up here are numb to the violence and dead bodies, be it kids or adults you got used to it. We the ones who lived in safer countries, tell you it can be achievable by simple banning guns.....and i'm very confident one day it'll be a reality and the US will taste the safety like other countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol
> Violence is only prevalent in Urban progressive controlled areas you stupid ass motherfucker. So shove your fucking gun laws Up ass you cowardly little fuck...
> 
> Rural areas of America are awash in firearms... no violent crime to speak of.
> Just because firearms make you uncomfortable does not mean that you get the right to force that fucking Cowardly shit on other people...
Click to expand...

is this study a fakenews?

The study found that from 1999 through 2006, 23,649 Americans age 19 or younger died from gunshots. Rates in the most-rural and most-urban counties were nearly the same -- at 4 deaths per 100,000 children and teens, and 4.6 per 100,000, respectively.


----------



## Papageorgio

Issa said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, your opinion doesn’t give you the right to force your opinion onto others, you have failed to answer the question three times.
> 
> You want to try to ban guns and make it a family issue, fine by me. I support your freedom to try to change the law. Have at it.
> 
> Freedom has risks, freedom has choices, I am for both, you aren’t.
> 
> 
> 
> You need to travel more outside the US and have a grasp of sanity and civility and most importantly safety. You'l have a different view...this freedom bullshit is getting old. Kids and people have been dying by the thousands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Been to other countries and my freedoms are not bullshit. You can do what you want with your freedoms, but you leave mine alone.
> 
> I had a son who lived in London and traveled all over the world for work. He just moved back to the states and went and bought a gun.
> 
> Again you avoid the question, what makes your opinion any better or worse than the next guy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My opinion about guns is better because the stats are on my side, less access to guns less fatalities it's very simple. Since your son traveled the world tell him if he ever felt the need to own a gun overseas, and get back to me. This country is deep to its knees in violence you guys who grew up here are numb to the violence and dead bodies, be it kids or adults you got used to it. We the ones who lived in safer countries, tell you it can be achievable by simple banning guns.....and i'm very confident one day it'll be a reality and the US will taste the safety like other countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can get stats that are on “my side”.
> 
> My son doesn’t own a gun because he feels a need to own a gun, he likes to go to the firing range and send a few off. As far safety, I’ll ask him if he feels safer here or in other countries, my guess is he will say he feels safe most anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So he doesn't feel a need to own one but he owns one?....just pray that one day he doesn't go nuts and use it against himself or a loved one. Because stats are here to support that gun owners are most likely to get hurt with their own or hurt someone within the household.
Click to expand...


Link the stats please.


----------



## Rustic

Issa said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, your opinion doesn’t give you the right to force your opinion onto others, you have failed to answer the question three times.
> 
> You want to try to ban guns and make it a family issue, fine by me. I support your freedom to try to change the law. Have at it.
> 
> Freedom has risks, freedom has choices, I am for both, you aren’t.
> 
> 
> 
> You need to travel more outside the US and have a grasp of sanity and civility and most importantly safety. You'l have a different view...this freedom bullshit is getting old. Kids and people have been dying by the thousands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Been to other countries and my freedoms are not bullshit. You can do what you want with your freedoms, but you leave mine alone.
> 
> I had a son who lived in London and traveled all over the world for work. He just moved back to the states and went and bought a gun.
> 
> Again you avoid the question, what makes your opinion any better or worse than the next guy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My opinion about guns is better because the stats are on my side, less access to guns less fatalities it's very simple. Since your son traveled the world tell him if he ever felt the need to own a gun overseas, and get back to me. This country is deep to its knees in violence you guys who grew up here are numb to the violence and dead bodies, be it kids or adults you got used to it. We the ones who lived in safer countries, tell you it can be achievable by simple banning guns.....and i'm very confident one day it'll be a reality and the US will taste the safety like other countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol
> Violence is only prevalent in Urban progressive controlled areas you stupid ass motherfucker. So shove your fucking gun laws Up ass you cowardly little fuck...
> 
> Rural areas of America are awash in firearms... no violent crime to speak of.
> Just because firearms make you uncomfortable does not mean that you get the right to force that fucking Cowardly shit on other people...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> is this study a fakenews?
> 
> The study found that from 1999 through 2006, 23,649 Americans age 19 or younger died from gunshots. Rates in the most-rural and most-urban counties were nearly the same -- at 4 deaths per 100,000 children and teens, and 4.6 per 100,000, respectively.
Click to expand...

We have much bigger fish to fry... 
2018 Real Time Death Statistics in America

 People kill people not firearms, firearms have no control over people. The breakdown of the traditional American family due to socialism/Political correctness/affirmative action/progressivism is the root cause of violence in urban areas.
Lumping suicides together with homicides is lying...


----------



## Papageorgio

Issa said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, your opinion doesn’t give you the right to force your opinion onto others, you have failed to answer the question three times.
> 
> You want to try to ban guns and make it a family issue, fine by me. I support your freedom to try to change the law. Have at it.
> 
> Freedom has risks, freedom has choices, I am for both, you aren’t.
> 
> 
> 
> You need to travel more outside the US and have a grasp of sanity and civility and most importantly safety. You'l have a different view...this freedom bullshit is getting old. Kids and people have been dying by the thousands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Been to other countries and my freedoms are not bullshit. You can do what you want with your freedoms, but you leave mine alone.
> 
> I had a son who lived in London and traveled all over the world for work. He just moved back to the states and went and bought a gun.
> 
> Again you avoid the question, what makes your opinion any better or worse than the next guy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My opinion about guns is better because the stats are on my side, less access to guns less fatalities it's very simple. Since your son traveled the world tell him if he ever felt the need to own a gun overseas, and get back to me. This country is deep to its knees in violence you guys who grew up here are numb to the violence and dead bodies, be it kids or adults you got used to it. We the ones who lived in safer countries, tell you it can be achievable by simple banning guns.....and i'm very confident one day it'll be a reality and the US will taste the safety like other countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol
> Violence is only prevalent in Urban progressive controlled areas you stupid ass motherfucker. So shove your fucking gun laws Up ass you cowardly little fuck...
> 
> Rural areas of America are awash in firearms... no violent crime to speak of.
> Just because firearms make you uncomfortable does not mean that you get the right to force that fucking Cowardly shit on other people...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> is this study a fakenews?
> 
> The study found that from 1999 through 2006, 23,649 Americans age 19 or younger died from gunshots. Rates in the most-rural and most-urban counties were nearly the same -- at 4 deaths per 100,000 children and teens, and 4.6 per 100,000, respectively.
Click to expand...


Do you have a link?


----------



## Issa

Papageorgio said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to travel more outside the US and have a grasp of sanity and civility and most importantly safety. You'l have a different view...this freedom bullshit is getting old. Kids and people have been dying by the thousands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Been to other countries and my freedoms are not bullshit. You can do what you want with your freedoms, but you leave mine alone.
> 
> I had a son who lived in London and traveled all over the world for work. He just moved back to the states and went and bought a gun.
> 
> Again you avoid the question, what makes your opinion any better or worse than the next guy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My opinion about guns is better because the stats are on my side, less access to guns less fatalities it's very simple. Since your son traveled the world tell him if he ever felt the need to own a gun overseas, and get back to me. This country is deep to its knees in violence you guys who grew up here are numb to the violence and dead bodies, be it kids or adults you got used to it. We the ones who lived in safer countries, tell you it can be achievable by simple banning guns.....and i'm very confident one day it'll be a reality and the US will taste the safety like other countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can get stats that are on “my side”.
> 
> My son doesn’t own a gun because he feels a need to own a gun, he likes to go to the firing range and send a few off. As far safety, I’ll ask him if he feels safer here or in other countries, my guess is he will say he feels safe most anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So he doesn't feel a need to own one but he owns one?....just pray that one day he doesn't go nuts and use it against himself or a loved one. Because stats are here to support that gun owners are most likely to get hurt with their own or hurt someone within the household.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link the stats please.
Click to expand...

no problem.

Packing heat may backfire. People who carry guns are far likelier to get shot – and killed – than those who are unarmed, a study of shooting victims in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has found.

It would be impractical – not to say unethical – to randomly assign volunteers to carry a gun or not and see what happens. So Charles Branas‘s team at the University of Pennsylvania analysed 677 shootings over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at the time, and compared them to other Philly residents of similar age, sex and ethnicity. The team also accounted for other potentially confounding differences, such as the socioeconomic status of their neighbourhood.

Despite the US having the highest rate of firearms-related homicide in the industrialised world, the relationship between gun culture and violence is poorly understood. A recent study found that treating violence like an infectious disease led to a dramatic fall in shootings and killings.

Overall, Branas’s study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.

Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed


----------



## Rustic

Issa said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Been to other countries and my freedoms are not bullshit. You can do what you want with your freedoms, but you leave mine alone.
> 
> I had a son who lived in London and traveled all over the world for work. He just moved back to the states and went and bought a gun.
> 
> Again you avoid the question, what makes your opinion any better or worse than the next guy?
> 
> 
> 
> My opinion about guns is better because the stats are on my side, less access to guns less fatalities it's very simple. Since your son traveled the world tell him if he ever felt the need to own a gun overseas, and get back to me. This country is deep to its knees in violence you guys who grew up here are numb to the violence and dead bodies, be it kids or adults you got used to it. We the ones who lived in safer countries, tell you it can be achievable by simple banning guns.....and i'm very confident one day it'll be a reality and the US will taste the safety like other countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can get stats that are on “my side”.
> 
> My son doesn’t own a gun because he feels a need to own a gun, he likes to go to the firing range and send a few off. As far safety, I’ll ask him if he feels safer here or in other countries, my guess is he will say he feels safe most anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So he doesn't feel a need to own one but he owns one?....just pray that one day he doesn't go nuts and use it against himself or a loved one. Because stats are here to support that gun owners are most likely to get hurt with their own or hurt someone within the household.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link the stats please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no problem.
> 
> Packing heat may backfire. People who carry guns are far likelier to get shot – and killed – than those who are unarmed, a study of shooting victims in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has found.
> 
> It would be impractical – not to say unethical – to randomly assign volunteers to carry a gun or not and see what happens. So Charles Branas‘s team at the University of Pennsylvania analysed 677 shootings over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at the time, and compared them to other Philly residents of similar age, sex and ethnicity. The team also accounted for other potentially confounding differences, such as the socioeconomic status of their neighbourhood.
> 
> Despite the US having the highest rate of firearms-related homicide in the industrialised world, the relationship between gun culture and violence is poorly understood. A recent study found that treating violence like an infectious disease led to a dramatic fall in shootings and killings.
> 
> Overall, Branas’s study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.
> 
> Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed
Click to expand...

Lol
People in rural areas grew up around firearms and know how to handle them, so take your fucking little progressive study and shove it up your fucking ass.

You’re fucking cowardly control freak


----------



## Issa

Rustic said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> My opinion about guns is better because the stats are on my side, less access to guns less fatalities it's very simple. Since your son traveled the world tell him if he ever felt the need to own a gun overseas, and get back to me. This country is deep to its knees in violence you guys who grew up here are numb to the violence and dead bodies, be it kids or adults you got used to it. We the ones who lived in safer countries, tell you it can be achievable by simple banning guns.....and i'm very confident one day it'll be a reality and the US will taste the safety like other countries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can get stats that are on “my side”.
> 
> My son doesn’t own a gun because he feels a need to own a gun, he likes to go to the firing range and send a few off. As far safety, I’ll ask him if he feels safer here or in other countries, my guess is he will say he feels safe most anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So he doesn't feel a need to own one but he owns one?....just pray that one day he doesn't go nuts and use it against himself or a loved one. Because stats are here to support that gun owners are most likely to get hurt with their own or hurt someone within the household.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link the stats please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no problem.
> 
> Packing heat may backfire. People who carry guns are far likelier to get shot – and killed – than those who are unarmed, a study of shooting victims in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has found.
> 
> It would be impractical – not to say unethical – to randomly assign volunteers to carry a gun or not and see what happens. So Charles Branas‘s team at the University of Pennsylvania analysed 677 shootings over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at the time, and compared them to other Philly residents of similar age, sex and ethnicity. The team also accounted for other potentially confounding differences, such as the socioeconomic status of their neighbourhood.
> 
> Despite the US having the highest rate of firearms-related homicide in the industrialised world, the relationship between gun culture and violence is poorly understood. A recent study found that treating violence like an infectious disease led to a dramatic fall in shootings and killings.
> 
> Overall, Branas’s study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.
> 
> Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol
> People in rural areas grew up around firearms and know how to handle them, so take your fucking little progressive study and shove it up your fucking ass.
> 
> You’re fucking cowardly control freak
Click to expand...

you are too violent dude. relax!!!


----------



## Rustic

Issa said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can get stats that are on “my side”.
> 
> My son doesn’t own a gun because he feels a need to own a gun, he likes to go to the firing range and send a few off. As far safety, I’ll ask him if he feels safer here or in other countries, my guess is he will say he feels safe most anywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So he doesn't feel a need to own one but he owns one?....just pray that one day he doesn't go nuts and use it against himself or a loved one. Because stats are here to support that gun owners are most likely to get hurt with their own or hurt someone within the household.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link the stats please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no problem.
> 
> Packing heat may backfire. People who carry guns are far likelier to get shot – and killed – than those who are unarmed, a study of shooting victims in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has found.
> 
> It would be impractical – not to say unethical – to randomly assign volunteers to carry a gun or not and see what happens. So Charles Branas‘s team at the University of Pennsylvania analysed 677 shootings over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at the time, and compared them to other Philly residents of similar age, sex and ethnicity. The team also accounted for other potentially confounding differences, such as the socioeconomic status of their neighbourhood.
> 
> Despite the US having the highest rate of firearms-related homicide in the industrialised world, the relationship between gun culture and violence is poorly understood. A recent study found that treating violence like an infectious disease led to a dramatic fall in shootings and killings.
> 
> Overall, Branas’s study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.
> 
> Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol
> People in rural areas grew up around firearms and know how to handle them, so take your fucking little progressive study and shove it up your fucking ass.
> 
> You’re fucking cowardly control freak
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are too violent dude. relax!!!
Click to expand...

Only towards varmints…


----------



## Redfish

Lakhota said:


> When will the carnage end?  Time to rewrite the archaic 2nd Amendment.




the florida shooting was terrible.  What laws would have prevented it?  What changes to the 2nd amendment would have prevented it?   Please be specific.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Issa said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Been to other countries and my freedoms are not bullshit. You can do what you want with your freedoms, but you leave mine alone.
> 
> I had a son who lived in London and traveled all over the world for work. He just moved back to the states and went and bought a gun.
> 
> Again you avoid the question, what makes your opinion any better or worse than the next guy?
> 
> 
> 
> My opinion about guns is better because the stats are on my side, less access to guns less fatalities it's very simple. Since your son traveled the world tell him if he ever felt the need to own a gun overseas, and get back to me. This country is deep to its knees in violence you guys who grew up here are numb to the violence and dead bodies, be it kids or adults you got used to it. We the ones who lived in safer countries, tell you it can be achievable by simple banning guns.....and i'm very confident one day it'll be a reality and the US will taste the safety like other countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can get stats that are on “my side”.
> 
> My son doesn’t own a gun because he feels a need to own a gun, he likes to go to the firing range and send a few off. As far safety, I’ll ask him if he feels safer here or in other countries, my guess is he will say he feels safe most anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So he doesn't feel a need to own one but he owns one?....just pray that one day he doesn't go nuts and use it against himself or a loved one. Because stats are here to support that gun owners are most likely to get hurt with their own or hurt someone within the household.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link the stats please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no problem.
> 
> Packing heat may backfire. People who carry guns are far likelier to get shot – and killed – than those who are unarmed, a study of shooting victims in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has found.
> 
> It would be impractical – not to say unethical – to randomly assign volunteers to carry a gun or not and see what happens. So Charles Branas‘s team at the University of Pennsylvania analysed 677 shootings over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at the time, and compared them to other Philly residents of similar age, sex and ethnicity. The team also accounted for other potentially confounding differences, such as the socioeconomic status of their neighbourhood.
> 
> Despite the US having the highest rate of firearms-related homicide in the industrialised world, the relationship between gun culture and violence is poorly understood. A recent study found that treating violence like an infectious disease led to a dramatic fall in shootings and killings.
> 
> Overall, Branas’s study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.
> 
> Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed
Click to expand...

What a bunch of BULLSHIT!!!

At least I will go down shooting, and not cowering in the corner.  At least I get to shoot back.

I'll take the "risk" of being armed.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Issa said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Been to other countries and my freedoms are not bullshit. You can do what you want with your freedoms, but you leave mine alone.
> 
> I had a son who lived in London and traveled all over the world for work. He just moved back to the states and went and bought a gun.
> 
> Again you avoid the question, what makes your opinion any better or worse than the next guy?
> 
> 
> 
> My opinion about guns is better because the stats are on my side, less access to guns less fatalities it's very simple. Since your son traveled the world tell him if he ever felt the need to own a gun overseas, and get back to me. This country is deep to its knees in violence you guys who grew up here are numb to the violence and dead bodies, be it kids or adults you got used to it. We the ones who lived in safer countries, tell you it can be achievable by simple banning guns.....and i'm very confident one day it'll be a reality and the US will taste the safety like other countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can get stats that are on “my side”.
> 
> My son doesn’t own a gun because he feels a need to own a gun, he likes to go to the firing range and send a few off. As far safety, I’ll ask him if he feels safer here or in other countries, my guess is he will say he feels safe most anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So he doesn't feel a need to own one but he owns one?....just pray that one day he doesn't go nuts and use it against himself or a loved one. Because stats are here to support that gun owners are most likely to get hurt with their own or hurt someone within the household.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link the stats please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no problem.
> 
> Packing heat may backfire. People who carry guns are far likelier to get shot – and killed – than those who are unarmed, a study of shooting victims in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has found.
> 
> It would be impractical – not to say unethical – to randomly assign volunteers to carry a gun or not and see what happens. So Charles Branas‘s team at the University of Pennsylvania analysed 677 shootings over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at the time, and compared them to other Philly residents of similar age, sex and ethnicity. The team also accounted for other potentially confounding differences, such as the socioeconomic status of their neighbourhood.
> 
> Despite the US having the highest rate of firearms-related homicide in the industrialised world, the relationship between gun culture and violence is poorly understood. A recent study found that treating violence like an infectious disease led to a dramatic fall in shootings and killings.
> 
> Overall, Branas’s study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.
> 
> Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed
Click to expand...

Somebody tell the military to disarm the infantry.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Issa said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Been to other countries and my freedoms are not bullshit. You can do what you want with your freedoms, but you leave mine alone.
> 
> I had a son who lived in London and traveled all over the world for work. He just moved back to the states and went and bought a gun.
> 
> Again you avoid the question, what makes your opinion any better or worse than the next guy?
> 
> 
> 
> My opinion about guns is better because the stats are on my side, less access to guns less fatalities it's very simple. Since your son traveled the world tell him if he ever felt the need to own a gun overseas, and get back to me. This country is deep to its knees in violence you guys who grew up here are numb to the violence and dead bodies, be it kids or adults you got used to it. We the ones who lived in safer countries, tell you it can be achievable by simple banning guns.....and i'm very confident one day it'll be a reality and the US will taste the safety like other countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can get stats that are on “my side”.
> 
> My son doesn’t own a gun because he feels a need to own a gun, he likes to go to the firing range and send a few off. As far safety, I’ll ask him if he feels safer here or in other countries, my guess is he will say he feels safe most anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So he doesn't feel a need to own one but he owns one?....just pray that one day he doesn't go nuts and use it against himself or a loved one. Because stats are here to support that gun owners are most likely to get hurt with their own or hurt someone within the household.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link the stats please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no problem.
> 
> Packing heat may backfire. People who carry guns are far likelier to get shot – and killed – than those who are unarmed, a study of shooting victims in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has found.
> 
> It would be impractical – not to say unethical – to randomly assign volunteers to carry a gun or not and see what happens. So Charles Branas‘s team at the University of Pennsylvania analysed 677 shootings over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at the time, and compared them to other Philly residents of similar age, sex and ethnicity. The team also accounted for other potentially confounding differences, such as the socioeconomic status of their neighbourhood.
> 
> Despite the US having the highest rate of firearms-related homicide in the industrialised world, the relationship between gun culture and violence is poorly understood. A recent study found that treating violence like an infectious disease led to a dramatic fall in shootings and killings.
> 
> Overall, Branas’s study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.
> 
> Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed
Click to expand...

Were those "victims" carrying legally at the time?


----------



## Redfish

the 2nd amendment allows us to protect ourselves from the government, not the other way around. 

Geez, people, wake up.


----------



## The Derp

Redfish said:


> the 2nd amendment allows us to protect ourselves from the government, not the other way around.



So you want to shoot cops.  That's what you mean, isn't it?


----------



## The Derp

I don't know what everyone is talking about anyway...it's clear what the founders meant by the right to bear arms:


----------



## regent

The first time I saw the love affair some have with guns was my first day in basic training. As we entered the barracks the guns were in locked racks on walls, ands It seemed about half the recruits made for the guns. They didn't seem to fondle the guns but they sure seemed an attraction to many.


----------



## Redfish

The Derp said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> the 2nd amendment allows us to protect ourselves from the government, not the other way around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you want to shoot cops.  That's what you mean, isn't it?
Click to expand...



No, I want to be able to shoot the jack booted thugs when they enter my home trying to confiscate my weapons.   Its you libtards that want to shoot cops.


----------



## The Derp

regent said:


> The first time I saw the love affair some have with guns was my first day in basic training. As we entered the barracks the guns were in locked racks on walls, ands It seemed about half the recruits made for the guns. They didn't seem to fondle the guns but they sure seemed an attraction to many.



Ammosexuals.


----------



## The Derp

Redfish said:


> No, I want to be able to shoot the jack booted thugs when they enter my home trying to confiscate my weapons.   Its you libtards that want to shoot cops.



Cops _*are*_ jack-booted thugs who enter homes wanting to confiscate weapons.

Sounds like you have a fantasy that you want to be able to kill cops.  

Sounds like mental illness to me (paranoia).  

Sounds like you're one of the crazy people who shouldn't get a gun.


----------



## Issa

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> My opinion about guns is better because the stats are on my side, less access to guns less fatalities it's very simple. Since your son traveled the world tell him if he ever felt the need to own a gun overseas, and get back to me. This country is deep to its knees in violence you guys who grew up here are numb to the violence and dead bodies, be it kids or adults you got used to it. We the ones who lived in safer countries, tell you it can be achievable by simple banning guns.....and i'm very confident one day it'll be a reality and the US will taste the safety like other countries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can get stats that are on “my side”.
> 
> My son doesn’t own a gun because he feels a need to own a gun, he likes to go to the firing range and send a few off. As far safety, I’ll ask him if he feels safer here or in other countries, my guess is he will say he feels safe most anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So he doesn't feel a need to own one but he owns one?....just pray that one day he doesn't go nuts and use it against himself or a loved one. Because stats are here to support that gun owners are most likely to get hurt with their own or hurt someone within the household.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link the stats please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no problem.
> 
> Packing heat may backfire. People who carry guns are far likelier to get shot – and killed – than those who are unarmed, a study of shooting victims in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has found.
> 
> It would be impractical – not to say unethical – to randomly assign volunteers to carry a gun or not and see what happens. So Charles Branas‘s team at the University of Pennsylvania analysed 677 shootings over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at the time, and compared them to other Philly residents of similar age, sex and ethnicity. The team also accounted for other potentially confounding differences, such as the socioeconomic status of their neighbourhood.
> 
> Despite the US having the highest rate of firearms-related homicide in the industrialised world, the relationship between gun culture and violence is poorly understood. A recent study found that treating violence like an infectious disease led to a dramatic fall in shootings and killings.
> 
> Overall, Branas’s study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.
> 
> Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a bunch of BULLSHIT!!!
> 
> At least I will go down shooting, and not cowering in the corner.  At least I get to shoot back.
> 
> I'll take the "risk" of being armed.
Click to expand...

Ok Rambo.


----------



## Issa

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> My opinion about guns is better because the stats are on my side, less access to guns less fatalities it's very simple. Since your son traveled the world tell him if he ever felt the need to own a gun overseas, and get back to me. This country is deep to its knees in violence you guys who grew up here are numb to the violence and dead bodies, be it kids or adults you got used to it. We the ones who lived in safer countries, tell you it can be achievable by simple banning guns.....and i'm very confident one day it'll be a reality and the US will taste the safety like other countries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can get stats that are on “my side”.
> 
> My son doesn’t own a gun because he feels a need to own a gun, he likes to go to the firing range and send a few off. As far safety, I’ll ask him if he feels safer here or in other countries, my guess is he will say he feels safe most anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So he doesn't feel a need to own one but he owns one?....just pray that one day he doesn't go nuts and use it against himself or a loved one. Because stats are here to support that gun owners are most likely to get hurt with their own or hurt someone within the household.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link the stats please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no problem.
> 
> Packing heat may backfire. People who carry guns are far likelier to get shot – and killed – than those who are unarmed, a study of shooting victims in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has found.
> 
> It would be impractical – not to say unethical – to randomly assign volunteers to carry a gun or not and see what happens. So Charles Branas‘s team at the University of Pennsylvania analysed 677 shootings over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at the time, and compared them to other Philly residents of similar age, sex and ethnicity. The team also accounted for other potentially confounding differences, such as the socioeconomic status of their neighbourhood.
> 
> Despite the US having the highest rate of firearms-related homicide in the industrialised world, the relationship between gun culture and violence is poorly understood. A recent study found that treating violence like an infectious disease led to a dramatic fall in shootings and killings.
> 
> Overall, Branas’s study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.
> 
> Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Somebody tell the military to disarm the infantry.
Click to expand...

You became numb I see. Turning on thr TV and seing scores of dead bodies every now and then is normal I guess in America. Just wow!!!


----------



## KeiserC

The Derp said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> the 2nd amendment allows us to protect ourselves from the government, not the other way around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you want to shoot cops.  That's what you mean, isn't it?
Click to expand...


*Not out of the realm of possibility*... is the answer to your question...

My VT Constitution... which if you haven't noticed, supersedes (in the minds of VT'ers) that of the Feds. on many issues, including gun laws (or lack thereof)  / Recreational Marijuana

*Article 16. [Right to bear arms; standing armies; military power subordinate to civil]*
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State--and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

*Article 17. [Martial law restricted]*
That no person in this state can in any case be subjected to law martial, or to any penalties or pains by virtue of that law except those employed in the army, and the militia in actual service.

There certainly is a possibility that the police could be utilized unconstitutionally... In that scenario...YES the citizenry is compelled to suppress & resist the overreach of civil governance exerted over them...  It was always the intent that the people be armed commensurate to that of the civil authority policing them...


----------



## Issa

Skull Pilot said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> My opinion about guns is better because the stats are on my side, less access to guns less fatalities it's very simple. Since your son traveled the world tell him if he ever felt the need to own a gun overseas, and get back to me. This country is deep to its knees in violence you guys who grew up here are numb to the violence and dead bodies, be it kids or adults you got used to it. We the ones who lived in safer countries, tell you it can be achievable by simple banning guns.....and i'm very confident one day it'll be a reality and the US will taste the safety like other countries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can get stats that are on “my side”.
> 
> My son doesn’t own a gun because he feels a need to own a gun, he likes to go to the firing range and send a few off. As far safety, I’ll ask him if he feels safer here or in other countries, my guess is he will say he feels safe most anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So he doesn't feel a need to own one but he owns one?....just pray that one day he doesn't go nuts and use it against himself or a loved one. Because stats are here to support that gun owners are most likely to get hurt with their own or hurt someone within the household.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link the stats please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no problem.
> 
> Packing heat may backfire. People who carry guns are far likelier to get shot – and killed – than those who are unarmed, a study of shooting victims in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has found.
> 
> It would be impractical – not to say unethical – to randomly assign volunteers to carry a gun or not and see what happens. So Charles Branas‘s team at the University of Pennsylvania analysed 677 shootings over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at the time, and compared them to other Philly residents of similar age, sex and ethnicity. The team also accounted for other potentially confounding differences, such as the socioeconomic status of their neighbourhood.
> 
> Despite the US having the highest rate of firearms-related homicide in the industrialised world, the relationship between gun culture and violence is poorly understood. A recent study found that treating violence like an infectious disease led to a dramatic fall in shootings and killings.
> 
> Overall, Branas’s study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.
> 
> Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Were those "victims" carrying legally at the time?
Click to expand...

Who cares more guns more dead people. Can we follow the rest of the world and save lives ?


----------



## KeiserC

Issa said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can get stats that are on “my side”.
> 
> My son doesn’t own a gun because he feels a need to own a gun, he likes to go to the firing range and send a few off. As far safety, I’ll ask him if he feels safer here or in other countries, my guess is he will say he feels safe most anywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So he doesn't feel a need to own one but he owns one?....just pray that one day he doesn't go nuts and use it against himself or a loved one. Because stats are here to support that gun owners are most likely to get hurt with their own or hurt someone within the household.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link the stats please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no problem.
> 
> Packing heat may backfire. People who carry guns are far likelier to get shot – and killed – than those who are unarmed, a study of shooting victims in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has found.
> 
> It would be impractical – not to say unethical – to randomly assign volunteers to carry a gun or not and see what happens. So Charles Branas‘s team at the University of Pennsylvania analysed 677 shootings over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at the time, and compared them to other Philly residents of similar age, sex and ethnicity. The team also accounted for other potentially confounding differences, such as the socioeconomic status of their neighbourhood.
> 
> Despite the US having the highest rate of firearms-related homicide in the industrialised world, the relationship between gun culture and violence is poorly understood. A recent study found that treating violence like an infectious disease led to a dramatic fall in shootings and killings.
> 
> Overall, Branas’s study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.
> 
> Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Were those "victims" carrying legally at the time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who cares more guns more dead people. Can we follow the rest of the world and save lives ?
Click to expand...

NO... over our dead bodies.... literally


----------



## CrusaderFrank

The Founders realized that some people are evil and every so often, evil people get control of a nation.  When they do, unarmed citizens become fertilizer.


----------



## Rustic

Issa said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can get stats that are on “my side”.
> 
> My son doesn’t own a gun because he feels a need to own a gun, he likes to go to the firing range and send a few off. As far safety, I’ll ask him if he feels safer here or in other countries, my guess is he will say he feels safe most anywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So he doesn't feel a need to own one but he owns one?....just pray that one day he doesn't go nuts and use it against himself or a loved one. Because stats are here to support that gun owners are most likely to get hurt with their own or hurt someone within the household.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link the stats please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no problem.
> 
> Packing heat may backfire. People who carry guns are far likelier to get shot – and killed – than those who are unarmed, a study of shooting victims in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has found.
> 
> It would be impractical – not to say unethical – to randomly assign volunteers to carry a gun or not and see what happens. So Charles Branas‘s team at the University of Pennsylvania analysed 677 shootings over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at the time, and compared them to other Philly residents of similar age, sex and ethnicity. The team also accounted for other potentially confounding differences, such as the socioeconomic status of their neighbourhood.
> 
> Despite the US having the highest rate of firearms-related homicide in the industrialised world, the relationship between gun culture and violence is poorly understood. A recent study found that treating violence like an infectious disease led to a dramatic fall in shootings and killings.
> 
> Overall, Branas’s study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.
> 
> Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Were those "victims" carrying legally at the time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who cares more guns more dead people. Can we follow the rest of the world and save lives ?
Click to expand...

Gun control is for pussies


----------



## Frankeneinstein

Lakhota said:


> When will the carnage end? Time to rewrite the archaic 2nd Amendment.


for the purpose of what? anyone still denying the eft wants to take away rhe second amendment...btw, the 1st amendment is older/more making it, by your definition, more archaic...judging by your post I would have to say the problem is we need to do a better job in education


----------



## KeiserC

Frankeneinstein said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> When will the carnage end? Time to rewrite the archaic 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> for the purpose of what? anyone still denying the eft wants to take away rhe second amendment...btw, the 1st amendment is older/more making it, by your definition, more archaic...judging by your post I would have to say the problem is we need to do a better job in education
Click to expand...

Fallen human nature inherently dictates that the 'carnage' will never end.  There will always be poor among us, just as there will always be evil in the hearts of 'mankind'... You can't legislate your way out of reality...


----------



## Frankeneinstein

KeiserC said:


> Fallen human nature inherently dictates that the 'carnage' will never end. There will always be poor among us, just as there will always be evil in the hearts of 'mankind'... You can't legislate your way out of reality...


is this for me?


----------



## KeiserC

Frankeneinstein said:


> KeiserC said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fallen human nature inherently dictates that the 'carnage' will never end. There will always be poor among us, just as there will always be evil in the hearts of 'mankind'... You can't legislate your way out of reality...
> 
> 
> 
> is this for me?
Click to expand...

Sure... It's for all of us.. to realize


----------



## Frankeneinstein

k


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lakhota said:


> Amen!



Let's see.  First, I don't recall anyone electing you as a spokesperson for "We the People", and as one of the People, I feel certain I would have received a ballot for that vote.  Second, I don't give a rat's ass about the demands of any people who DO acknowledge you as their spokesperson.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Issa said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some all they need is a trip outside the US to see for themselves the civilisation and how people are leaving safe and don' on their way to work or school.
> 
> Before moving to the US, I was told some Americans are too ignorant about the outside world and love their guns because thry are paranoid and are bombarded by propaganda. True and true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I’m sure you will find what you are looking for, most people do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is sad. That the culture of owning guns is deeply rooted in the US...some think that there can be no decent life without owning guns. Ridiculous!!!
Click to expand...


Sad, that arrogance is so deeply rooted in idiots that they think there can be no decent life without them prancing in and telling others what to do.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lakhota said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone remember Charlton Heston?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Won't somebody PLEASE think of THE CHILDREN!!!!
> 
> 
> Fuck you.
> 
> 
> We're not doing gun control, bitch.  It's over.  You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We all do our children favors when we teach them how and when to shoot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, so long as you teach them all the other decent values along with shooting.
Click to expand...


As if you would recognize values OR decency if they crawled up your pants leg and bit you on the left ass cheek.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Issa said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is sad. That the culture of owning guns is deeply rooted in the US...some think that there can be no decent life without owning guns. Ridiculous!!!
> 
> 
> 
> And there's not a goddamn thing your commie ass can do about it, but bitch, cry, bellyache, and sob into your appletini.
> 
> not one inch
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1 ain't a commie. Yes I do...there will come a day where guns will be abolished just like in other civilised countries. Is a law that's too old and it doesn't correspond to this time and age.
Click to expand...


Question:  If America is so "uncivilized" compared to all the other splendiferous nations you have mysteriously failed to name, may I ask what the fuck you're doing here?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lakhota said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, so long as you teach them all the other decent values along with shooting.
> 
> 
> 
> What?  You think we don't?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, I think a lot of you don't.  Do you have decent values?
Click to expand...


Did someone die and make you arbiter of decency?  At what point did ANYONE start groveling for YOUR approval?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Issa said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go back to your play station kid.
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you.  Go back to your dildo, Nancy.
> 
> We will never give in.  Ever.
> 
> Give it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not now but in the future it will happen. It's inevitable. With the migrants fertility rate and civilisation reaching the US and spreading it will happen. Red necks still think it's 18th century.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pussy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pussy are those who have guns.
> Ame4ican society is so infested with the love for guns and violence. Time to get civilised Mr redneck.
Click to expand...


Hey, feel free to show us your "bravery" and march down a street in a Chicago ghetto at midnight, completely unarmed.

Just let us know if you prefer roses or lilies at your funeral.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lakhota said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone honestly believe the 2nd Amendment reflects today's reality?  Seriously?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Confusion -- the wording of the Second Amendment*
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Lakhota
> The way it is worded, both sides can get the interpretation they want out of it. So it's perfect just as written.
> Divine or magic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words - it's as fucked up as the Bible.
Click to expand...


But not nearly as fucked-up as your psychiatric evaluation.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

Cecilie1200 said:


> Did someone die and make you arbiter of decency? At what point did ANYONE start groveling for YOUR approval?


He's the boards "Tokyo Rose", picks up his "news" from a propaganda source and then reads it back to Americans in a feeble attempt to brain wash


----------



## Cecilie1200

Issa said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pussy
> 
> 
> 
> Pussy are those who have guns.
> Ame4ican society is so infested with the love for guns and violence. Time to get civilised Mr redneck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, using a racial slur, I’m not surprised, ignorant people usually resort to racial slurs to try to make the,selves look better, it doesn’t really work, it just confirms you are an ignorant bigot.
> 
> There you go, wanting to push your values onto others, pretty intolerant and narrow minded of you.
> 
> Get off your ass anode go change the law, it’s that easy. I guarantee the legal fight you will have will be big.
> 
> If you want a gun, I have no issue, you want to take others guns illegally, I have an issue.
> 
> You have failed to prove why your right or opinion gets to trump the next guy’s right or opinion, last I checked your opinion isn’t any better than the next guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Very simple...less guns no access to guns less mass shootings and fewer Americans are killed. Most countries don' have this madness, I lived in one and visited dozens. Me and my kids will champion for guns to be banned and limited because seing kids, civilians put down everyday in the US is a very sad and disturbing thing. Why does it happen mostly only in the US?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, your opinion doesn’t give you the right to force your opinion onto others, you have failed to answer the question three times.
> 
> You want to try to ban guns and make it a family issue, fine by me. I support your freedom to try to change the law. Have at it.
> 
> Freedom has risks, freedom has choices, I am for both, you aren’t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to travel more outside the US and have a grasp of sanity and civility and most importantly safety. You'l have a different view...this freedom bullshit is getting old. Kids and people have been dying by the thousands.
Click to expand...


Better plan:  since YOU dislike the US so much, YOU should be the one to leave.


----------



## The Derp

KeiserC said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> the 2nd amendment allows us to protect ourselves from the government, not the other way around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you want to shoot cops.  That's what you mean, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Not out of the realm of possibility*... is the answer to your question...
Click to expand...


So it's really a fantasy, then.  You have a fantasy that some government thugs (aka police) are going to kick in your door and take your weapons from you for no reason, leaving you with the only option of shooting at them.

That sounds like mental illness to me.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Issa said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, using a racial slur, I’m not surprised, ignorant people usually resort to racial slurs to try to make the,selves look better, it doesn’t really work, it just confirms you are an ignorant bigot.
> 
> There you go, wanting to push your values onto others, pretty intolerant and narrow minded of you.
> 
> Get off your ass anode go change the law, it’s that easy. I guarantee the legal fight you will have will be big.
> 
> If you want a gun, I have no issue, you want to take others guns illegally, I have an issue.
> 
> You have failed to prove why your right or opinion gets to trump the next guy’s right or opinion, last I checked your opinion isn’t any better than the next guy.
> 
> 
> 
> Very simple...less guns no access to guns less mass shootings and fewer Americans are killed. Most countries don' have this madness, I lived in one and visited dozens. Me and my kids will champion for guns to be banned and limited because seing kids, civilians put down everyday in the US is a very sad and disturbing thing. Why does it happen mostly only in the US?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, your opinion doesn’t give you the right to force your opinion onto others, you have failed to answer the question three times.
> 
> You want to try to ban guns and make it a family issue, fine by me. I support your freedom to try to change the law. Have at it.
> 
> Freedom has risks, freedom has choices, I am for both, you aren’t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to travel more outside the US and have a grasp of sanity and civility and most importantly safety. You'l have a different view...this freedom bullshit is getting old. Kids and people have been dying by the thousands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Been to other countries and my freedoms are not bullshit. You can do what you want with your freedoms, but you leave mine alone.
> 
> I had a son who lived in London and traveled all over the world for work. He just moved back to the states and went and bought a gun.
> 
> Again you avoid the question, what makes your opinion any better or worse than the next guy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My opinion about guns is better because the stats are on my side, less access to guns less fatalities it's very simple. Since your son traveled the world tell him if he ever felt the need to own a gun overseas, and get back to me. This country is deep to its knees in violence you guys who grew up here are numb to the violence and dead bodies, be it kids or adults you got used to it. We the ones who lived in safer countries, tell you it can be achievable by simple banning guns.....and i'm very confident one day it'll be a reality and the US will taste the safety like other countries.
Click to expand...


And who was it who begged you to come to the US and start rearranging it according to your "wisdom"?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Issa said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, your opinion doesn’t give you the right to force your opinion onto others, you have failed to answer the question three times.
> 
> You want to try to ban guns and make it a family issue, fine by me. I support your freedom to try to change the law. Have at it.
> 
> Freedom has risks, freedom has choices, I am for both, you aren’t.
> 
> 
> 
> You need to travel more outside the US and have a grasp of sanity and civility and most importantly safety. You'l have a different view...this freedom bullshit is getting old. Kids and people have been dying by the thousands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Been to other countries and my freedoms are not bullshit. You can do what you want with your freedoms, but you leave mine alone.
> 
> I had a son who lived in London and traveled all over the world for work. He just moved back to the states and went and bought a gun.
> 
> Again you avoid the question, what makes your opinion any better or worse than the next guy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My opinion about guns is better because the stats are on my side, less access to guns less fatalities it's very simple. Since your son traveled the world tell him if he ever felt the need to own a gun overseas, and get back to me. This country is deep to its knees in violence you guys who grew up here are numb to the violence and dead bodies, be it kids or adults you got used to it. We the ones who lived in safer countries, tell you it can be achievable by simple banning guns.....and i'm very confident one day it'll be a reality and the US will taste the safety like other countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can get stats that are on “my side”.
> 
> My son doesn’t own a gun because he feels a need to own a gun, he likes to go to the firing range and send a few off. As far safety, I’ll ask him if he feels safer here or in other countries, my guess is he will say he feels safe most anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So he doesn't feel a need to own one but he owns one?....just pray that one day he doesn't go nuts and use it against himself or a loved one. Because stats are here to support that gun owners are most likely to get hurt with their own or hurt someone within the household.
Click to expand...


Yes, believe it or not, some people own things just because they want to and like them.

Your little zinger of "just pray he doesn't go nuts" tells us nothing about what people in general do and everything about what kind of person YOU are.  They have treatments for severe autophobia like yours.  Investigate.


----------



## Issa

Cecilie1200 said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is sad. That the culture of owning guns is deeply rooted in the US...some think that there can be no decent life without owning guns. Ridiculous!!!
> 
> 
> 
> And there's not a goddamn thing your commie ass can do about it, but bitch, cry, bellyache, and sob into your appletini.
> 
> not one inch
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1 ain't a commie. Yes I do...there will come a day where guns will be abolished just like in other civilised countries. Is a law that's too old and it doesn't correspond to this time and age.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Question:  If America is so "uncivilized" compared to all the other splendiferous nations you have mysteriously failed to name, may I ask what the fuck you're doing here?
Click to expand...

I live in a ultra civilised progressive city and state that's why.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

Issa said:


> I live in a ultra civilised progressive city and state that's why.


Sounds like the conservative America of the 50's


----------



## basquebromance

whether they're used in war or for keeping the peace, guns are just tools. and like any tool, the way they're used reflects the society they're part of...


----------



## Skull Pilot

Issa said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can get stats that are on “my side”.
> 
> My son doesn’t own a gun because he feels a need to own a gun, he likes to go to the firing range and send a few off. As far safety, I’ll ask him if he feels safer here or in other countries, my guess is he will say he feels safe most anywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So he doesn't feel a need to own one but he owns one?....just pray that one day he doesn't go nuts and use it against himself or a loved one. Because stats are here to support that gun owners are most likely to get hurt with their own or hurt someone within the household.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link the stats please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no problem.
> 
> Packing heat may backfire. People who carry guns are far likelier to get shot – and killed – than those who are unarmed, a study of shooting victims in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has found.
> 
> It would be impractical – not to say unethical – to randomly assign volunteers to carry a gun or not and see what happens. So Charles Branas‘s team at the University of Pennsylvania analysed 677 shootings over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at the time, and compared them to other Philly residents of similar age, sex and ethnicity. The team also accounted for other potentially confounding differences, such as the socioeconomic status of their neighbourhood.
> 
> Despite the US having the highest rate of firearms-related homicide in the industrialised world, the relationship between gun culture and violence is poorly understood. A recent study found that treating violence like an infectious disease led to a dramatic fall in shootings and killings.
> 
> Overall, Branas’s study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.
> 
> Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Were those "victims" carrying legally at the time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who cares more guns more dead people. Can we follow the rest of the world and save lives ?
Click to expand...


Gun laws do not reduce the murder rate.

After al those countries like the UK passed strict gun laws their murder rates went up and have never dropped to below the pre gun law levels


----------



## Cecilie1200

Issa said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, your opinion doesn’t give you the right to force your opinion onto others, you have failed to answer the question three times.
> 
> You want to try to ban guns and make it a family issue, fine by me. I support your freedom to try to change the law. Have at it.
> 
> Freedom has risks, freedom has choices, I am for both, you aren’t.
> 
> 
> 
> You need to travel more outside the US and have a grasp of sanity and civility and most importantly safety. You'l have a different view...this freedom bullshit is getting old. Kids and people have been dying by the thousands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Been to other countries and my freedoms are not bullshit. You can do what you want with your freedoms, but you leave mine alone.
> 
> I had a son who lived in London and traveled all over the world for work. He just moved back to the states and went and bought a gun.
> 
> Again you avoid the question, what makes your opinion any better or worse than the next guy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My opinion about guns is better because the stats are on my side, less access to guns less fatalities it's very simple. Since your son traveled the world tell him if he ever felt the need to own a gun overseas, and get back to me. This country is deep to its knees in violence you guys who grew up here are numb to the violence and dead bodies, be it kids or adults you got used to it. We the ones who lived in safer countries, tell you it can be achievable by simple banning guns.....and i'm very confident one day it'll be a reality and the US will taste the safety like other countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol
> Violence is only prevalent in Urban progressive controlled areas you stupid ass motherfucker. So shove your fucking gun laws Up ass you cowardly little fuck...
> 
> Rural areas of America are awash in firearms... no violent crime to speak of.
> Just because firearms make you uncomfortable does not mean that you get the right to force that fucking Cowardly shit on other people...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> is this study a fakenews?
> 
> The study found that from 1999 through 2006, 23,649 Americans age 19 or younger died from gunshots. Rates in the most-rural and most-urban counties were nearly the same -- at 4 deaths per 100,000 children and teens, and 4.6 per 100,000, respectively.
Click to expand...


Man, you really ARE a Johnny-Come-Lately.  If you were an actual American, rather than a second-rate transplant with delusions of grandeur, you'd know that the "fakenews" here is YOUR long-since-debunked bullshit.

Those "Americans 19 or younger dying from gunshots"?  Mostly gang members or others engaging in other criminal activity.  Admittedly, that's a problem in and of itself, but it's a far cry from the vision of innocent children being gunned down willy-nilly that you're imagining.  Furthermore, there are gun deaths and then there are gun deaths.  People under the age of 19 in rural areas are at MUCH less risk of gun violence from others, while they are more likely to choose a gun if they _commit suicide_.  Which makes your comparison apples and oranges.

Once you eliminate the criminals and the suicides, the youth gun death picture becomes VERY different.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Issa said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can get stats that are on “my side”.
> 
> My son doesn’t own a gun because he feels a need to own a gun, he likes to go to the firing range and send a few off. As far safety, I’ll ask him if he feels safer here or in other countries, my guess is he will say he feels safe most anywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So he doesn't feel a need to own one but he owns one?....just pray that one day he doesn't go nuts and use it against himself or a loved one. Because stats are here to support that gun owners are most likely to get hurt with their own or hurt someone within the household.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link the stats please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no problem.
> 
> Packing heat may backfire. People who carry guns are far likelier to get shot – and killed – than those who are unarmed, a study of shooting victims in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has found.
> 
> It would be impractical – not to say unethical – to randomly assign volunteers to carry a gun or not and see what happens. So Charles Branas‘s team at the University of Pennsylvania analysed 677 shootings over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at the time, and compared them to other Philly residents of similar age, sex and ethnicity. The team also accounted for other potentially confounding differences, such as the socioeconomic status of their neighbourhood.
> 
> Despite the US having the highest rate of firearms-related homicide in the industrialised world, the relationship between gun culture and violence is poorly understood. A recent study found that treating violence like an infectious disease led to a dramatic fall in shootings and killings.
> 
> Overall, Branas’s study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.
> 
> Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Were those "victims" carrying legally at the time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who cares more guns more dead people. Can we follow the rest of the world and save lives ?
Click to expand...


Who's "we", Chuckles?  The only "we" I can think of that you legitimately belong to would be arrogant foreigners who want to enjoy all America has to offer while superciliously sneering at it and its people.  And you and your ilk are more than welcome to "follow the rest of the world" . . . right over to THEIR countries.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Issa said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is sad. That the culture of owning guns is deeply rooted in the US...some think that there can be no decent life without owning guns. Ridiculous!!!
> 
> 
> 
> And there's not a goddamn thing your commie ass can do about it, but bitch, cry, bellyache, and sob into your appletini.
> 
> not one inch
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1 ain't a commie. Yes I do...there will come a day where guns will be abolished just like in other civilised countries. Is a law that's too old and it doesn't correspond to this time and age.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Question:  If America is so "uncivilized" compared to all the other splendiferous nations you have mysteriously failed to name, may I ask what the fuck you're doing here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I live in a ultra civilised progressive city and state that's why.
Click to expand...


Good.  How about you tend to business in your "ultra civilized city and state" and mind your own damned business about everyone else?  If you were an American, you'd know that that's the whole point of HAVING separate, sovereign states:  so that those of us who think you're a complete douche canoe don't have to tolerate your company OR your stupid ideas.


----------



## KeiserC

The Derp said:


> KeiserC said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> the 2nd amendment allows us to protect ourselves from the government, not the other way around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you want to shoot cops.  That's what you mean, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Not out of the realm of possibility*... is the answer to your question...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So it's really a fantasy, then.  You have a fantasy that some government thugs (aka police) are going to kick in your door and take your weapons from you for no reason, leaving you with the only option of shooting at them.
> 
> That sounds like mental illness to me.
Click to expand...

I suppose you will have to lump our founding fathers in with me... World history is replete with the exact thing that you are mocking...


----------



## Issa

Frankeneinstein said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I live in a ultra civilised progressive city and state that's why.
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like the conservative America of the 50's
Click to expand...

Now cons are regressive racists.


----------



## Issa

Skull Pilot said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> So he doesn't feel a need to own one but he owns one?....just pray that one day he doesn't go nuts and use it against himself or a loved one. Because stats are here to support that gun owners are most likely to get hurt with their own or hurt someone within the household.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link the stats please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no problem.
> 
> Packing heat may backfire. People who carry guns are far likelier to get shot – and killed – than those who are unarmed, a study of shooting victims in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has found.
> 
> It would be impractical – not to say unethical – to randomly assign volunteers to carry a gun or not and see what happens. So Charles Branas‘s team at the University of Pennsylvania analysed 677 shootings over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at the time, and compared them to other Philly residents of similar age, sex and ethnicity. The team also accounted for other potentially confounding differences, such as the socioeconomic status of their neighbourhood.
> 
> Despite the US having the highest rate of firearms-related homicide in the industrialised world, the relationship between gun culture and violence is poorly understood. A recent study found that treating violence like an infectious disease led to a dramatic fall in shootings and killings.
> 
> Overall, Branas’s study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.
> 
> Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Were those "victims" carrying legally at the time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who cares more guns more dead people. Can we follow the rest of the world and save lives ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gun laws do not reduce the murder rate.
> 
> After al those countries like the UK passed strict gun laws their murder rates went up and have never dropped to below the pre gun law levels
Click to expand...

Still lower than the US. And still the US has the highest rate of gun deaths than any western nation, heck even worse than some war torn countries.


----------



## Issa

Cecilie1200 said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to travel more outside the US and have a grasp of sanity and civility and most importantly safety. You'l have a different view...this freedom bullshit is getting old. Kids and people have been dying by the thousands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Been to other countries and my freedoms are not bullshit. You can do what you want with your freedoms, but you leave mine alone.
> 
> I had a son who lived in London and traveled all over the world for work. He just moved back to the states and went and bought a gun.
> 
> Again you avoid the question, what makes your opinion any better or worse than the next guy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My opinion about guns is better because the stats are on my side, less access to guns less fatalities it's very simple. Since your son traveled the world tell him if he ever felt the need to own a gun overseas, and get back to me. This country is deep to its knees in violence you guys who grew up here are numb to the violence and dead bodies, be it kids or adults you got used to it. We the ones who lived in safer countries, tell you it can be achievable by simple banning guns.....and i'm very confident one day it'll be a reality and the US will taste the safety like other countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol
> Violence is only prevalent in Urban progressive controlled areas you stupid ass motherfucker. So shove your fucking gun laws Up ass you cowardly little fuck...
> 
> Rural areas of America are awash in firearms... no violent crime to speak of.
> Just because firearms make you uncomfortable does not mean that you get the right to force that fucking Cowardly shit on other people...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> is this study a fakenews?
> 
> The study found that from 1999 through 2006, 23,649 Americans age 19 or younger died from gunshots. Rates in the most-rural and most-urban counties were nearly the same -- at 4 deaths per 100,000 children and teens, and 4.6 per 100,000, respectively.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Man, you really ARE a Johnny-Come-Lately.  If you were an actual American, rather than a second-rate transplant with delusions of grandeur, you'd know that the "fakenews" here is YOUR long-since-debunked bullshit.
> 
> Those "Americans 19 or younger dying from gunshots"?  Mostly gang members or others engaging in other criminal activity.  Admittedly, that's a problem in and of itself, but it's a far cry from the vision of innocent children being gunned down willy-nilly that you're imagining.  Furthermore, there are gun deaths and then there are gun deaths.  People under the age of 19 in rural areas are at MUCH less risk of gun violence from others, while they are more likely to choose a gun if they _commit suicide_.  Which makes your comparison apples and oranges.
> 
> Once you eliminate the criminals and the suicides, the youth gun death picture becomes VERY different.
Click to expand...

Eliminate what you want to better the stats. But the fact is here thousands die by being shot. Other countries don't have this madness because thry have less guns, in act I grow up in Morocco and we have almost none, and in the 23 years i lived there hardly anyone died from being shot.

Gun violence is a ultural issue in America. Hiding behind an old amendment is a stupid excuse...till we join other countries in banning guns. We gonna still count thousands of bodies. Ridiculous.


----------



## Issa

Cecilie1200 said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> So he doesn't feel a need to own one but he owns one?....just pray that one day he doesn't go nuts and use it against himself or a loved one. Because stats are here to support that gun owners are most likely to get hurt with their own or hurt someone within the household.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link the stats please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no problem.
> 
> Packing heat may backfire. People who carry guns are far likelier to get shot – and killed – than those who are unarmed, a study of shooting victims in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has found.
> 
> It would be impractical – not to say unethical – to randomly assign volunteers to carry a gun or not and see what happens. So Charles Branas‘s team at the University of Pennsylvania analysed 677 shootings over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at the time, and compared them to other Philly residents of similar age, sex and ethnicity. The team also accounted for other potentially confounding differences, such as the socioeconomic status of their neighbourhood.
> 
> Despite the US having the highest rate of firearms-related homicide in the industrialised world, the relationship between gun culture and violence is poorly understood. A recent study found that treating violence like an infectious disease led to a dramatic fall in shootings and killings.
> 
> Overall, Branas’s study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.
> 
> Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Were those "victims" carrying legally at the time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who cares more guns more dead people. Can we follow the rest of the world and save lives ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who's "we", Chuckles?  The only "we" I can think of that you legitimately belong to would be arrogant foreigners who want to enjoy all America has to offer while superciliously sneering at it and its people.  And you and your ilk are more than welcome to "follow the rest of the world" . . . right over to THEIR countries.
Click to expand...

Remember that immigrants what not only made this country but what keeps making great. We tell you that we lived in countries where people don't have to get shot regularly it'll be wise to study why. And not be arrogant and keep counting dead bodies.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Issa said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link the stats please.
> 
> 
> 
> no problem.
> 
> Packing heat may backfire. People who carry guns are far likelier to get shot – and killed – than those who are unarmed, a study of shooting victims in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has found.
> 
> It would be impractical – not to say unethical – to randomly assign volunteers to carry a gun or not and see what happens. So Charles Branas‘s team at the University of Pennsylvania analysed 677 shootings over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at the time, and compared them to other Philly residents of similar age, sex and ethnicity. The team also accounted for other potentially confounding differences, such as the socioeconomic status of their neighbourhood.
> 
> Despite the US having the highest rate of firearms-related homicide in the industrialised world, the relationship between gun culture and violence is poorly understood. A recent study found that treating violence like an infectious disease led to a dramatic fall in shootings and killings.
> 
> Overall, Branas’s study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.
> 
> Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Were those "victims" carrying legally at the time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who cares more guns more dead people. Can we follow the rest of the world and save lives ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gun laws do not reduce the murder rate.
> 
> After al those countries like the UK passed strict gun laws their murder rates went up and have never dropped to below the pre gun law levels
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still lower than the US. And still the US has the highest rate of gun deaths than any western nation, heck even worse than some war torn countries.
Click to expand...




Issa said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Been to other countries and my freedoms are not bullshit. You can do what you want with your freedoms, but you leave mine alone.
> 
> I had a son who lived in London and traveled all over the world for work. He just moved back to the states and went and bought a gun.
> 
> Again you avoid the question, what makes your opinion any better or worse than the next guy?
> 
> 
> 
> My opinion about guns is better because the stats are on my side, less access to guns less fatalities it's very simple. Since your son traveled the world tell him if he ever felt the need to own a gun overseas, and get back to me. This country is deep to its knees in violence you guys who grew up here are numb to the violence and dead bodies, be it kids or adults you got used to it. We the ones who lived in safer countries, tell you it can be achievable by simple banning guns.....and i'm very confident one day it'll be a reality and the US will taste the safety like other countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol
> Violence is only prevalent in Urban progressive controlled areas you stupid ass motherfucker. So shove your fucking gun laws Up ass you cowardly little fuck...
> 
> Rural areas of America are awash in firearms... no violent crime to speak of.
> Just because firearms make you uncomfortable does not mean that you get the right to force that fucking Cowardly shit on other people...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> is this study a fakenews?
> 
> The study found that from 1999 through 2006, 23,649 Americans age 19 or younger died from gunshots. Rates in the most-rural and most-urban counties were nearly the same -- at 4 deaths per 100,000 children and teens, and 4.6 per 100,000, respectively.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Man, you really ARE a Johnny-Come-Lately.  If you were an actual American, rather than a second-rate transplant with delusions of grandeur, you'd know that the "fakenews" here is YOUR long-since-debunked bullshit.
> 
> Those "Americans 19 or younger dying from gunshots"?  Mostly gang members or others engaging in other criminal activity.  Admittedly, that's a problem in and of itself, but it's a far cry from the vision of innocent children being gunned down willy-nilly that you're imagining.  Furthermore, there are gun deaths and then there are gun deaths.  People under the age of 19 in rural areas are at MUCH less risk of gun violence from others, while they are more likely to choose a gun if they _commit suicide_.  Which makes your comparison apples and oranges.
> 
> Once you eliminate the criminals and the suicides, the youth gun death picture becomes VERY different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Eliminate what you want to better the stats. But the fact is here thousands die by being shot. Other countries don't have this madness because thry have less guns, in act I grow up in Morocco and we have almost none, and in the 23 years i lived there hardly anyone died from being shot.
> 
> Gun violence is a ultural issue in America. Hiding behind an old amendment is a stupid excuse...till we join other countries in banning guns. We gonna still count thousands of bodies. Ridiculous.
Click to expand...


I'm not "eliminating what I want to better the stats", dumbass.  I'm clarifying the stats to understand the problems that actually need addressing, rather than using them vaguely so as to hide behind them, like you.  People like you are the reason Mark Twain said that there are three types of untruth:  lies, damned lies, and statistics.

The fact is, there aren't nearly as many people getting shot here by other people as you think there are.  And the reasons behind those deaths are almost never what you believe they are.  That means that the solution is DEFINITELY not what you want.

I'll say it again:  if other countries are so damned superior to the US, go live in them.  No one asked you to barge in here and start redecorating.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Issa said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link the stats please.
> 
> 
> 
> no problem.
> 
> Packing heat may backfire. People who carry guns are far likelier to get shot – and killed – than those who are unarmed, a study of shooting victims in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has found.
> 
> It would be impractical – not to say unethical – to randomly assign volunteers to carry a gun or not and see what happens. So Charles Branas‘s team at the University of Pennsylvania analysed 677 shootings over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at the time, and compared them to other Philly residents of similar age, sex and ethnicity. The team also accounted for other potentially confounding differences, such as the socioeconomic status of their neighbourhood.
> 
> Despite the US having the highest rate of firearms-related homicide in the industrialised world, the relationship between gun culture and violence is poorly understood. A recent study found that treating violence like an infectious disease led to a dramatic fall in shootings and killings.
> 
> Overall, Branas’s study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.
> 
> Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Were those "victims" carrying legally at the time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who cares more guns more dead people. Can we follow the rest of the world and save lives ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who's "we", Chuckles?  The only "we" I can think of that you legitimately belong to would be arrogant foreigners who want to enjoy all America has to offer while superciliously sneering at it and its people.  And you and your ilk are more than welcome to "follow the rest of the world" . . . right over to THEIR countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Remember that immigrants what not only made this country but what keeps making great. We tell you that we lived in countries where people don't have to get shot regularly it'll be wise to study why. And not be arrogant and keep counting dead bodies.
Click to expand...


Remember that this country was made by immigrants who wanted to be part of what it is, not immigrants who wanted to tell those already here how they were doing it wrong.

If you didn't want to understand America and be part of it, you shouldn't have come here.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Issa said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link the stats please.
> 
> 
> 
> no problem.
> 
> Packing heat may backfire. People who carry guns are far likelier to get shot – and killed – than those who are unarmed, a study of shooting victims in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has found.
> 
> It would be impractical – not to say unethical – to randomly assign volunteers to carry a gun or not and see what happens. So Charles Branas‘s team at the University of Pennsylvania analysed 677 shootings over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at the time, and compared them to other Philly residents of similar age, sex and ethnicity. The team also accounted for other potentially confounding differences, such as the socioeconomic status of their neighbourhood.
> 
> Despite the US having the highest rate of firearms-related homicide in the industrialised world, the relationship between gun culture and violence is poorly understood. A recent study found that treating violence like an infectious disease led to a dramatic fall in shootings and killings.
> 
> Overall, Branas’s study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.
> 
> Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Were those "victims" carrying legally at the time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who cares more guns more dead people. Can we follow the rest of the world and save lives ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gun laws do not reduce the murder rate.
> 
> After al those countries like the UK passed strict gun laws their murder rates went up and have never dropped to below the pre gun law levels
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still lower than the US. And still the US has the highest rate of gun deaths than any western nation, heck even worse than some war torn countries.
Click to expand...


And their gun laws have nothing to do with it.

The murder rate in the UK has always been lower even before their gun laws and there are many reasons having to do with societal, cultural, socioeconomic and other variables that you don't seem to understand


----------



## Issa

Cecilie1200 said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> no problem.
> 
> Packing heat may backfire. People who carry guns are far likelier to get shot – and killed – than those who are unarmed, a study of shooting victims in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has found.
> 
> It would be impractical – not to say unethical – to randomly assign volunteers to carry a gun or not and see what happens. So Charles Branas‘s team at the University of Pennsylvania analysed 677 shootings over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at the time, and compared them to other Philly residents of similar age, sex and ethnicity. The team also accounted for other potentially confounding differences, such as the socioeconomic status of their neighbourhood.
> 
> Despite the US having the highest rate of firearms-related homicide in the industrialised world, the relationship between gun culture and violence is poorly understood. A recent study found that treating violence like an infectious disease led to a dramatic fall in shootings and killings.
> 
> Overall, Branas’s study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.
> 
> Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed
> 
> 
> 
> Were those "victims" carrying legally at the time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who cares more guns more dead people. Can we follow the rest of the world and save lives ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gun laws do not reduce the murder rate.
> 
> After al those countries like the UK passed strict gun laws their murder rates went up and have never dropped to below the pre gun law levels
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still lower than the US. And still the US has the highest rate of gun deaths than any western nation, heck even worse than some war torn countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> My opinion about guns is better because the stats are on my side, less access to guns less fatalities it's very simple. Since your son traveled the world tell him if he ever felt the need to own a gun overseas, and get back to me. This country is deep to its knees in violence you guys who grew up here are numb to the violence and dead bodies, be it kids or adults you got used to it. We the ones who lived in safer countries, tell you it can be achievable by simple banning guns.....and i'm very confident one day it'll be a reality and the US will taste the safety like other countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol
> Violence is only prevalent in Urban progressive controlled areas you stupid ass motherfucker. So shove your fucking gun laws Up ass you cowardly little fuck...
> 
> Rural areas of America are awash in firearms... no violent crime to speak of.
> Just because firearms make you uncomfortable does not mean that you get the right to force that fucking Cowardly shit on other people...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> is this study a fakenews?
> 
> The study found that from 1999 through 2006, 23,649 Americans age 19 or younger died from gunshots. Rates in the most-rural and most-urban counties were nearly the same -- at 4 deaths per 100,000 children and teens, and 4.6 per 100,000, respectively.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Man, you really ARE a Johnny-Come-Lately.  If you were an actual American, rather than a second-rate transplant with delusions of grandeur, you'd know that the "fakenews" here is YOUR long-since-debunked bullshit.
> 
> Those "Americans 19 or younger dying from gunshots"?  Mostly gang members or others engaging in other criminal activity.  Admittedly, that's a problem in and of itself, but it's a far cry from the vision of innocent children being gunned down willy-nilly that you're imagining.  Furthermore, there are gun deaths and then there are gun deaths.  People under the age of 19 in rural areas are at MUCH less risk of gun violence from others, while they are more likely to choose a gun if they _commit suicide_.  Which makes your comparison apples and oranges.
> 
> Once you eliminate the criminals and the suicides, the youth gun death picture becomes VERY different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Eliminate what you want to better the stats. But the fact is here thousands die by being shot. Other countries don't have this madness because thry have less guns, in act I grow up in Morocco and we have almost none, and in the 23 years i lived there hardly anyone died from being shot.
> 
> Gun violence is a ultural issue in America. Hiding behind an old amendment is a stupid excuse...till we join other countries in banning guns. We gonna still count thousands of bodies. Ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not "eliminating what I want to better the stats", dumbass.  I'm clarifying the stats to understand the problems that actually need addressing, rather than using them vaguely so as to hide behind them, like you.  People like you are the reason Mark Twain said that there are three types of untruth:  lies, damned lies, and statistics.
> 
> The fact is, there aren't nearly as many people getting shot here by other people as you think there are.  And the reasons behind those deaths are almost never what you believe they are.  That means that the solution is DEFINITELY not what you want.
> 
> I'll say it again:  if other countries are so damned superior to the US, go live in them.  No one asked you to barge in here and start redecorating.
Click to expand...

Most violent country and as an American I'm trying to make things better, and thats a right that exercise, through voting, lobbying, and other ways.
That disc of if you don't like it go somewhere is childish. The US is not paradise it has its flaws and the biggest one is gun violence, we as those who lived in gun free country we are trying to explain to you...you can't prevent seing thousands of Americans dead as if it's a war zone. And especially kids.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Issa said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Were those "victims" carrying legally at the time?
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares more guns more dead people. Can we follow the rest of the world and save lives ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gun laws do not reduce the murder rate.
> 
> After al those countries like the UK passed strict gun laws their murder rates went up and have never dropped to below the pre gun law levels
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still lower than the US. And still the US has the highest rate of gun deaths than any western nation, heck even worse than some war torn countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol
> Violence is only prevalent in Urban progressive controlled areas you stupid ass motherfucker. So shove your fucking gun laws Up ass you cowardly little fuck...
> 
> Rural areas of America are awash in firearms... no violent crime to speak of.
> Just because firearms make you uncomfortable does not mean that you get the right to force that fucking Cowardly shit on other people...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> is this study a fakenews?
> 
> The study found that from 1999 through 2006, 23,649 Americans age 19 or younger died from gunshots. Rates in the most-rural and most-urban counties were nearly the same -- at 4 deaths per 100,000 children and teens, and 4.6 per 100,000, respectively.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Man, you really ARE a Johnny-Come-Lately.  If you were an actual American, rather than a second-rate transplant with delusions of grandeur, you'd know that the "fakenews" here is YOUR long-since-debunked bullshit.
> 
> Those "Americans 19 or younger dying from gunshots"?  Mostly gang members or others engaging in other criminal activity.  Admittedly, that's a problem in and of itself, but it's a far cry from the vision of innocent children being gunned down willy-nilly that you're imagining.  Furthermore, there are gun deaths and then there are gun deaths.  People under the age of 19 in rural areas are at MUCH less risk of gun violence from others, while they are more likely to choose a gun if they _commit suicide_.  Which makes your comparison apples and oranges.
> 
> Once you eliminate the criminals and the suicides, the youth gun death picture becomes VERY different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Eliminate what you want to better the stats. But the fact is here thousands die by being shot. Other countries don't have this madness because thry have less guns, in act I grow up in Morocco and we have almost none, and in the 23 years i lived there hardly anyone died from being shot.
> 
> Gun violence is a ultural issue in America. Hiding behind an old amendment is a stupid excuse...till we join other countries in banning guns. We gonna still count thousands of bodies. Ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not "eliminating what I want to better the stats", dumbass.  I'm clarifying the stats to understand the problems that actually need addressing, rather than using them vaguely so as to hide behind them, like you.  People like you are the reason Mark Twain said that there are three types of untruth:  lies, damned lies, and statistics.
> 
> The fact is, there aren't nearly as many people getting shot here by other people as you think there are.  And the reasons behind those deaths are almost never what you believe they are.  That means that the solution is DEFINITELY not what you want.
> 
> I'll say it again:  if other countries are so damned superior to the US, go live in them.  No one asked you to barge in here and start redecorating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most violent country and as an American I'm trying to make things better, and thats a right that exercise, through voting, lobbying, and other ways.
> That disc of if you don't like it go somewhere is childish. The US is not paradise it has its flaws and the biggest one is gun violence, we as those who lived in gun free country we are trying to explain to you...you can't prevent seing thousands of Americans dead as if it's a war zone. And especially kids.
Click to expand...


Banning guns won't make anything better


----------



## Issa

Skull Pilot said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> no problem.
> 
> Packing heat may backfire. People who carry guns are far likelier to get shot – and killed – than those who are unarmed, a study of shooting victims in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has found.
> 
> It would be impractical – not to say unethical – to randomly assign volunteers to carry a gun or not and see what happens. So Charles Branas‘s team at the University of Pennsylvania analysed 677 shootings over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at the time, and compared them to other Philly residents of similar age, sex and ethnicity. The team also accounted for other potentially confounding differences, such as the socioeconomic status of their neighbourhood.
> 
> Despite the US having the highest rate of firearms-related homicide in the industrialised world, the relationship between gun culture and violence is poorly understood. A recent study found that treating violence like an infectious disease led to a dramatic fall in shootings and killings.
> 
> Overall, Branas’s study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.
> 
> Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed
> 
> 
> 
> Were those "victims" carrying legally at the time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who cares more guns more dead people. Can we follow the rest of the world and save lives ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gun laws do not reduce the murder rate.
> 
> After al those countries like the UK passed strict gun laws their murder rates went up and have never dropped to below the pre gun law levels
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still lower than the US. And still the US has the highest rate of gun deaths than any western nation, heck even worse than some war torn countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And their gun laws have nothing to do with it.
> 
> The murder rate in the UK has always been lower even before their gun laws and there are many reasons having to do with societal, cultural, socioeconomic and other variables that you don't seem to understand
Click to expand...

I do understand because I visited the UK and I live in the US...America refuses to leave the wild west mentality behind. Kids are submerged with violent contents from cartoons, movies, media, and so forth.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Redfish said:


> the 2nd amendment allows us to protect ourselves from the government, not the other way around.
> 
> Geez, people, wake up.


Wrong.

The Second Amendment acknowledges an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense, unconnected with militia service.

The Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ the First.

The right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances through the political and legal process cannot be abridged by a wrongheaded minority who subjectively perceive government to have become ‘tyrannical.’

There is no Second Amendment ‘right’ to ‘overthrow’ a lawfully elected government reflecting the will of a majority of the people through ‘force of arms.’


----------



## Issa

Skull Pilot said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares more guns more dead people. Can we follow the rest of the world and save lives ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gun laws do not reduce the murder rate.
> 
> After al those countries like the UK passed strict gun laws their murder rates went up and have never dropped to below the pre gun law levels
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still lower than the US. And still the US has the highest rate of gun deaths than any western nation, heck even worse than some war torn countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> is this study a fakenews?
> 
> The study found that from 1999 through 2006, 23,649 Americans age 19 or younger died from gunshots. Rates in the most-rural and most-urban counties were nearly the same -- at 4 deaths per 100,000 children and teens, and 4.6 per 100,000, respectively.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Man, you really ARE a Johnny-Come-Lately.  If you were an actual American, rather than a second-rate transplant with delusions of grandeur, you'd know that the "fakenews" here is YOUR long-since-debunked bullshit.
> 
> Those "Americans 19 or younger dying from gunshots"?  Mostly gang members or others engaging in other criminal activity.  Admittedly, that's a problem in and of itself, but it's a far cry from the vision of innocent children being gunned down willy-nilly that you're imagining.  Furthermore, there are gun deaths and then there are gun deaths.  People under the age of 19 in rural areas are at MUCH less risk of gun violence from others, while they are more likely to choose a gun if they _commit suicide_.  Which makes your comparison apples and oranges.
> 
> Once you eliminate the criminals and the suicides, the youth gun death picture becomes VERY different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Eliminate what you want to better the stats. But the fact is here thousands die by being shot. Other countries don't have this madness because thry have less guns, in act I grow up in Morocco and we have almost none, and in the 23 years i lived there hardly anyone died from being shot.
> 
> Gun violence is a ultural issue in America. Hiding behind an old amendment is a stupid excuse...till we join other countries in banning guns. We gonna still count thousands of bodies. Ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not "eliminating what I want to better the stats", dumbass.  I'm clarifying the stats to understand the problems that actually need addressing, rather than using them vaguely so as to hide behind them, like you.  People like you are the reason Mark Twain said that there are three types of untruth:  lies, damned lies, and statistics.
> 
> The fact is, there aren't nearly as many people getting shot here by other people as you think there are.  And the reasons behind those deaths are almost never what you believe they are.  That means that the solution is DEFINITELY not what you want.
> 
> I'll say it again:  if other countries are so damned superior to the US, go live in them.  No one asked you to barge in here and start redecorating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most violent country and as an American I'm trying to make things better, and thats a right that exercise, through voting, lobbying, and other ways.
> That disc of if you don't like it go somewhere is childish. The US is not paradise it has its flaws and the biggest one is gun violence, we as those who lived in gun free country we are trying to explain to you...you can't prevent seing thousands of Americans dead as if it's a war zone. And especially kids.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Banning guns won't make anything better
Click to expand...

It will...ask over 100 countries that have almost no guns available. The only country where might collect your kid dead from school is the US. Or might even get shot before you pick him up. It's insane you guys became numb to seing this horror.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Lakhota said:


> When will the carnage end?  Time to rewrite the archaic 2nd Amendment.


Well, no.

Amendments can only be repealed by amending the Constitution to indeed do so – there are no ‘rewrites,’ as that’s the purview of the Supreme Court to determine what the Constitution means.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its caselaw – including the Second Amendment.

And there’s nothing in current Second Amendment jurisprudence ‘responsible’ for yesterday’s school shooting, and no political will to repeal the Second Amendment.


----------



## Rustic

Issa said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Were those "victims" carrying legally at the time?
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares more guns more dead people. Can we follow the rest of the world and save lives ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gun laws do not reduce the murder rate.
> 
> After al those countries like the UK passed strict gun laws their murder rates went up and have never dropped to below the pre gun law levels
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still lower than the US. And still the US has the highest rate of gun deaths than any western nation, heck even worse than some war torn countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol
> Violence is only prevalent in Urban progressive controlled areas you stupid ass motherfucker. So shove your fucking gun laws Up ass you cowardly little fuck...
> 
> Rural areas of America are awash in firearms... no violent crime to speak of.
> Just because firearms make you uncomfortable does not mean that you get the right to force that fucking Cowardly shit on other people...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> is this study a fakenews?
> 
> The study found that from 1999 through 2006, 23,649 Americans age 19 or younger died from gunshots. Rates in the most-rural and most-urban counties were nearly the same -- at 4 deaths per 100,000 children and teens, and 4.6 per 100,000, respectively.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Man, you really ARE a Johnny-Come-Lately.  If you were an actual American, rather than a second-rate transplant with delusions of grandeur, you'd know that the "fakenews" here is YOUR long-since-debunked bullshit.
> 
> Those "Americans 19 or younger dying from gunshots"?  Mostly gang members or others engaging in other criminal activity.  Admittedly, that's a problem in and of itself, but it's a far cry from the vision of innocent children being gunned down willy-nilly that you're imagining.  Furthermore, there are gun deaths and then there are gun deaths.  People under the age of 19 in rural areas are at MUCH less risk of gun violence from others, while they are more likely to choose a gun if they _commit suicide_.  Which makes your comparison apples and oranges.
> 
> Once you eliminate the criminals and the suicides, the youth gun death picture becomes VERY different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Eliminate what you want to better the stats. But the fact is here thousands die by being shot. Other countries don't have this madness because thry have less guns, in act I grow up in Morocco and we have almost none, and in the 23 years i lived there hardly anyone died from being shot.
> 
> Gun violence is a ultural issue in America. Hiding behind an old amendment is a stupid excuse...till we join other countries in banning guns. We gonna still count thousands of bodies. Ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not "eliminating what I want to better the stats", dumbass.  I'm clarifying the stats to understand the problems that actually need addressing, rather than using them vaguely so as to hide behind them, like you.  People like you are the reason Mark Twain said that there are three types of untruth:  lies, damned lies, and statistics.
> 
> The fact is, there aren't nearly as many people getting shot here by other people as you think there are.  And the reasons behind those deaths are almost never what you believe they are.  That means that the solution is DEFINITELY not what you want.
> 
> I'll say it again:  if other countries are so damned superior to the US, go live in them.  No one asked you to barge in here and start redecorating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most violent country and as an American I'm trying to make things better, and thats a right that exercise, through voting, lobbying, and other ways.
> That disc of if you don't like it go somewhere is childish. The US is not paradise it has its flaws and the biggest one is gun violence, we as those who lived in gun free country we are trying to explain to you...you can't prevent seing thousands of Americans dead as if it's a war zone. And especially kids.
Click to expand...

Firearm violence is a non-issue in this country overall, so shut the fuck up you pussy whipped bitch. LOL


----------



## Papageorgio

Issa said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link the stats please.
> 
> 
> 
> no problem.
> 
> Packing heat may backfire. People who carry guns are far likelier to get shot – and killed – than those who are unarmed, a study of shooting victims in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has found.
> 
> It would be impractical – not to say unethical – to randomly assign volunteers to carry a gun or not and see what happens. So Charles Branas‘s team at the University of Pennsylvania analysed 677 shootings over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at the time, and compared them to other Philly residents of similar age, sex and ethnicity. The team also accounted for other potentially confounding differences, such as the socioeconomic status of their neighbourhood.
> 
> Despite the US having the highest rate of firearms-related homicide in the industrialised world, the relationship between gun culture and violence is poorly understood. A recent study found that treating violence like an infectious disease led to a dramatic fall in shootings and killings.
> 
> Overall, Branas’s study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.
> 
> Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Were those "victims" carrying legally at the time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who cares more guns more dead people. Can we follow the rest of the world and save lives ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who's "we", Chuckles?  The only "we" I can think of that you legitimately belong to would be arrogant foreigners who want to enjoy all America has to offer while superciliously sneering at it and its people.  And you and your ilk are more than welcome to "follow the rest of the world" . . . right over to THEIR countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Remember that immigrants what not only made this country but what keeps making great. We tell you that we lived in countries where people don't have to get shot regularly it'll be wise to study why. And not be arrogant and keep counting dead bodies.
Click to expand...


Great Britain further restricted gun laws in 1986, the gun deaths dropped but the murder rate continued to rise until 1995 when they hire more law enforcement officers. Instead of guns, the murders found other methods to kill people. You want to kill someone, you will find a away.


----------



## Issa

Papageorgio said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> no problem.
> 
> Packing heat may backfire. People who carry guns are far likelier to get shot – and killed – than those who are unarmed, a study of shooting victims in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has found.
> 
> It would be impractical – not to say unethical – to randomly assign volunteers to carry a gun or not and see what happens. So Charles Branas‘s team at the University of Pennsylvania analysed 677 shootings over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at the time, and compared them to other Philly residents of similar age, sex and ethnicity. The team also accounted for other potentially confounding differences, such as the socioeconomic status of their neighbourhood.
> 
> Despite the US having the highest rate of firearms-related homicide in the industrialised world, the relationship between gun culture and violence is poorly understood. A recent study found that treating violence like an infectious disease led to a dramatic fall in shootings and killings.
> 
> Overall, Branas’s study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.
> 
> Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed
> 
> 
> 
> Were those "victims" carrying legally at the time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who cares more guns more dead people. Can we follow the rest of the world and save lives ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who's "we", Chuckles?  The only "we" I can think of that you legitimately belong to would be arrogant foreigners who want to enjoy all America has to offer while superciliously sneering at it and its people.  And you and your ilk are more than welcome to "follow the rest of the world" . . . right over to THEIR countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Remember that immigrants what not only made this country but what keeps making great. We tell you that we lived in countries where people don't have to get shot regularly it'll be wise to study why. And not be arrogant and keep counting dead bodies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great Britain further restricted gun laws in 1986, the gun deaths dropped but the murder rate continued to rise until 1995 when they hire more law enforcement officers. Instead of guns, the murders found other methods to kill people. You want to kill someone, you will find a away.
Click to expand...

That's an apologist argument. Gun deaths and deaths from violence in general are higher in the US. And as I havestated as an example multiple times , a person with a gun can kill multiple pepple at once effortlessly , now goodluck with a knife or a hammer. 

Mean time I tell my friends all over the world, that there are people who defend owning guns, they can't comprehend it and they view you as crazy, paranoid, violent and lunatic. 

Ps: I know you don't give a fuck about the rest of the world, and you don't give a fuck about kids being killed.


----------



## Papageorgio

Issa said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Were those "victims" carrying legally at the time?
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares more guns more dead people. Can we follow the rest of the world and save lives ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who's "we", Chuckles?  The only "we" I can think of that you legitimately belong to would be arrogant foreigners who want to enjoy all America has to offer while superciliously sneering at it and its people.  And you and your ilk are more than welcome to "follow the rest of the world" . . . right over to THEIR countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Remember that immigrants what not only made this country but what keeps making great. We tell you that we lived in countries where people don't have to get shot regularly it'll be wise to study why. And not be arrogant and keep counting dead bodies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great Britain further restricted gun laws in 1986, the gun deaths dropped but the murder rate continued to rise until 1995 when they hire more law enforcement officers. Instead of guns, the murders found other methods to kill people. You want to kill someone, you will find a away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's an apologist argument. Gun deaths and deaths from violence in general are higher in the US. And as I havestated as an example multiple times , a person with a gun can kill multiple pepple at once effortlessly , now goodluck with a knife or a hammer.
> 
> Mean time I tell my friends all over the world, that there are people who defend owning guns, they can't comprehend it and they view you as crazy, paranoid, violent and lunatic.
> 
> Ps: I know you don't give a fuck about the rest of the world, and you don't give a fuck about kids being killed.
Click to expand...


First off, you are wrong, if guns were the reason for the violence why did gun deaths go down and murders go up? According to what you claim, gun deaths would go down and murders would go down but it simply isn’t true. So, the issue isn’t the guns, the issue is the culture here in the United States. We need to change the culture, I have stated this fact many times in the past but it seems to go beyond people that have one agenda. The other issue is a mental health issue. 

The rest of your post is an emotional rant and does nothing to further the discussion and quite frankly they are emotion based lies. That seems to be a left tactic like tossing in a race card, highly emotional yet no substance.

You want to change the culture, fine, then you are working on solutions, to simply ban guns won’t change anything and Britain’s stats proved that.


----------



## charwin95

Cecilie1200 said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go back to your play station kid.
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you.  Go back to your dildo, Nancy.
> 
> We will never give in.  Ever.
> 
> Give it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not now but in the future it will happen. It's inevitable. With the migrants fertility rate and civilisation reaching the US and spreading it will happen. Red necks still think it's 18th century.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pussy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pussy are those who have guns.
> Ame4ican society is so infested with the love for guns and violence. Time to get civilised Mr redneck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, feel free to show us your "bravery" and march down a street in a Chicago ghetto at midnight, completely unarmed.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


So why in the world you will that to begin with?


----------



## Issa

Papageorgio said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares more guns more dead people. Can we follow the rest of the world and save lives ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who's "we", Chuckles?  The only "we" I can think of that you legitimately belong to would be arrogant foreigners who want to enjoy all America has to offer while superciliously sneering at it and its people.  And you and your ilk are more than welcome to "follow the rest of the world" . . . right over to THEIR countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Remember that immigrants what not only made this country but what keeps making great. We tell you that we lived in countries where people don't have to get shot regularly it'll be wise to study why. And not be arrogant and keep counting dead bodies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great Britain further restricted gun laws in 1986, the gun deaths dropped but the murder rate continued to rise until 1995 when they hire more law enforcement officers. Instead of guns, the murders found other methods to kill people. You want to kill someone, you will find a away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's an apologist argument. Gun deaths and deaths from violence in general are higher in the US. And as I havestated as an example multiple times , a person with a gun can kill multiple pepple at once effortlessly , now goodluck with a knife or a hammer.
> 
> Mean time I tell my friends all over the world, that there are people who defend owning guns, they can't comprehend it and they view you as crazy, paranoid, violent and lunatic.
> 
> Ps: I know you don't give a fuck about the rest of the world, and you don't give a fuck about kids being killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First off, you are wrong, if guns were the reason for the violence why did gun deaths go down and murders go up? According to what you claim, gun deaths would go down and murders would go down but it simply isn’t true. So, the issue isn’t the guns, the issue is the culture here in the United States. We need to change the culture, I have stated this fact many times in the past but it seems to go beyond people that have one agenda. The other issue is a mental health issue.
> 
> The rest of your post is an emotional rant and does nothing to further the discussion and quite frankly they are emotion based lies. That seems to be a left tactic like tossing in a race card, highly emotional yet no substance.
> 
> You want to change the culture, fine, then you are working on solutions, to simply ban guns won’t change anything and Britain’s stats proved that.
Click to expand...

Oh my god I can't Beleive that after 25 years i would live in the US and would come across people who defend owning guns. After every mass shooting, we used to talk about it and say that Americans are crazy owning guns. Fast forward and here i m arguing with the crazies.
It is so simple less guns less deaths, look at most of the world they dont have this carnage. Our murder rate with guns and without is by far the worst.

I simplified it many times, Moroccans can be hot headedd we get in fights quickly I'm sure if we had guns we would have a similar rate like the US but thank God we don't. So worse case scenario is few cuts and bruises and not bodies in plastic bags.

You guys are fucking nuts.


----------



## Papageorgio

Issa said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who's "we", Chuckles?  The only "we" I can think of that you legitimately belong to would be arrogant foreigners who want to enjoy all America has to offer while superciliously sneering at it and its people.  And you and your ilk are more than welcome to "follow the rest of the world" . . . right over to THEIR countries.
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that immigrants what not only made this country but what keeps making great. We tell you that we lived in countries where people don't have to get shot regularly it'll be wise to study why. And not be arrogant and keep counting dead bodies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great Britain further restricted gun laws in 1986, the gun deaths dropped but the murder rate continued to rise until 1995 when they hire more law enforcement officers. Instead of guns, the murders found other methods to kill people. You want to kill someone, you will find a away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's an apologist argument. Gun deaths and deaths from violence in general are higher in the US. And as I havestated as an example multiple times , a person with a gun can kill multiple pepple at once effortlessly , now goodluck with a knife or a hammer.
> 
> Mean time I tell my friends all over the world, that there are people who defend owning guns, they can't comprehend it and they view you as crazy, paranoid, violent and lunatic.
> 
> Ps: I know you don't give a fuck about the rest of the world, and you don't give a fuck about kids being killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First off, you are wrong, if guns were the reason for the violence why did gun deaths go down and murders go up? According to what you claim, gun deaths would go down and murders would go down but it simply isn’t true. So, the issue isn’t the guns, the issue is the culture here in the United States. We need to change the culture, I have stated this fact many times in the past but it seems to go beyond people that have one agenda. The other issue is a mental health issue.
> 
> The rest of your post is an emotional rant and does nothing to further the discussion and quite frankly they are emotion based lies. That seems to be a left tactic like tossing in a race card, highly emotional yet no substance.
> 
> You want to change the culture, fine, then you are working on solutions, to simply ban guns won’t change anything and Britain’s stats proved that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh my god I can't Beleive that after 25 years i would live in the US and would come across people who defend owning guns. After every mass shooting, we used to talk about it and say that Americans are crazy owning guns. Fast forward and here i m arguing with the crazies.
> It is so simple less guns less deaths, look at most of the world they dont have this carnage. Our murder rate with guns and without is by far the worst.
> 
> I simplified it many times, Moroccans can be hot headedd we get in fights quickly I'm sure if we had guns we would have a similar rate like the US but thank God we don't. So worse case scenario is few cuts and bruises and not bodies in plastic bags.
> 
> You guys are fucking nuts.
Click to expand...


Oh my god, I can’t believe after 50 years there are still people that don’t get it. I don’t and will never own a gun, however I the right and the freedom that others have to do what they want to legally do. Just owning a gun doesn’t make you violent, it is less than one 10th of 1% that do 100% of the killings. You ignore statistics, you ignore the Constitution and you ignore the freedoms that make this country great. 

I respect your opinion, however I disagree with you and your comments are very ignorant as to the real issues.

I haven’t been in a fight since I was 12, it seems your culture is to violent for me, it’s amazing that you can’t be trusted with a weapon.


----------



## Issa

Papageorgio said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that immigrants what not only made this country but what keeps making great. We tell you that we lived in countries where people don't have to get shot regularly it'll be wise to study why. And not be arrogant and keep counting dead bodies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great Britain further restricted gun laws in 1986, the gun deaths dropped but the murder rate continued to rise until 1995 when they hire more law enforcement officers. Instead of guns, the murders found other methods to kill people. You want to kill someone, you will find a away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's an apologist argument. Gun deaths and deaths from violence in general are higher in the US. And as I havestated as an example multiple times , a person with a gun can kill multiple pepple at once effortlessly , now goodluck with a knife or a hammer.
> 
> Mean time I tell my friends all over the world, that there are people who defend owning guns, they can't comprehend it and they view you as crazy, paranoid, violent and lunatic.
> 
> Ps: I know you don't give a fuck about the rest of the world, and you don't give a fuck about kids being killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First off, you are wrong, if guns were the reason for the violence why did gun deaths go down and murders go up? According to what you claim, gun deaths would go down and murders would go down but it simply isn’t true. So, the issue isn’t the guns, the issue is the culture here in the United States. We need to change the culture, I have stated this fact many times in the past but it seems to go beyond people that have one agenda. The other issue is a mental health issue.
> 
> The rest of your post is an emotional rant and does nothing to further the discussion and quite frankly they are emotion based lies. That seems to be a left tactic like tossing in a race card, highly emotional yet no substance.
> 
> You want to change the culture, fine, then you are working on solutions, to simply ban guns won’t change anything and Britain’s stats proved that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh my god I can't Beleive that after 25 years i would live in the US and would come across people who defend owning guns. After every mass shooting, we used to talk about it and say that Americans are crazy owning guns. Fast forward and here i m arguing with the crazies.
> It is so simple less guns less deaths, look at most of the world they dont have this carnage. Our murder rate with guns and without is by far the worst.
> 
> I simplified it many times, Moroccans can be hot headedd we get in fights quickly I'm sure if we had guns we would have a similar rate like the US but thank God we don't. So worse case scenario is few cuts and bruises and not bodies in plastic bags.
> 
> You guys are fucking nuts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh my god, I can’t believe after 50 years there are still people that don’t get it. I don’t and will never own a gun, however I the right and the freedom that others have to do what they want to legally do. Just owning a gun doesn’t make you violent, it is less than one 10th of 1% that do 100% of the killings. You ignore statistics, you ignore the Constitution and you ignore the freedoms that make this country great.
> 
> I respect your opinion, however I disagree with you and your comments are very ignorant as to the real issues.
> 
> I haven’t been in a fight since I was 12, it seems your culture is to violent for me, it’s amazing that you can’t be trusted with a weapon.
Click to expand...

Lol I've witnessed more fights in the US than in Morocco. My reference was is if we had guns some would definitely used them. But thank God we don't.

So why the hell the US surpasses most nations in gun related deaths?


----------



## regent

All those kids gone just so the gun industry can make  a few bucks, and worse. we, the American people allowed it to happen.


----------



## Lakhota

regent said:


> All those kids gone just so the gun industry can make  a few bucks, and worse. we, the American people allowed it to happen.



I agree.  I still remember when then President George W. Bush signed the PLCAA protecting gun manufacturers and dealers from liability.

The *Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA)* is a United States law which protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S. based manufacturer of consumer products is held responsible. They may also be held liable for negligent entrustment when they have reason to know a gun is intended for use in a crime.

*Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act - Wikipedia*


----------



## Thinker101

regent said:


> All those kids gone just so the gun industry can make  a few bucks, and worse. we, the American people allowed it to happen.



WTF, what ever happened to "if you see something, say something".  Kids were aware, schools were aware, utube was aware, FBI was informed....and nothing happens.  Sure, it's the gun industry that's at fault.


----------



## asaratis

Papageorgio said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares more guns more dead people. Can we follow the rest of the world and save lives ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who's "we", Chuckles?  The only "we" I can think of that you legitimately belong to would be arrogant foreigners who want to enjoy all America has to offer while superciliously sneering at it and its people.  And you and your ilk are more than welcome to "follow the rest of the world" . . . right over to THEIR countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Remember that immigrants what not only made this country but what keeps making great. We tell you that we lived in countries where people don't have to get shot regularly it'll be wise to study why. And not be arrogant and keep counting dead bodies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great Britain further restricted gun laws in 1986, the gun deaths dropped but the murder rate continued to rise until 1995 when they hire more law enforcement officers. Instead of guns, the murders found other methods to kill people. You want to kill someone, you will find a away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's an apologist argument. Gun deaths and deaths from violence in general are higher in the US. And as I havestated as an example multiple times , a person with a gun can kill multiple pepple at once effortlessly , now goodluck with a knife or a hammer.
> 
> Mean time I tell my friends all over the world, that there are people who defend owning guns, they can't comprehend it and they view you as crazy, paranoid, violent and lunatic.
> 
> Ps: I know you don't give a fuck about the rest of the world, and you don't give a fuck about kids being killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First off, you are wrong, if guns were the reason for the violence why did gun deaths go down and murders go up? According to what you claim, gun deaths would go down and murders would go down but it simply isn’t true. So, the issue isn’t the guns, the issue is the culture here in the United States. We need to change the culture, I have stated this fact many times in the past but it seems to go beyond people that have one agenda. The other issue is a mental health issue.
> 
> The rest of your post is an emotional rant and does nothing to further the discussion and quite frankly they are emotion based lies. That seems to be a left tactic like tossing in a race card, highly emotional yet no substance.
> 
> You want to change the culture, fine, then you are working on solutions, to simply ban guns won’t change anything and Britain’s stats proved that.
Click to expand...

.....also, the strict gun laws in certain places here often foster MORE gun crimes.  Kennesaw, Georgia has a law that says every household must have a firearm.  The gun crime rate in Kennesaw is lower than almost any other place in the nation.   Chicago has the most stringent gun laws...and the highest gun crime rate.

*650 murders last year in Chicago.*
http://www.wnd.com/2007/04/41196/
*

ZERO murders in the last 25 years in Kennesaw.*
25 years murder-free  in ‘Gun Town USA’


----------



## asaratis

regent said:


> All those kids gone just so the gun industry can make  a few bucks, and worse. we, the American people allowed it to happen.


It is a mental health issue, not a gun issue.  If there were no loud, BANG BANG guns in the world, mass murders would likely be accomplished with machetes without much attention grabbing noise...or by bombs with far more devastating effects.

The mental issues need to be discovered and addressed BEFORE the mass killer acts out his plan, no matter what the weapons will be.


----------



## turtledude

Lakhota said:


> When will the carnage end?  Time to rewrite the archaic 2nd Amendment.


time to ignore the gun banners who squeal in delight every time there is a shooting so they can use the blood of innocents to try to drown out our rights.  You hate the NRA and gun owners because they don't support the leftwing candidates you crave


----------



## Lakhota

turtledude said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> When will the carnage end?  Time to rewrite the archaic 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> time to ignore the gun banners who squeal in delight every time there is a shooting so they can use the blood of innocents to try to drown out our rights.  You hate the NRA and gun owners because they don't support the leftwing candidates you crave
Click to expand...


I cherish my guns - but I do detest the NRA.  I was a member for about 30 years until after it was hijacked by radicals in 1977.


----------



## Issa

turtledude said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> When will the carnage end?  Time to rewrite the archaic 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> time to ignore the gun banners who squeal in delight every time there is a shooting so they can use the blood of innocents to try to drown out our rights.  You hate the NRA and gun owners because they don't support the leftwing candidates you crave
Click to expand...

Nope because people are dying by the thousands.


----------



## turtledude

Issa said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> When will the carnage end?  Time to rewrite the archaic 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> time to ignore the gun banners who squeal in delight every time there is a shooting so they can use the blood of innocents to try to drown out our rights.  You hate the NRA and gun owners because they don't support the leftwing candidates you crave
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope because people are dying by the thousands.
Click to expand...

really? gun deaths have declined over the years despite millions upon millions more guns in circulation and millions of people carrying guns legally. So you are either ignorant of the fact or lying.  Most gun deaths are SUICIDES.  the remaining number that are not justifiable or excusable shootings are homicides mainly and those are caused at rates of 80-90% by people who are not legally able to own or use guns

so stuff the silly dramatics.  Gun violence in tis country-especially outside urban areas full of drug gangs is minuscule


----------



## turtledude

Lakhota said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> When will the carnage end?  Time to rewrite the archaic 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> time to ignore the gun banners who squeal in delight every time there is a shooting so they can use the blood of innocents to try to drown out our rights.  You hate the NRA and gun owners because they don't support the leftwing candidates you crave
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I cherish my guns - but I do detest the NRA.  I was a member for about 30 years until after it was hijacked by radicals in 1977.
Click to expand...


that change was a caused by the Democrats adopting gun control in a specious effort to pretend they were doing something about crime without upsetting their big black constituency which (often correctly) saw calls for crack downs on street violence as being anti black.  Dems then started pushing gun control to not only pretend it was doing something about crime but also to retaliate against the NRA for saying Bullshit to the Dems bogus crime control schemes


----------



## Issa

turtledude said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> When will the carnage end?  Time to rewrite the archaic 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> time to ignore the gun banners who squeal in delight every time there is a shooting so they can use the blood of innocents to try to drown out our rights.  You hate the NRA and gun owners because they don't support the leftwing candidates you crave
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope because people are dying by the thousands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> really? gun deaths have declined over the years despite millions upon millions more guns in circulation and millions of people carrying guns legally. So you are either ignorant of the fact or lying.  Most gun deaths are SUICIDES.  the remaining number that are not justifiable or excusable shootings are homicides mainly and those are caused at rates of 80-90% by people who are not legally able to own or use guns
> 
> so stuff the silly dramatics.  Gun violence in tis country-especially outside urban areas full of drug gangs is minuscule
Click to expand...

USA is the worst country in terms of gu related dearhs/mass shootings. So there is clearly a gun problem. Why do you need a gun ? Insecure? Or ready to kill when you are pissed at the world?


----------



## Issa

turtledude said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> When will the carnage end?  Time to rewrite the archaic 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> time to ignore the gun banners who squeal in delight every time there is a shooting so they can use the blood of innocents to try to drown out our rights.  You hate the NRA and gun owners because they don't support the leftwing candidates you crave
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I cherish my guns - but I do detest the NRA.  I was a member for about 30 years until after it was hijacked by radicals in 1977.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that change was a caused by the Democrats adopting gun control in a specious effort to pretend they were doing something about crime without upsetting their big black constituency which (often correctly) saw calls for crack downs on street violence as being anti black.  Dems then started pushing gun control to not only pretend it was doing something about crime but also to retaliate against the NRA for saying Bullshit to the Dems bogus crime control schemes
Click to expand...

There should be profiling of white males purchasing fire arms since most mass shooters are whites. Just like we profile other groups for different reasons. Don' you think?


----------



## turtledude

Issa said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> When will the carnage end?  Time to rewrite the archaic 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> time to ignore the gun banners who squeal in delight every time there is a shooting so they can use the blood of innocents to try to drown out our rights.  You hate the NRA and gun owners because they don't support the leftwing candidates you crave
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I cherish my guns - but I do detest the NRA.  I was a member for about 30 years until after it was hijacked by radicals in 1977.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that change was a caused by the Democrats adopting gun control in a specious effort to pretend they were doing something about crime without upsetting their big black constituency which (often correctly) saw calls for crack downs on street violence as being anti black.  Dems then started pushing gun control to not only pretend it was doing something about crime but also to retaliate against the NRA for saying Bullshit to the Dems bogus crime control schemes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There should be profiling of white males purchasing fire arms since most mass shooters are whites. Just like we profile other groups for different reasons. Don' you think?
Click to expand...


sure, the same cops who don't have the time to arrest the thousands of people who lie on federal background checks for firearms will have time to do this--good thinking there dude


----------



## turtledude

Issa said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> When will the carnage end?  Time to rewrite the archaic 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> time to ignore the gun banners who squeal in delight every time there is a shooting so they can use the blood of innocents to try to drown out our rights.  You hate the NRA and gun owners because they don't support the leftwing candidates you crave
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope because people are dying by the thousands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> really? gun deaths have declined over the years despite millions upon millions more guns in circulation and millions of people carrying guns legally. So you are either ignorant of the fact or lying.  Most gun deaths are SUICIDES.  the remaining number that are not justifiable or excusable shootings are homicides mainly and those are caused at rates of 80-90% by people who are not legally able to own or use guns
> 
> so stuff the silly dramatics.  Gun violence in tis country-especially outside urban areas full of drug gangs is minuscule
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> USA is the worst country in terms of gu related dearhs/mass shootings. So there is clearly a gun problem. Why do you need a gun ? Insecure? Or ready to kill when you are pissed at the world?
Click to expand...


I was an alternate on teh olympic shooting team, shot in two world championships, was a pro level USPSA pistol shooter and held the national pin record.  at almost 60 I am still one of the fastest steel shooters in Ohio.  I was also a federal prosector for almost 25 years. 

so I like to shoot, I am world class at it, and I take my security seriously. are you afraid of guns or are you afraid of your own lack of ability to use one safely?


----------



## Daryl Hunt

asaratis said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who's "we", Chuckles?  The only "we" I can think of that you legitimately belong to would be arrogant foreigners who want to enjoy all America has to offer while superciliously sneering at it and its people.  And you and your ilk are more than welcome to "follow the rest of the world" . . . right over to THEIR countries.
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that immigrants what not only made this country but what keeps making great. We tell you that we lived in countries where people don't have to get shot regularly it'll be wise to study why. And not be arrogant and keep counting dead bodies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great Britain further restricted gun laws in 1986, the gun deaths dropped but the murder rate continued to rise until 1995 when they hire more law enforcement officers. Instead of guns, the murders found other methods to kill people. You want to kill someone, you will find a away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's an apologist argument. Gun deaths and deaths from violence in general are higher in the US. And as I havestated as an example multiple times , a person with a gun can kill multiple pepple at once effortlessly , now goodluck with a knife or a hammer.
> 
> Mean time I tell my friends all over the world, that there are people who defend owning guns, they can't comprehend it and they view you as crazy, paranoid, violent and lunatic.
> 
> Ps: I know you don't give a fuck about the rest of the world, and you don't give a fuck about kids being killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First off, you are wrong, if guns were the reason for the violence why did gun deaths go down and murders go up? According to what you claim, gun deaths would go down and murders would go down but it simply isn’t true. So, the issue isn’t the guns, the issue is the culture here in the United States. We need to change the culture, I have stated this fact many times in the past but it seems to go beyond people that have one agenda. The other issue is a mental health issue.
> 
> The rest of your post is an emotional rant and does nothing to further the discussion and quite frankly they are emotion based lies. That seems to be a left tactic like tossing in a race card, highly emotional yet no substance.
> 
> You want to change the culture, fine, then you are working on solutions, to simply ban guns won’t change anything and Britain’s stats proved that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .....also, the strict gun laws in certain places here often foster MORE gun crimes.  Kennesaw, Georgia has a law that says every household must have a firearm.  The gun crime rate in Kennesaw is lower than almost any other place in the nation.   Chicago has the most stringent gun laws...and the highest gun crime rate.
> 
> *650 murders last year in Chicago.*
> 25 years murder-free  in ‘Gun Town USA’
> *
> 
> ZERO murders in the last 25 years in Kennesaw.*
> 25 years murder-free  in ‘Gun Town USA’
Click to expand...


It has low crime, yes.  But so do most towns of 21K or less.  Without or Without the peculiar gun law that they passed.  Just down the road is a town of the same size.  It has had NO gun crimes in at least 20 years.  Now, compare Houston and you get a completely different set of figures.  Try not to cherry pick.  It's too easy to see past it.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

turtledude said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> When will the carnage end?  Time to rewrite the archaic 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> time to ignore the gun banners who squeal in delight every time there is a shooting so they can use the blood of innocents to try to drown out our rights.  You hate the NRA and gun owners because they don't support the leftwing candidates you crave
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope because people are dying by the thousands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> really? gun deaths have declined over the years despite millions upon millions more guns in circulation and millions of people carrying guns legally. So you are either ignorant of the fact or lying.  Most gun deaths are SUICIDES.  the remaining number that are not justifiable or excusable shootings are homicides mainly and those are caused at rates of 80-90% by people who are not legally able to own or use guns
> 
> so stuff the silly dramatics.  Gun violence in tis country-especially outside urban areas full of drug gangs is minuscule
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> USA is the worst country in terms of gu related dearhs/mass shootings. So there is clearly a gun problem. Why do you need a gun ? Insecure? Or ready to kill when you are pissed at the world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was an alternate on teh olympic shooting team, shot in two world championships, was a pro level USPSA pistol shooter and held the national pin record.  at almost 60 I am still one of the fastest steel shooters in Ohio.  I was also a federal prosector for almost 25 years.
> 
> so I like to shoot, I am world class at it, and I take my security seriously. are you afraid of guns or are you afraid of your own lack of ability to use one safely?
Click to expand...


I am retired Military.  Even I can see the one thing that all the mass shootings (including the latest in Florida) has.  All of them involved derivatives of the AR-15 with many clips of 30 or more capacity.  And most of those weapons were purchased legally.

The ones that used handguns or shotguns or hunting rifles had a much lower body count because of both the magazine limit or the slow fire rate.  The AR-15 has over a 600 round fire rate if you use it correctly for maximum fire.  Even the Semi Auto version can easily do 200 rounds a minute with you just pulling the trigger as fast as you can.  It only takes a few seconds to mow down 15 or more people using one.  

Now, how do we protect our Children or at least minimize the damage?  The ball is in your court.  And please, don't toss the tired old NRA story line.  They are here to sell guns, not save lives.


----------



## Papageorgio

Issa said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great Britain further restricted gun laws in 1986, the gun deaths dropped but the murder rate continued to rise until 1995 when they hire more law enforcement officers. Instead of guns, the murders found other methods to kill people. You want to kill someone, you will find a away.
> 
> 
> 
> That's an apologist argument. Gun deaths and deaths from violence in general are higher in the US. And as I havestated as an example multiple times , a person with a gun can kill multiple pepple at once effortlessly , now goodluck with a knife or a hammer.
> 
> Mean time I tell my friends all over the world, that there are people who defend owning guns, they can't comprehend it and they view you as crazy, paranoid, violent and lunatic.
> 
> Ps: I know you don't give a fuck about the rest of the world, and you don't give a fuck about kids being killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First off, you are wrong, if guns were the reason for the violence why did gun deaths go down and murders go up? According to what you claim, gun deaths would go down and murders would go down but it simply isn’t true. So, the issue isn’t the guns, the issue is the culture here in the United States. We need to change the culture, I have stated this fact many times in the past but it seems to go beyond people that have one agenda. The other issue is a mental health issue.
> 
> The rest of your post is an emotional rant and does nothing to further the discussion and quite frankly they are emotion based lies. That seems to be a left tactic like tossing in a race card, highly emotional yet no substance.
> 
> You want to change the culture, fine, then you are working on solutions, to simply ban guns won’t change anything and Britain’s stats proved that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh my god I can't Beleive that after 25 years i would live in the US and would come across people who defend owning guns. After every mass shooting, we used to talk about it and say that Americans are crazy owning guns. Fast forward and here i m arguing with the crazies.
> It is so simple less guns less deaths, look at most of the world they dont have this carnage. Our murder rate with guns and without is by far the worst.
> 
> I simplified it many times, Moroccans can be hot headedd we get in fights quickly I'm sure if we had guns we would have a similar rate like the US but thank God we don't. So worse case scenario is few cuts and bruises and not bodies in plastic bags.
> 
> You guys are fucking nuts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh my god, I can’t believe after 50 years there are still people that don’t get it. I don’t and will never own a gun, however I the right and the freedom that others have to do what they want to legally do. Just owning a gun doesn’t make you violent, it is less than one 10th of 1% that do 100% of the killings. You ignore statistics, you ignore the Constitution and you ignore the freedoms that make this country great.
> 
> I respect your opinion, however I disagree with you and your comments are very ignorant as to the real issues.
> 
> I haven’t been in a fight since I was 12, it seems your culture is to violent for me, it’s amazing that you can’t be trusted with a weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol I've witnessed more fights in the US than in Morocco. My reference was is if we had guns some would definitely used them. But thank God we don't.
> 
> So why the hell the US surpasses most nations in gun related deaths?
Click to expand...


I explained it many times, why are you not understanding? Less than one tenth of one percent kill, with a gun or not. Britain banned guns, murders by gun dropped, however more murders occurred. We are a violent culture as you have point out so well, we need to change the culture, and the deaths will go down. Just banning to ban and having no answers as to why, will change the way a person kills.


----------



## Issa

turtledude said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> When will the carnage end?  Time to rewrite the archaic 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> time to ignore the gun banners who squeal in delight every time there is a shooting so they can use the blood of innocents to try to drown out our rights.  You hate the NRA and gun owners because they don't support the leftwing candidates you crave
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I cherish my guns - but I do detest the NRA.  I was a member for about 30 years until after it was hijacked by radicals in 1977.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that change was a caused by the Democrats adopting gun control in a specious effort to pretend they were doing something about crime without upsetting their big black constituency which (often correctly) saw calls for crack downs on street violence as being anti black.  Dems then started pushing gun control to not only pretend it was doing something about crime but also to retaliate against the NRA for saying Bullshit to the Dems bogus crime control schemes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There should be profiling of white males purchasing fire arms since most mass shooters are whites. Just like we profile other groups for different reasons. Don' you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sure, the same cops who don't have the time to arrest the thousands of people who lie on federal background checks for firearms will have time to do this--good thinking there dude
Click to expand...

Well time to put an end to the mass shootings by doing a little bit of profiling of white males when they wanna purchase guns and ammo. Most mass shooters are white, aren't they? I'm just going by the logic of the racists of the right who love to profile Muslims as terrorists, Mexicans as rapists, blacks as thugs and so forth.


----------



## Issa

turtledude said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> When will the carnage end?  Time to rewrite the archaic 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> time to ignore the gun banners who squeal in delight every time there is a shooting so they can use the blood of innocents to try to drown out our rights.  You hate the NRA and gun owners because they don't support the leftwing candidates you crave
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope because people are dying by the thousands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> really? gun deaths have declined over the years despite millions upon millions more guns in circulation and millions of people carrying guns legally. So you are either ignorant of the fact or lying.  Most gun deaths are SUICIDES.  the remaining number that are not justifiable or excusable shootings are homicides mainly and those are caused at rates of 80-90% by people who are not legally able to own or use guns
> 
> so stuff the silly dramatics.  Gun violence in tis country-especially outside urban areas full of drug gangs is minuscule
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> USA is the worst country in terms of gu related dearhs/mass shootings. So there is clearly a gun problem. Why do you need a gun ? Insecure? Or ready to kill when you are pissed at the world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was an alternate on teh olympic shooting team, shot in two world championships, was a pro level USPSA pistol shooter and held the national pin record.  at almost 60 I am still one of the fastest steel shooters in Ohio.  I was also a federal prosector for almost 25 years.
> 
> so I like to shoot, I am world class at it, and I take my security seriously. are you afraid of guns or are you afraid of your own lack of ability to use one safely?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but I would not keep you in my circle, invite you to my house or around my kids...is a principal I have before even moving to the US. I didn't grow up around guns, and don't intend to. it's 21st century for god's sake. This love for guns exists mainly in the US, and it's purely cultural just like some backwards stuff in Afghanistan and other parts of the world than needs to be abolished.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Papageorgio said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's an apologist argument. Gun deaths and deaths from violence in general are higher in the US. And as I havestated as an example multiple times , a person with a gun can kill multiple pepple at once effortlessly , now goodluck with a knife or a hammer.
> 
> Mean time I tell my friends all over the world, that there are people who defend owning guns, they can't comprehend it and they view you as crazy, paranoid, violent and lunatic.
> 
> Ps: I know you don't give a fuck about the rest of the world, and you don't give a fuck about kids being killed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First off, you are wrong, if guns were the reason for the violence why did gun deaths go down and murders go up? According to what you claim, gun deaths would go down and murders would go down but it simply isn’t true. So, the issue isn’t the guns, the issue is the culture here in the United States. We need to change the culture, I have stated this fact many times in the past but it seems to go beyond people that have one agenda. The other issue is a mental health issue.
> 
> The rest of your post is an emotional rant and does nothing to further the discussion and quite frankly they are emotion based lies. That seems to be a left tactic like tossing in a race card, highly emotional yet no substance.
> 
> You want to change the culture, fine, then you are working on solutions, to simply ban guns won’t change anything and Britain’s stats proved that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh my god I can't Beleive that after 25 years i would live in the US and would come across people who defend owning guns. After every mass shooting, we used to talk about it and say that Americans are crazy owning guns. Fast forward and here i m arguing with the crazies.
> It is so simple less guns less deaths, look at most of the world they dont have this carnage. Our murder rate with guns and without is by far the worst.
> 
> I simplified it many times, Moroccans can be hot headedd we get in fights quickly I'm sure if we had guns we would have a similar rate like the US but thank God we don't. So worse case scenario is few cuts and bruises and not bodies in plastic bags.
> 
> You guys are fucking nuts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh my god, I can’t believe after 50 years there are still people that don’t get it. I don’t and will never own a gun, however I the right and the freedom that others have to do what they want to legally do. Just owning a gun doesn’t make you violent, it is less than one 10th of 1% that do 100% of the killings. You ignore statistics, you ignore the Constitution and you ignore the freedoms that make this country great.
> 
> I respect your opinion, however I disagree with you and your comments are very ignorant as to the real issues.
> 
> I haven’t been in a fight since I was 12, it seems your culture is to violent for me, it’s amazing that you can’t be trusted with a weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol I've witnessed more fights in the US than in Morocco. My reference was is if we had guns some would definitely used them. But thank God we don't.
> 
> So why the hell the US surpasses most nations in gun related deaths?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I explained it many times, why are you not understanding? Less than one tenth of one percent kill, with a gun or not. Britain banned guns, murders by gun dropped, however more murders occurred. We are a violent culture as you have point out so well, we need to change the culture, and the deaths will go down. Just banning to ban and having no answers as to why, will change the way a person kills.
Click to expand...


You are still using the NRA boiler plate.  The US is NOT Britain by any stretch of the imagination.  Yes, we do need to change the culture.  It was changed once in 1934 over another very efficient killing gun.  The Thompson as singled out in that law.  One of the cultures we need to change is your culture.  I don't advocate banning all guns.  It will never happen.  I own a 45ACP myself and don't feel threatened one bit by any gun laws.  Even if I have to get a Firearms License, I have the right to own it.  But it won't go quite that far either.  But I won't own an AR-15 or one like it.  That puppy has done most of the Mass Shootings in our Theaters, Concerts and Schools.  Yes, there were a few that didn't use one but the body count was very low in comparison.  I can accept the lower losses but not when it goes into the hundreds like it has.  

By virtue of being retired Military, I assure you that I can be very violent.  But I chose not to be.  It's a  choice and always has been.  I am more afraid of the Legal Purchased AR-15 and others like it being used to shoot up high density populations than I am of the armed criminal.  One of the Schools just confiscated a handgun from a Student today here.  He is 18, a senior and purchased the gun legally.  But the handgun deaths may be within reasonable losses that we need to work on, but not accept as normal.  But the AR-15 bought legally and used for mass shootings is way out of the acceptable losses category.

You notice that if the "Gun Law Nutz" were to accept my way, would you be willing to meet them halfway and also accept the method I propose?  Or are you going to continue spouting standard NRA Boilerplate.   The NRA of today isn't the same one I was a member of at one time.  They aren't there to promote gun safety as much anymore.  They are there to sell guns, period.  That culture also need to change.

And please don't spout they are after your guns.  You can own any weapons short of a Nuclear Weapon if you get the proper license, have the proper storage and don't have a list of problems that would not allow you to pass a gun check for a normal purchase.  

So what is it going to be.  You can change your ideas a bit or we will be forced into exactly what you nor I want in the first place.


----------



## Issa

Papageorgio said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's an apologist argument. Gun deaths and deaths from violence in general are higher in the US. And as I havestated as an example multiple times , a person with a gun can kill multiple pepple at once effortlessly , now goodluck with a knife or a hammer.
> 
> Mean time I tell my friends all over the world, that there are people who defend owning guns, they can't comprehend it and they view you as crazy, paranoid, violent and lunatic.
> 
> Ps: I know you don't give a fuck about the rest of the world, and you don't give a fuck about kids being killed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First off, you are wrong, if guns were the reason for the violence why did gun deaths go down and murders go up? According to what you claim, gun deaths would go down and murders would go down but it simply isn’t true. So, the issue isn’t the guns, the issue is the culture here in the United States. We need to change the culture, I have stated this fact many times in the past but it seems to go beyond people that have one agenda. The other issue is a mental health issue.
> 
> The rest of your post is an emotional rant and does nothing to further the discussion and quite frankly they are emotion based lies. That seems to be a left tactic like tossing in a race card, highly emotional yet no substance.
> 
> You want to change the culture, fine, then you are working on solutions, to simply ban guns won’t change anything and Britain’s stats proved that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh my god I can't Beleive that after 25 years i would live in the US and would come across people who defend owning guns. After every mass shooting, we used to talk about it and say that Americans are crazy owning guns. Fast forward and here i m arguing with the crazies.
> It is so simple less guns less deaths, look at most of the world they dont have this carnage. Our murder rate with guns and without is by far the worst.
> 
> I simplified it many times, Moroccans can be hot headedd we get in fights quickly I'm sure if we had guns we would have a similar rate like the US but thank God we don't. So worse case scenario is few cuts and bruises and not bodies in plastic bags.
> 
> You guys are fucking nuts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh my god, I can’t believe after 50 years there are still people that don’t get it. I don’t and will never own a gun, however I the right and the freedom that others have to do what they want to legally do. Just owning a gun doesn’t make you violent, it is less than one 10th of 1% that do 100% of the killings. You ignore statistics, you ignore the Constitution and you ignore the freedoms that make this country great.
> 
> I respect your opinion, however I disagree with you and your comments are very ignorant as to the real issues.
> 
> I haven’t been in a fight since I was 12, it seems your culture is to violent for me, it’s amazing that you can’t be trusted with a weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol I've witnessed more fights in the US than in Morocco. My reference was is if we had guns some would definitely used them. But thank God we don't.
> 
> So why the hell the US surpasses most nations in gun related deaths?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I explained it many times, why are you not understanding? Less than one tenth of one percent kill, with a gun or not. Britain banned guns, murders by gun dropped, however more murders occurred. We are a violent culture as you have point out so well, we need to change the culture, and the deaths will go down. Just banning to ban and having no answers as to why, will change the way a person kills.
Click to expand...

Why you stuck on the British example? why can't you look at most countries that have almost no guns, and say yes Let's be like those countries....let's save thousands of lives?
And yes I agree on the culture part, but also the US is a hostage to an amendment that's not compatible with the 21st century. And some treat it as if it written by god almighty and should not be abolished.
By the way there's lot of mis information about how the UK is more violent than the US. here is a good article research about it. 

Social media post says U.K. has far higher violent crime rate than U.S. does


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Issa said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> time to ignore the gun banners who squeal in delight every time there is a shooting so they can use the blood of innocents to try to drown out our rights.  You hate the NRA and gun owners because they don't support the leftwing candidates you crave
> 
> 
> 
> Nope because people are dying by the thousands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> really? gun deaths have declined over the years despite millions upon millions more guns in circulation and millions of people carrying guns legally. So you are either ignorant of the fact or lying.  Most gun deaths are SUICIDES.  the remaining number that are not justifiable or excusable shootings are homicides mainly and those are caused at rates of 80-90% by people who are not legally able to own or use guns
> 
> so stuff the silly dramatics.  Gun violence in tis country-especially outside urban areas full of drug gangs is minuscule
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> USA is the worst country in terms of gu related dearhs/mass shootings. So there is clearly a gun problem. Why do you need a gun ? Insecure? Or ready to kill when you are pissed at the world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was an alternate on teh olympic shooting team, shot in two world championships, was a pro level USPSA pistol shooter and held the national pin record.  at almost 60 I am still one of the fastest steel shooters in Ohio.  I was also a federal prosector for almost 25 years.
> 
> so I like to shoot, I am world class at it, and I take my security seriously. are you afraid of guns or are you afraid of your own lack of ability to use one safely?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sorry but I would not keep you in my circle, invite you to my house or around my kids...is a principal I have before even moving to the US. I didn't grow up around guns, and don't intend to. it's 21st century for god's sake. This love for guns exists mainly in the US, and it's purely cultural just like some backwards stuff in Afghanistan and other parts of the world than needs to be abolished.
Click to expand...


You've never been to the Middle East where the AK replaced the sword to show your manliness.  It just isn't the US.


----------



## Issa

Daryl Hunt said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> First off, you are wrong, if guns were the reason for the violence why did gun deaths go down and murders go up? According to what you claim, gun deaths would go down and murders would go down but it simply isn’t true. So, the issue isn’t the guns, the issue is the culture here in the United States. We need to change the culture, I have stated this fact many times in the past but it seems to go beyond people that have one agenda. The other issue is a mental health issue.
> 
> The rest of your post is an emotional rant and does nothing to further the discussion and quite frankly they are emotion based lies. That seems to be a left tactic like tossing in a race card, highly emotional yet no substance.
> 
> You want to change the culture, fine, then you are working on solutions, to simply ban guns won’t change anything and Britain’s stats proved that.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my god I can't Beleive that after 25 years i would live in the US and would come across people who defend owning guns. After every mass shooting, we used to talk about it and say that Americans are crazy owning guns. Fast forward and here i m arguing with the crazies.
> It is so simple less guns less deaths, look at most of the world they dont have this carnage. Our murder rate with guns and without is by far the worst.
> 
> I simplified it many times, Moroccans can be hot headedd we get in fights quickly I'm sure if we had guns we would have a similar rate like the US but thank God we don't. So worse case scenario is few cuts and bruises and not bodies in plastic bags.
> 
> You guys are fucking nuts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh my god, I can’t believe after 50 years there are still people that don’t get it. I don’t and will never own a gun, however I the right and the freedom that others have to do what they want to legally do. Just owning a gun doesn’t make you violent, it is less than one 10th of 1% that do 100% of the killings. You ignore statistics, you ignore the Constitution and you ignore the freedoms that make this country great.
> 
> I respect your opinion, however I disagree with you and your comments are very ignorant as to the real issues.
> 
> I haven’t been in a fight since I was 12, it seems your culture is to violent for me, it’s amazing that you can’t be trusted with a weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol I've witnessed more fights in the US than in Morocco. My reference was is if we had guns some would definitely used them. But thank God we don't.
> 
> So why the hell the US surpasses most nations in gun related deaths?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I explained it many times, why are you not understanding? Less than one tenth of one percent kill, with a gun or not. Britain banned guns, murders by gun dropped, however more murders occurred. We are a violent culture as you have point out so well, we need to change the culture, and the deaths will go down. Just banning to ban and having no answers as to why, will change the way a person kills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are still using the NRA boiler plate.  The US is NOT Britain by any stretch of the imagination.  Yes, we do need to change the culture.  It was changed once in 1934 over another very efficient killing gun.  The Thompson as singled out in that law.  One of the cultures we need to change is your culture.  I don't advocate banning all guns.  It will never happen.  I own a 45ACP myself and don't feel threatened one bit by any gun laws.  Even if I have to get a Firearms License, I have the right to own it.  But it won't go quite that far either.  But I won't own an AR-15 or one like it.  That puppy has done most of the Mass Shootings in our Theaters, Concerts and Schools.  Yes, there were a few that didn't use one but the body count was very low in comparison.  I can accept the lower losses but not when it goes into the hundreds like it has.
> 
> By virtue of being retired Military, I assure you that I can be very violent.  But I chose not to be.  It's a  choice and always has been.  I am more afraid of the Legal Purchased AR-15 and others like it being used to shoot up high density populations than I am of the armed criminal.  One of the Schools just confiscated a handgun from a Student today here.  He is 18, a senior and purchased the gun legally.  But the handgun deaths may be within reasonable losses that we need to work on, but not accept as normal.  But the AR-15 bought legally and used for mass shootings is way out of the acceptable losses category.
> 
> You notice that if the "Gun Law Nutz" were to accept my way, would you be willing to meet them halfway and also accept the method I propose?  Or are you going to continue spouting standard NRA Boilerplate.   The NRA of today isn't the same one I was a member of at one time.  They aren't there to promote gun safety as much anymore.  They are there to sell guns, period.  That culture also need to change.
> 
> And please don't spout they are after your guns.  You can own any weapons short of a Nuclear Weapon if you get the proper license, have the proper storage and don't have a list of problems that would not allow you to pass a gun check for a normal purchase.
> 
> So what is it going to be.  You can change your ideas a bit or we will be forced into exactly what you nor I want in the first place.
Click to expand...

Thank you....
The one argument i kept on hearing and it's laughable. We need guns to protect ourselves from the government....Do this people know that they are no match to an organised army with bigger weapons? Iraqis and Afghans were armed to the teeth and they knew they can't fight the US army. And yet a 300 lbs joe thinks he stand a chance vs one of the strongest armies on earth.


----------



## Issa

Daryl Hunt said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope because people are dying by the thousands.
> 
> 
> 
> really? gun deaths have declined over the years despite millions upon millions more guns in circulation and millions of people carrying guns legally. So you are either ignorant of the fact or lying.  Most gun deaths are SUICIDES.  the remaining number that are not justifiable or excusable shootings are homicides mainly and those are caused at rates of 80-90% by people who are not legally able to own or use guns
> 
> so stuff the silly dramatics.  Gun violence in tis country-especially outside urban areas full of drug gangs is minuscule
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> USA is the worst country in terms of gu related dearhs/mass shootings. So there is clearly a gun problem. Why do you need a gun ? Insecure? Or ready to kill when you are pissed at the world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was an alternate on teh olympic shooting team, shot in two world championships, was a pro level USPSA pistol shooter and held the national pin record.  at almost 60 I am still one of the fastest steel shooters in Ohio.  I was also a federal prosector for almost 25 years.
> 
> so I like to shoot, I am world class at it, and I take my security seriously. are you afraid of guns or are you afraid of your own lack of ability to use one safely?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sorry but I would not keep you in my circle, invite you to my house or around my kids...is a principal I have before even moving to the US. I didn't grow up around guns, and don't intend to. it's 21st century for god's sake. This love for guns exists mainly in the US, and it's purely cultural just like some backwards stuff in Afghanistan and other parts of the world than needs to be abolished.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've never been to the Middle East where the AK replaced to sword to show your manliness.  It just isn't the US.
Click to expand...

Fuck them too....sorry for my french. Born and raised in Morocco guns free country loved and i'm so thankful it's that way. Don't know of anyone who knows someone who saw a gun let alone used it or bought it. When a nutcase wants to kill people, he can't do much harm with any other tool. It saddens that people here don't get it. no guns less mass shootings...or none like other countries.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Issa said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my god I can't Beleive that after 25 years i would live in the US and would come across people who defend owning guns. After every mass shooting, we used to talk about it and say that Americans are crazy owning guns. Fast forward and here i m arguing with the crazies.
> It is so simple less guns less deaths, look at most of the world they dont have this carnage. Our murder rate with guns and without is by far the worst.
> 
> I simplified it many times, Moroccans can be hot headedd we get in fights quickly I'm sure if we had guns we would have a similar rate like the US but thank God we don't. So worse case scenario is few cuts and bruises and not bodies in plastic bags.
> 
> You guys are fucking nuts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my god, I can’t believe after 50 years there are still people that don’t get it. I don’t and will never own a gun, however I the right and the freedom that others have to do what they want to legally do. Just owning a gun doesn’t make you violent, it is less than one 10th of 1% that do 100% of the killings. You ignore statistics, you ignore the Constitution and you ignore the freedoms that make this country great.
> 
> I respect your opinion, however I disagree with you and your comments are very ignorant as to the real issues.
> 
> I haven’t been in a fight since I was 12, it seems your culture is to violent for me, it’s amazing that you can’t be trusted with a weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol I've witnessed more fights in the US than in Morocco. My reference was is if we had guns some would definitely used them. But thank God we don't.
> 
> So why the hell the US surpasses most nations in gun related deaths?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I explained it many times, why are you not understanding? Less than one tenth of one percent kill, with a gun or not. Britain banned guns, murders by gun dropped, however more murders occurred. We are a violent culture as you have point out so well, we need to change the culture, and the deaths will go down. Just banning to ban and having no answers as to why, will change the way a person kills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are still using the NRA boiler plate.  The US is NOT Britain by any stretch of the imagination.  Yes, we do need to change the culture.  It was changed once in 1934 over another very efficient killing gun.  The Thompson as singled out in that law.  One of the cultures we need to change is your culture.  I don't advocate banning all guns.  It will never happen.  I own a 45ACP myself and don't feel threatened one bit by any gun laws.  Even if I have to get a Firearms License, I have the right to own it.  But it won't go quite that far either.  But I won't own an AR-15 or one like it.  That puppy has done most of the Mass Shootings in our Theaters, Concerts and Schools.  Yes, there were a few that didn't use one but the body count was very low in comparison.  I can accept the lower losses but not when it goes into the hundreds like it has.
> 
> By virtue of being retired Military, I assure you that I can be very violent.  But I chose not to be.  It's a  choice and always has been.  I am more afraid of the Legal Purchased AR-15 and others like it being used to shoot up high density populations than I am of the armed criminal.  One of the Schools just confiscated a handgun from a Student today here.  He is 18, a senior and purchased the gun legally.  But the handgun deaths may be within reasonable losses that we need to work on, but not accept as normal.  But the AR-15 bought legally and used for mass shootings is way out of the acceptable losses category.
> 
> You notice that if the "Gun Law Nutz" were to accept my way, would you be willing to meet them halfway and also accept the method I propose?  Or are you going to continue spouting standard NRA Boilerplate.   The NRA of today isn't the same one I was a member of at one time.  They aren't there to promote gun safety as much anymore.  They are there to sell guns, period.  That culture also need to change.
> 
> And please don't spout they are after your guns.  You can own any weapons short of a Nuclear Weapon if you get the proper license, have the proper storage and don't have a list of problems that would not allow you to pass a gun check for a normal purchase.
> 
> So what is it going to be.  You can change your ideas a bit or we will be forced into exactly what you nor I want in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you....
> The one argument i kept on hearing and it's laughable. We need guns to protect ourselves from the government....Do this people know that they are no match to an organised army with bigger weapons? Iraqis and Afghans were armed to the teeth and they knew they can't fight the US army. And yet a 300 lbs joe thinks he stand a chance vs one of the strongest armies on earth.
Click to expand...


If it's a State Sponsored Well Regulated Militia they can have the same weapons and training that the Feds have.  Hell, the feds will train them.  It happens all the time.  And I don't mean the National Guard but the State Sponsored Well Regulated Militia that can't be federalized.


----------



## Lakhota

The never-give-an-inch NRA Rambo gun nuts are the greatest threat to my future gun rights.  I would never own an AR-15.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Issa said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> really? gun deaths have declined over the years despite millions upon millions more guns in circulation and millions of people carrying guns legally. So you are either ignorant of the fact or lying.  Most gun deaths are SUICIDES.  the remaining number that are not justifiable or excusable shootings are homicides mainly and those are caused at rates of 80-90% by people who are not legally able to own or use guns
> 
> so stuff the silly dramatics.  Gun violence in tis country-especially outside urban areas full of drug gangs is minuscule
> 
> 
> 
> USA is the worst country in terms of gu related dearhs/mass shootings. So there is clearly a gun problem. Why do you need a gun ? Insecure? Or ready to kill when you are pissed at the world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was an alternate on teh olympic shooting team, shot in two world championships, was a pro level USPSA pistol shooter and held the national pin record.  at almost 60 I am still one of the fastest steel shooters in Ohio.  I was also a federal prosector for almost 25 years.
> 
> so I like to shoot, I am world class at it, and I take my security seriously. are you afraid of guns or are you afraid of your own lack of ability to use one safely?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sorry but I would not keep you in my circle, invite you to my house or around my kids...is a principal I have before even moving to the US. I didn't grow up around guns, and don't intend to. it's 21st century for god's sake. This love for guns exists mainly in the US, and it's purely cultural just like some backwards stuff in Afghanistan and other parts of the world than needs to be abolished.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've never been to the Middle East where the AK replaced to sword to show your manliness.  It just isn't the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck them too....sorry for my french. Born and raised in Morocco guns free country loved and i'm so thankful it's that way. Don't know of anyone who knows someone who saw a gun let alone used it or bought it. When a nutcase wants to kill people, he can't do much harm with any other tool. It saddens that people here don't get it. no guns less mass shootings...or none like other countries.
Click to expand...


When the AR is reclassed as a weapon of war then we can see a reduction in the mass shootings.  We will still have the shootings but it won't be "Mass" shootings.  The AR is just too damned efficient like the AK is.

Like I said, we can have acceptable losses or unacceptable losses.


----------



## Issa

Daryl Hunt said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my god, I can’t believe after 50 years there are still people that don’t get it. I don’t and will never own a gun, however I the right and the freedom that others have to do what they want to legally do. Just owning a gun doesn’t make you violent, it is less than one 10th of 1% that do 100% of the killings. You ignore statistics, you ignore the Constitution and you ignore the freedoms that make this country great.
> 
> I respect your opinion, however I disagree with you and your comments are very ignorant as to the real issues.
> 
> I haven’t been in a fight since I was 12, it seems your culture is to violent for me, it’s amazing that you can’t be trusted with a weapon.
> 
> 
> 
> Lol I've witnessed more fights in the US than in Morocco. My reference was is if we had guns some would definitely used them. But thank God we don't.
> 
> So why the hell the US surpasses most nations in gun related deaths?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I explained it many times, why are you not understanding? Less than one tenth of one percent kill, with a gun or not. Britain banned guns, murders by gun dropped, however more murders occurred. We are a violent culture as you have point out so well, we need to change the culture, and the deaths will go down. Just banning to ban and having no answers as to why, will change the way a person kills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are still using the NRA boiler plate.  The US is NOT Britain by any stretch of the imagination.  Yes, we do need to change the culture.  It was changed once in 1934 over another very efficient killing gun.  The Thompson as singled out in that law.  One of the cultures we need to change is your culture.  I don't advocate banning all guns.  It will never happen.  I own a 45ACP myself and don't feel threatened one bit by any gun laws.  Even if I have to get a Firearms License, I have the right to own it.  But it won't go quite that far either.  But I won't own an AR-15 or one like it.  That puppy has done most of the Mass Shootings in our Theaters, Concerts and Schools.  Yes, there were a few that didn't use one but the body count was very low in comparison.  I can accept the lower losses but not when it goes into the hundreds like it has.
> 
> By virtue of being retired Military, I assure you that I can be very violent.  But I chose not to be.  It's a  choice and always has been.  I am more afraid of the Legal Purchased AR-15 and others like it being used to shoot up high density populations than I am of the armed criminal.  One of the Schools just confiscated a handgun from a Student today here.  He is 18, a senior and purchased the gun legally.  But the handgun deaths may be within reasonable losses that we need to work on, but not accept as normal.  But the AR-15 bought legally and used for mass shootings is way out of the acceptable losses category.
> 
> You notice that if the "Gun Law Nutz" were to accept my way, would you be willing to meet them halfway and also accept the method I propose?  Or are you going to continue spouting standard NRA Boilerplate.   The NRA of today isn't the same one I was a member of at one time.  They aren't there to promote gun safety as much anymore.  They are there to sell guns, period.  That culture also need to change.
> 
> And please don't spout they are after your guns.  You can own any weapons short of a Nuclear Weapon if you get the proper license, have the proper storage and don't have a list of problems that would not allow you to pass a gun check for a normal purchase.
> 
> So what is it going to be.  You can change your ideas a bit or we will be forced into exactly what you nor I want in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you....
> The one argument i kept on hearing and it's laughable. We need guns to protect ourselves from the government....Do this people know that they are no match to an organised army with bigger weapons? Iraqis and Afghans were armed to the teeth and they knew they can't fight the US army. And yet a 300 lbs joe thinks he stand a chance vs one of the strongest armies on earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it's a State Sponsored Well Regulated Militia they can have the same weapons and training that the Feds have.  Hell, the feds will train them.  It happens all the time.  And I don't mean the National Guard but the State Sponsored Well Regulated Militia that can't be federalized.
Click to expand...

I'm talking all these fat joes who use this excuse to arm themselves to the teeth....Afghanis were armed heavily and they lived through wars and they didn't stand a chance. Why would an average lazy ass red neck thinks he can take on one of the strongest armies?


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Issa said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol I've witnessed more fights in the US than in Morocco. My reference was is if we had guns some would definitely used them. But thank God we don't.
> 
> So why the hell the US surpasses most nations in gun related deaths?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I explained it many times, why are you not understanding? Less than one tenth of one percent kill, with a gun or not. Britain banned guns, murders by gun dropped, however more murders occurred. We are a violent culture as you have point out so well, we need to change the culture, and the deaths will go down. Just banning to ban and having no answers as to why, will change the way a person kills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are still using the NRA boiler plate.  The US is NOT Britain by any stretch of the imagination.  Yes, we do need to change the culture.  It was changed once in 1934 over another very efficient killing gun.  The Thompson as singled out in that law.  One of the cultures we need to change is your culture.  I don't advocate banning all guns.  It will never happen.  I own a 45ACP myself and don't feel threatened one bit by any gun laws.  Even if I have to get a Firearms License, I have the right to own it.  But it won't go quite that far either.  But I won't own an AR-15 or one like it.  That puppy has done most of the Mass Shootings in our Theaters, Concerts and Schools.  Yes, there were a few that didn't use one but the body count was very low in comparison.  I can accept the lower losses but not when it goes into the hundreds like it has.
> 
> By virtue of being retired Military, I assure you that I can be very violent.  But I chose not to be.  It's a  choice and always has been.  I am more afraid of the Legal Purchased AR-15 and others like it being used to shoot up high density populations than I am of the armed criminal.  One of the Schools just confiscated a handgun from a Student today here.  He is 18, a senior and purchased the gun legally.  But the handgun deaths may be within reasonable losses that we need to work on, but not accept as normal.  But the AR-15 bought legally and used for mass shootings is way out of the acceptable losses category.
> 
> You notice that if the "Gun Law Nutz" were to accept my way, would you be willing to meet them halfway and also accept the method I propose?  Or are you going to continue spouting standard NRA Boilerplate.   The NRA of today isn't the same one I was a member of at one time.  They aren't there to promote gun safety as much anymore.  They are there to sell guns, period.  That culture also need to change.
> 
> And please don't spout they are after your guns.  You can own any weapons short of a Nuclear Weapon if you get the proper license, have the proper storage and don't have a list of problems that would not allow you to pass a gun check for a normal purchase.
> 
> So what is it going to be.  You can change your ideas a bit or we will be forced into exactly what you nor I want in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you....
> The one argument i kept on hearing and it's laughable. We need guns to protect ourselves from the government....Do this people know that they are no match to an organised army with bigger weapons? Iraqis and Afghans were armed to the teeth and they knew they can't fight the US army. And yet a 300 lbs joe thinks he stand a chance vs one of the strongest armies on earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it's a State Sponsored Well Regulated Militia they can have the same weapons and training that the Feds have.  Hell, the feds will train them.  It happens all the time.  And I don't mean the National Guard but the State Sponsored Well Regulated Militia that can't be federalized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm talking all these fat joes who use this excuse to arm themselves to the teeth....Afghanis were armed heavily and they lived through wars and they didn't stand a chance. Why would an average lazy ass red neck thinks he can take on one of the strongest armies?
Click to expand...


Because he misinterprets the 2nd.  As do the Gun Grabbers.


----------



## Papageorgio

Issa said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great Britain further restricted gun laws in 1986, the gun deaths dropped but the murder rate continued to rise until 1995 when they hire more law enforcement officers. Instead of guns, the murders found other methods to kill people. You want to kill someone, you will find a away.
> 
> 
> 
> That's an apologist argument. Gun deaths and deaths from violence in general are higher in the US. And as I havestated as an example multiple times , a person with a gun can kill multiple pepple at once effortlessly , now goodluck with a knife or a hammer.
> 
> Mean time I tell my friends all over the world, that there are people who defend owning guns, they can't comprehend it and they view you as crazy, paranoid, violent and lunatic.
> 
> Ps: I know you don't give a fuck about the rest of the world, and you don't give a fuck about kids being killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First off, you are wrong, if guns were the reason for the violence why did gun deaths go down and murders go up? According to what you claim, gun deaths would go down and murders would go down but it simply isn’t true. So, the issue isn’t the guns, the issue is the culture here in the United States. We need to change the culture, I have stated this fact many times in the past but it seems to go beyond people that have one agenda. The other issue is a mental health issue.
> 
> The rest of your post is an emotional rant and does nothing to further the discussion and quite frankly they are emotion based lies. That seems to be a left tactic like tossing in a race card, highly emotional yet no substance.
> 
> You want to change the culture, fine, then you are working on solutions, to simply ban guns won’t change anything and Britain’s stats proved that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh my god I can't Beleive that after 25 years i would live in the US and would come across people who defend owning guns. After every mass shooting, we used to talk about it and say that Americans are crazy owning guns. Fast forward and here i m arguing with the crazies.
> It is so simple less guns less deaths, look at most of the world they dont have this carnage. Our murder rate with guns and without is by far the worst.
> 
> I simplified it many times, Moroccans can be hot headedd we get in fights quickly I'm sure if we had guns we would have a similar rate like the US but thank God we don't. So worse case scenario is few cuts and bruises and not bodies in plastic bags.
> 
> You guys are fucking nuts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh my god, I can’t believe after 50 years there are still people that don’t get it. I don’t and will never own a gun, however I the right and the freedom that others have to do what they want to legally do. Just owning a gun doesn’t make you violent, it is less than one 10th of 1% that do 100% of the killings. You ignore statistics, you ignore the Constitution and you ignore the freedoms that make this country great.
> 
> I respect your opinion, however I disagree with you and your comments are very ignorant as to the real issues.
> 
> I haven’t been in a fight since I was 12, it seems your culture is to violent for me, it’s amazing that you can’t be trusted with a weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol I've witnessed more fights in the US than in Morocco. My reference was is if we had guns some would definitely used them. But thank God we don't.
> 
> So why the hell the US surpasses most nations in gun related deaths?
Click to expand...


Witnessed more fights? I think in my adult years I have seen two maybe three fights in public, none in private. Where ever you live it sounds violent. I guess you find what you look for.


----------



## Papageorgio

Issa said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> First off, you are wrong, if guns were the reason for the violence why did gun deaths go down and murders go up? According to what you claim, gun deaths would go down and murders would go down but it simply isn’t true. So, the issue isn’t the guns, the issue is the culture here in the United States. We need to change the culture, I have stated this fact many times in the past but it seems to go beyond people that have one agenda. The other issue is a mental health issue.
> 
> The rest of your post is an emotional rant and does nothing to further the discussion and quite frankly they are emotion based lies. That seems to be a left tactic like tossing in a race card, highly emotional yet no substance.
> 
> You want to change the culture, fine, then you are working on solutions, to simply ban guns won’t change anything and Britain’s stats proved that.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my god I can't Beleive that after 25 years i would live in the US and would come across people who defend owning guns. After every mass shooting, we used to talk about it and say that Americans are crazy owning guns. Fast forward and here i m arguing with the crazies.
> It is so simple less guns less deaths, look at most of the world they dont have this carnage. Our murder rate with guns and without is by far the worst.
> 
> I simplified it many times, Moroccans can be hot headedd we get in fights quickly I'm sure if we had guns we would have a similar rate like the US but thank God we don't. So worse case scenario is few cuts and bruises and not bodies in plastic bags.
> 
> You guys are fucking nuts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh my god, I can’t believe after 50 years there are still people that don’t get it. I don’t and will never own a gun, however I the right and the freedom that others have to do what they want to legally do. Just owning a gun doesn’t make you violent, it is less than one 10th of 1% that do 100% of the killings. You ignore statistics, you ignore the Constitution and you ignore the freedoms that make this country great.
> 
> I respect your opinion, however I disagree with you and your comments are very ignorant as to the real issues.
> 
> I haven’t been in a fight since I was 12, it seems your culture is to violent for me, it’s amazing that you can’t be trusted with a weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol I've witnessed more fights in the US than in Morocco. My reference was is if we had guns some would definitely used them. But thank God we don't.
> 
> So why the hell the US surpasses most nations in gun related deaths?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I explained it many times, why are you not understanding? Less than one tenth of one percent kill, with a gun or not. Britain banned guns, murders by gun dropped, however more murders occurred. We are a violent culture as you have point out so well, we need to change the culture, and the deaths will go down. Just banning to ban and having no answers as to why, will change the way a person kills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why you stuck on the British example? why can't you look at most countries that have almost no guns, and say yes Let's be like those countries....let's save thousands of lives?
> And yes I agree on the culture part, but also the US is a hostage to an amendment that's not compatible with the 21st century. And some treat it as if it written by god almighty and should not be abolished.
> By the way there's lot of mis information about how the UK is more violent than the US. here is a good article research about it.
> 
> Social media post says U.K. has far higher violent crime rate than U.S. does
Click to expand...


I didn’t say the U.K. is more violent, I said after banning guns, their murder rate rose and continued to do so until they added more law enforcement. The gun banning didn’t change the murder rate. Not sure what you don’t get. Australia had a similar issue and so it goes. 

I know you’d rather give up your freedom because of fear, I believe the opposite.


----------



## Papageorgio

Issa said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> When will the carnage end?  Time to rewrite the archaic 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> time to ignore the gun banners who squeal in delight every time there is a shooting so they can use the blood of innocents to try to drown out our rights.  You hate the NRA and gun owners because they don't support the leftwing candidates you crave
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope because people are dying by the thousands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> really? gun deaths have declined over the years despite millions upon millions more guns in circulation and millions of people carrying guns legally. So you are either ignorant of the fact or lying.  Most gun deaths are SUICIDES.  the remaining number that are not justifiable or excusable shootings are homicides mainly and those are caused at rates of 80-90% by people who are not legally able to own or use guns
> 
> so stuff the silly dramatics.  Gun violence in tis country-especially outside urban areas full of drug gangs is minuscule
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> USA is the worst country in terms of gu related dearhs/mass shootings. So there is clearly a gun problem. Why do you need a gun ? Insecure? Or ready to kill when you are pissed at the world?
Click to expand...


People own them because they want to, it’s called personal choice. I’m not sure why people follow certain religions or customs or eat fast food. People do what they do because they have the freedom to do so. Just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean the world has to comply to your narrow-minded, racist view of the world.


----------



## Papageorgio

Daryl Hunt said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> First off, you are wrong, if guns were the reason for the violence why did gun deaths go down and murders go up? According to what you claim, gun deaths would go down and murders would go down but it simply isn’t true. So, the issue isn’t the guns, the issue is the culture here in the United States. We need to change the culture, I have stated this fact many times in the past but it seems to go beyond people that have one agenda. The other issue is a mental health issue.
> 
> The rest of your post is an emotional rant and does nothing to further the discussion and quite frankly they are emotion based lies. That seems to be a left tactic like tossing in a race card, highly emotional yet no substance.
> 
> You want to change the culture, fine, then you are working on solutions, to simply ban guns won’t change anything and Britain’s stats proved that.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my god I can't Beleive that after 25 years i would live in the US and would come across people who defend owning guns. After every mass shooting, we used to talk about it and say that Americans are crazy owning guns. Fast forward and here i m arguing with the crazies.
> It is so simple less guns less deaths, look at most of the world they dont have this carnage. Our murder rate with guns and without is by far the worst.
> 
> I simplified it many times, Moroccans can be hot headedd we get in fights quickly I'm sure if we had guns we would have a similar rate like the US but thank God we don't. So worse case scenario is few cuts and bruises and not bodies in plastic bags.
> 
> You guys are fucking nuts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh my god, I can’t believe after 50 years there are still people that don’t get it. I don’t and will never own a gun, however I the right and the freedom that others have to do what they want to legally do. Just owning a gun doesn’t make you violent, it is less than one 10th of 1% that do 100% of the killings. You ignore statistics, you ignore the Constitution and you ignore the freedoms that make this country great.
> 
> I respect your opinion, however I disagree with you and your comments are very ignorant as to the real issues.
> 
> I haven’t been in a fight since I was 12, it seems your culture is to violent for me, it’s amazing that you can’t be trusted with a weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol I've witnessed more fights in the US than in Morocco. My reference was is if we had guns some would definitely used them. But thank God we don't.
> 
> So why the hell the US surpasses most nations in gun related deaths?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I explained it many times, why are you not understanding? Less than one tenth of one percent kill, with a gun or not. Britain banned guns, murders by gun dropped, however more murders occurred. We are a violent culture as you have point out so well, we need to change the culture, and the deaths will go down. Just banning to ban and having no answers as to why, will change the way a person kills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are still using the NRA boiler plate.  The US is NOT Britain by any stretch of the imagination.  Yes, we do need to change the culture.  It was changed once in 1934 over another very efficient killing gun.  The Thompson as singled out in that law.  One of the cultures we need to change is your culture.  I don't advocate banning all guns.  It will never happen.  I own a 45ACP myself and don't feel threatened one bit by any gun laws.  Even if I have to get a Firearms License, I have the right to own it.  But it won't go quite that far either.  But I won't own an AR-15 or one like it.  That puppy has done most of the Mass Shootings in our Theaters, Concerts and Schools.  Yes, there were a few that didn't use one but the body count was very low in comparison.  I can accept the lower losses but not when it goes into the hundreds like it has.
> 
> By virtue of being retired Military, I assure you that I can be very violent.  But I chose not to be.  It's a  choice and always has been.  I am more afraid of the Legal Purchased AR-15 and others like it being used to shoot up high density populations than I am of the armed criminal.  One of the Schools just confiscated a handgun from a Student today here.  He is 18, a senior and purchased the gun legally.  But the handgun deaths may be within reasonable losses that we need to work on, but not accept as normal.  But the AR-15 bought legally and used for mass shootings is way out of the acceptable losses category.
> 
> You notice that if the "Gun Law Nutz" were to accept my way, would you be willing to meet them halfway and also accept the method I propose?  Or are you going to continue spouting standard NRA Boilerplate.   The NRA of today isn't the same one I was a member of at one time.  They aren't there to promote gun safety as much anymore.  They are there to sell guns, period.  That culture also need to change.
> 
> And please don't spout they are after your guns.  You can own any weapons short of a Nuclear Weapon if you get the proper license, have the proper storage and don't have a list of problems that would not allow you to pass a gun check for a normal purchase.
> 
> So what is it going to be.  You can change your ideas a bit or we will be forced into exactly what you nor I want in the first place.
Click to expand...


Im not an NRA member and dont need to be. Don’t know what a 45acp is nor do I really give a crap. I don’t own a gun, I don’t like them and won’t ever own one, that is my choice, you chose to own one, good for you. Issa thinks you are a paranoid nut for owning one, I think you are making a choice and are allowed that choice. That is it, I don’t think anyone is after my guns, because I don’t own one. 

I’m all for gun safety, proper storage, back ground checks and all that Skippy, Issa wants an entire gun ban, no personal choice, no options, just ban guns. I say it’s a personal choice. So explain to ISSA why you prefer to be a paranoid, violent warmonger, me I think you are with in your right as a citizen. Issa thinks you are the devil.


----------



## Papageorgio

Issa said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> time to ignore the gun banners who squeal in delight every time there is a shooting so they can use the blood of innocents to try to drown out our rights.  You hate the NRA and gun owners because they don't support the leftwing candidates you crave
> 
> 
> 
> Nope because people are dying by the thousands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> really? gun deaths have declined over the years despite millions upon millions more guns in circulation and millions of people carrying guns legally. So you are either ignorant of the fact or lying.  Most gun deaths are SUICIDES.  the remaining number that are not justifiable or excusable shootings are homicides mainly and those are caused at rates of 80-90% by people who are not legally able to own or use guns
> 
> so stuff the silly dramatics.  Gun violence in tis country-especially outside urban areas full of drug gangs is minuscule
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> USA is the worst country in terms of gu related dearhs/mass shootings. So there is clearly a gun problem. Why do you need a gun ? Insecure? Or ready to kill when you are pissed at the world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was an alternate on teh olympic shooting team, shot in two world championships, was a pro level USPSA pistol shooter and held the national pin record.  at almost 60 I am still one of the fastest steel shooters in Ohio.  I was also a federal prosector for almost 25 years.
> 
> so I like to shoot, I am world class at it, and I take my security seriously. are you afraid of guns or are you afraid of your own lack of ability to use one safely?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sorry but I would not keep you in my circle, invite you to my house or around my kids...is a principal I have before even moving to the US. I didn't grow up around guns, and don't intend to. it's 21st century for god's sake. This love for guns exists mainly in the US, and it's purely cultural just like some backwards stuff in Afghanistan and other parts of the world than needs to be abolished.
Click to expand...


With all the fights you have witnessed and how violent your world is, all the fist fights and hitting others. I would not want to be around you. You seem to choose confrontation over reasonableness.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Issa said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Were those "victims" carrying legally at the time?
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares more guns more dead people. Can we follow the rest of the world and save lives ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gun laws do not reduce the murder rate.
> 
> After al those countries like the UK passed strict gun laws their murder rates went up and have never dropped to below the pre gun law levels
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still lower than the US. And still the US has the highest rate of gun deaths than any western nation, heck even worse than some war torn countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol
> Violence is only prevalent in Urban progressive controlled areas you stupid ass motherfucker. So shove your fucking gun laws Up ass you cowardly little fuck...
> 
> Rural areas of America are awash in firearms... no violent crime to speak of.
> Just because firearms make you uncomfortable does not mean that you get the right to force that fucking Cowardly shit on other people...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> is this study a fakenews?
> 
> The study found that from 1999 through 2006, 23,649 Americans age 19 or younger died from gunshots. Rates in the most-rural and most-urban counties were nearly the same -- at 4 deaths per 100,000 children and teens, and 4.6 per 100,000, respectively.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Man, you really ARE a Johnny-Come-Lately.  If you were an actual American, rather than a second-rate transplant with delusions of grandeur, you'd know that the "fakenews" here is YOUR long-since-debunked bullshit.
> 
> Those "Americans 19 or younger dying from gunshots"?  Mostly gang members or others engaging in other criminal activity.  Admittedly, that's a problem in and of itself, but it's a far cry from the vision of innocent children being gunned down willy-nilly that you're imagining.  Furthermore, there are gun deaths and then there are gun deaths.  People under the age of 19 in rural areas are at MUCH less risk of gun violence from others, while they are more likely to choose a gun if they _commit suicide_.  Which makes your comparison apples and oranges.
> 
> Once you eliminate the criminals and the suicides, the youth gun death picture becomes VERY different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Eliminate what you want to better the stats. But the fact is here thousands die by being shot. Other countries don't have this madness because thry have less guns, in act I grow up in Morocco and we have almost none, and in the 23 years i lived there hardly anyone died from being shot.
> 
> Gun violence is a ultural issue in America. Hiding behind an old amendment is a stupid excuse...till we join other countries in banning guns. We gonna still count thousands of bodies. Ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not "eliminating what I want to better the stats", dumbass.  I'm clarifying the stats to understand the problems that actually need addressing, rather than using them vaguely so as to hide behind them, like you.  People like you are the reason Mark Twain said that there are three types of untruth:  lies, damned lies, and statistics.
> 
> The fact is, there aren't nearly as many people getting shot here by other people as you think there are.  And the reasons behind those deaths are almost never what you believe they are.  That means that the solution is DEFINITELY not what you want.
> 
> I'll say it again:  if other countries are so damned superior to the US, go live in them.  No one asked you to barge in here and start redecorating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most violent country and as an American I'm trying to make things better, and thats a right that exercise, through voting, lobbying, and other ways.
> That disc of if you don't like it go somewhere is childish. The US is not paradise it has its flaws and the biggest one is gun violence, we as those who lived in gun free country we are trying to explain to you...you can't prevent seing thousands of Americans dead as if it's a war zone. And especially kids.
Click to expand...


Only a leftist would think "Go where things are the way you want them" is childish compared to "rearrange the world to suit you, and force others to live with it".  But then, only a leftist would think that moving to a country you dislike and immediately trying to remake it somehow makes you a part of it.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Issa said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Were those "victims" carrying legally at the time?
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares more guns more dead people. Can we follow the rest of the world and save lives ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gun laws do not reduce the murder rate.
> 
> After al those countries like the UK passed strict gun laws their murder rates went up and have never dropped to below the pre gun law levels
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still lower than the US. And still the US has the highest rate of gun deaths than any western nation, heck even worse than some war torn countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And their gun laws have nothing to do with it.
> 
> The murder rate in the UK has always been lower even before their gun laws and there are many reasons having to do with societal, cultural, socioeconomic and other variables that you don't seem to understand
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do understand because I visited the UK and I live in the US...America refuses to leave the wild west mentality behind. Kids are submerged with violent contents from cartoons, movies, media, and so forth.
Click to expand...

The wild west wasn't very wild at all.  If you didn't get your history from comic books and old movies you would know that.

So is it the guns fault or the media's fault?  Maybe we should just ban everything that has a picture of a gun or has the word gun hell why stop there let's ban everything with the word bullet or bang.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Issa said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gun laws do not reduce the murder rate.
> 
> After al those countries like the UK passed strict gun laws their murder rates went up and have never dropped to below the pre gun law levels
> 
> 
> 
> Still lower than the US. And still the US has the highest rate of gun deaths than any western nation, heck even worse than some war torn countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man, you really ARE a Johnny-Come-Lately.  If you were an actual American, rather than a second-rate transplant with delusions of grandeur, you'd know that the "fakenews" here is YOUR long-since-debunked bullshit.
> 
> Those "Americans 19 or younger dying from gunshots"?  Mostly gang members or others engaging in other criminal activity.  Admittedly, that's a problem in and of itself, but it's a far cry from the vision of innocent children being gunned down willy-nilly that you're imagining.  Furthermore, there are gun deaths and then there are gun deaths.  People under the age of 19 in rural areas are at MUCH less risk of gun violence from others, while they are more likely to choose a gun if they _commit suicide_.  Which makes your comparison apples and oranges.
> 
> Once you eliminate the criminals and the suicides, the youth gun death picture becomes VERY different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Eliminate what you want to better the stats. But the fact is here thousands die by being shot. Other countries don't have this madness because thry have less guns, in act I grow up in Morocco and we have almost none, and in the 23 years i lived there hardly anyone died from being shot.
> 
> Gun violence is a ultural issue in America. Hiding behind an old amendment is a stupid excuse...till we join other countries in banning guns. We gonna still count thousands of bodies. Ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not "eliminating what I want to better the stats", dumbass.  I'm clarifying the stats to understand the problems that actually need addressing, rather than using them vaguely so as to hide behind them, like you.  People like you are the reason Mark Twain said that there are three types of untruth:  lies, damned lies, and statistics.
> 
> The fact is, there aren't nearly as many people getting shot here by other people as you think there are.  And the reasons behind those deaths are almost never what you believe they are.  That means that the solution is DEFINITELY not what you want.
> 
> I'll say it again:  if other countries are so damned superior to the US, go live in them.  No one asked you to barge in here and start redecorating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most violent country and as an American I'm trying to make things better, and thats a right that exercise, through voting, lobbying, and other ways.
> That disc of if you don't like it go somewhere is childish. The US is not paradise it has its flaws and the biggest one is gun violence, we as those who lived in gun free country we are trying to explain to you...you can't prevent seing thousands of Americans dead as if it's a war zone. And especially kids.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Banning guns won't make anything better
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It will...ask over 100 countries that have almost no guns available. The only country where might collect your kid dead from school is the US. Or might even get shot before you pick him up. It's insane you guys became numb to seing this horror.
Click to expand...


Not numb at all.  There are many ways to stop school shootings without taking guns away from law abiding people who will never commit a crime with a firearm.

You can't seem to understand that people who own guns and do not commit crimes are not in any way responsible for the actions of other people who do commit crimes.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Issa said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who's "we", Chuckles?  The only "we" I can think of that you legitimately belong to would be arrogant foreigners who want to enjoy all America has to offer while superciliously sneering at it and its people.  And you and your ilk are more than welcome to "follow the rest of the world" . . . right over to THEIR countries.
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that immigrants what not only made this country but what keeps making great. We tell you that we lived in countries where people don't have to get shot regularly it'll be wise to study why. And not be arrogant and keep counting dead bodies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great Britain further restricted gun laws in 1986, the gun deaths dropped but the murder rate continued to rise until 1995 when they hire more law enforcement officers. Instead of guns, the murders found other methods to kill people. You want to kill someone, you will find a away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's an apologist argument. Gun deaths and deaths from violence in general are higher in the US. And as I havestated as an example multiple times , a person with a gun can kill multiple pepple at once effortlessly , now goodluck with a knife or a hammer.
> 
> Mean time I tell my friends all over the world, that there are people who defend owning guns, they can't comprehend it and they view you as crazy, paranoid, violent and lunatic.
> 
> Ps: I know you don't give a fuck about the rest of the world, and you don't give a fuck about kids being killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First off, you are wrong, if guns were the reason for the violence why did gun deaths go down and murders go up? According to what you claim, gun deaths would go down and murders would go down but it simply isn’t true. So, the issue isn’t the guns, the issue is the culture here in the United States. We need to change the culture, I have stated this fact many times in the past but it seems to go beyond people that have one agenda. The other issue is a mental health issue.
> 
> The rest of your post is an emotional rant and does nothing to further the discussion and quite frankly they are emotion based lies. That seems to be a left tactic like tossing in a race card, highly emotional yet no substance.
> 
> You want to change the culture, fine, then you are working on solutions, to simply ban guns won’t change anything and Britain’s stats proved that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh my god I can't Beleive that after 25 years i would live in the US and would come across people who defend owning guns. After every mass shooting, we used to talk about it and say that Americans are crazy owning guns. Fast forward and here i m arguing with the crazies.
> It is so simple less guns less deaths, look at most of the world they dont have this carnage. Our murder rate with guns and without is by far the worst.
> 
> I simplified it many times, Moroccans can be hot headedd we get in fights quickly I'm sure if we had guns we would have a similar rate like the US but thank God we don't. So worse case scenario is few cuts and bruises and not bodies in plastic bags.
> 
> You guys are fucking nuts.
Click to expand...

Yeah why would Americans who's government is based on individual rights ever defend their rights.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Lakhota said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> All those kids gone just so the gun industry can make  a few bucks, and worse. we, the American people allowed it to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  I still remember when then President George W. Bush signed the PLCAA protecting gun manufacturers and dealers from liability.
> 
> The *Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA)* is a United States law which protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S. based manufacturer of consumer products is held responsible. They may also be held liable for negligent entrustment when they have reason to know a gun is intended for use in a crime.
> 
> *Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act - Wikipedia*
Click to expand...


The manufacturer of a firearm is not responsible fro the crimes people commit


----------



## Skull Pilot

Issa said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my god I can't Beleive that after 25 years i would live in the US and would come across people who defend owning guns. After every mass shooting, we used to talk about it and say that Americans are crazy owning guns. Fast forward and here i m arguing with the crazies.
> It is so simple less guns less deaths, look at most of the world they dont have this carnage. Our murder rate with guns and without is by far the worst.
> 
> I simplified it many times, Moroccans can be hot headedd we get in fights quickly I'm sure if we had guns we would have a similar rate like the US but thank God we don't. So worse case scenario is few cuts and bruises and not bodies in plastic bags.
> 
> You guys are fucking nuts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my god, I can’t believe after 50 years there are still people that don’t get it. I don’t and will never own a gun, however I the right and the freedom that others have to do what they want to legally do. Just owning a gun doesn’t make you violent, it is less than one 10th of 1% that do 100% of the killings. You ignore statistics, you ignore the Constitution and you ignore the freedoms that make this country great.
> 
> I respect your opinion, however I disagree with you and your comments are very ignorant as to the real issues.
> 
> I haven’t been in a fight since I was 12, it seems your culture is to violent for me, it’s amazing that you can’t be trusted with a weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol I've witnessed more fights in the US than in Morocco. My reference was is if we had guns some would definitely used them. But thank God we don't.
> 
> So why the hell the US surpasses most nations in gun related deaths?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I explained it many times, why are you not understanding? Less than one tenth of one percent kill, with a gun or not. Britain banned guns, murders by gun dropped, however more murders occurred. We are a violent culture as you have point out so well, we need to change the culture, and the deaths will go down. Just banning to ban and having no answers as to why, will change the way a person kills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are still using the NRA boiler plate.  The US is NOT Britain by any stretch of the imagination.  Yes, we do need to change the culture.  It was changed once in 1934 over another very efficient killing gun.  The Thompson as singled out in that law.  One of the cultures we need to change is your culture.  I don't advocate banning all guns.  It will never happen.  I own a 45ACP myself and don't feel threatened one bit by any gun laws.  Even if I have to get a Firearms License, I have the right to own it.  But it won't go quite that far either.  But I won't own an AR-15 or one like it.  That puppy has done most of the Mass Shootings in our Theaters, Concerts and Schools.  Yes, there were a few that didn't use one but the body count was very low in comparison.  I can accept the lower losses but not when it goes into the hundreds like it has.
> 
> By virtue of being retired Military, I assure you that I can be very violent.  But I chose not to be.  It's a  choice and always has been.  I am more afraid of the Legal Purchased AR-15 and others like it being used to shoot up high density populations than I am of the armed criminal.  One of the Schools just confiscated a handgun from a Student today here.  He is 18, a senior and purchased the gun legally.  But the handgun deaths may be within reasonable losses that we need to work on, but not accept as normal.  But the AR-15 bought legally and used for mass shootings is way out of the acceptable losses category.
> 
> You notice that if the "Gun Law Nutz" were to accept my way, would you be willing to meet them halfway and also accept the method I propose?  Or are you going to continue spouting standard NRA Boilerplate.   The NRA of today isn't the same one I was a member of at one time.  They aren't there to promote gun safety as much anymore.  They are there to sell guns, period.  That culture also need to change.
> 
> And please don't spout they are after your guns.  You can own any weapons short of a Nuclear Weapon if you get the proper license, have the proper storage and don't have a list of problems that would not allow you to pass a gun check for a normal purchase.
> 
> So what is it going to be.  You can change your ideas a bit or we will be forced into exactly what you nor I want in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you....
> The one argument i kept on hearing and it's laughable. We need guns to protect ourselves from the government....Do this people know that they are no match to an organised army with bigger weapons? Iraqis and Afghans were armed to the teeth and they knew they can't fight the US army. And yet a 300 lbs joe thinks he stand a chance vs one of the strongest armies on earth.
Click to expand...


I have never made that argument.

I have the absolute right to defend myself, my wife and my property.  That is why I own firearms.  I will never give up that right.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Lakhota said:


> The never-give-an-inch NRA Rambo gun nuts are the greatest threat to my future gun rights.  I would never own an AR-15.



How about a semiautomatic .223 like this


----------



## Skull Pilot

Papageorgio said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my god I can't Beleive that after 25 years i would live in the US and would come across people who defend owning guns. After every mass shooting, we used to talk about it and say that Americans are crazy owning guns. Fast forward and here i m arguing with the crazies.
> It is so simple less guns less deaths, look at most of the world they dont have this carnage. Our murder rate with guns and without is by far the worst.
> 
> I simplified it many times, Moroccans can be hot headedd we get in fights quickly I'm sure if we had guns we would have a similar rate like the US but thank God we don't. So worse case scenario is few cuts and bruises and not bodies in plastic bags.
> 
> You guys are fucking nuts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my god, I can’t believe after 50 years there are still people that don’t get it. I don’t and will never own a gun, however I the right and the freedom that others have to do what they want to legally do. Just owning a gun doesn’t make you violent, it is less than one 10th of 1% that do 100% of the killings. You ignore statistics, you ignore the Constitution and you ignore the freedoms that make this country great.
> 
> I respect your opinion, however I disagree with you and your comments are very ignorant as to the real issues.
> 
> I haven’t been in a fight since I was 12, it seems your culture is to violent for me, it’s amazing that you can’t be trusted with a weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol I've witnessed more fights in the US than in Morocco. My reference was is if we had guns some would definitely used them. But thank God we don't.
> 
> So why the hell the US surpasses most nations in gun related deaths?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I explained it many times, why are you not understanding? Less than one tenth of one percent kill, with a gun or not. Britain banned guns, murders by gun dropped, however more murders occurred. We are a violent culture as you have point out so well, we need to change the culture, and the deaths will go down. Just banning to ban and having no answers as to why, will change the way a person kills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why you stuck on the British example? why can't you look at most countries that have almost no guns, and say yes Let's be like those countries....let's save thousands of lives?
> And yes I agree on the culture part, but also the US is a hostage to an amendment that's not compatible with the 21st century. And some treat it as if it written by god almighty and should not be abolished.
> By the way there's lot of mis information about how the UK is more violent than the US. here is a good article research about it.
> 
> Social media post says U.K. has far higher violent crime rate than U.S. does
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn’t say the U.K. is more violent, I said after banning guns, their murder rate rose and continued to do so until they added more law enforcement. The gun banning didn’t change the murder rate. Not sure what you don’t get. Australia had a similar issue and so it goes.
> 
> I know you’d rather give up your freedom because of fear, I believe the opposite.
Click to expand...

the UK is more violent in some ways

They have more assaults and more rapes than the US.  The UK has 3 times more crimes per 1000 people than the US

United Kingdom vs United States: Crime Facts and Stats


----------



## Redfish

The Derp said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I want to be able to shoot the jack booted thugs when they enter my home trying to confiscate my weapons.   Its you libtards that want to shoot cops.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cops _*are*_ jack-booted thugs who enter homes wanting to confiscate weapons.
> 
> Sounds like you have a fantasy that you want to be able to kill cops.
> 
> Sounds like mental illness to me (paranoia).
> 
> Sounds like you're one of the crazy people who shouldn't get a gun.
Click to expand...



No, they are not, neither are members of our military.   The jack boots would come if the lib/dems ever take control of the government again.   But rest assured, the police and military will not side with the naxi liberal thugs.  A civil war is likely if it ever comes to that, and the constitution loving patriots will win.


----------



## Papageorgio

Skull Pilot said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my god, I can’t believe after 50 years there are still people that don’t get it. I don’t and will never own a gun, however I the right and the freedom that others have to do what they want to legally do. Just owning a gun doesn’t make you violent, it is less than one 10th of 1% that do 100% of the killings. You ignore statistics, you ignore the Constitution and you ignore the freedoms that make this country great.
> 
> I respect your opinion, however I disagree with you and your comments are very ignorant as to the real issues.
> 
> I haven’t been in a fight since I was 12, it seems your culture is to violent for me, it’s amazing that you can’t be trusted with a weapon.
> 
> 
> 
> Lol I've witnessed more fights in the US than in Morocco. My reference was is if we had guns some would definitely used them. But thank God we don't.
> 
> So why the hell the US surpasses most nations in gun related deaths?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I explained it many times, why are you not understanding? Less than one tenth of one percent kill, with a gun or not. Britain banned guns, murders by gun dropped, however more murders occurred. We are a violent culture as you have point out so well, we need to change the culture, and the deaths will go down. Just banning to ban and having no answers as to why, will change the way a person kills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why you stuck on the British example? why can't you look at most countries that have almost no guns, and say yes Let's be like those countries....let's save thousands of lives?
> And yes I agree on the culture part, but also the US is a hostage to an amendment that's not compatible with the 21st century. And some treat it as if it written by god almighty and should not be abolished.
> By the way there's lot of mis information about how the UK is more violent than the US. here is a good article research about it.
> 
> Social media post says U.K. has far higher violent crime rate than U.S. does
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn’t say the U.K. is more violent, I said after banning guns, their murder rate rose and continued to do so until they added more law enforcement. The gun banning didn’t change the murder rate. Not sure what you don’t get. Australia had a similar issue and so it goes.
> 
> I know you’d rather give up your freedom because of fear, I believe the opposite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the UK is more violent in some ways
> 
> They have more assaults and more rapes than the US.  The UK has 3 times more crimes per 1000 people than the US
> 
> United Kingdom vs United States: Crime Facts and Stats
Click to expand...



It doesn't matter if their crime rate is high or not, the bottom line is once they banned the guns, the murder rates went up. That means the guns had nothing to do with the murder rate. It would be the same here.


----------



## Redfish

The Derp said:


> KeiserC said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> the 2nd amendment allows us to protect ourselves from the government, not the other way around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you want to shoot cops.  That's what you mean, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Not out of the realm of possibility*... is the answer to your question...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So it's really a fantasy, then.  You have a fantasy that some government thugs (aka police) are going to kick in your door and take your weapons from you for no reason, leaving you with the only option of shooting at them.
> 
> That sounds like mental illness to me.
Click to expand...



It happened in Australia, and much of Europe, and Venezuela, and Iran.   but for the constitution it could happen here.


----------



## The Derp

Redfish said:


> It happened in Australia, and much of Europe, and Venezuela, and Iran.   but for the constitution it could happen here.



Australia, much of Europe and Iran have pretty low rates of gun deaths compared to us.

Mental illness is global, yet mass shootings are uniquely American.


----------



## Redfish

Cecilie1200 said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go back to your play station kid.
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you.  Go back to your dildo, Nancy.
> 
> We will never give in.  Ever.
> 
> Give it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not now but in the future it will happen. It's inevitable. With the migrants fertility rate and civilisation reaching the US and spreading it will happen. Red necks still think it's 18th century.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pussy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pussy are those who have guns.
> Ame4ican society is so infested with the love for guns and violence. Time to get civilised Mr redneck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, feel free to show us your "bravery" and march down a street in a Chicago ghetto at midnight, completely unarmed.
> 
> Just let us know if you prefer roses or lilies at your funeral.
Click to expand...



If he doesn't like Chicago, I suggest the lower ninth ward in New Orleans at 2am


----------



## Skull Pilot

Papageorgio said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol I've witnessed more fights in the US than in Morocco. My reference was is if we had guns some would definitely used them. But thank God we don't.
> 
> So why the hell the US surpasses most nations in gun related deaths?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I explained it many times, why are you not understanding? Less than one tenth of one percent kill, with a gun or not. Britain banned guns, murders by gun dropped, however more murders occurred. We are a violent culture as you have point out so well, we need to change the culture, and the deaths will go down. Just banning to ban and having no answers as to why, will change the way a person kills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why you stuck on the British example? why can't you look at most countries that have almost no guns, and say yes Let's be like those countries....let's save thousands of lives?
> And yes I agree on the culture part, but also the US is a hostage to an amendment that's not compatible with the 21st century. And some treat it as if it written by god almighty and should not be abolished.
> By the way there's lot of mis information about how the UK is more violent than the US. here is a good article research about it.
> 
> Social media post says U.K. has far higher violent crime rate than U.S. does
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn’t say the U.K. is more violent, I said after banning guns, their murder rate rose and continued to do so until they added more law enforcement. The gun banning didn’t change the murder rate. Not sure what you don’t get. Australia had a similar issue and so it goes.
> 
> I know you’d rather give up your freedom because of fear, I believe the opposite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the UK is more violent in some ways
> 
> They have more assaults and more rapes than the US.  The UK has 3 times more crimes per 1000 people than the US
> 
> United Kingdom vs United States: Crime Facts and Stats
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter if their crime rate is high or not, the bottom line is once they banned the guns, the murder rates went up. That means the guns had nothing to do with the murder rate. It would be the same here.
Click to expand...


I know.  I've been trying to tell the control freaks that for a long time.  They don't care about the facts


----------



## The Derp

Papageorgio said:


> It doesn't matter if their crime rate is high or not, the bottom line is once they banned the guns, the murder rates went up.



That sounds suspiciously like bullshit to me.  Where are the "facts" that support this?


----------



## Redfish

The Derp said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> It happened in Australia, and much of Europe, and Venezuela, and Iran.   but for the constitution it could happen here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Australia, much of Europe and Iran have pretty low rates of gun deaths compared to us.
> 
> Mental illness is global, yet mass shootings are uniquely American.
Click to expand...



that is a bold faced lie.   Check out the gun deaths in Norway.   How about Chicago, toughest gun laws in the nation, and the highest gun death rate.


----------



## Skull Pilot

The Derp said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter if their crime rate is high or not, the bottom line is once they banned the guns, the murder rates went up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That sounds suspiciously like bullshit to me.  Where are the "facts" that support this?
Click to expand...

Murder and homicide rates before and after gun bans - Crime Prevention Research Center


----------



## The Derp

Redfish said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you.  Go back to your dildo, Nancy.
> 
> We will never give in.  Ever.
> 
> Give it up.
> 
> 
> 
> Not now but in the future it will happen. It's inevitable. With the migrants fertility rate and civilisation reaching the US and spreading it will happen. Red necks still think it's 18th century.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pussy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pussy are those who have guns.
> Ame4ican society is so infested with the love for guns and violence. Time to get civilised Mr redneck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, feel free to show us your "bravery" and march down a street in a Chicago ghetto at midnight, completely unarmed.
> 
> Just let us know if you prefer roses or lilies at your funeral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If he doesn't like Chicago, I suggest the lower ninth ward in New Orleans at 2am
Click to expand...


Both Chicago and New Orleans are cities that deal with an "iron pipeline", which is straw purchasers in lax gun law states and areas buy guns and then traffic them to the cities, where they're used in gun crimes.

By mandating universal background checks on _*all*_ gun transactions and transfers, you eliminate straw purchasing and thus, eliminate the iron pipeline that traffics guns from the country to the cities, where they are used in gun crimes.


----------



## Papageorgio

Skull Pilot said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> I explained it many times, why are you not understanding? Less than one tenth of one percent kill, with a gun or not. Britain banned guns, murders by gun dropped, however more murders occurred. We are a violent culture as you have point out so well, we need to change the culture, and the deaths will go down. Just banning to ban and having no answers as to why, will change the way a person kills.
> 
> 
> 
> Why you stuck on the British example? why can't you look at most countries that have almost no guns, and say yes Let's be like those countries....let's save thousands of lives?
> And yes I agree on the culture part, but also the US is a hostage to an amendment that's not compatible with the 21st century. And some treat it as if it written by god almighty and should not be abolished.
> By the way there's lot of mis information about how the UK is more violent than the US. here is a good article research about it.
> 
> Social media post says U.K. has far higher violent crime rate than U.S. does
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn’t say the U.K. is more violent, I said after banning guns, their murder rate rose and continued to do so until they added more law enforcement. The gun banning didn’t change the murder rate. Not sure what you don’t get. Australia had a similar issue and so it goes.
> 
> I know you’d rather give up your freedom because of fear, I believe the opposite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the UK is more violent in some ways
> 
> They have more assaults and more rapes than the US.  The UK has 3 times more crimes per 1000 people than the US
> 
> United Kingdom vs United States: Crime Facts and Stats
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter if their crime rate is high or not, the bottom line is once they banned the guns, the murder rates went up. That means the guns had nothing to do with the murder rate. It would be the same here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know.  I've been trying to tell the control freaks that for a long time.  They don't care about the facts
Click to expand...


I know, I have posted the links and the proof over and over.


----------



## The Derp

Skull Pilot said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter if their crime rate is high or not, the bottom line is once they banned the guns, the murder rates went up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That sounds suspiciously like bullshit to me.  Where are the "facts" that support this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Murder and homicide rates before and after gun bans - Crime Prevention Research Center
Click to expand...


So...a couple things about this chart:

1.  I see the rate in 2010 dropped to below the rate in 1997. 
2.  Where's 2012-2017?


----------



## Redfish

The Derp said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not now but in the future it will happen. It's inevitable. With the migrants fertility rate and civilisation reaching the US and spreading it will happen. Red necks still think it's 18th century.
> 
> 
> 
> Pussy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pussy are those who have guns.
> Ame4ican society is so infested with the love for guns and violence. Time to get civilised Mr redneck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, feel free to show us your "bravery" and march down a street in a Chicago ghetto at midnight, completely unarmed.
> 
> Just let us know if you prefer roses or lilies at your funeral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If he doesn't like Chicago, I suggest the lower ninth ward in New Orleans at 2am
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both Chicago and New Orleans are cities that deal with an "iron pipeline", which is straw purchasers in lax gun law states and areas buy guns and then traffic them to the cities, where they're used in gun crimes.
> 
> By mandating universal background checks on _*all*_ gun transactions and transfers, you eliminate straw purchasing and thus, eliminate the iron pipeline that traffics guns from the country to the cities, where they are used in gun crimes.
Click to expand...



Ok, tell me exactly how a background check would work when a gangbanger sells a stolen gun to another gangbanger.   That's a gun transaction, right?


----------



## The Derp

Redfish said:


> that is a bold faced lie.   Check out the gun deaths in Norway.   How about Chicago, toughest gun laws in the nation, and the highest gun death rate.



1.  It's "BALD-FACED LIE", not "Bold-faced", you fucking Russian troll.
2.  What are the gun deaths in Norway supposed to prove, and by all means, post whatever data you want.
3.  Chicago has tough gun laws but the states surrounding Chicago don't, so what happens is that straw purchasers traffic guns into Chicago that are used in crimes.  Universal background checks on every gun purchase and transaction and transfer would eliminate straw purchasing.


----------



## Skull Pilot

The Derp said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter if their crime rate is high or not, the bottom line is once they banned the guns, the murder rates went up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That sounds suspiciously like bullshit to me.  Where are the "facts" that support this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Murder and homicide rates before and after gun bans - Crime Prevention Research Center
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So...a couple things about this chart:
> 
> 1.  I see the rate in 2010 dropped to below the rate in 1997.
> 2.  Where's 2012-2017?
Click to expand...

so it's your contention that it takes decades for gun bans to decrease the murder rate?

And how the hell should I know why there isn't data for 2017?


----------



## The Derp

Redfish said:


> Ok, tell me exactly how a background check would work when a gangbanger sells a stolen gun to another gangbanger.   That's a gun transaction, right?



Well, a background check wouldn't work on a _*stolen gun*_, but a fingerprint ID lock like my iphone has _*would*_.  Which is why one of the five actions I think we should take is to mandate all new guns manufactured have the fingerprint ID lock that all smart phones now have as a standard feature.


----------



## Redfish

The Derp said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> that is a bold faced lie.   Check out the gun deaths in Norway.   How about Chicago, toughest gun laws in the nation, and the highest gun death rate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  It's "BALD-FACED LIE", not "Bold-faced", you fucking Russian troll.
> 2.  What are the gun deaths in Norway supposed to prove, and by all means, post whatever data you want.
> 3.  Chicago has tough gun laws but the states surrounding Chicago don't, so what happens is that straw purchasers traffic guns into Chicago that are used in crimes.  Universal background checks on every gun purchase and transaction and transfer would eliminate straw purchasing.
Click to expand...



Possession of a hand gun without a permit is a crime in Chicago.   Do you understand that?

If guns are banned and confiscated, only criminals and the government will have guns,  would that make you sleep better?


----------



## The Derp

Skull Pilot said:


> so it's your contention that it takes decades for gun bans to decrease the murder rate?



No, my contention is that your argument is bullshit, your data is cherry-picked, and nothing is sourced.


----------



## Redfish

The Derp said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, tell me exactly how a background check would work when a gangbanger sells a stolen gun to another gangbanger.   That's a gun transaction, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, a background check wouldn't work on a _*stolen gun*_, but a fingerprint ID lock like my iphone has _*would*_.  Which is why one of the five actions I think we should take is to mandate all new guns manufactured have the fingerprint ID lock that all smart phones now have as a standard feature.
Click to expand...



who is going to fingerprint MS13 and the other criminal gangs?   who is going to take their guns away and install fingerprint locks? 

your naivete is amazing.


----------



## Redfish

The Derp said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> that is a bold faced lie.   Check out the gun deaths in Norway.   How about Chicago, toughest gun laws in the nation, and the highest gun death rate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  It's "BALD-FACED LIE", not "Bold-faced", you fucking Russian troll.
> 2.  What are the gun deaths in Norway supposed to prove, and by all means, post whatever data you want.
> 3.  Chicago has tough gun laws but the states surrounding Chicago don't, so what happens is that straw purchasers traffic guns into Chicago that are used in crimes.  Universal background checks on every gun purchase and transaction and transfer would eliminate straw purchasing.
Click to expand...



typo, dipshit.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Skull Pilot said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> All those kids gone just so the gun industry can make  a few bucks, and worse. we, the American people allowed it to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  I still remember when then President George W. Bush signed the PLCAA protecting gun manufacturers and dealers from liability.
> 
> The *Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA)* is a United States law which protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S. based manufacturer of consumer products is held responsible. They may also be held liable for negligent entrustment when they have reason to know a gun is intended for use in a crime.
> 
> *Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act - Wikipedia*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The manufacturer of a firearm is not responsible fro the crimes people commit
Click to expand...


It is when the product is designed only to kill a lot of people.  Thompson's sales came to a screeching halt on the Thompson MG when they singled it out with the 1934 law.  IF only the mafia types only killed each other they may have left it alone.  But they didn't.  Innocents were slaughtered as well.

I elect that the AR types and the AK types are placed in the same special place the Thompson is today for exactly the same reason.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

.
*Ya know....Leftists already accomplished all this "Gun Control" and MORE......IN VENEZUELA.

How's that working out for Venezuela?
(It takes a special kind of Imbecile to see this and still push for more gun controls)
*

*




*


----------



## The Derp

Redfish said:


> Possession of a hand gun without a permit is a crime in Chicago.   Do you understand that?



DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT GUNS THAT END UP IN CHICAGO ARE TRAFFICKED THERE BY STRAW PURCHASERS VIA AN "IRON PIPELINE"?

So it would seem that if you are truly, honestly, and sincerely concerned about gun violence in Chicago, you would support universal background checks that eliminate straw purchasing.  But do you?  No...because you're not true, honest, or sincere in your concern for gun violence in Chicago or _*any*_ city for that matter.

You're just a fraud and a coward.




Redfish said:


> If guns are banned and confiscated, only criminals and the government will have guns,  would that make you sleep better?



Straw man alert!  Did I say anything about banning or confiscating guns?  No.  But you have to pretend I did, otherwise your hysterical argument means nothing.  As I've said, I think there are five very simple and easy actions we can take to reduce gun violence, none of them involve banning or confiscating guns:

1.  Universal background checks on any and all gun transactions and transfers, no exceptions.
2.  All new guns manufactured moving forward must have the same fingerprint ID lock my smart phone has.
3.  No one with a domestic violence charge or restraining order against them should be allowed to own a gun.
4.  No one on the terrorist no-fly list should be allowed to own a gun.
5.  Free, universal, open, and encouraged access to mental health counseling and treatment *for everyone
*
If we enacted those five very simple and non-controversial actions, gun deaths would drop dramatically.


----------



## Redfish

Daryl Hunt said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> All those kids gone just so the gun industry can make  a few bucks, and worse. we, the American people allowed it to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  I still remember when then President George W. Bush signed the PLCAA protecting gun manufacturers and dealers from liability.
> 
> The *Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA)* is a United States law which protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S. based manufacturer of consumer products is held responsible. They may also be held liable for negligent entrustment when they have reason to know a gun is intended for use in a crime.
> 
> *Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act - Wikipedia*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The manufacturer of a firearm is not responsible fro the crimes people commit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is when the product is designed only to kill a lot of people.  Thompson's sales came to a screeching halt on the Thompson MG when they singled it out with the 1934 law.  IF only the mafia types only killed each other they may have left it alone.  But they didn't.  Innocents were slaughtered as well.
> 
> I elect that the AR types and the AK types are placed in the same special place the Thompson is today for exactly the same reason.
Click to expand...



I sort of agree that no average citizen needs an assault rifle with a large capacity magazine.  But the problem comes in defining the weapons and the slippery slope that the libs would put the entire subject on.

a better solution would be to get mentally ill people off the streets and not allow them to buy or own any kind of gun.   We used to have places where people like the fla shooter would be committed, that no longer happens because we are obsessed with PC and cant hurt anyone's feelings, even if it saves innocent lives.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Skull Pilot said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> The never-give-an-inch NRA Rambo gun nuts are the greatest threat to my future gun rights.  I would never own an AR-15.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about a semiautomatic .223 like this
Click to expand...


The rate of fire on the Mini-14 is much slower than the fire rate of the AR.  You are limited to the number of rounds you can fire by that slower fire rate.  For hunting, the Mini-14 blows the AR away in all areas.  For Mass Kilings, the AR is king.  Are you willing to compromise on making the AR and the AK of all types regulated more and gotten off the shelves at Gun Stores and out of Online Sales?  If you are not, you hurt the gun culture.  They just might bag the Mini-14 with the same oncoming laws that will bag the AR and AK.


----------



## The Derp

Redfish said:


> who is going to fingerprint MS13 and the other criminal gangs?   who is going to take their guns away and install fingerprint locks?



You are being deliberately obtuse and I don't know why.

Firstly, do you even know how the current fingerprint ID locks on guns work?  If not, educate yourself.

Take out your smart phone.  Look at it.  Does it have a fingerprint ID mechanism on it that allows you access?  My iphone X does, and in order to use my smart phone, I have to unlock it with my fingerprint.

I propose the same thing on all newly manufactured guns.  Some gunmakers _*already do that*_.  I think it should be universal.

So why are you pretending to be obtuse?  Why do you have that compulsion?  Is it simply a matter of pride?  That's what it seems.


----------



## Redfish

The Derp said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Possession of a hand gun without a permit is a crime in Chicago.   Do you understand that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT GUNS THAT END UP IN CHICAGO ARE TRAFFICKED THERE BY STRAW PURCHASERS VIA AN "IRON PIPELINE"?
> 
> So it would seem that if you are truly, honestly, and sincerely concerned about gun violence in Chicago, you would support universal background checks that eliminate straw purchasing.  But do you?  No...because you're not true, honest, or sincere in your concern for gun violence in Chicago or _*any*_ city for that matter.
> 
> You're just a fraud and a coward.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> If guns are banned and confiscated, only criminals and the government will have guns,  would that make you sleep better?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Straw man alert!  Did I say anything about banning or confiscating guns?  No.  But you have to pretend I did, otherwise your hysterical argument means nothing.  As I've said, I think there are five very simple and easy actions we can take to reduce gun violence, none of them involve banning or confiscating guns:
> 
> 1.  Universal background checks on any and all gun transactions and transfers, no exceptions.
> 2.  All new guns manufactured moving forward must have the same fingerprint ID lock my smart phone has.
> 3.  No one with a domestic violence charge or restraining order against them should be allowed to own a gun.
> 4.  No one on the terrorist no-fly list should be allowed to own a gun.
> 5.  Free, universal, open, and encouraged access to mental health counseling and treatment *for everyone
> *
> If we enacted those five very simple and non-controversial actions, gun deaths would drop dramatically.
Click to expand...



you keep saying background checks on all gun transactions, but you cant answer the question of how you do that when a criminal sells a gun to another criminal or trades a gun for a hit of coke.  

Answer that and then we will talk,   until then, STFU


----------



## The Derp

Redfish said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> that is a bold faced lie.   Check out the gun deaths in Norway.   How about Chicago, toughest gun laws in the nation, and the highest gun death rate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  It's "BALD-FACED LIE", not "Bold-faced", you fucking Russian troll.
> 2.  What are the gun deaths in Norway supposed to prove, and by all means, post whatever data you want.
> 3.  Chicago has tough gun laws but the states surrounding Chicago don't, so what happens is that straw purchasers traffic guns into Chicago that are used in crimes.  Universal background checks on every gun purchase and transaction and transfer would eliminate straw purchasing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> typo, dipshit.
Click to expand...


No it wasn't.  Don't fucking lie to me.

Secondly, what about points #2 and #3?  No answer for those?  Color me shocked.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Redfish said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> All those kids gone just so the gun industry can make  a few bucks, and worse. we, the American people allowed it to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  I still remember when then President George W. Bush signed the PLCAA protecting gun manufacturers and dealers from liability.
> 
> The *Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA)* is a United States law which protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S. based manufacturer of consumer products is held responsible. They may also be held liable for negligent entrustment when they have reason to know a gun is intended for use in a crime.
> 
> *Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act - Wikipedia*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The manufacturer of a firearm is not responsible fro the crimes people commit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is when the product is designed only to kill a lot of people.  Thompson's sales came to a screeching halt on the Thompson MG when they singled it out with the 1934 law.  IF only the mafia types only killed each other they may have left it alone.  But they didn't.  Innocents were slaughtered as well.
> 
> I elect that the AR types and the AK types are placed in the same special place the Thompson is today for exactly the same reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I sort of agree that no average citizen needs an assault rifle with a large capacity magazine.  But the problem comes in defining the weapons and the slippery slope that the libs would put the entire subject on.
> 
> a better solution would be to get mentally ill people off the streets and not allow them to buy or own any kind of gun.   We used to have places where people like the fla shooter would be committed, that no longer happens because we are obsessed with PC and cant hurt anyone's feelings, even if it saves innocent lives.
Click to expand...


You try and make it Political.  It's not any more Political than the Non Political Mass Murderers.  It's not about politics, it's about how do we minimize the damage and body count.


----------



## Redfish

The Derp said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> who is going to fingerprint MS13 and the other criminal gangs?   who is going to take their guns away and install fingerprint locks?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are being deliberately obtuse and I don't know why.
> 
> Firstly, do you even know how the current fingerprint ID locks on guns work?  If not, educate yourself.
> 
> Take out your smart phone.  Look at it.  Does it have a fingerprint ID mechanism on it that allows you access?  My iphone X does, and in order to use my smart phone, I have to unlock it with my fingerprint.
> 
> I propose the same thing on all newly manufactured guns.  Some gunmakers _*already do that*_.  I think it should be universal.
> 
> So why are you pretending to be obtuse?  Why do you have that compulsion?  Is it simply a matter of pride?  That's what it seems.
Click to expand...



I am asking practical questions.  you are posting talking points and bullshit.

I understand finger print locks.  I have one on my gun safe.   I don't have one on my gun in my car because I don't want to have to say "wait a minute Mr criminal while I activate my fingerprint lock"


----------



## Redfish

The Derp said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> that is a bold faced lie.   Check out the gun deaths in Norway.   How about Chicago, toughest gun laws in the nation, and the highest gun death rate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  It's "BALD-FACED LIE", not "Bold-faced", you fucking Russian troll.
> 2.  What are the gun deaths in Norway supposed to prove, and by all means, post whatever data you want.
> 3.  Chicago has tough gun laws but the states surrounding Chicago don't, so what happens is that straw purchasers traffic guns into Chicago that are used in crimes.  Universal background checks on every gun purchase and transaction and transfer would eliminate straw purchasing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> typo, dipshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it wasn't.  Don't fucking lie to me.
> 
> Secondly, what about points #2 and #3?  No answer for those?  Color me shocked.
Click to expand...



already answered, and yes it was.   I don't give a flying fuck if you believe me.


----------



## Papageorgio

Skull Pilot said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter if their crime rate is high or not, the bottom line is once they banned the guns, the murder rates went up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That sounds suspiciously like bullshit to me.  Where are the "facts" that support this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Murder and homicide rates before and after gun bans - Crime Prevention Research Center
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So...a couple things about this chart:
> 
> 1.  I see the rate in 2010 dropped to below the rate in 1997.
> 2.  Where's 2012-2017?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so it's your contention that it takes decades for gun bans to decrease the murder rate?
> 
> And how the hell should I know why there isn't data for 2017?
Click to expand...


The murder rate went down after Britain added law enforcement to stem the trend that was moving upwards. So it was added law enforcement not banning guns that led to the decline.


----------



## Redfish

Daryl Hunt said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> All those kids gone just so the gun industry can make  a few bucks, and worse. we, the American people allowed it to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  I still remember when then President George W. Bush signed the PLCAA protecting gun manufacturers and dealers from liability.
> 
> The *Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA)* is a United States law which protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S. based manufacturer of consumer products is held responsible. They may also be held liable for negligent entrustment when they have reason to know a gun is intended for use in a crime.
> 
> *Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act - Wikipedia*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The manufacturer of a firearm is not responsible fro the crimes people commit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is when the product is designed only to kill a lot of people.  Thompson's sales came to a screeching halt on the Thompson MG when they singled it out with the 1934 law.  IF only the mafia types only killed each other they may have left it alone.  But they didn't.  Innocents were slaughtered as well.
> 
> I elect that the AR types and the AK types are placed in the same special place the Thompson is today for exactly the same reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I sort of agree that no average citizen needs an assault rifle with a large capacity magazine.  But the problem comes in defining the weapons and the slippery slope that the libs would put the entire subject on.
> 
> a better solution would be to get mentally ill people off the streets and not allow them to buy or own any kind of gun.   We used to have places where people like the fla shooter would be committed, that no longer happens because we are obsessed with PC and cant hurt anyone's feelings, even if it saves innocent lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You try and make it Political.  It's not any more Political than the Non Political Mass Murderers.  It's not about politics, it's about how do we minimize the damage and body count.
Click to expand...



by keeping guns out of the hands of mentally ill people and by arming the people protecting our children.


----------



## kaz

Lakhota said:


> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
Click to expand...


No, it's more important than ever


----------



## The Derp

Redfish said:


> you keep saying background checks on all gun transactions, but you cant answer the question of how you do that when a criminal sells a gun to another criminal or trades a gun for a hit of coke.



OMFG...you are being a fucking idiot on purpose, aren't you?

As I said before, background checks won't work on _*stolen guns*_ because they're _*stolen*_.

But fingerprint ID locks *would work*, which is why it's the _*second*_ thing I list.

You keep ignoring that, why?  Because you don't want to admit that your blanket support for guns is flawed.  I think it's even more personal than that...I think you just don't want to admit that what I'm proposing is reasonable because your mushy brain is paranoid and thinks I'm out to get you.  I can assure you I'm not.  I really, truly do not care about your personal life at all.  I doubt anyone does.


----------



## The Derp

Redfish said:


> I am asking practical questions.  you are posting talking points and bullshit."



No, I'm responding to your questions...you're just not getting the answers you want and are finding yourself persuaded by my argument...but because you have the world's shittiest ego, you can't bring yourself to admit that what I'm proposing is reasonable for whatever fucking psychological reason you have. 

Explain how what I'm proposing are "talking points" when you agree with me! 


You do agree that guns should have fingerprint ID locks so only the owner can use them, right?  Why wouldn't you agree to that? 
And you agree that all gun transactions and transfers should be subject to a background check, right?  Why wouldn't you agree to that? 
And surely you agree that domestic abusers shouldn't be allowed to own guns, right?  Why wouldn't you agree to that? 
And surely you also agree that terrorists or suspected terrorists shouldn't be allowed to own guns, right?  Why wouldn't you agree to that?
And of course you also agree that mentally ill people should be encouraged to go to mental health treatment and therapy, right?  Why wouldn't you agree to that?

I think the reason you won't agree to it is simply a matter of your ego.




Redfish said:


> I understand finger print locks.  I have one on my gun safe.   I don't have one on my gun in my car because I don't want to have to say "wait a minute Mr criminal while I activate my fingerprint lock"



How long does it take to activate the fingerprint ID lock on your smart phone?  Because mine is instantaneous, the moment I put my finger on the home button of my iphone X.

Your dirty harry vigilante fantasy notwithstanding, I don't see how a fingerprint ID lock for your gun is any different than a safety switch.  In fact, you could eliminate the safety switch if you wanted and just have your fingerprint unlock everything.  That technology exists.


----------



## The Derp

Redfish said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> that is a bold faced lie.   Check out the gun deaths in Norway.   How about Chicago, toughest gun laws in the nation, and the highest gun death rate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  It's "BALD-FACED LIE", not "Bold-faced", you fucking Russian troll.
> 2.  What are the gun deaths in Norway supposed to prove, and by all means, post whatever data you want.
> 3.  Chicago has tough gun laws but the states surrounding Chicago don't, so what happens is that straw purchasers traffic guns into Chicago that are used in crimes.  Universal background checks on every gun purchase and transaction and transfer would eliminate straw purchasing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> typo, dipshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it wasn't.  Don't fucking lie to me.
> 
> Secondly, what about points #2 and #3?  No answer for those?  Color me shocked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> already answered, and yes it was.   I don't give a flying fuck if you believe me.
Click to expand...


No you didn't answer them.  Not at all.  Stop being lazy and do the fucking work.


----------



## The Derp

Redfish said:


> by keeping guns out of the hands of mentally ill people and by arming the people protecting our children.



Who is protecting the children?  Isn't that the job of the police?  

You want to keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill people, but what do you do about the mentally ill people who don't think they're mentally ill and thus, aren't diagnosed as mentally ill and won't show up on a background check?


----------



## KeiserC

Believe it or not but the AR-15 was *not primarily* designed for 'killing people' as so many claim... As any varmint hunter knows the .223 Remington / .556NATO  is sort of a mediocre varmint round for 5 - 50 pound critters.  Under no circumstances are FMJ bullets good for anything but punching paper and wounding.

The AR-15 is the civilian version of the M16 / revised to the M16A1.  The Military deliberately changed to this platform from the very lethal M14 chambered in 7.62x51 (.308), to the diminutive .556 NATO round, primarily to wound... It was deemed more beneficial to wound a combatant thereby requiring one or more of his comrades assisting the wounded off he battle line.  Secondarily it saved a tremendous amount of weight allowing for each soldier to carry significantly more rounds.

As one who reloads for a variety of .224" / .556 mm rifles it is a (fortuitous thing... please understand the context and intent of using the word fortuitous...) that these psychos with their AR varmint equipment use the ubiquitous FMJ stuff lying around at their box stores and a platform that was never really designed for lethality....


----------



## Rustic

The Derp said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not now but in the future it will happen. It's inevitable. With the migrants fertility rate and civilisation reaching the US and spreading it will happen. Red necks still think it's 18th century.
> 
> 
> 
> Pussy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pussy are those who have guns.
> Ame4ican society is so infested with the love for guns and violence. Time to get civilised Mr redneck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, feel free to show us your "bravery" and march down a street in a Chicago ghetto at midnight, completely unarmed.
> 
> Just let us know if you prefer roses or lilies at your funeral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If he doesn't like Chicago, I suggest the lower ninth ward in New Orleans at 2am
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both Chicago and New Orleans are cities that deal with an "iron pipeline", which is straw purchasers in lax gun law states and areas buy guns and then traffic them to the cities, where they're used in gun crimes.
> 
> By mandating universal background checks on _*all*_ gun transactions and transfers, you eliminate straw purchasing and thus, eliminate the iron pipeline that traffics guns from the country to the cities, where they are used in gun crimes.
Click to expand...

Na, Unconstitutional


----------



## Rustic

The Derp said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, tell me exactly how a background check would work when a gangbanger sells a stolen gun to another gangbanger.   That's a gun transaction, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, a background check wouldn't work on a _*stolen gun*_, but a fingerprint ID lock like my iphone has _*would*_.  Which is why one of the five actions I think we should take is to mandate all new guns manufactured have the fingerprint ID lock that all smart phones now have as a standard feature.
Click to expand...

UnConstitutional


----------



## Rustic

Daryl Hunt said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> All those kids gone just so the gun industry can make  a few bucks, and worse. we, the American people allowed it to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  I still remember when then President George W. Bush signed the PLCAA protecting gun manufacturers and dealers from liability.
> 
> The *Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA)* is a United States law which protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S. based manufacturer of consumer products is held responsible. They may also be held liable for negligent entrustment when they have reason to know a gun is intended for use in a crime.
> 
> *Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act - Wikipedia*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The manufacturer of a firearm is not responsible fro the crimes people commit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is when the product is designed only to kill a lot of people.  Thompson's sales came to a screeching halt on the Thompson MG when they singled it out with the 1934 law.  IF only the mafia types only killed each other they may have left it alone.  But they didn't.  Innocents were slaughtered as well.
> 
> I elect that the AR types and the AK types are placed in the same special place the Thompson is today for exactly the same reason.
Click to expand...

You know nothing of firearms, ARs are just sporting rifles Nothing more nothing less...





Anyway, You sound like a bitch in heat


----------



## Rustic

Daryl Hunt said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> The never-give-an-inch NRA Rambo gun nuts are the greatest threat to my future gun rights.  I would never own an AR-15.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about a semiautomatic .223 like this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rate of fire on the Mini-14 is much slower than the fire rate of the AR.  You are limited to the number of rounds you can fire by that slower fire rate.  For hunting, the Mini-14 blows the AR away in all areas.  For Mass Kilings, the AR is king.  Are you willing to compromise on making the AR and the AK of all types regulated more and gotten off the shelves at Gun Stores and out of Online Sales?  If you are not, you hurt the gun culture.  They just might bag the Mini-14 with the same oncoming laws that will bag the AR and AK.
Click to expand...

Lol
You are a fucking retard, it depends on the AR you fucking dolt. ARs are in no way military grade. 
Mini 14s are no better or no worse than over-the-counter ARs for hunting, you fucking pussy whipped bitch.  
Like I said you know nothing of firearms whatsoever, you’re a fucking progressive shit stain who watches too many Hollywood movies made by child molesting Hollywood types. Go back to your safe space you fucking spineless coward.


----------



## The Derp

Rustic said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pussy
> 
> 
> 
> Pussy are those who have guns.
> Ame4ican society is so infested with the love for guns and violence. Time to get civilised Mr redneck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, feel free to show us your "bravery" and march down a street in a Chicago ghetto at midnight, completely unarmed.
> 
> Just let us know if you prefer roses or lilies at your funeral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If he doesn't like Chicago, I suggest the lower ninth ward in New Orleans at 2am
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both Chicago and New Orleans are cities that deal with an "iron pipeline", which is straw purchasers in lax gun law states and areas buy guns and then traffic them to the cities, where they're used in gun crimes.
> 
> By mandating universal background checks on _*all*_ gun transactions and transfers, you eliminate straw purchasing and thus, eliminate the iron pipeline that traffics guns from the country to the cities, where they are used in gun crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Na, Unconstitutional
Click to expand...


How are background checks unconstitutional?  The Supreme Court ruled they were Constitutional, so you saying they aren't is either you being misinformed, or you being a troll.


----------



## The Derp

Rustic said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, tell me exactly how a background check would work when a gangbanger sells a stolen gun to another gangbanger.   That's a gun transaction, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, a background check wouldn't work on a _*stolen gun*_, but a fingerprint ID lock like my iphone has _*would*_.  Which is why one of the five actions I think we should take is to mandate all new guns manufactured have the fingerprint ID lock that all smart phones now have as a standard feature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> UnConstitutional
Click to expand...


Not according to the Supreme Court.


----------



## Rustic

Daryl Hunt said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> All those kids gone just so the gun industry can make  a few bucks, and worse. we, the American people allowed it to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  I still remember when then President George W. Bush signed the PLCAA protecting gun manufacturers and dealers from liability.
> 
> The *Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA)* is a United States law which protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S. based manufacturer of consumer products is held responsible. They may also be held liable for negligent entrustment when they have reason to know a gun is intended for use in a crime.
> 
> *Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act - Wikipedia*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The manufacturer of a firearm is not responsible fro the crimes people commit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is when the product is designed only to kill a lot of people.  Thompson's sales came to a screeching halt on the Thompson MG when they singled it out with the 1934 law.  IF only the mafia types only killed each other they may have left it alone.  But they didn't.  Innocents were slaughtered as well.
> 
> I elect that the AR types and the AK types are placed in the same special place the Thompson is today for exactly the same reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I sort of agree that no average citizen needs an assault rifle with a large capacity magazine.  But the problem comes in defining the weapons and the slippery slope that the libs would put the entire subject on.
> 
> a better solution would be to get mentally ill people off the streets and not allow them to buy or own any kind of gun.   We used to have places where people like the fla shooter would be committed, that no longer happens because we are obsessed with PC and cant hurt anyone's feelings, even if it saves innocent lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You try and make it Political.  It's not any more Political than the Non Political Mass Murderers.  It's not about politics, it's about how do we minimize the damage and body count.
Click to expand...

Criminal control not gun control, dumbass


----------



## The Derp

Rustic said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> All those kids gone just so the gun industry can make  a few bucks, and worse. we, the American people allowed it to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  I still remember when then President George W. Bush signed the PLCAA protecting gun manufacturers and dealers from liability.
> 
> The *Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA)* is a United States law which protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S. based manufacturer of consumer products is held responsible. They may also be held liable for negligent entrustment when they have reason to know a gun is intended for use in a crime.
> 
> *Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act - Wikipedia*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The manufacturer of a firearm is not responsible fro the crimes people commit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is when the product is designed only to kill a lot of people.  Thompson's sales came to a screeching halt on the Thompson MG when they singled it out with the 1934 law.  IF only the mafia types only killed each other they may have left it alone.  But they didn't.  Innocents were slaughtered as well.
> 
> I elect that the AR types and the AK types are placed in the same special place the Thompson is today for exactly the same reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know nothing of firearms, ARs are just sporting rifles Nothing more nothing less...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, You sound like a bitch in heat
Click to expand...


OK, so 323 people were killed by AR-15's and 496 were killed by hammers.

BUT

Were the 323 people killed by AR-15's killed in 323 separate incidents, or just a handful of incidents?  Same question for the hammers...


----------



## Rustic

The Derp said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> you keep saying background checks on all gun transactions, but you cant answer the question of how you do that when a criminal sells a gun to another criminal or trades a gun for a hit of coke.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMFG...you are being a fucking idiot on purpose, aren't you?
> 
> As I said before, background checks won't work on _*stolen guns*_ because they're _*stolen*_.
> 
> But fingerprint ID locks *would work*, which is why it's the _*second*_ thing I list.
> 
> You keep ignoring that, why?  Because you don't want to admit that your blanket support for guns is flawed.  I think it's even more personal than that...I think you just don't want to admit that what I'm proposing is reasonable because your mushy brain is paranoid and thinks I'm out to get you.  I can assure you I'm not.  I really, truly do not care about your personal life at all.  I doubt anyone does.
Click to expand...

That is unconstitutional, firearm ownership is an right, cell phones are not...


----------



## Rustic

The Derp said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pussy are those who have guns.
> Ame4ican society is so infested with the love for guns and violence. Time to get civilised Mr redneck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, feel free to show us your "bravery" and march down a street in a Chicago ghetto at midnight, completely unarmed.
> 
> Just let us know if you prefer roses or lilies at your funeral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If he doesn't like Chicago, I suggest the lower ninth ward in New Orleans at 2am
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both Chicago and New Orleans are cities that deal with an "iron pipeline", which is straw purchasers in lax gun law states and areas buy guns and then traffic them to the cities, where they're used in gun crimes.
> 
> By mandating universal background checks on _*all*_ gun transactions and transfers, you eliminate straw purchasing and thus, eliminate the iron pipeline that traffics guns from the country to the cities, where they are used in gun crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Na, Unconstitutional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How are background checks unconstitutional?  The Supreme Court ruled they were Constitutional, so you saying they aren't is either you being misinformed, or you being a troll.
Click to expand...

Private sales firearm sales are absolutely none of the federal government business... end of story


----------



## The Derp

Rustic said:


> That is unconstitutional, firearm ownership is an right, cell phones are not...



Your right to a firearm isn't infringed by fingerprint ID locks.


----------



## The Derp

Rustic said:


> Private sales firearm sales are absolutely none of the federal government business... end of story



Too bad they are our business because the straw purchasing is exactly the reason and way guns end up in cities like Chicago, where they're used in crimes.

And how does a background check infringe on your right to owning a firearm?  It doesn't.  You cannot say how it does that.


----------



## Rustic

The Derp said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, tell me exactly how a background check would work when a gangbanger sells a stolen gun to another gangbanger.   That's a gun transaction, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, a background check wouldn't work on a _*stolen gun*_, but a fingerprint ID lock like my iphone has _*would*_.  Which is why one of the five actions I think we should take is to mandate all new guns manufactured have the fingerprint ID lock that all smart phones now have as a standard feature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> UnConstitutional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not according to the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

phones are not a right, firearm ownership is an absolute right enless the individual fucks up...


----------



## Rustic

The Derp said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> All those kids gone just so the gun industry can make  a few bucks, and worse. we, the American people allowed it to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  I still remember when then President George W. Bush signed the PLCAA protecting gun manufacturers and dealers from liability.
> 
> The *Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA)* is a United States law which protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S. based manufacturer of consumer products is held responsible. They may also be held liable for negligent entrustment when they have reason to know a gun is intended for use in a crime.
> 
> *Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act - Wikipedia*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The manufacturer of a firearm is not responsible fro the crimes people commit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is when the product is designed only to kill a lot of people.  Thompson's sales came to a screeching halt on the Thompson MG when they singled it out with the 1934 law.  IF only the mafia types only killed each other they may have left it alone.  But they didn't.  Innocents were slaughtered as well.
> 
> I elect that the AR types and the AK types are placed in the same special place the Thompson is today for exactly the same reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know nothing of firearms, ARs are just sporting rifles Nothing more nothing less...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, You sound like a bitch in heat
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, so 323 people were killed by AR-15's and 496 were killed by hammers.
> 
> BUT
> 
> Were the 323 people killed by AR-15's killed in 323 separate incidents, or just a handful of incidents?  Same question for the hammers...
Click to expand...

It doesn’t matter, people kill people not firearms… End of story


----------



## KeiserC

Rustic said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pussy
> 
> 
> 
> Pussy are those who have guns.
> Ame4ican society is so infested with the love for guns and violence. Time to get civilised Mr redneck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, feel free to show us your "bravery" and march down a street in a Chicago ghetto at midnight, completely unarmed.
> 
> Just let us know if you prefer roses or lilies at your funeral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If he doesn't like Chicago, I suggest the lower ninth ward in New Orleans at 2am
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both Chicago and New Orleans are cities that deal with an "iron pipeline", which is straw purchasers in lax gun law states and areas buy guns and then traffic them to the cities, where they're used in gun crimes.
> 
> By mandating universal background checks on _*all*_ gun transactions and transfers, you eliminate straw purchasing and thus, eliminate the iron pipeline that traffics guns from the country to the cities, where they are used in gun crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Na, Unconstitutional
Click to expand...

Just an anecdotal point here... Most Vermonters have a slew of guns that have never darkened the door of a FFL dealer.  They get passed around like poker chips... "trade the 30-30 Marlin for the truck bed of the 1998 F250"  It's just the reality in "middle America" the "flyover country"... It's entertaining as can be to hear the 'Metro based libs' talking from their sanctimonious 'metrocentric' ivory towers....  BTW I grew up in NYC / north NJ Bergen County as a rich 'boarding - prep school kid', LA & Sandiego for 11 years, Boston for 3 years... I've seen both sides.

'Sheite' I've boughten two rifles while pumping gas.. saw it in the truck window - wanted it - bought / bartered for it... Done...


----------



## Rustic

The Derp said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is unconstitutional, firearm ownership is an right, cell phones are not...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your right to a firearm isn't infringed by fingerprint ID locks.
Click to expand...

Yes it is, there is no need for ID locks. You can’t force that shit on law-abiding people


----------



## The Derp

Rustic said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, tell me exactly how a background check would work when a gangbanger sells a stolen gun to another gangbanger.   That's a gun transaction, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, a background check wouldn't work on a _*stolen gun*_, but a fingerprint ID lock like my iphone has _*would*_.  Which is why one of the five actions I think we should take is to mandate all new guns manufactured have the fingerprint ID lock that all smart phones now have as a standard feature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> UnConstitutional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not according to the Supreme Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> phones are not a right, firearm ownership is an absolute right enless the individual fucks up...
Click to expand...


A fingerprint ID or a background check doesn't infringe on your right to own a gun.


----------



## The Derp

Rustic said:


> It doesn’t matter, people kill people not firearms… End of story



Nukes don't kill people, people kill people.  So Kim Jong Un should get all the nukes he wants.

There, you see how fucking stupid that argument is?


----------



## Rustic

The Derp said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am asking practical questions.  you are posting talking points and bullshit."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm responding to your questions...you're just not getting the answers you want and are finding yourself persuaded by my argument...but because you have the world's shittiest ego, you can't bring yourself to admit that what I'm proposing is reasonable for whatever fucking psychological reason you have.
> 
> Explain how what I'm proposing are "talking points" when you agree with me!
> 
> 
> You do agree that guns should have fingerprint ID locks so only the owner can use them, right?  Why wouldn't you agree to that?
> And you agree that all gun transactions and transfers should be subject to a background check, right?  Why wouldn't you agree to that?
> And surely you agree that domestic abusers shouldn't be allowed to own guns, right?  Why wouldn't you agree to that?
> And surely you also agree that terrorists or suspected terrorists shouldn't be allowed to own guns, right?  Why wouldn't you agree to that?
> And of course you also agree that mentally ill people should be encouraged to go to mental health treatment and therapy, right?  Why wouldn't you agree to that?
> 
> I think the reason you won't agree to it is simply a matter of your ego.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand finger print locks.  I have one on my gun safe.   I don't have one on my gun in my car because I don't want to have to say "wait a minute Mr criminal while I activate my fingerprint lock"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How long does it take to activate the fingerprint ID lock on your smart phone?  Because mine is instantaneous, the moment I put my finger on the home button of my iphone X.
> 
> Your dirty harry vigilante fantasy notwithstanding, I don't see how a fingerprint ID lock for your gun is any different than a safety switch.  In fact, you could eliminate the safety switch if you wanted and just have your fingerprint unlock everything.  That technology exists.
Click to expand...

My iPad 10.5 pro basically sucks because the fingerprint sensor never works worth of shit… Anyway that’s irrelevant no one should be forced into such bullshit


----------



## The Derp

Rustic said:


> Yes it is, there is no need for ID locks.



Sure there is, I can think of two good reasons almost immediately;

Your gun gets stolen
Your kid gets their hands on it



Rustic said:


> You can’t force that shit on law-abiding people



Why not?  Guns have safeties, don't they?  Aren't safeties standard on all firearms?


----------



## Rustic

The Derp said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Private sales firearm sales are absolutely none of the federal government business... end of story
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad they are our business because the straw purchasing is exactly the reason and way guns end up in cities like Chicago, where they're used in crimes.
> 
> And how does a background check infringe on your right to owning a firearm?  It doesn't.  You cannot say how it does that.
Click to expand...

Because those are private sales, I sell firearms and ammo for a living. And I realize that private sales are absolutely no one’s business but the individuals involved. You really ought to mind your own business...


----------



## Cecilie1200

Skull Pilot said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still lower than the US. And still the US has the highest rate of gun deaths than any western nation, heck even worse than some war torn countries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eliminate what you want to better the stats. But the fact is here thousands die by being shot. Other countries don't have this madness because thry have less guns, in act I grow up in Morocco and we have almost none, and in the 23 years i lived there hardly anyone died from being shot.
> 
> Gun violence is a ultural issue in America. Hiding behind an old amendment is a stupid excuse...till we join other countries in banning guns. We gonna still count thousands of bodies. Ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not "eliminating what I want to better the stats", dumbass.  I'm clarifying the stats to understand the problems that actually need addressing, rather than using them vaguely so as to hide behind them, like you.  People like you are the reason Mark Twain said that there are three types of untruth:  lies, damned lies, and statistics.
> 
> The fact is, there aren't nearly as many people getting shot here by other people as you think there are.  And the reasons behind those deaths are almost never what you believe they are.  That means that the solution is DEFINITELY not what you want.
> 
> I'll say it again:  if other countries are so damned superior to the US, go live in them.  No one asked you to barge in here and start redecorating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most violent country and as an American I'm trying to make things better, and thats a right that exercise, through voting, lobbying, and other ways.
> That disc of if you don't like it go somewhere is childish. The US is not paradise it has its flaws and the biggest one is gun violence, we as those who lived in gun free country we are trying to explain to you...you can't prevent seing thousands of Americans dead as if it's a war zone. And especially kids.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Banning guns won't make anything better
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It will...ask over 100 countries that have almost no guns available. The only country where might collect your kid dead from school is the US. Or might even get shot before you pick him up. It's insane you guys became numb to seing this horror.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not numb at all.  There are many ways to stop school shootings without taking guns away from law abiding people who will never commit a crime with a firearm.
> 
> You can't seem to understand that people who own guns and do not commit crimes are not in any way responsible for the actions of other people who do commit crimes.
Click to expand...


Leftists also can't seem to wrap their minds around the fact that no laws are going to un-invent the gun and make them simply not exist, and criminals, by definition, aren't going to pay attention to laws telling them not to own guns.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Skull Pilot said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my god, I can’t believe after 50 years there are still people that don’t get it. I don’t and will never own a gun, however I the right and the freedom that others have to do what they want to legally do. Just owning a gun doesn’t make you violent, it is less than one 10th of 1% that do 100% of the killings. You ignore statistics, you ignore the Constitution and you ignore the freedoms that make this country great.
> 
> I respect your opinion, however I disagree with you and your comments are very ignorant as to the real issues.
> 
> I haven’t been in a fight since I was 12, it seems your culture is to violent for me, it’s amazing that you can’t be trusted with a weapon.
> 
> 
> 
> Lol I've witnessed more fights in the US than in Morocco. My reference was is if we had guns some would definitely used them. But thank God we don't.
> 
> So why the hell the US surpasses most nations in gun related deaths?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I explained it many times, why are you not understanding? Less than one tenth of one percent kill, with a gun or not. Britain banned guns, murders by gun dropped, however more murders occurred. We are a violent culture as you have point out so well, we need to change the culture, and the deaths will go down. Just banning to ban and having no answers as to why, will change the way a person kills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why you stuck on the British example? why can't you look at most countries that have almost no guns, and say yes Let's be like those countries....let's save thousands of lives?
> And yes I agree on the culture part, but also the US is a hostage to an amendment that's not compatible with the 21st century. And some treat it as if it written by god almighty and should not be abolished.
> By the way there's lot of mis information about how the UK is more violent than the US. here is a good article research about it.
> 
> Social media post says U.K. has far higher violent crime rate than U.S. does
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn’t say the U.K. is more violent, I said after banning guns, their murder rate rose and continued to do so until they added more law enforcement. The gun banning didn’t change the murder rate. Not sure what you don’t get. Australia had a similar issue and so it goes.
> 
> I know you’d rather give up your freedom because of fear, I believe the opposite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the UK is more violent in some ways
> 
> They have more assaults and more rapes than the US.  The UK has 3 times more crimes per 1000 people than the US
> 
> United Kingdom vs United States: Crime Facts and Stats
Click to expand...


And they're more likely to have "hot" burglaries, committed while the residents are home, which puts everyone involved in more danger.


----------



## Rustic

KeiserC said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pussy are those who have guns.
> Ame4ican society is so infested with the love for guns and violence. Time to get civilised Mr redneck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, feel free to show us your "bravery" and march down a street in a Chicago ghetto at midnight, completely unarmed.
> 
> Just let us know if you prefer roses or lilies at your funeral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If he doesn't like Chicago, I suggest the lower ninth ward in New Orleans at 2am
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both Chicago and New Orleans are cities that deal with an "iron pipeline", which is straw purchasers in lax gun law states and areas buy guns and then traffic them to the cities, where they're used in gun crimes.
> 
> By mandating universal background checks on _*all*_ gun transactions and transfers, you eliminate straw purchasing and thus, eliminate the iron pipeline that traffics guns from the country to the cities, where they are used in gun crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Na, Unconstitutional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just an anecdotal point here... Most Vermonters have a slew of guns that have never darkened the door of a FFL dealer.  They get passed around like poker chips... "trade the 30-30 Marlin for the truck bed of the 1998 F250"  It's just the reality in "middle America" the "flyover country"... It's entertaining as can be to hear the 'Metro based libs' talking from their sanctimonious 'metrocentric' ivory towers....  BTW I grew up in NY / north NJ Bergen County as a rich 'boarding - prep school kid', LA & Sandiego for 11 years, Boston for 3 years... I've seen both sides.
> 
> 'Sheite' I've boughten two rifles while pumping gas.. saw it in the truck window - wanted it - bought / bartered for it... Done...
Click to expand...

That’s why I have always said the divide in this country is rural and urban more than anything else. 
Progressive urban peoples ideas do not apply to rural people and they shouldn’t...


----------



## Rustic

The Derp said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn’t matter, people kill people not firearms… End of story
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nukes don't kill people, people kill people.  So Kim Jong Un should get all the nukes he wants.
> 
> There, you see how fucking stupid that argument is?
Click to expand...

Firearm ownership is none of your fucking business, it’s none of my business and it certainly is none of the federal governments business… End of story


----------



## The Derp

Rustic said:


> My iPad 10.5 pro basically sucks because the fingerprint sensor never works worth of shit…



Maybe the problem isn't the sensor...




Rustic said:


> Anyway that’s irrelevant no one should be forced into such bullshit



Well, you're "forced" into a safety switch on your gun now, so why would replacing that with a fingerprint ID lock be any different?


----------



## The Derp

Rustic said:


> Because those are private sales



Which has what to do with anything?  Nothing.  A sale is a sale is a sale is a sale.  Doesn't matter if it's between two private people or a commercial seller.  Wouldn't you want to know if the person you're selling your gun to has a criminal record?  Or maybe not because you're a sociopath who doesn't think about anyone but yourself.




Rustic said:


> I sell firearms and ammo for a living. And I realize that private sales are absolutely no one’s business but the individuals involved. You really ought to mind your own business...



Seems like a private sale is just a way to get around background checks you know you wouldn't pass.


----------



## Rustic

The Derp said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is, there is no need for ID locks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure there is, I can think of two good reasons almost immediately;
> 
> Your gun gets stolen
> Your kid gets their hands on it
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can’t force that shit on law-abiding people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not?  Guns have safeties, don't they?  Aren't safeties standard on all firearms?
Click to expand...

Firearm ownership is a personal thing it’s no one else’s business. end of story

You can buy handguns with safeties or not, I prefer handguns without safety is because your trigger finger is the safety.
Anyway, if anyone knows anything about firearms you never depend on the safety. Basic firearm safety 101


----------



## The Derp

Rustic said:


> Firearm ownership is none of your fucking business, it’s none of my business and it certainly is none of the federal governments business… End of story



NUKE OWNERSHIP IS ALSO NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS.

So Kim Jong Un should get all the nukes he wants.


----------



## Rustic

The Derp said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> My iPad 10.5 pro basically sucks because the fingerprint sensor never works worth of shit…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the problem isn't the sensor...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway that’s irrelevant no one should be forced into such bullshit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you're "forced" into a safety switch on your gun now, so why would replacing that with a fingerprint ID lock be any different?
Click to expand...

The problem is the technology sucks and is unreliable, and absolutely not necessary

Anyone that knows anything about firearms nosy never depend on the safety, Hunter safety courses teach you these things at a very early age if you go. It’s incredibly simple to understand


----------



## The Derp

Rustic said:


> Firearm ownership is a personal thing it’s no one else’s business. end of story



No.  Firearm ownership is a _*business*_.  And it seems like you keep pretending it's a personal thing when no one else agrees with you, particularly the courts.





Rustic said:


> You can buy handguns with safeties or not, I prefer handguns without safety is because your trigger finger is the safety. Anyway, if anyone knows anything about firearms you never depend on the safety. Basic firearm safety 101



But they have safeties, though.  That's the point.  And if your gun gets stolen, it's most likely going to be used in a crime.  With a fingerprint ID lock, it can't be used by anyone but you.  That's personal, isn't it?  Why would you want other people to be able to use your personal firearm?  See, I think you're full of shit.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Skull Pilot said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter if their crime rate is high or not, the bottom line is once they banned the guns, the murder rates went up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That sounds suspiciously like bullshit to me.  Where are the "facts" that support this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Murder and homicide rates before and after gun bans - Crime Prevention Research Center
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So...a couple things about this chart:
> 
> 1.  I see the rate in 2010 dropped to below the rate in 1997.
> 2.  Where's 2012-2017?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so it's your contention that it takes decades for gun bans to decrease the murder rate?
> 
> And how the hell should I know why there isn't data for 2017?
Click to expand...


Probably because they don't compile and release data that fast.


----------



## Rustic

The Derp said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because those are private sales
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which has what to do with anything?  Nothing.  A sale is a sale is a sale is a sale.  Doesn't matter if it's between two private people or a commercial seller.  Wouldn't you want to know if the person you're selling your gun to has a criminal record?  Or maybe not because you're a sociopath who doesn't think about anyone but yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I sell firearms and ammo for a living. And I realize that private sales are absolutely no one’s business but the individuals involved. You really ought to mind your own business...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems like a private sale is just a way to get around background checks you know you wouldn't pass.
Click to expand...

Firearm ownership is an absolute right enless someone fucks it up..
Private sales have been around since the beginning of this country, I see no reason to change that.


----------



## Rustic

KeiserC said:


> Believe it or not but the AR-15 was *not primarily* designed for 'killing people' as so many claim... As any varmint hunter knows the .223 Remington / .556NATO  is sort of a mediocre varmint round for 5 - 50 pound critters.  Under no circumstances are FMJ bullets good for anything but punching paper and wounding.
> 
> The AR-15 is the civilian version of the M16 / revised to the M16A1.  The Military deliberately changed to this platform from the very lethal M14 chambered in 7.62x51 (.308), to the diminutive .556 NATO round, primarily to wound... It was deemed more beneficial to wound a combatant thereby requiring one or more of his comrades assisting the wounded off he battle line.  Secondarily it saved a tremendous amount of weight allowing for each soldier to carry significantly more rounds.
> 
> As one who reloads for a variety of .224" / .556 mm rifles it is a (fortuitous thing... please understand the context and intent of using the word fortuitous...) that these psychos with their AR varmint equipment use the ubiquitous FMJ stuff lying around at their box stores and a platform that was never really designed for lethality....


Yep, ARs are nothing more than sporting rifles and nothing less. People really need to pick a scarier boogie man… LOL


----------



## The Derp

Rustic said:


> The problem is the technology sucks and is unreliable, and absolutely not necessary



No, the problem is you have fat, greasy fuckin' sausage fingers that can't manage to use a simple tablet, like you're some kind of neanderthal or primate.  

And if you have so much trouble with a very benign piece of technology like an ipad, *what the fuck makes you think you're competent enough to handle a firearm safely?!?!?!?

"I can't use a tablet, but I can use a gun"
*
Doesn't fill me with confidence in your physical abilities.





Rustic said:


> Anyone that knows anything about firearms nosy never depend on the safety, Hunter safety courses teach you these things at a very early age if you go. It’s incredibly simple to understand



LOL!  Well, most gun owners don't do that, and most guns used in crimes are guns stolen from "responsible gun owners" like you pretend to be.


----------



## Rustic

The Derp said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Firearm ownership is none of your fucking business, it’s none of my business and it certainly is none of the federal governments business… End of story
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NUKE OWNERSHIP IS ALSO NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS.
> 
> So Kim Jong Un should get all the nukes he wants.
Click to expand...

Nice deflection


----------



## Rustic

The Derp said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is the technology sucks and is unreliable, and absolutely not necessary
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the problem is you have fat, greasy fuckin' sausage fingers that can't manage to use a simple tablet, like you're some kind of neanderthal or primate.
> 
> And if you have so much trouble with a very benign piece of technology like an ipad, *what the fuck makes you think you're competent enough to handle a firearm safely?!?!?!?
> 
> "I can't use a tablet, but I can use a gun"
> *
> Doesn't fill me with confidence in your physical abilities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone that knows anything about firearms nosy never depend on the safety, Hunter safety courses teach you these things at a very early age if you go. It’s incredibly simple to understand
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!  Well, most gun owners don't do that, and most guns used in crimes are guns stolen from "responsible gun owners" like you pretend to be.
Click to expand...

Deflation


----------



## The Derp

Rustic said:


> Firearm ownership is an right until someone fucks it up..



The only one with the capability of fucking up your gun rights...is you and only you.




Rustic said:


> Private sales have been around since the beginning of this country, I see no reason to change that.



Requiring background checks doesn't eliminate private sales.  It eliminates straw purchasing.


----------



## Rustic

The Derp said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Firearm ownership is a personal thing it’s no one else’s business. end of story
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Firearm ownership is a _*business*_.  And it seems like you keep pretending it's a personal thing when no one else agrees with you, particularly the courts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can buy handguns with safeties or not, I prefer handguns without safety is because your trigger finger is the safety. Anyway, if anyone knows anything about firearms you never depend on the safety. Basic firearm safety 101
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But they have safeties, though.  That's the point.  And if your gun gets stolen, it's most likely going to be used in a crime.  With a fingerprint ID lock, it can't be used by anyone but you.  That's personal, isn't it?  Why would you want other people to be able to use your personal firearm?  See, I think you're full of shit.
Click to expand...

The last thing we need is the federal government involved in firearm ownership, Not only do they not have any credibility they are absolutely untrustworthy


----------



## The Derp

Rustic said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Firearm ownership is none of your fucking business, it’s none of my business and it certainly is none of the federal governments business… End of story
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NUKE OWNERSHIP IS ALSO NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS.
> 
> So Kim Jong Un should get all the nukes he wants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice deflection
Click to expand...


I didn't deflect, I took your gun right argument and applied it to nukes.

Nukes don't kill people; people kill people.  So Iran should get all the nukes it wants.


----------



## The Derp

Rustic said:


> Deflation



Tom Brady?

"I can't manage to use an ipad, but I can use a gun"

LOL.  Yikes.  My 2 year old nephew can use an ipad flawlessly.  What's your excuse?  Fat, greasy sausage fingers.  So if you can't use an ipad like a two year old, what makes you think you can safely use a gun?


----------



## Rustic

The Derp said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Firearm ownership is an right until someone fucks it up..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only one with the capability of fucking up your gun rights...is you and only you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Private sales have been around since the beginning of this country, I see no reason to change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Requiring background checks doesn't eliminate private sales.  It eliminates straw purchasing.
Click to expand...

Na, No one should be inconvenienced in that way if they are law-abiding citizen.
Straw purchasing is an. non-issue


----------



## The Derp

Rustic said:


> The last thing we need is the federal government involved in firearm ownership, Not only do they not have any credibility they are absolutely untrustworthy



So no answer to the questions...cool cool cool

So if and when your gun gets stolen, you don't think a fingerprint ID lock would prevent your stolen gun from being used in a crime?


----------



## The Derp

Rustic said:


> Na, No one should be inconvenienced in that way if they are law-abiding citizen.



How do you know they're a law abiding citizen if you don't run a background check?


----------



## Rustic

The Derp said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Deflation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Brady?
> 
> "I can't manage to use an ipad, but I can use a gun"
> 
> LOL.  Yikes.  My 2 year old nephew can use an ipad flawlessly.  What's your excuse?  Fat, greasy sausage fingers.  So if you can't use an ipad like a two year old, what makes you think you can safely use a gun?
Click to expand...

Only a fool would want that shit on their firearms… Unnecessary... quit being a control freak


----------



## Rustic

The Derp said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The last thing we need is the federal government involved in firearm ownership, Not only do they not have any credibility they are absolutely untrustworthy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So no answer to the questions...cool cool cool
> 
> So if and when your gun gets stolen, you don't think a fingerprint ID lock would prevent your stolen gun from being used in a crime?
Click to expand...

If it’s technology it can be hacked, like I said that shit is absolutely unnecessary and unconstitutional more importantly...


----------



## The Derp

Rustic said:


> Straw purchasing is an. non-issue



Straw purchasing is how guns get trafficked to places like Chicago.


----------



## The Derp

Rustic said:


> Only a fool would want that shit on their firearms… Unnecessary... quit being a control freak



Can't work an ipad, but insists you can safely use a gun....

I have doubts.


----------



## Rustic

The Derp said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Na, No one should be inconvenienced in that way if they are law-abiding citizen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know they're a law abiding citizen if you don't run a background check?
Click to expand...

You can go live in socialist Europe if you want to, if you like those types of Orwellian things. Lol
Those things are not going to be applied to firearms here, And rightly so. Live with it bed wetter


----------



## The Derp

Rustic said:


> If it’s technology it can be hacked, like I said that shit is absolutely unnecessary and unconstitutional more importantly...



Not even the FBI can hack past the fingerprint ID mechanisms of an iphone.  Only the company that makes it (Apple), can.

So you seem full of excuses, but light on substance.


----------



## The Derp

Rustic said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Na, No one should be inconvenienced in that way if they are law-abiding citizen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know they're a law abiding citizen if you don't run a background check?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can go live in socialist Europe if you want to, if you like those types of Orwellian things. Lol
> Those things are not going to be applied to firearms here, And rightly so. Live with it bed wetter
Click to expand...


Hold on...you don't get to run away like a coward from this.

How do you know the person you're selling the gun to in a private sale is a law abiding citizen *without running a background check?*


----------



## Rustic

The Derp said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Straw purchasing is an. non-issue
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Straw purchasing is how guns get trafficked to places like Chicago.
Click to expand...

Na, Most criminals steal the firearms from other people/criminals and the rest come from south of the border.
You obviously have not been to any gun shows to know that you just can’t go in there and buy unlimited firearms because there are not unlimited firearms to buy there.
You watch for too many Hollywood movies made by child molesting Hollywood progressives.


----------



## The Derp

Rustic said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Na, No one should be inconvenienced in that way if they are law-abiding citizen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know they're a law abiding citizen if you don't run a background check?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can go live in socialist Europe if you want to, if you like those types of Orwellian things. Lol
> Those things are not going to be applied to firearms here, And rightly so. Live with it bed wetter
Click to expand...


Fact is, without a background check, *you don't know if the person you are selling your gun to is a law abiding citizen.*


----------



## Rustic

The Derp said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only a fool would want that shit on their firearms… Unnecessary... quit being a control freak
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't work an ipad, but insists you can safely use a gun....
> 
> I have doubts.
Click to expand...

I don’t give a shit about any iPads because I have no right to an iPad. Firearm ownership is an absolute right enless the individual fucks it up. 
By the way the technology does not exist, who the hell wants to charge up their firearms? What a fucking joke of an idea


----------



## Rustic

The Derp said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it’s technology it can be hacked, like I said that shit is absolutely unnecessary and unconstitutional more importantly...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not even the FBI can hack past the fingerprint ID mechanisms of an iphone.  Only the company that makes it (Apple), can.
> 
> So you seem full of excuses, but light on substance.
Click to expand...

You really think people are gonna want to charge up their firearms? Like I said it really doesn’t matter because any such thing is unconstitutional


----------



## The Derp

Rustic said:


> Na, Most criminals steal the firearms from other people/criminals and the rest come from south of the border.



No, they don't.  The FBI confirms that the "iron pipelines" are guns bought in lax gun law states that are then trafficked into cities where they're used in crimes.

That's what the "iron pipeline" is.

And guns don't come in from Mexico, they go the other way, _*into*_ Mexico.

This article in the NY Post is about how guns are bought in Georgia then trafficked up to New York.

You're like the least informed gun owner I've ever seen.  One whose fat sausage fingers can't use an ipad, but we're assured can use a gun.  LOL.  OK.




Rustic said:


> You obviously have not been to any gun shows to know that you just can’t go in there and buy unlimited firearms because there are not unlimited firearms to buy there. You watch for too many Hollywood movies made by child molesting Hollywood progressives.



Sigh...gun shows have loopholes where background checks aren't run.

Secondly, how do you know if the person you're selling your gun to is a "law abiding citizen" if you don't run a background check?


----------



## Rustic

The Derp said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Na, No one should be inconvenienced in that way if they are law-abiding citizen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know they're a law abiding citizen if you don't run a background check?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can go live in socialist Europe if you want to, if you like those types of Orwellian things. Lol
> Those things are not going to be applied to firearms here, And rightly so. Live with it bed wetter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hold on...you don't get to run away like a coward from this.
> 
> How do you know the person you're selling the gun to in a private sale is a law abiding citizen *without running a background check?*
Click to expand...

What do you think you should live in Orwellian state? innocent until proven guilty have you ever heard that before? Lol


----------



## The Derp

Rustic said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only a fool would want that shit on their firearms… Unnecessary... quit being a control freak
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't work an ipad, but insists you can safely use a gun....
> 
> I have doubts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t give a shit about any iPads because I have no right to an iPad. Firearm ownership is an absolute right enless the individual fucks it up.
> By the way the technology does not exist, who the hell wants to charge up their firearms? What a fucking joke of an idea
Click to expand...


Wait a second...you're pretending to be a "responsible" and skilled gun owner...yet you confessed you cna't even use a piece of technology children under 5 use every day with no problem.

So your motor skills are worse than that of small children.

So that casts doubt on your firearm safety skills.


----------



## Rustic

The Derp said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Na, No one should be inconvenienced in that way if they are law-abiding citizen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know they're a law abiding citizen if you don't run a background check?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can go live in socialist Europe if you want to, if you like those types of Orwellian things. Lol
> Those things are not going to be applied to firearms here, And rightly so. Live with it bed wetter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fact is, without a background check, *you don't know if the person you are selling your gun to is a law abiding citizen.*
Click to expand...

It’s really none of my business, like I said we still have innocent until proven guilty in this country?


----------



## The Derp

Rustic said:


> You really think people are gonna want to charge up their firearms? Like I said it really doesn’t matter because any such thing is unconstitutional



If people really want guns that badly, and are serious about keeping them out of the hands of dangerous people, yes, they will.

And fingerprint IDs aren't unconstitutional, _*many guns manufactured now already have them*_.

You as a "gun seller" should know that.  So what's your excuse for not knowing it?


----------



## Rustic

The Derp said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Na, Most criminals steal the firearms from other people/criminals and the rest come from south of the border.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they don't.  The FBI confirms that the "iron pipelines" are guns bought in lax gun law states that are then trafficked into cities where they're used in crimes.
> 
> That's what the "iron pipeline" is.
> 
> And guns don't come in from Mexico, they go the other way, _*into*_ Mexico.
> 
> This article in the NY Post is about how guns are bought in Georgia then trafficked up to New York.
> 
> You're like the least informed gun owner I've ever seen.  One whose fat sausage fingers can't use an ipad, but we're assured can use a gun.  LOL.  OK.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously have not been to any gun shows to know that you just can’t go in there and buy unlimited firearms because there are not unlimited firearms to buy there. You watch for too many Hollywood movies made by child molesting Hollywood progressives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sigh...gun shows have loopholes where background checks aren't run.
> 
> Secondly, how do you know if the person you're selling your gun to is a "law abiding citizen" if you don't run a background check?
Click to expand...

Like I said firearms are something you know nothing about, you do realize South American country’s are major manufacturers firearms?
Lol


----------



## The Derp

Rustic said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Na, No one should be inconvenienced in that way if they are law-abiding citizen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know they're a law abiding citizen if you don't run a background check?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can go live in socialist Europe if you want to, if you like those types of Orwellian things. Lol
> Those things are not going to be applied to firearms here, And rightly so. Live with it bed wetter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hold on...you don't get to run away like a coward from this.
> 
> How do you know the person you're selling the gun to in a private sale is a law abiding citizen *without running a background check?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you think you should live in Orwellian state? innocent until proven guilty have you ever heard that before? Lol
Click to expand...


Well, I want to understand how you determine the person you're selling your gun to is a "law abiding citizen".  Are you clairvoyant or something?


----------



## The Derp

Rustic said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Na, No one should be inconvenienced in that way if they are law-abiding citizen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know they're a law abiding citizen if you don't run a background check?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can go live in socialist Europe if you want to, if you like those types of Orwellian things. Lol
> Those things are not going to be applied to firearms here, And rightly so. Live with it bed wetter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fact is, without a background check, *you don't know if the person you are selling your gun to is a law abiding citizen.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s really none of my business, like I said we still have innocent until proven guilty in this country?
Click to expand...


But you _*just said*_ that you only sell to "law abiding citizens".  How do you know that unless you run a background check?


----------



## Crixus

The Derp said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Na, No one should be inconvenienced in that way if they are law-abiding citizen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know they're a law abiding citizen if you don't run a background check?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can go live in socialist Europe if you want to, if you like those types of Orwellian things. Lol
> Those things are not going to be applied to firearms here, And rightly so. Live with it bed wetter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hold on...you don't get to run away like a coward from this.
> 
> How do you know the person you're selling the gun to in a private sale is a law abiding citizen *without running a background check?*
Click to expand...




I’ll answer that, you don’t. You use your best judgment. Personally, I transfer EVERY FIREARM that comes into, or go’s out of my collection. This kid didn’t do a private sale as far as I know. Common sense would dictate maybe we DO look at buying and selling privately. Could be a good item to toss on the table. What we can’t do is sit around being two noise boxes yelling talking points we hear on the TV.


----------



## The Derp

Rustic said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Na, Most criminals steal the firearms from other people/criminals and the rest come from south of the border.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they don't.  The FBI confirms that the "iron pipelines" are guns bought in lax gun law states that are then trafficked into cities where they're used in crimes.
> 
> That's what the "iron pipeline" is.
> 
> And guns don't come in from Mexico, they go the other way, _*into*_ Mexico.
> 
> This article in the NY Post is about how guns are bought in Georgia then trafficked up to New York.
> 
> You're like the least informed gun owner I've ever seen.  One whose fat sausage fingers can't use an ipad, but we're assured can use a gun.  LOL.  OK.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously have not been to any gun shows to know that you just can’t go in there and buy unlimited firearms because there are not unlimited firearms to buy there. You watch for too many Hollywood movies made by child molesting Hollywood progressives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sigh...gun shows have loopholes where background checks aren't run.
> 
> Secondly, how do you know if the person you're selling your gun to is a "law abiding citizen" if you don't run a background check?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said firearms are something you know nothing about, you do realize South American country’s are major manufacturers firearms?
> Lol
Click to expand...



You seem to know less about firearms than I do.

Tell me, how can you tell if someone is a "law abiding citizen" when they want to buy a gun from you?  Please don't tell me you rely on your instincts...


----------



## Rustic

The Derp said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only a fool would want that shit on their firearms… Unnecessary... quit being a control freak
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't work an ipad, but insists you can safely use a gun....
> 
> I have doubts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t give a shit about any iPads because I have no right to an iPad. Firearm ownership is an absolute right enless the individual fucks it up.
> By the way the technology does not exist, who the hell wants to charge up their firearms? What a fucking joke of an idea
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait a second...you're pretending to be a "responsible" and skilled gun owner...yet you confessed you cna't even use a piece of technology children under 5 use every day with no problem.
> 
> So your motor skills are worse than that of small children.
> 
> So that casts doubt on your firearm safety skills.
Click to expand...

Like I said I don’t give a shit about any iPads, no one has a right to own them. It’s a privilege. Firearm ownership is a different story, firearm ownership is an absolute right unless an individual fucks it up.
Firearm safety is all about commonsense, along with as early of age as possible training...
Go take a hunter safety course… You can do it!


----------



## Rustic

The Derp said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really think people are gonna want to charge up their firearms? Like I said it really doesn’t matter because any such thing is unconstitutional
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If people really want guns that badly, and are serious about keeping them out of the hands of dangerous people, yes, they will.
> 
> And fingerprint IDs aren't unconstitutional, _*many guns manufactured now already have them*_.
> 
> You as a "gun seller" should know that.  So what's your excuse for not knowing it?
Click to expand...

I go to a dozen firearms manufacture shows a year, That shit that you talk of is a failure. No one’s going to pay for that shit… They have tried and failed


----------



## The Derp

Crixus said:


> I’ll answer that, you don’t. You use your best judgment.



Holy fucking shit, are you kidding me?  They rely on their "judgement"?  Jesus Christ...the judgment of people who were conned by Russian propaganda.  The judgment of people who can't use ipads because they lack the motor skills.  So what goes into that judgment?  How are they judging people if you're not relying on background checks?  Why the fuck should anyone trust _*their judgment?*_




Crixus said:


> Personally, I transfer EVERY FIREARM that comes into, or go’s out of my collection. This kid didn’t do a private sale as far as I know. Common sense would dictate maybe we DO look at buying and selling privately. Could be a good item to toss on the table. What we can’t do is sit around being two noise boxes yelling talking points we hear on the TV.



I don't see why there has to be a bargain over it.  Keeping guns out of the hands of convicted criminals seems like a no-brainer.


----------



## The Derp

Rustic said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only a fool would want that shit on their firearms… Unnecessary... quit being a control freak
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't work an ipad, but insists you can safely use a gun....
> 
> I have doubts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t give a shit about any iPads because I have no right to an iPad. Firearm ownership is an absolute right enless the individual fucks it up.
> By the way the technology does not exist, who the hell wants to charge up their firearms? What a fucking joke of an idea
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait a second...you're pretending to be a "responsible" and skilled gun owner...yet you confessed you cna't even use a piece of technology children under 5 use every day with no problem.
> 
> So your motor skills are worse than that of small children.
> 
> So that casts doubt on your firearm safety skills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said I don’t give a shit about any iPads, no one has a right to own them. It’s a privilege. Firearm ownership is a different story, firearm ownership is an absolute right unless an individual fucks it up.
> Firearm safety is all about commonsense, along with as early of age as possible training...
> Go take a hunter safety course… You can do it!
Click to expand...


If you can't operate an ipad, what the fuck makes you think you're responsible enough to operate a firearm?


----------



## Rustic

The Derp said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Na, Most criminals steal the firearms from other people/criminals and the rest come from south of the border.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they don't.  The FBI confirms that the "iron pipelines" are guns bought in lax gun law states that are then trafficked into cities where they're used in crimes.
> 
> That's what the "iron pipeline" is.
> 
> And guns don't come in from Mexico, they go the other way, _*into*_ Mexico.
> 
> This article in the NY Post is about how guns are bought in Georgia then trafficked up to New York.
> 
> You're like the least informed gun owner I've ever seen.  One whose fat sausage fingers can't use an ipad, but we're assured can use a gun.  LOL.  OK.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously have not been to any gun shows to know that you just can’t go in there and buy unlimited firearms because there are not unlimited firearms to buy there. You watch for too many Hollywood movies made by child molesting Hollywood progressives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sigh...gun shows have loopholes where background checks aren't run.
> 
> Secondly, how do you know if the person you're selling your gun to is a "law abiding citizen" if you don't run a background check?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said firearms are something you know nothing about, you do realize South American country’s are major manufacturers firearms?
> Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to know less about firearms than I do.
> 
> Tell me, how can you tell if someone is a "law abiding citizen" when they want to buy a gun from you?  Please don't tell me you rely on your instincts...
Click to expand...

 First of all, I sell firearms and ammo for living everyone has to go through a background check because I don’t sell privately in my store. By the way they need to improve the speed of background checks it should be instantaneous. Right now it takes about 2 to 4 minutes for a background check to go through the FBI. It should be like a visa card  seconds at most…


----------



## The Derp

Rustic said:


> I go to a dozen firearms manufacture shows a year, That shit that you talk of is a failure. No one’s going to pay for that shit… They have tried and failed



Like no one was going to pay for seat belts, until they became standard in all cars?

What I don't understand is how you can tell someone is a law-abiding citizen without running a background check?


----------



## Rustic

The Derp said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only a fool would want that shit on their firearms… Unnecessary... quit being a control freak
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't work an ipad, but insists you can safely use a gun....
> 
> I have doubts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t give a shit about any iPads because I have no right to an iPad. Firearm ownership is an absolute right enless the individual fucks it up.
> By the way the technology does not exist, who the hell wants to charge up their firearms? What a fucking joke of an idea
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait a second...you're pretending to be a "responsible" and skilled gun owner...yet you confessed you cna't even use a piece of technology children under 5 use every day with no problem.
> 
> So your motor skills are worse than that of small children.
> 
> So that casts doubt on your firearm safety skills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said I don’t give a shit about any iPads, no one has a right to own them. It’s a privilege. Firearm ownership is a different story, firearm ownership is an absolute right unless an individual fucks it up.
> Firearm safety is all about commonsense, along with as early of age as possible training...
> Go take a hunter safety course… You can do it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you can't operate an ipad, what the fuck makes you think you're responsible enough to operate a firearm?
Click to expand...

Because I grew up shooting firearms… It’s like a extension of me. iPads are just unreliable because they are of unreliable technology.


----------



## Rustic

The Derp said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I go to a dozen firearms manufacture shows a year, That shit that you talk of is a failure. No one’s going to pay for that shit… They have tried and failed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like no one was going to pay for seat belts, until they became standard in all cars?
> 
> What I don't understand is how you can tell someone is a law-abiding citizen without running a background check?
Click to expand...

There is no law that says you have to run a background check with private sales, and it’s gonna stay that way... Until you get rid of the Second Amendment.


----------



## The Derp

Rustic said:


> First of all, I sell firearms and ammo for living everyone has to go through a background check because I don’t sell privately in my store.



OK, but you said you sold privately and don't run background checks.  So how are you determining the people you're selling to _*privately*_ are "law abiding citizens"?




Rustic said:


> By the way they need to improve the speed of background checks it should be instantaneous. Right now it takes about 2 to 4 minutes for a background check to go through the FBI. It should be like a visa card  seconds at most…



So you're complaining that background checks take too long?


----------



## The Derp

Rustic said:


> Because I grew up shooting firearms… It’s like a extension of me. iPads are just unreliable because they are of unreliable technology.



So what?  If your fat, greasy, sausage fingers can't use an ipad, then they certainly are incapable of using a firearm.


----------



## Rustic

The Derp said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, I sell firearms and ammo for living everyone has to go through a background check because I don’t sell privately in my store.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but you said you sold privately and don't run background checks.  So how are you determining the people you're selling to _*privately*_ are "law abiding citizens"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way they need to improve the speed of background checks it should be instantaneous. Right now it takes about 2 to 4 minutes for a background check to go through the FBI. It should be like a visa card  seconds at most…
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're complaining that background checks take too long?
Click to expand...

Private sales are a different matter than retail sales that’s the way it should be. And yes background checks take entirely too long and they should be instantaneous.


----------



## The Derp

Rustic said:


> There is no law that says you have to run a background check with private sales, and it’s gonna stay that way



But that doesn't address how you tell someone is a "law abiding citizen" without running a background check.  You keep avoiding that, and it's pretty obvious why.


----------



## The Derp

Rustic said:


> Private sales or a different matter than retail sales that’s the way it should be.



I don't understand the distinction.  Explain what makes a private sale different than a retail sale?  In both instances, money is exchanging hands for a product.




Rustic said:


> And yes background checks take entirely too long and they should be instantaneous.



What does the amount of time it takes to run a background check have to do with anything?


----------



## Rustic

The Derp said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because I grew up shooting firearms… It’s like a extension of me. iPads are just unreliable because they are of unreliable technology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what?  If your fat, greasy, sausage fingers can't use an ipad, then they certainly are incapable of using a firearm.
Click to expand...

Says the control freak sitting in his mother’s basement… LOL

Like I said iPads are no a right, firearm homeownership is an absolute right.


----------



## Rustic

The Derp said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no law that says you have to run a background check with private sales, and it’s gonna stay that way
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that doesn't address how you tell someone is a "law abiding citizen" without running a background check.  You keep avoiding that, and it's pretty obvious why.
Click to expand...

Like I said it is none of my business, private sales do not need background checks by law... 
Have you always been this donce?


----------



## The Derp

Rustic said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because I grew up shooting firearms… It’s like a extension of me. iPads are just unreliable because they are of unreliable technology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what?  If your fat, greasy, sausage fingers can't use an ipad, then they certainly are incapable of using a firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the control freak sitting in his mother’s basement… LOL
> 
> Like I said iPads are no a right, firearm homeownership is an absolute right.
Click to expand...


Whether or not ipads and guns are rights doesn't change _*your inability and poor motor skills*_.


----------



## The Derp

Rustic said:


> Like I said it is none of my business, private sales do not need background checks by law...



But _*you said you only sell to law-abiding citizens*_.  How do you know they're law-abiding if you don't run a background check?

Unless you're _*now*_ saying you don't sell to just "law-abiding citizens".  So you're selling guns to citizens who don't abide by the law?


----------



## Rustic

The Derp said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Private sales or a different matter than retail sales that’s the way it should be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand the distinction.  Explain what makes a private sale different than a retail sale?  In both instances, money is exchanging hands for a product.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yes background checks take entirely too long and they should be instantaneous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does the amount of time it takes to run a background check have to do with anything?
Click to expand...

Friends, family, get togethers, etc.
There is no need for background checks on those sort of things.

There should be no waiting time whatsoever in the purchase a firearms, It should be no different than any other sort of merchandise


----------



## Rustic

The Derp said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because I grew up shooting firearms… It’s like a extension of me. iPads are just unreliable because they are of unreliable technology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what?  If your fat, greasy, sausage fingers can't use an ipad, then they certainly are incapable of using a firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the control freak sitting in his mother’s basement… LOL
> 
> Like I said iPads are no a right, firearm homeownership is an absolute right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whether or not ipads and guns are rights doesn't change _*your inability and poor motor skills*_.
Click to expand...

No one wants to charge up their firearm before it’s use.. lol


----------



## Rustic

The Derp said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said it is none of my business, private sales do not need background checks by law...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But _*you said you only sell to law-abiding citizens*_.  How do you know they're law-abiding if you don't run a background check?
> 
> Unless you're _*now*_ saying you don't sell to just "law-abiding citizens".  So you're selling guns to citizens who don't abide by the law?
Click to expand...

Innocent till proven guilty… Law of the land


----------



## The Derp

Rustic said:


> Friends, family, get togethers, etc.There is no need for background checks on those sort of things.



So your friends and families wouldn't hide criminal convictions from you?  If they'd hide them from any other personal seller, why wouldn't they hide them from you?  Do family members not keep secrets?  

Talk about naive.





Rustic said:


> There should be no waiting time whatsoever in the purchase a firearms, It should be no different than any other sort of merchandise.



But if the person isn't "law abiding", then...how would you know unless you ran a background check?


----------



## The Derp

Rustic said:


> No one wants to charge up their firearm before it’s use.. lol



Who says you have to do that?  A simple, small battery is all that's needed.  The technology _*already exists*_.  You don't seem to know anything about it, which is weird because you claim to be a gun retailer.


----------



## Rustic

The Derp said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Friends, family, get togethers, etc.There is no need for background checks on those sort of things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So your friends and families wouldn't hide criminal convictions from you?  If they'd hide them from any other personal seller, why wouldn't they hide them from you?  Do family members not keep secrets?
> 
> Talk about naive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> There should be no waiting time whatsoever in the purchase a firearms, It should be no different than any other sort of merchandise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But if the person isn't "law abiding", then...how would you know unless you ran a background check?
Click to expand...

It’s the law of the land private sales do not require any background checks. Live with it bedwetter


----------



## The Derp

Rustic said:


> Innocent till proven guilty… Law of the land



But you don't know that until you run a background check.

So you're just selling guns to whoever, whenever, and you don't care if the people you're selling to are criminals.  So it's not about gun rights for you, it's about $$.

Got it.


----------



## Rustic

The Derp said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one wants to charge up their firearm before it’s use.. lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who says you have to do that?  A simple, small battery is all that's needed.  The technology _*already exists*_.  You don't seem to know anything about it, which is weird because you claim to be a gun retailer.
Click to expand...

They tried that technology multiple times. it has failed to sell every time… So fuck it


----------



## The Derp

Rustic said:


> It’s the law of the land private sales do not require any background checks. Live with a bedwetter



So you keep avoiding answering the question of how do you know the person you're selling to isn't a criminal, on the terrorist watch list, a domestic abuser, etc.?

Thoughts and prayers?


----------



## Rustic

The Derp said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Innocent till proven guilty… Law of the land
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you don't know that until you run a background check.
> 
> So you're just selling guns to whoever, whenever, and you don't care if the people you're selling to are criminals.  So it's not about gun rights for you, it's about $$.
> 
> Got it.
Click to expand...

I sell retail, I have to run background checks. But I also realize the need for private sales to be private it’s the law of the land. There is no requirement for background checks on private sales it is the law of the land… Got it?


----------



## The Derp

Rustic said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one wants to charge up their firearm before it’s use.. lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who says you have to do that?  A simple, small battery is all that's needed.  The technology _*already exists*_.  You don't seem to know anything about it, which is weird because you claim to be a gun retailer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They tried that technology multiple times. it has failed to sell every time… So fuck it
Click to expand...


It hasn't failed and you're lying now because you're too fucking lazy to do the work of being informed.

Here's the first thing that popped up on a google search.






All it requires is a battery.  No charging necessary.


----------



## Rustic

The Derp said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s the law of the land private sales do not require any background checks. Live with a bedwetter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you keep avoiding answering the question of how do you know the person you're selling to isn't a criminal, on the terrorist watch list, a domestic abuser, etc.?
> 
> Thoughts and prayers?
Click to expand...

Private sales are exactly that… Private...  none of all of yours or my business and certainly none of the federal government business.


----------



## KeiserC

Rustic said:


> KeiserC said:
> 
> 
> 
> Believe it or not but the AR-15 was *not primarily* designed for 'killing people' as so many claim... As any varmint hunter knows the .223 Remington / .556NATO  is sort of a mediocre varmint round for 5 - 50 pound critters.  Under no circumstances are FMJ bullets good for anything but punching paper and wounding.
> 
> The AR-15 is the civilian version of the M16 / revised to the M16A1.  The Military deliberately changed to this platform from the very lethal M14 chambered in 7.62x51 (.308), to the diminutive .556 NATO round, primarily to wound... It was deemed more beneficial to wound a combatant thereby requiring one or more of his comrades assisting the wounded off he battle line.  Secondarily it saved a tremendous amount of weight allowing for each soldier to carry significantly more rounds.
> 
> As one who reloads for a variety of .224" / .556 mm rifles it is a (fortuitous thing... please understand the context and intent of using the word fortuitous...) that these psychos with their AR varmint equipment use the ubiquitous FMJ stuff lying around at their box stores and a platform that was never really designed for lethality....
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, ARs are nothing more than sporting rifles and nothing less. People really need to pick a scarier boogie man… LOL
Click to expand...

'True that'... but* technically no*... enter the (Knight's Armament Company) SR-25 and the civilian variant.. 'AR-10'... I own more than I 'fully' care to share. And yes, I hunt with them choosing platforms based on the category of game animal and the relative brush density.  One can can have these platforms In everything from .338 Federal to the tapered down .260 Rem, 6.5 Creedmoor & the little .243 Win. that everyone loves shooting.

God help us if (deranged shooters) explore the more 'nuanced world' of the 'big brother'.... "AR"...  these 'aint' designed to "wound"....


----------



## The Derp

Rustic said:


> But I also realize the need for private sales to be private it’s the law of the land.



I don't understand what the need for a private sale is if it's not to circumvent a background check that would reveal criminal convictions, mental illness, terrorist watch list, etc.?


----------



## The Derp

Rustic said:


> There is no requirement for background checks on private sales it is the law of the land… Got it?



It's the law _*right now*_, but laws can be changed.

And what would be the purpose of a private sale if not to circumvent the background check?


----------



## The Derp

Rustic said:


> Private sales are exactly that… Private...  none of all of yours or my business and certainly none of the federal government business.



So the only reason anyone would do a private sale is if they wanted to avoid a background check.

Now why would they want to avoid a background check?


----------



## Rustic

The Derp said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one wants to charge up their firearm before it’s use.. lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who says you have to do that?  A simple, small battery is all that's needed.  The technology _*already exists*_.  You don't seem to know anything about it, which is weird because you claim to be a gun retailer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They tried that technology multiple times. it has failed to sell every time… So fuck it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It hasn't failed and you're lying now because you're too fucking lazy to do the work of being informed.
> 
> Here's the first thing that popped up on a google search.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All it requires is a battery.  No charging necessary.
Click to expand...

Lol
Ruger, Smith and Wesson, Beretta, etc... All the major manufacturers have tried to sell such a thing and they all have failed. No one wants that shit in their lives fuck them...
There is no fucking way anyone is going to want to rely on the battery to use a firearm for self-defense/hunting or anything of any purpose. You silly little fucker


----------



## Rustic

The Derp said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Private sales are exactly that… Private...  none of all of yours or my business and certainly none of the federal government business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the only reason anyone would do a private sale is if they wanted to avoid a background check.
> 
> Now why would they want to avoid a background check?
Click to expand...

No, I would never expect to run background checks on friends and family in a private setting that would be insulting. Fuck the nanny state... lol


----------



## Rustic

The Derp said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no requirement for background checks on private sales it is the law of the land… Got it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the law _*right now*_, but laws can be changed.
> 
> And what would be the purpose of a private sale if not to circumvent the background check?
Click to expand...

Exactly that...  private sales. Duh... lol


----------



## Rustic

There is a reason why firearm registration is unconstitutional, because the federal government has no business in such things.
They do not qualify


----------



## KeiserC

The Derp said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I also realize the need for private sales to be private it’s the law of the land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand what the need for a private sale is if it's not to circumvent a background check that would reveal criminal convictions, mental illness, terrorist watch list, etc.?
Click to expand...

Gun registration is a "paper trail".. (data trail), It may well start out benign...with good intentions.. Perhaps it won't be used as judiciously by the next "regime"....  (not an exact match via firearms) A corollary...The Wiemar Republic wasn't that long ago... still some older folk around to describe it 'first hand' to y'all...(I highly recommend everyone do so)


----------



## The Derp

Rustic said:


> Ruger, Smith and Wesson, Beretta, etc... All the major manufacturers have tried to sell such a thing and they all have failed.



So...you're not who you claim to be.  You're not a gun retailer.  You're not a gun seller.  You're pretending you are for the sake of an anonymous message board.  You're making shit up as you go.

Smith & Wesson most definitely _*does*_ produce fingerprint ID guns and manufactures two models that have them:

The Smith & Wesson B1 is compatable with two of the most popular Smith & Wesson models:

Smith & Wesson M&P®40 SHIELD
Smith & Wesson M&P®9 SHIELD
It's sold right here.

So why are you lying to me?  I don't understand.  Is your ego really that fragile?




Rustic said:


> No one wants that shit in their lives fuck them...There is no fucking way anyone is going to want to rely on the battery to use a firearm for self-defense/hunting or anything of any purpose. You silly little fucker



People rely on batteries for everything, so why wouldn't they be fine with one in their gun?  You keep coming up with excuses, but not reasons why these fingerprint IDs won't work when they clearly do.

I think you just want to sell guns to criminals who will then traffic those guns to other criminals because you can't find enough buyers who could pass a background check.


----------



## The Derp

Rustic said:


> No, I would never expect to run background checks on friends and family in a private setting that would be insulting. Fuck the nanny state... lol



Still not a good reason for not running a background check.  Family members never commit crimes?


----------



## The Derp

Rustic said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Private sales are exactly that… Private...  none of all of yours or my business and certainly none of the federal government business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the only reason anyone would do a private sale is if they wanted to avoid a background check.
> 
> Now why would they want to avoid a background check?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I would never expect to run background checks on friends and family in a private setting that would be insulting. Fuck the nanny state... lol
Click to expand...


It sounds to me like you'd sell a gun to your family member even if you knew they had a criminal conviction, were on a no-fly list, or have a domestic abuse charge.

That's the only reason why you'd sell to someone privately...because you knew they couldn't pass a background check.


----------



## The Derp

Rustic said:


> Exactly that...  private sales. Duh... lol



Right...so a private sale occurs because the buyer wouldn't be able to purchase the gun through a retailer _*because the buyer wouldn't pass the background check*_.

Which means your claim that you privately sell to "law abiding persons" is bullshit because you aren't verifying that.  Why sell privately when you can sell retail?  Simple; the buyer wouldn't be able to pass a background check, and you're a greedy person who wants to make money off that.

You want to make money by selling your guns to criminals, terrorists, and wife beaters because you cannot find enough customers who could pass a background check.

So the blood of innocent victims falls on your greedy, bloody, fat sausage fingers that can't operate an ipad, but we're assured by you can operate a gun.  LOL.  Whatever.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

The Solution to ALL school shootings is simple and elegant.

Train and certify select teachers at every school who already have CCW permits to carry concealed at schools.
If there are none, train some at every school.   I don't think that would be very difficult.


----------



## The Derp

Rustic said:


> There is a reason why firearm registration is unconstitutional, because the federal government has no business in such things.
> They do not qualify



No one's calling for that, so you're building a straw man to distract from the fact that you sell your guns to criminals, terrorists, and wife beaters.


----------



## The Derp

KeiserC said:


> Gun registration is a paper trail, It may well start out benign...with good intentions.. Perhaps it won't be used as judiciously by the next "regime"....  (not an exact match via firearms) A corollary...The Wiemar Republic wasn't that long ago... still some older folk around to describe it 'first hand' to y'all...



A background check isn't gun registration.

The only reason anyone would buy a gun via a private sale is to _*avoid*_ the background check they know they wouldn't pass.

So when you sell privately and don't submit to a background check, you are selling your gun to criminals, terrorists, and/or wife beaters.


----------



## The Derp

BasicHumanUnit said:


> The Solution to ALL school shootings is simple and elegant.
> 
> Train and certify select teachers at every school who already have CCW permits to carry concealed at schools.
> If there are none, train some at every school.   I don't think that would be very difficult.



If there isn't money for books, pencils, and paper, then what the fuck makes you think there's money for this bullshit?


----------



## KeiserC

The Derp said:


> KeiserC said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gun registration is a paper trail, It may well start out benign...with good intentions.. Perhaps it won't be used as judiciously by the next "regime"....  (not an exact match via firearms) A corollary...The Wiemar Republic wasn't that long ago... still some older folk around to describe it 'first hand' to y'all...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A background check isn't gun registration.
> 
> The only reason anyone would buy a gun via a private sale is to _*avoid*_ the background check they know they wouldn't pass.
> 
> So when you sell privately and don't submit to a background check, you are selling your gun to criminals, terrorists, and/or wife beaters.
Click to expand...

Wrong.. on first assertion... (O and the 2nd assertion)

Have traded hunting rifles (off the books) with the "VSP", VT State Trooper friends...

I also buy guns frequently from FFL dealers and go through the NICS data base....  (wrong on the 3rd assertion as well...)


----------



## The Derp

KeiserC said:


> Wrong.. on first assertion... (O and the 2nd assertion)



Background checks are not cataloged and saved.  So you don't know _*what the fuck*_ you're talking about.




KeiserC said:


> Have traded hunting rifles (off the books) with VT state troopers.



So what?  Cops don't break the law?  Cops don't beat their wives?  LOL.  




KeiserC said:


> I also buy guns frequently from FFL dealers and go through the NICS data base....  (wrong on the 3rd assertion as well...)



OK, what does that have to do with not submitting to a background check?  Nothing.  So you've shit out two non-sequiturs and one point that was completely wrong.


----------



## KeiserC

The Derp said:


> KeiserC said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.. on first assertion... (O and the 2nd assertion)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Background checks are not cataloged and saved.  So you don't know _*what the fuck*_ you're talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KeiserC said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have traded hunting rifles (off the books) with VT state troopers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what?  Cops don't break the law?  Cops don't beat their wives?  LOL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KeiserC said:
> 
> 
> 
> I also buy guns frequently from FFL dealers and go through the NICS data base....  (wrong on the 3rd assertion as well...)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, what does that have to do with not submitting to a background check?  Nothing.  So you've shit out two non-sequiturs and one point that was completely wrong.
Click to expand...

You bet your ass they can be 'retrieved'... You buy a gun and go through a 'NICS' check... you are going to be contacted if that gun was used 25 yr. later in Cambodia.... (despite what 'you' are 'assured of')


----------



## KeiserC

KeiserC said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KeiserC said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.. on first assertion... (O and the 2nd assertion)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Background checks are not cataloged and saved.  So you don't know _*what the fuck*_ you're talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KeiserC said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have traded hunting rifles (off the books) with VT state troopers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what?  Cops don't break the law?  Cops don't beat their wives?  LOL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KeiserC said:
> 
> 
> 
> I also buy guns frequently from FFL dealers and go through the NICS data base....  (wrong on the 3rd assertion as well...)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, what does that have to do with not submitting to a background check?  Nothing.  So you've shit out two non-sequiturs and one point that was completely wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You bet your ass they can be 'retrieved'... You buy a gun and go through a 'NICS' check... you are going to be contacted if that gun was used 25 yr. later in Cambodia....
Click to expand...

Every F'n assertion you make can be 'squashed'... 'NO', State Police are not 'saints' some beat their wives... and worse. Recently we had one stealing opioids from the 'evidence locker' to perpetuate a 'quid pro quo' sexual relationship with an addict..


----------



## Rustic

The Derp said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ruger, Smith and Wesson, Beretta, etc... All the major manufacturers have tried to sell such a thing and they all have failed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So...you're not who you claim to be.  You're not a gun retailer.  You're not a gun seller.  You're pretending you are for the sake of an anonymous message board.  You're making shit up as you go.
> 
> Smith & Wesson most definitely _*does*_ produce fingerprint ID guns and manufactures two models that have them:
> 
> The Smith & Wesson B1 is compatable with two of the most popular Smith & Wesson models:
> 
> Smith & Wesson M&P®40 SHIELD
> Smith & Wesson M&P®9 SHIELD
> It's sold right here.
> 
> So why are you lying to me?  I don't understand.  Is your ego really that fragile?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one wants that shit in their lives fuck them...There is no fucking way anyone is going to want to rely on the battery to use a firearm for self-defense/hunting or anything of any purpose. You silly little fucker
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People rely on batteries for everything, so why wouldn't they be fine with one in their gun?  You keep coming up with excuses, but not reasons why these fingerprint IDs won't work when they clearly do.
> 
> I think you just want to sell guns to criminals who will then traffic those guns to other criminals because you can't find enough buyers who could pass a background check.
Click to expand...

Smith and Wesson are just doing that for political correctness sake, those firearms are the worst sellers… You obviously know nothing about firearm sales


----------



## KeiserC

The Derp said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Private sales are exactly that… Private...  none of all of yours or my business and certainly none of the federal government business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the only reason anyone would do a private sale is if they wanted to avoid a background check.
> 
> Now why would they want to avoid a background check?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I would never expect to run background checks on friends and family in a private setting that would be insulting. Fuck the nanny state... lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It sounds to me like you'd sell a gun to your family member even if you knew they had a criminal conviction, were on a no-fly list, or have a domestic abuse charge.
> 
> That's the only reason why you'd sell to someone privately...because you knew they couldn't pass a background check.
Click to expand...

Shiiit.. I just sold a Beretta PX4 storm, sub compact, to my mother... (as I bought in bulk.. 9mm, & .40 S&W x 2 pairs)...  She must, by your logic, be a criminal and not able to pass a NICS check....


----------



## Rustic

The Derp said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ruger, Smith and Wesson, Beretta, etc... All the major manufacturers have tried to sell such a thing and they all have failed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So...you're not who you claim to be.  You're not a gun retailer.  You're not a gun seller.  You're pretending you are for the sake of an anonymous message board.  You're making shit up as you go.
> 
> Smith & Wesson most definitely _*does*_ produce fingerprint ID guns and manufactures two models that have them:
> 
> The Smith & Wesson B1 is compatable with two of the most popular Smith & Wesson models:
> 
> Smith & Wesson M&P®40 SHIELD
> Smith & Wesson M&P®9 SHIELD
> It's sold right here.
> 
> So why are you lying to me?  I don't understand.  Is your ego really that fragile?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one wants that shit in their lives fuck them...There is no fucking way anyone is going to want to rely on the battery to use a firearm for self-defense/hunting or anything of any purpose. You silly little fucker
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People rely on batteries for everything, so why wouldn't they be fine with one in their gun?  You keep coming up with excuses, but not reasons why these fingerprint IDs won't work when they clearly do.
> 
> I think you just want to sell guns to criminals who will then traffic those guns to other criminals because you can't find enough buyers who could pass a background check.
Click to expand...

The problem with fingerprint-recognition guns | United Liberty | Free Market - Individual Liberty - Limited Government


----------



## Rustic

The Derp said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I would never expect to run background checks on friends and family in a private setting that would be insulting. Fuck the nanny state... lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still not a good reason for not running a background check.  Family members never commit crimes?
Click to expand...

There is no reason for background checks on private sales, They are not necessary it’s the law. Live with it


----------



## Rustic

The Derp said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Private sales are exactly that… Private...  none of all of yours or my business and certainly none of the federal government business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the only reason anyone would do a private sale is if they wanted to avoid a background check.
> 
> Now why would they want to avoid a background check?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I would never expect to run background checks on friends and family in a private setting that would be insulting. Fuck the nanny state... lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It sounds to me like you'd sell a gun to your family member even if you knew they had a criminal conviction, were on a no-fly list, or have a domestic abuse charge.
> 
> That's the only reason why you'd sell to someone privately...because you knew they couldn't pass a background check.
Click to expand...

Na, It’s a Second Amendment thing you would not understand...


----------



## Rustic

The Derp said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly that...  private sales. Duh... lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right...so a private sale occurs because the buyer wouldn't be able to purchase the gun through a retailer _*because the buyer wouldn't pass the background check*_.
> 
> Which means your claim that you privately sell to "law abiding persons" is bullshit because you aren't verifying that.  Why sell privately when you can sell retail?  Simple; the buyer wouldn't be able to pass a background check, and you're a greedy person who wants to make money off that.
> 
> You want to make money by selling your guns to criminals, terrorists, and wife beaters because you cannot find enough customers who could pass a background check.
> 
> So the blood of innocent victims falls on your greedy, bloody, fat sausage fingers that can't operate an ipad, but we're assured by you can operate a gun.  LOL.  Whatever.
Click to expand...

Na, Private sales are not any business of the federal government, And if you and I… Live with it it’s the law of the land


----------



## Rustic

The Derp said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a reason why firearm registration is unconstitutional, because the federal government has no business in such things.
> They do not qualify
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one's calling for that, so you're building a straw man to distract from the fact that you sell your guns to criminals, terrorists, and wife beaters.
Click to expand...

Lol, I sell firearms and ammo out of a retail store legally…


----------



## KeiserC

Rustic said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I would never expect to run background checks on friends and family in a private setting that would be insulting. Fuck the nanny state... lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still not a good reason for not running a background check.  Family members never commit crimes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no reason for background checks on private sales, They are not necessary it’s the law. Live with it
Click to expand...

Purely on a "feasability" note... If the firearm has no 'data trail' how could the authorities ever trace the  'tranferer' & 'tranferee'.  Obviously we're likely talking about older "heirloom" firearms here... of which there are 'A-Plenty'...


----------



## Rustic

The Derp said:


> KeiserC said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gun registration is a paper trail, It may well start out benign...with good intentions.. Perhaps it won't be used as judiciously by the next "regime"....  (not an exact match via firearms) A corollary...The Wiemar Republic wasn't that long ago... still some older folk around to describe it 'first hand' to y'all...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A background check isn't gun registration.
> 
> The only reason anyone would buy a gun via a private sale is to _*avoid*_ the background check they know they wouldn't pass.
> 
> So when you sell privately and don't submit to a background check, you are selling your gun to criminals, terrorists, and/or wife beaters.
Click to expand...

You want retailers to run background checks on other peoples merchandise? You are one stupid motherfucker. LOL


----------



## Rustic

The Derp said:


> BasicHumanUnit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Solution to ALL school shootings is simple and elegant.
> 
> Train and certify select teachers at every school who already have CCW permits to carry concealed at schools.
> If there are none, train some at every school.   I don't think that would be very difficult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there isn't money for books, pencils, and paper, then what the fuck makes you think there's money for this bullshit?
Click to expand...

The major manufacturers would give a discounted rate at least… I assure you, I would sell firearms at cost to teachers/Officials


----------



## kaz

Lakhota said:


> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
Click to expand...


For a supposed Indian, it's hysterical how afraid of guns you are.

If you lived in the olden days, they'd have just had you stay with the women when they hunted so the women could protect you


----------



## Rustic

The Derp said:


> KeiserC said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.. on first assertion... (O and the 2nd assertion)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Background checks are not cataloged and saved.  So you don't know _*what the fuck*_ you're talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KeiserC said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have traded hunting rifles (off the books) with VT state troopers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what?  Cops don't break the law?  Cops don't beat their wives?  LOL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KeiserC said:
> 
> 
> 
> I also buy guns frequently from FFL dealers and go through the NICS data base....  (wrong on the 3rd assertion as well...)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, what does that have to do with not submitting to a background check?  Nothing.  So you've shit out two non-sequiturs and one point that was completely wrong.
Click to expand...

On your first - only a fool trusts the federal government.

It is the law of the land you don’t have to do a background check or private sales. Live with it

You have lost the debate


----------



## kaz

Rustic said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KeiserC said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gun registration is a paper trail, It may well start out benign...with good intentions.. Perhaps it won't be used as judiciously by the next "regime"....  (not an exact match via firearms) A corollary...The Wiemar Republic wasn't that long ago... still some older folk around to describe it 'first hand' to y'all...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A background check isn't gun registration.
> 
> The only reason anyone would buy a gun via a private sale is to _*avoid*_ the background check they know they wouldn't pass.
> 
> So when you sell privately and don't submit to a background check, you are selling your gun to criminals, terrorists, and/or wife beaters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want retailers to run background checks on other peoples merchandise? You are one stupid motherfucker. LOL
Click to expand...


I'd be OK with background checks if they did two things:

1)  Arrest the people who fail them for attempting to buy a gun illegally.  They serve no purpose now

2)  Make it illegal to record that a background check was performed to protect the privacy of gun owners


----------



## kaz

Antares said:


> Shitting Bull you are just pissed because we conquered your ass.
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Lakhota has a lot more evidence than Elizabeth Warren of his Indian ancestory. Have you seen the home video passed down to him?


----------



## Rustic

kaz said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KeiserC said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gun registration is a paper trail, It may well start out benign...with good intentions.. Perhaps it won't be used as judiciously by the next "regime"....  (not an exact match via firearms) A corollary...The Wiemar Republic wasn't that long ago... still some older folk around to describe it 'first hand' to y'all...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A background check isn't gun registration.
> 
> The only reason anyone would buy a gun via a private sale is to _*avoid*_ the background check they know they wouldn't pass.
> 
> So when you sell privately and don't submit to a background check, you are selling your gun to criminals, terrorists, and/or wife beaters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want retailers to run background checks on other peoples merchandise? You are one stupid motherfucker. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd be OK with background checks if they did two things:
> 
> 1)  Arrest the people who fail them for attempting to buy a gun illegally.  They serve no purpose now
> 
> 2)  Make it illegal to record that a background check was performed to protect the privacy of gun owners
Click to expand...

But you know progressives would never compromise/bargain on anything when it comes to firearms it is not in their blood.
Anything short of all out confiscation will not appeal to any one of them.


----------



## Rustic

kaz said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shitting Bull you are just pissed because we conquered your ass.
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lakhota has a lot more evidence than Elizabeth Warren of his Indian ancestory. Have you seen the home video passed down to him?
Click to expand...

...And it seems he cannot stay out of the firewater.
Washington redskin(lakhota) Has sucked off the government tit all his life


----------



## kaz

Rustic said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KeiserC said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gun registration is a paper trail, It may well start out benign...with good intentions.. Perhaps it won't be used as judiciously by the next "regime"....  (not an exact match via firearms) A corollary...The Wiemar Republic wasn't that long ago... still some older folk around to describe it 'first hand' to y'all...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A background check isn't gun registration.
> 
> The only reason anyone would buy a gun via a private sale is to _*avoid*_ the background check they know they wouldn't pass.
> 
> So when you sell privately and don't submit to a background check, you are selling your gun to criminals, terrorists, and/or wife beaters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want retailers to run background checks on other peoples merchandise? You are one stupid motherfucker. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd be OK with background checks if they did two things:
> 
> 1)  Arrest the people who fail them for attempting to buy a gun illegally.  They serve no purpose now
> 
> 2)  Make it illegal to record that a background check was performed to protect the privacy of gun owners
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you know progressives would never compromise/bargain on anything when it comes to firearms it is not in their blood.
> Anything short of all out confiscation will not appeal to any one of them.
Click to expand...


Leftists don't compromise on anything, they need to be defeated


----------



## kaz

Rustic said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shitting Bull you are just pissed because we conquered your ass.
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lakhota has a lot more evidence than Elizabeth Warren of his Indian ancestory. Have you seen the home video passed down to him?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...And it seems he cannot stay out of the firewater.
> Washington redskin(lakhota) Has sucked off the government tit all his life
Click to expand...


Well, he did go to college where he celebrated his heritage with his friend, who's also a native American


----------



## KeiserC

Getting back to firearms... How have the authorities in the various states that have had these 'mass shootings' determined (in many cases), *by whom* & *where* the firearms were purchased, the types of ammo purchased... etc?

As "has been established on this blog" going through a NICS check *"is not gun registration"*... So.... Is *Govt. 'Clairvoyance'* what we should be talking about...???

I'm just a VT'er from a 'gun luv'n' state so I don't presume to have all the answers, nation wide...


----------



## Lakhota

*Why Most Americans Can Buy AR-15s Before They Can Have Their First Beer*

Too young to buy a beer - but not an AR-15.  Damn, that is really sick.  The NRA Rambo mentality must be eliminated from society.  Maybe Florida is the turning point.  Maybe...


----------



## Rustic

KeiserC said:


> Getting back to firearms... How have the authorities in the various states that have had these 'mass shootings' determined by whom & where the firearms were purchased, the types of ammo purchased... etc?
> 
> Going through a NICS check "is not gun registration"... So.... Is Govt. 'Clairvoyance' what we should be talking about...???


There’s a real simple way to look at it, firearm ownership is an absolute right, shall not be infringed unless the individual fucks it up for themselves.
That is as simple and black-and-white as it gets...


----------



## Rustic

Lakhota said:


> *Why Most Americans Can Buy AR-15s Before They Can Have Their First Beer*
> 
> Too young to buy a beer - but not an AR-15.  Damn, that is really sick.  The NRA Rambo mentality must be eliminated from society.  Maybe Florida is the turning point.  Maybe...


Washington redskin, You should really stay out of the fire water. If you would, you would realize you should know this better than anybody ~ alcohol is far more dangerous than any firearm. See... 2018 Real Time Death Statistics in America


----------



## Skull Pilot

The Derp said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> so it's your contention that it takes decades for gun bans to decrease the murder rate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, my contention is that your argument is bullshit, your data is cherry-picked, and nothing is sourced.
Click to expand...

The sources of the data are listed on the chart


----------



## Skull Pilot

Daryl Hunt said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> All those kids gone just so the gun industry can make  a few bucks, and worse. we, the American people allowed it to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  I still remember when then President George W. Bush signed the PLCAA protecting gun manufacturers and dealers from liability.
> 
> The *Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA)* is a United States law which protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S. based manufacturer of consumer products is held responsible. They may also be held liable for negligent entrustment when they have reason to know a gun is intended for use in a crime.
> 
> *Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act - Wikipedia*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The manufacturer of a firearm is not responsible fro the crimes people commit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is when the product is designed only to kill a lot of people.  Thompson's sales came to a screeching halt on the Thompson MG when they singled it out with the 1934 law.  IF only the mafia types only killed each other they may have left it alone.  But they didn't.  Innocents were slaughtered as well.
> 
> I elect that the AR types and the AK types are placed in the same special place the Thompson is today for exactly the same reason.
Click to expand...


You do know that those are just ordinary everyday semiautomatic rifles don't you?

The AR 15 so called assault rifle is no different from the Ruger mini 14 Ranch rifle but for some cosmetic differences.

We all now the ultimate goal here is to ban all semiautomatic rifles even though rifles of any kind are used in only about 2% of all murders and mass shootings account for only about 1% of all murder.


----------



## KeiserC

Rustic said:


> KeiserC said:
> 
> 
> 
> Getting back to firearms... How have the authorities in the various states that have had these 'mass shootings' determined by whom & where the firearms were purchased, the types of ammo purchased... etc?
> 
> Going through a NICS check "is not gun registration"... So.... Is Govt. 'Clairvoyance' what we should be talking about...???
> 
> 
> 
> There’s a real simple way to look at it, firearm ownership is an absolute right, shall not be infringed unless the individual fucks it up for themselves.
> That is as simple and black-and-white as it gets...
Click to expand...

Likewise... stating


Rustic said:


> KeiserC said:
> 
> 
> 
> Getting back to firearms... How have the authorities in the various states that have had these 'mass shootings' determined by whom & where the firearms were purchased, the types of ammo purchased... etc?
> 
> Going through a NICS check "is not gun registration"... So.... Is Govt. 'Clairvoyance' what we should be talking about...???
> 
> 
> 
> There’s a real simple way to look at it, firearm ownership is an absolute right, shall not be infringed unless the individual fucks it up for themselves.
> That is as simple and black-and-white as it gets...
Click to expand...

Unfortunately... that is a world that no longer exists... The Constitution has been deemed to be a 'living and breathing' document and we may be on the 'last gasping breaths' of Constitutionality...


----------



## Skull Pilot

Daryl Hunt said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> The never-give-an-inch NRA Rambo gun nuts are the greatest threat to my future gun rights.  I would never own an AR-15.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about a semiautomatic .223 like this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rate of fire on the Mini-14 is much slower than the fire rate of the AR.  You are limited to the number of rounds you can fire by that slower fire rate.  For hunting, the Mini-14 blows the AR away in all areas.  For Mass Kilings, the AR is king.  Are you willing to compromise on making the AR and the AK of all types regulated more and gotten off the shelves at Gun Stores and out of Online Sales?  If you are not, you hurt the gun culture.  They just might bag the Mini-14 with the same oncoming laws that will bag the AR and AK.
Click to expand...

No it's not.

Both have the exact same rate of fire which is 1 round per trigger pull.

There is no need to regulate rifles based on cosmetic differences.

And the goal is to ban all semiauto rifles if you think it's not you're a fool


----------



## Skull Pilot

The Derp said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> All those kids gone just so the gun industry can make  a few bucks, and worse. we, the American people allowed it to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  I still remember when then President George W. Bush signed the PLCAA protecting gun manufacturers and dealers from liability.
> 
> The *Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA)* is a United States law which protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S. based manufacturer of consumer products is held responsible. They may also be held liable for negligent entrustment when they have reason to know a gun is intended for use in a crime.
> 
> *Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act - Wikipedia*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The manufacturer of a firearm is not responsible fro the crimes people commit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is when the product is designed only to kill a lot of people.  Thompson's sales came to a screeching halt on the Thompson MG when they singled it out with the 1934 law.  IF only the mafia types only killed each other they may have left it alone.  But they didn't.  Innocents were slaughtered as well.
> 
> I elect that the AR types and the AK types are placed in the same special place the Thompson is today for exactly the same reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know nothing of firearms, ARs are just sporting rifles Nothing more nothing less...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, You sound like a bitch in heat
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, so 323 people were killed by AR-15's and 496 were killed by hammers.
> 
> BUT
> 
> Were the 323 people killed by AR-15's killed in 323 separate incidents, or just a handful of incidents?  Same question for the hammers...
Click to expand...

So it's worse to be killed if you're killed along with another person?

Dead is dead it matters not how it happens


----------



## KeiserC

Skull Pilot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> All those kids gone just so the gun industry can make  a few bucks, and worse. we, the American people allowed it to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  I still remember when then President George W. Bush signed the PLCAA protecting gun manufacturers and dealers from liability.
> 
> The *Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA)* is a United States law which protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S. based manufacturer of consumer products is held responsible. They may also be held liable for negligent entrustment when they have reason to know a gun is intended for use in a crime.
> 
> *Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act - Wikipedia*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The manufacturer of a firearm is not responsible fro the crimes people commit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is when the product is designed only to kill a lot of people.  Thompson's sales came to a screeching halt on the Thompson MG when they singled it out with the 1934 law.  IF only the mafia types only killed each other they may have left it alone.  But they didn't.  Innocents were slaughtered as well.
> 
> I elect that the AR types and the AK types are placed in the same special place the Thompson is today for exactly the same reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do know that those are just ordinary everyday semiautomatic rifles don't you?
> 
> The AR 15 so called assault rifle is no different from the Ruger mini 14 Ranch rifle but for some cosmetic differences.
> 
> We all now the ultimate goal here is to ban all semiautomatic rifles even though rifles of any kind are used in only about 2% of all murders and mass shootings account for only about 1% of all murder.
Click to expand...


Yes... cosmetically more amenable to Feinstein... BUT there is a significant 'gas' disparity rendering the one 'Varmint' gun inferior to the other 'Varmint' gun in 'rate of fire'...  Make no mistake here... they are best suited for 'wood chuck/ground hogs' not 100lbs. game, let alone, humans... lethality levels for both platforms on humans isn't much studied beyond the Military back in the 1960's and their determination that 'wounding' was better than 'killing' combatants...


----------



## Skull Pilot

The Derp said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is unconstitutional, firearm ownership is an right, cell phones are not...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your right to a firearm isn't infringed by fingerprint ID locks.
Click to expand...


Bad idea.

Let's give an example.
it's winter in New England and you have on a pair of gloves.  Some piece of shit tries to rob you and you say  "Wait a minute Mr Criminal Piece of Shit I have to take off my gloves and scan my finger before I can defend myself"

And besides that the finger print reader om my laptop can take up to 5 swipes to work so no it's not a good idea for a weapon that you might need to defend yourself,


----------



## Skull Pilot

KeiserC said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> All those kids gone just so the gun industry can make  a few bucks, and worse. we, the American people allowed it to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  I still remember when then President George W. Bush signed the PLCAA protecting gun manufacturers and dealers from liability.
> 
> The *Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA)* is a United States law which protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S. based manufacturer of consumer products is held responsible. They may also be held liable for negligent entrustment when they have reason to know a gun is intended for use in a crime.
> 
> *Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act - Wikipedia*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The manufacturer of a firearm is not responsible fro the crimes people commit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is when the product is designed only to kill a lot of people.  Thompson's sales came to a screeching halt on the Thompson MG when they singled it out with the 1934 law.  IF only the mafia types only killed each other they may have left it alone.  But they didn't.  Innocents were slaughtered as well.
> 
> I elect that the AR types and the AK types are placed in the same special place the Thompson is today for exactly the same reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do know that those are just ordinary everyday semiautomatic rifles don't you?
> 
> The AR 15 so called assault rifle is no different from the Ruger mini 14 Ranch rifle but for some cosmetic differences.
> 
> We all now the ultimate goal here is to ban all semiautomatic rifles even though rifles of any kind are used in only about 2% of all murders and mass shootings account for only about 1% of all murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes... cosmetically more amenable to Feinstein... BUT there is a significant 'gas' disparity rendering the one 'Varmint' gun inferior to the other 'Varmint' gun in 'rate of fire'...
Click to expand...


The rate of fire is exactly the same for both rifles.

1 round per trigger pull.


----------



## Rustic

KeiserC said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KeiserC said:
> 
> 
> 
> Getting back to firearms... How have the authorities in the various states that have had these 'mass shootings' determined by whom & where the firearms were purchased, the types of ammo purchased... etc?
> 
> Going through a NICS check "is not gun registration"... So.... Is Govt. 'Clairvoyance' what we should be talking about...???
> 
> 
> 
> There’s a real simple way to look at it, firearm ownership is an absolute right, shall not be infringed unless the individual fucks it up for themselves.
> That is as simple and black-and-white as it gets...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Likewise... stating
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KeiserC said:
> 
> 
> 
> Getting back to firearms... How have the authorities in the various states that have had these 'mass shootings' determined by whom & where the firearms were purchased, the types of ammo purchased... etc?
> 
> Going through a NICS check "is not gun registration"... So.... Is Govt. 'Clairvoyance' what we should be talking about...???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There’s a real simple way to look at it, firearm ownership is an absolute right, shall not be infringed unless the individual fucks it up for themselves.
> That is as simple and black-and-white as it gets...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unfortunately... that is a world that no longer exists... The Constitution has been deemed to be a 'living and breathing' document and we may be on the 'last gasping breaths' of Constitutionality...
Click to expand...

True, Socialism will not tolerate any sort of freedom and individuality… Fact


----------



## Skull Pilot

The Derp said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn’t matter, people kill people not firearms… End of story
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nukes don't kill people, people kill people.  So Kim Jong Un should get all the nukes he wants.
> 
> There, you see how fucking stupid that argument is?
Click to expand...

He already has the nukes he wants so once again your point is meaningless


----------



## Rustic

Skull Pilot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> The never-give-an-inch NRA Rambo gun nuts are the greatest threat to my future gun rights.  I would never own an AR-15.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about a semiautomatic .223 like this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rate of fire on the Mini-14 is much slower than the fire rate of the AR.  You are limited to the number of rounds you can fire by that slower fire rate.  For hunting, the Mini-14 blows the AR away in all areas.  For Mass Kilings, the AR is king.  Are you willing to compromise on making the AR and the AK of all types regulated more and gotten off the shelves at Gun Stores and out of Online Sales?  If you are not, you hurt the gun culture.  They just might bag the Mini-14 with the same oncoming laws that will bag the AR and AK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it's not.
> 
> Both have the exact same rate of fire which is 1 round per trigger pull.
> 
> There is no need to regulate rifles based on cosmetic differences.
> 
> And the goal is to ban all semiauto rifles if you think it's not you're a fool
Click to expand...

No doubt about it. 
Darrell hunt is a stupid fucker... He watches for too many Hollywood movies made by child molesting Hollywood types


----------



## Skull Pilot

The Derp said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is, there is no need for ID locks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure there is, I can think of two good reasons almost immediately;
> 
> Your gun gets stolen
> Your kid gets their hands on it
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can’t force that shit on law-abiding people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not?  Guns have safeties, don't they?  Aren't safeties standard on all firearms?
Click to expand...

 If someone wants to steal my guns they have to break into my home thus setting off the alarm, they have to contend with my dogs and they would have to lift the 600 lb safe that is set into the concrete floor of my basement up the stairs.

And I don't have kids.

And FYI not all guns have safeties.  My carry pistol is a Glock 19  no safety


----------



## Rustic

Skull Pilot said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is unconstitutional, firearm ownership is an right, cell phones are not...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your right to a firearm isn't infringed by fingerprint ID locks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bad idea.
> 
> Let's give an example.
> it's winter in New England and you have on a pair of gloves.  Some piece of shit tries to rob you and you say  "Wait a minute Mr Criminal Piece of Shit I have to take off my gloves and scan my finger before I can defend myself"
> 
> And besides that the finger print reader om my laptop can take up to 5 swipes to work so no it's not a good idea for a weapon that you might need to defend yourself,
Click to expand...

...And the piece of shit lithium battery is dead Because they don’t work worth a shit in cold weather. Lol


----------



## Skull Pilot

The Derp said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Firearm ownership is none of your fucking business, it’s none of my business and it certainly is none of the federal governments business… End of story
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NUKE OWNERSHIP IS ALSO NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS.
> 
> So Kim Jong Un should get all the nukes he wants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice deflection
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't deflect, I took your gun right argument and applied it to nukes.
> 
> Nukes don't kill people; people kill people.  So Iran should get all the nukes it wants.
Click to expand...


Yeah because a nuclear bomb is just like a rifle


----------



## Rustic

Skull Pilot said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is, there is no need for ID locks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure there is, I can think of two good reasons almost immediately;
> 
> Your gun gets stolen
> Your kid gets their hands on it
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can’t force that shit on law-abiding people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not?  Guns have safeties, don't they?  Aren't safeties standard on all firearms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If someone wants to steal my guns they have to break into my home thus setting off the alarm, they have to contend with my dogs and they would have to lift the 600 lb safe that is set into the concrete floor of my basement up the stairs.
> 
> And I don't have kids.
> 
> And FYI not all guns have safeties.  My carry pistol is a Glock 19  no safety
Click to expand...

That’s what I told him, he did not even realize that not all firearms have safeties on them. With a pistol your safety should be your trigger finger...


----------



## Lakhota

Although I don't own or would never own an AR-15 - I can relate to the *Rambo mentality* from my younger days.  When the Rifleman TV show with Chuck Connors was popular from 1958 to 1963, I had access to my grandfather's lever-action Marlin .32 Special.  We lived on a remote self-sufficient farm, and I would take it out in the woods and pretend to be the Rifleman.  I wasted a lot of ammo (as much as granddad could afford on his meager farm income) - and I can still remember what my mentality was when I was cranking that lever. I was in my early teens.  However, I grew up to be an ethical and responsible gun owner and hunter.  I cherish my guns - but I detest the NRA.  This is somewhat apples and oranges to today's gun problems, but I thought I would share my little story of life on the farm.  I consider the NRA the biggest threat to my future gun rights.  The NRA was once a great outfit - until it was hijacked by radicals in 1977.  The NRA later hijacked the Republican Party.

*How NRA’s true believers converted a marksmanship group into a mighty gun lobby*


----------



## Skull Pilot

The Derp said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ruger, Smith and Wesson, Beretta, etc... All the major manufacturers have tried to sell such a thing and they all have failed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So...you're not who you claim to be.  You're not a gun retailer.  You're not a gun seller.  You're pretending you are for the sake of an anonymous message board.  You're making shit up as you go.
> 
> Smith & Wesson most definitely _*does*_ produce fingerprint ID guns and manufactures two models that have them:
> 
> The Smith & Wesson B1 is compatable with two of the most popular Smith & Wesson models:
> 
> Smith & Wesson M&P®40 SHIELD
> Smith & Wesson M&P®9 SHIELD
> It's sold right here.
> 
> So why are you lying to me?  I don't understand.  Is your ego really that fragile?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one wants that shit in their lives fuck them...There is no fucking way anyone is going to want to rely on the battery to use a firearm for self-defense/hunting or anything of any purpose. You silly little fucker
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People rely on batteries for everything, so why wouldn't they be fine with one in their gun?  You keep coming up with excuses, but not reasons why these fingerprint IDs won't work when they clearly do.
> 
> I think you just want to sell guns to criminals who will then traffic those guns to other criminals because you can't find enough buyers who could pass a background check.
Click to expand...

Tell me how the fuck is that contraption going to fit into my concealed carry holster?


----------



## Rustic

Lakhota said:


> Although I don't own or would never own an AR-15 - I can relate to the *Rambo mentality* from my younger days.  When the Rifleman TV show with Chuck Connors was popular from 1958 to 1963, I had access to my grandfather's lever-action .32 Special.  We lived on a remote farm, and I would take it out in the woods and pretend to be the Rifleman.  I burned up a lot of ammo (as much as granddad could afford on his meager farm income) - and I can still remember what my mentality was when I was cranking that lever. I was in my early teens.  However, I grew up to be an ethical and responsible gun owner and hunter.  I cherish my guns - but I detest the NRA.  This is somewhat apple and oranges to today's gun problems, but I thought I would share my little story of life on the farm.  I consider the NRA the biggest threat to my future gun rights.  The NRA was once a great outfit - until it was hijacked by radicals in 1977.
> 
> *How NRA’s true believers converted a marksmanship group into a mighty gun lobby*


Washington redskin, NRA is not pro-gun enough. You know nothing of marksmanship and firearm safety. You watch far too many Hollywood movies made by child molesting Hollywood types


----------



## Rustic

Skull Pilot said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ruger, Smith and Wesson, Beretta, etc... All the major manufacturers have tried to sell such a thing and they all have failed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So...you're not who you claim to be.  You're not a gun retailer.  You're not a gun seller.  You're pretending you are for the sake of an anonymous message board.  You're making shit up as you go.
> 
> Smith & Wesson most definitely _*does*_ produce fingerprint ID guns and manufactures two models that have them:
> 
> The Smith & Wesson B1 is compatable with two of the most popular Smith & Wesson models:
> 
> Smith & Wesson M&P®40 SHIELD
> Smith & Wesson M&P®9 SHIELD
> It's sold right here.
> 
> So why are you lying to me?  I don't understand.  Is your ego really that fragile?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one wants that shit in their lives fuck them...There is no fucking way anyone is going to want to rely on the battery to use a firearm for self-defense/hunting or anything of any purpose. You silly little fucker
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People rely on batteries for everything, so why wouldn't they be fine with one in their gun?  You keep coming up with excuses, but not reasons why these fingerprint IDs won't work when they clearly do.
> 
> I think you just want to sell guns to criminals who will then traffic those guns to other criminals because you can't find enough buyers who could pass a background check.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell me how the fuck is that contraption going to fit into my concealed carry holster?
Click to expand...

There is a reason why those never sold worth of shit and they will never sell worth a shit. Because those type of firearms are absolutely useless... Politically correct firearms are a joke, Just like politically correct people.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Lakhota said:


> *Why Most Americans Can Buy AR-15s Before They Can Have Their First Beer*
> 
> Too young to buy a beer - but not an AR-15.  Damn, that is really sick.  The NRA Rambo mentality must be eliminated from society.  Maybe Florida is the turning point.  Maybe...



SO what?

A person can fight and kill in for his country before he can have his first beer too.
A person can get married, sign contracts, vote, buy a house etc all before legally being able to buy a beer.


----------



## KeiserC

Skull Pilot said:


> KeiserC said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  I still remember when then President George W. Bush signed the PLCAA protecting gun manufacturers and dealers from liability.
> 
> The *Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA)* is a United States law which protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S. based manufacturer of consumer products is held responsible. They may also be held liable for negligent entrustment when they have reason to know a gun is intended for use in a crime.
> 
> *Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act - Wikipedia*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The manufacturer of a firearm is not responsible fro the crimes people commit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is when the product is designed only to kill a lot of people.  Thompson's sales came to a screeching halt on the Thompson MG when they singled it out with the 1934 law.  IF only the mafia types only killed each other they may have left it alone.  But they didn't.  Innocents were slaughtered as well.
> 
> I elect that the AR types and the AK types are placed in the same special place the Thompson is today for exactly the same reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do know that those are just ordinary everyday semiautomatic rifles don't you?
> 
> The AR 15 so called assault rifle is no different from the Ruger mini 14 Ranch rifle but for some cosmetic differences.
> 
> We all now the ultimate goal here is to ban all semiautomatic rifles even though rifles of any kind are used in only about 2% of all murders and mass shootings account for only about 1% of all murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes... cosmetically more amenable to Feinstein... BUT there is a significant 'gas' disparity rendering the one 'Varmint' gun inferior to the other 'Varmint' gun in 'rate of fire'...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rate of fire is exactly the same for both rifles.
> 
> 1 round per trigger pull.
Click to expand...

YOU are Right!!! I was unconsciously getting more nuanced into the 'direct impingement' vs. 'new gas piston technology' that I've transitioned some of my AR's to...


----------



## Skull Pilot

Lakhota said:


> Although I don't own or would never own an AR-15 - I can relate to the *Rambo mentality* from my younger days.  When the Rifleman TV show with Chuck Connors was popular from 1958 to 1963, I had access to my grandfather's lever-action .32 Special.  We lived on a remote self-sufficient farm, and I would take it out in the woods and pretend to be the Rifleman.  I burned up a lot of ammo (as much as granddad could afford on his meager farm income) - and I can still remember what my mentality was when I was cranking that lever. I was in my early teens.  However, I grew up to be an ethical and responsible gun owner and hunter.  I cherish my guns - but I detest the NRA.  This is somewhat apple and oranges to today's gun problems, but I thought I would share my little story of life on the farm.  I consider the NRA the biggest threat to my future gun rights.  The NRA was once a great outfit - until it was hijacked by radicals in 1977.  The NRA later hijacked the Republican Party.
> 
> *How NRA’s true believers converted a marksmanship group into a mighty gun lobby*


I don't own one either.

I already have a perfectly fine .223 semiauto in my mini 14.  I do not see the reason to buy another.

But I also know that the AR is no different than my mini 14 but for some cosmetics


----------



## KeiserC

Lakhota said:


> Although I don't own or would never own an AR-15 - I can relate to the *Rambo mentality* from my younger days.  When the Rifleman TV show with Chuck Connors was popular from 1958 to 1963, I had access to my grandfather's lever-action Marlin .32 Special.  We lived on a remote self-sufficient farm, and I would take it out in the woods and pretend to be the Rifleman.  I wasted a lot of ammo (as much as granddad could afford on his meager farm income) - and I can still remember what my mentality was when I was cranking that lever. I was in my early teens.  However, I grew up to be an ethical and responsible gun owner and hunter.  I cherish my guns - but I detest the NRA.  This is somewhat apples and oranges to today's gun problems, but I thought I would share my little story of life on the farm.  I consider the NRA the biggest threat to my future gun rights.  The NRA was once a great outfit - until it was hijacked by radicals in 1977.  The NRA later hijacked the Republican Party.
> 
> *How NRA’s true believers converted a marksmanship group into a mighty gun lobby*


The AR-10 chambered in .243 is a great platform to sit behind a blind with... Unlike your bolt'n lever guns you have a remote chance of bagging a coyote on the run... if you do your part.. 

(for all you 'snowflakes shuttering' ... I use a .45 pistol 'point blank' to slaughter my 'beloved' hand fed, petted, brushed, & named...livestock) 

Tis the way that life perpetuates and 'rolls along'... sorry to disabuse you of your 'nievita' re. the "real world"...


----------



## 2aguy

Skull Pilot said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although I don't own or would never own an AR-15 - I can relate to the *Rambo mentality* from my younger days.  When the Rifleman TV show with Chuck Connors was popular from 1958 to 1963, I had access to my grandfather's lever-action .32 Special.  We lived on a remote self-sufficient farm, and I would take it out in the woods and pretend to be the Rifleman.  I burned up a lot of ammo (as much as granddad could afford on his meager farm income) - and I can still remember what my mentality was when I was cranking that lever. I was in my early teens.  However, I grew up to be an ethical and responsible gun owner and hunter.  I cherish my guns - but I detest the NRA.  This is somewhat apple and oranges to today's gun problems, but I thought I would share my little story of life on the farm.  I consider the NRA the biggest threat to my future gun rights.  The NRA was once a great outfit - until it was hijacked by radicals in 1977.  The NRA later hijacked the Republican Party.
> 
> *How NRA’s true believers converted a marksmanship group into a mighty gun lobby*
> 
> 
> 
> I don't own one either.
> 
> I already have a perfectly fine .223 semiauto in my mini 14.  I do not see the reason to buy another.
> 
> But I also know that the AR is no different than my mini 14 but for some cosmetics
Click to expand...



Don't worry...once they get the AR-15s they will be back for your mini 14.......


----------



## Lakhota

KeiserC said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although I don't own or would never own an AR-15 - I can relate to the *Rambo mentality* from my younger days.  When the Rifleman TV show with Chuck Connors was popular from 1958 to 1963, I had access to my grandfather's lever-action Marlin .32 Special.  We lived on a remote self-sufficient farm, and I would take it out in the woods and pretend to be the Rifleman.  I wasted a lot of ammo (as much as granddad could afford on his meager farm income) - and I can still remember what my mentality was when I was cranking that lever. I was in my early teens.  However, I grew up to be an ethical and responsible gun owner and hunter.  I cherish my guns - but I detest the NRA.  This is somewhat apples and oranges to today's gun problems, but I thought I would share my little story of life on the farm.  I consider the NRA the biggest threat to my future gun rights.  The NRA was once a great outfit - until it was hijacked by radicals in 1977.  The NRA later hijacked the Republican Party.
> 
> *How NRA’s true believers converted a marksmanship group into a mighty gun lobby*
> 
> 
> 
> The AR-10 chambered in .243 is a great platform to sit behind a blind with... Unlike your bolt'n lever guns you have a remote chance of bagging a coyote on the run... if you do your part..
Click to expand...


I believe in fair chase and fair chance.  Do you also hunt from helicopters and snowmobiles?


----------



## KeiserC

Lakhota said:


> KeiserC said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although I don't own or would never own an AR-15 - I can relate to the *Rambo mentality* from my younger days.  When the Rifleman TV show with Chuck Connors was popular from 1958 to 1963, I had access to my grandfather's lever-action Marlin .32 Special.  We lived on a remote self-sufficient farm, and I would take it out in the woods and pretend to be the Rifleman.  I wasted a lot of ammo (as much as granddad could afford on his meager farm income) - and I can still remember what my mentality was when I was cranking that lever. I was in my early teens.  However, I grew up to be an ethical and responsible gun owner and hunter.  I cherish my guns - but I detest the NRA.  This is somewhat apples and oranges to today's gun problems, but I thought I would share my little story of life on the farm.  I consider the NRA the biggest threat to my future gun rights.  The NRA was once a great outfit - until it was hijacked by radicals in 1977.  The NRA later hijacked the Republican Party.
> 
> *How NRA’s true believers converted a marksmanship group into a mighty gun lobby*
> 
> 
> 
> The AR-10 chambered in .243 is a great platform to sit behind a blind with... Unlike your bolt'n lever guns you have a remote chance of bagging a coyote on the run... if you do your part..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe in fair chase and fair chance.  Do you also hunt from helicopters and snowmobiles?
Click to expand...

Fairly typical... do you bolster your annual income with pelts?... Are those that choose to do so 'repugnant'...???

No... to your blunt query..., no loaded (long guns) firearms within the 18 'rods' off the center line of the road. depending on category of road.. an average of 25 feet....  Open your mind to the possibility that there are a vast number of US sportsman that take the rules very seriously... and do a tremendous amount 'fiscally' and in 'man hours' to facilitate the health and 'viability' of the species they hunt....


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Skull Pilot said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although I don't own or would never own an AR-15 - I can relate to the *Rambo mentality* from my younger days.  When the Rifleman TV show with Chuck Connors was popular from 1958 to 1963, I had access to my grandfather's lever-action .32 Special.  We lived on a remote self-sufficient farm, and I would take it out in the woods and pretend to be the Rifleman.  I burned up a lot of ammo (as much as granddad could afford on his meager farm income) - and I can still remember what my mentality was when I was cranking that lever. I was in my early teens.  However, I grew up to be an ethical and responsible gun owner and hunter.  I cherish my guns - but I detest the NRA.  This is somewhat apple and oranges to today's gun problems, but I thought I would share my little story of life on the farm.  I consider the NRA the biggest threat to my future gun rights.  The NRA was once a great outfit - until it was hijacked by radicals in 1977.  The NRA later hijacked the Republican Party.
> 
> *How NRA’s true believers converted a marksmanship group into a mighty gun lobby*
> 
> 
> 
> I don't own one either.
> 
> I already have a perfectly fine .223 semiauto in my mini 14.  I do not see the reason to buy another.
> 
> But I also know that the AR is no different than my mini 14 but for some cosmetics
Click to expand...


The real difference is the Cyclic Rate.  The AR has a much higher one than the Mini-14.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

2aguy said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although I don't own or would never own an AR-15 - I can relate to the *Rambo mentality* from my younger days.  When the Rifleman TV show with Chuck Connors was popular from 1958 to 1963, I had access to my grandfather's lever-action .32 Special.  We lived on a remote self-sufficient farm, and I would take it out in the woods and pretend to be the Rifleman.  I burned up a lot of ammo (as much as granddad could afford on his meager farm income) - and I can still remember what my mentality was when I was cranking that lever. I was in my early teens.  However, I grew up to be an ethical and responsible gun owner and hunter.  I cherish my guns - but I detest the NRA.  This is somewhat apple and oranges to today's gun problems, but I thought I would share my little story of life on the farm.  I consider the NRA the biggest threat to my future gun rights.  The NRA was once a great outfit - until it was hijacked by radicals in 1977.  The NRA later hijacked the Republican Party.
> 
> *How NRA’s true believers converted a marksmanship group into a mighty gun lobby*
> 
> 
> 
> I don't own one either.
> 
> I already have a perfectly fine .223 semiauto in my mini 14.  I do not see the reason to buy another.
> 
> But I also know that the AR is no different than my mini 14 but for some cosmetics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don't worry...once they get the AR-15s they will be back for your mini 14.......
Click to expand...


When the Mini-14 becomes the weapon of choice for mass murders you may be right.  But with it's slow cyclic rate it never will make that grade.  Now unless you find some kind of compromise, you may be right.   You want it all your way.  Not  going to happen.  Anymore than all firearms will be banned either.  Meanwhile, it's unsafe to send the Children to school or church or to a concert or.........


----------



## KeiserC

Shit birds... read the past posts before, ... expostulating on stuff... that you think is 'NEW' or 'Relevant'...


----------



## Lakhota

2aguy said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although I don't own or would never own an AR-15 - I can relate to the *Rambo mentality* from my younger days.  When the Rifleman TV show with Chuck Connors was popular from 1958 to 1963, I had access to my grandfather's lever-action .32 Special.  We lived on a remote self-sufficient farm, and I would take it out in the woods and pretend to be the Rifleman.  I burned up a lot of ammo (as much as granddad could afford on his meager farm income) - and I can still remember what my mentality was when I was cranking that lever. I was in my early teens.  However, I grew up to be an ethical and responsible gun owner and hunter.  I cherish my guns - but I detest the NRA.  This is somewhat apple and oranges to today's gun problems, but I thought I would share my little story of life on the farm.  I consider the NRA the biggest threat to my future gun rights.  The NRA was once a great outfit - until it was hijacked by radicals in 1977.  The NRA later hijacked the Republican Party.
> 
> *How NRA’s true believers converted a marksmanship group into a mighty gun lobby*
> 
> 
> 
> I don't own one either.
> 
> I already have a perfectly fine .223 semiauto in my mini 14.  I do not see the reason to buy another.
> 
> But I also know that the AR is no different than my mini 14 but for some cosmetics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don't worry...once they get the AR-15s they will be back for your mini 14.......
Click to expand...


That never-give-an-inch NRA Rambo mentality is why my future guns rights are at great risk.  I'm 71, so maybe I'll make it to the end before that happens.


----------



## KeiserC

F' that...'Lakhota'..You are to have arms commensurate to that of the 'civil governance' exerted over you." there to protect you "... (the police) ... Never equivocate... it is your constitutional right to maintain your "arms viability" commensurate to that of the police... until you no longer deem yourself up to the task. You are fulfilling an important Constitutional task by lingering in your current role of gun ownership... Thank you..


----------



## Lakhota

KeiserC said:


> F' that...'Lakhota'..You are to have arms commensurate to that of the 'civil governance' exerted over you." there to protect you "... (the police) ... Never equivocate... it is your constitutional right to maintain your "arms viability" commensurate to that of the police... until you no longer deem yourself up to the task. You are fulfilling an important Constitutional task by lingering in your current role of gun ownership... Thank you..



"Commensurate to that of the civil governance"?  That's hilarious on several levels - including the fact that many police forces have become militarized - complete with heavy military equipment.  Hilarious...


----------



## Rustic

Skull Pilot said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although I don't own or would never own an AR-15 - I can relate to the *Rambo mentality* from my younger days.  When the Rifleman TV show with Chuck Connors was popular from 1958 to 1963, I had access to my grandfather's lever-action .32 Special.  We lived on a remote self-sufficient farm, and I would take it out in the woods and pretend to be the Rifleman.  I burned up a lot of ammo (as much as granddad could afford on his meager farm income) - and I can still remember what my mentality was when I was cranking that lever. I was in my early teens.  However, I grew up to be an ethical and responsible gun owner and hunter.  I cherish my guns - but I detest the NRA.  This is somewhat apple and oranges to today's gun problems, but I thought I would share my little story of life on the farm.  I consider the NRA the biggest threat to my future gun rights.  The NRA was once a great outfit - until it was hijacked by radicals in 1977.  The NRA later hijacked the Republican Party.
> 
> *How NRA’s true believers converted a marksmanship group into a mighty gun lobby*
> 
> 
> 
> I don't own one either.
> 
> I already have a perfectly fine .223 semiauto in my mini 14.  I do not see the reason to buy another.
> 
> But I also know that the AR is no different than my mini 14 but for some cosmetics
Click to expand...

True, But apparently ARs are the “scariest” To pussy whipped bitches....
But here is the real reason...


----------



## Rustic

Daryl Hunt said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although I don't own or would never own an AR-15 - I can relate to the *Rambo mentality* from my younger days.  When the Rifleman TV show with Chuck Connors was popular from 1958 to 1963, I had access to my grandfather's lever-action .32 Special.  We lived on a remote self-sufficient farm, and I would take it out in the woods and pretend to be the Rifleman.  I burned up a lot of ammo (as much as granddad could afford on his meager farm income) - and I can still remember what my mentality was when I was cranking that lever. I was in my early teens.  However, I grew up to be an ethical and responsible gun owner and hunter.  I cherish my guns - but I detest the NRA.  This is somewhat apple and oranges to today's gun problems, but I thought I would share my little story of life on the farm.  I consider the NRA the biggest threat to my future gun rights.  The NRA was once a great outfit - until it was hijacked by radicals in 1977.  The NRA later hijacked the Republican Party.
> 
> *How NRA’s true believers converted a marksmanship group into a mighty gun lobby*
> 
> 
> 
> I don't own one either.
> 
> I already have a perfectly fine .223 semiauto in my mini 14.  I do not see the reason to buy another.
> 
> But I also know that the AR is no different than my mini 14 but for some cosmetics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The real difference is the Cyclic Rate.  The AR has a much higher one than the Mini-14.
Click to expand...


----------



## KeiserC

Lakhota said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although I don't own or would never own an AR-15 - I can relate to the *Rambo mentality* from my younger days.  When the Rifleman TV show with Chuck Connors was popular from 1958 to 1963, I had access to my grandfather's lever-action .32 Special.  We lived on a remote self-sufficient farm, and I would take it out in the woods and pretend to be the Rifleman.  I burned up a lot of ammo (as much as granddad could afford on his meager farm income) - and I can still remember what my mentality was when I was cranking that lever. I was in my early teens.  However, I grew up to be an ethical and responsible gun owner and hunter.  I cherish my guns - but I detest the NRA.  This is somewhat apple and oranges to today's gun problems, but I thought I would share my little story of life on the farm.  I consider the NRA the biggest threat to my future gun rights.  The NRA was once a great outfit - until it was hijacked by radicals in 1977.  The NRA later hijacked the Republican Party.
> 
> *How NRA’s true believers converted a marksmanship group into a mighty gun lobby*
> 
> 
> 
> I don't own one either.
> 
> I already have a perfectly fine .223 semiauto in my mini 14.  I do not see the reason to buy another.
> 
> But I also know that the AR is no different than my mini 14 but for some cosmetics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don't worry...once they get the AR-15s they will be back for your mini 14.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That never-give-an-inch NRA Rambo mentality is why my future guns rights are at great risk.  I'm 71, so maybe I'll make it to the end before that happens.
Click to expand...

I'm OK with being ridiculed... take the time to understand how our nation was formed and the "fabric" that holds it all together through the strains of time... before relinquishing your Mini-14. .. Just KNOW.. It does have significance and could be a learning tool. in how you relinquish it at the age of 71...


----------



## Rustic

Lakhota said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although I don't own or would never own an AR-15 - I can relate to the *Rambo mentality* from my younger days.  When the Rifleman TV show with Chuck Connors was popular from 1958 to 1963, I had access to my grandfather's lever-action .32 Special.  We lived on a remote self-sufficient farm, and I would take it out in the woods and pretend to be the Rifleman.  I burned up a lot of ammo (as much as granddad could afford on his meager farm income) - and I can still remember what my mentality was when I was cranking that lever. I was in my early teens.  However, I grew up to be an ethical and responsible gun owner and hunter.  I cherish my guns - but I detest the NRA.  This is somewhat apple and oranges to today's gun problems, but I thought I would share my little story of life on the farm.  I consider the NRA the biggest threat to my future gun rights.  The NRA was once a great outfit - until it was hijacked by radicals in 1977.  The NRA later hijacked the Republican Party.
> 
> *How NRA’s true believers converted a marksmanship group into a mighty gun lobby*
> 
> 
> 
> I don't own one either.
> 
> I already have a perfectly fine .223 semiauto in my mini 14.  I do not see the reason to buy another.
> 
> But I also know that the AR is no different than my mini 14 but for some cosmetics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don't worry...once they get the AR-15s they will be back for your mini 14.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That never-give-an-inch NRA Rambo mentality is why my future guns rights are at great risk.  I'm 71, so maybe I'll make it to the end before that happens.
Click to expand...

Washington Redskin, you do realize the cowardly pieces of shit that are gun grabbers like yourself will not stop Anything short of absolute gun confiscation...
There is nothing reasonable about progressives


----------



## Lakhota

KeiserC said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although I don't own or would never own an AR-15 - I can relate to the *Rambo mentality* from my younger days.  When the Rifleman TV show with Chuck Connors was popular from 1958 to 1963, I had access to my grandfather's lever-action .32 Special.  We lived on a remote self-sufficient farm, and I would take it out in the woods and pretend to be the Rifleman.  I burned up a lot of ammo (as much as granddad could afford on his meager farm income) - and I can still remember what my mentality was when I was cranking that lever. I was in my early teens.  However, I grew up to be an ethical and responsible gun owner and hunter.  I cherish my guns - but I detest the NRA.  This is somewhat apple and oranges to today's gun problems, but I thought I would share my little story of life on the farm.  I consider the NRA the biggest threat to my future gun rights.  The NRA was once a great outfit - until it was hijacked by radicals in 1977.  The NRA later hijacked the Republican Party.
> 
> *How NRA’s true believers converted a marksmanship group into a mighty gun lobby*
> 
> 
> 
> I don't own one either.
> 
> I already have a perfectly fine .223 semiauto in my mini 14.  I do not see the reason to buy another.
> 
> But I also know that the AR is no different than my mini 14 but for some cosmetics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don't worry...once they get the AR-15s they will be back for your mini 14.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That never-give-an-inch NRA Rambo mentality is why my future guns rights are at great risk.  I'm 71, so maybe I'll make it to the end before that happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm OK with being ridiculed... take the time to understand how our nation was formed and the "fabric" that holds it all together through the strains of time... before relinquishing your Mini-14. .. Just KNOW.. It does have significance and will be a learning tool. in how you relinquish it at the age of 71...
Click to expand...


Don't fault me for not being delusional and paranoid.  I'm a realist.


----------



## Rustic

Daryl Hunt said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although I don't own or would never own an AR-15 - I can relate to the *Rambo mentality* from my younger days.  When the Rifleman TV show with Chuck Connors was popular from 1958 to 1963, I had access to my grandfather's lever-action .32 Special.  We lived on a remote self-sufficient farm, and I would take it out in the woods and pretend to be the Rifleman.  I burned up a lot of ammo (as much as granddad could afford on his meager farm income) - and I can still remember what my mentality was when I was cranking that lever. I was in my early teens.  However, I grew up to be an ethical and responsible gun owner and hunter.  I cherish my guns - but I detest the NRA.  This is somewhat apple and oranges to today's gun problems, but I thought I would share my little story of life on the farm.  I consider the NRA the biggest threat to my future gun rights.  The NRA was once a great outfit - until it was hijacked by radicals in 1977.  The NRA later hijacked the Republican Party.
> 
> *How NRA’s true believers converted a marksmanship group into a mighty gun lobby*
> 
> 
> 
> I don't own one either.
> 
> I already have a perfectly fine .223 semiauto in my mini 14.  I do not see the reason to buy another.
> 
> But I also know that the AR is no different than my mini 14 but for some cosmetics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The real difference is the Cyclic Rate.  The AR has a much higher one than the Mini-14.
Click to expand...

Shit for brains, The cycling rate can vary between both ARs and minis, depending on the manufacturer, Bolt and carrier weights, buffer springs, gas system, etc. THEY ARE BASICALLY THE SAME...
Over the counter ARs generally shot 1” inch MOA, where as over the counter minis shot around 2” inch MOA. 
You don’t have a clue of what you’re talking about…


----------



## Kondor3

*Twenty-Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America*

*Section 1*. The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

*Section 2*. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

*Section 3*. Laws regulating the licensing of firearm owners, the registration of firearms, and governing the permissible number and nature of firearms and munitions, shall not be construed as infringement.

*Section 4*. Congress shall have the power to establish firearms standards and systems for purposes of regulation and related monitoring and enforcement to which the several States shall be obliged to subscribe and adhere.

*Section 5*. Congress shall have the power to enact laws to enforce these provisions.


----------



## Rustic

Daryl Hunt said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although I don't own or would never own an AR-15 - I can relate to the *Rambo mentality* from my younger days.  When the Rifleman TV show with Chuck Connors was popular from 1958 to 1963, I had access to my grandfather's lever-action .32 Special.  We lived on a remote self-sufficient farm, and I would take it out in the woods and pretend to be the Rifleman.  I burned up a lot of ammo (as much as granddad could afford on his meager farm income) - and I can still remember what my mentality was when I was cranking that lever. I was in my early teens.  However, I grew up to be an ethical and responsible gun owner and hunter.  I cherish my guns - but I detest the NRA.  This is somewhat apple and oranges to today's gun problems, but I thought I would share my little story of life on the farm.  I consider the NRA the biggest threat to my future gun rights.  The NRA was once a great outfit - until it was hijacked by radicals in 1977.  The NRA later hijacked the Republican Party.
> 
> *How NRA’s true believers converted a marksmanship group into a mighty gun lobby*
> 
> 
> 
> I don't own one either.
> 
> I already have a perfectly fine .223 semiauto in my mini 14.  I do not see the reason to buy another.
> 
> But I also know that the AR is no different than my mini 14 but for some cosmetics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don't worry...once they get the AR-15s they will be back for your mini 14.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When the Mini-14 becomes the weapon of choice for mass murders you may be right.  But with it's slow cyclic rate it never will make that grade.  Now unless you find some kind of compromise, you may be right.   You want it all your way.  Not  going to happen.  Anymore than all firearms will be banned either.  Meanwhile, it's unsafe to send the Children to school or church or to a concert or.........
Click to expand...

Delusional snowflake


----------



## Rustic

Reality Check: More Minnesotans Own Guns, Violent Crime Remains Low


----------



## asaratis

Daryl Hunt said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that immigrants what not only made this country but what keeps making great. We tell you that we lived in countries where people don't have to get shot regularly it'll be wise to study why. And not be arrogant and keep counting dead bodies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great Britain further restricted gun laws in 1986, the gun deaths dropped but the murder rate continued to rise until 1995 when they hire more law enforcement officers. Instead of guns, the murders found other methods to kill people. You want to kill someone, you will find a away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's an apologist argument. Gun deaths and deaths from violence in general are higher in the US. And as I havestated as an example multiple times , a person with a gun can kill multiple pepple at once effortlessly , now goodluck with a knife or a hammer.
> 
> Mean time I tell my friends all over the world, that there are people who defend owning guns, they can't comprehend it and they view you as crazy, paranoid, violent and lunatic.
> 
> Ps: I know you don't give a fuck about the rest of the world, and you don't give a fuck about kids being killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First off, you are wrong, if guns were the reason for the violence why did gun deaths go down and murders go up? According to what you claim, gun deaths would go down and murders would go down but it simply isn’t true. So, the issue isn’t the guns, the issue is the culture here in the United States. We need to change the culture, I have stated this fact many times in the past but it seems to go beyond people that have one agenda. The other issue is a mental health issue.
> 
> The rest of your post is an emotional rant and does nothing to further the discussion and quite frankly they are emotion based lies. That seems to be a left tactic like tossing in a race card, highly emotional yet no substance.
> 
> You want to change the culture, fine, then you are working on solutions, to simply ban guns won’t change anything and Britain’s stats proved that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .....also, the strict gun laws in certain places here often foster MORE gun crimes.  Kennesaw, Georgia has a law that says every household must have a firearm.  The gun crime rate in Kennesaw is lower than almost any other place in the nation.   Chicago has the most stringent gun laws...and the highest gun crime rate.
> 
> *650 murders last year in Chicago.*
> 25 years murder-free  in ‘Gun Town USA’
> *
> 
> ZERO murders in the last 25 years in Kennesaw.*
> 25 years murder-free  in ‘Gun Town USA’
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has low crime, yes.  But so do most towns of 21K or less.  Without or Without the peculiar gun law that they passed.  Just down the road is a town of the same size.  It has had NO gun crimes in at least 20 years.  Now, compare Houston and you get a completely different set of figures.  Try not to cherry pick.  It's too easy to see past it.
Click to expand...

I agree the small size of the town makes gun crimes less probable.  Chicago remains the supreme example of proof that strict gun laws do not prevent gun crimes.

Give me a link that names the town just down the road....


----------



## Rustic

asaratis said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great Britain further restricted gun laws in 1986, the gun deaths dropped but the murder rate continued to rise until 1995 when they hire more law enforcement officers. Instead of guns, the murders found other methods to kill people. You want to kill someone, you will find a away.
> 
> 
> 
> That's an apologist argument. Gun deaths and deaths from violence in general are higher in the US. And as I havestated as an example multiple times , a person with a gun can kill multiple pepple at once effortlessly , now goodluck with a knife or a hammer.
> 
> Mean time I tell my friends all over the world, that there are people who defend owning guns, they can't comprehend it and they view you as crazy, paranoid, violent and lunatic.
> 
> Ps: I know you don't give a fuck about the rest of the world, and you don't give a fuck about kids being killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First off, you are wrong, if guns were the reason for the violence why did gun deaths go down and murders go up? According to what you claim, gun deaths would go down and murders would go down but it simply isn’t true. So, the issue isn’t the guns, the issue is the culture here in the United States. We need to change the culture, I have stated this fact many times in the past but it seems to go beyond people that have one agenda. The other issue is a mental health issue.
> 
> The rest of your post is an emotional rant and does nothing to further the discussion and quite frankly they are emotion based lies. That seems to be a left tactic like tossing in a race card, highly emotional yet no substance.
> 
> You want to change the culture, fine, then you are working on solutions, to simply ban guns won’t change anything and Britain’s stats proved that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .....also, the strict gun laws in certain places here often foster MORE gun crimes.  Kennesaw, Georgia has a law that says every household must have a firearm.  The gun crime rate in Kennesaw is lower than almost any other place in the nation.   Chicago has the most stringent gun laws...and the highest gun crime rate.
> 
> *650 murders last year in Chicago.*
> 25 years murder-free  in ‘Gun Town USA’
> *
> 
> ZERO murders in the last 25 years in Kennesaw.*
> 25 years murder-free  in ‘Gun Town USA’
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has low crime, yes.  But so do most towns of 21K or less.  Without or Without the peculiar gun law that they passed.  Just down the road is a town of the same size.  It has had NO gun crimes in at least 20 years.  Now, compare Houston and you get a completely different set of figures.  Try not to cherry pick.  It's too easy to see past it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree the small size of the town makes gun crimes less probable.  Chicago remains the supreme example of proof that strict gun laws do not prevent gun crimes.
> 
> Give me a link that names the town just down the road....
Click to expand...

More frivolous gun laws equals more violent crime.
Criminals are always for the strictest possible gun laws… fact


----------



## KeiserC

Rustic said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although I don't own or would never own an AR-15 - I can relate to the *Rambo mentality* from my younger days.  When the Rifleman TV show with Chuck Connors was popular from 1958 to 1963, I had access to my grandfather's lever-action .32 Special.  We lived on a remote self-sufficient farm, and I would take it out in the woods and pretend to be the Rifleman.  I burned up a lot of ammo (as much as granddad could afford on his meager farm income) - and I can still remember what my mentality was when I was cranking that lever. I was in my early teens.  However, I grew up to be an ethical and responsible gun owner and hunter.  I cherish my guns - but I detest the NRA.  This is somewhat apple and oranges to today's gun problems, but I thought I would share my little story of life on the farm.  I consider the NRA the biggest threat to my future gun rights.  The NRA was once a great outfit - until it was hijacked by radicals in 1977.  The NRA later hijacked the Republican Party.
> 
> *How NRA’s true believers converted a marksmanship group into a mighty gun lobby*
> 
> 
> 
> I don't own one either.
> 
> I already have a perfectly fine .223 semiauto in my mini 14.  I do not see the reason to buy another.
> 
> But I also know that the AR is no different than my mini 14 but for some cosmetics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The real difference is the Cyclic Rate.  The AR has a much higher one than the Mini-14.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shit for brains, The cycling rate can vary between both ARs and minis, depending on the manufacturer, Bolt and carrier weights, buffer springs, gas system, etc. THEY ARE BASICALLY THE SAME...
> Over the counter ARs generally shot 1” inch MOA, where as over the counter minis shot around 2” inch MOA.
> You don’t have a clue of what you’re talking about…
Click to expand...


They are all 'squirrel guns... for 'varmints'... out of the box you can't expect much less than 1"MOA... the thing is that they are like legos... buy a leijia barrel, Hart, or Shillen if you want to go heavy, the choices are endless... Then buy an action.... top to bottom... the barrel determines the usefulness of the 'damn' squirrel apparatus... that has been coined an 'Assault Rifle'.... LOL..sorry... not even close to a good squirrel gun....


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rustic said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although I don't own or would never own an AR-15 - I can relate to the *Rambo mentality* from my younger days.  When the Rifleman TV show with Chuck Connors was popular from 1958 to 1963, I had access to my grandfather's lever-action .32 Special.  We lived on a remote self-sufficient farm, and I would take it out in the woods and pretend to be the Rifleman.  I burned up a lot of ammo (as much as granddad could afford on his meager farm income) - and I can still remember what my mentality was when I was cranking that lever. I was in my early teens.  However, I grew up to be an ethical and responsible gun owner and hunter.  I cherish my guns - but I detest the NRA.  This is somewhat apple and oranges to today's gun problems, but I thought I would share my little story of life on the farm.  I consider the NRA the biggest threat to my future gun rights.  The NRA was once a great outfit - until it was hijacked by radicals in 1977.  The NRA later hijacked the Republican Party.
> 
> *How NRA’s true believers converted a marksmanship group into a mighty gun lobby*
> 
> 
> 
> I don't own one either.
> 
> I already have a perfectly fine .223 semiauto in my mini 14.  I do not see the reason to buy another.
> 
> But I also know that the AR is no different than my mini 14 but for some cosmetics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The real difference is the Cyclic Rate.  The AR has a much higher one than the Mini-14.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shit for brains, The cycling rate can vary between both ARs and minis, depending on the manufacturer, Bolt and carrier weights, buffer springs, gas system, etc. THEY ARE BASICALLY THE SAME...
> Over the counter ARs generally shot 1” inch MOA, where as over the counter minis shot around 2” inch MOA.
> You don’t have a clue of what you’re talking about…
Click to expand...


Theory has it that the Semi Auto is capable of 180 rounds a minute.  But reality says it can't be done.  But you can get off 3 shots a second for 10 seconds before you have to change your 30 round clip.   And the process starts all over again.  This is for the AR-15 and it's variants.  

The AR-15 uses the direct impingement gas operating system.  It's cheap, fast and easy to manufacture.  The Mini-14 uses the conventional gas piston operating system like it's big brother, the M-14.  The AR uses quite a few Aluminum parts while the Mini-14 uses all steel.  Steel is heavier, ergo, the cyclic rate will be slower.  Simple Physics.  

And what does MOA have to do with the cyclic rate?  Nothing.  MOA is about adjusting for drop of the bullet.  Don't you feel foolish now?


----------



## Daryl Hunt

KeiserC said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although I don't own or would never own an AR-15 - I can relate to the *Rambo mentality* from my younger days.  When the Rifleman TV show with Chuck Connors was popular from 1958 to 1963, I had access to my grandfather's lever-action .32 Special.  We lived on a remote self-sufficient farm, and I would take it out in the woods and pretend to be the Rifleman.  I burned up a lot of ammo (as much as granddad could afford on his meager farm income) - and I can still remember what my mentality was when I was cranking that lever. I was in my early teens.  However, I grew up to be an ethical and responsible gun owner and hunter.  I cherish my guns - but I detest the NRA.  This is somewhat apple and oranges to today's gun problems, but I thought I would share my little story of life on the farm.  I consider the NRA the biggest threat to my future gun rights.  The NRA was once a great outfit - until it was hijacked by radicals in 1977.  The NRA later hijacked the Republican Party.
> 
> *How NRA’s true believers converted a marksmanship group into a mighty gun lobby*
> 
> 
> 
> I don't own one either.
> 
> I already have a perfectly fine .223 semiauto in my mini 14.  I do not see the reason to buy another.
> 
> But I also know that the AR is no different than my mini 14 but for some cosmetics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The real difference is the Cyclic Rate.  The AR has a much higher one than the Mini-14.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shit for brains, The cycling rate can vary between both ARs and minis, depending on the manufacturer, Bolt and carrier weights, buffer springs, gas system, etc. THEY ARE BASICALLY THE SAME...
> Over the counter ARs generally shot 1” inch MOA, where as over the counter minis shot around 2” inch MOA.
> You don’t have a clue of what you’re talking about…
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are all 'squirrel guns... for 'varmints'... out of the box you can't expect much less than 1"MOA... the thing is that they are like legos... buy a leijia barrel, Hart, or Shillen if you want to go heavy, the choices are endless... Then buy an action.... top to bottom... the barrel determines the usefulness of the 'damn' squirrel apparatus... that has been coined an 'Assault Rifle'.... LOL..sorry... not even close to a good squirrel gun....
Click to expand...


Anything in the 223 or 556 with any less than a 24 inch barrel is pretty worthless.  The 24 inch barrel is very accurate at out to about 600 yds and makes a great varmint gun.  The problem is, many buy them with the 16 to 18 inch barrel making them worthless for hunting anything other than a school yard packed full of school children or movie goers.


----------



## Rustic

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although I don't own or would never own an AR-15 - I can relate to the *Rambo mentality* from my younger days.  When the Rifleman TV show with Chuck Connors was popular from 1958 to 1963, I had access to my grandfather's lever-action .32 Special.  We lived on a remote self-sufficient farm, and I would take it out in the woods and pretend to be the Rifleman.  I burned up a lot of ammo (as much as granddad could afford on his meager farm income) - and I can still remember what my mentality was when I was cranking that lever. I was in my early teens.  However, I grew up to be an ethical and responsible gun owner and hunter.  I cherish my guns - but I detest the NRA.  This is somewhat apple and oranges to today's gun problems, but I thought I would share my little story of life on the farm.  I consider the NRA the biggest threat to my future gun rights.  The NRA was once a great outfit - until it was hijacked by radicals in 1977.  The NRA later hijacked the Republican Party.
> 
> *How NRA’s true believers converted a marksmanship group into a mighty gun lobby*
> 
> 
> 
> I don't own one either.
> 
> I already have a perfectly fine .223 semiauto in my mini 14.  I do not see the reason to buy another.
> 
> But I also know that the AR is no different than my mini 14 but for some cosmetics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The real difference is the Cyclic Rate.  The AR has a much higher one than the Mini-14.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shit for brains, The cycling rate can vary between both ARs and minis, depending on the manufacturer, Bolt and carrier weights, buffer springs, gas system, etc. THEY ARE BASICALLY THE SAME...
> Over the counter ARs generally shot 1” inch MOA, where as over the counter minis shot around 2” inch MOA.
> You don’t have a clue of what you’re talking about…
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Theory has it that the Semi Auto is capable of 180 rounds a minute.  But reality says it can't be done.  But you can get off 3 shots a second for 10 seconds before you have to change your 30 round clip.   And the process starts all over again.  This is for the AR-15 and it's variants.
> 
> The AR-15 uses the direct impingement gas operating system.  It's cheap, fast and easy to manufacture.  The Mini-14 uses the conventional gas piston operating system like it's big brother, the M-14.  The AR uses quite a few Aluminum parts while the Mini-14 uses all steel.  Steel is heavier, ergo, the cyclic rate will be slower.  Simple Physics.
> 
> And what does MOA have to do with the cyclic rate?  Nothing.  MOA is about adjusting for drop of the bullet.  Don't you feel foolish now?
Click to expand...

First of all they are called magazines not clips. dumbass
And like I said it depends on the AR and mini. Not all of the manufacturers use aluminum or steel each one is different. The cycle rate for both generally is the same.

You said in the earlier post the mini 14’s are better for hunting, not true, over-the-counter ARs are more accurate than minis generally, like I said.
You are the foolish one.


----------



## KeiserC

Daryl Hunt said:


> KeiserC said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although I don't own or would never own an AR-15 - I can relate to the *Rambo mentality* from my younger days.  When the Rifleman TV show with Chuck Connors was popular from 1958 to 1963, I had access to my grandfather's lever-action .32 Special.  We lived on a remote self-sufficient farm, and I would take it out in the woods and pretend to be the Rifleman.  I burned up a lot of ammo (as much as granddad could afford on his meager farm income) - and I can still remember what my mentality was when I was cranking that lever. I was in my early teens.  However, I grew up to be an ethical and responsible gun owner and hunter.  I cherish my guns - but I detest the NRA.  This is somewhat apple and oranges to today's gun problems, but I thought I would share my little story of life on the farm.  I consider the NRA the biggest threat to my future gun rights.  The NRA was once a great outfit - until it was hijacked by radicals in 1977.  The NRA later hijacked the Republican Party.
> 
> *How NRA’s true believers converted a marksmanship group into a mighty gun lobby*
> 
> 
> 
> I don't own one either.
> 
> I already have a perfectly fine .223 semiauto in my mini 14.  I do not see the reason to buy another.
> 
> But I also know that the AR is no different than my mini 14 but for some cosmetics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The real difference is the Cyclic Rate.  The AR has a much higher one than the Mini-14.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shit for brains, The cycling rate can vary between both ARs and minis, depending on the manufacturer, Bolt and carrier weights, buffer springs, gas system, etc. THEY ARE BASICALLY THE SAME...
> Over the counter ARs generally shot 1” inch MOA, where as over the counter minis shot around 2” inch MOA.
> You don’t have a clue of what you’re talking about…
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are all 'squirrel guns... for 'varmints'... out of the box you can't expect much less than 1"MOA... the thing is that they are like legos... buy a leijia barrel, Hart, or Shillen if you want to go heavy, the choices are endless... Then buy an action.... top to bottom... the barrel determines the usefulness of the 'damn' squirrel apparatus... that has been coined an 'Assault Rifle'.... LOL..sorry... not even close to a good squirrel gun....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anything in the 223 or 556 with any less than a 24 inch barrel is pretty worthless.  The 24 inch barrel is very accurate at out to about 600 yds and makes a great varmint gun.  The problem is, many buy them with the 16 to 18 inch barrel making them worthless for hunting anything other than a school yard packed full of school children or movie goers.
Click to expand...


God Bless if you're all enthused about an AR purchase....

Save us the stats... If you reload your spent brass...  you might make your 'box store gun' into a really "tight" shooter.... Don't hunt anything larger than rabbits with it and definitely don't use the FMJ's that are so abundant... Nosler and Hornady are worth the money... if you actually want to humanely hunt... If and only If you use A-max partition bullets you might ethically expand your 'humane' hunting to 30 - 50 lbs. critters...


----------



## Rustic

Daryl Hunt said:


> KeiserC said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although I don't own or would never own an AR-15 - I can relate to the *Rambo mentality* from my younger days.  When the Rifleman TV show with Chuck Connors was popular from 1958 to 1963, I had access to my grandfather's lever-action .32 Special.  We lived on a remote self-sufficient farm, and I would take it out in the woods and pretend to be the Rifleman.  I burned up a lot of ammo (as much as granddad could afford on his meager farm income) - and I can still remember what my mentality was when I was cranking that lever. I was in my early teens.  However, I grew up to be an ethical and responsible gun owner and hunter.  I cherish my guns - but I detest the NRA.  This is somewhat apple and oranges to today's gun problems, but I thought I would share my little story of life on the farm.  I consider the NRA the biggest threat to my future gun rights.  The NRA was once a great outfit - until it was hijacked by radicals in 1977.  The NRA later hijacked the Republican Party.
> 
> *How NRA’s true believers converted a marksmanship group into a mighty gun lobby*
> 
> 
> 
> I don't own one either.
> 
> I already have a perfectly fine .223 semiauto in my mini 14.  I do not see the reason to buy another.
> 
> But I also know that the AR is no different than my mini 14 but for some cosmetics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The real difference is the Cyclic Rate.  The AR has a much higher one than the Mini-14.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shit for brains, The cycling rate can vary between both ARs and minis, depending on the manufacturer, Bolt and carrier weights, buffer springs, gas system, etc. THEY ARE BASICALLY THE SAME...
> Over the counter ARs generally shot 1” inch MOA, where as over the counter minis shot around 2” inch MOA.
> You don’t have a clue of what you’re talking about…
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are all 'squirrel guns... for 'varmints'... out of the box you can't expect much less than 1"MOA... the thing is that they are like legos... buy a leijia barrel, Hart, or Shillen if you want to go heavy, the choices are endless... Then buy an action.... top to bottom... the barrel determines the usefulness of the 'damn' squirrel apparatus... that has been coined an 'Assault Rifle'.... LOL..sorry... not even close to a good squirrel gun....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anything in the 223 or 556 with any less than a 24 inch barrel is pretty worthless.  The 24 inch barrel is very accurate at out to about 600 yds and makes a great varmint gun.  The problem is, many buy them with the 16 to 18 inch barrel making them worthless for hunting anything other than a school yard packed full of school children or movie goers.
Click to expand...



AR-15 Rifle Barrel Length - Does It Even Matter? Maybe NOT

The combination of grain and twist has a lot more to do with accuracy than barrel length ever has.. dumbass


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rustic said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although I don't own or would never own an AR-15 - I can relate to the *Rambo mentality* from my younger days.  When the Rifleman TV show with Chuck Connors was popular from 1958 to 1963, I had access to my grandfather's lever-action .32 Special.  We lived on a remote self-sufficient farm, and I would take it out in the woods and pretend to be the Rifleman.  I burned up a lot of ammo (as much as granddad could afford on his meager farm income) - and I can still remember what my mentality was when I was cranking that lever. I was in my early teens.  However, I grew up to be an ethical and responsible gun owner and hunter.  I cherish my guns - but I detest the NRA.  This is somewhat apple and oranges to today's gun problems, but I thought I would share my little story of life on the farm.  I consider the NRA the biggest threat to my future gun rights.  The NRA was once a great outfit - until it was hijacked by radicals in 1977.  The NRA later hijacked the Republican Party.
> 
> *How NRA’s true believers converted a marksmanship group into a mighty gun lobby*
> 
> 
> 
> I don't own one either.
> 
> I already have a perfectly fine .223 semiauto in my mini 14.  I do not see the reason to buy another.
> 
> But I also know that the AR is no different than my mini 14 but for some cosmetics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The real difference is the Cyclic Rate.  The AR has a much higher one than the Mini-14.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shit for brains, The cycling rate can vary between both ARs and minis, depending on the manufacturer, Bolt and carrier weights, buffer springs, gas system, etc. THEY ARE BASICALLY THE SAME...
> Over the counter ARs generally shot 1” inch MOA, where as over the counter minis shot around 2” inch MOA.
> You don’t have a clue of what you’re talking about…
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Theory has it that the Semi Auto is capable of 180 rounds a minute.  But reality says it can't be done.  But you can get off 3 shots a second for 10 seconds before you have to change your 30 round clip.   And the process starts all over again.  This is for the AR-15 and it's variants.
> 
> The AR-15 uses the direct impingement gas operating system.  It's cheap, fast and easy to manufacture.  The Mini-14 uses the conventional gas piston operating system like it's big brother, the M-14.  The AR uses quite a few Aluminum parts while the Mini-14 uses all steel.  Steel is heavier, ergo, the cyclic rate will be slower.  Simple Physics.
> 
> And what does MOA have to do with the cyclic rate?  Nothing.  MOA is about adjusting for drop of the bullet.  Don't you feel foolish now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all they are called magazines not clips. dumbass
> And like I said it depends on the AR and mini. Not all of the manufacturers use aluminum or steel each one is different. The cycle rate for both generally is the same.
> 
> You said in the earlier post the mini 14’s are better for hunting, not true, over-the-counter ARs are more accurate than minis generally, like I said.
> You are the foolish one.
Click to expand...


I am older than you are so I will call them Clips.  It dates back to the old way of loading where the bullets are on clips and fed into the gun from the top.  But it's generally accepted to replace the word clips with mags.  And vice versa.  You sure do sound foolish on this one.  And the more you try to make others look stupid, the more apparent that it's YOU that isn't too bright.

If you purchase a 24 in barreled Mini-14 is is very accurate.  If you purchase a 16 in AR it has trouble hitting the proverbial barn door at any range other than close.  It's not the gun, it's the cartridge.  If I were to buy a new Mini-14 it would have a 24 inch barrel.  If you were to purchase a new AR chances are you will be getting the Carbine version of 16 in barrel.  Now, use a little physics here.  Same goes if one were to buy a Mini-14 with a 16 in barrel and buy an AR with a 24 in barrel.  The AR would be more accurate when the tables are turned.

And the reason the MOA is better on the AR is the fact it's not shooting normal 223 ammo.  When you buy ammo, you can buy the Nato .556 round that is hotter.  But beware.  Unless you spent the money to get the barrel to shoot the Nato 556, you are going to wear out your barrel very, very quickly.  

Learn to be nice.


----------



## Rustic

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't own one either.
> 
> I already have a perfectly fine .223 semiauto in my mini 14.  I do not see the reason to buy another.
> 
> But I also know that the AR is no different than my mini 14 but for some cosmetics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The real difference is the Cyclic Rate.  The AR has a much higher one than the Mini-14.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shit for brains, The cycling rate can vary between both ARs and minis, depending on the manufacturer, Bolt and carrier weights, buffer springs, gas system, etc. THEY ARE BASICALLY THE SAME...
> Over the counter ARs generally shot 1” inch MOA, where as over the counter minis shot around 2” inch MOA.
> You don’t have a clue of what you’re talking about…
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Theory has it that the Semi Auto is capable of 180 rounds a minute.  But reality says it can't be done.  But you can get off 3 shots a second for 10 seconds before you have to change your 30 round clip.   And the process starts all over again.  This is for the AR-15 and it's variants.
> 
> The AR-15 uses the direct impingement gas operating system.  It's cheap, fast and easy to manufacture.  The Mini-14 uses the conventional gas piston operating system like it's big brother, the M-14.  The AR uses quite a few Aluminum parts while the Mini-14 uses all steel.  Steel is heavier, ergo, the cyclic rate will be slower.  Simple Physics.
> 
> And what does MOA have to do with the cyclic rate?  Nothing.  MOA is about adjusting for drop of the bullet.  Don't you feel foolish now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all they are called magazines not clips. dumbass
> And like I said it depends on the AR and mini. Not all of the manufacturers use aluminum or steel each one is different. The cycle rate for both generally is the same.
> 
> You said in the earlier post the mini 14’s are better for hunting, not true, over-the-counter ARs are more accurate than minis generally, like I said.
> You are the foolish one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am older than you are so I will call them Clips.  It dates back to the old way of loading where the bullets are on clips and fed into the gun from the top.  But it's generally accepted to replace the word clips with mags.  And vice versa.  You sure do sound foolish on this one.  And the more you try to make others look stupid, the more apparent that it's YOU that isn't too bright.
> 
> If you purchase a 24 in barreled Mini-14 is is very accurate.  If you purchase a 16 in AR it has trouble hitting the proverbial barn door at any range other than close.  It's not the gun, it's the cartridge.  If I were to buy a new Mini-14 it would have a 24 inch barrel.  If you were to purchase a new AR chances are you will be getting the Carbine version of 16 in barrel.  Now, use a little physics here.  Same goes if one were to buy a Mini-14 with a 16 in barrel and buy an AR with a 24 in barrel.  The AR would be more accurate when the tables are turned.
> 
> And the reason the MOA is better on the AR is the fact it's not shooting normal 223 ammo.  When you buy ammo, you can buy the Nato .556 round that is hotter.  But beware.  Unless you spent the money to get the barrel to shoot the Nato 556, you are going to wear out your barrel very, very quickly.
> 
> Learn to be nice.
Click to expand...


----------



## Desperado

Stop Repeating False Propaganda 
*No ties found between Parkland shooter, white nationalist group*
*No ties found between Parkland shooter, white nationalist group*


----------



## Rustic

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't own one either.
> 
> I already have a perfectly fine .223 semiauto in my mini 14.  I do not see the reason to buy another.
> 
> But I also know that the AR is no different than my mini 14 but for some cosmetics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The real difference is the Cyclic Rate.  The AR has a much higher one than the Mini-14.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shit for brains, The cycling rate can vary between both ARs and minis, depending on the manufacturer, Bolt and carrier weights, buffer springs, gas system, etc. THEY ARE BASICALLY THE SAME...
> Over the counter ARs generally shot 1” inch MOA, where as over the counter minis shot around 2” inch MOA.
> You don’t have a clue of what you’re talking about…
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Theory has it that the Semi Auto is capable of 180 rounds a minute.  But reality says it can't be done.  But you can get off 3 shots a second for 10 seconds before you have to change your 30 round clip.   And the process starts all over again.  This is for the AR-15 and it's variants.
> 
> The AR-15 uses the direct impingement gas operating system.  It's cheap, fast and easy to manufacture.  The Mini-14 uses the conventional gas piston operating system like it's big brother, the M-14.  The AR uses quite a few Aluminum parts while the Mini-14 uses all steel.  Steel is heavier, ergo, the cyclic rate will be slower.  Simple Physics.
> 
> And what does MOA have to do with the cyclic rate?  Nothing.  MOA is about adjusting for drop of the bullet.  Don't you feel foolish now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all they are called magazines not clips. dumbass
> And like I said it depends on the AR and mini. Not all of the manufacturers use aluminum or steel each one is different. The cycle rate for both generally is the same.
> 
> You said in the earlier post the mini 14’s are better for hunting, not true, over-the-counter ARs are more accurate than minis generally, like I said.
> You are the foolish one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am older than you are so I will call them Clips.  It dates back to the old way of loading where the bullets are on clips and fed into the gun from the top.  But it's generally accepted to replace the word clips with mags.  And vice versa.  You sure do sound foolish on this one.  And the more you try to make others look stupid, the more apparent that it's YOU that isn't too bright.
> 
> If you purchase a 24 in barreled Mini-14 is is very accurate.  If you purchase a 16 in AR it has trouble hitting the proverbial barn door at any range other than close.  It's not the gun, it's the cartridge.  If I were to buy a new Mini-14 it would have a 24 inch barrel.  If you were to purchase a new AR chances are you will be getting the Carbine version of 16 in barrel.  Now, use a little physics here.  Same goes if one were to buy a Mini-14 with a 16 in barrel and buy an AR with a 24 in barrel.  The AR would be more accurate when the tables are turned.
> 
> And the reason the MOA is better on the AR is the fact it's not shooting normal 223 ammo.  When you buy ammo, you can buy the Nato .556 round that is hotter.  But beware.  Unless you spent the money to get the barrel to shoot the Nato 556, you are going to wear out your barrel very, very quickly.
> 
> Learn to be nice.
Click to expand...

Wrong again, the combination of twist and grain has a lot more to do with accuracy than barrel length will. 
Some rounds hate more bore time, Every rifle has their own personality some barrels hate some rounds. 1/7, 1/9 or whatever will work or it will not depending on the weight of the bullet, Length of the barrel has nothing to do with it.
It depends on how although round is loaded, what kind of powder, how much powder, what type of bullet there are dozens of factors.
If The barrel says 556 on it it can shoot both .223 – 5.56 because of clearances not the “power”. If your barrel says .223 on it it’s best not to shoot 5.56 because of clearances again.
So basically if you want to build an accurate 600+ yards shooter with a 16 inch barrel you can do it just fine, barrel length has nothing to do with it.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rustic said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The real difference is the Cyclic Rate.  The AR has a much higher one than the Mini-14.
> 
> 
> 
> Shit for brains, The cycling rate can vary between both ARs and minis, depending on the manufacturer, Bolt and carrier weights, buffer springs, gas system, etc. THEY ARE BASICALLY THE SAME...
> Over the counter ARs generally shot 1” inch MOA, where as over the counter minis shot around 2” inch MOA.
> You don’t have a clue of what you’re talking about…
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Theory has it that the Semi Auto is capable of 180 rounds a minute.  But reality says it can't be done.  But you can get off 3 shots a second for 10 seconds before you have to change your 30 round clip.   And the process starts all over again.  This is for the AR-15 and it's variants.
> 
> The AR-15 uses the direct impingement gas operating system.  It's cheap, fast and easy to manufacture.  The Mini-14 uses the conventional gas piston operating system like it's big brother, the M-14.  The AR uses quite a few Aluminum parts while the Mini-14 uses all steel.  Steel is heavier, ergo, the cyclic rate will be slower.  Simple Physics.
> 
> And what does MOA have to do with the cyclic rate?  Nothing.  MOA is about adjusting for drop of the bullet.  Don't you feel foolish now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all they are called magazines not clips. dumbass
> And like I said it depends on the AR and mini. Not all of the manufacturers use aluminum or steel each one is different. The cycle rate for both generally is the same.
> 
> You said in the earlier post the mini 14’s are better for hunting, not true, over-the-counter ARs are more accurate than minis generally, like I said.
> You are the foolish one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am older than you are so I will call them Clips.  It dates back to the old way of loading where the bullets are on clips and fed into the gun from the top.  But it's generally accepted to replace the word clips with mags.  And vice versa.  You sure do sound foolish on this one.  And the more you try to make others look stupid, the more apparent that it's YOU that isn't too bright.
> 
> If you purchase a 24 in barreled Mini-14 is is very accurate.  If you purchase a 16 in AR it has trouble hitting the proverbial barn door at any range other than close.  It's not the gun, it's the cartridge.  If I were to buy a new Mini-14 it would have a 24 inch barrel.  If you were to purchase a new AR chances are you will be getting the Carbine version of 16 in barrel.  Now, use a little physics here.  Same goes if one were to buy a Mini-14 with a 16 in barrel and buy an AR with a 24 in barrel.  The AR would be more accurate when the tables are turned.
> 
> And the reason the MOA is better on the AR is the fact it's not shooting normal 223 ammo.  When you buy ammo, you can buy the Nato .556 round that is hotter.  But beware.  Unless you spent the money to get the barrel to shoot the Nato 556, you are going to wear out your barrel very, very quickly.
> 
> Learn to be nice.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Is that the best you got?  What you are saying is that you support the murdering of our School Children, Movie Goers, People worshiping in Churches, large gatherings of innocent people.  Yes, accept your sin.  But don't expect the rest of us to do the same.

ALL of the largest Mass Murders in the last 25 years have all been done by an  AR-15 or one of it's copies.  And most were purchased legally.  That same reason was for handling of the Thompson in 1934.  So accept your responsability of murdering our Children.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rustic said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The real difference is the Cyclic Rate.  The AR has a much higher one than the Mini-14.
> 
> 
> 
> Shit for brains, The cycling rate can vary between both ARs and minis, depending on the manufacturer, Bolt and carrier weights, buffer springs, gas system, etc. THEY ARE BASICALLY THE SAME...
> Over the counter ARs generally shot 1” inch MOA, where as over the counter minis shot around 2” inch MOA.
> You don’t have a clue of what you’re talking about…
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Theory has it that the Semi Auto is capable of 180 rounds a minute.  But reality says it can't be done.  But you can get off 3 shots a second for 10 seconds before you have to change your 30 round clip.   And the process starts all over again.  This is for the AR-15 and it's variants.
> 
> The AR-15 uses the direct impingement gas operating system.  It's cheap, fast and easy to manufacture.  The Mini-14 uses the conventional gas piston operating system like it's big brother, the M-14.  The AR uses quite a few Aluminum parts while the Mini-14 uses all steel.  Steel is heavier, ergo, the cyclic rate will be slower.  Simple Physics.
> 
> And what does MOA have to do with the cyclic rate?  Nothing.  MOA is about adjusting for drop of the bullet.  Don't you feel foolish now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all they are called magazines not clips. dumbass
> And like I said it depends on the AR and mini. Not all of the manufacturers use aluminum or steel each one is different. The cycle rate for both generally is the same.
> 
> You said in the earlier post the mini 14’s are better for hunting, not true, over-the-counter ARs are more accurate than minis generally, like I said.
> You are the foolish one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am older than you are so I will call them Clips.  It dates back to the old way of loading where the bullets are on clips and fed into the gun from the top.  But it's generally accepted to replace the word clips with mags.  And vice versa.  You sure do sound foolish on this one.  And the more you try to make others look stupid, the more apparent that it's YOU that isn't too bright.
> 
> If you purchase a 24 in barreled Mini-14 is is very accurate.  If you purchase a 16 in AR it has trouble hitting the proverbial barn door at any range other than close.  It's not the gun, it's the cartridge.  If I were to buy a new Mini-14 it would have a 24 inch barrel.  If you were to purchase a new AR chances are you will be getting the Carbine version of 16 in barrel.  Now, use a little physics here.  Same goes if one were to buy a Mini-14 with a 16 in barrel and buy an AR with a 24 in barrel.  The AR would be more accurate when the tables are turned.
> 
> And the reason the MOA is better on the AR is the fact it's not shooting normal 223 ammo.  When you buy ammo, you can buy the Nato .556 round that is hotter.  But beware.  Unless you spent the money to get the barrel to shoot the Nato 556, you are going to wear out your barrel very, very quickly.
> 
> Learn to be nice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again, the combination of twist and grain has a lot more to do with accuracy than barrel length will.
> Some rounds hate more bore time, Every rifle has their own personality some barrels hate some rounds. 1/7, 1/9 or whatever will work or it will not depending on the weight of the bullet, Length of the barrel has nothing to do with it.
> It depends on how although round is loaded, what kind of powder, how much powder, what type of bullet there are dozens of factors.
> If The barrel says 556 on it it can shoot both .223 – 5.56 because of clearances not the “power”. If your barrel says .223 on it it’s best not to shoot 5.56 because of clearances again.
> So basically if you want to build an accurate 600+ yards shooter with a 16 inch barrel you can do it just fine, barrel length has nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...


Barrel length has nothing to do with it?  What are you smoking over there.  Are you aware that your Grass consumption prevents you from legally owning fire arms?


----------



## Rustic

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shit for brains, The cycling rate can vary between both ARs and minis, depending on the manufacturer, Bolt and carrier weights, buffer springs, gas system, etc. THEY ARE BASICALLY THE SAME...
> Over the counter ARs generally shot 1” inch MOA, where as over the counter minis shot around 2” inch MOA.
> You don’t have a clue of what you’re talking about…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theory has it that the Semi Auto is capable of 180 rounds a minute.  But reality says it can't be done.  But you can get off 3 shots a second for 10 seconds before you have to change your 30 round clip.   And the process starts all over again.  This is for the AR-15 and it's variants.
> 
> The AR-15 uses the direct impingement gas operating system.  It's cheap, fast and easy to manufacture.  The Mini-14 uses the conventional gas piston operating system like it's big brother, the M-14.  The AR uses quite a few Aluminum parts while the Mini-14 uses all steel.  Steel is heavier, ergo, the cyclic rate will be slower.  Simple Physics.
> 
> And what does MOA have to do with the cyclic rate?  Nothing.  MOA is about adjusting for drop of the bullet.  Don't you feel foolish now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all they are called magazines not clips. dumbass
> And like I said it depends on the AR and mini. Not all of the manufacturers use aluminum or steel each one is different. The cycle rate for both generally is the same.
> 
> You said in the earlier post the mini 14’s are better for hunting, not true, over-the-counter ARs are more accurate than minis generally, like I said.
> You are the foolish one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am older than you are so I will call them Clips.  It dates back to the old way of loading where the bullets are on clips and fed into the gun from the top.  But it's generally accepted to replace the word clips with mags.  And vice versa.  You sure do sound foolish on this one.  And the more you try to make others look stupid, the more apparent that it's YOU that isn't too bright.
> 
> If you purchase a 24 in barreled Mini-14 is is very accurate.  If you purchase a 16 in AR it has trouble hitting the proverbial barn door at any range other than close.  It's not the gun, it's the cartridge.  If I were to buy a new Mini-14 it would have a 24 inch barrel.  If you were to purchase a new AR chances are you will be getting the Carbine version of 16 in barrel.  Now, use a little physics here.  Same goes if one were to buy a Mini-14 with a 16 in barrel and buy an AR with a 24 in barrel.  The AR would be more accurate when the tables are turned.
> 
> And the reason the MOA is better on the AR is the fact it's not shooting normal 223 ammo.  When you buy ammo, you can buy the Nato .556 round that is hotter.  But beware.  Unless you spent the money to get the barrel to shoot the Nato 556, you are going to wear out your barrel very, very quickly.
> 
> Learn to be nice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that the best you got?  What you are saying is that you support the murdering of our School Children, Movie Goers, People worshiping in Churches, large gatherings of innocent people.  Yes, accept your sin.  But don't expect the rest of us to do the same.
> 
> ALL of the largest Mass Murders in the last 25 years have all been done by an  AR-15 or one of it's copies.  And most were purchased legally.  That same reason was for handling of the Thompson in 1934.  So accept your responsability of murdering our Children.
Click to expand...

You do realize people kill people not firearms?
More people die from falling out of bed and smoking in bed, than people killed by someone using an AR15 sporting rifle.
Handguns are used for most violent crime in this country by a long shot. Very few deaths are caused by people using ARs, And there are millions of them in this country that’s a very, very low ratio. Firearms cannot control people.
Firearm violence by ARs is a non-issue, We have much bigger fish to fry. So far this year almost 33,000 people have died from medical errors.
 Just take your pick…
2018 Real Time Death Statistics in America
Terrorists much prefer bombs/vehicles, For terrorism and they have access to anything they want. So don’t give me that fucking shit that it’s some sporting rifle that causes mass murders you fucking dolt...
So go ahead and live your delusion you sinless snowflake.... lol


----------



## Rustic

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shit for brains, The cycling rate can vary between both ARs and minis, depending on the manufacturer, Bolt and carrier weights, buffer springs, gas system, etc. THEY ARE BASICALLY THE SAME...
> Over the counter ARs generally shot 1” inch MOA, where as over the counter minis shot around 2” inch MOA.
> You don’t have a clue of what you’re talking about…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theory has it that the Semi Auto is capable of 180 rounds a minute.  But reality says it can't be done.  But you can get off 3 shots a second for 10 seconds before you have to change your 30 round clip.   And the process starts all over again.  This is for the AR-15 and it's variants.
> 
> The AR-15 uses the direct impingement gas operating system.  It's cheap, fast and easy to manufacture.  The Mini-14 uses the conventional gas piston operating system like it's big brother, the M-14.  The AR uses quite a few Aluminum parts while the Mini-14 uses all steel.  Steel is heavier, ergo, the cyclic rate will be slower.  Simple Physics.
> 
> And what does MOA have to do with the cyclic rate?  Nothing.  MOA is about adjusting for drop of the bullet.  Don't you feel foolish now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all they are called magazines not clips. dumbass
> And like I said it depends on the AR and mini. Not all of the manufacturers use aluminum or steel each one is different. The cycle rate for both generally is the same.
> 
> You said in the earlier post the mini 14’s are better for hunting, not true, over-the-counter ARs are more accurate than minis generally, like I said.
> You are the foolish one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am older than you are so I will call them Clips.  It dates back to the old way of loading where the bullets are on clips and fed into the gun from the top.  But it's generally accepted to replace the word clips with mags.  And vice versa.  You sure do sound foolish on this one.  And the more you try to make others look stupid, the more apparent that it's YOU that isn't too bright.
> 
> If you purchase a 24 in barreled Mini-14 is is very accurate.  If you purchase a 16 in AR it has trouble hitting the proverbial barn door at any range other than close.  It's not the gun, it's the cartridge.  If I were to buy a new Mini-14 it would have a 24 inch barrel.  If you were to purchase a new AR chances are you will be getting the Carbine version of 16 in barrel.  Now, use a little physics here.  Same goes if one were to buy a Mini-14 with a 16 in barrel and buy an AR with a 24 in barrel.  The AR would be more accurate when the tables are turned.
> 
> And the reason the MOA is better on the AR is the fact it's not shooting normal 223 ammo.  When you buy ammo, you can buy the Nato .556 round that is hotter.  But beware.  Unless you spent the money to get the barrel to shoot the Nato 556, you are going to wear out your barrel very, very quickly.
> 
> Learn to be nice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again, the combination of twist and grain has a lot more to do with accuracy than barrel length will.
> Some rounds hate more bore time, Every rifle has their own personality some barrels hate some rounds. 1/7, 1/9 or whatever will work or it will not depending on the weight of the bullet, Length of the barrel has nothing to do with it.
> It depends on how although round is loaded, what kind of powder, how much powder, what type of bullet there are dozens of factors.
> If The barrel says 556 on it it can shoot both .223 – 5.56 because of clearances not the “power”. If your barrel says .223 on it it’s best not to shoot 5.56 because of clearances again.
> So basically if you want to build an accurate 600+ yards shooter with a 16 inch barrel you can do it just fine, barrel length has nothing to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Barrel length has nothing to do with it?  What are you smoking over there.  Are you aware that your Grass consumption prevents you from legally owning fire arms?
Click to expand...

Barrel length is not the only determiner of accuracy he never has been never will be


----------



## Rustic

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shit for brains, The cycling rate can vary between both ARs and minis, depending on the manufacturer, Bolt and carrier weights, buffer springs, gas system, etc. THEY ARE BASICALLY THE SAME...
> Over the counter ARs generally shot 1” inch MOA, where as over the counter minis shot around 2” inch MOA.
> You don’t have a clue of what you’re talking about…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theory has it that the Semi Auto is capable of 180 rounds a minute.  But reality says it can't be done.  But you can get off 3 shots a second for 10 seconds before you have to change your 30 round clip.   And the process starts all over again.  This is for the AR-15 and it's variants.
> 
> The AR-15 uses the direct impingement gas operating system.  It's cheap, fast and easy to manufacture.  The Mini-14 uses the conventional gas piston operating system like it's big brother, the M-14.  The AR uses quite a few Aluminum parts while the Mini-14 uses all steel.  Steel is heavier, ergo, the cyclic rate will be slower.  Simple Physics.
> 
> And what does MOA have to do with the cyclic rate?  Nothing.  MOA is about adjusting for drop of the bullet.  Don't you feel foolish now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all they are called magazines not clips. dumbass
> And like I said it depends on the AR and mini. Not all of the manufacturers use aluminum or steel each one is different. The cycle rate for both generally is the same.
> 
> You said in the earlier post the mini 14’s are better for hunting, not true, over-the-counter ARs are more accurate than minis generally, like I said.
> You are the foolish one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am older than you are so I will call them Clips.  It dates back to the old way of loading where the bullets are on clips and fed into the gun from the top.  But it's generally accepted to replace the word clips with mags.  And vice versa.  You sure do sound foolish on this one.  And the more you try to make others look stupid, the more apparent that it's YOU that isn't too bright.
> 
> If you purchase a 24 in barreled Mini-14 is is very accurate.  If you purchase a 16 in AR it has trouble hitting the proverbial barn door at any range other than close.  It's not the gun, it's the cartridge.  If I were to buy a new Mini-14 it would have a 24 inch barrel.  If you were to purchase a new AR chances are you will be getting the Carbine version of 16 in barrel.  Now, use a little physics here.  Same goes if one were to buy a Mini-14 with a 16 in barrel and buy an AR with a 24 in barrel.  The AR would be more accurate when the tables are turned.
> 
> And the reason the MOA is better on the AR is the fact it's not shooting normal 223 ammo.  When you buy ammo, you can buy the Nato .556 round that is hotter.  But beware.  Unless you spent the money to get the barrel to shoot the Nato 556, you are going to wear out your barrel very, very quickly.
> 
> Learn to be nice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again, the combination of twist and grain has a lot more to do with accuracy than barrel length will.
> Some rounds hate more bore time, Every rifle has their own personality some barrels hate some rounds. 1/7, 1/9 or whatever will work or it will not depending on the weight of the bullet, Length of the barrel has nothing to do with it.
> It depends on how although round is loaded, what kind of powder, how much powder, what type of bullet there are dozens of factors.
> If The barrel says 556 on it it can shoot both .223 – 5.56 because of clearances not the “power”. If your barrel says .223 on it it’s best not to shoot 5.56 because of clearances again.
> So basically if you want to build an accurate 600+ yards shooter with a 16 inch barrel you can do it just fine, barrel length has nothing to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Barrel length has nothing to do with it?  What are you smoking over there.  Are you aware that your Grass consumption prevents you from legally owning fire arms?
Click to expand...


----------



## asaratis

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shit for brains, The cycling rate can vary between both ARs and minis, depending on the manufacturer, Bolt and carrier weights, buffer springs, gas system, etc. THEY ARE BASICALLY THE SAME...
> Over the counter ARs generally shot 1” inch MOA, where as over the counter minis shot around 2” inch MOA.
> You don’t have a clue of what you’re talking about…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theory has it that the Semi Auto is capable of 180 rounds a minute.  But reality says it can't be done.  But you can get off 3 shots a second for 10 seconds before you have to change your 30 round clip.   And the process starts all over again.  This is for the AR-15 and it's variants.
> 
> The AR-15 uses the direct impingement gas operating system.  It's cheap, fast and easy to manufacture.  The Mini-14 uses the conventional gas piston operating system like it's big brother, the M-14.  The AR uses quite a few Aluminum parts while the Mini-14 uses all steel.  Steel is heavier, ergo, the cyclic rate will be slower.  Simple Physics.
> 
> And what does MOA have to do with the cyclic rate?  Nothing.  MOA is about adjusting for drop of the bullet.  Don't you feel foolish now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all they are called magazines not clips. dumbass
> And like I said it depends on the AR and mini. Not all of the manufacturers use aluminum or steel each one is different. The cycle rate for both generally is the same.
> 
> You said in the earlier post the mini 14’s are better for hunting, not true, over-the-counter ARs are more accurate than minis generally, like I said.
> You are the foolish one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am older than you are so I will call them Clips.  It dates back to the old way of loading where the bullets are on clips and fed into the gun from the top.  But it's generally accepted to replace the word clips with mags.  And vice versa.  You sure do sound foolish on this one.  And the more you try to make others look stupid, the more apparent that it's YOU that isn't too bright.
> 
> If you purchase a 24 in barreled Mini-14 is is very accurate.  If you purchase a 16 in AR it has trouble hitting the proverbial barn door at any range other than close.  It's not the gun, it's the cartridge.  If I were to buy a new Mini-14 it would have a 24 inch barrel.  If you were to purchase a new AR chances are you will be getting the Carbine version of 16 in barrel.  Now, use a little physics here.  Same goes if one were to buy a Mini-14 with a 16 in barrel and buy an AR with a 24 in barrel.  The AR would be more accurate when the tables are turned.
> 
> And the reason the MOA is better on the AR is the fact it's not shooting normal 223 ammo.  When you buy ammo, you can buy the Nato .556 round that is hotter.  But beware.  Unless you spent the money to get the barrel to shoot the Nato 556, you are going to wear out your barrel very, very quickly.
> 
> Learn to be nice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again, the combination of twist and grain has a lot more to do with accuracy than barrel length will.
> Some rounds hate more bore time, Every rifle has their own personality some barrels hate some rounds. 1/7, 1/9 or whatever will work or it will not depending on the weight of the bullet, Length of the barrel has nothing to do with it.
> It depends on how although round is loaded, what kind of powder, how much powder, what type of bullet there are dozens of factors.
> If The barrel says 556 on it it can shoot both .223 – 5.56 because of clearances not the “power”. If your barrel says .223 on it it’s best not to shoot 5.56 because of clearances again.
> So basically if you want to build an accurate 600+ yards shooter with a 16 inch barrel you can do it just fine, barrel length has nothing to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Barrel length has nothing to do with it?  What are you smoking over there.  Are you aware that your Grass consumption prevents you from legally owning fire arms?
Click to expand...



The Truth About Barrel Length, Muzzle Velocity and Accuracy - The Truth About Guns
*Conclusions:*

This test obliterated what was previously thought to be fact. Not only was it determined that short barreled rifles are easily as accurate a those with long barrels, but we also discovered what we see as a key to viewing accuracy in a practical sense. In an age of misinformation, hard fact can be hard to come by. *The internet is full of armchair know-it-alls and trolls a plenty, but for the most part, these can be ignored*. Mental preconceptions of the researched concepts are still deeply entrenched in a more or less Napoleonic era of the theory of arms. Most of what is commonly argued about small arms is false and based on opinion. A quick look online reveals hundreds of arguments on topics like 9mm vs. 40 S&W vs. 45ACP or AR-15 vs. AK-47, none of which are based on fact or on the need of the individual in their realistic circumstances.

If anything is to be learned from bullet selection, it is that match quality bullets have a distinct edge in accuracy over military and hunting bullets. The match bullets tested produced significantly greater accuracy than their military or hunting-type counterparts.

This study is not aimed at the promotion of using any particular barrel length, brand of bullet or load. The reader must look at their own situation and determine what the most valuable features are in a rifle.


----------



## Rustic

asaratis said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Theory has it that the Semi Auto is capable of 180 rounds a minute.  But reality says it can't be done.  But you can get off 3 shots a second for 10 seconds before you have to change your 30 round clip.   And the process starts all over again.  This is for the AR-15 and it's variants.
> 
> The AR-15 uses the direct impingement gas operating system.  It's cheap, fast and easy to manufacture.  The Mini-14 uses the conventional gas piston operating system like it's big brother, the M-14.  The AR uses quite a few Aluminum parts while the Mini-14 uses all steel.  Steel is heavier, ergo, the cyclic rate will be slower.  Simple Physics.
> 
> And what does MOA have to do with the cyclic rate?  Nothing.  MOA is about adjusting for drop of the bullet.  Don't you feel foolish now?
> 
> 
> 
> First of all they are called magazines not clips. dumbass
> And like I said it depends on the AR and mini. Not all of the manufacturers use aluminum or steel each one is different. The cycle rate for both generally is the same.
> 
> You said in the earlier post the mini 14’s are better for hunting, not true, over-the-counter ARs are more accurate than minis generally, like I said.
> You are the foolish one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am older than you are so I will call them Clips.  It dates back to the old way of loading where the bullets are on clips and fed into the gun from the top.  But it's generally accepted to replace the word clips with mags.  And vice versa.  You sure do sound foolish on this one.  And the more you try to make others look stupid, the more apparent that it's YOU that isn't too bright.
> 
> If you purchase a 24 in barreled Mini-14 is is very accurate.  If you purchase a 16 in AR it has trouble hitting the proverbial barn door at any range other than close.  It's not the gun, it's the cartridge.  If I were to buy a new Mini-14 it would have a 24 inch barrel.  If you were to purchase a new AR chances are you will be getting the Carbine version of 16 in barrel.  Now, use a little physics here.  Same goes if one were to buy a Mini-14 with a 16 in barrel and buy an AR with a 24 in barrel.  The AR would be more accurate when the tables are turned.
> 
> And the reason the MOA is better on the AR is the fact it's not shooting normal 223 ammo.  When you buy ammo, you can buy the Nato .556 round that is hotter.  But beware.  Unless you spent the money to get the barrel to shoot the Nato 556, you are going to wear out your barrel very, very quickly.
> 
> Learn to be nice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again, the combination of twist and grain has a lot more to do with accuracy than barrel length will.
> Some rounds hate more bore time, Every rifle has their own personality some barrels hate some rounds. 1/7, 1/9 or whatever will work or it will not depending on the weight of the bullet, Length of the barrel has nothing to do with it.
> It depends on how although round is loaded, what kind of powder, how much powder, what type of bullet there are dozens of factors.
> If The barrel says 556 on it it can shoot both .223 – 5.56 because of clearances not the “power”. If your barrel says .223 on it it’s best not to shoot 5.56 because of clearances again.
> So basically if you want to build an accurate 600+ yards shooter with a 16 inch barrel you can do it just fine, barrel length has nothing to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Barrel length has nothing to do with it?  What are you smoking over there.  Are you aware that your Grass consumption prevents you from legally owning fire arms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Truth About Barrel Length, Muzzle Velocity and Accuracy - The Truth About Guns
> *Conclusions:*
> 
> This test obliterated what was previously thought to be fact. Not only was it determined that short barreled rifles are easily as accurate a those with long barrels, but we also discovered what we see as a key to viewing accuracy in a practical sense. In an age of misinformation, hard fact can be hard to come by. *The internet is full of armchair know-it-alls and trolls a plenty, but for the most part, these can be ignored*. Mental preconceptions of the researched concepts are still deeply entrenched in a more or less Napoleonic era of the theory of arms. Most of what is commonly argued about small arms is false and based on opinion. A quick look online reveals hundreds of arguments on topics like 9mm vs. 40 S&W vs. 45ACP or AR-15 vs. AK-47, none of which are based on fact or on the need of the individual in their realistic circumstances.
> 
> If anything is to be learned from bullet selection, it is that match quality bullets have a distinct edge in accuracy over military and hunting bullets. The match bullets tested produced significantly greater accuracy than their military or hunting-type counterparts.
> 
> This study is not aimed at the promotion of using any particular barrel length, brand of bullet or load. The reader must look at their own situation and determine what the most valuable features are in a rifle.
Click to expand...

Yep, each rifle likes a certain ammo. And barrel length has nothing to do with it... in many cases harmonics can hurt the accuracy of a longer barrel.
Many sharpshooters and snipers don’t like a longer barrel
Ballistics: Understanding Barrel Harmonics and Accuracy | Gun Digest


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rustic said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Theory has it that the Semi Auto is capable of 180 rounds a minute.  But reality says it can't be done.  But you can get off 3 shots a second for 10 seconds before you have to change your 30 round clip.   And the process starts all over again.  This is for the AR-15 and it's variants.
> 
> The AR-15 uses the direct impingement gas operating system.  It's cheap, fast and easy to manufacture.  The Mini-14 uses the conventional gas piston operating system like it's big brother, the M-14.  The AR uses quite a few Aluminum parts while the Mini-14 uses all steel.  Steel is heavier, ergo, the cyclic rate will be slower.  Simple Physics.
> 
> And what does MOA have to do with the cyclic rate?  Nothing.  MOA is about adjusting for drop of the bullet.  Don't you feel foolish now?
> 
> 
> 
> First of all they are called magazines not clips. dumbass
> And like I said it depends on the AR and mini. Not all of the manufacturers use aluminum or steel each one is different. The cycle rate for both generally is the same.
> 
> You said in the earlier post the mini 14’s are better for hunting, not true, over-the-counter ARs are more accurate than minis generally, like I said.
> You are the foolish one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am older than you are so I will call them Clips.  It dates back to the old way of loading where the bullets are on clips and fed into the gun from the top.  But it's generally accepted to replace the word clips with mags.  And vice versa.  You sure do sound foolish on this one.  And the more you try to make others look stupid, the more apparent that it's YOU that isn't too bright.
> 
> If you purchase a 24 in barreled Mini-14 is is very accurate.  If you purchase a 16 in AR it has trouble hitting the proverbial barn door at any range other than close.  It's not the gun, it's the cartridge.  If I were to buy a new Mini-14 it would have a 24 inch barrel.  If you were to purchase a new AR chances are you will be getting the Carbine version of 16 in barrel.  Now, use a little physics here.  Same goes if one were to buy a Mini-14 with a 16 in barrel and buy an AR with a 24 in barrel.  The AR would be more accurate when the tables are turned.
> 
> And the reason the MOA is better on the AR is the fact it's not shooting normal 223 ammo.  When you buy ammo, you can buy the Nato .556 round that is hotter.  But beware.  Unless you spent the money to get the barrel to shoot the Nato 556, you are going to wear out your barrel very, very quickly.
> 
> Learn to be nice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that the best you got?  What you are saying is that you support the murdering of our School Children, Movie Goers, People worshiping in Churches, large gatherings of innocent people.  Yes, accept your sin.  But don't expect the rest of us to do the same.
> 
> ALL of the largest Mass Murders in the last 25 years have all been done by an  AR-15 or one of it's copies.  And most were purchased legally.  That same reason was for handling of the Thompson in 1934.  So accept your responsability of murdering our Children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do realize people kill people not firearms?
> More people die from falling out of bed and smoking in bed, than people killed by someone using an AR15 sporting rifle.
> Handguns are used for most violent crime in this country by a long shot. Very few deaths are caused by people using ARs, And there are millions of them in this country that’s a very, very low ratio. Firearms cannot control people.
> Firearm violence by ARs is a non-issue, We have much bigger fish to fry. So far this year almost 33,000 people have died from medical errors.
> Just take your pick…
> 2018 Real Time Death Statistics in America
> Terrorists much prefer bombs/vehicles, For terrorism and they have access to anything they want. So don’t give me that fucking shit that it’s some sporting rifle that causes mass murders you fucking dolt...
> So go ahead and live your delusion you sinless snowflake.... lol
Click to expand...


You used the term "Errors".  There is no error in using an AR for slaughtering school children.  You are using the "Hey, Look Over There" routine.  The AR is used in every mass shooting in the last 25 years.  It's the weapon of choice because it is the most available.  Anyone can buy it in less than 30 minutes from start to finish along with hundreds of rounds, multiple clips (mags to you) and head for the nearest school and kill lots of children.  Even the AK isn't as efficient.  But the AK isn't sold in every gun store in America so the culture isn't attached to the AK.  Your love of the AR is noted.  What you keep doing is making the most efficient weapon for mass shootings so easy to get.  I am not proposing outlawing it.  I do propose making a bit more difficult to obtain.  Ending the cult that surrounds it.  

What is sad is, a terrorist on a no fly list can purchase the weapon just by going into a gun store, show his legal ID, plunk down his cash, pass a simple gun test and walk out in less than 30 minutes with the most efficient mass murder weapon that you can obtain.  The Mentally unstable can also buy it the same way.  I hold that anyone that does mass murder like that is already unstable.  But proving it prior is next to impossible.  My Crystal Ball is broken.  Since we can't predict it, we take away the one thing that is in each and every one of the situation and that is the weapon of choice.  It's the only constant that we have control of.

Yah, I know, they will choose a different weapon.  A Knife is too slow, a handgun isn't nearly as efficient.  A Rock can only kill one at a time.  A Baseball Bat, you have to get close and can only hit one person at a time.  A Shotgun only holds so many rounds.  A Model 700BDL only holds so many rounds.  None of these are nearly as efficient as the AR.  

One person stated that we need to change the culture.  Well, the first thing we need to do is to change your culture.  And you must accept that your culture is as much to blame as the person doing the mass killings.  You make it too easy for them to auquire the tools to do the job.  And that makes you part of the problem.  How does it feel to know you are contributing to the deaths of children in the United States.  Not something I would want to do.  Congratulations, you should take a bow and blow your own brains out with your AR.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rustic said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Theory has it that the Semi Auto is capable of 180 rounds a minute.  But reality says it can't be done.  But you can get off 3 shots a second for 10 seconds before you have to change your 30 round clip.   And the process starts all over again.  This is for the AR-15 and it's variants.
> 
> The AR-15 uses the direct impingement gas operating system.  It's cheap, fast and easy to manufacture.  The Mini-14 uses the conventional gas piston operating system like it's big brother, the M-14.  The AR uses quite a few Aluminum parts while the Mini-14 uses all steel.  Steel is heavier, ergo, the cyclic rate will be slower.  Simple Physics.
> 
> And what does MOA have to do with the cyclic rate?  Nothing.  MOA is about adjusting for drop of the bullet.  Don't you feel foolish now?
> 
> 
> 
> First of all they are called magazines not clips. dumbass
> And like I said it depends on the AR and mini. Not all of the manufacturers use aluminum or steel each one is different. The cycle rate for both generally is the same.
> 
> You said in the earlier post the mini 14’s are better for hunting, not true, over-the-counter ARs are more accurate than minis generally, like I said.
> You are the foolish one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am older than you are so I will call them Clips.  It dates back to the old way of loading where the bullets are on clips and fed into the gun from the top.  But it's generally accepted to replace the word clips with mags.  And vice versa.  You sure do sound foolish on this one.  And the more you try to make others look stupid, the more apparent that it's YOU that isn't too bright.
> 
> If you purchase a 24 in barreled Mini-14 is is very accurate.  If you purchase a 16 in AR it has trouble hitting the proverbial barn door at any range other than close.  It's not the gun, it's the cartridge.  If I were to buy a new Mini-14 it would have a 24 inch barrel.  If you were to purchase a new AR chances are you will be getting the Carbine version of 16 in barrel.  Now, use a little physics here.  Same goes if one were to buy a Mini-14 with a 16 in barrel and buy an AR with a 24 in barrel.  The AR would be more accurate when the tables are turned.
> 
> And the reason the MOA is better on the AR is the fact it's not shooting normal 223 ammo.  When you buy ammo, you can buy the Nato .556 round that is hotter.  But beware.  Unless you spent the money to get the barrel to shoot the Nato 556, you are going to wear out your barrel very, very quickly.
> 
> Learn to be nice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again, the combination of twist and grain has a lot more to do with accuracy than barrel length will.
> Some rounds hate more bore time, Every rifle has their own personality some barrels hate some rounds. 1/7, 1/9 or whatever will work or it will not depending on the weight of the bullet, Length of the barrel has nothing to do with it.
> It depends on how although round is loaded, what kind of powder, how much powder, what type of bullet there are dozens of factors.
> If The barrel says 556 on it it can shoot both .223 – 5.56 because of clearances not the “power”. If your barrel says .223 on it it’s best not to shoot 5.56 because of clearances again.
> So basically if you want to build an accurate 600+ yards shooter with a 16 inch barrel you can do it just fine, barrel length has nothing to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Barrel length has nothing to do with it?  What are you smoking over there.  Are you aware that your Grass consumption prevents you from legally owning fire arms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Barrel length is not the only determiner of accuracy he never has been never will be
Click to expand...


It's one of the factors.  Especially if you are not using a scope of any kind.  The longer the barrel the further the front site is from the rear sight making it more accurate.  Plus, the longer barrel will have more room for a better rifling pattern.  Plus, the longer barrel will allow you to use more of the powder.  Unspent powder is just wasted out the end of the barrel.  No barrel can be made to use all the powder but the longer the barrel, the faster the projectile because more powder is utilized to gain that extra speed.  And the 223/556 is a very high speed cartridge and the faster it moves the better considering that there isn't much of a projectile to begin with.

Physics agrees that a 16 in barrel will not have the range nor the accuracy of the 24 in barrel.  Of course, within 50 feet it doesn't matter.  But using it to varmint hunt, you won't be making any shots within 50 feet.  But if you are mass murdering children in a school, that 16 in barrel is the one to use since it's easier to field.


----------



## Rustic

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all they are called magazines not clips. dumbass
> And like I said it depends on the AR and mini. Not all of the manufacturers use aluminum or steel each one is different. The cycle rate for both generally is the same.
> 
> You said in the earlier post the mini 14’s are better for hunting, not true, over-the-counter ARs are more accurate than minis generally, like I said.
> You are the foolish one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am older than you are so I will call them Clips.  It dates back to the old way of loading where the bullets are on clips and fed into the gun from the top.  But it's generally accepted to replace the word clips with mags.  And vice versa.  You sure do sound foolish on this one.  And the more you try to make others look stupid, the more apparent that it's YOU that isn't too bright.
> 
> If you purchase a 24 in barreled Mini-14 is is very accurate.  If you purchase a 16 in AR it has trouble hitting the proverbial barn door at any range other than close.  It's not the gun, it's the cartridge.  If I were to buy a new Mini-14 it would have a 24 inch barrel.  If you were to purchase a new AR chances are you will be getting the Carbine version of 16 in barrel.  Now, use a little physics here.  Same goes if one were to buy a Mini-14 with a 16 in barrel and buy an AR with a 24 in barrel.  The AR would be more accurate when the tables are turned.
> 
> And the reason the MOA is better on the AR is the fact it's not shooting normal 223 ammo.  When you buy ammo, you can buy the Nato .556 round that is hotter.  But beware.  Unless you spent the money to get the barrel to shoot the Nato 556, you are going to wear out your barrel very, very quickly.
> 
> Learn to be nice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that the best you got?  What you are saying is that you support the murdering of our School Children, Movie Goers, People worshiping in Churches, large gatherings of innocent people.  Yes, accept your sin.  But don't expect the rest of us to do the same.
> 
> ALL of the largest Mass Murders in the last 25 years have all been done by an  AR-15 or one of it's copies.  And most were purchased legally.  That same reason was for handling of the Thompson in 1934.  So accept your responsability of murdering our Children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do realize people kill people not firearms?
> More people die from falling out of bed and smoking in bed, than people killed by someone using an AR15 sporting rifle.
> Handguns are used for most violent crime in this country by a long shot. Very few deaths are caused by people using ARs, And there are millions of them in this country that’s a very, very low ratio. Firearms cannot control people.
> Firearm violence by ARs is a non-issue, We have much bigger fish to fry. So far this year almost 33,000 people have died from medical errors.
> Just take your pick…
> 2018 Real Time Death Statistics in America
> Terrorists much prefer bombs/vehicles, For terrorism and they have access to anything they want. So don’t give me that fucking shit that it’s some sporting rifle that causes mass murders you fucking dolt...
> So go ahead and live your delusion you sinless snowflake.... lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You used the term "Errors".  There is no error in using an AR for slaughtering school children.  You are using the "Hey, Look Over There" routine.  The AR is used in every mass shooting in the last 25 years.  It's the weapon of choice because it is the most available.  Anyone can buy it in less than 30 minutes from start to finish along with hundreds of rounds, multiple clips (mags to you) and head for the nearest school and kill lots of children.  Even the AK isn't as efficient.  But the AK isn't sold in every gun store in America so the culture isn't attached to the AK.  Your love of the AR is noted.  What you keep doing is making the most efficient weapon for mass shootings so easy to get.  I am not proposing outlawing it.  I do propose making a bit more difficult to obtain.  Ending the cult that surrounds it.
> 
> What is sad is, a terrorist on a no fly list can purchase the weapon just by going into a gun store, show his legal ID, plunk down his cash, pass a simple gun test and walk out in less than 30 minutes with the most efficient mass murder weapon that you can obtain.  The Mentally unstable can also buy it the same way.  I hold that anyone that does mass murder like that is already unstable.  But proving it prior is next to impossible.  My Crystal Ball is broken.  Since we can't predict it, we take away the one thing that is in each and every one of the situation and that is the weapon of choice.  It's the only constant that we have control of.
> 
> Yah, I know, they will choose a different weapon.  A Knife is too slow, a handgun isn't nearly as efficient.  A Rock can only kill one at a time.  A Baseball Bat, you have to get close and can only hit one person at a time.  A Shotgun only holds so many rounds.  A Model 700BDL only holds so many rounds.  None of these are nearly as efficient as the AR.
> 
> One person stated that we need to change the culture.  Well, the first thing we need to do is to change your culture.  And you must accept that your culture is as much to blame as the person doing the mass killings.  You make it too easy for them to auquire the tools to do the job.  And that makes you part of the problem.  How does it feel to know you are contributing to the deaths of children in the United States.  Not something I would want to do.  Congratulations, you should take a bow and blow your own brains out with your AR.
Click to expand...


Lol
Error or not it is criminal...
Most of the last few years are similar... 





An AR is just a sporting rifle nothing more nothing less, You need to pick a scarier boogie man.
There are millions of ARs in this country... legally.
A tiny, tiny percentage of murders are committed using ARs... in close quarters someone with a hand gun will get the drop on someone using an AR every time.
I sell firearms and ammo for a living, ARs were never in demand till anti-gun nutters like yourself started crying like pussy whipped bitches about how they made people into killers..
Every time you silly fuckers bitch and moan sales skyrocket, wheather it be ARs, bump stocks, 30 round magazines, collapsible stocks, etc. what is next? I need to stock up... lol
The Background check system needs to be improved and streamlined... It should be no different than paying for something with a visa card… Instantaneous.
People that want to kill will find a way to do it, the most effective way is a bomb...
Only a fool thinks that anyone needs an AR to mass kill, bombs are far more effective.
The Middle East is proof..


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rustic said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all they are called magazines not clips. dumbass
> And like I said it depends on the AR and mini. Not all of the manufacturers use aluminum or steel each one is different. The cycle rate for both generally is the same.
> 
> You said in the earlier post the mini 14’s are better for hunting, not true, over-the-counter ARs are more accurate than minis generally, like I said.
> You are the foolish one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am older than you are so I will call them Clips.  It dates back to the old way of loading where the bullets are on clips and fed into the gun from the top.  But it's generally accepted to replace the word clips with mags.  And vice versa.  You sure do sound foolish on this one.  And the more you try to make others look stupid, the more apparent that it's YOU that isn't too bright.
> 
> If you purchase a 24 in barreled Mini-14 is is very accurate.  If you purchase a 16 in AR it has trouble hitting the proverbial barn door at any range other than close.  It's not the gun, it's the cartridge.  If I were to buy a new Mini-14 it would have a 24 inch barrel.  If you were to purchase a new AR chances are you will be getting the Carbine version of 16 in barrel.  Now, use a little physics here.  Same goes if one were to buy a Mini-14 with a 16 in barrel and buy an AR with a 24 in barrel.  The AR would be more accurate when the tables are turned.
> 
> And the reason the MOA is better on the AR is the fact it's not shooting normal 223 ammo.  When you buy ammo, you can buy the Nato .556 round that is hotter.  But beware.  Unless you spent the money to get the barrel to shoot the Nato 556, you are going to wear out your barrel very, very quickly.
> 
> Learn to be nice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again, the combination of twist and grain has a lot more to do with accuracy than barrel length will.
> Some rounds hate more bore time, Every rifle has their own personality some barrels hate some rounds. 1/7, 1/9 or whatever will work or it will not depending on the weight of the bullet, Length of the barrel has nothing to do with it.
> It depends on how although round is loaded, what kind of powder, how much powder, what type of bullet there are dozens of factors.
> If The barrel says 556 on it it can shoot both .223 – 5.56 because of clearances not the “power”. If your barrel says .223 on it it’s best not to shoot 5.56 because of clearances again.
> So basically if you want to build an accurate 600+ yards shooter with a 16 inch barrel you can do it just fine, barrel length has nothing to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Barrel length has nothing to do with it?  What are you smoking over there.  Are you aware that your Grass consumption prevents you from legally owning fire arms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Truth About Barrel Length, Muzzle Velocity and Accuracy - The Truth About Guns
> *Conclusions:*
> 
> This test obliterated what was previously thought to be fact. Not only was it determined that short barreled rifles are easily as accurate a those with long barrels, but we also discovered what we see as a key to viewing accuracy in a practical sense. In an age of misinformation, hard fact can be hard to come by. *The internet is full of armchair know-it-alls and trolls a plenty, but for the most part, these can be ignored*. Mental preconceptions of the researched concepts are still deeply entrenched in a more or less Napoleonic era of the theory of arms. Most of what is commonly argued about small arms is false and based on opinion. A quick look online reveals hundreds of arguments on topics like 9mm vs. 40 S&W vs. 45ACP or AR-15 vs. AK-47, none of which are based on fact or on the need of the individual in their realistic circumstances.
> 
> If anything is to be learned from bullet selection, it is that match quality bullets have a distinct edge in accuracy over military and hunting bullets. The match bullets tested produced significantly greater accuracy than their military or hunting-type counterparts.
> 
> This study is not aimed at the promotion of using any particular barrel length, brand of bullet or load. The reader must look at their own situation and determine what the most valuable features are in a rifle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep, each rifle likes a certain ammo. And barrel length has nothing to do with it... in many cases harmonics can hurt the accuracy of a longer barrel.
> Many sharpshooters and snipers don’t like a longer barrel
> Ballistics: Understanding Barrel Harmonics and Accuracy | Gun Digest
Click to expand...


In the Military, I qualified with a very unique weapon.  The M-741A.  It's the military version of the civilian 741A.  28 inch barrel, chambered for the 300 H&H Magnum, 30 powered scope, bull barrel.  It weighs in a hefty 15 pounds without ammo.  It was made from 1959 to 1964.  it's worthless as a hunting rifle of any kind.  But it takes you into the world past 800 yards and can easily kill at ranges over 1200 yds with amazing accuracy.  It was once said that there were only 3 kinds of people that would own one.  The Gun Collector, the Military Sniper and the contract killer.  I can't even imagine this gun with less than a 28 inch barrel.  You have to use as much of the powder as possible to get that kind of range, that kind of projectile speed and deliver enough bullet mass to do the kill.  It was deemed that the gun was not really usable since it took a lot of practice and skill to make those kind of shots.  Most kill shots are made less than 800 yds so the 7.65 x 51 thought to have made more sense.  It left a void that the 50 Barrett now fills.  Experimenters keep playing around with a 50 cal lite but it just isn't nearly as good as that long barrelled heavy 50 cal Barrett and never will be.  The shorter barrels just spit out too much of the unused powder out the end of the barrel.  The 223/556 also needs as much used powder as it can have.  The rifling and the harmonics can be manipulated to dampen the oscillation.  It's just not as pronounced in that small a caliber and bullet weight but it's there regardless.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rustic said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am older than you are so I will call them Clips.  It dates back to the old way of loading where the bullets are on clips and fed into the gun from the top.  But it's generally accepted to replace the word clips with mags.  And vice versa.  You sure do sound foolish on this one.  And the more you try to make others look stupid, the more apparent that it's YOU that isn't too bright.
> 
> If you purchase a 24 in barreled Mini-14 is is very accurate.  If you purchase a 16 in AR it has trouble hitting the proverbial barn door at any range other than close.  It's not the gun, it's the cartridge.  If I were to buy a new Mini-14 it would have a 24 inch barrel.  If you were to purchase a new AR chances are you will be getting the Carbine version of 16 in barrel.  Now, use a little physics here.  Same goes if one were to buy a Mini-14 with a 16 in barrel and buy an AR with a 24 in barrel.  The AR would be more accurate when the tables are turned.
> 
> And the reason the MOA is better on the AR is the fact it's not shooting normal 223 ammo.  When you buy ammo, you can buy the Nato .556 round that is hotter.  But beware.  Unless you spent the money to get the barrel to shoot the Nato 556, you are going to wear out your barrel very, very quickly.
> 
> Learn to be nice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that the best you got?  What you are saying is that you support the murdering of our School Children, Movie Goers, People worshiping in Churches, large gatherings of innocent people.  Yes, accept your sin.  But don't expect the rest of us to do the same.
> 
> ALL of the largest Mass Murders in the last 25 years have all been done by an  AR-15 or one of it's copies.  And most were purchased legally.  That same reason was for handling of the Thompson in 1934.  So accept your responsability of murdering our Children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do realize people kill people not firearms?
> More people die from falling out of bed and smoking in bed, than people killed by someone using an AR15 sporting rifle.
> Handguns are used for most violent crime in this country by a long shot. Very few deaths are caused by people using ARs, And there are millions of them in this country that’s a very, very low ratio. Firearms cannot control people.
> Firearm violence by ARs is a non-issue, We have much bigger fish to fry. So far this year almost 33,000 people have died from medical errors.
> Just take your pick…
> 2018 Real Time Death Statistics in America
> Terrorists much prefer bombs/vehicles, For terrorism and they have access to anything they want. So don’t give me that fucking shit that it’s some sporting rifle that causes mass murders you fucking dolt...
> So go ahead and live your delusion you sinless snowflake.... lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You used the term "Errors".  There is no error in using an AR for slaughtering school children.  You are using the "Hey, Look Over There" routine.  The AR is used in every mass shooting in the last 25 years.  It's the weapon of choice because it is the most available.  Anyone can buy it in less than 30 minutes from start to finish along with hundreds of rounds, multiple clips (mags to you) and head for the nearest school and kill lots of children.  Even the AK isn't as efficient.  But the AK isn't sold in every gun store in America so the culture isn't attached to the AK.  Your love of the AR is noted.  What you keep doing is making the most efficient weapon for mass shootings so easy to get.  I am not proposing outlawing it.  I do propose making a bit more difficult to obtain.  Ending the cult that surrounds it.
> 
> What is sad is, a terrorist on a no fly list can purchase the weapon just by going into a gun store, show his legal ID, plunk down his cash, pass a simple gun test and walk out in less than 30 minutes with the most efficient mass murder weapon that you can obtain.  The Mentally unstable can also buy it the same way.  I hold that anyone that does mass murder like that is already unstable.  But proving it prior is next to impossible.  My Crystal Ball is broken.  Since we can't predict it, we take away the one thing that is in each and every one of the situation and that is the weapon of choice.  It's the only constant that we have control of.
> 
> Yah, I know, they will choose a different weapon.  A Knife is too slow, a handgun isn't nearly as efficient.  A Rock can only kill one at a time.  A Baseball Bat, you have to get close and can only hit one person at a time.  A Shotgun only holds so many rounds.  A Model 700BDL only holds so many rounds.  None of these are nearly as efficient as the AR.
> 
> One person stated that we need to change the culture.  Well, the first thing we need to do is to change your culture.  And you must accept that your culture is as much to blame as the person doing the mass killings.  You make it too easy for them to auquire the tools to do the job.  And that makes you part of the problem.  How does it feel to know you are contributing to the deaths of children in the United States.  Not something I would want to do.  Congratulations, you should take a bow and blow your own brains out with your AR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol
> Error or not it is criminal...
> Most of the last few years are similar...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An AR is just a sporting rifle nothing more nothing less, You need to pick a scarier boogie man.
> There are millions of ARs in this country... legally.
> A tiny, tiny percentage of murders are committed using ARs... in close quarters someone with a hand gun will get the drop on someone using an AR every time.
> I sell firearms and ammo for a living, ARs were never in demand till anti-gun nutters like yourself started crying like pussy whipped bitches about how they made people into killers..
> Every time you silly fuckers bitch and moan sales skyrocket, wheather it be ARs, bump stocks, 30 round magazines, collapsible stocks, etc. what is next? I need to stock up... lol
> The Background check system needs to be improved and streamlined... It should be no different than paying for something with a visa card… Instantaneous.
> People that want to kill will find a way to do it, the most effective way is a bomb...
> Only a fool thinks that anyone needs an AR to mass kill, bombs are far more effective.
> The Middle East is proof..
Click to expand...


So stand up and take credit for the Mass Shootings in the Schools today.  Your Culture is winning while our children are dying.  You have made it to easy to get the one tool to do the job.  Be proud of yourself.


----------



## Rustic

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all they are called magazines not clips. dumbass
> And like I said it depends on the AR and mini. Not all of the manufacturers use aluminum or steel each one is different. The cycle rate for both generally is the same.
> 
> You said in the earlier post the mini 14’s are better for hunting, not true, over-the-counter ARs are more accurate than minis generally, like I said.
> You are the foolish one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am older than you are so I will call them Clips.  It dates back to the old way of loading where the bullets are on clips and fed into the gun from the top.  But it's generally accepted to replace the word clips with mags.  And vice versa.  You sure do sound foolish on this one.  And the more you try to make others look stupid, the more apparent that it's YOU that isn't too bright.
> 
> If you purchase a 24 in barreled Mini-14 is is very accurate.  If you purchase a 16 in AR it has trouble hitting the proverbial barn door at any range other than close.  It's not the gun, it's the cartridge.  If I were to buy a new Mini-14 it would have a 24 inch barrel.  If you were to purchase a new AR chances are you will be getting the Carbine version of 16 in barrel.  Now, use a little physics here.  Same goes if one were to buy a Mini-14 with a 16 in barrel and buy an AR with a 24 in barrel.  The AR would be more accurate when the tables are turned.
> 
> And the reason the MOA is better on the AR is the fact it's not shooting normal 223 ammo.  When you buy ammo, you can buy the Nato .556 round that is hotter.  But beware.  Unless you spent the money to get the barrel to shoot the Nato 556, you are going to wear out your barrel very, very quickly.
> 
> Learn to be nice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again, the combination of twist and grain has a lot more to do with accuracy than barrel length will.
> Some rounds hate more bore time, Every rifle has their own personality some barrels hate some rounds. 1/7, 1/9 or whatever will work or it will not depending on the weight of the bullet, Length of the barrel has nothing to do with it.
> It depends on how although round is loaded, what kind of powder, how much powder, what type of bullet there are dozens of factors.
> If The barrel says 556 on it it can shoot both .223 – 5.56 because of clearances not the “power”. If your barrel says .223 on it it’s best not to shoot 5.56 because of clearances again.
> So basically if you want to build an accurate 600+ yards shooter with a 16 inch barrel you can do it just fine, barrel length has nothing to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Barrel length has nothing to do with it?  What are you smoking over there.  Are you aware that your Grass consumption prevents you from legally owning fire arms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Barrel length is not the only determiner of accuracy he never has been never will be
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's one of the factors.  Especially if you are not using a scope of any kind.  The longer the barrel the further the front site is from the rear sight making it more accurate.  Plus, the longer barrel will have more room for a better rifling pattern.  Plus, the longer barrel will allow you to use more of the powder.  Unspent powder is just wasted out the end of the barrel.  No barrel can be made to use all the powder but the longer the barrel, the faster the projectile because more powder is utilized to gain that extra speed.  And the 223/556 is a very high speed cartridge and the faster it moves the better considering that there isn't much of a projectile to begin with.
> 
> Physics agrees that a 16 in barrel will not have the range nor the accuracy of the 24 in barrel.  Of course, within 50 feet it doesn't matter.  But using it to varmint hunt, you won't be making any shots within 50 feet.  But if you are mass murdering children in a school, that 16 in barrel is the one to use since it's easier to field.
Click to expand...

Na, That is a myth.
The weight of the bullet and twist rate determine  Factor seem far more than the length of the barrel. 
You ever hear of harmonics? Bore time does not mean accuracy...
Speed of the projectile does not equate to accuracy…
16 inch barrel can be every bit as accurate as a 24 inch barrel… Fact


----------



## Rustic

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am older than you are so I will call them Clips.  It dates back to the old way of loading where the bullets are on clips and fed into the gun from the top.  But it's generally accepted to replace the word clips with mags.  And vice versa.  You sure do sound foolish on this one.  And the more you try to make others look stupid, the more apparent that it's YOU that isn't too bright.
> 
> If you purchase a 24 in barreled Mini-14 is is very accurate.  If you purchase a 16 in AR it has trouble hitting the proverbial barn door at any range other than close.  It's not the gun, it's the cartridge.  If I were to buy a new Mini-14 it would have a 24 inch barrel.  If you were to purchase a new AR chances are you will be getting the Carbine version of 16 in barrel.  Now, use a little physics here.  Same goes if one were to buy a Mini-14 with a 16 in barrel and buy an AR with a 24 in barrel.  The AR would be more accurate when the tables are turned.
> 
> And the reason the MOA is better on the AR is the fact it's not shooting normal 223 ammo.  When you buy ammo, you can buy the Nato .556 round that is hotter.  But beware.  Unless you spent the money to get the barrel to shoot the Nato 556, you are going to wear out your barrel very, very quickly.
> 
> Learn to be nice.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again, the combination of twist and grain has a lot more to do with accuracy than barrel length will.
> Some rounds hate more bore time, Every rifle has their own personality some barrels hate some rounds. 1/7, 1/9 or whatever will work or it will not depending on the weight of the bullet, Length of the barrel has nothing to do with it.
> It depends on how although round is loaded, what kind of powder, how much powder, what type of bullet there are dozens of factors.
> If The barrel says 556 on it it can shoot both .223 – 5.56 because of clearances not the “power”. If your barrel says .223 on it it’s best not to shoot 5.56 because of clearances again.
> So basically if you want to build an accurate 600+ yards shooter with a 16 inch barrel you can do it just fine, barrel length has nothing to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Barrel length has nothing to do with it?  What are you smoking over there.  Are you aware that your Grass consumption prevents you from legally owning fire arms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Truth About Barrel Length, Muzzle Velocity and Accuracy - The Truth About Guns
> *Conclusions:*
> 
> This test obliterated what was previously thought to be fact. Not only was it determined that short barreled rifles are easily as accurate a those with long barrels, but we also discovered what we see as a key to viewing accuracy in a practical sense. In an age of misinformation, hard fact can be hard to come by. *The internet is full of armchair know-it-alls and trolls a plenty, but for the most part, these can be ignored*. Mental preconceptions of the researched concepts are still deeply entrenched in a more or less Napoleonic era of the theory of arms. Most of what is commonly argued about small arms is false and based on opinion. A quick look online reveals hundreds of arguments on topics like 9mm vs. 40 S&W vs. 45ACP or AR-15 vs. AK-47, none of which are based on fact or on the need of the individual in their realistic circumstances.
> 
> If anything is to be learned from bullet selection, it is that match quality bullets have a distinct edge in accuracy over military and hunting bullets. The match bullets tested produced significantly greater accuracy than their military or hunting-type counterparts.
> 
> This study is not aimed at the promotion of using any particular barrel length, brand of bullet or load. The reader must look at their own situation and determine what the most valuable features are in a rifle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep, each rifle likes a certain ammo. And barrel length has nothing to do with it... in many cases harmonics can hurt the accuracy of a longer barrel.
> Many sharpshooters and snipers don’t like a longer barrel
> Ballistics: Understanding Barrel Harmonics and Accuracy | Gun Digest
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the Military, I qualified with a very unique weapon.  The M-741A.  It's the military version of the civilian 741A.  28 inch barrel, chambered for the 300 H&H Magnum, 30 powered scope, bull barrel.  It weighs in a hefty 15 pounds without ammo.  It was made from 1959 to 1964.  it's worthless as a hunting rifle of any kind.  But it takes you into the world past 800 yards and can easily kill at ranges over 1200 yds with amazing accuracy.  It was once said that there were only 3 kinds of people that would own one.  The Gun Collector, the Military Sniper and the contract killer.  I can't even imagine this gun with less than a 28 inch barrel.  You have to use as much of the powder as possible to get that kind of range, that kind of projectile speed and deliver enough bullet mass to do the kill.  It was deemed that the gun was not really usable since it took a lot of practice and skill to make those kind of shots.  Most kill shots are made less than 800 yds so the 7.65 x 51 thought to have made more sense.  It left a void that the 50 Barrett now fills.  Experimenters keep playing around with a 50 cal lite but it just isn't nearly as good as that long barrelled heavy 50 cal Barrett and never will be.  The shorter barrels just spit out too much of the unused powder out the end of the barrel.  The 223/556 also needs as much used powder as it can have.  The rifling and the harmonics can be manipulated to dampen the oscillation.  It's just not as pronounced in that small a caliber and bullet weight but it's there regardless.
Click to expand...

I sell firearms to the local sheriffs department, Barrel length is not the determining factor for sharpshooters/snipers...


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rustic said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am older than you are so I will call them Clips.  It dates back to the old way of loading where the bullets are on clips and fed into the gun from the top.  But it's generally accepted to replace the word clips with mags.  And vice versa.  You sure do sound foolish on this one.  And the more you try to make others look stupid, the more apparent that it's YOU that isn't too bright.
> 
> If you purchase a 24 in barreled Mini-14 is is very accurate.  If you purchase a 16 in AR it has trouble hitting the proverbial barn door at any range other than close.  It's not the gun, it's the cartridge.  If I were to buy a new Mini-14 it would have a 24 inch barrel.  If you were to purchase a new AR chances are you will be getting the Carbine version of 16 in barrel.  Now, use a little physics here.  Same goes if one were to buy a Mini-14 with a 16 in barrel and buy an AR with a 24 in barrel.  The AR would be more accurate when the tables are turned.
> 
> And the reason the MOA is better on the AR is the fact it's not shooting normal 223 ammo.  When you buy ammo, you can buy the Nato .556 round that is hotter.  But beware.  Unless you spent the money to get the barrel to shoot the Nato 556, you are going to wear out your barrel very, very quickly.
> 
> Learn to be nice.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again, the combination of twist and grain has a lot more to do with accuracy than barrel length will.
> Some rounds hate more bore time, Every rifle has their own personality some barrels hate some rounds. 1/7, 1/9 or whatever will work or it will not depending on the weight of the bullet, Length of the barrel has nothing to do with it.
> It depends on how although round is loaded, what kind of powder, how much powder, what type of bullet there are dozens of factors.
> If The barrel says 556 on it it can shoot both .223 – 5.56 because of clearances not the “power”. If your barrel says .223 on it it’s best not to shoot 5.56 because of clearances again.
> So basically if you want to build an accurate 600+ yards shooter with a 16 inch barrel you can do it just fine, barrel length has nothing to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Barrel length has nothing to do with it?  What are you smoking over there.  Are you aware that your Grass consumption prevents you from legally owning fire arms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Barrel length is not the only determiner of accuracy he never has been never will be
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's one of the factors.  Especially if you are not using a scope of any kind.  The longer the barrel the further the front site is from the rear sight making it more accurate.  Plus, the longer barrel will have more room for a better rifling pattern.  Plus, the longer barrel will allow you to use more of the powder.  Unspent powder is just wasted out the end of the barrel.  No barrel can be made to use all the powder but the longer the barrel, the faster the projectile because more powder is utilized to gain that extra speed.  And the 223/556 is a very high speed cartridge and the faster it moves the better considering that there isn't much of a projectile to begin with.
> 
> Physics agrees that a 16 in barrel will not have the range nor the accuracy of the 24 in barrel.  Of course, within 50 feet it doesn't matter.  But using it to varmint hunt, you won't be making any shots within 50 feet.  But if you are mass murdering children in a school, that 16 in barrel is the one to use since it's easier to field.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Na, That is a myth.
> The weight of the bullet and twist rate determine  Factor seem far more than the length of the barrel.
> You ever hear of harmonics? Bore time does not mean accuracy...
> Speed of the projectile does not equate to accuracy…
> 16 inch barrel can be every bit as accurate as a 24 inch barrel… Fact
Click to expand...


We are beating a dead horse on this one.  We both need to stop.  It's dead and we can't kill it again.  Medical Science hasn't figured out a way around reviving a dead horse just so you can kill it again.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rustic said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again, the combination of twist and grain has a lot more to do with accuracy than barrel length will.
> Some rounds hate more bore time, Every rifle has their own personality some barrels hate some rounds. 1/7, 1/9 or whatever will work or it will not depending on the weight of the bullet, Length of the barrel has nothing to do with it.
> It depends on how although round is loaded, what kind of powder, how much powder, what type of bullet there are dozens of factors.
> If The barrel says 556 on it it can shoot both .223 – 5.56 because of clearances not the “power”. If your barrel says .223 on it it’s best not to shoot 5.56 because of clearances again.
> So basically if you want to build an accurate 600+ yards shooter with a 16 inch barrel you can do it just fine, barrel length has nothing to do with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Barrel length has nothing to do with it?  What are you smoking over there.  Are you aware that your Grass consumption prevents you from legally owning fire arms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Truth About Barrel Length, Muzzle Velocity and Accuracy - The Truth About Guns
> *Conclusions:*
> 
> This test obliterated what was previously thought to be fact. Not only was it determined that short barreled rifles are easily as accurate a those with long barrels, but we also discovered what we see as a key to viewing accuracy in a practical sense. In an age of misinformation, hard fact can be hard to come by. *The internet is full of armchair know-it-alls and trolls a plenty, but for the most part, these can be ignored*. Mental preconceptions of the researched concepts are still deeply entrenched in a more or less Napoleonic era of the theory of arms. Most of what is commonly argued about small arms is false and based on opinion. A quick look online reveals hundreds of arguments on topics like 9mm vs. 40 S&W vs. 45ACP or AR-15 vs. AK-47, none of which are based on fact or on the need of the individual in their realistic circumstances.
> 
> If anything is to be learned from bullet selection, it is that match quality bullets have a distinct edge in accuracy over military and hunting bullets. The match bullets tested produced significantly greater accuracy than their military or hunting-type counterparts.
> 
> This study is not aimed at the promotion of using any particular barrel length, brand of bullet or load. The reader must look at their own situation and determine what the most valuable features are in a rifle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep, each rifle likes a certain ammo. And barrel length has nothing to do with it... in many cases harmonics can hurt the accuracy of a longer barrel.
> Many sharpshooters and snipers don’t like a longer barrel
> Ballistics: Understanding Barrel Harmonics and Accuracy | Gun Digest
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the Military, I qualified with a very unique weapon.  The M-741A.  It's the military version of the civilian 741A.  28 inch barrel, chambered for the 300 H&H Magnum, 30 powered scope, bull barrel.  It weighs in a hefty 15 pounds without ammo.  It was made from 1959 to 1964.  it's worthless as a hunting rifle of any kind.  But it takes you into the world past 800 yards and can easily kill at ranges over 1200 yds with amazing accuracy.  It was once said that there were only 3 kinds of people that would own one.  The Gun Collector, the Military Sniper and the contract killer.  I can't even imagine this gun with less than a 28 inch barrel.  You have to use as much of the powder as possible to get that kind of range, that kind of projectile speed and deliver enough bullet mass to do the kill.  It was deemed that the gun was not really usable since it took a lot of practice and skill to make those kind of shots.  Most kill shots are made less than 800 yds so the 7.65 x 51 thought to have made more sense.  It left a void that the 50 Barrett now fills.  Experimenters keep playing around with a 50 cal lite but it just isn't nearly as good as that long barrelled heavy 50 cal Barrett and never will be.  The shorter barrels just spit out too much of the unused powder out the end of the barrel.  The 223/556 also needs as much used powder as it can have.  The rifling and the harmonics can be manipulated to dampen the oscillation.  It's just not as pronounced in that small a caliber and bullet weight but it's there regardless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I sell firearms to the local sheriffs department, Barrel length is not the determining factor for sharpshooters/snipers...
Click to expand...


It's one of the factors, not the only factor.  You keep beating that dead horse.  Just let the poor thing lay.


----------



## Rustic

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that the best you got?  What you are saying is that you support the murdering of our School Children, Movie Goers, People worshiping in Churches, large gatherings of innocent people.  Yes, accept your sin.  But don't expect the rest of us to do the same.
> 
> ALL of the largest Mass Murders in the last 25 years have all been done by an  AR-15 or one of it's copies.  And most were purchased legally.  That same reason was for handling of the Thompson in 1934.  So accept your responsability of murdering our Children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do realize people kill people not firearms?
> More people die from falling out of bed and smoking in bed, than people killed by someone using an AR15 sporting rifle.
> Handguns are used for most violent crime in this country by a long shot. Very few deaths are caused by people using ARs, And there are millions of them in this country that’s a very, very low ratio. Firearms cannot control people.
> Firearm violence by ARs is a non-issue, We have much bigger fish to fry. So far this year almost 33,000 people have died from medical errors.
> Just take your pick…
> 2018 Real Time Death Statistics in America
> Terrorists much prefer bombs/vehicles, For terrorism and they have access to anything they want. So don’t give me that fucking shit that it’s some sporting rifle that causes mass murders you fucking dolt...
> So go ahead and live your delusion you sinless snowflake.... lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You used the term "Errors".  There is no error in using an AR for slaughtering school children.  You are using the "Hey, Look Over There" routine.  The AR is used in every mass shooting in the last 25 years.  It's the weapon of choice because it is the most available.  Anyone can buy it in less than 30 minutes from start to finish along with hundreds of rounds, multiple clips (mags to you) and head for the nearest school and kill lots of children.  Even the AK isn't as efficient.  But the AK isn't sold in every gun store in America so the culture isn't attached to the AK.  Your love of the AR is noted.  What you keep doing is making the most efficient weapon for mass shootings so easy to get.  I am not proposing outlawing it.  I do propose making a bit more difficult to obtain.  Ending the cult that surrounds it.
> 
> What is sad is, a terrorist on a no fly list can purchase the weapon just by going into a gun store, show his legal ID, plunk down his cash, pass a simple gun test and walk out in less than 30 minutes with the most efficient mass murder weapon that you can obtain.  The Mentally unstable can also buy it the same way.  I hold that anyone that does mass murder like that is already unstable.  But proving it prior is next to impossible.  My Crystal Ball is broken.  Since we can't predict it, we take away the one thing that is in each and every one of the situation and that is the weapon of choice.  It's the only constant that we have control of.
> 
> Yah, I know, they will choose a different weapon.  A Knife is too slow, a handgun isn't nearly as efficient.  A Rock can only kill one at a time.  A Baseball Bat, you have to get close and can only hit one person at a time.  A Shotgun only holds so many rounds.  A Model 700BDL only holds so many rounds.  None of these are nearly as efficient as the AR.
> 
> One person stated that we need to change the culture.  Well, the first thing we need to do is to change your culture.  And you must accept that your culture is as much to blame as the person doing the mass killings.  You make it too easy for them to auquire the tools to do the job.  And that makes you part of the problem.  How does it feel to know you are contributing to the deaths of children in the United States.  Not something I would want to do.  Congratulations, you should take a bow and blow your own brains out with your AR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol
> Error or not it is criminal...
> Most of the last few years are similar...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An AR is just a sporting rifle nothing more nothing less, You need to pick a scarier boogie man.
> There are millions of ARs in this country... legally.
> A tiny, tiny percentage of murders are committed using ARs... in close quarters someone with a hand gun will get the drop on someone using an AR every time.
> I sell firearms and ammo for a living, ARs were never in demand till anti-gun nutters like yourself started crying like pussy whipped bitches about how they made people into killers..
> Every time you silly fuckers bitch and moan sales skyrocket, wheather it be ARs, bump stocks, 30 round magazines, collapsible stocks, etc. what is next? I need to stock up... lol
> The Background check system needs to be improved and streamlined... It should be no different than paying for something with a visa card… Instantaneous.
> People that want to kill will find a way to do it, the most effective way is a bomb...
> Only a fool thinks that anyone needs an AR to mass kill, bombs are far more effective.
> The Middle East is proof..
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So stand up and take credit for the Mass Shootings in the Schools today.  Your Culture is winning while our children are dying.  You have made it to easy to get the one tool to do the job.  Be proud of yourself.
Click to expand...

People kill people firearms cannot... No one was made by An AR to kill anybody else.
Gun free zones are killing fields waiting to happen. And firearms have nothing to do with it


----------



## Rustic

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again, the combination of twist and grain has a lot more to do with accuracy than barrel length will.
> Some rounds hate more bore time, Every rifle has their own personality some barrels hate some rounds. 1/7, 1/9 or whatever will work or it will not depending on the weight of the bullet, Length of the barrel has nothing to do with it.
> It depends on how although round is loaded, what kind of powder, how much powder, what type of bullet there are dozens of factors.
> If The barrel says 556 on it it can shoot both .223 – 5.56 because of clearances not the “power”. If your barrel says .223 on it it’s best not to shoot 5.56 because of clearances again.
> So basically if you want to build an accurate 600+ yards shooter with a 16 inch barrel you can do it just fine, barrel length has nothing to do with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Barrel length has nothing to do with it?  What are you smoking over there.  Are you aware that your Grass consumption prevents you from legally owning fire arms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Barrel length is not the only determiner of accuracy he never has been never will be
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's one of the factors.  Especially if you are not using a scope of any kind.  The longer the barrel the further the front site is from the rear sight making it more accurate.  Plus, the longer barrel will have more room for a better rifling pattern.  Plus, the longer barrel will allow you to use more of the powder.  Unspent powder is just wasted out the end of the barrel.  No barrel can be made to use all the powder but the longer the barrel, the faster the projectile because more powder is utilized to gain that extra speed.  And the 223/556 is a very high speed cartridge and the faster it moves the better considering that there isn't much of a projectile to begin with.
> 
> Physics agrees that a 16 in barrel will not have the range nor the accuracy of the 24 in barrel.  Of course, within 50 feet it doesn't matter.  But using it to varmint hunt, you won't be making any shots within 50 feet.  But if you are mass murdering children in a school, that 16 in barrel is the one to use since it's easier to field.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Na, That is a myth.
> The weight of the bullet and twist rate determine  Factor seem far more than the length of the barrel.
> You ever hear of harmonics? Bore time does not mean accuracy...
> Speed of the projectile does not equate to accuracy…
> 16 inch barrel can be every bit as accurate as a 24 inch barrel… Fact
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are beating a dead horse on this one.  We both need to stop.  It's dead and we can't kill it again.  Medical Science hasn't figured out a way around reviving a dead horse just so you can kill it again.
Click to expand...

This is true, some people will prefer short barrels other people prefer long barrels. 
Each firearm has its own personality, It either likes a certain ammo or it does not.
What I am saying, there is absolutely no need for a long barrel to be just as accurate.
The examples of that being true are countless...


----------



## Rustic

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Barrel length has nothing to do with it?  What are you smoking over there.  Are you aware that your Grass consumption prevents you from legally owning fire arms?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Truth About Barrel Length, Muzzle Velocity and Accuracy - The Truth About Guns
> *Conclusions:*
> 
> This test obliterated what was previously thought to be fact. Not only was it determined that short barreled rifles are easily as accurate a those with long barrels, but we also discovered what we see as a key to viewing accuracy in a practical sense. In an age of misinformation, hard fact can be hard to come by. *The internet is full of armchair know-it-alls and trolls a plenty, but for the most part, these can be ignored*. Mental preconceptions of the researched concepts are still deeply entrenched in a more or less Napoleonic era of the theory of arms. Most of what is commonly argued about small arms is false and based on opinion. A quick look online reveals hundreds of arguments on topics like 9mm vs. 40 S&W vs. 45ACP or AR-15 vs. AK-47, none of which are based on fact or on the need of the individual in their realistic circumstances.
> 
> If anything is to be learned from bullet selection, it is that match quality bullets have a distinct edge in accuracy over military and hunting bullets. The match bullets tested produced significantly greater accuracy than their military or hunting-type counterparts.
> 
> This study is not aimed at the promotion of using any particular barrel length, brand of bullet or load. The reader must look at their own situation and determine what the most valuable features are in a rifle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep, each rifle likes a certain ammo. And barrel length has nothing to do with it... in many cases harmonics can hurt the accuracy of a longer barrel.
> Many sharpshooters and snipers don’t like a longer barrel
> Ballistics: Understanding Barrel Harmonics and Accuracy | Gun Digest
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the Military, I qualified with a very unique weapon.  The M-741A.  It's the military version of the civilian 741A.  28 inch barrel, chambered for the 300 H&H Magnum, 30 powered scope, bull barrel.  It weighs in a hefty 15 pounds without ammo.  It was made from 1959 to 1964.  it's worthless as a hunting rifle of any kind.  But it takes you into the world past 800 yards and can easily kill at ranges over 1200 yds with amazing accuracy.  It was once said that there were only 3 kinds of people that would own one.  The Gun Collector, the Military Sniper and the contract killer.  I can't even imagine this gun with less than a 28 inch barrel.  You have to use as much of the powder as possible to get that kind of range, that kind of projectile speed and deliver enough bullet mass to do the kill.  It was deemed that the gun was not really usable since it took a lot of practice and skill to make those kind of shots.  Most kill shots are made less than 800 yds so the 7.65 x 51 thought to have made more sense.  It left a void that the 50 Barrett now fills.  Experimenters keep playing around with a 50 cal lite but it just isn't nearly as good as that long barrelled heavy 50 cal Barrett and never will be.  The shorter barrels just spit out too much of the unused powder out the end of the barrel.  The 223/556 also needs as much used powder as it can have.  The rifling and the harmonics can be manipulated to dampen the oscillation.  It's just not as pronounced in that small a caliber and bullet weight but it's there regardless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I sell firearms to the local sheriffs department, Barrel length is not the determining factor for sharpshooters/snipers...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's one of the factors, not the only factor.  You keep beating that dead horse.  Just let the poor thing lay.
Click to expand...

You’re the one that said that no one could hit anything with a short barrel...


----------



## Rustic

Most years are similar...


----------



## Rustic




----------



## Rustic

*The Assault Weapon Myth*
By LOIS BECKETTSEPT

OVER the past two decades, the majority of Americans in a country deeply divided over gun control have coalesced behind a single proposition: The sale of assault weapons should be banned.

That idea was one of the pillars of the Obama administration’s plan to curb gun violence, and it remains popular with the public. In a poll last December, 59 percent of likely voters said they favor a ban.

But in the 10 years since the previous ban lapsed, even gun control advocates acknowledge a larger truth: The law that barred the sale of assault weapons from 1994 to 2004 made little difference.

It turns out that big, scary military rifles don’t kill the vast majority of the 11,000 Americans murdered with guns each year. Little handguns do.

In 2012, only 322 people were murdered with any kind of rifle, F.B.I. data shows.

The continuing focus on assault weapons stems from the media’s obsessive focus on mass shootings, which disproportionately involve weapons like the AR-15, a civilian version of the military M16 rifle. This, in turn, obscures some grim truths about who is really dying from gunshots.
Annually, 5,000 to 6,000 black men are murdered with guns. Black men amount to only 6 percent of the population. Yet of the 30 Americans on average shot to death each day, half are black males.

It was much the same in the early 1990s when Democrats created and then banned a category of guns they called “assault weapons.” America was then suffering from a spike in gun crime and it seemed like a problem threatening everyone. Gun murders each year had been climbing: 11,000, then 13,000, then 17,000.

Democrats decided to push for a ban of what seemed like the most dangerous guns in America: assault weapons, which were presented by the media as the gun of choice for drug dealers and criminals, and which many in law enforcement wanted to get off the streets.

This politically defined category of guns — a selection of rifles, shotguns and handguns with “military-style” features — only figured in about 2 percent of gun crimes nationwide before the ban.

Handguns were used in more than 80 percent of gun murders each year, but gun control advocates had failed to interest enough of the public in a handgun ban. Handguns were the weapons most likely to kill you, but they were associated by the public with self-defense. (In 2008, the Supreme Court said there was a constitutional right to keep a loaded handgun at home for self-defense.)

Banning sales of military-style weapons resonated with both legislators and the public: Civilians did not need to own guns designed for use in war zones.

On Sept. 13, 1994, President Bill Clinton signed an assault weapons ban into law. It barred the manufacture and sale of new guns with military features and magazines holding more than 10 rounds. But the law allowed those who already owned these guns — an estimated 1.5 million of them — to keep their weapons.

The policy proved costly. Mr. Clinton blamed the ban for Democratic losses in 1994. Crime fell, but when the ban expired, a detailed study found no proof that it had contributed to the decline.

The ban did reduce the number of assault weapons recovered by local police, to 1 percent from roughly 2 percent.

“Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement,” a Department of Justice-funded evaluation concluded.

Still, the majority of Americans continued to support a ban on assault weapons.

One reason: The use of these weapons may be rare over all, but they’re used frequently in the gun violence that gets the most media coverage, mass shootings.

The criminologist James Alan Fox at Northeastern University estimates that there have been an average of 100 victims killed each year in mass shootings over the past three decades. That’s less than 1 percent of gun homicide victims.

But these acts of violence in schools and movie theaters have come to define the problem of gun violence in America.

Most Americans do not know that gun homicides have decreased by 49 percent since 1993 as violent crime also fell, though rates of gun homicide in the United States are still much higher than those in other developed nations. A Pew survey conducted after the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., found that 56 percent of Americans believed wrongly that the rate of gun crime was higher than it was 20 years ago.

Even as homicide rates have held steady or declined for most Americans over the last decade, for black men the rate has sometimes risen. But it took a handful of mass shootings in 2012 to put gun control back on Congress’s agenda.

AFTER Sandy Hook, President Obama introduced an initiative to reduce gun violence. He laid out a litany of tragedies: the children of Newtown, the moviegoers of Aurora, Colo. But he did not mention gun violence among black men.

To be fair, the president’s first legislative priority after Sandy Hook was universal background checks, a measure that might have shrunk the market for illegal guns used in many urban shootings. But Republicans in Congress killed that effort. The next proposal on his list was reinstating and “strengthening” bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. It also went nowhere.

“We spent a whole bunch of time and a whole bunch of political capital yelling and screaming about assault weapons,” Mayor Mitchell J. Landrieu of New Orleans said. He called it a “zero sum political fight about a symbolic weapon.”

Mr. Landrieu and Mayor Michael A. Nutter of Philadelphia are founders of Cities United, a network of mayors trying to prevent the deaths of young black men. “This is not just a gun issue, this is an unemployment issue, it’s a poverty issue, it’s a family issue, it’s a culture of violence issue,” Mr. Landrieu said.

More than 20 years of research funded by the Justice Department has found that programs to target high-risk people or places, rather than targeting certain kinds of guns, can reduce gun violence.

David M. Kennedy, the director of the Center for Crime Prevention and Control at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, argues that the issue of gun violence can seem enormous and intractable without first addressing poverty or drugs. A closer look at the social networks of neighborhoods most afflicted, he says, often shows that only a small number of men drive most of the violence. Identify them and change their behavior, and it’s possible to have an immediate impact.

Working with Professor Kennedy, and building on successes in other cities, New Orleans is now identifying the young men most at risk and intervening to help them get jobs. How well this strategy will work in the long term remains to be seen.

But it’s an approach based on an honest assessment of the real numbers.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rustic said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that the best you got?  What you are saying is that you support the murdering of our School Children, Movie Goers, People worshiping in Churches, large gatherings of innocent people.  Yes, accept your sin.  But don't expect the rest of us to do the same.
> 
> ALL of the largest Mass Murders in the last 25 years have all been done by an  AR-15 or one of it's copies.  And most were purchased legally.  That same reason was for handling of the Thompson in 1934.  So accept your responsability of murdering our Children.
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize people kill people not firearms?
> More people die from falling out of bed and smoking in bed, than people killed by someone using an AR15 sporting rifle.
> Handguns are used for most violent crime in this country by a long shot. Very few deaths are caused by people using ARs, And there are millions of them in this country that’s a very, very low ratio. Firearms cannot control people.
> Firearm violence by ARs is a non-issue, We have much bigger fish to fry. So far this year almost 33,000 people have died from medical errors.
> Just take your pick…
> 2018 Real Time Death Statistics in America
> Terrorists much prefer bombs/vehicles, For terrorism and they have access to anything they want. So don’t give me that fucking shit that it’s some sporting rifle that causes mass murders you fucking dolt...
> So go ahead and live your delusion you sinless snowflake.... lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You used the term "Errors".  There is no error in using an AR for slaughtering school children.  You are using the "Hey, Look Over There" routine.  The AR is used in every mass shooting in the last 25 years.  It's the weapon of choice because it is the most available.  Anyone can buy it in less than 30 minutes from start to finish along with hundreds of rounds, multiple clips (mags to you) and head for the nearest school and kill lots of children.  Even the AK isn't as efficient.  But the AK isn't sold in every gun store in America so the culture isn't attached to the AK.  Your love of the AR is noted.  What you keep doing is making the most efficient weapon for mass shootings so easy to get.  I am not proposing outlawing it.  I do propose making a bit more difficult to obtain.  Ending the cult that surrounds it.
> 
> What is sad is, a terrorist on a no fly list can purchase the weapon just by going into a gun store, show his legal ID, plunk down his cash, pass a simple gun test and walk out in less than 30 minutes with the most efficient mass murder weapon that you can obtain.  The Mentally unstable can also buy it the same way.  I hold that anyone that does mass murder like that is already unstable.  But proving it prior is next to impossible.  My Crystal Ball is broken.  Since we can't predict it, we take away the one thing that is in each and every one of the situation and that is the weapon of choice.  It's the only constant that we have control of.
> 
> Yah, I know, they will choose a different weapon.  A Knife is too slow, a handgun isn't nearly as efficient.  A Rock can only kill one at a time.  A Baseball Bat, you have to get close and can only hit one person at a time.  A Shotgun only holds so many rounds.  A Model 700BDL only holds so many rounds.  None of these are nearly as efficient as the AR.
> 
> One person stated that we need to change the culture.  Well, the first thing we need to do is to change your culture.  And you must accept that your culture is as much to blame as the person doing the mass killings.  You make it too easy for them to auquire the tools to do the job.  And that makes you part of the problem.  How does it feel to know you are contributing to the deaths of children in the United States.  Not something I would want to do.  Congratulations, you should take a bow and blow your own brains out with your AR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol
> Error or not it is criminal...
> Most of the last few years are similar...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An AR is just a sporting rifle nothing more nothing less, You need to pick a scarier boogie man.
> There are millions of ARs in this country... legally.
> A tiny, tiny percentage of murders are committed using ARs... in close quarters someone with a hand gun will get the drop on someone using an AR every time.
> I sell firearms and ammo for a living, ARs were never in demand till anti-gun nutters like yourself started crying like pussy whipped bitches about how they made people into killers..
> Every time you silly fuckers bitch and moan sales skyrocket, wheather it be ARs, bump stocks, 30 round magazines, collapsible stocks, etc. what is next? I need to stock up... lol
> The Background check system needs to be improved and streamlined... It should be no different than paying for something with a visa card… Instantaneous.
> People that want to kill will find a way to do it, the most effective way is a bomb...
> Only a fool thinks that anyone needs an AR to mass kill, bombs are far more effective.
> The Middle East is proof..
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So stand up and take credit for the Mass Shootings in the Schools today.  Your Culture is winning while our children are dying.  You have made it to easy to get the one tool to do the job.  Be proud of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People kill people firearms cannot... No one was made by An AR to kill anybody else.
> Gun free zones are killing fields waiting to happen. And firearms have nothing to do with it
Click to expand...


So you make it easy for any nutcase to purchase an AR and use it as it was intended for.  So just accept the reasonability that you are contributing to those mass shooting of children.  Now, that make you a real man doesn't it.  And that is the real reason you slaver at the AR when you see it.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Daryl Hunt said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although I don't own or would never own an AR-15 - I can relate to the *Rambo mentality* from my younger days.  When the Rifleman TV show with Chuck Connors was popular from 1958 to 1963, I had access to my grandfather's lever-action .32 Special.  We lived on a remote self-sufficient farm, and I would take it out in the woods and pretend to be the Rifleman.  I burned up a lot of ammo (as much as granddad could afford on his meager farm income) - and I can still remember what my mentality was when I was cranking that lever. I was in my early teens.  However, I grew up to be an ethical and responsible gun owner and hunter.  I cherish my guns - but I detest the NRA.  This is somewhat apple and oranges to today's gun problems, but I thought I would share my little story of life on the farm.  I consider the NRA the biggest threat to my future gun rights.  The NRA was once a great outfit - until it was hijacked by radicals in 1977.  The NRA later hijacked the Republican Party.
> 
> *How NRA’s true believers converted a marksmanship group into a mighty gun lobby*
> 
> 
> 
> I don't own one either.
> 
> I already have a perfectly fine .223 semiauto in my mini 14.  I do not see the reason to buy another.
> 
> But I also know that the AR is no different than my mini 14 but for some cosmetics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The real difference is the Cyclic Rate.  The AR has a much higher one than the Mini-14.
Click to expand...


OK so tell me how much faster does the firing cycle complete in the AR and is it even significant since both rifles are limited by how fast a person can pull the trigger.

I've shot both rifles and can empty a 30 rd magazine from either in virtually the same amount of time


----------



## Redfish

The Derp said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> you keep saying background checks on all gun transactions, but you cant answer the question of how you do that when a criminal sells a gun to another criminal or trades a gun for a hit of coke.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMFG...you are being a fucking idiot on purpose, aren't you?
> 
> As I said before, background checks won't work on _*stolen guns*_ because they're _*stolen*_.
> 
> But fingerprint ID locks *would work*, which is why it's the _*second*_ thing I list.
> 
> You keep ignoring that, why?  Because you don't want to admit that your blanket support for guns is flawed.  I think it's even more personal than that...I think you just don't want to admit that what I'm proposing is reasonable because your mushy brain is paranoid and thinks I'm out to get you.  I can assure you I'm not.  I really, truly do not care about your personal life at all.  I doubt anyone does.
Click to expand...



fingerprint locks wont work either, they can be removed from the gun quite easily.  In am emergency situation the time it takes to activate it could cost you your life.  Like all libtardian ideas, it sounds good until you actually think about it for a second or two.

Your immediate resort to insults rather than a civil discussion brands you as what you really are, a marginally literate, brain washed, moronic liberal sycophant.


----------



## Redfish

The Derp said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am asking practical questions.  you are posting talking points and bullshit."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm responding to your questions...you're just not getting the answers you want and are finding yourself persuaded by my argument...but because you have the world's shittiest ego, you can't bring yourself to admit that what I'm proposing is reasonable for whatever fucking psychological reason you have.
> 
> Explain how what I'm proposing are "talking points" when you agree with me!
> 
> 
> You do agree that guns should have fingerprint ID locks so only the owner can use them, right?  Why wouldn't you agree to that?
> And you agree that all gun transactions and transfers should be subject to a background check, right?  Why wouldn't you agree to that?
> And surely you agree that domestic abusers shouldn't be allowed to own guns, right?  Why wouldn't you agree to that?
> And surely you also agree that terrorists or suspected terrorists shouldn't be allowed to own guns, right?  Why wouldn't you agree to that?
> And of course you also agree that mentally ill people should be encouraged to go to mental health treatment and therapy, right?  Why wouldn't you agree to that?
> 
> I think the reason you won't agree to it is simply a matter of your ego.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand finger print locks.  I have one on my gun safe.   I don't have one on my gun in my car because I don't want to have to say "wait a minute Mr criminal while I activate my fingerprint lock"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How long does it take to activate the fingerprint ID lock on your smart phone?  Because mine is instantaneous, the moment I put my finger on the home button of my iphone X.
> 
> Your dirty harry vigilante fantasy notwithstanding, I don't see how a fingerprint ID lock for your gun is any different than a safety switch.  In fact, you could eliminate the safety switch if you wanted and just have your fingerprint unlock everything.  That technology exists.
Click to expand...



the split second it takes to activate the fingerprint lock is the same split second that your attacker will be pulling his trigger, and you will never get to pull yours because you will be dead.


----------



## Redfish

The Derp said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> by keeping guns out of the hands of mentally ill people and by arming the people protecting our children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is protecting the children?  Isn't that the job of the police?
> 
> You want to keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill people, but what do you do about the mentally ill people who don't think they're mentally ill and thus, aren't diagnosed as mentally ill and won't show up on a background check?
Click to expand...


Children should be protected by all of us, first the parents, then the schools, then the police, then the community in general.

Like most libs, you always are quick to put the responsibility on someone else.

As to your comments on mentally ill who think they are sane.   Being alive carries many risks, the government cannot protect us from everyone and everything.


----------



## KeiserC

asaratis said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Theory has it that the Semi Auto is capable of 180 rounds a minute.  But reality says it can't be done.  But you can get off 3 shots a second for 10 seconds before you have to change your 30 round clip.   And the process starts all over again.  This is for the AR-15 and it's variants.
> 
> The AR-15 uses the direct impingement gas operating system.  It's cheap, fast and easy to manufacture.  The Mini-14 uses the conventional gas piston operating system like it's big brother, the M-14.  The AR uses quite a few Aluminum parts while the Mini-14 uses all steel.  Steel is heavier, ergo, the cyclic rate will be slower.  Simple Physics.
> 
> And what does MOA have to do with the cyclic rate?  Nothing.  MOA is about adjusting for drop of the bullet.  Don't you feel foolish now?
> 
> 
> 
> First of all they are called magazines not clips. dumbass
> And like I said it depends on the AR and mini. Not all of the manufacturers use aluminum or steel each one is different. The cycle rate for both generally is the same.
> 
> You said in the earlier post the mini 14’s are better for hunting, not true, over-the-counter ARs are more accurate than minis generally, like I said.
> You are the foolish one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am older than you are so I will call them Clips.  It dates back to the old way of loading where the bullets are on clips and fed into the gun from the top.  But it's generally accepted to replace the word clips with mags.  And vice versa.  You sure do sound foolish on this one.  And the more you try to make others look stupid, the more apparent that it's YOU that isn't too bright.
> 
> If you purchase a 24 in barreled Mini-14 is is very accurate.  If you purchase a 16 in AR it has trouble hitting the proverbial barn door at any range other than close.  It's not the gun, it's the cartridge.  If I were to buy a new Mini-14 it would have a 24 inch barrel.  If you were to purchase a new AR chances are you will be getting the Carbine version of 16 in barrel.  Now, use a little physics here.  Same goes if one were to buy a Mini-14 with a 16 in barrel and buy an AR with a 24 in barrel.  The AR would be more accurate when the tables are turned.
> 
> And the reason the MOA is better on the AR is the fact it's not shooting normal 223 ammo.  When you buy ammo, you can buy the Nato .556 round that is hotter.  But beware.  Unless you spent the money to get the barrel to shoot the Nato 556, you are going to wear out your barrel very, very quickly.
> 
> Learn to be nice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again, the combination of twist and grain has a lot more to do with accuracy than barrel length will.
> Some rounds hate more bore time, Every rifle has their own personality some barrels hate some rounds. 1/7, 1/9 or whatever will work or it will not depending on the weight of the bullet, Length of the barrel has nothing to do with it.
> It depends on how although round is loaded, what kind of powder, how much powder, what type of bullet there are dozens of factors.
> If The barrel says 556 on it it can shoot both .223 – 5.56 because of clearances not the “power”. If your barrel says .223 on it it’s best not to shoot 5.56 because of clearances again.
> So basically if you want to build an accurate 600+ yards shooter with a 16 inch barrel you can do it just fine, barrel length has nothing to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Barrel length has nothing to do with it?  What are you smoking over there.  Are you aware that your Grass consumption prevents you from legally owning fire arms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Truth About Barrel Length, Muzzle Velocity and Accuracy - The Truth About Guns
> *Conclusions:*
> 
> This test obliterated what was previously thought to be fact. Not only was it determined that short barreled rifles are easily as accurate a those with long barrels, but we also discovered what we see as a key to viewing accuracy in a practical sense. In an age of misinformation, hard fact can be hard to come by. *The internet is full of armchair know-it-alls and trolls a plenty, but for the most part, these can be ignored*. Mental preconceptions of the researched concepts are still deeply entrenched in a more or less Napoleonic era of the theory of arms. Most of what is commonly argued about small arms is false and based on opinion. A quick look online reveals hundreds of arguments on topics like 9mm vs. 40 S&W vs. 45ACP or AR-15 vs. AK-47, none of which are based on fact or on the need of the individual in their realistic circumstances.
> 
> If anything is to be learned from bullet selection, it is that match quality bullets have a distinct edge in accuracy over military and hunting bullets. The match bullets tested produced significantly greater accuracy than their military or hunting-type counterparts.
> 
> This study is not aimed at the promotion of using any particular barrel length, brand of bullet or load. The reader must look at their own situation and determine what the most valuable features are in a rifle.
Click to expand...

Wasn't here for the barrel length discussion... when shooting heavier bullets it requires a faster twist barrel and necessarily enough barrel length with that tight twist rifeling to stabilize a heavy long bullet for optimum flight.


----------



## Redfish

The Derp said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, tell me exactly how a background check would work when a gangbanger sells a stolen gun to another gangbanger.   That's a gun transaction, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, a background check wouldn't work on a _*stolen gun*_, but a fingerprint ID lock like my iphone has _*would*_.  Which is why one of the five actions I think we should take is to mandate all new guns manufactured have the fingerprint ID lock that all smart phones now have as a standard feature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> UnConstitutional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not according to the Supreme Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> phones are not a right, firearm ownership is an absolute right enless the individual fucks up...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A fingerprint ID or a background check doesn't infringe on your right to own a gun.
Click to expand...



We already have ID and background check laws, they apply to every legal purchase of a gun of any kind.   they do not apply when you trade a gun to your neighbor for a lawnmower------------ its foolish to think they every could or would.


----------



## Rustic

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize people kill people not firearms?
> More people die from falling out of bed and smoking in bed, than people killed by someone using an AR15 sporting rifle.
> Handguns are used for most violent crime in this country by a long shot. Very few deaths are caused by people using ARs, And there are millions of them in this country that’s a very, very low ratio. Firearms cannot control people.
> Firearm violence by ARs is a non-issue, We have much bigger fish to fry. So far this year almost 33,000 people have died from medical errors.
> Just take your pick…
> 2018 Real Time Death Statistics in America
> Terrorists much prefer bombs/vehicles, For terrorism and they have access to anything they want. So don’t give me that fucking shit that it’s some sporting rifle that causes mass murders you fucking dolt...
> So go ahead and live your delusion you sinless snowflake.... lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You used the term "Errors".  There is no error in using an AR for slaughtering school children.  You are using the "Hey, Look Over There" routine.  The AR is used in every mass shooting in the last 25 years.  It's the weapon of choice because it is the most available.  Anyone can buy it in less than 30 minutes from start to finish along with hundreds of rounds, multiple clips (mags to you) and head for the nearest school and kill lots of children.  Even the AK isn't as efficient.  But the AK isn't sold in every gun store in America so the culture isn't attached to the AK.  Your love of the AR is noted.  What you keep doing is making the most efficient weapon for mass shootings so easy to get.  I am not proposing outlawing it.  I do propose making a bit more difficult to obtain.  Ending the cult that surrounds it.
> 
> What is sad is, a terrorist on a no fly list can purchase the weapon just by going into a gun store, show his legal ID, plunk down his cash, pass a simple gun test and walk out in less than 30 minutes with the most efficient mass murder weapon that you can obtain.  The Mentally unstable can also buy it the same way.  I hold that anyone that does mass murder like that is already unstable.  But proving it prior is next to impossible.  My Crystal Ball is broken.  Since we can't predict it, we take away the one thing that is in each and every one of the situation and that is the weapon of choice.  It's the only constant that we have control of.
> 
> Yah, I know, they will choose a different weapon.  A Knife is too slow, a handgun isn't nearly as efficient.  A Rock can only kill one at a time.  A Baseball Bat, you have to get close and can only hit one person at a time.  A Shotgun only holds so many rounds.  A Model 700BDL only holds so many rounds.  None of these are nearly as efficient as the AR.
> 
> One person stated that we need to change the culture.  Well, the first thing we need to do is to change your culture.  And you must accept that your culture is as much to blame as the person doing the mass killings.  You make it too easy for them to auquire the tools to do the job.  And that makes you part of the problem.  How does it feel to know you are contributing to the deaths of children in the United States.  Not something I would want to do.  Congratulations, you should take a bow and blow your own brains out with your AR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol
> Error or not it is criminal...
> Most of the last few years are similar...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An AR is just a sporting rifle nothing more nothing less, You need to pick a scarier boogie man.
> There are millions of ARs in this country... legally.
> A tiny, tiny percentage of murders are committed using ARs... in close quarters someone with a hand gun will get the drop on someone using an AR every time.
> I sell firearms and ammo for a living, ARs were never in demand till anti-gun nutters like yourself started crying like pussy whipped bitches about how they made people into killers..
> Every time you silly fuckers bitch and moan sales skyrocket, wheather it be ARs, bump stocks, 30 round magazines, collapsible stocks, etc. what is next? I need to stock up... lol
> The Background check system needs to be improved and streamlined... It should be no different than paying for something with a visa card… Instantaneous.
> People that want to kill will find a way to do it, the most effective way is a bomb...
> Only a fool thinks that anyone needs an AR to mass kill, bombs are far more effective.
> The Middle East is proof..
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So stand up and take credit for the Mass Shootings in the Schools today.  Your Culture is winning while our children are dying.  You have made it to easy to get the one tool to do the job.  Be proud of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People kill people firearms cannot... No one was made by An AR to kill anybody else.
> Gun free zones are killing fields waiting to happen. And firearms have nothing to do with it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you make it easy for any nutcase to purchase an AR and use it as it was intended for.  So just accept the reasonability that you are contributing to those mass shooting of children.  Now, that make you a real man doesn't it.  And that is the real reason you slaver at the AR when you see it.
Click to expand...

Is that so...
ARs are nothing more than sporting rifles, a great varmit rifle. I especially like it in the 6.8 spc a fabulous Antelope cartridge. In my opinion there is no better rifle for small game by that I mean mule deer and down. Wild boar hunting is an absolute blast with ARs, the ability to accessorize and customize is unlimited. 
As for home defense, while not my first choice, a m-4 with a 14.5 inch barrel is very practical. Where I live home defense really is not necessary at all so I’m not an expert on such a thing but I have been trained. I never even lock my doors to my house even when I vacation, there is no need.
There are some things I disagree with in this article, but this explains the ar/m-4 and the like quite well. Why millions of Americans — including me — own the AR-15

The AR/m-4 is here to stay in spite of bed wetters like yourself.
Why not take advantage of an abundant great firearm? They are obviously the most versatile firearm ever made, it’s best to embrace the ar/m-4 and the like. They are the best selling firearms and they are here to stay. Like it or not.
So you can demonize everyone/everything that does not fit into your own little world all you want over a firearm you have no understanding of. I don’t give two shits..
Carry on chief, lol


----------



## Redfish

The Derp said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> My iPad 10.5 pro basically sucks because the fingerprint sensor never works worth of shit…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the problem isn't the sensor...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway that’s irrelevant no one should be forced into such bullshit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you're "forced" into a safety switch on your gun now, so why would replacing that with a fingerprint ID lock be any different?
Click to expand...



If you are trying to equate a gun safety switch with a fingerprint lock, you have never used either.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Skull Pilot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although I don't own or would never own an AR-15 - I can relate to the *Rambo mentality* from my younger days.  When the Rifleman TV show with Chuck Connors was popular from 1958 to 1963, I had access to my grandfather's lever-action .32 Special.  We lived on a remote self-sufficient farm, and I would take it out in the woods and pretend to be the Rifleman.  I burned up a lot of ammo (as much as granddad could afford on his meager farm income) - and I can still remember what my mentality was when I was cranking that lever. I was in my early teens.  However, I grew up to be an ethical and responsible gun owner and hunter.  I cherish my guns - but I detest the NRA.  This is somewhat apple and oranges to today's gun problems, but I thought I would share my little story of life on the farm.  I consider the NRA the biggest threat to my future gun rights.  The NRA was once a great outfit - until it was hijacked by radicals in 1977.  The NRA later hijacked the Republican Party.
> 
> *How NRA’s true believers converted a marksmanship group into a mighty gun lobby*
> 
> 
> 
> I don't own one either.
> 
> I already have a perfectly fine .223 semiauto in my mini 14.  I do not see the reason to buy another.
> 
> But I also know that the AR is no different than my mini 14 but for some cosmetics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The real difference is the Cyclic Rate.  The AR has a much higher one than the Mini-14.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK so tell me how much faster does the firing cycle complete in the AR and is it even significant since both rifles are limited by how fast a person can pull the trigger.
> 
> I've shot both rifles and can empty a 30 rd magazine from either in virtually the same amount of time
Click to expand...


You just keep the AR Cult alive.  At least it will be more alive than the murdered School Children it slaughters.  Stand up and take the credit.  I know you want to.

Enough of you.  You murder our Children.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Daryl Hunt said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although I don't own or would never own an AR-15 - I can relate to the *Rambo mentality* from my younger days.  When the Rifleman TV show with Chuck Connors was popular from 1958 to 1963, I had access to my grandfather's lever-action .32 Special.  We lived on a remote self-sufficient farm, and I would take it out in the woods and pretend to be the Rifleman.  I burned up a lot of ammo (as much as granddad could afford on his meager farm income) - and I can still remember what my mentality was when I was cranking that lever. I was in my early teens.  However, I grew up to be an ethical and responsible gun owner and hunter.  I cherish my guns - but I detest the NRA.  This is somewhat apple and oranges to today's gun problems, but I thought I would share my little story of life on the farm.  I consider the NRA the biggest threat to my future gun rights.  The NRA was once a great outfit - until it was hijacked by radicals in 1977.  The NRA later hijacked the Republican Party.
> 
> *How NRA’s true believers converted a marksmanship group into a mighty gun lobby*
> 
> 
> 
> I don't own one either.
> 
> I already have a perfectly fine .223 semiauto in my mini 14.  I do not see the reason to buy another.
> 
> But I also know that the AR is no different than my mini 14 but for some cosmetics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The real difference is the Cyclic Rate.  The AR has a much higher one than the Mini-14.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK so tell me how much faster does the firing cycle complete in the AR and is it even significant since both rifles are limited by how fast a person can pull the trigger.
> 
> I've shot both rifles and can empty a 30 rd magazine from either in virtually the same amount of time
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just keep the AR Cult alive.  At least it will be more alive than the murdered School Children it slaughters.  Stand up and take the credit.  I know you want to.
> 
> Enough of you.  You murder our Children.
Click to expand...


The AR is no fucking different than my mini 14.  Since you can't tell me exactly how much faster the bolt cycles in an AR 15 that makes it fire faster than any other .223 semiauto you reveal yourself to be full of shit because anyone here who knows anything about either rifle knows that the AR does not fire any faster

And FYI the AR doesn't slaughter anyone.  The person shooting it does.

And I have never killed anyone.  You need to learn that just because a person is in no way responsible for the crimes of another simply because he happens to own firearms.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Skull Pilot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although I don't own or would never own an AR-15 - I can relate to the *Rambo mentality* from my younger days.  When the Rifleman TV show with Chuck Connors was popular from 1958 to 1963, I had access to my grandfather's lever-action .32 Special.  We lived on a remote self-sufficient farm, and I would take it out in the woods and pretend to be the Rifleman.  I burned up a lot of ammo (as much as granddad could afford on his meager farm income) - and I can still remember what my mentality was when I was cranking that lever. I was in my early teens.  However, I grew up to be an ethical and responsible gun owner and hunter.  I cherish my guns - but I detest the NRA.  This is somewhat apple and oranges to today's gun problems, but I thought I would share my little story of life on the farm.  I consider the NRA the biggest threat to my future gun rights.  The NRA was once a great outfit - until it was hijacked by radicals in 1977.  The NRA later hijacked the Republican Party.
> 
> *How NRA’s true believers converted a marksmanship group into a mighty gun lobby*
> 
> 
> 
> I don't own one either.
> 
> I already have a perfectly fine .223 semiauto in my mini 14.  I do not see the reason to buy another.
> 
> But I also know that the AR is no different than my mini 14 but for some cosmetics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The real difference is the Cyclic Rate.  The AR has a much higher one than the Mini-14.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK so tell me how much faster does the firing cycle complete in the AR and is it even significant since both rifles are limited by how fast a person can pull the trigger.
> 
> I've shot both rifles and can empty a 30 rd magazine from either in virtually the same amount of time
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just keep the AR Cult alive.  At least it will be more alive than the murdered School Children it slaughters.  Stand up and take the credit.  I know you want to.
> 
> Enough of you.  You murder our Children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The AR is no fucking different than my mini 14.  Since you can't tell me exactly how much faster the bolt cycles in an AR 15 that makes it fire faster than any other .223 semiauto you reveal yourself to be full of shit because anyone here who knows anything about either rifle knows that the AR does not fire any faster
> 
> And FYI the AR doesn't slaughter anyone.  The person shooting it does.
> 
> And I have never killed anyone.  You need to learn that just because a person is in no way responsible for the crimes of another simply because he happens to own firearms.
Click to expand...


The Mini-14 isn't used to kill our children, Baby Killer.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Daryl Hunt said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't own one either.
> 
> I already have a perfectly fine .223 semiauto in my mini 14.  I do not see the reason to buy another.
> 
> But I also know that the AR is no different than my mini 14 but for some cosmetics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The real difference is the Cyclic Rate.  The AR has a much higher one than the Mini-14.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK so tell me how much faster does the firing cycle complete in the AR and is it even significant since both rifles are limited by how fast a person can pull the trigger.
> 
> I've shot both rifles and can empty a 30 rd magazine from either in virtually the same amount of time
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just keep the AR Cult alive.  At least it will be more alive than the murdered School Children it slaughters.  Stand up and take the credit.  I know you want to.
> 
> Enough of you.  You murder our Children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The AR is no fucking different than my mini 14.  Since you can't tell me exactly how much faster the bolt cycles in an AR 15 that makes it fire faster than any other .223 semiauto you reveal yourself to be full of shit because anyone here who knows anything about either rifle knows that the AR does not fire any faster
> 
> And FYI the AR doesn't slaughter anyone.  The person shooting it does.
> 
> And I have never killed anyone.  You need to learn that just because a person is in no way responsible for the crimes of another simply because he happens to own firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Mini-14 isn't used to kill our children, Baby Killer.
Click to expand...


So tell me how much faster does the firing mechanism cycle in the AR 15 than it does in the mini 14 or any other semiauto .223 caliber rifle.

So tell me what's so hard to understand that a person who happens to own a rife is not guilty of a crime committed by someone else ?

I mean really if we took your thought process ( I'm not going to call it logic because it's not logic at all) and applied it to other crimes then every man with a penis  should be considered guilty of rape because some other guy with a penis raped a girl.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Skull Pilot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The real difference is the Cyclic Rate.  The AR has a much higher one than the Mini-14.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK so tell me how much faster does the firing cycle complete in the AR and is it even significant since both rifles are limited by how fast a person can pull the trigger.
> 
> I've shot both rifles and can empty a 30 rd magazine from either in virtually the same amount of time
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just keep the AR Cult alive.  At least it will be more alive than the murdered School Children it slaughters.  Stand up and take the credit.  I know you want to.
> 
> Enough of you.  You murder our Children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The AR is no fucking different than my mini 14.  Since you can't tell me exactly how much faster the bolt cycles in an AR 15 that makes it fire faster than any other .223 semiauto you reveal yourself to be full of shit because anyone here who knows anything about either rifle knows that the AR does not fire any faster
> 
> And FYI the AR doesn't slaughter anyone.  The person shooting it does.
> 
> And I have never killed anyone.  You need to learn that just because a person is in no way responsible for the crimes of another simply because he happens to own firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Mini-14 isn't used to kill our children, Baby Killer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So tell me how much faster does the firing mechanism cycle in the AR 15 than it does in the mini 14 or any other semiauto .223 caliber rifle.
> 
> So tell me what's so hard to understand that a person who happens to own a rife is not guilty of a crime committed by someone else ?
> 
> I mean really if we took your thought process ( I'm not going to call it logic because it's not logic at all) and applied it to other crimes then every man with a penis  should be considered guilty of rape because some other guy with a penis raped a girl.
Click to expand...


The culture surrounding the AR-15 is killing our children.  The Mini-14 doesn't have that type of culture surrounding it.  And the harder you try and deflect that the more you show yourself of supporting killing children, baby killer.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Daryl Hunt said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK so tell me how much faster does the firing cycle complete in the AR and is it even significant since both rifles are limited by how fast a person can pull the trigger.
> 
> I've shot both rifles and can empty a 30 rd magazine from either in virtually the same amount of time
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just keep the AR Cult alive.  At least it will be more alive than the murdered School Children it slaughters.  Stand up and take the credit.  I know you want to.
> 
> Enough of you.  You murder our Children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The AR is no fucking different than my mini 14.  Since you can't tell me exactly how much faster the bolt cycles in an AR 15 that makes it fire faster than any other .223 semiauto you reveal yourself to be full of shit because anyone here who knows anything about either rifle knows that the AR does not fire any faster
> 
> And FYI the AR doesn't slaughter anyone.  The person shooting it does.
> 
> And I have never killed anyone.  You need to learn that just because a person is in no way responsible for the crimes of another simply because he happens to own firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Mini-14 isn't used to kill our children, Baby Killer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So tell me how much faster does the firing mechanism cycle in the AR 15 than it does in the mini 14 or any other semiauto .223 caliber rifle.
> 
> So tell me what's so hard to understand that a person who happens to own a rife is not guilty of a crime committed by someone else ?
> 
> I mean really if we took your thought process ( I'm not going to call it logic because it's not logic at all) and applied it to other crimes then every man with a penis  should be considered guilty of rape because some other guy with a penis raped a girl.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The culture surrounding the AR-15 is killing our children.  The Mini-14 doesn't have that type of culture surrounding it.  And the harder you try and deflect that the more you show yourself of supporting killing children, baby killer.
Click to expand...


Make up your mind is it the culture that is killing people or the gun.

and there are millions of AR type rifles in this country and a fraction of a percent of them are used in mass shootings so it seems to me the most prevalent "AR culture" as you call it consists of millions of people who don't kill anyone with their rifles.

And the more you call me a baby killer the more you prove you have a room temperature IQ


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Skull Pilot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just keep the AR Cult alive.  At least it will be more alive than the murdered School Children it slaughters.  Stand up and take the credit.  I know you want to.
> 
> Enough of you.  You murder our Children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The AR is no fucking different than my mini 14.  Since you can't tell me exactly how much faster the bolt cycles in an AR 15 that makes it fire faster than any other .223 semiauto you reveal yourself to be full of shit because anyone here who knows anything about either rifle knows that the AR does not fire any faster
> 
> And FYI the AR doesn't slaughter anyone.  The person shooting it does.
> 
> And I have never killed anyone.  You need to learn that just because a person is in no way responsible for the crimes of another simply because he happens to own firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Mini-14 isn't used to kill our children, Baby Killer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So tell me how much faster does the firing mechanism cycle in the AR 15 than it does in the mini 14 or any other semiauto .223 caliber rifle.
> 
> So tell me what's so hard to understand that a person who happens to own a rife is not guilty of a crime committed by someone else ?
> 
> I mean really if we took your thought process ( I'm not going to call it logic because it's not logic at all) and applied it to other crimes then every man with a penis  should be considered guilty of rape because some other guy with a penis raped a girl.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The culture surrounding the AR-15 is killing our children.  The Mini-14 doesn't have that type of culture surrounding it.  And the harder you try and deflect that the more you show yourself of supporting killing children, baby killer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Make up your mind is it the culture that is killing people or the gun.
> 
> and there are millions of AR type rifles in this country and a fraction of a percent of them are used in mass shootings so it seems to me the most prevalent "AR culture" as you call it consists of millions of people who don't kill anyone with their rifles.
> 
> And the more you call me a baby killer the more you show yourself to be lacking one iota of intellectual capacity
Click to expand...


It's the culture behind drooling over a new AR type.  Since the Culture protects everyones "Right" to buy an AR in less than 30 minutes then it does fall into the wrong hands legally.  Since you are part of the Culture that wants to protect the mass murderer of children then you are as guilty of being a baby killer as they are.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Daryl Hunt said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The AR is no fucking different than my mini 14.  Since you can't tell me exactly how much faster the bolt cycles in an AR 15 that makes it fire faster than any other .223 semiauto you reveal yourself to be full of shit because anyone here who knows anything about either rifle knows that the AR does not fire any faster
> 
> And FYI the AR doesn't slaughter anyone.  The person shooting it does.
> 
> And I have never killed anyone.  You need to learn that just because a person is in no way responsible for the crimes of another simply because he happens to own firearms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Mini-14 isn't used to kill our children, Baby Killer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So tell me how much faster does the firing mechanism cycle in the AR 15 than it does in the mini 14 or any other semiauto .223 caliber rifle.
> 
> So tell me what's so hard to understand that a person who happens to own a rife is not guilty of a crime committed by someone else ?
> 
> I mean really if we took your thought process ( I'm not going to call it logic because it's not logic at all) and applied it to other crimes then every man with a penis  should be considered guilty of rape because some other guy with a penis raped a girl.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The culture surrounding the AR-15 is killing our children.  The Mini-14 doesn't have that type of culture surrounding it.  And the harder you try and deflect that the more you show yourself of supporting killing children, baby killer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Make up your mind is it the culture that is killing people or the gun.
> 
> and there are millions of AR type rifles in this country and a fraction of a percent of them are used in mass shootings so it seems to me the most prevalent "AR culture" as you call it consists of millions of people who don't kill anyone with their rifles.
> 
> And the more you call me a baby killer the more you show yourself to be lacking one iota of intellectual capacity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the culture behind drooling over a new AR type.  Since the Culture protects everyones "Right" to buy an AR in less than 30 minutes then it does fall into the wrong hands legally.  Since you are part of the Culture that wants to protect the mass murderer of children then you are as guilty of being a baby killer as they are.
Click to expand...


I want to put mass murderers and anyone who commits crimes with guns in jail.

You want to blame innocent people for the crimes of others.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Skull Pilot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Mini-14 isn't used to kill our children, Baby Killer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So tell me how much faster does the firing mechanism cycle in the AR 15 than it does in the mini 14 or any other semiauto .223 caliber rifle.
> 
> So tell me what's so hard to understand that a person who happens to own a rife is not guilty of a crime committed by someone else ?
> 
> I mean really if we took your thought process ( I'm not going to call it logic because it's not logic at all) and applied it to other crimes then every man with a penis  should be considered guilty of rape because some other guy with a penis raped a girl.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The culture surrounding the AR-15 is killing our children.  The Mini-14 doesn't have that type of culture surrounding it.  And the harder you try and deflect that the more you show yourself of supporting killing children, baby killer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Make up your mind is it the culture that is killing people or the gun.
> 
> and there are millions of AR type rifles in this country and a fraction of a percent of them are used in mass shootings so it seems to me the most prevalent "AR culture" as you call it consists of millions of people who don't kill anyone with their rifles.
> 
> And the more you call me a baby killer the more you show yourself to be lacking one iota of intellectual capacity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the culture behind drooling over a new AR type.  Since the Culture protects everyones "Right" to buy an AR in less than 30 minutes then it does fall into the wrong hands legally.  Since you are part of the Culture that wants to protect the mass murderer of children then you are as guilty of being a baby killer as they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I want to put mass murderers and anyone who commits crimes with guns in jail.
> 
> You want to blame innocent people for the crimes of others.
Click to expand...


AS long as you support the right to buy an AR or an AK over the counter with a simple background check, make ALL sales of the AR or AK more difficult to purchase, close the loopholes in the Gun Fairs and Mail Order for all weapons, then you are just contributing by allowing every nutcase to be able to purchase the one type of weapons used in ALL the Mass Shooting in the US.  That makes you a killer of Children, baby killer.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Skull Pilot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Mini-14 isn't used to kill our children, Baby Killer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So tell me how much faster does the firing mechanism cycle in the AR 15 than it does in the mini 14 or any other semiauto .223 caliber rifle.
> 
> So tell me what's so hard to understand that a person who happens to own a rife is not guilty of a crime committed by someone else ?
> 
> I mean really if we took your thought process ( I'm not going to call it logic because it's not logic at all) and applied it to other crimes then every man with a penis  should be considered guilty of rape because some other guy with a penis raped a girl.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The culture surrounding the AR-15 is killing our children.  The Mini-14 doesn't have that type of culture surrounding it.  And the harder you try and deflect that the more you show yourself of supporting killing children, baby killer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Make up your mind is it the culture that is killing people or the gun.
> 
> and there are millions of AR type rifles in this country and a fraction of a percent of them are used in mass shootings so it seems to me the most prevalent "AR culture" as you call it consists of millions of people who don't kill anyone with their rifles.
> 
> And the more you call me a baby killer the more you show yourself to be lacking one iota of intellectual capacity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the culture behind drooling over a new AR type.  Since the Culture protects everyones "Right" to buy an AR in less than 30 minutes then it does fall into the wrong hands legally.  Since you are part of the Culture that wants to protect the mass murderer of children then you are as guilty of being a baby killer as they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I want to put mass murderers and anyone who commits crimes with guns in jail.
> 
> You want to blame innocent people for the crimes of others.
Click to expand...


And I want to stop it before it becomes a Mass Murder.  You just want to clean the mess up afterwards.  And you aren't doing a very good job of that.  You will be considered a baby killer until those are harder to procure.

It's one class of weapons only, not the handgun or the hunting rifle, the target rifle or shotgun.  Those may be used but the body count is much lower.  Hell, I can get the same body count of those with a baseball bat.  Until the Culture is changed, you will still be a killer babies.


----------



## P@triot




----------



## asaratis

KeiserC said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all they are called magazines not clips. dumbass
> And like I said it depends on the AR and mini. Not all of the manufacturers use aluminum or steel each one is different. The cycle rate for both generally is the same.
> 
> You said in the earlier post the mini 14’s are better for hunting, not true, over-the-counter ARs are more accurate than minis generally, like I said.
> You are the foolish one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am older than you are so I will call them Clips.  It dates back to the old way of loading where the bullets are on clips and fed into the gun from the top.  But it's generally accepted to replace the word clips with mags.  And vice versa.  You sure do sound foolish on this one.  And the more you try to make others look stupid, the more apparent that it's YOU that isn't too bright.
> 
> If you purchase a 24 in barreled Mini-14 is is very accurate.  If you purchase a 16 in AR it has trouble hitting the proverbial barn door at any range other than close.  It's not the gun, it's the cartridge.  If I were to buy a new Mini-14 it would have a 24 inch barrel.  If you were to purchase a new AR chances are you will be getting the Carbine version of 16 in barrel.  Now, use a little physics here.  Same goes if one were to buy a Mini-14 with a 16 in barrel and buy an AR with a 24 in barrel.  The AR would be more accurate when the tables are turned.
> 
> And the reason the MOA is better on the AR is the fact it's not shooting normal 223 ammo.  When you buy ammo, you can buy the Nato .556 round that is hotter.  But beware.  Unless you spent the money to get the barrel to shoot the Nato 556, you are going to wear out your barrel very, very quickly.
> 
> Learn to be nice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again, the combination of twist and grain has a lot more to do with accuracy than barrel length will.
> Some rounds hate more bore time, Every rifle has their own personality some barrels hate some rounds. 1/7, 1/9 or whatever will work or it will not depending on the weight of the bullet, Length of the barrel has nothing to do with it.
> It depends on how although round is loaded, what kind of powder, how much powder, what type of bullet there are dozens of factors.
> If The barrel says 556 on it it can shoot both .223 – 5.56 because of clearances not the “power”. If your barrel says .223 on it it’s best not to shoot 5.56 because of clearances again.
> So basically if you want to build an accurate 600+ yards shooter with a 16 inch barrel you can do it just fine, barrel length has nothing to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Barrel length has nothing to do with it?  What are you smoking over there.  Are you aware that your Grass consumption prevents you from legally owning fire arms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Truth About Barrel Length, Muzzle Velocity and Accuracy - The Truth About Guns
> *Conclusions:*
> 
> This test obliterated what was previously thought to be fact. Not only was it determined that short barreled rifles are easily as accurate a those with long barrels, but we also discovered what we see as a key to viewing accuracy in a practical sense. In an age of misinformation, hard fact can be hard to come by. *The internet is full of armchair know-it-alls and trolls a plenty, but for the most part, these can be ignored*. Mental preconceptions of the researched concepts are still deeply entrenched in a more or less Napoleonic era of the theory of arms. Most of what is commonly argued about small arms is false and based on opinion. A quick look online reveals hundreds of arguments on topics like 9mm vs. 40 S&W vs. 45ACP or AR-15 vs. AK-47, none of which are based on fact or on the need of the individual in their realistic circumstances.
> 
> If anything is to be learned from bullet selection, it is that match quality bullets have a distinct edge in accuracy over military and hunting bullets. The match bullets tested produced significantly greater accuracy than their military or hunting-type counterparts.
> 
> This study is not aimed at the promotion of using any particular barrel length, brand of bullet or load. The reader must look at their own situation and determine what the most valuable features are in a rifle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wasn't here for the barrel length discussion... when shooting heavier bullets it requires a faster twist barrel and necessarily enough barrel length with that tight twist rifeling to stabilize a heavy long bullet for optimum flight.
Click to expand...

That is likely precisely the reason that extremely long range artillery cannons have extremely long barrels.  They shoot extremely heavy projectiles to targets that are miles away....and they hit them occasionally.

What we need is a laser guided bullet.


----------



## asaratis

Skull Pilot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Mini-14 isn't used to kill our children, Baby Killer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So tell me how much faster does the firing mechanism cycle in the AR 15 than it does in the mini 14 or any other semiauto .223 caliber rifle.
> 
> So tell me what's so hard to understand that a person who happens to own a rife is not guilty of a crime committed by someone else ?
> 
> I mean really if we took your thought process ( I'm not going to call it logic because it's not logic at all) and applied it to other crimes then every man with a penis  should be considered guilty of rape because some other guy with a penis raped a girl.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The culture surrounding the AR-15 is killing our children.  The Mini-14 doesn't have that type of culture surrounding it.  And the harder you try and deflect that the more you show yourself of supporting killing children, baby killer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Make up your mind is it the culture that is killing people or the gun.
> 
> and there are millions of AR type rifles in this country and a fraction of a percent of them are used in mass shootings so it seems to me the most prevalent "AR culture" as you call it consists of millions of people who don't kill anyone with their rifles.
> 
> And the more you call me a baby killer the more you show yourself to be lacking one iota of intellectual capacity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the culture behind drooling over a new AR type.  Since the Culture protects everyones "Right" to buy an AR in less than 30 minutes then it does fall into the wrong hands legally.  Since you are part of the Culture that wants to protect the mass murderer of children then you are as guilty of being a baby killer as they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I want to put mass murderers and anyone who commits crimes with guns in jail.
> 
> You want to blame innocent people for the crimes of others.
Click to expand...

I want to put mass murderers and certain other criminals in coffins....or cans of dog food.


----------



## Rustic

A good read...
The AR-15/M16: The rifle that was never supposed to be


----------



## Skull Pilot

Daryl Hunt said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> So tell me how much faster does the firing mechanism cycle in the AR 15 than it does in the mini 14 or any other semiauto .223 caliber rifle.
> 
> So tell me what's so hard to understand that a person who happens to own a rife is not guilty of a crime committed by someone else ?
> 
> I mean really if we took your thought process ( I'm not going to call it logic because it's not logic at all) and applied it to other crimes then every man with a penis  should be considered guilty of rape because some other guy with a penis raped a girl.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The culture surrounding the AR-15 is killing our children.  The Mini-14 doesn't have that type of culture surrounding it.  And the harder you try and deflect that the more you show yourself of supporting killing children, baby killer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Make up your mind is it the culture that is killing people or the gun.
> 
> and there are millions of AR type rifles in this country and a fraction of a percent of them are used in mass shootings so it seems to me the most prevalent "AR culture" as you call it consists of millions of people who don't kill anyone with their rifles.
> 
> And the more you call me a baby killer the more you show yourself to be lacking one iota of intellectual capacity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the culture behind drooling over a new AR type.  Since the Culture protects everyones "Right" to buy an AR in less than 30 minutes then it does fall into the wrong hands legally.  Since you are part of the Culture that wants to protect the mass murderer of children then you are as guilty of being a baby killer as they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I want to put mass murderers and anyone who commits crimes with guns in jail.
> 
> You want to blame innocent people for the crimes of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AS long as you support the right to buy an AR or an AK over the counter with a simple background check, make ALL sales of the AR or AK more difficult to purchase, close the loopholes in the Gun Fairs and Mail Order for all weapons, then you are just contributing by allowing every nutcase to be able to purchase the one type of weapons used in ALL the Mass Shooting in the US.  That makes you a killer of Children, baby killer.
Click to expand...


Might as well make a black car more difficult to buy than a red car.

What is it that you can't get through your head about the fact that the AR or any other similar rifle is just an everyday semiautomatic.

There is no difference between an AR or any other .223 caliber semiautomatic but for some cosmetics.

That an extremely small percentage of people might use an AR in a crime is irrelevant.

You want to make innocent people responsible for the crimes of others


----------



## Skull Pilot

Daryl Hunt said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> So tell me how much faster does the firing mechanism cycle in the AR 15 than it does in the mini 14 or any other semiauto .223 caliber rifle.
> 
> So tell me what's so hard to understand that a person who happens to own a rife is not guilty of a crime committed by someone else ?
> 
> I mean really if we took your thought process ( I'm not going to call it logic because it's not logic at all) and applied it to other crimes then every man with a penis  should be considered guilty of rape because some other guy with a penis raped a girl.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The culture surrounding the AR-15 is killing our children.  The Mini-14 doesn't have that type of culture surrounding it.  And the harder you try and deflect that the more you show yourself of supporting killing children, baby killer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Make up your mind is it the culture that is killing people or the gun.
> 
> and there are millions of AR type rifles in this country and a fraction of a percent of them are used in mass shootings so it seems to me the most prevalent "AR culture" as you call it consists of millions of people who don't kill anyone with their rifles.
> 
> And the more you call me a baby killer the more you show yourself to be lacking one iota of intellectual capacity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the culture behind drooling over a new AR type.  Since the Culture protects everyones "Right" to buy an AR in less than 30 minutes then it does fall into the wrong hands legally.  Since you are part of the Culture that wants to protect the mass murderer of children then you are as guilty of being a baby killer as they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I want to put mass murderers and anyone who commits crimes with guns in jail.
> 
> You want to blame innocent people for the crimes of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I want to stop it before it becomes a Mass Murder.  You just want to clean the mess up afterwards.  And you aren't doing a very good job of that.  You will be considered a baby killer until those are harder to procure.
> 
> It's one class of weapons only, not the handgun or the hunting rifle, the target rifle or shotgun.  Those may be used but the body count is much lower.  Hell, I can get the same body count of those with a baseball bat.  Until the Culture is changed, you will still be a killer babies.
Click to expand...

Banning one particular type of .223 Semiautomatic rifle will not stop it.

But you're too stupid to see that


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Skull Pilot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The culture surrounding the AR-15 is killing our children.  The Mini-14 doesn't have that type of culture surrounding it.  And the harder you try and deflect that the more you show yourself of supporting killing children, baby killer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Make up your mind is it the culture that is killing people or the gun.
> 
> and there are millions of AR type rifles in this country and a fraction of a percent of them are used in mass shootings so it seems to me the most prevalent "AR culture" as you call it consists of millions of people who don't kill anyone with their rifles.
> 
> And the more you call me a baby killer the more you show yourself to be lacking one iota of intellectual capacity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the culture behind drooling over a new AR type.  Since the Culture protects everyones "Right" to buy an AR in less than 30 minutes then it does fall into the wrong hands legally.  Since you are part of the Culture that wants to protect the mass murderer of children then you are as guilty of being a baby killer as they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I want to put mass murderers and anyone who commits crimes with guns in jail.
> 
> You want to blame innocent people for the crimes of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I want to stop it before it becomes a Mass Murder.  You just want to clean the mess up afterwards.  And you aren't doing a very good job of that.  You will be considered a baby killer until those are harder to procure.
> 
> It's one class of weapons only, not the handgun or the hunting rifle, the target rifle or shotgun.  Those may be used but the body count is much lower.  Hell, I can get the same body count of those with a baseball bat.  Until the Culture is changed, you will still be a killer babies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Banning one particular type of .223 Semiautomatic rifle will not stop it.
> 
> But you're too stupid to see that
Click to expand...


In 1934, they didn't just outlaw the Auto version of the Thompson.  They also, for a time, outlaws the semi auto versions.  And they went in and collected them.  Us one in a crime, even if it's local, the FBI swarmed in until they found the weapon.  It wasn't Grandfathered in.  And it stopped the Mass Killings that happened prior to 1934 cold.  You can now buy a Thompson Semi Auto.  Believe it or not, in the short ranges, it smokes the other Semi Autos for speed and accuracy.  No, not in bullet speed but putting the first round on the target.  The Thompson was, in 1934, a cult weapon for some really nasty types and they used them.  The US changed the cult.

One person said that we need to change the culture.  Yes, not just one sides culture but both sides.  The most effective change in culture that would work the quickest is to change the AR culture like they did the Thompson Culture.  

We need to change the culture in Congress as well.  The easiest is to labor the ones that suck off the hind tit of the NRA as Baby Killers.  Their lack of action says it all.  If you aren't against allowing the tools of the Mass Shooting Trade to be procured so easily then you must be seen as supporting the Mass Murder of Children and carry the label of Baby Killer.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Daryl Hunt said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Make up your mind is it the culture that is killing people or the gun.
> 
> and there are millions of AR type rifles in this country and a fraction of a percent of them are used in mass shootings so it seems to me the most prevalent "AR culture" as you call it consists of millions of people who don't kill anyone with their rifles.
> 
> And the more you call me a baby killer the more you show yourself to be lacking one iota of intellectual capacity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the culture behind drooling over a new AR type.  Since the Culture protects everyones "Right" to buy an AR in less than 30 minutes then it does fall into the wrong hands legally.  Since you are part of the Culture that wants to protect the mass murderer of children then you are as guilty of being a baby killer as they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I want to put mass murderers and anyone who commits crimes with guns in jail.
> 
> You want to blame innocent people for the crimes of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I want to stop it before it becomes a Mass Murder.  You just want to clean the mess up afterwards.  And you aren't doing a very good job of that.  You will be considered a baby killer until those are harder to procure.
> 
> It's one class of weapons only, not the handgun or the hunting rifle, the target rifle or shotgun.  Those may be used but the body count is much lower.  Hell, I can get the same body count of those with a baseball bat.  Until the Culture is changed, you will still be a killer babies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Banning one particular type of .223 Semiautomatic rifle will not stop it.
> 
> But you're too stupid to see that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In 1934, they didn't just outlaw the Auto version of the Thompson.  They also, for a time, outlaws the semi auto versions.  And they went in and collected them.  Us one in a crime, even if it's local, the FBI swarmed in until they found the weapon.  It wasn't Grandfathered in.  And it stopped the Mass Killings that happened prior to 1934 cold.  You can now buy a Thompson Semi Auto.  Believe it or not, in the short ranges, it smokes the other Semi Autos for speed and accuracy.  No, not in bullet speed but putting the first round on the target.  The Thompson was, in 1934, a cult weapon for some really nasty types and they used them.  The US changed the cult.
> 
> One person said that we need to change the culture.  Yes, not just one sides culture but both sides.  The most effective change in culture that would work the quickest is to change the AR culture like they did the Thompson Culture.
> 
> We need to change the culture in Congress as well.  The easiest is to labor the ones that suck off the hind tit of the NRA as Baby Killers.  Their lack of action says it all.  If you aren't against allowing the tools of the Mass Shooting Trade to be procured so easily then you must be seen as supporting the Mass Murder of Children and carry the label of Baby Killer.
Click to expand...


Comparing a fully automatic to a semiautomatic is ridiculous.

Why are you so fixated on the cosmetics of a rifle?  There is no difference between an AR and any other .223 caliber rifle.

NONE ZERO ZIP NADA.

The fact that you cannot understand this is more proof of your room temperature IQ

And I am still waiting for you to prove your claim that one .223 semiautomatic rifle fires faster than another


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Skull Pilot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's the culture behind drooling over a new AR type.  Since the Culture protects everyones "Right" to buy an AR in less than 30 minutes then it does fall into the wrong hands legally.  Since you are part of the Culture that wants to protect the mass murderer of children then you are as guilty of being a baby killer as they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I want to put mass murderers and anyone who commits crimes with guns in jail.
> 
> You want to blame innocent people for the crimes of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I want to stop it before it becomes a Mass Murder.  You just want to clean the mess up afterwards.  And you aren't doing a very good job of that.  You will be considered a baby killer until those are harder to procure.
> 
> It's one class of weapons only, not the handgun or the hunting rifle, the target rifle or shotgun.  Those may be used but the body count is much lower.  Hell, I can get the same body count of those with a baseball bat.  Until the Culture is changed, you will still be a killer babies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Banning one particular type of .223 Semiautomatic rifle will not stop it.
> 
> But you're too stupid to see that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In 1934, they didn't just outlaw the Auto version of the Thompson.  They also, for a time, outlaws the semi auto versions.  And they went in and collected them.  Us one in a crime, even if it's local, the FBI swarmed in until they found the weapon.  It wasn't Grandfathered in.  And it stopped the Mass Killings that happened prior to 1934 cold.  You can now buy a Thompson Semi Auto.  Believe it or not, in the short ranges, it smokes the other Semi Autos for speed and accuracy.  No, not in bullet speed but putting the first round on the target.  The Thompson was, in 1934, a cult weapon for some really nasty types and they used them.  The US changed the cult.
> 
> One person said that we need to change the culture.  Yes, not just one sides culture but both sides.  The most effective change in culture that would work the quickest is to change the AR culture like they did the Thompson Culture.
> 
> We need to change the culture in Congress as well.  The easiest is to labor the ones that suck off the hind tit of the NRA as Baby Killers.  Their lack of action says it all.  If you aren't against allowing the tools of the Mass Shooting Trade to be procured so easily then you must be seen as supporting the Mass Murder of Children and carry the label of Baby Killer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Comparing a fully automatic to a semiautomatic is ridiculous.
> 
> Why are you so fixated on the cosmetics of a rifle?  There is no difference between an AR and any other .223 caliber rifle.
> 
> NONE ZERO ZIP NADA.
> 
> The fact that you cannot understand this is more proof of your room temperature IQ
> 
> And I am still waiting for you to prove your claim that one .223 semiautomatic rifle fires faster than another
Click to expand...


You just can't stand it can you.  I am sure you are loving it that there are school children giving their lives so that you can have your version of the 2nd amendment.   

The  US Army doesn't use a full auto version of the M-16.  It has three settings on the selector, safe, single shot and 3 shot.  Most of the M-16s are used in the single shot setting.  When you are operating a M-16 single shot, it fires exactly the same speed and way that a semi auto AR-15 does.  Both are designed to kill as many PEOPLE as possible as quickly as possible.  Trying to call the AR-15 semi auto a sporting rifle is a huge stretch of the imagination.  It's a lousy varmint rifle.  I can think of a host of others that are much better even in the same caliber.  I prefer a bolt action varmint rifle myself.  Going after Varmints you really only get one shot so why use a semi auto with such a short barrel.  If I were to pick a caliber for varmint it would probably be the 243 or the 6mm in a bolt action.  You can't pass any version of the AR-15 off as a sporting rifle unless your sport is to slaughter lots of people fast.  

What I have proposed is not in contradiction of the 2nd amendment.  Much like the way the Thompson was taxed out of existance, the same can be done with the AR-15.  But there are people with the Thompson right now.  They didn't take away the ones that were already out there.    They just charged 200 bucks for each one with a firearms license and it slowly left the streets.  The Thompson was also a huge slaughter of children.  The Gangsters would spray  and pray with them with little regard of the innocents.  The Thompson wholesale murdered more innocents than it did gangsters.  I guess our Grand Parents realized that public safety should come first.  The Supreme Court agreed with them.  

From what I can see, the first person that needs to have his AR-15 type taken from his sick little hands is you.


----------



## AsianTrumpSupporter




----------



## Skull Pilot

Daryl Hunt said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I want to put mass murderers and anyone who commits crimes with guns in jail.
> 
> You want to blame innocent people for the crimes of others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I want to stop it before it becomes a Mass Murder.  You just want to clean the mess up afterwards.  And you aren't doing a very good job of that.  You will be considered a baby killer until those are harder to procure.
> 
> It's one class of weapons only, not the handgun or the hunting rifle, the target rifle or shotgun.  Those may be used but the body count is much lower.  Hell, I can get the same body count of those with a baseball bat.  Until the Culture is changed, you will still be a killer babies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Banning one particular type of .223 Semiautomatic rifle will not stop it.
> 
> But you're too stupid to see that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In 1934, they didn't just outlaw the Auto version of the Thompson.  They also, for a time, outlaws the semi auto versions.  And they went in and collected them.  Us one in a crime, even if it's local, the FBI swarmed in until they found the weapon.  It wasn't Grandfathered in.  And it stopped the Mass Killings that happened prior to 1934 cold.  You can now buy a Thompson Semi Auto.  Believe it or not, in the short ranges, it smokes the other Semi Autos for speed and accuracy.  No, not in bullet speed but putting the first round on the target.  The Thompson was, in 1934, a cult weapon for some really nasty types and they used them.  The US changed the cult.
> 
> One person said that we need to change the culture.  Yes, not just one sides culture but both sides.  The most effective change in culture that would work the quickest is to change the AR culture like they did the Thompson Culture.
> 
> We need to change the culture in Congress as well.  The easiest is to labor the ones that suck off the hind tit of the NRA as Baby Killers.  Their lack of action says it all.  If you aren't against allowing the tools of the Mass Shooting Trade to be procured so easily then you must be seen as supporting the Mass Murder of Children and carry the label of Baby Killer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Comparing a fully automatic to a semiautomatic is ridiculous.
> 
> Why are you so fixated on the cosmetics of a rifle?  There is no difference between an AR and any other .223 caliber rifle.
> 
> NONE ZERO ZIP NADA.
> 
> The fact that you cannot understand this is more proof of your room temperature IQ
> 
> And I am still waiting for you to prove your claim that one .223 semiautomatic rifle fires faster than another
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just can't stand it can you.  I am sure you are loving it that there are school children giving their lives so that you can have your version of the 2nd amendment.
> 
> The  US Army doesn't use a full auto version of the M-16.  It has three settings on the selector, safe, single shot and 3 shot.  Most of the M-16s are used in the single shot setting.  When you are operating a M-16 single shot, it fires exactly the same speed and way that a semi auto AR-15 does.  Both are designed to kill as many PEOPLE as possible as quickly as possible.  Trying to call the AR-15 semi auto a sporting rifle is a huge stretch of the imagination.  It's a lousy varmint rifle.  I can think of a host of others that are much better even in the same caliber.  I prefer a bolt action varmint rifle myself.  Going after Varmints you really only get one shot so why use a semi auto with such a short barrel.  If I were to pick a caliber for varmint it would probably be the 243 or the 6mm in a bolt action.  You can't pass any version of the AR-15 off as a sporting rifle unless your sport is to slaughter lots of people fast.
> 
> What I have proposed is not in contradiction of the 2nd amendment.  Much like the way the Thompson was taxed out of existance, the same can be done with the AR-15.  But there are people with the Thompson right now.  They didn't take away the ones that were already out there.    They just charged 200 bucks for each one with a firearms license and it slowly left the streets.  The Thompson was also a huge slaughter of children.  The Gangsters would spray  and pray with them with little regard of the innocents.  The Thompson wholesale murdered more innocents than it did gangsters.  I guess our Grand Parents realized that public safety should come first.  The Supreme Court agreed with them.
> 
> From what I can see, the first person that needs to have his AR-15 type taken from his sick little hands is you.
Click to expand...

Prove that an Ar shoots faster than any other rifle as you have claimed over and over.

An AR is NOT an M16 it just looks like one.  An AR is absolutely no different than my .223 Ranch rifle when it comes to performance

And FYI I do not own an AR frame rifle.  The only .223 semiauto I have is my Ruger Mini 14.  I do not need an AR because it would be redundant and IMO a waste of my money.

But unlike you I can actually understand that the AR is not making people kill


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Skull Pilot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I want to stop it before it becomes a Mass Murder.  You just want to clean the mess up afterwards.  And you aren't doing a very good job of that.  You will be considered a baby killer until those are harder to procure.
> 
> It's one class of weapons only, not the handgun or the hunting rifle, the target rifle or shotgun.  Those may be used but the body count is much lower.  Hell, I can get the same body count of those with a baseball bat.  Until the Culture is changed, you will still be a killer babies.
> 
> 
> 
> Banning one particular type of .223 Semiautomatic rifle will not stop it.
> 
> But you're too stupid to see that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In 1934, they didn't just outlaw the Auto version of the Thompson.  They also, for a time, outlaws the semi auto versions.  And they went in and collected them.  Us one in a crime, even if it's local, the FBI swarmed in until they found the weapon.  It wasn't Grandfathered in.  And it stopped the Mass Killings that happened prior to 1934 cold.  You can now buy a Thompson Semi Auto.  Believe it or not, in the short ranges, it smokes the other Semi Autos for speed and accuracy.  No, not in bullet speed but putting the first round on the target.  The Thompson was, in 1934, a cult weapon for some really nasty types and they used them.  The US changed the cult.
> 
> One person said that we need to change the culture.  Yes, not just one sides culture but both sides.  The most effective change in culture that would work the quickest is to change the AR culture like they did the Thompson Culture.
> 
> We need to change the culture in Congress as well.  The easiest is to labor the ones that suck off the hind tit of the NRA as Baby Killers.  Their lack of action says it all.  If you aren't against allowing the tools of the Mass Shooting Trade to be procured so easily then you must be seen as supporting the Mass Murder of Children and carry the label of Baby Killer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Comparing a fully automatic to a semiautomatic is ridiculous.
> 
> Why are you so fixated on the cosmetics of a rifle?  There is no difference between an AR and any other .223 caliber rifle.
> 
> NONE ZERO ZIP NADA.
> 
> The fact that you cannot understand this is more proof of your room temperature IQ
> 
> And I am still waiting for you to prove your claim that one .223 semiautomatic rifle fires faster than another
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just can't stand it can you.  I am sure you are loving it that there are school children giving their lives so that you can have your version of the 2nd amendment.
> 
> The  US Army doesn't use a full auto version of the M-16.  It has three settings on the selector, safe, single shot and 3 shot.  Most of the M-16s are used in the single shot setting.  When you are operating a M-16 single shot, it fires exactly the same speed and way that a semi auto AR-15 does.  Both are designed to kill as many PEOPLE as possible as quickly as possible.  Trying to call the AR-15 semi auto a sporting rifle is a huge stretch of the imagination.  It's a lousy varmint rifle.  I can think of a host of others that are much better even in the same caliber.  I prefer a bolt action varmint rifle myself.  Going after Varmints you really only get one shot so why use a semi auto with such a short barrel.  If I were to pick a caliber for varmint it would probably be the 243 or the 6mm in a bolt action.  You can't pass any version of the AR-15 off as a sporting rifle unless your sport is to slaughter lots of people fast.
> 
> What I have proposed is not in contradiction of the 2nd amendment.  Much like the way the Thompson was taxed out of existance, the same can be done with the AR-15.  But there are people with the Thompson right now.  They didn't take away the ones that were already out there.    They just charged 200 bucks for each one with a firearms license and it slowly left the streets.  The Thompson was also a huge slaughter of children.  The Gangsters would spray  and pray with them with little regard of the innocents.  The Thompson wholesale murdered more innocents than it did gangsters.  I guess our Grand Parents realized that public safety should come first.  The Supreme Court agreed with them.
> 
> From what I can see, the first person that needs to have his AR-15 type taken from his sick little hands is you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove that an Ar shoots faster than any other rifle as you have claimed over and over.
> 
> An AR is NOT an M16 it just looks like one.  An AR is absolutely no different than my .223 Ranch rifle when it comes to performance
> 
> And FYI I do not own an AR frame rifle.  The only .223 semiauto I have is my Ruger Mini 14.  I do not need an AR because it would be redundant and IMO a waste of my money.
> 
> But unlike you I can actually understand that the AR is not making people kill
Click to expand...


Simple.  The AR uses a completely different mechanism for it's bolt and action.  It's faster, much faster.  The Mini-14 is an older design from the M-14 and M-1.  Now, that is the answer, you Terrorist Baby Killer.

You need to move on and stop this absurd support of the AR or they just might lump your Mini-14 in with it when (notice the word when) change the law to protect our children.  Are you willing to have to pay 200 bucks and register not only you but your weapon on a national database?  Can you even pass a national database search?

So keep pushing, there, Baby Killer.


----------



## turtledude

Issa said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> When will the carnage end?  Time to rewrite the archaic 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> time to ignore the gun banners who squeal in delight every time there is a shooting so they can use the blood of innocents to try to drown out our rights.  You hate the NRA and gun owners because they don't support the leftwing candidates you crave
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope because people are dying by the thousands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> really? gun deaths have declined over the years despite millions upon millions more guns in circulation and millions of people carrying guns legally. So you are either ignorant of the fact or lying.  Most gun deaths are SUICIDES.  the remaining number that are not justifiable or excusable shootings are homicides mainly and those are caused at rates of 80-90% by people who are not legally able to own or use guns
> 
> so stuff the silly dramatics.  Gun violence in tis country-especially outside urban areas full of drug gangs is minuscule
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> USA is the worst country in terms of gu related dearhs/mass shootings. So there is clearly a gun problem. Why do you need a gun ? Insecure? Or ready to kill when you are pissed at the world?
Click to expand...

what do I need a gun for?  many reasons-one of them being to prevent people like you from trying to strip away our rights


----------



## turtledude

Daryl Hunt said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Banning one particular type of .223 Semiautomatic rifle will not stop it.
> 
> But you're too stupid to see that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 1934, they didn't just outlaw the Auto version of the Thompson.  They also, for a time, outlaws the semi auto versions.  And they went in and collected them.  Us one in a crime, even if it's local, the FBI swarmed in until they found the weapon.  It wasn't Grandfathered in.  And it stopped the Mass Killings that happened prior to 1934 cold.  You can now buy a Thompson Semi Auto.  Believe it or not, in the short ranges, it smokes the other Semi Autos for speed and accuracy.  No, not in bullet speed but putting the first round on the target.  The Thompson was, in 1934, a cult weapon for some really nasty types and they used them.  The US changed the cult.
> 
> One person said that we need to change the culture.  Yes, not just one sides culture but both sides.  The most effective change in culture that would work the quickest is to change the AR culture like they did the Thompson Culture.
> 
> We need to change the culture in Congress as well.  The easiest is to labor the ones that suck off the hind tit of the NRA as Baby Killers.  Their lack of action says it all.  If you aren't against allowing the tools of the Mass Shooting Trade to be procured so easily then you must be seen as supporting the Mass Murder of Children and carry the label of Baby Killer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Comparing a fully automatic to a semiautomatic is ridiculous.
> 
> Why are you so fixated on the cosmetics of a rifle?  There is no difference between an AR and any other .223 caliber rifle.
> 
> NONE ZERO ZIP NADA.
> 
> The fact that you cannot understand this is more proof of your room temperature IQ
> 
> And I am still waiting for you to prove your claim that one .223 semiautomatic rifle fires faster than another
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just can't stand it can you.  I am sure you are loving it that there are school children giving their lives so that you can have your version of the 2nd amendment.
> 
> The  US Army doesn't use a full auto version of the M-16.  It has three settings on the selector, safe, single shot and 3 shot.  Most of the M-16s are used in the single shot setting.  When you are operating a M-16 single shot, it fires exactly the same speed and way that a semi auto AR-15 does.  Both are designed to kill as many PEOPLE as possible as quickly as possible.  Trying to call the AR-15 semi auto a sporting rifle is a huge stretch of the imagination.  It's a lousy varmint rifle.  I can think of a host of others that are much better even in the same caliber.  I prefer a bolt action varmint rifle myself.  Going after Varmints you really only get one shot so why use a semi auto with such a short barrel.  If I were to pick a caliber for varmint it would probably be the 243 or the 6mm in a bolt action.  You can't pass any version of the AR-15 off as a sporting rifle unless your sport is to slaughter lots of people fast.
> 
> What I have proposed is not in contradiction of the 2nd amendment.  Much like the way the Thompson was taxed out of existance, the same can be done with the AR-15.  But there are people with the Thompson right now.  They didn't take away the ones that were already out there.    They just charged 200 bucks for each one with a firearms license and it slowly left the streets.  The Thompson was also a huge slaughter of children.  The Gangsters would spray  and pray with them with little regard of the innocents.  The Thompson wholesale murdered more innocents than it did gangsters.  I guess our Grand Parents realized that public safety should come first.  The Supreme Court agreed with them.
> 
> From what I can see, the first person that needs to have his AR-15 type taken from his sick little hands is you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove that an Ar shoots faster than any other rifle as you have claimed over and over.
> 
> An AR is NOT an M16 it just looks like one.  An AR is absolutely no different than my .223 Ranch rifle when it comes to performance
> 
> And FYI I do not own an AR frame rifle.  The only .223 semiauto I have is my Ruger Mini 14.  I do not need an AR because it would be redundant and IMO a waste of my money.
> 
> But unlike you I can actually understand that the AR is not making people kill
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simple.  The AR uses a completely different mechanism for it's bolt and action.  It's faster, much faster.  The Mini-14 is an older design from the M-14 and M-1.  Now, that is the answer, you Terrorist Baby Killer.
> 
> You need to move on and stop this absurd support of the AR or they just might lump your Mini-14 in with it when (notice the word when) change the law to protect our children.  Are you willing to have to pay 200 bucks and register not only you but your weapon on a national database?  Can you even pass a national database search?
> 
> So keep pushing, there, Baby Killer.
Click to expand...


you 're lying. the direct impingement system of the AR 15 is no faster than that of operating rod system of the Mini-14 or the piston driven mechanism of the AK series of rifles.  You are obviously lying or you are trolling,


----------



## turtledude

Daryl Hunt said:


> [
> 
> You are still using the NRA boiler plate.  The US is NOT Britain by any stretch of the imagination.  Yes, we do need to change the culture.  It was changed once in 1934 over another very efficient killing gun.  The Thompson as singled out in that law.  One of the cultures we need to change is your culture.  I don't advocate banning all guns.  It will never happen.  I own a 45ACP myself and don't feel threatened one bit by any gun laws.  Even if I have to get a Firearms License, I have the right to own it.  But it won't go quite that far either.  But I won't own an AR-15 or one like it.  That puppy has done most of the Mass Shootings in our Theaters, Concerts and Schools.  Yes, there were a few that didn't use one but the body count was very low in comparison.  I can accept the lower losses but not when it goes into the hundreds like it has.
> 
> By virtue of being retired Military, I assure you that I can be very violent.  But I chose not to be.  It's a  choice and always has been.  I am more afraid of the Legal Purchased AR-15 and others like it being used to shoot up high density populations than I am of the armed criminal.  One of the Schools just confiscated a handgun from a Student today here.  He is 18, a senior and purchased the gun legally.  But the handgun deaths may be within reasonable losses that we need to work on, but not accept as normal.  But the AR-15 bought legally and used for mass shootings is way out of the acceptable losses category.
> 
> You notice that if the "Gun Law Nutz" were to accept my way, would you be willing to meet them halfway and also accept the method I propose?  Or are you going to continue spouting standard NRA Boilerplate.   The NRA of today isn't the same one I was a member of at one time.  They aren't there to promote gun safety as much anymore.  They are there to sell guns, period.  That culture also need to change.
> 
> And please don't spout they are after your guns.  *You can own any weapons short of a Nuclear Weapon if you get the proper license, have the proper storage and don't have a list of problems that would not allow you to pass a gun check for a normal purchase.  *
> 
> So what is it going to be.  You can change your ideas a bit or we will be forced into exactly what you nor I want in the first place.



liar-we cannot own any select fire carbines made after May 19, 1986.  SO stop lying.  I was a federal prosecutor and the firearms instructor for my component. Plus I was a national class 3G and action shooting competitor for decades.  I know more about gun laws than you will ever be able to learn so when you lie, I am going to be here to call you on it


----------



## turtledude

Issa said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> time to ignore the gun banners who squeal in delight every time there is a shooting so they can use the blood of innocents to try to drown out our rights.  You hate the NRA and gun owners because they don't support the leftwing candidates you crave
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I cherish my guns - but I do detest the NRA.  I was a member for about 30 years until after it was hijacked by radicals in 1977.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that change was a caused by the Democrats adopting gun control in a specious effort to pretend they were doing something about crime without upsetting their big black constituency which (often correctly) saw calls for crack downs on street violence as being anti black.  Dems then started pushing gun control to not only pretend it was doing something about crime but also to retaliate against the NRA for saying Bullshit to the Dems bogus crime control schemes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There should be profiling of white males purchasing fire arms since most mass shooters are whites. Just like we profile other groups for different reasons. Don' you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sure, the same cops who don't have the time to arrest the thousands of people who lie on federal background checks for firearms will have time to do this--good thinking there dude
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well time to put an end to the mass shootings by doing a little bit of profiling of white males when they wanna purchase guns and ammo. Most mass shooters are white, aren't they? I'm just going by the logic of the racists of the right who love to profile Muslims as terrorists, Mexicans as rapists, blacks as thugs and so forth.
Click to expand...


works for me as long as you are happy with the cops stopping and frisking young black males in urban areas-5 percent of the country's population commits more than half the murders-yep young black males


----------



## Contumacious

Lakhota said:


> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
Click to expand...



We are going to bear firearms even if SCOTUS in a 9-0 decision overrules our right to bear arms thanks to the *blackmarket*.

"I*t doesn’t take a degree in economics, however, to realize that both groups are hopelessly mistaken to think that gun control can actually work. Conservatives are wrong to fear that government can effectively control or prohibit anything, including guns, and liberals are wrong to believe that government gun control will keep guns out of the hands of would-be criminals."*


.


----------



## turtledude

Rustic said:


> Most years are similar...


 80% or more of those homicides are committed by people whose age or felony records etc prevented them from legally owning guns.  Yet the bannerrhoids want to pass laws that only impact the less than 2000 murders with firearms (out of 100 million gun owners) that were perpetrated by people who actually legally acquired and owned guns at the time they committed the crime.


----------



## turtledude

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize people kill people not firearms?
> More people die from falling out of bed and smoking in bed, than people killed by someone using an AR15 sporting rifle.
> Handguns are used for most violent crime in this country by a long shot. Very few deaths are caused by people using ARs, And there are millions of them in this country that’s a very, very low ratio. Firearms cannot control people.
> Firearm violence by ARs is a non-issue, We have much bigger fish to fry. So far this year almost 33,000 people have died from medical errors.
> Just take your pick…
> 2018 Real Time Death Statistics in America
> Terrorists much prefer bombs/vehicles, For terrorism and they have access to anything they want. So don’t give me that fucking shit that it’s some sporting rifle that causes mass murders you fucking dolt...
> So go ahead and live your delusion you sinless snowflake.... lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You used the term "Errors".  There is no error in using an AR for slaughtering school children.  You are using the "Hey, Look Over There" routine.  The AR is used in every mass shooting in the last 25 years.  It's the weapon of choice because it is the most available.  Anyone can buy it in less than 30 minutes from start to finish along with hundreds of rounds, multiple clips (mags to you) and head for the nearest school and kill lots of children.  Even the AK isn't as efficient.  But the AK isn't sold in every gun store in America so the culture isn't attached to the AK.  Your love of the AR is noted.  What you keep doing is making the most efficient weapon for mass shootings so easy to get.  I am not proposing outlawing it.  I do propose making a bit more difficult to obtain.  Ending the cult that surrounds it.
> 
> What is sad is, a terrorist on a no fly list can purchase the weapon just by going into a gun store, show his legal ID, plunk down his cash, pass a simple gun test and walk out in less than 30 minutes with the most efficient mass murder weapon that you can obtain.  The Mentally unstable can also buy it the same way.  I hold that anyone that does mass murder like that is already unstable.  But proving it prior is next to impossible.  My Crystal Ball is broken.  Since we can't predict it, we take away the one thing that is in each and every one of the situation and that is the weapon of choice.  It's the only constant that we have control of.
> 
> Yah, I know, they will choose a different weapon.  A Knife is too slow, a handgun isn't nearly as efficient.  A Rock can only kill one at a time.  A Baseball Bat, you have to get close and can only hit one person at a time.  A Shotgun only holds so many rounds.  A Model 700BDL only holds so many rounds.  None of these are nearly as efficient as the AR.
> 
> One person stated that we need to change the culture.  Well, the first thing we need to do is to change your culture.  And you must accept that your culture is as much to blame as the person doing the mass killings.  You make it too easy for them to auquire the tools to do the job.  And that makes you part of the problem.  How does it feel to know you are contributing to the deaths of children in the United States.  Not something I would want to do.  Congratulations, you should take a bow and blow your own brains out with your AR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol
> Error or not it is criminal...
> Most of the last few years are similar...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An AR is just a sporting rifle nothing more nothing less, You need to pick a scarier boogie man.
> There are millions of ARs in this country... legally.
> A tiny, tiny percentage of murders are committed using ARs... in close quarters someone with a hand gun will get the drop on someone using an AR every time.
> I sell firearms and ammo for a living, ARs were never in demand till anti-gun nutters like yourself started crying like pussy whipped bitches about how they made people into killers..
> Every time you silly fuckers bitch and moan sales skyrocket, wheather it be ARs, bump stocks, 30 round magazines, collapsible stocks, etc. what is next? I need to stock up... lol
> The Background check system needs to be improved and streamlined... It should be no different than paying for something with a visa card… Instantaneous.
> People that want to kill will find a way to do it, the most effective way is a bomb...
> Only a fool thinks that anyone needs an AR to mass kill, bombs are far more effective.
> The Middle East is proof..
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So stand up and take credit for the Mass Shootings in the Schools today.  Your Culture is winning while our children are dying.  You have made it to easy to get the one tool to do the job.  Be proud of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People kill people firearms cannot... No one was made by An AR to kill anybody else.
> Gun free zones are killing fields waiting to happen. And firearms have nothing to do with it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you make it easy for any nutcase to purchase an AR and use it as it was intended for.  So just accept the reasonability that you are contributing to those mass shooting of children.  Now, that make you a real man doesn't it.  And that is the real reason you slaver at the AR when you see it.
Click to expand...


just because you wet your panties over people owning an AR 15-please don't project your proclivities upon the rest of us


----------



## Daryl Hunt

turtledude said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> When will the carnage end?  Time to rewrite the archaic 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> time to ignore the gun banners who squeal in delight every time there is a shooting so they can use the blood of innocents to try to drown out our rights.  You hate the NRA and gun owners because they don't support the leftwing candidates you crave
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope because people are dying by the thousands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> really? gun deaths have declined over the years despite millions upon millions more guns in circulation and millions of people carrying guns legally. So you are either ignorant of the fact or lying.  Most gun deaths are SUICIDES.  the remaining number that are not justifiable or excusable shootings are homicides mainly and those are caused at rates of 80-90% by people who are not legally able to own or use guns
> 
> so stuff the silly dramatics.  Gun violence in tis country-especially outside urban areas full of drug gangs is minuscule
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> USA is the worst country in terms of gu related dearhs/mass shootings. So there is clearly a gun problem. Why do you need a gun ? Insecure? Or ready to kill when you are pissed at the world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what do I need a gun for?  many reasons-one of them being to prevent people like you from trying to strip away our rights
Click to expand...


Why do I need a gun?  I don't absolutely need a gun.  I want one and have one.  One of the reasons I might need a gun is when people like you try and take away my rights like outlined in the 1st amendment.  You seem to forget that amendment.


----------



## Rustic

Daryl Hunt said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> time to ignore the gun banners who squeal in delight every time there is a shooting so they can use the blood of innocents to try to drown out our rights.  You hate the NRA and gun owners because they don't support the leftwing candidates you crave
> 
> 
> 
> Nope because people are dying by the thousands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> really? gun deaths have declined over the years despite millions upon millions more guns in circulation and millions of people carrying guns legally. So you are either ignorant of the fact or lying.  Most gun deaths are SUICIDES.  the remaining number that are not justifiable or excusable shootings are homicides mainly and those are caused at rates of 80-90% by people who are not legally able to own or use guns
> 
> so stuff the silly dramatics.  Gun violence in tis country-especially outside urban areas full of drug gangs is minuscule
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> USA is the worst country in terms of gu related dearhs/mass shootings. So there is clearly a gun problem. Why do you need a gun ? Insecure? Or ready to kill when you are pissed at the world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what do I need a gun for?  many reasons-one of them being to prevent people like you from trying to strip away our rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do I need a gun?  I don't absolutely need a gun.  I want one and have one.  One of the reasons I might need a gun is when people like you try and take away my rights like outlined in the 1st amendment.  You seem to forget that amendment.
Click to expand...

You don’t understand the second amendment obviously


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rustic said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope because people are dying by the thousands.
> 
> 
> 
> really? gun deaths have declined over the years despite millions upon millions more guns in circulation and millions of people carrying guns legally. So you are either ignorant of the fact or lying.  Most gun deaths are SUICIDES.  the remaining number that are not justifiable or excusable shootings are homicides mainly and those are caused at rates of 80-90% by people who are not legally able to own or use guns
> 
> so stuff the silly dramatics.  Gun violence in tis country-especially outside urban areas full of drug gangs is minuscule
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> USA is the worst country in terms of gu related dearhs/mass shootings. So there is clearly a gun problem. Why do you need a gun ? Insecure? Or ready to kill when you are pissed at the world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what do I need a gun for?  many reasons-one of them being to prevent people like you from trying to strip away our rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do I need a gun?  I don't absolutely need a gun.  I want one and have one.  One of the reasons I might need a gun is when people like you try and take away my rights like outlined in the 1st amendment.  You seem to forget that amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t understand the second amendment obviously
Click to expand...


Not as you interpret it, no.  And you are forgetting the 1st amendment almost entirely.


----------



## Contumacious

turtledude said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You used the term "Errors".  There is no error in using an AR for slaughtering school children.  You are using the "Hey, Look Over There" routine.  The AR is used in every mass shooting in the last 25 years.  It's the weapon of choice because it is the most available.  Anyone can buy it in less than 30 minutes from start to finish along with hundreds of rounds, multiple clips (mags to you) and head for the nearest school and kill lots of children.  Even the AK isn't as efficient.  But the AK isn't sold in every gun store in America so the culture isn't attached to the AK.  Your love of the AR is noted.  What you keep doing is making the most efficient weapon for mass shootings so easy to get.  I am not proposing outlawing it.  I do propose making a bit more difficult to obtain.  Ending the cult that surrounds it.
> 
> What is sad is, a terrorist on a no fly list can purchase the weapon just by going into a gun store, show his legal ID, plunk down his cash, pass a simple gun test and walk out in less than 30 minutes with the most efficient mass murder weapon that you can obtain.  The Mentally unstable can also buy it the same way.  I hold that anyone that does mass murder like that is already unstable.  But proving it prior is next to impossible.  My Crystal Ball is broken.  Since we can't predict it, we take away the one thing that is in each and every one of the situation and that is the weapon of choice.  It's the only constant that we have control of.
> 
> Yah, I know, they will choose a different weapon.  A Knife is too slow, a handgun isn't nearly as efficient.  A Rock can only kill one at a time.  A Baseball Bat, you have to get close and can only hit one person at a time.  A Shotgun only holds so many rounds.  A Model 700BDL only holds so many rounds.  None of these are nearly as efficient as the AR.
> 
> One person stated that we need to change the culture.  Well, the first thing we need to do is to change your culture.  And you must accept that your culture is as much to blame as the person doing the mass killings.  You make it too easy for them to auquire the tools to do the job.  And that makes you part of the problem.  How does it feel to know you are contributing to the deaths of children in the United States.  Not something I would want to do.  Congratulations, you should take a bow and blow your own brains out with your AR.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol
> Error or not it is criminal...
> Most of the last few years are similar...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An AR is just a sporting rifle nothing more nothing less, You need to pick a scarier boogie man.
> There are millions of ARs in this country... legally.
> A tiny, tiny percentage of murders are committed using ARs... in close quarters someone with a hand gun will get the drop on someone using an AR every time.
> I sell firearms and ammo for a living, ARs were never in demand till anti-gun nutters like yourself started crying like pussy whipped bitches about how they made people into killers..
> Every time you silly fuckers bitch and moan sales skyrocket, wheather it be ARs, bump stocks, 30 round magazines, collapsible stocks, etc. what is next? I need to stock up... lol
> The Background check system needs to be improved and streamlined... It should be no different than paying for something with a visa card… Instantaneous.
> People that want to kill will find a way to do it, the most effective way is a bomb...
> Only a fool thinks that anyone needs an AR to mass kill, bombs are far more effective.
> The Middle East is proof..
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So stand up and take credit for the Mass Shootings in the Schools today.  Your Culture is winning while our children are dying.  You have made it to easy to get the one tool to do the job.  Be proud of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People kill people firearms cannot... No one was made by An AR to kill anybody else.
> Gun free zones are killing fields waiting to happen. And firearms have nothing to do with it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you make it easy for any nutcase to purchase an AR and use it as it was intended for.  So just accept the reasonability that you are contributing to those mass shooting of children.  Now, that make you a real man doesn't it.  And that is the real reason you slaver at the AR when you see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> just because you wet your panties over people owning an AR 15-please don't project your proclivities upon the rest of us
Click to expand...



I can't believe that people get their panties wet when they DISARM their fellow countrymen. Sad.


----------



## Issa

turtledude said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> When will the carnage end?  Time to rewrite the archaic 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> time to ignore the gun banners who squeal in delight every time there is a shooting so they can use the blood of innocents to try to drown out our rights.  You hate the NRA and gun owners because they don't support the leftwing candidates you crave
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope because people are dying by the thousands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> really? gun deaths have declined over the years despite millions upon millions more guns in circulation and millions of people carrying guns legally. So you are either ignorant of the fact or lying.  Most gun deaths are SUICIDES.  the remaining number that are not justifiable or excusable shootings are homicides mainly and those are caused at rates of 80-90% by people who are not legally able to own or use guns
> 
> so stuff the silly dramatics.  Gun violence in tis country-especially outside urban areas full of drug gangs is minuscule
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> USA is the worst country in terms of gu related dearhs/mass shootings. So there is clearly a gun problem. Why do you need a gun ? Insecure? Or ready to kill when you are pissed at the world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what do I need a gun for?  many reasons-one of them being to prevent people like you from trying to strip away our rights
Click to expand...

Enjoy them, I hope you don't kill someone when you lose your temper as many do.


----------



## asaratis

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> really? gun deaths have declined over the years despite millions upon millions more guns in circulation and millions of people carrying guns legally. So you are either ignorant of the fact or lying.  Most gun deaths are SUICIDES.  the remaining number that are not justifiable or excusable shootings are homicides mainly and those are caused at rates of 80-90% by people who are not legally able to own or use guns
> 
> so stuff the silly dramatics.  Gun violence in tis country-especially outside urban areas full of drug gangs is minuscule
> 
> 
> 
> USA is the worst country in terms of gu related dearhs/mass shootings. So there is clearly a gun problem. Why do you need a gun ? Insecure? Or ready to kill when you are pissed at the world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what do I need a gun for?  many reasons-one of them being to prevent people like you from trying to strip away our rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do I need a gun?  I don't absolutely need a gun.  I want one and have one.  One of the reasons I might need a gun is when people like you try and take away my rights like outlined in the 1st amendment.  You seem to forget that amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t understand the second amendment obviously
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not as you interpret it, no.  And you are forgetting the 1st amendment almost entirely.
Click to expand...

The main purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to keep American citizens from being disarmed by an oppressive US government and forced to live in a police state where only the government has weapons....like maybe a Gestapo controlled by some asshole like Obama.  Remember, that sleazy bastard suggested we have a national police force under his control.  Dreams of his father.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Contumacious said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol
> Error or not it is criminal...
> Most of the last few years are similar...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An AR is just a sporting rifle nothing more nothing less, You need to pick a scarier boogie man.
> There are millions of ARs in this country... legally.
> A tiny, tiny percentage of murders are committed using ARs... in close quarters someone with a hand gun will get the drop on someone using an AR every time.
> I sell firearms and ammo for a living, ARs were never in demand till anti-gun nutters like yourself started crying like pussy whipped bitches about how they made people into killers..
> Every time you silly fuckers bitch and moan sales skyrocket, wheather it be ARs, bump stocks, 30 round magazines, collapsible stocks, etc. what is next? I need to stock up... lol
> The Background check system needs to be improved and streamlined... It should be no different than paying for something with a visa card… Instantaneous.
> People that want to kill will find a way to do it, the most effective way is a bomb...
> Only a fool thinks that anyone needs an AR to mass kill, bombs are far more effective.
> The Middle East is proof..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So stand up and take credit for the Mass Shootings in the Schools today.  Your Culture is winning while our children are dying.  You have made it to easy to get the one tool to do the job.  Be proud of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People kill people firearms cannot... No one was made by An AR to kill anybody else.
> Gun free zones are killing fields waiting to happen. And firearms have nothing to do with it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you make it easy for any nutcase to purchase an AR and use it as it was intended for.  So just accept the reasonability that you are contributing to those mass shooting of children.  Now, that make you a real man doesn't it.  And that is the real reason you slaver at the AR when you see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> just because you wet your panties over people owning an AR 15-please don't project your proclivities upon the rest of us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe that people get their panties wet when they DISARM their fellow countrymen. Sad.
Click to expand...


I want to disarm those that have the highest body counts in mass murders.  Simple as that and it can be done.  It can't be done until we educate the public about how to do it.  I know how to do it but you seem to keep going with the standard NRA Boilerplate.  The NRA should be listed as a terrorist organization.


----------



## Rustic

Daryl Hunt said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> So stand up and take credit for the Mass Shootings in the Schools today.  Your Culture is winning while our children are dying.  You have made it to easy to get the one tool to do the job.  Be proud of yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> People kill people firearms cannot... No one was made by An AR to kill anybody else.
> Gun free zones are killing fields waiting to happen. And firearms have nothing to do with it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you make it easy for any nutcase to purchase an AR and use it as it was intended for.  So just accept the reasonability that you are contributing to those mass shooting of children.  Now, that make you a real man doesn't it.  And that is the real reason you slaver at the AR when you see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> just because you wet your panties over people owning an AR 15-please don't project your proclivities upon the rest of us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe that people get their panties wet when they DISARM their fellow countrymen. Sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I want to disarm those that have the highest body counts in mass murders.  Simple as that and it can be done.  It can't be done until we educate the public about how to do it.  I know how to do it but you seem to keep going with the standard NRA Boilerplate.  The NRA should be listed as a terrorist organization.
Click to expand...

The NRA is not pro-gun enough, in fact this country should be better armed


----------



## Rustic

Daryl Hunt said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> So stand up and take credit for the Mass Shootings in the Schools today.  Your Culture is winning while our children are dying.  You have made it to easy to get the one tool to do the job.  Be proud of yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> People kill people firearms cannot... No one was made by An AR to kill anybody else.
> Gun free zones are killing fields waiting to happen. And firearms have nothing to do with it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you make it easy for any nutcase to purchase an AR and use it as it was intended for.  So just accept the reasonability that you are contributing to those mass shooting of children.  Now, that make you a real man doesn't it.  And that is the real reason you slaver at the AR when you see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> just because you wet your panties over people owning an AR 15-please don't project your proclivities upon the rest of us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe that people get their panties wet when they DISARM their fellow countrymen. Sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I want to disarm those that have the highest body counts in mass murders.  Simple as that and it can be done.  It can't be done until we educate the public about how to do it.  I know how to do it but you seem to keep going with the standard NRA Boilerplate.  The NRA should be listed as a terrorist organization.
Click to expand...

GOA


----------



## Issa

asaratis said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> USA is the worst country in terms of gu related dearhs/mass shootings. So there is clearly a gun problem. Why do you need a gun ? Insecure? Or ready to kill when you are pissed at the world?
> 
> 
> 
> what do I need a gun for?  many reasons-one of them being to prevent people like you from trying to strip away our rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do I need a gun?  I don't absolutely need a gun.  I want one and have one.  One of the reasons I might need a gun is when people like you try and take away my rights like outlined in the 1st amendment.  You seem to forget that amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t understand the second amendment obviously
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not as you interpret it, no.  And you are forgetting the 1st amendment almost entirely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The main purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to keep American citizens from being disarmed by an oppressive US government and forced to live in a police state where only the government has weapons....like maybe a Gestapo controlled by some asshole like Obama.  Remember, that sleazy bastard suggested we have a national police force under his control.  Dreams of his father.
Click to expand...

The government controls all aspects of your life already if you didn't know it.


----------



## Rustic

Issa said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> what do I need a gun for?  many reasons-one of them being to prevent people like you from trying to strip away our rights
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do I need a gun?  I don't absolutely need a gun.  I want one and have one.  One of the reasons I might need a gun is when people like you try and take away my rights like outlined in the 1st amendment.  You seem to forget that amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t understand the second amendment obviously
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not as you interpret it, no.  And you are forgetting the 1st amendment almost entirely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The main purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to keep American citizens from being disarmed by an oppressive US government and forced to live in a police state where only the government has weapons....like maybe a Gestapo controlled by some asshole like Obama.  Remember, that sleazy bastard suggested we have a national police force under his control.  Dreams of his father.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The government controls all aspects of your life already if you didn't know it.
Click to expand...

That’s why we have no real freedom in this country


----------



## asaratis

Rustic said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> People kill people firearms cannot... No one was made by An AR to kill anybody else.
> Gun free zones are killing fields waiting to happen. And firearms have nothing to do with it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you make it easy for any nutcase to purchase an AR and use it as it was intended for.  So just accept the reasonability that you are contributing to those mass shooting of children.  Now, that make you a real man doesn't it.  And that is the real reason you slaver at the AR when you see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> just because you wet your panties over people owning an AR 15-please don't project your proclivities upon the rest of us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe that people get their panties wet when they DISARM their fellow countrymen. Sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I want to disarm those that have the highest body counts in mass murders.  Simple as that and it can be done.  It can't be done until we educate the public about how to do it.  I know how to do it but you seem to keep going with the standard NRA Boilerplate.  The NRA should be listed as a terrorist organization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The NRA is not pro-gun enough, in fact this country should be better armed
Click to expand...




Issa said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> what do I need a gun for?  many reasons-one of them being to prevent people like you from trying to strip away our rights
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do I need a gun?  I don't absolutely need a gun.  I want one and have one.  One of the reasons I might need a gun is when people like you try and take away my rights like outlined in the 1st amendment.  You seem to forget that amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t understand the second amendment obviously
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not as you interpret it, no.  And you are forgetting the 1st amendment almost entirely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The main purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to keep American citizens from being disarmed by an oppressive US government and forced to live in a police state where only the government has weapons....like maybe a Gestapo controlled by some asshole like Obama.  Remember, that sleazy bastard suggested we have a national police force under his control.  Dreams of his father.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The government controls all aspects of your life already if you didn't know it.
Click to expand...

Far from it.


----------



## asaratis

Rustic said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do I need a gun?  I don't absolutely need a gun.  I want one and have one.  One of the reasons I might need a gun is when people like you try and take away my rights like outlined in the 1st amendment.  You seem to forget that amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> You don’t understand the second amendment obviously
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not as you interpret it, no.  And you are forgetting the 1st amendment almost entirely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The main purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to keep American citizens from being disarmed by an oppressive US government and forced to live in a police state where only the government has weapons....like maybe a Gestapo controlled by some asshole like Obama.  Remember, that sleazy bastard suggested we have a national police force under his control.  Dreams of his father.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The government controls all aspects of your life already if you didn't know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s why we have no real freedom in this country
Click to expand...

Far from it.


----------



## Lakhota




----------



## Issa

Rustic said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do I need a gun?  I don't absolutely need a gun.  I want one and have one.  One of the reasons I might need a gun is when people like you try and take away my rights like outlined in the 1st amendment.  You seem to forget that amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> You don’t understand the second amendment obviously
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not as you interpret it, no.  And you are forgetting the 1st amendment almost entirely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The main purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to keep American citizens from being disarmed by an oppressive US government and forced to live in a police state where only the government has weapons....like maybe a Gestapo controlled by some asshole like Obama.  Remember, that sleazy bastard suggested we have a national police force under his control.  Dreams of his father.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The government controls all aspects of your life already if you didn't know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s why we have no real freedom in this country
Click to expand...

Then why you need a gun if the government owns and you have no freedom?


----------



## Rustic

Issa said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don’t understand the second amendment obviously
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not as you interpret it, no.  And you are forgetting the 1st amendment almost entirely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The main purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to keep American citizens from being disarmed by an oppressive US government and forced to live in a police state where only the government has weapons....like maybe a Gestapo controlled by some asshole like Obama.  Remember, that sleazy bastard suggested we have a national police force under his control.  Dreams of his father.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The government controls all aspects of your life already if you didn't know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s why we have no real freedom in this country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then why you need a gun if the government owns and you have no freedom?
Click to expand...

You’re a fool if with if you think that there’s any real freedom in this country


----------



## Rustic

Lakhota said:


>


Mandated insurance is unconstitutional


----------



## Skull Pilot

Daryl Hunt said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Banning one particular type of .223 Semiautomatic rifle will not stop it.
> 
> But you're too stupid to see that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 1934, they didn't just outlaw the Auto version of the Thompson.  They also, for a time, outlaws the semi auto versions.  And they went in and collected them.  Us one in a crime, even if it's local, the FBI swarmed in until they found the weapon.  It wasn't Grandfathered in.  And it stopped the Mass Killings that happened prior to 1934 cold.  You can now buy a Thompson Semi Auto.  Believe it or not, in the short ranges, it smokes the other Semi Autos for speed and accuracy.  No, not in bullet speed but putting the first round on the target.  The Thompson was, in 1934, a cult weapon for some really nasty types and they used them.  The US changed the cult.
> 
> One person said that we need to change the culture.  Yes, not just one sides culture but both sides.  The most effective change in culture that would work the quickest is to change the AR culture like they did the Thompson Culture.
> 
> We need to change the culture in Congress as well.  The easiest is to labor the ones that suck off the hind tit of the NRA as Baby Killers.  Their lack of action says it all.  If you aren't against allowing the tools of the Mass Shooting Trade to be procured so easily then you must be seen as supporting the Mass Murder of Children and carry the label of Baby Killer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Comparing a fully automatic to a semiautomatic is ridiculous.
> 
> Why are you so fixated on the cosmetics of a rifle?  There is no difference between an AR and any other .223 caliber rifle.
> 
> NONE ZERO ZIP NADA.
> 
> The fact that you cannot understand this is more proof of your room temperature IQ
> 
> And I am still waiting for you to prove your claim that one .223 semiautomatic rifle fires faster than another
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just can't stand it can you.  I am sure you are loving it that there are school children giving their lives so that you can have your version of the 2nd amendment.
> 
> The  US Army doesn't use a full auto version of the M-16.  It has three settings on the selector, safe, single shot and 3 shot.  Most of the M-16s are used in the single shot setting.  When you are operating a M-16 single shot, it fires exactly the same speed and way that a semi auto AR-15 does.  Both are designed to kill as many PEOPLE as possible as quickly as possible.  Trying to call the AR-15 semi auto a sporting rifle is a huge stretch of the imagination.  It's a lousy varmint rifle.  I can think of a host of others that are much better even in the same caliber.  I prefer a bolt action varmint rifle myself.  Going after Varmints you really only get one shot so why use a semi auto with such a short barrel.  If I were to pick a caliber for varmint it would probably be the 243 or the 6mm in a bolt action.  You can't pass any version of the AR-15 off as a sporting rifle unless your sport is to slaughter lots of people fast.
> 
> What I have proposed is not in contradiction of the 2nd amendment.  Much like the way the Thompson was taxed out of existance, the same can be done with the AR-15.  But there are people with the Thompson right now.  They didn't take away the ones that were already out there.    They just charged 200 bucks for each one with a firearms license and it slowly left the streets.  The Thompson was also a huge slaughter of children.  The Gangsters would spray  and pray with them with little regard of the innocents.  The Thompson wholesale murdered more innocents than it did gangsters.  I guess our Grand Parents realized that public safety should come first.  The Supreme Court agreed with them.
> 
> From what I can see, the first person that needs to have his AR-15 type taken from his sick little hands is you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove that an Ar shoots faster than any other rifle as you have claimed over and over.
> 
> An AR is NOT an M16 it just looks like one.  An AR is absolutely no different than my .223 Ranch rifle when it comes to performance
> 
> And FYI I do not own an AR frame rifle.  The only .223 semiauto I have is my Ruger Mini 14.  I do not need an AR because it would be redundant and IMO a waste of my money.
> 
> But unlike you I can actually understand that the AR is not making people kill
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simple.  The AR uses a completely different mechanism for it's bolt and action.  It's faster, much faster.  The Mini-14 is an older design from the M-14 and M-1.  Now, that is the answer, you Terrorist Baby Killer.
> 
> You need to move on and stop this absurd support of the AR or they just might lump your Mini-14 in with it when (notice the word when) change the law to protect our children.  Are you willing to have to pay 200 bucks and register not only you but your weapon on a national database?  Can you even pass a national database search?
> 
> So keep pushing, there, Baby Killer.
Click to expand...


It's not faster.  Both rifles can only fire as fast as the trigger can be pulled.  You have not substantiated these claims with any actual data .

You're too fucking stupid to see that the AR is just a plain old semiautomatic rifle with some extra plastic doodads 

And no I will not register my firearms since it's none of anyone's business what I own.


----------



## The Derp

Rustic said:


> That’s why we have no real freedom in this country



What freedoms do you not have that you think you're entitled to have?  What can you not do right now that you think you should be able to do?


----------



## GHook93

Lakhota said:


> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
Click to expand...


No it is more important than ever


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## Rustic

The Derp said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s why we have no real freedom in this country
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What freedoms do you not have that you think you're entitled to have?  What can you not do right now that you think you should be able to do?
Click to expand...

Socialism/political correctness/affirmative-action all have destroyed any sort of freedom and individuality in this country.
If you think we have real freedom in this country you obviously have no idea what real freedom is… LOL


----------



## The Derp

Rustic said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s why we have no real freedom in this country
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What freedoms do you not have that you think you're entitled to have?  What can you not do right now that you think you should be able to do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Socialism/political correctness/affirmative-action all have destroyed any sort of freedom and individuality in this country.
> If you think we have real freedom in this country you obviously have no idea what real freedom is… LOL
Click to expand...


So nothing of substance; just you being mad that you can't call black people the N-word anymore, you can't call women "sugar tits", or gay people the f-word.

Fuck you.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Daryl Hunt said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> time to ignore the gun banners who squeal in delight every time there is a shooting so they can use the blood of innocents to try to drown out our rights.  You hate the NRA and gun owners because they don't support the leftwing candidates you crave
> 
> 
> 
> Nope because people are dying by the thousands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> really? gun deaths have declined over the years despite millions upon millions more guns in circulation and millions of people carrying guns legally. So you are either ignorant of the fact or lying.  Most gun deaths are SUICIDES.  the remaining number that are not justifiable or excusable shootings are homicides mainly and those are caused at rates of 80-90% by people who are not legally able to own or use guns
> 
> so stuff the silly dramatics.  Gun violence in tis country-especially outside urban areas full of drug gangs is minuscule
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> USA is the worst country in terms of gu related dearhs/mass shootings. So there is clearly a gun problem. Why do you need a gun ? Insecure? Or ready to kill when you are pissed at the world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what do I need a gun for?  many reasons-one of them being to prevent people like you from trying to strip away our rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do I need a gun?  I don't absolutely need a gun.  I want one and have one.  One of the reasons I might need a gun is when people like you try and take away my rights like outlined in the 1st amendment.  You seem to forget that amendment.
Click to expand...


Hey, if you don't feel you need one, by all means, don't have one.  But you do get that the freedoms of others are not dependent on whether or not YOU think they need them, right?

And no, we don't forget the First Amendment.  As I recall, WE are not the ones advocating for "safe spaces" and shutting down public speakers we don't like and sending the IRS out to harass political opponents and suing people who exercise beliefs we don't agree with and demanding to limit people's ability to support candidates we don't like and . . .

It's pretty obvious the only "free speech" leftists like is their own freedom to tell everyone else to shut up.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Daryl Hunt said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> So stand up and take credit for the Mass Shootings in the Schools today.  Your Culture is winning while our children are dying.  You have made it to easy to get the one tool to do the job.  Be proud of yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> People kill people firearms cannot... No one was made by An AR to kill anybody else.
> Gun free zones are killing fields waiting to happen. And firearms have nothing to do with it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you make it easy for any nutcase to purchase an AR and use it as it was intended for.  So just accept the reasonability that you are contributing to those mass shooting of children.  Now, that make you a real man doesn't it.  And that is the real reason you slaver at the AR when you see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> just because you wet your panties over people owning an AR 15-please don't project your proclivities upon the rest of us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe that people get their panties wet when they DISARM their fellow countrymen. Sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I want to disarm those that have the highest body counts in mass murders.  Simple as that and it can be done.  It can't be done until we educate the public about how to do it.  I know how to do it but you seem to keep going with the standard NRA Boilerplate.  The NRA should be listed as a terrorist organization.
Click to expand...


You don't want to disarm those committing mass murders.  You want to disarm EVERYONE, in the hopes that the mass murderers will cooperate, as well.  It's painfully obvious that you're really just hoping you can somehow pass enough laws to erase the invention of guns entirely.


----------



## Redfish

Rustic said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s why we have no real freedom in this country
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What freedoms do you not have that you think you're entitled to have?  What can you not do right now that you think you should be able to do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Socialism/political correctness/affirmative-action all have destroyed any sort of freedom and individuality in this country.
> If you think we have real freedom in this country you obviously have no idea what real freedom is… LOL
Click to expand...



the movie Blazing Saddles could not be made today.   Does that tell you something about our culture?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lakhota said:


>



How does your "leftist logic" tell you that?  Because law-abiding gun owners, who would actually cooperate with that law, commit so many crimes?  Or because criminals, who ignore laws like "don't kill people", would suddenly feel the need to follow THIS one?

FYI, you are aware that liability insurance on a car, for example, doesn't hold the owner responsible if someone steals the car and then causes a 4-car pileup on the Interstate, right?


----------



## Redfish

The Derp said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s why we have no real freedom in this country
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What freedoms do you not have that you think you're entitled to have?  What can you not do right now that you think you should be able to do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Socialism/political correctness/affirmative-action all have destroyed any sort of freedom and individuality in this country.
> If you think we have real freedom in this country you obviously have no idea what real freedom is… LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So nothing of substance; just you being mad that you can't call black people the N-word anymore, you can't call women "sugar tits", or gay people the f-word.
> 
> Fuck you.
Click to expand...



the cure for drunk driving-----------------------take drivers licenses from sober people

the cure for drug use--------------------make them illegal

the cure for mass murder---------------------execute the murderers-----quickly and publicly


----------



## Cecilie1200

Skull Pilot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 1934, they didn't just outlaw the Auto version of the Thompson.  They also, for a time, outlaws the semi auto versions.  And they went in and collected them.  Us one in a crime, even if it's local, the FBI swarmed in until they found the weapon.  It wasn't Grandfathered in.  And it stopped the Mass Killings that happened prior to 1934 cold.  You can now buy a Thompson Semi Auto.  Believe it or not, in the short ranges, it smokes the other Semi Autos for speed and accuracy.  No, not in bullet speed but putting the first round on the target.  The Thompson was, in 1934, a cult weapon for some really nasty types and they used them.  The US changed the cult.
> 
> One person said that we need to change the culture.  Yes, not just one sides culture but both sides.  The most effective change in culture that would work the quickest is to change the AR culture like they did the Thompson Culture.
> 
> We need to change the culture in Congress as well.  The easiest is to labor the ones that suck off the hind tit of the NRA as Baby Killers.  Their lack of action says it all.  If you aren't against allowing the tools of the Mass Shooting Trade to be procured so easily then you must be seen as supporting the Mass Murder of Children and carry the label of Baby Killer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Comparing a fully automatic to a semiautomatic is ridiculous.
> 
> Why are you so fixated on the cosmetics of a rifle?  There is no difference between an AR and any other .223 caliber rifle.
> 
> NONE ZERO ZIP NADA.
> 
> The fact that you cannot understand this is more proof of your room temperature IQ
> 
> And I am still waiting for you to prove your claim that one .223 semiautomatic rifle fires faster than another
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just can't stand it can you.  I am sure you are loving it that there are school children giving their lives so that you can have your version of the 2nd amendment.
> 
> The  US Army doesn't use a full auto version of the M-16.  It has three settings on the selector, safe, single shot and 3 shot.  Most of the M-16s are used in the single shot setting.  When you are operating a M-16 single shot, it fires exactly the same speed and way that a semi auto AR-15 does.  Both are designed to kill as many PEOPLE as possible as quickly as possible.  Trying to call the AR-15 semi auto a sporting rifle is a huge stretch of the imagination.  It's a lousy varmint rifle.  I can think of a host of others that are much better even in the same caliber.  I prefer a bolt action varmint rifle myself.  Going after Varmints you really only get one shot so why use a semi auto with such a short barrel.  If I were to pick a caliber for varmint it would probably be the 243 or the 6mm in a bolt action.  You can't pass any version of the AR-15 off as a sporting rifle unless your sport is to slaughter lots of people fast.
> 
> What I have proposed is not in contradiction of the 2nd amendment.  Much like the way the Thompson was taxed out of existance, the same can be done with the AR-15.  But there are people with the Thompson right now.  They didn't take away the ones that were already out there.    They just charged 200 bucks for each one with a firearms license and it slowly left the streets.  The Thompson was also a huge slaughter of children.  The Gangsters would spray  and pray with them with little regard of the innocents.  The Thompson wholesale murdered more innocents than it did gangsters.  I guess our Grand Parents realized that public safety should come first.  The Supreme Court agreed with them.
> 
> From what I can see, the first person that needs to have his AR-15 type taken from his sick little hands is you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove that an Ar shoots faster than any other rifle as you have claimed over and over.
> 
> An AR is NOT an M16 it just looks like one.  An AR is absolutely no different than my .223 Ranch rifle when it comes to performance
> 
> And FYI I do not own an AR frame rifle.  The only .223 semiauto I have is my Ruger Mini 14.  I do not need an AR because it would be redundant and IMO a waste of my money.
> 
> But unlike you I can actually understand that the AR is not making people kill
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simple.  The AR uses a completely different mechanism for it's bolt and action.  It's faster, much faster.  The Mini-14 is an older design from the M-14 and M-1.  Now, that is the answer, you Terrorist Baby Killer.
> 
> You need to move on and stop this absurd support of the AR or they just might lump your Mini-14 in with it when (notice the word when) change the law to protect our children.  Are you willing to have to pay 200 bucks and register not only you but your weapon on a national database?  Can you even pass a national database search?
> 
> So keep pushing, there, Baby Killer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not faster.  Both rifles can only fire as fast as the trigger can be pulled.  You have not substantiated these claims with any actual data .
> 
> You're too fucking stupid to see that the AR is just a plain old semiautomatic rifle with some extra plastic doodads
> 
> And no I will not register my firearms since it's none of anyone's business what I own.
Click to expand...


Yeah, but see, leftists are terrified of all semi-automatic weapons, because it has "automatic" in the name, and they therefore assume we're talking about machine guns.


----------



## The Derp

Redfish said:


> the cure for drunk driving-----------------------take drivers licenses from sober people



Actually, thanks to drunk driving laws, a public campaign against drunk driving, and MADD, drunk driving deaths have been cut _*in half*_ since 1980.  So thanks for helping me prove my point that safety laws and regulations work, can change the culture, and can save lives.




Redfish said:


> the cure for drug use--------------------make them illegal



I don't believe drugs should be illegal.  So you're barking up the wrong tree here.




Redfish said:


> the cure for mass murder---------------------execute the murderers-----quickly and publicly



Which accomplishes what?  Nothing.  You want people to think you're tough to cover your weak insecurities, so you overcompensate by posturing.


----------



## Rustic

The Derp said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s why we have no real freedom in this country
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What freedoms do you not have that you think you're entitled to have?  What can you not do right now that you think you should be able to do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Socialism/political correctness/affirmative-action all have destroyed any sort of freedom and individuality in this country.
> If you think we have real freedom in this country you obviously have no idea what real freedom is… LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So nothing of substance; just you being mad that you can't call black people the N-word anymore, you can't call women "sugar tits", or gay people the f-word.
> 
> Fuck you.
Click to expand...

Na, I’m a libertarian I really don’t care about social issues in general. I’m a one issue voter…


----------



## Rustic

Redfish said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s why we have no real freedom in this country
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What freedoms do you not have that you think you're entitled to have?  What can you not do right now that you think you should be able to do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Socialism/political correctness/affirmative-action all have destroyed any sort of freedom and individuality in this country.
> If you think we have real freedom in this country you obviously have no idea what real freedom is… LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the movie Blazing Saddles could not be made today.   Does that tell you something about our culture?
Click to expand...

Yes, political correctness/affirmative action/Socialism has made this country pussy-fied...


----------



## Redfish

The Derp said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> the cure for drunk driving-----------------------take drivers licenses from sober people
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, thanks to drunk driving laws, a public campaign against drunk driving, and MADD, drunk driving deaths have been cut _*in half*_ since 1980.  So thanks for helping me prove my point that safety laws and regulations work, can change the culture, and can save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> the cure for drug use--------------------make them illegal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe drugs should be illegal.  So you're barking up the wrong tree here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> the cure for mass murder---------------------execute the murderers-----quickly and publicly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which accomplishes what?  Nothing.  You want people to think you're tough to cover your weak insecurities, so you overcompensate by posturing.
Click to expand...



as usual you completely missed the point.

yes, drunk driving laws work, taking licenses from sober drivers is like taking guns from responsible gun owners-------it accomplishes nothing

So you want kids to be able to buy crack at the local convenience store?

if you have rats, you kill them before they breed and do more damage.   Mentally ill people should be locked up to protect themselves and others.   We used to do that, now we don't because it might hurt their feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelings.


----------



## The Derp

Rustic said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s why we have no real freedom in this country
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What freedoms do you not have that you think you're entitled to have?  What can you not do right now that you think you should be able to do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Socialism/political correctness/affirmative-action all have destroyed any sort of freedom and individuality in this country.
> If you think we have real freedom in this country you obviously have no idea what real freedom is… LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So nothing of substance; just you being mad that you can't call black people the N-word anymore, you can't call women "sugar tits", or gay people the f-word.
> 
> Fuck you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Na, I’m a libertarian I really don’t care about social issues in general. I’m a one issue voter…
Click to expand...


Like I said, there is nothing that you can think of that you're prohibited from doing by the government.  Not one single thing.  So it's more about _*feelings*_ with you.  You _*feel*_ that your freedoms are being curtailed but you can't _*articulate*_ what those freedoms actually are.

So you posture and call yourself a "libertarian", which is hilarious because "libertarians" end up being the most government-dependent people there are.


----------



## The Derp

Redfish said:


> as usual you completely missed the point.



No, I got and understood your point.  It was just a really stupid and juvenile point.  Which is par for the course when dealing with neo-Nazis, Conservatives, and other ignorant bigots and dupes.




Redfish said:


> yes, drunk driving laws work, taking licenses from sober drivers is like taking guns from responsible gun owners-------it accomplishes nothing



Wait a second, so you're saying drunk driving laws _*do work.  *_So if they do work, then why wouldn't safety laws and regulations work to reduce gun deaths?  Taking away someone's firearm license prohibits them from buying a gun legally, so they have to put themselves at risk to obtain a gun illegally or via a straw purchase, which is also sketchy and often times results in a robbery of the purchasee by the seller or a third party that was scoping out the set up.  Buying a gun illegally is a really risky thing.  So I'm all about forcing people to bear more risk if they really, truly want to own a gun but can't.




Redfish said:


> So you want kids to be able to buy crack at the local convenience store?



No, I think all drugs should be legalized for people over 18.  That way the drugs can be regulated and made safer, that way we don't waste taxpayer money incarcerating addicts, and we can tax it and use that tax money for rehabilitation or education.  




Redfish said:


> if you have rats, you kill them before they breed and do more damage.   Mentally ill people should be locked up to protect themselves and others.   We used to do that, now we don't because it might hurt their feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelings.



What if it turns out that _*you're*_ mentally ill?  Have you ever undergone a psychological exam?  I doubt it.  You think mentally ill people should be locked up, but you're too much of a wussy to get tested for mental illness yourself.  Probably because you're mentally ill yourself.  You have to be if this is how you think.


----------



## Rustic

The Derp said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s why we have no real freedom in this country
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What freedoms do you not have that you think you're entitled to have?  What can you not do right now that you think you should be able to do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Socialism/political correctness/affirmative-action all have destroyed any sort of freedom and individuality in this country.
> If you think we have real freedom in this country you obviously have no idea what real freedom is… LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So nothing of substance; just you being mad that you can't call black people the N-word anymore, you can't call women "sugar tits", or gay people the f-word.
> 
> Fuck you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Na, I’m a libertarian I really don’t care about social issues in general. I’m a one issue voter…
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, there is nothing that you can think of that you're prohibited from doing by the government.  Not one single thing.  So it's more about _*feelings*_ with you.  You _*feel*_ that your freedoms are being curtailed but you can't _*articulate*_ what those freedoms actually are.
> 
> So you posture and call yourself a "libertarian", which is hilarious because "libertarians" end up being the most government-dependent people there are.
Click to expand...

The thing is, I am self-employed have been for 20+ years I’ve been debt free for about the same time. I have never purchased insurance, I homeschool my kids, I hunt and grow my own food, but I also realize I have no real freedom in this country, And my kids are going to live in an Orwellian state most likely.
That’s why I am a one issue voter, I can do nothing to change the direction of this country. It has been lost for over a century… The cancer of socialism has won.
 The funny thing is progressive put all their chips into socialism, socialism is a 100% failure 100% of the time long term in the history of the planet. LOL


----------



## The Derp

Rustic said:


> The thing is, I am self-employed have been for 20+ years I’ve been debt free for about the same time. I have never purchased insurance, I homeschool my kids, I hunt and grow my own food, but I also realize I have no real freedom in this country, And my kids are going to live in an Orwellian state most likely.



Yeah, I don't believe any of that shit you say about yourself.

And if you actually, really hunt for food, why can't you use a crossbow or a regular bow?  Not man enough, I guess.  Alexander the Great killed bears, lions, and elephants in a skirt and sandals, with a spear.  So if he could do it, why can't you kill a deer with a bow and arrow?  Because you're not half the hunter you pretend to be.




Rustic said:


> That’s why I am a one issue voter, I can do nothing to change the direction of this country. It has been lost for over a century… The cancer of socialism has won.



So wait...you say socialism won, yet in the sentence prior, you talk of living your rugged individualist life.  So which is it?  Is the government oppressive or isn't it?  Doesn't sound like it since you get to live your shitty life the way you want.  Like I said before, _*you just want to call black people the n-word and not face criticism for it.  *_Be honest.




Rustic said:


> The funny thing is progressive put all their chips into socialism, socialism is a 100% failure 100% of the time long term in the history of the planet. LOL



Socialism seems to work just fine for Canada, Germany, Denmark, Norway, South Korea, Israel, and tons of other countries.  What you don't see working well is capitalism.  Capitalism is unable to provide an adequate standard of living for the working class.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Cecilie1200 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Comparing a fully automatic to a semiautomatic is ridiculous.
> 
> Why are you so fixated on the cosmetics of a rifle?  There is no difference between an AR and any other .223 caliber rifle.
> 
> NONE ZERO ZIP NADA.
> 
> The fact that you cannot understand this is more proof of your room temperature IQ
> 
> And I am still waiting for you to prove your claim that one .223 semiautomatic rifle fires faster than another
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just can't stand it can you.  I am sure you are loving it that there are school children giving their lives so that you can have your version of the 2nd amendment.
> 
> The  US Army doesn't use a full auto version of the M-16.  It has three settings on the selector, safe, single shot and 3 shot.  Most of the M-16s are used in the single shot setting.  When you are operating a M-16 single shot, it fires exactly the same speed and way that a semi auto AR-15 does.  Both are designed to kill as many PEOPLE as possible as quickly as possible.  Trying to call the AR-15 semi auto a sporting rifle is a huge stretch of the imagination.  It's a lousy varmint rifle.  I can think of a host of others that are much better even in the same caliber.  I prefer a bolt action varmint rifle myself.  Going after Varmints you really only get one shot so why use a semi auto with such a short barrel.  If I were to pick a caliber for varmint it would probably be the 243 or the 6mm in a bolt action.  You can't pass any version of the AR-15 off as a sporting rifle unless your sport is to slaughter lots of people fast.
> 
> What I have proposed is not in contradiction of the 2nd amendment.  Much like the way the Thompson was taxed out of existance, the same can be done with the AR-15.  But there are people with the Thompson right now.  They didn't take away the ones that were already out there.    They just charged 200 bucks for each one with a firearms license and it slowly left the streets.  The Thompson was also a huge slaughter of children.  The Gangsters would spray  and pray with them with little regard of the innocents.  The Thompson wholesale murdered more innocents than it did gangsters.  I guess our Grand Parents realized that public safety should come first.  The Supreme Court agreed with them.
> 
> From what I can see, the first person that needs to have his AR-15 type taken from his sick little hands is you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove that an Ar shoots faster than any other rifle as you have claimed over and over.
> 
> An AR is NOT an M16 it just looks like one.  An AR is absolutely no different than my .223 Ranch rifle when it comes to performance
> 
> And FYI I do not own an AR frame rifle.  The only .223 semiauto I have is my Ruger Mini 14.  I do not need an AR because it would be redundant and IMO a waste of my money.
> 
> But unlike you I can actually understand that the AR is not making people kill
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simple.  The AR uses a completely different mechanism for it's bolt and action.  It's faster, much faster.  The Mini-14 is an older design from the M-14 and M-1.  Now, that is the answer, you Terrorist Baby Killer.
> 
> You need to move on and stop this absurd support of the AR or they just might lump your Mini-14 in with it when (notice the word when) change the law to protect our children.  Are you willing to have to pay 200 bucks and register not only you but your weapon on a national database?  Can you even pass a national database search?
> 
> So keep pushing, there, Baby Killer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not faster.  Both rifles can only fire as fast as the trigger can be pulled.  You have not substantiated these claims with any actual data .
> 
> You're too fucking stupid to see that the AR is just a plain old semiautomatic rifle with some extra plastic doodads
> 
> And no I will not register my firearms since it's none of anyone's business what I own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, but see, leftists are terrified of all semi-automatic weapons, because it has "automatic" in the name, and they therefore assume we're talking about machine guns.
Click to expand...


Wrong answer, fruitcake.  What is has the highest body count for a weapon in the mass shootings in the last 25 years?  Yes, it's a semi auto but it's based on a full auto brother.  It's designed to kill very quickly and efficiently of people.  It's the weapon of choice because it does the best job.  Can you tell us what weapon I am talking about without the NRA Boilerplate response?


----------



## Skull Pilot

Daryl Hunt said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just can't stand it can you.  I am sure you are loving it that there are school children giving their lives so that you can have your version of the 2nd amendment.
> 
> The  US Army doesn't use a full auto version of the M-16.  It has three settings on the selector, safe, single shot and 3 shot.  Most of the M-16s are used in the single shot setting.  When you are operating a M-16 single shot, it fires exactly the same speed and way that a semi auto AR-15 does.  Both are designed to kill as many PEOPLE as possible as quickly as possible.  Trying to call the AR-15 semi auto a sporting rifle is a huge stretch of the imagination.  It's a lousy varmint rifle.  I can think of a host of others that are much better even in the same caliber.  I prefer a bolt action varmint rifle myself.  Going after Varmints you really only get one shot so why use a semi auto with such a short barrel.  If I were to pick a caliber for varmint it would probably be the 243 or the 6mm in a bolt action.  You can't pass any version of the AR-15 off as a sporting rifle unless your sport is to slaughter lots of people fast.
> 
> What I have proposed is not in contradiction of the 2nd amendment.  Much like the way the Thompson was taxed out of existance, the same can be done with the AR-15.  But there are people with the Thompson right now.  They didn't take away the ones that were already out there.    They just charged 200 bucks for each one with a firearms license and it slowly left the streets.  The Thompson was also a huge slaughter of children.  The Gangsters would spray  and pray with them with little regard of the innocents.  The Thompson wholesale murdered more innocents than it did gangsters.  I guess our Grand Parents realized that public safety should come first.  The Supreme Court agreed with them.
> 
> From what I can see, the first person that needs to have his AR-15 type taken from his sick little hands is you.
> 
> 
> 
> Prove that an Ar shoots faster than any other rifle as you have claimed over and over.
> 
> An AR is NOT an M16 it just looks like one.  An AR is absolutely no different than my .223 Ranch rifle when it comes to performance
> 
> And FYI I do not own an AR frame rifle.  The only .223 semiauto I have is my Ruger Mini 14.  I do not need an AR because it would be redundant and IMO a waste of my money.
> 
> But unlike you I can actually understand that the AR is not making people kill
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simple.  The AR uses a completely different mechanism for it's bolt and action.  It's faster, much faster.  The Mini-14 is an older design from the M-14 and M-1.  Now, that is the answer, you Terrorist Baby Killer.
> 
> You need to move on and stop this absurd support of the AR or they just might lump your Mini-14 in with it when (notice the word when) change the law to protect our children.  Are you willing to have to pay 200 bucks and register not only you but your weapon on a national database?  Can you even pass a national database search?
> 
> So keep pushing, there, Baby Killer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not faster.  Both rifles can only fire as fast as the trigger can be pulled.  You have not substantiated these claims with any actual data .
> 
> You're too fucking stupid to see that the AR is just a plain old semiautomatic rifle with some extra plastic doodads
> 
> And no I will not register my firearms since it's none of anyone's business what I own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, but see, leftists are terrified of all semi-automatic weapons, because it has "automatic" in the name, and they therefore assume we're talking about machine guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong answer, fruitcake.  What is has the highest body count for a weapon in the mass shootings in the last 25 years?  Yes, it's a semi auto but it's based on a full auto brother.  It's designed to kill very quickly and efficiently of people.  It's the weapon of choice because it does the best job.  Can you tell us what weapon I am talking about without the NRA Boilerplate response?
Click to expand...


It matters not what a semiauto looks like it only matters how it functions.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rustic said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> What freedoms do you not have that you think you're entitled to have?  What can you not do right now that you think you should be able to do?
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism/political correctness/affirmative-action all have destroyed any sort of freedom and individuality in this country.
> If you think we have real freedom in this country you obviously have no idea what real freedom is… LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So nothing of substance; just you being mad that you can't call black people the N-word anymore, you can't call women "sugar tits", or gay people the f-word.
> 
> Fuck you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Na, I’m a libertarian I really don’t care about social issues in general. I’m a one issue voter…
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, there is nothing that you can think of that you're prohibited from doing by the government.  Not one single thing.  So it's more about _*feelings*_ with you.  You _*feel*_ that your freedoms are being curtailed but you can't _*articulate*_ what those freedoms actually are.
> 
> So you posture and call yourself a "libertarian", which is hilarious because "libertarians" end up being the most government-dependent people there are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The thing is, I am self-employed have been for 20+ years I’ve been debt free for about the same time. I have never purchased insurance, I homeschool my kids, I hunt and grow my own food, but I also realize I have no real freedom in this country, And my kids are going to live in an Orwellian state most likely.
> That’s why I am a one issue voter, I can do nothing to change the direction of this country. It has been lost for over a century… The cancer of socialism has won.
> The funny thing is progressive put all their chips into socialism, socialism is a 100% failure 100% of the time long term in the history of the planet. LOL
Click to expand...


If I ever meet one, I will tell them what you said.  But I happen to be a Progressive Conservative.  We are a strange lot.  We want to view new ideas but we also want our Government to stop the runaway spending it has done in the past.  From the looks of things, it's going to accelerate dramatically thank to you Right Wing Nut Jobs that seem to believe that our Grand Children will fix the problem so you won't.  Since you Right Wing Nutjobs can't figure a way out of it, maybe a few new ideas or Progressive Ideas are in order.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Skull Pilot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove that an Ar shoots faster than any other rifle as you have claimed over and over.
> 
> An AR is NOT an M16 it just looks like one.  An AR is absolutely no different than my .223 Ranch rifle when it comes to performance
> 
> And FYI I do not own an AR frame rifle.  The only .223 semiauto I have is my Ruger Mini 14.  I do not need an AR because it would be redundant and IMO a waste of my money.
> 
> But unlike you I can actually understand that the AR is not making people kill
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simple.  The AR uses a completely different mechanism for it's bolt and action.  It's faster, much faster.  The Mini-14 is an older design from the M-14 and M-1.  Now, that is the answer, you Terrorist Baby Killer.
> 
> You need to move on and stop this absurd support of the AR or they just might lump your Mini-14 in with it when (notice the word when) change the law to protect our children.  Are you willing to have to pay 200 bucks and register not only you but your weapon on a national database?  Can you even pass a national database search?
> 
> So keep pushing, there, Baby Killer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not faster.  Both rifles can only fire as fast as the trigger can be pulled.  You have not substantiated these claims with any actual data .
> 
> You're too fucking stupid to see that the AR is just a plain old semiautomatic rifle with some extra plastic doodads
> 
> And no I will not register my firearms since it's none of anyone's business what I own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, but see, leftists are terrified of all semi-automatic weapons, because it has "automatic" in the name, and they therefore assume we're talking about machine guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong answer, fruitcake.  What is has the highest body count for a weapon in the mass shootings in the last 25 years?  Yes, it's a semi auto but it's based on a full auto brother.  It's designed to kill very quickly and efficiently of people.  It's the weapon of choice because it does the best job.  Can you tell us what weapon I am talking about without the NRA Boilerplate response?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It matters not what a semiauto looks like it only matters how it functions.
Click to expand...


WRong answer once again.  Part of it is a culture.  The Weapon I am specifically referring to is very much part of a culture.  Now, name that Weapon.  Go ahead and be very specific.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Daryl Hunt said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simple.  The AR uses a completely different mechanism for it's bolt and action.  It's faster, much faster.  The Mini-14 is an older design from the M-14 and M-1.  Now, that is the answer, you Terrorist Baby Killer.
> 
> You need to move on and stop this absurd support of the AR or they just might lump your Mini-14 in with it when (notice the word when) change the law to protect our children.  Are you willing to have to pay 200 bucks and register not only you but your weapon on a national database?  Can you even pass a national database search?
> 
> So keep pushing, there, Baby Killer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not faster.  Both rifles can only fire as fast as the trigger can be pulled.  You have not substantiated these claims with any actual data .
> 
> You're too fucking stupid to see that the AR is just a plain old semiautomatic rifle with some extra plastic doodads
> 
> And no I will not register my firearms since it's none of anyone's business what I own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, but see, leftists are terrified of all semi-automatic weapons, because it has "automatic" in the name, and they therefore assume we're talking about machine guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong answer, fruitcake.  What is has the highest body count for a weapon in the mass shootings in the last 25 years?  Yes, it's a semi auto but it's based on a full auto brother.  It's designed to kill very quickly and efficiently of people.  It's the weapon of choice because it does the best job.  Can you tell us what weapon I am talking about without the NRA Boilerplate response?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It matters not what a semiauto looks like it only matters how it functions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WRong answer once again.  Part of it is a culture.  The Weapon I am specifically referring to is very much part of a culture.  Now, name that Weapon.  Go ahead and be very specific.
Click to expand...


It matters not what any gun looks like only how it performs an the Ar 15 that you are so afraid of performs no differently than any other semiautomatic in existence


----------



## Daryl Hunt

The Derp said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is, I am self-employed have been for 20+ years I’ve been debt free for about the same time. I have never purchased insurance, I homeschool my kids, I hunt and grow my own food, but I also realize I have no real freedom in this country, And my kids are going to live in an Orwellian state most likely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I don't believe any of that shit you say about yourself.
> 
> And if you actually, really hunt for food, why can't you use a crossbow or a regular bow?  Not man enough, I guess.  Alexander the Great killed bears, lions, and elephants in a skirt and sandals, with a spear.  So if he could do it, why can't you kill a deer with a bow and arrow?  Because you're not half the hunter you pretend to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s why I am a one issue voter, I can do nothing to change the direction of this country. It has been lost for over a century… The cancer of socialism has won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So wait...you say socialism won, yet in the sentence prior, you talk of living your rugged individualist life.  So which is it?  Is the government oppressive or isn't it?  Doesn't sound like it since you get to live your shitty life the way you want.  Like I said before, _*you just want to call black people the n-word and not face criticism for it.  *_Be honest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The funny thing is progressive put all their chips into socialism, socialism is a 100% failure 100% of the time long term in the history of the planet. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Socialism seems to work just fine for Canada, Germany, Denmark, Norway, South Korea, Israel, and tons of other countries.  What you don't see working well is capitalism.  Capitalism is unable to provide an adequate standard of living for the working class.
Click to expand...


The US isn't capitalist for Government.  It's gotten to the point where it's so corrupt that you can't really tell what it is anymore.  For instance, the no new gun laws.  You will note that the leading Republicans that keep spewing the NRA boilerplate have all received millions from the NRA.  Corporations can't directly give that kind of money to our Politicians.  They can only give 2500 bucks a year.  So they give it to the NRA who has the ability to donate those funds to various Super PACS to be earmarked for those particular Politicians.  And it's all done anonymously.    The problem here is, we need to see who donated what.  Until that happens, our Politicians will deny, deny and deflect because we can't prove otherwise.  And this goes to all Politicians, not just the right or the left.  

What happens when each and every ad has to say who actually donated to it.  And every Bill that is presented has to say exactly who wrote it and financially donated to make it happen.  As long as Corporations are considered People, we need to treat them exactly like they do me and you.  This would make the really corrupt ones run from the building because we would see just how corrupt they really are.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Skull Pilot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not faster.  Both rifles can only fire as fast as the trigger can be pulled.  You have not substantiated these claims with any actual data .
> 
> You're too fucking stupid to see that the AR is just a plain old semiautomatic rifle with some extra plastic doodads
> 
> And no I will not register my firearms since it's none of anyone's business what I own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, but see, leftists are terrified of all semi-automatic weapons, because it has "automatic" in the name, and they therefore assume we're talking about machine guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong answer, fruitcake.  What is has the highest body count for a weapon in the mass shootings in the last 25 years?  Yes, it's a semi auto but it's based on a full auto brother.  It's designed to kill very quickly and efficiently of people.  It's the weapon of choice because it does the best job.  Can you tell us what weapon I am talking about without the NRA Boilerplate response?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It matters not what a semiauto looks like it only matters how it functions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WRong answer once again.  Part of it is a culture.  The Weapon I am specifically referring to is very much part of a culture.  Now, name that Weapon.  Go ahead and be very specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It matters not what any gun looks like only how it performs an the Ar 15 that you are so afraid of performs no differently than any other semiautomatic in existence
Click to expand...


Now, was that painful?  I hope not.  The AR style has become a cult weapon.  You can say how others are just as deadly but the AR is the weapon of choice for mass shootings.  I am not saying we need to outlaw that specific weapon but we can up it in the firearms where you can't just walk into a store and purchase it in less than 30 minutes or you can't mail order it or buy it at a gunshow with no background check.  If you wanted to keep yours then you can keep it.  Just pay the 200 bucks that would be required, register the weapon and yourself and become responsible for the weapon and it's uses.  ALL AR types used in the mass shootings were purchased legally so let's stop with the "Oh Yah, what about the Criminal".  Hand Grenades do a much better job at killing but the people that legally buy them pay the 200 bucks and just don't use them for mass killings no matter what the movies say.  People that own Automatic Weapons pay the 200 bucks and are not the problem.  But an 18 year old kid with a score to settle that buys it without paying the 200 bucks IS the problem.  Actually, it isn't limited to age as the shootings can attest.  You just have to be 18 years old or older.  Not a problem if the 18 year old pays the 200 bucks for the license to possess one.  There are many young people that have at least a class 4 or class D firearms license and you just don't hear about them doing these insane things.

Sorry to bust your bubble but I am not out to take your guns.  I just suggest that we reclassify one specific weapon.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Daryl Hunt said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, but see, leftists are terrified of all semi-automatic weapons, because it has "automatic" in the name, and they therefore assume we're talking about machine guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong answer, fruitcake.  What is has the highest body count for a weapon in the mass shootings in the last 25 years?  Yes, it's a semi auto but it's based on a full auto brother.  It's designed to kill very quickly and efficiently of people.  It's the weapon of choice because it does the best job.  Can you tell us what weapon I am talking about without the NRA Boilerplate response?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It matters not what a semiauto looks like it only matters how it functions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WRong answer once again.  Part of it is a culture.  The Weapon I am specifically referring to is very much part of a culture.  Now, name that Weapon.  Go ahead and be very specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It matters not what any gun looks like only how it performs an the Ar 15 that you are so afraid of performs no differently than any other semiautomatic in existence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, was that painful?  I hope not.  The AR style has become a cult weapon.  You can say how others are just as deadly but the AR is the weapon of choice for mass shootings.  I am not saying we need to outlaw that specific weapon but we can up it in the firearms where you can't just walk into a store and purchase it in less than 30 minutes or you can't mail order it or buy it at a gunshow with no background check.  If you wanted to keep yours then you can keep it.  Just pay the 200 bucks that would be required, register the weapon and yourself and become responsible for the weapon and it's uses.  ALL AR types used in the mass shootings were purchased legally so let's stop with the "Oh Yah, what about the Criminal".  Hand Grenades do a much better job at killing but the people that legally buy them pay the 200 bucks and just don't use them for mass killings no matter what the movies say.  People that own Automatic Weapons pay the 200 bucks and are not the problem.  But an 18 year old kid with a score to settle that buys it without paying the 200 bucks IS the problem.  Actually, it isn't limited to age as the shootings can attest.  You just have to be 18 years old or older.  Not a problem if the 18 year old pays the 200 bucks for the license to possess one.  There are many young people that have at least a class 4 or class D firearms license and you just don't hear about them doing these insane things.
> 
> Sorry to bust your bubble but I am not out to take your guns.  I just suggest that we reclassify one specific weapon.
Click to expand...


And I am telling you that it is beyond stupid to reclassify one specific Semiautomatic rifle because of the way it looks and no other reason.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rustic said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s why we have no real freedom in this country
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What freedoms do you not have that you think you're entitled to have?  What can you not do right now that you think you should be able to do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Socialism/political correctness/affirmative-action all have destroyed any sort of freedom and individuality in this country.
> If you think we have real freedom in this country you obviously have no idea what real freedom is… LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the movie Blazing Saddles could not be made today.   Does that tell you something about our culture?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, political correctness/affirmative action/Socialism has made this country pussy-fied...
Click to expand...


Actually, it's the corruption.  If any CEOs were to get caught operating like our Politicians they would be sent to prison.  The worst thing that happened for Politics was the creation of the PACS and Super-PACS.  The cost of being elected or reelected went way up where the common person has no chance of being elected.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Skull Pilot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong answer, fruitcake.  What is has the highest body count for a weapon in the mass shootings in the last 25 years?  Yes, it's a semi auto but it's based on a full auto brother.  It's designed to kill very quickly and efficiently of people.  It's the weapon of choice because it does the best job.  Can you tell us what weapon I am talking about without the NRA Boilerplate response?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It matters not what a semiauto looks like it only matters how it functions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WRong answer once again.  Part of it is a culture.  The Weapon I am specifically referring to is very much part of a culture.  Now, name that Weapon.  Go ahead and be very specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It matters not what any gun looks like only how it performs an the Ar 15 that you are so afraid of performs no differently than any other semiautomatic in existence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, was that painful?  I hope not.  The AR style has become a cult weapon.  You can say how others are just as deadly but the AR is the weapon of choice for mass shootings.  I am not saying we need to outlaw that specific weapon but we can up it in the firearms where you can't just walk into a store and purchase it in less than 30 minutes or you can't mail order it or buy it at a gunshow with no background check.  If you wanted to keep yours then you can keep it.  Just pay the 200 bucks that would be required, register the weapon and yourself and become responsible for the weapon and it's uses.  ALL AR types used in the mass shootings were purchased legally so let's stop with the "Oh Yah, what about the Criminal".  Hand Grenades do a much better job at killing but the people that legally buy them pay the 200 bucks and just don't use them for mass killings no matter what the movies say.  People that own Automatic Weapons pay the 200 bucks and are not the problem.  But an 18 year old kid with a score to settle that buys it without paying the 200 bucks IS the problem.  Actually, it isn't limited to age as the shootings can attest.  You just have to be 18 years old or older.  Not a problem if the 18 year old pays the 200 bucks for the license to possess one.  There are many young people that have at least a class 4 or class D firearms license and you just don't hear about them doing these insane things.
> 
> Sorry to bust your bubble but I am not out to take your guns.  I just suggest that we reclassify one specific weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I am telling you that it is beyond stupid to reclassify one specific Semiautomatic rifle because of the way it looks and no other reason.
Click to expand...


You can fight it but the genie is out of the bottle.  While the School Children that have been terrorized and traumatized can't vote, their parents can and in a few short years the children turn 18.  And they agree with what I have said all along.  Even many of the large Republican Donors are starting to remove support for anyone that will not go along those lines.  Yes, these folks give millions each year to various Republican Candidates but they will not contribute to those that still spew the NRA Boilerplate responses.  It's happening more and more each day.  The Last Mass Shooting was the straw that broke the camels back.  Too bad it didn't get a sore back 25 years ago.


----------



## The Derp

Daryl Hunt said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> It matters not what a semiauto looks like it only matters how it functions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WRong answer once again.  Part of it is a culture.  The Weapon I am specifically referring to is very much part of a culture.  Now, name that Weapon.  Go ahead and be very specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It matters not what any gun looks like only how it performs an the Ar 15 that you are so afraid of performs no differently than any other semiautomatic in existence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, was that painful?  I hope not.  The AR style has become a cult weapon.  You can say how others are just as deadly but the AR is the weapon of choice for mass shootings.  I am not saying we need to outlaw that specific weapon but we can up it in the firearms where you can't just walk into a store and purchase it in less than 30 minutes or you can't mail order it or buy it at a gunshow with no background check.  If you wanted to keep yours then you can keep it.  Just pay the 200 bucks that would be required, register the weapon and yourself and become responsible for the weapon and it's uses.  ALL AR types used in the mass shootings were purchased legally so let's stop with the "Oh Yah, what about the Criminal".  Hand Grenades do a much better job at killing but the people that legally buy them pay the 200 bucks and just don't use them for mass killings no matter what the movies say.  People that own Automatic Weapons pay the 200 bucks and are not the problem.  But an 18 year old kid with a score to settle that buys it without paying the 200 bucks IS the problem.  Actually, it isn't limited to age as the shootings can attest.  You just have to be 18 years old or older.  Not a problem if the 18 year old pays the 200 bucks for the license to possess one.  There are many young people that have at least a class 4 or class D firearms license and you just don't hear about them doing these insane things.
> 
> Sorry to bust your bubble but I am not out to take your guns.  I just suggest that we reclassify one specific weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I am telling you that it is beyond stupid to reclassify one specific Semiautomatic rifle because of the way it looks and no other reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can fight it but the genie is out of the bottle.  While the School Children that have been terrorized and traumatized can't vote, their parents can and in a few short years the children turn 18.  And they agree with what I have said all along.  Even many of the large Republican Donors are starting to remove support for anyone that will not go along those lines.  Yes, these folks give millions each year to various Republican Candidates but they will not contribute to those that still spew the NRA Boilerplate responses.  It's happening more and more each day.  The Last Mass Shooting was the straw that broke the camels back.  Too bad it didn't get a sore back 25 years ago.
Click to expand...


Also, gun ownership continues to fall to its lowest levels ever, which means more and more guns are being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.  That's why the NRA wants to weaken restrictions so that crazy people, wife beaters, and terrorists can get guns...*THEY NEED THE SALES TO STAY PROFITABLE.*


----------



## Redfish

The Derp said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> WRong answer once again.  Part of it is a culture.  The Weapon I am specifically referring to is very much part of a culture.  Now, name that Weapon.  Go ahead and be very specific.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It matters not what any gun looks like only how it performs an the Ar 15 that you are so afraid of performs no differently than any other semiautomatic in existence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, was that painful?  I hope not.  The AR style has become a cult weapon.  You can say how others are just as deadly but the AR is the weapon of choice for mass shootings.  I am not saying we need to outlaw that specific weapon but we can up it in the firearms where you can't just walk into a store and purchase it in less than 30 minutes or you can't mail order it or buy it at a gunshow with no background check.  If you wanted to keep yours then you can keep it.  Just pay the 200 bucks that would be required, register the weapon and yourself and become responsible for the weapon and it's uses.  ALL AR types used in the mass shootings were purchased legally so let's stop with the "Oh Yah, what about the Criminal".  Hand Grenades do a much better job at killing but the people that legally buy them pay the 200 bucks and just don't use them for mass killings no matter what the movies say.  People that own Automatic Weapons pay the 200 bucks and are not the problem.  But an 18 year old kid with a score to settle that buys it without paying the 200 bucks IS the problem.  Actually, it isn't limited to age as the shootings can attest.  You just have to be 18 years old or older.  Not a problem if the 18 year old pays the 200 bucks for the license to possess one.  There are many young people that have at least a class 4 or class D firearms license and you just don't hear about them doing these insane things.
> 
> Sorry to bust your bubble but I am not out to take your guns.  I just suggest that we reclassify one specific weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I am telling you that it is beyond stupid to reclassify one specific Semiautomatic rifle because of the way it looks and no other reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can fight it but the genie is out of the bottle.  While the School Children that have been terrorized and traumatized can't vote, their parents can and in a few short years the children turn 18.  And they agree with what I have said all along.  Even many of the large Republican Donors are starting to remove support for anyone that will not go along those lines.  Yes, these folks give millions each year to various Republican Candidates but they will not contribute to those that still spew the NRA Boilerplate responses.  It's happening more and more each day.  The Last Mass Shooting was the straw that broke the camels back.  Too bad it didn't get a sore back 25 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Also, gun ownership continues to fall to its lowest levels ever, which means more and more guns are being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.  That's why the NRA wants to weaken restrictions so that crazy people, wife beaters, and terrorists can get guns...*THEY NEED THE SALES TO STAY PROFITABLE.*
Click to expand...



nothing in your post is true.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

asaratis said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> USA is the worst country in terms of gu related dearhs/mass shootings. So there is clearly a gun problem. Why do you need a gun ? Insecure? Or ready to kill when you are pissed at the world?
> 
> 
> 
> what do I need a gun for?  many reasons-one of them being to prevent people like you from trying to strip away our rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do I need a gun?  I don't absolutely need a gun.  I want one and have one.  One of the reasons I might need a gun is when people like you try and take away my rights like outlined in the 1st amendment.  You seem to forget that amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don’t understand the second amendment obviously
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not as you interpret it, no.  And you are forgetting the 1st amendment almost entirely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The main purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to keep American citizens from being disarmed by an oppressive US government and forced to live in a police state where only the government has weapons....like maybe a Gestapo controlled by some asshole like Obama.  Remember, that sleazy bastard suggested we have a national police force under his control.  Dreams of his father.
Click to expand...


I somewhat agree.  But when we look back on just before it was created, it was also a prime tool for getting food on the table.  The Crown wanted ALL weapons seized from anyone not listed as a Tory.  Most of the people couldn't even feed themselves it their weapons were confiscated.  Believe it or not, most Colonialists could care less who governed them.  But when you threaten to take away the very thing that puts meat on the table, the lines get drawn very quickly.  The Crown trying to do this caused many that were fence sitting to swing to the Rebels side.


----------



## The Derp

Redfish said:


> nothing in your post is true.



How fucking wrong you are.

American gun ownership drops to lowest in nearly 40 years
The Weird Reason Why Gun Ownership in America Is at Its Lowest Point Since the 1970s
American gun ownership and hunting rates at record lows, survey says
So record low gun ownership rates = fewer gun customers
Fewer gun customers = market shrinking
Market shrinking = lower profits


----------



## 2aguy

Daryl Hunt said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, but see, leftists are terrified of all semi-automatic weapons, because it has "automatic" in the name, and they therefore assume we're talking about machine guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong answer, fruitcake.  What is has the highest body count for a weapon in the mass shootings in the last 25 years?  Yes, it's a semi auto but it's based on a full auto brother.  It's designed to kill very quickly and efficiently of people.  It's the weapon of choice because it does the best job.  Can you tell us what weapon I am talking about without the NRA Boilerplate response?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It matters not what a semiauto looks like it only matters how it functions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WRong answer once again.  Part of it is a culture.  The Weapon I am specifically referring to is very much part of a culture.  Now, name that Weapon.  Go ahead and be very specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It matters not what any gun looks like only how it performs an the Ar 15 that you are so afraid of performs no differently than any other semiautomatic in existence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, was that painful?  I hope not.  The AR style has become a cult weapon.  You can say how others are just as deadly but the AR is the weapon of choice for mass shootings.  I am not saying we need to outlaw that specific weapon but we can up it in the firearms where you can't just walk into a store and purchase it in less than 30 minutes or you can't mail order it or buy it at a gunshow with no background check.  If you wanted to keep yours then you can keep it.  Just pay the 200 bucks that would be required, register the weapon and yourself and become responsible for the weapon and it's uses.  ALL AR types used in the mass shootings were purchased legally so let's stop with the "Oh Yah, what about the Criminal".  Hand Grenades do a much better job at killing but the people that legally buy them pay the 200 bucks and just don't use them for mass killings no matter what the movies say.  People that own Automatic Weapons pay the 200 bucks and are not the problem.  But an 18 year old kid with a score to settle that buys it without paying the 200 bucks IS the problem.  Actually, it isn't limited to age as the shootings can attest.  You just have to be 18 years old or older.  Not a problem if the 18 year old pays the 200 bucks for the license to possess one.  There are many young people that have at least a class 4 or class D firearms license and you just don't hear about them doing these insane things.
> 
> Sorry to bust your bubble but I am not out to take your guns.  I just suggest that we reclassify one specific weapon.
Click to expand...



No....dipshit...it isn't a cult weapon......it is an easy to use rifle, that allows for customization....and it is very easy for women and small framed humans to use it for self defense, competition, hunting and collecting....

There are 8 million of them in private hands....

And how does anything you propose stop any criminal or mass shooter....dipshit?   This shooter and all the others would pay your 200 dollars, register their guns and then go and shoot people....moron.

Nothing you or the other anti gunners propose would stop a criminal or a mass shooter...and that is the point.....you guys want to baby step the restrictions on guns and the fees, and the taxes.....and the paperwork so that normal, law abiding people are too afraid to own legal guns...for fear of failing some step of the process that will lead to a felony conviction for a paperwork mistake....

Meanwhile, criminals don't care....

*By the way, genius......felons do not have to register their illegal guns...the Supreme Court, in Haynes v. United States ruled that forcing criminals to register their illegal guns violates their 5th Amendment Rights against self incrimination......so if it violates their Rights, it violates my Rights.....doofus.*


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Redfish said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> It matters not what any gun looks like only how it performs an the Ar 15 that you are so afraid of performs no differently than any other semiautomatic in existence
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, was that painful?  I hope not.  The AR style has become a cult weapon.  You can say how others are just as deadly but the AR is the weapon of choice for mass shootings.  I am not saying we need to outlaw that specific weapon but we can up it in the firearms where you can't just walk into a store and purchase it in less than 30 minutes or you can't mail order it or buy it at a gunshow with no background check.  If you wanted to keep yours then you can keep it.  Just pay the 200 bucks that would be required, register the weapon and yourself and become responsible for the weapon and it's uses.  ALL AR types used in the mass shootings were purchased legally so let's stop with the "Oh Yah, what about the Criminal".  Hand Grenades do a much better job at killing but the people that legally buy them pay the 200 bucks and just don't use them for mass killings no matter what the movies say.  People that own Automatic Weapons pay the 200 bucks and are not the problem.  But an 18 year old kid with a score to settle that buys it without paying the 200 bucks IS the problem.  Actually, it isn't limited to age as the shootings can attest.  You just have to be 18 years old or older.  Not a problem if the 18 year old pays the 200 bucks for the license to possess one.  There are many young people that have at least a class 4 or class D firearms license and you just don't hear about them doing these insane things.
> 
> Sorry to bust your bubble but I am not out to take your guns.  I just suggest that we reclassify one specific weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I am telling you that it is beyond stupid to reclassify one specific Semiautomatic rifle because of the way it looks and no other reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can fight it but the genie is out of the bottle.  While the School Children that have been terrorized and traumatized can't vote, their parents can and in a few short years the children turn 18.  And they agree with what I have said all along.  Even many of the large Republican Donors are starting to remove support for anyone that will not go along those lines.  Yes, these folks give millions each year to various Republican Candidates but they will not contribute to those that still spew the NRA Boilerplate responses.  It's happening more and more each day.  The Last Mass Shooting was the straw that broke the camels back.  Too bad it didn't get a sore back 25 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Also, gun ownership continues to fall to its lowest levels ever, which means more and more guns are being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.  That's why the NRA wants to weaken restrictions so that crazy people, wife beaters, and terrorists can get guns...*THEY NEED THE SALES TO STAY PROFITABLE.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> nothing in your post is true.
Click to expand...


I am talking only about the AR-15 by many names.  In 2015, the sales of the AR peaked.  It stayed there in 2016.  In 2017, it has gone dramatically down.  It's almost like the Bubble Burst.  To deny otherwise is just kidding yourself.


----------



## 2aguy

The Derp said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> nothing in your post is true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How fucking wrong you are.
> 
> American gun ownership drops to lowest in nearly 40 years
> The Weird Reason Why Gun Ownership in America Is at Its Lowest Point Since the 1970s
> American gun ownership and hunting rates at record lows, survey says
> So record low gun ownership rates = fewer gun customers
> Fewer gun customers = market shrinking
> Market shrinking = lower profits
Click to expand...



Wrong...that isn't true.....gun ownership levels are the same as before, and the biggest growth areas are minorities and women.....two groups that have been underrepresented in the legal gun market...

What you are seeing is fewer people willing to admit to anonymous pollsters that they own guns...especially after several newspapers decided to publish the names and addresses of gun owners .........

Is gun ownership really down in America? | Fox News

*Surely, gun control advocates such as GSS director Tom Smith view this decline as a good thing. In a 2003 book of mine, I quoted Smith as saying that the large drop in gun ownership would “make it easier for politicians to do the right thing on guns” and pass more restrictive regulations. *

Other gun control advocates have mentioned to me that they hope that if people believe fewer people own guns, that may cause others to rethink their decision to own one themselves. It is part of the reason they dramatically exaggerate the risks of having guns in the home.

The Associated Press and Time ignored other polls by Gallup and ABC News/Washington Post. 

These polls show that gun ownership rates have been flat over the same period. According to Gallup, household gun ownership has ranged from 51 percent in 1994 to 34 percent in 1999. In 2014, it was at 42 percent – comparable to the 43-45 percent figures during the 1970s.

*A 2011 Gallup poll with the headline “Self-Reported Gun Ownership in U.S. Is Highest Since 1993” appears to have gotten no news coverage.*

*The ABC News/Washington Post poll shows an even more stable pattern, with household gun ownership between 44 and 46 percent in 1999. In 2013, the ownership rate was 43 percent. *

There are other measures that suggest that we should be very careful of relying too heavily on polling to gauge the level of gun ownership. For example, the nationally number of concealed handgun permits has soared over the last decade: rising from about 2.7 million in 1999 to 4.6 million in 2007 to 11.1 million in 2014. 

*The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) shows that the number of gun purchases has grown dramatically over time –doubling from 2006 to 2014. *

*---------------*


Gun industry, Bloomberg media square off over female gun owner data

*Putting a pin in the balloon of rising female gun ownership, the Trace, a journalism start up funded by Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety,* consulted the General Social Survey. A project of the University of Chicago’s National Opinion Research Center, the GSS has conducted a sociological survey since 1972 to collect historical data on everything from government spending to race relations.

When it comes to gun ownership by women, the pollsters noted the number has averaged about 11 percent over the past three decades with slight dips, to as low as 9.1 percent in 1989, and slight increases, to as high as 13.7 percent in 1982.

“There’s been no meaningful directional change in the percent of women owning guns,” said Tom Smith, the director of the GSS.

*However, the National Shooting Sports Foundation on Thursday posted a rebuttal to the article, citing the GSS itself was flawed when it came to gun data– much as they did last yearwhen the survey noted a decline in gun ownership numbers despite eight straight years of increasing firearms sales that set all-time records.*

The NSSF contends GSS isn’t actually counting the number of firearms in each household. Rather it is enumerating the number of individuals willing to talk to a stranger at their front door about how many firearms they own. The two concepts, holds the trade group, are vastly different.

“It is a staple of gun control politics to work to diminish both the size and the ever increasing diversity of the firearm-owning American citizenry,” noted Larry Keane, NSSF senior vice president and general counsel. “The Trace provides just the latest example.”

Besides noting the trade group’s own studies in female gun ownership rates, the NSSF also bemoaned the outlet for discounting previous articles in the mainstream media.

“The Trace also asks its readers to discount CBS News, Fox News, Ad Age and dozens of local reporters nationwide (collectively, a ‘credulous press’) who have actually gone to firearms retailers and ranges to report that they see evidence of more and more women buying guns and taking up target shooting as a recreational activity,” wrote Keane.


----------



## Issa

Cecilie1200 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> People kill people firearms cannot... No one was made by An AR to kill anybody else.
> Gun free zones are killing fields waiting to happen. And firearms have nothing to do with it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you make it easy for any nutcase to purchase an AR and use it as it was intended for.  So just accept the reasonability that you are contributing to those mass shooting of children.  Now, that make you a real man doesn't it.  And that is the real reason you slaver at the AR when you see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> just because you wet your panties over people owning an AR 15-please don't project your proclivities upon the rest of us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe that people get their panties wet when they DISARM their fellow countrymen. Sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I want to disarm those that have the highest body counts in mass murders.  Simple as that and it can be done.  It can't be done until we educate the public about how to do it.  I know how to do it but you seem to keep going with the standard NRA Boilerplate.  The NRA should be listed as a terrorist organization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't want to disarm those committing mass murders.  You want to disarm EVERYONE, in the hopes that the mass murderers will cooperate, as well.  It's painfully obvious that you're really just hoping you can somehow pass enough laws to erase the invention of guns entirely.
Click to expand...

If you love guns so much why don't you go to Syria and have fun over there. Why you need guns in the city ?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Daryl Hunt said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just can't stand it can you.  I am sure you are loving it that there are school children giving their lives so that you can have your version of the 2nd amendment.
> 
> The  US Army doesn't use a full auto version of the M-16.  It has three settings on the selector, safe, single shot and 3 shot.  Most of the M-16s are used in the single shot setting.  When you are operating a M-16 single shot, it fires exactly the same speed and way that a semi auto AR-15 does.  Both are designed to kill as many PEOPLE as possible as quickly as possible.  Trying to call the AR-15 semi auto a sporting rifle is a huge stretch of the imagination.  It's a lousy varmint rifle.  I can think of a host of others that are much better even in the same caliber.  I prefer a bolt action varmint rifle myself.  Going after Varmints you really only get one shot so why use a semi auto with such a short barrel.  If I were to pick a caliber for varmint it would probably be the 243 or the 6mm in a bolt action.  You can't pass any version of the AR-15 off as a sporting rifle unless your sport is to slaughter lots of people fast.
> 
> What I have proposed is not in contradiction of the 2nd amendment.  Much like the way the Thompson was taxed out of existance, the same can be done with the AR-15.  But there are people with the Thompson right now.  They didn't take away the ones that were already out there.    They just charged 200 bucks for each one with a firearms license and it slowly left the streets.  The Thompson was also a huge slaughter of children.  The Gangsters would spray  and pray with them with little regard of the innocents.  The Thompson wholesale murdered more innocents than it did gangsters.  I guess our Grand Parents realized that public safety should come first.  The Supreme Court agreed with them.
> 
> From what I can see, the first person that needs to have his AR-15 type taken from his sick little hands is you.
> 
> 
> 
> Prove that an Ar shoots faster than any other rifle as you have claimed over and over.
> 
> An AR is NOT an M16 it just looks like one.  An AR is absolutely no different than my .223 Ranch rifle when it comes to performance
> 
> And FYI I do not own an AR frame rifle.  The only .223 semiauto I have is my Ruger Mini 14.  I do not need an AR because it would be redundant and IMO a waste of my money.
> 
> But unlike you I can actually understand that the AR is not making people kill
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simple.  The AR uses a completely different mechanism for it's bolt and action.  It's faster, much faster.  The Mini-14 is an older design from the M-14 and M-1.  Now, that is the answer, you Terrorist Baby Killer.
> 
> You need to move on and stop this absurd support of the AR or they just might lump your Mini-14 in with it when (notice the word when) change the law to protect our children.  Are you willing to have to pay 200 bucks and register not only you but your weapon on a national database?  Can you even pass a national database search?
> 
> So keep pushing, there, Baby Killer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not faster.  Both rifles can only fire as fast as the trigger can be pulled.  You have not substantiated these claims with any actual data .
> 
> You're too fucking stupid to see that the AR is just a plain old semiautomatic rifle with some extra plastic doodads
> 
> And no I will not register my firearms since it's none of anyone's business what I own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, but see, leftists are terrified of all semi-automatic weapons, because it has "automatic" in the name, and they therefore assume we're talking about machine guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong answer, fruitcake.  What is has the highest body count for a weapon in the mass shootings in the last 25 years?  Yes, it's a semi auto but it's based on a full auto brother.  It's designed to kill very quickly and efficiently of people.  It's the weapon of choice because it does the best job.  Can you tell us what weapon I am talking about without the NRA Boilerplate response?
Click to expand...


"Without the NRA boilerplate".  I can only assume that means "without those pesky facts about guns replacing the panic and loathing".


----------



## The Derp

2aguy said:


> Wrong...that isn't true.....gun ownership levels are the same as before, and the biggest growth areas are minorities and women.....two groups that have been underrepresented in the legal gun market....



Same as before...from two years ago maybe.

The stats don't lie...gun _*ownership *_is at its lowest levels ever.

That means gunmakers have to really fight for market share.

Removing restrictions on crazy people, wife beaters, and terrorists helps widen the customer base.

That's why the NRA does what it does.




2aguy said:


> What you are seeing is fewer people willing to admit to anonymous pollsters that they own guns...especially after several newspapers decided to publish the names and addresses of gun owners .........



Load of horseshit, of course, because the surveys are anonymous too.  So your rhetoric is flawed.


----------



## The Derp

2aguy said:


> What you are seeing is fewer people willing to admit to anonymous pollsters that they own guns...especially after several newspapers decided to publish the names and addresses of gun owners .........



So in typical Conservative fashion, one must ignore actual numbers and instead imagine a swath of people who didn't answer truthfully on an anonymous survey.  And if they're not answering truthfully to that, how can we trust them to safely handle and store firearms?  We can't.


----------



## The Derp

2aguy said:


> *decline in gun ownership numbers despite eight straight years of increasing firearms sales that set all-time records.*



Because of repeat customers.  Instead of buying just one gun, most gun owners buy several.  And they're prompted to buy several because of propaganda pushed out by the NRA, who are only concerned with profits of the gun companies.

At best, you're a useful idiot.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism/political correctness/affirmative-action all have destroyed any sort of freedom and individuality in this country.
> If you think we have real freedom in this country you obviously have no idea what real freedom is… LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So nothing of substance; just you being mad that you can't call black people the N-word anymore, you can't call women "sugar tits", or gay people the f-word.
> 
> Fuck you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Na, I’m a libertarian I really don’t care about social issues in general. I’m a one issue voter…
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, there is nothing that you can think of that you're prohibited from doing by the government.  Not one single thing.  So it's more about _*feelings*_ with you.  You _*feel*_ that your freedoms are being curtailed but you can't _*articulate*_ what those freedoms actually are.
> 
> So you posture and call yourself a "libertarian", which is hilarious because "libertarians" end up being the most government-dependent people there are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The thing is, I am self-employed have been for 20+ years I’ve been debt free for about the same time. I have never purchased insurance, I homeschool my kids, I hunt and grow my own food, but I also realize I have no real freedom in this country, And my kids are going to live in an Orwellian state most likely.
> That’s why I am a one issue voter, I can do nothing to change the direction of this country. It has been lost for over a century… The cancer of socialism has won.
> The funny thing is progressive put all their chips into socialism, socialism is a 100% failure 100% of the time long term in the history of the planet. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I ever meet one, I will tell them what you said.  But I happen to be a Progressive Conservative.  We are a strange lot.  We want to view new ideas but we also want our Government to stop the runaway spending it has done in the past.  From the looks of things, it's going to accelerate dramatically thank to you Right Wing Nut Jobs that seem to believe that our Grand Children will fix the problem so you won't.  Since you Right Wing Nutjobs can't figure a way out of it, maybe a few new ideas or Progressive Ideas are in order.
Click to expand...


We CAN'T figure a way out of it?  We keep giving you common-sense solutions, and you keep screaming like stuck pigs and refusing to even try them and demanding that what we need is even more of the "progressive" ideas that are clearly progressing toward nothing but making our children into clay pigeons in shooting-gallery schools.

So once again, you owe us a detailed explanation of 1) how we are not ALREADY implementing your ideas, 2) why they are failing miserably, and 3) why their failure means we need even more.  Oh, and 4) how you can POSSIBLY think anyone is to blame for those dead kids aside from the shooter, and YOU.


----------



## The Derp

2aguy said:


> What you are seeing is fewer people willing to admit to anonymous pollsters that they own guns...especially after several newspapers decided to publish the names and addresses of gun owners .........



But...isn't knowing who has a gun and who doesn't a deterrent? 

Don't gun owners want people to know they have guns? 

How are they to deter criminals if the criminals don't know they're armed?

Or is it a personal wish fulfillment that your gun ownership is kept a secret so you have justification to shoot someone?

Seems to me that advertising you have a gun only makes it that much more likely someone will break into your house or car when you're not around and steal the gun, like they do with as many as 600,000 guns a year.


----------



## The Derp

Cecilie1200 said:


> So once again, you owe us a detailed explanation of 1) how we are not ALREADY implementing your ideas, 2) why they are failing miserably, and 3) why their failure means we need even more.  Oh, and 4) how you can POSSIBLY think anyone is to blame for those dead kids aside from the shooter, and YOU.



Because guns are widely and readily and easily available, duh.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

2aguy said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong answer, fruitcake.  What is has the highest body count for a weapon in the mass shootings in the last 25 years?  Yes, it's a semi auto but it's based on a full auto brother.  It's designed to kill very quickly and efficiently of people.  It's the weapon of choice because it does the best job.  Can you tell us what weapon I am talking about without the NRA Boilerplate response?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It matters not what a semiauto looks like it only matters how it functions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WRong answer once again.  Part of it is a culture.  The Weapon I am specifically referring to is very much part of a culture.  Now, name that Weapon.  Go ahead and be very specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It matters not what any gun looks like only how it performs an the Ar 15 that you are so afraid of performs no differently than any other semiautomatic in existence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, was that painful?  I hope not.  The AR style has become a cult weapon.  You can say how others are just as deadly but the AR is the weapon of choice for mass shootings.  I am not saying we need to outlaw that specific weapon but we can up it in the firearms where you can't just walk into a store and purchase it in less than 30 minutes or you can't mail order it or buy it at a gunshow with no background check.  If you wanted to keep yours then you can keep it.  Just pay the 200 bucks that would be required, register the weapon and yourself and become responsible for the weapon and it's uses.  ALL AR types used in the mass shootings were purchased legally so let's stop with the "Oh Yah, what about the Criminal".  Hand Grenades do a much better job at killing but the people that legally buy them pay the 200 bucks and just don't use them for mass killings no matter what the movies say.  People that own Automatic Weapons pay the 200 bucks and are not the problem.  But an 18 year old kid with a score to settle that buys it without paying the 200 bucks IS the problem.  Actually, it isn't limited to age as the shootings can attest.  You just have to be 18 years old or older.  Not a problem if the 18 year old pays the 200 bucks for the license to possess one.  There are many young people that have at least a class 4 or class D firearms license and you just don't hear about them doing these insane things.
> 
> Sorry to bust your bubble but I am not out to take your guns.  I just suggest that we reclassify one specific weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No....dipshit...it isn't a cult weapon......it is an easy to use rifle, that allows for customization....and it is very easy for women and small framed humans to use it for self defense, competition, hunting and collecting....
> 
> There are 8 million of them in private hands....
> 
> And how does anything you propose stop any criminal or mass shooter....dipshit?   This shooter and all the others would pay your 200 dollars, register their guns and then go and shoot people....moron.
> 
> Nothing you or the other anti gunners propose would stop a criminal or a mass shooter...and that is the point.....you guys want to baby step the restrictions on guns and the fees, and the taxes.....and the paperwork so that normal, law abiding people are too afraid to own legal guns...for fear of failing some step of the process that will lead to a felony conviction for a paperwork mistake....
> 
> Meanwhile, criminals don't care....
> 
> *By the way, genius......felons do not have to register their illegal guns...the Supreme Court, in Haynes v. United States ruled that forcing criminals to register their illegal guns violates their 5th Amendment Rights against self incrimination......so if it violates their Rights, it violates my Rights.....doofus.*
Click to expand...


Actually, you brought up a couple of good point amongst the crap you spew.  You left out a few things.

The AR is no longer under Copyright.  Even you can get a license to manufacture, sell and distribute them.  About 3 percent of the population have used the M-16 and feel comfortable using the AR.  Yes, it's versitile but it's till made for one reason and one reason only.  To kill people.  If you bought one to put food on the table then you really should have bought a few sides of beef and installed a root cellar instead.  Other rifles do a much better job at getting the groceries.  

You can currently buy an AR for less than 400 bucks.  Okay, it's pretty basic and you had best not fire the MIl Grad Ammo.  But it works just fine with the stock 223 loads.  It's not nearly as pretty.  But for less than 400 bucks, exactly what do you expect?

For Varmints, the AR isn't in my picture.  I prefer the Remington model 700 VSSF II  chambered for the 223 with a 50 grain bullet.  Okay, it costs twice as much but it can nail anything from a rabbit to coyote at up to about 400 yds.  But I would prefer it in 243 or 6mm.  It's as accurate out to 400 yds as the 223 but has a much higher hitting power at 90 grains.  If you try and go past 50 grains in a 223, you start losing accuracy and range.  But a Savage costing less than 400 bucks in 223 or 243 also does a great job, it just won't be a Purty.  

So, the only major thing an AR can do is kill people better.  It doesn't make the list of the top 5 varmint rifles on any list done by reputable testers.  So why would you buy an AR to go varmint shooting when the Remington on the high end and the Savage on the low end does a better job?

BTW, I shoot a Mauser Shavetail 22 long rifle for Ground Hogs.  Now, that's a sport.  I stopped shooting it when I found out just how rare a bird it really is.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

The Derp said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you are seeing is fewer people willing to admit to anonymous pollsters that they own guns...especially after several newspapers decided to publish the names and addresses of gun owners .........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But...isn't knowing who has a gun and who doesn't a deterrent?
> 
> Don't gun owners want people to know they have guns?
> 
> How are they to deter criminals if the criminals don't know they're armed?
> 
> Or is it a personal wish fulfillment that your gun ownership is kept a secret so you have justification to shoot someone?
> 
> Seems to me that advertising you have a gun only makes it that much more likely someone will break into your house or car when you're not around and steal the gun, like they do with as many as 600,000 guns a year.
Click to expand...


I am a proponent for CCWs not Open Carry.  The idea is to not let the bad guy know who is and who isn't armed.  Makes em real nervous.  Of course, the stupid ones won't care.  But if I were a Bad Guy, the armed robbery where there is a good chance everyone lives turn a different direction if I see someone in there wearing a gun.  The Proud Gun Owner will be the first to get it.  And since I just went from an Robber to a Murderer, I go into a "No Witness left behind" way of thinking.  If I get into a situation that requires me to pull a weapon I have already decided to shoot after reviewing all the legalities that one has to learn to get a CCW.  I don't pull it and say, "Freeze Dirtbag".  I pull it and kill the SOB.   Then I take out the Mag, empty the shells out of it, leave the gun on the counter with the slide locked open and step away from it while waiting to be handcuffed and taken to jail.  Even if I were saving many lives and it's can be proven.  AS far as I can see, most that open carry shouldn't be trusted with a toaster much less a gun.  (here comes the shrieking from the ones that disagree).


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rustic said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do I need a gun?  I don't absolutely need a gun.  I want one and have one.  One of the reasons I might need a gun is when people like you try and take away my rights like outlined in the 1st amendment.  You seem to forget that amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> You don’t understand the second amendment obviously
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not as you interpret it, no.  And you are forgetting the 1st amendment almost entirely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The main purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to keep American citizens from being disarmed by an oppressive US government and forced to live in a police state where only the government has weapons....like maybe a Gestapo controlled by some asshole like Obama.  Remember, that sleazy bastard suggested we have a national police force under his control.  Dreams of his father.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The government controls all aspects of your life already if you didn't know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s why we have no real freedom in this country
Click to expand...


I have lots of Freedom.  I can see you never visited Spain in the 60s and 70s like I did.  I can see you never visited East Berlin in the 80s like I did.  I can see you never visited....... pick many countries.  Some of the bad ones even called their Governments Democracies.  If you are absolutely sure that the US is not a free country, I suggest you denounce your citizenship and move to one that is.  Good friggin luck finding one more free than America.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Cecilie1200 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove that an Ar shoots faster than any other rifle as you have claimed over and over.
> 
> An AR is NOT an M16 it just looks like one.  An AR is absolutely no different than my .223 Ranch rifle when it comes to performance
> 
> And FYI I do not own an AR frame rifle.  The only .223 semiauto I have is my Ruger Mini 14.  I do not need an AR because it would be redundant and IMO a waste of my money.
> 
> But unlike you I can actually understand that the AR is not making people kill
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simple.  The AR uses a completely different mechanism for it's bolt and action.  It's faster, much faster.  The Mini-14 is an older design from the M-14 and M-1.  Now, that is the answer, you Terrorist Baby Killer.
> 
> You need to move on and stop this absurd support of the AR or they just might lump your Mini-14 in with it when (notice the word when) change the law to protect our children.  Are you willing to have to pay 200 bucks and register not only you but your weapon on a national database?  Can you even pass a national database search?
> 
> So keep pushing, there, Baby Killer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not faster.  Both rifles can only fire as fast as the trigger can be pulled.  You have not substantiated these claims with any actual data .
> 
> You're too fucking stupid to see that the AR is just a plain old semiautomatic rifle with some extra plastic doodads
> 
> And no I will not register my firearms since it's none of anyone's business what I own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, but see, leftists are terrified of all semi-automatic weapons, because it has "automatic" in the name, and they therefore assume we're talking about machine guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong answer, fruitcake.  What is has the highest body count for a weapon in the mass shootings in the last 25 years?  Yes, it's a semi auto but it's based on a full auto brother.  It's designed to kill very quickly and efficiently of people.  It's the weapon of choice because it does the best job.  Can you tell us what weapon I am talking about without the NRA Boilerplate response?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Without the NRA boilerplate".  I can only assume that means "without those pesky facts about guns replacing the panic and loathing".
Click to expand...


Just like I said.  When you remove the NRA Boilerplate, about all that is left is.......not a whole hell of a lot.


----------



## Contumacious

Daryl Hunt said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> So stand up and take credit for the Mass Shootings in the Schools today.  Your Culture is winning while our children are dying.  You have made it to easy to get the one tool to do the job.  Be proud of yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> People kill people firearms cannot... No one was made by An AR to kill anybody else.
> Gun free zones are killing fields waiting to happen. And firearms have nothing to do with it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you make it easy for any nutcase to purchase an AR and use it as it was intended for.  So just accept the reasonability that you are contributing to those mass shooting of children.  Now, that make you a real man doesn't it.  And that is the real reason you slaver at the AR when you see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> just because you wet your panties over people owning an AR 15-please don't project your proclivities upon the rest of us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe that people get their panties wet when they DISARM their fellow countrymen. Sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I want to disarm those that have the highest body counts in mass murders.  Simple as that and it can be done.  It can't be done until we educate the public about how to do it.  I know how to do it but you seem to keep going with the standard NRA Boilerplate.  The NRA should be listed as a terrorist organization.
Click to expand...



You and your ilk want to circumvent the Constitution and use violence or the threat of violence to abolish - amend -  our right to bear arms. *You , stupid son of a bitch, are the terrorist.*



.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Daryl Hunt said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is, I am self-employed have been for 20+ years I’ve been debt free for about the same time. I have never purchased insurance, I homeschool my kids, I hunt and grow my own food, but I also realize I have no real freedom in this country, And my kids are going to live in an Orwellian state most likely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I don't believe any of that shit you say about yourself.
> 
> And if you actually, really hunt for food, why can't you use a crossbow or a regular bow?  Not man enough, I guess.  Alexander the Great killed bears, lions, and elephants in a skirt and sandals, with a spear.  So if he could do it, why can't you kill a deer with a bow and arrow?  Because you're not half the hunter you pretend to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s why I am a one issue voter, I can do nothing to change the direction of this country. It has been lost for over a century… The cancer of socialism has won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So wait...you say socialism won, yet in the sentence prior, you talk of living your rugged individualist life.  So which is it?  Is the government oppressive or isn't it?  Doesn't sound like it since you get to live your shitty life the way you want.  Like I said before, _*you just want to call black people the n-word and not face criticism for it.  *_Be honest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The funny thing is progressive put all their chips into socialism, socialism is a 100% failure 100% of the time long term in the history of the planet. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Socialism seems to work just fine for Canada, Germany, Denmark, Norway, South Korea, Israel, and tons of other countries.  What you don't see working well is capitalism.  Capitalism is unable to provide an adequate standard of living for the working class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US isn't capitalist for Government.  It's gotten to the point where it's so corrupt that you can't really tell what it is anymore.  For instance, the no new gun laws.  You will note that the leading Republicans that keep spewing the NRA boilerplate have all received millions from the NRA.  Corporations can't directly give that kind of money to our Politicians.  They can only give 2500 bucks a year.  So they give it to the NRA who has the ability to donate those funds to various Super PACS to be earmarked for those particular Politicians.  And it's all done anonymously.    The problem here is, we need to see who donated what.  Until that happens, our Politicians will deny, deny and deflect because we can't prove otherwise.  And this goes to all Politicians, not just the right or the left.
> 
> What happens when each and every ad has to say who actually donated to it.  And every Bill that is presented has to say exactly who wrote it and financially donated to make it happen.  As long as Corporations are considered People, we need to treat them exactly like they do me and you.  This would make the really corrupt ones run from the building because we would see just how corrupt they really are.
Click to expand...


What the fuck does "capitalist for government" mean?  How does one have an economic system for government?

No new gun laws?

1990 -  Crime Control Act of 1990 bans manufacturing and importing semiautomatic assault weapons in the U.S. and establishes the "gun free school zones" that are working so swimmingly.

1994 - Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act imposes a five-day waiting period on handgun sales and requires a law enforcement background check for sales.

1997 - The Florida Supreme Court upholds an $11.5 million verdict against Kmart for selling a gun to a drunk guy who used it to shoot his ex-girlfriend.

1998 - Gun dealers are required to have trigger locks available for sale and federal grants are created for gun safety and education programs.

1998 - New Orleans becomes the first city to try to sue gun manufacturers for the acts of other people.

1998 - The National Instant Criminal Background Check system is created, and all gun dealers are legally required to institute a pre-sale background check through it.

1999 - Then-Vice President Al Gore casts the tie-breaking vote to require trigger locks on all newly manufactured handguns and extending waiting periods and background check requirements.

1999 - The Los Angeles Board of Supervisors votes to ban the Great Western Gun Show from the fairgrounds where it had been held for 30 years.

2004 - Massachusetts passes a law requiring fingerprint scanning for purchases of guns and gun licenses.

2005 - California passes a law banning manufacture, sale, distribution or import of the BMG.

2005 - Then-President Bush signs into law a federal requirement for all newly-manufactured guns to have trigger locks.

2008 - Then-President Bush signs into law the National Instant Criminal Background Check Improvement Act requiring screening for mental illness in background checks.

2013 - NY expands its "assault weapon" ban to include new types of guns, requires registration of those who have already bought those types of guns, requires background checks for private gun sales, bans 10-round magazines, and requires health workers to report patients they think are dangerous to themselves or others.

Colorado expands background checks and limits the size of magazines.

Connecticut expands their "assault weapon" ban to include more types of guns, limits magazine size, requires registration of the newly-banned types of guns, bans "armor-piercing" bullets, and expands background check requirements.

Maryland requires fingerprinting in background checks, limits magazine size, and expands "assault weapon" ban.

Granted, this isn't the "all guns are eeeeeevil!" legislation you want, but don't tell us "no new gun laws" have been passed.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Issa said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you make it easy for any nutcase to purchase an AR and use it as it was intended for.  So just accept the reasonability that you are contributing to those mass shooting of children.  Now, that make you a real man doesn't it.  And that is the real reason you slaver at the AR when you see it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> just because you wet your panties over people owning an AR 15-please don't project your proclivities upon the rest of us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe that people get their panties wet when they DISARM their fellow countrymen. Sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I want to disarm those that have the highest body counts in mass murders.  Simple as that and it can be done.  It can't be done until we educate the public about how to do it.  I know how to do it but you seem to keep going with the standard NRA Boilerplate.  The NRA should be listed as a terrorist organization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't want to disarm those committing mass murders.  You want to disarm EVERYONE, in the hopes that the mass murderers will cooperate, as well.  It's painfully obvious that you're really just hoping you can somehow pass enough laws to erase the invention of guns entirely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you love guns so much why don't you go to Syria and have fun over there. Why you need guns in the city ?
Click to expand...


Um, just off the top of my head, because criminals in cities have guns?


----------



## The Derp

Daryl Hunt said:


> I am a proponent for CCWs not Open Carry.  The idea is to not let the bad guy know who is and who isn't armed.  Makes em real nervous.



Does it?  How many "bad guys with guns" have CCW's actually stopped vs. how many guns are stolen every year from "responsible gun owners"?  Because as many as 600,000 guns are stolen from "responsible gun owners" every year.  That includes people with CCW.




Daryl Hunt said:


> But if I were a Bad Guy, the armed robbery where there is a good chance everyone lives turn a different direction if I see someone in there wearing a gun.



Or they just shoot the guy wearing the gun first, then go about the armed robbery.  How is a CCW supposed to protect you when your back is turned to the bad guy and he shoots you, unawares?  Like I said, this is about personal wish fulfillment; your life is so utterly meaningless and without note that you have to fantasize about being in a situation where you can be a hero.  That says that you don't think very highly of yourself right now, that you need this personal wish fulfillment to give your life meaning.  And more likely than not, your gun will get stolen than you'll ever have the chance to be the hero you want to be.




Daryl Hunt said:


> The Proud Gun Owner will be the first to get it



So I notice all these "No true Scotsman" tactics being employed to abdicate responsibility for gun violence.  It must be wicked nice to be able to say after the fact that some person wasn't a "responsible gun owner", after they lose their gun or have it stolen.  Everyone seems like a "responsible gun owner" until they're not.  Which makes it a squishy, moveable target that you can wiggle around within the parameters based on how your argument is faring.  In other words, a cop out.




Daryl Hunt said:


> .  And since I just went from an Robber to a Murderer, I go into a "No Witness left behind" way of thinking.  If I get into a situation that requires me to pull a weapon I have already decided to shoot after reviewing all the legalities that one has to learn to get a CCW.  I don't pull it and say, "Freeze Dirtbag".  I pull it and kill the SOB.   Then I take out the Mag, empty the shells out of it, leave the gun on the counter with the slide locked open and step away from it while waiting to be handcuffed and taken to jail.  Even if I were saving many lives and it's can be proven.  AS far as I can see, most that open carry shouldn't be trusted with a toaster much less a gun.  (here comes the shrieking from the ones that disagree).



Like I said, personal wish fulfillment to fill the void of emptiness and meaninglessness of your life.  The only way you can give your life purpose is to act like a vigilante.  That says quite a bit about your mental state; maybe you have a mental illness that would otherwise disqualify you from owning a gun.  As a "responsible gun owner", have you been tested for mental illness?  Often times, mentally ill people don't know or think they're mentally ill, so they go without a diagnosis and end up "snapping" later.  Then everyone hems and haws over how mental illness is to blame, yet as a "responsible gun owner" you didn't act responsibly to get yourself evaluated by a mental health professional.  So the cycle just continues.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Cecilie1200 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> So nothing of substance; just you being mad that you can't call black people the N-word anymore, you can't call women "sugar tits", or gay people the f-word.
> 
> Fuck you.
> 
> 
> 
> Na, I’m a libertarian I really don’t care about social issues in general. I’m a one issue voter…
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, there is nothing that you can think of that you're prohibited from doing by the government.  Not one single thing.  So it's more about _*feelings*_ with you.  You _*feel*_ that your freedoms are being curtailed but you can't _*articulate*_ what those freedoms actually are.
> 
> So you posture and call yourself a "libertarian", which is hilarious because "libertarians" end up being the most government-dependent people there are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The thing is, I am self-employed have been for 20+ years I’ve been debt free for about the same time. I have never purchased insurance, I homeschool my kids, I hunt and grow my own food, but I also realize I have no real freedom in this country, And my kids are going to live in an Orwellian state most likely.
> That’s why I am a one issue voter, I can do nothing to change the direction of this country. It has been lost for over a century… The cancer of socialism has won.
> The funny thing is progressive put all their chips into socialism, socialism is a 100% failure 100% of the time long term in the history of the planet. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I ever meet one, I will tell them what you said.  But I happen to be a Progressive Conservative.  We are a strange lot.  We want to view new ideas but we also want our Government to stop the runaway spending it has done in the past.  From the looks of things, it's going to accelerate dramatically thank to you Right Wing Nut Jobs that seem to believe that our Grand Children will fix the problem so you won't.  Since you Right Wing Nutjobs can't figure a way out of it, maybe a few new ideas or Progressive Ideas are in order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We CAN'T figure a way out of it?  We keep giving you common-sense solutions, and you keep screaming like stuck pigs and refusing to even try them and demanding that what we need is even more of the "progressive" ideas that are clearly progressing toward nothing but making our children into clay pigeons in shooting-gallery schools.
> 
> So once again, you owe us a detailed explanation of 1) how we are not ALREADY implementing your ideas, 2) why they are failing miserably, and 3) why their failure means we need even more.  Oh, and 4) how you can POSSIBLY think anyone is to blame for those dead kids aside from the shooter, and YOU.
Click to expand...


You have yet to give a workable solution.  Not one single workable solution.  Now, give my your solution.  I already gave you mine and it coincides with millions that are headed that direction.  Including the Students (that survived, anyway) from the most recent mass school shooting.  The genie is out of the bottle now.  Too bad it didn't come out of the bottle 25 years ago.

Yes, I do accept some responsibility for those murder children.  Maybe I could have tried harder to get my message across it might have made a difference.  Meanwhile, you allowed the legal sales to an individual that had every intention of using the Mass Murder Weapon of Choice on the children.  You have done nothing to prevent it and prevented others from coming up with a workable solution to prevent it.  That makes you complicit in those murders of children, baby killer.


----------



## The Derp

Cecilie1200 said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> just because you wet your panties over people owning an AR 15-please don't project your proclivities upon the rest of us
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe that people get their panties wet when they DISARM their fellow countrymen. Sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I want to disarm those that have the highest body counts in mass murders.  Simple as that and it can be done.  It can't be done until we educate the public about how to do it.  I know how to do it but you seem to keep going with the standard NRA Boilerplate.  The NRA should be listed as a terrorist organization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't want to disarm those committing mass murders.  You want to disarm EVERYONE, in the hopes that the mass murderers will cooperate, as well.  It's painfully obvious that you're really just hoping you can somehow pass enough laws to erase the invention of guns entirely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you love guns so much why don't you go to Syria and have fun over there. Why you need guns in the city ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, just off the top of my head, because criminals in cities have guns?
Click to expand...


And from where do they get those guns?  From straw purchasers who traffic the guns to the cities from lazy and lax gun law states.  It's called an "iron pipeline".


----------



## Taz

The right to bear arms, sure, but nobody said anything about bullets.


----------



## Cecilie1200

The Derp said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you are seeing is fewer people willing to admit to anonymous pollsters that they own guns...especially after several newspapers decided to publish the names and addresses of gun owners .........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But...isn't knowing who has a gun and who doesn't a deterrent?
> 
> Don't gun owners want people to know they have guns?
> 
> How are they to deter criminals if the criminals don't know they're armed?
> 
> Or is it a personal wish fulfillment that your gun ownership is kept a secret so you have justification to shoot someone?
> 
> Seems to me that advertising you have a gun only makes it that much more likely someone will break into your house or car when you're not around and steal the gun, like they do with as many as 600,000 guns a year.
Click to expand...


No, dumb shit.  As usual, you have no idea what's reality OR what other people are actually saying.

We keep telling you the deterrent is in knowing there are armed people out there, and NOT knowing who they are.  Knowing who is and isn't armed is just another way of saying, "Choosing your first targets".

Gun owners typically don't think it's any of your business what they do and don't own.

Have you considered having "fucking moron" tattooed on your forehead to save everyone a lot of time?


----------



## Daryl Hunt

The Derp said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am a proponent for CCWs not Open Carry.  The idea is to not let the bad guy know who is and who isn't armed.  Makes em real nervous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does it?  How many "bad guys with guns" have CCW's actually stopped vs. how many guns are stolen every year from "responsible gun owners"?  Because as many as 600,000 guns are stolen from "responsible gun owners" every year.  That includes people with CCW.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> But if I were a Bad Guy, the armed robbery where there is a good chance everyone lives turn a different direction if I see someone in there wearing a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or they just shoot the guy wearing the gun first, then go about the armed robbery.  How is a CCW supposed to protect you when your back is turned to the bad guy and he shoots you, unawares?  Like I said, this is about personal wish fulfillment; your life is so utterly meaningless and without note that you have to fantasize about being in a situation where you can be a hero.  That says that you don't think very highly of yourself right now, that you need this personal wish fulfillment to give your life meaning.  And more likely than not, your gun will get stolen than you'll ever have the chance to be the hero you want to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Proud Gun Owner will be the first to get it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So I notice all these "No true Scotsman" tactics being employed to abdicate responsibility for gun violence.  It must be wicked nice to be able to say after the fact that some person wasn't a "responsible gun owner", after they lose their gun or have it stolen.  Everyone seems like a "responsible gun owner" until they're not.  Which makes it a squishy, moveable target that you can wiggle around within the parameters based on how your argument is faring.  In other words, a cop out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> .  And since I just went from an Robber to a Murderer, I go into a "No Witness left behind" way of thinking.  If I get into a situation that requires me to pull a weapon I have already decided to shoot after reviewing all the legalities that one has to learn to get a CCW.  I don't pull it and say, "Freeze Dirtbag".  I pull it and kill the SOB.   Then I take out the Mag, empty the shells out of it, leave the gun on the counter with the slide locked open and step away from it while waiting to be handcuffed and taken to jail.  Even if I were saving many lives and it's can be proven.  AS far as I can see, most that open carry shouldn't be trusted with a toaster much less a gun.  (here comes the shrieking from the ones that disagree).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, personal wish fulfillment to fill the void of emptiness and meaninglessness of your life.  The only way you can give your life purpose is to act like a vigilante.  That says quite a bit about your mental state; maybe you have a mental illness that would otherwise disqualify you from owning a gun.  As a "responsible gun owner", have you been tested for mental illness?  Often times, mentally ill people don't know or think they're mentally ill, so they go without a diagnosis and end up "snapping" later.  Then everyone hems and haws over how mental illness is to blame, yet as a "responsible gun owner" you didn't act responsibly to get yourself evaluated by a mental health professional.  So the cycle just continues.
Click to expand...


I happen to be Retired Military.  This means I will shoot if it's necessary.  And if it's necessary, I don't shoot to wound.  If it hasn't become a life threatening situation, the weapon stays hidden and the Robbery does on with the high probability that no one dies that day.  My mental state is not in question.  Yours has become an issue.  Now step slowly away from that toaster before you hurt someone.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Taz said:


> The right to bear arms, sure, but nobody said anything about bullets.



Actually, I think it's a misprint.  It should have said, "The Right to Arm Bears" to make it more sporting.


----------



## The Derp

Cecilie1200 said:


> No, dumb shit.  As usual, you have no idea what's reality OR what other people are actually saying.



Here's what your people are saying; that it's not "responsible gun owners" who are to blame for gun deaths.  That laws don't work.  That getting shot is an inevitability.  Tell me what "reality" is to you...because it seems to me like you imagine things, then think what you imagine is real because you imagined it.




Cecilie1200 said:


> We keep telling you the deterrent is in knowing there are armed people out there, and NOT knowing who they are.  Knowing who is and isn't armed is just another way of saying, "Choosing your first targets".



Simply knowing armed people are out there isn't a deterrent.  In fact, it's an invitation to thieves who want to steal guns and either sell them or use them.  As many as 600,000 guns are stolen _*every year*_ from people just like you.  Most of those people don't even report the gun was stolen.  Then the gun finds its way into the hands of criminals or terrorists, all because you weren't the "responsible gun owner" you claimed to be.  When the number of guns stolen gets to 0, _*then*_ you can pretend like guns protect you.  *Until that time comes, you are more likely to have your gun stolen than you are to ever use it to defend yourself or your family.*




Cecilie1200 said:


> Gun owners typically don't think it's any of your business what they do and don't own.



Well, the problem is that gun owners don't seem capable of being responsible enough to prevent their guns from being stolen.  So once they can display that they are capable of that, then we can talk about how much safer they make society.  Because right now, they don't thanks to "responsible gun owners" who can't account for their lost and/or stolen guns.




Cecilie1200 said:


> Have you considered having "fucking moron" tattooed on your forehead to save everyone a lot of time?



Maybe you should tattoo "Useful Idiot" across yours since all you're doing is bolstering profits of gun companies who don't give a shit about you or your safety.


----------



## Contumacious

The Derp said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, dumb shit.  As usual, you have no idea what's reality OR what other people are actually saying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's what your people are saying; that it's not "responsible gun owners" who are to blame for gun deaths.  That laws don't work.  That getting shot is an inevitability.  Tell me what "reality" is to you...because it seems to me like you imagine things, then think what you imagine is real because you imagined it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We keep telling you the deterrent is in knowing there are armed people out there, and NOT knowing who they are.  Knowing who is and isn't armed is just another way of saying, "Choosing your first targets".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simply knowing armed people are out there isn't a deterrent.  In fact, it's an invitation to thieves who want to steal guns and either sell them or use them.  As many as 600,000 guns are stolen _*every year*_ from people just like you.  Most of those people don't even report the gun was stolen.  Then the gun finds its way into the hands of criminals or terrorists, all because you weren't the "responsible gun owner" you claimed to be.  When the number of guns stolen gets to 0, _*then*_ you can pretend like guns protect you.  *Until that time comes, you are more likely to have your gun stolen than you are to ever use it to defend yourself or your family.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gun owners typically don't think it's any of your business what they do and don't own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the problem is that gun owners don't seem capable of being responsible enough to prevent their guns from being stolen.  So once they can display that they are capable of that, then we can talk about how much safer they make society.  Because right now, they don't thanks to "responsible gun owners" who can't account for their lost and/or stolen guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you considered having "fucking moron" tattooed on your forehead to save everyone a lot of time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you should tattoo "Useful Idiot" across yours since all you're doing is bolstering profits of gun companies who don't give a shit about you or your safety.
Click to expand...



Mr. Twerp:


It is NOT the responsibility of gun owners to police other gun owners. 


If a gun owner misuses his/her weapon then its up to the police to arrest, indict and incarcerate the guilty individual.





.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Contumacious said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> People kill people firearms cannot... No one was made by An AR to kill anybody else.
> Gun free zones are killing fields waiting to happen. And firearms have nothing to do with it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you make it easy for any nutcase to purchase an AR and use it as it was intended for.  So just accept the reasonability that you are contributing to those mass shooting of children.  Now, that make you a real man doesn't it.  And that is the real reason you slaver at the AR when you see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> just because you wet your panties over people owning an AR 15-please don't project your proclivities upon the rest of us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe that people get their panties wet when they DISARM their fellow countrymen. Sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I want to disarm those that have the highest body counts in mass murders.  Simple as that and it can be done.  It can't be done until we educate the public about how to do it.  I know how to do it but you seem to keep going with the standard NRA Boilerplate.  The NRA should be listed as a terrorist organization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You and your ilk want to circumvent the Constitution and use violence or the threat of violence to abolish - amend -  our right to bear arms. *You , stupid son of a bitch, are the terrorist.*
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Listen up, Baby Killer.  Yes, you have the right and everything I have stated does not take away that right.  Hell, you can own a Mah Duce Legally as well as long as you do the proper paperwork and apply for the license and pay the 200 bucks.  So, it's you that are the killer of children by not doing a damned thing other than gum yer jaws about how everyone else is going to take your precious guns.  And doing nothing is contributing to the Mass Shootings.  Doing something wrong is many times better than doing nothing. Or as said in the Military, even a bad plan is better than no plan at all.


----------



## The Derp

Daryl Hunt said:


> I happen to be Retired Military.  This means I will shoot if it's necessary.  And if it's necessary, I don't shoot to wound.  If it hasn't become a life threatening situation, the weapon stays hidden and the Robbery does on with the high probability that no one dies that day.  My mental state is not in question.  Yours has become an issue.  Now step slowly away from that toaster before you hurt someone.



Your mental state is not in question, huh?  So you've gone through a mental health evaluation?  How do you know your mental health is good *if you've never been checked out?
*
This is why blaming mental illness for gun violence is stupid; most mentally ill people don't think or know that they're ill, so they go without a diagnosis and end up snapping later on.


----------



## Cecilie1200

The Derp said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So once again, you owe us a detailed explanation of 1) how we are not ALREADY implementing your ideas, 2) why they are failing miserably, and 3) why their failure means we need even more.  Oh, and 4) how you can POSSIBLY think anyone is to blame for those dead kids aside from the shooter, and YOU.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because guns are widely and readily and easily available, duh.
Click to expand...


Well, you got the "duh" part correct.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Daryl Hunt said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simple.  The AR uses a completely different mechanism for it's bolt and action.  It's faster, much faster.  The Mini-14 is an older design from the M-14 and M-1.  Now, that is the answer, you Terrorist Baby Killer.
> 
> You need to move on and stop this absurd support of the AR or they just might lump your Mini-14 in with it when (notice the word when) change the law to protect our children.  Are you willing to have to pay 200 bucks and register not only you but your weapon on a national database?  Can you even pass a national database search?
> 
> So keep pushing, there, Baby Killer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not faster.  Both rifles can only fire as fast as the trigger can be pulled.  You have not substantiated these claims with any actual data .
> 
> You're too fucking stupid to see that the AR is just a plain old semiautomatic rifle with some extra plastic doodads
> 
> And no I will not register my firearms since it's none of anyone's business what I own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, but see, leftists are terrified of all semi-automatic weapons, because it has "automatic" in the name, and they therefore assume we're talking about machine guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong answer, fruitcake.  What is has the highest body count for a weapon in the mass shootings in the last 25 years?  Yes, it's a semi auto but it's based on a full auto brother.  It's designed to kill very quickly and efficiently of people.  It's the weapon of choice because it does the best job.  Can you tell us what weapon I am talking about without the NRA Boilerplate response?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Without the NRA boilerplate".  I can only assume that means "without those pesky facts about guns replacing the panic and loathing".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just like I said.  When you remove the NRA Boilerplate, about all that is left is.......not a whole hell of a lot.
Click to expand...


Pretty much just your bullshit.  Funny how when you remove facts and reason from any argument, all that's left is leftist bullshit.


----------



## The Derp

Contumacious said:


> It is NOT the responsibility of gun owners to police other gun owners..



Sounds to me like you don't think it's anyone's responsibility, which is irresponsible in and of itself.  _*Someone*_ has to be responsible for guns being stolen from gun owners.  Since we're playing the game of victim blaming, I blame the gun owners for being irresponsible. * Since you cannot responsibly manage your firearms, what the fuck makes you think you can responsibly use them!?*

Everyone is a "responsible gun owner" until they're not.  It's a nice label you give yourself to make you feel more secure in your bullshit.  But the fact is that most guns used in crimes are guns stolen from "responsible gun owners' like you.  Now you're saying you shouldn't be responsible for your own gun getting stolen.  What a load of crap.




Contumacious said:


> If a gun owner misuses his/her weapon then its up to the police to arrest, indict and incarcerate the guilty individual..



So you don't think as a gun owner you bear a collective responsibility to safety manage and use guns?  

WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK????


----------



## Cecilie1200

Daryl Hunt said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Na, I’m a libertarian I really don’t care about social issues in general. I’m a one issue voter…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, there is nothing that you can think of that you're prohibited from doing by the government.  Not one single thing.  So it's more about _*feelings*_ with you.  You _*feel*_ that your freedoms are being curtailed but you can't _*articulate*_ what those freedoms actually are.
> 
> So you posture and call yourself a "libertarian", which is hilarious because "libertarians" end up being the most government-dependent people there are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The thing is, I am self-employed have been for 20+ years I’ve been debt free for about the same time. I have never purchased insurance, I homeschool my kids, I hunt and grow my own food, but I also realize I have no real freedom in this country, And my kids are going to live in an Orwellian state most likely.
> That’s why I am a one issue voter, I can do nothing to change the direction of this country. It has been lost for over a century… The cancer of socialism has won.
> The funny thing is progressive put all their chips into socialism, socialism is a 100% failure 100% of the time long term in the history of the planet. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I ever meet one, I will tell them what you said.  But I happen to be a Progressive Conservative.  We are a strange lot.  We want to view new ideas but we also want our Government to stop the runaway spending it has done in the past.  From the looks of things, it's going to accelerate dramatically thank to you Right Wing Nut Jobs that seem to believe that our Grand Children will fix the problem so you won't.  Since you Right Wing Nutjobs can't figure a way out of it, maybe a few new ideas or Progressive Ideas are in order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We CAN'T figure a way out of it?  We keep giving you common-sense solutions, and you keep screaming like stuck pigs and refusing to even try them and demanding that what we need is even more of the "progressive" ideas that are clearly progressing toward nothing but making our children into clay pigeons in shooting-gallery schools.
> 
> So once again, you owe us a detailed explanation of 1) how we are not ALREADY implementing your ideas, 2) why they are failing miserably, and 3) why their failure means we need even more.  Oh, and 4) how you can POSSIBLY think anyone is to blame for those dead kids aside from the shooter, and YOU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have yet to give a workable solution.  Not one single workable solution.  Now, give my your solution.  I already gave you mine and it coincides with millions that are headed that direction.  Including the Students (that survived, anyway) from the most recent mass school shooting.  The genie is out of the bottle now.  Too bad it didn't come out of the bottle 25 years ago.
> 
> Yes, I do accept some responsibility for those murder children.  Maybe I could have tried harder to get my message across it might have made a difference.  Meanwhile, you allowed the legal sales to an individual that had every intention of using the Mass Murder Weapon of Choice on the children.  You have done nothing to prevent it and prevented others from coming up with a workable solution to prevent it.  That makes you complicit in those murders of children, baby killer.
Click to expand...


"Not one single workable solution" = "You've given lots of solutions, but none of them are the universal gun ban we want, therefore we pretend they don't exist".


----------



## Rustic

The Derp said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is, I am self-employed have been for 20+ years I’ve been debt free for about the same time. I have never purchased insurance, I homeschool my kids, I hunt and grow my own food, but I also realize I have no real freedom in this country, And my kids are going to live in an Orwellian state most likely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I don't believe any of that shit you say about yourself.
> 
> And if you actually, really hunt for food, why can't you use a crossbow or a regular bow?  Not man enough, I guess.  Alexander the Great killed bears, lions, and elephants in a skirt and sandals, with a spear.  So if he could do it, why can't you kill a deer with a bow and arrow?  Because you're not half the hunter you pretend to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s why I am a one issue voter, I can do nothing to change the direction of this country. It has been lost for over a century… The cancer of socialism has won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So wait...you say socialism won, yet in the sentence prior, you talk of living your rugged individualist life.  So which is it?  Is the government oppressive or isn't it?  Doesn't sound like it since you get to live your shitty life the way you want.  Like I said before, _*you just want to call black people the n-word and not face criticism for it.  *_Be honest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The funny thing is progressive put all their chips into socialism, socialism is a 100% failure 100% of the time long term in the history of the planet. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Socialism seems to work just fine for Canada, Germany, Denmark, Norway, South Korea, Israel, and tons of other countries.  What you don't see working well is capitalism.  Capitalism is unable to provide an adequate standard of living for the working class.
Click to expand...

Funny, the Control freak shows his true colors...


----------



## Cecilie1200

The Derp said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe that people get their panties wet when they DISARM their fellow countrymen. Sad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I want to disarm those that have the highest body counts in mass murders.  Simple as that and it can be done.  It can't be done until we educate the public about how to do it.  I know how to do it but you seem to keep going with the standard NRA Boilerplate.  The NRA should be listed as a terrorist organization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't want to disarm those committing mass murders.  You want to disarm EVERYONE, in the hopes that the mass murderers will cooperate, as well.  It's painfully obvious that you're really just hoping you can somehow pass enough laws to erase the invention of guns entirely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you love guns so much why don't you go to Syria and have fun over there. Why you need guns in the city ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, just off the top of my head, because criminals in cities have guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And from where do they get those guns?  From straw purchasers who traffic the guns to the cities from lazy and lax gun law states.  It's called an "iron pipeline".
Click to expand...


"Straw purchasers" must be the leftist meme _du jour_.  Too bad for you that the Department of Justice AND the latest surveys of actual prison inmates don't agree.


----------



## Rustic

Daryl Hunt said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is, I am self-employed have been for 20+ years I’ve been debt free for about the same time. I have never purchased insurance, I homeschool my kids, I hunt and grow my own food, but I also realize I have no real freedom in this country, And my kids are going to live in an Orwellian state most likely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I don't believe any of that shit you say about yourself.
> 
> And if you actually, really hunt for food, why can't you use a crossbow or a regular bow?  Not man enough, I guess.  Alexander the Great killed bears, lions, and elephants in a skirt and sandals, with a spear.  So if he could do it, why can't you kill a deer with a bow and arrow?  Because you're not half the hunter you pretend to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s why I am a one issue voter, I can do nothing to change the direction of this country. It has been lost for over a century… The cancer of socialism has won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So wait...you say socialism won, yet in the sentence prior, you talk of living your rugged individualist life.  So which is it?  Is the government oppressive or isn't it?  Doesn't sound like it since you get to live your shitty life the way you want.  Like I said before, _*you just want to call black people the n-word and not face criticism for it.  *_Be honest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The funny thing is progressive put all their chips into socialism, socialism is a 100% failure 100% of the time long term in the history of the planet. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Socialism seems to work just fine for Canada, Germany, Denmark, Norway, South Korea, Israel, and tons of other countries.  What you don't see working well is capitalism.  Capitalism is unable to provide an adequate standard of living for the working class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US isn't capitalist for Government.  It's gotten to the point where it's so corrupt that you can't really tell what it is anymore.  For instance, the no new gun laws.  You will note that the leading Republicans that keep spewing the NRA boilerplate have all received millions from the NRA.  Corporations can't directly give that kind of money to our Politicians.  They can only give 2500 bucks a year.  So they give it to the NRA who has the ability to donate those funds to various Super PACS to be earmarked for those particular Politicians.  And it's all done anonymously.    The problem here is, we need to see who donated what.  Until that happens, our Politicians will deny, deny and deflect because we can't prove otherwise.  And this goes to all Politicians, not just the right or the left.
> 
> What happens when each and every ad has to say who actually donated to it.  And every Bill that is presented has to say exactly who wrote it and financially donated to make it happen.  As long as Corporations are considered People, we need to treat them exactly like they do me and you.  This would make the really corrupt ones run from the building because we would see just how corrupt they really are.
Click to expand...

...and still an AR15 is just a sporting rifle nothing more, nothing less...


----------



## The Derp

Cecilie1200 said:


> "Straw purchasers" must be the leftist meme _du jour_.  Too bad for you that the Department of Justice AND the latest surveys of actual prison inmates don't agree.



Don't agree with what?  Straw purchasing is exactly how guns get from low, lazy, and lax gun law states to places like Chicago.  No gun "falls off a truck".  All guns are initially purchased legally, then are stolen or "transferred" with no record of a background check.


----------



## Rustic

Daryl Hunt said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, but see, leftists are terrified of all semi-automatic weapons, because it has "automatic" in the name, and they therefore assume we're talking about machine guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong answer, fruitcake.  What is has the highest body count for a weapon in the mass shootings in the last 25 years?  Yes, it's a semi auto but it's based on a full auto brother.  It's designed to kill very quickly and efficiently of people.  It's the weapon of choice because it does the best job.  Can you tell us what weapon I am talking about without the NRA Boilerplate response?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It matters not what a semiauto looks like it only matters how it functions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WRong answer once again.  Part of it is a culture.  The Weapon I am specifically referring to is very much part of a culture.  Now, name that Weapon.  Go ahead and be very specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It matters not what any gun looks like only how it performs an the Ar 15 that you are so afraid of performs no differently than any other semiautomatic in existence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, was that painful?  I hope not.  The AR style has become a cult weapon.  You can say how others are just as deadly but the AR is the weapon of choice for mass shootings.  I am not saying we need to outlaw that specific weapon but we can up it in the firearms where you can't just walk into a store and purchase it in less than 30 minutes or you can't mail order it or buy it at a gunshow with no background check.  If you wanted to keep yours then you can keep it.  Just pay the 200 bucks that would be required, register the weapon and yourself and become responsible for the weapon and it's uses.  ALL AR types used in the mass shootings were purchased legally so let's stop with the "Oh Yah, what about the Criminal".  Hand Grenades do a much better job at killing but the people that legally buy them pay the 200 bucks and just don't use them for mass killings no matter what the movies say.  People that own Automatic Weapons pay the 200 bucks and are not the problem.  But an 18 year old kid with a score to settle that buys it without paying the 200 bucks IS the problem.  Actually, it isn't limited to age as the shootings can attest.  You just have to be 18 years old or older.  Not a problem if the 18 year old pays the 200 bucks for the license to possess one.  There are many young people that have at least a class 4 or class D firearms license and you just don't hear about them doing these insane things.
> 
> Sorry to bust your bubble but I am not out to take your guns.  I just suggest that we reclassify one specific weapon.
Click to expand...

You have no right to reclassify any rifles, ARs are just sporting rifles nothing more nothing less.
There is no better rifle out there for varmints, pigs, coyotes and such...

BTW... Firearm registration is nothing more than firearm confiscation… Fact


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

The Derp said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT the responsibility of gun owners to police other gun owners..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds to me like you don't think it's anyone's responsibility, which is irresponsible in and of itself.  _*Someone*_ has to be responsible for guns being stolen from gun owners.  Since we're playing the game of victim blaming, I blame the gun owners for being irresponsible. * Since you cannot responsibly manage your firearms, what the fuck makes you think you can responsibly use them!?*
> 
> Everyone is a "responsible gun owner" until they're not.  It's a nice label you give yourself to make you feel more secure in your bullshit.  But the fact is that most guns used in crimes are guns stolen from "responsible gun owners' like you.  Now you're saying you shouldn't be responsible for your own gun getting stolen.  What a load of crap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a gun owner misuses his/her weapon then its up to the police to arrest, indict and incarcerate the guilty individual..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't think as a gun owner you bear a collective responsibility to safety manage and use guns?
> 
> WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK????
Click to expand...


Does this mean I'm responsible if someone murders me? Does this mean that all murder victims are collectively responsible for murders? Does this mean that I am responsible and at fault if my _neighbor _is murdered?

If what you say is true then every victim of murder, assault, robbery or theft is responsible for the crime against them and against others.


----------



## Rustic

The Derp said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Straw purchasers" must be the leftist meme _du jour_.  Too bad for you that the Department of Justice AND the latest surveys of actual prison inmates don't agree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't agree with what?  Straw purchasing is exactly how guns get from low, lazy, and lax gun law states to places like Chicago.  No gun "falls off a truck".  All guns are initially purchased legally, then are stolen or "transferred" with no record of a background check.
Click to expand...

na, You’re naïve


----------



## The Derp

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Does this mean I'm responsible if someone murders me? Does this mean that all murder victims are collectively responsible for murders? Does this mean that I am responsible and at fault if my _neighbor _is murdered?



No, but if you're going to claim these instruments of murder are handled by "responsible gun owners", then "responsible gun owners" get the blame when the guns they had stolen from them get used in crimes.  And as many as 600,000 guns a year are stolen from "responsible gun owners".
*
So if 600,000 stolen guns a year is what "responsible gun ownership" looks like, *_*fuck that bullshit*_.

There is no such thing as "responsible gun ownership", so let's stop pretending like gun owners are responsible people.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> If what you say is true then every victim of murder, assault, robbery or theft is responsible for the crime against them and against others.



This is the mentality of gun owners; that these victims are to blame for not arming themselves.


----------



## The Derp

Rustic said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Straw purchasers" must be the leftist meme _du jour_.  Too bad for you that the Department of Justice AND the latest surveys of actual prison inmates don't agree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't agree with what?  Straw purchasing is exactly how guns get from low, lazy, and lax gun law states to places like Chicago.  No gun "falls off a truck".  All guns are initially purchased legally, then are stolen or "transferred" with no record of a background check.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> na, You’re naïve
Click to expand...


OR, you could be wrong.  Since you seem to have a squishy definition of "responsibility", it would seem you're the one who needs to get your shit together and stop being a sucker.  After all, you were suckered into owning a gun by gun companies who prey on the fear instilled in you by NRA propaganda, and now you're trying to future proof yourself against responsibility.

Otherwise, how are guns getting to Chicago?  Magic?  Unicorns?  Teleportation devices?


----------



## Contumacious

The Derp said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT the responsibility of gun owners to police other gun owners..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds to me like you don't think it's anyone's responsibility, which is irresponsible in and of itself.  _*Someone*_ has to be responsible for guns being stolen from gun owners.  Since we're playing the game of victim blaming, I blame the gun owners for being irresponsible. * Since you cannot responsibly manage your firearms, what the fuck makes you think you can responsibly use them!?*
> 
> Everyone is a "responsible gun owner" until they're not.  It's a nice label you give yourself to make you feel more secure in your bullshit.  But the fact is that most guns used in crimes are guns stolen from "responsible gun owners' like you.  Now you're saying you shouldn't be responsible for your own gun getting stolen.  What a load of crap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a gun owner misuses his/her weapon then its up to the police to arrest, indict and incarcerate the guilty individual..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't think as a gun owner you bear a collective responsibility to safety manage and use guns?
> 
> WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK????
Click to expand...



Mr Twerp

I am 70 years old, I have never misused a firearm . I have never invaded my neighbors' rights. Th police has been designated to investigate and protect. I fail to see the reason the powers-that-be refuse to abolish the GUN FREE ZONES statute given the fact that the criminally insane have shown a predilection for our schools.

.


----------



## kaz

Lakhota said:


> I cherish my guns



OMG, every one of you idiot leftists claims to be a gun owner.  Hilarious, Squanto.

Of course, you love guns because of the evil they emanate, which is how you know we shouldn't have them.

You'd scream like a school girl and faint if you ever touched a gun.  Just like if your BFF said she was getting married and showed you her ring.  Or if your boyfriend showed you a new tapestry he bought ...


----------



## The Derp

Contumacious said:


> I am 70 years old, I have never misused a firearm . I have never invaded my neighbors' rights. Th police has been designated to investigate and protect. I fail to see the reason the powers-that-be refuse to abolish the GUN FREE ZONES statute given the fact that the criminally insane have shown a predilection for our schools..




So you're just completely ignoring the conversation we were having about responsibility.  Just because you haven't misused a firearm (according to a standard you just made up on the spot) _*yet*_, doesn't mean you won't eventually, or that your gun won't get stolen and then trafficked to criminals.

The point I'm making is that you can't call yourself a "responsible" anything because you can't predict what will happen down the line.

It is a fact that your gun is more likely to be stolen and used in a crime, than it will ever be used to protect you or your family.

So just by virtue of the fact of owning a gun, you're an irresponsible person.  You can never prove you're a "responsible gun owner" because that means nothing.


----------



## The Derp

kaz said:


> You'd scream like a school girl and faint if you ever touched a gun.  Just like if your BFF said she was getting married and showed you her ring.  Or if your boyfriend showed you a new tapestry he bought ...



So thanks for confirming that all a gun does, really, is cure insecurity.  Of course, it's more likely your gun will be stolen and used in a crime, than it is your gun will ever be used to defend yourself and/or your family.

If as many as 600,000 guns are stolen a year and that's what "responsible gun ownership" looks like, then _*fuuuuuuuuuuuuck  thaaaaaaaaaaaaaat shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit.*_  None of you are responsible gun owners.  It's not something you can prove.  "Responsible gun ownership" would mean *0* guns are stolen a year.  So when 0 guns are stolen a year, _*then*_ you can argue that they serve as some kind of protection or deterrent.  Until then, kindly shut the fuck up.


----------



## turtledude

Daryl Hunt said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> time to ignore the gun banners who squeal in delight every time there is a shooting so they can use the blood of innocents to try to drown out our rights.  You hate the NRA and gun owners because they don't support the leftwing candidates you crave
> 
> 
> 
> Nope because people are dying by the thousands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> really? gun deaths have declined over the years despite millions upon millions more guns in circulation and millions of people carrying guns legally. So you are either ignorant of the fact or lying.  Most gun deaths are SUICIDES.  the remaining number that are not justifiable or excusable shootings are homicides mainly and those are caused at rates of 80-90% by people who are not legally able to own or use guns
> 
> so stuff the silly dramatics.  Gun violence in tis country-especially outside urban areas full of drug gangs is minuscule
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> USA is the worst country in terms of gu related dearhs/mass shootings. So there is clearly a gun problem. Why do you need a gun ? Insecure? Or ready to kill when you are pissed at the world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what do I need a gun for?  many reasons-one of them being to prevent people like you from trying to strip away our rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do I need a gun?  I don't absolutely need a gun.  I want one and have one.  One of the reasons I might need a gun is when people like you try and take away my rights like outlined in the 1st amendment.  You seem to forget that amendment.
Click to expand...


I support your right to blather stupidity.  I am a libertarian-I support all constitutional rights-especially the ones set forth in the constitution


----------



## turtledude

Issa said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> time to ignore the gun banners who squeal in delight every time there is a shooting so they can use the blood of innocents to try to drown out our rights.  You hate the NRA and gun owners because they don't support the leftwing candidates you crave
> 
> 
> 
> Nope because people are dying by the thousands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> really? gun deaths have declined over the years despite millions upon millions more guns in circulation and millions of people carrying guns legally. So you are either ignorant of the fact or lying.  Most gun deaths are SUICIDES.  the remaining number that are not justifiable or excusable shootings are homicides mainly and those are caused at rates of 80-90% by people who are not legally able to own or use guns
> 
> so stuff the silly dramatics.  Gun violence in tis country-especially outside urban areas full of drug gangs is minuscule
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> USA is the worst country in terms of gu related dearhs/mass shootings. So there is clearly a gun problem. Why do you need a gun ? Insecure? Or ready to kill when you are pissed at the world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what do I need a gun for?  many reasons-one of them being to prevent people like you from trying to strip away our rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Enjoy them, I hope you don't kill someone when you lose your temper as many do.
Click to expand...

you're making stuff up-gun banners said CCW permits would cause BLOOD TO RUN IN THE STREETS-SHOOTOUTS Over road rage or parking spot disputes

didn't happen skippy


----------



## Rustic

Daryl Hunt said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> It matters not what a semiauto looks like it only matters how it functions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WRong answer once again.  Part of it is a culture.  The Weapon I am specifically referring to is very much part of a culture.  Now, name that Weapon.  Go ahead and be very specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It matters not what any gun looks like only how it performs an the Ar 15 that you are so afraid of performs no differently than any other semiautomatic in existence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, was that painful?  I hope not.  The AR style has become a cult weapon.  You can say how others are just as deadly but the AR is the weapon of choice for mass shootings.  I am not saying we need to outlaw that specific weapon but we can up it in the firearms where you can't just walk into a store and purchase it in less than 30 minutes or you can't mail order it or buy it at a gunshow with no background check.  If you wanted to keep yours then you can keep it.  Just pay the 200 bucks that would be required, register the weapon and yourself and become responsible for the weapon and it's uses.  ALL AR types used in the mass shootings were purchased legally so let's stop with the "Oh Yah, what about the Criminal".  Hand Grenades do a much better job at killing but the people that legally buy them pay the 200 bucks and just don't use them for mass killings no matter what the movies say.  People that own Automatic Weapons pay the 200 bucks and are not the problem.  But an 18 year old kid with a score to settle that buys it without paying the 200 bucks IS the problem.  Actually, it isn't limited to age as the shootings can attest.  You just have to be 18 years old or older.  Not a problem if the 18 year old pays the 200 bucks for the license to possess one.  There are many young people that have at least a class 4 or class D firearms license and you just don't hear about them doing these insane things.
> 
> Sorry to bust your bubble but I am not out to take your guns.  I just suggest that we reclassify one specific weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No....dipshit...it isn't a cult weapon......it is an easy to use rifle, that allows for customization....and it is very easy for women and small framed humans to use it for self defense, competition, hunting and collecting....
> 
> There are 8 million of them in private hands....
> 
> And how does anything you propose stop any criminal or mass shooter....dipshit?   This shooter and all the others would pay your 200 dollars, register their guns and then go and shoot people....moron.
> 
> Nothing you or the other anti gunners propose would stop a criminal or a mass shooter...and that is the point.....you guys want to baby step the restrictions on guns and the fees, and the taxes.....and the paperwork so that normal, law abiding people are too afraid to own legal guns...for fear of failing some step of the process that will lead to a felony conviction for a paperwork mistake....
> 
> Meanwhile, criminals don't care....
> 
> *By the way, genius......felons do not have to register their illegal guns...the Supreme Court, in Haynes v. United States ruled that forcing criminals to register their illegal guns violates their 5th Amendment Rights against self incrimination......so if it violates their Rights, it violates my Rights.....doofus.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, you brought up a couple of good point amongst the crap you spew.  You left out a few things.
> 
> The AR is no longer under Copyright.  Even you can get a license to manufacture, sell and distribute them.  About 3 percent of the population have used the M-16 and feel comfortable using the AR.  Yes, it's versitile but it's till made for one reason and one reason only.  To kill people.  If you bought one to put food on the table then you really should have bought a few sides of beef and installed a root cellar instead.  Other rifles do a much better job at getting the groceries.
> 
> You can currently buy an AR for less than 400 bucks.  Okay, it's pretty basic and you had best not fire the MIl Grad Ammo.  But it works just fine with the stock 223 loads.  It's not nearly as pretty.  But for less than 400 bucks, exactly what do you expect?
> 
> For Varmints, the AR isn't in my picture.  I prefer the Remington model 700 VSSF II  chambered for the 223 with a 50 grain bullet.  Okay, it costs twice as much but it can nail anything from a rabbit to coyote at up to about 400 yds.  But I would prefer it in 243 or 6mm.  It's as accurate out to 400 yds as the 223 but has a much higher hitting power at 90 grains.  If you try and go past 50 grains in a 223, you start losing accuracy and range.  But a Savage costing less than 400 bucks in 223 or 243 also does a great job, it just won't be a Purty.
> 
> So, the only major thing an AR can do is kill people better.  It doesn't make the list of the top 5 varmint rifles on any list done by reputable testers.  So why would you buy an AR to go varmint shooting when the Remington on the high end and the Savage on the low end does a better job?
> 
> BTW, I shoot a Mauser Shavetail 22 long rifle for Ground Hogs.  Now, that's a sport.  I stopped shooting it when I found out just how rare a bird it really is.
Click to expand...

That is your opinion, up here in the wide open northern plains, An AR has no equal for the hunting I do up here. Mule deer and under, the accessorizing and customizations are truly unlimited. ARs are extremely affordable for new people to get into the sport, and out of the box $500 ar can easily shoot 1” MOA at a 100... providing the shooter is up to it. 
Shit for brains, ARs are available in multiple cartridges, such as .300, 6.8 spc, 6.5 creedmoor, etc. and they are every bit as good if not better than a bolt gun for hunting.
AR15s are not made for killing people, they are just sporting rifles.

Get over yourself ya old coot... lol


----------



## Contumacious

The Derp said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am 70 years old, I have never misused a firearm . I have never invaded my neighbors' rights. Th police has been designated to investigate and protect. I fail to see the reason the powers-that-be refuse to abolish the GUN FREE ZONES statute given the fact that the criminally insane have shown a predilection for our schools..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're just completely ignoring the conversation we were having about responsibility.  Just because you haven't misused a firearm (according to a standard you just made up on the spot) _*yet*_, doesn't mean you won't eventually, or that your gun won't get stolen and then trafficked to criminals.
> 
> The point I'm making is that you can't call yourself a "responsible" anything because you can't predict what will happen down the line.
> 
> It is a fact that your gun is more likely to be stolen and used in a crime, than it will ever be used to protect you or your family.
> 
> So just by virtue of the fact of owning a gun, you're an irresponsible person.  You can never prove you're a "responsible gun owner" because that means nothing.
Click to expand...



OK Mr Twerp, you are just another fucked up gun grabber.


.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rustic said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong answer, fruitcake.  What is has the highest body count for a weapon in the mass shootings in the last 25 years?  Yes, it's a semi auto but it's based on a full auto brother.  It's designed to kill very quickly and efficiently of people.  It's the weapon of choice because it does the best job.  Can you tell us what weapon I am talking about without the NRA Boilerplate response?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It matters not what a semiauto looks like it only matters how it functions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WRong answer once again.  Part of it is a culture.  The Weapon I am specifically referring to is very much part of a culture.  Now, name that Weapon.  Go ahead and be very specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It matters not what any gun looks like only how it performs an the Ar 15 that you are so afraid of performs no differently than any other semiautomatic in existence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, was that painful?  I hope not.  The AR style has become a cult weapon.  You can say how others are just as deadly but the AR is the weapon of choice for mass shootings.  I am not saying we need to outlaw that specific weapon but we can up it in the firearms where you can't just walk into a store and purchase it in less than 30 minutes or you can't mail order it or buy it at a gunshow with no background check.  If you wanted to keep yours then you can keep it.  Just pay the 200 bucks that would be required, register the weapon and yourself and become responsible for the weapon and it's uses.  ALL AR types used in the mass shootings were purchased legally so let's stop with the "Oh Yah, what about the Criminal".  Hand Grenades do a much better job at killing but the people that legally buy them pay the 200 bucks and just don't use them for mass killings no matter what the movies say.  People that own Automatic Weapons pay the 200 bucks and are not the problem.  But an 18 year old kid with a score to settle that buys it without paying the 200 bucks IS the problem.  Actually, it isn't limited to age as the shootings can attest.  You just have to be 18 years old or older.  Not a problem if the 18 year old pays the 200 bucks for the license to possess one.  There are many young people that have at least a class 4 or class D firearms license and you just don't hear about them doing these insane things.
> 
> Sorry to bust your bubble but I am not out to take your guns.  I just suggest that we reclassify one specific weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no right to reclassify any rifles, ARs are just sporting rifles nothing more nothing less.
> There is no better rifle out there for varmints, pigs, coyotes and such...
> 
> BTW... Firearm registration is nothing more than firearm confiscation… Fact
Click to expand...


It's a sporting rifle as long as you are hunting People.

As for Varmints I already listed at least two that blow the AR away.  If you want to use the AR for a sporting rifle as you claim, I suggest you go to Syria where you can use it for the game it was designed for.


----------



## kaz

The Derp said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'd scream like a school girl and faint if you ever touched a gun.  Just like if your BFF said she was getting married and showed you her ring.  Or if your boyfriend showed you a new tapestry he bought ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So thanks for confirming that all a gun does, really, is cure insecurity.  Of course, it's more likely your gun will be stolen and used in a crime, than it is your gun will ever be used to defend yourself and/or your family.
> 
> If as many as 600,000 guns are stolen a year and that's what "responsible gun ownership" looks like, then _*fuuuuuuuuuuuuck  thaaaaaaaaaaaaaat shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit.*_  None of you are responsible gun owners.  It's not something you can prove.  "Responsible gun ownership" would mean *0* guns are stolen a year.  So when 0 guns are stolen a year, _*then*_ you can argue that they serve as some kind of protection or deterrent.  Until then, kindly shut the fuck up.
Click to expand...


Just strawmen, lies, and misapplication of statistics.

There are virtually zero accidental shootings by people with CC permits.  You're just a lying troll


----------



## Rustic

Daryl Hunt said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you are seeing is fewer people willing to admit to anonymous pollsters that they own guns...especially after several newspapers decided to publish the names and addresses of gun owners .........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But...isn't knowing who has a gun and who doesn't a deterrent?
> 
> Don't gun owners want people to know they have guns?
> 
> How are they to deter criminals if the criminals don't know they're armed?
> 
> Or is it a personal wish fulfillment that your gun ownership is kept a secret so you have justification to shoot someone?
> 
> Seems to me that advertising you have a gun only makes it that much more likely someone will break into your house or car when you're not around and steal the gun, like they do with as many as 600,000 guns a year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am a proponent for CCWs not Open Carry.  The idea is to not let the bad guy know who is and who isn't armed.  Makes em real nervous.  Of course, the stupid ones won't care.  But if I were a Bad Guy, the armed robbery where there is a good chance everyone lives turn a different direction if I see someone in there wearing a gun.  The Proud Gun Owner will be the first to get it.  And since I just went from an Robber to a Murderer, I go into a "No Witness left behind" way of thinking.  If I get into a situation that requires me to pull a weapon I have already decided to shoot after reviewing all the legalities that one has to learn to get a CCW.  I don't pull it and say, "Freeze Dirtbag".  I pull it and kill the SOB.   Then I take out the Mag, empty the shells out of it, leave the gun on the counter with the slide locked open and step away from it while waiting to be handcuffed and taken to jail.  Even if I were saving many lives and it's can be proven.  AS far as I can see, most that open carry shouldn't be trusted with a toaster much less a gun.  (here comes the shrieking from the ones that disagree).
Click to expand...

That’s your opinion, and that’s fine just don’t try to force it on anyone else, If you try it will be thrown back in your face


----------



## The Derp

Contumacious said:


> OK Mr Twerp, you are just another fucked up gun grabber..



Did I say _*anything*_ about confiscation?  No.  But you jump to that by habit because it's what you've been trained to do by years of NRA propaganda.

None of you gun owners are responsible people.  Y'all can't even keep track of the guns you have now, let alone any future guns you might buy.  And the more guns you buy, the higher the likelihood one of those guns will get stolen and end up being used in a crime.  Because you're a sociopath, you feel no guilt or shame or empathy.  Instead, you're just a garbage person.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rustic said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> WRong answer once again.  Part of it is a culture.  The Weapon I am specifically referring to is very much part of a culture.  Now, name that Weapon.  Go ahead and be very specific.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It matters not what any gun looks like only how it performs an the Ar 15 that you are so afraid of performs no differently than any other semiautomatic in existence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, was that painful?  I hope not.  The AR style has become a cult weapon.  You can say how others are just as deadly but the AR is the weapon of choice for mass shootings.  I am not saying we need to outlaw that specific weapon but we can up it in the firearms where you can't just walk into a store and purchase it in less than 30 minutes or you can't mail order it or buy it at a gunshow with no background check.  If you wanted to keep yours then you can keep it.  Just pay the 200 bucks that would be required, register the weapon and yourself and become responsible for the weapon and it's uses.  ALL AR types used in the mass shootings were purchased legally so let's stop with the "Oh Yah, what about the Criminal".  Hand Grenades do a much better job at killing but the people that legally buy them pay the 200 bucks and just don't use them for mass killings no matter what the movies say.  People that own Automatic Weapons pay the 200 bucks and are not the problem.  But an 18 year old kid with a score to settle that buys it without paying the 200 bucks IS the problem.  Actually, it isn't limited to age as the shootings can attest.  You just have to be 18 years old or older.  Not a problem if the 18 year old pays the 200 bucks for the license to possess one.  There are many young people that have at least a class 4 or class D firearms license and you just don't hear about them doing these insane things.
> 
> Sorry to bust your bubble but I am not out to take your guns.  I just suggest that we reclassify one specific weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No....dipshit...it isn't a cult weapon......it is an easy to use rifle, that allows for customization....and it is very easy for women and small framed humans to use it for self defense, competition, hunting and collecting....
> 
> There are 8 million of them in private hands....
> 
> And how does anything you propose stop any criminal or mass shooter....dipshit?   This shooter and all the others would pay your 200 dollars, register their guns and then go and shoot people....moron.
> 
> Nothing you or the other anti gunners propose would stop a criminal or a mass shooter...and that is the point.....you guys want to baby step the restrictions on guns and the fees, and the taxes.....and the paperwork so that normal, law abiding people are too afraid to own legal guns...for fear of failing some step of the process that will lead to a felony conviction for a paperwork mistake....
> 
> Meanwhile, criminals don't care....
> 
> *By the way, genius......felons do not have to register their illegal guns...the Supreme Court, in Haynes v. United States ruled that forcing criminals to register their illegal guns violates their 5th Amendment Rights against self incrimination......so if it violates their Rights, it violates my Rights.....doofus.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, you brought up a couple of good point amongst the crap you spew.  You left out a few things.
> 
> The AR is no longer under Copyright.  Even you can get a license to manufacture, sell and distribute them.  About 3 percent of the population have used the M-16 and feel comfortable using the AR.  Yes, it's versitile but it's till made for one reason and one reason only.  To kill people.  If you bought one to put food on the table then you really should have bought a few sides of beef and installed a root cellar instead.  Other rifles do a much better job at getting the groceries.
> 
> You can currently buy an AR for less than 400 bucks.  Okay, it's pretty basic and you had best not fire the MIl Grad Ammo.  But it works just fine with the stock 223 loads.  It's not nearly as pretty.  But for less than 400 bucks, exactly what do you expect?
> 
> For Varmints, the AR isn't in my picture.  I prefer the Remington model 700 VSSF II  chambered for the 223 with a 50 grain bullet.  Okay, it costs twice as much but it can nail anything from a rabbit to coyote at up to about 400 yds.  But I would prefer it in 243 or 6mm.  It's as accurate out to 400 yds as the 223 but has a much higher hitting power at 90 grains.  If you try and go past 50 grains in a 223, you start losing accuracy and range.  But a Savage costing less than 400 bucks in 223 or 243 also does a great job, it just won't be a Purty.
> 
> So, the only major thing an AR can do is kill people better.  It doesn't make the list of the top 5 varmint rifles on any list done by reputable testers.  So why would you buy an AR to go varmint shooting when the Remington on the high end and the Savage on the low end does a better job?
> 
> BTW, I shoot a Mauser Shavetail 22 long rifle for Ground Hogs.  Now, that's a sport.  I stopped shooting it when I found out just how rare a bird it really is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is your opinion, up here in the wide open northern plains, An AR has no equal for the hunting I do up here. Mule deer and under, the accessorizing and customizations are truly unlimited. ARs are extremely affordable for new people to get into the sport, and out of the box $500 ar can easily shoot 1” MOA at a 100... providing the shooter is up to it.
> Shit for brains, ARs are available in multiple cartridges, such as .300, 6.8 spc, 6.5 creedmoor, etc. and they are every bit as good if not better than a bolt gun for hunting.
> AR15s are not made for killing people, they are just sporting rifles.
> 
> Get over yourself ya old coot... lol
Click to expand...


This old coot has the background to know the difference.  What I can see is that your little bunch has shouted down and bullied until the other person stops posting.  You can give that one up.  I am fully retired as of last week.  I have the time.  If you doubt my predictions, in the Military area here, I made certain predictions and ALL have come true.  If I weren't pretty sure that the AR is going to be raised one level on the firearms category I wouldn't have made that prediction.  It's an election year so look for some changes real fast at the Federal Level if the Congress Critter try and go against this.


----------



## Rustic

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don’t understand the second amendment obviously
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not as you interpret it, no.  And you are forgetting the 1st amendment almost entirely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The main purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to keep American citizens from being disarmed by an oppressive US government and forced to live in a police state where only the government has weapons....like maybe a Gestapo controlled by some asshole like Obama.  Remember, that sleazy bastard suggested we have a national police force under his control.  Dreams of his father.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The government controls all aspects of your life already if you didn't know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s why we have no real freedom in this country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have lots of Freedom.  I can see you never visited Spain in the 60s and 70s like I did.  I can see you never visited East Berlin in the 80s like I did.  I can see you never visited....... pick many countries.  Some of the bad ones even called their Governments Democracies.  If you are absolutely sure that the US is not a free country, I suggest you denounce your citizenship and move to one that is.  Good friggin luck finding one more free than America.
Click to expand...

America happens to be the best of the worst, We don’t have any real freedom here. Obviously you don’t know what real freedom is...


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rustic said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you are seeing is fewer people willing to admit to anonymous pollsters that they own guns...especially after several newspapers decided to publish the names and addresses of gun owners .........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But...isn't knowing who has a gun and who doesn't a deterrent?
> 
> Don't gun owners want people to know they have guns?
> 
> How are they to deter criminals if the criminals don't know they're armed?
> 
> Or is it a personal wish fulfillment that your gun ownership is kept a secret so you have justification to shoot someone?
> 
> Seems to me that advertising you have a gun only makes it that much more likely someone will break into your house or car when you're not around and steal the gun, like they do with as many as 600,000 guns a year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am a proponent for CCWs not Open Carry.  The idea is to not let the bad guy know who is and who isn't armed.  Makes em real nervous.  Of course, the stupid ones won't care.  But if I were a Bad Guy, the armed robbery where there is a good chance everyone lives turn a different direction if I see someone in there wearing a gun.  The Proud Gun Owner will be the first to get it.  And since I just went from an Robber to a Murderer, I go into a "No Witness left behind" way of thinking.  If I get into a situation that requires me to pull a weapon I have already decided to shoot after reviewing all the legalities that one has to learn to get a CCW.  I don't pull it and say, "Freeze Dirtbag".  I pull it and kill the SOB.   Then I take out the Mag, empty the shells out of it, leave the gun on the counter with the slide locked open and step away from it while waiting to be handcuffed and taken to jail.  Even if I were saving many lives and it's can be proven.  AS far as I can see, most that open carry shouldn't be trusted with a toaster much less a gun.  (here comes the shrieking from the ones that disagree).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s your opinion, and that’s fine just don’t try to force it on anyone else, If you try it will be thrown back in your face
Click to expand...


I stand by my predictsion.  And my predictions are usually correct.  What's the matter, your bullying isn't working?


----------



## The Derp

kaz said:


> Just strawmen, lies, and misapplication of statistics.



What is the straw man?  Please, explain.

What are the lies?  Please, elaborate.

What stats are being misapplied?  Please, expand on that thought.




kaz said:


> There are virtually zero accidental shootings by people with CC permits.  You're just a lying troll



LOL!  _*Virtually*_?  So you don't seem to know for sure, do you?  Secondly, how many people with CC permits have their guns stolen?  Again, you don't know.  So how the fuck do you think you are responsible when you don't know the first fucking thing about which you're talking?

Are you trying to prove to me that you're a responsible gun owner? * There is no such thing.  *


----------



## The Derp

Rustic said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not as you interpret it, no.  And you are forgetting the 1st amendment almost entirely.
> 
> 
> 
> The main purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to keep American citizens from being disarmed by an oppressive US government and forced to live in a police state where only the government has weapons....like maybe a Gestapo controlled by some asshole like Obama.  Remember, that sleazy bastard suggested we have a national police force under his control.  Dreams of his father.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The government controls all aspects of your life already if you didn't know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s why we have no real freedom in this country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have lots of Freedom.  I can see you never visited Spain in the 60s and 70s like I did.  I can see you never visited East Berlin in the 80s like I did.  I can see you never visited....... pick many countries.  Some of the bad ones even called their Governments Democracies.  If you are absolutely sure that the US is not a free country, I suggest you denounce your citizenship and move to one that is.  Good friggin luck finding one more free than America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> America happens to be the best of the worst, We don’t have any real freedom here. Obviously you don’t know what real freedom is...
Click to expand...


Oh please.  What do you want to do that the government is preventing you from doing?  Nothing.  Stop being a drama queen.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rustic said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not as you interpret it, no.  And you are forgetting the 1st amendment almost entirely.
> 
> 
> 
> The main purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to keep American citizens from being disarmed by an oppressive US government and forced to live in a police state where only the government has weapons....like maybe a Gestapo controlled by some asshole like Obama.  Remember, that sleazy bastard suggested we have a national police force under his control.  Dreams of his father.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The government controls all aspects of your life already if you didn't know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s why we have no real freedom in this country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have lots of Freedom.  I can see you never visited Spain in the 60s and 70s like I did.  I can see you never visited East Berlin in the 80s like I did.  I can see you never visited....... pick many countries.  Some of the bad ones even called their Governments Democracies.  If you are absolutely sure that the US is not a free country, I suggest you denounce your citizenship and move to one that is.  Good friggin luck finding one more free than America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> America happens to be the best of the worst, We don’t have any real freedom here. Obviously you don’t know what real freedom is...
Click to expand...


During Franco's time, we were 2 minutes past curfew just yards from the front Gate.  We were "Detained" by the Gendarmes.  They held us at gunpoint.  The Front Gate SPs just stood there watching.  That's alll they could do.  The Gendarmes  proceded to beat on one of our guys with batons.  When they had their fun, they walked off "Allowing" us to carry our buddy into the gate where we had to call an Ambulance.  I know what Freedom is and what the lack of freedom is.  You don't.


----------



## Rustic

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> It matters not what a semiauto looks like it only matters how it functions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WRong answer once again.  Part of it is a culture.  The Weapon I am specifically referring to is very much part of a culture.  Now, name that Weapon.  Go ahead and be very specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It matters not what any gun looks like only how it performs an the Ar 15 that you are so afraid of performs no differently than any other semiautomatic in existence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, was that painful?  I hope not.  The AR style has become a cult weapon.  You can say how others are just as deadly but the AR is the weapon of choice for mass shootings.  I am not saying we need to outlaw that specific weapon but we can up it in the firearms where you can't just walk into a store and purchase it in less than 30 minutes or you can't mail order it or buy it at a gunshow with no background check.  If you wanted to keep yours then you can keep it.  Just pay the 200 bucks that would be required, register the weapon and yourself and become responsible for the weapon and it's uses.  ALL AR types used in the mass shootings were purchased legally so let's stop with the "Oh Yah, what about the Criminal".  Hand Grenades do a much better job at killing but the people that legally buy them pay the 200 bucks and just don't use them for mass killings no matter what the movies say.  People that own Automatic Weapons pay the 200 bucks and are not the problem.  But an 18 year old kid with a score to settle that buys it without paying the 200 bucks IS the problem.  Actually, it isn't limited to age as the shootings can attest.  You just have to be 18 years old or older.  Not a problem if the 18 year old pays the 200 bucks for the license to possess one.  There are many young people that have at least a class 4 or class D firearms license and you just don't hear about them doing these insane things.
> 
> Sorry to bust your bubble but I am not out to take your guns.  I just suggest that we reclassify one specific weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no right to reclassify any rifles, ARs are just sporting rifles nothing more nothing less.
> There is no better rifle out there for varmints, pigs, coyotes and such...
> 
> BTW... Firearm registration is nothing more than firearm confiscation… Fact
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a sporting rifle as long as you are hunting People.
> 
> As for Varmints I already listed at least two that blow the AR away.  If you want to use the AR for a sporting rifle as you claim, I suggest you go to Syria where you can use it for the game it was designed for.
Click to expand...

Na, not really...


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Contumacious said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am 70 years old, I have never misused a firearm . I have never invaded my neighbors' rights. Th police has been designated to investigate and protect. I fail to see the reason the powers-that-be refuse to abolish the GUN FREE ZONES statute given the fact that the criminally insane have shown a predilection for our schools..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're just completely ignoring the conversation we were having about responsibility.  Just because you haven't misused a firearm (according to a standard you just made up on the spot) _*yet*_, doesn't mean you won't eventually, or that your gun won't get stolen and then trafficked to criminals.
> 
> The point I'm making is that you can't call yourself a "responsible" anything because you can't predict what will happen down the line.
> 
> It is a fact that your gun is more likely to be stolen and used in a crime, than it will ever be used to protect you or your family.
> 
> So just by virtue of the fact of owning a gun, you're an irresponsible person.  You can never prove you're a "responsible gun owner" because that means nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> OK Mr Twerp, you are just another fucked up gun grabber.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

And you're just another rightwing liar, the post said about "grabbing guns."


----------



## The Derp

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> The main purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to keep American citizens from being disarmed by an oppressive US government and forced to live in a police state where only the government has weapons....like maybe a Gestapo controlled by some asshole like Obama.  Remember, that sleazy bastard suggested we have a national police force under his control.  Dreams of his father.
> 
> 
> 
> The government controls all aspects of your life already if you didn't know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s why we have no real freedom in this country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have lots of Freedom.  I can see you never visited Spain in the 60s and 70s like I did.  I can see you never visited East Berlin in the 80s like I did.  I can see you never visited....... pick many countries.  Some of the bad ones even called their Governments Democracies.  If you are absolutely sure that the US is not a free country, I suggest you denounce your citizenship and move to one that is.  Good friggin luck finding one more free than America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> America happens to be the best of the worst, We don’t have any real freedom here. Obviously you don’t know what real freedom is...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> During Franco's time, we were 2 minutes past curfew just yards from the front Gate.  We were "Detained" by the Gendarmes.  They held us at gunpoint.  The Front Gate SPs just stood there watching.  That's alll they could do.  The Gendarmes  proceded to beat on one of our guys with batons.  When they had their fun, they walked off "Allowing" us to carry our buddy into the gate where we had to call an Ambulance.  I know what Freedom is and what the lack of freedom is.  You don't.
Click to expand...


So you think America resembles Franco's Spain from the late 1930's?

Yikes.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am 70 years old, I have never misused a firearm . I have never invaded my neighbors' rights. Th police has been designated to investigate and protect. I fail to see the reason the powers-that-be refuse to abolish the GUN FREE ZONES statute given the fact that the criminally insane have shown a predilection for our schools..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're just completely ignoring the conversation we were having about responsibility.  Just because you haven't misused a firearm (according to a standard you just made up on the spot) _*yet*_, doesn't mean you won't eventually, or that your gun won't get stolen and then trafficked to criminals.
> 
> The point I'm making is that you can't call yourself a "responsible" anything because you can't predict what will happen down the line.
> 
> It is a fact that your gun is more likely to be stolen and used in a crime, than it will ever be used to protect you or your family.
> 
> So just by virtue of the fact of owning a gun, you're an irresponsible person.  You can never prove you're a "responsible gun owner" because that means nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> OK Mr Twerp, you are just another fucked up gun grabber.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you're just another rightwing liar, the post said about "grabbing guns."
Click to expand...


Yo Jones...nobody takes you serious. You're unable to defend any premise you've ever posted. Loser


----------



## Daryl Hunt

turtledude said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope because people are dying by the thousands.
> 
> 
> 
> really? gun deaths have declined over the years despite millions upon millions more guns in circulation and millions of people carrying guns legally. So you are either ignorant of the fact or lying.  Most gun deaths are SUICIDES.  the remaining number that are not justifiable or excusable shootings are homicides mainly and those are caused at rates of 80-90% by people who are not legally able to own or use guns
> 
> so stuff the silly dramatics.  Gun violence in tis country-especially outside urban areas full of drug gangs is minuscule
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> USA is the worst country in terms of gu related dearhs/mass shootings. So there is clearly a gun problem. Why do you need a gun ? Insecure? Or ready to kill when you are pissed at the world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what do I need a gun for?  many reasons-one of them being to prevent people like you from trying to strip away our rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do I need a gun?  I don't absolutely need a gun.  I want one and have one.  One of the reasons I might need a gun is when people like you try and take away my rights like outlined in the 1st amendment.  You seem to forget that amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I support your right to blather stupidity.  I am a libertarian-I support all constitutional rights-especially the ones set forth in the constitution
Click to expand...


I also support the consitutional right for our children to be safe under the 1st amendment.  Not happening with you and your cronies interpretation of the 2nd.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Daryl Hunt said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> It matters not what a semiauto looks like it only matters how it functions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WRong answer once again.  Part of it is a culture.  The Weapon I am specifically referring to is very much part of a culture.  Now, name that Weapon.  Go ahead and be very specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It matters not what any gun looks like only how it performs an the Ar 15 that you are so afraid of performs no differently than any other semiautomatic in existence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, was that painful?  I hope not.  The AR style has become a cult weapon.  You can say how others are just as deadly but the AR is the weapon of choice for mass shootings.  I am not saying we need to outlaw that specific weapon but we can up it in the firearms where you can't just walk into a store and purchase it in less than 30 minutes or you can't mail order it or buy it at a gunshow with no background check.  If you wanted to keep yours then you can keep it.  Just pay the 200 bucks that would be required, register the weapon and yourself and become responsible for the weapon and it's uses.  ALL AR types used in the mass shootings were purchased legally so let's stop with the "Oh Yah, what about the Criminal".  Hand Grenades do a much better job at killing but the people that legally buy them pay the 200 bucks and just don't use them for mass killings no matter what the movies say.  People that own Automatic Weapons pay the 200 bucks and are not the problem.  But an 18 year old kid with a score to settle that buys it without paying the 200 bucks IS the problem.  Actually, it isn't limited to age as the shootings can attest.  You just have to be 18 years old or older.  Not a problem if the 18 year old pays the 200 bucks for the license to possess one.  There are many young people that have at least a class 4 or class D firearms license and you just don't hear about them doing these insane things.
> 
> Sorry to bust your bubble but I am not out to take your guns.  I just suggest that we reclassify one specific weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I am telling you that it is beyond stupid to reclassify one specific Semiautomatic rifle because of the way it looks and no other reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can fight it but the genie is out of the bottle.  While the School Children that have been terrorized and traumatized can't vote, their parents can and in a few short years the children turn 18.  And they agree with what I have said all along.  Even many of the large Republican Donors are starting to remove support for anyone that will not go along those lines.  Yes, these folks give millions each year to various Republican Candidates but they will not contribute to those that still spew the NRA Boilerplate responses.  It's happening more and more each day.  The Last Mass Shooting was the straw that broke the camels back.  Too bad it didn't get a sore back 25 years ago.
Click to expand...


And what will you all do when banning that rifle does nothing to stop the next piece of shit from shooting up a school ?


----------



## Daryl Hunt

The Derp said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government controls all aspects of your life already if you didn't know it.
> 
> 
> 
> That’s why we have no real freedom in this country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have lots of Freedom.  I can see you never visited Spain in the 60s and 70s like I did.  I can see you never visited East Berlin in the 80s like I did.  I can see you never visited....... pick many countries.  Some of the bad ones even called their Governments Democracies.  If you are absolutely sure that the US is not a free country, I suggest you denounce your citizenship and move to one that is.  Good friggin luck finding one more free than America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> America happens to be the best of the worst, We don’t have any real freedom here. Obviously you don’t know what real freedom is...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> During Franco's time, we were 2 minutes past curfew just yards from the front Gate.  We were "Detained" by the Gendarmes.  They held us at gunpoint.  The Front Gate SPs just stood there watching.  That's alll they could do.  The Gendarmes  proceded to beat on one of our guys with batons.  When they had their fun, they walked off "Allowing" us to carry our buddy into the gate where we had to call an Ambulance.  I know what Freedom is and what the lack of freedom is.  You don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think America resembles Franco's Spain from the late 1930's?
> 
> Yikes.
Click to expand...


No, we were in Spain at the time.  The Gendarmes there had the right to beat or kill anyone the wished and it wouldn't have been questioned.  And it was in 1971.  Franco was in power from 1937 to the middle of the 70s.  

Don't let the rwnutjobs bully you.  This is how they win while everyone else loses.


----------



## Rustic

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> It matters not what any gun looks like only how it performs an the Ar 15 that you are so afraid of performs no differently than any other semiautomatic in existence
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, was that painful?  I hope not.  The AR style has become a cult weapon.  You can say how others are just as deadly but the AR is the weapon of choice for mass shootings.  I am not saying we need to outlaw that specific weapon but we can up it in the firearms where you can't just walk into a store and purchase it in less than 30 minutes or you can't mail order it or buy it at a gunshow with no background check.  If you wanted to keep yours then you can keep it.  Just pay the 200 bucks that would be required, register the weapon and yourself and become responsible for the weapon and it's uses.  ALL AR types used in the mass shootings were purchased legally so let's stop with the "Oh Yah, what about the Criminal".  Hand Grenades do a much better job at killing but the people that legally buy them pay the 200 bucks and just don't use them for mass killings no matter what the movies say.  People that own Automatic Weapons pay the 200 bucks and are not the problem.  But an 18 year old kid with a score to settle that buys it without paying the 200 bucks IS the problem.  Actually, it isn't limited to age as the shootings can attest.  You just have to be 18 years old or older.  Not a problem if the 18 year old pays the 200 bucks for the license to possess one.  There are many young people that have at least a class 4 or class D firearms license and you just don't hear about them doing these insane things.
> 
> Sorry to bust your bubble but I am not out to take your guns.  I just suggest that we reclassify one specific weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No....dipshit...it isn't a cult weapon......it is an easy to use rifle, that allows for customization....and it is very easy for women and small framed humans to use it for self defense, competition, hunting and collecting....
> 
> There are 8 million of them in private hands....
> 
> And how does anything you propose stop any criminal or mass shooter....dipshit?   This shooter and all the others would pay your 200 dollars, register their guns and then go and shoot people....moron.
> 
> Nothing you or the other anti gunners propose would stop a criminal or a mass shooter...and that is the point.....you guys want to baby step the restrictions on guns and the fees, and the taxes.....and the paperwork so that normal, law abiding people are too afraid to own legal guns...for fear of failing some step of the process that will lead to a felony conviction for a paperwork mistake....
> 
> Meanwhile, criminals don't care....
> 
> *By the way, genius......felons do not have to register their illegal guns...the Supreme Court, in Haynes v. United States ruled that forcing criminals to register their illegal guns violates their 5th Amendment Rights against self incrimination......so if it violates their Rights, it violates my Rights.....doofus.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, you brought up a couple of good point amongst the crap you spew.  You left out a few things.
> 
> The AR is no longer under Copyright.  Even you can get a license to manufacture, sell and distribute them.  About 3 percent of the population have used the M-16 and feel comfortable using the AR.  Yes, it's versitile but it's till made for one reason and one reason only.  To kill people.  If you bought one to put food on the table then you really should have bought a few sides of beef and installed a root cellar instead.  Other rifles do a much better job at getting the groceries.
> 
> You can currently buy an AR for less than 400 bucks.  Okay, it's pretty basic and you had best not fire the MIl Grad Ammo.  But it works just fine with the stock 223 loads.  It's not nearly as pretty.  But for less than 400 bucks, exactly what do you expect?
> 
> For Varmints, the AR isn't in my picture.  I prefer the Remington model 700 VSSF II  chambered for the 223 with a 50 grain bullet.  Okay, it costs twice as much but it can nail anything from a rabbit to coyote at up to about 400 yds.  But I would prefer it in 243 or 6mm.  It's as accurate out to 400 yds as the 223 but has a much higher hitting power at 90 grains.  If you try and go past 50 grains in a 223, you start losing accuracy and range.  But a Savage costing less than 400 bucks in 223 or 243 also does a great job, it just won't be a Purty.
> 
> So, the only major thing an AR can do is kill people better.  It doesn't make the list of the top 5 varmint rifles on any list done by reputable testers.  So why would you buy an AR to go varmint shooting when the Remington on the high end and the Savage on the low end does a better job?
> 
> BTW, I shoot a Mauser Shavetail 22 long rifle for Ground Hogs.  Now, that's a sport.  I stopped shooting it when I found out just how rare a bird it really is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is your opinion, up here in the wide open northern plains, An AR has no equal for the hunting I do up here. Mule deer and under, the accessorizing and customizations are truly unlimited. ARs are extremely affordable for new people to get into the sport, and out of the box $500 ar can easily shoot 1” MOA at a 100... providing the shooter is up to it.
> Shit for brains, ARs are available in multiple cartridges, such as .300, 6.8 spc, 6.5 creedmoor, etc. and they are every bit as good if not better than a bolt gun for hunting.
> AR15s are not made for killing people, they are just sporting rifles.
> 
> Get over yourself ya old coot... lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This old coot has the background to know the difference.  What I can see is that your little bunch has shouted down and bullied until the other person stops posting.  You can give that one up.  I am fully retired as of last week.  I have the time.  If you doubt my predictions, in the Military area here, I made certain predictions and ALL have come true.  If I weren't pretty sure that the AR is going to be raised one level on the firearms category I wouldn't have made that prediction.  It's an election year so look for some changes real fast at the Federal Level if the Congress Critter try and go against this.
Click to expand...

ARs are no different than any other sporting rifle, your Prejudices is childish


----------



## Skull Pilot

The Derp said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'd scream like a school girl and faint if you ever touched a gun.  Just like if your BFF said she was getting married and showed you her ring.  Or if your boyfriend showed you a new tapestry he bought ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So thanks for confirming that all a gun does, really, is cure insecurity.  Of course, it's more likely your gun will be stolen and used in a crime, than it is your gun will ever be used to defend yourself and/or your family.
> 
> If as many as 600,000 guns are stolen a year and that's what "responsible gun ownership" looks like, then _*fuuuuuuuuuuuuck  thaaaaaaaaaaaaaat shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit.*_  None of you are responsible gun owners.  It's not something you can prove.  "Responsible gun ownership" would mean *0* guns are stolen a year.  So when 0 guns are stolen a year, _*then*_ you can argue that they serve as some kind of protection or deterrent.  Until then, kindly shut the fuck up.
Click to expand...


It's not 600000 a year

Bureau of Justice Statistics Firearms Stolen during Household Burglaries and Other Property Crimes, 2005-2010


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Skull Pilot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> WRong answer once again.  Part of it is a culture.  The Weapon I am specifically referring to is very much part of a culture.  Now, name that Weapon.  Go ahead and be very specific.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It matters not what any gun looks like only how it performs an the Ar 15 that you are so afraid of performs no differently than any other semiautomatic in existence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, was that painful?  I hope not.  The AR style has become a cult weapon.  You can say how others are just as deadly but the AR is the weapon of choice for mass shootings.  I am not saying we need to outlaw that specific weapon but we can up it in the firearms where you can't just walk into a store and purchase it in less than 30 minutes or you can't mail order it or buy it at a gunshow with no background check.  If you wanted to keep yours then you can keep it.  Just pay the 200 bucks that would be required, register the weapon and yourself and become responsible for the weapon and it's uses.  ALL AR types used in the mass shootings were purchased legally so let's stop with the "Oh Yah, what about the Criminal".  Hand Grenades do a much better job at killing but the people that legally buy them pay the 200 bucks and just don't use them for mass killings no matter what the movies say.  People that own Automatic Weapons pay the 200 bucks and are not the problem.  But an 18 year old kid with a score to settle that buys it without paying the 200 bucks IS the problem.  Actually, it isn't limited to age as the shootings can attest.  You just have to be 18 years old or older.  Not a problem if the 18 year old pays the 200 bucks for the license to possess one.  There are many young people that have at least a class 4 or class D firearms license and you just don't hear about them doing these insane things.
> 
> Sorry to bust your bubble but I am not out to take your guns.  I just suggest that we reclassify one specific weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I am telling you that it is beyond stupid to reclassify one specific Semiautomatic rifle because of the way it looks and no other reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can fight it but the genie is out of the bottle.  While the School Children that have been terrorized and traumatized can't vote, their parents can and in a few short years the children turn 18.  And they agree with what I have said all along.  Even many of the large Republican Donors are starting to remove support for anyone that will not go along those lines.  Yes, these folks give millions each year to various Republican Candidates but they will not contribute to those that still spew the NRA Boilerplate responses.  It's happening more and more each day.  The Last Mass Shooting was the straw that broke the camels back.  Too bad it didn't get a sore back 25 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what will you all do when banning that rifle does nothing to stop the next piece of shit from shooting up a school ?
Click to expand...


Give it a chance.  If it works that's great.  If it doesn't we can put it back the way it was.  My money is that within 2 years we may still have attacks but they won't be "Mass" killings since that tool won't be available.


----------



## The Derp

Skull Pilot said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'd scream like a school girl and faint if you ever touched a gun.  Just like if your BFF said she was getting married and showed you her ring.  Or if your boyfriend showed you a new tapestry he bought ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So thanks for confirming that all a gun does, really, is cure insecurity.  Of course, it's more likely your gun will be stolen and used in a crime, than it is your gun will ever be used to defend yourself and/or your family.
> 
> If as many as 600,000 guns are stolen a year and that's what "responsible gun ownership" looks like, then _*fuuuuuuuuuuuuck  thaaaaaaaaaaaaaat shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit.*_  None of you are responsible gun owners.  It's not something you can prove.  "Responsible gun ownership" would mean *0* guns are stolen a year.  So when 0 guns are stolen a year, _*then*_ you can argue that they serve as some kind of protection or deterrent.  Until then, kindly shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not 600000 a year
> 
> Bureau of Justice Statistics Firearms Stolen during Household Burglaries and Other Property Crimes, 2005-2010
Click to expand...


*READ MY POST INSTEAD OF RUSHING THROUGH IT TO PRODUCE A SLOPPY, STUPID RESPONSE:*

I said _*"as many as 600,000"*_.

The average is *still staggering*:  234,000 GUNS ARE STOLEN FROM "RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNERS" ON AVERAGE EACH YEAR.

So there's no such thing as a "responsible gun owner".  It's just something you like to say to make you feel better about being an irresponsible jackass.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Daryl Hunt said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> It matters not what any gun looks like only how it performs an the Ar 15 that you are so afraid of performs no differently than any other semiautomatic in existence
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, was that painful?  I hope not.  The AR style has become a cult weapon.  You can say how others are just as deadly but the AR is the weapon of choice for mass shootings.  I am not saying we need to outlaw that specific weapon but we can up it in the firearms where you can't just walk into a store and purchase it in less than 30 minutes or you can't mail order it or buy it at a gunshow with no background check.  If you wanted to keep yours then you can keep it.  Just pay the 200 bucks that would be required, register the weapon and yourself and become responsible for the weapon and it's uses.  ALL AR types used in the mass shootings were purchased legally so let's stop with the "Oh Yah, what about the Criminal".  Hand Grenades do a much better job at killing but the people that legally buy them pay the 200 bucks and just don't use them for mass killings no matter what the movies say.  People that own Automatic Weapons pay the 200 bucks and are not the problem.  But an 18 year old kid with a score to settle that buys it without paying the 200 bucks IS the problem.  Actually, it isn't limited to age as the shootings can attest.  You just have to be 18 years old or older.  Not a problem if the 18 year old pays the 200 bucks for the license to possess one.  There are many young people that have at least a class 4 or class D firearms license and you just don't hear about them doing these insane things.
> 
> Sorry to bust your bubble but I am not out to take your guns.  I just suggest that we reclassify one specific weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I am telling you that it is beyond stupid to reclassify one specific Semiautomatic rifle because of the way it looks and no other reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can fight it but the genie is out of the bottle.  While the School Children that have been terrorized and traumatized can't vote, their parents can and in a few short years the children turn 18.  And they agree with what I have said all along.  Even many of the large Republican Donors are starting to remove support for anyone that will not go along those lines.  Yes, these folks give millions each year to various Republican Candidates but they will not contribute to those that still spew the NRA Boilerplate responses.  It's happening more and more each day.  The Last Mass Shooting was the straw that broke the camels back.  Too bad it didn't get a sore back 25 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what will you all do when banning that rifle does nothing to stop the next piece of shit from shooting up a school ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give it a chance.  If it works that's great.  If it doesn't we can put it back the way it was.  My money is that within 2 years we may still have attacks but they won't be "Mass" killings since that tool won't be available.
Click to expand...

It won't work we already had a so called assault weapons ban in effect for 10 years
In fact the assault weapons ban was in effect when Columbine got shot up

Gee look at that real data not opinion.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rustic said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, was that painful?  I hope not.  The AR style has become a cult weapon.  You can say how others are just as deadly but the AR is the weapon of choice for mass shootings.  I am not saying we need to outlaw that specific weapon but we can up it in the firearms where you can't just walk into a store and purchase it in less than 30 minutes or you can't mail order it or buy it at a gunshow with no background check.  If you wanted to keep yours then you can keep it.  Just pay the 200 bucks that would be required, register the weapon and yourself and become responsible for the weapon and it's uses.  ALL AR types used in the mass shootings were purchased legally so let's stop with the "Oh Yah, what about the Criminal".  Hand Grenades do a much better job at killing but the people that legally buy them pay the 200 bucks and just don't use them for mass killings no matter what the movies say.  People that own Automatic Weapons pay the 200 bucks and are not the problem.  But an 18 year old kid with a score to settle that buys it without paying the 200 bucks IS the problem.  Actually, it isn't limited to age as the shootings can attest.  You just have to be 18 years old or older.  Not a problem if the 18 year old pays the 200 bucks for the license to possess one.  There are many young people that have at least a class 4 or class D firearms license and you just don't hear about them doing these insane things.
> 
> Sorry to bust your bubble but I am not out to take your guns.  I just suggest that we reclassify one specific weapon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No....dipshit...it isn't a cult weapon......it is an easy to use rifle, that allows for customization....and it is very easy for women and small framed humans to use it for self defense, competition, hunting and collecting....
> 
> There are 8 million of them in private hands....
> 
> And how does anything you propose stop any criminal or mass shooter....dipshit?   This shooter and all the others would pay your 200 dollars, register their guns and then go and shoot people....moron.
> 
> Nothing you or the other anti gunners propose would stop a criminal or a mass shooter...and that is the point.....you guys want to baby step the restrictions on guns and the fees, and the taxes.....and the paperwork so that normal, law abiding people are too afraid to own legal guns...for fear of failing some step of the process that will lead to a felony conviction for a paperwork mistake....
> 
> Meanwhile, criminals don't care....
> 
> *By the way, genius......felons do not have to register their illegal guns...the Supreme Court, in Haynes v. United States ruled that forcing criminals to register their illegal guns violates their 5th Amendment Rights against self incrimination......so if it violates their Rights, it violates my Rights.....doofus.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, you brought up a couple of good point amongst the crap you spew.  You left out a few things.
> 
> The AR is no longer under Copyright.  Even you can get a license to manufacture, sell and distribute them.  About 3 percent of the population have used the M-16 and feel comfortable using the AR.  Yes, it's versitile but it's till made for one reason and one reason only.  To kill people.  If you bought one to put food on the table then you really should have bought a few sides of beef and installed a root cellar instead.  Other rifles do a much better job at getting the groceries.
> 
> You can currently buy an AR for less than 400 bucks.  Okay, it's pretty basic and you had best not fire the MIl Grad Ammo.  But it works just fine with the stock 223 loads.  It's not nearly as pretty.  But for less than 400 bucks, exactly what do you expect?
> 
> For Varmints, the AR isn't in my picture.  I prefer the Remington model 700 VSSF II  chambered for the 223 with a 50 grain bullet.  Okay, it costs twice as much but it can nail anything from a rabbit to coyote at up to about 400 yds.  But I would prefer it in 243 or 6mm.  It's as accurate out to 400 yds as the 223 but has a much higher hitting power at 90 grains.  If you try and go past 50 grains in a 223, you start losing accuracy and range.  But a Savage costing less than 400 bucks in 223 or 243 also does a great job, it just won't be a Purty.
> 
> So, the only major thing an AR can do is kill people better.  It doesn't make the list of the top 5 varmint rifles on any list done by reputable testers.  So why would you buy an AR to go varmint shooting when the Remington on the high end and the Savage on the low end does a better job?
> 
> BTW, I shoot a Mauser Shavetail 22 long rifle for Ground Hogs.  Now, that's a sport.  I stopped shooting it when I found out just how rare a bird it really is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is your opinion, up here in the wide open northern plains, An AR has no equal for the hunting I do up here. Mule deer and under, the accessorizing and customizations are truly unlimited. ARs are extremely affordable for new people to get into the sport, and out of the box $500 ar can easily shoot 1” MOA at a 100... providing the shooter is up to it.
> Shit for brains, ARs are available in multiple cartridges, such as .300, 6.8 spc, 6.5 creedmoor, etc. and they are every bit as good if not better than a bolt gun for hunting.
> AR15s are not made for killing people, they are just sporting rifles.
> 
> Get over yourself ya old coot... lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This old coot has the background to know the difference.  What I can see is that your little bunch has shouted down and bullied until the other person stops posting.  You can give that one up.  I am fully retired as of last week.  I have the time.  If you doubt my predictions, in the Military area here, I made certain predictions and ALL have come true.  If I weren't pretty sure that the AR is going to be raised one level on the firearms category I wouldn't have made that prediction.  It's an election year so look for some changes real fast at the Federal Level if the Congress Critter try and go against this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ARs are no different than any other sporting rifle, your Prejudices is childish
Click to expand...


you keep parroting the same thing over and over.  If there wasn't something different about it, it wouldn't hold the record in the US for the highest body count   It doesn't matter if there really is a difference or not, it's that it's perceived that there is by individuals that use it in the Mass Shootings.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

kaz said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'd scream like a school girl and faint if you ever touched a gun.  Just like if your BFF said she was getting married and showed you her ring.  Or if your boyfriend showed you a new tapestry he bought ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So thanks for confirming that all a gun does, really, is cure insecurity.  Of course, it's more likely your gun will be stolen and used in a crime, than it is your gun will ever be used to defend yourself and/or your family.
> 
> If as many as 600,000 guns are stolen a year and that's what "responsible gun ownership" looks like, then _*fuuuuuuuuuuuuck  thaaaaaaaaaaaaaat shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit.*_  None of you are responsible gun owners.  It's not something you can prove.  "Responsible gun ownership" would mean *0* guns are stolen a year.  So when 0 guns are stolen a year, _*then*_ you can argue that they serve as some kind of protection or deterrent.  Until then, kindly shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just strawmen, lies, and misapplication of statistics.
> 
> There are virtually zero accidental shootings by people with CC permits.  You're just a lying troll
Click to expand...

It's a fact a gun in the home is more likely to kill its owner than an intruder. 

And there is no evidence guns act as a deterrent to crime.

"There are virtually zero accidental shootings by people with CC permits."

Link?

Having a concealed weapon license doesn't make one "immune" from an accidental shooting. 

Clearly you're in no position to accuse others  of lying.


----------



## The Derp

Skull Pilot said:


> It won't work we already had a so called assault weapons ban in effect for 10 yearsIn fact the assault weapons ban was in effect when Columbine got shot upGee look at that real data not opinion.



Fuck you you irresponsible child, you don't get to pretend that Columbine wouldn't have been worse if they could have got assault weapons like an AR-15.

Secondly, for all the bleating and posturing you people do, it doesn't seem like _*any of you*_ treat gun ownership with any sense of responsibility.  It's not in your excuses.  It's not in your arguments.  You want to call yourself a "responsible gun owner", yet you don't want to be held responsible for anything.

Fuck.  Off.


----------



## Skull Pilot

The Derp said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'd scream like a school girl and faint if you ever touched a gun.  Just like if your BFF said she was getting married and showed you her ring.  Or if your boyfriend showed you a new tapestry he bought ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So thanks for confirming that all a gun does, really, is cure insecurity.  Of course, it's more likely your gun will be stolen and used in a crime, than it is your gun will ever be used to defend yourself and/or your family.
> 
> If as many as 600,000 guns are stolen a year and that's what "responsible gun ownership" looks like, then _*fuuuuuuuuuuuuck  thaaaaaaaaaaaaaat shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit.*_  None of you are responsible gun owners.  It's not something you can prove.  "Responsible gun ownership" would mean *0* guns are stolen a year.  So when 0 guns are stolen a year, _*then*_ you can argue that they serve as some kind of protection or deterrent.  Until then, kindly shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not 600000 a year
> 
> Bureau of Justice Statistics Firearms Stolen during Household Burglaries and Other Property Crimes, 2005-2010
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *READ MY POST INSTEAD OF RUSHING THROUGH IT TO PRODUCE A SLOPPY, STUPID RESPONSE:*
> 
> I said _*"as many as 600,000"*_.
> 
> The average is *still staggering*:  234,000 GUNS ARE STOLEN FROM "RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNERS" ON AVERAGE EACH YEAR.
> 
> So there's no such thing as a "responsible gun owner".  It's just something you like to say to make you feel better about being an irresponsible jackass.
Click to expand...


and 86% of them are reported stolen.

And as usual 

This problem does not affect all states equally. The rate and volume of guns stolen from both gun stores and private collections vary widely from state to state. From 2012 through 2015, the average rate of the five states with the highest rates of gun theft from private owners—Tennessee, Arkansas, South Carolina, Oklahoma, and Alabama—was 13 times higher than the average rate of the five states with the lowest rates—Hawaii, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, and Massachusetts.6 Similarly, from 2012 through 2016, the average rate of the five states with the highest rates of guns stolen from gun stores was 18 times higher than the average rate the five states with the lowest rates.7

gun thefts are not equally distributed among the states and gee high crime areas have more gun thefts.  Imagine that.

Millions of people own guns and never have one stolen


----------



## The Derp

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'd scream like a school girl and faint if you ever touched a gun.  Just like if your BFF said she was getting married and showed you her ring.  Or if your boyfriend showed you a new tapestry he bought ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So thanks for confirming that all a gun does, really, is cure insecurity.  Of course, it's more likely your gun will be stolen and used in a crime, than it is your gun will ever be used to defend yourself and/or your family.
> 
> If as many as 600,000 guns are stolen a year and that's what "responsible gun ownership" looks like, then _*fuuuuuuuuuuuuck  thaaaaaaaaaaaaaat shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit.*_  None of you are responsible gun owners.  It's not something you can prove.  "Responsible gun ownership" would mean *0* guns are stolen a year.  So when 0 guns are stolen a year, _*then*_ you can argue that they serve as some kind of protection or deterrent.  Until then, kindly shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just strawmen, lies, and misapplication of statistics.
> 
> There are virtually zero accidental shootings by people with CC permits.  You're just a lying troll
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a fact a gun in the home is more likely to kill its owner than an intruder.
> 
> And there is no evidence guns act as a deterrent to crime.
> 
> "There are virtually zero accidental shootings by people with CC permits."
> 
> Link?
> 
> Having a concealed weapon license doesn't make one "immune" from an accidental shooting.
> 
> Clearly you're in no position to accuse others  of lying.
Click to expand...


Things more likely to happen with your gun than protecting you or your family:

The gun gets stolen
The gun goes off accidentally
The gun injures you
The gun injures your friend or loved one
The gun is taken by your kid to school


----------



## Skull Pilot

The Derp said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> It won't work we already had a so called assault weapons ban in effect for 10 yearsIn fact the assault weapons ban was in effect when Columbine got shot upGee look at that real data not opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you you irresponsible child, you don't get to pretend that Columbine wouldn't have been worse if they could have got assault weapons like an AR-15.
> 
> Secondly, for all the bleating and posturing you people do, it doesn't seem like _*any of you*_ treat gun ownership with any sense of responsibility.  It's not in your excuses.  It's not in your arguments.  You want to call yourself a "responsible gun owner", yet you don't want to be held responsible for anything.
> 
> Fuck.  Off.
Click to expand...


And you can't prove that it would have been worse can you?

But as I said gun bans do not prevent school shootings.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Skull Pilot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, was that painful?  I hope not.  The AR style has become a cult weapon.  You can say how others are just as deadly but the AR is the weapon of choice for mass shootings.  I am not saying we need to outlaw that specific weapon but we can up it in the firearms where you can't just walk into a store and purchase it in less than 30 minutes or you can't mail order it or buy it at a gunshow with no background check.  If you wanted to keep yours then you can keep it.  Just pay the 200 bucks that would be required, register the weapon and yourself and become responsible for the weapon and it's uses.  ALL AR types used in the mass shootings were purchased legally so let's stop with the "Oh Yah, what about the Criminal".  Hand Grenades do a much better job at killing but the people that legally buy them pay the 200 bucks and just don't use them for mass killings no matter what the movies say.  People that own Automatic Weapons pay the 200 bucks and are not the problem.  But an 18 year old kid with a score to settle that buys it without paying the 200 bucks IS the problem.  Actually, it isn't limited to age as the shootings can attest.  You just have to be 18 years old or older.  Not a problem if the 18 year old pays the 200 bucks for the license to possess one.  There are many young people that have at least a class 4 or class D firearms license and you just don't hear about them doing these insane things.
> 
> Sorry to bust your bubble but I am not out to take your guns.  I just suggest that we reclassify one specific weapon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I am telling you that it is beyond stupid to reclassify one specific Semiautomatic rifle because of the way it looks and no other reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can fight it but the genie is out of the bottle.  While the School Children that have been terrorized and traumatized can't vote, their parents can and in a few short years the children turn 18.  And they agree with what I have said all along.  Even many of the large Republican Donors are starting to remove support for anyone that will not go along those lines.  Yes, these folks give millions each year to various Republican Candidates but they will not contribute to those that still spew the NRA Boilerplate responses.  It's happening more and more each day.  The Last Mass Shooting was the straw that broke the camels back.  Too bad it didn't get a sore back 25 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what will you all do when banning that rifle does nothing to stop the next piece of shit from shooting up a school ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give it a chance.  If it works that's great.  If it doesn't we can put it back the way it was.  My money is that within 2 years we may still have attacks but they won't be "Mass" killings since that tool won't be available.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It won't work we already had a so called assault weapons ban in effect for 10 years
> In fact the assault weapons ban was in effect when Columbine got shot up
> 
> Gee look at that real data not opinion.
Click to expand...


Oh goody.  I get to fact check on this one.  The columbine shooting happened in 1999.  The Ban of Assault Rifles (ie AR) ras allowed to runout in 1998.  Adn the shooting was done by 2 handguns, 1 shotgun and a 9mm semi auto rifle with a few 32 shot mags (clisp to piss one person off) adn two dud bombs.  Even with all that, they still only managed to kill 12.  If they had been armed with a pair of ARs the body count could have easily topped 50 or 100.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Daryl Hunt said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I am telling you that it is beyond stupid to reclassify one specific Semiautomatic rifle because of the way it looks and no other reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can fight it but the genie is out of the bottle.  While the School Children that have been terrorized and traumatized can't vote, their parents can and in a few short years the children turn 18.  And they agree with what I have said all along.  Even many of the large Republican Donors are starting to remove support for anyone that will not go along those lines.  Yes, these folks give millions each year to various Republican Candidates but they will not contribute to those that still spew the NRA Boilerplate responses.  It's happening more and more each day.  The Last Mass Shooting was the straw that broke the camels back.  Too bad it didn't get a sore back 25 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what will you all do when banning that rifle does nothing to stop the next piece of shit from shooting up a school ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give it a chance.  If it works that's great.  If it doesn't we can put it back the way it was.  My money is that within 2 years we may still have attacks but they won't be "Mass" killings since that tool won't be available.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It won't work we already had a so called assault weapons ban in effect for 10 years
> In fact the assault weapons ban was in effect when Columbine got shot up
> 
> Gee look at that real data not opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh goody.  I get to fact check on this one.  The columbine shooting happened in 1999.  The Ban of Assault Rifles (ie AR) ras allowed to runout in 1998.  Adn the shooting was done by 2 handguns, 1 shotgun and a 9mm semi auto rifle with a few 32 shot mags (clisp to piss one person off) adn two dud bombs.  Even with all that, they still only managed to kill 12.  If they had been armed with a pair of ARs the body count could have easily topped 50 or 100.
Click to expand...

As I said gun bans do not prevent school shootings.
And you cannot prove it would have been worse with other weapons.

It's your entire argument that a gun ban will prevent school shootings

You are wrong
Q.E.D.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rustic said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> WRong answer once again.  Part of it is a culture.  The Weapon I am specifically referring to is very much part of a culture.  Now, name that Weapon.  Go ahead and be very specific.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It matters not what any gun looks like only how it performs an the Ar 15 that you are so afraid of performs no differently than any other semiautomatic in existence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, was that painful?  I hope not.  The AR style has become a cult weapon.  You can say how others are just as deadly but the AR is the weapon of choice for mass shootings.  I am not saying we need to outlaw that specific weapon but we can up it in the firearms where you can't just walk into a store and purchase it in less than 30 minutes or you can't mail order it or buy it at a gunshow with no background check.  If you wanted to keep yours then you can keep it.  Just pay the 200 bucks that would be required, register the weapon and yourself and become responsible for the weapon and it's uses.  ALL AR types used in the mass shootings were purchased legally so let's stop with the "Oh Yah, what about the Criminal".  Hand Grenades do a much better job at killing but the people that legally buy them pay the 200 bucks and just don't use them for mass killings no matter what the movies say.  People that own Automatic Weapons pay the 200 bucks and are not the problem.  But an 18 year old kid with a score to settle that buys it without paying the 200 bucks IS the problem.  Actually, it isn't limited to age as the shootings can attest.  You just have to be 18 years old or older.  Not a problem if the 18 year old pays the 200 bucks for the license to possess one.  There are many young people that have at least a class 4 or class D firearms license and you just don't hear about them doing these insane things.
> 
> Sorry to bust your bubble but I am not out to take your guns.  I just suggest that we reclassify one specific weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no right to reclassify any rifles, ARs are just sporting rifles nothing more nothing less.
> There is no better rifle out there for varmints, pigs, coyotes and such...
> 
> BTW... Firearm registration is nothing more than firearm confiscation… Fact
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a sporting rifle as long as you are hunting People.
> 
> As for Varmints I already listed at least two that blow the AR away.  If you want to use the AR for a sporting rifle as you claim, I suggest you go to Syria where you can use it for the game it was designed for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Na, not really...
Click to expand...


Sometimes I use a Screwdriver as a hammer it it works.  Doesn't make it as good as a hammer.


----------



## The Derp

Skull Pilot said:


> and 86% of them are reported stolen.



_*WHY THE FUCK ISN'T IT 100%?*_

So much for the narrative of "responsible gun owners"...they report a gun is stolen less than 9 out of 10 times.  That's fucking pathetic.  You can sure as shit bet 100% of car thefts are reported.

Now, _*why*_ would a "responsible gun owner" _*not*_ report their gun as stolen!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!  What could be the only reason?




Skull Pilot said:


> This problem does not affect all states equally. The rate and volume of guns stolen from both gun stores and private collections vary widely from state to state. From 2012 through 2015, the average rate of the five states with the highest rates of gun theft from private owners—Tennessee, Arkansas, South Carolina, Oklahoma, and Alabama—was 13 times higher than the average rate of the five states with the lowest rates—Hawaii, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, and Massachusetts.6 Similarly, from 2012 through 2016, the average rate of the five states with the highest rates of guns stolen from gun stores was 18 times higher than the average rate the five states with the lowest rates.7



Yes!  So thanks for proving my point...states with shitty gun laws see _*more*_ gun thefts than states with good gun laws.  So again, it's the "_*responsible gun owners*_" who are to blame.  This is exactly what I am talking about when I say that guns are trafficked to cities and blue states via "iron pipelines".  A practice that could be *all but eliminated* by requiring all gun transactions and transfers require a background check.





Skull Pilot said:


> gun thefts are not equally distributed among the states and gee high crime areas have more gun thefts.  Imagine that.



The states you listed in your cut and paste that had *the highest rates of gun theft are all pro-gun, red states*.  So the guns get stolen from "responsible gun owners" in those states and then trafficked into the other states with stricter gun laws.  That's exactly what the "iron pipeline" is.




Skull Pilot said:


> Millions of people own guns and never have one stolen



As of _*now*_.  But they can't pretend it will never happen because it happens 234,000 times a year, on average.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Skull Pilot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can fight it but the genie is out of the bottle.  While the School Children that have been terrorized and traumatized can't vote, their parents can and in a few short years the children turn 18.  And they agree with what I have said all along.  Even many of the large Republican Donors are starting to remove support for anyone that will not go along those lines.  Yes, these folks give millions each year to various Republican Candidates but they will not contribute to those that still spew the NRA Boilerplate responses.  It's happening more and more each day.  The Last Mass Shooting was the straw that broke the camels back.  Too bad it didn't get a sore back 25 years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what will you all do when banning that rifle does nothing to stop the next piece of shit from shooting up a school ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give it a chance.  If it works that's great.  If it doesn't we can put it back the way it was.  My money is that within 2 years we may still have attacks but they won't be "Mass" killings since that tool won't be available.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It won't work we already had a so called assault weapons ban in effect for 10 years
> In fact the assault weapons ban was in effect when Columbine got shot up
> 
> Gee look at that real data not opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh goody.  I get to fact check on this one.  The columbine shooting happened in 1999.  The Ban of Assault Rifles (ie AR) ras allowed to runout in 1998.  Adn the shooting was done by 2 handguns, 1 shotgun and a 9mm semi auto rifle with a few 32 shot mags (clisp to piss one person off) adn two dud bombs.  Even with all that, they still only managed to kill 12.  If they had been armed with a pair of ARs the body count could have easily topped 50 or 100.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I said gun bans do not prevent school shootings.
Click to expand...


You can scream gun ban until your are blue in the face.  They can't just ban them.  But they can regulate them.  And by getting the most efficient killing weapon out of the hands of the mainstream hands by regulating them doesn't stop the shooting but it does keep the body count down.  Or are you getting your nut off when a high number of people die due to Mass Murders?


----------



## Skull Pilot

The Derp said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> and 86% of them are reported stolen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*WHY THE FUCK ISN'T IT 100%?*_
> 
> So much for the narrative of "responsible gun owners"...they report a gun is stolen less than 9 out of 10 times.  That's fucking pathetic.  You can sure as shit bet 100% of car thefts are reported.
> 
> Now, _*why*_ would a "responsible gun owner" _*not*_ report their gun as stolen!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!  What could be the only reason?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> This problem does not affect all states equally. The rate and volume of guns stolen from both gun stores and private collections vary widely from state to state. From 2012 through 2015, the average rate of the five states with the highest rates of gun theft from private owners—Tennessee, Arkansas, South Carolina, Oklahoma, and Alabama—was 13 times higher than the average rate of the five states with the lowest rates—Hawaii, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, and Massachusetts.6 Similarly, from 2012 through 2016, the average rate of the five states with the highest rates of guns stolen from gun stores was 18 times higher than the average rate the five states with the lowest rates.7
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes!  So thanks for proving my point...states with shitty gun laws see _*more*_ gun thefts than states with good gun laws.  So again, it's the "_*responsible gun owners*_" who are to blame.  This is exactly what I am talking about when I say that guns are trafficked to cities and blue states via "iron pipelines".  A practice that could be *all but eliminated* by requiring all gun transactions and transfers require a background check.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> gun thefts are not equally distributed among the states and gee high crime areas have more gun thefts.  Imagine that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The states you listed in your cut and paste that had *the highest rates of gun theft are all pro-gun, red states*.  So the guns get stolen from "responsible gun owners" in those states and then trafficked into the other states with stricter gun laws.  That's exactly what the "iron pipeline" is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Millions of people own guns and never have one stolen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As of _*now*_.  But they can't pretend it will never happen because it happens 234,000 times a year, on average.
Click to expand...


you really like to ask stupid questions.

How the fuck do I know why someone wouldn't report a gun or anything else stolen?


----------



## Skull Pilot

Daryl Hunt said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what will you all do when banning that rifle does nothing to stop the next piece of shit from shooting up a school ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give it a chance.  If it works that's great.  If it doesn't we can put it back the way it was.  My money is that within 2 years we may still have attacks but they won't be "Mass" killings since that tool won't be available.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It won't work we already had a so called assault weapons ban in effect for 10 years
> In fact the assault weapons ban was in effect when Columbine got shot up
> 
> Gee look at that real data not opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh goody.  I get to fact check on this one.  The columbine shooting happened in 1999.  The Ban of Assault Rifles (ie AR) ras allowed to runout in 1998.  Adn the shooting was done by 2 handguns, 1 shotgun and a 9mm semi auto rifle with a few 32 shot mags (clisp to piss one person off) adn two dud bombs.  Even with all that, they still only managed to kill 12.  If they had been armed with a pair of ARs the body count could have easily topped 50 or 100.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I said gun bans do not prevent school shootings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can scream gun ban until your are blue in the face.  They can't just ban them.  But they can regulate them.  And by getting the most efficient killing weapon out of the hands of the mainstream hands by regulating them doesn't stop the shooting but it does keep the body count down.  Or are you getting your nut off when a high number of people die due to Mass Murders?
Click to expand...


Not going to work.

Want to know why?

Because there are millions of other .223 caliber semiautomatic rifles


----------



## 2aguy

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'd scream like a school girl and faint if you ever touched a gun.  Just like if your BFF said she was getting married and showed you her ring.  Or if your boyfriend showed you a new tapestry he bought ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So thanks for confirming that all a gun does, really, is cure insecurity.  Of course, it's more likely your gun will be stolen and used in a crime, than it is your gun will ever be used to defend yourself and/or your family.
> 
> If as many as 600,000 guns are stolen a year and that's what "responsible gun ownership" looks like, then _*fuuuuuuuuuuuuck  thaaaaaaaaaaaaaat shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit.*_  None of you are responsible gun owners.  It's not something you can prove.  "Responsible gun ownership" would mean *0* guns are stolen a year.  So when 0 guns are stolen a year, _*then*_ you can argue that they serve as some kind of protection or deterrent.  Until then, kindly shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just strawmen, lies, and misapplication of statistics.
> 
> There are virtually zero accidental shootings by people with CC permits.  You're just a lying troll
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a fact a gun in the home is more likely to kill its owner than an intruder.
> 
> And there is no evidence guns act as a deterrent to crime.
> 
> "There are virtually zero accidental shootings by people with CC permits."
> 
> Link?
> 
> Having a concealed weapon license doesn't make one "immune" from an accidental shooting.
> 
> Clearly you're in no position to accuse others  of lying.
Click to expand...



Wrong...that is a lie........I have posted studies that show concealed carry rates help reduce violent crime....

And with over 16,300,000 concealed carry permit holders in the United States, there were 450 accidental gun deaths...and over 36,000 accidental car deaths......

Do some basic research....


----------



## The Derp

Skull Pilot said:


> And you can't prove that it would have been worse can you?



If instead of the shotgun and handguns that did the majority of the killing, they had an AR-15...YES, there absolutely would have been more bloodshed.  Without a doubt.  100%.




Skull Pilot said:


> But as I said gun bans do not prevent school shootings.



They do if the gun ban is universal and all guns were confiscated.  Then there wouldn't be any shootings at all, and you'd have to figure out another way to cure your crippling insecurity, you irresponsible gun owner.


----------



## Rustic

Cccccc


The Derp said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Straw purchasers" must be the leftist meme _du jour_.  Too bad for you that the Department of Justice AND the latest surveys of actual prison inmates don't agree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't agree with what?  Straw purchasing is exactly how guns get from low, lazy, and lax gun law states to places like Chicago.  No gun "falls off a truck".  All guns are initially purchased legally, then are stolen or "transferred" with no record of a background check.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> na, You’re naïve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OR, you could be wrong.  Since you seem to have a squishy definition of "responsibility", it would seem you're the one who needs to get your shit together and stop being a sucker.  After all, you were suckered into owning a gun by gun companies who prey on the fear instilled in you by NRA propaganda, and now you're trying to future proof yourself against responsibility.
> 
> Otherwise, how are guns getting to Chicago?  Magic?  Unicorns?  Teleportation devices?
Click to expand...

other criminals, south of the border


----------



## 2aguy

Daryl Hunt said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I am telling you that it is beyond stupid to reclassify one specific Semiautomatic rifle because of the way it looks and no other reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can fight it but the genie is out of the bottle.  While the School Children that have been terrorized and traumatized can't vote, their parents can and in a few short years the children turn 18.  And they agree with what I have said all along.  Even many of the large Republican Donors are starting to remove support for anyone that will not go along those lines.  Yes, these folks give millions each year to various Republican Candidates but they will not contribute to those that still spew the NRA Boilerplate responses.  It's happening more and more each day.  The Last Mass Shooting was the straw that broke the camels back.  Too bad it didn't get a sore back 25 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what will you all do when banning that rifle does nothing to stop the next piece of shit from shooting up a school ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give it a chance.  If it works that's great.  If it doesn't we can put it back the way it was.  My money is that within 2 years we may still have attacks but they won't be "Mass" killings since that tool won't be available.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It won't work we already had a so called assault weapons ban in effect for 10 years
> In fact the assault weapons ban was in effect when Columbine got shot up
> 
> Gee look at that real data not opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh goody.  I get to fact check on this one.  The columbine shooting happened in 1999.  The Ban of Assault Rifles (ie AR) ras allowed to runout in 1998.  Adn the shooting was done by 2 handguns, 1 shotgun and a 9mm semi auto rifle with a few 32 shot mags (clisp to piss one person off) adn two dud bombs.  Even with all that, they still only managed to kill 12.  If they had been armed with a pair of ARs the body count could have easily topped 50 or 100.
Click to expand...



If they had used a rental truck they could have killed a lot more....

The Vegas shooter used 2 rifles, firing over 1,000 rounds of ammo into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people......

murderd 58

The muslim terrorist in Nice, France used a rental truck and in 5 minutes?

Murdered 86.

Rental trucks are deadlier  than the AR-15 rifle....

All mass shootings since 1982......to 2017.....35 years....murdered 795 people....all of them....total...

Knives are used to murder over 1,600 people every single year........

Knives also murder more people every single year than all rifle types combined....

So...according to you...we need to ban knives and rental trucks....since they are both deadlier than AR-15 rifles...right?


----------



## The Derp

Skull Pilot said:


> you really like to ask stupid questions.



Just because you can't answer it truthfully doesn't mean it's a stupid question; it means *you're a stupid person.

So why aren't 100% of stolen guns reported?*  You are trying to make the case that gun owners are responsible, but they can't even get an 'A' when it comes to reporting stolen weapons.  Less than 90% of stolen guns are reported as stolen.  Not very responsible group of people there, huh?





Skull Pilot said:


> How the fuck do I know why someone wouldn't report a gun or anything else stolen?



How about you use that brain of yours to make some presumptions?  You seem to have no problem making presumptions about what gun control advocates want, but you suddenly stop short here?  What gives?


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

The Derp said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does this mean I'm responsible if someone murders me? Does this mean that all murder victims are collectively responsible for murders? Does this mean that I am responsible and at fault if my _neighbor _is murdered?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but if you're going to claim these instruments of murder are handled by "responsible gun owners", then "responsible gun owners" get the blame when the guns they had stolen from them get used in crimes.  And as many as 600,000 guns a year are stolen from "responsible gun owners".
Click to expand...


First of all, guns are not instruments of murder until somebody uses one to commit murder. The truck that killed eighty six people in Paris became an instrument of murder. Before that it was just a truck. And, if what you say is true then the company that rented the truck to Lahouaiej-Bouhlel is responsible.  

If you're going to espouse a principle of blaming the owners then it applies to all thefts of all things. You can't have it both ways just because you hate gun owners.



> *So if 600,000 stolen guns a year is what "responsible gun ownership" looks like, *_*fuck that bullshit*_.



765,484 vehicles were stolen in 2016. Are you suggesting none of them were responsible car owners? Or that they were all at fault in some way?



> There is no such thing as "responsible gun ownership", so let's stop pretending like gun owners are responsible people.



I will, as soon as you stop pretending you don't hate gun owners.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> If what you say is true then every victim of murder, assault, robbery or theft is responsible for the crime against them and against others.





> This is the mentality of gun owners; that these victims are to blame for not arming themselves.



Huh? How the hell did you get that from what I wrote? I said: "IF WHAT YOU SAY IS TRUE then every victim of murder, assault, robbery or theft is responsible for the crime against them and against others."

Let's not forget who the bad guy is here. The bad guy is the thief that broke the law and stole the gun and the bad guy is the one who broke the law and used it to kill someone. Responsible gun owners (I understand you hate that term but, so what) use their firearms for hunting, target shooting, shooting competitions, etc.


----------



## kaz

The Derp said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'd scream like a school girl and faint if you ever touched a gun.  Just like if your BFF said she was getting married and showed you her ring.  Or if your boyfriend showed you a new tapestry he bought ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So thanks for confirming that all a gun does, really, is cure insecurity.  Of course, it's more likely your gun will be stolen and used in a crime, than it is your gun will ever be used to defend yourself and/or your family.
> 
> If as many as 600,000 guns are stolen a year and that's what "responsible gun ownership" looks like, then _*fuuuuuuuuuuuuck  thaaaaaaaaaaaaaat shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit.*_  None of you are responsible gun owners.  It's not something you can prove.  "Responsible gun ownership" would mean *0* guns are stolen a year.  So when 0 guns are stolen a year, _*then*_ you can argue that they serve as some kind of protection or deterrent.  Until then, kindly shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not 600000 a year
> 
> Bureau of Justice Statistics Firearms Stolen during Household Burglaries and Other Property Crimes, 2005-2010
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *READ MY POST INSTEAD OF RUSHING THROUGH IT TO PRODUCE A SLOPPY, STUPID RESPONSE:*
> 
> I said _*"as many as 600,000"*_.
> 
> The average is *still staggering*:  234,000 GUNS ARE STOLEN FROM "RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNERS" ON AVERAGE EACH YEAR.
> 
> So there's no such thing as a "responsible gun owner".  It's just something you like to say to make you feel better about being an irresponsible jackass.
Click to expand...


How many guns across the southern border you fight to keep open?


----------



## 2aguy

The Derp said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you can't prove that it would have been worse can you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If instead of the shotgun and handguns that did the majority of the killing, they had an AR-15...YES, there absolutely would have been more bloodshed.  Without a doubt.  100%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> But as I said gun bans do not prevent school shootings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They do if the gun ban is universal and all guns were confiscated.  Then there wouldn't be any shootings at all, and you'd have to figure out another way to cure your crippling insecurity, you irresponsible gun owner.
Click to expand...



Wrong......the Vegas shooter used 2...AR-15 rifles and killed 58.

The muslim terrorist in Nice, France used a rental truck and murdered 86.

Knives murder more people every single year than all rifle types....every single year.....

Knives and rental trucks are deadlier than AR-15 rifles....

do you want to ban knives and rental trucks?


----------



## 2aguy

The Derp said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you can't prove that it would have been worse can you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If instead of the shotgun and handguns that did the majority of the killing, they had an AR-15...YES, there absolutely would have been more bloodshed.  Without a doubt.  100%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> But as I said gun bans do not prevent school shootings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They do if the gun ban is universal and all guns were confiscated.  Then there wouldn't be any shootings at all, and you'd have to figure out another way to cure your crippling insecurity, you irresponsible gun owner.
Click to expand...



They banned guns in Britain and their gun crime rate has gone up every single year...it was up 23% just last year all across England and Wales, and up 42% in Britain....gun crime is also up in Australia.......where they also banned and confiscated guns...both are island nations......and their gun control and bans did not work.


----------



## The Derp

2aguy said:


> Wrong...that is a lie........I have posted studies that show concealed carry rates help reduce violent crime....



None of those studies prove anything beyond the juvenile and flawed "correlation is causation" argument.

However, as many as *600,000 guns are stolen a year from "responsible gun owners"*...so we can attribute most gun crime to you guys, who aren't even responsible enough to manage your own guns.  Since as many as 600,000 guns are stolen a year from "responsible gun owners", then there is no such thing as "responsible gun ownership" until that number gets to *ZERO*.  But you seem incapable of being responsible enough for your guns.  So why the fuck should you be allowed to have them?




2aguy said:


> And with over 16,300,000 concealed carry permit holders in the United States, there were 450 accidental gun deaths...and over 36,000 accidental car deaths......



So you're making the case that there is no such thing as a "responsible gun owner", that you pose a danger and threat to society, and that your weapons are more likely to be stolen and used in a crime, than they ever will be used as self-defense.

Your insecurities puts society at risk.  What a bunch of selfish, irresponsible losers.


----------



## Skull Pilot

The Derp said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you can't prove that it would have been worse can you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If instead of the shotgun and handguns that did the majority of the killing, they had an AR-15...YES, there absolutely would have been more bloodshed.  Without a doubt.  100%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> But as I said gun bans do not prevent school shootings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They do if the gun ban is universal and all guns were confiscated.  Then there wouldn't be any shootings at all, and you'd have to figure out another way to cure your crippling insecurity, you irresponsible gun owner.
Click to expand...


you really think making all guns illegal will stop it?

Worked real well with drugs didn't it

Worked real well with alcohol when we tried it too

Did you ever think that if these idiots who shoot up schools couldn't just walk in undetected that these shootings would have been prevented or at least minimized?

Of course you didn't because you think a gun ban is the answer and it's all your room temperature IQ can handle


----------



## kaz

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'd scream like a school girl and faint if you ever touched a gun.  Just like if your BFF said she was getting married and showed you her ring.  Or if your boyfriend showed you a new tapestry he bought ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So thanks for confirming that all a gun does, really, is cure insecurity.  Of course, it's more likely your gun will be stolen and used in a crime, than it is your gun will ever be used to defend yourself and/or your family.
> 
> If as many as 600,000 guns are stolen a year and that's what "responsible gun ownership" looks like, then _*fuuuuuuuuuuuuck  thaaaaaaaaaaaaaat shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit.*_  None of you are responsible gun owners.  It's not something you can prove.  "Responsible gun ownership" would mean *0* guns are stolen a year.  So when 0 guns are stolen a year, _*then*_ you can argue that they serve as some kind of protection or deterrent.  Until then, kindly shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just strawmen, lies, and misapplication of statistics.
> 
> There are virtually zero accidental shootings by people with CC permits.  You're just a lying troll
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a fact a gun in the home is more likely to kill its owner than an intruder.
> 
> And there is no evidence guns act as a deterrent to crime.
> 
> "There are virtually zero accidental shootings by people with CC permits."
> 
> Link?
> 
> Having a concealed weapon license doesn't make one "immune" from an accidental shooting.
> 
> Clearly you're in no position to accuse others  of lying.
Click to expand...


New York Times Concealed Handgun Crime Numbers Are Bogus | National Review


----------



## Skull Pilot

The Derp said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> you really like to ask stupid questions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you can't answer it truthfully doesn't mean it's a stupid question; it means *you're a stupid person.
> 
> So why aren't 100% of stolen guns reported?*  You are trying to make the case that gun owners are responsible, but they can't even get an 'A' when it comes to reporting stolen weapons.  Less than 90% of stolen guns are reported as stolen.  Not very responsible group of people there, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> How the fuck do I know why someone wouldn't report a gun or anything else stolen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about you use that brain of yours to make some presumptions?  You seem to have no problem making presumptions about what gun control advocates want, but you suddenly stop short here?  What gives?
Click to expand...

There is no truthful answer to that question.

I don't know what motivates others to do what they do and newsflash, neither do you, Corky.


----------



## Rustic

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No....dipshit...it isn't a cult weapon......it is an easy to use rifle, that allows for customization....and it is very easy for women and small framed humans to use it for self defense, competition, hunting and collecting....
> 
> There are 8 million of them in private hands....
> 
> And how does anything you propose stop any criminal or mass shooter....dipshit?   This shooter and all the others would pay your 200 dollars, register their guns and then go and shoot people....moron.
> 
> Nothing you or the other anti gunners propose would stop a criminal or a mass shooter...and that is the point.....you guys want to baby step the restrictions on guns and the fees, and the taxes.....and the paperwork so that normal, law abiding people are too afraid to own legal guns...for fear of failing some step of the process that will lead to a felony conviction for a paperwork mistake....
> 
> Meanwhile, criminals don't care....
> 
> *By the way, genius......felons do not have to register their illegal guns...the Supreme Court, in Haynes v. United States ruled that forcing criminals to register their illegal guns violates their 5th Amendment Rights against self incrimination......so if it violates their Rights, it violates my Rights.....doofus.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you brought up a couple of good point amongst the crap you spew.  You left out a few things.
> 
> The AR is no longer under Copyright.  Even you can get a license to manufacture, sell and distribute them.  About 3 percent of the population have used the M-16 and feel comfortable using the AR.  Yes, it's versitile but it's till made for one reason and one reason only.  To kill people.  If you bought one to put food on the table then you really should have bought a few sides of beef and installed a root cellar instead.  Other rifles do a much better job at getting the groceries.
> 
> You can currently buy an AR for less than 400 bucks.  Okay, it's pretty basic and you had best not fire the MIl Grad Ammo.  But it works just fine with the stock 223 loads.  It's not nearly as pretty.  But for less than 400 bucks, exactly what do you expect?
> 
> For Varmints, the AR isn't in my picture.  I prefer the Remington model 700 VSSF II  chambered for the 223 with a 50 grain bullet.  Okay, it costs twice as much but it can nail anything from a rabbit to coyote at up to about 400 yds.  But I would prefer it in 243 or 6mm.  It's as accurate out to 400 yds as the 223 but has a much higher hitting power at 90 grains.  If you try and go past 50 grains in a 223, you start losing accuracy and range.  But a Savage costing less than 400 bucks in 223 or 243 also does a great job, it just won't be a Purty.
> 
> So, the only major thing an AR can do is kill people better.  It doesn't make the list of the top 5 varmint rifles on any list done by reputable testers.  So why would you buy an AR to go varmint shooting when the Remington on the high end and the Savage on the low end does a better job?
> 
> BTW, I shoot a Mauser Shavetail 22 long rifle for Ground Hogs.  Now, that's a sport.  I stopped shooting it when I found out just how rare a bird it really is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is your opinion, up here in the wide open northern plains, An AR has no equal for the hunting I do up here. Mule deer and under, the accessorizing and customizations are truly unlimited. ARs are extremely affordable for new people to get into the sport, and out of the box $500 ar can easily shoot 1” MOA at a 100... providing the shooter is up to it.
> Shit for brains, ARs are available in multiple cartridges, such as .300, 6.8 spc, 6.5 creedmoor, etc. and they are every bit as good if not better than a bolt gun for hunting.
> AR15s are not made for killing people, they are just sporting rifles.
> 
> Get over yourself ya old coot... lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This old coot has the background to know the difference.  What I can see is that your little bunch has shouted down and bullied until the other person stops posting.  You can give that one up.  I am fully retired as of last week.  I have the time.  If you doubt my predictions, in the Military area here, I made certain predictions and ALL have come true.  If I weren't pretty sure that the AR is going to be raised one level on the firearms category I wouldn't have made that prediction.  It's an election year so look for some changes real fast at the Federal Level if the Congress Critter try and go against this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ARs are no different than any other sporting rifle, your Prejudices is childish
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you keep parroting the same thing over and over.  If there wasn't something different about it, it wouldn't hold the record in the US for the highest body count   It doesn't matter if there really is a difference or not, it's that it's perceived that there is by individuals that use it in the Mass Shootings.
Click to expand...

Handguns are used to kill far more people...


----------



## The Derp

2aguy said:


> rong......the Vegas shooter used 2...AR-15 rifles and killed 58.?



OK, and your point is what?  That there is no such thing as a responsible gun owner.




2aguy said:


> The muslim terrorist in Nice, France used a rental truck and murdered 86.



Which has nothing to do with your gun or gun ownership in America.  "Whataboutism" is the hallmark of the intellectually deficient.




2aguy said:


> Knives murder more people every single year than all rifle types....every single year.....Knives and rental trucks are deadlier than AR-15 rifles....



1.  One instance of a rental truck killing 86 people _*in France*_ does not cancel out any number of mass shootings _*in America*_.

2.  When one person armed with a knife can murder 58 people and would 900 in 60 seconds, then I'm more than happy to talk about knife control.  Until then, you've made the world's shittiest and least intelligent point.




2aguy said:


> do you want to ban knives and rental trucks?



No.  I want "responsible gun owners" to actually be responsible.


----------



## Rustic

Daryl Hunt said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I am telling you that it is beyond stupid to reclassify one specific Semiautomatic rifle because of the way it looks and no other reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can fight it but the genie is out of the bottle.  While the School Children that have been terrorized and traumatized can't vote, their parents can and in a few short years the children turn 18.  And they agree with what I have said all along.  Even many of the large Republican Donors are starting to remove support for anyone that will not go along those lines.  Yes, these folks give millions each year to various Republican Candidates but they will not contribute to those that still spew the NRA Boilerplate responses.  It's happening more and more each day.  The Last Mass Shooting was the straw that broke the camels back.  Too bad it didn't get a sore back 25 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what will you all do when banning that rifle does nothing to stop the next piece of shit from shooting up a school ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give it a chance.  If it works that's great.  If it doesn't we can put it back the way it was.  My money is that within 2 years we may still have attacks but they won't be "Mass" killings since that tool won't be available.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It won't work we already had a so called assault weapons ban in effect for 10 years
> In fact the assault weapons ban was in effect when Columbine got shot up
> 
> Gee look at that real data not opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh goody.  I get to fact check on this one.  The columbine shooting happened in 1999.  The Ban of Assault Rifles (ie AR) ras allowed to runout in 1998.  Adn the shooting was done by 2 handguns, 1 shotgun and a 9mm semi auto rifle with a few 32 shot mags (clisp to piss one person off) adn two dud bombs.  Even with all that, they still only managed to kill 12.  If they had been armed with a pair of ARs the body count could have easily topped 50 or 100.
Click to expand...


----------



## kaz

The Derp said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'd scream like a school girl and faint if you ever touched a gun.  Just like if your BFF said she was getting married and showed you her ring.  Or if your boyfriend showed you a new tapestry he bought ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So thanks for confirming that all a gun does, really, is cure insecurity.  Of course, it's more likely your gun will be stolen and used in a crime, than it is your gun will ever be used to defend yourself and/or your family.
> 
> If as many as 600,000 guns are stolen a year and that's what "responsible gun ownership" looks like, then _*fuuuuuuuuuuuuck  thaaaaaaaaaaaaaat shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit.*_  None of you are responsible gun owners.  It's not something you can prove.  "Responsible gun ownership" would mean *0* guns are stolen a year.  So when 0 guns are stolen a year, _*then*_ you can argue that they serve as some kind of protection or deterrent.  Until then, kindly shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just strawmen, lies, and misapplication of statistics.
> 
> There are virtually zero accidental shootings by people with CC permits.  You're just a lying troll
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a fact a gun in the home is more likely to kill its owner than an intruder.
> 
> And there is no evidence guns act as a deterrent to crime.
> 
> "There are virtually zero accidental shootings by people with CC permits."
> 
> Link?
> 
> Having a concealed weapon license doesn't make one "immune" from an accidental shooting.
> 
> Clearly you're in no position to accuse others  of lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Things more likely to happen with your gun than protecting you or your family:
> 
> The gun gets stolen
> The gun goes off accidentally
> The gun injures you
> The gun injures your friend or loved one
> The gun is taken by your kid to school
Click to expand...


Contrived statistics that are intentionally misleading and fail to tell the whole story.

So just to be clear, you think public educators are a bunch of red neck right wing bunch of hacks who touch a gun and start shooting up the place like Yosemite Sam?

I see why you're so against public schools


----------



## The Derp

2aguy said:


> They banned guns in Britain and their gun crime rate has gone up every single year



No, it hasn't.  The gun crime rate has not gone up every single year since the ban.  And BTW - *the crime rate in the UK is still much lower than it is here.

*


2aguy said:


> ...it was up 23% just last year all across England and Wales, and up 42% in Britain



23% of what?  What are the numbers.  Because going from 4 to 5 is a 25% increase.  So let's see some context for these numbers.  




2aguy said:


> ....gun crime is also up in Australia.......where they also banned and confiscated guns...both are island nations......and their gun control and bans did not work.



Their bans certainly did work, and what is the rate now vs. then?  See, everything you're writing is absent of context here.


----------



## IsaacNewton

The real reason for the NRA and gun lickers, they need bear hugs from bear arms.


----------



## The Derp

Skull Pilot said:


> you really think making all guns illegal will stop it?



No, which is why I don't call for a gun ban.  I'm just saying a gun ban would be effective if it was 100% universal and resulted in confiscation.  *But I don't support that because I think it's unrealistic.

*


Skull Pilot said:


> Worked real well with drugs didn't itWorked real well with alcohol when we tried it tooDid you ever think that if these idiots who shoot up schools couldn't just walk in undetected that these shootings would have been prevented or at least minimized?Of course you didn't because you think a gun ban is the answer and it's all your room temperature IQ can handle



I don't think a gun ban is the answer.


----------



## The Derp

Skull Pilot said:


> There is no truthful answer to that question.



Why not?  

Why can't you answer truthfully why 100% of gun thefts aren't reported? 

What could possibly be the reason anyone would not report a gun stolen?




Skull Pilot said:


> I don't know what motivates others to do what they do and newsflash, neither do you, Corky.



You seem to have no problem presuming the motives of gun control advocates, yet you won't presume the motives of gun owners who don't report their weapons stolen?  What gives?


----------



## Skull Pilot

The Derp said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> you really think making all guns illegal will stop it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, which is why I don't call for a gun ban.  I'm just saying a gun ban would be effective if it was 100% universal and resulted in confiscation.  *But I don't support that because I think it's unrealistic.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Worked real well with drugs didn't itWorked real well with alcohol when we tried it tooDid you ever think that if these idiots who shoot up schools couldn't just walk in undetected that these shootings would have been prevented or at least minimized?Of course you didn't because you think a gun ban is the answer and it's all your room temperature IQ can handle
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think a gun ban is the answer.
Click to expand...

And you think that gun ban would stop the black market.
No ban on anything is ever going to be 100% efficient.  History proves that in fact prohibition increases crime and violence as illicit markets exapnd


----------



## Skull Pilot

The Derp said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no truthful answer to that question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?
> 
> Why can't you answer truthfully why 100% of gun thefts aren't reported?
> 
> What could possibly be the reason anyone would not report a gun stolen?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what motivates others to do what they do and newsflash, neither do you, Corky.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to have no problem presuming the motives of gun control advocates, yet you won't presume the motives of gun owners who don't report their weapons stolen?  What gives?
Click to expand...


You can't either.

I do not know why people do what they do and neither do you.

So now tell me why aren't people just nice to each other  ?

Why don't people fart rainbows?


----------



## The Derp

kaz said:


> Contrived statistics that are intentionally misleading and fail to tell the whole story.



What part of the story of *your gun is more likely to get stolen than it is to defend you or your family* am I missing?  Please, indulge me.




kaz said:


> So just to be clear, you think public educators are a bunch of red neck right wing bunch of hacks who touch a gun and start shooting up the place like Yosemite Sam?



No, what I think is that "responsible gun owners" don't exist and never have, and that you use it as a "No true Scotsman" defense for when one of these "responsible gun owners" goes on a rampage, or when a gun is stolen from one of these "responsible gun owners" and then used in a crime.

Both of those things are more likely to happen than you acting as a hero and defending yourself or your family.


----------



## The Derp

Skull Pilot said:


> And you think that gun ban would stop the black market.



WTF are you babbling about?  Do you not read what people write when you respond?  I _*just said*_ that I didn't think a gun ban was realistic, yet you are continuing to post as if I didn't say that.  So is this really a conversation, or is it you jerking off on the boards?




Skull Pilot said:


> No ban on anything is ever going to be 100% efficient.  History proves that in fact prohibition increases crime and violence as illicit markets exapnd



Illicit markets are much harder to access safely than general consumer markets.  The more barriers you throw up to illicit gun ownership, the more likely that person is to be caught by law enforcement, or robbed by other illicit people.  

But this is all beside the point.  "Responsible gun owner" is a meaningless label that invokes a level of responsibility _*that gun owners simply do not have*_.

Since as many as 600,000 guns are stolen a year from "responsible gun owners", and not even 90% of those guns are reported stolen, gun owners aren't "responsible" people...they're irresponsible.


----------



## Skull Pilot

The Derp said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Contrived statistics that are intentionally misleading and fail to tell the whole story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What part of the story of *your gun is more likely to get stolen than it is to defend you or your family* am I missing?  Please, indulge me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So just to be clear, you think public educators are a bunch of red neck right wing bunch of hacks who touch a gun and start shooting up the place like Yosemite Sam?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, what I think is that "responsible gun owners" don't exist and never have, and that you use it as a "No true Scotsman" defense for when one of these "responsible gun owners" goes on a rampage, or when a gun is stolen from one of these "responsible gun owners" and then used in a crime.
> 
> Both of those things are more likely to happen than you acting as a hero and defending yourself or your family.
Click to expand...


More likely than what?

It is highly unlikely my guns will get stolen.  If I am not home I have a monitored alarm system 2 dogs and my firearms are locked in a 600 lb safe that I had anchored in concrete when I had my basement floor poured


----------



## Skull Pilot

The Derp said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you think that gun ban would stop the black market.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTF are you babbling about?  Do you not read what people write when you respond?  I _*just said*_ that I didn't think a gun ban was realistic, yet you are continuing to post as if I didn't say that.  So is this really a conversation, or is it you jerking off on the boards?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> No ban on anything is ever going to be 100% efficient.  History proves that in fact prohibition increases crime and violence as illicit markets exapnd
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illicit markets are much harder to access safely than general consumer markets.  The more barriers you throw up to illicit gun ownership, the more likely that person is to be caught by law enforcement, or robbed by other illicit people.
> 
> But this is all beside the point.  "Responsible gun owner" is a meaningless label that invokes a level of responsibility _*that gun owners simply do not have*_.
> 
> Since as many as 600,000 guns are stolen a year from "responsible gun owners", and not even 90% of those guns are reported stolen, gun owners aren't "responsible" people...they're irresponsible.
Click to expand...


Yeah worked real well for drugs and the prohibition of alcohol was a resounding success too right


----------



## The Derp

Skull Pilot said:


> You can't either.



Sure I can!

"Responsible gun owners" who don't report stolen guns do so _*because the gun that was stolen was obtained illegally*_.  So they're not "responsible gun owners"...no one is.

Or

"Responsible gun owners" who don't report stolen guns do so *because they're too fucking lazy and lack personal responsibility and accountability.*

Or

"Responsible gun owners" who don't report stolen guns do so *because they want the gun to end up in the hands of a criminal or terrorist.
*
There are no other reasons than those three.




Skull Pilot said:


> YI do not know why people do what they do and neither do you.



What a fucking cop-out!  You have no problem imagining the motivation and intent of gun control advocates, but then your little lizard brain can't fathom a single presumption about why gun owners don't report stolen guns...*and you expect me to believe that?  Fuck you, you loser.

*


Skull Pilot said:


> So now tell me why aren't people just nice to each other  ?



Because of people like you.


----------



## Rustic

The Derp said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure I can!
> 
> "Responsible gun owners" who don't report stolen guns do so _*because the gun that was stolen was obtained illegally*_.  So they're not "responsible gun owners"...no one is.
> 
> Or
> 
> "Responsible gun owners" who don't report stolen guns do so *because they're too fucking lazy and lack personal responsibility and accountability.*
> 
> Or
> 
> "Responsible gun owners" who don't report stolen guns do so *because they want the gun to end up in the hands of a criminal or terrorist.
> *
> There are no other reasons than those three.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> YI do not know why people do what they do and neither do you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a fucking cop-out!  You have no problem imagining the motivation and intent of gun control advocates, but then your little lizard brain can't fathom a single presumption about why gun owners don't report stolen guns...*and you expect me to believe that?  Fuck you, you loser.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now tell me why aren't people just nice to each other  ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because of people like you.
Click to expand...

Getting along is way overrated


----------



## The Derp

Skull Pilot said:


> More likely than what?



Don't play that lazy, Conservative game of not comprehending that which you read.  I even *bolded* for you what it was:

*your gun is more likely to get stolen than it is to defend you or your family* 

So I want to know why you are pretending to not have read that, even though you are responding to it.  Is this just your attempt at deflection or what?

It's more likely that your gun will be stolen, than it is likely your gun will be used by you to defend yourself or your family.

You read what I wrote.  You understood it.  You just tried to play obtuse so you don't have to reconcile it.

Not very "responsible" of you.




Skull Pilot said:


> It is highly unlikely my guns will get stolen.



It's _*more likely*_ your gun will be stolen than it will ever be used to defend you or your family.  As many as 600,000 guns are stolen a year.  It's not a matter of _*if*_, but _*when*_.




Skull Pilot said:


> If I am not home I have a monitored alarm system 2 dogs and my firearms are locked in a 600 lb safe that I had anchored in concrete when I had my basement floor poured



So what?  Alarm systems can be disarmed, dogs can be sedated, and safes can be hacked easily.

You're playing at responsibility, but you're actually not responsible.  Being responsible would be not having a gun at all, so there's nothing for a thief to steal and then use or sell.


----------



## The Derp

Skull Pilot said:


> Yeah worked real well for drugs and the prohibition of alcohol was a resounding success too right



Drugs and booze aren't weapons used to kill other people.

So why do you keep jumping from non-sequitur to non-sequitur.  If you can't make a point, *just shut your fat, stupid mouth.
*
Yeesh.


----------



## Skull Pilot

The Derp said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure I can!
> 
> "Responsible gun owners" who don't report stolen guns do so _*because the gun that was stolen was obtained illegally*_.  So they're not "responsible gun owners"...no one is.
> 
> Or
> 
> "Responsible gun owners" who don't report stolen guns do so *because they're too fucking lazy and lack personal responsibility and accountability.*
> 
> Or
> 
> "Responsible gun owners" who don't report stolen guns do so *because they want the gun to end up in the hands of a criminal or terrorist.
> *
> There are no other reasons than those three.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> YI do not know why people do what they do and neither do you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a fucking cop-out!  You have no problem imagining the motivation and intent of gun control advocates, but then your little lizard brain can't fathom a single presumption about why gun owners don't report stolen guns...*and you expect me to believe that?  Fuck you, you loser.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now tell me why aren't people just nice to each other  ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because of people like you.
Click to expand...


Your opinion is not truth.

Maybe some people don't report stolen guns because they don't know if they've been stolen.  But of course you never thought of that did you?


----------



## Skull Pilot

The Derp said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> More likely than what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't play that lazy, Conservative game of not comprehending that which you read.  I even *bolded* for you what it was:
> 
> *your gun is more likely to get stolen than it is to defend you or your family*
> 
> So I want to know why you are pretending to not have read that, even though you are responding to it.  Is this just your attempt at deflection or what?
> 
> It's more likely that your gun will be stolen, than it is likely your gun will be used by you to defend yourself or your family.
> 
> You read what I wrote.  You understood it.  You just tried to play obtuse so you don't have to reconcile it.
> 
> Not very "responsible" of you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is highly unlikely my guns will get stolen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's _*more likely*_ your gun will be stolen than it will ever be used to defend you or your family.  As many as 600,000 guns are stolen a year.  It's not a matter of _*if*_, but _*when*_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I am not home I have a monitored alarm system 2 dogs and my firearms are locked in a 600 lb safe that I had anchored in concrete when I had my basement floor poured
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what?  Alarm systems can be disarmed, dogs can be sedated, and safes can be hacked easily.
> 
> You're playing at responsibility, but you're actually not responsible.  Being responsible would be not having a gun at all, so there's nothing for a thief to steal and then use or sell.
Click to expand...


You are wrong.

I did use my gun to protect myself once.  And in the 3 plus decades I have owned guns one has never been stolen.

And I'll tell you what.  The day anyone can steal one of my guns I will give them all up.  It ain't gonna happen because there is no way anyone can break into my house without setting off an alarm find my gun safe in the basement jackhammer it out of the floor and carry that 600 lb hunk of steel up the stairs and out of my home.


----------



## Skull Pilot

The Derp said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah worked real well for drugs and the prohibition of alcohol was a resounding success too right
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drugs and booze aren't weapons used to kill other people.
> 
> So why do you keep jumping from non-sequitur to non-sequitur.  If you can't make a point, *just shut your fat, stupid mouth.
> *
> Yeesh.
Click to expand...


OK so it matters what is being banned now?

Gee I guess all those criminals who will make millions running illegal guns if they are all banned will say you know we shouldn't run guns because guns kill people

And the Nobel Prize for Naivete goes to


Derp


----------



## The Derp

Skull Pilot said:


> Your opinion is not truth.



For someone who seemed to have no problem determining the unspoken motivations of Barack Obama, it sure is _*suspicious*_ that you won't dare answer the question why 100% of gun thefts aren't reported?  What gives?  You make presumptions about the motivations for everyone with whom you disagree, yet you won't make it for the "responsible gun owners" who don't report stolen guns?











Skull Pilot said:


> Maybe some people don't report stolen guns because they don't know if they've been stolen.  But of course you never thought of that did you?



*HOW THE FUCK WOULD YOU NOT KNOW IF YOUR GUN WAS STOLEN!?
*
So you don't even know how many guns are in your possession at any given time?  And you dare think you're responsible enough to have guns!?


----------



## Flash

Do you Moon Bats love Trump now?



*BREAKING: President Trump says he’s directed AG Sessions to clarify if bump stocks are illegal and to propose regulations to “ban all devices that turn legal weapons into machine guns.” pic.twitter.com/cnZ2mc08TF*

* NBC News (@NBCNews) February 20, 2018*


----------



## BluesLegend

The Derp said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *your gun is more likely to get stolen than it is to defend you or your family*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have been paying auto insurance for decades and have never once used it. Come over here snowflake...there
Click to expand...


----------



## Skull Pilot

The Derp said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your opinion is not truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For someone who seemed to have no problem determining the unspoken motivations of Barack Obama, it sure is _*suspicious*_ that you won't dare answer the question why 100% of gun thefts aren't reported?  What gives?  You make presumptions about the motivations for everyone with whom you disagree, yet you won't make it for the "responsible gun owners" who don't report stolen guns?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe some people don't report stolen guns because they don't know if they've been stolen.  But of course you never thought of that did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *HOW THE FUCK WOULD YOU NOT KNOW IF YOUR GUN WAS STOLEN!?
> *
> So you don't even know how many guns are in your possession at any given time?  And you dare think you're responsible enough to have guns!?
Click to expand...


REally?

Some kid inherits his grandpa's guns and they sit in a trunk in the basement for years.  Or a woman's husband passes away and she doesn't know he had a couple guns in the garage.

Man you really can't think past your own nose can you?


----------



## The Derp

Skull Pilot said:


> I did use my gun to protect myself once.











Skull Pilot said:


> And in the 3 plus decades I have owned guns one has never been stolen.



_*YET*_.  Haven't been stolen _*YET*_.

And I thought you couldn't be expected to know how many guns you actually have in your possession?  You just said one post ago that the reason a "responsible gun owner" wouldn't report a gun stolen _*because they didn't realize it was stolen*_.  So, to summarize, you cannot be expected to be responsible for every gun in your possession, yet you think you are responsible enough to have guns.










Skull Pilot said:


> And I'll tell you what.  The day anyone can steal one of my guns I will give them all up.  It ain't gonna happen because there is no way anyone can break into my house without setting off an alarm find my gun safe in the basement jackhammer it out of the floor and carry that 600 lb hunk of steel up the stairs and out of my home.



This type of false confidence is exactly why guns get stolen.  But whatever, as a "responsible gun owner" you won't even know it's been stolen...according to you.


----------



## The Derp

Skull Pilot said:


> OK so it matters what is being banned now?



For fuck's sake...*I ALREADY SAID A BAN WAS UNREALISTIC.  Yet you continue blabbing as if I never said that.
*
I think you have mental problems.  You literally cannot process words as they appear on the screen in front of you.


----------



## impuretrash




----------



## The Derp

BluesLegend said:


> I have been paying auto insurance for decades and have never once used it.



Great.  We're not talking about cars, we're talking about guns.

The fact is that you "responsible gun owners" are more likely to have your gun stolen than it ever being used for protection.

As many as 600,000 guns are stolen every year from "responsible gun owners".  If that's what "responsible gun ownership" looks like, then we should dispense with that term right away when referring to gun owners and call you what you really are; irresponsible, untrustworthy, insecure wimps.


----------



## Skull Pilot

The Derp said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did use my gun to protect myself once.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And in the 3 plus decades I have owned guns one has never been stolen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _*YET*_.  Haven't been stolen _*YET*_.
> 
> And I thought you couldn't be expected to know how many guns you actually have in your possession?  You just said one post ago that the reason a "responsible gun owner" wouldn't report a gun stolen _*because they didn't realize it was stolen*_.  So, to summarize, you cannot be expected to be responsible for every gun in your possession, yet you think you are responsible enough to have guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I'll tell you what.  The day anyone can steal one of my guns I will give them all up.  It ain't gonna happen because there is no way anyone can break into my house without setting off an alarm find my gun safe in the basement jackhammer it out of the floor and carry that 600 lb hunk of steel up the stairs and out of my home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This type of false confidence is exactly why guns get stolen.  But whatever, as a "responsible gun owner" you won't even know it's been stolen...according to you.
Click to expand...


I will know because I use my firearms regularly.

You just can't admit that some widow might not know about the guns her husband had in the garage can you?

Have you always had this inability to think outside of the narrow parameters you set forth?

And I really don't care if you believe me.  I think I've made that clear in the past.
I detailed the incident where I drew my weapon in another thread a while ago so I won't bother doing it again


----------



## BluesLegend

The Derp said:


> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have been paying auto insurance for decades and have never once used it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great.  We're not talking about cars, we're talking about guns.
> 
> The fact is that you "responsible gun owners" are more likely to have your gun stolen than you'll ever be to use it for protection.
> 
> As many as 600,000 guns are stolen every year from "responsible gun owners".  If that's what "responsible gun ownership" looks like, then we should dispense with that term right away when referring to gun owners and call you what you really are; irresponsible, untrustworthy, insecure wimps.
Click to expand...


Damn what a cry baby go buy some Pampers.


----------



## The Derp

Skull Pilot said:


> Some kid inherits his grandpa's guns and they sit in a trunk in the basement for years.  Or a woman's husband passes away and she doesn't know he had a couple guns in the garage.



1.  Her husband was keeping his guns a secret from his wife!?  Sounds suspicious to me.
2.  You inherit the gun, you inherit the responsibilities of that gun.  If it gets stolen, _*that shit is on you*_.

You are not a very responsible person.  You don't even pretend to be.  Reckless, untrustworthy, irresponsible, and dangerous.  That's you.





Skull Pilot said:


> an you really can't think past your own nose can you?



A stolen gun is a stolen gun is a stolen gun is a stolen gun.


----------



## Skull Pilot

The Derp said:


> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have been paying auto insurance for decades and have never once used it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great.  We're not talking about cars, we're talking about guns.
> 
> The fact is that you "responsible gun owners" are more likely to have your gun stolen than you'll ever be to use it for protection.
> 
> As many as 600,000 guns are stolen every year from "responsible gun owners".  If that's what "responsible gun ownership" looks like, then we should dispense with that term right away when referring to gun owners.
Click to expand...

As many as

So some years it could be just 1.


The Derp said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some kid inherits his grandpa's guns and they sit in a trunk in the basement for years.  Or a woman's husband passes away and she doesn't know he had a couple guns in the garage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  Her husband was keeping his guns a secret from his wife!?  Sounds suspicious to me.
> 2.  You inherit the gun, you inherit the responsibilities of that gun.  If it gets stolen, _*that shit is on you*_.
> 
> You are not a very responsible person.  You don't even pretend to be.  Reckless, untrustworthy, irresponsible, and dangerous.  That's you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> an you really can't think past your own nose can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A stolen gun is a stolen gun is a stolen gun is a stolen gun.
Click to expand...


It has nothing to do with keeping secrets.

My wife doesn't take an inventory of my weapons.  

An you have no idea how responsible I am or not.
I told you how I secure my weapons when I'm not home
In 30 plus years I have never has a weapon stolen

You cannot tell me it is inevitable because as much as you would like to believe it you cannot predict the future


----------



## The Derp

Skull Pilot said:


> I will know because I use my firearms regularly.



Do you now?  And the people who have their guns stolen who don't report them as stolen, don't?  How can you prove such a thing?  You can't.  It's just more of that presumption from you when it comes to everything _*except*_ the inconvenient questions for which you cannot answer truthfully without contradicting whatever bullshit argument you're making.




Skull Pilot said:


> You just can't admit that some widow might not know about the guns her husband had in the garage can you?



That's bullshit.  A husband would keep his guns secret from his wife?  He wouldn't have his guns listed in the will?  _*DOESN'T SOUND LIKE THE HUSBAND WAS A RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNER, DOES IT?  *_So a "responsible gun owner" (re:  a regular gun owner) hides his guns from his wife, then the guns get stolen after he dies.  So who's fault is that?  _*THE RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNER'S FAULT*_.  And since dead people can't be held accountable for anything, guess who does?  *THE PERSON FOR WHOM THE GUNS ARE NOW IN THEIR POSSESSION AND THEIR RESPONSIBILITY.
*
You seem to think gun ownership and responsibility are mutually exclusive things.  They're not.  They're one in the same.




Skull Pilot said:


> Have you always had this inability to think outside of the narrow parameters you set forth?



You coming up with that bullshti example that further helped _*MY POINT THAT THERE ARE NO RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNERS *_isn't me operating in narrow parameters, _*it's you doing that*_.  Then you accuse me of doing the very thing you're doing.  What a piece of shit you are.  Are you sure you're not suffering from Alzheimer's or dementia?  Sure fuckin' seems like it.  You seem like you need medication.




Skull Pilot said:


> And I really don't care if you believe me.  I think I've made that clear in the past.I detailed the incident where I drew my weapon in another thread a while ago so I won't bother doing it again



Yeah, the details surrounding that are a bit fuzzy and I doubt you'd be able to recount the story the same way twice if questioned without the benefit of referring back to past posts.  Basically, I'm calling you out for bullshitting.


----------



## The Derp

BluesLegend said:


> Damn what a cry baby go buy some Pampers.



Unlike you,  I am not so scared that I have to arm up with guns when running to Walmart.


----------



## Skull Pilot

The Derp said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will know because I use my firearms regularly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you now?  And the people who have their guns stolen who don't report them as stolen, don't?  How can you prove such a thing?  You can't.  It's just more of that presumption from you when it comes to everything _*except*_ the inconvenient questions for which you cannot answer truthfully without contradicting whatever bullshit argument you're making.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just can't admit that some widow might not know about the guns her husband had in the garage can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's bullshit.  A husband would keep his guns secret from his wife?  He wouldn't have his guns listed in the will?  _*DOESN'T SOUND LIKE THE HUSBAND WAS A RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNER, DOES IT?  *_So a "responsible gun owner" (re:  a regular gun owner) hides his guns from his wife, then the guns get stolen after he dies.  So who's fault is that?  _*THE RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNER'S FAULT*_.  And since dead people can't be held accountable for anything, guess who does?  *THE PERSON FOR WHOM THE GUNS ARE NOW IN THEIR POSSESSION AND THEIR RESPONSIBILITY.
> *
> You seem to think gun ownership and responsibility are mutually exclusive things.  They're not.  They're one in the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you always had this inability to think outside of the narrow parameters you set forth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You coming up with that bullshti example that further helped _*MY POINT THAT THERE ARE NO RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNERS *_isn't me operating in narrow parameters, _*it's you doing that*_.  Then you accuse me of doing the very thing you're doing.  What a piece of shit you are.  Are you sure you're not suffering from Alzheimer's or dementia?  Sure fuckin' seems like it.  You seem like you need medication.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I really don't care if you believe me.  I think I've made that clear in the past.I detailed the incident where I drew my weapon in another thread a while ago so I won't bother doing it again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, the details surrounding that are a bit fuzzy and I doubt you'd be able to recount the story the same way twice if questioned without the benefit of referring back to past posts.  Basically, I'm calling you out for bullshitting.
Click to expand...


You really think that everyone who owns a gun uses it all the time?

I know people who used to be avid hunters, skeet shooters etc that haven't used one of their guns in years.

I know people who have had a spouse die and didn't know exactly how many guns their dead husband owned.

These things are not beyond the realm of possibility as you seem to think they are but you have demonstrated that you are utterly incapable of thinking past the narrow dimensions of your pigeonhole


----------



## The Derp

Skull Pilot said:


> So some years it could be just 1.



But it never is, and never has been.  The average is *234,000 a yea**r*.  234,000 "responsible gun owners" have their guns stolen _*every year on average*_.  That's 641 guns stolen _*every day*_ from "responsible gun owners" like you.  That's 27 guns _*every hour *_from "responsible gun owners" like you.  That's 1 gun stolen _*every two minutes*_ from "responsible gun owners" like you. 

So yeah, it's a matter of _*when*_, not _*if*_, your gun(s) will be stolen.




Skull Pilot said:


> It has nothing to do with keeping secrets.



Sure it does!  You just said the wife never knew about the guns.  So that means the husband was keeping them in secret.  Now, why was he keeping them a secret from his wife that he had them?  _*This is your can of worms that you opened*_.




Skull Pilot said:


> My wife doesn't take an inventory of my weapons.



So if you were to kick the bucket tomorrow, you wouldn't have an inventory of your firearms in your will?  Or even just lying around? Tsk, tsk...you're not very responsible.




Skull Pilot said:


> An you have no idea how responsible I am or not.



Based on your abdicating of responsibility for everything, I have a pretty good idea of how irresponsible a person you are.




Skull Pilot said:


> I told you how I secure my weapons when I'm not home
> In 30 plus years I have never has a weapon stolen



_*YET.*_  You haven't had a weapon stolen _*YET*_.  Nothing before this minute matters when the next minute one of your guns is stolen.  So it's not a question of _*if*_, but _*when*_.  234,000 "responsible gun owners" a year think like you too, and they turn out to have their guns taken right from under their noses...some, according to you, _*don't even know their gun was stolen*_.

If you're trying to sell me on "responsible gun ownership", you're doing a shit job of it.




Skull Pilot said:


> You cannot tell me it is inevitable because as much as you would like to believe it you cannot predict the future



True.  I cannot predict the future.  But I can rely on the statistics to help me get a clearer picture of what will happen in the future.  So here's what's going to happen; around a quarter of a million "responsible gun owners" will have their gun stolen from them this year.  Of them, 35,000 "responsible gun owners" will not even inform the police their gun was stolen.  So at least 35,000 guns will end up on the street, with no one looking for them, and will find their way into the hands of criminals, traffickers, and the like, who will use the 35,000 guns for nefarious reasons, or sell them to other bad people.

So take that 35,000 and multiply it by 10 years and you see that there are approximately 350,000 guns -from just the last ten years alone- that are out there without anyone looking for them, in the hands of God-knows-who.

*BTW - in the time it took you to read this post, at least 2 guns were stolen from "responsible gun owners".*


----------



## The Derp

Skull Pilot said:


> You really think that everyone who owns a gun uses it all the time?



I don't know *what the fuck* you people do with your guns.  And I don't really care to know.  I know what you're _*not doing*_ is acting responsibly...that's for fuckin' sure.  




Skull Pilot said:


> I know people who used to be avid hunters, skeet shooters etc that haven't used one of their guns in years. I know people who have had a spouse die and didn't know exactly how many guns their dead husband owned.



And both cases you lay out here are the perfect "responsible gun owners" that thieves prey on and steal guns from.  All you're doing is making my point for me; that there are no "responsible gun owners" out there, like, _*at all*_.  Sounds like a lot of clueless, oblivious, lazy, irresponsible people to me.




Skull Pilot said:


> These things are not beyond the realm of possibility as you seem to think they are but you have demonstrated that you are utterly incapable of thinking past the narrow dimensions of your pigeonhole



You pulling shit from your ass and calling it filet mignon is not within the realm of any possibility.  And I even answered your shit possibilities, to which you refused to even acknowledge.  

Who the fuck keeps their guns a secret from their spouse?  A "responsible gun owner", that's who.


----------



## BluesLegend

The Derp said:


> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn what a cry baby go buy some Pampers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you,  I am not so scared that I have to arm up with guns when running to Walmart.
Click to expand...


You have the right to be a victim if you choose, have at it.


----------



## The Derp

BluesLegend said:


> You have the right to be a victim if you choose, have at it.



I would only be a victim because you're too irresponsible to manage your firearms.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> It matters not what a semiauto looks like it only matters how it functions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WRong answer once again.  Part of it is a culture.  The Weapon I am specifically referring to is very much part of a culture.  Now, name that Weapon.  Go ahead and be very specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It matters not what any gun looks like only how it performs an the Ar 15 that you are so afraid of performs no differently than any other semiautomatic in existence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, was that painful?  I hope not.  The AR style has become a cult weapon.  You can say how others are just as deadly but the AR is the weapon of choice for mass shootings.  I am not saying we need to outlaw that specific weapon but we can up it in the firearms where you can't just walk into a store and purchase it in less than 30 minutes or you can't mail order it or buy it at a gunshow with no background check.  If you wanted to keep yours then you can keep it.  Just pay the 200 bucks that would be required, register the weapon and yourself and become responsible for the weapon and it's uses.  ALL AR types used in the mass shootings were purchased legally so let's stop with the "Oh Yah, what about the Criminal".  Hand Grenades do a much better job at killing but the people that legally buy them pay the 200 bucks and just don't use them for mass killings no matter what the movies say.  People that own Automatic Weapons pay the 200 bucks and are not the problem.  But an 18 year old kid with a score to settle that buys it without paying the 200 bucks IS the problem.  Actually, it isn't limited to age as the shootings can attest.  You just have to be 18 years old or older.  Not a problem if the 18 year old pays the 200 bucks for the license to possess one.  There are many young people that have at least a class 4 or class D firearms license and you just don't hear about them doing these insane things.
> 
> Sorry to bust your bubble but I am not out to take your guns.  I just suggest that we reclassify one specific weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no right to reclassify any rifles, ARs are just sporting rifles nothing more nothing less.
> There is no better rifle out there for varmints, pigs, coyotes and such...
> 
> BTW... Firearm registration is nothing more than firearm confiscation… Fact
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a sporting rifle as long as you are hunting People.
> 
> As for Varmints I already listed at least two that blow the AR away.  If you want to use the AR for a sporting rifle as you claim, I suggest you go to Syria where you can use it for the game it was designed for.
Click to expand...


Actually, humans are a lot easier to kill than the game one hunts with an AR-15.

But I would absolutely LOVE to see you take an "eeeeevil scary" AR-15 to Syria and find out how very different it really is from what your asshole buddies in the media have told you.


----------



## Cecilie1200

The Derp said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> The main purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to keep American citizens from being disarmed by an oppressive US government and forced to live in a police state where only the government has weapons....like maybe a Gestapo controlled by some asshole like Obama.  Remember, that sleazy bastard suggested we have a national police force under his control.  Dreams of his father.
> 
> 
> 
> The government controls all aspects of your life already if you didn't know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s why we have no real freedom in this country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have lots of Freedom.  I can see you never visited Spain in the 60s and 70s like I did.  I can see you never visited East Berlin in the 80s like I did.  I can see you never visited....... pick many countries.  Some of the bad ones even called their Governments Democracies.  If you are absolutely sure that the US is not a free country, I suggest you denounce your citizenship and move to one that is.  Good friggin luck finding one more free than America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> America happens to be the best of the worst, We don’t have any real freedom here. Obviously you don’t know what real freedom is...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh please.  What do you want to do that the government is preventing you from doing?  Nothing.  Stop being a drama queen.
Click to expand...


I want to do a lot of things that the government won't allow.  For instance, I'd love to slap every leftist I meet until his eyes switch sockets, but for some reason, this is illegal.


----------



## Cecilie1200

SassyIrishLass said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am 70 years old, I have never misused a firearm . I have never invaded my neighbors' rights. Th police has been designated to investigate and protect. I fail to see the reason the powers-that-be refuse to abolish the GUN FREE ZONES statute given the fact that the criminally insane have shown a predilection for our schools..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're just completely ignoring the conversation we were having about responsibility.  Just because you haven't misused a firearm (according to a standard you just made up on the spot) _*yet*_, doesn't mean you won't eventually, or that your gun won't get stolen and then trafficked to criminals.
> 
> The point I'm making is that you can't call yourself a "responsible" anything because you can't predict what will happen down the line.
> 
> It is a fact that your gun is more likely to be stolen and used in a crime, than it will ever be used to protect you or your family.
> 
> So just by virtue of the fact of owning a gun, you're an irresponsible person.  You can never prove you're a "responsible gun owner" because that means nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> OK Mr Twerp, you are just another fucked up gun grabber.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you're just another rightwing liar, the post said about "grabbing guns."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yo Jones...nobody takes you serious. You're unable to defend any premise you've ever posted. Loser
Click to expand...


Literally the only reason I don't have him on ignore is that he's not worth the effort it would take to click on it.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Daryl Hunt said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> really? gun deaths have declined over the years despite millions upon millions more guns in circulation and millions of people carrying guns legally. So you are either ignorant of the fact or lying.  Most gun deaths are SUICIDES.  the remaining number that are not justifiable or excusable shootings are homicides mainly and those are caused at rates of 80-90% by people who are not legally able to own or use guns
> 
> so stuff the silly dramatics.  Gun violence in tis country-especially outside urban areas full of drug gangs is minuscule
> 
> 
> 
> USA is the worst country in terms of gu related dearhs/mass shootings. So there is clearly a gun problem. Why do you need a gun ? Insecure? Or ready to kill when you are pissed at the world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what do I need a gun for?  many reasons-one of them being to prevent people like you from trying to strip away our rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do I need a gun?  I don't absolutely need a gun.  I want one and have one.  One of the reasons I might need a gun is when people like you try and take away my rights like outlined in the 1st amendment.  You seem to forget that amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I support your right to blather stupidity.  I am a libertarian-I support all constitutional rights-especially the ones set forth in the constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I also support the consitutional right for our children to be safe under the 1st amendment.  Not happening with you and your cronies interpretation of the 2nd.
Click to expand...


What in the holy everloving fuck are you babbling about?  Safe under the First Amendment?  Our "interpretation of the 2nd" is interfering with the 1st?  What?!


----------



## Cecilie1200

Skull Pilot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> WRong answer once again.  Part of it is a culture.  The Weapon I am specifically referring to is very much part of a culture.  Now, name that Weapon.  Go ahead and be very specific.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It matters not what any gun looks like only how it performs an the Ar 15 that you are so afraid of performs no differently than any other semiautomatic in existence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, was that painful?  I hope not.  The AR style has become a cult weapon.  You can say how others are just as deadly but the AR is the weapon of choice for mass shootings.  I am not saying we need to outlaw that specific weapon but we can up it in the firearms where you can't just walk into a store and purchase it in less than 30 minutes or you can't mail order it or buy it at a gunshow with no background check.  If you wanted to keep yours then you can keep it.  Just pay the 200 bucks that would be required, register the weapon and yourself and become responsible for the weapon and it's uses.  ALL AR types used in the mass shootings were purchased legally so let's stop with the "Oh Yah, what about the Criminal".  Hand Grenades do a much better job at killing but the people that legally buy them pay the 200 bucks and just don't use them for mass killings no matter what the movies say.  People that own Automatic Weapons pay the 200 bucks and are not the problem.  But an 18 year old kid with a score to settle that buys it without paying the 200 bucks IS the problem.  Actually, it isn't limited to age as the shootings can attest.  You just have to be 18 years old or older.  Not a problem if the 18 year old pays the 200 bucks for the license to possess one.  There are many young people that have at least a class 4 or class D firearms license and you just don't hear about them doing these insane things.
> 
> Sorry to bust your bubble but I am not out to take your guns.  I just suggest that we reclassify one specific weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I am telling you that it is beyond stupid to reclassify one specific Semiautomatic rifle because of the way it looks and no other reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can fight it but the genie is out of the bottle.  While the School Children that have been terrorized and traumatized can't vote, their parents can and in a few short years the children turn 18.  And they agree with what I have said all along.  Even many of the large Republican Donors are starting to remove support for anyone that will not go along those lines.  Yes, these folks give millions each year to various Republican Candidates but they will not contribute to those that still spew the NRA Boilerplate responses.  It's happening more and more each day.  The Last Mass Shooting was the straw that broke the camels back.  Too bad it didn't get a sore back 25 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what will you all do when banning that rifle does nothing to stop the next piece of shit from shooting up a school ?
Click to expand...


Start trying to ban everything else.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Rustic said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, was that painful?  I hope not.  The AR style has become a cult weapon.  You can say how others are just as deadly but the AR is the weapon of choice for mass shootings.  I am not saying we need to outlaw that specific weapon but we can up it in the firearms where you can't just walk into a store and purchase it in less than 30 minutes or you can't mail order it or buy it at a gunshow with no background check.  If you wanted to keep yours then you can keep it.  Just pay the 200 bucks that would be required, register the weapon and yourself and become responsible for the weapon and it's uses.  ALL AR types used in the mass shootings were purchased legally so let's stop with the "Oh Yah, what about the Criminal".  Hand Grenades do a much better job at killing but the people that legally buy them pay the 200 bucks and just don't use them for mass killings no matter what the movies say.  People that own Automatic Weapons pay the 200 bucks and are not the problem.  But an 18 year old kid with a score to settle that buys it without paying the 200 bucks IS the problem.  Actually, it isn't limited to age as the shootings can attest.  You just have to be 18 years old or older.  Not a problem if the 18 year old pays the 200 bucks for the license to possess one.  There are many young people that have at least a class 4 or class D firearms license and you just don't hear about them doing these insane things.
> 
> Sorry to bust your bubble but I am not out to take your guns.  I just suggest that we reclassify one specific weapon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No....dipshit...it isn't a cult weapon......it is an easy to use rifle, that allows for customization....and it is very easy for women and small framed humans to use it for self defense, competition, hunting and collecting....
> 
> There are 8 million of them in private hands....
> 
> And how does anything you propose stop any criminal or mass shooter....dipshit?   This shooter and all the others would pay your 200 dollars, register their guns and then go and shoot people....moron.
> 
> Nothing you or the other anti gunners propose would stop a criminal or a mass shooter...and that is the point.....you guys want to baby step the restrictions on guns and the fees, and the taxes.....and the paperwork so that normal, law abiding people are too afraid to own legal guns...for fear of failing some step of the process that will lead to a felony conviction for a paperwork mistake....
> 
> Meanwhile, criminals don't care....
> 
> *By the way, genius......felons do not have to register their illegal guns...the Supreme Court, in Haynes v. United States ruled that forcing criminals to register their illegal guns violates their 5th Amendment Rights against self incrimination......so if it violates their Rights, it violates my Rights.....doofus.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, you brought up a couple of good point amongst the crap you spew.  You left out a few things.
> 
> The AR is no longer under Copyright.  Even you can get a license to manufacture, sell and distribute them.  About 3 percent of the population have used the M-16 and feel comfortable using the AR.  Yes, it's versitile but it's till made for one reason and one reason only.  To kill people.  If you bought one to put food on the table then you really should have bought a few sides of beef and installed a root cellar instead.  Other rifles do a much better job at getting the groceries.
> 
> You can currently buy an AR for less than 400 bucks.  Okay, it's pretty basic and you had best not fire the MIl Grad Ammo.  But it works just fine with the stock 223 loads.  It's not nearly as pretty.  But for less than 400 bucks, exactly what do you expect?
> 
> For Varmints, the AR isn't in my picture.  I prefer the Remington model 700 VSSF II  chambered for the 223 with a 50 grain bullet.  Okay, it costs twice as much but it can nail anything from a rabbit to coyote at up to about 400 yds.  But I would prefer it in 243 or 6mm.  It's as accurate out to 400 yds as the 223 but has a much higher hitting power at 90 grains.  If you try and go past 50 grains in a 223, you start losing accuracy and range.  But a Savage costing less than 400 bucks in 223 or 243 also does a great job, it just won't be a Purty.
> 
> So, the only major thing an AR can do is kill people better.  It doesn't make the list of the top 5 varmint rifles on any list done by reputable testers.  So why would you buy an AR to go varmint shooting when the Remington on the high end and the Savage on the low end does a better job?
> 
> BTW, I shoot a Mauser Shavetail 22 long rifle for Ground Hogs.  Now, that's a sport.  I stopped shooting it when I found out just how rare a bird it really is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is your opinion, up here in the wide open northern plains, An AR has no equal for the hunting I do up here. Mule deer and under, the accessorizing and customizations are truly unlimited. ARs are extremely affordable for new people to get into the sport, and out of the box $500 ar can easily shoot 1” MOA at a 100... providing the shooter is up to it.
> Shit for brains, ARs are available in multiple cartridges, such as .300, 6.8 spc, 6.5 creedmoor, etc. and they are every bit as good if not better than a bolt gun for hunting.
> AR15s are not made for killing people, they are just sporting rifles.
> 
> Get over yourself ya old coot... lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This old coot has the background to know the difference.  What I can see is that your little bunch has shouted down and bullied until the other person stops posting.  You can give that one up.  I am fully retired as of last week.  I have the time.  If you doubt my predictions, in the Military area here, I made certain predictions and ALL have come true.  If I weren't pretty sure that the AR is going to be raised one level on the firearms category I wouldn't have made that prediction.  It's an election year so look for some changes real fast at the Federal Level if the Congress Critter try and go against this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ARs are no different than any other sporting rifle, your Prejudices is childish
Click to expand...


But they look so scawy!!  And . . . and . . . when he gets near one, he can hear it whispering to him!


----------



## Cecilie1200

Daryl Hunt said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> It matters not what any gun looks like only how it performs an the Ar 15 that you are so afraid of performs no differently than any other semiautomatic in existence
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, was that painful?  I hope not.  The AR style has become a cult weapon.  You can say how others are just as deadly but the AR is the weapon of choice for mass shootings.  I am not saying we need to outlaw that specific weapon but we can up it in the firearms where you can't just walk into a store and purchase it in less than 30 minutes or you can't mail order it or buy it at a gunshow with no background check.  If you wanted to keep yours then you can keep it.  Just pay the 200 bucks that would be required, register the weapon and yourself and become responsible for the weapon and it's uses.  ALL AR types used in the mass shootings were purchased legally so let's stop with the "Oh Yah, what about the Criminal".  Hand Grenades do a much better job at killing but the people that legally buy them pay the 200 bucks and just don't use them for mass killings no matter what the movies say.  People that own Automatic Weapons pay the 200 bucks and are not the problem.  But an 18 year old kid with a score to settle that buys it without paying the 200 bucks IS the problem.  Actually, it isn't limited to age as the shootings can attest.  You just have to be 18 years old or older.  Not a problem if the 18 year old pays the 200 bucks for the license to possess one.  There are many young people that have at least a class 4 or class D firearms license and you just don't hear about them doing these insane things.
> 
> Sorry to bust your bubble but I am not out to take your guns.  I just suggest that we reclassify one specific weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I am telling you that it is beyond stupid to reclassify one specific Semiautomatic rifle because of the way it looks and no other reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can fight it but the genie is out of the bottle.  While the School Children that have been terrorized and traumatized can't vote, their parents can and in a few short years the children turn 18.  And they agree with what I have said all along.  Even many of the large Republican Donors are starting to remove support for anyone that will not go along those lines.  Yes, these folks give millions each year to various Republican Candidates but they will not contribute to those that still spew the NRA Boilerplate responses.  It's happening more and more each day.  The Last Mass Shooting was the straw that broke the camels back.  Too bad it didn't get a sore back 25 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what will you all do when banning that rifle does nothing to stop the next piece of shit from shooting up a school ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give it a chance.  If it works that's great.  If it doesn't we can put it back the way it was.  My money is that within 2 years we may still have attacks but they won't be "Mass" killings since that tool won't be available.
Click to expand...


Boy, you must think we just fell off the turnip truck right alongside you.  "Just let us take away your rights for a little while!  If you don't like it, we'll give 'em back!  Honest!"  That's right up there with "I'll only put the tip in!" on the list of bullshit lies no one with brain cells falls for.


----------



## Rustic

Daryl Hunt said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is, I am self-employed have been for 20+ years I’ve been debt free for about the same time. I have never purchased insurance, I homeschool my kids, I hunt and grow my own food, but I also realize I have no real freedom in this country, And my kids are going to live in an Orwellian state most likely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I don't believe any of that shit you say about yourself.
> 
> And if you actually, really hunt for food, why can't you use a crossbow or a regular bow?  Not man enough, I guess.  Alexander the Great killed bears, lions, and elephants in a skirt and sandals, with a spear.  So if he could do it, why can't you kill a deer with a bow and arrow?  Because you're not half the hunter you pretend to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s why I am a one issue voter, I can do nothing to change the direction of this country. It has been lost for over a century… The cancer of socialism has won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So wait...you say socialism won, yet in the sentence prior, you talk of living your rugged individualist life.  So which is it?  Is the government oppressive or isn't it?  Doesn't sound like it since you get to live your shitty life the way you want.  Like I said before, _*you just want to call black people the n-word and not face criticism for it.  *_Be honest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The funny thing is progressive put all their chips into socialism, socialism is a 100% failure 100% of the time long term in the history of the planet. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Socialism seems to work just fine for Canada, Germany, Denmark, Norway, South Korea, Israel, and tons of other countries.  What you don't see working well is capitalism.  Capitalism is unable to provide an adequate standard of living for the working class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US isn't capitalist for Government.  It's gotten to the point where it's so corrupt that you can't really tell what it is anymore.  For instance, the no new gun laws.  You will note that the leading Republicans that keep spewing the NRA boilerplate have all received millions from the NRA.  Corporations can't directly give that kind of money to our Politicians.  They can only give 2500 bucks a year.  So they give it to the NRA who has the ability to donate those funds to various Super PACS to be earmarked for those particular Politicians.  And it's all done anonymously.    The problem here is, we need to see who donated what.  Until that happens, our Politicians will deny, deny and deflect because we can't prove otherwise.  And this goes to all Politicians, not just the right or the left.
> 
> What happens when each and every ad has to say who actually donated to it.  And every Bill that is presented has to say exactly who wrote it and financially donated to make it happen.  As long as Corporations are considered People, we need to treat them exactly like they do me and you.  This would make the really corrupt ones run from the building because we would see just how corrupt they really are.
Click to expand...

Fuck face, You have no clue what you’re talking about… LOL
Don't blame the NRA for failed gun control efforts


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Skull Pilot said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> and 86% of them are reported stolen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*WHY THE FUCK ISN'T IT 100%?*_
> 
> So much for the narrative of "responsible gun owners"...they report a gun is stolen less than 9 out of 10 times.  That's fucking pathetic.  You can sure as shit bet 100% of car thefts are reported.
> 
> Now, _*why*_ would a "responsible gun owner" _*not*_ report their gun as stolen!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!  What could be the only reason?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> This problem does not affect all states equally. The rate and volume of guns stolen from both gun stores and private collections vary widely from state to state. From 2012 through 2015, the average rate of the five states with the highest rates of gun theft from private owners—Tennessee, Arkansas, South Carolina, Oklahoma, and Alabama—was 13 times higher than the average rate of the five states with the lowest rates—Hawaii, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, and Massachusetts.6 Similarly, from 2012 through 2016, the average rate of the five states with the highest rates of guns stolen from gun stores was 18 times higher than the average rate the five states with the lowest rates.7
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes!  So thanks for proving my point...states with shitty gun laws see _*more*_ gun thefts than states with good gun laws.  So again, it's the "_*responsible gun owners*_" who are to blame.  This is exactly what I am talking about when I say that guns are trafficked to cities and blue states via "iron pipelines".  A practice that could be *all but eliminated* by requiring all gun transactions and transfers require a background check.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> gun thefts are not equally distributed among the states and gee high crime areas have more gun thefts.  Imagine that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The states you listed in your cut and paste that had *the highest rates of gun theft are all pro-gun, red states*.  So the guns get stolen from "responsible gun owners" in those states and then trafficked into the other states with stricter gun laws.  That's exactly what the "iron pipeline" is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Millions of people own guns and never have one stolen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As of _*now*_.  But they can't pretend it will never happen because it happens 234,000 times a year, on average.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you really like to ask stupid questions.
> 
> How the fuck do I know why someone wouldn't report a gun or anything else stolen?
Click to expand...


How to go AR Shopping.

1.  Steal a Ford F-350 and a full sized Van
2.  Wait until very early morning
3.  Crash it into the front of the store
4.  Back the Ford outside
5.  Begin transfer all the ARs into the Van
6.  Transfer the 223 and 556 ammo to the Van
7.  Drive the Van to your own Van and transfer the Weapons and Ammo to it
8.  Drive the Ford F-350 and the stolen van to an out of the way location
9.  pour gas all over and inside both the stolen Van and the F-350 and light it.
10.  Drive your van to a Public Storage facility and unload all the weapons.

Done.

The Mass Shooters don't do this.   But if you go into the various "Militias" you may find those weapons.  You can't use this to justify that only Criminals obtain Guns illegally.  One can mail order an AR and all kinds of little toys to go with it online and lie out my ass and obtain a gun.  You know, the part where it says, "Are you a Convicted Felon" if I were a convicted felon.  I can do the same thing at a Gun Show as long as my fake ID looks real.  Or I can go to any legal Gun Shop and give the real info and purchase that as well.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Cecilie1200 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, was that painful?  I hope not.  The AR style has become a cult weapon.  You can say how others are just as deadly but the AR is the weapon of choice for mass shootings.  I am not saying we need to outlaw that specific weapon but we can up it in the firearms where you can't just walk into a store and purchase it in less than 30 minutes or you can't mail order it or buy it at a gunshow with no background check.  If you wanted to keep yours then you can keep it.  Just pay the 200 bucks that would be required, register the weapon and yourself and become responsible for the weapon and it's uses.  ALL AR types used in the mass shootings were purchased legally so let's stop with the "Oh Yah, what about the Criminal".  Hand Grenades do a much better job at killing but the people that legally buy them pay the 200 bucks and just don't use them for mass killings no matter what the movies say.  People that own Automatic Weapons pay the 200 bucks and are not the problem.  But an 18 year old kid with a score to settle that buys it without paying the 200 bucks IS the problem.  Actually, it isn't limited to age as the shootings can attest.  You just have to be 18 years old or older.  Not a problem if the 18 year old pays the 200 bucks for the license to possess one.  There are many young people that have at least a class 4 or class D firearms license and you just don't hear about them doing these insane things.
> 
> Sorry to bust your bubble but I am not out to take your guns.  I just suggest that we reclassify one specific weapon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I am telling you that it is beyond stupid to reclassify one specific Semiautomatic rifle because of the way it looks and no other reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can fight it but the genie is out of the bottle.  While the School Children that have been terrorized and traumatized can't vote, their parents can and in a few short years the children turn 18.  And they agree with what I have said all along.  Even many of the large Republican Donors are starting to remove support for anyone that will not go along those lines.  Yes, these folks give millions each year to various Republican Candidates but they will not contribute to those that still spew the NRA Boilerplate responses.  It's happening more and more each day.  The Last Mass Shooting was the straw that broke the camels back.  Too bad it didn't get a sore back 25 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what will you all do when banning that rifle does nothing to stop the next piece of shit from shooting up a school ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give it a chance.  If it works that's great.  If it doesn't we can put it back the way it was.  My money is that within 2 years we may still have attacks but they won't be "Mass" killings since that tool won't be available.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boy, you must think we just fell off the turnip truck right alongside you.  "Just let us take away your rights for a little while!  If you don't like it, we'll give 'em back!  Honest!"  That's right up there with "I'll only put the tip in!" on the list of bullshit lies no one with brain cells falls for.
Click to expand...


Yes, it does take away rights.  Of the ones that cannot get a Class 4 or Class D firearms license and don't have the 200 bucks to pay for it.  And I can get one of those just by applying.  So can any Citizen of the US that can purchase weapons at any gun store.  Now, cupcake, what rights would I have taken from your or me?

Sorry, don't come back with the Usual NRA boilerplate answer.  Use your own brain.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rustic said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is, I am self-employed have been for 20+ years I’ve been debt free for about the same time. I have never purchased insurance, I homeschool my kids, I hunt and grow my own food, but I also realize I have no real freedom in this country, And my kids are going to live in an Orwellian state most likely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I don't believe any of that shit you say about yourself.
> 
> And if you actually, really hunt for food, why can't you use a crossbow or a regular bow?  Not man enough, I guess.  Alexander the Great killed bears, lions, and elephants in a skirt and sandals, with a spear.  So if he could do it, why can't you kill a deer with a bow and arrow?  Because you're not half the hunter you pretend to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s why I am a one issue voter, I can do nothing to change the direction of this country. It has been lost for over a century… The cancer of socialism has won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So wait...you say socialism won, yet in the sentence prior, you talk of living your rugged individualist life.  So which is it?  Is the government oppressive or isn't it?  Doesn't sound like it since you get to live your shitty life the way you want.  Like I said before, _*you just want to call black people the n-word and not face criticism for it.  *_Be honest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The funny thing is progressive put all their chips into socialism, socialism is a 100% failure 100% of the time long term in the history of the planet. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Socialism seems to work just fine for Canada, Germany, Denmark, Norway, South Korea, Israel, and tons of other countries.  What you don't see working well is capitalism.  Capitalism is unable to provide an adequate standard of living for the working class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US isn't capitalist for Government.  It's gotten to the point where it's so corrupt that you can't really tell what it is anymore.  For instance, the no new gun laws.  You will note that the leading Republicans that keep spewing the NRA boilerplate have all received millions from the NRA.  Corporations can't directly give that kind of money to our Politicians.  They can only give 2500 bucks a year.  So they give it to the NRA who has the ability to donate those funds to various Super PACS to be earmarked for those particular Politicians.  And it's all done anonymously.    The problem here is, we need to see who donated what.  Until that happens, our Politicians will deny, deny and deflect because we can't prove otherwise.  And this goes to all Politicians, not just the right or the left.
> 
> What happens when each and every ad has to say who actually donated to it.  And every Bill that is presented has to say exactly who wrote it and financially donated to make it happen.  As long as Corporations are considered People, we need to treat them exactly like they do me and you.  This would make the really corrupt ones run from the building because we would see just how corrupt they really are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck face, You have no clue what you’re talking about… LOL
> Don't blame the NRA for failed gun control efforts
Click to expand...


And when the Democrats are in power then you will be saying exactly the same thing.  It's not Partisan it's the right thing.


----------



## 2aguy

Daryl Hunt said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> and 86% of them are reported stolen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*WHY THE FUCK ISN'T IT 100%?*_
> 
> So much for the narrative of "responsible gun owners"...they report a gun is stolen less than 9 out of 10 times.  That's fucking pathetic.  You can sure as shit bet 100% of car thefts are reported.
> 
> Now, _*why*_ would a "responsible gun owner" _*not*_ report their gun as stolen!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!  What could be the only reason?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> This problem does not affect all states equally. The rate and volume of guns stolen from both gun stores and private collections vary widely from state to state. From 2012 through 2015, the average rate of the five states with the highest rates of gun theft from private owners—Tennessee, Arkansas, South Carolina, Oklahoma, and Alabama—was 13 times higher than the average rate of the five states with the lowest rates—Hawaii, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, and Massachusetts.6 Similarly, from 2012 through 2016, the average rate of the five states with the highest rates of guns stolen from gun stores was 18 times higher than the average rate the five states with the lowest rates.7
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes!  So thanks for proving my point...states with shitty gun laws see _*more*_ gun thefts than states with good gun laws.  So again, it's the "_*responsible gun owners*_" who are to blame.  This is exactly what I am talking about when I say that guns are trafficked to cities and blue states via "iron pipelines".  A practice that could be *all but eliminated* by requiring all gun transactions and transfers require a background check.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> gun thefts are not equally distributed among the states and gee high crime areas have more gun thefts.  Imagine that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The states you listed in your cut and paste that had *the highest rates of gun theft are all pro-gun, red states*.  So the guns get stolen from "responsible gun owners" in those states and then trafficked into the other states with stricter gun laws.  That's exactly what the "iron pipeline" is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Millions of people own guns and never have one stolen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As of _*now*_.  But they can't pretend it will never happen because it happens 234,000 times a year, on average.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you really like to ask stupid questions.
> 
> How the fuck do I know why someone wouldn't report a gun or anything else stolen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How to go AR Shopping.
> 
> 1.  Steal a Ford F-350 and a full sized Van
> 2.  Wait until very early morning
> 3.  Crash it into the front of the store
> 4.  Back the Ford outside
> 5.  Begin transfer all the ARs into the Van
> 6.  Transfer the 223 and 556 ammo to the Van
> 7.  Drive the Van to your own Van and transfer the Weapons and Ammo to it
> 8.  Drive the Ford F-350 and the stolen van to an out of the way location
> 9.  pour gas all over and inside both the stolen Van and the F-350 and light it.
> 10.  Drive your van to a Public Storage facility and unload all the weapons.
> 
> Done.
> 
> The Mass Shooters don't do this.   But if you go into the various "Militias" you may find those weapons.  You can't use this to justify that only Criminals obtain Guns illegally.  One can mail order an AR and all kinds of little toys to go with it online and lie out my ass and obtain a gun.  You know, the part where it says, "Are you a Convicted Felon" if I were a convicted felon.  I can do the same thing at a Gun Show as long as my fake ID looks real.  Or I can go to any legal Gun Shop and give the real info and purchase that as well.
Click to expand...



No....that is what happens in gun controlled democrat cities...their gang members and democrat party members spread out across various states and do exactly what you listed.......gangs, not law abiding gun owners.....doofus.

And of course, as an anti gunner, you have to lie about getting a gun.......


----------



## 2aguy

Daryl Hunt said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I am telling you that it is beyond stupid to reclassify one specific Semiautomatic rifle because of the way it looks and no other reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can fight it but the genie is out of the bottle.  While the School Children that have been terrorized and traumatized can't vote, their parents can and in a few short years the children turn 18.  And they agree with what I have said all along.  Even many of the large Republican Donors are starting to remove support for anyone that will not go along those lines.  Yes, these folks give millions each year to various Republican Candidates but they will not contribute to those that still spew the NRA Boilerplate responses.  It's happening more and more each day.  The Last Mass Shooting was the straw that broke the camels back.  Too bad it didn't get a sore back 25 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what will you all do when banning that rifle does nothing to stop the next piece of shit from shooting up a school ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give it a chance.  If it works that's great.  If it doesn't we can put it back the way it was.  My money is that within 2 years we may still have attacks but they won't be "Mass" killings since that tool won't be available.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boy, you must think we just fell off the turnip truck right alongside you.  "Just let us take away your rights for a little while!  If you don't like it, we'll give 'em back!  Honest!"  That's right up there with "I'll only put the tip in!" on the list of bullshit lies no one with brain cells falls for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it does take away rights.  Of the ones that cannot get a Class 4 or Class D firearms license and don't have the 200 bucks to pay for it.  And I can get one of those just by applying.  So can any Citizen of the US that can purchase weapons at any gun store.  Now, cupcake, what rights would I have taken from your or me?
> 
> Sorry, don't come back with the Usual NRA boilerplate answer.  Use your own brain.
Click to expand...



You would be in violation of several Supreme Court rulings and the 2nd Amendment.....

Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)



*4. A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. P. 319 U. S. 113.*

*5. The flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the Constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise. P. 319 U. S. 114.*

6. That the ordinance is "nondiscriminatory," in that it applies also to peddlers of wares and merchandise, is immaterial. The liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment are in a preferred position. P. 319 U. S. 115.

7. Since the privilege in question is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution, and exists independently of state authority, the inquiry as to whether the State has given something for which it can ask a return is irrelevant. P. 319 U. S. 115.

*8. A community may not suppress, or the State tax, the dissemination of views because they are unpopular, annoying, or distasteful. P. 319 U. S. 116.*

------

Page 319 U. S. 108



The First Amendment, which the Fourteenth makes applicable to the states, declares that

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . ."

*It could hardly be denied that a tax laid specifically on the exercise of those freedoms would be unconstitutional. Yet the license tax imposed by this ordinance is, in substance, just that.*


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Cecilie1200 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, was that painful?  I hope not.  The AR style has become a cult weapon.  You can say how others are just as deadly but the AR is the weapon of choice for mass shootings.  I am not saying we need to outlaw that specific weapon but we can up it in the firearms where you can't just walk into a store and purchase it in less than 30 minutes or you can't mail order it or buy it at a gunshow with no background check.  If you wanted to keep yours then you can keep it.  Just pay the 200 bucks that would be required, register the weapon and yourself and become responsible for the weapon and it's uses.  ALL AR types used in the mass shootings were purchased legally so let's stop with the "Oh Yah, what about the Criminal".  Hand Grenades do a much better job at killing but the people that legally buy them pay the 200 bucks and just don't use them for mass killings no matter what the movies say.  People that own Automatic Weapons pay the 200 bucks and are not the problem.  But an 18 year old kid with a score to settle that buys it without paying the 200 bucks IS the problem.  Actually, it isn't limited to age as the shootings can attest.  You just have to be 18 years old or older.  Not a problem if the 18 year old pays the 200 bucks for the license to possess one.  There are many young people that have at least a class 4 or class D firearms license and you just don't hear about them doing these insane things.
> 
> Sorry to bust your bubble but I am not out to take your guns.  I just suggest that we reclassify one specific weapon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I am telling you that it is beyond stupid to reclassify one specific Semiautomatic rifle because of the way it looks and no other reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can fight it but the genie is out of the bottle.  While the School Children that have been terrorized and traumatized can't vote, their parents can and in a few short years the children turn 18.  And they agree with what I have said all along.  Even many of the large Republican Donors are starting to remove support for anyone that will not go along those lines.  Yes, these folks give millions each year to various Republican Candidates but they will not contribute to those that still spew the NRA Boilerplate responses.  It's happening more and more each day.  The Last Mass Shooting was the straw that broke the camels back.  Too bad it didn't get a sore back 25 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what will you all do when banning that rifle does nothing to stop the next piece of shit from shooting up a school ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give it a chance.  If it works that's great.  If it doesn't we can put it back the way it was.  My money is that within 2 years we may still have attacks but they won't be "Mass" killings since that tool won't be available.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boy, you must think we just fell off the turnip truck right alongside you.  "Just let us take away your rights for a little while!  If you don't like it, we'll give 'em back!  Honest!"  That's right up there with "I'll only put the tip in!" on the list of bullshit lies no one with brain cells falls for.
Click to expand...




2aguy said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> and 86% of them are reported stolen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*WHY THE FUCK ISN'T IT 100%?*_
> 
> So much for the narrative of "responsible gun owners"...they report a gun is stolen less than 9 out of 10 times.  That's fucking pathetic.  You can sure as shit bet 100% of car thefts are reported.
> 
> Now, _*why*_ would a "responsible gun owner" _*not*_ report their gun as stolen!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!  What could be the only reason?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> This problem does not affect all states equally. The rate and volume of guns stolen from both gun stores and private collections vary widely from state to state. From 2012 through 2015, the average rate of the five states with the highest rates of gun theft from private owners—Tennessee, Arkansas, South Carolina, Oklahoma, and Alabama—was 13 times higher than the average rate of the five states with the lowest rates—Hawaii, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, and Massachusetts.6 Similarly, from 2012 through 2016, the average rate of the five states with the highest rates of guns stolen from gun stores was 18 times higher than the average rate the five states with the lowest rates.7
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes!  So thanks for proving my point...states with shitty gun laws see _*more*_ gun thefts than states with good gun laws.  So again, it's the "_*responsible gun owners*_" who are to blame.  This is exactly what I am talking about when I say that guns are trafficked to cities and blue states via "iron pipelines".  A practice that could be *all but eliminated* by requiring all gun transactions and transfers require a background check.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> gun thefts are not equally distributed among the states and gee high crime areas have more gun thefts.  Imagine that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The states you listed in your cut and paste that had *the highest rates of gun theft are all pro-gun, red states*.  So the guns get stolen from "responsible gun owners" in those states and then trafficked into the other states with stricter gun laws.  That's exactly what the "iron pipeline" is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Millions of people own guns and never have one stolen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As of _*now*_.  But they can't pretend it will never happen because it happens 234,000 times a year, on average.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you really like to ask stupid questions.
> 
> How the fuck do I know why someone wouldn't report a gun or anything else stolen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How to go AR Shopping.
> 
> 1.  Steal a Ford F-350 and a full sized Van
> 2.  Wait until very early morning
> 3.  Crash it into the front of the store
> 4.  Back the Ford outside
> 5.  Begin transfer all the ARs into the Van
> 6.  Transfer the 223 and 556 ammo to the Van
> 7.  Drive the Van to your own Van and transfer the Weapons and Ammo to it
> 8.  Drive the Ford F-350 and the stolen van to an out of the way location
> 9.  pour gas all over and inside both the stolen Van and the F-350 and light it.
> 10.  Drive your van to a Public Storage facility and unload all the weapons.
> 
> Done.
> 
> The Mass Shooters don't do this.   But if you go into the various "Militias" you may find those weapons.  You can't use this to justify that only Criminals obtain Guns illegally.  One can mail order an AR and all kinds of little toys to go with it online and lie out my ass and obtain a gun.  You know, the part where it says, "Are you a Convicted Felon" if I were a convicted felon.  I can do the same thing at a Gun Show as long as my fake ID looks real.  Or I can go to any legal Gun Shop and give the real info and purchase that as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No....that is what happens in gun controlled democrat cities...their gang members and democrat party members spread out across various states and do exactly what you listed.......gangs, not law abiding gun owners.....doofus.
> 
> And of course, as an anti gunner, you have to lie about getting a gun.......
Click to expand...


Agaiin, cupcake, exactly what rights would I be taking from you?  Or from me.  Sorry, I still won't accept the NRA Boilerplate you keep repeating over and over.


----------



## 2aguy

Daryl Hunt said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I am telling you that it is beyond stupid to reclassify one specific Semiautomatic rifle because of the way it looks and no other reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can fight it but the genie is out of the bottle.  While the School Children that have been terrorized and traumatized can't vote, their parents can and in a few short years the children turn 18.  And they agree with what I have said all along.  Even many of the large Republican Donors are starting to remove support for anyone that will not go along those lines.  Yes, these folks give millions each year to various Republican Candidates but they will not contribute to those that still spew the NRA Boilerplate responses.  It's happening more and more each day.  The Last Mass Shooting was the straw that broke the camels back.  Too bad it didn't get a sore back 25 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what will you all do when banning that rifle does nothing to stop the next piece of shit from shooting up a school ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give it a chance.  If it works that's great.  If it doesn't we can put it back the way it was.  My money is that within 2 years we may still have attacks but they won't be "Mass" killings since that tool won't be available.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boy, you must think we just fell off the turnip truck right alongside you.  "Just let us take away your rights for a little while!  If you don't like it, we'll give 'em back!  Honest!"  That's right up there with "I'll only put the tip in!" on the list of bullshit lies no one with brain cells falls for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it does take away rights.  Of the ones that cannot get a Class 4 or Class D firearms license and don't have the 200 bucks to pay for it.  And I can get one of those just by applying.  So can any Citizen of the US that can purchase weapons at any gun store.  Now, cupcake, what rights would I have taken from your or me?
> 
> Sorry, don't come back with the Usual NRA boilerplate answer.  Use your own brain.
Click to expand...



In the old days when you and other democrats were using jim crow laws to keep blacks from voting, you imposed Poll Taxes and Literacy tests as a means to prevent their Right to vote.......and you used the same argument...."How does charging a tax to vote deny that Right?" 

Good to see you racist assholes are still out there.......


----------



## Rustic

Daryl Hunt said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> and 86% of them are reported stolen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*WHY THE FUCK ISN'T IT 100%?*_
> 
> So much for the narrative of "responsible gun owners"...they report a gun is stolen less than 9 out of 10 times.  That's fucking pathetic.  You can sure as shit bet 100% of car thefts are reported.
> 
> Now, _*why*_ would a "responsible gun owner" _*not*_ report their gun as stolen!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!  What could be the only reason?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> This problem does not affect all states equally. The rate and volume of guns stolen from both gun stores and private collections vary widely from state to state. From 2012 through 2015, the average rate of the five states with the highest rates of gun theft from private owners—Tennessee, Arkansas, South Carolina, Oklahoma, and Alabama—was 13 times higher than the average rate of the five states with the lowest rates—Hawaii, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, and Massachusetts.6 Similarly, from 2012 through 2016, the average rate of the five states with the highest rates of guns stolen from gun stores was 18 times higher than the average rate the five states with the lowest rates.7
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes!  So thanks for proving my point...states with shitty gun laws see _*more*_ gun thefts than states with good gun laws.  So again, it's the "_*responsible gun owners*_" who are to blame.  This is exactly what I am talking about when I say that guns are trafficked to cities and blue states via "iron pipelines".  A practice that could be *all but eliminated* by requiring all gun transactions and transfers require a background check.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> gun thefts are not equally distributed among the states and gee high crime areas have more gun thefts.  Imagine that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The states you listed in your cut and paste that had *the highest rates of gun theft are all pro-gun, red states*.  So the guns get stolen from "responsible gun owners" in those states and then trafficked into the other states with stricter gun laws.  That's exactly what the "iron pipeline" is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Millions of people own guns and never have one stolen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As of _*now*_.  But they can't pretend it will never happen because it happens 234,000 times a year, on average.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you really like to ask stupid questions.
> 
> How the fuck do I know why someone wouldn't report a gun or anything else stolen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How to go AR Shopping.
> 
> 1.  Steal a Ford F-350 and a full sized Van
> 2.  Wait until very early morning
> 3.  Crash it into the front of the store
> 4.  Back the Ford outside
> 5.  Begin transfer all the ARs into the Van
> 6.  Transfer the 223 and 556 ammo to the Van
> 7.  Drive the Van to your own Van and transfer the Weapons and Ammo to it
> 8.  Drive the Ford F-350 and the stolen van to an out of the way location
> 9.  pour gas all over and inside both the stolen Van and the F-350 and light it.
> 10.  Drive your van to a Public Storage facility and unload all the weapons.
> 
> Done.
> 
> The Mass Shooters don't do this.   But if you go into the various "Militias" you may find those weapons.  You can't use this to justify that only Criminals obtain Guns illegally.  One can mail order an AR and all kinds of little toys to go with it online and lie out my ass and obtain a gun.  You know, the part where it says, "Are you a Convicted Felon" if I were a convicted felon.  I can do the same thing at a Gun Show as long as my fake ID looks real.  Or I can go to any legal Gun Shop and give the real info and purchase that as well.
Click to expand...

Lol
So basically you’re saying that the only way they can Kill is wth an AR no other way?

An AR15 is nothing more, nothing less than a sporting rifle. 
 Even little kids know this…


----------



## Rustic

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is, I am self-employed have been for 20+ years I’ve been debt free for about the same time. I have never purchased insurance, I homeschool my kids, I hunt and grow my own food, but I also realize I have no real freedom in this country, And my kids are going to live in an Orwellian state most likely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I don't believe any of that shit you say about yourself.
> 
> And if you actually, really hunt for food, why can't you use a crossbow or a regular bow?  Not man enough, I guess.  Alexander the Great killed bears, lions, and elephants in a skirt and sandals, with a spear.  So if he could do it, why can't you kill a deer with a bow and arrow?  Because you're not half the hunter you pretend to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s why I am a one issue voter, I can do nothing to change the direction of this country. It has been lost for over a century… The cancer of socialism has won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So wait...you say socialism won, yet in the sentence prior, you talk of living your rugged individualist life.  So which is it?  Is the government oppressive or isn't it?  Doesn't sound like it since you get to live your shitty life the way you want.  Like I said before, _*you just want to call black people the n-word and not face criticism for it.  *_Be honest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The funny thing is progressive put all their chips into socialism, socialism is a 100% failure 100% of the time long term in the history of the planet. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Socialism seems to work just fine for Canada, Germany, Denmark, Norway, South Korea, Israel, and tons of other countries.  What you don't see working well is capitalism.  Capitalism is unable to provide an adequate standard of living for the working class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US isn't capitalist for Government.  It's gotten to the point where it's so corrupt that you can't really tell what it is anymore.  For instance, the no new gun laws.  You will note that the leading Republicans that keep spewing the NRA boilerplate have all received millions from the NRA.  Corporations can't directly give that kind of money to our Politicians.  They can only give 2500 bucks a year.  So they give it to the NRA who has the ability to donate those funds to various Super PACS to be earmarked for those particular Politicians.  And it's all done anonymously.    The problem here is, we need to see who donated what.  Until that happens, our Politicians will deny, deny and deflect because we can't prove otherwise.  And this goes to all Politicians, not just the right or the left.
> 
> What happens when each and every ad has to say who actually donated to it.  And every Bill that is presented has to say exactly who wrote it and financially donated to make it happen.  As long as Corporations are considered People, we need to treat them exactly like they do me and you.  This would make the really corrupt ones run from the building because we would see just how corrupt they really are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck face, You have no clue what you’re talking about… LOL
> Don't blame the NRA for failed gun control efforts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And when the Democrats are in power then you will be saying exactly the same thing.  It's not Partisan it's the right thing.
Click to expand...

“the NRA's influence and financial power is widely overstated”


----------



## Rustic

Daryl Hunt said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I am telling you that it is beyond stupid to reclassify one specific Semiautomatic rifle because of the way it looks and no other reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can fight it but the genie is out of the bottle.  While the School Children that have been terrorized and traumatized can't vote, their parents can and in a few short years the children turn 18.  And they agree with what I have said all along.  Even many of the large Republican Donors are starting to remove support for anyone that will not go along those lines.  Yes, these folks give millions each year to various Republican Candidates but they will not contribute to those that still spew the NRA Boilerplate responses.  It's happening more and more each day.  The Last Mass Shooting was the straw that broke the camels back.  Too bad it didn't get a sore back 25 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what will you all do when banning that rifle does nothing to stop the next piece of shit from shooting up a school ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give it a chance.  If it works that's great.  If it doesn't we can put it back the way it was.  My money is that within 2 years we may still have attacks but they won't be "Mass" killings since that tool won't be available.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boy, you must think we just fell off the turnip truck right alongside you.  "Just let us take away your rights for a little while!  If you don't like it, we'll give 'em back!  Honest!"  That's right up there with "I'll only put the tip in!" on the list of bullshit lies no one with brain cells falls for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> and 86% of them are reported stolen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _*WHY THE FUCK ISN'T IT 100%?*_
> 
> So much for the narrative of "responsible gun owners"...they report a gun is stolen less than 9 out of 10 times.  That's fucking pathetic.  You can sure as shit bet 100% of car thefts are reported.
> 
> Now, _*why*_ would a "responsible gun owner" _*not*_ report their gun as stolen!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!  What could be the only reason?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> This problem does not affect all states equally. The rate and volume of guns stolen from both gun stores and private collections vary widely from state to state. From 2012 through 2015, the average rate of the five states with the highest rates of gun theft from private owners—Tennessee, Arkansas, South Carolina, Oklahoma, and Alabama—was 13 times higher than the average rate of the five states with the lowest rates—Hawaii, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, and Massachusetts.6 Similarly, from 2012 through 2016, the average rate of the five states with the highest rates of guns stolen from gun stores was 18 times higher than the average rate the five states with the lowest rates.7
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes!  So thanks for proving my point...states with shitty gun laws see _*more*_ gun thefts than states with good gun laws.  So again, it's the "_*responsible gun owners*_" who are to blame.  This is exactly what I am talking about when I say that guns are trafficked to cities and blue states via "iron pipelines".  A practice that could be *all but eliminated* by requiring all gun transactions and transfers require a background check.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> gun thefts are not equally distributed among the states and gee high crime areas have more gun thefts.  Imagine that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The states you listed in your cut and paste that had *the highest rates of gun theft are all pro-gun, red states*.  So the guns get stolen from "responsible gun owners" in those states and then trafficked into the other states with stricter gun laws.  That's exactly what the "iron pipeline" is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Millions of people own guns and never have one stolen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As of _*now*_.  But they can't pretend it will never happen because it happens 234,000 times a year, on average.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you really like to ask stupid questions.
> 
> How the fuck do I know why someone wouldn't report a gun or anything else stolen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How to go AR Shopping.
> 
> 1.  Steal a Ford F-350 and a full sized Van
> 2.  Wait until very early morning
> 3.  Crash it into the front of the store
> 4.  Back the Ford outside
> 5.  Begin transfer all the ARs into the Van
> 6.  Transfer the 223 and 556 ammo to the Van
> 7.  Drive the Van to your own Van and transfer the Weapons and Ammo to it
> 8.  Drive the Ford F-350 and the stolen van to an out of the way location
> 9.  pour gas all over and inside both the stolen Van and the F-350 and light it.
> 10.  Drive your van to a Public Storage facility and unload all the weapons.
> 
> Done.
> 
> The Mass Shooters don't do this.   But if you go into the various "Militias" you may find those weapons.  You can't use this to justify that only Criminals obtain Guns illegally.  One can mail order an AR and all kinds of little toys to go with it online and lie out my ass and obtain a gun.  You know, the part where it says, "Are you a Convicted Felon" if I were a convicted felon.  I can do the same thing at a Gun Show as long as my fake ID looks real.  Or I can go to any legal Gun Shop and give the real info and purchase that as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No....that is what happens in gun controlled democrat cities...their gang members and democrat party members spread out across various states and do exactly what you listed.......gangs, not law abiding gun owners.....doofus.
> 
> And of course, as an anti gunner, you have to lie about getting a gun.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agaiin, cupcake, exactly what rights would I be taking from you?  Or from me.  Sorry, I still won't accept the NRA Boilerplate you keep repeating over and over.
Click to expand...

“the NRA's influence and financial power is widely overstated”


----------



## Daryl Hunt

2aguy said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can fight it but the genie is out of the bottle.  While the School Children that have been terrorized and traumatized can't vote, their parents can and in a few short years the children turn 18.  And they agree with what I have said all along.  Even many of the large Republican Donors are starting to remove support for anyone that will not go along those lines.  Yes, these folks give millions each year to various Republican Candidates but they will not contribute to those that still spew the NRA Boilerplate responses.  It's happening more and more each day.  The Last Mass Shooting was the straw that broke the camels back.  Too bad it didn't get a sore back 25 years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what will you all do when banning that rifle does nothing to stop the next piece of shit from shooting up a school ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give it a chance.  If it works that's great.  If it doesn't we can put it back the way it was.  My money is that within 2 years we may still have attacks but they won't be "Mass" killings since that tool won't be available.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boy, you must think we just fell off the turnip truck right alongside you.  "Just let us take away your rights for a little while!  If you don't like it, we'll give 'em back!  Honest!"  That's right up there with "I'll only put the tip in!" on the list of bullshit lies no one with brain cells falls for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it does take away rights.  Of the ones that cannot get a Class 4 or Class D firearms license and don't have the 200 bucks to pay for it.  And I can get one of those just by applying.  So can any Citizen of the US that can purchase weapons at any gun store.  Now, cupcake, what rights would I have taken from your or me?
> 
> Sorry, don't come back with the Usual NRA boilerplate answer.  Use your own brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You would be in violation of several Supreme Court rulings and the 2nd Amendment.....
> 
> Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)
> 
> 
> 
> *4. A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. P. 319 U. S. 113.*
> 
> *5. The flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the Constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise. P. 319 U. S. 114.*
> 
> 6. That the ordinance is "nondiscriminatory," in that it applies also to peddlers of wares and merchandise, is immaterial. The liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment are in a preferred position. P. 319 U. S. 115.
> 
> 7. Since the privilege in question is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution, and exists independently of state authority, the inquiry as to whether the State has given something for which it can ask a return is irrelevant. P. 319 U. S. 115.
> 
> *8. A community may not suppress, or the State tax, the dissemination of views because they are unpopular, annoying, or distasteful. P. 319 U. S. 116.*
> 
> ------
> 
> Page 319 U. S. 108
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment, which the Fourteenth makes applicable to the states, declares that
> 
> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . ."
> 
> *It could hardly be denied that a tax laid specifically on the exercise of those freedoms would be unconstitutional. Yet the license tax imposed by this ordinance is, in substance, just that.*
Click to expand...


Read your own cite.  Your Cite deals with the 1st amendment rights for Religion and free speech where a government charges any group money or taxes so they can distribute their views.  It has not a thing to do with Weapons unless you consider a pamphlet a weapon.

Nice try, NRA Rep. but facts are getting in your way.


----------



## 2aguy

Rustic said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can fight it but the genie is out of the bottle.  While the School Children that have been terrorized and traumatized can't vote, their parents can and in a few short years the children turn 18.  And they agree with what I have said all along.  Even many of the large Republican Donors are starting to remove support for anyone that will not go along those lines.  Yes, these folks give millions each year to various Republican Candidates but they will not contribute to those that still spew the NRA Boilerplate responses.  It's happening more and more each day.  The Last Mass Shooting was the straw that broke the camels back.  Too bad it didn't get a sore back 25 years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what will you all do when banning that rifle does nothing to stop the next piece of shit from shooting up a school ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give it a chance.  If it works that's great.  If it doesn't we can put it back the way it was.  My money is that within 2 years we may still have attacks but they won't be "Mass" killings since that tool won't be available.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boy, you must think we just fell off the turnip truck right alongside you.  "Just let us take away your rights for a little while!  If you don't like it, we'll give 'em back!  Honest!"  That's right up there with "I'll only put the tip in!" on the list of bullshit lies no one with brain cells falls for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*WHY THE FUCK ISN'T IT 100%?*_
> 
> So much for the narrative of "responsible gun owners"...they report a gun is stolen less than 9 out of 10 times.  That's fucking pathetic.  You can sure as shit bet 100% of car thefts are reported.
> 
> Now, _*why*_ would a "responsible gun owner" _*not*_ report their gun as stolen!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!  What could be the only reason?
> 
> 
> Yes!  So thanks for proving my point...states with shitty gun laws see _*more*_ gun thefts than states with good gun laws.  So again, it's the "_*responsible gun owners*_" who are to blame.  This is exactly what I am talking about when I say that guns are trafficked to cities and blue states via "iron pipelines".  A practice that could be *all but eliminated* by requiring all gun transactions and transfers require a background check.
> 
> 
> 
> The states you listed in your cut and paste that had *the highest rates of gun theft are all pro-gun, red states*.  So the guns get stolen from "responsible gun owners" in those states and then trafficked into the other states with stricter gun laws.  That's exactly what the "iron pipeline" is.
> 
> 
> As of _*now*_.  But they can't pretend it will never happen because it happens 234,000 times a year, on average.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you really like to ask stupid questions.
> 
> How the fuck do I know why someone wouldn't report a gun or anything else stolen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How to go AR Shopping.
> 
> 1.  Steal a Ford F-350 and a full sized Van
> 2.  Wait until very early morning
> 3.  Crash it into the front of the store
> 4.  Back the Ford outside
> 5.  Begin transfer all the ARs into the Van
> 6.  Transfer the 223 and 556 ammo to the Van
> 7.  Drive the Van to your own Van and transfer the Weapons and Ammo to it
> 8.  Drive the Ford F-350 and the stolen van to an out of the way location
> 9.  pour gas all over and inside both the stolen Van and the F-350 and light it.
> 10.  Drive your van to a Public Storage facility and unload all the weapons.
> 
> Done.
> 
> The Mass Shooters don't do this.   But if you go into the various "Militias" you may find those weapons.  You can't use this to justify that only Criminals obtain Guns illegally.  One can mail order an AR and all kinds of little toys to go with it online and lie out my ass and obtain a gun.  You know, the part where it says, "Are you a Convicted Felon" if I were a convicted felon.  I can do the same thing at a Gun Show as long as my fake ID looks real.  Or I can go to any legal Gun Shop and give the real info and purchase that as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No....that is what happens in gun controlled democrat cities...their gang members and democrat party members spread out across various states and do exactly what you listed.......gangs, not law abiding gun owners.....doofus.
> 
> And of course, as an anti gunner, you have to lie about getting a gun.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agaiin, cupcake, exactly what rights would I be taking from you?  Or from me.  Sorry, I still won't accept the NRA Boilerplate you keep repeating over and over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “the NRA's influence and financial power is widely overstated”
Click to expand...



And yet......when the democrats most needed the conservatives to be quiet and passive.....they had to kick the hornets nest of gun rights..........the one issue that motivates conservatives like no other........


----------



## Rustic

“A misbegotten path is introducing new rules and misrepresenting them to the public. That's what happened last year when Democrats tried a proposed rule that they and most of the news media portrayed as a way to keep guns from the "mentally ill." But it really sought to put people into the federal government gun background database if they received disability payments from Social Security and received assistance to manage their benefits due to mental impairments. That's a far cry from "mentally ill." Even the ACLU and mental health advocates lined up against that idea, not just the NRA”


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rustic said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is, I am self-employed have been for 20+ years I’ve been debt free for about the same time. I have never purchased insurance, I homeschool my kids, I hunt and grow my own food, but I also realize I have no real freedom in this country, And my kids are going to live in an Orwellian state most likely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I don't believe any of that shit you say about yourself.
> 
> And if you actually, really hunt for food, why can't you use a crossbow or a regular bow?  Not man enough, I guess.  Alexander the Great killed bears, lions, and elephants in a skirt and sandals, with a spear.  So if he could do it, why can't you kill a deer with a bow and arrow?  Because you're not half the hunter you pretend to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s why I am a one issue voter, I can do nothing to change the direction of this country. It has been lost for over a century… The cancer of socialism has won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So wait...you say socialism won, yet in the sentence prior, you talk of living your rugged individualist life.  So which is it?  Is the government oppressive or isn't it?  Doesn't sound like it since you get to live your shitty life the way you want.  Like I said before, _*you just want to call black people the n-word and not face criticism for it.  *_Be honest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The funny thing is progressive put all their chips into socialism, socialism is a 100% failure 100% of the time long term in the history of the planet. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Socialism seems to work just fine for Canada, Germany, Denmark, Norway, South Korea, Israel, and tons of other countries.  What you don't see working well is capitalism.  Capitalism is unable to provide an adequate standard of living for the working class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US isn't capitalist for Government.  It's gotten to the point where it's so corrupt that you can't really tell what it is anymore.  For instance, the no new gun laws.  You will note that the leading Republicans that keep spewing the NRA boilerplate have all received millions from the NRA.  Corporations can't directly give that kind of money to our Politicians.  They can only give 2500 bucks a year.  So they give it to the NRA who has the ability to donate those funds to various Super PACS to be earmarked for those particular Politicians.  And it's all done anonymously.    The problem here is, we need to see who donated what.  Until that happens, our Politicians will deny, deny and deflect because we can't prove otherwise.  And this goes to all Politicians, not just the right or the left.
> 
> What happens when each and every ad has to say who actually donated to it.  And every Bill that is presented has to say exactly who wrote it and financially donated to make it happen.  As long as Corporations are considered People, we need to treat them exactly like they do me and you.  This would make the really corrupt ones run from the building because we would see just how corrupt they really are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck face, You have no clue what you’re talking about… LOL
> Don't blame the NRA for failed gun control efforts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And when the Democrats are in power then you will be saying exactly the same thing.  It's not Partisan it's the right thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “the NRA's influence and financial power is widely overstated”
Click to expand...


There are at least 3 Republican Billionaire Donors that refuse to allocate another thin dime to any Politician or Organization that support the total unsupressed sale of the AR to the community.  Guess what, they will have zero affect.  The Corporations that are the main supporters of the NRA are much much larger and richer than even billionaires.  Your paltry 25 bucks a year and others like you are just giving them Pizza money.  This is why all your stories are exactly the same.  It's been dictated by the NRA.  Every time I see a RWer give his views on the AR, it's almost word for word.  And it comes from people like you that work for the NRA.  Don't deny that you don't work for them.  It's pretty apparent you do.


----------



## Rustic

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I don't believe any of that shit you say about yourself.
> 
> And if you actually, really hunt for food, why can't you use a crossbow or a regular bow?  Not man enough, I guess.  Alexander the Great killed bears, lions, and elephants in a skirt and sandals, with a spear.  So if he could do it, why can't you kill a deer with a bow and arrow?  Because you're not half the hunter you pretend to be.
> 
> 
> So wait...you say socialism won, yet in the sentence prior, you talk of living your rugged individualist life.  So which is it?  Is the government oppressive or isn't it?  Doesn't sound like it since you get to live your shitty life the way you want.  Like I said before, _*you just want to call black people the n-word and not face criticism for it.  *_Be honest.
> 
> 
> Socialism seems to work just fine for Canada, Germany, Denmark, Norway, South Korea, Israel, and tons of other countries.  What you don't see working well is capitalism.  Capitalism is unable to provide an adequate standard of living for the working class.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US isn't capitalist for Government.  It's gotten to the point where it's so corrupt that you can't really tell what it is anymore.  For instance, the no new gun laws.  You will note that the leading Republicans that keep spewing the NRA boilerplate have all received millions from the NRA.  Corporations can't directly give that kind of money to our Politicians.  They can only give 2500 bucks a year.  So they give it to the NRA who has the ability to donate those funds to various Super PACS to be earmarked for those particular Politicians.  And it's all done anonymously.    The problem here is, we need to see who donated what.  Until that happens, our Politicians will deny, deny and deflect because we can't prove otherwise.  And this goes to all Politicians, not just the right or the left.
> 
> What happens when each and every ad has to say who actually donated to it.  And every Bill that is presented has to say exactly who wrote it and financially donated to make it happen.  As long as Corporations are considered People, we need to treat them exactly like they do me and you.  This would make the really corrupt ones run from the building because we would see just how corrupt they really are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck face, You have no clue what you’re talking about… LOL
> Don't blame the NRA for failed gun control efforts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And when the Democrats are in power then you will be saying exactly the same thing.  It's not Partisan it's the right thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “the NRA's influence and financial power is widely overstated”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are at least 3 Republican Billionaire Donors that refuse to allocate another thin dime to any Politician or Organization that support the total unsupressed sale of the AR to the community.  Guess what, they will have zero affect.  The Corporations that are the main supporters of the NRA are much much larger and richer than even billionaires.  Your paltry 25 bucks a year and others like you are just giving them Pizza money.  This is why all your stories are exactly the same.  It's been dictated by the NRA.  Every time I see a RWer give his views on the AR, it's almost word for word.  And it comes from people like you that work for the NRA.  Don't deny that you don't work for them.  It's pretty apparent you do.
Click to expand...

You’re missing one thing though you silly old coot. ARs are nothing more than a sporting rifle nothing more nothing less.
No different than any other sporting rifle… They are great for hunting in every way.
And teaching beginners/young kids the sport of hunting and shooting there is no better.
That’s all we use for kids programs anymore…


----------



## Daryl Hunt

2aguy said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what will you all do when banning that rifle does nothing to stop the next piece of shit from shooting up a school ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give it a chance.  If it works that's great.  If it doesn't we can put it back the way it was.  My money is that within 2 years we may still have attacks but they won't be "Mass" killings since that tool won't be available.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boy, you must think we just fell off the turnip truck right alongside you.  "Just let us take away your rights for a little while!  If you don't like it, we'll give 'em back!  Honest!"  That's right up there with "I'll only put the tip in!" on the list of bullshit lies no one with brain cells falls for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> you really like to ask stupid questions.
> 
> How the fuck do I know why someone wouldn't report a gun or anything else stolen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How to go AR Shopping.
> 
> 1.  Steal a Ford F-350 and a full sized Van
> 2.  Wait until very early morning
> 3.  Crash it into the front of the store
> 4.  Back the Ford outside
> 5.  Begin transfer all the ARs into the Van
> 6.  Transfer the 223 and 556 ammo to the Van
> 7.  Drive the Van to your own Van and transfer the Weapons and Ammo to it
> 8.  Drive the Ford F-350 and the stolen van to an out of the way location
> 9.  pour gas all over and inside both the stolen Van and the F-350 and light it.
> 10.  Drive your van to a Public Storage facility and unload all the weapons.
> 
> Done.
> 
> The Mass Shooters don't do this.   But if you go into the various "Militias" you may find those weapons.  You can't use this to justify that only Criminals obtain Guns illegally.  One can mail order an AR and all kinds of little toys to go with it online and lie out my ass and obtain a gun.  You know, the part where it says, "Are you a Convicted Felon" if I were a convicted felon.  I can do the same thing at a Gun Show as long as my fake ID looks real.  Or I can go to any legal Gun Shop and give the real info and purchase that as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No....that is what happens in gun controlled democrat cities...their gang members and democrat party members spread out across various states and do exactly what you listed.......gangs, not law abiding gun owners.....doofus.
> 
> And of course, as an anti gunner, you have to lie about getting a gun.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agaiin, cupcake, exactly what rights would I be taking from you?  Or from me.  Sorry, I still won't accept the NRA Boilerplate you keep repeating over and over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “the NRA's influence and financial power is widely overstated”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And yet......when the democrats most needed the conservatives to be quiet and passive.....they had to kick the hornets nest of gun rights..........the one issue that motivates conservatives like no other........
Click to expand...


I can only speak for myself.  I am not trying to take your guns and would fight just as hard to prevent that.  I am not taking your right to buy more guns and would fight just as hard to prevent that.  I am asking for a change in the laws that raises the AR and the AK (if they can't get an AR, I am sure there will be a run on the AKs) to the next level of firearms where they are licensed and so is the purchaser.  The requirement for the lowest Fire Arms License is exactly the same as registering a firearm right now with NO license other than your ID.

I don't want you to be silent.  You see, unlike you, I support the 1st amendment and find it more important than all the other Amendments put together.  You have the right to much more than speech.  It goes deeper than that.  How about the right to the pursuit of happiness, safety etc..  I see that most have forgotten that.  That means I have the right to have my children go to school without fear of their lives and to take measures to insure that.  If it means changing a part of the law covering how to purchase, own and buy a specific weapon then so be it.  That's not changing either the First nor the Second Amendment.  It's changing the various policies and a Policy is NOT an Amendment although it can be a law.


----------



## Rustic

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I don't believe any of that shit you say about yourself.
> 
> And if you actually, really hunt for food, why can't you use a crossbow or a regular bow?  Not man enough, I guess.  Alexander the Great killed bears, lions, and elephants in a skirt and sandals, with a spear.  So if he could do it, why can't you kill a deer with a bow and arrow?  Because you're not half the hunter you pretend to be.
> 
> 
> So wait...you say socialism won, yet in the sentence prior, you talk of living your rugged individualist life.  So which is it?  Is the government oppressive or isn't it?  Doesn't sound like it since you get to live your shitty life the way you want.  Like I said before, _*you just want to call black people the n-word and not face criticism for it.  *_Be honest.
> 
> 
> Socialism seems to work just fine for Canada, Germany, Denmark, Norway, South Korea, Israel, and tons of other countries.  What you don't see working well is capitalism.  Capitalism is unable to provide an adequate standard of living for the working class.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US isn't capitalist for Government.  It's gotten to the point where it's so corrupt that you can't really tell what it is anymore.  For instance, the no new gun laws.  You will note that the leading Republicans that keep spewing the NRA boilerplate have all received millions from the NRA.  Corporations can't directly give that kind of money to our Politicians.  They can only give 2500 bucks a year.  So they give it to the NRA who has the ability to donate those funds to various Super PACS to be earmarked for those particular Politicians.  And it's all done anonymously.    The problem here is, we need to see who donated what.  Until that happens, our Politicians will deny, deny and deflect because we can't prove otherwise.  And this goes to all Politicians, not just the right or the left.
> 
> What happens when each and every ad has to say who actually donated to it.  And every Bill that is presented has to say exactly who wrote it and financially donated to make it happen.  As long as Corporations are considered People, we need to treat them exactly like they do me and you.  This would make the really corrupt ones run from the building because we would see just how corrupt they really are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck face, You have no clue what you’re talking about… LOL
> Don't blame the NRA for failed gun control efforts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And when the Democrats are in power then you will be saying exactly the same thing.  It's not Partisan it's the right thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “the NRA's influence and financial power is widely overstated”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are at least 3 Republican Billionaire Donors that refuse to allocate another thin dime to any Politician or Organization that support the total unsupressed sale of the AR to the community.  Guess what, they will have zero affect.  The Corporations that are the main supporters of the NRA are much much larger and richer than even billionaires.  Your paltry 25 bucks a year and others like you are just giving them Pizza money.  This is why all your stories are exactly the same.  It's been dictated by the NRA.  Every time I see a RWer give his views on the AR, it's almost word for word.  And it comes from people like you that work for the NRA.  Don't deny that you don't work for them.  It's pretty apparent you do.
Click to expand...

Top 50 Lobbying Spenders of 2016

Client 2016 Spending 2015 Spending 2015 Rank
U.S. Chamber of Commerce $103,950,000 $84,730,000 1
National Association of Realtors $64,821,111 $37,788,407 2
Blue Cross Blue Shield $25,006,109 $23,702,049 3
American Hospital Association $20,970,809 $20,687,935 7
Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America $19,730,000 $18,920,000 9
American Medical Association $19,410,000 $21,930,000 4
Boeing $17,020,000 $21,921,000 5
National Association of Broadcasters $16,438,000 $17,400,000 10
AT&T $16,370,000 $16,370,000 13
Business Roundtable $15,700,000 $19,250,000 8
Alphabet $15,430,000 $16,660,000 12
Comcast $14,330,000 $15,680,000 14
Southern Co. $13,900,000 $12,860,000 18
Dow Chemical $13,635,982 $10,820,000 26
Lockheed Martin $13,615,811 $13,954,053 17
NCTA - The Internet and Telephone Assoc. $13,420,000 $14,120,000 16
FedEx $12,541,000 $12,405,835 20
Northrop Grumman $12,050,000 $11,020,000 24
Exxon Mobil $11,840,000 $11,980,000 21
Amazon $11,354,000 $9,435,000 34
CTIA $10,970,000 $10,150,000 29
General Dynamics $10,739,944 $10,259,890 28
Verizon Communications $10,080,000 $11,430,000 23
Altria Group $10,060,000 $9,630,000 32
Amgen $9,860,000 $10,525,000 27
Koch Industries $9,840,000 $10,830,000 25
American Bankers Association $9,831,000 $12,690,000 19
Pfizer $9,750,000 $9,417,650 35
Prudential Financial $9,400,000 $7,962,500 47
Biotechnology Innovation Organization $9,230,000 $8,350,000 42
United Technologies $9,165,000 $11,470,000 22
American Chemistry Council $9,020,000 $10,050,000 30
Royal Dutch Shell $8,990,000 $8,700,000 37
AARP $8,710,000 $7,559,000 54
Microsoft $8,710,000 $8,490,000 39
Facebook $8,692,000 $9,850,000 31
Edison Electric Institute $8,620,000 $8,350,000 42
Oracle $8,620,000 $8,470,000 40
General Motors $8,500,000 $9,120,000 36
National Association of Manufacturers $8,490,014 $16,950,000 11
National Amusements (CBS & Viacom) $8,441,000 $7,980,000 46
T-Mobile $8,089,900 $6,127,000 66
Bayer $7,990,000 $7,730,000 51
Coca-Cola $7,930,000 $8,670,000 38
American Airlines $7,870,000 $6,600,000 61
United Parcel Service $7,767,848 $8,155,856 45
Chevron $7,470,000 $7,200,000 56
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers $7,452,500 $7,640,000 53
Securities Industry & Financial Market Assoc. $7,400,000 $7,770,000 50

Sorry butthead so low, not even on the list... lol


----------



## P@triot

Daryl Hunt said:


> That makes you a killer of Children, baby killer.


As long as you continue to resort to irrational, immature, false arguments built from being an overly emotional girl, you will continue to not be taken seriously and you will continue to be miserable and angry all the time.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rustic said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US isn't capitalist for Government.  It's gotten to the point where it's so corrupt that you can't really tell what it is anymore.  For instance, the no new gun laws.  You will note that the leading Republicans that keep spewing the NRA boilerplate have all received millions from the NRA.  Corporations can't directly give that kind of money to our Politicians.  They can only give 2500 bucks a year.  So they give it to the NRA who has the ability to donate those funds to various Super PACS to be earmarked for those particular Politicians.  And it's all done anonymously.    The problem here is, we need to see who donated what.  Until that happens, our Politicians will deny, deny and deflect because we can't prove otherwise.  And this goes to all Politicians, not just the right or the left.
> 
> What happens when each and every ad has to say who actually donated to it.  And every Bill that is presented has to say exactly who wrote it and financially donated to make it happen.  As long as Corporations are considered People, we need to treat them exactly like they do me and you.  This would make the really corrupt ones run from the building because we would see just how corrupt they really are.
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck face, You have no clue what you’re talking about… LOL
> Don't blame the NRA for failed gun control efforts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And when the Democrats are in power then you will be saying exactly the same thing.  It's not Partisan it's the right thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “the NRA's influence and financial power is widely overstated”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are at least 3 Republican Billionaire Donors that refuse to allocate another thin dime to any Politician or Organization that support the total unsupressed sale of the AR to the community.  Guess what, they will have zero affect.  The Corporations that are the main supporters of the NRA are much much larger and richer than even billionaires.  Your paltry 25 bucks a year and others like you are just giving them Pizza money.  This is why all your stories are exactly the same.  It's been dictated by the NRA.  Every time I see a RWer give his views on the AR, it's almost word for word.  And it comes from people like you that work for the NRA.  Don't deny that you don't work for them.  It's pretty apparent you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re missing one thing though you silly old coot. ARs are nothing more than a sporting rifle nothing more nothing less.
> No different than any other sporting rifle… They are great for hunting in every way.
> And teaching beginners/young kids the sport of hunting and shooting there is no better.
> That’s all we use for kids programs anymore…
Click to expand...


Yes, simple "Get 'em When they are Young".  Wasn't a war fight over that at one time?  isn't that the way that the USSR operates and Russia operates like that today? Speaking of getting 'em when they are young.  The Latest School Shooter attended and competed in a NRA sponsored competition.  I would think he would have run the body count even higher.  He must have been a less than average shooter at the NRA Training Camp.  Yes, get em when they are young.  That way if they become a Mass Murderer, they know how to run up the body count.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rustic said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US isn't capitalist for Government.  It's gotten to the point where it's so corrupt that you can't really tell what it is anymore.  For instance, the no new gun laws.  You will note that the leading Republicans that keep spewing the NRA boilerplate have all received millions from the NRA.  Corporations can't directly give that kind of money to our Politicians.  They can only give 2500 bucks a year.  So they give it to the NRA who has the ability to donate those funds to various Super PACS to be earmarked for those particular Politicians.  And it's all done anonymously.    The problem here is, we need to see who donated what.  Until that happens, our Politicians will deny, deny and deflect because we can't prove otherwise.  And this goes to all Politicians, not just the right or the left.
> 
> What happens when each and every ad has to say who actually donated to it.  And every Bill that is presented has to say exactly who wrote it and financially donated to make it happen.  As long as Corporations are considered People, we need to treat them exactly like they do me and you.  This would make the really corrupt ones run from the building because we would see just how corrupt they really are.
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck face, You have no clue what you’re talking about… LOL
> Don't blame the NRA for failed gun control efforts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And when the Democrats are in power then you will be saying exactly the same thing.  It's not Partisan it's the right thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “the NRA's influence and financial power is widely overstated”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are at least 3 Republican Billionaire Donors that refuse to allocate another thin dime to any Politician or Organization that support the total unsupressed sale of the AR to the community.  Guess what, they will have zero affect.  The Corporations that are the main supporters of the NRA are much much larger and richer than even billionaires.  Your paltry 25 bucks a year and others like you are just giving them Pizza money.  This is why all your stories are exactly the same.  It's been dictated by the NRA.  Every time I see a RWer give his views on the AR, it's almost word for word.  And it comes from people like you that work for the NRA.  Don't deny that you don't work for them.  It's pretty apparent you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Top 50 Lobbying Spenders of 2016
> 
> Client 2016 Spending 2015 Spending 2015 Rank
> U.S. Chamber of Commerce $103,950,000 $84,730,000 1
> National Association of Realtors $64,821,111 $37,788,407 2
> Blue Cross Blue Shield $25,006,109 $23,702,049 3
> American Hospital Association $20,970,809 $20,687,935 7
> Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America $19,730,000 $18,920,000 9
> American Medical Association $19,410,000 $21,930,000 4
> Boeing $17,020,000 $21,921,000 5
> National Association of Broadcasters $16,438,000 $17,400,000 10
> AT&T $16,370,000 $16,370,000 13
> Business Roundtable $15,700,000 $19,250,000 8
> Alphabet $15,430,000 $16,660,000 12
> Comcast $14,330,000 $15,680,000 14
> Southern Co. $13,900,000 $12,860,000 18
> Dow Chemical $13,635,982 $10,820,000 26
> Lockheed Martin $13,615,811 $13,954,053 17
> NCTA - The Internet and Telephone Assoc. $13,420,000 $14,120,000 16
> FedEx $12,541,000 $12,405,835 20
> Northrop Grumman $12,050,000 $11,020,000 24
> Exxon Mobil $11,840,000 $11,980,000 21
> Amazon $11,354,000 $9,435,000 34
> CTIA $10,970,000 $10,150,000 29
> General Dynamics $10,739,944 $10,259,890 28
> Verizon Communications $10,080,000 $11,430,000 23
> Altria Group $10,060,000 $9,630,000 32
> Amgen $9,860,000 $10,525,000 27
> Koch Industries $9,840,000 $10,830,000 25
> American Bankers Association $9,831,000 $12,690,000 19
> Pfizer $9,750,000 $9,417,650 35
> Prudential Financial $9,400,000 $7,962,500 47
> Biotechnology Innovation Organization $9,230,000 $8,350,000 42
> United Technologies $9,165,000 $11,470,000 22
> American Chemistry Council $9,020,000 $10,050,000 30
> Royal Dutch Shell $8,990,000 $8,700,000 37
> AARP $8,710,000 $7,559,000 54
> Microsoft $8,710,000 $8,490,000 39
> Facebook $8,692,000 $9,850,000 31
> Edison Electric Institute $8,620,000 $8,350,000 42
> Oracle $8,620,000 $8,470,000 40
> General Motors $8,500,000 $9,120,000 36
> National Association of Manufacturers $8,490,014 $16,950,000 11
> National Amusements (CBS & Viacom) $8,441,000 $7,980,000 46
> T-Mobile $8,089,900 $6,127,000 66
> Bayer $7,990,000 $7,730,000 51
> Coca-Cola $7,930,000 $8,670,000 38
> American Airlines $7,870,000 $6,600,000 61
> United Parcel Service $7,767,848 $8,155,856 45
> Chevron $7,470,000 $7,200,000 56
> Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers $7,452,500 $7,640,000 53
> Securities Industry & Financial Market Assoc. $7,400,000 $7,770,000 50
> 
> Sorry butthead so low, not even on the list... lol
Click to expand...


And the NRA won't be.  You didn't list a single PAC or Super-PAC which is what the NRA has become.  And the Super-PACS have more funds available than all of your list put together.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> That makes you a killer of Children, baby killer.
> 
> 
> 
> As long as you continue to resort to irrational, immature, false arguments built from being an overly emotional girl, you will continue to not be taken seriously and you will continue to be miserable and angry all the time.
Click to expand...


It's being taken serious more and more each day.  So you can stop with the Bullying tactics any time and actually discuss way to prevent the mass shootings or you can just accept the responsibility that you are contributing to them.  You can be part of the solution or just a Baby Killer.


----------



## P@triot

Daryl Hunt said:


> close the loopholes in the Gun Fairs


Here are the *facts*. The stone-cold, hard facts.


> “The “gun show loophole”? It doesn’t exist. The laws at a gun show are the same as the laws everywhere else: licensed dealers must run background checks; private sellers (those not engaged in the business of selling firearms) do not. Any sale, by anyone, in any place is still subject to federal law requiring that guns cannot be sold to known criminals.”


The laws are the exact same. The exact same. A dealer must run a background check - a private seller does not (because they cannot).

Excerpt From Control
Glenn Beck. This material may be protected by copyright.


----------



## Rustic

Daryl Hunt said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Give it a chance.  If it works that's great.  If it doesn't we can put it back the way it was.  My money is that within 2 years we may still have attacks but they won't be "Mass" killings since that tool won't be available.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boy, you must think we just fell off the turnip truck right alongside you.  "Just let us take away your rights for a little while!  If you don't like it, we'll give 'em back!  Honest!"  That's right up there with "I'll only put the tip in!" on the list of bullshit lies no one with brain cells falls for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> How to go AR Shopping.
> 
> 1.  Steal a Ford F-350 and a full sized Van
> 2.  Wait until very early morning
> 3.  Crash it into the front of the store
> 4.  Back the Ford outside
> 5.  Begin transfer all the ARs into the Van
> 6.  Transfer the 223 and 556 ammo to the Van
> 7.  Drive the Van to your own Van and transfer the Weapons and Ammo to it
> 8.  Drive the Ford F-350 and the stolen van to an out of the way location
> 9.  pour gas all over and inside both the stolen Van and the F-350 and light it.
> 10.  Drive your van to a Public Storage facility and unload all the weapons.
> 
> Done.
> 
> The Mass Shooters don't do this.   But if you go into the various "Militias" you may find those weapons.  You can't use this to justify that only Criminals obtain Guns illegally.  One can mail order an AR and all kinds of little toys to go with it online and lie out my ass and obtain a gun.  You know, the part where it says, "Are you a Convicted Felon" if I were a convicted felon.  I can do the same thing at a Gun Show as long as my fake ID looks real.  Or I can go to any legal Gun Shop and give the real info and purchase that as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No....that is what happens in gun controlled democrat cities...their gang members and democrat party members spread out across various states and do exactly what you listed.......gangs, not law abiding gun owners.....doofus.
> 
> And of course, as an anti gunner, you have to lie about getting a gun.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agaiin, cupcake, exactly what rights would I be taking from you?  Or from me.  Sorry, I still won't accept the NRA Boilerplate you keep repeating over and over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “the NRA's influence and financial power is widely overstated”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And yet......when the democrats most needed the conservatives to be quiet and passive.....they had to kick the hornets nest of gun rights..........the one issue that motivates conservatives like no other........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can only speak for myself.  I am not trying to take your guns and would fight just as hard to prevent that.  I am not taking your right to buy more guns and would fight just as hard to prevent that.  I am asking for a change in the laws that raises the AR and the AK (if they can't get an AR, I am sure there will be a run on the AKs) to the next level of firearms where they are licensed and so is the purchaser.  The requirement for the lowest Fire Arms License is exactly the same as registering a firearm right now with NO license other than your ID.
> 
> I don't want you to be silent.  You see, unlike you, I support the 1st amendment and find it more important than all the other Amendments put together.  You have the right to much more than speech.  It goes deeper than that.  How about the right to the pursuit of happiness, safety etc..  I see that most have forgotten that.  That means I have the right to have my children go to school without fear of their lives and to take measures to insure that.  If it means changing a part of the law covering how to purchase, own and buy a specific weapon then so be it.  That's not changing either the First nor the Second Amendment.  It's changing the various policies and a Policy is NOT an Amendment although it can be a law.
Click to expand...

Sorry, most people don’t want bolt rifles anymore. They are not suitable enough for the needs of most people anymore. I don’t know what the deal Is with you and AR15’s but seems like you have one shoved up your ass… And you resent it.


----------



## P@triot

Daryl Hunt said:


> You can be part of the solution or just a Baby Killer.


You can be part of a mature, intellectual discussion or you can be a typical progressive snowflake who melts down screaming “baby killer”.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

2aguy said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can fight it but the genie is out of the bottle.  While the School Children that have been terrorized and traumatized can't vote, their parents can and in a few short years the children turn 18.  And they agree with what I have said all along.  Even many of the large Republican Donors are starting to remove support for anyone that will not go along those lines.  Yes, these folks give millions each year to various Republican Candidates but they will not contribute to those that still spew the NRA Boilerplate responses.  It's happening more and more each day.  The Last Mass Shooting was the straw that broke the camels back.  Too bad it didn't get a sore back 25 years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what will you all do when banning that rifle does nothing to stop the next piece of shit from shooting up a school ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give it a chance.  If it works that's great.  If it doesn't we can put it back the way it was.  My money is that within 2 years we may still have attacks but they won't be "Mass" killings since that tool won't be available.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boy, you must think we just fell off the turnip truck right alongside you.  "Just let us take away your rights for a little while!  If you don't like it, we'll give 'em back!  Honest!"  That's right up there with "I'll only put the tip in!" on the list of bullshit lies no one with brain cells falls for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it does take away rights.  Of the ones that cannot get a Class 4 or Class D firearms license and don't have the 200 bucks to pay for it.  And I can get one of those just by applying.  So can any Citizen of the US that can purchase weapons at any gun store.  Now, cupcake, what rights would I have taken from your or me?
> 
> Sorry, don't come back with the Usual NRA boilerplate answer.  Use your own brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In the old days when you and other democrats were using jim crow laws to keep blacks from voting, you imposed Poll Taxes and Literacy tests as a means to prevent their Right to vote.......and you used the same argument...."How does charging a tax to vote deny that Right?"
> 
> Good to see you racist assholes are still out there.......
Click to expand...


Those same individuals and groups that supported the Jim Crow laws have all become Republicans.  I agree that it was bad but it's now the Republicans playing those games if left without adult supervision.


----------



## P@triot

Daryl Hunt said:


> close the loopholes in the Gun Fairs


Here are the *facts*. The stone-cold, hard facts.


> “Calling private, noncommercial sales a “gun show loophole” *is only meant to rile people up who have never been to a gun show*. Controllists hope people hear about a loophole and picture criminals fresh out of prison loading up their trunks with AR-15s.”


And clearly it works. Uninformed, emotional progressives are all over the U.S. screaming “the gun loopholes are coming! the gun loopholes are coming!

Excerpt From Control
Glenn Beck. This material may be protected by copyright.


----------



## Rustic

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck face, You have no clue what you’re talking about… LOL
> Don't blame the NRA for failed gun control efforts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And when the Democrats are in power then you will be saying exactly the same thing.  It's not Partisan it's the right thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “the NRA's influence and financial power is widely overstated”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are at least 3 Republican Billionaire Donors that refuse to allocate another thin dime to any Politician or Organization that support the total unsupressed sale of the AR to the community.  Guess what, they will have zero affect.  The Corporations that are the main supporters of the NRA are much much larger and richer than even billionaires.  Your paltry 25 bucks a year and others like you are just giving them Pizza money.  This is why all your stories are exactly the same.  It's been dictated by the NRA.  Every time I see a RWer give his views on the AR, it's almost word for word.  And it comes from people like you that work for the NRA.  Don't deny that you don't work for them.  It's pretty apparent you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Top 50 Lobbying Spenders of 2016
> 
> Client 2016 Spending 2015 Spending 2015 Rank
> U.S. Chamber of Commerce $103,950,000 $84,730,000 1
> National Association of Realtors $64,821,111 $37,788,407 2
> Blue Cross Blue Shield $25,006,109 $23,702,049 3
> American Hospital Association $20,970,809 $20,687,935 7
> Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America $19,730,000 $18,920,000 9
> American Medical Association $19,410,000 $21,930,000 4
> Boeing $17,020,000 $21,921,000 5
> National Association of Broadcasters $16,438,000 $17,400,000 10
> AT&T $16,370,000 $16,370,000 13
> Business Roundtable $15,700,000 $19,250,000 8
> Alphabet $15,430,000 $16,660,000 12
> Comcast $14,330,000 $15,680,000 14
> Southern Co. $13,900,000 $12,860,000 18
> Dow Chemical $13,635,982 $10,820,000 26
> Lockheed Martin $13,615,811 $13,954,053 17
> NCTA - The Internet and Telephone Assoc. $13,420,000 $14,120,000 16
> FedEx $12,541,000 $12,405,835 20
> Northrop Grumman $12,050,000 $11,020,000 24
> Exxon Mobil $11,840,000 $11,980,000 21
> Amazon $11,354,000 $9,435,000 34
> CTIA $10,970,000 $10,150,000 29
> General Dynamics $10,739,944 $10,259,890 28
> Verizon Communications $10,080,000 $11,430,000 23
> Altria Group $10,060,000 $9,630,000 32
> Amgen $9,860,000 $10,525,000 27
> Koch Industries $9,840,000 $10,830,000 25
> American Bankers Association $9,831,000 $12,690,000 19
> Pfizer $9,750,000 $9,417,650 35
> Prudential Financial $9,400,000 $7,962,500 47
> Biotechnology Innovation Organization $9,230,000 $8,350,000 42
> United Technologies $9,165,000 $11,470,000 22
> American Chemistry Council $9,020,000 $10,050,000 30
> Royal Dutch Shell $8,990,000 $8,700,000 37
> AARP $8,710,000 $7,559,000 54
> Microsoft $8,710,000 $8,490,000 39
> Facebook $8,692,000 $9,850,000 31
> Edison Electric Institute $8,620,000 $8,350,000 42
> Oracle $8,620,000 $8,470,000 40
> General Motors $8,500,000 $9,120,000 36
> National Association of Manufacturers $8,490,014 $16,950,000 11
> National Amusements (CBS & Viacom) $8,441,000 $7,980,000 46
> T-Mobile $8,089,900 $6,127,000 66
> Bayer $7,990,000 $7,730,000 51
> Coca-Cola $7,930,000 $8,670,000 38
> American Airlines $7,870,000 $6,600,000 61
> United Parcel Service $7,767,848 $8,155,856 45
> Chevron $7,470,000 $7,200,000 56
> Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers $7,452,500 $7,640,000 53
> Securities Industry & Financial Market Assoc. $7,400,000 $7,770,000 50
> 
> Sorry butthead so low, not even on the list... lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the NRA won't be.  You didn't list a single PAC or Super-PAC which is what the NRA has become.  And the Super-PACS have more funds available than all of your list put together.
Click to expand...

And the NRA was not any part of any super PAC... fact


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rustic said:


> “A misbegotten path is introducing new rules and misrepresenting them to the public. That's what happened last year when Democrats tried a proposed rule that they and most of the news media portrayed as a way to keep guns from the "mentally ill." But it really sought to put people into the federal government gun background database if they received disability payments from Social Security and received assistance to manage their benefits due to mental impairments. That's a far cry from "mentally ill." Even the ACLU and mental health advocates lined up against that idea, not just the NRA”



It was about limiting guns purchases to the Mentally ill.  This is one time where the ACLU and the NRA agreed.  The ACLU was about the persons rights while the NRA would lose customers to their donors.  And it's more important to keep the sales up as high as one can even if it means a Mentally ill person can buy firearms.  On this, the NRA was as big a fruitcake as the ACLU just different motivations.

BTW, the Executive order was dealing with exactly the same thing you keep spewing about.  it's about limiting firearms to the Mentally Ill.  After this post, just stop using that as a reason.  You don't believe it one bit.


----------



## P@triot

Daryl Hunt said:


> I am sure you are loving it that there are school children giving their lives so that you can have your version of the 2nd amendment.


There is only one “version” of the 2nd Amendment, my overly emotional fragile little snowflake: “....shall *not* be infringed”. It could not be more crystal clear.

We’re not surrendering our 2nd Amendment rights. Quite the contrary - we are expanding them. We are restoring them. Period.


----------



## 2aguy

Daryl Hunt said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what will you all do when banning that rifle does nothing to stop the next piece of shit from shooting up a school ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give it a chance.  If it works that's great.  If it doesn't we can put it back the way it was.  My money is that within 2 years we may still have attacks but they won't be "Mass" killings since that tool won't be available.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boy, you must think we just fell off the turnip truck right alongside you.  "Just let us take away your rights for a little while!  If you don't like it, we'll give 'em back!  Honest!"  That's right up there with "I'll only put the tip in!" on the list of bullshit lies no one with brain cells falls for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it does take away rights.  Of the ones that cannot get a Class 4 or Class D firearms license and don't have the 200 bucks to pay for it.  And I can get one of those just by applying.  So can any Citizen of the US that can purchase weapons at any gun store.  Now, cupcake, what rights would I have taken from your or me?
> 
> Sorry, don't come back with the Usual NRA boilerplate answer.  Use your own brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In the old days when you and other democrats were using jim crow laws to keep blacks from voting, you imposed Poll Taxes and Literacy tests as a means to prevent their Right to vote.......and you used the same argument...."How does charging a tax to vote deny that Right?"
> 
> Good to see you racist assholes are still out there.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those same individuals and groups that supported the Jim Crow laws have all become Republicans.  I agree that it was bad but it's now the Republicans playing those games if left without adult supervision.
Click to expand...



No.....that is another lie......they stayed democrats through and through........democrats were the racists of the past, they are the racists today...racism is the only power they have.....


----------



## Daryl Hunt

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> close the loopholes in the Gun Fairs
> 
> 
> 
> Here are the *facts*. The stone-cold, hard facts.
> 
> 
> 
> “Calling private, noncommercial sales a “gun show loophole” *is only meant to rile people up who have never been to a gun show*. Controllists hope people hear about a loophole and picture criminals fresh out of prison loading up their trunks with AR-15s.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And clearly it works. Uninformed, emotional progressives are all over the U.S. screaming “the gun loopholes are coming! the gun loopholes are coming!
> 
> Excerpt From Control
> Glenn Beck. This material may be protected by copyright.
Click to expand...


Using cites from Glen Beck?  Give me a friggin break.  And I never proposed outlawing or confiscating any weapons as long as they are legal.  I do propose taking the one weapon used in all the high body count mass shootings and moving it into a level where the people are the LEAST Likely to become Mass Murderers.  People like me.  But since you are fighting it with all your being, I don't include you in the least likely category.  But what should we expect from a paid NRA Employee.


----------



## 2aguy

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure you are loving it that there are school children giving their lives so that you can have your version of the 2nd amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> There is only one “version” of the 2nd Amendment, my overly emotional fragile little snowflake: “....shall *not* be infringed”. It could not be more crystal clear.
> 
> We’re not surrendering our 2nd Amendment rights. Quite the contrary - we are expanding them. We are restoring them. Period.
Click to expand...



We should thank these assholes.........the Republican base was pretty squishy going into 2018......and now, with the new, all out assault on our gun rights, they have activated one of the strongest parts of the conservative political movement....right before the 2018 midterms........they are really fucking stupid....


----------



## P@triot

Daryl Hunt said:


> There are at least 3 Republican Billionaire Donors that refuse to allocate another thin dime to any Politician or Organization that support the total unsupressed sale of the AR to the community.  Guess what, they will have zero affect.  The Corporations that are the main supporters of the NRA are much much larger and richer than even billionaires.


The NRA is not founded, supported, or comprised of “corporations”. It is comprised of the American people. And *We the People* have spoken (loud & clear).


----------



## Daryl Hunt

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure you are loving it that there are school children giving their lives so that you can have your version of the 2nd amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> There is only one “version” of the 2nd Amendment, my overly emotional fragile little snowflake: “....shall *not* be infringed”. It could not be more crystal clear.
> 
> We’re not surrendering our 2nd Amendment rights. Quite the contrary - we are expanding them. We are restoring them. Period.
Click to expand...


I am not "Infringing" on the 2nd amendment.  Not one bit.  You have the right to own hand grenades as well and even Bazookas.  AS long as you are within the law to own them.  Same goes for a 22 pistol.    Now tell me where I am trying to take away your second amendment rights to own, possess, use any weapon short of a nuclear bomb.


----------



## P@triot

Daryl Hunt said:


> But what should we expect from a paid NRA Employee.


For what it is worth - I have *never* even been a member of the NRA, much less been an employee or otherwise on their payroll.

The more you continue to resort to immature, emotional comments, the more people will continue not to take you seriously.


----------



## Rustic

Daryl Hunt said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> close the loopholes in the Gun Fairs
> 
> 
> 
> Here are the *facts*. The stone-cold, hard facts.
> 
> 
> 
> “Calling private, noncommercial sales a “gun show loophole” *is only meant to rile people up who have never been to a gun show*. Controllists hope people hear about a loophole and picture criminals fresh out of prison loading up their trunks with AR-15s.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And clearly it works. Uninformed, emotional progressives are all over the U.S. screaming “the gun loopholes are coming! the gun loopholes are coming!
> 
> Excerpt From Control
> Glenn Beck. This material may be protected by copyright.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Using cites from Glen Beck?  Give me a friggin break.  And I never proposed outlawing or confiscating any weapons as long as they are legal.  I do propose taking the one weapon used in all the high body count mass shootings and moving it into a level where the people are the LEAST Likely to become Mass Murderers.  People like me.  But since you are fighting it with all your being, I don't include you in the least likely category.  But what should we expect from a paid NRA Employee.
Click to expand...

Firearms have no control over people just admit it, you want to get rid of the Second Amendment


----------



## Daryl Hunt

2aguy said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure you are loving it that there are school children giving their lives so that you can have your version of the 2nd amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> There is only one “version” of the 2nd Amendment, my overly emotional fragile little snowflake: “....shall *not* be infringed”. It could not be more crystal clear.
> 
> We’re not surrendering our 2nd Amendment rights. Quite the contrary - we are expanding them. We are restoring them. Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We should thank these assholes.........the Republican base was pretty squishy going into 2018......and now, with the new, all out assault on our gun rights, they have activated one of the strongest parts of the conservative political movement....right before the 2018 midterms........they are really fucking stupid....
Click to expand...


Yah, right.  You are just assuming all the recent mistakes and mass killing will be forgotten by November.  The Special Elections disagree with you where some hard core Red Areas changed to Blue.


----------



## P@triot

Daryl Hunt said:


> I am not "Infringing" on the 2nd amendment.  Not one bit.  You have the right to own hand grenades as well and even Bazookas.  AS long as you are within the law to own them.  Same goes for a 22 pistol.    Now tell me where I am trying to take away your second amendment rights to own, possess, use any weapon short of a nuclear bomb.


Well...perhaps I have misunderstood then. Please explain to me what you _are_ advocating if not the infringement of 2nd Amendment rights?


----------



## 2aguy

Daryl Hunt said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure you are loving it that there are school children giving their lives so that you can have your version of the 2nd amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> There is only one “version” of the 2nd Amendment, my overly emotional fragile little snowflake: “....shall *not* be infringed”. It could not be more crystal clear.
> 
> We’re not surrendering our 2nd Amendment rights. Quite the contrary - we are expanding them. We are restoring them. Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We should thank these assholes.........the Republican base was pretty squishy going into 2018......and now, with the new, all out assault on our gun rights, they have activated one of the strongest parts of the conservative political movement....right before the 2018 midterms........they are really fucking stupid....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yah, right.  You are just assuming all the recent mistakes and mass killing will be forgotten by November.  The Special Elections disagree with you where some hard core Red Areas changed to Blue.
Click to expand...



Like I said....you are activating the strongest part of the conservative base........that is why when obama and the democrats controlled congress for two fucking years...they didn't pass any gun legislation......they had to stack the courts to do it for fear of losing seats.......thank you for your stupidity...


----------



## Daryl Hunt

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are at least 3 Republican Billionaire Donors that refuse to allocate another thin dime to any Politician or Organization that support the total unsupressed sale of the AR to the community.  Guess what, they will have zero affect.  The Corporations that are the main supporters of the NRA are much much larger and richer than even billionaires.
> 
> 
> 
> The NRA is not founded, supported, or comprised of “corporations”. It is comprised of the American people. And *We the People* have spoken (loud & clear).
Click to expand...


It's  a Super-Pac.  It takes donations from anyone and all and then redispenses it to various candidates to the tune of hundreds of millions each year.  The NRA is no longer listed as a Non Profit.  It's listed as a Political Organization.


----------



## P@triot

Daryl Hunt said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> close the loopholes in the Gun Fairs
> 
> 
> 
> Here are the *facts*. The stone-cold, hard facts.
> 
> 
> 
> “Calling private, noncommercial sales a “gun show loophole” *is only meant to rile people up who have never been to a gun show*. Controllists hope people hear about a loophole and picture criminals fresh out of prison loading up their trunks with AR-15s.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And clearly it works. Uninformed, emotional progressives are all over the U.S. screaming “the gun loopholes are coming! the gun loopholes are coming!
> 
> Excerpt From Control
> Glenn Beck. This material may be protected by copyright.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Using cites from Glen Beck?  Give me a friggin break.
Click to expand...

Yes. He and his team did studies on the history of gun control and then wrote a detailed, comprehensive book about it - packed full of citations.


----------



## P@triot

Daryl Hunt said:


> It's  a Super-Pac.  It takes donations from anyone and all and then redispenses it to various candidates to the tune of hundreds of millions each year.  The NRA is no longer listed as a Non Profit.  It's listed as a Political Organization.


Regardless...it still isn’t founded, backed, or comprised of corporations. Hell, show me a corporation that doesn’t outlaw firearms in their buildings or on their campuses.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

The Derp said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure I can!
> 
> "Responsible gun owners" who don't report stolen guns do so _*because the gun that was stolen was obtained illegally*_.  So they're not "responsible gun owners"...no one is.
Click to expand...


If no gun owner is responsible, why bother citing examples of irresponsible behavior? On the one hand you say that one who illegally obtains a firearm and fails to report it stolen is not a responsible gun owner and on the other hand you say all gun owners are irresponsible. Meaning that even those who purchase their guns legally and report them stolen are also irresponsible. So what is the point? 

You're absolutely right that a gun owner who illegally obtains a firearm and does not report it when stolen is not a responsible gun owner. 

Your error was in misconstruing his original remark about responsible gun owners to mean that all gun owners are responsible. Obviously that's not the case. Some are responsible, some are not. That is a fact, and your personal feelings and opinions about gun owners is irrelevant.



> Or
> 
> "Responsible gun owners" who don't report stolen guns do so _*because they want the gun to end up in the hands of a criminal or terrorist.*_



Don't be an idiot.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not "Infringing" on the 2nd amendment.  Not one bit.  You have the right to own hand grenades as well and even Bazookas.  AS long as you are within the law to own them.  Same goes for a 22 pistol.    Now tell me where I am trying to take away your second amendment rights to own, possess, use any weapon short of a nuclear bomb.
> 
> 
> 
> Well...perhaps I have misunderstood then. Please explain to me what you _are_ advocating if not the infringement of 2nd Amendment rights?
Click to expand...


I'll just use you as an example.  YOU, a citizen in good standings and of age, have the right to own, possess and bear arms.  And that cannot be infringed.  Like a Mah Duece, you can own one just by applying.  Of course your State might have something to say about that.  We are not talking about States Rights here but Federal Rights.  But in order to take the worries or most of the worries, you may have to have a license to own and pay the 200 bucks for that license.  You aren't taxing the Gun, you are buying the License to own.  The reason the 200 bucks figure came up was in 1934, that was the figure determined to discourage most in applying for the license.  If it were adjusted to todays dollars it  would be in the thousands but it's still 200 bucks which covers the FBI investigation into you are who and what you claim.  When I applied for mine it was a rubber stamp at the FBI since I was already listed with them for my Military Service.  Same goes with applying for a CCW license.  The level of search is a bit deeper than when you just buy a gun but it only happens once.

The FFL license I see as useful in all this for the AR and the AK would be listed as a collector.  You don't need to be a Dealer, Manufacturer or Importer to get the lowest level of Federal Firearms License (FFS).  You can also be a collector who is not buying, selling, manufacturing, importing or transporting fire arms.  

Your 2nd amendment rights would be secured and not infringed one bit.  You still have the right to possess, purchase, transport etc. your own weapons.  It's just one more application, that's it.  They can't turn you down if you are able to legally purchase firearms with a simple background check.

This is what is being proposed even my a bunch of scared School Children and their parents.  Not banning a damned thing.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's  a Super-Pac.  It takes donations from anyone and all and then redispenses it to various candidates to the tune of hundreds of millions each year.  The NRA is no longer listed as a Non Profit.  It's listed as a Political Organization.
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless...it still isn’t founded, backed, or comprised of corporations. Hell, show me a corporation that doesn’t outlaw firearms in their buildings or on their campuses.
Click to expand...


Another , Hey Look Over there Moment here.  The fact remains that the NRA is no longer listed as a Non Profit even if they do sometimes do some good things.  Those days are long gone.  Today, the NRA is a political advocate for the Gun Industry and has long since lost it's non profit federal designation.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rustic said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US isn't capitalist for Government.  It's gotten to the point where it's so corrupt that you can't really tell what it is anymore.  For instance, the no new gun laws.  You will note that the leading Republicans that keep spewing the NRA boilerplate have all received millions from the NRA.  Corporations can't directly give that kind of money to our Politicians.  They can only give 2500 bucks a year.  So they give it to the NRA who has the ability to donate those funds to various Super PACS to be earmarked for those particular Politicians.  And it's all done anonymously.    The problem here is, we need to see who donated what.  Until that happens, our Politicians will deny, deny and deflect because we can't prove otherwise.  And this goes to all Politicians, not just the right or the left.
> 
> What happens when each and every ad has to say who actually donated to it.  And every Bill that is presented has to say exactly who wrote it and financially donated to make it happen.  As long as Corporations are considered People, we need to treat them exactly like they do me and you.  This would make the really corrupt ones run from the building because we would see just how corrupt they really are.
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck face, You have no clue what you’re talking about… LOL
> Don't blame the NRA for failed gun control efforts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And when the Democrats are in power then you will be saying exactly the same thing.  It's not Partisan it's the right thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “the NRA's influence and financial power is widely overstated”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are at least 3 Republican Billionaire Donors that refuse to allocate another thin dime to any Politician or Organization that support the total unsupressed sale of the AR to the community.  Guess what, they will have zero affect.  The Corporations that are the main supporters of the NRA are much much larger and richer than even billionaires.  Your paltry 25 bucks a year and others like you are just giving them Pizza money.  This is why all your stories are exactly the same.  It's been dictated by the NRA.  Every time I see a RWer give his views on the AR, it's almost word for word.  And it comes from people like you that work for the NRA.  Don't deny that you don't work for them.  It's pretty apparent you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re missing one thing though you silly old coot. ARs are nothing more than a sporting rifle nothing more nothing less.
> No different than any other sporting rifle… They are great for hunting in every way.
> And teaching beginners/young kids the sport of hunting and shooting there is no better.
> That’s all we use for kids programs anymore…
Click to expand...


NO, you missed the point that the AR is part of a Culture and is the most deadly Mass Murder Weapons currently used in the US to Mass Murder and Terrorize schools, churches, public gatherings, etc..


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rustic said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> close the loopholes in the Gun Fairs
> 
> 
> 
> Here are the *facts*. The stone-cold, hard facts.
> 
> 
> 
> “Calling private, noncommercial sales a “gun show loophole” *is only meant to rile people up who have never been to a gun show*. Controllists hope people hear about a loophole and picture criminals fresh out of prison loading up their trunks with AR-15s.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And clearly it works. Uninformed, emotional progressives are all over the U.S. screaming “the gun loopholes are coming! the gun loopholes are coming!
> 
> Excerpt From Control
> Glenn Beck. This material may be protected by copyright.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Using cites from Glen Beck?  Give me a friggin break.  And I never proposed outlawing or confiscating any weapons as long as they are legal.  I do propose taking the one weapon used in all the high body count mass shootings and moving it into a level where the people are the LEAST Likely to become Mass Murderers.  People like me.  But since you are fighting it with all your being, I don't include you in the least likely category.  But what should we expect from a paid NRA Employee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Firearms have no control over people just admit it, you want to get rid of the Second Amendment
Click to expand...


I like the 2nd amendment almost as much as I like the 1st.  I haven't proposed on stitch of banning any weapon short of a nuclear warhead.  You keep harping the same thing over and over.  Guess I may be wearing down an NRA Employee if that is the best you can do.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Daryl Hunt said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I am telling you that it is beyond stupid to reclassify one specific Semiautomatic rifle because of the way it looks and no other reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can fight it but the genie is out of the bottle.  While the School Children that have been terrorized and traumatized can't vote, their parents can and in a few short years the children turn 18.  And they agree with what I have said all along.  Even many of the large Republican Donors are starting to remove support for anyone that will not go along those lines.  Yes, these folks give millions each year to various Republican Candidates but they will not contribute to those that still spew the NRA Boilerplate responses.  It's happening more and more each day.  The Last Mass Shooting was the straw that broke the camels back.  Too bad it didn't get a sore back 25 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what will you all do when banning that rifle does nothing to stop the next piece of shit from shooting up a school ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give it a chance.  If it works that's great.  If it doesn't we can put it back the way it was.  My money is that within 2 years we may still have attacks but they won't be "Mass" killings since that tool won't be available.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boy, you must think we just fell off the turnip truck right alongside you.  "Just let us take away your rights for a little while!  If you don't like it, we'll give 'em back!  Honest!"  That's right up there with "I'll only put the tip in!" on the list of bullshit lies no one with brain cells falls for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it does take away rights.  Of the ones that cannot get a Class 4 or Class D firearms license and don't have the 200 bucks to pay for it.  And I can get one of those just by applying.  So can any Citizen of the US that can purchase weapons at any gun store.  Now, cupcake, what rights would I have taken from your or me?
> 
> Sorry, don't come back with the Usual NRA boilerplate answer.  Use your own brain.
Click to expand...


"Cupcake", get over yourself.  You think I require help to deal someone who thinks chanting "NRA boilerplate" is a lclever putdown, instead of an admission that you've run up against an argument you can't answer?


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Cecilie1200 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can fight it but the genie is out of the bottle.  While the School Children that have been terrorized and traumatized can't vote, their parents can and in a few short years the children turn 18.  And they agree with what I have said all along.  Even many of the large Republican Donors are starting to remove support for anyone that will not go along those lines.  Yes, these folks give millions each year to various Republican Candidates but they will not contribute to those that still spew the NRA Boilerplate responses.  It's happening more and more each day.  The Last Mass Shooting was the straw that broke the camels back.  Too bad it didn't get a sore back 25 years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what will you all do when banning that rifle does nothing to stop the next piece of shit from shooting up a school ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give it a chance.  If it works that's great.  If it doesn't we can put it back the way it was.  My money is that within 2 years we may still have attacks but they won't be "Mass" killings since that tool won't be available.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boy, you must think we just fell off the turnip truck right alongside you.  "Just let us take away your rights for a little while!  If you don't like it, we'll give 'em back!  Honest!"  That's right up there with "I'll only put the tip in!" on the list of bullshit lies no one with brain cells falls for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it does take away rights.  Of the ones that cannot get a Class 4 or Class D firearms license and don't have the 200 bucks to pay for it.  And I can get one of those just by applying.  So can any Citizen of the US that can purchase weapons at any gun store.  Now, cupcake, what rights would I have taken from your or me?
> 
> Sorry, don't come back with the Usual NRA boilerplate answer.  Use your own brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Cupcake", get over yourself.  You think I require help to deal someone who thinks chanting "NRA boilerplate" is a lclever putdown, instead of an admission that you've run up against an argument you can't answer?
Click to expand...


If you aren't hired by the NRA as prolific as you post then you must be one of the Russian Trolls that are still kicking around.  That would explain things just as well.

Bring on the 3rd team.  I got the time.


----------



## P@triot

Daryl Hunt said:


> Of course your State might have something to say about that.  We are not talking about States Rights here but Federal Rights.


Well...for the record...state’s have no say in anything that is constitutional. They cannot create a limiting your 1st Amendment because the constitution trumps state law.


----------



## Rustic

Daryl Hunt said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what will you all do when banning that rifle does nothing to stop the next piece of shit from shooting up a school ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give it a chance.  If it works that's great.  If it doesn't we can put it back the way it was.  My money is that within 2 years we may still have attacks but they won't be "Mass" killings since that tool won't be available.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boy, you must think we just fell off the turnip truck right alongside you.  "Just let us take away your rights for a little while!  If you don't like it, we'll give 'em back!  Honest!"  That's right up there with "I'll only put the tip in!" on the list of bullshit lies no one with brain cells falls for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it does take away rights.  Of the ones that cannot get a Class 4 or Class D firearms license and don't have the 200 bucks to pay for it.  And I can get one of those just by applying.  So can any Citizen of the US that can purchase weapons at any gun store.  Now, cupcake, what rights would I have taken from your or me?
> 
> Sorry, don't come back with the Usual NRA boilerplate answer.  Use your own brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Cupcake", get over yourself.  You think I require help to deal someone who thinks chanting "NRA boilerplate" is a lclever putdown, instead of an admission that you've run up against an argument you can't answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you aren't hired by the NRA as prolific as you post then you must be one of the Russian Trolls that are still kicking around.  That would explain things just as well.
> 
> Bring on the 3rd team.  I got the time.
Click to expand...

Ok, We have a bunch of people on here that want to get rid of the Second Amendment. And they know they cannot get rid of the Second Amendment by using this useless piece of shit as a poster child as the “ultimate boogie man”...





It’s much easier to use this “scary AR” to get rid of the Second Amendment in the eyes of the foolish... Even though it’s a much more useful firearm...


----------



## P@triot

Daryl Hunt said:


> Your 2nd amendment rights would be secured and not infringed one bit.  You still have the right to possess, purchase, transport etc. your own weapons.  It's just one more application, that's it.  They can't turn you down if you are able to legally purchase firearms with a simple background check.
> 
> This is what is being proposed even my a bunch of scared School Children and their parents.  Not banning a damned thing.


1. That _is_ an infringement whether you want to admit it or not.

2. More importantly - what you are proposing here is already the case. The Brady Law made an F.B.I. background check a requirement for every firearm purchase (from a dealer). And there is no cost associated with it. None. I’ve never purchased a firearm and not had an F.B.I. background check (including when I’ve purchased from a large dealer that is friends of my family). They followed the law by the book (as all dealers do considering the legal ramifications of not obeying the law) and contacted the F.B.I. for the check and subsequent sale despite knowing that I had no criminal or mental health background.

So the only concern you have is a private citizen-to-citizen sale. Those are _extremely_ rare in the grand scheme of things and almost completely nonexistent in terms of a sale to someone with a criminal background. And there is nothing that can be done about those anyway. The government has absolutely no authority to regulate or otherwise dictate what I do with my private property - including if I choose to sell it.


----------



## P@triot

Cecilie1200 said:


> Boy, you must think we just fell off the turnip truck right alongside you.  "Just let us take away your rights for a little while!  If you don't like it, we'll give 'em back!  Honest!"  *That's right up there with "I'll only put the tip in!" on the list of bullshit lies no one with brain cells falls for*.


----------



## P@triot

Daryl Hunt said:


> I haven't proposed on stitch of banning any weapon short of a nuclear warhead.


Just for the record - even nuclear weapons should not be banned. However, it isn’t a concern. For starters, who could even afford an actual nuclear missile? Only the super elite like Bill Gates. Think any of them are even remotely interested in a nuclear weapon? Nope. They have private security so they don’t worry about anything.

But here is the ultimate reason why you don’t need to worry about private owners of nuclear weapons: nobody sells them. They are only produced by the federal government - not by any private corporation. The federal government is under no obligation to sell anything they develop. And the black market would not be able to legally provide them because the federal government is constitutionally authorized to control material coming into the U.S.


----------



## Lakhota




----------



## Lakhota




----------



## Rustic

Lakhota said:


>


Washington redskin, Like usual taken out of context of the era.
Shall not be infringed means, it’s no one else’s fucking business especially none of the federal government’s. 
Stay out of the fucking fire water


----------



## Flash

The Derp said:


> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have the right to be a victim if you choose, have at it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would only be a victim because you're too irresponsible to manage your firearms.
Click to expand...



Is that like I have to pay your bills because you are too irresponsible to pay your own and sign up for welfare and then the government takes my money and gives it to you?

My AR-15s  have never killed anybody but yet the stupid anti Constitutional Moon Bats want to ban my AR-15s.

The assholes want to punish me and take away my Constitutional rights because somebody else does something illegal.  That is oppressive, isn't it?

Why should I be considered guilty by the government when it is other people that commit crimes.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Daryl Hunt said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> and 86% of them are reported stolen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*WHY THE FUCK ISN'T IT 100%?*_
> 
> So much for the narrative of "responsible gun owners"...they report a gun is stolen less than 9 out of 10 times.  That's fucking pathetic.  You can sure as shit bet 100% of car thefts are reported.
> 
> Now, _*why*_ would a "responsible gun owner" _*not*_ report their gun as stolen!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!  What could be the only reason?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> This problem does not affect all states equally. The rate and volume of guns stolen from both gun stores and private collections vary widely from state to state. From 2012 through 2015, the average rate of the five states with the highest rates of gun theft from private owners—Tennessee, Arkansas, South Carolina, Oklahoma, and Alabama—was 13 times higher than the average rate of the five states with the lowest rates—Hawaii, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, and Massachusetts.6 Similarly, from 2012 through 2016, the average rate of the five states with the highest rates of guns stolen from gun stores was 18 times higher than the average rate the five states with the lowest rates.7
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes!  So thanks for proving my point...states with shitty gun laws see _*more*_ gun thefts than states with good gun laws.  So again, it's the "_*responsible gun owners*_" who are to blame.  This is exactly what I am talking about when I say that guns are trafficked to cities and blue states via "iron pipelines".  A practice that could be *all but eliminated* by requiring all gun transactions and transfers require a background check.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> gun thefts are not equally distributed among the states and gee high crime areas have more gun thefts.  Imagine that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The states you listed in your cut and paste that had *the highest rates of gun theft are all pro-gun, red states*.  So the guns get stolen from "responsible gun owners" in those states and then trafficked into the other states with stricter gun laws.  That's exactly what the "iron pipeline" is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Millions of people own guns and never have one stolen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As of _*now*_.  But they can't pretend it will never happen because it happens 234,000 times a year, on average.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you really like to ask stupid questions.
> 
> How the fuck do I know why someone wouldn't report a gun or anything else stolen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How to go AR Shopping.
> 
> 1.  Steal a Ford F-350 and a full sized Van
> 2.  Wait until very early morning
> 3.  Crash it into the front of the store
> 4.  Back the Ford outside
> 5.  Begin transfer all the ARs into the Van
> 6.  Transfer the 223 and 556 ammo to the Van
> 7.  Drive the Van to your own Van and transfer the Weapons and Ammo to it
> 8.  Drive the Ford F-350 and the stolen van to an out of the way location
> 9.  pour gas all over and inside both the stolen Van and the F-350 and light it.
> 10.  Drive your van to a Public Storage facility and unload all the weapons.
> 
> Done.
> 
> The Mass Shooters don't do this.   But if you go into the various "Militias" you may find those weapons.  You can't use this to justify that only Criminals obtain Guns illegally.  One can mail order an AR and all kinds of little toys to go with it online and lie out my ass and obtain a gun.  You know, the part where it says, "Are you a Convicted Felon" if I were a convicted felon.  I can do the same thing at a Gun Show as long as my fake ID looks real.  Or I can go to any legal Gun Shop and give the real info and purchase that as well.
Click to expand...


Tell you what why don't you go and illegally buy a dozen guns record the whole thing and show us how easy it is.

And I don't know how many times I have to tell you this before it sinks into your tiny goldfish brain but

I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR CRIMES OTHER PEOPLE COMMIT


----------



## Flash

Skull Pilot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> and 86% of them are reported stolen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*WHY THE FUCK ISN'T IT 100%?*_
> 
> So much for the narrative of "responsible gun owners"...they report a gun is stolen less than 9 out of 10 times.  That's fucking pathetic.  You can sure as shit bet 100% of car thefts are reported.
> 
> Now, _*why*_ would a "responsible gun owner" _*not*_ report their gun as stolen!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!  What could be the only reason?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> This problem does not affect all states equally. The rate and volume of guns stolen from both gun stores and private collections vary widely from state to state. From 2012 through 2015, the average rate of the five states with the highest rates of gun theft from private owners—Tennessee, Arkansas, South Carolina, Oklahoma, and Alabama—was 13 times higher than the average rate of the five states with the lowest rates—Hawaii, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, and Massachusetts.6 Similarly, from 2012 through 2016, the average rate of the five states with the highest rates of guns stolen from gun stores was 18 times higher than the average rate the five states with the lowest rates.7
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes!  So thanks for proving my point...states with shitty gun laws see _*more*_ gun thefts than states with good gun laws.  So again, it's the "_*responsible gun owners*_" who are to blame.  This is exactly what I am talking about when I say that guns are trafficked to cities and blue states via "iron pipelines".  A practice that could be *all but eliminated* by requiring all gun transactions and transfers require a background check.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> gun thefts are not equally distributed among the states and gee high crime areas have more gun thefts.  Imagine that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The states you listed in your cut and paste that had *the highest rates of gun theft are all pro-gun, red states*.  So the guns get stolen from "responsible gun owners" in those states and then trafficked into the other states with stricter gun laws.  That's exactly what the "iron pipeline" is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Millions of people own guns and never have one stolen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As of _*now*_.  But they can't pretend it will never happen because it happens 234,000 times a year, on average.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you really like to ask stupid questions.
> 
> How the fuck do I know why someone wouldn't report a gun or anything else stolen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How to go AR Shopping.
> 
> 1.  Steal a Ford F-350 and a full sized Van
> 2.  Wait until very early morning
> 3.  Crash it into the front of the store
> 4.  Back the Ford outside
> 5.  Begin transfer all the ARs into the Van
> 6.  Transfer the 223 and 556 ammo to the Van
> 7.  Drive the Van to your own Van and transfer the Weapons and Ammo to it
> 8.  Drive the Ford F-350 and the stolen van to an out of the way location
> 9.  pour gas all over and inside both the stolen Van and the F-350 and light it.
> 10.  Drive your van to a Public Storage facility and unload all the weapons.
> 
> Done.
> 
> The Mass Shooters don't do this.   But if you go into the various "Militias" you may find those weapons.  You can't use this to justify that only Criminals obtain Guns illegally.  One can mail order an AR and all kinds of little toys to go with it online and lie out my ass and obtain a gun.  You know, the part where it says, "Are you a Convicted Felon" if I were a convicted felon.  I can do the same thing at a Gun Show as long as my fake ID looks real.  Or I can go to any legal Gun Shop and give the real info and purchase that as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell you what why don't you go and illegally buy a dozen guns record the whole thing and show us how easy it is.
> 
> And I don't know how many times I have to tell you this before it sinks into your tiny goldfish brain but
> 
> I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR CRIMES OTHER PEOPLE COMMIT
Click to expand...



These Moon Bats don't believe in personal responsibility.  They want you to be held responsible for the crimes of other people by denying you your Constitutional rights.

The really shitty thing is that most of the gun crimes that takes place in this country happen in the Democrat controlled inner city shitholes that are the voting base for the Democrat Party. Just look at any election result map and the blue areas are the ones with the high crimes.

The Democrat core base is where most of the gun violence takes place.  They need to get their own house in order before demanding that your right to keep and bear arms be abolished.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Flash said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> and 86% of them are reported stolen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*WHY THE FUCK ISN'T IT 100%?*_
> 
> So much for the narrative of "responsible gun owners"...they report a gun is stolen less than 9 out of 10 times.  That's fucking pathetic.  You can sure as shit bet 100% of car thefts are reported.
> 
> Now, _*why*_ would a "responsible gun owner" _*not*_ report their gun as stolen!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!  What could be the only reason?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> This problem does not affect all states equally. The rate and volume of guns stolen from both gun stores and private collections vary widely from state to state. From 2012 through 2015, the average rate of the five states with the highest rates of gun theft from private owners—Tennessee, Arkansas, South Carolina, Oklahoma, and Alabama—was 13 times higher than the average rate of the five states with the lowest rates—Hawaii, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, and Massachusetts.6 Similarly, from 2012 through 2016, the average rate of the five states with the highest rates of guns stolen from gun stores was 18 times higher than the average rate the five states with the lowest rates.7
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes!  So thanks for proving my point...states with shitty gun laws see _*more*_ gun thefts than states with good gun laws.  So again, it's the "_*responsible gun owners*_" who are to blame.  This is exactly what I am talking about when I say that guns are trafficked to cities and blue states via "iron pipelines".  A practice that could be *all but eliminated* by requiring all gun transactions and transfers require a background check.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> gun thefts are not equally distributed among the states and gee high crime areas have more gun thefts.  Imagine that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The states you listed in your cut and paste that had *the highest rates of gun theft are all pro-gun, red states*.  So the guns get stolen from "responsible gun owners" in those states and then trafficked into the other states with stricter gun laws.  That's exactly what the "iron pipeline" is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Millions of people own guns and never have one stolen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As of _*now*_.  But they can't pretend it will never happen because it happens 234,000 times a year, on average.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you really like to ask stupid questions.
> 
> How the fuck do I know why someone wouldn't report a gun or anything else stolen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How to go AR Shopping.
> 
> 1.  Steal a Ford F-350 and a full sized Van
> 2.  Wait until very early morning
> 3.  Crash it into the front of the store
> 4.  Back the Ford outside
> 5.  Begin transfer all the ARs into the Van
> 6.  Transfer the 223 and 556 ammo to the Van
> 7.  Drive the Van to your own Van and transfer the Weapons and Ammo to it
> 8.  Drive the Ford F-350 and the stolen van to an out of the way location
> 9.  pour gas all over and inside both the stolen Van and the F-350 and light it.
> 10.  Drive your van to a Public Storage facility and unload all the weapons.
> 
> Done.
> 
> The Mass Shooters don't do this.   But if you go into the various "Militias" you may find those weapons.  You can't use this to justify that only Criminals obtain Guns illegally.  One can mail order an AR and all kinds of little toys to go with it online and lie out my ass and obtain a gun.  You know, the part where it says, "Are you a Convicted Felon" if I were a convicted felon.  I can do the same thing at a Gun Show as long as my fake ID looks real.  Or I can go to any legal Gun Shop and give the real info and purchase that as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell you what why don't you go and illegally buy a dozen guns record the whole thing and show us how easy it is.
> 
> And I don't know how many times I have to tell you this before it sinks into your tiny goldfish brain but
> 
> I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR CRIMES OTHER PEOPLE COMMIT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> These Moon Bats don't believe in personal responsibility.  They want you to be held responsible for the crimes of other people by denying you your Constitutional rights.
> 
> The really shitty thing is that most of the gun crimes that takes place in this country happen in the Democrat controlled inner city shitholes that are the voting base for the Democrat Party. Just look at any election result map and the blue areas are the ones with the high crimes.
> 
> The Democrat core base is where most of the gun violence takes place.  They need to get their own house in order before demanding that your right to keep and bear arms be abolished.
Click to expand...


The entire argument of these idiots is that someone else committed a crime therefore you cannot be allowed to own the same weapon used to commit that crime.

Which flies directly in the face of the individual rights this nation was founded upon.

The hypocrisy is obvious as these moronic knee jerk reactionaries will not apply the standards they want for gun crimes to all crimes.


----------



## Flash

Skull Pilot said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*WHY THE FUCK ISN'T IT 100%?*_
> 
> So much for the narrative of "responsible gun owners"...they report a gun is stolen less than 9 out of 10 times.  That's fucking pathetic.  You can sure as shit bet 100% of car thefts are reported.
> 
> Now, _*why*_ would a "responsible gun owner" _*not*_ report their gun as stolen!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!  What could be the only reason?
> 
> 
> Yes!  So thanks for proving my point...states with shitty gun laws see _*more*_ gun thefts than states with good gun laws.  So again, it's the "_*responsible gun owners*_" who are to blame.  This is exactly what I am talking about when I say that guns are trafficked to cities and blue states via "iron pipelines".  A practice that could be *all but eliminated* by requiring all gun transactions and transfers require a background check.
> 
> 
> 
> The states you listed in your cut and paste that had *the highest rates of gun theft are all pro-gun, red states*.  So the guns get stolen from "responsible gun owners" in those states and then trafficked into the other states with stricter gun laws.  That's exactly what the "iron pipeline" is.
> 
> 
> As of _*now*_.  But they can't pretend it will never happen because it happens 234,000 times a year, on average.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you really like to ask stupid questions.
> 
> How the fuck do I know why someone wouldn't report a gun or anything else stolen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How to go AR Shopping.
> 
> 1.  Steal a Ford F-350 and a full sized Van
> 2.  Wait until very early morning
> 3.  Crash it into the front of the store
> 4.  Back the Ford outside
> 5.  Begin transfer all the ARs into the Van
> 6.  Transfer the 223 and 556 ammo to the Van
> 7.  Drive the Van to your own Van and transfer the Weapons and Ammo to it
> 8.  Drive the Ford F-350 and the stolen van to an out of the way location
> 9.  pour gas all over and inside both the stolen Van and the F-350 and light it.
> 10.  Drive your van to a Public Storage facility and unload all the weapons.
> 
> Done.
> 
> The Mass Shooters don't do this.   But if you go into the various "Militias" you may find those weapons.  You can't use this to justify that only Criminals obtain Guns illegally.  One can mail order an AR and all kinds of little toys to go with it online and lie out my ass and obtain a gun.  You know, the part where it says, "Are you a Convicted Felon" if I were a convicted felon.  I can do the same thing at a Gun Show as long as my fake ID looks real.  Or I can go to any legal Gun Shop and give the real info and purchase that as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell you what why don't you go and illegally buy a dozen guns record the whole thing and show us how easy it is.
> 
> And I don't know how many times I have to tell you this before it sinks into your tiny goldfish brain but
> 
> I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR CRIMES OTHER PEOPLE COMMIT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> These Moon Bats don't believe in personal responsibility.  They want you to be held responsible for the crimes of other people by denying you your Constitutional rights.
> 
> The really shitty thing is that most of the gun crimes that takes place in this country happen in the Democrat controlled inner city shitholes that are the voting base for the Democrat Party. Just look at any election result map and the blue areas are the ones with the high crimes.
> 
> The Democrat core base is where most of the gun violence takes place.  They need to get their own house in order before demanding that your right to keep and bear arms be abolished.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The entire argument of these idiots is that someone else committed a crime therefore you cannot be allowed to own the same weapon used to commit that crime.
> 
> Which flies directly in the face of the individual rights this nation was founded upon.
> 
> The hypocrisy is obvious as these moronic knee jerk reactionaries will not apply the standards they want for gun crimes to all crimes.
Click to expand...



They are even more hypocritical than even the excellent point that you made.

They only want to have gun control for White males living in traditionally red voting areas.  They don't give a shit about all the gun crime that take place in the Black ghetto areas of the big city shitholes that traditionally votes blue.

You never see the Moon Bats demand decisive actions for Chicago that has a dozen or more shootings every weekend.  Instead they want to take the AR-15 away from the White guy living in Lake Wales Florida that has never used the gun for a crime and never will.


----------



## The Derp

Cecilie1200 said:


> For instance, I'd love to slap every leftist I meet until his eyes switch sockets, but for some reason, this is illegal.



Posturing doesn't make anyone think you're threatening or strong.  It makes people think you're a phony.  Which you probably are.


----------



## The Derp

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> close the loopholes in the Gun Fairs
> 
> 
> 
> Here are the *facts*. The stone-cold, hard facts.
> 
> 
> 
> “Calling private, noncommercial sales a “gun show loophole” *is only meant to rile people up who have never been to a gun show*. Controllists hope people hear about a loophole and picture criminals fresh out of prison loading up their trunks with AR-15s.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And clearly it works. Uninformed, emotional progressives are all over the U.S. screaming “the gun loopholes are coming! the gun loopholes are coming!
> 
> Excerpt From Control
> Glenn Beck. This material may be protected by copyright.
Click to expand...


The only reason anyone would do a gun transfer as a "private sale" was if they wanted to avoid a background check.  Now why would someone want to avoid a background check?


----------



## The Derp

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are at least 3 Republican Billionaire Donors that refuse to allocate another thin dime to any Politician or Organization that support the total unsupressed sale of the AR to the community.  Guess what, they will have zero affect.  The Corporations that are the main supporters of the NRA are much much larger and richer than even billionaires.
> 
> 
> 
> The NRA is not founded, supported, or comprised of “corporations”. It is comprised of the American people. And *We the People* have spoken (loud & clear).
Click to expand...


No, you are wrong.  The political arm of the NRA is most definitely funded by corporations, and it's the political arm of the NRA that does the advocating on behalf of gun manufacturers, not gun owners.  Most NRA gun owners support Universal Background Checks.


----------



## The Derp

Rustic said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> close the loopholes in the Gun Fairs
> 
> 
> 
> Here are the *facts*. The stone-cold, hard facts.
> 
> 
> 
> “Calling private, noncommercial sales a “gun show loophole” *is only meant to rile people up who have never been to a gun show*. Controllists hope people hear about a loophole and picture criminals fresh out of prison loading up their trunks with AR-15s.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And clearly it works. Uninformed, emotional progressives are all over the U.S. screaming “the gun loopholes are coming! the gun loopholes are coming!
> 
> Excerpt From Control
> Glenn Beck. This material may be protected by copyright.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Using cites from Glen Beck?  Give me a friggin break.  And I never proposed outlawing or confiscating any weapons as long as they are legal.  I do propose taking the one weapon used in all the high body count mass shootings and moving it into a level where the people are the LEAST Likely to become Mass Murderers.  People like me.  But since you are fighting it with all your being, I don't include you in the least likely category.  But what should we expect from a paid NRA Employee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Firearms have no control over people just admit it, you want to get rid of the Second Amendment
Click to expand...


And neither do nukes.  So Kim Jong Un should get all the nukes he wants.  After all, nukes don't kill people, people kill people.


----------



## Skull Pilot

The Derp said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> close the loopholes in the Gun Fairs
> 
> 
> 
> Here are the *facts*. The stone-cold, hard facts.
> 
> 
> 
> “Calling private, noncommercial sales a “gun show loophole” *is only meant to rile people up who have never been to a gun show*. Controllists hope people hear about a loophole and picture criminals fresh out of prison loading up their trunks with AR-15s.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And clearly it works. Uninformed, emotional progressives are all over the U.S. screaming “the gun loopholes are coming! the gun loopholes are coming!
> 
> Excerpt From Control
> Glenn Beck. This material may be protected by copyright.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only reason anyone would do a gun transfer as a "private sale" was if they wanted to avoid a background check.  Now why would someone want to avoid a background check?
Click to expand...


Or maybe just maybe it's a father giving a rifle to a kid and the father knows his child isn't a felon

But THAT never happens right?


----------



## The Derp

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's  a Super-Pac.  It takes donations from anyone and all and then redispenses it to various candidates to the tune of hundreds of millions each year.  The NRA is no longer listed as a Non Profit.  It's listed as a Political Organization.
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless...it still isn’t founded, backed, or comprised of corporations. Hell, show me a corporation that doesn’t outlaw firearms in their buildings or on their campuses.
Click to expand...


Yes, it clearly is.  Without the political arm of the NRA that is funded by corporations, the NRA would be just a regular old gun club of racists.


----------



## Flash

The Derp said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> close the loopholes in the Gun Fairs
> 
> 
> 
> Here are the *facts*. The stone-cold, hard facts.
> 
> 
> 
> “Calling private, noncommercial sales a “gun show loophole” *is only meant to rile people up who have never been to a gun show*. Controllists hope people hear about a loophole and picture criminals fresh out of prison loading up their trunks with AR-15s.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And clearly it works. Uninformed, emotional progressives are all over the U.S. screaming “the gun loopholes are coming! the gun loopholes are coming!
> 
> Excerpt From Control
> Glenn Beck. This material may be protected by copyright.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only reason anyone would do a gun transfer as a "private sale" was if they wanted to avoid a background check.  Now why would someone want to avoid a background check?
Click to expand...



That is not true.  You are confused about this.

I sold an AR-15 as a private sale a couple of weeks ago.

I sold it to one of my shooting buddies.  It was a precision AR that I had built for long distance and the guy liked it and wanted to buy it.  The guy is a responsible gun owner and has a concealed weapons permit.

I gave him the gun and he gave me the money.  Legal private transfer.

There was no legal requirement to have  a background check so we didn't do it.  There was no intention of circumventing the background check so your assumption is just plain wrong.

Most private transfers are simply one person selling a gun to another with no intentions of the gun to ever be used in a crime.

Of course there are no records on it but being involved in the gun community and being somewhat knowledgeable I would think that the great majority of private transfers is simply one person selling a gun to a friend or somebody they know.

Most people that I do know that occasionally sell guns to people that they don't know ask to see their concealed weapons permit, that is defacto proof that they could pass a background check.  When I have occasionally sold guns at a gun show as a private transfer I have always asked to see the CWP. 

It is not the problem that Libtards make it out to be,


----------



## The Derp

Ghost of a Rider said:


> If no gun owner is responsible, why bother citing examples of irresponsible behavior?



What kind of stupid question is this?  I am citing instances of irresponsible behavior _*because*_ gun owners are not responsible people, despite pretending they are.




Ghost of a Rider said:


> On the one hand you say that one who illegally obtains a firearm and fails to report it stolen is not a responsible gun owner and on the other hand you say all gun owners are irresponsible. Meaning that even those who purchase their guns legally and report them stolen are also irresponsible. So what is the point?



Of course they're irresponsible...as many as 600,000 guns a year are stolen from "responsible gun owners".  There is no such thing as a responsible gun owner if that's what "responsible gun ownership" looks like.  And on top of that, only 86% of stolen guns are reported to the police!  _*ONLY*_ 86%.  Why isn't it 100%?  Why aren't 0 guns stolen a year?  Simple; gun owners are not responsible people.




Ghost of a Rider said:


> Your error was in misconstruing his original remark about responsible gun owners to mean that all gun owners are responsible. Obviously that's not the case. Some are responsible, some are not. That is a fact, and your personal feelings and opinions about gun owners is irrelevant.



None are responsible.  That's the point.  "Responsible gun owner" is a fallacy exactly like "No true Scotsman".  Everyone is a "responsible gun owner" until they're not.  That's the "No true Scotsman" fallacy.




Ghost of a Rider said:


> "Responsible gun owners" who don't report stolen guns do so _*because they want the gun to end up in the hands of a criminal or terrorist.*_
> Don't be an idiot.



Then explain why 14% of "responsible gun owners" don't even notify the police when one of their guns are stolen.  What could _*possibly be the reason*_ nearly 33,000 guns a year are stolen and never reported to the police?  Only three true reasons exist; 

1.  The "responsible gun owner" doesn't know how many guns they own, so they don't know when one goes missing.
2.  The "responsible gun owner" is simply too fat and lazy to notify the police.
3.  The "responsible gun owner" _*wants*_ the gun on the street where it can end up in the hands of a criminal and/or terrorist.

No other explanations make sense.


----------



## Cellblock2429

meson said:


> Yipper it's as obsolete as a muzzle loader imho.


/——/ Yuuuup. The 2nd Amendment roadblocks libs utopia of a socialist slavery state. It’s gotta go. You can’t control folks who can shoot you.


----------



## Skull Pilot

The Derp said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> If no gun owner is responsible, why bother citing examples of irresponsible behavior?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of stupid question is this?  I am citing instances of irresponsible behavior _*because*_ gun owners are not responsible people, despite pretending they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the one hand you say that one who illegally obtains a firearm and fails to report it stolen is not a responsible gun owner and on the other hand you say all gun owners are irresponsible. Meaning that even those who purchase their guns legally and report them stolen are also irresponsible. So what is the point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they're irresponsible...as many as 600,000 guns a year are stolen from "responsible gun owners".  There is no such thing as a responsible gun owner if that's what "responsible gun ownership" looks like.  And on top of that, only 86% of stolen guns are reported to the police!  _*ONLY*_ 86%.  Why isn't it 100%?  Why aren't 0 guns stolen a year?  Simple; gun owners are not responsible people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your error was in misconstruing his original remark about responsible gun owners to mean that all gun owners are responsible. Obviously that's not the case. Some are responsible, some are not. That is a fact, and your personal feelings and opinions about gun owners is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None are responsible.  That's the point.  "Responsible gun owner" is a fallacy exactly like "No true Scotsman".  Everyone is a "responsible gun owner" until they're not.  That's the "No true Scotsman" fallacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Responsible gun owners" who don't report stolen guns do so _*because they want the gun to end up in the hands of a criminal or terrorist.*_
> Don't be an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then explain why 14% of "responsible gun owners" don't even notify the police when one of their guns are stolen.  What could _*possibly be the reason*_ nearly 33,000 guns a year are stolen and never reported to the police?  Only three true reasons exist;
> 
> 1.  The "responsible gun owner" doesn't know how many guns they own, so they don't know when one goes missing.
> 2.  The "responsible gun owner" is simply too fat and lazy to notify the police.
> 3.  The "responsible gun owner" _*wants*_ the gun on the street where it can end up in the hands of a criminal and/or terrorist.
> 
> No other explanations make sense.
Click to expand...

Correction

SOME gun owners are not responsible but then again you have proven that you believe the world is one big false dichotomy


----------



## The Derp

Flash said:


> Is that like I have to pay your bills because you are too irresponsible to pay your own and sign up for welfare and then the government takes my money and gives it to you?



No, it's like you're too irresponsible to be able to manage your weapons, and it's only a matter of _*when*_, not _*if*_, your gun is stolen and then used in a crime.  That's assuming you even know how many guns you have and where they are.  As many as 600,000 "responsible gun owners" can't even do that.  And as many as 84,000 "responsible gun owners" don't even notify the police when one of their guns is stolen.  So y'all can't even get an 'A' for responsibility.  And anything below an A is a failure. 

Why aren't 100% of gun thefts reported to the police, and gun thefts down to *0*?  Simple; gun owners are simply not responsible people.  Like, _*at all*_.




Flash said:


> My AR-15s  have never killed anybody but yet the stupid anti Constitutional Moon Bats want to ban my AR-15s.



Hasn't killed anybody..._*yet*_.  Hasn't been stolen..._*yet*_.  Since y'all aren't responsible people, it's only a matter of time before your gun is stolen.  In fact, it's far more likely your gun will get stolen because you're irresponsible, than it is likely your gun will ever be used to defend you or your family.  Most gun owners seem like ticking time bombs, ready to either explode in a hail of bullets, or become so neglectful they have their guns stolen, then don't tell the police; that's "responsible gun ownership" in America.




Flash said:


> The assholes want to punish me and take away my Constitutional rights because somebody else does something illegal.  That is oppressive, isn't it?Why should I be considered guilty by the government when it is other people that commit crimes.



Because you're not a responsible person.  No gun owners are.  There is no such thing as a "responsible gun owner".  There are only degrees of negligence.


----------



## Skull Pilot

The Derp said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that like I have to pay your bills because you are too irresponsible to pay your own and sign up for welfare and then the government takes my money and gives it to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's like you're too irresponsible to be able to manage your weapons, and it's only a matter of _*when*_, not _*if*_, your gun is stolen and then used in a crime.  That's assuming you even know how many guns you have and where they are.  As many as 600,000 "responsible gun owners" can't even do that.  And as many as 84,000 "responsible gun owners" don't even notify the police when one of their guns is stolen.  So y'all can't even get an 'A' for responsibility.  And anything below an A is a failure.
> 
> Why aren't 100% of gun thefts reported to the police, and gun thefts down to *0*?  Simple; gun owners are simply not responsible people.  Like, _*at all*_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> My AR-15s  have never killed anybody but yet the stupid anti Constitutional Moon Bats want to ban my AR-15s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hasn't killed anybody..._*yet*_.  Hasn't been stolen..._*yet*_.  Since y'all aren't responsible people, it's only a matter of time before your gun is stolen.  In fact, it's far more likely your gun will get stolen because you're irresponsible, than it is likely your gun will ever be used to defend you or your family.  Most gun owners seem like ticking time bombs, ready to either explode in a hail of bullets, or become so neglectful they have their guns stolen, then don't tell the police; that's "responsible gun ownership" in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The assholes want to punish me and take away my Constitutional rights because somebody else does something illegal.  That is oppressive, isn't it?Why should I be considered guilty by the government when it is other people that commit crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because you're not a responsible person.  No gun owners are.  There is no such thing as a "responsible gun owner".  There are only degrees of gun negligence.
Click to expand...


Yes yes we know ALL gun owners are irresponsible even though 86% of stolen guns are reported.


----------



## MordechaiGoodbud

ScienceRocks said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> fyi;  the Second Amendment allows you to have the other amendments.
> 
> For those totally ignorant of history
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep,
> 
> Without the second the government can just take all of our rights away.
Click to expand...

Bullshit. The 2nd amendment was written to give states the right to form militias to fight Indian attacks and foreign invaders. This was before the u.s. had a standing army.  It was not written to resist the government that people voted for.  The constitution expressly gives congress the power to crush insurrection, but you probably do not know that because you are a guntard.


----------



## Brain357

Another dead officer.  What happens regularly here is very rare when there is strong gun control.
https://nypost.com/2018/02/21/police-officer-shot-in-alabama-leading-to-standoff/

Law enforcement needs to demand gun control.


----------



## The Derp

Skull Pilot said:


> Or maybe just maybe it's a father giving a rifle to a kid and the father knows his child isn't a felon



*It's not the father's judgment to make that call.*  And didn't Adam Lanza's mother _*give*_ him weapons? 

The Columbine parents had no clue their kids were planning the massacre.  Parents don't know _*shit*_ about their kids lives, particularly teenagers.  Don't be so stupid and naive.




Skull Pilot said:


> But THAT never happens right?



How frequently does that happen?  Again, you don't know _*because no background checks are run*_.


----------



## Skull Pilot

The Derp said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or maybe just maybe it's a father giving a rifle to a kid and the father knows his child isn't a felon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It's not the father's judgment to make that call.*  And didn't Adam Lanza's mother _*give*_ him weapons?
> 
> The Columbine parents had no clue their kids were planning the massacre.  Parents don't know _*shit*_ about their kids lives, particularly teenagers.  Don't be so stupid and naive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> But THAT never happens right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How frequently does that happen?  Again, you don't know _*because no background checks are run*_.
Click to expand...


Gee I don't know but it's how every single boy in the country got his first gun isn't it?
In fact I was given 4 guns before I was 18 and not one background check was run because my uncle knew I was not a felon.

But we know in your 2 dimensional world that things like the situation above can never ever happen.

Tell me do you think you should get car insurance surcharges because some drivers speed?
Should you lose your license because some people drive drunk?

Be careful answering because inconsistency is hypocrisy


----------



## Skull Pilot

The Derp said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or maybe just maybe it's a father giving a rifle to a kid and the father knows his child isn't a felon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It's not the father's judgment to make that call.*  And didn't Adam Lanza's mother _*give*_ him weapons?
> 
> The Columbine parents had no clue their kids were planning the massacre.  Parents don't know _*shit*_ about their kids lives, particularly teenagers.  Don't be so stupid and naive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> But THAT never happens right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How frequently does that happen?  Again, you don't know _*because no background checks are run*_.
Click to expand...

Here we go again

Holding everyone responsible for the acts of one person.

Lanza also shot an killed his mother.

And the columbine kids didn't get their weapons from their parents


----------



## Rustic

The Derp said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that like I have to pay your bills because you are too irresponsible to pay your own and sign up for welfare and then the government takes my money and gives it to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's like you're too irresponsible to be able to manage your weapons, and it's only a matter of _*when*_, not _*if*_, your gun is stolen and then used in a crime.  That's assuming you even know how many guns you have and where they are.  As many as 600,000 "responsible gun owners" can't even do that.  And as many as 84,000 "responsible gun owners" don't even notify the police when one of their guns is stolen.  So y'all can't even get an 'A' for responsibility.  And anything below an A is a failure.
> 
> Why aren't 100% of gun thefts reported to the police, and gun thefts down to *0*?  Simple; gun owners are simply not responsible people.  Like, _*at all*_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> My AR-15s  have never killed anybody but yet the stupid anti Constitutional Moon Bats want to ban my AR-15s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hasn't killed anybody..._*yet*_.  Hasn't been stolen..._*yet*_.  Since y'all aren't responsible people, it's only a matter of time before your gun is stolen.  In fact, it's far more likely your gun will get stolen because you're irresponsible, than it is likely your gun will ever be used to defend you or your family.  Most gun owners seem like ticking time bombs, ready to either explode in a hail of bullets, or become so neglectful they have their guns stolen, then don't tell the police; that's "responsible gun ownership" in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The assholes want to punish me and take away my Constitutional rights because somebody else does something illegal.  That is oppressive, isn't it?Why should I be considered guilty by the government when it is other people that commit crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because you're not a responsible person.  No gun owners are.  There is no such thing as a "responsible gun owner".  There are only degrees of gun negligence.
Click to expand...


----------



## The Derp

Flash said:


> I sold it to one of my shooting buddies. The guy is a responsible gun owner and has a concealed weapons permit.,



1.  There is no such thing as a "responsible gun owner"...there are only degrees of gun negligence.

2.  You don't know _*shit*_ about your "shooting buddy", and obviously transferred the gun to him this way because you were too scared to run a background check on this random guy you claim to know.  Why?  Simple; _*because you knew he wouldn't pass it*_.

3.  You haven't made the case for why even private transfers should be subject to background checks.  *In fact, you've made a stronger case for them because you're saying you are relying purely on your judgement that the guy you sold your gun to without a background check was competent.*




Flash said:


> There was no legal requirement to have  a background check so we didn't do it.  There was no intention of circumventing the background check so your assumption is just plain wrong.



Of course the intention was to avoid a background check.  Otherwise, why not run one?  You're saying simply because the law says you didn't have to...but shouldn't "responsible gun owners" _*want*_ the background checks to prove they're responsible?  Seems like your own point is self-defeating.  You're relying purely and solely on _*your judgment*_.  *What the fuck makes you think your judgment is sound?*  It's obviously not sound if you're not running a background check like a "responsible gun owner" would.




Flash said:


> Most private transfers are simply one person selling a gun to another with no intentions of the gun to ever be used in a crime.



LOL!  That's hilarious.  How can you divine that isn't the intention?  Are you clairvoyant or something?  How do you know that person you just sold the gun to isn't going to turn around and sell the gun to a straw purchaser for cash, who will then traffic the gun to a city where it is inevitably used in a crime?  You don't know that.  Because all you are relying on is your piss-poor judgment.  You make a judgment without knowing all the facts that a background check would provide.  Hence, *you're not acting responsibly.*




Flash said:


> Of course there are no records on it but being involved in the gun community and being somewhat knowledgeable I would think that the great majority of private transfers is simply one person selling a gun to a friend or somebody they know.



You _*would think?*_  So when it boils down to it, you're just saying it's ultimately your judgment that is leading you to these conclusions.  *Why the fuck do you think your judgment is sound, when you don't even have the judgment to run a background check on anyone with whom you're doing a transfer or sale?*

That's not good judgment.  That's piss-poor judgment, laziness, and irresponsibility.




Flash said:


> Most people that I do know that occasionally sell guns to people that they don't know ask to see their concealed weapons permit, that is defacto proof that they could pass a background check.  When I have occasionally sold guns at a gun show as a private transfer I have always asked to see the CWP.It is not the problem that Libtards make it out to be,



"defacto proof" "I would think"...these are broad assumptions, uninformed, made by someone relying on their own piss-poor judgment when it comes to running a background check and it's exactly why all transfers and transactions should be subject to a background check; _*your judgment isn't proof of responsibility*_.


----------



## The Derp

Skull Pilot said:


> SOME gun owners are not responsible but then again you have proven that you believe the world is one big false dichotomy



"No true Scotsman" fallacy.

There is no such thing as "responsible gun ownership"; there are only degrees of gun ownership negligence.


----------



## The Derp

Skull Pilot said:


> Yes yes we know ALL gun owners are irresponsible even though 86% of stolen guns are reported.



Which means 14% _*aren't!  *_86% isn't even an "A".  

*Why isn't the reporting rate 100%? * 

Simple; negligence.

So until the number of guns stolen reaches *0*, there exists no reality of "responsible guin ownership".


----------



## The Derp

MordechaiGoodbud said:


> The constitution expressly gives congress the power to crush insurrection, but you probably do not know that because you are a guntard.



*^^^^^THIS^^^^^*


----------



## Brain357

We are already well over how many countries with strong gun control lose in a whole year.

It's February. Already 13 officers shot to deat


----------



## The Derp

Skull Pilot said:


> Gee I don't know but it's how every single boy in the country got his first gun isn't it?



Is it?  You can't say this for sure because you don't know.  You're just making a broad, general assumption based on some Mayberry bullshit that you never experienced, but pretend you did for the sake of your shitty argument on an anonymous message board.  Parents give guns to their kids, who then take those guns and shoot up schools.  

Like I said, there is no such thing as "responsible gun ownership", just degrees of negligence.




Skull Pilot said:


> In fact I was given 4 guns before I was 18 and not one background check was run because my uncle knew I was not a felon.



I don't even see why you would say this since "responsible gun ownership" would entail being responsible enough to run a background check, whether you think it will turn up something or not.  *Running a background check is an act of *_*responsibility*_ that you're saying "responsible gun owners" don't need to do.  So they're not _*responsible*_ gun owners if they aren't acting _*responsibly*_ by running a background check.

That's why your argument is self-defeating.  You claim these people are responsible, yet they don't act responsibly.  




Skull Pilot said:


> But we know in your 2 dimensional world that things like the situation above can never ever happen.Tell me do you think you should get car insurance surcharges because some drivers speed?Should you lose your license because some people drive drunk?



I don't know what the fuck you're talking about because running a background check on someone else _*has no fucking effect on you*_.  You running a background check doesn't mean you will lose your guns if the person you ran the check on failed it.  And if you want to treat guns like cars, I'm all for it.  Cars have to be registered with the state, they have to be inspected yearly, you have to have a license to operate one, you have to take it in for performance tests, you have to renew your license and take a test, and you have to have your car _*insured*_.

Is the answer to drunk driving to flood the road with drunk drivers?  That's your "more guns are the answer" solution, "responsible gun owner".  And BTW - since 1980, drunk driving deaths have been cut in half.  Why?  Laws, rules, regulations, and a public campaign discouraging it.  So thanks for helping me make the case that laws, rules, regulations, and public campaigns work.


----------



## The Derp

Skull Pilot said:


> Holding everyone responsible for the acts of one person.



I thought "responsible gun ownership" was all about acting responsibly.  Time and time again we see examples of that not being the case.  No responsibility, only negligence.  You're the one representing "responsible gun ownership" on these boards, yet prove time and time again that you're _*not responsible for anything*_.

All you are is negligent.




Skull Pilot said:


> Lanza also shot an killed his mother.
> And the columbine kids didn't get their weapons from their parents



What does Lanza shooting his mother have to do with "responsible gun ownership" of Lanza's mother giving him guns?  Nothing.  All it proves is that the judgment of parents _*is shit*_.  So your example of giving your gun to your kid shows that even that simple act carries a ton of negligence with it.  Negligence for which you "responsible gun owners" need to be held to account.


----------



## The Derp

Rustic said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that like I have to pay your bills because you are too irresponsible to pay your own and sign up for welfare and then the government takes my money and gives it to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's like you're too irresponsible to be able to manage your weapons, and it's only a matter of _*when*_, not _*if*_, your gun is stolen and then used in a crime.  That's assuming you even know how many guns you have and where they are.  As many as 600,000 "responsible gun owners" can't even do that.  And as many as 84,000 "responsible gun owners" don't even notify the police when one of their guns is stolen.  So y'all can't even get an 'A' for responsibility.  And anything below an A is a failure.
> 
> Why aren't 100% of gun thefts reported to the police, and gun thefts down to *0*?  Simple; gun owners are simply not responsible people.  Like, _*at all*_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> My AR-15s  have never killed anybody but yet the stupid anti Constitutional Moon Bats want to ban my AR-15s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hasn't killed anybody..._*yet*_.  Hasn't been stolen..._*yet*_.  Since y'all aren't responsible people, it's only a matter of time before your gun is stolen.  In fact, it's far more likely your gun will get stolen because you're irresponsible, than it is likely your gun will ever be used to defend you or your family.  Most gun owners seem like ticking time bombs, ready to either explode in a hail of bullets, or become so neglectful they have their guns stolen, then don't tell the police; that's "responsible gun ownership" in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The assholes want to punish me and take away my Constitutional rights because somebody else does something illegal.  That is oppressive, isn't it?Why should I be considered guilty by the government when it is other people that commit crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because you're not a responsible person.  No gun owners are.  There is no such thing as a "responsible gun owner".  There are only degrees of gun negligence.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Thanks for proving my point about gun owners being negligent and irresponsible.


----------



## impuretrash

The Derp said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that like I have to pay your bills because you are too irresponsible to pay your own and sign up for welfare and then the government takes my money and gives it to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's like you're too irresponsible to be able to manage your weapons, and it's only a matter of _*when*_, not _*if*_, your gun is stolen and then used in a crime.  That's assuming you even know how many guns you have and where they are.  As many as 600,000 "responsible gun owners" can't even do that.  And as many as 84,000 "responsible gun owners" don't even notify the police when one of their guns is stolen.  So y'all can't even get an 'A' for responsibility.  And anything below an A is a failure.
> 
> Why aren't 100% of gun thefts reported to the police, and gun thefts down to *0*?  Simple; gun owners are simply not responsible people.  Like, _*at all*_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> My AR-15s  have never killed anybody but yet the stupid anti Constitutional Moon Bats want to ban my AR-15s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hasn't killed anybody..._*yet*_.  Hasn't been stolen..._*yet*_.  Since y'all aren't responsible people, it's only a matter of time before your gun is stolen.  In fact, it's far more likely your gun will get stolen because you're irresponsible, than it is likely your gun will ever be used to defend you or your family.  Most gun owners seem like ticking time bombs, ready to either explode in a hail of bullets, or become so neglectful they have their guns stolen, then don't tell the police; that's "responsible gun ownership" in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The assholes want to punish me and take away my Constitutional rights because somebody else does something illegal.  That is oppressive, isn't it?Why should I be considered guilty by the government when it is other people that commit crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because you're not a responsible person.  No gun owners are.  There is no such thing as a "responsible gun owner".  There are only degrees of gun negligence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving my point about gun owners being negligent and irresponsible.
Click to expand...


Are you trying to say that gun owners shouldn't be allowed to post memes or express their opinions?


----------



## The Derp

impuretrash said:


> Are you trying to say that gun owners shouldn't be allowed to post memes or express their opinions?



I'm saying gun owners are negligent people who can't be trusted to act responsibly.


----------



## Skull Pilot

The Derp said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> SOME gun owners are not responsible but then again you have proven that you believe the world is one big false dichotomy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "No true Scotsman" fallacy.
> 
> There is no such thing as "responsible gun ownership"; there are only degrees of gun ownership negligence.
Click to expand...


So ZERO negligence does exist.


----------



## Skull Pilot

The Derp said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes yes we know ALL gun owners are irresponsible even though 86% of stolen guns are reported.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which means 14% _*aren't!  *_86% isn't even an "A".
> 
> *Why isn't the reporting rate 100%? *
> 
> Simple; negligence.
> 
> So until the number of guns stolen reaches *0*, there exists no reality of "responsible guin ownership".
Click to expand...


You want to call ALL gun owners negligent.

You're just proving yourself incapable of intelligent thought


----------



## impuretrash

The Derp said:


> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to say that gun owners shouldn't be allowed to post memes or express their opinions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying gun owners are negligent people who can't be trusted to act responsibly.
Click to expand...


And you reached this conclusion based on a gif of a cartoon cow.


----------



## The Derp

Skull Pilot said:


> So ZERO negligence does exist.



No.  Only degrees of negligence.  Negligence is inherent in owning a gun.


----------



## Skull Pilot

The Derp said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee I don't know but it's how every single boy in the country got his first gun isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it?  You can't say this for sure because you don't know.  You're just making a broad, general assumption based on some Mayberry bullshit that you never experienced, but pretend you did for the sake of your shitty argument on an anonymous message board.  Parents give guns to their kids, who then take those guns and shoot up schools.
> 
> Like I said, there is no such thing as "responsible gun ownership", just degrees of negligence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact I was given 4 guns before I was 18 and not one background check was run because my uncle knew I was not a felon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't even see why you would say this since "responsible gun ownership" would entail being responsible enough to run a background check, whether you think it will turn up something or not.  *Running a background check is an act of *_*responsibility*_ that you're saying "responsible gun owners" don't need to do.  So they're not _*responsible*_ gun owners if they aren't acting _*responsibly*_ by running a background check.
> 
> That's why your argument is self-defeating.  You claim these people are responsible, yet they don't act responsibly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> But we know in your 2 dimensional world that things like the situation above can never ever happen.Tell me do you think you should get car insurance surcharges because some drivers speed?Should you lose your license because some people drive drunk?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what the fuck you're talking about because running a background check on someone else _*has no fucking effect on you*_.  You running a background check doesn't mean you will lose your guns if the person you ran the check on failed it.  And if you want to treat guns like cars, I'm all for it.  Cars have to be registered with the state, they have to be inspected yearly, you have to have a license to operate one, you have to take it in for performance tests, you have to renew your license and take a test, and you have to have your car _*insured*_.
> 
> Is the answer to drunk driving to flood the road with drunk drivers?  That's your "more guns are the answer" solution, "responsible gun owner".  And BTW - since 1980, drunk driving deaths have been cut in half.  Why?  Laws, rules, regulations, and a public campaign discouraging it.  So thanks for helping me make the case that laws, rules, regulations, and public campaigns work.
Click to expand...

That's fucking rich you telling me I'm making broad general assumptions.

And as far as giving a gun to a family member who is 100% known not to be a felon the person giving that gun is acting 100% within the law because most laws state it is illegal to knowingly sell to anyone not legally eligible  so he is indeed being responsible.


----------



## Skull Pilot

The Derp said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> So ZERO negligence does exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Only degrees of negligence.  Negligence is inherent in owning a gun.
Click to expand...


And we're back to the all or nothing zero intelligence argument.

But just for fun tell me how I am negligent with my firearms


----------



## The Derp

Skull Pilot said:


> You want to call ALL gun owners negligent.



That's because they are.  There is no zero degree negligence when it comes to gun ownership.  Simply owning a gun is an act of negligence.  How you manage that gun determines what level of negligence you have.  For as many as 600,000 gun owners _*a year*_, they are extremely negligent.  And since there's no way to determine on the surface who is negligent and who isn't, we must work from the assumption that _*all of you are equally negligent*_, and your level of negligence is determined over the course of your gun ownership.




Skull Pilot said:


> YYou're just proving yourself incapable of intelligent thought



You're just a fucking pussy who is completely irresponsible and negligent.


----------



## The Derp

impuretrash said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to say that gun owners shouldn't be allowed to post memes or express their opinions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying gun owners are negligent people who can't be trusted to act responsibly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you reached this conclusion based on a gif of a cartoon cow.
Click to expand...



No, I reached that conclusion based on the posts defending acts of negligence and irresponsibility.  That impotent GIF was just the icing on the cake.


----------



## Rustic

The Derp said:


> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to say that gun owners shouldn't be allowed to post memes or express their opinions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying gun owners are negligent people who can't be trusted to act responsibly.
Click to expand...

Lol
Well, someone’s firearm ownership is none of your business. Live with it bedwetter


----------



## impuretrash

The Derp said:


> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to say that gun owners shouldn't be allowed to post memes or express their opinions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying gun owners are negligent people who can't be trusted to act responsibly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you reached this conclusion based on a gif of a cartoon cow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, I reached that conclusion based on the posts defending acts of negligence and irresponsibility.  That impotent GIF was just the icing on the cake.
Click to expand...


The premise for your argument seems awfully silly, not sure if serious or a troll.


----------



## The Derp

Skull Pilot said:


> That's fucking rich you telling me I'm making broad general assumptions.



We have to assume that every gun owner is negligent because as many as 600,000 of them are pilfered of their guns _*every year*_.  So it's only a matter of time before your gun is stolen.




Skull Pilot said:


> And as far as giving a gun to a family member who is 100% known not to be a felon the person giving that gun is acting 100% within the law because most laws state it is illegal to knowingly sell to anyone not legally eligible  so he is indeed being responsible.



It doesn't fucking matter what you feel to be true in your fat gut or what your garbage instincts tell you.

Running a background check is _*an act of responsibility*_.  By not running one, _*you are acting irresponsibly*_.


----------



## The Derp

Skull Pilot said:


> And we're back to the all or nothing zero intelligence argument.



But that's the thing, dude...because you are using the "No true Scotsman" fallacy as your argument that people are "responsible gun owners" until they're not, you've set the stage for all of you to be deemed negligent.  If everyone is something until the moment they aren't, then that "thing" they are is bullshit.  All gun owners are inherently negligent, and now we're finding out the degree to which they are individually.  We find that degree if they are; unwilling to do background checks on every transfer and transaction, can't keep track of the guns you already have, don't even report a gun as stolen to the cops.

It's a sliding scale of negligence, _*but it's always inherently negligent*_.  The only way it isn't would be if *0* guns were stolen a year.  Fuck dude, you can't even get 100% of gun owners to report their guns stolen.  That's negligence and irresponsibility.  So you can't argue that you're responsible since you haven't acted responsibly.




Skull Pilot said:


> But just for fun tell me how I am negligent with my firearms



Well, for starters, you said you don't do universal background checks.  So that's negligence right off the bat.


----------



## The Derp

Rustic said:


> Well, someone’s firearm ownership is none of your business. Live with it bedwetter



But it is my business because you negligent people can't seem to keep track of your guns.  And when one goes missing, you don't even notify the police.  So then it becomes my business because your negligence leads to guns being put on the street where they pose a threat to society.

All because you can't be expected to act responsibly.


----------



## The Derp

impuretrash said:


> The premise for your argument seems awfully silly, not sure if serious or a troll.



You know, if these kinds of impotent responses are all you're capable of doing, I would recommend just not responding at all.

Nothing about what I am saying is silly.  The facts are that you gun owners aren't responsible people; you can't keep track of your guns; you don't notify the cops when one of your guns is stolen; you don't run background checks.  

These are not the actions of responsible people; these are the actions of *negligent people.*


----------



## impuretrash

The Derp said:


> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The premise for your argument seems awfully silly, not sure if serious or a troll.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, if these kinds of impotent responses are all you're capable of doing, I would recommend just not responding at all.
> 
> Nothing about what I am saying is silly.  The facts are that you gun owners aren't responsible people; you can't keep track of your guns; you don't notify the cops when one of your guns is stolen; you don't run background checks.
> 
> These are not the actions of responsible people; these are the actions of *negligent people.*
Click to expand...



Sorry, I was only being honest. If I took your argument at face value I would have typed something more elaborate but I didn't want to waste my time and be another one of your patsies. I'm convinced now that you are being serious.

What you're doing is very similar to people who blame all muslims for terrorist attacks... I haven't read the entire thread but I'd be surprised if someone hasn't already pointed this out to you. Also where'd you get this idea that gun owners don't report their weapons being stolen?


----------



## Skull Pilot

The Derp said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want to call ALL gun owners negligent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because they are.  There is no zero degree negligence when it comes to gun ownership.  Simply owning a gun is an act of negligence.  How you manage that gun determines what level of negligence you have.  For as many as 600,000 gun owners _*a year*_, they are extremely negligent.  And since there's no way to determine on the surface who is negligent and who isn't, we must work from the assumption that _*all of you are equally negligent*_, and your level of negligence is determined over the course of your gun ownership.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> YYou're just proving yourself incapable of intelligent thought
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're just a fucking pussy who is completely irresponsible and negligent.
Click to expand...

Pray tell oh 2 dimensional sage how legally owning a firearm is an act of negligence


----------



## Skull Pilot

The Derp said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we're back to the all or nothing zero intelligence argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that's the thing, dude...because you are using the "No true Scotsman" fallacy as your argument that people are "responsible gun owners" until they're not, you've set the stage for all of you to be deemed negligent.  If everyone is something until the moment they aren't, then that "thing" they are is bullshit.  All gun owners are inherently negligent, and now we're finding out the degree to which they are individually.  We find that degree if they are; unwilling to do background checks on every transfer and transaction, can't keep track of the guns you already have, don't even report a gun as stolen to the cops.
> 
> It's a sliding scale of negligence, _*but it's always inherently negligent*_.  The only way it isn't would be if *0* guns were stolen a year.  Fuck dude, you can't even get 100% of gun owners to report their guns stolen.  That's negligence and irresponsibility.  So you can't argue that you're responsible since you haven't acted responsibly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> But just for fun tell me how I am negligent with my firearms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, for starters, you said you don't do universal background checks.  So that's negligence right off the bat.
Click to expand...

I have never sold or given a firearm to anyone so why would have I ever have performed a background check on anyone?

I have passed countless background checks though


----------



## Skull Pilot

The Derp said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we're back to the all or nothing zero intelligence argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that's the thing, dude...because you are using the "No true Scotsman" fallacy as your argument that people are "responsible gun owners" until they're not, you've set the stage for all of you to be deemed negligent.  If everyone is something until the moment they aren't, then that "thing" they are is bullshit.  All gun owners are inherently negligent, and now we're finding out the degree to which they are individually.  We find that degree if they are; unwilling to do background checks on every transfer and transaction, can't keep track of the guns you already have, don't even report a gun as stolen to the cops.
> 
> It's a sliding scale of negligence, _*but it's always inherently negligent*_.  The only way it isn't would be if *0* guns were stolen a year.  Fuck dude, you can't even get 100% of gun owners to report their guns stolen.  That's negligence and irresponsibility.  So you can't argue that you're responsible since you haven't acted responsibly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> But just for fun tell me how I am negligent with my firearms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, for starters, you said you don't do universal background checks.  So that's negligence right off the bat.
Click to expand...




The Derp said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's fucking rich you telling me I'm making broad general assumptions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have to assume that every gun owner is negligent because as many as 600,000 of them are pilfered of their guns _*every year*_.  So it's only a matter of time before your gun is stolen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And as far as giving a gun to a family member who is 100% known not to be a felon the person giving that gun is acting 100% within the law because most laws state it is illegal to knowingly sell to anyone not legally eligible  so he is indeed being responsible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't fucking matter what you feel to be true in your fat gut or what your garbage instincts tell you.
> 
> Running a background check is _*an act of responsibility*_.  By not running one, _*you are acting irresponsibly*_.
Click to expand...


That's not what the law says


----------



## Skull Pilot

The Derp said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, someone’s firearm ownership is none of your business. Live with it bedwetter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it is my business because you negligent people can't seem to keep track of your guns.  And when one goes missing, you don't even notify the police.  So then it becomes my business because your negligence leads to guns being put on the street where they pose a threat to society.
> 
> All because you can't be expected to act responsibly.
Click to expand...


And it only takes one instance to prove you wrong.

I know exactly where all my guns are

Therefore you are wrong

Q.E.D.


----------



## Skull Pilot

The Derp said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's fucking rich you telling me I'm making broad general assumptions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have to assume that every gun owner is negligent because as many as 600,000 of them are pilfered of their guns _*every year*_.  So it's only a matter of time before your gun is stolen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And as far as giving a gun to a family member who is 100% known not to be a felon the person giving that gun is acting 100% within the law because most laws state it is illegal to knowingly sell to anyone not legally eligible  so he is indeed being responsible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't fucking matter what you feel to be true in your fat gut or what your garbage instincts tell you.
> 
> Running a background check is _*an act of responsibility*_.  By not running one, _*you are acting irresponsibly*_.
Click to expand...

As many as.

That's like saying virtually spotless.  Something is either spotless or it isn't.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course your State might have something to say about that.  We are not talking about States Rights here but Federal Rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Well...for the record...state’s have no say in anything that is constitutional. They cannot create a limiting your 1st Amendment because the constitution trumps state law.
Click to expand...


Not in the case of Weapons.  If a State, County or Municipal decides to limit weapons it can do it according to the Supreme Court. This gets securely into States Rights.  The 2nd Amendment only pertains to the Federal Government.  It limits the Federal Government only.  For instance, some states require you to have a special license to carry a gun.  Actually, most do.  Some states, like where I am at, have an older law that states if you do carry a weapon it must be in plain site and must always be at the ready.  Many of the old west states have that law.  Meanwhile, some states like Ill and NY says you can own a gun but to carry it or transport it you must have a license to carry it.  Some states don't require a reason for you to receive that license but others have specific reasons that you must meet to receive that license.  This thing is why the CCW isn't US Wide.  Meaning, if I get a CCW from Colorado, NY won't recognize it because it has completely different laws pertaining to concealed weapons.  But Texas will.  You may not think that is right but I say if you don't like the state you are living in move to one that you do like.  I am a huge proponent for States Rights.  And each state must take care of it's own.

Like Florida.  They just had a mass school shooting done by a 19 year old.  The Students and many Parents don't want the AR to be completely banned.  But they are proposing an age limit of purchase:  21 years of age.  They are trying to present it to the Florida State Government.  The Florida State Government refuses to even discuss it.  Now, this proposal does sound reasonable.  But the problem is, the ones in power will not even sit down to discuss it.  The Students argument is that a 19 year old isn't old enough to buy booze but they can go in and get an AR in less than 30 minutes anywhere in the State.  Yes, young people can illegally purchase or get booze but most don't bother.  You can't go into any corner liquor store and purchase it like you can a gun at a gun shop.  I have mixed feelings on the Booze age and was lucky that I turned 21 at the time they passed the law.  But others that were in the Military were under 21 and it took an act of congress and an Order from the President for the Military to stop serving under 21s.  But the next day, life went on anyway.  The Sun even came up.

The problem is, our legislators listen to the big donors and not people that they believe that will affect their careers the least.  You, as an individual, will have little contact with your congress critter, Governor or President.  Unless you have a lot of money to invest in the reelection.  This is probably a bigger problem than any gun legislation.  One that if we don't start addressing any Democracy or Republic will be forever gone if it isn't already.  

The Federal Law already has placed an 18 year old limit on purchasing fire arms.  Is that against the 2nd Amendment?  Should we throw out that restriction?  Or can a State fine tune it to  place the limit at 21?  Yes it can.  This is one area where the shooting may not have taken place when it did.  By forcing the Ex Student to have to go to other means to purchase the AR, it might have bought enough time for all the triggers to go off and for him to be stopped.  This is the Students argument.  Yet no one seems to want to listen.  I listen and I agree.

The 2nd amendment is the minimum.  A State can tailor it to their own needs.  And if you don't like it, move to one that you agree with.


----------



## The Derp

impuretrash said:


> What you're doing is very similar to people who blame all muslims for terrorist attacks... I haven't read the entire thread but I'd be surprised if someone hasn't already pointed this out to you. Also where'd you get this idea that gun owners don't report their weapons being stolen?



Look man...you guys claim to be responsible, yet the actions say otherwise.  You have "responsible gun owners" on this very thread saying they won't and don't act responsibly.  So "responsible gun owner" is the same fallacy as "No true Scotsman".


----------



## Daryl Hunt

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your 2nd amendment rights would be secured and not infringed one bit.  You still have the right to possess, purchase, transport etc. your own weapons.  It's just one more application, that's it.  They can't turn you down if you are able to legally purchase firearms with a simple background check.
> 
> This is what is being proposed even my a bunch of scared School Children and their parents.  Not banning a damned thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That _is_ an infringement whether you want to admit it or not.
> 
> 2. More importantly - what you are proposing here is already the case. The Brady Law made an F.B.I. background check a requirement for every firearm purchase (from a dealer). And there is no cost associated with it. None. I’ve never purchased a firearm and not had an F.B.I. background check (including when I’ve purchased from a large dealer that is friends of my family). They followed the law by the book (as all dealers do considering the legal ramifications of not obeying the law) and contacted the F.B.I. for the check and subsequent sale despite knowing that I had no criminal or mental health background.
> 
> So the only concern you have is a private citizen-to-citizen sale. Those are _extremely_ rare in the grand scheme of things and almost completely nonexistent in terms of a sale to someone with a criminal background. And there is nothing that can be done about those anyway. The government has absolutely no authority to regulate or otherwise dictate what I do with my private property - including if I choose to sell it.
Click to expand...


There was also a Ban on the AR or Assault Rifle at the same time.  It was allowed to run out in 1998.  It really wasn't a ban, it was a reclassification of the weapon class.  You could still buy it, possess it, sell it, use it, etc. but you had to have the lowest firearms license.  When it ran out, you didn't need any special license.  Had it been in place, it would have prevented all but two of the Mass Shootings from happening so easy.  The one where the 9mm and assorted guns and the Nevada Shooting would have happened exactly as planned regardless in my opinion.

You are incorrect.  It costs me 7 bucks a pop to purchase a weapon for the background check.  You can call it a tax or processing fee, either way. But it's not free.

Since you don't seem to have a problem with background checks at dealers, what's the problem expanding it to the Gun Shows and Online Sales?  Yes, you are correct, there isn't a whole lot can be done about private sales from one person to another.  The private sales are not very common.  But we can easily expand it to the dealers at the Gun Shows.  Actually, a couple of the dealers I know that have booths in the Guns Shows have a computer and do background checks anyway right on the spot.  The argument that it can't be done is a lie.  In today's information age, the Gun Show seller can always do it if they want.  The tools are available and they are inexpensive.  Even if it means using one of the Gun Show Dealers that have that capability and have them run it for you.  And buying from an Online Source can be handled exactly the same way.  They can require you to go to the nearest Gun Dealer of your choice and have them run the background check.  

Even with all that I am requesting, if it were to happen, Life would go on and the sun would even come up in the morning.  If we don't do something there are those that the life won't go on and the sun coming up won't matter.


----------



## The Derp

impuretrash said:


> Also where'd you get this idea that gun owners don't report their weapons being stolen?



From one of your fellow posters on this thread who said as a defense of "responsible gun owners" that only 86% of them report their guns as stolen.  Why isn't that 100%?  Simple; negligence.  Since "responsible gun ownership" isn't something that can be determined until after the period of gun ownership ends, we have to assume that what's inherent is negligence.


----------



## The Derp

Skull Pilot said:


> Pray tell oh 2 dimensional sage how legally owning a firearm is an act of negligence




Simple; as many as 600,000 guns are stolen each year.  So right away, there's inherent negligence among gun owners.  If gun owners weren't negligent, then the number of guns stolen each year would be *0*.

You guys can't even 100% report stolen guns to the police.  So what the fuck responsibility is inherent, pray tell?


----------



## Daryl Hunt

The Derp said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> close the loopholes in the Gun Fairs
> 
> 
> 
> Here are the *facts*. The stone-cold, hard facts.
> 
> 
> 
> “Calling private, noncommercial sales a “gun show loophole” *is only meant to rile people up who have never been to a gun show*. Controllists hope people hear about a loophole and picture criminals fresh out of prison loading up their trunks with AR-15s.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And clearly it works. Uninformed, emotional progressives are all over the U.S. screaming “the gun loopholes are coming! the gun loopholes are coming!
> 
> Excerpt From Control
> Glenn Beck. This material may be protected by copyright.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only reason anyone would do a gun transfer as a "private sale" was if they wanted to avoid a background check.  Now why would someone want to avoid a background check?
Click to expand...


Wrong.  I purchased a gun from my neighbor awhile back.  It wasn't to avoid background checks, it was because I wanted it.  And not to use it for illegal means, I just wanted it.  

The problem I see here is, both sides are off the deep end.


----------



## The Derp

Skull Pilot said:


> That's not what the law says



But what about your personal responsibility?  Oh that's right, you have none.


----------



## The Derp

Skull Pilot said:


> And it only takes one instance to prove you wrong.



No.  It takes *0* gun thefts to prove me wrong.  




Skull Pilot said:


> I know exactly where all my guns are



Are you sure?  Because from what I've read, some of you people wouldn't even notice the gun was missing.  And you might know where they are right now, but ten minutes from now?  Ten days?  Ten years?  You have no clue.  As many as 600,000 of you people have at least one gun stolen from you each year.  And only 86% of those guns stolen are even reported as stolen.  Which means there could be as many as 84,000 guns "disappear" to the street and no one is looking for them.

The only word for that is *negligence.*


----------



## The Derp

Skull Pilot said:


> As many as.



Yes, as many as 600,000 guns a year are stolen from people exactly like you.  The average is 234,000.  Which is still staggeringly high.  Why isn't that number *0*?  Negligence...that's why.  Gun owners are just inherently negligent people.




Skull Pilot said:


> That's like saying virtually spotless.  Something is either spotless or it isn't.



It's nothing like that.


----------



## The Derp

Daryl Hunt said:


> Wrong.  I purchased a gun from my neighbor awhile back.  It wasn't to avoid background checks, it was because I wanted it.  And not to use it for illegal means, I just wanted it.



What difference does it make your reason for buying the gun when it comes to a background check?  Isn't going through a background check an act of responsibility?  So why don't "responsible gun owners" do them for all transactions?


----------



## The Derp

Daryl Hunt said:


> Since you don't seem to have a problem with background checks at dealers, what's the problem expanding it to the Gun Shows and Online Sales?



Why not expand them to every transaction, even private sales and "family transfers"?  If we want to say gun owners are responsible, then the responsible thing to do would be to run a background check every time a gun changes hands.


----------



## Ame®icano

Avatar4321 said:


> Has human nature changed?
> 
> Have people stopped doing evil things and threatening innocent people?
> 
> Have politicians learned to respect the sovereignty of the people and stop trying to micromanage their existence?
> 
> If not, then of course it isn't obsolete. You'd have to be an idiot to think that or completely ignorant of the purpose of the Second amendment which is to protect our right to self defense and prevent tyranny and oppression.
> 
> When the people fear the government, we have tyranny. When the government fears it's people, then we have freedom.



The 2nd amendments is our protection from government tyranny. 

So basically, it's our protection from tyranny of Democrats and their surrogates: progressives, socialists, communists.

No wonder why they hate the 2nd so much...


----------



## kaz

The Derp said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Contrived statistics that are intentionally misleading and fail to tell the whole story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What part of the story of *your gun is more likely to get stolen than it is to defend you or your family* am I missing?  Please, indulge me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So just to be clear, you think public educators are a bunch of red neck right wing bunch of hacks who touch a gun and start shooting up the place like Yosemite Sam?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, what I think is that "responsible gun owners" don't exist and never have, and that you use it as a "No true Scotsman" defense for when one of these "responsible gun owners" goes on a rampage, or when a gun is stolen from one of these "responsible gun owners" and then used in a crime.
> 
> Both of those things are more likely to happen than you acting as a hero and defending yourself or your family.
Click to expand...


The rantings of a lunatic.  If you want to make lucid arguments, let me know.  Also, go back to high school and learn to use quote marks


----------



## The Derp

kaz said:


> The rantings of a lunatic.  If you want to make lucid arguments, let me know.  Also, go back to high school and learn to use quote marks



It's crazy to think you'll be a hero, saving people with your gun...it's not crazy to say that "responsible gun owners" is just another form of the "No true Scotsman" fallacy.


----------



## Brain357

Second one today.  This is really rare where there is strong gun control.
Maryland police officer shot and killed is second cop murdered in 12 hours

Law enforcement needs to demand gun control.


----------



## Cecilie1200

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't proposed on stitch of banning any weapon short of a nuclear warhead.
> 
> 
> 
> Just for the record - even nuclear weapons should not be banned. However, it isn’t a concern. For starters, who could even afford an actual nuclear missile? Only the super elite like Bill Gates. Think any of them are even remotely interested in a nuclear weapon? Nope. They have private security so they don’t worry about anything.
> 
> But here is the ultimate reason why you don’t need to worry about private owners of nuclear weapons: nobody sells them. They are only produced by the federal government - not by any private corporation. The federal government is under no obligation to sell anything they develop. And the black market would not be able to legally provide them because the federal government is constitutionally authorized to control material coming into the U.S.
Click to expand...


And if I remember correctly, uranium is pretty much all owned by one government or another.  It's not as though a private citizen can simply order it on the Internet.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lakhota said:


>



If the Founding Fathers weren't dead, they'd line up to each smack the snot out of you for putting your inane bullshit words into their mouths.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Skull Pilot said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*WHY THE FUCK ISN'T IT 100%?*_
> 
> So much for the narrative of "responsible gun owners"...they report a gun is stolen less than 9 out of 10 times.  That's fucking pathetic.  You can sure as shit bet 100% of car thefts are reported.
> 
> Now, _*why*_ would a "responsible gun owner" _*not*_ report their gun as stolen!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!  What could be the only reason?
> 
> 
> Yes!  So thanks for proving my point...states with shitty gun laws see _*more*_ gun thefts than states with good gun laws.  So again, it's the "_*responsible gun owners*_" who are to blame.  This is exactly what I am talking about when I say that guns are trafficked to cities and blue states via "iron pipelines".  A practice that could be *all but eliminated* by requiring all gun transactions and transfers require a background check.
> 
> 
> 
> The states you listed in your cut and paste that had *the highest rates of gun theft are all pro-gun, red states*.  So the guns get stolen from "responsible gun owners" in those states and then trafficked into the other states with stricter gun laws.  That's exactly what the "iron pipeline" is.
> 
> 
> As of _*now*_.  But they can't pretend it will never happen because it happens 234,000 times a year, on average.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you really like to ask stupid questions.
> 
> How the fuck do I know why someone wouldn't report a gun or anything else stolen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How to go AR Shopping.
> 
> 1.  Steal a Ford F-350 and a full sized Van
> 2.  Wait until very early morning
> 3.  Crash it into the front of the store
> 4.  Back the Ford outside
> 5.  Begin transfer all the ARs into the Van
> 6.  Transfer the 223 and 556 ammo to the Van
> 7.  Drive the Van to your own Van and transfer the Weapons and Ammo to it
> 8.  Drive the Ford F-350 and the stolen van to an out of the way location
> 9.  pour gas all over and inside both the stolen Van and the F-350 and light it.
> 10.  Drive your van to a Public Storage facility and unload all the weapons.
> 
> Done.
> 
> The Mass Shooters don't do this.   But if you go into the various "Militias" you may find those weapons.  You can't use this to justify that only Criminals obtain Guns illegally.  One can mail order an AR and all kinds of little toys to go with it online and lie out my ass and obtain a gun.  You know, the part where it says, "Are you a Convicted Felon" if I were a convicted felon.  I can do the same thing at a Gun Show as long as my fake ID looks real.  Or I can go to any legal Gun Shop and give the real info and purchase that as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell you what why don't you go and illegally buy a dozen guns record the whole thing and show us how easy it is.
> 
> And I don't know how many times I have to tell you this before it sinks into your tiny goldfish brain but
> 
> I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR CRIMES OTHER PEOPLE COMMIT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> These Moon Bats don't believe in personal responsibility.  They want you to be held responsible for the crimes of other people by denying you your Constitutional rights.
> 
> The really shitty thing is that most of the gun crimes that takes place in this country happen in the Democrat controlled inner city shitholes that are the voting base for the Democrat Party. Just look at any election result map and the blue areas are the ones with the high crimes.
> 
> The Democrat core base is where most of the gun violence takes place.  They need to get their own house in order before demanding that your right to keep and bear arms be abolished.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The entire argument of these idiots is that someone else committed a crime therefore you cannot be allowed to own the same weapon used to commit that crime.
> 
> Which flies directly in the face of the individual rights this nation was founded upon.
> 
> The hypocrisy is obvious as these moronic knee jerk reactionaries will not apply the standards they want for gun crimes to all crimes.
Click to expand...


I always figured their argument boiled down to "I know I can't be trusted with dangerous objects, so I assume no one can be."


----------



## Cecilie1200

The Derp said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> For instance, I'd love to slap every leftist I meet until his eyes switch sockets, but for some reason, this is illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Posturing doesn't make anyone think you're threatening or strong.  It makes people think you're a phony.  Which you probably are.
Click to expand...


Dear, just because it would be posturing if YOU said it, doesn't mean it's not a simple statement of fact when I do.  Unlike you, I'm not a coward afflicted with autophobia.

And btw . . .

I don't give a shit what "people think",

Anyone who knows me knows it's a statement of fact,

and

YOU are not "people'.


----------



## Cecilie1200

The Derp said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> close the loopholes in the Gun Fairs
> 
> 
> 
> Here are the *facts*. The stone-cold, hard facts.
> 
> 
> 
> “Calling private, noncommercial sales a “gun show loophole” *is only meant to rile people up who have never been to a gun show*. Controllists hope people hear about a loophole and picture criminals fresh out of prison loading up their trunks with AR-15s.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And clearly it works. Uninformed, emotional progressives are all over the U.S. screaming “the gun loopholes are coming! the gun loopholes are coming!
> 
> Excerpt From Control
> Glenn Beck. This material may be protected by copyright.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only reason anyone would do a gun transfer as a "private sale" was if they wanted to avoid a background check.  Now why would someone want to avoid a background check?
Click to expand...


You've told us a lot there about how YOU think, but not a damned thing about how others do.


----------



## Cecilie1200

The Derp said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> close the loopholes in the Gun Fairs
> 
> 
> 
> Here are the *facts*. The stone-cold, hard facts.
> 
> 
> 
> “Calling private, noncommercial sales a “gun show loophole” *is only meant to rile people up who have never been to a gun show*. Controllists hope people hear about a loophole and picture criminals fresh out of prison loading up their trunks with AR-15s.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And clearly it works. Uninformed, emotional progressives are all over the U.S. screaming “the gun loopholes are coming! the gun loopholes are coming!
> 
> Excerpt From Control
> Glenn Beck. This material may be protected by copyright.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Using cites from Glen Beck?  Give me a friggin break.  And I never proposed outlawing or confiscating any weapons as long as they are legal.  I do propose taking the one weapon used in all the high body count mass shootings and moving it into a level where the people are the LEAST Likely to become Mass Murderers.  People like me.  But since you are fighting it with all your being, I don't include you in the least likely category.  But what should we expect from a paid NRA Employee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Firearms have no control over people just admit it, you want to get rid of the Second Amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And neither do nukes.  So Kim Jong Un should get all the nukes he wants.  After all, nukes don't kill people, people kill people.
Click to expand...


Since we're bringing up Kim Jong Un, your approach to gun control would translate into "The United States, Israel, and Great Britain shouldn't be allowed to have nukes, because North Korea can't be trusted with them."


----------



## Cecilie1200

Skull Pilot said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or maybe just maybe it's a father giving a rifle to a kid and the father knows his child isn't a felon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It's not the father's judgment to make that call.*  And didn't Adam Lanza's mother _*give*_ him weapons?
> 
> The Columbine parents had no clue their kids were planning the massacre.  Parents don't know _*shit*_ about their kids lives, particularly teenagers.  Don't be so stupid and naive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> But THAT never happens right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How frequently does that happen?  Again, you don't know _*because no background checks are run*_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here we go again
> 
> Holding everyone responsible for the acts of one person.
> 
> Lanza also shot an killed his mother.
> 
> And the columbine kids didn't get their weapons from their parents
Click to expand...


DID Lanza's mother give him guns, or did he just take hers?  I actually don't remember at this point.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

The Derp said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> If no gun owner is responsible, why bother citing examples of irresponsible behavior?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of stupid question is this?  I am citing instances of irresponsible behavior _*because*_ gun owners are not responsible people, despite pretending they are.
Click to expand...


You're not very good at this debate thing are you? Why not just come out and say that merely owning a gun is irresponsible? It wouldn't be true but at least you wouldn't be wasting your time and breath.

The problem is, not all gun owners are guilty of the irresponsible behavior you cite. That's the problem with your entire argument. Either you're telling us that irresponsible gun owners purchase their guns illegally and don't report them stolen or you're telling us that every single one of the millions of gun owners in the country purchased their guns illegally and wouldn't report them stolen. You can't have it both ways. 




Ghost of a Rider said:


> On the one hand you say that one who illegally obtains a firearm and fails to report it stolen is not a responsible gun owner and on the other hand you say all gun owners are irresponsible. Meaning that even those who purchase their guns legally and report them stolen are also irresponsible. So what is the point?





> Of course they're irresponsible...as many as 600,000 guns a year are stolen from "responsible gun owners".  There is no such thing as a responsible gun owner if that's what "responsible gun ownership" looks like.



Let's apply this reasoning to another area: According to 2015 figures, 10,265 people died that year in drunk driving accidents. That's nearly 30% of all auto fatalities. Why isn't it 0%? If this is what "responsible drivers" looks like then there are no responsible drivers. What's more, car manufacturers and liquor companies are to blame.

See how ridiculous that sounds? Besides, 600,000 is only a fraction of all the firearms owned in the U.S. Also, (if you're getting your numbers from the same article I'm looking at) the ATF says that burglaries of gun stores are“a significant source of illegally trafficked firearms”. Firearm dealers have to go through a process of applying for a dealer license with the ATF. After that, the ATF comes and inspects your business as to location in relation to schools and whatnot, and the security of the store and the firearms themselves. Only after the ATF is satisfied can he sell guns.

So according to you, even dealers who have their firearms under ATF approved structures, security systems and security apparatus are irresponsible gun owners. Face it, your arguments simply do not stand up under logical scrutiny because you're all over the place putting band-aids on the holes with even more ridiculous arguments.



> And on top of that, only 86% of stolen guns are reported to the police!  _*ONLY*_ 86%.  Why isn't it 100%?  Why aren't 0 guns stolen a year?  Simple; gun owners are not responsible people.



If only those pesky thieves would stop ruining the statistics by stealing guns, cars, money, credit information and Pez candy dispensers, the stats would be 0%. Damn thieves are ruining it for all of us.




Ghost of a Rider said:


> Your error was in misconstruing his original remark about responsible gun owners to mean that all gun owners are responsible. Obviously that's not the case. Some are responsible, some are not. That is a fact, and your personal feelings and opinions about gun owners is irrelevant.





> None are responsible.  That's the point.



Not because you say so.  



> "Responsible gun owner" is a fallacy exactly like "No true Scotsman".  Everyone is a "responsible gun owner" until they're not.  That's the "No true Scotsman" fallacy.



Who said every gun owner is a responsible gun owner? This is what I was talking about. No one said that every gun owner is a responsible gun owner. Again, you misconstrued what he said. And I'm begining to think deliberately.




Ghost of a Rider said:


> "Responsible gun owners" who don't report stolen guns do so _*because they want the gun to end up in the hands of a criminal or terrorist.*_
> Don't be an idiot.





> Then explain why 14% of "responsible gun owners" don't even notify the police when one of their guns are stolen.  What could _*possibly be the reason*_ nearly 33,000 guns a year are stolen and never reported to the police?  Only three true reasons exist;
> 
> 1.  The "responsible gun owner" doesn't know how many guns they own, so they don't know when one goes missing.
> 2.  The "responsible gun owner" is simply too fat and lazy to notify the police.
> 3.  The "responsible gun owner" _*wants*_ the gun on the street where it can end up in the hands of a criminal and/or terrorist.
> 
> No other explanations make sense.



Here's the thing, 

1. A responsible gun owner DOES know how many guns he owns and knows when one goes missing.
2. A responsible gun owner is NOT too lazy to notify the police.
3. A responsible gun owner does NOT want the gun on the street where it can end up in the hands of a criminal and/or terrorist.

Why have you not been able to grasp this simple concept?


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

Brain357 said:


> Second one today.  This is really rare where there is strong gun control.
> Maryland police officer shot and killed is second cop murdered in 12 hours
> 
> Law enforcement needs to demand gun control.



*How are you going to get the Democratic Party's beloved criminals to turn in their guns?*


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

The Derp said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pray tell oh 2 dimensional sage how legally owning a firearm is an act of negligence
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simple; as many as 600,000 guns are stolen each year.  So right away, there's inherent negligence among gun owners.  If gun owners weren't negligent, then the number of guns stolen each year would be *0*.
> 
> You guys can't even 100% report stolen guns to the police.  So what the fuck responsibility is inherent, pray tell?
Click to expand...


How will the Democratic Party enforce their gun ban?


----------



## 9thIDdoc

The Derp said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it only takes one instance to prove you wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  It takes *0* gun thefts to prove me wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know exactly where all my guns are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you sure?  Because from what I've read, some of you people wouldn't even notice the gun was missing.  And you might know where they are right now, but ten minutes from now?  Ten days?  Ten years?  You have no clue.  As many as 600,000 of you people have at least one gun stolen from you each year.  And only 86% of those guns stolen are even reported as stolen.  Which means there could be as many as 84,000 guns "disappear" to the street and no one is looking for them.
> 
> The only word for that is *negligence.*
Click to expand...


Bullspit. How exactly is it any different when one type of personal property is stolen than another? 
If a stolen gun is not reported how would you know it was stolen as you claim to?
How many of those guns were stolen from the government?
Why report a stolen gun to a government who gives guns to criminals and other enemies and may not return it if it is found?


----------



## Flash

The Derp said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that like I have to pay your bills because you are too irresponsible to pay your own and sign up for welfare and then the government takes my money and gives it to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's like you're too irresponsible to be able to manage your weapons, and it's only a matter of _*when*_, not _*if*_, your gun is stolen and then used in a crime.  That's assuming you even know how many guns you have and where they are.  As many as 600,000 "responsible gun owners" can't even do that.  And as many as 84,000 "responsible gun owners" don't even notify the police when one of their guns is stolen.  So y'all can't even get an 'A' for responsibility.  And anything below an A is a failure.
> 
> Why aren't 100% of gun thefts reported to the police, and gun thefts down to *0*?  Simple; gun owners are simply not responsible people.  Like, _*at all*_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> My AR-15s  have never killed anybody but yet the stupid anti Constitutional Moon Bats want to ban my AR-15s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hasn't killed anybody..._*yet*_.  Hasn't been stolen..._*yet*_.  Since y'all aren't responsible people, it's only a matter of time before your gun is stolen.  In fact, it's far more likely your gun will get stolen because you're irresponsible, than it is likely your gun will ever be used to defend you or your family.  Most gun owners seem like ticking time bombs, ready to either explode in a hail of bullets, or become so neglectful they have their guns stolen, then don't tell the police; that's "responsible gun ownership" in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The assholes want to punish me and take away my Constitutional rights because somebody else does something illegal.  That is oppressive, isn't it?Why should I be considered guilty by the government when it is other people that commit crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because you're not a responsible person.  No gun owners are.  There is no such thing as a "responsible gun owner".  There are only degrees of gun negligence.
Click to expand...


No it is not.  You are confused about this.  There are at least ten million AR-15s in this country and according to the FBI stats very few of the them are used in crimes so the much greater chance is that the ones I own will never be used in a crime.

So you are saying an American citizen should have their Constitutional rights to keep and bear arms taken away because somebody may commit a crime sometime in the future?  How stupid is that Moon Bat?

I know you stupid Moon Bats don't believe in freedom of religion, freedom of speech and the right to keep and bear arms and so now you are throwing out the doctrine of innocent until proven guilty?

My god you people are idiots.


----------



## The Derp

Cecilie1200 said:


> You've told us a lot there about how YOU think, but not a damned thing about how others do.



Then by all means, help me understand why a "responsible gun owner" wouldn't do the* responsible thing *and run a background check on the other "responsible gun owner" to whom they were selling or transferring their gun?

Doesn't the fact that you don't run a background check mean you're not a "responsible gun owner"?  I hear about these "responsible gun owners" all the time but every one I seem to meet on these boards doesn't think they should act responsibly.  Why is that?


----------



## Skull Pilot

The Derp said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pray tell oh 2 dimensional sage how legally owning a firearm is an act of negligence
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simple; as many as 600,000 guns are stolen each year.  So right away, there's inherent negligence among gun owners.  If gun owners weren't negligent, then the number of guns stolen each year would be *0*.
> 
> You guys can't even 100% report stolen guns to the police.  So what the fuck responsibility is inherent, pray tell?
Click to expand...


So then you must be negligent because you own a car too right because as many as 750000 cars are stolen each year.

You have trouble with the concept of other people not being responsible for crimes they do not commit.

If everyone lived in your 2 dimensional world then everyone is negligent at all times.

You are negligent if you own a knife because knives are used in more murders than rifles, the same with baseball bats

Shit all of us have hands and feet and those weapons are used in more murders than rifles.

So by your "logic" it is less negligent to own a rifle than a knife, a bat or your own hands and feet.

So now a little lesson.

Just because there is risk does not mean there is negligence.


----------



## Skull Pilot

The Derp said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it only takes one instance to prove you wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  It takes *0* gun thefts to prove me wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know exactly where all my guns are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you sure?  Because from what I've read, some of you people wouldn't even notice the gun was missing.  And you might know where they are right now, but ten minutes from now?  Ten days?  Ten years?  You have no clue.  As many as 600,000 of you people have at least one gun stolen from you each year.  And only 86% of those guns stolen are even reported as stolen.  Which means there could be as many as 84,000 guns "disappear" to the street and no one is looking for them.
> 
> The only word for that is *negligence.*
Click to expand...

And ZERO of my guns have ever been stolen

Q.E.D.


----------



## Flash

Go bless my great State of Florida!

MAGA Baby.  Piss on the anti gun Moon Bats.

Nothing sells more guns than the silly ranting and raving of stupid Moon Bats.

AR-15 Sales Up 30% in Florida as Democrats Continue Push for Gun Ban

*AR-15 Sales Up 30% in Florida as Democrats Continue Push for Gun Ban*

*Thanks to the Democrats’ continued threat to ban guns, sales of AR-15s are up 30% this week in Cape Coral, Florida area.
*


----------



## Skull Pilot

Cecilie1200 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or maybe just maybe it's a father giving a rifle to a kid and the father knows his child isn't a felon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It's not the father's judgment to make that call.*  And didn't Adam Lanza's mother _*give*_ him weapons?
> 
> The Columbine parents had no clue their kids were planning the massacre.  Parents don't know _*shit*_ about their kids lives, particularly teenagers.  Don't be so stupid and naive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> But THAT never happens right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How frequently does that happen?  Again, you don't know _*because no background checks are run*_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here we go again
> 
> Holding everyone responsible for the acts of one person.
> 
> Lanza also shot an killed his mother.
> 
> And the columbine kids didn't get their weapons from their parents
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DID Lanza's mother give him guns, or did he just take hers?  I actually don't remember at this point.
Click to expand...

Technically he shot her with one of  her own guns and stole the others


----------



## The Derp

Cecilie1200 said:


> Since we're bringing up Kim Jong Un, your approach to gun control would translate into "The United States, Israel, and Great Britain shouldn't be allowed to have nukes, because North Korea can't be trusted with them."



We _*shouldn't*_ have nukes.  No one should.  You know who said that?  *RONALD FUCKING REAGAN.*


----------



## Flash

The Derp said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since we're bringing up Kim Jong Un, your approach to gun control would translate into "The United States, Israel, and Great Britain shouldn't be allowed to have nukes, because North Korea can't be trusted with them."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We _*shouldn't*_ have nukes.  No one should.  You know who said that?  *RONALD FUCKING REAGAN.*
Click to expand...



According to you stupid Moon Bats I should have to fill in my swimming pool because there is a chance some child could drown in it one day.


----------



## The Derp

Ghost of a Rider said:


> You're not very good at this debate thing are you? Why not just come out and say that merely owning a gun is irresponsible? It wouldn't be true but at least you wouldn't be wasting your time and breath..



I have said that.  Several times.  I have said repeatedly that gun owners are _*inherently*_ irresponsible.  You guys can't seem to keep track of your weapons, and even when you can you are inconsistent when it comes to reporting those weapons lost or stolen to the authorities.  Despite braying and bleating that you're "responsible", you refuse to act responsibly and subject every transaction involving your guns to a background check.  So like "No true Scotsman", "responsible gun owner" is a fallacy.




Ghost of a Rider said:


> The problem is, not all gun owners are guilty of the irresponsible behavior you cite. That's the problem with your entire argument. Either you're telling us that irresponsible gun owners purchase their guns illegally and don't report them stolen or you're telling us that every single one of the millions of gun owners in the country purchased their guns illegally and wouldn't report them stolen. You can't have it both ways.



*"No true Scotsman" fallacy.*  You are eating a big, heaping plate of your own bullshit.  The problem is that you can't call yourself a "responsible gun owner" until after your period of gun ownership ends.  That's why it's a question not of how responsible you are, but how _*negligent*_ you are.  Because your gun could get stolen at any time; you could lose it; you could give it to someone dangerous.  Most of what determines the likelihood of that is due to how *negligent* you are with your weapons. 




Ghost of a Rider said:


> Let's apply this reasoning to another area: According to 2015 figures, 10,265 people died that year in drunk driving accidents. That's nearly 30% of all auto fatalities. Why isn't it 0%? If this is what "responsible drivers" looks like then there are no responsible drivers. What's more, car manufacturers and liquor companies are to blame..



Sigh.  First of all, drunk driving deaths have been cut _*in half*_ since 1980 thanks entirely to; regulations, laws, rules, and a public campaign discouraging drunk driving.  So thanks for helping me prove my point that government regulations, laws, rules, and public campaigns _*work*_.

Secondly, to combat drunk driving is your solution to make _*more drunk drivers?*_  Because your solution to gun violence is to add more guns.  So if we employ that rhetoric to drunk driving, that would mean you would think the best way to reduce drunk driving is to make sure everyone who drives does do inebriated.

Thirdly, if you want to compare guns to cars, then I'm totally fine with that.  Fewer people died from cars than guns last year (and the year before).  If you want to use cars as your point of comparison, then by all means let's put guns under the same lens that cars are put under, namely; register your gun with the State, insure your gun, have your gun inspected every year, have your gun tested every year, gun operation test, and required gun training.  If you want to do_* all that*_, I'm totally down.




Ghost of a Rider said:


> See how ridiculous that sounds? Besides, 600,000 is only a fraction of all the firearms owned in the U.S. Also, (if you're getting your numbers from the same article I'm looking at) the ATF says that burglaries of gun stores are“a significant source of illegally trafficked firearms”. Firearm dealers have to go through a process of applying for a dealer license with the ATF. After that, the ATF comes and inspects your business as to location in relation to schools and whatnot, and the security of the store and the firearms themselves. Only after the ATF is satisfied can he sell guns.



It doesn't matter if it's 600,000 or 1.  The point is that "responsible gun ownership" isn't something you can do while you own a gun, because at any time you could act irresponsibly.  Chances are, you will.  It's not a matter of _*if*_ your gun gets stolen, but _*when*_.  1 gun can kill 58 people and wound 900 in 60 seconds.  As many as 600,000 guns disappear from their owners _*each year*_.  And of those 600,000, 84,000 aren't even notified to the authorities.  You all can't even break 90% when it comes to the rate at which you inform police that your gun is stolen.  You can't even get an "A" for that.  If that's what "responsible gun ownership" looks like...lol...fuck that shit.

So even if there's only *1* gun stolen a year, that *1 gun stolen* invalidates all efforts at "responsible gun ownership" simply because you cannot profile someone for being negligent enough to let their guns get stolen, give their guns to someone dangerous, or accidentally harm someone with their gun.


----------



## The Derp

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pray tell oh 2 dimensional sage how legally owning a firearm is an act of negligence
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simple; as many as 600,000 guns are stolen each year.  So right away, there's inherent negligence among gun owners.  If gun owners weren't negligent, then the number of guns stolen each year would be *0*.
> 
> You guys can't even 100% report stolen guns to the police.  So what the fuck responsibility is inherent, pray tell?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How will the Democratic Party enforce their gun ban?
Click to expand...


How about you deal with the response I wrote instead of jumping to a non-sequitur because _*you*_ feel insecure in your bullshit argument?


----------



## The Derp

9thIDdoc said:


> Bullspit. How exactly is it any different when one type of personal property is stolen than another?



It doesn't fucking matter.  You're the ones pretending to be "responsible gun owners", but you can't even do _*that*_.  You can't even act responsibly with your own goddamned weapons.  234,000 of you every year see your gun(s) disappear.  33,000 of you don't even notify the police when it happens.

"Responsible gun owner" is the "No true Scotsman" fallacy, revised for America.




9thIDdoc said:


> If a stolen gun is not reported how would you know it was stolen as you claim to?



Because we have a link from one of your own earlier in this thread that confirms it, from the DOJ:  _*Household burglaries involving stolen firearms were more likely to be reported to police (86 percent)*_




9thIDdoc said:


> How many of those guns were stolen from the government?



Zero.  All the guns stolen are from individuals.




9thIDdoc said:


> Why report a stolen gun to a government who gives guns to criminals and other enemies and may not return it if it is found?



You're the ones giving the guns to criminals when you don't do a background check on your private gun sale, or when you let your guns get stolen from right under your nose.  This is what I mean when I say you lack responsibility, and why you cannot call yourself a "responsible gun owner".


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

The Derp said:


> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pray tell oh 2 dimensional sage how legally owning a firearm is an act of negligence
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simple; as many as 600,000 guns are stolen each year.  So right away, there's inherent negligence among gun owners.  If gun owners weren't negligent, then the number of guns stolen each year would be *0*.
> 
> You guys can't even 100% report stolen guns to the police.  So what the fuck responsibility is inherent, pray tell?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How will the Democratic Party enforce their gun ban?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about you deal with the response I wrote instead of jumping to a non-sequitur because _*you*_ feel insecure in your bullshit argument?
Click to expand...


Your argument is nonsense.


----------



## The Derp

Flash said:


> No it is not.  You are confused about this.  There are at least ten million AR-15s in this country and according to the FBI stats very few of the them are used in crimes so the much greater chance is that the ones I own will never be used in a crime.



"Very few"?????  Listen to yourself; you're bargaining with your argument as you make it!  This is like nothing I've ever seen.  You're trying to prove to me that there are "responsible gun owners", and then you go and admit that "very few" (ambiguous, vague) use them illegally.  Like I'm supposed to be impressed by that or something?  It's not impressive.  It's fucking pathetic and sad.  NONE of them should be used in crimes and the fact that "very few" (undefined, generic) are doesn't prove "responsible gun ownership", it proves gun negligence.

Not even 100% of "responsible gun owners" report their guns stolen.  Face it; you're inherently negligent people.




Flash said:


> So you are saying an American citizen should have their Constitutional rights to keep and bear arms taken away because somebody may commit a crime sometime in the future?  How stupid is that Moon Bat?



First of all, I don't agree with that 2008 interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, and neither did the half dozen lower courts.  Secondly, I don't have a problem with people owning guns, *what I have a problem with is people pretending that they're "responsible gun owners" when all their actions speak otherwise*; from not running background checks every time your gun changes hands, to not reporting consistently that your gun has been stolen, to even having your gun stolen in the first fucking place.  Thirdly, maybe you shouldn't be allowed to have blanket ownership since you seem incapable of acting responsibly.  You're here making arguments to act irresponsibly, and I'm supposed to discern that you're responsible based on that?  How? 




Flash said:


> I know you stupid Moon Bats don't believe in freedom of religion, freedom of speech and the right to keep and bear arms and so now you are throwing out the doctrine of innocent until proven guilty?My god you people are idiots.



It's not a matter of innocence vs. guilt, it's a matter of responsibility vs. negligence.  None of you are completely, 100% responsible simply because you own a gun in the first place, which itself is inherently _*irresponsible*_ because that gun could be stolen, lost, trafficked, and/or used in a crime.  

So rather than measure your responsibility, we have to measure your negligence; how secure are your weapons?  How often are you home?  How often do you use them?  How often do you clean them?  Do you loan them out?  Do you give them to people without a background check?  Do you advertise your gun ownership either by open carry or a stupid NRA sticker on your car?  Have you undergone a psychological exam to determine if you're mentally ill?  These are all questions that affect your negligence.


----------



## mudwhistle

Lakhota said:


> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
Click to expand...

Haven't we had this debate before?????

You dumb asses still can't grasp the fact that guns aren't the cause for alot of the violence in this country. 

3 guesses what they are.


----------



## The Derp

Skull Pilot said:


> So then you must be negligent because you own a car too right because as many as 750000 cars are stolen each year.



You can sure as shit bet that almost 100% of car thefts are reported to the police.  Certainly more than the 86% of gun thefts you people report.  So #NONSEQUITURFAIL for you.




Skull Pilot said:


> You have trouble with the concept of other people not being responsible for crimes they do not commit.



See!  This is what I mean.  Here you are saying it's not _*your fault*_ that _*your gun*_ was stolen.  It's you acting like an entitled brat and expecting to not be responsible or accountable for your fuckup.  So is _*that*_ why so many of you people don't report your guns as stolen?  Because you don't think it's your fault or that you bear any responsibility? 

None of you people are responsible people, even on a personal level.  You're just varying degrees of walking negligence.




Skull Pilot said:


> If everyone lived in your 2 dimensional world then everyone is negligent at all times.



Gun owners are, yes.  Simply by virtue of having this thing that is stolen and trafficked into the hands of criminals.  Simply by virtue of the fact that you said you don't run background checks.  Simply by virtue of the fact that you said "responsible gun owners" can't be expected to know where their guns are at all times (the very definition of "responsibility").  When gun thefts get to *0*, then you can talk about responsibility and the lessons of it.  But you can't say _*shit*_ about responsibility today until you clowns do *a lot fucking better than you're doing now.*




Skull Pilot said:


> You are negligent if you own a knife because knives are used in more murders than rifles, the same with baseball bats



When one person wielding a knife or a bat can kill 58 people and wound 900 in 60 seconds, then I'd be the first person to talk about knife or bat control.  Until that time, congrats on making the world's shittiest point.




Skull Pilot said:


> Shit all of us have hands and feet and those weapons are used in more murders than rifles.So by your "logic" it is less negligent to own a rifle than a knife, a bat or your own hands and feet.So now a little lesson.Just because there is risk does not mean there is negligence.



Logical fallacies are all you people have left.


----------



## Lakhota

Does anyone know if this is true?


----------



## The Derp

Skull Pilot said:


> And ZERO of my guns have ever been stolen



*YET.
*
None of your guns have been stolen *YET.
*
You're carrying the risk that they will be stolen simply because you have them.

So you can't call yourself "responsible" if you're knowingly taking on risk you can't manage.


----------



## Flash

Anti gun nuts should to go read the Bill of Rights.  Their lack of understanding is appalling.  

Of course their agenda is not Liberty.  Their agenda is to take away the right to keep and bear arms so that an armed citizenry will not be a threat to their desire to force this country into being a socialist shithole.


----------



## The Derp

Flash said:


> According to you stupid Moon Bats I should have to fill in my swimming pool because there is a chance some child could drown in it one day.



No, but you put a fence around your pool.  You have life saving equipment like a donut or lifesaving pole.  You have a "no running" sign up.  You have a cover for your pool.  You (hopefully) know CPR, or have a diagram/chart near the pool.  You routinely test your pool's chlorine levels to kill bacteria.  You treat your pool with chemicals to make it safe for people to swim in.  You have the depth clearly marked.  You have "no diving" signs.

Fuck outta here with this grade-school juvenile shit.


----------



## kaz

The Derp said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rantings of a lunatic.  If you want to make lucid arguments, let me know.  Also, go back to high school and learn to use quote marks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's crazy to think you'll be a hero, saving people with your gun...it's not crazy to say that "responsible gun owners" is just another form of the "No true Scotsman" fallacy.
Click to expand...


You clearly don't understand the no true scotsman fallacy.  Nowhere did I say anything of that form about responsible gun owners.

You're just an angry little guy.  It's late for your nap, isn't it?

[media]


----------



## The Derp

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> Your argument is nonsense.



*OR...
*
You're full of shit.


----------



## The Derp

kaz said:


> You clearly don't understand the no true scotsman fallacy.  Nowhere did I say anything of that form about responsible gun owners.



Sure you did.  You may not have used those exact words, but the intent was there.

Everyone's a "responsible gun owner" until they're not, right?  That's the "No true Scotsman" fallacy.  I say that as many as 600,000 "responsible gun owners" have their guns stolen each year, and you say "well, they're not responsible gun owners".  Ah, but they were until they lost their gun, right?  






kaz said:


> YYou're just an angry little guy.  It's late for your nap, isn't it?



You're damn right I'm angry.  I'm angry at lazy, fat, stupid, irresponsible people like you seeking every window to avoid responsibility that you can.  Employing your "No true Scotsman" defense of gun owners when it's pointed out that not only are as many as 600,000 of them robbed a year, but that not even 90% of them report the theft to the police.

That's what "responsible gun ownership" looks like; negligent people lazily avoiding responsibility despite pretending you're responsible.

What a joke.  A sad, tragic joke.


----------



## The Derp

NRA bumper stickers are like big, huge, flashing advertisements for thieves that say; "I have guns you can steal".  And they do.  As many as 600,000 are stolen every year.  Every 2 minutes, another gun is stolen in this country from "responsible gun owners".


----------



## Cecilie1200

The Derp said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've told us a lot there about how YOU think, but not a damned thing about how others do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then by all means, help me understand why a "responsible gun owner" wouldn't do the* responsible thing *and run a background check on the other "responsible gun owner" to whom they were selling or transferring their gun?
> 
> Doesn't the fact that you don't run a background check mean you're not a "responsible gun owner"?  I hear about these "responsible gun owners" all the time but every one I seem to meet on these boards doesn't think they should act responsibly.  Why is that?
Click to expand...


Okay, dumbass, let me break it down for you.

If I decide to sell my gun to my son, for example, what PRECISELY am I going to find out from a background check that I _don't already know?!  _Background checks are useful when you're selling a gun to someone you don't know.  What the fuck do you expect them to accomplish in a sale between family and friends, other than your desperate leftist need to have the government involved in EVERYTHING?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Skull Pilot said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or maybe just maybe it's a father giving a rifle to a kid and the father knows his child isn't a felon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It's not the father's judgment to make that call.*  And didn't Adam Lanza's mother _*give*_ him weapons?
> 
> The Columbine parents had no clue their kids were planning the massacre.  Parents don't know _*shit*_ about their kids lives, particularly teenagers.  Don't be so stupid and naive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> But THAT never happens right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How frequently does that happen?  Again, you don't know _*because no background checks are run*_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here we go again
> 
> Holding everyone responsible for the acts of one person.
> 
> Lanza also shot an killed his mother.
> 
> And the columbine kids didn't get their weapons from their parents
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DID Lanza's mother give him guns, or did he just take hers?  I actually don't remember at this point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Technically he shot her with one of  her own guns and stole the others
Click to expand...


Mkay, and did she give him the one he shot her with, or did he steal that one, too?


----------



## Cecilie1200

The Derp said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since we're bringing up Kim Jong Un, your approach to gun control would translate into "The United States, Israel, and Great Britain shouldn't be allowed to have nukes, because North Korea can't be trusted with them."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We _*shouldn't*_ have nukes.  No one should.  You know who said that?  *RONALD FUCKING REAGAN.*
Click to expand...


"Should and shouldn't don't have much to do with reality."  You know who said that?  ME.  Just now.


----------



## Cecilie1200

mudwhistle said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haven't we had this debate before?????
> 
> You dumb asses still can't grasp the fact that guns aren't the cause for alot of the violence in this country.
> 
> 3 guesses what they are.
Click to expand...


Humans?


----------



## Skull Pilot

The Derp said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> So then you must be negligent because you own a car too right because as many as 750000 cars are stolen each year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can sure as shit bet that almost 100% of car thefts are reported to the police.  Certainly more than the 86% of gun thefts you people report.  So #NONSEQUITURFAIL for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have trouble with the concept of other people not being responsible for crimes they do not commit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See!  This is what I mean.  Here you are saying it's not _*your fault*_ that _*your gun*_ was stolen.  It's you acting like an entitled brat and expecting to not be responsible or accountable for your fuckup.  So is _*that*_ why so many of you people don't report your guns as stolen?  Because you don't think it's your fault or that you bear any responsibility?
> 
> None of you people are responsible people, even on a personal level.  You're just varying degrees of walking negligence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If everyone lived in your 2 dimensional world then everyone is negligent at all times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gun owners are, yes.  Simply by virtue of having this thing that is stolen and trafficked into the hands of criminals.  Simply by virtue of the fact that you said you don't run background checks.  Simply by virtue of the fact that you said "responsible gun owners" can't be expected to know where their guns are at all times (the very definition of "responsibility").  When gun thefts get to *0*, then you can talk about responsibility and the lessons of it.  But you can't say _*shit*_ about responsibility today until you clowns do *a lot fucking better than you're doing now.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are negligent if you own a knife because knives are used in more murders than rifles, the same with baseball bats
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When one person wielding a knife or a bat can kill 58 people and wound 900 in 60 seconds, then I'd be the first person to talk about knife or bat control.  Until that time, congrats on making the world's shittiest point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shit all of us have hands and feet and those weapons are used in more murders than rifles.So by your "logic" it is less negligent to own a rifle than a knife, a bat or your own hands and feet.So now a little lesson.Just because there is risk does not mean there is negligence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Logical fallacies are all you people have left.
Click to expand...


No you are saying that I am negligent even though in 30 years not one of my guns has ever been stolen.

See the difference?

Now if you said people who don't secure their guns are negligent I would agree with you but you're not saying that are you?

No you're not.  You are saying that ALL gun owners are negligent even the millions of them who never had a gun stolen or reported it when it was stolen.

You want to live in an all or nothing world but when it's applied to you you call it fallacy


----------



## Skull Pilot

The Derp said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And ZERO of my guns have ever been stolen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *YET.
> *
> None of your guns have been stolen *YET.
> *
> You're carrying the risk that they will be stolen simply because you have them.
> 
> So you can't call yourself "responsible" if you're knowingly taking on risk you can't manage.
Click to expand...


And you haven't raped a little boy     YET

So I'm just going to call you Diddler  from now on

And I told you how I secure my guns.  No one is going to steal them because it is physically impossible for anyone to break into my house without setting off an alarm which prompts a call to the police find my gun safe in the basement and crack it and then get away with my firearms.  There is no fucking way that safe is going to be jack hammered out of the concrete it is anchored into and carried up the stairs either.

So tell me how are you going to steal my guns, Diddler?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Skull Pilot said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> So then you must be negligent because you own a car too right because as many as 750000 cars are stolen each year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can sure as shit bet that almost 100% of car thefts are reported to the police.  Certainly more than the 86% of gun thefts you people report.  So #NONSEQUITURFAIL for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have trouble with the concept of other people not being responsible for crimes they do not commit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See!  This is what I mean.  Here you are saying it's not _*your fault*_ that _*your gun*_ was stolen.  It's you acting like an entitled brat and expecting to not be responsible or accountable for your fuckup.  So is _*that*_ why so many of you people don't report your guns as stolen?  Because you don't think it's your fault or that you bear any responsibility?
> 
> None of you people are responsible people, even on a personal level.  You're just varying degrees of walking negligence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If everyone lived in your 2 dimensional world then everyone is negligent at all times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gun owners are, yes.  Simply by virtue of having this thing that is stolen and trafficked into the hands of criminals.  Simply by virtue of the fact that you said you don't run background checks.  Simply by virtue of the fact that you said "responsible gun owners" can't be expected to know where their guns are at all times (the very definition of "responsibility").  When gun thefts get to *0*, then you can talk about responsibility and the lessons of it.  But you can't say _*shit*_ about responsibility today until you clowns do *a lot fucking better than you're doing now.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are negligent if you own a knife because knives are used in more murders than rifles, the same with baseball bats
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When one person wielding a knife or a bat can kill 58 people and wound 900 in 60 seconds, then I'd be the first person to talk about knife or bat control.  Until that time, congrats on making the world's shittiest point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shit all of us have hands and feet and those weapons are used in more murders than rifles.So by your "logic" it is less negligent to own a rifle than a knife, a bat or your own hands and feet.So now a little lesson.Just because there is risk does not mean there is negligence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Logical fallacies are all you people have left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you are saying that I am negligent even though in 30 years not one of my guns has ever been stolen.
> 
> See the difference?
> 
> Now if you said people who don't secure their guns are negligent I would agree with you but you're not saying that are you?
> 
> No you're not.  You are saying that ALL gun owners are negligent even the millions of them who never had a gun stolen or reported it when it was stolen.
> 
> You want to live in an all or nothing world but when it's applied to you you call it fallacy
Click to expand...


Let's just cut to the chase.  Derpderp thinks gun owners are negligent because they DARE to own items he doesn't think should exist, and to hold opinions he doesn't agree with.

End of story.


----------



## Skull Pilot

The Derp said:


> NRA bumper stickers are like big, huge, flashing advertisements for thieves that say; "I have guns you can steal".  And they do.  As many as 600,000 are stolen every year.  Every 2 minutes, another gun is stolen in this country from "responsible gun owners".



I don't have any NRA bumper stickers.  Or anything that would give away the fact that there are guns in my home.

Shit my friends don't even know what guns I own and some don't even know I own guns at all.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

The Derp said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not very good at this debate thing are you? Why not just come out and say that merely owning a gun is irresponsible? It wouldn't be true but at least you wouldn't be wasting your time and breath..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have said that.  Several times.  I have said repeatedly that gun owners are _*inherently*_ irresponsible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a sweeping generality based on nothing more than opinion, bias and hatred of gun owners and cannot be backed up. Every one of your posts is dripping with contempt for gun owners and has caused you to lose all objectivity on the issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You guys can't seem to keep track of your weapons, and even when you can you are inconsistent when it comes to reporting those weapons lost or stolen to the authorities.  Despite braying and bleating that you're "responsible", you refuse to act responsibly and subject every transaction involving your guns to a background check.  So like "No true Scotsman", "responsible gun owner" is a fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who, exactly, is "you guys"? I've always known where my firearms were and, (this may be difficult for you to believe but it's true nonetheless), I would report it if it was stolen. And citing the "no true Scotsman" fallacy is itself, a fallacy in this case because no one has said "no true gun owner...". What was said was "responsible gun owners...". A true gun owner may be responsible or irresponsible whereas, a responsible gun owner is, by definition, responsible. You can't be that friggin' blind as to not see the distinction. And I've told you at least two times now and you keep sidestepping it and that is: NO ONE SAID ALL GUN OWNERS ARE RESPONSIBLE.
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is, not all gun owners are guilty of the irresponsible behavior you cite. That's the problem with your entire argument. Either you're telling us that irresponsible gun owners purchase their guns illegally and don't report them stolen or you're telling us that every single one of the millions of gun owners in the country purchased their guns illegally and wouldn't report them stolen. You can't have it both ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"No true Scotsman" fallacy.*  You are eating a big, heaping plate of your own bullshit.  The problem is that you can't call yourself a "responsible gun owner" until after your period of gun ownership ends.  That's why it's a question not of how responsible you are, but how _*negligent*_ you are.  Because your gun could get stolen at any time; you could lose it; you could give it to someone dangerous.  Most of what determines the likelihood of that is due to how *negligent* you are with your weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit. That's the stupidest goddamn thing I've read in a long time. What if I'm not negligent? That's like saying that, even though I was not a robbery victim until yesterday when I got robbed, I was always a robbery victim.
> 
> Do you listen to yourself? Jesus Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's apply this reasoning to another area: According to 2015 figures, 10,265 people died that year in drunk driving accidents. That's nearly 30% of all auto fatalities. Why isn't it 0%? If this is what "responsible drivers" looks like then there are no responsible drivers. What's more, car manufacturers and liquor companies are to blame..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh.  First of all, drunk driving deaths have been cut _*in half*_ since 1980 thanks entirely to; regulations, laws, rules, and a public campaign discouraging drunk driving.  So thanks for helping me prove my point that government regulations, laws, rules, and public campaigns _*work*_.
> 
> Secondly, to combat drunk driving is your solution to make _*more drunk drivers?*_  Because your solution to gun violence is to add more guns.  So if we employ that rhetoric to drunk driving, that would mean you would think the best way to reduce drunk driving is to make sure everyone who drives does do inebriated.
> 
> Thirdly, if you want to compare guns to cars, then I'm totally fine with that.  Fewer people died from cars than guns last year (and the year before).  If you want to use cars as your point of comparison, then by all means let's put guns under the same lens that cars are put under, namely; register your gun with the State, insure your gun, have your gun inspected every year, have your gun tested every year, gun operation test, and required gun training.  If you want to do_* all that*_, I'm totally down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christ, this is like herding cats. I didn't bring that up to talk about drunk driving statistics, I brought it up to apply your reasoning to a different topic to illustrate how ridiculous it is.
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> See how ridiculous that sounds? Besides, 600,000 is only a fraction of all the firearms owned in the U.S. Also, (if you're getting your numbers from the same article I'm looking at) the ATF says that burglaries of gun stores are“a significant source of illegally trafficked firearms”. Firearm dealers have to go through a process of applying for a dealer license with the ATF. After that, the ATF comes and inspects your business as to location in relation to schools and whatnot, and the security of the store and the firearms themselves. Only after the ATF is satisfied can he sell guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter if it's 600,000 or 1.  The point is that "responsible gun ownership" isn't something you can do while you own a gun, because at any time you could act irresponsibly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then again, I might never act irresponsibly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chances are, you will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, chances are that an irresponsible gun owner will act irresponsibly.
> 
> This is an idiotic line of reasoning that might cover all the bases for you but it's still idiotic and does not stand up under logical scrutiny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a matter of _*if*_ your gun gets stolen, but _*when*_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which would mean that every gun ever purchased has been and will be stolen. You're not so stupid as to believe this so why say it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1 gun can kill 58 people and wound 900 in 60 seconds.  As many as 600,000 guns disappear from their owners _*each year*_.  And of those 600,000, 84,000 aren't even notified to the authorities.  You all can't even break 90% when it comes to the rate at which you inform police that your gun is stolen.  You can't even get an "A" for that.  If that's what "responsible gun ownership" looks like...lol...fuck that shit.
> 
> So even if there's only *1* gun stolen a year, that *1 gun stolen* invalidates all efforts at "responsible gun ownership" simply because you cannot profile someone for being negligent enough to let their guns get stolen, give their guns to someone dangerous, or accidentally harm someone with their gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you actually read anything I said? I've already told you twice that no one has suggested that all gun owners are responsible so why the hell do you keep parroting this crap?
Click to expand...


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

The Derp said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And ZERO of my guns have ever been stolen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *YET.
> *
> None of your guns have been stolen *YET.
> *
> You're carrying the risk that they will be stolen simply because you have them.
> 
> So you can't call yourself "responsible" if you're knowingly taking on risk you can't manage.
Click to expand...


This is how your reasoning works:
*
YET.
*
You have never caused an accident that killed someone* YET.
*
You're carrying the risk that you will make an error in judgment on the road simply because you are driving.

So you can't call yourself a "responsible" driver if you're knowingly taking on risk that you might make a mistake someday and cause an accident that kills someone.

You're innocent of vehicular manslaughter until you are not. Because of this, you were never a responsible driver and were _always_ guilty of vehicular manslaughter.

See how stupid that sounds?


----------



## Cellblock2429

Lakhota said:


> Trying to live modern life according to the Constitution is much like trying to live modern life according to the Bible.  Both are subject to vast interpretation.


/——-/ Not too much wiggle room in “Congress shall make no law.”


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

The Derp said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to you stupid Moon Bats I should have to fill in my swimming pool because there is a chance some child could drown in it one day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but you put a fence around your pool.  You have life saving equipment like a donut or lifesaving pole.  You have a "no running" sign up.  You have a cover for your pool.  You (hopefully) know CPR, or have a diagram/chart near the pool.  You routinely test your pool's chlorine levels to kill bacteria.  You treat your pool with chemicals to make it safe for people to swim in.  You have the depth clearly marked.  You have "no diving" signs.
> 
> Fuck outta here with this grade-school juvenile shit.
Click to expand...


You have just outlined the characteristics of a responsible pool owner. And yet, when a gun owner takes responsible actions such as purchasing the weapon legally, keeping it unloaded and in a gun safe when not in use, and reports it if stolen, he's irresponsible anyway. 

You pose a dichotomy of responsible/irresponsible gun owners and cite examples of irresponsible behavior and then when someone counters it with logic, you yank the dichotomy off the table altogether and simply say that all gun owners are irresponsible. As I said before, you can't have it both ways.

This is a cheap, childish, petty and intellectually dishonest way of debating.


----------



## turtledude

Daryl Hunt said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> really? gun deaths have declined over the years despite millions upon millions more guns in circulation and millions of people carrying guns legally. So you are either ignorant of the fact or lying.  Most gun deaths are SUICIDES.  the remaining number that are not justifiable or excusable shootings are homicides mainly and those are caused at rates of 80-90% by people who are not legally able to own or use guns
> 
> so stuff the silly dramatics.  Gun violence in tis country-especially outside urban areas full of drug gangs is minuscule
> 
> 
> 
> USA is the worst country in terms of gu related dearhs/mass shootings. So there is clearly a gun problem. Why do you need a gun ? Insecure? Or ready to kill when you are pissed at the world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what do I need a gun for?  many reasons-one of them being to prevent people like you from trying to strip away our rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do I need a gun?  I don't absolutely need a gun.  I want one and have one.  One of the reasons I might need a gun is when people like you try and take away my rights like outlined in the 1st amendment.  You seem to forget that amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I support your right to blather stupidity.  I am a libertarian-I support all constitutional rights-especially the ones set forth in the constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I also support the consitutional right for our children to be safe under the 1st amendment.  Not happening with you and your cronies interpretation of the 2nd.
Click to expand...

that shows you are clueless about constitutional rights  btw only  a moron thinks someone merely owning  gun deprives you of any rights


----------



## turtledude

SassyIrishLass said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am 70 years old, I have never misused a firearm . I have never invaded my neighbors' rights. Th police has been designated to investigate and protect. I fail to see the reason the powers-that-be refuse to abolish the GUN FREE ZONES statute given the fact that the criminally insane have shown a predilection for our schools..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're just completely ignoring the conversation we were having about responsibility.  Just because you haven't misused a firearm (according to a standard you just made up on the spot) _*yet*_, doesn't mean you won't eventually, or that your gun won't get stolen and then trafficked to criminals.
> 
> The point I'm making is that you can't call yourself a "responsible" anything because you can't predict what will happen down the line.
> 
> It is a fact that your gun is more likely to be stolen and used in a crime, than it will ever be used to protect you or your family.
> 
> So just by virtue of the fact of owning a gun, you're an irresponsible person.  You can never prove you're a "responsible gun owner" because that means nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> OK Mr Twerp, you are just another fucked up gun grabber.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you're just another rightwing liar, the post said about "grabbing guns."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yo Jones...nobody takes you serious. You're unable to defend any premise you've ever posted. Loser
Click to expand...


he is generally about 40% accurate about the constitution and 60% wrong


----------



## 9thIDdoc

The Derp said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullspit. How exactly is it any different when one type of personal property is stolen than another?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't fucking matter.  You're the ones pretending to be "responsible gun owners", but you can't even do _*that*_.  You can't even act responsibly with your own goddamned weapons.  234,000 of you every year see your gun(s) disappear.  33,000 of you don't even notify the police when it happens.
> 
> "Responsible gun owner" is the "No true Scotsman" fallacy, revised for America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a stolen gun is not reported how would you know it was stolen as you claim to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because we have a link from one of your own earlier in this thread that confirms it, from the DOJ:  _*Household burglaries involving stolen firearms were more likely to be reported to police (86 percent)*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many of those guns were stolen from the government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Zero.  All the guns stolen are from individuals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why report a stolen gun to a government who gives guns to criminals and other enemies and may not return it if it is found?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the ones giving the guns to criminals when you don't do a background check on your private gun sale, or when you let your guns get stolen from right under your nose.  This is what I mean when I say you lack responsibility, and why you cannot call yourself a "responsible gun owner".
Click to expand...


_"It doesn't fucking matter.  You're the ones pretending to be "responsible gun owners", but you can't even do *that*."_

No pretense involved. You're the one trying to claim that some reported number of household burglaries involving the theft of guns somehow shows irresponsibility. The burden of proof is on you and you fail miserably. 800K-1M cars are stolen ea. year. Does that prove that all car owners are irresponsible? 

You are the one who hasn't got a clue what responsible ownership is. Come back when you at least have enough knowledge to debate the issue.


----------



## P@triot

The Derp said:


> The only reason anyone would do a gun transfer as a "private sale" was if they wanted to avoid a background check.  Now why would someone want to avoid a background check?


Nothing could be further from the truth. In some cases, a private sale will yield more money. In other cases, someone wants to easily unload a firearm to a friend or relative. There are quite a few legitimate reasons - which is why a criminal purchasing a firearm in a private sale is so rare.


----------



## P@triot

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> And there is no evidence guns act as a deterrent to crime.


Guns prevent *2.5 million* crimes per year in the U.S. There is no evidence that you are informed, educated, or rational.


> A widely-known study conducted by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz in the 1990s found that there were somewhere between 830,000 and 2.45 million U.S. defensive gun uses annually. A National Crime Victimization Study (NCVS) which asked victims if they had used a gun in self-defense found that about 108,000 each year had done so. A big problem with the NCVS line of survey reasoning, however, is that it only includes those uses where a citizen kills a criminal, not when one is only wounded, is held by the intended victim until police arrive, or when brandishing a gun caused a criminal to flee.


Disarming the Myths Promoted By the Gun Control Lobby


----------



## P@triot

The Derp said:


> The political arm of the NRA is most definitely funded by corporations


----------



## P@triot

The Derp said:


> Yes, it clearly is.  Without the political arm of the NRA that is funded by corporations, the NRA would be just a regular old gun club of racists.


You continue to take ignorance to unprecedented levels. The NRA isn’t founded, backed, or comprised of corporations. Hell, show me a corporation that doesn’t outlaw firearms in their buildings or on their campuses.


----------



## Johann

speaking of eliminating our rights and seizing our property is treason. 

The founding fathers gave it to us as our second amendment for a reason.


----------



## P@triot

The Derp said:


> Look man...you guys claim to be responsible, yet the actions say otherwise.  You have "responsible gun owners" on this very thread saying they won't and don't act responsibly.  So "responsible gun owner" is the same fallacy as "No true Scotsman".


Thank goodness we have the 2nd Amendment - so that uninformed, uneducated, ignorant _opinions_ such as yours don’t matter, uh?


----------



## P@triot

Daryl Hunt said:


> But we can easily expand it to the dealers at the Gun Shows.  Actually, a couple of the dealers I know that have booths in the Guns Shows have a computer and do background checks anyway right on the spot.


That’s because it is *law*. A dealer may never sell a firearm without a background check - including at gun shows. I’m sorry, but you simply do not have your facts straight.


----------



## P@triot

The Derp said:


> It's crazy to think you'll be a hero, saving people with your gun...


Yeah...it _only_ happens *2.5 million* times per year in the U.S.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> But we can easily expand it to the dealers at the Gun Shows.  Actually, a couple of the dealers I know that have booths in the Guns Shows have a computer and do background checks anyway right on the spot.
> 
> 
> 
> That’s because it is *law*. A dealer may never sell a firearm without a background check - including at gun shows. I’m sorry, but you simply do not have your facts straight.
Click to expand...


Yet it's done by individuals that set up their own booth.  And don't tell me it isn't done.


----------



## P@triot

Daryl Hunt said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> But we can easily expand it to the dealers at the Gun Shows.  Actually, a couple of the dealers I know that have booths in the Guns Shows have a computer and do background checks anyway right on the spot.
> 
> 
> 
> That’s because it is *law*. A dealer may never sell a firearm without a background check - including at gun shows. I’m sorry, but you simply do not have your facts straight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet it's done by individuals that set up their own booth.  And don't tell me it isn't done.
Click to expand...

Because that is a private sale. And you just admitted that “nothing can be done about private sales”. People are not authorized to run background checks on fellow citizens.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> But we can easily expand it to the dealers at the Gun Shows.  Actually, a couple of the dealers I know that have booths in the Guns Shows have a computer and do background checks anyway right on the spot.
> 
> 
> 
> That’s because it is *law*. A dealer may never sell a firearm without a background check - including at gun shows. I’m sorry, but you simply do not have your facts straight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet it's done by individuals that set up their own booth.  And don't tell me it isn't done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because that is a private sale. And you just admitted that “nothing can be done about private sales”. People are not authorized to run background checks on fellow citizens.
Click to expand...


Do you find this happening at a gun show and not find it strange?  If you go to a gunshow,setup a booth and sell guns, you should be considered a dealer at that point and have to follow the laws of the Dealer.  Otherwise, you should not be allowed to participate.  As for a person running a gun check on another person, the Dealers can run that background check for them.  Another excuse, right?

From what I can see, I see two camps that are the most vocal.  Those that want no rules (You can't tell me what to do" and the other wants a total ban.  You and the other side don't understand that most of us want to be safe.  Look for some changes in 2018 and then again in 2020 when the young are voters.  I mostly agree what these kids are saying.  We need to listen now.  But neither side listens.  Rather than talk with us, you talk at us.  But look for a change in the next 2 years.


----------



## jon_berzerk

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> But we can easily expand it to the dealers at the Gun Shows.  Actually, a couple of the dealers I know that have booths in the Guns Shows have a computer and do background checks anyway right on the spot.
> 
> 
> 
> That’s because it is *law*. A dealer may never sell a firearm without a background check - including at gun shows. I’m sorry, but you simply do not have your facts straight.
Click to expand...


most lefties dont 

and they refuse to accept the facts when presented to them over and over


----------



## Skull Pilot

Ghost of a Rider said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And ZERO of my guns have ever been stolen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *YET.
> *
> None of your guns have been stolen *YET.
> *
> You're carrying the risk that they will be stolen simply because you have them.
> 
> So you can't call yourself "responsible" if you're knowingly taking on risk you can't manage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is how your reasoning works:
> *
> YET.
> *
> You have never caused an accident that killed someone* YET.
> *
> You're carrying the risk that you will make an error in judgment on the road simply because you are driving.
> 
> So you can't call yourself a "responsible" driver if you're knowingly taking on risk that you might make a mistake someday and cause an accident that kills someone.
> 
> You're innocent of vehicular manslaughter until you are not. Because of this, you were never a responsible driver and were _always_ guilty of vehicular manslaughter.
> 
> See how stupid that sounds?
Click to expand...

Diddler can see the future


----------



## Flash

The Derp said:


> NRA bumper stickers are like big, huge, flashing advertisements for thieves that say; "I have guns you can steal".  And they do.  As many as 600,000 are stolen every year.  Every 2 minutes, another gun is stolen in this country from "responsible gun owners".




No Moon Bat you are once again confused.

The NRA bumper sticker I have on my truck is a message that I vote my Constitutional rights.

The "I'm With Her" stickers I occasionally see are a blaring message that the driver is a fucking moron.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Daryl Hunt said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> But we can easily expand it to the dealers at the Gun Shows.  Actually, a couple of the dealers I know that have booths in the Guns Shows have a computer and do background checks anyway right on the spot.
> 
> 
> 
> That’s because it is *law*. A dealer may never sell a firearm without a background check - including at gun shows. I’m sorry, but you simply do not have your facts straight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet it's done by individuals that set up their own booth.  And don't tell me it isn't done.
Click to expand...


Prove it, or I most certainly WILL tell you that.


----------



## Papageorgio

Issa said:


> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> time to ignore the gun banners who squeal in delight every time there is a shooting so they can use the blood of innocents to try to drown out our rights.  You hate the NRA and gun owners because they don't support the leftwing candidates you crave
> 
> 
> 
> Nope because people are dying by the thousands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> really? gun deaths have declined over the years despite millions upon millions more guns in circulation and millions of people carrying guns legally. So you are either ignorant of the fact or lying.  Most gun deaths are SUICIDES.  the remaining number that are not justifiable or excusable shootings are homicides mainly and those are caused at rates of 80-90% by people who are not legally able to own or use guns
> 
> so stuff the silly dramatics.  Gun violence in tis country-especially outside urban areas full of drug gangs is minuscule
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> USA is the worst country in terms of gu related dearhs/mass shootings. So there is clearly a gun problem. Why do you need a gun ? Insecure? Or ready to kill when you are pissed at the world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what do I need a gun for?  many reasons-one of them being to prevent people like you from trying to strip away our rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Enjoy them, I hope you don't kill someone when you lose your temper as many do.
Click to expand...


Less than one tenth of one percent ever use a gun to kill someone. The fact that you own a registered gun reduces that stat to less than 100th of one percent.


----------



## The Derp

Cecilie1200 said:


> If I decide to sell my gun to my son, for example, what PRECISELY am I going to find out from a background check that I _don't already know?! _



_*Because.  It's.  The.  Responsible.  Thing.  To.  Do.  
*_
And maybe you don't know everything about your son that you think you do.  

What is the harm in running a background check, just to give you peace of mind?

You want to call yourself a "responsible gun owner", yet you refuse to act responsibly.  So you're _*not*_ a "responsible gun owner".




Cecilie1200 said:


> Background checks are useful when you're selling a gun to someone you don't know.  What the fuck do you expect them to accomplish in a sale between family and friends, other than your desperate leftist need to have the government involved in EVERYTHING?



What they accomplish are two things:

1.  Peace of mind for the seller.

2.  Because you don't know shit about shit, you don't know about the private lives of your friends and family, and all you're doing is trying to abdicate responsibility for when, not if, the person you give the gun to uses it with ill intent, or sells it to someone who will (straw purchasing).

Like families never keep secrets from one another.

What fucking naive, Mayberry bullshit world do you live in?


----------



## The Derp

Cecilie1200 said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since we're bringing up Kim Jong Un, your approach to gun control would translate into "The United States, Israel, and Great Britain shouldn't be allowed to have nukes, because North Korea can't be trusted with them."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We _*shouldn't*_ have nukes.  No one should.  You know who said that?  *RONALD FUCKING REAGAN.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Should and shouldn't don't have much to do with reality."  You know who said that?  ME.  Just now.
Click to expand...


Yeah, you made that shit up just now, like you make shit up all the time.  Being a Conservative and "responsible gun owner" means you just make shit up out of thin air when you know your argument is bullshit.

You invent standards on the fly, you redefine parameters of what you mean, and you "No true Scotsman" your way out of responsibility for the actions of your fellow dupes and morons.

You're a fraud and a phony.  And you know it.


----------



## The Derp

Skull Pilot said:


> o you are saying that I am negligent even though in 30 years not one of my guns has ever been stolen.



Merely owning a firearm adds risk to you and society.  Adding risk *is not responsible*.  You can only call yourself a "responsible gun owner" in the past tense.  




Skull Pilot said:


> See the difference? Now if you said people who don't secure their guns are negligent I would agree with you but you're not saying that are you?



All gun owners are negligent because they all added unnecessary risk to themselves and society.  Adding unnecessary risk is an act of *selfish* _*irresponsibility.  *_The mere fact you own a gun means you're irresponsible.  You can be less negligent, but you are _*always*_ negligent so long as that firearm is in your possession.  




Skull Pilot said:


> No you're not.  You are saying that ALL gun owners are negligent even the millions of them who never had a gun stolen or reported it when it was stolen.You want to live in an all or nothing world but when it's applied to you you call it fallacy



So what if millions haven't had their guns stolen?  And millions _*have*_ had their guns stolen.  Since 234,000 guns are stolen on average *every year*, it takes less than five years for 1 million gun owners to be robbed of their gun(s).


----------



## The Derp

Skull Pilot said:


> And you haven't raped a little boy     YET



Why does your mind automatically go there when it's not even remotely what we're talking about? Something you want to tell us?  We know most Conservatives have strange feelings when it comes to children, and you're the ones who support child molesters like Moore in Alabama.




Skull Pilot said:


> So I'm just going to call you Diddler  from now onAnd I told you how I secure my guns.  No one is going to steal them because it is physically impossible for anyone to break into my house without setting off an alarm which prompts a call to the police find my gun safe in the basement and crack it and then get away with my firearms.  There is no fucking way that safe is going to be jack hammered out of the concrete it is anchored into and carried up the stairs either.



I don't care how secure you think your guns are.  As many as 600,000 of you every year think your guns are secure and they're not.  You assume the risk when you get a gun.  Taking that risk is irresponsible given the chances that your gun will get stolen, be given to someone bad, get lost, or accidentally harm you or someone close to you.


----------



## Ame®icano

The Derp said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since we're bringing up Kim Jong Un, your approach to gun control would translate into "The United States, Israel, and Great Britain shouldn't be allowed to have nukes, because North Korea can't be trusted with them."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We _*shouldn't*_ have nukes.  No one should.  You know who said that?  *RONALD FUCKING REAGAN.*
Click to expand...


Nope, he hasn't. 

He said he wanted elimination of nukes because nuclear war cannot be won.


----------



## Ame®icano

Flash said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since we're bringing up Kim Jong Un, your approach to gun control would translate into "The United States, Israel, and Great Britain shouldn't be allowed to have nukes, because North Korea can't be trusted with them."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We _*shouldn't*_ have nukes.  No one should.  You know who said that?  *RONALD FUCKING REAGAN.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> According to you stupid Moon Bats I should have to fill in my swimming pool because there is a chance some child could drown in it one day.
Click to expand...


According to their logic, women are responsible for being raped because they have a vagina.


----------



## Skull Pilot

The Derp said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> o you are saying that I am negligent even though in 30 years not one of my guns has ever been stolen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Merely owning a firearm adds risk to you and society.  Adding risk *is not responsible*.  You can only call yourself a "responsible gun owner" in the past tense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> See the difference? Now if you said people who don't secure their guns are negligent I would agree with you but you're not saying that are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All gun owners are negligent because they all added unnecessary risk to themselves and society.  Adding unnecessary risk is an act of *selfish* _*irresponsibility.  *_The mere fact you own a gun means you're irresponsible.  You can be less negligent, but you are _*always*_ negligent so long as that firearm is in your possession.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you're not.  You are saying that ALL gun owners are negligent even the millions of them who never had a gun stolen or reported it when it was stolen.You want to live in an all or nothing world but when it's applied to you you call it fallacy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what if millions haven't had their guns stolen?  And millions _*have*_ had their guns stolen.  Since 234,000 guns are stolen on average *every year*, it takes less than five years for 1 million gun owners to be robbed of their gun(s).
Click to expand...


You are still wrong, Diddler.

Tell me how in the 30+ years I have owned guns I have put "society" at risk.

The fact that I won firearms and that any time I am not carrying one or using one they are ALL locked up in a safe that no one is going to get into.  MOre cars are stolen that guns so the fact that you own a car is negligent because of the higher risk of that car being stolen.

Your argument is shallow at best because there is not one thing that any person does that does not involve some risk.


----------



## Skull Pilot

The Derp said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> o you are saying that I am negligent even though in 30 years not one of my guns has ever been stolen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Merely owning a firearm adds risk to you and society.  Adding risk *is not responsible*.  You can only call yourself a "responsible gun owner" in the past tense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> See the difference? Now if you said people who don't secure their guns are negligent I would agree with you but you're not saying that are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All gun owners are negligent because they all added unnecessary risk to themselves and society.  Adding unnecessary risk is an act of *selfish* _*irresponsibility.  *_The mere fact you own a gun means you're irresponsible.  You can be less negligent, but you are _*always*_ negligent so long as that firearm is in your possession.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you're not.  You are saying that ALL gun owners are negligent even the millions of them who never had a gun stolen or reported it when it was stolen.You want to live in an all or nothing world but when it's applied to you you call it fallacy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what if millions haven't had their guns stolen?  And millions _*have*_ had their guns stolen.  Since 234,000 guns are stolen on average *every year*, it takes less than five years for 1 million gun owners to be robbed of their gun(s).
Click to expand...


Do you think all these guns are stolen one at a time?

The fact that I own guns in no way increases crime because I do not commit crimes.

SOME people steal guns Some people beat their kids.  I suppose just the act of having a child is negligent because over 3 million children are abused annually.


----------



## Flash

This anti gun mentality these uneducated low information Moon Bats are showing nowadays is an indication of a mental illness.

Of course these are the same morons that dress up with pink pussy hats and howl at the sky so go figure.


----------



## Ame®icano

The Derp said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And ZERO of my guns have ever been stolen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *YET.
> *
> None of your guns have been stolen *YET.
> *
> You're carrying the risk that they will be stolen simply because you have them.
> 
> So you can't call yourself "responsible" if you're knowingly taking on risk you can't manage.
Click to expand...


Lay off the drugs, s0n.


----------



## Flash

Skull Pilot said:


> [QU
> 
> 
> Do you think all these guns are stolen one at a time?
> 
> The fact that I own guns in no way increases crime because I do not commit crimes.
> 
> SOME people steal guns Some people beat their kids.  I suppose just the act of having a child is negligent because over 3 million children are abused annually.



The Derp (appropriate moniker) wants to have your Constitutional rights taken away because somebody else may do something illegal.  

Then these Moon Bats wonder why we ridicule them so much.


----------



## Skull Pilot

The Derp said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you haven't raped a little boy     YET
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why does your mind automatically go there when it's not even remotely what we're talking about? Something you want to tell us?  We know most Conservatives have strange feelings when it comes to children, and you're the ones who support child molesters like Moore in Alabama.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I'm just going to call you Diddler  from now onAnd I told you how I secure my guns.  No one is going to steal them because it is physically impossible for anyone to break into my house without setting off an alarm which prompts a call to the police find my gun safe in the basement and crack it and then get away with my firearms.  There is no fucking way that safe is going to be jack hammered out of the concrete it is anchored into and carried up the stairs either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't care how secure you think your guns are.  As many as 600,000 of you every year think your guns are secure and they're not.  You assume the risk when you get a gun.  Taking that risk is irresponsible given the chances that your gun will get stolen, be given to someone bad, get lost, or accidentally harm you or someone close to you.
Click to expand...


OK then why don't you try to find my guns an take them?  Tell me how easy it will be for anyone else to do the same


----------



## The Derp

Cecilie1200 said:


> Let's just cut to the chase.  Derpderp thinks gun owners are negligent because they DARE to own items he doesn't think should exist, and to hold opinions he doesn't agree with.End of story.



You're all completely going nutty and hysterical.

My point of contention isn't that I don't think these guns should exist; it's not even that I don't think you should be allowed to own one.  My contention is that you can't call yourself a "responsible gun owner" because there is no such thing, so let's stop pretending like you are and that somehow justifies the added risk to yourself, your family, and society that you take on by owning a gun.


----------



## The Derp

Skull Pilot said:


> I don't have any NRA bumper stickers.  Or anything that would give away the fact that there are guns in my home.



Great!  So your level of negligence is lower in that regard.  But the negligence is still there simply by virtue of owning a gun.  The negligence only disappears when you give the gun up.




Skull Pilot said:


> Shit my friends don't even know what guns I own and some don't even know I own guns at all.



That's great.  Again, that doesn't eliminate your negligence, it just lowers it.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

The Derp said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> o you are saying that I am negligent even though in 30 years not one of my guns has ever been stolen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Merely owning a firearm adds risk to you and society.  Adding risk *is not responsible*.  You can only call yourself a "responsible gun owner" in the past tense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You suggest that merely owning a gun is adding risk and that if there were no gun owners, the chances of a firearm falling into the wrong hands go to 0%.
> 
> By the same principle, driving is adding risk. Every time you get behind the wheel you increase the chances of an accident. In addition, you put the lives of any of your passengers at risk. Every vehicle added to the roads increases those chances. The more vehicles, the greater the chance. If there were no drivers and no vehicles on the road at all, those chances drop to 0%. Ergo, the +/- 40,000 people that died in car accidents in 2015 would still be alive today.
> 
> Do you dispute this?
Click to expand...


----------



## Skull Pilot

The Derp said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have any NRA bumper stickers.  Or anything that would give away the fact that there are guns in my home.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great!  So your level of negligence is lower in that regard.  But the negligence is still there simply by virtue of owning a gun.  The negligence only disappears when you give the gun up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shit my friends don't even know what guns I own and some don't even know I own guns at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's great.  Again, that doesn't eliminate your negligence, it just lowers it.
Click to expand...


OK Diddler.

Do you have kids?

If you do you are negligent because 3 million kids are abused every year and you just haven't abused your kids YET


----------



## The Derp

Ghost of a Rider said:


> You have never caused an accident that killed someone* YET.*



Right.  But that's inherent to everyone.  What's specifically inherent to you is that you took on added risk by owning a firearm.  So that risk is only specific to you and is *added on top of the general risk that society already has*.  Adding risk isn't responsible.  Insurance companies know this.  It's their friggin' business model.  The more risk you take on, the higher your premiums go.  And you're taking on a ton of risk by owning a firearm. 
*
*


Ghost of a Rider said:


> You're carrying the risk that you will make an error in judgment on the road simply because you are driving.



*WHICH IS WHY WE MUST HAVE CAR INSURANCE*.  You seem to be unwittingly arguing for mandatory gun insurance.  Which is something I would actually support.




Ghost of a Rider said:


> So you can't call yourself a "responsible" driver if you're knowingly taking on risk that you might make a mistake someday and cause an accident that kills someone.You're innocent of vehicular manslaughter until you are not. Because of this, you were never a responsible driver and were _always_ guilty of vehicular manslaughter.See how stupid that sounds?



It doesn't sound stupid at all since everyone is required to have car insurance.  So you seem to be arguing that gun owners must get gun insurance.  Which is something I could support.


----------



## The Derp

Ghost of a Rider said:


> You have just outlined the characteristics of a responsible pool owner. And yet, when a gun owner takes responsible actions such as purchasing the weapon legally, keeping it unloaded and in a gun safe when not in use, and reports it if stolen, he's irresponsible anyway.



The problem is that pools can't be stolen.  But guns are; 234,000 on average a year.  So guns are inherently much more risky than pools.




Ghost of a Rider said:


> You pose a dichotomy of responsible/irresponsible gun owners and cite examples of irresponsible behavior and then when someone counters it with logic, you yank the dichotomy off the table altogether and simply say that all gun owners are irresponsible. As I said before, you can't have it both ways.This is a cheap, childish, petty and intellectually dishonest way of debating.



Of course they're all irresponsible.  It's irresponsible to take on unnecessary risk.  Any insurer will tell you that.


----------



## The Derp

9thIDdoc said:


> No pretense involved. You're the one trying to claim that some reported number of household burglaries involving the theft of guns somehow shows irresponsibility. The burden of proof is on you and you fail miserably. 800K-1M cars are stolen ea. year. Does that prove that all car owners are irresponsible?



1.  Nearly 100% of car thefts are reported to the police; only 86% of gun thefts are.
2.  Cars are insured, guns are not.
3.  It doesn't matter if the number of guns stolen a year is *1*, the fact is that simply having the gun opens you up to the risk of having it stolen.
4.  Not sure you understand what "burden of proof" means.





9thIDdoc said:


> You are the one who hasn't got a clue what responsible ownership is. Come back when you at least have enough knowledge to debate the issue.



Responsible gun ownership isn't something that can be determined until _*after*_ your period of gun ownership ends.  Because at any time your gun could get stolen, you could lose it, you could give it to someone bad, or it could go off accidentally and hurt someone.  So you've added all that risk to yourself and to society for what?  For the unlikely chance that you might be able to use it to defend yourself?  It's more likely your gun will get stolen than you will ever use it to kill "a bad guy".


----------



## The Derp

P@triot said:


> Nothing could be further from the truth. In some cases, a private sale will yield more money. In other cases, someone wants to easily unload a firearm to a friend or relative. There are quite a few legitimate reasons - which is why a criminal purchasing a firearm in a private sale is so rare.



So it's about money then, not safety.  It's about money then, not gun rights.  Why would a private sale fetch more money without a background check than with one?

And "easily unload"...a curious choice of words there.  What makes it easy?  That you think you know the person you're selling it to?  Tell me, do families and friends not keep secrets from one another?


----------



## The Derp

P@triot said:


> You continue to take ignorance to unprecedented levels. The NRA isn’t founded, backed, or comprised of corporations. Hell, show me a corporation that doesn’t outlaw firearms in their buildings or on their campuses.



Their political arm sure as shit is.  And it's the political arm that does all the advocacy work.  You're trying to pretend that political arm doesn't exist.  Nothing could be further from the truth.


----------



## The Derp

Johann said:


> The founding fathers gave it to us as our second amendment for a reason.



Yeah, because back in the 1770's, there was no standing army, no FBI, no police, no first responders...and threats of bears and native American attacks were real.


----------



## The Derp

P@triot said:


> Yeah...it _only_ happens *2.5 million* times per year in the U.S.



Which is complete and total bullshit.


----------



## The Derp

Flash said:


> The NRA bumper sticker I have on my truck is a message that I vote my Constitutional rights.



That's what _*you think*_, but the reality is that it's just an advertisement to thieves that you have a gun they can steal.  When theives break into homes and cars, they're looking for three things:

Guns
Cash
Drugs

Your NRA sticker tells the thief that there's a gun for them to steal.  So they already know what they're looking for.




Flash said:


> The "I'm With Her" stickers I occasionally see are a blaring message that the driver is a fucking moron.



Clinton got 3 million more votes than Trump.


----------



## Skull Pilot

The Derp said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The NRA bumper sticker I have on my truck is a message that I vote my Constitutional rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what _*you think*_, but the reality is that it's just an advertisement to thieves that you have a gun they can steal.  When theives break into homes and cars, they're looking for three things:
> 
> Guns
> Cash
> Drugs
> 
> Your NRA sticker tells the thief that there's a gun for them to steal.  So they already know what they're looking for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "I'm With Her" stickers I occasionally see are a blaring message that the driver is a fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clinton got 3 million more votes than Trump.
Click to expand...

Do you not know that the popular vote is not how the president is elected in this country?


----------



## The Derp

Ame®icano said:


> He said he wanted elimination of nukes because nuclear war cannot be won.



I said:  Reagan didn't want any Nukes.
You said:  No, he said he didn't want any Nukes.

Are you so insecure you have to restate that which I already said and try to make it seem like you are the one who said it?


----------



## The Derp

Skull Pilot said:


> Tell me how in the 30+ years I have owned guns I have put "society" at risk.



You put society at risk because you own a gun that can be stolen and used in a crime.  Whether or not it hasn't been stolen _*yet*_ doesn't change the fact that it _*can be stolen at any time*_.

And there's less than a 90% chance you'd even report the gun was stolen.




Skull Pilot said:


> The fact that I won firearms and that any time I am not carrying one or using one they are ALL locked up in a safe that no one is going to get into.  MOre cars are stolen that guns so the fact that you own a car is negligent because of the higher risk of that car being stolen.Your argument is shallow at best because there is not one thing that any person does that does not involve some risk.



Cars are insured and virtually 100% of car thefts are reported to the police.

Guns are not insured and less than 90% of gun thefts are reported to the police.


----------



## The Derp

Skull Pilot said:


> Do you think all these guns are stolen one at a time?



No, and I don't know why you think I would think that.  Seems like you're just looking for any red herring you can to escape the uncomfortable conversation about how irresponsible a person you are.




Skull Pilot said:


> The fact that I own guns in no way increases crime because I do not commit crimes.



But people who steal your gun would.  That's the point.  You own this thing that can be stolen at any time, and then used in a crime against someone else.  Then you abrogate responsibility for that thing, claiming you don't have to act responsibly because you think you're responsible enough.  You're not.  None of you are.  Being responsible would mean _*not*_ taking this thing into your home where there's a chance it can be stolen.  But you don't think in those terms because you're a selfish, irresponsible person.




Skull Pilot said:


> SOME people steal guns Some people beat their kids.  I suppose just the act of having a child is negligent because over 3 million children are abused annually.



I happen to think that having a child is a negligent thing, but that's my personal view.  The child is the victim there, so I don't know why you have this compulsion to always talk about abusing kids.  What's with that?  Something you want to tell us?


----------



## The Derp

Ame®icano said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And ZERO of my guns have ever been stolen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *YET.
> *
> None of your guns have been stolen *YET.
> *
> You're carrying the risk that they will be stolen simply because you have them.
> 
> So you can't call yourself "responsible" if you're knowingly taking on risk you can't manage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lay off the drugs, s0n.
Click to expand...


Eat a tide pod, troll.


----------



## The Derp

Skull Pilot said:


> OK then why don't you try to find my guns an take them?  Tell me how easy it will be for anyone else to do the same



Because I don't want to take your guns, doofus.

Pointing out the fact that your gun could get stolen doesn't mean I'm going to be the one to steal it.

Yeesh.


----------



## The Derp

Skull Pilot said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have any NRA bumper stickers.  Or anything that would give away the fact that there are guns in my home.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great!  So your level of negligence is lower in that regard.  But the negligence is still there simply by virtue of owning a gun.  The negligence only disappears when you give the gun up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shit my friends don't even know what guns I own and some don't even know I own guns at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's great.  Again, that doesn't eliminate your negligence, it just lowers it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK Diddler.
> 
> Do you have kids?
> 
> If you do you are negligent because 3 million kids are abused every year and you just haven't abused your kids YET
Click to expand...


I don't have kids, don't like them, don't want them...and let's stay on topic.

The topic being you adding unnecessary risk because you're selfish.


----------



## Cecilie1200

The Derp said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I decide to sell my gun to my son, for example, what PRECISELY am I going to find out from a background check that I _don't already know?! _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*Because.  It's.  The.  Responsible.  Thing.  To.  Do.
> *_
> And maybe you don't know everything about your son that you think you do.
> 
> What is the harm in running a background check, just to give you peace of mind?
> 
> You want to call yourself a "responsible gun owner", yet you refuse to act responsibly.  So you're _*not*_ a "responsible gun owner".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Background checks are useful when you're selling a gun to someone you don't know.  What the fuck do you expect them to accomplish in a sale between family and friends, other than your desperate leftist need to have the government involved in EVERYTHING?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What they accomplish are two things:
> 
> 1.  Peace of mind for the seller.
> 
> 2.  Because you don't know shit about shit, you don't know about the private lives of your friends and family, and all you're doing is trying to abdicate responsibility for when, not if, the person you give the gun to uses it with ill intent, or sells it to someone who will (straw purchasing).
> 
> Like families never keep secrets from one another.
> 
> What fucking naive, Mayberry bullshit world do you live in?
Click to expand...


So in your world, "responsible" is defined as "mindlessly following routines with no regard for whether or not they're appropriate or useful".  All righty then.

I have two points as well.

1)  Yes, some family members keep secrets.  I know which relatives of mine are lying, untrustworthy pieces of crap.  Don't you?

2)  My son, who I mentioned as an example, might well want to keep secrets from me.  But he is unlikely to be able to keep a stint in prison or a mental institution from me.

So I ask again, what am I likely to get on a background check that I wouldn't already know?


----------



## Flash

The Derp said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The NRA bumper sticker I have on my truck is a message that I vote my Constitutional rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what _*you think*_, but the reality is that it's just an advertisement to thieves that you have a gun they can steal.  When theives break into homes and cars, they're looking for three things:
> 
> Guns
> Cash
> Drugs
> 
> Your NRA sticker tells the thief that there's a gun for them to steal.  So they already know what they're looking for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "I'm With Her" stickers I occasionally see are a blaring message that the driver is a fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clinton got 3 million more votes than Trump.
Click to expand...


You are confused Moon Bat.

Crooked Hillary got 3 million more illegal votes than Trump.  Even with that and fixing the moon Bat election and hiring the Russians to help her the bitch lost.

My NRA sticker on my truck (made in a non UAW plant) shows that I support the Constitution.  Go read the con sitution.  it says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  Go look it up.

That vehicle or any other NRA stickered vehicle that I have ever known has never been broken into as far as I know so that is something else you are confused about.

Are you a 12 year old kid because that it what your confused and uneducated posts sounds like most of the time.

Can you imagine how people would ridicule you if you had one of these filthy ass Crooked Hillary stickers on your car?  Trust me, you get laughed at as you drive down the road.  That is probably the reason that you very seldom saw them in 2016.  People were ashamed to admit they supported the filthy ass kunt.


----------



## Flash

Cecilie1200 said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I decide to sell my gun to my son, for example, what PRECISELY am I going to find out from a background check that I _don't already know?! _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*Because.  It's.  The.  Responsible.  Thing.  To.  Do.
> *_
> And maybe you don't know everything about your son that you think you do.
> 
> What is the harm in running a background check, just to give you peace of mind?
> 
> You want to call yourself a "responsible gun owner", yet you refuse to act responsibly.  So you're _*not*_ a "responsible gun owner".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Background checks are useful when you're selling a gun to someone you don't know.  What the fuck do you expect them to accomplish in a sale between family and friends, other than your desperate leftist need to have the government involved in EVERYTHING?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What they accomplish are two things:
> 
> 1.  Peace of mind for the seller.
> 
> 2.  Because you don't know shit about shit, you don't know about the private lives of your friends and family, and all you're doing is trying to abdicate responsibility for when, not if, the person you give the gun to uses it with ill intent, or sells it to someone who will (straw purchasing).
> 
> Like families never keep secrets from one another.
> 
> What fucking naive, Mayberry bullshit world do you live in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So in your world, "responsible" is defined as "mindlessly following routines with no regard for whether or not they're appropriate or useful".  All righty then.
> 
> I have two points as well.
> 
> 1)  Yes, some family members keep secrets.  I know which relatives of mine are lying, untrustworthy pieces of crap.  Don't you?
> 
> 2)  My son, who I mentioned as an example, might well want to keep secrets from me.  But he is unlikely to be able to keep a stint in prison or a mental institution from me.
> 
> So I ask again, what am I likely to get on a background check that I wouldn't already know?
Click to expand...



These stupid Moon Bats don't seem to understand that passing a NICS background check is no guarantee that you won't commit a crime in the future.  We saw that in Las Vegas, DC, Texas and Parkland, didn't we?

Background checks are only feel good pacifiers for the stupid Moon bats and have no real value.


----------



## Lakhota

NRA’s Dana Loesch: “I’m not saying you love the tragedy, but you love the ratings. Crying white mothers are ratings gold.”

*NRA GOES SCORCHED EARTH: ‘MEDIA LOVE MASS SHOOTINGS’*

Wow!  Just wow!


----------



## The Derp

Skull Pilot said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The NRA bumper sticker I have on my truck is a message that I vote my Constitutional rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what _*you think*_, but the reality is that it's just an advertisement to thieves that you have a gun they can steal.  When theives break into homes and cars, they're looking for three things:
> 
> Guns
> Cash
> Drugs
> 
> Your NRA sticker tells the thief that there's a gun for them to steal.  So they already know what they're looking for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "I'm With Her" stickers I occasionally see are a blaring message that the driver is a fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clinton got 3 million more votes than Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you not know that the popular vote is not how the president is elected in this country?
Click to expand...


I am aware of the electoral college, but I never let an opportunity go to waste to remind Conservative psychos that Trump was less popular than Clinton.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop




----------



## Ame®icano

The Derp said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to you stupid Moon Bats I should have to fill in my swimming pool because there is a chance some child could drown in it one day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but you put a fence around your pool.  You have life saving equipment like a donut or lifesaving pole.  You have a "no running" sign up.  You have a cover for your pool.  You (hopefully) know CPR, or have a diagram/chart near the pool.  You routinely test your pool's chlorine levels to kill bacteria.  You treat your pool with chemicals to make it safe for people to swim in.  You have the depth clearly marked.  You have "no diving" signs.
> 
> Fuck outta here with this grade-school juvenile shit.
Click to expand...


And let's say he has all that (fence, signs, life jackets, perfect chlorine level, marked dept, etc). Than you, drunk in your stupidity, decide to jump over the fence when he's not home and take a swim, and drown. How can he be responsible for your death?


----------



## Ame®icano

The Derp said:


> NRA bumper stickers are like big, huge, flashing advertisements for thieves that say; "I have guns you can steal".  And they do.  As many as 600,000 are stolen every year.  Every 2 minutes, another gun is stolen in this country from "responsible gun owners".



You keep saying 600,000 guns stolen every year, like it's truth. 

The number is around 230,000. Both numbers are bad and scary, yours is just incorrect.


----------



## The Derp

Cecilie1200 said:


> So in your world, "responsible" is defined as "mindlessly following routines with no regard for whether or not they're appropriate or useful".  All righty then.



These routines exist for a reason, that reason being the seller knowing to whom they are selling.  A background check informs the seller of whom they are about to sell.  You don't want to be informed of the person you're about to sell the gun to? 

_*You're here arguing that you can't be expected to make an informed judgment of someone you're about to sell a gun to, despite those tools existing specifically for that purpose.
*_
That is irresponsibility, best expressed.  You're an irresponsible person who simply cannot be trusted to act responsibly.  And if you can't act responsibly when it comes to _*selling*_ your gun, *how the fuck can you be expected to act responsibly when it comes to using your gun!?!?!?!?!
*



Cecilie1200 said:


> 1)  Yes, some family members keep secrets.  I know which relatives of mine are lying, untrustworthy pieces of crap.  Don't you?



Do you now?  So, there _*are*_ members in your family who are pieces of shit.  Could it be possible that you've misjudged the people you currently don't think are? 

Your fucking intuition _*is shit*_.  So your fucking judgment, informed purely by your intuition,_* is also shit*_.  Why the fuck can you be trusted to have good instincts when you just got done arguing you don't have to be informed of the person to whom you're about to sell your gun?




Cecilie1200 said:


> 2)  My son, who I mentioned as an example, might well want to keep secrets from me.  But he is unlikely to be able to keep a stint in prison or a mental institution from me.



But that's not something you can say for certain.  He can definitely keep a domestic violence charge from you.  He could keep a restraining order from you.  He could keep his name appearing on the terrorist no-fly list from you.  

See, you don't seem to know what background checks actually entail.  They don't merely show prison stints or asylum stints, they show a lot more...like domestic violence, dishonorable discharges, and plenty of other misdemeanors and the like that wouldn't result in prison time.




Cecilie1200 said:


> So I ask again, what am I likely to get on a background check that I wouldn't already know?



See above, fuckhead.


----------



## Cecilie1200

The Derp said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's just cut to the chase.  Derpderp thinks gun owners are negligent because they DARE to own items he doesn't think should exist, and to hold opinions he doesn't agree with.End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're all completely going nutty and hysterical.
> 
> My point of contention isn't that I don't think these guns should exist; it's not even that I don't think you should be allowed to own one.  My contention is that you can't call yourself a "responsible gun owner" because there is no such thing, so let's stop pretending like you are and that somehow justifies the added risk to yourself, your family, and society that you take on by owning a gun.
Click to expand...


Yeah, well, "don't think they should exist" is pointless.  Once something has been invented, that ship has sailed.  You can't put the genie back in the bottle and uninvent them.

MY contention is that no one made you arbiter of "responsible", so let's stop pretending like you are and like anyone is actually struggling to win your approval.


----------



## Ame®icano

Ghost of a Rider said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to you stupid Moon Bats I should have to fill in my swimming pool because there is a chance some child could drown in it one day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but you put a fence around your pool.  You have life saving equipment like a donut or lifesaving pole.  You have a "no running" sign up.  You have a cover for your pool.  You (hopefully) know CPR, or have a diagram/chart near the pool.  You routinely test your pool's chlorine levels to kill bacteria.  You treat your pool with chemicals to make it safe for people to swim in.  You have the depth clearly marked.  You have "no diving" signs.
> 
> Fuck outta here with this grade-school juvenile shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have just outlined the characteristics of a responsible pool owner. And yet, when a gun owner takes responsible actions such as purchasing the weapon legally, keeping it unloaded and in a gun safe when not in use, and reports it if stolen, he's irresponsible anyway.
> 
> You pose a dichotomy of responsible/irresponsible gun owners and cite examples of irresponsible behavior and then when someone counters it with logic, you yank the dichotomy off the table altogether and simply say that all gun owners are irresponsible. As I said before, you can't have it both ways.
> 
> This is a cheap, childish, petty and intellectually dishonest way of debating.
Click to expand...


Or you could have just said - leftist.


----------



## The Derp

Flash said:


> Crooked Hillary got 3 million more illegal votes than Trump.  Even with that and fixing the moon Bat election and hiring the Russians to help her the bitch lost.



Nope.  Not illegal.  You've offered no proof of that because no proof exists.  And your detachment from reality only further serves my point that you probably have a mental illness that isn't diagnosed.  Because it takes a mentally ill person to think that 3,000,000 illegal votes were cast for Clinton.




Flash said:


> My NRA sticker on my truck (made in a non UAW plant) shows that I support the Constitution.  Go read the con sitution.  it says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  Go look it up.



LOL!  Your NRA sticker says that you have a gun that can be stolen because thieves will know that at least one of the three things they're looking for (Guns, drugs, cash), you have in your possession.  So the NRA sticker makes it _*more likely*_ that you'll be a victim of theft than someone who doesn't advertise they own something that thieves and burglars go for.  




Flash said:


> That vehicle or any other NRA stickered vehicle that I have ever known has never been broken into as far as I know so that is something else you are confused about.Are you a 12 year old kid because that it what your confused and uneducated posts sounds like most of the time.



Anecdotal bullshit does not carry any argument, least of all your weak one.

We asked 86 burglars how they broke into homes
KGW News 9 - Oregon
July 1st, 2017
_
Do you ever wonder whether your home security system or “Beware of Dog” sign actually keeps burglars away?

We did too. So KGW's investigative team sent letters to 86 inmates currently serving time for burglary in the Oregon Department of Corrections. The inmates were asked to respond anonymously to 17 questions detailing how they broke in, when the crime occurred and what they were looking for.

...
Jewelry, electronics, cash and credit cards are all attractive to burglars. Inmates also added collectibles and guns.

“NRA sticker on car bumper = Lots of guns to steal,” wrote one burglar._​



Flash said:


> Can you imagine how people would ridicule you if you had one of these filthy ass Crooked Hillary stickers on your car?  Trust me, you get laughed at as you drive down the road.  That is probably the reason that you very seldom saw them in 2016.  People were ashamed to admit they supported the filthy ass kunt.



Thieves would stay away because the odds are, the Clinton folks won't have a gun to steal, won't have oxycontin to steal, and pay with credit cards and wirelessly via apps.


----------



## The Derp

Ame®icano said:


> And let's say he has all that (fence, signs, life jackets, perfect chlorine level, marked dept, etc). Than you, drunk in your stupidity, decide to jump over the fence when he's not home and take a swim, and drown. How can he be responsible for your death?



Because it's _*his fucking house*_.

Possession and responsibility mean nothing to you or any gun owners.  You're just a bunch of irresponsible people.


----------



## The Derp

Ame®icano said:


> You keep saying 600,000 guns stolen every year, like it's truth.



NO!  *See, this is an example of you being lazy and sloppy.*  I said "*as many as*" 600,000 guns are stolen a year.




Ame®icano said:


> The number is around 230,000. Both numbers are bad and scary, yours is just incorrect.



And of that 234,000, 33,000 aren't reported to the police.  You all can't even get above 90% when it comes to reporting stolen weapons...and you think you're "responsible" people?  Fuck outta here.


----------



## Ame®icano

The Derp said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I'm just going to call you Diddler  from now onAnd I told you how I secure my guns.  No one is going to steal them because it is physically impossible for anyone to break into my house without setting off an alarm which prompts a call to the police find my gun safe in the basement and crack it and then get away with my firearms.  There is no fucking way that safe is going to be jack hammered out of the concrete it is anchored into and carried up the stairs either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care how secure you think your guns are.  As many as 600,000 of you every year think your guns are secure and they're not.  You assume the risk when you get a gun.  Taking that risk is irresponsible given the chances that your gun will get stolen, be given to someone bad, get lost, or accidentally harm you or someone close to you.
Click to expand...


I agree there is a risk, especially for someone who decide to break into my home. 

You may be lucky and break in when I am not at home, and be ready to have video of you taken from every direction outside of home, and few from the inside. You better be good at breaking into safe, because police response time where I live is less than 5 minutes.

You also may not be so lucky, and break in when I am at home. That is the risk I would love you take.


----------



## The Derp

Cecilie1200 said:


> Yeah, well, "don't think they should exist" is pointless.



Sloppy, lazy.  Not what I said.  What I said was that _*wasn't*_ my contention.  Can you read, or is your Russia preventing you from comprehending?  I don't understand why you have such a hard time reading what is being written to you.  Maybe you have brain damage. 

My *only contention* in all this is that you people can't pretend you're responsible. 




Cecilie1200 said:


> Once something has been invented, that ship has sailed.  You can't put the genie back in the bottle and uninvent them.MY contention is that no one made you arbiter of "responsible", so let's stop pretending like you are and like anyone is actually struggling to win your approval.



I never said I was the arbiter of responsibility, but background checks are undeniably an act of responsibility.


----------



## Skull Pilot

The Derp said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have any NRA bumper stickers.  Or anything that would give away the fact that there are guns in my home.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great!  So your level of negligence is lower in that regard.  But the negligence is still there simply by virtue of owning a gun.  The negligence only disappears when you give the gun up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shit my friends don't even know what guns I own and some don't even know I own guns at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's great.  Again, that doesn't eliminate your negligence, it just lowers it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK Diddler.
> 
> Do you have kids?
> 
> If you do you are negligent because 3 million kids are abused every year and you just haven't abused your kids YET
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have kids, don't like them, don't want them...and let's stay on topic.
> 
> The topic being you adding unnecessary risk because you're selfish.
Click to expand...


I'm trying to understand your absurd reasoning as to what comprises negligence.

It seems to me that if anyone owns anything that might be stolen they would be negligent in your eyes.

the top 10 most stolen items of personal property are

1. Bicycles

2. Mobile phones

3. Power tools

4. Laptops

5. Tablets

6. Cameras

7. Golfing equipment

8. Gardening tools

9. Audio equipment

10. TVs

So by your "logic" everyone who owns any one of the above items must be negligent and the more of those things they own the more negligent and selfish they are.


----------



## Skull Pilot

The Derp said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The NRA bumper sticker I have on my truck is a message that I vote my Constitutional rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what _*you think*_, but the reality is that it's just an advertisement to thieves that you have a gun they can steal.  When theives break into homes and cars, they're looking for three things:
> 
> Guns
> Cash
> Drugs
> 
> Your NRA sticker tells the thief that there's a gun for them to steal.  So they already know what they're looking for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "I'm With Her" stickers I occasionally see are a blaring message that the driver is a fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clinton got 3 million more votes than Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you not know that the popular vote is not how the president is elected in this country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am aware of the electoral college, but I never let an opportunity go to waste to remind Conservative psychos that Trump was less popular than Clinton.
Click to expand...


But it matters not but hey if meaningless shit gets you off feel free


----------



## Ame®icano

The Derp said:


> 1.  Nearly 100% of car thefts are reported to the police; only 86% of gun thefts are.
> 2.  Cars are insured, guns are not.
> 3.  It doesn't matter if the number of guns stolen a year is *1*, the fact is that simply having the gun opens you up to the risk of having it stolen.
> 4.  Not sure you understand what "burden of proof" means.



If only 86% of gun thefts are reported, meaning 14% of gun thefts are not... how do you know something is stolen if it was never reported? If you understand what "burden of proof" is, here is the chance for you to present it.

The only reason someone would not report stolen gun is if gun is not legally owned. Those who own the guns legally will always report it, likewise if gun is not own legally, the theft will not be reported.

If you stole my car, and than someone else steal it from you, would you call the police?

It doesn't matter that number of mouths you have is *1*. The fact is that you simply having the mouth opens up to the risk of you saying something stupid. The "burden of proof" is all over this board.


----------



## Skull Pilot

The Derp said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying 600,000 guns stolen every year, like it's truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO!  *See, this is an example of you being lazy and sloppy.*  I said "*as many as*" 600,000 guns are stolen a year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> The number is around 230,000. Both numbers are bad and scary, yours is just incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And of that 234,000, 33,000 aren't reported to the police.  You all can't even get above 90% when it comes to reporting stolen weapons...and you think you're "responsible" people?  Fuck outta here.
Click to expand...

Then you should be able to tell us what year 600000 guns were stolen


----------



## Ame®icano

The Derp said:


> Clinton got 3 million more votes than Trump.


Trump won 3,084 counties, Clinton won 57.


----------



## Ame®icano

The Derp said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> He said he wanted elimination of nukes because nuclear war cannot be won.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I said:  Reagan didn't want any Nukes.
> You said:  No, he said he didn't want any Nukes.
> 
> Are you so insecure you have to restate that which I already said and try to make it seem like you are the one who said it?
Click to expand...


You're lying. That's not what you said. 

This is what you said: "We _*shouldn't*_ have nukes. No one should. You know who said that? RONALD FUCKING REAGAN."

Reagan did not say that.


----------



## Ame®icano

The Derp said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And ZERO of my guns have ever been stolen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *YET.
> *
> None of your guns have been stolen *YET.
> *
> You're carrying the risk that they will be stolen simply because you have them.
> 
> So you can't call yourself "responsible" if you're knowingly taking on risk you can't manage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lay off the drugs, s0n.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Eat a tide pod, troll.
Click to expand...


There aren't any left, national shortage due to the leftist snowflakes epidemic.


----------



## Skull Pilot

The Derp said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree there is a risk, especially for someone who decide to break into my home.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if you're not home and they break in?  What good is your gun then?  It's just sitting there, a ripe target for a burglar.  Most home break-ins occur when no one's home, duh.  But you've lured the thief to your home with your NRA bumper sticker, then the thief waits for you to leave, then they break in and go searching for what?  _*For the gun you just advertised you have*_.  So you act irresponsibly, attract burglars to your home where your gun becomes a target because you told the whole world you have one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> You may be lucky and break in when I am not at home, and be ready to have video of you taken from every direction outside of home, and few from the inside.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  Video recording isn't going to stop the burglar from taking the gun you told them you have, and turning it around before they are arrested (_*IF*_ they are arrested).
> 
> 2.  You sound mentally disturbed if you're putting up cameras throughout your house.  Definitely has a creepy-perv vibe about it.  But since most Conservatives are weirdos when it comes to sex with minors, I'm sure you think it's perfectly normal to live in the Big Brother house.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> You better be good at breaking into safe, because police response time where I live is less than 5 minutes.You also may not be so lucky, and break in when I am at home. That is the risk I would love you take.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the police response time is so great, why do you need a gun?
Click to expand...


Because someone can kill you or a member of your family in the 5 minutes it takes for the cops to show up.


----------



## The Derp

Skull Pilot said:


> I'm trying to understand your absurd reasoning as to what comprises negligence. It seems to me that if anyone owns anything that might be stolen they would be negligent in your eyes.



No, just guns because guns are primarly used to kill, and are targeted by thieves.



Skull Pilot said:


> the top 10 most stolen items of personal property are
> 1. Bicycles
> 2. Mobile phones
> 3. Power tools
> 4. Laptops
> 5. Tablets
> 6. Cameras
> 7. Golfing equipment
> 8. Gardening tools
> 9. Audio equipment
> 10. TVs



None of which are used to kill people, or are widely used in crimes.

So you #nonsequiturFAIL again.




Skull Pilot said:


> tSo by your "logic" everyone who owns any one of the above items must be negligent and the more of those things they own the more negligent and selfish they are.



None of those things are used by thieves to kill people like guns are.  I don't hear many instances of a thief holding up a liquor store with a rake.


----------



## The Derp

Skull Pilot said:


> But it matters not but hey if meaningless shit gets you off feel free



Trump lost the popular vote.


----------



## Skull Pilot

The Derp said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm trying to understand your absurd reasoning as to what comprises negligence. It seems to me that if anyone owns anything that might be stolen they would be negligent in your eyes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, just guns because guns are primarly used to kill, and are targeted by thieves.
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> the top 10 most stolen items of personal property are
> 1. Bicycles
> 2. Mobile phones
> 3. Power tools
> 4. Laptops
> 5. Tablets
> 6. Cameras
> 7. Golfing equipment
> 8. Gardening tools
> 9. Audio equipment
> 10. TVs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of which are used to kill people, or are widely used in crimes.
> 
> So you #nonsequiturFAIL again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> tSo by your "logic" everyone who owns any one of the above items must be negligent and the more of those things they own the more negligent and selfish they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of those things are used by thieves to kill people like guns are.  I don't hear many instances of a thief holding up a liquor store with a rake.
Click to expand...


Obviously guns are not targeted by thieves  as they are not on the top 10 list of stolen items.

and tell me what year exactly that there were 600000 guns stolen


----------



## Ame®icano

The Derp said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> And let's say he has all that (fence, signs, life jackets, perfect chlorine level, marked dept, etc). Than you, drunk in your stupidity, decide to jump over the fence when he's not home and take a swim, and drown. How can he be responsible for your death?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's _*his fucking house*_.
> 
> Possession and responsibility mean nothing to you or any gun owners.  You're just a bunch of irresponsible people.
Click to expand...


His house. Not yours. 

You decided to break in when he's not at home.

He had a fence to keep you away from his pool. You jumped over the fence.
He had signs around the pool, you ignored them.
He had life jackets around the pool, you haven't use any.
He had marked pool depth, you jumped in at the deep end.

How is he still responsible for your death?

Look at the bright side, at least you died in water with perfect chlorine level. The only better than that would be if he was at home when you broke in, and he shot you. Twice. He wouldn't have to clean the pool.


----------



## The Derp

Ame®icano said:


> If only 86% of gun thefts are reported, meaning 14% of gun thefts are not... how do you know something is stolen if it was never reported? If you understand what "burden of proof" is, here is the chance for you to present it.



Because the Department of Justice tells us that from the National Crime Victimhood Survey since 1973.  It was in the link I provided a couple posts before this one, and one I'm happy to provide again, and just did.  Now kindly take it, and go fuck yourself with it.




Ame®icano said:


> The only reason someone would not report stolen gun is if gun is not legally owned. Those who own the guns legally will always report it, likewise if gun is not own legally, the theft will not be reported.



Is that the only reason?  Maybe the reasons could *also be:

1.  That they simply didn't know it was stolen
2.  That they were too fucking fat, lazy, and entitled to tell the police
3.  That they want the gun to end up in the hands of criminals
*
So if someone owned a stolen gun, _*then they're not a responsible gun owner*_.  Abd how did they get that stolen gun?  They either stole it themselves, someone gave it to them as a "family transfer" so no background check was run, or someone sold it to them as a *private sale so no background check was run.  *

See, the problem is you can't define what a "responsible gun owner" is until *after* they cease being a gun owner and the actions and acts they took while a gun owner are examined.  So it's exactly "No true Scotsman" fallacy, revised for America.

The only way to be a "responsible gun owner" is to give up the fucking gun.




Ame®icano said:


> If you stole my car, and than someone else steal it from you, would you call the police?



So all these "responsible gun owners" aren't in fact "responsible gun owners".  They're just negligent people who steal from other negligent people.  And you're trying to make the case that I should trust your gun ownership responsibility?  FUCK YOU.




Ame®icano said:


> It doesn't matter that number of mouths you have is *1*. The fact is that you simply having the mouth opens up to the risk of you saying something stupid. The "burden of proof" is all over this board.



You are using phrases you have no understanding of, to argue on behalf of acting irresponsibly for selfish reasons.

You're a piece of shit and a coward.


----------



## The Derp

Skull Pilot said:


> Then you should be able to tell us what year 600000 guns were stolen





Ame®icano said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton got 3 million more votes than Trump.
> 
> 
> 
> Trump won 3,084 counties, Clinton won 57.
Click to expand...


Yeah, proving Trump gets his support from the welfare-dependent rural areas where antisocial nutcases live, removed from mainstream society.


----------



## The Derp

Skull Pilot said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying 600,000 guns stolen every year, like it's truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO!  *See, this is an example of you being lazy and sloppy.*  I said "*as many as*" 600,000 guns are stolen a year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> The number is around 230,000. Both numbers are bad and scary, yours is just incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And of that 234,000, 33,000 aren't reported to the police.  You all can't even get above 90% when it comes to reporting stolen weapons...and you think you're "responsible" people?  Fuck outta here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you should be able to tell us what year 600000 guns were stolen
Click to expand...


The survey doesn't say, but it was between 2005-2010.


----------



## The Derp

Ame®icano said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> He said he wanted elimination of nukes because nuclear war cannot be won.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I said:  Reagan didn't want any Nukes.
> You said:  No, he said he didn't want any Nukes.
> 
> Are you so insecure you have to restate that which I already said and try to make it seem like you are the one who said it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're lying. That's not what you said.
> 
> This is what you said: "We _*shouldn't*_ have nukes. No one should. You know who said that? RONALD FUCKING REAGAN."
> 
> Reagan did not say that.
Click to expand...


LOL!  What you said and what I said *mean the exact same fucking thing.
*
You trying to make this an argument about semantics only serves _*your*_ bullshit insecurities.


----------



## Skull Pilot

The Derp said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying 600,000 guns stolen every year, like it's truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO!  *See, this is an example of you being lazy and sloppy.*  I said "*as many as*" 600,000 guns are stolen a year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> The number is around 230,000. Both numbers are bad and scary, yours is just incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And of that 234,000, 33,000 aren't reported to the police.  You all can't even get above 90% when it comes to reporting stolen weapons...and you think you're "responsible" people?  Fuck outta here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you should be able to tell us what year 600000 guns were stolen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The survey doesn't say, but it was between 2005-2010.
Click to expand...


So you have no proof of your claim.

Got it.


----------



## The Derp

Skull Pilot said:


> Because someone can kill you or a member of your family in the 5 minutes it takes for the cops to show up.



Which is less likely than your gun getting stolen, or you harming your own family with it.


----------



## Skull Pilot

The Derp said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because someone can kill you or a member of your family in the 5 minutes it takes for the cops to show up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is less likely than your gun getting stolen, or you harming your own family with it.
Click to expand...


Wrong again.


----------



## The Derp

Skull Pilot said:


> Obviously guns are not targeted by thieves  as they are not on the top 10 list of stolen items.



That's a list of _*stolen items*_, not a list of what is targeted.

I just provided you with a survey of burglars who said that an NRA sticker means they have tons of guns to steal.





Skull Pilot said:


> and tell me what year exactly that there were 600000 guns stolen



The survey doesn't say, but it was a year between 2005-2010, when the survey occurred.


----------



## Skull Pilot

The Derp said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously guns are not targeted by thieves  as they are not on the top 10 list of stolen items.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a list of _*stolen items*_, not a list of what is targeted.
> 
> I just provided you with a survey of burglars who said that an NRA sticker means they have tons of guns to steal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> and tell me what year exactly that there were 600000 guns stolen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The survey doesn't say, but it was a year between 2005-2010, when the survey occurred.
Click to expand...

 The fact is guns are NOT in the top 10 list of stolen items.

You have no idea what criminals target.

and it should be easy to tell me what year there were 600000 guns stolen but I don't think you can


----------



## The Derp

Ame®icano said:


> His house. Not yours.



Yeah, and?




Ame®icano said:


> ou decided to break in when he's not at home.
> He had a fence to keep you away from his pool. You jumped over the fence.
> He had signs around the pool, you ignored them.
> He had life jackets around the pool, you haven't use any.
> He had marked pool depth, you jumped in at the deep end.



OK, but in your scenario, the one breaking the law is the one who died.  In the real scenario of gun theft, the thief isn't dying or causing harm to themselves when they steal your gun.  So your comparison is fucking stupid and is a red herring to try and justify your own personal irresponsibility.




Ame®icano said:


> How is he still responsible for your death?



Because it's his pool, his house.




Ame®icano said:


> Look at the bright side, at least you died in water with perfect chlorine level. The only better than that would be if he was at home when you broke in, and he shot you. Twice. He wouldn't have to clean the pool.



When a thief breaks into your home and steals your gun, they go for a swim?


----------



## The Derp

Ame®icano said:


> He had a fence to keep you away from his pool. You jumped over the fence.
> He had signs around the pool, you ignored them.
> He had life jackets around the pool, you haven't use any.
> He had marked pool depth, you jumped in at the deep end.



I'm not jumping into the pool to steal it, then use the pool to commit a crime, sell the pool to another criminal, or give it to another criminal.

So it seems the only thing you can do in this debate is throw out red herrings and make bad analogies and/or comparisons that crumble upon the slightest scrutiny.


----------



## The Derp

Skull Pilot said:


> So you have no proof of your claim.



It's not my claim, it's what the survey from Harvard and Northeastern says.

*Up to 600,000 guns are stolen every year in the US – that's one every minute*
_Privately owned firearms are stolen in America with alarming frequency: between 300,000 and 600,000 every year, according to a new survey of gun ownership by researchers at Harvard and Northeastern universities. At the high end, that’s more than 1,600 guns stolen every day, more than one every minute. That’s enough firearms to provide a weapon for every instance of gun violence in the country each year – several times over._​


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

The Derp said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have never caused an accident that killed someone* YET.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right.  But that's inherent to everyone.  What's specifically inherent to you is that you took on added risk by owning a firearm.  So that risk is only specific to you and is *added on top of the general risk that society already has*.  Adding risk isn't responsible.  Insurance companies know this.  It's their friggin' business model.  The more risk you take on, the higher your premiums go.  And you're taking on a ton of risk by owning a firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again you miss the point. I'm simply applying your line of reasoning (and I use that word loosely in your case) to a different phenomena where injury and death may be a result. By your reasoning, a gun owner was never a responsible gun owner if he makes a mistake. Therefore, you were never a responsible driver if you make a mistake and kill someone. Also, if you make an error in judgment on the road and cause an accident that takes someone's life, do you think the victim's loved ones will give a rat's ass about insurance and inherent risks? The only thing they will understand is that you fucked up and took their daughter from them.
> 
> And I feel I should point out to you that the "general risks that society already has" are risks that SOCIETY CREATED in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're carrying the risk that you will make an error in judgment on the road simply because you are driving.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> WHICH IS WHY WE MUST HAVE CAR INSURANCE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Car insurance is irrelevant to this discussion because car insurance will not prevent you from having an accident and does not reduce the risk of injury or death. That's what we're talking about here: risk. Insurance only pays for repairs and medical bills _after_ the accident. What are you going to tell the family of your victim, "But I had insurance!"?
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you can't call yourself a "responsible" driver if you're knowingly taking on risk that you might make a mistake someday and cause an accident that kills someone.You're innocent of vehicular manslaughter until you are not. Because of this, you were never a responsible driver and were _always_ guilty of vehicular manslaughter.See how stupid that sounds?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't sound stupid at all since everyone is required to have car insurance.  So you seem to be arguing that gun owners must get gun insurance.  Which is something I could support.
Click to expand...


Again, insurance will not prevent you from having an accident and, believe me, it will most certainly not be a comfort or a justification if you get someone killed. And, having insurance will not absolve you of blame or responsibility if it is found you were at fault. If you are at fault, you will be charged and you will go to prison. Insurance or no insurance.


----------



## The Derp

Skull Pilot said:


> The fact is guns are NOT in the top 10 list of stolen items.



_*Stolen items*_, not *targeted items.*

There's a difference.

The thief goes in looking for a gun, can't find one, and then walks away with other valuables.




Skull Pilot said:


> You have no idea what criminals target.



Yes I do because I actually listen to what they say.

We asked 86 burglars how they broke into homes




Skull Pilot said:


> and it should be easy to tell me what year there were 600000 guns stolen but I don't think you can



The survey doesn't say.


----------



## Skull Pilot

The Derp said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you have no proof of your claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not my claim, it's what the survey from Harvard and Northeastern says.
> 
> *Up to 600,000 guns are stolen every year in the US – that's one every minute*
> _Privately owned firearms are stolen in America with alarming frequency: between 300,000 and 600,000 every year, according to a new survey of gun ownership by researchers at Harvard and Northeastern universities. At the high end, that’s more than 1,600 guns stolen every day, more than one every minute. That’s enough firearms to provide a weapon for every instance of gun violence in the country each year – several times over._​
Click to expand...


You are parroting the claim as if it is actually true.

So if you can't tell me what year there were 600000 guns stolen then both the study you are parroting and you are full of shit


----------



## The Derp

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Once again you miss the point. I'm simply applying your line of reasoning (and I use that word loosely in your case) to a different phenomena where injury and death may be a result. By your reasoning, a gun owner was never a responsible gun owner if he makes a mistake. Therefore, you were never a responsible driver if you make a mistake and kill someone. Also, if you make an error in judgment on the road and cause an accident that takes someone's life, do you think the victim's loved ones will give a rat's ass about insurance and inherent risks? The only thing they will understand is that you fucked up and took their daughter from them.



You can't apply it to other phenomena because guns and gun theft and gun ownership are unique in that they're the only thing whose primary function it is to cause harm.  I don't care if you think you do a good job of storing your weapons.  It doesn't matter because you're still negligent for simply having them.  Now you can argue that you're _*less negligent*_ than other people, but again, you can't see the future so you can't call yourself a responsible gun owner *so long as the risk of having your gun stolen is still present.  *That's how risk works.  It's the fundamental business model of insurance.

You seem unaware of that _*because you're inherently a negligent, irresponsible person*_.




Ghost of a Rider said:


> And I feel I should point out to you that the "general risks that society already has" are risks that SOCIETY CREATED in the first place.



Yes, society did create those risks.  But you are adding to those risks when you buy a gun.  That's what you don't seem to get; that there exists a *personal responsibility *you bear when you own a gun.  You've spent the last few posts arguing you *don't have that responsibility*, which is fucking stupid because you're the one with the gun.




Ghost of a Rider said:


> Car insurance is irrelevant to this discussion because car insurance will not prevent you from having an accident and does not reduce the risk of injury or death..



OMG, do you even know what the fuck _*insurance*_ is?!  What a fucking idiot.  Gun owners are irresponsible, negligent IDIOTS.  The entire point of insurance is to _*insure you from the risk you take on*_.  So that's why comparing guns to cars is fucking stupid, because you're forced into responsibility when you buy a car by way of mandatory insurance.  No such responsibility exists for gun owners, which is why the comparison is a stupid, thoughtless, childish one.  Yes, people die from car accidents (fewer people than the number that die from guns, BTW), but those cars are insured against the risk.  The drivers are insured against the risk.  That's the responsibility you take on when you buy a car.  No such responsibility exists for guns, which is why _*owning one*_ is an act of irresponsibility in the first fucking place.




Ghost of a Rider said:


> hat's what we're talking about here: risk. Insurance only pays for repairs and medical bills _after_ the accident. What are you going to tell the family of your victim, "But I had insurance!"?



First of all, bravo for finally admitting that the gun owner is at least partially responsible for the violence that comes from the gun that they stupidly lost, had stolen, or gave away to a bad person.  And insurance in that case doesn't pay out _*for you*_, it pays out for the victim you created because of your irresponsibility.  Insuring your gun adds a layer of _*responsibility*_ for the gun that currently doesn't exist.  But you guys would be loathe to insure your weapons simply because you're inherently negligent people.  Like I asked before, _*do you even know what the fuck insurance is?  *_Cause it doesn't seem like you understand the concept.




Ghost of a Rider said:


> Again, insurance will not prevent you from having an accident and, believe me, it will most certainly not be a comfort or a justification if you get someone killed. And, having insurance will not absolve you of blame or responsibility if it is found you were at fault. If you are at fault, you will be charged and you will go to prison. Insurance or no insurance.



Insurance may or may not prevent something from happening, but what it does do is establish whose responsibility it is.  That responsibility seems to be something you don't think gun owners should bear, which is why none of you are "responsible gun owners" and why you never will be.


----------



## The Derp

Skull Pilot said:


> You are parroting the claim as if it is actually true.So if you can't tell me what year there were 600000 guns stolen then both the study you are parroting and you are full of shit



SMH.


----------



## The Derp

Ghost of a Rider said:


> You suggest that merely owning a gun is adding risk and that if there were no gun owners, the chances of a firearm falling into the wrong hands go to 0%.



Exactly.  There is no such thing as a "responsible gun owner" unless they give up their guns.  So stop posturing that you're responsible when you're not.




Ghost of a Rider said:


> By the same principle, driving is adding risk. Every time you get behind the wheel you increase the chances of an accident. In addition, you put the lives of any of your passengers at risk. Every vehicle added to the roads increases those chances. The more vehicles, the greater the chance. If there were no drivers and no vehicles on the road at all, those chances drop to 0%. Ergo, the +/- 40,000 people that died in car accidents in 2015 would still be alive today.Do you dispute this?



Cars must be insured.  Which is the answer to the risk car owners take on.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

The Derp said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have just outlined the characteristics of a responsible pool owner. And yet, when a gun owner takes responsible actions such as purchasing the weapon legally, keeping it unloaded and in a gun safe when not in use, and reports it if stolen, he's irresponsible anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that pools can't be stolen.  But guns are; 234,000 on average a year.  So guns are inherently much more risky than pools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Man, you elevate misapprehension to an art form. No, a pool may not be stolen but that's not the risk that a responsible pool owner faces and guards against. A responsible pool owner guards against accidental injuries and drownings. Roughly 6000 people die each year from pool drownings and pool drownings are the major cause of death of children of 5 years and younger.
> 
> Using your principle, a responsible pool owner has his yard fenced off and otherwise follows all the required codes for having a pool but as soon as someone drowns, he was never a responsible pool owner. As soon as he put the pool in the backyard he increased the risk of drowning. What's more, it was an unnecessary risk. He doesn't need a pool and neither does anyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> You pose a dichotomy of responsible/irresponsible gun owners and cite examples of irresponsible behavior and then when someone counters it with logic, you yank the dichotomy off the table altogether and simply say that all gun owners are irresponsible. As I said before, you can't have it both ways.This is a cheap, childish, petty and intellectually dishonest way of debating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they're all irresponsible.  It's irresponsible to take on unnecessary risk.  Any insurer will tell you that.
Click to expand...


You take on unnecessary risk every time you get behind the wheel. Motor vehicle deaths are orders of magnitude higher than firearm deaths: +/- 40,000 motor vehicle deaths a year compared to +/- 11,000 firearm deaths by homicide (2016 figures).


----------



## Hugo Furst

The Derp said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree there is a risk, especially for someone who decide to break into my home.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if you're not home and they break in?  What good is your gun then?  It's just sitting there, a ripe target for a burglar.  Most home break-ins occur when no one's home, duh.  But you've lured the thief to your home with your NRA bumper sticker, then the thief waits for you to leave, then they break in and go searching for what?  _*For the gun you just advertised you have*_.  So you act irresponsibly, attract burglars to your home where your gun becomes a target because you told the whole world you have one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> You may be lucky and break in when I am not at home, and be ready to have video of you taken from every direction outside of home, and few from the inside.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  Video recording isn't going to stop the burglar from taking the gun you told them you have, and turning it around before they are arrested (_*IF*_ they are arrested).
> 
> 2.  You sound mentally disturbed if you're putting up cameras throughout your house.  Definitely has a creepy-perv vibe about it.  But since most Conservatives are weirdos when it comes to sex with minors, I'm sure you think it's perfectly normal to live in the Big Brother house.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> You better be good at breaking into safe, because police response time where I live is less than 5 minutes.You also may not be so lucky, and break in when I am at home. That is the risk I would love you take.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the police response time is so great, why do you need a gun?
Click to expand...



*Care to explain this?
*


The Derp said:


> But since most Conservatives are weirdos when it comes to sex with minors,


----------



## The Derp

Ghost of a Rider said:


> That is a sweeping generality based on nothing more than opinion, bias and hatred of gun owners and cannot be backed up. Every one of your posts is dripping with contempt for gun owners and has caused you to lose all objectivity on the issue.



What a fucking whiny, self-identified victim.  Pointing out that you're not responsible because you brought a gun into your home isn't contemptuous of anything other than the posturing you do when it comes to being responsible.  Such a fucking snowflake.  What a whiner.  Me pointing out your irresponsibility is interpreted by you as some kind of malicious, personal attack because you have a persecution complex.  Get the fuck over yourself.




Ghost of a Rider said:


> Who, exactly, is "you guys"? I've always known where my firearms were and, (this may be difficult for you to believe but it's true nonetheless), I would report it if it was stolen. And citing the "no true Scotsman" fallacy is itself, a fallacy in this case because no one has said "no true gun owner...". What was said was "responsible gun owners...". A true gun owner may be responsible or irresponsible whereas, a responsible gun owner is, by definition, responsible. You can't be that friggin' blind as to not see the distinction. And I've told you at least two times now and you keep sidestepping it and that is: NO ONE SAID ALL GUN OWNERS ARE RESPONSIBLE.



"No true gun owner" and "responsible gun owner" are interchangeable within the same logical fallacy.  And by "you guys", I'm referring to you collective gun owners, who act irresponsibly and add risk to society for purely selfish and childish reasons and fantasies.  Yes, all gun owners are responsible because you're the ones bringing guns into your homes, adding risk.  You get to answer for all gun owners simply because of that.  If you don't like it, I suggest getting *the fuck* over yourself, or simply giving up your guns and the risk they pose that you refuse to be held responsible for.




Ghost of a Rider said:


> Bullshit. That's the stupidest goddamn thing I've read in a long time. What if I'm not negligent? That's like saying that, even though I was not a robbery victim until yesterday when I got robbed, I was always a robbery victim.Do you listen to yourself? Jesus Christ.



That's not like saying that at all.  So you fail again rhetorically.  You are negligent simply by the fact that you own a gun.  No matter what level of security you might have on how that weapon is stored, _*the possibility of it being stolen still exists simply by virtue of it being in your possession*_.  And unlike everything else, a stolen gun is almost always used in crimes.  A stolen iphone isn't.  A stolen car isn't.  A stolen garden rake isn't.  A stolen necklace isn't.

So no gun owners are "responsible", some are just less negligent than others.




Ghost of a Rider said:


> Christ, this is like herding cats. I didn't bring that up to talk about drunk driving statistics, I brought it up to apply your reasoning to a different topic to illustrate how ridiculous it is.



So you're arbitrarily setting the parameters of the debate you joined but didn't start, so you don't have to answer for the facts that the government took drastic steps to combat drunk driving and successfully reduced the number of deaths by 50% thanks to laws, regulations, rules, and public campaigns.  You brought it up, and now you can't bear to handle the consequences of doing so.  Such an emotionally fragile person probably should be tasked with the responsibilities of reducing the negligence of owning a firearm.  And if we apply _*your*_ logic to drunk driving, namely that more guns = less gun crime, then more drunk driving = less drunk driving deaths.  Does that make sense?  No.




Ghost of a Rider said:


> Then again, I might never act irresponsibly. .



But you might.  And that's the thing.  In fact, it's more likely you'll act irresponsibly with the gun than it is likely you'll ever use the gun for defense.  




Ghost of a Rider said:


> No, chances are that an irresponsible gun owner will act irresponsibly This is an idiotic line of reasoning that might cover all the bases for you but it's still idiotic and does not stand up under logical scrutiny.



But you can't tell who is a responsible gun owner and who isn't *until they act irresponsibly*.  That's what you're saying.  Which is a logical and rhetorical fallacy a la "No true Scotsman".   *You are working from the assumption that gun owners are inherently responsible.*  But that assumption is wrong simply because bringing a gun into your home _*is not a responsible act*_.  So we have to assume that all gun owners are _*irresponsible*_ _*people*_ who are merely managing their negligence, day to day.  And in a world where so many of you were fooled by Russian troll bots (look at all the followers NRA MAGA dipshits lost when Twitter purged itself of Russian troll accounts), it makes me nervous that people so easily duped by Russian propaganda barely have any personal responsibility when it comes to their weapons.  You're doing everything you can to reinforce that suspicion and doubt.




Ghost of a Rider said:


> Which would mean that every gun ever purchased has been and will be stolen. You're not so stupid as to believe this so why say it?



Not what that means _*at all*_.




Ghost of a Rider said:


> Have you actually read anything I said? I've already told you twice that no one has suggested that all gun owners are responsible so why the hell do you keep parroting this crap?



But that is what you're suggesting.  It is your working assumption that everyone is a responsible gun owner until they act irresponsibly.  What I'm saying is that the mere action of owning a gun is irresponsible, and all attempts you make to be responsible for your gun are done to _*mitigate your negligence of owning a gun in the first fucking place.*_


----------



## The Derp

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Man, you elevate misapprehension to an art form. No, a pool may not be stolen but that's not the risk that a responsible pool owner faces and guards against.A responsible pool owner guards against accidental injuries and drownings. Roughly 6000 people die each year from pool drownings and pool drownings are the major cause of death of children of 5 years and younger. Using your principle, a responsible pool owner has his yard fenced off and otherwise follows all the required codes for having a pool but as soon as someone drowns, he was never a responsible pool owner. As soon as he put the pool in the backyard he increased the risk of drowning. What's more, it was an unnecessary risk. He doesn't need a pool and neither does anyone else.



*No one is breaking into anyone's house to steal the pool and then use that pool to go drown someone else.*




Ghost of a Rider said:


> You take on unnecessary risk every time you get behind the wheel. Motor vehicle deaths are orders of magnitude higher than firearm deaths: +/- 40,000 motor vehicle deaths a year compared to +/- 11,000 firearm deaths by homicide (2016 figures).



*CARS HAVE TO BE INSURED, GUNS ARE NOT.
*
*The risk is insured with cars.  The risk is not insured with guns.*


----------



## The Derp

WillHaftawaite said:


> *Care to explain this?
> *
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> But since most Conservatives are weirdos when it comes to sex with minors,
Click to expand...


Roy Moore


----------



## Cecilie1200

The Derp said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it matters not but hey if meaningless shit gets you off feel free
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump lost the popular vote.
Click to expand...


Too bad for you that we don't live in a country that uses a popular vote, then, huh?


----------



## Cecilie1200

The Derp said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should be able to tell us what year 600000 guns were stolen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton got 3 million more votes than Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump won 3,084 counties, Clinton won 57.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, proving Trump gets his support from the welfare-dependent rural areas where antisocial nutcases live, removed from mainstream society.
Click to expand...


So what you're telling us now is that you're an elitist who only thinks urban dwellers' votes are worthy and valuable.  Mmmkay.


----------



## Cecilie1200

The Derp said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> You suggest that merely owning a gun is adding risk and that if there were no gun owners, the chances of a firearm falling into the wrong hands go to 0%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  There is no such thing as a "responsible gun owner" unless they give up their guns.  So stop posturing that you're responsible when you're not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the same principle, driving is adding risk. Every time you get behind the wheel you increase the chances of an accident. In addition, you put the lives of any of your passengers at risk. Every vehicle added to the roads increases those chances. The more vehicles, the greater the chance. If there were no drivers and no vehicles on the road at all, those chances drop to 0%. Ergo, the +/- 40,000 people that died in car accidents in 2015 would still be alive today.Do you dispute this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cars must be insured.  Which is the answer to the risk car owners take on.
Click to expand...


Actually, cars must be insured ON PUBLIC ROADS, because it's the answer to the risk OTHER PEOPLE have.  Insurance is not required on private property, nor is it required to protect the owner of the car.  Only liability insurance is required by law.


----------



## Ame®icano

The Derp said:


> And if you're not home and they break in?  What good is your gun then?  It's just sitting there, a ripe target for a burglar.  Most home break-ins occur when no one's home, duh.  But you've lured the thief to your home with your NRA bumper sticker, then the thief waits for you to leave, then they break in and go searching for what?  _*For the gun you just advertised you have*_.  So you act irresponsibly, attract burglars to your home where your gun becomes a target because you told the whole world you have one.



I am not NRA member, I don't have their (or any) stickers on my cars or property, but I fully support them. The reason I don't have any stickers is because I hope to lure the thief to my home for a free life changing lesson.



The Derp said:


> 1.  Video recording isn't going to stop the burglar from taking the gun you told them you have, and turning it around before they are arrested (_*IF*_ they are arrested).
> 
> 2.  You sound mentally disturbed if you're putting up cameras throughout your house.  Definitely has a creepy-perv vibe about it.  But since most Conservatives are weirdos when it comes to sex with minors, I'm sure you think it's perfectly normal to live in the Big Brother house.



Video recording is there to hopefully help to identify who broke into my home when I am not there. Outside cameras are providing the view of my whole property. Inside camera are covering the doors. Now, since you're implying that I am pedophile, please feel free to visit me, and I'll prove it to you and to your whole family that I am not, in HD quality.



The Derp said:


> If the police response time is so great, why do you need a gun?



To blow the brains of anyone who dare to brake into my home, for any reason.
Police can just come to clean up the mess quickly.


----------



## Hugo Furst

The Derp said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Care to explain this?
> *
> 
> 
> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> But since most Conservatives are weirdos when it comes to sex with minors,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Roy Moore
Click to expand...


Roy Moore is MOST conservatives?


----------



## Ame®icano

The Derp said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> His house. Not yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, and?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> ou decided to break in when he's not at home.
> He had a fence to keep you away from his pool. You jumped over the fence.
> He had signs around the pool, you ignored them.
> He had life jackets around the pool, you haven't use any.
> He had marked pool depth, you jumped in at the deep end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, but in your scenario, the one breaking the law is the one who died.  In the real scenario of gun theft, the thief isn't dying or causing harm to themselves when they steal your gun.  So your comparison is fucking stupid and is a red herring to try and justify your own personal irresponsibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is he still responsible for your death?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it's his pool, his house.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the bright side, at least you died in water with perfect chlorine level. The only better than that would be if he was at home when you broke in, and he shot you. Twice. He wouldn't have to clean the pool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When a thief breaks into your home and steals your gun, they go for a swim?
Click to expand...


His pool. His house. 

You have no right to be there uninvited. If you hurt yourself by braking in, it's on you, not on the owner.

Basically, what you're saying is that I should put warning sign "slippery floor", so you don't hurt yourself when you break in to steal from me. Even thief deserve safe working environment, right?


----------



## Ame®icano

The Derp said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> He had a fence to keep you away from his pool. You jumped over the fence.
> He had signs around the pool, you ignored them.
> He had life jackets around the pool, you haven't use any.
> He had marked pool depth, you jumped in at the deep end.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not jumping into the pool to steal it, then use the pool to commit a crime, sell the pool to another criminal, or give it to another criminal.
> 
> So it seems the only thing you can do in this debate is throw out red herrings and make bad analogies and/or comparisons that crumble upon the slightest scrutiny.
Click to expand...


Have I said anything like that? 

My point is that owner of the pool is not responsible for your death if you jump over the fence into his pool that had all proper safety features (you listed and I repeated) and drown yourself. Reason why you jumped over is not important, you had no right to be there. If you die or hurt yourself while being there, it's on you, not on the pool owner.


----------



## ChrisL

Ame®icano said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> He had a fence to keep you away from his pool. You jumped over the fence.
> He had signs around the pool, you ignored them.
> He had life jackets around the pool, you haven't use any.
> He had marked pool depth, you jumped in at the deep end.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not jumping into the pool to steal it, then use the pool to commit a crime, sell the pool to another criminal, or give it to another criminal.
> 
> So it seems the only thing you can do in this debate is throw out red herrings and make bad analogies and/or comparisons that crumble upon the slightest scrutiny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have I said anything like that?
> 
> My point is that owner of the pool is not responsible for your death if you jump over the fence into his pool that had all proper safety features (you listed and I repeated) and drown yourself. Reason why you jumped over is not important, you had no right to be there. If you die or hurt yourself while being there, it's on you, not on the pool owner.
Click to expand...


Or that is how it SHOULD be anyways.


----------



## The Derp

Cecilie1200 said:


> Too bad for you that we don't live in a country that uses a popular vote, then, huh?



And too bad for you that the popular vote tells you how popular candidates are.


----------



## The Derp

Cecilie1200 said:


> So what you're telling us now is that you're an elitist who only thinks urban dwellers' votes are worthy and valuable.  Mmmkay.



The majority of people in this country live in cities or in close proximity to them.


----------



## The Derp

Cecilie1200 said:


> Actually, cars must be insured ON PUBLIC ROADS, because it's the answer to the risk OTHER PEOPLE have.  Insurance is not required on private property, nor is it required to protect the owner of the car.  Only liability insurance is required by law.



LOL!  Most cars are driven on public roads.  The only instances where that doesn't happen is if you have a car that you use to get around your large property.  But even then, you're gonna want to insure it in case you take it off the property for whatever reason.


----------



## Hugo Furst

The Derp said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, cars must be insured ON PUBLIC ROADS, because it's the answer to the risk OTHER PEOPLE have.  Insurance is not required on private property, nor is it required to protect the owner of the car.  Only liability insurance is required by law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!  Most cars are driven on public roads.  The only instances where that doesn't happen is if you have a car that you use to get around your large property.  But even then, you're gonna want to insure it in case you take it off the property for whatever reason.
Click to expand...



Personally, I beleive you should stop driving, and sell your car

any day now, you're going to be involved in a hit and run, or it will be stolen, and used in a crime.


----------



## The Derp

Ame®icano said:


> I am not NRA member, I don't have their (or any) stickers on my cars or property, but I fully support them. The reason I don't have any stickers is because I hope to lure the thief to my home for a free life changing lesson.



Like I said before, it's all about personal wish fulfillment for many of you people; *your lives are so utterly devoid of meaning that you fantasize about being a hero.*  Barf.  Get over yourself.




Ame®icano said:


> Video recording is there to hopefully help to identify who broke into my home when I am not there.Outside cameras are providing the view of my whole property. Inside camera are covering the doors. Now, since you're implying that I am pedophile, please feel free to visit me, and I'll prove it to you and to your whole family that I am not, in HD quality.



And in the time it takes for you to get your video to the cops (assuming you're not one of the 14% of gun owners who wouldn't report a stolen gun), for them to identify the criminal, and for them to go catch the criminal, that thief couldn't have sold the gun, hid it, or given it to someone else who will use it with ill intent?




Ame®icano said:


> To blow the brains of anyone who dare to brake into my home, for any reason.
> Police can just come to clean up the mess quickly.



And if you're not home and they break in and steal your gun?  Oh well.  You've said you don't think you're responsible for that.  Which is why you're not a "responsible gun owner" and never will be.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

The Derp said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you miss the point. I'm simply applying your line of reasoning (and I use that word loosely in your case) to a different phenomena where injury and death may be a result. By your reasoning, a gun owner was never a responsible gun owner if he makes a mistake. Therefore, you were never a responsible driver if you make a mistake and kill someone. Also, if you make an error in judgment on the road and cause an accident that takes someone's life, do you think the victim's loved ones will give a rat's ass about insurance and inherent risks? The only thing they will understand is that you fucked up and took their daughter from them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't apply it to other phenomena because guns and gun theft and gun ownership are unique in that they're the only thing whose primary function it is to cause harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Considering that motor vehicle deaths are almost four times the number of firearm homicides, I'd have to say that the primary function of the gun is irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I feel I should point out to you that the "general risks that society already has" are risks that SOCIETY CREATED in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, society did create those risks.  But you are adding to those risks when you buy a gun.  That's what you don't seem to get; that there exists a *personal responsibility *you bear when you own a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, duh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've spent the last few posts arguing you *don't have that responsibility*, which is fucking stupid because you're the one with the gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're going to have to show me where I said I don't have that responsibility because I never said nor implied any such thing.
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Car insurance is irrelevant to this discussion because car insurance will not prevent you from having an accident and does not reduce the risk of injury or death..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMG, do you even know what the fuck _*insurance*_ is?!  What a fucking idiot.  Gun owners are irresponsible, negligent IDIOTS.  The entire point of insurance is to _*insure you from the risk you take on*_.  So that's why comparing guns to cars is fucking stupid, because you're forced into responsibility when you buy a car by way of mandatory insurance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, as I said in another post, insurance does not insure you from risk and will not prevent you from having an accident. Insurance only pays for damages AFTERWARD. Are you so blinded by your hatred that you can't see that?
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> hat's what we're talking about here: risk. Insurance only pays for repairs and medical bills _after_ the accident. What are you going to tell the family of your victim, "But I had insurance!"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, bravo for finally admitting that the gun owner is at least partially responsible for the violence that comes from the gun that they stupidly lost, had stolen, or gave away to a bad person.  And insurance in that case doesn't pay out _*for you*_, it pays out for the victim you created because of your irresponsibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And in the case of your negligence behind the wheel and subsequent car accident, the car insurance pays out for the victim you created because of your irresponsibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Insuring your gun adds a layer of _*responsibility*_ for the gun that currently doesn't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it does not. A driver and a gun owner can still be just as negligent with insurance as they can be without it. INSURANCE DOES NOT PREVENT NEGLIGENCE, REDUCE RISK OR BRING BACK DEAD PEOPLE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, insurance will not prevent you from having an accident and, believe me, it will most certainly not be a comfort or a justification if you get someone killed. And, having insurance will not absolve you of blame or responsibility if it is found you were at fault. If you are at fault, you will be charged and you will go to prison. Insurance or no insurance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Insurance may or may not prevent something from happening, but what it does do is establish whose responsibility it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no need to establish anything. Any idiot knows that the owner of the gun is responsible for his gun. Not having insurance doesn't change that.
Click to expand...


----------



## The Derp

WillHaftawaite said:


> Roy Moore is MOST conservatives?



Yup.


----------



## The Derp

Ame®icano said:


> You have no right to be there uninvited. If you hurt yourself by braking in, it's on you, not on the owner.



But that's not what we're talking about when it comes to gun theft.  When the thieves break into your home and steal your gun, they're not harming themselves in your house when they do that.  The gun they steal then gets used in crimes where it can end up hurting someone else.

So this is why this comparison of yours is idiotic.  You're trying to say that someone breaking into your house to swim in your pool and drowning in it _*is comparable to*_ someone breaking into your house to steal your gun, then using it in a crime or giving it to someone who will.

#nonsequiturFAIL


----------



## The Derp

Ame®icano said:


> Have I said anything like that?



You've tried.

You've tried to say you're no more responsible for a thief stealing a gun from your home and then using it in a crime, than you are someone jumping your fence to swim in your pool but drowning in it.

So in one case, the gun is stolen from your home, and then used in a crime somewhere else...whereas in the other case, someone is jumping into your pool and drowning.

That's the comparison you tried to make as you argue that you're not responsible for the guns you own that get stolen from you.  When the reality is that by abrogating that responsibility, _*you act irresponsibly*_.  Thus, you're not a "responsible gun owner".






Ame®icano said:


> My point is that owner of the pool is not responsible for your death if you jump over the fence into his pool that had all proper safety features (you listed and I repeated) and drown yourself. Reason why you jumped over is not important, you had no right to be there. If you die or hurt yourself while being there, it's on you, not on the pool owner.



Sigh...the pool isn't being taken from your home and then used in a pool crime.


----------



## Hugo Furst

The Derp said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Roy Moore is MOST conservatives?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup.
Click to expand...


----------



## The Derp

WillHaftawaite said:


> Personally, I beleive you should stop driving, and sell your car



I would love nothing more than to be able to rid myself of the car and rely on telecommuting, drone delivery, and public transit.  But that's not the reality we live in, and I accept that.




WillHaftawaite said:


> any day now, you're going to be involved in a hit and run, or it will be stolen, and used in a crime.



Which is why I had to buy insurance.  So the only thing you're doing here is making a case that guns and/or gun owners should be required to have insurance too.


----------



## The Derp

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Considering that motor vehicle deaths are almost four times the number of firearm homicides, I'd have to say that the primary function of the gun is irrelevant.



1.  CARS REQUIRE INSURANCE
2.  Car deaths used to be _*way higher*_, but then the government passed all these safety rules, laws, regulations and had public campaigns to change behavior and the result of that has been a _*50% reduction in the number of deaths from cars.*_
3.  Fewer people died from cars than guns last year.

So you keep bringing up cars, yet you keep ignoring the fact that cars require insurance against the risk cars pose to society.  No such insurance exists for gun owners, and I doubt you'd support it because you have an allergy to responsibility.


----------



## Hugo Furst

The Derp said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I beleive you should stop driving, and sell your car
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would love nothing more than to be able to rid myself of the car and rely on telecommuting, drone delivery, and public transit.  But that's not the reality we live in, and I accept that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> any day now, you're going to be involved in a hit and run, or it will be stolen, and used in a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is why I had to buy insurance.  So the only thing you're doing here is making a case that guns and/or gun owners should be required to have insurance too.
Click to expand...



That makes you an irresponsible driver.

having insurance isnt' going to prevent a hit and run, and won't bring whoever you hit back to life.

Do the world a favor, get rid of your car.


----------



## The Derp

Ghost of a Rider said:


> You're going to have to show me where I said I don't have that responsibility because I never said nor implied any such thing.



That's what you've been arguing this entire time!  Jesus fucking Christ.  SMH.

This whole argument is about how you're not responsible just by virtue of owning a gun.  You've been arguing, simultaneously, that you are a "responsible gun owner", yet you don't think you should act responsibly.  Whether that's running a background check on anyone to whom you're giving your gun, to reporting your gun stolen to the police, to even owning a gun in the first place.  In all this time, all you've done is argue that you are responsible just because you say so, while saying you don't think you should act responsibly when it comes to how you manage your firearms.

Fucking pathetic.


----------



## The Derp

Ghost of a Rider said:


> First of all, as I said in another post, insurance does not insure you from risk and will not prevent you from having an accident. Insurance only pays for damages AFTERWARD. Are you so blinded by your hatred that you can't see that?



Again, the point of insurance isn't to prevent something from happening; _*it's to insure risk*_.  What insurance does is establish _*responsibility*_, so I can see and understand why someone as negligent as you would not grasp that concept.  I never said the point of insurance was to prevent something from happening, so that's a fat, stupid straw man you're constructing to feed your shitpile of an argument. 

So why do you do that?  That's like the third time you've deliberately obfuscated what it is we're discussing.  Is it a matter of pride?  Is it because you're brain damaged?  What gives?




Ghost of a Rider said:


> And in the case of your negligence behind the wheel and subsequent car accident, the car insurance pays out for the victim you created because of your irresponsibility.



Exactly.  *That's the point of insurance.*  And because your insurance had to pay out for your irresponsibility, _*your premiums increase because you're more of a risk*_.  That's responsibility placed on you.  Again, a concept that seems wholly unfamiliar to you because you are, inherently, a negligent person.  Responsibility is something that you must be allergic to because you sure seem to not get what the fuck it is. 

You are making a strong case for mandatory gun insurance, you realize...




Ghost of a Rider said:


> No, it does not. A driver and a gun owner can still be just as negligent with insurance as they can be without it. INSURANCE DOES NOT PREVENT NEGLIGENCE, REDUCE RISK OR BRING BACK DEAD PEOPLE..



Negligence isn't simply the physical act of being irresponsible, it's also a mindset that leads you to act irresponsibly.  By insuring your weapons, you are acknowledging that you are carrying on risk and that you have to insure others of the threat posed by the risk you have decided to carry.  That's why, if you fuck up behind the wheel, _*your insurance premiums increase*_.  That's because _*you're more of a risk*_ because of your past history of acting irresponsibly behind the wheel.  The more you act irresponsibly, the higher your premiums go.

Now, why can't that same principle be put in place for guns? 

No good answer is expected...




Ghost of a Rider said:


> There's no need to establish anything. Any idiot knows that the owner of the gun is responsible for his gun. Not having insurance doesn't change that.



So this is *exactly *what I'm talking about when I say you avoid responsibility.  Here you are, _*literally arguing against your personal responsibility.  *_Yes, responsibility *has to be established*.  Always.  You are saying that you don't want responsibility to be established.  Now the only reason you would say that is because you are an irresponsible, negligent person who doesn't understand what personal responsibility entails, and lacks it in your personal life.


----------



## Cecilie1200

The Derp said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad for you that we don't live in a country that uses a popular vote, then, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And too bad for you that the popular vote tells you how popular candidates are.
Click to expand...


Actually, it's not too bad for me at all, because I don't care, and it doesn't affect anything that matters.  Hillary still isn't President.


----------



## Cecilie1200

The Derp said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what you're telling us now is that you're an elitist who only thinks urban dwellers' votes are worthy and valuable.  Mmmkay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The majority of people in this country live in cities or in close proximity to them.
Click to expand...


Which explains why our government doesn't use a popular vote system.


----------



## Cecilie1200

The Derp said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, cars must be insured ON PUBLIC ROADS, because it's the answer to the risk OTHER PEOPLE have.  Insurance is not required on private property, nor is it required to protect the owner of the car.  Only liability insurance is required by law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!  Most cars are driven on public roads.  The only instances where that doesn't happen is if you have a car that you use to get around your large property.  But even then, you're gonna want to insure it in case you take it off the property for whatever reason.
Click to expand...


This is very true, which is why most car owners carry liability insurance.  Nevertheless, the purpose and responsibility regarding car insurance is STILL not what you said it was.


----------



## Cecilie1200

The Derp said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Roy Moore is MOST conservatives?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup.
Click to expand...


And we're back to your opinion and approval being valueless to everyone.


----------



## Ame®icano

The Derp said:


> Like I said before, it's all about personal wish fulfillment for many of you people; *your lives are so utterly devoid of meaning that you fantasize about being a hero.*  Barf.  Get over yourself.



After being in two wars I don't really need to fantasize about shooting anyone. Well, I never shot a liberal, but you never know... 



The Derp said:


> And in the time it takes for you to get your video to the cops (assuming you're not one of the 14% of gun owners who wouldn't report a stolen gun), for them to identify the criminal, and for them to go catch the criminal, that thief couldn't have sold the gun, hid it, or given it to someone else who will use it with ill intent?



Again, if 14% don't report their guns being stolen, how they can be part of the statistics?



The Derp said:


> And if you're not home and they break in and steal your gun?  Oh well.  You've said you don't think you're responsible for that.  Which is why you're not a "responsible gun owner" and never will be.



Cops would be at my door in less then 5 minutes from alarm going off. It will take a thief much longer than that to find and bust the safe to get the guns. Meaning, thief will most likely get nothing of value before he's forced to run. However, I'll have a video that could help police to find him. 

Of course, I am not responsible for other people actions. 
If someone steals your car and run over someone with it, are you responsible for it?


----------



## Issa

Papageorgio said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope because people are dying by the thousands.
> 
> 
> 
> really? gun deaths have declined over the years despite millions upon millions more guns in circulation and millions of people carrying guns legally. So you are either ignorant of the fact or lying.  Most gun deaths are SUICIDES.  the remaining number that are not justifiable or excusable shootings are homicides mainly and those are caused at rates of 80-90% by people who are not legally able to own or use guns
> 
> so stuff the silly dramatics.  Gun violence in tis country-especially outside urban areas full of drug gangs is minuscule
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> USA is the worst country in terms of gu related dearhs/mass shootings. So there is clearly a gun problem. Why do you need a gun ? Insecure? Or ready to kill when you are pissed at the world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what do I need a gun for?  many reasons-one of them being to prevent people like you from trying to strip away our rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Enjoy them, I hope you don't kill someone when you lose your temper as many do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Less than one tenth of one percent ever use a gun to kill someone. The fact that you own a registered gun reduces that stat to less than 100th of one percent.
Click to expand...

Tell that to the 17 parents, or the families of the Las Vegas massacre.


----------



## The Derp

WillHaftawaite said:


> That makes you an irresponsible driver.



Having insurance makes me an irresponsible driver?  How so?




WillHaftawaite said:


> having insurance isnt' going to prevent a hit and run, and won't bring whoever you hit back to life.



I never said it would, but what it does do is establish responsibility and holds me accountable for acting irresponsible.  For some strange reason, you don't think those principles should apply to gun owners too.  Which is why you aren't a "responsible gun owner" and why you never will be.


----------



## Ame®icano

The Derp said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no right to be there uninvited. If you hurt yourself by braking in, it's on you, not on the owner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that's not what we're talking about when it comes to gun theft.  When the thieves break into your home and steal your gun, they're not harming themselves in your house when they do that.  The gun they steal then gets used in crimes where it can end up hurting someone else.
> 
> So this is why this comparison of yours is idiotic.  You're trying to say that someone breaking into your house to swim in your pool and drowning in it _*is comparable to*_ someone breaking into your house to steal your gun, then using it in a crime or giving it to someone who will.
> 
> #nonsequiturFAIL
Click to expand...


So, I steal your car, use it as gateway vehicle for bank robbery, than I run over the family of four and kill them on the spot, that crash it into gas station and it burns to ground, it's all your fault. 

Where did you park?


----------



## Ame®icano

Issa said:


> Tell that to the 17 parents, or the families of the Las Vegas massacre.



What should we say to 3000 families whose kids drown in pools every year?


----------



## The Derp

Cecilie1200 said:


> This is very true, which is why most car owners carry liability insurance.  Nevertheless, the purpose and responsibility regarding car insurance is STILL not what you said it was.



*It is exactly what I said it was and you even fucking confirmed it with the first four words of your post.
*
I seriously think you have brain damage.  There is no other explanation for how fucking weird you are.


----------



## Issa

Ame®icano said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to the 17 parents, or the families of the Las Vegas massacre.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What should we say to 3000 families whose kids drown in pools every year?
Click to expand...

What an idiotic comparison.


----------



## The Derp

Ame®icano said:


> After being in two wars I don't really need to fantasize about shooting anyone. Well, I never shot a liberal, but you never know...



There's that fantasy showing.  I don't believe for a second you served in two wars.  And if you did, I believe you stretch the definition of "serve" to include digging latrines, mopping floors, or whatever janitorial duty you had while serving in the 401st Toilet Scrubbers and Laundry Folders Regiment.  I do not believe, and you can't even prove, that you saw any combat.  I think you craft these personal stories like people craft backstories for their D&D characters.  It's all a bunch of phony nonsense that is used as a crutch when the debate gets out of your control.  And it's always that.  Whenever a Conservative shitgoblin reaches the end of their limited knowledge, suddenly all these unverifiable personal anecdotes surface, or second-hand or third-hand accounts are relayed and expected to be taken seriously.

Why the fuck should I believe _*anything*_ you say about yourself?  What have you done to establish that trust?  Nothing.


----------



## Hugo Furst

The Derp said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> That makes you an irresponsible driver.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having insurance makes me an irresponsible driver?  How so?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> having insurance isnt' going to prevent a hit and run, and won't bring whoever you hit back to life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said it would, but what it does do is establish responsibility and holds me accountable for acting irresponsible.  For some strange reason, you don't think those principles should apply to gun owners too.  Which is why you aren't a "responsible gun owner" and why you never will be.
Click to expand...

If you consider me, and others, irresponsible gun owners, I consider you an irresponsible driver.

using  the same logic.


----------



## Hugo Furst

The Derp said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is very true, which is why most car owners carry liability insurance.  Nevertheless, the purpose and responsibility regarding car insurance is STILL not what you said it was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It is exactly what I said it was and you even fucking confirmed it with the first four words of your post.
> *
> I seriously think you have brain damage.  There is no other explanation for how fucking weird you are.
Click to expand...




The Derp said:


> I seriously think you have brain damage. There is no other explanation for how fucking weird you are



pot, meet kettle


----------



## The Derp

Ame®icano said:


> Again, if 14% don't report their guns being stolen, how they can be part of the statistics?



Because they told the DOJ survey (that's been around since 1973) they had their guns stolen but didn't tell the police.  FFS, are you being deliberately stupid or is this not an act?  Or did you think I wasn't referring to a DOJ survey?  Or did you just not fully read what I posted?  Did you do that Conservative thing and sloppily and lazily craft a response to something you didn't even carefully read?  Sure fuckin' seems like it...you're not proving responsibility by doing sloppy work, BTW.




Ame®icano said:


> Cops would be at my door in less then 5 minutes from alarm going off. It will take a thief much longer than that to find and bust the safe to get the guns. Meaning, thief will most likely get nothing of value before he's forced to run. However, I'll have a video that could help police to find him.



Not if the thief's been to your house before and scoped it out.  Which they do, BTW, when they pose as landscapers, exterminators, deliverypeople, or any other type of person that would come to your house for work.  Secondly, alarms can be disabled, safes can be cracked, there is no 100% successful way to keep your guns secured.  There will _*always*_ be the risk there.  Besides, you've argued that you shouldn't be held responsible for having your gun stolen anyway, so why do you have _*any*_ security?




Ame®icano said:


> Of course, I am not responsible for other people actions.
> If someone steals your car and run over someone with it, are you responsible for it?



It depends.  But we're not talking about cars, which are insured; we're talking about guns, which are not.


----------



## The Derp

Ame®icano said:


> So, I steal your car, use it as gateway vehicle for bank robbery, than I run over the family of four and kill them on the spot, that crash it into gas station and it burns to ground, it's all your fault.



My car's insured so, no.

Are your guns insured?  No.


----------



## The Derp

Ame®icano said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to the 17 parents, or the families of the Las Vegas massacre.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What should we say to 3000 families whose kids drown in pools every year?
Click to expand...


No one is stealing a pool to then use in pool crimes.

So your false comparison fails, just like everything else in your life.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

The Derp said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a sweeping generality based on nothing more than opinion, bias and hatred of gun owners and cannot be backed up. Every one of your posts is dripping with contempt for gun owners and has caused you to lose all objectivity on the issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a fucking whiny, self-identified victim.  Pointing out that you're not responsible because you brought a gun into your home isn't contemptuous of anything other than the posturing you do when it comes to being responsible.  Such a fucking snowflake.  What a whiner.  Me pointing out your irresponsibility is interpreted by you as some kind of malicious, personal attack because you have a persecution complex.  Get the fuck over yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there it is. I was wondering how long it would take you to lose your temper and start calling me names. Anyway, your hatred of gun owners does not bother me personally because frankly, I don't give a shit. I'm 54 years old and have been debating on forums for at least fourteen years. Believe me, after all that time I have developed a pretty thick skin so your nonsense has precisely zero effect on me.
> 
> Having said that, I point out your hatred of gun owners because it clearly has made you biased and you have no objectivity on the topic of gun control.
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who, exactly, is "you guys"? I've always known where my firearms were and, (this may be difficult for you to believe but it's true nonetheless), I would report it if it was stolen. And citing the "no true Scotsman" fallacy is itself, a fallacy in this case because no one has said "no true gun owner...". What was said was "responsible gun owners...". A true gun owner may be responsible or irresponsible whereas, a responsible gun owner is, by definition, responsible. You can't be that friggin' blind as to not see the distinction. And I've told you at least two times now and you keep sidestepping it and that is: NO ONE SAID ALL GUN OWNERS ARE RESPONSIBLE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "No true gun owner" and "responsible gun owner" are interchangeable within the same logical fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said "no true gun owner"?
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christ, this is like herding cats. I didn't bring that up to talk about drunk driving statistics, I brought it up to apply your reasoning to a different topic to illustrate how ridiculous it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're arbitrarily setting the parameters of the debate you joined but didn't start, so you don't have to answer for the facts that the government took drastic steps to combat drunk driving and successfully reduced the number of deaths by 50% thanks to laws, regulations, rules, and public campaigns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The parameters of the debate have not been changed. Did I or did I not tell you that I never intended to discuss motor vehicle deaths? I only brought it up to to show how your reasoning of risk and responsibility applies to other topics. I'm addressing your reasoning, not motor vehicle deaths.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You brought it up, and now you can't bear to handle the consequences of doing so.  Such an emotionally fragile person probably should be tasked with the responsibilities of reducing the negligence of owning a firearm.  And if we apply _*your*_ logic to drunk driving, namely that more guns = less gun crime, then more drunk driving = less drunk driving deaths.  Does that make sense?  No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said anything about more guns = less gun crime. Don't put words in my mouth.
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, chances are that an irresponsible gun owner will act irresponsibly This is an idiotic line of reasoning that might cover all the bases for you but it's still idiotic and does not stand up under logical scrutiny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you can't tell who is a responsible gun owner and who isn't *until they act irresponsibly*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By the same token, you can't tell who is a responsible gun owner and who isn't *until they act responsibly.*
> *
> 
> 
> 
> You are working from the assumption that gun owners are inherently responsible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> No, I am not. That claim was made by no one in this discussion, least of all by me, and I've told you that multiple times now. I'll say it again as plainly as I can so there's no confusion: No one said all gun owners are responsible. If that's not clear enough: Not all gun owners are responsible gun owners. If that's still not clear enough: Some gun owners are irresponsible gun owners.
> 
> Satisfied?
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you actually read anything I said? I've already told you twice that no one has suggested that all gun owners are responsible so why the hell do you keep parroting this crap?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that is what you're suggesting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck what you think I'm suggesting and read my words. I never suggested any such thing.
Click to expand...


----------



## The Derp

Issa said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to the 17 parents, or the families of the Las Vegas massacre.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What should we say to 3000 families whose kids drown in pools every year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What an idiotic comparison.
Click to expand...


Right!?  Thieves steal pools to use in pool crimes?  Maybe in Conservatardia.


----------



## The Derp

WillHaftawaite said:


> If you consider me, and others, irresponsible gun owners, I consider you an irresponsible driver.using  the same logic.



That's not using any logic.  

Cars are insured against the risk they bear, guns aren't.


----------



## Ame®icano

Issa said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to the 17 parents, or the families of the Las Vegas massacre.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What should we say to 3000 families whose kids drown in pools every year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What an idiotic comparison.
Click to expand...


How come, kids died because someone was irresponsible. 

We should ban pool sales and close all pool manufacturers. Enough is enough.


----------



## The Derp

Ghost of a Rider said:


> And there it is. I was wondering how long it would take you to lose your temper and start calling me names. Anyway, your hatred of gun owners does not bother me personally because frankly, I don't give a shit. I'm 54 years old and have been debating on forums for at least fourteen years. Believe me, after all that time I have developed a pretty thick skin so your nonsense has precisely zero effect on me.



I never said I hated gun owners; that's your persecution complex coming through.  Pointing out the fact that you laughably consider yourself a "responsible gun owner" while refusing to act responsibly when it comes to your guns only makes you feel like you're being attacked personally _*because you rightfully recognize that you're posturing*_.

So you can play the victim all you want, the only things you're a victim of are your own shitty judgment and instincts.

"How dare you accuse me of being irresponsible when I say I don't want to act responsibly!"

LOL!


----------



## Hugo Furst

The Derp said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you consider me, and others, irresponsible gun owners, I consider you an irresponsible driver.using  the same logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not using any logic.
> 
> Cars are insured against the risk they bear, guns aren't.
Click to expand...

insurance has nothing to do with it.


A driver without insurance is just as likely to cause a traffic fatality.

sell your car, be responsible for once in your life.


----------



## Skull Pilot

The Derp said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, I steal your car, use it as gateway vehicle for bank robbery, than I run over the family of four and kill them on the spot, that crash it into gas station and it burns to ground, it's all your fault.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My car's insured so, no.
> 
> Are your guns insured?  No.
Click to expand...


Yes my guns are insured in my homeowners' policy

I also have extra liability

and self defense insurance

Personal Firearms Liability Insurance - NRA-endorsed Protection

Lockton | NRA Carry Guard


----------



## Ame®icano

The Derp said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> After being in two wars I don't really need to fantasize about shooting anyone. Well, I never shot a liberal, but you never know...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's that fantasy showing.  I don't believe for a second you served in two wars.  And if you did, I believe you stretch the definition of "serve" to include digging latrines, mopping floors, or whatever janitorial duty you had while serving in the 401st Toilet Scrubbers and Laundry Folders Regiment.  I do not believe, and you can't even prove, that you saw any combat.  I think you craft these personal stories like people craft backstories for their D&D characters.  It's all a bunch of phony nonsense that is used as a crutch when the debate gets out of your control.  And it's always that.  Whenever a Conservative shitgoblin reaches the end of their limited knowledge, suddenly all these unverifiable personal anecdotes surface, or second-hand or third-hand accounts are relayed and expected to be taken seriously.
> 
> Why the fuck should I believe _*anything*_ you say about yourself?  What have you done to establish that trust?  Nothing.
Click to expand...


I don't care in what you believe, soyboy.

I bet it hurts when you realized how worthless piece of shit you are. Triggered yet?


----------



## The Derp

Ghost of a Rider said:


> The parameters of the debate have not been changed. Did I or did I not tell you that I never intended to discuss motor vehicle deaths? I only brought it up to to show how your reasoning of risk and responsibility applies to other topics. I'm addressing your reasoning, not motor vehicle deaths.



Because I didn't let you.  Let's be real for a second; you tried to set arbitrary parameters in the debate, that got smacked down, so now you're trying to say you never did that?  LOL.

When you brought up motor vehicle deaths, what you did was open the door to the facts that deaths from cars have been cut by 50% since government laws, rules, regulations, and public campaigns went into effect.  You opened the door to the fact that cars, unlike guns, require drivers to be insured against the risk they pose behind the wheel of their car.  You opened the door to the fact that cars must undergo yearly inspections and testing.  You opened the door to the fact that people have to get their licenses renewed, have to take tests, and have to undergo training. 

So all you've done by bringing up cars _*is make the case that guns should be treated like cars, insured like cars, and regulated like cars*_.

We cut car deaths by 50% thanks to government, so if you're going to compare guns to cars, let's do for guns what we did for cars and get those deaths reduced by 50%.  But I don't believe that's your intent.  I think you simply _*want*_ people to die from guns and you don't want anyone to be held responsible for it because you're a garbage person.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Issa said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> really? gun deaths have declined over the years despite millions upon millions more guns in circulation and millions of people carrying guns legally. So you are either ignorant of the fact or lying.  Most gun deaths are SUICIDES.  the remaining number that are not justifiable or excusable shootings are homicides mainly and those are caused at rates of 80-90% by people who are not legally able to own or use guns
> 
> so stuff the silly dramatics.  Gun violence in tis country-especially outside urban areas full of drug gangs is minuscule
> 
> 
> 
> USA is the worst country in terms of gu related dearhs/mass shootings. So there is clearly a gun problem. Why do you need a gun ? Insecure? Or ready to kill when you are pissed at the world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what do I need a gun for?  many reasons-one of them being to prevent people like you from trying to strip away our rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Enjoy them, I hope you don't kill someone when you lose your temper as many do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Less than one tenth of one percent ever use a gun to kill someone. The fact that you own a registered gun reduces that stat to less than 100th of one percent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the 17 parents, or the families of the Las Vegas massacre.
Click to expand...


Why?  Do they not have the Internet and the ability to look it up for themselves?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Ame®icano said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to the 17 parents, or the families of the Las Vegas massacre.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What should we say to 3000 families whose kids drown in pools every year?
Click to expand...


Depends.  Whose pool was it?


----------



## Cecilie1200

The Derp said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is very true, which is why most car owners carry liability insurance.  Nevertheless, the purpose and responsibility regarding car insurance is STILL not what you said it was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It is exactly what I said it was and you even fucking confirmed it with the first four words of your post.
> *
> I seriously think you have brain damage.  There is no other explanation for how fucking weird you are.
Click to expand...


Nope.  There has never been a time when you were right about anything, and certainly never been a time I was delusional enough to think you were.


----------



## The Derp

Ghost of a Rider said:


> I never said anything about more guns = less gun crime. Don't put words in my mouth.



So wait...so that means guns aren't a deterrent to crime, don't prevent crime, and don't stop crime.  So why are you posturing your defense of gun ownership if guns don't reduce crime?  What is the point then?  

Such a sloppy, lazy argument you're making.  Like you don't even put the slightest bit of effort into it.  It's reflective of your hostility toward personal responsibility, and the lack of effort, ethics, or morals you apply in your personal life.  What a fraud.




Ghost of a Rider said:


> By the same token, you can't tell who is a responsible gun owner and who isn't until they act responsibly.



*EXACTLY MY POINT!*  Which is why you can't call yourself "responsible" and be a gun owner.  Which is why I say there is no such thing as "responsible gun owners", just varying degrees of negligence.  You might be _*less negligent*_ than another gun owner, but you're sure as shit not responsible.  Being responsible would entail not bringing the gun, and the risks it poses, into your home in the first place.




Ghost of a Rider said:


> No, I am not. That claim was made by no one in this discussion, least of all by me, and I've told you that multiple times now. I'll say it again as plainly as I can so there's no confusion: No one said all gun owners are responsible. If that's not clear enough: Not all gun owners are responsible gun owners. If that's still not clear enough: Some gun owners are irresponsible gun owners.



So what makes someone a "responsible gun owner", then?  There doesn't seem to be any standard _*other than*_ not owning a gun.  So since no standard exists, you can't claim that mantle for yourself.  All you can do is say you're _*less negligent a gun owner*_, but you're still _*negligent *_because you're a gun owner.

The only thing I am doing here is dispelling the myth that there are "responsible gun owners".  Because I think you people use that phrase to posture responsibility when in practice you're anything _*but*_ responsible.




Ghost of a Rider said:


> Fuck what you think I'm suggesting and read my words. I never suggested any such thing.



So the problem is that there exists no standard as to what a "responsible gun owner" actually is.  And since you can go from "responsible gun owner" to "irresponsible gun owner" any second of any minute of any day, what you are isn't "responsible", you're negligent to varying degrees.  And that negligence comes strictly from owning a gun in the first place.

So let's stop pretending you're responsible people.  You're not.  You're negligent people to varying degrees.


----------



## Skull Pilot

The Derp said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said anything about more guns = less gun crime. Don't put words in my mouth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So wait...so that means guns aren't a deterrent to crime, don't prevent crime, and don't stop crime.  So why are you posturing your defense of gun ownership if guns don't reduce crime?  What is the point then?
> 
> Such a sloppy, lazy argument you're making.  Like you don't even put the slightest bit of effort into it.  It's reflective of your hostility toward personal responsibility, and the lack of effort, ethics, or morals you apply in your personal life.  What a fraud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the same token, you can't tell who is a responsible gun owner and who isn't until they act responsibly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *EXACTLY MY POINT!*  Which is why you can't call yourself "responsible" and be a gun owner.  Which is why I say there is no such thing as "responsible gun owners", just varying degrees of negligence.  You might be _*less negligent*_ than another gun owner, but you're sure as shit not responsible.  Being responsible would entail not bringing the gun, and the risks it poses, into your home in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I am not. That claim was made by no one in this discussion, least of all by me, and I've told you that multiple times now. I'll say it again as plainly as I can so there's no confusion: No one said all gun owners are responsible. If that's not clear enough: Not all gun owners are responsible gun owners. If that's still not clear enough: Some gun owners are irresponsible gun owners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what makes someone a "responsible gun owner", then?  There doesn't seem to be any standard _*other than*_ not owning a gun.  So since no standard exists, you can't claim that mantle for yourself.  All you can do is say you're _*less negligent a gun owner*_, but you're still _*negligent *_because you're a gun owner.
> 
> The only thing I am doing here is dispelling the myth that there are "responsible gun owners".  Because I think you people use that phrase to posture responsibility when in practice you're anything _*but*_ responsible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck what you think I'm suggesting and read my words. I never suggested any such thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the problem is that there exists no standard as to what a "responsible gun owner" actually is.  And since you can go from "responsible gun owner" to "irresponsible gun owner" any second of any minute of any day, what you are isn't "responsible", you're negligent to varying degrees.  And that negligence comes strictly from owning a gun in the first place.
> 
> So let's stop pretending you're responsible people.  You're not.  You're negligent people to varying degrees.
Click to expand...


The CDC in a study commissioned by Obama concluded that

*CDC Study: Use of Firearms for Self-Defense is ‘Important Crime Deterrent’*


----------



## The Derp

WillHaftawaite said:


> insurance has nothing to do with it.



Sure it does.  Insurance establishes personal responsibility.  So if you are irresponsible and leave your car unlocked and it gets stolen, guess what?  *YOUR PREMIUM INCREASES.
*
If you loan your car to someone and they get in an accident, guess what?  _*YOUR PREMIUM INCREASES*_.

If you drive drunk and get into an accident, guess what?  _*YOUR PREMIUM INCREASES*_.

Insurance = personal responsibility.

So I totally get why you don't understand it; you're not a responsible person so personal responsibility isn't something your brain can even process.





WillHaftawaite said:


> A driver without insurance is just as likely to cause a traffic fatality.



Maybe.  Maybe not.  Insured drivers know and understand that if they act irresponsibly, it will send their premiums up.  That's responsibility and accountability; two things that don't exist among gun owners.

BTW, thanks to government, deaths from cars have been cut in half.


----------



## The Derp

Skull Pilot said:


> Yes my guns are insured in my homeowners' policy
> I also have extra liability
> and self defense insurance
> Personal Firearms Liability Insurance - NRA-endorsed Protection
> Lockton | NRA Carry Guard



That's fantastic and I applaud you for doing that and I hope you encourage other gun owners to do the same.

However, you're still negligent because you have the gun...you're just _*less negligent*_ than most gun owners.


----------



## Hugo Furst

Skull Pilot said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said anything about more guns = less gun crime. Don't put words in my mouth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So wait...so that means guns aren't a deterrent to crime, don't prevent crime, and don't stop crime.  So why are you posturing your defense of gun ownership if guns don't reduce crime?  What is the point then?
> 
> Such a sloppy, lazy argument you're making.  Like you don't even put the slightest bit of effort into it.  It's reflective of your hostility toward personal responsibility, and the lack of effort, ethics, or morals you apply in your personal life.  What a fraud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the same token, you can't tell who is a responsible gun owner and who isn't until they act responsibly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *EXACTLY MY POINT!*  Which is why you can't call yourself "responsible" and be a gun owner.  Which is why I say there is no such thing as "responsible gun owners", just varying degrees of negligence.  You might be _*less negligent*_ than another gun owner, but you're sure as shit not responsible.  Being responsible would entail not bringing the gun, and the risks it poses, into your home in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I am not. That claim was made by no one in this discussion, least of all by me, and I've told you that multiple times now. I'll say it again as plainly as I can so there's no confusion: No one said all gun owners are responsible. If that's not clear enough: Not all gun owners are responsible gun owners. If that's still not clear enough: Some gun owners are irresponsible gun owners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what makes someone a "responsible gun owner", then?  There doesn't seem to be any standard _*other than*_ not owning a gun.  So since no standard exists, you can't claim that mantle for yourself.  All you can do is say you're _*less negligent a gun owner*_, but you're still _*negligent *_because you're a gun owner.
> 
> The only thing I am doing here is dispelling the myth that there are "responsible gun owners".  Because I think you people use that phrase to posture responsibility when in practice you're anything _*but*_ responsible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck what you think I'm suggesting and read my words. I never suggested any such thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the problem is that there exists no standard as to what a "responsible gun owner" actually is.  And since you can go from "responsible gun owner" to "irresponsible gun owner" any second of any minute of any day, what you are isn't "responsible", you're negligent to varying degrees.  And that negligence comes strictly from owning a gun in the first place.
> 
> So let's stop pretending you're responsible people.  You're not.  You're negligent people to varying degrees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The CDC in a study commissioned by Obama concluded that
> 
> *CDC Study: Use of Firearms for Self-Defense is ‘Important Crime Deterrent’*
Click to expand...



face it

derp has no idea what he's talking about.


My firearms are keep in a safe with a 6 digit combination.

The numbers are random, and not based on anyone's birthday . 

They only leave the safe  when I go tot eh range, or I'm cleaning them.

My firearms are safer than his car.


----------



## The Derp

Ame®icano said:


> I don't care in what you believe, soyboy.



Well, the only problem is that you require me to believe you in order for the rest of your argument to have validity.  Why the hell should I believe you?


----------



## Skull Pilot

The Derp said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes my guns are insured in my homeowners' policy
> I also have extra liability
> and self defense insurance
> Personal Firearms Liability Insurance - NRA-endorsed Protection
> Lockton | NRA Carry Guard
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's fantastic and I applaud you for doing that and I hope you encourage other gun owners to do the same.
> 
> However, you're still negligent because you have the gun...you're just _*less negligent*_ than most gun owners.
Click to expand...

 I don't encourage anyone to do anything because unlike you I realize that what other people choose to do is none of my fucking business


----------



## Papageorgio

Issa said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> really? gun deaths have declined over the years despite millions upon millions more guns in circulation and millions of people carrying guns legally. So you are either ignorant of the fact or lying.  Most gun deaths are SUICIDES.  the remaining number that are not justifiable or excusable shootings are homicides mainly and those are caused at rates of 80-90% by people who are not legally able to own or use guns
> 
> so stuff the silly dramatics.  Gun violence in tis country-especially outside urban areas full of drug gangs is minuscule
> 
> 
> 
> USA is the worst country in terms of gu related dearhs/mass shootings. So there is clearly a gun problem. Why do you need a gun ? Insecure? Or ready to kill when you are pissed at the world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what do I need a gun for?  many reasons-one of them being to prevent people like you from trying to strip away our rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Enjoy them, I hope you don't kill someone when you lose your temper as many do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Less than one tenth of one percent ever use a gun to kill someone. The fact that you own a registered gun reduces that stat to less than 100th of one percent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the 17 parents, or the families of the Las Vegas massacre.
Click to expand...


Tell that to the 1000 of parents that have lost their children in an auto accident.

You are more likely to die in an automobile accident then shot. There is a lot of hard evidence that raising the driver age to 25 would prevent many many accidents, as the brain has not developed fully to allow children to make the best decision, yet we have done nothing. We have also learned that cars that weigh more have less injuries and less chance of a fatality. No one seems to care about it that much, why? 

We lose many young people to boat propeller accidents and many have worked to get the NTSB to put prop guards on house boats, no luck, the money vs. the benefit isn't there.

So are you saying that the loss of youth in prop accidents, the loss of life in auto accidents is acceptable?


----------



## Hugo Furst

The Derp said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> insurance has nothing to do with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it does.  Insurance establishes personal responsibility.  So if you are irresponsible and leave your car unlocked and it gets stolen, guess what?  *YOUR PREMIUM INCREASES.
> *
> If you loan your car to someone and they get in an accident, guess what?  _*YOUR PREMIUM INCREASES*_.
> 
> If you drive drunk and get into an accident, guess what?  _*YOUR PREMIUM INCREASES*_.
> 
> Insurance = personal responsibility.
> 
> So I totally get why you don't understand it; you're not a responsible person so personal responsibility isn't something your brain can even process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> A driver without insurance is just as likely to cause a traffic fatality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe.  Maybe not.  Insured drivers know and understand that if they act irresponsibly, it will send their premiums up.  That's responsibility and accountability; two things that don't exist among gun owners.
> 
> BTW, thanks to government, deaths from cars have been cut in half.
Click to expand...



and it seems you are only worried about the money.

NOT the fact it is more dangerous than a firearm.

pull the cactus out of your ass.


----------



## Issa

Papageorgio said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> USA is the worst country in terms of gu related dearhs/mass shootings. So there is clearly a gun problem. Why do you need a gun ? Insecure? Or ready to kill when you are pissed at the world?
> 
> 
> 
> what do I need a gun for?  many reasons-one of them being to prevent people like you from trying to strip away our rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Enjoy them, I hope you don't kill someone when you lose your temper as many do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Less than one tenth of one percent ever use a gun to kill someone. The fact that you own a registered gun reduces that stat to less than 100th of one percent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the 17 parents, or the families of the Las Vegas massacre.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell that to the 1000 of parents that have lost their children in an auto accident.
> 
> You are more likely to die in an automobile accident then shot. There is a lot of hard evidence that raising the driver age to 25 would prevent many many accidents, as the brain has not developed fully to allow children to make the best decision, yet we have done nothing. We have also learned that cars that weigh more have less injuries and less chance of a fatality. No one seems to care about it that much, why?
> 
> We lose many young people to boat propeller accidents and many have worked to get the NTSB to put prop guards on house boats, no luck, the money vs. the benefit isn't there.
> 
> So are you saying that the loss of youth in prop accidents, the loss of life in auto accidents is acceptable?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry more guns more deaths....dozens of countries don't have mass shootings due to the non availability of guns in the US. America is still stuck in the 18th century when or comes to guns.


----------



## The Derp

WillHaftawaite said:


> derp has no idea what he's talking about.



No, the ones with no clue are the people who don't know what responsibility is, yet call themselves responsible while doing everything they can to act irresponsibly.




WillHaftawaite said:


> My firearms are keep in a safe with a 6 digit combination.



So congrats!  You're that much less negligent a gun owner.




WillHaftawaite said:


> The numbers are random, and not based on anyone's birthday



So what?  Thieves don't know how to crack a safe?  Even a digital one?  Someone should notify banks of that.




WillHaftawaite said:


> They only leave the safe  when I go tot eh range, or I'm cleaning them.



Ah, so not for self-defense, not for hunting, for your personal enjoyment.  And that's fine if you only take them when you do those two things.  A burglar doesn't, though, and burglars can break into safes.  They do it all the time.




WillHaftawaite said:


> TMy firearms are safer than his car.



Well, that's what you think but there's no comparison.


----------



## The Derp

Skull Pilot said:


> I don't encourage anyone to do anything because unlike you I realize that what other people choose to do is none of my fucking business



So just when I thought you were less negligent a person, you go and dash my hopes and dreams with this trash.


----------



## The Derp

Papageorgio said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> USA is the worst country in terms of gu related dearhs/mass shootings. So there is clearly a gun problem. Why do you need a gun ? Insecure? Or ready to kill when you are pissed at the world?
> 
> 
> 
> what do I need a gun for?  many reasons-one of them being to prevent people like you from trying to strip away our rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Enjoy them, I hope you don't kill someone when you lose your temper as many do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Less than one tenth of one percent ever use a gun to kill someone. The fact that you own a registered gun reduces that stat to less than 100th of one percent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the 17 parents, or the families of the Las Vegas massacre.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell that to the 1000 of parents that have lost their children in an auto accident.
> 
> You are more likely to die in an automobile accident then shot. There is a lot of hard evidence that raising the driver age to 25 would prevent many many accidents, as the brain has not developed fully to allow children to make the best decision, yet we have done nothing. We have also learned that cars that weigh more have less injuries and less chance of a fatality. No one seems to care about it that much, why?
> 
> We lose many young people to boat propeller accidents and many have worked to get the NTSB to put prop guards on house boats, no luck, the money vs. the benefit isn't there.
> 
> So are you saying that the loss of youth in prop accidents, the loss of life in auto accidents is acceptable?
Click to expand...


Since 1980, deaths from cars have been cut in half.  That was accomplished _*solely*_ because of government action.


----------



## Hugo Furst

The Derp said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> derp has no idea what he's talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the ones with no clue are the people who don't know what responsibility is, yet call themselves responsible while doing everything they can to act irresponsibly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> My firearms are keep in a safe with a 6 digit combination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So congrats!  You're that much less negligent a gun owner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> The numbers are random, and not based on anyone's birthday
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what?  Thieves don't know how to crack a safe?  Even a digital one?  Someone should notify banks of that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> They only leave the safe  when I go tot eh range, or I'm cleaning them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, so not for self-defense, not for hunting, for your personal enjoyment.  And that's fine if you only take them when you do those two things.  A burglar doesn't, though, and burglars can break into safes.  They do it all the time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> TMy firearms are safer than his car.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, that's what you think but there's no comparison.
Click to expand...



They are definitely safer.


They are locked up when not in use.

Is your car?

How secure is your garage, or do you leave it in the driveway?

Your car is far more likely to be stolen than any of my firearms,

Yup, I'm definitely more responsible than you are.


----------



## The Derp

WillHaftawaite said:


> and it seems you are only worried about the money.



Aren't you the people who are willing to sell guns without a background check because you want the money?  

The money is what forces personal responsibility.  Insurance = personal responsibility.  That used to be something Conservatives believed...until Obama came out in favor of it.  Now Conservatives argue against personal responsibility while pretending they're responsible.  What a laugh riot.




WillHaftawaite said:


> NOT the fact it is more dangerous than a firearm.



And because it's dangerous, it has to be insured against the risk it poses.  No such responsibility exists for gun owners.  So you can't call yourselves "responsible".  You can only call yourself a degree of negligent.  Some are more negligent than others, *but you're all negligent.*


----------



## Daryl Hunt

I essentially see two vocal camps in here.  The ones that want to get rid of the guns are very straight forward about it.  We'll call the "Nothing".  Meanwhile, we also have another group that we will have the "All".  

The Nothing want to ban all firearms from everyone.  This is really a very small representative group.  They, more or less, say that without guns, there would be no gun crimes or accidents.  True to some extent.  But the Gun Violence is, say, Britain still happens.  And Accidents will happen with or without guns.  Not going to happen in my lifetime.

Now the All wants no regulation on any part of their lives.  Not just in Guns but everything.  More or less, get the Government completely out of their lives.  Well, not quite out of their lives.  They still want the highways, and other social services that they think is part of the right to live in the US.  They want the Electricity and Natural Gas, the Trains, and more that if they weren't depending on them they would be calling them Socialist.  So, it because ALL laws governing the use, possessing and sale of Firearms should be banned.  Again, not going to happen in my lifetime.

I am like MOST people.  We believe in common sense regulations on everything.  Here are some of the arguments:

Common Sense:  Firearms, for the most part are the right of every American
Uncommon Response:  NO, WE NEED TO GET RID OF ALL FIREARMS!!!!
                                        NOT IN MOST CASES, IT'S AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT!!!!!

Common sense:  We need to prevent those on the No Fly List from purchasing Firearms
Uncommon response:  OVER MY DEAD BODY!!!!!!!
                                       NOT GOOD ENOUGH, ALL FIREARMS SHOULD BE BANNED!!!!!

Common sense:  We need to handle firearms exactly like we do Alchohol.  It's okay for an 18 year of to drink in the privacy of their home and with the consent of their parents or guardians who assumes all responsibility. But raise the non consent age to 21 just like Booze.
We get two uncommon responses on this one:
       OVER MY DEAD BODY!!!!!!
and NOT GOOD ENOUGH, ALL FIREARMS SHOULD BE BANNED!!!!!

Common sense:  We need to require all firearms sales to go through a background check
Uncommon Response:    OVER MY DEAD BODY!!!!!!
                                          THERE SHOULD BE NO BACKGROUND CHECKS, NO FIREARMS!!!!!!

Common sense:  Reclassify the AR and the AK to the next level of Firearms License.  Before the AR became the rifle of choice for mass killings, the AR was.  During Reagan's days, Reagan want the AK to have to be reclassified that way.  He called them Assault Rifles.  It became a law for a few years catching the Military Origin Rifles along with some handguns.  It wasn't a Ban, it was a reclassification
Uncommon Response:     OVER MY DEAD BODY!!!!!!
                                           NOT GOOD ENOUGH, WE DEMAND ALL FIREARMS BE BANNED!!!!!!

There is a definite pattern here.  The Alls and the Nothings.  It becomes All or nothing.  And common sense is completely removed from the equation.  For instance, the School Children are actually trying to get some common sense laws passed like the ones I mentioned above.  They asking for those three.  Not out of reasons and certain will not cause any bans.  I also added the fourth.  These are common sense laws that do not ban the firearms but would have stopped all but one Mass Shooting;  The one in Vegas, from occurring.    Yes, the weapons might have been bought but it would have taken more time and flags would have been raised giving the Local and Federals time to prevent it from happening.  The One in Nevada was done by a season shooter who would have qualified for almost any firearms license including Automatic Weapons and had the knowledge to use the law to his own ends.

Now they are putting armed guards in the High Schools here using the Educational District funds to do it.  That means that there will be even less funds for books, supplies, etc. that the Teachers help to support out of their own salaries.   The only thing we really get out of this is a poorer education for our Children.  

I support the School Children and their Parents.  I don't support either side of the Alls or Nothings.  It's called Common Sense.  Sometimes the best solution comes from the mouths of Babes.


----------



## The Derp

WillHaftawaite said:


> They are definitely safer.



Maybe the gun is safer, but gun owners aren't safer than drivers.  Simply by virtue of the fact that you take on unnecessary risk, then don't think you're responsible for any of it.




WillHaftawaite said:


> They are locked up when not in use.
> Is your car?
> How secure is your garage, or do you leave it in the driveway?
> Your car is far more likely to be stolen than any of my firearms,
> Yup, I'm definitely more responsible than you are.



That's great, but cars are insured...guns aren't.  So there's no personal responsibility when it comes to firearms.  I'm old enough to remember when Conservatives supported personal responsibility.  But that got thrown out the window once Obama came out in favor of it.

Make no mistake, the only argument I'm making here is that there is no such thing as a "responsible gun owner" other than one who gave up their guns.  Merely bringing a gun into your home is an act of negligence, and all you people do is either increase or decrease your negligence.  No gun owner is truly "responsible", it's an impossibility.


----------



## The Derp

Daryl Hunt said:


> I essentially see two vocal camps in here.  The ones that want to get rid of the guns are very straight forward about it.  We'll call the "Nothing".  Meanwhile, we also have another group that we will have the "All".
> 
> The Nothing want to ban all firearms from everyone.  This is really a very small representative group.  They, more or less, say that without guns, there would be no gun crimes or accidents.  True to some extent.  But the Gun Violence is, say, Britain still happens.  And Accidents will happen with or without guns.  Not going to happen in my lifetime.
> 
> Now the All wants no regulation on any part of their lives.  Not just in Guns but everything.  More or less, get the Government completely out of their lives.  Well, not quite out of their lives.  They still want the highways, and other social services that they think is part of the right to live in the US.  They want the Electricity and Natural Gas, the Trains, and more that if they weren't depending on them they would be calling them Socialist.  So, it because ALL laws governing the use, possessing and sale of Firearms should be banned.  Again, not going to happen in my lifetime.
> 
> I am like MOST people.  We believe in common sense regulations on everything.  Here are some of the arguments:
> 
> Common Sense:  Firearms, for the most part are the right of every American
> Uncommon Response:  NO, WE NEED TO GET RID OF ALL FIREARMS!!!!
> NOT IN MOST CASES, IT'S AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT!!!!!
> 
> Common sense:  We need to prevent those on the No Fly List from purchasing Firearms
> Uncommon response:  OVER MY DEAD BODY!!!!!!!
> NOT GOOD ENOUGH, ALL FIREARMS SHOULD BE BANNED!!!!!
> 
> Common sense:  We need to handle firearms exactly like we do Alchohol.  It's okay for an 18 year of to drink in the privacy of their home and with the consent of their parents or guardians who assumes all responsibility. But raise the non consent age to 21 just like Booze.
> We get two uncommon responses on this one:
> OVER MY DEAD BODY!!!!!!
> and NOT GOOD ENOUGH, ALL FIREARMS SHOULD BE BANNED!!!!!
> 
> Common sense:  We need to require all firearms sales to go through a background check
> Uncommon Response:    OVER MY DEAD BODY!!!!!!
> THERE SHOULD BE NO BACKGROUND CHECKS, NO FIREARMS!!!!!!
> 
> Common sense:  Reclassify the AR and the AK to the next level of Firearms License.  Before the AR became the rifle of choice for mass killings, the AR was.  During Reagan's days, Reagan want the AK to have to be reclassified that way.  He called them Assault Rifles.  It became a law for a few years catching the Military Origin Rifles along with some handguns.  It wasn't a Ban, it was a reclassification
> Uncommon Response:     OVER MY DEAD BODY!!!!!!
> NOT GOOD ENOUGH, WE DEMAND ALL FIREARMS BE BANNED!!!!!!
> 
> There is a definite pattern here.  The Alls and the Nothings.  It becomes All or nothing.  And common sense is completely removed from the equation.  For instance, the School Children are actually trying to get some common sense laws passed like the ones I mentioned above.  They asking for those three.  Not out of reasons and certain will not cause any bans.  I also added the fourth.  These are common sense laws that do not ban the firearms but would have stopped all but one Mass Shooting;  The one in Vegas, from occurring.    Yes, the weapons might have been bought but it would have taken more time and flags would have been raised giving the Local and Federals time to prevent it from happening.  The One in Nevada was done by a season shooter who would have qualified for almost any firearms license including Automatic Weapons and had the knowledge to use the law to his own ends.
> 
> Now they are putting armed guards in the High Schools here using the Educational District funds to do it.  That means that there will be even less funds for books, supplies, etc. that the Teachers help to support out of their own salaries.   The only thing we really get out of this is a poorer education for our Children.
> 
> I support the School Children and their Parents.  I don't support either side of the Alls or Nothings.  It's called Common Sense.  Sometimes the best solution comes from the mouths of Babes.



If you read a single one of my posts, you'd see that I don't support banning guns at all.

So this thing you're doing, where you try and pigeon-hole people into two camps to oversimplify the debate, is exactly the kind of binary thinking that causes division and prevents compromise.


----------



## Ame®icano

The Derp said:


> Because they told the DOJ survey (that's been around since 1973) they had their guns stolen but didn't tell the police.  FFS, are you being deliberately stupid or is this not an act?  Or did you think I wasn't referring to a DOJ survey?  Or did you just not fully read what I posted?  Did you do that Conservative thing and sloppily and lazily craft a response to something you didn't even carefully read?  Sure fuckin' seems like it...you're not proving responsibility by doing sloppy work, BTW.



I haven't been in this thread from the beginning. I joined few days ago and I didn't notice mention of the survey. DOJ survay? OMG, that has to be something serious, where can I find it?

By the way,  data investment management organization Kantar, 75% Americans believe that most surveys you hear about are biased toward a particular point of view. 

Tell me, why would anyone sane, who own gun legally not report the theft of the gun?



The Derp said:


> Not if the thief's been to your house before and scoped it out.  Which they do, BTW, when they pose as landscapers, exterminators, deliverypeople, or any other type of person that would come to your house for work.  Secondly, alarms can be disabled, safes can be cracked, there is no 100% successful way to keep your guns secured.  There will _*always*_ be the risk there.



I don't care if is landscaper or rocket scientist, the moment that unauthorized person open the door, the alarm goes off. If you can find the safe, crack it and leave the property in 5 minutes, and even if you avoid police, you still have to deal with my neighbors. I'd say, I'll rather deal with the police than with them. 

Is there a risk of having guns stolen? Of course it is. But the real question is, is that risk you're willing to take? 



The Derp said:


> Besides, you've argued that you shouldn't be held responsible for having your gun stolen anyway, so why do you have _*any*_ security?



Nope, I argued that I am not responsible for other people actions. If they commit the crime with the stolen gun, that crime is not my responsibility. I even said it in the very same post you responded to. See below.

You being retard is also not my responsibility.



Ame®icano said:


> Of course, I am not responsible for other people actions.
> If someone steals your car and run over someone with it, are you responsible for it?



It depends.  But we're not talking about cars, which are insured; we're talking about guns, which are not.[/QUOTE]

Insurance covers damages, and has nothing to do with crime being committed.


----------



## Hugo Furst

The Derp said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> and it seems you are only worried about the money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't you the people who are willing to sell guns without a background check because you want the money?
> 
> The money is what forces personal responsibility.  Insurance = personal responsibility.  That used to be something Conservatives believed...until Obama came out in favor of it.  Now Conservatives argue against personal responsibility while pretending they're responsible.  What a laugh riot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> NOT the fact it is more dangerous than a firearm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And because it's dangerous, it has to be insured against the risk it poses.  No such responsibility exists for gun owners.  So you can't call yourselves "responsible".  You can only call yourself a degree of negligent.  Some are more negligent than others, *but you're all negligent.*
Click to expand...


insurance is not going to keep one single person from getting run over.

do you have ANY idea how silly you sound pushing that bullshit?

If I had insurance on a gun, would that keep it from killing anyone?

what are you, an insurance salesman?

you sound like one.

"Buy insurance, and all your problems will go away"

you can run over of shoot someone, and your insurance will make it ALLLLLL better.


BULLSHIT!

insurance is AFTER the fact, it won't stop a crime, whether the crime is caused by a firearm, or a car.

You have the most LUDICROUS arguments I have EVER seen.

Insurance going to stop a hit and run?



insurance going to prevent someone stealing my personal property, be it car or gun.



you dont' have an argument, you have talking points, expanded into a rant.

you should have saved your time, and ours


----------



## Hugo Furst

The Derp said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are definitely safer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the gun is safer, but gun owners aren't safer than drivers.  Simply by virtue of the fact that you take on unnecessary risk, then don't think you're responsible for any of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are locked up when not in use.
> Is your car?
> How secure is your garage, or do you leave it in the driveway?
> Your car is far more likely to be stolen than any of my firearms,
> Yup, I'm definitely more responsible than you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's great, but cars are insured...guns aren't.  So there's no personal responsibility when it comes to firearms.  I'm old enough to remember when Conservatives supported personal responsibility.  But that got thrown out the window once Obama came out in favor of it.
> 
> Make no mistake, the only argument I'm making here is that there is no such thing as a "responsible gun owner" other than one who gave up their guns.  Merely bringing a gun into your home is an act of negligence, and all you people do is either increase or decrease your negligence.  No gun owner is truly "responsible", it's an impossibility.
Click to expand...



" No gun owner is truly "responsible", it's an impossibility."






Nor is any driver.

sell your car


----------



## The Derp

Ame®icano said:


> I haven't been in this thread from the beginning. I joined few days ago and I didn't notice mention of the survey. DOJ survay? OMG, that has to be something serious, where can I find it?By the way,  data investment management organization Kantar, 75% Americans believe that most surveys you hear about are biased toward a particular point of view.Tell me, why would anyone sane, who own gun legally not report the theft of the gun?



Sigh...so this particular survey is run by the DOJ and has been around since 1973.  Not sure what "bias" you could even infer from it and I can see you trying to preemptively gaslight it because you don't want to accept the conclusions from it.  Which is pretty shitty, dude.




Ame®icano said:


> I don't care if is landscaper or rocket scientist, the moment that unauthorized person open the door, the alarm goes off. If you can find the safe, crack it and leave the property in 5 minutes, and even if you avoid police, you still have to deal with my neighbors. I'd say, I'll rather deal with the police than with them.



Posturing.  You keep making this argument that the cops will show up right away, which invalidates your argument that the gun will protect you.  So which is it?  Do you need the gun because the cops won't be there, or not?  And what if one of the thieves *is your neighbor?
*
See, all of this doesn't establish responsibility, it establishes negligence.  A degree of negligence, but negligence nonetheless.




Ame®icano said:


> Is there a risk of having guns stolen? Of course it is. But the real question is, is that risk you're willing to take?



The risk isn't to the criminal, it's to society which will be victimized _*by the criminal with the gun they stole from you*.  _So you're still selfishly putting others at risk for your own insecurities.  That's the act of an irresponsible garbage person.




Ame®icano said:


> Nope, I argued that I am not responsible for other people actions. If they commit the crime with the stolen gun, that crime is not my responsibility. I even said it in the very same post you responded to. See below.



You are definitely responsible for the actions of others when you make it possible for them to steal from you to then act against society.  If you didn't have a gun, the thief wouldn't steal it and then it wouldn't be used in crimes. You are wholly responsible for your guns getting stolen.  100%.  And you're also responsible for what your stolen gun does because you lacked the responsibility to keep it from being stolen.  Again, nothing you're saying here establishes any level of "personal responsibility" and it's quite interesting how you see _*negligence*_ as _*responsibility*_.




Ame®icano said:


> Insurance covers damages, and has nothing to do with crime being committed.



You better check your insurance policy because it's not that simplistic.


----------



## The Derp

WillHaftawaite said:


> " No gun owner is truly "responsible", it's an impossibility."
> Nor is any driver.



Which is why drivers have to be insured.

So when you bring up cars, you make the case for mandatory gun insurance.


----------



## Hugo Furst

The Derp said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> " No gun owner is truly "responsible", it's an impossibility."
> Nor is any driver.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why drivers have to be insured.
> 
> So when you bring up cars, you make the case for mandatory gun insurance.
Click to expand...


no, but you keep thinking that.

having insurance doesn't prevent accidents.

whether it's on a car, a house, or a firearm.

Try a different shtick


----------



## The Derp

WillHaftawaite said:


> insurance is not going to keep one single person from getting run over.



I NEVER SAID IT WOULD, though it's likely it will since that's what happened when drivers started being required to carry insurance coverage. * It's one of the reasons why traffic deaths have declined by 50% since 1980.*  So why are you still using this straw man after I already burned it down twice?  What insurance does is establish _*responsibility*_.  Gun owners have no responsibility and aren't responsible people.  Insurance solves that.  Insurance used to pay out for the damages your gun will cause.




WillHaftawaite said:


> do you have ANY idea how silly you sound pushing that bullshit?
> If I had insurance on a gun, would that keep it from killing anyone?



It might!  But it will definitely force _*you*_ to be responsible for your weapon by paying an insurance premium for the risk you carry.  Personal responsibility.  For some reason, you argue against that.  Not sure why.  Probably because you're an entitled brat.





WillHaftawaite said:


> what are you, an insurance salesman?
> ou sound like one.
> "Buy insurance, and all your problems will go away"
> you can run over of shoot someone, and your insurance will make it ALLLLLL better.



You should have been the set designer for The Wicker Man because all you do is build straw men.

What insurance does is establish your responsibility for this dangerous thing you now own.  For some reason, you don't think you should be held responsible for it.  Hence, you're no "responsible gun owner" because putting society at risk for your personal insecurities isn't the act of a responsible person.

I can't help it if you don't understand what insurance is.


----------



## The Derp

WillHaftawaite said:


> havig insurance doesn't prevent accidents



According to whom?  If you know that your insurance premium will increase if you act irresponsibly, are you more or less likely to act irresponsibly?


----------



## Hugo Furst

The Derp said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> insurance is not going to keep one single person from getting run over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I NEVER SAID IT WOULD, though it's likely it will since that's what happened when drivers started being required to carry insurance coverage. * It's one of the reasons why traffic deaths have declined by 50% since 1980.*  So why are you still using this straw man after I already burned it down twice?  What insurance does is establish _*responsibility*_.  Gun owners have no responsibility and aren't responsible people.  Insurance solves that.  Insurance used to pay out for the damages your gun will cause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> do you have ANY idea how silly you sound pushing that bullshit?
> If I had insurance on a gun, would that keep it from killing anyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It might!  But it will definitely force _*you*_ to be responsible for your weapon by paying an insurance premium for the risk you carry.  Personal responsibility.  For some reason, you argue against that.  Not sure why.  Probably because you're an entitled brat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> what are you, an insurance salesman?
> ou sound like one.
> "Buy insurance, and all your problems will go away"
> you can run over of shoot someone, and your insurance will make it ALLLLLL better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should have been the set designer for The Wicker Man because all you do is build straw men.
> 
> What insurance does is establish your responsibility for this dangerous thing you now own.  For some reason, you don't think you should be held responsible for it.  Hence, you're no "responsible gun owner" because putting society at risk for your personal insecurities isn't the act of a responsible person.
> 
> I can't help it if you don't understand what insurance is.
Click to expand...





The Derp said:


> * It's one of the reasons why traffic deaths have declined by 50% since 1980.*


A better reason would be seatbelts, and better cars



The Derp said:


> So why are you still using this straw man after I already burned it down twice?


The only thing you've burnt, is your fingers



The Derp said:


> Gun owners have no responsibility and aren't responsible people.



Seems they are more responsible than most drivers



The Derp said:


> Probably because you're an entitled brat.



Entitled?

hardly.

I've had to work for everything I've got, including my clothing since the age of 12



The Derp said:


> You should have been the set designer for The Wicker Man because all you do is build straw men.



Pot, meet kettle.

Your strawman on insurance is making you a laughing stock of the board



The Derp said:


> I can't help it if you don't understand what insurance is.



I understand it.

I understand it wont' stop someone breaking into my house, won't stop someone stealing my car, wont' stop a bullet.

It will help pay for things AFTER the fact.

but it wont' stop a single death.

(which is why I keep laughing every time you bring it up.  it's a ridiculous point)

your rant is a failure.


give it up


----------



## Hugo Furst

The Derp said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> havig insurance doesn't prevent accidents
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to whom?  If you know that your insurance premium will increase if you act irresponsibly, are you more or less likely to act irresponsibly?
Click to expand...


----------



## Hugo Furst

more fun than debating with derp


----------



## Daryl Hunt

The Derp said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I essentially see two vocal camps in here.  The ones that want to get rid of the guns are very straight forward about it.  We'll call the "Nothing".  Meanwhile, we also have another group that we will have the "All".
> 
> The Nothing want to ban all firearms from everyone.  This is really a very small representative group.  They, more or less, say that without guns, there would be no gun crimes or accidents.  True to some extent.  But the Gun Violence is, say, Britain still happens.  And Accidents will happen with or without guns.  Not going to happen in my lifetime.
> 
> Now the All wants no regulation on any part of their lives.  Not just in Guns but everything.  More or less, get the Government completely out of their lives.  Well, not quite out of their lives.  They still want the highways, and other social services that they think is part of the right to live in the US.  They want the Electricity and Natural Gas, the Trains, and more that if they weren't depending on them they would be calling them Socialist.  So, it because ALL laws governing the use, possessing and sale of Firearms should be banned.  Again, not going to happen in my lifetime.
> 
> I am like MOST people.  We believe in common sense regulations on everything.  Here are some of the arguments:
> 
> Common Sense:  Firearms, for the most part are the right of every American
> Uncommon Response:  NO, WE NEED TO GET RID OF ALL FIREARMS!!!!
> NOT IN MOST CASES, IT'S AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT!!!!!
> 
> Common sense:  We need to prevent those on the No Fly List from purchasing Firearms
> Uncommon response:  OVER MY DEAD BODY!!!!!!!
> NOT GOOD ENOUGH, ALL FIREARMS SHOULD BE BANNED!!!!!
> 
> Common sense:  We need to handle firearms exactly like we do Alchohol.  It's okay for an 18 year of to drink in the privacy of their home and with the consent of their parents or guardians who assumes all responsibility. But raise the non consent age to 21 just like Booze.
> We get two uncommon responses on this one:
> OVER MY DEAD BODY!!!!!!
> and NOT GOOD ENOUGH, ALL FIREARMS SHOULD BE BANNED!!!!!
> 
> Common sense:  We need to require all firearms sales to go through a background check
> Uncommon Response:    OVER MY DEAD BODY!!!!!!
> THERE SHOULD BE NO BACKGROUND CHECKS, NO FIREARMS!!!!!!
> 
> Common sense:  Reclassify the AR and the AK to the next level of Firearms License.  Before the AR became the rifle of choice for mass killings, the AR was.  During Reagan's days, Reagan want the AK to have to be reclassified that way.  He called them Assault Rifles.  It became a law for a few years catching the Military Origin Rifles along with some handguns.  It wasn't a Ban, it was a reclassification
> Uncommon Response:     OVER MY DEAD BODY!!!!!!
> NOT GOOD ENOUGH, WE DEMAND ALL FIREARMS BE BANNED!!!!!!
> 
> There is a definite pattern here.  The Alls and the Nothings.  It becomes All or nothing.  And common sense is completely removed from the equation.  For instance, the School Children are actually trying to get some common sense laws passed like the ones I mentioned above.  They asking for those three.  Not out of reasons and certain will not cause any bans.  I also added the fourth.  These are common sense laws that do not ban the firearms but would have stopped all but one Mass Shooting;  The one in Vegas, from occurring.    Yes, the weapons might have been bought but it would have taken more time and flags would have been raised giving the Local and Federals time to prevent it from happening.  The One in Nevada was done by a season shooter who would have qualified for almost any firearms license including Automatic Weapons and had the knowledge to use the law to his own ends.
> 
> Now they are putting armed guards in the High Schools here using the Educational District funds to do it.  That means that there will be even less funds for books, supplies, etc. that the Teachers help to support out of their own salaries.   The only thing we really get out of this is a poorer education for our Children.
> 
> I support the School Children and their Parents.  I don't support either side of the Alls or Nothings.  It's called Common Sense.  Sometimes the best solution comes from the mouths of Babes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you read a single one of my posts, you'd see that I don't support banning guns at all.
> 
> So this thing you're doing, where you try and pigeon-hole people into two camps to oversimplify the debate, is exactly the kind of binary thinking that causes division and prevents compromise.
Click to expand...


The Truth hurts, don't it.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Daryl Hunt said:


> I essentially see two vocal camps in here.  The ones that want to get rid of the guns are very straight forward about it.  We'll call the "Nothing".  Meanwhile, we also have another group that we will have the "All".
> 
> The Nothing want to ban all firearms from everyone.  This is really a very small representative group.  They, more or less, say that without guns, there would be no gun crimes or accidents.  True to some extent.  But the Gun Violence is, say, Britain still happens.  And Accidents will happen with or without guns.  Not going to happen in my lifetime.
> 
> Now the All wants no regulation on any part of their lives.  Not just in Guns but everything.  More or less, get the Government completely out of their lives.  Well, not quite out of their lives.  They still want the highways, and other social services that they think is part of the right to live in the US.  They want the Electricity and Natural Gas, the Trains, and more that if they weren't depending on them they would be calling them Socialist.  So, it because ALL laws governing the use, possessing and sale of Firearms should be banned.  Again, not going to happen in my lifetime.
> 
> I am like MOST people.  We believe in common sense regulations on everything.  Here are some of the arguments:
> 
> Common Sense:  Firearms, for the most part are the right of every American
> Uncommon Response:  NO, WE NEED TO GET RID OF ALL FIREARMS!!!!
> NOT IN MOST CASES, IT'S AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT!!!!!
> 
> Common sense:  We need to prevent those on the No Fly List from purchasing Firearms
> Uncommon response:  OVER MY DEAD BODY!!!!!!!
> NOT GOOD ENOUGH, ALL FIREARMS SHOULD BE BANNED!!!!!
> 
> Common sense:  We need to handle firearms exactly like we do Alchohol.  It's okay for an 18 year of to drink in the privacy of their home and with the consent of their parents or guardians who assumes all responsibility. But raise the non consent age to 21 just like Booze.
> We get two uncommon responses on this one:
> OVER MY DEAD BODY!!!!!!
> and NOT GOOD ENOUGH, ALL FIREARMS SHOULD BE BANNED!!!!!
> 
> Common sense:  We need to require all firearms sales to go through a background check
> Uncommon Response:    OVER MY DEAD BODY!!!!!!
> THERE SHOULD BE NO BACKGROUND CHECKS, NO FIREARMS!!!!!!
> 
> Common sense:  Reclassify the AR and the AK to the next level of Firearms License.  Before the AR became the rifle of choice for mass killings, the AR was.  During Reagan's days, Reagan want the AK to have to be reclassified that way.  He called them Assault Rifles.  It became a law for a few years catching the Military Origin Rifles along with some handguns.  It wasn't a Ban, it was a reclassification
> Uncommon Response:     OVER MY DEAD BODY!!!!!!
> NOT GOOD ENOUGH, WE DEMAND ALL FIREARMS BE BANNED!!!!!!
> 
> There is a definite pattern here.  The Alls and the Nothings.  It becomes All or nothing.  And common sense is completely removed from the equation.  For instance, the School Children are actually trying to get some common sense laws passed like the ones I mentioned above.  They asking for those three.  Not out of reasons and certain will not cause any bans.  I also added the fourth.  These are common sense laws that do not ban the firearms but would have stopped all but one Mass Shooting;  The one in Vegas, from occurring.    Yes, the weapons might have been bought but it would have taken more time and flags would have been raised giving the Local and Federals time to prevent it from happening.  The One in Nevada was done by a season shooter who would have qualified for almost any firearms license including Automatic Weapons and had the knowledge to use the law to his own ends.
> 
> Now they are putting armed guards in the High Schools here using the Educational District funds to do it.  That means that there will be even less funds for books, supplies, etc. that the Teachers help to support out of their own salaries.   The only thing we really get out of this is a poorer education for our Children.
> 
> I support the School Children and their Parents.  I don't support either side of the Alls or Nothings.  It's called Common Sense.  Sometimes the best solution comes from the mouths of Babes.



I essentially see that you're too busy listening to the voices in your head to hear what actual people are saying to you.

None of the 2nd Amendment supporters you've been talking to are "no regulation on anything, at all, any time".  Neither is the NRA, that ultimate mega-bogeyman of the left.  Background checks to make certain people are actually allowed to own guns are okay, so long as you're not trying to pair them with utterly unnecessary and pointless waiting periods.  No gun ownership for violently unstable mental patients?  Okay, as long as you're willing to respect their 5th Amendment rights to due process in determining that they're violent and unstable (might also be a good time to get them some treatment, if you can fight your way past all the ACLU lawyers.  Just sayin').

These sound like perfectly reasonable points of compromise where we could meet and agree to me.  Unfortunately, they sound like "No regulations!  We want dead children!  Aaaaauuuugh!!!" to you, which is why nothing meaningful is ever going to get done regarding gun violence.


----------



## Ame®icano

Cecilie1200 said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to the 17 parents, or the families of the Las Vegas massacre.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What should we say to 3000 families whose kids drown in pools every year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depends.  Whose pool was it?
Click to expand...


Why does it matter? Pool manufacturers are responsible.


----------



## Papageorgio

Issa said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> what do I need a gun for?  many reasons-one of them being to prevent people like you from trying to strip away our rights
> 
> 
> 
> Enjoy them, I hope you don't kill someone when you lose your temper as many do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Less than one tenth of one percent ever use a gun to kill someone. The fact that you own a registered gun reduces that stat to less than 100th of one percent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the 17 parents, or the families of the Las Vegas massacre.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell that to the 1000 of parents that have lost their children in an auto accident.
> 
> You are more likely to die in an automobile accident then shot. There is a lot of hard evidence that raising the driver age to 25 would prevent many many accidents, as the brain has not developed fully to allow children to make the best decision, yet we have done nothing. We have also learned that cars that weigh more have less injuries and less chance of a fatality. No one seems to care about it that much, why?
> 
> We lose many young people to boat propeller accidents and many have worked to get the NTSB to put prop guards on house boats, no luck, the money vs. the benefit isn't there.
> 
> So are you saying that the loss of youth in prop accidents, the loss of life in auto accidents is acceptable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sorry more guns more deaths....dozens of countries don't have mass shootings due to the non availability of guns in the US. America is still stuck in the 18th century when or comes to guns.
Click to expand...


More cars, more deaths, countries that have few cars have less deaths, somyou don’t care that we can save thousands more each year?


----------



## Ame®icano

The Derp said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care in what you believe, soyboy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the only problem is that you require me to believe you in order for the rest of your argument to have validity.  Why the hell should I believe you?
Click to expand...


Nope, I couldn't care less if you believe me or not. My argument is based on your attempt to insult me with your idiocy that I fantasize about being a hero.

If you insist, the only fantasy I have could come up with now is that you try to brake into my home wearing the French maid costume. That'll make my day and possibly great video I could post on LiveLeak.


----------



## Papageorgio

The Derp said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> what do I need a gun for?  many reasons-one of them being to prevent people like you from trying to strip away our rights
> 
> 
> 
> Enjoy them, I hope you don't kill someone when you lose your temper as many do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Less than one tenth of one percent ever use a gun to kill someone. The fact that you own a registered gun reduces that stat to less than 100th of one percent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the 17 parents, or the families of the Las Vegas massacre.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell that to the 1000 of parents that have lost their children in an auto accident.
> 
> You are more likely to die in an automobile accident then shot. There is a lot of hard evidence that raising the driver age to 25 would prevent many many accidents, as the brain has not developed fully to allow children to make the best decision, yet we have done nothing. We have also learned that cars that weigh more have less injuries and less chance of a fatality. No one seems to care about it that much, why?
> 
> We lose many young people to boat propeller accidents and many have worked to get the NTSB to put prop guards on house boats, no luck, the money vs. the benefit isn't there.
> 
> So are you saying that the loss of youth in prop accidents, the loss of life in auto accidents is acceptable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since 1980, deaths from cars have been cut in half.  That was accomplished _*solely*_ because of government action.
Click to expand...


They started banning cars?


----------



## Ame®icano

Issa said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> what do I need a gun for?  many reasons-one of them being to prevent people like you from trying to strip away our rights
> 
> 
> 
> Enjoy them, I hope you don't kill someone when you lose your temper as many do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Less than one tenth of one percent ever use a gun to kill someone. The fact that you own a registered gun reduces that stat to less than 100th of one percent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the 17 parents, or the families of the Las Vegas massacre.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell that to the 1000 of parents that have lost their children in an auto accident.
> 
> You are more likely to die in an automobile accident then shot. There is a lot of hard evidence that raising the driver age to 25 would prevent many many accidents, as the brain has not developed fully to allow children to make the best decision, yet we have done nothing. We have also learned that cars that weigh more have less injuries and less chance of a fatality. No one seems to care about it that much, why?
> 
> We lose many young people to boat propeller accidents and many have worked to get the NTSB to put prop guards on house boats, no luck, the money vs. the benefit isn't there.
> 
> So are you saying that the loss of youth in prop accidents, the loss of life in auto accidents is acceptable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sorry more guns more deaths....dozens of countries don't have mass shootings due to the non availability of guns in the US. America is still stuck in the 18th century when or comes to guns.
Click to expand...


Yep, when it comes to guns, we're stuck in 18th century. But if we remove unnecessary gun restrictions, we should get in par with every possible threat, foreign or domestic.


----------



## Ame®icano

The Derp said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> what do I need a gun for?  many reasons-one of them being to prevent people like you from trying to strip away our rights
> 
> 
> 
> Enjoy them, I hope you don't kill someone when you lose your temper as many do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Less than one tenth of one percent ever use a gun to kill someone. The fact that you own a registered gun reduces that stat to less than 100th of one percent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the 17 parents, or the families of the Las Vegas massacre.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell that to the 1000 of parents that have lost their children in an auto accident.
> 
> You are more likely to die in an automobile accident then shot. There is a lot of hard evidence that raising the driver age to 25 would prevent many many accidents, as the brain has not developed fully to allow children to make the best decision, yet we have done nothing. We have also learned that cars that weigh more have less injuries and less chance of a fatality. No one seems to care about it that much, why?
> 
> We lose many young people to boat propeller accidents and many have worked to get the NTSB to put prop guards on house boats, no luck, the money vs. the benefit isn't there.
> 
> So are you saying that the loss of youth in prop accidents, the loss of life in auto accidents is acceptable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since 1980, deaths from cars have been cut in half.  That was accomplished _*solely*_ because of government action.
Click to expand...


I didn't know government is making cars. Unless you're thinking about Government Motors.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

*



			No one is breaking into anyone's house to steal the pool and then use that pool to go drown someone else.
		
Click to expand...

*
We're talking about risk and the responsibility of lessening that risk. If a pool owner does not lock the gate to the pool and some kid gets in and drowns, is he any less responsible than the guy whose gun is stolen and used to kill someone? 



> *CARS HAVE TO BE INSURED, GUNS ARE NOT.
> *
> *The risk is insured with cars.  The risk is not insured with guns.*



Wrong. Insurance does not insure against risk, it insures against having to pay thousands of dollars out of pocket if you have an accident. What good will insurance do if a gun is stolen and then used in a homicide? It might pay for the gun owner's legal fees but it will not lessen the risk nor will it prevent the crime. You could have a million dollar policy and it won't change a thing except maybe get the victim's family a sizable settlement. The victim will still be dead.



> 1. CARS REQUIRE INSURANCE



Cars require _liability_ insurance to ensure that, if you are at fault in an accident, the other driver is reimbursed for damages. 



> 2. Car deaths used to be _*way higher*_, but then the government passed all these safety rules, laws, regulations and had public campaigns to change behavior and the result of that has been a _*50% reduction in the number of deaths from cars.*_


_*
*_
Car deaths are down because of seatbelts, airbags and other safety features, not insurance. If you veer off the highway at 70 mph hurtling towards a concrete abutment, what goddamn good is insurance going to do you at this point?



> 3. Fewer people died from cars than guns last year.



Wrong. Motor vehicle fatalities topped 40,000 in 2017 while firearm deaths in 2017 was 15,549 (excluding suicides) according to gunviolencearchive.org. 



> _You're going to have to show me where I said I don't have that responsibility because I never said nor implied any such thing._
> 
> That's what you've been arguing this entire time! Jesus fucking Christ. SMH.



No, it is not. I and everybody else here has been arguing that we are not irresponsible simply for owning a gun. That's it.



> This whole argument is about how you're not responsible just by virtue of owning a gun. You've been arguing, simultaneously, that you are a "responsible gun owner", yet you don't think you should act responsibly.



When did I say this?



> Whether that's running a background check on anyone to whom you're giving your gun, to reporting your gun stolen to the police, to even owning a gun in the first place. In all this time, all you've done is argue that you are responsible just because you say so, while saying you don't think you should act responsibly when it comes to how you manage your firearms.



I haven't said a word about background checks and I told you that I would report it if my gun was stolen. And I never said that I don't think I should act responsibly. This entire paragraph is bullshit. 



> Fucking pathetic.



I agree, your arguments are pathetic.

"_There's no need to establish anything. Any idiot knows that the owner of the gun is responsible for his gun. Not having insurance doesn't change that_."



> So this is *exactly *what I'm talking about when I say you avoid responsibility. Here you are, _*literally arguing against your personal responsibility. *_Yes, responsibility *has to be established*. Always. You are saying that you don't want responsibility to be established.



Read the second line again dumbass.

"_I never said anything about more guns = less gun crime. Don't put words in my mouth_."



> So wait...so that means guns aren't a deterrent to crime, don't prevent crime, and don't stop crime. So why are you posturing your defense of gun ownership if guns don't reduce crime? What is the point then?



Don't get creative and make your own BS interpretation. Just know that I did not say more guns = less crime. 

"_No, I am not. That claim was made by no one in this discussion, least of all by me, and I've told you that multiple times now. I'll say it again as plainly as I can so there's no confusion: No one said all gun owners are responsible. If that's not clear enough: Not all gun owners are responsible gun owners. If that's still not clear enough: Some gun owners are irresponsible gun owners_."



> So what makes someone a "responsible gun owner", then? There doesn't seem to be any standard _*other than*_ not owning a gun. So since no standard exists, you can't claim that mantle for yourself. All you can do is say you're _*less negligent a gun owner*_, but you're still _*negligent *_because you're a gun owner.



You're evading the point. No one said all gun owners are responsible. 

You're the only one here speaking in terms of absolutes, i.e., all gun owners are irresponsible.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Cecilie1200 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I essentially see two vocal camps in here.  The ones that want to get rid of the guns are very straight forward about it.  We'll call the "Nothing".  Meanwhile, we also have another group that we will have the "All".
> 
> The Nothing want to ban all firearms from everyone.  This is really a very small representative group.  They, more or less, say that without guns, there would be no gun crimes or accidents.  True to some extent.  But the Gun Violence is, say, Britain still happens.  And Accidents will happen with or without guns.  Not going to happen in my lifetime.
> 
> Now the All wants no regulation on any part of their lives.  Not just in Guns but everything.  More or less, get the Government completely out of their lives.  Well, not quite out of their lives.  They still want the highways, and other social services that they think is part of the right to live in the US.  They want the Electricity and Natural Gas, the Trains, and more that if they weren't depending on them they would be calling them Socialist.  So, it because ALL laws governing the use, possessing and sale of Firearms should be banned.  Again, not going to happen in my lifetime.
> 
> I am like MOST people.  We believe in common sense regulations on everything.  Here are some of the arguments:
> 
> Common Sense:  Firearms, for the most part are the right of every American
> Uncommon Response:  NO, WE NEED TO GET RID OF ALL FIREARMS!!!!
> NOT IN MOST CASES, IT'S AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT!!!!!
> 
> Common sense:  We need to prevent those on the No Fly List from purchasing Firearms
> Uncommon response:  OVER MY DEAD BODY!!!!!!!
> NOT GOOD ENOUGH, ALL FIREARMS SHOULD BE BANNED!!!!!
> 
> Common sense:  We need to handle firearms exactly like we do Alchohol.  It's okay for an 18 year of to drink in the privacy of their home and with the consent of their parents or guardians who assumes all responsibility. But raise the non consent age to 21 just like Booze.
> We get two uncommon responses on this one:
> OVER MY DEAD BODY!!!!!!
> and NOT GOOD ENOUGH, ALL FIREARMS SHOULD BE BANNED!!!!!
> 
> Common sense:  We need to require all firearms sales to go through a background check
> Uncommon Response:    OVER MY DEAD BODY!!!!!!
> THERE SHOULD BE NO BACKGROUND CHECKS, NO FIREARMS!!!!!!
> 
> Common sense:  Reclassify the AR and the AK to the next level of Firearms License.  Before the AR became the rifle of choice for mass killings, the AR was.  During Reagan's days, Reagan want the AK to have to be reclassified that way.  He called them Assault Rifles.  It became a law for a few years catching the Military Origin Rifles along with some handguns.  It wasn't a Ban, it was a reclassification
> Uncommon Response:     OVER MY DEAD BODY!!!!!!
> NOT GOOD ENOUGH, WE DEMAND ALL FIREARMS BE BANNED!!!!!!
> 
> There is a definite pattern here.  The Alls and the Nothings.  It becomes All or nothing.  And common sense is completely removed from the equation.  For instance, the School Children are actually trying to get some common sense laws passed like the ones I mentioned above.  They asking for those three.  Not out of reasons and certain will not cause any bans.  I also added the fourth.  These are common sense laws that do not ban the firearms but would have stopped all but one Mass Shooting;  The one in Vegas, from occurring.    Yes, the weapons might have been bought but it would have taken more time and flags would have been raised giving the Local and Federals time to prevent it from happening.  The One in Nevada was done by a season shooter who would have qualified for almost any firearms license including Automatic Weapons and had the knowledge to use the law to his own ends.
> 
> Now they are putting armed guards in the High Schools here using the Educational District funds to do it.  That means that there will be even less funds for books, supplies, etc. that the Teachers help to support out of their own salaries.   The only thing we really get out of this is a poorer education for our Children.
> 
> I support the School Children and their Parents.  I don't support either side of the Alls or Nothings.  It's called Common Sense.  Sometimes the best solution comes from the mouths of Babes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I essentially see that you're too busy listening to the voices in your head to hear what actual people are saying to you.
> 
> None of the 2nd Amendment supporters you've been talking to are "no regulation on anything, at all, any time".  Neither is the NRA, that ultimate mega-bogeyman of the left.  Background checks to make certain people are actually allowed to own guns are okay, so long as you're not trying to pair them with utterly unnecessary and pointless waiting periods.  No gun ownership for violently unstable mental patients?  Okay, as long as you're willing to respect their 5th Amendment rights to due process in determining that they're violent and unstable (might also be a good time to get them some treatment, if you can fight your way past all the ACLU lawyers.  Just sayin').
> 
> These sound like perfectly reasonable points of compromise where we could meet and agree to me.  Unfortunately, they sound like "No regulations!  We want dead children!  Aaaaauuuugh!!!" to you, which is why nothing meaningful is ever going to get done regarding gun violence.
Click to expand...


Yes, these are common sense ideas that would probably stop or highly reduce the body count.  But I can see that you are just trying another end run for "OVER MY DEAD BODY" routine.  It's not what you say but what you do that counts.

Now I am going to hear from the "OVER MY DEAD BODY" crowd.  You don't want to discuss it.  You wan to resort to personal insults so that the discussion is ended.  Same Same, I go with your actions.


----------



## Ame®icano

The Derp said:


> Sigh...so this particular survey is run by the DOJ and has been around since 1973.  Not sure what "bias" you could even infer from it and I can see you trying to preemptively gaslight it because you don't want to accept the conclusions from it.  Which is pretty shitty, dude.



Thanks for the survey. It's still a survey, where numbers can be cooked.

Questions:

Why would anyone who report the crime omit from the police that gun was stolen? Assuming that more crimes will be committed with stolen guns, it's in victim interest to report the theft and notify authorities that he doesn't have the gun anymore.

Why would anyone who did not report that gun was stolen admit to anyone that gun was stolen? What's the point?



The Derp said:


> Posturing.  You keep making this argument that the cops will show up right away, which invalidates your argument that the gun will protect you.  So which is it?  Do you need the gun because the cops won't be there, or not?  And what if one of the thieves *is your neighbor?
> *
> See, all of this doesn't establish responsibility, it establishes negligence.  A degree of negligence, but negligence nonetheless.



It doesn't invalidates anything. I will defend my family and my home regardless of cops showing up. If you don't believe that guns will protect me from intrusion, I hope you have balls to test it out. Have that French maid costume ready. 




The Derp said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a risk of having guns stolen? Of course it is. But the real question is, is that risk you're willing to take?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The risk isn't to the criminal, it's to society which will be victimized _*by the criminal with the gun they stole from you*.  _So you're still selfishly putting others at risk for your own insecurities.  That's the act of an irresponsible garbage person.
Click to expand...


You assuming the criminal will succeed stealing my guns from me. If I am at home, he definitely wont. If I am not home, criminal has some 5 minutes from the time that alarm sounds off to find the safe, crack it open, get the guns, all that before police shows up. And by knowing my neighbors (and some of the are law enforcement officers, few are hunters, and some of them are just plain nosey), they will definitely get involved even before cops arrive.

Even if in some case your criminal get away with the guns, I am not putting anyone at risk. Criminal is.
Are you putting others at risk if I steal your car and drive around the town 100mph? Nope, I am. Get it? No, really... get it?




The Derp said:


> You are definitely responsible for the actions of others when you make it possible for them to steal from you to then act against society.  If you didn't have a gun, the thief wouldn't steal it and then it wouldn't be used in crimes. You are wholly responsible for your guns getting stolen.  100%.  And you're also responsible for what your stolen gun does because you lacked the responsibility to keep it from being stolen.  Again, nothing you're saying here establishes any level of "personal responsibility" and it's quite interesting how you see _*negligence*_ as _*responsibility*_.



Nope, I don't. According to you, just having a home is negligent on my part, because I am making it possible for thief to break in. If truth, than I am negligent for having money in the bank, and making it possible for criminals to rob it. If truth, than women is negligent for having a vagina, since she's making it possible for rapist to rape her.




The Derp said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Insurance covers damages, and has nothing to do with crime being committed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You better check your insurance policy because it's not that simplistic.
Click to expand...


Let me know what part is too complicated for you, I'll prepare crayons.


----------



## Ame®icano

The Derp said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> " No gun owner is truly "responsible", it's an impossibility."
> Nor is any driver.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why drivers have to be insured.
> 
> So when you bring up cars, you make the case for mandatory gun insurance.
Click to expand...


Not really. Not so long ago, car insurance wasn't mandatory. The only reason all states but NH has mandatory insurance is because people don't have enough money to cover the damages to others out of their pocket.

Beside, owning a car is not constitutional right, so it can be regulated.


----------



## WEATHER53

I guess I am one of the few who is ambivalent about guns
I grew up with them and hunted ducks and geese and shot up cans.  I knew right away what guns could do, how powerful and deadly.  I did not like to make live things into dead things so not much of a hunter
I still have the12 gauge and the 22.  Don't think I need them but not looking to register, license, pay a fee take a class.........to keep them. Not looking to give them away either. I do not fear the government nor need to firearm protect myself from it but I do view the guns as a potential needed deterrent for criminals.

I simply feel that multiple capacity rapid fire ammo is not necessary. The risk outweighs the reward and the right

We have  a problem with this school stuff. No way around it.  Problem is how to solve it.  I think it took about 50 years  to get to this societal maniac display state we are in and gotta bad feeling that doing one thing in one year won't be the solution


----------



## Ame®icano

The Derp said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> havig insurance doesn't prevent accidents
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to whom?  If you know that your insurance premium will increase if you act irresponsibly, are you more or less likely to act irresponsibly?
Click to expand...


Insurance doesn't prevent accidents. Accidents happens.

But you have point here. Those who act irresponsibly will pay higher rates. Even people who act responsibly pay higher rates because of those who act irresponsibly. However, accident could happen to even most responsible people, because accidents happen.

Now tell me, does having insurance prevent car theft? Does thief care if I have insurance or not? Is he going to drive my car more or less responsibly depending on my insurance?


----------



## P@triot

Daryl Hunt said:


> I mostly agree what these kids are saying.  We need to listen now.


Well that is extremely sad. You are a part of the problem. Anyone who believes that _children_ - who are emotional from just experiencing a tragedy - should create policy in the U.S. is a certified idiot.

There is a reason we don’t left children vote. They are ignorant. They don’t have the life experience. They don’t have the majority. And on top of that - to add to extreme emotion is all the more reason to completely ignore them when it comes to policy.

Policy should be set by mature, calm, rational adults.


----------



## P@triot

Daryl Hunt said:


> If you go to a gunshow,setup a booth and sell guns, you should be considered a dealer at that point and have to follow the laws of the Dealer.


_Why_? That’s a completely irrational position. Illustrated all the further by your inability to articulate why someone who sets up a freaking table should be considered a “dealer”.

I’ve seen people set up tables at craft shows - but they are not considered corporations. I’ve seen people set up tables at card shows - but they are not car dealers M - F. One can set up a table at any show to sell personal items.


----------



## P@triot

The Derp said:


> Merely owning a firearm adds risk to you and society.


The same goes for your 1st Amendment rights. You illustrate your profound ignorance and can influence likewise uneducated people. So you would logically agree that we should revoke your 1st Amendment rights - correct?


----------



## P@triot

Daryl Hunt said:


> As for a person running a gun check on another person, the Dealers can run that background check for them.


I can’t imagine how low one’s IQ must be to make a statement that bizarre. Yes - the dealers can run a background check because they have been specifically set up with the F.B.I. to do so. They register, get an ID, agree to adhere to specific laws around it, etc.

You’re advocating (like an absolute idiot right now) that any one should be able to call the F.B.I. and receive private information about a fellow citizen. I’ll bet stalkers will love that. As will their victims. I’m sure drug dealers and terrorists will fine that useful as well. And serial killers? Wow did you just make their process more efficient.


----------



## Ame®icano

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mostly agree what these kids are saying.  We need to listen now.
> 
> 
> 
> Well that is extremely sad. You are a part of the problem. Anyone who believes that _children_ - who are emotional from just experiencing a tragedy - should create policy in the U.S. is a certified idiot.
> 
> There is a reason we don’t left children vote. They are ignorant. They don’t have the life experience. They don’t have the majority. And on top of that - to add to extreme emotion is all the more reason to completely ignore them when it comes to policy.
> 
> Policy should be set by mature, calm, rational adults.
Click to expand...


You touched the point here. 

It's nonsense that we limit drinking age to 21, but we send 18 year old kids to the war. 

Now, if they're going to increase age requirement to purchase guns to 21, than military requirement should be no less than 21. And since you mentioned, If you're younger than 21 and you're not responsible enough to have a gun, than you're not responsible enough to vote neither.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mostly agree what these kids are saying.  We need to listen now.
> 
> 
> 
> Well that is extremely sad. You are a part of the problem. Anyone who believes that _children_ - who are emotional from just experiencing a tragedy - should create policy in the U.S. is a certified idiot.
> 
> There is a reason we don’t left children vote. They are ignorant. They don’t have the life experience. They don’t have the majority. And on top of that - to add to extreme emotion is all the more reason to completely ignore them when it comes to policy.
> 
> Policy should be set by mature, calm, rational adults.
Click to expand...


Those kids have just went though a relationship that only Cops, Firefighters and Military should be subjected to.  So they have experience that I hope you never have.  

What you are shoging is the "OVER MY DEAD BODY" response.  No discussion, no comprimise, nothing.  Even Reagan wanted better gun control laws.  Was he a bedwetter as well?


----------



## P@triot

Daryl Hunt said:


> Look for some changes in 2018 and then again in 2020 when the young are voters.


I’m sorry...we’re too busy still looking for that “landslide” victory by Hitlery Clinton that you people predicted.

Every time the left attempts to predict the future, they come out looking like complete and total buffoons. And every time the left attempts to go after firearms, they pay the price at the polls. Americans don’t like it when representatives go after their rights.


----------



## P@triot

Daryl Hunt said:


> Even Reagan wanted better gun control laws.  Was he a bedwetter as well?


I *never* called _anyone_ a “bedwetter” about this. But it’s beyond asinine that one would advocate that emotional 14 year olds who are fresh off of a tragedy should set policy in the U.S.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Ame®icano said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mostly agree what these kids are saying.  We need to listen now.
> 
> 
> 
> Well that is extremely sad. You are a part of the problem. Anyone who believes that _children_ - who are emotional from just experiencing a tragedy - should create policy in the U.S. is a certified idiot.
> 
> There is a reason we don’t left children vote. They are ignorant. They don’t have the life experience. They don’t have the majority. And on top of that - to add to extreme emotion is all the more reason to completely ignore them when it comes to policy.
> 
> Policy should be set by mature, calm, rational adults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You touched the point here.
> 
> It's nonsense that we limit drinking age to 21, but we send 18 year old kids to the war.
> 
> Now, if they're going to increase age requirement to purchase guns to 21, than military requirement should be no less than 21. And since you mentioned, If you're younger than 21 and you're not responsible enough to have a gun, than you're not responsible enough to vote neither.
Click to expand...


The Military operates on the premise that they are going to retrain a person to do something that is completely against their normal behavior.  IT's easier to train an 18 year old than it is a 21 year old.  It's not a natural thing to shoot peoiple.


----------



## P@triot

jon_berzerk said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> But we can easily expand it to the dealers at the Gun Shows.  Actually, a couple of the dealers I know that have booths in the Guns Shows have a computer and do background checks anyway right on the spot.
> 
> 
> 
> That’s because it is *law*. A dealer may never sell a firearm without a background check - including at gun shows. I’m sorry, but you simply do not have your facts straight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> most lefties dont and they refuse to accept the facts when presented to them over and over
Click to expand...

So frustrating. By its very nature, one must be ignorant and reject the fact to be a lefty. If one had then facts - or accepted them and examined them when presented - they wouldn’t be on the left.


----------



## P@triot

Daryl Hunt said:


> The Military operates on the premise that they are going to retrain a person to do something that is completely against their normal behavior.  IT's easier to train an 18 year old than it is a 21 year old.  It's not a natural thing to shoot peoiple.


So you are now openly admitting that the younger a person is, the more they are weak minded and easily molded. Awesome. Just awesome. 

And these are the people you believe should set policy in the U.S.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look for some changes in 2018 and then again in 2020 when the young are voters.
> 
> 
> 
> I’m sorry...we’re too busy still looking for that “landslide” victory by Hitlery Clinton that you people predicted.
> 
> Every time the left attempts to predict the future, they come out looking like complete and total buffoons. And every time the left attempts to go after firearms, they pay the price at the polls. Americans don’t like it when representatives go after their rights.
Click to expand...


Those kids taht you find are not developed are all high schoolers.  Many will be voting in 2018 and all of them can vote in 2020.  I would think that resource would be sought after instead of just put to the side of the tracks.  So go ahead, you may have just created the next generation of Democrats.


----------



## turtledude

The Derp said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turtledude said:
> 
> 
> 
> what do I need a gun for?  many reasons-one of them being to prevent people like you from trying to strip away our rights
> 
> 
> 
> Enjoy them, I hope you don't kill someone when you lose your temper as many do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Less than one tenth of one percent ever use a gun to kill someone. The fact that you own a registered gun reduces that stat to less than 100th of one percent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the 17 parents, or the families of the Las Vegas massacre.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell that to the 1000 of parents that have lost their children in an auto accident.
> 
> You are more likely to die in an automobile accident then shot. There is a lot of hard evidence that raising the driver age to 25 would prevent many many accidents, as the brain has not developed fully to allow children to make the best decision, yet we have done nothing. We have also learned that cars that weigh more have less injuries and less chance of a fatality. No one seems to care about it that much, why?
> 
> We lose many young people to boat propeller accidents and many have worked to get the NTSB to put prop guards on house boats, no luck, the money vs. the benefit isn't there.
> 
> So are you saying that the loss of youth in prop accidents, the loss of life in auto accidents is acceptable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since 1980, deaths from cars have been cut in half.  That was accomplished _*solely*_ because of government action.
Click to expand...


and yet no cars were banned/


----------



## Daryl Hunt

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Military operates on the premise that they are going to retrain a person to do something that is completely against their normal behavior.  IT's easier to train an 18 year old than it is a 21 year old.  It's not a natural thing to shoot peoiple.
> 
> 
> 
> So you are now openly admitting that the younger a person is, the more they are weak minded and easily molded. Awesome. Just awesome.
> 
> And these are the people you believe should set policy in the U.S.
Click to expand...


Make sure you keep insulting them and ignoring them.  Starting 2018 (this year) many of them will be voting.  By 2020 almost all will be of voting age.  You are creating the next generation of Democrats where the majority of of the students and ex students will go that way as a block.


----------



## Ame®icano

P@triot said:


> The Derp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Merely owning a firearm adds risk to you and society.
> 
> 
> 
> The same goes for your 1st Amendment rights. You illustrate your profound ignorance and can influence likewise uneducated people. So you would logically agree that we should revoke your 1st Amendment rights - correct?
Click to expand...


Another good one. 

It remind me how lefties keeps saying that 2nd Amendment is outdated because FF's were thinking of muskets, and not about weapons of the future. How lefties would react if we say that 1st Amendment is outdated, and that freedom of the press includes newspapers only, since at the time the FF's couldn't possibly predict the radio, TV, internet, satellites...

By the way, when Bill of Rights was written, there were already multiple shots guns, even machine guns.


----------



## Ame®icano

Daryl Hunt said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mostly agree what these kids are saying.  We need to listen now.
> 
> 
> 
> Well that is extremely sad. You are a part of the problem. Anyone who believes that _children_ - who are emotional from just experiencing a tragedy - should create policy in the U.S. is a certified idiot.
> 
> There is a reason we don’t left children vote. They are ignorant. They don’t have the life experience. They don’t have the majority. And on top of that - to add to extreme emotion is all the more reason to completely ignore them when it comes to policy.
> 
> Policy should be set by mature, calm, rational adults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You touched the point here.
> 
> It's nonsense that we limit drinking age to 21, but we send 18 year old kids to the war.
> 
> Now, if they're going to increase age requirement to purchase guns to 21, than military requirement should be no less than 21. And since you mentioned, If you're younger than 21 and you're not responsible enough to have a gun, than you're not responsible enough to vote neither.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Military operates on the premise that they are going to retrain a person to do something that is completely against their normal behavior.  IT's easier to train an 18 year old than it is a 21 year old.  It's not a natural thing to shoot peoiple.
Click to expand...


It's even easier to train them when they're younger... Why don't we start with military training right out of elementary school?


----------



## P@triot

Ame®icano said:


> It remind me how lefties keeps saying that 2nd Amendment is outdated because FF's were thinking of muskets, and not about weapons of the future. How lefties would react if we say that 1st Amendment is outdated, and that freedom of the press includes newspapers only, since at the time the FF's couldn't possibly predict the radio, TV, internet, satellites...


Bingo! In the time of the founders...it took about 4 months for information to cross the ocean. Now someone can text disinformation around the world it under 4 seconds. I guess the left would agree that we should revoke their 1st Amendment rights.

The irony of this? It’s more ignorant left-wing misinformation. There were in fact fully automatic firearms at the time the 2nd Amendment was ratified. The Puckle gun (1718) and the Belton flintlock (1777) are just two of many automatic weapons of that era.


  

These Guns Dispel The Notion The Founding Fathers Could Never Have Imagined Modern Assault Rifles


----------



## P@triot




----------



## Issa

Papageorgio said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enjoy them, I hope you don't kill someone when you lose your temper as many do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Less than one tenth of one percent ever use a gun to kill someone. The fact that you own a registered gun reduces that stat to less than 100th of one percent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the 17 parents, or the families of the Las Vegas massacre.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell that to the 1000 of parents that have lost their children in an auto accident.
> 
> You are more likely to die in an automobile accident then shot. There is a lot of hard evidence that raising the driver age to 25 would prevent many many accidents, as the brain has not developed fully to allow children to make the best decision, yet we have done nothing. We have also learned that cars that weigh more have less injuries and less chance of a fatality. No one seems to care about it that much, why?
> 
> We lose many young people to boat propeller accidents and many have worked to get the NTSB to put prop guards on house boats, no luck, the money vs. the benefit isn't there.
> 
> So are you saying that the loss of youth in prop accidents, the loss of life in auto accidents is acceptable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sorry more guns more deaths....dozens of countries don't have mass shootings due to the non availability of guns in the US. America is still stuck in the 18th century when or comes to guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More cars, more deaths, countries that have few cars have less deaths, somyou don’t care that we can save thousands more each year?
Click to expand...

Tunisia, Morocco and lybia have less car deaths per capital than larger countries like France for example.
Apples and oranges, you are smarter than this.


----------



## Papageorgio

Issa said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Less than one tenth of one percent ever use a gun to kill someone. The fact that you own a registered gun reduces that stat to less than 100th of one percent.
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to the 17 parents, or the families of the Las Vegas massacre.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell that to the 1000 of parents that have lost their children in an auto accident.
> 
> You are more likely to die in an automobile accident then shot. There is a lot of hard evidence that raising the driver age to 25 would prevent many many accidents, as the brain has not developed fully to allow children to make the best decision, yet we have done nothing. We have also learned that cars that weigh more have less injuries and less chance of a fatality. No one seems to care about it that much, why?
> 
> We lose many young people to boat propeller accidents and many have worked to get the NTSB to put prop guards on house boats, no luck, the money vs. the benefit isn't there.
> 
> So are you saying that the loss of youth in prop accidents, the loss of life in auto accidents is acceptable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sorry more guns more deaths....dozens of countries don't have mass shootings due to the non availability of guns in the US. America is still stuck in the 18th century when or comes to guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More cars, more deaths, countries that have few cars have less deaths, somyou don’t care that we can save thousands more each year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tunisia, Morocco and lybia have less car deaths per capital than larger countries like France for example.
> Apples and oranges, you are smarter than this.
Click to expand...


So you don’t care about children?


----------



## Issa

Papageorgio said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to the 17 parents, or the families of the Las Vegas massacre.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to the 1000 of parents that have lost their children in an auto accident.
> 
> You are more likely to die in an automobile accident then shot. There is a lot of hard evidence that raising the driver age to 25 would prevent many many accidents, as the brain has not developed fully to allow children to make the best decision, yet we have done nothing. We have also learned that cars that weigh more have less injuries and less chance of a fatality. No one seems to care about it that much, why?
> 
> We lose many young people to boat propeller accidents and many have worked to get the NTSB to put prop guards on house boats, no luck, the money vs. the benefit isn't there.
> 
> So are you saying that the loss of youth in prop accidents, the loss of life in auto accidents is acceptable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sorry more guns more deaths....dozens of countries don't have mass shootings due to the non availability of guns in the US. America is still stuck in the 18th century when or comes to guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More cars, more deaths, countries that have few cars have less deaths, somyou don’t care that we can save thousands more each year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tunisia, Morocco and lybia have less car deaths per capital than larger countries like France for example.
> Apples and oranges, you are smarter than this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don’t care about children?
Click to expand...

I do. That's why I call for banning guns like other countries. I want American kids to grow up safe like I did in a gun free country.


----------



## Ame®icano

Issa said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you don’t care about children?
> 
> 
> 
> I do. That's why I call for banning guns like other countries. I want American kids to grow up safe like I did in a gun free country.
Click to expand...


Banning pools would save more kids.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Daryl Hunt said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I essentially see two vocal camps in here.  The ones that want to get rid of the guns are very straight forward about it.  We'll call the "Nothing".  Meanwhile, we also have another group that we will have the "All".
> 
> The Nothing want to ban all firearms from everyone.  This is really a very small representative group.  They, more or less, say that without guns, there would be no gun crimes or accidents.  True to some extent.  But the Gun Violence is, say, Britain still happens.  And Accidents will happen with or without guns.  Not going to happen in my lifetime.
> 
> Now the All wants no regulation on any part of their lives.  Not just in Guns but everything.  More or less, get the Government completely out of their lives.  Well, not quite out of their lives.  They still want the highways, and other social services that they think is part of the right to live in the US.  They want the Electricity and Natural Gas, the Trains, and more that if they weren't depending on them they would be calling them Socialist.  So, it because ALL laws governing the use, possessing and sale of Firearms should be banned.  Again, not going to happen in my lifetime.
> 
> I am like MOST people.  We believe in common sense regulations on everything.  Here are some of the arguments:
> 
> Common Sense:  Firearms, for the most part are the right of every American
> Uncommon Response:  NO, WE NEED TO GET RID OF ALL FIREARMS!!!!
> NOT IN MOST CASES, IT'S AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT!!!!!
> 
> Common sense:  We need to prevent those on the No Fly List from purchasing Firearms
> Uncommon response:  OVER MY DEAD BODY!!!!!!!
> NOT GOOD ENOUGH, ALL FIREARMS SHOULD BE BANNED!!!!!
> 
> Common sense:  We need to handle firearms exactly like we do Alchohol.  It's okay for an 18 year of to drink in the privacy of their home and with the consent of their parents or guardians who assumes all responsibility. But raise the non consent age to 21 just like Booze.
> We get two uncommon responses on this one:
> OVER MY DEAD BODY!!!!!!
> and NOT GOOD ENOUGH, ALL FIREARMS SHOULD BE BANNED!!!!!
> 
> Common sense:  We need to require all firearms sales to go through a background check
> Uncommon Response:    OVER MY DEAD BODY!!!!!!
> THERE SHOULD BE NO BACKGROUND CHECKS, NO FIREARMS!!!!!!
> 
> Common sense:  Reclassify the AR and the AK to the next level of Firearms License.  Before the AR became the rifle of choice for mass killings, the AR was.  During Reagan's days, Reagan want the AK to have to be reclassified that way.  He called them Assault Rifles.  It became a law for a few years catching the Military Origin Rifles along with some handguns.  It wasn't a Ban, it was a reclassification
> Uncommon Response:     OVER MY DEAD BODY!!!!!!
> NOT GOOD ENOUGH, WE DEMAND ALL FIREARMS BE BANNED!!!!!!
> 
> There is a definite pattern here.  The Alls and the Nothings.  It becomes All or nothing.  And common sense is completely removed from the equation.  For instance, the School Children are actually trying to get some common sense laws passed like the ones I mentioned above.  They asking for those three.  Not out of reasons and certain will not cause any bans.  I also added the fourth.  These are common sense laws that do not ban the firearms but would have stopped all but one Mass Shooting;  The one in Vegas, from occurring.    Yes, the weapons might have been bought but it would have taken more time and flags would have been raised giving the Local and Federals time to prevent it from happening.  The One in Nevada was done by a season shooter who would have qualified for almost any firearms license including Automatic Weapons and had the knowledge to use the law to his own ends.
> 
> Now they are putting armed guards in the High Schools here using the Educational District funds to do it.  That means that there will be even less funds for books, supplies, etc. that the Teachers help to support out of their own salaries.   The only thing we really get out of this is a poorer education for our Children.
> 
> I support the School Children and their Parents.  I don't support either side of the Alls or Nothings.  It's called Common Sense.  Sometimes the best solution comes from the mouths of Babes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I essentially see that you're too busy listening to the voices in your head to hear what actual people are saying to you.
> 
> None of the 2nd Amendment supporters you've been talking to are "no regulation on anything, at all, any time".  Neither is the NRA, that ultimate mega-bogeyman of the left.  Background checks to make certain people are actually allowed to own guns are okay, so long as you're not trying to pair them with utterly unnecessary and pointless waiting periods.  No gun ownership for violently unstable mental patients?  Okay, as long as you're willing to respect their 5th Amendment rights to due process in determining that they're violent and unstable (might also be a good time to get them some treatment, if you can fight your way past all the ACLU lawyers.  Just sayin').
> 
> These sound like perfectly reasonable points of compromise where we could meet and agree to me.  Unfortunately, they sound like "No regulations!  We want dead children!  Aaaaauuuugh!!!" to you, which is why nothing meaningful is ever going to get done regarding gun violence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, these are common sense ideas that would probably stop or highly reduce the body count.  But I can see that you are just trying another end run for "OVER MY DEAD BODY" routine.  It's not what you say but what you do that counts.
> 
> Now I am going to hear from the "OVER MY DEAD BODY" crowd.  You don't want to discuss it.  You wan to resort to personal insults so that the discussion is ended.  Same Same, I go with your actions.
Click to expand...


Chuckles, you have no idea about "what I do", so don't even try that.  All you're saying here is, "I don't want to reach a compromise.  I want to keep screaming and demanding my way."


----------



## Cecilie1200

WEATHER53 said:


> I guess I am one of the few who is ambivalent about guns
> I grew up with them and hunted ducks and geese and shot up cans.  I knew right away what guns could do, how powerful and deadly.  I did not like to make live things into dead things so not much of a hunter
> I still have the12 gauge and the 22.  Don't think I need them but not looking to register, license, pay a fee take a class.........to keep them. Not looking to give them away either. I do not fear the government nor need to firearm protect myself from it but I do view the guns as a potential needed deterrent for criminals.
> 
> I simply feel that multiple capacity rapid fire ammo is not necessary. The risk outweighs the reward and the right
> 
> We have  a problem with this school stuff. No way around it.  Problem is how to solve it.  I think it took about 50 years  to get to this societal maniac display state we are in and gotta bad feeling that doing one thing in one year won't be the solution



Rapid fire ammo?

And what is the "risk" involved in "multiple capacity"?

Never mind your "feewings".  Tell us something real and meaningful.


----------



## Cecilie1200

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mostly agree what these kids are saying.  We need to listen now.
> 
> 
> 
> Well that is extremely sad. You are a part of the problem. Anyone who believes that _children_ - who are emotional from just experiencing a tragedy - should create policy in the U.S. is a certified idiot.
> 
> There is a reason we don’t left children vote. They are ignorant. They don’t have the life experience. They don’t have the majority. And on top of that - to add to extreme emotion is all the more reason to completely ignore them when it comes to policy.
> 
> Policy should be set by mature, calm, rational adults.
Click to expand...


And those children don't need the media and the nation listening.  They need a trauma counselor listening.  The first thing a counselor tells the victim of a crime is, "Do not make any major life decisions right now", because they are in no condition to do so in a healthy, effective, positive manner.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Cecilie1200 said:


> WEATHER53 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I am one of the few who is ambivalent about guns
> I grew up with them and hunted ducks and geese and shot up cans.  I knew right away what guns could do, how powerful and deadly.  I did not like to make live things into dead things so not much of a hunter
> I still have the12 gauge and the 22.  Don't think I need them but not looking to register, license, pay a fee take a class.........to keep them. Not looking to give them away either. I do not fear the government nor need to firearm protect myself from it but I do view the guns as a potential needed deterrent for criminals.
> 
> I simply feel that multiple capacity rapid fire ammo is not necessary. The risk outweighs the reward and the right
> 
> We have  a problem with this school stuff. No way around it.  Problem is how to solve it.  I think it took about 50 years  to get to this societal maniac display state we are in and gotta bad feeling that doing one thing in one year won't be the solution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rapid fire ammo?
> 
> And what is the "risk" involved in "multiple capacity"?
> 
> Never mind your "feewings".  Tell us something real and meaningful.
Click to expand...



multiple capacity magazine --LOL


----------



## Cecilie1200

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you go to a gunshow,setup a booth and sell guns, you should be considered a dealer at that point and have to follow the laws of the Dealer.
> 
> 
> 
> _Why_? That’s a completely irrational position. Illustrated all the further by your inability to articulate why someone who sets up a freaking table should be considered a “dealer”.
> 
> I’ve seen people set up tables at craft shows - but they are not considered corporations. I’ve seen people set up tables at card shows - but they are not car dealers M - F. One can set up a table at any show to sell personal items.
Click to expand...


And here you are, expecting leftists to understand and embrace the concept of a capitalist society.  You're so unreasonable.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Ame®icano said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mostly agree what these kids are saying.  We need to listen now.
> 
> 
> 
> Well that is extremely sad. You are a part of the problem. Anyone who believes that _children_ - who are emotional from just experiencing a tragedy - should create policy in the U.S. is a certified idiot.
> 
> There is a reason we don’t left children vote. They are ignorant. They don’t have the life experience. They don’t have the majority. And on top of that - to add to extreme emotion is all the more reason to completely ignore them when it comes to policy.
> 
> Policy should be set by mature, calm, rational adults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You touched the point here.
> 
> It's nonsense that we limit drinking age to 21, but we send 18 year old kids to the war.
> 
> Now, if they're going to increase age requirement to purchase guns to 21, than military requirement should be no less than 21. And since you mentioned, If you're younger than 21 and you're not responsible enough to have a gun, than you're not responsible enough to vote neither.
Click to expand...


Seems logical to me to give developing adults increased responsibility BEFORE you give them increased capacity to act like jackasses.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Daryl Hunt said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mostly agree what these kids are saying.  We need to listen now.
> 
> 
> 
> Well that is extremely sad. You are a part of the problem. Anyone who believes that _children_ - who are emotional from just experiencing a tragedy - should create policy in the U.S. is a certified idiot.
> 
> There is a reason we don’t left children vote. They are ignorant. They don’t have the life experience. They don’t have the majority. And on top of that - to add to extreme emotion is all the more reason to completely ignore them when it comes to policy.
> 
> Policy should be set by mature, calm, rational adults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those kids have just went though a relationship that only Cops, Firefighters and Military should be subjected to.  So they have experience that I hope you never have.
> 
> What you are shoging is the "OVER MY DEAD BODY" response.  No discussion, no comprimise, nothing.  Even Reagan wanted better gun control laws.  Was he a bedwetter as well?
Click to expand...


Oh, God, that "should" again.  I get cold chills down my spine every time leftists start babbling about "should".  It's always followed by some utterly unreasonable demand to create their ideal utopia.

And I offered you some completely reasonable points we could compromise on.  Your response was to immediately shout, "You don't really mean it!" so that you could go on ranting and railing and spewing invective.

When you actually address those points, perhaps your "I'm the rational one" pose will have some weight.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Daryl Hunt said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mostly agree what these kids are saying.  We need to listen now.
> 
> 
> 
> Well that is extremely sad. You are a part of the problem. Anyone who believes that _children_ - who are emotional from just experiencing a tragedy - should create policy in the U.S. is a certified idiot.
> 
> There is a reason we don’t left children vote. They are ignorant. They don’t have the life experience. They don’t have the majority. And on top of that - to add to extreme emotion is all the more reason to completely ignore them when it comes to policy.
> 
> Policy should be set by mature, calm, rational adults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You touched the point here.
> 
> It's nonsense that we limit drinking age to 21, but we send 18 year old kids to the war.
> 
> Now, if they're going to increase age requirement to purchase guns to 21, than military requirement should be no less than 21. And since you mentioned, If you're younger than 21 and you're not responsible enough to have a gun, than you're not responsible enough to vote neither.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Military operates on the premise that they are going to retrain a person to do something that is completely against their normal behavior.  IT's easier to train an 18 year old than it is a 21 year old.  It's not a natural thing to shoot peoiple.
Click to expand...


It's also a lot easier to convince a pack of 18-year-old boys to "take that hill" than it is to convince a pack of 30-year-old men.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Daryl Hunt said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look for some changes in 2018 and then again in 2020 when the young are voters.
> 
> 
> 
> I’m sorry...we’re too busy still looking for that “landslide” victory by Hitlery Clinton that you people predicted.
> 
> Every time the left attempts to predict the future, they come out looking like complete and total buffoons. And every time the left attempts to go after firearms, they pay the price at the polls. Americans don’t like it when representatives go after their rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those kids taht you find are not developed are all high schoolers.  Many will be voting in 2018 and all of them can vote in 2020.  I would think that resource would be sought after instead of just put to the side of the tracks.  So go ahead, you may have just created the next generation of Democrats.
Click to expand...


Sweetie, you need only watch these mouthy little twerps on TV to see that their parents already did that.

Frankly, if one of my kids spoke to an adult, let alone an adult holding a position of authority, the way that boy did to Marco Rubio, I'd slap the taste out of his mouth for being so hysterical, ridiculous, and outright rude.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Issa said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to the 1000 of parents that have lost their children in an auto accident.
> 
> You are more likely to die in an automobile accident then shot. There is a lot of hard evidence that raising the driver age to 25 would prevent many many accidents, as the brain has not developed fully to allow children to make the best decision, yet we have done nothing. We have also learned that cars that weigh more have less injuries and less chance of a fatality. No one seems to care about it that much, why?
> 
> We lose many young people to boat propeller accidents and many have worked to get the NTSB to put prop guards on house boats, no luck, the money vs. the benefit isn't there.
> 
> So are you saying that the loss of youth in prop accidents, the loss of life in auto accidents is acceptable?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry more guns more deaths....dozens of countries don't have mass shootings due to the non availability of guns in the US. America is still stuck in the 18th century when or comes to guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More cars, more deaths, countries that have few cars have less deaths, somyou don’t care that we can save thousands more each year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tunisia, Morocco and lybia have less car deaths per capital than larger countries like France for example.
> Apples and oranges, you are smarter than this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don’t care about children?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do. That's why I call for banning guns like other countries. I want American kids to grow up safe like I did in a gun free country.
Click to expand...


The only "safe place" you had was the delusion of your own sick mind.  I'm not interested in changing my nation to try to create that fantasy in reality.


----------



## Papageorgio

Issa said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to the 1000 of parents that have lost their children in an auto accident.
> 
> You are more likely to die in an automobile accident then shot. There is a lot of hard evidence that raising the driver age to 25 would prevent many many accidents, as the brain has not developed fully to allow children to make the best decision, yet we have done nothing. We have also learned that cars that weigh more have less injuries and less chance of a fatality. No one seems to care about it that much, why?
> 
> We lose many young people to boat propeller accidents and many have worked to get the NTSB to put prop guards on house boats, no luck, the money vs. the benefit isn't there.
> 
> So are you saying that the loss of youth in prop accidents, the loss of life in auto accidents is acceptable?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry more guns more deaths....dozens of countries don't have mass shootings due to the non availability of guns in the US. America is still stuck in the 18th century when or comes to guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More cars, more deaths, countries that have few cars have less deaths, somyou don’t care that we can save thousands more each year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tunisia, Morocco and lybia have less car deaths per capital than larger countries like France for example.
> Apples and oranges, you are smarter than this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don’t care about children?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do. That's why I call for banning guns like other countries. I want American kids to grow up safe like I did in a gun free country.
Click to expand...


Ban kids from driving or ban driving altogether unless it is public transportation would save more kids, so are you for that? Ban swimming pools and swimming would save more kids, are you for that? Ban all junk food, that would save more kids, are you for that? Ban kids on bicycles, even more lives saved, are you for that? Ban kids from smoking, are you for that? Lots of dangerous things we do, how much do you want to ban to save the children?


----------



## Skull Pilot

The Derp said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't encourage anyone to do anything because unlike you I realize that what other people choose to do is none of my fucking business
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So just when I thought you were less negligent a person, you go and dash my hopes and dreams with this trash.
Click to expand...

Yes god fucking forbid I mind mu own business.

And what makes you think I have any influence over gun owners?  You certainly don't and you aren't doing anything to encourage gun owners to do anything.


----------



## Skull Pilot

The Derp said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are definitely safer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the gun is safer, but gun owners aren't safer than drivers.  Simply by virtue of the fact that you take on unnecessary risk, then don't think you're responsible for any of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are locked up when not in use.
> Is your car?
> How secure is your garage, or do you leave it in the driveway?
> Your car is far more likely to be stolen than any of my firearms,
> Yup, I'm definitely more responsible than you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's great, but cars are insured...guns aren't.  So there's no personal responsibility when it comes to firearms.  I'm old enough to remember when Conservatives supported personal responsibility.  But that got thrown out the window once Obama came out in favor of it.
> 
> Make no mistake, the only argument I'm making here is that there is no such thing as a "responsible gun owner" other than one who gave up their guns.  Merely bringing a gun into your home is an act of negligence, and all you people do is either increase or decrease your negligence.  No gun owner is truly "responsible", it's an impossibility.
Click to expand...


Yes yes we know you are the only person who is 100% responsible and can pass judgement on millions of others


----------



## Issa

Papageorgio said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry more guns more deaths....dozens of countries don't have mass shootings due to the non availability of guns in the US. America is still stuck in the 18th century when or comes to guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More cars, more deaths, countries that have few cars have less deaths, somyou don’t care that we can save thousands more each year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tunisia, Morocco and lybia have less car deaths per capital than larger countries like France for example.
> Apples and oranges, you are smarter than this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don’t care about children?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do. That's why I call for banning guns like other countries. I want American kids to grow up safe like I did in a gun free country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ban kids from driving or ban driving altogether unless it is public transportation would save more kids, so are you for that? Ban swimming pools and swimming would save more kids, are you for that? Ban all junk food, that would save more kids, are you for that? Ban kids on bicycles, even more lives saved, are you for that? Ban kids from smoking, are you for that? Lots of dangerous things we do, how much do you want to ban to save the children?
Click to expand...

You know you look ridiculous to almost everybody on this earth when you use this argument ? Except to republicans and gun lovers.


----------



## Issa

Cecilie1200 said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry more guns more deaths....dozens of countries don't have mass shootings due to the non availability of guns in the US. America is still stuck in the 18th century when or comes to guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More cars, more deaths, countries that have few cars have less deaths, somyou don’t care that we can save thousands more each year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tunisia, Morocco and lybia have less car deaths per capital than larger countries like France for example.
> Apples and oranges, you are smarter than this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don’t care about children?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do. That's why I call for banning guns like other countries. I want American kids to grow up safe like I did in a gun free country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only "safe place" you had was the delusion of your own sick mind.  I'm not interested in changing my nation to try to create that fantasy in reality.
Click to expand...

Once your likes will be a minority things will change for the better. And remember it's just an "amendment".


----------



## Hugo Furst

Issa said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> More cars, more deaths, countries that have few cars have less deaths, somyou don’t care that we can save thousands more each year?
> 
> 
> 
> Tunisia, Morocco and lybia have less car deaths per capital than larger countries like France for example.
> Apples and oranges, you are smarter than this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don’t care about children?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do. That's why I call for banning guns like other countries. I want American kids to grow up safe like I did in a gun free country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only "safe place" you had was the delusion of your own sick mind.  I'm not interested in changing my nation to try to create that fantasy in reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once your likes will be a minority things will change for the better. And remember it's just an "amendment".
Click to expand...




Issa said:


> And remember it's just an "amendment".



then it should be fairly easy to have it removed


----------



## Issa

WillHaftawaite said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tunisia, Morocco and lybia have less car deaths per capital than larger countries like France for example.
> Apples and oranges, you are smarter than this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don’t care about children?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do. That's why I call for banning guns like other countries. I want American kids to grow up safe like I did in a gun free country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only "safe place" you had was the delusion of your own sick mind.  I'm not interested in changing my nation to try to create that fantasy in reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once your likes will be a minority things will change for the better. And remember it's just an "amendment".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> And remember it's just an "amendment".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> then it should be fairly easy to have it removed
Click to expand...

It will...demographics are changing.


----------



## oreo

waltky said:


> Maybe not obsolete but antiquated, out of date...
> 
> ... it needs to be updated to reflect the times...
> 
> ... and the threat of overkill firepower...
> 
> ... for the average citizen.



Definitely needs to be updated.   What blows my mind is that owners of PIT BULLS are required to get* liability insurance* on their dogs in many cities across this country.  *We are all required* to have a liability insurance policies on our cars, our trucks, commerical vehicles, semi truck trailers--etc.
Liability Insurance for Pit Bulls & Dangerous Dogs

Yet someone can walk into a gun shop load up on semi-automatic weapons and ammo, that can kill hundreds within minutes--and there are no requirements what-so-ever as to how it is stored, people the gun owner can loan it too, or if it's stolen, and none of them require a  *liability insurance policy to purchase or own it.*

*




*
Our forefathers never intended that the 2nd amendment be used to mass slaughter innocent civilians.  There are many things we can do to insure that guns don't get into the wrong hands, we just need the right party in charge to make it happen.

Republicans have owned congress since 2010 and we have had 9 mass killings during this time where semi-automatics were used.  They have done nothing except offer their sympathies, and hold prayer vigils--while fighting tooth and nail against any new regulations.

*They even repealed Obama's order for mental health background checks, he initiated after Sandy Hook.*
*Trump repeals an Obama regulation keeping guns from people with certain mental health conditions*

*When Obama asked Republicans to put people who were on no fly lists and FBI terrorist watch list Republicans said NO.*
*Obama: It's 'insane' that people on the 'no-fly' list can buy guns  - CNNPolitics*

_shortly thereafter_
*49 innocent Americans* were slaughtered in Orlando, Florida at a night club, because a terrorist who was on the FBI watch list was able to legally buy a semi-automatic.
Orlando shooting: 49 killed, shooter pledged ISIS allegiance - CNN





If you want common sense gun regulations in this country you'll have to vote for Democrats this coming November in the midterm election cycle.  Republicans won't do it--they are going to protect their campaign cash cow first and foremost.



> The gun rights organization spent a stupendous $54.4 million in the 2016 election cycle, almost all of it in "independent expenditures," meaning spending for or against a candidate but not a direct contribution to a campaign. The money went almost entirely to Republicans to a degree that almost looks like a misprint (but isn't): Of independent expenditures totaling $52.6 million, Democrats received $265. Yes, that's 265 dollars.


'Thoughts and prayers' — and fistfuls of NRA money: Why America can't control guns


----------



## Papageorgio

Issa said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> More cars, more deaths, countries that have few cars have less deaths, somyou don’t care that we can save thousands more each year?
> 
> 
> 
> Tunisia, Morocco and lybia have less car deaths per capital than larger countries like France for example.
> Apples and oranges, you are smarter than this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don’t care about children?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do. That's why I call for banning guns like other countries. I want American kids to grow up safe like I did in a gun free country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ban kids from driving or ban driving altogether unless it is public transportation would save more kids, so are you for that? Ban swimming pools and swimming would save more kids, are you for that? Ban all junk food, that would save more kids, are you for that? Ban kids on bicycles, even more lives saved, are you for that? Ban kids from smoking, are you for that? Lots of dangerous things we do, how much do you want to ban to save the children?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know you look ridiculous to almost everybody on this earth when you use this argument ? Except to republicans and gun lovers.
Click to expand...


You claim you want children kept safe, but if you really felt that way, why would you not want more rules and bans in place to protect them, especially when there are things out there that are killing more young teens than guns? I notice you won't answer the question which tells me you have none.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Issa said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> More cars, more deaths, countries that have few cars have less deaths, somyou don’t care that we can save thousands more each year?
> 
> 
> 
> Tunisia, Morocco and lybia have less car deaths per capital than larger countries like France for example.
> Apples and oranges, you are smarter than this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don’t care about children?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do. That's why I call for banning guns like other countries. I want American kids to grow up safe like I did in a gun free country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only "safe place" you had was the delusion of your own sick mind.  I'm not interested in changing my nation to try to create that fantasy in reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once your likes will be a minority things will change for the better. And remember it's just an "amendment".
Click to expand...


Well, apparently coherent English will not be changing for the better under any regime of yours.

And remember, your dismissal of the Constitution and our rights is exactly why you will never be in charge.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Issa said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you don’t care about children?
> 
> 
> 
> I do. That's why I call for banning guns like other countries. I want American kids to grow up safe like I did in a gun free country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only "safe place" you had was the delusion of your own sick mind.  I'm not interested in changing my nation to try to create that fantasy in reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once your likes will be a minority things will change for the better. And remember it's just an "amendment".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> And remember it's just an "amendment".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> then it should be fairly easy to have it removed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It will...demographics are changing.
Click to expand...


Good to hear you admit that the left's agenda is invasion and overthrow.  Not that it was a secret.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Cecilie1200 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look for some changes in 2018 and then again in 2020 when the young are voters.
> 
> 
> 
> I’m sorry...we’re too busy still looking for that “landslide” victory by Hitlery Clinton that you people predicted.
> 
> Every time the left attempts to predict the future, they come out looking like complete and total buffoons. And every time the left attempts to go after firearms, they pay the price at the polls. Americans don’t like it when representatives go after their rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those kids taht you find are not developed are all high schoolers.  Many will be voting in 2018 and all of them can vote in 2020.  I would think that resource would be sought after instead of just put to the side of the tracks.  So go ahead, you may have just created the next generation of Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sweetie, you need only watch these mouthy little twerps on TV to see that their parents already did that.
> 
> Frankly, if one of my kids spoke to an adult, let alone an adult holding a position of authority, the way that boy did to Marco Rubio, I'd slap the taste out of his mouth for being so hysterical, ridiculous, and outright rude.
Click to expand...


Those kids are forced to grow up too quickly with what they have been through.  And they are mad as hell.  Especially when they are trying to do something right and the A+ NRA rated political hacks try and put them down for it.  It appears that having the A+ rating from the NRA is more important than our children's lives.


----------



## radical right

Papageorgio said:


> You claim you want children kept safe, but if you really felt that way, why would you not want more rules and bans in place to protect them, especially when there are things out there that are killing more young teens than guns? I notice you won't answer the question which tells me you have none.



Good point, but we provide federal funding for research on childhood cancer, accidents, you name it, all kinds of other health issues.  But not a dime for research on guns killing children.


----------



## Little-Acorn

Issa said:


> And remember it's just an "amendment".


Yep, it is. Meaning, it changed the Constitution.

Remember Congress's power to "regulate commerce among the several states"? That's one of the things it changed.

Once the 2nd amendment got ratified, declaring that no govt in the United State could infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, that meant (among other things) that they could no longer regulate guns under the Commerce Clause.

Big-govt pushers have been trying desperately to ignore that fact, of course, since it takes away one of their cherished powers: to infringe people's right to carry a gun. They have even used a false reliance on the Commerce Clause in court.

During the first case to get to the Supreme Court that tried to do this, US v. Miller in 1939, the defense didn't show up for the trial. So the govt. prosecution read several lies into the record, which the Justices rubber-stamped into an "opinion" since no one in the courtroom refuted them. One of those lies was that the Commerce Clause still enabled them to restrict firearms. Other cases have relied on this as a "precedent" ever since.

And big-govt pushers have carefully avoided discussing what the Constitution says. Instead they talk about what courts and legislators have said. As though those courts and bureaucrats superseded the Constitution. This practice still goes on today.


----------



## Papageorgio

Issa said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> More cars, more deaths, countries that have few cars have less deaths, somyou don’t care that we can save thousands more each year?
> 
> 
> 
> Tunisia, Morocco and lybia have less car deaths per capital than larger countries like France for example.
> Apples and oranges, you are smarter than this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don’t care about children?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do. That's why I call for banning guns like other countries. I want American kids to grow up safe like I did in a gun free country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only "safe place" you had was the delusion of your own sick mind.  I'm not interested in changing my nation to try to create that fantasy in reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once your likes will be a minority things will change for the better. And remember it's just an "amendment".
Click to expand...


As of today 71% don't want guns banned only 42% own guns and 78% want better gun laws. 28% want to ban all guns. So, the middle ground is directly opposed to your view, but the majority support my views. 

In 1959, 60% wanted to ban guns, 29 years later the numbers are now down to 28%, even your trending numbers are against what you are trying to claim. This isn't a liberal, conservative view, a right or left, it is a fundamental rights issue, there is no way in the next 50 years that a complete ban will take place.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Papageorgio said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tunisia, Morocco and lybia have less car deaths per capital than larger countries like France for example.
> Apples and oranges, you are smarter than this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don’t care about children?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do. That's why I call for banning guns like other countries. I want American kids to grow up safe like I did in a gun free country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ban kids from driving or ban driving altogether unless it is public transportation would save more kids, so are you for that? Ban swimming pools and swimming would save more kids, are you for that? Ban all junk food, that would save more kids, are you for that? Ban kids on bicycles, even more lives saved, are you for that? Ban kids from smoking, are you for that? Lots of dangerous things we do, how much do you want to ban to save the children?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know you look ridiculous to almost everybody on this earth when you use this argument ? Except to republicans and gun lovers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You claim you want children kept safe, but if you really felt that way, why would you not want more rules and bans in place to protect them, especially when there are things out there that are killing more young teens than guns? I notice you won't answer the question which tells me you have none.
Click to expand...


It's called the Common sense approach.  You do what you must do to make a common sense change.  Some things are beyond your control but others are within your control so you change what you can and don't waste your time in the areas that you can't change.  So your "Hey, Look Over There" routine isn't too common sense.


----------



## The Ugly Truth

waltky said:


> Maybe not obsolete but antiquated, out of date...
> 
> ... it needs to be updated to reflect the times...
> 
> ... and the threat of overkill firepower...
> 
> ... for the average citizen.


Gun violence can only be dealt with by dealing with those who commit it. Most gun violence is the result of repeat offenders. Over 500,000 crimes a year, in the U.S., are the result of repeat offenders. And there are nowhere that many committing those crimes. Deal with them, and you deal with the problem.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Papageorgio said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tunisia, Morocco and lybia have less car deaths per capital than larger countries like France for example.
> Apples and oranges, you are smarter than this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don’t care about children?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do. That's why I call for banning guns like other countries. I want American kids to grow up safe like I did in a gun free country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only "safe place" you had was the delusion of your own sick mind.  I'm not interested in changing my nation to try to create that fantasy in reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once your likes will be a minority things will change for the better. And remember it's just an "amendment".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As of today 71% don't want guns banned only 42% own guns and 78% want better gun laws. 28% want to ban all guns. So, the middle ground is directly opposed to your view, but the majority support my views.
> 
> In 1959, 60% wanted to ban guns, 29 years later the numbers are now down to 28%, even your trending numbers are against what you are trying to claim. This isn't a liberal, conservative view, a right or left, it is a fundamental rights issue, there is no way in the next 50 years that a complete ban will take place.
Click to expand...


I happen to be part of the 78% that wants better gun laws.  You are part of the 22% that are the "OVER MY DEAD BODY!!!!" group.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Daryl Hunt said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look for some changes in 2018 and then again in 2020 when the young are voters.
> 
> 
> 
> I’m sorry...we’re too busy still looking for that “landslide” victory by Hitlery Clinton that you people predicted.
> 
> Every time the left attempts to predict the future, they come out looking like complete and total buffoons. And every time the left attempts to go after firearms, they pay the price at the polls. Americans don’t like it when representatives go after their rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those kids taht you find are not developed are all high schoolers.  Many will be voting in 2018 and all of them can vote in 2020.  I would think that resource would be sought after instead of just put to the side of the tracks.  So go ahead, you may have just created the next generation of Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sweetie, you need only watch these mouthy little twerps on TV to see that their parents already did that.
> 
> Frankly, if one of my kids spoke to an adult, let alone an adult holding a position of authority, the way that boy did to Marco Rubio, I'd slap the taste out of his mouth for being so hysterical, ridiculous, and outright rude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those kids are forced to grow up too quickly with what they have been through.  And they are mad as hell.  Especially when they are trying to do something right and the A+ NRA rated political hacks try and put them down for it.  It appears that having the A+ rating from the NRA is more important than our children's lives.
Click to expand...


I haven't noticed that they particularly grew up at all, given the childish snowflakey ranting.

"They are mad as hell."  Leftists and their human shields are ALWAYS mad as hell, and always hopeless at telling us what relevance that's supposed to have.  I'M mad as hell that you dumb shits think we should remake our country to suit you, but I don't notice you thinking THAT should decide public policy.

"They're trying to do something right."  They're doing a piss-poor job of it, probably because they're listening to YOUR bullshit ideas of what's right and how to go about it.

If they don't want to be criticized, they shouldn't have stepped into the public arena as activists.  

Thanks to CNN for proving that "our children" are only important to the left as human shields and tools.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

The Ugly Truth said:


> waltky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe not obsolete but antiquated, out of date...
> 
> ... it needs to be updated to reflect the times...
> 
> ... and the threat of overkill firepower...
> 
> ... for the average citizen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gun violence can only be dealt with by dealing with those who commit it. Most gun violence is the result of repeat offenders. Over 500,000 crimes a year, in the U.S., are the result of repeat offenders. And there are nowhere that many committing those crimes. Deal with them, and you deal with the problem.
Click to expand...


Once more, you are using the "Hey, Look Over There" routine.  The Mass Shooters usually don't have any criminal records at all.  And that is what we should be dealing with.  What can we do to either stop or minimize the body count in these shooting.


----------



## The Ugly Truth

Daryl Hunt said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you don’t care about children?
> 
> 
> 
> I do. That's why I call for banning guns like other countries. I want American kids to grow up safe like I did in a gun free country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only "safe place" you had was the delusion of your own sick mind.  I'm not interested in changing my nation to try to create that fantasy in reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once your likes will be a minority things will change for the better. And remember it's just an "amendment".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As of today 71% don't want guns banned only 42% own guns and 78% want better gun laws. 28% want to ban all guns. So, the middle ground is directly opposed to your view, but the majority support my views.
> 
> In 1959, 60% wanted to ban guns, 29 years later the numbers are now down to 28%, even your trending numbers are against what you are trying to claim. This isn't a liberal, conservative view, a right or left, it is a fundamental rights issue, there is no way in the next 50 years that a complete ban will take place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I happen to be part of the 78% that wants better gun laws.  You are part of the 22% that are the "OVER MY DEAD BODY!!!!" group.
Click to expand...

Gun laws have never prevented anyone from being killed. Criminals do not obey the law. That's the ugly truth.


----------



## Cecilie1200

radical right said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claim you want children kept safe, but if you really felt that way, why would you not want more rules and bans in place to protect them, especially when there are things out there that are killing more young teens than guns? I notice you won't answer the question which tells me you have none.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good point, but we provide federal funding for research on childhood cancer, accidents, you name it, all kinds of other health issues.  But not a dime for research on guns killing children.
Click to expand...


Really?  REALLY?!  We don't spend any money researching causes and effects of and solutions to violence in this country?  Or is it just that you don't feel it's biased enough in the direction of "guns kill children", as though the objects themselves are doing it, rather than humans.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Cecilie1200 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look for some changes in 2018 and then again in 2020 when the young are voters.
> 
> 
> 
> I’m sorry...we’re too busy still looking for that “landslide” victory by Hitlery Clinton that you people predicted.
> 
> Every time the left attempts to predict the future, they come out looking like complete and total buffoons. And every time the left attempts to go after firearms, they pay the price at the polls. Americans don’t like it when representatives go after their rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those kids taht you find are not developed are all high schoolers.  Many will be voting in 2018 and all of them can vote in 2020.  I would think that resource would be sought after instead of just put to the side of the tracks.  So go ahead, you may have just created the next generation of Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sweetie, you need only watch these mouthy little twerps on TV to see that their parents already did that.
> 
> Frankly, if one of my kids spoke to an adult, let alone an adult holding a position of authority, the way that boy did to Marco Rubio, I'd slap the taste out of his mouth for being so hysterical, ridiculous, and outright rude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those kids are forced to grow up too quickly with what they have been through.  And they are mad as hell.  Especially when they are trying to do something right and the A+ NRA rated political hacks try and put them down for it.  It appears that having the A+ rating from the NRA is more important than our children's lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I haven't noticed that they particularly grew up at all, given the childish snowflakey ranting.
> 
> "They are mad as hell."  Leftists and their human shields are ALWAYS mad as hell, and always hopeless at telling us what relevance that's supposed to have.  I'M mad as hell that you dumb shits think we should remake our country to suit you, but I don't notice you thinking THAT should decide public policy.
> 
> "They're trying to do something right."  They're doing a piss-poor job of it, probably because they're listening to YOUR bullshit ideas of what's right and how to go about it.
> 
> If they don't want to be criticized, they shouldn't have stepped into the public arena as activists.
> 
> Thanks to CNN for proving that "our children" are only important to the left as human shields and tools.
Click to expand...


They are also scared as hell.  And they aren't saying the things like you want them to.  So you denigrate them.  Well, they have a message and that message is pretty damned clear.  And if their Parents give them permission, they have the same right to voice it as you do.  Have you ever heard of the 1st Amendment?  It appears that theirs have been and are being shit all over.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Daryl Hunt said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you don’t care about children?
> 
> 
> 
> I do. That's why I call for banning guns like other countries. I want American kids to grow up safe like I did in a gun free country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ban kids from driving or ban driving altogether unless it is public transportation would save more kids, so are you for that? Ban swimming pools and swimming would save more kids, are you for that? Ban all junk food, that would save more kids, are you for that? Ban kids on bicycles, even more lives saved, are you for that? Ban kids from smoking, are you for that? Lots of dangerous things we do, how much do you want to ban to save the children?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know you look ridiculous to almost everybody on this earth when you use this argument ? Except to republicans and gun lovers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You claim you want children kept safe, but if you really felt that way, why would you not want more rules and bans in place to protect them, especially when there are things out there that are killing more young teens than guns? I notice you won't answer the question which tells me you have none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's called the Common sense approach.  You do what you must do to make a common sense change.  Some things are beyond your control but others are within your control so you change what you can and don't waste your time in the areas that you can't change.  So your "Hey, Look Over There" routine isn't too common sense.
Click to expand...


"The common sense approach".  Which is what?  You've already proven that it's not to look for middle ground in which to discuss acceptable compromises.  So I can only assume that your definition of "common sense" is "shut up and give me everything I want RIGHT NOW!"

So listening to you is pretty obviously wasting our time in areas we can't change.


----------



## radical right

Cecilie1200 said:


> radical right said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good point, but we provide federal funding for research on childhood cancer, accidents, you name it, all kinds of other health issues.  But not a dime for research on guns killing children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  REALLY?!  We don't spend any money researching causes and effects of and solutions to violence in this country?  Or is it just that you don't feel it's biased enough in the direction of "guns kill children", as though the objects themselves are doing it, rather than humans.
Click to expand...


We know cars kill children.  We spend federal funds to make kids safer.
We know guns kill children, and the government is prohibited from spending any money to research it.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

The Ugly Truth said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do. That's why I call for banning guns like other countries. I want American kids to grow up safe like I did in a gun free country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only "safe place" you had was the delusion of your own sick mind.  I'm not interested in changing my nation to try to create that fantasy in reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once your likes will be a minority things will change for the better. And remember it's just an "amendment".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As of today 71% don't want guns banned only 42% own guns and 78% want better gun laws. 28% want to ban all guns. So, the middle ground is directly opposed to your view, but the majority support my views.
> 
> In 1959, 60% wanted to ban guns, 29 years later the numbers are now down to 28%, even your trending numbers are against what you are trying to claim. This isn't a liberal, conservative view, a right or left, it is a fundamental rights issue, there is no way in the next 50 years that a complete ban will take place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I happen to be part of the 78% that wants better gun laws.  You are part of the 22% that are the "OVER MY DEAD BODY!!!!" group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gun laws have never prevented anyone from being killed. Criminals do not obey the law. That's the ugly truth.
Click to expand...


I listed 4 things we can do that will either minimize the shootings or keep the body count down.  Sometimes all you can do is keep the body count down.  It's about our Mass Murders.  They aren't' being done by criminals.  That is, they weren't criminals before the act by any definition.  They became criminals during their act.  You can't equate them to the common criminal because they certainly are not common.  But they are becoming more common each day.

We have had 2 different Teens arrested for planning a school shooting in this area in the last week.  Both were in High School and both were 18 years old.  Neither have criminal records or Mental Health records.  The Authorities aren't saying what tripped these two up because they want to also bag others as well when they come up.  Notice, I said WHEN, not if.  But it might not catch every one of them.  Now, how do you protect our Children with the ones you don't catch?


----------



## waltky

Granny says, "Dat's right...

... dey gonna have to pry her 12ga. Mossburg...

... outta her cold dead hands."


----------



## The Ugly Truth

Daryl Hunt said:


> The Ugly Truth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> waltky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe not obsolete but antiquated, out of date...
> 
> ... it needs to be updated to reflect the times...
> 
> ... and the threat of overkill firepower...
> 
> ... for the average citizen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gun violence can only be dealt with by dealing with those who commit it. Most gun violence is the result of repeat offenders. Over 500,000 crimes a year, in the U.S., are the result of repeat offenders. And there are nowhere that many committing those crimes. Deal with them, and you deal with the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once more, you are using the "Hey, Look Over There" routine.  The Mass Shooters usually don't have any criminal records at all.  And that is what we should be dealing with.  What can we do to either stop or minimize the body count in these shooting.
Click to expand...

Mass shootings are responsible for a very small percentage of deaths. They are just a drop in the bucket. Most gun crime is the result of repeat offenders. That's the ugly truth.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Daryl Hunt said:


> The Ugly Truth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> waltky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe not obsolete but antiquated, out of date...
> 
> ... it needs to be updated to reflect the times...
> 
> ... and the threat of overkill firepower...
> 
> ... for the average citizen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gun violence can only be dealt with by dealing with those who commit it. Most gun violence is the result of repeat offenders. Over 500,000 crimes a year, in the U.S., are the result of repeat offenders. And there are nowhere that many committing those crimes. Deal with them, and you deal with the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once more, you are using the "Hey, Look Over There" routine.  The Mass Shooters usually don't have any criminal records at all.  And that is what we should be dealing with.  What can we do to either stop or minimize the body count in these shooting.
Click to expand...


WRONG.  The mass shooters usually DO have some sort of red flag that would have turned up, had the appropriate people been tending to business.  And THAT is what we should be dealing with.


----------



## radical right

The Ugly Truth said:


> Mass shootings are responsible for a very small percentage of deaths. They are just a drop in the bucket. Most gun crime is the result of repeat offenders. That's the ugly truth.


Trump is afraid of sharks.  When everybody knows shark deaths are rarer than lightning strike deaths. Yet Trump would golf during a storm.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Cecilie1200 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do. That's why I call for banning guns like other countries. I want American kids to grow up safe like I did in a gun free country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ban kids from driving or ban driving altogether unless it is public transportation would save more kids, so are you for that? Ban swimming pools and swimming would save more kids, are you for that? Ban all junk food, that would save more kids, are you for that? Ban kids on bicycles, even more lives saved, are you for that? Ban kids from smoking, are you for that? Lots of dangerous things we do, how much do you want to ban to save the children?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know you look ridiculous to almost everybody on this earth when you use this argument ? Except to republicans and gun lovers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You claim you want children kept safe, but if you really felt that way, why would you not want more rules and bans in place to protect them, especially when there are things out there that are killing more young teens than guns? I notice you won't answer the question which tells me you have none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's called the Common sense approach.  You do what you must do to make a common sense change.  Some things are beyond your control but others are within your control so you change what you can and don't waste your time in the areas that you can't change.  So your "Hey, Look Over There" routine isn't too common sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The common sense approach".  Which is what?  You've already proven that it's not to look for middle ground in which to discuss acceptable compromises.  So I can only assume that your definition of "common sense" is "shut up and give me everything I want RIGHT NOW!"
> 
> So listening to you is pretty obviously wasting our time in areas we can't change.
Click to expand...


I actually listed 4 things that can be done and will be affective.  Funny, Ronald Reagan proposed and got the 4th one which was to ban Assault Rifles from general sales.  The other 3, I have said all along and now a bunch of traumtized school children are saying the same thing.  It's you that will not compromise.  You want me to shut up.  Well, junior mass murderer, I won't.  And that 78% that were brought up are starting to wake up and speak out.  What's the matter, getting a bit noisy for your tastes?


----------



## Issa

Papageorgio said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tunisia, Morocco and lybia have less car deaths per capital than larger countries like France for example.
> Apples and oranges, you are smarter than this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don’t care about children?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do. That's why I call for banning guns like other countries. I want American kids to grow up safe like I did in a gun free country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ban kids from driving or ban driving altogether unless it is public transportation would save more kids, so are you for that? Ban swimming pools and swimming would save more kids, are you for that? Ban all junk food, that would save more kids, are you for that? Ban kids on bicycles, even more lives saved, are you for that? Ban kids from smoking, are you for that? Lots of dangerous things we do, how much do you want to ban to save the children?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know you look ridiculous to almost everybody on this earth when you use this argument ? Except to republicans and gun lovers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You claim you want children kept safe, but if you really felt that way, why would you not want more rules and bans in place to protect them, especially when there are things out there that are killing more young teens than guns? I notice you won't answer the question which tells me you have none.
Click to expand...

Drowning is an accident, picking a gun and killing is not. Apples and oranges here.


----------



## oreo

Papageorgio said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tunisia, Morocco and lybia have less car deaths per capital than larger countries like France for example.
> Apples and oranges, you are smarter than this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don’t care about children?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do. That's why I call for banning guns like other countries. I want American kids to grow up safe like I did in a gun free country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ban kids from driving or ban driving altogether unless it is public transportation would save more kids, so are you for that? Ban swimming pools and swimming would save more kids, are you for that? Ban all junk food, that would save more kids, are you for that? Ban kids on bicycles, even more lives saved, are you for that? Ban kids from smoking, are you for that? Lots of dangerous things we do, how much do you want to ban to save the children?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know you look ridiculous to almost everybody on this earth when you use this argument ? Except to republicans and gun lovers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You claim you want children kept safe, but if you really felt that way, why would you not want more rules and bans in place to protect them, especially when there are things out there that are killing more young teens than guns? I notice you won't answer the question which tells me you have none.
Click to expand...


What other things are killing teens in schools--other than guns?






I was watching VICE news the other night on HBO.  So they had a gun nut on there being interviewed--and he made this ridiculous comparison that SPOONS kill people too.  He actually stated that due to spoons people eat too much and die of obesity.  But when has someone else's obesity killed another?-



> One of those gun-rights defenders, *GOP Florida state Sen. Dennis Baxley*, told VICE News that he opposes any restrictions on assault weapons — the kind of gun used by the Stoneman Douglas shooter, a 19-year-old former student at the school. "You can't just make policy that doesn't work," he told VICE News. "It's the mindset that's the issue," not the weapon. When asked why Floridians should have the right to buy AR-15s, Baxley said he wanted to focus on cultural issues. "*Spoons are used to eat stuff to kill yourself with obesity, but we're not picking up spoons to get rid of obesity," Baxley added.*


This is the political aftermath of the Parkland school shooting

This is how ridiculous you right wing gun nuts sound right now to others.


----------



## radical right

Cecilie1200 said:


> WRONG.  The mass shooters usually DO have some sort of red flag that would have turned up, had the appropriate people been tending to business.  And THAT is what we should be dealing with.



The NRA has fought those red flags for years.  Somebody can be mentally ill, and under treatment, but until a judge declares him a mental case, he's allowed to buy a gun.
All the red flags don't do anything until a judge holds a hearing.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Cecilie1200 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Ugly Truth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> waltky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe not obsolete but antiquated, out of date...
> 
> ... it needs to be updated to reflect the times...
> 
> ... and the threat of overkill firepower...
> 
> ... for the average citizen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gun violence can only be dealt with by dealing with those who commit it. Most gun violence is the result of repeat offenders. Over 500,000 crimes a year, in the U.S., are the result of repeat offenders. And there are nowhere that many committing those crimes. Deal with them, and you deal with the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once more, you are using the "Hey, Look Over There" routine.  The Mass Shooters usually don't have any criminal records at all.  And that is what we should be dealing with.  What can we do to either stop or minimize the body count in these shooting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WRONG.  The mass shooters usually DO have some sort of red flag that would have turned up, had the appropriate people been tending to business.  And THAT is what we should be dealing with.
Click to expand...


Yes, we should be looking at those things.  But we should also allow Law Enforcement the time to see these indicators by doing at least 3 out of the 4 items I listed already.  They allow more flags to go up.  

But we have to be careful.  Can you imagine if you were to be flagged when you have no intention of doing any mass shooting? I can hear the crying, screeching and screaming coming from you about your 1st amendment rights.


----------



## The Ugly Truth

Daryl Hunt said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ban kids from driving or ban driving altogether unless it is public transportation would save more kids, so are you for that? Ban swimming pools and swimming would save more kids, are you for that? Ban all junk food, that would save more kids, are you for that? Ban kids on bicycles, even more lives saved, are you for that? Ban kids from smoking, are you for that? Lots of dangerous things we do, how much do you want to ban to save the children?
> 
> 
> 
> You know you look ridiculous to almost everybody on this earth when you use this argument ? Except to republicans and gun lovers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You claim you want children kept safe, but if you really felt that way, why would you not want more rules and bans in place to protect them, especially when there are things out there that are killing more young teens than guns? I notice you won't answer the question which tells me you have none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's called the Common sense approach.  You do what you must do to make a common sense change.  Some things are beyond your control but others are within your control so you change what you can and don't waste your time in the areas that you can't change.  So your "Hey, Look Over There" routine isn't too common sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The common sense approach".  Which is what?  You've already proven that it's not to look for middle ground in which to discuss acceptable compromises.  So I can only assume that your definition of "common sense" is "shut up and give me everything I want RIGHT NOW!"
> 
> So listening to you is pretty obviously wasting our time in areas we can't change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I actually listed 4 things that can be done and will be affective.  Funny, Ronald Reagan proposed and got the 4th one which was to ban Assault Rifles from general sales.  The other 3, I have said all along and now a bunch of traumtized school children are saying the same thing.  It's you that will not compromise.  You want me to shut up.  Well, junior mass murderer, I won't.  And that 78% that were brought up are starting to wake up and speak out.  What's the matter, getting a bit noisy for your tastes?
Click to expand...

Do you know how many gun laws there are? How are they working out? Have they prevented one single death? Look at places like Detroit. They used to have very strict gun laws, yet they had one of the highest crime rates of any city. Recently, they have allowed people to not only carry guns, but to get concealed carry licenses. Can you guess what happened to the crime rate?


----------



## Lastamender

Issa said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you don’t care about children?
> 
> 
> 
> I do. That's why I call for banning guns like other countries. I want American kids to grow up safe like I did in a gun free country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ban kids from driving or ban driving altogether unless it is public transportation would save more kids, so are you for that? Ban swimming pools and swimming would save more kids, are you for that? Ban all junk food, that would save more kids, are you for that? Ban kids on bicycles, even more lives saved, are you for that? Ban kids from smoking, are you for that? Lots of dangerous things we do, how much do you want to ban to save the children?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know you look ridiculous to almost everybody on this earth when you use this argument ? Except to republicans and gun lovers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You claim you want children kept safe, but if you really felt that way, why would you not want more rules and bans in place to protect them, especially when there are things out there that are killing more young teens than guns? I notice you won't answer the question which tells me you have none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Drowning is an accident, picking a gun and killing is not. Apples and oranges here.
Click to expand...

Picking up a brick can accomplish the same thing.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

The Ugly Truth said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know you look ridiculous to almost everybody on this earth when you use this argument ? Except to republicans and gun lovers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You claim you want children kept safe, but if you really felt that way, why would you not want more rules and bans in place to protect them, especially when there are things out there that are killing more young teens than guns? I notice you won't answer the question which tells me you have none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's called the Common sense approach.  You do what you must do to make a common sense change.  Some things are beyond your control but others are within your control so you change what you can and don't waste your time in the areas that you can't change.  So your "Hey, Look Over There" routine isn't too common sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The common sense approach".  Which is what?  You've already proven that it's not to look for middle ground in which to discuss acceptable compromises.  So I can only assume that your definition of "common sense" is "shut up and give me everything I want RIGHT NOW!"
> 
> So listening to you is pretty obviously wasting our time in areas we can't change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I actually listed 4 things that can be done and will be affective.  Funny, Ronald Reagan proposed and got the 4th one which was to ban Assault Rifles from general sales.  The other 3, I have said all along and now a bunch of traumtized school children are saying the same thing.  It's you that will not compromise.  You want me to shut up.  Well, junior mass murderer, I won't.  And that 78% that were brought up are starting to wake up and speak out.  What's the matter, getting a bit noisy for your tastes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know how many gun laws there are? How are they working out? Have they prevented one single death? Look at places like Detroit. They used to have very strict gun laws, yet they had one of the highest crime rates of any city. Recently, they have allowed people to not only carry guns, but to get concealed carry licenses. Can you guess what happened to the crime rate?
Click to expand...


Another "Hey, Look Over There" moment.


----------



## waltky

Where's Topogigo...

... when ya need him?


----------



## The Ugly Truth

radical right said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG.  The mass shooters usually DO have some sort of red flag that would have turned up, had the appropriate people been tending to business.  And THAT is what we should be dealing with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The NRA has fought those red flags for years.  Somebody can be mentally ill, and under treatment, but until a judge declares him a mental case, he's allowed to buy a gun.
> All the red flags don't do anything until a judge holds a hearing.
Click to expand...

Some judges would declare, with a straight face, that all Conservatives are mentally ill. The ugly truth is that anyone who is a law abiding citizen has the right to buy a firearm.


----------



## The Ugly Truth

Daryl Hunt said:


> The Ugly Truth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claim you want children kept safe, but if you really felt that way, why would you not want more rules and bans in place to protect them, especially when there are things out there that are killing more young teens than guns? I notice you won't answer the question which tells me you have none.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's called the Common sense approach.  You do what you must do to make a common sense change.  Some things are beyond your control but others are within your control so you change what you can and don't waste your time in the areas that you can't change.  So your "Hey, Look Over There" routine isn't too common sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The common sense approach".  Which is what?  You've already proven that it's not to look for middle ground in which to discuss acceptable compromises.  So I can only assume that your definition of "common sense" is "shut up and give me everything I want RIGHT NOW!"
> 
> So listening to you is pretty obviously wasting our time in areas we can't change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I actually listed 4 things that can be done and will be affective.  Funny, Ronald Reagan proposed and got the 4th one which was to ban Assault Rifles from general sales.  The other 3, I have said all along and now a bunch of traumtized school children are saying the same thing.  It's you that will not compromise.  You want me to shut up.  Well, junior mass murderer, I won't.  And that 78% that were brought up are starting to wake up and speak out.  What's the matter, getting a bit noisy for your tastes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know how many gun laws there are? How are they working out? Have they prevented one single death? Look at places like Detroit. They used to have very strict gun laws, yet they had one of the highest crime rates of any city. Recently, they have allowed people to not only carry guns, but to get concealed carry licenses. Can you guess what happened to the crime rate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another "Hey, Look Over There" moment.
Click to expand...

How does your mentally challenged brain manage to generate enough energy to keep you breathing?


----------



## radical right

The Ugly Truth said:


> Do you know how many gun laws there are? How are they working out? Have they prevented one single death? Look at places like Detroit. They used to have very strict gun laws, yet they had one of the highest crime rates of any city. Recently, they have allowed people to not only carry guns, but to get concealed carry licenses. Can you guess what happened to the crime rate?



Washington DC, in post Heller v DC, the crime rate has gone up.


----------



## radical right

The Ugly Truth said:


> Some judges would declare, with a straight face, that all Conservatives are mentally ill. The ugly truth is that anyone who is a law abiding citizen has the right to buy a firearm.



Just about every mass murderer was a law abiding citizen up until he started killing people.


----------



## Issa

Lastamender said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do. That's why I call for banning guns like other countries. I want American kids to grow up safe like I did in a gun free country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ban kids from driving or ban driving altogether unless it is public transportation would save more kids, so are you for that? Ban swimming pools and swimming would save more kids, are you for that? Ban all junk food, that would save more kids, are you for that? Ban kids on bicycles, even more lives saved, are you for that? Ban kids from smoking, are you for that? Lots of dangerous things we do, how much do you want to ban to save the children?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know you look ridiculous to almost everybody on this earth when you use this argument ? Except to republicans and gun lovers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You claim you want children kept safe, but if you really felt that way, why would you not want more rules and bans in place to protect them, especially when there are things out there that are killing more young teens than guns? I notice you won't answer the question which tells me you have none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Drowning is an accident, picking a gun and killing is not. Apples and oranges here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Picking up a brick can accomplish the same thing.
Click to expand...

Can you mass kill with a brick?


----------



## The Ugly Truth

radical right said:


> The Ugly Truth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know how many gun laws there are? How are they working out? Have they prevented one single death? Look at places like Detroit. They used to have very strict gun laws, yet they had one of the highest crime rates of any city. Recently, they have allowed people to not only carry guns, but to get concealed carry licenses. Can you guess what happened to the crime rate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Washington DC, in post Heller v DC, the crime rate has gone up.
Click to expand...

We're not talking about DC. We're talking about Detroit and what happened to the crime rates. There is also a town where you can actually get a concealed permit without a background check. It has one of the lowest crimes rates in the nation. Of course, that might be the result of most of the residents being white and middle class.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

The Ugly Truth said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Ugly Truth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's called the Common sense approach.  You do what you must do to make a common sense change.  Some things are beyond your control but others are within your control so you change what you can and don't waste your time in the areas that you can't change.  So your "Hey, Look Over There" routine isn't too common sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The common sense approach".  Which is what?  You've already proven that it's not to look for middle ground in which to discuss acceptable compromises.  So I can only assume that your definition of "common sense" is "shut up and give me everything I want RIGHT NOW!"
> 
> So listening to you is pretty obviously wasting our time in areas we can't change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I actually listed 4 things that can be done and will be affective.  Funny, Ronald Reagan proposed and got the 4th one which was to ban Assault Rifles from general sales.  The other 3, I have said all along and now a bunch of traumtized school children are saying the same thing.  It's you that will not compromise.  You want me to shut up.  Well, junior mass murderer, I won't.  And that 78% that were brought up are starting to wake up and speak out.  What's the matter, getting a bit noisy for your tastes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know how many gun laws there are? How are they working out? Have they prevented one single death? Look at places like Detroit. They used to have very strict gun laws, yet they had one of the highest crime rates of any city. Recently, they have allowed people to not only carry guns, but to get concealed carry licenses. Can you guess what happened to the crime rate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another "Hey, Look Over There" moment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does your mentally challenged brain manage to generate enough energy to keep you breathing?
Click to expand...


I am part of the silent Majority.  My wing for the Silent Majority is the Militant Wing.  We ain't so quiet and oftentimes take the blunt of your smaller yet much more vocal ire.  So be it.  But the 78% is starting to speak out and it's getting pretty damned noisy.  Of course, when you allow others to threaten and kill our Children and Grand Children then that does prompt them to start speaking out more and more each day.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Daryl Hunt said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I’m sorry...we’re too busy still looking for that “landslide” victory by Hitlery Clinton that you people predicted.
> 
> Every time the left attempts to predict the future, they come out looking like complete and total buffoons. And every time the left attempts to go after firearms, they pay the price at the polls. Americans don’t like it when representatives go after their rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those kids taht you find are not developed are all high schoolers.  Many will be voting in 2018 and all of them can vote in 2020.  I would think that resource would be sought after instead of just put to the side of the tracks.  So go ahead, you may have just created the next generation of Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sweetie, you need only watch these mouthy little twerps on TV to see that their parents already did that.
> 
> Frankly, if one of my kids spoke to an adult, let alone an adult holding a position of authority, the way that boy did to Marco Rubio, I'd slap the taste out of his mouth for being so hysterical, ridiculous, and outright rude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those kids are forced to grow up too quickly with what they have been through.  And they are mad as hell.  Especially when they are trying to do something right and the A+ NRA rated political hacks try and put them down for it.  It appears that having the A+ rating from the NRA is more important than our children's lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I haven't noticed that they particularly grew up at all, given the childish snowflakey ranting.
> 
> "They are mad as hell."  Leftists and their human shields are ALWAYS mad as hell, and always hopeless at telling us what relevance that's supposed to have.  I'M mad as hell that you dumb shits think we should remake our country to suit you, but I don't notice you thinking THAT should decide public policy.
> 
> "They're trying to do something right."  They're doing a piss-poor job of it, probably because they're listening to YOUR bullshit ideas of what's right and how to go about it.
> 
> If they don't want to be criticized, they shouldn't have stepped into the public arena as activists.
> 
> Thanks to CNN for proving that "our children" are only important to the left as human shields and tools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are also scared as hell.  And they aren't saying the things like you want them to.  So you denigrate them.  Well, they have a message and that message is pretty damned clear.  And if their Parents give them permission, they have the same right to voice it as you do.  Have you ever heard of the 1st Amendment?  It appears that theirs have been and are being shit all over.
Click to expand...


Oh, they're scared?  Really?  And they're the only ones, are they?  There aren't other people out there, like me, who have school-aged children who might be the next sacrifices to your all-important leftist vision?  All you're giving me are MORE reasons why 1) these children shouldn't be making public policy, and 2) shouldn't be paraded around on television in a cynical bid to advance an agenda.

You're damned right they're getting "denigrated", which we all know is left-speak for "criticizing someone I agree with and want to claim immunity for".  That's what happens when you step out in the public square as a proud activist and start screaming at people and demanding things:  you open yourself up for criticism.

"They have a message."  So do I.

"Same right to voice it."  Ditto.

Of course I've heard of the First Amendment.  It's the right YOU want to deny ME with this constant leftist "victim activist" ploy.  Since no one seems to have told you, I will:  The First Amendment guarantees you the right to speak.  It says nothing about a right to be applauded for what you say.

If those kids are getting their "feewings" hurt by the response to their self-righteousness, then they have no one to blame but you leftists who've played this tune until everyone's tired of it.


----------



## The Ugly Truth

radical right said:


> The Ugly Truth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some judges would declare, with a straight face, that all Conservatives are mentally ill. The ugly truth is that anyone who is a law abiding citizen has the right to buy a firearm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just about every mass murderer was a law abiding citizen up until he started killing people.
Click to expand...

I repeat. Mass shootings are responsible for a very small percentage of gun deaths. More people manage to accidentally shoot themselves with their own gun. It's a non issue.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Issa said:


> Lastamender said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ban kids from driving or ban driving altogether unless it is public transportation would save more kids, so are you for that? Ban swimming pools and swimming would save more kids, are you for that? Ban all junk food, that would save more kids, are you for that? Ban kids on bicycles, even more lives saved, are you for that? Ban kids from smoking, are you for that? Lots of dangerous things we do, how much do you want to ban to save the children?
> 
> 
> 
> You know you look ridiculous to almost everybody on this earth when you use this argument ? Except to republicans and gun lovers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You claim you want children kept safe, but if you really felt that way, why would you not want more rules and bans in place to protect them, especially when there are things out there that are killing more young teens than guns? I notice you won't answer the question which tells me you have none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Drowning is an accident, picking a gun and killing is not. Apples and oranges here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Picking up a brick can accomplish the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you mass kill with a brick?
Click to expand...


If you have lots and lots of bricks and either shoot them from cannons or drop them from bombers.   Much like a small bullet can't kill without the gun.


----------



## Lastamender

Issa said:


> Lastamender said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ban kids from driving or ban driving altogether unless it is public transportation would save more kids, so are you for that? Ban swimming pools and swimming would save more kids, are you for that? Ban all junk food, that would save more kids, are you for that? Ban kids on bicycles, even more lives saved, are you for that? Ban kids from smoking, are you for that? Lots of dangerous things we do, how much do you want to ban to save the children?
> 
> 
> 
> You know you look ridiculous to almost everybody on this earth when you use this argument ? Except to republicans and gun lovers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You claim you want children kept safe, but if you really felt that way, why would you not want more rules and bans in place to protect them, especially when there are things out there that are killing more young teens than guns? I notice you won't answer the question which tells me you have none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Drowning is an accident, picking a gun and killing is not. Apples and oranges here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Picking up a brick can accomplish the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you mass kill with a brick?
Click to expand...

If the brick is big enough I can't see why not.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

The Ugly Truth said:


> radical right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Ugly Truth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some judges would declare, with a straight face, that all Conservatives are mentally ill. The ugly truth is that anyone who is a law abiding citizen has the right to buy a firearm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just about every mass murderer was a law abiding citizen up until he started killing people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I repeat. Mass shooting are responsible for a very small percentage of gun deaths. More people manage to accidentally manage to shoot themselves with their own gun. It's a non issue.
Click to expand...


We change what we have the power to change.  And for mass shootings, we have the power to change them or at least minimize the body counts.  Yet you deny the actions to even do that.  "HEY, NOT OVER MY DEAD BODY" is heard.  But others can't speak out because they ARE the dead bodies.


----------



## Issa

Daryl Hunt said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lastamender said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know you look ridiculous to almost everybody on this earth when you use this argument ? Except to republicans and gun lovers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You claim you want children kept safe, but if you really felt that way, why would you not want more rules and bans in place to protect them, especially when there are things out there that are killing more young teens than guns? I notice you won't answer the question which tells me you have none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Drowning is an accident, picking a gun and killing is not. Apples and oranges here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Picking up a brick can accomplish the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you mass kill with a brick?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you have lots and lots of bricks and either shoot them from cannons or drop them from bombers.   Much like a small bullet can't kill without the gun.
Click to expand...

I swear sometimes I just I can most gun lovers overseas and show thrm how it's possible to live without guns, and prevent mass killings. The US looks like it's in constant war...thousands die from gun violence...what a shame for this country.


----------



## Issa

Lastamender said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lastamender said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know you look ridiculous to almost everybody on this earth when you use this argument ? Except to republicans and gun lovers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You claim you want children kept safe, but if you really felt that way, why would you not want more rules and bans in place to protect them, especially when there are things out there that are killing more young teens than guns? I notice you won't answer the question which tells me you have none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Drowning is an accident, picking a gun and killing is not. Apples and oranges here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Picking up a brick can accomplish the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you mass kill with a brick?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the brick is big enough I can't see why not.
Click to expand...

Lol so when was the last  mass killing with a brick ?


----------



## Papageorgio

Issa said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you don’t care about children?
> 
> 
> 
> I do. That's why I call for banning guns like other countries. I want American kids to grow up safe like I did in a gun free country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only "safe place" you had was the delusion of your own sick mind.  I'm not interested in changing my nation to try to create that fantasy in reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once your likes will be a minority things will change for the better. And remember it's just an "amendment".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> And remember it's just an "amendment".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> then it should be fairly easy to have it removed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It will...demographics are changing.
Click to expand...


You are correct they over the last 59 years the idea of banning guns is more unlikely than likely as the numbers are trending against banning guns altogether.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Issa said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lastamender said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claim you want children kept safe, but if you really felt that way, why would you not want more rules and bans in place to protect them, especially when there are things out there that are killing more young teens than guns? I notice you won't answer the question which tells me you have none.
> 
> 
> 
> Drowning is an accident, picking a gun and killing is not. Apples and oranges here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Picking up a brick can accomplish the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you mass kill with a brick?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you have lots and lots of bricks and either shoot them from cannons or drop them from bombers.   Much like a small bullet can't kill without the gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I swear sometimes I just I can most gun lovers overseas and show thrm how it's possible to live without guns, and prevent mass killings. The US looks like it's in constant war...thousands die from gun violence...what a shame for this country.
Click to expand...


Or send them to the areas that have a gun culture.  Before Guns they had a Sword Culture.  War after War, mass killings after mass killings, total disregard for people at all.  Since the 7th century at least.


----------



## The Ugly Truth

Issa said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lastamender said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claim you want children kept safe, but if you really felt that way, why would you not want more rules and bans in place to protect them, especially when there are things out there that are killing more young teens than guns? I notice you won't answer the question which tells me you have none.
> 
> 
> 
> Drowning is an accident, picking a gun and killing is not. Apples and oranges here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Picking up a brick can accomplish the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you mass kill with a brick?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you have lots and lots of bricks and either shoot them from cannons or drop them from bombers.   Much like a small bullet can't kill without the gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I swear sometimes I just I can most gun lovers overseas and show thrm how it's possible to live without guns, and prevent mass killings. The US looks like it's in constant war...thousands die from gun violence...what a shame for this country.
Click to expand...

Well, every mass murderer was a democrat or clinically insane. What does that tell you?


----------



## Lastamender

Issa said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lastamender said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claim you want children kept safe, but if you really felt that way, why would you not want more rules and bans in place to protect them, especially when there are things out there that are killing more young teens than guns? I notice you won't answer the question which tells me you have none.
> 
> 
> 
> Drowning is an accident, picking a gun and killing is not. Apples and oranges here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Picking up a brick can accomplish the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you mass kill with a brick?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you have lots and lots of bricks and either shoot them from cannons or drop them from bombers.   Much like a small bullet can't kill without the gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I swear sometimes I just I can most gun lovers overseas and show thrm how it's possible to live without guns, and prevent mass killings. The US looks like it's in constant war...thousands die from gun violence...what a shame for this country.
Click to expand...

Overseas there are terror attacks regularly, those are not mass killings? How does that work?


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Issa said:


> Lastamender said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lastamender said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claim you want children kept safe, but if you really felt that way, why would you not want more rules and bans in place to protect them, especially when there are things out there that are killing more young teens than guns? I notice you won't answer the question which tells me you have none.
> 
> 
> 
> Drowning is an accident, picking a gun and killing is not. Apples and oranges here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Picking up a brick can accomplish the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you mass kill with a brick?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the brick is big enough I can't see why not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol so when was the last  mass killing with a brick ?
Click to expand...


Lighten up  a bit.  It's a joke.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

The Ugly Truth said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lastamender said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Drowning is an accident, picking a gun and killing is not. Apples and oranges here.
> 
> 
> 
> Picking up a brick can accomplish the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you mass kill with a brick?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you have lots and lots of bricks and either shoot them from cannons or drop them from bombers.   Much like a small bullet can't kill without the gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I swear sometimes I just I can most gun lovers overseas and show thrm how it's possible to live without guns, and prevent mass killings. The US looks like it's in constant war...thousands die from gun violence...what a shame for this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, every mass murderer was a democrat or clinically insane. What does that tell you?
Click to expand...


Every one of them?  Most weren't attending members of anything.  They are loners.  And it's pretty apparent that they were clinically insane because only a clinically insane person would do such a thing.  But were they enough to really take away their first amendment rights?  Using your own scale, I imagine that we could build a pretty good case against either of of us.  But the 1st Amendment gives us the benefit of the doubt.  You want to suspend the 1st Amendment Rights?  How about we suspend the next 9 as well?


----------



## Issa

Papageorgio said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do. That's why I call for banning guns like other countries. I want American kids to grow up safe like I did in a gun free country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only "safe place" you had was the delusion of your own sick mind.  I'm not interested in changing my nation to try to create that fantasy in reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once your likes will be a minority things will change for the better. And remember it's just an "amendment".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> And remember it's just an "amendment".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> then it should be fairly easy to have it removed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It will...demographics are changing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are correct they over the last 59 years the idea of banning guns is more unlikely than likely as the numbers are trending against banning guns altogether.
Click to expand...

Things will change, the fabric of America will change. It's a small world and rapidly changing.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Lastamender said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lastamender said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Drowning is an accident, picking a gun and killing is not. Apples and oranges here.
> 
> 
> 
> Picking up a brick can accomplish the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you mass kill with a brick?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you have lots and lots of bricks and either shoot them from cannons or drop them from bombers.   Much like a small bullet can't kill without the gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I swear sometimes I just I can most gun lovers overseas and show thrm how it's possible to live without guns, and prevent mass killings. The US looks like it's in constant war...thousands die from gun violence...what a shame for this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Overseas there are terror attacks regularly, those are not mass killings? How does that work?
Click to expand...


It's harder to get an AR or an AK in Europe.  So they use IEDs and Vehicles.  Most of the time, they can find the IEDs so not many go off.  And there is nothing can be done about the vehicle maniacs.  But they keep the body counts down as much as possible.  But these are Terrorists that are organized.  Not like our home grown mass killers.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Daryl Hunt said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ban kids from driving or ban driving altogether unless it is public transportation would save more kids, so are you for that? Ban swimming pools and swimming would save more kids, are you for that? Ban all junk food, that would save more kids, are you for that? Ban kids on bicycles, even more lives saved, are you for that? Ban kids from smoking, are you for that? Lots of dangerous things we do, how much do you want to ban to save the children?
> 
> 
> 
> You know you look ridiculous to almost everybody on this earth when you use this argument ? Except to republicans and gun lovers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You claim you want children kept safe, but if you really felt that way, why would you not want more rules and bans in place to protect them, especially when there are things out there that are killing more young teens than guns? I notice you won't answer the question which tells me you have none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's called the Common sense approach.  You do what you must do to make a common sense change.  Some things are beyond your control but others are within your control so you change what you can and don't waste your time in the areas that you can't change.  So your "Hey, Look Over There" routine isn't too common sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The common sense approach".  Which is what?  You've already proven that it's not to look for middle ground in which to discuss acceptable compromises.  So I can only assume that your definition of "common sense" is "shut up and give me everything I want RIGHT NOW!"
> 
> So listening to you is pretty obviously wasting our time in areas we can't change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I actually listed 4 things that can be done and will be affective.  Funny, Ronald Reagan proposed and got the 4th one which was to ban Assault Rifles from general sales.  The other 3, I have said all along and now a bunch of traumtized school children are saying the same thing.  It's you that will not compromise.  You want me to shut up.  Well, junior mass murderer, I won't.  And that 78% that were brought up are starting to wake up and speak out.  What's the matter, getting a bit noisy for your tastes?
Click to expand...


*Eye roll*  Tell you what, Chuckles.  Why don't you address MY compromise points that you keep blowing off and dishonestly pretending don't exist, and then present your "4 things", and I'll show them the same courtesy?

I don't give a fuck if you shut up or not, so long as you understand just how much value your bullshit has, and that I hold you EVERY bit as responsible for those deaths as you hold me, for a lot better reasons.


----------



## Papageorgio

radical right said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claim you want children kept safe, but if you really felt that way, why would you not want more rules and bans in place to protect them, especially when there are things out there that are killing more young teens than guns? I notice you won't answer the question which tells me you have none.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good point, but we provide federal funding for research on childhood cancer, accidents, you name it, all kinds of other health issues.  But not a dime for research on guns killing children.
Click to expand...


I agree, we need more training and awareness on children and their mental state. We also need training and classes on fire arms. 

Also we need to look back on why school shootings are occurring now. We have had guns for centuries and only had school shootings since the mid to late 90's. So why now and not then. I think the school shootings are a symptom of a lot larger issue.


----------



## Papageorgio

Daryl Hunt said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you don’t care about children?
> 
> 
> 
> I do. That's why I call for banning guns like other countries. I want American kids to grow up safe like I did in a gun free country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ban kids from driving or ban driving altogether unless it is public transportation would save more kids, so are you for that? Ban swimming pools and swimming would save more kids, are you for that? Ban all junk food, that would save more kids, are you for that? Ban kids on bicycles, even more lives saved, are you for that? Ban kids from smoking, are you for that? Lots of dangerous things we do, how much do you want to ban to save the children?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know you look ridiculous to almost everybody on this earth when you use this argument ? Except to republicans and gun lovers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You claim you want children kept safe, but if you really felt that way, why would you not want more rules and bans in place to protect them, especially when there are things out there that are killing more young teens than guns? I notice you won't answer the question which tells me you have none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's called the Common sense approach.  You do what you must do to make a common sense change.  Some things are beyond your control but others are within your control so you change what you can and don't waste your time in the areas that you can't change.  So your "Hey, Look Over There" routine isn't too common sense.
Click to expand...


The common sense approach is why have we had gun shootings in schools only within the last 23 years? We have had guns for a lot longer than that, yet the school shootings are now increasing in frequency. The shootings are the symptoms of a much bigger issue and banning guns like Issa wants, will not change anything, the problem will still be there.


----------



## The Ugly Truth

Papageorgio said:


> radical right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claim you want children kept safe, but if you really felt that way, why would you not want more rules and bans in place to protect them, especially when there are things out there that are killing more young teens than guns? I notice you won't answer the question which tells me you have none.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good point, but we provide federal funding for research on childhood cancer, accidents, you name it, all kinds of other health issues.  But not a dime for research on guns killing children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree, we need more training and awareness on children and their mental state. We also need training and classes on fire arms.
> 
> Also we need to look back on why school shootings are occurring now. We have had guns for centuries and only had school shootings since the mid to late 90's. So why now and not then. I think the school shootings are a symptom of a lot larger issue.
Click to expand...

School shootings, and other mass shootings, are the result of a sick society. No laws can protect us. If someone wants to kill others, there is no way to stop them. Also, mass shootings are a non issue since they amount to a fraction of a percent of all shooting deaths. Even if we found a way to stop them, it would not significantly make things any safer. That's the ugly truth.


----------



## Papageorgio

Issa said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only "safe place" you had was the delusion of your own sick mind.  I'm not interested in changing my nation to try to create that fantasy in reality.
> 
> 
> 
> Once your likes will be a minority things will change for the better. And remember it's just an "amendment".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> And remember it's just an "amendment".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> then it should be fairly easy to have it removed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It will...demographics are changing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are correct they over the last 59 years the idea of banning guns is more unlikely than likely as the numbers are trending against banning guns altogether.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Things will change, the fabric of America will change. It's a small world and rapidly changing.
Click to expand...


It has changed from 60% for banning to 28% for banning the tide has changed. Thanks for pointing it out.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Cecilie1200 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know you look ridiculous to almost everybody on this earth when you use this argument ? Except to republicans and gun lovers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You claim you want children kept safe, but if you really felt that way, why would you not want more rules and bans in place to protect them, especially when there are things out there that are killing more young teens than guns? I notice you won't answer the question which tells me you have none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's called the Common sense approach.  You do what you must do to make a common sense change.  Some things are beyond your control but others are within your control so you change what you can and don't waste your time in the areas that you can't change.  So your "Hey, Look Over There" routine isn't too common sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The common sense approach".  Which is what?  You've already proven that it's not to look for middle ground in which to discuss acceptable compromises.  So I can only assume that your definition of "common sense" is "shut up and give me everything I want RIGHT NOW!"
> 
> So listening to you is pretty obviously wasting our time in areas we can't change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I actually listed 4 things that can be done and will be affective.  Funny, Ronald Reagan proposed and got the 4th one which was to ban Assault Rifles from general sales.  The other 3, I have said all along and now a bunch of traumtized school children are saying the same thing.  It's you that will not compromise.  You want me to shut up.  Well, junior mass murderer, I won't.  And that 78% that were brought up are starting to wake up and speak out.  What's the matter, getting a bit noisy for your tastes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Eye roll*  Tell you what, Chuckles.  Why don't you address MY compromise points that you keep blowing off and dishonestly pretending don't exist, and then present your "4 things", and I'll show them the same courtesy?
> 
> I don't give a fuck if you shut up or not, so long as you understand just how much value your bullshit has, and that I hold you EVERY bit as responsible for those deaths as you hold me, for a lot better reasons.
Click to expand...


For starters, the points you want to address really has little to do with the Mass Shootings.  It's a "Look Over There" stunt.  Yah, I know they are important to  you but they don't address the problem of the first time shooter shooting up community gatherings including schools and concerts.  Mine do.  If you can't get your way, there will be no way at all.  So be it.  We do it in spite of you.

You certainly do not act like you are are assuming as much responsibility as I am about those shootings.  Otherwise you would address those 4 points without conditions.  Therefore, it's more important for you prove you are right than the saving of lives and we will go on to solve just one set of problems in spite of you.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Papageorgio said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once your likes will be a minority things will change for the better. And remember it's just an "amendment".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> And remember it's just an "amendment".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> then it should be fairly easy to have it removed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It will...demographics are changing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are correct they over the last 59 years the idea of banning guns is more unlikely than likely as the numbers are trending against banning guns altogether.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Things will change, the fabric of America will change. It's a small world and rapidly changing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has changed from 60% for banning to 28% for banning the tide has changed. Thanks for pointing it out.
Click to expand...


You left out the 78% that want better gun laws.  Banning never has been an issue and never will as long as we have even a smidgen of the Democratic or Republican Government left.  But many are saying our gun laws needs to be looked at seriously and changed to match today's needs.


----------



## Issa

Papageorgio said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do. That's why I call for banning guns like other countries. I want American kids to grow up safe like I did in a gun free country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ban kids from driving or ban driving altogether unless it is public transportation would save more kids, so are you for that? Ban swimming pools and swimming would save more kids, are you for that? Ban all junk food, that would save more kids, are you for that? Ban kids on bicycles, even more lives saved, are you for that? Ban kids from smoking, are you for that? Lots of dangerous things we do, how much do you want to ban to save the children?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know you look ridiculous to almost everybody on this earth when you use this argument ? Except to republicans and gun lovers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You claim you want children kept safe, but if you really felt that way, why would you not want more rules and bans in place to protect them, especially when there are things out there that are killing more young teens than guns? I notice you won't answer the question which tells me you have none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's called the Common sense approach.  You do what you must do to make a common sense change.  Some things are beyond your control but others are within your control so you change what you can and don't waste your time in the areas that you can't change.  So your "Hey, Look Over There" routine isn't too common sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The common sense approach is why have we had gun shootings in schools only within the last 23 years? We have had guns for a lot longer than that, yet the school shootings are now increasing in frequency. The shootings are the symptoms of a much bigger issue and banning guns like Issa wants, will not change anything, the problem will still be there.
Click to expand...

Is not just school shootings my friend, Americans have been shooting each other since day one.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

The Ugly Truth said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> radical right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claim you want children kept safe, but if you really felt that way, why would you not want more rules and bans in place to protect them, especially when there are things out there that are killing more young teens than guns? I notice you won't answer the question which tells me you have none.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good point, but we provide federal funding for research on childhood cancer, accidents, you name it, all kinds of other health issues.  But not a dime for research on guns killing children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree, we need more training and awareness on children and their mental state. We also need training and classes on fire arms.
> 
> Also we need to look back on why school shootings are occurring now. We have had guns for centuries and only had school shootings since the mid to late 90's. So why now and not then. I think the school shootings are a symptom of a lot larger issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> School shootings, and other mass shootings, are the result of a sick society. No laws can protect us. If someone wants to kill others, there is no way to stop them. Also, mass shootings are a non issue since they amount to a fraction of a percent of all shooting deaths. Even if we found a way to stop them, it would not significantly make things any safer. That's the ugly truth.
Click to expand...


WE may not be able to stop them but we can work to keep the body count down and allow the powers that be the time and tools to prevent as many of them as they can.  It's really difficult to stop a Sicko the first time.  But it's done on a daily basis.  WE have two just around here in the last week.  But you can't stop all of them.  So you can only reduce the body count in that case by making them use a less lethal weapon.  Someone mentioned using a Baseball Bat.  Good choice if you are going to kill 2 or three before you get overwhelmed.


----------



## rshermn

The Ugly Truth said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lastamender said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Drowning is an accident, picking a gun and killing is not. Apples and oranges here.
> 
> 
> 
> Picking up a brick can accomplish the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you mass kill with a brick?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you have lots and lots of bricks and either shoot them from cannons or drop them from bombers.   Much like a small bullet can't kill without the gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I swear sometimes I just I can most gun lovers overseas and show thrm how it's possible to live without guns, and prevent mass killings. The US looks like it's in constant war...thousands die from gun violence...what a shame for this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, every mass murderer was a democrat or clinically insane. What does that tell you?
Click to expand...



JESUS, that was a stupid post.  Are you such a con troll that you are totally unable to look for the truth?  Of corse you are.  Just a mentally deranged con tool.  And truth, nor integrity, nor class are of any interest to you.  Just blathering out unproven and unprovable con talking points.  Which, summarily, makes you of no matter at all.  Just another empty head.  Thanks for being clear what a waste of space you are.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Daryl Hunt said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you don’t care about children?
> 
> 
> 
> I do. That's why I call for banning guns like other countries. I want American kids to grow up safe like I did in a gun free country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ban kids from driving or ban driving altogether unless it is public transportation would save more kids, so are you for that? Ban swimming pools and swimming would save more kids, are you for that? Ban all junk food, that would save more kids, are you for that? Ban kids on bicycles, even more lives saved, are you for that? Ban kids from smoking, are you for that? Lots of dangerous things we do, how much do you want to ban to save the children?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know you look ridiculous to almost everybody on this earth when you use this argument ? Except to republicans and gun lovers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You claim you want children kept safe, but if you really felt that way, why would you not want more rules and bans in place to protect them, especially when there are things out there that are killing more young teens than guns? I notice you won't answer the question which tells me you have none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's called the Common sense approach.  You do what you must do to make a common sense change.  Some things are beyond your control but others are within your control so you change what you can and don't waste your time in the areas that you can't change.  So your "Hey, Look Over There" routine isn't too common sense.
Click to expand...

It isn't common sense to blame people for crimes they don't commit


----------



## Skull Pilot

radical right said:


> The Ugly Truth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some judges would declare, with a straight face, that all Conservatives are mentally ill. The ugly truth is that anyone who is a law abiding citizen has the right to buy a firearm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just about every mass murderer was a law abiding citizen up until he started killing people.
Click to expand...

That is a specious argument.

The everyone is a criminal in waiting thing is the biggest crock of bullshit you people spew.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Issa said:


> Lastamender said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ban kids from driving or ban driving altogether unless it is public transportation would save more kids, so are you for that? Ban swimming pools and swimming would save more kids, are you for that? Ban all junk food, that would save more kids, are you for that? Ban kids on bicycles, even more lives saved, are you for that? Ban kids from smoking, are you for that? Lots of dangerous things we do, how much do you want to ban to save the children?
> 
> 
> 
> You know you look ridiculous to almost everybody on this earth when you use this argument ? Except to republicans and gun lovers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You claim you want children kept safe, but if you really felt that way, why would you not want more rules and bans in place to protect them, especially when there are things out there that are killing more young teens than guns? I notice you won't answer the question which tells me you have none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Drowning is an accident, picking a gun and killing is not. Apples and oranges here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Picking up a brick can accomplish the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you mass kill with a brick?
Click to expand...


Yes.

You can commit mass  murder with a can of gasoline, a car, a truck, a truck with a snow plow would be very effective you can commit mass murder with a knife, and yes a gun and probably a hundred other things


----------



## Skull Pilot

radical right said:


> The Ugly Truth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know how many gun laws there are? How are they working out? Have they prevented one single death? Look at places like Detroit. They used to have very strict gun laws, yet they had one of the highest crime rates of any city. Recently, they have allowed people to not only carry guns, but to get concealed carry licenses. Can you guess what happened to the crime rate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Washington DC, in post Heller v DC, the crime rate has gone up.
Click to expand...


can you prove a direct causal relationship?


----------



## Skull Pilot

Issa said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ban kids from driving or ban driving altogether unless it is public transportation would save more kids, so are you for that? Ban swimming pools and swimming would save more kids, are you for that? Ban all junk food, that would save more kids, are you for that? Ban kids on bicycles, even more lives saved, are you for that? Ban kids from smoking, are you for that? Lots of dangerous things we do, how much do you want to ban to save the children?
> 
> 
> 
> You know you look ridiculous to almost everybody on this earth when you use this argument ? Except to republicans and gun lovers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You claim you want children kept safe, but if you really felt that way, why would you not want more rules and bans in place to protect them, especially when there are things out there that are killing more young teens than guns? I notice you won't answer the question which tells me you have none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's called the Common sense approach.  You do what you must do to make a common sense change.  Some things are beyond your control but others are within your control so you change what you can and don't waste your time in the areas that you can't change.  So your "Hey, Look Over There" routine isn't too common sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The common sense approach is why have we had gun shootings in schools only within the last 23 years? We have had guns for a lot longer than that, yet the school shootings are now increasing in frequency. The shootings are the symptoms of a much bigger issue and banning guns like Issa wants, will not change anything, the problem will still be there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is not just school shootings my friend, Americans have been shooting each other since day one.
Click to expand...

People have been killing people for as long as there have been people
People will kill people for as long as there are people


----------



## Little-Acorn

Issa said:


> And remember it's just an "amendment".


Yep, it is. Meaning, it changed the Constitution.

Remember Congress's power to "regulate commerce among the several states"? That's one of the things it changed.

Once the 2nd amendment got ratified, declaring that no govt in the United State could infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, that meant (among other things) that they could no longer regulate guns under the Commerce Clause.

Big-govt pushers have been trying desperately to ignore that fact, of course, since it takes away one of their cherished powers: to infringe people's right to carry a gun. They have even used a false reliance on the Commerce Clause in court.

During the first case to get to the Supreme Court that tried to do this, US v. Miller in 1939, the defense didn't show up for the trial. So the govt. prosecution read several lies into the record, which the Justices rubber-stamped into an "opinion" since no one in the courtroom refuted them. One of those lies was that the Commerce Clause still enabled them to restrict firearms. Other cases have relied on this as a "precedent" ever since.

And big-govt pushers have carefully avoided discussing what the Constitution says. Instead they talk about what courts and legislators have said. As though those courts and bureaucrats superseded the Constitution. This practice still goes on today.


----------



## Little-Acorn

oreo said:


> What other things are killing teens in schools--other than guns?


Wishful-thinking liberals who demand that government get the authority to "DO SOMETHING", and when they get it, waste their time enacting policies that only restrict the law-abiding. While the nutcases go right on killing the children the liberals pretended to be concerned about, with nothing effective done to stop them or even slow them down.


----------



## Papageorgio

Daryl Hunt said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> then it should be fairly easy to have it removed
> 
> 
> 
> It will...demographics are changing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are correct they over the last 59 years the idea of banning guns is more unlikely than likely as the numbers are trending against banning guns altogether.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Things will change, the fabric of America will change. It's a small world and rapidly changing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has changed from 60% for banning to 28% for banning the tide has changed. Thanks for pointing it out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You left out the 78% that want better gun laws.  Banning never has been an issue and never will as long as we have even a smidgen of the Democratic or Republican Government left.  But many are saying our gun laws needs to be looked at seriously and changed to match today's needs.
Click to expand...


I stated that earlier, I was responding to Issa who wants guns banned completely. He claims the tide is changing and we will be banning guns. I don't think a complete ban will ever happen either. 45% own guns, yet 71% don't want a ban and yet 78% want better laws. I don't disagree with any of it, but I think the school shootings are systematic of a larger issue and we need to fix that before any laws will work.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Daryl Hunt said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Ugly Truth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> waltky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe not obsolete but antiquated, out of date...
> 
> ... it needs to be updated to reflect the times...
> 
> ... and the threat of overkill firepower...
> 
> ... for the average citizen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gun violence can only be dealt with by dealing with those who commit it. Most gun violence is the result of repeat offenders. Over 500,000 crimes a year, in the U.S., are the result of repeat offenders. And there are nowhere that many committing those crimes. Deal with them, and you deal with the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once more, you are using the "Hey, Look Over There" routine.  The Mass Shooters usually don't have any criminal records at all.  And that is what we should be dealing with.  What can we do to either stop or minimize the body count in these shooting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WRONG.  The mass shooters usually DO have some sort of red flag that would have turned up, had the appropriate people been tending to business.  And THAT is what we should be dealing with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, we should be looking at those things.  But we should also allow Law Enforcement the time to see these indicators by doing at least 3 out of the 4 items I listed already.  They allow more flags to go up.
> 
> But we have to be careful.  Can you imagine if you were to be flagged when you have no intention of doing any mass shooting? I can hear the crying, screeching and screaming coming from you about your 1st amendment rights.
Click to expand...


Can't imagine a damned thing, since you seem to think I'm going to go scrolling around, looking for your list, which I'm not.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Issa said:


> Lastamender said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ban kids from driving or ban driving altogether unless it is public transportation would save more kids, so are you for that? Ban swimming pools and swimming would save more kids, are you for that? Ban all junk food, that would save more kids, are you for that? Ban kids on bicycles, even more lives saved, are you for that? Ban kids from smoking, are you for that? Lots of dangerous things we do, how much do you want to ban to save the children?
> 
> 
> 
> You know you look ridiculous to almost everybody on this earth when you use this argument ? Except to republicans and gun lovers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You claim you want children kept safe, but if you really felt that way, why would you not want more rules and bans in place to protect them, especially when there are things out there that are killing more young teens than guns? I notice you won't answer the question which tells me you have none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Drowning is an accident, picking a gun and killing is not. Apples and oranges here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Picking up a brick can accomplish the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you mass kill with a brick?
Click to expand...


No, but you can do it with a car, or a bomb, or a fire, or gas . . .


----------



## Issa

Skull Pilot said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lastamender said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know you look ridiculous to almost everybody on this earth when you use this argument ? Except to republicans and gun lovers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You claim you want children kept safe, but if you really felt that way, why would you not want more rules and bans in place to protect them, especially when there are things out there that are killing more young teens than guns? I notice you won't answer the question which tells me you have none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Drowning is an accident, picking a gun and killing is not. Apples and oranges here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Picking up a brick can accomplish the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you mass kill with a brick?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> You can commit mass  murder with a can of gasoline, a car, a truck, a truck with a snow plow would be very effective you can commit mass murder with a knife, and yes a gun and probably a hundred other things
Click to expand...

The lead cause of mass murder now are guns.


----------



## oreo

Little-Acorn said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What other things are killing teens in schools--other than guns?
> 
> 
> 
> Wishful-thinking liberals who demand that government get the authority to "DO SOMETHING", and when they get it, waste their time enacting policies that only restrict the law-abiding. While the nutcases go right on killing the children the liberals pretended to be concerned about, with nothing effective done to stop them or even slow them down.
Click to expand...


*Look I am a gun owner*--but it's clear these semi automatic weapons are not working out for our society.  In reality you can blame Republicans for it.  9 mass killings since Republicans took over in 2010.  Each one they didn't do nothing except to offer their sympathies and hold prayer vigils.  *Republicans could have done something to keep these guns out of the wrong hands, but did the exact opposite.*

They repealed the mental health background check, and didn't even want to put people who were on no fly lists and FBI terrorist watch lists, on NO GUN LISTS.
Obama: It's 'insane' that people on the 'no-fly' list can buy guns  - CNNPolitics
Trump repeals an Obama regulation keeping guns from people with certain mental health conditions

And it's because the NRA has them by the testicles.
'Thoughts and prayers' — and fistfuls of NRA money: Why America can't control guns

So don't blame me for pointing out the obvious.


----------



## Papageorgio

Issa said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ban kids from driving or ban driving altogether unless it is public transportation would save more kids, so are you for that? Ban swimming pools and swimming would save more kids, are you for that? Ban all junk food, that would save more kids, are you for that? Ban kids on bicycles, even more lives saved, are you for that? Ban kids from smoking, are you for that? Lots of dangerous things we do, how much do you want to ban to save the children?
> 
> 
> 
> You know you look ridiculous to almost everybody on this earth when you use this argument ? Except to republicans and gun lovers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You claim you want children kept safe, but if you really felt that way, why would you not want more rules and bans in place to protect them, especially when there are things out there that are killing more young teens than guns? I notice you won't answer the question which tells me you have none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's called the Common sense approach.  You do what you must do to make a common sense change.  Some things are beyond your control but others are within your control so you change what you can and don't waste your time in the areas that you can't change.  So your "Hey, Look Over There" routine isn't too common sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The common sense approach is why have we had gun shootings in schools only within the last 23 years? We have had guns for a lot longer than that, yet the school shootings are now increasing in frequency. The shootings are the symptoms of a much bigger issue and banning guns like Issa wants, will not change anything, the problem will still be there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is not just school shootings my friend, Americans have been shooting each other since day one.
Click to expand...


Again, this is a symptom and you don't want to address it, that's fine but until you cure the disease will persist, gun or no gun.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Issa said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lastamender said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claim you want children kept safe, but if you really felt that way, why would you not want more rules and bans in place to protect them, especially when there are things out there that are killing more young teens than guns? I notice you won't answer the question which tells me you have none.
> 
> 
> 
> Drowning is an accident, picking a gun and killing is not. Apples and oranges here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Picking up a brick can accomplish the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you mass kill with a brick?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you have lots and lots of bricks and either shoot them from cannons or drop them from bombers.   Much like a small bullet can't kill without the gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I swear sometimes I just I can most gun lovers overseas and show thrm how it's possible to live without guns, and prevent mass killings. The US looks like it's in constant war...thousands die from gun violence...what a shame for this country.
Click to expand...


I've seen how "it's possible to live without guns".  As I recall, it resulted in being assaulted by a guy who was a budding serial killer, and convinced me that being unarmed was a stupid idea for a woman in a world of men who can overpower me.

So what've you got to top that?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Issa said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only "safe place" you had was the delusion of your own sick mind.  I'm not interested in changing my nation to try to create that fantasy in reality.
> 
> 
> 
> Once your likes will be a minority things will change for the better. And remember it's just an "amendment".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> And remember it's just an "amendment".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> then it should be fairly easy to have it removed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It will...demographics are changing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are correct they over the last 59 years the idea of banning guns is more unlikely than likely as the numbers are trending against banning guns altogether.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Things will change, the fabric of America will change. It's a small world and rapidly changing.
Click to expand...


Good luck with your delusional belief that EVENTUALLY, you're going to convince the majority of Americans that they really don't want all that troublesome freedom.

Oh, wait, I forgot.  Your plan is to overwhelm actual Americans with an invasion of illegal immigrants.


----------



## KeiserC

If everyone was armed eventually only one person would be left standing, or possibly none left alive.... the logic of the liberal gun grabbers....

Conversely, is it possible that if everyone was armed we would have little to no homicides or gun violence and a moderate increase in accidental shootings / woundings?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Daryl Hunt said:


> Lastamender said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lastamender said:
> 
> 
> 
> Picking up a brick can accomplish the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you mass kill with a brick?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you have lots and lots of bricks and either shoot them from cannons or drop them from bombers.   Much like a small bullet can't kill without the gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I swear sometimes I just I can most gun lovers overseas and show thrm how it's possible to live without guns, and prevent mass killings. The US looks like it's in constant war...thousands die from gun violence...what a shame for this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Overseas there are terror attacks regularly, those are not mass killings? How does that work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's harder to get an AR or an AK in Europe.  So they use IEDs and Vehicles.  Most of the time, they can find the IEDs so not many go off.  And there is nothing can be done about the vehicle maniacs.  But they keep the body counts down as much as possible.  But these are Terrorists that are organized.  Not like our home grown mass killers.
Click to expand...


Wow.  It's like it's the humans, and not the guns, who are the actual source of violence.


----------



## KeiserC

Not according to everything I'm hearing in the media... At least the Pres. still hasn't caved much... and believes, fundamentally, that more guns in good hands = less gun violence.  & Gun free zones = "soft target" death zones...

the problem is that one can believe in the above while still paving the way (well intentioned) for gun registration... we all know what follows full registration


----------



## Contumacious

Issa said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lastamender said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claim you want children kept safe, but if you really felt that way, why would you not want more rules and bans in place to protect them, especially when there are things out there that are killing more young teens than guns? I notice you won't answer the question which tells me you have none.
> 
> 
> 
> Drowning is an accident, picking a gun and killing is not. Apples and oranges here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Picking up a brick can accomplish the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you mass kill with a brick?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> You can commit mass  murder with a can of gasoline, a car, a truck, a truck with a snow plow would be very effective you can commit mass murder with a knife, and yes a gun and probably a hundred other things
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The lead cause of mass murder now are guns.
Click to expand...



What kind of metal are they using nowadays which is causing the firearms by themselves? As opposed to when fire by someone criminally insane?


.


----------



## P@triot

Issa said:


> I want American kids to grow up safe like I did in a gun free country.


Yeah...your country was SO great you promptly ran to the U.S. and made this your home.


----------



## P@triot

Issa said:


> I want American kids to grow up safe like I did in a gun free country.


Issa: “I want American children to grow up in the same type of country I abandoned and ran to the U.S. to get away from”


----------



## P@triot

Daryl Hunt said:


> What can we do to either stop or minimize the body count in these shooting.


Exactly! And the way we achieve that is by arming everyone in the building. Problem solved.


----------



## waltky

*Papageorgio*...

... ya looks like Sgt. Joe Friday...

... of Dragnet.


----------



## radical right

KeiserC said:


> Not according to everything I'm hearing in the media... At least the Pres. still hasn't caved much... and believes, fundamentally, that more guns in good hands = less gun violence.  & Gun free zones = "soft target" death zones...
> 
> the problem is that one can believe in the above while still paving the way (well intentioned) for gun registration... we all know what follows full registration



You found the solution. 
The FBI couldn't have done anything to stop Cruz, he didn't violate any federal laws.  But if local law enfordement and florida child services knew the unstable guy went out and bought a bunch of guns, they would have treated him differently.  They didn't know Cruz had guns, because they weren't registered.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

The Ugly Truth said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Ugly Truth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> waltky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe not obsolete but antiquated, out of date...
> 
> ... it needs to be updated to reflect the times...
> 
> ... and the threat of overkill firepower...
> 
> ... for the average citizen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gun violence can only be dealt with by dealing with those who commit it. Most gun violence is the result of repeat offenders. Over 500,000 crimes a year, in the U.S., are the result of repeat offenders. And there are nowhere that many committing those crimes. Deal with them, and you deal with the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once more, you are using the "Hey, Look Over There" routine.  The Mass Shooters usually don't have any criminal records at all.  And that is what we should be dealing with.  What can we do to either stop or minimize the body count in these shooting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mass shootings are responsible for a very small percentage of deaths. They are just a drop in the bucket. Most gun crime is the result of repeat offenders. That's the ugly truth.
Click to expand...


It's kind of like watching a nuclear explosion in slow motion. If one were to explode outside D.C. in real time it would be a shock to say the least. But if it was happening in slow motion, say, slowed down 100 times, people wouldn't see the problem for what it is and would probably say "Look at the pretty mushroom cloud."

As horrifying and shocking as these mass shootings are, people are dying in much greater numbers in slow motion on the highways and by heart disease and cancer and other things.

People, by nature, are narrow minded and short sighted and act on emotions and nowhere is that more evident today than in our young people and a lot of those on the left of the political spectrum. If not one person died in a motor vehicle accident this year but you had the same number of people die in a bombing or a mass shooting (about 40,000), the whole country would go apeshit and gun control advocates would storm the Capital building and hold Congress hostage until they banned guns.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Ghost of a Rider said:


> The Ugly Truth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Ugly Truth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> waltky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe not obsolete but antiquated, out of date...
> 
> ... it needs to be updated to reflect the times...
> 
> ... and the threat of overkill firepower...
> 
> ... for the average citizen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gun violence can only be dealt with by dealing with those who commit it. Most gun violence is the result of repeat offenders. Over 500,000 crimes a year, in the U.S., are the result of repeat offenders. And there are nowhere that many committing those crimes. Deal with them, and you deal with the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once more, you are using the "Hey, Look Over There" routine.  The Mass Shooters usually don't have any criminal records at all.  And that is what we should be dealing with.  What can we do to either stop or minimize the body count in these shooting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mass shootings are responsible for a very small percentage of deaths. They are just a drop in the bucket. Most gun crime is the result of repeat offenders. That's the ugly truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's kind of like watching a nuclear explosion in slow motion. If one were to explode outside D.C. in real time it would be a shock to say the least. But if it was happening in slow motion, say, slowed down 100 times, people wouldn't see the problem for what it is and would probably say "Look at the pretty mushroom cloud."
> 
> As horrifying and shocking as these mass shootings are, people are dying in much greater numbers in slow motion on the highways and by heart disease and cancer and other things.
> 
> People, by nature, are narrow minded and short sighted and act on emotions and nowhere is that more evident today than in our young people and a lot of those on the left of the political spectrum. If not one person died in a motor vehicle accident this year but you had the same number of people die in a bombing or a mass shooting (about 40,000), the whole country would go apeshit and gun control advocates would storm the Capital building and hold Congress hostage until they banned guns.
Click to expand...


We change what we can change.  We have done quite a bit to slow down traffic deaths and more is on the way.  Can  you imagine how much you are going to scream when they outlaw you driving your car?  That's not that far into the future.  That may bring traffic deaths to zero but it's not going to be painless.  

And we need to approach the Mass Shootings the same way.  We need to fix what we can fix even if it's just to minimize the body count.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

Daryl Hunt said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Ugly Truth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Ugly Truth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> waltky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe not obsolete but antiquated, out of date...
> 
> ... it needs to be updated to reflect the times...
> 
> ... and the threat of overkill firepower...
> 
> ... for the average citizen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gun violence can only be dealt with by dealing with those who commit it. Most gun violence is the result of repeat offenders. Over 500,000 crimes a year, in the U.S., are the result of repeat offenders. And there are nowhere that many committing those crimes. Deal with them, and you deal with the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once more, you are using the "Hey, Look Over There" routine.  The Mass Shooters usually don't have any criminal records at all.  And that is what we should be dealing with.  What can we do to either stop or minimize the body count in these shooting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mass shootings are responsible for a very small percentage of deaths. They are just a drop in the bucket. Most gun crime is the result of repeat offenders. That's the ugly truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's kind of like watching a nuclear explosion in slow motion. If one were to explode outside D.C. in real time it would be a shock to say the least. But if it was happening in slow motion, say, slowed down 100 times, people wouldn't see the problem for what it is and would probably say "Look at the pretty mushroom cloud."
> 
> As horrifying and shocking as these mass shootings are, people are dying in much greater numbers in slow motion on the highways and by heart disease and cancer and other things.
> 
> People, by nature, are narrow minded and short sighted and act on emotions and nowhere is that more evident today than in our young people and a lot of those on the left of the political spectrum. If not one person died in a motor vehicle accident this year but you had the same number of people die in a bombing or a mass shooting (about 40,000), the whole country would go apeshit and gun control advocates would storm the Capital building and hold Congress hostage until they banned guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We change what we can change.  We have done quite a bit to slow down traffic deaths and more is on the way.  Can  you imagine how much you are going to scream when they outlaw you driving your car?  That's not that far into the future.  That may bring traffic deaths to zero but it's not going to be painless.
> 
> And we need to approach the Mass Shootings the same way.  We need to fix what we can fix even if it's just to minimize the body count.
Click to expand...


My point was not to show that traffic fatalities are higher, my point was to illustrate how people are shocked and react emotionally when a lot of people die all at once. If there were mass shootings across the country tomorrow and 40,000 people were killed, you can bet that they would ban firearms the next day. At the very least, there would be an immediate temporary ban. But because 40,000 people die in slow motion throughout the year on the highways and out of our sight and mind for the most part, nobody gives it a second thought.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Ugly Truth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Ugly Truth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gun violence can only be dealt with by dealing with those who commit it. Most gun violence is the result of repeat offenders. Over 500,000 crimes a year, in the U.S., are the result of repeat offenders. And there are nowhere that many committing those crimes. Deal with them, and you deal with the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once more, you are using the "Hey, Look Over There" routine.  The Mass Shooters usually don't have any criminal records at all.  And that is what we should be dealing with.  What can we do to either stop or minimize the body count in these shooting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mass shootings are responsible for a very small percentage of deaths. They are just a drop in the bucket. Most gun crime is the result of repeat offenders. That's the ugly truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's kind of like watching a nuclear explosion in slow motion. If one were to explode outside D.C. in real time it would be a shock to say the least. But if it was happening in slow motion, say, slowed down 100 times, people wouldn't see the problem for what it is and would probably say "Look at the pretty mushroom cloud."
> 
> As horrifying and shocking as these mass shootings are, people are dying in much greater numbers in slow motion on the highways and by heart disease and cancer and other things.
> 
> People, by nature, are narrow minded and short sighted and act on emotions and nowhere is that more evident today than in our young people and a lot of those on the left of the political spectrum. If not one person died in a motor vehicle accident this year but you had the same number of people die in a bombing or a mass shooting (about 40,000), the whole country would go apeshit and gun control advocates would storm the Capital building and hold Congress hostage until they banned guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We change what we can change.  We have done quite a bit to slow down traffic deaths and more is on the way.  Can  you imagine how much you are going to scream when they outlaw you driving your car?  That's not that far into the future.  That may bring traffic deaths to zero but it's not going to be painless.
> 
> And we need to approach the Mass Shootings the same way.  We need to fix what we can fix even if it's just to minimize the body count.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point was not to show that traffic fatalities are higher, my point was to illustrate how people are shocked and react emotionally when a lot of people die all at once. If there were mass shootings across the country tomorrow and 40,000 people were killed, you can bet that they would ban firearms the next day. At the very least, there would be an immediate temporary ban. But because 40,000 people die in slow motion throughout the year on the highways and out of our sight and mind for the most part, nobody gives it a second thought.
Click to expand...


Your point is to try and make us look at something we can't currently change so that we won't look at something we CAN currently change.  Simple as that.  "Hey, Look Over There".


----------



## WEATHER53

Cars are not intended to kill or defend
The gun is the instrument of delivering the lethality even with a person behind it.  To be dismissive of the gun as  not the issue at all is incorrect


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

Daryl Hunt said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Ugly Truth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once more, you are using the "Hey, Look Over There" routine.  The Mass Shooters usually don't have any criminal records at all.  And that is what we should be dealing with.  What can we do to either stop or minimize the body count in these shooting.
> 
> 
> 
> Mass shootings are responsible for a very small percentage of deaths. They are just a drop in the bucket. Most gun crime is the result of repeat offenders. That's the ugly truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's kind of like watching a nuclear explosion in slow motion. If one were to explode outside D.C. in real time it would be a shock to say the least. But if it was happening in slow motion, say, slowed down 100 times, people wouldn't see the problem for what it is and would probably say "Look at the pretty mushroom cloud."
> 
> As horrifying and shocking as these mass shootings are, people are dying in much greater numbers in slow motion on the highways and by heart disease and cancer and other things.
> 
> People, by nature, are narrow minded and short sighted and act on emotions and nowhere is that more evident today than in our young people and a lot of those on the left of the political spectrum. If not one person died in a motor vehicle accident this year but you had the same number of people die in a bombing or a mass shooting (about 40,000), the whole country would go apeshit and gun control advocates would storm the Capital building and hold Congress hostage until they banned guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We change what we can change.  We have done quite a bit to slow down traffic deaths and more is on the way.  Can  you imagine how much you are going to scream when they outlaw you driving your car?  That's not that far into the future.  That may bring traffic deaths to zero but it's not going to be painless.
> 
> And we need to approach the Mass Shootings the same way.  We need to fix what we can fix even if it's just to minimize the body count.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point was not to show that traffic fatalities are higher, my point was to illustrate how people are shocked and react emotionally when a lot of people die all at once. If there were mass shootings across the country tomorrow and 40,000 people were killed, you can bet that they would ban firearms the next day. At the very least, there would be an immediate temporary ban. But because 40,000 people die in slow motion throughout the year on the highways and out of our sight and mind for the most part, nobody gives it a second thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your point is to try and make us look at something we can't currently change so that we won't look at something we CAN currently change.  Simple as that.  "Hey, Look Over There".
Click to expand...


Of course we can change it. You just told me yourself that "_We have done quite a bit to slow down traffic deaths and more is on the way_."

Like I told Derp, it is not my intention to divert the focus or direction of the conversation. My intention is to show how gun control advocates, while ostensibly proposing a solution to reduce deaths, get emotional and fired up over 17 deaths by firearms but have nothing to say about the 40,000 deaths by motor vehicle accidents every year.

When it comes to human fatalities, people can be highly subjective about which manner of death to address. To the point that it becomes clear before long that it's not so much the _number_ of deaths that they're concerned about, but rather the _manner_ of the deaths.


----------



## P@triot

The *facts* are so important (which is why the left doesn’t want you to hear them).


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

More truth.

High-capacity magazines make little difference:


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Ugly Truth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mass shootings are responsible for a very small percentage of deaths. They are just a drop in the bucket. Most gun crime is the result of repeat offenders. That's the ugly truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's kind of like watching a nuclear explosion in slow motion. If one were to explode outside D.C. in real time it would be a shock to say the least. But if it was happening in slow motion, say, slowed down 100 times, people wouldn't see the problem for what it is and would probably say "Look at the pretty mushroom cloud."
> 
> As horrifying and shocking as these mass shootings are, people are dying in much greater numbers in slow motion on the highways and by heart disease and cancer and other things.
> 
> People, by nature, are narrow minded and short sighted and act on emotions and nowhere is that more evident today than in our young people and a lot of those on the left of the political spectrum. If not one person died in a motor vehicle accident this year but you had the same number of people die in a bombing or a mass shooting (about 40,000), the whole country would go apeshit and gun control advocates would storm the Capital building and hold Congress hostage until they banned guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We change what we can change.  We have done quite a bit to slow down traffic deaths and more is on the way.  Can  you imagine how much you are going to scream when they outlaw you driving your car?  That's not that far into the future.  That may bring traffic deaths to zero but it's not going to be painless.
> 
> And we need to approach the Mass Shootings the same way.  We need to fix what we can fix even if it's just to minimize the body count.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point was not to show that traffic fatalities are higher, my point was to illustrate how people are shocked and react emotionally when a lot of people die all at once. If there were mass shootings across the country tomorrow and 40,000 people were killed, you can bet that they would ban firearms the next day. At the very least, there would be an immediate temporary ban. But because 40,000 people die in slow motion throughout the year on the highways and out of our sight and mind for the most part, nobody gives it a second thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your point is to try and make us look at something we can't currently change so that we won't look at something we CAN currently change.  Simple as that.  "Hey, Look Over There".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course we can change it. You just told me yourself that "_We have done quite a bit to slow down traffic deaths and more is on the way_."
> 
> Like I told Derp, it is not my intention to divert the focus or direction of the conversation. My intention is to show how gun control advocates, while ostensibly proposing a solution to reduce deaths, get emotional and fired up over 17 deaths by firearms but have nothing to say about the 40,000 deaths by motor vehicle accidents every year.
> 
> When it comes to human fatalities, people can be highly subjective about which manner of death to address. To the point that it becomes clear before long that it's not so much the _number_ of deaths that they're concerned about, but rather the _manner_ of the deaths.
Click to expand...


Even one person murdered in anger is wrong.


----------



## Issa

Papageorgio said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know you look ridiculous to almost everybody on this earth when you use this argument ? Except to republicans and gun lovers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You claim you want children kept safe, but if you really felt that way, why would you not want more rules and bans in place to protect them, especially when there are things out there that are killing more young teens than guns? I notice you won't answer the question which tells me you have none.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's called the Common sense approach.  You do what you must do to make a common sense change.  Some things are beyond your control but others are within your control so you change what you can and don't waste your time in the areas that you can't change.  So your "Hey, Look Over There" routine isn't too common sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The common sense approach is why have we had gun shootings in schools only within the last 23 years? We have had guns for a lot longer than that, yet the school shootings are now increasing in frequency. The shootings are the symptoms of a much bigger issue and banning guns like Issa wants, will not change anything, the problem will still be there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is not just school shootings my friend, Americans have been shooting each other since day one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, this is a symptom and you don't want to address it, that's fine but until you cure the disease will persist, gun or no gun.
Click to expand...


Guns....people here when they lose it, they pick a gun and shoot. Other societies where guns are within reach, they fight, they use non lethal stuff till they cool down, arrested or stopped. Some rough areas I've been to overseas, fights left and right and there was always a saying if it guns were available like in the US lot of people would lose their lives.
Banning guns for sure it was stop all murders, but it will lower it dramatically, ther will be less mass shootings if any.


----------



## Issa

Cecilie1200 said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lastamender said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Drowning is an accident, picking a gun and killing is not. Apples and oranges here.
> 
> 
> 
> Picking up a brick can accomplish the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you mass kill with a brick?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you have lots and lots of bricks and either shoot them from cannons or drop them from bombers.   Much like a small bullet can't kill without the gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I swear sometimes I just I can most gun lovers overseas and show thrm how it's possible to live without guns, and prevent mass killings. The US looks like it's in constant war...thousands die from gun violence...what a shame for this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen how "it's possible to live without guns".  As I recall, it resulted in being assaulted by a guy who was a budding serial killer, and convinced me that being unarmed was a stupid idea for a woman in a world of men who can overpower me.
> 
> So what've you got to top that?
Click to expand...


So you walk around with your pistol at all times? you take a shower with it? you drive around with it in parking lots? you sleep with it? if Anything would happen to you, you won't have time to react. And by the way the US has 300 millions weapons or so available and guess what we have one of the highest numbers of rape per capita. Why is that?


----------



## Issa

Cecilie1200 said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once your likes will be a minority things will change for the better. And remember it's just an "amendment".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> And remember it's just an "amendment".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> then it should be fairly easy to have it removed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It will...demographics are changing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are correct they over the last 59 years the idea of banning guns is more unlikely than likely as the numbers are trending against banning guns altogether.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Things will change, the fabric of America will change. It's a small world and rapidly changing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good luck with your delusional belief that EVENTUALLY, you're going to convince the majority of Americans that they really don't want all that troublesome freedom.
> 
> Oh, wait, I forgot.  Your plan is to overwhelm actual Americans with an invasion of illegal immigrants.
Click to expand...

You gotta respect the will of the majority....as for now there is nothing one can do. But there will come time, where the 2nd amendment will be abolished I can assure you of that. 
Your life doesn't depend on a gun, you can live without it....this isn't the wild wide west era.


----------



## Issa

Cecilie1200 said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once your likes will be a minority things will change for the better. And remember it's just an "amendment".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> And remember it's just an "amendment".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> then it should be fairly easy to have it removed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It will...demographics are changing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are correct they over the last 59 years the idea of banning guns is more unlikely than likely as the numbers are trending against banning guns altogether.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Things will change, the fabric of America will change. It's a small world and rapidly changing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good luck with your delusional belief that EVENTUALLY, you're going to convince the majority of Americans that they really don't want all that troublesome freedom.
> 
> Oh, wait, I forgot.  Your plan is to overwhelm actual Americans with an invasion of illegal immigrants.
Click to expand...

And by the way if it wasn't for migration I don't think you would be here....millions of natives wouldn't be massacred, and millions of blacks wouldn't being enslaved. And thousands of Americans wouldn't have to die from gun violence every year....Just imagine if your ancestor from a country like Austria, Belgium or any other country where gun violence is very minimal and kids don't get massacred in schools, where they should be learning and having fun.


----------



## Issa

P@triot said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I want American kids to grow up safe like I did in a gun free country.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...your country was SO great you promptly ran to the U.S. and made this your home.
Click to expand...

Who told you i left for good?


----------



## Issa

P@triot said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I want American kids to grow up safe like I did in a gun free country.
> 
> 
> 
> Issa: “I want American children to grow up in the same type of country I abandoned and ran to the U.S. to get away from”
Click to expand...


Now you making up stuff lol....if it's makes you feel better go on.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Issa said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lastamender said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claim you want children kept safe, but if you really felt that way, why would you not want more rules and bans in place to protect them, especially when there are things out there that are killing more young teens than guns? I notice you won't answer the question which tells me you have none.
> 
> 
> 
> Drowning is an accident, picking a gun and killing is not. Apples and oranges here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Picking up a brick can accomplish the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you mass kill with a brick?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> You can commit mass  murder with a can of gasoline, a car, a truck, a truck with a snow plow would be very effective you can commit mass murder with a knife, and yes a gun and probably a hundred other things
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The lead cause of mass murder now are guns.
Click to expand...

So what?

Most murders are criminals shooting other criminals.
More than half of all murders occur in just 2% of the counties in the country
and half of all counties had a murder rate of virtually zero.

Murder is not a widespread phenomena and tends to be concentrated in urban areas where there are both a high poverty and gang presence.

If you really wanted to do something about the murder rate you would concentrate on the areas where murders occur the most and not try to say that law abiding people who happen to own guns are the problem


----------



## Skull Pilot

Issa said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I want American kids to grow up safe like I did in a gun free country.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...your country was SO great you promptly ran to the U.S. and made this your home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who told you i left for good?
Click to expand...

Feel free to go back


----------



## Skull Pilot

oreo said:


> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What other things are killing teens in schools--other than guns?
> 
> 
> 
> Wishful-thinking liberals who demand that government get the authority to "DO SOMETHING", and when they get it, waste their time enacting policies that only restrict the law-abiding. While the nutcases go right on killing the children the liberals pretended to be concerned about, with nothing effective done to stop them or even slow them down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Look I am a gun owner*--but it's clear these semi automatic weapons are not working out for our society.  In reality you can blame Republicans for it.  9 mass killings since Republicans took over in 2010.  Each one they didn't do nothing except to offer their sympathies and hold prayer vigils.  *Republicans could have done something to keep these guns out of the wrong hands, but did the exact opposite.*
> 
> They repealed the mental health background check, and didn't even want to put people who were on no fly lists and FBI terrorist watch lists, on NO GUN LISTS.
> Obama: It's 'insane' that people on the 'no-fly' list can buy guns  - CNNPolitics
> Trump repeals an Obama regulation keeping guns from people with certain mental health conditions
> 
> And it's because the NRA has them by the testicles.
> 'Thoughts and prayers' — and fistfuls of NRA money: Why America can't control guns
> 
> So don't blame me for pointing out the obvious.
Click to expand...

People who say they own guns and in the same breath say a semiautomatic is an assault rifle make me laugh.

Semiautomatic rifles have been around for the civilian market for more than 100 years

And let's address that no fly list thing

You do know that people are put on the no fly list with no notice and no hearing don't you?
It is in effect a secret list and many times a person gets on that list even though they have done nothing to warrant it and has to try to get off of that list at his own expense

If you want the government to be able to curb anyone's rights at any time without due process you do not belong in this country


----------



## Cecilie1200

Issa said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lastamender said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claim you want children kept safe, but if you really felt that way, why would you not want more rules and bans in place to protect them, especially when there are things out there that are killing more young teens than guns? I notice you won't answer the question which tells me you have none.
> 
> 
> 
> Drowning is an accident, picking a gun and killing is not. Apples and oranges here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Picking up a brick can accomplish the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you mass kill with a brick?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> You can commit mass  murder with a can of gasoline, a car, a truck, a truck with a snow plow would be very effective you can commit mass murder with a knife, and yes a gun and probably a hundred other things
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The lead cause of mass murder now are guns.
Click to expand...


No, the lead cause of mass murder is the same as it's always been:  humans.


----------



## Cecilie1200

radical right said:


> KeiserC said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not according to everything I'm hearing in the media... At least the Pres. still hasn't caved much... and believes, fundamentally, that more guns in good hands = less gun violence.  & Gun free zones = "soft target" death zones...
> 
> the problem is that one can believe in the above while still paving the way (well intentioned) for gun registration... we all know what follows full registration
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You found the solution.
> The FBI couldn't have done anything to stop Cruz, he didn't violate any federal laws.  But if local law enfordement and florida child services knew the unstable guy went out and bought a bunch of guns, they would have treated him differently.  They didn't know Cruz had guns, because they weren't registered.
Click to expand...


WRONG.  We have no idea whether the FBI could have stopped him, because they never followed up on the tips.  Who knows what they might have found, had they actually investigated?  At the very least, maybe having them show up would have prompted the family he lived with to get him some help and take away his access to guns.  There's an excellent chance that actually connecting all the dots the FBI was given about this guy could have triggered an involuntary stay in a mental facility for observation, which might have led to him being committed.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Daryl Hunt said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Ugly Truth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Ugly Truth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> waltky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe not obsolete but antiquated, out of date...
> 
> ... it needs to be updated to reflect the times...
> 
> ... and the threat of overkill firepower...
> 
> ... for the average citizen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gun violence can only be dealt with by dealing with those who commit it. Most gun violence is the result of repeat offenders. Over 500,000 crimes a year, in the U.S., are the result of repeat offenders. And there are nowhere that many committing those crimes. Deal with them, and you deal with the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once more, you are using the "Hey, Look Over There" routine.  The Mass Shooters usually don't have any criminal records at all.  And that is what we should be dealing with.  What can we do to either stop or minimize the body count in these shooting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mass shootings are responsible for a very small percentage of deaths. They are just a drop in the bucket. Most gun crime is the result of repeat offenders. That's the ugly truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's kind of like watching a nuclear explosion in slow motion. If one were to explode outside D.C. in real time it would be a shock to say the least. But if it was happening in slow motion, say, slowed down 100 times, people wouldn't see the problem for what it is and would probably say "Look at the pretty mushroom cloud."
> 
> As horrifying and shocking as these mass shootings are, people are dying in much greater numbers in slow motion on the highways and by heart disease and cancer and other things.
> 
> People, by nature, are narrow minded and short sighted and act on emotions and nowhere is that more evident today than in our young people and a lot of those on the left of the political spectrum. If not one person died in a motor vehicle accident this year but you had the same number of people die in a bombing or a mass shooting (about 40,000), the whole country would go apeshit and gun control advocates would storm the Capital building and hold Congress hostage until they banned guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We change what we can change.  We have done quite a bit to slow down traffic deaths and more is on the way.  Can  you imagine how much you are going to scream when they outlaw you driving your car?  That's not that far into the future.  That may bring traffic deaths to zero but it's not going to be painless.
> 
> And we need to approach the Mass Shootings the same way.  We need to fix what we can fix even if it's just to minimize the body count.
Click to expand...


And outlawing cars for people who are careful, responsible drivers simply because there are people who are not is just as stupid as outlawing guns for people who are careful, responsible gun owners simply because there are lunatics.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Daryl Hunt said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's kind of like watching a nuclear explosion in slow motion. If one were to explode outside D.C. in real time it would be a shock to say the least. But if it was happening in slow motion, say, slowed down 100 times, people wouldn't see the problem for what it is and would probably say "Look at the pretty mushroom cloud."
> 
> As horrifying and shocking as these mass shootings are, people are dying in much greater numbers in slow motion on the highways and by heart disease and cancer and other things.
> 
> People, by nature, are narrow minded and short sighted and act on emotions and nowhere is that more evident today than in our young people and a lot of those on the left of the political spectrum. If not one person died in a motor vehicle accident this year but you had the same number of people die in a bombing or a mass shooting (about 40,000), the whole country would go apeshit and gun control advocates would storm the Capital building and hold Congress hostage until they banned guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We change what we can change.  We have done quite a bit to slow down traffic deaths and more is on the way.  Can  you imagine how much you are going to scream when they outlaw you driving your car?  That's not that far into the future.  That may bring traffic deaths to zero but it's not going to be painless.
> 
> And we need to approach the Mass Shootings the same way.  We need to fix what we can fix even if it's just to minimize the body count.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point was not to show that traffic fatalities are higher, my point was to illustrate how people are shocked and react emotionally when a lot of people die all at once. If there were mass shootings across the country tomorrow and 40,000 people were killed, you can bet that they would ban firearms the next day. At the very least, there would be an immediate temporary ban. But because 40,000 people die in slow motion throughout the year on the highways and out of our sight and mind for the most part, nobody gives it a second thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your point is to try and make us look at something we can't currently change so that we won't look at something we CAN currently change.  Simple as that.  "Hey, Look Over There".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course we can change it. You just told me yourself that "_We have done quite a bit to slow down traffic deaths and more is on the way_."
> 
> Like I told Derp, it is not my intention to divert the focus or direction of the conversation. My intention is to show how gun control advocates, while ostensibly proposing a solution to reduce deaths, get emotional and fired up over 17 deaths by firearms but have nothing to say about the 40,000 deaths by motor vehicle accidents every year.
> 
> When it comes to human fatalities, people can be highly subjective about which manner of death to address. To the point that it becomes clear before long that it's not so much the _number_ of deaths that they're concerned about, but rather the _manner_ of the deaths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even one person murdered in anger is wrong.
Click to expand...


True, but murder has been part of human history for as long as there have been humans, so if your goal is to eliminate all murder, you're defeated at the outset, and everything you do is going to be wrong, as well.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Issa said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claim you want children kept safe, but if you really felt that way, why would you not want more rules and bans in place to protect them, especially when there are things out there that are killing more young teens than guns? I notice you won't answer the question which tells me you have none.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's called the Common sense approach.  You do what you must do to make a common sense change.  Some things are beyond your control but others are within your control so you change what you can and don't waste your time in the areas that you can't change.  So your "Hey, Look Over There" routine isn't too common sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The common sense approach is why have we had gun shootings in schools only within the last 23 years? We have had guns for a lot longer than that, yet the school shootings are now increasing in frequency. The shootings are the symptoms of a much bigger issue and banning guns like Issa wants, will not change anything, the problem will still be there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is not just school shootings my friend, Americans have been shooting each other since day one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, this is a symptom and you don't want to address it, that's fine but until you cure the disease will persist, gun or no gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guns....people here when they lose it, they pick a gun and shoot. Other societies where guns are within reach, they fight, they use non lethal stuff till they cool down, arrested or stopped. Some rough areas I've been to overseas, fights left and right and there was always a saying if it guns were available like in the US lot of people would lose their lives.
> Banning guns for sure it was stop all murders, but it will lower it dramatically, ther will be less mass shootings if any.
Click to expand...


No, in other societies they just use a different lethal weapon.  I'm really over your pretense that gun-banning societies don't have mass murders.  Lie to yourself, if you want, but don't expect anyone else to believe you.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Issa said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lastamender said:
> 
> 
> 
> Picking up a brick can accomplish the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you mass kill with a brick?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you have lots and lots of bricks and either shoot them from cannons or drop them from bombers.   Much like a small bullet can't kill without the gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I swear sometimes I just I can most gun lovers overseas and show thrm how it's possible to live without guns, and prevent mass killings. The US looks like it's in constant war...thousands die from gun violence...what a shame for this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen how "it's possible to live without guns".  As I recall, it resulted in being assaulted by a guy who was a budding serial killer, and convinced me that being unarmed was a stupid idea for a woman in a world of men who can overpower me.
> 
> So what've you got to top that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you walk around with your pistol at all times? you take a shower with it? you drive around with it in parking lots? you sleep with it? if Anything would happen to you, you won't have time to react. And by the way the US has 300 millions weapons or so available and guess what we have one of the highest numbers of rape per capita. Why is that?
Click to expand...


Why would I shower with it?  Only a dumbass puts a gun in water.

And "You wouldn't have time to react" is the stupidest argument I've heard so far this week.  Maybe I would, maybe I wouldn't, but I'd have a damn sight better chance than I would with my bare hands.  Moron.

Highest number of rapes per capita?  Off the top of my head, I'm going to say that has a lot more to do with the millions of penises in the US, not guns.  Would you like to ban THOSE next?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Issa said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> then it should be fairly easy to have it removed
> 
> 
> 
> It will...demographics are changing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are correct they over the last 59 years the idea of banning guns is more unlikely than likely as the numbers are trending against banning guns altogether.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Things will change, the fabric of America will change. It's a small world and rapidly changing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good luck with your delusional belief that EVENTUALLY, you're going to convince the majority of Americans that they really don't want all that troublesome freedom.
> 
> Oh, wait, I forgot.  Your plan is to overwhelm actual Americans with an invasion of illegal immigrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You gotta respect the will of the majority....as for now there is nothing one can do. But there will come time, where the 2nd amendment will be abolished I can assure you of that.
> Your life doesn't depend on a gun, you can live without it....this isn't the wild wide west era.
Click to expand...


Given that YOU are the one pushing for something the majority keeps telling you it doesn't want, I'd say ONE of us needs to respect their will, anyway.

And no, "there is nothing one can do" is the song of someone whose major agenda is to have more deaths with which to panic people into subjugation, rather than protecting people from harm.  There are lots of things we can do, and you're obviously just going to sit there arguing with all of it and making excuses why we have to give you your way.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Issa said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> then it should be fairly easy to have it removed
> 
> 
> 
> It will...demographics are changing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are correct they over the last 59 years the idea of banning guns is more unlikely than likely as the numbers are trending against banning guns altogether.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Things will change, the fabric of America will change. It's a small world and rapidly changing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good luck with your delusional belief that EVENTUALLY, you're going to convince the majority of Americans that they really don't want all that troublesome freedom.
> 
> Oh, wait, I forgot.  Your plan is to overwhelm actual Americans with an invasion of illegal immigrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And by the way if it wasn't for migration I don't think you would be here....millions of natives wouldn't be massacred, and millions of blacks wouldn't being enslaved. And thousands of Americans wouldn't have to die from gun violence every year....Just imagine if your ancestor from a country like Austria, Belgium or any other country where gun violence is very minimal and kids don't get massacred in schools, where they should be learning and having fun.
Click to expand...


Blah blah blah.  Yes, my ancestors immigrated here hundreds of years ago.  Unlike you, THEY actually liked what America was and what it stood for, and they wanted to become part of it, rather than wanting to sneer at it and immediately start changing it to mirror the place they left.  But then, my ancestors were a lot smarter than you are.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Issa said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I want American kids to grow up safe like I did in a gun free country.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...your country was SO great you promptly ran to the U.S. and made this your home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who told you i left for good?
Click to expand...


If you're going back, could you please get on with it already?  Fucking tourists.


----------



## Papageorgio

Issa said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claim you want children kept safe, but if you really felt that way, why would you not want more rules and bans in place to protect them, especially when there are things out there that are killing more young teens than guns? I notice you won't answer the question which tells me you have none.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's called the Common sense approach.  You do what you must do to make a common sense change.  Some things are beyond your control but others are within your control so you change what you can and don't waste your time in the areas that you can't change.  So your "Hey, Look Over There" routine isn't too common sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The common sense approach is why have we had gun shootings in schools only within the last 23 years? We have had guns for a lot longer than that, yet the school shootings are now increasing in frequency. The shootings are the symptoms of a much bigger issue and banning guns like Issa wants, will not change anything, the problem will still be there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is not just school shootings my friend, Americans have been shooting each other since day one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, this is a symptom and you don't want to address it, that's fine but until you cure the disease will persist, gun or no gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guns....people here when they lose it, they pick a gun and shoot. Other societies where guns are within reach, they fight, they use non lethal stuff till they cool down, arrested or stopped. Some rough areas I've been to overseas, fights left and right and there was always a saying if it guns were available like in the US lot of people would lose their lives.
> Banning guns for sure it was stop all murders, but it will lower it dramatically, ther will be less mass shootings if any.
Click to expand...


Like I said, I never have been in a fist fight but I don't see the correlation between a fist fight and shooting anyone. Not all fist fights in this country end in gun fights and I would be hard pressed to say even 1% of fist fights will end in a gun fight.


----------



## Papageorgio

Issa said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> then it should be fairly easy to have it removed
> 
> 
> 
> It will...demographics are changing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are correct they over the last 59 years the idea of banning guns is more unlikely than likely as the numbers are trending against banning guns altogether.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Things will change, the fabric of America will change. It's a small world and rapidly changing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good luck with your delusional belief that EVENTUALLY, you're going to convince the majority of Americans that they really don't want all that troublesome freedom.
> 
> Oh, wait, I forgot.  Your plan is to overwhelm actual Americans with an invasion of illegal immigrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You gotta respect the will of the majority....as for now there is nothing one can do. But there will come time, where the 2nd amendment will be abolished I can assure you of that.
> Your life doesn't depend on a gun, you can live without it....this isn't the wild wide west era.
Click to expand...


You are correct there and that is why we as a nation will not ban guns.


----------



## Papageorgio

Issa said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> then it should be fairly easy to have it removed
> 
> 
> 
> It will...demographics are changing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are correct they over the last 59 years the idea of banning guns is more unlikely than likely as the numbers are trending against banning guns altogether.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Things will change, the fabric of America will change. It's a small world and rapidly changing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good luck with your delusional belief that EVENTUALLY, you're going to convince the majority of Americans that they really don't want all that troublesome freedom.
> 
> Oh, wait, I forgot.  Your plan is to overwhelm actual Americans with an invasion of illegal immigrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And by the way if it wasn't for migration I don't think you would be here....millions of natives wouldn't be massacred, and millions of blacks wouldn't being enslaved. And thousands of Americans wouldn't have to die from gun violence every year....Just imagine if your ancestor from a country like Austria, Belgium or any other country where gun violence is very minimal and kids don't get massacred in schools, where they should be learning and having fun.
Click to expand...


So in Britain they removed the guns and the murder rate went up, how does that make us safer? The same happened in Australia, it went down the first year but then trended up, people found other ways to kill. 

We have had massive immigration since the 60's and the number of people opposing a gun ban has risen. So far your idea doesn't match the evidence that has been compiled.

Why don't you want to cure the problem? All you want to do is fix the symptom of a much bigger issue in this country.


----------



## rshermn

Cecilie1200 said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's called the Common sense approach.  You do what you must do to make a common sense change.  Some things are beyond your control but others are within your control so you change what you can and don't waste your time in the areas that you can't change.  So your "Hey, Look Over There" routine isn't too common sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The common sense approach is why have we had gun shootings in schools only within the last 23 years? We have had guns for a lot longer than that, yet the school shootings are now increasing in frequency. The shootings are the symptoms of a much bigger issue and banning guns like Issa wants, will not change anything, the problem will still be there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is not just school shootings my friend, Americans have been shooting each other since day one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, this is a symptom and you don't want to address it, that's fine but until you cure the disease will persist, gun or no gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guns....people here when they lose it, they pick a gun and shoot. Other societies where guns are within reach, they fight, they use non lethal stuff till they cool down, arrested or stopped. Some rough areas I've been to overseas, fights left and right and there was always a saying if it guns were available like in the US lot of people would lose their lives.
> Banning guns for sure it was stop all murders, but it will lower it dramatically, ther will be less mass shootings if any.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, in other societies they just use a different lethal weapon.  I'm really over your pretense that gun-banning societies don't have mass murders.  Lie to yourself, if you want, but don't expect anyone else to believe you.
Click to expand...


Really, me girl. What mass shootings are you talking about?  Want to try Australia?  How about Japan?  France?  The UK?  Germany?  Sweden? Italy?  
Are you suggesting they are useing knives, me girl.  Cause if so, you loose.  Shoes?  Volcanoes?  Perhaps you should back up your claims with some proof.  Or do you think we should simply believe you.  Though we seldom actually believe dipshits. Which tends to leave you out.
There are those who need and love assault rifles, and consider them their right to own.  Like you.  And there are the rest of us, who value the lives of people.  Like the people of the other 35 advanced nations of the world.  
No one needs an assault rifle.  Just as no one needs an F16.  Both should be outlawed for the good of our children.


----------



## rshermn

Papageorgio said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will...demographics are changing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct they over the last 59 years the idea of banning guns is more unlikely than likely as the numbers are trending against banning guns altogether.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Things will change, the fabric of America will change. It's a small world and rapidly changing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good luck with your delusional belief that EVENTUALLY, you're going to convince the majority of Americans that they really don't want all that troublesome freedom.
> 
> Oh, wait, I forgot.  Your plan is to overwhelm actual Americans with an invasion of illegal immigrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You gotta respect the will of the majority....as for now there is nothing one can do. But there will come time, where the 2nd amendment will be abolished I can assure you of that.
> Your life doesn't depend on a gun, you can live without it....this isn't the wild wide west era.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are correct there and that is why we as a nation will not ban guns.
Click to expand...


You may want to stop being so paranoid.  I have a pretty good idea I own more guns than you.  And I am absolutely confident that none of the guns I own will be outlawed.  You see, I have hunting guns.  Not human killing guns.  
In my humble but correct opinion, assault weapons are not needed or usfull for hunting, as compared to the alternatives.


----------



## P@triot

Issa said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I want American kids to grow up safe like I did in a gun free country.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...your country was SO great you promptly ran to the U.S. and made this your home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who told you i left for good?
Click to expand...

The fact that you left at all tells me _everything_ I need to know. I’ve never left the U.S. (even temporarily) and I never will.


----------



## P@triot

Cecilie1200 said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who told you i left for good?
> 
> 
> 
> If you're going back, could you please get on with it already?  Fucking tourists.
Click to expand...


----------



## P@triot

Papageorgio said:


> So in Britain they removed the guns and the murder rate went up, how does that make us safer? The same happened in Australia, it went down the first year but then trended up, people found other ways to kill.


Please refrain from using *facts* while speaking with progressives. They refer irrational emotions, thank you.


----------



## P@triot

Daryl Hunt said:


> We change what we can change.


And therein lies the problem. You radical left-wingers have been unable to get the U.S. Constitution legally and properly changed so you resort to highly illegal methods.


----------



## P@triot

Daryl Hunt said:


> Can  you imagine how much you are going to scream when they outlaw you driving your car?  That's not that far into the future.


Not nearly as much as you have screamed about the U.S. electing President Trump and restoring constitutional government. By the way...my vehicle cannot drive itself. Therefore, there is absolutely no scenario where they “outlaw” driving snowflake. None.


----------



## P@triot

Daryl Hunt said:


> Even one person murdered in anger is wrong.


Even one violation of the U.S. Constitution is far worse. Millions died for our U.S. Constitution. Violating it means that they died for absolutely nothing. It’s an unimaginable atrocity to make their sacrifice for nothing.


----------



## P@triot

Daryl Hunt said:


> And we need to approach the Mass Shootings the same way.  We need to fix what we can fix even if it's just to minimize the body count.


Sadly, your profoundly ignorant progressive “fix” continues to _increase_ the body count.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results each time. You people have banned, outlawed, regulated, legislated, and restricted your way to more dead children. Left-wing policy _always_ ends in *failure* because it is built on ignorance and emotion.


----------



## Cecilie1200

rshermn said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> The common sense approach is why have we had gun shootings in schools only within the last 23 years? We have had guns for a lot longer than that, yet the school shootings are now increasing in frequency. The shootings are the symptoms of a much bigger issue and banning guns like Issa wants, will not change anything, the problem will still be there.
> 
> 
> 
> Is not just school shootings my friend, Americans have been shooting each other since day one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, this is a symptom and you don't want to address it, that's fine but until you cure the disease will persist, gun or no gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guns....people here when they lose it, they pick a gun and shoot. Other societies where guns are within reach, they fight, they use non lethal stuff till they cool down, arrested or stopped. Some rough areas I've been to overseas, fights left and right and there was always a saying if it guns were available like in the US lot of people would lose their lives.
> Banning guns for sure it was stop all murders, but it will lower it dramatically, ther will be less mass shootings if any.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, in other societies they just use a different lethal weapon.  I'm really over your pretense that gun-banning societies don't have mass murders.  Lie to yourself, if you want, but don't expect anyone else to believe you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really, me girl. What mass shootings are you talking about?  Want to try Australia?  How about Japan?  France?  The UK?  Germany?  Sweden? Italy?
> Are you suggesting they are useing knives, me girl.  Cause if so, you loose.  Shoes?  Volcanoes?  Perhaps you should back up your claims with some proof.  Or do you think we should simply believe you.  Though we seldom actually believe dipshits. Which tends to leave you out.
> There are those who need and love assault rifles, and consider them their right to own.  Like you.  And there are the rest of us, who value the lives of people.  Like the people of the other 35 advanced nations of the world.
> No one needs an assault rifle.  Just as no one needs an F16.  Both should be outlawed for the good of our children.
Click to expand...


1)  I said "mass killings", not "mass shootings".  Don't fucking try that goalpost-moving bullshit on me.

2)  THESE would be the mass killings I'm talking about.

Monash University shooting - Wikipedia

A History of Mass Killings in Japan

Paris massacre: At least 128 die in attacks - CNN

Cumbria shootings - Wikipedia

2016 Munich shooting - Wikipedia

2 killed, about dozen wounded in Swedish restaurant shooting

Italian male nurse shoots four people dead, including his brother and sister-in-law, during shotgun rampage in mafia-infested Naples after 'row over a clothes line'  | Daily Mail Online

Some use knives, some STILL use guns, some use bombs, or cars, or fire.  It's almost like the problem is violent humans, not the tools used.

3)  I don't require anyone to simply believe me.  To the contrary, I encourage you to actually research the subject, rather than just taking the media's word for it.  Talk about believing dipshits.

4)  No one asked you what you think anyone "needs".  And only idiots like you think disarming law-abiding citizens is "for the good" of anyone.


----------



## P@triot

Cecilie1200 said:


> No, the lead cause of mass murder is the same as it's always been:  humans.


Ban them! It’s time to ban humans!

The sad part is that the left literally advocates for that. Aside from their _obsession_ with pushing abortion, I’ve actually heard lefties literally advocate for the extinction of the human race to “save” the earth. Think about the insanity of that. What purpose does the earth serve if not to support human life?


----------



## Hugo Furst

rshermn said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct they over the last 59 years the idea of banning guns is more unlikely than likely as the numbers are trending against banning guns altogether.
> 
> 
> 
> Things will change, the fabric of America will change. It's a small world and rapidly changing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good luck with your delusional belief that EVENTUALLY, you're going to convince the majority of Americans that they really don't want all that troublesome freedom.
> 
> Oh, wait, I forgot.  Your plan is to overwhelm actual Americans with an invasion of illegal immigrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You gotta respect the will of the majority....as for now there is nothing one can do. But there will come time, where the 2nd amendment will be abolished I can assure you of that.
> Your life doesn't depend on a gun, you can live without it....this isn't the wild wide west era.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are correct there and that is why we as a nation will not ban guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You may want to stop being so paranoid.  I have a pretty good idea I own more guns than you.  And I am absolutely confident that none of the guns I own will be outlawed.  You see, I have hunting guns.  Not human killing guns.
> In my humble but correct opinion, assault weapons are not needed or usfull for hunting, as compared to the alternatives.
Click to expand...




rshermn said:


> You see, I have hunting guns. Not human killing guns.



Never seen someone so completely shove his foot into his mouth


----------



## Papageorgio

rshermn said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct they over the last 59 years the idea of banning guns is more unlikely than likely as the numbers are trending against banning guns altogether.
> 
> 
> 
> Things will change, the fabric of America will change. It's a small world and rapidly changing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good luck with your delusional belief that EVENTUALLY, you're going to convince the majority of Americans that they really don't want all that troublesome freedom.
> 
> Oh, wait, I forgot.  Your plan is to overwhelm actual Americans with an invasion of illegal immigrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You gotta respect the will of the majority....as for now there is nothing one can do. But there will come time, where the 2nd amendment will be abolished I can assure you of that.
> Your life doesn't depend on a gun, you can live without it....this isn't the wild wide west era.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are correct there and that is why we as a nation will not ban guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You may want to stop being so paranoid.  I have a pretty good idea I own more guns than you.  And I am absolutely confident that none of the guns I own will be outlawed.  You see, I have hunting guns.  Not human killing guns.
> In my humble but correct opinion, assault weapons are not needed or usfull for hunting, as compared to the alternatives.
Click to expand...


How am I paranoid? I have no issue with you having guns. I have no doubt that you also have more guns than I do because I don’t own a gun and don’t plan on it.

Repealing the 2nd Amendment will never happen as Issa is claiming it will.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Daryl Hunt said:


> [
> 
> Yet it's done by individuals that set up their own booth.  And don't tell me it isn't done.



Didn't one of your little hate shits like Colbert or Madcow, or some other evil Marxist fuck try and do a "sting" at a gun show, but couldn't get anyone to sell them a gun?

Yeah, think I'll look that up, it was funny as hell.

One of the major lies of the anti-civil rights movement blew up in their face...


----------



## Rigby5

It is silly to restrict firearms at all because not only do you depend on guns to defend you from gangs, mafia, psychos, rapists, etc., but you depend on guns to defend you from foreign threats as well.
But the problem is that if you don't want to have to be responsible for actually doing it yourself,  you prefer to make others do it, even though by irresponsibly evading your personal duty, you risk this country being turned into a police state by corrupt politicians.

Clearly the founders instead wanted each and every able bodied person to do their part in defense, so that no corrupt mercenary police force or military could ever threaten our democratic republic.  And you would throw that all away.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

Daryl Hunt said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's kind of like watching a nuclear explosion in slow motion. If one were to explode outside D.C. in real time it would be a shock to say the least. But if it was happening in slow motion, say, slowed down 100 times, people wouldn't see the problem for what it is and would probably say "Look at the pretty mushroom cloud."
> 
> As horrifying and shocking as these mass shootings are, people are dying in much greater numbers in slow motion on the highways and by heart disease and cancer and other things.
> 
> People, by nature, are narrow minded and short sighted and act on emotions and nowhere is that more evident today than in our young people and a lot of those on the left of the political spectrum. If not one person died in a motor vehicle accident this year but you had the same number of people die in a bombing or a mass shooting (about 40,000), the whole country would go apeshit and gun control advocates would storm the Capital building and hold Congress hostage until they banned guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We change what we can change.  We have done quite a bit to slow down traffic deaths and more is on the way.  Can  you imagine how much you are going to scream when they outlaw you driving your car?  That's not that far into the future.  That may bring traffic deaths to zero but it's not going to be painless.
> 
> And we need to approach the Mass Shootings the same way.  We need to fix what we can fix even if it's just to minimize the body count.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point was not to show that traffic fatalities are higher, my point was to illustrate how people are shocked and react emotionally when a lot of people die all at once. If there were mass shootings across the country tomorrow and 40,000 people were killed, you can bet that they would ban firearms the next day. At the very least, there would be an immediate temporary ban. But because 40,000 people die in slow motion throughout the year on the highways and out of our sight and mind for the most part, nobody gives it a second thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your point is to try and make us look at something we can't currently change so that we won't look at something we CAN currently change.  Simple as that.  "Hey, Look Over There".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course we can change it. You just told me yourself that "_We have done quite a bit to slow down traffic deaths and more is on the way_."
> 
> Like I told Derp, it is not my intention to divert the focus or direction of the conversation. My intention is to show how gun control advocates, while ostensibly proposing a solution to reduce deaths, get emotional and fired up over 17 deaths by firearms but have nothing to say about the 40,000 deaths by motor vehicle accidents every year.
> 
> When it comes to human fatalities, people can be highly subjective about which manner of death to address. To the point that it becomes clear before long that it's not so much the _number_ of deaths that they're concerned about, but rather the _manner_ of the deaths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even one person murdered in anger is wrong.
Click to expand...


You're absolutely right. But even one dead person due to someone else's negligence and recklessness on the highway is wrong.

According to iihs.org (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety) which gets its numbers from the U.S. Department of Transportation's FARS (Fatality Analysis System) Report, there were a total of 37,461 highway fatalities in 2016. Of these, there were a total of 723 fatalities of children 12 years and younger. Of these, 228 were not wearing seatbelts or were otherwise unrestrained. And these numbers do not even include the number of fatalities of children 12 years and younger who were killed by vehicles as pedestrians and while riding bicycles (195 and 34, respectively).

Speaking strictly in terms of numbers, I would say that this is the greater tragedy. Especially when you consider the ones that were not restrained, in spite of the law. This is gross criminal negligence on the part of the drivers. They may as well have shot the kids with an AR-15 before leaving the house.


----------



## oreo

Cecilie1200 said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lastamender said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Drowning is an accident, picking a gun and killing is not. Apples and oranges here.
> 
> 
> 
> Picking up a brick can accomplish the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you mass kill with a brick?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> You can commit mass  murder with a can of gasoline, a car, a truck, a truck with a snow plow would be very effective you can commit mass murder with a knife, and yes a gun and probably a hundred other things
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The lead cause of mass murder now are guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the lead cause of mass murder is the same as it's always been:  humans.
Click to expand...


True but you don't hand over weapons of mass destruction to do it. We can't fix how someone grew up, what their inter thoughts & beliefs are but we sure as hell can stop them from acquiring weapons that can kill hundred's within minutes.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Cecilie1200 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Ugly Truth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Ugly Truth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gun violence can only be dealt with by dealing with those who commit it. Most gun violence is the result of repeat offenders. Over 500,000 crimes a year, in the U.S., are the result of repeat offenders. And there are nowhere that many committing those crimes. Deal with them, and you deal with the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once more, you are using the "Hey, Look Over There" routine.  The Mass Shooters usually don't have any criminal records at all.  And that is what we should be dealing with.  What can we do to either stop or minimize the body count in these shooting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mass shootings are responsible for a very small percentage of deaths. They are just a drop in the bucket. Most gun crime is the result of repeat offenders. That's the ugly truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's kind of like watching a nuclear explosion in slow motion. If one were to explode outside D.C. in real time it would be a shock to say the least. But if it was happening in slow motion, say, slowed down 100 times, people wouldn't see the problem for what it is and would probably say "Look at the pretty mushroom cloud."
> 
> As horrifying and shocking as these mass shootings are, people are dying in much greater numbers in slow motion on the highways and by heart disease and cancer and other things.
> 
> People, by nature, are narrow minded and short sighted and act on emotions and nowhere is that more evident today than in our young people and a lot of those on the left of the political spectrum. If not one person died in a motor vehicle accident this year but you had the same number of people die in a bombing or a mass shooting (about 40,000), the whole country would go apeshit and gun control advocates would storm the Capital building and hold Congress hostage until they banned guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We change what we can change.  We have done quite a bit to slow down traffic deaths and more is on the way.  Can  you imagine how much you are going to scream when they outlaw you driving your car?  That's not that far into the future.  That may bring traffic deaths to zero but it's not going to be painless.
> 
> And we need to approach the Mass Shootings the same way.  We need to fix what we can fix even if it's just to minimize the body count.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And outlawing cars for people who are careful, responsible drivers simply because there are people who are not is just as stupid as outlawing guns for people who are careful, responsible gun owners simply because there are lunatics.
Click to expand...


And exactly where have I indicated where I proposed outlawing cars or firearms for that reason?  You GunCrazies will say anything.  You are not better than the Gungrabbers.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Cecilie1200 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> We change what we can change.  We have done quite a bit to slow down traffic deaths and more is on the way.  Can  you imagine how much you are going to scream when they outlaw you driving your car?  That's not that far into the future.  That may bring traffic deaths to zero but it's not going to be painless.
> 
> And we need to approach the Mass Shootings the same way.  We need to fix what we can fix even if it's just to minimize the body count.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My point was not to show that traffic fatalities are higher, my point was to illustrate how people are shocked and react emotionally when a lot of people die all at once. If there were mass shootings across the country tomorrow and 40,000 people were killed, you can bet that they would ban firearms the next day. At the very least, there would be an immediate temporary ban. But because 40,000 people die in slow motion throughout the year on the highways and out of our sight and mind for the most part, nobody gives it a second thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your point is to try and make us look at something we can't currently change so that we won't look at something we CAN currently change.  Simple as that.  "Hey, Look Over There".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course we can change it. You just told me yourself that "_We have done quite a bit to slow down traffic deaths and more is on the way_."
> 
> Like I told Derp, it is not my intention to divert the focus or direction of the conversation. My intention is to show how gun control advocates, while ostensibly proposing a solution to reduce deaths, get emotional and fired up over 17 deaths by firearms but have nothing to say about the 40,000 deaths by motor vehicle accidents every year.
> 
> When it comes to human fatalities, people can be highly subjective about which manner of death to address. To the point that it becomes clear before long that it's not so much the _number_ of deaths that they're concerned about, but rather the _manner_ of the deaths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even one person murdered in anger is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, but murder has been part of human history for as long as there have been humans, so if your goal is to eliminate all murder, you're defeated at the outset, and everything you do is going to be wrong, as well.
Click to expand...


when you can minimize the body count you MUST do it.  To totally ignore that factor makes you as guilty as the person pulling the trigger.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we need to approach the Mass Shootings the same way.  We need to fix what we can fix even if it's just to minimize the body count.
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, your profoundly ignorant progressive “fix” continues to _increase_ the body count.
> 
> The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results each time. You people have banned, outlawed, regulated, legislated, and restricted your way to more dead children. Left-wing policy _always_ ends in *failure* because it is built on ignorance and emotion.
Click to expand...


You keep spewing the same thing and we keep doing what you demand.  Looks to me like that is the definition of stupid.  Some of us are trying to introduce common sense.


----------



## asaratis

Daryl Hunt said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> My point was not to show that traffic fatalities are higher, my point was to illustrate how people are shocked and react emotionally when a lot of people die all at once. If there were mass shootings across the country tomorrow and 40,000 people were killed, you can bet that they would ban firearms the next day. At the very least, there would be an immediate temporary ban. But because 40,000 people die in slow motion throughout the year on the highways and out of our sight and mind for the most part, nobody gives it a second thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your point is to try and make us look at something we can't currently change so that we won't look at something we CAN currently change.  Simple as that.  "Hey, Look Over There".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course we can change it. You just told me yourself that "_We have done quite a bit to slow down traffic deaths and more is on the way_."
> 
> Like I told Derp, it is not my intention to divert the focus or direction of the conversation. My intention is to show how gun control advocates, while ostensibly proposing a solution to reduce deaths, get emotional and fired up over 17 deaths by firearms but have nothing to say about the 40,000 deaths by motor vehicle accidents every year.
> 
> When it comes to human fatalities, people can be highly subjective about which manner of death to address. To the point that it becomes clear before long that it's not so much the _number_ of deaths that they're concerned about, but rather the _manner_ of the deaths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even one person murdered in anger is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, but murder has been part of human history for as long as there have been humans, so if your goal is to eliminate all murder, you're defeated at the outset, and everything you do is going to be wrong, as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> when you can minimize the body count you MUST do it.  To totally ignore that factor makes you as guilty as the person pulling the trigger.
Click to expand...

The body count was minimized in the Texas church shooting when a citizen with a rifle wounded the chickenshit shooter and caused him to vacate the scene.

This is diametrically opposed the actions of the chickenshit deputies that refused to confront the crazed shooter in Broward County Florida.


----------



## asaratis

Daryl Hunt said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we need to approach the Mass Shootings the same way.  We need to fix what we can fix even if it's just to minimize the body count.
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, your profoundly ignorant progressive “fix” continues to _increase_ the body count.
> 
> The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results each time. You people have banned, outlawed, regulated, legislated, and restricted your way to more dead children. Left-wing policy _always_ ends in *failure* because it is built on ignorance and emotion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep spewing the same thing and we keep doing what you demand.  Looks to me like that is the definition of stupid.  Some of us are trying to introduce common sense.
Click to expand...

Common sense includes shooting back at the shooter...and preventing crazy bastards from obtaining guns.  It definitely does not include disarming the law abiding American public.  In the latter case, only criminals and the police would have guns.  As demonstrated by the chickenshit deputies in Broward County, the police having guns on site sometimes means NOTHING!


----------



## P@triot

Daryl Hunt said:


> Some of us are trying to introduce common sense.


You did that already. You banned firearms on school grounds. How did that work out?


----------



## Daryl Hunt

asaratis said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your point is to try and make us look at something we can't currently change so that we won't look at something we CAN currently change.  Simple as that.  "Hey, Look Over There".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course we can change it. You just told me yourself that "_We have done quite a bit to slow down traffic deaths and more is on the way_."
> 
> Like I told Derp, it is not my intention to divert the focus or direction of the conversation. My intention is to show how gun control advocates, while ostensibly proposing a solution to reduce deaths, get emotional and fired up over 17 deaths by firearms but have nothing to say about the 40,000 deaths by motor vehicle accidents every year.
> 
> When it comes to human fatalities, people can be highly subjective about which manner of death to address. To the point that it becomes clear before long that it's not so much the _number_ of deaths that they're concerned about, but rather the _manner_ of the deaths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even one person murdered in anger is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, but murder has been part of human history for as long as there have been humans, so if your goal is to eliminate all murder, you're defeated at the outset, and everything you do is going to be wrong, as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> when you can minimize the body count you MUST do it.  To totally ignore that factor makes you as guilty as the person pulling the trigger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The body count was minimized in the Texas church shooting when a citizen with a rifle wounded the chickenshit shooter and caused him to vacate the scene.
> 
> This is diametrically opposed the actions of the chickenshit deputies that refused to confront the crazed shooter in Broward County Florida.
Click to expand...


Are you aware just how rare that behavior is?  Even the Cops have to continually train to keep their ability to react properly.  There are functions of the body that get in the way even if  you are well armed.  Normal People have it built into us.


----------



## P@triot

Daryl Hunt said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we need to approach the Mass Shootings the same way.  We need to fix what we can fix even if it's just to minimize the body count.
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, your profoundly ignorant progressive “fix” continues to _increase_ the body count.
> 
> The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results each time. You people have banned, outlawed, regulated, legislated, and restricted your way to more dead children. Left-wing policy _always_ ends in *failure* because it is built on ignorance and emotion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep spewing the same thing and we keep doing what you demand.
Click to expand...

It speaks volumes that you have to resort to lying. You’ve *never* done what conservatives advocate. Never.

Allow all permit holders to carry concealed on schools grounds (including teachers). Have armed security on site. Guarantee you’ll never see a mass shooting again.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of us are trying to introduce common sense.
> 
> 
> 
> You did that already. You banned firearms on school grounds. How did that work out?
Click to expand...


And you undid it when you didn't follow the four points I suggested.  You made killing fields all over the place.  And it wouldn't matter if the Teachers were armed or not.  The Teachers would just become the first fatalities.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we need to approach the Mass Shootings the same way.  We need to fix what we can fix even if it's just to minimize the body count.
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, your profoundly ignorant progressive “fix” continues to _increase_ the body count.
> 
> The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results each time. You people have banned, outlawed, regulated, legislated, and restricted your way to more dead children. Left-wing policy _always_ ends in *failure* because it is built on ignorance and emotion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep spewing the same thing and we keep doing what you demand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It speaks volumes that you have to resort to lying. You’ve *never* done what conservatives advocate. Never.
> 
> Allow all permit holders to carry concealed on schools grounds (including teachers). Have armed security on site. Guarantee you’ll never see a mass shooting again.
Click to expand...


Until the Bad Guy realizes that the armed teacher is more a liability than an asset and an easy target.  You really think "Call to Arms" is like real life?


----------



## P@triot

Daryl Hunt said:


> Are you aware just how rare that behavior is?  Even the Cops have to continually train to keep their ability to react properly.


Are you aware of how astoundingly ignorant _every_ post you make is? Here is an average elderly man with a concealed carry permit responding. He doesn’t train with the Navy Seals. He’s an ordinary citizen responding like millions of ordinary citizens do every year...

Florida man who shot suspects during Internet cafe robbery will not face charges


----------



## P@triot

Daryl Hunt said:


> Until the Bad Guy realizes that the armed teacher is more a liability than an asset and an easy target.  You really think "Call to Arms" is like real life?


Oh snowflake....this isn’t Hollywood. Sociopaths aren’t looking for a shootout. They are looking for unarmed victims. They won’t even show up if they know teacher are armed (much less specifically seek them out).

You continue to spout nothing but pure nonsense. Nobody is taking you seriously because you post stupid shit like this.


----------



## Rigby5

oreo said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lastamender said:
> 
> 
> 
> Picking up a brick can accomplish the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you mass kill with a brick?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> You can commit mass  murder with a can of gasoline, a car, a truck, a truck with a snow plow would be very effective you can commit mass murder with a knife, and yes a gun and probably a hundred other things
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The lead cause of mass murder now are guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the lead cause of mass murder is the same as it's always been:  humans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True but you don't hand over weapons of mass destruction to do it. We can't fix how someone grew up, what their inter thoughts & beliefs are but we sure as hell can stop them from acquiring weapons that can kill hundred's within minutes.
Click to expand...


NO, you can NOT at all stop them from acquiring weapons that can kill hundreds within minutes!
Are you so ill informed that you think an AR can shoot any faster than any firearm?
It is single shot, in that you have to pull the trigger each time, just like any firearm.
And the reality is that if Cruz had chosen a shotgun, he could easily have killed twice as many, because you can kill 2 or 3 with each individual shot. 
And if you made rifles and shotguns illegal, then Cruz could have used 2 pistols at once, and likely killed 4 times as many as he did.

What you are suggesting is attempting to turn back the clock, putting the genie back in the bottle, like pretending nuclear weapons don't actually exist.
It can't be done, it would ruin the republic to try, and it is just insane.
You should be glad Cruz just did not do something like arson or a gas explosion, which could have wiped out the majority of the students.

Obviously what you should be doing in stead is preventing the bullying that caused the harm in the first place, or ensuring schools have better quality guards.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Daryl Hunt said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> My point was not to show that traffic fatalities are higher, my point was to illustrate how people are shocked and react emotionally when a lot of people die all at once. If there were mass shootings across the country tomorrow and 40,000 people were killed, you can bet that they would ban firearms the next day. At the very least, there would be an immediate temporary ban. But because 40,000 people die in slow motion throughout the year on the highways and out of our sight and mind for the most part, nobody gives it a second thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your point is to try and make us look at something we can't currently change so that we won't look at something we CAN currently change.  Simple as that.  "Hey, Look Over There".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course we can change it. You just told me yourself that "_We have done quite a bit to slow down traffic deaths and more is on the way_."
> 
> Like I told Derp, it is not my intention to divert the focus or direction of the conversation. My intention is to show how gun control advocates, while ostensibly proposing a solution to reduce deaths, get emotional and fired up over 17 deaths by firearms but have nothing to say about the 40,000 deaths by motor vehicle accidents every year.
> 
> When it comes to human fatalities, people can be highly subjective about which manner of death to address. To the point that it becomes clear before long that it's not so much the _number_ of deaths that they're concerned about, but rather the _manner_ of the deaths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even one person murdered in anger is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, but murder has been part of human history for as long as there have been humans, so if your goal is to eliminate all murder, you're defeated at the outset, and everything you do is going to be wrong, as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> when you can minimize the body count you MUST do it.  To totally ignore that factor makes you as guilty as the person pulling the trigger.
Click to expand...


Well, perhaps when you get done dodging serious discussions of practical solutions in order to keep screaming slogans, you'll get around to proposing something that will ACTUALLY save lives.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Daryl Hunt said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we need to approach the Mass Shootings the same way.  We need to fix what we can fix even if it's just to minimize the body count.
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, your profoundly ignorant progressive “fix” continues to _increase_ the body count.
> 
> The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results each time. You people have banned, outlawed, regulated, legislated, and restricted your way to more dead children. Left-wing policy _always_ ends in *failure* because it is built on ignorance and emotion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep spewing the same thing and we keep doing what you demand.  Looks to me like that is the definition of stupid.  Some of us are trying to introduce common sense.
Click to expand...


At what point have you EVER done anything we've asked?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Daryl Hunt said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of us are trying to introduce common sense.
> 
> 
> 
> You did that already. You banned firearms on school grounds. How did that work out?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you undid it when you didn't follow the four points I suggested.  You made killing fields all over the place.  And it wouldn't matter if the Teachers were armed or not.  The Teachers would just become the first fatalities.
Click to expand...


And they are already, so . . .


----------



## Cecilie1200

Daryl Hunt said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we need to approach the Mass Shootings the same way.  We need to fix what we can fix even if it's just to minimize the body count.
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, your profoundly ignorant progressive “fix” continues to _increase_ the body count.
> 
> The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results each time. You people have banned, outlawed, regulated, legislated, and restricted your way to more dead children. Left-wing policy _always_ ends in *failure* because it is built on ignorance and emotion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep spewing the same thing and we keep doing what you demand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It speaks volumes that you have to resort to lying. You’ve *never* done what conservatives advocate. Never.
> 
> Allow all permit holders to carry concealed on schools grounds (including teachers). Have armed security on site. Guarantee you’ll never see a mass shooting again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Until the Bad Guy realizes that the armed teacher is more a liability than an asset and an easy target.  You really think "Call to Arms" is like real life?
Click to expand...


Only a leftist would think being armed makes someone an "easy target".


----------



## oreo

Rigby5 said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you mass kill with a brick?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> You can commit mass  murder with a can of gasoline, a car, a truck, a truck with a snow plow would be very effective you can commit mass murder with a knife, and yes a gun and probably a hundred other things
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The lead cause of mass murder now are guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the lead cause of mass murder is the same as it's always been:  humans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True but you don't hand over weapons of mass destruction to do it. We can't fix how someone grew up, what their inter thoughts & beliefs are but we sure as hell can stop them from acquiring weapons that can kill hundred's within minutes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO, you can NOT at all stop them from acquiring weapons that can kill hundreds within minutes!
> Are you so ill informed that you think an AR can shoot any faster than any firearm?
> It is single shot, in that you have to pull the trigger each time, just like any firearm.
> And the reality is that if Cruz had chosen a shotgun, he could easily have killed twice as many, because you can kill 2 or 3 with each individual shot.
> And if you made rifles and shotguns illegal, then Cruz could have used 2 pistols at once, and likely killed 4 times as many as he did.
> 
> What you are suggesting is attempting to turn back the clock, putting the genie back in the bottle, like pretending nuclear weapons don't actually exist.
> It can't be done, it would ruin the republic to try, and it is just insane.
> You should be glad Cruz just did not do something like arson or a gas explosion, which could have wiped out the majority of the students.
> 
> Obviously what you should be doing in stead is preventing the bullying that caused the harm in the first place, or ensuring schools have better quality guards.
Click to expand...



Yeah you can stop the crazies & terrorists from walking into gun stores and buying weapons.  The genie is going back in the bottle on January 19, 2019 when Democrats take over both houses.


----------



## Silhouette

Stephen Colbert's worst nightmare...







Oh, wait....dyslexia...wrong thread...


----------



## P@triot

oreo said:


> The genie is going back in the bottle on January 19, 2019 when Democrats take over both houses.


This coming from the progressive twit who predicted a Hitlery Clinton "landslide" election. 

I love listening to progressives attempt to *self-soothe* by trying to talk _themselves_ into the idea that they will get fascists elected to tear down the U.S. Constitution.


----------



## P@triot

Daryl Hunt said:


> when you can minimize the body count you MUST do it.  To totally ignore that factor makes you as guilty as the person pulling the trigger.


So you admit that you are as guilty as the people who have pulled the trigger? Good. I agree with you for once. You absolutely are as guilty as those who pulled the trigger. You’re the jerk who banned firearms from school grounds - creating *victim* *zones*.

Shame on you. You’re a disgrace to the U.S. and you cost many people their children.


----------



## P@triot

Daryl Hunt said:


> Are you aware just how rare that behavior is?  Even the Cops have to continually train to keep their ability to react properly.


Once again...indisputable proof that everything DH says is 100% bullshit. You literally make stuff up _every_ time you post. You should be ashamed. These are two ordinary women with no special training. They prevented a crime, they protected themselves, and they put the thug in the hospital. No training required.

GRAPHIC VIDEO: Liquor store clerks shoot armed robbery suspect, fight over gun


----------



## asaratis

Daryl Hunt said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course we can change it. You just told me yourself that "_We have done quite a bit to slow down traffic deaths and more is on the way_."
> 
> Like I told Derp, it is not my intention to divert the focus or direction of the conversation. My intention is to show how gun control advocates, while ostensibly proposing a solution to reduce deaths, get emotional and fired up over 17 deaths by firearms but have nothing to say about the 40,000 deaths by motor vehicle accidents every year.
> 
> When it comes to human fatalities, people can be highly subjective about which manner of death to address. To the point that it becomes clear before long that it's not so much the _number_ of deaths that they're concerned about, but rather the _manner_ of the deaths.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even one person murdered in anger is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, but murder has been part of human history for as long as there have been humans, so if your goal is to eliminate all murder, you're defeated at the outset, and everything you do is going to be wrong, as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> when you can minimize the body count you MUST do it.  To totally ignore that factor makes you as guilty as the person pulling the trigger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The body count was minimized in the Texas church shooting when a citizen with a rifle wounded the chickenshit shooter and caused him to vacate the scene.
> 
> This is diametrically opposed the actions of the chickenshit deputies that refused to confront the crazed shooter in Broward County Florida.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you aware just how rare that behavior is?  Even the Cops have to continually train to keep their ability to react properly.  There are functions of the body that get in the way even if  you are well armed.  Normal People have it built into us.
Click to expand...

Such chickenshit assholes should not be assigned to protect children and teachers in schools.


----------



## Issa

Cecilie1200 said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you mass kill with a brick?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you have lots and lots of bricks and either shoot them from cannons or drop them from bombers.   Much like a small bullet can't kill without the gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I swear sometimes I just I can most gun lovers overseas and show thrm how it's possible to live without guns, and prevent mass killings. The US looks like it's in constant war...thousands die from gun violence...what a shame for this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen how "it's possible to live without guns".  As I recall, it resulted in being assaulted by a guy who was a budding serial killer, and convinced me that being unarmed was a stupid idea for a woman in a world of men who can overpower me.
> 
> So what've you got to top that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you walk around with your pistol at all times? you take a shower with it? you drive around with it in parking lots? you sleep with it? if Anything would happen to you, you won't have time to react. And by the way the US has 300 millions weapons or so available and guess what we have one of the highest numbers of rape per capita. Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would I shower with it?  Only a dumbass puts a gun in water.
> 
> And "You wouldn't have time to react" is the stupidest argument I've heard so far this week.  Maybe I would, maybe I wouldn't, but I'd have a damn sight better chance than I would with my bare hands.  Moron.
> 
> Highest number of rapes per capita?  Off the top of my head, I'm going to say that has a lot more to do with the millions of penises in the US, not guns.  Would you like to ban THOSE next?
Click to expand...

Ok wonder woman...calm down.


----------



## Issa

Cecilie1200 said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will...demographics are changing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct they over the last 59 years the idea of banning guns is more unlikely than likely as the numbers are trending against banning guns altogether.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Things will change, the fabric of America will change. It's a small world and rapidly changing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good luck with your delusional belief that EVENTUALLY, you're going to convince the majority of Americans that they really don't want all that troublesome freedom.
> 
> Oh, wait, I forgot.  Your plan is to overwhelm actual Americans with an invasion of illegal immigrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You gotta respect the will of the majority....as for now there is nothing one can do. But there will come time, where the 2nd amendment will be abolished I can assure you of that.
> Your life doesn't depend on a gun, you can live without it....this isn't the wild wide west era.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given that YOU are the one pushing for something the majority keeps telling you it doesn't want, I'd say ONE of us needs to respect their will, anyway.
> 
> And no, "there is nothing one can do" is the song of someone whose major agenda is to have more deaths with which to panic people into subjugation, rather than protecting people from harm.  There are lots of things we can do, and you're obviously just going to sit there arguing with all of it and making excuses why we have to give you your way.
Click to expand...

Look.
I've lived in a gun free society and I live in a an infested gun violence society. The difference is the availability of guns if we ban them....We will see a decrease of gun deaths....simple.
You are keeping guns now, but if the majority's will shifts to banning and abolishing the second you have to comply.


----------



## Issa

Cecilie1200 said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will...demographics are changing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct they over the last 59 years the idea of banning guns is more unlikely than likely as the numbers are trending against banning guns altogether.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Things will change, the fabric of America will change. It's a small world and rapidly changing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good luck with your delusional belief that EVENTUALLY, you're going to convince the majority of Americans that they really don't want all that troublesome freedom.
> 
> Oh, wait, I forgot.  Your plan is to overwhelm actual Americans with an invasion of illegal immigrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And by the way if it wasn't for migration I don't think you would be here....millions of natives wouldn't be massacred, and millions of blacks wouldn't being enslaved. And thousands of Americans wouldn't have to die from gun violence every year....Just imagine if your ancestor from a country like Austria, Belgium or any other country where gun violence is very minimal and kids don't get massacred in schools, where they should be learning and having fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blah blah blah.  Yes, my ancestors immigrated here hundreds of years ago.  Unlike you, THEY actually liked what America was and what it stood for, and they wanted to become part of it, rather than wanting to sneer at it and immediately start changing it to mirror the place they left.  But then, my ancestors were a lot smarter than you are.
Click to expand...

Hundreds of years ago? Pleaaaase.


----------



## Issa

Cecilie1200 said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I want American kids to grow up safe like I did in a gun free country.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...your country was SO great you promptly ran to the U.S. and made this your home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who told you i left for good?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're going back, could you please get on with it already?  Fucking tourists.
Click to expand...

Nope I'm American I can stay when I want to and leave when I want to. Heck I'll come just to vote and go back


----------



## Issa

Papageorgio said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's called the Common sense approach.  You do what you must do to make a common sense change.  Some things are beyond your control but others are within your control so you change what you can and don't waste your time in the areas that you can't change.  So your "Hey, Look Over There" routine isn't too common sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The common sense approach is why have we had gun shootings in schools only within the last 23 years? We have had guns for a lot longer than that, yet the school shootings are now increasing in frequency. The shootings are the symptoms of a much bigger issue and banning guns like Issa wants, will not change anything, the problem will still be there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is not just school shootings my friend, Americans have been shooting each other since day one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, this is a symptom and you don't want to address it, that's fine but until you cure the disease will persist, gun or no gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guns....people here when they lose it, they pick a gun and shoot. Other societies where guns are within reach, they fight, they use non lethal stuff till they cool down, arrested or stopped. Some rough areas I've been to overseas, fights left and right and there was always a saying if it guns were available like in the US lot of people would lose their lives.
> Banning guns for sure it was stop all murders, but it will lower it dramatically, ther will be less mass shootings if any.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, I never have been in a fist fight but I don't see the correlation between a fist fight and shooting anyone. Not all fist fights in this country end in gun fights and I would be hard pressed to say even 1% of fist fights will end in a gun fight.
Click to expand...

Guns empower people to inflict a big damage into those they wanna harm. That's why in America we have more deaths per capita from gun violence and violence in general compared to most gun free countries.


----------



## Issa

Papageorgio said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will...demographics are changing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct they over the last 59 years the idea of banning guns is more unlikely than likely as the numbers are trending against banning guns altogether.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Things will change, the fabric of America will change. It's a small world and rapidly changing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good luck with your delusional belief that EVENTUALLY, you're going to convince the majority of Americans that they really don't want all that troublesome freedom.
> 
> Oh, wait, I forgot.  Your plan is to overwhelm actual Americans with an invasion of illegal immigrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And by the way if it wasn't for migration I don't think you would be here....millions of natives wouldn't be massacred, and millions of blacks wouldn't being enslaved. And thousands of Americans wouldn't have to die from gun violence every year....Just imagine if your ancestor from a country like Austria, Belgium or any other country where gun violence is very minimal and kids don't get massacred in schools, where they should be learning and having fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So in Britain they removed the guns and the murder rate went up, how does that make us safer? The same happened in Australia, it went down the first year but then trended up, people found other ways to kill.
> 
> We have had massive immigration since the 60's and the number of people opposing a gun ban has risen. So far your idea doesn't match the evidence that has been compiled.
> 
> Why don't you want to cure the problem? All you want to do is fix the symptom of a much bigger issue in this country.
Click to expand...

A graph is better than a thousand word.


----------



## Issa

P@triot said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I want American kids to grow up safe like I did in a gun free country.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...your country was SO great you promptly ran to the U.S. and made this your home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who told you i left for good?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact that you left at all tells me _everything_ I need to know. I’ve never left the U.S. (even temporarily) and I never will.
Click to expand...

Who cares if you live or stay? do a DNA check you'll see that you are from different places....we as humans we constantly migrate. Open your mind, get rid of your paranoia and go enjoy life.


----------



## Issa

Cecilie1200 said:


> rshermn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is not just school shootings my friend, Americans have been shooting each other since day one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, this is a symptom and you don't want to address it, that's fine but until you cure the disease will persist, gun or no gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guns....people here when they lose it, they pick a gun and shoot. Other societies where guns are within reach, they fight, they use non lethal stuff till they cool down, arrested or stopped. Some rough areas I've been to overseas, fights left and right and there was always a saying if it guns were available like in the US lot of people would lose their lives.
> Banning guns for sure it was stop all murders, but it will lower it dramatically, ther will be less mass shootings if any.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, in other societies they just use a different lethal weapon.  I'm really over your pretense that gun-banning societies don't have mass murders.  Lie to yourself, if you want, but don't expect anyone else to believe you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really, me girl. What mass shootings are you talking about?  Want to try Australia?  How about Japan?  France?  The UK?  Germany?  Sweden? Italy?
> Are you suggesting they are useing knives, me girl.  Cause if so, you loose.  Shoes?  Volcanoes?  Perhaps you should back up your claims with some proof.  Or do you think we should simply believe you.  Though we seldom actually believe dipshits. Which tends to leave you out.
> There are those who need and love assault rifles, and consider them their right to own.  Like you.  And there are the rest of us, who value the lives of people.  Like the people of the other 35 advanced nations of the world.
> No one needs an assault rifle.  Just as no one needs an F16.  Both should be outlawed for the good of our children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  I said "mass killings", not "mass shootings".  Don't fucking try that goalpost-moving bullshit on me.
> 
> 2)  THESE would be the mass killings I'm talking about.
> 
> Monash University shooting - Wikipedia
> 
> A History of Mass Killings in Japan
> 
> Paris massacre: At least 128 die in attacks - CNN
> 
> Cumbria shootings - Wikipedia
> 
> 2016 Munich shooting - Wikipedia
> 
> 2 killed, about dozen wounded in Swedish restaurant shooting
> 
> Italian male nurse shoots four people dead, including his brother and sister-in-law, during shotgun rampage in mafia-infested Naples after 'row over a clothes line'  | Daily Mail Online
> 
> Some use knives, some STILL use guns, some use bombs, or cars, or fire.  It's almost like the problem is violent humans, not the tools used.
> 
> 3)  I don't require anyone to simply believe me.  To the contrary, I encourage you to actually research the subject, rather than just taking the media's word for it.  Talk about believing dipshits.
> 
> 4)  No one asked you what you think anyone "needs".  And only idiots like you think disarming law-abiding citizens is "for the good" of anyone.
Click to expand...

You are a pure example of the ignorant dumb american....have you ever left your county? Enjoy this graph.


----------



## Issa

Papageorgio said:


> rshermn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Things will change, the fabric of America will change. It's a small world and rapidly changing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good luck with your delusional belief that EVENTUALLY, you're going to convince the majority of Americans that they really don't want all that troublesome freedom.
> 
> Oh, wait, I forgot.  Your plan is to overwhelm actual Americans with an invasion of illegal immigrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You gotta respect the will of the majority....as for now there is nothing one can do. But there will come time, where the 2nd amendment will be abolished I can assure you of that.
> Your life doesn't depend on a gun, you can live without it....this isn't the wild wide west era.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are correct there and that is why we as a nation will not ban guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You may want to stop being so paranoid.  I have a pretty good idea I own more guns than you.  And I am absolutely confident that none of the guns I own will be outlawed.  You see, I have hunting guns.  Not human killing guns.
> In my humble but correct opinion, assault weapons are not needed or usfull for hunting, as compared to the alternatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How am I paranoid? I have no issue with you having guns. I have no doubt that you also have more guns than I do because I don’t own a gun and don’t plan on it.
> 
> Repealing the 2nd Amendment will never happen as Issa is claiming it will.
Click to expand...

Never say Never....not long ago blacks  were slaves, not long ago women couldn't vote, things do change.


----------



## Issa

Rigby5 said:


> It is silly to restrict firearms at all because not only do you depend on guns to defend you from gangs, mafia, psychos, rapists, etc., but you depend on guns to defend you from foreign threats as well.
> But the problem is that if you don't want to have to be responsible for actually doing it yourself,  you prefer to make others do it, even though by irresponsibly evading your personal duty, you risk this country being turned into a police state by corrupt politicians.
> 
> Clearly the founders instead wanted each and every able bodied person to do their part in defense, so that no corrupt mercenary police force or military could ever threaten our democratic republic.  And you would throw that all away.


corrupt politicians are already in place...police state? please....they are recording and spying on everything you say or do, and you give them your hard earned money you like it or not. They harass you when they feel like it at airports, etc....They put a clown as president, and pass legislations and tax reforms to serve those that put them on those seats in the first place.


----------



## Papageorgio

Issa said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> The common sense approach is why have we had gun shootings in schools only within the last 23 years? We have had guns for a lot longer than that, yet the school shootings are now increasing in frequency. The shootings are the symptoms of a much bigger issue and banning guns like Issa wants, will not change anything, the problem will still be there.
> 
> 
> 
> Is not just school shootings my friend, Americans have been shooting each other since day one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, this is a symptom and you don't want to address it, that's fine but until you cure the disease will persist, gun or no gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guns....people here when they lose it, they pick a gun and shoot. Other societies where guns are within reach, they fight, they use non lethal stuff till they cool down, arrested or stopped. Some rough areas I've been to overseas, fights left and right and there was always a saying if it guns were available like in the US lot of people would lose their lives.
> Banning guns for sure it was stop all murders, but it will lower it dramatically, ther will be less mass shootings if any.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, I never have been in a fist fight but I don't see the correlation between a fist fight and shooting anyone. Not all fist fights in this country end in gun fights and I would be hard pressed to say even 1% of fist fights will end in a gun fight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guns empower people to inflict a big damage into those they wanna harm. That's why in America we have more deaths per capita from gun violence and violence in general compared to most gun free countries.[/QUAre going to
Click to expand...




Issa said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct they over the last 59 years the idea of banning guns is more unlikely than likely as the numbers are trending against banning guns altogether.
> 
> 
> 
> Things will change, the fabric of America will change. It's a small world and rapidly changing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good luck with your delusional belief that EVENTUALLY, you're going to convince the majority of Americans that they really don't want all that troublesome freedom.
> 
> Oh, wait, I forgot.  Your plan is to overwhelm actual Americans with an invasion of illegal immigrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And by the way if it wasn't for migration I don't think you would be here....millions of natives wouldn't be massacred, and millions of blacks wouldn't being enslaved. And thousands of Americans wouldn't have to die from gun violence every year....Just imagine if your ancestor from a country like Austria, Belgium or any other country where gun violence is very minimal and kids don't get massacred in schools, where they should be learning and having fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So in Britain they removed the guns and the murder rate went up, how does that make us safer? The same happened in Australia, it went down the first year but then trended up, people found other ways to kill.
> 
> We have had massive immigration since the 60's and the number of people opposing a gun ban has risen. So far your idea doesn't match the evidence that has been compiled.
> 
> Why don't you want to cure the problem? All you want to do is fix the symptom of a much bigger issue in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A graph is better than a thousand word.
Click to expand...


You really don’t want to talk about the issues, you are taking the easy way out, divert and deflect.


----------



## Papageorgio

Issa said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rshermn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good luck with your delusional belief that EVENTUALLY, you're going to convince the majority of Americans that they really don't want all that troublesome freedom.
> 
> Oh, wait, I forgot.  Your plan is to overwhelm actual Americans with an invasion of illegal immigrants.
> 
> 
> 
> You gotta respect the will of the majority....as for now there is nothing one can do. But there will come time, where the 2nd amendment will be abolished I can assure you of that.
> Your life doesn't depend on a gun, you can live without it....this isn't the wild wide west era.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are correct there and that is why we as a nation will not ban guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You may want to stop being so paranoid.  I have a pretty good idea I own more guns than you.  And I am absolutely confident that none of the guns I own will be outlawed.  You see, I have hunting guns.  Not human killing guns.
> In my humble but correct opinion, assault weapons are not needed or usfull for hunting, as compared to the alternatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How am I paranoid? I have no issue with you having guns. I have no doubt that you also have more guns than I do because I don’t own a gun and don’t plan on it.
> 
> Repealing the 2nd Amendment will never happen as Issa is claiming it will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never say Never....not long ago blacks  were slaves, not long ago women couldn't vote, things do change.
Click to expand...


And they still may change, but it will be a lot longer than your idea of 20 year change and you realize that.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Issa said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you have lots and lots of bricks and either shoot them from cannons or drop them from bombers.   Much like a small bullet can't kill without the gun.
> 
> 
> 
> I swear sometimes I just I can most gun lovers overseas and show thrm how it's possible to live without guns, and prevent mass killings. The US looks like it's in constant war...thousands die from gun violence...what a shame for this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen how "it's possible to live without guns".  As I recall, it resulted in being assaulted by a guy who was a budding serial killer, and convinced me that being unarmed was a stupid idea for a woman in a world of men who can overpower me.
> 
> So what've you got to top that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you walk around with your pistol at all times? you take a shower with it? you drive around with it in parking lots? you sleep with it? if Anything would happen to you, you won't have time to react. And by the way the US has 300 millions weapons or so available and guess what we have one of the highest numbers of rape per capita. Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would I shower with it?  Only a dumbass puts a gun in water.
> 
> And "You wouldn't have time to react" is the stupidest argument I've heard so far this week.  Maybe I would, maybe I wouldn't, but I'd have a damn sight better chance than I would with my bare hands.  Moron.
> 
> Highest number of rapes per capita?  Off the top of my head, I'm going to say that has a lot more to do with the millions of penises in the US, not guns.  Would you like to ban THOSE next?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok wonder woman...calm down.
Click to expand...


I just heard you say, "I've been called on my bullshit.  Quick, deflect!"


----------



## Cecilie1200

Issa said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct they over the last 59 years the idea of banning guns is more unlikely than likely as the numbers are trending against banning guns altogether.
> 
> 
> 
> Things will change, the fabric of America will change. It's a small world and rapidly changing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good luck with your delusional belief that EVENTUALLY, you're going to convince the majority of Americans that they really don't want all that troublesome freedom.
> 
> Oh, wait, I forgot.  Your plan is to overwhelm actual Americans with an invasion of illegal immigrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You gotta respect the will of the majority....as for now there is nothing one can do. But there will come time, where the 2nd amendment will be abolished I can assure you of that.
> Your life doesn't depend on a gun, you can live without it....this isn't the wild wide west era.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given that YOU are the one pushing for something the majority keeps telling you it doesn't want, I'd say ONE of us needs to respect their will, anyway.
> 
> And no, "there is nothing one can do" is the song of someone whose major agenda is to have more deaths with which to panic people into subjugation, rather than protecting people from harm.  There are lots of things we can do, and you're obviously just going to sit there arguing with all of it and making excuses why we have to give you your way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look.
> I've lived in a gun free society and I live in a an infested gun violence society. The difference is the availability of guns if we ban them....We will see a decrease of gun deaths....simple.
> You are keeping guns now, but if the majority's will shifts to banning and abolishing the second you have to comply.
Click to expand...


Yes, we'll just pass a law requiring that all the guns magically vanish.  That'll fix things.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Issa said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct they over the last 59 years the idea of banning guns is more unlikely than likely as the numbers are trending against banning guns altogether.
> 
> 
> 
> Things will change, the fabric of America will change. It's a small world and rapidly changing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good luck with your delusional belief that EVENTUALLY, you're going to convince the majority of Americans that they really don't want all that troublesome freedom.
> 
> Oh, wait, I forgot.  Your plan is to overwhelm actual Americans with an invasion of illegal immigrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And by the way if it wasn't for migration I don't think you would be here....millions of natives wouldn't be massacred, and millions of blacks wouldn't being enslaved. And thousands of Americans wouldn't have to die from gun violence every year....Just imagine if your ancestor from a country like Austria, Belgium or any other country where gun violence is very minimal and kids don't get massacred in schools, where they should be learning and having fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blah blah blah.  Yes, my ancestors immigrated here hundreds of years ago.  Unlike you, THEY actually liked what America was and what it stood for, and they wanted to become part of it, rather than wanting to sneer at it and immediately start changing it to mirror the place they left.  But then, my ancestors were a lot smarter than you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hundreds of years ago? Pleaaaase.
Click to expand...


What, you didn't bother to learn American history before you barged into our country to "helpfully" redesign it for us?  People have, in fact, been immigrating to America since the 1600s or so, and most of their descendants have continued to live here.  So yeah, there are any number of people in this country who aren't Johnny-Come-Latelies like you and whose families have lived here for over a century.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Issa said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I want American kids to grow up safe like I did in a gun free country.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...your country was SO great you promptly ran to the U.S. and made this your home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who told you i left for good?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're going back, could you please get on with it already?  Fucking tourists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope I'm American I can stay when I want to and leave when I want to. Heck I'll come just to vote and go back
Click to expand...


Clearly, you have no concept of what being an American is, if you think it's an option you can pick up and drop at will, like HBO on your cable package.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Issa said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> The common sense approach is why have we had gun shootings in schools only within the last 23 years? We have had guns for a lot longer than that, yet the school shootings are now increasing in frequency. The shootings are the symptoms of a much bigger issue and banning guns like Issa wants, will not change anything, the problem will still be there.
> 
> 
> 
> Is not just school shootings my friend, Americans have been shooting each other since day one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, this is a symptom and you don't want to address it, that's fine but until you cure the disease will persist, gun or no gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guns....people here when they lose it, they pick a gun and shoot. Other societies where guns are within reach, they fight, they use non lethal stuff till they cool down, arrested or stopped. Some rough areas I've been to overseas, fights left and right and there was always a saying if it guns were available like in the US lot of people would lose their lives.
> Banning guns for sure it was stop all murders, but it will lower it dramatically, ther will be less mass shootings if any.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, I never have been in a fist fight but I don't see the correlation between a fist fight and shooting anyone. Not all fist fights in this country end in gun fights and I would be hard pressed to say even 1% of fist fights will end in a gun fight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guns empower people to inflict a big damage into those they wanna harm. That's why in America we have more deaths per capita from gun violence and violence in general compared to most gun free countries.
Click to expand...


Guns are tools, like any other man-made, inanimate object.  They can be used for good or for ill; it's up to the user.  If you're hearing dark whispers of mayhem and bloodshed every time you're around a gun, that's actually on you, not the gun.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Issa said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I want American kids to grow up safe like I did in a gun free country.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...your country was SO great you promptly ran to the U.S. and made this your home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who told you i left for good?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact that you left at all tells me _everything_ I need to know. I’ve never left the U.S. (even temporarily) and I never will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who cares if you live or stay? do a DNA check you'll see that you are from different places....we as humans we constantly migrate. Open your mind, get rid of your paranoia and go enjoy life.
Click to expand...


Well, apparently YOU care, since you feel the need to keep telling us how you wander in and out of other people's countries, no doubt because they keep asking you to get the hell out and stop annoying them.


----------



## P@triot

Issa said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I want American kids to grow up safe like I did in a gun free country.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...your country was SO great you promptly ran to the U.S. and made this your home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who told you i left for good?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're going back, could you please get on with it already?  Fucking tourists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope I'm American I can stay when I want to and leave when I want to. Heck I'll come just to vote and go back
Click to expand...

Again...the fact that you fled your own country to come here says _everything. _If your “gun free” country was so great - you’d still be there, snowflake.


----------



## P@triot

Cecilie1200 said:


> Guns are tools, like any other man-made, inanimate object.




That is _exactly_ what the Russian Spetznaz (the equivalent of the U.S. Navy Seals) teaches. They teach their operators: “man is the only weapon...everything else is just a tool”. And then they proceed to teach them how to kill with *anything* that is available to them.


----------



## P@triot

Issa said:


> You are a pure example of the ignorant dumb american....have you ever left your county?


And you are the epitome of the immature, idealist, subservient foreigner. Cecilie1200 provides link after link after link proving you are dead-wrong and your only idiotic response is to call her “ignorant”.

So let me get this straight - she’s “ignorant” for knowing the *facts* and sharing them with you? Every time the left loses an argument they get all pissed off and scream “you are ignorant”. So juvenile.


----------



## P@triot

Issa said:


> Open your mind, *get rid of your paranoia* and go enjoy life.


Says the paranoid freak who is scared stupid of inanimate objects such as firearms...


----------



## P@triot

Issa said:


> Open your mind, get rid of your paranoia and go enjoy life.


Open _your_ mind and embrace firearms!


----------



## P@triot

Issa said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I want American kids to grow up safe like I did in a gun free country.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...your country was SO great you promptly ran to the U.S. and made this your home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who told you i left for good?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact that you left at all tells me _everything_ I need to know. I’ve never left the U.S. (even temporarily) and I never will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ....we as humans we constantly migrate.
Click to expand...

Except that *nobody* “migrates” from a better place to a worse place, dumb ass. People “migrate” from shit-holes to paradises. That’s what you did. Except now you’re trying to take the paradise and turn it back into the shit-hole that you ran from.


----------



## P@triot

Issa said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> So in Britain they removed the guns and the murder rate went up, how does that make us safer? The same happened in Australia, it went down the first year but then trended up, people found other ways to kill.
> 
> 
> 
> A graph is better than a thousand word.
Click to expand...

And *facts* are better than a billion graphs. Now stop being a left-wing coward and address @Papageorgio’s questions head on. How does removing firearms make us safer when the murder rates went up in England and in Australia after they did that?


----------



## P@triot

Issa said:


> Guns empower people to inflict a big damage into those they wanna harm.


So does your right to spread ignorance and misinformation. Will you also advocate to strip the left of their 1st Amendment rights?


----------



## Cecilie1200

P@triot said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Open your mind, *get rid of your paranoia* and go enjoy life.
> 
> 
> 
> Says the paranoid freak who is scared stupid of inanimate objects such as firearms...
Click to expand...


One of the reasons I have a gun is so that I CAN go and enjoy life, without having to worry about rapists, muggers, car-jackers . . .

Or is Miss "America so scary and violent" NOW telling us that that was a lie?


----------



## Papageorgio

Cecilie1200 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Open your mind, *get rid of your paranoia* and go enjoy life.
> 
> 
> 
> Says the paranoid freak who is scared stupid of inanimate objects such as firearms...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One of the reasons I have a gun is so that I CAN go and enjoy life, without having to worry about rapists, muggers, car-jackers . . .
> 
> Or is Miss "America so scary and violent" NOW telling us that that was a lie?
Click to expand...


So, you are saying that part of your pursuit of life, liberty and happiness is helped by owning a gun. Mine is the opposite and I’m really don’t care for them, however I don’t force my will on you and you don’t force your will on me. Both differing opinions, both are correct for each of us. 

Not sure why some inn the left want to force others to live like they do because of their irrational fears. They need to educate themselves with facts and not fears, it would lead to better solutions and answers.


----------



## P@triot

Why does the left always support what *fails* to be effective or successful?


> Over the course of the January call, which lasted more than 13 minutes, the tipster warned the F.B.I. that Mr. Cruz had been adrift since his mother’s death in November. She said that Mr. Cruz had “the mental capacity of a 12 to a 14 year old.” The tipster provided four Instagram accounts for Mr. Cruz, which she said showed photos of sliced up animals and the firearms he had amassed.


So to recap - the left wants to give more power and control to the government that *failed* to act to protect the children and take away citizens right to defend themselves.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Issa said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rshermn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good luck with your delusional belief that EVENTUALLY, you're going to convince the majority of Americans that they really don't want all that troublesome freedom.
> 
> Oh, wait, I forgot.  Your plan is to overwhelm actual Americans with an invasion of illegal immigrants.
> 
> 
> 
> You gotta respect the will of the majority....as for now there is nothing one can do. But there will come time, where the 2nd amendment will be abolished I can assure you of that.
> Your life doesn't depend on a gun, you can live without it....this isn't the wild wide west era.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are correct there and that is why we as a nation will not ban guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You may want to stop being so paranoid.  I have a pretty good idea I own more guns than you.  And I am absolutely confident that none of the guns I own will be outlawed.  You see, I have hunting guns.  Not human killing guns.
> In my humble but correct opinion, assault weapons are not needed or usfull for hunting, as compared to the alternatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How am I paranoid? I have no issue with you having guns. I have no doubt that you also have more guns than I do because I don’t own a gun and don’t plan on it.
> 
> Repealing the 2nd Amendment will never happen as Issa is claiming it will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never say Never....not long ago blacks  were slaves, not long ago women couldn't vote, things do change.
Click to expand...



I hope you remember to thank Republicans for both of those changes.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

PoliticalChic said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rshermn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> You gotta respect the will of the majority....as for now there is nothing one can do. But there will come time, where the 2nd amendment will be abolished I can assure you of that.
> Your life doesn't depend on a gun, you can live without it....this isn't the wild wide west era.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct there and that is why we as a nation will not ban guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You may want to stop being so paranoid.  I have a pretty good idea I own more guns than you.  And I am absolutely confident that none of the guns I own will be outlawed.  You see, I have hunting guns.  Not human killing guns.
> In my humble but correct opinion, assault weapons are not needed or usfull for hunting, as compared to the alternatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How am I paranoid? I have no issue with you having guns. I have no doubt that you also have more guns than I do because I don’t own a gun and don’t plan on it.
> 
> Repealing the 2nd Amendment will never happen as Issa is claiming it will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never say Never....not long ago blacks  were slaves, not long ago women couldn't vote, things do change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you remember to thank Republicans for both of those changes.
Click to expand...


YOu seem to forget that is the time period when the Republicans were Progressive Conservatives.  A lot has changed since then.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Daryl Hunt said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rshermn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct there and that is why we as a nation will not ban guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You may want to stop being so paranoid.  I have a pretty good idea I own more guns than you.  And I am absolutely confident that none of the guns I own will be outlawed.  You see, I have hunting guns.  Not human killing guns.
> In my humble but correct opinion, assault weapons are not needed or usfull for hunting, as compared to the alternatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How am I paranoid? I have no issue with you having guns. I have no doubt that you also have more guns than I do because I don’t own a gun and don’t plan on it.
> 
> Repealing the 2nd Amendment will never happen as Issa is claiming it will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never say Never....not long ago blacks  were slaves, not long ago women couldn't vote, things do change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you remember to thank Republicans for both of those changes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOu seem to forget that is the time period when the Republicans were Progressive Conservatives.  A lot has changed since then.
Click to expand...




You can run, but you can't hide.
So saith the Brown Bomber.



The Republicans ended slavery and gave women the right to vote.

The Democrats have never ceased being the party of slavery, segregation, and second class citizenship.


As you prove....every word from a Democrat/Liberal is a lie.
*'Here’s what we’re up against: the Washington Post lies outright, describing Senator William Fulbright as “a progressive on racial issues.”  Fulbright was a full-bore segregationist, voting against the 1957, 1960, 1964, and 1965 civil rights bills.'
Coulter*


----------



## asaratis

Daryl Hunt said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rshermn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct there and that is why we as a nation will not ban guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You may want to stop being so paranoid.  I have a pretty good idea I own more guns than you.  And I am absolutely confident that none of the guns I own will be outlawed.  You see, I have hunting guns.  Not human killing guns.
> In my humble but correct opinion, assault weapons are not needed or usfull for hunting, as compared to the alternatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How am I paranoid? I have no issue with you having guns. I have no doubt that you also have more guns than I do because I don’t own a gun and don’t plan on it.
> 
> Repealing the 2nd Amendment will never happen as Issa is claiming it will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never say Never....not long ago blacks  were slaves, not long ago women couldn't vote, things do change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you remember to thank Republicans for both of those changes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOu seem to forget that is the time period when the Republicans were Progressive Conservatives.  A lot has changed since then.
Click to expand...

...and you seem to forget that the Democrats opposed granting civil rights for decades!


----------



## Daryl Hunt

PoliticalChic said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rshermn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You may want to stop being so paranoid.  I have a pretty good idea I own more guns than you.  And I am absolutely confident that none of the guns I own will be outlawed.  You see, I have hunting guns.  Not human killing guns.
> In my humble but correct opinion, assault weapons are not needed or usfull for hunting, as compared to the alternatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How am I paranoid? I have no issue with you having guns. I have no doubt that you also have more guns than I do because I don’t own a gun and don’t plan on it.
> 
> Repealing the 2nd Amendment will never happen as Issa is claiming it will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never say Never....not long ago blacks  were slaves, not long ago women couldn't vote, things do change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you remember to thank Republicans for both of those changes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOu seem to forget that is the time period when the Republicans were Progressive Conservatives.  A lot has changed since then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can run, but you can't hide.
> So saith the Brown Bomber.
> 
> 
> 
> The Republicans ended slavery and gave women the right to vote.
> 
> The Democrats have never ceased being the party of slavery, segregation, and second class citizenship.
> 
> 
> As you prove....every word from a Democrat/Liberal is a lie.
> *'Here’s what we’re up against: the Washington Post lies outright, describing Senator William Fulbright as “a progressive on racial issues.”  Fulbright was a full-bore segregationist, voting against the 1957, 1960, 1964, and 1965 civil rights bills.'
> Coulter*
Click to expand...


And by 1970, the KKK, White Supremists and others were Republicans.  Imagine that.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

asaratis said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rshermn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You may want to stop being so paranoid.  I have a pretty good idea I own more guns than you.  And I am absolutely confident that none of the guns I own will be outlawed.  You see, I have hunting guns.  Not human killing guns.
> In my humble but correct opinion, assault weapons are not needed or usfull for hunting, as compared to the alternatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How am I paranoid? I have no issue with you having guns. I have no doubt that you also have more guns than I do because I don’t own a gun and don’t plan on it.
> 
> Repealing the 2nd Amendment will never happen as Issa is claiming it will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never say Never....not long ago blacks  were slaves, not long ago women couldn't vote, things do change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you remember to thank Republicans for both of those changes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOu seem to forget that is the time period when the Republicans were Progressive Conservatives.  A lot has changed since then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...and you seem to forget that the Democrats opposed granting civil rights for decades!
Click to expand...


Again, by 1970, the KKK and While Supremeists were all Republicans.


----------



## Papageorgio

Daryl Hunt said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> How am I paranoid? I have no issue with you having guns. I have no doubt that you also have more guns than I do because I don’t own a gun and don’t plan on it.
> 
> Repealing the 2nd Amendment will never happen as Issa is claiming it will.
> 
> 
> 
> Never say Never....not long ago blacks  were slaves, not long ago women couldn't vote, things do change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you remember to thank Republicans for both of those changes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOu seem to forget that is the time period when the Republicans were Progressive Conservatives.  A lot has changed since then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...and you seem to forget that the Democrats opposed granting civil rights for decades!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, by 1970, the KKK and While Supremeists were all Republicans.
Click to expand...


All? Lol! Sure, if you are dumb enough to believe it.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Daryl Hunt said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> How am I paranoid? I have no issue with you having guns. I have no doubt that you also have more guns than I do because I don’t own a gun and don’t plan on it.
> 
> Repealing the 2nd Amendment will never happen as Issa is claiming it will.
> 
> 
> 
> Never say Never....not long ago blacks  were slaves, not long ago women couldn't vote, things do change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you remember to thank Republicans for both of those changes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOu seem to forget that is the time period when the Republicans were Progressive Conservatives.  A lot has changed since then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can run, but you can't hide.
> So saith the Brown Bomber.
> 
> 
> 
> The Republicans ended slavery and gave women the right to vote.
> 
> The Democrats have never ceased being the party of slavery, segregation, and second class citizenship.
> 
> 
> As you prove....every word from a Democrat/Liberal is a lie.
> *'Here’s what we’re up against: the Washington Post lies outright, describing Senator William Fulbright as “a progressive on racial issues.”  Fulbright was a full-bore segregationist, voting against the 1957, 1960, 1964, and 1965 civil rights bills.'
> Coulter*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And by 1970, the KKK, White Supremists and others were Republicans.  Imagine that.
Click to expand...



You'll believe anything they tell you to, huh?


*"Ku Klux Klan Grand Dragon Will Quigg Endorses Hillary Clinton for President"*
*https://www.usnews.com/news/article...-quigg-endorses-hillary-clinton-for-president



Feelin' pretty stupid, huh?
*


----------



## asaratis

Daryl Hunt said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> How am I paranoid? I have no issue with you having guns. I have no doubt that you also have more guns than I do because I don’t own a gun and don’t plan on it.
> 
> Repealing the 2nd Amendment will never happen as Issa is claiming it will.
> 
> 
> 
> Never say Never....not long ago blacks  were slaves, not long ago women couldn't vote, things do change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you remember to thank Republicans for both of those changes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOu seem to forget that is the time period when the Republicans were Progressive Conservatives.  A lot has changed since then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can run, but you can't hide.
> So saith the Brown Bomber.
> 
> 
> 
> The Republicans ended slavery and gave women the right to vote.
> 
> The Democrats have never ceased being the party of slavery, segregation, and second class citizenship.
> 
> 
> As you prove....every word from a Democrat/Liberal is a lie.
> *'Here’s what we’re up against: the Washington Post lies outright, describing Senator William Fulbright as “a progressive on racial issues.”  Fulbright was a full-bore segregationist, voting against the 1957, 1960, 1964, and 1965 civil rights bills.'
> Coulter*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And by 1970, the KKK, White Supremists and others were Republicans.  Imagine that.
Click to expand...

You are full of shit.  There may be some white supremacy in the Republican population, but the KKK was founded by and remains a Democrat tool.


----------



## PoliticalChic

asaratis said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rshermn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You may want to stop being so paranoid.  I have a pretty good idea I own more guns than you.  And I am absolutely confident that none of the guns I own will be outlawed.  You see, I have hunting guns.  Not human killing guns.
> In my humble but correct opinion, assault weapons are not needed or usfull for hunting, as compared to the alternatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How am I paranoid? I have no issue with you having guns. I have no doubt that you also have more guns than I do because I don’t own a gun and don’t plan on it.
> 
> Repealing the 2nd Amendment will never happen as Issa is claiming it will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never say Never....not long ago blacks  were slaves, not long ago women couldn't vote, things do change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you remember to thank Republicans for both of those changes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOu seem to forget that is the time period when the Republicans were Progressive Conservatives.  A lot has changed since then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...and you seem to forget that the Democrats opposed granting civil rights for decades!
Click to expand...




....until they needed the black vote.


Now....they're ready to throw blacks under the bus, as they see a larger constituency....illegal aliens.

Obama's US Civil Rights Commission, 2010 Report:
"The United States Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) is pleased to transmit this report, The Impact of Illegal Immigration on the Wages and Employment Opportunities of Black Workers. A panel of experts briefed members of the Commission on April 4, 2008 regarding the evidence for economic loss and job opportunity costs to black workers attributable to illegal immigration. The panelists also described non-economic factors contributing to the depression of black wages and employment rates.

Illegal immigration to the United States in recent decades has tended to depress both wages and employment rates for low-skilled American citizens, a disproportionate number of whom are black men."
http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/IllegImmig_10-14-10_430pm.pdf


That's why Hussein Obama told illegal aliens to go vote in the last election.


----------



## rshermn

Papageorgio said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will...demographics are changing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *You say:*
> So in Britain they removed the guns and the murder rate went up, how does that make us safer?
> 
> *You show no proof of your argument.  Here is an impartial argument of the actual facts:
> Consider:
> at 24,094 offences in 2003/4. After that the number of crimes in which a firearm was involved fell consistently, to 4,779 offences in 2013. In the year ending September 2015 there was a small rise of 4% to 4,994 offences.
> Four countries with gun control – and what America could learn from them*
> 
> *You say:*
> The same happened in Australia, it went down the first year but then trended up, people found other ways to kill.
> *
> Where did you get that info.  All impartial sources I have found agree with Snopes, saying;*
> *"Australian Gun Stats*
> *Statistics do not demonstrate that crime rates in Australia have increased substantially since the government instituted a gun buy-back program in 1997.*
> 
> *RATING*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE
> 
> 
> *Murder rates did not increase in Australia.  Your premise is false.  As you probably know.*
> 
> *In addition, in both the UK and Australia, the issue was mass killings.  NOT MURDERS.  You are outside of the issue being discussed.  Base murders are a seperate issue from mass killings.  Serious as they are, murders happen using a large number of methods, and have little to do with mass killings.
> 
> Then you suggest:*
> Why don't you want to cure the problem? All you want to do is fix the symptom of a much bigger issue in this country
> 
> *Your problem, me boy, is you are suggesting you do not recognize what problem is being addressed.  It is not "crime rates" or "murder rates".  You should understand that the Florida School Shooting is (now pay attention) MASS SHOOTINGS, OR MASS MURDERS, WHICH IN ALL NATIONS ARE THE SAME THING.    *Or is that too difficult for you to understand?
> *Really, a little truth would be helpful, me boy.*[
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## rshermn

asaratis said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never say Never....not long ago blacks  were slaves, not long ago women couldn't vote, things do change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you remember to thank Republicans for both of those changes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOu seem to forget that is the time period when the Republicans were Progressive Conservatives.  A lot has changed since then.\
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Republicans ended slavery and gave women the right to vote.
> 
> The Democrats have never ceased being the party of slavery, segregation, and second class citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you prove....every word from a Democrat/Liberal is a lie.
> *'Here’s what we’re up against: the Washington Post lies outright, describing Senator William Fulbright as “a progressive on racial issues.”  Fulbright was a full-bore segregationist, voting against the 1957, 1960, 1964, and 1965 civil rights bills.'
> Coulter*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And by 1970, the KKK, White Supremists and others were Republicans.  Imagine that.
Click to expand...


You are full of shit.  There may be some white supremacy in the Republican population, but the KKK was founded by and remains a Democrat tool.

Me boy, are you trying to prove you are stupid?   I think you just accomplished it.  There was a group of democrats, called SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS, who were for segregations.  Now the important fact is that when LBJ passed the civil rights laws, he knew that the Southern Democrats would leave the party.  He was correct.  They all went to the REPUBLICAN PARTY.  Get it, me boy.  They are Republicans.[/QUOTE]


----------



## rshermn

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we need to approach the Mass Shootings the same way.  We need to fix what we can fix even if it's just to minimize the body count.
Click to expand...

Sadly, your profoundly ignorant progressive “fix” continues to _increase_ the body count. [/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results each time. You people have banned, outlawed, regulated, legislated, and restricted your way to more dead children. Left-wing policy _always_ ends in *failure* because it is built on ignorance and emotion.

Sorry, me boy.  We are following right wing, NRA provided, rules for stopping mass shootings.  The other 35 advanced nations follow more liberal laws.  And, we have over 25 times as many deaths from mass shootins as any of those other nations.
Now, I know seeing mass shootings, including at schools where many children are killed, does not bother you.  But providing those nut case killers with what they need to kill those children is no problem for you, because you do not value their lives like you value the ability to shoot an AR.  Which has absolutely no use except to kill scores of people. Good for you.  At least we know what you value, and what you do not value.


----------



## rshermn

Papageorgio said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> It will...demographics are changing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And by the way if it wasn't for migration I don't think you would be here....millions of natives wouldn't be massacred, and millions of blacks wouldn't being enslaved. And thousands of Americans wouldn't have to die from gun violence every year....Just imagine if your ancestor from a country like Austria, Belgium or any other country where gun violence is very minimal and kids don't get massacred in schools, where they should be learning and having fun..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in Britain they removed the guns and the murder rate went up, how does that make us safer? The same happened in Australia, it went down the first year but then trended up, people found other ways to kill.
> 
> We have had massive immigration since the 60's and the number of people opposing a gun ban has risen. So far your idea doesn't match the evidence that has been compiled.
> 
> Why don't you want to cure the problem? All you want to do is fix the symptom of a much bigger issue in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Perhaps a bit of truth may be in order, me boy:
> In Britain, the number of deaths by guns has come way down.  As have total murders.
> The same is true in Australia.
> Really, you should not lie so much.
> Further, we are talking, me boy, about mass shootings,  not murders.   Do you have some problem with the english language?*
> 
> *Now, in the case of mass shootings, the UK has had ONE since it started regulating guns.  That one mass shooting resulted in 11 deaths.  SEE THE DIFFERENCE, ME BOY.  We  have had hundreds of deaths from mass shootings, they have had 11.
> As for Australia, since they instituted their gun control laws in 1997, they have had exactly 0 (that is ZERO) deaths from mass shootings.  And exactly 0 (that is ZERO)  mass shootings since that time.
> 
> And, total murders have not gone up in either case.  Perhaps you should try to find a couple impartial sources to prove you drivel, instead of simply putting it out there.  I can prove what I say easily, because I do not post talking points, but rather data from impartial sources.*
Click to expand...


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

*Columnist who needed protection from jeering CPAC attendees rips conservatives for falling for creeping ‘Trumpism’*





*GOPer flips on gun control — and then scorches Trump for banning Muslim travel but wimping out on AR-15s*


----------



## rshermn

P@triot said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> So in Britain they removed the guns and the murder rate went up, how does that make us safer? The same happened in Australia, it went down the first year but then trended up, people found other ways to kill.
> 
> 
> 
> Please refrain from using *facts* while speaking with progressives. They refer irrational emotions, thank you.
Click to expand...

Cons tend to post talking points which are untrue.  And never provide links to proof of their talking points.  Because they can not provide impartial sources.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

rshermn said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we need to approach the Mass Shootings the same way.  We need to fix what we can fix even if it's just to minimize the body count.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sadly, your profoundly ignorant progressive “fix” continues to _increase_ the body count.
Click to expand...

[/QUOTE]

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results each time. You people have banned, outlawed, regulated, legislated, and restricted your way to more dead children. Left-wing policy _always_ ends in *failure* because it is built on ignorance and emotion.

Sorry, me boy.  We are following right wing, NRA provided, rules for stopping mass shootings.  The other 35 advanced nations follow more liberal laws.  And, we have over 25 times as many deaths from mass shootins as any of those other nations.


> Now, I know seeing mass shootings, including at schools where many children are killed, does not bother you.  But providing those nut case killers with what they need to kill those children is no problem for you, because you do not value their lives like you value the ability to shoot an AR.  Which has absolutely no use except to kill scores of people. Good for you.  At least we know what you value, and what you do not value.



Do not resort to the tired old ploy of shaming your opponent and making him/her out to be a monster. There is a false dichotomy at work here and is shamelessly used again and again by gun control advocates. To many gun control advocates, the gun control opponents are amoral monsters who just want to keep their guns. To hell with the kids. Simple, right? No, it's never that simple. While a lot of gun control opponents wish to keep their firearms, that's not the whole story. I and many gun control opponents honestly do not feel that simply banning guns is the answer. Many of us understand that the problem is cultural, along with other factors. We may be right, we may be wrong. But this is what we truly believe and it does not make us uncaring wretches.


----------



## rshermn

asaratis said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even one person murdered in anger is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, but murder has been part of human history for as long as there have been humans, so if your goal is to eliminate all murder, you're defeated at the outset, and everything you do is going to be wrong, as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> when you can minimize the body count you MUST do it.  To totally ignore that factor makes you as guilty as the person pulling the trigger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The body count was minimized in the Texas church shooting when a citizen with a rifle wounded the chickenshit shooter and caused him to vacate the scene.
> 
> This is diametrically opposed the actions of the chickenshit deputies that refused to confront the crazed shooter in Broward County Florida.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you aware just how rare that behavior is?  Even the Cops have to continually train to keep their ability to react properly.  There are functions of the body that get in the way even if  you are well armed.  Normal People have it built into us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such chickenshit assholes should not be assigned to protect children and teachers in schools.
Click to expand...




Uncensored2008 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Yet it's done by individuals that set up their own booth.  And don't tell me it isn't done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't one of your little hate shits like Colbert or Madcow, or some other evil Marxist fuck try and do a "sting" at a gun show, but couldn't get anyone to sell them a gun?
> 
> Yeah, think I'll look that up, it was funny as hell.
> 
> One of the major lies of the anti-civil rights movement blew up in their face...
Click to expand...


*So, let me understand this.  You are making accusations, but have yet to check out the veracity of your drivel.  Tacky, me boy.  Show me some proof, and I will show you some interest.  Otherwise you are just a clown quoting talking points.  Which makes you totally irrelevant.*


----------



## P@triot

rshermn said:


> At least we know what you value, and what you do not value.


Yep...and I value the U.S. Constitution (including the 2nd Amendment) far more than I value your uninformed _opinion_!


----------



## P@triot

rshermn said:


> Sorry, me boy.  We are following right wing, NRA provided, rules for stopping mass shootings.


Uh...the right-wing and the NRA has doesn’t advocate to outlaw firearms on school grounds. You paranoid, cowardly, uneducated left-wing lunatics created the victim zones.

But...your side of the aisle has a long history of killing children so none of this comes as a surprise (abortion, eugenics, genocide, etc. - all left-wing).


----------



## P@triot

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *GOPer flips on gun control — and then scorches Trump for banning Muslim travel but wimping out on AR-15s*


In other words....yet another progressive is pissed off that *President Trump* is obeying the U.S. Constitution. Oh well! 

There is a constitutional *right* to keep and bear arms. There is no constitutional right for foreigners to enter our country.


----------



## P@triot

rshermn said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we need to approach the Mass Shootings the same way.  We need to fix what we can fix even if it's just to minimize the body count.
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, your profoundly ignorant progressive “fix” continues to _increase_ the body count.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results each time. You people have banned, outlawed, regulated, legislated, and restricted your way to more dead children. Left-wing policy _always_ ends in *failure* because it is built on ignorance and emotion.
> 
> Sorry, me boy.
Click to expand...

You know what you should be sorry for? The fact that it is 6 years later and your dumb ass still hasn’t figured out how to use this simple website. 

Every time you respond you make it look like I didn’t post anything and half of my words are actually written by you. Good grief you are *dumb*.

For the love of God - would one of you fellow ignorant leftists teach this dimwit how to hit “reply” and post without mucking up previous comments?!?


----------



## P@triot

And now the idiot rshermn has posted two blank “comments” in a row becuase this dimwit can’t figure out how to use USMB.


----------



## rshermn

P@triot said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> *GOPer flips on gun control — and then scorches Trump for banning Muslim travel but wimping out on AR-15s*
> 
> 
> 
> In other words....yet another progressive is pissed off that *President Trump* is obeying the U.S. Constitution. Oh well!
> 
> There is a constitutional *right* to keep and bear arms. There is no constitutional right for foreigners to enter our country.
Click to expand...


There is no such overbearing right.  You do not get to own an automatic weapon.  Nor an F15.  Nor atomic weapons.  Nor many other weapons.
I understand you think it is worse to not have an AR than to stop hundreds of people being killed every year by such guns.  Which makes you a slime ball.  In my humble but correct opinion.


----------



## P@triot

Yes. Yes. I see. Your post #6474 is quite insightful


----------



## P@triot

rshermn said:


> You do not get to own an automatic weapon.


Oh you poor, ignorant snowflake. It is 100% legal to own fully automatic firearms in the U.S. This is exactly why ignorant foreigners shouldn’t hop on to USMB and share their “views”.


----------



## P@triot

And once again rshermn brings tremendous insight to his post #6471


----------



## P@triot

rshermn said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> *GOPer flips on gun control — and then scorches Trump for banning Muslim travel but wimping out on AR-15s*
> 
> 
> 
> In other words....yet another progressive is pissed off that *President Trump* is obeying the U.S. Constitution. Oh well!
> 
> There is a constitutional *right* to keep and bear arms. There is no constitutional right for foreigners to enter our country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no such overbearing right.
Click to expand...




> ...the *right* of the *people* to *keep and bear* *arms* shall *not* be infringed - 2nd Amendment


----------



## rshermn

P@triot said:


> rshermn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do not get to own an automatic weapon.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you poor, ignorant snowflake. It is 100% legal to own fully automatic firearms in the U.S. This is exactly why ignorant foreigners shouldn’t hop on to USMB and share their “views”.
Click to expand...


Really, me poor ignorant con troll.   I know you can, if you can find one available that was produced prior to 1986.  And if you pay the fees to buy it.  And if you are willing to pay the price for a pre 86 auto.   I deal in practical reality.  So, lets be more specific to help you to understand:
If you do not want to pay the piper for a rare pre 86 auto, and can find one, and are willing to fill out the paper work to get it,  and if you get approved, you can get the auto.  But you will then be registered.  So they can keep track of you.  
You can not buy a post 86 auto, and certainly not a new one.


----------



## Jlo

waltky said:


> Maybe not obsolete but antiquated, out of date...
> 
> ... it needs to be updated to reflect the times...
> 
> ... and the threat of overkill firepower...
> 
> ... for the average citizen.


No, I disagree. It’s NOT A GUN issue regardless of the fact that more can be killed with automatic weapons. This is a heart issue.  It starts at home with parents. It starts with recognition of mental illness as a disease just like diabetes. It starts with bringing God back into our school systems and bringing the 10 commandments back in our political offices. It begins in our psyche not in our hands. Guns truly don’t killl people. If someone wants to kill, they’ll find a way.  You can not disarm Americans. Period. That’s when our nation can be overtaken.  Our right to bear arms should NEVER BE updated to give you & others a false sense of security ;instead each & every human being must take personal responsibility for where our society is at right now!


----------



## Cecilie1200

Papageorgio said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Open your mind, *get rid of your paranoia* and go enjoy life.
> 
> 
> 
> Says the paranoid freak who is scared stupid of inanimate objects such as firearms...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One of the reasons I have a gun is so that I CAN go and enjoy life, without having to worry about rapists, muggers, car-jackers . . .
> 
> Or is Miss "America so scary and violent" NOW telling us that that was a lie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you are saying that part of your pursuit of life, liberty and happiness is helped by owning a gun. Mine is the opposite and I’m really don’t care for them, however I don’t force my will on you and you don’t force your will on me. Both differing opinions, both are correct for each of us.
> 
> Not sure why some inn the left want to force others to live like they do because of their irrational fears. They need to educate themselves with facts and not fears, it would lead to better solutions and answers.
Click to expand...


That is EXACTLY what I'm saying.  I started my adulthood with being attacked by a man who turned out to have killed two other people, one of whom was a 2-year-old girl.  Neither one of us was armed with anything more than God gave us, and it took all of two seconds to realize that God had given men a lot more than He had me.  Fortunately, what He gave me was birth in a nation that enshrines the right of self-defense in its Constitution, so that I don't have to be dependent on every human I encounter to be a good person.  I'd love it if they were, and most are, but I'm not ever planning on leaving that decision entirely in THEIR hands.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop




----------



## Cecilie1200

Daryl Hunt said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rshermn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct there and that is why we as a nation will not ban guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You may want to stop being so paranoid.  I have a pretty good idea I own more guns than you.  And I am absolutely confident that none of the guns I own will be outlawed.  You see, I have hunting guns.  Not human killing guns.
> In my humble but correct opinion, assault weapons are not needed or usfull for hunting, as compared to the alternatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How am I paranoid? I have no issue with you having guns. I have no doubt that you also have more guns than I do because I don’t own a gun and don’t plan on it.
> 
> Repealing the 2nd Amendment will never happen as Issa is claiming it will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never say Never....not long ago blacks  were slaves, not long ago women couldn't vote, things do change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you remember to thank Republicans for both of those changes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOu seem to forget that is the time period when the Republicans were Progressive Conservatives.  A lot has changed since then.
Click to expand...


The only thing that has changed is the bullshit meme you invented to try to lie away the Democrats' responsibility for oppression.


----------



## Billy000

P@triot said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> *GOPer flips on gun control — and then scorches Trump for banning Muslim travel but wimping out on AR-15s*
> 
> 
> 
> In other words....yet another progressive is pissed off that *President Trump* is obeying the U.S. Constitution. Oh well!
> 
> There is a constitutional *right* to keep and bear arms. There is no constitutional right for foreigners to enter our country.
Click to expand...

Shut up. Progressives (adults) are talking.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Daryl Hunt said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> How am I paranoid? I have no issue with you having guns. I have no doubt that you also have more guns than I do because I don’t own a gun and don’t plan on it.
> 
> Repealing the 2nd Amendment will never happen as Issa is claiming it will.
> 
> 
> 
> Never say Never....not long ago blacks  were slaves, not long ago women couldn't vote, things do change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you remember to thank Republicans for both of those changes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOu seem to forget that is the time period when the Republicans were Progressive Conservatives.  A lot has changed since then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can run, but you can't hide.
> So saith the Brown Bomber.
> 
> 
> 
> The Republicans ended slavery and gave women the right to vote.
> 
> The Democrats have never ceased being the party of slavery, segregation, and second class citizenship.
> 
> 
> As you prove....every word from a Democrat/Liberal is a lie.
> *'Here’s what we’re up against: the Washington Post lies outright, describing Senator William Fulbright as “a progressive on racial issues.”  Fulbright was a full-bore segregationist, voting against the 1957, 1960, 1964, and 1965 civil rights bills.'
> Coulter*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And by 1970, the KKK, White Supremists and others were Republicans.  Imagine that.
Click to expand...


No, by 1970, the KKK and other white supremacists were well on their way to being an ugly and irrelevant footnote in history, THANKS to Republicans.


----------



## Cecilie1200

PoliticalChic said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never say Never....not long ago blacks  were slaves, not long ago women couldn't vote, things do change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you remember to thank Republicans for both of those changes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOu seem to forget that is the time period when the Republicans were Progressive Conservatives.  A lot has changed since then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can run, but you can't hide.
> So saith the Brown Bomber.
> 
> 
> 
> The Republicans ended slavery and gave women the right to vote.
> 
> The Democrats have never ceased being the party of slavery, segregation, and second class citizenship.
> 
> 
> As you prove....every word from a Democrat/Liberal is a lie.
> *'Here’s what we’re up against: the Washington Post lies outright, describing Senator William Fulbright as “a progressive on racial issues.”  Fulbright was a full-bore segregationist, voting against the 1957, 1960, 1964, and 1965 civil rights bills.'
> Coulter*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And by 1970, the KKK, White Supremists and others were Republicans.  Imagine that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You'll believe anything they tell you to, huh?
> 
> 
> *"Ku Klux Klan Grand Dragon Will Quigg Endorses Hillary Clinton for President"*
> *https://www.usnews.com/news/article...-quigg-endorses-hillary-clinton-for-president
> 
> 
> 
> Feelin' pretty stupid, huh?*
Click to expand...


If he were capable of feeling stupid, he wouldn't be that damned stupid.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Billy000 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> *GOPer flips on gun control — and then scorches Trump for banning Muslim travel but wimping out on AR-15s*
> 
> 
> 
> In other words....yet another progressive is pissed off that *President Trump* is obeying the U.S. Constitution. Oh well!
> 
> There is a constitutional *right* to keep and bear arms. There is no constitutional right for foreigners to enter our country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shut up. Progressives (adults) are talking.
Click to expand...




"Shut up. Progressives (adults) are talking."

And those first two words in your post summarize the totalitarian instincts of all of the 'shameful six'...
Progressives, Nazis, Liberals, Communists, Fascists and Socialists.

Raise your paw.


----------



## P@triot

rshermn said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rshermn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do not get to own an automatic weapon.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you poor, ignorant snowflake. It is 100% legal to own fully automatic firearms in the U.S. This is exactly why ignorant foreigners shouldn’t hop on to USMB and share their “views”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really, me poor ignorant con troll.   I know you can, if you can find one available that was produced prior to 1986.  And if you pay the fees to buy it.  And if you are willing to pay the price for a pre 86 auto.   I deal in practical reality.  So, lets be more specific to help you to understand:
> If you do not want to pay the piper for a rare pre 86 auto, and can find one, and are willing to fill out the paper work to get it,  and if you get approved, you can get the auto.  But you will then be registered.  So they can keep track of you.
> You can not buy a post 86 auto, and certainly not a new one.
Click to expand...

Oh look...someone did a Google search after their ignorance was exposed. If only you had done the Google search _before_ commenting!


----------



## Contumacious

TyroneSlothrop said:


>



Warsaw Ghetto





How many Jews have AR15's?

How many Gestapo agents have AR15's?

Contumacious rests.


*NEVER AGAIN*

.


----------



## Jlo

PoliticalChic said:


> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> *GOPer flips on gun control — and then scorches Trump for banning Muslim travel but wimping out on AR-15s*
> 
> 
> 
> In other words....yet another progressive is pissed off that *President Trump* is obeying the U.S. Constitution. Oh well!
> 
> There is a constitutional *right* to keep and bear arms. There is no constitutional right for foreigners to enter our country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shut up. Progressives (adults) are talking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Shut up. Progressives (adults) are talking."
> 
> And those first two words in your post summarize the totalitarian instincts of all of the 'shameful six'...
> Progressives, Nazis, Liberals, Communists, Fascists and Socialists.
> 
> Raise your paw.
Click to expand...

Preach!


----------



## Issa

P@triot said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a pure example of the ignorant dumb american....have you ever left your county?
> 
> 
> 
> And you are the epitome of the immature, idealist, subservient foreigner. Cecilie1200 provides link after link after link proving you are dead-wrong and your only idiotic response is to call her “ignorant”.
> 
> So let me get this straight - she’s “ignorant” for knowing the *facts* and sharing them with you? Every time the left loses an argument they get all pissed off and scream “you are ignorant”. So juvenile.
Click to expand...

I'm no left or right. I'm a human who don't like to see other humans killed in a barbaric way here in the US. I want them to be as safe as I was overseas. Too much to ask for ?


----------



## Issa

P@triot said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Open your mind, get rid of your paranoia and go enjoy life.
> 
> 
> 
> Open _your_ mind and embrace firearms!
Click to expand...

Never did never will...thank God many countries don't. Only ignorant retards do need guns in 2018.


----------



## Billy000

PoliticalChic said:


> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> *GOPer flips on gun control — and then scorches Trump for banning Muslim travel but wimping out on AR-15s*
> 
> 
> 
> In other words....yet another progressive is pissed off that *President Trump* is obeying the U.S. Constitution. Oh well!
> 
> There is a constitutional *right* to keep and bear arms. There is no constitutional right for foreigners to enter our country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shut up. Progressives (adults) are talking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Shut up. Progressives (adults) are talking."
> 
> And those first two words in your post summarize the totalitarian instincts of all of the 'shameful six'...
> Progressives, Nazis, Liberals, Communists, Fascists and Socialists.
> 
> Raise your paw.
Click to expand...

I’m curious. If progressives are such vicious authoritarians, why don’t we have political opinions that reflect that?


----------



## Issa

P@triot said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> So in Britain they removed the guns and the murder rate went up, how does that make us safer? The same happened in Australia, it went down the first year but then trended up, people found other ways to kill.
> 
> 
> 
> A graph is better than a thousand word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And *facts* are better than a billion graphs. Now stop being a left-wing coward and address @Papageorgio’s questions head on. How does removing firearms make us safer when the murder rates went up in England and in Australia after they did that?
Click to expand...

It was debunked many times. Why is only the US that has mass shootings and leads the way in deaths from violent crimes and guns per capita?


----------



## Jlo

Issa said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a pure example of the ignorant dumb american....have you ever left your county?
> 
> 
> 
> And you are the epitome of the immature, idealist, subservient foreigner. Cecilie1200 provides link after link after link proving you are dead-wrong and your only idiotic response is to call her “ignorant”.
> 
> So let me get this straight - she’s “ignorant” for knowing the *facts* and sharing them with you? Every time the left loses an argument they get all pissed off and scream “you are ignorant”. So juvenile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm no left or right. I'm a human who don't like to see other humans killed in a barbaric way here in the US. I want them to be as safe as I was overseas. Too much to ask for ?
Click to expand...

Safety is an illusion. Gun control of any kind is just that as well.. an illusion.  Playing fields have to be even.


----------



## Issa

Cecilie1200 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Open your mind, *get rid of your paranoia* and go enjoy life.
> 
> 
> 
> Says the paranoid freak who is scared stupid of inanimate objects such as firearms...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One of the reasons I have a gun is so that I CAN go and enjoy life, without having to worry about rapists, muggers, car-jackers . . .
> 
> Or is Miss "America so scary and violent" NOW telling us that that was a lie?
Click to expand...

I hate to be you. Walking around paranoid. With the attitude shown in your responses...Is men that have to worry about being sexually assaulted. You lost your femininity lady.


----------



## Issa

PoliticalChic said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rshermn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> You gotta respect the will of the majority....as for now there is nothing one can do. But there will come time, where the 2nd amendment will be abolished I can assure you of that.
> Your life doesn't depend on a gun, you can live without it....this isn't the wild wide west era.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct there and that is why we as a nation will not ban guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You may want to stop being so paranoid.  I have a pretty good idea I own more guns than you.  And I am absolutely confident that none of the guns I own will be outlawed.  You see, I have hunting guns.  Not human killing guns.
> In my humble but correct opinion, assault weapons are not needed or usfull for hunting, as compared to the alternatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How am I paranoid? I have no issue with you having guns. I have no doubt that you also have more guns than I do because I don’t own a gun and don’t plan on it.
> 
> Repealing the 2nd Amendment will never happen as Issa is claiming it will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never say Never....not long ago blacks  were slaves, not long ago women couldn't vote, things do change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you remember to thank Republicans for both of those changes.
Click to expand...

GOP is part of the racists and the blood thirsty that I know.


----------



## P@triot

Contumacious said:


> Warsaw Ghetto
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many Jews have AR15's? How many Gestapo agents have AR15's?Contumacious rests.
> 
> *NEVER AGAIN*


Don’t kid yourself...that’s _exactly_ why the left wants to disarm the American people.


----------



## P@triot

Issa said:


> Is men that have to worry about being sexually assaulted. You lost your femininity lady.


The left’s *War on Women* is alive and well...


----------



## P@triot

Issa said:


> I hate to be you.


It would be even worse to be you. Run from your shit-hole country to my country. Then pretend like you hate it. Then hate women because you’re incapable of gaining their affection.

What a miserable existence.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Issa said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Open your mind, *get rid of your paranoia* and go enjoy life.
> 
> 
> 
> Says the paranoid freak who is scared stupid of inanimate objects such as firearms...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One of the reasons I have a gun is so that I CAN go and enjoy life, without having to worry about rapists, muggers, car-jackers . . .
> 
> Or is Miss "America so scary and violent" NOW telling us that that was a lie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hate to be you. Walking around paranoid. With the attitude shown in your responses...Is men that have to worry about being sexually assaulted. You lost your femininity lady.
Click to expand...


Oooh, look at that.  Leftists attacking crime victims.  And I could swear they were just telling us how awful that was to do.  I guess that only applies to crime victims who are willing to let the leftists hide their agenda behind their skirts, hmmm?


----------



## P@triot

Issa said:


> I'm no left or right.


That’s true. You are what we call “ignorant”.


Issa said:


> I'm a human who don't like to see other humans killed in a barbaric way here in the US.


No...you’re not a human...you’re an idiot who wants to make sure people are unarmed so that they can be killed in a barbaric way.


Issa said:


> I want them to be as safe as I was overseas. Too much to ask for ?


Yes. Way too much to ask for. This is the U.S. - the land of liberty and the constitution. We have a *right* to keep and bear arms. Get out of my country and go back to your own if you don’t like it.


----------



## Issa

P@triot said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is men that have to worry about being sexually assaulted. You lost your femininity lady.
> 
> 
> 
> The left’s *War on Women* is alive and well...
Click to expand...

I don't care about parties but the right for now showed they are :
Pro pussy grabbers (Trump,  moore...)
Pro Nazis
Anti minorities 
Pro guns and mass murders 
Anti America and pro Russia 
Anti the branches of democracy (trashing judicial branch, FBI, CIA....media, Congress)
Pro Russia.
I can go on forever.


----------



## P@triot

Issa said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> So in Britain they removed the guns and the murder rate went up, how does that make us safer? The same happened in Australia, it went down the first year but then trended up, people found other ways to kill.
> 
> 
> 
> A graph is better than a thousand word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And *facts* are better than a billion graphs. Now stop being a left-wing coward and address @Papageorgio’s questions head on. How does removing firearms make us safer when the murder rates went up in England and in Australia after they did that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was debunked many times.
Click to expand...

You cannot “debunk” *facts*. The murder rates went up. Only criminals want to see the people disarmed. I wonder what kind of disturbing activities you engage in Issa? Armed robbery? Raping women? Worse?


----------



## P@triot

Issa said:


> Is men that have to worry about being sexually assaulted. You lost your femininity lady.


So a woman is horribly assaulted and Issa here mocks her about it. Talks about barbaric. Time for you to go home, junior. We don’t need garbage like you here in the U.S. This is a nation for *great* people - not for misogynist, offenders who want to make sure women are unarmed and helpless.


----------



## P@triot

Issa said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is men that have to worry about being sexually assaulted. You lost your femininity lady.
> 
> 
> 
> The left’s *War on Women* is alive and well...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't care about parties but the right for now showed they are :
> Pro pussy grabbers (Trump,  moore...)
> Pro Nazis
> Anti minorities
> Pro guns and mass murders
> Anti America and pro Russia
> Anti the branches of democracy (trashing judicial branch, FBI, CIA....media, Congress)
> Pro Russia.
> I can go on forever.
Click to expand...

And you just showed (yet again) that you exude ignorance!


----------



## Issa

Cecilie1200 said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Open your mind, *get rid of your paranoia* and go enjoy life.
> 
> 
> 
> Says the paranoid freak who is scared stupid of inanimate objects such as firearms...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One of the reasons I have a gun is so that I CAN go and enjoy life, without having to worry about rapists, muggers, car-jackers . . .
> 
> Or is Miss "America so scary and violent" NOW telling us that that was a lie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hate to be you. Walking around paranoid. With the attitude shown in your responses...Is men that have to worry about being sexually assaulted. You lost your femininity lady.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oooh, look at that.  Leftists attacking crime victims.  And I could swear they were just telling us how awful that was to do.  I guess that only applies to crime victims who are willing to let the leftists hide their agenda behind their skirts, hmmm?
Click to expand...

Which left? Lol....I'm me and I don't represent anyone. Just calling what is. Go travel overseas and see women act as women. I think you lost your femininity and you don't realize it.


----------



## P@triot

Issa said:


> Go travel overseas and see women act as women. I think you lost your femininity and you don't realize it.


And this slimy, filthy, misogynistic foreigner continues to attack women. How much you want to bet this piece of shit is a muslim?


----------



## Issa

P@triot said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is men that have to worry about being sexually assaulted. You lost your femininity lady.
> 
> 
> 
> So a woman is horribly assaulted and Issa here mocks her about it. Talks about barbaric. Time for you to go home, junior. We don’t need garbage like you here in the U.S. This is a nation for *great* people - not for misogynist, offenders who want to make sure women are unarmed and helpless.
Click to expand...

Who was raped and I mocked?
I respect women that respect themselves. I got in fights defending  women that I don't know, because that's how I was brought up. But Cecile is no woman, I'm sorry....there is nothing feminin about what she says or advocates.


----------



## P@triot

Issa said:


> I think you lost your femininity and you don't realize it.


Well I *know* that you’ve lost all basic human decency. Where for you realize it or not is up for debate.


----------



## Issa

P@triot said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go travel overseas and see women act as women. I think you lost your femininity and you don't realize it.
> 
> 
> 
> And this slimy, filthy, misogynistic foreigner continues to attack women. How much you want to bet this piece of shit is a muslim?
Click to expand...

Contrary I respect women more than men in general till thry prove they are not worthy of respect. Play another game.


----------



## P@triot

Issa said:


> I respect women that respect themselves.


Wow...what an incredibly misogynistic statement. So you admit you refuse to show respect to a woman if they struggle from self-esteem issues? You revel in making it worse for them?


----------



## P@triot

Issa said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go travel overseas and see women act as women. I think you lost your femininity and you don't realize it.
> 
> 
> 
> And this slimy, filthy, misogynistic foreigner continues to attack women. How much you want to bet this piece of shit is a muslim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Contrary I respect women more than men in general till thry prove they are not worthy of respect. Play another game.
Click to expand...

Ahahahaha....I was right! This transsexual _is_ a filthy muslim.


----------



## Issa

P@triot said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you lost your femininity and you don't realize it.
> 
> 
> 
> Well I *know* that you’ve lost all basic human decency. Where for you realize it or not is up for debate.
Click to expand...

That's my opinion , for a female to act as a thug like she did. Women are gentle, smart, poised, ...and she is none of that.


----------



## Issa

P@triot said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I respect women that respect themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow...what an incredibly misogynistic statement. So you admit you refuse to show respect to a woman if they struggle from self-esteem issues? You revel in making it worse for them?
Click to expand...

So you admitting that Cecile has self esteem issues ? Ok sorry Cecile.


----------



## P@triot

Issa said:


> Who was raped and I mocked?


Who was poor grammared and *I* mocked? Answer: you!


----------



## Issa

P@triot said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who was raped and I mocked?
> 
> 
> 
> Who was poor grammared and *I* mocked? Answer: you!
Click to expand...

When you become fluent in 5 languages...you can mock me .


----------



## P@triot

Issa said:


> Women are gentle, smart, poised, ...and she is none of that.


Actually.... Cecilie1200 is all of that and more. She’s also informed, patriotic, independent, and self-reliant. And that’s what pisses you off. She doesn’t have to rely on you nor does she have to be subservient to you. You hate that you can’t make her a victim.


----------



## P@triot

Issa said:


> When you become fluent in 5 languages...you can mock me .


When you become fluent in just one (English), you can stay here.


----------



## Issa

P@triot said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Women are gentle, smart, poised, ...and she is none of that.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually.... Cecilie1200 is all of that and more. She’s also informed, patriotic, independent, and self-reliant. And that’s what pisses you off. She doesn’t have to rely on you nor does she have to be subservient to you. You hate that you can’t make her a victim.
Click to expand...

Wrong again. I love independent successeful and stromg women. Not cool mouthed, thugs wanabe , and regressive ones.


----------



## Issa

P@triot said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you become fluent in 5 languages...you can mock me .
> 
> 
> 
> When you become fluent in just one (English), you can stay here.
Click to expand...

I am actually . Oh!!! And a citizen just like you, same rights same obligations.... pays more in taxes for sure, since most of your kind don't make much, and dodge paying your share like the fool you elected .

Should I rewrite the above in French? Spanish? Arabic? Italian or Portuguese? For you to understand it better?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Issa said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Open your mind, *get rid of your paranoia* and go enjoy life.
> 
> 
> 
> Says the paranoid freak who is scared stupid of inanimate objects such as firearms...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One of the reasons I have a gun is so that I CAN go and enjoy life, without having to worry about rapists, muggers, car-jackers . . .
> 
> Or is Miss "America so scary and violent" NOW telling us that that was a lie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hate to be you. Walking around paranoid. With the attitude shown in your responses...Is men that have to worry about being sexually assaulted. You lost your femininity lady.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oooh, look at that.  Leftists attacking crime victims.  And I could swear they were just telling us how awful that was to do.  I guess that only applies to crime victims who are willing to let the leftists hide their agenda behind their skirts, hmmm?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which left? Lol....I'm me and I don't represent anyone. Just calling what is. Go travel overseas and see women act as women. I think you lost your femininity and you don't realize it.
Click to expand...


I think you're a hypocrite who only believes in sympathy for crime victims when they say what you want to hear.

But hey, if you think it's more "feminine" to be raped and killed than to defend yourself, you just go on with your bad self.  I'll be over here, not giving a rat's ass about the opinion of the likes of you.


----------



## Issa

Cecilie1200 said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says the paranoid freak who is scared stupid of inanimate objects such as firearms...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the reasons I have a gun is so that I CAN go and enjoy life, without having to worry about rapists, muggers, car-jackers . . .
> 
> Or is Miss "America so scary and violent" NOW telling us that that was a lie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hate to be you. Walking around paranoid. With the attitude shown in your responses...Is men that have to worry about being sexually assaulted. You lost your femininity lady.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oooh, look at that.  Leftists attacking crime victims.  And I could swear they were just telling us how awful that was to do.  I guess that only applies to crime victims who are willing to let the leftists hide their agenda behind their skirts, hmmm?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which left? Lol....I'm me and I don't represent anyone. Just calling what is. Go travel overseas and see women act as women. I think you lost your femininity and you don't realize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you're a hypocrite who only believes in sympathy for crime victims when they say what you want to hear.
> 
> But hey, if you think it's more "feminine" to be raped and killed than to defend yourself, you just go on with your bad self.  I'll be over here, not giving a rat's ass about the opinion of the likes of you.
Click to expand...

You live in fear and paranoia, I've known thousands of females who don't. Sucks to be you I am sorry. If you can afford traveling overseas go see it for yourself. You don't have to have a gun to be safe.


----------



## P@triot

Issa said:


> I am actually .


If that is your idea of “fluent” in English, then you are even dumber than I thought


----------



## P@triot

Issa said:


> You don't have to have a gun to be safe.


Really? Then why are those kids dead? They didn’t have guns.

Dumb ass.


----------



## Issa

P@triot said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am actually .
> 
> 
> 
> If that is your idea of “fluent” in English, then you are even dumber than I thought
Click to expand...

Got nothing to add and you trolling now. Au revoir.


----------



## P@triot

Issa said:


> If you can afford traveling overseas go see it for yourself. You don't have to have a gun to be safe.


I have literally traveled half way around the world. All it did was prove to me that one must have a firearm to be safe. The school shooting last week just proved it again. Only the unarmed becomes a victim. Armed people don’t become victims.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Issa said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is men that have to worry about being sexually assaulted. You lost your femininity lady.
> 
> 
> 
> So a woman is horribly assaulted and Issa here mocks her about it. Talks about barbaric. Time for you to go home, junior. We don’t need garbage like you here in the U.S. This is a nation for *great* people - not for misogynist, offenders who want to make sure women are unarmed and helpless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who was raped and I mocked?
> I respect women that respect themselves. I got in fights defending  women that I don't know, because that's how I was brought up. But Cecile is no woman, I'm sorry....there is nothing feminin about what she says or advocates.
Click to expand...


Who said "raped", bitch?  As far as anyone could tell, the man who attacked me wasn't into rape.  He just got off on killing young women.  Would you like me to tell you about the 14-year-old girl he killed, whose body was found in an alley?  Or would you rather hear about the 2-year-old girl he kidnapped from her bedroom, stabbed multiple times with an ice pick, and left in an abandoned car to die?  I can even tell you how the crime-scene experts found her fingerprints all over the inside of the door, where she tried to get out and get help until she bled to death.

Would that be "horribly assaulted" enough for you, or does it have to be sexual before it grabs your interest, you supercilious foreign twat?  Would you like to tell me again how I'm "not woman" enough for you, because I don't want to be prey for that sort of person ever again?  Exactly what does it take to get you to "defend women you don't know" who don't happen to be fronting your personal agenda, hypocrite?


----------



## Issa

P@triot said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have to have a gun to be safe.
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Then why are those kids dead? They didn’t have guns.
> 
> Dumb ass.
Click to expand...

Why didn't the police who had guns enter to save them? Why was the police hiding when the Las Vegas shooter was showering them from above? Why kids in other parts of the world don't face this madness ?


----------



## P@triot

Issa said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am actually .
> 
> 
> 
> If that is your idea of “fluent” in English, then you are even dumber than I thought
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Got nothing to add and you trolling now. Au revoir.
Click to expand...

Boom! You got owned son. Run away (back to your own nation).


----------



## Issa

P@triot said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you can afford traveling overseas go see it for yourself. You don't have to have a gun to be safe.
> 
> 
> 
> I have literally traveled half way around the world. All it did was prove to me that one must have a firearm to be safe. The school shooting last week just proved it again. Only the unarmed becomes a victim. Armed people don’t become victims.
Click to expand...

Are you sure, you went beyond your county borders ?
Where did you Go? Afghanistan? Yemen? Salvador ?


----------



## P@triot

Issa said:


> Why didn't the police who had guns enter to save them?


Uh...because they were progressives pussies just like you.


Issa said:


> Why was the police hiding when the Las Vegas shooter was showering them from above?


Uh...because they were progressives pussies just like you.


Issa said:


> Why kids in other parts of the world don't face this madness ?


Uh....they do you uninformed dimwit. Children in China were _brutally_ stabbed in mass stabbings in elementary schools from 2010 - 2012.


----------



## Issa

Cecilie1200 said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is men that have to worry about being sexually assaulted. You lost your femininity lady.
> 
> 
> 
> So a woman is horribly assaulted and Issa here mocks her about it. Talks about barbaric. Time for you to go home, junior. We don’t need garbage like you here in the U.S. This is a nation for *great* people - not for misogynist, offenders who want to make sure women are unarmed and helpless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who was raped and I mocked?
> I respect women that respect themselves. I got in fights defending  women that I don't know, because that's how I was brought up. But Cecile is no woman, I'm sorry....there is nothing feminin about what she says or advocates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said "raped", bitch?  As far as anyone could tell, the man who attacked me wasn't into rape.  He just got off on killing young women.  Would you like me to tell you about the 14-year-old girl he killed, whose body was found in an alley?  Or would you rather hear about the 2-year-old girl he kidnapped from her bedroom, stabbed multiple times with an ice pick, and left in an abandoned car to die?  I can even tell you how the crime-scene experts found her fingerprints all over the inside of the door, where she tried to get out and get help until she bled to death.
> 
> Would that be "horribly assaulted" enough for you, or does it have to be sexual before it grabs your interest, you supercilious foreign twat?  Would you like to tell me again how I'm "not woman" enough for you, because I don't want to be prey for that sort of person ever again?  Exactly what does it take to get you to "defend women you don't know" who don't happen to be fronting your personal agenda, hypocrite?
Click to expand...

So you suggest that the 2 young girls Shouldve been armed to defend themselves. 

You live in paranoia and fear, god help you.


----------



## P@triot

Issa said:


> Are you sure, you went beyond your county borders ?


Yep! And I didn’t become a victim because I went armed.


----------



## P@triot

Issa said:


> You live in paranoia and fear, god help you.


But you live in unimaginable ignorance. God help _you_.


----------



## P@triot

Issa said:


> So you suggest that the 2 young girls Shouldve been armed to defend themselves.


So you suggest they “got what they deserved”? How very muslim misogynistic of you.


----------



## P@triot

Issa said:


> Got nothing to add and *you trolling* now. Au revoir.





Issa said:


> *Why kids* in other parts of the world don't face this madness ?


And yet genius here insists he is “fluent” in English.


----------



## Issa

P@triot said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why didn't the police who had guns enter to save them?
> 
> 
> 
> Uh...because they were progressives pussies just like you.
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why was the police hiding when the Las Vegas shooter was showering them from above?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh...because they were progressives pussies just like you.
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why kids in other parts of the world don't face this madness ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh....they do you uninformed dimwit. Children in China were _brutally_ stabbed in mass stabbings in elementary schools from 2010 - 2012.
Click to expand...

Oh so the law enforcement now are lefties ? Lol
So you had to go all the way to 2010 in China to prove that other kids in other countries get massacredd as well? LOL


----------



## Issa

P@triot said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you suggest that the 2 young girls Shouldve been armed to defend themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> So you suggest they “got what they deserved”? How very muslim misogynistic of you.
Click to expand...

It's childish what you doing now. You wanna discuss or exchange insults ?


----------



## P@triot

Issa said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you suggest that the 2 young girls Shouldve been armed to defend themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> So you suggest they “got what they deserved”? How very muslim misogynistic of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's childish what you doing now. You wanna discuss or exchange insults ?
Click to expand...

So the guy who just idiotically said to Cecilie “so you suggest that a 2-year old should have been armed to defend herself” wants to talk about insults?

You’re clearly incapable of swallowing your own medicine.


----------



## P@triot

Issa said:


> So you had to go all the way to 2010 in China to prove that other kids in other countries get massacredd as well?


Yeah. “All the way” to a whopping 6 - 8 years ago.


----------



## P@triot

Issa said:


> Oh so the law enforcement now are lefties ?


Well yeah _stupid_...there are people of all walks of life in law enforcement (including conservatives, liberals, foreigners, etc.).


----------



## Cecilie1200

P@triot said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I respect women that respect themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow...what an incredibly misogynistic statement. So you admit you refuse to show respect to a woman if they struggle from self-esteem issues? You revel in making it worse for them?
Click to expand...


She only "respects" women who are in rape trauma counseling, or dead.  Anything else is "unfeminine".


----------



## P@triot

Issa said:


> So you had to go all the way to 2010 in China to prove that other kids in other countries get massacredd as well?


This just further proves that you are completely uninformed about the subject matter being discussed.

School attacks in China (2010–12) - Wikipedia


----------



## Cecilie1200

Issa said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you lost your femininity and you don't realize it.
> 
> 
> 
> Well I *know* that you’ve lost all basic human decency. Where for you realize it or not is up for debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's my opinion , for a female to act as a thug like she did. Women are gentle, smart, poised, ...and she is none of that.
Click to expand...


And who make sure to arrange their skirts nicely before they fall into the pool of their own blood.  One DOES wish to keep up appearances.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Issa said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I respect women that respect themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow...what an incredibly misogynistic statement. So you admit you refuse to show respect to a woman if they struggle from self-esteem issues? You revel in making it worse for them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you admitting that Cecile has self esteem issues ? Ok sorry Cecile.
Click to expand...


I agree that you're sorry.  You're a sorry excuse for a feminist, a sorry excuse for a woman, and a sorry excuse for a human being.  Enjoy knowing it.


----------



## P@triot

Issa said:


> Why kids in other parts of the world don't face this madness ?


They do. And the fact that you don’t even know that much proves that you are completely ignorant of the subject matter being discussed. There 139 children killed in this one incident alone.

2014 Peshawar school massacre - Wikipedia


----------



## Cecilie1200

Issa said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the reasons I have a gun is so that I CAN go and enjoy life, without having to worry about rapists, muggers, car-jackers . . .
> 
> Or is Miss "America so scary and violent" NOW telling us that that was a lie?
> 
> 
> 
> I hate to be you. Walking around paranoid. With the attitude shown in your responses...Is men that have to worry about being sexually assaulted. You lost your femininity lady.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oooh, look at that.  Leftists attacking crime victims.  And I could swear they were just telling us how awful that was to do.  I guess that only applies to crime victims who are willing to let the leftists hide their agenda behind their skirts, hmmm?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which left? Lol....I'm me and I don't represent anyone. Just calling what is. Go travel overseas and see women act as women. I think you lost your femininity and you don't realize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you're a hypocrite who only believes in sympathy for crime victims when they say what you want to hear.
> 
> But hey, if you think it's more "feminine" to be raped and killed than to defend yourself, you just go on with your bad self.  I'll be over here, not giving a rat's ass about the opinion of the likes of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You live in fear and paranoia, I've known thousands of females who don't. Sucks to be you I am sorry. If you can afford traveling overseas go see it for yourself. You don't have to have a gun to be safe.
Click to expand...


Because I'm a much better human being than you are, I hope you're never put in a position to realize what a delusion that "safety" of yours is.  You're too busy worrying about being "gentle and ladylike" to be able to fight for your life successfully, the way I did.


----------



## P@triot

Issa said:


> Why kids in other parts of the world don't face this madness ?


They do. And the fact that you don’t even know that much proves that you are completely ignorant of the subject matter being discussed. 

Deadly school shootings in Canada


----------



## Issa

P@triot said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you had to go all the way to 2010 in China to prove that other kids in other countries get massacredd as well?
> 
> 
> 
> This just further proves that you are completely uninformed about the subject matter being discussed.
> 
> School attacks in China (2010–12) - Wikipedia
Click to expand...


You had to go all the way to China to prove that kids getting killed in schools is the norm? Pathetic !!! 
Since you good at googling tell me how many students got killed compare to those in the US in the last 20 years,  also where else kids are getting murdered like in the US?
Germany, Estonia? Denmark? Algeria? I'm an? Djibouti ? Where?


----------



## Issa

Cecilie1200 said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I respect women that respect themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow...what an incredibly misogynistic statement. So you admit you refuse to show respect to a woman if they struggle from self-esteem issues? You revel in making it worse for them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you admitting that Cecile has self esteem issues ? Ok sorry Cecile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree that you're sorry.  You're a sorry excuse for a feminist, a sorry excuse for a woman, and a sorry excuse for a human being.  Enjoy knowing it.
Click to expand...

I' sorry that you are a paranoid soul.


----------



## P@triot

Issa said:


> Why kids in other parts of the world don't face this madness ?


They do. And the fact that you don’t even know that much proves that you are completely ignorant of the subject matter being discussed.

Toulouse and Montauban shootings - Wikipedia


----------



## Cecilie1200

Issa said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is men that have to worry about being sexually assaulted. You lost your femininity lady.
> 
> 
> 
> So a woman is horribly assaulted and Issa here mocks her about it. Talks about barbaric. Time for you to go home, junior. We don’t need garbage like you here in the U.S. This is a nation for *great* people - not for misogynist, offenders who want to make sure women are unarmed and helpless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who was raped and I mocked?
> I respect women that respect themselves. I got in fights defending  women that I don't know, because that's how I was brought up. But Cecile is no woman, I'm sorry....there is nothing feminin about what she says or advocates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said "raped", bitch?  As far as anyone could tell, the man who attacked me wasn't into rape.  He just got off on killing young women.  Would you like me to tell you about the 14-year-old girl he killed, whose body was found in an alley?  Or would you rather hear about the 2-year-old girl he kidnapped from her bedroom, stabbed multiple times with an ice pick, and left in an abandoned car to die?  I can even tell you how the crime-scene experts found her fingerprints all over the inside of the door, where she tried to get out and get help until she bled to death.
> 
> Would that be "horribly assaulted" enough for you, or does it have to be sexual before it grabs your interest, you supercilious foreign twat?  Would you like to tell me again how I'm "not woman" enough for you, because I don't want to be prey for that sort of person ever again?  Exactly what does it take to get you to "defend women you don't know" who don't happen to be fronting your personal agenda, hypocrite?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you suggest that the 2 young girls Shouldve been armed to defend themselves.
> 
> You live in paranoia and fear, god help you.
Click to expand...


No, I'm suggesting that if I had been armed, that 2-year-old might still be alive.

Would you like to keep talking yourself into this woman-hating hole of yours?  Keep showing everyone the truth of your "sympathy" for crime victims being only for the ones you're currently using as human shields?  Keep revealing yourself as a vicious, hateful harpy?


----------



## asaratis

rookie said:
			
		

> Me boy, are you trying to prove you are stupid?   I think you just accomplished it.  There was a group of democrats, called SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS, who were for segregations.  Now the important fact is that when LBJ passed the civil rights laws, he knew that the Southern Democrats would leave the party.  He was correct.  They all went to the REPUBLICAN PARTY.  Get it, me boy.  They are Republicans.


My, my! You are indeed a fucking rookie!


----------



## Issa

Cecilie1200 said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hate to be you. Walking around paranoid. With the attitude shown in your responses...Is men that have to worry about being sexually assaulted. You lost your femininity lady.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oooh, look at that.  Leftists attacking crime victims.  And I could swear they were just telling us how awful that was to do.  I guess that only applies to crime victims who are willing to let the leftists hide their agenda behind their skirts, hmmm?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which left? Lol....I'm me and I don't represent anyone. Just calling what is. Go travel overseas and see women act as women. I think you lost your femininity and you don't realize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you're a hypocrite who only believes in sympathy for crime victims when they say what you want to hear.
> 
> But hey, if you think it's more "feminine" to be raped and killed than to defend yourself, you just go on with your bad self.  I'll be over here, not giving a rat's ass about the opinion of the likes of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You live in fear and paranoia, I've known thousands of females who don't. Sucks to be you I am sorry. If you can afford traveling overseas go see it for yourself. You don't have to have a gun to be safe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because I'm a much better human being than you are, I hope you're never put in a position to realize what a delusion that "safety" of yours is.  You're too busy worrying about being "gentle and ladylike" to be able to fight for your life successfully, the way I did.
Click to expand...

I don' have to be paranoid and on guard at all times. You can, live your life as you wish.


----------



## P@triot

Issa said:


> Why kids in other parts of the world don't face this madness ?


They do. And the fact that you don’t even know that much proves that you are completely ignorant of the subject matter being discussed.

German Gunman, 17, Attacks School in Winnenden; 16 Are Dead


----------



## Cecilie1200

Issa said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I respect women that respect themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow...what an incredibly misogynistic statement. So you admit you refuse to show respect to a woman if they struggle from self-esteem issues? You revel in making it worse for them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you admitting that Cecile has self esteem issues ? Ok sorry Cecile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree that you're sorry.  You're a sorry excuse for a feminist, a sorry excuse for a woman, and a sorry excuse for a human being.  Enjoy knowing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I' sorry that you are a paranoid soul.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry that you don't have a soul.


----------



## P@triot

Issa said:


> You can, live your life as you wish.


We are Americans. We will whether you like it or not. Now go home, son.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Issa said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oooh, look at that.  Leftists attacking crime victims.  And I could swear they were just telling us how awful that was to do.  I guess that only applies to crime victims who are willing to let the leftists hide their agenda behind their skirts, hmmm?
> 
> 
> 
> Which left? Lol....I'm me and I don't represent anyone. Just calling what is. Go travel overseas and see women act as women. I think you lost your femininity and you don't realize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you're a hypocrite who only believes in sympathy for crime victims when they say what you want to hear.
> 
> But hey, if you think it's more "feminine" to be raped and killed than to defend yourself, you just go on with your bad self.  I'll be over here, not giving a rat's ass about the opinion of the likes of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You live in fear and paranoia, I've known thousands of females who don't. Sucks to be you I am sorry. If you can afford traveling overseas go see it for yourself. You don't have to have a gun to be safe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because I'm a much better human being than you are, I hope you're never put in a position to realize what a delusion that "safety" of yours is.  You're too busy worrying about being "gentle and ladylike" to be able to fight for your life successfully, the way I did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don' have to be paranoid and on guard at all times. You can, live your life as you wish.
Click to expand...


No, you have to be, you just aren't, because you're unforgivably stupid and naive, in addition to being a nasty specimen of particularly vile garbage.


----------



## Issa

Cecilie1200 said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is men that have to worry about being sexually assaulted. You lost your femininity lady.
> 
> 
> 
> So a woman is horribly assaulted and Issa here mocks her about it. Talks about barbaric. Time for you to go home, junior. We don’t need garbage like you here in the U.S. This is a nation for *great* people - not for misogynist, offenders who want to make sure women are unarmed and helpless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who was raped and I mocked?
> I respect women that respect themselves. I got in fights defending  women that I don't know, because that's how I was brought up. But Cecile is no woman, I'm sorry....there is nothing feminin about what she says or advocates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said "raped", bitch?  As far as anyone could tell, the man who attacked me wasn't into rape.  He just got off on killing young women.  Would you like me to tell you about the 14-year-old girl he killed, whose body was found in an alley?  Or would you rather hear about the 2-year-old girl he kidnapped from her bedroom, stabbed multiple times with an ice pick, and left in an abandoned car to die?  I can even tell you how the crime-scene experts found her fingerprints all over the inside of the door, where she tried to get out and get help until she bled to death.
> 
> Would that be "horribly assaulted" enough for you, or does it have to be sexual before it grabs your interest, you supercilious foreign twat?  Would you like to tell me again how I'm "not woman" enough for you, because I don't want to be prey for that sort of person ever again?  Exactly what does it take to get you to "defend women you don't know" who don't happen to be fronting your personal agenda, hypocrite?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you suggest that the 2 young girls Shouldve been armed to defend themselves.
> 
> You live in paranoia and fear, god help you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm suggesting that if I had been armed, that 2-year-old might still be alive.
> 
> Would you like to keep talking yourself into this woman-hating hole of yours?  Keep showing everyone the truth of your "sympathy" for crime victims being only for the ones you're currently using as human shields?  Keep revealing yourself as a vicious, hateful harpy?
Click to expand...

I don't know and I don' know if your story is true or not. I'm judging you by your posts....and your posts reveal that you are paranoid. If your story is true, I'm deeply sorry and I would put my life in danger to protect those girls and any human being.


----------



## Issa

P@triot said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can, live your life as you wish.
> 
> 
> 
> We are Americans. We will whether you like it or not. Now go home, son.
Click to expand...

One day guns will be banned and kids can be safer in schools, like in other countries.


----------



## Issa

Cecilie1200 said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which left? Lol....I'm me and I don't represent anyone. Just calling what is. Go travel overseas and see women act as women. I think you lost your femininity and you don't realize it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're a hypocrite who only believes in sympathy for crime victims when they say what you want to hear.
> 
> But hey, if you think it's more "feminine" to be raped and killed than to defend yourself, you just go on with your bad self.  I'll be over here, not giving a rat's ass about the opinion of the likes of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You live in fear and paranoia, I've known thousands of females who don't. Sucks to be you I am sorry. If you can afford traveling overseas go see it for yourself. You don't have to have a gun to be safe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because I'm a much better human being than you are, I hope you're never put in a position to realize what a delusion that "safety" of yours is.  You're too busy worrying about being "gentle and ladylike" to be able to fight for your life successfully, the way I did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don' have to be paranoid and on guard at all times. You can, live your life as you wish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you have to be, you just aren't, because you're unforgivably stupid and naive, in addition to being a nasty specimen of particularly vile garbage.
Click to expand...

Why am I a vile garbage?


----------



## P@triot

Issa said:


> One day guns will be banned and kids can be safer in schools, like in other countries.


Uh...the guns _were_ banned in the school. That’s why those children died.


----------



## P@triot

Issa said:


> Why am I a vile garbage?


Because you attack women and mock victims.


----------



## P@triot

Issa said:


> and I would put my life in danger to protect those girls and any human being.


All evidence to the contrary...


----------



## Issa

P@triot said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> One day guns will be banned and kids can be safer in schools, like in other countries.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh...the guns _were_ banned in the school. That’s why those children died.
Click to expand...

Idiotic reasoning.


----------



## P@triot

Sorry progressives...firearms are here to stay.

Father of girl killed in Florida shooting eviscerates the media for pushing gun control narrative


----------



## Issa

P@triot said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> and I would put my life in danger to protect those girls and any human being.
> 
> 
> 
> All evidence to the contrary...
Click to expand...

Troll move out of the way.


----------



## P@triot

Issa said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> One day guns will be banned and kids can be safer in schools, like in other countries.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh...the guns _were_ banned in the school. That’s why those children died.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Idiotic reasoning.
Click to expand...

Yeah...nothing says “idiotic” like acknowledging *facts*. You want guns banned. You claim it will prevent school shootings. Guns were already banned in schools. It didn’t prevent anything. In fact, it caused shootings. You created victim zones.


----------



## Issa

P@triot said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> One day guns will be banned and kids can be safer in schools, like in other countries.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh...the guns _were_ banned in the school. That’s why those children died.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Idiotic reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah...nothing says “idiotic” like acknowledging *facts*. You want guns banned. You claim it will prevent school shootings. Guns were already banned in schools. It didn’t prevent anything. In fact, it caused shootings. You created victim zones.
Click to expand...

Guns should be banned from society not just schools.


----------



## P@triot

Sorry progressives...firearms are here to stay.

Dozens of companies boycott NRA over Florida shooting — but it’s backfiring big time


----------



## P@triot

Issa said:


> Guns should be banned from society not just schools.


Cause that worked soooooooo well in all of these schools. And Chicago. And Washington D.C.

Criminals don’t obey the law, _stupid_.


----------



## jasonnfree

Issa said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're a hypocrite who only believes in sympathy for crime victims when they say what you want to hear.
> 
> But hey, if you think it's more "feminine" to be raped and killed than to defend yourself, you just go on with your bad self.  I'll be over here, not giving a rat's ass about the opinion of the likes of you.
> 
> 
> 
> You live in fear and paranoia, I've known thousands of females who don't. Sucks to be you I am sorry. If you can afford traveling overseas go see it for yourself. You don't have to have a gun to be safe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because I'm a much better human being than you are, I hope you're never put in a position to realize what a delusion that "safety" of yours is.  You're too busy worrying about being "gentle and ladylike" to be able to fight for your life successfully, the way I did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don' have to be paranoid and on guard at all times. You can, live your life as you wish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you have to be, you just aren't, because you're unforgivably stupid and naive, in addition to being a nasty specimen of particularly vile garbage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why am I a vile garbage?
Click to expand...


Because you don't march to the beat set by the very extreme right on this board.  They tolerate no opinions other than what they believe.   They  have no clue what America and patriotism is all about.  Luckily, most republicans aren't that way.


----------



## P@triot

Issa said:


> Guns should be banned from society not just schools.


The U.S. Constitution says otherwise. The U.S. Constitution trumps your uninformed _opinion_.


----------



## P@triot

jasonnfree said:


> They  have no clue what America and patriotism is all about.


It is certainly *not* about mocking women who were the victims of terrible assaults, snowflake.


----------



## Rigby5

Issa said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can, live your life as you wish.
> 
> 
> 
> We are Americans. We will whether you like it or not. Now go home, son.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One day guns will be banned and kids can be safer in schools, like in other countries.
Click to expand...


Obviously it would be illegal to ban firearms from private individuals, and still keep armed police and the miliary.
So they will never be banned, and there is not a country in the world that has banned firearms.
Police and the military everywhere have firearms.
What you have to decide is whether a country more free is only the police and military have firearms, or everyone honest can have them?


----------



## Rigby5

Issa said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're a hypocrite who only believes in sympathy for crime victims when they say what you want to hear.
> 
> But hey, if you think it's more "feminine" to be raped and killed than to defend yourself, you just go on with your bad self.  I'll be over here, not giving a rat's ass about the opinion of the likes of you.
> 
> 
> 
> You live in fear and paranoia, I've known thousands of females who don't. Sucks to be you I am sorry. If you can afford traveling overseas go see it for yourself. You don't have to have a gun to be safe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because I'm a much better human being than you are, I hope you're never put in a position to realize what a delusion that "safety" of yours is.  You're too busy worrying about being "gentle and ladylike" to be able to fight for your life successfully, the way I did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don' have to be paranoid and on guard at all times. You can, live your life as you wish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you have to be, you just aren't, because you're unforgivably stupid and naive, in addition to being a nasty specimen of particularly vile garbage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why am I a vile garbage?
Click to expand...


The reason why would be not only because federal gun control is inherently illegal under the constitution, but because it would violate the whole principle of a democratic republic, where equality means the police and military can't have more authority than any individuals have.


----------



## Rigby5

Issa said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> One day guns will be banned and kids can be safer in schools, like in other countries.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh...the guns _were_ banned in the school. That’s why those children died.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Idiotic reasoning.
Click to expand...


No, the reasoning is correct, that you have to use firearms in order to actually defend against any of the current dangers.
The problem with the Florida school is that they only had one guard, and he chickened out.
But if the gun control people had their way, the guard would be disarmed anyway, and useless.
But anyone who then made, stole, smuggled or other obtained a firearm, could kill however many he pleased.
Firearms are the only means of defense anyone knows about currently.
Attempting to ban firearms is just stupid. 
Those intend on murder will not be stopped by a ban.


----------



## Papageorgio

Issa said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a pure example of the ignorant dumb american....have you ever left your county?
> 
> 
> 
> And you are the epitome of the immature, idealist, subservient foreigner. Cecilie1200 provides link after link after link proving you are dead-wrong and your only idiotic response is to call her “ignorant”.
> 
> So let me get this straight - she’s “ignorant” for knowing the *facts* and sharing them with you? Every time the left loses an argument they get all pissed off and scream “you are ignorant”. So juvenile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm no left or right. I'm a human who don't like to see other humans killed in a barbaric way here in the US. I want them to be as safe as I was overseas. Too much to ask for ?
Click to expand...


You are left, that makes you non-human.


----------



## Papageorgio

Issa said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Open your mind, *get rid of your paranoia* and go enjoy life.
> 
> 
> 
> Says the paranoid freak who is scared stupid of inanimate objects such as firearms...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One of the reasons I have a gun is so that I CAN go and enjoy life, without having to worry about rapists, muggers, car-jackers . . .
> 
> Or is Miss "America so scary and violent" NOW telling us that that was a lie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hate to be you. Walking around paranoid. With the attitude shown in your responses...Is men that have to worry about being sexually assaulted. You lost your femininity lady.
Click to expand...


Her view is shaped by her life experience, how dare you demean women because of their personal experience. Women have a right to blow the head off anyone that tries to assualt them. You claim to be peaceful but will allow women to be raped with no defense. How many women have been involved in mass shootings?


----------



## Papageorgio

Issa said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> So in Britain they removed the guns and the murder rate went up, how does that make us safer? The same happened in Australia, it went down the first year but then trended up, people found other ways to kill.
> 
> 
> 
> A graph is better than a thousand word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And *facts* are better than a billion graphs. Now stop being a left-wing coward and address @Papageorgio’s questions head on. How does removing firearms make us safer when the murder rates went up in England and in Australia after they did that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was debunked many times. Why is only the US that has mass shootings and leads the way in deaths from violent crimes and guns per capita?
Click to expand...


No it hasn’t you just won’t address it or any other issue because you only want one answer.


----------



## Rigby5

Papageorgio said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a pure example of the ignorant dumb american....have you ever left your county?
> 
> 
> 
> And you are the epitome of the immature, idealist, subservient foreigner. Cecilie1200 provides link after link after link proving you are dead-wrong and your only idiotic response is to call her “ignorant”.
> 
> So let me get this straight - she’s “ignorant” for knowing the *facts* and sharing them with you? Every time the left loses an argument they get all pissed off and scream “you are ignorant”. So juvenile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm no left or right. I'm a human who don't like to see other humans killed in a barbaric way here in the US. I want them to be as safe as I was overseas. Too much to ask for ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are left, that makes you non-human.
Click to expand...


You are getting carried away.  I am extreme left, and also extremely against any gun control because that would break the democratic republic.  Equality under the laws means that police and the military can have these weapons because all individuals can.


----------



## Rigby5

jasonnfree said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> You live in fear and paranoia, I've known thousands of females who don't. Sucks to be you I am sorry. If you can afford traveling overseas go see it for yourself. You don't have to have a gun to be safe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because I'm a much better human being than you are, I hope you're never put in a position to realize what a delusion that "safety" of yours is.  You're too busy worrying about being "gentle and ladylike" to be able to fight for your life successfully, the way I did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don' have to be paranoid and on guard at all times. You can, live your life as you wish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you have to be, you just aren't, because you're unforgivably stupid and naive, in addition to being a nasty specimen of particularly vile garbage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why am I a vile garbage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because you don't march to the beat set by the very extreme right on this board.  They tolerate no opinions other than what they believe.   They  have no clue what America and patriotism is all about.  Luckily, most republicans aren't that way.
Click to expand...



The constitution is very clear.  It says between the 2nd and 10 amendments, that there can ONLY be state and local weapons laws.  Any federal weapons laws are strictly prohibited by the Constitution.


----------



## Papageorgio

Rigby5 said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a pure example of the ignorant dumb american....have you ever left your county?
> 
> 
> 
> And you are the epitome of the immature, idealist, subservient foreigner. Cecilie1200 provides link after link after link proving you are dead-wrong and your only idiotic response is to call her “ignorant”.
> 
> So let me get this straight - she’s “ignorant” for knowing the *facts* and sharing them with you? Every time the left loses an argument they get all pissed off and scream “you are ignorant”. So juvenile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm no left or right. I'm a human who don't like to see other humans killed in a barbaric way here in the US. I want them to be as safe as I was overseas. Too much to ask for ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are left, that makes you non-human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are getting carried away.  I am extreme left, and also extremely against any gun control because that would break the democratic republic.  Equality under the laws means that police and the military can have these weapons because all individuals can.
Click to expand...


You sound like a liberal not an extreme left.


----------



## P@triot

Rigby5 said:


> The constitution is very clear.  It says between the 2nd and 10 amendments, that there can ONLY be state and local weapons laws.  Any federal weapons laws are strictly prohibited by the Constitution.


That’s not accurate Rigby5. A state cannot create firearm laws any more than the federal government can. It is a constitutional right and states cannot impede on rights.

But I love where your head is at regarding the 10th Amendment. You’re the type of constitutional abiding liberal that I could absolutely work with. Wish everyone on the left was like you.


----------



## Rigby5

waltky said:


> Maybe not obsolete but antiquated, out of date...
> 
> ... it needs to be updated to reflect the times...
> 
> ... and the threat of overkill firepower...
> 
> ... for the average citizen.



Nonsense.
In revolutionary times, someone with a blunderbuss could kill a dozen people with a single shot.
Grapeshot canisters could kill hundreds of people in a single shot.
An AR is from the 1960s, has been around for over 50 years, it is about the most popular firearm made or owned, there are over 10 million owned in the US, and they are almost never used in any crime at all.
Nor does it have a rate of fire any greater than any other firearm.
You have to pull the trigger once for each bullet.
Shotguns and pistols are many times faster because they either shoot multiple shots be trigger pull, or they have so much less recoil.


----------



## Rigby5

P@triot said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution is very clear.  It says between the 2nd and 10 amendments, that there can ONLY be state and local weapons laws.  Any federal weapons laws are strictly prohibited by the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> That’s not accurate Rigby5. A state cannot create firearm laws any more than the federal government can. It is a constitutional right and states cannot impede on rights.
> 
> But I love where your head is at regarding the 10th Amendment. You’re the type of constitutional abiding liberal that I could absolutely work with. Wish everyone on the left was like you.
Click to expand...


That is a technicality based on whether or not the SCOTUS has declared the Amendment right "incorporated".
And while I may agree with you, that is more questionable and less clear cut.
I would take firearms as a personal right more clearly from the 4th and 5th amendments.
Those amendments don't just deny the federal government, but states and municipalities as well.


----------



## Rigby5

Papageorgio said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a pure example of the ignorant dumb american....have you ever left your county?
> 
> 
> 
> And you are the epitome of the immature, idealist, subservient foreigner. Cecilie1200 provides link after link after link proving you are dead-wrong and your only idiotic response is to call her “ignorant”.
> 
> So let me get this straight - she’s “ignorant” for knowing the *facts* and sharing them with you? Every time the left loses an argument they get all pissed off and scream “you are ignorant”. So juvenile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm no left or right. I'm a human who don't like to see other humans killed in a barbaric way here in the US. I want them to be as safe as I was overseas. Too much to ask for ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are left, that makes you non-human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are getting carried away.  I am extreme left, and also extremely against any gun control because that would break the democratic republic.  Equality under the laws means that police and the military can have these weapons because all individuals can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sound like a liberal not an extreme left.
Click to expand...


I am far left, liberal, progressive, socialist, etc.
But the way to be safe is to have personal arms.
Relying on a government to protect you is like asking the Mafia for protection.
They may do it, but it will cost you dearly and is not real freedom.


----------



## P@triot

Damn it! If only Sweden had banned hand grenades, then obviously none of this _ever_ would have happened.


> In January, a man at a train station on the outskirts of Stockholm died after picking up a discarded grenade, which he mistook for a toy. In August 2016, an 8-year-old British boy was killed in a grenade attack on an apartment in the city of Gothenburg while visiting family members.
> 
> Grenade attacks are perhaps the most striking example of increasing crime in Sweden. The number of grenade attacks in Sweden has risen dramatically, jumping from eight in 2014 to a staggering 52 in 2016.


Of course, my comment above was satirical. Explosives are absolutely banned in Sweden (as is carrying any kind of firearm - though you may own them and hunt with them). So how is that whole “banned hand grenade” thing working out in Sweden, progressives? 

Russian Aggression, Rising Crime Rates Could Factor in Swedish Elections


----------



## Issa

P@triot said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guns should be banned from society not just schools.
> 
> 
> 
> The U.S. Constitution says otherwise. The U.S. Constitution trumps your uninformed _opinion_.
Click to expand...

For now, but it will.


----------



## P@triot

Thank God the U.S. Constitution affords this man the right to keep and bear arms...


> “It’s OK to have a weapon in your home and protect yourself and your family,” he told the station.


The students in Parkland, FL were are unarmed and are now dead. The man was armed, and both he and his family are perfectly safe today.

Armed father sees intruder crouching outside his children’s bedroom window. Dad doesn’t hesitate.


----------



## Issa

Papageorgio said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Open your mind, *get rid of your paranoia* and go enjoy life.
> 
> 
> 
> Says the paranoid freak who is scared stupid of inanimate objects such as firearms...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One of the reasons I have a gun is so that I CAN go and enjoy life, without having to worry about rapists, muggers, car-jackers . . .
> 
> Or is Miss "America so scary and violent" NOW telling us that that was a lie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hate to be you. Walking around paranoid. With the attitude shown in your responses...Is men that have to worry about being sexually assaulted. You lost your femininity lady.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Her view is shaped by her life experience, how dare you demean women because of their personal experience. Women have a right to blow the head off anyone that tries to assualt them. You claim to be peaceful but will allow women to be raped with no defense. How many women have been involved in mass shootings?
Click to expand...

Didn't demean no body. I said what I think about her paranoia same way j say it to most pro fun advocates. I don't know her personally and I don't know if her story is true or made up....do you? 
And no I'm for the death penalty for rapists and child molesters btw.


----------



## Papageorgio

Issa said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Open your mind, *get rid of your paranoia* and go enjoy life.
> 
> 
> 
> Says the paranoid freak who is scared stupid of inanimate objects such as firearms...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One of the reasons I have a gun is so that I CAN go and enjoy life, without having to worry about rapists, muggers, car-jackers . . .
> 
> Or is Miss "America so scary and violent" NOW telling us that that was a lie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hate to be you. Walking around paranoid. With the attitude shown in your responses...Is men that have to worry about being sexually assaulted. You lost your femininity lady.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Her view is shaped by her life experience, how dare you demean women because of their personal experience. Women have a right to blow the head off anyone that tries to assualt them. You claim to be peaceful but will allow women to be raped with no defense. How many women have been involved in mass shootings?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Didn't demean no body. I said what I think about her paranoia same way j say it to most pro fun advocates. I don't know her personally and I don't know if her story is true or made up....do you?
> And no I'm for the death penalty for rapists and child molesters btw.
Click to expand...


I don’t know if her story is anymore or less made up than yours. Just like with you, I take her word for it.

People that believe others are dishonest, might be because they are dishonest themselves and believe everyone is just like them, dishonest.


----------



## Issa

Papageorgio said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says the paranoid freak who is scared stupid of inanimate objects such as firearms...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the reasons I have a gun is so that I CAN go and enjoy life, without having to worry about rapists, muggers, car-jackers . . .
> 
> Or is Miss "America so scary and violent" NOW telling us that that was a lie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hate to be you. Walking around paranoid. With the attitude shown in your responses...Is men that have to worry about being sexually assaulted. You lost your femininity lady.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Her view is shaped by her life experience, how dare you demean women because of their personal experience. Women have a right to blow the head off anyone that tries to assualt them. You claim to be peaceful but will allow women to be raped with no defense. How many women have been involved in mass shootings?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Didn't demean no body. I said what I think about her paranoia same way j say it to most pro fun advocates. I don't know her personally and I don't know if her story is true or made up....do you?
> And no I'm for the death penalty for rapists and child molesters btw.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don’t know if her story is anymore or less made up than yours. Just like with you, I take her word for it.
Click to expand...

Than don't judge based on something your are not sure of please.


----------



## Rigby5

Lakhota said:


> I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed.  It's just a matter of time...



Don't think so.
It is clearly the founders were right to include it, as the federal government has become as power crazy as their feared.
There really should be no standing army or police even.


----------



## Rigby5

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution exist only in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review.
> 
> Neither the Constitution nor any of its Amendments are obsolete.
> 
> Whatever the current case law might be concerning the Second Amendment, however, further restrictions, regulations, or even bans will do little to curtail gun violence.
> 
> The genius of the Constitution is it compels us to seek actual solutions to our many problems; be it abortion, campaign finance reform, or gun violence, the Constitution prevents us from taking the easy route often taken by dictatorships and totalitarian regimes, where the liberty of the people is destroyed.
> 
> This does not mean we are helpless to do nothing, at the mercy of strict, unyielding jurisprudence protecting the rights of gun owners; rather, it means we must find solutions based on facts and evidence, and be prepared to address and acknowledge painful, embarrassing aspects of our society and culture.
Click to expand...


Yes, and it seems to me the solution to protecting kids from violence at schools is more armed security at schools, just as we do at airports and as Israel does at their schools.  It has not harmed airports or Israel.


----------



## Lakhota

Rigby5 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed.  It's just a matter of time...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't think so.
> It is clearly the founders were right to include it, as the federal government has become as power crazy as their feared.
> There really should be no standing army or police even.
Click to expand...


The 2nd Amendment doesn't really need changed to render it legally obsolete.  After all, the 2nd Amendment means whatever the U.S. Supreme Court says it means.  A liberal SCOTUS could totally reinterpret it.


----------



## Lakhota

Rigby5 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution exist only in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review.
> 
> Neither the Constitution nor any of its Amendments are obsolete.
> 
> Whatever the current case law might be concerning the Second Amendment, however, further restrictions, regulations, or even bans will do little to curtail gun violence.
> 
> The genius of the Constitution is it compels us to seek actual solutions to our many problems; be it abortion, campaign finance reform, or gun violence, the Constitution prevents us from taking the easy route often taken by dictatorships and totalitarian regimes, where the liberty of the people is destroyed.
> 
> This does not mean we are helpless to do nothing, at the mercy of strict, unyielding jurisprudence protecting the rights of gun owners; rather, it means we must find solutions based on facts and evidence, and be prepared to address and acknowledge painful, embarrassing aspects of our society and culture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, and it seems to me the solution to protecting kids from violence at schools is more armed security at schools, just as we do at airports and as Israel does at their schools.  It has not harmed airports or Israel.
Click to expand...


Israel does *not *have armed teachers, right?

Why school shootings are so rare in Israel, where guns are such a common sight


----------



## Issa

Rigby5 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution exist only in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review.
> 
> Neither the Constitution nor any of its Amendments are obsolete.
> 
> Whatever the current case law might be concerning the Second Amendment, however, further restrictions, regulations, or even bans will do little to curtail gun violence.
> 
> The genius of the Constitution is it compels us to seek actual solutions to our many problems; be it abortion, campaign finance reform, or gun violence, the Constitution prevents us from taking the easy route often taken by dictatorships and totalitarian regimes, where the liberty of the people is destroyed.
> 
> This does not mean we are helpless to do nothing, at the mercy of strict, unyielding jurisprudence protecting the rights of gun owners; rather, it means we must find solutions based on facts and evidence, and be prepared to address and acknowledge painful, embarrassing aspects of our society and culture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, and it seems to me the solution to protecting kids from violence at schools is more armed security at schools, just as we do at airports and as Israel does at their schools.  It has not harmed airports or Israel.
Click to expand...

When a country starts to compare itself to Israel that's fucked up.
The internet will fix this issue...more and more Americans especially the young ones, will realize that other countries don't go through this madness because they don't have a stupid amendment that's causing chaos.


----------



## Papageorgio

Issa said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the reasons I have a gun is so that I CAN go and enjoy life, without having to worry about rapists, muggers, car-jackers . . .
> 
> Or is Miss "America so scary and violent" NOW telling us that that was a lie?
> 
> 
> 
> I hate to be you. Walking around paranoid. With the attitude shown in your responses...Is men that have to worry about being sexually assaulted. You lost your femininity lady.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Her view is shaped by her life experience, how dare you demean women because of their personal experience. Women have a right to blow the head off anyone that tries to assualt them. You claim to be peaceful but will allow women to be raped with no defense. How many women have been involved in mass shootings?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Didn't demean no body. I said what I think about her paranoia same way j say it to most pro fun advocates. I don't know her personally and I don't know if her story is true or made up....do you?
> And no I'm for the death penalty for rapists and child molesters btw.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don’t know if her story is anymore or less made up than yours. Just like with you, I take her word for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Than don't judge based on something your are not sure of please.
Click to expand...


I didn’t judge you, I criticized what you said and I stand by that, I think it was demeaning her.

I am sure if she thinks it was demeaning to her, she will let you know. She speaks her mind.


----------



## Issa

Rigby5 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution exist only in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review.
> 
> Neither the Constitution nor any of its Amendments are obsolete.
> 
> Whatever the current case law might be concerning the Second Amendment, however, further restrictions, regulations, or even bans will do little to curtail gun violence.
> 
> The genius of the Constitution is it compels us to seek actual solutions to our many problems; be it abortion, campaign finance reform, or gun violence, the Constitution prevents us from taking the easy route often taken by dictatorships and totalitarian regimes, where the liberty of the people is destroyed.
> 
> This does not mean we are helpless to do nothing, at the mercy of strict, unyielding jurisprudence protecting the rights of gun owners; rather, it means we must find solutions based on facts and evidence, and be prepared to address and acknowledge painful, embarrassing aspects of our society and culture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, and it seems to me the solution to protecting kids from violence at schools is more armed security at schools, just as we do at airports and as Israel does at their schools.  It has not harmed airports or Israel.
Click to expand...

And btw at LAX a guy went through security shot few people and walked all the way to the gate while shooting.


----------



## Issa

Papageorgio said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hate to be you. Walking around paranoid. With the attitude shown in your responses...Is men that have to worry about being sexually assaulted. You lost your femininity lady.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Her view is shaped by her life experience, how dare you demean women because of their personal experience. Women have a right to blow the head off anyone that tries to assualt them. You claim to be peaceful but will allow women to be raped with no defense. How many women have been involved in mass shootings?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Didn't demean no body. I said what I think about her paranoia same way j say it to most pro fun advocates. I don't know her personally and I don't know if her story is true or made up....do you?
> And no I'm for the death penalty for rapists and child molesters btw.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don’t know if her story is anymore or less made up than yours. Just like with you, I take her word for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Than don't judge based on something your are not sure of please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn’t judge you, I criticized what you said and I stand by that, I think it was demeaning her.
> 
> I am sure if she thinks it was demeaning to her, she will let you know. She speaks her mind.
Click to expand...

I stand by my opinion...just mind your business. She is a big girl armed and can stand for herself.


----------



## Papageorgio

Issa said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Her view is shaped by her life experience, how dare you demean women because of their personal experience. Women have a right to blow the head off anyone that tries to assualt them. You claim to be peaceful but will allow women to be raped with no defense. How many women have been involved in mass shootings?
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't demean no body. I said what I think about her paranoia same way j say it to most pro fun advocates. I don't know her personally and I don't know if her story is true or made up....do you?
> And no I'm for the death penalty for rapists and child molesters btw.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don’t know if her story is anymore or less made up than yours. Just like with you, I take her word for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Than don't judge based on something your are not sure of please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn’t judge you, I criticized what you said and I stand by that, I think it was demeaning her.
> 
> I am sure if she thinks it was demeaning to her, she will let you know. She speaks her mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I stand by my opinion...just mind your business. She is a big girl armed and can stand for herself.
Click to expand...


Why? What are you going to do? You spewed an opinion on a message board and then tell others to mind their business? Seriously? You are funny as hell!


----------



## Issa

Papageorgio said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't demean no body. I said what I think about her paranoia same way j say it to most pro fun advocates. I don't know her personally and I don't know if her story is true or made up....do you?
> And no I'm for the death penalty for rapists and child molesters btw.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t know if her story is anymore or less made up than yours. Just like with you, I take her word for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Than don't judge based on something your are not sure of please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn’t judge you, I criticized what you said and I stand by that, I think it was demeaning her.
> 
> I am sure if she thinks it was demeaning to her, she will let you know. She speaks her mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I stand by my opinion...just mind your business. She is a big girl armed and can stand for herself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why? What are you going to do? You spewed an opinion on a message board and then tell others to mind their business? Seriously? You are funny as hell!
Click to expand...

I can say whatever I want like you said, so I did .


----------



## LuckyDuck

Lakhota said:


> Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited  never have been and never will be  Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star


The 2nd Amendment was not created for hunting or sport shooting but it was created as a deterrent, should a tyrannical government invade the U.S., or our own government become tyrannical.  As the far-left is clearly showing itself to be neo-Marxist and against private home ownership, free speech and the 2nd Amendment, they, to me, represent a tyrannical element of our government and we need to keep our weapons, as we will most likely be needing them.


----------



## frigidweirdo

LuckyDuck said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited  never have been and never will be  Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd Amendment was not created for hunting or sport shooting but it was created as a deterrent, should a tyrannical government invade the U.S., or our own government become tyrannical.  As the far-left is clearly showing itself to be neo-Marxist and against private home ownership, free speech and the 2nd Amendment, they, to me, represent a tyrannical element of our government and we need to keep our weapons, as we will most likely be needing them.
Click to expand...


There is already tyranny in government. The govt doesn't do what's best for the people. Are you going to stand up or just talk about standing up?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Jlo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> *GOPer flips on gun control — and then scorches Trump for banning Muslim travel but wimping out on AR-15s*
> 
> 
> 
> In other words....yet another progressive is pissed off that *President Trump* is obeying the U.S. Constitution. Oh well!
> 
> There is a constitutional *right* to keep and bear arms. There is no constitutional right for foreigners to enter our country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shut up. Progressives (adults) are talking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Shut up. Progressives (adults) are talking."
> 
> And those first two words in your post summarize the totalitarian instincts of all of the 'shameful six'...
> Progressives, Nazis, Liberals, Communists, Fascists and Socialists.
> 
> Raise your paw.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Preach!
Click to expand...




"*Preach the Gospel always, and if necessary, use words.*" 
St Francis of Assisi.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Billy000 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> *GOPer flips on gun control — and then scorches Trump for banning Muslim travel but wimping out on AR-15s*
> 
> 
> 
> In other words....yet another progressive is pissed off that *President Trump* is obeying the U.S. Constitution. Oh well!
> 
> There is a constitutional *right* to keep and bear arms. There is no constitutional right for foreigners to enter our country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shut up. Progressives (adults) are talking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Shut up. Progressives (adults) are talking."
> 
> And those first two words in your post summarize the totalitarian instincts of all of the 'shameful six'...
> Progressives, Nazis, Liberals, Communists, Fascists and Socialists.
> 
> Raise your paw.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m curious. If progressives are such vicious authoritarians, why don’t we have political opinions that reflect that?
Click to expand...




"If progressives are such vicious authoritarians, why don’t we have political opinions that reflect that?"


*"Christian bakers fined $135,000 for refusing to make wedding cake for lesbians"*
Christian bakers fined $135,000 for refusing to make wedding cake for lesbians




First, find the meaning of the word 'oblivious,'....


...and then have it monogrammed on all of your hospital gowns.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Issa said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rshermn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct there and that is why we as a nation will not ban guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You may want to stop being so paranoid.  I have a pretty good idea I own more guns than you.  And I am absolutely confident that none of the guns I own will be outlawed.  You see, I have hunting guns.  Not human killing guns.
> In my humble but correct opinion, assault weapons are not needed or usfull for hunting, as compared to the alternatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How am I paranoid? I have no issue with you having guns. I have no doubt that you also have more guns than I do because I don’t own a gun and don’t plan on it.
> 
> Repealing the 2nd Amendment will never happen as Issa is claiming it will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never say Never....not long ago blacks  were slaves, not long ago women couldn't vote, things do change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you remember to thank Republicans for both of those changes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> GOP is part of the racists and the blood thirsty that I know.
Click to expand...



Let's check....

While talking a great game, it is well known by all except liberals in general, and the Black community specifically, that *the Democrat Party claims to be concerned with support of blacks, their record with respect to black politicians tells a different story…*



1.     In 2005, the Democrats did not name Donna Brazile to head the Democratic National Committee. They chose Howard Dean.


2.     “Gov. David A. Paterson defiantly vowed to run for election next year despite the White House‘s urging that he withdraw from the New York governor’s race.”  Obama Asks Paterson to Quit New York Governor’s Race

3. President Barack Obama has kept mum on the fate of Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) for days -- but he tells CBS News that it's time for the embattled 80-year-old former Ways and Means Chairman to end his career "with dignity."

"I think Charlie Rangel served a very long time and served-- his constituents very well. But these-- allegations are very troubling," Obama told Harry Smith in an interview to be aired on the "Early Show." and first broadcast on the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric.    Obama: Time for Rangel to end career "with dignity" 


4       Harold Ford told not to run for Senator from New York:

“From the start, Mr. Ford’s potential candidacy angered national Democratic Party leaders by disrupting plans for what was planned as a seamless Gillibrand nomination. Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate majority leader, called Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg to discourage him from supporting Mr. Ford, and Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York met personally with Mr. Ford to argue against his candidacy.”                 Harold Ford Jr. Says He Won’t Challenge Senator Gillibrand - NYTimes.com


5. “As state comptroller, [Carl] McCall earned the distinction of being the first African American ever elected to a statewide office in New York. Four years later voters overwhelmingly supported McCall over Republican Bruce Blakeman 64.75 to 32.1%. McCall's reelection in 1998 may have given him the confidence he needed in order to pursue the governor's mansion….The McCall campaign had the support of the Democratic Party; whether or not McCall had the party's full support has been the subject of much debate….Still one wonders just how committed the party was to McCall's campaign….shunned by some of the state's most respected Democrats…McCall blamed his money woes on the national Democratic Party, claiming that the party had abandoned his campaign….”  H. Carl McCall for Governor: a lesson to all black high-profile statewide office seekers. - Free Online Library


6. And, most telling, Bill Clinton’s remarks about the black candidate for the presidency:

“[A]s Hillary bungled Caroline, Bill’s handling of Ted was even worse. The day after Iowa, he phoned Kennedy and pressed for an endorsement, making the case for his wife. But Bill then went on, belittling Obama in a manner that deeply offended Kennedy. Recounting the conversation later to a friend, Teddy fumed that Clinton had said, *A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee.”*

Teddy's anger


7. Three staffers working for embattled Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) were asked by security officers to leave an event in downtown Washington on Thursday after they tried to display large campaign signs just as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was about to speak. ..  Waters told The Hill afterward that the staffers had been displaying the signs at the annual legislative conference for the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, which was held at the Washington convention center a few blocks away. “It ain’t about Nancy. It’s about black people,” Waters said.             Waters aides expelled from Pelosi event


8. And what Governor of Arkansas made the Saturday before Easter "Confederate Flag Day"?
The Arkansas Code, Section 1-5-107. Confederate Flag Day.
(a) The Saturday immediately preceding Easter Sunday of each year is designated as "Confederate Flag Day" in this state.
No person, firm, or corporation shall display any Confederate flag or replica thereof in connection with any advertisement of any commercial enterprise, or in any manner for any purpose except to honor the Confederate States of America.
Any person, firm, or corporation violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be fined not less than one hundred dollars ($100) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000).

"In April 1985, Governor Bill Clinton signed Act 985 into law...'
Mark R. Levin on Trent Lott & Moral Outrage on National Review Online


9. Do Democrats in Congress support blacks by practicing affirmative action in their hiring…and of course this would be our of moral convictions, as they are legally exempt from affirmative action requirements.  More than passing interesting, the ‘National Journal,’ a survey of congressional staffers revealed that Democrats hired black employees at the same rate as Republicans: 2 percent.  “The Racial Breakdown of Congressional Staffs,” National Journal, June 21, 2005

           a. Schweitzer, “Do As I Say,” p. 9


10.   Clinton pushed black candidate to drop out of Florida race:

“Bill Clinton sought to persuade Rep. Kendrick Meek to drop out of the race for Senate during a trip to Florida last week — and nearly succeeded…Clinton did not dangle a job in front of Meek, who gave up a safe House seat to run for the Senate, but instead made the case that the move would advance the congressman’s future prospects, said a third Democrat familiar with the conversations.  Clinton campaigned with Meek in Florida on Oct. 19 and 20, and thought he had won Meek over. But as the week wore on, Meek lost his enthusiasm for the arrangement, spurred in part, a third Democratic source said, by his wife’s belief that he could still win the race. Clinton spoke with Meek again at week’s end, three Democrats said, and again Meek said he would drop out.”

Read more: Clinton pushed Meek to quit Fla. race


By some strange coincidence, the Democrats, again, force a black to the back:

11.  “Under an arrangement reached two days ago, Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the current majority leader, would get the No. 2 job of minority whip come January. Clyburn, now majority whip, would hold the post of assistant leader, newly created for the purpose of heading off a contest for the whip position.”         
http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...dership-as-clyburn-settles-for-no-3-post.html


12. For a peek into the unspoken view that Democrats have of blacks, look at how Biden finds Obama as different from all the rest of blacks:

Feb 9, 2007 - Biden called Obama first "clean" African-American candidate • Biden ... "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," Biden said. "I mean ... He's smart.



And, in light of the action of Democrats/Liberals, as shown above....this is beyond ironic:



Remember Mark Lloyd, who was chosen by President Obama as  the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)'s Chief Diversity Officer, a.k.a. the Diversity Czar? 

"This... there's nothing more difficult than this. Because we have really, truly good white people in important positions. And the fact of the matter is that there are a limited number of those positions. And unless we are conscious of the need to have more people of color, gays, other people in those positions we will not change the problem.

*We're in a position where you have to say who is going to step down so someone else can have power*."                                                                                                                                      Read more: Audio: FCC's Diversity Czar: 'White People' Need to be Forced to 'Step Down' 'So Someone Else Can Have Power'



There has never been a GOPer more racist than Hussein Obama


If any proof of what a low individual Hussein Obama was, one can see a pictorial representation of his racial animus by the 'artist' he chose for his official portrait.

*"Obama's portrait artist painted black women with severed heads of white women*















*Hussein Obama:*
Low-life, double-dealing, back-stabbing crypto-Islamist, drug-dealing anti-American *racist.*


----------



## Contumacious

Lakhota said:


> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
Click to expand...



2A obsolete?

Only if you are suicidal or clinically depressed.

A Quiz

Warsaw Ghetto






1- How many Jews are carrying AR15's?


2- How many Gestapo agents are carrying AR15's?


.


----------



## Rigby5

meson said:


> Yipper it's as obsolete as a muzzle loader imho.



In what way could that every possibly happen?
Sure weapons will change, like we may end up using directed energy weapons some day.
But the need for average people to have arms instead of the elite and corruptible few, will never change.
Who are the bad guy?
The are those either hired by criminal gangs inside the country or outside the country.
And the only way to stop either one is for the general population to be armed as a whole.
Trying to reduce the number of weapons by hiring an elite gang, actually causes the problem, not fixes it.
And what sort of weapons the bad guys use is what dictates what the good guys need also.
Whether it is flintlocks or energy beams, that does not at all change.


----------



## Rigby5

Lakhota said:


> I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed.  It's just a matter of time...




How or why could that ever be true?
Are our enemies either foreign or domestic ever going to go away?
Of course not.
So then the only safe way to maintain a democratic republic is with an armed general population.
The last thing any honest defender of the republic should allow is for our society to become split into an elite minority hired to have weapons, and the general population disarmed.
That is not only an automatic violation of the principles of the republic, by creating inequality between groups of people, but bound to cause inherent corruption of that elite few who are armed.
When you hire an elite minority to be the only ones with arms, they always become corrupt.
And it is not long before they then follow orders, taking Jews to camps.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lakhota said:


> I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed. It's just a matter of time...


The only way that gets done is via a constitutional convention of the states, and if that goes up for revision or repeal, we're going after the commerce and general welfare clauses, which will be clarified and narrowed.  

That will put an end to much of the socialism enacted since Woodrow Wilson, and even before him.

So, in other words.  Go for it.


----------



## Rigby5

An email rely I sent someone that I thought I might copy here:

{...
When Mel Gibson paints his face blue and screams about how "they will never take our freedom", that is not just DNA or the laws of nature, but the basis of any concept of law, justice, fairness, rights, good/evil, etc.
Anything government, police, the military, militias, posses, lynch mobs, gangs, etc., do that is counter to those inherent aspect of human social instincts, is just plain wrong and evil.
The attempt to write down guidelines to prevent those abuses is about as common as the rules the written down by the evil and corrupt in order to cause those abuses.
Again, ask yourself the simple question of in 1940, would you obey the legislation written down ordering you to send Jews to the camps?
Of course not.
Rules being written does not make them right.
And it is always up to each and every single individual to evaluate those rules and orders against the unwritten understanding of right and wrong they carry with them from their DNA.
As to guns, are the enemies of freedom every going to go away?
Are the gangs, criminals, violent, greedy, ever going to go away, both inside and outside the country?
Of course not.
And since they will always have the latest weapons, so must the good guys that stop them.
So gun control is NEVER about getting rid of weapons.
That is totally and completely impossible.
Gun control is about whether or not the average population as a whole is armed, or only an elite few?
So the question you must really ask yourself, is whether you trust the elite few more than the general population?
And after seeing the police in the south beating Blacks, the southern sheriff who murdered the 3 freedom riders, the police gassing and beating the Vietnam protesters, reading about the police in South Africa, the gestapo, the stazi, the KGB, Guantanamo, etc., I think anyone trusting the elite few, is just crazy.
Gun control NEVER works, because it ALWAYS means the bad guys take over.
Once you have a monopoly on weapons by a few, they always will follow the highest bidder.
And that is always the bad guys.
The elite few with weapons NEVER ends up picking the majority because they are too poor to pay as well.
Might always makes right, and that can not possibly ever change.
Your only choice is whether you want to be armed and have something to say about it, or instead let the corrupt, elite, armed few always tell you exactly what to do?
...}


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

Issa said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Open your mind, get rid of your paranoia and go enjoy life.
> 
> 
> 
> Open _your_ mind and embrace firearms!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never did never will...thank God many countries don't. Only ignorant retards do need guns in 2018.
Click to expand...


And that right there is part of the reason we can't get anywhere on the gun debate. If it's true that only ignorant retards need guns then as long as we're talking about things we don't need, it's also true that only ignorant retards need cell phones, computers, motorcycles, TVs, cars, stereos, iPads, video games, etc, etc.

There are a million things we don't need yet people say they need them. Ergo, saying that those who say they need guns are ignorant retards is a flawed premise.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Papageorgio said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says the paranoid freak who is scared stupid of inanimate objects such as firearms...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the reasons I have a gun is so that I CAN go and enjoy life, without having to worry about rapists, muggers, car-jackers . . .
> 
> Or is Miss "America so scary and violent" NOW telling us that that was a lie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hate to be you. Walking around paranoid. With the attitude shown in your responses...Is men that have to worry about being sexually assaulted. You lost your femininity lady.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Her view is shaped by her life experience, how dare you demean women because of their personal experience. Women have a right to blow the head off anyone that tries to assualt them. You claim to be peaceful but will allow women to be raped with no defense. How many women have been involved in mass shootings?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Didn't demean no body. I said what I think about her paranoia same way j say it to most pro fun advocates. I don't know her personally and I don't know if her story is true or made up....do you?
> And no I'm for the death penalty for rapists and child molesters btw.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don’t know if her story is anymore or less made up than yours. Just like with you, I take her word for it.
> 
> People that believe others are dishonest, might be because they are dishonest themselves and believe everyone is just like them, dishonest.
Click to expand...


Bolton put to death for Zosha’s murder - Tucson Citizen Morgue, Part 2 (1993-2009)

You'll notice in the story that when Bolton was linked to Zosha's death by fingerprinting, he was already in prison on a 15 3/4 year sentence for sexual abuse (they got that wrong; he was convicted of kidnapping, sexual abuse, and indecent exposure).  That sentence was for assaulting me.  The story also doesn't mention the 14-year-old girl I mentioned.  That's because they could never prove he did it, but her family was convinced, and I spoke with her brother once, so it stuck in my mind.


----------



## Papageorgio

Cecilie1200 said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the reasons I have a gun is so that I CAN go and enjoy life, without having to worry about rapists, muggers, car-jackers . . .
> 
> Or is Miss "America so scary and violent" NOW telling us that that was a lie?
> 
> 
> 
> I hate to be you. Walking around paranoid. With the attitude shown in your responses...Is men that have to worry about being sexually assaulted. You lost your femininity lady.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Her view is shaped by her life experience, how dare you demean women because of their personal experience. Women have a right to blow the head off anyone that tries to assualt them. You claim to be peaceful but will allow women to be raped with no defense. How many women have been involved in mass shootings?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Didn't demean no body. I said what I think about her paranoia same way j say it to most pro fun advocates. I don't know her personally and I don't know if her story is true or made up....do you?
> And no I'm for the death penalty for rapists and child molesters btw.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don’t know if her story is anymore or less made up than yours. Just like with you, I take her word for it.
> 
> People that believe others are dishonest, might be because they are dishonest themselves and believe everyone is just like them, dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bolton put to death for Zosha’s murder - Tucson Citizen Morgue, Part 2 (1993-2009)
> 
> You'll notice in the story that when Bolton was linked to Zosha's death by fingerprinting, he was already in prison on a 15 3/4 year sentence for sexual abuse (they got that wrong; he was convicted of kidnapping, sexual abuse, and indecent exposure).  That sentence was for assaulting me.  The story also doesn't mention the 14-year-old girl I mentioned.  That's because they could never prove he did it, but her family was convinced, and I spoke with her brother once, so it stuck in my mind.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry you had to go through that and I am glad he was put to death but the sad part is the state was humane about it and he had no mercy or remorse, I can't imagine stabbing someone and then let them suffer until they die. 

You seem to be a very strong person and have learned to adapt and take care of yourself. You are most certainly not a victim, you are a strong survivor.

Thank you for sharing your story and hopefully shows others why you own a gun for protection. And why the 2nd Amendment should never be abolished. I most certainly understand and I support your choice.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Papageorgio said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hate to be you. Walking around paranoid. With the attitude shown in your responses...Is men that have to worry about being sexually assaulted. You lost your femininity lady.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Her view is shaped by her life experience, how dare you demean women because of their personal experience. Women have a right to blow the head off anyone that tries to assualt them. You claim to be peaceful but will allow women to be raped with no defense. How many women have been involved in mass shootings?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Didn't demean no body. I said what I think about her paranoia same way j say it to most pro fun advocates. I don't know her personally and I don't know if her story is true or made up....do you?
> And no I'm for the death penalty for rapists and child molesters btw.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don’t know if her story is anymore or less made up than yours. Just like with you, I take her word for it.
> 
> People that believe others are dishonest, might be because they are dishonest themselves and believe everyone is just like them, dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bolton put to death for Zosha’s murder - Tucson Citizen Morgue, Part 2 (1993-2009)
> 
> You'll notice in the story that when Bolton was linked to Zosha's death by fingerprinting, he was already in prison on a 15 3/4 year sentence for sexual abuse (they got that wrong; he was convicted of kidnapping, sexual abuse, and indecent exposure).  That sentence was for assaulting me.  The story also doesn't mention the 14-year-old girl I mentioned.  That's because they could never prove he did it, but her family was convinced, and I spoke with her brother once, so it stuck in my mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry you had to go through that and I am glad he was put to death but the sad part is the state was humane about it and he had no mercy or remorse, I can't imagine stabbing someone and then let them suffer until they die.
> 
> You seem to be a very strong person and have learned to adapt and take care of yourself. You are most certainly not a victim, you are a strong survivor.
> 
> Thank you for sharing your story and hopefully shows others why you own a gun for protection. And why the 2nd Amendment should never be abolished. I most certainly understand and I support your choice.
Click to expand...


Thanks so much.


----------



## Rigby5

Lakhota said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed.  It's just a matter of time...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't think so.
> It is clearly the founders were right to include it, as the federal government has become as power crazy as their feared.
> There really should be no standing army or police even.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 2nd Amendment doesn't really need changed to render it legally obsolete.  After all, the 2nd Amendment means whatever the U.S. Supreme Court says it means.  A liberal SCOTUS could totally reinterpret it.
Click to expand...



Not if you believe in the law, the constitution, and the republic.
The whole point of states signing on to the constitution is the Bill of Rights, and if you abrogate the bill of rigths, that nullifies the contract of any states signing on for our current federal government.
Courts are never supposed to allow their opinions, beliefs, or desired get involved.
They are only supposed to interpret based on langugage, context, and precedent.

And a "liberal" court by definition is supposed to support more individual rights, so would support the 2nd amendment even more.

Nor could the 2nd amendment ever become obsolete, as there will always be a wealthy elite attempting to bribe those armed by the government to impose law.  And when they succeed, then you have the Gestapo, Tazi, Savik, KGB, etc., as the only ones with weapons, if you don't maintain the 2nd amendment.  It is always crucial to a democratic republic to have an armed population instead of just the mercenary police and military being armed.


----------



## Rigby5

Issa said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution exist only in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review.
> 
> Neither the Constitution nor any of its Amendments are obsolete.
> 
> Whatever the current case law might be concerning the Second Amendment, however, further restrictions, regulations, or even bans will do little to curtail gun violence.
> 
> The genius of the Constitution is it compels us to seek actual solutions to our many problems; be it abortion, campaign finance reform, or gun violence, the Constitution prevents us from taking the easy route often taken by dictatorships and totalitarian regimes, where the liberty of the people is destroyed.
> 
> This does not mean we are helpless to do nothing, at the mercy of strict, unyielding jurisprudence protecting the rights of gun owners; rather, it means we must find solutions based on facts and evidence, and be prepared to address and acknowledge painful, embarrassing aspects of our society and culture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, and it seems to me the solution to protecting kids from violence at schools is more armed security at schools, just as we do at airports and as Israel does at their schools.  It has not harmed airports or Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When a country starts to compare itself to Israel that's fucked up.
> The internet will fix this issue...more and more Americans especially the young ones, will realize that other countries don't go through this madness because they don't have a stupid amendment that's causing chaos.
Click to expand...



That is silly.
All countries in the world are only a step away from a police state dictatorship.
The US is the closest however, such as only 50 years ago sheriffs murdering Blacks or white freedom riders.
We have the most unfair economic divide in the whole world, the most corrupt political system, the most unfair taxes, and we torture, commit war crimes, invade innocent countries, etc.
The last thing anyone should ever do is tell us we should trust our government and that we don't need defensive weapons any more.


----------



## basquebromance

a lot of these mass shooters want suicide by cop, which accounts for 11 percent of all officer-involved shooting and 13 percent of all officer-involved justifiable homicides.

suicide by cop is an actual form of suicide.

"people who sought suicide by cop have to be in some kind of depression" - Dr Arshak Hudson


----------



## Rigby5

basquebromance said:


> a lot of these mass shooters want suicide by cop, which accounts for 11 percent of all officer-involved shooting and 13 percent of all officer-involved justifiable homicides.
> 
> suicide by cop is an actual form of suicide.
> 
> "people who sought suicide by cop have to be in some kind of depression" - Dr Arshak Hudson



But people wanting to commit any sort of suicide means society is all screwed up.
Suicide is not at all normal.


----------



## basquebromance

high homicide environments are alike. the setting is usually a minority enclave or disputed territory where folks distrust legal authority...the killings typically arise from arguments, basically MEN FIGHTING. the fight might be spontaneous, part of some long-running feud, or the culmination of some drama.


----------



## Rigby5

basquebromance said:


> high homicide environments are alike. the setting is usually a minority enclave or disputed territory where folks distrust legal authority...the killings typically arise from arguments, basically MEN FIGHTING. the fight might be spontaneous, part of some long-running feud, or the culmination of some drama.



No, it is all because of the war on drugs, causing turf battles, unbankable profits, etc.
Just like Prohibition.
End the war on drugs and it all goes away.

There is nothing else worth fighting over.


----------



## basquebromance

Rigby5 said:


> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> 
> high homicide environments are alike. the setting is usually a minority enclave or disputed territory where folks distrust legal authority...the killings typically arise from arguments, basically MEN FIGHTING. the fight might be spontaneous, part of some long-running feud, or the culmination of some drama.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is all because of the war on drugs, causing turf battles, unbankable profits, etc.
> Just like Prohibition.
> End the war on drugs and it all goes away.
> 
> There is nothing else worth fighting over.
Click to expand...


we need to get the youth to understand: you could really have a good life.

we need to break it down to these kids that this is what's out there for them if they don't change their ways and leave those damn gangs: prison or death


----------



## Rigby5

basquebromance said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> 
> high homicide environments are alike. the setting is usually a minority enclave or disputed territory where folks distrust legal authority...the killings typically arise from arguments, basically MEN FIGHTING. the fight might be spontaneous, part of some long-running feud, or the culmination of some drama.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is all because of the war on drugs, causing turf battles, unbankable profits, etc.
> Just like Prohibition.
> End the war on drugs and it all goes away.
> 
> There is nothing else worth fighting over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> we need to get the youth to understand: you could really have a good life.
> 
> we need to break it down to these kids that this is what's out there for them if they don't change their ways and leave those damn gangs: prison or death
Click to expand...



I would like to tell them that, but I am not sure I can, because I don't think there is much out there for them regardless.
For example, about 40% of Blacks can't vote, and that is almost all due to discriminatory pot convictions that should never have happened.  The legislators, police, prosecutors, judges, etc., are all incredibly corrupt and racist against Blacks.
End the war on drugs, and then I will have some credibility to convince young gang members that there is any alternative at all.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Rigby5 said:


> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> 
> a lot of these mass shooters want suicide by cop, which accounts for 11 percent of all officer-involved shooting and 13 percent of all officer-involved justifiable homicides.
> 
> suicide by cop is an actual form of suicide.
> 
> "people who sought suicide by cop have to be in some kind of depression" - Dr Arshak Hudson
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But people wanting to commit any sort of suicide means society is all screwed up.
> Suicide is not at all normal.
Click to expand...


I disagree.  I think it is a sad, but quite normal, aspect of human nature.  There have been people who wanted to die ever since we learned that we could.


----------



## P@triot

Cecilie1200 said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> 
> a lot of these mass shooters want suicide by cop, which accounts for 11 percent of all officer-involved shooting and 13 percent of all officer-involved justifiable homicides.
> 
> suicide by cop is an actual form of suicide.
> 
> "people who sought suicide by cop have to be in some kind of depression" - Dr Arshak Hudson
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But people wanting to commit any sort of suicide means society is all screwed up.
> Suicide is not at all normal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree.  I think it is a sad, but quite normal, aspect of human nature.  There have been people who wanted to die ever since we learned that we could.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with Rigby5 here, Cecilie1200. Self-preservation is the core basis of all life. Have you ever seen a koala commit suicide? How about a giraffe? It just doesn’t happen. Quite the contrary, all forms of life will got to great lengths to ensure their own survival.


----------



## Rigby5

Cecilie1200 said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> 
> a lot of these mass shooters want suicide by cop, which accounts for 11 percent of all officer-involved shooting and 13 percent of all officer-involved justifiable homicides.
> 
> suicide by cop is an actual form of suicide.
> 
> "people who sought suicide by cop have to be in some kind of depression" - Dr Arshak Hudson
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But people wanting to commit any sort of suicide means society is all screwed up.
> Suicide is not at all normal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree.  I think it is a sad, but quite normal, aspect of human nature.  There have been people who wanted to die ever since we learned that we could.
Click to expand...


That is not possible.
Evolution can not select for suicide.
No one normally ever wants to die.
When people want to die, it is only when living is even worse, due to the horrendous conditions.


----------



## basquebromance

“In a world without guns I am what’s known as prey. A world without guns is very frightening to a small female...God made man and woman and Colonel Colt made them equal.”—Ann Coulter


----------



## Rigby5

basquebromance said:


> “In a world without guns I am what’s known as prey. A world without guns is very frightening to a small female...God made man and woman and Colonel Colt made them equal.”—Ann Coulter




Exactly.  The end of the monarchies of the Dark Ages did not come just out of enlightenment of the Renaissance, but from the invention of firearms, the equalizer or all sizes, ages, and genders.


----------



## basquebromance

IMPOSE A TAX ON GUNS!


----------



## Rigby5

basquebromance said:


> IMPOSE A TAX ON GUNS!



There already are way too many taxes and fees on firearms, considering firearms are essential defensive means of staying alive and maintaining a republic.
Its like taxing firemen or lifeguards at the beach.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Contumacious said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 2A obsolete?
> 
> Only if you are suicidal or clinically depressed.
> 
> A Quiz
> 
> Warsaw Ghetto
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1- How many Jews are carrying AR15's?
> 
> 
> 2- How many Gestapo agents are carrying AR15's?
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Here's a problem though. 

People had guns in that picture. They were the Germans. 

Now, imagine a situation where a MINORITY group was in a society where people had guns, the minorities would be taken out and those crimes would be ignored, and if the minority has a gun, they'll find a reason to make it illegal. Like making it hard to register the gun. Demand they do this, that or the other with gun.

The guns aren't going to save them. 

The US had guns and blacks were in slavery too. They just said black people didn't have rights.


----------



## Lakhota

frigidweirdo said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 2A obsolete?
> 
> Only if you are suicidal or clinically depressed.
> 
> A Quiz
> 
> Warsaw Ghetto
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1- How many Jews are carrying AR15's?
> 
> 
> 2- How many Gestapo agents are carrying AR15's?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's a problem though.
> 
> People had guns in that picture. They were the Germans.
> 
> Now, imagine a situation where a MINORITY group was in a society where people had guns, the minorities would be taken out and those crimes would be ignored, and if the minority has a gun, they'll find a reason to make it illegal. Like making it hard to register the gun. Demand they do this, that or the other with gun.
> 
> The guns aren't going to save them.
> 
> The US had guns and blacks were in slavery too. They just said black people didn't have rights.
Click to expand...


Amen!


----------



## Rigby5

frigidweirdo said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 2A obsolete?
> 
> Only if you are suicidal or clinically depressed.
> 
> A Quiz
> 
> Warsaw Ghetto
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1- How many Jews are carrying AR15's?
> 
> 
> 2- How many Gestapo agents are carrying AR15's?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's a problem though.
> 
> People had guns in that picture. They were the Germans.
> 
> Now, imagine a situation where a MINORITY group was in a society where people had guns, the minorities would be taken out and those crimes would be ignored, and if the minority has a gun, they'll find a reason to make it illegal. Like making it hard to register the gun. Demand they do this, that or the other with gun.
> 
> The guns aren't going to save them.
> 
> The US had guns and blacks were in slavery too. They just said black people didn't have rights.
Click to expand...


Yes, it is important that we never allow the bad guys to get a monopoly on guns in the US.
And since the police and military are working for pay, they likely will go with whomever pays them, not what is right.
So you can't count the police or military any more than those kids in the Warsaw ghetto could count on the police or military.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Rigby5 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 2A obsolete?
> 
> Only if you are suicidal or clinically depressed.
> 
> A Quiz
> 
> Warsaw Ghetto
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1- How many Jews are carrying AR15's?
> 
> 
> 2- How many Gestapo agents are carrying AR15's?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's a problem though.
> 
> People had guns in that picture. They were the Germans.
> 
> Now, imagine a situation where a MINORITY group was in a society where people had guns, the minorities would be taken out and those crimes would be ignored, and if the minority has a gun, they'll find a reason to make it illegal. Like making it hard to register the gun. Demand they do this, that or the other with gun.
> 
> The guns aren't going to save them.
> 
> The US had guns and blacks were in slavery too. They just said black people didn't have rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is important that we never allow the bad guys to get a monopoly on guns in the US.
> And since the police and military are working for pay, they likely will go with whomever pays them, not what is right.
> So you can't count the police or military any more than those kids in the Warsaw ghetto could count on the police or military.
Click to expand...


No, you can't.

But you also can't defeat the Police and Armed Forces with a few guns. It's not 1776 any more. 

The Vietcong didn't win Vietnam with weapons they were keeping in their cupboards. They had the USSR giving them weapons. 

The world has changed and there needs to be a little bit of reality when discussing the subject.


----------



## Cecilie1200

P@triot said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> 
> a lot of these mass shooters want suicide by cop, which accounts for 11 percent of all officer-involved shooting and 13 percent of all officer-involved justifiable homicides.
> 
> suicide by cop is an actual form of suicide.
> 
> "people who sought suicide by cop have to be in some kind of depression" - Dr Arshak Hudson
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But people wanting to commit any sort of suicide means society is all screwed up.
> Suicide is not at all normal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree.  I think it is a sad, but quite normal, aspect of human nature.  There have been people who wanted to die ever since we learned that we could.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have to agree with Rigby5 here, Cecilie1200. Self-preservation is the core basis of all life. Have you ever seen a koala commit suicide? How about a giraffe? It just doesn’t happen. Quite the contrary, all forms of life will got to great lengths to ensure their own survival.
Click to expand...


You do realize that humans are not koalas or giraffes, right?  One of the major reasons we consider ourselves to be higher life forms is because we are not ruled merely by our instincts.  We are able to hold moral standards, to put our reason in charge of our instincts and suppress them for things we consider more important.  This is why we have people who put themselves in danger on a regular basis to save and protect others:  law enforcement (in places other than Broward County), firefighters, soldiers . . .  This is the reason that we see people like Stephen Williford, who heard shots at the church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, and ran TOWARD the danger to save lives.  Or the brave teachers who turn up in every single one of these schools shootings, sacrificing their lives to try to protect the students in their charge.

We used to live in a society which valued and admired heroes like him, and encouraged people to aspire to be like them.  Now we live in a society which ignores them in favor of telling people that it's ridiculous to think that anyone could, or should, be willing to lay their own safety on the line for others.  Is it any wonder that now we're treated to the horrific visual of the people we rely on to stand between us and the evil, the dangerous, and the criminal standing around while children are slaughtered?

And for the record, even lower animals will risk themselves to protect their young.  Do you really want to view humans as being less than that?


----------



## Rigby5

frigidweirdo said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 2A obsolete?
> 
> Only if you are suicidal or clinically depressed.
> 
> A Quiz
> 
> Warsaw Ghetto
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1- How many Jews are carrying AR15's?
> 
> 
> 2- How many Gestapo agents are carrying AR15's?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's a problem though.
> 
> People had guns in that picture. They were the Germans.
> 
> Now, imagine a situation where a MINORITY group was in a society where people had guns, the minorities would be taken out and those crimes would be ignored, and if the minority has a gun, they'll find a reason to make it illegal. Like making it hard to register the gun. Demand they do this, that or the other with gun.
> 
> The guns aren't going to save them.
> 
> The US had guns and blacks were in slavery too. They just said black people didn't have rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is important that we never allow the bad guys to get a monopoly on guns in the US.
> And since the police and military are working for pay, they likely will go with whomever pays them, not what is right.
> So you can't count the police or military any more than those kids in the Warsaw ghetto could count on the police or military.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you can't.
> 
> But you also can't defeat the Police and Armed Forces with a few guns. It's not 1776 any more.
> 
> The Vietcong didn't win Vietnam with weapons they were keeping in their cupboards. They had the USSR giving them weapons.
> 
> The world has changed and there needs to be a little bit of reality when discussing the subject.
Click to expand...


Of course you can defeat a corrupt police or military, as long as you have weapons similar to theirs.
We have 1000 to 1 odds over them.
We can use stealth and guerrilla tactics.
An armed and determined population always wins.
The US military has always lost against a determined population, such as Vietnam or Afghanistan.
And you are also forgetting that more than half the police and military also are against gun control and insane corruption like trying to ban ARs, the most popular or all firearms, and the ones used the least  in crimes.


----------



## Rigby5

Cecilie1200 said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> 
> a lot of these mass shooters want suicide by cop, which accounts for 11 percent of all officer-involved shooting and 13 percent of all officer-involved justifiable homicides.
> 
> suicide by cop is an actual form of suicide.
> 
> "people who sought suicide by cop have to be in some kind of depression" - Dr Arshak Hudson
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But people wanting to commit any sort of suicide means society is all screwed up.
> Suicide is not at all normal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree.  I think it is a sad, but quite normal, aspect of human nature.  There have been people who wanted to die ever since we learned that we could.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have to agree with Rigby5 here, Cecilie1200. Self-preservation is the core basis of all life. Have you ever seen a koala commit suicide? How about a giraffe? It just doesn’t happen. Quite the contrary, all forms of life will got to great lengths to ensure their own survival.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do realize that humans are not koalas or giraffes, right?  One of the major reasons we consider ourselves to be higher life forms is because we are not ruled merely by our instincts.  We are able to hold moral standards, to put our reason in charge of our instincts and suppress them for things we consider more important.  This is why we have people who put themselves in danger on a regular basis to save and protect others:  law enforcement (in places other than Broward County), firefighters, soldiers . . .  This is the reason that we see people like Stephen Williford, who heard shots at the church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, and ran TOWARD the danger to save lives.  Or the brave teachers who turn up in every single one of these schools shootings, sacrificing their lives to try to protect the students in their charge.
> 
> We used to live in a society which valued and admired heroes like him, and encouraged people to aspire to be like them.  Now we live in a society which ignores them in favor of telling people that it's ridiculous to think that anyone could, or should, be willing to lay their own safety on the line for others.  Is it any wonder that now we're treated to the horrific visual of the people we rely on to stand between us and the evil, the dangerous, and the criminal standing around while children are slaughtered?
> 
> And for the record, even lower animals will risk themselves to protect their young.  Do you really want to view humans as being less than that?
Click to expand...


I can't tell if you are actually disagreeing or not since you start by saying you disagree, but close by agreeing?

Instincts are the only basis for morality really, and anything else is just corrupt conditioning forced on people by evil people trying to manipulate them.
We ARE ruled entirely by our instincts, which is why we have sex, eat too much, and everything else that we do that is not logical.
Putting yourself in danger to save others is entirely instinct.
The alpha male attacks the marauding leopard until the females can get the infants to safety.
That is not at all logical, reasoned, or based on ethical decisions.
Sacrificing your life for others is NOT at all suicide.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Rigby5 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2A obsolete?
> 
> Only if you are suicidal or clinically depressed.
> 
> A Quiz
> 
> Warsaw Ghetto
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1- How many Jews are carrying AR15's?
> 
> 
> 2- How many Gestapo agents are carrying AR15's?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's a problem though.
> 
> People had guns in that picture. They were the Germans.
> 
> Now, imagine a situation where a MINORITY group was in a society where people had guns, the minorities would be taken out and those crimes would be ignored, and if the minority has a gun, they'll find a reason to make it illegal. Like making it hard to register the gun. Demand they do this, that or the other with gun.
> 
> The guns aren't going to save them.
> 
> The US had guns and blacks were in slavery too. They just said black people didn't have rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is important that we never allow the bad guys to get a monopoly on guns in the US.
> And since the police and military are working for pay, they likely will go with whomever pays them, not what is right.
> So you can't count the police or military any more than those kids in the Warsaw ghetto could count on the police or military.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you can't.
> 
> But you also can't defeat the Police and Armed Forces with a few guns. It's not 1776 any more.
> 
> The Vietcong didn't win Vietnam with weapons they were keeping in their cupboards. They had the USSR giving them weapons.
> 
> The world has changed and there needs to be a little bit of reality when discussing the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you can defeat a corrupt police or military, as long as you have weapons similar to theirs.
> We have 1000 to 1 odds over them.
> We can use stealth and guerrilla tactics.
> An armed and determined population always wins.
> The US military has always lost against a determined population, such as Vietnam or Afghanistan.
> And you are also forgetting that more than half the police and military also are against gun control and insane corruption like trying to ban ARs, the most popular or all firearms, and the ones used the least  in crimes.
Click to expand...


And the ammo? What happens when the ammo runs dry? Because it will. A war of attrition and you won't last that long. 

Also it'd be making lots of assumptions. Like that everyone is on board. 

The govt just needs to make sure they get enough people on their side, which they would. If it's again MINORITIES, which is what we're talking here, that 1000-1 odds suddenly becomes 1-1000 or worse.


----------



## Rigby5

frigidweirdo said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2A obsolete?
> 
> Only if you are suicidal or clinically depressed.
> 
> A Quiz
> 
> Warsaw Ghetto
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1- How many Jews are carrying AR15's?
> 
> 
> 2- How many Gestapo agents are carrying AR15's?
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a problem though.
> 
> People had guns in that picture. They were the Germans.
> 
> Now, imagine a situation where a MINORITY group was in a society where people had guns, the minorities would be taken out and those crimes would be ignored, and if the minority has a gun, they'll find a reason to make it illegal. Like making it hard to register the gun. Demand they do this, that or the other with gun.
> 
> The guns aren't going to save them.
> 
> The US had guns and blacks were in slavery too. They just said black people didn't have rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is important that we never allow the bad guys to get a monopoly on guns in the US.
> And since the police and military are working for pay, they likely will go with whomever pays them, not what is right.
> So you can't count the police or military any more than those kids in the Warsaw ghetto could count on the police or military.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you can't.
> 
> But you also can't defeat the Police and Armed Forces with a few guns. It's not 1776 any more.
> 
> The Vietcong didn't win Vietnam with weapons they were keeping in their cupboards. They had the USSR giving them weapons.
> 
> The world has changed and there needs to be a little bit of reality when discussing the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you can defeat a corrupt police or military, as long as you have weapons similar to theirs.
> We have 1000 to 1 odds over them.
> We can use stealth and guerrilla tactics.
> An armed and determined population always wins.
> The US military has always lost against a determined population, such as Vietnam or Afghanistan.
> And you are also forgetting that more than half the police and military also are against gun control and insane corruption like trying to ban ARs, the most popular or all firearms, and the ones used the least  in crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the ammo? What happens when the ammo runs dry? Because it will. A war of attrition and you won't last that long.
> 
> Also it'd be making lots of assumptions. Like that everyone is on board.
> 
> The govt just needs to make sure they get enough people on their side, which they would. If it's again MINORITIES, which is what we're talking here, that 1000-1 odds suddenly becomes 1-1000 or worse.
Click to expand...


You don't need a lot of ammo for an insurrection.  One bullet per assassination.  And you resupply from the evil person you assassinate.  It was how the French Resistance worked.
And if the government every got so corrupt as to try to confiscate 10 million ARs, then at least 100 million gun owners would be sure to retaliate.  
That is not an assumption, but pretty likely fact.
And now, the reality is that the police and military would likely also have huge losses from mutiny, so the odds against the corrupt government would likely be more like 2000 to 1.
What you seem to fail to realize is that gun control to the point of trying to confiscate ARs, is not at all popular.


----------



## Humorme

Rigby5 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a problem though.
> 
> People had guns in that picture. They were the Germans.
> 
> Now, imagine a situation where a MINORITY group was in a society where people had guns, the minorities would be taken out and those crimes would be ignored, and if the minority has a gun, they'll find a reason to make it illegal. Like making it hard to register the gun. Demand they do this, that or the other with gun.
> 
> The guns aren't going to save them.
> 
> The US had guns and blacks were in slavery too. They just said black people didn't have rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is important that we never allow the bad guys to get a monopoly on guns in the US.
> And since the police and military are working for pay, they likely will go with whomever pays them, not what is right.
> So you can't count the police or military any more than those kids in the Warsaw ghetto could count on the police or military.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you can't.
> 
> But you also can't defeat the Police and Armed Forces with a few guns. It's not 1776 any more.
> 
> The Vietcong didn't win Vietnam with weapons they were keeping in their cupboards. They had the USSR giving them weapons.
> 
> The world has changed and there needs to be a little bit of reality when discussing the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you can defeat a corrupt police or military, as long as you have weapons similar to theirs.
> We have 1000 to 1 odds over them.
> We can use stealth and guerrilla tactics.
> An armed and determined population always wins.
> The US military has always lost against a determined population, such as Vietnam or Afghanistan.
> And you are also forgetting that more than half the police and military also are against gun control and insane corruption like trying to ban ARs, the most popular or all firearms, and the ones used the least  in crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the ammo? What happens when the ammo runs dry? Because it will. A war of attrition and you won't last that long.
> 
> Also it'd be making lots of assumptions. Like that everyone is on board.
> 
> The govt just needs to make sure they get enough people on their side, which they would. If it's again MINORITIES, which is what we're talking here, that 1000-1 odds suddenly becomes 1-1000 or worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't need a lot of ammo for an insurrection.  One bullet per assassination.  And you resupply from the evil person you assassinate.  It was how the French Resistance worked.
> And if the government every got so corrupt as to try to confiscate 10 million ARs, then at least 100 million gun owners would be sure to retaliate.
> That is not an assumption, but pretty likely fact.
> And now, the reality is that the police and military would likely also have huge losses from mutiny, so the odds against the corrupt government would likely be more like 2000 to 1.
> What you seem to fail to realize is that gun control to the point of trying to confiscate ARs, is not at all popular.
Click to expand...


I wish your enthusiasm had some basis in fact.  But I've witnessed too much.

Ten states have all but outlawed firearms.  Where was the backlash?  We really didn't do much when the government attacked those people in Waco at the Carmel church, did we?  We didn't hold the government accountable when they murdered family members of the former Green Beret, Randy Weaver, at a place called Ruby Ridge.

The American people accepted having a national holiday for a married man that was pretending to be a preacher while doing ladies of another color in a hotel - and consorting with known communists of his era.  The guys who had sworn to uphold their heritage by preserving the Confederate flag lost and disappeared.

Then those same guys accepted defeat when the liberals went after historical monuments, memorials and statues.  Of course they were just as silent when the liberals assaulted their culture and got rid of nativity displays and the removal of the Ten Commandments (God forbid someone read them and apply them in their lives.)

The government doesn't take your weapons all at once.  They attack your culture on one front and dismantle the Second Amendment incrementally while you do nothing on the other hand.  They divide your forces, put extremists into positions of power and ignore the legitimate people that are vying for your support.

I'm just telling you how life really works.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Rigby5 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a problem though.
> 
> People had guns in that picture. They were the Germans.
> 
> Now, imagine a situation where a MINORITY group was in a society where people had guns, the minorities would be taken out and those crimes would be ignored, and if the minority has a gun, they'll find a reason to make it illegal. Like making it hard to register the gun. Demand they do this, that or the other with gun.
> 
> The guns aren't going to save them.
> 
> The US had guns and blacks were in slavery too. They just said black people didn't have rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is important that we never allow the bad guys to get a monopoly on guns in the US.
> And since the police and military are working for pay, they likely will go with whomever pays them, not what is right.
> So you can't count the police or military any more than those kids in the Warsaw ghetto could count on the police or military.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you can't.
> 
> But you also can't defeat the Police and Armed Forces with a few guns. It's not 1776 any more.
> 
> The Vietcong didn't win Vietnam with weapons they were keeping in their cupboards. They had the USSR giving them weapons.
> 
> The world has changed and there needs to be a little bit of reality when discussing the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you can defeat a corrupt police or military, as long as you have weapons similar to theirs.
> We have 1000 to 1 odds over them.
> We can use stealth and guerrilla tactics.
> An armed and determined population always wins.
> The US military has always lost against a determined population, such as Vietnam or Afghanistan.
> And you are also forgetting that more than half the police and military also are against gun control and insane corruption like trying to ban ARs, the most popular or all firearms, and the ones used the least  in crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the ammo? What happens when the ammo runs dry? Because it will. A war of attrition and you won't last that long.
> 
> Also it'd be making lots of assumptions. Like that everyone is on board.
> 
> The govt just needs to make sure they get enough people on their side, which they would. If it's again MINORITIES, which is what we're talking here, that 1000-1 odds suddenly becomes 1-1000 or worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't need a lot of ammo for an insurrection.  One bullet per assassination.  And you resupply from the evil person you assassinate.  It was how the French Resistance worked.
> And if the government every got so corrupt as to try to confiscate 10 million ARs, then at least 100 million gun owners would be sure to retaliate.
> That is not an assumption, but pretty likely fact.
> And now, the reality is that the police and military would likely also have huge losses from mutiny, so the odds against the corrupt government would likely be more like 2000 to 1.
> What you seem to fail to realize is that gun control to the point of trying to confiscate ARs, is not at all popular.
Click to expand...


Sure there are ways around it. 

However if the police had 50% mutiny, then you wouldn't have needed guns in private hands in the first place. Because you'd have loads of guns.

But the reality, again, is that if the US armed forces got involved, you'd be able to fight back, but would you have started fighting in the first place?

The US govt is basically run by the rich who totally control politics, and the people with the guns don't care. They've been told what to think. 

So there's not going to come a time when they think "we need to do something" because they're been totally brainwashed anyway.


----------



## P@triot

Cecilie1200 said:


> And for the record, even lower animals will risk themselves to protect their young.  Do you really want to view humans as being less than that?


Do I want to view humans as less than animals? No. But clearly progressives are. Have you ever seen animals have an abortion? Only humans (on the left) kill their own babies. And only humans kill themsleves.


----------



## Humorme

frigidweirdo said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is important that we never allow the bad guys to get a monopoly on guns in the US.
> And since the police and military are working for pay, they likely will go with whomever pays them, not what is right.
> So you can't count the police or military any more than those kids in the Warsaw ghetto could count on the police or military.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you can't.
> 
> But you also can't defeat the Police and Armed Forces with a few guns. It's not 1776 any more.
> 
> The Vietcong didn't win Vietnam with weapons they were keeping in their cupboards. They had the USSR giving them weapons.
> 
> The world has changed and there needs to be a little bit of reality when discussing the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you can defeat a corrupt police or military, as long as you have weapons similar to theirs.
> We have 1000 to 1 odds over them.
> We can use stealth and guerrilla tactics.
> An armed and determined population always wins.
> The US military has always lost against a determined population, such as Vietnam or Afghanistan.
> And you are also forgetting that more than half the police and military also are against gun control and insane corruption like trying to ban ARs, the most popular or all firearms, and the ones used the least  in crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the ammo? What happens when the ammo runs dry? Because it will. A war of attrition and you won't last that long.
> 
> Also it'd be making lots of assumptions. Like that everyone is on board.
> 
> The govt just needs to make sure they get enough people on their side, which they would. If it's again MINORITIES, which is what we're talking here, that 1000-1 odds suddenly becomes 1-1000 or worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't need a lot of ammo for an insurrection.  One bullet per assassination.  And you resupply from the evil person you assassinate.  It was how the French Resistance worked.
> And if the government every got so corrupt as to try to confiscate 10 million ARs, then at least 100 million gun owners would be sure to retaliate.
> That is not an assumption, but pretty likely fact.
> And now, the reality is that the police and military would likely also have huge losses from mutiny, so the odds against the corrupt government would likely be more like 2000 to 1.
> What you seem to fail to realize is that gun control to the point of trying to confiscate ARs, is not at all popular.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure there are ways around it.
> 
> However if the police had 50% mutiny, then you wouldn't have needed guns in private hands in the first place. Because you'd have loads of guns.
> 
> But the reality, again, is that if the US armed forces got involved, you'd be able to fight back, but would you have started fighting in the first place?
> 
> The US govt is basically run by the rich who totally control politics, and the people with the guns don't care. They've been told what to think.
> 
> So there's not going to come a time when they think "we need to do something" because they're been totally brainwashed anyway.
Click to expand...



Peace and plenty makes cowards out of men  OR

""_To sin by silence, when we should protest, Makes cowards out of men_." - Ella Wheeler Wilcox


----------



## P@triot

Humorme said:


> I wish your enthusiasm had some basis in fact.  But I've witnessed too much.
> 
> Ten states have all but outlawed firearms.  Where was the backlash?  We really didn't do much when the government attacked those people in Waco at the Carmel church, did we?  We didn't hold the government accountable when they murdered family members of the former Green Beret, Randy Weaver, at a place called Ruby Ridge.
> 
> The American people accepted having a national holiday for a married man that was pretending to be a preacher while doing ladies of another color in a hotel - and consorting with known communists of his era.  The guys who had sworn to uphold their heritage by preserving the Confederate flag lost and disappeared.
> 
> Then those same guys accepted defeat when the liberals went after historical monuments, memorials and statues.  Of course they were just silent when the liberals assaulted their culture and got rid of nativity displays and the removal of the Ten Commandments (God forbid someone read them and apply them in their lives.)
> 
> The government doesn't take your weapons all at once.  They attack your culture on one front and dismantle the Second Amendment incrementally while you do nothing on the other hand.  They divide your forces, put extremists into positions of power and ignore the legitimate people that are vying for your support.
> 
> I'm just telling you how life really works.


Man did your post just depress the hell out of me (because it is mostly true).


----------



## Rigby5

Humorme said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is important that we never allow the bad guys to get a monopoly on guns in the US.
> And since the police and military are working for pay, they likely will go with whomever pays them, not what is right.
> So you can't count the police or military any more than those kids in the Warsaw ghetto could count on the police or military.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you can't.
> 
> But you also can't defeat the Police and Armed Forces with a few guns. It's not 1776 any more.
> 
> The Vietcong didn't win Vietnam with weapons they were keeping in their cupboards. They had the USSR giving them weapons.
> 
> The world has changed and there needs to be a little bit of reality when discussing the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you can defeat a corrupt police or military, as long as you have weapons similar to theirs.
> We have 1000 to 1 odds over them.
> We can use stealth and guerrilla tactics.
> An armed and determined population always wins.
> The US military has always lost against a determined population, such as Vietnam or Afghanistan.
> And you are also forgetting that more than half the police and military also are against gun control and insane corruption like trying to ban ARs, the most popular or all firearms, and the ones used the least  in crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the ammo? What happens when the ammo runs dry? Because it will. A war of attrition and you won't last that long.
> 
> Also it'd be making lots of assumptions. Like that everyone is on board.
> 
> The govt just needs to make sure they get enough people on their side, which they would. If it's again MINORITIES, which is what we're talking here, that 1000-1 odds suddenly becomes 1-1000 or worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't need a lot of ammo for an insurrection.  One bullet per assassination.  And you resupply from the evil person you assassinate.  It was how the French Resistance worked.
> And if the government every got so corrupt as to try to confiscate 10 million ARs, then at least 100 million gun owners would be sure to retaliate.
> That is not an assumption, but pretty likely fact.
> And now, the reality is that the police and military would likely also have huge losses from mutiny, so the odds against the corrupt government would likely be more like 2000 to 1.
> What you seem to fail to realize is that gun control to the point of trying to confiscate ARs, is not at all popular.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wish your enthusiasm had some basis in fact.  But I've witnessed too much.
> 
> Ten states have all but outlawed firearms.  Where was the backlash?  We really didn't do much when the government attacked those people in Waco at the Carmel church, did we?  We didn't hold the government accountable when they murdered family members of the former Green Beret, Randy Weaver, at a place called Ruby Ridge.
> 
> The American people accepted having a national holiday for a married man that was pretending to be a preacher while doing ladies of another color in a hotel - and consorting with known communists of his era.  The guys who had sworn to uphold their heritage by preserving the Confederate flag lost and disappeared.
> 
> Then those same guys accepted defeat when the liberals went after historical monuments, memorials and statues.  Of course they were just as silent when the liberals assaulted their culture and got rid of nativity displays and the removal of the Ten Commandments (God forbid someone read them and apply them in their lives.)
> 
> The government doesn't take your weapons all at once.  They attack your culture on one front and dismantle the Second Amendment incrementally while you do nothing on the other hand.  They divide your forces, put extremists into positions of power and ignore the legitimate people that are vying for your support.
> 
> I'm just telling you how life really works.
Click to expand...


I see your point, but attempting to confiscate ARs would a huge provocation.  There are about 10 million of them.  Are they going to arrest or shoot all the owners, because no one is going to turn them in?  They are the single most popular of all firearms these days.  And they do not have any characteristic that would justify them being banned.  They do not have an exception rate of fire or deadly power.


----------



## Rigby5

frigidweirdo said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is important that we never allow the bad guys to get a monopoly on guns in the US.
> And since the police and military are working for pay, they likely will go with whomever pays them, not what is right.
> So you can't count the police or military any more than those kids in the Warsaw ghetto could count on the police or military.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you can't.
> 
> But you also can't defeat the Police and Armed Forces with a few guns. It's not 1776 any more.
> 
> The Vietcong didn't win Vietnam with weapons they were keeping in their cupboards. They had the USSR giving them weapons.
> 
> The world has changed and there needs to be a little bit of reality when discussing the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you can defeat a corrupt police or military, as long as you have weapons similar to theirs.
> We have 1000 to 1 odds over them.
> We can use stealth and guerrilla tactics.
> An armed and determined population always wins.
> The US military has always lost against a determined population, such as Vietnam or Afghanistan.
> And you are also forgetting that more than half the police and military also are against gun control and insane corruption like trying to ban ARs, the most popular or all firearms, and the ones used the least  in crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the ammo? What happens when the ammo runs dry? Because it will. A war of attrition and you won't last that long.
> 
> Also it'd be making lots of assumptions. Like that everyone is on board.
> 
> The govt just needs to make sure they get enough people on their side, which they would. If it's again MINORITIES, which is what we're talking here, that 1000-1 odds suddenly becomes 1-1000 or worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't need a lot of ammo for an insurrection.  One bullet per assassination.  And you resupply from the evil person you assassinate.  It was how the French Resistance worked.
> And if the government every got so corrupt as to try to confiscate 10 million ARs, then at least 100 million gun owners would be sure to retaliate.
> That is not an assumption, but pretty likely fact.
> And now, the reality is that the police and military would likely also have huge losses from mutiny, so the odds against the corrupt government would likely be more like 2000 to 1.
> What you seem to fail to realize is that gun control to the point of trying to confiscate ARs, is not at all popular.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure there are ways around it.
> 
> However if the police had 50% mutiny, then you wouldn't have needed guns in private hands in the first place. Because you'd have loads of guns.
> 
> But the reality, again, is that if the US armed forces got involved, you'd be able to fight back, but would you have started fighting in the first place?
> 
> The US govt is basically run by the rich who totally control politics, and the people with the guns don't care. They've been told what to think.
> 
> So there's not going to come a time when they think "we need to do something" because they're been totally brainwashed anyway.
Click to expand...


The military can be brainwashed into murdering Iraqis, and police can be brainwashed into murdering Blacks, but when the government starts to tell them to shoot AR owners who refuse to turn them in, the police and military will wake up.
They happen to also own ARs privately, so many of them will no longer comply with their orders.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Humorme said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you can't.
> 
> But you also can't defeat the Police and Armed Forces with a few guns. It's not 1776 any more.
> 
> The Vietcong didn't win Vietnam with weapons they were keeping in their cupboards. They had the USSR giving them weapons.
> 
> The world has changed and there needs to be a little bit of reality when discussing the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you can defeat a corrupt police or military, as long as you have weapons similar to theirs.
> We have 1000 to 1 odds over them.
> We can use stealth and guerrilla tactics.
> An armed and determined population always wins.
> The US military has always lost against a determined population, such as Vietnam or Afghanistan.
> And you are also forgetting that more than half the police and military also are against gun control and insane corruption like trying to ban ARs, the most popular or all firearms, and the ones used the least  in crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the ammo? What happens when the ammo runs dry? Because it will. A war of attrition and you won't last that long.
> 
> Also it'd be making lots of assumptions. Like that everyone is on board.
> 
> The govt just needs to make sure they get enough people on their side, which they would. If it's again MINORITIES, which is what we're talking here, that 1000-1 odds suddenly becomes 1-1000 or worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't need a lot of ammo for an insurrection.  One bullet per assassination.  And you resupply from the evil person you assassinate.  It was how the French Resistance worked.
> And if the government every got so corrupt as to try to confiscate 10 million ARs, then at least 100 million gun owners would be sure to retaliate.
> That is not an assumption, but pretty likely fact.
> And now, the reality is that the police and military would likely also have huge losses from mutiny, so the odds against the corrupt government would likely be more like 2000 to 1.
> What you seem to fail to realize is that gun control to the point of trying to confiscate ARs, is not at all popular.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure there are ways around it.
> 
> However if the police had 50% mutiny, then you wouldn't have needed guns in private hands in the first place. Because you'd have loads of guns.
> 
> But the reality, again, is that if the US armed forces got involved, you'd be able to fight back, but would you have started fighting in the first place?
> 
> The US govt is basically run by the rich who totally control politics, and the people with the guns don't care. They've been told what to think.
> 
> So there's not going to come a time when they think "we need to do something" because they're been totally brainwashed anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Peace and plenty makes cowards out of men  OR
> 
> ""_To sin by silence, when we should protest, Makes cowards out of men_." - Ella Wheeler Wilcox
Click to expand...


So.... do you have a point to make? 

You're saying not having 4.0 per 100,000 murders a year makes other first world countries cowards? 

Then go move to Caracas or Honduras if you're not a coward.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Rigby5 said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you can't.
> 
> But you also can't defeat the Police and Armed Forces with a few guns. It's not 1776 any more.
> 
> The Vietcong didn't win Vietnam with weapons they were keeping in their cupboards. They had the USSR giving them weapons.
> 
> The world has changed and there needs to be a little bit of reality when discussing the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you can defeat a corrupt police or military, as long as you have weapons similar to theirs.
> We have 1000 to 1 odds over them.
> We can use stealth and guerrilla tactics.
> An armed and determined population always wins.
> The US military has always lost against a determined population, such as Vietnam or Afghanistan.
> And you are also forgetting that more than half the police and military also are against gun control and insane corruption like trying to ban ARs, the most popular or all firearms, and the ones used the least  in crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the ammo? What happens when the ammo runs dry? Because it will. A war of attrition and you won't last that long.
> 
> Also it'd be making lots of assumptions. Like that everyone is on board.
> 
> The govt just needs to make sure they get enough people on their side, which they would. If it's again MINORITIES, which is what we're talking here, that 1000-1 odds suddenly becomes 1-1000 or worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't need a lot of ammo for an insurrection.  One bullet per assassination.  And you resupply from the evil person you assassinate.  It was how the French Resistance worked.
> And if the government every got so corrupt as to try to confiscate 10 million ARs, then at least 100 million gun owners would be sure to retaliate.
> That is not an assumption, but pretty likely fact.
> And now, the reality is that the police and military would likely also have huge losses from mutiny, so the odds against the corrupt government would likely be more like 2000 to 1.
> What you seem to fail to realize is that gun control to the point of trying to confiscate ARs, is not at all popular.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wish your enthusiasm had some basis in fact.  But I've witnessed too much.
> 
> Ten states have all but outlawed firearms.  Where was the backlash?  We really didn't do much when the government attacked those people in Waco at the Carmel church, did we?  We didn't hold the government accountable when they murdered family members of the former Green Beret, Randy Weaver, at a place called Ruby Ridge.
> 
> The American people accepted having a national holiday for a married man that was pretending to be a preacher while doing ladies of another color in a hotel - and consorting with known communists of his era.  The guys who had sworn to uphold their heritage by preserving the Confederate flag lost and disappeared.
> 
> Then those same guys accepted defeat when the liberals went after historical monuments, memorials and statues.  Of course they were just as silent when the liberals assaulted their culture and got rid of nativity displays and the removal of the Ten Commandments (God forbid someone read them and apply them in their lives.)
> 
> The government doesn't take your weapons all at once.  They attack your culture on one front and dismantle the Second Amendment incrementally while you do nothing on the other hand.  They divide your forces, put extremists into positions of power and ignore the legitimate people that are vying for your support.
> 
> I'm just telling you how life really works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see your point, but attempting to confiscate ARs would a huge provocation.  There are about 10 million of them.  Are they going to arrest or shoot all the owners, because no one is going to turn them in?  They are the single most popular of all firearms these days.  And they do not have any characteristic that would justify them being banned.  They do not have an exception rate of fire or deadly power.
Click to expand...


So, people will break the law. Law breaking is illegal and could end up with the person in prison.

People make choices. They can CHOOSE to illegals.

As they say, criminals never obey the laws, and these people will be criminals.

Should you refuse to make laws because some people will refuse to abide by these laws?


----------



## frigidweirdo

Rigby5 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you can't.
> 
> But you also can't defeat the Police and Armed Forces with a few guns. It's not 1776 any more.
> 
> The Vietcong didn't win Vietnam with weapons they were keeping in their cupboards. They had the USSR giving them weapons.
> 
> The world has changed and there needs to be a little bit of reality when discussing the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you can defeat a corrupt police or military, as long as you have weapons similar to theirs.
> We have 1000 to 1 odds over them.
> We can use stealth and guerrilla tactics.
> An armed and determined population always wins.
> The US military has always lost against a determined population, such as Vietnam or Afghanistan.
> And you are also forgetting that more than half the police and military also are against gun control and insane corruption like trying to ban ARs, the most popular or all firearms, and the ones used the least  in crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the ammo? What happens when the ammo runs dry? Because it will. A war of attrition and you won't last that long.
> 
> Also it'd be making lots of assumptions. Like that everyone is on board.
> 
> The govt just needs to make sure they get enough people on their side, which they would. If it's again MINORITIES, which is what we're talking here, that 1000-1 odds suddenly becomes 1-1000 or worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't need a lot of ammo for an insurrection.  One bullet per assassination.  And you resupply from the evil person you assassinate.  It was how the French Resistance worked.
> And if the government every got so corrupt as to try to confiscate 10 million ARs, then at least 100 million gun owners would be sure to retaliate.
> That is not an assumption, but pretty likely fact.
> And now, the reality is that the police and military would likely also have huge losses from mutiny, so the odds against the corrupt government would likely be more like 2000 to 1.
> What you seem to fail to realize is that gun control to the point of trying to confiscate ARs, is not at all popular.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure there are ways around it.
> 
> However if the police had 50% mutiny, then you wouldn't have needed guns in private hands in the first place. Because you'd have loads of guns.
> 
> But the reality, again, is that if the US armed forces got involved, you'd be able to fight back, but would you have started fighting in the first place?
> 
> The US govt is basically run by the rich who totally control politics, and the people with the guns don't care. They've been told what to think.
> 
> So there's not going to come a time when they think "we need to do something" because they're been totally brainwashed anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The military can be brainwashed into murdering Iraqis, and police can be brainwashed into murdering Blacks, but when the government starts to tell them to shoot AR owners who refuse to turn them in, the police and military will wake up.
> They happen to also own ARs privately, so many of them will no longer comply with their orders.
Click to expand...


Ah, so against Blacks they won't wake up. Against Iraqis they won't wake up, but against AR owners they will?

Er.... why? 

Why are you so certain when they've done bad things before and not thought about it, that they'll think about it in the future?

If they go out to get gun owners, they'll have sufficiently brainwashed them then too. It's not that hard.

"These people are mentally insane, they should not have guns. They've broken the law, they are like Timothy McVeigh"

How many people stood up for McVeigh?


----------



## Lakhota

The 2nd Amendment is just an empty and obsolete shell that has been bastardized over the years.  It's actually just a comical relic which is totally open to interpretation.  The founders apparently had blinders on when they wrote it - because it only relates to the time it was written.

How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment

“If I were writing the Bill of Rights, now, there wouldn't any such thing as the Second Amendment," said former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Warren Burger during a 1991 PBS NewsHour interview on gun control. Burger was a conservative judge appointed to the highest bench of the land by President Richard Nixon.


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

Warren Burger and NRA: Gun lobby’s big fraud on Second Amendment | The Milwaukee Independent

Warren Burger and the Second Amendment


----------



## Cecilie1200

P@triot said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And for the record, even lower animals will risk themselves to protect their young.  Do you really want to view humans as being less than that?
> 
> 
> 
> Do I want to view humans as less than animals? No. But clearly progressives are. Have you ever seen animals have an abortion? Only humans (on the left) kill their own babies. And only humans kill themsleves.
Click to expand...


Yes, well, I'm pretty sure it's the leftist vision of humanity and what it should be that I'm arguing against here.


----------



## Lakhota

The Constitution, including Bill of Rights, is generally a masterpiece of forward-thinking that is still relevant today - but not the 2nd Amendment.  The founders, mostly men of great vision, apparently couldn't see past the day they wrote it.  It has become so obsolete that SCOTUS can interpret it any way it wishes - which it has and will continue to do so.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lakhota said:


> The Constitution, including Bill of Rights, is generally a masterpiece of forward-thinking that is still relevant today - but not the 2nd Amendment.  The founders, mostly men of great vision, apparently couldn't see past the day they wrote it.  It has become so obsolete that SCOTUS can interpret it any way it wishes - which it has and will continue to do so.



I just heard, "Things I like are wonderful.  Things I don't like are obviously bad and irrelevant, because I don't like them."


----------



## P@triot

The *truth* is so important. The *facts* are absolutely critical. We, as a society, cannot allow uninformed, emotional, irrational progressives such as Lakhota set policy or build their false narratives.

School shootings are down. Way down. And yet the left is in a full on panic-mode tizzy demanding that firearms be banned and the 2nd Amendment torn up. If we didn’t ban firearms in the 1990’s, we sure as hell shouldn’t ban them now.

Schools Safer Now Than They Were in 1990s, According to New Study


----------



## Moonglow

Spambot Patirot in action...


----------



## P@triot

Nothing does more to advance the cause of liberty or promote conservatism than a progressive in front of a microphone.

Gun show in Florida attracts most attendees ever after deadly mass shooting at Parkland high school


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lakhota said:


> The 2nd Amendment is just an empty and obsolete shell that has been bastardized over the years. It's actually just a comical relic which is totally open to interpretation. The founders apparently had blinders on when they wrote it - because it only relates to the time it was written.


This comment is why I want to repeal every motherfucking gun law on the books.

If the left (commies) can't at least admit that we have an individual right to on guns, no gun control will ever be acceptable, because it is a step toward total ban and confiscation.  

I want total repeal.  Fuck this shit.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lakhota said:


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


Warren Burger was a shitty justice who had ZERO discipline and who was a fucking commie.  He gave no support for that retarded statement, and no one else has either.

We was WRONG!!!  Writings of the founders have unequivocally rebuked CheeseBurger's bullshit.  That statement only confirms what I always believed.  Burger was not fit for the bench.


----------



## Flopper

Lakhota said:


> Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited  never have been and never will be  Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star


*The key phrase is "a well regulated militia.   I wonder how many gun owners are members of a "regulated militia" or have any intent to joint one or for that matter even know what it is.   To day there are about 40,000 members of militias and over 310 million guns.  Civilians own over 70 times the number of guns held by the military and law enforcement combined.*


----------



## Rustic

Flopper said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited  never have been and never will be  Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star
> 
> 
> 
> *The key phrase is "a well regulated militia.   I wonder how many gun owners are members of a "regulated militia" or have any intent to joint one or for that matter even know what it is.   To day there are about 40,000 members of militias and over 310 million guns.  Civilians own over 70 times the number of guns held by the military and law enforcement combined.*
Click to expand...

You are taking it out of context, read it like you lived in the era. Someones Firearm ownership is none of the fucking federal governments business, or yours or mine.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Flopper said:


> The key phrase is "a well regulated militia. I wonder how many gun owners are members of a "regulated militia" or have any intent to joint one or for that matter even know what it is. To day there are about 40,000 members of militias and over 310 million guns.


From _Heller_:

"The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as _Amici Curiae_ 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief). Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose. See generally Volokh, The Commonplace Second Amendment , 73 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 793, 814–821 (1998).

***

"
 1. Operative Clause.

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

***

" It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right."


----------



## fnm

Rigby5 said:


> I see your point, but attempting to confiscate ARs would a huge provocation.  There are about 10 million of them.  Are they going to arrest or shoot all the owners, because no one is going to turn them in?  They are the single most popular of all firearms these days.  And they do not have any characteristic that would justify them being banned.  They do not have an exception rate of fire or deadly power.



Except for the fact that they fire one round of bullets at a time.


----------



## Bush92

2nd Amendment is what it is.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Flopper said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited  never have been and never will be  Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star
> 
> 
> 
> *The key phrase is "a well regulated militia.   I wonder how many gun owners are members of a "regulated militia" or have any intent to joint one or for that matter even know what it is.   To day there are about 40,000 members of militias and over 310 million guns.  Civilians own over 70 times the number of guns held by the military and law enforcement combined.*
Click to expand...


I think the key phrase you should be concentrating on is this quote from me:  "Learn to understand ENGLISH!"

No one in interested in interpreting and applying our laws according to your limited and flawed comprehension of what the words mean, dumbass.


----------



## Flopper

Rustic said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited  never have been and never will be  Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star
> 
> 
> 
> *The key phrase is "a well regulated militia.   I wonder how many gun owners are members of a "regulated militia" or have any intent to joint one or for that matter even know what it is.   To day there are about 40,000 members of militias and over 310 million guns.  Civilians own over 70 times the number of guns held by the military and law enforcement combined.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are taking it out of context, read it like you lived in the era. Someones Firearm ownership is none of the fucking federal governments business, or yours or mine.
Click to expand...

*When teenagers are slaughtering kids in school with assault rifles, it's everybody's business.  One would have to be insane to think our founding fathers would condom the gun slaughter we have in this country.   Lucky for the gun nuts, they're not around because if they were, the 2nd amendment would look far different.

The context back in the 1700's was very different than today.  Armed trained citizens were needed by militias to protect the colonies.  People in rural areas needed guns to hunt for food and for protection from hostile Indians.  Today, our military has plenty of resources to train recruits.  We have law enforcement everywhere in the country and no one needs to hunt for food.  The only thing we need guns for is to protect ourselves from others who have guns. The solution to problem is rather obvious, eliminate guns and there is no need for guns.   However, I don't really support making all guns illegal, just making gun ownership a privileged, not a right.*


----------



## Rustic

Flopper said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited  never have been and never will be  Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star
> 
> 
> 
> *The key phrase is "a well regulated militia.   I wonder how many gun owners are members of a "regulated militia" or have any intent to joint one or for that matter even know what it is.   To day there are about 40,000 members of militias and over 310 million guns.  Civilians own over 70 times the number of guns held by the military and law enforcement combined.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are taking it out of context, read it like you lived in the era. Someones Firearm ownership is none of the fucking federal governments business, or yours or mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *When teenagers are slaughtering kids in school with assault rifles, it's everybody's business.  One would have to be insane to think our founding fathers would condom the gun slaughter we have in this country.   Lucky for the gun nuts, they're not around because if they were, the 2nd amendment would look far different.
> 
> The context back in the 1700's was very different than today.  Armed trained citizens were needed by militias to protect the colonies.  People in rural areas needed guns to hunt for food and for protection from hostile Indians.  Today, our military has plenty of resources to train recruits.  We have law enforcement everywhere in the country and no one needs to hunt for food.  The only thing we need guns for is to protect ourselves from others who have guns. The solution to problem is rather obvious, eliminate guns and there is no need for guns.   However, I don't really support making all guns illegal, just making gun ownership a privileged, not a right.*
Click to expand...

True, In urban areas.
Not at all in Rural areas....


----------



## jc456

Flopper said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited  never have been and never will be  Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star
> 
> 
> 
> *The key phrase is "a well regulated militia.   I wonder how many gun owners are members of a "regulated militia" or have any intent to joint one or for that matter even know what it is.   To day there are about 40,000 members of militias and over 310 million guns.  Civilians own over 70 times the number of guns held by the military and law enforcement combined.*
Click to expand...

guess you missed how fast a malitia can be put together.  Did you see the streets of DC after the Inauguration?


----------



## P@triot

I’ve said for a long time now that progressivism is literally a cancer that is killing the United States in particular (and the world in general). All evidence and results support that conclusion.


> "Dying societies accumulate laws like dying men accumulate remedies." - Nicolás Gómez Dávila


As each progressive policy destroys the U.S., they scramble to implement more of their failed policies citing they just didn’t swallow enough of the cancer the last time - while attempting to blame liberty for the problem. The current idiotic cries to ban firearms is a prime example of that.


----------



## P@triot

Flopper said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The key phrase is "a well regulated militia.*
Click to expand...

Actually...that is *not* the key phrase at all. It _clearly_ states the right of the *people* (not the militia - the people) to keep and bear arms shall *not* be *infringed*.

Thanks for playing. You may go now.


----------



## P@triot

Flopper said:


> To day there are about 40,000 members of militias and over 310 million guns.  Civilians own over 70 times the number of guns held by the military and law enforcement combined.


As it should be...snowflake. It is extremely important for the government to understand that they are heavily outnumbered. And it is imperative that the people _always_ maintain that 70-to-1 advantage.


----------



## Lakhota

Further proof that gun bans work.


----------



## Flopper

jc456 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited  never have been and never will be  Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star
> 
> 
> 
> *The key phrase is "a well regulated militia.   I wonder how many gun owners are members of a "regulated militia" or have any intent to joint one or for that matter even know what it is.   To day there are about 40,000 members of militias and over 310 million guns.  Civilians own over 70 times the number of guns held by the military and law enforcement combined.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> guess you missed how fast a malitia can be put together.  Did you see the streets of DC after the Inauguration?
Click to expand...

*Yeah, it depends on what you consider a well regulated militia.  A lot of these so called militias are violent and incompetent. *


----------



## basquebromance




----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Lakhota said:


> I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed.  It's just a matter of time...



I think the 16th amendment needs to be changed... you OK with that?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lakhota said:


> I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed.  It's just a matter of time...



Quit with the empty threats.  If you really think you can change it, then get the fuck ON with it, already, and stop trying to do end runs around it.  That just tells us you know you can't get the support.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Cecilie1200 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed.  It's just a matter of time...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quit with the empty threats.  If you really think you can change it, then get the fuck ON with it, already, and stop trying to do end runs around it.  That just tells us you know you can't get the support.
Click to expand...


Meh, Squanto hits the firewater and grows beer balls; she isn't going to do anything.


----------



## basquebromance

"The great object is that every man be armed. If this be treason, make the most of it! Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense?" ~ Patrick Henry, 1788


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Flopper said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited  never have been and never will be  Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star
> 
> 
> 
> *The key phrase is "a well regulated militia.   I wonder how many gun owners are members of a "regulated militia" or have any intent to joint one or for that matter even know what it is.   To day there are about 40,000 members of militias and over 310 million guns.  Civilians own over 70 times the number of guns held by the military and law enforcement combined.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> guess you missed how fast a malitia can be put together.  Did you see the streets of DC after the Inauguration?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Yeah, it depends on what you consider a well regulated militia.  A lot of these so called militias are violent and incompetent. *
Click to expand...

In fact, many are nothing but criminal organizations.


----------



## basquebromance

"Why do I 'need' to own an AR-15? - Why did Rosa Parks 'need' to sit in the front of the bus? In a free nation, there is no requirement to show 'need' to exercise a constitutional right."


----------



## TyroneSlothrop




----------



## TyroneSlothrop

basquebromance said:


> "Why do I 'need' to own an AR-15? - Why did Rosa Parks 'need' to sit in the front of the bus? In a free nation, there is no requirement to show 'need' to exercise a constitutional right."


why can't I own a belt fed fifty caliber machine gun


----------



## Jantje_Smit

TyroneSlothrop said:


> why can't I own a belt fed fifty caliber machine gun



Have you ever tried to bear a fifty caliber machine gun, those things are %##* heavy....


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Jantje_Smit said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> why can't I own a belt fed fifty caliber machine gun
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever tried to bear a fifty caliber machine gun, those things are %##* heavy....
Click to expand...

I have a crew of handlers all of them with facial tattoos and Mohawk haircuts ...get out my way I am on a "Constitutional"


----------



## Cellblock2429

TyroneSlothrop said:


> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Why do I 'need' to own an AR-15? - Why did Rosa Parks 'need' to sit in the front of the bus? In a free nation, there is no requirement to show 'need' to exercise a constitutional right."
> 
> 
> 
> why can't I own a belt fed fifty caliber machine gun
Click to expand...

/——-/ Actually you can, but not one that is operational. You see gun grabbers use extreme examples out of desperation. Why can I own a tank? Ever see the muzzle on one of those babies?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Jantje_Smit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> why can't I own a belt fed fifty caliber machine gun
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever tried to bear a fifty caliber machine gun, those things are %##* heavy....
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have a crew of handlers all of them with facial tattoos and Mohawk haircuts ...get out my way I am on a "Constitutional"
Click to expand...


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Cellblock2429 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Why do I 'need' to own an AR-15? - Why did Rosa Parks 'need' to sit in the front of the bus? In a free nation, there is no requirement to show 'need' to exercise a constitutional right."
> 
> 
> 
> why can't I own a belt fed fifty caliber machine gun
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——-/ Actually you can, but not one that is operational. You see gun grabbers use extreme examples out of desperation. Why can I own a tank? Ever see the muzzle on one of those babies?
Click to expand...

AR 15 ...needs to be banned like a fifty caliber belt fed


----------



## Jantje_Smit

Cellblock2429 said:


> /——-/ Actually you can, but not one that is operational. You see gun grabbers use extreme examples out of desperation. Why can I own a tank? Ever see the muzzle on one of those babies?



The holy 2nd amendment speaks about the right to bear arms, a bit difficult to carry a tank around.... but an RPG should be no problem

Are those allowed in the exceptional empire?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Jantje_Smit said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /——-/ Actually you can, but not one that is operational. You see gun grabbers use extreme examples out of desperation. Why can I own a tank? Ever see the muzzle on one of those babies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The holy 2nd amendment speaks about the right to bear arms, a bit difficult to carry a tank around.... but an RPG should be no problem
> 
> Are those allowed in the exceptional empire?
Click to expand...

You are posting to mindless Right wing twits ...they seem to be all over this site LOL ....denying me a fifty caliber is against the Constitution


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Jantje_Smit said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /——-/ Actually you can, but not one that is operational. You see gun grabbers use extreme examples out of desperation. Why can I own a tank? Ever see the muzzle on one of those babies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The holy 2nd amendment speaks about the right to bear arms, a bit difficult to carry a tank around.... but an RPG should be no problem
> 
> Are those allowed in the exceptional empire?
Click to expand...

do not own marijuana it is too dangerous to own


----------



## Cellblock2429

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Jantje_Smit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /——-/ Actually you can, but not one that is operational. You see gun grabbers use extreme examples out of desperation. Why can I own a tank? Ever see the muzzle on one of those babies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The holy 2nd amendment speaks about the right to bear arms, a bit difficult to carry a tank around.... but an RPG should be no problem
> 
> Are those allowed in the exceptional empire?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are posting to mindless Right wing twits ...they seem to be all over this site LOL ....denying me a fifty caliber is against the Constitution
Click to expand...

/----/ Is denying slander against the 1st Amendment?  How about yelling fire in a crowded theatre if there is no fire? Of course there are limitations, no one except you question it.


----------



## Jantje_Smit

TyroneSlothrop said:


> You are posting to mindless Right wing twits ...they seem to be all over this site LOL ....denying me a fifty caliber is against the Constitution



The deplorable gun fanatics are a bit inconsistent, either you take the sacred constitution literally or you don't. 

So if you can carry a fifty caliber you should have the right to own one..

And you must become part of a well regulated militia of course


----------



## Cellblock2429

Jantje_Smit said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /——-/ Actually you can, but not one that is operational. You see gun grabbers use extreme examples out of desperation. Why can I own a tank? Ever see the muzzle on one of those babies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The holy 2nd amendment speaks about the right to bear arms, a bit difficult to carry a tank around.... but an RPG should be no problem
> 
> Are those allowed in the exceptional empire?
Click to expand...

/----/ " a bit difficult to carry a tank around.." One does not carry a tank around, you dimwit. One drives it around. "
Owning a Tank: What You Need to Know | Visual.ly


----------



## Cellblock2429

Jantje_Smit said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are posting to mindless Right wing twits ...they seem to be all over this site LOL ....denying me a fifty caliber is against the Constitution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The deplorable gun fanatics are a bit inconsistent, either you take the sacred constitution literally or you don't.
> 
> So if you can carry a fifty caliber you should have the right to own one..
> 
> And you must become part of a well regulated militia of course
Click to expand...

/----/ Ahhhh, the first straw man argument of the day.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Cellblock2429 said:


> Jantje_Smit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are posting to mindless Right wing twits ...they seem to be all over this site LOL ....denying me a fifty caliber is against the Constitution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The deplorable gun fanatics are a bit inconsistent, either you take the sacred constitution literally or you don't.
> 
> So if you can carry a fifty caliber you should have the right to own one..
> 
> And you must become part of a well regulated militia of course
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ Ahhhh, the first straw man argument of the day.
> View attachment 180027
Click to expand...







  we need to have periodic gun slaughter so that fat men with Nazi tattoos can get their groove on


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

*I want very Black male to own an AR 15 and to Open Carry*


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *I want very Black male to own an AR 15 and to Open Carry*


----------



## TyroneSlothrop




----------



## Cecilie1200

Jantje_Smit said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are posting to mindless Right wing twits ...they seem to be all over this site LOL ....denying me a fifty caliber is against the Constitution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The deplorable gun fanatics are a bit inconsistent, either you take the sacred constitution literally or you don't.
> 
> So if you can carry a fifty caliber you should have the right to own one..
> 
> And you must become part of a well regulated militia of course
Click to expand...


I don't recall anything in the "sacred Constitution" about MUST become part of anything.

And I have no more worries about law-abiding gun owners owning a any of the extremist, "scary" examples you bring up than I do about them owning what they have now.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop




----------



## TyroneSlothrop




----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Cecilie1200 said:


> Jantje_Smit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are posting to mindless Right wing twits ...they seem to be all over this site LOL ....denying me a fifty caliber is against the Constitution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The deplorable gun fanatics are a bit inconsistent, either you take the sacred constitution literally or you don't.
> 
> So if you can carry a fifty caliber you should have the right to own one..
> 
> And you must become part of a well regulated militia of course
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't recall anything in the "sacred Constitution" about MUST become part of anything.
> 
> And I have no more worries about law-abiding gun owners owning a any of the extremist, "scary" examples you bring up than I do about them owning what they have now.
Click to expand...

*The best available evidence suggests NRA-backed gun policies are making crime worse*
The best available evidence suggests two major National Rifle Association gun policy prescriptions — what are known as “stand your ground” self-defense laws and permissive concealed carry laws — increase homicides and violent crime. 

That is according to a massive new study by the RAND Corporation, an independent think tank. The group's experts scoured thousands of academic papers on gun violence in an effort to make definitive statements about how gun policies affect crime and safety. They winnowed that list down to only the highest-quality studies — just 62 in total — containing evidence capable of establishing a causal link between a gun policy change and a specific outcome. 

Because the RAND researchers' criteria for including studies in their final analysis were rigorous, for the majority of policies and outcomes, there was not enough good research to make any definitive statements — a clear indication of how little we know about how to prevent gun violence. But there were notable exceptions. 

There is moderate evidence, for instance, that “stand your ground” laws, which remove the requirement for gun owners to attempt to retreat from a situation before using lethal force, increase total rates of homicide. A 2013 study, for instance, found that states passing such laws saw 6 percent to 11 percent increases in their total homicide rate. Another study found that Florida experienced a significant 24 percent increase in total homicides and 32 percent increase in firearm homicides following enactment of the stand-your-ground law in 2005. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amph...making-crime-worse/?__twitter_impression=true


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

*This is the Kind of Mental Cripple that Typifies Trump and the GOP*...Religious Fanatic weirdos and Fuck Waffles 
* Pruitt Said Evolution Is Just a ‘Theory’
Pruitt also described the Second Amendment as divinely granted and condemned federal judges as a “judicial monarchy” that is “the most grievous threat that we have today.” And he did not object when the program’s host described Islam as “not so much a religion as it is a terrorist organization in many instances.” *
March 3, 2018 
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt dismissed evolution as an unproven theory, lamented that “minority religions” were pushing Christianity out of “the public square” and advocated amending the Constitution to ban abortion, prohibit same-sex marriage and protect the Pledge of Allegiance and the Ten Commandments, according to a newly unearthed series of Oklahoma talk radio shows from 2005, Politico reports.

Pruitt also described the Second Amendment as divinely granted and condemned federal judges as a “judicial monarchy” that is “the most grievous threat that we have today.” And he did not object when the program’s host described Islam as “not so much a religion as it is a terrorist organization in many instances.”


----------



## Flopper

basquebromance said:


> "The great object is that every man be armed. If this be treason, make the most of it! Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense?" ~ Patrick Henry, 1788



*Such quotes are suppose to lead us to the conclusion that the founding fathers were concerned about the individual's right to bear arms which just isn't true. It’s not that they were against the idea of an individual's right to bear arms.  It  was just not an issue that concerned them. What did concern them was the future of the part time citizen militias.  They saw militias as an alternative to a standing professional army which they feared as well as opposed because of the taxes required to support it.  Militias were cheap and could be used to form an army when needed.

To have militias protect the country, people needed to be able to acquire fire arms.  However, with the French revolution in the minds a lot of the wealthy land owners and businessmen, they did not want to see an armed populist.  The founders felt that in order to guarantee the future of the militias and thus the security of the state without a professional army, the right to bear arms was essential because without public access to firearms, there would be no militias.

Today, we do not need part time militias in lieu of a standing army to defend the nation.  If we consider the intent of the founders, the second amendment is simply obsolete because militias are not needed to defend the nation and thus there is no need for the amendment.

The primary need today for guns is not to make possible militias to defend the nation, but rather to guarantee the people's right to acquire guns to protect themselves from other people who do the same.  It's just plain nuts.*


----------



## Flopper

Cellblock2429 said:


> Jantje_Smit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are posting to mindless Right wing twits ...they seem to be all over this site LOL ....denying me a fifty caliber is against the Constitution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The deplorable gun fanatics are a bit inconsistent, either you take the sacred constitution literally or you don't.
> 
> So if you can carry a fifty caliber you should have the right to own one..
> 
> And you must become part of a well regulated militia of course
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ Ahhhh, the first straw man argument of the day.
> View attachment 180027
Click to expand...

*The founders state in the amendment their reason for the right.  Supporters of the amendment prefer to ignore their reason.   If you actually take the time to read the amendment,  instead of just focusing on the last phrase you will see that the founder's reason is no longer valid today.   It would take a real nut case to believe the security of this nation doesn't rest with military but rather regulated militias that hardly even exist.  At the time the 2nd amendment was written, the founders believed that regulated part time citizen militias composed of all citizens with firearms was necessary for the security of the state and thus the people must have the right to bear arms otherwise there could be no militias.*

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


----------



## Flopper

TyroneSlothrop said:


>


*If Jesus carried a gun, the gospel would be meaningless.*

* "But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right. cheek, turn to him the other also."*
*Mathew 5:38*


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Flopper said:


> *If Jesus carried a gun, the gospel would be meaningless.*
> 
> * "But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right. cheek, turn to him the other also."*
> *Mathew 5:38*


have the Evangelicals heard of this ?


----------



## Cellblock2429

Flopper said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jantje_Smit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are posting to mindless Right wing twits ...they seem to be all over this site LOL ....denying me a fifty caliber is against the Constitution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The deplorable gun fanatics are a bit inconsistent, either you take the sacred constitution literally or you don't.
> 
> So if you can carry a fifty caliber you should have the right to own one..
> 
> And you must become part of a well regulated militia of course
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ Ahhhh, the first straw man argument of the day.
> View attachment 180027
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The founders state in the amendment their reason for the right.  Supporters of the amendment prefer to ignore their reason.   If you actually take the time to read the amendment,  instead of just focusing on the last phrase you will see that the founder's reason is no longer valid today.   It would take a real nut case to believe the security of this nation doesn't rest with military but rather regulated militias that hardly even exist.  At the time the 2nd amendment was written, the founders believed that regulated part time citizen militias composed of all citizens with firearms was necessary for the security of the state and thus the people must have the right to bear arms otherwise there could be no militias.*
> 
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Click to expand...

/----/ Nice try Gun Grabber. But I take the words of our Founding Fathers over yours any day of the week:

_James Madison, author of the 2nd Amendment, Federalist Papers, #46, 1788_

Madison clearly states what a militia is and what its purpose is; to counter the federal government. The anti-gun folks pretend this and other documents don’t exist. They wish.

*No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.*

_Thomas Jefferson, proposal to the Virginia Constitution._

*Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. *The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of troops, that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States”

_Noah Webster, 1787_


----------



## P@triot

Lakhota said:


> Further proof that gun bans work.


Further proof that you are _completely_ uninformed because you swallow propaganda...

New analysis on gun control shows increased gun restrictions have very minimal desirable effects


----------



## P@triot

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If Jesus carried a gun, the gospel would be meaningless.*
> 
> * "But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right. cheek, turn to him the other also."*
> *Mathew 5:38*
> 
> 
> 
> have the Evangelicals heard of this ?
Click to expand...

Suddenly the atheists have “found” God, uh?


----------



## Flopper

Cellblock2429 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jantje_Smit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are posting to mindless Right wing twits ...they seem to be all over this site LOL ....denying me a fifty caliber is against the Constitution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The deplorable gun fanatics are a bit inconsistent, either you take the sacred constitution literally or you don't.
> 
> So if you can carry a fifty caliber you should have the right to own one..
> 
> And you must become part of a well regulated militia of course
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ Ahhhh, the first straw man argument of the day.
> View attachment 180027
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The founders state in the amendment their reason for the right.  Supporters of the amendment prefer to ignore their reason.   If you actually take the time to read the amendment,  instead of just focusing on the last phrase you will see that the founder's reason is no longer valid today.   It would take a real nut case to believe the security of this nation doesn't rest with military but rather regulated militias that hardly even exist.  At the time the 2nd amendment was written, the founders believed that regulated part time citizen militias composed of all citizens with firearms was necessary for the security of the state and thus the people must have the right to bear arms otherwise there could be no militias.*
> 
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ Nice try Gun Grabber. But I take the words of our Founding Fathers over yours any day of the week:
> 
> _James Madison, author of the 2nd Amendment, Federalist Papers, #46, 1788_
> 
> Madison clearly states what a militia is and what its purpose is; to counter the federal government. The anti-gun folks pretend this and other documents don’t exist. They wish.
> 
> *No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.*
> 
> _Thomas Jefferson, proposal to the Virginia Constitution._
> 
> *Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. *The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of troops, that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States”
> 
> _Noah Webster, 1787_
Click to expand...

*Like most gun nuts, you just can't stand to quote the whole 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."   You would have to be a little nuts to believe militias are necessary to the security of the nation today and it the militias aren't needed then there is no constitutional bases for the right to bear arms.  *


----------



## P@triot

Flopper said:


> Like most gun nuts, you just can't stand to quote the whole 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."   You would have to be a little nuts to believe militias are necessary to the security of the nation today and it the militias aren't needed then there is no constitutional bases for the right to bear arms.


Like all anti-constitutional, anti-liberty nuts, you just can’t stand to accept that the 2nd Amendment clearly states “the *right* of the *people* to keep and bear arms shall *not* be infringed”.

The right does not belong to the militia. It belongs to the _people_.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Flopper said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jantje_Smit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are posting to mindless Right wing twits ...they seem to be all over this site LOL ....denying me a fifty caliber is against the Constitution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The deplorable gun fanatics are a bit inconsistent, either you take the sacred constitution literally or you don't.
> 
> So if you can carry a fifty caliber you should have the right to own one..
> 
> And you must become part of a well regulated militia of course
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ Ahhhh, the first straw man argument of the day.
> View attachment 180027
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The founders state in the amendment their reason for the right.  Supporters of the amendment prefer to ignore their reason.   If you actually take the time to read the amendment,  instead of just focusing on the last phrase you will see that the founder's reason is no longer valid today.   It would take a real nut case to believe the security of this nation doesn't rest with military but rather regulated militias that hardly even exist.  At the time the 2nd amendment was written, the founders believed that regulated part time citizen militias composed of all citizens with firearms was necessary for the security of the state and thus the people must have the right to bear arms otherwise there could be no militias.*
> 
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ Nice try Gun Grabber. But I take the words of our Founding Fathers over yours any day of the week:
> 
> _James Madison, author of the 2nd Amendment, Federalist Papers, #46, 1788_
> 
> Madison clearly states what a militia is and what its purpose is; to counter the federal government. The anti-gun folks pretend this and other documents don’t exist. They wish.
> 
> *No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.*
> 
> _Thomas Jefferson, proposal to the Virginia Constitution._
> 
> *Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. *The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of troops, that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States”
> 
> _Noah Webster, 1787_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Like most gun nuts, you just can't stand to quote the whole 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."   You would have to be a little nuts to believe militias are necessary to the security of the nation today and it the militias aren't needed then there is no constitutional bases for the right to bear arms.  *
Click to expand...


Well.... that's stretching things a little far.

The whole point of militias is that they're needed when things have really hit the fan. If things haven't hit the fan, and you say they're not necessary because things haven't hit the fan, then you've got a real problem.


----------



## Cellblock2429

Flopper said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jantje_Smit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are posting to mindless Right wing twits ...they seem to be all over this site LOL ....denying me a fifty caliber is against the Constitution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The deplorable gun fanatics are a bit inconsistent, either you take the sacred constitution literally or you don't.
> 
> So if you can carry a fifty caliber you should have the right to own one..
> 
> And you must become part of a well regulated militia of course
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ Ahhhh, the first straw man argument of the day.
> View attachment 180027
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The founders state in the amendment their reason for the right.  Supporters of the amendment prefer to ignore their reason.   If you actually take the time to read the amendment,  instead of just focusing on the last phrase you will see that the founder's reason is no longer valid today.   It would take a real nut case to believe the security of this nation doesn't rest with military but rather regulated militias that hardly even exist.  At the time the 2nd amendment was written, the founders believed that regulated part time citizen militias composed of all citizens with firearms was necessary for the security of the state and thus the people must have the right to bear arms otherwise there could be no militias.*
> 
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ Nice try Gun Grabber. But I take the words of our Founding Fathers over yours any day of the week:
> 
> _James Madison, author of the 2nd Amendment, Federalist Papers, #46, 1788_
> 
> Madison clearly states what a militia is and what its purpose is; to counter the federal government. The anti-gun folks pretend this and other documents don’t exist. They wish.
> 
> *No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.*
> 
> _Thomas Jefferson, proposal to the Virginia Constitution._
> 
> *Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. *The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of troops, that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States”
> 
> _Noah Webster, 1787_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Like most gun nuts, you just can't stand to quote the whole 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."   You would have to be a little nuts to believe militias are necessary to the security of the nation today and it the militias aren't needed then there is no constitutional bases for the right to bear arms.  *
Click to expand...

/——-/ I’ve quoted Madison, the guy who wrote the 2nd Amendment. And please note the little comma following State. It’s a substitute for and. Two things, the militia AND the right of the people to bear arms. Get it????


----------



## Flopper

P@triot said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like most gun nuts, you just can't stand to quote the whole 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."   You would have to be a little nuts to believe militias are necessary to the security of the nation today and it the militias aren't needed then there is no constitutional bases for the right to bear arms.
> 
> 
> 
> Like all anti-constitutional, anti-liberty nuts, you just can’t stand to accept that the 2nd Amendment clearly states “the *right* of the *people* to keep and bear arms shall *not* be infringed”.
> 
> The right does not belong to the militia. It belongs to the _people_.
Click to expand...

*Again, you are taking the phrase out of context. The militias being necessary for  security gives reason for the right to bear arms.   Without that reason, there is no justification for the right.  Today we have large standing armies that provide security, not militias.

*


----------



## Cellblock2429

Flopper said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like most gun nuts, you just can't stand to quote the whole 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."   You would have to be a little nuts to believe militias are necessary to the security of the nation today and it the militias aren't needed then there is no constitutional bases for the right to bear arms.
> 
> 
> 
> Like all anti-constitutional, anti-liberty nuts, you just can’t stand to accept that the 2nd Amendment clearly states “the *right* of the *people* to keep and bear arms shall *not* be infringed”.
> 
> The right does not belong to the militia. It belongs to the _people_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Again, you are taking the phrase out of context. The militias being necessary for  security gives reason for the right to bear arms.   Without that reason, there is no justification for the right.  Today we have large standing armies that provide security, not militias.
> 
> *
Click to expand...

/----/ James Madison did not propose to place the second amendment in that part of the Constitution that governs Congress’s power over the militia.  The obvious reason is that Madison was seeking to protect an individual right to keep and bear arms, not some undefined right of the states to arm or control militia members within their borders.  Indeed, it was Madison himself who coined the phrase “Bill of Rights” to refer to the amendments he was proposing, including what would become the second amendment. * States do not have rights.  They have powers.  Individuals have rights.*  In any event, the second amendment guarantees in its own words a right of the people, not a right of the states.
Madison on the 2nd Amendment & milita clause | Human Events


----------



## Cecilie1200

Flopper said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like most gun nuts, you just can't stand to quote the whole 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."   You would have to be a little nuts to believe militias are necessary to the security of the nation today and it the militias aren't needed then there is no constitutional bases for the right to bear arms.
> 
> 
> 
> Like all anti-constitutional, anti-liberty nuts, you just can’t stand to accept that the 2nd Amendment clearly states “the *right* of the *people* to keep and bear arms shall *not* be infringed”.
> 
> The right does not belong to the militia. It belongs to the _people_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Again, you are taking the phrase out of context. The militias being necessary for  security gives reason for the right to bear arms.   Without that reason, there is no justification for the right.  Today we have large standing armies that provide security, not militias.
> 
> *
Click to expand...


There are many justifications for that right.  Simply because the Founders chose to articulate THAT one, at THAT time, doesn't mean they didn't recognize that there were others.

Besides, the "large standing armies" don't provide the same sort of defense the militia does.


----------



## Flopper

Cellblock2429 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jantje_Smit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The deplorable gun fanatics are a bit inconsistent, either you take the sacred constitution literally or you don't.
> 
> So if you can carry a fifty caliber you should have the right to own one..
> 
> And you must become part of a well regulated militia of course
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ Ahhhh, the first straw man argument of the day.
> View attachment 180027
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The founders state in the amendment their reason for the right.  Supporters of the amendment prefer to ignore their reason.   If you actually take the time to read the amendment,  instead of just focusing on the last phrase you will see that the founder's reason is no longer valid today.   It would take a real nut case to believe the security of this nation doesn't rest with military but rather regulated militias that hardly even exist.  At the time the 2nd amendment was written, the founders believed that regulated part time citizen militias composed of all citizens with firearms was necessary for the security of the state and thus the people must have the right to bear arms otherwise there could be no militias.*
> 
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ Nice try Gun Grabber. But I take the words of our Founding Fathers over yours any day of the week:
> 
> _James Madison, author of the 2nd Amendment, Federalist Papers, #46, 1788_
> 
> Madison clearly states what a militia is and what its purpose is; to counter the federal government. The anti-gun folks pretend this and other documents don’t exist. They wish.
> 
> *No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.*
> 
> _Thomas Jefferson, proposal to the Virginia Constitution._
> 
> *Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. *The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of troops, that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States”
> 
> _Noah Webster, 1787_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Like most gun nuts, you just can't stand to quote the whole 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."   You would have to be a little nuts to believe militias are necessary to the security of the nation today and it the militias aren't needed then there is no constitutional bases for the right to bear arms.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——-/ I’ve quoted Madison, the guy who wrote the 2nd Amendment. And please note the little comma following State. It’s a substitute for and. Two things, the militia AND the right of the people to bear arms. Get it????
Click to expand...

*There is no way, the founders would put "and" in place of the comma because that would imply that the states could not infringe upon a militia.  Also it would be grammatically incorrect.*


----------



## Cellblock2429

Flopper said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ Ahhhh, the first straw man argument of the day.
> View attachment 180027
> 
> 
> 
> *The founders state in the amendment their reason for the right.  Supporters of the amendment prefer to ignore their reason.   If you actually take the time to read the amendment,  instead of just focusing on the last phrase you will see that the founder's reason is no longer valid today.   It would take a real nut case to believe the security of this nation doesn't rest with military but rather regulated militias that hardly even exist.  At the time the 2nd amendment was written, the founders believed that regulated part time citizen militias composed of all citizens with firearms was necessary for the security of the state and thus the people must have the right to bear arms otherwise there could be no militias.*
> 
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ Nice try Gun Grabber. But I take the words of our Founding Fathers over yours any day of the week:
> 
> _James Madison, author of the 2nd Amendment, Federalist Papers, #46, 1788_
> 
> Madison clearly states what a militia is and what its purpose is; to counter the federal government. The anti-gun folks pretend this and other documents don’t exist. They wish.
> 
> *No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.*
> 
> _Thomas Jefferson, proposal to the Virginia Constitution._
> 
> *Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. *The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of troops, that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States”
> 
> _Noah Webster, 1787_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Like most gun nuts, you just can't stand to quote the whole 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."   You would have to be a little nuts to believe militias are necessary to the security of the nation today and it the militias aren't needed then there is no constitutional bases for the right to bear arms.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——-/ I’ve quoted Madison, the guy who wrote the 2nd Amendment. And please note the little comma following State. It’s a substitute for and. Two things, the militia AND the right of the people to bear arms. Get it????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *There is no way, the founders would put "and" in place of the comma because that would imply that the states could not infringe upon a militia.  Also it would be grammatically incorrect.*
Click to expand...

/-----/ What did the comma stand for if not AND?
*Use* a *comma* after the first independent clause when you link two independent clauses with one of the following coordinating conjunctions: and, but, for, or, nor, so, yet. For example: I am going home, and I intend to stay there.
*Commas: Quick Rules - the Purdue University Online Writing Lab*


----------



## Skull Pilot

Flopper said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like most gun nuts, you just can't stand to quote the whole 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."   You would have to be a little nuts to believe militias are necessary to the security of the nation today and it the militias aren't needed then there is no constitutional bases for the right to bear arms.
> 
> 
> 
> Like all anti-constitutional, anti-liberty nuts, you just can’t stand to accept that the 2nd Amendment clearly states “the *right* of the *people* to keep and bear arms shall *not* be infringed”.
> 
> The right does not belong to the militia. It belongs to the _people_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Again, you are taking the phrase out of context. The militias being necessary for  security gives reason for the right to bear arms.   Without that reason, there is no justification for the right.  Today we have large standing armies that provide security, not militias.
> 
> *
Click to expand...

So the army is providing security for your home and family now?


----------



## Cellblock2429

Flopper said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ Ahhhh, the first straw man argument of the day.
> View attachment 180027
> 
> 
> 
> *The founders state in the amendment their reason for the right.  Supporters of the amendment prefer to ignore their reason.   If you actually take the time to read the amendment,  instead of just focusing on the last phrase you will see that the founder's reason is no longer valid today.   It would take a real nut case to believe the security of this nation doesn't rest with military but rather regulated militias that hardly even exist.  At the time the 2nd amendment was written, the founders believed that regulated part time citizen militias composed of all citizens with firearms was necessary for the security of the state and thus the people must have the right to bear arms otherwise there could be no militias.*
> 
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ Nice try Gun Grabber. But I take the words of our Founding Fathers over yours any day of the week:
> 
> _James Madison, author of the 2nd Amendment, Federalist Papers, #46, 1788_
> 
> Madison clearly states what a militia is and what its purpose is; to counter the federal government. The anti-gun folks pretend this and other documents don’t exist. They wish.
> 
> *No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.*
> 
> _Thomas Jefferson, proposal to the Virginia Constitution._
> 
> *Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. *The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of troops, that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States”
> 
> _Noah Webster, 1787_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Like most gun nuts, you just can't stand to quote the whole 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."   You would have to be a little nuts to believe militias are necessary to the security of the nation today and it the militias aren't needed then there is no constitutional bases for the right to bear arms.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——-/ I’ve quoted Madison, the guy who wrote the 2nd Amendment. And please note the little comma following State. It’s a substitute for and. Two things, the militia AND the right of the people to bear arms. Get it????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *There is no way, the founders would put "and" in place of the comma because that would imply that the states could not infringe upon a militia.  Also it would be grammatically incorrect.*
Click to expand...

/----/ Another source on the use of commas in the Bill of rights
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

That little, red comma caused the Supreme Court to strike down D.C.'s ban on handguns, the country's strictest gun control law to date.

Before the Supreme Court heard the case, the D.C. circuit court of appeals nixed the ban, too. "According to the court, the second comma divides the amendment into two clauses: one 'prefatory' and the other 'operative.' On this reading, the bit about a well-regulated militia is just preliminary throat clearing; the framers don't really get down to business until they start talking about 'the right of the people ... shall not be infringed,'" The New York Times reported.


----------



## Flopper

Cecilie1200 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like most gun nuts, you just can't stand to quote the whole 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."   You would have to be a little nuts to believe militias are necessary to the security of the nation today and it the militias aren't needed then there is no constitutional bases for the right to bear arms.
> 
> 
> 
> Like all anti-constitutional, anti-liberty nuts, you just can’t stand to accept that the 2nd Amendment clearly states “the *right* of the *people* to keep and bear arms shall *not* be infringed”.
> 
> The right does not belong to the militia. It belongs to the _people_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Again, you are taking the phrase out of context. The militias being necessary for  security gives reason for the right to bear arms.   Without that reason, there is no justification for the right.  Today we have large standing armies that provide security, not militias.
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are many justifications for that right.  Simply because the Founders chose to articulate THAT one, at THAT time, doesn't mean they didn't recognize that there were others.
> 
> Besides, the "large standing armies" don't provide the same sort of defense the militia does.
Click to expand...

*I thought conservatives insisted on a literal interpretation of the constitution.  

The real justification for bearing arms today is not to prevent government tyranny or support local militias.  I doubt that there is a single politician in Washington who believes that the people will gather in the town square with pitchforks and guns and storm the capital if the government does not act in their interest.  In regard to militias, less than 1% of gun owners are member of any militia.   It's also pretty obvious that militias are not needed to secure the nation.  No, today the primary justification for the right to bear arms is to protect one's self from others who are excising that right.  *


----------



## Flopper

Cellblock2429 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The founders state in the amendment their reason for the right.  Supporters of the amendment prefer to ignore their reason.   If you actually take the time to read the amendment,  instead of just focusing on the last phrase you will see that the founder's reason is no longer valid today.   It would take a real nut case to believe the security of this nation doesn't rest with military but rather regulated militias that hardly even exist.  At the time the 2nd amendment was written, the founders believed that regulated part time citizen militias composed of all citizens with firearms was necessary for the security of the state and thus the people must have the right to bear arms otherwise there could be no militias.*
> 
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ Nice try Gun Grabber. But I take the words of our Founding Fathers over yours any day of the week:
> 
> _James Madison, author of the 2nd Amendment, Federalist Papers, #46, 1788_
> 
> Madison clearly states what a militia is and what its purpose is; to counter the federal government. The anti-gun folks pretend this and other documents don’t exist. They wish.
> 
> *No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.*
> 
> _Thomas Jefferson, proposal to the Virginia Constitution._
> 
> *Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. *The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of troops, that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States”
> 
> _Noah Webster, 1787_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Like most gun nuts, you just can't stand to quote the whole 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."   You would have to be a little nuts to believe militias are necessary to the security of the nation today and it the militias aren't needed then there is no constitutional bases for the right to bear arms.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——-/ I’ve quoted Madison, the guy who wrote the 2nd Amendment. And please note the little comma following State. It’s a substitute for and. Two things, the militia AND the right of the people to bear arms. Get it????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *There is no way, the founders would put "and" in place of the comma because that would imply that the states could not infringe upon a militia.  Also it would be grammatically incorrect.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ Another source on the use of commas in the Bill of rights
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> That little, red comma caused the Supreme Court to strike down D.C.'s ban on handguns, the country's strictest gun control law to date.
> 
> Before the Supreme Court heard the case, the D.C. circuit court of appeals nixed the ban, too. "According to the court, the second comma divides the amendment into two clauses: one 'prefatory' and the other 'operative.' On this reading, the bit about a well-regulated militia is just preliminary throat clearing; the framers don't really get down to business until they start talking about 'the right of the people ... shall not be infringed,'" The New York Times reported.
Click to expand...

*The first clause is a prefatory clause that gives reason for the second clause. The court disregarded it simply because reason is more the concern of congress than the courts, although the courts have certainly considered a prefatory clause in the past.  In other words, it's up to congress to determine if the reason is still valid today, which of course it isn't.  Courts have gone both ways on this but considering the controversial nature of the case, I'm certainly not surprised by the ruling. *


----------



## P@triot

Once again - we see that the views of a violent, oppressive dictator who refers to _himself_ as “The Supreme Leader” perfectly aligns with the views of the left (just like they did with Fidel Castro, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, etc.).


> Sayyid Ali Hosseini Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran, is applauding the notion of a disarmed American citizenry.


It says everything that America’s enemies applaud and support the left’s policies.

Iran Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei applauds the idea of guns being banned in US


----------



## P@triot

We’ve done it the failed left-wing way for almost 3 decades now. It’s time we ignore the ignorant and immature idealists and instead start listening to the experts...


> Schmidt began by pointing out that just a few decades ago, many high school students would have a hunting rifle in their vehicle in the school parking lot.


When you create victim zones, you _will_ get victims.

Wisconsin sheriff pens viral letter addressing the ‘root cause’ behind Parkland shooting


----------



## P@triot

We’ve done it the failed left-wing way for almost 3 decades now. It’s time we ignore the ignorant and immature idealists and instead start listening to the experts...


> The Crime Prevention Research Center found that from the 1950s through July 10, 2016, *98.4% of mass shootings have happened in gun-free zones*, The Blaze reported.


When you create victim zones, you _will_ get victims. The left has caused the unnecessary death of hundreds of children. This is an easy problem to solve that doesn’t require tyranny or the shredding of the U.S. Constitution. It just requires us to do what all successful solutions do - ignore the left.

Lawmaker Says Repealing Gun-Free Zone Act Would Make Schools Safer


----------



## P@triot

Despite the absolute best efforts by the left and their media.... 


> *Most Americans blame the shooting on failures by the local, state and federal governments*, according to a Rasmussen Reports study. The study was done in response to the Valentine’s Day shooting that left 17 people dead at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.


The American people refuse to accept the propaganda, refuse to turn on the U.S. Constitution, and refuse to surrender liberty. Failed left-wing policy caused the problem and then the left attempted to exploit it for power and control. As always, they failed.

Study shows most Americans blame government mistakes, not guns, for Florida shooting


----------



## P@triot

Boom! A knockout blow to the left...


> Because when the policies *fail* to produce the results you are promising to your constituents, you’ll be back with more reasons on why we’ve gotta infringe on 2nd Amendment rights


This is what failed left-wing policy has been doing for the past 118 years. Every time it fails, the left screams that we just didn’t do enough of it and then they demand that more government control and less liberty will solve the problem _this_ time.


----------



## P@triot

Thank God this man has the *right* to keep and bear arms (despite the left’s deepest desire to strip him of that right)...

Crooks break into home, beat owner with metal pipe. But victim grabs his gun — and the tables turn.


----------



## basquebromance

throughout history, we've seen oppressive governments consolidate and ensure their control over those they govern by taking away the means necessary for citizens to defend themselves.

Wonderful James Madison pointed out that the right to bear arms was a unique historical protection when he said that the Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed, which Americans possess over the people of almost any other nation where governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."


----------



## Flopper

frigidweirdo said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jantje_Smit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The deplorable gun fanatics are a bit inconsistent, either you take the sacred constitution literally or you don't.
> 
> So if you can carry a fifty caliber you should have the right to own one..
> 
> And you must become part of a well regulated militia of course
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ Ahhhh, the first straw man argument of the day.
> View attachment 180027
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The founders state in the amendment their reason for the right.  Supporters of the amendment prefer to ignore their reason.   If you actually take the time to read the amendment,  instead of just focusing on the last phrase you will see that the founder's reason is no longer valid today.   It would take a real nut case to believe the security of this nation doesn't rest with military but rather regulated militias that hardly even exist.  At the time the 2nd amendment was written, the founders believed that regulated part time citizen militias composed of all citizens with firearms was necessary for the security of the state and thus the people must have the right to bear arms otherwise there could be no militias.*
> 
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ Nice try Gun Grabber. But I take the words of our Founding Fathers over yours any day of the week:
> 
> _James Madison, author of the 2nd Amendment, Federalist Papers, #46, 1788_
> 
> Madison clearly states what a militia is and what its purpose is; to counter the federal government. The anti-gun folks pretend this and other documents don’t exist. They wish.
> 
> *No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.*
> 
> _Thomas Jefferson, proposal to the Virginia Constitution._
> 
> *Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. *The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of troops, that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States”
> 
> _Noah Webster, 1787_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Like most gun nuts, you just can't stand to quote the whole 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."   You would have to be a little nuts to believe militias are necessary to the security of the nation today and it the militias aren't needed then there is no constitutional bases for the right to bear arms.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well.... that's stretching things a little far.
> 
> The whole point of militias is that they're needed when things have really hit the fan. If things haven't hit the fan, and you say they're not necessary because things haven't hit the fan, then you've got a real problem.
Click to expand...

*That may well be the view of those today that believe that militias are needed so gun toking patriots can overthrow the government when things don't go their way.  However, the founders view was quite different.  It was the fear of standing armies that led the founders to prefer the citizen-soldier to the professional. A near-universal assumption of the founding generation was the danger posed by a standing military force. Far from being composed of honorable citizens dutifully serving the interests of the nation, armies were held to be “nurseries of vice,” “dangerous,” and “the grand engine of despotism.”   Fear of a standing army and the cost of maintaining it made the militia the overwhelming choice for the defense of the country.

The founders unfortunately were proved wrong in their faith in militia for defense of the nation.  In the War of 1812, the United States militia, because of a lack of discipline and poor training, were often routed in battle on open ground by British regulars.  The need for a standing army in lieu of relying on militias became evident to all in the 19th century.  As standing armies became the bulwark of the nation's defense, after the civil war militias provided law enforcement at local and state level and at times became vigilante groups.  They also were called into military service.  Most militias today are a far cry from that of the 18th century.  Many militias see themselves as the ultimate defense of liberty.  However,  there is serious doubt that the Founders ever contemplated the use of the militia against the government they had established. 
American Resistance to a Standing Army | Teachinghistory.org*


----------



## Cellblock2429

Flopper said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ Ahhhh, the first straw man argument of the day.
> View attachment 180027
> 
> 
> 
> *The founders state in the amendment their reason for the right.  Supporters of the amendment prefer to ignore their reason.   If you actually take the time to read the amendment,  instead of just focusing on the last phrase you will see that the founder's reason is no longer valid today.   It would take a real nut case to believe the security of this nation doesn't rest with military but rather regulated militias that hardly even exist.  At the time the 2nd amendment was written, the founders believed that regulated part time citizen militias composed of all citizens with firearms was necessary for the security of the state and thus the people must have the right to bear arms otherwise there could be no militias.*
> 
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ Nice try Gun Grabber. But I take the words of our Founding Fathers over yours any day of the week:
> 
> _James Madison, author of the 2nd Amendment, Federalist Papers, #46, 1788_
> 
> Madison clearly states what a militia is and what its purpose is; to counter the federal government. The anti-gun folks pretend this and other documents don’t exist. They wish.
> 
> *No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.*
> 
> _Thomas Jefferson, proposal to the Virginia Constitution._
> 
> *Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. *The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of troops, that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States”
> 
> _Noah Webster, 1787_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Like most gun nuts, you just can't stand to quote the whole 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."   You would have to be a little nuts to believe militias are necessary to the security of the nation today and it the militias aren't needed then there is no constitutional bases for the right to bear arms.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well.... that's stretching things a little far.
> 
> The whole point of militias is that they're needed when things have really hit the fan. If things haven't hit the fan, and you say they're not necessary because things haven't hit the fan, then you've got a real problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *That may well be the view of those today that believe that militias are needed so gun toking patriots can overthrow the government when things don't go their way.  However, the founders view was quite different.  It was the fear of standing armies that led the founders to prefer the citizen-soldier to the professional. A near-universal assumption of the founding generation was the danger posed by a standing military force. Far from being composed of honorable citizens dutifully serving the interests of the nation, armies were held to be “nurseries of vice,” “dangerous,” and “the grand engine of despotism.”   Fear of a standing army and the cost of maintaining it made the militia the overwhelming choice for the defense of the country.
> 
> The founders unfortunately were proved wrong in their faith in militia for defense of the nation.  In the War of 1812, the United States militia, because of a lack of discipline and poor training, were often routed in battle on open ground by British regulars.  The need for a standing army in lieu of relying on militias became evident to all in the 19th century.  As standing armies became the bulwark of the nation's defense, after the civil war militias provided law enforcement at local and state level and at times became vigilante groups.  They also were called into military service.  Most militias today are a far cry from that of the 18th century.  Many militias see themselves as the ultimate defense of liberty.  However,  there is serious doubt that the Founders ever contemplated the use of the militia against the government they had established.
> American Resistance to a Standing Army | Teachinghistory.org*
Click to expand...

/——/ Nice cut & paste gun grabbers. BTW who won the War of 1812?


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Flopper said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ Ahhhh, the first straw man argument of the day.
> View attachment 180027
> 
> 
> 
> *The founders state in the amendment their reason for the right.  Supporters of the amendment prefer to ignore their reason.   If you actually take the time to read the amendment,  instead of just focusing on the last phrase you will see that the founder's reason is no longer valid today.   It would take a real nut case to believe the security of this nation doesn't rest with military but rather regulated militias that hardly even exist.  At the time the 2nd amendment was written, the founders believed that regulated part time citizen militias composed of all citizens with firearms was necessary for the security of the state and thus the people must have the right to bear arms otherwise there could be no militias.*
> 
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ Nice try Gun Grabber. But I take the words of our Founding Fathers over yours any day of the week:
> 
> _James Madison, author of the 2nd Amendment, Federalist Papers, #46, 1788_
> 
> Madison clearly states what a militia is and what its purpose is; to counter the federal government. The anti-gun folks pretend this and other documents don’t exist. They wish.
> 
> *No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.*
> 
> _Thomas Jefferson, proposal to the Virginia Constitution._
> 
> *Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. *The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of troops, that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States”
> 
> _Noah Webster, 1787_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Like most gun nuts, you just can't stand to quote the whole 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."   You would have to be a little nuts to believe militias are necessary to the security of the nation today and it the militias aren't needed then there is no constitutional bases for the right to bear arms.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well.... that's stretching things a little far.
> 
> The whole point of militias is that they're needed when things have really hit the fan. If things haven't hit the fan, and you say they're not necessary because things haven't hit the fan, then you've got a real problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *That may well be the view of those today that believe that militias are needed so gun toking patriots can overthrow the government when things don't go their way.  However, the founders view was quite different.  It was the fear of standing armies that led the founders to prefer the citizen-soldier to the professional. A near-universal assumption of the founding generation was the danger posed by a standing military force. Far from being composed of honorable citizens dutifully serving the interests of the nation, armies were held to be “nurseries of vice,” “dangerous,” and “the grand engine of despotism.”   Fear of a standing army and the cost of maintaining it made the militia the overwhelming choice for the defense of the country.
> 
> The founders unfortunately were proved wrong in their faith in militia for defense of the nation.  In the War of 1812, the United States militia, because of a lack of discipline and poor training, were often routed in battle on open ground by British regulars.  The need for a standing army in lieu of relying on militias became evident to all in the 19th century.  As standing armies became the bulwark of the nation's defense, after the civil war militias provided law enforcement at local and state level and at times became vigilante groups.  They also were called into military service.  Most militias today are a far cry from that of the 18th century.  Many militias see themselves as the ultimate defense of liberty.  However,  there is serious doubt that the Founders ever contemplated the use of the militia against the government they had established.
> American Resistance to a Standing Army | Teachinghistory.org*
Click to expand...


*The founders unfortunately were proved wrong in their faith in militia for defense of the nation.*

Strange comment. Militias formed this nation from a British colony. 

*In the War of 1812, the United States militia, because of a lack of discipline and poor training, were often routed in battle on open ground by British regulars.  *

Really? An outnumbered force composed mostly of militias scored a lopsided victory over the best the British had (considered by the best in the world) at New Orleans after winning fights with American Indians and Spanish.


----------



## Cellblock2429

9thIDdoc said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The founders state in the amendment their reason for the right.  Supporters of the amendment prefer to ignore their reason.   If you actually take the time to read the amendment,  instead of just focusing on the last phrase you will see that the founder's reason is no longer valid today.   It would take a real nut case to believe the security of this nation doesn't rest with military but rather regulated militias that hardly even exist.  At the time the 2nd amendment was written, the founders believed that regulated part time citizen militias composed of all citizens with firearms was necessary for the security of the state and thus the people must have the right to bear arms otherwise there could be no militias.*
> 
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ Nice try Gun Grabber. But I take the words of our Founding Fathers over yours any day of the week:
> 
> _James Madison, author of the 2nd Amendment, Federalist Papers, #46, 1788_
> 
> Madison clearly states what a militia is and what its purpose is; to counter the federal government. The anti-gun folks pretend this and other documents don’t exist. They wish.
> 
> *No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.*
> 
> _Thomas Jefferson, proposal to the Virginia Constitution._
> 
> *Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. *The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of troops, that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States”
> 
> _Noah Webster, 1787_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Like most gun nuts, you just can't stand to quote the whole 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."   You would have to be a little nuts to believe militias are necessary to the security of the nation today and it the militias aren't needed then there is no constitutional bases for the right to bear arms.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well.... that's stretching things a little far.
> 
> The whole point of militias is that they're needed when things have really hit the fan. If things haven't hit the fan, and you say they're not necessary because things haven't hit the fan, then you've got a real problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *That may well be the view of those today that believe that militias are needed so gun toking patriots can overthrow the government when things don't go their way.  However, the founders view was quite different.  It was the fear of standing armies that led the founders to prefer the citizen-soldier to the professional. A near-universal assumption of the founding generation was the danger posed by a standing military force. Far from being composed of honorable citizens dutifully serving the interests of the nation, armies were held to be “nurseries of vice,” “dangerous,” and “the grand engine of despotism.”   Fear of a standing army and the cost of maintaining it made the militia the overwhelming choice for the defense of the country.
> 
> The founders unfortunately were proved wrong in their faith in militia for defense of the nation.  In the War of 1812, the United States militia, because of a lack of discipline and poor training, were often routed in battle on open ground by British regulars.  The need for a standing army in lieu of relying on militias became evident to all in the 19th century.  As standing armies became the bulwark of the nation's defense, after the civil war militias provided law enforcement at local and state level and at times became vigilante groups.  They also were called into military service.  Most militias today are a far cry from that of the 18th century.  Many militias see themselves as the ultimate defense of liberty.  However,  there is serious doubt that the Founders ever contemplated the use of the militia against the government they had established.
> American Resistance to a Standing Army | Teachinghistory.org*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The founders unfortunately were proved wrong in their faith in militia for defense of the nation.*
> 
> Strange comment. Militias formed this nation from a British colony.
> 
> *In the War of 1812, the United States militia, because of a lack of discipline and poor training, were often routed in battle on open ground by British regulars.  *
> 
> Really? An outnumbered force composed mostly of militias scored a lopsided victory over the best the British had (considered by the best in the world) at New Orleans after winning fights with American Indians and Spanish.
Click to expand...

/——/ Gun grabbers understand American history the way a pig understands the designated hitter rule.


----------



## Cellblock2429

Flopper said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ Ahhhh, the first straw man argument of the day.
> View attachment 180027
> 
> 
> 
> *The founders state in the amendment their reason for the right.  Supporters of the amendment prefer to ignore their reason.   If you actually take the time to read the amendment,  instead of just focusing on the last phrase you will see that the founder's reason is no longer valid today.   It would take a real nut case to believe the security of this nation doesn't rest with military but rather regulated militias that hardly even exist.  At the time the 2nd amendment was written, the founders believed that regulated part time citizen militias composed of all citizens with firearms was necessary for the security of the state and thus the people must have the right to bear arms otherwise there could be no militias.*
> 
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ Nice try Gun Grabber. But I take the words of our Founding Fathers over yours any day of the week:
> 
> _James Madison, author of the 2nd Amendment, Federalist Papers, #46, 1788_
> 
> Madison clearly states what a militia is and what its purpose is; to counter the federal government. The anti-gun folks pretend this and other documents don’t exist. They wish.
> 
> *No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.*
> 
> _Thomas Jefferson, proposal to the Virginia Constitution._
> 
> *Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. *The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of troops, that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States”
> 
> _Noah Webster, 1787_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Like most gun nuts, you just can't stand to quote the whole 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."   You would have to be a little nuts to believe militias are necessary to the security of the nation today and it the militias aren't needed then there is no constitutional bases for the right to bear arms.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well.... that's stretching things a little far.
> 
> The whole point of militias is that they're needed when things have really hit the fan. If things haven't hit the fan, and you say they're not necessary because things haven't hit the fan, then you've got a real problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *That may well be the view of those today that believe that militias are needed so gun toking patriots can overthrow the government when things don't go their way.  However, the founders view was quite different.  It was the fear of standing armies that led the founders to prefer the citizen-soldier to the professional. A near-universal assumption of the founding generation was the danger posed by a standing military force. Far from being composed of honorable citizens dutifully serving the interests of the nation, armies were held to be “nurseries of vice,” “dangerous,” and “the grand engine of despotism.”   Fear of a standing army and the cost of maintaining it made the militia the overwhelming choice for the defense of the country.
> 
> The founders unfortunately were proved wrong in their faith in militia for defense of the nation.  In the War of 1812, the United States militia, because of a lack of discipline and poor training, were often routed in battle on open ground by British regulars.  The need for a standing army in lieu of relying on militias became evident to all in the 19th century.  As standing armies became the bulwark of the nation's defense, after the civil war militias provided law enforcement at local and state level and at times became vigilante groups.  They also were called into military service.  Most militias today are a far cry from that of the 18th century.  Many militias see themselves as the ultimate defense of liberty.  However,  there is serious doubt that the Founders ever contemplated the use of the militia against the government they had established.
> American Resistance to a Standing Army | Teachinghistory.org*
Click to expand...

/——/ Johnny Horton wrote pop songs to teach kids history. So learn something about the War of 1812. A better link with the lyrics:


----------



## Flopper

9thIDdoc said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The founders state in the amendment their reason for the right.  Supporters of the amendment prefer to ignore their reason.   If you actually take the time to read the amendment,  instead of just focusing on the last phrase you will see that the founder's reason is no longer valid today.   It would take a real nut case to believe the security of this nation doesn't rest with military but rather regulated militias that hardly even exist.  At the time the 2nd amendment was written, the founders believed that regulated part time citizen militias composed of all citizens with firearms was necessary for the security of the state and thus the people must have the right to bear arms otherwise there could be no militias.*
> 
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ Nice try Gun Grabber. But I take the words of our Founding Fathers over yours any day of the week:
> 
> _James Madison, author of the 2nd Amendment, Federalist Papers, #46, 1788_
> 
> Madison clearly states what a militia is and what its purpose is; to counter the federal government. The anti-gun folks pretend this and other documents don’t exist. They wish.
> 
> *No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.*
> 
> _Thomas Jefferson, proposal to the Virginia Constitution._
> 
> *Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. *The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of troops, that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States”
> 
> _Noah Webster, 1787_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Like most gun nuts, you just can't stand to quote the whole 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."   You would have to be a little nuts to believe militias are necessary to the security of the nation today and it the militias aren't needed then there is no constitutional bases for the right to bear arms.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well.... that's stretching things a little far.
> 
> The whole point of militias is that they're needed when things have really hit the fan. If things haven't hit the fan, and you say they're not necessary because things haven't hit the fan, then you've got a real problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *That may well be the view of those today that believe that militias are needed so gun toking patriots can overthrow the government when things don't go their way.  However, the founders view was quite different.  It was the fear of standing armies that led the founders to prefer the citizen-soldier to the professional. A near-universal assumption of the founding generation was the danger posed by a standing military force. Far from being composed of honorable citizens dutifully serving the interests of the nation, armies were held to be “nurseries of vice,” “dangerous,” and “the grand engine of despotism.”   Fear of a standing army and the cost of maintaining it made the militia the overwhelming choice for the defense of the country.
> 
> The founders unfortunately were proved wrong in their faith in militia for defense of the nation.  In the War of 1812, the United States militia, because of a lack of discipline and poor training, were often routed in battle on open ground by British regulars.  The need for a standing army in lieu of relying on militias became evident to all in the 19th century.  As standing armies became the bulwark of the nation's defense, after the civil war militias provided law enforcement at local and state level and at times became vigilante groups.  They also were called into military service.  Most militias today are a far cry from that of the 18th century.  Many militias see themselves as the ultimate defense of liberty.  However,  there is serious doubt that the Founders ever contemplated the use of the militia against the government they had established.
> American Resistance to a Standing Army | Teachinghistory.org*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The founders unfortunately were proved wrong in their faith in militia for defense of the nation.*
> 
> Strange comment. Militias formed this nation from a British colony.
> 
> *In the War of 1812, the United States militia, because of a lack of discipline and poor training, were often routed in battle on open ground by British regulars.  *
> 
> Really? An outnumbered force composed mostly of militias scored a lopsided victory over the best the British had (considered by the best in the world) at New Orleans after winning fights with American Indians and Spanish.
Click to expand...

*In the War of 1812, the militia was a disaster on the battle field. However, they fared better and proved more reliable when protected behind defensive entrenchments and fixed fortifications, as was effectively shown at New Orleans.  Because of their overall ineffectiveness and failure during the war, militias were not adequate for the national defense. Military budgets were greatly increased at this time and a smaller, standing federal army, rather than States' militias, was deemed better for the national defense.

After the War of 1812 the state militias would still be called into service to augment the Army but they would never again serve as a primary defense of the nation.  They would still be used at the state level to assist in various revolts, uprisings, riots, natural disasters, and to assist law enforcement. 
Militia (United States) - Wikipedia *


----------



## P@triot

Unfortunately for the U.S. - this is how the left _always_ comes to the table. Unprepared. Uninformed. Uneducated. And extremely emotional.


> Failing to understand the distinction between a semi-automatic and automatic weapon tells us you’re dishonest, unserious, or unprepared for the debate.


It’s a prime illustration of why left-wing policy is so detrimental to society.


> In a debate imbued with emotion, gun control advocates rely on ignorance


We wouldn’t allow a 1st grader to walk into a test ignorant and emotional. And yet we tolerate progressives creating policy this way and attempting to strip constitutional rights that way.

If You're Trying to Ban Guns, the Least You Could Do Is Learn the Basics


----------



## hunarcy

Flopper said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ Ahhhh, the first straw man argument of the day.
> View attachment 180027
> 
> 
> 
> *The founders state in the amendment their reason for the right.  Supporters of the amendment prefer to ignore their reason.   If you actually take the time to read the amendment,  instead of just focusing on the last phrase you will see that the founder's reason is no longer valid today.   It would take a real nut case to believe the security of this nation doesn't rest with military but rather regulated militias that hardly even exist.  At the time the 2nd amendment was written, the founders believed that regulated part time citizen militias composed of all citizens with firearms was necessary for the security of the state and thus the people must have the right to bear arms otherwise there could be no militias.*
> 
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ Nice try Gun Grabber. But I take the words of our Founding Fathers over yours any day of the week:
> 
> _James Madison, author of the 2nd Amendment, Federalist Papers, #46, 1788_
> 
> Madison clearly states what a militia is and what its purpose is; to counter the federal government. The anti-gun folks pretend this and other documents don’t exist. They wish.
> 
> *No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.*
> 
> _Thomas Jefferson, proposal to the Virginia Constitution._
> 
> *Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. *The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of troops, that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States”
> 
> _Noah Webster, 1787_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Like most gun nuts, you just can't stand to quote the whole 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."   You would have to be a little nuts to believe militias are necessary to the security of the nation today and it the militias aren't needed then there is no constitutional bases for the right to bear arms.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well.... that's stretching things a little far.
> 
> The whole point of militias is that they're needed when things have really hit the fan. If things haven't hit the fan, and you say they're not necessary because things haven't hit the fan, then you've got a real problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *That may well be the view of those today that believe that militias are needed so gun toking patriots can overthrow the government when things don't go their way.  However, the founders view was quite different.  It was the fear of standing armies that led the founders to prefer the citizen-soldier to the professional. A near-universal assumption of the founding generation was the danger posed by a standing military force. Far from being composed of honorable citizens dutifully serving the interests of the nation, armies were held to be “nurseries of vice,” “dangerous,” and “the grand engine of despotism.”   Fear of a standing army and the cost of maintaining it made the militia the overwhelming choice for the defense of the country.
> 
> The founders unfortunately were proved wrong in their faith in militia for defense of the nation.  In the War of 1812, the United States militia, because of a lack of discipline and poor training, were often routed in battle on open ground by British regulars.  The need for a standing army in lieu of relying on militias became evident to all in the 19th century.  As standing armies became the bulwark of the nation's defense, after the civil war militias provided law enforcement at local and state level and at times became vigilante groups.  They also were called into military service.  Most militias today are a far cry from that of the 18th century.  Many militias see themselves as the ultimate defense of liberty.  However,  there is serious doubt that the Founders ever contemplated the use of the militia against the government they had established.
> American Resistance to a Standing Army | Teachinghistory.org*
Click to expand...


The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.-- Thomas Jefferson

Seems he may have considered it more than you thought.


----------



## Flopper

Cellblock2429 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The founders state in the amendment their reason for the right.  Supporters of the amendment prefer to ignore their reason.   If you actually take the time to read the amendment,  instead of just focusing on the last phrase you will see that the founder's reason is no longer valid today.   It would take a real nut case to believe the security of this nation doesn't rest with military but rather regulated militias that hardly even exist.  At the time the 2nd amendment was written, the founders believed that regulated part time citizen militias composed of all citizens with firearms was necessary for the security of the state and thus the people must have the right to bear arms otherwise there could be no militias.*
> 
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ Nice try Gun Grabber. But I take the words of our Founding Fathers over yours any day of the week:
> 
> _James Madison, author of the 2nd Amendment, Federalist Papers, #46, 1788_
> 
> Madison clearly states what a militia is and what its purpose is; to counter the federal government. The anti-gun folks pretend this and other documents don’t exist. They wish.
> 
> *No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.*
> 
> _Thomas Jefferson, proposal to the Virginia Constitution._
> 
> *Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. *The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of troops, that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States”
> 
> _Noah Webster, 1787_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Like most gun nuts, you just can't stand to quote the whole 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."   You would have to be a little nuts to believe militias are necessary to the security of the nation today and it the militias aren't needed then there is no constitutional bases for the right to bear arms.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well.... that's stretching things a little far.
> 
> The whole point of militias is that they're needed when things have really hit the fan. If things haven't hit the fan, and you say they're not necessary because things haven't hit the fan, then you've got a real problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *That may well be the view of those today that believe that militias are needed so gun toking patriots can overthrow the government when things don't go their way.  However, the founders view was quite different.  It was the fear of standing armies that led the founders to prefer the citizen-soldier to the professional. A near-universal assumption of the founding generation was the danger posed by a standing military force. Far from being composed of honorable citizens dutifully serving the interests of the nation, armies were held to be “nurseries of vice,” “dangerous,” and “the grand engine of despotism.”   Fear of a standing army and the cost of maintaining it made the militia the overwhelming choice for the defense of the country.
> 
> The founders unfortunately were proved wrong in their faith in militia for defense of the nation.  In the War of 1812, the United States militia, because of a lack of discipline and poor training, were often routed in battle on open ground by British regulars.  The need for a standing army in lieu of relying on militias became evident to all in the 19th century.  As standing armies became the bulwark of the nation's defense, after the civil war militias provided law enforcement at local and state level and at times became vigilante groups.  They also were called into military service.  Most militias today are a far cry from that of the 18th century.  Many militias see themselves as the ultimate defense of liberty.  However,  there is serious doubt that the Founders ever contemplated the use of the militia against the government they had established.
> American Resistance to a Standing Army | Teachinghistory.org*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Johnny Horton wrote pop songs to teach kids history. So learn something about the War of 1812. A better link with the lyrics:
Click to expand...

*The first thing you need to know about the War of 1812 is the Battle of New Orleans occurred two weeks after the end of the war and had no effect on the outcome.  Had communications been better, there would have been no battle and Johnny Horton's greatest hit would have been, "North to Alaska"*


----------



## Cellblock2429

Flopper said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ Nice try Gun Grabber. But I take the words of our Founding Fathers over yours any day of the week:
> 
> _James Madison, author of the 2nd Amendment, Federalist Papers, #46, 1788_
> 
> Madison clearly states what a militia is and what its purpose is; to counter the federal government. The anti-gun folks pretend this and other documents don’t exist. They wish.
> 
> *No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.*
> 
> _Thomas Jefferson, proposal to the Virginia Constitution._
> 
> *Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. *The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of troops, that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States”
> 
> _Noah Webster, 1787_
> 
> 
> 
> *Like most gun nuts, you just can't stand to quote the whole 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."   You would have to be a little nuts to believe militias are necessary to the security of the nation today and it the militias aren't needed then there is no constitutional bases for the right to bear arms.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well.... that's stretching things a little far.
> 
> The whole point of militias is that they're needed when things have really hit the fan. If things haven't hit the fan, and you say they're not necessary because things haven't hit the fan, then you've got a real problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *That may well be the view of those today that believe that militias are needed so gun toking patriots can overthrow the government when things don't go their way.  However, the founders view was quite different.  It was the
> fear of standing armies that led the founders to prefer the citizen-soldier to the professional. A near-universal assumption of the founding generation was the danger posed by a standing military force. Far from being composed of honorable citizens dutifully serving the interests of the nation, armies were held to be “nurseries of vice,” “dangerous,” and “the grand engine of despotism.”   Fear of a standing army and the cost of maintaining it made the militia the overwhelming choice for the defense of the country.
> 
> The founders unfortunately were proved wrong in their faith in militia for defense of the nation.  In the War of 1812, the United States militia, because of a lack of discipline and poor training, were often routed in battle on open ground by British regulars.  The need for a standing army in lieu of relying on militias became evident to all in the 19th century.  As standing armies became the bulwark of the nation's defense, after the civil war militias provided law enforcement at local and state level and at times became vigilante groups.  They also were called into military service.  Most militias today are a far cry from that of the 18th century.  Many militias see themselves as the ultimate defense of liberty.  However,  there is serious doubt that the Founders ever contemplated the use of the militia against the government they had established.
> American Resistance to a Standing Army | Teachinghistory.org*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Johnny Horton wrote pop songs to teach kids history. So learn something about the War of 1812. A better link with the lyrics:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The first thing you need to know about the War of 1812 is the Battle of New Orleans occurred two weeks after the end of the war and had no effect on the outcome.  Had communications been better, there would have been no battle and Johnny Horton's greatest hit would have been, "North to Alaska"*
Click to expand...

/——/ Even left wing Wikipedia says you're wrong. The Battle of New Orleans was a series of engagements fought between December 14, 1814 and January 18, 1815, constituting the last major battle of the War of 1812.[7][8] American combatants,[9] commanded by Major General Andrew Jackson, prevented a much larger British force, commanded by Admiral Alexander Cochrane and General Edward Pakenham, from seizing New Orleans and the vast territory the United States had acquired with the Louisiana Purchase.


----------



## Cecilie1200

9thIDdoc said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The founders state in the amendment their reason for the right.  Supporters of the amendment prefer to ignore their reason.   If you actually take the time to read the amendment,  instead of just focusing on the last phrase you will see that the founder's reason is no longer valid today.   It would take a real nut case to believe the security of this nation doesn't rest with military but rather regulated militias that hardly even exist.  At the time the 2nd amendment was written, the founders believed that regulated part time citizen militias composed of all citizens with firearms was necessary for the security of the state and thus the people must have the right to bear arms otherwise there could be no militias.*
> 
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ Nice try Gun Grabber. But I take the words of our Founding Fathers over yours any day of the week:
> 
> _James Madison, author of the 2nd Amendment, Federalist Papers, #46, 1788_
> 
> Madison clearly states what a militia is and what its purpose is; to counter the federal government. The anti-gun folks pretend this and other documents don’t exist. They wish.
> 
> *No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.*
> 
> _Thomas Jefferson, proposal to the Virginia Constitution._
> 
> *Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. *The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of troops, that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States”
> 
> _Noah Webster, 1787_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Like most gun nuts, you just can't stand to quote the whole 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."   You would have to be a little nuts to believe militias are necessary to the security of the nation today and it the militias aren't needed then there is no constitutional bases for the right to bear arms.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well.... that's stretching things a little far.
> 
> The whole point of militias is that they're needed when things have really hit the fan. If things haven't hit the fan, and you say they're not necessary because things haven't hit the fan, then you've got a real problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *That may well be the view of those today that believe that militias are needed so gun toking patriots can overthrow the government when things don't go their way.  However, the founders view was quite different.  It was the fear of standing armies that led the founders to prefer the citizen-soldier to the professional. A near-universal assumption of the founding generation was the danger posed by a standing military force. Far from being composed of honorable citizens dutifully serving the interests of the nation, armies were held to be “nurseries of vice,” “dangerous,” and “the grand engine of despotism.”   Fear of a standing army and the cost of maintaining it made the militia the overwhelming choice for the defense of the country.
> 
> The founders unfortunately were proved wrong in their faith in militia for defense of the nation.  In the War of 1812, the United States militia, because of a lack of discipline and poor training, were often routed in battle on open ground by British regulars.  The need for a standing army in lieu of relying on militias became evident to all in the 19th century.  As standing armies became the bulwark of the nation's defense, after the civil war militias provided law enforcement at local and state level and at times became vigilante groups.  They also were called into military service.  Most militias today are a far cry from that of the 18th century.  Many militias see themselves as the ultimate defense of liberty.  However,  there is serious doubt that the Founders ever contemplated the use of the militia against the government they had established.
> American Resistance to a Standing Army | Teachinghistory.org*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The founders unfortunately were proved wrong in their faith in militia for defense of the nation.*
> 
> Strange comment. Militias formed this nation from a British colony.
> 
> *In the War of 1812, the United States militia, because of a lack of discipline and poor training, were often routed in battle on open ground by British regulars.  *
> 
> Really? An outnumbered force composed mostly of militias scored a lopsided victory over the best the British had (considered by the best in the world) at New Orleans after winning fights with American Indians and Spanish.
Click to expand...


Of course they "got routed on open ground".  Fighting a battle on your enemy's terms, using tactics that are badly unsuited to your troops and your equipment, is ALWAYS a bad idea.  The militias won because they stuck to tactics that actually suited what they were working with.


----------



## Cellblock2429

Cecilie1200 said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ Nice try Gun Grabber. But I take the words of our Founding Fathers over yours any day of the week:
> 
> _James Madison, author of the 2nd Amendment, Federalist Papers, #46, 1788_
> 
> Madison clearly states what a militia is and what its purpose is; to counter the federal government. The anti-gun folks pretend this and other documents don’t exist. They wish.
> 
> *No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.*
> 
> _Thomas Jefferson, proposal to the Virginia Constitution._
> 
> *Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. *The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of troops, that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States”
> 
> _Noah Webster, 1787_
> 
> 
> 
> *Like most gun nuts, you just can't stand to quote the whole 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."   You would have to be a little nuts to believe militias are necessary to the security of the nation today and it the militias aren't needed then there is no constitutional bases for the right to bear arms.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well.... that's stretching things a little far.
> 
> The whole point of militias is that they're needed when things have really hit the fan. If things haven't hit the fan, and you say they're not necessary because things haven't hit the fan, then you've got a real problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *That may well be the view of those today that believe that militias are needed so gun toking patriots can overthrow the government when things don't go their way.  However, the founders view was quite different.  It was the fear of standing armies that led the founders to prefer the citizen-soldier to the professional. A near-universal assumption of the founding generation was the danger posed by a standing military force. Far from being composed of honorable citizens dutifully serving the interests of the nation, armies were held to be “nurseries of vice,” “dangerous,” and “the grand engine of despotism.”   Fear of a standing army and the cost of maintaining it made the militia the overwhelming choice for the defense of the country.
> 
> The founders unfortunately were proved wrong in their faith in militia for defense of the nation.  In the War of 1812, the United States militia, because of a lack of discipline and poor training, were often routed in battle on open ground by British regulars.  The need for a standing army in lieu of relying on militias became evident to all in the 19th century.  As standing armies became the bulwark of the nation's defense, after the civil war militias provided law enforcement at local and state level and at times became vigilante groups.  They also were called into military service.  Most militias today are a far cry from that of the 18th century.  Many militias see themselves as the ultimate defense of liberty.  However,  there is serious doubt that the Founders ever contemplated the use of the militia against the government they had established.
> American Resistance to a Standing Army | Teachinghistory.org*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The founders unfortunately were proved wrong in their faith in militia for defense of the nation.*
> 
> Strange comment. Militias formed this nation from a British colony.
> 
> *In the War of 1812, the United States militia, because of a lack of discipline and poor training, were often routed in battle on open ground by British regulars.  *
> 
> Really? An outnumbered force composed mostly of militias scored a lopsided victory over the best the British had (considered by the best in the world) at New Orleans after winning fights with American Indians and Spanish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they "got routed on open ground".  Fighting a battle on your enemy's terms, using tactics that are badly unsuited to your troops and your equipment, is ALWAYS a bad idea.  The militias won because they stuck to tactics that actually suited what they were working with.
Click to expand...

/----/ And the British learned nothing from fighting the Revolutionary War against the American militia....


----------



## Cecilie1200

Cellblock2429 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Like most gun nuts, you just can't stand to quote the whole 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."   You would have to be a little nuts to believe militias are necessary to the security of the nation today and it the militias aren't needed then there is no constitutional bases for the right to bear arms.  *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well.... that's stretching things a little far.
> 
> The whole point of militias is that they're needed when things have really hit the fan. If things haven't hit the fan, and you say they're not necessary because things haven't hit the fan, then you've got a real problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *That may well be the view of those today that believe that militias are needed so gun toking patriots can overthrow the government when things don't go their way.  However, the founders view was quite different.  It was the fear of standing armies that led the founders to prefer the citizen-soldier to the professional. A near-universal assumption of the founding generation was the danger posed by a standing military force. Far from being composed of honorable citizens dutifully serving the interests of the nation, armies were held to be “nurseries of vice,” “dangerous,” and “the grand engine of despotism.”   Fear of a standing army and the cost of maintaining it made the militia the overwhelming choice for the defense of the country.
> 
> The founders unfortunately were proved wrong in their faith in militia for defense of the nation.  In the War of 1812, the United States militia, because of a lack of discipline and poor training, were often routed in battle on open ground by British regulars.  The need for a standing army in lieu of relying on militias became evident to all in the 19th century.  As standing armies became the bulwark of the nation's defense, after the civil war militias provided law enforcement at local and state level and at times became vigilante groups.  They also were called into military service.  Most militias today are a far cry from that of the 18th century.  Many militias see themselves as the ultimate defense of liberty.  However,  there is serious doubt that the Founders ever contemplated the use of the militia against the government they had established.
> American Resistance to a Standing Army | Teachinghistory.org*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The founders unfortunately were proved wrong in their faith in militia for defense of the nation.*
> 
> Strange comment. Militias formed this nation from a British colony.
> 
> *In the War of 1812, the United States militia, because of a lack of discipline and poor training, were often routed in battle on open ground by British regulars.  *
> 
> Really? An outnumbered force composed mostly of militias scored a lopsided victory over the best the British had (considered by the best in the world) at New Orleans after winning fights with American Indians and Spanish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they "got routed on open ground".  Fighting a battle on your enemy's terms, using tactics that are badly unsuited to your troops and your equipment, is ALWAYS a bad idea.  The militias won because they stuck to tactics that actually suited what they were working with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ And the British learned nothing from fighting the Revolutionary War against the American militia....
Click to expand...


Sometimes, your greatest weapon is the ignorance of your enemy.

I mean, look at pretty much any debate against leftists.


----------



## 2aguy

Cellblock2429 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Like most gun nuts, you just can't stand to quote the whole 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."   You would have to be a little nuts to believe militias are necessary to the security of the nation today and it the militias aren't needed then there is no constitutional bases for the right to bear arms.  *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well.... that's stretching things a little far.
> 
> The whole point of militias is that they're needed when things have really hit the fan. If things haven't hit the fan, and you say they're not necessary because things haven't hit the fan, then you've got a real problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *That may well be the view of those today that believe that militias are needed so gun toking patriots can overthrow the government when things don't go their way.  However, the founders view was quite different.  It was the fear of standing armies that led the founders to prefer the citizen-soldier to the professional. A near-universal assumption of the founding generation was the danger posed by a standing military force. Far from being composed of honorable citizens dutifully serving the interests of the nation, armies were held to be “nurseries of vice,” “dangerous,” and “the grand engine of despotism.”   Fear of a standing army and the cost of maintaining it made the militia the overwhelming choice for the defense of the country.
> 
> The founders unfortunately were proved wrong in their faith in militia for defense of the nation.  In the War of 1812, the United States militia, because of a lack of discipline and poor training, were often routed in battle on open ground by British regulars.  The need for a standing army in lieu of relying on militias became evident to all in the 19th century.  As standing armies became the bulwark of the nation's defense, after the civil war militias provided law enforcement at local and state level and at times became vigilante groups.  They also were called into military service.  Most militias today are a far cry from that of the 18th century.  Many militias see themselves as the ultimate defense of liberty.  However,  there is serious doubt that the Founders ever contemplated the use of the militia against the government they had established.
> American Resistance to a Standing Army | Teachinghistory.org*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The founders unfortunately were proved wrong in their faith in militia for defense of the nation.*
> 
> Strange comment. Militias formed this nation from a British colony.
> 
> *In the War of 1812, the United States militia, because of a lack of discipline and poor training, were often routed in battle on open ground by British regulars.  *
> 
> Really? An outnumbered force composed mostly of militias scored a lopsided victory over the best the British had (considered by the best in the world) at New Orleans after winning fights with American Indians and Spanish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they "got routed on open ground".  Fighting a battle on your enemy's terms, using tactics that are badly unsuited to your troops and your equipment, is ALWAYS a bad idea.  The militias won because they stuck to tactics that actually suited what they were working with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ And the British learned nothing from fighting the Revolutionary War against the American militia....
Click to expand...



But they did use assault rifles back then.....muzzle loaders....so once we get AR-15s we will have to ban those military weapons too....


----------



## Flopper

Cellblock2429 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Like most gun nuts, you just can't stand to quote the whole 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."   You would have to be a little nuts to believe militias are necessary to the security of the nation today and it the militias aren't needed then there is no constitutional bases for the right to bear arms.  *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well.... that's stretching things a little far.
> 
> The whole point of militias is that they're needed when things have really hit the fan. If things haven't hit the fan, and you say they're not necessary because things haven't hit the fan, then you've got a real problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *That may well be the view of those today that believe that militias are needed so gun toking patriots can overthrow the government when things don't go their way.  However, the founders view was quite different.  It was the
> fear of standing armies that led the founders to prefer the citizen-soldier to the professional. A near-universal assumption of the founding generation was the danger posed by a standing military force. Far from being composed of honorable citizens dutifully serving the interests of the nation, armies were held to be “nurseries of vice,” “dangerous,” and “the grand engine of despotism.”   Fear of a standing army and the cost of maintaining it made the militia the overwhelming choice for the defense of the country.
> 
> The founders unfortunately were proved wrong in their faith in militia for defense of the nation.  In the War of 1812, the United States militia, because of a lack of discipline and poor training, were often routed in battle on open ground by British regulars.  The need for a standing army in lieu of relying on militias became evident to all in the 19th century.  As standing armies became the bulwark of the nation's defense, after the civil war militias provided law enforcement at local and state level and at times became vigilante groups.  They also were called into military service.  Most militias today are a far cry from that of the 18th century.  Many militias see themselves as the ultimate defense of liberty.  However,  there is serious doubt that the Founders ever contemplated the use of the militia against the government they had established.
> American Resistance to a Standing Army | Teachinghistory.org*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Johnny Horton wrote pop songs to teach kids history. So learn something about the War of 1812. A better link with the lyrics:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The first thing you need to know about the War of 1812 is the Battle of New Orleans occurred two weeks after the end of the war and had no effect on the outcome.  Had communications been better, there would have been no battle and Johnny Horton's greatest hit would have been, "North to Alaska"*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Even left wing Wikipedia says you're wrong. The Battle of New Orleans was a series of engagements fought between December 14, 1814 and January 18, 1815, constituting the last major battle of the War of 1812.[7][8] American combatants,[9] commanded by Major General Andrew Jackson, prevented a much larger British force, commanded by Admiral Alexander Cochrane and General Edward Pakenham, from seizing New Orleans and the vast territory the United States had acquired with the Louisiana Purchase.
Click to expand...

*The major engagements occurred after the British signed the treaty and certainly had no effect on the outcome of the war.  In fact treaty negotiations were completed and the final draft had been delivered to London before anyone in Europe knew there was any battle in New Orleans.  The King signed the treaty on Dec 30, 1814. 

The War of 1812 was seen by the British as a sideshow to the main event which was taking place in Europe.  This is why they sent only 7 frigates out of 180 ships of the line to America and 6,000 troops out of 260,000.  The remainder were untested troops from the West Indies and Canada.  The British certainly could have soundly defeated the Americans and taken back the colonies but that would have cost them the war in Europe. 

The war ended in a stalemate.  Neither side was victorious.  The British burned Washington, repelled a US invasion of lower Canada, and blocked 95% of US shipping bringing the US government to near bankruptcy.   The US won major battles in New Orleans, Baltimore, and Pittsburgh.  

The war ended because because both sides were tired of the war and neither side had any reason to continue it.  With the defeat of Napoleon in 1814, there was no reason for the trade restrictions that started the war.  The treaty simply ended the war with without advancing any causes of either side.  One thing it did do is establish the United States as an independent nation, capable of defending itself. *


----------



## P@triot

This is absolutely _priceless_. I literally cannot stop laughing. This ignorant Democrat candidate violated *federal* *law* trying to score political points.


> A Virginia woman running for Congress as a Democrat is now being investigated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives after she sawed off the barrel of an AR-15 rifle in a political stunt.


These are the people that the left wants in charge of running our nation. 

Dem candidate who sawed AR-15 in political stunt gone viral gets hit with major reality check


----------



## Cellblock2429

P@triot said:


> This is absolutely _priceless_. I literally cannot stop laughing. This ignorant Democrat candidate violated *federal* *law* trying to score political points.
> 
> 
> 
> A Virginia woman running for Congress as a Democrat is now being investigated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives after she sawed off the barrel of an AR-15 rifle in a political stunt.
> 
> 
> 
> These are the people that the left wants in charge of running our nation.
> 
> Dem candidate who sawed AR-15 in political stunt gone viral gets hit with major reality check
Click to expand...

/----/ Further proof gun grabbers are a menace to society.


----------



## P@triot

The indisputable reality that the left cannot bring themselves to admit: the 2nd Amendment is the only amendment without an exception.

The 13th Amendment


> Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, *except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted*, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.


So slavery is outlawed - _except_ when a person breaks the law and loses their right to freedom.

The 3rd Amendment


> No Soldier shall, *in time of peace* be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.


Here again we see an exception. In time of war, the federal government can “quarter” soldiers in your home without your consent.

The 4th Amendment


> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, *but upon probable cause*, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Yet again we see an exception. You lose your right to “unreasonable search and seizures” when there is a probable cause.

But the 2nd Amendment not only failed to include an exception, the founders actually went out of their way to adamantly declare it a right than cannot be infringed under any circumstance.


> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, *shall not be infringed*.


Absolutely no exceptions or exemptions on the 2nd Amendment. The left has tried so hard to twist and rewrite the 2nd Amendedment. Unfortunately, they never studied the U.S. Constitution so they aren’t adept at trying to twist it.

Here’s Why the Second Amendment Is the ‘Strongest Right’


----------



## P@triot

Does anyone _actually_ believe this is a coincidence? This is a strategic move directly after the Parkland shooting. If de Blasio can ensure another school shooting on the heels of Parkland, it drastically increases the chances of getting firearms banned. As Rahm Emanuel said, the left’s mantra is “never let a good crisis go to waste”. The Democrats are more than happy to offer up a few sacrificial children for their gun control agenda.

Last armed NYPD cop pulled from NYC school after Parkland shooting — and parents are ‘livid’


----------



## Markle

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself.
They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone
under independence.   The church, the plow, the prairie
wagon and citizens firearms are indelibly related."

*- George Washington*


----------



## there4eyeM

The plow and prairie wagon? Exactly, those were basic to American culture two hundred years ago.


----------



## Cecilie1200

there4eyeM said:


> The plow and prairie wagon? Exactly, those were basic to American culture two hundred years ago.



Look up the word "metaphor", Einstein.


----------



## Flopper

P@triot said:


> Does anyone _actually_ believe this is a coincidence? This is a strategic move directly after the Parkland shooting. If de Blasio can ensure another school shooting on the heels of Parkland, it drastically increases the chances of getting firearms banned. As Rahm Emanuel said, the left’s mantra is “never let a good crisis go to waste”. The Democrats are more than happy to offer up a few sacrificial children for their gun control agenda.
> 
> Last armed NYPD cop pulled from NYC school after Parkland shooting — and parents are ‘livid’


*If that's the case, gun owners are in trouble because copycat school shooting are common.  There have been 18 school shooting incidents this year, 5 being multiple homicides, well above the average. *


----------



## there4eyeM

A militia could patrol the schools.


----------



## Flopper

there4eyeM said:


> A militia could patrol the schools.


*Not practical
There are about a thousand militia groups in the US, 150,000 schools, and an average of 5 mass shootings a year.  That means each militia group would be patrolling 150 schools and would face a mass killer every 200 years.*


----------



## there4eyeM

Flopper said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> A militia could patrol the schools.
> 
> 
> 
> *Not practical
> There are about a thousand militia groups in the US, 150,000 schools, and an average of 5 mass shootings a year.  That means each militia group would be patrolling 150 schools and would face a mass killer every 200 years.*
Click to expand...

Thanks for pointing out what is the obvious problem. It doesn't leave much justification for the 'militia' bit in our modern day, does it? The same math plays into the ridiculous proposition that teachers be armed; all those firearms around all the time (with all the possibilities for mishaps, etc.) for so precious few incidents where their proper application could be used. Gun toting just isn't justified, in general. It takes a particular kind of personality to need the assurance of that point of solidity and weight on the hip (or wherever).


----------



## Flopper

there4eyeM said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> A militia could patrol the schools.
> 
> 
> 
> *Not practical
> There are about a thousand militia groups in the US, 150,000 schools, and an average of 5 mass shootings a year.  That means each militia group would be patrolling 150 schools and would face a mass killer every 200 years.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for pointing out what is the obvious problem. It doesn't leave much justification for the 'militia' bit in our modern day, does it? The same math plays into the ridiculous proposition that teachers be armed; all those firearms around all the time (with all the possibilities for mishaps, etc.) for so precious few incidents where their proper application could be used. Gun toting just isn't justified, in general. It takes a particular kind of personality to need the assurance of that point of solidity and weight on the hip (or wherever).
Click to expand...

*I agree.  Horrible events such as school shootings get a tremendous play from the  media and the public demands that something be done so it will never happen again.  What people don't seem to realize is that preparing for events that very rarely occur such as a mass shooting in a school is difficult and expensive and after 10 or 15 years without an attack, the preparations will fall by wayside as more pressing issues take center stage.

It's a similar problem with deaths from fraternity hazing. There are about 5500 fraternity chapters in the US and there's usually one death a year.

The major interest of most militias is self serving; that is protecting their rights to bear arm.  Although they claim to be defending the constitution, they don't defend the right to due process, first amendment rights, or anything other than the 2nd amendment.   Some of these groups actually perform some useful function in the community. Others are little more than a social organization, but some are dangerous, preparing for the overthrow of the government.  

If there ever is a coup, leadership will come from a high level within the government and would involve the US military, not these yahoos.*


----------



## there4eyeM

Still, it is surprising that the idea of armed civilian patrols has not already emerged from the firearms extremist camp(s).


----------



## danielpalos

Muster the militia until crime goes down!


----------



## Markle

It is time to repeal the Joe Biden "No Gun Safe Zone" law.  

Teacher's don't have to carry or even touch a gun if they don't so desire.  Those who wish to and can prove they have the skills and knowledge can if and when they want.  Leave the potential shooter to wonder.


----------



## Flopper

Markle said:


> It is time to repeal the Joe Biden "No Gun Safe Zone" law.
> 
> Teacher's don't have to carry or even touch a gun if they don't so desire.  Those who wish to and can prove they have the skills and knowledge can if and when they want.  Leave the potential shooter to wonder.


*Do you really think taking down that sign is going to scare away potential mass killers?  Most mass killers in schools either currently or previously attended the school.  They are going to know if teachers are armed and if so, they will probably become the first target.

Gun free zones have little effect on mass killers but they have been very effective at reducing the number of guns being brought to school by students.  Probably the biggest effect of tearing down the gun free zone signs is lots of kids will start bringing guns to school and that will certain lead to more dead and injured kids.   *


----------



## Markle

Flopper said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is time to repeal the Joe Biden "No Gun Safe Zone" law.
> 
> Teacher's don't have to carry or even touch a gun if they don't so desire.  Those who wish to and can prove they have the skills and knowledge can if and when they want.  Leave the potential shooter to wonder.
> 
> 
> 
> *Do you really think taking down that sign is going to scare away potential mass killers?  Most mass killers in schools either currently or previously attended the school.  They are going to know if teachers are armed and if so, they will probably become the first target.
> 
> Gun free zones have little effect on mass killers but they have been very effective at reducing the number of guns being brought to school by students.  Probably the biggest effect of tearing down the gun free zone signs is lots of kids will start bringing guns to school and that will certain lead to more dead and injured kids.   *
Click to expand...


No, nothing will stop someone bent on causing multiple deaths.  But putting up signs that say you are safe to come in here shooting because no one will have a gun to stop you sure hasn't done anything.

Do you think the sign saying it was a no gun zone kept any kids from bringing a gun to school if they were so inclined?  Heck no.

The US has a far lower violent crime rate than many or all Western European Countries because the criminal just doesn't know if kicking in my front door is going to be met with a pump shotgun.  It works in our home, what is the harm in making the shooter guess?


----------



## Rustic




----------



## Lakhota

The founders never envisioned this scary looking gun when they ratified the 2nd Amendment - especially when combined with a Rambo mentality and/or mental illness and high-capacity magazines.


----------



## basquebromance

"i remember my dad teaching me to shoot in rural Pennsylvania when i was growing up. i also went on a memorable duck hunting trip with some friends in the 80s. i did manage to shoot a duck, but when i got home, Chelsea, who had just watched Bambi, was outraged that I'd shot some poor little duck's daddy" - Crooked Hillary


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lakhota said:


> The founders never envisioned this scary looking gun when they ratified the 2nd Amendment - especially when combined with a Rambo mentality and/or mental illness and high-capacity magazines.



The Founders also didn't envision the Internet, but I'll bet money you have no problem applying the First Amendment to it anyway.  Ditto radio, television, pretty much anything other than newspapers and shouting on the streetcorner.

What they did envision, and what is relevant, was that the basic, founding principles of freedom of expression and freedom of self-protection were always going to be necessary, and would always need to remain as unencumbered as possible.  And no, your terror of how "scary-looking" something is does NOT require restrictions on the rights of others.

By all means, continue trying to make us feel embarrassed and ashamed of the desire for self-defense.  Your helpless frustration because your opinion doesn't matter makes me laugh.


----------



## danielpalos

Only the Unoroganized militia whines about gun control laws!


----------



## Flopper

Markle said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is time to repeal the Joe Biden "No Gun Safe Zone" law.
> 
> Teacher's don't have to carry or even touch a gun if they don't so desire.  Those who wish to and can prove they have the skills and knowledge can if and when they want.  Leave the potential shooter to wonder.
> 
> 
> 
> *Do you really think taking down that sign is going to scare away potential mass killers?  Most mass killers in schools either currently or previously attended the school.  They are going to know if teachers are armed and if so, they will probably become the first target.
> 
> Gun free zones have little effect on mass killers but they have been very effective at reducing the number of guns being brought to school by students.  Probably the biggest effect of tearing down the gun free zone signs is lots of kids will start bringing guns to school and that will certain lead to more dead and injured kids.   *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, nothing will stop someone bent on causing multiple deaths.  But putting up signs that say you are safe to come in here shooting because no one will have a gun to stop you sure hasn't done anything.
> 
> Do you think the sign saying it was a no gun zone kept any kids from bringing a gun to school if they were so inclined?  Heck no.
> 
> The US has a far lower violent crime rate than many or all Western European Countries because the criminal just doesn't know if kicking in my front door is going to be met with a pump shotgun.  It works in our home, what is the harm in making the shooter guess?
Click to expand...

*A report by CDC suggest the answer is heck yes, gun free zones do discourage kids from bring guns to school.  

States are free to pass laws that deputized those in schools authorized to carry firearms; that means teachers or other personnel.  People with concealed weapon permit in states that require background checks can carry guns in schools without breaking the federal law.   So there is no need to repeal the federal Gun Free Zone law unless the NRA really wants young children and teens bringing guns to school.

If republicans in congress are intent on repealing the law, democrats will be happy to hang the deaths of innocent kids around their neck to be displayed in the next election.   Considering the temperament of the public over gun control, (60% support tougher gun laws while 33% don't); that just might cost them control of congress.*


----------



## Markle

Flopper said:


> A report by CDC suggest the answer is heck yes, gun free zones do discourage kids from bring guns to school.



Your reliable source and link?


----------



## Lakhota

*Fed-Up Parkland Students Featured On Time Magazine Cover

Congress Banned Assault Weapons Once Before. We Can Do It Again.*

It is easy to get discouraged, but standing up to the National Rifle Association isn’t an impossible feat.

Bless the kids!  I believe the NRA has finally met its match.


----------



## Lakhota

I cherish my guns - but I'm not worried about these kids trying to take them away. They just want responsible and reasonable gun controls - like most responsible gun owners.

Something like this is what I've feared for some time. I've said for many years that the NRA is the greatest threat to my future gun rights. Their never-give-an-inch attitude must change - or the kids will change them.

These kids want sensible gun control just like most responsible gun owners want.

Ban assault weapons. Ban high-capacity magazines. Universal background checks. Address mental health, domestic abuse and reporting issues. Accurate up-to-date enhanced National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

If NRA gun nuts don't back off - we may end up with severe gun control and a national gun registry.

It's sadly funny that the Justice Department is reportedly going to ban bump stocks. What kind of retards allowed them to be legal in the first place? I realize that bump stocks are easy to replicate - but the penalty for using them should be severe.

*73 TEENS GUNNED DOWN SINCE PARKLAND*


----------



## Markle

Lakhota said:


> *Fed-Up Parkland Students Featured On Time Magazine Cover
> 
> Congress Banned Assault Weapons Once Before. We Can Do It Again.*
> 
> It is easy to get discouraged, but standing up to the National Rifle Association isn’t an impossible feat.
> 
> Bless the kids! I believe the NRA has finally met its match.



What did the "assault weapons" ban accomplish in the past?  Nothing, so let us do it again!  Yep, makes perfect sense to a progressive.


----------



## edward37

our forefathers  in the 2nd amendment  had muskets on their minds ,,, not these terrible weapons of mass destruction


----------



## edward37

in whose minds was giving the mentally ill the ok to buy guns a good idea ?? Are ALL republicans sick?


----------



## Lakhota

Markle said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Fed-Up Parkland Students Featured On Time Magazine Cover
> 
> Congress Banned Assault Weapons Once Before. We Can Do It Again.*
> 
> It is easy to get discouraged, but standing up to the National Rifle Association isn’t an impossible feat.
> 
> Bless the kids! I believe the NRA has finally met its match.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What did the "assault weapons" ban accomplish in the past?  Nothing, so let us do it again!  Yep, makes perfect sense to a progressive.
Click to expand...


You are grossly misinformed.  Do some credible research on the ban.


----------



## danielpalos

edward37 said:


> our forefathers  in the 2nd amendment  had muskets on their minds ,,, not these terrible weapons of mass destruction


Our Second Amendment is about what is Necessary to the security of a free State; not, right wing propaganda.


----------



## P@triot

Lakhota said:


> I believe the NRA has finally met its match.


----------



## P@triot

Lakhota said:


> Bless the kids!


Look at that....the people who universally reject God suddenly praise him when some kids are attempting to further their facist agenda. Bizarre.


----------



## P@triot

It’s really something to watch progressives get hit with a dose of reality...


----------



## P@triot

Lakhota said:


> I believe the NRA has finally met its match.


I believe these immature, ignorant, attention-whores are about to get a great big heaping dose of reality. It’s *not* going to be pretty.

Dear David Hogg: You're a Lying, Opportunistic, Insufferable Little Toe Rag


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

The claims by the Communists that "nearly 1 million people" attended this weekends anti-2nd march have been debunked.

An imaging company which specializes in satellite crowd size estimations has put then actual number at around 200,000.   Still a good crowd, but smaller than the women's march and FAR FAR less than claimed.

March for Our Lives DC Crowd Smaller than Organizers' Estimates, Imaging Company Says


----------



## Cecilie1200

edward37 said:


> in whose minds was giving the mentally ill the ok to buy guns a good idea ?? Are ALL republicans sick?



When have Republicans EVER advocated for the mentally ill to own guns?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lakhota said:


> Ban assault weapons.


What the fuck is an assault weapon?  How that is defined is critical and is often way too restrictive because those defining it don't know the first thing about guns.

If you mean semi-automatics, you are banning about 80% of all civilian arms. 

If you mean assault RIFLES, those that can be purchased by civilians are so limited in supply that one must be fairly wealthy to legally purchase one, so it is effectively already banned. 



Lakhota said:


> Ban high-capacity magazines.


How much is a high-capacity magazine?

That is proven to be less of an issue:




Lakhota said:


> Universal background checks. Address mental health, domestic abuse and reporting issues. Accurate up-to-date enhanced National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).


I don't think very many people will oppose this. 



Lakhota said:


> If NRA gun nuts don't back off - we may end up with severe gun control and a national gun registry.


Or, we could push for complete repeal and walk the streets open carrying belt-fed machine guns.  Or, civil war.   

That's a weak-ass threat and it has more of a chance of backfiring on you than us.


----------



## danielpalos

muster the militia!


----------



## edward37

Cecilie1200 said:


> edward37 said:
> 
> 
> 
> in whose minds was giving the mentally ill the ok to buy guns a good idea ?? Are ALL republicans sick?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When have Republicans EVER advocated for the mentally ill to own guns?
Click to expand...


*Search Results*
*Trump ended rule to block mentally ill from getting guns - ABC News*
abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-ended-rule-block-mentally-ill-guns/story?id...
Feb 15, 2018 - President Donald Trump has often pointed to mental illness as the underlying cause for mass shootings, but one of his earliest actions as president was to undo a regulation that would have made it more difficult for people with a known mental illness to buy guns.


----------



## kaz

edward37 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edward37 said:
> 
> 
> 
> in whose minds was giving the mentally ill the ok to buy guns a good idea ?? Are ALL republicans sick?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When have Republicans EVER advocated for the mentally ill to own guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Search Results*
> *Trump ended rule to block mentally ill from getting guns - ABC News*
> abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-ended-rule-block-mentally-ill-guns/story?id...
> Feb 15, 2018 - President Donald Trump has often pointed to mental illness as the underlying cause for mass shootings, but one of his earliest actions as president was to undo a regulation that would have made it more difficult for people with a known mental illness to buy guns.
Click to expand...


Swish.  That was a clear violation of due process.  

On this issue, Donald Trump believes in the Constitution, you don't


----------



## Cecilie1200

edward37 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edward37 said:
> 
> 
> 
> in whose minds was giving the mentally ill the ok to buy guns a good idea ?? Are ALL republicans sick?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When have Republicans EVER advocated for the mentally ill to own guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Search Results*
> *Trump ended rule to block mentally ill from getting guns - ABC News*
> abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-ended-rule-block-mentally-ill-guns/story?id...
> Feb 15, 2018 - President Donald Trump has often pointed to mental illness as the underlying cause for mass shootings, but one of his earliest actions as president was to undo a regulation that would have made it more difficult for people with a known mental illness to buy guns.
Click to expand...


Oh, I'm SO glad you brought that up.  As even a cursory investigation of Trump's decision - which rescinded a rule that had never taken effect, just FYI - would show, that was about protecting the Constitutional right to due process under the 4th Amendment, not about letting mentally ill people have guns.  Someone should have told you before now that simply SAYING a bill or executive order does something doesn't mean it actually DOES it, and doing it by ignoring legal procedures and people's civil rights is not the right way to go about it.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> muster the militia!


Shhh! The adults are talking. Stop interrupting them with your Tourette’s outbursts...


----------



## P@triot

Lakhota said:


> Bless the kids!  I believe the NRA has finally met its match.


200,000? Seriously? I had more people than that in my high school. 


> An objective estimate of the crowd size determined that there were actually a little over 200,000 people.


And that’s _with_ every radical left-wing organization pumping millions into it. Sorry Lak - 200,000 radicals aren’t going to take down a hundred million gun owners.

Fact check: How many people ACTUALLY showed up to march in DC?


----------



## danielpalos

What is the most cost effective solution?


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> What is the most cost effective solution?


Well the first question is: what is the most *constitutional* solution?

Then the next question becomes: what is the most _effective_ solution?

It’s not until the third question that you ask: what is the most cost effective?

Only one solution properly meets the criteria of all three questions: firearms.


----------



## Lakhota

P@triot said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bless the kids!  I believe the NRA has finally met its match.
> 
> 
> 
> 200,000? Seriously? I had more people than that in my high school.
> 
> 
> 
> An objective estimate of the crowd size determined that there were actually a little over 200,000 people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that’s _with_ every radical left-wing organization pumping millions into it. Sorry Lak - 200,000 radicals aren’t going to take down a hundred million gun owners.
> 
> Fact check: How many people ACTUALLY showed up to march in DC?
Click to expand...


200,000?  Glenn Beck?  That's fucking hilarious!


----------



## P@triot

Lakhota said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bless the kids!  I believe the NRA has finally met its match.
> 
> 
> 
> 200,000? Seriously? I had more people than that in my high school.
> 
> 
> 
> An objective estimate of the crowd size determined that there were actually a little over 200,000 people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that’s _with_ every radical left-wing organization pumping millions into it. Sorry Lak - 200,000 radicals aren’t going to take down a hundred million gun owners.
> 
> Fact check: How many people ACTUALLY showed up to march in DC?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 200,000?  Glenn Beck?  That's fucking hilarious!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 184928
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 184929
Click to expand...

How precious...you posted a bunch of pictures of the 200,000 person fascist rally. Looks a lot like my graduating class.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the most cost effective solution?
> 
> 
> 
> Well the first question is: what is the most *constitutional* solution?
> 
> Then the next question becomes: what is the most _effective_ solution?
> 
> It’s not until the third question that you ask: what is the most cost effective?
> 
> Only one solution properly meets the criteria of all three questions: firearms.
Click to expand...

Muster the militia until crime drops.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Muster the militia until crime drops.


As we have explained to you over and over, the militia has no authority over domestic legal issues. You continue to take stupid to unprecedented levels.

Now...for the hundredth time....Shhh! The adults are talking. We can’t keep getting interrupted by your childish comments and antics.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Muster the militia until crime drops.
> 
> 
> 
> As we have explained to you over and over, the militia has no authority over domestic legal issues. You continue to take stupid to unprecedented levels.
> 
> Now...for the hundredth time....Shhh! The adults are talking. We can’t keep getting interrupted by your childish comments and antics.
Click to expand...

Just more right wing fantasy?  I make a motion all left wing policy provide for the contingency of a lack of a right wing, in support.

Where does the right wing come up with their blatant appeals to ignorance of the law?



> To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;



Why do they Always appeal to Ignorance of what the Militia is; it is not, the regular military.


----------



## Lakhota

The 2nd Amendment is only one sentence. One sentence. What are the first four words of that one sentence? "_A well regulated militia_." "Militia" is the subject. The NRA gun nutters are trying to interpret the 2nd Amendment by ignoring those first four words. Try reading it slowly with and without those four words. They have totally different meanings. One that applied at the time it was ratified and one that could apply today. The original version does NOT apply today.


----------



## there4eyeM

All those armed citizens so eager to claim being prepared for the common defense (against vague threats), yet no movement to apply themselves peacefully and constructively to the clear and present danger. Stamping their feet and emitting oaths about how one rifle is not like another identical one, they totally ignore the atmosphere they are largely responsible for creating where sincere, empathetic discussion can not take place.
Those of us who rather like freedom, including firearms and the ease of obtaining them, are victims of both sides, but especially the fetishist 'gunners'.


----------



## edward37

Lakhota said:


> The 2nd Amendment is only one sentence. One sentence. What are the first four words of that one sentence? "_A well regulated militia_." "Militia" is the subject. The NRA gun nutters are trying to interpret the 2nd Amendment by ignoring those first four words. Try reading it slowly with and without those four words. They have totally different meanings. One that applied at the time it was ratified and one that could apply today. The original version does NOT apply today.


Maybe if all those gun nuts turn their AR 15's in for muskets  it would make more sense?


----------



## Lakhota

edward37 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd Amendment is only one sentence. One sentence. What are the first four words of that one sentence? "_A well regulated militia_." "Militia" is the subject. The NRA gun nutters are trying to interpret the 2nd Amendment by ignoring those first four words. Try reading it slowly with and without those four words. They have totally different meanings. One that applied at the time it was ratified and one that could apply today. The original version does NOT apply today.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe if all those gun nuts turn their AR 15's in for muskets  it would make more sense?
Click to expand...


I agree!


----------



## P@triot

Lakhota said:


> The 2nd Amendment is only one sentence. One sentence. What are the first four words of that one sentence? "_A well regulated militia_." "Militia" is the subject. The NRA gun nutters are trying to interpret the 2nd Amendment by ignoring those first four words. Try reading it slowly with and without those four words. They have totally different meanings. One that applied at the time it was ratified and one that could apply today. The original version does NOT apply today.


It is one sentence and reading the sentence in it’s entirety, it becomes painfully obvious that the *right* of the *people* to keep and bear arms shall *not* be *infringed*.

There was never a single moment in U.S. history where that was ever doubted or questioned until the Democrat Party became radicalized by communists, fascists, etc. In the 1700’s, _everyone_ carried a firearm. In the 1800’s, cowboys in the west carried firearms despite never having been a part of a “militia”. Nobody questioned it or demanded that they surrender their firearms. In the 1900’s, everyone from hunters to the mafia carried firearms. Yet again, none were ever a part of a “militia” and it was never questioned. It wasn’t until the 1980’s that you see the communists influence on the Democrat Party start to seep in and gun *control* start to be demanded by the left.

You can troll all you want Laky...but this issue has been settled. All rights in the U.S. Constitution are individual rights, inalienable rights, and require absolutely no action by the part of the U.S. citizen to enjoy them. It really is that simple.


----------



## P@triot

Interestingly enough, the “March for Our Lives” registered as a 501(c)(4) - which means they do *not* have to release their donor list. Well gee...I wonder _why_ that would be. Why would a group claiming to be created by children for the express purpose of “protecting” children want to hide their donor list?

One would _think_ that donors would be beaming proud to donate to an organization by children to protect children. _Oops_.

DARK MONEY: 10 anonymous donors ‘March For Our Lives’ is deliberately hiding


----------



## hunarcy

Lakhota said:


> *Fed-Up Parkland Students Featured On Time Magazine Cover
> 
> Congress Banned Assault Weapons Once Before. We Can Do It Again.*
> 
> It is easy to get discouraged, but standing up to the National Rifle Association isn’t an impossible feat.
> 
> Bless the kids!  I believe the NRA has finally met its match.



I suspect that the movement is missed timed...gun control is a losing issue for Democrats and the polls already show a trend against the Democrats because of this issue.

GOP Sees Reasons for Optimism in 2018 Midterms | RealClearPolitics


----------



## hunarcy

Lakhota said:


> The 2nd Amendment is only one sentence. One sentence. What are the first four words of that one sentence? "_A well regulated militia_." "Militia" is the subject. The NRA gun nutters are trying to interpret the 2nd Amendment by ignoring those first four words. Try reading it slowly with and without those four words. They have totally different meanings. One that applied at the time it was ratified and one that could apply today. The original version does NOT apply today.



If YOU would read the one sentence honestly, you'd see the right belongs to the PEOPLE, not the militia.  And, if you understood grammar, you'd know that subordinate clauses do not contain complete sentences and therefore  do not constitute the main idea of the sentence.


----------



## Dan Stubbs

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution exist only in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review.
> 
> Neither the Constitution nor any of its Amendments are obsolete.
> 
> Whatever the current case law might be concerning the Second Amendment, however, further restrictions, regulations, or even bans will do little to curtail gun violence.
> 
> The genius of the Constitution is it compels us to seek actual solutions to our many problems; be it abortion, campaign finance reform, or gun violence, the Constitution prevents us from taking the easy route often taken by dictatorships and totalitarian regimes, where the liberty of the people is destroyed.
> 
> This does not mean we are helpless to do nothing, at the mercy of strict, unyielding jurisprudence protecting the rights of gun owners; rather, it means we must find solutions based on facts and evidence, and be prepared to address and acknowledge painful, embarrassing aspects of our society and culture.
Click to expand...

*A Army of Citizens are call a Militia this can be a group of people defending the USA with thier own weapons and ammo.  This is most of the time done on the spur of a moment during a time of attack and does not refer to the US army of National Guard.   I was reading some of the WWII lit the other night and the two things that Hitler feared was the Mafia and Americans with guns.  Just something to think about. *


----------



## TheOldSchool

ibtl


----------



## P@triot

Once again a mass shooting was averted because of more guns...not less.


> Pulse wasn’t the killer’s intended target. It was Disney. At 10 pm, the killer arrived at the Disney World shopping and entertainment area. He used a stroller to conceal his weapon. Security camera footage shows him passing multiple police and security officers and even watching their movements. It apparently made him rethink his choice.
> 
> *Good guys with guns stopped a terror attack on Disney that night*, and they didn’t even know they were doing it. Imagine if more people open-carried. How many more attacks would that stop before they even got started?


I marvel at the left’s shameless ability to be wrong 24x7 but to continue with the same idiotic narrative.

The narrative for the Pulse nightclub killing just fell apart and the media doesn’t give a crap


----------



## P@triot

Dan Stubbs said:


> I was reading some of the WWII lit the other night and the two things that Hitler feared was the Mafia and Americans with guns.  Just something to think about.


It’s the exact same thing with muslims. They are tormenting citizens all over Europe (intimidating them, threatening them, etc.). But they don’t try that shit here at all. They know Americans carry firearms and will use them every time if necessary.


----------



## there4eyeM

If post 6819 were correct, it affirms that all those armed citizens so eager to claim being prepared for the common defense (against vague threats) should be the core of a movement to apply themselves peacefully and constructively to the clear and present danger. Stamping their feet and emitting oaths about how one rifle is not like another identical one, they totally ignore the atmosphere they are largely responsible for creating where sincere, empathetic discussion can not take place.
Those of us who rather like freedom, including firearms and the ease of obtaining them, are victims of both sides, but especially the fetishist 'gunners'.


----------



## P@triot

TheOldSchool said:


> ibtl


This is why junior high girls should stay off of political websites. Nobody has a clue about their immature and idiotic jargon.

“Like....oh my gawd....IBTL!” 

Parasites like The Old Fool are so fucking lazy, they can’t even speak or type in completel sentences.


----------



## there4eyeM

Not much response to the suggestion that the right to bear arms be exercised by the 'well organized militia' in protective community patrols around schools. This action might persuade those who presently support regulatory legislation to re-think their position. Instead, all we see from 'gunners' is insult and invective against any who are not solidly in their camp.


----------



## Lakhota

What the founders were thinking...


----------



## Skull Pilot

Lakhota said:


> What the founders were thinking...


OK so now paint that picture on canvas with nothing but materials available in the 1700s then deliver it to each of us without the use of any invention post 1791

Because according to your "logic" the founders weren't thinking that computers, cars planes or any other technology could be used in the exercise of your First Amendment rights


----------



## there4eyeM

Lakhota said:


> What the founders were thinking...


The 'founders' never thought anyone would yell "Fire!" in a crowded hall, either. The folly of modern society is something they could not have anticipated, but they were intelligent enough that, were they here today, they would have better suggestions than petulant intransigence over the evolution of 'rights'.


----------



## FireFly

All restrictions on guns in Missouri were removed & it's causing crime, murder & rape to rise to highest in the USA as all other cities fall.


----------



## there4eyeM

FireFly said:


> All restrictions on guns in Missouri were removed & it's causing crime, murder & rape to rise to highest in the USA as all other cities fall.


Another job for a well organized militia. 
Couch-potato patriots would rather sit home polishing their 'weapons'.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

there4eyeM said:


> The 'founders' never thought anyone would yell "Fire!" in a crowded hall, either. The folly of modern society is something they could not have anticipated, but they were intelligent enough that, were they here today, they would have better suggestions than petulant intransigence over the evolution of 'rights'.


Yelling "fire" in a crowed theatre is a malicious act.  There is no prior restraint on someone yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre.  Possession of a mouth and vocal chords with which to yell is not a malicious act.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lakhota said:


> What the founders were thinking...


"freedom of the press"

What the founders were thinking:






Now get the fuck off the internet, you goose-stepping Bolshevik commie TWAT!!!


----------



## 2aguy

FireFly said:


> All restrictions on guns in Missouri were removed & it's causing crime, murder & rape to rise to highest in the USA as all other cities fall.




And that would be a lie.....

Gun violence and negativity bias in the Information Age

One way around the negativity bias is to remember that, as the saying goes, the plural of anecdote isn’t data.  Fluctuations in data are also not automatically a trend.  An illustration of this is the claim made about homicide rates in Missouri after repeal in 2007 of the requirement to have a license to purchase when buying a handgun.  The murder rate in that state has moved about between 8.1 and 5.0 per hundred thousand over the last twenty years, but coming for the most part at a rate between six and seven.  

*Incautious reporting took a temporary rise from 2007 to 2008 as evidence that loosening gun laws is a bad thing to do, but the average of homicide rates from 2008 to 2014 is the same as that of the years 1996 to 2007, reminding us that we have to look at lots of data over time to reach supportable conclusions.*


----------



## 2aguy

FireFly said:


> All restrictions on guns in Missouri were removed & it's causing crime, murder & rape to rise to highest in the USA as all other cities fall.




You should understand the issue before you post about it...

The reason Missouri has a gun crime problem is the same as all other states with major cities that are controlled by democrats...

The democrats keep letting violent gun criminals out of jail.....

Rise in Murders Has St. Louis Debating Why

Jennifer M. Joyce, the city’s circuit attorney, or prosecutor, an elected position, complains that in St. Louis, *the illegal possession of a gun is too often “a crime without a consequence,” *making it difficult to stop confrontation from turning lethal.

At the same time, deeper social roots of violence such as addiction and unemployment continue unchecked. *And city officials also cite what they call a “Ferguson effect,”* an increase in crime last year as police officers were diverted to control protests after a white officer shot and killed Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager in the nearby suburb on Aug. 9.

-----------

*Now, an overstretched department is forced to pick one neighborhood at a time to flood with officers. *Last month, Chief Dotson even asked the state highway patrol if it could lend a dozen men to help watch downtown streets; the agency declined.
----
*When the police discover a gun in a car with several passengers, including some with felony records, but no one admits to owning the gun, criminal charges are often impossible, Mr. Rosenfeld said.*

*In addition, according to a 2014 study by Mr. Rosenfeld and his colleagues, a majority of those who are convicted of illegally possessing a gun but not caught using it in a crime receive probation rather than jail time. Gun laws and enforcement are stiffer in many other citie*


----------



## 2aguy

Skull Pilot said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the founders were thinking...
> 
> 
> 
> OK so now paint that picture on canvas with nothing but materials available in the 1700s then deliver it to each of us without the use of any invention post 1791
> 
> Because according to your "logic" the founders weren't thinking that computers, cars planes or any other technology could be used in the exercise of your First Amendment rights
Click to expand...



There was a caller on the Rush Limbaugh show yesterday who made this excellent point...

He pointed out that the Founders were well aware of advancing firearm technology....but there is no way in the world they could ever understand modern telecommunications....

They already had repeating rifles, had seen advances in firearms from the blunder buss and matchlocks to flintlocks and muskets with rifled barrels...

But modern electronic communications...no way...so the 1st Amendment protections for the internet, movies, and all other electronics.....should no longer exist...according to left wing morons......


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Gun grabber logic:












Response:

"TAKE HER KNIFE!!!  GET IT!!!  BEFORE WE ALL DIE!!!  THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!"


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

2aguy said:


> But modern electronic communications...no way...so the 1st Amendment protections for the internet, movies, and all other electronics.....should no longer exist...according to left wing morons......


Well, certainly there is no right to free speech on the internet or in movies/television, or radio, according to the commies.

So, I want the Government to make CNN, Rachael Madcow, and all of Hollywood to SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!


----------



## danielpalos

natural rights are in State Constitutions; we should examine judicial forms of activism over applied federalism.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

"danielpalos" - ignored member

"The peoplitia's wellness of regulation, the right of the commies to keep and bear clueless and causeless grudges, shall not be infringed."


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> "danielpalos" - ignored member
> 
> "The peoplitia's wellness of regulation, the right of the commies to keep and bear clueless and causeless grudges, shall not be infringed."


I prefer the "Prussian Doctrine" to the "Ostrich Doctrine".


----------



## FireFly

2aguy said:


> FireFly said:
> 
> 
> 
> All restrictions on guns in Missouri were removed & it's causing crime, murder & rape to rise to highest in the USA as all other cities fall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should understand the issue before you post about it...
> 
> The reason Missouri has a gun crime problem is the same as all other states with major cities that are controlled by democrats...
> 
> The democrats keep letting violent gun criminals out of jail.....
> 
> Rise in Murders Has St. Louis Debating Why
> 
> Jennifer M. Joyce, the city’s circuit attorney, or prosecutor, an elected position, complains that in St. Louis, *the illegal possession of a gun is too often “a crime without a consequence,” *making it difficult to stop confrontation from turning lethal.
> 
> At the same time, deeper social roots of violence such as addiction and unemployment continue unchecked. *And city officials also cite what they call a “Ferguson effect,”* an increase in crime last year as police officers were diverted to control protests after a white officer shot and killed Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager in the nearby suburb on Aug. 9.
> 
> -----------
> 
> *Now, an overstretched department is forced to pick one neighborhood at a time to flood with officers. *Last month, Chief Dotson even asked the state highway patrol if it could lend a dozen men to help watch downtown streets; the agency declined.
> ----
> *When the police discover a gun in a car with several passengers, including some with felony records, but no one admits to owning the gun, criminal charges are often impossible, Mr. Rosenfeld said.*
> 
> *In addition, according to a 2014 study by Mr. Rosenfeld and his colleagues, a majority of those who are convicted of illegally possessing a gun but not caught using it in a crime receive probation rather than jail time. Gun laws and enforcement are stiffer in many other citie*
Click to expand...

Wrong! - You brainwashed idiots claimed unrestricted access to guns makes us safer & lowers crime, yet the opposite happened. Plus that story you posted is bullshit! The police department here is not overstretched! St. Louis has more police per person than any city in the USA!!!


----------



## P@triot

The left will vehemently oppose this. Know why? Because it doesn’t result in the eradication of the 2nd Amendment and it will end mass school shootings. They still need the latter to achieve the former...


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

P@triot said:


> The left will vehemently oppose this. Know why? Because it doesn’t result in the eradication of the 2nd Amendment and it will end mass school shootings. They still need the latter to achieve the former...


Gun Grabbers are not interested in real solutions to school shootings.  The don’t really give a rat fuck about those kids.  

They are ONLY interested in grabbing guns.  If it doesn’t support the communist agenda of revolution, destruction of free-market.capitalism,  and the end of private property rights, the gun grabbers will ignore it.


----------



## Cecilie1200

FireFly said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FireFly said:
> 
> 
> 
> All restrictions on guns in Missouri were removed & it's causing crime, murder & rape to rise to highest in the USA as all other cities fall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should understand the issue before you post about it...
> 
> The reason Missouri has a gun crime problem is the same as all other states with major cities that are controlled by democrats...
> 
> The democrats keep letting violent gun criminals out of jail.....
> 
> Rise in Murders Has St. Louis Debating Why
> 
> Jennifer M. Joyce, the city’s circuit attorney, or prosecutor, an elected position, complains that in St. Louis, *the illegal possession of a gun is too often “a crime without a consequence,” *making it difficult to stop confrontation from turning lethal.
> 
> At the same time, deeper social roots of violence such as addiction and unemployment continue unchecked. *And city officials also cite what they call a “Ferguson effect,”* an increase in crime last year as police officers were diverted to control protests after a white officer shot and killed Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager in the nearby suburb on Aug. 9.
> 
> -----------
> 
> *Now, an overstretched department is forced to pick one neighborhood at a time to flood with officers. *Last month, Chief Dotson even asked the state highway patrol if it could lend a dozen men to help watch downtown streets; the agency declined.
> ----
> *When the police discover a gun in a car with several passengers, including some with felony records, but no one admits to owning the gun, criminal charges are often impossible, Mr. Rosenfeld said.*
> 
> *In addition, according to a 2014 study by Mr. Rosenfeld and his colleagues, a majority of those who are convicted of illegally possessing a gun but not caught using it in a crime receive probation rather than jail time. Gun laws and enforcement are stiffer in many other citie*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong! - You brainwashed idiots claimed unrestricted access to guns makes us safer & lowers crime, yet the opposite happened. Plus that story you posted is bullshit! The police department here is not overstretched! St. Louis has more police per person than any city in the USA!!!
Click to expand...


So let me see if I have your position straight.

The Brady Campaign is more informed and knowledgeable about homicide statistics than the FBI and Dept of Justice, and YOU are more informed and knowledgeable about St. Louis police matters than the actual police and city officials.  Does that about cover it?


----------



## Lakhota

Is it time to register guns?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lakhota said:


> Is it time to register guns?



No.  Feel free to go back to sleep until that happens.  I look forward to never hearing from you again.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the most cost effective solution?
> 
> 
> 
> Well the first question is: what is the most *constitutional* solution?
> 
> Then the next question becomes: what is the most _effective_ solution?
> 
> It’s not until the third question that you ask: what is the most cost effective?
> 
> Only one solution properly meets the criteria of all three questions: firearms.
Click to expand...

muster the militia until crime drops.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> muster the militia until crime drops.


Crime is not the constitutional authority of militias. That would be “vigilantism” and those in the militia would be brought up on serious charges.

You are a prime example of why nobody takes the left seriously about _anything_.


----------



## Marion Morrison

What asshole bumped this super-faggoty thread by Lakhota?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lakhota said:


> Is it time to register guns?


Is it time to repeal all the plainly unconstitutional federal gun laws?


----------



## P@triot

Marion Morrison said:


> What asshole bumped this super-faggoty thread by Lakhota?


I fear I might be responsible for this...


----------



## Marion Morrison

P@triot said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> What asshole bumped this super-faggoty thread by Lakhota?
> 
> 
> 
> I fear I might be responsible for this...
Click to expand...


Not good.


----------



## P@triot

Marion Morrison said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> What asshole bumped this super-faggoty thread by Lakhota?
> 
> 
> 
> I fear I might be responsible for this...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not good.
Click to expand...

Trust me...I am feeling the shame right now.


----------



## Marion Morrison

I was just in some thread where ding and mindful were being retarded when it comes to The Bible. Idk, I feel it's time for me to take a break from this insanity.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> muster the militia until crime drops.
> 
> 
> 
> Crime is not the constitutional authority of militias. That would be “vigilantism” and those in the militia would be brought up on serious charges.
> 
> You are a prime example of why nobody takes the left seriously about _anything_.
Click to expand...

lol.  so what.  the right wing is usually only right, twice a day.  this is Not one of those moments.



> To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> lol.  so what.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
Click to expand...

“So what”??? You have no problem with openly advocating for criminal activity? 

Snowflake...standard law enforcement is neither “repelling invasions” nor “suppressing insurrections”. None of this is the legal responsibility of the “militia”.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd Amendment is only one sentence. One sentence. What are the first four words of that one sentence? "_A well regulated militia_." "Militia" is the subject. The NRA gun nutters are trying to interpret the 2nd Amendment by ignoring those first four words. Try reading it slowly with and without those four words. They have totally different meanings. One that applied at the time it was ratified and one that could apply today. The original version does NOT apply today.
> 
> 
> 
> It is one sentence and reading the sentence in it’s entirety, it becomes painfully obvious that the *right* of the *people* to keep and bear arms shall *not* be *infringed*.
> 
> There was never a single moment in U.S. history where that was ever doubted or questioned until the Democrat Party became radicalized by communists, fascists, etc. In the 1700’s, _everyone_ carried a firearm. In the 1800’s, cowboys in the west carried firearms despite never having been a part of a “militia”. Nobody questioned it or demanded that they surrender their firearms. In the 1900’s, everyone from hunters to the mafia carried firearms. Yet again, none were ever a part of a “militia” and it was never questioned. It wasn’t until the 1980’s that you see the communists influence on the Democrat Party start to seep in and gun *control* start to be demanded by the left.
> 
> You can troll all you want Laky...but this issue has been settled. All rights in the U.S. Constitution are individual rights, inalienable rights, and require absolutely no action by the part of the U.S. citizen to enjoy them. It really is that simple.
Click to expand...

lousy reading comprehension, is all the right wing has.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  so what.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “So what”??? You have no problem with openly advocating for criminal activity?
> 
> Snowflake...standard law enforcement is neither “repelling invasions” nor “suppressing insurrections”. None of this is the legal responsibility of the “militia”.
Click to expand...

proof positive.

*To execute the Laws of the Union*


----------



## Lakhota

*Vermont Governor Signs Gun Control Bills Into Law*

Go Vermont.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lakhota said:


> *Vermont Governor Signs Gun Control Bills Into Law*
> 
> Go Vermont.


Although I think the high-cap magazine ban is unnecessary, this is exactly how guns should be regulated...at the STATE level.  After all, the 2nd Amendment is a reservation of power to the States, prohibiting Congress from acting.  All federal gun laws should be repealed.


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> Calisphere - JARDA - Relocation and Incarceration of Japanese Americans During World War II
> 
> "On December 7, 1941, Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. The next day, the United States and Britain declared on Japan. Two months later, on February 19, 1942, the lives of thousands of Japanese Americans were dramatically changed when President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 (view the Order). This order led to the assembly and evacuation and relocation of nearly 122,000 men, women, and children of Japanese ancestry on the west coast of the United States &#8212; but not in Hawaii, despite the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
> 
> Racism and Prejudice
> 
> Japanese Americans in Hawaii were not incarcerated because they made up nearly 40% of the population and a large portion of the skilled workforce. The fact they were not incarcerated suggests that the removal of Japanese Americans on the west coast was racially motivated rather than out of "military necessity." Agricultural interest groups in western states, and many local politicians, had long been against Japanese Americans, and used the attack on Pearl Harbor to step up calls for their removal.
> 
> The United States was fighting the war on three fronts &#8212; Japan, Germany, and Italy &#8212; compared to the number of Japanese Americans, a relatively small number of Germans and Italians were interned in the United States. But although Executive Order 9066 was written in vague terms that did not specify an ethnicity, it was used for the mass incarceration of Japanese Americans. The government claimed that incarceration was for military necessity and, ironically, to "protect" Japanese Americans from racist retribution they might face as a result of Pearl Harbor. (These reasons were later proved false by the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians in the 1980s.)
> 
> In fact, Japanese Americans and other Asian Americans had long been characterized as a foreign "Yellow Peril" that was a threat to the United States. Prejudice against Japanese Americans, including laws preventing them from owning land, existed long before World War II. Even though Japanese Americans largely considered themselves loyal and even patriotic Americans, suspicions about their loyalties were pervasive. Before Pearl Harbor was bombed, President Roosevelt secretly commissioned Curtis Munson, a businessman, to assess the possibility that Japanese Americans would pose a threat to US security. Munson&#8217;s report found (as cited in Ronald Takaki, Strangers from a Distant Shore, page 386) that "There will be no armed uprising of Japanese" in the United States. "For the most part," the report says, "the local Japanese are loyal to the United States or, at worst, hope that by remaining quiet they can avoid concentration camps or irresponsible mobs."
> 
> Despite these findings, however, thousands of families in California, Oregon, and Washington were soon incarcerated in government camps. The government &#8212; and popular sentiment &#8212; understood that German Americans were not necessarily Nazi sympathizers, and could distinguish Italian Americans from Mussolini&#8217;s Fascist regime, but they had a more difficult time separating Japanese Americans from Imperial Japan.
> 
> The majority of those interned &#8212; nearly 70,000, over 60% &#8212; were American citizens. Many of the rest were long-time US residents who had lived in this country between 20 and 40 years. By and large, most Japanese Americans, particularly the Nisei (the first generation born in the United States), considered themselves loyal Americans. No Japanese American or Japanese national was ever found guilty of sabotage or espionage."


.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Vermont Governor Signs Gun Control Bills Into Law*
> 
> Go Vermont.
> 
> 
> 
> Although I think the high-cap magazine ban is unnecessary, this is exactly how guns should be regulated...at the STATE level.  After all, the 2nd Amendment is a reservation of power to the States, prohibiting Congress from acting.  All federal gun laws should be repealed.
Click to expand...

we have a Second Amendment.  we should have No, security problems in our free States.


----------



## asaratis

Lakhota said:


> *Vermont Governor Signs Gun Control Bills Into Law*
> 
> Go Vermont.


Perhaps this too will be judged unconstitutional.

Ohio county judge rules bump stock ban is unconstitutional


----------



## Rigby5

Crime most definitely is the MAIN point of the militia, and is backed up by the 4th and 5th amendment besides the second.
There were NO police back then at all.
There were ONLY militia, which have also been called posses.

That is NOT vigilantism.
Vigilantism is when you lynch or otherwise impose punishment without benefit of trial.
The point of the militia is to apprehend and bring to court, not vigilantism.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Rigby5 said:


> Crime most definitely is the MAIN point of the militia, and is backed up by the 4th and 5th amendment besides the second.
> There were NO police back then at all.
> There were ONLY militia, which have also been called posses.
> 
> That is NOT vigilantism.
> Vigilantism is when you lynch or otherwise impose punishment without benefit of trial.
> The point of the militia is to apprehend and bring to court, not vigilantism.



Since when did the militia carry out police duties on a daily basis?


----------



## Rigby5

The police did not exist at all in any number until around 1900.  Before then there were just a few night watchmen and door knob rattlers in a few big cities like NY and Boston.
You are missing the whole point.  The militia is not the organized or called up National Guard, but every clerk that catches shoplifters, and every home owner who investigates a strange noise.
The militia is civilian.  The Militia is the federal organization after being called up.  Big difference.  A posse is when a group of militia are needed.

{...
The development of policing in the United States closely followed the development of policing in England. In the early colonies policing took two forms. It was both informal and communal, which is referred to as the "Watch," or private-for-profit policing, which is called "The Big Stick” (Spitzer, 1979).

The watch system was composed of community volunteers whose primary duty was to warn of impending danger. Boston created a night watch in 1636, New York in 1658 and Philadelphia in 1700. The night watch was not a particularly effective crime control device. Watchmen often slept or drank on duty. While the watch was theoretically voluntary, many "volunteers" were simply attempting to evade military service, were conscript forced into service by their town, or were performing watch duties as a form of punishment. Philadelphia created the first day watch in 1833 and New York instituted a day watch in 1844 as a supplement to its new municipal police force (Gaines, Kappeler, and Vaughn 1999).

Augmenting the watch system was a system of constables, official law enforcement officers, usually paid by the fee system for warrants they served. Constables had a variety of non-law enforcement functions to perform as well, including serving as land surveyors and verifying the accuracy of weights and measures. In many cities constables were given the responsibility of supervising the activities of the night watch.

These informal modalities of policing continued well after the American Revolution. It was not until the 1830s that the idea of a centralized municipal police department first emerged in the United States. In 1838, the city of Boston established the first American police force, followed by New York City in 1845, Albany, NY and Chicago in 1851, New Orleans and Cincinnati in 1853, Philadelphia in 1855, and Newark, NJ and Baltimore in 1857 (Harring 1983, Lundman 1980; Lynch 1984). By the 1880s all major U.S. cities had municipal police forces in place.
...}
The History of Policing in the United States, Part 1 | Police Studies Online

It is saying major cities by 1880, but most cities were not major and most people back then were rural.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Rigby5 said:


> The police did not exist at all in any number until around 1900.  Before then there were just a few night watchmen and door knob rattlers in a few big cities like NY and Boston.
> You are missing the whole point.  The militia is not the organized or called up National Guard, but every clerk that catches shoplifters, and every home owner who investigates a strange noise.
> The militia is civilian.  The Militia is the federal organization after being called up.  Big difference.  A posse is when a group of militia are needed.
> 
> {...
> The development of policing in the United States closely followed the development of policing in England. In the early colonies policing took two forms. It was both informal and communal, which is referred to as the "Watch," or private-for-profit policing, which is called "The Big Stick” (Spitzer, 1979).
> 
> The watch system was composed of community volunteers whose primary duty was to warn of impending danger. Boston created a night watch in 1636, New York in 1658 and Philadelphia in 1700. The night watch was not a particularly effective crime control device. Watchmen often slept or drank on duty. While the watch was theoretically voluntary, many "volunteers" were simply attempting to evade military service, were conscript forced into service by their town, or were performing watch duties as a form of punishment. Philadelphia created the first day watch in 1833 and New York instituted a day watch in 1844 as a supplement to its new municipal police force (Gaines, Kappeler, and Vaughn 1999).
> 
> Augmenting the watch system was a system of constables, official law enforcement officers, usually paid by the fee system for warrants they served. Constables had a variety of non-law enforcement functions to perform as well, including serving as land surveyors and verifying the accuracy of weights and measures. In many cities constables were given the responsibility of supervising the activities of the night watch.
> 
> These informal modalities of policing continued well after the American Revolution. It was not until the 1830s that the idea of a centralized municipal police department first emerged in the United States. In 1838, the city of Boston established the first American police force, followed by New York City in 1845, Albany, NY and Chicago in 1851, New Orleans and Cincinnati in 1853, Philadelphia in 1855, and Newark, NJ and Baltimore in 1857 (Harring 1983, Lundman 1980; Lynch 1984). By the 1880s all major U.S. cities had municipal police forces in place.
> ...}
> The History of Policing in the United States, Part 1 | Police Studies Online
> 
> It is saying major cities by 1880, but most cities were not major and most people back then were rural.



The problem with your argument is that the militia was designed for a specific purpose within the Constitution.

We know what the purpose is, because they wrote it down.

It's in article 1, section 8


"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
The milita was designed to prevent lawlessness at the FEDERAL LEVEL. i.e. the feds could call up the militia for this purpose. Remember, the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the states at this time, only the Federal govt. 

So, if a state couldn't handle the job, then the militia could take over.

That's not to say that the militia didn't do it at a state level, that's besides the point here. We're talking about the US Constitution and not state constitutions. 

This means the 2A is also based around this intention.


----------



## danielpalos

Posse comitatus is the common law.


----------



## Redfish

frigidweirdo said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The police did not exist at all in any number until around 1900.  Before then there were just a few night watchmen and door knob rattlers in a few big cities like NY and Boston.
> You are missing the whole point.  The militia is not the organized or called up National Guard, but every clerk that catches shoplifters, and every home owner who investigates a strange noise.
> The militia is civilian.  The Militia is the federal organization after being called up.  Big difference.  A posse is when a group of militia are needed.
> 
> {...
> The development of policing in the United States closely followed the development of policing in England. In the early colonies policing took two forms. It was both informal and communal, which is referred to as the "Watch," or private-for-profit policing, which is called "The Big Stick” (Spitzer, 1979).
> 
> The watch system was composed of community volunteers whose primary duty was to warn of impending danger. Boston created a night watch in 1636, New York in 1658 and Philadelphia in 1700. The night watch was not a particularly effective crime control device. Watchmen often slept or drank on duty. While the watch was theoretically voluntary, many "volunteers" were simply attempting to evade military service, were conscript forced into service by their town, or were performing watch duties as a form of punishment. Philadelphia created the first day watch in 1833 and New York instituted a day watch in 1844 as a supplement to its new municipal police force (Gaines, Kappeler, and Vaughn 1999).
> 
> Augmenting the watch system was a system of constables, official law enforcement officers, usually paid by the fee system for warrants they served. Constables had a variety of non-law enforcement functions to perform as well, including serving as land surveyors and verifying the accuracy of weights and measures. In many cities constables were given the responsibility of supervising the activities of the night watch.
> 
> These informal modalities of policing continued well after the American Revolution. It was not until the 1830s that the idea of a centralized municipal police department first emerged in the United States. In 1838, the city of Boston established the first American police force, followed by New York City in 1845, Albany, NY and Chicago in 1851, New Orleans and Cincinnati in 1853, Philadelphia in 1855, and Newark, NJ and Baltimore in 1857 (Harring 1983, Lundman 1980; Lynch 1984). By the 1880s all major U.S. cities had municipal police forces in place.
> ...}
> The History of Policing in the United States, Part 1 | Police Studies Online
> 
> It is saying major cities by 1880, but most cities were not major and most people back then were rural.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your argument is that the militia was designed for a specific purpose within the Constitution.
> 
> We know what the purpose is, because they wrote it down.
> 
> It's in article 1, section 8
> 
> 
> "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
> The milita was designed to prevent lawlessness at the FEDERAL LEVEL. i.e. the feds could call up the militia for this purpose. Remember, the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the states at this time, only the Federal govt.
> 
> So, if a state couldn't handle the job, then the militia could take over.
> 
> That's not to say that the militia didn't do it at a state level, that's besides the point here. We're talking about the US Constitution and not state constitutions.
> 
> This means the 2A is also based around this intention.
Click to expand...



the second amendment was put in the constitution to protect the people from the government,  any other interpretation is simply wrong.

the founders came from countries where the government ruled with an iron hand and the people had no say or rights.   They specifically prevented that from happening here when they wrote the constitution.  I think you need a course in American history.


----------



## 2aguy

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Vermont Governor Signs Gun Control Bills Into Law*
> 
> Go Vermont.
> 
> 
> 
> Although I think the high-cap magazine ban is unnecessary, this is exactly how guns should be regulated...at the STATE level.  After all, the 2nd Amendment is a reservation of power to the States, prohibiting Congress from acting.  All federal gun laws should be repealed.
Click to expand...



Wrong....when democrats controlled states they used poll taxes and literacy tests to keep Blacks from voting....a state can't violate the Rights of an individual.... the Federal Government can't violate the Rights of an individual.


----------



## danielpalos

Redfish said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The police did not exist at all in any number until around 1900.  Before then there were just a few night watchmen and door knob rattlers in a few big cities like NY and Boston.
> You are missing the whole point.  The militia is not the organized or called up National Guard, but every clerk that catches shoplifters, and every home owner who investigates a strange noise.
> The militia is civilian.  The Militia is the federal organization after being called up.  Big difference.  A posse is when a group of militia are needed.
> 
> {...
> The development of policing in the United States closely followed the development of policing in England. In the early colonies policing took two forms. It was both informal and communal, which is referred to as the "Watch," or private-for-profit policing, which is called "The Big Stick” (Spitzer, 1979).
> 
> The watch system was composed of community volunteers whose primary duty was to warn of impending danger. Boston created a night watch in 1636, New York in 1658 and Philadelphia in 1700. The night watch was not a particularly effective crime control device. Watchmen often slept or drank on duty. While the watch was theoretically voluntary, many "volunteers" were simply attempting to evade military service, were conscript forced into service by their town, or were performing watch duties as a form of punishment. Philadelphia created the first day watch in 1833 and New York instituted a day watch in 1844 as a supplement to its new municipal police force (Gaines, Kappeler, and Vaughn 1999).
> 
> Augmenting the watch system was a system of constables, official law enforcement officers, usually paid by the fee system for warrants they served. Constables had a variety of non-law enforcement functions to perform as well, including serving as land surveyors and verifying the accuracy of weights and measures. In many cities constables were given the responsibility of supervising the activities of the night watch.
> 
> These informal modalities of policing continued well after the American Revolution. It was not until the 1830s that the idea of a centralized municipal police department first emerged in the United States. In 1838, the city of Boston established the first American police force, followed by New York City in 1845, Albany, NY and Chicago in 1851, New Orleans and Cincinnati in 1853, Philadelphia in 1855, and Newark, NJ and Baltimore in 1857 (Harring 1983, Lundman 1980; Lynch 1984). By the 1880s all major U.S. cities had municipal police forces in place.
> ...}
> The History of Policing in the United States, Part 1 | Police Studies Online
> 
> It is saying major cities by 1880, but most cities were not major and most people back then were rural.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your argument is that the militia was designed for a specific purpose within the Constitution.
> 
> We know what the purpose is, because they wrote it down.
> 
> It's in article 1, section 8
> 
> 
> "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
> The milita was designed to prevent lawlessness at the FEDERAL LEVEL. i.e. the feds could call up the militia for this purpose. Remember, the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the states at this time, only the Federal govt.
> 
> So, if a state couldn't handle the job, then the militia could take over.
> 
> That's not to say that the militia didn't do it at a state level, that's besides the point here. We're talking about the US Constitution and not state constitutions.
> 
> This means the 2A is also based around this intention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the second amendment was put in the constitution to protect the people from the government,  any other interpretation is simply wrong.
> 
> the founders came from countries where the government ruled with an iron hand and the people had no say or rights.   They specifically prevented that from happening here when they wrote the constitution.  I think you need a course in American history.
Click to expand...

nobody takes right wing "intelligence", seriously.  

The Intent and Purpose is in the first clause of our Second Article of Amendment.


----------



## Rigby5

frigidweirdo said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The police did not exist at all in any number until around 1900.  Before then there were just a few night watchmen and door knob rattlers in a few big cities like NY and Boston.
> You are missing the whole point.  The militia is not the organized or called up National Guard, but every clerk that catches shoplifters, and every home owner who investigates a strange noise.
> The militia is civilian.  The Militia is the federal organization after being called up.  Big difference.  A posse is when a group of militia are needed.
> 
> {...
> The development of policing in the United States closely followed the development of policing in England. In the early colonies policing took two forms. It was both informal and communal, which is referred to as the "Watch," or private-for-profit policing, which is called "The Big Stick” (Spitzer, 1979).
> 
> The watch system was composed of community volunteers whose primary duty was to warn of impending danger. Boston created a night watch in 1636, New York in 1658 and Philadelphia in 1700. The night watch was not a particularly effective crime control device. Watchmen often slept or drank on duty. While the watch was theoretically voluntary, many "volunteers" were simply attempting to evade military service, were conscript forced into service by their town, or were performing watch duties as a form of punishment. Philadelphia created the first day watch in 1833 and New York instituted a day watch in 1844 as a supplement to its new municipal police force (Gaines, Kappeler, and Vaughn 1999).
> 
> Augmenting the watch system was a system of constables, official law enforcement officers, usually paid by the fee system for warrants they served. Constables had a variety of non-law enforcement functions to perform as well, including serving as land surveyors and verifying the accuracy of weights and measures. In many cities constables were given the responsibility of supervising the activities of the night watch.
> 
> These informal modalities of policing continued well after the American Revolution. It was not until the 1830s that the idea of a centralized municipal police department first emerged in the United States. In 1838, the city of Boston established the first American police force, followed by New York City in 1845, Albany, NY and Chicago in 1851, New Orleans and Cincinnati in 1853, Philadelphia in 1855, and Newark, NJ and Baltimore in 1857 (Harring 1983, Lundman 1980; Lynch 1984). By the 1880s all major U.S. cities had municipal police forces in place.
> ...}
> The History of Policing in the United States, Part 1 | Police Studies Online
> 
> It is saying major cities by 1880, but most cities were not major and most people back then were rural.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your argument is that the militia was designed for a specific purpose within the Constitution.
> 
> We know what the purpose is, because they wrote it down.
> 
> It's in article 1, section 8
> 
> 
> "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
> The milita was designed to prevent lawlessness at the FEDERAL LEVEL. i.e. the feds could call up the militia for this purpose. Remember, the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the states at this time, only the Federal govt.
> 
> So, if a state couldn't handle the job, then the militia could take over.
> 
> That's not to say that the militia didn't do it at a state level, that's besides the point here. We're talking about the US Constitution and not state constitutions.
> 
> This means the 2A is also based around this intention.
Click to expand...



I disagree for 2 main reasons.

First is that you have the Bill of Rights backwards.  
It does not create any rights at all.
All it does is acknowledge rights have have always existed as inherent individual rights or state extensions of those inherent individual rights.
And while we can see the shadow of the individual right to be armed in the 2nd amendment, it is much more clear in the 4th and 5th amendments.

Second is that the right of individuals to bear arms refers to all these separate individuals as the "militia", uncapitalized.  
However, the federation needs to be able to forces individuals to come to the aid of the country if we are attacked.
When this emergency happens and the federal government takes over the militia, it becomes the "Militia", capitalized.
And then the Militia is totally under federal control, under the means and purposes as described in the constitution.
But in no way are these war time emergency powers the main purpose of the militia.
That would be like saying that since the constitution gives the federal government some authority to tax, that then states were banned from being able to tax.
Read the 9th and 10 amendments again.
The idea is that the feds can only do what is explicitly granted, but it is assumed states and people can do everything not explicitly banned to them.
The main point of the militia should not be expected to be in the constitution, only the limited federal use of them.


----------



## Rigby5

Redfish said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The police did not exist at all in any number until around 1900.  Before then there were just a few night watchmen and door knob rattlers in a few big cities like NY and Boston.
> You are missing the whole point.  The militia is not the organized or called up National Guard, but every clerk that catches shoplifters, and every home owner who investigates a strange noise.
> The militia is civilian.  The Militia is the federal organization after being called up.  Big difference.  A posse is when a group of militia are needed.
> 
> {...
> ...}.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your argument is that the militia was designed for a specific purpose within the Constitution.
> 
> We know what the purpose is, because they wrote it down.
> 
> It's in article 1, section 8
> 
> 
> "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
> The milita was designed to prevent lawlessness at the FEDERAL LEVEL. i.e. the feds could call up the militia for this purpose. Remember, the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the states at this time, only the Federal govt.
> 
> So, if a state couldn't handle the job, then the militia could take over.
> 
> That's not to say that the militia didn't do it at a state level, that's besides the point here. We're talking about the US Constitution and not state constitutions.
> 
> This means the 2A is also based around this intention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the second amendment was put in the constitution to protect the people from the government,  any other interpretation is simply wrong.
> 
> the founders came from countries where the government ruled with an iron hand and the people had no say or rights.   They specifically prevented that from happening here when they wrote the constitution.  I think you need a course in American history.
Click to expand...


Yes, I agree completely.
But the 4th and 5th amendment also show individual arms were necessary to prevent murders, robberies, pirates, gangs, natives attacks, etc.  And we have even more threats these days, like LA riots, M-13, natural disasters, etc.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The police did not exist at all in any number until around 1900.  Before then there were just a few night watchmen and door knob rattlers in a few big cities like NY and Boston.
> You are missing the whole point.  The militia is not the organized or called up National Guard, but every clerk that catches shoplifters, and every home owner who investigates a strange noise.
> The militia is civilian.  The Militia is the federal organization after being called up.  Big difference.  A posse is when a group of militia are needed.
> 
> {...
> ...}.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your argument is that the militia was designed for a specific purpose within the Constitution.
> 
> We know what the purpose is, because they wrote it down.
> 
> It's in article 1, section 8
> 
> 
> "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
> The milita was designed to prevent lawlessness at the FEDERAL LEVEL. i.e. the feds could call up the militia for this purpose. Remember, the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the states at this time, only the Federal govt.
> 
> So, if a state couldn't handle the job, then the militia could take over.
> 
> That's not to say that the militia didn't do it at a state level, that's besides the point here. We're talking about the US Constitution and not state constitutions.
> 
> This means the 2A is also based around this intention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the second amendment was put in the constitution to protect the people from the government,  any other interpretation is simply wrong.
> 
> the founders came from countries where the government ruled with an iron hand and the people had no say or rights.   They specifically prevented that from happening here when they wrote the constitution.  I think you need a course in American history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I agree completely.
> But the 4th and 5th amendment also show individual arms were necessary to prevent murders, robberies, pirates, gangs, natives attacks, etc.  And we have even more threats these days, like LA riots, M-13, natural disasters, etc.
Click to expand...

the Intent and Purpose is in the First clause of our Second Amendment.


----------



## Rigby5

2aguy said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Vermont Governor Signs Gun Control Bills Into Law*
> 
> Go Vermont.
> 
> 
> 
> Although I think the high-cap magazine ban is unnecessary, this is exactly how guns should be regulated...at the STATE level.  After all, the 2nd Amendment is a reservation of power to the States, prohibiting Congress from acting.  All federal gun laws should be repealed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong....when democrats controlled states they used poll taxes and literacy tests to keep Blacks from voting....a state can't violate the Rights of an individual.... the Federal Government can't violate the Rights of an individual.
Click to expand...


But the point should be that while individual gun rights are not unlimited, it is the states that should be doing the regulating, not the federal government.
For example, gun laws in Alaska likely should be very different from gun laws in NY.
And there is no point to any federal gun laws at all, except maybe over their importation.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The police did not exist at all in any number until around 1900.  Before then there were just a few night watchmen and door knob rattlers in a few big cities like NY and Boston.
> You are missing the whole point.  The militia is not the organized or called up National Guard, but every clerk that catches shoplifters, and every home owner who investigates a strange noise.
> The militia is civilian.  The Militia is the federal organization after being called up.  Big difference.  A posse is when a group of militia are needed.
> 
> {...
> ...}.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your argument is that the militia was designed for a specific purpose within the Constitution.
> 
> We know what the purpose is, because they wrote it down.
> 
> It's in article 1, section 8
> 
> 
> "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
> The milita was designed to prevent lawlessness at the FEDERAL LEVEL. i.e. the feds could call up the militia for this purpose. Remember, the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the states at this time, only the Federal govt.
> 
> So, if a state couldn't handle the job, then the militia could take over.
> 
> That's not to say that the militia didn't do it at a state level, that's besides the point here. We're talking about the US Constitution and not state constitutions.
> 
> This means the 2A is also based around this intention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the second amendment was put in the constitution to protect the people from the government,  any other interpretation is simply wrong.
> 
> the founders came from countries where the government ruled with an iron hand and the people had no say or rights.   They specifically prevented that from happening here when they wrote the constitution.  I think you need a course in American history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I agree completely.
> But the 4th and 5th amendment also show individual arms were necessary to prevent murders, robberies, pirates, gangs, natives attacks, etc.  And we have even more threats these days, like LA riots, M-13, natural disasters, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the Intent and Purpose is in the First clause of our Second Amendment.
Click to expand...



I disagree since listing 1 reason does not at all imply there are not thousands of others they did not bother to list.
But it does not matter.
One point is sufficient since the result then is NO federal jurisdiction over weapons at all!
It is impossible to read the 2nd amendment as anything but a total and complete ban on federal jurisdiction over weapons.


----------



## 2aguy

Rigby5 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Vermont Governor Signs Gun Control Bills Into Law*
> 
> Go Vermont.
> 
> 
> 
> Although I think the high-cap magazine ban is unnecessary, this is exactly how guns should be regulated...at the STATE level.  After all, the 2nd Amendment is a reservation of power to the States, prohibiting Congress from acting.  All federal gun laws should be repealed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong....when democrats controlled states they used poll taxes and literacy tests to keep Blacks from voting....a state can't violate the Rights of an individual.... the Federal Government can't violate the Rights of an individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the point should be that while individual gun rights are not unlimited, it is the states that should be doing the regulating, not the federal government.
> For example, gun laws in Alaska likely should be very different from gun laws in NY.
> And there is no point to any federal gun laws at all, except maybe over their importation.
Click to expand...


How would the gun laws in Alaska be different from New York?  Using a gun to commit a crime is just as illegal in Alaska as it is in New York...what you are pointing out is limits to the Right to bear arms that have no bearing on crime.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The police did not exist at all in any number until around 1900.  Before then there were just a few night watchmen and door knob rattlers in a few big cities like NY and Boston.
> You are missing the whole point.  The militia is not the organized or called up National Guard, but every clerk that catches shoplifters, and every home owner who investigates a strange noise.
> The militia is civilian.  The Militia is the federal organization after being called up.  Big difference.  A posse is when a group of militia are needed.
> 
> {...
> ...}.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your argument is that the militia was designed for a specific purpose within the Constitution.
> 
> We know what the purpose is, because they wrote it down.
> 
> It's in article 1, section 8
> 
> 
> "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
> The milita was designed to prevent lawlessness at the FEDERAL LEVEL. i.e. the feds could call up the militia for this purpose. Remember, the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the states at this time, only the Federal govt.
> 
> So, if a state couldn't handle the job, then the militia could take over.
> 
> That's not to say that the militia didn't do it at a state level, that's besides the point here. We're talking about the US Constitution and not state constitutions.
> 
> This means the 2A is also based around this intention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the second amendment was put in the constitution to protect the people from the government,  any other interpretation is simply wrong.
> 
> the founders came from countries where the government ruled with an iron hand and the people had no say or rights.   They specifically prevented that from happening here when they wrote the constitution.  I think you need a course in American history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I agree completely.
> But the 4th and 5th amendment also show individual arms were necessary to prevent murders, robberies, pirates, gangs, natives attacks, etc.  And we have even more threats these days, like LA riots, M-13, natural disasters, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the Intent and Purpose is in the First clause of our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree since listing 1 reason does not at all imply there are not thousands of others they did not bother to list.
> But it does not matter.
> One point is sufficient since the result then is NO federal jurisdiction over weapons at all!
> It is impossible to read the 2nd amendment as anything but a total and complete ban on federal jurisdiction over weapons.
Click to expand...

I view it as a States' sovereign right, clearly expressed and secured by our Second Amendment.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Rigby5 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The police did not exist at all in any number until around 1900.  Before then there were just a few night watchmen and door knob rattlers in a few big cities like NY and Boston.
> You are missing the whole point.  The militia is not the organized or called up National Guard, but every clerk that catches shoplifters, and every home owner who investigates a strange noise.
> The militia is civilian.  The Militia is the federal organization after being called up.  Big difference.  A posse is when a group of militia are needed.
> 
> {...
> The development of policing in the United States closely followed the development of policing in England. In the early colonies policing took two forms. It was both informal and communal, which is referred to as the "Watch," or private-for-profit policing, which is called "The Big Stick” (Spitzer, 1979).
> 
> The watch system was composed of community volunteers whose primary duty was to warn of impending danger. Boston created a night watch in 1636, New York in 1658 and Philadelphia in 1700. The night watch was not a particularly effective crime control device. Watchmen often slept or drank on duty. While the watch was theoretically voluntary, many "volunteers" were simply attempting to evade military service, were conscript forced into service by their town, or were performing watch duties as a form of punishment. Philadelphia created the first day watch in 1833 and New York instituted a day watch in 1844 as a supplement to its new municipal police force (Gaines, Kappeler, and Vaughn 1999).
> 
> Augmenting the watch system was a system of constables, official law enforcement officers, usually paid by the fee system for warrants they served. Constables had a variety of non-law enforcement functions to perform as well, including serving as land surveyors and verifying the accuracy of weights and measures. In many cities constables were given the responsibility of supervising the activities of the night watch.
> 
> These informal modalities of policing continued well after the American Revolution. It was not until the 1830s that the idea of a centralized municipal police department first emerged in the United States. In 1838, the city of Boston established the first American police force, followed by New York City in 1845, Albany, NY and Chicago in 1851, New Orleans and Cincinnati in 1853, Philadelphia in 1855, and Newark, NJ and Baltimore in 1857 (Harring 1983, Lundman 1980; Lynch 1984). By the 1880s all major U.S. cities had municipal police forces in place.
> ...}
> The History of Policing in the United States, Part 1 | Police Studies Online
> 
> It is saying major cities by 1880, but most cities were not major and most people back then were rural.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your argument is that the militia was designed for a specific purpose within the Constitution.
> 
> We know what the purpose is, because they wrote it down.
> 
> It's in article 1, section 8
> 
> 
> "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
> The milita was designed to prevent lawlessness at the FEDERAL LEVEL. i.e. the feds could call up the militia for this purpose. Remember, the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the states at this time, only the Federal govt.
> 
> So, if a state couldn't handle the job, then the militia could take over.
> 
> That's not to say that the militia didn't do it at a state level, that's besides the point here. We're talking about the US Constitution and not state constitutions.
> 
> This means the 2A is also based around this intention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree for 2 main reasons.
> 
> First is that you have the Bill of Rights backwards.
> It does not create any rights at all.
> All it does is acknowledge rights have have always existed as inherent individual rights or state extensions of those inherent individual rights.
> And while we can see the shadow of the individual right to be armed in the 2nd amendment, it is much more clear in the 4th and 5th amendments.
> 
> Second is that the right of individuals to bear arms refers to all these separate individuals as the "militia", uncapitalized.
> However, the federation needs to be able to forces individuals to come to the aid of the country if we are attacked.
> When this emergency happens and the federal government takes over the militia, it becomes the "Militia", capitalized.
> And then the Militia is totally under federal control, under the means and purposes as described in the constitution.
> But in no way are these war time emergency powers the main purpose of the militia.
> That would be like saying that since the constitution gives the federal government some authority to tax, that then states were banned from being able to tax.
> Read the 9th and 10 amendments again.
> The idea is that the feds can only do what is explicitly granted, but it is assumed states and people can do everything not explicitly banned to them.
> The main point of the militia should not be expected to be in the constitution, only the limited federal use of them.
Click to expand...


No, it doesn't create rights and I didn't say it did. It takes power from the Federal government. 

No, the militia is not all those individuals. Individuals can join the militia, they are not the militia, they can be a part of the militia.

The militia is set out in article 1, section 8 of the US Constitution and has officers appointed by the state. Yes, they have a right to be in the militia, but the militia is not the people. These two words have a different meaning. 

Seeing as 18-45 males was the militia, and the people was 0-1000 females and males, you must see the difference.


----------



## danielpalos

frigidweirdo said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The police did not exist at all in any number until around 1900.  Before then there were just a few night watchmen and door knob rattlers in a few big cities like NY and Boston.
> You are missing the whole point.  The militia is not the organized or called up National Guard, but every clerk that catches shoplifters, and every home owner who investigates a strange noise.
> The militia is civilian.  The Militia is the federal organization after being called up.  Big difference.  A posse is when a group of militia are needed.
> 
> {...
> The development of policing in the United States closely followed the development of policing in England. In the early colonies policing took two forms. It was both informal and communal, which is referred to as the "Watch," or private-for-profit policing, which is called "The Big Stick” (Spitzer, 1979).
> 
> The watch system was composed of community volunteers whose primary duty was to warn of impending danger. Boston created a night watch in 1636, New York in 1658 and Philadelphia in 1700. The night watch was not a particularly effective crime control device. Watchmen often slept or drank on duty. While the watch was theoretically voluntary, many "volunteers" were simply attempting to evade military service, were conscript forced into service by their town, or were performing watch duties as a form of punishment. Philadelphia created the first day watch in 1833 and New York instituted a day watch in 1844 as a supplement to its new municipal police force (Gaines, Kappeler, and Vaughn 1999).
> 
> Augmenting the watch system was a system of constables, official law enforcement officers, usually paid by the fee system for warrants they served. Constables had a variety of non-law enforcement functions to perform as well, including serving as land surveyors and verifying the accuracy of weights and measures. In many cities constables were given the responsibility of supervising the activities of the night watch.
> 
> These informal modalities of policing continued well after the American Revolution. It was not until the 1830s that the idea of a centralized municipal police department first emerged in the United States. In 1838, the city of Boston established the first American police force, followed by New York City in 1845, Albany, NY and Chicago in 1851, New Orleans and Cincinnati in 1853, Philadelphia in 1855, and Newark, NJ and Baltimore in 1857 (Harring 1983, Lundman 1980; Lynch 1984). By the 1880s all major U.S. cities had municipal police forces in place.
> ...}
> The History of Policing in the United States, Part 1 | Police Studies Online
> 
> It is saying major cities by 1880, but most cities were not major and most people back then were rural.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your argument is that the militia was designed for a specific purpose within the Constitution.
> 
> We know what the purpose is, because they wrote it down.
> 
> It's in article 1, section 8
> 
> 
> "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
> The milita was designed to prevent lawlessness at the FEDERAL LEVEL. i.e. the feds could call up the militia for this purpose. Remember, the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the states at this time, only the Federal govt.
> 
> So, if a state couldn't handle the job, then the militia could take over.
> 
> That's not to say that the militia didn't do it at a state level, that's besides the point here. We're talking about the US Constitution and not state constitutions.
> 
> This means the 2A is also based around this intention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree for 2 main reasons.
> 
> First is that you have the Bill of Rights backwards.
> It does not create any rights at all.
> All it does is acknowledge rights have have always existed as inherent individual rights or state extensions of those inherent individual rights.
> And while we can see the shadow of the individual right to be armed in the 2nd amendment, it is much more clear in the 4th and 5th amendments.
> 
> Second is that the right of individuals to bear arms refers to all these separate individuals as the "militia", uncapitalized.
> However, the federation needs to be able to forces individuals to come to the aid of the country if we are attacked.
> When this emergency happens and the federal government takes over the militia, it becomes the "Militia", capitalized.
> And then the Militia is totally under federal control, under the means and purposes as described in the constitution.
> But in no way are these war time emergency powers the main purpose of the militia.
> That would be like saying that since the constitution gives the federal government some authority to tax, that then states were banned from being able to tax.
> Read the 9th and 10 amendments again.
> The idea is that the feds can only do what is explicitly granted, but it is assumed states and people can do everything not explicitly banned to them.
> The main point of the militia should not be expected to be in the constitution, only the limited federal use of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't create rights and I didn't say it did. It takes power from the Federal government.
> 
> No, the militia is not all those individuals. Individuals can join the militia, they are not the militia, they can be a part of the militia.
> 
> The militia is set out in article 1, section 8 of the US Constitution and has officers appointed by the state. Yes, they have a right to be in the militia, but the militia is not the people. These two words have a different meaning.
> 
> Seeing as 18-45 males was the militia, and the people was 0-1000 females and males, you must see the difference.
Click to expand...

not for the purpose of our Second Amendment.  Only two classes are recognized; the organized militia which is Well Regulated and the unorganized militia of the rest of the People.


----------



## Rigby5

2aguy said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Vermont Governor Signs Gun Control Bills Into Law*
> 
> Go Vermont.
> 
> 
> 
> Although I think the high-cap magazine ban is unnecessary, this is exactly how guns should be regulated...at the STATE level.  After all, the 2nd Amendment is a reservation of power to the States, prohibiting Congress from acting.  All federal gun laws should be repealed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong....when democrats controlled states they used poll taxes and literacy tests to keep Blacks from voting....a state can't violate the Rights of an individual.... the Federal Government can't violate the Rights of an individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the point should be that while individual gun rights are not unlimited, it is the states that should be doing the regulating, not the federal government.
> For example, gun laws in Alaska likely should be very different from gun laws in NY.
> And there is no point to any federal gun laws at all, except maybe over their importation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How would the gun laws in Alaska be different from New York?  Using a gun to commit a crime is just as illegal in Alaska as it is in New York...what you are pointing out is limits to the Right to bear arms that have no bearing on crime.
Click to expand...



Laws about using a gun to commit a crime is not a gun law.
Gun laws are about regulations and restriction on possession and ownership of guns.
Alaska has more natural dangers that make guns more necessary.
NY has more crowding any stress that makes anger and crime more common, so then concealed weapons may be more of a problem than they would in Alaska.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your argument is that the militia was designed for a specific purpose within the Constitution.
> 
> We know what the purpose is, because they wrote it down.
> 
> It's in article 1, section 8
> 
> 
> "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
> The milita was designed to prevent lawlessness at the FEDERAL LEVEL. i.e. the feds could call up the militia for this purpose. Remember, the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the states at this time, only the Federal govt.
> 
> So, if a state couldn't handle the job, then the militia could take over.
> 
> That's not to say that the militia didn't do it at a state level, that's besides the point here. We're talking about the US Constitution and not state constitutions.
> 
> This means the 2A is also based around this intention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the second amendment was put in the constitution to protect the people from the government,  any other interpretation is simply wrong.
> 
> the founders came from countries where the government ruled with an iron hand and the people had no say or rights.   They specifically prevented that from happening here when they wrote the constitution.  I think you need a course in American history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I agree completely.
> But the 4th and 5th amendment also show individual arms were necessary to prevent murders, robberies, pirates, gangs, natives attacks, etc.  And we have even more threats these days, like LA riots, M-13, natural disasters, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the Intent and Purpose is in the First clause of our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree since listing 1 reason does not at all imply there are not thousands of others they did not bother to list.
> But it does not matter.
> One point is sufficient since the result then is NO federal jurisdiction over weapons at all!
> It is impossible to read the 2nd amendment as anything but a total and complete ban on federal jurisdiction over weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I view it as a States' sovereign right, clearly expressed and secured by our Second Amendment.
Click to expand...


Do states have rights?
I don't think so.
States can only act on behave of the inherent rights of individuals I think.
States do have jurisdictions however, and that works out the same I think?


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> the second amendment was put in the constitution to protect the people from the government,  any other interpretation is simply wrong.
> 
> the founders came from countries where the government ruled with an iron hand and the people had no say or rights.   They specifically prevented that from happening here when they wrote the constitution.  I think you need a course in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I agree completely.
> But the 4th and 5th amendment also show individual arms were necessary to prevent murders, robberies, pirates, gangs, natives attacks, etc.  And we have even more threats these days, like LA riots, M-13, natural disasters, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the Intent and Purpose is in the First clause of our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree since listing 1 reason does not at all imply there are not thousands of others they did not bother to list.
> But it does not matter.
> One point is sufficient since the result then is NO federal jurisdiction over weapons at all!
> It is impossible to read the 2nd amendment as anything but a total and complete ban on federal jurisdiction over weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I view it as a States' sovereign right, clearly expressed and secured by our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do states have rights?
> I don't think so.
> States can only act on behave of the inherent rights of individuals I think.
> States do have jurisdictions however, and that works out the same I think?
Click to expand...

States must have rights in relation to the federal government.


----------



## Rigby5

frigidweirdo said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The police did not exist at all in any number until around 1900.  Before then there were just a few night watchmen and door knob rattlers in a few big cities like NY and Boston.
> You are missing the whole point.  The militia is not the organized or called up National Guard, but every clerk that catches shoplifters, and every home owner who investigates a strange noise.
> The militia is civilian.  The Militia is the federal organization after being called up.  Big difference.  A posse is when a group of militia are needed.
> 
> {...
> The development of policing in the United States closely followed the development of policing in England. In the early colonies policing took two forms. It was both informal and communal, which is referred to as the "Watch," or private-for-profit policing, which is called "The Big Stick” (Spitzer, 1979).
> 
> The watch system was composed of community volunteers whose primary duty was to warn of impending danger. Boston created a night watch in 1636, New York in 1658 and Philadelphia in 1700. The night watch was not a particularly effective crime control device. Watchmen often slept or drank on duty. While the watch was theoretically voluntary, many "volunteers" were simply attempting to evade military service, were conscript forced into service by their town, or were performing watch duties as a form of punishment. Philadelphia created the first day watch in 1833 and New York instituted a day watch in 1844 as a supplement to its new municipal police force (Gaines, Kappeler, and Vaughn 1999).
> 
> Augmenting the watch system was a system of constables, official law enforcement officers, usually paid by the fee system for warrants they served. Constables had a variety of non-law enforcement functions to perform as well, including serving as land surveyors and verifying the accuracy of weights and measures. In many cities constables were given the responsibility of supervising the activities of the night watch.
> 
> These informal modalities of policing continued well after the American Revolution. It was not until the 1830s that the idea of a centralized municipal police department first emerged in the United States. In 1838, the city of Boston established the first American police force, followed by New York City in 1845, Albany, NY and Chicago in 1851, New Orleans and Cincinnati in 1853, Philadelphia in 1855, and Newark, NJ and Baltimore in 1857 (Harring 1983, Lundman 1980; Lynch 1984). By the 1880s all major U.S. cities had municipal police forces in place.
> ...}
> The History of Policing in the United States, Part 1 | Police Studies Online
> 
> It is saying major cities by 1880, but most cities were not major and most people back then were rural.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your argument is that the militia was designed for a specific purpose within the Constitution.
> 
> We know what the purpose is, because they wrote it down.
> 
> It's in article 1, section 8
> 
> 
> "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
> The milita was designed to prevent lawlessness at the FEDERAL LEVEL. i.e. the feds could call up the militia for this purpose. Remember, the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the states at this time, only the Federal govt.
> 
> So, if a state couldn't handle the job, then the militia could take over.
> 
> That's not to say that the militia didn't do it at a state level, that's besides the point here. We're talking about the US Constitution and not state constitutions.
> 
> This means the 2A is also based around this intention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree for 2 main reasons.
> 
> First is that you have the Bill of Rights backwards.
> It does not create any rights at all.
> All it does is acknowledge rights have have always existed as inherent individual rights or state extensions of those inherent individual rights.
> And while we can see the shadow of the individual right to be armed in the 2nd amendment, it is much more clear in the 4th and 5th amendments.
> 
> Second is that the right of individuals to bear arms refers to all these separate individuals as the "militia", uncapitalized.
> However, the federation needs to be able to forces individuals to come to the aid of the country if we are attacked.
> When this emergency happens and the federal government takes over the militia, it becomes the "Militia", capitalized.
> And then the Militia is totally under federal control, under the means and purposes as described in the constitution.
> But in no way are these war time emergency powers the main purpose of the militia.
> That would be like saying that since the constitution gives the federal government some authority to tax, that then states were banned from being able to tax.
> Read the 9th and 10 amendments again.
> The idea is that the feds can only do what is explicitly granted, but it is assumed states and people can do everything not explicitly banned to them.
> The main point of the militia should not be expected to be in the constitution, only the limited federal use of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't create rights and I didn't say it did. It takes power from the Federal government.
> 
> No, the militia is not all those individuals. Individuals can join the militia, they are not the militia, they can be a part of the militia.
> 
> The militia is set out in article 1, section 8 of the US Constitution and has officers appointed by the state. Yes, they have a right to be in the militia, but the militia is not the people. These two words have a different meaning.
> 
> Seeing as 18-45 males was the militia, and the people was 0-1000 females and males, you must see the difference.
Click to expand...



You have to be wrong because obviously the militia had to exist BEFORE the Constitution, or else we could not have rebelled from England.
The Constitution did not and can not create or define the militia.
All the Constitution can do is define how the federal government can all up the militia in times of emergency.
And when members of the militia are called up by the federal government, it is a different organization, capitalized in spelling, and now known as the National Guard.

Since there were no police back then, and the state did not enforce the peace, then who do you think did?
{...
"The militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, ... all men capable of bearing arms;..."
— "Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic", 1788 (either Richard Henry Lee or Melancton Smith).
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People."
— Tench Coxe, 1788.
...}

Here is what the New York state constitution says about the militia:
{...
*[Defense; militia]*

Section 1.  The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
...}


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I agree completely.
> But the 4th and 5th amendment also show individual arms were necessary to prevent murders, robberies, pirates, gangs, natives attacks, etc.  And we have even more threats these days, like LA riots, M-13, natural disasters, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> the Intent and Purpose is in the First clause of our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree since listing 1 reason does not at all imply there are not thousands of others they did not bother to list.
> But it does not matter.
> One point is sufficient since the result then is NO federal jurisdiction over weapons at all!
> It is impossible to read the 2nd amendment as anything but a total and complete ban on federal jurisdiction over weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I view it as a States' sovereign right, clearly expressed and secured by our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do states have rights?
> I don't think so.
> States can only act on behave of the inherent rights of individuals I think.
> States do have jurisdictions however, and that works out the same I think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> States must have rights in relation to the federal government.
Click to expand...



No form of government can have rights, neither federal nor state.
What government have are jurisdictions, and governments act under the empowerment of the rights of individuals they serve.
Governments don't have rights, but serve the rights of indiviuals, and by doing so sort of borrow on their authority.


----------



## Dan Stubbs

waltky said:


> Maybe not obsolete but antiquated, out of date...
> 
> ... it needs to be updated to reflect the times...
> 
> ... and the threat of overkill firepower...
> 
> ... for the average citizen.


*You have only two defences for the Nation, The Military, Thr National Guard, and the second Adm  The2nd adm is the last defence when the other two are gone or unable to respond.  Also read the cvonstitution it spells it out in several places.*


----------



## frigidweirdo

Rigby5 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The police did not exist at all in any number until around 1900.  Before then there were just a few night watchmen and door knob rattlers in a few big cities like NY and Boston.
> You are missing the whole point.  The militia is not the organized or called up National Guard, but every clerk that catches shoplifters, and every home owner who investigates a strange noise.
> The militia is civilian.  The Militia is the federal organization after being called up.  Big difference.  A posse is when a group of militia are needed.
> 
> {...
> The development of policing in the United States closely followed the development of policing in England. In the early colonies policing took two forms. It was both informal and communal, which is referred to as the "Watch," or private-for-profit policing, which is called "The Big Stick” (Spitzer, 1979).
> 
> The watch system was composed of community volunteers whose primary duty was to warn of impending danger. Boston created a night watch in 1636, New York in 1658 and Philadelphia in 1700. The night watch was not a particularly effective crime control device. Watchmen often slept or drank on duty. While the watch was theoretically voluntary, many "volunteers" were simply attempting to evade military service, were conscript forced into service by their town, or were performing watch duties as a form of punishment. Philadelphia created the first day watch in 1833 and New York instituted a day watch in 1844 as a supplement to its new municipal police force (Gaines, Kappeler, and Vaughn 1999).
> 
> Augmenting the watch system was a system of constables, official law enforcement officers, usually paid by the fee system for warrants they served. Constables had a variety of non-law enforcement functions to perform as well, including serving as land surveyors and verifying the accuracy of weights and measures. In many cities constables were given the responsibility of supervising the activities of the night watch.
> 
> These informal modalities of policing continued well after the American Revolution. It was not until the 1830s that the idea of a centralized municipal police department first emerged in the United States. In 1838, the city of Boston established the first American police force, followed by New York City in 1845, Albany, NY and Chicago in 1851, New Orleans and Cincinnati in 1853, Philadelphia in 1855, and Newark, NJ and Baltimore in 1857 (Harring 1983, Lundman 1980; Lynch 1984). By the 1880s all major U.S. cities had municipal police forces in place.
> ...}
> The History of Policing in the United States, Part 1 | Police Studies Online
> 
> It is saying major cities by 1880, but most cities were not major and most people back then were rural.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your argument is that the militia was designed for a specific purpose within the Constitution.
> 
> We know what the purpose is, because they wrote it down.
> 
> It's in article 1, section 8
> 
> 
> "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
> The milita was designed to prevent lawlessness at the FEDERAL LEVEL. i.e. the feds could call up the militia for this purpose. Remember, the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the states at this time, only the Federal govt.
> 
> So, if a state couldn't handle the job, then the militia could take over.
> 
> That's not to say that the militia didn't do it at a state level, that's besides the point here. We're talking about the US Constitution and not state constitutions.
> 
> This means the 2A is also based around this intention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree for 2 main reasons.
> 
> First is that you have the Bill of Rights backwards.
> It does not create any rights at all.
> All it does is acknowledge rights have have always existed as inherent individual rights or state extensions of those inherent individual rights.
> And while we can see the shadow of the individual right to be armed in the 2nd amendment, it is much more clear in the 4th and 5th amendments.
> 
> Second is that the right of individuals to bear arms refers to all these separate individuals as the "militia", uncapitalized.
> However, the federation needs to be able to forces individuals to come to the aid of the country if we are attacked.
> When this emergency happens and the federal government takes over the militia, it becomes the "Militia", capitalized.
> And then the Militia is totally under federal control, under the means and purposes as described in the constitution.
> But in no way are these war time emergency powers the main purpose of the militia.
> That would be like saying that since the constitution gives the federal government some authority to tax, that then states were banned from being able to tax.
> Read the 9th and 10 amendments again.
> The idea is that the feds can only do what is explicitly granted, but it is assumed states and people can do everything not explicitly banned to them.
> The main point of the militia should not be expected to be in the constitution, only the limited federal use of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't create rights and I didn't say it did. It takes power from the Federal government.
> 
> No, the militia is not all those individuals. Individuals can join the militia, they are not the militia, they can be a part of the militia.
> 
> The militia is set out in article 1, section 8 of the US Constitution and has officers appointed by the state. Yes, they have a right to be in the militia, but the militia is not the people. These two words have a different meaning.
> 
> Seeing as 18-45 males was the militia, and the people was 0-1000 females and males, you must see the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You have to be wrong because obviously the militia had to exist BEFORE the Constitution, or else we could not have rebelled from England.
> The Constitution did not and can not create or define the militia.
> All the Constitution can do is define how the federal government can all up the militia in times of emergency.
> And when members of the militia are called up by the federal government, it is a different organization, capitalized in spelling, and now known as the National Guard.
> 
> Since there were no police back then, and the state did not enforce the peace, then who do you think did?
> {...
> "The militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, ... all men capable of bearing arms;..."
> — "Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic", 1788 (either Richard Henry Lee or Melancton Smith).
> "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People."
> — Tench Coxe, 1788.
> ...}
> 
> Here is what the New York state constitution says about the militia:
> {...
> *[Defense; militia]*
> 
> Section 1.  The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> ...}
Click to expand...


The problem with your argument here is that the militia was codified into the US Constitution. 

Yes, the militia existed before, but it existed in a different way than it existed after the Constitution was ratified. 

Before the Constitution was ratified, militia were militias of the colonies. There was no federal govt to call them up, no federal govt to tell them what to do. They could do as they wished. 

Article 1 section 8 says:

"to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"

This means the Federal govt could call up the militia. 

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

This means the feds can provide arms for the militia, discipline the militia and States were expected to appoint officers. Basically preventing the feds from doing this, however training could be done at a federal level. 

Yes, when people were called up into federal service, it was more or less different. 

Now, here's the problem.

The Second Amendment ONLY concerned the Federal govt.

So, the right to keep and bear arms only amount to the feds being unable to prevent individuals from owning arms and being in the militia.

At state level there was no right unless the state constitution specifically protected this. 

So, does this include self defense? No, it doesn't. No matter how states used their militias, the federal govt made a constitution that prevented the federal govt from doing things. It didn't prevent the federal govt stopping self defense.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Rigby5 said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The police did not exist at all in any number until around 1900.  Before then there were just a few night watchmen and door knob rattlers in a few big cities like NY and Boston.
> You are missing the whole point.  The militia is not the organized or called up National Guard, but every clerk that catches shoplifters, and every home owner who investigates a strange noise.
> The militia is civilian.  The Militia is the federal organization after being called up.  Big difference.  A posse is when a group of militia are needed.
> 
> {...
> ...}.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your argument is that the militia was designed for a specific purpose within the Constitution.
> 
> We know what the purpose is, because they wrote it down.
> 
> It's in article 1, section 8
> 
> 
> "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
> The milita was designed to prevent lawlessness at the FEDERAL LEVEL. i.e. the feds could call up the militia for this purpose. Remember, the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the states at this time, only the Federal govt.
> 
> So, if a state couldn't handle the job, then the militia could take over.
> 
> That's not to say that the militia didn't do it at a state level, that's besides the point here. We're talking about the US Constitution and not state constitutions.
> 
> This means the 2A is also based around this intention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the second amendment was put in the constitution to protect the people from the government,  any other interpretation is simply wrong.
> 
> the founders came from countries where the government ruled with an iron hand and the people had no say or rights.   They specifically prevented that from happening here when they wrote the constitution.  I think you need a course in American history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I agree completely.
> But the 4th and 5th amendment also show individual arms were necessary to prevent murders, robberies, pirates, gangs, natives attacks, etc.  And we have even more threats these days, like LA riots, M-13, natural disasters, etc.
Click to expand...


But this is guns could be used for such things. It doesn't mean they were protected, and it certainly doesn't mean they were protected by the 2A.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The police did not exist at all in any number until around 1900.  Before then there were just a few night watchmen and door knob rattlers in a few big cities like NY and Boston.
> You are missing the whole point.  The militia is not the organized or called up National Guard, but every clerk that catches shoplifters, and every home owner who investigates a strange noise.
> The militia is civilian.  The Militia is the federal organization after being called up.  Big difference.  A posse is when a group of militia are needed.
> 
> {...
> The development of policing in the United States closely followed the development of policing in England. In the early colonies policing took two forms. It was both informal and communal, which is referred to as the "Watch," or private-for-profit policing, which is called "The Big Stick” (Spitzer, 1979).
> 
> The watch system was composed of community volunteers whose primary duty was to warn of impending danger. Boston created a night watch in 1636, New York in 1658 and Philadelphia in 1700. The night watch was not a particularly effective crime control device. Watchmen often slept or drank on duty. While the watch was theoretically voluntary, many "volunteers" were simply attempting to evade military service, were conscript forced into service by their town, or were performing watch duties as a form of punishment. Philadelphia created the first day watch in 1833 and New York instituted a day watch in 1844 as a supplement to its new municipal police force (Gaines, Kappeler, and Vaughn 1999).
> 
> Augmenting the watch system was a system of constables, official law enforcement officers, usually paid by the fee system for warrants they served. Constables had a variety of non-law enforcement functions to perform as well, including serving as land surveyors and verifying the accuracy of weights and measures. In many cities constables were given the responsibility of supervising the activities of the night watch.
> 
> These informal modalities of policing continued well after the American Revolution. It was not until the 1830s that the idea of a centralized municipal police department first emerged in the United States. In 1838, the city of Boston established the first American police force, followed by New York City in 1845, Albany, NY and Chicago in 1851, New Orleans and Cincinnati in 1853, Philadelphia in 1855, and Newark, NJ and Baltimore in 1857 (Harring 1983, Lundman 1980; Lynch 1984). By the 1880s all major U.S. cities had municipal police forces in place.
> ...}
> The History of Policing in the United States, Part 1 | Police Studies Online
> 
> It is saying major cities by 1880, but most cities were not major and most people back then were rural.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your argument is that the militia was designed for a specific purpose within the Constitution.
> 
> We know what the purpose is, because they wrote it down.
> 
> It's in article 1, section 8
> 
> 
> "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
> The milita was designed to prevent lawlessness at the FEDERAL LEVEL. i.e. the feds could call up the militia for this purpose. Remember, the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the states at this time, only the Federal govt.
> 
> So, if a state couldn't handle the job, then the militia could take over.
> 
> That's not to say that the militia didn't do it at a state level, that's besides the point here. We're talking about the US Constitution and not state constitutions.
> 
> This means the 2A is also based around this intention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree for 2 main reasons.
> 
> First is that you have the Bill of Rights backwards.
> It does not create any rights at all.
> All it does is acknowledge rights have have always existed as inherent individual rights or state extensions of those inherent individual rights.
> And while we can see the shadow of the individual right to be armed in the 2nd amendment, it is much more clear in the 4th and 5th amendments.
> 
> Second is that the right of individuals to bear arms refers to all these separate individuals as the "militia", uncapitalized.
> However, the federation needs to be able to forces individuals to come to the aid of the country if we are attacked.
> When this emergency happens and the federal government takes over the militia, it becomes the "Militia", capitalized.
> And then the Militia is totally under federal control, under the means and purposes as described in the constitution.
> But in no way are these war time emergency powers the main purpose of the militia.
> That would be like saying that since the constitution gives the federal government some authority to tax, that then states were banned from being able to tax.
> Read the 9th and 10 amendments again.
> The idea is that the feds can only do what is explicitly granted, but it is assumed states and people can do everything not explicitly banned to them.
> The main point of the militia should not be expected to be in the constitution, only the limited federal use of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't create rights and I didn't say it did. It takes power from the Federal government.
> 
> No, the militia is not all those individuals. Individuals can join the militia, they are not the militia, they can be a part of the militia.
> 
> The militia is set out in article 1, section 8 of the US Constitution and has officers appointed by the state. Yes, they have a right to be in the militia, but the militia is not the people. These two words have a different meaning.
> 
> Seeing as 18-45 males was the militia, and the people was 0-1000 females and males, you must see the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You have to be wrong because obviously the militia had to exist BEFORE the Constitution, or else we could not have rebelled from England.
> The Constitution did not and can not create or define the militia.
> All the Constitution can do is define how the federal government can all up the militia in times of emergency.
> And when members of the militia are called up by the federal government, it is a different organization, capitalized in spelling, and now known as the National Guard.
> 
> Since there were no police back then, and the state did not enforce the peace, then who do you think did?
> {...
> "The militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, ... all men capable of bearing arms;..."
> — "Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic", 1788 (either Richard Henry Lee or Melancton Smith).
> "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People."
> — Tench Coxe, 1788.
> ...}
> 
> Here is what the New York state constitution says about the militia:
> {...
> *[Defense; militia]*
> 
> Section 1.  The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> ...}
Click to expand...

Our federal Constitution is Express, not Implied.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the Intent and Purpose is in the First clause of our Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree since listing 1 reason does not at all imply there are not thousands of others they did not bother to list.
> But it does not matter.
> One point is sufficient since the result then is NO federal jurisdiction over weapons at all!
> It is impossible to read the 2nd amendment as anything but a total and complete ban on federal jurisdiction over weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I view it as a States' sovereign right, clearly expressed and secured by our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do states have rights?
> I don't think so.
> States can only act on behave of the inherent rights of individuals I think.
> States do have jurisdictions however, and that works out the same I think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> States must have rights in relation to the federal government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No form of government can have rights, neither federal nor state.
> What government have are jurisdictions, and governments act under the empowerment of the rights of individuals they serve.
> Governments don't have rights, but serve the rights of indiviuals, and by doing so sort of borrow on their authority.
Click to expand...

States have rights, in relation to the general government.  Jurisdiction, is a States' right.


----------



## 2aguy

Rigby5 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Vermont Governor Signs Gun Control Bills Into Law*
> 
> Go Vermont.
> 
> 
> 
> Although I think the high-cap magazine ban is unnecessary, this is exactly how guns should be regulated...at the STATE level.  After all, the 2nd Amendment is a reservation of power to the States, prohibiting Congress from acting.  All federal gun laws should be repealed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong....when democrats controlled states they used poll taxes and literacy tests to keep Blacks from voting....a state can't violate the Rights of an individual.... the Federal Government can't violate the Rights of an individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the point should be that while individual gun rights are not unlimited, it is the states that should be doing the regulating, not the federal government.
> For example, gun laws in Alaska likely should be very different from gun laws in NY.
> And there is no point to any federal gun laws at all, except maybe over their importation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How would the gun laws in Alaska be different from New York?  Using a gun to commit a crime is just as illegal in Alaska as it is in New York...what you are pointing out is limits to the Right to bear arms that have no bearing on crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Laws about using a gun to commit a crime is not a gun law.
> Gun laws are about regulations and restriction on possession and ownership of guns.
> Alaska has more natural dangers that make guns more necessary.
> NY has more crowding any stress that makes anger and crime more common, so then concealed weapons may be more of a problem than they would in Alaska.
Click to expand...




Sorry.  No.   Americans are Americans no matter what city or state they live in.  In fact, concealed carry is even more important in New York, where democrats allow criminals to run wild.  A Right is not changed due to geography.


----------



## danielpalos

2aguy said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although I think the high-cap magazine ban is unnecessary, this is exactly how guns should be regulated...at the STATE level.  After all, the 2nd Amendment is a reservation of power to the States, prohibiting Congress from acting.  All federal gun laws should be repealed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong....when democrats controlled states they used poll taxes and literacy tests to keep Blacks from voting....a state can't violate the Rights of an individual.... the Federal Government can't violate the Rights of an individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the point should be that while individual gun rights are not unlimited, it is the states that should be doing the regulating, not the federal government.
> For example, gun laws in Alaska likely should be very different from gun laws in NY.
> And there is no point to any federal gun laws at all, except maybe over their importation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How would the gun laws in Alaska be different from New York?  Using a gun to commit a crime is just as illegal in Alaska as it is in New York...what you are pointing out is limits to the Right to bear arms that have no bearing on crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Laws about using a gun to commit a crime is not a gun law.
> Gun laws are about regulations and restriction on possession and ownership of guns.
> Alaska has more natural dangers that make guns more necessary.
> NY has more crowding any stress that makes anger and crime more common, so then concealed weapons may be more of a problem than they would in Alaska.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry.  No.   Americans are Americans no matter what city or state they live in.  In fact, concealed carry is even more important in New York, where democrats allow criminals to run wild.  A Right is not changed due to geography.
Click to expand...

State management must be slacking if the unorganized militia is causing problems.


----------



## Redfish

frigidweirdo said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The police did not exist at all in any number until around 1900.  Before then there were just a few night watchmen and door knob rattlers in a few big cities like NY and Boston.
> You are missing the whole point.  The militia is not the organized or called up National Guard, but every clerk that catches shoplifters, and every home owner who investigates a strange noise.
> The militia is civilian.  The Militia is the federal organization after being called up.  Big difference.  A posse is when a group of militia are needed.
> 
> {...
> ...}.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your argument is that the militia was designed for a specific purpose within the Constitution.
> 
> We know what the purpose is, because they wrote it down.
> 
> It's in article 1, section 8
> 
> 
> "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
> The milita was designed to prevent lawlessness at the FEDERAL LEVEL. i.e. the feds could call up the militia for this purpose. Remember, the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the states at this time, only the Federal govt.
> 
> So, if a state couldn't handle the job, then the militia could take over.
> 
> That's not to say that the militia didn't do it at a state level, that's besides the point here. We're talking about the US Constitution and not state constitutions.
> 
> This means the 2A is also based around this intention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the second amendment was put in the constitution to protect the people from the government,  any other interpretation is simply wrong.
> 
> the founders came from countries where the government ruled with an iron hand and the people had no say or rights.   They specifically prevented that from happening here when they wrote the constitution.  I think you need a course in American history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I agree completely.
> But the 4th and 5th amendment also show individual arms were necessary to prevent murders, robberies, pirates, gangs, natives attacks, etc.  And we have even more threats these days, like LA riots, M-13, natural disasters, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But this is guns could be used for such things. It doesn't mean they were protected, and it certainly doesn't mean they were protected by the 2A.
Click to expand...



so in your vision of the USA only the government and criminals would have guns.   That's exactly why the founders left Europe.


----------



## danielpalos

Redfish said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The police did not exist at all in any number until around 1900.  Before then there were just a few night watchmen and door knob rattlers in a few big cities like NY and Boston.
> You are missing the whole point.  The militia is not the organized or called up National Guard, but every clerk that catches shoplifters, and every home owner who investigates a strange noise.
> The militia is civilian.  The Militia is the federal organization after being called up.  Big difference.  A posse is when a group of militia are needed.
> 
> {...
> ...}.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your argument is that the militia was designed for a specific purpose within the Constitution.
> 
> We know what the purpose is, because they wrote it down.
> 
> It's in article 1, section 8
> 
> 
> "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
> The milita was designed to prevent lawlessness at the FEDERAL LEVEL. i.e. the feds could call up the militia for this purpose. Remember, the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the states at this time, only the Federal govt.
> 
> So, if a state couldn't handle the job, then the militia could take over.
> 
> That's not to say that the militia didn't do it at a state level, that's besides the point here. We're talking about the US Constitution and not state constitutions.
> 
> This means the 2A is also based around this intention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the second amendment was put in the constitution to protect the people from the government,  any other interpretation is simply wrong.
> 
> the founders came from countries where the government ruled with an iron hand and the people had no say or rights.   They specifically prevented that from happening here when they wrote the constitution.  I think you need a course in American history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I agree completely.
> But the 4th and 5th amendment also show individual arms were necessary to prevent murders, robberies, pirates, gangs, natives attacks, etc.  And we have even more threats these days, like LA riots, M-13, natural disasters, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But this is guns could be used for such things. It doesn't mean they were protected, and it certainly doesn't mean they were protected by the 2A.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so in your vision of the USA only the government and criminals would have guns.   That's exactly why the founders left Europe.
Click to expand...

Well regulated militia are declared Necessary and shall not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


----------



## Lakhota

*NRA RUNNING LOW ON AMMO?*

2018 Was A Bad Year For The NRA, And The Worst Could Be Yet To Come

Fuck the NRA.  It was once a good outfit until hijacked by radicals in 1977.


----------



## Markle

danielpalos said:


> Well regulated militia are declared Necessary and shall not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.



Punctuation still escapes you I see.  I am shocked, SHOCKED I SAY!


----------



## PredFan

Lakhota said:


> *NRA RUNNING LOW ON AMMO?*
> 
> 2018 Was A Bad Year For The NRA, And The Worst Could Be Yet To Come
> 
> Fuck the NRA.  It was once a good outfit until hijacked by radicals in 1977.



I just gave the NRA more money, I'm also giving more to the GOA because they are fighting the bump stock ban. I support the NAGR as well. Yeah the NRA had a bad year, all gun owners and freedom lovers did.


----------



## CrazedScotsman

I don't own a gun and I am a member of the NRA.


----------



## Cellblock2429

CrazedScotsman said:


> I don't own a gun and I am a member of the NRA.


/——/ Same here.


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney

CrazedScotsman said:


> I don't own a gun and I am a member of the NRA.



I own two shotguns and not a member of any organization.


----------



## Flash

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> CrazedScotsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't own a gun and I am a member of the NRA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I own two shotguns and not a member of any organization.
Click to expand...



You are a member of the militia.


----------



## Redfish

Flash said:


> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrazedScotsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't own a gun and I am a member of the NRA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I own two shotguns and not a member of any organization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are a member of the militia.
Click to expand...

  as are we all.  the Japanese in WW2 did not want to invade the USA because "there is a gun behind every tree".


----------



## Cellblock2429

Redfish said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrazedScotsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't own a gun and I am a member of the NRA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I own two shotguns and not a member of any organization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are a member of the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> as are we all.  the Japanese in WW2 did not want to invade the USA because "there is a gun behind every tree".
Click to expand...

/----/ And our Generals didn't want to invade Japan's mainland because the emperor had armed the citizens with guns and assorted weapons.  In effect, there was a gun behind every shanty.


----------



## progressive hunter

Redfish said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrazedScotsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't own a gun and I am a member of the NRA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I own two shotguns and not a member of any organization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are a member of the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> as are we all.  the Japanese in WW2 did not want to invade the USA because "there is a gun behind every tree".
Click to expand...

the phrase was ,,,"behind every blade of grass"


----------



## LordBrownTrout

Lakhota said:


> *NRA RUNNING LOW ON AMMO?*
> 
> 2018 Was A Bad Year For The NRA, And The Worst Could Be Yet To Come
> 
> Fuck the NRA.  It was once a good outfit until hijacked by radicals in 1977.



No, it's the voices of hate and division in your head.


----------



## 2aguy

Cellblock2429 said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrazedScotsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't own a gun and I am a member of the NRA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I own two shotguns and not a member of any organization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are a member of the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> as are we all.  the Japanese in WW2 did not want to invade the USA because "there is a gun behind every tree".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ And our Generals didn't want to invade Japan's mainland because the emperor had armed the citizens with guns and assorted weapons.  In effect, there was a gun behind every shanty.
Click to expand...



Having the two nukes helped make that call too....


----------



## Flash

2aguy said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrazedScotsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't own a gun and I am a member of the NRA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I own two shotguns and not a member of any organization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are a member of the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> as are we all.  the Japanese in WW2 did not want to invade the USA because "there is a gun behind every tree".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ And our Generals didn't want to invade Japan's mainland because the emperor had armed the citizens with guns and assorted weapons.  In effect, there was a gun behind every shanty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Having the two nukes helped make that call too....
Click to expand...


Not to mention the US Army, US Army Air Corps, US Navy and the US Marines.


----------



## Lesh

What you idiots fail to notice is that the government used its vast resources and incredible technology to overcome the potential individual opposition.

And they'd do it again if needed.


----------



## danielpalos

Cellblock2429 said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrazedScotsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't own a gun and I am a member of the NRA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I own two shotguns and not a member of any organization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are a member of the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> as are we all.  the Japanese in WW2 did not want to invade the USA because "there is a gun behind every tree".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ And our Generals didn't want to invade Japan's mainland because the emperor had armed the citizens with guns and assorted weapons.  In effect, there was a gun behind every shanty.
Click to expand...

It was only a matter a time before their infrastructure collapsed.  The nuclear option may have been a lesser Bad.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> It was only a matter a time before their infrastructure collapsed. The nuclear option may have been a lesser Bad.


This is true and I think the Japanese recognize that as well.

The nuclear option was necessary because there was a gun behind every blade of  grass for both countries.

That is a powerful deterrent for would-be invaders.

Arm yourselves.


----------



## DandyDonovan

progressive hunter said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrazedScotsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't own a gun and I am a member of the NRA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I own two shotguns and not a member of any organization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a member of the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> as are we all.  the Japanese in WW2 did not want to invade the USA because "there is a gun behind every tree".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the phrase was ,,,"behind every blade of grass"
Click to expand...



And it was never said. Fact


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was only a matter a time before their infrastructure collapsed. The nuclear option may have been a lesser Bad.
> 
> 
> 
> This is true and I think the Japanese recognize that as well.
> 
> The nuclear option was necessary because there was a gun behind every blade of  grass for both countries.
> 
> That is a powerful deterrent for would-be invaders.
> 
> Arm yourselves.
Click to expand...

The point was, we merely needed to lay siege and wait them out.  The nuclear option may have the lesser Bad.


----------



## Rigby5

Lesh said:


> What you idiots fail to notice is that the government used its vast resources and incredible technology to overcome the potential individual opposition.
> 
> And they'd do it again if needed.




No, you can nuke Japan if your bosses live the US, but you can't nuke the US.
The military is not capable of disarming a rebellious general population if it is armed.
Never has the US military succeeded against a well armed insurgency.
Vietnam should have taught everyone that lesson.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrazedScotsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't own a gun and I am a member of the NRA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I own two shotguns and not a member of any organization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are a member of the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> as are we all.  the Japanese in WW2 did not want to invade the USA because "there is a gun behind every tree".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ And our Generals didn't want to invade Japan's mainland because the emperor had armed the citizens with guns and assorted weapons.  In effect, there was a gun behind every shanty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was only a matter a time before their infrastructure collapsed.  The nuclear option may have been a lesser Bad.
Click to expand...



Except that Japan had been trying desperately to surrender for half a year before the nukes.
It was just that they only had direct communications with the Soviets, and Truman and Stalin had agreed to pretend to be confused when they discussed the Japanese surrender offers at Potsdam.  Read the Truman "Potsdam Diaries".


----------



## Flash

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was only a matter a time before their infrastructure collapsed. The nuclear option may have been a lesser Bad.
> 
> 
> 
> This is true and I think the Japanese recognize that as well.
> 
> The nuclear option was necessary because there was a gun behind every blade of  grass for both countries.
> 
> That is a powerful deterrent for would-be invaders.
> 
> Arm yourselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point was, we merely needed to lay siege and wait them out.  The nuclear option may have the lesser Bad.
Click to expand...



Or kick their ass and get it over with, which is exactly what happened.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was only a matter a time before their infrastructure collapsed. The nuclear option may have been a lesser Bad.
> 
> 
> 
> This is true and I think the Japanese recognize that as well.
> 
> The nuclear option was necessary because there was a gun behind every blade of  grass for both countries.
> 
> That is a powerful deterrent for would-be invaders.
> 
> Arm yourselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point was, we merely needed to lay siege and wait them out.  The nuclear option may have the lesser Bad.
Click to expand...


No point in any siege at all.
It is easy to turn a whole island into a penal colony.
You just trade food shipments for any POWs they might have had on the mainland.


----------



## Flash

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> I own two shotguns and not a member of any organization.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a member of the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> as are we all.  the Japanese in WW2 did not want to invade the USA because "there is a gun behind every tree".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ And our Generals didn't want to invade Japan's mainland because the emperor had armed the citizens with guns and assorted weapons.  In effect, there was a gun behind every shanty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was only a matter a time before their infrastructure collapsed.  The nuclear option may have been a lesser Bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Except that Japan had been trying desperately to surrender for half a year before the nukes.
> It was just that they only had direct communications with the Soviets, and Truman and Stalin had agreed to pretend to be confused when they discussed the Japanese surrender offers at Potsdam.  Read the Truman "Potsdam Diaries".
Click to expand...



"Desperately"????  LOL!

They didn't work at it very hard if they were as desperate as you say they were.


----------



## Flash

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was only a matter a time before their infrastructure collapsed. The nuclear option may have been a lesser Bad.
> 
> 
> 
> This is true and I think the Japanese recognize that as well.
> 
> The nuclear option was necessary because there was a gun behind every blade of  grass for both countries.
> 
> That is a powerful deterrent for would-be invaders.
> 
> Arm yourselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point was, we merely needed to lay siege and wait them out.  The nuclear option may have the lesser Bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No point in any siege at all.
> It is easy to turn a whole island into a penal colony.
> You just trade food shipments for any POWs they might have had on the mainland.
Click to expand...



Or nuke their sorry asses and get it over with, which is exactly what happened.


----------



## Rigby5

Flash said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was only a matter a time before their infrastructure collapsed. The nuclear option may have been a lesser Bad.
> 
> 
> 
> This is true and I think the Japanese recognize that as well.
> 
> The nuclear option was necessary because there was a gun behind every blade of  grass for both countries.
> 
> That is a powerful deterrent for would-be invaders.
> 
> Arm yourselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point was, we merely needed to lay siege and wait them out.  The nuclear option may have the lesser Bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Or kick their ass and get it over with, which is exactly what happened.
Click to expand...


Very poor choice because no matter how one tries to justify it, it was totally and completely illegal to attack whole cities of civilians.
There is no way to ever make that anything but a serious war crime, that sets an incredibly bad precedent.
You could almost justify attacking civilians in an democratic republic, where each individual is somewhat responsible for that the government does, but the civilians in imperial Japan were totally and completely innocent, since they had no part in starting the war.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> I own two shotguns and not a member of any organization.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a member of the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> as are we all.  the Japanese in WW2 did not want to invade the USA because "there is a gun behind every tree".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ And our Generals didn't want to invade Japan's mainland because the emperor had armed the citizens with guns and assorted weapons.  In effect, there was a gun behind every shanty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was only a matter a time before their infrastructure collapsed.  The nuclear option may have been a lesser Bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Except that Japan had been trying desperately to surrender for half a year before the nukes.
> It was just that they only had direct communications with the Soviets, and Truman and Stalin had agreed to pretend to be confused when they discussed the Japanese surrender offers at Potsdam.  Read the Truman "Potsdam Diaries".
Click to expand...

they had radio.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was only a matter a time before their infrastructure collapsed. The nuclear option may have been a lesser Bad.
> 
> 
> 
> This is true and I think the Japanese recognize that as well.
> 
> The nuclear option was necessary because there was a gun behind every blade of  grass for both countries.
> 
> That is a powerful deterrent for would-be invaders.
> 
> Arm yourselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point was, we merely needed to lay siege and wait them out.  The nuclear option may have the lesser Bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No point in any siege at all.
> It is easy to turn a whole island into a penal colony.
> You just trade food shipments for any POWs they might have had on the mainland.
Click to expand...

The holdup was, they had to surrender first.


----------



## DandyDonovan

Rigby5 said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was only a matter a time before their infrastructure collapsed. The nuclear option may have been a lesser Bad.
> 
> 
> 
> This is true and I think the Japanese recognize that as well.
> 
> The nuclear option was necessary because there was a gun behind every blade of  grass for both countries.
> 
> That is a powerful deterrent for would-be invaders.
> 
> Arm yourselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point was, we merely needed to lay siege and wait them out.  The nuclear option may have the lesser Bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Or kick their ass and get it over with, which is exactly what happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very poor choice because no matter how one tries to justify it, it was totally and completely illegal to attack whole cities of civilians.
> There is no way to ever make that anything but a serious war crime, that sets an incredibly bad precedent.
> You could almost justify attacking civilians in an democratic republic, where each individual is somewhat responsible for that the government does, but the civilians in imperial Japan were totally and completely innocent, since they had no part in starting the war.
Click to expand...



You should try reading a history book if you believe that our use of atomic weapons was the first time a civilian population had been targeted during war time.


----------



## Rigby5

Flash said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a member of the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> as are we all.  the Japanese in WW2 did not want to invade the USA because "there is a gun behind every tree".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ And our Generals didn't want to invade Japan's mainland because the emperor had armed the citizens with guns and assorted weapons.  In effect, there was a gun behind every shanty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was only a matter a time before their infrastructure collapsed.  The nuclear option may have been a lesser Bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Except that Japan had been trying desperately to surrender for half a year before the nukes.
> It was just that they only had direct communications with the Soviets, and Truman and Stalin had agreed to pretend to be confused when they discussed the Japanese surrender offers at Potsdam.  Read the Truman "Potsdam Diaries".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Desperately"????  LOL!
> 
> They didn't work at it very hard if they were as desperate as you say they were.
Click to expand...


Yes they did.
They thought they had succeeded.
The only reason they had not succeeded, is that we were lying to them.
They only wanted some sort of assurances over the Emperor, because he is also a religious figure.
We said we would privately, but then publicly denied that and demanded an unconditional surrender.
If we had not lied and publicly accepted something only slightly different than an unconditional surrender, it would have been over 6 months earlier, with about a million innocent lives saved, including many US lives.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was only a matter a time before their infrastructure collapsed. The nuclear option may have been a lesser Bad.
> 
> 
> 
> This is true and I think the Japanese recognize that as well.
> 
> The nuclear option was necessary because there was a gun behind every blade of  grass for both countries.
> 
> That is a powerful deterrent for would-be invaders.
> 
> Arm yourselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point was, we merely needed to lay siege and wait them out.  The nuclear option may have the lesser Bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No point in any siege at all.
> It is easy to turn a whole island into a penal colony.
> You just trade food shipments for any POWs they might have had on the mainland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The holdup was, they had to surrender first.
Click to expand...


No, the hold  up was we had to stop publicly demanding an unconditional surrender. 
Essentially no sane person would ever surrender unconditionally.
Only a blood thirsty lunatic would ever make such a demand.
Everyone surrendering always demands women not be raped, children not be killed, no one to be tortured, etc.
Anyone demanding unconditional surrender should be shot for treason, because we are supposed to be a nation based on the inherent rights of ALL people, not just citizens.


----------



## Rigby5

DandyDonovan said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was only a matter a time before their infrastructure collapsed. The nuclear option may have been a lesser Bad.
> 
> 
> 
> This is true and I think the Japanese recognize that as well.
> 
> The nuclear option was necessary because there was a gun behind every blade of  grass for both countries.
> 
> That is a powerful deterrent for would-be invaders.
> 
> Arm yourselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point was, we merely needed to lay siege and wait them out.  The nuclear option may have the lesser Bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Or kick their ass and get it over with, which is exactly what happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very poor choice because no matter how one tries to justify it, it was totally and completely illegal to attack whole cities of civilians.
> There is no way to ever make that anything but a serious war crime, that sets an incredibly bad precedent.
> You could almost justify attacking civilians in an democratic republic, where each individual is somewhat responsible for that the government does, but the civilians in imperial Japan were totally and completely innocent, since they had no part in starting the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You should try reading a history book if you believe that our use of atomic weapons was the first time a civilian population had been targeted during war time.
Click to expand...


Of course it was not the first time civilians had been deliberately targeted, but it still is illegal each time it is done, like Dresden.
Plenty of Germans and Japanese were convicted and executed for their crimes against civilians, but so should a lot of Allied commanders, including Truman.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a member of the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> as are we all.  the Japanese in WW2 did not want to invade the USA because "there is a gun behind every tree".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /----/ And our Generals didn't want to invade Japan's mainland because the emperor had armed the citizens with guns and assorted weapons.  In effect, there was a gun behind every shanty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was only a matter a time before their infrastructure collapsed.  The nuclear option may have been a lesser Bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Except that Japan had been trying desperately to surrender for half a year before the nukes.
> It was just that they only had direct communications with the Soviets, and Truman and Stalin had agreed to pretend to be confused when they discussed the Japanese surrender offers at Potsdam.  Read the Truman "Potsdam Diaries".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they had radio.
Click to expand...



You can't negotiate a surrender over a radio.  
First of all, they had tried to use the radio, and we pretended we did not believe who they were.
You can not verify identity over a radio.
Second is that it is not secret, and anyone can be listening in.


----------



## DandyDonovan

Rigby5 said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is true and I think the Japanese recognize that as well.
> 
> The nuclear option was necessary because there was a gun behind every blade of  grass for both countries.
> 
> That is a powerful deterrent for would-be invaders.
> 
> Arm yourselves.
> 
> 
> 
> The point was, we merely needed to lay siege and wait them out.  The nuclear option may have the lesser Bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Or kick their ass and get it over with, which is exactly what happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very poor choice because no matter how one tries to justify it, it was totally and completely illegal to attack whole cities of civilians.
> There is no way to ever make that anything but a serious war crime, that sets an incredibly bad precedent.
> You could almost justify attacking civilians in an democratic republic, where each individual is somewhat responsible for that the government does, but the civilians in imperial Japan were totally and completely innocent, since they had no part in starting the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You should try reading a history book if you believe that our use of atomic weapons was the first time a civilian population had been targeted during war time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it was not the first time civilians had been deliberately targeted, but it still is illegal each time it is done, like Dresden.
> Plenty of Germans and Japanese were convicted and executed for their crimes against civilians, but so should a lot of Allied commanders, including Truman.
Click to expand...


No one was charged or convicted for such.

How many cities were bombed with conventional weapons prior to our use of atomic weapons, from both sides, and no one was tried for that.


----------



## Flash

Rigby5 said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> as are we all.  the Japanese in WW2 did not want to invade the USA because "there is a gun behind every tree".
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ And our Generals didn't want to invade Japan's mainland because the emperor had armed the citizens with guns and assorted weapons.  In effect, there was a gun behind every shanty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was only a matter a time before their infrastructure collapsed.  The nuclear option may have been a lesser Bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Except that Japan had been trying desperately to surrender for half a year before the nukes.
> It was just that they only had direct communications with the Soviets, and Truman and Stalin had agreed to pretend to be confused when they discussed the Japanese surrender offers at Potsdam.  Read the Truman "Potsdam Diaries".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Desperately"????  LOL!
> 
> They didn't work at it very hard if they were as desperate as you say they were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they did.
> They thought they had succeeded.
> The only reason they had not succeeded, is that we were lying to them.
> They only wanted some sort of assurances over the Emperor, because he is also a religious figure.
> We said we would privately, but then publicly denied that and demanded an unconditional surrender.
> If we had not lied and publicly accepted something only slightly different than an unconditional surrender, it would have been over 6 months earlier, with about a million innocent lives saved, including many US lives.
Click to expand...



I am not sure that the Japs would have surrendered earlier with an assurance the Emperor would be spared.  That is kinda revisionist history and is not compatible with the fact that the military leadership tried to prevent a surrender by the Emperor even after the bombs were drops.

However, all that conjecture is moot now, isn't it?  We kick their ass and we let them keep their stupid Emperor and nowadays (in relative terms) the Japs are good boys and girls.


----------



## Rigby5

DandyDonovan said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point was, we merely needed to lay siege and wait them out.  The nuclear option may have the lesser Bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or kick their ass and get it over with, which is exactly what happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very poor choice because no matter how one tries to justify it, it was totally and completely illegal to attack whole cities of civilians.
> There is no way to ever make that anything but a serious war crime, that sets an incredibly bad precedent.
> You could almost justify attacking civilians in an democratic republic, where each individual is somewhat responsible for that the government does, but the civilians in imperial Japan were totally and completely innocent, since they had no part in starting the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You should try reading a history book if you believe that our use of atomic weapons was the first time a civilian population had been targeted during war time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it was not the first time civilians had been deliberately targeted, but it still is illegal each time it is done, like Dresden.
> Plenty of Germans and Japanese were convicted and executed for their crimes against civilians, but so should a lot of Allied commanders, including Truman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one was charged or convicted for such.
> 
> How many cities were bombed with conventional weapons prior to our use of atomic weapons, from both sides, and no one was tried for that.
Click to expand...



Deliberately bombing civilian populations with conventional weapons is clearly a war crime.  The reason the Germans and Japanese were not charged with that is because they never did it.  When London was bombed, it was the industrial centers that were targeted, not residential centers.  And Hitler only stupidly attacked London at all because the British had first bombed Berlin, in June of 1940, and he reacted emotionally, as the British had hoped.

{...
When the Second World War began in 1939, the President of the United States (then a neutral power), Franklin D. Roosevelt, issued a request to the major belligerents to confine their air raids to military targets.[4] The French and the British agreed to abide by the request, with the provision that this was "upon the understanding that these same rules of warfare will be scrupulously observed by all of their opponents".[5]

The United Kingdom had a policy of using aerial bombing only against military targets and against infrastructure such as ports and railways of direct military importance. While it was acknowledged that the aerial bombing of Germany would cause civilian casualties, the British government renounced the deliberate bombing of civilian property, outside combat zones, as a military tactic.[6] This policy was abandoned on 15 May 1940, two days after the German air attack on Rotterdam, when the RAF was given permission to attack targets in the Ruhr, including oil plants and other civilian industrial targets that aided the German war effort, such as blast furnaces that at night were self illuminating. The first RAF raid on the interior of Germany took place on the night of 10 – 11 May (on Dortmund).[7] The _Jules Verne_, a variant of the Farman F.220 of the French Naval Aviation, was the first Allied bomber to raid Berlin: on the night of 7 June 1940 it dropped eight bombs of 250 kg and 80 of 10 kg weight on the German capital.
...}
Bombing of Berlin in World War II - Wikipedia

There can be no doubt at all that the Allies were the first and only parties guilty of the war crimes of deliberately targeting civilian populations from the air.  The fact those crimes were never prosecuted itself is just another crime.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was only a matter a time before their infrastructure collapsed. The nuclear option may have been a lesser Bad.
> 
> 
> 
> This is true and I think the Japanese recognize that as well.
> 
> The nuclear option was necessary because there was a gun behind every blade of  grass for both countries.
> 
> That is a powerful deterrent for would-be invaders.
> 
> Arm yourselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point was, we merely needed to lay siege and wait them out.  The nuclear option may have the lesser Bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No point in any siege at all.
> It is easy to turn a whole island into a penal colony.
> You just trade food shipments for any POWs they might have had on the mainland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The holdup was, they had to surrender first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the hold  up was we had to stop publicly demanding an unconditional surrender.
> Essentially no sane person would ever surrender unconditionally.
> Only a blood thirsty lunatic would ever make such a demand.
> Everyone surrendering always demands women not be raped, children not be killed, no one to be tortured, etc.
> Anyone demanding unconditional surrender should be shot for treason, because we are supposed to be a nation based on the inherent rights of ALL people, not just citizens.
Click to expand...

The threat of a siege should have been sufficient.


----------



## Rigby5

Flash said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /----/ And our Generals didn't want to invade Japan's mainland because the emperor had armed the citizens with guns and assorted weapons.  In effect, there was a gun behind every shanty.
> 
> 
> 
> It was only a matter a time before their infrastructure collapsed.  The nuclear option may have been a lesser Bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Except that Japan had been trying desperately to surrender for half a year before the nukes.
> It was just that they only had direct communications with the Soviets, and Truman and Stalin had agreed to pretend to be confused when they discussed the Japanese surrender offers at Potsdam.  Read the Truman "Potsdam Diaries".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Desperately"????  LOL!
> 
> They didn't work at it very hard if they were as desperate as you say they were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they did.
> They thought they had succeeded.
> The only reason they had not succeeded, is that we were lying to them.
> They only wanted some sort of assurances over the Emperor, because he is also a religious figure.
> We said we would privately, but then publicly denied that and demanded an unconditional surrender.
> If we had not lied and publicly accepted something only slightly different than an unconditional surrender, it would have been over 6 months earlier, with about a million innocent lives saved, including many US lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure that the Japs would have surrendered earlier with an assurance the Emperor would be spared.  That is kinda revisionist history and is not compatible with the fact that the military leadership tried to prevent a surrender by the Emperor even after the bombs were drops.
> 
> However, all that conjecture is moot now, isn't it?  We kick their ass and we let them keep their stupid Emperor and nowadays (in relative terms) the Japs are good boys and girls.
Click to expand...


The atomic bombs had absolutely no strategic value at all.  We did far more damage and killed more in every single incendiary air raid before the atomics were used.  The atomic bombs had absolutely nothing at all to do with the surrender.  They never even had time to get investigators to the sites to evaluate anything.

And the reason it is not at all moot is because law is based on precedent, so we established the precedent that put the world back to Medieval days, where civilian populations were routinely targeted in order to intimidate surrender.  No matter what we claim to be civilized law, we have established the fact that whomever can commit the worst terror attacks against innocent civilians, wins.  So not only can you expect a lot of terrorists attacks, but they are all our own fault.  We established the precedent.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Rigby5 said:


> Very poor choice because no matter how one tries to justify it, it was totally and completely illegal to attack whole cities of civilians.


Yes, and EVERYBODY did it during WW2, so take that self-righteous horseshit and get the fuck out.  If nobody is obeying the rules, the rules don't exist.

All is fair in love and war. 

Quit making the U.S. out to be the bad guy.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Redfish said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrazedScotsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't own a gun and I am a member of the NRA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I own two shotguns and not a member of any organization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are a member of the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> as are we all.  the Japanese in WW2 did not want to invade the USA because "there is a gun behind every tree".
Click to expand...


Anyone who would believe that myth is beyond the pale of reality.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is true and I think the Japanese recognize that as well.
> 
> The nuclear option was necessary because there was a gun behind every blade of  grass for both countries.
> 
> That is a powerful deterrent for would-be invaders.
> 
> Arm yourselves.
> 
> 
> 
> The point was, we merely needed to lay siege and wait them out.  The nuclear option may have the lesser Bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No point in any siege at all.
> It is easy to turn a whole island into a penal colony.
> You just trade food shipments for any POWs they might have had on the mainland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The holdup was, they had to surrender first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the hold  up was we had to stop publicly demanding an unconditional surrender.
> Essentially no sane person would ever surrender unconditionally.
> Only a blood thirsty lunatic would ever make such a demand.
> Everyone surrendering always demands women not be raped, children not be killed, no one to be tortured, etc.
> Anyone demanding unconditional surrender should be shot for treason, because we are supposed to be a nation based on the inherent rights of ALL people, not just citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The threat of a siege should have been sufficient.
Click to expand...



And the siege was to make Japan eager to surrender.
In fact, the main reason Japan surrendered was the mining of the ocean between China and Japan.
We dropped mines from bombers.
Japan was starving, because all the merchant ships attempting to cross had been sunk.
They were desperate to surrender.
The only reason the surrender did not occur is because we refused to acknowledge it, because we wanted to test our atomic bombs that we had spent billions perfecting.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point was, we merely needed to lay siege and wait them out.  The nuclear option may have the lesser Bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No point in any siege at all.
> It is easy to turn a whole island into a penal colony.
> You just trade food shipments for any POWs they might have had on the mainland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The holdup was, they had to surrender first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the hold  up was we had to stop publicly demanding an unconditional surrender.
> Essentially no sane person would ever surrender unconditionally.
> Only a blood thirsty lunatic would ever make such a demand.
> Everyone surrendering always demands women not be raped, children not be killed, no one to be tortured, etc.
> Anyone demanding unconditional surrender should be shot for treason, because we are supposed to be a nation based on the inherent rights of ALL people, not just citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The threat of a siege should have been sufficient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And the siege was to make Japan eager to surrender.
> In fact, the main reason Japan surrendered was the mining of the ocean between China and Japan.
> We dropped mines from bombers.
> Japan was starving, because all the merchant ships attempting to cross had been sunk.
> They were desperate to surrender.
> The only reason the surrender did not occur is because we refused to acknowledge it, because we wanted to test our atomic bombs that we had spent billions perfecting.
Click to expand...

Not surrendering earlier could have been a lesser Good.


----------



## Rigby5

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very poor choice because no matter how one tries to justify it, it was totally and completely illegal to attack whole cities of civilians.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and EVERYBODY did it during WW2, so take that self-righteous horseshit and get the fuck out.  If nobody is obeying the rules, the rules don't exist.
> 
> All is fair in love and war.
> 
> Quit making the U.S. out to be the bad guy.
Click to expand...


Oh, so when did the Axis powers ever deliberately target civilian populations?
The closest you could try to get to that might be Nanking in 1937, but since that did not bother anyone else, I doubt that was sufficient.
And if you were to quote Iris Chang's book on the "Rape of Nanking", you would find it was discredited for being so poorly written and full of errors.

All is never fair in love or war.
For example, can you ever find a justification for rape?
Don't think so.
Rules of war have to always exist if we intend to have a society worth living in.
A society that does not obey the rules of war is useless and has to be destroyed so someone can start over with something worthwhile.
Those who do not obey the rules of war can not come back and be trusted citizens any more.
They are damaged goods, to be locked up safely.


----------



## Rigby5

Vandalshandle said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrazedScotsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't own a gun and I am a member of the NRA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I own two shotguns and not a member of any organization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are a member of the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> as are we all.  the Japanese in WW2 did not want to invade the USA because "there is a gun behind every tree".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone who would believe that myth is beyond the pale of reality.
Click to expand...



It is well documented that the Japanese never intended to even attack Australia, because they realized even that was way beyond their capabilities.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No point in any siege at all.
> It is easy to turn a whole island into a penal colony.
> You just trade food shipments for any POWs they might have had on the mainland.
> 
> 
> 
> The holdup was, they had to surrender first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the hold  up was we had to stop publicly demanding an unconditional surrender.
> Essentially no sane person would ever surrender unconditionally.
> Only a blood thirsty lunatic would ever make such a demand.
> Everyone surrendering always demands women not be raped, children not be killed, no one to be tortured, etc.
> Anyone demanding unconditional surrender should be shot for treason, because we are supposed to be a nation based on the inherent rights of ALL people, not just citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The threat of a siege should have been sufficient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And the siege was to make Japan eager to surrender.
> In fact, the main reason Japan surrendered was the mining of the ocean between China and Japan.
> We dropped mines from bombers.
> Japan was starving, because all the merchant ships attempting to cross had been sunk.
> They were desperate to surrender.
> The only reason the surrender did not occur is because we refused to acknowledge it, because we wanted to test our atomic bombs that we had spent billions perfecting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not surrendering earlier could have been a lesser Good.
Click to expand...


No good came out of using the nukes.
It created the current balance of terror, where civilian populations are held hostage to the military safely in their bunkers and submarines.
It not only is the least civilized of all possibilities, but enshrines terrorism against civilians as the whole strategy.


----------



## Flash

Rigby5 said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrazedScotsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't own a gun and I am a member of the NRA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I own two shotguns and not a member of any organization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are a member of the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> as are we all.  the Japanese in WW2 did not want to invade the USA because "there is a gun behind every tree".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone who would believe that myth is beyond the pale of reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is well documented that the Japanese never intended to even attack Australia, because they realized even that was way beyond their capabilities.
Click to expand...



You are confused. They did attack Australia.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/jap...n-remembered-76-years-on-20180219-h0w9yp.html

*Japanese attack on Darwin remembered 76 years on*


----------



## Uncensored2008

Lakhota said:


> *NRA RUNNING LOW ON AMMO?*
> 
> 2018 Was A Bad Year For The NRA, And The Worst Could Be Yet To Come
> 
> Fuck the NRA.  It was once a good outfit until hijacked by radicals in 1977.




The NRA is the only legitimate Civil Rights group in America; no wonder a Stalinist like you hates us.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> CrazedScotsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't own a gun and I am a member of the NRA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I own two shotguns and not a member of any organization.
Click to expand...


If you support civil rights, support the NRA. If you oppose civil rights, join the democrats.

Simple choice,


----------



## Uncensored2008

Redfish said:


> [
> as are we all.  the Japanese in WW2 did not want to invade the USA because "there is a gun behind every tree".



So, exactly the same reason democrats have not marched Christians off to death camps, then.....


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The holdup was, they had to surrender first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the hold  up was we had to stop publicly demanding an unconditional surrender.
> Essentially no sane person would ever surrender unconditionally.
> Only a blood thirsty lunatic would ever make such a demand.
> Everyone surrendering always demands women not be raped, children not be killed, no one to be tortured, etc.
> Anyone demanding unconditional surrender should be shot for treason, because we are supposed to be a nation based on the inherent rights of ALL people, not just citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The threat of a siege should have been sufficient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And the siege was to make Japan eager to surrender.
> In fact, the main reason Japan surrendered was the mining of the ocean between China and Japan.
> We dropped mines from bombers.
> Japan was starving, because all the merchant ships attempting to cross had been sunk.
> They were desperate to surrender.
> The only reason the surrender did not occur is because we refused to acknowledge it, because we wanted to test our atomic bombs that we had spent billions perfecting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not surrendering earlier could have been a lesser Good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No good came out of using the nukes.
> It created the current balance of terror, where civilian populations are held hostage to the military safely in their bunkers and submarines.
> It not only is the least civilized of all possibilities, but enshrines terrorism against civilians as the whole strategy.
Click to expand...

lousy right wing management.  if they truly believed in Capitalism we would be engaging the world with Capitalism not our "gun boat diplomacy".


----------



## westwall

danielpalos said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your argument is that the militia was designed for a specific purpose within the Constitution.
> 
> We know what the purpose is, because they wrote it down.
> 
> It's in article 1, section 8
> 
> 
> "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
> The milita was designed to prevent lawlessness at the FEDERAL LEVEL. i.e. the feds could call up the militia for this purpose. Remember, the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the states at this time, only the Federal govt.
> 
> So, if a state couldn't handle the job, then the militia could take over.
> 
> That's not to say that the militia didn't do it at a state level, that's besides the point here. We're talking about the US Constitution and not state constitutions.
> 
> This means the 2A is also based around this intention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the second amendment was put in the constitution to protect the people from the government,  any other interpretation is simply wrong.
> 
> the founders came from countries where the government ruled with an iron hand and the people had no say or rights.   They specifically prevented that from happening here when they wrote the constitution.  I think you need a course in American history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I agree completely.
> But the 4th and 5th amendment also show individual arms were necessary to prevent murders, robberies, pirates, gangs, natives attacks, etc.  And we have even more threats these days, like LA riots, M-13, natural disasters, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But this is guns could be used for such things. It doesn't mean they were protected, and it certainly doesn't mean they were protected by the 2A.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so in your vision of the USA only the government and criminals would have guns.   That's exactly why the founders left Europe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia are declared Necessary and shall not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
Click to expand...






Well Regulated means IN GOOD WORKING ORDER.  It has NOTHING to do with government control.


----------



## danielpalos

westwall said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> the second amendment was put in the constitution to protect the people from the government,  any other interpretation is simply wrong.
> 
> the founders came from countries where the government ruled with an iron hand and the people had no say or rights.   They specifically prevented that from happening here when they wrote the constitution.  I think you need a course in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I agree completely.
> But the 4th and 5th amendment also show individual arms were necessary to prevent murders, robberies, pirates, gangs, natives attacks, etc.  And we have even more threats these days, like LA riots, M-13, natural disasters, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But this is guns could be used for such things. It doesn't mean they were protected, and it certainly doesn't mean they were protected by the 2A.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so in your vision of the USA only the government and criminals would have guns.   That's exactly why the founders left Europe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia are declared Necessary and shall not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well Regulated means IN GOOD WORKING ORDER.  It has NOTHING to do with government control.
Click to expand...

where does the right wing come up with their right wing fantasy?

_The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._


----------



## hunarcy

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point was, we merely needed to lay siege and wait them out.  The nuclear option may have the lesser Bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No point in any siege at all.
> It is easy to turn a whole island into a penal colony.
> You just trade food shipments for any POWs they might have had on the mainland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The holdup was, they had to surrender first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the hold  up was we had to stop publicly demanding an unconditional surrender.
> Essentially no sane person would ever surrender unconditionally.
> Only a blood thirsty lunatic would ever make such a demand.
> Everyone surrendering always demands women not be raped, children not be killed, no one to be tortured, etc.
> Anyone demanding unconditional surrender should be shot for treason, because we are supposed to be a nation based on the inherent rights of ALL people, not just citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The threat of a siege should have been sufficient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And the siege was to make Japan eager to surrender.
> In fact, the main reason Japan surrendered was the mining of the ocean between China and Japan.
> We dropped mines from bombers.
> Japan was starving, because all the merchant ships attempting to cross had been sunk.
> They were desperate to surrender.
> The only reason the surrender did not occur is because we refused to acknowledge it, because we wanted to test our atomic bombs that we had spent billions perfecting.
Click to expand...


Revisionist garbage that only a fool would offer as history.  Not worth reading any further, so off to ignoreland with you.


----------



## westwall

danielpalos said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I agree completely.
> But the 4th and 5th amendment also show individual arms were necessary to prevent murders, robberies, pirates, gangs, natives attacks, etc.  And we have even more threats these days, like LA riots, M-13, natural disasters, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But this is guns could be used for such things. It doesn't mean they were protected, and it certainly doesn't mean they were protected by the 2A.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so in your vision of the USA only the government and criminals would have guns.   That's exactly why the founders left Europe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia are declared Necessary and shall not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well Regulated means IN GOOD WORKING ORDER.  It has NOTHING to do with government control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> where does the right wing come up with their right wing fantasy?
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
Click to expand...




Were not so ignorant or were you not so intellectually dishonest you would know what the term meant back then.  Here, Page 10 of the introduction dealing with CLOCKS.  So, mr. pseudo intellectual, where are all of those laws dealing with regulating clocks?

Marking Modern Times


----------



## Lesh

Uncensored2008 said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you idiots fail to notice is that the government used its vast resources and incredible technology to overcome the potential individual opposition.
> 
> And they'd do it again if needed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like the Russians in Afghanistan and the Americans in Vietnam, eh Leach?
Click to expand...

A foreign intervention is vastly different from a civil war...douchebag


----------



## Lesh

westwall said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> the second amendment was put in the constitution to protect the people from the government,  any other interpretation is simply wrong.
> 
> the founders came from countries where the government ruled with an iron hand and the people had no say or rights.   They specifically prevented that from happening here when they wrote the constitution.  I think you need a course in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I agree completely.
> But the 4th and 5th amendment also show individual arms were necessary to prevent murders, robberies, pirates, gangs, natives attacks, etc.  And we have even more threats these days, like LA riots, M-13, natural disasters, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But this is guns could be used for such things. It doesn't mean they were protected, and it certainly doesn't mean they were protected by the 2A.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so in your vision of the USA only the government and criminals would have guns.   That's exactly why the founders left Europe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia are declared Necessary and shall not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well Regulated means IN GOOD WORKING ORDER.  It has NOTHING to do with government control.
Click to expand...

Bullshit. That well regulated militia is described in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution and it's far more specific than what you describe


----------



## westwall

Lesh said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I agree completely.
> But the 4th and 5th amendment also show individual arms were necessary to prevent murders, robberies, pirates, gangs, natives attacks, etc.  And we have even more threats these days, like LA riots, M-13, natural disasters, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But this is guns could be used for such things. It doesn't mean they were protected, and it certainly doesn't mean they were protected by the 2A.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so in your vision of the USA only the government and criminals would have guns.   That's exactly why the founders left Europe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia are declared Necessary and shall not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well Regulated means IN GOOD WORKING ORDER.  It has NOTHING to do with government control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit. That well regulated militia is described in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution and it's far more specific than what you describe
Click to expand...






The term Well Regulated was in use from the 1500's to the 1800's and describes a mechanical function, or a well run business.  Try learning some English language history before you make a fool of yourself again.  Put another way, why do clocks from that era have WELL REGULATED embossed on their faces?


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

Lakhota said:


> Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited  never have been and never will be  Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star



*We should ban guns in the Democrat states and watch what happens.*


----------



## westwall

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited  never have been and never will be  Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *We should ban guns in the Democrat states and watch what happens.*
Click to expand...






Yup.  Take them out of the hands of the police and the progressive elites armed guards as well.  "What's good for the goose" and all of that....


----------



## Lesh

westwall said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But this is guns could be used for such things. It doesn't mean they were protected, and it certainly doesn't mean they were protected by the 2A.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so in your vision of the USA only the government and criminals would have guns.   That's exactly why the founders left Europe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia are declared Necessary and shall not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well Regulated means IN GOOD WORKING ORDER.  It has NOTHING to do with government control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit. That well regulated militia is described in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution and it's far more specific than what you describe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The term Well Regulated was in use from the 1500's to the 1800's and describes a mechanical function, or a well run business.  Try learning some English language history before you make a fool of yourself again.  Put another way, why do clocks from that era have WELL REGULATED embossed on their faces?
Click to expand...

Again...the Militia is mentioned TWICE in the Constitution. The 2A talks about a Well regulated militia and Article 1 Section 8 describes a militia that is organized, has rank, discipline and training..."Well regulated".

But hey...if you insist on continuing on this tac the DIck Act GOVERNS what remains of the militia...well regulated or not...and it covers ONLY males between 17 and 45.


----------



## westwall

Lesh said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> so in your vision of the USA only the government and criminals would have guns.   That's exactly why the founders left Europe.
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia are declared Necessary and shall not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well Regulated means IN GOOD WORKING ORDER.  It has NOTHING to do with government control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit. That well regulated militia is described in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution and it's far more specific than what you describe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The term Well Regulated was in use from the 1500's to the 1800's and describes a mechanical function, or a well run business.  Try learning some English language history before you make a fool of yourself again.  Put another way, why do clocks from that era have WELL REGULATED embossed on their faces?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again...the Militia is mentioned TWICE in the Constitution. The 2A talks about a Well regulated militia and Article 1 Section 8 describes a militia that is organized, has rank, discipline and training..."Well regulated".
> 
> But hey...if you insist on continuing on this tac the DIck Act GOVERNS what remains of the militia...well regulated or not...and it covers ONLY males between 17 and 45.
Click to expand...





AGAIN.  WELL REGULATED has NOTHING to do with laws, and everything to do with being in good working order.  Learn some ENGLISH!


----------



## hunarcy

westwall said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia are declared Necessary and shall not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well Regulated means IN GOOD WORKING ORDER.  It has NOTHING to do with government control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit. That well regulated militia is described in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution and it's far more specific than what you describe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The term Well Regulated was in use from the 1500's to the 1800's and describes a mechanical function, or a well run business.  Try learning some English language history before you make a fool of yourself again.  Put another way, why do clocks from that era have WELL REGULATED embossed on their faces?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again...the Militia is mentioned TWICE in the Constitution. The 2A talks about a Well regulated militia and Article 1 Section 8 describes a militia that is organized, has rank, discipline and training..."Well regulated".
> 
> But hey...if you insist on continuing on this tac the DIck Act GOVERNS what remains of the militia...well regulated or not...and it covers ONLY males between 17 and 45.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AGAIN.  WELL REGULATED has NOTHING to do with laws, and everything to do with being in good working order.  Learn some ENGLISH!
Click to expand...


You're arguing with a troll.  Hoping he will accept the truth is foolish.  All you can do is keep presenting the truth so everyone else can learn.


----------



## Lesh

westwall said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia are declared Necessary and shall not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well Regulated means IN GOOD WORKING ORDER.  It has NOTHING to do with government control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit. That well regulated militia is described in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution and it's far more specific than what you describe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The term Well Regulated was in use from the 1500's to the 1800's and describes a mechanical function, or a well run business.  Try learning some English language history before you make a fool of yourself again.  Put another way, why do clocks from that era have WELL REGULATED embossed on their faces?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again...the Militia is mentioned TWICE in the Constitution. The 2A talks about a Well regulated militia and Article 1 Section 8 describes a militia that is organized, has rank, discipline and training..."Well regulated".
> 
> But hey...if you insist on continuing on this tac the DIck Act GOVERNS what remains of the militia...well regulated or not...and it covers ONLY males between 17 and 45.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess the troll is claiming that the Constitution wasn't written in English
> 
> 
> 
> AGAIN.  WELL REGULATED has NOTHING to do with laws, and everything to do with being in good working order.  Learn some ENGLISH!
Click to expand...


The Constitution is not written in English?


----------



## Rustic

Lesh said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> so in your vision of the USA only the government and criminals would have guns.   That's exactly why the founders left Europe.
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia are declared Necessary and shall not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well Regulated means IN GOOD WORKING ORDER.  It has NOTHING to do with government control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit. That well regulated militia is described in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution and it's far more specific than what you describe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The term Well Regulated was in use from the 1500's to the 1800's and describes a mechanical function, or a well run business.  Try learning some English language history before you make a fool of yourself again.  Put another way, why do clocks from that era have WELL REGULATED embossed on their faces?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again...the Militia is mentioned TWICE in the Constitution. The 2A talks about a Well regulated militia and Article 1 Section 8 describes a militia that is organized, has rank, discipline and training..."Well regulated".
> 
> But hey...if you insist on continuing on this tac the DIck Act GOVERNS what remains of the militia...well regulated or not...and it covers ONLY males between 17 and 45.
Click to expand...

Lol
Read it in the context of the era... you retarded fucker


----------



## danielpalos

westwall said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But this is guns could be used for such things. It doesn't mean they were protected, and it certainly doesn't mean they were protected by the 2A.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so in your vision of the USA only the government and criminals would have guns.   That's exactly why the founders left Europe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia are declared Necessary and shall not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well Regulated means IN GOOD WORKING ORDER.  It has NOTHING to do with government control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> where does the right wing come up with their right wing fantasy?
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were not so ignorant or were you not so intellectually dishonest you would know what the term meant back then.  Here, Page 10 of the introduction dealing with CLOCKS.  So, mr. pseudo intellectual, where are all of those laws dealing with regulating clocks?
> 
> Marking Modern Times
Click to expand...

You don't know what you are talking about, right winger.  The fallacy of appealing to ignorance is all you have.


----------



## danielpalos

westwall said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But this is guns could be used for such things. It doesn't mean they were protected, and it certainly doesn't mean they were protected by the 2A.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so in your vision of the USA only the government and criminals would have guns.   That's exactly why the founders left Europe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia are declared Necessary and shall not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well Regulated means IN GOOD WORKING ORDER.  It has NOTHING to do with government control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit. That well regulated militia is described in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution and it's far more specific than what you describe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The term Well Regulated was in use from the 1500's to the 1800's and describes a mechanical function, or a well run business.  Try learning some English language history before you make a fool of yourself again.  Put another way, why do clocks from that era have WELL REGULATED embossed on their faces?
Click to expand...

Only if you appeal to ignorance of our Constitution, right wingers. 

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.


----------



## danielpalos

westwall said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia are declared Necessary and shall not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well Regulated means IN GOOD WORKING ORDER.  It has NOTHING to do with government control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit. That well regulated militia is described in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution and it's far more specific than what you describe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The term Well Regulated was in use from the 1500's to the 1800's and describes a mechanical function, or a well run business.  Try learning some English language history before you make a fool of yourself again.  Put another way, why do clocks from that era have WELL REGULATED embossed on their faces?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again...the Militia is mentioned TWICE in the Constitution. The 2A talks about a Well regulated militia and Article 1 Section 8 describes a militia that is organized, has rank, discipline and training..."Well regulated".
> 
> But hey...if you insist on continuing on this tac the DIck Act GOVERNS what remains of the militia...well regulated or not...and it covers ONLY males between 17 and 45.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AGAIN.  WELL REGULATED has NOTHING to do with laws, and everything to do with being in good working order.  Learn some ENGLISH!
Click to expand...

Appealing to ignorance is a fallacy, right wingers.  Fallacy is all y'all have.


----------



## danielpalos

Rustic said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia are declared Necessary and shall not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well Regulated means IN GOOD WORKING ORDER.  It has NOTHING to do with government control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit. That well regulated militia is described in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution and it's far more specific than what you describe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The term Well Regulated was in use from the 1500's to the 1800's and describes a mechanical function, or a well run business.  Try learning some English language history before you make a fool of yourself again.  Put another way, why do clocks from that era have WELL REGULATED embossed on their faces?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again...the Militia is mentioned TWICE in the Constitution. The 2A talks about a Well regulated militia and Article 1 Section 8 describes a militia that is organized, has rank, discipline and training..."Well regulated".
> 
> But hey...if you insist on continuing on this tac the DIck Act GOVERNS what remains of the militia...well regulated or not...and it covers ONLY males between 17 and 45.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol
> Read it in the context of the era... you retarded fucker
Click to expand...

The right wing is clueless and Causeless.  Frivolous at the expense of the Poor is all they know.


----------



## westwall

hunarcy said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well Regulated means IN GOOD WORKING ORDER.  It has NOTHING to do with government control.
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. That well regulated militia is described in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution and it's far more specific than what you describe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The term Well Regulated was in use from the 1500's to the 1800's and describes a mechanical function, or a well run business.  Try learning some English language history before you make a fool of yourself again.  Put another way, why do clocks from that era have WELL REGULATED embossed on their faces?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again...the Militia is mentioned TWICE in the Constitution. The 2A talks about a Well regulated militia and Article 1 Section 8 describes a militia that is organized, has rank, discipline and training..."Well regulated".
> 
> But hey...if you insist on continuing on this tac the DIck Act GOVERNS what remains of the militia...well regulated or not...and it covers ONLY males between 17 and 45.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AGAIN.  WELL REGULATED has NOTHING to do with laws, and everything to do with being in good working order.  Learn some ENGLISH!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're arguing with a troll.  Hoping he will accept the truth is foolish.  All you can do is keep presenting the truth so everyone else can learn.
Click to expand...






That's why I do it.  I know dp is a mental case.  It appears lesh is his sock puppet, so obviously a mental midget as well, but the points i present are for thinking people, not them.


----------



## westwall

danielpalos said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well Regulated means IN GOOD WORKING ORDER.  It has NOTHING to do with government control.
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. That well regulated militia is described in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution and it's far more specific than what you describe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The term Well Regulated was in use from the 1500's to the 1800's and describes a mechanical function, or a well run business.  Try learning some English language history before you make a fool of yourself again.  Put another way, why do clocks from that era have WELL REGULATED embossed on their faces?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again...the Militia is mentioned TWICE in the Constitution. The 2A talks about a Well regulated militia and Article 1 Section 8 describes a militia that is organized, has rank, discipline and training..."Well regulated".
> 
> But hey...if you insist on continuing on this tac the DIck Act GOVERNS what remains of the militia...well regulated or not...and it covers ONLY males between 17 and 45.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AGAIN.  WELL REGULATED has NOTHING to do with laws, and everything to do with being in good working order.  Learn some ENGLISH!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Appealing to ignorance is a fallacy, right wingers.  Fallacy is all y'all have.
Click to expand...






And yet you are the only one demonstrating your profound ignorance on a daily basis.


----------



## danielpalos

westwall said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. That well regulated militia is described in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution and it's far more specific than what you describe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The term Well Regulated was in use from the 1500's to the 1800's and describes a mechanical function, or a well run business.  Try learning some English language history before you make a fool of yourself again.  Put another way, why do clocks from that era have WELL REGULATED embossed on their faces?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again...the Militia is mentioned TWICE in the Constitution. The 2A talks about a Well regulated militia and Article 1 Section 8 describes a militia that is organized, has rank, discipline and training..."Well regulated".
> 
> But hey...if you insist on continuing on this tac the DIck Act GOVERNS what remains of the militia...well regulated or not...and it covers ONLY males between 17 and 45.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AGAIN.  WELL REGULATED has NOTHING to do with laws, and everything to do with being in good working order.  Learn some ENGLISH!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Appealing to ignorance is a fallacy, right wingers.  Fallacy is all y'all have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you are the only one demonstrating your profound ignorance on a daily basis.
Click to expand...

anybody can Talk.  Men have arguments. 

Our Constitution is Express, not Implied.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Lesh said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you idiots fail to notice is that the government used its vast resources and incredible technology to overcome the potential individual opposition.
> 
> And they'd do it again if needed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like the Russians in Afghanistan and the Americans in Vietnam, eh Leach?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A foreign intervention is vastly different from a civil war...douchebag
Click to expand...


You think the US military would use nukes in a civil war? 

You are delusional, leach.

Look, you and your traitorous party are already waging civil war in an attempt to destroy America. So far no one has nuked you traitors. We haven't even shot you as you so richly deserve.


----------



## Uncensored2008

danielpalos said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I agree completely.
> But the 4th and 5th amendment also show individual arms were necessary to prevent murders, robberies, pirates, gangs, natives attacks, etc.  And we have even more threats these days, like LA riots, M-13, natural disasters, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But this is guns could be used for such things. It doesn't mean they were protected, and it certainly doesn't mean they were protected by the 2A.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so in your vision of the USA only the government and criminals would have guns.   That's exactly why the founders left Europe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia are declared Necessary and shall not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well Regulated means IN GOOD WORKING ORDER.  It has NOTHING to do with government control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> where does the right wing come up with their right wing fantasy?
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
Click to expand...


We're smart, educated, and not on drugs.

Well Regulated means in good working order. Learn something, you drug addled moron.


----------



## danielpalos

Uncensored2008 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But this is guns could be used for such things. It doesn't mean they were protected, and it certainly doesn't mean they were protected by the 2A.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so in your vision of the USA only the government and criminals would have guns.   That's exactly why the founders left Europe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia are declared Necessary and shall not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well Regulated means IN GOOD WORKING ORDER.  It has NOTHING to do with government control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> where does the right wing come up with their right wing fantasy?
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're smart, educated, and not on drugs.
> 
> Well Regulated means in good working order. Learn something, you drug addled moron.
Click to expand...

the ones with the most fallacies are the dumbest. 

Our Constitutions are Express not Implied.  

Only the right wing is that dumb and appeal to so much ignorance.


----------



## Markle

Cellblock2429 said:


> /----/ And our Generals didn't want to invade Japan's mainland because the emperor had armed the citizens with guns and assorted weapons. In effect, there was a gun behind every shanty.



Not true at all.  But cute try.

A bit of WW-II history would be beneficial to you.


----------



## Markle

Rigby5 said:


> Except that Japan had been trying desperately to surrender for half a year before the nukes.
> It was just that they only had direct communications with the Soviets, and Truman and Stalin had agreed to pretend to be confused when they discussed the Japanese surrender offers at Potsdam. Read the Truman "Potsdam Diaries".



Malarkey!


----------



## Markle

Rigby5 said:


> Very poor choice because no matter how one tries to justify it, it was totally and completely illegal to attack whole cities of civilians.
> There is no way to ever make that anything but a serious war crime, that sets an incredibly bad precedent.
> You could almost justify attacking civilians in an democratic republic, where each individual is somewhat responsible for that the government does, but the civilians in imperial Japan were totally and completely innocent, since they had no part in starting the war.



You seem to forget the Nazi's.  You also forget the Japanese attacks on multiple islands at the same time they attacked Pearl Harbor.  

Civilians are frequently targeted in a war with the idea to demoralize the enemy.

The Nazi's were attacking Britain's military installations.  A Nazi heavy bomber gets lost and accidentally bombs London.  Churchill is understandably infuriated.  Churchill orders the bombing of Berlin.

Shortly after the attack on Pearl Harbor came the surrender of the US on the peninsula of Bataan.  That led to the Bataan Death march.  Totally illegal.

Both Japan and the Nazi's had both brainwashed and threatened their soldiers and civilians that surrender or not fighting to the death was punishable by death.  And, they meant it.  With Japan, it was the Emporer who was, to them a religious figure, their god.  The soldiers and civilians in the Philipines were so convinced of that horror and barbarism the American soldiers would unleash on them if they surrendered, many killed their children and committed suicide rather than be captured.

The Japanese citizenry of Japan was not armed with anything other than bamboo sharpened sticks and other weapons.  The fear was not due to the Japanese being armed to the teeth with guns but rather that they would fight to the death, regardless of the casualties.

The Japanese were offered two opportunities to surrender, unconditionally.  Japan refused both times.  They conditioned their surrender on their Emperor in power.  President Truman, demanding an unconditional surrender thus necessitating the A-Bomb being dropped on Hiroshima.  Neither Hiroshima or Nagasaki were military targets.  The US needed to make a point.  The Japanese were offered another surrender after Hiroshima which they ignored, they never responded.  After Nagasaki, the Japanese surrendered with the only condition that the Emporer would remain but as a figurehead only but with no powers.  The Emporer cast the deciding vote.


----------



## Markle

Rigby5 said:


> Deliberately bombing civilian populations with conventional weapons is clearly a war crime. The reason the Germans and Japanese were not charged with that is because they never did it. When London was bombed, it was the industrial centers that were targeted, not residential centers. And Hitler only stupidly attacked London at all because the British had first bombed Berlin, in June of 1940, and he reacted emotionally, as the British had hoped.



Totally, 100% false.  Please dig into some real history books or Amazon Prime has many excellent WW-II documentaries.


----------



## Markle

Rigby5 said:


> The atomic bombs had absolutely no strategic value at all. We did far more damage and killed more in every single incendiary air raid before the atomics were used. The atomic bombs had absolutely nothing at all to do with the surrender. They never even had time to get investigators to the sites to evaluate anything.



You can't make these things up.  Are you pushing to get into the top five Trolls on USMB?  You're getting close!  

Why?


----------



## H B Lowrie

Uncensored2008 said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you idiots fail to notice is that the government used its vast resources and incredible technology to overcome the potential individual opposition.
> 
> And they'd do it again if needed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like the Russians in Afghanistan and the Americans in Vietnam, eh Leach?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A foreign intervention is vastly different from a civil war...douchebag
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think the US military would use nukes in a civil war?
Click to expand...


Slaughtered and genocided our way into a land mass, you think your whiteness will give them pause?


----------



## ptbw forever

H B Lowrie said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you idiots fail to notice is that the government used its vast resources and incredible technology to overcome the potential individual opposition.
> 
> And they'd do it again if needed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like the Russians in Afghanistan and the Americans in Vietnam, eh Leach?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A foreign intervention is vastly different from a civil war...douchebag
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think the US military would use nukes in a civil war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slaughtered and genocided our way into a land mass, you think your whiteness will give them pause?
Click to expand...

Do you people have a contest every day to see who can say the dumbest shit?


----------



## Uncensored2008

H B Lowrie said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you idiots fail to notice is that the government used its vast resources and incredible technology to overcome the potential individual opposition.
> 
> And they'd do it again if needed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like the Russians in Afghanistan and the Americans in Vietnam, eh Leach?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A foreign intervention is vastly different from a civil war...douchebag
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think the US military would use nukes in a civil war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slaughtered and genocided our way into a land mass, you think your whiteness will give them pause?
Click to expand...


So you want a race war? Why does the 12% always think that they will do well against the 63% in a race war?

BTW, to claim America engaged in genocide is beyond mere ignorance and is flat out lies.

Perhaps the most egregious act we committed was the "Trail of Tears," perpetrated by the founder of the shameful democrat party, Andrew Jackson. But as shameful as that was, it was nothing close to genocide.

Quit lying and learn some history.


----------



## danielpalos

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.


----------



## H B Lowrie

ptbw forever said:


> H B Lowrie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you idiots fail to notice is that the government used its vast resources and incredible technology to overcome the potential individual opposition.
> 
> And they'd do it again if needed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like the Russians in Afghanistan and the Americans in Vietnam, eh Leach?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A foreign intervention is vastly different from a civil war...douchebag
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think the US military would use nukes in a civil war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slaughtered and genocided our way into a land mass, you think your whiteness will give them pause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you people have a contest every day to see who can say the dumbest shit?
Click to expand...


I contest the american creation myth daily, yes.  Do you not know how euros came by this land mass?


----------



## Flash

danielpalos said:


> We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.




We have the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms but this fucking oppressive government that the stupid Moon Bats love more than life itself has incrementally taken that right away.

Case in point.  A few months ago a woman from Texas that was traveling through the state with her young daughter that legally owned a pistol and had not ever been accused of committing a crime was arrested in New York for the mere possession of that firearm.

If that ain't the fucking government taking away the right to keep and bear arms then  nothing is.  I could give many other examples where somebody that never had committed a crime was arrested for the mere possession of a firearm.  In fact that is what the Heller and McDonald cases were all about.  Individuals suing the fucking shithass government for making it illegal to merely possess a firearm.


----------



## 2aguy

H B Lowrie said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you idiots fail to notice is that the government used its vast resources and incredible technology to overcome the potential individual opposition.
> 
> And they'd do it again if needed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like the Russians in Afghanistan and the Americans in Vietnam, eh Leach?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A foreign intervention is vastly different from a civil war...douchebag
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think the US military would use nukes in a civil war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slaughtered and genocided our way into a land mass, you think your whiteness will give them pause?
Click to expand...



As opposed to the slaughter and genocide that already existed here?  Or all over the rest of the world?


----------



## Indeependent

H B Lowrie said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you idiots fail to notice is that the government used its vast resources and incredible technology to overcome the potential individual opposition.
> 
> And they'd do it again if needed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like the Russians in Afghanistan and the Americans in Vietnam, eh Leach?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A foreign intervention is vastly different from a civil war...douchebag
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think the US military would use nukes in a civil war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slaughtered and genocided our way into a land mass, you think your whiteness will give them pause?
Click to expand...

Shhh...don’t let anyone know the Natives were already warring with each other before the White man came along.


----------



## 2aguy

Indeependent said:


> H B Lowrie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you idiots fail to notice is that the government used its vast resources and incredible technology to overcome the potential individual opposition.
> 
> And they'd do it again if needed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like the Russians in Afghanistan and the Americans in Vietnam, eh Leach?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A foreign intervention is vastly different from a civil war...douchebag
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think the US military would use nukes in a civil war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slaughtered and genocided our way into a land mass, you think your whiteness will give them pause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shhh...don’t let anyone know the Natives were already warring with each other before the White man came along.
Click to expand...



And eating each other......for dinner.....


----------



## H B Lowrie

2aguy said:


> H B Lowrie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you idiots fail to notice is that the government used its vast resources and incredible technology to overcome the potential individual opposition.
> 
> And they'd do it again if needed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like the Russians in Afghanistan and the Americans in Vietnam, eh Leach?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A foreign intervention is vastly different from a civil war...douchebag
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think the US military would use nukes in a civil war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slaughtered and genocided our way into a land mass, you think your whiteness will give them pause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As opposed to the slaughter and genocide that already existed here?  Or all over the rest of the world?
Click to expand...


Someone knows nothing of the advanced civilizations that existed in the americas, and all over the world really, long before the euros who had contaminated their own land mass to such a syphilitic plague ridden dystopian extent, that the dregs of european society left the foul chamber pot showers of their feudal tenement slums to nautically caravan across the globe and bring their diseases across the borders of others; their male dominator God demanded it of them.  Papal Bulls of the 1500s called for the extermination and cleansing of the americas.

And to see the caterwauling of their descendants now is rich, oh so rich.


----------



## H B Lowrie

2aguy said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> H B Lowrie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like the Russians in Afghanistan and the Americans in Vietnam, eh Leach?
> 
> 
> 
> A foreign intervention is vastly different from a civil war...douchebag
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think the US military would use nukes in a civil war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slaughtered and genocided our way into a land mass, you think your whiteness will give them pause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shhh...don’t let anyone know the Natives were already warring with each other before the White man came along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And eating each other......for dinner.....
Click to expand...


Where did scalping come from again hon?

*Europeans indulged in cannibalism until the 1900s, two new books claim*
*Tough news to swallow: Europeans saw nothing wrong with cannibalism until the 1900s, two new books claim | Daily Mail Online*

*Cheers, reading is fundamental.*


----------



## 2aguy

H B Lowrie said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> H B Lowrie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like the Russians in Afghanistan and the Americans in Vietnam, eh Leach?
> 
> 
> 
> A foreign intervention is vastly different from a civil war...douchebag
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think the US military would use nukes in a civil war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slaughtered and genocided our way into a land mass, you think your whiteness will give them pause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As opposed to the slaughter and genocide that already existed here?  Or all over the rest of the world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone knows nothing of the advanced civilizations that existed in the americas, and all over the world really, long before the euros who had contaminated their own land mass to such a syphilitic plague ridden dystopian extent, that the dregs of european society left the foul chamber pot showers of their feudal tenement slums to nautically caravan across the globe and bring their diseases across th4e borders of others.
> 
> And to see the caterwauling of their descendants now is rich, oh so rich.
Click to expand...



You mean the Western Civilization that lives in wealth and prosperity while those civilizations you defend are still a wreck?  After having existed long before Europe came out of the Dark Ages...and those older civilizations couldn't keep up?


----------



## LuckyDuck

Lakhota said:


> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
Click to expand...

So long as there are home invasions, burglaries, rapes, murders and the threat of a looming tyrannical government in the hands of Marxists, the 2nd Amendment isn't obsolete.


----------



## danielpalos

Flash said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms but this fucking oppressive government that the stupid Moon Bats love more than life itself has incrementally taken that right away.
> 
> Case in point.  A few months ago a woman from Texas that was traveling through the state with her young daughter that legally owned a pistol and had not ever been accused of committing a crime was arrested in New York for the mere possession of that firearm.
> 
> If that ain't the fucking government taking away the right to keep and bear arms then  nothing is.  I could give many other examples where somebody that never had committed a crime was arrested for the mere possession of a firearm.  In fact that is what the Heller and McDonald cases were all about.  Individuals suing the fucking shithass government for making it illegal to merely possess a firearm.
Click to expand...

Simply mustering the militia every once in a while should reduce security problems.


----------



## Flash

Indeependent said:


> H B Lowrie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you idiots fail to notice is that the government used its vast resources and incredible technology to overcome the potential individual opposition.
> 
> And they'd do it again if needed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like the Russians in Afghanistan and the Americans in Vietnam, eh Leach?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A foreign intervention is vastly different from a civil war...douchebag
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think the US military would use nukes in a civil war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slaughtered and genocided our way into a land mass, you think your whiteness will give them pause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shhh...don’t let anyone know the Natives were already warring with each other before the White man came along.
Click to expand...



The Indians should have put up a wall and had more stringent immigration policies.


----------



## H B Lowrie

Flash said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> H B Lowrie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like the Russians in Afghanistan and the Americans in Vietnam, eh Leach?
> 
> 
> 
> A foreign intervention is vastly different from a civil war...douchebag
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think the US military would use nukes in a civil war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slaughtered and genocided our way into a land mass, you think your whiteness will give them pause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shhh...don’t let anyone know the Natives were already warring with each other before the White man came along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Indians should have put up a wall and had more stringent immigration policies.
Click to expand...


Agreed, befriending and saving the euros early on was their biggest mistake.  As I say, Pocahontas was rewarded with death in captivity in Britain, turns out King Philip was right about them.


----------



## Third Party

Where can I get one of those hats?


----------



## westwall

danielpalos said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The term Well Regulated was in use from the 1500's to the 1800's and describes a mechanical function, or a well run business.  Try learning some English language history before you make a fool of yourself again.  Put another way, why do clocks from that era have WELL REGULATED embossed on their faces?
> 
> 
> 
> Again...the Militia is mentioned TWICE in the Constitution. The 2A talks about a Well regulated militia and Article 1 Section 8 describes a militia that is organized, has rank, discipline and training..."Well regulated".
> 
> But hey...if you insist on continuing on this tac the DIck Act GOVERNS what remains of the militia...well regulated or not...and it covers ONLY males between 17 and 45.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AGAIN.  WELL REGULATED has NOTHING to do with laws, and everything to do with being in good working order.  Learn some ENGLISH!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Appealing to ignorance is a fallacy, right wingers.  Fallacy is all y'all have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you are the only one demonstrating your profound ignorance on a daily basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> anybody can Talk.  Men have arguments.
> 
> Our Constitution is Express, not Implied.
Click to expand...






Indeed it is.  "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".  Who shall not be infringed upon?  The government that makes the laws....or the PEOPLE that those laws infringe upon?  C'mon junior, you claim to have an "argument".  Make it.  So far all you have shown is an infantile understanding of the COTUS.


----------



## Ambivalent1

H B Lowrie said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> H B Lowrie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> A foreign intervention is vastly different from a civil war...douchebag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think the US military would use nukes in a civil war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slaughtered and genocided our way into a land mass, you think your whiteness will give them pause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shhh...don’t let anyone know the Natives were already warring with each other before the White man came along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And eating each other......for dinner.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did scalping come from again hon?
> 
> *Europeans indulged in cannibalism until the 1900s, two new books claim*
> *Tough news to swallow: Europeans saw nothing wrong with cannibalism until the 1900s, two new books claim | Daily Mail Online*
> 
> *Cheers, reading is fundamental.*
Click to expand...


The French taught it to the Tribes.


----------



## Flash

westwall said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again...the Militia is mentioned TWICE in the Constitution. The 2A talks about a Well regulated militia and Article 1 Section 8 describes a militia that is organized, has rank, discipline and training..."Well regulated".
> 
> But hey...if you insist on continuing on this tac the DIck Act GOVERNS what remains of the militia...well regulated or not...and it covers ONLY males between 17 and 45.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AGAIN.  WELL REGULATED has NOTHING to do with laws, and everything to do with being in good working order.  Learn some ENGLISH!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Appealing to ignorance is a fallacy, right wingers.  Fallacy is all y'all have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you are the only one demonstrating your profound ignorance on a daily basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> anybody can Talk.  Men have arguments.
> 
> Our Constitution is Express, not Implied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed it is.  "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".  Who shall not be infringed upon?  The government that makes the laws....or the PEOPLE that those laws infringe upon?  C'mon junior, you claim to have an "argument".  Make it.  So far all you have shown is an infantile understanding of the COTUS.
Click to expand...



Explaining individual liberty to an idiot socialist Moon Bat like this danielpalos yahoo is always a waste of time.

All these Moon Bats hate the liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights because the individual freedoms make it more difficult to make this country a socialist shithole that they all desire so much.


----------



## theHawk

Lakhota said:


> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
Click to expand...



At least you Marxist pigs are being more honest about your intentions.


----------



## Rigby5

Indeependent said:


> H B Lowrie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you idiots fail to notice is that the government used its vast resources and incredible technology to overcome the potential individual opposition.
> 
> And they'd do it again if needed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like the Russians in Afghanistan and the Americans in Vietnam, eh Leach?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A foreign intervention is vastly different from a civil war...douchebag
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think the US military would use nukes in a civil war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slaughtered and genocided our way into a land mass, you think your whiteness will give them pause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shhh...don’t let anyone know the Natives were already warring with each other before the White man came along.
Click to expand...



Except it primitive warfare was normally symbolic, very low fatality rates, and captured were usually adopted.
Nothing like as bad as we did to the Cherokee, Mandan, Sioux, Apache, Chimariko, etc.
By putting a price on scalps, we encouraged people to commit mass murder for profit, resulting in whole tribes being made extinct.


----------



## Rigby5

2aguy said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> H B Lowrie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like the Russians in Afghanistan and the Americans in Vietnam, eh Leach?
> 
> 
> 
> A foreign intervention is vastly different from a civil war...douchebag
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think the US military would use nukes in a civil war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slaughtered and genocided our way into a land mass, you think your whiteness will give them pause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shhh...don’t let anyone know the Natives were already warring with each other before the White man came along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And eating each other......for dinner.....
Click to expand...



Not  true.  There is a question with the Anasazi in New Mexico, but only because the changing climate created such a long drought that all Anasazi either died or eventually had to leave.  Even where cannibalism was common, like New Guinea, it is ritualistic, and not for food.
And the Romans and other Mediterranean cultures also conducted ritualistic cannibalism for religious purposes.  The Romans and Europeans were likely the most barbaric in history, with things like crucifixion, burning at the stake, impaling, etc.


----------



## 2aguy

Rigby5 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> H B Lowrie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> A foreign intervention is vastly different from a civil war...douchebag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think the US military would use nukes in a civil war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slaughtered and genocided our way into a land mass, you think your whiteness will give them pause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shhh...don’t let anyone know the Natives were already warring with each other before the White man came along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And eating each other......for dinner.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not  true.  There is a question with the Anasazi in New Mexico, but only because the changing climate created such a long drought that all Anasazi either died or eventually had to leave.  Even where cannibalism was common, like New Guinea, it is ritualistic, and not for food.
> And the Romans and other Mediterranean cultures also conducted ritualistic cannibalism for religious purposes.  The Romans and Europeans were likely the most barbaric in history, with things like crucifixion, burning at the stake, impaling, etc.
Click to expand...



As opposed to the Aztec and Inca and the other indians in North America who also engaged in ritual torture and execution.....  And the Indians here were cutting out and eating hearts long after Rome fell....


----------



## Indeependent

Rigby5 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> H B Lowrie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like the Russians in Afghanistan and the Americans in Vietnam, eh Leach?
> 
> 
> 
> A foreign intervention is vastly different from a civil war...douchebag
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think the US military would use nukes in a civil war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slaughtered and genocided our way into a land mass, you think your whiteness will give them pause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shhh...don’t let anyone know the Natives were already warring with each other before the White man came along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Except it primitive warfare was normally symbolic, very low fatality rates, and captured were usually adopted.
> Nothing like as bad as we did to the Cherokee, Mandan, Sioux, Apache, Chimariko, etc.
> By putting a price on scalps, we encouraged people to commit mass murder for profit, resulting in whole tribes being made extinct.
Click to expand...

Sans automation, I would guess life was wonderful being a slave to a conquering tribe.


----------



## H B Lowrie

Indeependent said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> H B Lowrie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> A foreign intervention is vastly different from a civil war...douchebag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think the US military would use nukes in a civil war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slaughtered and genocided our way into a land mass, you think your whiteness will give them pause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shhh...don’t let anyone know the Natives were already warring with each other before the White man came along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Except it primitive warfare was normally symbolic, very low fatality rates, and captured were usually adopted.
> Nothing like as bad as we did to the Cherokee, Mandan, Sioux, Apache, Chimariko, etc.
> By putting a price on scalps, we encouraged people to commit mass murder for profit, resulting in whole tribes being made extinct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sans automation, I would guess life was wonderful being a slave to a conquering tribe.
Click to expand...


America sure embraced it.


----------



## Indeependent

H B Lowrie said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> H B Lowrie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think the US military would use nukes in a civil war?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slaughtered and genocided our way into a land mass, you think your whiteness will give them pause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shhh...don’t let anyone know the Natives were already warring with each other before the White man came along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Except it primitive warfare was normally symbolic, very low fatality rates, and captured were usually adopted.
> Nothing like as bad as we did to the Cherokee, Mandan, Sioux, Apache, Chimariko, etc.
> By putting a price on scalps, we encouraged people to commit mass murder for profit, resulting in whole tribes being made extinct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sans automation, I would guess life was wonderful being a slave to a conquering tribe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> America sure embraced it.
Click to expand...

Most people do.
Africa is fraught with slavery...and rape.


----------



## Rigby5

2aguy said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> H B Lowrie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think the US military would use nukes in a civil war?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slaughtered and genocided our way into a land mass, you think your whiteness will give them pause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shhh...don’t let anyone know the Natives were already warring with each other before the White man came along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And eating each other......for dinner.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not  true.  There is a question with the Anasazi in New Mexico, but only because the changing climate created such a long drought that all Anasazi either died or eventually had to leave.  Even where cannibalism was common, like New Guinea, it is ritualistic, and not for food.
> And the Romans and other Mediterranean cultures also conducted ritualistic cannibalism for religious purposes.  The Romans and Europeans were likely the most barbaric in history, with things like crucifixion, burning at the stake, impaling, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As opposed to the Aztec and Inca and the other indians in North America who also engaged in ritual torture and execution.....  And the Indians here were cutting out and eating hearts long after Rome fell....
Click to expand...


Nope.  Aztecs had a weird religious belief in sacrifice, but it was not at all torture, and victims were drugged out first. 
It was a weird adaptation to previous over population problems. 
It was not at all like the mass murder carried out by the Romans against the Druids, the Christians against Jews and Moslems, etc.
I have NEVER read anything about anyone eating human hearts in the New World?

But it fairly common to find in Europe.
Human cannibalism - Wikipedia
{...
In Gough's Cave, England, remains of human bones and skulls, around 14,700 years old, suggest that cannibalism took place amongst the people living in or visiting the cave, and that they may have used human skulls as drinking vessels.

Researchers have found physical evidence of cannibalism in ancient times. In 2001, archaeologists at the University of Bristol found evidence of Iron Age cannibalism in Gloucestershire. Cannibalism was practiced as recently as 2000 years ago in Great Britain.
...
Cannibalism is mentioned many times in early history and literature. Herodotus in "The Histories" (450s to the 420s BCE) claimed, that after eleven days' voyage up the Borysthenes (Dnieper in Europe) a desolated land extended for a long way, and later the country of the man-eaters (other than Scythians) was located, and beyond it again a desolated area extended where no men lived.

According to Appian, during the Roman Siege of Numantia in the second century BCE, the population of Numantia was reduced to cannibalism and suicide.

Cannibalism was reported by Josephus during the siege of Jerusalem by Rome in 70 CE.

Jerome, in his letter Against Jovinianus, discusses how people come to their present condition as a result of their heritage, and he then lists several examples of peoples and their customs. In the list, he mentions that he has heard that Attacotti eat human flesh and that Massagetae and Derbices (a people on the borders of India) kill and eat old people.
Ugolino and his sons in their cell, as painted by William Blake. According to Dante, the prisoners were slowly starved to death and before dying Ugolino's children begged him to eat their bodies.
Reports of cannibalism were recorded during the First Crusade, as Crusaders were alleged to have fed on the bodies of their dead opponents following the Siege of Ma'arra. Amin Maalouf also alleges further cannibalism incidents on the march to Jerusalem, and to the efforts made to delete mention of these from Western history. During Europe's Great Famine of 1315–17, there were many reports of cannibalism among the starving populations. In North Africa, as in Europe, there are references to cannibalism as a last resort in times of famine.


----------



## 2aguy

H B Lowrie said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> H B Lowrie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think the US military would use nukes in a civil war?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slaughtered and genocided our way into a land mass, you think your whiteness will give them pause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shhh...don’t let anyone know the Natives were already warring with each other before the White man came along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Except it primitive warfare was normally symbolic, very low fatality rates, and captured were usually adopted.
> Nothing like as bad as we did to the Cherokee, Mandan, Sioux, Apache, Chimariko, etc.
> By putting a price on scalps, we encouraged people to commit mass murder for profit, resulting in whole tribes being made extinct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sans automation, I would guess life was wonderful being a slave to a conquering tribe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> America sure embraced it.
Click to expand...



The natives had already embraced it..... and no, the symbolic warfare myth is just that, a myth....

The North American Martyrs Offer A Way To Atone For Historic Sins

The Jesuit French missionaries Isaac Jogues and Jean Brebeuf arrived in Quebec in 1636 to work among the Hurons, a tribe that had been receptive to the Catholic faith. Unfortunately, Jogues was captured by the Iroquois, enemies of the Hurons, and imprisoned for 13 months, during which time he was beaten, tortured, and forced to watch as Huron converts were mangled and killed.

He escaped, only to return in 1646. He was again captured by a Mohawk war party, which tomahawked and beheaded him on October 18. Other French missionaries, including companion Jean de Lalande, Father Anthony Daniel, and Jean de Brébeuf, were tortured, murdered, or burned to death by Mohawk and Iroquois warriors in subsequent years across what is now Canada and upstate New York. Eight of these martyrs were canonized in 1930.

The torture methods these Native American peoples employed were exactingly wicked. During his first imprisonment, for example, Jogues’ hands were permanently mutilated, his fingers either cut off or chewed. The Mohawks and Iroquois extended these practices even to the child converts of the Catholic Huron, one missionary account describing a child of four or five who was stretched on a piece of bark, his tiny hands and feet pierced with pointed sticks.

*A historical narrative common in the 19th and 20th centuries depicted the Iroquois as “an expansive military and political power … [who] subjugated their enemies by violent force and for almost two centuries acted as the fulcrum in the balance of power in colonial North America.”*
*--------*

the pre-Colombian New World.

*Historians now estimate that the once-powerful Aztec and Mayan civilizations in what is now Mexico murdered hundreds of thousands of peoples in bizarre rituals of human sacrifice to appease their gods. Many of these victims came from conquered people groups, demonstrating that even Native Americans could be “colonialists.”*

Such spectacular violence was also prevalent in what is now the United States. Washington State University archaeologist Tim Kohler and colleagues have documented *that nearly 90 percent of human remains from the American southwest during the twelfth century had trauma from blows to either their heads or parts of their arms.*


The North American Martyrs Offer A Way To Atone For Historic Sins


----------



## 2aguy

Rigby5 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> H B Lowrie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slaughtered and genocided our way into a land mass, you think your whiteness will give them pause?
> 
> 
> 
> Shhh...don’t let anyone know the Natives were already warring with each other before the White man came along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And eating each other......for dinner.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not  true.  There is a question with the Anasazi in New Mexico, but only because the changing climate created such a long drought that all Anasazi either died or eventually had to leave.  Even where cannibalism was common, like New Guinea, it is ritualistic, and not for food.
> And the Romans and other Mediterranean cultures also conducted ritualistic cannibalism for religious purposes.  The Romans and Europeans were likely the most barbaric in history, with things like crucifixion, burning at the stake, impaling, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As opposed to the Aztec and Inca and the other indians in North America who also engaged in ritual torture and execution.....  And the Indians here were cutting out and eating hearts long after Rome fell....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  Aztecs had a weird religious belief in sacrifice, but it was not at all torture, and victims were drugged out first.
> It was a weird adaptation to previous over population problems.
> It was not at all like the mass murder carried out by the Romans against the Druids, the Christians against Jews and Moslems, etc.
> I have NEVER read anything about anyone eating human hearts in the New World?
> 
> But it fairly common to find in Europe.
> Human cannibalism - Wikipedia
> {...
> In Gough's Cave, England, remains of human bones and skulls, around 14,700 years old, suggest that cannibalism took place amongst the people living in or visiting the cave, and that they may have used human skulls as drinking vessels.
> 
> Researchers have found physical evidence of cannibalism in ancient times. In 2001, archaeologists at the University of Bristol found evidence of Iron Age cannibalism in Gloucestershire. Cannibalism was practiced as recently as 2000 years ago in Great Britain.
> ...
> Cannibalism is mentioned many times in early history and literature. Herodotus in "The Histories" (450s to the 420s BCE) claimed, that after eleven days' voyage up the Borysthenes (Dnieper in Europe) a desolated land extended for a long way, and later the country of the man-eaters (other than Scythians) was located, and beyond it again a desolated area extended where no men lived.
> 
> According to Appian, during the Roman Siege of Numantia in the second century BCE, the population of Numantia was reduced to cannibalism and suicide.
> 
> Cannibalism was reported by Josephus during the siege of Jerusalem by Rome in 70 CE.
> 
> Jerome, in his letter Against Jovinianus, discusses how people come to their present condition as a result of their heritage, and he then lists several examples of peoples and their customs. In the list, he mentions that he has heard that Attacotti eat human flesh and that Massagetae and Derbices (a people on the borders of India) kill and eat old people.
> Ugolino and his sons in their cell, as painted by William Blake. According to Dante, the prisoners were slowly starved to death and before dying Ugolino's children begged him to eat their bodies.
> Reports of cannibalism were recorded during the First Crusade, as Crusaders were alleged to have fed on the bodies of their dead opponents following the Siege of Ma'arra. Amin Maalouf also alleges further cannibalism incidents on the march to Jerusalem, and to the efforts made to delete mention of these from Western history. During Europe's Great Famine of 1315–17, there were many reports of cannibalism among the starving populations. In North Africa, as in Europe, there are references to cannibalism as a last resort in times of famine.
Click to expand...



David Scheimann

Of all the North American Indian tribes, the seventeenth-century Iroquois are the most renowned for their cruelty towards other human beings. Scholars know that they ruthlessly tortured war prisoners and that they were cannibals; in the Algonquin tongue the word Mohawk actually means "flesh-eater." There is even a story that the Indians in neighboring Iroquois territory would flee their homes upon sight of just a small band of Mohawks. Ironically, the Iroquois were not alone in these practices. There is ample evidence that most, if not all, of the Indians of northeastern America engaged in cannibalism and torture—there is documentation of the Huron, Neutral, and Algonquin tribes each exhibiting the same behavior. This paper will examine these atrocities, search through several possible explanations, and ultimately reveal that the practices of cannibalism and torture in the Iroquois were actually related.
Cannibalism in North America: Iroquois, Kwakiutl, Hamatsa Indians. Do Not Eat Me!

They vouch for an example of ritual cannibalism which took place near Fort Rupert. A Kwakiutl shot and wounded a slave, who ran away and collapsed on the beach at the water’s edge. He was pursued by the tribesmen, including a group of the ‘Bear Dancers’ and Hamatsas. The slave’s body was cut to pieces with knives while the Hamatsas squatted in a circle round them crying out their terrible cry: ‘Hap! Hap! Hap! Hap!’


New Data Suggests Some Cannibalism By Ancient Indians
Scientists have found what they say is the first direct evidence of cannibalism among prehistoric Indians in the American Southwest, belying the image of these people as steadfastly peaceful farmers.

The finding may well reignite a long-smoldering controversy over whether ancestral Indians ever made it a practice to eat human flesh, a conclusion deeply resented by their descendants.

*The latest evidence sprang from the site of an ancient Anasazi settlement near Mesa Verde in southwestern Colorado, where archaeologists came upon butchered human bones and stone cutting tools stained with human blood. A ceramic cooking pot held residues of human tissues. But the most telling of the evidence was found in human feces: biochemical tests revealed clear traces of digested human muscle protein in the dried coprolite, or fossilized prehistoric feces.*

''Analysis of the coprolite and associated remains at last provides definitive evidence for sporadic cannibalism in the Southwest,'' Dr. Brian R. Billman, an archaeologist at the University of North Carolina, said yesterday in an announcement of the discovery.


----------



## 2aguy

Rigby5 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> H B Lowrie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slaughtered and genocided our way into a land mass, you think your whiteness will give them pause?
> 
> 
> 
> Shhh...don’t let anyone know the Natives were already warring with each other before the White man came along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And eating each other......for dinner.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not  true.  There is a question with the Anasazi in New Mexico, but only because the changing climate created such a long drought that all Anasazi either died or eventually had to leave.  Even where cannibalism was common, like New Guinea, it is ritualistic, and not for food.
> And the Romans and other Mediterranean cultures also conducted ritualistic cannibalism for religious purposes.  The Romans and Europeans were likely the most barbaric in history, with things like crucifixion, burning at the stake, impaling, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As opposed to the Aztec and Inca and the other indians in North America who also engaged in ritual torture and execution.....  And the Indians here were cutting out and eating hearts long after Rome fell....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  Aztecs had a weird religious belief in sacrifice, but it was not at all torture, and victims were drugged out first.
> It was a weird adaptation to previous over population problems.
> It was not at all like the mass murder carried out by the Romans against the Druids, the Christians against Jews and Moslems, etc.
> I have NEVER read anything about anyone eating human hearts in the New World?
> 
> But it fairly common to find in Europe.
> Human cannibalism - Wikipedia
> {...
> In Gough's Cave, England, remains of human bones and skulls, around 14,700 years old, suggest that cannibalism took place amongst the people living in or visiting the cave, and that they may have used human skulls as drinking vessels.
> 
> Researchers have found physical evidence of cannibalism in ancient times. In 2001, archaeologists at the University of Bristol found evidence of Iron Age cannibalism in Gloucestershire. Cannibalism was practiced as recently as 2000 years ago in Great Britain.
> ...
> Cannibalism is mentioned many times in early history and literature. Herodotus in "The Histories" (450s to the 420s BCE) claimed, that after eleven days' voyage up the Borysthenes (Dnieper in Europe) a desolated land extended for a long way, and later the country of the man-eaters (other than Scythians) was located, and beyond it again a desolated area extended where no men lived.
> 
> According to Appian, during the Roman Siege of Numantia in the second century BCE, the population of Numantia was reduced to cannibalism and suicide.
> 
> Cannibalism was reported by Josephus during the siege of Jerusalem by Rome in 70 CE.
> 
> Jerome, in his letter Against Jovinianus, discusses how people come to their present condition as a result of their heritage, and he then lists several examples of peoples and their customs. In the list, he mentions that he has heard that Attacotti eat human flesh and that Massagetae and Derbices (a people on the borders of India) kill and eat old people.
> Ugolino and his sons in their cell, as painted by William Blake. According to Dante, the prisoners were slowly starved to death and before dying Ugolino's children begged him to eat their bodies.
> Reports of cannibalism were recorded during the First Crusade, as Crusaders were alleged to have fed on the bodies of their dead opponents following the Siege of Ma'arra. Amin Maalouf also alleges further cannibalism incidents on the march to Jerusalem, and to the efforts made to delete mention of these from Western history. During Europe's Great Famine of 1315–17, there were many reports of cannibalism among the starving populations. In North Africa, as in Europe, there are references to cannibalism as a last resort in times of famine.
Click to expand...



And yes...the native Americans were just as violent as their European counterparts...

Thanksgiving guilt trip: How warlike were Native Americans before Europeans showed up?

As I've pointed out previously, prominent scientists now deride depictions of pre-state people as peaceful. "Contra leftist anthropologists who celebrate the noble savage," the Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker wrote in 2007, "quantitative body counts—such as the proportion of prehistoric skeletons with ax marks and embedded arrowheads or the proportion of men in a contemporary foraging tribe who die at the hands of other men—suggest that pre-state societies were far more violent than our own." According to Pinker, the 17th-century philosopher Thomas Hobbes "got it right" when he called pre-state life a "war of all against all."





Pinker based his view on books such as _War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage_ (Oxford University Press, 1996) by the anthropologist Lawrence Keeley of the University of Illinois, and _Constant Battles: The Myth of the Peaceful, Noble Savage_ (Saint Martin's Press, 2003) by the archaeologist Steven LeBlanc of Harvard. "The dogs of war were seldom on a leash" in the pre-Colombian New World, Keeley wrote.





Popular culture has amplified these scientific claims. In the 2007 HBO docudrama _Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee,_ Chief Sitting Bull complains to a U.S. Army colonel about whites' violent treatment of the Indians. The colonel retorts, "You were killing each other for hundreds of moons before the first white stepped foot on this continent."


----------



## 2aguy

Rigby5 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> H B Lowrie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slaughtered and genocided our way into a land mass, you think your whiteness will give them pause?
> 
> 
> 
> Shhh...don’t let anyone know the Natives were already warring with each other before the White man came along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And eating each other......for dinner.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not  true.  There is a question with the Anasazi in New Mexico, but only because the changing climate created such a long drought that all Anasazi either died or eventually had to leave.  Even where cannibalism was common, like New Guinea, it is ritualistic, and not for food.
> And the Romans and other Mediterranean cultures also conducted ritualistic cannibalism for religious purposes.  The Romans and Europeans were likely the most barbaric in history, with things like crucifixion, burning at the stake, impaling, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As opposed to the Aztec and Inca and the other indians in North America who also engaged in ritual torture and execution.....  And the Indians here were cutting out and eating hearts long after Rome fell....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  Aztecs had a weird religious belief in sacrifice, but it was not at all torture, and victims were drugged out first.
> It was a weird adaptation to previous over population problems.
> It was not at all like the mass murder carried out by the Romans against the Druids, the Christians against Jews and Moslems, etc.
> I have NEVER read anything about anyone eating human hearts in the New World?
> 
> But it fairly common to find in Europe.
> Human cannibalism - Wikipedia
> {...
> In Gough's Cave, England, remains of human bones and skulls, around 14,700 years old, suggest that cannibalism took place amongst the people living in or visiting the cave, and that they may have used human skulls as drinking vessels.
> 
> Researchers have found physical evidence of cannibalism in ancient times. In 2001, archaeologists at the University of Bristol found evidence of Iron Age cannibalism in Gloucestershire. Cannibalism was practiced as recently as 2000 years ago in Great Britain.
> ...
> Cannibalism is mentioned many times in early history and literature. Herodotus in "The Histories" (450s to the 420s BCE) claimed, that after eleven days' voyage up the Borysthenes (Dnieper in Europe) a desolated land extended for a long way, and later the country of the man-eaters (other than Scythians) was located, and beyond it again a desolated area extended where no men lived.
> 
> According to Appian, during the Roman Siege of Numantia in the second century BCE, the population of Numantia was reduced to cannibalism and suicide.
> 
> Cannibalism was reported by Josephus during the siege of Jerusalem by Rome in 70 CE.
> 
> Jerome, in his letter Against Jovinianus, discusses how people come to their present condition as a result of their heritage, and he then lists several examples of peoples and their customs. In the list, he mentions that he has heard that Attacotti eat human flesh and that Massagetae and Derbices (a people on the borders of India) kill and eat old people.
> Ugolino and his sons in their cell, as painted by William Blake. According to Dante, the prisoners were slowly starved to death and before dying Ugolino's children begged him to eat their bodies.
> Reports of cannibalism were recorded during the First Crusade, as Crusaders were alleged to have fed on the bodies of their dead opponents following the Siege of Ma'arra. Amin Maalouf also alleges further cannibalism incidents on the march to Jerusalem, and to the efforts made to delete mention of these from Western history. During Europe's Great Famine of 1315–17, there were many reports of cannibalism among the starving populations. In North Africa, as in Europe, there are references to cannibalism as a last resort in times of famine.
Click to expand...



And more....

The Most Violent Era In America Was Before Europeans Arrived

But archeology keeps its own history and a new paper finds that the 20th century, with its hundreds of millions dead in wars and, in the case of Germany, China, Russia and other dictatorships, genocide, was not the most violent - on a per-capita basis that honor may belong to the central Mesa Verde of southwest Colorado and the Pueblo Indians.

Writing in the journal _American Antiquity_, Washington State University archaeologist Tim Kohler and colleagues document how nearly 90 percent of human remains from that period had trauma from blows to either their heads or parts of their arms.

"If we're identifying that much trauma, many were dying a violent death," said Kohler. The study also offers new clues to the mysterious depopulation of the northern Southwest, from a population of about 40,000 people in the mid-1200s to 0 in 30 years.

From the days they first arrived in the Southwest in the 1800s, most anthropologists and archaeologists have downplayed evidence of violent conflict among native Americans.

"Archaeologists with one or two exceptions have not tried to develop an objective metric of levels of violence through time," said Kohler. "They've looked at a mix of various things like burned structures, defensive site locations and so forth, but it's very difficult to distill an estimate of levels of violence from such things. We've concentrated on one thing, and that is trauma, especially to the head and portions of the arms. That's allowed us to look at levels of violence through time in a comparative way."


----------



## danielpalos

westwall said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again...the Militia is mentioned TWICE in the Constitution. The 2A talks about a Well regulated militia and Article 1 Section 8 describes a militia that is organized, has rank, discipline and training..."Well regulated".
> 
> But hey...if you insist on continuing on this tac the DIck Act GOVERNS what remains of the militia...well regulated or not...and it covers ONLY males between 17 and 45.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AGAIN.  WELL REGULATED has NOTHING to do with laws, and everything to do with being in good working order.  Learn some ENGLISH!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Appealing to ignorance is a fallacy, right wingers.  Fallacy is all y'all have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you are the only one demonstrating your profound ignorance on a daily basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> anybody can Talk.  Men have arguments.
> 
> Our Constitution is Express, not Implied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed it is.  "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".  Who shall not be infringed upon?  The government that makes the laws....or the PEOPLE that those laws infringe upon?  C'mon junior, you claim to have an "argument".  Make it.  So far all you have shown is an infantile understanding of the COTUS.
Click to expand...

You don't know what you are talking about, like usual, right wingers.  

Wellness of regulation has to prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.


----------



## Aponi

2aguy said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shhh...don’t let anyone know the Natives were already warring with each other before the White man came along.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And eating each other......for dinner.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not  true.  There is a question with the Anasazi in New Mexico, but only because the changing climate created such a long drought that all Anasazi either died or eventually had to leave.  Even where cannibalism was common, like New Guinea, it is ritualistic, and not for food.
> And the Romans and other Mediterranean cultures also conducted ritualistic cannibalism for religious purposes.  The Romans and Europeans were likely the most barbaric in history, with things like crucifixion, burning at the stake, impaling, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As opposed to the Aztec and Inca and the other indians in North America who also engaged in ritual torture and execution.....  And the Indians here were cutting out and eating hearts long after Rome fell....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  Aztecs had a weird religious belief in sacrifice, but it was not at all torture, and victims were drugged out first.
> It was a weird adaptation to previous over population problems.
> It was not at all like the mass murder carried out by the Romans against the Druids, the Christians against Jews and Moslems, etc.
> I have NEVER read anything about anyone eating human hearts in the New World?
> 
> But it fairly common to find in Europe.
> Human cannibalism - Wikipedia
> {...
> In Gough's Cave, England, remains of human bones and skulls, around 14,700 years old, suggest that cannibalism took place amongst the people living in or visiting the cave, and that they may have used human skulls as drinking vessels.
> 
> Researchers have found physical evidence of cannibalism in ancient times. In 2001, archaeologists at the University of Bristol found evidence of Iron Age cannibalism in Gloucestershire. Cannibalism was practiced as recently as 2000 years ago in Great Britain.
> ...
> Cannibalism is mentioned many times in early history and literature. Herodotus in "The Histories" (450s to the 420s BCE) claimed, that after eleven days' voyage up the Borysthenes (Dnieper in Europe) a desolated land extended for a long way, and later the country of the man-eaters (other than Scythians) was located, and beyond it again a desolated area extended where no men lived.
> 
> According to Appian, during the Roman Siege of Numantia in the second century BCE, the population of Numantia was reduced to cannibalism and suicide.
> 
> Cannibalism was reported by Josephus during the siege of Jerusalem by Rome in 70 CE.
> 
> Jerome, in his letter Against Jovinianus, discusses how people come to their present condition as a result of their heritage, and he then lists several examples of peoples and their customs. In the list, he mentions that he has heard that Attacotti eat human flesh and that Massagetae and Derbices (a people on the borders of India) kill and eat old people.
> Ugolino and his sons in their cell, as painted by William Blake. According to Dante, the prisoners were slowly starved to death and before dying Ugolino's children begged him to eat their bodies.
> Reports of cannibalism were recorded during the First Crusade, as Crusaders were alleged to have fed on the bodies of their dead opponents following the Siege of Ma'arra. Amin Maalouf also alleges further cannibalism incidents on the march to Jerusalem, and to the efforts made to delete mention of these from Western history. During Europe's Great Famine of 1315–17, there were many reports of cannibalism among the starving populations. In North Africa, as in Europe, there are references to cannibalism as a last resort in times of famine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And yes...the native Americans were just as violent as their European counterparts...
> 
> Thanksgiving guilt trip: How warlike were Native Americans before Europeans showed up?
> 
> As I've pointed out previously, prominent scientists now deride depictions of pre-state people as peaceful. "Contra leftist anthropologists who celebrate the noble savage," the Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker wrote in 2007, "quantitative body counts—such as the proportion of prehistoric skeletons with ax marks and embedded arrowheads or the proportion of men in a contemporary foraging tribe who die at the hands of other men—suggest that pre-state societies were far more violent than our own." According to Pinker, the 17th-century philosopher Thomas Hobbes "got it right" when he called pre-state life a "war of all against all."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pinker based his view on books such as _War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage_ (Oxford University Press, 1996) by the anthropologist Lawrence Keeley of the University of Illinois, and _Constant Battles: The Myth of the Peaceful, Noble Savage_ (Saint Martin's Press, 2003) by the archaeologist Steven LeBlanc of Harvard. "The dogs of war were seldom on a leash" in the pre-Colombian New World, Keeley wrote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Popular culture has amplified these scientific claims. In the 2007 HBO docudrama _Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee,_ Chief Sitting Bull complains to a U.S. Army colonel about whites' violent treatment of the Indians. The colonel retorts, "You were killing each other for hundreds of moons before the first white stepped foot on this continent."
Click to expand...

U


----------



## Aponi

IUI am 50 percent Shawnee a Algonquin.
American indains had their wars some took slaves .
The tribe also took care of each other trade with others were common.
As were wars


----------



## toobfreak

waltky said:


> Maybe not obsolete but antiquated, out of date...
> 
> ... it needs to be updated to reflect the times...




Yes.  There are far better, more powerful weapons out there that need to be made affordable that weren't available back in 1776!


----------



## Uncensored2008

H B Lowrie said:


> I contest the american creation myth daily, yes.  Do you not know how euros came by this land mass?



Less brutally than the Asians did. There are still plenty of Asians living. But the Asians committed complete genocide of the Negroid peoples who were in America before them. Outside of a few still in the Amazon, these Aborigines are all destroyed, slaughtered to the last person by the Asians we call American Indians. Nothing but bones and teeth remain in North America of the people who originally inhabited America.


----------



## H B Lowrie

2aguy said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shhh...don’t let anyone know the Natives were already warring with each other before the White man came along.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And eating each other......for dinner.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not  true.  There is a question with the Anasazi in New Mexico, but only because the changing climate created such a long drought that all Anasazi either died or eventually had to leave.  Even where cannibalism was common, like New Guinea, it is ritualistic, and not for food.
> And the Romans and other Mediterranean cultures also conducted ritualistic cannibalism for religious purposes.  The Romans and Europeans were likely the most barbaric in history, with things like crucifixion, burning at the stake, impaling, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As opposed to the Aztec and Inca and the other indians in North America who also engaged in ritual torture and execution.....  And the Indians here were cutting out and eating hearts long after Rome fell....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  Aztecs had a weird religious belief in sacrifice, but it was not at all torture, and victims were drugged out first.
> It was a weird adaptation to previous over population problems.
> It was not at all like the mass murder carried out by the Romans against the Druids, the Christians against Jews and Moslems, etc.
> I have NEVER read anything about anyone eating human hearts in the New World?
> 
> But it fairly common to find in Europe.
> Human cannibalism - Wikipedia
> {...
> In Gough's Cave, England, remains of human bones and skulls, around 14,700 years old, suggest that cannibalism took place amongst the people living in or visiting the cave, and that they may have used human skulls as drinking vessels.
> 
> Researchers have found physical evidence of cannibalism in ancient times. In 2001, archaeologists at the University of Bristol found evidence of Iron Age cannibalism in Gloucestershire. Cannibalism was practiced as recently as 2000 years ago in Great Britain.
> ...
> Cannibalism is mentioned many times in early history and literature. Herodotus in "The Histories" (450s to the 420s BCE) claimed, that after eleven days' voyage up the Borysthenes (Dnieper in Europe) a desolated land extended for a long way, and later the country of the man-eaters (other than Scythians) was located, and beyond it again a desolated area extended where no men lived.
> 
> According to Appian, during the Roman Siege of Numantia in the second century BCE, the population of Numantia was reduced to cannibalism and suicide.
> 
> Cannibalism was reported by Josephus during the siege of Jerusalem by Rome in 70 CE.
> 
> Jerome, in his letter Against Jovinianus, discusses how people come to their present condition as a result of their heritage, and he then lists several examples of peoples and their customs. In the list, he mentions that he has heard that Attacotti eat human flesh and that Massagetae and Derbices (a people on the borders of India) kill and eat old people.
> Ugolino and his sons in their cell, as painted by William Blake. According to Dante, the prisoners were slowly starved to death and before dying Ugolino's children begged him to eat their bodies.
> Reports of cannibalism were recorded during the First Crusade, as Crusaders were alleged to have fed on the bodies of their dead opponents following the Siege of Ma'arra. Amin Maalouf also alleges further cannibalism incidents on the march to Jerusalem, and to the efforts made to delete mention of these from Western history. During Europe's Great Famine of 1315–17, there were many reports of cannibalism among the starving populations. In North Africa, as in Europe, there are references to cannibalism as a last resort in times of famine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And yes...the native Americans were just as violent as their European counterparts...
> 
> Thanksgiving guilt trip: How warlike were Native Americans before Europeans showed up?
> 
> As I've pointed out previously, prominent scientists now deride depictions of pre-state people as peaceful. "Contra leftist anthropologists who celebrate the noble savage," the Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker wrote in 2007, "quantitative body counts—such as the proportion of prehistoric skeletons with ax marks and embedded arrowheads or the proportion of men in a contemporary foraging tribe who die at the hands of other men—suggest that pre-state societies were far more violent than our own." According to Pinker, the 17th-century philosopher Thomas Hobbes "got it right" when he called pre-state life a "war of all against all."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pinker based his view on books such as _War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage_ (Oxford University Press, 1996) by the anthropologist Lawrence Keeley of the University of Illinois, and _Constant Battles: The Myth of the Peaceful, Noble Savage_ (Saint Martin's Press, 2003) by the archaeologist Steven LeBlanc of Harvard. "The dogs of war were seldom on a leash" in the pre-Colombian New World, Keeley wrote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Popular culture has amplified these scientific claims. In the 2007 HBO docudrama _Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee,_ Chief Sitting Bull complains to a U.S. Army colonel about whites' violent treatment of the Indians. The colonel retorts, "You were killing each other for hundreds of moons before the first white stepped foot on this continent."
Click to expand...


The beauty of convincing yourselves you are an exceptional nation is that you can always manufacture a rationale for all your genocide, violence and empirical slaughter across the world forever and ever amen.  Look at how whiney and pissy americans get when folk begin even walking, from a thousand miles away, in their direction now.  We know what we did and we live in fear of someone doing the same to us because we know we deserve such being the eye-fer-an-eye dingbats we are.

*1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus*
*https://www.amazon.com/1491-Revelations-Americas-Before-Columbus/dp/1400032059&tag=ff0d01-20*

*By Ira Berlin - Many Thousands Gone: The First Two Centuries of Slavery in North America (1/31/00)*
*https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00HTJOW04/?tag=ff0d01-20*


----------



## Uncensored2008

H B Lowrie said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> H B Lowrie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like the Russians in Afghanistan and the Americans in Vietnam, eh Leach?
> 
> 
> 
> A foreign intervention is vastly different from a civil war...douchebag
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think the US military would use nukes in a civil war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slaughtered and genocided our way into a land mass, you think your whiteness will give them pause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As opposed to the slaughter and genocide that already existed here?  Or all over the rest of the world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone knows nothing of the advanced civilizations that existed in the americas, and all over the world really, long before the euros who had contaminated their own land mass to such a syphilitic plague ridden dystopian extent, that the dregs of european society left the foul chamber pot showers of their feudal tenement slums to nautically caravan across the globe and bring their diseases across the borders of others; their male dominator God demanded it of them.  Papal Bulls of the 1500s called for the extermination and cleansing of the americas.
> 
> And to see the caterwauling of their descendants now is rich, oh so rich.
Click to expand...


You mean like the plains Indians who hadn't discovered the wheel?  So very advanced...

Another ignorant leftist spewing utter shit as if it were knowledge.

Yes, the Mayans were fairly advanced, nowhere NEAR the Europeans, but as an ancient culture, they had discovered writing and rudimentary astronomy. The Aztecs were worse than the Nazis, they appropriated Mayan culture and murdered 90% of the people. In North America though, no written language, though leftist have tried to lie a few into existence out of thin air, but there was no written language, no wheel, no mathematics. The Indians were cave men, stone age savages. Put all the lipstick you want on that pig, reality still is.


----------



## Uncensored2008

H B Lowrie said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> H B Lowrie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> A foreign intervention is vastly different from a civil war...douchebag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think the US military would use nukes in a civil war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slaughtered and genocided our way into a land mass, you think your whiteness will give them pause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shhh...don’t let anyone know the Natives were already warring with each other before the White man came along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And eating each other......for dinner.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did scalping come from again hon?
> 
> *Europeans indulged in cannibalism until the 1900s, two new books claim*
> *Tough news to swallow: Europeans saw nothing wrong with cannibalism until the 1900s, two new books claim | Daily Mail Online*
> 
> *Cheers, reading is fundamental.*
Click to expand...





The shit you anti-culture fucks will lie about...

Here is the thing stupid, Europe actually had written language going back 5,000 years. We can read what the actual views on things such as cannibalism was. Yes, lying fucks will attempt to rewrite history, yet as long as we don't let you destroy all the books, it is doomed to failure.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Rigby5 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> H B Lowrie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like the Russians in Afghanistan and the Americans in Vietnam, eh Leach?
> 
> 
> 
> A foreign intervention is vastly different from a civil war...douchebag
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think the US military would use nukes in a civil war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slaughtered and genocided our way into a land mass, you think your whiteness will give them pause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shhh...don’t let anyone know the Natives were already warring with each other before the White man came along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Except it primitive warfare was normally symbolic, very low fatality rates, and captured were usually adopted.
> Nothing like as bad as we did to the Cherokee, Mandan, Sioux, Apache, Chimariko, etc.
> By putting a price on scalps, we encouraged people to commit mass murder for profit, resulting in whole tribes being made extinct.
Click to expand...



Complete fucking bullshit.

Why do you fools think you can lie reality out of existence?

Yes, I get it, you hate America and you lack both education and integrity. Still.....


----------



## Uncensored2008

H B Lowrie said:


> Agreed, befriending and saving the euros early on was their biggest mistake.  As I say, Pocahontas was rewarded with death in captivity in Britain, turns out King Philip was right about them.



Sploogy, why do you lie so much? Are you simply ignorant, or do you think you can fool your betters?

{
In March 1617, Rolfe and Pocahontas boarded a ship to return to Virginia; the ship had sailed only as far as Gravesend on the river Thames when Pocahontas became gravely ill.[66] She was taken ashore and died at the approximate age of 21. It is not known what caused her death, but theories range from pneumonia, smallpox, and tuberculosisto her having been poisoned.[67] According to Rolfe, she died saying, "all must die, but tis enough that her child liveth".[68]

Pocahontas's funeral took place on March 21, 1617, in the parish of Saint George's, Gravesend.[69] Her grave is thought to be underneath the church's chancel, though since that church was destroyed in a fire in 1727, its exact site is unknown.[70] Her memory is honored with a life-size bronze statue at St. George's Church by William Ordway Partridge.[71]}

Pocahontas - Wikipedia

You ignorant fucking moron.


----------



## Lakhota

There were several shootings around the U.S. on New Year’s Day.

*Happy New Year! See How Gun Violence Rang In 2019*

Same ole shit.


----------



## Indeependent

Lakhota said:


> There were several shootings around the U.S. on New Year’s Day.
> 
> *Happy New Year! See How Gun Violence Rang In 2019*
> 
> Same ole shit.


Next time they’ll use arrows and spears.


----------



## Rigby5

waltky said:


> Maybe not obsolete but antiquated, out of date...
> 
> ... it needs to be updated to reflect the times...
> 
> ... and the threat of overkill firepower...
> 
> ... for the average citizen.




Wrong.  It is ONLY the average citizen who can be trusted with that kind of firepower.
The LAST people you can trust, as the founders also believed, was the government.
And if you understand not only the 2nd Amendment, but the 4th, 5th, and 14th, it is illegal for government to have weapons inaccessible to the general public.  You can require an explanation of need with it comes to massive weapons like nuclear weapons, but you can not ever allow government to illegal dictate any arbitrary restrictions.  That is illegal inherently.  In a republic, individual rights are the only source of authority, so then government can not somehow authorize itself, or arbitrarily restrict.


----------



## Rigby5

Lakhota said:


> Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited  never have been and never will be  Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star




Of course no rights absolute and all have limits, but it is absolutely clear from the 2nd amendment that the federal government was denied any and all jurisdiction over weapons.  If you want to regulate weapons legally, then you have to do is by state or municipal laws, or you are in violation of the constitution.


----------



## Lakhota

Rigby5 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited  never have been and never will be  Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course no rights absolute and all have limits, but it is absolutely clear from the 2nd amendment that the federal government was denied any and all jurisdiction over weapons.  If you want to regulate weapons legally, then you have to do is by state or municipal laws, or you are in violation of the constitution.
Click to expand...


I cherish my guns - but the 2nd Amendment is an obsolete fossil.


----------



## Rigby5

2aguy said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shhh...don’t let anyone know the Natives were already warring with each other before the White man came along.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And eating each other......for dinner.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not  true.  There is a question with the Anasazi in New Mexico, but only because the changing climate created such a long drought that all Anasazi either died or eventually had to leave.  Even where cannibalism was common, like New Guinea, it is ritualistic, and not for food.
> And the Romans and other Mediterranean cultures also conducted ritualistic cannibalism for religious purposes.  The Romans and Europeans were likely the most barbaric in history, with things like crucifixion, burning at the stake, impaling, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As opposed to the Aztec and Inca and the other indians in North America who also engaged in ritual torture and execution.....  And the Indians here were cutting out and eating hearts long after Rome fell....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  Aztecs had a weird religious belief in sacrifice, but it was not at all torture, and victims were drugged out first.
> It was a weird adaptation to previous over population problems.
> It was not at all like the mass murder carried out by the Romans against the Druids, the Christians against Jews and Moslems, etc.
> I have NEVER read anything about anyone eating human hearts in the New World?
> 
> But it fairly common to find in Europe.
> Human cannibalism - Wikipedia
> {...
> In Gough's Cave, England, remains of human bones and skulls, around 14,700 years old, suggest that cannibalism took place amongst the people living in or visiting the cave, and that they may have used human skulls as drinking vessels.
> 
> Researchers have found physical evidence of cannibalism in ancient times. In 2001, archaeologists at the University of Bristol found evidence of Iron Age cannibalism in Gloucestershire. Cannibalism was practiced as recently as 2000 years ago in Great Britain.
> ...
> Cannibalism is mentioned many times in early history and literature. Herodotus in "The Histories" (450s to the 420s BCE) claimed, that after eleven days' voyage up the Borysthenes (Dnieper in Europe) a desolated land extended for a long way, and later the country of the man-eaters (other than Scythians) was located, and beyond it again a desolated area extended where no men lived.
> 
> According to Appian, during the Roman Siege of Numantia in the second century BCE, the population of Numantia was reduced to cannibalism and suicide.
> 
> Cannibalism was reported by Josephus during the siege of Jerusalem by Rome in 70 CE.
> 
> Jerome, in his letter Against Jovinianus, discusses how people come to their present condition as a result of their heritage, and he then lists several examples of peoples and their customs. In the list, he mentions that he has heard that Attacotti eat human flesh and that Massagetae and Derbices (a people on the borders of India) kill and eat old people.
> Ugolino and his sons in their cell, as painted by William Blake. According to Dante, the prisoners were slowly starved to death and before dying Ugolino's children begged him to eat their bodies.
> Reports of cannibalism were recorded during the First Crusade, as Crusaders were alleged to have fed on the bodies of their dead opponents following the Siege of Ma'arra. Amin Maalouf also alleges further cannibalism incidents on the march to Jerusalem, and to the efforts made to delete mention of these from Western history. During Europe's Great Famine of 1315–17, there were many reports of cannibalism among the starving populations. In North Africa, as in Europe, there are references to cannibalism as a last resort in times of famine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And yes...the native Americans were just as violent as their European counterparts...
> 
> Thanksgiving guilt trip: How warlike were Native Americans before Europeans showed up?
> 
> As I've pointed out previously, prominent scientists now deride depictions of pre-state people as peaceful. "Contra leftist anthropologists who celebrate the noble savage," the Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker wrote in 2007, "quantitative body counts—such as the proportion of prehistoric skeletons with ax marks and embedded arrowheads or the proportion of men in a contemporary foraging tribe who die at the hands of other men—suggest that pre-state societies were far more violent than our own." According to Pinker, the 17th-century philosopher Thomas Hobbes "got it right" when he called pre-state life a "war of all against all."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pinker based his view on books such as _War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage_ (Oxford University Press, 1996) by the anthropologist Lawrence Keeley of the University of Illinois, and _Constant Battles: The Myth of the Peaceful, Noble Savage_ (Saint Martin's Press, 2003) by the archaeologist Steven LeBlanc of Harvard. "The dogs of war were seldom on a leash" in the pre-Colombian New World, Keeley wrote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Popular culture has amplified these scientific claims. In the 2007 HBO docudrama _Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee,_ Chief Sitting Bull complains to a U.S. Army colonel about whites' violent treatment of the Indians. The colonel retorts, "You were killing each other for hundreds of moons before the first white stepped foot on this continent."
Click to expand...



Total nonsense.
First of all, before you have sedentary societies with agriculture, surplus, and currency, it is essentially impossible to have professional warriors, and it did not happen.  They were too busy hunting and gathering.  Nor would any significant degree of warfare make any sense, because there would be nothing to gain, and the risk were way too high due to lack of medical care technology.
We still have lots of examples of primitive cultures, and we know from experience that warfare is rare and mostly symbolic.
Those claiming otherwise are full of hot air.


----------



## Rigby5

2aguy said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shhh...don’t let anyone know the Natives were already warring with each other before the White man came along.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And eating each other......for dinner.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not  true.  There is a question with the Anasazi in New Mexico, but only because the changing climate created such a long drought that all Anasazi either died or eventually had to leave.  Even where cannibalism was common, like New Guinea, it is ritualistic, and not for food.
> And the Romans and other Mediterranean cultures also conducted ritualistic cannibalism for religious purposes.  The Romans and Europeans were likely the most barbaric in history, with things like crucifixion, burning at the stake, impaling, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As opposed to the Aztec and Inca and the other indians in North America who also engaged in ritual torture and execution.....  And the Indians here were cutting out and eating hearts long after Rome fell....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  Aztecs had a weird religious belief in sacrifice, but it was not at all torture, and victims were drugged out first.
> It was a weird adaptation to previous over population problems.
> It was not at all like the mass murder carried out by the Romans against the Druids, the Christians against Jews and Moslems, etc.
> I have NEVER read anything about anyone eating human hearts in the New World?
> 
> But it fairly common to find in Europe.
> Human cannibalism - Wikipedia
> {...
> In Gough's Cave, England, remains of human bones and skulls, around 14,700 years old, suggest that cannibalism took place amongst the people living in or visiting the cave, and that they may have used human skulls as drinking vessels.
> 
> Researchers have found physical evidence of cannibalism in ancient times. In 2001, archaeologists at the University of Bristol found evidence of Iron Age cannibalism in Gloucestershire. Cannibalism was practiced as recently as 2000 years ago in Great Britain.
> ...
> Cannibalism is mentioned many times in early history and literature. Herodotus in "The Histories" (450s to the 420s BCE) claimed, that after eleven days' voyage up the Borysthenes (Dnieper in Europe) a desolated land extended for a long way, and later the country of the man-eaters (other than Scythians) was located, and beyond it again a desolated area extended where no men lived.
> 
> According to Appian, during the Roman Siege of Numantia in the second century BCE, the population of Numantia was reduced to cannibalism and suicide.
> 
> Cannibalism was reported by Josephus during the siege of Jerusalem by Rome in 70 CE.
> 
> Jerome, in his letter Against Jovinianus, discusses how people come to their present condition as a result of their heritage, and he then lists several examples of peoples and their customs. In the list, he mentions that he has heard that Attacotti eat human flesh and that Massagetae and Derbices (a people on the borders of India) kill and eat old people.
> Ugolino and his sons in their cell, as painted by William Blake. According to Dante, the prisoners were slowly starved to death and before dying Ugolino's children begged him to eat their bodies.
> Reports of cannibalism were recorded during the First Crusade, as Crusaders were alleged to have fed on the bodies of their dead opponents following the Siege of Ma'arra. Amin Maalouf also alleges further cannibalism incidents on the march to Jerusalem, and to the efforts made to delete mention of these from Western history. During Europe's Great Famine of 1315–17, there were many reports of cannibalism among the starving populations. In North Africa, as in Europe, there are references to cannibalism as a last resort in times of famine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And more....
> 
> The Most Violent Era In America Was Before Europeans Arrived
> 
> But archeology keeps its own history and a new paper finds that the 20th century, with its hundreds of millions dead in wars and, in the case of Germany, China, Russia and other dictatorships, genocide, was not the most violent - on a per-capita basis that honor may belong to the central Mesa Verde of southwest Colorado and the Pueblo Indians.
> 
> Writing in the journal _American Antiquity_, Washington State University archaeologist Tim Kohler and colleagues document how nearly 90 percent of human remains from that period had trauma from blows to either their heads or parts of their arms.
> 
> "If we're identifying that much trauma, many were dying a violent death," said Kohler. The study also offers new clues to the mysterious depopulation of the northern Southwest, from a population of about 40,000 people in the mid-1200s to 0 in 30 years.
> 
> From the days they first arrived in the Southwest in the 1800s, most anthropologists and archaeologists have downplayed evidence of violent conflict among native Americans.
> 
> "Archaeologists with one or two exceptions have not tried to develop an objective metric of levels of violence through time," said Kohler. "They've looked at a mix of various things like burned structures, defensive site locations and so forth, but it's very difficult to distill an estimate of levels of violence from such things. We've concentrated on one thing, and that is trauma, especially to the head and portions of the arms. That's allowed us to look at levels of violence through time in a comparative way."
Click to expand...


Totally nonscientific nonsense.
Correlation is not causation.
Sure the southwest did have some primitive tribal conflicts, but that was due to extreme pressures caused by desertification, and Europeans displacing natives and making them crowd together.  It was not at all normal, as other locations verify.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> AGAIN.  WELL REGULATED has NOTHING to do with laws, and everything to do with being in good working order.  Learn some ENGLISH!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Appealing to ignorance is a fallacy, right wingers.  Fallacy is all y'all have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you are the only one demonstrating your profound ignorance on a daily basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> anybody can Talk.  Men have arguments.
> 
> Our Constitution is Express, not Implied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed it is.  "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".  Who shall not be infringed upon?  The government that makes the laws....or the PEOPLE that those laws infringe upon?  C'mon junior, you claim to have an "argument".  Make it.  So far all you have shown is an infantile understanding of the COTUS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about, like usual, right wingers.
> 
> Wellness of regulation has to prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.
Click to expand...


Totally wrong.
Clearly the 2nd Amendment says the feds get absolutely ZERO jurisdiction over weapons at all.
The phrase "well regulated militia", means that if you do not ensure the general population always has full access to weapons, then they won't be ready or able to defend themselves, their cities, their states, or their country.  Remember that no one wanted or trusted a standing army back then.  They only wanted citizens soldiers.  There essentially was no significant standing army until around 1900.


----------



## Rigby5

Indeependent said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> H B Lowrie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> A foreign intervention is vastly different from a civil war...douchebag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think the US military would use nukes in a civil war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slaughtered and genocided our way into a land mass, you think your whiteness will give them pause?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shhh...don’t let anyone know the Natives were already warring with each other before the White man came along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Except it primitive warfare was normally symbolic, very low fatality rates, and captured were usually adopted.
> Nothing like as bad as we did to the Cherokee, Mandan, Sioux, Apache, Chimariko, etc.
> By putting a price on scalps, we encouraged people to commit mass murder for profit, resulting in whole tribes being made extinct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sans automation, I would guess life was wonderful being a slave to a conquering tribe.
Click to expand...


Wrong.
First of all, unlike Europeans like Romans, there is absolutely no incentive for slavery.  
Primitive tribes are hunter/gatherers, and have no use for slaves, much less the ability to keep them.
There was some slavery, but it essentially is what we now use prisons for, was not permanent, and was not nearly as abusive as what capitalist investors used slaves for.
Without currency or agriculture, exactly what point would there be for slavery?


----------



## Chuz Life

Lakhota said:


> I cherish my guns - but the 2nd Amendment is an obsolete fossil.



That completely shows how ignorant of the purpose of the 2nd Amendment you really are.

Here's a clue.

The right to own firearms actually predates the 2nd Amendment and the Constitution itself by HUNDREDS of years!

Derp!

Learn some history.

Where do you suppose the founding fathers who took up arms against King George got the right to THEIR firearms in the time before the Constitution was even drafted?


----------



## Rigby5

Chuz Life said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I cherish my guns - but the 2nd Amendment is an obsolete fossil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That completely shows how ignorant of the purpose of the 2nd Amendment you really are.
> 
> Here's a clue.
> 
> The right to own firearms actually predates the 2nd Amendment and the Constitution itself by HUNDREDS of years!
> 
> Derp!
> 
> Learn some history.
> 
> Where do you suppose the founding fathers who took up arms against King George got the right to THEIR firearms in the time before the Constitution was even drafted?
Click to expand...



Exactly.
The whole point of the American Revolution and the Constitution was an acknowledgement of inherent individual rights.
The Constitution does not at all create any rights at all, but was an attempt to simply restate a few pre-existing ones, and the 9th and 10th amendments are very clear that not all rights are stated, that government can only do what the constitution expressly authorized it to do, and no more.
And since no where does the constitution ever grant any federal authority for any type of form of weapons control at all, then any federal weapons legislation is totally illegal.
The right to bear arms comes mostly from the right of self defense, as restated in the 4th and 5th amendments.


----------



## Chuz Life

Rigby5 said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I cherish my guns - but the 2nd Amendment is an obsolete fossil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That completely shows how ignorant of the purpose of the 2nd Amendment you really are.
> 
> Here's a clue.
> 
> The right to own firearms actually predates the 2nd Amendment and the Constitution itself by HUNDREDS of years!
> 
> Derp!
> 
> Learn some history.
> 
> Where do you suppose the founding fathers who took up arms against King George got the right to THEIR firearms in the time before the Constitution was even drafted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> The whole point of the American Revolution and the Constitution was an acknowledgement of inherent individual rights.
> The Constitution does not at all create any rights at all, but was an attempt to simply restate a few pre-existing ones, and the 9th and 10th amendments are very clear that not all rights are stated, that government can only do what the constitution expressly authorized it to do, and no more.
> And since no where does the constitution ever grant any federal authority for any type of form of weapons control at all, then any federal weapons legislation is totally illegal.
> The right to bear arms comes mostly from the right of self defense, as restated in the 4th and 5th amendments.
Click to expand...


I agree with almost all of that except where you say that "any form of federal weapons control is_ illegal._"

I am intrigued by your argument. 

However, I would like for you to consider the phrase in the Declaration of Independence where it says that the Government can enact laws (paraphrased) with the "consent of the governed."

It is only with our "consent" that the Government can pass laws that affect our "rights." And we "the people" do have the right to revoke our consent to re secure our rights.

I understand your point that the Declaration is NOT the Constitution. Like I said, I am intrigued by your argument.

I hope you will be just as considerate of what my point is too.

We are not that far apart.


----------



## Rigby5

Chuz Life said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I cherish my guns - but the 2nd Amendment is an obsolete fossil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That completely shows how ignorant of the purpose of the 2nd Amendment you really are.
> 
> Here's a clue.
> 
> The right to own firearms actually predates the 2nd Amendment and the Constitution itself by HUNDREDS of years!
> 
> Derp!
> 
> Learn some history.
> 
> Where do you suppose the founding fathers who took up arms against King George got the right to THEIR firearms in the time before the Constitution was even drafted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> The whole point of the American Revolution and the Constitution was an acknowledgement of inherent individual rights.
> The Constitution does not at all create any rights at all, but was an attempt to simply restate a few pre-existing ones, and the 9th and 10th amendments are very clear that not all rights are stated, that government can only do what the constitution expressly authorized it to do, and no more.
> And since no where does the constitution ever grant any federal authority for any type of form of weapons control at all, then any federal weapons legislation is totally illegal.
> The right to bear arms comes mostly from the right of self defense, as restated in the 4th and 5th amendments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with almost all of that except where you say that "any form of federal weapons control is_ illegal._"
> 
> I am intrigued by your argument.
> 
> However, I would like for you to consider the phrase in the Declaration of Independence where it says that the Government can enact laws (paraphrased) with the "consent of the governed."
> 
> It is only with our "consent" that the Government can pass laws that affect our "rights." And we "the people" do have the right to revoke our consent to re secure our rights.
> 
> I understand your point that the Declaration is NOT the Constitution. Like I said, I am intrigued by your argument.
> 
> I hope you will be just as considerate of what my point is too.
> 
> We are not that far apart.
Click to expand...



Sure government can enact laws with the consent of the people, but that is referring mostly to laws that are advantageous, not restrictive.
For example, government can use tax money to buy the Louisiana Purchase, as long as the people agree.
But that is not an infringement upon anyone's individual rights.
And no matter how many people may agree or want something, if it illegally infringes upon the rights of any one single individual, then government has no authority to do it.  (That does not mean government can't arrest or imprison, because that is not an infringement, but a necessity in order to defend the rights of others.)
For example, the majority can not pass a referendum legalizing slavery, authorizing rape as punishment, etc., because the majority does not have that authority.  Individuals only have the authority do defend their own rights, so can only delegate the same to government.

But more important is that the Constitution had to delineate jurisdiction, between the federal government and anything else.  And clearly the point of the 2nd amendment was to totally preclude any federal weapons jurisdiction at all.  So while one could argue in favor of some local or state weapons regulation, clearly there can not legally be any federal weapons regulations.

To recap, the ONLY source of any authority at all in a democratic republic, is the defense of inherent individual rights.  There can be  no other source.  So any law that is restrictive to anyone, but not necessary in order to defend the inherent rights of others, then it is wrong and without legal authorization.  People forget that legislators are not at all a source of any authority at all.  They merely borrow the authority we delegate to them, so they can defend us.  They can not exceed that, even if the majority wants it.


----------



## Chuz Life

Rigby5 said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I cherish my guns - but the 2nd Amendment is an obsolete fossil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That completely shows how ignorant of the purpose of the 2nd Amendment you really are.
> 
> Here's a clue.
> 
> The right to own firearms actually predates the 2nd Amendment and the Constitution itself by HUNDREDS of years!
> 
> Derp!
> 
> Learn some history.
> 
> Where do you suppose the founding fathers who took up arms against King George got the right to THEIR firearms in the time before the Constitution was even drafted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> The whole point of the American Revolution and the Constitution was an acknowledgement of inherent individual rights.
> The Constitution does not at all create any rights at all, but was an attempt to simply restate a few pre-existing ones, and the 9th and 10th amendments are very clear that not all rights are stated, that government can only do what the constitution expressly authorized it to do, and no more.
> And since no where does the constitution ever grant any federal authority for any type of form of weapons control at all, then any federal weapons legislation is totally illegal.
> The right to bear arms comes mostly from the right of self defense, as restated in the 4th and 5th amendments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with almost all of that except where you say that "any form of federal weapons control is_ illegal._"
> 
> I am intrigued by your argument.
> 
> However, I would like for you to consider the phrase in the Declaration of Independence where it says that the Government can enact laws (paraphrased) with the "consent of the governed."
> 
> It is only with our "consent" that the Government can pass laws that affect our "rights." And we "the people" do have the right to revoke our consent to re secure our rights.
> 
> I understand your point that the Declaration is NOT the Constitution. Like I said, I am intrigued by your argument.
> 
> I hope you will be just as considerate of what my point is too.
> 
> We are not that far apart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure government can enact laws with the consent of the people, but that is referring* mostly* to laws that are advantageous, not restrictive.
Click to expand...


Explain "mostly" please.


----------



## 2aguy

Rigby5 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> And eating each other......for dinner.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not  true.  There is a question with the Anasazi in New Mexico, but only because the changing climate created such a long drought that all Anasazi either died or eventually had to leave.  Even where cannibalism was common, like New Guinea, it is ritualistic, and not for food.
> And the Romans and other Mediterranean cultures also conducted ritualistic cannibalism for religious purposes.  The Romans and Europeans were likely the most barbaric in history, with things like crucifixion, burning at the stake, impaling, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As opposed to the Aztec and Inca and the other indians in North America who also engaged in ritual torture and execution.....  And the Indians here were cutting out and eating hearts long after Rome fell....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  Aztecs had a weird religious belief in sacrifice, but it was not at all torture, and victims were drugged out first.
> It was a weird adaptation to previous over population problems.
> It was not at all like the mass murder carried out by the Romans against the Druids, the Christians against Jews and Moslems, etc.
> I have NEVER read anything about anyone eating human hearts in the New World?
> 
> But it fairly common to find in Europe.
> Human cannibalism - Wikipedia
> {...
> In Gough's Cave, England, remains of human bones and skulls, around 14,700 years old, suggest that cannibalism took place amongst the people living in or visiting the cave, and that they may have used human skulls as drinking vessels.
> 
> Researchers have found physical evidence of cannibalism in ancient times. In 2001, archaeologists at the University of Bristol found evidence of Iron Age cannibalism in Gloucestershire. Cannibalism was practiced as recently as 2000 years ago in Great Britain.
> ...
> Cannibalism is mentioned many times in early history and literature. Herodotus in "The Histories" (450s to the 420s BCE) claimed, that after eleven days' voyage up the Borysthenes (Dnieper in Europe) a desolated land extended for a long way, and later the country of the man-eaters (other than Scythians) was located, and beyond it again a desolated area extended where no men lived.
> 
> According to Appian, during the Roman Siege of Numantia in the second century BCE, the population of Numantia was reduced to cannibalism and suicide.
> 
> Cannibalism was reported by Josephus during the siege of Jerusalem by Rome in 70 CE.
> 
> Jerome, in his letter Against Jovinianus, discusses how people come to their present condition as a result of their heritage, and he then lists several examples of peoples and their customs. In the list, he mentions that he has heard that Attacotti eat human flesh and that Massagetae and Derbices (a people on the borders of India) kill and eat old people.
> Ugolino and his sons in their cell, as painted by William Blake. According to Dante, the prisoners were slowly starved to death and before dying Ugolino's children begged him to eat their bodies.
> Reports of cannibalism were recorded during the First Crusade, as Crusaders were alleged to have fed on the bodies of their dead opponents following the Siege of Ma'arra. Amin Maalouf also alleges further cannibalism incidents on the march to Jerusalem, and to the efforts made to delete mention of these from Western history. During Europe's Great Famine of 1315–17, there were many reports of cannibalism among the starving populations. In North Africa, as in Europe, there are references to cannibalism as a last resort in times of famine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And yes...the native Americans were just as violent as their European counterparts...
> 
> Thanksgiving guilt trip: How warlike were Native Americans before Europeans showed up?
> 
> As I've pointed out previously, prominent scientists now deride depictions of pre-state people as peaceful. "Contra leftist anthropologists who celebrate the noble savage," the Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker wrote in 2007, "quantitative body counts—such as the proportion of prehistoric skeletons with ax marks and embedded arrowheads or the proportion of men in a contemporary foraging tribe who die at the hands of other men—suggest that pre-state societies were far more violent than our own." According to Pinker, the 17th-century philosopher Thomas Hobbes "got it right" when he called pre-state life a "war of all against all."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pinker based his view on books such as _War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage_ (Oxford University Press, 1996) by the anthropologist Lawrence Keeley of the University of Illinois, and _Constant Battles: The Myth of the Peaceful, Noble Savage_ (Saint Martin's Press, 2003) by the archaeologist Steven LeBlanc of Harvard. "The dogs of war were seldom on a leash" in the pre-Colombian New World, Keeley wrote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Popular culture has amplified these scientific claims. In the 2007 HBO docudrama _Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee,_ Chief Sitting Bull complains to a U.S. Army colonel about whites' violent treatment of the Indians. The colonel retorts, "You were killing each other for hundreds of moons before the first white stepped foot on this continent."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Total nonsense.
> First of all, before you have sedentary societies with agriculture, surplus, and currency, it is essentially impossible to have professional warriors, and it did not happen.  They were too busy hunting and gathering.  Nor would any significant degree of warfare make any sense, because there would be nothing to gain, and the risk were way too high due to lack of medical care technology.
> We still have lots of examples of primitive cultures, and we know from experience that warfare is rare and mostly symbolic.
> Those claiming otherwise are full of hot air.
Click to expand...



Wrong......the archeologists have been covering up the violence..... actual archeological finds show that they were violent.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Rigby5 said:


> [
> Wrong.
> First of all, unlike Europeans like Romans, there is absolutely no incentive for slavery.
> Primitive tribes are hunter/gatherers, and have no use for slaves, much less the ability to keep them.
> There was some slavery, but it essentially is what we now use prisons for, was not permanent, and was not nearly as abusive as what capitalist investors used slaves for.
> Without currency or agriculture, exactly what point would there be for slavery?



Do you grasp that history is the chronicle of what happened in the past? Not the fantasy you prefer, but rather what happened?

Slavery was extensive among the Indians. In Mesoamerica slaves were the heart of Mayan culture. Mayan warriors raided local tribes for slaves to work in agriculture, slaves for sexual purposes, and slaves to murder in religious purposes. Then there were the Aztecs, the most evil culture in recorded history. Aztecs also took slaves to work in agriculture, slaves for sexual purposes, and slaves to murder in religious purpose. They also took slaves to use as target dummies for training warriors. Slaves entertained Aztecs by being mauled by animals, playing basketball type games with the losers being murdered. Of course the Aztecs made the Nazis look like teddy bears....

In North America, the Indians were stone age. There were thousands of tribes that were more like modern street gangs than actual governments. Slavery varied among them.  The Cheyenne relied heavily on slavery to maintain their hunter caste. Slaves were taken to do all labor. This was a major problem after the forced relocation of the Cherokee into Cheyenne territory. The Cherokee were brutally victimized.

The Comanche were yet another story;   

{Historian Pekka Hämäläinen, in his 2009 book _The Comanche Empire_, writes of Comanche uses of slavery during their period of dominance of the American Southwest between 1750 and 1850. The Comanche exercised hegemony in part by numerical superiority, and enslavement was part of that strategy. Hämäläinen writes that Comanches put captives through a rigorous process of enslavement—a dehumanizing initiation that brought a non-Comanche captive into the tribe through renaming, tattooing, beating, whipping, mutilation, and starvation—but stipulates that once a person was enslaved, there were varying degrees of freedom and privilege she or he could attain. Male captives might be made blood bondsmen with their owners, protecting them from ill treatment and casual sale;}

Native American Slaves: Historians Uncover an Overlooked, Chilling Chapter in U.S. History


----------



## danielpalos

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States; 

or, 

the expense of our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror that the right wing refuses to acknowledge and pay for with wartime tax rates.


----------



## Rigby5

Chuz Life said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I cherish my guns - but the 2nd Amendment is an obsolete fossil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That completely shows how ignorant of the purpose of the 2nd Amendment you really are.
> 
> Here's a clue.
> 
> The right to own firearms actually predates the 2nd Amendment and the Constitution itself by HUNDREDS of years!
> 
> Derp!
> 
> Learn some history.
> 
> Where do you suppose the founding fathers who took up arms against King George got the right to THEIR firearms in the time before the Constitution was even drafted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> The whole point of the American Revolution and the Constitution was an acknowledgement of inherent individual rights.
> The Constitution does not at all create any rights at all, but was an attempt to simply restate a few pre-existing ones, and the 9th and 10th amendments are very clear that not all rights are stated, that government can only do what the constitution expressly authorized it to do, and no more.
> And since no where does the constitution ever grant any federal authority for any type of form of weapons control at all, then any federal weapons legislation is totally illegal.
> The right to bear arms comes mostly from the right of self defense, as restated in the 4th and 5th amendments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with almost all of that except where you say that "any form of federal weapons control is_ illegal._"
> 
> I am intrigued by your argument.
> 
> However, I would like for you to consider the phrase in the Declaration of Independence where it says that the Government can enact laws (paraphrased) with the "consent of the governed."
> 
> It is only with our "consent" that the Government can pass laws that affect our "rights." And we "the people" do have the right to revoke our consent to re secure our rights.
> 
> I understand your point that the Declaration is NOT the Constitution. Like I said, I am intrigued by your argument.
> 
> I hope you will be just as considerate of what my point is too.
> 
> We are not that far apart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure government can enact laws with the consent of the people, but that is referring* mostly* to laws that are advantageous, not restrictive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain "mostly" please.
Click to expand...


The reason I intentionally included the word "mostly" is that while government should generally reflect the will of  the people in a democratic republic, the inherent rights of any one single individual has to remain superior to just the desires of everyone else.  The desires of the majority can not ever over ride the rights of any one single individual.  And example of this being done wrong in the past was slavery of minorities, but currently I still find eminent domain used to condemn and confiscate property as not being really legal.  It is not that I want stubborn individuals to be able to hold up urban renewal or important transportation projects, but that there is no legal basis for it, in a democratic republic.  How can the majority delegate to government, something they do not as individuals have any inherent right to do?  Numbers do not matter.  The majority has no more inherent rights than the minority.  So the majority can win when it is an extra privilege, like social programs, infrastructure improvements, etc., but not when it comes to individual rights, like the 2nd amendment.  It is not up for majority vote.  The rights of any one single individual must superseded the desires of the many.


----------



## Rigby5

2aguy said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not  true.  There is a question with the Anasazi in New Mexico, but only because the changing climate created such a long drought that all Anasazi either died or eventually had to leave.  Even where cannibalism was common, like New Guinea, it is ritualistic, and not for food.
> And the Romans and other Mediterranean cultures also conducted ritualistic cannibalism for religious purposes.  The Romans and Europeans were likely the most barbaric in history, with things like crucifixion, burning at the stake, impaling, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As opposed to the Aztec and Inca and the other indians in North America who also engaged in ritual torture and execution.....  And the Indians here were cutting out and eating hearts long after Rome fell....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  Aztecs had a weird religious belief in sacrifice, but it was not at all torture, and victims were drugged out first.
> It was a weird adaptation to previous over population problems.
> It was not at all like the mass murder carried out by the Romans against the Druids, the Christians against Jews and Moslems, etc.
> I have NEVER read anything about anyone eating human hearts in the New World?
> 
> But it fairly common to find in Europe.
> Human cannibalism - Wikipedia
> {...
> In Gough's Cave, England, remains of human bones and skulls, around 14,700 years old, suggest that cannibalism took place amongst the people living in or visiting the cave, and that they may have used human skulls as drinking vessels.
> 
> Researchers have found physical evidence of cannibalism in ancient times. In 2001, archaeologists at the University of Bristol found evidence of Iron Age cannibalism in Gloucestershire. Cannibalism was practiced as recently as 2000 years ago in Great Britain.
> ...
> Cannibalism is mentioned many times in early history and literature. Herodotus in "The Histories" (450s to the 420s BCE) claimed, that after eleven days' voyage up the Borysthenes (Dnieper in Europe) a desolated land extended for a long way, and later the country of the man-eaters (other than Scythians) was located, and beyond it again a desolated area extended where no men lived.
> 
> According to Appian, during the Roman Siege of Numantia in the second century BCE, the population of Numantia was reduced to cannibalism and suicide.
> 
> Cannibalism was reported by Josephus during the siege of Jerusalem by Rome in 70 CE.
> 
> Jerome, in his letter Against Jovinianus, discusses how people come to their present condition as a result of their heritage, and he then lists several examples of peoples and their customs. In the list, he mentions that he has heard that Attacotti eat human flesh and that Massagetae and Derbices (a people on the borders of India) kill and eat old people.
> Ugolino and his sons in their cell, as painted by William Blake. According to Dante, the prisoners were slowly starved to death and before dying Ugolino's children begged him to eat their bodies.
> Reports of cannibalism were recorded during the First Crusade, as Crusaders were alleged to have fed on the bodies of their dead opponents following the Siege of Ma'arra. Amin Maalouf also alleges further cannibalism incidents on the march to Jerusalem, and to the efforts made to delete mention of these from Western history. During Europe's Great Famine of 1315–17, there were many reports of cannibalism among the starving populations. In North Africa, as in Europe, there are references to cannibalism as a last resort in times of famine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And yes...the native Americans were just as violent as their European counterparts...
> 
> Thanksgiving guilt trip: How warlike were Native Americans before Europeans showed up?
> 
> As I've pointed out previously, prominent scientists now deride depictions of pre-state people as peaceful. "Contra leftist anthropologists who celebrate the noble savage," the Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker wrote in 2007, "quantitative body counts—such as the proportion of prehistoric skeletons with ax marks and embedded arrowheads or the proportion of men in a contemporary foraging tribe who die at the hands of other men—suggest that pre-state societies were far more violent than our own." According to Pinker, the 17th-century philosopher Thomas Hobbes "got it right" when he called pre-state life a "war of all against all."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pinker based his view on books such as _War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage_ (Oxford University Press, 1996) by the anthropologist Lawrence Keeley of the University of Illinois, and _Constant Battles: The Myth of the Peaceful, Noble Savage_ (Saint Martin's Press, 2003) by the archaeologist Steven LeBlanc of Harvard. "The dogs of war were seldom on a leash" in the pre-Colombian New World, Keeley wrote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Popular culture has amplified these scientific claims. In the 2007 HBO docudrama _Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee,_ Chief Sitting Bull complains to a U.S. Army colonel about whites' violent treatment of the Indians. The colonel retorts, "You were killing each other for hundreds of moons before the first white stepped foot on this continent."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Total nonsense.
> First of all, before you have sedentary societies with agriculture, surplus, and currency, it is essentially impossible to have professional warriors, and it did not happen.  They were too busy hunting and gathering.  Nor would any significant degree of warfare make any sense, because there would be nothing to gain, and the risk were way too high due to lack of medical care technology.
> We still have lots of examples of primitive cultures, and we know from experience that warfare is rare and mostly symbolic.
> Those claiming otherwise are full of hot air.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong......the archeologists have been covering up the violence..... actual archeological finds show that they were violent.
Click to expand...


No, the archaeologists suggesting violence are guessing.  They find nicks on bones and assume cannibalism, when there have been documented cases when the nicks were actually caused from a great fall onto sharp stones.  We know the archaeologists are wrong because the primitive cultures still exist now and can be studied, and because there simply is no incentive for that level of violence, before agriculture, production surpluses, currency, and commercial warrior professionals.  
It really is not very complicated, because all people who have studied primates have been clear that humans are the single most cooperative and least intra-species violent there has ever been, except for maybe bees or ant colonies.  There is absolutely nothing at all to be gained by intra-species human violence, so it can not be selected for naturally.  There are a few exceptions, like where there is rapid desertification the Fertile Crescent, or resource depletion like Easter Island, but those are in the vast minority.  
And what incentive would anthropologist or archaeologists have for "covering up"?  The opposite is true, in that they would be rewarded and sell more books if they tried to justify our current society with primitive similarities.  Bu they can't do it in general, because we currently are significantly worse then the historic norm.  Nobody wants to hear that, but is most definitely is true.  We are not better, but much worse.


----------



## Rigby5

Uncensored2008 said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Wrong.
> First of all, unlike Europeans like Romans, there is absolutely no incentive for slavery.
> Primitive tribes are hunter/gatherers, and have no use for slaves, much less the ability to keep them.
> There was some slavery, but it essentially is what we now use prisons for, was not permanent, and was not nearly as abusive as what capitalist investors used slaves for.
> Without currency or agriculture, exactly what point would there be for slavery?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you grasp that history is the chronicle of what happened in the past? Not the fantasy you prefer, but rather what happened?
> 
> Slavery was extensive among the Indians. In Mesoamerica slaves were the heart of Mayan culture. Mayan warriors raided local tribes for slaves to work in agriculture, slaves for sexual purposes, and slaves to murder in religious purposes. Then there were the Aztecs, the most evil culture in recorded history. Aztecs also took slaves to work in agriculture, slaves for sexual purposes, and slaves to murder in religious purpose. They also took slaves to use as target dummies for training warriors. Slaves entertained Aztecs by being mauled by animals, playing basketball type games with the losers being murdered. Of course the Aztecs made the Nazis look like teddy bears....
> 
> In North America, the Indians were stone age. There were thousands of tribes that were more like modern street gangs than actual governments. Slavery varied among them.  The Cheyenne relied heavily on slavery to maintain their hunter caste. Slaves were taken to do all labor. This was a major problem after the forced relocation of the Cherokee into Cheyenne territory. The Cherokee were brutally victimized.
> 
> The Comanche were yet another story;
> 
> {Historian Pekka Hämäläinen, in his 2009 book _The Comanche Empire_, writes of Comanche uses of slavery during their period of dominance of the American Southwest between 1750 and 1850. The Comanche exercised hegemony in part by numerical superiority, and enslavement was part of that strategy. Hämäläinen writes that Comanches put captives through a rigorous process of enslavement—a dehumanizing initiation that brought a non-Comanche captive into the tribe through renaming, tattooing, beating, whipping, mutilation, and starvation—but stipulates that once a person was enslaved, there were varying degrees of freedom and privilege she or he could attain. Male captives might be made blood bondsmen with their owners, protecting them from ill treatment and casual sale;}
> 
> Native American Slaves: Historians Uncover an Overlooked, Chilling Chapter in U.S. History
Click to expand...


----------



## Rigby5

Uncensored2008 said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Wrong.
> First of all, unlike Europeans like Romans, there is absolutely no incentive for slavery.
> Primitive tribes are hunter/gatherers, and have no use for slaves, much less the ability to keep them.
> There was some slavery, but it essentially is what we now use prisons for, was not permanent, and was not nearly as abusive as what capitalist investors used slaves for.
> Without currency or agriculture, exactly what point would there be for slavery?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you grasp that history is the chronicle of what happened in the past? Not the fantasy you prefer, but rather what happened?
> 
> Slavery was extensive among the Indians. In Mesoamerica slaves were the heart of Mayan culture. Mayan warriors raided local tribes for slaves to work in agriculture, slaves for sexual purposes, and slaves to murder in religious purposes. Then there were the Aztecs, the most evil culture in recorded history. Aztecs also took slaves to work in agriculture, slaves for sexual purposes, and slaves to murder in religious purpose. They also took slaves to use as target dummies for training warriors. Slaves entertained Aztecs by being mauled by animals, playing basketball type games with the losers being murdered. Of course the Aztecs made the Nazis look like teddy bears....
> 
> In North America, the Indians were stone age. There were thousands of tribes that were more like modern street gangs than actual governments. Slavery varied among them.  The Cheyenne relied heavily on slavery to maintain their hunter caste. Slaves were taken to do all labor. This was a major problem after the forced relocation of the Cherokee into Cheyenne territory. The Cherokee were brutally victimized.
> 
> The Comanche were yet another story;
> 
> {Historian Pekka Hämäläinen, in his 2009 book _The Comanche Empire_, writes of Comanche uses of slavery during their period of dominance of the American Southwest between 1750 and 1850. The Comanche exercised hegemony in part by numerical superiority, and enslavement was part of that strategy. Hämäläinen writes that Comanches put captives through a rigorous process of enslavement—a dehumanizing initiation that brought a non-Comanche captive into the tribe through renaming, tattooing, beating, whipping, mutilation, and starvation—but stipulates that once a person was enslaved, there were varying degrees of freedom and privilege she or he could attain. Male captives might be made blood bondsmen with their owners, protecting them from ill treatment and casual sale;}
> 
> Native American Slaves: Historians Uncover an Overlooked, Chilling Chapter in U.S. History
Click to expand...



Wrong.  That is totally made up.  We know almost nothing about the Mayans, and they disappeared before anyone could write anything about them, and those who did later write about them were the biased Christian Conquistador missionaries, who have no credibility at all.
You just watched the movie, "Apocalypto" and believed it was true.  But it was totally and completely made up, and made no sense at all.  I enjoyed the movie, but there was nothing based on knowledge in it.

Again, what possible slavery could primitive hunter/gatherers use?  The answer is none.  The slaves would not only be sitting around all the time, but would actually waste additional effort to prevent them from escaping and needing to be fed.  Any hunter/gather society would be far better off without slaves, so would not bother.  When mates are ritually kidnapped from other tribes, that is not slavery, since they were adopted into the new tribe, as relative equals eventually.  Kidnapping mates is good evolution because it reduced inbreeding.

Any tale of the Comanche would be pointless, because they had been totally displaced by the European invasion, and they then were a totally artificial reaction to extreme external stress.  Native American cultures were totally altered by contact with Europeans, so are not useful to study AFTER contact.  The Comanche were known as the Lords of the Southwest Great Plains, but the reality is that no one lived on the Great Plains originally, because the weather was too drastic.  It was only after Europeans brought horses and had displaced natives from better places, that anyone lived on the Great Plains.  In fact, some of the Great Plains tribes, like the Mandans, likely were created from lost European settlements.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States;
> 
> or,
> 
> the expense of our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror that the right wing refuses to acknowledge and pay for with wartime tax rates.



Not sure what you mean, because the war on crime, drugs and terror are all wrong, illegal, and should immediately be stopped.
We should stop spending so much on the military, as they are part of the problem and deliberately lying about things like WMD in order to create unnecessary and illegal wars, instead of being beneficial.  If you reward lies, then you will get even more lies.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States;
> 
> or,
> 
> the expense of our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror that the right wing refuses to acknowledge and pay for with wartime tax rates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what you mean, because the war on crime, drugs and terror are all wrong, illegal, and should immediately be stopped.
> We should stop spending so much on the military, as they are part of the problem and deliberately lying about things like WMD in order to create unnecessary and illegal wars, instead of being beneficial.  If you reward lies, then you will get even more lies.
Click to expand...

Only well regulated militia is expressly declared necessary to the security of our free States.  

We should have no alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States;
> 
> or,
> 
> the expense of our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror that the right wing refuses to acknowledge and pay for with wartime tax rates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what you mean, because the war on crime, drugs and terror are all wrong, illegal, and should immediately be stopped.
> We should stop spending so much on the military, as they are part of the problem and deliberately lying about things like WMD in order to create unnecessary and illegal wars, instead of being beneficial.  If you reward lies, then you will get even more lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia is expressly declared necessary to the security of our free States.
> 
> We should have no alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror.
Click to expand...


We agree on alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror.
But the word "regulate" in the Constitution, almost always means to enhance and make more efficient.
Such as the articles about regulating interstate commerce.
The goal obviously is not to prevent, reduce, or even count interstate commerce, but to ensure it is not interfered with in any way, by any one or more states.
The word "regulate" at the time referred to the efficient operation of something, like a "well regulated clock".
That does not mean the clock is inhibited from moving, but that it is kept "regular" and free from obstruction.
In the case of the militia, clearly the wording means well experiences, as the only way the country could defend itself was with a well functioning militia with consistent firearm skills.  You can't have any sort of militia at all if you impose gun control.
And the motivation really does not matter, because the bottom line still says that there is to be absolutely no federal weapons regulations at all, in any way.  It simply was all given to local and state jurisdiction, totally precluding any and all federal jurisdiction.


----------



## Lesh

Again...there are two mentions of the militia in the Constitution.

The 2A where it describes the necessity of allowing arms for that purpose in a "well regulated militia"...the Article 1 Section 8 where it describes that well regulated militia....complete with training and rank and roll calls


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States;
> 
> or,
> 
> the expense of our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror that the right wing refuses to acknowledge and pay for with wartime tax rates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what you mean, because the war on crime, drugs and terror are all wrong, illegal, and should immediately be stopped.
> We should stop spending so much on the military, as they are part of the problem and deliberately lying about things like WMD in order to create unnecessary and illegal wars, instead of being beneficial.  If you reward lies, then you will get even more lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia is expressly declared necessary to the security of our free States.
> 
> We should have no alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We agree on alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror.
> But the word "regulate" in the Constitution, almost always means to enhance and make more efficient.
> Such as the articles about regulating interstate commerce.
> The goal obviously is not to prevent, reduce, or even count interstate commerce, but to ensure it is not interfered with in any way, by any one or more states.
> The word "regulate" at the time referred to the efficient operation of something, like a "well regulated clock".
> That does not mean the clock is inhibited from moving, but that it is kept "regular" and free from obstruction.
> In the case of the militia, clearly the wording means well experiences, as the only way the country could defend itself was with a well functioning militia with consistent firearm skills.  You can't have any sort of militia at all if you impose gun control.
> And the motivation really does not matter, because the bottom line still says that there is to be absolutely no federal weapons regulations at all, in any way.  It simply was all given to local and state jurisdiction, totally precluding any and all federal jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

only the right wing appeals to ignorance of the law and claim they are for upholding our Constitution. 

Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.


----------



## westwall

danielpalos said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> AGAIN.  WELL REGULATED has NOTHING to do with laws, and everything to do with being in good working order.  Learn some ENGLISH!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Appealing to ignorance is a fallacy, right wingers.  Fallacy is all y'all have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you are the only one demonstrating your profound ignorance on a daily basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> anybody can Talk.  Men have arguments.
> 
> Our Constitution is Express, not Implied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed it is.  "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".  Who shall not be infringed upon?  The government that makes the laws....or the PEOPLE that those laws infringe upon?  C'mon junior, you claim to have an "argument".  Make it.  So far all you have shown is an infantile understanding of the COTUS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about, like usual, right wingers.
> 
> Wellness of regulation has to prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.
Click to expand...






No, you demonstrate on a daily basis that you are clueless.  So, once again, who are the folks being infringed upon when a law is passed?  The PEOPLE, or the guys who write the laws?  Don't bother answering we all know you will obfuscate and lie because your arguments are shit.


----------



## Rigby5

Lesh said:


> Again...there are two mentions of the militia in the Constitution.
> 
> The 2A where it describes the necessity of allowing arms for that purpose in a "well regulated militia"...the Article 1 Section 8 where it describes that well regulated militia....complete with training and rank and roll calls



Who cares what is mentioned about militias in the Constitution?
There were absolutely no police back then, there were no significant federal troops,  and they had no way to get where any local trouble may be, etc.
So essentially everything was done by some local militia or another.
There were dozens of militias in each state, and there was no federal militia, although the feds were given the authority call up and pay local militias in emergencies.
So you would not expect there to be much mention of militias in the constitution, since that was just to explicitly state what was federal jurisdiction.  Since militias were not federal jurisdiction, the federal constitution would be the wrong place to detail them.  That would be more for state constitutions, and that is where you will find all the details on militias.


----------



## danielpalos

westwall said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Appealing to ignorance is a fallacy, right wingers.  Fallacy is all y'all have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you are the only one demonstrating your profound ignorance on a daily basis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> anybody can Talk.  Men have arguments.
> 
> Our Constitution is Express, not Implied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed it is.  "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".  Who shall not be infringed upon?  The government that makes the laws....or the PEOPLE that those laws infringe upon?  C'mon junior, you claim to have an "argument".  Make it.  So far all you have shown is an infantile understanding of the COTUS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about, like usual, right wingers.
> 
> Wellness of regulation has to prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you demonstrate on a daily basis that you are clueless.  So, once again, who are the folks being infringed upon when a law is passed?  The PEOPLE, or the guys who write the laws?  Don't bother answering we all know you will obfuscate and lie because your arguments are shit.
Click to expand...

You don't know what you are talking about.  Only well regulated militia are declared necessary not the unorganized militia.


----------



## H B Lowrie

If only the second read "the right to bear alms", this society might not be so petty, shitty, and hateful.


----------



## Lesh

Rigby5 said:


> Who cares what is mentioned about militias in the Constitution?



Well then you don't care about the 2A.

Whatever.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Rigby5 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Wrong.
> First of all, unlike Europeans like Romans, there is absolutely no incentive for slavery.
> Primitive tribes are hunter/gatherers, and have no use for slaves, much less the ability to keep them.
> There was some slavery, but it essentially is what we now use prisons for, was not permanent, and was not nearly as abusive as what capitalist investors used slaves for.
> Without currency or agriculture, exactly what point would there be for slavery?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you grasp that history is the chronicle of what happened in the past? Not the fantasy you prefer, but rather what happened?
> 
> Slavery was extensive among the Indians. In Mesoamerica slaves were the heart of Mayan culture. Mayan warriors raided local tribes for slaves to work in agriculture, slaves for sexual purposes, and slaves to murder in religious purposes. Then there were the Aztecs, the most evil culture in recorded history. Aztecs also took slaves to work in agriculture, slaves for sexual purposes, and slaves to murder in religious purpose. They also took slaves to use as target dummies for training warriors. Slaves entertained Aztecs by being mauled by animals, playing basketball type games with the losers being murdered. Of course the Aztecs made the Nazis look like teddy bears....
> 
> In North America, the Indians were stone age. There were thousands of tribes that were more like modern street gangs than actual governments. Slavery varied among them.  The Cheyenne relied heavily on slavery to maintain their hunter caste. Slaves were taken to do all labor. This was a major problem after the forced relocation of the Cherokee into Cheyenne territory. The Cherokee were brutally victimized.
> 
> The Comanche were yet another story;
> 
> {Historian Pekka Hämäläinen, in his 2009 book _The Comanche Empire_, writes of Comanche uses of slavery during their period of dominance of the American Southwest between 1750 and 1850. The Comanche exercised hegemony in part by numerical superiority, and enslavement was part of that strategy. Hämäläinen writes that Comanches put captives through a rigorous process of enslavement—a dehumanizing initiation that brought a non-Comanche captive into the tribe through renaming, tattooing, beating, whipping, mutilation, and starvation—but stipulates that once a person was enslaved, there were varying degrees of freedom and privilege she or he could attain. Male captives might be made blood bondsmen with their owners, protecting them from ill treatment and casual sale;}
> 
> Native American Slaves: Historians Uncover an Overlooked, Chilling Chapter in U.S. History
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  That is totally made up.  We know almost nothing about the Mayans, and they disappeared before anyone could write anything about them, and those who did later write about them were the biased Christian Conquistador missionaries, who have no credibility at all.
> You just watched the movie, "Apocalypto" and believed it was true.  But it was totally and completely made up, and made no sense at all.  I enjoyed the movie, but there was nothing based on knowledge in it.
> 
> Again, what possible slavery could primitive hunter/gatherers use?  The answer is none.  The slaves would not only be sitting around all the time, but would actually waste additional effort to prevent them from escaping and needing to be fed.  Any hunter/gather society would be far better off without slaves, so would not bother.  When mates are ritually kidnapped from other tribes, that is not slavery, since they were adopted into the new tribe, as relative equals eventually.  Kidnapping mates is good evolution because it reduced inbreeding.
> 
> Any tale of the Comanche would be pointless, because they had been totally displaced by the European invasion, and they then were a totally artificial reaction to extreme external stress.  Native American cultures were totally altered by contact with Europeans, so are not useful to study AFTER contact.  The Comanche were known as the Lords of the Southwest Great Plains, but the reality is that no one lived on the Great Plains originally, because the weather was too drastic.  It was only after Europeans brought horses and had displaced natives from better places, that anyone lived on the Great Plains.  In fact, some of the Great Plains tribes, like the Mandans, likely were created from lost European settlements.
Click to expand...



I suspect you are confusing Mayan and Toltec. The Mayans are well known and documented.

Mayan history

As for the slavery practiced by the Cheyenne, you do grasp they were doing this into the late 19th century, right? The army had to deploy troops to protect the Cherokee from predation by the Cheyenne seeking slaves. The hunters were viewed as too important to engage in physical labor, so they took slaves. 

The problem here is that you are extremely ignorant and simply make shit up to tell the story you wish had happened, rather than dealing with the facts of what did happen.


----------



## anynameyouwish

Lakhota said:


> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
Click to expand...



everything in the constitution is subject to interpretation.

even the 2nd amendment.

I, personally, (a proud lib prog snowflake) SUPPORT every citizens right to own hand guns, rifles, shot guns and automatic weapons.

But it is certainly possible for some subset of the population to redefine what the 2nd amendment means and cause it to be "fact".

an example?

well.....some prominent conservatives have stated that the constitution is a CHRISTIAN DOCUMENT.

get enough supreme court judges to agree to THAT and next thing  you know "ONLY christians have rights"  resulting in NON christians NOT being able to buy weapons because the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to them.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you are the only one demonstrating your profound ignorance on a daily basis.
> 
> 
> 
> anybody can Talk.  Men have arguments.
> 
> Our Constitution is Express, not Implied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed it is.  "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".  Who shall not be infringed upon?  The government that makes the laws....or the PEOPLE that those laws infringe upon?  C'mon junior, you claim to have an "argument".  Make it.  So far all you have shown is an infantile understanding of the COTUS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about, like usual, right wingers.
> 
> Wellness of regulation has to prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you demonstrate on a daily basis that you are clueless.  So, once again, who are the folks being infringed upon when a law is passed?  The PEOPLE, or the guys who write the laws?  Don't bother answering we all know you will obfuscate and lie because your arguments are shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about.  Only well regulated militia are declared necessary not the unorganized militia.
Click to expand...



The phrase "well regulated" means well practices in firearms, so that the average population would be ready to be quickly called up in case of war.  And the 2nd Amendment is in the Bill of Rights, which ONLY contains restrictions on the federal government.  So the only possible interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that the federal government is to have absolutely NO jurisdiction over any weapons at all!

You can't infringe upon those who write the laws, because they are not the source of any authority at all in a democratic republic.  In a democratic republic, the inherent rights of all individuals are the ONLY source of any authority at all, and the Bill of Rights is ONLY about restricting federal government in favor of state, local, and individual authority.
And one does not need the 2nd amendment in order to clearly see all federal gun control is illegal.  All you need is the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments.  Clearly weapons are necessary for defense, individuals have the right to what ever they need for defense, and since police and military have these weapons for defense, no law can ever wholesale block the same potential access to everyone, based on the requirement of equal treatment under the law, according to the 14th amendment.  Police and the military do not and must not have any special privileges or right to weapons beyond what any and all individuals have.


----------



## Rigby5

Uncensored2008 said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Wrong.
> First of all, unlike Europeans like Romans, there is absolutely no incentive for slavery.
> Primitive tribes are hunter/gatherers, and have no use for slaves, much less the ability to keep them.
> There was some slavery, but it essentially is what we now use prisons for, was not permanent, and was not nearly as abusive as what capitalist investors used slaves for.
> Without currency or agriculture, exactly what point would there be for slavery?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you grasp that history is the chronicle of what happened in the past? Not the fantasy you prefer, but rather what happened?
> 
> Slavery was extensive among the Indians. In Mesoamerica slaves were the heart of Mayan culture. Mayan warriors raided local tribes for slaves to work in agriculture, slaves for sexual purposes, and slaves to murder in religious purposes. Then there were the Aztecs, the most evil culture in recorded history. Aztecs also took slaves to work in agriculture, slaves for sexual purposes, and slaves to murder in religious purpose. They also took slaves to use as target dummies for training warriors. Slaves entertained Aztecs by being mauled by animals, playing basketball type games with the losers being murdered. Of course the Aztecs made the Nazis look like teddy bears....
> 
> In North America, the Indians were stone age. There were thousands of tribes that were more like modern street gangs than actual governments. Slavery varied among them.  The Cheyenne relied heavily on slavery to maintain their hunter caste. Slaves were taken to do all labor. This was a major problem after the forced relocation of the Cherokee into Cheyenne territory. The Cherokee were brutally victimized.
> 
> The Comanche were yet another story;
> 
> {Historian Pekka Hämäläinen, in his 2009 book _The Comanche Empire_, writes of Comanche uses of slavery during their period of dominance of the American Southwest between 1750 and 1850. The Comanche exercised hegemony in part by numerical superiority, and enslavement was part of that strategy. Hämäläinen writes that Comanches put captives through a rigorous process of enslavement—a dehumanizing initiation that brought a non-Comanche captive into the tribe through renaming, tattooing, beating, whipping, mutilation, and starvation—but stipulates that once a person was enslaved, there were varying degrees of freedom and privilege she or he could attain. Male captives might be made blood bondsmen with their owners, protecting them from ill treatment and casual sale;}
> 
> Native American Slaves: Historians Uncover an Overlooked, Chilling Chapter in U.S. History
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  That is totally made up.  We know almost nothing about the Mayans, and they disappeared before anyone could write anything about them, and those who did later write about them were the biased Christian Conquistador missionaries, who have no credibility at all.
> You just watched the movie, "Apocalypto" and believed it was true.  But it was totally and completely made up, and made no sense at all.  I enjoyed the movie, but there was nothing based on knowledge in it.
> 
> Again, what possible slavery could primitive hunter/gatherers use?  The answer is none.  The slaves would not only be sitting around all the time, but would actually waste additional effort to prevent them from escaping and needing to be fed.  Any hunter/gather society would be far better off without slaves, so would not bother.  When mates are ritually kidnapped from other tribes, that is not slavery, since they were adopted into the new tribe, as relative equals eventually.  Kidnapping mates is good evolution because it reduced inbreeding.
> 
> Any tale of the Comanche would be pointless, because they had been totally displaced by the European invasion, and they then were a totally artificial reaction to extreme external stress.  Native American cultures were totally altered by contact with Europeans, so are not useful to study AFTER contact.  The Comanche were known as the Lords of the Southwest Great Plains, but the reality is that no one lived on the Great Plains originally, because the weather was too drastic.  It was only after Europeans brought horses and had displaced natives from better places, that anyone lived on the Great Plains.  In fact, some of the Great Plains tribes, like the Mandans, likely were created from lost European settlements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect you are confusing Mayan and Toltec. The Mayans are well known and documented.
> 
> Mayan history
> 
> As for the slavery practiced by the Cheyenne, you do grasp they were doing this into the late 19th century, right? The army had to deploy troops to protect the Cherokee from predation by the Cheyenne seeking slaves. The hunters were viewed as too important to engage in physical labor, so they took slaves.
> 
> The problem here is that you are extremely ignorant and simply make shit up to tell the story you wish had happened, rather than dealing with the facts of what did happen.
Click to expand...



No, the Mayan capital at Maya Tikal was definitively abandoned around 900 AD, so there were only scatter remnants left when the Spanish conquistadors finished them off around 1500 AD.

You do realize that by the late 19th century almost all the Native Americans had been killed or driven off their land and they were forced to scrabble for survival on the barren Great Plaines?
Around 1750 there were around 10 million of them, and by 1890. there were fewer than 1 million left.
By the late 19th century, there were not really any natural tribes left any more.

And you keep talking about "physical labor", but hunter/gathers do NOT do any significant physical labor. 
They preferred to hunt, which had no use for slaves.
That is the whole point of being hunter/gatherers instead of sedentary farming, which the Plains Indians usually did not take up.  
The exceptions would be the Mandan, Pueblo, Anasazi, and Hopi, who were farmers.  But they were not known for taking slaves either.

The problem is you just don't know anything about native culture, history, or anthropology.


----------



## Rigby5

anynameyouwish said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> everything in the constitution is subject to interpretation.
> 
> even the 2nd amendment.
> 
> I, personally, (a proud lib prog snowflake) SUPPORT every citizens right to own hand guns, rifles, shot guns and automatic weapons.
> 
> But it is certainly possible for some subset of the population to redefine what the 2nd amendment means and cause it to be "fact".
> 
> an example?
> 
> well.....some prominent conservatives have stated that the constitution is a CHRISTIAN DOCUMENT.
> 
> get enough supreme court judges to agree to THAT and next thing  you know "ONLY christians have rights"  resulting in NON christians NOT being able to buy weapons because the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to them.
Click to expand...



Does not at all work that way.
Inherent individual rights come first, that is what authorizes a rebellion when there is infringement by the crown, and that is why the Constitution and all legislation written after have to conform to and be in accord with what is necessary in order to defend those inherent individual rights.
Government, legislation, and court rulings are not and can not be arbitrary in a democratic republic.  Any and all laws must conform with inherent rights or it is inherently illegal, no matter who proposes or ratifies it.
If someone tries to reverse the meaning of individual rights by claiming it only belongs to a subset, that does not change the law or what is rights, but only nullifies the government that attempts the subversion.
That just justifies another revolution.
Again, the 2nd amendment is NOT the source of the right to bear arms.  The 2nd amendment and the whole Bill of Rights is just a restatement of inherent rights as a reminder, so that the federal government remains forever constrained.
Trying to change the 2nd amendment can not change the underlying inherent right it expresses.  All it does is force the people to have to defend themselves against whomever tries to make that change, as a clear and present danger to the republic.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> anybody can Talk.  Men have arguments.
> 
> Our Constitution is Express, not Implied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed it is.  "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".  Who shall not be infringed upon?  The government that makes the laws....or the PEOPLE that those laws infringe upon?  C'mon junior, you claim to have an "argument".  Make it.  So far all you have shown is an infantile understanding of the COTUS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about, like usual, right wingers.
> 
> Wellness of regulation has to prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you demonstrate on a daily basis that you are clueless.  So, once again, who are the folks being infringed upon when a law is passed?  The PEOPLE, or the guys who write the laws?  Don't bother answering we all know you will obfuscate and lie because your arguments are shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about.  Only well regulated militia are declared necessary not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The phrase "well regulated" means well practices in firearms, so that the average population would be ready to be quickly called up in case of war.  And the 2nd Amendment is in the Bill of Rights, which ONLY contains restrictions on the federal government.  So the only possible interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that the federal government is to have absolutely NO jurisdiction over any weapons at all!
> 
> You can't infringe upon those who write the laws, because they are not the source of any authority at all in a democratic republic.  In a democratic republic, the inherent rights of all individuals are the ONLY source of any authority at all, and the Bill of Rights is ONLY about restricting federal government in favor of state, local, and individual authority.
> And one does not need the 2nd amendment in order to clearly see all federal gun control is illegal.  All you need is the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments.  Clearly weapons are necessary for defense, individuals have the right to what ever they need for defense, and since police and military have these weapons for defense, no law can ever wholesale block the same potential access to everyone, based on the requirement of equal treatment under the law, according to the 14th amendment.  Police and the military do not and must not have any special privileges or right to weapons beyond what any and all individuals have.
Click to expand...

You merely appeal to ignorance of Constitutional law; what a coincidence for the right wing who claim to be for our own Constitution.

Wellness of regulation must be Prescribed by our federal Congress for the militias of the United States.

And, you confuse natural rights with our civil rights and obligations.


----------



## anynameyouwish

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> anybody can Talk.  Men have arguments.
> 
> Our Constitution is Express, not Implied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed it is.  "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".  Who shall not be infringed upon?  The government that makes the laws....or the PEOPLE that those laws infringe upon?  C'mon junior, you claim to have an "argument".  Make it.  So far all you have shown is an infantile understanding of the COTUS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about, like usual, right wingers.
> 
> Wellness of regulation has to prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you demonstrate on a daily basis that you are clueless.  So, once again, who are the folks being infringed upon when a law is passed?  The PEOPLE, or the guys who write the laws?  Don't bother answering we all know you will obfuscate and lie because your arguments are shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about.  Only well regulated militia are declared necessary not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The phrase "well regulated" means well practices in firearms, so that the average population would be ready to be quickly called up in case of war.  And the 2nd Amendment is in the Bill of Rights, which ONLY contains restrictions on the federal government.  So the only possible interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that the federal government is to have absolutely NO jurisdiction over any weapons at all!
> 
> You can't infringe upon those who write the laws, because they are not the source of any authority at all in a democratic republic.  In a democratic republic, the inherent rights of all individuals are the ONLY source of any authority at all, and the Bill of Rights is ONLY about restricting federal government in favor of state, local, and individual authority.
> And one does not need the 2nd amendment in order to clearly see all federal gun control is illegal.  All you need is the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments.  Clearly weapons are necessary for defense, individuals have the right to what ever they need for defense, and since police and military have these weapons for defense, no law can ever wholesale block the same potential access to everyone, based on the requirement of equal treatment under the law, according to the 14th amendment.  Police and the military do not and must not have any special privileges or right to weapons beyond what any and all individuals have.
Click to expand...


sooooo.....you have a right to own a nuclear warhead?

or do you draw a line somewhere.....?


----------



## Lesh

Scalia knew the militia argument was a loser. At BEST it only "protected" gun rights for males between 17 and 45 and that's just not enough.

So what did he do in Heller? He ridiculously tried to claim that the phrase "A Well Regulated Militia Being Necessary..." was inserted into that remarkably spare and well considered document carelessly and was nothing but rhetorical throat clearing and meant nothing.

He decoupled that phrase from the 2A because he knew it was a losing argument


----------



## Lesh

Does that mean that the Constitution removes gun rights?

Absolutely not. It simply doesn't ADDRESS them in any other way than as "necessary" to A Well Regulated Militia....which no longer exists.

It is a state and local matter


----------



## danielpalos

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and regulate them well!


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed it is.  "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".  Who shall not be infringed upon?  The government that makes the laws....or the PEOPLE that those laws infringe upon?  C'mon junior, you claim to have an "argument".  Make it.  So far all you have shown is an infantile understanding of the COTUS.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about, like usual, right wingers.
> 
> Wellness of regulation has to prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you demonstrate on a daily basis that you are clueless.  So, once again, who are the folks being infringed upon when a law is passed?  The PEOPLE, or the guys who write the laws?  Don't bother answering we all know you will obfuscate and lie because your arguments are shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about.  Only well regulated militia are declared necessary not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The phrase "well regulated" means well practices in firearms, so that the average population would be ready to be quickly called up in case of war.  And the 2nd Amendment is in the Bill of Rights, which ONLY contains restrictions on the federal government.  So the only possible interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that the federal government is to have absolutely NO jurisdiction over any weapons at all!
> 
> You can't infringe upon those who write the laws, because they are not the source of any authority at all in a democratic republic.  In a democratic republic, the inherent rights of all individuals are the ONLY source of any authority at all, and the Bill of Rights is ONLY about restricting federal government in favor of state, local, and individual authority.
> And one does not need the 2nd amendment in order to clearly see all federal gun control is illegal.  All you need is the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments.  Clearly weapons are necessary for defense, individuals have the right to what ever they need for defense, and since police and military have these weapons for defense, no law can ever wholesale block the same potential access to everyone, based on the requirement of equal treatment under the law, according to the 14th amendment.  Police and the military do not and must not have any special privileges or right to weapons beyond what any and all individuals have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You merely appeal to ignorance of Constitutional law; what a coincidence for the right wing who claim to be for our own Constitution.
> 
> Wellness of regulation must be Prescribed by our federal Congress for the militias of the United States.
> 
> And, you confuse natural rights with our civil rights and obligations.
Click to expand...



First of all, I am far more left wing than anyone else on this whole board.

Second is that the federal government very explicitly had nothing at all to do with militias except to be able to call them up in emergencies.
That is why the militias are hardly mentioned at all in the federal constitution of any federal legislation.  The militias are local, state, and individual.  When a sheriff deputizes a posse, that is a militia at work.

I do not confuse natural rights with civil rights or obligations.  Natural rights are the total reality, and civil rights and obligations are just a subset, based on what needs exist for a modern society.  But I never use the phrase "Natural Rights" because in the 18th century, royalty used that phrase to justify their unequal privileges.  For example, "divine right of kings" was considered a Natural Right, and I of course do not.


----------



## Rigby5

anynameyouwish said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed it is.  "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".  Who shall not be infringed upon?  The government that makes the laws....or the PEOPLE that those laws infringe upon?  C'mon junior, you claim to have an "argument".  Make it.  So far all you have shown is an infantile understanding of the COTUS.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about, like usual, right wingers.
> 
> Wellness of regulation has to prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you demonstrate on a daily basis that you are clueless.  So, once again, who are the folks being infringed upon when a law is passed?  The PEOPLE, or the guys who write the laws?  Don't bother answering we all know you will obfuscate and lie because your arguments are shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about.  Only well regulated militia are declared necessary not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The phrase "well regulated" means well practices in firearms, so that the average population would be ready to be quickly called up in case of war.  And the 2nd Amendment is in the Bill of Rights, which ONLY contains restrictions on the federal government.  So the only possible interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that the federal government is to have absolutely NO jurisdiction over any weapons at all!
> 
> You can't infringe upon those who write the laws, because they are not the source of any authority at all in a democratic republic.  In a democratic republic, the inherent rights of all individuals are the ONLY source of any authority at all, and the Bill of Rights is ONLY about restricting federal government in favor of state, local, and individual authority.
> And one does not need the 2nd amendment in order to clearly see all federal gun control is illegal.  All you need is the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments.  Clearly weapons are necessary for defense, individuals have the right to what ever they need for defense, and since police and military have these weapons for defense, no law can ever wholesale block the same potential access to everyone, based on the requirement of equal treatment under the law, according to the 14th amendment.  Police and the military do not and must not have any special privileges or right to weapons beyond what any and all individuals have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sooooo.....you have a right to own a nuclear warhead?
> 
> or do you draw a line somewhere.....?
Click to expand...


NO!, you must not and CAN not legally draw the line anywhere, and no one has the authority to do so.
But clearly whenever you can easily harm others, the need, storage, security, use, etc., can be investigated and reasonable safe guards enacted.  That is not gun control.  Gun control is inherently wrong because clearly government employees are not investigated as to harm to others, need, storage, security, use, etc.  In fact, likely most police should be disarmed, because firearms cause them to be more at risk and them to be more negative than positive.

So getting back to nuclear warheads, the answer is that yes anyone has to have a path to gain possession.
They could be doing essential research in deep caves, have a plan for a mining operation in the asteroid belt beyond Mars, etc. , or some other need that harms no one else.  In which case there would be no legal basis for stopping them.
The fact the military has them requires everyone have equal access.
The fact we can require safety assurances for them is because we also are supposed to require the exact same safety assurances from the military.
And in fact, it is the military I am most worried about, not average people.
The military is much less responsible, likely to be telling the truth, consider safety of others, etc.

Gun control is asymmetric, with government being arbitrary in its illegal suppression of the rights of average citizens.
When you apply safety concerns symmetrically, that is through a legal authority of the people.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about, like usual, right wingers.
> 
> Wellness of regulation has to prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you demonstrate on a daily basis that you are clueless.  So, once again, who are the folks being infringed upon when a law is passed?  The PEOPLE, or the guys who write the laws?  Don't bother answering we all know you will obfuscate and lie because your arguments are shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about.  Only well regulated militia are declared necessary not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The phrase "well regulated" means well practices in firearms, so that the average population would be ready to be quickly called up in case of war.  And the 2nd Amendment is in the Bill of Rights, which ONLY contains restrictions on the federal government.  So the only possible interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that the federal government is to have absolutely NO jurisdiction over any weapons at all!
> 
> You can't infringe upon those who write the laws, because they are not the source of any authority at all in a democratic republic.  In a democratic republic, the inherent rights of all individuals are the ONLY source of any authority at all, and the Bill of Rights is ONLY about restricting federal government in favor of state, local, and individual authority.
> And one does not need the 2nd amendment in order to clearly see all federal gun control is illegal.  All you need is the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments.  Clearly weapons are necessary for defense, individuals have the right to what ever they need for defense, and since police and military have these weapons for defense, no law can ever wholesale block the same potential access to everyone, based on the requirement of equal treatment under the law, according to the 14th amendment.  Police and the military do not and must not have any special privileges or right to weapons beyond what any and all individuals have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You merely appeal to ignorance of Constitutional law; what a coincidence for the right wing who claim to be for our own Constitution.
> 
> Wellness of regulation must be Prescribed by our federal Congress for the militias of the United States.
> 
> And, you confuse natural rights with our civil rights and obligations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, I am far more left wing than anyone else on this whole board.
> 
> Second is that the federal government very explicitly had nothing at all to do with militias except to be able to call them up in emergencies.
> That is why the militias are hardly mentioned at all in the federal constitution of any federal legislation.  The militias are local, state, and individual.  When a sheriff deputizes a posse, that is a militia at work.
> 
> I do not confuse natural rights with civil rights or obligations.  Natural rights are the total reality, and civil rights and obligations are just a subset, based on what needs exist for a modern society.  But I never use the phrase "Natural Rights" because in the 18th century, royalty used that phrase to justify their unequal privileges.  For example, "divine right of kings" was considered a Natural Right, and I of course do not.
Click to expand...

you must be on the right wing; story teller.  only the right wing makes up that much right wing fantasy.


----------



## Rigby5

Lesh said:


> Does that mean that the Constitution removes gun rights?
> 
> Absolutely not. It simply doesn't ADDRESS them in any other way than as "necessary" to A Well Regulated Militia....which no longer exists.
> 
> It is a state and local matter




I agree it is a state and local matter.
But the well regulated militia most certainly does exist and must always exist.
When the Korean grocers defended their stores during the LA riots, that clearly was the local "well regulated militia".
They knew what they were doing, caused no harm, and were the only law available to protect the rights of them and their family investments.
And the 2nd amendment is not dependent upon that "well regulated militia" phrase at all.
When you want to say something should be true, you don't have to list all the reason why it should be true.
You only have to list one to prove it should, and you really do not have to list any at all if you do not want to.
So if that one listed no longer existed, it would not at all negate the need for the thing that should be true.
For example, someone in 1800 were to say we needed a militia to guard against pirates, that would not negate the need for a militia after pirates no longer exist.  It is just an example, not a dependent clause.  For it to indicate dependency, then it would have to have a word implying dependency, like "if", "due to", or "because".
But even that would not negate the need if there were other reasons for it, just negate the whole sentence.
The well regulated militia is the whole general armed population, and clearly any free state is and will always be dependent upon the existance of a well armed and practiced general population.  It can never be any other way.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.
> 
> Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and regulate them well!



Everyone should be a "gun lover" in a free state, because a general population maintains its freedom only by loving guns, or what ever suitable means of force can be used to maintain their freedom.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.
> 
> Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and regulate them well!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone should be a "gun lover" in a free state, because a general population maintains its freedom only by loving guns, or what ever suitable means of force can be used to maintain their freedom.
Click to expand...

We should not need our alleged and exorbitantly expensive wars on crime, drugs, or terror.  

We should be organizing more militia until we have no security problems.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you demonstrate on a daily basis that you are clueless.  So, once again, who are the folks being infringed upon when a law is passed?  The PEOPLE, or the guys who write the laws?  Don't bother answering we all know you will obfuscate and lie because your arguments are shit.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about.  Only well regulated militia are declared necessary not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The phrase "well regulated" means well practices in firearms, so that the average population would be ready to be quickly called up in case of war.  And the 2nd Amendment is in the Bill of Rights, which ONLY contains restrictions on the federal government.  So the only possible interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that the federal government is to have absolutely NO jurisdiction over any weapons at all!
> 
> You can't infringe upon those who write the laws, because they are not the source of any authority at all in a democratic republic.  In a democratic republic, the inherent rights of all individuals are the ONLY source of any authority at all, and the Bill of Rights is ONLY about restricting federal government in favor of state, local, and individual authority.
> And one does not need the 2nd amendment in order to clearly see all federal gun control is illegal.  All you need is the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments.  Clearly weapons are necessary for defense, individuals have the right to what ever they need for defense, and since police and military have these weapons for defense, no law can ever wholesale block the same potential access to everyone, based on the requirement of equal treatment under the law, according to the 14th amendment.  Police and the military do not and must not have any special privileges or right to weapons beyond what any and all individuals have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You merely appeal to ignorance of Constitutional law; what a coincidence for the right wing who claim to be for our own Constitution.
> 
> Wellness of regulation must be Prescribed by our federal Congress for the militias of the United States.
> 
> And, you confuse natural rights with our civil rights and obligations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, I am far more left wing than anyone else on this whole board.
> 
> Second is that the federal government very explicitly had nothing at all to do with militias except to be able to call them up in emergencies.
> That is why the militias are hardly mentioned at all in the federal constitution of any federal legislation.  The militias are local, state, and individual.  When a sheriff deputizes a posse, that is a militia at work.
> 
> I do not confuse natural rights with civil rights or obligations.  Natural rights are the total reality, and civil rights and obligations are just a subset, based on what needs exist for a modern society.  But I never use the phrase "Natural Rights" because in the 18th century, royalty used that phrase to justify their unequal privileges.  For example, "divine right of kings" was considered a Natural Right, and I of course do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you must be on the right wing; story teller.  only the right wing makes up that much right wing fantasy.
Click to expand...



Nonsense.
The main problem from the overuse and abuse of firearms actually comes from the police and military, who actually are the most corrupt, since government always tends toward corruption.  
You can't get more progressive than that.
A leftest, liberal, progressive, etc., defends individual rights against the corruption of capitalists buying government.
So there is no possible way that gun control could ever be compatible with a leftest, liberal, progressive, etc.
Gun control is and always will be fascism.
It is the ultimate in arbitrary and enforce inequality.
It is the means by which slavery, racism, genocide, etc., is created and maintained.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.
> 
> Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and regulate them well!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone should be a "gun lover" in a free state, because a general population maintains its freedom only by loving guns, or what ever suitable means of force can be used to maintain their freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We should not need our alleged and exorbitantly expensive wars on crime, drugs, or terror.
> 
> We should be organizing more militia until we have no security problems.
Click to expand...



Yes, that I agree with completely.
We do need the ability to apply force in order to be secure and free, but it is always safest to distribute that ability of force over the general population as much as possible, because it is the general population only that can be trusted.
You can't ever trust a paid, elite, minority to use force fairly.


----------



## Lesh

You claim to be progressive but from what I see...you are an anarchist.

Regardless you can love all the guns you want...it doesn't change the fact that "protection" of gun rights is only in the Constitution regarding use by a Well Regulated Militia that no longer exists


----------



## Rigby5

Lesh said:


> You claim to be progressive but from what I see...you are an anarchist.
> 
> Regardless you can love all the guns you want...it doesn't change the fact that "protection" of gun rights is only in the Constitution regarding use by a Well Regulated Militia that no longer exists



Being leftest has always been similar to being an anarchists.
You can not be a leftest and want to centralize power away from the population.
That is fascism instead.

And again, the Constitution and Bill of Rights are NOT at all supposed to be source of any rights.
Rights are supposed to be considered pre-existing, before the Constitution or Bill of Rights, and are supposed to be why the Declaration of Independence was possible.

The Bill of Rights is simply a list of prohibitions to be permanently applied against the federal government.
It does not at all matter why the federal government is to be completely banned from any weapons regulations, it simply is and must remain so, always.

Nor do I need the 2nd amendment to ensure individual weapons rights.
The 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments also do it even better.
Clearly defense IS an individual right and government many never disarm ordinary people from controlling their own defense as they see fit.

Nor could the well regulated militia ever go away.
If someone is trying to break into your home late at night, who else is going to protect you?
Not 911 since they have about a half hour response time.
Anyone who is not armed and well regulated in the knowledge of how to use those arms, is irresponsible.


----------



## westwall

danielpalos said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you are the only one demonstrating your profound ignorance on a daily basis.
> 
> 
> 
> anybody can Talk.  Men have arguments.
> 
> Our Constitution is Express, not Implied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed it is.  "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".  Who shall not be infringed upon?  The government that makes the laws....or the PEOPLE that those laws infringe upon?  C'mon junior, you claim to have an "argument".  Make it.  So far all you have shown is an infantile understanding of the COTUS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about, like usual, right wingers.
> 
> Wellness of regulation has to prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you demonstrate on a daily basis that you are clueless.  So, once again, who are the folks being infringed upon when a law is passed?  The PEOPLE, or the guys who write the laws?  Don't bother answering we all know you will obfuscate and lie because your arguments are shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about.  Only well regulated militia are declared necessary not the unorganized militia.
Click to expand...







noooo, it is demonstrable that it is you who are clueless.  Once again who are those PEOPLE who shall not be INFRINGED UPON?


----------



## westwall

anynameyouwish said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed it is.  "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".  Who shall not be infringed upon?  The government that makes the laws....or the PEOPLE that those laws infringe upon?  C'mon junior, you claim to have an "argument".  Make it.  So far all you have shown is an infantile understanding of the COTUS.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about, like usual, right wingers.
> 
> Wellness of regulation has to prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you demonstrate on a daily basis that you are clueless.  So, once again, who are the folks being infringed upon when a law is passed?  The PEOPLE, or the guys who write the laws?  Don't bother answering we all know you will obfuscate and lie because your arguments are shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about.  Only well regulated militia are declared necessary not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The phrase "well regulated" means well practices in firearms, so that the average population would be ready to be quickly called up in case of war.  And the 2nd Amendment is in the Bill of Rights, which ONLY contains restrictions on the federal government.  So the only possible interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that the federal government is to have absolutely NO jurisdiction over any weapons at all!
> 
> You can't infringe upon those who write the laws, because they are not the source of any authority at all in a democratic republic.  In a democratic republic, the inherent rights of all individuals are the ONLY source of any authority at all, and the Bill of Rights is ONLY about restricting federal government in favor of state, local, and individual authority.
> And one does not need the 2nd amendment in order to clearly see all federal gun control is illegal.  All you need is the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments.  Clearly weapons are necessary for defense, individuals have the right to what ever they need for defense, and since police and military have these weapons for defense, no law can ever wholesale block the same potential access to everyone, based on the requirement of equal treatment under the law, according to the 14th amendment.  Police and the military do not and must not have any special privileges or right to weapons beyond what any and all individuals have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sooooo.....you have a right to own a nuclear warhead?
> 
> or do you draw a line somewhere.....?
Click to expand...









Nuclear warheads are not classified as "arms".  That being said the first cannon in the USA were owned by a private group, so ordnance is certainly covered by the 2nd in my opinion.


----------



## Lesh

westwall said:


> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about, like usual, right wingers.
> 
> Wellness of regulation has to prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you demonstrate on a daily basis that you are clueless.  So, once again, who are the folks being infringed upon when a law is passed?  The PEOPLE, or the guys who write the laws?  Don't bother answering we all know you will obfuscate and lie because your arguments are shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about.  Only well regulated militia are declared necessary not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The phrase "well regulated" means well practices in firearms, so that the average population would be ready to be quickly called up in case of war.  And the 2nd Amendment is in the Bill of Rights, which ONLY contains restrictions on the federal government.  So the only possible interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that the federal government is to have absolutely NO jurisdiction over any weapons at all!
> 
> You can't infringe upon those who write the laws, because they are not the source of any authority at all in a democratic republic.  In a democratic republic, the inherent rights of all individuals are the ONLY source of any authority at all, and the Bill of Rights is ONLY about restricting federal government in favor of state, local, and individual authority.
> And one does not need the 2nd amendment in order to clearly see all federal gun control is illegal.  All you need is the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments.  Clearly weapons are necessary for defense, individuals have the right to what ever they need for defense, and since police and military have these weapons for defense, no law can ever wholesale block the same potential access to everyone, based on the requirement of equal treatment under the law, according to the 14th amendment.  Police and the military do not and must not have any special privileges or right to weapons beyond what any and all individuals have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> sooooo.....you have a right to own a nuclear warhead?
> 
> or do you draw a line somewhere.....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear warheads are not classified as "arms".  That being said the first cannon in the USA were owned by a private group, so ordnance is certainly covered by the 2nd in my opinion.
Click to expand...


If there actually were a militia...a "Well Regulated Militia"...that would be true.

But canons and machine guns are either outlawed for private ownership or highly regulated...because there IS no longer a militia


----------



## TheDude

Lakhota said:


> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
Click to expand...


Progs are big on blaming material objects when it's convenient to reject personal responsibility, guns included. Heck, the wall included too.

Better to dumb us down so the government makes decisions for us.  This way just the felons, illegals and Gastapos get the guns, while Americans with integrity can get fucked.  The more chaotic, weak and irresponsible we become, the more easily we're controlled.  The people Lakhota supports desire just that.


----------



## Rigby5

Lesh said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you demonstrate on a daily basis that you are clueless.  So, once again, who are the folks being infringed upon when a law is passed?  The PEOPLE, or the guys who write the laws?  Don't bother answering we all know you will obfuscate and lie because your arguments are shit.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about.  Only well regulated militia are declared necessary not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The phrase "well regulated" means well practices in firearms, so that the average population would be ready to be quickly called up in case of war.  And the 2nd Amendment is in the Bill of Rights, which ONLY contains restrictions on the federal government.  So the only possible interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that the federal government is to have absolutely NO jurisdiction over any weapons at all!
> 
> You can't infringe upon those who write the laws, because they are not the source of any authority at all in a democratic republic.  In a democratic republic, the inherent rights of all individuals are the ONLY source of any authority at all, and the Bill of Rights is ONLY about restricting federal government in favor of state, local, and individual authority.
> And one does not need the 2nd amendment in order to clearly see all federal gun control is illegal.  All you need is the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments.  Clearly weapons are necessary for defense, individuals have the right to what ever they need for defense, and since police and military have these weapons for defense, no law can ever wholesale block the same potential access to everyone, based on the requirement of equal treatment under the law, according to the 14th amendment.  Police and the military do not and must not have any special privileges or right to weapons beyond what any and all individuals have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> sooooo.....you have a right to own a nuclear warhead?
> 
> or do you draw a line somewhere.....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear warheads are not classified as "arms".  That being said the first cannon in the USA were owned by a private group, so ordnance is certainly covered by the 2nd in my opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there actually were a militia...a "Well Regulated Militia"...that would be true.
> 
> But canons and machine guns are either outlawed for private ownership or highly regulated...because there IS no longer a militia
Click to expand...



Almost all state constitutions define the militia as every able bodied male adult.
So there is and will always be a well regulated militia, and the feds get no say in it at all.
The federal restrictions on cannon and machine guns are totally and completely illegal and unconstitutional.
Clearly the federal government was denied any weapons jurisdiction by the Constitution.

When ever a woman prevents a rape with mace, brandishing a firearm, etc., that is the militia.


----------



## Rigby5

Here is an example of a state constitution defining the militia, from Virginia.

{...
*§ 44-1. Composition of militia.*
The militia of the Commonwealth of Virginia shall consist of all able-bodied residents of the Commonwealth who are citizens of the United States and all other able-bodied persons resident in the Commonwealth who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, who are at least 16 years of age and, except as hereinafter provided, not more than 55 years of age. 
...}

So clearly the federal government has nothing at all to do with the organization, creation, defining, or regulating the militia normally.
The feds can call them up and draw on them in emergencies, but the military are defined by the states.


----------



## Rustic

Defend the Second Amendment


----------



## SavannahMann

Lesh said:


> You claim to be progressive but from what I see...you are an anarchist.
> 
> Regardless you can love all the guns you want...it doesn't change the fact that "protection" of gun rights is only in the Constitution regarding use by a Well Regulated Militia that no longer exists



Actually it does. The Well Regulated Militia according to the 1792 Militia Act, certainly expressing the intent of the founders as clearly as anything since it was passed a mere six months after ratification of the amendment, stated who was in the Militia. 

It was every able bodied free man. Literally every able bodied free person today is a member of the Militia by that standard. 

Well Regulated was also covered. It was the right, and responsibility of the Governors of the state’s to appoint officers, commission them using the vernacular, and when activated, the militia members while on active duty would be subject to military orders and discipline. 

So we know what the term Well Regulated Militia meant. Militia Acts of 1792 - Wikipedia

Any other questions?


----------



## danielpalos

westwall said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> anybody can Talk.  Men have arguments.
> 
> Our Constitution is Express, not Implied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed it is.  "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".  Who shall not be infringed upon?  The government that makes the laws....or the PEOPLE that those laws infringe upon?  C'mon junior, you claim to have an "argument".  Make it.  So far all you have shown is an infantile understanding of the COTUS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about, like usual, right wingers.
> 
> Wellness of regulation has to prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you demonstrate on a daily basis that you are clueless.  So, once again, who are the folks being infringed upon when a law is passed?  The PEOPLE, or the guys who write the laws?  Don't bother answering we all know you will obfuscate and lie because your arguments are shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about.  Only well regulated militia are declared necessary not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> noooo, it is demonstrable that it is you who are clueless.  Once again who are those PEOPLE who shall not be INFRINGED UPON?
Click to expand...

well regulated militia are declared necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


----------



## danielpalos

TheDude said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Progs are big on blaming material objects when it's convenient to reject personal responsibility, guns included. Heck, the wall included too.
> 
> Better to dumb us down so the government makes decisions for us.  This way just the felons, illegals and Gastapos get the guns, while Americans with integrity can get fucked.  The more chaotic, weak and irresponsible we become, the more easily we're controlled.  The people Lakhota supports desire just that.
Click to expand...

Gun lovers are too lazy to muster but don't mind blaming social service recipients for being too lazy to work for a living.


----------



## Cellblock2429

Lakhota said:


> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
Click to expand...

/——/ Hey Gun Grabber, don’t like guns then don’t buy one.


----------



## Lesh

SavannahMann said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claim to be progressive but from what I see...you are an anarchist.
> 
> Regardless you can love all the guns you want...it doesn't change the fact that "protection" of gun rights is only in the Constitution regarding use by a Well Regulated Militia that no longer exists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it does. The Well Regulated Militia according to the 1792 Militia Act, certainly expressing the intent of the founders as clearly as anything since it was passed a mere six months after ratification of the amendment, stated who was in the Militia.
> 
> It was every able bodied free man. Literally every able bodied free person today is a member of the Militia by that standard.
> 
> Well Regulated was also covered. It was the right, and responsibility of the Governors of the state’s to appoint officers, commission them using the vernacular, and when activated, the militia members while on active duty would be subject to military orders and discipline.
> 
> So we know what the term Well Regulated Militia meant. Militia Acts of 1792 - Wikipedia
> 
> Any other questions?
Click to expand...

And the Dick Act passed around 1900 supersedes that. It abolishes the organized militia and established the unorganized militia which ONLY pertains to males between 17 and 45.

You gonna run with that?

That means that women and males over 45 have no 2A protection and are subject to local and state laws and regs

Any questions?


----------



## progressive hunter

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution exist only in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review.
> 
> Neither the Constitution nor any of its Amendments are obsolete.
> 
> Whatever the current case law might be concerning the Second Amendment, however, further restrictions, regulations, or even bans will do little to curtail gun violence.
> 
> The genius of the Constitution is it compels us to seek actual solutions to our many problems; be it abortion, campaign finance reform, or gun violence, the Constitution prevents us from taking the easy route often taken by dictatorships and totalitarian regimes, where the liberty of the people is destroyed.
> 
> This does not mean we are helpless to do nothing, at the mercy of strict, unyielding jurisprudence protecting the rights of gun owners; rather, it means we must find solutions based on facts and evidence, and be prepared to address and acknowledge painful, embarrassing aspects of our society and culture.
Click to expand...




clayton your case law argument is bullshit and you know it


----------



## Cellblock2429

Lesh said:


> SavannahMann said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claim to be progressive but from what I see...you are an anarchist.
> 
> Regardless you can love all the guns you want...it doesn't change the fact that "protection" of gun rights is only in the Constitution regarding use by a Well Regulated Militia that no longer exists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it does. The Well Regulated Militia according to the 1792 Militia Act, certainly expressing the intent of the founders as clearly as anything since it was passed a mere six months after ratification of the amendment, stated who was in the Militia.
> 
> It was every able bodied free man. Literally every able bodied free person today is a member of the Militia by that standard.
> 
> Well Regulated was also covered. It was the right, and responsibility of the Governors of the state’s to appoint officers, commission them using the vernacular, and when activated, the militia members while on active duty would be subject to military orders and discipline.
> 
> So we know what the term Well Regulated Militia meant. Militia Acts of 1792 - Wikipedia
> 
> Any other questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the Dick Act passed around 1900 supersedes that. It abolishes the organized militia and established the unorganized militia which ONLY pertains to males between 17 and 45.
> 
> You gonna run with that?
> 
> That means that women and males over 45 have no 2A protection and are subject to local and state laws and regs
> 
> Any questions?
Click to expand...

/----/ Thanks. I never knew that. BTW, I'd hate to go through High School with the name Dick.
(also known as the Dick Militia Act or the Dick Act, named for Ohio Congressman Charles Dick), 
FALSE: The Dick Act of 1903 'Invalidates All Gun Control Laws' in the U.S.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about, like usual, right wingers.
> 
> Wellness of regulation has to prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you demonstrate on a daily basis that you are clueless.  So, once again, who are the folks being infringed upon when a law is passed?  The PEOPLE, or the guys who write the laws?  Don't bother answering we all know you will obfuscate and lie because your arguments are shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about.  Only well regulated militia are declared necessary not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The phrase "well regulated" means well practices in firearms, so that the average population would be ready to be quickly called up in case of war.  And the 2nd Amendment is in the Bill of Rights, which ONLY contains restrictions on the federal government.  So the only possible interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that the federal government is to have absolutely NO jurisdiction over any weapons at all!
> 
> You can't infringe upon those who write the laws, because they are not the source of any authority at all in a democratic republic.  In a democratic republic, the inherent rights of all individuals are the ONLY source of any authority at all, and the Bill of Rights is ONLY about restricting federal government in favor of state, local, and individual authority.
> And one does not need the 2nd amendment in order to clearly see all federal gun control is illegal.  All you need is the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments.  Clearly weapons are necessary for defense, individuals have the right to what ever they need for defense, and since police and military have these weapons for defense, no law can ever wholesale block the same potential access to everyone, based on the requirement of equal treatment under the law, according to the 14th amendment.  Police and the military do not and must not have any special privileges or right to weapons beyond what any and all individuals have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sooooo.....you have a right to own a nuclear warhead?
> 
> or do you draw a line somewhere.....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear warheads are not classified as "arms".  That being said the first cannon in the USA were owned by a private group, so ordnance is certainly covered by the 2nd in my opinion.
Click to expand...


The Canons were owned by the elite rich who had them to protect against marauding EVERYTHING.  When the Revolutionary war began, they loaned the canons, not sold or gave them to the Revolutionary Army.  The common person could not afford a canon.  And the common person probably could not find a suitable storage for one either.  Most of those canons were donated to the communities.  To  this day, many of those same canons are still sitting in various town  squares in good repair used for ceremonial purposes.   From about 1600 to 1858, the same weapons were available to everyone.  Even the canon if you could afford one.  The Muskets and the new Rifled Barreled muskets were used.  But in 1858, a new class of weapon was introduced that rocked the world.  The revolver and repeating rifle along with the Artillery.  It was just starting to be introduced for the Civil war.  But when WWI came around, all hell broke loose.  The classes of weapons went crazy.  It didn't happen over night.  It began in 1858 and snowballed.  The common man could no longer afford the weapons of war anymore.  Are you aware that the US Armory had a large stock of Browning Automatic Rifles in it's Armories as early as late 1917 but didn't ship them because they didn't want any of them captured by the Germans because they were head and shoulders above anything anyone else was producing at the time?  And the wholesale killing in WWI was primarily done by Artillery.  This is when the Organized Militia went by the way since the United States could no longer stick with the laws it had about Federal Troop Numbers.  Hence, the 1917 National Guard Act.  The Feds own all the equipment that the National Guard uses, pays for the training, etc..  And reserves the right to Federalize the National Guard in certain conditions.  I believe WWI was one of those conditions.  NO State, by itself, much less any common person, could afford the weapons of war anymore and still can't outside of one Rifle.  Almost all the rest are outside the purse strings of everyone except the rich.  And almost all those weapons are not Banned, it's just too expensive to purchase, license and store them for the common person.  What you claim is going against the 2nd amendment is actually an Economic problem.

And Nuclear Weapons are certainly Arms.  This is why the call them Nuclear Arms.  But they are way past the insanity level of owning one.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Lesh said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you demonstrate on a daily basis that you are clueless.  So, once again, who are the folks being infringed upon when a law is passed?  The PEOPLE, or the guys who write the laws?  Don't bother answering we all know you will obfuscate and lie because your arguments are shit.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about.  Only well regulated militia are declared necessary not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The phrase "well regulated" means well practices in firearms, so that the average population would be ready to be quickly called up in case of war.  And the 2nd Amendment is in the Bill of Rights, which ONLY contains restrictions on the federal government.  So the only possible interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that the federal government is to have absolutely NO jurisdiction over any weapons at all!
> 
> You can't infringe upon those who write the laws, because they are not the source of any authority at all in a democratic republic.  In a democratic republic, the inherent rights of all individuals are the ONLY source of any authority at all, and the Bill of Rights is ONLY about restricting federal government in favor of state, local, and individual authority.
> And one does not need the 2nd amendment in order to clearly see all federal gun control is illegal.  All you need is the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments.  Clearly weapons are necessary for defense, individuals have the right to what ever they need for defense, and since police and military have these weapons for defense, no law can ever wholesale block the same potential access to everyone, based on the requirement of equal treatment under the law, according to the 14th amendment.  Police and the military do not and must not have any special privileges or right to weapons beyond what any and all individuals have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> sooooo.....you have a right to own a nuclear warhead?
> 
> or do you draw a line somewhere.....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear warheads are not classified as "arms".  That being said the first cannon in the USA were owned by a private group, so ordnance is certainly covered by the 2nd in my opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there actually were a militia...a "Well Regulated Militia"...that would be true.
> 
> But canons and machine guns are either outlawed for private ownership or highly regulated...because there IS no longer a militia
Click to expand...


Every state has the right to have a State Organized Militia.  I believe that there are 4 currently.  The two that comes to mind are Texas and California.  State Militia cannot be called up to Federal Duty unless they already have prior Federal commitments like 4 years inactive reserve (everyone that separates under 20 years) or 10 years for those that retire after 20 years or those that still have a reserve commitment or a National Guard Commitment.  The State Guard is state financed and supported but won't have the nifty toys the National Guard will have since no state by itself can afford the equipment and the training.


----------



## Lesh

So those 4 states MIGHT have protection for the members of those militias under the 2A. Or not. They are most likely regulated by STATE laws...not the 2A


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Lesh said:


> So those 4 states MIGHT have protection for the members of those militias under the 2A. Or not. They are most likely regulated by STATE laws...not the 2A



2A is what gives them the Constitutional RIGHT to have a State Militia or Guard.  This is what it means when it says "Organized Militia".  It's not about a bunch of gun crazies running around the woods wearing pickle suits.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

I think the name change from State Militia to State Guard to what it is now is misleading.  It's now called Stated Defense Force.  In the US, there are about 14,000 SDF members right now.  And they are generally ignored by Homeland Security.   For instance, when the Hurricane hit Texas and LA, LA was devastated.  Meanwhile, Texas operated like it was business as usual and evacuated.  Those folks you saw in those fishing boats, many were Texas State Militia or SDFs.  Almost all Texas State Police, Cops, Firemen and more are part of the SDFs or Texas State Militia.  They receive special training for emergencies and can react quickly.  When Fema moved in, the Governor (Richards) told them they were working for the General in charge of the Texas State Militia.  They tried to fight it but lost that argument.  While LA turned into a ClusterF***, Texas ran smoothly.  Here is an interesting article about the SDFs.

The Militia You’ve Never Heard Of


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed it is.  "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".  Who shall not be infringed upon?  The government that makes the laws....or the PEOPLE that those laws infringe upon?  C'mon junior, you claim to have an "argument".  Make it.  So far all you have shown is an infantile understanding of the COTUS.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about, like usual, right wingers.
> 
> Wellness of regulation has to prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you demonstrate on a daily basis that you are clueless.  So, once again, who are the folks being infringed upon when a law is passed?  The PEOPLE, or the guys who write the laws?  Don't bother answering we all know you will obfuscate and lie because your arguments are shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about.  Only well regulated militia are declared necessary not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> noooo, it is demonstrable that it is you who are clueless.  Once again who are those PEOPLE who shall not be INFRINGED UPON?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well regulated militia are declared necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
Click to expand...



Wrong. It clearly says:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of *the people* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
So it is "THE PEOPLE" whose right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  That restriction on the federal government is to be obeyed in all cases, no matter who or how you define the well regulated militia.  That is intentionally ambiguous because it it deliberately leaving it up to the states to decide what and how a militia is or what their needs are.  The point of the 2nd amendment is not to say who has gun rights, but to deny any federal jurisdiction over the question in any way.


----------



## Lesh

Rigby5 said:


> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of *the people* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.



In the context of that Well Regulated Militia


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about, like usual, right wingers.
> 
> Wellness of regulation has to prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you demonstrate on a daily basis that you are clueless.  So, once again, who are the folks being infringed upon when a law is passed?  The PEOPLE, or the guys who write the laws?  Don't bother answering we all know you will obfuscate and lie because your arguments are shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about.  Only well regulated militia are declared necessary not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> noooo, it is demonstrable that it is you who are clueless.  Once again who are those PEOPLE who shall not be INFRINGED UPON?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well regulated militia are declared necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. It clearly says:
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of *the people* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> So it is "THE PEOPLE" whose right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  That restriction on the federal government is to be obeyed in all cases, no matter who or how you define the well regulated militia.  That is intentionally ambiguous because it it deliberately leaving it up to the states to decide what and how a militia is or what their needs are.  The point of the 2nd amendment is not to say who has gun rights, but to deny any federal jurisdiction over the question in any way.
Click to expand...

The People are the Militia for Second Amendment clause purposes; you are either well regulated or unorganized.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
*— George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_


----------



## TheDude

danielpalos said:


> TheDude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Progs are big on blaming material objects when it's convenient to reject personal responsibility, guns included. Heck, the wall included too.
> 
> Better to dumb us down so the government makes decisions for us.  This way just the felons, illegals and Gastapos get the guns, while Americans with integrity can get fucked.  The more chaotic, weak and irresponsible we become, the more easily we're controlled.  The people Lakhota supports desire just that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gun lovers are too lazy to muster but don't mind blaming social service recipients for being too lazy to work for a living.
Click to expand...


They often are too lazy to work, open your eyes.  We were a society where people solved problems and had a work ethic.  Today progs declare "we need Mexicans to do the work", which is code for Americans are stoned and lazy as fuck.


----------



## Rigby5

Lesh said:


> SavannahMann said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claim to be progressive but from what I see...you are an anarchist.
> 
> Regardless you can love all the guns you want...it doesn't change the fact that "protection" of gun rights is only in the Constitution regarding use by a Well Regulated Militia that no longer exists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it does. The Well Regulated Militia according to the 1792 Militia Act, certainly expressing the intent of the founders as clearly as anything since it was passed a mere six months after ratification of the amendment, stated who was in the Militia.
> 
> It was every able bodied free man. Literally every able bodied free person today is a member of the Militia by that standard.
> 
> Well Regulated was also covered. It was the right, and responsibility of the Governors of the state’s to appoint officers, commission them using the vernacular, and when activated, the militia members while on active duty would be subject to military orders and discipline.
> 
> So we know what the term Well Regulated Militia meant. Militia Acts of 1792 - Wikipedia
> 
> Any other questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the Dick Act passed around 1900 supersedes that. It abolishes the organized militia and established the unorganized militia which ONLY pertains to males between 17 and 45.
> 
> You gonna run with that?
> 
> That means that women and males over 45 have no 2A protection and are subject to local and state laws and regs
> 
> Any questions?
Click to expand...



You have it backwards.  The 2nd amendment is not the source of any right.  The Bill of Rights creates no rights.  All rights were considered to be inherent and not only existed before any constitution or Bill of Rights, but are the justification for being able to have a rebellion or enact a constitution or any law at all.  
The only authority for any law or government action comes from the need to defend the inherent rights of individuals.  There is no other source of any authority in a republic.  So then women and males over 45 do have the inherent right of defense and protection of home and property.  So the place to look to see this is really the 4th and 5th amendments.  And since government employees have weapons, you can then also look to the 14th amendment to find proof that federal gun control, is illegal.

Since no right is without regulation, there is room for local and state gun control regs however.  But it must never infringe upon the basic rights of all individuals to defense, and there must be equality between private individuals and government employees.  

All the 2nd amendment actually says is that the federal government simply has absolutely ZERO jurisdiction over weapons.  All of the Bill of Rights is just absolute restrictions on any possible federal government.


----------



## 2aguy

Lesh said:


> So those 4 states MIGHT have protection for the members of those militias under the 2A. Or not. They are most likely regulated by STATE laws...not the 2A




Please read. re-read. study and understand D.C. v Heller, and McDonald v City of Chicago.....you would post with more intelligence if you did...


----------



## Rigby5

Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you demonstrate on a daily basis that you are clueless.  So, once again, who are the folks being infringed upon when a law is passed?  The PEOPLE, or the guys who write the laws?  Don't bother answering we all know you will obfuscate and lie because your arguments are shit.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about.  Only well regulated militia are declared necessary not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The phrase "well regulated" means well practices in firearms, so that the average population would be ready to be quickly called up in case of war.  And the 2nd Amendment is in the Bill of Rights, which ONLY contains restrictions on the federal government.  So the only possible interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that the federal government is to have absolutely NO jurisdiction over any weapons at all!
> 
> You can't infringe upon those who write the laws, because they are not the source of any authority at all in a democratic republic.  In a democratic republic, the inherent rights of all individuals are the ONLY source of any authority at all, and the Bill of Rights is ONLY about restricting federal government in favor of state, local, and individual authority.
> And one does not need the 2nd amendment in order to clearly see all federal gun control is illegal.  All you need is the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments.  Clearly weapons are necessary for defense, individuals have the right to what ever they need for defense, and since police and military have these weapons for defense, no law can ever wholesale block the same potential access to everyone, based on the requirement of equal treatment under the law, according to the 14th amendment.  Police and the military do not and must not have any special privileges or right to weapons beyond what any and all individuals have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sooooo.....you have a right to own a nuclear warhead?
> 
> or do you draw a line somewhere.....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear warheads are not classified as "arms".  That being said the first cannon in the USA were owned by a private group, so ordnance is certainly covered by the 2nd in my opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Canons were owned by the elite rich who had them to protect against marauding EVERYTHING.  When the Revolutionary war began, they loaned the canons, not sold or gave them to the Revolutionary Army.  The common person could not afford a canon.  And the common person probably could not find a suitable storage for one either.  Most of those canons were donated to the communities.  To  this day, many of those same canons are still sitting in various town  squares in good repair used for ceremonial purposes.   From about 1600 to 1858, the same weapons were available to everyone.  Even the canon if you could afford one.  The Muskets and the new Rifled Barreled muskets were used.  But in 1858, a new class of weapon was introduced that rocked the world.  The revolver and repeating rifle along with the Artillery.  It was just starting to be introduced for the Civil war.  But when WWI came around, all hell broke loose.  The classes of weapons went crazy.  It didn't happen over night.  It began in 1858 and snowballed.  The common man could no longer afford the weapons of war anymore.  Are you aware that the US Armory had a large stock of Browning Automatic Rifles in it's Armories as early as late 1917 but didn't ship them because they didn't want any of them captured by the Germans because they were head and shoulders above anything anyone else was producing at the time?  And the wholesale killing in WWI was primarily done by Artillery.  This is when the Organized Militia went by the way since the United States could no longer stick with the laws it had about Federal Troop Numbers.  Hence, the 1917 National Guard Act.  The Feds own all the equipment that the National Guard uses, pays for the training, etc..  And reserves the right to Federalize the National Guard in certain conditions.  I believe WWI was one of those conditions.  NO State, by itself, much less any common person, could afford the weapons of war anymore and still can't outside of one Rifle.  Almost all the rest are outside the purse strings of everyone except the rich.  And almost all those weapons are not Banned, it's just too expensive to purchase, license and store them for the common person.  What you claim is going against the 2nd amendment is actually an Economic problem.
> 
> And Nuclear Weapons are certainly Arms.  This is why the call them Nuclear Arms.  But they are way past the insanity level of owning one.
Click to expand...




Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you demonstrate on a daily basis that you are clueless.  So, once again, who are the folks being infringed upon when a law is passed?  The PEOPLE, or the guys who write the laws?  Don't bother answering we all know you will obfuscate and lie because your arguments are shit.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about.  Only well regulated militia are declared necessary not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The phrase "well regulated" means well practices in firearms, so that the average population would be ready to be quickly called up in case of war.  And the 2nd Amendment is in the Bill of Rights, which ONLY contains restrictions on the federal government.  So the only possible interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that the federal government is to have absolutely NO jurisdiction over any weapons at all!
> 
> You can't infringe upon those who write the laws, because they are not the source of any authority at all in a democratic republic.  In a democratic republic, the inherent rights of all individuals are the ONLY source of any authority at all, and the Bill of Rights is ONLY about restricting federal government in favor of state, local, and individual authority.
> And one does not need the 2nd amendment in order to clearly see all federal gun control is illegal.  All you need is the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments.  Clearly weapons are necessary for defense, individuals have the right to what ever they need for defense, and since police and military have these weapons for defense, no law can ever wholesale block the same potential access to everyone, based on the requirement of equal treatment under the law, according to the 14th amendment.  Police and the military do not and must not have any special privileges or right to weapons beyond what any and all individuals have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sooooo.....you have a right to own a nuclear warhead?
> 
> or do you draw a line somewhere.....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear warheads are not classified as "arms".  That being said the first cannon in the USA were owned by a private group, so ordnance is certainly covered by the 2nd in my opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Canons were owned by the elite rich who had them to protect against marauding EVERYTHING.  When the Revolutionary war began, they loaned the canons, not sold or gave them to the Revolutionary Army.  The common person could not afford a canon.  And the common person probably could not find a suitable storage for one either.  Most of those canons were donated to the communities.  To  this day, many of those same canons are still sitting in various town  squares in good repair used for ceremonial purposes.   From about 1600 to 1858, the same weapons were available to everyone.  Even the canon if you could afford one.  The Muskets and the new Rifled Barreled muskets were used.  But in 1858, a new class of weapon was introduced that rocked the world.  The revolver and repeating rifle along with the Artillery.  It was just starting to be introduced for the Civil war.  But when WWI came around, all hell broke loose.  The classes of weapons went crazy.  It didn't happen over night.  It began in 1858 and snowballed.  The common man could no longer afford the weapons of war anymore.  Are you aware that the US Armory had a large stock of Browning Automatic Rifles in it's Armories as early as late 1917 but didn't ship them because they didn't want any of them captured by the Germans because they were head and shoulders above anything anyone else was producing at the time?  And the wholesale killing in WWI was primarily done by Artillery.  This is when the Organized Militia went by the way since the United States could no longer stick with the laws it had about Federal Troop Numbers.  Hence, the 1917 National Guard Act.  The Feds own all the equipment that the National Guard uses, pays for the training, etc..  And reserves the right to Federalize the National Guard in certain conditions.  I believe WWI was one of those conditions.  NO State, by itself, much less any common person, could afford the weapons of war anymore and still can't outside of one Rifle.  Almost all the rest are outside the purse strings of everyone except the rich.  And almost all those weapons are not Banned, it's just too expensive to purchase, license and store them for the common person.  What you claim is going against the 2nd amendment is actually an Economic problem.
> 
> And Nuclear Weapons are certainly Arms.  This is why the call them Nuclear Arms.  But they are way past the insanity level of owning one.
Click to expand...



Good argument, but I disagree.
First of all, the economic argument is wrong because the federal government is supposed to be the poor one. 
It is the states that were supposed to have the ability to tax and raise revenue, not the federal government with a general income tax levy.
If the states can not afford modern weapons, it is due to the federal government illegally and deliberately making them poor.
The fact the federal government gives back most of the money it steals, allows illegal control and leverage over the states by the federal government, and is the source of most of the modern problems.
Same is true with individuals.  Modern weapons actually are quite affordable, and after WWI, they were selling Thompson Submachine guns for $17, mail order.  What makes then go for $10k now, is entirely illegal federal manipulations to make them as expensive as possible. And that is wrong and illegal.  If anyone ever needs them, it is the general population, since they are the first ones attacked.  The federal government is supposed to get its weapons from the citizen soldiers who own and know how to use their own weapons.  The professional, paid military, not only is against the whole principles of a republic, but cause a vastly inferior military that does not do what the people want.  Example of this is the illegal invasion of Iraq and the massacre of innocent civilians in places like Fallujah, torture as in Abu Grahib, etc.  Face it, the modern federalized control over arms is not only totally wrong, but illegal and can ONLY result eventually in the most horrible fascist state imaginable. 
Of course the reaction to that argument is going to be that states or individuals can't be doing things like maintaining fleets that have ships like aircraft carriers, and while I do not want to spend much time on that, the reality is clearly that neither should the federal government.  Fleets with carriers are obscene, because they never were for defense, but the illegal intimidation of colonial and imperial possessions. No one has ever attacked us since 1812, (Hawaii should not be US, and was not invaded), and carriers can not possibly be used for defense.  In fact, carriers are sitting ducks these days, and all should be scrapped.  Unarmed freighter and tankers make much better platforms for launching cruise missiles, swarms of drones, hypersonic missiles, VTOLs, etc. 
If you don't agree with the assessment that the federal government and Industrial Military Complex is out of control, consider the Space Force?  There are no aliens, so then the only point would be to attack other humans from the immunity of space.  Not at all legal, ethical, or sane thing to allow to happen.  Guaranteed to create the ultimate in dictatorship.

As for nuclear weapons, they are allowed all the time.  Every privately owned nuclear reactor can become or make nuclear weapons easily.  And if one could prove a safe use, like asteroid mining or some deep cavern project, there is no legal way to stop it.  All you can do is apply the same safety standards you apply to the military.  No arbitrary denial is legal.


----------



## Rigby5

Daryl Hunt said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about.  Only well regulated militia are declared necessary not the unorganized militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The phrase "well regulated" means well practices in firearms, so that the average population would be ready to be quickly called up in case of war.  And the 2nd Amendment is in the Bill of Rights, which ONLY contains restrictions on the federal government.  So the only possible interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that the federal government is to have absolutely NO jurisdiction over any weapons at all!
> 
> You can't infringe upon those who write the laws, because they are not the source of any authority at all in a democratic republic.  In a democratic republic, the inherent rights of all individuals are the ONLY source of any authority at all, and the Bill of Rights is ONLY about restricting federal government in favor of state, local, and individual authority.
> And one does not need the 2nd amendment in order to clearly see all federal gun control is illegal.  All you need is the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments.  Clearly weapons are necessary for defense, individuals have the right to what ever they need for defense, and since police and military have these weapons for defense, no law can ever wholesale block the same potential access to everyone, based on the requirement of equal treatment under the law, according to the 14th amendment.  Police and the military do not and must not have any special privileges or right to weapons beyond what any and all individuals have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> sooooo.....you have a right to own a nuclear warhead?
> 
> or do you draw a line somewhere.....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear warheads are not classified as "arms".  That being said the first cannon in the USA were owned by a private group, so ordnance is certainly covered by the 2nd in my opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there actually were a militia...a "Well Regulated Militia"...that would be true.
> 
> But canons and machine guns are either outlawed for private ownership or highly regulated...because there IS no longer a militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every state has the right to have a State Organized Militia.  I believe that there are 4 currently.  The two that comes to mind are Texas and California.  State Militia cannot be called up to Federal Duty unless they already have prior Federal commitments like 4 years inactive reserve (everyone that separates under 20 years) or 10 years for those that retire after 20 years or those that still have a reserve commitment or a National Guard Commitment.  The State Guard is state financed and supported but won't have the nifty toys the National Guard will have since no state by itself can afford the equipment and the training.
Click to expand...



Almost every state had defines its own militia in its state constitution, and almost every one says it is essentially every able bodied person.  So they almost all have them.

It is easy to see the original intent because it is clear the founders said they wanted citizens soldiers instead of a professional mercenary military, because they did not trust a professional military.

New Hampshire state constitution:

{...
[Art.] 24. [Militia.] A well regulated militia is the proper, natural, and sure defense, of a state.

June 2, 1784

[Art.] 25. [Standing Armies.] Standing armies are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be raised, or kept up, without the consent of the legislature.
...}

New Hampshire State Constitution, 1784/2007 ⋆ Constitution.com  ⋆ The US Constitution ⋆ Constitution.com


----------



## Rigby5

Lesh said:


> So those 4 states MIGHT have protection for the members of those militias under the 2A. Or not. They are most likely regulated by STATE laws...not the 2A



No, all states have militia rights, because the right of each and every single individual to protect themselves and home, are the source of legal justification for all militias and all governments.  
Again, the 2A is NOT a source of anything, but a deliberate restatement in order to ensure absolute restrain in potential future federal abuse.

But yes, local and state regulations on weapons for safety purposes could be legally possible.
It is only federal weapons laws that are absolutely prohibited and totally excluded by the 2nd amendment.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about, like usual, right wingers.
> 
> Wellness of regulation has to prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you demonstrate on a daily basis that you are clueless.  So, once again, who are the folks being infringed upon when a law is passed?  The PEOPLE, or the guys who write the laws?  Don't bother answering we all know you will obfuscate and lie because your arguments are shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about.  Only well regulated militia are declared necessary not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> noooo, it is demonstrable that it is you who are clueless.  Once again who are those PEOPLE who shall not be INFRINGED UPON?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well regulated militia are declared necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. It clearly says:
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of *the people* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> So it is "THE PEOPLE" whose right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  That restriction on the federal government is to be obeyed in all cases, no matter who or how you define the well regulated militia.  That is intentionally ambiguous because it it deliberately leaving it up to the states to decide what and how a militia is or what their needs are.  The point of the 2nd amendment is not to say who has gun rights, but to deny any federal jurisdiction over the question in any way.
Click to expand...


Are you aware that a SDF or State Militia takes their weapons home with them or brings their weapons from their jobs if they are Cops?  They don't report to a central point and draw their weapons from an armory.  They bring it with them.  Again, look at Texas.  The SDF or State Militia or Guard doesn't issue any weapons.  If you are a member, you bring your weapons if needed from home or your job.  You are reading into the 2nd something that isn't there.  It's pretty straight forward and simple.  The 2nd amendment enables the State to have the right to have an Organized Militia that is outside the control of the Feds.  The real reason for that was originally to make sure that the Federal Government could never become tyranical and the states would have the real military power to prevent it from happening.  The Weapons of War outgrew it.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rigby5 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about.  Only well regulated militia are declared necessary not the unorganized militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The phrase "well regulated" means well practices in firearms, so that the average population would be ready to be quickly called up in case of war.  And the 2nd Amendment is in the Bill of Rights, which ONLY contains restrictions on the federal government.  So the only possible interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that the federal government is to have absolutely NO jurisdiction over any weapons at all!
> 
> You can't infringe upon those who write the laws, because they are not the source of any authority at all in a democratic republic.  In a democratic republic, the inherent rights of all individuals are the ONLY source of any authority at all, and the Bill of Rights is ONLY about restricting federal government in favor of state, local, and individual authority.
> And one does not need the 2nd amendment in order to clearly see all federal gun control is illegal.  All you need is the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments.  Clearly weapons are necessary for defense, individuals have the right to what ever they need for defense, and since police and military have these weapons for defense, no law can ever wholesale block the same potential access to everyone, based on the requirement of equal treatment under the law, according to the 14th amendment.  Police and the military do not and must not have any special privileges or right to weapons beyond what any and all individuals have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sooooo.....you have a right to own a nuclear warhead?
> 
> or do you draw a line somewhere.....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear warheads are not classified as "arms".  That being said the first cannon in the USA were owned by a private group, so ordnance is certainly covered by the 2nd in my opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Canons were owned by the elite rich who had them to protect against marauding EVERYTHING.  When the Revolutionary war began, they loaned the canons, not sold or gave them to the Revolutionary Army.  The common person could not afford a canon.  And the common person probably could not find a suitable storage for one either.  Most of those canons were donated to the communities.  To  this day, many of those same canons are still sitting in various town  squares in good repair used for ceremonial purposes.   From about 1600 to 1858, the same weapons were available to everyone.  Even the canon if you could afford one.  The Muskets and the new Rifled Barreled muskets were used.  But in 1858, a new class of weapon was introduced that rocked the world.  The revolver and repeating rifle along with the Artillery.  It was just starting to be introduced for the Civil war.  But when WWI came around, all hell broke loose.  The classes of weapons went crazy.  It didn't happen over night.  It began in 1858 and snowballed.  The common man could no longer afford the weapons of war anymore.  Are you aware that the US Armory had a large stock of Browning Automatic Rifles in it's Armories as early as late 1917 but didn't ship them because they didn't want any of them captured by the Germans because they were head and shoulders above anything anyone else was producing at the time?  And the wholesale killing in WWI was primarily done by Artillery.  This is when the Organized Militia went by the way since the United States could no longer stick with the laws it had about Federal Troop Numbers.  Hence, the 1917 National Guard Act.  The Feds own all the equipment that the National Guard uses, pays for the training, etc..  And reserves the right to Federalize the National Guard in certain conditions.  I believe WWI was one of those conditions.  NO State, by itself, much less any common person, could afford the weapons of war anymore and still can't outside of one Rifle.  Almost all the rest are outside the purse strings of everyone except the rich.  And almost all those weapons are not Banned, it's just too expensive to purchase, license and store them for the common person.  What you claim is going against the 2nd amendment is actually an Economic problem.
> 
> And Nuclear Weapons are certainly Arms.  This is why the call them Nuclear Arms.  But they are way past the insanity level of owning one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about.  Only well regulated militia are declared necessary not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The phrase "well regulated" means well practices in firearms, so that the average population would be ready to be quickly called up in case of war.  And the 2nd Amendment is in the Bill of Rights, which ONLY contains restrictions on the federal government.  So the only possible interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that the federal government is to have absolutely NO jurisdiction over any weapons at all!
> 
> You can't infringe upon those who write the laws, because they are not the source of any authority at all in a democratic republic.  In a democratic republic, the inherent rights of all individuals are the ONLY source of any authority at all, and the Bill of Rights is ONLY about restricting federal government in favor of state, local, and individual authority.
> And one does not need the 2nd amendment in order to clearly see all federal gun control is illegal.  All you need is the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments.  Clearly weapons are necessary for defense, individuals have the right to what ever they need for defense, and since police and military have these weapons for defense, no law can ever wholesale block the same potential access to everyone, based on the requirement of equal treatment under the law, according to the 14th amendment.  Police and the military do not and must not have any special privileges or right to weapons beyond what any and all individuals have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sooooo.....you have a right to own a nuclear warhead?
> 
> or do you draw a line somewhere.....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear warheads are not classified as "arms".  That being said the first cannon in the USA were owned by a private group, so ordnance is certainly covered by the 2nd in my opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Canons were owned by the elite rich who had them to protect against marauding EVERYTHING.  When the Revolutionary war began, they loaned the canons, not sold or gave them to the Revolutionary Army.  The common person could not afford a canon.  And the common person probably could not find a suitable storage for one either.  Most of those canons were donated to the communities.  To  this day, many of those same canons are still sitting in various town  squares in good repair used for ceremonial purposes.   From about 1600 to 1858, the same weapons were available to everyone.  Even the canon if you could afford one.  The Muskets and the new Rifled Barreled muskets were used.  But in 1858, a new class of weapon was introduced that rocked the world.  The revolver and repeating rifle along with the Artillery.  It was just starting to be introduced for the Civil war.  But when WWI came around, all hell broke loose.  The classes of weapons went crazy.  It didn't happen over night.  It began in 1858 and snowballed.  The common man could no longer afford the weapons of war anymore.  Are you aware that the US Armory had a large stock of Browning Automatic Rifles in it's Armories as early as late 1917 but didn't ship them because they didn't want any of them captured by the Germans because they were head and shoulders above anything anyone else was producing at the time?  And the wholesale killing in WWI was primarily done by Artillery.  This is when the Organized Militia went by the way since the United States could no longer stick with the laws it had about Federal Troop Numbers.  Hence, the 1917 National Guard Act.  The Feds own all the equipment that the National Guard uses, pays for the training, etc..  And reserves the right to Federalize the National Guard in certain conditions.  I believe WWI was one of those conditions.  NO State, by itself, much less any common person, could afford the weapons of war anymore and still can't outside of one Rifle.  Almost all the rest are outside the purse strings of everyone except the rich.  And almost all those weapons are not Banned, it's just too expensive to purchase, license and store them for the common person.  What you claim is going against the 2nd amendment is actually an Economic problem.
> 
> And Nuclear Weapons are certainly Arms.  This is why the call them Nuclear Arms.  But they are way past the insanity level of owning one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good argument, but I disagree.
> First of all, the economic argument is wrong because the federal government is supposed to be the poor one.
> It is the states that were supposed to have the ability to tax and raise revenue, not the federal government with a general income tax levy.
> If the states can not afford modern weapons, it is due to the federal government illegally and deliberately making them poor.
> The fact the federal government gives back most of the money it steals, allows illegal control and leverage over the states by the federal government, and is the source of most of the modern problems.
> Same is true with individuals.  Modern weapons actually are quite affordable, and after WWI, they were selling Thompson Submachine guns for $17, mail order.  What makes then go for $10k now, is entirely illegal federal manipulations to make them as expensive as possible. And that is wrong and illegal.  If anyone ever needs them, it is the general population, since they are the first ones attacked.  The federal government is supposed to get its weapons from the citizen soldiers who own and know how to use their own weapons.  The professional, paid military, not only is against the whole principles of a republic, but cause a vastly inferior military that does not do what the people want.  Example of this is the illegal invasion of Iraq and the massacre of innocent civilians in places like Fallujah, torture as in Abu Grahib, etc.  Face it, the modern federalized control over arms is not only totally wrong, but illegal and can ONLY result eventually in the most horrible fascist state imaginable.
> Of course the reaction to that argument is going to be that states or individuals can't be doing things like maintaining fleets that have ships like aircraft carriers, and while I do not want to spend much time on that, the reality is clearly that neither should the federal government.  Fleets with carriers are obscene, because they never were for defense, but the illegal intimidation of colonial and imperial possessions. No one has ever attacked us since 1812, (Hawaii should not be US, and was not invaded), and carriers can not possibly be used for defense.  In fact, carriers are sitting ducks these days, and all should be scrapped.  Unarmed freighter and tankers make much better platforms for launching cruise missiles, swarms of drones, hypersonic missiles, VTOLs, etc.
> If you don't agree with the assessment that the federal government and Industrial Military Complex is out of control, consider the Space Force?  There are no aliens, so then the only point would be to attack other humans from the immunity of space.  Not at all legal, ethical, or sane thing to allow to happen.  Guaranteed to create the ultimate in dictatorship.
> 
> As for nuclear weapons, they are allowed all the time.  Every privately owned nuclear reactor can become or make nuclear weapons easily.  And if one could prove a safe use, like asteroid mining or some deep cavern project, there is no legal way to stop it.  All you can do is apply the same safety standards you apply to the military.  No arbitrary denial is legal.
Click to expand...


You got a lot of living you need to do.


----------



## watchingfromafar

*Gun Control Is as Old as the Old Wild West*

Contrary to the popular imagination, bearing arms on the frontier was a heavily regulated business

It's *October 26, 1881*, in Tombstone, and Arizona is not yet a state. The O.K. Corral is quiet, and it's had an unremarkable existence for the two years it's been standing—although it's about to become famous.

*Marshall Virgil Earp*, having deputized his brothers Wyatt and Morgan and his pal *Doc Holliday*, is having a gun control problem. Long-running tensions between the lawmen and a faction of cowboys – represented this morning by Billy Claiborne, the Clanton brothers, and the McLaury brothers – will come to a head over Tombstone's gun law.

*The laws of Tombstone at the time required visitors, upon entering town to disarm, either at a hotel or a lawman's office. *

The “Old West” conjures up all sorts of imagery– such as Tombstone, Deadwood, Dodge City, or Abilene, to name a few. *One other thing these cities had in common: strict gun control laws.*

*Laws regulating ownership and carry of firearms*, apart from the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, were *passed at a local level rather than by Congress*. “Gun control laws were adopted pretty quickly in these places,” says Winkler*. “Most were adopted by municipal governments exercising self-control and self-determination.” *

*Carrying any kind of weapon, guns or knives, was not allowed other than outside town borders and inside the home. When visitors left their weapons with a law officer upon entering town, they'd receive a token, like a coat check, which they'd exchange for their guns when leaving town.*

The practice was started in Southern states, which *were among the first to enact laws against concealed carry of guns and knives, in the early 1800s. --* The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, points to an 1840 Alabama court that, in upholding its state ban, *ruled it was a state's right* to regulate where and how a citizen could carry, and that the state constitution's allowance of personal firearms *“is not to bear arms upon all occasions and in all places.”*


----------



## danielpalos

TheDude said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheDude said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Progs are big on blaming material objects when it's convenient to reject personal responsibility, guns included. Heck, the wall included too.
> 
> Better to dumb us down so the government makes decisions for us.  This way just the felons, illegals and Gastapos get the guns, while Americans with integrity can get fucked.  The more chaotic, weak and irresponsible we become, the more easily we're controlled.  The people Lakhota supports desire just that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gun lovers are too lazy to muster but don't mind blaming social service recipients for being too lazy to work for a living.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They often are too lazy to work, open your eyes.  We were a society where people solved problems and had a work ethic.  Today progs declare "we need Mexicans to do the work", which is code for Americans are stoned and lazy as fuck.
Click to expand...

increasing the minimum wage is a start.


----------



## Cecilie1200

watchingfromafar said:


> *Gun Control Is as Old as the Old Wild West*
> 
> Contrary to the popular imagination, bearing arms on the frontier was a heavily regulated business
> 
> It's *October 26, 1881*, in Tombstone, and Arizona is not yet a state. The O.K. Corral is quiet, and it's had an unremarkable existence for the two years it's been standing—although it's about to become famous.
> 
> *Marshall Virgil Earp*, having deputized his brothers Wyatt and Morgan and his pal *Doc Holliday*, is having a gun control problem. Long-running tensions between the lawmen and a faction of cowboys – represented this morning by Billy Claiborne, the Clanton brothers, and the McLaury brothers – will come to a head over Tombstone's gun law.
> 
> *The laws of Tombstone at the time required visitors, upon entering town to disarm, either at a hotel or a lawman's office. *
> 
> The “Old West” conjures up all sorts of imagery– such as Tombstone, Deadwood, Dodge City, or Abilene, to name a few. *One other thing these cities had in common: strict gun control laws.*
> 
> *Laws regulating ownership and carry of firearms*, apart from the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, were *passed at a local level rather than by Congress*. “Gun control laws were adopted pretty quickly in these places,” says Winkler*. “Most were adopted by municipal governments exercising self-control and self-determination.” *
> 
> *Carrying any kind of weapon, guns or knives, was not allowed other than outside town borders and inside the home. When visitors left their weapons with a law officer upon entering town, they'd receive a token, like a coat check, which they'd exchange for their guns when leaving town.*
> 
> The practice was started in Southern states, which *were among the first to enact laws against concealed carry of guns and knives, in the early 1800s. --* The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, points to an 1840 Alabama court that, in upholding its state ban, *ruled it was a state's right* to regulate where and how a citizen could carry, and that the state constitution's allowance of personal firearms *“is not to bear arms upon all occasions and in all places.”*



Could you please clarify what "brilliant, incisive" point you think you're making here?


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rigby5 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The phrase "well regulated" means well practices in firearms, so that the average population would be ready to be quickly called up in case of war.  And the 2nd Amendment is in the Bill of Rights, which ONLY contains restrictions on the federal government.  So the only possible interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that the federal government is to have absolutely NO jurisdiction over any weapons at all!
> 
> You can't infringe upon those who write the laws, because they are not the source of any authority at all in a democratic republic.  In a democratic republic, the inherent rights of all individuals are the ONLY source of any authority at all, and the Bill of Rights is ONLY about restricting federal government in favor of state, local, and individual authority.
> And one does not need the 2nd amendment in order to clearly see all federal gun control is illegal.  All you need is the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments.  Clearly weapons are necessary for defense, individuals have the right to what ever they need for defense, and since police and military have these weapons for defense, no law can ever wholesale block the same potential access to everyone, based on the requirement of equal treatment under the law, according to the 14th amendment.  Police and the military do not and must not have any special privileges or right to weapons beyond what any and all individuals have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sooooo.....you have a right to own a nuclear warhead?
> 
> or do you draw a line somewhere.....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear warheads are not classified as "arms".  That being said the first cannon in the USA were owned by a private group, so ordnance is certainly covered by the 2nd in my opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there actually were a militia...a "Well Regulated Militia"...that would be true.
> 
> But canons and machine guns are either outlawed for private ownership or highly regulated...because there IS no longer a militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every state has the right to have a State Organized Militia.  I believe that there are 4 currently.  The two that comes to mind are Texas and California.  State Militia cannot be called up to Federal Duty unless they already have prior Federal commitments like 4 years inactive reserve (everyone that separates under 20 years) or 10 years for those that retire after 20 years or those that still have a reserve commitment or a National Guard Commitment.  The State Guard is state financed and supported but won't have the nifty toys the National Guard will have since no state by itself can afford the equipment and the training.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Almost every state had defines its own militia in its state constitution, and almost every one says it is essentially every able bodied person.  So they almost all have them.
> 
> It is easy to see the original intent because it is clear the founders said they wanted citizens soldiers instead of a professional mercenary military, because they did not trust a professional military.
> 
> New Hampshire state constitution:
> 
> {...
> [Art.] 24. [Militia.] A well regulated militia is the proper, natural, and sure defense, of a state.
> 
> June 2, 1784
> 
> [Art.] 25. [Standing Armies.] Standing armies are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be raised, or kept up, without the consent of the legislature.
> ...}
> 
> New Hampshire State Constitution, 1784/2007 ⋆ Constitution.com  ⋆ The US Constitution ⋆ Constitution.com
Click to expand...


And it gets that right directly from the 2nd amendment.  The 2nd amendment specifically says the Feds can't interfere in a States Organized Militia.  Th 2nd tells us the limitation on the Feds.

And, no, almost all don't have an Organized Militia.  What it's called today is SDF or State Defense Force.  If you call it a State Guard you get into a grey area with the National Guard Laws.  So it's been renamed.   The State has the right to have a SDF as spelled out under the 2nd amendment for a well regulated Militia.  

Hate to break it  to you but everyone isn't part of the Organized Militia at all.  And there really isn't anything really called an Unorganized Militia.  That is just made up to make you think that a bunch of gun nutters running around the woods with guns while wearing pickle suits are justified and the equal to the Organized Militia.  Nope, in the end, they are just a bunch of gun nutters running around the woods wearing pickle suits.


----------



## Rigby5

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you demonstrate on a daily basis that you are clueless.  So, once again, who are the folks being infringed upon when a law is passed?  The PEOPLE, or the guys who write the laws?  Don't bother answering we all know you will obfuscate and lie because your arguments are shit.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about.  Only well regulated militia are declared necessary not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> noooo, it is demonstrable that it is you who are clueless.  Once again who are those PEOPLE who shall not be INFRINGED UPON?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well regulated militia are declared necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. It clearly says:
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of *the people* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> So it is "THE PEOPLE" whose right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  That restriction on the federal government is to be obeyed in all cases, no matter who or how you define the well regulated militia.  That is intentionally ambiguous because it it deliberately leaving it up to the states to decide what and how a militia is or what their needs are.  The point of the 2nd amendment is not to say who has gun rights, but to deny any federal jurisdiction over the question in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you aware that a SDF or State Militia takes their weapons home with them or brings their weapons from their jobs if they are Cops?  They don't report to a central point and draw their weapons from an armory.  They bring it with them.  Again, look at Texas.  The SDF or State Militia or Guard doesn't issue any weapons.  If you are a member, you bring your weapons if needed from home or your job.  You are reading into the 2nd something that isn't there.  It's pretty straight forward and simple.  The 2nd amendment enables the State to have the right to have an Organized Militia that is outside the control of the Feds.  The real reason for that was originally to make sure that the Federal Government could never become tyranical and the states would have the real military power to prevent it from happening.  The Weapons of War outgrew it.
Click to expand...


We are not disagreeing.
I agree with you completely.

From a legal perspective, the only reason police, military and other government employees are able to have weapons is from the right of all individuals to have weapons in order to defend themselves and their property.
Government is not the source of any legal authority at all, but only carry the authority borrowed from inherent rights of individuals that are delegated to them so that they can protect these inherent rights of individuals.


----------



## Rigby5

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The phrase "well regulated" means well practices in firearms, so that the average population would be ready to be quickly called up in case of war.  And the 2nd Amendment is in the Bill of Rights, which ONLY contains restrictions on the federal government.  So the only possible interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that the federal government is to have absolutely NO jurisdiction over any weapons at all!
> 
> You can't infringe upon those who write the laws, because they are not the source of any authority at all in a democratic republic.  In a democratic republic, the inherent rights of all individuals are the ONLY source of any authority at all, and the Bill of Rights is ONLY about restricting federal government in favor of state, local, and individual authority.
> And one does not need the 2nd amendment in order to clearly see all federal gun control is illegal.  All you need is the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments.  Clearly weapons are necessary for defense, individuals have the right to what ever they need for defense, and since police and military have these weapons for defense, no law can ever wholesale block the same potential access to everyone, based on the requirement of equal treatment under the law, according to the 14th amendment.  Police and the military do not and must not have any special privileges or right to weapons beyond what any and all individuals have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sooooo.....you have a right to own a nuclear warhead?
> 
> or do you draw a line somewhere.....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nuclear warheads are not classified as "arms".  That being said the first cannon in the USA were owned by a private group, so ordnance is certainly covered by the 2nd in my opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Canons were owned by the elite rich who had them to protect against marauding EVERYTHING.  When the Revolutionary war began, they loaned the canons, not sold or gave them to the Revolutionary Army.  The common person could not afford a canon.  And the common person probably could not find a suitable storage for one either.  Most of those canons were donated to the communities.  To  this day, many of those same canons are still sitting in various town  squares in good repair used for ceremonial purposes.   From about 1600 to 1858, the same weapons were available to everyone.  Even the canon if you could afford one.  The Muskets and the new Rifled Barreled muskets were used.  But in 1858, a new class of weapon was introduced that rocked the world.  The revolver and repeating rifle along with the Artillery.  It was just starting to be introduced for the Civil war.  But when WWI came around, all hell broke loose.  The classes of weapons went crazy.  It didn't happen over night.  It began in 1858 and snowballed.  The common man could no longer afford the weapons of war anymore.  Are you aware that the US Armory had a large stock of Browning Automatic Rifles in it's Armories as early as late 1917 but didn't ship them because they didn't want any of them captured by the Germans because they were head and shoulders above anything anyone else was producing at the time?  And the wholesale killing in WWI was primarily done by Artillery.  This is when the Organized Militia went by the way since the United States could no longer stick with the laws it had about Federal Troop Numbers.  Hence, the 1917 National Guard Act.  The Feds own all the equipment that the National Guard uses, pays for the training, etc..  And reserves the right to Federalize the National Guard in certain conditions.  I believe WWI was one of those conditions.  NO State, by itself, much less any common person, could afford the weapons of war anymore and still can't outside of one Rifle.  Almost all the rest are outside the purse strings of everyone except the rich.  And almost all those weapons are not Banned, it's just too expensive to purchase, license and store them for the common person.  What you claim is going against the 2nd amendment is actually an Economic problem.
> 
> And Nuclear Weapons are certainly Arms.  This is why the call them Nuclear Arms.  But they are way past the insanity level of owning one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The phrase "well regulated" means well practices in firearms, so that the average population would be ready to be quickly called up in case of war.  And the 2nd Amendment is in the Bill of Rights, which ONLY contains restrictions on the federal government.  So the only possible interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that the federal government is to have absolutely NO jurisdiction over any weapons at all!
> 
> You can't infringe upon those who write the laws, because they are not the source of any authority at all in a democratic republic.  In a democratic republic, the inherent rights of all individuals are the ONLY source of any authority at all, and the Bill of Rights is ONLY about restricting federal government in favor of state, local, and individual authority.
> And one does not need the 2nd amendment in order to clearly see all federal gun control is illegal.  All you need is the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments.  Clearly weapons are necessary for defense, individuals have the right to what ever they need for defense, and since police and military have these weapons for defense, no law can ever wholesale block the same potential access to everyone, based on the requirement of equal treatment under the law, according to the 14th amendment.  Police and the military do not and must not have any special privileges or right to weapons beyond what any and all individuals have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sooooo.....you have a right to own a nuclear warhead?
> 
> or do you draw a line somewhere.....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear warheads are not classified as "arms".  That being said the first cannon in the USA were owned by a private group, so ordnance is certainly covered by the 2nd in my opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Canons were owned by the elite rich who had them to protect against marauding EVERYTHING.  When the Revolutionary war began, they loaned the canons, not sold or gave them to the Revolutionary Army.  The common person could not afford a canon.  And the common person probably could not find a suitable storage for one either.  Most of those canons were donated to the communities.  To  this day, many of those same canons are still sitting in various town  squares in good repair used for ceremonial purposes.   From about 1600 to 1858, the same weapons were available to everyone.  Even the canon if you could afford one.  The Muskets and the new Rifled Barreled muskets were used.  But in 1858, a new class of weapon was introduced that rocked the world.  The revolver and repeating rifle along with the Artillery.  It was just starting to be introduced for the Civil war.  But when WWI came around, all hell broke loose.  The classes of weapons went crazy.  It didn't happen over night.  It began in 1858 and snowballed.  The common man could no longer afford the weapons of war anymore.  Are you aware that the US Armory had a large stock of Browning Automatic Rifles in it's Armories as early as late 1917 but didn't ship them because they didn't want any of them captured by the Germans because they were head and shoulders above anything anyone else was producing at the time?  And the wholesale killing in WWI was primarily done by Artillery.  This is when the Organized Militia went by the way since the United States could no longer stick with the laws it had about Federal Troop Numbers.  Hence, the 1917 National Guard Act.  The Feds own all the equipment that the National Guard uses, pays for the training, etc..  And reserves the right to Federalize the National Guard in certain conditions.  I believe WWI was one of those conditions.  NO State, by itself, much less any common person, could afford the weapons of war anymore and still can't outside of one Rifle.  Almost all the rest are outside the purse strings of everyone except the rich.  And almost all those weapons are not Banned, it's just too expensive to purchase, license and store them for the common person.  What you claim is going against the 2nd amendment is actually an Economic problem.
> 
> And Nuclear Weapons are certainly Arms.  This is why the call them Nuclear Arms.  But they are way past the insanity level of owning one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good argument, but I disagree.
> First of all, the economic argument is wrong because the federal government is supposed to be the poor one.
> It is the states that were supposed to have the ability to tax and raise revenue, not the federal government with a general income tax levy.
> If the states can not afford modern weapons, it is due to the federal government illegally and deliberately making them poor.
> The fact the federal government gives back most of the money it steals, allows illegal control and leverage over the states by the federal government, and is the source of most of the modern problems.
> Same is true with individuals.  Modern weapons actually are quite affordable, and after WWI, they were selling Thompson Submachine guns for $17, mail order.  What makes then go for $10k now, is entirely illegal federal manipulations to make them as expensive as possible. And that is wrong and illegal.  If anyone ever needs them, it is the general population, since they are the first ones attacked.  The federal government is supposed to get its weapons from the citizen soldiers who own and know how to use their own weapons.  The professional, paid military, not only is against the whole principles of a republic, but cause a vastly inferior military that does not do what the people want.  Example of this is the illegal invasion of Iraq and the massacre of innocent civilians in places like Fallujah, torture as in Abu Grahib, etc.  Face it, the modern federalized control over arms is not only totally wrong, but illegal and can ONLY result eventually in the most horrible fascist state imaginable.
> Of course the reaction to that argument is going to be that states or individuals can't be doing things like maintaining fleets that have ships like aircraft carriers, and while I do not want to spend much time on that, the reality is clearly that neither should the federal government.  Fleets with carriers are obscene, because they never were for defense, but the illegal intimidation of colonial and imperial possessions. No one has ever attacked us since 1812, (Hawaii should not be US, and was not invaded), and carriers can not possibly be used for defense.  In fact, carriers are sitting ducks these days, and all should be scrapped.  Unarmed freighter and tankers make much better platforms for launching cruise missiles, swarms of drones, hypersonic missiles, VTOLs, etc.
> If you don't agree with the assessment that the federal government and Industrial Military Complex is out of control, consider the Space Force?  There are no aliens, so then the only point would be to attack other humans from the immunity of space.  Not at all legal, ethical, or sane thing to allow to happen.  Guaranteed to create the ultimate in dictatorship.
> 
> As for nuclear weapons, they are allowed all the time.  Every privately owned nuclear reactor can become or make nuclear weapons easily.  And if one could prove a safe use, like asteroid mining or some deep cavern project, there is no legal way to stop it.  All you can do is apply the same safety standards you apply to the military.  No arbitrary denial is legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You got a lot of living you need to do.
Click to expand...




Daryl Hunt said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The phrase "well regulated" means well practices in firearms, so that the average population would be ready to be quickly called up in case of war.  And the 2nd Amendment is in the Bill of Rights, which ONLY contains restrictions on the federal government.  So the only possible interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that the federal government is to have absolutely NO jurisdiction over any weapons at all!
> 
> You can't infringe upon those who write the laws, because they are not the source of any authority at all in a democratic republic.  In a democratic republic, the inherent rights of all individuals are the ONLY source of any authority at all, and the Bill of Rights is ONLY about restricting federal government in favor of state, local, and individual authority.
> And one does not need the 2nd amendment in order to clearly see all federal gun control is illegal.  All you need is the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments.  Clearly weapons are necessary for defense, individuals have the right to what ever they need for defense, and since police and military have these weapons for defense, no law can ever wholesale block the same potential access to everyone, based on the requirement of equal treatment under the law, according to the 14th amendment.  Police and the military do not and must not have any special privileges or right to weapons beyond what any and all individuals have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sooooo.....you have a right to own a nuclear warhead?
> 
> or do you draw a line somewhere.....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear warheads are not classified as "arms".  That being said the first cannon in the USA were owned by a private group, so ordnance is certainly covered by the 2nd in my opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Canons were owned by the elite rich who had them to protect against marauding EVERYTHING.  When the Revolutionary war began, they loaned the canons, not sold or gave them to the Revolutionary Army.  The common person could not afford a canon.  And the common person probably could not find a suitable storage for one either.  Most of those canons were donated to the communities.  To  this day, many of those same canons are still sitting in various town  squares in good repair used for ceremonial purposes.   From about 1600 to 1858, the same weapons were available to everyone.  Even the canon if you could afford one.  The Muskets and the new Rifled Barreled muskets were used.  But in 1858, a new class of weapon was introduced that rocked the world.  The revolver and repeating rifle along with the Artillery.  It was just starting to be introduced for the Civil war.  But when WWI came around, all hell broke loose.  The classes of weapons went crazy.  It didn't happen over night.  It began in 1858 and snowballed.  The common man could no longer afford the weapons of war anymore.  Are you aware that the US Armory had a large stock of Browning Automatic Rifles in it's Armories as early as late 1917 but didn't ship them because they didn't want any of them captured by the Germans because they were head and shoulders above anything anyone else was producing at the time?  And the wholesale killing in WWI was primarily done by Artillery.  This is when the Organized Militia went by the way since the United States could no longer stick with the laws it had about Federal Troop Numbers.  Hence, the 1917 National Guard Act.  The Feds own all the equipment that the National Guard uses, pays for the training, etc..  And reserves the right to Federalize the National Guard in certain conditions.  I believe WWI was one of those conditions.  NO State, by itself, much less any common person, could afford the weapons of war anymore and still can't outside of one Rifle.  Almost all the rest are outside the purse strings of everyone except the rich.  And almost all those weapons are not Banned, it's just too expensive to purchase, license and store them for the common person.  What you claim is going against the 2nd amendment is actually an Economic problem.
> 
> And Nuclear Weapons are certainly Arms.  This is why the call them Nuclear Arms.  But they are way past the insanity level of owning one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The phrase "well regulated" means well practices in firearms, so that the average population would be ready to be quickly called up in case of war.  And the 2nd Amendment is in the Bill of Rights, which ONLY contains restrictions on the federal government.  So the only possible interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that the federal government is to have absolutely NO jurisdiction over any weapons at all!
> 
> You can't infringe upon those who write the laws, because they are not the source of any authority at all in a democratic republic.  In a democratic republic, the inherent rights of all individuals are the ONLY source of any authority at all, and the Bill of Rights is ONLY about restricting federal government in favor of state, local, and individual authority.
> And one does not need the 2nd amendment in order to clearly see all federal gun control is illegal.  All you need is the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments.  Clearly weapons are necessary for defense, individuals have the right to what ever they need for defense, and since police and military have these weapons for defense, no law can ever wholesale block the same potential access to everyone, based on the requirement of equal treatment under the law, according to the 14th amendment.  Police and the military do not and must not have any special privileges or right to weapons beyond what any and all individuals have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sooooo.....you have a right to own a nuclear warhead?
> 
> or do you draw a line somewhere.....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear warheads are not classified as "arms".  That being said the first cannon in the USA were owned by a private group, so ordnance is certainly covered by the 2nd in my opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Canons were owned by the elite rich who had them to protect against marauding EVERYTHING.  When the Revolutionary war began, they loaned the canons, not sold or gave them to the Revolutionary Army.  The common person could not afford a canon.  And the common person probably could not find a suitable storage for one either.  Most of those canons were donated to the communities.  To  this day, many of those same canons are still sitting in various town  squares in good repair used for ceremonial purposes.   From about 1600 to 1858, the same weapons were available to everyone.  Even the canon if you could afford one.  The Muskets and the new Rifled Barreled muskets were used.  But in 1858, a new class of weapon was introduced that rocked the world.  The revolver and repeating rifle along with the Artillery.  It was just starting to be introduced for the Civil war.  But when WWI came around, all hell broke loose.  The classes of weapons went crazy.  It didn't happen over night.  It began in 1858 and snowballed.  The common man could no longer afford the weapons of war anymore.  Are you aware that the US Armory had a large stock of Browning Automatic Rifles in it's Armories as early as late 1917 but didn't ship them because they didn't want any of them captured by the Germans because they were head and shoulders above anything anyone else was producing at the time?  And the wholesale killing in WWI was primarily done by Artillery.  This is when the Organized Militia went by the way since the United States could no longer stick with the laws it had about Federal Troop Numbers.  Hence, the 1917 National Guard Act.  The Feds own all the equipment that the National Guard uses, pays for the training, etc..  And reserves the right to Federalize the National Guard in certain conditions.  I believe WWI was one of those conditions.  NO State, by itself, much less any common person, could afford the weapons of war anymore and still can't outside of one Rifle.  Almost all the rest are outside the purse strings of everyone except the rich.  And almost all those weapons are not Banned, it's just too expensive to purchase, license and store them for the common person.  What you claim is going against the 2nd amendment is actually an Economic problem.
> 
> And Nuclear Weapons are certainly Arms.  This is why the call them Nuclear Arms.  But they are way past the insanity level of owning one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good argument, but I disagree.
> First of all, the economic argument is wrong because the federal government is supposed to be the poor one.
> It is the states that were supposed to have the ability to tax and raise revenue, not the federal government with a general income tax levy.
> If the states can not afford modern weapons, it is due to the federal government illegally and deliberately making them poor.
> The fact the federal government gives back most of the money it steals, allows illegal control and leverage over the states by the federal government, and is the source of most of the modern problems.
> Same is true with individuals.  Modern weapons actually are quite affordable, and after WWI, they were selling Thompson Submachine guns for $17, mail order.  What makes then go for $10k now, is entirely illegal federal manipulations to make them as expensive as possible. And that is wrong and illegal.  If anyone ever needs them, it is the general population, since they are the first ones attacked.  The federal government is supposed to get its weapons from the citizen soldiers who own and know how to use their own weapons.  The professional, paid military, not only is against the whole principles of a republic, but cause a vastly inferior military that does not do what the people want.  Example of this is the illegal invasion of Iraq and the massacre of innocent civilians in places like Fallujah, torture as in Abu Grahib, etc.  Face it, the modern federalized control over arms is not only totally wrong, but illegal and can ONLY result eventually in the most horrible fascist state imaginable.
> Of course the reaction to that argument is going to be that states or individuals can't be doing things like maintaining fleets that have ships like aircraft carriers, and while I do not want to spend much time on that, the reality is clearly that neither should the federal government.  Fleets with carriers are obscene, because they never were for defense, but the illegal intimidation of colonial and imperial possessions. No one has ever attacked us since 1812, (Hawaii should not be US, and was not invaded), and carriers can not possibly be used for defense.  In fact, carriers are sitting ducks these days, and all should be scrapped.  Unarmed freighter and tankers make much better platforms for launching cruise missiles, swarms of drones, hypersonic missiles, VTOLs, etc.
> If you don't agree with the assessment that the federal government and Industrial Military Complex is out of control, consider the Space Force?  There are no aliens, so then the only point would be to attack other humans from the immunity of space.  Not at all legal, ethical, or sane thing to allow to happen.  Guaranteed to create the ultimate in dictatorship.
> 
> As for nuclear weapons, they are allowed all the time.  Every privately owned nuclear reactor can become or make nuclear weapons easily.  And if one could prove a safe use, like asteroid mining or some deep cavern project, there is no legal way to stop it.  All you can do is apply the same safety standards you apply to the military.  No arbitrary denial is legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You got a lot of living you need to do.
Click to expand...


Since I am 67, I guess I had better hurry up then.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rigby5 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about.  Only well regulated militia are declared necessary not the unorganized militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> noooo, it is demonstrable that it is you who are clueless.  Once again who are those PEOPLE who shall not be INFRINGED UPON?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well regulated militia are declared necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. It clearly says:
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of *the people* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> So it is "THE PEOPLE" whose right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  That restriction on the federal government is to be obeyed in all cases, no matter who or how you define the well regulated militia.  That is intentionally ambiguous because it it deliberately leaving it up to the states to decide what and how a militia is or what their needs are.  The point of the 2nd amendment is not to say who has gun rights, but to deny any federal jurisdiction over the question in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you aware that a SDF or State Militia takes their weapons home with them or brings their weapons from their jobs if they are Cops?  They don't report to a central point and draw their weapons from an armory.  They bring it with them.  Again, look at Texas.  The SDF or State Militia or Guard doesn't issue any weapons.  If you are a member, you bring your weapons if needed from home or your job.  You are reading into the 2nd something that isn't there.  It's pretty straight forward and simple.  The 2nd amendment enables the State to have the right to have an Organized Militia that is outside the control of the Feds.  The real reason for that was originally to make sure that the Federal Government could never become tyranical and the states would have the real military power to prevent it from happening.  The Weapons of War outgrew it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are not disagreeing.
> I agree with you completely.
> 
> From a legal perspective, the only reason police, military and other government employees are able to have weapons is from the right of all individuals to have weapons in order to defend themselves and their property.
> Government is not the source of any legal authority at all, but only carry the authority borrowed from inherent rights of individuals that are delegated to them so that they can protect these inherent rights of individuals.
Click to expand...


Using Heller V DC, you have the right to a serviceable handgun in your home for home protection as long as you are afforded a sane method of registration and licensing if the local government requires it.  The only reason the Supreme Court got involved at all is that DC was so far out in left field that they had no choice and DC relies on the Federal Court System since it has no State Court Systems to fall back on.    And that is as far as the Modern Supreme Court has ruled.  SCOTUS avoids 2nd amendment rulings like a plague.  It's not that they agree nor disagree with the lower courts.  It's that they would be making laws instead of enforcing the Constitution.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rigby5 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> sooooo.....you have a right to own a nuclear warhead?
> 
> or do you draw a line somewhere.....?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear warheads are not classified as "arms".  That being said the first cannon in the USA were owned by a private group, so ordnance is certainly covered by the 2nd in my opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Canons were owned by the elite rich who had them to protect against marauding EVERYTHING.  When the Revolutionary war began, they loaned the canons, not sold or gave them to the Revolutionary Army.  The common person could not afford a canon.  And the common person probably could not find a suitable storage for one either.  Most of those canons were donated to the communities.  To  this day, many of those same canons are still sitting in various town  squares in good repair used for ceremonial purposes.   From about 1600 to 1858, the same weapons were available to everyone.  Even the canon if you could afford one.  The Muskets and the new Rifled Barreled muskets were used.  But in 1858, a new class of weapon was introduced that rocked the world.  The revolver and repeating rifle along with the Artillery.  It was just starting to be introduced for the Civil war.  But when WWI came around, all hell broke loose.  The classes of weapons went crazy.  It didn't happen over night.  It began in 1858 and snowballed.  The common man could no longer afford the weapons of war anymore.  Are you aware that the US Armory had a large stock of Browning Automatic Rifles in it's Armories as early as late 1917 but didn't ship them because they didn't want any of them captured by the Germans because they were head and shoulders above anything anyone else was producing at the time?  And the wholesale killing in WWI was primarily done by Artillery.  This is when the Organized Militia went by the way since the United States could no longer stick with the laws it had about Federal Troop Numbers.  Hence, the 1917 National Guard Act.  The Feds own all the equipment that the National Guard uses, pays for the training, etc..  And reserves the right to Federalize the National Guard in certain conditions.  I believe WWI was one of those conditions.  NO State, by itself, much less any common person, could afford the weapons of war anymore and still can't outside of one Rifle.  Almost all the rest are outside the purse strings of everyone except the rich.  And almost all those weapons are not Banned, it's just too expensive to purchase, license and store them for the common person.  What you claim is going against the 2nd amendment is actually an Economic problem.
> 
> And Nuclear Weapons are certainly Arms.  This is why the call them Nuclear Arms.  But they are way past the insanity level of owning one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> sooooo.....you have a right to own a nuclear warhead?
> 
> or do you draw a line somewhere.....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear warheads are not classified as "arms".  That being said the first cannon in the USA were owned by a private group, so ordnance is certainly covered by the 2nd in my opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Canons were owned by the elite rich who had them to protect against marauding EVERYTHING.  When the Revolutionary war began, they loaned the canons, not sold or gave them to the Revolutionary Army.  The common person could not afford a canon.  And the common person probably could not find a suitable storage for one either.  Most of those canons were donated to the communities.  To  this day, many of those same canons are still sitting in various town  squares in good repair used for ceremonial purposes.   From about 1600 to 1858, the same weapons were available to everyone.  Even the canon if you could afford one.  The Muskets and the new Rifled Barreled muskets were used.  But in 1858, a new class of weapon was introduced that rocked the world.  The revolver and repeating rifle along with the Artillery.  It was just starting to be introduced for the Civil war.  But when WWI came around, all hell broke loose.  The classes of weapons went crazy.  It didn't happen over night.  It began in 1858 and snowballed.  The common man could no longer afford the weapons of war anymore.  Are you aware that the US Armory had a large stock of Browning Automatic Rifles in it's Armories as early as late 1917 but didn't ship them because they didn't want any of them captured by the Germans because they were head and shoulders above anything anyone else was producing at the time?  And the wholesale killing in WWI was primarily done by Artillery.  This is when the Organized Militia went by the way since the United States could no longer stick with the laws it had about Federal Troop Numbers.  Hence, the 1917 National Guard Act.  The Feds own all the equipment that the National Guard uses, pays for the training, etc..  And reserves the right to Federalize the National Guard in certain conditions.  I believe WWI was one of those conditions.  NO State, by itself, much less any common person, could afford the weapons of war anymore and still can't outside of one Rifle.  Almost all the rest are outside the purse strings of everyone except the rich.  And almost all those weapons are not Banned, it's just too expensive to purchase, license and store them for the common person.  What you claim is going against the 2nd amendment is actually an Economic problem.
> 
> And Nuclear Weapons are certainly Arms.  This is why the call them Nuclear Arms.  But they are way past the insanity level of owning one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good argument, but I disagree.
> First of all, the economic argument is wrong because the federal government is supposed to be the poor one.
> It is the states that were supposed to have the ability to tax and raise revenue, not the federal government with a general income tax levy.
> If the states can not afford modern weapons, it is due to the federal government illegally and deliberately making them poor.
> The fact the federal government gives back most of the money it steals, allows illegal control and leverage over the states by the federal government, and is the source of most of the modern problems.
> Same is true with individuals.  Modern weapons actually are quite affordable, and after WWI, they were selling Thompson Submachine guns for $17, mail order.  What makes then go for $10k now, is entirely illegal federal manipulations to make them as expensive as possible. And that is wrong and illegal.  If anyone ever needs them, it is the general population, since they are the first ones attacked.  The federal government is supposed to get its weapons from the citizen soldiers who own and know how to use their own weapons.  The professional, paid military, not only is against the whole principles of a republic, but cause a vastly inferior military that does not do what the people want.  Example of this is the illegal invasion of Iraq and the massacre of innocent civilians in places like Fallujah, torture as in Abu Grahib, etc.  Face it, the modern federalized control over arms is not only totally wrong, but illegal and can ONLY result eventually in the most horrible fascist state imaginable.
> Of course the reaction to that argument is going to be that states or individuals can't be doing things like maintaining fleets that have ships like aircraft carriers, and while I do not want to spend much time on that, the reality is clearly that neither should the federal government.  Fleets with carriers are obscene, because they never were for defense, but the illegal intimidation of colonial and imperial possessions. No one has ever attacked us since 1812, (Hawaii should not be US, and was not invaded), and carriers can not possibly be used for defense.  In fact, carriers are sitting ducks these days, and all should be scrapped.  Unarmed freighter and tankers make much better platforms for launching cruise missiles, swarms of drones, hypersonic missiles, VTOLs, etc.
> If you don't agree with the assessment that the federal government and Industrial Military Complex is out of control, consider the Space Force?  There are no aliens, so then the only point would be to attack other humans from the immunity of space.  Not at all legal, ethical, or sane thing to allow to happen.  Guaranteed to create the ultimate in dictatorship.
> 
> As for nuclear weapons, they are allowed all the time.  Every privately owned nuclear reactor can become or make nuclear weapons easily.  And if one could prove a safe use, like asteroid mining or some deep cavern project, there is no legal way to stop it.  All you can do is apply the same safety standards you apply to the military.  No arbitrary denial is legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You got a lot of living you need to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> sooooo.....you have a right to own a nuclear warhead?
> 
> or do you draw a line somewhere.....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear warheads are not classified as "arms".  That being said the first cannon in the USA were owned by a private group, so ordnance is certainly covered by the 2nd in my opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Canons were owned by the elite rich who had them to protect against marauding EVERYTHING.  When the Revolutionary war began, they loaned the canons, not sold or gave them to the Revolutionary Army.  The common person could not afford a canon.  And the common person probably could not find a suitable storage for one either.  Most of those canons were donated to the communities.  To  this day, many of those same canons are still sitting in various town  squares in good repair used for ceremonial purposes.   From about 1600 to 1858, the same weapons were available to everyone.  Even the canon if you could afford one.  The Muskets and the new Rifled Barreled muskets were used.  But in 1858, a new class of weapon was introduced that rocked the world.  The revolver and repeating rifle along with the Artillery.  It was just starting to be introduced for the Civil war.  But when WWI came around, all hell broke loose.  The classes of weapons went crazy.  It didn't happen over night.  It began in 1858 and snowballed.  The common man could no longer afford the weapons of war anymore.  Are you aware that the US Armory had a large stock of Browning Automatic Rifles in it's Armories as early as late 1917 but didn't ship them because they didn't want any of them captured by the Germans because they were head and shoulders above anything anyone else was producing at the time?  And the wholesale killing in WWI was primarily done by Artillery.  This is when the Organized Militia went by the way since the United States could no longer stick with the laws it had about Federal Troop Numbers.  Hence, the 1917 National Guard Act.  The Feds own all the equipment that the National Guard uses, pays for the training, etc..  And reserves the right to Federalize the National Guard in certain conditions.  I believe WWI was one of those conditions.  NO State, by itself, much less any common person, could afford the weapons of war anymore and still can't outside of one Rifle.  Almost all the rest are outside the purse strings of everyone except the rich.  And almost all those weapons are not Banned, it's just too expensive to purchase, license and store them for the common person.  What you claim is going against the 2nd amendment is actually an Economic problem.
> 
> And Nuclear Weapons are certainly Arms.  This is why the call them Nuclear Arms.  But they are way past the insanity level of owning one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> sooooo.....you have a right to own a nuclear warhead?
> 
> or do you draw a line somewhere.....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear warheads are not classified as "arms".  That being said the first cannon in the USA were owned by a private group, so ordnance is certainly covered by the 2nd in my opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Canons were owned by the elite rich who had them to protect against marauding EVERYTHING.  When the Revolutionary war began, they loaned the canons, not sold or gave them to the Revolutionary Army.  The common person could not afford a canon.  And the common person probably could not find a suitable storage for one either.  Most of those canons were donated to the communities.  To  this day, many of those same canons are still sitting in various town  squares in good repair used for ceremonial purposes.   From about 1600 to 1858, the same weapons were available to everyone.  Even the canon if you could afford one.  The Muskets and the new Rifled Barreled muskets were used.  But in 1858, a new class of weapon was introduced that rocked the world.  The revolver and repeating rifle along with the Artillery.  It was just starting to be introduced for the Civil war.  But when WWI came around, all hell broke loose.  The classes of weapons went crazy.  It didn't happen over night.  It began in 1858 and snowballed.  The common man could no longer afford the weapons of war anymore.  Are you aware that the US Armory had a large stock of Browning Automatic Rifles in it's Armories as early as late 1917 but didn't ship them because they didn't want any of them captured by the Germans because they were head and shoulders above anything anyone else was producing at the time?  And the wholesale killing in WWI was primarily done by Artillery.  This is when the Organized Militia went by the way since the United States could no longer stick with the laws it had about Federal Troop Numbers.  Hence, the 1917 National Guard Act.  The Feds own all the equipment that the National Guard uses, pays for the training, etc..  And reserves the right to Federalize the National Guard in certain conditions.  I believe WWI was one of those conditions.  NO State, by itself, much less any common person, could afford the weapons of war anymore and still can't outside of one Rifle.  Almost all the rest are outside the purse strings of everyone except the rich.  And almost all those weapons are not Banned, it's just too expensive to purchase, license and store them for the common person.  What you claim is going against the 2nd amendment is actually an Economic problem.
> 
> And Nuclear Weapons are certainly Arms.  This is why the call them Nuclear Arms.  But they are way past the insanity level of owning one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good argument, but I disagree.
> First of all, the economic argument is wrong because the federal government is supposed to be the poor one.
> It is the states that were supposed to have the ability to tax and raise revenue, not the federal government with a general income tax levy.
> If the states can not afford modern weapons, it is due to the federal government illegally and deliberately making them poor.
> The fact the federal government gives back most of the money it steals, allows illegal control and leverage over the states by the federal government, and is the source of most of the modern problems.
> Same is true with individuals.  Modern weapons actually are quite affordable, and after WWI, they were selling Thompson Submachine guns for $17, mail order.  What makes then go for $10k now, is entirely illegal federal manipulations to make them as expensive as possible. And that is wrong and illegal.  If anyone ever needs them, it is the general population, since they are the first ones attacked.  The federal government is supposed to get its weapons from the citizen soldiers who own and know how to use their own weapons.  The professional, paid military, not only is against the whole principles of a republic, but cause a vastly inferior military that does not do what the people want.  Example of this is the illegal invasion of Iraq and the massacre of innocent civilians in places like Fallujah, torture as in Abu Grahib, etc.  Face it, the modern federalized control over arms is not only totally wrong, but illegal and can ONLY result eventually in the most horrible fascist state imaginable.
> Of course the reaction to that argument is going to be that states or individuals can't be doing things like maintaining fleets that have ships like aircraft carriers, and while I do not want to spend much time on that, the reality is clearly that neither should the federal government.  Fleets with carriers are obscene, because they never were for defense, but the illegal intimidation of colonial and imperial possessions. No one has ever attacked us since 1812, (Hawaii should not be US, and was not invaded), and carriers can not possibly be used for defense.  In fact, carriers are sitting ducks these days, and all should be scrapped.  Unarmed freighter and tankers make much better platforms for launching cruise missiles, swarms of drones, hypersonic missiles, VTOLs, etc.
> If you don't agree with the assessment that the federal government and Industrial Military Complex is out of control, consider the Space Force?  There are no aliens, so then the only point would be to attack other humans from the immunity of space.  Not at all legal, ethical, or sane thing to allow to happen.  Guaranteed to create the ultimate in dictatorship.
> 
> As for nuclear weapons, they are allowed all the time.  Every privately owned nuclear reactor can become or make nuclear weapons easily.  And if one could prove a safe use, like asteroid mining or some deep cavern project, there is no legal way to stop it.  All you can do is apply the same safety standards you apply to the military.  No arbitrary denial is legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You got a lot of living you need to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since I am 67, I guess I had better hurry up then.
Click to expand...


You'd be surprised what one more year does for your opinions, kid.


----------



## Lesh

Daryl Hunt said:


> And it gets that right directly from the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment specifically says the Feds can't interfere in a States Organized Militia



LOL. It doesn't say anything of the kind


----------



## Lesh

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> noooo, it is demonstrable that it is you who are clueless.  Once again who are those PEOPLE who shall not be INFRINGED UPON?
> 
> 
> 
> well regulated militia are declared necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. It clearly says:
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of *the people* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> So it is "THE PEOPLE" whose right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  That restriction on the federal government is to be obeyed in all cases, no matter who or how you define the well regulated militia.  That is intentionally ambiguous because it it deliberately leaving it up to the states to decide what and how a militia is or what their needs are.  The point of the 2nd amendment is not to say who has gun rights, but to deny any federal jurisdiction over the question in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you aware that a SDF or State Militia takes their weapons home with them or brings their weapons from their jobs if they are Cops?  They don't report to a central point and draw their weapons from an armory.  They bring it with them.  Again, look at Texas.  The SDF or State Militia or Guard doesn't issue any weapons.  If you are a member, you bring your weapons if needed from home or your job.  You are reading into the 2nd something that isn't there.  It's pretty straight forward and simple.  The 2nd amendment enables the State to have the right to have an Organized Militia that is outside the control of the Feds.  The real reason for that was originally to make sure that the Federal Government could never become tyranical and the states would have the real military power to prevent it from happening.  The Weapons of War outgrew it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are not disagreeing.
> I agree with you completely.
> 
> From a legal perspective, the only reason police, military and other government employees are able to have weapons is from the right of all individuals to have weapons in order to defend themselves and their property.
> Government is not the source of any legal authority at all, but only carry the authority borrowed from inherent rights of individuals that are delegated to them so that they can protect these inherent rights of individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Using Heller V DC, you have the right to a serviceable handgun in your home for home protection as long as you are afforded a sane method of registration and licensing if the local government requires it.  The only reason the Supreme Court got involved at all is that DC was so far out in left field that they had no choice and DC relies on the Federal Court System since it has no State Court Systems to fall back on.    And that is as far as the Modern Supreme Court has ruled.  SCOTUS avoids 2nd amendment rulings like a plague.  It's not that they agree nor disagree with the lower courts.  It's that they would be making laws instead of enforcing the Constitution.
Click to expand...

"Using Heller". Heller very specifically decouples the Militia Clause from the 2A (ridiculously)...because Scalia knew that was a losing argument


----------



## Rigby5

watchingfromafar said:


> *Gun Control Is as Old as the Old Wild West*
> 
> Contrary to the popular imagination, bearing arms on the frontier was a heavily regulated business
> 
> It's *October 26, 1881*, in Tombstone, and Arizona is not yet a state. The O.K. Corral is quiet, and it's had an unremarkable existence for the two years it's been standing—although it's about to become famous.
> 
> *Marshall Virgil Earp*, having deputized his brothers Wyatt and Morgan and his pal *Doc Holliday*, is having a gun control problem. Long-running tensions between the lawmen and a faction of cowboys – represented this morning by Billy Claiborne, the Clanton brothers, and the McLaury brothers – will come to a head over Tombstone's gun law.
> 
> *The laws of Tombstone at the time required visitors, upon entering town to disarm, either at a hotel or a lawman's office. *
> 
> The “Old West” conjures up all sorts of imagery– such as Tombstone, Deadwood, Dodge City, or Abilene, to name a few. *One other thing these cities had in common: strict gun control laws.*
> 
> *Laws regulating ownership and carry of firearms*, apart from the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, were *passed at a local level rather than by Congress*. “Gun control laws were adopted pretty quickly in these places,” says Winkler*. “Most were adopted by municipal governments exercising self-control and self-determination.” *
> 
> *Carrying any kind of weapon, guns or knives, was not allowed other than outside town borders and inside the home. When visitors left their weapons with a law officer upon entering town, they'd receive a token, like a coat check, which they'd exchange for their guns when leaving town.*
> 
> The practice was started in Southern states, which *were among the first to enact laws against concealed carry of guns and knives, in the early 1800s. --* The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, points to an 1840 Alabama court that, in upholding its state ban, *ruled it was a state's right* to regulate where and how a citizen could carry, and that the state constitution's allowance of personal firearms *“is not to bear arms upon all occasions and in all places.”*




Totally and completely wrong about Tombstone.
There was NO gun control in Tombstone for residents, and they never would have put up with it.
It was only those from outside of town, intending to drink and gamble, who had to surrender weapons.
And not only were the Earps totally corrupt, but they were fired and run out of town for killing the Clantons.

The part you said about weapons regulation being local is true however.
And there was never any significant attempt at gun control in any western town.
That is because weapons were almost always necessary for residents.
There really were no police presence anywhere.
The sheriff was only to deal with saloons really.  
The sheriff could not protect banks from outlaws, could not protect stage coaches from highway men, could not protect ranchers from tribal attacks, could not protect anyone from snakes, wolves, etc. 
The idea any one in the west, south, or anywhere rural would have accepted any weapons control, is just silly.
Again, remember that police essentially did not exist until around 1900 or so.


----------



## SavannahMann

Lesh said:


> SavannahMann said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claim to be progressive but from what I see...you are an anarchist.
> 
> Regardless you can love all the guns you want...it doesn't change the fact that "protection" of gun rights is only in the Constitution regarding use by a Well Regulated Militia that no longer exists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it does. The Well Regulated Militia according to the 1792 Militia Act, certainly expressing the intent of the founders as clearly as anything since it was passed a mere six months after ratification of the amendment, stated who was in the Militia.
> 
> It was every able bodied free man. Literally every able bodied free person today is a member of the Militia by that standard.
> 
> Well Regulated was also covered. It was the right, and responsibility of the Governors of the state’s to appoint officers, commission them using the vernacular, and when activated, the militia members while on active duty would be subject to military orders and discipline.
> 
> So we know what the term Well Regulated Militia meant. Militia Acts of 1792 - Wikipedia
> 
> Any other questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the Dick Act passed around 1900 supersedes that. It abolishes the organized militia and established the unorganized militia which ONLY pertains to males between 17 and 45.
> 
> You gonna run with that?
> 
> That means that women and males over 45 have no 2A protection and are subject to local and state laws and regs
> 
> Any questions?
Click to expand...


As far as the Amendment, we are responsible for viewing it as originally intended. Liberally, not restrictively. Militia was used for a reason, it meant the Amendment and the protections were intended to apply to all the people. Not just a handful of politically correct or approved individuals.


----------



## Rigby5

Lesh said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it gets that right directly from the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment specifically says the Feds can't interfere in a States Organized Militia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. It doesn't say anything of the kind
Click to expand...



Yes it does.  
There not only was no federal standing militia, but the word itself implies a local disposition.
There is nothing of federal connotation of the word militia.
And there is no intent in the Bill of Rights other than to strictly restrain and prohibit federal jurisdiction.
Clearly any mention of weapons at all in the Bill of Rights is to prevent any federal interference with weapons, in any way.


----------



## Rigby5

Lesh said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> well regulated militia are declared necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. It clearly says:
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of *the people* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> So it is "THE PEOPLE" whose right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  That restriction on the federal government is to be obeyed in all cases, no matter who or how you define the well regulated militia.  That is intentionally ambiguous because it it deliberately leaving it up to the states to decide what and how a militia is or what their needs are.  The point of the 2nd amendment is not to say who has gun rights, but to deny any federal jurisdiction over the question in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you aware that a SDF or State Militia takes their weapons home with them or brings their weapons from their jobs if they are Cops?  They don't report to a central point and draw their weapons from an armory.  They bring it with them.  Again, look at Texas.  The SDF or State Militia or Guard doesn't issue any weapons.  If you are a member, you bring your weapons if needed from home or your job.  You are reading into the 2nd something that isn't there.  It's pretty straight forward and simple.  The 2nd amendment enables the State to have the right to have an Organized Militia that is outside the control of the Feds.  The real reason for that was originally to make sure that the Federal Government could never become tyranical and the states would have the real military power to prevent it from happening.  The Weapons of War outgrew it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are not disagreeing.
> I agree with you completely.
> 
> From a legal perspective, the only reason police, military and other government employees are able to have weapons is from the right of all individuals to have weapons in order to defend themselves and their property.
> Government is not the source of any legal authority at all, but only carry the authority borrowed from inherent rights of individuals that are delegated to them so that they can protect these inherent rights of individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Using Heller V DC, you have the right to a serviceable handgun in your home for home protection as long as you are afforded a sane method of registration and licensing if the local government requires it.  The only reason the Supreme Court got involved at all is that DC was so far out in left field that they had no choice and DC relies on the Federal Court System since it has no State Court Systems to fall back on.    And that is as far as the Modern Supreme Court has ruled.  SCOTUS avoids 2nd amendment rulings like a plague.  It's not that they agree nor disagree with the lower courts.  It's that they would be making laws instead of enforcing the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Using Heller". Heller very specifically decouples the Militia Clause from the 2A (ridiculously)...because Scalia knew that was a losing argument
Click to expand...



Coupled or decouples makes no difference.
The result is the same, which is that in the end there can be no federal arms jurisdiction what so ever.
The right of every single individual to self defense is pre-existing because it is inherent, so clearly the 2nd amendment says the federal government shall not infringe, and there can be no federal weapons restrictions.

But I agree one can not look to the Bill of Rights at all in determining what state and local weapons regulations could be.
The Bill of Rights is focused entirely on stating how the federal government should be restrained.


----------



## Rigby5

SavannahMann said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SavannahMann said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claim to be progressive but from what I see...you are an anarchist.
> 
> Regardless you can love all the guns you want...it doesn't change the fact that "protection" of gun rights is only in the Constitution regarding use by a Well Regulated Militia that no longer exists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it does. The Well Regulated Militia according to the 1792 Militia Act, certainly expressing the intent of the founders as clearly as anything since it was passed a mere six months after ratification of the amendment, stated who was in the Militia.
> 
> It was every able bodied free man. Literally every able bodied free person today is a member of the Militia by that standard.
> 
> Well Regulated was also covered. It was the right, and responsibility of the Governors of the state’s to appoint officers, commission them using the vernacular, and when activated, the militia members while on active duty would be subject to military orders and discipline.
> 
> So we know what the term Well Regulated Militia meant. Militia Acts of 1792 - Wikipedia
> 
> Any other questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the Dick Act passed around 1900 supersedes that. It abolishes the organized militia and established the unorganized militia which ONLY pertains to males between 17 and 45.
> 
> You gonna run with that?
> 
> That means that women and males over 45 have no 2A protection and are subject to local and state laws and regs
> 
> Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As far as the Amendment, we are responsible for viewing it as originally intended. Liberally, not restrictively. Militia was used for a reason, it meant the Amendment and the protections were intended to apply to all the people. Not just a handful of politically correct or approved individuals.
Click to expand...



Agreed, but we do not even have to bother.
When one reason is explicitly stated, that does not at all imply there are not others just not explicitly stated.
And I agree is there any way to pretend the National Guard is what maintains a free state.
Only armed general populations can do that.


----------



## easyt65




----------



## Rustic




----------



## westwall

Lesh said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you demonstrate on a daily basis that you are clueless.  So, once again, who are the folks being infringed upon when a law is passed?  The PEOPLE, or the guys who write the laws?  Don't bother answering we all know you will obfuscate and lie because your arguments are shit.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about.  Only well regulated militia are declared necessary not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The phrase "well regulated" means well practices in firearms, so that the average population would be ready to be quickly called up in case of war.  And the 2nd Amendment is in the Bill of Rights, which ONLY contains restrictions on the federal government.  So the only possible interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that the federal government is to have absolutely NO jurisdiction over any weapons at all!
> 
> You can't infringe upon those who write the laws, because they are not the source of any authority at all in a democratic republic.  In a democratic republic, the inherent rights of all individuals are the ONLY source of any authority at all, and the Bill of Rights is ONLY about restricting federal government in favor of state, local, and individual authority.
> And one does not need the 2nd amendment in order to clearly see all federal gun control is illegal.  All you need is the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments.  Clearly weapons are necessary for defense, individuals have the right to what ever they need for defense, and since police and military have these weapons for defense, no law can ever wholesale block the same potential access to everyone, based on the requirement of equal treatment under the law, according to the 14th amendment.  Police and the military do not and must not have any special privileges or right to weapons beyond what any and all individuals have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> sooooo.....you have a right to own a nuclear warhead?
> 
> or do you draw a line somewhere.....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear warheads are not classified as "arms".  That being said the first cannon in the USA were owned by a private group, so ordnance is certainly covered by the 2nd in my opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there actually were a militia...a "Well Regulated Militia"...that would be true.
> 
> But canons and machine guns are either outlawed for private ownership or highly regulated...because there IS no longer a militia
Click to expand...






Sure there is.  The militia has never gone away.


----------



## SavannahMann

Rigby5 said:


> SavannahMann said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SavannahMann said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claim to be progressive but from what I see...you are an anarchist.
> 
> Regardless you can love all the guns you want...it doesn't change the fact that "protection" of gun rights is only in the Constitution regarding use by a Well Regulated Militia that no longer exists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it does. The Well Regulated Militia according to the 1792 Militia Act, certainly expressing the intent of the founders as clearly as anything since it was passed a mere six months after ratification of the amendment, stated who was in the Militia.
> 
> It was every able bodied free man. Literally every able bodied free person today is a member of the Militia by that standard.
> 
> Well Regulated was also covered. It was the right, and responsibility of the Governors of the state’s to appoint officers, commission them using the vernacular, and when activated, the militia members while on active duty would be subject to military orders and discipline.
> 
> So we know what the term Well Regulated Militia meant. Militia Acts of 1792 - Wikipedia
> 
> Any other questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the Dick Act passed around 1900 supersedes that. It abolishes the organized militia and established the unorganized militia which ONLY pertains to males between 17 and 45.
> 
> You gonna run with that?
> 
> That means that women and males over 45 have no 2A protection and are subject to local and state laws and regs
> 
> Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As far as the Amendment, we are responsible for viewing it as originally intended. Liberally, not restrictively. Militia was used for a reason, it meant the Amendment and the protections were intended to apply to all the people. Not just a handful of politically correct or approved individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, but we do not even have to bother.
> When one reason is explicitly stated, that does not at all imply there are not others just not explicitly stated.
> And I agree is there any way to pretend the National Guard is what maintains a free state.
> Only armed general populations can do that.
Click to expand...


Look at the Bill of Rights again. They were written like the Ten Commandments. Thou shall not. The First Amendment does not say. “The Supreme Court shall rule as Invalid and Unconstitutional any laws which having passed the Congress, and signed into law by the President, or in overriding a veto by a 2/3 majority, any law which abridges Freedom of Speech, Press,” etc. You get the point. 

It says that Congress shall pass no law. The Fifth Amendment doesn’t say that the Appeals Process shall rule as invalid any conviction gained by forcing a person to testify against themselves. It says that no one may be forced. 

Thou shall not. They were intended as commandments. With few if any exceptions to them. When you view them this way, it makes sense. The language used, makes a lot of sense. When you view it as a vague instruction intended to be interpreted by generations to pass, then the rulings of the courts make a lot more sense. They view it as vague instructions instead of firm commandments. Thou probably shouldn’t generally speaking, unless you have a good reason. 

We view them as all encompassing, secure in our person and papers includes our digital documents. Unless you are coming into the country, and someone is curious. Or if the cops can think of a really good excuse. 

The exceptions we have used have taken the meat from the Bill of Rights, and left us with nothing but holes and exceptions. The Dick Act tried to redefine the amendment, to repeal it, but not by the process laid out in the Constitution, by a back handed and asinine watering down.


----------



## Lesh

SavannahMann said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SavannahMann said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SavannahMann said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claim to be progressive but from what I see...you are an anarchist.
> 
> Regardless you can love all the guns you want...it doesn't change the fact that "protection" of gun rights is only in the Constitution regarding use by a Well Regulated Militia that no longer exists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it does. The Well Regulated Militia according to the 1792 Militia Act, certainly expressing the intent of the founders as clearly as anything since it was passed a mere six months after ratification of the amendment, stated who was in the Militia.
> 
> It was every able bodied free man. Literally every able bodied free person today is a member of the Militia by that standard.
> 
> Well Regulated was also covered. It was the right, and responsibility of the Governors of the state’s to appoint officers, commission them using the vernacular, and when activated, the militia members while on active duty would be subject to military orders and discipline.
> 
> So we know what the term Well Regulated Militia meant. Militia Acts of 1792 - Wikipedia
> 
> Any other questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the Dick Act passed around 1900 supersedes that. It abolishes the organized militia and established the unorganized militia which ONLY pertains to males between 17 and 45.
> 
> You gonna run with that?
> 
> That means that women and males over 45 have no 2A protection and are subject to local and state laws and regs
> 
> Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As far as the Amendment, we are responsible for viewing it as originally intended. Liberally, not restrictively. Militia was used for a reason, it meant the Amendment and the protections were intended to apply to all the people. Not just a handful of politically correct or approved individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, but we do not even have to bother.
> When one reason is explicitly stated, that does not at all imply there are not others just not explicitly stated.
> And I agree is there any way to pretend the National Guard is what maintains a free state.
> Only armed general populations can do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look at the Bill of Rights again. They were written like the Ten Commandments. Thou shall not. The First Amendment does not say. “The Supreme Court shall rule as Invalid and Unconstitutional any laws which having passed the Congress, and signed into law by the President, or in overriding a veto by a 2/3 majority, any law which abridges Freedom of Speech, Press,” etc. You get the point.
> 
> It says that Congress shall pass no law. The Fifth Amendment doesn’t say that the Appeals Process shall rule as invalid any conviction gained by forcing a person to testify against themselves. It says that no one may be forced.
> 
> Thou shall not. They were intended as commandments. With few if any exceptions to them. When you view them this way, it makes sense. The language used, makes a lot of sense. When you view it as a vague instruction intended to be interpreted by generations to pass, then the rulings of the courts make a lot more sense. They view it as vague instructions instead of firm commandments. Thou probably shouldn’t generally speaking, unless you have a good reason.
> 
> We view them as all encompassing, secure in our person and papers includes our digital documents. Unless you are coming into the country, and someone is curious. Or if the cops can think of a really good excuse.
> 
> The exceptions we have used have taken the meat from the Bill of Rights, and left us with nothing but holes and exceptions. The Dick Act tried to redefine the amendment, to repeal it, but not by the process laid out in the Constitution, by a back handed and asinine watering down.
Click to expand...

A. The Dick Act is Law

B. I never said that the Constitution takes away gun rights. It simply doesn't address them other than as needed by a "Well Regulated Militia"

Gun rights should be subject to state and local laws other than in that regard


----------



## westwall

Lesh said:


> SavannahMann said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SavannahMann said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SavannahMann said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it does. The Well Regulated Militia according to the 1792 Militia Act, certainly expressing the intent of the founders as clearly as anything since it was passed a mere six months after ratification of the amendment, stated who was in the Militia.
> 
> It was every able bodied free man. Literally every able bodied free person today is a member of the Militia by that standard.
> 
> Well Regulated was also covered. It was the right, and responsibility of the Governors of the state’s to appoint officers, commission them using the vernacular, and when activated, the militia members while on active duty would be subject to military orders and discipline.
> 
> So we know what the term Well Regulated Militia meant. Militia Acts of 1792 - Wikipedia
> 
> Any other questions?
> 
> 
> 
> And the Dick Act passed around 1900 supersedes that. It abolishes the organized militia and established the unorganized militia which ONLY pertains to males between 17 and 45.
> 
> You gonna run with that?
> 
> That means that women and males over 45 have no 2A protection and are subject to local and state laws and regs
> 
> Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As far as the Amendment, we are responsible for viewing it as originally intended. Liberally, not restrictively. Militia was used for a reason, it meant the Amendment and the protections were intended to apply to all the people. Not just a handful of politically correct or approved individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, but we do not even have to bother.
> When one reason is explicitly stated, that does not at all imply there are not others just not explicitly stated.
> And I agree is there any way to pretend the National Guard is what maintains a free state.
> Only armed general populations can do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look at the Bill of Rights again. They were written like the Ten Commandments. Thou shall not. The First Amendment does not say. “The Supreme Court shall rule as Invalid and Unconstitutional any laws which having passed the Congress, and signed into law by the President, or in overriding a veto by a 2/3 majority, any law which abridges Freedom of Speech, Press,” etc. You get the point.
> 
> It says that Congress shall pass no law. The Fifth Amendment doesn’t say that the Appeals Process shall rule as invalid any conviction gained by forcing a person to testify against themselves. It says that no one may be forced.
> 
> Thou shall not. They were intended as commandments. With few if any exceptions to them. When you view them this way, it makes sense. The language used, makes a lot of sense. When you view it as a vague instruction intended to be interpreted by generations to pass, then the rulings of the courts make a lot more sense. They view it as vague instructions instead of firm commandments. Thou probably shouldn’t generally speaking, unless you have a good reason.
> 
> We view them as all encompassing, secure in our person and papers includes our digital documents. Unless you are coming into the country, and someone is curious. Or if the cops can think of a really good excuse.
> 
> The exceptions we have used have taken the meat from the Bill of Rights, and left us with nothing but holes and exceptions. The Dick Act tried to redefine the amendment, to repeal it, but not by the process laid out in the Constitution, by a back handed and asinine watering down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A. The Dick Act is Law
> 
> B. I never said that the Constitution takes away gun rights. It simply doesn't address them other than as needed by a "Well Regulated Militia"
> 
> Gun rights should be subject to state and local laws other than in that regard
Click to expand...







The 2nd Amendment is the guarantee that the PEOPLE will have a last resort when their government becomes illegitimate, as the Founders KNEW all governments eventually become.  The Bill of Rights is nine limitations on what government can do to the people, and one final option.


----------



## Lesh

westwall said:


> The 2nd Amendment is the guarantee that the PEOPLE will have a last resort when their government becomes illegitimate, as the Founders KNEW all governments eventually become.



Complete bullshit. Article 1  Section 8 describes that well Regulated Militia and what its duties are. Among those duties was to put DOWN the kinds of insurrections you're babbling about and in FACT the militia was called out to do exactly THAT in both Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion...


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Lesh said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it gets that right directly from the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment specifically says the Feds can't interfere in a States Organized Militia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. It doesn't say anything of the kind
Click to expand...


That is exactly what it says.  The first 10 amendments are showing the limits of the Federal Government.  The 2nd amendment is no different.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Lesh said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> well regulated militia are declared necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. It clearly says:
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of *the people* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> So it is "THE PEOPLE" whose right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  That restriction on the federal government is to be obeyed in all cases, no matter who or how you define the well regulated militia.  That is intentionally ambiguous because it it deliberately leaving it up to the states to decide what and how a militia is or what their needs are.  The point of the 2nd amendment is not to say who has gun rights, but to deny any federal jurisdiction over the question in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you aware that a SDF or State Militia takes their weapons home with them or brings their weapons from their jobs if they are Cops?  They don't report to a central point and draw their weapons from an armory.  They bring it with them.  Again, look at Texas.  The SDF or State Militia or Guard doesn't issue any weapons.  If you are a member, you bring your weapons if needed from home or your job.  You are reading into the 2nd something that isn't there.  It's pretty straight forward and simple.  The 2nd amendment enables the State to have the right to have an Organized Militia that is outside the control of the Feds.  The real reason for that was originally to make sure that the Federal Government could never become tyranical and the states would have the real military power to prevent it from happening.  The Weapons of War outgrew it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are not disagreeing.
> I agree with you completely.
> 
> From a legal perspective, the only reason police, military and other government employees are able to have weapons is from the right of all individuals to have weapons in order to defend themselves and their property.
> Government is not the source of any legal authority at all, but only carry the authority borrowed from inherent rights of individuals that are delegated to them so that they can protect these inherent rights of individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Using Heller V DC, you have the right to a serviceable handgun in your home for home protection as long as you are afforded a sane method of registration and licensing if the local government requires it.  The only reason the Supreme Court got involved at all is that DC was so far out in left field that they had no choice and DC relies on the Federal Court System since it has no State Court Systems to fall back on.    And that is as far as the Modern Supreme Court has ruled.  SCOTUS avoids 2nd amendment rulings like a plague.  It's not that they agree nor disagree with the lower courts.  It's that they would be making laws instead of enforcing the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Using Heller". Heller very specifically decouples the Militia Clause from the 2A (ridiculously)...because Scalia knew that was a losing argument
Click to expand...


No, the Military Clause is still there.  But Scalia expanded on the protection of one home and was specific about the class of weapon allowed to do it.  He did not overturn the Licensing and registration of the person nor the firearm by the local government.  What he and the other 4 did was pretty well set things up for the most recent lower court rulings where a State, County or Municipality can regulate everything and even ban most guns.  He upheld States Rights which is well within the 2nd, 10th and 14th amendments.  Too many gun crazies just argue the 2nd but forget the other two Amendments that cover states rights.


----------



## westwall

Lesh said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd Amendment is the guarantee that the PEOPLE will have a last resort when their government becomes illegitimate, as the Founders KNEW all governments eventually become.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Complete bullshit. Article 1  Section 8 describes that well Regulated Militia and what its duties are. Among those duties was to put DOWN the kinds of insurrections you're babbling about and in FACT the militia was called out to do exactly THAT in both Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion...
Click to expand...








Tell that to Thomas Jefferson.  The person full of bull poo is you, cupcake.

"What country can preserve its liberties *if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."*
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rigby5 said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it gets that right directly from the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment specifically says the Feds can't interfere in a States Organized Militia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. It doesn't say anything of the kind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it does.
> There not only was no federal standing militia, but the word itself implies a local disposition.
> There is nothing of federal connotation of the word militia.
> And there is no intent in the Bill of Rights other than to strictly restrain and prohibit federal jurisdiction.
> Clearly any mention of weapons at all in the Bill of Rights is to prevent any federal interference with weapons, in any way.
Click to expand...


Go one step further.  Any mention of weapons at all in the Bill of Rights is to prevent the Federal Interference but allow the State the ability to do so themselves.


----------



## Pilot1

Lesh said:


> "Using Heller". Heller very specifically decouples the Militia Clause from the 2A (ridiculously)...because Scalia knew that was a losing argument



It doesn't matter if it is decoupled from the Militia or not as by U.S. Code the Unorganized Militia is THE PEOPLE.  The theory was the private citizens, not the government, needed to be armed, and ready, and they were to provide their own ARMS.


----------



## danielpalos

Pilot1 said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Using Heller". Heller very specifically decouples the Militia Clause from the 2A (ridiculously)...because Scalia knew that was a losing argument
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter if it is decoupled from the Militia or not as by U.S. Code the Unorganized Militia is THE PEOPLE.  The theory was the private citizens, not the government, needed to be armed, and ready, and they were to provide their own ARMS.
Click to expand...

the militia is callable to Arms.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Lesh said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd Amendment is the guarantee that the PEOPLE will have a last resort when their government becomes illegitimate, as the Founders KNEW all governments eventually become.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Complete bullshit. Article 1  Section 8 describes that well Regulated Militia and what its duties are. Among those duties was to put DOWN the kinds of insurrections you're babbling about and in FACT the militia was called out to do exactly THAT in both Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion...
Click to expand...


There were 3 State Militias called out for the Whiskey Rebellion.  There was fear that the Federal Forces were so stripped by law they were ill equipped to handle it.  It turned out the Whiskey Rebellion was found that no one was there to arrest since they moved to what would later be called Kentucky which was a territory at best at the time and well outside the jurisdiction of any State Militia.

The Shay's Rebellion was not under the Constitution of the United States.  It was under the Articles of  Confederation.   There was a lot of graft under that by the various Governors and that is what set things off in the first place.  It was about economics.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

danielpalos said:


> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Using Heller". Heller very specifically decouples the Militia Clause from the 2A (ridiculously)...because Scalia knew that was a losing argument
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter if it is decoupled from the Militia or not as by U.S. Code the Unorganized Militia is THE PEOPLE.  The theory was the private citizens, not the government, needed to be armed, and ready, and they were to provide their own ARMS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the militia is callable to Arms.
Click to expand...


Or in many cases, it can be called up to do emergency work and not bring the weapons with them.


----------



## westwall

Here, I'll post this again as you all seem so desperate to bury it.  Here are the words of the WRITER of the Constitution.  You can take all of your blathering and stick it where the Sun don't shine, because THIS is the only person who's opinion on the subject matters.


"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

"What country can preserve its liberties *if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."*
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787


----------



## danielpalos

the right wing confuses the security of a free State with natural rights.


----------



## Lesh

westwall said:


> Here, I'll post this again as you all seem so desperate to bury it.  Here are the words of the WRITER of the Constitution.  You can take all of your blathering and stick it where the Sun don't shine, because THIS is the only person who's opinion on the subject matters.
> 
> 
> "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
> 
> "What country can preserve its liberties *if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."*
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787


But oddly...we base our laws and nation on the CONSTITUTION.

And the Constitution describes a "Well Regulated Militia" used to put down insurrections...and that is EXACTLY what it was used fr several times in the early days of our Republic


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Lesh said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here, I'll post this again as you all seem so desperate to bury it.  Here are the words of the WRITER of the Constitution.  You can take all of your blathering and stick it where the Sun don't shine, because THIS is the only person who's opinion on the subject matters.
> 
> 
> "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
> 
> "What country can preserve its liberties *if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."*
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
> 
> 
> 
> But oddly...we base our laws and nation on the CONSTITUTION.
> 
> And the Constitution describes a "Well Regulated Militia" used to put down insurrections...and that is EXACTLY what it was used fr several times in the early days of our Republic
Click to expand...


One of the reasons, I believe, that the Guards controlled solely by the Governors went by the way so quickly was that some of the Governors used the State Militias as their own private mob enforcement army.  The Shay's Rebellion is a very good example of that.  A Crooked Governor, crooked legislation on the take making laws that benefited certain rich cats that destroyed the Farmers and other businesses.  Just remember that these same farmers and such had recently been the "Insurgents" for  another cause that created a Nation.  What came out of it?  Hardly   any deaths but a lot of terrified people that were pardoned even while being walked to the gallows.  The biggest thing was, the State had a large armory and in order for the Farmers to have any chance against the State Militia they had to defeat the armory.  The Farmers lacked the arms.  The leaders ended up being arrested and put on trial and either found innocent or found guilty and  then pardoned later.  

Today, if a State were to do a similar thing, the Feds would be all over them.  A Well Regulated Militia also means that it must be a Legally Well Regulated Militia.  In this state, the State Guards were used to fire on unarmed striking Miners in Leadville in the late 1890s because the Governor sided with the Mine owner.  In 1946, Westinghouse refused to abide by war promises to it's workers for a post war pay and benefits increase and the workers went on strike.  The CEO demanded that the Governors and Truman send in troops.  Truman, more or less, told him to go pound sand and that he would support the workers if violence was used against them by the governors.  The Governors all sat down and shut up.  That was the end of the Governors using their Guards and Militias as their own private armies.


----------



## Lesh

Wow. Reinventing history doesn't change the Constitution

Article 1 Section 8

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, *suppress Insurrections* and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion were....read this slowly....INSURRECTIONS...whether you agree with them or not...and THAT is part of why we HAD a "Well Regulated Militia".

Just the OPPOSITE of your claims


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Lesh said:


> Wow. Reinventing history doesn't change the Constitution
> 
> Article 1 Section 8
> 
> To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, *suppress Insurrections* and repel Invasions;
> 
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> 
> Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion were....read this slowly....INSURRECTIONS...whether you agree with them or not...and THAT is part of why we HAD a "Well Regulated Militia".
> 
> Just the OPPOSITE of your claims



What''s the matter.  You don't like history as it really happened because it doesn't agree with our fantasy.  And you complain about the ultrairightwingnutz for making it up as they go.  The fact remains that the Governors did abuse the State Militia and it took the Feds to end that practice.  You honestly believe that the United States was lilly white in it's early days. Even the Supreme Court got it's digs in.  

As for the Whiskey Rebellion, nothing came out of it since the "Rebellious " were tipped off ahead of time  and just moved their operation outside of the US domain.  The 3 states that  sent troops did so from the request by the US Government.  The Governors had the right to refuse  the request.  At the time, many questioned the right of the Feds to even have that tax.  There was NO bloodshed because there wasn't anyone around to shoot.

The Shay's rebellion was about a corrupt State Government working primarily for rich Corporations with total disregard for the well being of the Farmers and small businesses.  The Taxes for transport, sales, etc. for their products meant that the Farmers couldn't even break even.  And I think they were correct in rising up.  Afterall, they had recently fought in a war against England for exactly the same reasons.  Luckily,, the courts agreed that the State was wrong and it was set right.  Ah, the old "Separation of Powers" comes into play.  There was little bloodshed since all parties were just about sick and tired of war.


----------



## danielpalos

only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws.  too lazy to muster and become organized and useful to the security of a free State?


----------



## westwall

danielpalos said:


> the right wing confuses the security of a free State with natural rights.








And you ignore the fact that to have a free State you must have natural Rights.  That is what sets a free country apart from a fascist dictatorship like you want.


----------



## westwall

Lesh said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here, I'll post this again as you all seem so desperate to bury it.  Here are the words of the WRITER of the Constitution.  You can take all of your blathering and stick it where the Sun don't shine, because THIS is the only person who's opinion on the subject matters.
> 
> 
> "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
> 
> "What country can preserve its liberties *if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."*
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
> 
> 
> 
> But oddly...we base our laws and nation on the CONSTITUTION.
> 
> And the Constitution describes a "Well Regulated Militia" used to put down insurrections...and that is EXACTLY what it was used fr several times in the early days of our Republic
Click to expand...







Yes, the CONSTITUTION written by this man.  His quotes prove that all of your infantile misinterpretations of what he wrote are just that, infantile misinterpretations.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

danielpalos said:


> only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws.  too lazy to muster become organized and useful to the security of a free State?



If they become Organized, that means that their would be king leaders would no longer be the head honchos and that just can't happen.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here, I'll post this again as you all seem so desperate to bury it.  Here are the words of the WRITER of the Constitution.  You can take all of your blathering and stick it where the Sun don't shine, because THIS is the only person who's opinion on the subject matters.
> 
> 
> "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
> 
> "What country can preserve its liberties *if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."*
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
> 
> 
> 
> But oddly...we base our laws and nation on the CONSTITUTION.
> 
> And the Constitution describes a "Well Regulated Militia" used to put down insurrections...and that is EXACTLY what it was used fr several times in the early days of our Republic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the CONSTITUTION written by this man.  His quotes prove that all of your infantile misinterpretations of what he wrote are just that, infantile misinterpretations.
Click to expand...


Damned, Westwall, for once I have to agree.  Did you just feel the earth shudder?  And I notice one other change.  You seem to have taken one of my most favorite sports away from me.  How dare you.


----------



## danielpalos

westwall said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the right wing confuses the security of a free State with natural rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you ignore the fact that to have a free State you must have natural Rights.  That is what sets a free country apart from a fascist dictatorship like you want.
Click to expand...

Our Constitutions recognize the concept of natural rights and provide legal recourse.


----------



## Lesh

westwall said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here, I'll post this again as you all seem so desperate to bury it.  Here are the words of the WRITER of the Constitution.  You can take all of your blathering and stick it where the Sun don't shine, because THIS is the only person who's opinion on the subject matters.
> 
> 
> "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
> 
> "What country can preserve its liberties *if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."*
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
> 
> 
> 
> But oddly...we base our laws and nation on the CONSTITUTION.
> 
> And the Constitution describes a "Well Regulated Militia" used to put down insurrections...and that is EXACTLY what it was used fr several times in the early days of our Republic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the CONSTITUTION written by this man.  His quotes prove that all of your infantile misinterpretations of what he wrote are just that, infantile misinterpretations.
Click to expand...

Our nation is ruled by the Constitution...not by what this guy or that guy claims.

The Constitution was NOT written by any one man. It was a compromise among many.

I stand by the Constitution


----------



## Rigby5

Lesh said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd Amendment is the guarantee that the PEOPLE will have a last resort when their government becomes illegitimate, as the Founders KNEW all governments eventually become.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Complete bullshit. Article 1  Section 8 describes that well Regulated Militia and what its duties are. Among those duties was to put DOWN the kinds of insurrections you're babbling about and in FACT the militia was called out to do exactly THAT in both Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion...
Click to expand...


Wrong.  While Article 1 does describe how the federal government can call upon the militia in order to put down illegal insurrections, that is NOT AT ALL the main purpose of the militia.  And one of the main purposes of the militia has always been written by the founders, as to be able to rebel against tyranny.  That is how this country was founded, rebellion against tyranny.  The founders were always very vocal in tyranny being their MAIN concern.


----------



## Rigby5

Lesh said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here, I'll post this again as you all seem so desperate to bury it.  Here are the words of the WRITER of the Constitution.  You can take all of your blathering and stick it where the Sun don't shine, because THIS is the only person who's opinion on the subject matters.
> 
> 
> "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
> 
> "What country can preserve its liberties *if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."*
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
> 
> 
> 
> But oddly...we base our laws and nation on the CONSTITUTION.
> 
> And the Constitution describes a "Well Regulated Militia" used to put down insurrections...and that is EXACTLY what it was used fr several times in the early days of our Republic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the CONSTITUTION written by this man.  His quotes prove that all of your infantile misinterpretations of what he wrote are just that, infantile misinterpretations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our nation is ruled by the Constitution...not by what this guy or that guy claims.
> 
> The Constitution was NOT written by any one man. It was a compromise among many.
> 
> I stand by the Constitution
Click to expand...



And it is impossible to deny the obvious fact that the Bill of Rights strictly prohibits ANY federal weapons regulations in the least.  Any and all weapons jurisdiction is clearly completely denied to the federal government.  And not just by the 2nd Amendment, but the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments as well.  

Anyone who even knows the least bit of US history knows this country was founded on rebellion against tyranny, and that was the single most important consideration the founders wanted to ensure could always happen again, when needed.
And they were all pretty clear they assumed it would periodically be needed.  Anyone who knows history should know this.  It simply is a fact that all government always become progressively corrupt.  The fact there is ANY federal weapons legislation proves that.  That is just as criminal as waterboarding.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the right wing confuses the security of a free State with natural rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you ignore the fact that to have a free State you must have natural Rights.  That is what sets a free country apart from a fascist dictatorship like you want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitutions recognize the concept of natural rights and provide legal recourse.
Click to expand...


Problem is there really is no practical legal recourse against abusive federal tyranny.
To fight illegal federal legislation costs tens of millions, takes a decade, and is still often ignored.
For example, it is totally obvious waterboarding is a crime, both under US and international law, but no one ever got prosecuted for that.
In fact, hundreds of illegal renditions were never prosecuted either.
And you can't even begin to undo the thousands of illegal assassinations by drone.


----------



## westwall

Lesh said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here, I'll post this again as you all seem so desperate to bury it.  Here are the words of the WRITER of the Constitution.  You can take all of your blathering and stick it where the Sun don't shine, because THIS is the only person who's opinion on the subject matters.
> 
> 
> "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
> 
> "What country can preserve its liberties *if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."*
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
> 
> 
> 
> But oddly...we base our laws and nation on the CONSTITUTION.
> 
> And the Constitution describes a "Well Regulated Militia" used to put down insurrections...and that is EXACTLY what it was used fr several times in the early days of our Republic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the CONSTITUTION written by this man.  His quotes prove that all of your infantile misinterpretations of what he wrote are just that, infantile misinterpretations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our nation is ruled by the Constitution...not by what this guy or that guy claims.
> 
> The Constitution was NOT written by any one man. It was a compromise among many.
> 
> I stand by the Constitution
Click to expand...








Your claim is specious at best due to your attempt to pervert the meaning of the document you claim to care about.  If you cared about it, you wouldn't try and misinterpret its meaning.


----------



## Lesh

Lesh said:


> Wow. Reinventing history doesn't change the Constitution
> 
> Article 1 Section 8
> 
> To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, *suppress Insurrections* and repel Invasions;
> 
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> 
> Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion were....read this slowly....INSURRECTIONS...whether you agree with them or not...and THAT is part of why we HAD a "Well Regulated Militia".
> 
> Just the OPPOSITE of your claims


There it is in black and white.

No interpretation required


----------



## Ambivalent1

Lesh said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. Reinventing history doesn't change the Constitution
> 
> Article 1 Section 8
> 
> To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, *suppress Insurrections* and repel Invasions;
> 
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> 
> Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion were....read this slowly....INSURRECTIONS...whether you agree with them or not...and THAT is part of why we HAD a "Well Regulated Militia".
> 
> Just the OPPOSITE of your claims
> 
> 
> 
> There it is in black and white.
> 
> No interpretation required
Click to expand...


I'll lay my weapons on the floor....you try and take them. I said YOU.


----------



## Rigby5

Lesh said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. Reinventing history doesn't change the Constitution
> 
> Article 1 Section 8
> 
> To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, *suppress Insurrections* and repel Invasions;
> 
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> 
> Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion were....read this slowly....INSURRECTIONS...whether you agree with them or not...and THAT is part of why we HAD a "Well Regulated Militia".
> 
> Just the OPPOSITE of your claims
> 
> 
> 
> There it is in black and white.
> 
> No interpretation required
Click to expand...


Totally wrong.
Sure the only use the federal government would have for a militia would be to call it up in defense for an invasion, civil war, or rebellion, but clearly the federal government was not at all the main purpose or need for the militia.  
Remember there were no police back then at all, and even what law enforcement agencies there were, would be too slow to get anywhere to do any good.
So clearly the main purpose of the militia was local, for the threat of pirates, gangs, native attacks, border incursions, etc., and that would also include to put down attempts at tyranny by the federal government.  The fact the constitution would not say that, does not change anything.  The main uses for the militia were local.


----------



## PredFan




----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rigby5 said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here, I'll post this again as you all seem so desperate to bury it.  Here are the words of the WRITER of the Constitution.  You can take all of your blathering and stick it where the Sun don't shine, because THIS is the only person who's opinion on the subject matters.
> 
> 
> "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
> 
> "What country can preserve its liberties *if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."*
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
> 
> 
> 
> But oddly...we base our laws and nation on the CONSTITUTION.
> 
> And the Constitution describes a "Well Regulated Militia" used to put down insurrections...and that is EXACTLY what it was used fr several times in the early days of our Republic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the CONSTITUTION written by this man.  His quotes prove that all of your infantile misinterpretations of what he wrote are just that, infantile misinterpretations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our nation is ruled by the Constitution...not by what this guy or that guy claims.
> 
> The Constitution was NOT written by any one man. It was a compromise among many.
> 
> I stand by the Constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And it is impossible to deny the obvious fact that the Bill of Rights strictly prohibits ANY federal weapons regulations in the least.  Any and all weapons jurisdiction is clearly completely denied to the federal government.  And not just by the 2nd Amendment, but the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments as well.
> 
> Anyone who even knows the least bit of US history knows this country was founded on rebellion against tyranny, and that was the single most important consideration the founders wanted to ensure could always happen again, when needed.
> And they were all pretty clear they assumed it would periodically be needed.  Anyone who knows history should know this.  It simply is a fact that all government always become progressively corrupt.  The fact there is ANY federal weapons legislation proves that.  That is just as criminal as waterboarding.
Click to expand...


The country grew up and out and outgrew some of the things that our founding fathers put forth. Like the Organized Militia being there there to overthrow the government in the event of tyranny.  Their own federal republic was the end to that when the nation  got so large that the organized militia started becoming the bully boys of the Governors.  And when wars outside and inside the US boundries grew so large and expensive that the Federals needed to have the ability to train, fund and call up the State Organized Militias called State Guards.  The National Guard can no longer be called an Organized Militia although in the face of a local emergency they do operate in that capacity.  But the States still have the option to  form a State Organized Militia seperate from the National Guard for local emergencies and some do.  

We have a revolution every 2 and 4 years just like our FFs wanted.  Okay, we have gotten pretty sloppy at it lately and need to get it back to where it's supposed to be (if it ever was).  But it's one of the best systems in the world.  Now, if we could just get MONEY the hell out of it and start jailing the  corrupt ones.  But good luck with that.  But don't t look for an armed Revolution to come out of it.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

danielpalos said:


> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Using Heller". Heller very specifically decouples the Militia Clause from the 2A (ridiculously)...because Scalia knew that was a losing argument
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter if it is decoupled from the Militia or not as by U.S. Code the Unorganized Militia is THE PEOPLE.  The theory was the private citizens, not the government, needed to be armed, and ready, and they were to provide their own ARMS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the militia is callable to Arms.
Click to expand...


No,, the Organized Militia is  only callable to arms by the Federal Government with the Governors permission.  The National Guard and regular citizens are NOT part of the Organized Militia.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Lesh said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. Reinventing history doesn't change the Constitution
> 
> Article 1 Section 8
> 
> To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, *suppress Insurrections* and repel Invasions;
> 
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> 
> Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion were....read this slowly....INSURRECTIONS...whether you agree with them or not...and THAT is part of why we HAD a "Well Regulated Militia".
> 
> Just the OPPOSITE of your claims
> 
> 
> 
> There it is in black and white.
> 
> No interpretation required
Click to expand...


Here is the definition of INSURRECTIONS:  a violent uprising against an authority or government.

Whiskey Rebellion doesn't fit the definition since there was NO violence since the whiskey makers had previously moved to Kentucky from Penn.  There was no one there to be violent.  The 3 state Militias arrived and found no one there to insurrect.  Those damned rumrunners took all the fun out of it.

Shay's Rebellion does fit until you look at the reason.  The real crime was the corrupt State Government that was taxing the hell out of the Farmers leaving them hungry in the empty fields they couldn't even afford to plant much less grow food for themselves.  The Courts settle that and no charges stuck.  But there was one hell of a change in the State Government fast.  The Courts sided with the Farmers.  BTW, Shay wasn't the leader.  He was just one of the Farmers.  Yes, they were headed to the State Militia Armory to arm themselves but the Militia got there ahead of them and the farmers backed off and  were arrested.  Not a single shot was fired.  Not much off an Insurrection if you ask me.  But the State Government wanted blood and decided to prosecute and the courts disagreed and dropped all charges including the Governors hanging decrees.  You spend all your time railing against insurrections and yet this one shows the system actually works even under the old Articles of Confederation.  The United States Constitution had not be written yet.


----------



## Lakhota

The NRA sucks!


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

PredFan said:


> View attachment 238623


This sort of childish stupidity renders conservatives that much more ridiculous.


----------



## Lesh

Ambivalent1 said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. Reinventing history doesn't change the Constitution
> 
> Article 1 Section 8
> 
> To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, *suppress Insurrections* and repel Invasions;
> 
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> 
> Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion were....read this slowly....INSURRECTIONS...whether you agree with them or not...and THAT is part of why we HAD a "Well Regulated Militia".
> 
> Just the OPPOSITE of your claims
> 
> 
> 
> There it is in black and white.
> 
> No interpretation required
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll lay my weapons on the floor....you try and take them. I said YOU.
Click to expand...

Hey asshole. I'm not talking about taking ANYONE'S weapon way ya dumb moron. I'm just telling you that "gun rights" do NOT come from the 2A...unless of course you are part of a "Well Regulated Militia".. Beyond that state and local laws apply.


----------



## Lesh

Daryl Hunt said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. Reinventing history doesn't change the Constitution
> 
> Article 1 Section 8
> 
> To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, *suppress Insurrections* and repel Invasions;
> 
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> 
> Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion were....read this slowly....INSURRECTIONS...whether you agree with them or not...and THAT is part of why we HAD a "Well Regulated Militia".
> 
> Just the OPPOSITE of your claims
> 
> 
> 
> There it is in black and white.
> 
> No interpretation required
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the definition of INSURRECTIONS:  a violent uprising against an authority or government.
> 
> Whiskey Rebellion doesn't fit the definition since there was NO violence since the whiskey makers had previously moved to Kentucky from Penn.  There was no one there to be violent.  The 3 state Militias arrived and found no one there to insurrect.  Those damned rumrunners took all the fun out of it.
> 
> Shay's Rebellion does fit until you look at the reason.  The real crime was the corrupt State Government that was taxing the hell out of the Farmers leaving them hungry in the empty fields they couldn't even afford to plant much less grow food for themselves.  The Courts settle that and no charges stuck.  But there was one hell of a change in the State Government fast.  The Courts sided with the Farmers.  BTW, Shay wasn't the leader.  He was just one of the Farmers.  Yes, they were headed to the State Militia Armory to arm themselves but the Militia got there ahead of them and the farmers backed off and  were arrested.  Not a single shot was fired.  Not much off an Insurrection if you ask me.  But the State Government wanted blood and decided to prosecute and the courts disagreed and dropped all charges including the Governors hanging decrees.  You spend all your time railing against insurrections and yet this one shows the system actually works even under the old Articles of Confederation.  The United States Constitution had not be written yet.
Click to expand...


You're defense is all over the place. Your CLAIM is that the militia is not there in part to deal with insurrection...but to back that up you attack the several USES of the militia where it was called out for insurrections.

The fact that you side with the insurrectionists does in now way mean the militia wasn't called out for that purpose


----------



## Rigby5

Lesh said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. Reinventing history doesn't change the Constitution
> 
> Article 1 Section 8
> 
> To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, *suppress Insurrections* and repel Invasions;
> 
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> 
> Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion were....read this slowly....INSURRECTIONS...whether you agree with them or not...and THAT is part of why we HAD a "Well Regulated Militia".
> 
> Just the OPPOSITE of your claims
> 
> 
> 
> There it is in black and white.
> 
> No interpretation required
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the definition of INSURRECTIONS:  a violent uprising against an authority or government.
> 
> Whiskey Rebellion doesn't fit the definition since there was NO violence since the whiskey makers had previously moved to Kentucky from Penn.  There was no one there to be violent.  The 3 state Militias arrived and found no one there to insurrect.  Those damned rumrunners took all the fun out of it.
> 
> Shay's Rebellion does fit until you look at the reason.  The real crime was the corrupt State Government that was taxing the hell out of the Farmers leaving them hungry in the empty fields they couldn't even afford to plant much less grow food for themselves.  The Courts settle that and no charges stuck.  But there was one hell of a change in the State Government fast.  The Courts sided with the Farmers.  BTW, Shay wasn't the leader.  He was just one of the Farmers.  Yes, they were headed to the State Militia Armory to arm themselves but the Militia got there ahead of them and the farmers backed off and  were arrested.  Not a single shot was fired.  Not much off an Insurrection if you ask me.  But the State Government wanted blood and decided to prosecute and the courts disagreed and dropped all charges including the Governors hanging decrees.  You spend all your time railing against insurrections and yet this one shows the system actually works even under the old Articles of Confederation.  The United States Constitution had not be written yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're defense is all over the place. Your CLAIM is that the militia is not there in part to deal with insurrection...but to back that up you attack the several USES of the militia where it was called out for insurrections.
> 
> The fact that you side with the insurrectionists does in now way mean the militia wasn't called out for that purpose
Click to expand...



That makes no sense.
Of course putting down an immoral insurrection is one of the possible uses of the militia, but not at all likely, not the main federal use, and not at all the main purpose of the militia.  The main purpose of the militia has always been, and always will be, to prevent crime.  Remember there were no police originally, and in reality police prevent not a single crime these days, since they get there too late.
The odds of a moral insurrection that should not be interfered with is much higher than an immoral one that should be stopped.
And clearly we are way past the point of needing a moral insurrection.  Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Palestine, Afghanistan, etc., are all examples illegal invasions or regime change committed by the US.  And there are also thousands of illegal waterboarding, renditions, assassinations, and other war crimes continually committed by the US.  So we are way past having a illegal government.  For example, clearly any federal weapons laws violate the Bill of Rights are are clearly illegal.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Lesh said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. Reinventing history doesn't change the Constitution
> 
> Article 1 Section 8
> 
> To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, *suppress Insurrections* and repel Invasions;
> 
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> 
> Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion were....read this slowly....INSURRECTIONS...whether you agree with them or not...and THAT is part of why we HAD a "Well Regulated Militia".
> 
> Just the OPPOSITE of your claims
> 
> 
> 
> There it is in black and white.
> 
> No interpretation required
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the definition of INSURRECTIONS:  a violent uprising against an authority or government.
> 
> Whiskey Rebellion doesn't fit the definition since there was NO violence since the whiskey makers had previously moved to Kentucky from Penn.  There was no one there to be violent.  The 3 state Militias arrived and found no one there to insurrect.  Those damned rumrunners took all the fun out of it.
> 
> Shay's Rebellion does fit until you look at the reason.  The real crime was the corrupt State Government that was taxing the hell out of the Farmers leaving them hungry in the empty fields they couldn't even afford to plant much less grow food for themselves.  The Courts settle that and no charges stuck.  But there was one hell of a change in the State Government fast.  The Courts sided with the Farmers.  BTW, Shay wasn't the leader.  He was just one of the Farmers.  Yes, they were headed to the State Militia Armory to arm themselves but the Militia got there ahead of them and the farmers backed off and  were arrested.  Not a single shot was fired.  Not much off an Insurrection if you ask me.  But the State Government wanted blood and decided to prosecute and the courts disagreed and dropped all charges including the Governors hanging decrees.  You spend all your time railing against insurrections and yet this one shows the system actually works even under the old Articles of Confederation.  The United States Constitution had not be written yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're defense is all over the place. Your CLAIM is that the militia is not there in part to deal with insurrection...but to back that up you attack the several USES of the militia where it was called out for insurrections.
> 
> The fact that you side with the insurrectionists does in now way mean the militia wasn't called out for that purpose
Click to expand...


I side with the way it came out.  The system worked.  The courts evened the playing field and protected the farmers.  Farmers are not Lawyers.  The Governor and his ilk were the lawyers.  The Courts were used to correct a very vile and evil Governor and his crony government.  What you have actually shown is if we give it a chance, the system does work and it doesn't take guns to do it.

Besides, the Organized Militia would last about an afternoon against the US Military.  Outside of a local event that the Law Enforcement would handle, there won't be any Insurrections.  It's kind of like John Wayne has an entire Marine Division and they are attacked by one lone Indian Brave armed with a spear.  How do you think that will result?  Will the Lone Injun win the day?  Or will the Lone Injun do better if he takes his grevences to the court system.  Yah, Yah, I know, any Marine with even a smidgen of indian blood will change sides right?


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rigby5 said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. Reinventing history doesn't change the Constitution
> 
> Article 1 Section 8
> 
> To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, *suppress Insurrections* and repel Invasions;
> 
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> 
> Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion were....read this slowly....INSURRECTIONS...whether you agree with them or not...and THAT is part of why we HAD a "Well Regulated Militia".
> 
> Just the OPPOSITE of your claims
> 
> 
> 
> There it is in black and white.
> 
> No interpretation required
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the definition of INSURRECTIONS:  a violent uprising against an authority or government.
> 
> Whiskey Rebellion doesn't fit the definition since there was NO violence since the whiskey makers had previously moved to Kentucky from Penn.  There was no one there to be violent.  The 3 state Militias arrived and found no one there to insurrect.  Those damned rumrunners took all the fun out of it.
> 
> Shay's Rebellion does fit until you look at the reason.  The real crime was the corrupt State Government that was taxing the hell out of the Farmers leaving them hungry in the empty fields they couldn't even afford to plant much less grow food for themselves.  The Courts settle that and no charges stuck.  But there was one hell of a change in the State Government fast.  The Courts sided with the Farmers.  BTW, Shay wasn't the leader.  He was just one of the Farmers.  Yes, they were headed to the State Militia Armory to arm themselves but the Militia got there ahead of them and the farmers backed off and  were arrested.  Not a single shot was fired.  Not much off an Insurrection if you ask me.  But the State Government wanted blood and decided to prosecute and the courts disagreed and dropped all charges including the Governors hanging decrees.  You spend all your time railing against insurrections and yet this one shows the system actually works even under the old Articles of Confederation.  The United States Constitution had not be written yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're defense is all over the place. Your CLAIM is that the militia is not there in part to deal with insurrection...but to back that up you attack the several USES of the militia where it was called out for insurrections.
> 
> The fact that you side with the insurrectionists does in now way mean the militia wasn't called out for that purpose
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That makes no sense.
> Of course putting down an immoral insurrection is one of the possible uses of the militia, but not at all likely, not the main federal use, and not at all the main purpose of the militia.  The main purpose of the militia has always been, and always will be, to prevent crime.  Remember there were no police originally, and in reality police prevent not a single crime these days, since they get there too late.
> The odds of a moral insurrection that should not be interfered with is much higher than an immoral one that should be stopped.
> And clearly we are way past the point of needing a moral insurrection.  Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Palestine, Afghanistan, etc., are all examples illegal invasions or regime change committed by the US.  And there are also thousands of illegal waterboarding, renditions, assassinations, and other war crimes continually committed by the US.  So we are way past having a illegal government.  For example, clearly any federal weapons laws violate the Bill of Rights are are clearly illegal.
Click to expand...


You say I make no sense yet you parrot back much of what I have said.  Then you tack on the last 2nd amendment BS onto it trying to use the beginning as a smoke screen to make your empty argument appear sound.  

As long as the public safety stays  within state lines,, it's the States responsibility.  But when it constantly crosses the state lines, it is now called Interstate and anything Interstate whether it be transportation, trade or crime becomes a Federal problem.  This is what became of the 1934 Firearms Act.  One state would stop it or slow it down in their area and it would crop us with the same weapons in another area in another state and the slaughter would continue.  NO State was organized enough to stop this.  And then, it took the cooperation of all levels of government 10 years to put a stop to it.


----------



## PredFan

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 238623
> 
> 
> 
> This sort of childish stupidity renders conservatives that much more ridiculous.
Click to expand...


Meh. Coming from a partisan hack moron like you, your response has no impact.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

westwall said:


> Here, I'll post this again as you all seem so desperate to bury it.  Here are the words of the WRITER of the Constitution.  You can take all of your blathering and stick it where the Sun don't shine, because THIS is the only person who's opinion on the subject matters.
> 
> 
> "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
> 
> "What country can preserve its liberties *if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."*
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787


You can post it all you want, it’s still irrelevant.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

The only opinion that matters is the opinion of the Supreme Court – not that of one individual, including Jefferson.

And the Supreme Court has held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense, unconnected to militia service – not to ‘overthrow’ a lawfully elected Federal government reflecting the will of the majority of the people; the Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ the First.


----------



## westwall

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 238623
> 
> 
> 
> This sort of childish stupidity renders conservatives that much more ridiculous.
Click to expand...







Do you take pride in being the village idiot or are you simply clueless?   Progressives have had their ass handed to them on multiple occasions, especially you, sweetcheeks, because you ignore the well known philosophy of the men who wrote the Constitution.  You ignore the usage of the English language of the time to pervert the actual meaning of the COTUS at every opportunity.

Your problem is we are smarter than you, and far better read than you so we actually know what we are talking about.  Unlike you.


----------



## westwall

Lesh said:


> Ambivalent1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. Reinventing history doesn't change the Constitution
> 
> Article 1 Section 8
> 
> To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, *suppress Insurrections* and repel Invasions;
> 
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> 
> Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion were....read this slowly....INSURRECTIONS...whether you agree with them or not...and THAT is part of why we HAD a "Well Regulated Militia".
> 
> Just the OPPOSITE of your claims
> 
> 
> 
> There it is in black and white.
> 
> No interpretation required
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll lay my weapons on the floor....you try and take them. I said YOU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey asshole. I'm not talking about taking ANYONE'S weapon way ya dumb moron. I'm just telling you that "gun rights" do NOT come from the 2A...unless of course you are part of a "Well Regulated Militia".. Beyond that state and local laws apply.
Click to expand...








You are partially correct.  The 2nd only TELLS you what is yours by Right of birth.

Thanks for giving me the chance to clarify.


----------



## Lesh

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here, I'll post this again as you all seem so desperate to bury it.  Here are the words of the WRITER of the Constitution.  You can take all of your blathering and stick it where the Sun don't shine, because THIS is the only person who's opinion on the subject matters.
> 
> 
> "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
> 
> "What country can preserve its liberties *if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."*
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
> 
> 
> 
> You can post it all you want, it’s still irrelevant.
> 
> The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.
> 
> The only opinion that matters is the opinion of the Supreme Court – not that of one individual, including Jefferson.
> 
> And the Supreme Court has held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense, unconnected to militia service – not to ‘overthrow’ a lawfully elected Federal government reflecting the will of the majority of the people; the Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ the First.
Click to expand...

Whch if you actually look at the 2A...makes no sense given the Militia Clause...but then Scalia knew that was a losing argument so he had to "decouple" the militia from the 2A...because....well because he wanted to..despite every previous ruling that did NOT do so


----------



## Lesh

westwall said:


> You are partially correct. The 2nd only TELLS you what is yours by Right of birth.



Says nothing about birth...but as a member of a "well Regulated Militia"...yea


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lesh said:


> but as a member of a "well Regulated Militia"...yea


_Heller _says otherwise.


----------



## Lesh

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> but as a member of a "well Regulated Militia"...yea
> 
> 
> 
> _Heller _says otherwise.
Click to expand...

SCALIA says otherwise


----------



## Lesh

Rigby5 said:


> The main purpose of the militia has always been, and always will be, to prevent crime



Not according to ANYTHING in the Constitution


----------



## Daryl Hunt

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here, I'll post this again as you all seem so desperate to bury it.  Here are the words of the WRITER of the Constitution.  You can take all of your blathering and stick it where the Sun don't shine, because THIS is the only person who's opinion on the subject matters.
> 
> 
> "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
> 
> "What country can preserve its liberties *if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."*
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
> 
> 
> 
> You can post it all you want, it’s still irrelevant.
> 
> The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.
> 
> The only opinion that matters is the opinion of the Supreme Court – not that of one individual, including Jefferson.
> 
> And the Supreme Court has held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense, unconnected to militia service – not to ‘overthrow’ a lawfully elected Federal government reflecting the will of the majority of the people; the Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ the First.
Click to expand...


How so very wrong.  The Supreme court exists solely in the context of the case law of the Constitution, not the other way around.  Outside of some real hairbrained 1800 rulings that have since been tossed out with the trash, the modern Supreme Court has really only made one 2nd amendment ruling and that was Heller V DC.  And the only real thing that came out of that was that each home has the right to a handgun of moderate means in defense of the home and family.  SCOTUS has pretty much left the other rulings for the lower courts and just won't rule on them one way or another.  They may dissent on it but that's it.  SCOTUS can only make rulings within the confines of the Constitution.  They cannot make new laws.


----------



## PredFan




----------



## Daryl Hunt

PredFan said:


> View attachment 238747



I am in favor of arming all bears.  Makes a Bear hunt more sporting when the bear can shoot back.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> but as a member of a "well Regulated Militia"...yea
> 
> 
> 
> _Heller _says otherwise.
Click to expand...


Here we go again.  Exactly what does the ruling (not the rest of the crap that's in it) really say.  How did it really affect the gun laws in DC?  Be specific and leave out the ramblings of the old guys in black robes.


----------



## Rigby5

Daryl Hunt said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. Reinventing history doesn't change the Constitution
> 
> Article 1 Section 8
> 
> To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, *suppress Insurrections* and repel Invasions;
> 
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> 
> Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion were....read this slowly....INSURRECTIONS...whether you agree with them or not...and THAT is part of why we HAD a "Well Regulated Militia".
> 
> Just the OPPOSITE of your claims
> 
> 
> 
> There it is in black and white.
> 
> No interpretation required
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the definition of INSURRECTIONS:  a violent uprising against an authority or government.
> 
> Whiskey Rebellion doesn't fit the definition since there was NO violence since the whiskey makers had previously moved to Kentucky from Penn.  There was no one there to be violent.  The 3 state Militias arrived and found no one there to insurrect.  Those damned rumrunners took all the fun out of it.
> 
> Shay's Rebellion does fit until you look at the reason.  The real crime was the corrupt State Government that was taxing the hell out of the Farmers leaving them hungry in the empty fields they couldn't even afford to plant much less grow food for themselves.  The Courts settle that and no charges stuck.  But there was one hell of a change in the State Government fast.  The Courts sided with the Farmers.  BTW, Shay wasn't the leader.  He was just one of the Farmers.  Yes, they were headed to the State Militia Armory to arm themselves but the Militia got there ahead of them and the farmers backed off and  were arrested.  Not a single shot was fired.  Not much off an Insurrection if you ask me.  But the State Government wanted blood and decided to prosecute and the courts disagreed and dropped all charges including the Governors hanging decrees.  You spend all your time railing against insurrections and yet this one shows the system actually works even under the old Articles of Confederation.  The United States Constitution had not be written yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're defense is all over the place. Your CLAIM is that the militia is not there in part to deal with insurrection...but to back that up you attack the several USES of the militia where it was called out for insurrections.
> 
> The fact that you side with the insurrectionists does in now way mean the militia wasn't called out for that purpose
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I side with the way it came out.  The system worked.  The courts evened the playing field and protected the farmers.  Farmers are not Lawyers.  The Governor and his ilk were the lawyers.  The Courts were used to correct a very vile and evil Governor and his crony government.  What you have actually shown is if we give it a chance, the system does work and it doesn't take guns to do it.
> 
> Besides, the Organized Militia would last about an afternoon against the US Military.  Outside of a local event that the Law Enforcement would handle, there won't be any Insurrections.  It's kind of like John Wayne has an entire Marine Division and they are attacked by one lone Indian Brave armed with a spear.  How do you think that will result?  Will the Lone Injun win the day?  Or will the Lone Injun do better if he takes his grevences to the court system.  Yah, Yah, I know, any Marine with even a smidgen of indian blood will change sides right?
Click to expand...


Wrong.
It did not work out right at all.
The whisky excise tax was way too large for small time, back woods distilleries.
Its intent was likely to put them out of business deliberately, and give the large distilleries monopolies.
It was awful, corrupt, wrong, and illegal.

And no, the US military has never once succeeded against an insurgency, and likely never would win against one.
The court system is already hopelessly corrupt, or else there would be no War on Drugs, no invasion of Iraq, no renditions, nor Guantanamo, etc.  In fact, it is clear no federal weapons law is even remotely legal.


----------



## Rigby5

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. Reinventing history doesn't change the Constitution
> 
> Article 1 Section 8
> 
> To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, *suppress Insurrections* and repel Invasions;
> 
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> 
> Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion were....read this slowly....INSURRECTIONS...whether you agree with them or not...and THAT is part of why we HAD a "Well Regulated Militia".
> 
> Just the OPPOSITE of your claims
> 
> 
> 
> There it is in black and white.
> 
> No interpretation required
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the definition of INSURRECTIONS:  a violent uprising against an authority or government.
> 
> Whiskey Rebellion doesn't fit the definition since there was NO violence since the whiskey makers had previously moved to Kentucky from Penn.  There was no one there to be violent.  The 3 state Militias arrived and found no one there to insurrect.  Those damned rumrunners took all the fun out of it.
> 
> Shay's Rebellion does fit until you look at the reason.  The real crime was the corrupt State Government that was taxing the hell out of the Farmers leaving them hungry in the empty fields they couldn't even afford to plant much less grow food for themselves.  The Courts settle that and no charges stuck.  But there was one hell of a change in the State Government fast.  The Courts sided with the Farmers.  BTW, Shay wasn't the leader.  He was just one of the Farmers.  Yes, they were headed to the State Militia Armory to arm themselves but the Militia got there ahead of them and the farmers backed off and  were arrested.  Not a single shot was fired.  Not much off an Insurrection if you ask me.  But the State Government wanted blood and decided to prosecute and the courts disagreed and dropped all charges including the Governors hanging decrees.  You spend all your time railing against insurrections and yet this one shows the system actually works even under the old Articles of Confederation.  The United States Constitution had not be written yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're defense is all over the place. Your CLAIM is that the militia is not there in part to deal with insurrection...but to back that up you attack the several USES of the militia where it was called out for insurrections.
> 
> The fact that you side with the insurrectionists does in now way mean the militia wasn't called out for that purpose
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That makes no sense.
> Of course putting down an immoral insurrection is one of the possible uses of the militia, but not at all likely, not the main federal use, and not at all the main purpose of the militia.  The main purpose of the militia has always been, and always will be, to prevent crime.  Remember there were no police originally, and in reality police prevent not a single crime these days, since they get there too late.
> The odds of a moral insurrection that should not be interfered with is much higher than an immoral one that should be stopped.
> And clearly we are way past the point of needing a moral insurrection.  Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Palestine, Afghanistan, etc., are all examples illegal invasions or regime change committed by the US.  And there are also thousands of illegal waterboarding, renditions, assassinations, and other war crimes continually committed by the US.  So we are way past having a illegal government.  For example, clearly any federal weapons laws violate the Bill of Rights are are clearly illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You say I make no sense yet you parrot back much of what I have said.  Then you tack on the last 2nd amendment BS onto it trying to use the beginning as a smoke screen to make your empty argument appear sound.
> 
> As long as the public safety stays  within state lines,, it's the States responsibility.  But when it constantly crosses the state lines, it is now called Interstate and anything Interstate whether it be transportation, trade or crime becomes a Federal problem.  This is what became of the 1934 Firearms Act.  One state would stop it or slow it down in their area and it would crop us with the same weapons in another area in another state and the slaughter would continue.  NO State was organized enough to stop this.  And then, it took the cooperation of all levels of government 10 years to put a stop to it.
Click to expand...


Wrong.  Crossing state lines can make it difficult for states to deal with, and give an opportunity for federal help, but there is absolutely nothing about weapons that needs to cross state lines or requires federal help.
So then there is still absolutely ZERO federal jurisdiction.  

There is no problem with firearms.
The causes of crime are well known, and include things like poverty, lack of education, lack of jobs, injustice, lack of other opportunities, etc.
There is no interstate aspect to weapons, and no way for the feds to be involved at all.

What you said was that one use of the militia against an insurrection shows that the militia is only to put down insurrections, and that is silly.
Sometimes insurrections may be bad and need being put down, but other times insurrections may be good and need to be supported.
One case does not determine all cases.  And clearly the MAIN point of the militia is local defense, not to be called up federally.  And yes, the MAIN point of the original militia in the 13 colonial states was for the American Revolution, an insurrection.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

Lesh said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> but as a member of a "well Regulated Militia"...yea
> 
> 
> 
> _Heller _says otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> SCALIA says otherwise
Click to expand...


No, he didn't.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rigby5 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. Reinventing history doesn't change the Constitution
> 
> Article 1 Section 8
> 
> To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, *suppress Insurrections* and repel Invasions;
> 
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> 
> Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion were....read this slowly....INSURRECTIONS...whether you agree with them or not...and THAT is part of why we HAD a "Well Regulated Militia".
> 
> Just the OPPOSITE of your claims
> 
> 
> 
> There it is in black and white.
> 
> No interpretation required
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the definition of INSURRECTIONS:  a violent uprising against an authority or government.
> 
> Whiskey Rebellion doesn't fit the definition since there was NO violence since the whiskey makers had previously moved to Kentucky from Penn.  There was no one there to be violent.  The 3 state Militias arrived and found no one there to insurrect.  Those damned rumrunners took all the fun out of it.
> 
> Shay's Rebellion does fit until you look at the reason.  The real crime was the corrupt State Government that was taxing the hell out of the Farmers leaving them hungry in the empty fields they couldn't even afford to plant much less grow food for themselves.  The Courts settle that and no charges stuck.  But there was one hell of a change in the State Government fast.  The Courts sided with the Farmers.  BTW, Shay wasn't the leader.  He was just one of the Farmers.  Yes, they were headed to the State Militia Armory to arm themselves but the Militia got there ahead of them and the farmers backed off and  were arrested.  Not a single shot was fired.  Not much off an Insurrection if you ask me.  But the State Government wanted blood and decided to prosecute and the courts disagreed and dropped all charges including the Governors hanging decrees.  You spend all your time railing against insurrections and yet this one shows the system actually works even under the old Articles of Confederation.  The United States Constitution had not be written yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're defense is all over the place. Your CLAIM is that the militia is not there in part to deal with insurrection...but to back that up you attack the several USES of the militia where it was called out for insurrections.
> 
> The fact that you side with the insurrectionists does in now way mean the militia wasn't called out for that purpose
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I side with the way it came out.  The system worked.  The courts evened the playing field and protected the farmers.  Farmers are not Lawyers.  The Governor and his ilk were the lawyers.  The Courts were used to correct a very vile and evil Governor and his crony government.  What you have actually shown is if we give it a chance, the system does work and it doesn't take guns to do it.
> 
> Besides, the Organized Militia would last about an afternoon against the US Military.  Outside of a local event that the Law Enforcement would handle, there won't be any Insurrections.  It's kind of like John Wayne has an entire Marine Division and they are attacked by one lone Indian Brave armed with a spear.  How do you think that will result?  Will the Lone Injun win the day?  Or will the Lone Injun do better if he takes his grevences to the court system.  Yah, Yah, I know, any Marine with even a smidgen of indian blood will change sides right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> It did not work out right at all.
> The whisky excise tax was way too large for small time, back woods distilleries.
> Its intent was likely to put them out of business deliberately, and give the large distilleries monopolies.
> It was awful, corrupt, wrong, and illegal.
> 
> And no, the US military has never once succeeded against an insurgency, and likely never would win against one.
> The court system is already hopelessly corrupt, or else there would be no War on Drugs, no invasion of Iraq, no renditions, nor Guantanamo, etc.  In fact, it is clear no federal weapons law is even remotely legal.
Click to expand...


And enough people thought that that they bootleggers were given ample time to pick up and relocate outside of the jurisdiction of the Confederation.  In  order to have an Insurrection, you have to first have a side to have a violent insurrection with.  The Militias showed up and they just weren't there.  Therefore, no rebellion.  Just Business or Capitalism if you will relocating to a more favorable tax area.

The United States is built so we just can't have an insurgency action here.  If the local Cops can't handle it,, the State picks it up.  If the State can't handle it, they can request Federal and the President can declare an emergency and the US Military will hand it.  But the problem is, if the US Military is used, it's like swatting flies with a sledge hammer.  Things are going to get broke, real broke.  The last time the Fed Troops were used was in 1956 in Alabama because the State was so corrupt.  The Locals knew better than to screw the the Korean  Veteran Regular Forces and everything went smoothly.  I am mixed on just how legal that was but Eisenhower declared an emergency since the state of Alabama was totally ignoring Federal Laws and Supreme Court Rulings as well as the Constitution of the United States.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Rigby5 said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> So those 4 states MIGHT have protection for the members of those militias under the 2A. Or not. They are most likely regulated by STATE laws...not the 2A
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, all states have militia rights, because the right of each and every single individual to protect themselves and home, are the source of legal justification for all militias and all governments.
> Again, the 2A is NOT a source of anything, but a deliberate restatement in order to ensure absolute restrain in potential future federal abuse.
> 
> But yes, local and state regulations on weapons for safety purposes could be legally possible.
> It is only federal weapons laws that are absolutely prohibited and totally excluded by the 2nd amendment.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.

Second Amendment jurisprudence concerns Federal, state, and local regulations; the Second Amendment was incorporated to the states in 2010.

All firearm regulatory measures – Federal, state, and local – are subject to court challenges.


----------



## Rigby5

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> but as a member of a "well Regulated Militia"...yea
> 
> 
> 
> _Heller _says otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here we go again.  Exactly what does the ruling (not the rest of the crap that's in it) really say.  How did it really affect the gun laws in DC?  Be specific and leave out the ramblings of the old guys in black robes.
Click to expand...



{...
_*District of Columbia v. Heller*_, 554 U.S. 570 (2008),[1] is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.[2]

Because laws of the District of Columbia are federal laws (it is not in any state), the decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment's protections are incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states,[3] which was addressed two years later by _McDonald v. City of Chicago_ (2010) in which it was found that they are.

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed by a vote of 5 to 4 the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in _*Heller v. District of Columbia*_.[4][5] The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the Regulations Act was an unconstitutional ban, and struck down the portion of the Regulations Act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock". Prior to this decision the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 also restricted residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975.

The majority opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, and the primary dissenting opinion, written by Justice John Paul Stevens, are considered examples of the application of originalism in practice.
...}

Regardless of the limitations of Heller, is clearly established that the 2nd amendment was NOT about protecting some collective militia right, but an individual right.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

progressive hunter said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution exist only in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review.
> 
> Neither the Constitution nor any of its Amendments are obsolete.
> 
> Whatever the current case law might be concerning the Second Amendment, however, further restrictions, regulations, or even bans will do little to curtail gun violence.
> 
> The genius of the Constitution is it compels us to seek actual solutions to our many problems; be it abortion, campaign finance reform, or gun violence, the Constitution prevents us from taking the easy route often taken by dictatorships and totalitarian regimes, where the liberty of the people is destroyed.
> 
> This does not mean we are helpless to do nothing, at the mercy of strict, unyielding jurisprudence protecting the rights of gun owners; rather, it means we must find solutions based on facts and evidence, and be prepared to address and acknowledge painful, embarrassing aspects of our society and culture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> clayton your case law argument is bullshit and you know it
Click to expand...

lol

It’s not 'my' argument, it’s Scalia’s.

If you don’t like it, dig him up and argue with him about it.


----------



## progressive hunter

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution exist only in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review.
> 
> Neither the Constitution nor any of its Amendments are obsolete.
> 
> Whatever the current case law might be concerning the Second Amendment, however, further restrictions, regulations, or even bans will do little to curtail gun violence.
> 
> The genius of the Constitution is it compels us to seek actual solutions to our many problems; be it abortion, campaign finance reform, or gun violence, the Constitution prevents us from taking the easy route often taken by dictatorships and totalitarian regimes, where the liberty of the people is destroyed.
> 
> This does not mean we are helpless to do nothing, at the mercy of strict, unyielding jurisprudence protecting the rights of gun owners; rather, it means we must find solutions based on facts and evidence, and be prepared to address and acknowledge painful, embarrassing aspects of our society and culture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> clayton your case law argument is bullshit and you know it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol
> 
> It’s not 'my' argument, it’s Scalia’s.
> 
> If you don’t like it, dig him up and argue with him about it.
Click to expand...

blaming a dead guy,,,what a cop out


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rigby5 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> There it is in black and white.
> 
> No interpretation required
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the definition of INSURRECTIONS:  a violent uprising against an authority or government.
> 
> Whiskey Rebellion doesn't fit the definition since there was NO violence since the whiskey makers had previously moved to Kentucky from Penn.  There was no one there to be violent.  The 3 state Militias arrived and found no one there to insurrect.  Those damned rumrunners took all the fun out of it.
> 
> Shay's Rebellion does fit until you look at the reason.  The real crime was the corrupt State Government that was taxing the hell out of the Farmers leaving them hungry in the empty fields they couldn't even afford to plant much less grow food for themselves.  The Courts settle that and no charges stuck.  But there was one hell of a change in the State Government fast.  The Courts sided with the Farmers.  BTW, Shay wasn't the leader.  He was just one of the Farmers.  Yes, they were headed to the State Militia Armory to arm themselves but the Militia got there ahead of them and the farmers backed off and  were arrested.  Not a single shot was fired.  Not much off an Insurrection if you ask me.  But the State Government wanted blood and decided to prosecute and the courts disagreed and dropped all charges including the Governors hanging decrees.  You spend all your time railing against insurrections and yet this one shows the system actually works even under the old Articles of Confederation.  The United States Constitution had not be written yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're defense is all over the place. Your CLAIM is that the militia is not there in part to deal with insurrection...but to back that up you attack the several USES of the militia where it was called out for insurrections.
> 
> The fact that you side with the insurrectionists does in now way mean the militia wasn't called out for that purpose
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That makes no sense.
> Of course putting down an immoral insurrection is one of the possible uses of the militia, but not at all likely, not the main federal use, and not at all the main purpose of the militia.  The main purpose of the militia has always been, and always will be, to prevent crime.  Remember there were no police originally, and in reality police prevent not a single crime these days, since they get there too late.
> The odds of a moral insurrection that should not be interfered with is much higher than an immoral one that should be stopped.
> And clearly we are way past the point of needing a moral insurrection.  Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Palestine, Afghanistan, etc., are all examples illegal invasions or regime change committed by the US.  And there are also thousands of illegal waterboarding, renditions, assassinations, and other war crimes continually committed by the US.  So we are way past having a illegal government.  For example, clearly any federal weapons laws violate the Bill of Rights are are clearly illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You say I make no sense yet you parrot back much of what I have said.  Then you tack on the last 2nd amendment BS onto it trying to use the beginning as a smoke screen to make your empty argument appear sound.
> 
> As long as the public safety stays  within state lines,, it's the States responsibility.  But when it constantly crosses the state lines, it is now called Interstate and anything Interstate whether it be transportation, trade or crime becomes a Federal problem.  This is what became of the 1934 Firearms Act.  One state would stop it or slow it down in their area and it would crop us with the same weapons in another area in another state and the slaughter would continue.  NO State was organized enough to stop this.  And then, it took the cooperation of all levels of government 10 years to put a stop to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  Crossing state lines can make it difficult for states to deal with, and give an opportunity for federal help, but there is absolutely nothing about weapons that needs to cross state lines or requires federal help.
> So then there is still absolutely ZERO federal jurisdiction.
> 
> There is no problem with firearms.
> The causes of crime are well known, and include things like poverty, lack of education, lack of jobs, injustice, lack of other opportunities, etc.
> There is no interstate aspect to weapons, and no way for the feds to be involved at all.
> 
> What you said was that one use of the militia against an insurrection shows that the militia is only to put down insurrections, and that is silly.
> Sometimes insurrections may be bad and need being put down, but other times insurrections may be good and need to be supported.
> One case does not determine all cases.  And clearly the MAIN point of the militia is local defense, not to be called up federally.  And yes, the MAIN point of the original militia in the 13 colonial states was for the American Revolution, an insurrection.
Click to expand...


I am going to use a real world example on this one.  And it just might become reality.

Texas has almost NO gun laws for gun sales.  As in anyone can purchase a gun out of the trunk off a Buick parked in a Denny's parking lot and they don't even need to show ID to do so.  The Handguns are cheap, real cheap since they are below a Texan's standards.  The buyer buys the whole trunkload for an average of 40 bucks a gun.  He loads the guns into his panel van and drives to another Denny's to make more purchases.  He keeps doing this until his 1 ton Van is loaded to it's limits.  The Van is a rental.  He drives his load to Chicago to a warehouse where it's distributed into smaller amounts and sent out onto the streets to be sold out of the trunks of Ford Focuses or Toyota Camrys.  The  guns are sold for an average of 300 bucks a piece.  The question comes up, exactly where did those guns become illegal?  

Ill requires all gun sales to have a  background check.  Chicago requires all gun sales to have to have permits as well as background checks.  In order to get past those laws, the guns are taken from one state with lax laws and interstate transported to another state.  In this case, under the Interstate Laws, the Federals can intercede with their own laws and force Texas to require all gun sales to require background checks but not registrations.  You may want to look for this at a later time.  It's going to happen with Texas, Arizona and Kansas.  It can be done by one of three methods.  US Congress, Executive Order or Supreme Court Ruling.


----------



## 2aguy

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the definition of INSURRECTIONS:  a violent uprising against an authority or government.
> 
> Whiskey Rebellion doesn't fit the definition since there was NO violence since the whiskey makers had previously moved to Kentucky from Penn.  There was no one there to be violent.  The 3 state Militias arrived and found no one there to insurrect.  Those damned rumrunners took all the fun out of it.
> 
> Shay's Rebellion does fit until you look at the reason.  The real crime was the corrupt State Government that was taxing the hell out of the Farmers leaving them hungry in the empty fields they couldn't even afford to plant much less grow food for themselves.  The Courts settle that and no charges stuck.  But there was one hell of a change in the State Government fast.  The Courts sided with the Farmers.  BTW, Shay wasn't the leader.  He was just one of the Farmers.  Yes, they were headed to the State Militia Armory to arm themselves but the Militia got there ahead of them and the farmers backed off and  were arrested.  Not a single shot was fired.  Not much off an Insurrection if you ask me.  But the State Government wanted blood and decided to prosecute and the courts disagreed and dropped all charges including the Governors hanging decrees.  You spend all your time railing against insurrections and yet this one shows the system actually works even under the old Articles of Confederation.  The United States Constitution had not be written yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're defense is all over the place. Your CLAIM is that the militia is not there in part to deal with insurrection...but to back that up you attack the several USES of the militia where it was called out for insurrections.
> 
> The fact that you side with the insurrectionists does in now way mean the militia wasn't called out for that purpose
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That makes no sense.
> Of course putting down an immoral insurrection is one of the possible uses of the militia, but not at all likely, not the main federal use, and not at all the main purpose of the militia.  The main purpose of the militia has always been, and always will be, to prevent crime.  Remember there were no police originally, and in reality police prevent not a single crime these days, since they get there too late.
> The odds of a moral insurrection that should not be interfered with is much higher than an immoral one that should be stopped.
> And clearly we are way past the point of needing a moral insurrection.  Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Palestine, Afghanistan, etc., are all examples illegal invasions or regime change committed by the US.  And there are also thousands of illegal waterboarding, renditions, assassinations, and other war crimes continually committed by the US.  So we are way past having a illegal government.  For example, clearly any federal weapons laws violate the Bill of Rights are are clearly illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You say I make no sense yet you parrot back much of what I have said.  Then you tack on the last 2nd amendment BS onto it trying to use the beginning as a smoke screen to make your empty argument appear sound.
> 
> As long as the public safety stays  within state lines,, it's the States responsibility.  But when it constantly crosses the state lines, it is now called Interstate and anything Interstate whether it be transportation, trade or crime becomes a Federal problem.  This is what became of the 1934 Firearms Act.  One state would stop it or slow it down in their area and it would crop us with the same weapons in another area in another state and the slaughter would continue.  NO State was organized enough to stop this.  And then, it took the cooperation of all levels of government 10 years to put a stop to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  Crossing state lines can make it difficult for states to deal with, and give an opportunity for federal help, but there is absolutely nothing about weapons that needs to cross state lines or requires federal help.
> So then there is still absolutely ZERO federal jurisdiction.
> 
> There is no problem with firearms.
> The causes of crime are well known, and include things like poverty, lack of education, lack of jobs, injustice, lack of other opportunities, etc.
> There is no interstate aspect to weapons, and no way for the feds to be involved at all.
> 
> What you said was that one use of the militia against an insurrection shows that the militia is only to put down insurrections, and that is silly.
> Sometimes insurrections may be bad and need being put down, but other times insurrections may be good and need to be supported.
> One case does not determine all cases.  And clearly the MAIN point of the militia is local defense, not to be called up federally.  And yes, the MAIN point of the original militia in the 13 colonial states was for the American Revolution, an insurrection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am going to use a real world example on this one.  And it just might become reality.
> 
> Texas has almost NO gun laws for gun sales.  As in anyone can purchase a gun out of the trunk off a Buick parked in a Denny's parking lot and they don't even need to show ID to do so.  The Handguns are cheap, real cheap since they are below a Texan's standards.  The buyer buys the whole trunkload for an average of 40 bucks a gun.  He loads the guns into his panel van and drives to another Denny's to make more purchases.  He keeps doing this until his 1 ton Van is loaded to it's limits.  The Van is a rental.  He drives his load to Chicago to a warehouse where it's distributed into smaller amounts and sent out onto the streets to be sold out of the trunks of Ford Focuses or Toyota Camrys.  The  guns are sold for an average of 300 bucks a piece.  The question comes up, exactly where did those guns become illegal?
> 
> Ill requires all gun sales to have a  background check.  Chicago requires all gun sales to have to have permits as well as background checks.  In order to get past those laws, the guns are taken from one state with lax laws and interstate transported to another state.  In this case, under the Interstate Laws, the Federals can intercede with their own laws and force Texas to require all gun sales to require background checks but not registrations.  You may want to look for this at a later time.  It's going to happen with Texas, Arizona and Kansas.  It can be done by one of three methods.  US Congress, Executive Order or Supreme Court Ruling.
Click to expand...


The question comes up, exactly where did those guns become illegal? 

That is easy, when a felon buys one knowing that as a felon they can't legally buy, own or carry a gun. 

 You catch the felon with the gun in his possession and he can immediately be arrested....then the democrat judge will promptly grant him bail.....and the democrat judge hearing his case will sentence him to probation or under 3 years in jail....

And considering that felons can't go through any background check, they already can't buy, own or carry a gun even under existing federal background checks, a universal background check is just as useless....


----------



## Lakhota

2aguy said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're defense is all over the place. Your CLAIM is that the militia is not there in part to deal with insurrection...but to back that up you attack the several USES of the militia where it was called out for insurrections.
> 
> The fact that you side with the insurrectionists does in now way mean the militia wasn't called out for that purpose
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That makes no sense.
> Of course putting down an immoral insurrection is one of the possible uses of the militia, but not at all likely, not the main federal use, and not at all the main purpose of the militia.  The main purpose of the militia has always been, and always will be, to prevent crime.  Remember there were no police originally, and in reality police prevent not a single crime these days, since they get there too late.
> The odds of a moral insurrection that should not be interfered with is much higher than an immoral one that should be stopped.
> And clearly we are way past the point of needing a moral insurrection.  Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Palestine, Afghanistan, etc., are all examples illegal invasions or regime change committed by the US.  And there are also thousands of illegal waterboarding, renditions, assassinations, and other war crimes continually committed by the US.  So we are way past having a illegal government.  For example, clearly any federal weapons laws violate the Bill of Rights are are clearly illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You say I make no sense yet you parrot back much of what I have said.  Then you tack on the last 2nd amendment BS onto it trying to use the beginning as a smoke screen to make your empty argument appear sound.
> 
> As long as the public safety stays  within state lines,, it's the States responsibility.  But when it constantly crosses the state lines, it is now called Interstate and anything Interstate whether it be transportation, trade or crime becomes a Federal problem.  This is what became of the 1934 Firearms Act.  One state would stop it or slow it down in their area and it would crop us with the same weapons in another area in another state and the slaughter would continue.  NO State was organized enough to stop this.  And then, it took the cooperation of all levels of government 10 years to put a stop to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  Crossing state lines can make it difficult for states to deal with, and give an opportunity for federal help, but there is absolutely nothing about weapons that needs to cross state lines or requires federal help.
> So then there is still absolutely ZERO federal jurisdiction.
> 
> There is no problem with firearms.
> The causes of crime are well known, and include things like poverty, lack of education, lack of jobs, injustice, lack of other opportunities, etc.
> There is no interstate aspect to weapons, and no way for the feds to be involved at all.
> 
> What you said was that one use of the militia against an insurrection shows that the militia is only to put down insurrections, and that is silly.
> Sometimes insurrections may be bad and need being put down, but other times insurrections may be good and need to be supported.
> One case does not determine all cases.  And clearly the MAIN point of the militia is local defense, not to be called up federally.  And yes, the MAIN point of the original militia in the 13 colonial states was for the American Revolution, an insurrection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am going to use a real world example on this one.  And it just might become reality.
> 
> Texas has almost NO gun laws for gun sales.  As in anyone can purchase a gun out of the trunk off a Buick parked in a Denny's parking lot and they don't even need to show ID to do so.  The Handguns are cheap, real cheap since they are below a Texan's standards.  The buyer buys the whole trunkload for an average of 40 bucks a gun.  He loads the guns into his panel van and drives to another Denny's to make more purchases.  He keeps doing this until his 1 ton Van is loaded to it's limits.  The Van is a rental.  He drives his load to Chicago to a warehouse where it's distributed into smaller amounts and sent out onto the streets to be sold out of the trunks of Ford Focuses or Toyota Camrys.  The  guns are sold for an average of 300 bucks a piece.  The question comes up, exactly where did those guns become illegal?
> 
> Ill requires all gun sales to have a  background check.  Chicago requires all gun sales to have to have permits as well as background checks.  In order to get past those laws, the guns are taken from one state with lax laws and interstate transported to another state.  In this case, under the Interstate Laws, the Federals can intercede with their own laws and force Texas to require all gun sales to require background checks but not registrations.  You may want to look for this at a later time.  It's going to happen with Texas, Arizona and Kansas.  It can be done by one of three methods.  US Congress, Executive Order or Supreme Court Ruling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The question comes up, exactly where did those guns become illegal?
> 
> That is easy, when a felon buys one knowing that as a felon they can't legally buy, own or carry a gun.
> 
> You catch the felon with the gun in his possession and he can immediately be arrested....then the democrat judge will promptly grant him bail.....and the democrat judge hearing his case will sentence him to probation or under 3 years in jail....
> 
> And considering that felons can't go through any background check, they already can't buy, own or carry a gun even under existing federal background checks, a universal background check is just as useless....
Click to expand...


Credible proof?  Links?


----------



## Rigby5

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> So those 4 states MIGHT have protection for the members of those militias under the 2A. Or not. They are most likely regulated by STATE laws...not the 2A
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, all states have militia rights, because the right of each and every single individual to protect themselves and home, are the source of legal justification for all militias and all governments.
> Again, the 2A is NOT a source of anything, but a deliberate restatement in order to ensure absolute restrain in potential future federal abuse.
> 
> But yes, local and state regulations on weapons for safety purposes could be legally possible.
> It is only federal weapons laws that are absolutely prohibited and totally excluded by the 2nd amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> Second Amendment jurisprudence concerns Federal, state, and local regulations; the Second Amendment was incorporated to the states in 2010.
> 
> All firearm regulatory measures – Federal, state, and local – are subject to court challenges.
Click to expand...



You misunderstand what the meaning of "incorporated" means.
It does not mean the current SCOTUS ruling changes the original meaning or intend of the 2nd amendment at all.
And the original intent was clearly just to block any federal jurisdiction on weapons.

What "incorporated" means is that as the SCOTUS tries to implement the 14th amendment to protect individual rights from state or local abuse, documents like the Bill of Rights can be used in order to deduce the penumbra that individual rights may have cast on or in them.
So then the original intent and meaning of the 2nd amendment is not altered in any way.
It is just used as evidence for the opinion of the currect SCOTUS as to what individual rights may be.

{...
*Incorporation Doctrine*
_A constitutional doctrine whereby selected provisions of the_ Bill of Rights _are made applicable to the states through the_ dueprocess clause _of the_ Fourteenth Amendment.

The doctrine of selective incorporation, or simply the incorporation doctrine, makes the first ten amendments to theConstitution—known as the Bill of Rights—binding on the states. Through incorporation, state governments largely are heldto the same standards as the federal government with regard to many constitutional rights, including the First Amendmentfreedoms of speech, religion, and assembly, and the separation of church and state; the Fourth Amendment freedoms fromunwarranted arrest and unreasonable searches and seizures; the fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination; and theSixth Amendment right to a speedy, fair, and public trial. Some provisions of the Bill of Rights—including the requirement ofindictment by a Grand Jury (Sixth Amendment) and the right to a jury trial in civil cases (Seventh Amendment)—have notbeen applied to the states through the incorporation doctrine.

Until the early twentieth century, the Bill of Rights was interpreted as applying only to the federal government. In the 1833case _Barron ex rel. Tiernon v. Mayor of Baltimore_, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243, 8 L. Ed. 672, the Supreme Court expressly limitedapplication of the Bill of Rights to the federal government. By the mid-nineteenth century, this view was being challenged. Forexample, Republicans who were opposed to southern state laws that made it a crime to speak and publish against Slaveryalleged that such laws violated First Amendment rights regarding Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press.

For a brief time following the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, it appeared that the Supreme Court mightuse the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to apply the Bill of Rights to the states. However, in theSlaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L. Ed. 394 (1873), the first significant Supreme Court ruling on theFourteenth Amendment, the Court handed down an extremely limiting interpretation of that clause. The Court held that theclause created a distinction between rights associated with state citizenship and rights associated with U.S., or federal,citizenship. It concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibited states from passing laws abridging the rights of U.S.citizen-ship (which, it implied, were few in number) but had no authority over laws abridging the rights of state citizenship.The effect of this ruling was to put much state legislation beyond the review of the Supreme Court.

Instead of applying the Bill of Rights as a whole to the states, as it might have done through the Privileges and ImmunitiesClause, the Supreme Court has gradually applied selected elements of the first ten amendments to the states through theDue Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This process, known as selective incorporation, began in earnest in the1920s. In Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 45 S. Ct. 625, 69 L. Ed. 1138 (1925), one of the earliest examples of the use ofthe incorporation doctrine, the Court held that the First Amendment protection of freedom of speech applied to the statesthrough the Due Process Clause. By the late 1940s, many civil freedoms, including freedom of the press (Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 51 S. Ct. 625, 75 L. Ed. 1357 [1931]), had been incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment, ashad many of the rights that applied to defendants in criminal cases, including the right to representation by counsel in capitalcases (Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 53 S. Ct. 55, 77 L. Ed. 158 [1931]). In 1937, the Court decided that some of theprivileges and immunities of the Bill of Rights were so fundamental that states were required to abide by them through theDue Process Clause (_Palko v. Connecticut_, 302 U.S. 319, 58 S. Ct. 149, 82 L. Ed. 288).
...}

Incorporation (Bill of Rights)

So I agree that in 2010 the SCOTUS ruling of McDonald vs Chicago started the process of gun rights being individual and not collective.
But that is not the same as saying the 2nd amendment was intended to prevent any state or local regulations, as it clearly was saying all federal weapons legislation was barred.


----------



## Rigby5

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> There it is in black and white.
> 
> No interpretation required
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the definition of INSURRECTIONS:  a violent uprising against an authority or government.
> 
> Whiskey Rebellion doesn't fit the definition since there was NO violence since the whiskey makers had previously moved to Kentucky from Penn.  There was no one there to be violent.  The 3 state Militias arrived and found no one there to insurrect.  Those damned rumrunners took all the fun out of it.
> 
> Shay's Rebellion does fit until you look at the reason.  The real crime was the corrupt State Government that was taxing the hell out of the Farmers leaving them hungry in the empty fields they couldn't even afford to plant much less grow food for themselves.  The Courts settle that and no charges stuck.  But there was one hell of a change in the State Government fast.  The Courts sided with the Farmers.  BTW, Shay wasn't the leader.  He was just one of the Farmers.  Yes, they were headed to the State Militia Armory to arm themselves but the Militia got there ahead of them and the farmers backed off and  were arrested.  Not a single shot was fired.  Not much off an Insurrection if you ask me.  But the State Government wanted blood and decided to prosecute and the courts disagreed and dropped all charges including the Governors hanging decrees.  You spend all your time railing against insurrections and yet this one shows the system actually works even under the old Articles of Confederation.  The United States Constitution had not be written yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're defense is all over the place. Your CLAIM is that the militia is not there in part to deal with insurrection...but to back that up you attack the several USES of the militia where it was called out for insurrections.
> 
> The fact that you side with the insurrectionists does in now way mean the militia wasn't called out for that purpose
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I side with the way it came out.  The system worked.  The courts evened the playing field and protected the farmers.  Farmers are not Lawyers.  The Governor and his ilk were the lawyers.  The Courts were used to correct a very vile and evil Governor and his crony government.  What you have actually shown is if we give it a chance, the system does work and it doesn't take guns to do it.
> 
> Besides, the Organized Militia would last about an afternoon against the US Military.  Outside of a local event that the Law Enforcement would handle, there won't be any Insurrections.  It's kind of like John Wayne has an entire Marine Division and they are attacked by one lone Indian Brave armed with a spear.  How do you think that will result?  Will the Lone Injun win the day?  Or will the Lone Injun do better if he takes his grevences to the court system.  Yah, Yah, I know, any Marine with even a smidgen of indian blood will change sides right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> It did not work out right at all.
> The whisky excise tax was way too large for small time, back woods distilleries.
> Its intent was likely to put them out of business deliberately, and give the large distilleries monopolies.
> It was awful, corrupt, wrong, and illegal.
> 
> And no, the US military has never once succeeded against an insurgency, and likely never would win against one.
> The court system is already hopelessly corrupt, or else there would be no War on Drugs, no invasion of Iraq, no renditions, nor Guantanamo, etc.  In fact, it is clear no federal weapons law is even remotely legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And enough people thought that that they bootleggers were given ample time to pick up and relocate outside of the jurisdiction of the Confederation.  In  order to have an Insurrection, you have to first have a side to have a violent insurrection with.  The Militias showed up and they just weren't there.  Therefore, no rebellion.  Just Business or Capitalism if you will relocating to a more favorable tax area.
> 
> The United States is built so we just can't have an insurgency action here.  If the local Cops can't handle it,, the State picks it up.  If the State can't handle it, they can request Federal and the President can declare an emergency and the US Military will hand it.  But the problem is, if the US Military is used, it's like swatting flies with a sledge hammer.  Things are going to get broke, real broke.  The last time the Fed Troops were used was in 1956 in Alabama because the State was so corrupt.  The Locals knew better than to screw the the Korean  Veteran Regular Forces and everything went smoothly.  I am mixed on just how legal that was but Eisenhower declared an emergency since the state of Alabama was totally ignoring Federal Laws and Supreme Court Rulings as well as the Constitution of the United States.
Click to expand...


The fact the abuse has not risen to the degree an insurrection is necessary, does not at all mean it won't.
In fact it is guaranteed.
All governments all go corrupt with time, and they eventually all need to be destroyed.
Those attempting insurrection too soon are wrong, but so are those who attempt to prevent insurrection after it is too late.
It is a fact of life, that this government will eventually need to be destroyed, and it will be destroyed.
History proves that.

Local cops, state cops, or even federal troops are insignificant compared to the whole population.
Things went well in 1956 because Eisenhower was in the right, but many presidents have since been in the wrong.
For example, the war on drugs, the 1994 federal crime bill, the invasion of Iraq, etc.
Whether or not there already is sufficient reason for an insurrection, eventually there will be no doubt at all.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Lakhota said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That makes no sense.
> Of course putting down an immoral insurrection is one of the possible uses of the militia, but not at all likely, not the main federal use, and not at all the main purpose of the militia.  The main purpose of the militia has always been, and always will be, to prevent crime.  Remember there were no police originally, and in reality police prevent not a single crime these days, since they get there too late.
> The odds of a moral insurrection that should not be interfered with is much higher than an immoral one that should be stopped.
> And clearly we are way past the point of needing a moral insurrection.  Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Palestine, Afghanistan, etc., are all examples illegal invasions or regime change committed by the US.  And there are also thousands of illegal waterboarding, renditions, assassinations, and other war crimes continually committed by the US.  So we are way past having a illegal government.  For example, clearly any federal weapons laws violate the Bill of Rights are are clearly illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say I make no sense yet you parrot back much of what I have said.  Then you tack on the last 2nd amendment BS onto it trying to use the beginning as a smoke screen to make your empty argument appear sound.
> 
> As long as the public safety stays  within state lines,, it's the States responsibility.  But when it constantly crosses the state lines, it is now called Interstate and anything Interstate whether it be transportation, trade or crime becomes a Federal problem.  This is what became of the 1934 Firearms Act.  One state would stop it or slow it down in their area and it would crop us with the same weapons in another area in another state and the slaughter would continue.  NO State was organized enough to stop this.  And then, it took the cooperation of all levels of government 10 years to put a stop to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  Crossing state lines can make it difficult for states to deal with, and give an opportunity for federal help, but there is absolutely nothing about weapons that needs to cross state lines or requires federal help.
> So then there is still absolutely ZERO federal jurisdiction.
> 
> There is no problem with firearms.
> The causes of crime are well known, and include things like poverty, lack of education, lack of jobs, injustice, lack of other opportunities, etc.
> There is no interstate aspect to weapons, and no way for the feds to be involved at all.
> 
> What you said was that one use of the militia against an insurrection shows that the militia is only to put down insurrections, and that is silly.
> Sometimes insurrections may be bad and need being put down, but other times insurrections may be good and need to be supported.
> One case does not determine all cases.  And clearly the MAIN point of the militia is local defense, not to be called up federally.  And yes, the MAIN point of the original militia in the 13 colonial states was for the American Revolution, an insurrection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am going to use a real world example on this one.  And it just might become reality.
> 
> Texas has almost NO gun laws for gun sales.  As in anyone can purchase a gun out of the trunk off a Buick parked in a Denny's parking lot and they don't even need to show ID to do so.  The Handguns are cheap, real cheap since they are below a Texan's standards.  The buyer buys the whole trunkload for an average of 40 bucks a gun.  He loads the guns into his panel van and drives to another Denny's to make more purchases.  He keeps doing this until his 1 ton Van is loaded to it's limits.  The Van is a rental.  He drives his load to Chicago to a warehouse where it's distributed into smaller amounts and sent out onto the streets to be sold out of the trunks of Ford Focuses or Toyota Camrys.  The  guns are sold for an average of 300 bucks a piece.  The question comes up, exactly where did those guns become illegal?
> 
> Ill requires all gun sales to have a  background check.  Chicago requires all gun sales to have to have permits as well as background checks.  In order to get past those laws, the guns are taken from one state with lax laws and interstate transported to another state.  In this case, under the Interstate Laws, the Federals can intercede with their own laws and force Texas to require all gun sales to require background checks but not registrations.  You may want to look for this at a later time.  It's going to happen with Texas, Arizona and Kansas.  It can be done by one of three methods.  US Congress, Executive Order or Supreme Court Ruling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The question comes up, exactly where did those guns become illegal?
> 
> That is easy, when a felon buys one knowing that as a felon they can't legally buy, own or carry a gun.
> 
> You catch the felon with the gun in his possession and he can immediately be arrested....then the democrat judge will promptly grant him bail.....and the democrat judge hearing his case will sentence him to probation or under 3 years in jail....
> 
> And considering that felons can't go through any background check, they already can't buy, own or carry a gun even under existing federal background checks, a universal background check is just as useless....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Credible proof?  Links?
Click to expand...


Yah, but you won't like it or accept any of them.  But here goes. Please read them.

Most Guns in Chicago Crimes Come From Out of State: Report

Gun Laws Stop At State Lines, But Guns Don’t

And let's look at  the frustration involved by the law enforcement.
Why (Almost) No One Is Charged With Gun Trafficking in Illinois — ProPublica

over 60% of the illegal guns recovered from felons in Chicago came from illegal transporting of guns from out of state.  Until last year, over half of those came from Illinois.  Illinois closed their own laws.  Before 2013, Colorado was on the illegal gun export list until it tightened up it's background checks.  Now, all the illegal guns coming in from out of state to Chicago come from the Red States with the laxest gun laws with the background check requirements you can run a fully loaded 1 ton van through and often do.


----------



## Lakhota

Daryl Hunt said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You say I make no sense yet you parrot back much of what I have said.  Then you tack on the last 2nd amendment BS onto it trying to use the beginning as a smoke screen to make your empty argument appear sound.
> 
> As long as the public safety stays  within state lines,, it's the States responsibility.  But when it constantly crosses the state lines, it is now called Interstate and anything Interstate whether it be transportation, trade or crime becomes a Federal problem.  This is what became of the 1934 Firearms Act.  One state would stop it or slow it down in their area and it would crop us with the same weapons in another area in another state and the slaughter would continue.  NO State was organized enough to stop this.  And then, it took the cooperation of all levels of government 10 years to put a stop to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  Crossing state lines can make it difficult for states to deal with, and give an opportunity for federal help, but there is absolutely nothing about weapons that needs to cross state lines or requires federal help.
> So then there is still absolutely ZERO federal jurisdiction.
> 
> There is no problem with firearms.
> The causes of crime are well known, and include things like poverty, lack of education, lack of jobs, injustice, lack of other opportunities, etc.
> There is no interstate aspect to weapons, and no way for the feds to be involved at all.
> 
> What you said was that one use of the militia against an insurrection shows that the militia is only to put down insurrections, and that is silly.
> Sometimes insurrections may be bad and need being put down, but other times insurrections may be good and need to be supported.
> One case does not determine all cases.  And clearly the MAIN point of the militia is local defense, not to be called up federally.  And yes, the MAIN point of the original militia in the 13 colonial states was for the American Revolution, an insurrection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am going to use a real world example on this one.  And it just might become reality.
> 
> Texas has almost NO gun laws for gun sales.  As in anyone can purchase a gun out of the trunk off a Buick parked in a Denny's parking lot and they don't even need to show ID to do so.  The Handguns are cheap, real cheap since they are below a Texan's standards.  The buyer buys the whole trunkload for an average of 40 bucks a gun.  He loads the guns into his panel van and drives to another Denny's to make more purchases.  He keeps doing this until his 1 ton Van is loaded to it's limits.  The Van is a rental.  He drives his load to Chicago to a warehouse where it's distributed into smaller amounts and sent out onto the streets to be sold out of the trunks of Ford Focuses or Toyota Camrys.  The  guns are sold for an average of 300 bucks a piece.  The question comes up, exactly where did those guns become illegal?
> 
> Ill requires all gun sales to have a  background check.  Chicago requires all gun sales to have to have permits as well as background checks.  In order to get past those laws, the guns are taken from one state with lax laws and interstate transported to another state.  In this case, under the Interstate Laws, the Federals can intercede with their own laws and force Texas to require all gun sales to require background checks but not registrations.  You may want to look for this at a later time.  It's going to happen with Texas, Arizona and Kansas.  It can be done by one of three methods.  US Congress, Executive Order or Supreme Court Ruling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The question comes up, exactly where did those guns become illegal?
> 
> That is easy, when a felon buys one knowing that as a felon they can't legally buy, own or carry a gun.
> 
> You catch the felon with the gun in his possession and he can immediately be arrested....then the democrat judge will promptly grant him bail.....and the democrat judge hearing his case will sentence him to probation or under 3 years in jail....
> 
> And considering that felons can't go through any background check, they already can't buy, own or carry a gun even under existing federal background checks, a universal background check is just as useless....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Credible proof?  Links?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yah, but you won't like it or accept any of them.  But here goes. Please read them.
> 
> Most Guns in Chicago Crimes Come From Out of State: Report
> 
> Gun Laws Stop At State Lines, But Guns Don’t
> 
> And let's look at  the frustration involved by the law enforcement.
> Why (Almost) No One Is Charged With Gun Trafficking in Illinois — ProPublica
> 
> over 60% of the illegal guns recovered from felons in Chicago came from illegal transporting of guns from out of state.  Until last year, over half of those came from Illinois.  Illinois closed their own laws.  Before 2013, Colorado was on the illegal gun export list until it tightened up it's background checks.  Now, all the illegal guns coming in from out of state to Chicago come from the Red States with the laxest gun laws with the background check requirements you can run a fully loaded 1 ton van through and often do.
Click to expand...


The NRA is a facilitator of gunrunning.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rigby5 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> So those 4 states MIGHT have protection for the members of those militias under the 2A. Or not. They are most likely regulated by STATE laws...not the 2A
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, all states have militia rights, because the right of each and every single individual to protect themselves and home, are the source of legal justification for all militias and all governments.
> Again, the 2A is NOT a source of anything, but a deliberate restatement in order to ensure absolute restrain in potential future federal abuse.
> 
> But yes, local and state regulations on weapons for safety purposes could be legally possible.
> It is only federal weapons laws that are absolutely prohibited and totally excluded by the 2nd amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> Second Amendment jurisprudence concerns Federal, state, and local regulations; the Second Amendment was incorporated to the states in 2010.
> 
> All firearm regulatory measures – Federal, state, and local – are subject to court challenges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You misunderstand what the meaning of "incorporated" means.
> It does not mean the current SCOTUS ruling changes the original meaning or intend of the 2nd amendment at all.
> And the original intent was clearly just to block any federal jurisdiction on weapons.
> 
> What "incorporated" means is that as the SCOTUS tries to implement the 14th amendment to protect individual rights from state or local abuse, documents like the Bill of Rights can be used in order to deduce the penumbra that individual rights may have cast on or in them.
> So then the original intent and meaning of the 2nd amendment is not altered in any way.
> It is just used as evidence for the opinion of the currect SCOTUS as to what individual rights may be.
> 
> {...
> *Incorporation Doctrine*
> _A constitutional doctrine whereby selected provisions of the_ Bill of Rights _are made applicable to the states through the_ dueprocess clause _of the_ Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> The doctrine of selective incorporation, or simply the incorporation doctrine, makes the first ten amendments to theConstitution—known as the Bill of Rights—binding on the states. Through incorporation, state governments largely are heldto the same standards as the federal government with regard to many constitutional rights, including the First Amendmentfreedoms of speech, religion, and assembly, and the separation of church and state; the Fourth Amendment freedoms fromunwarranted arrest and unreasonable searches and seizures; the fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination; and theSixth Amendment right to a speedy, fair, and public trial. Some provisions of the Bill of Rights—including the requirement ofindictment by a Grand Jury (Sixth Amendment) and the right to a jury trial in civil cases (Seventh Amendment)—have notbeen applied to the states through the incorporation doctrine.
> 
> Until the early twentieth century, the Bill of Rights was interpreted as applying only to the federal government. In the 1833case _Barron ex rel. Tiernon v. Mayor of Baltimore_, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243, 8 L. Ed. 672, the Supreme Court expressly limitedapplication of the Bill of Rights to the federal government. By the mid-nineteenth century, this view was being challenged. Forexample, Republicans who were opposed to southern state laws that made it a crime to speak and publish against Slaveryalleged that such laws violated First Amendment rights regarding Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press.
> 
> For a brief time following the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, it appeared that the Supreme Court mightuse the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to apply the Bill of Rights to the states. However, in theSlaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L. Ed. 394 (1873), the first significant Supreme Court ruling on theFourteenth Amendment, the Court handed down an extremely limiting interpretation of that clause. The Court held that theclause created a distinction between rights associated with state citizenship and rights associated with U.S., or federal,citizenship. It concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibited states from passing laws abridging the rights of U.S.citizen-ship (which, it implied, were few in number) but had no authority over laws abridging the rights of state citizenship.The effect of this ruling was to put much state legislation beyond the review of the Supreme Court.
> 
> Instead of applying the Bill of Rights as a whole to the states, as it might have done through the Privileges and ImmunitiesClause, the Supreme Court has gradually applied selected elements of the first ten amendments to the states through theDue Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This process, known as selective incorporation, began in earnest in the1920s. In Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 45 S. Ct. 625, 69 L. Ed. 1138 (1925), one of the earliest examples of the use ofthe incorporation doctrine, the Court held that the First Amendment protection of freedom of speech applied to the statesthrough the Due Process Clause. By the late 1940s, many civil freedoms, including freedom of the press (Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 51 S. Ct. 625, 75 L. Ed. 1357 [1931]), had been incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment, ashad many of the rights that applied to defendants in criminal cases, including the right to representation by counsel in capitalcases (Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 53 S. Ct. 55, 77 L. Ed. 158 [1931]). In 1937, the Court decided that some of theprivileges and immunities of the Bill of Rights were so fundamental that states were required to abide by them through theDue Process Clause (_Palko v. Connecticut_, 302 U.S. 319, 58 S. Ct. 149, 82 L. Ed. 288).
> ...}
> 
> Incorporation (Bill of Rights)
> 
> So I agree that in 2010 the SCOTUS ruling of McDonald vs Chicago started the process of gun rights being individual and not collective.
> But that is not the same as saying the 2nd amendment was intended to prevent any state or local regulations, as it clearly was saying all federal weapons legislation was barred.
Click to expand...


Here is the  summary from MCD V Chi.

_The Court did not rule on the constitutionality of the gun ban, deciding instead to reverse and remand the case for additional proceedings. However, the courts decision on the 2nd Amendment makes it clear that such bans are unconstitutional. But, as it held in Heller, the Court reiterated in McDonald that the 2nd Amendment only protects a right to possess a firearm in the home for lawful uses such as self-defense. It stressed that some firearm regulation is constitutionally permissible and the 2nd Amendment right to possess firearms is not unlimited. It does not guarantee a right to possess any firearm, anywhere, and for any purpose. _


----------



## Rigby5

Daryl Hunt said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You say I make no sense yet you parrot back much of what I have said.  Then you tack on the last 2nd amendment BS onto it trying to use the beginning as a smoke screen to make your empty argument appear sound.
> 
> As long as the public safety stays  within state lines,, it's the States responsibility.  But when it constantly crosses the state lines, it is now called Interstate and anything Interstate whether it be transportation, trade or crime becomes a Federal problem.  This is what became of the 1934 Firearms Act.  One state would stop it or slow it down in their area and it would crop us with the same weapons in another area in another state and the slaughter would continue.  NO State was organized enough to stop this.  And then, it took the cooperation of all levels of government 10 years to put a stop to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  Crossing state lines can make it difficult for states to deal with, and give an opportunity for federal help, but there is absolutely nothing about weapons that needs to cross state lines or requires federal help.
> So then there is still absolutely ZERO federal jurisdiction.
> 
> There is no problem with firearms.
> The causes of crime are well known, and include things like poverty, lack of education, lack of jobs, injustice, lack of other opportunities, etc.
> There is no interstate aspect to weapons, and no way for the feds to be involved at all.
> 
> What you said was that one use of the militia against an insurrection shows that the militia is only to put down insurrections, and that is silly.
> Sometimes insurrections may be bad and need being put down, but other times insurrections may be good and need to be supported.
> One case does not determine all cases.  And clearly the MAIN point of the militia is local defense, not to be called up federally.  And yes, the MAIN point of the original militia in the 13 colonial states was for the American Revolution, an insurrection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am going to use a real world example on this one.  And it just might become reality.
> 
> Texas has almost NO gun laws for gun sales.  As in anyone can purchase a gun out of the trunk off a Buick parked in a Denny's parking lot and they don't even need to show ID to do so.  The Handguns are cheap, real cheap since they are below a Texan's standards.  The buyer buys the whole trunkload for an average of 40 bucks a gun.  He loads the guns into his panel van and drives to another Denny's to make more purchases.  He keeps doing this until his 1 ton Van is loaded to it's limits.  The Van is a rental.  He drives his load to Chicago to a warehouse where it's distributed into smaller amounts and sent out onto the streets to be sold out of the trunks of Ford Focuses or Toyota Camrys.  The  guns are sold for an average of 300 bucks a piece.  The question comes up, exactly where did those guns become illegal?
> 
> Ill requires all gun sales to have a  background check.  Chicago requires all gun sales to have to have permits as well as background checks.  In order to get past those laws, the guns are taken from one state with lax laws and interstate transported to another state.  In this case, under the Interstate Laws, the Federals can intercede with their own laws and force Texas to require all gun sales to require background checks but not registrations.  You may want to look for this at a later time.  It's going to happen with Texas, Arizona and Kansas.  It can be done by one of three methods.  US Congress, Executive Order or Supreme Court Ruling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The question comes up, exactly where did those guns become illegal?
> 
> That is easy, when a felon buys one knowing that as a felon they can't legally buy, own or carry a gun.
> 
> You catch the felon with the gun in his possession and he can immediately be arrested....then the democrat judge will promptly grant him bail.....and the democrat judge hearing his case will sentence him to probation or under 3 years in jail....
> 
> And considering that felons can't go through any background check, they already can't buy, own or carry a gun even under existing federal background checks, a universal background check is just as useless....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Credible proof?  Links?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yah, but you won't like it or accept any of them.  But here goes. Please read them.
> 
> Most Guns in Chicago Crimes Come From Out of State: Report
> 
> Gun Laws Stop At State Lines, But Guns Don’t
> 
> And let's look at  the frustration involved by the law enforcement.
> Why (Almost) No One Is Charged With Gun Trafficking in Illinois — ProPublica
> 
> over 60% of the illegal guns recovered from felons in Chicago came from illegal transporting of guns from out of state.  Until last year, over half of those came from Illinois.  Illinois closed their own laws.  Before 2013, Colorado was on the illegal gun export list until it tightened up it's background checks.  Now, all the illegal guns coming in from out of state to Chicago come from the Red States with the laxest gun laws with the background check requirements you can run a fully loaded 1 ton van through and often do.
Click to expand...


Except you are forgetting that those IL gun laws are now illegal, and they were always inherently in violation of individual rights, so never should have been legal, and there was never any use for any federal laws.

Guns never are the cause of crime, and any gun law likely is either incredibly stupid or criminal in intent itself.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Lakhota said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  Crossing state lines can make it difficult for states to deal with, and give an opportunity for federal help, but there is absolutely nothing about weapons that needs to cross state lines or requires federal help.
> So then there is still absolutely ZERO federal jurisdiction.
> 
> There is no problem with firearms.
> The causes of crime are well known, and include things like poverty, lack of education, lack of jobs, injustice, lack of other opportunities, etc.
> There is no interstate aspect to weapons, and no way for the feds to be involved at all.
> 
> What you said was that one use of the militia against an insurrection shows that the militia is only to put down insurrections, and that is silly.
> Sometimes insurrections may be bad and need being put down, but other times insurrections may be good and need to be supported.
> One case does not determine all cases.  And clearly the MAIN point of the militia is local defense, not to be called up federally.  And yes, the MAIN point of the original militia in the 13 colonial states was for the American Revolution, an insurrection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am going to use a real world example on this one.  And it just might become reality.
> 
> Texas has almost NO gun laws for gun sales.  As in anyone can purchase a gun out of the trunk off a Buick parked in a Denny's parking lot and they don't even need to show ID to do so.  The Handguns are cheap, real cheap since they are below a Texan's standards.  The buyer buys the whole trunkload for an average of 40 bucks a gun.  He loads the guns into his panel van and drives to another Denny's to make more purchases.  He keeps doing this until his 1 ton Van is loaded to it's limits.  The Van is a rental.  He drives his load to Chicago to a warehouse where it's distributed into smaller amounts and sent out onto the streets to be sold out of the trunks of Ford Focuses or Toyota Camrys.  The  guns are sold for an average of 300 bucks a piece.  The question comes up, exactly where did those guns become illegal?
> 
> Ill requires all gun sales to have a  background check.  Chicago requires all gun sales to have to have permits as well as background checks.  In order to get past those laws, the guns are taken from one state with lax laws and interstate transported to another state.  In this case, under the Interstate Laws, the Federals can intercede with their own laws and force Texas to require all gun sales to require background checks but not registrations.  You may want to look for this at a later time.  It's going to happen with Texas, Arizona and Kansas.  It can be done by one of three methods.  US Congress, Executive Order or Supreme Court Ruling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The question comes up, exactly where did those guns become illegal?
> 
> That is easy, when a felon buys one knowing that as a felon they can't legally buy, own or carry a gun.
> 
> You catch the felon with the gun in his possession and he can immediately be arrested....then the democrat judge will promptly grant him bail.....and the democrat judge hearing his case will sentence him to probation or under 3 years in jail....
> 
> And considering that felons can't go through any background check, they already can't buy, own or carry a gun even under existing federal background checks, a universal background check is just as useless....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Credible proof?  Links?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yah, but you won't like it or accept any of them.  But here goes. Please read them.
> 
> Most Guns in Chicago Crimes Come From Out of State: Report
> 
> Gun Laws Stop At State Lines, But Guns Don’t
> 
> And let's look at  the frustration involved by the law enforcement.
> Why (Almost) No One Is Charged With Gun Trafficking in Illinois — ProPublica
> 
> over 60% of the illegal guns recovered from felons in Chicago came from illegal transporting of guns from out of state.  Until last year, over half of those came from Illinois.  Illinois closed their own laws.  Before 2013, Colorado was on the illegal gun export list until it tightened up it's background checks.  Now, all the illegal guns coming in from out of state to Chicago come from the Red States with the laxest gun laws with the background check requirements you can run a fully loaded 1 ton van through and often do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The NRA is a facilitator of gunrunning.
Click to expand...


It's all about business.  If you don't  have a market for all your old guns you won't buy new ones.  Yes, Capitalism at it's Best (or worst)


----------



## Rigby5

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> So those 4 states MIGHT have protection for the members of those militias under the 2A. Or not. They are most likely regulated by STATE laws...not the 2A
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, all states have militia rights, because the right of each and every single individual to protect themselves and home, are the source of legal justification for all militias and all governments.
> Again, the 2A is NOT a source of anything, but a deliberate restatement in order to ensure absolute restrain in potential future federal abuse.
> 
> But yes, local and state regulations on weapons for safety purposes could be legally possible.
> It is only federal weapons laws that are absolutely prohibited and totally excluded by the 2nd amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> Second Amendment jurisprudence concerns Federal, state, and local regulations; the Second Amendment was incorporated to the states in 2010.
> 
> All firearm regulatory measures – Federal, state, and local – are subject to court challenges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You misunderstand what the meaning of "incorporated" means.
> It does not mean the current SCOTUS ruling changes the original meaning or intend of the 2nd amendment at all.
> And the original intent was clearly just to block any federal jurisdiction on weapons.
> 
> What "incorporated" means is that as the SCOTUS tries to implement the 14th amendment to protect individual rights from state or local abuse, documents like the Bill of Rights can be used in order to deduce the penumbra that individual rights may have cast on or in them.
> So then the original intent and meaning of the 2nd amendment is not altered in any way.
> It is just used as evidence for the opinion of the currect SCOTUS as to what individual rights may be.
> 
> {...
> *Incorporation Doctrine*
> _A constitutional doctrine whereby selected provisions of the_ Bill of Rights _are made applicable to the states through the_ dueprocess clause _of the_ Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> The doctrine of selective incorporation, or simply the incorporation doctrine, makes the first ten amendments to theConstitution—known as the Bill of Rights—binding on the states. Through incorporation, state governments largely are heldto the same standards as the federal government with regard to many constitutional rights, including the First Amendmentfreedoms of speech, religion, and assembly, and the separation of church and state; the Fourth Amendment freedoms fromunwarranted arrest and unreasonable searches and seizures; the fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination; and theSixth Amendment right to a speedy, fair, and public trial. Some provisions of the Bill of Rights—including the requirement ofindictment by a Grand Jury (Sixth Amendment) and the right to a jury trial in civil cases (Seventh Amendment)—have notbeen applied to the states through the incorporation doctrine.
> 
> Until the early twentieth century, the Bill of Rights was interpreted as applying only to the federal government. In the 1833case _Barron ex rel. Tiernon v. Mayor of Baltimore_, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243, 8 L. Ed. 672, the Supreme Court expressly limitedapplication of the Bill of Rights to the federal government. By the mid-nineteenth century, this view was being challenged. Forexample, Republicans who were opposed to southern state laws that made it a crime to speak and publish against Slaveryalleged that such laws violated First Amendment rights regarding Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press.
> 
> For a brief time following the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, it appeared that the Supreme Court mightuse the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to apply the Bill of Rights to the states. However, in theSlaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L. Ed. 394 (1873), the first significant Supreme Court ruling on theFourteenth Amendment, the Court handed down an extremely limiting interpretation of that clause. The Court held that theclause created a distinction between rights associated with state citizenship and rights associated with U.S., or federal,citizenship. It concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibited states from passing laws abridging the rights of U.S.citizen-ship (which, it implied, were few in number) but had no authority over laws abridging the rights of state citizenship.The effect of this ruling was to put much state legislation beyond the review of the Supreme Court.
> 
> Instead of applying the Bill of Rights as a whole to the states, as it might have done through the Privileges and ImmunitiesClause, the Supreme Court has gradually applied selected elements of the first ten amendments to the states through theDue Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This process, known as selective incorporation, began in earnest in the1920s. In Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 45 S. Ct. 625, 69 L. Ed. 1138 (1925), one of the earliest examples of the use ofthe incorporation doctrine, the Court held that the First Amendment protection of freedom of speech applied to the statesthrough the Due Process Clause. By the late 1940s, many civil freedoms, including freedom of the press (Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 51 S. Ct. 625, 75 L. Ed. 1357 [1931]), had been incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment, ashad many of the rights that applied to defendants in criminal cases, including the right to representation by counsel in capitalcases (Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 53 S. Ct. 55, 77 L. Ed. 158 [1931]). In 1937, the Court decided that some of theprivileges and immunities of the Bill of Rights were so fundamental that states were required to abide by them through theDue Process Clause (_Palko v. Connecticut_, 302 U.S. 319, 58 S. Ct. 149, 82 L. Ed. 288).
> ...}
> 
> Incorporation (Bill of Rights)
> 
> So I agree that in 2010 the SCOTUS ruling of McDonald vs Chicago started the process of gun rights being individual and not collective.
> But that is not the same as saying the 2nd amendment was intended to prevent any state or local regulations, as it clearly was saying all federal weapons legislation was barred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the  summary from MCD V Chi.
> 
> _The Court did not rule on the constitutionality of the gun ban, deciding instead to reverse and remand the case for additional proceedings. However, the courts decision on the 2nd Amendment makes it clear that such bans are unconstitutional. But, as it held in Heller, the Court reiterated in McDonald that the 2nd Amendment only protects a right to possess a firearm in the home for lawful uses such as self-defense. It stressed that some firearm regulation is constitutionally permissible and the 2nd Amendment right to possess firearms is not unlimited. It does not guarantee a right to possess any firearm, anywhere, and for any purpose. _
Click to expand...


I agree that the right to possess a firearm is not unlimited and that some regulation can be acceptable.
But clearly the whole point of the 2nd amendment is to ban all federal weapons jurisdiction, and the SCOTUS has incorrectly failed to recognize that obvious fact.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rigby5 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  Crossing state lines can make it difficult for states to deal with, and give an opportunity for federal help, but there is absolutely nothing about weapons that needs to cross state lines or requires federal help.
> So then there is still absolutely ZERO federal jurisdiction.
> 
> There is no problem with firearms.
> The causes of crime are well known, and include things like poverty, lack of education, lack of jobs, injustice, lack of other opportunities, etc.
> There is no interstate aspect to weapons, and no way for the feds to be involved at all.
> 
> What you said was that one use of the militia against an insurrection shows that the militia is only to put down insurrections, and that is silly.
> Sometimes insurrections may be bad and need being put down, but other times insurrections may be good and need to be supported.
> One case does not determine all cases.  And clearly the MAIN point of the militia is local defense, not to be called up federally.  And yes, the MAIN point of the original militia in the 13 colonial states was for the American Revolution, an insurrection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am going to use a real world example on this one.  And it just might become reality.
> 
> Texas has almost NO gun laws for gun sales.  As in anyone can purchase a gun out of the trunk off a Buick parked in a Denny's parking lot and they don't even need to show ID to do so.  The Handguns are cheap, real cheap since they are below a Texan's standards.  The buyer buys the whole trunkload for an average of 40 bucks a gun.  He loads the guns into his panel van and drives to another Denny's to make more purchases.  He keeps doing this until his 1 ton Van is loaded to it's limits.  The Van is a rental.  He drives his load to Chicago to a warehouse where it's distributed into smaller amounts and sent out onto the streets to be sold out of the trunks of Ford Focuses or Toyota Camrys.  The  guns are sold for an average of 300 bucks a piece.  The question comes up, exactly where did those guns become illegal?
> 
> Ill requires all gun sales to have a  background check.  Chicago requires all gun sales to have to have permits as well as background checks.  In order to get past those laws, the guns are taken from one state with lax laws and interstate transported to another state.  In this case, under the Interstate Laws, the Federals can intercede with their own laws and force Texas to require all gun sales to require background checks but not registrations.  You may want to look for this at a later time.  It's going to happen with Texas, Arizona and Kansas.  It can be done by one of three methods.  US Congress, Executive Order or Supreme Court Ruling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The question comes up, exactly where did those guns become illegal?
> 
> That is easy, when a felon buys one knowing that as a felon they can't legally buy, own or carry a gun.
> 
> You catch the felon with the gun in his possession and he can immediately be arrested....then the democrat judge will promptly grant him bail.....and the democrat judge hearing his case will sentence him to probation or under 3 years in jail....
> 
> And considering that felons can't go through any background check, they already can't buy, own or carry a gun even under existing federal background checks, a universal background check is just as useless....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Credible proof?  Links?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yah, but you won't like it or accept any of them.  But here goes. Please read them.
> 
> Most Guns in Chicago Crimes Come From Out of State: Report
> 
> Gun Laws Stop At State Lines, But Guns Don’t
> 
> And let's look at  the frustration involved by the law enforcement.
> Why (Almost) No One Is Charged With Gun Trafficking in Illinois — ProPublica
> 
> over 60% of the illegal guns recovered from felons in Chicago came from illegal transporting of guns from out of state.  Until last year, over half of those came from Illinois.  Illinois closed their own laws.  Before 2013, Colorado was on the illegal gun export list until it tightened up it's background checks.  Now, all the illegal guns coming in from out of state to Chicago come from the Red States with the laxest gun laws with the background check requirements you can run a fully loaded 1 ton van through and often do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except you are forgetting that those IL gun laws are now illegal, and they were always inherently in violation of individual rights, so never should have been legal, and there was never any use for any federal laws.
> 
> Guns never are the cause of crime, and any gun law likely is either incredibly stupid or criminal in intent itself.
Click to expand...


Illinois became one more state that requires all guns sales to go through a background check in 2018.  The Gun Runners won't go to any state with a universal background check.  That would give the feds and the state of Illinois the proof they need to enact their illegal  gun running laws.  Yes, Martha,, it''s illegal to run guns like this but with no paper trail it's hard to prove and convict.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rigby5 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> So those 4 states MIGHT have protection for the members of those militias under the 2A. Or not. They are most likely regulated by STATE laws...not the 2A
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, all states have militia rights, because the right of each and every single individual to protect themselves and home, are the source of legal justification for all militias and all governments.
> Again, the 2A is NOT a source of anything, but a deliberate restatement in order to ensure absolute restrain in potential future federal abuse.
> 
> But yes, local and state regulations on weapons for safety purposes could be legally possible.
> It is only federal weapons laws that are absolutely prohibited and totally excluded by the 2nd amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> Second Amendment jurisprudence concerns Federal, state, and local regulations; the Second Amendment was incorporated to the states in 2010.
> 
> All firearm regulatory measures – Federal, state, and local – are subject to court challenges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You misunderstand what the meaning of "incorporated" means.
> It does not mean the current SCOTUS ruling changes the original meaning or intend of the 2nd amendment at all.
> And the original intent was clearly just to block any federal jurisdiction on weapons.
> 
> What "incorporated" means is that as the SCOTUS tries to implement the 14th amendment to protect individual rights from state or local abuse, documents like the Bill of Rights can be used in order to deduce the penumbra that individual rights may have cast on or in them.
> So then the original intent and meaning of the 2nd amendment is not altered in any way.
> It is just used as evidence for the opinion of the currect SCOTUS as to what individual rights may be.
> 
> {...
> *Incorporation Doctrine*
> _A constitutional doctrine whereby selected provisions of the_ Bill of Rights _are made applicable to the states through the_ dueprocess clause _of the_ Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> The doctrine of selective incorporation, or simply the incorporation doctrine, makes the first ten amendments to theConstitution—known as the Bill of Rights—binding on the states. Through incorporation, state governments largely are heldto the same standards as the federal government with regard to many constitutional rights, including the First Amendmentfreedoms of speech, religion, and assembly, and the separation of church and state; the Fourth Amendment freedoms fromunwarranted arrest and unreasonable searches and seizures; the fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination; and theSixth Amendment right to a speedy, fair, and public trial. Some provisions of the Bill of Rights—including the requirement ofindictment by a Grand Jury (Sixth Amendment) and the right to a jury trial in civil cases (Seventh Amendment)—have notbeen applied to the states through the incorporation doctrine.
> 
> Until the early twentieth century, the Bill of Rights was interpreted as applying only to the federal government. In the 1833case _Barron ex rel. Tiernon v. Mayor of Baltimore_, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243, 8 L. Ed. 672, the Supreme Court expressly limitedapplication of the Bill of Rights to the federal government. By the mid-nineteenth century, this view was being challenged. Forexample, Republicans who were opposed to southern state laws that made it a crime to speak and publish against Slaveryalleged that such laws violated First Amendment rights regarding Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press.
> 
> For a brief time following the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, it appeared that the Supreme Court mightuse the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to apply the Bill of Rights to the states. However, in theSlaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L. Ed. 394 (1873), the first significant Supreme Court ruling on theFourteenth Amendment, the Court handed down an extremely limiting interpretation of that clause. The Court held that theclause created a distinction between rights associated with state citizenship and rights associated with U.S., or federal,citizenship. It concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibited states from passing laws abridging the rights of U.S.citizen-ship (which, it implied, were few in number) but had no authority over laws abridging the rights of state citizenship.The effect of this ruling was to put much state legislation beyond the review of the Supreme Court.
> 
> Instead of applying the Bill of Rights as a whole to the states, as it might have done through the Privileges and ImmunitiesClause, the Supreme Court has gradually applied selected elements of the first ten amendments to the states through theDue Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This process, known as selective incorporation, began in earnest in the1920s. In Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 45 S. Ct. 625, 69 L. Ed. 1138 (1925), one of the earliest examples of the use ofthe incorporation doctrine, the Court held that the First Amendment protection of freedom of speech applied to the statesthrough the Due Process Clause. By the late 1940s, many civil freedoms, including freedom of the press (Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 51 S. Ct. 625, 75 L. Ed. 1357 [1931]), had been incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment, ashad many of the rights that applied to defendants in criminal cases, including the right to representation by counsel in capitalcases (Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 53 S. Ct. 55, 77 L. Ed. 158 [1931]). In 1937, the Court decided that some of theprivileges and immunities of the Bill of Rights were so fundamental that states were required to abide by them through theDue Process Clause (_Palko v. Connecticut_, 302 U.S. 319, 58 S. Ct. 149, 82 L. Ed. 288).
> ...}
> 
> Incorporation (Bill of Rights)
> 
> So I agree that in 2010 the SCOTUS ruling of McDonald vs Chicago started the process of gun rights being individual and not collective.
> But that is not the same as saying the 2nd amendment was intended to prevent any state or local regulations, as it clearly was saying all federal weapons legislation was barred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the  summary from MCD V Chi.
> 
> _The Court did not rule on the constitutionality of the gun ban, deciding instead to reverse and remand the case for additional proceedings. However, the courts decision on the 2nd Amendment makes it clear that such bans are unconstitutional. But, as it held in Heller, the Court reiterated in McDonald that the 2nd Amendment only protects a right to possess a firearm in the home for lawful uses such as self-defense. It stressed that some firearm regulation is constitutionally permissible and the 2nd Amendment right to possess firearms is not unlimited. It does not guarantee a right to possess any firearm, anywhere, and for any purpose. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree that the right to possess a firearm is not unlimited and that some regulation can be acceptable.
> But clearly the whole point of the 2nd amendment is to ban all federal weapons jurisdiction, and the SCOTUS has incorrectly failed to recognize that obvious fact.
Click to expand...


About the only place it's banned is under the 1934 Firearms act and that was under interstate Public Safety.  I agree, it might have been considered overboard in the Brady Act but if it was done under the 1934 Firearms Act,, it wouldn't have been.  Instead, they passed it  on it's own.  But they put a time limit on the law which ran out.  It has been upheld in courts that it's perfectly legal for local and state to outright ban the ARs as long as they specifically name the AR-15 and it's clones by direct name.  Just calling it an assault rifle with a generic description  was found unconstitutional as it also described a lot of  other semi auto rifles including the Model 60 22LR Semi Auto which is the most sold rifle in the history of firearms.  Sorry, AR fans,  you come in as #2.

Case in point.  Trump just issued an Executive Order banning Bump Stocks.  If he tried to do as a stand alone, he  would need to have Congress amend the Constitution and we all know that just ain't gonna happen.  Instead, he put it under  the 1934 Firearms Act which is under Interstate Public Safety.


----------



## Rigby5

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am going to use a real world example on this one.  And it just might become reality.
> 
> Texas has almost NO gun laws for gun sales.  As in anyone can purchase a gun out of the trunk off a Buick parked in a Denny's parking lot and they don't even need to show ID to do so.  The Handguns are cheap, real cheap since they are below a Texan's standards.  The buyer buys the whole trunkload for an average of 40 bucks a gun.  He loads the guns into his panel van and drives to another Denny's to make more purchases.  He keeps doing this until his 1 ton Van is loaded to it's limits.  The Van is a rental.  He drives his load to Chicago to a warehouse where it's distributed into smaller amounts and sent out onto the streets to be sold out of the trunks of Ford Focuses or Toyota Camrys.  The  guns are sold for an average of 300 bucks a piece.  The question comes up, exactly where did those guns become illegal?
> 
> Ill requires all gun sales to have a  background check.  Chicago requires all gun sales to have to have permits as well as background checks.  In order to get past those laws, the guns are taken from one state with lax laws and interstate transported to another state.  In this case, under the Interstate Laws, the Federals can intercede with their own laws and force Texas to require all gun sales to require background checks but not registrations.  You may want to look for this at a later time.  It's going to happen with Texas, Arizona and Kansas.  It can be done by one of three methods.  US Congress, Executive Order or Supreme Court Ruling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The question comes up, exactly where did those guns become illegal?
> 
> That is easy, when a felon buys one knowing that as a felon they can't legally buy, own or carry a gun.
> 
> You catch the felon with the gun in his possession and he can immediately be arrested....then the democrat judge will promptly grant him bail.....and the democrat judge hearing his case will sentence him to probation or under 3 years in jail....
> 
> And considering that felons can't go through any background check, they already can't buy, own or carry a gun even under existing federal background checks, a universal background check is just as useless....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Credible proof?  Links?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yah, but you won't like it or accept any of them.  But here goes. Please read them.
> 
> Most Guns in Chicago Crimes Come From Out of State: Report
> 
> Gun Laws Stop At State Lines, But Guns Don’t
> 
> And let's look at  the frustration involved by the law enforcement.
> Why (Almost) No One Is Charged With Gun Trafficking in Illinois — ProPublica
> 
> over 60% of the illegal guns recovered from felons in Chicago came from illegal transporting of guns from out of state.  Until last year, over half of those came from Illinois.  Illinois closed their own laws.  Before 2013, Colorado was on the illegal gun export list until it tightened up it's background checks.  Now, all the illegal guns coming in from out of state to Chicago come from the Red States with the laxest gun laws with the background check requirements you can run a fully loaded 1 ton van through and often do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except you are forgetting that those IL gun laws are now illegal, and they were always inherently in violation of individual rights, so never should have been legal, and there was never any use for any federal laws.
> 
> Guns never are the cause of crime, and any gun law likely is either incredibly stupid or criminal in intent itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illinois became one more state that requires all guns sales to go through a background check in 2018.  The Gun Runners won't go to any state with a universal background check.  That would give the feds and the state of Illinois the proof they need to enact their illegal  gun running laws.  Yes, Martha,, it''s illegal to run guns like this but with no paper trail it's hard to prove and convict.
Click to expand...



I clearly is illegal to attempt to make all sales of anything go through a background check and then not conduct background checks for everyone at a reasonable free.  It creates an illegal monopoly for FFLs.
It violates the ability of people to give or loan weapons for immediate protection.
It makes what was once legal, no longer legal, without any valid need.
It is one more reason for validating insurrection, not a reason for allowing federal firearms laws.
There can be none, since the 2nd amendment is firmly part of the Bill of Rights and prohibits any and all federal weapons jurisdiction.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rigby5 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question comes up, exactly where did those guns become illegal?
> 
> That is easy, when a felon buys one knowing that as a felon they can't legally buy, own or carry a gun.
> 
> You catch the felon with the gun in his possession and he can immediately be arrested....then the democrat judge will promptly grant him bail.....and the democrat judge hearing his case will sentence him to probation or under 3 years in jail....
> 
> And considering that felons can't go through any background check, they already can't buy, own or carry a gun even under existing federal background checks, a universal background check is just as useless....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Credible proof?  Links?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yah, but you won't like it or accept any of them.  But here goes. Please read them.
> 
> Most Guns in Chicago Crimes Come From Out of State: Report
> 
> Gun Laws Stop At State Lines, But Guns Don’t
> 
> And let's look at  the frustration involved by the law enforcement.
> Why (Almost) No One Is Charged With Gun Trafficking in Illinois — ProPublica
> 
> over 60% of the illegal guns recovered from felons in Chicago came from illegal transporting of guns from out of state.  Until last year, over half of those came from Illinois.  Illinois closed their own laws.  Before 2013, Colorado was on the illegal gun export list until it tightened up it's background checks.  Now, all the illegal guns coming in from out of state to Chicago come from the Red States with the laxest gun laws with the background check requirements you can run a fully loaded 1 ton van through and often do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except you are forgetting that those IL gun laws are now illegal, and they were always inherently in violation of individual rights, so never should have been legal, and there was never any use for any federal laws.
> 
> Guns never are the cause of crime, and any gun law likely is either incredibly stupid or criminal in intent itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illinois became one more state that requires all guns sales to go through a background check in 2018.  The Gun Runners won't go to any state with a universal background check.  That would give the feds and the state of Illinois the proof they need to enact their illegal  gun running laws.  Yes, Martha,, it''s illegal to run guns like this but with no paper trail it's hard to prove and convict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I clearly is illegal to attempt to make all sales of anything go through a background check and then not conduct background checks for everyone at a reasonable free.  It creates an illegal monopoly for FFLs.
> It violates the ability of people to give or loan weapons for immediate protection.
> It makes what was once legal, no longer legal, without any valid need.
> It is one more reason for validating insurrection, not a reason for allowing federal firearms laws.
> There can be none, since the 2nd amendment is firmly part of the Bill of Rights and prohibits any and all federal weapons jurisdiction.
Click to expand...


The FFL just types the information in and temporarily stores the form. No Database is created at any level.   He's paid 7 bucks for his time.  You want him to work for nothing? You saying that you support Indentured Servitude?   Be just a little bit fair on this one.  And the courts agree with me.  The State can require all gun sales to receive background checks.  Nothing illegal about it.


----------



## Rigby5

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, all states have militia rights, because the right of each and every single individual to protect themselves and home, are the source of legal justification for all militias and all governments.
> Again, the 2A is NOT a source of anything, but a deliberate restatement in order to ensure absolute restrain in potential future federal abuse.
> 
> But yes, local and state regulations on weapons for safety purposes could be legally possible.
> It is only federal weapons laws that are absolutely prohibited and totally excluded by the 2nd amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> Second Amendment jurisprudence concerns Federal, state, and local regulations; the Second Amendment was incorporated to the states in 2010.
> 
> All firearm regulatory measures – Federal, state, and local – are subject to court challenges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You misunderstand what the meaning of "incorporated" means.
> It does not mean the current SCOTUS ruling changes the original meaning or intend of the 2nd amendment at all.
> And the original intent was clearly just to block any federal jurisdiction on weapons.
> 
> What "incorporated" means is that as the SCOTUS tries to implement the 14th amendment to protect individual rights from state or local abuse, documents like the Bill of Rights can be used in order to deduce the penumbra that individual rights may have cast on or in them.
> So then the original intent and meaning of the 2nd amendment is not altered in any way.
> It is just used as evidence for the opinion of the currect SCOTUS as to what individual rights may be.
> 
> {...
> *Incorporation Doctrine*
> _A constitutional doctrine whereby selected provisions of the_ Bill of Rights _are made applicable to the states through the_ dueprocess clause _of the_ Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> The doctrine of selective incorporation, or simply the incorporation doctrine, makes the first ten amendments to theConstitution—known as the Bill of Rights—binding on the states. Through incorporation, state governments largely are heldto the same standards as the federal government with regard to many constitutional rights, including the First Amendmentfreedoms of speech, religion, and assembly, and the separation of church and state; the Fourth Amendment freedoms fromunwarranted arrest and unreasonable searches and seizures; the fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination; and theSixth Amendment right to a speedy, fair, and public trial. Some provisions of the Bill of Rights—including the requirement ofindictment by a Grand Jury (Sixth Amendment) and the right to a jury trial in civil cases (Seventh Amendment)—have notbeen applied to the states through the incorporation doctrine.
> 
> Until the early twentieth century, the Bill of Rights was interpreted as applying only to the federal government. In the 1833case _Barron ex rel. Tiernon v. Mayor of Baltimore_, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243, 8 L. Ed. 672, the Supreme Court expressly limitedapplication of the Bill of Rights to the federal government. By the mid-nineteenth century, this view was being challenged. Forexample, Republicans who were opposed to southern state laws that made it a crime to speak and publish against Slaveryalleged that such laws violated First Amendment rights regarding Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press.
> 
> For a brief time following the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, it appeared that the Supreme Court mightuse the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to apply the Bill of Rights to the states. However, in theSlaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L. Ed. 394 (1873), the first significant Supreme Court ruling on theFourteenth Amendment, the Court handed down an extremely limiting interpretation of that clause. The Court held that theclause created a distinction between rights associated with state citizenship and rights associated with U.S., or federal,citizenship. It concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibited states from passing laws abridging the rights of U.S.citizen-ship (which, it implied, were few in number) but had no authority over laws abridging the rights of state citizenship.The effect of this ruling was to put much state legislation beyond the review of the Supreme Court.
> 
> Instead of applying the Bill of Rights as a whole to the states, as it might have done through the Privileges and ImmunitiesClause, the Supreme Court has gradually applied selected elements of the first ten amendments to the states through theDue Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This process, known as selective incorporation, began in earnest in the1920s. In Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 45 S. Ct. 625, 69 L. Ed. 1138 (1925), one of the earliest examples of the use ofthe incorporation doctrine, the Court held that the First Amendment protection of freedom of speech applied to the statesthrough the Due Process Clause. By the late 1940s, many civil freedoms, including freedom of the press (Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 51 S. Ct. 625, 75 L. Ed. 1357 [1931]), had been incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment, ashad many of the rights that applied to defendants in criminal cases, including the right to representation by counsel in capitalcases (Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 53 S. Ct. 55, 77 L. Ed. 158 [1931]). In 1937, the Court decided that some of theprivileges and immunities of the Bill of Rights were so fundamental that states were required to abide by them through theDue Process Clause (_Palko v. Connecticut_, 302 U.S. 319, 58 S. Ct. 149, 82 L. Ed. 288).
> ...}
> 
> Incorporation (Bill of Rights)
> 
> So I agree that in 2010 the SCOTUS ruling of McDonald vs Chicago started the process of gun rights being individual and not collective.
> But that is not the same as saying the 2nd amendment was intended to prevent any state or local regulations, as it clearly was saying all federal weapons legislation was barred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the  summary from MCD V Chi.
> 
> _The Court did not rule on the constitutionality of the gun ban, deciding instead to reverse and remand the case for additional proceedings. However, the courts decision on the 2nd Amendment makes it clear that such bans are unconstitutional. But, as it held in Heller, the Court reiterated in McDonald that the 2nd Amendment only protects a right to possess a firearm in the home for lawful uses such as self-defense. It stressed that some firearm regulation is constitutionally permissible and the 2nd Amendment right to possess firearms is not unlimited. It does not guarantee a right to possess any firearm, anywhere, and for any purpose. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree that the right to possess a firearm is not unlimited and that some regulation can be acceptable.
> But clearly the whole point of the 2nd amendment is to ban all federal weapons jurisdiction, and the SCOTUS has incorrectly failed to recognize that obvious fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About the only place it's banned is under the 1934 Firearms act and that was under interstate Public Safety.  I agree, it might have been considered overboard in the Brady Act but if it was done under the 1934 Firearms Act,, it wouldn't have been.  Instead, they passed it  on it's own.  But they put a time limit on the law which ran out.  It has been upheld in courts that it's perfectly legal for local and state to outright ban the ARs as long as they specifically name the AR-15 and it's clones by direct name.  Just calling it an assault rifle with a generic description  was found unconstitutional as it also described a lot of  other semi auto rifles including the Model 60 22LR Semi Auto which is the most sold rifle in the history of firearms.  Sorry, AR fans,  you come in as #2.
> 
> Case in point.  Trump just issued an Executive Order banning Bump Stocks.  If he tried to do as a stand alone, he  would need to have Congress amend the Constitution and we all know that just ain't gonna happen.  Instead, he put it under  the 1934 Firearms Act which is under Interstate Public Safety.
Click to expand...


Oh come on, there is no ability to make firearms laws under the interstate commerce clause, because the 10th amendment says only areas specifically granted to the federal government in the Constitution are under federal jurisdiction.  
These is nothing related to legal federal jurisdiction like interstate commerce in the 1934 Firearms Act, and it is completely illegal, in my opinion.

{...
The impetus for the National Firearms Act of 1934 was the gangland crime of the Prohibition era, such as the St. Valentine's Day Massacreof 1929, and the attempted assassination of President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933.[2][3]:824[4][5] Like the current National Firearms Act (NFA), the 1934 Act required NFA firearms to be registered and taxed. The $200 tax was quite prohibitive at the time (equivalent to $3,746 in 2018). With a few exceptions, the tax amount is unchanged.[4][5]

Originally, pistols and revolvers were to be regulated as strictly as machine guns; towards that end, cutting down a rifle or shotgun to circumvent the handgun restrictions by making a concealable weapon was taxed as strictly as a machine gun.[6]

Conventional pistols and revolvers were ultimately excluded from the Act before passage, but other concealable weapons were not.[6] Regarding the definition of "firearm," the language of the statute as originally enacted was as follows:

The term "firearm" means a shotgun or rifle having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length, or any other weapon, except a pistol or revolver, from which a shot is discharged by an explosive if such weapon is capable of being concealed on the person, or a machine gun, and includes a muffler or silencer for any firearm whether or not such firearm is included within the foregoing definition.[7]
Under the original Act, NFA weapons were machine guns, short-barreled rifles (SBR), short-barreled shotguns (SBS), any other weapons (AOW or concealable weapons other than pistols or revolvers), and silencers for any type of NFA or non-NFA. Minimum barrel length was soon amended to 16 inches for rimfire rifles and by 1960 had been amended to 16 inches for centerfire rifles as well.
...}

In particular, the law was totally and completely wrong to bar short barreled rifles and shotguns.
They are traditional for defensive coach guns and snake protection.  Clearly exceeding any government authority.


----------



## Rigby5

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Credible proof?  Links?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yah, but you won't like it or accept any of them.  But here goes. Please read them.
> 
> Most Guns in Chicago Crimes Come From Out of State: Report
> 
> Gun Laws Stop At State Lines, But Guns Don’t
> 
> And let's look at  the frustration involved by the law enforcement.
> Why (Almost) No One Is Charged With Gun Trafficking in Illinois — ProPublica
> 
> over 60% of the illegal guns recovered from felons in Chicago came from illegal transporting of guns from out of state.  Until last year, over half of those came from Illinois.  Illinois closed their own laws.  Before 2013, Colorado was on the illegal gun export list until it tightened up it's background checks.  Now, all the illegal guns coming in from out of state to Chicago come from the Red States with the laxest gun laws with the background check requirements you can run a fully loaded 1 ton van through and often do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except you are forgetting that those IL gun laws are now illegal, and they were always inherently in violation of individual rights, so never should have been legal, and there was never any use for any federal laws.
> 
> Guns never are the cause of crime, and any gun law likely is either incredibly stupid or criminal in intent itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illinois became one more state that requires all guns sales to go through a background check in 2018.  The Gun Runners won't go to any state with a universal background check.  That would give the feds and the state of Illinois the proof they need to enact their illegal  gun running laws.  Yes, Martha,, it''s illegal to run guns like this but with no paper trail it's hard to prove and convict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I clearly is illegal to attempt to make all sales of anything go through a background check and then not conduct background checks for everyone at a reasonable free.  It creates an illegal monopoly for FFLs.
> It violates the ability of people to give or loan weapons for immediate protection.
> It makes what was once legal, no longer legal, without any valid need.
> It is one more reason for validating insurrection, not a reason for allowing federal firearms laws.
> There can be none, since the 2nd amendment is firmly part of the Bill of Rights and prohibits any and all federal weapons jurisdiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The FFL just types the information in and temporarily stores the form. No Database is created at any level.   He's paid 7 bucks for his time.  You want him to work for nothing? You saying that you support Indentured Servitude?   Be just a little bit fair on this one.  And the courts agree with me.  The State can require all gun sales to receive background checks.  Nothing illegal about it.
Click to expand...


It is the feds who should pay the FFL, or allow everyone to make the call instead.
The last time they charged me $30, not $7.
I have never heard of anyone only paying $7.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rigby5 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> Second Amendment jurisprudence concerns Federal, state, and local regulations; the Second Amendment was incorporated to the states in 2010.
> 
> All firearm regulatory measures – Federal, state, and local – are subject to court challenges.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You misunderstand what the meaning of "incorporated" means.
> It does not mean the current SCOTUS ruling changes the original meaning or intend of the 2nd amendment at all.
> And the original intent was clearly just to block any federal jurisdiction on weapons.
> 
> What "incorporated" means is that as the SCOTUS tries to implement the 14th amendment to protect individual rights from state or local abuse, documents like the Bill of Rights can be used in order to deduce the penumbra that individual rights may have cast on or in them.
> So then the original intent and meaning of the 2nd amendment is not altered in any way.
> It is just used as evidence for the opinion of the currect SCOTUS as to what individual rights may be.
> 
> {...
> *Incorporation Doctrine*
> _A constitutional doctrine whereby selected provisions of the_ Bill of Rights _are made applicable to the states through the_ dueprocess clause _of the_ Fourteenth Amendment.
> 
> The doctrine of selective incorporation, or simply the incorporation doctrine, makes the first ten amendments to theConstitution—known as the Bill of Rights—binding on the states. Through incorporation, state governments largely are heldto the same standards as the federal government with regard to many constitutional rights, including the First Amendmentfreedoms of speech, religion, and assembly, and the separation of church and state; the Fourth Amendment freedoms fromunwarranted arrest and unreasonable searches and seizures; the fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination; and theSixth Amendment right to a speedy, fair, and public trial. Some provisions of the Bill of Rights—including the requirement ofindictment by a Grand Jury (Sixth Amendment) and the right to a jury trial in civil cases (Seventh Amendment)—have notbeen applied to the states through the incorporation doctrine.
> 
> Until the early twentieth century, the Bill of Rights was interpreted as applying only to the federal government. In the 1833case _Barron ex rel. Tiernon v. Mayor of Baltimore_, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243, 8 L. Ed. 672, the Supreme Court expressly limitedapplication of the Bill of Rights to the federal government. By the mid-nineteenth century, this view was being challenged. Forexample, Republicans who were opposed to southern state laws that made it a crime to speak and publish against Slaveryalleged that such laws violated First Amendment rights regarding Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press.
> 
> For a brief time following the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, it appeared that the Supreme Court mightuse the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to apply the Bill of Rights to the states. However, in theSlaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L. Ed. 394 (1873), the first significant Supreme Court ruling on theFourteenth Amendment, the Court handed down an extremely limiting interpretation of that clause. The Court held that theclause created a distinction between rights associated with state citizenship and rights associated with U.S., or federal,citizenship. It concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibited states from passing laws abridging the rights of U.S.citizen-ship (which, it implied, were few in number) but had no authority over laws abridging the rights of state citizenship.The effect of this ruling was to put much state legislation beyond the review of the Supreme Court.
> 
> Instead of applying the Bill of Rights as a whole to the states, as it might have done through the Privileges and ImmunitiesClause, the Supreme Court has gradually applied selected elements of the first ten amendments to the states through theDue Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This process, known as selective incorporation, began in earnest in the1920s. In Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 45 S. Ct. 625, 69 L. Ed. 1138 (1925), one of the earliest examples of the use ofthe incorporation doctrine, the Court held that the First Amendment protection of freedom of speech applied to the statesthrough the Due Process Clause. By the late 1940s, many civil freedoms, including freedom of the press (Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 51 S. Ct. 625, 75 L. Ed. 1357 [1931]), had been incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment, ashad many of the rights that applied to defendants in criminal cases, including the right to representation by counsel in capitalcases (Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 53 S. Ct. 55, 77 L. Ed. 158 [1931]). In 1937, the Court decided that some of theprivileges and immunities of the Bill of Rights were so fundamental that states were required to abide by them through theDue Process Clause (_Palko v. Connecticut_, 302 U.S. 319, 58 S. Ct. 149, 82 L. Ed. 288).
> ...}
> 
> Incorporation (Bill of Rights)
> 
> So I agree that in 2010 the SCOTUS ruling of McDonald vs Chicago started the process of gun rights being individual and not collective.
> But that is not the same as saying the 2nd amendment was intended to prevent any state or local regulations, as it clearly was saying all federal weapons legislation was barred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the  summary from MCD V Chi.
> 
> _The Court did not rule on the constitutionality of the gun ban, deciding instead to reverse and remand the case for additional proceedings. However, the courts decision on the 2nd Amendment makes it clear that such bans are unconstitutional. But, as it held in Heller, the Court reiterated in McDonald that the 2nd Amendment only protects a right to possess a firearm in the home for lawful uses such as self-defense. It stressed that some firearm regulation is constitutionally permissible and the 2nd Amendment right to possess firearms is not unlimited. It does not guarantee a right to possess any firearm, anywhere, and for any purpose. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree that the right to possess a firearm is not unlimited and that some regulation can be acceptable.
> But clearly the whole point of the 2nd amendment is to ban all federal weapons jurisdiction, and the SCOTUS has incorrectly failed to recognize that obvious fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About the only place it's banned is under the 1934 Firearms act and that was under interstate Public Safety.  I agree, it might have been considered overboard in the Brady Act but if it was done under the 1934 Firearms Act,, it wouldn't have been.  Instead, they passed it  on it's own.  But they put a time limit on the law which ran out.  It has been upheld in courts that it's perfectly legal for local and state to outright ban the ARs as long as they specifically name the AR-15 and it's clones by direct name.  Just calling it an assault rifle with a generic description  was found unconstitutional as it also described a lot of  other semi auto rifles including the Model 60 22LR Semi Auto which is the most sold rifle in the history of firearms.  Sorry, AR fans,  you come in as #2.
> 
> Case in point.  Trump just issued an Executive Order banning Bump Stocks.  If he tried to do as a stand alone, he  would need to have Congress amend the Constitution and we all know that just ain't gonna happen.  Instead, he put it under  the 1934 Firearms Act which is under Interstate Public Safety.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh come on, there is no ability to make firearms laws under the interstate commerce clause, because the 10th amendment says only areas specifically granted to the federal government in the Constitution are under federal jurisdiction.
> These is nothing related to legal federal jurisdiction like interstate commerce in the 1934 Firearms Act, and it is completely illegal, in my opinion.
> 
> {...
> The impetus for the National Firearms Act of 1934 was the gangland crime of the Prohibition era, such as the St. Valentine's Day Massacreof 1929, and the attempted assassination of President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933.[2][3]:824[4][5] Like the current National Firearms Act (NFA), the 1934 Act required NFA firearms to be registered and taxed. The $200 tax was quite prohibitive at the time (equivalent to $3,746 in 2018). With a few exceptions, the tax amount is unchanged.[4][5]
> 
> Originally, pistols and revolvers were to be regulated as strictly as machine guns; towards that end, cutting down a rifle or shotgun to circumvent the handgun restrictions by making a concealable weapon was taxed as strictly as a machine gun.[6]
> 
> Conventional pistols and revolvers were ultimately excluded from the Act before passage, but other concealable weapons were not.[6] Regarding the definition of "firearm," the language of the statute as originally enacted was as follows:
> 
> The term "firearm" means a shotgun or rifle having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length, or any other weapon, except a pistol or revolver, from which a shot is discharged by an explosive if such weapon is capable of being concealed on the person, or a machine gun, and includes a muffler or silencer for any firearm whether or not such firearm is included within the foregoing definition.[7]
> Under the original Act, NFA weapons were machine guns, short-barreled rifles (SBR), short-barreled shotguns (SBS), any other weapons (AOW or concealable weapons other than pistols or revolvers), and silencers for any type of NFA or non-NFA. Minimum barrel length was soon amended to 16 inches for rimfire rifles and by 1960 had been amended to 16 inches for centerfire rifles as well.
> ...}
> 
> In particular, the law was totally and completely wrong to bar short barreled rifles and shotguns.
> They are traditional for defensive coach guns and snake protection.  Clearly exceeding any government authority.
Click to expand...


All the weapons had military uses except for the sawed off shotgun which had NO military uses.  And that was a Supreme Court decision on the sawed off shotgun.  Even today, the only ones that use a sawed off shotgun are criminals.  I really can't think of any other uses other than maiming.  They rarely kill but seriously maim the target badly.  As for snake protection, I can see you never shot a Rattler before.  I have. It's hard to miss.  I won't tell you why. I'll let you wonder about it.  I can kill a snake just as easy with an subsonic bullet no matter what the caliber.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rigby5 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yah, but you won't like it or accept any of them.  But here goes. Please read them.
> 
> Most Guns in Chicago Crimes Come From Out of State: Report
> 
> Gun Laws Stop At State Lines, But Guns Don’t
> 
> And let's look at  the frustration involved by the law enforcement.
> Why (Almost) No One Is Charged With Gun Trafficking in Illinois — ProPublica
> 
> over 60% of the illegal guns recovered from felons in Chicago came from illegal transporting of guns from out of state.  Until last year, over half of those came from Illinois.  Illinois closed their own laws.  Before 2013, Colorado was on the illegal gun export list until it tightened up it's background checks.  Now, all the illegal guns coming in from out of state to Chicago come from the Red States with the laxest gun laws with the background check requirements you can run a fully loaded 1 ton van through and often do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except you are forgetting that those IL gun laws are now illegal, and they were always inherently in violation of individual rights, so never should have been legal, and there was never any use for any federal laws.
> 
> Guns never are the cause of crime, and any gun law likely is either incredibly stupid or criminal in intent itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illinois became one more state that requires all guns sales to go through a background check in 2018.  The Gun Runners won't go to any state with a universal background check.  That would give the feds and the state of Illinois the proof they need to enact their illegal  gun running laws.  Yes, Martha,, it''s illegal to run guns like this but with no paper trail it's hard to prove and convict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I clearly is illegal to attempt to make all sales of anything go through a background check and then not conduct background checks for everyone at a reasonable free.  It creates an illegal monopoly for FFLs.
> It violates the ability of people to give or loan weapons for immediate protection.
> It makes what was once legal, no longer legal, without any valid need.
> It is one more reason for validating insurrection, not a reason for allowing federal firearms laws.
> There can be none, since the 2nd amendment is firmly part of the Bill of Rights and prohibits any and all federal weapons jurisdiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The FFL just types the information in and temporarily stores the form. No Database is created at any level.   He's paid 7 bucks for his time.  You want him to work for nothing? You saying that you support Indentured Servitude?   Be just a little bit fair on this one.  And the courts agree with me.  The State can require all gun sales to receive background checks.  Nothing illegal about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is the feds who should pay the FFL, or allow everyone to make the call instead.
> The last time they charged me $30, not $7.
> I have never heard of anyone only paying $7.
Click to expand...


In the state I am in, it's 7 bucks.  I suggest you take it up with your State Legislature and Governor.  It's not the Feds that have the requirement.  That would be against the law.  It's the States that have that option.  And 30 bucks in more than a bit high for 5 minutes of typing on a keyboard and printing out a form.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

God....DAMMIT, I love being a member of the gun cult.

Machine guns, motherfuckers!


----------



## Lesh

And here you are pointing out that in every decision prior to Heller...the SC has ruled on the Constitutional protection of guns in relation to their use in a militia


----------



## emilynghiem

Lakhota said:


> *NRA RUNNING LOW ON AMMO?*
> 
> 2018 Was A Bad Year For The NRA, And The Worst Could Be Yet To Come
> 
> Fuck the NRA.  It was once a good outfit until hijacked by radicals in 1977.


Dear Lakhota 
I guess the Craziness of the Fundies taking over
runs Proportional to the same going on with the Democrats using 
the gun issue for political hype as well.
The Crazier one group gets, the Crazier the other.

At some point, people might realize the Hype cancels out on both sides.
What is left are just the real problems and solutions:
1. How to deal with mental illness where PTSD or criminally abusive
sick people get help in time instead of getting hold of weapons first.
2. Where citizens learn the difference between accepting equal
responsibility for knowledge and enforcement of laws INSTEAD
of relying on police and govt to handle all of that power "for us."

We address these two issues, then we take back control of gun policy and responsibility,
NOT THE OTHER WAY. We don't let the Hype in politics and media control our sense of security.

Some day soon we'll figure this out.
Not to rely on political hype and "external" focus or third parties.
But we the people take back control ourselves, then we can no longer be
manipulated by fears. Stoked either by Democratic party hype or NRA hype.


----------



## emilynghiem

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> God....DAMMIT, I love being a member of the gun cult.
> 
> Machine guns, motherfuckers!



Maybe it's cruel or unfair to laugh at other people's fears
(when these are as real as the fear of illegal immigrants committing
crimes that the left doesn't think is a real threat either and love to mock that as well).

Bootney Lee Farnsworth
You remind me of my old Eddie Murphy comedy tape where
he is reenacting kids poking a stick at a "dead bird" and using
that to scare the girls. "Dead bird! Gonna put it on youuuuu!, put in on youuuuu"
"STOOOOOOOPPP!!!!!!!"

And he says, it doesn't even have to be the actual dead bird.
Just a stick or piece of cloth that has TOUCHED the bird and....
"ARRHHH!  STOOOOOOOPPPPPPPPP!!!!!!"

Well just mentioning or showing pictures of a gun, just
students making a gun signal with their hands, anything
that like and the "fear" of gun violence is stoked.

We may think this is funny, but when the shoe is on the other
foot, it causes outrage. For the left to make fun of photos of an
aborted fetus on a protest, and mock the prolife issue that is murder to
people who believe in life that deeply. 

When will get that this is mutual, and just because we don't
get it what the fear and upset is about, doesn't mean the rights
and beliefs of the other people don't count as real?


----------



## Polishprince

Lakhota said:


> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
Click to expand...



I'm not a legal expert or a credentialed constitutional scholar.      However, regardless of how you want to spin the Bill of Rights to justify your extremist position, the FACT is that having millions of law abiders walking around with handguns and long guns is great as it leads to more order.    Bad actors know not to try and stick someone up, because their octogenarian victim might turn the tables on them and give them an express ticket to Judgment Day.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Lesh said:


> And here you are pointing out that in every decision prior to Heller...the SC has ruled on the Constitutional protection of guns in relation to their use in a militia



According to the 2nd amendment, they have no choice as long as it's an Organized Militia.  Unorganized Militia is just a made up term.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Polishprince said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a legal expert or a credentialed constitutional scholar.      However, regardless of how you want to spin the Bill of Rights to justify your extremist position, the FACT is that having millions of law abiders walking around with handguns and long guns is great as it leads to more order.    Bad actors know not to try and stick someone up, because their octogenarian victim might turn the tables on them and give them an express ticket to Judgment Day.
Click to expand...


Let's take a look at the 2nd amendment line by line.

_*A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,*_

This means that the well regulated Militia is formed by the state to guard against the forming of the tyranny of the Federal Government.  The problem with this is, as late as 1898, Governors were using their Organized Militia as bully boys to support their Rich Cronies business ventures.  In 1898, that happened here.   And throughout the history this was done over and over.  The intent was good but the application was often times not.  But that doesn't change a thing.  The intent was the same for the original formation.  But due to the Spanish American War, the first part of the National Guard Act was passed but no one really took it seriously.  It was tightened up a bit more in 1908.  But due to the War Department finally coming to the realization that the original 75,000 strong Army could no longer apply ever again, the law of the National Guard Act of 1917 was passed and it still stands today.  All of a sudden, the States had no Organized Militia anymore.  And even if they did form a separate State Militia (the name was changed to SDF to get around the new Militia laws) the State could not afford to equip and train their SDF people to the level that the Feds could the National Guard or the Regulars.  The intent of the first line of the second amendment became lost.  The Feds did take control of it but it was gleefully relinquished by each and every state.  The States could have blocked it just by standing together.  But with WWI coming on the States were scared shitless.  The clause was telling the Feds what they could not do but the States allowed it to happen anyway.

_*the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
*_
People break these two apart.  We shouldn't.  It's really all one thought.  The Rights of the People (or the State) to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.  The Federals cannot infringe on the rights of the State when it comes to firearms.  Yes, according to this even the 1934 Firearms Act might be deemed illegal unless it's done under the guise of Public Safety and not under Gun Control which is something entirely different.  That should be up for debate at state levels, not Federal Levels.  I doubt if the Feds could legally do anything to a State that decides to disregard the 1934 Firearms act in the Supreme Court or any Federal Court unless they can prove that the original intent of the Firearms act was Public Safety.  It might be an interesting case.  Certainly much more deserving than what is usually tried to argue lately on firearms.  The second half of the 2nd amendment is telling the Feds that they cannot infringe on the States Firearms Rights and this includes all people in the State.  

While the first half is out of date, the second half is not and stands as it is written.  And it must be taken in it's intended purpose by our Founding Fathers and the Bill of Rights.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Polishprince said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a legal expert or a credentialed constitutional scholar.      However, regardless of how you want to spin the Bill of Rights to justify your extremist position, the FACT is that having millions of law abiders walking around with handguns and long guns is great as it leads to more order.    Bad actors know not to try and stick someone up, because their octogenarian victim might turn the tables on them and give them an express ticket to Judgment Day.
Click to expand...


You need to learn from history.  Bad Actors like John Wesley Harding, right?


----------



## danielpalos

States should be organizing more militia, not grabbing guns.


----------



## Lesh

Daryl Hunt said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a legal expert or a credentialed constitutional scholar.      However, regardless of how you want to spin the Bill of Rights to justify your extremist position, the FACT is that having millions of law abiders walking around with handguns and long guns is great as it leads to more order.    Bad actors know not to try and stick someone up, because their octogenarian victim might turn the tables on them and give them an express ticket to Judgment Day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's take a look at the 2nd amendment line by line.
> 
> _*A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,*_
> 
> This means that the well regulated Militia is formed by the state to guard against the forming of the tyranny of the Federal Government.  The problem with this is, as late as 1898, Governors were using their Organized Militia as bully boys to support their Rich Cronies business ventures.  In 1898, that happened here.   And throughout the history this was done over and over.  The intent was good but the application was often times not.  But that doesn't change a thing.  The intent was the same for the original formation.  But due to the Spanish American War, the first part of the National Guard Act was passed but no one really took it seriously.  It was tightened up a bit more in 1908.  But due to the War Department finally coming to the realization that the original 75,000 strong Army could no longer apply ever again, the law of the National Guard Act of 1917 was passed and it still stands today.  All of a sudden, the States had no Organized Militia anymore.  And even if they did form a separate State Militia (the name was changed to SDF to get around the new Militia laws) the State could not afford to equip and train their SDF people to the level that the Feds could the National Guard or the Regulars.  The intent of the first line of the second amendment became lost.  The Feds did take control of it but it was gleefully relinquished by each and every state.  The States could have blocked it just by standing together.  But with WWI coming on the States were scared shitless.  The clause was telling the Feds what they could not do but the States allowed it to happen anyway.
> 
> _*the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> *_
> People break these two apart.  We shouldn't.  It's really all one thought.  The Rights of the People (or the State) to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.  The Federals cannot infringe on the rights of the State when it comes to firearms.  Yes, according to this even the 1934 Firearms Act might be deemed illegal unless it's done under the guise of Public Safety and not under Gun Control which is something entirely different.  That should be up for debate at state levels, not Federal Levels.  I doubt if the Feds could legally do anything to a State that decides to disregard the 1934 Firearms act in the Supreme Court or any Federal Court unless they can prove that the original intent of the Firearms act was Public Safety.  It might be an interesting case.  Certainly much more deserving than what is usually tried to argue lately on firearms.  The second half of the 2nd amendment is telling the Feds that they cannot infringe on the States Firearms Rights and this includes all people in the State.
> 
> While the first half is out of date, the second half is not and stands as it is written.  And it must be taken in it's intended purpose by our Founding Fathers and the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...

I won't bother taking all that nonsense apart. I'll simply point this out

"This means that the well regulated Militia is formed by the state to guard against the forming of the tyranny of the Federal Government.  The problem with this is, as late as 1898, Governors were using their Organized Militia as bully boys to support their Rich Cronies business ventures.  In 1898, that happened here. " 

So the Constitution gives as one of the purposes and duties of a "Well Regulated Militia" that of putting DOWN insurrections...you acknowledge this and point out several contemporaneous uses (Shay's and the Whiskey Rebellion). But somehow this means the opposite of what it says and how it was used?

You really need to go sit in the corner


----------



## Daryl Hunt

danielpalos said:


> States should be organizing more militia, not grabbing guns.



Wow, what a blanket statement.  You should make a bumper sticker out of it.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Lesh said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a legal expert or a credentialed constitutional scholar.      However, regardless of how you want to spin the Bill of Rights to justify your extremist position, the FACT is that having millions of law abiders walking around with handguns and long guns is great as it leads to more order.    Bad actors know not to try and stick someone up, because their octogenarian victim might turn the tables on them and give them an express ticket to Judgment Day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's take a look at the 2nd amendment line by line.
> 
> _*A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,*_
> 
> This means that the well regulated Militia is formed by the state to guard against the forming of the tyranny of the Federal Government.  The problem with this is, as late as 1898, Governors were using their Organized Militia as bully boys to support their Rich Cronies business ventures.  In 1898, that happened here.   And throughout the history this was done over and over.  The intent was good but the application was often times not.  But that doesn't change a thing.  The intent was the same for the original formation.  But due to the Spanish American War, the first part of the National Guard Act was passed but no one really took it seriously.  It was tightened up a bit more in 1908.  But due to the War Department finally coming to the realization that the original 75,000 strong Army could no longer apply ever again, the law of the National Guard Act of 1917 was passed and it still stands today.  All of a sudden, the States had no Organized Militia anymore.  And even if they did form a separate State Militia (the name was changed to SDF to get around the new Militia laws) the State could not afford to equip and train their SDF people to the level that the Feds could the National Guard or the Regulars.  The intent of the first line of the second amendment became lost.  The Feds did take control of it but it was gleefully relinquished by each and every state.  The States could have blocked it just by standing together.  But with WWI coming on the States were scared shitless.  The clause was telling the Feds what they could not do but the States allowed it to happen anyway.
> 
> _*the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> *_
> People break these two apart.  We shouldn't.  It's really all one thought.  The Rights of the People (or the State) to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.  The Federals cannot infringe on the rights of the State when it comes to firearms.  Yes, according to this even the 1934 Firearms Act might be deemed illegal unless it's done under the guise of Public Safety and not under Gun Control which is something entirely different.  That should be up for debate at state levels, not Federal Levels.  I doubt if the Feds could legally do anything to a State that decides to disregard the 1934 Firearms act in the Supreme Court or any Federal Court unless they can prove that the original intent of the Firearms act was Public Safety.  It might be an interesting case.  Certainly much more deserving than what is usually tried to argue lately on firearms.  The second half of the 2nd amendment is telling the Feds that they cannot infringe on the States Firearms Rights and this includes all people in the State.
> 
> While the first half is out of date, the second half is not and stands as it is written.  And it must be taken in it's intended purpose by our Founding Fathers and the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I won't bother taking all that nonsense apart. I'll simply point this out
> 
> "This means that the well regulated Militia is formed by the state to guard against the forming of the tyranny of the Federal Government.  The problem with this is, as late as 1898, Governors were using their Organized Militia as bully boys to support their Rich Cronies business ventures.  In 1898, that happened here. "
> 
> So the Constitution gives as one of the purposes and duties of a "Well Regulated Militia" that of putting DOWN insurrections...you acknowledge this and point out several contemporaneous uses (Shay's and the Whiskey Rebellion). But somehow this means the opposite of what it says and how it was used?
> 
> You really need to go sit in the corner
Click to expand...


Ah, history sure does get in the way or your own "Reality" doesn't it.  While you believe you can't change your "Reality" it's history that we can't changed.  It happened, get over it.


----------



## Lesh

Daryl Hunt said:


> Ah, history sure does get in the way or your own "Reality" doesn't it. While you believe you can't change your "Reality" it's history that we can't changed. It happened, get over it.



History points out how WRONG you are.

The militia WAS used to put down insurrections ...several times in fact...within years of the writing of the Constitution where it gave that as one of its purposes


----------



## Rigby5

Daryl Hunt said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a legal expert or a credentialed constitutional scholar.      However, regardless of how you want to spin the Bill of Rights to justify your extremist position, the FACT is that having millions of law abiders walking around with handguns and long guns is great as it leads to more order.    Bad actors know not to try and stick someone up, because their octogenarian victim might turn the tables on them and give them an express ticket to Judgment Day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's take a look at the 2nd amendment line by line.
> 
> _*A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,*_
> 
> This means that the well regulated Militia is formed by the state to guard against the forming of the tyranny of the Federal Government.  The problem with this is, as late as 1898, Governors were using their Organized Militia as bully boys to support their Rich Cronies business ventures.  In 1898, that happened here.   And throughout the history this was done over and over.  The intent was good but the application was often times not.  But that doesn't change a thing.  The intent was the same for the original formation.  But due to the Spanish American War, the first part of the National Guard Act was passed but no one really took it seriously.  It was tightened up a bit more in 1908.  But due to the War Department finally coming to the realization that the original 75,000 strong Army could no longer apply ever again, the law of the National Guard Act of 1917 was passed and it still stands today.  All of a sudden, the States had no Organized Militia anymore.  And even if they did form a separate State Militia (the name was changed to SDF to get around the new Militia laws) the State could not afford to equip and train their SDF people to the level that the Feds could the National Guard or the Regulars.  The intent of the first line of the second amendment became lost.  The Feds did take control of it but it was gleefully relinquished by each and every state.  The States could have blocked it just by standing together.  But with WWI coming on the States were scared shitless.  The clause was telling the Feds what they could not do but the States allowed it to happen anyway.
> 
> _*the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> *_
> People break these two apart.  We shouldn't.  It's really all one thought.  The Rights of the People (or the State) to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.  The Federals cannot infringe on the rights of the State when it comes to firearms.  Yes, according to this even the 1934 Firearms Act might be deemed illegal unless it's done under the guise of Public Safety and not under Gun Control which is something entirely different.  That should be up for debate at state levels, not Federal Levels.  I doubt if the Feds could legally do anything to a State that decides to disregard the 1934 Firearms act in the Supreme Court or any Federal Court unless they can prove that the original intent of the Firearms act was Public Safety.  It might be an interesting case.  Certainly much more deserving than what is usually tried to argue lately on firearms.  The second half of the 2nd amendment is telling the Feds that they cannot infringe on the States Firearms Rights and this includes all people in the State.
> 
> While the first half is out of date, the second half is not and stands as it is written.  And it must be taken in it's intended purpose by our Founding Fathers and the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...


First of all, it says the fight of the "PEOPLE" to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, not state militias.
That is because the US constitution did not have the authority to divide up rights or jurisdiction between states and individuals.
ALL the US constitution can do is establish the authority specifically delegated or denied to the federal government.
For the question of states vs individuals, you have to look at each state constitution.

The first half is not at all out of date, because while we now have police the founders did not, police still can't protect individuals because their response time is way too long.  The militia is the shotgun over the mantel, and is still essential.  It will always be essential.

And yes you can break the phrases apart.
That is because when one reason is given for something, that does not at all mean that is the only reason.


----------



## Rigby5

Daryl Hunt said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a legal expert or a credentialed constitutional scholar.      However, regardless of how you want to spin the Bill of Rights to justify your extremist position, the FACT is that having millions of law abiders walking around with handguns and long guns is great as it leads to more order.    Bad actors know not to try and stick someone up, because their octogenarian victim might turn the tables on them and give them an express ticket to Judgment Day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to learn from history.  Bad Actors like John Wesley Harding, right?
Click to expand...


As for John Wesley Harding:

{...
 He was well known for wildly exaggerating or completely making up stories about his life. He claimed credit for many murders that cannot be corroborated.[4]:10–11

Within a year of his release in 1894, Hardin was killed by John Selman in an El Paso saloon.
...}

So he was taken care of by armed civilians, not the government.


----------



## Rigby5

Lesh said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a legal expert or a credentialed constitutional scholar.      However, regardless of how you want to spin the Bill of Rights to justify your extremist position, the FACT is that having millions of law abiders walking around with handguns and long guns is great as it leads to more order.    Bad actors know not to try and stick someone up, because their octogenarian victim might turn the tables on them and give them an express ticket to Judgment Day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's take a look at the 2nd amendment line by line.
> 
> _*A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,*_
> 
> This means that the well regulated Militia is formed by the state to guard against the forming of the tyranny of the Federal Government.  The problem with this is, as late as 1898, Governors were using their Organized Militia as bully boys to support their Rich Cronies business ventures.  In 1898, that happened here.   And throughout the history this was done over and over.  The intent was good but the application was often times not.  But that doesn't change a thing.  The intent was the same for the original formation.  But due to the Spanish American War, the first part of the National Guard Act was passed but no one really took it seriously.  It was tightened up a bit more in 1908.  But due to the War Department finally coming to the realization that the original 75,000 strong Army could no longer apply ever again, the law of the National Guard Act of 1917 was passed and it still stands today.  All of a sudden, the States had no Organized Militia anymore.  And even if they did form a separate State Militia (the name was changed to SDF to get around the new Militia laws) the State could not afford to equip and train their SDF people to the level that the Feds could the National Guard or the Regulars.  The intent of the first line of the second amendment became lost.  The Feds did take control of it but it was gleefully relinquished by each and every state.  The States could have blocked it just by standing together.  But with WWI coming on the States were scared shitless.  The clause was telling the Feds what they could not do but the States allowed it to happen anyway.
> 
> _*the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> *_
> People break these two apart.  We shouldn't.  It's really all one thought.  The Rights of the People (or the State) to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.  The Federals cannot infringe on the rights of the State when it comes to firearms.  Yes, according to this even the 1934 Firearms Act might be deemed illegal unless it's done under the guise of Public Safety and not under Gun Control which is something entirely different.  That should be up for debate at state levels, not Federal Levels.  I doubt if the Feds could legally do anything to a State that decides to disregard the 1934 Firearms act in the Supreme Court or any Federal Court unless they can prove that the original intent of the Firearms act was Public Safety.  It might be an interesting case.  Certainly much more deserving than what is usually tried to argue lately on firearms.  The second half of the 2nd amendment is telling the Feds that they cannot infringe on the States Firearms Rights and this includes all people in the State.
> 
> While the first half is out of date, the second half is not and stands as it is written.  And it must be taken in it's intended purpose by our Founding Fathers and the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I won't bother taking all that nonsense apart. I'll simply point this out
> 
> "This means that the well regulated Militia is formed by the state to guard against the forming of the tyranny of the Federal Government.  The problem with this is, as late as 1898, Governors were using their Organized Militia as bully boys to support their Rich Cronies business ventures.  In 1898, that happened here. "
> 
> So the Constitution gives as one of the purposes and duties of a "Well Regulated Militia" that of putting DOWN insurrections...you acknowledge this and point out several contemporaneous uses (Shay's and the Whiskey Rebellion). But somehow this means the opposite of what it says and how it was used?
> 
> You really need to go sit in the corner
Click to expand...



The constitution does not at all detail the purpose, need, etc., of militias.
ALL the federal constitution would have jurisdiction over or need to point out would be the rare emergency when the federal government would need and be able to draw on the militias.
That is NOT at all the main point of the militias.
And being able to put down immoral insurrections does not at all imply all insurrections are immoral or should be put down.
Clearly the founders implemented a good insurrection and were VERY fond of the ability to commit insurrections.
They would NEVER have at all implied anything that would prevent needed insurrections, and in fact verbally and in writing said they though insurrections would likely be necessary on a semi regular basis.

And NO, militias are NOT formed by the states alone.  They are individual, local, and state.  Most militias were private.
Clearly the 2nd amendment implies it is the PEOPLE themselves who form well regulated militias, not states.


----------



## Rigby5

Lesh said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, history sure does get in the way or your own "Reality" doesn't it. While you believe you can't change your "Reality" it's history that we can't changed. It happened, get over it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> History points out how WRONG you are.
> 
> The militia WAS used to put down insurrections ...several times in fact...within years of the writing of the Constitution where it gave that as one of its purposes
Click to expand...


Wrong.  

If the well regulated militia was for the use by the federal government, then there would not have been a 2nd amendment in the Bill of Rights, which is entirely restrictions on federal jurisdiction.
You are claiming the 2nd amendment was to prevent the federal government from disarming its own militia forces.
That is insane.

Obviously there were no police back then, local, state, or federal, so the militia was protection on individual, local, state, and federal levels.
With federal being the least commonly necessary.
You seem to be pretending the least common need is the only need.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Lesh said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, history sure does get in the way or your own "Reality" doesn't it. While you believe you can't change your "Reality" it's history that we can't changed. It happened, get over it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> History points out how WRONG you are.
> 
> The militia WAS used to put down insurrections ...several times in fact...within years of the writing of the Constitution where it gave that as one of its purposes
Click to expand...


And it  was also used to break strikes for the Governors rich buddies as well even more and more recent than the last insurection.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rigby5 said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a legal expert or a credentialed constitutional scholar.      However, regardless of how you want to spin the Bill of Rights to justify your extremist position, the FACT is that having millions of law abiders walking around with handguns and long guns is great as it leads to more order.    Bad actors know not to try and stick someone up, because their octogenarian victim might turn the tables on them and give them an express ticket to Judgment Day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's take a look at the 2nd amendment line by line.
> 
> _*A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,*_
> 
> This means that the well regulated Militia is formed by the state to guard against the forming of the tyranny of the Federal Government.  The problem with this is, as late as 1898, Governors were using their Organized Militia as bully boys to support their Rich Cronies business ventures.  In 1898, that happened here.   And throughout the history this was done over and over.  The intent was good but the application was often times not.  But that doesn't change a thing.  The intent was the same for the original formation.  But due to the Spanish American War, the first part of the National Guard Act was passed but no one really took it seriously.  It was tightened up a bit more in 1908.  But due to the War Department finally coming to the realization that the original 75,000 strong Army could no longer apply ever again, the law of the National Guard Act of 1917 was passed and it still stands today.  All of a sudden, the States had no Organized Militia anymore.  And even if they did form a separate State Militia (the name was changed to SDF to get around the new Militia laws) the State could not afford to equip and train their SDF people to the level that the Feds could the National Guard or the Regulars.  The intent of the first line of the second amendment became lost.  The Feds did take control of it but it was gleefully relinquished by each and every state.  The States could have blocked it just by standing together.  But with WWI coming on the States were scared shitless.  The clause was telling the Feds what they could not do but the States allowed it to happen anyway.
> 
> _*the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> *_
> People break these two apart.  We shouldn't.  It's really all one thought.  The Rights of the People (or the State) to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.  The Federals cannot infringe on the rights of the State when it comes to firearms.  Yes, according to this even the 1934 Firearms Act might be deemed illegal unless it's done under the guise of Public Safety and not under Gun Control which is something entirely different.  That should be up for debate at state levels, not Federal Levels.  I doubt if the Feds could legally do anything to a State that decides to disregard the 1934 Firearms act in the Supreme Court or any Federal Court unless they can prove that the original intent of the Firearms act was Public Safety.  It might be an interesting case.  Certainly much more deserving than what is usually tried to argue lately on firearms.  The second half of the 2nd amendment is telling the Feds that they cannot infringe on the States Firearms Rights and this includes all people in the State.
> 
> While the first half is out of date, the second half is not and stands as it is written.  And it must be taken in it's intended purpose by our Founding Fathers and the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I won't bother taking all that nonsense apart. I'll simply point this out
> 
> "This means that the well regulated Militia is formed by the state to guard against the forming of the tyranny of the Federal Government.  The problem with this is, as late as 1898, Governors were using their Organized Militia as bully boys to support their Rich Cronies business ventures.  In 1898, that happened here. "
> 
> So the Constitution gives as one of the purposes and duties of a "Well Regulated Militia" that of putting DOWN insurrections...you acknowledge this and point out several contemporaneous uses (Shay's and the Whiskey Rebellion). But somehow this means the opposite of what it says and how it was used?
> 
> You really need to go sit in the corner
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution does not at all detail the purpose, need, etc., of militias.
> ALL the federal constitution would have jurisdiction over or need to point out would be the rare emergency when the federal government would need and be able to draw on the militias.
> That is NOT at all the main point of the militias.
> And being able to put down immoral insurrections does not at all imply all insurrections are immoral or should be put down.
> Clearly the founders implemented a good insurrection and were VERY fond of the ability to commit insurrections.
> They would NEVER have at all implied anything that would prevent needed insurrections, and in fact verbally and in writing said they though insurrections would likely be necessary on a semi regular basis.
> 
> And NO, militias are NOT formed by the states alone.  They are individual, local, and state.  Most militias were private.
> Clearly the 2nd amendment implies it is the PEOPLE themselves who form well regulated militias, not states.
Click to expand...


The original intent was for the State to control the Militias and the total of all of the Militias to outnumber the total number of Federal Troops allowed by law.  Each state did not have to have a larger number but the combined number of all the states had to be a larger number than the legal Federal troops.  The Federal Troops were limited to 75,000 for many decades.  With the Indian Wars taking up so many of that Federal Total, this gave the Confederates a decided advantage at first.  Had it not been for the States Militias being called up, the Confederates would have marched in and taken DC.  In those days, it was traditional when you took the other guys capital city the war ended much like taking Richmond ended the Civil War the other direction.  

When the 2nd amendment reads Organized Militia, by tradition and wordage, it means the State Controlled Militia not a bunch of dudes wearing pickle suits and waving a bunch of guns while running around the woods.


----------



## Rustic

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a legal expert or a credentialed constitutional scholar.      However, regardless of how you want to spin the Bill of Rights to justify your extremist position, the FACT is that having millions of law abiders walking around with handguns and long guns is great as it leads to more order.    Bad actors know not to try and stick someone up, because their octogenarian victim might turn the tables on them and give them an express ticket to Judgment Day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's take a look at the 2nd amendment line by line.
> 
> _*A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,*_
> 
> This means that the well regulated Militia is formed by the state to guard against the forming of the tyranny of the Federal Government.  The problem with this is, as late as 1898, Governors were using their Organized Militia as bully boys to support their Rich Cronies business ventures.  In 1898, that happened here.   And throughout the history this was done over and over.  The intent was good but the application was often times not.  But that doesn't change a thing.  The intent was the same for the original formation.  But due to the Spanish American War, the first part of the National Guard Act was passed but no one really took it seriously.  It was tightened up a bit more in 1908.  But due to the War Department finally coming to the realization that the original 75,000 strong Army could no longer apply ever again, the law of the National Guard Act of 1917 was passed and it still stands today.  All of a sudden, the States had no Organized Militia anymore.  And even if they did form a separate State Militia (the name was changed to SDF to get around the new Militia laws) the State could not afford to equip and train their SDF people to the level that the Feds could the National Guard or the Regulars.  The intent of the first line of the second amendment became lost.  The Feds did take control of it but it was gleefully relinquished by each and every state.  The States could have blocked it just by standing together.  But with WWI coming on the States were scared shitless.  The clause was telling the Feds what they could not do but the States allowed it to happen anyway.
> 
> _*the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> *_
> People break these two apart.  We shouldn't.  It's really all one thought.  The Rights of the People (or the State) to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.  The Federals cannot infringe on the rights of the State when it comes to firearms.  Yes, according to this even the 1934 Firearms Act might be deemed illegal unless it's done under the guise of Public Safety and not under Gun Control which is something entirely different.  That should be up for debate at state levels, not Federal Levels.  I doubt if the Feds could legally do anything to a State that decides to disregard the 1934 Firearms act in the Supreme Court or any Federal Court unless they can prove that the original intent of the Firearms act was Public Safety.  It might be an interesting case.  Certainly much more deserving than what is usually tried to argue lately on firearms.  The second half of the 2nd amendment is telling the Feds that they cannot infringe on the States Firearms Rights and this includes all people in the State.
> 
> While the first half is out of date, the second half is not and stands as it is written.  And it must be taken in it's intended purpose by our Founding Fathers and the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I won't bother taking all that nonsense apart. I'll simply point this out
> 
> "This means that the well regulated Militia is formed by the state to guard against the forming of the tyranny of the Federal Government.  The problem with this is, as late as 1898, Governors were using their Organized Militia as bully boys to support their Rich Cronies business ventures.  In 1898, that happened here. "
> 
> So the Constitution gives as one of the purposes and duties of a "Well Regulated Militia" that of putting DOWN insurrections...you acknowledge this and point out several contemporaneous uses (Shay's and the Whiskey Rebellion). But somehow this means the opposite of what it says and how it was used?
> 
> You really need to go sit in the corner
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution does not at all detail the purpose, need, etc., of militias.
> ALL the federal constitution would have jurisdiction over or need to point out would be the rare emergency when the federal government would need and be able to draw on the militias.
> That is NOT at all the main point of the militias.
> And being able to put down immoral insurrections does not at all imply all insurrections are immoral or should be put down.
> Clearly the founders implemented a good insurrection and were VERY fond of the ability to commit insurrections.
> They would NEVER have at all implied anything that would prevent needed insurrections, and in fact verbally and in writing said they though insurrections would likely be necessary on a semi regular basis.
> 
> And NO, militias are NOT formed by the states alone.  They are individual, local, and state.  Most militias were private.
> Clearly the 2nd amendment implies it is the PEOPLE themselves who form well regulated militias, not states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The original intent was for the State to control the Militias and the total of all of the Militias to outnumber the total number of Federal Troops allowed by law.  Each state did not have to have a larger number but the combined number of all the states had to be a larger number than the legal Federal troops.  The Federal Troops were limited to 75,000 for many decades.  With the Indian Wars taking up so many of that Federal Total, this gave the Confederates a decided advantage at first.  Had it not been for the States Militias being called up, the Confederates would have marched in and taken DC.  In those days, it was traditional when you took the other guys capital city the war ended much like taking Richmond ended the Civil War the other direction.
> 
> When the 2nd amendment reads Organized Militia, by tradition and wordage, it means the State Controlled Militia not a bunch of dudes wearing pickle suits and waving a bunch of guns while running around the woods.
Click to expand...

You are not reading it in the context of the era


----------



## Polishprince

Daryl Hunt said:


> When the 2nd amendment reads Organized Militia, by tradition and wordage, it means the State Controlled Militia not a bunch of dudes wearing pickle suits and waving a bunch of guns while running around the woods.




That doesn't make a lot of sense.    So you're saying that before the Bill of Rights was passed, the government was afraid that they wouldn't be allowed to arm the military- so they asked for a constitutional amendment to guarantee that?

There has been no government in history which banned itself from being armed.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rigby5 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a legal expert or a credentialed constitutional scholar.      However, regardless of how you want to spin the Bill of Rights to justify your extremist position, the FACT is that having millions of law abiders walking around with handguns and long guns is great as it leads to more order.    Bad actors know not to try and stick someone up, because their octogenarian victim might turn the tables on them and give them an express ticket to Judgment Day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to learn from history.  Bad Actors like John Wesley Harding, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As for John Wesley Harding:
> 
> {...
> He was well known for wildly exaggerating or completely making up stories about his life. He claimed credit for many murders that cannot be corroborated.[4]:10–11
> 
> Within a year of his release in 1894, Hardin was killed by John Selman in an El Paso saloon.
> ...}
> 
> So he was taken care of by armed civilians, not the government.
Click to expand...


Yes, and this wanton killing is why Dallas had the no firearms in the city limit streets and businesses and would have tried and convicted him for murder under the same cirumstances.  Same goes more many other western towns.

Something can be said when there are too few guns in the innocents hands but there are volumes when there are too many.  Even today, in El Paso, you can't have a weapon in a Bar.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rustic said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a legal expert or a credentialed constitutional scholar.      However, regardless of how you want to spin the Bill of Rights to justify your extremist position, the FACT is that having millions of law abiders walking around with handguns and long guns is great as it leads to more order.    Bad actors know not to try and stick someone up, because their octogenarian victim might turn the tables on them and give them an express ticket to Judgment Day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's take a look at the 2nd amendment line by line.
> 
> _*A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,*_
> 
> This means that the well regulated Militia is formed by the state to guard against the forming of the tyranny of the Federal Government.  The problem with this is, as late as 1898, Governors were using their Organized Militia as bully boys to support their Rich Cronies business ventures.  In 1898, that happened here.   And throughout the history this was done over and over.  The intent was good but the application was often times not.  But that doesn't change a thing.  The intent was the same for the original formation.  But due to the Spanish American War, the first part of the National Guard Act was passed but no one really took it seriously.  It was tightened up a bit more in 1908.  But due to the War Department finally coming to the realization that the original 75,000 strong Army could no longer apply ever again, the law of the National Guard Act of 1917 was passed and it still stands today.  All of a sudden, the States had no Organized Militia anymore.  And even if they did form a separate State Militia (the name was changed to SDF to get around the new Militia laws) the State could not afford to equip and train their SDF people to the level that the Feds could the National Guard or the Regulars.  The intent of the first line of the second amendment became lost.  The Feds did take control of it but it was gleefully relinquished by each and every state.  The States could have blocked it just by standing together.  But with WWI coming on the States were scared shitless.  The clause was telling the Feds what they could not do but the States allowed it to happen anyway.
> 
> _*the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> *_
> People break these two apart.  We shouldn't.  It's really all one thought.  The Rights of the People (or the State) to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.  The Federals cannot infringe on the rights of the State when it comes to firearms.  Yes, according to this even the 1934 Firearms Act might be deemed illegal unless it's done under the guise of Public Safety and not under Gun Control which is something entirely different.  That should be up for debate at state levels, not Federal Levels.  I doubt if the Feds could legally do anything to a State that decides to disregard the 1934 Firearms act in the Supreme Court or any Federal Court unless they can prove that the original intent of the Firearms act was Public Safety.  It might be an interesting case.  Certainly much more deserving than what is usually tried to argue lately on firearms.  The second half of the 2nd amendment is telling the Feds that they cannot infringe on the States Firearms Rights and this includes all people in the State.
> 
> While the first half is out of date, the second half is not and stands as it is written.  And it must be taken in it's intended purpose by our Founding Fathers and the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I won't bother taking all that nonsense apart. I'll simply point this out
> 
> "This means that the well regulated Militia is formed by the state to guard against the forming of the tyranny of the Federal Government.  The problem with this is, as late as 1898, Governors were using their Organized Militia as bully boys to support their Rich Cronies business ventures.  In 1898, that happened here. "
> 
> So the Constitution gives as one of the purposes and duties of a "Well Regulated Militia" that of putting DOWN insurrections...you acknowledge this and point out several contemporaneous uses (Shay's and the Whiskey Rebellion). But somehow this means the opposite of what it says and how it was used?
> 
> You really need to go sit in the corner
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution does not at all detail the purpose, need, etc., of militias.
> ALL the federal constitution would have jurisdiction over or need to point out would be the rare emergency when the federal government would need and be able to draw on the militias.
> That is NOT at all the main point of the militias.
> And being able to put down immoral insurrections does not at all imply all insurrections are immoral or should be put down.
> Clearly the founders implemented a good insurrection and were VERY fond of the ability to commit insurrections.
> They would NEVER have at all implied anything that would prevent needed insurrections, and in fact verbally and in writing said they though insurrections would likely be necessary on a semi regular basis.
> 
> And NO, militias are NOT formed by the states alone.  They are individual, local, and state.  Most militias were private.
> Clearly the 2nd amendment implies it is the PEOPLE themselves who form well regulated militias, not states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The original intent was for the State to control the Militias and the total of all of the Militias to outnumber the total number of Federal Troops allowed by law.  Each state did not have to have a larger number but the combined number of all the states had to be a larger number than the legal Federal troops.  The Federal Troops were limited to 75,000 for many decades.  With the Indian Wars taking up so many of that Federal Total, this gave the Confederates a decided advantage at first.  Had it not been for the States Militias being called up, the Confederates would have marched in and taken DC.  In those days, it was traditional when you took the other guys capital city the war ended much like taking Richmond ended the Civil War the other direction.
> 
> When the 2nd amendment reads Organized Militia, by tradition and wordage, it means the State Controlled Militia not a bunch of dudes wearing pickle suits and waving a bunch of guns while running around the woods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are not reading it in the context of the era
Click to expand...


I am reading it EXACTLY in context for the Era.  The little private armies running around in the woods were never intended to try and overthrow the Governments.  The Protections in that context was left to the States, not the individual.  It still is.


----------



## Rustic

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's take a look at the 2nd amendment line by line.
> 
> _*A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,*_
> 
> This means that the well regulated Militia is formed by the state to guard against the forming of the tyranny of the Federal Government.  The problem with this is, as late as 1898, Governors were using their Organized Militia as bully boys to support their Rich Cronies business ventures.  In 1898, that happened here.   And throughout the history this was done over and over.  The intent was good but the application was often times not.  But that doesn't change a thing.  The intent was the same for the original formation.  But due to the Spanish American War, the first part of the National Guard Act was passed but no one really took it seriously.  It was tightened up a bit more in 1908.  But due to the War Department finally coming to the realization that the original 75,000 strong Army could no longer apply ever again, the law of the National Guard Act of 1917 was passed and it still stands today.  All of a sudden, the States had no Organized Militia anymore.  And even if they did form a separate State Militia (the name was changed to SDF to get around the new Militia laws) the State could not afford to equip and train their SDF people to the level that the Feds could the National Guard or the Regulars.  The intent of the first line of the second amendment became lost.  The Feds did take control of it but it was gleefully relinquished by each and every state.  The States could have blocked it just by standing together.  But with WWI coming on the States were scared shitless.  The clause was telling the Feds what they could not do but the States allowed it to happen anyway.
> 
> _*the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> *_
> People break these two apart.  We shouldn't.  It's really all one thought.  The Rights of the People (or the State) to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.  The Federals cannot infringe on the rights of the State when it comes to firearms.  Yes, according to this even the 1934 Firearms Act might be deemed illegal unless it's done under the guise of Public Safety and not under Gun Control which is something entirely different.  That should be up for debate at state levels, not Federal Levels.  I doubt if the Feds could legally do anything to a State that decides to disregard the 1934 Firearms act in the Supreme Court or any Federal Court unless they can prove that the original intent of the Firearms act was Public Safety.  It might be an interesting case.  Certainly much more deserving than what is usually tried to argue lately on firearms.  The second half of the 2nd amendment is telling the Feds that they cannot infringe on the States Firearms Rights and this includes all people in the State.
> 
> While the first half is out of date, the second half is not and stands as it is written.  And it must be taken in it's intended purpose by our Founding Fathers and the Bill of Rights.
> 
> 
> 
> I won't bother taking all that nonsense apart. I'll simply point this out
> 
> "This means that the well regulated Militia is formed by the state to guard against the forming of the tyranny of the Federal Government.  The problem with this is, as late as 1898, Governors were using their Organized Militia as bully boys to support their Rich Cronies business ventures.  In 1898, that happened here. "
> 
> So the Constitution gives as one of the purposes and duties of a "Well Regulated Militia" that of putting DOWN insurrections...you acknowledge this and point out several contemporaneous uses (Shay's and the Whiskey Rebellion). But somehow this means the opposite of what it says and how it was used?
> 
> You really need to go sit in the corner
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution does not at all detail the purpose, need, etc., of militias.
> ALL the federal constitution would have jurisdiction over or need to point out would be the rare emergency when the federal government would need and be able to draw on the militias.
> That is NOT at all the main point of the militias.
> And being able to put down immoral insurrections does not at all imply all insurrections are immoral or should be put down.
> Clearly the founders implemented a good insurrection and were VERY fond of the ability to commit insurrections.
> They would NEVER have at all implied anything that would prevent needed insurrections, and in fact verbally and in writing said they though insurrections would likely be necessary on a semi regular basis.
> 
> And NO, militias are NOT formed by the states alone.  They are individual, local, and state.  Most militias were private.
> Clearly the 2nd amendment implies it is the PEOPLE themselves who form well regulated militias, not states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The original intent was for the State to control the Militias and the total of all of the Militias to outnumber the total number of Federal Troops allowed by law.  Each state did not have to have a larger number but the combined number of all the states had to be a larger number than the legal Federal troops.  The Federal Troops were limited to 75,000 for many decades.  With the Indian Wars taking up so many of that Federal Total, this gave the Confederates a decided advantage at first.  Had it not been for the States Militias being called up, the Confederates would have marched in and taken DC.  In those days, it was traditional when you took the other guys capital city the war ended much like taking Richmond ended the Civil War the other direction.
> 
> When the 2nd amendment reads Organized Militia, by tradition and wordage, it means the State Controlled Militia not a bunch of dudes wearing pickle suits and waving a bunch of guns while running around the woods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are not reading it in the context of the era
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am reading it EXACTLY in context for the Era.  The little private armies running around in the woods were never intended to try and overthrow the Governments.  The Protections in that context was left to the States, not the individual.  It still is.
Click to expand...

Federal government and the states were never intended to control private firearm ownership. In fact it was supposed to be none of their business in anyway. Hence.... shall not be infringed


----------



## Lesh

Rustic said:


> Federal government and the states were never intended to control private firearm ownership. In fact it was supposed to be none of their business in anyway. Hence.... shall not be infringed



Oddly though...there are Federal laws concerning machine guns and canons


----------



## Rigby5

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a legal expert or a credentialed constitutional scholar.      However, regardless of how you want to spin the Bill of Rights to justify your extremist position, the FACT is that having millions of law abiders walking around with handguns and long guns is great as it leads to more order.    Bad actors know not to try and stick someone up, because their octogenarian victim might turn the tables on them and give them an express ticket to Judgment Day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's take a look at the 2nd amendment line by line.
> 
> _*A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,*_
> 
> This means that the well regulated Militia is formed by the state to guard against the forming of the tyranny of the Federal Government.  The problem with this is, as late as 1898, Governors were using their Organized Militia as bully boys to support their Rich Cronies business ventures.  In 1898, that happened here.   And throughout the history this was done over and over.  The intent was good but the application was often times not.  But that doesn't change a thing.  The intent was the same for the original formation.  But due to the Spanish American War, the first part of the National Guard Act was passed but no one really took it seriously.  It was tightened up a bit more in 1908.  But due to the War Department finally coming to the realization that the original 75,000 strong Army could no longer apply ever again, the law of the National Guard Act of 1917 was passed and it still stands today.  All of a sudden, the States had no Organized Militia anymore.  And even if they did form a separate State Militia (the name was changed to SDF to get around the new Militia laws) the State could not afford to equip and train their SDF people to the level that the Feds could the National Guard or the Regulars.  The intent of the first line of the second amendment became lost.  The Feds did take control of it but it was gleefully relinquished by each and every state.  The States could have blocked it just by standing together.  But with WWI coming on the States were scared shitless.  The clause was telling the Feds what they could not do but the States allowed it to happen anyway.
> 
> _*the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> *_
> People break these two apart.  We shouldn't.  It's really all one thought.  The Rights of the People (or the State) to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.  The Federals cannot infringe on the rights of the State when it comes to firearms.  Yes, according to this even the 1934 Firearms Act might be deemed illegal unless it's done under the guise of Public Safety and not under Gun Control which is something entirely different.  That should be up for debate at state levels, not Federal Levels.  I doubt if the Feds could legally do anything to a State that decides to disregard the 1934 Firearms act in the Supreme Court or any Federal Court unless they can prove that the original intent of the Firearms act was Public Safety.  It might be an interesting case.  Certainly much more deserving than what is usually tried to argue lately on firearms.  The second half of the 2nd amendment is telling the Feds that they cannot infringe on the States Firearms Rights and this includes all people in the State.
> 
> While the first half is out of date, the second half is not and stands as it is written.  And it must be taken in it's intended purpose by our Founding Fathers and the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I won't bother taking all that nonsense apart. I'll simply point this out
> 
> "This means that the well regulated Militia is formed by the state to guard against the forming of the tyranny of the Federal Government.  The problem with this is, as late as 1898, Governors were using their Organized Militia as bully boys to support their Rich Cronies business ventures.  In 1898, that happened here. "
> 
> So the Constitution gives as one of the purposes and duties of a "Well Regulated Militia" that of putting DOWN insurrections...you acknowledge this and point out several contemporaneous uses (Shay's and the Whiskey Rebellion). But somehow this means the opposite of what it says and how it was used?
> 
> You really need to go sit in the corner
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution does not at all detail the purpose, need, etc., of militias.
> ALL the federal constitution would have jurisdiction over or need to point out would be the rare emergency when the federal government would need and be able to draw on the militias.
> That is NOT at all the main point of the militias.
> And being able to put down immoral insurrections does not at all imply all insurrections are immoral or should be put down.
> Clearly the founders implemented a good insurrection and were VERY fond of the ability to commit insurrections.
> They would NEVER have at all implied anything that would prevent needed insurrections, and in fact verbally and in writing said they though insurrections would likely be necessary on a semi regular basis.
> 
> And NO, militias are NOT formed by the states alone.  They are individual, local, and state.  Most militias were private.
> Clearly the 2nd amendment implies it is the PEOPLE themselves who form well regulated militias, not states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The original intent was for the State to control the Militias and the total of all of the Militias to outnumber the total number of Federal Troops allowed by law.  Each state did not have to have a larger number but the combined number of all the states had to be a larger number than the legal Federal troops.  The Federal Troops were limited to 75,000 for many decades.  With the Indian Wars taking up so many of that Federal Total, this gave the Confederates a decided advantage at first.  Had it not been for the States Militias being called up, the Confederates would have marched in and taken DC.  In those days, it was traditional when you took the other guys capital city the war ended much like taking Richmond ended the Civil War the other direction.
> 
> When the 2nd amendment reads Organized Militia, by tradition and wordage, it means the State Controlled Militia not a bunch of dudes wearing pickle suits and waving a bunch of guns while running around the woods.
Click to expand...



The 2nd Amendment does not read as mentioning the Organized Militia, but instead mentions that to have a well practiced militia, you need "the people" to be armed already.
It specifically does not mention the Organized Militia, and instead only "the people".


----------



## Rigby5

Lesh said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Federal government and the states were never intended to control private firearm ownership. In fact it was supposed to be none of their business in anyway. Hence.... shall not be infringed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddly though...there are Federal laws concerning machine guns and canons
Click to expand...


Yes, and it is abundantly clear those federal laws are totally and completely illegal.
We also had federal laws attempting to illegally control personal behavior that harms no one, like alcohol and drugs.
That fact the federal government is way out of control and violating the law is another matter.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Polishprince said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the 2nd amendment reads Organized Militia, by tradition and wordage, it means the State Controlled Militia not a bunch of dudes wearing pickle suits and waving a bunch of guns while running around the woods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't make a lot of sense.    So you're saying that before the Bill of Rights was passed, the government was afraid that they wouldn't be allowed to arm the military- so they asked for a constitutional amendment to guarantee that?
> 
> There has been no government in history which banned itself from being armed.
Click to expand...


No, but there has been limits places.  For instance,Lincoln had to request from Congress to go over that 75,000 military limit for the Civil War.   He requested an additional 75,000 over the numbers he had already.  Many thought that would be enough and the War would be over very quickly.  Meanwhile, the Confederates presented hundreds of thousands and the war lasted much longer than anticipated by either side.  In the end, the North have well over a million troops and just overwhelmed the south.  After the war, the number went back to the allowable 75,000 in increments.  It stayed that way until the beginning of the Spanish American War when they passed the first part of the National Guard Act in order to go above the 75,000 number.  And for WWI, they threw out that number completely and disolved the State Guard completely into the newly formed National Guard through the 1917 National Guard Act.  As of about 1898, the States no longer had any hopes of going against the Federal Government.  1917 pretty well cemented that fact.

You don't like history, move to another country with a history more to your liking.


----------



## Rustic

Lesh said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Federal government and the states were never intended to control private firearm ownership. In fact it was supposed to be none of their business in anyway. Hence.... shall not be infringed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddly though...there are Federal laws concerning machine guns and canons
Click to expand...

Cannons are not small arms, and they are Legal if you get an ffl license...


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rigby5 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a legal expert or a credentialed constitutional scholar.      However, regardless of how you want to spin the Bill of Rights to justify your extremist position, the FACT is that having millions of law abiders walking around with handguns and long guns is great as it leads to more order.    Bad actors know not to try and stick someone up, because their octogenarian victim might turn the tables on them and give them an express ticket to Judgment Day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's take a look at the 2nd amendment line by line.
> 
> _*A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,*_
> 
> This means that the well regulated Militia is formed by the state to guard against the forming of the tyranny of the Federal Government.  The problem with this is, as late as 1898, Governors were using their Organized Militia as bully boys to support their Rich Cronies business ventures.  In 1898, that happened here.   And throughout the history this was done over and over.  The intent was good but the application was often times not.  But that doesn't change a thing.  The intent was the same for the original formation.  But due to the Spanish American War, the first part of the National Guard Act was passed but no one really took it seriously.  It was tightened up a bit more in 1908.  But due to the War Department finally coming to the realization that the original 75,000 strong Army could no longer apply ever again, the law of the National Guard Act of 1917 was passed and it still stands today.  All of a sudden, the States had no Organized Militia anymore.  And even if they did form a separate State Militia (the name was changed to SDF to get around the new Militia laws) the State could not afford to equip and train their SDF people to the level that the Feds could the National Guard or the Regulars.  The intent of the first line of the second amendment became lost.  The Feds did take control of it but it was gleefully relinquished by each and every state.  The States could have blocked it just by standing together.  But with WWI coming on the States were scared shitless.  The clause was telling the Feds what they could not do but the States allowed it to happen anyway.
> 
> _*the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> *_
> People break these two apart.  We shouldn't.  It's really all one thought.  The Rights of the People (or the State) to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.  The Federals cannot infringe on the rights of the State when it comes to firearms.  Yes, according to this even the 1934 Firearms Act might be deemed illegal unless it's done under the guise of Public Safety and not under Gun Control which is something entirely different.  That should be up for debate at state levels, not Federal Levels.  I doubt if the Feds could legally do anything to a State that decides to disregard the 1934 Firearms act in the Supreme Court or any Federal Court unless they can prove that the original intent of the Firearms act was Public Safety.  It might be an interesting case.  Certainly much more deserving than what is usually tried to argue lately on firearms.  The second half of the 2nd amendment is telling the Feds that they cannot infringe on the States Firearms Rights and this includes all people in the State.
> 
> While the first half is out of date, the second half is not and stands as it is written.  And it must be taken in it's intended purpose by our Founding Fathers and the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I won't bother taking all that nonsense apart. I'll simply point this out
> 
> "This means that the well regulated Militia is formed by the state to guard against the forming of the tyranny of the Federal Government.  The problem with this is, as late as 1898, Governors were using their Organized Militia as bully boys to support their Rich Cronies business ventures.  In 1898, that happened here. "
> 
> So the Constitution gives as one of the purposes and duties of a "Well Regulated Militia" that of putting DOWN insurrections...you acknowledge this and point out several contemporaneous uses (Shay's and the Whiskey Rebellion). But somehow this means the opposite of what it says and how it was used?
> 
> You really need to go sit in the corner
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution does not at all detail the purpose, need, etc., of militias.
> ALL the federal constitution would have jurisdiction over or need to point out would be the rare emergency when the federal government would need and be able to draw on the militias.
> That is NOT at all the main point of the militias.
> And being able to put down immoral insurrections does not at all imply all insurrections are immoral or should be put down.
> Clearly the founders implemented a good insurrection and were VERY fond of the ability to commit insurrections.
> They would NEVER have at all implied anything that would prevent needed insurrections, and in fact verbally and in writing said they though insurrections would likely be necessary on a semi regular basis.
> 
> And NO, militias are NOT formed by the states alone.  They are individual, local, and state.  Most militias were private.
> Clearly the 2nd amendment implies it is the PEOPLE themselves who form well regulated militias, not states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The original intent was for the State to control the Militias and the total of all of the Militias to outnumber the total number of Federal Troops allowed by law.  Each state did not have to have a larger number but the combined number of all the states had to be a larger number than the legal Federal troops.  The Federal Troops were limited to 75,000 for many decades.  With the Indian Wars taking up so many of that Federal Total, this gave the Confederates a decided advantage at first.  Had it not been for the States Militias being called up, the Confederates would have marched in and taken DC.  In those days, it was traditional when you took the other guys capital city the war ended much like taking Richmond ended the Civil War the other direction.
> 
> When the 2nd amendment reads Organized Militia, by tradition and wordage, it means the State Controlled Militia not a bunch of dudes wearing pickle suits and waving a bunch of guns while running around the woods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd Amendment does not read as mentioning the Organized Militia, but instead mentions that to have a well practiced militia, you need "the people" to be armed already.
> It specifically does not mention the Organized Militia, and instead only "the people".
Click to expand...


Exactly what part of _*A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State *_are you having trouble with.  And which one of the Little Generals and their militias running around the woods will actually represent the state?  Who gets to choose.  Does the State get to choose and regulate them?  Yah, right.  The little paper General would never allow that.  Or do we just let them all duke it out and accept the winner?  So much for a well regulated Militia if left to your idea.  Notice that the clause speaks of the Free State.  And the only way to have a well regulated Militia is if the state approves of that Militia.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rustic said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> I won't bother taking all that nonsense apart. I'll simply point this out
> 
> "This means that the well regulated Militia is formed by the state to guard against the forming of the tyranny of the Federal Government.  The problem with this is, as late as 1898, Governors were using their Organized Militia as bully boys to support their Rich Cronies business ventures.  In 1898, that happened here. "
> 
> So the Constitution gives as one of the purposes and duties of a "Well Regulated Militia" that of putting DOWN insurrections...you acknowledge this and point out several contemporaneous uses (Shay's and the Whiskey Rebellion). But somehow this means the opposite of what it says and how it was used?
> 
> You really need to go sit in the corner
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution does not at all detail the purpose, need, etc., of militias.
> ALL the federal constitution would have jurisdiction over or need to point out would be the rare emergency when the federal government would need and be able to draw on the militias.
> That is NOT at all the main point of the militias.
> And being able to put down immoral insurrections does not at all imply all insurrections are immoral or should be put down.
> Clearly the founders implemented a good insurrection and were VERY fond of the ability to commit insurrections.
> They would NEVER have at all implied anything that would prevent needed insurrections, and in fact verbally and in writing said they though insurrections would likely be necessary on a semi regular basis.
> 
> And NO, militias are NOT formed by the states alone.  They are individual, local, and state.  Most militias were private.
> Clearly the 2nd amendment implies it is the PEOPLE themselves who form well regulated militias, not states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The original intent was for the State to control the Militias and the total of all of the Militias to outnumber the total number of Federal Troops allowed by law.  Each state did not have to have a larger number but the combined number of all the states had to be a larger number than the legal Federal troops.  The Federal Troops were limited to 75,000 for many decades.  With the Indian Wars taking up so many of that Federal Total, this gave the Confederates a decided advantage at first.  Had it not been for the States Militias being called up, the Confederates would have marched in and taken DC.  In those days, it was traditional when you took the other guys capital city the war ended much like taking Richmond ended the Civil War the other direction.
> 
> When the 2nd amendment reads Organized Militia, by tradition and wordage, it means the State Controlled Militia not a bunch of dudes wearing pickle suits and waving a bunch of guns while running around the woods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are not reading it in the context of the era
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am reading it EXACTLY in context for the Era.  The little private armies running around in the woods were never intended to try and overthrow the Governments.  The Protections in that context was left to the States, not the individual.  It still is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Federal government and the states were never intended to control private firearm ownership. In fact it was supposed to be none of their business in anyway. Hence.... shall not be infringed
Click to expand...


Read the rest of the 2nd amendment.  It limits the Feds, not the States.  Unless you add in the Interstate Public Safety issue then it can become a Federal Issue.  I sometimes question the 1934 Firearms act myself.  It all depends on the thought behind it.  Was it done for Gun Regulation or was it done as an Interstate Public Safety Issue.  Now, that is a fight in court I would like to see.  As for the States, they have every right to limit firearms and the Courts have agreed.  Well at least for the last 100 years anyway.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rustic said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Federal government and the states were never intended to control private firearm ownership. In fact it was supposed to be none of their business in anyway. Hence.... shall not be infringed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddly though...there are Federal laws concerning machine guns and canons
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cannons are not small arms, and they are Legal if you get an ffl license...
Click to expand...


In most areas, even if you have a FFL for a piece of artillery, the local government will not allow you to have possession of it.


----------



## Rigby5

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a legal expert or a credentialed constitutional scholar.      However, regardless of how you want to spin the Bill of Rights to justify your extremist position, the FACT is that having millions of law abiders walking around with handguns and long guns is great as it leads to more order.    Bad actors know not to try and stick someone up, because their octogenarian victim might turn the tables on them and give them an express ticket to Judgment Day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to learn from history.  Bad Actors like John Wesley Harding, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As for John Wesley Harding:
> 
> {...
> He was well known for wildly exaggerating or completely making up stories about his life. He claimed credit for many murders that cannot be corroborated.[4]:10–11
> 
> Within a year of his release in 1894, Hardin was killed by John Selman in an El Paso saloon.
> ...}
> 
> So he was taken care of by armed civilians, not the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, and this wanton killing is why Dallas had the no firearms in the city limit streets and businesses and would have tried and convicted him for murder under the same cirumstances.  Same goes more many other western towns.
> 
> Something can be said when there are too few guns in the innocents hands but there are volumes when there are too many.  Even today, in El Paso, you can't have a weapon in a Bar.
Click to expand...


I can find no specific references to Dallas, but clearly until 1900, the SCOTUS consistently ruled that city bans on firearms were entirely illegal, including concealed weapons.
I find no exceptions.  The Earps in Deadwood were only temporarily confiscating while visiters were drinking.

List of firearm court cases in the United States - Wikipedia

{...
*Bliss v. Commonwealth[edit]*
_Bliss v. Commonwealth_ (1822, Ky.)[12] addressed the right to bear arms pursuant to Art. 10, Sec. 23 of the Second Constitution of Kentucky (1799):[13] "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state, shall not be questioned." This was interpreted to include the right to carry a concealed sword in a cane. _Bliss_ has been described as about "a statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons [that] was violative of the Second Amendment."[14] Others, however, have seen no conflict with the Second Amendment by the Commonwealth of Kentucky's statute under consideration in _Bliss_ since "The Kentucky law was aimed at concealed weapons. No one saw any conflict with the Second Amendment. As a matter of fact, most of the few people who considered the question at all believed amendments to the U.S. Constitution did not apply to state laws."[15]

_Bliss_ stated, "But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution."[12] The "constitution" mentioned in this quote refers to Kentucky's Constitution.[16]

The case prompted outrage in the Kentucky House, all the while recognizing that Section 23 of the Second Constitution of Kentucky (1799) did guarantee individuals the right to bear arms. The _Bliss_ruling, to the extent that it dealt with concealed weapons, was overturned by constitutional amendment with Section 26 in Kentucky's Third Constitution (1850) banning the future carrying of concealed weapons, while still asserting that the bearing of arms in defense of themselves and the state was an individual and collective right in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. This recognition, has remained to the present day in the Commonwealth of Kentucky's Fourth Constitution enacted in 1891, in Section 1, Article 7, that guarantees "The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons." As noted in the Northern Kentucky Law Review Second Amendment Symposium: Rights in Conflict in the 1980s, vol. 10, no. 1, 1982, p. 155, "The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was _Bliss v. Commonwealth_. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."[17][18]

The importance of _Bliss_ is also seen from the defense subsequently given against a murder charge in Kentucky against Mattews Ward, who in 1852 pulled out a concealed pistol and fatally wounded his brother's teacher over an accusation regarding eating chestnuts in class. Ward's defense team consisted of eighteen lawyers, including U.S. Senator John Crittenden, former Governor of Kentucky, and former United States Attorney General. The defense successfully defended Ward in 1854 through an assertion that "a man has a right to carry arms; I am aware of nothing in the laws of God or man, prohibiting it. The Constitution of Kentucky and our Bill of Rights guarantee it. The Legislature once passed an act forbidding it, but it was decided unconstitutional, and overruled by our highest tribunal, the Court of Appeals." As noted by Cornell, "Ward's lawyers took advantage of the doctrine advanced in _Bliss_ and wrapped their client's action under the banner of a constitutional right to bear arms. Ward was acquitted."
...}


----------



## Rigby5

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Federal government and the states were never intended to control private firearm ownership. In fact it was supposed to be none of their business in anyway. Hence.... shall not be infringed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddly though...there are Federal laws concerning machine guns and canons
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cannons are not small arms, and they are Legal if you get an ffl license...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In most areas, even if you have a FFL for a piece of artillery, the local government will not allow you to have possession of it.
Click to expand...


But legally they have to have a process where by you can have possession if it can be shown to not infringe upon the rights of others.
No arbitrary regulation can ever be legal and if any government employee can possess something, then so can any private individual if they can show identical need and safeguards.


----------



## 2aguy

Rigby5 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a legal expert or a credentialed constitutional scholar.      However, regardless of how you want to spin the Bill of Rights to justify your extremist position, the FACT is that having millions of law abiders walking around with handguns and long guns is great as it leads to more order.    Bad actors know not to try and stick someone up, because their octogenarian victim might turn the tables on them and give them an express ticket to Judgment Day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to learn from history.  Bad Actors like John Wesley Harding, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As for John Wesley Harding:
> 
> {...
> He was well known for wildly exaggerating or completely making up stories about his life. He claimed credit for many murders that cannot be corroborated.[4]:10–11
> 
> Within a year of his release in 1894, Hardin was killed by John Selman in an El Paso saloon.
> ...}
> 
> So he was taken care of by armed civilians, not the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, and this wanton killing is why Dallas had the no firearms in the city limit streets and businesses and would have tried and convicted him for murder under the same cirumstances.  Same goes more many other western towns.
> 
> Something can be said when there are too few guns in the innocents hands but there are volumes when there are too many.  Even today, in El Paso, you can't have a weapon in a Bar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can find no specific references to Dallas, but clearly until 1900, the SCOTUS consistently ruled that city bans on firearms were entirely illegal, including concealed weapons.
> I find no exceptions.  The Earps in Deadwood were only temporarily confiscating while visiters were drinking.
> 
> List of firearm court cases in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> {...
> *Bliss v. Commonwealth[edit]*
> _Bliss v. Commonwealth_ (1822, Ky.)[12] addressed the right to bear arms pursuant to Art. 10, Sec. 23 of the Second Constitution of Kentucky (1799):[13] "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state, shall not be questioned." This was interpreted to include the right to carry a concealed sword in a cane. _Bliss_ has been described as about "a statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons [that] was violative of the Second Amendment."[14] Others, however, have seen no conflict with the Second Amendment by the Commonwealth of Kentucky's statute under consideration in _Bliss_ since "The Kentucky law was aimed at concealed weapons. No one saw any conflict with the Second Amendment. As a matter of fact, most of the few people who considered the question at all believed amendments to the U.S. Constitution did not apply to state laws."[15]
> 
> _Bliss_ stated, "But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution."[12] The "constitution" mentioned in this quote refers to Kentucky's Constitution.[16]
> 
> The case prompted outrage in the Kentucky House, all the while recognizing that Section 23 of the Second Constitution of Kentucky (1799) did guarantee individuals the right to bear arms. The _Bliss_ruling, to the extent that it dealt with concealed weapons, was overturned by constitutional amendment with Section 26 in Kentucky's Third Constitution (1850) banning the future carrying of concealed weapons, while still asserting that the bearing of arms in defense of themselves and the state was an individual and collective right in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. This recognition, has remained to the present day in the Commonwealth of Kentucky's Fourth Constitution enacted in 1891, in Section 1, Article 7, that guarantees "The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons." As noted in the Northern Kentucky Law Review Second Amendment Symposium: Rights in Conflict in the 1980s, vol. 10, no. 1, 1982, p. 155, "The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was _Bliss v. Commonwealth_. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."[17][18]
> 
> The importance of _Bliss_ is also seen from the defense subsequently given against a murder charge in Kentucky against Mattews Ward, who in 1852 pulled out a concealed pistol and fatally wounded his brother's teacher over an accusation regarding eating chestnuts in class. Ward's defense team consisted of eighteen lawyers, including U.S. Senator John Crittenden, former Governor of Kentucky, and former United States Attorney General. The defense successfully defended Ward in 1854 through an assertion that "a man has a right to carry arms; I am aware of nothing in the laws of God or man, prohibiting it. The Constitution of Kentucky and our Bill of Rights guarantee it. The Legislature once passed an act forbidding it, but it was decided unconstitutional, and overruled by our highest tribunal, the Court of Appeals." As noted by Cornell, "Ward's lawyers took advantage of the doctrine advanced in _Bliss_ and wrapped their client's action under the banner of a constitutional right to bear arms. Ward was acquitted."
> ...}
Click to expand...



And gun control in Tombstone didn't work....as the maimed Earp, and the dead Earp show...


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rigby5 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a legal expert or a credentialed constitutional scholar.      However, regardless of how you want to spin the Bill of Rights to justify your extremist position, the FACT is that having millions of law abiders walking around with handguns and long guns is great as it leads to more order.    Bad actors know not to try and stick someone up, because their octogenarian victim might turn the tables on them and give them an express ticket to Judgment Day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to learn from history.  Bad Actors like John Wesley Harding, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As for John Wesley Harding:
> 
> {...
> He was well known for wildly exaggerating or completely making up stories about his life. He claimed credit for many murders that cannot be corroborated.[4]:10–11
> 
> Within a year of his release in 1894, Hardin was killed by John Selman in an El Paso saloon.
> ...}
> 
> So he was taken care of by armed civilians, not the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, and this wanton killing is why Dallas had the no firearms in the city limit streets and businesses and would have tried and convicted him for murder under the same cirumstances.  Same goes more many other western towns.
> 
> Something can be said when there are too few guns in the innocents hands but there are volumes when there are too many.  Even today, in El Paso, you can't have a weapon in a Bar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can find no specific references to Dallas, but clearly until 1900, the SCOTUS consistently ruled that city bans on firearms were entirely illegal, including concealed weapons.
> I find no exceptions.  The Earps in Deadwood were only temporarily confiscating while visiters were drinking.
> 
> List of firearm court cases in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> {...
> *Bliss v. Commonwealth[edit]*
> _Bliss v. Commonwealth_ (1822, Ky.)[12] addressed the right to bear arms pursuant to Art. 10, Sec. 23 of the Second Constitution of Kentucky (1799):[13] "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state, shall not be questioned." This was interpreted to include the right to carry a concealed sword in a cane. _Bliss_ has been described as about "a statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons [that] was violative of the Second Amendment."[14] Others, however, have seen no conflict with the Second Amendment by the Commonwealth of Kentucky's statute under consideration in _Bliss_ since "The Kentucky law was aimed at concealed weapons. No one saw any conflict with the Second Amendment. As a matter of fact, most of the few people who considered the question at all believed amendments to the U.S. Constitution did not apply to state laws."[15]
> 
> _Bliss_ stated, "But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution."[12] The "constitution" mentioned in this quote refers to Kentucky's Constitution.[16]
> 
> The case prompted outrage in the Kentucky House, all the while recognizing that Section 23 of the Second Constitution of Kentucky (1799) did guarantee individuals the right to bear arms. The _Bliss_ruling, to the extent that it dealt with concealed weapons, was overturned by constitutional amendment with Section 26 in Kentucky's Third Constitution (1850) banning the future carrying of concealed weapons, while still asserting that the bearing of arms in defense of themselves and the state was an individual and collective right in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. This recognition, has remained to the present day in the Commonwealth of Kentucky's Fourth Constitution enacted in 1891, in Section 1, Article 7, that guarantees "The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons." As noted in the Northern Kentucky Law Review Second Amendment Symposium: Rights in Conflict in the 1980s, vol. 10, no. 1, 1982, p. 155, "The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was _Bliss v. Commonwealth_. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."[17][18]
> 
> The importance of _Bliss_ is also seen from the defense subsequently given against a murder charge in Kentucky against Mattews Ward, who in 1852 pulled out a concealed pistol and fatally wounded his brother's teacher over an accusation regarding eating chestnuts in class. Ward's defense team consisted of eighteen lawyers, including U.S. Senator John Crittenden, former Governor of Kentucky, and former United States Attorney General. The defense successfully defended Ward in 1854 through an assertion that "a man has a right to carry arms; I am aware of nothing in the laws of God or man, prohibiting it. The Constitution of Kentucky and our Bill of Rights guarantee it. The Legislature once passed an act forbidding it, but it was decided unconstitutional, and overruled by our highest tribunal, the Court of Appeals." As noted by Cornell, "Ward's lawyers took advantage of the doctrine advanced in _Bliss_ and wrapped their client's action under the banner of a constitutional right to bear arms. Ward was acquitted."
> ...}
Click to expand...


You will note that these were all prior to 1871 when the western towns started requiring everyone entering the towns to check their weapons either at the Marshals or Sheriffs Office or with the Bartender.  The Earps were nicer than most.  They asked nicely at first.  In Dallas during the same time period, you were told once.  The next time the Marshal saw you armed, he just gunned you down with no warning. "Why did you shoot him in the Back?........Because his front wasn't towards me.".


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rigby5 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Federal government and the states were never intended to control private firearm ownership. In fact it was supposed to be none of their business in anyway. Hence.... shall not be infringed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddly though...there are Federal laws concerning machine guns and canons
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cannons are not small arms, and they are Legal if you get an ffl license...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In most areas, even if you have a FFL for a piece of artillery, the local government will not allow you to have possession of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But legally they have to have a process where by you can have possession if it can be shown to not infringe upon the rights of others.
> No arbitrary regulation can ever be legal and if any government employee can possess something, then so can any private individual if they can show identical need and safeguards.
Click to expand...


Noper.  Boston has already been taken to court over it's AR-15 ban and it stuck.  And you can cry about it all you want but if your local guv decides that extenuous weapons are not allowed then they aren't allowed, period.  Again, upheld in Federal Courts.  It's legal as long as Due Process has been used.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

2aguy said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a legal expert or a credentialed constitutional scholar.      However, regardless of how you want to spin the Bill of Rights to justify your extremist position, the FACT is that having millions of law abiders walking around with handguns and long guns is great as it leads to more order.    Bad actors know not to try and stick someone up, because their octogenarian victim might turn the tables on them and give them an express ticket to Judgment Day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to learn from history.  Bad Actors like John Wesley Harding, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As for John Wesley Harding:
> 
> {...
> He was well known for wildly exaggerating or completely making up stories about his life. He claimed credit for many murders that cannot be corroborated.[4]:10–11
> 
> Within a year of his release in 1894, Hardin was killed by John Selman in an El Paso saloon.
> ...}
> 
> So he was taken care of by armed civilians, not the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, and this wanton killing is why Dallas had the no firearms in the city limit streets and businesses and would have tried and convicted him for murder under the same cirumstances.  Same goes more many other western towns.
> 
> Something can be said when there are too few guns in the innocents hands but there are volumes when there are too many.  Even today, in El Paso, you can't have a weapon in a Bar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can find no specific references to Dallas, but clearly until 1900, the SCOTUS consistently ruled that city bans on firearms were entirely illegal, including concealed weapons.
> I find no exceptions.  The Earps in Deadwood were only temporarily confiscating while visiters were drinking.
> 
> List of firearm court cases in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> {...
> *Bliss v. Commonwealth[edit]*
> _Bliss v. Commonwealth_ (1822, Ky.)[12] addressed the right to bear arms pursuant to Art. 10, Sec. 23 of the Second Constitution of Kentucky (1799):[13] "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state, shall not be questioned." This was interpreted to include the right to carry a concealed sword in a cane. _Bliss_ has been described as about "a statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons [that] was violative of the Second Amendment."[14] Others, however, have seen no conflict with the Second Amendment by the Commonwealth of Kentucky's statute under consideration in _Bliss_ since "The Kentucky law was aimed at concealed weapons. No one saw any conflict with the Second Amendment. As a matter of fact, most of the few people who considered the question at all believed amendments to the U.S. Constitution did not apply to state laws."[15]
> 
> _Bliss_ stated, "But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution."[12] The "constitution" mentioned in this quote refers to Kentucky's Constitution.[16]
> 
> The case prompted outrage in the Kentucky House, all the while recognizing that Section 23 of the Second Constitution of Kentucky (1799) did guarantee individuals the right to bear arms. The _Bliss_ruling, to the extent that it dealt with concealed weapons, was overturned by constitutional amendment with Section 26 in Kentucky's Third Constitution (1850) banning the future carrying of concealed weapons, while still asserting that the bearing of arms in defense of themselves and the state was an individual and collective right in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. This recognition, has remained to the present day in the Commonwealth of Kentucky's Fourth Constitution enacted in 1891, in Section 1, Article 7, that guarantees "The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons." As noted in the Northern Kentucky Law Review Second Amendment Symposium: Rights in Conflict in the 1980s, vol. 10, no. 1, 1982, p. 155, "The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was _Bliss v. Commonwealth_. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."[17][18]
> 
> The importance of _Bliss_ is also seen from the defense subsequently given against a murder charge in Kentucky against Mattews Ward, who in 1852 pulled out a concealed pistol and fatally wounded his brother's teacher over an accusation regarding eating chestnuts in class. Ward's defense team consisted of eighteen lawyers, including U.S. Senator John Crittenden, former Governor of Kentucky, and former United States Attorney General. The defense successfully defended Ward in 1854 through an assertion that "a man has a right to carry arms; I am aware of nothing in the laws of God or man, prohibiting it. The Constitution of Kentucky and our Bill of Rights guarantee it. The Legislature once passed an act forbidding it, but it was decided unconstitutional, and overruled by our highest tribunal, the Court of Appeals." As noted by Cornell, "Ward's lawyers took advantage of the doctrine advanced in _Bliss_ and wrapped their client's action under the banner of a constitutional right to bear arms. Ward was acquitted."
> ...}
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And gun control in Tombstone didn't work....as the maimed Earp, and the dead Earp show...
Click to expand...


I would say it worked pretty damned well.  It would have worked much better if the Earps had adopted the Dallas Marshal's approach and just gunned them down with no warning.  But the Earps may have been killers but they weren't cold blooded killers.  You are sticking up for outlaws, you know that.


----------



## Rigby5

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a legal expert or a credentialed constitutional scholar.      However, regardless of how you want to spin the Bill of Rights to justify your extremist position, the FACT is that having millions of law abiders walking around with handguns and long guns is great as it leads to more order.    Bad actors know not to try and stick someone up, because their octogenarian victim might turn the tables on them and give them an express ticket to Judgment Day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to learn from history.  Bad Actors like John Wesley Harding, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As for John Wesley Harding:
> 
> {...
> He was well known for wildly exaggerating or completely making up stories about his life. He claimed credit for many murders that cannot be corroborated.[4]:10–11
> 
> Within a year of his release in 1894, Hardin was killed by John Selman in an El Paso saloon.
> ...}
> 
> So he was taken care of by armed civilians, not the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, and this wanton killing is why Dallas had the no firearms in the city limit streets and businesses and would have tried and convicted him for murder under the same cirumstances.  Same goes more many other western towns.
> 
> Something can be said when there are too few guns in the innocents hands but there are volumes when there are too many.  Even today, in El Paso, you can't have a weapon in a Bar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can find no specific references to Dallas, but clearly until 1900, the SCOTUS consistently ruled that city bans on firearms were entirely illegal, including concealed weapons.
> I find no exceptions.  The Earps in Deadwood were only temporarily confiscating while visiters were drinking.
> 
> List of firearm court cases in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> {...
> *Bliss v. Commonwealth[edit]*
> _Bliss v. Commonwealth_ (1822, Ky.)[12] addressed the right to bear arms pursuant to Art. 10, Sec. 23 of the Second Constitution of Kentucky (1799):[13] "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state, shall not be questioned." This was interpreted to include the right to carry a concealed sword in a cane. _Bliss_ has been described as about "a statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons [that] was violative of the Second Amendment."[14] Others, however, have seen no conflict with the Second Amendment by the Commonwealth of Kentucky's statute under consideration in _Bliss_ since "The Kentucky law was aimed at concealed weapons. No one saw any conflict with the Second Amendment. As a matter of fact, most of the few people who considered the question at all believed amendments to the U.S. Constitution did not apply to state laws."[15]
> 
> _Bliss_ stated, "But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution."[12] The "constitution" mentioned in this quote refers to Kentucky's Constitution.[16]
> 
> The case prompted outrage in the Kentucky House, all the while recognizing that Section 23 of the Second Constitution of Kentucky (1799) did guarantee individuals the right to bear arms. The _Bliss_ruling, to the extent that it dealt with concealed weapons, was overturned by constitutional amendment with Section 26 in Kentucky's Third Constitution (1850) banning the future carrying of concealed weapons, while still asserting that the bearing of arms in defense of themselves and the state was an individual and collective right in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. This recognition, has remained to the present day in the Commonwealth of Kentucky's Fourth Constitution enacted in 1891, in Section 1, Article 7, that guarantees "The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons." As noted in the Northern Kentucky Law Review Second Amendment Symposium: Rights in Conflict in the 1980s, vol. 10, no. 1, 1982, p. 155, "The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was _Bliss v. Commonwealth_. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."[17][18]
> 
> The importance of _Bliss_ is also seen from the defense subsequently given against a murder charge in Kentucky against Mattews Ward, who in 1852 pulled out a concealed pistol and fatally wounded his brother's teacher over an accusation regarding eating chestnuts in class. Ward's defense team consisted of eighteen lawyers, including U.S. Senator John Crittenden, former Governor of Kentucky, and former United States Attorney General. The defense successfully defended Ward in 1854 through an assertion that "a man has a right to carry arms; I am aware of nothing in the laws of God or man, prohibiting it. The Constitution of Kentucky and our Bill of Rights guarantee it. The Legislature once passed an act forbidding it, but it was decided unconstitutional, and overruled by our highest tribunal, the Court of Appeals." As noted by Cornell, "Ward's lawyers took advantage of the doctrine advanced in _Bliss_ and wrapped their client's action under the banner of a constitutional right to bear arms. Ward was acquitted."
> ...}
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You will note that these were all prior to 1871 when the western towns started requiring everyone entering the towns to check their weapons either at the Marshals or Sheriffs Office or with the Bartender.  The Earps were nicer than most.  They asked nicely at first.  In Dallas during the same time period, you were told once.  The next time the Marshal saw you armed, he just gunned you down with no warning. "Why did you shoot him in the Back?........Because his front wasn't towards me.".
Click to expand...


Not true.
It was only when visitors were intent on drinking that guns had to be checked.
There was never the authority to disarm town residents, nor those not drinking, like stage guards.
Marshals had even less authority than sheriffs, and had no authority to shoot anyone any more than any one else did.


----------



## Rigby5

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Federal government and the states were never intended to control private firearm ownership. In fact it was supposed to be none of their business in anyway. Hence.... shall not be infringed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddly though...there are Federal laws concerning machine guns and canons
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cannons are not small arms, and they are Legal if you get an ffl license...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In most areas, even if you have a FFL for a piece of artillery, the local government will not allow you to have possession of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But legally they have to have a process where by you can have possession if it can be shown to not infringe upon the rights of others.
> No arbitrary regulation can ever be legal and if any government employee can possess something, then so can any private individual if they can show identical need and safeguards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Noper.  Boston has already been taken to court over it's AR-15 ban and it stuck.  And you can cry about it all you want but if your local guv decides that extenuous weapons are not allowed then they aren't allowed, period.  Again, upheld in Federal Courts.  It's legal as long as Due Process has been used.
Click to expand...


No, only 1 federal judge went along with Boston's foolish law, and it won't hold up to the SCOTUS.  If a weapons is too dangerous to be allowed, then police can't have it either.  So Boston will lose eventually, on the 14th amendment, if not the 2nd, 4th, or 5th.
There was no due process in the passing of the Boston ban at all, because it is not necessary to defend rights, and is unequal since it does not disarm them from police.  It does not even effect slight variants.


----------



## Rigby5

Daryl Hunt said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to learn from history.  Bad Actors like John Wesley Harding, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for John Wesley Harding:
> 
> {...
> He was well known for wildly exaggerating or completely making up stories about his life. He claimed credit for many murders that cannot be corroborated.[4]:10–11
> 
> Within a year of his release in 1894, Hardin was killed by John Selman in an El Paso saloon.
> ...}
> 
> So he was taken care of by armed civilians, not the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, and this wanton killing is why Dallas had the no firearms in the city limit streets and businesses and would have tried and convicted him for murder under the same cirumstances.  Same goes more many other western towns.
> 
> Something can be said when there are too few guns in the innocents hands but there are volumes when there are too many.  Even today, in El Paso, you can't have a weapon in a Bar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can find no specific references to Dallas, but clearly until 1900, the SCOTUS consistently ruled that city bans on firearms were entirely illegal, including concealed weapons.
> I find no exceptions.  The Earps in Deadwood were only temporarily confiscating while visiters were drinking.
> 
> List of firearm court cases in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> {...
> *Bliss v. Commonwealth[edit]*
> _Bliss v. Commonwealth_ (1822, Ky.)[12] addressed the right to bear arms pursuant to Art. 10, Sec. 23 of the Second Constitution of Kentucky (1799):[13] "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state, shall not be questioned." This was interpreted to include the right to carry a concealed sword in a cane. _Bliss_ has been described as about "a statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons [that] was violative of the Second Amendment."[14] Others, however, have seen no conflict with the Second Amendment by the Commonwealth of Kentucky's statute under consideration in _Bliss_ since "The Kentucky law was aimed at concealed weapons. No one saw any conflict with the Second Amendment. As a matter of fact, most of the few people who considered the question at all believed amendments to the U.S. Constitution did not apply to state laws."[15]
> 
> _Bliss_ stated, "But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution."[12] The "constitution" mentioned in this quote refers to Kentucky's Constitution.[16]
> 
> The case prompted outrage in the Kentucky House, all the while recognizing that Section 23 of the Second Constitution of Kentucky (1799) did guarantee individuals the right to bear arms. The _Bliss_ruling, to the extent that it dealt with concealed weapons, was overturned by constitutional amendment with Section 26 in Kentucky's Third Constitution (1850) banning the future carrying of concealed weapons, while still asserting that the bearing of arms in defense of themselves and the state was an individual and collective right in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. This recognition, has remained to the present day in the Commonwealth of Kentucky's Fourth Constitution enacted in 1891, in Section 1, Article 7, that guarantees "The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons." As noted in the Northern Kentucky Law Review Second Amendment Symposium: Rights in Conflict in the 1980s, vol. 10, no. 1, 1982, p. 155, "The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was _Bliss v. Commonwealth_. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."[17][18]
> 
> The importance of _Bliss_ is also seen from the defense subsequently given against a murder charge in Kentucky against Mattews Ward, who in 1852 pulled out a concealed pistol and fatally wounded his brother's teacher over an accusation regarding eating chestnuts in class. Ward's defense team consisted of eighteen lawyers, including U.S. Senator John Crittenden, former Governor of Kentucky, and former United States Attorney General. The defense successfully defended Ward in 1854 through an assertion that "a man has a right to carry arms; I am aware of nothing in the laws of God or man, prohibiting it. The Constitution of Kentucky and our Bill of Rights guarantee it. The Legislature once passed an act forbidding it, but it was decided unconstitutional, and overruled by our highest tribunal, the Court of Appeals." As noted by Cornell, "Ward's lawyers took advantage of the doctrine advanced in _Bliss_ and wrapped their client's action under the banner of a constitutional right to bear arms. Ward was acquitted."
> ...}
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And gun control in Tombstone didn't work....as the maimed Earp, and the dead Earp show...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would say it worked pretty damned well.  It would have worked much better if the Earps had adopted the Dallas Marshal's approach and just gunned them down with no warning.  But the Earps may have been killers but they weren't cold blooded killers.  You are sticking up for outlaws, you know that.
Click to expand...


Wrong, the Earps were fired and run out of town.
I don't believe you about Dallas, but have not found anything yet.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rigby5 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oddly though...there are Federal laws concerning machine guns and canons
> 
> 
> 
> Cannons are not small arms, and they are Legal if you get an ffl license...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In most areas, even if you have a FFL for a piece of artillery, the local government will not allow you to have possession of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But legally they have to have a process where by you can have possession if it can be shown to not infringe upon the rights of others.
> No arbitrary regulation can ever be legal and if any government employee can possess something, then so can any private individual if they can show identical need and safeguards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Noper.  Boston has already been taken to court over it's AR-15 ban and it stuck.  And you can cry about it all you want but if your local guv decides that extenuous weapons are not allowed then they aren't allowed, period.  Again, upheld in Federal Courts.  It's legal as long as Due Process has been used.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, only 1 federal judge went along with Boston's foolish law, and it won't hold up to the SCOTUS.  If a weapons is too dangerous to be allowed, then police can't have it either.  So Boston will lose eventually, on the 14th amendment, if not the 2nd, 4th, or 5th.
> There was no due process in the passing of the Boston ban at all, because it is not necessary to defend rights, and is unequal since it does not disarm them from police.  It does not even effect slight variants.
Click to expand...


The fact remains that the law stands and it's not been contested again  since the Federal Court Ruling.  Don't look for the Supreme Court to address this.  They  avoid 2nd amendment rulings like the plague.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rigby5 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for John Wesley Harding:
> 
> {...
> He was well known for wildly exaggerating or completely making up stories about his life. He claimed credit for many murders that cannot be corroborated.[4]:10–11
> 
> Within a year of his release in 1894, Hardin was killed by John Selman in an El Paso saloon.
> ...}
> 
> So he was taken care of by armed civilians, not the government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and this wanton killing is why Dallas had the no firearms in the city limit streets and businesses and would have tried and convicted him for murder under the same cirumstances.  Same goes more many other western towns.
> 
> Something can be said when there are too few guns in the innocents hands but there are volumes when there are too many.  Even today, in El Paso, you can't have a weapon in a Bar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can find no specific references to Dallas, but clearly until 1900, the SCOTUS consistently ruled that city bans on firearms were entirely illegal, including concealed weapons.
> I find no exceptions.  The Earps in Deadwood were only temporarily confiscating while visiters were drinking.
> 
> List of firearm court cases in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> {...
> *Bliss v. Commonwealth[edit]*
> _Bliss v. Commonwealth_ (1822, Ky.)[12] addressed the right to bear arms pursuant to Art. 10, Sec. 23 of the Second Constitution of Kentucky (1799):[13] "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state, shall not be questioned." This was interpreted to include the right to carry a concealed sword in a cane. _Bliss_ has been described as about "a statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons [that] was violative of the Second Amendment."[14] Others, however, have seen no conflict with the Second Amendment by the Commonwealth of Kentucky's statute under consideration in _Bliss_ since "The Kentucky law was aimed at concealed weapons. No one saw any conflict with the Second Amendment. As a matter of fact, most of the few people who considered the question at all believed amendments to the U.S. Constitution did not apply to state laws."[15]
> 
> _Bliss_ stated, "But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution."[12] The "constitution" mentioned in this quote refers to Kentucky's Constitution.[16]
> 
> The case prompted outrage in the Kentucky House, all the while recognizing that Section 23 of the Second Constitution of Kentucky (1799) did guarantee individuals the right to bear arms. The _Bliss_ruling, to the extent that it dealt with concealed weapons, was overturned by constitutional amendment with Section 26 in Kentucky's Third Constitution (1850) banning the future carrying of concealed weapons, while still asserting that the bearing of arms in defense of themselves and the state was an individual and collective right in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. This recognition, has remained to the present day in the Commonwealth of Kentucky's Fourth Constitution enacted in 1891, in Section 1, Article 7, that guarantees "The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons." As noted in the Northern Kentucky Law Review Second Amendment Symposium: Rights in Conflict in the 1980s, vol. 10, no. 1, 1982, p. 155, "The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was _Bliss v. Commonwealth_. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."[17][18]
> 
> The importance of _Bliss_ is also seen from the defense subsequently given against a murder charge in Kentucky against Mattews Ward, who in 1852 pulled out a concealed pistol and fatally wounded his brother's teacher over an accusation regarding eating chestnuts in class. Ward's defense team consisted of eighteen lawyers, including U.S. Senator John Crittenden, former Governor of Kentucky, and former United States Attorney General. The defense successfully defended Ward in 1854 through an assertion that "a man has a right to carry arms; I am aware of nothing in the laws of God or man, prohibiting it. The Constitution of Kentucky and our Bill of Rights guarantee it. The Legislature once passed an act forbidding it, but it was decided unconstitutional, and overruled by our highest tribunal, the Court of Appeals." As noted by Cornell, "Ward's lawyers took advantage of the doctrine advanced in _Bliss_ and wrapped their client's action under the banner of a constitutional right to bear arms. Ward was acquitted."
> ...}
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And gun control in Tombstone didn't work....as the maimed Earp, and the dead Earp show...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would say it worked pretty damned well.  It would have worked much better if the Earps had adopted the Dallas Marshal's approach and just gunned them down with no warning.  But the Earps may have been killers but they weren't cold blooded killers.  You are sticking up for outlaws, you know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong, the Earps were fired and run out of town.
> I don't believe you about Dallas, but have not found anything yet.
Click to expand...


Wow, history does get you the way or your reality, doesn't it.

All the surviving Earps and Doc Holiday were arrested and tried for Murder right after the shooting by the Sheriff.  The two Earps that were Marshals were fired during that time.  At the end of the trial, all of them were exonerated.  Sorry, I used a big word, it means found innocent.  Wyatt was appointed a US Deputy Marshal at that time.  When his brother was murdered, he deputized a group of people and they went after the ones that probably did the murder since those wonderful people tried to gun them down in a pool hall before.  All 4 were gunned  down on sight.  The Community had enough of the rough violence and Wyatt had to move on.  While it's questionable how many laws that Wyatt actually broke in his life, his time in Tombstone, he didn't break any laws that can be proven.


----------



## Lesh

You fuckers just make shit up and expect to believed'

'
*Relevant law in Tombstone[edit]*
To reduce crime in Tombstone, on April 19, 1881, the city council passed ordinance 9, requiring anyone carrying a bowie knife, dirk, pistol or rifle[38][39] to deposit their weapons at a liveryor saloon soon after entering town.

To Provide against Carrying of Deadly Weapons

*Section 1*. It is hereby declared unlawful to carry in the hand or upon the person or otherwise any deadly weapon within the limits of said city of Tombstone, without first obtaining a permit in writing.

*Section 2*: This prohibition does not extend to persons immediately leaving or entering the city, who, with good faith, and within reasonable time are proceeding to deposit, or take from the place of deposit such deadly weapon.

*Section 3*: All fire-arms of every description, and bowie knives and dirks, are included within the prohibition of this ordinance.

— Tombstone City Ordinance Number 9 Effective April 19, 1881, [40]


----------



## danielpalos

Rustic said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> I won't bother taking all that nonsense apart. I'll simply point this out
> 
> "This means that the well regulated Militia is formed by the state to guard against the forming of the tyranny of the Federal Government.  The problem with this is, as late as 1898, Governors were using their Organized Militia as bully boys to support their Rich Cronies business ventures.  In 1898, that happened here. "
> 
> So the Constitution gives as one of the purposes and duties of a "Well Regulated Militia" that of putting DOWN insurrections...you acknowledge this and point out several contemporaneous uses (Shay's and the Whiskey Rebellion). But somehow this means the opposite of what it says and how it was used?
> 
> You really need to go sit in the corner
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution does not at all detail the purpose, need, etc., of militias.
> ALL the federal constitution would have jurisdiction over or need to point out would be the rare emergency when the federal government would need and be able to draw on the militias.
> That is NOT at all the main point of the militias.
> And being able to put down immoral insurrections does not at all imply all insurrections are immoral or should be put down.
> Clearly the founders implemented a good insurrection and were VERY fond of the ability to commit insurrections.
> They would NEVER have at all implied anything that would prevent needed insurrections, and in fact verbally and in writing said they though insurrections would likely be necessary on a semi regular basis.
> 
> And NO, militias are NOT formed by the states alone.  They are individual, local, and state.  Most militias were private.
> Clearly the 2nd amendment implies it is the PEOPLE themselves who form well regulated militias, not states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The original intent was for the State to control the Militias and the total of all of the Militias to outnumber the total number of Federal Troops allowed by law.  Each state did not have to have a larger number but the combined number of all the states had to be a larger number than the legal Federal troops.  The Federal Troops were limited to 75,000 for many decades.  With the Indian Wars taking up so many of that Federal Total, this gave the Confederates a decided advantage at first.  Had it not been for the States Militias being called up, the Confederates would have marched in and taken DC.  In those days, it was traditional when you took the other guys capital city the war ended much like taking Richmond ended the Civil War the other direction.
> 
> When the 2nd amendment reads Organized Militia, by tradition and wordage, it means the State Controlled Militia not a bunch of dudes wearing pickle suits and waving a bunch of guns while running around the woods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are not reading it in the context of the era
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am reading it EXACTLY in context for the Era.  The little private armies running around in the woods were never intended to try and overthrow the Governments.  The Protections in that context was left to the States, not the individual.  It still is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Federal government and the states were never intended to control private firearm ownership. In fact it was supposed to be none of their business in anyway. Hence.... shall not be infringed
Click to expand...

only in right wing fantasy would that ever be true.


----------



## Rustic

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution does not at all detail the purpose, need, etc., of militias.
> ALL the federal constitution would have jurisdiction over or need to point out would be the rare emergency when the federal government would need and be able to draw on the militias.
> That is NOT at all the main point of the militias.
> And being able to put down immoral insurrections does not at all imply all insurrections are immoral or should be put down.
> Clearly the founders implemented a good insurrection and were VERY fond of the ability to commit insurrections.
> They would NEVER have at all implied anything that would prevent needed insurrections, and in fact verbally and in writing said they though insurrections would likely be necessary on a semi regular basis.
> 
> And NO, militias are NOT formed by the states alone.  They are individual, local, and state.  Most militias were private.
> Clearly the 2nd amendment implies it is the PEOPLE themselves who form well regulated militias, not states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The original intent was for the State to control the Militias and the total of all of the Militias to outnumber the total number of Federal Troops allowed by law.  Each state did not have to have a larger number but the combined number of all the states had to be a larger number than the legal Federal troops.  The Federal Troops were limited to 75,000 for many decades.  With the Indian Wars taking up so many of that Federal Total, this gave the Confederates a decided advantage at first.  Had it not been for the States Militias being called up, the Confederates would have marched in and taken DC.  In those days, it was traditional when you took the other guys capital city the war ended much like taking Richmond ended the Civil War the other direction.
> 
> When the 2nd amendment reads Organized Militia, by tradition and wordage, it means the State Controlled Militia not a bunch of dudes wearing pickle suits and waving a bunch of guns while running around the woods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are not reading it in the context of the era
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am reading it EXACTLY in context for the Era.  The little private armies running around in the woods were never intended to try and overthrow the Governments.  The Protections in that context was left to the States, not the individual.  It still is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Federal government and the states were never intended to control private firearm ownership. In fact it was supposed to be none of their business in anyway. Hence.... shall not be infringed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read the rest of the 2nd amendment.  It limits the Feds, not the States.  Unless you add in the Interstate Public Safety issue then it can become a Federal Issue.  I sometimes question the 1934 Firearms act myself.  It all depends on the thought behind it.  Was it done for Gun Regulation or was it done as an Interstate Public Safety Issue.  Now, that is a fight in court I would like to see.  As for the States, they have every right to limit firearms and the Courts have agreed.  Well at least for the last 100 years anyway.
Click to expand...

Na, not really
The states are far too overbearing if they include any type of regulations on sporting rifles...


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a legal expert or a credentialed constitutional scholar.      However, regardless of how you want to spin the Bill of Rights to justify your extremist position, the FACT is that having millions of law abiders walking around with handguns and long guns is great as it leads to more order.    Bad actors know not to try and stick someone up, because their octogenarian victim might turn the tables on them and give them an express ticket to Judgment Day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's take a look at the 2nd amendment line by line.
> 
> _*A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,*_
> 
> This means that the well regulated Militia is formed by the state to guard against the forming of the tyranny of the Federal Government.  The problem with this is, as late as 1898, Governors were using their Organized Militia as bully boys to support their Rich Cronies business ventures.  In 1898, that happened here.   And throughout the history this was done over and over.  The intent was good but the application was often times not.  But that doesn't change a thing.  The intent was the same for the original formation.  But due to the Spanish American War, the first part of the National Guard Act was passed but no one really took it seriously.  It was tightened up a bit more in 1908.  But due to the War Department finally coming to the realization that the original 75,000 strong Army could no longer apply ever again, the law of the National Guard Act of 1917 was passed and it still stands today.  All of a sudden, the States had no Organized Militia anymore.  And even if they did form a separate State Militia (the name was changed to SDF to get around the new Militia laws) the State could not afford to equip and train their SDF people to the level that the Feds could the National Guard or the Regulars.  The intent of the first line of the second amendment became lost.  The Feds did take control of it but it was gleefully relinquished by each and every state.  The States could have blocked it just by standing together.  But with WWI coming on the States were scared shitless.  The clause was telling the Feds what they could not do but the States allowed it to happen anyway.
> 
> _*the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> *_
> People break these two apart.  We shouldn't.  It's really all one thought.  The Rights of the People (or the State) to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.  The Federals cannot infringe on the rights of the State when it comes to firearms.  Yes, according to this even the 1934 Firearms Act might be deemed illegal unless it's done under the guise of Public Safety and not under Gun Control which is something entirely different.  That should be up for debate at state levels, not Federal Levels.  I doubt if the Feds could legally do anything to a State that decides to disregard the 1934 Firearms act in the Supreme Court or any Federal Court unless they can prove that the original intent of the Firearms act was Public Safety.  It might be an interesting case.  Certainly much more deserving than what is usually tried to argue lately on firearms.  The second half of the 2nd amendment is telling the Feds that they cannot infringe on the States Firearms Rights and this includes all people in the State.
> 
> While the first half is out of date, the second half is not and stands as it is written.  And it must be taken in it's intended purpose by our Founding Fathers and the Bill of Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I won't bother taking all that nonsense apart. I'll simply point this out
> 
> "This means that the well regulated Militia is formed by the state to guard against the forming of the tyranny of the Federal Government.  The problem with this is, as late as 1898, Governors were using their Organized Militia as bully boys to support their Rich Cronies business ventures.  In 1898, that happened here. "
> 
> So the Constitution gives as one of the purposes and duties of a "Well Regulated Militia" that of putting DOWN insurrections...you acknowledge this and point out several contemporaneous uses (Shay's and the Whiskey Rebellion). But somehow this means the opposite of what it says and how it was used?
> 
> You really need to go sit in the corner
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution does not at all detail the purpose, need, etc., of militias.
> ALL the federal constitution would have jurisdiction over or need to point out would be the rare emergency when the federal government would need and be able to draw on the militias.
> That is NOT at all the main point of the militias.
> And being able to put down immoral insurrections does not at all imply all insurrections are immoral or should be put down.
> Clearly the founders implemented a good insurrection and were VERY fond of the ability to commit insurrections.
> They would NEVER have at all implied anything that would prevent needed insurrections, and in fact verbally and in writing said they though insurrections would likely be necessary on a semi regular basis.
> 
> And NO, militias are NOT formed by the states alone.  They are individual, local, and state.  Most militias were private.
> Clearly the 2nd amendment implies it is the PEOPLE themselves who form well regulated militias, not states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The original intent was for the State to control the Militias and the total of all of the Militias to outnumber the total number of Federal Troops allowed by law.  Each state did not have to have a larger number but the combined number of all the states had to be a larger number than the legal Federal troops.  The Federal Troops were limited to 75,000 for many decades.  With the Indian Wars taking up so many of that Federal Total, this gave the Confederates a decided advantage at first.  Had it not been for the States Militias being called up, the Confederates would have marched in and taken DC.  In those days, it was traditional when you took the other guys capital city the war ended much like taking Richmond ended the Civil War the other direction.
> 
> When the 2nd amendment reads Organized Militia, by tradition and wordage, it means the State Controlled Militia not a bunch of dudes wearing pickle suits and waving a bunch of guns while running around the woods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd Amendment does not read as mentioning the Organized Militia, but instead mentions that to have a well practiced militia, you need "the people" to be armed already.
> It specifically does not mention the Organized Militia, and instead only "the people".
Click to expand...

Only in the vacuum of special pleading and right wing fantasy is our Second Article of Amendment, a Constitution unto itself.


----------



## Rustic

danielpalos said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution does not at all detail the purpose, need, etc., of militias.
> ALL the federal constitution would have jurisdiction over or need to point out would be the rare emergency when the federal government would need and be able to draw on the militias.
> That is NOT at all the main point of the militias.
> And being able to put down immoral insurrections does not at all imply all insurrections are immoral or should be put down.
> Clearly the founders implemented a good insurrection and were VERY fond of the ability to commit insurrections.
> They would NEVER have at all implied anything that would prevent needed insurrections, and in fact verbally and in writing said they though insurrections would likely be necessary on a semi regular basis.
> 
> And NO, militias are NOT formed by the states alone.  They are individual, local, and state.  Most militias were private.
> Clearly the 2nd amendment implies it is the PEOPLE themselves who form well regulated militias, not states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The original intent was for the State to control the Militias and the total of all of the Militias to outnumber the total number of Federal Troops allowed by law.  Each state did not have to have a larger number but the combined number of all the states had to be a larger number than the legal Federal troops.  The Federal Troops were limited to 75,000 for many decades.  With the Indian Wars taking up so many of that Federal Total, this gave the Confederates a decided advantage at first.  Had it not been for the States Militias being called up, the Confederates would have marched in and taken DC.  In those days, it was traditional when you took the other guys capital city the war ended much like taking Richmond ended the Civil War the other direction.
> 
> When the 2nd amendment reads Organized Militia, by tradition and wordage, it means the State Controlled Militia not a bunch of dudes wearing pickle suits and waving a bunch of guns while running around the woods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are not reading it in the context of the era
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am reading it EXACTLY in context for the Era.  The little private armies running around in the woods were never intended to try and overthrow the Governments.  The Protections in that context was left to the States, not the individual.  It still is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Federal government and the states were never intended to control private firearm ownership. In fact it was supposed to be none of their business in anyway. Hence.... shall not be infringed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only in right wing fantasy would that ever be true.
Click to expand...

 Shall not be infringed means only one thing


----------



## Lesh

"A Well Regulated Militia..." only means one thing as well


----------



## danielpalos

Rustic said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The original intent was for the State to control the Militias and the total of all of the Militias to outnumber the total number of Federal Troops allowed by law.  Each state did not have to have a larger number but the combined number of all the states had to be a larger number than the legal Federal troops.  The Federal Troops were limited to 75,000 for many decades.  With the Indian Wars taking up so many of that Federal Total, this gave the Confederates a decided advantage at first.  Had it not been for the States Militias being called up, the Confederates would have marched in and taken DC.  In those days, it was traditional when you took the other guys capital city the war ended much like taking Richmond ended the Civil War the other direction.
> 
> When the 2nd amendment reads Organized Militia, by tradition and wordage, it means the State Controlled Militia not a bunch of dudes wearing pickle suits and waving a bunch of guns while running around the woods.
> 
> 
> 
> You are not reading it in the context of the era
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am reading it EXACTLY in context for the Era.  The little private armies running around in the woods were never intended to try and overthrow the Governments.  The Protections in that context was left to the States, not the individual.  It still is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Federal government and the states were never intended to control private firearm ownership. In fact it was supposed to be none of their business in anyway. Hence.... shall not be infringed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only in right wing fantasy would that ever be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shall not be infringed means only one thing
Click to expand...

Only well regulated militias of the United States enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment when in the service of their State or the Union. 

Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws.


----------



## Rustic

danielpalos said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are not reading it in the context of the era
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am reading it EXACTLY in context for the Era.  The little private armies running around in the woods were never intended to try and overthrow the Governments.  The Protections in that context was left to the States, not the individual.  It still is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Federal government and the states were never intended to control private firearm ownership. In fact it was supposed to be none of their business in anyway. Hence.... shall not be infringed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only in right wing fantasy would that ever be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shall not be infringed means only one thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militias of the United States enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment when in the service of their State or the Union.
> 
> Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws.
Click to expand...

Lol
Read it in the context of the era… shall not be infringed says everything you need to know about it


----------



## danielpalos

Rustic said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am reading it EXACTLY in context for the Era.  The little private armies running around in the woods were never intended to try and overthrow the Governments.  The Protections in that context was left to the States, not the individual.  It still is.
> 
> 
> 
> Federal government and the states were never intended to control private firearm ownership. In fact it was supposed to be none of their business in anyway. Hence.... shall not be infringed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only in right wing fantasy would that ever be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shall not be infringed means only one thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militias of the United States enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment when in the service of their State or the Union.
> 
> Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol
> Read it in the context of the era… shall not be infringed says everything you need to know about it
Click to expand...

Only in the vacuum of special pleading and right wing fantasy is our _Second_ _Article_ of _Amendment_, a Constitution unto itself.


----------



## Lesh

Rustic said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am reading it EXACTLY in context for the Era.  The little private armies running around in the woods were never intended to try and overthrow the Governments.  The Protections in that context was left to the States, not the individual.  It still is.
> 
> 
> 
> Federal government and the states were never intended to control private firearm ownership. In fact it was supposed to be none of their business in anyway. Hence.... shall not be infringed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only in right wing fantasy would that ever be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shall not be infringed means only one thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militias of the United States enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment when in the service of their State or the Union.
> 
> Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol
> Read it in the context of the era… shall not be infringed says everything you need to know about it
Click to expand...

In the context of the CONSTITUTION...as well as "the era" , militias...were used to put down insurrections


----------



## Rigby5

Lesh said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Federal government and the states were never intended to control private firearm ownership. In fact it was supposed to be none of their business in anyway. Hence.... shall not be infringed
> 
> 
> 
> only in right wing fantasy would that ever be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shall not be infringed means only one thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militias of the United States enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment when in the service of their State or the Union.
> 
> Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol
> Read it in the context of the era… shall not be infringed says everything you need to know about it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the context of the CONSTITUTION...as well as "the era" , militias...were used to put down insurrections
Click to expand...


In the context of the CONSTITUTION...as well as "the era", militias had MAINLY been used to institute a legal rebellion against Gt. Britain.

If not for the militia successfully rebelling from Gt. Britain, there could not have been any constitution written.
The Constitution is quite clear that individual rights are inherent and superior to any federal government.
The implication of the threat of rebellion if the federal government violates the Bill of Rights is very clear.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Federal government and the states were never intended to control private firearm ownership. In fact it was supposed to be none of their business in anyway. Hence.... shall not be infringed
> 
> 
> 
> only in right wing fantasy would that ever be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shall not be infringed means only one thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militias of the United States enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment when in the service of their State or the Union.
> 
> Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol
> Read it in the context of the era… shall not be infringed says everything you need to know about it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only in the vacuum of special pleading and right wing fantasy is our _Second_ _Article_ of _Amendment_, a Constitution unto itself.
Click to expand...


The first half of the 2nd amendment clearly does NOT at all say state militia, and even if it did intend that, the states define the state militia as everyone capable and interested in the whole state.  It still protects the right of everyone to be armed.
The militia is not a current designation to any of its members, but is only the future potential, in case they are needed.
Nor is the 2nd amendment the only reason federal gun control is totally illegal. 
The 4th and 5th make individual weapons absolutely necessary as well.
And the 14th essentially says that if police and other government employees have the need to be armed, then clearly so do all those who are not government employees, but have similar needs and risks.  And we all do.  No one is trying to rob the police.


----------



## Rigby5

Lesh said:


> "A Well Regulated Militia..." only means one thing as well



Everyone knows exactly what a "well regulated militia" means.
It means a militia that is practiced, familiar, and efficient with the arms it has.
If you think that means somehow under government control, that is totally wrong, for example, a "well regulated clock" refers to one that is functioning consistently.  Well regulated or regular means working normally, such as in regular bowl movements.
It means the opposite of controlled.

{...
*The meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment*
*From: Brian T. Halonen <halonen@csd.uwm.edu>*

The following are taken from the _*Oxford English Dictionary*_, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us *well-regulated* Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all *well-regulated* courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a *well-regulated* clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every *well-regulated* person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her *well-regulated* mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every *well-regulated* American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
...}

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


----------



## Rustic

Lesh said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Federal government and the states were never intended to control private firearm ownership. In fact it was supposed to be none of their business in anyway. Hence.... shall not be infringed
> 
> 
> 
> only in right wing fantasy would that ever be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shall not be infringed means only one thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militias of the United States enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment when in the service of their State or the Union.
> 
> Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol
> Read it in the context of the era… shall not be infringed says everything you need to know about it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the context of the CONSTITUTION...as well as "the era" , militias...were used to put down insurrections
Click to expand...

It was personal firearm ownership, not up to the government


----------



## Lesh

Rigby5 said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> only in right wing fantasy would that ever be true.
> 
> 
> 
> Shall not be infringed means only one thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militias of the United States enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment when in the service of their State or the Union.
> 
> Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol
> Read it in the context of the era… shall not be infringed says everything you need to know about it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the context of the CONSTITUTION...as well as "the era" , militias...were used to put down insurrections
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the context of the CONSTITUTION...as well as "the era", militias had MAINLY been used to institute a legal rebellion against Gt. Britain.
> 
> If not for the militia successfully rebelling from Gt. Britain, there could not have been any constitution written.
> The Constitution is quite clear that individual rights are inherent and superior to any federal government.
> The implication of the threat of rebellion if the federal government violates the Bill of Rights is very clear.
Click to expand...

Here we go again. The Revolution occurred a considerable number of years prior to the Constitution and was fought primarily by the Regular Army.

After the war the Army was largely disbanded and the militia again became our source of Defense. That was how the Founders wanted it because they did not want the expense or the potential danger of having an Army looming over a tottering fledgling government.


----------



## progressive hunter

danielpalos said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are not reading it in the context of the era
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am reading it EXACTLY in context for the Era.  The little private armies running around in the woods were never intended to try and overthrow the Governments.  The Protections in that context was left to the States, not the individual.  It still is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Federal government and the states were never intended to control private firearm ownership. In fact it was supposed to be none of their business in anyway. Hence.... shall not be infringed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only in right wing fantasy would that ever be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shall not be infringed means only one thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militias of the United States enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment when in the service of their State or the Union.
> 
> Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws.
Click to expand...



what do you have against people paying their fair share???


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> only in right wing fantasy would that ever be true.
> 
> 
> 
> Shall not be infringed means only one thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militias of the United States enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment when in the service of their State or the Union.
> 
> Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol
> Read it in the context of the era… shall not be infringed says everything you need to know about it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only in the vacuum of special pleading and right wing fantasy is our _Second_ _Article_ of _Amendment_, a Constitution unto itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The first half of the 2nd amendment clearly does NOT at all say state militia, and even if it did intend that, the states define the state militia as everyone capable and interested in the whole state.  It still protects the right of everyone to be armed.
> The militia is not a current designation to any of its members, but is only the future potential, in case they are needed.
> Nor is the 2nd amendment the only reason federal gun control is totally illegal.
> The 4th and 5th make individual weapons absolutely necessary as well.
> And the 14th essentially says that if police and other government employees have the need to be armed, then clearly so do all those who are not government employees, but have similar needs and risks.  And we all do.  No one is trying to rob the police.
Click to expand...

You confuse what is necessary to the security of a free State with natural rights.


----------



## Rustic

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shall not be infringed means only one thing
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militias of the United States enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment when in the service of their State or the Union.
> 
> Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol
> Read it in the context of the era… shall not be infringed says everything you need to know about it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only in the vacuum of special pleading and right wing fantasy is our _Second_ _Article_ of _Amendment_, a Constitution unto itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The first half of the 2nd amendment clearly does NOT at all say state militia, and even if it did intend that, the states define the state militia as everyone capable and interested in the whole state.  It still protects the right of everyone to be armed.
> The militia is not a current designation to any of its members, but is only the future potential, in case they are needed.
> Nor is the 2nd amendment the only reason federal gun control is totally illegal.
> The 4th and 5th make individual weapons absolutely necessary as well.
> And the 14th essentially says that if police and other government employees have the need to be armed, then clearly so do all those who are not government employees, but have similar needs and risks.  And we all do.  No one is trying to rob the police.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You confuse what is necessary to the security of a free State with natural rights.
Click to expand...

Natural rights are a bunch of horseshit


----------



## danielpalos

progressive hunter said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am reading it EXACTLY in context for the Era.  The little private armies running around in the woods were never intended to try and overthrow the Governments.  The Protections in that context was left to the States, not the individual.  It still is.
> 
> 
> 
> Federal government and the states were never intended to control private firearm ownership. In fact it was supposed to be none of their business in anyway. Hence.... shall not be infringed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only in right wing fantasy would that ever be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shall not be infringed means only one thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militias of the United States enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment when in the service of their State or the Union.
> 
> Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> what do you have against people paying their fair share???
Click to expand...

why envy the poor?  should the rich have to dig ditches in front of car washers in the summer time or forgo their tax breaks?


----------



## danielpalos

Rustic said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militias of the United States enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment when in the service of their State or the Union.
> 
> Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws.
> 
> 
> 
> Lol
> Read it in the context of the era… shall not be infringed says everything you need to know about it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only in the vacuum of special pleading and right wing fantasy is our _Second_ _Article_ of _Amendment_, a Constitution unto itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The first half of the 2nd amendment clearly does NOT at all say state militia, and even if it did intend that, the states define the state militia as everyone capable and interested in the whole state.  It still protects the right of everyone to be armed.
> The militia is not a current designation to any of its members, but is only the future potential, in case they are needed.
> Nor is the 2nd amendment the only reason federal gun control is totally illegal.
> The 4th and 5th make individual weapons absolutely necessary as well.
> And the 14th essentially says that if police and other government employees have the need to be armed, then clearly so do all those who are not government employees, but have similar needs and risks.  And we all do.  No one is trying to rob the police.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You confuse what is necessary to the security of a free State with natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Natural rights are a bunch of horseshit
Click to expand...

we don't take right wingers seriously in abortion threads.


----------



## Rustic

danielpalos said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol
> Read it in the context of the era… shall not be infringed says everything you need to know about it
> 
> 
> 
> Only in the vacuum of special pleading and right wing fantasy is our _Second_ _Article_ of _Amendment_, a Constitution unto itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The first half of the 2nd amendment clearly does NOT at all say state militia, and even if it did intend that, the states define the state militia as everyone capable and interested in the whole state.  It still protects the right of everyone to be armed.
> The militia is not a current designation to any of its members, but is only the future potential, in case they are needed.
> Nor is the 2nd amendment the only reason federal gun control is totally illegal.
> The 4th and 5th make individual weapons absolutely necessary as well.
> And the 14th essentially says that if police and other government employees have the need to be armed, then clearly so do all those who are not government employees, but have similar needs and risks.  And we all do.  No one is trying to rob the police.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You confuse what is necessary to the security of a free State with natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Natural rights are a bunch of horseshit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we don't take right wingers seriously in abortion threads.
Click to expand...

Just existing is not enough


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rustic said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The original intent was for the State to control the Militias and the total of all of the Militias to outnumber the total number of Federal Troops allowed by law.  Each state did not have to have a larger number but the combined number of all the states had to be a larger number than the legal Federal troops.  The Federal Troops were limited to 75,000 for many decades.  With the Indian Wars taking up so many of that Federal Total, this gave the Confederates a decided advantage at first.  Had it not been for the States Militias being called up, the Confederates would have marched in and taken DC.  In those days, it was traditional when you took the other guys capital city the war ended much like taking Richmond ended the Civil War the other direction.
> 
> When the 2nd amendment reads Organized Militia, by tradition and wordage, it means the State Controlled Militia not a bunch of dudes wearing pickle suits and waving a bunch of guns while running around the woods.
> 
> 
> 
> You are not reading it in the context of the era
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am reading it EXACTLY in context for the Era.  The little private armies running around in the woods were never intended to try and overthrow the Governments.  The Protections in that context was left to the States, not the individual.  It still is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Federal government and the states were never intended to control private firearm ownership. In fact it was supposed to be none of their business in anyway. Hence.... shall not be infringed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read the rest of the 2nd amendment.  It limits the Feds, not the States.  Unless you add in the Interstate Public Safety issue then it can become a Federal Issue.  I sometimes question the 1934 Firearms act myself.  It all depends on the thought behind it.  Was it done for Gun Regulation or was it done as an Interstate Public Safety Issue.  Now, that is a fight in court I would like to see.  As for the States, they have every right to limit firearms and the Courts have agreed.  Well at least for the last 100 years anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Na, not really
> The states are far too overbearing if they include any type of regulations on sporting rifles...
Click to expand...


According to you but not according to the Constitution of the United States and that is what we have to work with.  Colorado is one law away from joining a few others with the complete Universal Background Check and that is where when the check includes a mental health check.  The common sense gun regs includes a universal background check.  I can still buy a gun in about 15 minutes.  I can still carry my handgun on the street openly without a permit.  I can easily get a CCW whether I need one or not.  Most of the crap you spew is just a scared little kid scared that some boogey man will take his toys.  Time to grow up.


----------



## Rustic

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are not reading it in the context of the era
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am reading it EXACTLY in context for the Era.  The little private armies running around in the woods were never intended to try and overthrow the Governments.  The Protections in that context was left to the States, not the individual.  It still is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Federal government and the states were never intended to control private firearm ownership. In fact it was supposed to be none of their business in anyway. Hence.... shall not be infringed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read the rest of the 2nd amendment.  It limits the Feds, not the States.  Unless you add in the Interstate Public Safety issue then it can become a Federal Issue.  I sometimes question the 1934 Firearms act myself.  It all depends on the thought behind it.  Was it done for Gun Regulation or was it done as an Interstate Public Safety Issue.  Now, that is a fight in court I would like to see.  As for the States, they have every right to limit firearms and the Courts have agreed.  Well at least for the last 100 years anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Na, not really
> The states are far too overbearing if they include any type of regulations on sporting rifles...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to you but not according to the Constitution of the United States and that is what we have to work with.  Colorado is one law away from joining a few others with the complete Universal Background Check and that is where when the check includes a mental health check.  The common sense gun regs includes a universal background check.  I can still buy a gun in about 15 minutes.  I can still carry my handgun on the street openly without a permit.  I can easily get a CCW whether I need one or not.  Most of the crap you spew is just a scared little kid scared that some boogey man will take his toys.  Time to grow up.
Click to expand...

Any sort of American government does not have the moral authority to deny firearm ownership to law abiding citizens. Obviously that’s their ultimate goal


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Lesh said:


> You fuckers just make shit up and expect to believed'
> 
> '
> *Relevant law in Tombstone[edit]*
> To reduce crime in Tombstone, on April 19, 1881, the city council passed ordinance 9, requiring anyone carrying a bowie knife, dirk, pistol or rifle[38][39] to deposit their weapons at a liveryor saloon soon after entering town.
> 
> To Provide against Carrying of Deadly Weapons
> 
> *Section 1*. It is hereby declared unlawful to carry in the hand or upon the person or otherwise any deadly weapon within the limits of said city of Tombstone, without first obtaining a permit in writing.
> 
> *Section 2*: This prohibition does not extend to persons immediately leaving or entering the city, who, with good faith, and within reasonable time are proceeding to deposit, or take from the place of deposit such deadly weapon.
> 
> *Section 3*: All fire-arms of every description, and bowie knives and dirks, are included within the prohibition of this ordinance.
> 
> — Tombstone City Ordinance Number 9 Effective April 19, 1881, [40]



Glad someone found that.  It should end the argument.  But it won't.


----------



## progressive hunter

danielpalos said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Federal government and the states were never intended to control private firearm ownership. In fact it was supposed to be none of their business in anyway. Hence.... shall not be infringed
> 
> 
> 
> only in right wing fantasy would that ever be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shall not be infringed means only one thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militias of the United States enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment when in the service of their State or the Union.
> 
> Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> what do you have against people paying their fair share???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why envy the poor?  should the rich have to dig ditches in front of car washers in the summer time or forgo their tax breaks?
Click to expand...

what do you have against people paying their fair share???


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rustic said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am reading it EXACTLY in context for the Era.  The little private armies running around in the woods were never intended to try and overthrow the Governments.  The Protections in that context was left to the States, not the individual.  It still is.
> 
> 
> 
> Federal government and the states were never intended to control private firearm ownership. In fact it was supposed to be none of their business in anyway. Hence.... shall not be infringed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only in right wing fantasy would that ever be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shall not be infringed means only one thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militias of the United States enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment when in the service of their State or the Union.
> 
> Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol
> Read it in the context of the era… shall not be infringed says everything you need to know about it
Click to expand...


That is called taking something out of context.  If you only read those 4 words by themselves you would be right but when you read the whole thing then it has an entirely different meaning.  I can bet you have a field day with the Bible.


----------



## Rustic

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Federal government and the states were never intended to control private firearm ownership. In fact it was supposed to be none of their business in anyway. Hence.... shall not be infringed
> 
> 
> 
> only in right wing fantasy would that ever be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shall not be infringed means only one thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militias of the United States enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment when in the service of their State or the Union.
> 
> Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol
> Read it in the context of the era… shall not be infringed says everything you need to know about it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is called taking something out of context.  If you only read those 4 words by themselves you would be right but when you read the whole thing then it has an entirely different meaning.  I can bet you have a field day with the Bible.
Click to expand...

Lol
Personal ownership a sporting rifles is none of the governments business… Shall not be infringed


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Lesh said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Federal government and the states were never intended to control private firearm ownership. In fact it was supposed to be none of their business in anyway. Hence.... shall not be infringed
> 
> 
> 
> only in right wing fantasy would that ever be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shall not be infringed means only one thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militias of the United States enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment when in the service of their State or the Union.
> 
> Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol
> Read it in the context of the era… shall not be infringed says everything you need to know about it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the context of the CONSTITUTION...as well as "the era" , militias...were used to put down insurrections
Click to expand...


The problem was, Governors sometimes had peculiar ideas on what was an insurrection.


----------



## Lesh

Rustic said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> only in right wing fantasy would that ever be true.
> 
> 
> 
> Shall not be infringed means only one thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militias of the United States enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment when in the service of their State or the Union.
> 
> Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol
> Read it in the context of the era… shall not be infringed says everything you need to know about it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is called taking something out of context.  If you only read those 4 words by themselves you would be right but when you read the whole thing then it has an entirely different meaning.  I can bet you have a field day with the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol
> Personal ownership a sporting rifles is none of the governments business… Shall not be infringed
Click to expand...

Sporting rifles have nothing to do with the militia.
 The Constitution does not apply.

Subject to state and local laws


----------



## Rustic

Lesh said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shall not be infringed means only one thing
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militias of the United States enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment when in the service of their State or the Union.
> 
> Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol
> Read it in the context of the era… shall not be infringed says everything you need to know about it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is called taking something out of context.  If you only read those 4 words by themselves you would be right but when you read the whole thing then it has an entirely different meaning.  I can bet you have a field day with the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol
> Personal ownership a sporting rifles is none of the governments business… Shall not be infringed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sporting rifles have nothing to do with the militia.
> The Constitution does not apply.
> 
> Subject to state and local laws
Click to expand...

Personal firearm ownership is none of the governments business…


----------



## progressive hunter

Lesh said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shall not be infringed means only one thing
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militias of the United States enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment when in the service of their State or the Union.
> 
> Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol
> Read it in the context of the era… shall not be infringed says everything you need to know about it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is called taking something out of context.  If you only read those 4 words by themselves you would be right but when you read the whole thing then it has an entirely different meaning.  I can bet you have a field day with the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol
> Personal ownership a sporting rifles is none of the governments business… Shall not be infringed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sporting rifles have nothing to do with the militia.
> The Constitution does not apply.
> 
> Subject to state and local laws
Click to expand...

the constitution is the supreme law of the land,,,and it says 

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED


----------



## Daryl Hunt

progressive hunter said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am reading it EXACTLY in context for the Era.  The little private armies running around in the woods were never intended to try and overthrow the Governments.  The Protections in that context was left to the States, not the individual.  It still is.
> 
> 
> 
> Federal government and the states were never intended to control private firearm ownership. In fact it was supposed to be none of their business in anyway. Hence.... shall not be infringed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only in right wing fantasy would that ever be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shall not be infringed means only one thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militias of the United States enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment when in the service of their State or the Union.
> 
> Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> what do you have against people paying their fair share???
Click to expand...


The problem is, the term "Unorganized Militia" is like saying Unorganized Mob Crime.  It's a made up term.  An unorganized militia is a bunch of dudes wearing pickles suits playing with guns in the woods.  Make them dress in Orange and you have some really scary Hunters on your hands.


----------



## Rustic

Daryl Hunt said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Federal government and the states were never intended to control private firearm ownership. In fact it was supposed to be none of their business in anyway. Hence.... shall not be infringed
> 
> 
> 
> only in right wing fantasy would that ever be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shall not be infringed means only one thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militias of the United States enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment when in the service of their State or the Union.
> 
> Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> what do you have against people paying their fair share???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is, the term "Unorganized Militia" is like saying Unorganized Mob Crime.  It's a made up term.  An unorganized militia is a bunch of dudes wearing pickles suits playing with guns in the woods.  Make them dress in Orange and you have some really scary Hunters on your hands.
Click to expand...

The government should have no idea who owns what and how many…


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rustic said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am reading it EXACTLY in context for the Era.  The little private armies running around in the woods were never intended to try and overthrow the Governments.  The Protections in that context was left to the States, not the individual.  It still is.
> 
> 
> 
> Federal government and the states were never intended to control private firearm ownership. In fact it was supposed to be none of their business in anyway. Hence.... shall not be infringed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read the rest of the 2nd amendment.  It limits the Feds, not the States.  Unless you add in the Interstate Public Safety issue then it can become a Federal Issue.  I sometimes question the 1934 Firearms act myself.  It all depends on the thought behind it.  Was it done for Gun Regulation or was it done as an Interstate Public Safety Issue.  Now, that is a fight in court I would like to see.  As for the States, they have every right to limit firearms and the Courts have agreed.  Well at least for the last 100 years anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Na, not really
> The states are far too overbearing if they include any type of regulations on sporting rifles...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to you but not according to the Constitution of the United States and that is what we have to work with.  Colorado is one law away from joining a few others with the complete Universal Background Check and that is where when the check includes a mental health check.  The common sense gun regs includes a universal background check.  I can still buy a gun in about 15 minutes.  I can still carry my handgun on the street openly without a permit.  I can easily get a CCW whether I need one or not.  Most of the crap you spew is just a scared little kid scared that some boogey man will take his toys.  Time to grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any sort of American government does not have the moral authority to deny firearm ownership to law abiding citizens. Obviously that’s their ultimate goal
Click to expand...


The ultimate  goal is supposed to be protecting the public from itself.  And the real reason I own guns is that I have a neighbor much like you and iit's my protection against him.  I don't fear the operating criminal.  But I do protect against the gunnutters that might go off.  I can bet your neighbors really appreciate having you around as well.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Lesh said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shall not be infringed means only one thing
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militias of the United States enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment when in the service of their State or the Union.
> 
> Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol
> Read it in the context of the era… shall not be infringed says everything you need to know about it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is called taking something out of context.  If you only read those 4 words by themselves you would be right but when you read the whole thing then it has an entirely different meaning.  I can bet you have a field day with the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol
> Personal ownership a sporting rifles is none of the governments business… Shall not be infringed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sporting rifles have nothing to do with the militia.
> The Constitution does not apply.
> 
> Subject to state and local laws
Click to expand...


According to these clowns, a Mah Deuce mounted on a Jeep is a sporting rifle.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rustic said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militias of the United States enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment when in the service of their State or the Union.
> 
> Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws.
> 
> 
> 
> Lol
> Read it in the context of the era… shall not be infringed says everything you need to know about it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is called taking something out of context.  If you only read those 4 words by themselves you would be right but when you read the whole thing then it has an entirely different meaning.  I can bet you have a field day with the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol
> Personal ownership a sporting rifles is none of the governments business… Shall not be infringed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sporting rifles have nothing to do with the militia.
> The Constitution does not apply.
> 
> Subject to state and local laws
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Personal firearm ownership is none of the governments business…
Click to expand...


Misuse of personal firearms is certainly our governments business.  It's everyone's business.  And people that talk like you are more than likely to misuse those firearms sooner or later when you feel that someone is trying to take your toys whether it''s real or imagined.


----------



## Rustic

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Federal government and the states were never intended to control private firearm ownership. In fact it was supposed to be none of their business in anyway. Hence.... shall not be infringed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read the rest of the 2nd amendment.  It limits the Feds, not the States.  Unless you add in the Interstate Public Safety issue then it can become a Federal Issue.  I sometimes question the 1934 Firearms act myself.  It all depends on the thought behind it.  Was it done for Gun Regulation or was it done as an Interstate Public Safety Issue.  Now, that is a fight in court I would like to see.  As for the States, they have every right to limit firearms and the Courts have agreed.  Well at least for the last 100 years anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Na, not really
> The states are far too overbearing if they include any type of regulations on sporting rifles...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to you but not according to the Constitution of the United States and that is what we have to work with.  Colorado is one law away from joining a few others with the complete Universal Background Check and that is where when the check includes a mental health check.  The common sense gun regs includes a universal background check.  I can still buy a gun in about 15 minutes.  I can still carry my handgun on the street openly without a permit.  I can easily get a CCW whether I need one or not.  Most of the crap you spew is just a scared little kid scared that some boogey man will take his toys.  Time to grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any sort of American government does not have the moral authority to deny firearm ownership to law abiding citizens. Obviously that’s their ultimate goal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The ultimate  goal is supposed to be protecting the public from itself.  And the real reason I own guns is that I have a neighbor much like you and iit's my protection against him.  I don't fear the operating criminal.  But I do protect against the gunnutters that might go off.  I can bet your neighbors really appreciate having you around as well.
Click to expand...

Lol
Anti-gun nutters like yourself Need to mind your own business. I don’t engage in criminal activity… It’s bad for business.

I live in gods country, where people mind their own business when it comes to firearm ownership.


----------



## Rustic

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol
> Read it in the context of the era… shall not be infringed says everything you need to know about it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is called taking something out of context.  If you only read those 4 words by themselves you would be right but when you read the whole thing then it has an entirely different meaning.  I can bet you have a field day with the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol
> Personal ownership a sporting rifles is none of the governments business… Shall not be infringed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sporting rifles have nothing to do with the militia.
> The Constitution does not apply.
> 
> Subject to state and local laws
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Personal firearm ownership is none of the governments business…
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Misuse of personal firearms is certainly our governments business.  It's everyone's business.  And people that talk like you are more than likely to misuse those firearms sooner or later when you feel that someone is trying to take your toys whether it''s real or imagined.
Click to expand...

Lol
Na, not really
Big brother is not a higher power


----------



## Daryl Hunt

progressive hunter said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militias of the United States enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment when in the service of their State or the Union.
> 
> Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws.
> 
> 
> 
> Lol
> Read it in the context of the era… shall not be infringed says everything you need to know about it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is called taking something out of context.  If you only read those 4 words by themselves you would be right but when you read the whole thing then it has an entirely different meaning.  I can bet you have a field day with the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol
> Personal ownership a sporting rifles is none of the governments business… Shall not be infringed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sporting rifles have nothing to do with the militia.
> The Constitution does not apply.
> 
> Subject to state and local laws
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the constitution is the supreme law of the land,,,and it says
> 
> SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
Click to expand...


Ah, just scrap the rest of the 2ndmm 10th and 14th  amendment just use the 4 words that suits you.  We use ALL of the Constitution not just the parts we agree with.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rustic said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read the rest of the 2nd amendment.  It limits the Feds, not the States.  Unless you add in the Interstate Public Safety issue then it can become a Federal Issue.  I sometimes question the 1934 Firearms act myself.  It all depends on the thought behind it.  Was it done for Gun Regulation or was it done as an Interstate Public Safety Issue.  Now, that is a fight in court I would like to see.  As for the States, they have every right to limit firearms and the Courts have agreed.  Well at least for the last 100 years anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> Na, not really
> The states are far too overbearing if they include any type of regulations on sporting rifles...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to you but not according to the Constitution of the United States and that is what we have to work with.  Colorado is one law away from joining a few others with the complete Universal Background Check and that is where when the check includes a mental health check.  The common sense gun regs includes a universal background check.  I can still buy a gun in about 15 minutes.  I can still carry my handgun on the street openly without a permit.  I can easily get a CCW whether I need one or not.  Most of the crap you spew is just a scared little kid scared that some boogey man will take his toys.  Time to grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any sort of American government does not have the moral authority to deny firearm ownership to law abiding citizens. Obviously that’s their ultimate goal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The ultimate  goal is supposed to be protecting the public from itself.  And the real reason I own guns is that I have a neighbor much like you and iit's my protection against him.  I don't fear the operating criminal.  But I do protect against the gunnutters that might go off.  I can bet your neighbors really appreciate having you around as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol
> Anti-gun nutters like yourself Need to mind your own business. I don’t engage in criminal activity… It’s bad for business.
> 
> I live in gods country, where people mind their own business when it comes to firearm ownership.
Click to expand...


Let me check.  Hmm, got a 1911, a Model 19, Model 70 308, Model 870 12 gauge.  Are you telling me that I have the undying need to turn them in?  I keep them around because you have yours and the rest of us need to protection from people like you.  But, if you want to come get them, you can have them piece by piece.


----------



## progressive hunter

Daryl Hunt said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol
> Read it in the context of the era… shall not be infringed says everything you need to know about it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is called taking something out of context.  If you only read those 4 words by themselves you would be right but when you read the whole thing then it has an entirely different meaning.  I can bet you have a field day with the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol
> Personal ownership a sporting rifles is none of the governments business… Shall not be infringed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sporting rifles have nothing to do with the militia.
> The Constitution does not apply.
> 
> Subject to state and local laws
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the constitution is the supreme law of the land,,,and it says
> 
> SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, just scrap the rest of the 2ndmm 10th and 14th  amendment just use the 4 words that suits you.  We use ALL of the Constitution not just the parts we agree with.
Click to expand...

the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed


----------



## Rustic

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Na, not really
> The states are far too overbearing if they include any type of regulations on sporting rifles...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to you but not according to the Constitution of the United States and that is what we have to work with.  Colorado is one law away from joining a few others with the complete Universal Background Check and that is where when the check includes a mental health check.  The common sense gun regs includes a universal background check.  I can still buy a gun in about 15 minutes.  I can still carry my handgun on the street openly without a permit.  I can easily get a CCW whether I need one or not.  Most of the crap you spew is just a scared little kid scared that some boogey man will take his toys.  Time to grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any sort of American government does not have the moral authority to deny firearm ownership to law abiding citizens. Obviously that’s their ultimate goal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The ultimate  goal is supposed to be protecting the public from itself.  And the real reason I own guns is that I have a neighbor much like you and iit's my protection against him.  I don't fear the operating criminal.  But I do protect against the gunnutters that might go off.  I can bet your neighbors really appreciate having you around as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol
> Anti-gun nutters like yourself Need to mind your own business. I don’t engage in criminal activity… It’s bad for business.
> 
> I live in gods country, where people mind their own business when it comes to firearm ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me check.  Hmm, got a 1911, a Model 19, Model 70 308, Model 870 12 gauge.  Are you telling me that I have the undying need to turn them in?  I keep them around because you have yours and the rest of us need to protection from people like you.  But, if you want to come get them, you can have them piece by piece.
Click to expand...

Lol
If the butt fuckers in Washington DC tell you to turn them in, obviously you will being an snowflake and all.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rustic said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is called taking something out of context.  If you only read those 4 words by themselves you would be right but when you read the whole thing then it has an entirely different meaning.  I can bet you have a field day with the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> Lol
> Personal ownership a sporting rifles is none of the governments business… Shall not be infringed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sporting rifles have nothing to do with the militia.
> The Constitution does not apply.
> 
> Subject to state and local laws
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Personal firearm ownership is none of the governments business…
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Misuse of personal firearms is certainly our governments business.  It's everyone's business.  And people that talk like you are more than likely to misuse those firearms sooner or later when you feel that someone is trying to take your toys whether it''s real or imagined.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol
> Na, not really
> Big brother is not a higher power
Click to expand...


We are coming for your guns.  We have the black choppers, the black panel prison vans, the black uniforms complete with Backlavas, and we have the re-education camps in the Majave Desert.  We didn't come up with that idea.  We got it from your bunch because you suggested you do that to us.  So get ready.  Hug that "Sporting Rifle" real tight so we can have  the pleasure of ripping it from your hands.  Sorry, you don't get to have it ripped from your cold, dead hands.  The black Stun Grenades do their job nicely.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rustic said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to you but not according to the Constitution of the United States and that is what we have to work with.  Colorado is one law away from joining a few others with the complete Universal Background Check and that is where when the check includes a mental health check.  The common sense gun regs includes a universal background check.  I can still buy a gun in about 15 minutes.  I can still carry my handgun on the street openly without a permit.  I can easily get a CCW whether I need one or not.  Most of the crap you spew is just a scared little kid scared that some boogey man will take his toys.  Time to grow up.
> 
> 
> 
> Any sort of American government does not have the moral authority to deny firearm ownership to law abiding citizens. Obviously that’s their ultimate goal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The ultimate  goal is supposed to be protecting the public from itself.  And the real reason I own guns is that I have a neighbor much like you and iit's my protection against him.  I don't fear the operating criminal.  But I do protect against the gunnutters that might go off.  I can bet your neighbors really appreciate having you around as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol
> Anti-gun nutters like yourself Need to mind your own business. I don’t engage in criminal activity… It’s bad for business.
> 
> I live in gods country, where people mind their own business when it comes to firearm ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me check.  Hmm, got a 1911, a Model 19, Model 70 308, Model 870 12 gauge.  Are you telling me that I have the undying need to turn them in?  I keep them around because you have yours and the rest of us need to protection from people like you.  But, if you want to come get them, you can have them piece by piece.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol
> If the butt fuckers in Washington DC tell you to turn them in, obviously you will being an snowflake and all.
Click to expand...


Better hide under that bed in the root cellar.


----------



## Rustic

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol
> Personal ownership a sporting rifles is none of the governments business… Shall not be infringed
> 
> 
> 
> Sporting rifles have nothing to do with the militia.
> The Constitution does not apply.
> 
> Subject to state and local laws
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Personal firearm ownership is none of the governments business…
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Misuse of personal firearms is certainly our governments business.  It's everyone's business.  And people that talk like you are more than likely to misuse those firearms sooner or later when you feel that someone is trying to take your toys whether it''s real or imagined.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol
> Na, not really
> Big brother is not a higher power
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are coming for your guns.  We have the black choppers, the black panel prison vans, the black uniforms complete with Backlavas, and we have the re-education camps in the Majave Desert.  We didn't come up with that idea.  We got it from your bunch because you suggested you do that to us.  So get ready.  Hug that "Sporting Rifle" real tight so we can have  the pleasure of ripping it from your hands.  Sorry, you don't get to have it ripped from your cold, dead hands.  The black Stun Grenades do their job nicely.
Click to expand...


----------



## Lesh

WHat you have...are paranoid delusions. There are drugs to help


----------



## Rustic

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any sort of American government does not have the moral authority to deny firearm ownership to law abiding citizens. Obviously that’s their ultimate goal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ultimate  goal is supposed to be protecting the public from itself.  And the real reason I own guns is that I have a neighbor much like you and iit's my protection against him.  I don't fear the operating criminal.  But I do protect against the gunnutters that might go off.  I can bet your neighbors really appreciate having you around as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol
> Anti-gun nutters like yourself Need to mind your own business. I don’t engage in criminal activity… It’s bad for business.
> 
> I live in gods country, where people mind their own business when it comes to firearm ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me check.  Hmm, got a 1911, a Model 19, Model 70 308, Model 870 12 gauge.  Are you telling me that I have the undying need to turn them in?  I keep them around because you have yours and the rest of us need to protection from people like you.  But, if you want to come get them, you can have them piece by piece.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol
> If the butt fuckers in Washington DC tell you to turn them in, obviously you will being an snowflake and all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Better hide under that bed in the root cellar.
Click to expand...


----------



## Lesh

I'm detecting a Trumper meltdown.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rustic said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sporting rifles have nothing to do with the militia.
> The Constitution does not apply.
> 
> Subject to state and local laws
> 
> 
> 
> Personal firearm ownership is none of the governments business…
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Misuse of personal firearms is certainly our governments business.  It's everyone's business.  And people that talk like you are more than likely to misuse those firearms sooner or later when you feel that someone is trying to take your toys whether it''s real or imagined.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol
> Na, not really
> Big brother is not a higher power
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are coming for your guns.  We have the black choppers, the black panel prison vans, the black uniforms complete with Backlavas, and we have the re-education camps in the Majave Desert.  We didn't come up with that idea.  We got it from your bunch because you suggested you do that to us.  So get ready.  Hug that "Sporting Rifle" real tight so we can have  the pleasure of ripping it from your hands.  Sorry, you don't get to have it ripped from your cold, dead hands.  The black Stun Grenades do their job nicely.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Is that the best you can do?  Using made up Memes?  Here, let me show you my answer once more


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rustic said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ultimate  goal is supposed to be protecting the public from itself.  And the real reason I own guns is that I have a neighbor much like you and iit's my protection against him.  I don't fear the operating criminal.  But I do protect against the gunnutters that might go off.  I can bet your neighbors really appreciate having you around as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Lol
> Anti-gun nutters like yourself Need to mind your own business. I don’t engage in criminal activity… It’s bad for business.
> 
> I live in gods country, where people mind their own business when it comes to firearm ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me check.  Hmm, got a 1911, a Model 19, Model 70 308, Model 870 12 gauge.  Are you telling me that I have the undying need to turn them in?  I keep them around because you have yours and the rest of us need to protection from people like you.  But, if you want to come get them, you can have them piece by piece.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol
> If the butt fuckers in Washington DC tell you to turn them in, obviously you will being an snowflake and all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Better hide under that bed in the root cellar.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


You certainly do, cupcake.


----------



## Rustic

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personal firearm ownership is none of the governments business…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Misuse of personal firearms is certainly our governments business.  It's everyone's business.  And people that talk like you are more than likely to misuse those firearms sooner or later when you feel that someone is trying to take your toys whether it''s real or imagined.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol
> Na, not really
> Big brother is not a higher power
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are coming for your guns.  We have the black choppers, the black panel prison vans, the black uniforms complete with Backlavas, and we have the re-education camps in the Majave Desert.  We didn't come up with that idea.  We got it from your bunch because you suggested you do that to us.  So get ready.  Hug that "Sporting Rifle" real tight so we can have  the pleasure of ripping it from your hands.  Sorry, you don't get to have it ripped from your cold, dead hands.  The black Stun Grenades do their job nicely.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that the best you can do?  Using made up Memes?  Here, let me show you my answer once more
Click to expand...

Jim Carrey has the credibility of a Kevin Spacey or Harvey Weinstein


----------



## Rustic

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol
> Anti-gun nutters like yourself Need to mind your own business. I don’t engage in criminal activity… It’s bad for business.
> 
> I live in gods country, where people mind their own business when it comes to firearm ownership.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me check.  Hmm, got a 1911, a Model 19, Model 70 308, Model 870 12 gauge.  Are you telling me that I have the undying need to turn them in?  I keep them around because you have yours and the rest of us need to protection from people like you.  But, if you want to come get them, you can have them piece by piece.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol
> If the butt fuckers in Washington DC tell you to turn them in, obviously you will being an snowflake and all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Better hide under that bed in the root cellar.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You certainly do, cupcake.
Click to expand...


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rustic said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Misuse of personal firearms is certainly our governments business.  It's everyone's business.  And people that talk like you are more than likely to misuse those firearms sooner or later when you feel that someone is trying to take your toys whether it''s real or imagined.
> 
> 
> 
> Lol
> Na, not really
> Big brother is not a higher power
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are coming for your guns.  We have the black choppers, the black panel prison vans, the black uniforms complete with Backlavas, and we have the re-education camps in the Majave Desert.  We didn't come up with that idea.  We got it from your bunch because you suggested you do that to us.  So get ready.  Hug that "Sporting Rifle" real tight so we can have  the pleasure of ripping it from your hands.  Sorry, you don't get to have it ripped from your cold, dead hands.  The black Stun Grenades do their job nicely.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that the best you can do?  Using made up Memes?  Here, let me show you my answer once more
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Carrey has the credibility of a Kevin Spacey or Harvey Weinstein
Click to expand...


It's still funny and very fitting.  Can't wait for you to go off the deep end.  Sure am glad your neighbors are all armed and they only have to deal with you when the time comes.  Now, where did I put that black chopper?


----------



## Rustic

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol
> Na, not really
> Big brother is not a higher power
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are coming for your guns.  We have the black choppers, the black panel prison vans, the black uniforms complete with Backlavas, and we have the re-education camps in the Majave Desert.  We didn't come up with that idea.  We got it from your bunch because you suggested you do that to us.  So get ready.  Hug that "Sporting Rifle" real tight so we can have  the pleasure of ripping it from your hands.  Sorry, you don't get to have it ripped from your cold, dead hands.  The black Stun Grenades do their job nicely.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that the best you can do?  Using made up Memes?  Here, let me show you my answer once more
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Carrey has the credibility of a Kevin Spacey or Harvey Weinstein
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's still funny and very fitting.  Can't wait for you to go off the deep end.  Sure am glad your neighbors are all armed and they only have to deal with you when the time comes.  Now, where did I put that black chopper?
Click to expand...

Lol


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rustic said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me check.  Hmm, got a 1911, a Model 19, Model 70 308, Model 870 12 gauge.  Are you telling me that I have the undying need to turn them in?  I keep them around because you have yours and the rest of us need to protection from people like you.  But, if you want to come get them, you can have them piece by piece.
> 
> 
> 
> Lol
> If the butt fuckers in Washington DC tell you to turn them in, obviously you will being an snowflake and all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Better hide under that bed in the root cellar.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You certainly do, cupcake.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Wow, didn't think of that.  Maybe that will be cell block B in the re-education camp for you guncrazies.  You nutters do come up with the best and sickest ideas.


----------



## Lakhota

The NRA sucks!  I hope Mueller bankrupts them for their treasonous connections to Russia!


----------



## danielpalos

progressive hunter said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> only in right wing fantasy would that ever be true.
> 
> 
> 
> Shall not be infringed means only one thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militias of the United States enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment when in the service of their State or the Union.
> 
> Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> what do you have against people paying their fair share???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why envy the poor?  should the rich have to dig ditches in front of car washers in the summer time or forgo their tax breaks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what do you have against people paying their fair share???
Click to expand...

what do you have against equal protection of the law?


----------



## danielpalos

Rustic said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sporting rifles have nothing to do with the militia.
> The Constitution does not apply.
> 
> Subject to state and local laws
> 
> 
> 
> Personal firearm ownership is none of the governments business…
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Misuse of personal firearms is certainly our governments business.  It's everyone's business.  And people that talk like you are more than likely to misuse those firearms sooner or later when you feel that someone is trying to take your toys whether it''s real or imagined.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol
> Na, not really
> Big brother is not a higher power
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are coming for your guns.  We have the black choppers, the black panel prison vans, the black uniforms complete with Backlavas, and we have the re-education camps in the Majave Desert.  We didn't come up with that idea.  We got it from your bunch because you suggested you do that to us.  So get ready.  Hug that "Sporting Rifle" real tight so we can have  the pleasure of ripping it from your hands.  Sorry, you don't get to have it ripped from your cold, dead hands.  The black Stun Grenades do their job nicely.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

there is no crime, drug, or terror clause.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> there is no crime, drug, or terror clause.


I agree.


----------



## progressive hunter

danielpalos said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shall not be infringed means only one thing
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militias of the United States enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment when in the service of their State or the Union.
> 
> Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> what do you have against people paying their fair share???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why envy the poor?  should the rich have to dig ditches in front of car washers in the summer time or forgo their tax breaks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what do you have against people paying their fair share???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what do you have against equal protection of the law?
Click to expand...

what do you have against people getting a job and paying their fair share???


----------



## The Purge




----------



## progressive hunter

The Purge said:


>


you expected different??


----------



## danielpalos

progressive hunter said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militias of the United States enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment when in the service of their State or the Union.
> 
> Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what do you have against people paying their fair share???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why envy the poor?  should the rich have to dig ditches in front of car washers in the summer time or forgo their tax breaks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what do you have against people paying their fair share???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what do you have against equal protection of the law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what do you have against people getting a job and paying their fair share???
Click to expand...

what do you have against equal protection of the law?


----------



## danielpalos

The Purge said:


>


muster the militia.  we have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.


----------



## The Purge

progressive hunter said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you expected different??
Click to expand...

The premier policy platform for the 2020 presidential election will be HYPOCRISY....followed closely by WE HATE TRUMP.....that is all the DemonRATS have!....Nothing about the economy  security or the illegal alien problems!


----------



## The Purge

danielpalos said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> muster the militia.  we have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.
Click to expand...

Oops  another drug user fearing his upcoming withdrawl!


----------



## progressive hunter

as long as e


The Purge said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you expected different??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The premier policy platform for the 2020 presidential election will be HYPOCRISY....followed closely by WE HATE TRUMP.....that is all the DemonRATS have!....Nothing about the economy  security or the illegal alien problems!
Click to expand...

as long as either a democrat or republican wins the country is fucked,,,


at least thats been the case for the last 100 yrs

its time to have both of them declared terrorist groups and banned from US soil


----------



## danielpalos

The Purge said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> muster the militia.  we have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oops  another drug user fearing his upcoming withdrawl!
Click to expand...

the right wing doesn't care about the law.  why should we take them seriously about illegals.


----------



## The Purge

progressive hunter said:


> as long as e
> 
> 
> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you expected different??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The premier policy platform for the 2020 presidential election will be HYPOCRISY....followed closely by WE HATE TRUMP.....that is all the DemonRATS have!....Nothing about the economy  security or the illegal alien problems!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> as long as either a democrat or republican wins the country is fucked,,,
> 
> 
> at least thats been the case for the last 100 yrs
> 
> its time to have both of them declared terrorist groups and banned from US soil
Click to expand...

What do we replace them with..... Trump is the closest president in years that seems to actually care about America  and we have witnessed  over the last 2 years  that he can't  be bought....no matter what the ABNORMALS say about his motives!


----------



## The Purge

danielpalos said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> muster the militia.  we have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oops  another drug user fearing his upcoming withdrawl!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the right wing doesn't care about the law.  why should we take them seriously about illegals.
Click to expand...

But look at all the UNCONSTITUTIONAL things the Manchurian Muslim socialist did ....and unfortunately wasn't  challenged on... 

DACA Is Unconstitutional, as Obama Admitted
The Heritage Foundation

Sep 8, 2017 · DACA Is Unconstitutional, as Obama Admitted ... He promised them that they wouldn't be deported and provided them with ... injunction against DAPA, which the Supreme Court allowed to stand


----------



## progressive hunter

The Purge said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> as long as e
> 
> 
> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you expected different??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The premier policy platform for the 2020 presidential election will be HYPOCRISY....followed closely by WE HATE TRUMP.....that is all the DemonRATS have!....Nothing about the economy  security or the illegal alien problems!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> as long as either a democrat or republican wins the country is fucked,,,
> 
> 
> at least thats been the case for the last 100 yrs
> 
> its time to have both of them declared terrorist groups and banned from US soil
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do we replace them with..... Trump is the closest president in years that seems to actually care about America  and we have witnessed  over the last 2 years  that he can't  be bought....no matter what the ABNORMALS say about his motives!
Click to expand...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHA

you are kidding ,,,right???

donald trump is a lying POS

trump like grandstanding at anyone elses expense,,,and his effects wont be know for yrs

what do you think about his
socialist healthcare?
socialist education?
gun control?

sorry but bribes in the form of tax breaks that mean nothing because of the increased cost in goods and services due to tariffs is an insult

and once the dems and repubes are jailed for theoir crimes we can fall back to vote for americans who know what the constitution is and will use it


----------



## progressive hunter

The Purge said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> muster the militia.  we have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oops  another drug user fearing his upcoming withdrawl!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the right wing doesn't care about the law.  why should we take them seriously about illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But look at all the UNCONSTITUTIONAL things the Manchurian Muslim socialist did ....and unfortunately wasn't  challenged on...
> 
> DACA Is Unconstitutional, as Obama Admitted
> The Heritage Foundation
> View attachment 239138
> Sep 8, 2017 · DACA Is Unconstitutional, as Obama Admitted ... He promised them that they wouldn't be deported and provided them with ... injunction against DAPA, which the Supreme Court allowed to stand
Click to expand...

so DACA was bad under Obama but is perfectly fine under trump???

he is considering amnesty for them as we speak


----------



## danielpalos

The Purge said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> muster the militia.  we have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oops  another drug user fearing his upcoming withdrawl!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the right wing doesn't care about the law.  why should we take them seriously about illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But look at all the UNCONSTITUTIONAL things the Manchurian Muslim socialist did ....and unfortunately wasn't  challenged on...
> 
> DACA Is Unconstitutional, as Obama Admitted
> The Heritage Foundation
> View attachment 239138
> Sep 8, 2017 · DACA Is Unconstitutional, as Obama Admitted ... He promised them that they wouldn't be deported and provided them with ... injunction against DAPA, which the Supreme Court allowed to stand
Click to expand...

We don't have an immigration clause we have a naturalization clause.


----------



## progressive hunter

danielpalos said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> muster the militia.  we have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oops  another drug user fearing his upcoming withdrawl!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the right wing doesn't care about the law.  why should we take them seriously about illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But look at all the UNCONSTITUTIONAL things the Manchurian Muslim socialist did ....and unfortunately wasn't  challenged on...
> 
> DACA Is Unconstitutional, as Obama Admitted
> The Heritage Foundation
> View attachment 239138
> Sep 8, 2017 · DACA Is Unconstitutional, as Obama Admitted ... He promised them that they wouldn't be deported and provided them with ... injunction against DAPA, which the Supreme Court allowed to stand
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't have an immigration clause we have a naturalization clause.
Click to expand...

we have both because they are two different things


----------



## danielpalos

progressive hunter said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> muster the militia.  we have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.
> 
> 
> 
> Oops  another drug user fearing his upcoming withdrawl!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the right wing doesn't care about the law.  why should we take them seriously about illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But look at all the UNCONSTITUTIONAL things the Manchurian Muslim socialist did ....and unfortunately wasn't  challenged on...
> 
> DACA Is Unconstitutional, as Obama Admitted
> The Heritage Foundation
> View attachment 239138
> Sep 8, 2017 · DACA Is Unconstitutional, as Obama Admitted ... He promised them that they wouldn't be deported and provided them with ... injunction against DAPA, which the Supreme Court allowed to stand
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't have an immigration clause we have a naturalization clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have both because they are two different things
Click to expand...

naturalization has an establishment clause; it is an express power.  immigration is an implied power.


----------



## The Purge

danielpalos said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oops  another drug user fearing his upcoming withdrawl!
> 
> 
> 
> the right wing doesn't care about the law.  why should we take them seriously about illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But look at all the UNCONSTITUTIONAL things the Manchurian Muslim socialist did ....and unfortunately wasn't  challenged on...
> 
> DACA Is Unconstitutional, as Obama Admitted
> The Heritage Foundation
> View attachment 239138
> Sep 8, 2017 · DACA Is Unconstitutional, as Obama Admitted ... He promised them that they wouldn't be deported and provided them with ... injunction against DAPA, which the Supreme Court allowed to stand
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't have an immigration clause we have a naturalization clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have both because they are two different things
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> naturalization has an establishment clause; it is an express power.  immigration is an implied power.
Click to expand...

LEGALLY. little pissant!


----------



## danielpalos

The Purge said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the right wing doesn't care about the law.  why should we take them seriously about illegals.
> 
> 
> 
> But look at all the UNCONSTITUTIONAL things the Manchurian Muslim socialist did ....and unfortunately wasn't  challenged on...
> 
> DACA Is Unconstitutional, as Obama Admitted
> The Heritage Foundation
> View attachment 239138
> Sep 8, 2017 · DACA Is Unconstitutional, as Obama Admitted ... He promised them that they wouldn't be deported and provided them with ... injunction against DAPA, which the Supreme Court allowed to stand
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't have an immigration clause we have a naturalization clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have both because they are two different things
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> naturalization has an establishment clause; it is an express power.  immigration is an implied power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LEGALLY. little pissant!
Click to expand...

we should have no illegal problem with a naturalization clause.


----------



## Lakhota

The NRA is dying.  Hooray!


----------



## Lakhota

Maybe a future president will declare a National Emergency on GUNS.  That would make more sense than Trump's vanity wall.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lakhota said:


> Maybe a future president will declare a National Emergency on GUNS. That would make more sense than Trump's vanity wall.


Go for it.

The people will declare a national emergency on the federal government and it will all be over.


----------



## Rigby5

Lakhota said:


> Maybe a future president will declare a National Emergency on GUNS.  That would make more sense than Trump's vanity wall.



Yes, the lack of guns is a national emergency.
If everyone was armed, there would be a lot less crime and a lot fewer lies from politicians.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> muster the militia.  we have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.
Click to expand...


Except that we have disarmed the militia and given criminals the advantage.


----------



## The Purge

danielpalos said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> But look at all the UNCONSTITUTIONAL things the Manchurian Muslim socialist did ....and unfortunately wasn't  challenged on...
> 
> DACA Is Unconstitutional, as Obama Admitted
> The Heritage Foundation
> View attachment 239138
> Sep 8, 2017 · DACA Is Unconstitutional, as Obama Admitted ... He promised them that they wouldn't be deported and provided them with ... injunction against DAPA, which the Supreme Court allowed to stand
> 
> 
> 
> We don't have an immigration clause we have a naturalization clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have both because they are two different things
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> naturalization has an establishment clause; it is an express power.  immigration is an implied power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LEGALLY. little pissant!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we should have no illegal problem with a naturalization clause.
Click to expand...

How many illegals are you taking in and sponsiring?


----------



## bripat9643

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution exist only in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review.
> 
> Neither the Constitution nor any of its Amendments are obsolete.
> 
> Whatever the current case law might be concerning the Second Amendment, however, further restrictions, regulations, or even bans will do little to curtail gun violence.
> 
> The genius of the Constitution is it compels us to seek actual solutions to our many problems; be it abortion, campaign finance reform, or gun violence, the Constitution prevents us from taking the easy route often taken by dictatorships and totalitarian regimes, where the liberty of the people is destroyed.
> 
> This does not mean we are helpless to do nothing, at the mercy of strict, unyielding jurisprudence protecting the rights of gun owners; rather, it means we must find solutions based on facts and evidence, and be prepared to address and acknowledge painful, embarrassing aspects of our society and culture.
Click to expand...

Spoken like a true America hating Marxist.


----------



## Lakhota

Trump is setting the precedent for a national emergency on guns.  What goes around comes around.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe a future president will declare a National Emergency on GUNS.  That would make more sense than Trump's vanity wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the lack of guns is a national emergency.
> If everyone was armed, there would be a lot less crime and a lot fewer lies from politicians.
Click to expand...

How is that working in Chicago?


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe a future president will declare a National Emergency on GUNS.  That would make more sense than Trump's vanity wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the lack of guns is a national emergency.
> If everyone was armed, there would be a lot less crime and a lot fewer lies from politicians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is that working in Chicago?
Click to expand...


It is not working in Chicago because fascists have implemented gun control in Chicago, so only criminals can have guns.

We know that the caused of crime and murders are, and have always been.
They are poverty, injustice, lack of opportunity, inequality, corruption, etc.
That means things like the  War on Drugs and federal gun laws are entirely at fault.
The people can't ever be the problem, because it is the people who you not only can trust more than the government, but were historically safer with arms than the government is.


----------



## danielpalos

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.


----------



## 2aguy

Lakhota said:


> Trump is setting the precedent for a national emergency on guns.  What goes around comes around.




we have 20,000 gun laws.  The problem we have is that the democrat party, in control of many of our larger cities, refuses to keep violent, gun criminals locked up, and even fights to get the prison sentences of known, violent gun offenders reduced....why is that?   Why does the democrat party keep letting the killers out of jail over and over again...that is the real problem.

Meanwhile, over the last 26 years as more Americans own and actually carry guns, our gun murder rate went down 49%....how do you, doofus....explain that?  

Do you realize that Mexico has more extreme gun control than the United States?  that they have only one gun store run by the military?  And that the murder rate in Mexico, with their extreme gun control is in the 10s of thousands every year, right on the other side of the border, in the border states of Mexico....so nothing you posted in those photos is even remotely accurate or true....


----------



## P@triot

Lakhota said:


> Trump is setting the precedent for a national emergency on guns.  What goes around comes around.


Fascinating...considering you’ve been crying like a little girl about firearms for at least 7 years now - while Trump has only been President for 2 years. Oops.


----------



## P@triot

2aguy said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is setting the precedent for a national emergency on guns.  What goes around comes around.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you realize that Mexico has more extreme gun control than the United States? And that the murder rate in Mexico, with their extreme gun control is in the 10s of thousands every year, right on the other side of the border, in the border states of Mexico....so nothing you posted in those photos is even remotely accurate or true....
Click to expand...

Nothing she ever posts is accurate or true. Ever. She’s a typical left-wing propagandist.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If everyone was armed, there would be a lot less crime and a lot fewer lies from politicians.
> 
> 
> 
> How is that working in Chicago?
Click to expand...

Exactly. Chicago *banned* firearms. You should really do your homework before commenting.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If everyone was armed, there would be a lot less crime and a lot fewer lies from politicians.
> 
> 
> 
> How is that working in Chicago?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly. Chicago *banned* firearms. You should really do your homework before commenting.
Click to expand...

did they muster the militia until the crime problem goes down?


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If everyone was armed, there would be a lot less crime and a lot fewer lies from politicians.
> 
> 
> 
> How is that working in Chicago?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly. Chicago *banned* firearms. You should really do your homework before commenting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> did they muster the militia until the crime problem goes down?
Click to expand...

Yep. But...unfortunately...they had already disarmed their own militia (the *people*). Yep. You people really are _that_ stupid.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If everyone was armed, there would be a lot less crime and a lot fewer lies from politicians.
> 
> 
> 
> How is that working in Chicago?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly. Chicago *banned* firearms. You should really do your homework before commenting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> did they muster the militia until the crime problem goes down?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep. But...unfortunately...they had already disarmed their own militia (the *people*). Yep. You people really are _that_ stupid.
Click to expand...

only the unorganized militia whines about gun control laws.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If everyone was armed, there would be a lot less crime and a lot fewer lies from politicians.
> 
> 
> 
> How is that working in Chicago?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly. Chicago *banned* firearms. You should really do your homework before commenting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> did they muster the militia until the crime problem goes down?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep. But...unfortunately...they had already disarmed their own militia (the *people*). Yep. You people really are _that_ stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only the unorganized militia whines about gun control laws.
Click to expand...

Oops! Realizing how stupid you sound now, uh? The Chicago militia has been unarmed. They are helpless to do anything against crime.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is that working in Chicago?
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. Chicago *banned* firearms. You should really do your homework before commenting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> did they muster the militia until the crime problem goes down?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep. But...unfortunately...they had already disarmed their own militia (the *people*). Yep. You people really are _that_ stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only the unorganized militia whines about gun control laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oops! Realizing how stupid you sound now, uh? The Chicago militia has been unarmed. They are helpless to do anything against crime.
Click to expand...

They could petition to organize more militia until there are no security problems.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> They could petition to organize more militia until there are no security problems.


4,000 unarmed people are just as useless and ineffective as 400 unarmed people. All you're doing is proposing more targets and victims for the criminals.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> They could petition to organize more militia until there are no security problems.
> 
> 
> 
> 4,000 unarmed people are just as useless and ineffective as 400 unarmed people. All you're doing is proposing more targets and victims for the criminals.
Click to expand...

Organized militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment and don't whine about gun control laws.


----------



## Lakhota

The NRA is in deep financial trouble.  Also, maybe even criminal trouble involving Russians.


----------



## danielpalos

cute redheads,

whatever shall we do?


----------



## The2ndAmendment

Lakhota said:


> *NRA RUNNING LOW ON AMMO?*
> 
> 2018 Was A Bad Year For The NRA, And The Worst Could Be Yet To Come
> 
> Fuck the NRA.  It was once a good outfit until hijacked by radicals in 1977.


And Hillary is gonna win by a landslide in 2020


----------



## Daryl Hunt

The2ndAmendment said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *NRA RUNNING LOW ON AMMO?*
> 
> 2018 Was A Bad Year For The NRA, And The Worst Could Be Yet To Come
> 
> Fuck the NRA.  It was once a good outfit until hijacked by radicals in 1977.
> 
> 
> 
> And Hillary is gonna win by a landslide in 2020
Click to expand...


Is that the best you can do?  Of course it is.  Try being more creative.  That horse is so dead and beaten, it's just a blood stain on the ground.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> They could petition to organize more militia until there are no security problems.
> 
> 
> 
> 4,000 unarmed people are just as useless and ineffective as 400 unarmed people. All you're doing is proposing more targets and victims for the criminals.
Click to expand...


Listen to what he typed or read what he said.  Organized Militias ARE armed.  The Governor sends them home with their private weapons and can call on them to either bring their weapons or wading boots and shovels.


----------



## P@triot

Daryl Hunt said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> They could petition to organize more militia until there are no security problems.
> 
> 
> 
> 4,000 unarmed people are just as useless and ineffective as 400 unarmed people. All you're doing is proposing more targets and victims for the criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Listen to what he typed or read what he said.  Organized Militias ARE armed.
Click to expand...

Not in Chicago, they are not. If you can’t follow along, it’s best you not comment at all.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> They could petition to organize more militia until there are no security problems.
> 
> 
> 
> 4,000 unarmed people are just as useless and ineffective as 400 unarmed people. All you're doing is proposing more targets and victims for the criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Listen to what he typed or read what he said.  Organized Militias ARE armed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not in Chicago, they are not. If you can’t follow along, it’s best you not comment at all.
Click to expand...


Well now.  Sure am glad I get to educate you once again.  Illinois does have a State Militia.  
Illinois State Militia (ILSM) - 7th Battalion - Northern Illinois

_*Welcome to the blog of the Illinois State Militia!  Whether you are a current member, a perspective member, or an interested Illinois citizen, we welcome you to check back to our blog often.  On the blog we will post updates on upcoming meetings, current disaster relief activities, community involvement, and other related information.  Additionally, you will find a weekly report on current news events as a means to further keep our members and fellow patriots informed. 
About

We do NOT conduct, condone, talk about, or plan ANY ILLEGAL activities such as weapons conversions or manufacturing of any type weapon or explosives. If this is what your looking for your looking in the wrong direction.

Mission

To preserve and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic. To provide community service and assistance where needed in times of need.

Oath

To this I do solemnly affirm and consent that:

• I am an American citizen and patriot.

• I am a militia member and part of a team.

• I serve the people of the United States of America and specifically the people of the state of Illinois.

• My mission is to see that the Constitution of the United States is upheld as it was written.

• I will always put my mission first, my brothers in arms second, and my self last.

• I will never quit or surrender.

• I am disciplined and mentally tough.

• I am as physically fit as possible.

• I commit to become proficient at whatever task I am given to fulfill my mission.

• I will maintain my arms, my equipment, and myself.

• I am a guardian of liberty and the American way of life.

• The Constitution will be upheld.

• I AM an Illinois Militiamen.

Description

ROLE OF THE MILITIA

Today’s militia has a wide spectrum of missions, from disaster relief to terrorism prevention. The slogan echoed now is “State Defense and Community Service.” One role of the militia is defense of the state from terrorism or invasion. Other roles include disaster relief, search and rescue, emergency preparedness education and serving the community. We can serve our communities

through aid programs like Harvesters, Habitat for Humanity, Project Warmth, Blood Drives as well as raising money for charities benefiting military veterans, cancer research, or volunteering at local food pantries and shelters. Given that the militia is primarily defensive in nature, it is natural that much of its resources should be aimed at bettering the communities from which it is derived.

Concept

Preparedness and defense of the constitution, concentrating on the 2nd amendment. The Illinois Militia will act as a reserve component to the National Guard with the intent to act as the State Defense Force, as there is currently no SDF for Illinois. We are classified as a civilian volunteer organization and therefore will carry out operations in absence of orders as dictated by necessity during a crisis. All Illinois Militia personnel will conduct themselves with professionalism, integrity and the utmost respect for others at all times.

General Information

We are the ILSM “ILLINOIS STATE MILITIA” not to be confused with the “ILM” or “Illinois militia”. What’s the difference? We only practice within the law. We are open to law-enforcement with both our activities and we welcome them as members.

We are NOT:

  A) Anti-government on any level

  B) Racist

  C) Sexist

  D) Anti-law enforcement

  E) Extremist 6

  F) Violent

  G) Conspiracy theorists

  H) Planning attacks on anyone

If YOU are any of these then we are not the group for you.

We ARE:

  A) Pro-CONSTITUTIONAL govt.

  B) Accepting of all races

  C) Accepting of men or women

  D) Pro-law enforcement – oaths before orders.

  E) We train for many possibilities

  F) Every day concerned citizens

  G) Anti-ILLEGAL immigrant

  H) A defensive NOT offensive militia

We have both full time rolls and support roles open for our members. Everyone can do something. Ask for details.

THE MILITIA AND YOU

The biggest challenge for militias’ today is the lack of people involved. The population today is much bigger than in 1776 and the role of the militia has been expanded tremendously. Because of this, the militia today is in need of more dedicated men and women in order to fulfill its role. With the current threat of terrorism, our unprotected borders, and the Armed Forces sent abroad, the nation is more vulnerable than ever before. You may be saying, “what can I do?” or “I don’t have any training for that” We understand. The militia is unlike anything you’ve probably ever experienced. It requires you to ask more of yourself, to learn new skills, and to take the path less traveled. It requires courage, integrity, and strength of character. In the militia you will be charged with defending your fellow man, helping those in need, facing disaster and taking a stand when it is much easier to do nothing.
*_
Try and keep up and please stop making shit up.


----------



## P@triot

Daryl Hunt said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Listen to what he typed or read what he said.  Organized Militias ARE *armed*.
> 
> 
> 
> Not in Chicago, they are not. If you can’t follow along, it’s best you not comment at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well now.  Sure am glad I get to educate you once again.  Illinois does have a State Militia.
Click to expand...

Why do you *lie* _every_ time I expose your ignorance? You said *armed*. The militia in Chicago has been disarmed (at least part of it).

Furthermore, even in your *lie* you *lie*. I said Chicago, and you post a link about Illinois.

So to recap, I respond to *armed* and you post *militia* as “proof”. I mention Chicago, and you post Illinois as “proof”. Basically you’re just a disingenuous asshole. And a liar.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Listen to what he typed or read what he said.  Organized Militias ARE *armed*.
> 
> 
> 
> Not in Chicago, they are not. If you can’t follow along, it’s best you not comment at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well now.  Sure am glad I get to educate you once again.  Illinois does have a State Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you *lie* _every_ time I expose your ignorance? You said *armed*. The militia in Chicago has been disarmed (at least part of it).
> 
> Furthermore, even in your *lie* you *lie*. I said Chicago, and you post a link about Illinois.
> 
> So to recap, I respond to *armed* and you post *militia* as “proof”. I mention Chicago, and you post Illinois as “proof”. Basically you’re just a disingenuous asshole. And a liar.
Click to expand...


Let's take a look to see if the Illinois Militia has been disarmed. They haven't been.  They use their own weapons like every other Militia.  You honestly believe that the Illinois State Guard that joined in the Civil War didn't have those arms before they were called up?  Even though the weapons were issued to them when they finished training before the civil war, they took those weapons home with them.  Today, they use their own personal weapons but you will find that those weapons are standardized much like it was before the Civil War.  Depending on the mission, the Illinois State Militia may be unarmed OR Armed.  You honestly believe that even a Regular US Military Member will be armed doing a humanitarian mission?  He won't.  But he can be if need be.  We went on humanitarian missions along with the Army.  Not a single one of us were armed.  You honestly believe that while slinging those sacks of wheat that you also want to jostle a M-16 or even a sidearm?  

The Illinois State Militia will only operate armed in a State Emergency.  By the way, you will find that most law enforcement members are also members of the Illinois State Militia like in almost every other state with either a State Militia or a SDF.  Same goes for Firefighters as well.  And even EMTs.  

Now, stop making shit up.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> They could petition to organize more militia until there are no security problems.
> 
> 
> 
> 4,000 unarmed people are just as useless and ineffective as 400 unarmed people. All you're doing is proposing more targets and victims for the criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Listen to what he typed or read what he said.  Organized Militias ARE armed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not in Chicago, they are not. If you can’t follow along, it’s best you not comment at all.
Click to expand...

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.  

States have commanders in chief of that which expressly declared Necessary to the security of a free State.


----------



## Lesh

The Dick Amendment has legislated what a militia is...and what of it that does exist...is NOT "Well Regulated" and were that to be recognized as where the Constitution "protects" gun rights...it would protect ONLY those of the unorganized militia (even there doubtful) consisting of ONLY males between 17 and 45.

Were the militia clause actually protect gun rights...it would allow ANY military arm including machine guns, rocket launchers,grenades ec.

It does not do so.

That is why Scalia decoupled the Militia Clause from the 2A. That argument was unsustainable


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lesh said:


> The Dick Amendment has legislated what a militia is...and what of it that does exist...is NOT "Well Regulated" and were that to be recognized as where the Constitution "protects" gun rights...it would protect ONLY those of the unorganized militia (even there doubtful) consisting of ONLY males between 17 and 45.
> 
> Were the militia clause actually protect gun rights...it would allow ANY military arm including machine guns, rocket launchers,grenades ec.
> 
> It does not do so.
> 
> That is why Scalia decoupled the Militia Clause from the 2A. That argument was unsustainable


I am not following your reasoning.

The term "arms" means anything that can be defined as an "arm."  It did not limit what "arms" could be born.

Scalia did not "decouple" anything.  He stated the clear textual intent of the founders, which was to prohibit government from infringing on the right of the PEOPLE (not the militia or males 17-45). 

If you don't like the 2A, you can amend it.

That's why this debate has raged on.  One side doesn't like the 2A because it means that all federal gun laws are unconstitutional on their face.  They don't have to be.  The 2A can be amended.  Some are just too lazy to do it.


----------



## Lesh

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> The term "arms" means anything that can be defined as an "arm." It did not limit what "arms" could be born.



If the 2A actually had meaning...then any weapon a militia might use should be protected.
That is obviously not true and if you read Heller you know that Scalia knew it too and tried to decouple the Militia Clause from the rest of the 2A...knowing that it was an unsustainable argument


----------



## Ambivalent1

Lesh said:


> The Dick Amendment has legislated what a militia is...and what of it that does exist...is NOT "Well Regulated" and were that to be recognized as where the Constitution "protects" gun rights...it would protect ONLY those of the unorganized militia (even there doubtful) consisting of ONLY males between 17 and 45.
> 
> Were the militia clause actually protect gun rights...it would allow ANY military arm including machine guns, rocket launchers,grenades ec.
> 
> It does not do so.
> 
> That is why Scalia decoupled the Militia Clause from the 2A. That argument was unsustainable



Come take our guns kid.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Dick Amendment has legislated what a militia is...and what of it that does exist...is NOT "Well Regulated" and were that to be recognized as where the Constitution "protects" gun rights...it would protect ONLY those of the unorganized militia (even there doubtful) consisting of ONLY males between 17 and 45.
> 
> Were the militia clause actually protect gun rights...it would allow ANY military arm including machine guns, rocket launchers,grenades ec.
> 
> It does not do so.
> 
> That is why Scalia decoupled the Militia Clause from the 2A. That argument was unsustainable
> 
> 
> 
> I am not following your reasoning.
> 
> The term "arms" means anything that can be defined as an "arm."  It did not limit what "arms" could be born.
> 
> Scalia did not "decouple" anything.  He stated the clear textual intent of the founders, which was to prohibit government from infringing on the right of the PEOPLE (not the militia or males 17-45).
> 
> If you don't like the 2A, you can amend it.
> 
> That's why this debate has raged on.  One side doesn't like the 2A because it means that all federal gun laws are unconstitutional on their face.  They don't have to be.  The 2A can be amended.  Some are just too lazy to do it.
Click to expand...

natural rights are covered in State Constitutions not our Second Amendment; it says so in the first clause.


----------



## danielpalos

Ambivalent1 said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Dick Amendment has legislated what a militia is...and what of it that does exist...is NOT "Well Regulated" and were that to be recognized as where the Constitution "protects" gun rights...it would protect ONLY those of the unorganized militia (even there doubtful) consisting of ONLY males between 17 and 45.
> 
> Were the militia clause actually protect gun rights...it would allow ANY military arm including machine guns, rocket launchers,grenades ec.
> 
> It does not do so.
> 
> That is why Scalia decoupled the Militia Clause from the 2A. That argument was unsustainable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come take our guns kid.
Click to expand...

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and regulate them well.


----------



## basquebromance

talk about a real crisis. Parkland is a REAL crisis that we should shut down the government over!

my friends, America's conscience is bleeding. the America people's common sense was aroused by Parkland. the time for words is over. the time for action is.......OMG I'VE BEEN SHOT!


----------



## Kondor3

Practical and effective gun-control will prove multi-faceted...

* Vetting
* Licensing
* Registration
* Training
* Centralized Database
* Nationwide Standards
* Tracking of all transfers
* Chipping individual firearms with locator technology
* Stiff fines and prison time for violators


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lesh said:


> If the 2A actually had meaning...then any weapon a militia might use should be protected.


Yes.  As it should be under the language of the 2A.



Lesh said:


> That is obviously not true and if you read Heller you know that Scalia knew it too and tried to decouple the Militia Clause from the rest of the 2A...knowing that it was an unsustainable argument


Scalia did nothing but make the intent of the 2A absolutely clear, as it was written. 

One side was making the dumbfuckery argument that individuals did not have a right to bear arms.  That was COMPLETELY RETARDED and makes you all untrustworthy by your blatant dishonesty.  It was, is, and has always been an individual right.  Your side knows good and motherfucking well that the founders intended it to be an individual right.  The fact that we had to fight it out in Court means that we can NEVER trust your side EVER AGAIN on the issue of the 2A or the right to bear arms.

in my opinion, Scalia didn't go far enough because of HUGE political pressure.  The correct ruling would have been to declare the NFA and all other gun laws unconstitutional, including the Hughes Amendment which bans full autos.

The immediate response would have been a push for a constitutional amendment--the right way to go about it.

As far as I am concerned, there is no debate on the meaning of the 2A.  It is an individual right that shall not be infringed, meaning NO RESTRICTIONS.

Don't like it?  Amend it.

.


----------



## Lesh

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> in my opinion, Scalia didn't go far enough because of HUGE political pressure. The correct ruling would have been to declare the NFA and all other gun laws unconstitutional, including the Hughes Amendment which bans full autos.



Which is essentially what I am saying.

If the Militia Clause means anything...then those things would be true.That is obviously not the case.

Read Heller closer. He essentially says the Militia Clause means nothing


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lesh said:


> Which is essentially what I am saying.
> 
> If the Militia Clause means anything...then those things would be true.That is obviously not the case.
> 
> Read Heller closer. He essentially says the Militia Clause means nothing


I agree that the militia clause means nothing.  The fact that your side tried to focus on it is another reason why we can never trust you.

The militia clause was simply stating a specific, but non-exclusive purpose.  To ignore the VERY PLAIN language of the second clause is dishonest at best. 

There is always the amendment process.  Why is that constantly ignored?

.


----------



## Lesh

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> I agree that the militia clause means nothing.



Unfortunately it is the reason for the 2A so you're saying that the 2A no longer applies.

I agree

But here you are "decoupling" the militia clause from the 2A because that makes your argument  losing one. Just like Scalia in Heller


----------



## The2ndAmendment

Daryl Hunt said:


> The2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *NRA RUNNING LOW ON AMMO?*
> 
> 2018 Was A Bad Year For The NRA, And The Worst Could Be Yet To Come
> 
> Fuck the NRA.  It was once a good outfit until hijacked by radicals in 1977.
> 
> 
> 
> And Hillary is gonna win by a landslide in 2020
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that the best you can do?  Of course it is.  Try being more creative.  That horse is so dead and beaten, it's just a blood stain on the ground.
Click to expand...


THE RUSSIANS

THE RUSSIAN HORSE


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lesh said:


> Unfortunately it is the reason for the 2A so you're saying that the 2A no longer applies.


No.  I said it was a reason, a non-exclusive reason.  

This part is unequivocable:  the right of the people....shall not be infringed.

And, even if it is confusing, isn't the better path AMENDING it, rather than getting into bullshit squabbles where your side is stuck arguing that "shall not be infringed" means shall be infringed?

Amend it.


----------



## Rigby5

Kondor3 said:


> Practical and effective gun-control will prove multi-faceted...
> 
> * Vetting
> * Licensing
> * Registration
> * Training
> * Centralized Database
> * Nationwide Standards
> * Tracking of all transfers
> * Chipping individual firearms with locator technology
> * Stiff fines and prison time for violators




No, because clearly no government can ever be trusted because they always constantly become more corrupt over time.
It helps to keep national governments out of it entirely because they are inherently the worst, and they have no clue as to need or accessibility to judicial appeals.

The way it is supposed to be, is universal and even mandatory weapons grade firearms by everyone of age.
That is the only way a democratic republic can ever be maintained.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Rigby5 said:


> No, because clearly no government can ever be trusted because they always constantly become more corrupt over time.
> It helps to keep national governments out of it entirely because they are inherently the worst, and they have no clue as to need or accessibility to judicial appeals.
> 
> The way it is supposed to be, is universal and even mandatory weapons grade firearms by everyone of age.
> That is the only way a democratic republic can ever be maintained.


I agree.

So did Thomas Jefferson.


----------



## mikegriffith1

Now why do you want to disarm law-abiding citizens who own guns? Why this obsession with taking away guns people who only want to hunt, target-practice, and defend themselves?


----------



## P@triot

Daryl Hunt said:


> Let's take a look to see if the Illinois Militia has been disarmed.


Well, since *nobody* is talking about Illinois, this is almost as irrelevant as you are.


----------



## P@triot

Lesh said:


> That is why Scalia decoupled the Militia Clause from the 2A. That argument was unsustainable


There is no “militia clause” in the 2nd Amendment. 

It clearly states...the right of the *people* to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


----------



## P@triot

Lesh said:


> If the 2A actually had meaning...


It does. Only an _asshole_ would argue otherwise.


Lesh said:


> then any weapon a militia might use should be protected.


They are. Only an _asshole_ would argue otherwise.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> natural rights are covered in State Constitutions not our Second Amendment; it says so in the first clause.


*A.* Not it doesn’t

*B.* We have 50 individual states with 50 individual state constitutions. If your ignorant statement were true, all Americans would not have the same rights.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's take a look to see if the Illinois Militia has been disarmed.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, since *nobody* is talking about Illinois, this is almost as irrelevant as you are.
Click to expand...


I see you edited most of it out so you could deny anything about the Illinois Militia might be overlooked.  Sorry, cupcake, but you got your ass kicked by facts.  You know, the pesky things that keep getting in your way.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.


And we wouldn’t if you progressive assholes would stop violating the U.S. Constitution!


----------



## Daryl Hunt

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> natural rights are covered in State Constitutions not our Second Amendment; it says so in the first clause.
> 
> 
> 
> *A.* Not it doesn’t
> 
> *B.* We have 50 individual states with 50 individual state constitutions. If your ignorant statement were true, all Americans would not have the same rights.
Click to expand...


And all 50 states in modern times are based on the US Constitution.  They merely refine it.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.
> 
> 
> 
> And we wouldn’t if you progressive assholes would stop violating the U.S. Constitution!
Click to expand...


Or if you rightwing nutjobs would actually follow ALL of the Constitution.  Works both ways.


----------



## P@triot

Daryl Hunt said:


> I see you edited most of it out so you could deny anything about the Illinois Militia might be overlooked.


I didn’t “edit” _anything_, snowflake. I can’t. Your entire post idiotic post is still there for anyone to read (and be dumber for having read). We have been talking about Chicago (a city), and your dumb ass can’t stop talking about a state.


----------



## P@triot

Daryl Hunt said:


> And all 50 states in modern times are based on the US Constitution.  They merely refine it.


----------



## P@triot

Daryl Hunt said:


> Or if you rightwing nutjobs would actually follow ALL of the Constitution.  Works both ways.


We’re trying...but we can’t because you progressive assholes keep violating the U.S. Constitution.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Daryl Hunt said:


> Or if you rightwing nutjobs would actually follow ALL of the Constitution. Works both ways.


You can't accuse me of that.  You're the one who wants it to be ALIVE so you can circumvent it and make it something it is not without the burden of amending.


----------



## P@triot

Kondor3 said:


> Practical and effective gun-*control* will prove multi-faceted...


Every *American* stopped reading your fascist bullshit when they got to “control”.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see you edited most of it out so you could deny anything about the Illinois Militia might be overlooked.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn’t “edit” _anything_, snowflake. I can’t. Your entire post idiotic post is still there for anyone to read (and be dumber for having read). We have been talking about Chicago (a city), and your dumb ass can’t stop talking about a state.
Click to expand...


I didn't bring up Illinois, cupcake.  I answered their stupidity of that state militia.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or if you rightwing nutjobs would actually follow ALL of the Constitution.  Works both ways.
> 
> 
> 
> We’re trying...but we can’t because you progressive assholes keep violating the U.S. Constitution.
Click to expand...


Yah, I violated it at lest 43 times today alone.  It was a slow day, cupcake..


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or if you rightwing nutjobs would actually follow ALL of the Constitution. Works both ways.
> 
> 
> 
> You can't accuse me of that.  You're the one who wants it to be ALIVE so you can circumvent it and make it something it is not without the burden of amending.
Click to expand...


It is supposed to be alive.  This is why the FFs built in a mechanism to change it if needed.  Yes, they made it difficult but that's a good thing.  

yes, I changed the constitution 34 times today alone.  Usually I do it a lot more but it's been a slow day.  Get a friggin grip.


----------



## P@triot

Daryl Hunt said:


> I didn't bring up *Illinois*, cupcake.


Nobody *lies* like Duh-rly. You were the first to mention Illinois. Here it is in post #7343:


Daryl Hunt said:


> Well now.  Sure am glad I get to educate you once again.  *Illinois* does have a State Militia.
> Illinois State Militia (ILSM) - 7th Battalion - Northern Illinois


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Daryl Hunt said:


> It is supposed to be alive. This is why the FFs built in a mechanism to change it if needed. Yes, they made it difficult but that's a good thing.
> 
> yes, I changed the constitution 34 times today alone. Usually I do it a lot more but it's been a slow day. Get a friggin grip.


Usually, when someone says "living document" they mean that it can be "interpreted" to mean whatever they want it to mean, without the amendment process.   If that is not your meaning, then forgive my mistake and misunderstanding.


----------



## P@triot

Daryl Hunt said:


> It is supposed to be alive


It’s a piece of paper, you dumb dimwit. Only a progressive thinks a fetus isn’t alive but the U.S. Constitution _is_. 

The U.S. Constitution is written in black & white and *set* *in* *stone* until such time that it is legally and properly amended. At that point, what previously existed is gone and what is new is *set* *in* *stone*. Idiot.

If it were “alive” it would be in a perpetual state of change.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

P@triot said:


> It’s a piece of paper, you dumb dimwit. Only a progressive thinks a fetus isn’t alive but the U.S. Constitution _is_.
> 
> The U.S. Constitution is written in black & white and *set* *in* *stone* until such time that it is legally and properly amended. At that point, what previously existed is gone and what is new is *set* *in* *stone*. Idiot.
> 
> If it were “alive” it would be in a perpetual state of change.


He clarified his position on that.  He meant the amendment process.  I thought he was one of these hijackers too when I first read that.


----------



## Lesh

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Usually, when someone says "living document" they mean that it can be "interpreted" to mean whatever they want it to mean



Which is what Scalia did in Heller...although he CLAIMED to be a "strict constructionalist"


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lesh said:


> Which is what Scalia did in Heller...although he CLAIMED to be a "strict constructionalist"


You are not wrong.  He pussed out and only did what was politically expedient, rather than what was right (declaring all fed gun laws unconstitutional).

We would have learned really quckly how much the people want to restrict firearms had Scalia had balls.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't bring up *Illinois*, cupcake.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody *lies* like Duh-rly. You were the first to mention Illinois. Here it is in post #7343:
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well now.  Sure am glad I get to educate you once again.  *Illinois* does have a State Militia.
> Illinois State Militia (ILSM) - 7th Battalion - Northern Illinois
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


You keep telling your story.  If you tell it enough times..........


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is supposed to be alive. This is why the FFs built in a mechanism to change it if needed. Yes, they made it difficult but that's a good thing.
> 
> yes, I changed the constitution 34 times today alone. Usually I do it a lot more but it's been a slow day. Get a friggin grip.
> 
> 
> 
> Usually, when someone says "living document" they mean that it can be "interpreted" to mean whatever they want it to mean, without the amendment process.   If that is not your meaning, then forgive my mistake and misunderstanding.
Click to expand...


Thank you for noticing.  AT least you didn't go off on calling me a GunGrabber on this one.  I would hate to have to turn in my weapons.  Such a waste.


----------



## Rigby5

Video on history of guns in US.


----------



## Lesh

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> did what was politically expedient,



Exactly.

Heller was nothing but "politically expedient" sophistry


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> natural rights are covered in State Constitutions not our Second Amendment; it says so in the first clause.
> 
> 
> 
> *A.* Not it doesn’t
> 
> *B.* We have 50 individual states with 50 individual state constitutions. If your ignorant statement were true, all Americans would not have the same rights.
Click to expand...

Our Second Amendment is about what is Necessary to the security of a free State not natural rights.


----------



## Rigby5

Lesh said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> did what was politically expedient,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> Heller was nothing but "politically expedient" sophistry
Click to expand...


Not at  all.
Clearly the only source of any authority are inherent individual rights.
Therefore, there is no sophistry involved in Heller.  
Inherent rights do exist, and local, state, and federal governments are in violation of the law when they infringe.
That is not based on the 2nd amendment, but the foundational principles upon which all government and law is based.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> natural rights are covered in State Constitutions not our Second Amendment; it says so in the first clause.
> 
> 
> 
> *A.* Not it doesn’t
> 
> *B.* We have 50 individual states with 50 individual state constitutions. If your ignorant statement were true, all Americans would not have the same rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about what is Necessary to the security of a free State not natural rights.
Click to expand...


That is true, but natural rights also exist, and also prohibit governments from infringing upon individual weapons rights.
The 2nd amendment and natural rights are in agreement.


----------



## Rigby5

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> natural rights are covered in State Constitutions not our Second Amendment; it says so in the first clause.
> 
> 
> 
> *A.* Not it doesn’t
> 
> *B.* We have 50 individual states with 50 individual state constitutions. If your ignorant statement were true, all Americans would not have the same rights.
Click to expand...


Rights are supposed to be pre-existing, and are not created by states.  States are supposed to only enact legislation necessary in order to defend those inherent, pre-existing rights.  No one has or ever will try to enumerate rights themselves, because they are infinite.
So then of course all states will have different legislation to protect rights, because the cases of infringement or conflict of rights that come up and need legislation, will likely vary.
Legislation and constitutions are not where rights come from and are not rights.
Rights pre-exist.
So US citizens have the same rights under different state legislation because they all live under the same SCOTUS that uniformly protects individual rights.
And while the SCOTUS may use the Bill of Right as a sort of guide for implied rights, in no way is the Bill of Rights at all a source of rights.
The 9th and 10th amendments are clear that is not the intent of the Bill of Rights. The intent was just to divide jurisdiction between the federal government and every other level of government.  It did not try to divide between other levels of government and individual rights.  That is for the SCOTUS to decide.


----------



## Lesh

Rigby5 said:


> Not at all.
> Clearly the only source of any authority are inherent individual rights.
> Therefore, there is no sophistry involved in Heller.
> Inherent rights do exist, and local, state, and federal governments are in violation of the law when they infringe.
> That is not based on the 2nd amendment, but the foundational principles upon which all government and law is based.



You're saying that the 2A doesn't apply...and Scalia was also (even though he tried to use part of it incorrectly)


----------



## Rigby5

Daryl Hunt said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> natural rights are covered in State Constitutions not our Second Amendment; it says so in the first clause.
> 
> 
> 
> *A.* Not it doesn’t
> 
> *B.* We have 50 individual states with 50 individual state constitutions. If your ignorant statement were true, all Americans would not have the same rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And all 50 states in modern times are based on the US Constitution.  They merely refine it.
Click to expand...


I do not agree with that.
All state constitutions were made after the federal government and had to be in accord with it, but clearly the federal and state constitutions should be entirely different.
The federal constitution should cover only things states can't do, like regulate interstate and international commerce.
And state constitutions should cover only things not expressly allocated to federal jurisdiction, like everything else.
So when the second amendment bans any federal weapons infringement, that does not imply state constitutions have to ban state weapons infringements.
So in my opinion, there should be no overlap at all between the federal and state constitutions.
They should be totally orthogonal.
There should only be interstate concerns in the federal constitution, and there should only be intrastate concerns in state constitutions.


----------



## Rigby5

Lesh said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.
> Clearly the only source of any authority are inherent individual rights.
> Therefore, there is no sophistry involved in Heller.
> Inherent rights do exist, and local, state, and federal governments are in violation of the law when they infringe.
> That is not based on the 2nd amendment, but the foundational principles upon which all government and law is based.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're saying that the 2A doesn't apply...and Scalia was also (even though he tried to use part of it incorrectly)
Click to expand...


I am saying the original intent of the 2nd was to only apply against federal jurisdiction.
But it got complicated after the Civil War and the 14th amendment required the SCOTUS to also defend individuals from state abuses.
Now the SCOTUS is looking for ways of determining if states are abusing, and they look to the Bill of Rights for hints of founder intent.
Their logic is that if weapons rights were so important that the feds were to be barred from any infringement, then likely states/municipalities should be barred as well.
But that is inferring, not actual fact.
However, I agree with the SCOTUS that states/municipalities should also be barred.
Clearly individual defense is an inherent individual right.
You can see that from the 4th and 5th amendments as well.
You can also see it in the fact government employees are armed, and the 14th then requires anyone/everyone can be armed if they feel the need.
It is not like people are attacking and robbing police.
It is everyone but the police who actually are under the greatest threat and need to be armed the most.
The police need arms the least of all.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> natural rights are covered in State Constitutions not our Second Amendment; it says so in the first clause.
> 
> 
> 
> *A.* Not it doesn’t
> 
> *B.* We have 50 individual states with 50 individual state constitutions. If your ignorant statement were true, all Americans would not have the same rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about what is Necessary to the security of a free State not natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is true, but natural rights also exist, and also prohibit governments from infringing upon individual weapons rights.
> The 2nd amendment and natural rights are in agreement.
Click to expand...

natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process not our Second Amendment.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lesh said:


> Exactly.
> 
> Heller was nothing but "politically expedient" sophistry


Nevertheless, Scalia was right about the right of the people being an individual right that pre-existed government.  He was simply too afraid to deem all federal gun laws unconstitutional (the right ruling).

It would have done one of at least three things.  It would have caused states to immediately act to replace the Fed laws struck down (probably unnecessary...see below).  It would have caused an immediate constitutional crisis and a call for an amendment.  Or, most people would have realized that such a ruling did nothing but reclaim the authority for states, which is not really an issue, because states have already enacted their own laws way prior to the Heller ruling that are substantially similar to all Fed gun laws.  

We can get into a long discussion later about whether the 2A prohibited states from infringing on the right of the people, and whether the 14th Amendment's due process or privileges and immunities clauses force states to grant rights guaranteed by the 2A, as other rights have so been granted via the 14th.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process not our Second Amendment.


Are they available via due process under the 14th Amendment?


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> natural rights are covered in State Constitutions not our Second Amendment; it says so in the first clause.
> 
> 
> 
> *A.* Not it doesn’t
> 
> *B.* We have 50 individual states with 50 individual state constitutions. If your ignorant statement were true, all Americans would not have the same rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about what is Necessary to the security of a free State not natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is true, but natural rights also exist, and also prohibit governments from infringing upon individual weapons rights.
> The 2nd amendment and natural rights are in agreement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process not our Second Amendment.
Click to expand...


Correct.
That is more what I meant to say.
But I would also add that the 2nd amendment does not conflict with natural rights and had to be in accord with them.


----------



## Rigby5

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> Heller was nothing but "politically expedient" sophistry
> 
> 
> 
> Nevertheless, Scalia was right about the right of the people being an individual right that pre-existed government.  He was simply too afraid to deem all federal gun laws unconstitutional (the right ruling).
> 
> It would have done one of at least three things.  It would have caused states to immediately act to replace the Fed laws struck down (probably unnecessary...see below).  It would have caused an immediate constitutional crisis and a call for an amendment.  Or, most people would have realized that such a ruling did nothing but reclaim the authority for states, which is not really an issue, because states have already enacted their own laws way prior to the Heller ruling that are substantially similar to all Fed gun laws.
> 
> We can get into a long discussion later about whether the 2A prohibited states from infringing on the right of the people, and whether the 14th Amendment's due process or privileges and immunities clauses force states to grant rights guaranteed by the 2A, as other rights have so been granted via the 14th.
Click to expand...



I agree with all of that.
The 2nd amendment does invalidate all federal weapons laws except importation and interstate transportation of them.
But the BATF likely would have assassinated Scalia if he said that.

But don't forget the 4th, 5th, 9th, and 10th amendments also suggest defensive weapons like firearms are an individual right that can not be infringed upon.


----------



## Rigby5

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process not our Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> Are they available via due process under the 14th Amendment?
Click to expand...


I would think so.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process not our Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> Are they available via due process under the 14th Amendment?
Click to expand...

State law provides the guidance since it is a natural right recognized by the State.


----------



## Lakhota

*House Democrats set first panel hearing on gun violence in 8 years*

Finally, some good news.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> State law provides the guidance since it is a natural right recognized by the State.


But, the 14th Amendment REQUIRES states to give us rights secured under the bill of rights, no?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lakhota said:


> *House Democrats set first panel hearing on gun violence in 8 years*
> 
> Finally, some good news.


That's a state issue.  Why is the federal government getting involved?


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> State law provides the guidance since it is a natural right recognized by the State.
> 
> 
> 
> But, the 14th Amendment REQUIRES states to give us rights secured under the bill of rights, no?
Click to expand...

not if it is a natural right.


----------



## anynameyouwish

Lesh said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here, I'll post this again as you all seem so desperate to bury it.  Here are the words of the WRITER of the Constitution.  You can take all of your blathering and stick it where the Sun don't shine, because THIS is the only person who's opinion on the subject matters.
> 
> 
> "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
> 
> "What country can preserve its liberties *if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."*
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
> 
> 
> 
> But oddly...we base our laws and nation on the CONSTITUTION.
> 
> And the Constitution describes a "Well Regulated Militia" used to put down insurrections...and that is EXACTLY what it was used fr several times in the early days of our Republic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the CONSTITUTION written by this man.  His quotes prove that all of your infantile misinterpretations of what he wrote are just that, infantile misinterpretations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our nation is ruled by the Constitution...not by what this guy or that guy claims.
> 
> The Constitution was NOT written by any one man. It was a compromise among many.
> 
> I stand by the Constitution
Click to expand...


but

what does that actually mean?

gays CAN marry?
gays CAN'T marry?

pot should NOT be illegal?
pot SHOULD be illegal?

I CAN own guns?
I CAN'T own guns?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> not if it is a natural right.


You have NEVER ONCE provided any legal authority for this position.  It is BULLSHIT.


----------



## anynameyouwish

westwall said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the right wing confuses the security of a free State with natural rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you ignore the fact that to have a free State you must have natural Rights.  That is what sets a free country apart from a fascist dictatorship like you want.
Click to expand...


"And you ignore the fact that to have a free State you must have natural Rights. That is what sets a free country apart from a fascist dictatorship like you want."

I am always glad to see a freedom loving person defend gay rights, atheist rights, muslim rights, pot smoker rights,....everyone's rights!


----------



## Rigby5

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> State law provides the guidance since it is a natural right recognized by the State.
> 
> 
> 
> But, the 14th Amendment REQUIRES states to give us rights secured under the bill of rights, no?
Click to expand...



Absolutely NOT!
There are NO rights granted in the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights are ONLY restrictions on the federal government.
If you look at the Bill of Rights, it mostly says things like "Congress shall pass no law", or it says "reserved to the states or the people".
If you read the 9th and 10th amendments, they clearly say that rights are inherent to all individuals and are not granted or listed in the Bill of Rights.

What the 14th amendment says is that states can not discriminate and have to treat everyone equal under the law.
It does not say there are individual rights in the Bill of Rights, but the SCOTUS has used the Bill of Rights as a guide, and has incorporated many of the rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights.


----------



## Rigby5

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> *House Democrats set first panel hearing on gun violence in 8 years*
> 
> Finally, some good news.
> 
> 
> 
> That's a state issue.  Why is the federal government getting involved?
Click to expand...



On this I agree with you.


----------



## Rigby5

anynameyouwish said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here, I'll post this again as you all seem so desperate to bury it.  Here are the words of the WRITER of the Constitution.  You can take all of your blathering and stick it where the Sun don't shine, because THIS is the only person who's opinion on the subject matters.
> 
> 
> "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
> 
> "What country can preserve its liberties *if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."*
> - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
> 
> 
> 
> But oddly...we base our laws and nation on the CONSTITUTION.
> 
> And the Constitution describes a "Well Regulated Militia" used to put down insurrections...and that is EXACTLY what it was used fr several times in the early days of our Republic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the CONSTITUTION written by this man.  His quotes prove that all of your infantile misinterpretations of what he wrote are just that, infantile misinterpretations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our nation is ruled by the Constitution...not by what this guy or that guy claims.
> 
> The Constitution was NOT written by any one man. It was a compromise among many.
> 
> I stand by the Constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> but
> 
> what does that actually mean?
> 
> gays CAN marry?
> gays CAN'T marry?
> 
> pot should NOT be illegal?
> pot SHOULD be illegal?
> 
> I CAN own guns?
> I CAN'T own guns?
Click to expand...



What it means is that in order to prevent gays from marrying, you have to prove it would harm someone else if they did marry.
And I don't think anyone can come up with any harm that would cause others.

For pot to be illegal, you have to prove pot users harm others, which again I think is impossible to show.

Since police not only have guns, but an incredibly bad history of abusing guns, clearly there is not legal means by which the government can restrict guns.


----------



## captkaos

waltky said:


> Maybe not obsolete but antiquated, out of date...
> 
> ... it needs to be updated to reflect the times...
> 
> ... and the threat of overkill firepower...
> 
> ... for the average citizen.


When the govt no longer has overkill fire power, and the Authority to use it against the people then the people will no longer have a need to maintain effective counter measures to an oppressive Govt. That's why the Second amendment exists to keep the Govt from oppressing us " you Know like the British did


----------



## Oddball




----------



## Rigby5

What is so very strange is that an AR-15 is about the weakest of all rifles sold.
It has very little range, a bullet only about a 1/4th" wide, and illegal to use for hunting deer in most states because it is too weak for a clean kill.
Anyone who would ban an AR would then want to ban almost everything, because almost everything is more powerful.

But the reality is that the black ops enemy have ARs, AKs, etc., so then the rest of us had better as well, or else we will end up in re-education camps.


----------



## Lakhota

It's about time we had some gun control hearings.  I've also heard talk of possible 3-D gun legislation.


----------



## Rigby5

Lakhota said:


> It's about time we had some gun control hearings.  I've also heard talk of possible 3-D gun legislation.



Government really has no jurisdiction over any weapon you make yourself.


----------



## Lakhota

Rigby5 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's about time we had some gun control hearings.  I've also heard talk of possible 3-D gun legislation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government really has no jurisdiction over any weapon you make yourself.
Click to expand...


It certainly should, because such undetectable weapons place us all in danger - especially on public transportation.


----------



## 2aguy

Lakhota said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's about time we had some gun control hearings.  I've also heard talk of possible 3-D gun legislation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government really has no jurisdiction over any weapon you make yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It certainly should, because such undetectable weapons place us all in danger - especially on public transportation.
Click to expand...



No, it shouldn't.  If a criminal uses any gun in a crime we can already arrest them.  If a criminal is caught with any gun, they can already be arrested for simple possession of the gun......the only thing that puts us in danger is stupid policies like the ones you promote....


----------



## Lakhota

2aguy said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's about time we had some gun control hearings.  I've also heard talk of possible 3-D gun legislation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government really has no jurisdiction over any weapon you make yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It certainly should, because such undetectable weapons place us all in danger - especially on public transportation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, it shouldn't.  If a criminal uses any gun in a crime we can already arrest them.  If a criminal is caught with any gun, they can already be arrested for simple possession of the gun......the only thing that puts us in danger is stupid policies like the ones you promote....
Click to expand...


So, it doesn't bother you that scanners can't detect 3-D plastic guns at airports?

There are many reasons for alarm, as I explained in an expert declaration filed in the states’ lawsuit. First, a plastic firearm would rarely be detectable by metal detectors, which are the standard public safety protocol at airports, stadiums, concert halls, public buildings like courthouses, and, increasingly, schools. Although the federal Undetectable Firearms Act requires guns to include enough metal to set off a metal detector, the requirement can be evaded easily by simply not including the non-operable piece of metal in the 3D-printed gun. And for those who say that plastic firearms are ineffective because of their propensity to blow up, a 2013 test by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives of Defense Distributed’s 3D-printed handgun, the “Liberator,” showed it fired without fail all eight times it was tested.

3D-Printed Plastic Guns: Five Reasons to Worry


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lakhota said:


> So, it doesn't bother you that scanners can't detect 3-D plastic guns at airports?


It bothers me that I am not armed to defend myself against someone with a 3-D gun.

You cannot prevent guns from getting in the wrong hands.  They are not hard to build from scratch.  Let me carry in the airport to protect myself and assume everyone is armed.

That is the ONLY real solution and fucking know it.


----------



## watchingfromafar

*The Wild west had stricter gun control laws than we have today.*

*NRA* Stick this where the sun don't shine!!!

In 1840 Alabama court that, in upholding its state ban, *ruled it was a state's right* to regulate where and how a citizen could carry, and that the state constitution's allowance of personal firearms *“is not to bear arms upon all occasions and in all places.”*

*Gun Control Is as Old as the Old Wild West*

Contrary to the popular imagination, bearing arms on the frontier was a heavily regulated business

It's *October 26, 1881*, in Tombstone, and Arizona is not yet a state. The O.K. Corral is quiet, and it's had an unremarkable existence for the two years it's been standing—although it's about to become famous.

*Marshall Virgil Earp*, having deputized his brothers Wyatt and Morgan and his pal *Doc Holliday*, is having a gun control problem. Long-running tensions between the lawmen and a faction of cowboys – represented this morning by Billy Claiborne, the Clanton brothers, and the McLaury brothers – will come to a head over Tombstone's gun law.

*The laws of Tombstone at the time required visitors, upon entering town to disarm, either at a hotel or a lawman's office. *

The “Old West” conjures up all sorts of imagery– such as Tombstone, Deadwood, Dodge City, or Abilene, to name a few. *One other thing these cities had in common: strict gun control laws.*

*Laws regulating ownership and carry of firearms*, apart from the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, were *passed at a local level rather than by Congress*. “Gun control laws were adopted pretty quickly in these places,” says Winkler*. “Most were adopted by municipal governments exercising self-control and self-determination.” *

*Carrying any kind of weapon, guns or knives, was not allowed other than outside town borders and inside the home. When visitors left their weapons with a law officer upon entering town, they'd receive a token, like a coat check, which they'd exchange for their guns when leaving town.*

The practice was started in Southern states, which *were among the first to enact laws against concealed carry of guns and knives, in the early 1800s. --* The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, points to an 1840 Alabama court that, in upholding its state ban, *ruled it was a state's right* to regulate where and how a citizen could carry, and that the state constitution's allowance of personal firearms *“is not to bear arms upon all occasions and in all places.”*

Dodge City in 1878 (Wikimedia Commons)

It's *October 26, 1881*, in Tombstone, and Arizona

The laws of Tombstone at the time required visitors, *upon entering town to disarm, either at a hotel or a lawman's office. *(Residents of many famed cattle towns, such as Dodge City, Abilene, and Deadwood, had similar restrictions.)

image: https://public-media.si-cdn.com/fil...d-4fac-8fc0-7ff859b10f21/mclauriesclanton.jpg

*"Tombstone had much more restrictive laws on carrying guns in public in the 1880s than it has today,” *

*Dodge City, Kansas, formed a municipal government in 1878*. According to Stephen Aron, a professor of history at UCLA, the *first law passed was one prohibiting the carry of guns in town*, cultivating a reputation of peace and stability was necessary, even in boisterous towns, if it were to become anything more transient than a one-industry boom town.

*Laws regulating ownership and carry of firearms*, apart from the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, *were passed at a local level rather than by Congress.*

“*Gun control laws were adopted pretty quickly in these places*,” says Winkler. “Most were adopted by municipal governments exercising self-control and self-determination.” *Carrying any kind of weapon, guns or knives, was not allowed* other than outside town borders and inside the home. *When visitors left their weapons with a law officer upon entering town, they'd receive a token, like a coat check, which they'd exchange for their guns when leaving town.*

*Louisiana, too, upheld an early ban on concealed carry firearms*. When a Kentucky court reversed its ban, the state constitution was amended to specify the *Kentucky general assembly was within its rights to, in the future, regulate or prohibit concealed carry*.

Still, Winkler says, it was an affirmation that regulation was compatible with the Second Amendment. The federal government of the 1800s largely stayed out of gun-law court battles.

“People were allowed to own guns, and everyone did own guns [in the West], for the most part, *but when you came into town, you had to either check your guns if you were a visitor or keep your guns at home if you were a resident.”*

Gun Control Is as Old as the Old West      |     History     | Smithsonian

Did the Wild West Have More Gun Control Than We Do Today?

*A check? *That’s right. *When you entered a frontier town, you were legally required to leave your guns at the stables on the outskirts of town or drop them off with the sheriff*, who would give you a token in exchange. You checked your guns then like you’d check your overcoat today at a Boston restaurant in winter. Visitors were welcome, but their guns were not. *Towns* *barred anyone but law enforcement from carrying guns in public. *

*The most common cause of arrest was illegally carrying a firearm. Sheriffs and marshals took gun control seriously.*

Did the Wild West Have More Gun Control Than We Do Today? | HuffPost

*Today---Illinois town bans assault weapons, will fine those who keep them*

The *town of Deerfield, Ill*., has moved to *ban assault weapons, including the AR-15* used in the school shooting in Parkland, Florida, claiming the measure will make the town more safe from mass shootings.

The ordinance was passed unanimously; *"the normative value that assault weapons should have no role or purpose in civil society."*

It also takes a swing at a popular reading of the Second Amendment, stating the weapons are *"not reasonably necessary to protect an individual's right of self-defense" *or to preserve a well-regulated militia.

Illinois town bans assault weapons, will fine those who keep them

*Chicago suburb bans assault weapons in response to Parkland shooting*

Chicago suburb this week took the aggressive step of *banning assault weapons within its borders*, in what local officials said was a direct response to the mass shooting at a Parkland, Fla., high school earlier this year.

*Officials in Deerfield, Ill., unanimously approved the ordinance, which prohibits the possession, manufacture or sale of a range of firearms, as well as large-capacity magazines. *Residents of the 19,000-person village have until June 13 to remove the guns from village limits or face up to $1,000 per day in fines.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...hooting/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.95db16134355

*Seattle will require gun owners to lock up their firearms*, after the City Council voted unanimously Monday to pass legislation proposed by Mayor Jenny Durkan.

Starting 180 days after Durkan signs the legislation, it will be *a civil infraction to store a gun without the firearm being secured in a locked container.*

The legislation will apply only to guns kept somewhere, rather than those carried by or under the control of their owners.

Also under the legislation, *it will be a civil infraction when an owner knows or should know that a minor, “at-risk person” or unauthorized user is likely to access a gun and such a person actually does access the weapon.*

The legislation allows fines up to $500 when a gun isn’t locked up, up to $1,000 when a prohibited person accesses a firearm and up to $10,000 when a prohibited person uses the weapon to hurt someone or commit a crime.

Gun owners face fines up to $10,000 for not locking up their guns under new Seattle law


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> not if it is a natural right.
> 
> 
> 
> You have NEVER ONCE provided any legal authority for this position.  It is BULLSHIT.
Click to expand...

lol.  just right wing cluelessness and Causelessness.  

Only Due Process is guaranteed by our federal Constitution.


----------



## 2aguy

Lakhota said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's about time we had some gun control hearings.  I've also heard talk of possible 3-D gun legislation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government really has no jurisdiction over any weapon you make yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It certainly should, because such undetectable weapons place us all in danger - especially on public transportation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, it shouldn't.  If a criminal uses any gun in a crime we can already arrest them.  If a criminal is caught with any gun, they can already be arrested for simple possession of the gun......the only thing that puts us in danger is stupid policies like the ones you promote....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, it doesn't bother you that scanners can't detect 3-D plastic guns at airports?
> 
> There are many reasons for alarm, as I explained in an expert declaration filed in the states’ lawsuit. First, a plastic firearm would rarely be detectable by metal detectors, which are the standard public safety protocol at airports, stadiums, concert halls, public buildings like courthouses, and, increasingly, schools. Although the federal Undetectable Firearms Act requires guns to include enough metal to set off a metal detector, the requirement can be evaded easily by simply not including the non-operable piece of metal in the 3D-printed gun. And for those who say that plastic firearms are ineffective because of their propensity to blow up, a 2013 test by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives of Defense Distributed’s 3D-printed handgun, the “Liberator,” showed it fired without fail all eight times it was tested.
> 
> 3D-Printed Plastic Guns: Five Reasons to Worry
Click to expand...


The TSA screeners are already not picking up 90% of the weapons passed through their scanners during tests...... and if the technology exists, any terrorists will have access to it, in fact, the money Iran got from obama will be used to buy 3d scanners to provide their terrorist minions with plastic weapons.....so what will banning them for Americans do?   And the drug cartels?  You don't think they won't be making plastic guns in the gun factories they have built right across our border?  You don't think they won't send those guns across our border for sale no matter what you do?

We already have laws against using any gun in any crime.  We already have laws that allow criminals caught in possession of guns to automatically be arrested for the mere possession of the gun.

The tech is out there and you can't stop it......   a plastic gun will be seen by the scanners if not the metal detectors.....and someone will create a new scanner to find them....


----------



## 2aguy

watchingfromafar said:


> *The Wild west had stricter gun control laws than we have today.*
> 
> *NRA* Stick this where the sun don't shine!!!
> 
> In 1840 Alabama court that, in upholding its state ban, *ruled it was a state's right* to regulate where and how a citizen could carry, and that the state constitution's allowance of personal firearms *“is not to bear arms upon all occasions and in all places.”*
> 
> *Gun Control Is as Old as the Old Wild West*
> 
> Contrary to the popular imagination, bearing arms on the frontier was a heavily regulated business
> 
> It's *October 26, 1881*, in Tombstone, and Arizona is not yet a state. The O.K. Corral is quiet, and it's had an unremarkable existence for the two years it's been standing—although it's about to become famous.
> 
> *Marshall Virgil Earp*, having deputized his brothers Wyatt and Morgan and his pal *Doc Holliday*, is having a gun control problem. Long-running tensions between the lawmen and a faction of cowboys – represented this morning by Billy Claiborne, the Clanton brothers, and the McLaury brothers – will come to a head over Tombstone's gun law.
> 
> *The laws of Tombstone at the time required visitors, upon entering town to disarm, either at a hotel or a lawman's office. *
> 
> The “Old West” conjures up all sorts of imagery– such as Tombstone, Deadwood, Dodge City, or Abilene, to name a few. *One other thing these cities had in common: strict gun control laws.*
> 
> *Laws regulating ownership and carry of firearms*, apart from the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, were *passed at a local level rather than by Congress*. “Gun control laws were adopted pretty quickly in these places,” says Winkler*. “Most were adopted by municipal governments exercising self-control and self-determination.” *
> 
> *Carrying any kind of weapon, guns or knives, was not allowed other than outside town borders and inside the home. When visitors left their weapons with a law officer upon entering town, they'd receive a token, like a coat check, which they'd exchange for their guns when leaving town.*
> 
> The practice was started in Southern states, which *were among the first to enact laws against concealed carry of guns and knives, in the early 1800s. --* The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, points to an 1840 Alabama court that, in upholding its state ban, *ruled it was a state's right* to regulate where and how a citizen could carry, and that the state constitution's allowance of personal firearms *“is not to bear arms upon all occasions and in all places.”*
> 
> Dodge City in 1878 (Wikimedia Commons)
> 
> It's *October 26, 1881*, in Tombstone, and Arizona
> 
> The laws of Tombstone at the time required visitors, *upon entering town to disarm, either at a hotel or a lawman's office. *(Residents of many famed cattle towns, such as Dodge City, Abilene, and Deadwood, had similar restrictions.)
> 
> image: https://public-media.si-cdn.com/fil...d-4fac-8fc0-7ff859b10f21/mclauriesclanton.jpg
> 
> *"Tombstone had much more restrictive laws on carrying guns in public in the 1880s than it has today,” *
> 
> *Dodge City, Kansas, formed a municipal government in 1878*. According to Stephen Aron, a professor of history at UCLA, the *first law passed was one prohibiting the carry of guns in town*, cultivating a reputation of peace and stability was necessary, even in boisterous towns, if it were to become anything more transient than a one-industry boom town.
> 
> *Laws regulating ownership and carry of firearms*, apart from the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, *were passed at a local level rather than by Congress.*
> 
> “*Gun control laws were adopted pretty quickly in these places*,” says Winkler. “Most were adopted by municipal governments exercising self-control and self-determination.” *Carrying any kind of weapon, guns or knives, was not allowed* other than outside town borders and inside the home. *When visitors left their weapons with a law officer upon entering town, they'd receive a token, like a coat check, which they'd exchange for their guns when leaving town.*
> 
> *Louisiana, too, upheld an early ban on concealed carry firearms*. When a Kentucky court reversed its ban, the state constitution was amended to specify the *Kentucky general assembly was within its rights to, in the future, regulate or prohibit concealed carry*.
> 
> Still, Winkler says, it was an affirmation that regulation was compatible with the Second Amendment. The federal government of the 1800s largely stayed out of gun-law court battles.
> 
> “People were allowed to own guns, and everyone did own guns [in the West], for the most part, *but when you came into town, you had to either check your guns if you were a visitor or keep your guns at home if you were a resident.”*
> 
> Gun Control Is as Old as the Old West      |     History     | Smithsonian
> 
> Did the Wild West Have More Gun Control Than We Do Today?
> 
> *A check? *That’s right. *When you entered a frontier town, you were legally required to leave your guns at the stables on the outskirts of town or drop them off with the sheriff*, who would give you a token in exchange. You checked your guns then like you’d check your overcoat today at a Boston restaurant in winter. Visitors were welcome, but their guns were not. *Towns* *barred anyone but law enforcement from carrying guns in public. *
> 
> *The most common cause of arrest was illegally carrying a firearm. Sheriffs and marshals took gun control seriously.*
> 
> Did the Wild West Have More Gun Control Than We Do Today? | HuffPost
> 
> *Today---Illinois town bans assault weapons, will fine those who keep them*
> 
> The *town of Deerfield, Ill*., has moved to *ban assault weapons, including the AR-15* used in the school shooting in Parkland, Florida, claiming the measure will make the town more safe from mass shootings.
> 
> The ordinance was passed unanimously; *"the normative value that assault weapons should have no role or purpose in civil society."*
> 
> It also takes a swing at a popular reading of the Second Amendment, stating the weapons are *"not reasonably necessary to protect an individual's right of self-defense" *or to preserve a well-regulated militia.
> 
> Illinois town bans assault weapons, will fine those who keep them
> 
> *Chicago suburb bans assault weapons in response to Parkland shooting*
> 
> Chicago suburb this week took the aggressive step of *banning assault weapons within its borders*, in what local officials said was a direct response to the mass shooting at a Parkland, Fla., high school earlier this year.
> 
> *Officials in Deerfield, Ill., unanimously approved the ordinance, which prohibits the possession, manufacture or sale of a range of firearms, as well as large-capacity magazines. *Residents of the 19,000-person village have until June 13 to remove the guns from village limits or face up to $1,000 per day in fines.
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...hooting/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.95db16134355
> 
> *Seattle will require gun owners to lock up their firearms*, after the City Council voted unanimously Monday to pass legislation proposed by Mayor Jenny Durkan.
> 
> Starting 180 days after Durkan signs the legislation, it will be *a civil infraction to store a gun without the firearm being secured in a locked container.*
> 
> The legislation will apply only to guns kept somewhere, rather than those carried by or under the control of their owners.
> 
> Also under the legislation, *it will be a civil infraction when an owner knows or should know that a minor, “at-risk person” or unauthorized user is likely to access a gun and such a person actually does access the weapon.*
> 
> The legislation allows fines up to $500 when a gun isn’t locked up, up to $1,000 when a prohibited person accesses a firearm and up to $10,000 when a prohibited person uses the weapon to hurt someone or commit a crime.
> 
> Gun owners face fines up to $10,000 for not locking up their guns under new Seattle law




And nothing you posted is accurate or true......in fact.....one Earp was murdered in Tombstone...with a gun, the other was maimed..with a gun....in the very Tombstone with gun laws because the Cowboys ignored the gun laws.......do you understand that?

Gun Control Is as Old as the Old West      |     History     | Smithsonian


The laws of Tombstone at the time required visitors, upon entering town to disarm, either at a hotel or a lawman’s office. (Residents of many famed cattle towns, such as Dodge City, Abilene, and Deadwood, had similar restrictions.)

* But these cowboys had no intention of doing so as they strolled around town with Colt revolvers and Winchester rifles in plain sight. Earlier on this fateful day, Virgil had disarmed one cowboy forcefully, while Wyatt confronted another and county sheriff Johnny Behan failed to persuade two more to turn in their firearms.*

When the Earps and Holliday met the cowboys on Fremont Street in the early afternoon, Virgil once again called on them to disarm. Nobody knows who fired first. Ike Clanton and Billy Claiborne, who were unarmed, ran at the start of the fight and survived. Billy Clanton and the McLaury brothers, who stood and fought, were killed by the lawmen, all of whom walked away.


Read more: Gun Control Is as Old as the Old West      |     History     | Smithsonian
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! Give the gift of Smithsonian
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

3/8/18

Gun Control, 1881

The ordinance, in this case at least, proved to be almost entirely ineffective. As recounted in the court decision, Sheriff Behan had “demanded of the Clantons and McLaurys that they give up their arms, and … they ‘demurred,’ as he said, and did not do it.”
------------
This reliance is misplaced. A brief filed by historians and legal scholars explains that nineteenth-century prohibitions like the one in Tombstone were “unusual” and imposed “in response to transitory conditions.” Any “supposed distinction between populated and unpopulated areas, offered to justify heavy restrictions on carrying in the District, is not supported by the existence of handgun carry bans in a handful of mostly small towns in the Wild West, when nearly all major cities had no such laws.”
3/5/18
NRA-ILA: The Myth of Effective Wild West Gun Control Exploded - The Truth About Guns
============
Here you go...read up on the actual Tombstone situation and how the criminals actually ignored the gun control laws....killing land wounding the Earps....

Gunfight at the O.K. Corral - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One of many people who ignored Tombstone gun control....and he was a good guy....

Joyce ordered Holliday removed from the saloon but would not return Holliday's revolver. But Holliday returned carrying a double-action revolver. Milt brandished a pistol and threatened Holliday, but Holliday shot Joyce in the palm, disarming him, and then shot Joyce's business partner William Parker in the big toe

-----

Boyle later testified he noticed Ike was armed and covered his gun for him. Boyle later said that Ike told him, "'As soon as the Earps and Doc Holliday showed themselves on the street, the ball would open—that they would have to fight'... 

------

*Later in the morning, Ike picked up his rifle and revolver from the West End Corral, where he had deposited his weapons and stabled his wagon and team after entering town. By noon that day, Ike was still drinking and once-again armed in violation of the city ordinance against carrying firearms in the city.*

*--------*

*Tom McLaury's concealed weapo*n[edit]

Outside the court house where Ike was being fined, Wyatt almost walked into 28 year-old Tom McLaury as the two men were brought up short nose-to-nose. Tom, who had arrived in town the day before, was required by the well-known city ordinance to deposit his pistol when he first arrived in town. *When Wyatt demanded, "Are you heeled or not?", McLaury said he was not armed. Wyatt testified that he saw arevolver in plain sight on the right hip of Tom's pants*

----------

Billy and Frank stopped first at the Grand Hotel on Allen Street, and were greeted by Doc Holliday. They learned immediately after of their brothers' beatings by the Earps within the previous two hours. The incidents had generated a lot of talk in town. Angrily, Frank said he would not drink, and he and Billy left the saloon immediately to seek Tom.

*By law, both Frank and Billy should have left their firearms at the Grand Hotel. Instead, they remained fully armed.[2]:49[57]:190*

*--------*

Virgil testified afterward that he thought he saw all four men, Ike Clanton, Billy Clanton, Frank McLaury, and Tom McLaury, buying cartridges.[79] Wyatt said that he saw Billy Clanton and Frank McLaury in Spangenberger's gun and hardware store on 4th Street filling theirgun belts with cartridges


Hmmmmmmmm...doesn't seem like the Tombstone gun control laws worked so far...

*Virgil initially avoided a confrontation with the newly arrived Frank McLaury and Billy Clanton, who had not yet deposited their weapons at a hotel or stable as the law required. *

*------------*

At about 2:30 pm he saw Ike, Frank, Tom, and Billy gathered off Fremont street. Behan attempted to persuade Frank McLaury to give up his weapons, but Frank insisted that he would only give up his guns after City Marshal Virgil Earp and his brothers were disarmed.[81]

-----------

Citizens reported to Virgil on the Cowboys' movements that Ike and Tom had left their livery stable and returned to town while armed,* in violation of the city ordinance.*


----------



## 2aguy

watchingfromafar said:


> *The Wild west had stricter gun control laws than we have today.*
> 
> *NRA* Stick this where the sun don't shine!!!
> 
> In 1840 Alabama court that, in upholding its state ban, *ruled it was a state's right* to regulate where and how a citizen could carry, and that the state constitution's allowance of personal firearms *“is not to bear arms upon all occasions and in all places.”*
> 
> *Gun Control Is as Old as the Old Wild West*
> 
> Contrary to the popular imagination, bearing arms on the frontier was a heavily regulated business
> 
> It's *October 26, 1881*, in Tombstone, and Arizona is not yet a state. The O.K. Corral is quiet, and it's had an unremarkable existence for the two years it's been standing—although it's about to become famous.
> 
> *Marshall Virgil Earp*, having deputized his brothers Wyatt and Morgan and his pal *Doc Holliday*, is having a gun control problem. Long-running tensions between the lawmen and a faction of cowboys – represented this morning by Billy Claiborne, the Clanton brothers, and the McLaury brothers – will come to a head over Tombstone's gun law.
> 
> *The laws of Tombstone at the time required visitors, upon entering town to disarm, either at a hotel or a lawman's office. *
> 
> The “Old West” conjures up all sorts of imagery– such as Tombstone, Deadwood, Dodge City, or Abilene, to name a few. *One other thing these cities had in common: strict gun control laws.*
> 
> *Laws regulating ownership and carry of firearms*, apart from the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, were *passed at a local level rather than by Congress*. “Gun control laws were adopted pretty quickly in these places,” says Winkler*. “Most were adopted by municipal governments exercising self-control and self-determination.” *
> 
> *Carrying any kind of weapon, guns or knives, was not allowed other than outside town borders and inside the home. When visitors left their weapons with a law officer upon entering town, they'd receive a token, like a coat check, which they'd exchange for their guns when leaving town.*
> 
> The practice was started in Southern states, which *were among the first to enact laws against concealed carry of guns and knives, in the early 1800s. --* The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, points to an 1840 Alabama court that, in upholding its state ban, *ruled it was a state's right* to regulate where and how a citizen could carry, and that the state constitution's allowance of personal firearms *“is not to bear arms upon all occasions and in all places.”*
> 
> Dodge City in 1878 (Wikimedia Commons)
> 
> It's *October 26, 1881*, in Tombstone, and Arizona
> 
> The laws of Tombstone at the time required visitors, *upon entering town to disarm, either at a hotel or a lawman's office. *(Residents of many famed cattle towns, such as Dodge City, Abilene, and Deadwood, had similar restrictions.)
> 
> image: https://public-media.si-cdn.com/fil...d-4fac-8fc0-7ff859b10f21/mclauriesclanton.jpg
> 
> *"Tombstone had much more restrictive laws on carrying guns in public in the 1880s than it has today,” *
> 
> *Dodge City, Kansas, formed a municipal government in 1878*. According to Stephen Aron, a professor of history at UCLA, the *first law passed was one prohibiting the carry of guns in town*, cultivating a reputation of peace and stability was necessary, even in boisterous towns, if it were to become anything more transient than a one-industry boom town.
> 
> *Laws regulating ownership and carry of firearms*, apart from the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, *were passed at a local level rather than by Congress.*
> 
> “*Gun control laws were adopted pretty quickly in these places*,” says Winkler. “Most were adopted by municipal governments exercising self-control and self-determination.” *Carrying any kind of weapon, guns or knives, was not allowed* other than outside town borders and inside the home. *When visitors left their weapons with a law officer upon entering town, they'd receive a token, like a coat check, which they'd exchange for their guns when leaving town.*
> 
> *Louisiana, too, upheld an early ban on concealed carry firearms*. When a Kentucky court reversed its ban, the state constitution was amended to specify the *Kentucky general assembly was within its rights to, in the future, regulate or prohibit concealed carry*.
> 
> Still, Winkler says, it was an affirmation that regulation was compatible with the Second Amendment. The federal government of the 1800s largely stayed out of gun-law court battles.
> 
> “People were allowed to own guns, and everyone did own guns [in the West], for the most part, *but when you came into town, you had to either check your guns if you were a visitor or keep your guns at home if you were a resident.”*
> 
> Gun Control Is as Old as the Old West      |     History     | Smithsonian
> 
> Did the Wild West Have More Gun Control Than We Do Today?
> 
> *A check? *That’s right. *When you entered a frontier town, you were legally required to leave your guns at the stables on the outskirts of town or drop them off with the sheriff*, who would give you a token in exchange. You checked your guns then like you’d check your overcoat today at a Boston restaurant in winter. Visitors were welcome, but their guns were not. *Towns* *barred anyone but law enforcement from carrying guns in public. *
> 
> *The most common cause of arrest was illegally carrying a firearm. Sheriffs and marshals took gun control seriously.*
> 
> Did the Wild West Have More Gun Control Than We Do Today? | HuffPost
> 
> *Today---Illinois town bans assault weapons, will fine those who keep them*
> 
> The *town of Deerfield, Ill*., has moved to *ban assault weapons, including the AR-15* used in the school shooting in Parkland, Florida, claiming the measure will make the town more safe from mass shootings.
> 
> The ordinance was passed unanimously; *"the normative value that assault weapons should have no role or purpose in civil society."*
> 
> It also takes a swing at a popular reading of the Second Amendment, stating the weapons are *"not reasonably necessary to protect an individual's right of self-defense" *or to preserve a well-regulated militia.
> 
> Illinois town bans assault weapons, will fine those who keep them
> 
> *Chicago suburb bans assault weapons in response to Parkland shooting*
> 
> Chicago suburb this week took the aggressive step of *banning assault weapons within its borders*, in what local officials said was a direct response to the mass shooting at a Parkland, Fla., high school earlier this year.
> 
> *Officials in Deerfield, Ill., unanimously approved the ordinance, which prohibits the possession, manufacture or sale of a range of firearms, as well as large-capacity magazines. *Residents of the 19,000-person village have until June 13 to remove the guns from village limits or face up to $1,000 per day in fines.
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...hooting/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.95db16134355
> 
> *Seattle will require gun owners to lock up their firearms*, after the City Council voted unanimously Monday to pass legislation proposed by Mayor Jenny Durkan.
> 
> Starting 180 days after Durkan signs the legislation, it will be *a civil infraction to store a gun without the firearm being secured in a locked container.*
> 
> The legislation will apply only to guns kept somewhere, rather than those carried by or under the control of their owners.
> 
> Also under the legislation, *it will be a civil infraction when an owner knows or should know that a minor, “at-risk person” or unauthorized user is likely to access a gun and such a person actually does access the weapon.*
> 
> The legislation allows fines up to $500 when a gun isn’t locked up, up to $1,000 when a prohibited person accesses a firearm and up to $10,000 when a prohibited person uses the weapon to hurt someone or commit a crime.
> 
> Gun owners face fines up to $10,000 for not locking up their guns under new Seattle law



Did the Wild West Have More Gun Control Than We Do Today?


The New York Times Botches America’s History With The Gun

Second, the idea that “Gun control laws were ubiquitous” in the 19th century is the work of politically motivated historians who cobble together every minor local restriction they can find in an attempt to create the impression that gun control was the norm. If this were true, Kristof wouldn’t need to jump to 1879 to offer his first specific case.

Visitors to Wichita, Kan., had to check their revolvers at police headquarters. As for Dodge City, a symbol of the Wild West, a photo shows a sign on main street in 1879 warning: “The Carrying of Fire Arms Strictly Prohibited.”


This talking point has been trotted out for years because it’s the closest thing anyone can find to resemble gun control in the Old West — a picture. But we don’t even know how rigidly the law was enforced, for how long, or if ever. We certainly don’t know that the guns were dropped off at “police headquarters.”

*Dodge City-type ordinances—and those of some other towns—typically applied to the areas north of the “deadline,” which was the railroad tracks and a kind of red-light district. By 1879, Dodge City had nearly 20 businesses licensed to sell liquor and many whorehouses teeming with intoxicated young men. It was reasonable that these businesses wouldn’t want armed men with revolvers packed into their establishments.*

*However, the men voluntarily abandoned their weapons in exchange for entertainment and drink—just as they do today when entering establishments that prohibit the carrying of firearms. Those weapons were handed back to them when they were done. Not in their wildest imaginations would they have entertained the notion of asking the government for permission—getting a license or undergoing a background check—to own a firearm.*

*In the rest of the city, as with almost every city in the West, guns were allowed, and people walked around with them freely and openly. They bought them freely and openly. Even children could buy them. A man could buy a Colt or Remington or Winchester, and he could buy as many as he liked without anyone taking notice.*


The fact is that in the 19th century there were no statewide or territory-wide gun control laws for citizens, and certainly no federal laws. Nor was there a single case challenging the idea of the individual right of gun ownership. Guns were romanticized in the literature and art, and the era’s greatest engineers designed and sold them. All the while, American leaders continued to praise the Second Amendment as a bulwark against tyranny.

Those who praised this right, incidentally, include numerous post-Civil War civil rights activists, who offered particularly powerful arguments for the importance of the Second Amendment. Most gun-control regulations that did exist, after all, were used for subjugating blacks and Indians.


----------



## watchingfromafar

2aguy said:


> And nothing you posted is accurate or true......



It's all acurate and true & you cannot prove otherwise 
such is life -


----------



## 2aguy

watchingfromafar said:


> *The Wild west had stricter gun control laws than we have today.*
> 
> *NRA* Stick this where the sun don't shine!!!
> 
> In 1840 Alabama court that, in upholding its state ban, *ruled it was a state's right* to regulate where and how a citizen could carry, and that the state constitution's allowance of personal firearms *“is not to bear arms upon all occasions and in all places.”*
> 
> *Gun Control Is as Old as the Old Wild West*
> 
> Contrary to the popular imagination, bearing arms on the frontier was a heavily regulated business
> 
> It's *October 26, 1881*, in Tombstone, and Arizona is not yet a state. The O.K. Corral is quiet, and it's had an unremarkable existence for the two years it's been standing—although it's about to become famous.
> 
> *Marshall Virgil Earp*, having deputized his brothers Wyatt and Morgan and his pal *Doc Holliday*, is having a gun control problem. Long-running tensions between the lawmen and a faction of cowboys – represented this morning by Billy Claiborne, the Clanton brothers, and the McLaury brothers – will come to a head over Tombstone's gun law.
> 
> *The laws of Tombstone at the time required visitors, upon entering town to disarm, either at a hotel or a lawman's office. *
> 
> The “Old West” conjures up all sorts of imagery– such as Tombstone, Deadwood, Dodge City, or Abilene, to name a few. *One other thing these cities had in common: strict gun control laws.*
> 
> *Laws regulating ownership and carry of firearms*, apart from the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, were *passed at a local level rather than by Congress*. “Gun control laws were adopted pretty quickly in these places,” says Winkler*. “Most were adopted by municipal governments exercising self-control and self-determination.” *
> 
> *Carrying any kind of weapon, guns or knives, was not allowed other than outside town borders and inside the home. When visitors left their weapons with a law officer upon entering town, they'd receive a token, like a coat check, which they'd exchange for their guns when leaving town.*
> 
> The practice was started in Southern states, which *were among the first to enact laws against concealed carry of guns and knives, in the early 1800s. --* The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, points to an 1840 Alabama court that, in upholding its state ban, *ruled it was a state's right* to regulate where and how a citizen could carry, and that the state constitution's allowance of personal firearms *“is not to bear arms upon all occasions and in all places.”*
> 
> Dodge City in 1878 (Wikimedia Commons)
> 
> It's *October 26, 1881*, in Tombstone, and Arizona
> 
> The laws of Tombstone at the time required visitors, *upon entering town to disarm, either at a hotel or a lawman's office. *(Residents of many famed cattle towns, such as Dodge City, Abilene, and Deadwood, had similar restrictions.)
> 
> image: https://public-media.si-cdn.com/fil...d-4fac-8fc0-7ff859b10f21/mclauriesclanton.jpg
> 
> *"Tombstone had much more restrictive laws on carrying guns in public in the 1880s than it has today,” *
> 
> *Dodge City, Kansas, formed a municipal government in 1878*. According to Stephen Aron, a professor of history at UCLA, the *first law passed was one prohibiting the carry of guns in town*, cultivating a reputation of peace and stability was necessary, even in boisterous towns, if it were to become anything more transient than a one-industry boom town.
> 
> *Laws regulating ownership and carry of firearms*, apart from the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, *were passed at a local level rather than by Congress.*
> 
> “*Gun control laws were adopted pretty quickly in these places*,” says Winkler. “Most were adopted by municipal governments exercising self-control and self-determination.” *Carrying any kind of weapon, guns or knives, was not allowed* other than outside town borders and inside the home. *When visitors left their weapons with a law officer upon entering town, they'd receive a token, like a coat check, which they'd exchange for their guns when leaving town.*
> 
> *Louisiana, too, upheld an early ban on concealed carry firearms*. When a Kentucky court reversed its ban, the state constitution was amended to specify the *Kentucky general assembly was within its rights to, in the future, regulate or prohibit concealed carry*.
> 
> Still, Winkler says, it was an affirmation that regulation was compatible with the Second Amendment. The federal government of the 1800s largely stayed out of gun-law court battles.
> 
> “People were allowed to own guns, and everyone did own guns [in the West], for the most part, *but when you came into town, you had to either check your guns if you were a visitor or keep your guns at home if you were a resident.”*
> 
> Gun Control Is as Old as the Old West      |     History     | Smithsonian
> 
> Did the Wild West Have More Gun Control Than We Do Today?
> 
> *A check? *That’s right. *When you entered a frontier town, you were legally required to leave your guns at the stables on the outskirts of town or drop them off with the sheriff*, who would give you a token in exchange. You checked your guns then like you’d check your overcoat today at a Boston restaurant in winter. Visitors were welcome, but their guns were not. *Towns* *barred anyone but law enforcement from carrying guns in public. *
> 
> *The most common cause of arrest was illegally carrying a firearm. Sheriffs and marshals took gun control seriously.*
> 
> Did the Wild West Have More Gun Control Than We Do Today? | HuffPost
> 
> *Today---Illinois town bans assault weapons, will fine those who keep them*
> 
> The *town of Deerfield, Ill*., has moved to *ban assault weapons, including the AR-15* used in the school shooting in Parkland, Florida, claiming the measure will make the town more safe from mass shootings.
> 
> The ordinance was passed unanimously; *"the normative value that assault weapons should have no role or purpose in civil society."*
> 
> It also takes a swing at a popular reading of the Second Amendment, stating the weapons are *"not reasonably necessary to protect an individual's right of self-defense" *or to preserve a well-regulated militia.
> 
> Illinois town bans assault weapons, will fine those who keep them
> 
> *Chicago suburb bans assault weapons in response to Parkland shooting*
> 
> Chicago suburb this week took the aggressive step of *banning assault weapons within its borders*, in what local officials said was a direct response to the mass shooting at a Parkland, Fla., high school earlier this year.
> 
> *Officials in Deerfield, Ill., unanimously approved the ordinance, which prohibits the possession, manufacture or sale of a range of firearms, as well as large-capacity magazines. *Residents of the 19,000-person village have until June 13 to remove the guns from village limits or face up to $1,000 per day in fines.
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...hooting/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.95db16134355
> 
> *Seattle will require gun owners to lock up their firearms*, after the City Council voted unanimously Monday to pass legislation proposed by Mayor Jenny Durkan.
> 
> Starting 180 days after Durkan signs the legislation, it will be *a civil infraction to store a gun without the firearm being secured in a locked container.*
> 
> The legislation will apply only to guns kept somewhere, rather than those carried by or under the control of their owners.
> 
> Also under the legislation, *it will be a civil infraction when an owner knows or should know that a minor, “at-risk person” or unauthorized user is likely to access a gun and such a person actually does access the weapon.*
> 
> The legislation allows fines up to $500 when a gun isn’t locked up, up to $1,000 when a prohibited person accesses a firearm and up to $10,000 when a prohibited person uses the weapon to hurt someone or commit a crime.
> 
> Gun owners face fines up to $10,000 for not locking up their guns under new Seattle law



The following things you posted have already been declared UnConstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States......the states, towns and cities that have enacted these laws....as well as the left wing judges that have allowed them to go into practice, are violating the Constitution....but thanks for playing.....

*Today---Illinois town bans assault weapons, will fine those who keep them*

The *town of Deerfield, Ill*., has moved to *ban assault weapons, including the AR-15* used in the school shooting in Parkland, Florida, claiming the measure will make the town more safe from mass shootings.

The ordinance was passed unanimously; *"the normative value that assault weapons should have no role or purpose in civil society."*

It also takes a swing at a popular reading of the Second Amendment, stating the weapons are *"not reasonably necessary to protect an individual's right of self-defense" *or to preserve a well-regulated militia.

Illinois town bans assault weapons, will fine those who keep them

*Chicago suburb bans assault weapons in response to Parkland shooting*

Chicago suburb this week took the aggressive step of *banning assault weapons within its borders*, in what local officials said was a direct response to the mass shooting at a Parkland, Fla., high school earlier this year.

*Officials in Deerfield, Ill., unanimously approved the ordinance, which prohibits the possession, manufacture or sale of a range of firearms, as well as large-capacity magazines. *Residents of the 19,000-person village have until June 13 to remove the guns from village limits or face up to $1,000 per day in fines.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/04/05/chicago-suburb-bans-assault-weapons-in-response-to-parkland-shooting/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.95db16134355

*Seattle will require gun owners to lock up their firearms*, after the City Council voted unanimously Monday to pass legislation proposed by Mayor Jenny Durkan.

Starting 180 days after Durkan signs the legislation, it will be *a civil infraction to store a gun without the firearm being secured in a locked container.*

The legislation will apply only to guns kept somewhere, rather than those carried by or under the control of their owners.

Also under the legislation, *it will be a civil infraction when an owner knows or should know that a minor, “at-risk person” or unauthorized user is likely to access a gun and such a person actually does access the weapon.*

The legislation allows fines up to $500 when a gun isn’t locked up, up to $1,000 when a prohibited person accesses a firearm and up to $10,000 when a prohibited person uses the weapon to hurt someone or commit a crime.


*On locking up firearms....*

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. 

*The Ban on Assault rifles.....is also unConstitutional...*

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. 

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), *the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.*



https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. 

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

 The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes. 

*Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629. *


----------



## 2aguy

watchingfromafar said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> And nothing you posted is accurate or true......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's all acurate and true & you cannot prove otherwise
> such is life -
Click to expand...



I just did......such is your life....


----------



## watchingfromafar

2aguy said:


> The Ban on Assault rifles.....is also unConstitutional...



And my friend, the Supreme Court can change that in a hear beat; right before your eyes -


----------



## watchingfromafar

In 1840 Alabama court that, in upholding its state ban, *ruled it was a state's right* to regulate where and how a citizen could carry, and that the state constitution's allowance of personal firearms *“is not to bear arms upon all occasions and in all places.”*

the truth will set you free
-


----------



## 2aguy

watchingfromafar said:


> In 1840 Alabama court that, in upholding its state ban, *ruled it was a state's right* to regulate where and how a citizen could carry, and that the state constitution's allowance of personal firearms *“is not to bear arms upon all occasions and in all places.”*
> 
> the truth will set you free
> -




McDonald incorporated the 2nd Amendment....states can't take away a Constitutional Right.....just like they can't declare slavery legal under state's Rights.....


----------



## watchingfromafar

2gay, thanks for this data --
17.25 million Americans carry guns. Gun murder in U.S. down 49% since 1990s. 
17.25 million Americans carry guns. Gun crime in U.S. down 75% since 1990s. 
17 .25 million Americans carry guns. Violent crime down 72% since the 1990s.

-


----------



## 2aguy

watchingfromafar said:


> 2gay, thanks for this data --
> 17.25 million Americans carry guns. Gun murder in U.S. down 49% since 1990s.
> 17.25 million Americans carry guns. Gun crime in U.S. down 75% since 1990s.
> 17 .25 million Americans carry guns. Violent crime down 72% since the 1990s.
> 
> -




You are welcome.   The problem with your information on the Old West, is that gun control didn't work back then either...... as the very example of Tombstone shows......

The focus needs to be on locking up gun criminals, the ones who use guns for rape, robbery and murder, and not on the law abiding gun owners who don't use their legal guns for crime.

If you focus on law abiding gun owners, you don't effect the crime rate...you allow it to grow...


----------



## watchingfromafar

2aguy said:


> The focus needs to be on locking up gun criminals, the ones who use guns for rape, robbery and murder, and not on the law abiding gun owners who don't use their legal guns for crime.



The problem with your approach is that you don’t know who the rapier’s, robber’s and murderers are until after the crime has been committed. If you want to stop an unlawful use of gun’s then you need background checks and the like before the weapon is sold.

I cannot imagine why you would reject this approach?

-


----------



## danielpalos

Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control; coincidence or conspiracy?


----------



## 2aguy

watchingfromafar said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The focus needs to be on locking up gun criminals, the ones who use guns for rape, robbery and murder, and not on the law abiding gun owners who don't use their legal guns for crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your approach is that you don’t know who the rapier’s, robber’s and murderers are until after the crime has been committed. If you want to stop an unlawful use of gun’s then you need background checks and the like before the weapon is sold.
> 
> I cannot imagine why you would reject this approach?
> 
> -
Click to expand...



I ask this sincerely...... since criminals avoid background checks by using straw buyers, or stealing their guns...thus cancelling out both current federal background checks and any universal check on private sales......and mass shooters can pass any background check, or they too steal their guns.....

What does the background check actually do?

Any gun used in a crime by a criminal will simply trace back to the original buyer, not the criminal.....if the gun was stolen, it is pointless....if the seller sold it to the criminal, but says it was lost or stolen, pointless again....and as I have shown before....the majority of straw buyers are relatives of the criminal, usually the baby momma, mother or grandmother...and prosecutors do not punish those victims, since the majority of the time they are buying the guns under duress.....

So again, what is the magic of Background checks?  

The reality is that anti gunners only want background checks so they can demand universal gun registration....that is the only reason.


----------



## 2aguy

watchingfromafar said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The focus needs to be on locking up gun criminals, the ones who use guns for rape, robbery and murder, and not on the law abiding gun owners who don't use their legal guns for crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your approach is that you don’t know who the rapier’s, robber’s and murderers are until after the crime has been committed. If you want to stop an unlawful use of gun’s then you need background checks and the like before the weapon is sold.
> 
> I cannot imagine why you would reject this approach?
> 
> -
Click to expand...


I cannot imagine why you would reject this approach?

Because the only reason for background checks is to get universal gun registration......and we already have laws in place that allow arresting any criminal caught with an illegal gun, wether during a crime or simply in possession.....

Gun registration is required for eventual gun banning and confiscation....


----------



## leecross

waltky said:


> Maybe not obsolete but antiquated, out of date...
> 
> ... it needs to be updated to reflect the times...
> 
> ... and the threat of overkill firepower...
> 
> ... for the average citizen.


You are a short sighted Liberal.

You would make us safer from a small problem by making us vulnerable to a much bigger potential problem.

In construction demo and rehab business there is a rule of thumb that you should not tear down a wall until you know why it is there.

The idea is that the wall may seem to be just a room divider, but it might be a load bearing wall which the structure needs to stay erect.

You need to find out why the 2nd A exists.

Sent from my LG-M154 using Tapatalk


----------



## watchingfromafar

2aguy said:


> Gun registration is required for eventual gun banning and confiscation....



Paranoia strikes deep when it is near which only means you have something to hide.
 let me guess, you are a NRA member-?


----------



## watchingfromafar

leecross said:


> You need to find out why the 2nd A exists.



The second amendment was created to assure the settlers in the new world that they will always be able to defend themselves in case the British returned for another attempt at conquest.

That need has long since faded away

-


----------



## Rigby5

Lakhota said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's about time we had some gun control hearings.  I've also heard talk of possible 3-D gun legislation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government really has no jurisdiction over any weapon you make yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It certainly should, because such undetectable weapons place us all in danger - especially on public transportation.
Click to expand...



Nonsense.  All criminals have undetectable weapons all the time.  All you need to make any weapon undetectable is put it in a foil pouch, like inside a boombox, laptop, etc.  And you can not make plastic guns.  The barrel has to be steel.  Plastic shatters from the expansion impulse of the explosion.  Nor does government have the authority to regulate anything you wish to make yourself.
And it is a total violation of the 14th amendment for government to deny to anyone, that which government employees have.


----------



## Rigby5

watchingfromafar said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gun registration is required for eventual gun banning and confiscation....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paranoia strikes deep when it is near which only means you have something to hide.
> let me guess, you are a NRA member-?
Click to expand...


Everyone SHOULD have something to hide, from a government that has repeatedly committed mass murder and war crimes, like murdering 3 million innocent Vietnamese, half a million innocent Iraqis, institutionalized torture, illegal renditions like Guantanamo, etc.
This government has committed more war crimes than the rest of the world put together.


----------



## Rigby5

watchingfromafar said:


> leecross said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to find out why the 2nd A exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The second amendment was created to assure the settlers in the new world that they will always be able to defend themselves in case the British returned for another attempt at conquest.
> 
> That need has long since faded away
> 
> -
Click to expand...


No, first of all, the 2nd amendment was not to give individuals the right to be armed because that was already a pre-existing individual right.  Instead, the point of the 2nd amendment was a blanket prohibition of any federal jurisdiction over any weapons.
That is because no government can ever be trusted.  
Just like the British government became corrupt, all government do eventually, and so will our government.

And ensuring individual arms is not just for rebellion, but also against any foreign or domestic invasion.
If we have a social disruption, like hurricanes, large meteorite strike, global depression, super volcanic eruption, etc., then there may be no government to defend us.  Like the Korean grocers during the LA riots.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rigby5 said:


> What is so very strange is that an AR-15 is about the weakest of all rifles sold.
> It has very little range, a bullet only about a 1/4th" wide, and illegal to use for hunting deer in most states because it is too weak for a clean kill.
> Anyone who would ban an AR would then want to ban almost everything, because almost everything is more powerful.
> 
> But the reality is that the black ops enemy have ARs, AKs, etc., so then the rest of us had better as well, or else we will end up in re-education camps.



It has to do with the frequency it can be shot, reshot and reloaded.  And the ease it can be used by any scared shitless out of his mind young kid in combat with little training.  Even in the semi auto mode, it fires more rounds faster than any other known rifle and ends up doing more damage faster.  This is why it's the weapon of choice for war and mass shootings.   Even with the weaker 223 over the Nato 556 round (300 fps faster) it still fits this criteria.  And for what it can do, it's downright cheap. In combat, the normal use of the M-16 version is Semi Auto, not fully auto or 3 shot setting.    The normal M-16 usage is single trigger pull making it's usage no different nor it's performance any different than any good quality AR-15.  

In the hands of an experienced shooter, it's lightning in a bottle.  Most of the other semi auto guns, you have to rock the mags into place.  The AR, it's snaps straight in.  Rarely there is a bad mag feed.  Stoner figured out a way of design that was the most ergonomic way of doing things where there was no wasted movement or wasted mechanics.  It is designed for war and for a Military Assault Rifle, the AR-15 is every inch as capable as the M-4 which is it's military counterpart.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Rigby5 said:


> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> leecross said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to find out why the 2nd A exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The second amendment was created to assure the settlers in the new world that they will always be able to defend themselves in case the British returned for another attempt at conquest.
> 
> That need has long since faded away
> 
> -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, first of all, the 2nd amendment was not to give individuals the right to be armed because that was already a pre-existing individual right.  Instead, the point of the 2nd amendment was a blanket prohibition of any federal jurisdiction over any weapons.
> That is because no government can ever be trusted.
> Just like the British government became corrupt, all government do eventually, and so will our government.
> 
> And ensuring individual arms is not just for rebellion, but also against any foreign or domestic invasion.
> If we have a social disruption, like hurricanes, large meteorite strike, global depression, super volcanic eruption, etc., then there may be no government to defend us.  Like the Korean grocers during the LA riots.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

The Second Amendment codifies an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense, unconnected with militia service – not to act in the capacity of ‘law enforcement’ or to ‘fight crime.’

And it was not intended to ‘overthrow’ a government subjectively perceived to have become ‘tyrannical,’ the insurrectionist theory of the Second Amendment being completely devoid of merit.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rigby5 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's about time we had some gun control hearings.  I've also heard talk of possible 3-D gun legislation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government really has no jurisdiction over any weapon you make yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It certainly should, because such undetectable weapons place us all in danger - especially on public transportation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.  All criminals have undetectable weapons all the time.  All you need to make any weapon undetectable is put it in a foil pouch, like inside a boombox, laptop, etc.  And you can not make plastic guns.  The barrel has to be steel.  Plastic shatters from the expansion impulse of the explosion.  Nor does government have the authority to regulate anything you wish to make yourself.
> And it is a total violation of the 14th amendment for government to deny to anyone, that which government employees have.
Click to expand...


Untrue.  There has been a breakthrough in the metal 3d printers.  You can make a metal barrel now.  It's only good for a few shot before it splits.  And as the chemists (for you 2nd amendment people, that would be alchemists) it won't be long before there will be even stronger chemical compounds for stronger metals will be available for the 3d Metal Printers.  And if they come up with a compound that is not metal and won't show up on a scanner then it will pass right through an airport scanner.  Either do something about it today or die by it later on.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Rigby5 said:


> What is so very strange is that an AR-15 is about the weakest of all rifles sold.
> It has very little range, a bullet only about a 1/4th" wide, and illegal to use for hunting deer in most states because it is too weak for a clean kill.
> Anyone who would ban an AR would then want to ban almost everything, because almost everything is more powerful.
> 
> But the reality is that the black ops enemy have ARs, AKs, etc., so then the rest of us had better as well, or else we will end up in re-education camps.


Wrong.

The size and weight of the bullet must be considered with how fast the bullet is traveling.

A 55 gr FMJ bullet has a muzzle velocity of 3,260 feet per second; at that speed at 100 yards or less it is a powerful and devastating round.

An AR 15 in 5.56 is no manner ‘weak.’


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is so very strange is that an AR-15 is about the weakest of all rifles sold.
> It has very little range, a bullet only about a 1/4th" wide, and illegal to use for hunting deer in most states because it is too weak for a clean kill.
> Anyone who would ban an AR would then want to ban almost everything, because almost everything is more powerful.
> 
> But the reality is that the black ops enemy have ARs, AKs, etc., so then the rest of us had better as well, or else we will end up in re-education camps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has to do with the frequency it can be shot, reshot and reloaded.  And the ease it can be used by any scared shitless out of his mind young kid in combat with little training.  Even in the semi auto mode, it fires more rounds faster than any other known rifle and ends up doing more damage faster.  This is why it's the weapon of choice for war and mass shootings.   Even with the weaker 223 over the Nato 556 round (300 fps faster) it still fits this criteria.  And for what it can do, it's downright cheap. In combat, the normal use of the M-16 version is Semi Auto, not fully auto or 3 shot setting.    The normal M-16 usage is single trigger pull making it's usage no different nor it's performance any different than any good quality AR-15.
> 
> In the hands of an experienced shooter, it's lightning in a bottle.  Most of the other semi auto guns, you have to rock the mags into place.  The AR, it's snaps straight in.  Rarely there is a bad mag feed.  Stoner figured out a way of design that was the most ergonomic way of doing things where there was no wasted movement or wasted mechanics.  It is designed for war and for a Military Assault Rifle, the AR-15 is every inch as capable as the M-4 which is it's military counterpart.
Click to expand...

However much trite and a cliché, it’s nonetheless true: the Stoner design was ahead of its time.

With the availability of new materials and manufacturing techniques, the AR platform can finally realize its full accuracy and reliability potential.

Of my three ARs, only one has realized a failure (a stovepipe); the other two being more ‘high end.’

The reliability champion, of course, is my AK 47; after 12 years and countless rounds, it’s never had any type of failure.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is so very strange is that an AR-15 is about the weakest of all rifles sold.
> It has very little range, a bullet only about a 1/4th" wide, and illegal to use for hunting deer in most states because it is too weak for a clean kill.
> Anyone who would ban an AR would then want to ban almost everything, because almost everything is more powerful.
> 
> But the reality is that the black ops enemy have ARs, AKs, etc., so then the rest of us had better as well, or else we will end up in re-education camps.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The size and weight of the bullet must be considered with how fast the bullet is traveling.
> 
> A 55 gr FMJ bullet has a muzzle velocity of 3,260 feet per second; at that speed at 100 yards or less it is a powerful and devastating round.
> 
> An AR 15 in 5.56 is no manner ‘weak.’
Click to expand...


Most shots in hunting or battle fields are done at less than 100 yds and the 556 nato performs well.  The 223 remington might be a bit enemic for war but is fine for anything from antelope and down.  So it has it's uses.  A Human is probably in the Antelope class.  But the 556 or 223 really shouldn't be used for a Mule Deer (300 lbs) or an Elk (500 lbs or more) at any range.  And should never be used for anything larger than a coyote longer than 100 yds.  Just because you can hit it doesn't mean you can kill it.  Bring the right tools to do the job.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is so very strange is that an AR-15 is about the weakest of all rifles sold.
> It has very little range, a bullet only about a 1/4th" wide, and illegal to use for hunting deer in most states because it is too weak for a clean kill.
> Anyone who would ban an AR would then want to ban almost everything, because almost everything is more powerful.
> 
> But the reality is that the black ops enemy have ARs, AKs, etc., so then the rest of us had better as well, or else we will end up in re-education camps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has to do with the frequency it can be shot, reshot and reloaded.  And the ease it can be used by any scared shitless out of his mind young kid in combat with little training.  Even in the semi auto mode, it fires more rounds faster than any other known rifle and ends up doing more damage faster.  This is why it's the weapon of choice for war and mass shootings.   Even with the weaker 223 over the Nato 556 round (300 fps faster) it still fits this criteria.  And for what it can do, it's downright cheap. In combat, the normal use of the M-16 version is Semi Auto, not fully auto or 3 shot setting.    The normal M-16 usage is single trigger pull making it's usage no different nor it's performance any different than any good quality AR-15.
> 
> In the hands of an experienced shooter, it's lightning in a bottle.  Most of the other semi auto guns, you have to rock the mags into place.  The AR, it's snaps straight in.  Rarely there is a bad mag feed.  Stoner figured out a way of design that was the most ergonomic way of doing things where there was no wasted movement or wasted mechanics.  It is designed for war and for a Military Assault Rifle, the AR-15 is every inch as capable as the M-4 which is it's military counterpart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> However much trite and a cliché, it’s nonetheless true: the Stoner design was ahead of its time.
> 
> With the availability of new materials and manufacturing techniques, the AR platform can finally realize its full accuracy and reliability potential.
> 
> Of my three ARs, only one has realized a failure (a stovepipe); the other two being more ‘high end.’
> 
> The reliability champion, of course, is my AK 47; after 12 years and countless rounds, it’s never had any type of failure.
Click to expand...


The High End ARs are built closer to Military Specs although they can't legally say that since they aren't made by either Colt or FN.  Your bargain basement is what I consider junk and most ARs out there are of that quality but the can be upgraded to good quality.  What's funny, if you spend 500 bucks for a piece of junk, you can spend a bit more and get a Military Spec Colt LE6920 that is sold to the Law Enforcement Agencies for right around 899 bucks and you won't find a better AR.  Yes, that's special order only and the gun crazies just can't wait that long.  The saliva when they hold the junk in their hands won't allow them to wait that long.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Rigby5 said:


> All you need to make any weapon undetectable is put it in a foil pouch, like inside a boombox, laptop, etc.



I am sure there are folks out there that didn't know that and now they do; thanks to you

-


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

This thread is just over six years old; and it’s been well over ten years since _Heller_ – yet after all this time we continue to hear the same unsubstantiated, ignorant, and wrongheaded perceptions of the Second Amendment.

From the linked article in the OP:

_Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives._

A reckless, irresponsible invocation of the Second Amendment, indeed.


----------



## 2aguy

watchingfromafar said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gun registration is required for eventual gun banning and confiscation....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paranoia strikes deep when it is near which only means you have something to hide.
> let me guess, you are a NRA member-?
Click to expand...



Germany, banned guns, then murdered 12 million Europeans........Britain registered guns, then banned them.  Australia registered guns, then banned them.  France, dittos, Canada, New York, California.....you guys keep pretending that registration doesn't lead to eventual confiscation...and yet the real world shows you are wrong...


----------



## Rigby5

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is so very strange is that an AR-15 is about the weakest of all rifles sold.
> It has very little range, a bullet only about a 1/4th" wide, and illegal to use for hunting deer in most states because it is too weak for a clean kill.
> Anyone who would ban an AR would then want to ban almost everything, because almost everything is more powerful.
> 
> But the reality is that the black ops enemy have ARs, AKs, etc., so then the rest of us had better as well, or else we will end up in re-education camps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has to do with the frequency it can be shot, reshot and reloaded.  And the ease it can be used by any scared shitless out of his mind young kid in combat with little training.  Even in the semi auto mode, it fires more rounds faster than any other known rifle and ends up doing more damage faster.  This is why it's the weapon of choice for war and mass shootings.   Even with the weaker 223 over the Nato 556 round (300 fps faster) it still fits this criteria.  And for what it can do, it's downright cheap. In combat, the normal use of the M-16 version is Semi Auto, not fully auto or 3 shot setting.    The normal M-16 usage is single trigger pull making it's usage no different nor it's performance any different than any good quality AR-15.
> 
> In the hands of an experienced shooter, it's lightning in a bottle.  Most of the other semi auto guns, you have to rock the mags into place.  The AR, it's snaps straight in.  Rarely there is a bad mag feed.  Stoner figured out a way of design that was the most ergonomic way of doing things where there was no wasted movement or wasted mechanics.  It is designed for war and for a Military Assault Rifle, the AR-15 is every inch as capable as the M-4 which is it's military counterpart.
Click to expand...



Yes, I agree it is the small recoil that allows for more rapid shooting.
But then you realize they are then going to also make all pistols, carbines, shotguns, etc. illegal as well, in order to accomplish their goal?
It  not only makes no sense at all, but is clearly arbitrary and illegal.
ARs are the most popular model owned, and you would have to make over 100 million citizens into criminals in order to make ARs illegal.
You can't make efficiency illegal.
Nor can you prevent lightning in a bottle, as that genie has been out for a very long time.
Anyone can easily kill hundreds with fertilizer, flammables, toxic gases, or even electrocution.


----------



## 2aguy

Rigby5 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is so very strange is that an AR-15 is about the weakest of all rifles sold.
> It has very little range, a bullet only about a 1/4th" wide, and illegal to use for hunting deer in most states because it is too weak for a clean kill.
> Anyone who would ban an AR would then want to ban almost everything, because almost everything is more powerful.
> 
> But the reality is that the black ops enemy have ARs, AKs, etc., so then the rest of us had better as well, or else we will end up in re-education camps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has to do with the frequency it can be shot, reshot and reloaded.  And the ease it can be used by any scared shitless out of his mind young kid in combat with little training.  Even in the semi auto mode, it fires more rounds faster than any other known rifle and ends up doing more damage faster.  This is why it's the weapon of choice for war and mass shootings.   Even with the weaker 223 over the Nato 556 round (300 fps faster) it still fits this criteria.  And for what it can do, it's downright cheap. In combat, the normal use of the M-16 version is Semi Auto, not fully auto or 3 shot setting.    The normal M-16 usage is single trigger pull making it's usage no different nor it's performance any different than any good quality AR-15.
> 
> In the hands of an experienced shooter, it's lightning in a bottle.  Most of the other semi auto guns, you have to rock the mags into place.  The AR, it's snaps straight in.  Rarely there is a bad mag feed.  Stoner figured out a way of design that was the most ergonomic way of doing things where there was no wasted movement or wasted mechanics.  It is designed for war and for a Military Assault Rifle, the AR-15 is every inch as capable as the M-4 which is it's military counterpart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I agree it is the small recoil that allows for more rapid shooting.
> But then you realize they are then going to also make all pistols, carbines, shotguns, etc. illegal as well, in order to accomplish their goal?
> It  not only makes no sense at all, but is clearly arbitrary and illegal.
> ARs are the most popular model owned, and you would have to make over 100 million citizens into criminals in order to make ARs illegal.
> You can't make efficiency illegal.
> Nor can you prevent lightning in a bottle, as that genie has been out for a very long time.
> Anyone can easily kill hundreds with fertilizer, flammables, toxic gases, or even electrocution.
Click to expand...



The AR-15 is a protected weapon as defined by the Supreme Court Justice who wrote the opinion in D.C. v Heller......he specifically named the AR-15, along with all other popularly owned semi automatic rifles, as protected rifles in his dissenting opinion in Friedman v Highland Park....his dissent wasn't losing on the merits, it was dissenting against the Court not hearing the case......but as he is the author of the Heller opinion, his writing on the AR-15 is relevant....showing that semi auto rifles, in particular, the AR-15 are not subject to bans or confiscation....


----------



## Rigby5

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> leecross said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to find out why the 2nd A exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The second amendment was created to assure the settlers in the new world that they will always be able to defend themselves in case the British returned for another attempt at conquest.
> 
> That need has long since faded away
> 
> -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, first of all, the 2nd amendment was not to give individuals the right to be armed because that was already a pre-existing individual right.  Instead, the point of the 2nd amendment was a blanket prohibition of any federal jurisdiction over any weapons.
> That is because no government can ever be trusted.
> Just like the British government became corrupt, all government do eventually, and so will our government.
> 
> And ensuring individual arms is not just for rebellion, but also against any foreign or domestic invasion.
> If we have a social disruption, like hurricanes, large meteorite strike, global depression, super volcanic eruption, etc., then there may be no government to defend us.  Like the Korean grocers during the LA riots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The Second Amendment codifies an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense, unconnected with militia service – not to act in the capacity of ‘law enforcement’ or to ‘fight crime.’
> 
> And it was not intended to ‘overthrow’ a government subjectively perceived to have become ‘tyrannical,’ the insurrectionist theory of the Second Amendment being completely devoid of merit.
Click to expand...



Wrong.  
First of all, the 2nd amendment does not codify anything.
All it does is strictly prohibit federal jurisdiction over weapons.
Second of all is that not only was the US based on insurrection, but all founders wrote at great length about how they intended to ensure the capability of insurrection in the future.  There is not a single signer of the Constitution that did not say openly that insurrection was assured to become necessary on a regular basis.


----------



## Rigby5

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's about time we had some gun control hearings.  I've also heard talk of possible 3-D gun legislation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government really has no jurisdiction over any weapon you make yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It certainly should, because such undetectable weapons place us all in danger - especially on public transportation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.  All criminals have undetectable weapons all the time.  All you need to make any weapon undetectable is put it in a foil pouch, like inside a boombox, laptop, etc.  And you can not make plastic guns.  The barrel has to be steel.  Plastic shatters from the expansion impulse of the explosion.  Nor does government have the authority to regulate anything you wish to make yourself.
> And it is a total violation of the 14th amendment for government to deny to anyone, that which government employees have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Untrue.  There has been a breakthrough in the metal 3d printers.  You can make a metal barrel now.  It's only good for a few shot before it splits.  And as the chemists (for you 2nd amendment people, that would be alchemists) it won't be long before there will be even stronger chemical compounds for stronger metals will be available for the 3d Metal Printers.  And if they come up with a compound that is not metal and won't show up on a scanner then it will pass right through an airport scanner.  Either do something about it today or die by it later on.
Click to expand...


You did not read carefully.
I did not say you can not print a metal gun but that you can not print a plastic gun.
If you print a metal gun, it will show up on metal detectors, like all guns.
So there is no 3D printer issue.


----------



## Rigby5

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is so very strange is that an AR-15 is about the weakest of all rifles sold.
> It has very little range, a bullet only about a 1/4th" wide, and illegal to use for hunting deer in most states because it is too weak for a clean kill.
> Anyone who would ban an AR would then want to ban almost everything, because almost everything is more powerful.
> 
> But the reality is that the black ops enemy have ARs, AKs, etc., so then the rest of us had better as well, or else we will end up in re-education camps.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The size and weight of the bullet must be considered with how fast the bullet is traveling.
> 
> A 55 gr FMJ bullet has a muzzle velocity of 3,260 feet per second; at that speed at 100 yards or less it is a powerful and devastating round.
> 
> An AR 15 in 5.56 is no manner ‘weak.’
Click to expand...


Yes it is weak.
Lots of heavier rounds have similar velocities.
And velocity is a poor way of obtaining energy because friction is proportional to the square of the velocity, so loses energy very quickly.  That is why the AR has such a short range.
Small cross section also means poor energy transfer, and possibility of just puncturing a small hole and going right through, without major damage.  They reduce twist to increase odds of tumble to counteract that, but still the .223 is never considered a powerful round.
It should not be used for deer hunting.


----------



## Rigby5

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This thread is just over six years old; and it’s been well over ten years since _Heller_ – yet after all this time we continue to hear the same unsubstantiated, ignorant, and wrongheaded perceptions of the Second Amendment.
> 
> From the linked article in the OP:
> 
> _Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives._
> 
> A reckless, irresponsible invocation of the Second Amendment, indeed.



But regardless of what regulations may be useful for safety, there can be no doubt at all that the 2nd amendment totally and completely prohibits ANY and ALL federal legislation.
It is only states that may pass weapons regulation legislation.


----------



## Rigby5

watchingfromafar said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All you need to make any weapon undetectable is put it in a foil pouch, like inside a boombox, laptop, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure there are folks out there that didn't know that and now they do; thanks to you
> 
> -
Click to expand...


Ignorance is not how you maintain safety.
You need voters to have all the knowledge they can get.
And that includes the truth.
The truth is that TSA and Homeland Security are worse than useless, and that makes them a suspicious threat.
People should know that.
Someone trying to sneak a weapon on a plane essentially does not exist and is not threat at all.
Anyone could always do it, and yet no one does, so clearly no one wants to.
The government is just trying to scare us with airport security.
We must not let them.


----------



## leecross

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> leecross said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to find out why the 2nd A exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The second amendment was created to assure the settlers in the new world that they will always be able to defend themselves in case the British returned for another attempt at conquest.
> 
> That need has long since faded away
> 
> -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, first of all, the 2nd amendment was not to give individuals the right to be armed because that was already a pre-existing individual right.  Instead, the point of the 2nd amendment was a blanket prohibition of any federal jurisdiction over any weapons.
> That is because no government can ever be trusted.
> Just like the British government became corrupt, all government do eventually, and so will our government.
> 
> And ensuring individual arms is not just for rebellion, but also against any foreign or domestic invasion.
> If we have a social disruption, like hurricanes, large meteorite strike, global depression, super volcanic eruption, etc., then there may be no government to defend us.  Like the Korean grocers during the LA riots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The Second Amendment codifies an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense, unconnected with militia service – not to act in the capacity of ‘law enforcement’ or to ‘fight crime.’
> 
> And it was not intended to ‘overthrow’ a government subjectively perceived to have become ‘tyrannical,’ the insurrectionist theory of the Second Amendment being completely devoid of merit.
Click to expand...


...a hedge against tyranny...


----------



## Daryl Hunt

2aguy said:


> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gun registration is required for eventual gun banning and confiscation....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paranoia strikes deep when it is near which only means you have something to hide.
> let me guess, you are a NRA member-?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Germany, banned guns, then murdered 12 million Europeans........Britain registered guns, then banned them.  Australia registered guns, then banned them.  France, dittos, Canada, New York, California.....you guys keep pretending that registration doesn't lead to eventual confiscation...and yet the real world shows you are wrong...
Click to expand...


I already showed the benefits of the Background Checks but you keep slamming your palms over your ears and screaming very loudly, "LaLaLaLa" over and over and coming up with the drivel about how it always leads to Gun Registrations and how Background checks just don't work  so I won't waste my time with you on that.  But I see more and more states going to it and I see the Feds honestly looking into making it federal requirement.  And it has nothing to do with Gun registration.  More and more people are no longer buying into your fear campaign.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

2aguy said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is so very strange is that an AR-15 is about the weakest of all rifles sold.
> It has very little range, a bullet only about a 1/4th" wide, and illegal to use for hunting deer in most states because it is too weak for a clean kill.
> Anyone who would ban an AR would then want to ban almost everything, because almost everything is more powerful.
> 
> But the reality is that the black ops enemy have ARs, AKs, etc., so then the rest of us had better as well, or else we will end up in re-education camps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has to do with the frequency it can be shot, reshot and reloaded.  And the ease it can be used by any scared shitless out of his mind young kid in combat with little training.  Even in the semi auto mode, it fires more rounds faster than any other known rifle and ends up doing more damage faster.  This is why it's the weapon of choice for war and mass shootings.   Even with the weaker 223 over the Nato 556 round (300 fps faster) it still fits this criteria.  And for what it can do, it's downright cheap. In combat, the normal use of the M-16 version is Semi Auto, not fully auto or 3 shot setting.    The normal M-16 usage is single trigger pull making it's usage no different nor it's performance any different than any good quality AR-15.
> 
> In the hands of an experienced shooter, it's lightning in a bottle.  Most of the other semi auto guns, you have to rock the mags into place.  The AR, it's snaps straight in.  Rarely there is a bad mag feed.  Stoner figured out a way of design that was the most ergonomic way of doing things where there was no wasted movement or wasted mechanics.  It is designed for war and for a Military Assault Rifle, the AR-15 is every inch as capable as the M-4 which is it's military counterpart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I agree it is the small recoil that allows for more rapid shooting.
> But then you realize they are then going to also make all pistols, carbines, shotguns, etc. illegal as well, in order to accomplish their goal?
> It  not only makes no sense at all, but is clearly arbitrary and illegal.
> ARs are the most popular model owned, and you would have to make over 100 million citizens into criminals in order to make ARs illegal.
> You can't make efficiency illegal.
> Nor can you prevent lightning in a bottle, as that genie has been out for a very long time.
> Anyone can easily kill hundreds with fertilizer, flammables, toxic gases, or even electrocution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The AR-15 is a protected weapon as defined by the Supreme Court Justice who wrote the opinion in D.C. v Heller......he specifically named the AR-15, along with all other popularly owned semi automatic rifles, as protected rifles in his dissenting opinion in Friedman v Highland Park....his dissent wasn't losing on the merits, it was dissenting against the Court not hearing the case......but as he is the author of the Heller opinion, his writing on the AR-15 is relevant....showing that semi auto rifles, in particular, the AR-15 are not subject to bans or confiscation....
Click to expand...


Heller V only protected sane handguns in your Home, nothing more as long as your stayed within the laws such as if it's required to be registered and licensed accordingly.  DC tried to make a gun owner have to either disassemble the handgun or have a trigger lock installed inside the home plus had such a stringent registration and licensing that Heller could never have a reasonable chance of receiving either.  And that was overturned.  Nothing else was overturn.  NO mention of the AR at all.  No mention of any weapon or gun outside of the home.  In the end, the only thing that was protected was our right to defend our homes using sane handguns and to have them in reasonable operating condition INSIDE THE HOME.  We have been through this many times and each time, your BS keeps coming up and each time I point out that it's still BS.  Before you bring up McDonald V, McDonald V was just a rehash of Heller V and was a total waste of time.  

BTW, the Courts have already found that an AR can be banned, regulated, etc. by the State or lower governments as long it's spelled out.  The common phrase used today that is acceptable is "AR-15 and it's various clones" has withstood more than a couple of Federal Courts and has been refused to be ruled on by SCOTUS.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rigby5 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's about time we had some gun control hearings.  I've also heard talk of possible 3-D gun legislation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government really has no jurisdiction over any weapon you make yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It certainly should, because such undetectable weapons place us all in danger - especially on public transportation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.  All criminals have undetectable weapons all the time.  All you need to make any weapon undetectable is put it in a foil pouch, like inside a boombox, laptop, etc.  And you can not make plastic guns.  The barrel has to be steel.  Plastic shatters from the expansion impulse of the explosion.  Nor does government have the authority to regulate anything you wish to make yourself.
> And it is a total violation of the 14th amendment for government to deny to anyone, that which government employees have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Untrue.  There has been a breakthrough in the metal 3d printers.  You can make a metal barrel now.  It's only good for a few shot before it splits.  And as the chemists (for you 2nd amendment people, that would be alchemists) it won't be long before there will be even stronger chemical compounds for stronger metals will be available for the 3d Metal Printers.  And if they come up with a compound that is not metal and won't show up on a scanner then it will pass right through an airport scanner.  Either do something about it today or die by it later on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You did not read carefully.
> I did not say you can not print a metal gun but that you can not print a plastic gun.
> If you print a metal gun, it will show up on metal detectors, like all guns.
> So there is no 3D printer issue.
Click to expand...


There is now since the 3D Metal Printer exists.  What you mean to say is that there is no 3D Plastic Printer Issues.  Actually, one can build a gun barrel out of Carbon/Carbon fiber and it will not show up on the scanners and will be stronger than even the best stainless steel barrels.  Same goes for the so called Plastics.  As that gets better, it becomes more of a problem for portable weapons.  The 3D Metal Printers that the Military is buying also becomes a problem if some nasty bad dude has enough to buy one or two or three of them.


----------



## danielpalos

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.   It is up to State legislators to organize sufficient militia to ensure that is the case.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rigby5 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is so very strange is that an AR-15 is about the weakest of all rifles sold.
> It has very little range, a bullet only about a 1/4th" wide, and illegal to use for hunting deer in most states because it is too weak for a clean kill.
> Anyone who would ban an AR would then want to ban almost everything, because almost everything is more powerful.
> 
> But the reality is that the black ops enemy have ARs, AKs, etc., so then the rest of us had better as well, or else we will end up in re-education camps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has to do with the frequency it can be shot, reshot and reloaded.  And the ease it can be used by any scared shitless out of his mind young kid in combat with little training.  Even in the semi auto mode, it fires more rounds faster than any other known rifle and ends up doing more damage faster.  This is why it's the weapon of choice for war and mass shootings.   Even with the weaker 223 over the Nato 556 round (300 fps faster) it still fits this criteria.  And for what it can do, it's downright cheap. In combat, the normal use of the M-16 version is Semi Auto, not fully auto or 3 shot setting.    The normal M-16 usage is single trigger pull making it's usage no different nor it's performance any different than any good quality AR-15.
> 
> In the hands of an experienced shooter, it's lightning in a bottle.  Most of the other semi auto guns, you have to rock the mags into place.  The AR, it's snaps straight in.  Rarely there is a bad mag feed.  Stoner figured out a way of design that was the most ergonomic way of doing things where there was no wasted movement or wasted mechanics.  It is designed for war and for a Military Assault Rifle, the AR-15 is every inch as capable as the M-4 which is it's military counterpart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I agree it is the small recoil that allows for more rapid shooting.
> But then you realize they are then going to also make all pistols, carbines, shotguns, etc. illegal as well, in order to accomplish their goal?
> It  not only makes no sense at all, but is clearly arbitrary and illegal.
> ARs are the most popular model owned, and you would have to make over 100 million citizens into criminals in order to make ARs illegal.
> You can't make efficiency illegal.
> Nor can you prevent lightning in a bottle, as that genie has been out for a very long time.
> Anyone can easily kill hundreds with fertilizer, flammables, toxic gases, or even electrocution.
Click to expand...


Actually, that number is closer to 7 to 8 million for the AR and it's clone when you count the real manufacturers numbers and the parts sold to make new ones.  The Gun Crazies will make up all kinds of numbers that sound real good but are outlandish.  And the AR-15 and clones are the #2 most manufactured gun, the #1 goes to the Model 60 which has about a 10 year head start and is still selling strong even today.  Most of us started out on one of those little semi auto tube fed 22 rifles.  

The Courts require that you have to be specific in your wording in your Gun Regulating.  You have to spell out exactly what gun you are regulating and how.  When you use a generic statement that describes a gun that fits a cross section that fits many different guns then that is unconstitutional.  But when you specify one then that's constitutional.  The accepting description today for the AR is "AR-15 and it's various Clones" legally covers exactly what it says it  does.  It doesn't encompass the Mini-14 or any of the others.  It's specifically covers just the AR-15 and it's various clones.  And that has been contested in court and the Courts have upheld that wording.


----------



## P@triot

Daryl Hunt said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't bring up *Illinois*, cupcake.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody *lies* like Duh-rly. You were the first to mention Illinois. Here it is in post #7343:
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well now.  Sure am glad I get to educate you once again.  *Illinois* does have a State Militia.
> Illinois State Militia (ILSM) - 7th Battalion - Northern Illinois
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep telling your story.  If you tell it enough times..........
Click to expand...

I have proof....Duh-ryl. Everyone can now see that you are absolutely a *liar*.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> natural rights are covered in State Constitutions not our Second Amendment; it says so in the first clause.
> 
> 
> 
> *A.* Not it doesn’t
> 
> *B.* We have 50 individual states with 50 individual state constitutions. If your ignorant statement were true, all Americans would not have the same rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about what is Necessary to the security of a free State not natural rights.
Click to expand...

Your ignorance is about what is necessary for a false narrative by oppressive lunatics - not about what the U.S. Constitution actually says. Go away now, the adults are trying to talk.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't bring up *Illinois*, cupcake.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody *lies* like Duh-rly. You were the first to mention Illinois. Here it is in post #7343:
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well now.  Sure am glad I get to educate you once again.  *Illinois* does have a State Militia.
> Illinois State Militia (ILSM) - 7th Battalion - Northern Illinois
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep telling your story.  If you tell it enough times..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have proof....Duh-ryl. Everyone can now see that you are absolutely a *liar*.
Click to expand...


Proof about what?  You hacked enough out of that conversation that you left out what you have proof about.  Stay focused.


----------



## P@triot

Daryl Hunt said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't bring up *Illinois*, cupcake.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody *lies* like Duh-rly. You were the first to mention Illinois. Here it is in post #7343:
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well now.  Sure am glad I get to educate you once again.  *Illinois* does have a State Militia.
> Illinois State Militia (ILSM) - 7th Battalion - Northern Illinois
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep telling your story.  If you tell it enough times..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have proof....Duh-ryl. Everyone can now see that you are absolutely a *liar*.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Proof about what?  You hacked enough out of that conversation that you left out what you have proof about.  Stay focused.
Click to expand...

Proof that you brought up Illinois. Damn, you can't even remember that you brought up Illinois first, then you can't remember that you denied bringing up Illinois first. Are you off your meds again sweetie?


----------



## P@triot

Daryl Hunt said:


> You hacked enough out of that conversation


Snowflake, I can't "hack" anything out of a conversation. In fact, I even added your original quote so people can click directly on it and be taken to your post (that I have no ability to alter).

You got caught *lying* (_again_).


----------



## 2aguy

Daryl Hunt said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is so very strange is that an AR-15 is about the weakest of all rifles sold.
> It has very little range, a bullet only about a 1/4th" wide, and illegal to use for hunting deer in most states because it is too weak for a clean kill.
> Anyone who would ban an AR would then want to ban almost everything, because almost everything is more powerful.
> 
> But the reality is that the black ops enemy have ARs, AKs, etc., so then the rest of us had better as well, or else we will end up in re-education camps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has to do with the frequency it can be shot, reshot and reloaded.  And the ease it can be used by any scared shitless out of his mind young kid in combat with little training.  Even in the semi auto mode, it fires more rounds faster than any other known rifle and ends up doing more damage faster.  This is why it's the weapon of choice for war and mass shootings.   Even with the weaker 223 over the Nato 556 round (300 fps faster) it still fits this criteria.  And for what it can do, it's downright cheap. In combat, the normal use of the M-16 version is Semi Auto, not fully auto or 3 shot setting.    The normal M-16 usage is single trigger pull making it's usage no different nor it's performance any different than any good quality AR-15.
> 
> In the hands of an experienced shooter, it's lightning in a bottle.  Most of the other semi auto guns, you have to rock the mags into place.  The AR, it's snaps straight in.  Rarely there is a bad mag feed.  Stoner figured out a way of design that was the most ergonomic way of doing things where there was no wasted movement or wasted mechanics.  It is designed for war and for a Military Assault Rifle, the AR-15 is every inch as capable as the M-4 which is it's military counterpart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I agree it is the small recoil that allows for more rapid shooting.
> But then you realize they are then going to also make all pistols, carbines, shotguns, etc. illegal as well, in order to accomplish their goal?
> It  not only makes no sense at all, but is clearly arbitrary and illegal.
> ARs are the most popular model owned, and you would have to make over 100 million citizens into criminals in order to make ARs illegal.
> You can't make efficiency illegal.
> Nor can you prevent lightning in a bottle, as that genie has been out for a very long time.
> Anyone can easily kill hundreds with fertilizer, flammables, toxic gases, or even electrocution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The AR-15 is a protected weapon as defined by the Supreme Court Justice who wrote the opinion in D.C. v Heller......he specifically named the AR-15, along with all other popularly owned semi automatic rifles, as protected rifles in his dissenting opinion in Friedman v Highland Park....his dissent wasn't losing on the merits, it was dissenting against the Court not hearing the case......but as he is the author of the Heller opinion, his writing on the AR-15 is relevant....showing that semi auto rifles, in particular, the AR-15 are not subject to bans or confiscation....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heller V only protected sane handguns in your Home, nothing more as long as your stayed within the laws such as if it's required to be registered and licensed accordingly.  DC tried to make a gun owner have to either disassemble the handgun or have a trigger lock installed inside the home plus had such a stringent registration and licensing that Heller could never have a reasonable chance of receiving either.  And that was overturned.  Nothing else was overturn.  NO mention of the AR at all.  No mention of any weapon or gun outside of the home.  In the end, the only thing that was protected was our right to defend our homes using sane handguns and to have them in reasonable operating condition INSIDE THE HOME.  We have been through this many times and each time, your BS keeps coming up and each time I point out that it's still BS.  Before you bring up McDonald V, McDonald V was just a rehash of Heller V and was a total waste of time.
> 
> BTW, the Courts have already found that an AR can be banned, regulated, etc. by the State or lower governments as long it's spelled out.  The common phrase used today that is acceptable is "AR-15 and it's various clones" has withstood more than a couple of Federal Courts and has been refused to be ruled on by SCOTUS.
Click to expand...



wrong...  That whole..."Bear Arms," covers carrying guns....


----------



## 2aguy

Daryl Hunt said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is so very strange is that an AR-15 is about the weakest of all rifles sold.
> It has very little range, a bullet only about a 1/4th" wide, and illegal to use for hunting deer in most states because it is too weak for a clean kill.
> Anyone who would ban an AR would then want to ban almost everything, because almost everything is more powerful.
> 
> But the reality is that the black ops enemy have ARs, AKs, etc., so then the rest of us had better as well, or else we will end up in re-education camps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has to do with the frequency it can be shot, reshot and reloaded.  And the ease it can be used by any scared shitless out of his mind young kid in combat with little training.  Even in the semi auto mode, it fires more rounds faster than any other known rifle and ends up doing more damage faster.  This is why it's the weapon of choice for war and mass shootings.   Even with the weaker 223 over the Nato 556 round (300 fps faster) it still fits this criteria.  And for what it can do, it's downright cheap. In combat, the normal use of the M-16 version is Semi Auto, not fully auto or 3 shot setting.    The normal M-16 usage is single trigger pull making it's usage no different nor it's performance any different than any good quality AR-15.
> 
> In the hands of an experienced shooter, it's lightning in a bottle.  Most of the other semi auto guns, you have to rock the mags into place.  The AR, it's snaps straight in.  Rarely there is a bad mag feed.  Stoner figured out a way of design that was the most ergonomic way of doing things where there was no wasted movement or wasted mechanics.  It is designed for war and for a Military Assault Rifle, the AR-15 is every inch as capable as the M-4 which is it's military counterpart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I agree it is the small recoil that allows for more rapid shooting.
> But then you realize they are then going to also make all pistols, carbines, shotguns, etc. illegal as well, in order to accomplish their goal?
> It  not only makes no sense at all, but is clearly arbitrary and illegal.
> ARs are the most popular model owned, and you would have to make over 100 million citizens into criminals in order to make ARs illegal.
> You can't make efficiency illegal.
> Nor can you prevent lightning in a bottle, as that genie has been out for a very long time.
> Anyone can easily kill hundreds with fertilizer, flammables, toxic gases, or even electrocution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The AR-15 is a protected weapon as defined by the Supreme Court Justice who wrote the opinion in D.C. v Heller......he specifically named the AR-15, along with all other popularly owned semi automatic rifles, as protected rifles in his dissenting opinion in Friedman v Highland Park....his dissent wasn't losing on the merits, it was dissenting against the Court not hearing the case......but as he is the author of the Heller opinion, his writing on the AR-15 is relevant....showing that semi auto rifles, in particular, the AR-15 are not subject to bans or confiscation....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heller V only protected sane handguns in your Home, nothing more as long as your stayed within the laws such as if it's required to be registered and licensed accordingly.  DC tried to make a gun owner have to either disassemble the handgun or have a trigger lock installed inside the home plus had such a stringent registration and licensing that Heller could never have a reasonable chance of receiving either.  And that was overturned.  Nothing else was overturn.  NO mention of the AR at all.  No mention of any weapon or gun outside of the home.  In the end, the only thing that was protected was our right to defend our homes using sane handguns and to have them in reasonable operating condition INSIDE THE HOME.  We have been through this many times and each time, your BS keeps coming up and each time I point out that it's still BS.  Before you bring up McDonald V, McDonald V was just a rehash of Heller V and was a total waste of time.
> 
> BTW, the Courts have already found that an AR can be banned, regulated, etc. by the State or lower governments as long it's spelled out.  The common phrase used today that is acceptable is "AR-15 and it's various clones" has withstood more than a couple of Federal Courts and has been refused to be ruled on by SCOTUS.
Click to expand...



And you are wrong again....the lower courts are ignoring Heller......that doesn't make it legal....

BTW, the Courts have already found that an AR can be banned, regulated, etc. by the State or lower governments as long it's spelled out

Heller...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. 

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), *the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.*

Scalia in Friedman v. Highland Park......after Scalia wrote the opinion in D.C. v Heller....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. 

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

 The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes. 

*Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629. *


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

2aguy said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is so very strange is that an AR-15 is about the weakest of all rifles sold.
> It has very little range, a bullet only about a 1/4th" wide, and illegal to use for hunting deer in most states because it is too weak for a clean kill.
> Anyone who would ban an AR would then want to ban almost everything, because almost everything is more powerful.
> 
> But the reality is that the black ops enemy have ARs, AKs, etc., so then the rest of us had better as well, or else we will end up in re-education camps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has to do with the frequency it can be shot, reshot and reloaded.  And the ease it can be used by any scared shitless out of his mind young kid in combat with little training.  Even in the semi auto mode, it fires more rounds faster than any other known rifle and ends up doing more damage faster.  This is why it's the weapon of choice for war and mass shootings.   Even with the weaker 223 over the Nato 556 round (300 fps faster) it still fits this criteria.  And for what it can do, it's downright cheap. In combat, the normal use of the M-16 version is Semi Auto, not fully auto or 3 shot setting.    The normal M-16 usage is single trigger pull making it's usage no different nor it's performance any different than any good quality AR-15.
> 
> In the hands of an experienced shooter, it's lightning in a bottle.  Most of the other semi auto guns, you have to rock the mags into place.  The AR, it's snaps straight in.  Rarely there is a bad mag feed.  Stoner figured out a way of design that was the most ergonomic way of doing things where there was no wasted movement or wasted mechanics.  It is designed for war and for a Military Assault Rifle, the AR-15 is every inch as capable as the M-4 which is it's military counterpart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I agree it is the small recoil that allows for more rapid shooting.
> But then you realize they are then going to also make all pistols, carbines, shotguns, etc. illegal as well, in order to accomplish their goal?
> It  not only makes no sense at all, but is clearly arbitrary and illegal.
> ARs are the most popular model owned, and you would have to make over 100 million citizens into criminals in order to make ARs illegal.
> You can't make efficiency illegal.
> Nor can you prevent lightning in a bottle, as that genie has been out for a very long time.
> Anyone can easily kill hundreds with fertilizer, flammables, toxic gases, or even electrocution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The AR-15 is a protected weapon as defined by the Supreme Court Justice who wrote the opinion in D.C. v Heller......he specifically named the AR-15, along with all other popularly owned semi automatic rifles, as protected rifles in his dissenting opinion in Friedman v Highland Park....his dissent wasn't losing on the merits, it was dissenting against the Court not hearing the case......but as he is the author of the Heller opinion, his writing on the AR-15 is relevant....showing that semi auto rifles, in particular, the AR-15 are not subject to bans or confiscation....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heller V only protected sane handguns in your Home, nothing more as long as your stayed within the laws such as if it's required to be registered and licensed accordingly.  DC tried to make a gun owner have to either disassemble the handgun or have a trigger lock installed inside the home plus had such a stringent registration and licensing that Heller could never have a reasonable chance of receiving either.  And that was overturned.  Nothing else was overturn.  NO mention of the AR at all.  No mention of any weapon or gun outside of the home.  In the end, the only thing that was protected was our right to defend our homes using sane handguns and to have them in reasonable operating condition INSIDE THE HOME.  We have been through this many times and each time, your BS keeps coming up and each time I point out that it's still BS.  Before you bring up McDonald V, McDonald V was just a rehash of Heller V and was a total waste of time.
> 
> BTW, the Courts have already found that an AR can be banned, regulated, etc. by the State or lower governments as long it's spelled out.  The common phrase used today that is acceptable is "AR-15 and it's various clones" has withstood more than a couple of Federal Courts and has been refused to be ruled on by SCOTUS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And you are wrong again....the lower courts are ignoring Heller......that doesn't make it legal....
> 
> BTW, the Courts have already found that an AR can be banned, regulated, etc. by the State or lower governments as long it's spelled out
> 
> Heller...
> 
> https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
> 
> Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.
> 
> We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), *the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.*
> 
> Scalia in Friedman v. Highland Park......after Scalia wrote the opinion in D.C. v Heller....
> 
> https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
> 
> That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.
> 
> Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
> 
> The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
> 
> *Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629. *
Click to expand...

Wrong.

The lower courts aren’t ‘ignoring’ _Heller_ – and their rulings are lawful until such time the Supreme Court rules they’re not.


----------



## Rigby5

Daryl Hunt said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gun registration is required for eventual gun banning and confiscation....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paranoia strikes deep when it is near which only means you have something to hide.
> let me guess, you are a NRA member-?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Germany, banned guns, then murdered 12 million Europeans........Britain registered guns, then banned them.  Australia registered guns, then banned them.  France, dittos, Canada, New York, California.....you guys keep pretending that registration doesn't lead to eventual confiscation...and yet the real world shows you are wrong...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already showed the benefits of the Background Checks but you keep slamming your palms over your ears and screaming very loudly, "LaLaLaLa" over and over and coming up with the drivel about how it always leads to Gun Registrations and how Background checks just don't work  so I won't waste my time with you on that.  But I see more and more states going to it and I see the Feds honestly looking into making it federal requirement.  And it has nothing to do with Gun registration.  More and more people are no longer buying into your fear campaign.
Click to expand...


Except where does the authority for background checks come from?
I think creating 2nd class citizens by taking away rights like voting and self defense from convicted felons is illegal.
It is no different than what Russia does to dissidents.
If people are dangerous then you have to confine them, not pretend you make things safer by not allowing them to vote or legally buy weapons.  
Nor is the federal government supposed to have any weapons jurisdiction at all.
And last time I tried to check someone before selling them a firearm, the FFL wanted $30 to do it for me.
If it is not free, then something is wrong.


----------



## Rigby5

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government really has no jurisdiction over any weapon you make yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It certainly should, because such undetectable weapons place us all in danger - especially on public transportation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.  All criminals have undetectable weapons all the time.  All you need to make any weapon undetectable is put it in a foil pouch, like inside a boombox, laptop, etc.  And you can not make plastic guns.  The barrel has to be steel.  Plastic shatters from the expansion impulse of the explosion.  Nor does government have the authority to regulate anything you wish to make yourself.
> And it is a total violation of the 14th amendment for government to deny to anyone, that which government employees have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Untrue.  There has been a breakthrough in the metal 3d printers.  You can make a metal barrel now.  It's only good for a few shot before it splits.  And as the chemists (for you 2nd amendment people, that would be alchemists) it won't be long before there will be even stronger chemical compounds for stronger metals will be available for the 3d Metal Printers.  And if they come up with a compound that is not metal and won't show up on a scanner then it will pass right through an airport scanner.  Either do something about it today or die by it later on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You did not read carefully.
> I did not say you can not print a metal gun but that you can not print a plastic gun.
> If you print a metal gun, it will show up on metal detectors, like all guns.
> So there is no 3D printer issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is now since the 3D Metal Printer exists.  What you mean to say is that there is no 3D Plastic Printer Issues.  Actually, one can build a gun barrel out of Carbon/Carbon fiber and it will not show up on the scanners and will be stronger than even the best stainless steel barrels.  Same goes for the so called Plastics.  As that gets better, it becomes more of a problem for portable weapons.  The 3D Metal Printers that the Military is buying also becomes a problem if some nasty bad dude has enough to buy one or two or three of them.
Click to expand...


No, I mean there are no 3D printer issues, because if they use a metal 3D printer, it will show up on metal detectors.
And I do not believe anyone has a successful carbon fiber barrel.
Strength is not the issue.
It is the impulse, erosion, and heat that are hard to deal with.
And from what I have been told, carbon fiber is not resilient enough and will split and crack.
There are plastics elastic enough to not crack, but they can't take the erosion or heat.

But when it comes right down to it, there really is absolutely no issue or danger of guns on airplanes.
Once they locked the cockpits doors securely, then airplanes no longer were a real issue, and are just fake hysteria.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.   It is up to State legislators to organize sufficient militia to ensure that is the case.



If you read any state constitution, they have organized sufficient state militia.
They say ever able bodied adult male is part of the state militia.


----------



## Rigby5

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is so very strange is that an AR-15 is about the weakest of all rifles sold.
> It has very little range, a bullet only about a 1/4th" wide, and illegal to use for hunting deer in most states because it is too weak for a clean kill.
> Anyone who would ban an AR would then want to ban almost everything, because almost everything is more powerful.
> 
> But the reality is that the black ops enemy have ARs, AKs, etc., so then the rest of us had better as well, or else we will end up in re-education camps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has to do with the frequency it can be shot, reshot and reloaded.  And the ease it can be used by any scared shitless out of his mind young kid in combat with little training.  Even in the semi auto mode, it fires more rounds faster than any other known rifle and ends up doing more damage faster.  This is why it's the weapon of choice for war and mass shootings.   Even with the weaker 223 over the Nato 556 round (300 fps faster) it still fits this criteria.  And for what it can do, it's downright cheap. In combat, the normal use of the M-16 version is Semi Auto, not fully auto or 3 shot setting.    The normal M-16 usage is single trigger pull making it's usage no different nor it's performance any different than any good quality AR-15.
> 
> In the hands of an experienced shooter, it's lightning in a bottle.  Most of the other semi auto guns, you have to rock the mags into place.  The AR, it's snaps straight in.  Rarely there is a bad mag feed.  Stoner figured out a way of design that was the most ergonomic way of doing things where there was no wasted movement or wasted mechanics.  It is designed for war and for a Military Assault Rifle, the AR-15 is every inch as capable as the M-4 which is it's military counterpart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I agree it is the small recoil that allows for more rapid shooting.
> But then you realize they are then going to also make all pistols, carbines, shotguns, etc. illegal as well, in order to accomplish their goal?
> It  not only makes no sense at all, but is clearly arbitrary and illegal.
> ARs are the most popular model owned, and you would have to make over 100 million citizens into criminals in order to make ARs illegal.
> You can't make efficiency illegal.
> Nor can you prevent lightning in a bottle, as that genie has been out for a very long time.
> Anyone can easily kill hundreds with fertilizer, flammables, toxic gases, or even electrocution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, that number is closer to 7 to 8 million for the AR and it's clone when you count the real manufacturers numbers and the parts sold to make new ones.  The Gun Crazies will make up all kinds of numbers that sound real good but are outlandish.  And the AR-15 and clones are the #2 most manufactured gun, the #1 goes to the Model 60 which has about a 10 year head start and is still selling strong even today.  Most of us started out on one of those little semi auto tube fed 22 rifles.
> 
> The Courts require that you have to be specific in your wording in your Gun Regulating.  You have to spell out exactly what gun you are regulating and how.  When you use a generic statement that describes a gun that fits a cross section that fits many different guns then that is unconstitutional.  But when you specify one then that's constitutional.  The accepting description today for the AR is "AR-15 and it's various Clones" legally covers exactly what it says it  does.  It doesn't encompass the Mini-14 or any of the others.  It's specifically covers just the AR-15 and it's various clones.  And that has been contested in court and the Courts have upheld that wording.
Click to expand...


Yes, you likely are more accurate.
I think the number of 100 million popped up in my head from a different discussion that was not AR specific, but assault weapons in general, because pistols, shotguns, carbines, blunder busses, .30-06 BAR, etc., have all historically been used by the military as assault weapons.
So it is only "assault weapons" that would greatly enlarge the figure.

However, I do not think the legislation would still be legal even if at least no vague, because there still is not real purpose to it.
ARs are not more dangerous than anything.  And citizens have a right to be as dangerous as they need to be compared to criminals.  And since criminals will still have ARs or AKs, I don't see who anyone can prevent honest people from having them.
For example, the Korean grocers in the LA riots.


----------



## Rigby5

Seems to me DC vs Heller is pretty clear.

{... 
_Held: _

    1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
...}

That would seem to apply to a shotgun or AR as well as a pistol.
Pistols are less common for home defense than a rifle or shotgun.


----------



## captkaos

Lakhota said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's about time we had some gun control hearings.  I've also heard talk of possible 3-D gun legislation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government really has no jurisdiction over any weapon you make yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It certainly should, because such undetectable weapons place us all in danger - especially on public transportation.
Click to expand...

Buy a car and move out of the City you'll be safer and then you won't have to worry about other law abiding citizens catching you in the crossfire as they subdue the subway shooter


----------



## captkaos

Rigby5 said:


> Seems to me DC vs Heller is pretty clear.
> 
> {...
> _Held: _
> 
> 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
> ...}
> 
> That would seem to apply to a shotgun or AR as well as a pistol.
> Pistols are less common for home defense than a rifle or shotgun.


Buy a good shotgun for home defense it works great when you absolutely positively have to kill everything in the hallway and you really don't have to be a very good shot with 00 buck


----------



## 2aguy

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has to do with the frequency it can be shot, reshot and reloaded.  And the ease it can be used by any scared shitless out of his mind young kid in combat with little training.  Even in the semi auto mode, it fires more rounds faster than any other known rifle and ends up doing more damage faster.  This is why it's the weapon of choice for war and mass shootings.   Even with the weaker 223 over the Nato 556 round (300 fps faster) it still fits this criteria.  And for what it can do, it's downright cheap. In combat, the normal use of the M-16 version is Semi Auto, not fully auto or 3 shot setting.    The normal M-16 usage is single trigger pull making it's usage no different nor it's performance any different than any good quality AR-15.
> 
> In the hands of an experienced shooter, it's lightning in a bottle.  Most of the other semi auto guns, you have to rock the mags into place.  The AR, it's snaps straight in.  Rarely there is a bad mag feed.  Stoner figured out a way of design that was the most ergonomic way of doing things where there was no wasted movement or wasted mechanics.  It is designed for war and for a Military Assault Rifle, the AR-15 is every inch as capable as the M-4 which is it's military counterpart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I agree it is the small recoil that allows for more rapid shooting.
> But then you realize they are then going to also make all pistols, carbines, shotguns, etc. illegal as well, in order to accomplish their goal?
> It  not only makes no sense at all, but is clearly arbitrary and illegal.
> ARs are the most popular model owned, and you would have to make over 100 million citizens into criminals in order to make ARs illegal.
> You can't make efficiency illegal.
> Nor can you prevent lightning in a bottle, as that genie has been out for a very long time.
> Anyone can easily kill hundreds with fertilizer, flammables, toxic gases, or even electrocution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The AR-15 is a protected weapon as defined by the Supreme Court Justice who wrote the opinion in D.C. v Heller......he specifically named the AR-15, along with all other popularly owned semi automatic rifles, as protected rifles in his dissenting opinion in Friedman v Highland Park....his dissent wasn't losing on the merits, it was dissenting against the Court not hearing the case......but as he is the author of the Heller opinion, his writing on the AR-15 is relevant....showing that semi auto rifles, in particular, the AR-15 are not subject to bans or confiscation....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heller V only protected sane handguns in your Home, nothing more as long as your stayed within the laws such as if it's required to be registered and licensed accordingly.  DC tried to make a gun owner have to either disassemble the handgun or have a trigger lock installed inside the home plus had such a stringent registration and licensing that Heller could never have a reasonable chance of receiving either.  And that was overturned.  Nothing else was overturn.  NO mention of the AR at all.  No mention of any weapon or gun outside of the home.  In the end, the only thing that was protected was our right to defend our homes using sane handguns and to have them in reasonable operating condition INSIDE THE HOME.  We have been through this many times and each time, your BS keeps coming up and each time I point out that it's still BS.  Before you bring up McDonald V, McDonald V was just a rehash of Heller V and was a total waste of time.
> 
> BTW, the Courts have already found that an AR can be banned, regulated, etc. by the State or lower governments as long it's spelled out.  The common phrase used today that is acceptable is "AR-15 and it's various clones" has withstood more than a couple of Federal Courts and has been refused to be ruled on by SCOTUS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And you are wrong again....the lower courts are ignoring Heller......that doesn't make it legal....
> 
> BTW, the Courts have already found that an AR can be banned, regulated, etc. by the State or lower governments as long it's spelled out
> 
> Heller...
> 
> https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
> 
> Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.
> 
> We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), *the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.*
> 
> Scalia in Friedman v. Highland Park......after Scalia wrote the opinion in D.C. v Heller....
> 
> https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
> 
> That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.
> 
> Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
> 
> The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
> 
> *Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629. *
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The lower courts aren’t ‘ignoring’ _Heller_ – and their rulings are lawful until such time the Supreme Court rules they’re not.
Click to expand...



Yes...they are ignoring Heller..... and are relying on the previously split court...4 anti-gun, anti-Constitutional Justices vs. 4 Constitutional Justices to make sure their illegal rulings were able to stand....  As Scalia points out in Friedman v Highland Park...


----------



## 2aguy

Rigby5 said:


> Seems to me DC vs Heller is pretty clear.
> 
> {...
> _Held: _
> 
> 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
> ...}
> 
> That would seem to apply to a shotgun or AR as well as a pistol.
> Pistols are less common for home defense than a rifle or shotgun.




Heller is even more specific than that quote....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. 

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), *the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.*


----------



## Daryl Hunt

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't bring up *Illinois*, cupcake.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody *lies* like Duh-rly. You were the first to mention Illinois. Here it is in post #7343:
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well now.  Sure am glad I get to educate you once again.  *Illinois* does have a State Militia.
> Illinois State Militia (ILSM) - 7th Battalion - Northern Illinois
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep telling your story.  If you tell it enough times..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have proof....Duh-ryl. Everyone can now see that you are absolutely a *liar*.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Proof about what?  You hacked enough out of that conversation that you left out what you have proof about.  Stay focused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Proof that you brought up Illinois. Damn, you can't even remember that you brought up Illinois first, then you can't remember that you denied bringing up Illinois first. Are you off your meds again sweetie?
Click to expand...


Oh you mean the part where I resmpoend to someone else that said that the State of Illinois did not have a State Guard?  You figure if you edit it enough we all will forget that happened.  You are a gun crazy nutcase that will stoop to anything to discredit anyone that might disagree with your random fantasies.  We already know you aren't what you claim to be.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

2aguy said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I agree it is the small recoil that allows for more rapid shooting.
> But then you realize they are then going to also make all pistols, carbines, shotguns, etc. illegal as well, in order to accomplish their goal?
> It  not only makes no sense at all, but is clearly arbitrary and illegal.
> ARs are the most popular model owned, and you would have to make over 100 million citizens into criminals in order to make ARs illegal.
> You can't make efficiency illegal.
> Nor can you prevent lightning in a bottle, as that genie has been out for a very long time.
> Anyone can easily kill hundreds with fertilizer, flammables, toxic gases, or even electrocution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The AR-15 is a protected weapon as defined by the Supreme Court Justice who wrote the opinion in D.C. v Heller......he specifically named the AR-15, along with all other popularly owned semi automatic rifles, as protected rifles in his dissenting opinion in Friedman v Highland Park....his dissent wasn't losing on the merits, it was dissenting against the Court not hearing the case......but as he is the author of the Heller opinion, his writing on the AR-15 is relevant....showing that semi auto rifles, in particular, the AR-15 are not subject to bans or confiscation....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heller V only protected sane handguns in your Home, nothing more as long as your stayed within the laws such as if it's required to be registered and licensed accordingly.  DC tried to make a gun owner have to either disassemble the handgun or have a trigger lock installed inside the home plus had such a stringent registration and licensing that Heller could never have a reasonable chance of receiving either.  And that was overturned.  Nothing else was overturn.  NO mention of the AR at all.  No mention of any weapon or gun outside of the home.  In the end, the only thing that was protected was our right to defend our homes using sane handguns and to have them in reasonable operating condition INSIDE THE HOME.  We have been through this many times and each time, your BS keeps coming up and each time I point out that it's still BS.  Before you bring up McDonald V, McDonald V was just a rehash of Heller V and was a total waste of time.
> 
> BTW, the Courts have already found that an AR can be banned, regulated, etc. by the State or lower governments as long it's spelled out.  The common phrase used today that is acceptable is "AR-15 and it's various clones" has withstood more than a couple of Federal Courts and has been refused to be ruled on by SCOTUS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And you are wrong again....the lower courts are ignoring Heller......that doesn't make it legal....
> 
> BTW, the Courts have already found that an AR can be banned, regulated, etc. by the State or lower governments as long it's spelled out
> 
> Heller...
> 
> https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
> 
> Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.
> 
> We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), *the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.*
> 
> Scalia in Friedman v. Highland Park......after Scalia wrote the opinion in D.C. v Heller....
> 
> https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
> 
> That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.
> 
> Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
> 
> The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
> 
> *Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629. *
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The lower courts aren’t ‘ignoring’ _Heller_ – and their rulings are lawful until such time the Supreme Court rules they’re not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes...they are ignoring Heller..... and are relying on the previously split court...4 anti-gun, anti-Constitutional Justices vs. 4 Constitutional Justices to make sure their illegal rulings were able to stand....  As Scalia points out in Friedman v Highland Park...
Click to expand...


Alll the BS aside, it was denied.  Denied means it was left unheard.  Meaning, no ruling other than denied.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

2aguy said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to me DC vs Heller is pretty clear.
> 
> {...
> _Held: _
> 
> 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
> ...}
> 
> That would seem to apply to a shotgun or AR as well as a pistol.
> Pistols are less common for home defense than a rifle or shotgun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heller is even more specific than that quote....
> 
> https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
> 
> Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.
> 
> We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), *the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.*
Click to expand...


Again, what part of Dissenting are you having trouble with.  The Case was denied and you are trying to use the dissenting views as legal support for your views.  Dissenting is nothing more than the ramblings of the losing side.  It means absolutely nothing in the legal stem of things.  Now, stop this crap and stop making shit up.


----------



## 2aguy

Daryl Hunt said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to me DC vs Heller is pretty clear.
> 
> {...
> _Held: _
> 
> 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
> ...}
> 
> That would seem to apply to a shotgun or AR as well as a pistol.
> Pistols are less common for home defense than a rifle or shotgun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heller is even more specific than that quote....
> 
> https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
> 
> Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.
> 
> We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), *the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, what part of Dissenting are you having trouble with.  The Case was denied and you are trying to use the dissenting views as legal support for your views.  Dissenting is nothing more than the ramblings of the losing side.  It means absolutely nothing in the legal stem of things.  Now, stop this crap and stop making shit up.
Click to expand...



The case wasn't heard, so the issue didn't get a decision...but Scalia wrote the opinion in Heller, and clarified Heller with his dissent in why the court should have heard this case....that is the important part in Friedman v Highland Park......


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rigby5 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is so very strange is that an AR-15 is about the weakest of all rifles sold.
> It has very little range, a bullet only about a 1/4th" wide, and illegal to use for hunting deer in most states because it is too weak for a clean kill.
> Anyone who would ban an AR would then want to ban almost everything, because almost everything is more powerful.
> 
> But the reality is that the black ops enemy have ARs, AKs, etc., so then the rest of us had better as well, or else we will end up in re-education camps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has to do with the frequency it can be shot, reshot and reloaded.  And the ease it can be used by any scared shitless out of his mind young kid in combat with little training.  Even in the semi auto mode, it fires more rounds faster than any other known rifle and ends up doing more damage faster.  This is why it's the weapon of choice for war and mass shootings.   Even with the weaker 223 over the Nato 556 round (300 fps faster) it still fits this criteria.  And for what it can do, it's downright cheap. In combat, the normal use of the M-16 version is Semi Auto, not fully auto or 3 shot setting.    The normal M-16 usage is single trigger pull making it's usage no different nor it's performance any different than any good quality AR-15.
> 
> In the hands of an experienced shooter, it's lightning in a bottle.  Most of the other semi auto guns, you have to rock the mags into place.  The AR, it's snaps straight in.  Rarely there is a bad mag feed.  Stoner figured out a way of design that was the most ergonomic way of doing things where there was no wasted movement or wasted mechanics.  It is designed for war and for a Military Assault Rifle, the AR-15 is every inch as capable as the M-4 which is it's military counterpart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I agree it is the small recoil that allows for more rapid shooting.
> But then you realize they are then going to also make all pistols, carbines, shotguns, etc. illegal as well, in order to accomplish their goal?
> It  not only makes no sense at all, but is clearly arbitrary and illegal.
> ARs are the most popular model owned, and you would have to make over 100 million citizens into criminals in order to make ARs illegal.
> You can't make efficiency illegal.
> Nor can you prevent lightning in a bottle, as that genie has been out for a very long time.
> Anyone can easily kill hundreds with fertilizer, flammables, toxic gases, or even electrocution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, that number is closer to 7 to 8 million for the AR and it's clone when you count the real manufacturers numbers and the parts sold to make new ones.  The Gun Crazies will make up all kinds of numbers that sound real good but are outlandish.  And the AR-15 and clones are the #2 most manufactured gun, the #1 goes to the Model 60 which has about a 10 year head start and is still selling strong even today.  Most of us started out on one of those little semi auto tube fed 22 rifles.
> 
> The Courts require that you have to be specific in your wording in your Gun Regulating.  You have to spell out exactly what gun you are regulating and how.  When you use a generic statement that describes a gun that fits a cross section that fits many different guns then that is unconstitutional.  But when you specify one then that's constitutional.  The accepting description today for the AR is "AR-15 and it's various Clones" legally covers exactly what it says it  does.  It doesn't encompass the Mini-14 or any of the others.  It's specifically covers just the AR-15 and it's various clones.  And that has been contested in court and the Courts have upheld that wording.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you likely are more accurate.
> I think the number of 100 million popped up in my head from a different discussion that was not AR specific, but assault weapons in general, because pistols, shotguns, carbines, blunder busses, .30-06 BAR, etc., have all historically been used by the military as assault weapons.
> So it is only "assault weapons" that would greatly enlarge the figure.
> 
> However, I do not think the legislation would still be legal even if at least no vague, because there still is not real purpose to it.
> ARs are not more dangerous than anything.  And citizens have a right to be as dangerous as they need to be compared to criminals.  And since criminals will still have ARs or AKs, I don't see who anyone can prevent honest people from having them.
> For example, the Korean grocers in the LA riots.
Click to expand...


Boston, Chicago and a few other places have either heavily regulated them or outright banned the AR-15 and the various clones and it's been contested and has been upheld in Federal Courts.  Heller V did nothing to address that issue.  It only dealt with normal Handguns.  Heller didn't deal with large capacity mags in handguns either.  Let's cut to the chase and discuss what Heller V really dealt with.

1.  Any State or lower government cannot ban normal handguns from the home

2.  No State nor lower Government can force you to have to render your handgun inoperative either by disassembly or a trigger guard inside the confines of your home

3,  If a State or lower government does require registration or licensing of a Handgun for the home, it must afford a reasonable method to it's citizens. (Heller was denied this)

That is Heller V DC in a nutshell.  This was what Heller sued for and this is what Heller ended up getting.  He didn't get everything he wanted but he did get those three things and it did send a message to the States and Lower Governments regarding Handguns and nothing else.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

2aguy said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to me DC vs Heller is pretty clear.
> 
> {...
> _Held: _
> 
> 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
> ...}
> 
> That would seem to apply to a shotgun or AR as well as a pistol.
> Pistols are less common for home defense than a rifle or shotgun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heller is even more specific than that quote....
> 
> https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
> 
> Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.
> 
> We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), *the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, what part of Dissenting are you having trouble with.  The Case was denied and you are trying to use the dissenting views as legal support for your views.  Dissenting is nothing more than the ramblings of the losing side.  It means absolutely nothing in the legal stem of things.  Now, stop this crap and stop making shit up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The case wasn't heard, so the issue didn't get a decision...but Scalia wrote the opinion in Heller, and clarified Heller with his dissent in why the court should have heard this case....that is the important part in Friedman v Highland Park......
Click to expand...


The only thing that is important is that the Supreme Court refused to hear it.  The rest is Scalia running off at the mouth.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rigby5 said:


> Seems to me DC vs Heller is pretty clear.
> 
> {...
> _Held: _
> 
> 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
> ...}
> 
> That would seem to apply to a shotgun or AR as well as a pistol.
> Pistols are less common for home defense than a rifle or shotgun.



The Federals have no say in that.  And you are right, the 2nd amendment does deny the Federals from denying you the right to those weapons.  But under the 2nd, 10th and 14th amendment, the state does have that right as long as they do it by being specific.  For instance, banning the AR-15 by describing the weapon in a general description has been found to be unconstitutional because it also grabs so many other guns.  But if you use the phrase "AR-15 and it's various clones" that stands up in court and does become a constitutional law.


----------



## 2aguy

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is so very strange is that an AR-15 is about the weakest of all rifles sold.
> It has very little range, a bullet only about a 1/4th" wide, and illegal to use for hunting deer in most states because it is too weak for a clean kill.
> Anyone who would ban an AR would then want to ban almost everything, because almost everything is more powerful.
> 
> But the reality is that the black ops enemy have ARs, AKs, etc., so then the rest of us had better as well, or else we will end up in re-education camps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has to do with the frequency it can be shot, reshot and reloaded.  And the ease it can be used by any scared shitless out of his mind young kid in combat with little training.  Even in the semi auto mode, it fires more rounds faster than any other known rifle and ends up doing more damage faster.  This is why it's the weapon of choice for war and mass shootings.   Even with the weaker 223 over the Nato 556 round (300 fps faster) it still fits this criteria.  And for what it can do, it's downright cheap. In combat, the normal use of the M-16 version is Semi Auto, not fully auto or 3 shot setting.    The normal M-16 usage is single trigger pull making it's usage no different nor it's performance any different than any good quality AR-15.
> 
> In the hands of an experienced shooter, it's lightning in a bottle.  Most of the other semi auto guns, you have to rock the mags into place.  The AR, it's snaps straight in.  Rarely there is a bad mag feed.  Stoner figured out a way of design that was the most ergonomic way of doing things where there was no wasted movement or wasted mechanics.  It is designed for war and for a Military Assault Rifle, the AR-15 is every inch as capable as the M-4 which is it's military counterpart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I agree it is the small recoil that allows for more rapid shooting.
> But then you realize they are then going to also make all pistols, carbines, shotguns, etc. illegal as well, in order to accomplish their goal?
> It  not only makes no sense at all, but is clearly arbitrary and illegal.
> ARs are the most popular model owned, and you would have to make over 100 million citizens into criminals in order to make ARs illegal.
> You can't make efficiency illegal.
> Nor can you prevent lightning in a bottle, as that genie has been out for a very long time.
> Anyone can easily kill hundreds with fertilizer, flammables, toxic gases, or even electrocution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, that number is closer to 7 to 8 million for the AR and it's clone when you count the real manufacturers numbers and the parts sold to make new ones.  The Gun Crazies will make up all kinds of numbers that sound real good but are outlandish.  And the AR-15 and clones are the #2 most manufactured gun, the #1 goes to the Model 60 which has about a 10 year head start and is still selling strong even today.  Most of us started out on one of those little semi auto tube fed 22 rifles.
> 
> The Courts require that you have to be specific in your wording in your Gun Regulating.  You have to spell out exactly what gun you are regulating and how.  When you use a generic statement that describes a gun that fits a cross section that fits many different guns then that is unconstitutional.  But when you specify one then that's constitutional.  The accepting description today for the AR is "AR-15 and it's various Clones" legally covers exactly what it says it  does.  It doesn't encompass the Mini-14 or any of the others.  It's specifically covers just the AR-15 and it's various clones.  And that has been contested in court and the Courts have upheld that wording.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you likely are more accurate.
> I think the number of 100 million popped up in my head from a different discussion that was not AR specific, but assault weapons in general, because pistols, shotguns, carbines, blunder busses, .30-06 BAR, etc., have all historically been used by the military as assault weapons.
> So it is only "assault weapons" that would greatly enlarge the figure.
> 
> However, I do not think the legislation would still be legal even if at least no vague, because there still is not real purpose to it.
> ARs are not more dangerous than anything.  And citizens have a right to be as dangerous as they need to be compared to criminals.  And since criminals will still have ARs or AKs, I don't see who anyone can prevent honest people from having them.
> For example, the Korean grocers in the LA riots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boston, Chicago and a few other places have either heavily regulated them or outright banned the AR-15 and the various clones and it's been contested and has been upheld in Federal Courts.  Heller V did nothing to address that issue.  It only dealt with normal Handguns.  Heller didn't deal with large capacity mags in handguns either.  Let's cut to the chase and discuss what Heller V really dealt with.
> 
> 1.  Any State or lower government cannot ban normal handguns from the home
> 
> 2.  No State nor lower Government can force you to have to render your handgun inoperative either by disassembly or a trigger guard inside the confines of your home
> 
> 3,  If a State or lower government does require registration or licensing of a Handgun for the home, it must afford a reasonable method to it's citizens. (Heller was denied this)
> 
> That is Heller V DC in a nutshell.  This was what Heller sued for and this is what Heller ended up getting.  He didn't get everything he wanted but he did get those three things and it did send a message to the States and Lower Governments regarding Handguns and nothing else.
Click to expand...



Those courts are in obvious violation of the Heller decision, the Caetano decision and Scalia specifically states the AR-15 is protected by the 2nd Amendment in the Friedman v Highland Park dissent....  

Heller...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. 

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), *the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.*

Scalia, after Heller, stating that the AR-15 rifle is protected....


*
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
*
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. 

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

 The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes. 

*Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629. *


----------



## 2aguy

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to me DC vs Heller is pretty clear.
> 
> {...
> _Held: _
> 
> 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
> ...}
> 
> That would seem to apply to a shotgun or AR as well as a pistol.
> Pistols are less common for home defense than a rifle or shotgun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Federals have no say in that.  And you are right, the 2nd amendment does deny the Federals from denying you the right to those weapons.  But under the 2nd, 10th and 14th amendment, the state does have that right as long as they do it by being specific.  For instance, banning the AR-15 by describing the weapon in a general description has been found to be unconstitutional because it also grabs so many other guns.  But if you use the phrase "AR-15 and it's various clones" that stands up in court and does become a constitutional law.
Click to expand...



You talk out of your ass and think you are being profound....you don't know what you are talking about....


----------



## Daryl Hunt

2aguy said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to me DC vs Heller is pretty clear.
> 
> {...
> _Held: _
> 
> 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
> ...}
> 
> That would seem to apply to a shotgun or AR as well as a pistol.
> Pistols are less common for home defense than a rifle or shotgun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Federals have no say in that.  And you are right, the 2nd amendment does deny the Federals from denying you the right to those weapons.  But under the 2nd, 10th and 14th amendment, the state does have that right as long as they do it by being specific.  For instance, banning the AR-15 by describing the weapon in a general description has been found to be unconstitutional because it also grabs so many other guns.  But if you use the phrase "AR-15 and it's various clones" that stands up in court and does become a constitutional law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You talk out of your ass and think you are being profound....you don't know what you are talking about....
Click to expand...


Let's me translate you response for the others.  "You have have your ass handed to you once again and you can't figure out any other way to get around it so you resort to insulting".  That just abut sums it up, you gunnutter fruitcake.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

2aguy said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has to do with the frequency it can be shot, reshot and reloaded.  And the ease it can be used by any scared shitless out of his mind young kid in combat with little training.  Even in the semi auto mode, it fires more rounds faster than any other known rifle and ends up doing more damage faster.  This is why it's the weapon of choice for war and mass shootings.   Even with the weaker 223 over the Nato 556 round (300 fps faster) it still fits this criteria.  And for what it can do, it's downright cheap. In combat, the normal use of the M-16 version is Semi Auto, not fully auto or 3 shot setting.    The normal M-16 usage is single trigger pull making it's usage no different nor it's performance any different than any good quality AR-15.
> 
> In the hands of an experienced shooter, it's lightning in a bottle.  Most of the other semi auto guns, you have to rock the mags into place.  The AR, it's snaps straight in.  Rarely there is a bad mag feed.  Stoner figured out a way of design that was the most ergonomic way of doing things where there was no wasted movement or wasted mechanics.  It is designed for war and for a Military Assault Rifle, the AR-15 is every inch as capable as the M-4 which is it's military counterpart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I agree it is the small recoil that allows for more rapid shooting.
> But then you realize they are then going to also make all pistols, carbines, shotguns, etc. illegal as well, in order to accomplish their goal?
> It  not only makes no sense at all, but is clearly arbitrary and illegal.
> ARs are the most popular model owned, and you would have to make over 100 million citizens into criminals in order to make ARs illegal.
> You can't make efficiency illegal.
> Nor can you prevent lightning in a bottle, as that genie has been out for a very long time.
> Anyone can easily kill hundreds with fertilizer, flammables, toxic gases, or even electrocution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, that number is closer to 7 to 8 million for the AR and it's clone when you count the real manufacturers numbers and the parts sold to make new ones.  The Gun Crazies will make up all kinds of numbers that sound real good but are outlandish.  And the AR-15 and clones are the #2 most manufactured gun, the #1 goes to the Model 60 which has about a 10 year head start and is still selling strong even today.  Most of us started out on one of those little semi auto tube fed 22 rifles.
> 
> The Courts require that you have to be specific in your wording in your Gun Regulating.  You have to spell out exactly what gun you are regulating and how.  When you use a generic statement that describes a gun that fits a cross section that fits many different guns then that is unconstitutional.  But when you specify one then that's constitutional.  The accepting description today for the AR is "AR-15 and it's various Clones" legally covers exactly what it says it  does.  It doesn't encompass the Mini-14 or any of the others.  It's specifically covers just the AR-15 and it's various clones.  And that has been contested in court and the Courts have upheld that wording.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you likely are more accurate.
> I think the number of 100 million popped up in my head from a different discussion that was not AR specific, but assault weapons in general, because pistols, shotguns, carbines, blunder busses, .30-06 BAR, etc., have all historically been used by the military as assault weapons.
> So it is only "assault weapons" that would greatly enlarge the figure.
> 
> However, I do not think the legislation would still be legal even if at least no vague, because there still is not real purpose to it.
> ARs are not more dangerous than anything.  And citizens have a right to be as dangerous as they need to be compared to criminals.  And since criminals will still have ARs or AKs, I don't see who anyone can prevent honest people from having them.
> For example, the Korean grocers in the LA riots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boston, Chicago and a few other places have either heavily regulated them or outright banned the AR-15 and the various clones and it's been contested and has been upheld in Federal Courts.  Heller V did nothing to address that issue.  It only dealt with normal Handguns.  Heller didn't deal with large capacity mags in handguns either.  Let's cut to the chase and discuss what Heller V really dealt with.
> 
> 1.  Any State or lower government cannot ban normal handguns from the home
> 
> 2.  No State nor lower Government can force you to have to render your handgun inoperative either by disassembly or a trigger guard inside the confines of your home
> 
> 3,  If a State or lower government does require registration or licensing of a Handgun for the home, it must afford a reasonable method to it's citizens. (Heller was denied this)
> 
> That is Heller V DC in a nutshell.  This was what Heller sued for and this is what Heller ended up getting.  He didn't get everything he wanted but he did get those three things and it did send a message to the States and Lower Governments regarding Handguns and nothing else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Those courts are in obvious violation of the Heller decision, the Caetano decision and Scalia specifically states the AR-15 is protected by the 2nd Amendment in the Friedman v Highland Park dissent....
> 
> Heller...
> 
> https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
> 
> Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.
> 
> We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), *the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.*
> 
> Scalia, after Heller, stating that the AR-15 rifle is protected....
> 
> 
> 
> *https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf*
> 
> That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.
> 
> Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
> 
> The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
> 
> *Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629. *
Click to expand...


You can post and repost this drivel over and over but it doesn't change the fact the Federal Courts have ruled differently.  The ONLY gun that cannot be banned is the normal operable handgun inside the home.  But that right ends at your door step.  Once you step over that door jam, the Feds can't regulate you but the States and lower Governments certainly can and usually do.  All States and lower Governments have some form of Gun Control, some tighter than others.  There are no exceptions only degrees.  This crap of "No Gun Regulations" is just that, crap.  Get over it and start talking about the degrees that are acceptable for a change.  Until then you are just another gunnutter fruitcake.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rigby5 said:


> Seems to me DC vs Heller is pretty clear.
> 
> {...
> _Held: _
> 
> 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
> ...}
> 
> That would seem to apply to a shotgun or AR as well as a pistol.
> Pistols are less common for home defense than a rifle or shotgun.



What came out of Heller was the Handgun ruling.  They didn't cover the Shotgun or the Rifle because they can only rule on what is placed in front of them.  And Heller was suing about a handgun.  If you read a bit further into it, the handgun does come up.  I have read that damned thing over and over and don't feel the need to read it over and over again.  But you are correct, Heller V did disconnect the home defense weapons from the service in a militia as the first 2 lines of the 2nd amendment no longer are valid as of 1917 due to the adoption of the National Guard Act.


----------



## Clementine




----------



## Daryl Hunt

Clementine said:


>



I would have agreed if you had left your tag off.  Too bad.  Your Political agenda gets in the way of your message.


----------



## P@triot

Daryl Hunt said:


> Oh you mean the part where I resmpoend to someone else that said that the State of Illinois


Exactly..._you_ brought up Illinois. Not me. Then you lied about it (as you always do).


----------



## P@triot

Daryl Hunt said:


> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would have agreed if you had left your tag off.  Too bad.  Your Political agenda gets in the way of your message.
Click to expand...

You don’t get to “agree” or “disagree”, snowflake. What was stated is 100% *fact*. Nobody gives a shit about your _opinion_ on it.


----------



## Rigby5

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is so very strange is that an AR-15 is about the weakest of all rifles sold.
> It has very little range, a bullet only about a 1/4th" wide, and illegal to use for hunting deer in most states because it is too weak for a clean kill.
> Anyone who would ban an AR would then want to ban almost everything, because almost everything is more powerful.
> 
> But the reality is that the black ops enemy have ARs, AKs, etc., so then the rest of us had better as well, or else we will end up in re-education camps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has to do with the frequency it can be shot, reshot and reloaded.  And the ease it can be used by any scared shitless out of his mind young kid in combat with little training.  Even in the semi auto mode, it fires more rounds faster than any other known rifle and ends up doing more damage faster.  This is why it's the weapon of choice for war and mass shootings.   Even with the weaker 223 over the Nato 556 round (300 fps faster) it still fits this criteria.  And for what it can do, it's downright cheap. In combat, the normal use of the M-16 version is Semi Auto, not fully auto or 3 shot setting.    The normal M-16 usage is single trigger pull making it's usage no different nor it's performance any different than any good quality AR-15.
> 
> In the hands of an experienced shooter, it's lightning in a bottle.  Most of the other semi auto guns, you have to rock the mags into place.  The AR, it's snaps straight in.  Rarely there is a bad mag feed.  Stoner figured out a way of design that was the most ergonomic way of doing things where there was no wasted movement or wasted mechanics.  It is designed for war and for a Military Assault Rifle, the AR-15 is every inch as capable as the M-4 which is it's military counterpart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I agree it is the small recoil that allows for more rapid shooting.
> But then you realize they are then going to also make all pistols, carbines, shotguns, etc. illegal as well, in order to accomplish their goal?
> It  not only makes no sense at all, but is clearly arbitrary and illegal.
> ARs are the most popular model owned, and you would have to make over 100 million citizens into criminals in order to make ARs illegal.
> You can't make efficiency illegal.
> Nor can you prevent lightning in a bottle, as that genie has been out for a very long time.
> Anyone can easily kill hundreds with fertilizer, flammables, toxic gases, or even electrocution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, that number is closer to 7 to 8 million for the AR and it's clone when you count the real manufacturers numbers and the parts sold to make new ones.  The Gun Crazies will make up all kinds of numbers that sound real good but are outlandish.  And the AR-15 and clones are the #2 most manufactured gun, the #1 goes to the Model 60 which has about a 10 year head start and is still selling strong even today.  Most of us started out on one of those little semi auto tube fed 22 rifles.
> 
> The Courts require that you have to be specific in your wording in your Gun Regulating.  You have to spell out exactly what gun you are regulating and how.  When you use a generic statement that describes a gun that fits a cross section that fits many different guns then that is unconstitutional.  But when you specify one then that's constitutional.  The accepting description today for the AR is "AR-15 and it's various Clones" legally covers exactly what it says it  does.  It doesn't encompass the Mini-14 or any of the others.  It's specifically covers just the AR-15 and it's various clones.  And that has been contested in court and the Courts have upheld that wording.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you likely are more accurate.
> I think the number of 100 million popped up in my head from a different discussion that was not AR specific, but assault weapons in general, because pistols, shotguns, carbines, blunder busses, .30-06 BAR, etc., have all historically been used by the military as assault weapons.
> So it is only "assault weapons" that would greatly enlarge the figure.
> 
> However, I do not think the legislation would still be legal even if at least no vague, because there still is not real purpose to it.
> ARs are not more dangerous than anything.  And citizens have a right to be as dangerous as they need to be compared to criminals.  And since criminals will still have ARs or AKs, I don't see who anyone can prevent honest people from having them.
> For example, the Korean grocers in the LA riots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boston, Chicago and a few other places have either heavily regulated them or outright banned the AR-15 and the various clones and it's been contested and has been upheld in Federal Courts.  Heller V did nothing to address that issue.  It only dealt with normal Handguns.  Heller didn't deal with large capacity mags in handguns either.  Let's cut to the chase and discuss what Heller V really dealt with.
> 
> 1.  Any State or lower government cannot ban normal handguns from the home
> 
> 2.  No State nor lower Government can force you to have to render your handgun inoperative either by disassembly or a trigger guard inside the confines of your home
> 
> 3,  If a State or lower government does require registration or licensing of a Handgun for the home, it must afford a reasonable method to it's citizens. (Heller was denied this)
> 
> That is Heller V DC in a nutshell.  This was what Heller sued for and this is what Heller ended up getting.  He didn't get everything he wanted but he did get those three things and it did send a message to the States and Lower Governments regarding Handguns and nothing else.
Click to expand...


I am more tolerant of state of municipal gun regulations than I am federal.
But while Heller was very focused on hand guns, I think that was because the individual was legally required to have handguns for his job.  
For normal home protection, handguns are not as common as shotguns or rifles, which was more easily aimed accurately.  
The main advantage of handguns if concealment or easy open carry, neither of which are relevant to home protection. 
So the principle of Heller should also apply to any reasonable home defense weapon.
Under the equal protection under the law of the 14th amendment, then if a city bans ARs, they have to ban all government employees from having ARs as well.  Governments are not a source of authority.  Only individual inherent rights are the only source of authority in a democratic republic.  So then if individuals can't have it, they can't authorize government to have it either.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

P@triot said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you mean the part where I resmpoend to someone else that said that the State of Illinois
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly..._you_ brought up Illinois. Not me. Then you lied about it (as you always do).
Click to expand...


Say goodnight Gracie


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Rigby5 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has to do with the frequency it can be shot, reshot and reloaded.  And the ease it can be used by any scared shitless out of his mind young kid in combat with little training.  Even in the semi auto mode, it fires more rounds faster than any other known rifle and ends up doing more damage faster.  This is why it's the weapon of choice for war and mass shootings.   Even with the weaker 223 over the Nato 556 round (300 fps faster) it still fits this criteria.  And for what it can do, it's downright cheap. In combat, the normal use of the M-16 version is Semi Auto, not fully auto or 3 shot setting.    The normal M-16 usage is single trigger pull making it's usage no different nor it's performance any different than any good quality AR-15.
> 
> In the hands of an experienced shooter, it's lightning in a bottle.  Most of the other semi auto guns, you have to rock the mags into place.  The AR, it's snaps straight in.  Rarely there is a bad mag feed.  Stoner figured out a way of design that was the most ergonomic way of doing things where there was no wasted movement or wasted mechanics.  It is designed for war and for a Military Assault Rifle, the AR-15 is every inch as capable as the M-4 which is it's military counterpart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I agree it is the small recoil that allows for more rapid shooting.
> But then you realize they are then going to also make all pistols, carbines, shotguns, etc. illegal as well, in order to accomplish their goal?
> It  not only makes no sense at all, but is clearly arbitrary and illegal.
> ARs are the most popular model owned, and you would have to make over 100 million citizens into criminals in order to make ARs illegal.
> You can't make efficiency illegal.
> Nor can you prevent lightning in a bottle, as that genie has been out for a very long time.
> Anyone can easily kill hundreds with fertilizer, flammables, toxic gases, or even electrocution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, that number is closer to 7 to 8 million for the AR and it's clone when you count the real manufacturers numbers and the parts sold to make new ones.  The Gun Crazies will make up all kinds of numbers that sound real good but are outlandish.  And the AR-15 and clones are the #2 most manufactured gun, the #1 goes to the Model 60 which has about a 10 year head start and is still selling strong even today.  Most of us started out on one of those little semi auto tube fed 22 rifles.
> 
> The Courts require that you have to be specific in your wording in your Gun Regulating.  You have to spell out exactly what gun you are regulating and how.  When you use a generic statement that describes a gun that fits a cross section that fits many different guns then that is unconstitutional.  But when you specify one then that's constitutional.  The accepting description today for the AR is "AR-15 and it's various Clones" legally covers exactly what it says it  does.  It doesn't encompass the Mini-14 or any of the others.  It's specifically covers just the AR-15 and it's various clones.  And that has been contested in court and the Courts have upheld that wording.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you likely are more accurate.
> I think the number of 100 million popped up in my head from a different discussion that was not AR specific, but assault weapons in general, because pistols, shotguns, carbines, blunder busses, .30-06 BAR, etc., have all historically been used by the military as assault weapons.
> So it is only "assault weapons" that would greatly enlarge the figure.
> 
> However, I do not think the legislation would still be legal even if at least no vague, because there still is not real purpose to it.
> ARs are not more dangerous than anything.  And citizens have a right to be as dangerous as they need to be compared to criminals.  And since criminals will still have ARs or AKs, I don't see who anyone can prevent honest people from having them.
> For example, the Korean grocers in the LA riots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boston, Chicago and a few other places have either heavily regulated them or outright banned the AR-15 and the various clones and it's been contested and has been upheld in Federal Courts.  Heller V did nothing to address that issue.  It only dealt with normal Handguns.  Heller didn't deal with large capacity mags in handguns either.  Let's cut to the chase and discuss what Heller V really dealt with.
> 
> 1.  Any State or lower government cannot ban normal handguns from the home
> 
> 2.  No State nor lower Government can force you to have to render your handgun inoperative either by disassembly or a trigger guard inside the confines of your home
> 
> 3,  If a State or lower government does require registration or licensing of a Handgun for the home, it must afford a reasonable method to it's citizens. (Heller was denied this)
> 
> That is Heller V DC in a nutshell.  This was what Heller sued for and this is what Heller ended up getting.  He didn't get everything he wanted but he did get those three things and it did send a message to the States and Lower Governments regarding Handguns and nothing else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am more tolerant of state of municipal gun regulations than I am federal.
> But while Heller was very focused on hand guns, I think that was because the individual was legally required to have handguns for his job.
> For normal home protection, handguns are not as common as shotguns or rifles, which was more easily aimed accurately.
> The main advantage of handguns if concealment or easy open carry, neither of which are relevant to home protection.
> So the principle of Heller should also apply to any reasonable home defense weapon.
> Under the equal protection under the law of the 14th amendment, then if a city bans ARs, they have to ban all government employees from having ARs as well.  Governments are not a source of authority.  Only individual inherent rights are the only source of authority in a democratic republic.  So then if individuals can't have it, they can't authorize government to have it either.
Click to expand...

At least you’re consistent at being ignorant and wrong.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rigby5 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has to do with the frequency it can be shot, reshot and reloaded.  And the ease it can be used by any scared shitless out of his mind young kid in combat with little training.  Even in the semi auto mode, it fires more rounds faster than any other known rifle and ends up doing more damage faster.  This is why it's the weapon of choice for war and mass shootings.   Even with the weaker 223 over the Nato 556 round (300 fps faster) it still fits this criteria.  And for what it can do, it's downright cheap. In combat, the normal use of the M-16 version is Semi Auto, not fully auto or 3 shot setting.    The normal M-16 usage is single trigger pull making it's usage no different nor it's performance any different than any good quality AR-15.
> 
> In the hands of an experienced shooter, it's lightning in a bottle.  Most of the other semi auto guns, you have to rock the mags into place.  The AR, it's snaps straight in.  Rarely there is a bad mag feed.  Stoner figured out a way of design that was the most ergonomic way of doing things where there was no wasted movement or wasted mechanics.  It is designed for war and for a Military Assault Rifle, the AR-15 is every inch as capable as the M-4 which is it's military counterpart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I agree it is the small recoil that allows for more rapid shooting.
> But then you realize they are then going to also make all pistols, carbines, shotguns, etc. illegal as well, in order to accomplish their goal?
> It  not only makes no sense at all, but is clearly arbitrary and illegal.
> ARs are the most popular model owned, and you would have to make over 100 million citizens into criminals in order to make ARs illegal.
> You can't make efficiency illegal.
> Nor can you prevent lightning in a bottle, as that genie has been out for a very long time.
> Anyone can easily kill hundreds with fertilizer, flammables, toxic gases, or even electrocution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, that number is closer to 7 to 8 million for the AR and it's clone when you count the real manufacturers numbers and the parts sold to make new ones.  The Gun Crazies will make up all kinds of numbers that sound real good but are outlandish.  And the AR-15 and clones are the #2 most manufactured gun, the #1 goes to the Model 60 which has about a 10 year head start and is still selling strong even today.  Most of us started out on one of those little semi auto tube fed 22 rifles.
> 
> The Courts require that you have to be specific in your wording in your Gun Regulating.  You have to spell out exactly what gun you are regulating and how.  When you use a generic statement that describes a gun that fits a cross section that fits many different guns then that is unconstitutional.  But when you specify one then that's constitutional.  The accepting description today for the AR is "AR-15 and it's various Clones" legally covers exactly what it says it  does.  It doesn't encompass the Mini-14 or any of the others.  It's specifically covers just the AR-15 and it's various clones.  And that has been contested in court and the Courts have upheld that wording.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you likely are more accurate.
> I think the number of 100 million popped up in my head from a different discussion that was not AR specific, but assault weapons in general, because pistols, shotguns, carbines, blunder busses, .30-06 BAR, etc., have all historically been used by the military as assault weapons.
> So it is only "assault weapons" that would greatly enlarge the figure.
> 
> However, I do not think the legislation would still be legal even if at least no vague, because there still is not real purpose to it.
> ARs are not more dangerous than anything.  And citizens have a right to be as dangerous as they need to be compared to criminals.  And since criminals will still have ARs or AKs, I don't see who anyone can prevent honest people from having them.
> For example, the Korean grocers in the LA riots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boston, Chicago and a few other places have either heavily regulated them or outright banned the AR-15 and the various clones and it's been contested and has been upheld in Federal Courts.  Heller V did nothing to address that issue.  It only dealt with normal Handguns.  Heller didn't deal with large capacity mags in handguns either.  Let's cut to the chase and discuss what Heller V really dealt with.
> 
> 1.  Any State or lower government cannot ban normal handguns from the home
> 
> 2.  No State nor lower Government can force you to have to render your handgun inoperative either by disassembly or a trigger guard inside the confines of your home
> 
> 3,  If a State or lower government does require registration or licensing of a Handgun for the home, it must afford a reasonable method to it's citizens. (Heller was denied this)
> 
> That is Heller V DC in a nutshell.  This was what Heller sued for and this is what Heller ended up getting.  He didn't get everything he wanted but he did get those three things and it did send a message to the States and Lower Governments regarding Handguns and nothing else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am more tolerant of state of municipal gun regulations than I am federal.
> But while Heller was very focused on hand guns, I think that was because the individual was legally required to have handguns for his job.
> For normal home protection, handguns are not as common as shotguns or rifles, which was more easily aimed accurately.
> The main advantage of handguns if concealment or easy open carry, neither of which are relevant to home protection.
> So the principle of Heller should also apply to any reasonable home defense weapon.
> Under the equal protection under the law of the 14th amendment, then if a city bans ARs, they have to ban all government employees from having ARs as well.  Governments are not a source of authority.  Only individual inherent rights are the only source of authority in a democratic republic.  So then if individuals can't have it, they can't authorize government to have it either.
Click to expand...


Nice shot in trying to read into the laws.  Law Enforcement are exempt as well is so are the Military.  But that is up to the State, not the Feds.

For instance, California exempts their law enforcement on their AR-15 ban only for on duty applications. Off duty, the law enforcement officers have the same rights and bans as every other citizen.  States can make that exception, not the Feds.  

You keep talking about rights.  Exactly where do you get those rights from?  Do you get them from your God?  What if you are atheist?  Does that mean you have no rights?  What about if you have the wrong God?   Exactly who determines who gives you those rights?  You have only one sure fired right in this life and that is the right to die.  Alll other "Rights" are debatable.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> natural rights are covered in State Constitutions not our Second Amendment; it says so in the first clause.
> 
> 
> 
> *A.* Not it doesn’t
> 
> *B.* We have 50 individual states with 50 individual state constitutions. If your ignorant statement were true, all Americans would not have the same rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about what is Necessary to the security of a free State not natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your ignorance is about what is necessary for a false narrative by oppressive lunatics - not about what the U.S. Constitution actually says. Go away now, the adults are trying to talk.
Click to expand...

The People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense.  Well regulated militia are expressly declared necessary to the security of a free State.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.   It is up to State legislators to organize sufficient militia to ensure that is the case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you read any state constitution, they have organized sufficient state militia.
> They say ever able bodied adult male is part of the state militia.
Click to expand...

Only the unorganized militia complain about gun control. 

will they ever learn.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> Seems to me DC vs Heller is pretty clear.
> 
> {...
> _Held: _
> 
> 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
> ...}
> 
> That would seem to apply to a shotgun or AR as well as a pistol.
> Pistols are less common for home defense than a rifle or shotgun.


judicial activism.  the People are the Militia; you are either well regulated or unorganized.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> natural rights are covered in State Constitutions not our Second Amendment; it says so in the first clause.
> 
> 
> 
> *A.* Not it doesn’t
> 
> *B.* We have 50 individual states with 50 individual state constitutions. If your ignorant statement were true, all Americans would not have the same rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about what is Necessary to the security of a free State not natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your ignorance is about what is necessary for a false narrative by oppressive lunatics - not about what the U.S. Constitution actually says. Go away now, the adults are trying to talk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense.  Well regulated militia are expressly declared necessary to the security of a free State.
Click to expand...


Sorry, but the Organized Militia idea became obsolete right around the Spanish American War and was officially completely gone in 1917.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.   It is up to State legislators to organize sufficient militia to ensure that is the case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you read any state constitution, they have organized sufficient state militia.
> They say ever able bodied adult male is part of the state militia.
Click to expand...


Because of the change in the Federal law and the confusion of the 2nd amendment, the states have gone to a term of SDF or State Defense Force.  Some still use the term State Guards but those are essentially emergency reactions forces, not state militias.  The original term for State Militias died out as of 1917 under the National Guard Act leading up to the First World War.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to me DC vs Heller is pretty clear.
> 
> {...
> _Held: _
> 
> 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
> ...}
> 
> That would seem to apply to a shotgun or AR as well as a pistol.
> Pistols are less common for home defense than a rifle or shotgun.
> 
> 
> 
> judicial activism.  the People are the Militia; you are either well regulated or unorganized.
Click to expand...


The term of "Unorganized Militia" is a made up term by a bunch of people running around the woods hosting pickle suites while brandishing guns to make themselves seem more important than they really are.  No Governor in their right mind would EVER call those fruitcakes up to defend a 7-11 much less a State against anything.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> The People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense.  Well regulated militia are expressly declared necessary to the security of a *free* *State*.


But being a member of the militia is *not* “expressly declared necessary” for the right to keep and bear arms. Game over.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Only the unorganized militia complain about gun control. will they ever learn.


Only the anti-American, anti-constitutional wing nuts complain about getting guns controlled. Will they ever learn?


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> judicial activism.  the People are the Militia; you are either well regulated or unorganized.


Constitutional ignorance. The people are the people. The members of a militia are the militia. And federal law established that the “unorganized” militia is part of the militia and thus entitled to full 2nd Amendment rights. You lose (as always).


----------



## P@triot

Daryl Hunt said:


> Sorry, but the Organized Militia idea became obsolete right around the Spanish American War and was officially completely gone in 1917.


Sorry, but nobody does astounding ignorance like Duh-ryl. Here is 10 U.S. Code § 246:


> (b)The classes of the militia are—
> (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
> (2) the *unorganized* militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are *not* members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.


Duh-ryl is a prime example of why nobody takes the left seriously about _anything_.


----------



## danielpalos

Daryl Hunt said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> natural rights are covered in State Constitutions not our Second Amendment; it says so in the first clause.
> 
> 
> 
> *A.* Not it doesn’t
> 
> *B.* We have 50 individual states with 50 individual state constitutions. If your ignorant statement were true, all Americans would not have the same rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about what is Necessary to the security of a free State not natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your ignorance is about what is necessary for a false narrative by oppressive lunatics - not about what the U.S. Constitution actually says. Go away now, the adults are trying to talk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense.  Well regulated militia are expressly declared necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but the Organized Militia idea became obsolete right around the Spanish American War and was officially completely gone in 1917.
Click to expand...

lol.  i gainsay your contention; want to argue about it?


----------



## danielpalos

Daryl Hunt said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to me DC vs Heller is pretty clear.
> 
> {...
> _Held: _
> 
> 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
> ...}
> 
> That would seem to apply to a shotgun or AR as well as a pistol.
> Pistols are less common for home defense than a rifle or shotgun.
> 
> 
> 
> judicial activism.  the People are the Militia; you are either well regulated or unorganized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The term of "Unorganized Militia" is a made up term by a bunch of people running around the woods hosting pickle suites while brandishing guns to make themselves seem more important than they really are.  No Governor in their right mind would EVER call those fruitcakes up to defend a 7-11 much less a State against anything.
Click to expand...

that is the problem.  in a more perfect militia world; everyone knows their heavy weapons section.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense.  Well regulated militia are expressly declared necessary to the security of a *free* *State*.
> 
> 
> 
> But being a member of the militia is *not* “expressly declared necessary” for the right to keep and bear arms. Game over.
Click to expand...

It is about who may not be Infringed, when it is about the security of a free State.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> judicial activism.  the People are the Militia; you are either well regulated or unorganized.
> 
> 
> 
> Constitutional ignorance. The people are the people. The members of a militia are the militia. And federal law established that the “unorganized” militia is part of the militia and thus entitled to full 2nd Amendment rights. You lose (as always).
Click to expand...

well regulated militia are declared necessary and have no need to complain about gun control laws, unlike the unorganized slackers.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

danielpalos said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *A.* Not it doesn’t
> 
> *B.* We have 50 individual states with 50 individual state constitutions. If your ignorant statement were true, all Americans would not have the same rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about what is Necessary to the security of a free State not natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your ignorance is about what is necessary for a false narrative by oppressive lunatics - not about what the U.S. Constitution actually says. Go away now, the adults are trying to talk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense.  Well regulated militia are expressly declared necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but the Organized Militia idea became obsolete right around the Spanish American War and was officially completely gone in 1917.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  i gainsay your contention; want to argue about it?
Click to expand...


Sorry, but the argument has already been done.  The Supreme Court ruling has already separated the civilian ownership from the organized militia which finishes the arming of the Organized Militia for Defense against the Tyrannical Federal Government a moot point.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

danielpalos said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to me DC vs Heller is pretty clear.
> 
> {...
> _Held: _
> 
> 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
> ...}
> 
> That would seem to apply to a shotgun or AR as well as a pistol.
> Pistols are less common for home defense than a rifle or shotgun.
> 
> 
> 
> judicial activism.  the People are the Militia; you are either well regulated or unorganized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The term of "Unorganized Militia" is a made up term by a bunch of people running around the woods hosting pickle suites while brandishing guns to make themselves seem more important than they really are.  No Governor in their right mind would EVER call those fruitcakes up to defend a 7-11 much less a State against anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is the problem.  in a more perfect militia world; everyone knows their heavy weapons section.
Click to expand...


And because of those heavy weapons is the reason that the militia cannot stand but an afternoon against a well equipped army in today's world.  Your Militia would be so outgunned that it would be mowed down in the first wave.  If your Militia is caught with those heavy weapons, here comes the Feds and the State with a vengeance.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> well regulated militia are declared necessary and have no need to complain about gun control laws, unlike the unorganized slackers.


Wrong and motherfucking stupid.  Shut the fuck up, Dan.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense.  Well regulated militia are expressly declared necessary to the security of a *free* *State*.
> 
> 
> 
> But being a member of the militia is *not* “expressly declared necessary” for the right to keep and bear arms. Game over.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is about who may not be Infringed, when it is about the security of a free State.
Click to expand...

And it is the people who may not be infringed. You lose _again_.


----------



## danielpalos

Daryl Hunt said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about what is Necessary to the security of a free State not natural rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorance is about what is necessary for a false narrative by oppressive lunatics - not about what the U.S. Constitution actually says. Go away now, the adults are trying to talk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense.  Well regulated militia are expressly declared necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but the Organized Militia idea became obsolete right around the Spanish American War and was officially completely gone in 1917.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  i gainsay your contention; want to argue about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but the argument has already been done.  The Supreme Court ruling has already separated the civilian ownership from the organized militia which finishes the arming of the Organized Militia for Defense against the Tyrannical Federal Government a moot point.
Click to expand...

Judicial activism.  There is no separating the People from the Militia.  You are either, well regulated or unorganized.  

Natural rights are State law issues and rely on Due Process not our federal Second Amendment.


----------



## progressive hunter

danielpalos said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorance is about what is necessary for a false narrative by oppressive lunatics - not about what the U.S. Constitution actually says. Go away now, the adults are trying to talk.
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense.  Well regulated militia are expressly declared necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but the Organized Militia idea became obsolete right around the Spanish American War and was officially completely gone in 1917.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  i gainsay your contention; want to argue about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but the argument has already been done.  The Supreme Court ruling has already separated the civilian ownership from the organized militia which finishes the arming of the Organized Militia for Defense against the Tyrannical Federal Government a moot point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Judicial activism.  There is no separating the People from the Militia.  You are either, well regulated or unorganized.
> 
> Natural rights are State law issues and rely on Due Process not our federal Second Amendment.
Click to expand...



danny you are truly one dumb mother fcker


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Judicial activism. *There is no separating the People from the Militia.* *You are either, well regulated or unorganized.*


Completely retarded and goes against the PLAIN text of the 2A.

That fails to give plain meaning to two separate and distinct terms: "People" and "Militia" and completely ignores the clear meaning of "well-regulated" while also conflating "organized" which appears NOWHERE in the 2A.  

Give it up, Dan.  You're not a lawyer and you didn't sleep in a Holiday Inn last night.



danielpalos said:


> Natural rights are State law issues and rely on Due Process not our federal Second Amendment.


You have yet to provide a SINGLE STITCH of legal authority supporting this ridiculous conclusion.  

You suck, Dan.  Quit pretending to know what you're talking about.

.


----------



## teddyearp

The only real way all these so called gun control laws are legal is if the second amendment was written ike this:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear certain arms, shall not be infringed, once various changing permissions to be enumerated by Congress have been granted"

And the guys who wrote the Bill of Rights certainly had a good enough command of the language to do so.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

danielpalos said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignorance is about what is necessary for a false narrative by oppressive lunatics - not about what the U.S. Constitution actually says. Go away now, the adults are trying to talk.
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense.  Well regulated militia are expressly declared necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but the Organized Militia idea became obsolete right around the Spanish American War and was officially completely gone in 1917.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  i gainsay your contention; want to argue about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but the argument has already been done.  The Supreme Court ruling has already separated the civilian ownership from the organized militia which finishes the arming of the Organized Militia for Defense against the Tyrannical Federal Government a moot point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Judicial activism.  There is no separating the People from the Militia.  You are either, well regulated or unorganized.
> 
> Natural rights are State law issues and rely on Due Process not our federal Second Amendment.
Click to expand...


You have the right to be armed with anything that your job requires you to have if you are in the organized Militia as in, the National Guard.  As for running around the woods in a pickle suit just because it makes your johnsson feel bigger means you can only have the weapons that your state says you can have as a sillyvillian.  You can moan and bitch about it but it's the law.  Get over it or under it. I don't care which.


----------



## progressive hunter

Daryl Hunt said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense.  Well regulated militia are expressly declared necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but the Organized Militia idea became obsolete right around the Spanish American War and was officially completely gone in 1917.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  i gainsay your contention; want to argue about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but the argument has already been done.  The Supreme Court ruling has already separated the civilian ownership from the organized militia which finishes the arming of the Organized Militia for Defense against the Tyrannical Federal Government a moot point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Judicial activism.  There is no separating the People from the Militia.  You are either, well regulated or unorganized.
> 
> Natural rights are State law issues and rely on Due Process not our federal Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have the right to be armed with anything that your job requires you to have if you are in the organized Militia as in, the National Guard.  As for running around the woods in a pickle suit just because it makes your johnsson feel bigger means you can only have the weapons that your state says you can have as a sillyvillian.  You can moan and bitch about it but it's the law.  Get over it or under it. I don't care which.
Click to expand...

LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE AND SMOKES BLOWING OUT YOUR ASS

or of course you can prove that by showing where in the constitution or 2nd amendment that it says that


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Judicial activism. *There is no separating the People from the Militia.* *You are either, well regulated or unorganized.*
> 
> 
> 
> Completely retarded and goes against the PLAIN text of the 2A.
> 
> That fails to give plain meaning to two separate and distinct terms: "People" and "Militia" and completely ignores the clear meaning of "well-regulated" while also conflating "organized" which appears NOWHERE in the 2A.
> 
> Give it up, Dan.  You're not a lawyer and you didn't sleep in a Holiday Inn last night.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Natural rights are State law issues and rely on Due Process not our federal Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have yet to provide a SINGLE STITCH of legal authority supporting this ridiculous conclusion.
> 
> You suck, Dan.  Quit pretending to know what you're talking about.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I notice you don't respond to me since I HAVE given more than a stitch of legal authority to my views.  Pick on me for a change.  You will find I am more interesting.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

teddyearp said:


> The only real way all these so called gun control laws are legal is if the second amendment was written ike this:
> 
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear certain arms, shall not be infringed, once various changing permissions to be enumerated by Congress have been granted"
> 
> And the guys who wrote the Bill of Rights certainly had a good enough command of the language to do so.



What they didn't have the grasp of was the coming of technology at the rate that it did come.  Some of them saw it come late in their lifetimes and I can bet they dreaded every writing it the way they did when the first Artillery Piece or the Walker Colt hit the streets.  I don't know if any of the founding fathers was still alive in 1859 but that's when the weapons of war got stood on it's head.  There were three inventors that ushered in the revolution, Mr Gatlin, Captain Walker and Mr. Colt.  There were many others before them but those were just evolutionary dead ends so our founding Fathers really didn't have anything to base their decision on the direction that the weapons were going to go.  They had no idea that the weapons were going to get so deadly that war would become a complete slaughter.    Not in the thousands or even the tens of thousands but in the millions.


----------



## teddyearp

Daryl Hunt said:


> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only real way all these so called gun control laws are legal is if the second amendment was written ike this:
> 
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear certain arms, shall not be infringed, once various changing permissions to be enumerated by Congress have been granted"
> 
> And the guys who wrote the Bill of Rights certainly had a good enough command of the language to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What they didn't have the grasp of was the coming of technology at the rate that it did come.  Some of them saw it come late in their lifetimes and I can bet they dreaded every writing it the way they did when the first Artillery Piece or the Walker Colt hit the streets.  I don't know if any of the founding fathers was still alive in 1859 but that's when the weapons of war got stood on it's head.  There were three inventors that ushered in the revolution, Mr Gatlin, Captain Walker and Mr. Colt.  There were many others before them but those were just evolutionary dead ends so our founding Fathers really didn't have anything to base their decision on the direction that the weapons were going to go.  They had no idea that the weapons were going to get so deadly that war would become a complete slaughter.    Not in the thousands or even the tens of thousands but in the millions.
Click to expand...

If they were concerned about advances in technology, they would have written that into the amendment.  Do you REALLY think that they thought technology would stay put?  Remember, the rifled barrel was just coming into use.  There were already repeating arms in the works, though not very practical, so your argument fails.  Badly.


----------



## teddyearp

Daryl Hunt said:


> You have the right to be armed with anything that your job requires you to have if you are in the organized Militia as in, the National Guard.  As for running around the woods in a pickle suit just because it makes your johnsson feel bigger means you can only have the weapons that your state says you can have as a sillyvillian.  You can moan and bitch about it but it's the law.  Get over it or under it. I don't care which.


Ahh, the typical progressive argument that has been evolving for over a hundred years now, since Woodrow Wilson and his idea that the Constitution is a 'living' document.

Infringe my rights and I guarantee you you will be under it.  Under something, for sure.


----------



## danielpalos

progressive hunter said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense.  Well regulated militia are expressly declared necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but the Organized Militia idea became obsolete right around the Spanish American War and was officially completely gone in 1917.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  i gainsay your contention; want to argue about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but the argument has already been done.  The Supreme Court ruling has already separated the civilian ownership from the organized militia which finishes the arming of the Organized Militia for Defense against the Tyrannical Federal Government a moot point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Judicial activism.  There is no separating the People from the Militia.  You are either, well regulated or unorganized.
> 
> Natural rights are State law issues and rely on Due Process not our federal Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> danny you are truly one dumb mother fcker
Click to expand...

anybody can Talk.  you need a valid argument.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

teddyearp said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only real way all these so called gun control laws are legal is if the second amendment was written ike this:
> 
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear certain arms, shall not be infringed, once various changing permissions to be enumerated by Congress have been granted"
> 
> And the guys who wrote the Bill of Rights certainly had a good enough command of the language to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What they didn't have the grasp of was the coming of technology at the rate that it did come.  Some of them saw it come late in their lifetimes and I can bet they dreaded every writing it the way they did when the first Artillery Piece or the Walker Colt hit the streets.  I don't know if any of the founding fathers was still alive in 1859 but that's when the weapons of war got stood on it's head.  There were three inventors that ushered in the revolution, Mr Gatlin, Captain Walker and Mr. Colt.  There were many others before them but those were just evolutionary dead ends so our founding Fathers really didn't have anything to base their decision on the direction that the weapons were going to go.  They had no idea that the weapons were going to get so deadly that war would become a complete slaughter.    Not in the thousands or even the tens of thousands but in the millions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they were concerned about advances in technology, they would have written that into the amendment.  Do you REALLY think that they thought technology would stay put?  Remember, the rifled barrel was just coming into use.  There were already repeating arms in the works, though not very practical, so your argument fails.  Badly.
Click to expand...


The Barreled rifle wasn't much of a leap forward.  As for the others, let's take a look at a couple.

One had a rotating barrel with multiple barrels.  You loaded each barrel like any other musket of the day.  You had one central "Rope" to fire each barrel as they came around.  You had a lever that pulled the barrels forward, another lever that you rotated the barrels with and a central trigger.  It's malfunction rate was high to say the least.  You got about 6 rounds a minute.  When you got finished and if the battle was still going on, you abandoned it since there was no way you could rearm it in the middle of a battle and live to tell about it.  Meanwhile, the other side is using a 54 caliber black powder getting 5 shots per minute and reloading each time and will continue as long as he has the powder and shot.  Pickle tried to sell it to the Navy but it was found that the little canon was much more effective, did more damage per shot and could do 3 rounds per minute with a good gunner as long as he had powder and shot.  

There were other ones like the ones that you manually rotated the barrel.  It worked until one of the cylinders would detonate and blow the whole thing up along with your fingers.  later versions of that became the revolver shotguns and revolver rifles.  They didn't last too long either.

These were what was available for future technology of the day.  Evolutionary dead ends that stayed that way for at least a hundred years.  We are now entering into something similar with the 3d printers where anyone with one can make a functional firearm from a plan.  Luckily, the materials required haven't caught up with the process.  But it's going to happen.  When that happens, it will set a new idea of gun manufacture on it's ear.  And we have no laws to cover that either.  But today, we adjust out laws as we need to. You call it "Gun Regulation".  But it there is gun regulation everywhere except for Yemen and you see how well that is working out for them.

You shouldn't be screaming "No Gun Regulations".  Instead, you need to accept there is already some gun regulations everywhere.  You should be working on how much is required.  If you keep screaming your fight song, no one in power will bother to listen to you since it just will never happen.


----------



## progressive hunter

Daryl Hunt said:


> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only real way all these so called gun control laws are legal is if the second amendment was written ike this:
> 
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear certain arms, shall not be infringed, once various changing permissions to be enumerated by Congress have been granted"
> 
> And the guys who wrote the Bill of Rights certainly had a good enough command of the language to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What they didn't have the grasp of was the coming of technology at the rate that it did come.  Some of them saw it come late in their lifetimes and I can bet they dreaded every writing it the way they did when the first Artillery Piece or the Walker Colt hit the streets.  I don't know if any of the founding fathers was still alive in 1859 but that's when the weapons of war got stood on it's head.  There were three inventors that ushered in the revolution, Mr Gatlin, Captain Walker and Mr. Colt.  There were many others before them but those were just evolutionary dead ends so our founding Fathers really didn't have anything to base their decision on the direction that the weapons were going to go.  They had no idea that the weapons were going to get so deadly that war would become a complete slaughter.    Not in the thousands or even the tens of thousands but in the millions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they were concerned about advances in technology, they would have written that into the amendment.  Do you REALLY think that they thought technology would stay put?  Remember, the rifled barrel was just coming into use.  There were already repeating arms in the works, though not very practical, so your argument fails.  Badly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Barreled rifle wasn't much of a leap forward.  As for the others, let's take a look at a couple.
> 
> One had a rotating barrel with multiple barrels.  You loaded each barrel like any other musket of the day.  You had one central "Rope" to fire each barrel as they came around.  You had a lever that pulled the barrels forward, another lever that you rotated the barrels with and a central trigger.  It's malfunction rate was high to say the least.  You got about 6 rounds a minute.  When you got finished and if the battle was still going on, you abandoned it since there was no way you could rearm it in the middle of a battle and live to tell about it.  Meanwhile, the other side is using a 54 caliber black powder getting 5 shots per minute and reloading each time and will continue as long as he has the powder and shot.  Pickle tried to sell it to the Navy but it was found that the little canon was much more effective, did more damage per shot and could do 3 rounds per minute with a good gunner as long as he had powder and shot.
> 
> There were other ones like the ones that you manually rotated the barrel.  It worked until one of the cylinders would detonate and blow the whole thing up along with your fingers.  later versions of that became the revolver shotguns and revolver rifles.  They didn't last too long either.
> 
> These were what was available for future technology of the day.  Evolutionary dead ends that stayed that way for at least a hundred years.  We are now entering into something similar with the 3d printers where anyone with one can make a functional firearm from a plan.  Luckily, the materials required haven't caught up with the process.  But it's going to happen.  When that happens, it will set a new idea of gun manufacture on it's ear.  And we have no laws to cover that either.  But today, we adjust out laws as we need to. You call it "Gun Regulation".  But it there is gun regulation everywhere except for Yemen and you see how well that is working out for them.
> 
> You shouldn't be screaming "No Gun Regulations".  Instead, you need to accept there is already some gun regulations everywhere.  You should be working on how much is required.  If you keep screaming your fight song, no one in power will bother to listen to you since it just will never happen.
Click to expand...

LIAR!!!


----------



## Daryl Hunt

teddyearp said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have the right to be armed with anything that your job requires you to have if you are in the organized Militia as in, the National Guard.  As for running around the woods in a pickle suit just because it makes your johnsson feel bigger means you can only have the weapons that your state says you can have as a sillyvillian.  You can moan and bitch about it but it's the law.  Get over it or under it. I don't care which.
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh, the typical progressive argument that has been evolving for over a hundred years now, since Woodrow Wilson and his idea that the Constitution is a 'living' document.
> 
> Infringe my rights and I guarantee you you will be under it.  Under something, for sure.
Click to expand...


Care to S'Plain where you get those rights from , Lucy?  Did you get them from your God?  Does that mean that Atheists don't have those same rights?  Or if someone with the wrong God have different rights?  Or are you talking about Morals and Ethics.


----------



## progressive hunter

Daryl Hunt said:


> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have the right to be armed with anything that your job requires you to have if you are in the organized Militia as in, the National Guard.  As for running around the woods in a pickle suit just because it makes your johnsson feel bigger means you can only have the weapons that your state says you can have as a sillyvillian.  You can moan and bitch about it but it's the law.  Get over it or under it. I don't care which.
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh, the typical progressive argument that has been evolving for over a hundred years now, since Woodrow Wilson and his idea that the Constitution is a 'living' document.
> 
> Infringe my rights and I guarantee you you will be under it.  Under something, for sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Care to S'Plain where you get those rights from , Lucy?  Did you get them from your God?  Does that mean that Atheists don't have those same rights?  Or if someone with the wrong God have different rights?  Or are you talking about Morals and Ethics.
Click to expand...

CRAZY AND A LIAR


----------



## Lakhota

The 2nd Amendment is a poorly worded relic from when old men wrote with feathers.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

teddyearp said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have the right to be armed with anything that your job requires you to have if you are in the organized Militia as in, the National Guard.  As for running around the woods in a pickle suit just because it makes your johnsson feel bigger means you can only have the weapons that your state says you can have as a sillyvillian.  You can moan and bitch about it but it's the law.  Get over it or under it. I don't care which.
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh, the typical progressive argument that has been evolving for over a hundred years now, since Woodrow Wilson and his idea that the Constitution is a 'living' document.
> 
> Infringe my rights and I guarantee you you will be under it.  Under something, for sure.
Click to expand...

Ahh, the ignorance typical of most on the right who fail to understand the doctrine of judicial review and the interpretive authority of the courts.

The Constitution is neither ‘static’ nor ‘living’ – ‘originalism’ is wrongheaded idiocy, and it was the intent of the Framers that the Supreme Court determine what the Constitution means, including the Second Amendment.

No right is ‘unlimited,’ including the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment, and government has the authority to place limits and restrictions on those rights consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence – where such restrictions and limitations in no manner ‘infringe’ on your right to possess a firearm.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

teddyearp said:


> The only real way all these so called gun control laws are legal is if the second amendment was written ike this:
> 
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear certain arms, shall not be infringed, once various changing permissions to be enumerated by Congress have been granted"
> 
> And the guys who wrote the Bill of Rights certainly had a good enough command of the language to do so.


Wrong.

Firearm regulatory measures are Constitutional because the courts have determined those measures to be in compliance with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

Indeed, acts of government are presumed to be Constitutional until the courts rule otherwise, out of deference for the will of the people (see _US v. Morrison_ (2000)).

And as long as government enacts firearm regulatory measures consistent with Second Amendment case law, they are perfectly legal, enforceable, and Constitutional.


----------



## teddyearp

Daryl Hunt said:


> The Barreled rifle wasn't much of a leap forward.  As for the others, let's take a look at a couple.



Hahaha.  I'll just stop right here.  Even muskets were barrelled ace.  Thank you for showing how right I was as well by explaining the details of the repeating arms of the day that I already descibed quite easily as not practical.  It was rifling of the barrel, in case you do need to know.

As far as 'Gun Regulation', yes I realize that I am barking up a tree.  I just thought maybe someone with a brain would stop and think, "Hmm, if gun regulation was what the founding fathers wanted, they may have written the second amendment different".  Because, yes there is case law, etc., but where does it now stop?

But, I can see there's not many thinkers in this thread.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Firearm regulatory measures are Constitutional because the courts have determined those measures to be in compliance with Second Amendment jurisprudence.


They have INCORRECTLY determined that infringement is not infringement.


----------



## progressive hunter

Lakhota said:


> The 2nd Amendment is a poorly worded relic from when old men wrote with feathers.


so says the communist 230 yrs later


it was written to stand the test of time by men that saw tyranny for what it is,,,EVIL


----------



## Daryl Hunt

teddyearp said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Barreled rifle wasn't much of a leap forward.  As for the others, let's take a look at a couple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hahaha.  I'll just stop right here.  Even muskets were barrelled ace.  Thank you for showing how right I was as well by explaining the details of the repeating arms of the day that I already descibed quite easily as not practical.  It was rifling of the barrel, in case you do need to know.
> 
> As far as 'Gun Regulation', yes I realize that I am barking up a tree.  I just thought maybe someone with a brain would stop and think, "Hmm, if gun regulation was what the founding fathers wanted, they may have written the second amendment different".  Because, yes there is case law, etc., but where does it now stop?
> 
> But, I can see there's not many thinkers in this thread.
Click to expand...


You ready to go back to school?  Did I leave off that I am a Military Historian?

If you checked, the British used Smooth Bore for the most part.  They primarily used the Brown Bess.  Yes, there were a few experimental  Ferguson Rifles but only 100 made it into special rifle squads starting in 1777 but were very expensive and were quickly removed from service due to Lord Ferguson dying in the Battle of the Mountain Kings. Very few made it to the Colonies.   It wasn't until the early 1800s that the British had a large compliment of rifle barreled British Baker Rifles.

Meanwhile, the Colonies were much better off.  The Jaeger or   Pennsylvania Rifles was used by Colonial Snipers and light infantry.  GW didn't care for them but he learned to live with it since those rifles turned many a sour battle to his advantage.  Note the word Rifle in the name.  Sometimes these get misnamed the Kentucky Long Rifle which was very popular for back woods due to their extra range and knockdown power.  Funny, the Jeagers were not shown to the Brits. They were Colonial Made.    They were kept hidden. Instead, the Brits were shown the home grown Brown Besses except there were any maker's mark like US or the like.  The new Congress was very much aware of the Jaeger Rifle and funded heavily for them in spite of GWs protests.  But made sure that the Brits were aware of the Brown Besses as well that they also funded.  

One of the problems the British had was, they would form up past the distance of the Brown bess and prepare to engage at a safe distance thinking they were safe only to have their officers to be sniped by the Jaeger snipers.  Don't think the Snipers got off scot free.  The Artillery had more range and would start firing and they snipers would have to withdraw of die.  The Brits learned to lay canon fire down while their troops were forming to stop the snipers.  But once the closure happened. the Colonial Jaeger equipped Snipers could fire from elevated areas outside the canon or brown bess range and pick off the Officers which caused real havoc in the ranks.

Musket didn't have rifling.  Otherwise, they would not have been called Muskets.  They would have been called Rifles.


----------



## teddyearp

Daryl Hunt said:


> You ready to go back to school?  Did I leave off that I am a Military Historian?



Thank you for the refresher.  I love it when one implies that I am ignorant of various facts just because I do not go into all the details.  Omission on my part by no means imparts ignorance.  But I have noticed that those who feel the need to brag about how much they know and/or are educated never fail to flail it in others' faces.  I was the kid who never had to study to get straight A's, always the first done with the tests, the first to get bored in class.  But that means I know enough to know how little I really do know and have not one thing to brag about.  But if you feel better now, good for you.


----------



## teddyearp

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Firearm regulatory measures are Constitutional because the courts have determined those measures to be in compliance with Second Amendment jurisprudence.
> 
> 
> 
> They have INCORRECTLY determined that infringement is not infringement.
Click to expand...




progressive hunter said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd Amendment is a poorly worded relic from when old men wrote with feathers.
> 
> 
> 
> so says the communist 230 yrs later
> 
> 
> it was written to stand the test of time by men that saw tyranny for what it is,,,EVIL
Click to expand...


Well, I take it back, there are a couple of thinkers in this thread.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> The People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense. Well regulated militia are expressly declared necessary to the security of a free State.


...and because a well-regulated militia is necessary.....the right of the people (meaning ALL people, not a particular militia or specifically defined group of people) shall not be infringed.


----------



## teddyearp

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense. Well regulated militia are expressly declared necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> 
> 
> ...and because a well-regulated militia is necessary.....the right of the people (meaning ALL people, not a particular militia or specifically defined group of people) shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...


To elaborate, at the time, militia clearly referred to the able bodied citizens (the People) and not Soldiers or members of an organized armed group; a quick look to the third amendment proves that there was and is a difference.

Actually, it is asinine to assume that 'militia' in the second amendment refers only to say the National Guard or military.  Why would a government need to make sure that their military's right to keep and bear arms was not infringed?  That flies in the face of all logic and common sense.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

teddyearp said:


> To elaborate, at the time, militia clearly referred to the able bodied citizens (the People) and not Soldiers or members of an organized armed group; a quick look to the third amendment proves that there was and is a difference.


To elaborate even further, the militia included able-bodied men.  The People included every man, woman, or child.  The right of the PEOPLE was preserved, not the militia.


----------



## danielpalos

Lakhota said:


> The 2nd Amendment is a poorly worded relic from when old men wrote with feathers.


Our Founding Fathers did an most Excellent job with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.  

There is _nothing_ ambiguous about it.  

Just lousy right wing comprehension.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense. Well regulated militia are expressly declared necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> 
> 
> ...and because a well-regulated militia is necessary.....the right of the people (meaning ALL people, not a particular militia or specifically defined group of people) shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...

No reason to ban the People from keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> 
> To elaborate, at the time, militia clearly referred to the able bodied citizens (the People) and not Soldiers or members of an organized armed group; a quick look to the third amendment proves that there was and is a difference.
> 
> 
> 
> To elaborate even further, the militia included able-bodied men.  The People included every man, woman, or child.  The right of the PEOPLE was preserved, not the militia.
Click to expand...

Our original Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Our original Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral.


I agree.

But, "militia" has always referred to able-bodied men.  Not women.  Not disabled.

That's why "people" is distinct from "militia."  

The PEOPLE have the right.  Not the militia.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our original Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.
> 
> But, "militia" has always referred to able-bodied men.  Not women.  Not disabled.
> 
> That's why "people" is distinct from "militia."
> 
> The PEOPLE have the right.  Not the militia.
Click to expand...

not in our Constitution for the citizens in the several States.


----------



## teddyearp

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> 
> To elaborate, at the time, militia clearly referred to the able bodied citizens (the People) and not Soldiers or members of an organized armed group; a quick look to the third amendment proves that there was and is a difference.
> 
> 
> 
> To elaborate even further, the militia included able-bodied men.  The People included every man, woman, or child.  The right of the PEOPLE was preserved, not the militia.
Click to expand...

Like I said, there are some thinkers in this thread after all.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> not in our Constitution for the citizens in the several States.


What are you trying to argue here, Dan?

Are you arguing that people are not people?  Are you arguing that "people" doesn't mean people?


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> not in our Constitution for the citizens in the several States.
> 
> 
> 
> What are you trying to argue here, Dan?
> 
> Are you arguing that people are not people?  Are you arguing that "people" doesn't mean people?
Click to expand...

The People are the Militia.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

teddyearp said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You ready to go back to school?  Did I leave off that I am a Military Historian?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for the refresher.  I love it when one implies that I am ignorant of various facts just because I do not go into all the details.  Omission on my part by no means imparts ignorance.  But I have noticed that those who feel the need to brag about how much they know and/or are educated never fail to flail it in others' faces.  I was the kid who never had to study to get straight A's, always the first done with the tests, the first to get bored in class.  But that means I know enough to know how little I really do know and have not one thing to brag about.  But if you feel better now, good for you.
Click to expand...


Be careful who you talk down to.  You may just be standing on your head.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> The People are the Militia.


And the militia are the people?

who has the right?

.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia.
> 
> 
> 
> And the militia are the people?
> 
> who has the right?
> 
> .
Click to expand...

if it is about the security of a free State, well regulated militia of the whole People are declared necessary.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> if it is about the security of a free State, well regulated militia of the whole People are declared necessary.


...and what do they do to preserve the security of a free state?

Prohibit the infringement on the right of the people.....not the militia or any other bullshit collective argument that is unsupported by every imaginable legal authority.

Again, how did the founders provide for the security of a free state?  

They prohibited the infringement of the right of the people.

One more time:

What did the founders do to provide for the security of a free state?

Prohibited infringement of the right of the people.


----------



## teddyearp

Daryl Hunt said:


> Be careful who you talk down to.  You may just be standing on your head.



I was talking up to you for your refresher and must be superior knowledge.


----------



## Lesh

Lakhota said:


> The 2nd Amendment is a poorly worded relic from when old men wrote with feathers.


The 2A is worded perfectly and reflects the (at the time) need for a militia because of the distrust the Founders had of a standing "regular" Army. That militia is described in both it's make up and it's purpose in Article 2 Section 8 and in essence no longer applies with the advent of modern war and the reformation of the militia with the Dick Act.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> if it is about the security of a free State, well regulated militia of the whole People are declared necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> ...and what do they do to preserve the security of a free state?
> 
> Prohibit the infringement on the right of the people.....not the militia or any other bullshit collective argument that is unsupported by every imaginable legal authority.
> 
> Again, how did the founders provide for the security of a free state?
> 
> They prohibited the infringement of the right of the people.
> 
> One more time:
> 
> What did the founders do to provide for the security of a free state?
> 
> Prohibited infringement of the right of the people.
Click to expand...

Our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself;

it amends this:  _To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
_
Well regulated militia of the whole People are Necessary and may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


----------



## Lesh

You seem to be confusing Article two Section eight with the 2A.

Article 2 Section 8 describes the duties and make up of the "well regulated militia" mentioned in the 2A


----------



## danielpalos

Lesh said:


> You seem to be confusing Article two Section eight with the 2A.
> 
> Article 2 Section 8 describes the duties and make up of the "well regulated militia" mentioned in the 2A


what are you talking about?


----------



## PoliticalChic

teddyearp said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense. Well regulated militia are expressly declared necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> 
> 
> ...and because a well-regulated militia is necessary.....the right of the people (meaning ALL people, not a particular militia or specifically defined group of people) shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To elaborate, at the time, militia clearly referred to the able bodied citizens (the People) and not Soldiers or members of an organized armed group; a quick look to the third amendment proves that there was and is a difference.
> 
> Actually, it is asinine to assume that 'militia' in the second amendment refers only to say the National Guard or military.  Why would a government need to make sure that their military's right to keep and bear arms was not infringed?  That flies in the face of all logic and common sense.
Click to expand...



"....militia clearly referred to the able bodied citizens (the People) and not Soldiers or members of an organized armed group;..."


Pretty much still does.


The Supreme Court, in US v. Miller, (1939) “…militia system…implied the general obligation of all adult male inhabitants to possess arms, and, with certain exceptions, to cooperate in the work of defence.” It concluded that the militia was primarily civilians.


Today, federal law defines “the militia of the United States” to include all able-bodied males from 17 to 45 and members of the National Guard up to age 64, but excluding those who have no intention of becoming citizens, and active military personnel. (US Code Title 10, sect. 311-313)
[10 U.S. Code § 311 -  Exchange of defense personnel between United States and friendly foreign countries: authority]


----------



## danielpalos

thank Goodness political chics aren't "gunnys" and love "breaking in the new guys".


----------



## Markle

Rigby5 said:


> What it means is that in order to prevent gays from marrying, you have to prove it would harm someone else if they did marry.
> And I don't think anyone can come up with any harm that would cause others.
> 
> For pot to be illegal, you have to prove pot users harm others, which again I think is impossible to show.
> 
> Since police not only have guns, but an incredibly bad history of abusing guns, clearly there is not legal means by which the government can restrict guns.



With all of the above, it is easy to prove harm to others and/or you are flat out wrong.

As you know, marijuana does great harm to others.  The problem seems to be that America has devolved to the point where more people would prefer to be stoned than clear-headed and working toward goals.  Sad.

Marijuana causes a disruption in the brain of young people up to the age of 25.  Do you believe that does no harm to others?  How?

Saying that police have, "an incredibly bad history of abusing guns", is an outright lie.  The reason it makes news is that it is such an infinitesimal fraction of what happens.  For example, does the news report all the shootings, drive-by shooting, murders and injured on the South Side of Chicago?  What about all the gang violence in other cities?  Nothing.  If there is an outrageous weekend, THAT makes the news.

Yesterday a Delta Airlines flight suddenly dropped twice, 30,000 feet.  Several people were injured, carts flew everywhere.  Why did it make the news?  Because it is so INCREDIBLY RARE.  The airlines' record of safety has gotten so good that even a plane that does not crash, goes through incredible turbulence and still lands safely, IS NEWS.


----------



## Markle

Lakhota said:


> So, it doesn't bother you that scanners can't detect 3-D plastic guns at airports?
> 
> There are many reasons for alarm, as I explained in an expert declaration filed in the states’ lawsuit. First, a plastic firearm would rarely be detectable by metal detectors, which are the standard public safety protocol at airports, stadiums, concert halls, public buildings like courthouses, and, increasingly, schools. Although the federal Undetectable Firearms Act requires guns to include enough metal to set off a metal detector, the requirement can be evaded easily by simply not including the non-operable piece of metal in the 3D-printed gun. And for those who say that plastic firearms are ineffective because of their propensity to blow up, a 2013 test by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives of Defense Distributed’s 3D-printed handgun, the “Liberator,” showed it fired without fail all eight times it was tested.
> 
> 3D-Printed Plastic Guns: Five Reasons to Worry



Specifically, what is your point?


----------



## Markle

watchingfromafar said:


> The problem with your approach is that you don’t know who the rapier’s, robber’s and murderers are until after the crime has been committed. If you want to stop an unlawful use of gun’s then you need background checks and the like before the weapon is sold.
> 
> I cannot imagine why you would reject this approach?



Did you really post that, knowing what it says?  You seem to go out of your way to destroy your own post.

By the way, a rapier is a type of sword.  Rapier's means something that belongs to the Rapier.    Rapists is the plural form of Rapist.

When did "rapier's [rapists], robber's [robbers] and murders" go into a legitimate gun store, fill out an application for a gun, have a background check and wait whatever the time period is, then go back and pick up the weapon?

You really believe that?


----------



## Markle

waltky said:


> Maybe not obsolete but antiquated, out of date...
> 
> ... it needs to be updated to reflect the times...
> 
> ... and the threat of overkill firepower...
> 
> ... for the average citizen.



Please be specific.  What is it about the Second Amendment that you feel is "antiquated, out of date..."?  What would you do to update it to reflect the times and why?

What is, "the threat of overkill firepower...for the average citizen"?


----------



## watchingfromafar

Markle said:


> As you know, marijuana does great harm to others. The problem seems to be that America has devolved to the point where more people would prefer to be stoned than clear-headed and working toward goals. Sad.



Have you ever tried it; just to see what this is all about-?

I have, (not a regular smoker but have tried it); I found it hard or impossible to be "angry" while under its influence. 
Do you have any real evidence where someone who was "high" committed a crime or injured someone-?

Just asking -


----------



## watchingfromafar

_*Markle*_ stated-------

"_Comey said Clinton wasn’t sophisticated enough to understand what information was classified and what wasn’t."_

Republicons determined that Hillary’s email did not disclose classified information.

Having said that~~~~ *Trump* disclosed the name of an FBI agent working undercover in a foreign country. Once disclosed, this person’s cover was blown, his life was in jeopardy and had to return to the USA ASAP!!

maybe they promised Trump a Trump Tower in their country?


----------



## watchingfromafar

*Just for the record****************

Can anyone produce evidence where a person was being robbed or threatened in some way and the person being threatened had a firearm which this person used to defend himself or herself-?

Just ONE example will do.

Just asking -


----------



## Markle

watchingfromafar said:


> *Just for the record****************
> 
> Can anyone produce evidence where a person was being robbed or threatened in some way and the person being threatened had a firearm which this person used to defend himself or herself-?
> 
> Just ONE example will do.
> 
> Just asking -



As you know, the CDC did a study with the intention of using it to bring about more gun laws.  The actual results went contrary to their initial beliefs so it was kept under cover.  Finally, it came out.

Please watingfromafar, show me what is NOT true.  

*CDC RELEASES STUDY ON GUN VIOLENCE: DEFENSIVE GUN USE COMMON, MASS SHOOTINGS NOT*
06/27/13 7:31 AM | by Jennifer Cruz

[...]

Yet the study also looked at the effect of having firearms available for self-defense, and found that firearms are much more likely to be used in a defensive manner rather than for criminal or violent activity.

“Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”

It was also discovered that when guns are used in self-defense the victims consistently have lower injury rates than those who are unarmed, even compared with those who used other forms of self-defense.

The study admitted that the results of interventions for reducing gun violence have been mixed, including strategies such as background checks and restriction of certain types of firearms, as well as having stricter penalties for illegal gun use. However, the study did reveal that “unauthorized gun possession or use is associated with higher rates of firearm violence than legal possession of guns.” In other words, law-breaking criminals are the ones most responsible for gun violence, not law-abiding citizens.

The study also looked at the source of guns used by most criminals, which helps to see partly why “there is empirical evidence that gun turn in programs are ineffective.”

“More recent prisoner surveys suggest that stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals. …  According to a 1997 survey of inmates, approximately 70 percent of the guns used or possessed by criminals at the time of their arrest came from family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market.”

[...]

CDC Releases Study on Gun Violence: Defensive gun use common, mass shootings not


----------



## watchingfromafar

Markle said:


> As you know, the CDC did a study with the intention of using it to bring about more gun laws.



You didn't answer my question.

Your study did not provide one example of someone defending themselves against a crime using a gun. Generalities are not facts; I could use Trump as a good example,

Can anyone produce evidence where a person was being robbed or threatened in some way and the person being threatened had a firearm which this person used to defend himself or herself-?

Just ONE example will do.

Just asking -


----------



## watchingfromafar

Markle said:


> Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) Comey said Clinton wasn’t sophisticated enough to understand what information was classified and what wasn’t.



But, but,,but,,but,,but,,but,,but,,but,, Clinton did not email any classified information.
*End Of Da Myth
-*​


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Markle said:


> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Just for the record****************
> 
> Can anyone produce evidence where a person was being robbed or threatened in some way and the person being threatened had a firearm which this person used to defend himself or herself-?
> 
> Just ONE example will do.
> 
> Just asking -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you know, the CDC did a study with the intention of using it to bring about more gun laws.  The actual results went contrary to their initial beliefs so it was kept under cover.  Finally, it came out.
> 
> Please watingfromafar, show me what is NOT true.
> 
> *CDC RELEASES STUDY ON GUN VIOLENCE: DEFENSIVE GUN USE COMMON, MASS SHOOTINGS NOT*
> 06/27/13 7:31 AM | by Jennifer Cruz
> 
> [...]
> 
> Yet the study also looked at the effect of having firearms available for self-defense, and found that firearms are much more likely to be used in a defensive manner rather than for criminal or violent activity.
> 
> “Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”
> 
> It was also discovered that when guns are used in self-defense the victims consistently have lower injury rates than those who are unarmed, even compared with those who used other forms of self-defense.
> 
> The study admitted that the results of interventions for reducing gun violence have been mixed, including strategies such as background checks and restriction of certain types of firearms, as well as having stricter penalties for illegal gun use. However, the study did reveal that “unauthorized gun possession or use is associated with higher rates of firearm violence than legal possession of guns.” In other words, law-breaking criminals are the ones most responsible for gun violence, not law-abiding citizens.
> 
> The study also looked at the source of guns used by most criminals, which helps to see partly why “there is empirical evidence that gun turn in programs are ineffective.”
> 
> “More recent prisoner surveys suggest that stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals. …  According to a 1997 survey of inmates, approximately 70 percent of the guns used or possessed by criminals at the time of their arrest came from family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market.”
> 
> [...]
> 
> CDC Releases Study on Gun Violence: Defensive gun use common, mass shootings not
Click to expand...


One huge problem.  I keep seeing this being cited over and over.  yet the only time anyone has shown a url to it lead to a "Page not Found".  It doesn't exist.  It's made up.  Find me the original CDC report and then I can discuss it with you.  Until then, it's just a lot of people just making shit up.


----------



## Markle

Daryl Hunt said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Just for the record****************
> 
> Can anyone produce evidence where a person was being robbed or threatened in some way and the person being threatened had a firearm which this person used to defend himself or herself-?
> 
> Just ONE example will do.
> 
> Just asking -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you know, the CDC did a study with the intention of using it to bring about more gun laws.  The actual results went contrary to their initial beliefs so it was kept under cover.  Finally, it came out.
> 
> Please watingfromafar, show me what is NOT true.
> 
> *CDC RELEASES STUDY ON GUN VIOLENCE: DEFENSIVE GUN USE COMMON, MASS SHOOTINGS NOT*
> 06/27/13 7:31 AM | by Jennifer Cruz
> 
> [...]
> 
> Yet the study also looked at the effect of having firearms available for self-defense, and found that firearms are much more likely to be used in a defensive manner rather than for criminal or violent activity.
> 
> “Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”
> 
> It was also discovered that when guns are used in self-defense the victims consistently have lower injury rates than those who are unarmed, even compared with those who used other forms of self-defense.
> 
> The study admitted that the results of interventions for reducing gun violence have been mixed, including strategies such as background checks and restriction of certain types of firearms, as well as having stricter penalties for illegal gun use. However, the study did reveal that “unauthorized gun possession or use is associated with higher rates of firearm violence than legal possession of guns.” In other words, law-breaking criminals are the ones most responsible for gun violence, not law-abiding citizens.
> 
> The study also looked at the source of guns used by most criminals, which helps to see partly why “there is empirical evidence that gun turn in programs are ineffective.”
> 
> “More recent prisoner surveys suggest that stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals. …  According to a 1997 survey of inmates, approximately 70 percent of the guns used or possessed by criminals at the time of their arrest came from family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market.”
> 
> [...]
> 
> CDC Releases Study on Gun Violence: Defensive gun use common, mass shootings not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One huge problem.  I keep seeing this being cited over and over.  yet the only time anyone has shown a url to it lead to a "Page not Found".  It doesn't exist.  It's made up.  Find me the original CDC report and then I can discuss it with you.  Until then, it's just a lot of people just making shit up.
Click to expand...


If you've seen it frequently cited, and you question its authenticity, why not find it yourself?  My guess is that you've already found it and just refuse to acknowledge the fact.


----------



## Markle

watchingfromafar said:


> *Just for the record****************
> 
> Can anyone produce evidence where a person was being robbed or threatened in some way and the person being threatened had a firearm which this person used to defend himself or herself-?
> 
> Just ONE example will do.
> 
> Just asking -



Thank you for giving me the opportunity to post this proving you are wrong and for others to enjoy!

*CONVICTED MURDERER FATALLY SHOT DURING HOME INVASION (VIDEO)*
02/15/19 9:30 AM | by Chris Eger

A North Carolina man with an extensive criminal record was slain as he and two others reportedly tried to rob an area home.

Convicted murderer fatally shot by resident during home invasion (VIDEO)


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself;
> 
> it amends this: _To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> _
> Well regulated militia of the whole People are Necessary and may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


So, the Union's government cannot infringe on the right of the militia to keep and bear arms for the Union?

The Federal Government must NOT stop itself from having an army of the people?

Why the FUCK did the founders feel it necessary to protect the federal government from itself?


Your argument is WRONG and STUPID.  

.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Markle said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Just for the record****************
> 
> Can anyone produce evidence where a person was being robbed or threatened in some way and the person being threatened had a firearm which this person used to defend himself or herself-?
> 
> Just ONE example will do.
> 
> Just asking -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you know, the CDC did a study with the intention of using it to bring about more gun laws.  The actual results went contrary to their initial beliefs so it was kept under cover.  Finally, it came out.
> 
> Please watingfromafar, show me what is NOT true.
> 
> *CDC RELEASES STUDY ON GUN VIOLENCE: DEFENSIVE GUN USE COMMON, MASS SHOOTINGS NOT*
> 06/27/13 7:31 AM | by Jennifer Cruz
> 
> [...]
> 
> Yet the study also looked at the effect of having firearms available for self-defense, and found that firearms are much more likely to be used in a defensive manner rather than for criminal or violent activity.
> 
> “Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”
> 
> It was also discovered that when guns are used in self-defense the victims consistently have lower injury rates than those who are unarmed, even compared with those who used other forms of self-defense.
> 
> The study admitted that the results of interventions for reducing gun violence have been mixed, including strategies such as background checks and restriction of certain types of firearms, as well as having stricter penalties for illegal gun use. However, the study did reveal that “unauthorized gun possession or use is associated with higher rates of firearm violence than legal possession of guns.” In other words, law-breaking criminals are the ones most responsible for gun violence, not law-abiding citizens.
> 
> The study also looked at the source of guns used by most criminals, which helps to see partly why “there is empirical evidence that gun turn in programs are ineffective.”
> 
> “More recent prisoner surveys suggest that stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals. …  According to a 1997 survey of inmates, approximately 70 percent of the guns used or possessed by criminals at the time of their arrest came from family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market.”
> 
> [...]
> 
> CDC Releases Study on Gun Violence: Defensive gun use common, mass shootings not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One huge problem.  I keep seeing this being cited over and over.  yet the only time anyone has shown a url to it lead to a "Page not Found".  It doesn't exist.  It's made up.  Find me the original CDC report and then I can discuss it with you.  Until then, it's just a lot of people just making shit up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you've seen it frequently cited, and you question its authenticity, why not find it yourself?  My guess is that you've already found it and just refuse to acknowledge the fact.
Click to expand...


Then you would be wrong.  One can't find something that doesn't exist.  Since you keep citing it, YOU find it and tell the rest of where it is so we can view it.  As I stated, one person claimed to have found it only to have his line read "Page Not Found".  The reason it doesn't exist, Congress got wind of it and found that the CDC was playing politics and stopped them before the CDC had a chance to publish their "Report".


----------



## Rigby5

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to me DC vs Heller is pretty clear.
> 
> {...
> _Held: _
> 
> 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
> ...}
> 
> That would seem to apply to a shotgun or AR as well as a pistol.
> Pistols are less common for home defense than a rifle or shotgun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Federals have no say in that.  And you are right, the 2nd amendment does deny the Federals from denying you the right to those weapons.  But under the 2nd, 10th and 14th amendment, the state does have that right as long as they do it by being specific.  For instance, banning the AR-15 by describing the weapon in a general description has been found to be unconstitutional because it also grabs so many other guns.  But if you use the phrase "AR-15 and it's various clones" that stands up in court and does become a constitutional law.
Click to expand...


It can stand up in court for not being arbitrary as to the definition of what is banned, but not why it need to be banned.
There are about 30,000 shooting deaths a year, and only a couple hundred are with all rifles, much less ARs.
Almost all the deaths are pistol related.
And clearly an AR is a much better and safer home defense weapon, as there are going to be less accidental shoots from a 2 handed over a 1 handed weapon.

Small side point, but remember states do not have rights.
They only have delegated authority that comes from their defense of the rights of individuals.
But I understood that is likely what you meant.


----------



## WheelieAddict

I will hunt until I die, Leave me and my guns alone. I've almost perfected venison jerky.


----------



## Rigby5

Daryl Hunt said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Just for the record****************
> 
> Can anyone produce evidence where a person was being robbed or threatened in some way and the person being threatened had a firearm which this person used to defend himself or herself-?
> 
> Just ONE example will do.
> 
> Just asking -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you know, the CDC did a study with the intention of using it to bring about more gun laws.  The actual results went contrary to their initial beliefs so it was kept under cover.  Finally, it came out.
> 
> Please watingfromafar, show me what is NOT true.
> 
> *CDC RELEASES STUDY ON GUN VIOLENCE: DEFENSIVE GUN USE COMMON, MASS SHOOTINGS NOT*
> 06/27/13 7:31 AM | by Jennifer Cruz
> 
> [...]
> 
> Yet the study also looked at the effect of having firearms available for self-defense, and found that firearms are much more likely to be used in a defensive manner rather than for criminal or violent activity.
> 
> “Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”
> 
> It was also discovered that when guns are used in self-defense the victims consistently have lower injury rates than those who are unarmed, even compared with those who used other forms of self-defense.
> 
> The study admitted that the results of interventions for reducing gun violence have been mixed, including strategies such as background checks and restriction of certain types of firearms, as well as having stricter penalties for illegal gun use. However, the study did reveal that “unauthorized gun possession or use is associated with higher rates of firearm violence than legal possession of guns.” In other words, law-breaking criminals are the ones most responsible for gun violence, not law-abiding citizens.
> 
> The study also looked at the source of guns used by most criminals, which helps to see partly why “there is empirical evidence that gun turn in programs are ineffective.”
> 
> “More recent prisoner surveys suggest that stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals. …  According to a 1997 survey of inmates, approximately 70 percent of the guns used or possessed by criminals at the time of their arrest came from family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market.”
> 
> [...]
> 
> CDC Releases Study on Gun Violence: Defensive gun use common, mass shootings not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One huge problem.  I keep seeing this being cited over and over.  yet the only time anyone has shown a url to it lead to a "Page not Found".  It doesn't exist.  It's made up.  Find me the original CDC report and then I can discuss it with you.  Until then, it's just a lot of people just making shit up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you've seen it frequently cited, and you question its authenticity, why not find it yourself?  My guess is that you've already found it and just refuse to acknowledge the fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you would be wrong.  One can't find something that doesn't exist.  Since you keep citing it, YOU find it and tell the rest of where it is so we can view it.  As I stated, one person claimed to have found it only to have his line read "Page Not Found".  The reason it doesn't exist, Congress got wind of it and found that the CDC was playing politics and stopped them before the CDC had a chance to publish their "Report".
Click to expand...



This article seems to prove such a CDC study did not and could not exist.

Spending Bill Lets CDC Study Gun Violence; But Researchers Are Skeptical It Will Help


----------



## Lesh

WheelieAddict said:


> I will hunt until I die, Leave me and my guns alone. I've almost perfected venison jerky.


Don't tell me you hunt with an AR.

Hunting weapons are fine...as long as they are properly registered and background checks performed.

I own several


----------



## Lesh

Rigby5 said:


> This article seems to prove such a CDC study did not and could not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> Spending Bill Lets CDC Study Gun Violence; But Researchers Are Skeptical It Will Help



But researchers who study gun violence are unimpressed.


"There's no funding. There's no agreement to provide funding. There isn't even encouragement. No big questions get answered, and there's nothing here, yet, of significance for the research community," says Dr. Garen Wintemute, a well-known expert on gun violence and a professor of emergency medicine at the University of California, Davis.

"I'm not particularly optimistic that anything will change," says Daniel Webster, a researcher at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.


----------



## Lesh

That is because, back in 1996, Congress passed something called the Dickey Amendment. It said that none of the funds given to the CDC for injury prevention could be used to advocate for or promote gun control. The law came along with a cut in funding that delivered a powerful message: Pursue research on hot-button questions about guns and face the wrath of lawmakers who control the agency's funding.


"At a time when we were just beginning to do good science around how to protect ourselves and better understand the risk and the benefit from owning and using firearms, language was put on the federal budget which had a chilling effect and, in effect, stopped research dead in its tracks," says Dr. Georges Benjamin, who is the executive director of the American Public Health Association.

Jay Dickey, the Arkansas Republican and former lawmaker whom the federal amendment is named for, later told NPR that he regretted it. "It wasn't necessary that all research stop," Dickey explained. "It just couldn't be the collection of data so that they can advocate gun control. That's all we were talking about. But for some reason,* it just stopped altogether."*


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself;
> 
> it amends this: _To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> _
> Well regulated militia of the whole People are Necessary and may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> So, the Union's government cannot infringe on the right of the militia to keep and bear arms for the Union?
> 
> The Federal Government must NOT stop itself from having an army of the people?
> 
> Why the FUCK did the founders feel it necessary to protect the federal government from itself?
> 
> 
> Your argument is WRONG and STUPID.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

making up arguments and claiming you are right only works in right wing fantasy. 

otherwise, all you have is an appeal to ignorance.  why not read our Constitution, first.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Markle said:


> If you've seen it frequently cited, and you question its authenticity, why not find it yourself?



I thought you were the expert & I was hoping you could reach down into your archives and post it here. It seems I was wrong, you are just parroting a one-liner talking point with no substance.



Markle said:


> My guess is that you've already found it and just refuse to acknowledge the fact.



Yes, your honesty is finally showing; you are “guessing”

-


----------



## watchingfromafar

Rigby5 said:


> And clearly an AR is a much better and safer home defense



And yet you cannot provide one instance where someone used an AR to defend themselves or their family; not one.


----------



## Blues Man

watchingfromafar said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And clearly an AR is a much better and safer home defense
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you cannot provide one instance where someone used an AR to defend themselves or their family; not one.
Click to expand...

 
Here's 8

8 Times Law-Abiding Citizens Saved Lives With an AR-15


----------



## Pilot1

Lesh said:


> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will hunt until I die, Leave me and my guns alone. I've almost perfected venison jerky.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't tell me you hunt with an AR.
> 
> Hunting weapons are fine...as long as they are properly registered and background checks performed.
> 
> I own several
Click to expand...


Yes, I hunt with an AR, but that is NOT the reason for the 2A, never was about hunting.  Read, learn, and educate yourself.


----------



## Blues Man

Lesh said:


> That is because, back in 1996, Congress passed something called the Dickey Amendment. It said that none of the funds given to the CDC for injury prevention could be used to advocate for or promote gun control. The law came along with a cut in funding that delivered a powerful message: Pursue research on hot-button questions about guns and face the wrath of lawmakers who control the agency's funding.
> 
> 
> "At a time when we were just beginning to do good science around how to protect ourselves and better understand the risk and the benefit from owning and using firearms, language was put on the federal budget which had a chilling effect and, in effect, stopped research dead in its tracks," says Dr. Georges Benjamin, who is the executive director of the American Public Health Association.
> 
> Jay Dickey, the Arkansas Republican and former lawmaker whom the federal amendment is named for, later told NPR that he regretted it. "It wasn't necessary that all research stop," Dickey explained. "It just couldn't be the collection of data so that they can advocate gun control. That's all we were talking about. But for some reason,* it just stopped altogether."*



The CDC was never banned from doing gun research and any Congress after the Dickey amendment was passed could have voted to fund a CDC study

They just chose not too and then lied about the reason why


----------



## sealybobo

Lakhota said:


> I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed.  It's just a matter of time...


If Ironman can fly around in that war machine why can’t someone else drive around in a loaded tank? Why does Ironman get to?

One time a bunch of droids had him surrounded so he started spinning with a laser and cut them all in half.

Do republicans think they should have Ironman suits if our military started wearing them?


----------



## Rigby5

Lesh said:


> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will hunt until I die, Leave me and my guns alone. I've almost perfected venison jerky.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't tell me you hunt with an AR.
> 
> Hunting weapons are fine...as long as they are properly registered and background checks performed.
> 
> I own several
Click to expand...


An AR really is too weak for a clean kill that you want for hunting.  An AR is only good for small things like rabbits or coyotes.
But hunting is not the main purpose of weapons.  They are mainly for home defense and anti crime, including criminal governments.


----------



## Rigby5

sealybobo said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed.  It's just a matter of time...
> 
> 
> 
> If Ironman can fly around in that war machine why can’t someone else drive around in a loaded tank? Why does Ironman get to?
> 
> One time a bunch of droids had him surrounded so he started spinning with a laser and cut them all in half.
> 
> Do republicans think they should have Ironman suits if our military started wearing them?
Click to expand...


Yes.
If the government starts building Ironman suits, it would essential for all responsible adults to also have them.
It is basic to a democratic republic, where the government is only supposed to exist at the pleasure of the people.
That means government is never supposed to ever be able to have more power than the people, or be able to intimidate or force them.
And in fact, the 14th amendment requires that if government has something, that then all people must have the same equal access and treatment under the law.

Government must always be OF the people and never OVER the people.
That is basic to any democratic republic, and is why the founders wanted NO standing military, and instead only gave the federal government the ability to call up a militia of citizen soldiers.
It was wrong to change that basic safety.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Blues Man said:


> Here's 8



Thank you---
I asked, you provided. Again thanks for your reply -

Still I must add, 98% of your examples were for home defense, not in the public arena. Still you point was made, thanks again


----------



## Rigby5

watchingfromafar said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's 8
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you---
> I asked, you provided. Again thanks for your reply -
> 
> Still I must add, 98% of your examples were for home defense, not in the public arena. Still you point was made, thanks again
Click to expand...



My usual example, when someone asks about the utility of an AR for defense, is the Korean grocers during the LA riots.  
That is unusual now, but it is not likely for society to always remain so pacified.
With the end of fossil fuels, it is likely there will be more starvation, crime, riots, civil unrest, etc.
There can also be natural disasters, plagues, meteorite strikes, eruptions, economic depressions, or even civil wars over politics.
No society has been without social upheaval involving mass violence for more than 400 years or so on average.
It would be wrong to throw away long term practices over short term placid periods.


----------



## Markle

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> So, the Union's government cannot infringe on the right of the militia to keep and bear arms for the Union?
> 
> The Federal Government must NOT stop itself from having an army of the people?
> 
> *Why the FUCK did the founders feel it necessary to protect the federal government from itself?
> *
> 
> Your argument is WRONG and STUPID.



Duhhhh....  Because they had left Merry Ol' England because of the oppression.


----------



## Markle

Lesh said:


> Don't tell me you hunt with an AR.
> 
> Hunting weapons are fine...as long as they are properly registered and background checks performed.
> 
> I own several



What difference does it make if the gun is dressed up to look "evil", like an AR-15 or a regular, wood stock, hunting rifle?

Explain to us how you describe an "assault weapon".


----------



## Markle

Daryl Hunt said:


> Then you would be wrong. One can't find something that doesn't exist. Since you keep citing it, YOU find it and tell the rest of where it is so we can view it. As I stated, one person claimed to have found it only to have his line read "Page Not Found". The reason it doesn't exist, Congress got wind of it and found that the CDC was playing politics and stopped them before the CDC had a chance to publish their "Report".



It, as you know, is quite detailed and in book form.  Here you can order one for $38.00.

Unless it is one I've used for a long time, you'll never find a "Page Not Found" on any of the links I provide.  It's too much fun watching Progressives squirm!

CDC Gun Study 2013 (Pro-gun Quick facts), Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence : progun

*Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence*
(2013)
Consensus Study Report

https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18319/p...reduce-the-threat-of-firearm-related-violence


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Rigby5 said:


> Seems to me DC vs Heller is pretty clear.
> 
> {...
> _Held: _
> 
> 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
> ...}
> 
> That would seem to apply to a shotgun or AR as well as a pistol.
> Pistols are less common for home defense than a rifle or shotgun.


Wrong.

_Heller_ concerned solely the possession of handguns.

_Heller_ did not address the constitutionality of the regulation of long guns.

And _Heller_ established no mandated level of judicial review to determine the constitutionality of firearm regulatory measures:

‘The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose [of self-defense]. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights,27 banning from the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” 478 F. 3d, at 400, would fail constitutional muster.’ _ibid_

Consequently, _Heller _does not apply to bans on shotguns or ARs.


----------



## Markle

Lakhota said:


> I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed.  It's just a matter of time...



Not a snowballs chance.

Do you know the process required to amend the Constitution?  Please share it with us.


----------



## Markle

danielpalos said:


> No reason to ban the People from keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.



BUT, you do believe in banning people from defending themselves.  Why?


----------



## Markle

danielpalos said:


> Our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself;
> 
> it amends this: _To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> _
> Well regulated militia of the whole People are Necessary and may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.



Wouldn't it be easier to simply post the actual text of the Second Amendment, along with punctuation? 






What part of that is not clear to you.  And, without your interpretation too!


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Rigby5 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to me DC vs Heller is pretty clear.
> 
> {...
> _Held: _
> 
> 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
> ...}
> 
> That would seem to apply to a shotgun or AR as well as a pistol.
> Pistols are less common for home defense than a rifle or shotgun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Federals have no say in that.  And you are right, the 2nd amendment does deny the Federals from denying you the right to those weapons.  But under the 2nd, 10th and 14th amendment, the state does have that right as long as they do it by being specific.  For instance, banning the AR-15 by describing the weapon in a general description has been found to be unconstitutional because it also grabs so many other guns.  But if you use the phrase "AR-15 and it's various clones" that stands up in court and does become a constitutional law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It can stand up in court for not being arbitrary as to the definition of what is banned, but not why it need to be banned.
> There are about 30,000 shooting deaths a year, and only a couple hundred are with all rifles, much less ARs.
> Almost all the deaths are pistol related.
> And clearly an AR is a much better and safer home defense weapon, as there are going to be less accidental shoots from a 2 handed over a 1 handed weapon.
> 
> Small side point, but remember states do not have rights.
> They only have delegated authority that comes from their defense of the rights of individuals.
> But I understood that is likely what you meant.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.

An AR is a dreadful HD weapon – particularly in heavily populated areas.

You’ll not only end up killing the intruder, you’ll also end up killing your neighbor in the apartment next door – that’s not the case with a shotgun or handgun.

You’re trying – and failing – to contrive an ‘argument’ that because the ubiquitous AR is so commonplace, it should be afforded the same protections as the possession of handguns.

That’s a losing tactic.

The successful tactic will address the level of judicial review, preferably strict scrutiny – where subject to that standard, most firearm regulatory measures would be invalidated, including the regulation of ARs and similar carbines and rifles.


----------



## Markle

watchingfromafar said:


> Have you ever tried it; just to see what this is all about-?
> 
> I have, (not a regular smoker but have tried it); I found it hard or impossible to be "angry" while under its influence.
> Do you have any real evidence where someone who was "high" committed a crime or injured someone-?
> 
> Just asking -



Yes, as a matter of fact, there have been several fatal accidents right here in Tallahassee Florida where the driver was not drunk but was stoned on Marijuana.  If you'll look, the accidents and deaths have increased where Marijuana is now legal.  How is it you have not noticed.


----------



## Blues Man

watchingfromafar said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's 8
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you---
> I asked, you provided. Again thanks for your reply -
> 
> Still I must add, 98% of your examples were for home defense, not in the public arena. Still you point was made, thanks again
Click to expand...

Defense is defense it matters not where it occurs


----------



## Blues Man

Rigby5 said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will hunt until I die, Leave me and my guns alone. I've almost perfected venison jerky.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't tell me you hunt with an AR.
> 
> Hunting weapons are fine...as long as they are properly registered and background checks performed.
> 
> I own several
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An AR really is too weak for a clean kill that you want for hunting.  An AR is only good for small things like rabbits or coyotes.
> But hunting is not the main purpose of weapons.  They are mainly for home defense and anti crime, including criminal governments.
Click to expand...


I don't know many people who ever said a .223 was more than a varmint gun


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Markle said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you would be wrong. One can't find something that doesn't exist. Since you keep citing it, YOU find it and tell the rest of where it is so we can view it. As I stated, one person claimed to have found it only to have his line read "Page Not Found". The reason it doesn't exist, Congress got wind of it and found that the CDC was playing politics and stopped them before the CDC had a chance to publish their "Report".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It, as you know, is quite detailed and in book form.  Here you can order one for $38.00.
> 
> Unless it is one I've used for a long time, you'll never find a "Page Not Found" on any of the links I provide.  It's too much fun watching Progressives squirm!
> 
> CDC Gun Study 2013 (Pro-gun Quick facts), Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence : progun
> 
> *Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence*
> (2013)
> Consensus Study Report
> 
> https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18319/p...reduce-the-threat-of-firearm-related-violence
Click to expand...


Two names come up on that report as experts and contrubutors.

RONALD C. KESSLER, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA GARY KLECK, Florida State University, Tallahassee 

Kessler and Kleck have been defrocked for using really fuzzy math.  In fact, much of their work is supposed to be about civilian shootings but the included Police and Military shootings in those figures making the output completely erroneous.  Any report with their names on it is subject to doubt on it's accuracy.The only name left off was Klecks partner in crime Lott.  

I have looked over the whole thing.  And it didn't cost any money.  You left out the fact that you can download a PDF version for free.  Kind of shoots things down the tubes fast, don't it.  Here is an exert from a vox.com writeup on lott and kleck who actually started the gun cult we see in here today.  It's based on false premises and leads back to the Kleck research for Lott in 1998.

I_*n any case, extrapolating from the Kleck-Gertz survey leads to manifestly absurd results. For there to be more than 2 million defensive gun uses, homeowners would have to defend themselves with a firearm in more than 100 percent of burglaries (to choose one category of crime). And if other findings in the Kleck-Gertz survey were correct, more than 100,000 criminals would be injured by law-abiding gun owners annually. Hospital records reveal no such armies of wounded. (Kleck stands by his findings.)

*_


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Blues Man said:


> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's 8
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you---
> I asked, you provided. Again thanks for your reply -
> 
> Still I must add, 98% of your examples were for home defense, not in the public arena. Still you point was made, thanks again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Defense is defense it matters not where it occurs
Click to expand...


There has been NO evidence that you are more or less safer armed.  That's another Kleck/Lott BS finding using really fuzzy math that has been debunked.  But I do agree what not knowing if a home is armed or not does make a difference.  I like the sign, "Screw the Dog, beware of the owner" and "This Property controlled by Smith and Wesson".  Either one will get  a chuckle out of the bad guy and he will probably move on to the next home.


----------



## Blues Man

Daryl Hunt said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's 8
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you---
> I asked, you provided. Again thanks for your reply -
> 
> Still I must add, 98% of your examples were for home defense, not in the public arena. Still you point was made, thanks again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Defense is defense it matters not where it occurs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There has been NO evidence that you are more or less safer armed.  That's another Kleck/Lott BS finding using really fuzzy math that has been debunked.  But I do agree what not knowing if a home is armed or not does make a difference.  I like the sign, "Screw the Dog, beware of the owner" and "This Property controlled by Smith and Wesson".  Either one will get  a chuckle out of the bad guy and he will probably move on to the next home.
Click to expand...


I never said I was safer because I carry.  I also never said I was less safe for carrying.

Safety is an illusion as all life is risk.  Some people choose to ignore all risk and place their safety in the hands of others I choose not to place my safety in the hands of others because other people most likely won't be around if I am ever in danger.

If a gun neither makes me more safe or less safe then why do you have a problem with anyone who is legally eligible owning and carrying?


----------



## Rigby5

Markle said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you would be wrong. One can't find something that doesn't exist. Since you keep citing it, YOU find it and tell the rest of where it is so we can view it. As I stated, one person claimed to have found it only to have his line read "Page Not Found". The reason it doesn't exist, Congress got wind of it and found that the CDC was playing politics and stopped them before the CDC had a chance to publish their "Report".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It, as you know, is quite detailed and in book form.  Here you can order one for $38.00.
> 
> Unless it is one I've used for a long time, you'll never find a "Page Not Found" on any of the links I provide.  It's too much fun watching Progressives squirm!
> 
> CDC Gun Study 2013 (Pro-gun Quick facts), Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence : progun
> 
> *Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence*
> (2013)
> Consensus Study Report
> 
> https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18319/p...reduce-the-threat-of-firearm-related-violence
Click to expand...



I don't see it saying anywhere that the CDC was involved.
The listed contributers were:

{...
*Contributors*
National Research Council; Institute of Medicine; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; Executive Office, Institute of Medicine; Committee on Priorities for a Public Health Research Agenda to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence; Committee on Law and Justice; Alan I. Leshner, Bruce M. Altevogt, Arlene F. Lee, Margaret A. McCoy, and Patrick W. Kelley, Editors
... }


----------



## Rigby5

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to me DC vs Heller is pretty clear.
> 
> {...
> _Held: _
> 
> 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
> ...}
> 
> That would seem to apply to a shotgun or AR as well as a pistol.
> Pistols are less common for home defense than a rifle or shotgun.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> _Heller_ concerned solely the possession of handguns.
> 
> _Heller_ did not address the constitutionality of the regulation of long guns.
> 
> And _Heller_ established no mandated level of judicial review to determine the constitutionality of firearm regulatory measures:
> 
> ‘The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose [of self-defense]. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights,27 banning from the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” 478 F. 3d, at 400, would fail constitutional muster.’ _ibid_
> 
> Consequently, _Heller _does not apply to bans on shotguns or ARs.
Click to expand...



I agree it was a narrow decision, but my point is that the self defense purpose should also apply even more to shotguns and rifles, as they more traditionally were the "over the fireplace mantle" the traditional home defense weapons.  That is because pistols are less safe because they can be quickly and accidentally mis-aimed or even dropped.  Two handed weapons are safer for home defense.
But I see, understand, and agree with part about pistols being "most preferred" simply in terms of numbers.


----------



## Rigby5

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to me DC vs Heller is pretty clear.
> 
> {...
> _Held: _
> 
> 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
> ...}
> 
> That would seem to apply to a shotgun or AR as well as a pistol.
> Pistols are less common for home defense than a rifle or shotgun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Federals have no say in that.  And you are right, the 2nd amendment does deny the Federals from denying you the right to those weapons.  But under the 2nd, 10th and 14th amendment, the state does have that right as long as they do it by being specific.  For instance, banning the AR-15 by describing the weapon in a general description has been found to be unconstitutional because it also grabs so many other guns.  But if you use the phrase "AR-15 and it's various clones" that stands up in court and does become a constitutional law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It can stand up in court for not being arbitrary as to the definition of what is banned, but not why it need to be banned.
> There are about 30,000 shooting deaths a year, and only a couple hundred are with all rifles, much less ARs.
> Almost all the deaths are pistol related.
> And clearly an AR is a much better and safer home defense weapon, as there are going to be less accidental shoots from a 2 handed over a 1 handed weapon.
> 
> Small side point, but remember states do not have rights.
> They only have delegated authority that comes from their defense of the rights of individuals.
> But I understood that is likely what you meant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> An AR is a dreadful HD weapon – particularly in heavily populated areas.
> 
> You’ll not only end up killing the intruder, you’ll also end up killing your neighbor in the apartment next door – that’s not the case with a shotgun or handgun.
> 
> You’re trying – and failing – to contrive an ‘argument’ that because the ubiquitous AR is so commonplace, it should be afforded the same protections as the possession of handguns.
> 
> That’s a losing tactic.
> 
> The successful tactic will address the level of judicial review, preferably strict scrutiny – where subject to that standard, most firearm regulatory measures would be invalidated, including the regulation of ARs and similar carbines and rifles.
Click to expand...



Actually, an AR is MUCH safer as a home defense weapon than a pistol, and a pistol is not very good.
It appears to me you are suggesting that an AR is too powerful and will pass through walls too easily, and that is not the case.
The AR bullet is the .223, which is a very tiny and light bullet, which is only barely spin stabilized by the rifling in the barrel.  Once the bullet hits anything at all, and slows down in the least, it immediately tumbles and loses all penetration capability.
The risk of danger to those beyond the walls of the home is probably much lower with an AR than with most pistol bullets.

Lets compare the AR .223/5.56 with the common .357 pistol?

5.56 with a 55 grain bullet has a velocity of 2600fps, for about 1500-1700lbs of energy
.357 with 158 grain bullet has a velocity of 2153fps, for about 1626lbs of energy.

But it is even worse than that for .223 penetration because drywall tests show that it immediately starts to tumble and that prevents any significant penetration of common housing wall.

The main thrust of home safety is that pistols are far more likely to shoot someone by accident since they are one handed and can quickly be accidentally aimed at one of your own family members.  A two handed weapon is much more steady in aiming only where you intentionally want it to be aimed, and it is harder to drop, etc.

Although I would agree that a shotgun is even better, in that it is even easier to aim and has even less wall penetration.


----------



## WheelieAddict

Lesh said:


> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will hunt until I die, Leave me and my guns alone. I've almost perfected venison jerky.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't tell me you hunt with an AR.
> 
> Hunting weapons are fine...as long as they are properly registered and background checks performed.
> 
> I own several
Click to expand...

I mean an "ar" will work but if you are into hunting there are better guns available for the task


----------



## Rigby5

Daryl Hunt said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's 8
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you---
> I asked, you provided. Again thanks for your reply -
> 
> Still I must add, 98% of your examples were for home defense, not in the public arena. Still you point was made, thanks again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Defense is defense it matters not where it occurs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There has been NO evidence that you are more or less safer armed.  That's another Kleck/Lott BS finding using really fuzzy math that has been debunked.  But I do agree what not knowing if a home is armed or not does make a difference.  I like the sign, "Screw the Dog, beware of the owner" and "This Property controlled by Smith and Wesson".  Either one will get  a chuckle out of the bad guy and he will probably move on to the next home.
Click to expand...



Why do you think there is "NO evidence" that you are not safer armed?
Are you suggesting it is better to not resist a robbery because it is better to be just robbed than possibly killed?

There are over 1 million successful serious crimes of violence committed every year, so then it is most acceptable when people estimate there are between 1 and 3 million unsuccessful violent crimes.  And it is not the police who are preventing them.  So then it pretty much has to be armed owners.  So I think that Kleckt, Lott, Mustard, etc., have had their studies vindicated and verified, not debunked.

The claim that has been debunked is the one stating home firearms are 17 times more likely to kill a family member than a criminal intruder.  That has been debunked in may ways.  One is that 99.99% of the time you stop a crime, you don't kill the intruder, but just want to scare them off.  Another is that there are many valid times a firearm can be used on a family member, such as to stop domestic violence, or suicide.


----------



## Rigby5

Blues Man said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's 8
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you---
> I asked, you provided. Again thanks for your reply -
> 
> Still I must add, 98% of your examples were for home defense, not in the public arena. Still you point was made, thanks again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Defense is defense it matters not where it occurs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There has been NO evidence that you are more or less safer armed.  That's another Kleck/Lott BS finding using really fuzzy math that has been debunked.  But I do agree what not knowing if a home is armed or not does make a difference.  I like the sign, "Screw the Dog, beware of the owner" and "This Property controlled by Smith and Wesson".  Either one will get  a chuckle out of the bad guy and he will probably move on to the next home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said I was safer because I carry.  I also never said I was less safe for carrying.
> 
> Safety is an illusion as all life is risk.  Some people choose to ignore all risk and place their safety in the hands of others I choose not to place my safety in the hands of others because other people most likely won't be around if I am ever in danger.
> 
> If a gun neither makes me more safe or less safe then why do you have a problem with anyone who is legally eligible owning and carrying?
Click to expand...


Of course carrying a gun makes you safer.
It gives you more control and options.
If carrying a gun did not make you safer, then police would not be carrying them.


----------



## Rigby5

Daryl Hunt said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you would be wrong. One can't find something that doesn't exist. Since you keep citing it, YOU find it and tell the rest of where it is so we can view it. As I stated, one person claimed to have found it only to have his line read "Page Not Found". The reason it doesn't exist, Congress got wind of it and found that the CDC was playing politics and stopped them before the CDC had a chance to publish their "Report".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It, as you know, is quite detailed and in book form.  Here you can order one for $38.00.
> 
> Unless it is one I've used for a long time, you'll never find a "Page Not Found" on any of the links I provide.  It's too much fun watching Progressives squirm!
> 
> CDC Gun Study 2013 (Pro-gun Quick facts), Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence : progun
> 
> *Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence*
> (2013)
> Consensus Study Report
> 
> https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18319/p...reduce-the-threat-of-firearm-related-violence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two names come up on that report as experts and contrubutors.
> 
> RONALD C. KESSLER, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA GARY KLECK, Florida State University, Tallahassee
> 
> Kessler and Kleck have been defrocked for using really fuzzy math.  In fact, much of their work is supposed to be about civilian shootings but the included Police and Military shootings in those figures making the output completely erroneous.  Any report with their names on it is subject to doubt on it's accuracy.The only name left off was Klecks partner in crime Lott.
> 
> I have looked over the whole thing.  And it didn't cost any money.  You left out the fact that you can download a PDF version for free.  Kind of shoots things down the tubes fast, don't it.  Here is an exert from a vox.com writeup on lott and kleck who actually started the gun cult we see in here today.  It's based on false premises and leads back to the Kleck research for Lott in 1998.
> 
> I_*n any case, extrapolating from the Kleck-Gertz survey leads to manifestly absurd results. For there to be more than 2 million defensive gun uses, homeowners would have to defend themselves with a firearm in more than 100 percent of burglaries (to choose one category of crime). And if other findings in the Kleck-Gertz survey were correct, more than 100,000 criminals would be injured by law-abiding gun owners annually. Hospital records reveal no such armies of wounded. (Kleck stands by his findings.)
> 
> *_
Click to expand...


No, you clearly are wrong in this.
Of course there should be expected MANY times more defensive used of firearm than there are successful burglaries.
Only about 1 out of 5 burglaries are successful.
Most are scared off, either by a person with a firearm, or someone pretending to have a firearm.
What is obviously WRONG about your claims attempting to debunk the defensive use of firearm statistics is the false claim that these defensive uses of firearms should have matching hospital records.  That is just silly.  No one in their right mind is going to actually shoot someone just for attempting to break into a home, garage, cars, etc.  They most likely will not even fire a shot into the air, because they don't want anyone to call the police and have to do the paper work for firing a shot inside city limits.  They could even end up getting arrested themselves or having their firearm confiscated. 
But no almost no one is going to go out into their dark yard to scare off an intruder unless they are armed.
So clearly you are wrong on this.

The video is also completely wrong.
The main cause of gun violence in the US can not be anything to do with guns, because historically we had more of them and easier access.  The number and access has been reducing as their use in violence had gone up.  So clearly the causes of gun violence have nothing at all to do with their number or access.  The most likely cause of the increase in gun violence is lack of mental health access, since Reagan ended federal mental health funding in 1986, and likely because the media focuses so much on those who commit gun violence, encouraging with their 15 minutes of fame.


----------



## Markle

Rigby5 said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you would be wrong. One can't find something that doesn't exist. Since you keep citing it, YOU find it and tell the rest of where it is so we can view it. As I stated, one person claimed to have found it only to have his line read "Page Not Found". The reason it doesn't exist, Congress got wind of it and found that the CDC was playing politics and stopped them before the CDC had a chance to publish their "Report".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It, as you know, is quite detailed and in book form.  Here you can order one for $38.00.
> 
> Unless it is one I've used for a long time, you'll never find a "Page Not Found" on any of the links I provide.  It's too much fun watching Progressives squirm!
> 
> CDC Gun Study 2013 (Pro-gun Quick facts), Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence : progun
> 
> *Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence*
> (2013)
> Consensus Study Report
> 
> https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18319/p...reduce-the-threat-of-firearm-related-violence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it saying anywhere that the CDC was involved.
> The listed contributers were:
> 
> {...
> *Contributors*
> National Research Council; Institute of Medicine; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; Executive Office, Institute of Medicine; Committee on Priorities for a Public Health Research Agenda to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence; Committee on Law and Justice; Alan I. Leshner, Bruce M. Altevogt, Arlene F. Lee, Margaret A. McCoy, and Patrick W. Kelley, Editors
> ... }
Click to expand...


I posted the source and link.  There are TWO sources and links.  Here, I'll help you a bit more.  Whew!

*CDC Gun Study 2013 (Pro-gun Quick facts), Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence*





http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=18319

In January 2013, President Barack Obama issued 23 executive orders directing federal agencies to improve knowledge of the causes of firearm violence, what might help prevent it, and how to minimize its burden on public health. One of these orders directed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to, along with other federal agencies, immediately begin identifying the most pressing problems in firearm violence research.

Quotes from the study:

Defensive:

Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million


defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies


Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence


If gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by those who invade the homes of gun owners, this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive gun use (Kellermann et al., 1992, 1993, 1995). Although some early studies were published that relate to this issue, they were not conclusive.


research by Kellermann et al. (1992, 1993, 1995) describes higher rates of suicide, homicide, and the use of weapons involved in home invasion in the homes of gun owners. However, other studies conclude that gun ownership protects against serious injury when guns are used defensively (Kleck and Gertz, 1995; Tark and Kleck, 2004). Additional research is needed to weigh the competing risks and protective benefits that may accompany gun ownership in different communities.


The 2005 NRC study found no persuasive evidence from available studies that right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime.

CDC Gun Study 2013 (Pro-gun Quick facts), Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence : progun


----------



## Rigby5

Markle said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you would be wrong. One can't find something that doesn't exist. Since you keep citing it, YOU find it and tell the rest of where it is so we can view it. As I stated, one person claimed to have found it only to have his line read "Page Not Found". The reason it doesn't exist, Congress got wind of it and found that the CDC was playing politics and stopped them before the CDC had a chance to publish their "Report".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It, as you know, is quite detailed and in book form.  Here you can order one for $38.00.
> 
> Unless it is one I've used for a long time, you'll never find a "Page Not Found" on any of the links I provide.  It's too much fun watching Progressives squirm!
> 
> CDC Gun Study 2013 (Pro-gun Quick facts), Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence : progun
> 
> *Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence*
> (2013)
> Consensus Study Report
> 
> https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18319/p...reduce-the-threat-of-firearm-related-violence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it saying anywhere that the CDC was involved.
> The listed contributers were:
> 
> {...
> *Contributors*
> National Research Council; Institute of Medicine; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; Executive Office, Institute of Medicine; Committee on Priorities for a Public Health Research Agenda to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence; Committee on Law and Justice; Alan I. Leshner, Bruce M. Altevogt, Arlene F. Lee, Margaret A. McCoy, and Patrick W. Kelley, Editors
> ... }
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I posted the source and link.  There are TWO sources and links.  Here, I'll help you a bit more.  Whew!
> 
> *CDC Gun Study 2013 (Pro-gun Quick facts), Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=18319
> 
> In January 2013, President Barack Obama issued 23 executive orders directing federal agencies to improve knowledge of the causes of firearm violence, what might help prevent it, and how to minimize its burden on public health. One of these orders directed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to, along with other federal agencies, immediately begin identifying the most pressing problems in firearm violence research.
> 
> Quotes from the study:
> 
> Defensive:
> 
> Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million
> 
> 
> defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies
> 
> 
> Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence
> 
> 
> If gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by those who invade the homes of gun owners, this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive gun use (Kellermann et al., 1992, 1993, 1995). Although some early studies were published that relate to this issue, they were not conclusive.
> 
> 
> research by Kellermann et al. (1992, 1993, 1995) describes higher rates of suicide, homicide, and the use of weapons involved in home invasion in the homes of gun owners. However, other studies conclude that gun ownership protects against serious injury when guns are used defensively (Kleck and Gertz, 1995; Tark and Kleck, 2004). Additional research is needed to weigh the competing risks and protective benefits that may accompany gun ownership in different communities.
> 
> 
> The 2005 NRC study found no persuasive evidence from available studies that right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime.
> CDC Gun Study 2013 (Pro-gun Quick facts), Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence : progun
Click to expand...


I do not disagree with your conclusions, but the study said:

{...
This project was supported by awards between the National Academy of Sciences and both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (#200-2011-38807) and the CDC Foundation with the Foundation’s support originating from The Annie E. Casey Foundation, The California Endowment, The California Wellness Foundation, The Joyce Foundation, Kaiser Permanente, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and one anonymous donor.
...}

So it sounds like the CDC was involved in funding it, but I am not sure I would categorize it as a CDC study?


----------



## Markle

Gun haters are really most amusing.

Here we've seen them demanding that supporters of our Constitution PROVE something that never happened and how many times it happened.

If a crime is prevented by someone having a weapon, where is that incident reported?  Simple, it is not.

I have been a Realtor for over 40 years.  One of the most dangerous professions.  Since the beginning, I will carry on occasion.  Only once did I feel threatened and I had a 38 snub nose revolver.  I had to view a house in a rough area toward dusk so I carried my pistol inside.  I'd walked around the house and did not see any signs of a break-in.  The house was vacant.  I entered the front door and walked quickly through the living area and back the hall to the bedrooms.  In one bedroom there three guys, sitting on the floor apparently doing some sort of drugs.  I held up my hands, told them "no problem, I'm carrying, I'm going to back out the front door, and call the police.  I did just as I said and by the time police arrived, a few minutes, the guys were gone.

Where should that have been reported?


----------



## Rigby5

Markle said:


> Gun haters are really most amusing.
> c
> Here we've seen them demanding that supporters of our Constitution PROVE something that never happened and how many times it happened.
> 
> If a crime is prevented by someone having a weapon, where is that incident reported?  Simple, it is not.
> 
> I have been a Realtor for over 40 years.  One of the most dangerous professions.  Since the beginning, I will carry on occasion.  Only once did I feel threatened and I had a 38 snub nose revolver.  I had to view a house in a rough area toward dusk so I carried my pistol inside.  I'd walked around the house and did not see any signs of a break-in.  The house was vacant.  I entered the front door and walked quickly through the living area and back the hall to the bedrooms.  In one bedroom there three guys, sitting on the floor apparently doing some sort of drugs.  I held up my hands, told them "no problem, I'm carrying, I'm going to back out the front door, and call the police.  I did just as I said and by the time police arrived, a few minutes, the guys were gone.
> 
> Where should that have been reported?




Exactly.  I have found people trying to break into my house, car, garage, etc., so I yell at them and they run away.  But I would not have been willing to risk doing that if I did not have a firearm concealed on my person.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rigby5 said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you would be wrong. One can't find something that doesn't exist. Since you keep citing it, YOU find it and tell the rest of where it is so we can view it. As I stated, one person claimed to have found it only to have his line read "Page Not Found". The reason it doesn't exist, Congress got wind of it and found that the CDC was playing politics and stopped them before the CDC had a chance to publish their "Report".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It, as you know, is quite detailed and in book form.  Here you can order one for $38.00.
> 
> Unless it is one I've used for a long time, you'll never find a "Page Not Found" on any of the links I provide.  It's too much fun watching Progressives squirm!
> 
> CDC Gun Study 2013 (Pro-gun Quick facts), Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence : progun
> 
> *Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence*
> (2013)
> Consensus Study Report
> 
> https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18319/p...reduce-the-threat-of-firearm-related-violence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it saying anywhere that the CDC was involved.
> The listed contributers were:
> 
> {...
> *Contributors*
> National Research Council; Institute of Medicine; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; Executive Office, Institute of Medicine; Committee on Priorities for a Public Health Research Agenda to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence; Committee on Law and Justice; Alan I. Leshner, Bruce M. Altevogt, Arlene F. Lee, Margaret A. McCoy, and Patrick W. Kelley, Editors
> ... }
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I posted the source and link.  There are TWO sources and links.  Here, I'll help you a bit more.  Whew!
> 
> *CDC Gun Study 2013 (Pro-gun Quick facts), Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=18319
> 
> In January 2013, President Barack Obama issued 23 executive orders directing federal agencies to improve knowledge of the causes of firearm violence, what might help prevent it, and how to minimize its burden on public health. One of these orders directed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to, along with other federal agencies, immediately begin identifying the most pressing problems in firearm violence research.
> 
> Quotes from the study:
> 
> Defensive:
> 
> Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million
> 
> 
> defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies
> 
> 
> Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence
> 
> 
> If gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by those who invade the homes of gun owners, this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive gun use (Kellermann et al., 1992, 1993, 1995). Although some early studies were published that relate to this issue, they were not conclusive.
> 
> 
> research by Kellermann et al. (1992, 1993, 1995) describes higher rates of suicide, homicide, and the use of weapons involved in home invasion in the homes of gun owners. However, other studies conclude that gun ownership protects against serious injury when guns are used defensively (Kleck and Gertz, 1995; Tark and Kleck, 2004). Additional research is needed to weigh the competing risks and protective benefits that may accompany gun ownership in different communities.
> 
> 
> The 2005 NRC study found no persuasive evidence from available studies that right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime.
> CDC Gun Study 2013 (Pro-gun Quick facts), Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence : progun
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not disagree with your conclusions, but the study said:
> 
> {...
> This project was supported by awards between the National Academy of Sciences and both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (#200-2011-38807) and the CDC Foundation with the Foundation’s support originating from The Annie E. Casey Foundation, The California Endowment, The California Wellness Foundation, The Joyce Foundation, Kaiser Permanente, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and one anonymous donor.
> ...}
> 
> So it sounds like the CDC was involved in funding it, but I am not sure I would categorize it as a CDC study?
Click to expand...


It wasn't.  CDC was found to be playing politics and was stopped before the final product could be released.  There were way too many partisan holes in it.  What these other sites do is try and say they have credibility by saying they got their information from a non existent report from CDC.  CDC had to get out of that line or work before the information could be released.  And it all had to be destroyed.  There IS no CDC report.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Markle said:


> Gun haters are really most amusing.
> 
> Here we've seen them demanding that supporters of our Constitution PROVE something that never happened and how many times it happened.
> 
> If a crime is prevented by someone having a weapon, where is that incident reported?  Simple, it is not.
> 
> I have been a Realtor for over 40 years.  One of the most dangerous professions.  Since the beginning, I will carry on occasion.  Only once did I feel threatened and I had a 38 snub nose revolver.  I had to view a house in a rough area toward dusk so I carried my pistol inside.  I'd walked around the house and did not see any signs of a break-in.  The house was vacant.  I entered the front door and walked quickly through the living area and back the hall to the bedrooms.  In one bedroom there three guys, sitting on the floor apparently doing some sort of drugs.  I held up my hands, told them "no problem, I'm carrying, I'm going to back out the front door, and call the police.  I did just as I said and by the time police arrived, a few minutes, the guys were gone.
> 
> Where should that have been reported?



Since you were obviously not carrying any drugs or trying to steal their drugs, you could have just announced that you are backing out the door and then calling the police and got the same results.  There is NO information that categorically states that you are any more safer with a gun than without a gun.  And please don't toss more of the "Studies" tainted by Lott and company.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rigby5 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to me DC vs Heller is pretty clear.
> 
> {...
> _Held: _
> 
> 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
> ...}
> 
> That would seem to apply to a shotgun or AR as well as a pistol.
> Pistols are less common for home defense than a rifle or shotgun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Federals have no say in that.  And you are right, the 2nd amendment does deny the Federals from denying you the right to those weapons.  But under the 2nd, 10th and 14th amendment, the state does have that right as long as they do it by being specific.  For instance, banning the AR-15 by describing the weapon in a general description has been found to be unconstitutional because it also grabs so many other guns.  But if you use the phrase "AR-15 and it's various clones" that stands up in court and does become a constitutional law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It can stand up in court for not being arbitrary as to the definition of what is banned, but not why it need to be banned.
> There are about 30,000 shooting deaths a year, and only a couple hundred are with all rifles, much less ARs.
> Almost all the deaths are pistol related.
> And clearly an AR is a much better and safer home defense weapon, as there are going to be less accidental shoots from a 2 handed over a 1 handed weapon.
> 
> Small side point, but remember states do not have rights.
> They only have delegated authority that comes from their defense of the rights of individuals.
> But I understood that is likely what you meant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> An AR is a dreadful HD weapon – particularly in heavily populated areas.
> 
> You’ll not only end up killing the intruder, you’ll also end up killing your neighbor in the apartment next door – that’s not the case with a shotgun or handgun.
> 
> You’re trying – and failing – to contrive an ‘argument’ that because the ubiquitous AR is so commonplace, it should be afforded the same protections as the possession of handguns.
> 
> That’s a losing tactic.
> 
> The successful tactic will address the level of judicial review, preferably strict scrutiny – where subject to that standard, most firearm regulatory measures would be invalidated, including the regulation of ARs and similar carbines and rifles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, an AR is MUCH safer as a home defense weapon than a pistol, and a pistol is not very good.
> It appears to me you are suggesting that an AR is too powerful and will pass through walls too easily, and that is not the case.
> The AR bullet is the .223, which is a very tiny and light bullet, which is only barely spin stabilized by the rifling in the barrel.  Once the bullet hits anything at all, and slows down in the least, it immediately tumbles and loses all penetration capability.
> The risk of danger to those beyond the walls of the home is probably much lower with an AR than with most pistol bullets.
> 
> Lets compare the AR .223/5.56 with the common .357 pistol?
> 
> 5.56 with a 55 grain bullet has a velocity of 2600fps, for about 1500-1700lbs of energy
> .357 with 158 grain bullet has a velocity of 2153fps, for about 1626lbs of energy.
> 
> But it is even worse than that for .223 penetration because drywall tests show that it immediately starts to tumble and that prevents any significant penetration of common housing wall.
> 
> The main thrust of home safety is that pistols are far more likely to shoot someone by accident since they are one handed and can quickly be accidentally aimed at one of your own family members.  A two handed weapon is much more steady in aiming only where you intentionally want it to be aimed, and it is harder to drop, etc.
> 
> Although I would agree that a shotgun is even better, in that it is even easier to aim and has even less wall penetration.
Click to expand...


Your figures are way off on the 357 mag using Federal ammo that most will use.
357 Magnum Ballistics Chart | Ballistics 101
Picking the most likely round that would be used in the Federal Ammo

357 Magnum JHP 
Bullet weight 125 
Muzzle Energy 575 
Foot Per Second at Muzzle.  1440 

Now for that hotrod round you partially used (it appears you mixed info from a few rounds) from Magsafe.  Notice the bullet weight goes way down as well as the muzzle energy to get that 2300 fps speed.

357 Magnum Swat 
Bullet weight 37 
Muzzle Energy 436 
Foot Per Second at Muzzle  2300 

Now for a chart on the 223 and not the 556 Nato which most AR-15s should never fire.






And this is not a particularly powerful 223 round either.  It starts out at
Nossler 55 grain bullet
Muzzle velocity of 3200 fps
Energy at the Muzzle 1200 lbs

And that is a very common 223 round.  The figures for the 556 Nato is higher but unless you are chambered for the 556 Nato, I wouldn't  suggest you shoot too many through a chamber for a 223.

The 223 may be on the  lower scale on the Rifle scale but it's way above anything that you can ever get out of a 357 and expect to keep seeing out of both eyes and keep your fingers intact.


----------



## Rigby5

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to me DC vs Heller is pretty clear.
> 
> {...
> _Held: _
> 
> 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
> ...}
> 
> That would seem to apply to a shotgun or AR as well as a pistol.
> Pistols are less common for home defense than a rifle or shotgun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Federals have no say in that.  And you are right, the 2nd amendment does deny the Federals from denying you the right to those weapons.  But under the 2nd, 10th and 14th amendment, the state does have that right as long as they do it by being specific.  For instance, banning the AR-15 by describing the weapon in a general description has been found to be unconstitutional because it also grabs so many other guns.  But if you use the phrase "AR-15 and it's various clones" that stands up in court and does become a constitutional law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It can stand up in court for not being arbitrary as to the definition of what is banned, but not why it need to be banned.
> There are about 30,000 shooting deaths a year, and only a couple hundred are with all rifles, much less ARs.
> Almost all the deaths are pistol related.
> And clearly an AR is a much better and safer home defense weapon, as there are going to be less accidental shoots from a 2 handed over a 1 handed weapon.
> 
> Small side point, but remember states do not have rights.
> They only have delegated authority that comes from their defense of the rights of individuals.
> But I understood that is likely what you meant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> An AR is a dreadful HD weapon – particularly in heavily populated areas.
> 
> You’ll not only end up killing the intruder, you’ll also end up killing your neighbor in the apartment next door – that’s not the case with a shotgun or handgun.
> 
> You’re trying – and failing – to contrive an ‘argument’ that because the ubiquitous AR is so commonplace, it should be afforded the same protections as the possession of handguns.
> 
> That’s a losing tactic.
> 
> The successful tactic will address the level of judicial review, preferably strict scrutiny – where subject to that standard, most firearm regulatory measures would be invalidated, including the regulation of ARs and similar carbines and rifles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, an AR is MUCH safer as a home defense weapon than a pistol, and a pistol is not very good.
> It appears to me you are suggesting that an AR is too powerful and will pass through walls too easily, and that is not the case.
> The AR bullet is the .223, which is a very tiny and light bullet, which is only barely spin stabilized by the rifling in the barrel.  Once the bullet hits anything at all, and slows down in the least, it immediately tumbles and loses all penetration capability.
> The risk of danger to those beyond the walls of the home is probably much lower with an AR than with most pistol bullets.
> 
> Lets compare the AR .223/5.56 with the common .357 pistol?
> 
> 5.56 with a 55 grain bullet has a velocity of 2600fps, for about 1500-1700lbs of energy
> .357 with 158 grain bullet has a velocity of 2153fps, for about 1626lbs of energy.
> 
> But it is even worse than that for .223 penetration because drywall tests show that it immediately starts to tumble and that prevents any significant penetration of common housing wall.
> 
> The main thrust of home safety is that pistols are far more likely to shoot someone by accident since they are one handed and can quickly be accidentally aimed at one of your own family members.  A two handed weapon is much more steady in aiming only where you intentionally want it to be aimed, and it is harder to drop, etc.
> 
> Although I would agree that a shotgun is even better, in that it is even easier to aim and has even less wall penetration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your figures are way off on the 357 mag using Federal ammo that most will use.
> 357 Magnum Ballistics Chart | Ballistics 101
> Picking the most likely round that would be used in the Federal Ammo
> 
> 357 Magnum JHP
> Bullet weight 125
> Muzzle Energy 575
> Foot Per Second at Muzzle.  1440
> 
> Now for that hotrod round you partially used (it appears you mixed info from a few rounds) from Magsafe.  Notice the bullet weight goes way down as well as the muzzle energy to get that 2300 fps speed.
> 
> 357 Magnum Swat
> Bullet weight 37
> Muzzle Energy 436
> Foot Per Second at Muzzle  2300
> 
> Now for a chart on the 223 and not the 556 Nato which most AR-15s should never fire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this is not a particularly powerful 223 round either.  It starts out at
> Nossler 55 grain bullet
> Muzzle velocity of 3200 fps
> Energy at the Muzzle 1200 lbs
> 
> And that is a very common 223 round.  The figures for the 556 Nato is higher but unless you are chambered for the 556 Nato, I wouldn't  suggest you shoot too many through a chamber for a 223.
> 
> The 223 may be on the  lower scale on the Rifle scale but it's way above anything that you can ever get out of a 357 and expect to keep seeing out of both eyes and keep your fingers intact.
Click to expand...



I did not bother checking a second site and just assumed their figures were likely accurate.
But I think yours are more correct.
However, the AR is still not a dangerous home defense weapons because of the mild barrel twist, resulting in the bullet being very unstable and prone to tumbling, thus not penetrating walls well because it will be going sideways after the first contact.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rigby5 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Federals have no say in that.  And you are right, the 2nd amendment does deny the Federals from denying you the right to those weapons.  But under the 2nd, 10th and 14th amendment, the state does have that right as long as they do it by being specific.  For instance, banning the AR-15 by describing the weapon in a general description has been found to be unconstitutional because it also grabs so many other guns.  But if you use the phrase "AR-15 and it's various clones" that stands up in court and does become a constitutional law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It can stand up in court for not being arbitrary as to the definition of what is banned, but not why it need to be banned.
> There are about 30,000 shooting deaths a year, and only a couple hundred are with all rifles, much less ARs.
> Almost all the deaths are pistol related.
> And clearly an AR is a much better and safer home defense weapon, as there are going to be less accidental shoots from a 2 handed over a 1 handed weapon.
> 
> Small side point, but remember states do not have rights.
> They only have delegated authority that comes from their defense of the rights of individuals.
> But I understood that is likely what you meant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> An AR is a dreadful HD weapon – particularly in heavily populated areas.
> 
> You’ll not only end up killing the intruder, you’ll also end up killing your neighbor in the apartment next door – that’s not the case with a shotgun or handgun.
> 
> You’re trying – and failing – to contrive an ‘argument’ that because the ubiquitous AR is so commonplace, it should be afforded the same protections as the possession of handguns.
> 
> That’s a losing tactic.
> 
> The successful tactic will address the level of judicial review, preferably strict scrutiny – where subject to that standard, most firearm regulatory measures would be invalidated, including the regulation of ARs and similar carbines and rifles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, an AR is MUCH safer as a home defense weapon than a pistol, and a pistol is not very good.
> It appears to me you are suggesting that an AR is too powerful and will pass through walls too easily, and that is not the case.
> The AR bullet is the .223, which is a very tiny and light bullet, which is only barely spin stabilized by the rifling in the barrel.  Once the bullet hits anything at all, and slows down in the least, it immediately tumbles and loses all penetration capability.
> The risk of danger to those beyond the walls of the home is probably much lower with an AR than with most pistol bullets.
> 
> Lets compare the AR .223/5.56 with the common .357 pistol?
> 
> 5.56 with a 55 grain bullet has a velocity of 2600fps, for about 1500-1700lbs of energy
> .357 with 158 grain bullet has a velocity of 2153fps, for about 1626lbs of energy.
> 
> But it is even worse than that for .223 penetration because drywall tests show that it immediately starts to tumble and that prevents any significant penetration of common housing wall.
> 
> The main thrust of home safety is that pistols are far more likely to shoot someone by accident since they are one handed and can quickly be accidentally aimed at one of your own family members.  A two handed weapon is much more steady in aiming only where you intentionally want it to be aimed, and it is harder to drop, etc.
> 
> Although I would agree that a shotgun is even better, in that it is even easier to aim and has even less wall penetration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your figures are way off on the 357 mag using Federal ammo that most will use.
> 357 Magnum Ballistics Chart | Ballistics 101
> Picking the most likely round that would be used in the Federal Ammo
> 
> 357 Magnum JHP
> Bullet weight 125
> Muzzle Energy 575
> Foot Per Second at Muzzle.  1440
> 
> Now for that hotrod round you partially used (it appears you mixed info from a few rounds) from Magsafe.  Notice the bullet weight goes way down as well as the muzzle energy to get that 2300 fps speed.
> 
> 357 Magnum Swat
> Bullet weight 37
> Muzzle Energy 436
> Foot Per Second at Muzzle  2300
> 
> Now for a chart on the 223 and not the 556 Nato which most AR-15s should never fire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this is not a particularly powerful 223 round either.  It starts out at
> Nossler 55 grain bullet
> Muzzle velocity of 3200 fps
> Energy at the Muzzle 1200 lbs
> 
> And that is a very common 223 round.  The figures for the 556 Nato is higher but unless you are chambered for the 556 Nato, I wouldn't  suggest you shoot too many through a chamber for a 223.
> 
> The 223 may be on the  lower scale on the Rifle scale but it's way above anything that you can ever get out of a 357 and expect to keep seeing out of both eyes and keep your fingers intact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I did not bother checking a second site and just assumed their figures were likely accurate.
> But I think yours are more correct.
> However, the AR is still not a dangerous home defense weapons because of the mild barrel twist, resulting in the bullet being very unstable and prone to tumbling, thus not penetrating walls well because it will be going sideways after the first contact.
Click to expand...


Actually, if I own (and I do) a 357 mag (Model 19) I would use the 38 special over the 357 mag for home defense.  The problem both of them have is, most of their energy is spent on the backdrop.  The 357 has a lot of penetration and the bullet hold together well.  Meaning, through normal construction walls, it's going to go through a couple or three walls.  The 38 special will only go through one or two.  If hit with either, the wall behind the person will receive most of the impact.  But the 38 special will be a bit slower and actually spend more time in the body making it a better defense round.  Plus, it might penetrate one wall after that, maybe.  The 357 will penetrate the body of a person, the wall behind the person and possibly go through another wall.  Making the 9mm or the 380 the better two choices for home defense because if they hit the body, they won't penetrate completely through the backdrop wall.  And both the 380 and the 9mm have about the same knockdown, not on paper, but in reality.

Meanwhile, the 223 is a smaller diameter round with a lesser grain moving at almost twice the speed.  The 
AR has enough twists to put enough turns on the 223 to make it very stable out to about 400 yds.  If you look at the ballistic charts, the 223 has about the same ballistics at 400 yds as the 357 has at the muzzle.  If the 357 can go through a body and 2 walls, the 223 can penetrate a lot further.  This is one of the reasons that the AR or  223 is the weapon of choice for the best dressed modern mass shooter.  You can hit or kill at least 3 people per round with it if the people are compacted together.  It's a full powered rifle and should be treated as such.

If you are a lousy shot, a shotgun is the best choice.  It won't penetrate that much but close does count.  And  I don't know about you, but the action jacking of a Model 870 would scare the living hell out me.  If I were a bad guy, only two things would come to my mind, hit the floor spread eagle or get the hell out of there.  Neither the 357 wheel gun, 9mm semi auto, 45 semi auto or AR has that much affect.  If you are just there to kill something, go see a shrink and sell all your guns.  If you are there to defend your home, choose the Model 870 shotgun.


----------



## danielpalos

Markle said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> No reason to ban the People from keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BUT, you do believe in banning people from defending themselves.  Why?
Click to expand...

defense of self and property is a natural right.  

don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and regulate them Well!


----------



## danielpalos

Markle said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself;
> 
> it amends this: _To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> _
> Well regulated militia of the whole People are Necessary and may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't it be easier to simply post the actual text of the Second Amendment, along with punctuation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What part of that is not clear to you.  And, without your interpretation too!
Click to expand...

The part where our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution, unto itself.  


Only the right wing, never gets it.


----------



## sealybobo

Rigby5 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed.  It's just a matter of time...
> 
> 
> 
> If Ironman can fly around in that war machine why can’t someone else drive around in a loaded tank? Why does Ironman get to?
> 
> One time a bunch of droids had him surrounded so he started spinning with a laser and cut them all in half.
> 
> Do republicans think they should have Ironman suits if our military started wearing them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.
> If the government starts building Ironman suits, it would essential for all responsible adults to also have them.
> It is basic to a democratic republic, where the government is only supposed to exist at the pleasure of the people.
> That means government is never supposed to ever be able to have more power than the people, or be able to intimidate or force them.
> And in fact, the 14th amendment requires that if government has something, that then all people must have the same equal access and treatment under the law.
> 
> Government must always be OF the people and never OVER the people.
> That is basic to any democratic republic, and is why the founders wanted NO standing military, and instead only gave the federal government the ability to call up a militia of citizen soldiers.
> It was wrong to change that basic safety.
Click to expand...

But they have tanks and you can’t have one.

So you are wrong


----------



## Pilot1

sealybobo said:


> But they have tanks and you can’t have one.
> 
> So you are wrong



Yes I can.  I have friends that own tanks, artillery pieces, war planes.  Expensive?  Yes.  Perfectly legal to own and fire them.  However, the Afghanis never had tanks and they kicked out the Russians, and soon the U.S. who both had every military asset, and technology available.


----------



## sealybobo

Pilot1 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they have tanks and you can’t have one.
> 
> So you are wrong
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I can.  I have friends that own tanks, artillery pieces, war planes.  Expensive?  Yes.  Perfectly legal to own and fire them.  However, the Afghanis never had tanks and they kicked out the Russians, and soon the U.S. who both had every military asset, and technology available.
Click to expand...

You can’t own a loaded tank


----------



## Pilot1

sealybobo said:


> You can’t own a loaded tank



Yes you can.  I know many collectors that do just that, and fire them.  Artillery pieces also.  What law states you can not with the proper licensing, background check, etc?


----------



## sealybobo

Pilot1 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can’t own a loaded tank
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you can.  I know many collectors that do just that, and fire them.  Artillery pieces also.  What law states you can not with the proper licensing, background check, etc?
Click to expand...

Very heavily regulated. They have a mistake pointing at your tank.

Depends on the state city county


----------



## Flash

danielpalos said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> No reason to ban the People from keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BUT, you do believe in banning people from defending themselves.  Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> defense of self and property is a natural right.
> 
> don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and regulate them Well!
Click to expand...



Of course we need to use the definition of "well regulated" that was in common usage when the Founding Fathers wrote the Bill of Rights and was reinforced in the _Heller_ case.  To mean well provisioned like having a good supply of guns, ammo and magazines.


----------



## Blues Man

Rigby5 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's 8
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you---
> I asked, you provided. Again thanks for your reply -
> 
> Still I must add, 98% of your examples were for home defense, not in the public arena. Still you point was made, thanks again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Defense is defense it matters not where it occurs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There has been NO evidence that you are more or less safer armed.  That's another Kleck/Lott BS finding using really fuzzy math that has been debunked.  But I do agree what not knowing if a home is armed or not does make a difference.  I like the sign, "Screw the Dog, beware of the owner" and "This Property controlled by Smith and Wesson".  Either one will get  a chuckle out of the bad guy and he will probably move on to the next home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said I was safer because I carry.  I also never said I was less safe for carrying.
> 
> Safety is an illusion as all life is risk.  Some people choose to ignore all risk and place their safety in the hands of others I choose not to place my safety in the hands of others because other people most likely won't be around if I am ever in danger.
> 
> If a gun neither makes me more safe or less safe then why do you have a problem with anyone who is legally eligible owning and carrying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course carrying a gun makes you safer.
> It gives you more control and options.
> If carrying a gun did not make you safer, then police would not be carrying them.
Click to expand...


I've been carrying for decades now and I have yet to have need of my firearm so I can say I am neither more not less safe

And Control is an illusion just like safety


----------



## Blues Man

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It can stand up in court for not being arbitrary as to the definition of what is banned, but not why it need to be banned.
> There are about 30,000 shooting deaths a year, and only a couple hundred are with all rifles, much less ARs.
> Almost all the deaths are pistol related.
> And clearly an AR is a much better and safer home defense weapon, as there are going to be less accidental shoots from a 2 handed over a 1 handed weapon.
> 
> Small side point, but remember states do not have rights.
> They only have delegated authority that comes from their defense of the rights of individuals.
> But I understood that is likely what you meant.
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> An AR is a dreadful HD weapon – particularly in heavily populated areas.
> 
> You’ll not only end up killing the intruder, you’ll also end up killing your neighbor in the apartment next door – that’s not the case with a shotgun or handgun.
> 
> You’re trying – and failing – to contrive an ‘argument’ that because the ubiquitous AR is so commonplace, it should be afforded the same protections as the possession of handguns.
> 
> That’s a losing tactic.
> 
> The successful tactic will address the level of judicial review, preferably strict scrutiny – where subject to that standard, most firearm regulatory measures would be invalidated, including the regulation of ARs and similar carbines and rifles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, an AR is MUCH safer as a home defense weapon than a pistol, and a pistol is not very good.
> It appears to me you are suggesting that an AR is too powerful and will pass through walls too easily, and that is not the case.
> The AR bullet is the .223, which is a very tiny and light bullet, which is only barely spin stabilized by the rifling in the barrel.  Once the bullet hits anything at all, and slows down in the least, it immediately tumbles and loses all penetration capability.
> The risk of danger to those beyond the walls of the home is probably much lower with an AR than with most pistol bullets.
> 
> Lets compare the AR .223/5.56 with the common .357 pistol?
> 
> 5.56 with a 55 grain bullet has a velocity of 2600fps, for about 1500-1700lbs of energy
> .357 with 158 grain bullet has a velocity of 2153fps, for about 1626lbs of energy.
> 
> But it is even worse than that for .223 penetration because drywall tests show that it immediately starts to tumble and that prevents any significant penetration of common housing wall.
> 
> The main thrust of home safety is that pistols are far more likely to shoot someone by accident since they are one handed and can quickly be accidentally aimed at one of your own family members.  A two handed weapon is much more steady in aiming only where you intentionally want it to be aimed, and it is harder to drop, etc.
> 
> Although I would agree that a shotgun is even better, in that it is even easier to aim and has even less wall penetration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your figures are way off on the 357 mag using Federal ammo that most will use.
> 357 Magnum Ballistics Chart | Ballistics 101
> Picking the most likely round that would be used in the Federal Ammo
> 
> 357 Magnum JHP
> Bullet weight 125
> Muzzle Energy 575
> Foot Per Second at Muzzle.  1440
> 
> Now for that hotrod round you partially used (it appears you mixed info from a few rounds) from Magsafe.  Notice the bullet weight goes way down as well as the muzzle energy to get that 2300 fps speed.
> 
> 357 Magnum Swat
> Bullet weight 37
> Muzzle Energy 436
> Foot Per Second at Muzzle  2300
> 
> Now for a chart on the 223 and not the 556 Nato which most AR-15s should never fire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this is not a particularly powerful 223 round either.  It starts out at
> Nossler 55 grain bullet
> Muzzle velocity of 3200 fps
> Energy at the Muzzle 1200 lbs
> 
> And that is a very common 223 round.  The figures for the 556 Nato is higher but unless you are chambered for the 556 Nato, I wouldn't  suggest you shoot too many through a chamber for a 223.
> 
> The 223 may be on the  lower scale on the Rifle scale but it's way above anything that you can ever get out of a 357 and expect to keep seeing out of both eyes and keep your fingers intact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I did not bother checking a second site and just assumed their figures were likely accurate.
> But I think yours are more correct.
> However, the AR is still not a dangerous home defense weapons because of the mild barrel twist, resulting in the bullet being very unstable and prone to tumbling, thus not penetrating walls well because it will be going sideways after the first contact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, if I own (and I do) a 357 mag (Model 19) I would use the 38 special over the 357 mag for home defense.  The problem both of them have is, most of their energy is spent on the backdrop.  The 357 has a lot of penetration and the bullet hold together well.  Meaning, through normal construction walls, it's going to go through a couple or three walls.  The 38 special will only go through one or two.  If hit with either, the wall behind the person will receive most of the impact.  But the 38 special will be a bit slower and actually spend more time in the body making it a better defense round.  Plus, it might penetrate one wall after that, maybe.  The 357 will penetrate the body of a person, the wall behind the person and possibly go through another wall.  Making the 9mm or the 380 the better two choices for home defense because if they hit the body, they won't penetrate completely through the backdrop wall.  And both the 380 and the 9mm have about the same knockdown, not on paper, but in reality.
> 
> Meanwhile, the 223 is a smaller diameter round with a lesser grain moving at almost twice the speed.  The
> AR has enough twists to put enough turns on the 223 to make it very stable out to about 400 yds.  If you look at the ballistic charts, the 223 has about the same ballistics at 400 yds as the 357 has at the muzzle.  If the 357 can go through a body and 2 walls, the 223 can penetrate a lot further.  This is one of the reasons that the AR or  223 is the weapon of choice for the best dressed modern mass shooter.  You can hit or kill at least 3 people per round with it if the people are compacted together.  It's a full powered rifle and should be treated as such.
> 
> If you are a lousy shot, a shotgun is the best choice.  It won't penetrate that much but close does count.  And  I don't know about you, but the action jacking of a Model 870 would scare the living hell out me.  If I were a bad guy, only two things would come to my mind, hit the floor spread eagle or get the hell out of there.  Neither the 357 wheel gun, 9mm semi auto, 45 semi auto or AR has that much affect.  If you are just there to kill something, go see a shrink and sell all your guns.  If you are there to defend your home, choose the Model 870 shotgun.
Click to expand...

Depends on the round

Hollow points lose energy very quickly

Anyone not shooting hollow points for self defense is an idiot


----------



## Lesh

Pilot1 said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will hunt until I die, Leave me and my guns alone. I've almost perfected venison jerky.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't tell me you hunt with an AR.
> 
> Hunting weapons are fine...as long as they are properly registered and background checks performed.
> 
> I own several
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I hunt with an AR, but that is NOT the reason for the 2A, never was about hunting.  Read, learn, and educate yourself.
Click to expand...

A. I never said the 2A had anything to do with hunting. Hunting is a reasonable use of firearms but the 2A addresses gun ownership in a militia context only

B. If you ain't hunting razorbacks...you're a really poor shot


----------



## watchingfromafar

Markle said:


> What difference does it make if the gun is dressed up to look "evil", like an AR-15 or a regular, wood stock, hunting rifle?



It's not the type of weapon that is the issue, it's where and when you have them.
I want---
[1] background checks (prevents criminals from buying)
[2] seven (7) day waiting period before the gun store can give you the weapon. (giving the person time to cool off if the purchase is based on anger)
[3] illegal to carry a firearm in public places
[4] provide a valid home address

Any objections?


----------



## Markle

Lesh said:


> A. I never said the 2A had anything to do with hunting. Hunting is a reasonable use of firearms but the 2A addresses gun ownership in a militia context only
> 
> B. If you ain't hunting razorbacks...you're a really poor shot



I bet you failed English in school, didn't you?

Please look up the use of commas.  It could help you in the future too.

Here, I'll help!


----------



## Lesh

That was a pretty stupid post. Care to explain what you think it meant?


----------



## Rigby5

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It can stand up in court for not being arbitrary as to the definition of what is banned, but not why it need to be banned.
> There are about 30,000 shooting deaths a year, and only a couple hundred are with all rifles, much less ARs.
> Almost all the deaths are pistol related.
> And clearly an AR is a much better and safer home defense weapon, as there are going to be less accidental shoots from a 2 handed over a 1 handed weapon.
> 
> Small side point, but remember states do not have rights.
> They only have delegated authority that comes from their defense of the rights of individuals.
> But I understood that is likely what you meant.
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> An AR is a dreadful HD weapon – particularly in heavily populated areas.
> 
> You’ll not only end up killing the intruder, you’ll also end up killing your neighbor in the apartment next door – that’s not the case with a shotgun or handgun.
> 
> You’re trying – and failing – to contrive an ‘argument’ that because the ubiquitous AR is so commonplace, it should be afforded the same protections as the possession of handguns.
> 
> That’s a losing tactic.
> 
> The successful tactic will address the level of judicial review, preferably strict scrutiny – where subject to that standard, most firearm regulatory measures would be invalidated, including the regulation of ARs and similar carbines and rifles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, an AR is MUCH safer as a home defense weapon than a pistol, and a pistol is not very good.
> It appears to me you are suggesting that an AR is too powerful and will pass through walls too easily, and that is not the case.
> The AR bullet is the .223, which is a very tiny and light bullet, which is only barely spin stabilized by the rifling in the barrel.  Once the bullet hits anything at all, and slows down in the least, it immediately tumbles and loses all penetration capability.
> The risk of danger to those beyond the walls of the home is probably much lower with an AR than with most pistol bullets.
> 
> Lets compare the AR .223/5.56 with the common .357 pistol?
> 
> 5.56 with a 55 grain bullet has a velocity of 2600fps, for about 1500-1700lbs of energy
> .357 with 158 grain bullet has a velocity of 2153fps, for about 1626lbs of energy.
> 
> But it is even worse than that for .223 penetration because drywall tests show that it immediately starts to tumble and that prevents any significant penetration of common housing wall.
> 
> The main thrust of home safety is that pistols are far more likely to shoot someone by accident since they are one handed and can quickly be accidentally aimed at one of your own family members.  A two handed weapon is much more steady in aiming only where you intentionally want it to be aimed, and it is harder to drop, etc.
> 
> Although I would agree that a shotgun is even better, in that it is even easier to aim and has even less wall penetration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your figures are way off on the 357 mag using Federal ammo that most will use.
> 357 Magnum Ballistics Chart | Ballistics 101
> Picking the most likely round that would be used in the Federal Ammo
> 
> 357 Magnum JHP
> Bullet weight 125
> Muzzle Energy 575
> Foot Per Second at Muzzle.  1440
> 
> Now for that hotrod round you partially used (it appears you mixed info from a few rounds) from Magsafe.  Notice the bullet weight goes way down as well as the muzzle energy to get that 2300 fps speed.
> 
> 357 Magnum Swat
> Bullet weight 37
> Muzzle Energy 436
> Foot Per Second at Muzzle  2300
> 
> Now for a chart on the 223 and not the 556 Nato which most AR-15s should never fire.
> 
> ...
> 
> And this is not a particularly powerful 223 round either.  It starts out at
> Nossler 55 grain bullet
> Muzzle velocity of 3200 fps
> Energy at the Muzzle 1200 lbs
> 
> And that is a very common 223 round.  The figures for the 556 Nato is higher but unless you are chambered for the 556 Nato, I wouldn't  suggest you shoot too many through a chamber for a 223.
> 
> The 223 may be on the  lower scale on the Rifle scale but it's way above anything that you can ever get out of a 357 and expect to keep seeing out of both eyes and keep your fingers intact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I did not bother checking a second site and just assumed their figures were likely accurate.
> But I think yours are more correct.
> However, the AR is still not a dangerous home defense weapons because of the mild barrel twist, resulting in the bullet being very unstable and prone to tumbling, thus not penetrating walls well because it will be going sideways after the first contact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, if I own (and I do) a 357 mag (Model 19) I would use the 38 special over the 357 mag for home defense.  The problem both of them have is, most of their energy is spent on the backdrop.  The 357 has a lot of penetration and the bullet hold together well.  Meaning, through normal construction walls, it's going to go through a couple or three walls.  The 38 special will only go through one or two.  If hit with either, the wall behind the person will receive most of the impact.  But the 38 special will be a bit slower and actually spend more time in the body making it a better defense round.  Plus, it might penetrate one wall after that, maybe.  The 357 will penetrate the body of a person, the wall behind the person and possibly go through another wall.  Making the 9mm or the 380 the better two choices for home defense because if they hit the body, they won't penetrate completely through the backdrop wall.  And both the 380 and the 9mm have about the same knockdown, not on paper, but in reality.
> 
> Meanwhile, the 223 is a smaller diameter round with a lesser grain moving at almost twice the speed.  The
> AR has enough twists to put enough turns on the 223 to make it very stable out to about 400 yds.  If you look at the ballistic charts, the 223 has about the same ballistics at 400 yds as the 357 has at the muzzle.  If the 357 can go through a body and 2 walls, the 223 can penetrate a lot further.  This is one of the reasons that the AR or  223 is the weapon of choice for the best dressed modern mass shooter.  You can hit or kill at least 3 people per round with it if the people are compacted together.  It's a full powered rifle and should be treated as such.
> 
> If you are a lousy shot, a shotgun is the best choice.  It won't penetrate that much but close does count.  And  I don't know about you, but the action jacking of a Model 870 would scare the living hell out me.  If I were a bad guy, only two things would come to my mind, hit the floor spread eagle or get the hell out of there.  Neither the 357 wheel gun, 9mm semi auto, 45 semi auto or AR has that much affect.  If you are just there to kill something, go see a shrink and sell all your guns.  If you are there to defend your home, choose the Model 870 shotgun.
Click to expand...


No disagreement from me on any of that.
I happen use use a .357 for home defense because it is convenient to secure, but I use low power .38 special, FMJ bullets.
A shotgun likely is best, both from image and not needing as good of aim.
But not sure everyone in the house would be comfortable with a 12 gauge?
Considering a .410.


sealybobo said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed.  It's just a matter of time...
> 
> 
> 
> If Ironman can fly around in that war machine why can’t someone else drive around in a loaded tank? Why does Ironman get to?
> 
> One time a bunch of droids had him surrounded so he started spinning with a laser and cut them all in half.
> 
> Do republicans think they should have Ironman suits if our military started wearing them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.
> If the government starts building Ironman suits, it would essential for all responsible adults to also have them.
> It is basic to a democratic republic, where the government is only supposed to exist at the pleasure of the people.
> That means government is never supposed to ever be able to have more power than the people, or be able to intimidate or force them.
> And in fact, the 14th amendment requires that if government has something, that then all people must have the same equal access and treatment under the law.
> 
> Government must always be OF the people and never OVER the people.
> That is basic to any democratic republic, and is why the founders wanted NO standing military, and instead only gave the federal government the ability to call up a militia of citizen soldiers.
> It was wrong to change that basic safety.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But they have tanks and you can’t have one.
> 
> So you are wrong
Click to expand...


That is not at all true.  Many private individuals have tanks, and it can never be blanket illegal, even if slightly difficult.  But a Brinks armored vehicle is almost a tank as well.
Private individuals have nuclear reactors, which essentially are nuclear bombs, so there is nothing that can't be privately owned, if government can own it.
That is required by the 14th amendment.


----------



## Rigby5

sealybobo said:


> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they have tanks and you can’t have one.
> 
> So you are wrong
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I can.  I have friends that own tanks, artillery pieces, war planes.  Expensive?  Yes.  Perfectly legal to own and fire them.  However, the Afghanis never had tanks and they kicked out the Russians, and soon the U.S. who both had every military asset, and technology available.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can’t own a loaded tank
Click to expand...


Yes you can own a loaded tank.
You just have to go through all the right hoops.
In fact, there are people I know who have cannon with loaded shells, so that they can blow up potential avalanches.
There is no legal way for government to blanket prohibit anything.


----------



## Rigby5

sealybobo said:


> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can’t own a loaded tank
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you can.  I know many collectors that do just that, and fire them.  Artillery pieces also.  What law states you can not with the proper licensing, background check, etc?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Very heavily regulated. They have a mistake pointing at your tank.
> 
> Depends on the state city county
Click to expand...


State, city, and country can all regulate as practical, but NONE can automatically deny in a democratic republic.
Anyone can manage it if they spend the time and money.


----------



## Rigby5

Blues Man said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you---
> I asked, you provided. Again thanks for your reply -
> 
> Still I must add, 98% of your examples were for home defense, not in the public arena. Still you point was made, thanks again
> 
> 
> 
> Defense is defense it matters not where it occurs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There has been NO evidence that you are more or less safer armed.  That's another Kleck/Lott BS finding using really fuzzy math that has been debunked.  But I do agree what not knowing if a home is armed or not does make a difference.  I like the sign, "Screw the Dog, beware of the owner" and "This Property controlled by Smith and Wesson".  Either one will get  a chuckle out of the bad guy and he will probably move on to the next home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said I was safer because I carry.  I also never said I was less safe for carrying.
> 
> Safety is an illusion as all life is risk.  Some people choose to ignore all risk and place their safety in the hands of others I choose not to place my safety in the hands of others because other people most likely won't be around if I am ever in danger.
> 
> If a gun neither makes me more safe or less safe then why do you have a problem with anyone who is legally eligible owning and carrying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course carrying a gun makes you safer.
> It gives you more control and options.
> If carrying a gun did not make you safer, then police would not be carrying them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've been carrying for decades now and I have yet to have need of my firearm so I can say I am neither more not less safe
> 
> And Control is an illusion just like safety
Click to expand...


Hard to believe you NEVER has even a single need, but still, carrying changes what you do, and the attitude you project.
By making you more confident, that likely scared off potential trouble, without even having to actually put your hand on it.
Control and safety are NOT illusions, or else there would not be so many women raped.
Clearly if these women had been armed and trained, there would have been fewer successful rapes.
It is not an illusion.


----------



## Markle

watchingfromafar said:


> It's not the type of weapon that is the issue, it's where and when you have them.
> I want---
> [1] background checks (prevents criminals from buying)
> [2] seven (7) day waiting period before the gun store can give you the weapon. (giving the person time to cool off if the purchase is based on anger)
> [3] illegal to carry a firearm in public places
> [4] provide a valid home address



None of those things are relevant.  Frantically you're trying to further regulate law-abiding citizens but ignoring criminals.  Where are you steps to further punish people who commit crimes with a gun?

Here in Florida some years back, we passed what is called the 10-20-Life law.  If you commit a crime with a gun and no one is injured, your minimum sentence is 10 years in prison.  If fire the gun, 20-year minimum sentence, shoot someone, 25 years to life.  






That is how you reduce gun crime.  You're eager to punish law abiding citizens.  I, on the other hand, demand we punish your idols, the ciminals.


----------



## Rigby5

Lesh said:


> That was a pretty stupid post. Care to explain what you think it meant?



He was saying that rule #3 says that you use a comma to separate an introductory phrase that has been moved in front of the main clause.  
The fact the 2nd amendment mentions the advantage of having a militia that is well practiced with firearms, in no way implies that is the ONLY reason why the federal government is prohibited from any firearm jurisdiction by the constitution.

Since the whole Bill of Rights are only restrictions on the federal government, it is illogical to assume the founders were only concerned with making sure the federal government did not disarm the National Guard.
Clearly most states also describe their state militia as being all able bodied, male, adults.


----------



## Lesh

Rigby5 said:


> He was saying that rule #3 says that you use a comma to separate an introductory phrase that has been moved in front of the main clause.



That doesn't change the fact that it is "introducing" that reason for the main clause. They are still tied together



Rigby5 said:


> The fact the 2nd amendment mentions the advantage of having a militia that is well practiced with firearms, in no way implies that is the ONLY reason why the federal government is prohibited from any firearm jurisdiction by the constitution.



It mentions no OTHER reason though does it...apparently that reason was important enough to get mention in that very simple statement. No others were as important to that Amendment


----------



## Rigby5

Lesh said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was saying that rule #3 says that you use a comma to separate an introductory phrase that has been moved in front of the main clause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't change the fact that it is "introducing" that reason for the main clause. They are still tied together
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact the 2nd amendment mentions the advantage of having a militia that is well practiced with firearms, in no way implies that is the ONLY reason why the federal government is prohibited from any firearm jurisdiction by the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It mentions no OTHER reason though does it...apparently that reason was important enough to get mention in that very simple statement. No others were as important to that Amendment
Click to expand...


Lets assume you are right that there was only and only one reason why the federal government was barred from any weapons jurisdiction.
Look again at exactly what that reason is, and who it is defending?
{...
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
...}
First of all, the word militia is not capitalized, so it is not the official state Militia.  It is the people in general, the adult males of sound mind and body.  And their goal is not just to defend country, but state, municipality, home, etc.
And it is not the National Guard or the Militia the President can call up, because it is referring to the needs of a "free state", not a free country.  Then finally, look who it says has the inherent RIGHT to keep and bear arms?  It is not the federal, state, or municipal government, but "the people".  The people is MORE than just a government run defense organization.
And you don't even need a 2nd Amendment to know that.  The 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments already should be sufficient to guarantee that all individuals must have a right to bear arms, or else how could anyone defend life, liberty, or property?
And by the way, the words "well regulated militia" does not refer to one that is heavily government restricted or controlled.  The meaning of the word then and now, means smoothly functioning on a timely basis.  When a person refers to their digestion being "regular", they don't mean restricted, but the opposite, meaning it is functioning in a timely manner, without any restrictions or constipation.  We refer to "regulator clocks" because they are timely and reliable.  What the founders meant is that if the general population were ever disarmed, then you would not have a population familiar and practiced with firearms to quickly draw from.
And that is still true.  Countries with a population familiar with firearms always does better than one that does not.
And again, this can not refer to the needs of just a federal Militia, because why would anyone need to add an amendment as a restriction against the federal government, about not disarming the federal government's own Militia?  That would make no sense.  Not only is there never any chance the federal government would disarm its own Militia, but none of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights were for people who wanted a stronger federal power.  The whole point of the Bill of Rights was to guarantee restrictions on the federal government, so that states would be willing to sign on to the new federation, after these assurances of restrictions.


----------



## danielpalos

Flash said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> No reason to ban the People from keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BUT, you do believe in banning people from defending themselves.  Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> defense of self and property is a natural right.
> 
> don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and regulate them Well!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course we need to use the definition of "well regulated" that was in common usage when the Founding Fathers wrote the Bill of Rights and was reinforced in the _Heller_ case.  To mean well provisioned like having a good supply of guns, ammo and magazines.
Click to expand...

There is no appeal to ignorance.  Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.


----------



## Markle

Lesh said:


> That was a pretty stupid post. Care to explain what you think it meant?



None of the educated folks will be the least bit surprised that you have no clue about the rules of the use of a comma.  That helps explain a LOT about your lack of understanding of our founding documents.

Perhaps you could find a remedial course in the English language at a local community college or high school.


----------



## Flash

Markle said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was a pretty stupid post. Care to explain what you think it meant?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of the educated folks will be the least bit surprised that you have no clue about the rules of the use of a comma.  That helps explain a LOT about your lack of understanding of our founding documents.
> 
> Perhaps you could find a remedial course in the English language at a local community college or high school.
Click to expand...



If any of these stupid confused Moon Bats have trouble comprehending what "a well regulated militia" means all they have to do is look at the_ Heller_ case.  Justice Scalia pretty well put that silliness to rest when he said it was an individual right. 

Of course these stupid Moon Bats only believe what they want to believe.  They are dumb like that.


----------



## Markle

Rigby5 said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was saying that rule #3 says that you use a comma to separate an introductory phrase that has been moved in front of the main clause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't change the fact that it is "introducing" that reason for the main clause. They are still tied together
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact the 2nd amendment mentions the advantage of having a militia that is well practiced with firearms, in no way implies that is the ONLY reason why the federal government is prohibited from any firearm jurisdiction by the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It mentions no OTHER reason though does it...apparently that reason was important enough to get mention in that very simple statement. No others were as important to that Amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lets assume you are right that there was only and only one reason why the federal government was barred from any weapons jurisdiction.
> Look again at exactly what that reason is, and who it is defending?
> {...
> A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> ...}
> First of all, the word militia is not capitalized, so it is not the official state Militia.  It is the people in general, the adult males of sound mind and body.  And their goal is not just to defend country, but state, municipality, home, etc.
> And it is not the National Guard or the Militia the President can call up, because it is referring to the needs of a "free state", not a free country.  Then finally, look who it says has the inherent RIGHT to keep and bear arms?  It is not the federal, state, or municipal government, but "the people".  The people is MORE than just a government run defense organization.
> And you don't even need a 2nd Amendment to know that.  The 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments already should be sufficient to guarantee that all individuals must have a right to bear arms, or else how could anyone defend life, liberty, or property?
> And by the way, the words "well regulated militia" does not refer to one that is heavily government restricted or controlled.  The meaning of the word then and now, means smoothly functioning on a timely basis.  When a person refers to their digestion being "regular", they don't mean restricted, but the opposite, meaning it is functioning in a timely manner, without any restrictions or constipation.  We refer to "regulator clocks" because they are timely and reliable.  What the founders meant is that if the general population were ever disarmed, then you would not have a population familiar and practiced with firearms to quickly draw from.
> And that is still true.  Countries with a population familiar with firearms always does better than one that does not.
> And again, this can not refer to the needs of just a federal Militia, because why would anyone need to add an amendment as a restriction against the federal government, about not disarming the federal government's own Militia?  That would make no sense.  Not only is there never any chance the federal government would disarm its own Militia, but none of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights were for people who wanted a stronger federal power.  The whole point of the Bill of Rights was to guarantee restrictions on the federal government, so that states would be willing to sign on to the new federation, after these assurances of restrictions.
Click to expand...


Punctuation is critical to understand the Second Amendment, well, actually, ALL of our founding documents.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> No reason to ban the People from keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BUT, you do believe in banning people from defending themselves.  Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> defense of self and property is a natural right.
> 
> don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and regulate them Well!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course we need to use the definition of "well regulated" that was in common usage when the Founding Fathers wrote the Bill of Rights and was reinforced in the _Heller_ case.  To mean well provisioned like having a good supply of guns, ammo and magazines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance.  Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.
Click to expand...



The whole point of the Bill of Rights was to LIMIT and RESTRICT federal power or control.
It was a list of guarantees that the federal powers would be strictly limited.
A "well regulated" militia means thoroughly practiced and well functioning, similar to the meaning in a "well regulated" clock or "well regulated" bowels.

And there was to be no standing army for the federal government of the United states. 
There were only supposed to be state and local militia, which the federal government had to request the governors to borrow.

If the 2nd amendment had been to arm a federal militia, then why does it say, the "Right of the PEOPLE to bear arms", shall not be infringed?

If it was about a federal Militia, then it would not have been in the Bill of Rights at all, since that is only for federal limits and restrictions.  

And it does not say the 2nd Amendment was for a free country, but a "free state" needing a well regulated militia.  And most states defines in their constitution, that the militia consists of all able bodied adult males. 

For example, this is from the New York State Constitution:
{...
*ARTICLE XII* (9)

Defense

*[Defense; militia]*

Section 1.  The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

...}

New York State Constitution


----------



## Markle

Lesh said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was saying that rule #3 says that you use a comma to separate an introductory phrase that has been moved in front of the main clause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't change the fact that it is "introducing" that reason for the main clause. They are still tied together
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact the 2nd amendment mentions the advantage of having a militia that is well practiced with firearms, in no way implies that is the ONLY reason why the federal government is prohibited from any firearm jurisdiction by the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It mentions no OTHER reason though does it...apparently that reason was important enough to get mention in that very simple statement. No others were as important to that Amendment
Click to expand...


Really, your ignorance of the English Language is sad.  You do not get to adjust it to your own need.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lesh said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was saying that rule #3 says that you use a comma to separate an introductory phrase that has been moved in front of the main clause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't change the fact that it is "introducing" that reason for the main clause. They are still tied together
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact the 2nd amendment mentions the advantage of having a militia that is well practiced with firearms, in no way implies that is the ONLY reason why the federal government is prohibited from any firearm jurisdiction by the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It mentions no OTHER reason though does it...apparently that reason was important enough to get mention in that very simple statement. No others were as important to that Amendment
Click to expand...

Again...

How did the founders preserve the ability to have a well-regulated militia?

Prohibited the infringment of the right of the people.

You want to ignore the very plain and direct meaning of the operative because you want to take away guns.

We should ignore your bullshit.


----------



## Lesh

Rigby5 said:


> A "well regulated" militia means thoroughly practiced and well functioning, similar to the meaning in a "well regulated" clock or "well regulated" bowels.





Rigby5 said:


> And it does not say the 2nd Amendment was for a free country, but a "free state" needing a well regulated militia. And most states defines in their constitution, that the militia consists of all able bodied adult males.



So you admit that the 2A was about the  MILITIA

That's a start.

Now all you have to do is look at the Constitution to see what that militia looks like and what its duties are.

You can find that in Article 1 Section 8

And THEN look at the Dick Act which effectively abolished the organized the militia described in the Constitution

Oh...


----------



## Lesh

Flash said:


> If any of these stupid confused Moon Bats have trouble comprehending what "a well regulated militia" means all they have to do is look at the_ Heller_ case



All one has to do is look at Article 1 Section 8

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, *suppress Insurrections* and repel Invasions;

To provide for *organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia*, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the *Appointment of the Officers*, and the Authority of *training* the Militia according to the *discipline* prescribed by Congress;

A. It's main goal was suppressing the kinds of insurrections the gun huggers claim it was put in place to engage in. In fact that was HOW it was used in putting down both Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion

B.The Dick Act removed ALL of the organization,arming,discipline, officers, and training that make UP a "Well Regulated Militia"


----------



## Dale Smith

Lesh said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A "well regulated" militia means thoroughly practiced and well functioning, similar to the meaning in a "well regulated" clock or "well regulated" bowels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it does not say the 2nd Amendment was for a free country, but a "free state" needing a well regulated militia. And most states defines in their constitution, that the militia consists of all able bodied adult males.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you admit that the 2A was about the  MILITIA
> 
> That's a start.
> 
> Now all you have to do is look at the Constitution to see what that militia looks like and what its duties are.
> 
> You can find that in Article 1 Section 8
> 
> And THEN look at the Dick Act which effectively abolished the organized the militia described in the Constitution
> 
> Oh...
Click to expand...


We, the people, are the militia....not the military that works at the behest of this corporate entity called "da gubermint" that works at the behest of it. You little commie fucks can't fulfill your dream of a commie utopia with an armed populace.

Molon Labe, bitch.......


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lesh said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A "well regulated" militia means thoroughly practiced and well functioning, similar to the meaning in a "well regulated" clock or "well regulated" bowels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it does not say the 2nd Amendment was for a free country, but a "free state" needing a well regulated militia. And most states defines in their constitution, that the militia consists of all able bodied adult males.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you admit that the 2A was about the  MILITIA
> 
> That's a start.
> 
> Now all you have to do is look at the Constitution to see what that militia looks like and what its duties are.
> 
> You can find that in Article 1 Section 8
> 
> And THEN look at the Dick Act which effectively abolished the organized the militia described in the Constitution
> 
> Oh...
Click to expand...

...and yet the right of the people STILL shall not be infringed.

.


----------



## Lesh

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> .and yet the right of the people STILL shall not be infringed.



To have arms for the militia?

It already was...over 100 years ago by the Dick Act


----------



## Lesh

Dale Smith said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A "well regulated" militia means thoroughly practiced and well functioning, similar to the meaning in a "well regulated" clock or "well regulated" bowels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it does not say the 2nd Amendment was for a free country, but a "free state" needing a well regulated militia. And most states defines in their constitution, that the militia consists of all able bodied adult males.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you admit that the 2A was about the  MILITIA
> 
> That's a start.
> 
> Now all you have to do is look at the Constitution to see what that militia looks like and what its duties are.
> 
> You can find that in Article 1 Section 8
> 
> And THEN look at the Dick Act which effectively abolished the organized the militia described in the Constitution
> 
> Oh...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We, the people, are the militia....not the military that works at the behest of this corporate entity called "da gubermint" that works at the behest of it. You little commie fucks can't fulfill your dream of a commie utopia with an armed populace.
> 
> Molon Labe, bitch.......
Click to expand...

The only militia that exists is an UNORGANIZED one (far different from that which is described in the Constitution) and ONLY in regards to MALES...between the ages of 17 and 45.

You wanna go with that?


----------



## Lesh

Does that mean the Constitution bans guns?

Not even.

It simply does not apply to gun rights


----------



## Dale Smith

Lesh said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A "well regulated" militia means thoroughly practiced and well functioning, similar to the meaning in a "well regulated" clock or "well regulated" bowels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it does not say the 2nd Amendment was for a free country, but a "free state" needing a well regulated militia. And most states defines in their constitution, that the militia consists of all able bodied adult males.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you admit that the 2A was about the  MILITIA
> 
> That's a start.
> 
> Now all you have to do is look at the Constitution to see what that militia looks like and what its duties are.
> 
> You can find that in Article 1 Section 8
> 
> And THEN look at the Dick Act which effectively abolished the organized the militia described in the Constitution
> 
> Oh...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We, the people, are the militia....not the military that works at the behest of this corporate entity called "da gubermint" that works at the behest of it. You little commie fucks can't fulfill your dream of a commie utopia with an armed populace.
> 
> Molon Labe, bitch.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only militia that exists is an UNORGANIZED one (far different from that which is described in the Constitution) and ONLY in regards to MALES...between the ages of 17 and 45.
> 
> You wanna go with that?
Click to expand...


LMAO!!!! I see no age restriction, dumb ass......

*Second Amendment*. The *Second Amendment* of the United States Constitution reads: "A *well regulated* Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


----------



## Lesh

Dale Smith said:


> LMAO!!!! I see no age restriction, dumb ass......



Then read the Dick Act stupid

And again...here is what the Constitution says a "Well Regulated Militia" looks like and is used for

Article 1 Section 8

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, *suppress Insurrections* and repel Invasions;

To provide for *organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia*, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the *Appointment of the Officers*, and the Authority of *training* the Militia according to the *discipline* prescribed by Congress;

A. It's main goal was suppressing the kinds of insurrections the gun huggers claim it was put in place to engage in. In fact that was HOW it was used in putting down both Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion

B.The Dick Act removed ALL of the organization,arming,discipline, officers, and training that make UP a "Well Regulated Militia"


----------



## Dale Smith

Lesh said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO!!!! I see no age restriction, dumb ass......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then read the Dick Act stupid
> 
> And again...here is what the Constitution says a "Well Regulated Militia" looks like and is used for
> 
> Article 1 Section 8
> 
> To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, *suppress Insurrections* and repel Invasions;
> 
> To provide for *organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia*, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the *Appointment of the Officers*, and the Authority of *training* the Militia according to the *discipline* prescribed by Congress;
> 
> A. It's main goal was suppressing the kinds of insurrections the gun huggers claim it was put in place to engage in. In fact that was HOW it was used in putting down both Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion
> 
> B.The Dick Act removed ALL of the organization,arming,discipline, officers, and training that make UP a "Well Regulated Militia"
Click to expand...



LMAO! Why was it called an "Act" instead of a "law"? Because corporations cannot pass laws under the UCC, that is why we have acts, statutes, codes and ordinances. The "DICK Act" violates the spirit of the organic Constitution but not under the corporate charter constitution via the Act of 1871 and it only applies to "persons"...look that word up per Black's Law dictionary.

Consider yourself "schooled"......


----------



## Lesh

Dale Smith said:


> Because corporations cannot pass laws under the UCC,



WTF are you talking about?

You're Russian...aren't you...


----------



## Dale Smith

Lesh said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because corporations cannot pass laws under the UCC,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTF are you talking about?
> 
> You're Russian...aren't you...
Click to expand...


I am a Texan, my great-grandfather was a full-blooded Chocktaw native. His son (my grandfather) came to Texas in a covered wagon in 1919.


----------



## Blues Man

Rigby5 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Defense is defense it matters not where it occurs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There has been NO evidence that you are more or less safer armed.  That's another Kleck/Lott BS finding using really fuzzy math that has been debunked.  But I do agree what not knowing if a home is armed or not does make a difference.  I like the sign, "Screw the Dog, beware of the owner" and "This Property controlled by Smith and Wesson".  Either one will get  a chuckle out of the bad guy and he will probably move on to the next home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said I was safer because I carry.  I also never said I was less safe for carrying.
> 
> Safety is an illusion as all life is risk.  Some people choose to ignore all risk and place their safety in the hands of others I choose not to place my safety in the hands of others because other people most likely won't be around if I am ever in danger.
> 
> If a gun neither makes me more safe or less safe then why do you have a problem with anyone who is legally eligible owning and carrying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course carrying a gun makes you safer.
> It gives you more control and options.
> If carrying a gun did not make you safer, then police would not be carrying them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've been carrying for decades now and I have yet to have need of my firearm so I can say I am neither more not less safe
> 
> And Control is an illusion just like safety
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hard to believe you NEVER has even a single need, but still, carrying changes what you do, and the attitude you project.
> By making you more confident, that likely scared off potential trouble, without even having to actually put your hand on it.
> Control and safety are NOT illusions, or else there would not be so many women raped.
> Clearly if these women had been armed and trained, there would have been fewer successful rapes.
> It is not an illusion.
Click to expand...


Most people who own firearms have never used them in self defense

don't try to pretend they have

I own and carry and I realize that but I'm a better to have it and not need it kind of guy.


----------



## Blues Man

Lesh said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A "well regulated" militia means thoroughly practiced and well functioning, similar to the meaning in a "well regulated" clock or "well regulated" bowels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it does not say the 2nd Amendment was for a free country, but a "free state" needing a well regulated militia. And most states defines in their constitution, that the militia consists of all able bodied adult males.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you admit that the 2A was about the  MILITIA
> 
> That's a start.
> 
> Now all you have to do is look at the Constitution to see what that militia looks like and what its duties are.
> 
> You can find that in Article 1 Section 8
> 
> And THEN look at the Dick Act which effectively abolished the organized the militia described in the Constitution
> 
> Oh...
Click to expand...


The Bill of Rights is all about the people not the government.  That is the premise our Constitution is founded upon


----------



## Blues Man

Lesh said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was saying that rule #3 says that you use a comma to separate an introductory phrase that has been moved in front of the main clause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't change the fact that it is "introducing" that reason for the main clause. They are still tied together
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact the 2nd amendment mentions the advantage of having a militia that is well practiced with firearms, in no way implies that is the ONLY reason why the federal government is prohibited from any firearm jurisdiction by the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It mentions no OTHER reason though does it...apparently that reason was important enough to get mention in that very simple statement. No others were as important to that Amendment
Click to expand...


A reason for a right is not a limitation on that right.


----------



## danielpalos

Markle said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was a pretty stupid post. Care to explain what you think it meant?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of the educated folks will be the least bit surprised that you have no clue about the rules of the use of a comma.  That helps explain a LOT about your lack of understanding of our founding documents.
> 
> Perhaps you could find a remedial course in the English language at a local community college or high school.
Click to expand...

The first clause cannot be meaningless and the second clause must follow wherever it goes.


----------



## danielpalos

Flash said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was a pretty stupid post. Care to explain what you think it meant?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of the educated folks will be the least bit surprised that you have no clue about the rules of the use of a comma.  That helps explain a LOT about your lack of understanding of our founding documents.
> 
> Perhaps you could find a remedial course in the English language at a local community college or high school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If any of these stupid confused Moon Bats have trouble comprehending what "a well regulated militia" means all they have to do is look at the_ Heller_ case.  Justice Scalia pretty well put that silliness to rest when he said it was an individual right.
> 
> Of course these stupid Moon Bats only believe what they want to believe.  They are dumb like that.
Click to expand...

Judicial activism.  The People are the Militia.  Well regulated Militia of the whole and entire People are declared Necessary.


----------



## danielpalos

Markle said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was saying that rule #3 says that you use a comma to separate an introductory phrase that has been moved in front of the main clause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't change the fact that it is "introducing" that reason for the main clause. They are still tied together
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact the 2nd amendment mentions the advantage of having a militia that is well practiced with firearms, in no way implies that is the ONLY reason why the federal government is prohibited from any firearm jurisdiction by the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It mentions no OTHER reason though does it...apparently that reason was important enough to get mention in that very simple statement. No others were as important to that Amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lets assume you are right that there was only and only one reason why the federal government was barred from any weapons jurisdiction.
> Look again at exactly what that reason is, and who it is defending?
> {...
> A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> ...}
> First of all, the word militia is not capitalized, so it is not the official state Militia.  It is the people in general, the adult males of sound mind and body.  And their goal is not just to defend country, but state, municipality, home, etc.
> And it is not the National Guard or the Militia the President can call up, because it is referring to the needs of a "free state", not a free country.  Then finally, look who it says has the inherent RIGHT to keep and bear arms?  It is not the federal, state, or municipal government, but "the people".  The people is MORE than just a government run defense organization.
> And you don't even need a 2nd Amendment to know that.  The 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments already should be sufficient to guarantee that all individuals must have a right to bear arms, or else how could anyone defend life, liberty, or property?
> And by the way, the words "well regulated militia" does not refer to one that is heavily government restricted or controlled.  The meaning of the word then and now, means smoothly functioning on a timely basis.  When a person refers to their digestion being "regular", they don't mean restricted, but the opposite, meaning it is functioning in a timely manner, without any restrictions or constipation.  We refer to "regulator clocks" because they are timely and reliable.  What the founders meant is that if the general population were ever disarmed, then you would not have a population familiar and practiced with firearms to quickly draw from.
> And that is still true.  Countries with a population familiar with firearms always does better than one that does not.
> And again, this can not refer to the needs of just a federal Militia, because why would anyone need to add an amendment as a restriction against the federal government, about not disarming the federal government's own Militia?  That would make no sense.  Not only is there never any chance the federal government would disarm its own Militia, but none of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights were for people who wanted a stronger federal power.  The whole point of the Bill of Rights was to guarantee restrictions on the federal government, so that states would be willing to sign on to the new federation, after these assurances of restrictions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Punctuation is critical to understand the Second Amendment, well, actually, ALL of our founding documents.
Click to expand...

“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.”
— George Mason


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was saying that rule #3 says that you use a comma to separate an introductory phrase that has been moved in front of the main clause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't change the fact that it is "introducing" that reason for the main clause. They are still tied together
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact the 2nd amendment mentions the advantage of having a militia that is well practiced with firearms, in no way implies that is the ONLY reason why the federal government is prohibited from any firearm jurisdiction by the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It mentions no OTHER reason though does it...apparently that reason was important enough to get mention in that very simple statement. No others were as important to that Amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again...
> 
> How did the founders preserve the ability to have a well-regulated militia?
> 
> Prohibited the infringment of the right of the people.
> 
> You want to ignore the very plain and direct meaning of the operative because you want to take away guns.
> 
> We should ignore your bullshit.
Click to expand...

We should ignore right wingers who allege hard work is important but refuse to muster to become well regulated and Necessary.


----------



## danielpalos

Lesh said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A "well regulated" militia means thoroughly practiced and well functioning, similar to the meaning in a "well regulated" clock or "well regulated" bowels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it does not say the 2nd Amendment was for a free country, but a "free state" needing a well regulated militia. And most states defines in their constitution, that the militia consists of all able bodied adult males.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you admit that the 2A was about the  MILITIA
> 
> That's a start.
> 
> Now all you have to do is look at the Constitution to see what that militia looks like and what its duties are.
> 
> You can find that in Article 1 Section 8
> 
> And THEN look at the Dick Act which effectively abolished the organized the militia described in the Constitution
> 
> Oh...
Click to expand...

Why do you say that?


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A "well regulated" militia means thoroughly practiced and well functioning, similar to the meaning in a "well regulated" clock or "well regulated" bowels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it does not say the 2nd Amendment was for a free country, but a "free state" needing a well regulated militia. And most states defines in their constitution, that the militia consists of all able bodied adult males.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you admit that the 2A was about the  MILITIA
> 
> That's a start.
> 
> Now all you have to do is look at the Constitution to see what that militia looks like and what its duties are.
> 
> You can find that in Article 1 Section 8
> 
> And THEN look at the Dick Act which effectively abolished the organized the militia described in the Constitution
> 
> Oh...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...and yet the right of the people STILL shall not be infringed.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

...especially when it is about keeping and bearing Arms for your State or the Union.  

There is no federal excuse to deny or disparage the People.


----------



## danielpalos

Blues Man said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A "well regulated" militia means thoroughly practiced and well functioning, similar to the meaning in a "well regulated" clock or "well regulated" bowels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it does not say the 2nd Amendment was for a free country, but a "free state" needing a well regulated militia. And most states defines in their constitution, that the militia consists of all able bodied adult males.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you admit that the 2A was about the  MILITIA
> 
> That's a start.
> 
> Now all you have to do is look at the Constitution to see what that militia looks like and what its duties are.
> 
> You can find that in Article 1 Section 8
> 
> And THEN look at the Dick Act which effectively abolished the organized the militia described in the Constitution
> 
> Oh...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Bill of Rights is all about the people not the government.  That is the premise our Constitution is founded upon
Click to expand...

just the anti-federalists proving human nature right.


----------



## danielpalos

Blues Man said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was saying that rule #3 says that you use a comma to separate an introductory phrase that has been moved in front of the main clause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't change the fact that it is "introducing" that reason for the main clause. They are still tied together
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact the 2nd amendment mentions the advantage of having a militia that is well practiced with firearms, in no way implies that is the ONLY reason why the federal government is prohibited from any firearm jurisdiction by the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It mentions no OTHER reason though does it...apparently that reason was important enough to get mention in that very simple statement. No others were as important to that Amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A reason for a right is not a limitation on that right.
Click to expand...

You confuse natural rights with the security of a free State.


----------



## Lesh

Blues Man said:


> A reason for a right is not a limitation on that right.



If the REASON no longer exists...then the right no longer exists


----------



## danielpalos

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.


----------



## Blues Man

danielpalos said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was saying that rule #3 says that you use a comma to separate an introductory phrase that has been moved in front of the main clause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't change the fact that it is "introducing" that reason for the main clause. They are still tied together
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact the 2nd amendment mentions the advantage of having a militia that is well practiced with firearms, in no way implies that is the ONLY reason why the federal government is prohibited from any firearm jurisdiction by the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It mentions no OTHER reason though does it...apparently that reason was important enough to get mention in that very simple statement. No others were as important to that Amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A reason for a right is not a limitation on that right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You confuse natural rights with the security of a free State.
Click to expand...


I'm not the one that is confused

The Bill of Rights is not about the security of the state it is about the people


----------



## Blues Man

Lesh said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> A reason for a right is not a limitation on that right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the REASON no longer exists...then the right no longer exists
Click to expand...


Wrong.

The whole premise our Constitution is based on is that rights are inherent in the people and not granted by government


----------



## danielpalos

Blues Man said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was saying that rule #3 says that you use a comma to separate an introductory phrase that has been moved in front of the main clause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't change the fact that it is "introducing" that reason for the main clause. They are still tied together
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact the 2nd amendment mentions the advantage of having a militia that is well practiced with firearms, in no way implies that is the ONLY reason why the federal government is prohibited from any firearm jurisdiction by the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It mentions no OTHER reason though does it...apparently that reason was important enough to get mention in that very simple statement. No others were as important to that Amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A reason for a right is not a limitation on that right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You confuse natural rights with the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the one that is confused
> 
> The Bill of Rights is not about the security of the state it is about the people
Click to expand...

In right wing fantasy, You are always right; the anti federalists were just as right.


----------



## Lesh

Nothing changes the FACT that the 2A makes gun rights (at least as far as the Constitution goes) CONDITIONAL on their need by the militia.

Scalia turned that on its head

Prior to Heller...every SCOTUS case dealing with the 2A dealt with it within the context of the militia.
Heller tried to ignore the militia clause...ridiculously


----------



## Blues Man

danielpalos said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was saying that rule #3 says that you use a comma to separate an introductory phrase that has been moved in front of the main clause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't change the fact that it is "introducing" that reason for the main clause. They are still tied together
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact the 2nd amendment mentions the advantage of having a militia that is well practiced with firearms, in no way implies that is the ONLY reason why the federal government is prohibited from any firearm jurisdiction by the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It mentions no OTHER reason though does it...apparently that reason was important enough to get mention in that very simple statement. No others were as important to that Amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A reason for a right is not a limitation on that right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You confuse natural rights with the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the one that is confused
> 
> The Bill of Rights is not about the security of the state it is about the people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In right wing fantasy, You are always right; the anti federalists were just as right.
Click to expand...


Once again the Bill of Rights is a protection of the people from government not a protection of government


----------



## danielpalos

Lesh said:


> Nothing changes the FACT that the 2A makes gun rights (at least as far as the Constitution goes) CONDITIONAL on their need by the militia.
> 
> Scalia turned that on its head
> 
> Prior to Heller...every SCOTUS case dealing with the 2A dealt with it within the context of the militia.
> Heller tried to ignore the militia clause...ridiculously


Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws.


----------



## Blues Man

Lesh said:


> Nothing changes the FACT that the 2A makes gun rights (at least as far as the Constitution goes) CONDITIONAL on their need by the militia.
> 
> Scalia in Heller admitted as much
> 
> Prior to Heller...every SCOTUS case dealing with the 2A dealt with it within the context of the militia.
> Heller tried to ignore the militia clause...ridiculously



No it doesn't.

The SCOTUS funally got it right with Heller

If you want to live in the past why not live in the time where abortion wasn't considered a right


----------



## danielpalos

Blues Man said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing changes the FACT that the 2A makes gun rights (at least as far as the Constitution goes) CONDITIONAL on their need by the militia.
> 
> Scalia in Heller admitted as much
> 
> Prior to Heller...every SCOTUS case dealing with the 2A dealt with it within the context of the militia.
> Heller tried to ignore the militia clause...ridiculously
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.
> 
> The SCOTUS funally got it right with Heller
> 
> If you want to live in the past why not live in the time where abortion wasn't considered a right
Click to expand...

Judicial activism.  

“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.”
— George Mason


----------



## Blues Man

danielpalos said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing changes the FACT that the 2A makes gun rights (at least as far as the Constitution goes) CONDITIONAL on their need by the militia.
> 
> Scalia in Heller admitted as much
> 
> Prior to Heller...every SCOTUS case dealing with the 2A dealt with it within the context of the militia.
> Heller tried to ignore the militia clause...ridiculously
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.
> 
> The SCOTUS funally got it right with Heller
> 
> If you want to live in the past why not live in the time where abortion wasn't considered a right
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Judicial activism.
> 
> “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.”
> — George Mason
Click to expand...


 if the people are the militia all people have the right to keep and bear arms


----------



## Lesh

Blues Man said:


> The SCOTUS funally got it right with Heller



You just admitted that Heller was a stark departure from precedent. Legislating from the bench


----------



## Blues Man

Lesh said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> The SCOTUS funally got it right with Heller
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just admitted that Heller was a stark departure from precedent. Legislating from the bench
Click to expand...


So what?

Abortion was a stark departure from historical precedent too


----------



## danielpalos

Blues Man said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing changes the FACT that the 2A makes gun rights (at least as far as the Constitution goes) CONDITIONAL on their need by the militia.
> 
> Scalia in Heller admitted as much
> 
> Prior to Heller...every SCOTUS case dealing with the 2A dealt with it within the context of the militia.
> Heller tried to ignore the militia clause...ridiculously
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.
> 
> The SCOTUS funally got it right with Heller
> 
> If you want to live in the past why not live in the time where abortion wasn't considered a right
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Judicial activism.
> 
> “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.”
> — George Mason
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if the people are the militia all people have the right to keep and bear arms
Click to expand...

only well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


----------



## Lesh

Blues Man said:


> if the people are the militia all people have the right to keep and bear arms



According to the Dick Act ...at the very most...that pertains to only MALES between 17 and 45.

THAT was a huge part of why Scalia "decoupled" the militia clause from the 2A when he legislated from th bench.

He knew that the unorganized militia (which is all that is left of the militia)...would exclude all women and all males over 45 even IF you ignore what the Constitution says about what a "Well Regulated Militia" is, and is for.


----------



## Lesh

Blues Man said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> The SCOTUS funally got it right with Heller
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just admitted that Heller was a stark departure from precedent. Legislating from the bench
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what?
> 
> Abortion was a stark departure from historical precedent too
Click to expand...

So you're admitting that you favor legislating from the bench...but only if you agree with the decision

Oh...


----------



## Blues Man

danielpalos said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing changes the FACT that the 2A makes gun rights (at least as far as the Constitution goes) CONDITIONAL on their need by the militia.
> 
> Scalia in Heller admitted as much
> 
> Prior to Heller...every SCOTUS case dealing with the 2A dealt with it within the context of the militia.
> Heller tried to ignore the militia clause...ridiculously
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.
> 
> The SCOTUS funally got it right with Heller
> 
> If you want to live in the past why not live in the time where abortion wasn't considered a right
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Judicial activism.
> 
> “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.”
> — George Mason
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if the people are the militia all people have the right to keep and bear arms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
Click to expand...

 Wrong as usual


----------



## Blues Man

Lesh said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> The SCOTUS funally got it right with Heller
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just admitted that Heller was a stark departure from precedent. Legislating from the bench
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what?
> 
> Abortion was a stark departure from historical precedent too
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're admitting that you favor legislating from the bench...but only if you agree with the decision
> 
> Oh...
Click to expand...


Interpretation is not legislation

So you're telling me you are antiabortion because it was a change in precedent or do you support  a woman's right to choose?


----------



## Lesh

Blues Man said:


> Interpretation is not legislation



What a crock. Of course it is. You just realized that you stepped on your own dick

As far as abortion...please list those SCOTUS precedents?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Dale Smith said:


> I am a Texan, my great-grandfather was a full-blooded Chocktaw native. His son (my grandfather) came to Texas in a covered wagon in 1919.


My greatgreatgreat grandfathet came to Texas after fighting in the Louisiana Cav.  1867 or so.


----------



## Lesh

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am a Texan, my great-grandfather was a full-blooded Chocktaw native. His son (my grandfather) came to Texas in a covered wagon in 1919.
> 
> 
> 
> My greatgreatgreat grandfathet came to Texas after fighting in the Louisiana Cav.  1867 or so.
Click to expand...

9th Cavalry?


----------



## danielpalos

Blues Man said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing changes the FACT that the 2A makes gun rights (at least as far as the Constitution goes) CONDITIONAL on their need by the militia.
> 
> Scalia in Heller admitted as much
> 
> Prior to Heller...every SCOTUS case dealing with the 2A dealt with it within the context of the militia.
> Heller tried to ignore the militia clause...ridiculously
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.
> 
> The SCOTUS funally got it right with Heller
> 
> If you want to live in the past why not live in the time where abortion wasn't considered a right
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Judicial activism.
> 
> “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.”
> — George Mason
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if the people are the militia all people have the right to keep and bear arms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong as usual
Click to expand...

i gainsay your contention.  want to argue about it?


----------



## Blues Man

Lesh said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interpretation is not legislation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a crock. Of course it is. You just realized that you stepped on your own dick
> 
> As far as abortion...please list those SCOTUS precedents?
Click to expand...


The fact that a right to privacy was interpreted to be in the Constitution made abortion legal for all women that is a precedent because there was no acknowledged right to privacy before the ruling on Roe v Wade.

The Heller decision brought the interpretation of the second more into line with what the people believe it to mean


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lesh said:


> According to the Dick Act ...at the very most...that pertains to only MALES between 17 and 45.


Yes, but the Dick act is not the Costitution.

The people are not limited to only males 17 to 45.  All people have the right.   

They didn't preserve the right of the militia (only able-bodied men), but the the right of the people (everyone)...shall not be infringed.


----------



## danielpalos

Blues Man said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interpretation is not legislation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a crock. Of course it is. You just realized that you stepped on your own dick
> 
> As far as abortion...please list those SCOTUS precedents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that a right to privacy was interpreted to be in the Constitution made abortion legal for all women that is a precedent because there was no acknowledged right to privacy before the ruling on Roe v Wade.
> 
> The Heller decision brought the interpretation of the second more into line with what the people believe it to mean
Click to expand...

A right to privacy arises from a recognition of natural rights in State Constitutions through recourse to Due Process in federal venues.


----------



## Lesh

Blues Man said:


> The fact that a right to privacy was interpreted to be in the Constitution made abortion legal for all women that is a precedent because there was no acknowledged right to privacy before the ruling on Roe v Wade.
> 
> The Heller decision brought the interpretation of the second more into line with what the people believe it to mean



So you admit that there was no SCOTUS precedent prior to Roe regarding abortion.

Surrender accepted


----------



## Blues Man

danielpalos said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interpretation is not legislation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a crock. Of course it is. You just realized that you stepped on your own dick
> 
> As far as abortion...please list those SCOTUS precedents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that a right to privacy was interpreted to be in the Constitution made abortion legal for all women that is a precedent because there was no acknowledged right to privacy before the ruling on Roe v Wade.
> 
> The Heller decision brought the interpretation of the second more into line with what the people believe it to mean
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A right to privacy arises from a recognition of natural rights in State Constitutions through recourse to Due Process in federal venues.
Click to expand...


So then why do you not think an individual has the right to own guns?

If everyone has a right to privacy surely that applies to owning guns


----------



## Lesh

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Yes, but the Dick act is not the Costitution.



Until repealed or ruled unconstitutional...it is LAW


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lesh said:


> So you're admitting that you favor legislating from the bench...but only if you agree with the decision


I disagree with Scalia.  I don't think he went far enough.

Shall not be infringed mean NO regulation.  

The plan language states that (regardless of the reason) the RIGHT shall not be infringed.  Any other "interpretation" is bullshit legislating from the bench.


----------



## Lesh

Blues Man said:


> So then why do you not think an individual has the right to own guns?



That "right" is up to the states and municipalities


----------



## danielpalos

Blues Man said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interpretation is not legislation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a crock. Of course it is. You just realized that you stepped on your own dick
> 
> As far as abortion...please list those SCOTUS precedents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that a right to privacy was interpreted to be in the Constitution made abortion legal for all women that is a precedent because there was no acknowledged right to privacy before the ruling on Roe v Wade.
> 
> The Heller decision brought the interpretation of the second more into line with what the people believe it to mean
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A right to privacy arises from a recognition of natural rights in State Constitutions through recourse to Due Process in federal venues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then why do you not think an individual has the right to own guns?
> 
> If everyone has a right to privacy surely that applies to owning guns
Click to expand...

Our Second Amendment only expresses that well regulated militia may not be Infringed, regardless of all of the other ones.


----------



## Lesh

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're admitting that you favor legislating from the bench...but only if you agree with the decision
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with Scalia.  I don't think he went far enough.
> 
> Shall not be infringed mean NO regulation.
> 
> The plan language states that (regardless of the reason) the RIGHT shall not be infringed.  Any other "interpretation" is bullshit legislating from the bench.
Click to expand...

Yea...well Scalia knew that was a nutter position so...


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lesh said:


> Until repealed or ruled unconstitutional...it is LAW


And, how does the Dick Act remove the 2A?  The right of the people is still preserved.

You make no sense.


----------



## Blues Man

Lesh said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that a right to privacy was interpreted to be in the Constitution made abortion legal for all women that is a precedent because there was no acknowledged right to privacy before the ruling on Roe v Wade.
> 
> The Heller decision brought the interpretation of the second more into line with what the people believe it to mean
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit that there was no SCOTUS precedent prior to Roe regarding abortion.
> 
> Surrender accepted
Click to expand...


The decision on abortion was the precedent.

It seems to me the Miller decision that attempted to make the second a collective right was really nothing but an attempt to make sawed off shotguns illegal to own because they had no military value.

Up until that time was it illegal for anyone to own firearms if they were not in the military?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Our Second Amendment only expresses that well regulated militia may not be Infringed, regardless of all of the other ones.


Then, why does it say "the right of the People...shall not be infringed"?

Otherwise, they could have said the right of the militia shall not be infringed.


----------



## Lesh

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> And, how does the Dick Act remove the 2A?



Try to keep up OK?

It puts an age limit and sex on the right (17-45 males only) and removes the "well regulated" part


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lesh said:


> Yea...well Scalia knew that was a nutter position so...


So he legislated from the bench?

I agree.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment only expresses that well regulated militia may not be Infringed, regardless of all of the other ones.
> 
> 
> 
> Then, why does it say "the right of the People...shall not be infringed"?
> 
> Otherwise, they could have said the right of the militia shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...

well regulated militia may not be Infringed, regardless of _all_ of the other ones.


----------



## Lesh

Blues Man said:


> The decision on abortion was the precedent.



So Roe set the precedent. OK...and how can it break its own precedent?



Blues Man said:


> It seems to me the Miller decision that attempted to make the second a collective right was really nothing but an attempt to make sawed off shotguns illegal to own because they had no military value.



Miller was decided BASED on the militia clause...as was Cruikshank


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lesh said:


> Try to keep up OK?
> 
> It puts an age limit and sex on the right (17-45 males only) and removes the "well regulated" part


That is a stupid argument.  

The right of the people...not the militia.  

Nothing about the Dick act makes the RIGHT go away.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lesh said:


> Miller was decided BASED on the militia clause.


Miller implies that any weapon that would be used in a militia is protected.  So, I get machine guns.


----------



## Lesh

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Miller implies that any weapon that would be used in a militia is protected. So, I get machine guns.



There is no doubt that both Miller and Cruikshank had "issues" but BOTH ruled using the 2A as a basis for gun rights but ONLY as related to the militia.

Heller threw that precedent out the window.

And no...you don't get machine guns. You're batshit crazy.


----------



## Blues Man

Lesh said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that a right to privacy was interpreted to be in the Constitution made abortion legal for all women that is a precedent because there was no acknowledged right to privacy before the ruling on Roe v Wade.
> 
> The Heller decision brought the interpretation of the second more into line with what the people believe it to mean
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit that there was no SCOTUS precedent prior to Roe regarding abortion.
> 
> Surrender accepted
Click to expand...


Abortion was illegal prior to Roe V wade now it is not 

Interpretation of the constitution allowed the right to privacy

The SCOTUS interpreted the Constitution to mean an individual can own firearms.

The Miller decision revolved around a sawed off shotgun not ALL firearms


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Miller was decided BASED on the militia clause.
> 
> 
> 
> Miller implies that any weapon that would be used in a militia is protected.  So, I get machine guns.
Click to expand...

only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws.


----------



## Blues Man

Lesh said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Miller implies that any weapon that would be used in a militia is protected. So, I get machine guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no doubt that both Miller and Cruikshank had "issues" but BOTH ruled using the 2A as a basis for gun rights but ONLY as related to the militia.
> 
> Heller threw that precedent out the window.
> 
> And no...you don;t get machine guns. You're batshit crazy.
Click to expand...

 no it didn't

because before Miller people were not held to the standard of weapons beneficial to militia use


----------



## Lesh

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> That is a stupid argument.
> 
> The right of the people...not the militia.
> 
> Nothing about the Dick act makes the RIGHT go away.



Again...unless and until the Dick Act is repealed or ruled unconstitutional...it removes "well regulated" from the militia (essentially negating the 2A) and puts an age limit on the UNORGANIZED militia


----------



## Lesh

Blues Man said:


> no it didn't
> 
> because before Miller people were not held to the standard of weapons beneficial to militia use



Jesus...Cruikshank predated Miller by more than 40 years


----------



## danielpalos

Blues Man said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that a right to privacy was interpreted to be in the Constitution made abortion legal for all women that is a precedent because there was no acknowledged right to privacy before the ruling on Roe v Wade.
> 
> The Heller decision brought the interpretation of the second more into line with what the people believe it to mean
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit that there was no SCOTUS precedent prior to Roe regarding abortion.
> 
> Surrender accepted
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abortion was illegal prior to Roe V wade now it is not
> 
> Interpretation of the constitution allowed the right to privacy
> 
> The SCOTUS interpreted the Constitution to mean an individual can own firearms.
> 
> The Miller decision revolved around a sawed off shotgun not ALL firearms
Click to expand...

how about this;

Our welfare clause is General.

We have a Commerce Clause.

And, we have a federal doctrine regarding the concept of employment at will.

We also have State laws regarding the same concept.

We could solve simple poverty by solving for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment;

through unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment States.

Then, we can fix the minimum wage to any amount that should be necessary and proper in modern capital times.


----------



## danielpalos

Blues Man said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Miller implies that any weapon that would be used in a militia is protected. So, I get machine guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no doubt that both Miller and Cruikshank had "issues" but BOTH ruled using the 2A as a basis for gun rights but ONLY as related to the militia.
> 
> Heller threw that precedent out the window.
> 
> And no...you don;t get machine guns. You're batshit crazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no it didn't
> 
> because before Miller people were not held to the standard of weapons beneficial to militia use
Click to expand...

Who's fault is it that gun lovers cannot convince their own representatives to government they cannot be careful with their Arms?


----------



## Lesh

Blues Man said:


> The Miller decision revolved around a sawed off shotgun not ALL firearms



Miller ruled based on the need for certain firearms by the militia.

It may have been wrongly decided..but the fact that it tied the militia to the 2A as did SCOTUS decisions prior to it can not be ignored


----------



## Blues Man

Lesh said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> no it didn't
> 
> because before Miller people were not held to the standard of weapons beneficial to militia use
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus...Cruikshank predated Miller by more than 40 years
Click to expand...


And it was overturned by Heller and in the opinion of many rightly so

Just as many other Scotus decisions have been overturned

For example Plessy v Ferguson was overruled by Brown v The Board of education ending separate but equal

But you have no problem with that do you?


----------



## Blues Man

Lesh said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Miller decision revolved around a sawed off shotgun not ALL firearms
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Miller ruled based on the need for certain firearms by the militia.
> 
> It may have been wrongly decided..but the fact that it tied the militia to the 2A as did SCOTUS decisions prior to it can not be ignored
Click to expand...


All SCOTUS decisions can be overturned by subsequent Courts


----------



## Lesh

Blues Man said:


> All SCOTUS decisions can be overturned by subsequent Courts



So precedent means nothing.

Oh..


----------



## Lesh

Blues Man said:


> And it was overturned by Heller and in the opinion of many rightly so



All you are saying is that Scalia was a hypocrite and a political animal legislating from the bench.

He made his reputation as an "originalist".

Well obviously that was a lie huh?


----------



## Blues Man

Lesh said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All SCOTUS decisions can be overturned by subsequent Courts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So precedent means nothing.
> 
> Oh..
Click to expand...


They mean something but they are not always sacrosanct are they?

Seems to me you only support changes in SCOTUS rulings if you agree with them


----------



## Blues Man

Lesh said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it was overturned by Heller and in the opinion of many rightly so
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All you are saying is that Scalia was a hypocrite and a political animal legislating from the bench.
> 
> He made his reputation as an "originalist".
> 
> Well obviously that was a lie huh?
Click to expand...


I didn't mention scalia at all

you must have me confused with someone else


----------



## Lesh

Blues Man said:


> Seems to me you only support changes in SCOTUS rulings if you agree with them



Really. Name the ones you are referring to.


----------



## Lesh

Blues Man said:


> I didn't mention scalia at all
> 
> you must have me confused with someone else



If you mention Heller...you're talking about Scalia.

If you don't know that you really ought to just stop talking


----------



## progressive hunter

Lesh said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> All SCOTUS decisions can be overturned by subsequent Courts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So precedent means nothing.
> 
> Oh..
Click to expand...

precedent means nothing if the laws says different


----------



## Blues Man

Lesh said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to me you only support changes in SCOTUS rulings if you agree with them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really. Name the ones you are referring to.
Click to expand...


Do you read what I post or do you just write shit for the sake of writing it?

I gave you an example of an overturned SCOTUS ruling just a few posts back


----------



## Blues Man

Lesh said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't mention scalia at all
> 
> you must have me confused with someone else
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you mention Heller...you're talking about Scalia.
> 
> If you don't know that you really ought to just stop talking
Click to expand...


If I mention Heller I am speaking of the ruling and the fact that SCOTUS decisions can be and have been overturned by subsequent courts

So don't tell me what I'm talking about


----------



## Lesh

Blues Man said:


> Do you read what I post or do you just write shit for the sake of writing it?
> 
> I gave you an example of an overturned SCOTUS ruling just a few posts back



Then you must have a quote of me supporting or arguing against a particular decision...if your claim above is accurate

No?

Oh...


----------



## Lesh

Blues Man said:


> If I mention Heller I am speaking of the ruling and the fact that SCOTUS decisions can be and have been overturned by subsequent courts
> 
> So don't tell me what I'm talking about



Pardon me dumfuk...but if you're talking about Heller..you're talking about Scalia. He WROTE for the Court there


----------



## Blues Man

Lesh said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you read what I post or do you just write shit for the sake of writing it?
> 
> I gave you an example of an overturned SCOTUS ruling just a few posts back
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you must have a quote of me supporting or arguing against a particular decision...if your claim above is accurate
> 
> No?
> 
> Oh...
Click to expand...


You only seem to be whining about Heller and how that one particular overruling of a previous SCOTUS decision is an abomination

Rulings are overturned get over it


----------



## Blues Man

Lesh said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I mention Heller I am speaking of the ruling and the fact that SCOTUS decisions can be and have been overturned by subsequent courts
> 
> So don't tell me what I'm talking about
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pardon me dumfuk...but if you're talking about Heller..you're talking about Scalia. He WROTE for the Court there
Click to expand...


And 4 other judges voted in favor of the Heller decision

So the fuck what if he wrote it up?


----------



## Lesh

You're trying SO hard to ignore the fact that Heller was Scalia...through and through.

Well we've followed your lies and rambling circular arguments for awhile now so...


----------



## Blues Man

Lesh said:


> You're trying SO hard to ignore the fact that Heller was Scalia...through and through.
> 
> Well we've followed your lies and rambling circular arguments for awhile now so...



Heller was 5 judges voting in favor of the ruling not one

Seems you don't understand how the voting on decisions before the supreme court works


----------



## Lesh

And what I am pointing out is that Scalia in Heller threw out 200 years of SCOTUS precedent to "legislate from the bench".

You seem fine with that.

OK. Well noted


----------



## Blues Man

Lesh said:


> And what I am pointing out is that Scalia in Heller threw out 200 years of SCOTUS precedent to "legislate from the bench".
> 
> You seem fine with that.
> 
> OK. Well noted



Then ALL FIVE of the judges that voted in favor of the ruling did that

It must be collusion right?


----------



## Lesh

Blues Man said:


> And 4 other judges voted in favor of the Heller decision
> 
> So the fuck what if he wrote it up?



And four voted against...which means that Scalia...being the pivotal vote and the asshole that WROTE the fucking decision matters


----------



## Blues Man

Lesh said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> And 4 other judges voted in favor of the Heller decision
> 
> So the fuck what if he wrote it up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And four voted against...which means that Scalia...being the pivotal vote and the asshole that WROTE the fucking decision matters
Click to expand...


Or any one of the other 4 could have been the pivotal vote

you really have trouble with numbers greater than one don't you?


----------



## Lesh

Blues Man said:


> Or any one of the other 4 could have been the pivotal vote



Oddly none of THEM wrote for the court...did they?

YOU seem to have trouble with simple FACTS


----------



## Blues Man

Lesh said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or any one of the other 4 could have been the pivotal vote
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddly none of THEM wrote for the court...did they?
> 
> YOU seem to have trouble with simple FACTS
Click to expand...


Who cares who wrote it up 5 people voted in favor of it

without the votes no one would have written it up


----------



## Lesh

Keep flailing


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lesh said:


> 9th Cavalry?


I believe the 2nd La. Cav.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lesh said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a stupid argument.
> 
> The right of the people...not the militia.
> 
> Nothing about the Dick act makes the RIGHT go away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again...unless and until the Dick Act is repealed or ruled unconstitutional...it removes "well regulated" from the militia (essentially negating the 2A) and puts an age limit on the UNORGANIZED militia
Click to expand...

You assume that "well-regulated" means "organized" (it does not) but even if it did, it still says the right of the people...shall not be infringed.  People.  Not men only.  Not the militia.  People.


----------



## Lesh

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> You assume that "well-regulated" means "organized" (it does not)


According to the Constitution in Article 1 Section 8 it is VERY organized...having rolls,officers,training, discipline

And it's the people IN the militia...which is why the militia clause was put there


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lesh said:


> Miller ruled based on the need for certain firearms by the militia.
> 
> It may have been wrongly decided..but the fact that it tied the militia to the 2A as did SCOTUS decisions prior to it can not be ignored


If you had read Miller, you would see that the Court made no such tie.  All the Miller court did was state that they could not take judicial notice that a sawed off shotgun was the type of weapon that had any reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.

That would, by deduction, mean that the 2nd applied to ANY PERSON, (Miller was not in any militia and this was WELL after the Dick Act) as long as the weapon was the type that had a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.

Current soldiers carry state-of-the-art select-fire and automatic rifles.  Yet, we have the Hughes Amendment.

So, explain that one to me.

I get anything a soldier would carry?

I agree.

.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lesh said:


> According to the Constitution in Article 1 Section 8 it is VERY organized...having rolls,officers,training, discipline
> 
> And it's the people IN the militia...which is why the militia clause was put there


It still says "the right of the People" so, you are not correct.


----------



## Lesh

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> All the Miller court did was state that they could not take judicial notice that a sawed off shotgun was the type of weapon that had any reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.



You just proved my point. That ruling and all previous SCOTUS rulings regarding guns...were based on the use of weapons  in relation to a "well regulated Militia".

Heller BROKE that precedent..because Scalia knew it was a losing argument in several ways. His was a POLITICAL ruling...not a Judicial one


----------



## Lesh

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> It still says "the right of the People" so, you are not correct.



There's still that sticky "militia clause" so yea I am


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lesh said:


> You just proved my point. That ruling and all previous SCOTUS ruling regarding guns...were based on the use of weapons used in relation to a "well regulated Militia"


No, you proved MY point.  The ruling had nothing to do with Miller as a person.   He was not a member of the "organized militia" stated in the Dick Act (which was 32 years old at the time of Miller).  It focused ONLY on the TYPE of weapon.

Thus...GIVE ME MY FUCKING MACHINE GUN, BITCH!!!

.


----------



## basquebromance

liberty, when it begins to take root, is a plant of massive growth


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lesh said:


> There's still that sticky "militia clause" so yea I am


That would not change the operative clause, no matter how hard you masturbate.

The operative is still there.  You can't change it.  The founders did not want a standing army.  I am not going to quote them all here AGAIN for your benefit.

The right of the PEOPLE.  You cannot argue your way around that.  

You want to change it?

Amend the fucking Constitution!!!

.


----------



## Lesh

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> No, you proved MY point. The ruling had nothing to do with Miller as a person. He was not a member of the "organized militia" stated in the Dick Act (which was 32 years old at the time of Miller). It focused ONLY on the TYPE of weapon.
> 
> Thus...GIVE ME MY FUCKING MACHINE GUN, BITCH!!!



Dude..the ruling was based on guns related to MILITIAS


And sadly...with enough money and proper back ground checks...you can have that machine gun (provided it was made prior to 1986)...God Help Us All


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lesh said:


> Dude..the ruling was based on guns related to MILITIAS


Yes.  What guns would be related to a militia?

The kind necessary to repel a foreign army armed with full-auto select fire, and machine guns?

...


I'll wait for your response.


----------



## Lesh

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> The operative is still there. You can't change it. The founders did not want a standing army. I am not going to quote them all here AGAIN for your benefit.



The MILITIA CLAUSE is still there and neither you nor Scalia can make it go away.

And NO...the Founders did NOT want a standing Army (which was why they used the militia to put DOWN the kind of insurrection you gun fetishists claim a militia is there for. Guess what...we HAVE a standing Army now and DON'T have a "Well Regulated Militia"


----------



## Lesh

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude..the ruling was based on guns related to MILITIAS
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  What guns would be related to a militia?
> 
> The kind necessary to repel a foreign army armed with full-auto select fire, and machine guns?
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> I'll wait for your response.
Click to expand...

Dude...I personally think Miller was wrongly decided...as was Cruikshank. That doesn't change the FACT that precedent stands that gun rights as they pertain to the Constitution are based on use by the Well Regulated Militia

Or DID...until "originalist" Scalia and Heller


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lesh said:


> The MILITIA CLAUSe is still there and neither you nor Scalia can make it go away.


Which says WHAT????

And HOW does that change "the right of the people" in the 2A.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lesh said:


> Dude...I personally think Miller was wrongly decided...as was Cruikshank. That doesn't change the FACT that precedent stands that gun rights as they pertain to the Constitution are based on use by the Well Regulated Militia


The right of the people....


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lesh said:


> we HAVE a standing Army now and DON'T have a "Well Regulated Militia"


So, you're not arguing that the Dick Act makes the militia the national guard?


----------



## Lesh

"A Well Regulated Militia..."


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lesh said:


> "A Well Regulated Militia..."


a well-regulated militia...what????


----------



## Lesh

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> we HAVE a standing Army now and DON'T have a "Well Regulated Militia"
> 
> 
> 
> So, you're not arguing that the Dick Act makes the militia the national guard?
Click to expand...

I'm not "arguing" that it did...it's a fact


----------



## sealybobo

Rigby5 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed.  It's just a matter of time...
> 
> 
> 
> If Ironman can fly around in that war machine why can’t someone else drive around in a loaded tank? Why does Ironman get to?
> 
> One time a bunch of droids had him surrounded so he started spinning with a laser and cut them all in half.
> 
> Do republicans think they should have Ironman suits if our military started wearing them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.
> If the government starts building Ironman suits, it would essential for all responsible adults to also have them.
> It is basic to a democratic republic, where the government is only supposed to exist at the pleasure of the people.
> That means government is never supposed to ever be able to have more power than the people, or be able to intimidate or force them.
> And in fact, the 14th amendment requires that if government has something, that then all people must have the same equal access and treatment under the law.
> 
> Government must always be OF the people and never OVER the people.
> That is basic to any democratic republic, and is why the founders wanted NO standing military, and instead only gave the federal government the ability to call up a militia of citizen soldiers.
> It was wrong to change that basic safety.
Click to expand...


While semi-automatic rifles are widely available, fully automatic weapons are not. You _can _still buy an automatic weapon, but their sale and ownership is highly regulated and exceptionally expensive.

Automatic weapons sales have been restricted in the United States since the 1934 National Firearms Act was passed. Regulations put in place in 1986 made it much more difficult for civilian buyers to get an automatic weapon.

You can still purchase an automatic weapon, because existing guns manufactured before May 19, 1986, were grandfathered in. That amounts to somewhere around 300,000 registered automatic weapons, which can cost thousands of dollars apiecebecause of their limited availability.

Generally speaking, manufacturers haven’t been allowed to build new automatic rifles to sell to the public since then.

To buy a fully automatic rifle, a prospective owner must pay the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms $200 and pass a federal background check that shows no record of domestic violence or felony convictions. The process can take months.

Some states like California, Iowa and Kansas, ban private ownership of automatic weapons under any circumstances. But many states, including Nevada, allow it as long as the owner has complied with federal regulations.

"Most people can buy machine guns in lots of states," Michigan-based lawyer and firearms expert Steven Howard has told PolitiFact. "But, and this is one of those classic big ‘buts,’ they have to get through a background check by FBI that is as thorough as if you are getting clearance to become a federal agent."


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lesh said:


> I'm not "arguing" that it did...it's a fact


So, "well-regulated" as stated in the 2A means "organized" as stated in the Dick Act (100 years later)?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

sealybobo said:


> While semi-automatic rifles are widely available, fully automatic weapons are not. You _can _still buy an automatic weapon, but their sale and ownership is highly regulated and exceptionally expensive.
> 
> Automatic weapons sales have been restricted in the United States since the 1934 National Firearms Act was passed. Regulations put in place in 1986 made it much more difficult for civilian buyers to get an automatic weapon.
> 
> You can still purchase an automatic weapon, because existing guns manufactured before May 19, 1986, were grandfathered in. That amounts to somewhere around 300,000 registered automatic weapons, which can cost thousands of dollars apiecebecause of their limited availability.
> 
> Generally speaking, manufacturers haven’t been allowed to build new automatic rifles to sell to the public since then.
> 
> To buy a fully automatic rifle, a prospective owner must pay the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms $200 and pass a federal background check that shows no record of domestic violence or felony convictions. The process can take months.
> 
> Some states like California, Iowa and Kansas, ban private ownership of automatic weapons under any circumstances. But many states, including Nevada, allow it as long as the owner has complied with federal regulations.
> 
> "Most people can buy machine guns in lots of states," Michigan-based lawyer and firearms expert Steven Howard has told PolitiFact. "But, and this is one of those classic big ‘buts,’ they have to get through a background check by FBI that is as thorough as if you are getting clearance to become a federal agent."


If you want your thorough background checks on all gun owners, repeal the Hughes Amendment.  People will line up to get their background check if they have unrestricted access to all firearms.


----------



## Lesh

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> So, "well-regulated" as stated in the 2A means "organized" as stated in the Dick Act (100 years later)?



You seem to think you have a point but it's not clear what that point is.

The Dick Act REMOVED a "well regulated militia" from existence regarding private gun ownership. Until it is repealed or rued unconstitutional it is law


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lesh said:


> The Dick Act REMOVED a "well regulated militia" from existence regarding private gun ownership. Until it is repealed or rued unconstitutional it is law


Who said it did that?  Cite your cases.


----------



## Lesh

Read the Dick Act moron.l


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lesh said:


> Read the Dick Act moron.l


Why don't you cite what you are talking about?

How does the Dick Act take away the right of the people to keep and bear arms?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Like I said...

The Racist Dick Act did not take away the right of the People to keep and bear arms, although it MAY have been a despicable attempt to take them away from black folks.



> _According to Professor Kelley L. Ross of the Los Angeles Valley College, one aspect of the Militia Act of 1903 was a continuation of Jim Crow-era politics, designed primarily to strengthen racist segregation laws by disarming black U.S. citizens,[47] thus making it easier to oppress and subjugate them.[48][49]_


Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia


----------



## Lesh

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> How does the Dick Act take away the right of the people to keep and bear arms?



Never said it did. It effectively put an end to the 2A by doing away with the "Well Regulated Militia".

It doesn't "take away" gun rights...it simply put the nail in the coffin of Constitutional protection of them


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lesh said:


> Never said it did. It effectively put an end to the 2A by doing away with the "Well Regulated Militia".


So, an act of congress outside the amendment process amended the constitution?



Lesh said:


> t doesn't "take away" gun rights...it simply put the nail in the coffin of Constitutional protection of them


Says WHO???  Cite your authority.


----------



## peach174

Lesh said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> You assume that "well-regulated" means "organized" (it does not)
> 
> 
> 
> According to the Constitution in Article 1 Section 8 it is VERY organized...having rolls,officers,training, discipline
> 
> And it's the people IN the militia...which is why the militia clause was put there
Click to expand...



The militia were the people back then and still are.
Read the individual States Constitutions, with a few exceptions for the ones who took it out of their States Constitutions.
Most require all men between certain ages like 18to 45,to be called up by the States when the Governor of each ,deems it to be necessary.
When called they are then organized.
They were farmers and merchants, ordinary citizens.
The 2nd amendment is for the people to keep and bare arms.
We have the right to self defense.
The militia are the people, not our professional military controlled by the Federal Government.


----------



## Lesh

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> So, an act of congress outside the amendment process amended the constitution?



It's the law...and unless and until it is repealed or ruled unconstitutional...it will remain so. That's how it works



Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Says WHO??? Cite your authority.



Read the damn ACT moron


----------



## Lesh

peach174 said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> You assume that "well-regulated" means "organized" (it does not)
> 
> 
> 
> According to the Constitution in Article 1 Section 8 it is VERY organized...having rolls,officers,training, discipline
> 
> And it's the people IN the militia...which is why the militia clause was put there
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The militia were the people back then and still are.
> Read the individual States Constitutions, with a few exceptions for the ones who took it out of their States Constitutions.
> Most require all men between certain ages like 17 to 35,to be called up by the States when the Governor of each ,deems it to be necessary.
> When called they are then organized.
> They were farmers and merchants, ordinary citizens.
> The 2nd amendment is for the people to keep and bare arms.
> We have the right to self defense.
> The militia are the people, not our professional military controlled by the Federal Government.
Click to expand...

When discussing the 2A...State Constitutions are not the issue...the FEDERAL Constitution is.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lesh said:


> It's the law...and unless and until it is repealed or ruled unconstitutional...it will remain so. That's how it works


And NOTHING in that law says that right of the people shall no longer NOT be infringed.  You assume WAY TOO MUCH.

Certainly the Miller Court would have said something about it, given that Miller was NOT a member of any militia or the National Guard.



Lesh said:


> Read the damn ACT moron


The ACT says NOTHING about the 2A....fucking MORON!!!!


----------



## peach174

Lesh said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> You assume that "well-regulated" means "organized" (it does not)
> 
> 
> 
> According to the Constitution in Article 1 Section 8 it is VERY organized...having rolls,officers,training, discipline
> 
> And it's the people IN the militia...which is why the militia clause was put there
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The militia were the people back then and still are.
> Read the individual States Constitutions, with a few exceptions for the ones who took it out of their States Constitutions.
> Most require all men between certain ages like 17 to 35,to be called up by the States when the Governor of each ,deems it to be necessary.
> When called they are then organized.
> They were farmers and merchants, ordinary citizens.
> The 2nd amendment is for the people to keep and bare arms.
> We have the right to self defense.
> The militia are the people, not our professional military controlled by the Federal Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When discussing the 2A...State Constitutions are not the issue...the FEDERAL Constitution is.
Click to expand...



They go hand in hand.
People need to understand that it's the people who are the militia , not the Federal Military.


----------



## Lesh

peach174 said:


> People need to understand that it's the people who are the militia , not the Federal Military.



When we HAD a "Well Regulated Militia" it WAS the Federal Military

We no longer do


----------



## Lesh

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> The ACT says NOTHING about the 2A....fucking MORON!!!!



Of COURSE it did. It effectively did away with the "Well Regulated Militia"


----------



## peach174

Lesh said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> People need to understand that it's the people who are the militia , not the Federal Military.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When we HAD a "Well Regulated Militia" it WAS the Federal Military
> 
> We no longer do
Click to expand...


No it wasn't.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lesh said:


> Of COURSE it did. It effectively did away with the "Well Regulated Militia"


10 U.S. Code § 246 -  Militia: composition and classes

(a) The *militia of the United States* consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) the classes of the militia are--
National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Not state militias, but the U.S. Militia only (those whom the President would call up to serve the United States).   

Now, where does it say that the right of the people may be infringed?


----------



## peach174

*Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, June 28, 1902.* Congressional Record, House, pages 7706-7713 and 321-353, 7594-7595. Also known as *the Dick Act of 1902*, *written by Representative Dick, passed by Congress on June 30, 1902.*

The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are *the organized militia,* _henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia_, *the unorganized militia* and *the regular army.* The militia encompasses *every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45.* *All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.*


----------



## Lesh

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of COURSE it did. It effectively did away with the "Well Regulated Militia"
> 
> 
> 
> 10 U.S. Code § 246 -  Militia: composition and classes
> 
> (a) The *militia of the United States* consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> 
> (b) the classes of the militia are--
> National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
> National Guard or the Naval Militia.
> 
> Not state militias, but the U.S. Militia only (those whom the President would call up to serve the United States).
> 
> Now, where does it say that the right of the people may be infringed?
Click to expand...

That "militia" is subject to rules and regulations of the National Guard and do NOT have individual gun rights based on that.

Do you know any National Guard troops who take their weapons home?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lesh said:


> That "militia" is subject to rules and regulations of the National Guard and do NOT have individual gun rights based on that.
> 
> Do you know any National Guard troops who take their weapons home?


How does that prove that the right of the people shall now be infringed?

You keep talking in circles and avoiding the VERY PLAIN text of the 2A, which is NOT voided by the Dick Act or any other act of congress.
.


----------



## Lesh

peach174 said:


> *Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, June 28, 1902.* Congressional Record, House, pages 7706-7713 and 321-353, 7594-7595. Also known as *the Dick Act of 1902*, *written by Representative Dick, passed by Congress on June 30, 1902.*
> 
> The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are *the organized militia,* _henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia_, *the unorganized militia* and *the regular army.* The militia encompasses *every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45.* *All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.*


The BEST you are going to get out of that is an UNORGANIZED militia that consists of ONLY males between 17 and 45.

It turns the "Well Regulated Militia" into the National Guard

Scalia knew that was a loser argument for what he was trying to accomplish so he tried to pretend the Militia Clause didn't exist


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lesh said:


> Scalia knew that was a loser argument for what he was trying to accomplish so he tried to pretend the Militia Clause didn't exist


Scalia was trying to avoid the very thing he SHOULD have done.   He should have declared all Federal gun laws unconstitutional, but the clumsy nature of the 14th Amendment would have thrown out all State gun laws too.  He knew he had a huge federal v. state shit-burger caused by the poor drafting of the 14th Amendment and he side-stepped it.  And you should fucking know it.

The "militia" clause was irrelevant to the acknowledged pre-existing right of the people to arms.  Scalia was concerned about the complete inability of both federal and state governments to regulate arms in any way had he done the right thing.

In other words, we need to amend the 14th Amendment to still allow States to regulate arms.

.


----------



## Lesh

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Scalia was trying to avoid the very thing he SHOULD have done. He should have declared all Federal gun laws unconstitutional,



He knew he'd never get away with that. As pointed out previously..he had to convince four other right wing Justices to go along and THEY would never have gone that far


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lesh said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scalia was trying to avoid the very thing he SHOULD have done. He should have declared all Federal gun laws unconstitutional,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He knew he'd never get away with that. As pointed out previously..he had to convince four other right wing Justices to go along and THEY would never have gone that far
Click to expand...

Of course they would not have gone that far.  The 14th Amendment had fucked it all up.  No government would have been allowed to regulate arms and you would get a free-for-all.

.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Certainly the Miller Court would have said something about it, given that Miller was NOT a member of any militia or the National Guard.



Clearly you don't know a damn thing about Robert Mueller III. Above, I underlined your misinformed, brain washed dogma

Fact check Robert Mueller III

*Robert Swan Mueller III* (/ˈmʌlər/ (rhymes with "duller"[3]; born August 7, 1944) is an Americanattorney and current Special Counsel of theinvestigation into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and related matters. He served as the sixth Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) from 2001 to 2013.

A graduate of Princeton University and New York University, *Mueller served as a Marine Corps officer during the Vietnam War, receiving a Bronze Star for heroism and Purple Heart.* He subsequently attended the University of Virginia School of Law.

Mueller is a registered Republican in Washington, D.C. and was appointed and reappointed to Senate-confirmed positions by Presidents George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama.[4][5] He has spent the bulk of his career in government service, serving at times as an Assistant United States Attorney, a United States Attorney, United States Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, a homicide prosecutor in Washington, D.C., Acting United States Deputy Attorney General, and Director of the FBI. Mueller was a partner at the D.C. law firm WilmerHale before being appointed as special counsel.

*Bootney Lee Farnsworth*, you are wrong and all I ask is for you to correct your misguided idea, here and now !!

-


----------



## Lesh

watchingfromafar said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly the Miller Court would have said something about it, given that Miller was NOT a member of any militia or the National Guard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly you don't know a damn thing about Robert Mueller III. Above, I underlined your misinformed, brain washed dogma
> 
> Fact check Robert Mueller III
> 
> *Robert Swan Mueller III* (/ˈmʌlər/ (rhymes with "duller"[3]; born August 7, 1944) is an Americanattorney and current Special Counsel of theinvestigation into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and related matters. He served as the sixth Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) from 2001 to 2013.
> 
> A graduate of Princeton University and New York University, *Mueller served as a Marine Corps officer during the Vietnam War, receiving a Bronze Star for heroism and Purple Heart.* He subsequently attended the University of Virginia School of Law.
> 
> Mueller is a registered Republican in Washington, D.C. and was appointed and reappointed to Senate-confirmed positions by Presidents George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama.[4][5] He has spent the bulk of his career in government service, serving at times as an Assistant United States Attorney, a United States Attorney, United States Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, a homicide prosecutor in Washington, D.C., Acting United States Deputy Attorney General, and Director of the FBI. Mueller was a partner at the D.C. law firm WilmerHale before being appointed as special counsel.
> 
> *Bootney Lee Farnsworth*, you are wrong and all I ask is for you to correct your misguided idea, here and now !!
> 
> -
Click to expand...

Looks like one of our Russian trolls got confused between Miller and Mueller

LOL...Funny shit


----------



## Lesh

Russian trolls think attacking based on race is a winner


----------



## watchingfromafar

Lesh said:


> Looks like one of our Russian trolls got confused between Miller and Mueller
> 
> LOL...Funny shit



I have made the same mistake before, not just once but several times. My guess it's a result of my half dead 70 year old brain.

Thanks for correcting me.

-


----------



## watchingfromafar

*Bootney Lee Farnsworth*, please forgive me.

-


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

watchingfromafar said:


> *Bootney Lee Farnsworth*, please forgive me.
> 
> -


No worries.  It just derailed our discussion.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> No worries. It just derailed our discussion.



You can bring it back if I just keep out of it.
silence is golden
-


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

So, back on topic:

NOBODY wanted to touch the 2A as it relates to the 14th.  It would have opened the door for lots of chaos and a bunch of emergency action.  They all preferred to let sleeping dogs lie.

Enter, the _Heller _decision.  

Without the clumsy 14th Amendment, the 2nd Amendment is strictly a limit on federal power.  Nothing more.  But, when States are required to give state citizens due process and the privileges and immunities of U.S. Citizens, the 2nd Amendment becomes a bar on State power too.  

Now, nobody can regulate arms.  Then, we have a huge constitutional show down on the 14th Amendment, which upsets 100+ years of jurisprudence and the whole fucking Union is hanging in the balance.

They should have let it happen and it would have made the Union stronger.  But, people are chicken shit.

.


----------



## Markle

danielpalos said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was a pretty stupid post. Care to explain what you think it meant?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of the educated folks will be the least bit surprised that you have no clue about the rules of the use of a comma.  That helps explain a LOT about your lack of understanding of our founding documents.
> 
> Perhaps you could find a remedial course in the English language at a local community college or high school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The first clause cannot be meaningless and the second clause must follow wherever it goes.
Click to expand...


My far left Progressive good friend danielpalos STILL does not understand the proper use of something as simple as a COMMA!


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Here is why I am convinced that the SCOTUS has been afraid to fully apply the 2A as intended (from McDonald v. Chicago, J. Alito):



> The Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, originally applied only to the Federal Government. In Barron ex rel. Tiernan v. Mayor of Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243 (1833), the Court, in an opinion by Chief Justice Marshall, explained that this question was “of great importance” but “not of much difficulty.” Id., at 247. In less than four pages, the Court firmly rejected the proposition that the first eight Amendments operate as limitations on the States, holding that they apply only to the Federal Government. See also Lessee of Livingston v. Moore, 7 Pet. 469, 551–552 (1833) (“_t is now settled that those amendments [in the Bill of Rights] do not extend to the states”).
> 
> "The constitutional Amendments adopted in the aftermath of the Civil War fundamentally altered our country’s federal system. The provision at issue in this case, §1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, provides, among other things, that a State may not abridge “the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” or deprive “any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
> _



_See McDonald v. Chicago,_ 561 U.S. 742 
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf


----------



## Lesh

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Now, nobody can regulate arms.



Absolutely false. Even Heller recognizes the ability to do so


----------



## danielpalos

Lesh said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> You assume that "well-regulated" means "organized" (it does not)
> 
> 
> 
> According to the Constitution in Article 1 Section 8 it is VERY organized...having rolls,officers,training, discipline
> 
> And it's the people IN the militia...which is why the militia clause was put there
Click to expand...

Wellness of Regulation for the Militia of the United States must be prescribed by our federal Congress.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to the Constitution in Article 1 Section 8 it is VERY organized...having rolls,officers,training, discipline
> 
> And it's the people IN the militia...which is why the militia clause was put there
> 
> 
> 
> It still says "the right of the People" so, you are not correct.
Click to expand...

You confuse our Second Amendment with natural rights. 

It can also mean, there is no excuse for denying or disparaging the People from keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


----------



## Markle

Monitors, HELP!  Lock this and let it go away.

This has devolved, after more than 750 pages of nothing but "yes they did, no they did not".


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lesh said:


> Absolutely false. Even Heller recognizes the ability to do so


That's what I am saying.  Heller is wrong.  They are afraid to fully apply both the 2nd and the 14th.

.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> You confuse our Second Amendment with natural rights.
> 
> It can also mean, there is no excuse for denying or disparaging the People from keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


But, it doesn't.  The more you try to make up obscure meanings, the more people resist.

.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Here's what SHOULD happen:

1.  The 14th Amendment is amended to be more clear as it relates to the 2nd.
2.  All federal gun laws are declared unconstitutional.
3.  States regulate firearms as they see fit.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You confuse our Second Amendment with natural rights.
> 
> It can also mean, there is no excuse for denying or disparaging the People from keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> But, it doesn't.  The more you try to make up obscure meanings, the more people resist.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

I have no obscure meaning.  You are merely appealing to ignorance.  Why be frivolous in public venues.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Now we hear from the Veterans.


----------



## waltky

Markle said:


> Please be specific. What is it about the Second Amendment that you feel is "antiquated, out of date..."? What would you do to update it to reflect the times and why?
> 
> What is, "the threat of overkill firepower...for the average citizen"?



Most cartel members now have more advanced firearms than even the cops.  Sumpin needs to be done `bout dat!


----------



## waltky

captkaos said:


> waltky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe not obsolete but antiquated, out of date...
> 
> ... it needs to be updated to reflect the times...
> 
> ... and the threat of overkill firepower...
> 
> ... for the average citizen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When the govt no longer has overkill fire power, and the Authority to use it against the people then the people will no longer have a need to maintain effective counter measures to an oppressive Govt. That's why the Second amendment exists to keep the Govt from oppressing us " you Know like the British did
Click to expand...


The cops need to have more firepower than the cartels!


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> I have no obscure meaning. You are merely appealing to ignorance. Why be frivolous in public venues


Tell me.  What does "appeal to ignorance" mean to you?  What does "frivolous" or "public venues" mean?


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no obscure meaning. You are merely appealing to ignorance. Why be frivolous in public venues
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me.  What does "appeal to ignorance" mean to you?  What does "frivolous" or "public venues" mean?
Click to expand...

The Standard definition in the appropriate venues will do.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

waltky said:


> The cops need to have more firepower than the cartels!


Thus, we need more firepower than the cartels.


----------



## Blues Man

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no obscure meaning. You are merely appealing to ignorance. Why be frivolous in public venues
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me.  What does "appeal to ignorance" mean to you?  What does "frivolous" or "public venues" mean?
Click to expand...

Asking daniel any question at all is an appeal to ignorance


----------



## danielpalos

Blues Man said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no obscure meaning. You are merely appealing to ignorance. Why be frivolous in public venues
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me.  What does "appeal to ignorance" mean to you?  What does "frivolous" or "public venues" mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Asking daniel any question at all is an appeal to ignorance
Click to expand...

Where is the express wall building clause or the express immigration clause.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> The Standard definition in the appropriate venues will do.


Why won't that standard work for "socialism" and other deffinition?  

Because you are cherry picking for a particular result.  You are dishonest.

.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Where is the express wall building clause or the express immigration clause.


Fine.  No wall building, but we get machine guns.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Standard definition in the appropriate venues will do.
> 
> 
> 
> Why won't that standard work for "socialism" and other deffinition?
> 
> Because you are cherry picking for a particular result.  You are dishonest.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

you are the ones claiming there is Only one definition of Socialism.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the express wall building clause or the express immigration clause.
> 
> 
> 
> Fine.  No wall building, but we get machine guns.
Click to expand...

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.


That is nonsense.  What the fuck does that mean?


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.
> 
> 
> 
> That is nonsense.  What the fuck does that mean?
Click to expand...

If you had anything more than frivolocity, you would know. 



> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> If you had anything more than frivolocity, you would know.


If you knew English, I would know.


----------



## Lakhota

*




*
The most significant gun control bill to pass the House in more than two decades will now go to the Senate.

By a vote of 240-190, the House approved a bill that would require background checks on all gun sales in the United States. Currently, only licensed firearm dealers have to perform background checks, and unlicensed dealers ― such as those at gun shows ― can sell a gun without going through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).
*
House Passes Universal Background Checks Bill*

Thank you Speaker Pelosi!  It's about time!


----------



## Lesh

Let's see what Republicans in the Senate do...knowing that any day we could have ANOTHER mass shooting...


----------



## hunarcy

Lakhota said:


> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> The most significant gun control bill to pass the House in more than two decades will now go to the Senate.
> 
> By a vote of 240-190, the House approved a bill that would require background checks on all gun sales in the United States. Currently, only licensed firearm dealers have to perform background checks, and unlicensed dealers ― such as those at gun shows ― can sell a gun without going through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).
> *
> House Passes Universal Background Checks Bill*
> 
> Thank you Speaker Pelosi!  It's about time!



Will NEVER become law.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> frivolocity


Not a real word.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lesh said:


> Let's see what Republicans in the Senate do...knowing that any day we could have ANOTHER mass shooting...


Hopefully, they are not governed by puss fucking bitch tits emotion and protect liberty for MILLIONS who are not dangerous.

.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

We need to do nothing but REPEAL THE FUCK out of all gun laws.  

Machine guns for everyone.  

Because, fuck you, commie.


----------



## Lesh

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see what Republicans in the Senate do...knowing that any day we could have ANOTHER mass shooting...
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully, they are not governed by puss fucking bitch tits emotion and protect liberty for MILLIONS who are not dangerous.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

I;m sure they'll be wondering how they'll look if there's a mass shooting right after they kill Universal Background checks.

And a LOT of the GOP Senate seats are up for election in blue and purple states next round

We'll see.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lesh said:


> I;m sure they'll be wondering how they'll look if there's a mass shooting right after they kill Universal Background checks.


And, I am sure your disgusting ass will be praying for such an event.

Fuck you.   You don't deserve to live in the same country as me.  

.


----------



## Lesh

Fuck yourself asshole.

Mass shootings are a way of life in this country. And will be until we deal with the damn guns

Hell we just had one in that Synagogue. Probably 10 smaller ones since then


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lesh said:


> Fuck yourself asshole.
> 
> Mass shootings are a way of life in this country. And will be until we deal with the damn guns
> 
> Hell we just had one in that Synagogue. Probably 10 smaller ones since then


You're at least 3x more likely to die being struck by lightening than dying in a mass shooting.  If that's too risky for you, GET THE FUCK OUT!!!


----------



## Blues Man

Lesh said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see what Republicans in the Senate do...knowing that any day we could have ANOTHER mass shooting...
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully, they are not governed by puss fucking bitch tits emotion and protect liberty for MILLIONS who are not dangerous.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I;m sure they'll be wondering how they'll look if there's a mass shooting right after they kill Universal Background checks.
> 
> And a LOT of the GOP Senate seats are up for election in blue and purple states next round
> 
> We'll see.
Click to expand...

How many mass shootings would have been prevented if this law had already been in place?


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you had anything more than frivolocity, you would know.
> 
> 
> 
> If you knew English, I would know.
Click to expand...

No, you wouldn't.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> frivolocity
> 
> 
> 
> Not a real word.
Click to expand...

lol.  you all aren't real militia.


----------



## Lesh

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck yourself asshole.
> 
> Mass shootings are a way of life in this country. And will be until we deal with the damn guns
> 
> Hell we just had one in that Synagogue. Probably 10 smaller ones since then
> 
> 
> 
> You're at least 3x more likely to die being struck by lightening than dying in a mass shooting.  If that's too risky for you, GET THE FUCK OUT!!!
Click to expand...

Yea...well we can't do a lot about getting hit by lightning. We CAN address the gun violence


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> We need to do nothing but REPEAL THE FUCK out of all gun laws.
> 
> Machine guns for everyone.
> 
> Because, fuck you, commie.


you can't handle it.


----------



## Blues Man

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> frivolocity
> 
> 
> 
> Not a real word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  you all aren't real militia.
Click to expand...

you're not a real boy, Pinocchio


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Blues Man said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing changes the FACT that the 2A makes gun rights (at least as far as the Constitution goes) CONDITIONAL on their need by the militia.
> 
> Scalia in Heller admitted as much
> 
> Prior to Heller...every SCOTUS case dealing with the 2A dealt with it within the context of the militia.
> Heller tried to ignore the militia clause...ridiculously
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.
> 
> The SCOTUS funally got it right with Heller
> 
> If you want to live in the past why not live in the time where abortion wasn't considered a right
Click to expand...

Interestingly, most conservatives have come to loathe Heller.

And no, not because it's been "misinterpreted" by the  lower courts.


----------



## Blues Man

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing changes the FACT that the 2A makes gun rights (at least as far as the Constitution goes) CONDITIONAL on their need by the militia.
> 
> Scalia in Heller admitted as much
> 
> Prior to Heller...every SCOTUS case dealing with the 2A dealt with it within the context of the militia.
> Heller tried to ignore the militia clause...ridiculously
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.
> 
> The SCOTUS funally got it right with Heller
> 
> If you want to live in the past why not live in the time where abortion wasn't considered a right
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interestingly, most conservatives have come to loathe Heller.
> 
> And no, not because it's been "misinterpreted" by the  lower courts.
Click to expand...

perfect is the enemy of good


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lesh said:


> Yea...well we can't do a lot about getting hit by lightning. We CAN address the gun violence


Well, nobody is trying to infringe on an inalienable right to "protect" us from lightening, so nobody really gives a fuck.

You CAN'T do anything about gun violence by taking guns from the nonviolent. 

Yes.  You are that fucking stupid.  Now, go die in an ass-rape house fire.

.


----------



## danielpalos

Blues Man said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> frivolocity
> 
> 
> 
> Not a real word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  you all aren't real militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you're not a real boy, Pinocchio
Click to expand...

you are not real federalists.


----------



## Blues Man

danielpalos said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> frivolocity
> 
> 
> 
> Not a real word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  you all aren't real militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you're not a real boy, Pinocchio
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are not real federalists.
Click to expand...

I never said I was
In fact I have never proclaimed to be anything but an individual with individual rights


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> you are not real federalists.


Aaron Burr was an American hero.

.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea...well we can't do a lot about getting hit by lightning. We CAN address the gun violence
> 
> 
> 
> Well, nobody is trying to infringe on an inalienable right to "protect" us from lightening, so nobody really gives a fuck.
> 
> You CAN'T do anything about gun violence by taking guns from the nonviolent.
> 
> Yes.  You are that fucking stupid.  Now, go die in an ass-rape house fire.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

muster the militias until we have no more security problems in our free States.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are not real federalists.
> 
> 
> 
> Aaron Burr was an American hero.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

you would.  only in Nexus Six.  

Hamilton was a real federalists who knew the federal doctrine.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> muster the militias until we have no more security problems in our free States.


Shut the fuck up.  That makes no sense and your illegal ass does not speak English.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Hamilton was a real federalists who knew the federal doctrine.


Thomas Jefferson was 100x smarter.  

Hamilton was nothing but an unimaginative Statist with whom even his fellow federalists disagreed.

.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> muster the militias until we have no more security problems in our free States.
> 
> 
> 
> Shut the fuck up.  That makes no sense and your illegal ass does not speak English.
Click to expand...

You make no sense.  Mustering the militia is prevention.  Why be lazy, right wingers?


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hamilton was a real federalists who knew the federal doctrine.
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas Jefferson was 100x smarter.
> 
> Hamilton was nothing but an unimaginative Statist with whom even his fellow federalists disagreed.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Your republican doctrine is Worthless, right wingers.  You can't make it work.  Madison and Jefferson did us a disservice with your doctrine.


----------



## hadit

Blues Man said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no obscure meaning. You are merely appealing to ignorance. Why be frivolous in public venues
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me.  What does "appeal to ignorance" mean to you?  What does "frivolous" or "public venues" mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Asking daniel any question at all is an appeal to ignorance
Click to expand...


And as useful as giving a fish a toothbrush.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no obscure meaning. You are merely appealing to ignorance. Why be frivolous in public venues
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me.  What does "appeal to ignorance" mean to you?  What does "frivolous" or "public venues" mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Asking daniel any question at all is an appeal to ignorance
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And as useful as giving a fish a toothbrush.
Click to expand...

Our Constitution is Express not Implied, right wingers.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Our Constitution is Express not Implied, right wingers.


Yes.

It expressly says "the right of the people...shall not be infringed."

Here's the plain meaning:
INFRINGE | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

Why do you not accept the EXPRESS terms of the Constitution?

.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Your republican doctrine is Worthless, right wingers. You can't make it work. Madison and Jefferson did us a disservice with your doctrine.


The huge, expensive military, and all the wars that come with it, originated with NONE OTHER THAN Mr. Alexander Hamilton, so you can stop your bitching about the "warfare" clause.  YOU SUPPORT IT.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no obscure meaning. You are merely appealing to ignorance. Why be frivolous in public venues
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me.  What does "appeal to ignorance" mean to you?  What does "frivolous" or "public venues" mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Asking daniel any question at all is an appeal to ignorance
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And as useful as giving a fish a toothbrush.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is Express not Implied, right wingers.
Click to expand...


Fish, meet toothbrush.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Constitution is Express not Implied, right wingers.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> It expressly says "the right of the people...shall not be infringed."
> 
> Here's the plain meaning:
> INFRINGE | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary
> 
> Why do you not accept the EXPRESS terms of the Constitution?
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Well regulated militia are declared Necessary and those Persons of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your republican doctrine is Worthless, right wingers. You can't make it work. Madison and Jefferson did us a disservice with your doctrine.
> 
> 
> 
> The huge, expensive military, and all the wars that come with it, originated with NONE OTHER THAN Mr. Alexander Hamilton, so you can stop your bitching about the "warfare" clause.  YOU SUPPORT IT.
Click to expand...

Hamilton understood the difference between the general welfare and the general warfare.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no obscure meaning. You are merely appealing to ignorance. Why be frivolous in public venues
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me.  What does "appeal to ignorance" mean to you?  What does "frivolous" or "public venues" mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Asking daniel any question at all is an appeal to ignorance
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And as useful as giving a fish a toothbrush.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is Express not Implied, right wingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fish, meet toothbrush.
Click to expand...

Well regulated militia should not merely troll.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me.  What does "appeal to ignorance" mean to you?  What does "frivolous" or "public venues" mean?
> 
> 
> 
> Asking daniel any question at all is an appeal to ignorance
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And as useful as giving a fish a toothbrush.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is Express not Implied, right wingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fish, meet toothbrush.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia should not merely troll.
Click to expand...


Then stop.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Well regulated militia are declared Necessary and those Persons of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


Our Constitution is Express, not implied.  QUIT IMPLYING!!!


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Well regulated militia should not merely troll.


and the right of the people....shall not be infringed.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asking daniel any question at all is an appeal to ignorance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And as useful as giving a fish a toothbrush.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is Express not Implied, right wingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fish, meet toothbrush.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia should not merely troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then stop.
Click to expand...

i don't.  accuracy should be a virtue for any militia, well regulated or not.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia should not merely troll.
> 
> 
> 
> and the right of the people....shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...

The People who are well regulated may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> The People who are well regulated may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms* for their State or the Union*.


The EXPRESS language makes no such qualifier.  You have IMPLIED that qualifier.  

The Constitution is Express, not Implied.

.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Look, Dan.  It's not as complicated as you are IMPLYING it to be.

Because States need a well armed and properly functioning army made up of its people (a militia), this new federal government we are establishing will not infringe on the right of people to keep and bear arms.

I have implied NOTHING.  I have made no qualifiers. That is CONSISTENT with the language of the 2A.

States need men (18-45) to serve in militias, so the federal government is not going to infringe on ANYONE (The People).

That is ABSOLUTELY CLEAR.

You're better off knocking off the nonsense and pushing for an amendment.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia should not merely troll.
> 
> 
> 
> and the right of the people....shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People who are well regulated may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
Click to expand...


You have this backwards.
Clearly the concern was that if the people were not well armed and prepared, then a well armed and ready militia would not be available in times of emergency, and we would easily be defeated.
The phrase, "well regulated" means to be practiced and well functioning, as in "well regulated clock" or "regular bowel movements".

So it is infringement that would prevent being well regulated.

You have to know this because it says the "right of the people" to keep and bear arms.
It does not say the government authorized national guard shall not be disarmed.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia should not merely troll.
> 
> 
> 
> and the right of the people....shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People who are well regulated may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
Click to expand...


That's not what it says and you know it. I've educated you on this, now behave.


----------



## hunarcy

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Constitution is Express not Implied, right wingers.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> It expressly says "the right of the people...shall not be infringed."
> 
> Here's the plain meaning:
> INFRINGE | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary
> 
> Why do you not accept the EXPRESS terms of the Constitution?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia are declared Necessary and those Persons of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
Click to expand...


This post proves it is a waste of time to argue with an ignorant troll who has NO background to discuss the issue rationally.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People who are well regulated may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms* for their State or the Union*.
> 
> 
> 
> The EXPRESS language makes no such qualifier.  You have IMPLIED that qualifier.
> 
> The Constitution is Express, not Implied.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Congress is delegated the Power of calling forth the militia.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Look, Dan.  It's not as complicated as you are IMPLYING it to be.
> 
> Because States need a well armed and properly functioning army made up of its people (a militia), this new federal government we are establishing will not infringe on the right of people to keep and bear arms.
> 
> I have implied NOTHING.  I have made no qualifiers. That is CONSISTENT with the language of the 2A.
> 
> States need men (18-45) to serve in militias, so the federal government is not going to infringe on ANYONE (The People).
> 
> That is ABSOLUTELY CLEAR.
> 
> You're better off knocking off the nonsense and pushing for an amendment.


gibberish.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia should not merely troll.
> 
> 
> 
> and the right of the people....shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People who are well regulated may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have this backwards.
> Clearly the concern was that if the people were not well armed and prepared, then a well armed and ready militia would not be available in times of emergency, and we would easily be defeated.
> The phrase, "well regulated" means to be practiced and well functioning, as in "well regulated clock" or "regular bowel movements".
> 
> So it is infringement that would prevent being well regulated.
> 
> You have to know this because it says the "right of the people" to keep and bear arms.
> It does not say the government authorized national guard shall not be disarmed.
Click to expand...

You confuse natural rights with our Second Amendment.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia should not merely troll.
> 
> 
> 
> and the right of the people....shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People who are well regulated may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not what it says and you know it. I've educated you on this, now behave.
Click to expand...

i am the federalist, not You.


----------



## danielpalos

hunarcy said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Constitution is Express not Implied, right wingers.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> It expressly says "the right of the people...shall not be infringed."
> 
> Here's the plain meaning:
> INFRINGE | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary
> 
> Why do you not accept the EXPRESS terms of the Constitution?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia are declared Necessary and those Persons of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This post proves it is a waste of time to argue with an ignorant troll who has NO background to discuss the issue rationally.
Click to expand...

Well regulated militia are People too.


----------



## 52ndStreet

The second amendment is never going to become outdated. Especially in today's world of terrorists armed with fully automatic AK- 47 assault rifles.!Americans are under attack by terrorists armed with fully automatic AK-47 assault rifles.!! Americans need to repeal the federal ban on fully automatic assault rifles and submachine guns. We should all be concerned when there are politicians that want to infringe upon your right to own a certain type of weapon. An infringement is an infringement. And is illegal. There must be no infringement on the 2nd amendment.We must all have the right to form and maintain a states militia, and to buy what ever weapons that we need to defend ourselves and the Constitution of the United States.


----------



## danielpalos

52ndStreet said:


> The second amendment is never going to become outdated. Especially in today's world of terrorists armed with fully automatic AK- 47 assault rifles.!Americans are under attack by terrorists armed with fully automatic AK-47 assault rifles.!! Americans need to repeal the federal ban on fully automatic assault rifles and submachine guns. We should all be concerned when there are politicians that want to infringe upon your right to own a certain type of weapon. An infringement is an infringement. And is illegal. There must be no infringement on the 2nd amendment.We must all have the right to form and maintain a states militia, and to buy what ever weapons that we need to defend ourselves and the Constitution of the United States.


We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Congress is delegated the Power of calling forth the militia.


That is a non-sequitor that does not further your argument.

I don't give a rat fuck what power congress has regarding a militia.

The right of the people...shall not be infringed.  That's power Congress does NOT have.

EXPRESSLY...

.


----------



## 52ndStreet

We can not allow New World Order Politicians to disarm Americans for a one world government conspiracy to take away everyones weapons in America.!


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> You confuse natural rights with our Second Amendment.


You confuse (conflate) the 2nd Amendment with Article 1, Section 8.

We cannot assume that the founders intended to simply restated art 2, sec 8 in the 2nd Amendment.  That would be an exercise in redundancy and wholly unnecessary.  We MUST assume that the founders intended to 2nd Amendment to serve a different purpose, which is EXPRESS and clear from the text--TO PROTECT THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE from the Fed Gov.

And the Constitution does protect natural rights, unless you are arguing that it does not protect the freedom of the press, religion, right against unreasonable searches, etc.  That would be a stupid argument.

.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Congress is delegated the Power of calling forth the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> That is a non-sequitor that does not further your argument.
> 
> I don't give a rat fuck what power congress has regarding a militia.
> 
> The right of the people...shall not be infringed.  That's power Congress does NOT have.
> 
> EXPRESSLY...
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Well regulated militia are the People, too.  Guess which Persons of the People enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment.


----------



## danielpalos

52ndStreet said:


> We can not allow New World Order Politicians to disarm Americans for a one world government conspiracy to take away everyones weapons in America.!


only the unorganized militia whines about gun control laws.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.


You don't speak English, so you probably are not aware of this, but that sentence is fucking stupid and makes no sense.  

It's like me saying:
"We have a written law against murder, and therefore should have no crime"

It's disjointed and retarded.

.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You confuse natural rights with our Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> You confuse (conflate) the 2nd Amendment with Article 1, Section 8.
> 
> We cannot assume that the founders intended to simply restated art 2, sec 8 in the 2nd Amendment.  That would be an exercise in redundancy and wholly unnecessary.  We MUST assume that the founders intended to 2nd Amendment to serve a different purpose, which is EXPRESS and clear from the text--TO PROTECT THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE from the Fed Gov.
> 
> And the Constitution does protect natural rights, unless you are arguing that it does not protect the freedom of the press, religion, right against unreasonable searches, etc.  That would be a stupid argument.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Our Second Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.  Everyone knows this.  

Only the right wing, never gets it.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't speak English, so you probably are not aware of this, but that sentence is fucking stupid and makes no sense.
> 
> It's like me saying:
> "We have a written law against murder, and therefore should have no crime"
> 
> It's disjointed and retarded.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

you have nothing but fallacy, in close support not any form of valid argument.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> only the unorganized militia whines about gun control laws.


The "unorganized militia" doesn't whine about anything.  A militia is not a person and cannot whine.   That's like saying a corporation whines about something. 

Of course the PEOPLE complain about gun control.  Ambiguous collectives have no voice.

This is why you are a dumbass, dan.   You repeat constantly these bullshit statement because you are incapable of formulating a real argument.

.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> only the unorganized militia whines about gun control laws.
> 
> 
> 
> The "unorganized militia" doesn't whine about anything.  A militia is not a person and cannot whine.   That's like saying a corporation whines about something.
> 
> Of course the PEOPLE complain about gun control.  Ambiguous collectives have no voice.
> 
> This is why you are a dumbass, dan.   You repeat constantly these bullshit statement because you are incapable of formulating a real argument.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

special pleading is not very superior.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Well regulated militia are the People, too. Guess which Persons of the People enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment.


A militia is distinct from people.  So, only males between 18-45 years old are people?  I know you're stupid, but I didn't think you were THAT stupid.

The PERSONS who enjoy recourse from the 2A are EVERYONE....ALL PEOPLE...

You have failed to prove a collective intent over and over and over.  You have failed to explain why the founders used the distinct terms "people" and "militia." 

I have explained it.  But, you respond with more "we have a second amendment and no security" bullshit. 

Here it is again.

Militia was comprised of MEN ONLY.  No women or children served in the militia. 

So, if the founders intended the right to only apply to service in the militia, they would not have used the distinct term "people" when barring congressional power on the right to arms.

They intended to preserve the right of the PEOPLE, not the militia.  That means they intended all people to have the right, not just MEN. 

Now, go back to Mexico and learn some English while you wait to enter the country legally, mmmkay pumpkin.

.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> special pleading is not very superior.


What the FUCK is that supposed to mean?  

.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Our Second Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself. Everyone knows this.


That's funny, coming from you, Mr. Welfare Clause.

Every term of the constitution should be given its full, distinct meaning based on its plain language.  

You don't speak English, so you don't quite understand.

.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> you have nothing but fallacy, in close support not any form of valid argument.


Really?

Which fallacy?

How does that help your stupid argument?  

.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia are the People, too. Guess which Persons of the People enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> A militia is distinct from people.  So, only males between 18-45 years old are people?  I know you're stupid, but I didn't think you were THAT stupid.
> 
> The PERSONS who enjoy recourse from the 2A are EVERYONE....ALL PEOPLE...
> 
> You have failed to prove a collective intent over and over and over.  You have failed to explain why the founders used the distinct terms "people" and "militia."
> 
> I have explained it.  But, you respond with more "we have a second amendment and no security" bullshit.
> 
> Here it is again.
> 
> Militia was comprised of MEN ONLY.  No women or children served in the militia.
> 
> So, if the founders intended the right to only apply to service in the militia, they would not have used the distinct term "people" when barring congressional power on the right to arms.
> 
> They intended to preserve the right of the PEOPLE, not the militia.  That means they intended all people to have the right, not just MEN.
> 
> Now, go back to Mexico and learn some English while you wait to enter the country legally, mmmkay pumpkin.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

The People are the Militia; you are Either well regulated or not.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself. Everyone knows this.
> 
> 
> 
> That's funny, coming from you, Mr. Welfare Clause.
> 
> Every term of the constitution should be given its full, distinct meaning based on its plain language.
> 
> You don't speak English, so you don't quite understand.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

i understand it in a superior fashion to You.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have nothing but fallacy, in close support not any form of valid argument.
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> Which fallacy?
> 
> How does that help your stupid argument?
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Nothing but right wing special pleading like usual?

“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.”
— George Mason


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia should not merely troll.
> 
> 
> 
> and the right of the people....shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People who are well regulated may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not what it says and you know it. I've educated you on this, now behave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i am the federalist, not You.
Click to expand...


A "Federalist" has very little meaning today. That might explain your gibberish.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia should not merely troll.
> 
> 
> 
> and the right of the people....shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People who are well regulated may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not what it says and you know it. I've educated you on this, now behave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i am the federalist, not You.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A "Federalist" has very little meaning today. That might explain your gibberish.
Click to expand...

it explains Your gibberish even less.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> and the right of the people....shall not be infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> The People who are well regulated may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not what it says and you know it. I've educated you on this, now behave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i am the federalist, not You.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A "Federalist" has very little meaning today. That might explain your gibberish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it explains Your gibberish even less.
Click to expand...


Are you really so juvenile that you think repeating what someone says back to them is an effective tactic, especially when what you say is totally meaningless in the context?


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People who are well regulated may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what it says and you know it. I've educated you on this, now behave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i am the federalist, not You.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A "Federalist" has very little meaning today. That might explain your gibberish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it explains Your gibberish even less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you really so juvenile that you think repeating what someone says back to them is an effective tactic, especially when what you say is totally meaningless in the context?
Click to expand...

simply claiming something and having valid arguments, are Two Different Things.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> simply claiming something and having valid arguments, are Two Different Things.




Ally that to your last 500 posts.

.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> simply claiming something and having valid arguments, are Two Different Things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ally that to your last 500 posts.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

i don't need to make up stories.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

And I have had enough of Daniel's bullshit trolling.

IGNORE


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> And I have had enough of Daniel's bullshit trolling.
> 
> IGNORE


ran out of logic and reason and blame the Poor, like usual.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Did dan say something?

Who am I kidding?  Dan never says anything.


----------



## Lesh

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> And I have had enough of Daniel's bullshit trolling.
> 
> IGNORE


Smart move. First one I've ever seen you make


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> simply claiming something and having valid arguments, are Two Different Things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ally that to your last 500 posts.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i don't need to make up stories.
Click to expand...

Then why do you continue to do it?


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> simply claiming something and having valid arguments, are Two Different Things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ally that to your last 500 posts.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i don't need to make up stories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then why do you continue to do it?
Click to expand...

Our Founding Fathers already manufactured the story.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> simply claiming something and having valid arguments, are Two Different Things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ally that to your last 500 posts.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i don't need to make up stories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then why do you continue to do it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Founding Fathers already manufactured the story.
Click to expand...

Not the ones you're inventing.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> simply claiming something and having valid arguments, are Two Different Things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ally that to your last 500 posts.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i don't need to make up stories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then why do you continue to do it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Founding Fathers already manufactured the story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not the ones you're inventing.
Click to expand...

you invented it, not me.  i have no need.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lesh said:


> Smart move. First one I've ever seen you make


Neither you nor dan have refuted the OBVIOUS and clear, plain language of the 2A.  

This is all we get from cocksuckers like you. A bunch of BULLSHIT!!!

You know we are right.  You are just a stubborn, dishonest shit.   If you don't like me having guns, you (might) have a (temprary) remedy.  

Amend the constitution OR SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!

But, you don't want to do it the right way, because you will fucking lose, and you know it.  The only thing you will get from an amendment is an expansion on gun rights.  You and your ilk are a bunch of pussies.

As gutless pussies, you try to take shortcuts.  You try to make the 2A mean something it CLEARLY does not.  

You are the kind of person we must remove from society. You don't care about reason or proper protocol.  You don't give a single fat fuck about liberty.  You want what you want, and don't give a shit about rights. 

We cannot tolerate people like you.  

Now, stop your bullshit declarations of victory, and tell me why the founders used the distinct terms "militia" AND "people" in the same amendment and intended them to mean the same thing.  Make that stupid fucking argument.   Be convincing, you pussy.  Or shut the fuck up.

..


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ally that to your last 500 posts.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> i don't need to make up stories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then why do you continue to do it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Founding Fathers already manufactured the story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not the ones you're inventing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you invented it, not me.  i have no need.
Click to expand...

Yet you keep doing it.  Seriously, you really need to grow past the PeeWee Herman stage.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> i don't need to make up stories.
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do you continue to do it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Founding Fathers already manufactured the story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not the ones you're inventing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you invented it, not me.  i have no need.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet you keep doing it.  Seriously, you really need to grow past the PeeWee Herman stage.
Click to expand...

What the fuck is that idiot talking about?  

.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Smart move. First one I've ever seen you make
> 
> 
> 
> Neither you nor dan have refuted the OBVIOUS and clear, plain language of the 2A.
> 
> This is all we get from cocksuckers like you. A bunch of BULLSHIT!!!
> 
> You know we are right.  You are just a stubborn, dishonest shit.   If you don't like me having guns, you (might) have a (temprary) remedy.
> 
> Amend the constitution OR SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!
> 
> But, you don't want to do it the right way, because you will fucking lose, and you know it.  The only thing you will get from an amendment is an expansion on gun rights.  You and your ilk are a bunch of pussies.
> 
> As gutless pussies, you try to take shortcuts.  You try to make the 2A mean something it CLEARLY does not.
> 
> You are the kind of person we must remove from society. You don't care about reason or proper protocol.  You don't give a single fat fuck about liberty.  You want what you want, and don't give a shit about rights.
> 
> We cannot tolerate people like you.
> 
> Now, stop your bullshit declarations of victory, and tell me why the founders used the distinct terms "militia" AND "people" in the same amendment and intended them to mean the same thing.  Make that stupid fucking argument.   Be convincing, you pussy.  Or shut the fuck up.
> 
> ..
Click to expand...

You simply don't understand the concepts, right wingers.  How typical. 

Our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.


----------



## hadit

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do you continue to do it?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Founding Fathers already manufactured the story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not the ones you're inventing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you invented it, not me.  i have no need.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet you keep doing it.  Seriously, you really need to grow past the PeeWee Herman stage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the fuck is that idiot talking about?
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Only he and his babysitter know.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Smart move. First one I've ever seen you make
> 
> 
> 
> Neither you nor dan have refuted the OBVIOUS and clear, plain language of the 2A.
> 
> This is all we get from cocksuckers like you. A bunch of BULLSHIT!!!
> 
> You know we are right.  You are just a stubborn, dishonest shit.   If you don't like me having guns, you (might) have a (temprary) remedy.
> 
> Amend the constitution OR SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!
> 
> But, you don't want to do it the right way, because you will fucking lose, and you know it.  The only thing you will get from an amendment is an expansion on gun rights.  You and your ilk are a bunch of pussies.
> 
> As gutless pussies, you try to take shortcuts.  You try to make the 2A mean something it CLEARLY does not.
> 
> You are the kind of person we must remove from society. You don't care about reason or proper protocol.  You don't give a single fat fuck about liberty.  You want what you want, and don't give a shit about rights.
> 
> We cannot tolerate people like you.
> 
> Now, stop your bullshit declarations of victory, and tell me why the founders used the distinct terms "militia" AND "people" in the same amendment and intended them to mean the same thing.  Make that stupid fucking argument.   Be convincing, you pussy.  Or shut the fuck up.
> 
> ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You simply don't understand the concepts, right wingers.  How typical.
> 
> Our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.
Click to expand...

Just be sure to let us know when you have to get a permit and a background check to speak publicly on a street corner.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Smart move. First one I've ever seen you make
> 
> 
> 
> Neither you nor dan have refuted the OBVIOUS and clear, plain language of the 2A.
> 
> This is all we get from cocksuckers like you. A bunch of BULLSHIT!!!
> 
> You know we are right.  You are just a stubborn, dishonest shit.   If you don't like me having guns, you (might) have a (temprary) remedy.
> 
> Amend the constitution OR SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!
> 
> But, you don't want to do it the right way, because you will fucking lose, and you know it.  The only thing you will get from an amendment is an expansion on gun rights.  You and your ilk are a bunch of pussies.
> 
> As gutless pussies, you try to take shortcuts.  You try to make the 2A mean something it CLEARLY does not.
> 
> You are the kind of person we must remove from society. You don't care about reason or proper protocol.  You don't give a single fat fuck about liberty.  You want what you want, and don't give a shit about rights.
> 
> We cannot tolerate people like you.
> 
> Now, stop your bullshit declarations of victory, and tell me why the founders used the distinct terms "militia" AND "people" in the same amendment and intended them to mean the same thing.  Make that stupid fucking argument.   Be convincing, you pussy.  Or shut the fuck up.
> 
> ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You simply don't understand the concepts, right wingers.  How typical.
> 
> Our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just be sure to let us know when you have to get a permit and a background check to speak publicly on a street corner.
Click to expand...

I prefer to muster and become well regulated, than be as immature and lazy as the right wing.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Lakhota said:


> *House Democrats set first panel hearing on gun violence in 8 years*
> Finally, some good news.


Senate
Veto
Nothing to see here - move along.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

M14 Shooter said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> *House Democrats set first panel hearing on gun violence in 8 years*
> Finally, some good news.
> 
> 
> 
> Senate
> Veto
> Nothing to see here - move along.
Click to expand...


Just keep in mind what happened to the House in 2018.  Much of it had to do with the NRA backlash.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

52ndStreet said:


> The second amendment is never going to become outdated. Especially in today's world of terrorists armed with fully automatic AK- 47 assault rifles.!Americans are under attack by terrorists armed with fully automatic AK-47 assault rifles.!! Americans need to repeal the federal ban on fully automatic assault rifles and submachine guns. We should all be concerned when there are politicians that want to infringe upon your right to own a certain type of weapon. An infringement is an infringement. And is illegal. There must be no infringement on the 2nd amendment.We must all have the right to form and maintain a states militia, and to buy what ever weapons that we need to defend ourselves and the Constitution of the United States.


This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> The second amendment is never going to become outdated. Especially in today's world of terrorists armed with fully automatic AK- 47 assault rifles.!Americans are under attack by terrorists armed with fully automatic AK-47 assault rifles.!! Americans need to repeal the federal ban on fully automatic assault rifles and submachine guns. We should all be concerned when there are politicians that want to infringe upon your right to own a certain type of weapon. An infringement is an infringement. And is illegal. There must be no infringement on the 2nd amendment.We must all have the right to form and maintain a states militia, and to buy what ever weapons that we need to defend ourselves and the Constitution of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.
Click to expand...


I wonder if he's aware that it's been a very long time since anyone has used a Fully Auto Weapon for a crime in the United States?  And why that is.  Even terrorists have budgets.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Two Thumbs said:


> well congrats to all the liberals here.
> 
> The people that claim to be the authors of the Constitution
> 
> In openly admitting that freedom is so passe.
> 
> 
> thank you for your honesty



Simple minded post ^^^.

Freedom includes the right to live a natural life, and not be shot to death in math class.  Jefferson put Life, before liberty, not that sequence matters, but the words both have meaning.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> Freedom includes the right to live a natural life, and not be shot to death in math class.


^^^
Simple minded post
Nowhere in the right to life can be found the right to live in safety.
This is why we have the right to self-defense.


----------



## Lesh

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Smart move. First one I've ever seen you make
> 
> 
> 
> Neither you nor dan have refuted the OBVIOUS and clear, plain language of the 2A.
> 
> This is all we get from cocksuckers like you. A bunch of BULLSHIT!!!
> 
> You know we are right.  You are just a stubborn, dishonest shit.   If you don't like me having guns, you (might) have a (temprary) remedy.
> 
> Amend the constitution OR SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!
> 
> But, you don't want to do it the right way, because you will fucking lose, and you know it.  The only thing you will get from an amendment is an expansion on gun rights.  You and your ilk are a bunch of pussies.
> 
> As gutless pussies, you try to take shortcuts.  You try to make the 2A mean something it CLEARLY does not.
> 
> You are the kind of person we must remove from society. You don't care about reason or proper protocol.  You don't give a single fat fuck about liberty.  You want what you want, and don't give a shit about rights.
> 
> We cannot tolerate people like you.
> 
> Now, stop your bullshit declarations of victory, and tell me why the founders used the distinct terms "militia" AND "people" in the same amendment and intended them to mean the same thing.  Make that stupid fucking argument.   Be convincing, you pussy.  Or shut the fuck up.
> 
> ..
Click to expand...

THIS is the kind of person who should NOT have access to assault weapons in particular nor probably guns in general.

Crazy and guns are a really BAD mix.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Lesh said:


> THIS is the kind of person who should NOT have access to assault weapons in particular nor probably guns in general.
> Crazy and guns are a really BAD mix.


Fact remains:
Neither you nor dan have refuted the OBVIOUS and clear, plain language of the 2A.


----------



## danielpalos

> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.



We should have no security problems in our free States.


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Freedom includes the right to live a natural life, and not be shot to death in math class.
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^
> Simple minded post
> Nowhere in the right to life can be found the right to live in safety.
> This is why we have the right to self-defense.
Click to expand...


I'm not making an argument that the right to self defense be changed.  But, to argue "shall not be infringed" is ridiculous given the carnage created by the proliferation of firearms in the public domain.

Owning a firearm requires self discipline, and a gun should never be easily obtained by an addict (drug or alcohol), a person convicted of a violent crime - misdemeanor or felony -, or detained and determined by a psychiatrist to be a danger to themselves or others.


----------



## Lesh

M14 Shooter said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> THIS is the kind of person who should NOT have access to assault weapons in particular nor probably guns in general.
> Crazy and guns are a really BAD mix.
> 
> 
> 
> Fact remains:
> Neither you nor dan have refuted the OBVIOUS and clear, plain language of the 2A.
Click to expand...

You mean the pat about the "Well Regulated Militia"


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> I'm not making an argument that the right to self defense be changed.  But, to argue "shall not be infringed" is ridiculous given the carnage created by the proliferation of firearms in the public domain.


The right to keep and bear arms, when exercised, harms no one;  as such, there is no sound argument for placing infringements upon it.


> ...and a gun should never be easily obtained by an addict (drug or alcohol), a person convicted of a violent crime - misdemeanor or felony -, or detained and determined by a psychiatrist to be a danger to themselves or others.


Many of these people are already banned form purchase, ownership and possession of firearms by federal; to ban others, you need to change the law.
Note that the changes you can make in the law are limited by the 2nd, 4th, 5th and 14th amendments.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Lesh said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact remains:
> Neither you nor dan have refuted the OBVIOUS and clear, plain language of the 2A.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the pat about the "Well Regulated Militia"
Click to expand...

Yes.. . which is not related to "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Smart move. First one I've ever seen you make
> 
> 
> 
> Neither you nor dan have refuted the OBVIOUS and clear, plain language of the 2A.
> 
> This is all we get from cocksuckers like you. A bunch of BULLSHIT!!!
> 
> You know we are right.  You are just a stubborn, dishonest shit.   If you don't like me having guns, you (might) have a (temprary) remedy.
> 
> Amend the constitution OR SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!
> 
> But, you don't want to do it the right way, because you will fucking lose, and you know it.  The only thing you will get from an amendment is an expansion on gun rights.  You and your ilk are a bunch of pussies.
> 
> As gutless pussies, you try to take shortcuts.  You try to make the 2A mean something it CLEARLY does not.
> 
> You are the kind of person we must remove from society. You don't care about reason or proper protocol.  You don't give a single fat fuck about liberty.  You want what you want, and don't give a shit about rights.
> 
> We cannot tolerate people like you.
> 
> Now, stop your bullshit declarations of victory, and tell me why the founders used the distinct terms "militia" AND "people" in the same amendment and intended them to mean the same thing.  Make that stupid fucking argument.   Be convincing, you pussy.  Or shut the fuck up.
> 
> ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You simply don't understand the concepts, right wingers.  How typical.
> 
> Our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just be sure to let us know when you have to get a permit and a background check to speak publicly on a street corner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I prefer to muster and become well regulated, than be as immature and lazy as the right wing.
Click to expand...


You're in the wrong century. And wrong in general.


----------



## danielpalos

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Freedom includes the right to live a natural life, and not be shot to death in math class.
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^
> Simple minded post
> Nowhere in the right to life can be found the right to live in safety.
> This is why we have the right to self-defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not making an argument that the right to self defense be changed.  But, to argue "shall not be infringed" is ridiculous given the carnage created by the proliferation of firearms in the public domain.
> 
> Owning a firearm requires self discipline, and a gun should never be easily obtained by an addict (drug or alcohol), a person convicted of a violent crime - misdemeanor or felony -, or detained and determined by a psychiatrist to be a danger to themselves or others.
Click to expand...

Only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.


----------



## danielpalos

M14 Shooter said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact remains:
> Neither you nor dan have refuted the OBVIOUS and clear, plain language of the 2A.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the pat about the "Well Regulated Militia"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.. . which is not related to "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".
Click to expand...

what makes you say that?



> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Smart move. First one I've ever seen you make
> 
> 
> 
> Neither you nor dan have refuted the OBVIOUS and clear, plain language of the 2A.
> 
> This is all we get from cocksuckers like you. A bunch of BULLSHIT!!!
> 
> You know we are right.  You are just a stubborn, dishonest shit.   If you don't like me having guns, you (might) have a (temprary) remedy.
> 
> Amend the constitution OR SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!
> 
> But, you don't want to do it the right way, because you will fucking lose, and you know it.  The only thing you will get from an amendment is an expansion on gun rights.  You and your ilk are a bunch of pussies.
> 
> As gutless pussies, you try to take shortcuts.  You try to make the 2A mean something it CLEARLY does not.
> 
> You are the kind of person we must remove from society. You don't care about reason or proper protocol.  You don't give a single fat fuck about liberty.  You want what you want, and don't give a shit about rights.
> 
> We cannot tolerate people like you.
> 
> Now, stop your bullshit declarations of victory, and tell me why the founders used the distinct terms "militia" AND "people" in the same amendment and intended them to mean the same thing.  Make that stupid fucking argument.   Be convincing, you pussy.  Or shut the fuck up.
> 
> ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You simply don't understand the concepts, right wingers.  How typical.
> 
> Our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just be sure to let us know when you have to get a permit and a background check to speak publicly on a street corner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I prefer to muster and become well regulated, than be as immature and lazy as the right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're in the wrong century. And wrong in general.
Click to expand...

i have to indulge left wing bigotry since you resort to a fallacy.


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not making an argument that the right to self defense be changed.  But, to argue "shall not be infringed" is ridiculous given the carnage created by the proliferation of firearms in the public domain.
> 
> 
> 
> The right to keep and bear arms, when exercised, harms no one;  as such, there is no sound argument for placing infringements upon it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...and a gun should never be easily obtained by an addict (drug or alcohol), a person convicted of a violent crime - misdemeanor or felony -, or detained and determined by a psychiatrist to be a danger to themselves or others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many of these people are already banned form purchase, ownership and possession of firearms by federal; to ban others, you need to change the law.
> Note that the changes you can make in the law are limited by the 2nd, 4th, 5th and 14th amendments.
Click to expand...


You're making the claim I support confiscations.  That is your Straw Man.  The fact is any effort to change the laws will require no changes in the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments, since due process is already imposed on LE / government.

For the record, I do not support confiscations unless they are ordered by a court.

As for the 2nd A. it is clearly (and an honest person will so acknowledge) ambiguous.  Notwithstanding Scalia's opinion, the Militia isn't defined in terms of 18th or 21st centuries. 

Why was the phrase "A well regulated Militia' included in the 2nd if it has no import?

"As for being necessary to the security of a free state" that phrase can easily be inferred that each individual state decide whose right can and cannot be infringed, and what form of arms are permissible (see the 10th Amendment for why).

As for your signature lines, it would be appropriate to post footnotes, so that words quoted would be seen in context.

I stand by my other comments (not quoted) as to why I support those who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control to be licensed, by the state of their residence,as required by the state law.

For the same reason I support that all firearms be registered with the state, and all sales and transfers of firearms require a bill of sale, with the registration number and the license number of the person buying the firearm.

I wish I still had it, but as training officer I had a copy of the audio when two of officers in our county were shot and killed by responding to a complaint of two people fighting.

It began with dispatch and ended with the last words of one of the officer's, "shots fired"; the last few seconds were the sounds of gun fire which took his life.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> You're making the claim I support confiscations.


Nowhere did I make this claim.  Strawman?  Look inward...


> The fact is any effort to change the laws will require no changes in the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments,


I said any changes are -limited- by the 2nd 4th, 5th and 14th amendments.
For instance , the law cannot be changed so that a person loses his right to keep and bear arms on the assessment of a psychiatrist because this does not provide the protection of due process - to remove a right under due process, the state has to take you to court.


> As for the 2nd A. it is clearly (and an honest person will so acknowledge) ambiguous.


The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Where's the ambiguity?


> I stand by my other comments (not quoted) as to why I support those who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control to be licensed, of the state of their residence so requires by law;


The state can no more require a license for the enxercise of the right to keep and bear arms than it can to exercise the right to have an abortion - see:  Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)
See, rights do not emanate from the state, and thus the state has no standing to grant a license for their exercise.


> For the same reason I support that all firearms be registered with the state....


This is a precondition to the exercise of the right not inherent to same; there is no sound argument for the necessity of the state to have on record the owner of each of the >350,000,000 firearm in the US.  As such, the precondition creates an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms in exactly the same was such a registration requirement for the exercise of the right to an abortion.


.


----------



## danielpalos

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not making an argument that the right to self defense be changed.  But, to argue "shall not be infringed" is ridiculous given the carnage created by the proliferation of firearms in the public domain.
> 
> 
> 
> The right to keep and bear arms, when exercised, harms no one;  as such, there is no sound argument for placing infringements upon it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...and a gun should never be easily obtained by an addict (drug or alcohol), a person convicted of a violent crime - misdemeanor or felony -, or detained and determined by a psychiatrist to be a danger to themselves or others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many of these people are already banned form purchase, ownership and possession of firearms by federal; to ban others, you need to change the law.
> Note that the changes you can make in the law are limited by the 2nd, 4th, 5th and 14th amendments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're making the claim I support confiscations.  That is your Straw Man.  The fact is any effort to change the laws will require no changes in the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments, since due process is already imposed on LE / government.
> 
> For the record, I do not support confiscations unless they are ordered by a court.
> 
> As for the 2nd A. it is clearly (and an honest person will so acknowledge) ambiguous.  Notwithstanding Scalia's opinion, the Militia isn't defined in terms of 18th or 21st centuries.
> 
> Why was the phrase "A well regulated Militia' included in the 2nd if it has no import?
> 
> "As for being necessary to the security of a free state" that phrase can easily be inferred that each individual state decide whose right can and cannot be infringed, and what form of arms are permissible (see the 10th Amendment for why).
> 
> As for your signature lines, it would be appropriate to post footnotes, so that words quoted would be seen in context.
> 
> I stand by my other comments (not quoted) as to why I support those who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control to be licensed, by the state of their residence,as required by the state law.
> 
> For the same reason I support that all firearms be registered with the state, and all sales and transfers of firearms require a bill of sale, with the registration number and the license number of the person buying the firearm.
> 
> I wish I still had it, but as training officer I had a copy of the audio when two of officers in our county were shot and killed by responding to a complaint of two people fighting.
> 
> It began with dispatch and ended with the last words of one of the officer's, "shots fired"; the last few seconds were the sounds of gun fire which took his life.
Click to expand...

In right wing fantasy, they are Always right and have only the "gospel Truth", simply Because they are on the right wing.

In left wing fantasy, we use quantum computing to discover zero point energy by analogy from all of the vacuum of special pleading the right wing has to resort to, in their alleged arguments.


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're making the claim I support confiscations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere did I make this claim.  Strawman?  Look inward...
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is any effort to change the laws will require no changes in the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said any changes are -limited- by the 2nd 4th, 5th and 14th amendments.
> 
> For instance , the law cannot be changes so that a person loses his right to keep and bear arms on the assessment of a psychiatrists because this does not provide the protection of due process - to remove a right under due process, the state has to take you to court.
> 
> 
> 
> As for the 2nd A. it is clearly (and an honest person will so acknowledge) ambiguous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
> Where's the ambiguity?
> 
> 
> 
> I stand by my other comments (not quoted) as to why I support those who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control to be licensed, of the state of their residence so requires by law;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The state can no more require a license for the enxercise of the right to keep and bear arms than it can to exercise the right to have an abortion - see:  Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)
> See, rights do not emanate from the state, and thus the state has no standing to grant a license for their exercise.
> 
> 
> 
> For the same reason I support that all firearms be registered with the state....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a precondition to the exercise of the right not inherent to same; there is no sound argument for the necessity of the state to have on record the owner of each of the >350,000,000 firearm in the US.  As such, the precondition creates an infringement on the right to keep an d bear arms in exactly the same was such a registration requirement for the exercise of the right to an abortion.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Mea culpa, I misread your comment on the 2nd, 4th, etc.

  However, all the rest has zero to do with COTUS.  It is all about how the SC rules on issues of gun control.  

No where in the past, and including Heller, has the issue been decided.  In fact, there are many infringements already imposed; guns are not in any way unregulated.

I know that's to your dismay, but that is a fact.  One which pisses off those who profit from the sale of guns and ammo, and the lobbyists who bribe Congress Critters to put a fantasy - shall not infringe - before the life, liberty and happiness of so many innocent citizens. Guns will be regulated.

Time will tell, but I suspect as more and more mass murders occur, more suicides and accidental shootings of children too, the people will see gun controls are a necessary part of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and my points will seem limited compared to what may happen in the future.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> Mea culpa, I misread your comment on the 2nd, 4th, etc.
> However, all the rest has zero to do with COTUS.  It is all about how the SC rules on issues of gun control.


-Every- part of the constitution is all about how the USSC rules on it.

You may not like the fact the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home - but until the USSC changes its mind, you have to live with it, as well as te fact the constitution protects said right from infringement.


> No where in the past, and including Heller, has the issue been decided.


_Heller _is the first step in the decision of all the following issues; the court revisited the issue twice, with an expansion of the ruling toward the protection of the individual right unconnected to militia service.

The court will look at again this year and issue another ruling on same.   My bet is it will come down on the side of the individual right rather than the side of a state and its restrictions on same.


> In fact, there are many infringements already imposed; guns are not in any way unregulated.


You're confused - no restriction on the right to keep and bear arms pursuant to _Heller _has been upheld by the USSC; indeed, each time the court looked at the issue, it struck such restrictions.
I know that's to your dismay, but that is a fact. 

I note you refused to address these points:

- The state can no more require a license for the enxercise of the right to keep and bear arms than it can to exercise the right to have an abortion
- Registration creates an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms in exactly the same was such a registration requirement for the exercise of the right to an abortion.

Care to give it a try, or should I accept your concession?


----------



## danielpalos

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're making the claim I support confiscations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere did I make this claim.  Strawman?  Look inward...
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is any effort to change the laws will require no changes in the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said any changes are -limited- by the 2nd 4th, 5th and 14th amendments.
> 
> For instance , the law cannot be changes so that a person loses his right to keep and bear arms on the assessment of a psychiatrists because this does not provide the protection of due process - to remove a right under due process, the state has to take you to court.
> 
> 
> 
> As for the 2nd A. it is clearly (and an honest person will so acknowledge) ambiguous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
> Where's the ambiguity?
> 
> 
> 
> I stand by my other comments (not quoted) as to why I support those who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control to be licensed, of the state of their residence so requires by law;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The state can no more require a license for the enxercise of the right to keep and bear arms than it can to exercise the right to have an abortion - see:  Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)
> See, rights do not emanate from the state, and thus the state has no standing to grant a license for their exercise.
> 
> 
> 
> For the same reason I support that all firearms be registered with the state....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a precondition to the exercise of the right not inherent to same; there is no sound argument for the necessity of the state to have on record the owner of each of the >350,000,000 firearm in the US.  As such, the precondition creates an infringement on the right to keep an d bear arms in exactly the same was such a registration requirement for the exercise of the right to an abortion.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mea culpa, I misread your comment on the 2nd, 4th, etc.
> 
> However, all the rest has zero to do with COTUS.  It is all about how the SC rules on issues of gun control.
> 
> No where in the past, and including Heller, has the issue been decided.  In fact, there are many infringements already imposed; guns are not in any way unregulated.
> 
> I know that's to your dismay, but that is a fact.  One which pisses off those who profit from the sale of guns and ammo, and the lobbyists who bribe Congress Critters to put a fantasy - shall not infringe - before the life, liberty and happiness of so many innocent citizens. Guns will be regulated.
> 
> Time will tell, but I suspect as more and more mass murders occur, more suicides and accidental shootings of children too, the people will see gun controls are a necessary part of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and my points will seem limited compared to what may happen in the future.
Click to expand...

Seems more like judicial activism.  We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problem in our free States.


----------



## danielpalos

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mea culpa, I misread your comment on the 2nd, 4th, etc.
> However, all the rest has zero to do with COTUS.  It is all about how the SC rules on issues of gun control.
> 
> 
> 
> -Every- part of the constitution is all about how the USSC rules on it.
> 
> You may not like the fact the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home - but until the USSC changes its mind, you have to live with it, as well as te fact the constitution protects said right from infringement.
> 
> 
> 
> No where in the past, and including Heller, has the issue been decided.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Heller _is the first step in the decision of all the following issues; the court revisited the issue twice, with an expansion of the ruling toward the protection of the individual right unconnected to militia service.
> 
> The court will look at again this year and issue another ruling on same.   My bet is it will come down on the side of the individual right rather than the side of a state and its restrictions on same.
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, there are many infringements already imposed; guns are not in any way unregulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're confused - no restriction on the right to keep and bear arms pursuant to _Heller _has been upheld by the USSC; indeed, each time the court looked at the issue, it struck such restrictions.
> I know that's to your dismay, but that is a fact.
> 
> I note you refused to address these points:
> 
> - The state can no more require a license for the enxercise of the right to keep and bear arms than it can to exercise the right to have an abortion
> - Registration creates an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms in exactly the same was such a registration requirement for the exercise of the right to an abortion.
> 
> Care to give it a try, or should I accept your concession?
Click to expand...

Judicial activism?

This is the understanding of the militia, at the Convention:

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
*— George Mason*_, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788_


----------



## danielpalos

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mea culpa, I misread your comment on the 2nd, 4th, etc.
> However, all the rest has zero to do with COTUS.  It is all about how the SC rules on issues of gun control.
> 
> 
> 
> -Every- part of the constitution is all about how the USSC rules on it.
> 
> You may not like the fact the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home - but until the USSC changes its mind, you have to live with it, as well as te fact the constitution protects said right from infringement.
> 
> 
> 
> No where in the past, and including Heller, has the issue been decided.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Heller _is the first step in the decision of all the following issues; the court revisited the issue twice, with an expansion of the ruling toward the protection of the individual right unconnected to militia service.
> 
> The court will look at again this year and issue another ruling on same.   My bet is it will come down on the side of the individual right rather than the side of a state and its restrictions on same.
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, there are many infringements already imposed; guns are not in any way unregulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're confused - no restriction on the right to keep and bear arms pursuant to _Heller _has been upheld by the USSC; indeed, each time the court looked at the issue, it struck such restrictions.
> I know that's to your dismay, but that is a fact.
> 
> I note you refused to address these points:
> 
> - The state can no more require a license for the enxercise of the right to keep and bear arms than it can to exercise the right to have an abortion
> - Registration creates an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms in exactly the same was such a registration requirement for the exercise of the right to an abortion.
> 
> Care to give it a try, or should I accept your concession?
Click to expand...


The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

we should have no security problems in our free States.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lesh said:


> THIS is the kind of person who should NOT have access to assault weapons in particular nor probably guns in general.
> 
> Crazy and guns are a really BAD mix.


I have a clean bill of health motherfucker....and an FBI background check for my license.

So, fuck you.  Suck my dick.  Lick my balls.

You and your pet illegal, Dan, can't formulate a coherent argument for why the term "people" in the 2A does not refer to people.

You may commence the sucking.


----------



## Lesh

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> I have a clean bill of health motherfucker....and an FBI background check for my license.
> 
> So, fuck you. Suck my dick. Lick my balls.
> 
> You and your pet illegal, Dan, can't formulate a coherent argument for why the term "people" in the 2A does not refer to people.
> 
> You may commence the sucking.



Thinking of this guy with an assault weapon gives ya a warm fuzzy huh?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Wry Catcher said:


> I'm not making an argument that the right to self defense be changed. But, to argue "shall not be infringed" is ridiculous given the carnage created by the proliferation of firearms in the public domain.


Sounds like you need to stop infringing and start amending.


Wry Catcher said:


> Owning a firearm requires self discipline


I agree.


Wry Catcher said:


> and a gun should never be easily obtained by an addict (drug or alcohol)


Once an addict, always an addict.  So, becoming addicted and getting it under control should allow one to obtain a firearm. 


Wry Catcher said:


> a person convicted of a violent crime - misdemeanor or felony -


I would disagree on the misdemeanor part.  That's bullshit.


Wry Catcher said:


> detained and determined by a psychiatrist to be a danger to themselves or others


I don't think anyone disagrees with this.  Gun ownership is a responsibility.  One who cannot control him/herself is incapable of handling that responsibility.  There must be avenues for re-assessment and reconsideration, but otherwise, fine.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lesh said:


> Thinking of this guy with an assault weapon gives ya a warm fuzzy huh?


Yeah, yeah.

and people like you should not be allowed to vote.

.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not making an argument that the right to self defense be changed.  But, to argue "shall not be infringed" is ridiculous given the carnage created by the proliferation of firearms in the public domain.
> 
> 
> 
> The right to keep and bear arms, when exercised, harms no one;  as such, there is no sound argument for placing infringements upon it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...and a gun should never be easily obtained by an addict (drug or alcohol), a person convicted of a violent crime - misdemeanor or felony -, or detained and determined by a psychiatrist to be a danger to themselves or others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many of these people are already banned form purchase, ownership and possession of firearms by federal; to ban others, you need to change the law.
> Note that the changes you can make in the law are limited by the 2nd, 4th, 5th and 14th amendments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're making the claim I support confiscations.  That is your Straw Man.  The fact is any effort to change the laws will require no changes in the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments, since due process is already imposed on LE / government.
> 
> For the record, I do not support confiscations unless they are ordered by a court.
> 
> As for the 2nd A. it is clearly (and an honest person will so acknowledge) ambiguous.  Notwithstanding Scalia's opinion, the Militia isn't defined in terms of 18th or 21st centuries.
> 
> Why was the phrase "A well regulated Militia' included in the 2nd if it has no import?
> 
> "As for being necessary to the security of a free state" that phrase can easily be inferred that each individual state decide whose right can and cannot be infringed, and what form of arms are permissible (see the 10th Amendment for why).
> 
> As for your signature lines, it would be appropriate to post footnotes, so that words quoted would be seen in context.
> 
> I stand by my other comments (not quoted) as to why I support those who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control to be licensed, by the state of their residence,as required by the state law.
> 
> For the same reason I support that all firearms be registered with the state, and all sales and transfers of firearms require a bill of sale, with the registration number and the license number of the person buying the firearm.
> 
> I wish I still had it, but as training officer I had a copy of the audio when two of officers in our county were shot and killed by responding to a complaint of two people fighting.
> 
> It began with dispatch and ended with the last words of one of the officer's, "shots fired"; the last few seconds were the sounds of gun fire which took his life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In right wing fantasy, they are Always right and have only the "gospel Truth", simply Because they are on the right wing.
> 
> In left wing fantasy, we use quantum computing to discover zero point energy by analogy from all of the vacuum of special pleading the right wing has to resort to, in their alleged arguments.
Click to expand...


That's even less coherent than usual.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not making an argument that the right to self defense be changed. But, to argue "shall not be infringed" is ridiculous given the carnage created by the proliferation of firearms in the public domain.
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like you need to stop infringing and start amending.
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Owning a firearm requires self discipline
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree.
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> and a gun should never be easily obtained by an addict (drug or alcohol)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once an addict, always an addict.  So, becoming addicted and getting it under control should allow one to obtain a firearm.
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> a person convicted of a violent crime - misdemeanor or felony -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would disagree on the misdemeanor part.  That's bullshit.
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> detained and determined by a psychiatrist to be a danger to themselves or others
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think anyone disagrees with this.  Gun ownership is a responsibility.  One who cannot control him/herself is incapable of handling that responsibility.  There must be avenues for re-assessment and reconsideration, but otherwise, fine.
Click to expand...


Domestic violence, including stalking, Driving under the influence, simple assault and mutual combat can be filed as misdemeanors or felonies, and felonies can be dealt down to misdemeanors as part of making a deal, and not going to trial.

5150 W&I is a civil commitment in (usually) a locked psychiatric facility, though many times the detention commences in an ER.  If the patient is determined to be a danger to themselves or others they can be detained in a locked facility for treatment.  If after a short time (I seem to recall 72 hours) it is determined the patient needs more treatment, s/he can be held for up to two week under 5250 W&I.

After that, if more treatment is necessary, the matter goes to probate court for a hearing, and the patient will be represented by an attorney.

The Judge can rule that the patient be released, or conserved, and if conserved s/he will be at the mercy of the guardian who will make regular progress reports to the court.  Thus, the patient can be hospitalized, placed in a group home or in the home of a relative.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Wry Catcher said:


> Domestic violence, including stalking, Driving under the influence, simple assault and mutual combat can be filed as misdemeanors or felonies, and felonies can be dealt down to misdemeanors as part of making a deal, and not going to trial.


They don't deals serious stuff down to misdemeanors.  At least not it Texas.  I don't know about California.


----------



## Rigby5

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not making an argument that the right to self defense be changed.  But, to argue "shall not be infringed" is ridiculous given the carnage created by the proliferation of firearms in the public domain.
> 
> 
> 
> The right to keep and bear arms, when exercised, harms no one;  as such, there is no sound argument for placing infringements upon it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...and a gun should never be easily obtained by an addict (drug or alcohol), a person convicted of a violent crime - misdemeanor or felony -, or detained and determined by a psychiatrist to be a danger to themselves or others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many of these people are already banned form purchase, ownership and possession of firearms by federal; to ban others, you need to change the law.
> Note that the changes you can make in the law are limited by the 2nd, 4th, 5th and 14th amendments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're making the claim I support confiscations.  That is your Straw Man.  The fact is any effort to change the laws will require no changes in the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments, since due process is already imposed on LE / government.
> 
> For the record, I do not support confiscations unless they are ordered by a court.
> 
> As for the 2nd A. it is clearly (and an honest person will so acknowledge) ambiguous.  Notwithstanding Scalia's opinion, the Militia isn't defined in terms of 18th or 21st centuries.
> 
> Why was the phrase "A well regulated Militia' included in the 2nd if it has no import?
> 
> "As for being necessary to the security of a free state" that phrase can easily be inferred that each individual state decide whose right can and cannot be infringed, and what form of arms are permissible (see the 10th Amendment for why).
> 
> As for your signature lines, it would be appropriate to post footnotes, so that words quoted would be seen in context.
> 
> I stand by my other comments (not quoted) as to why I support those who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control to be licensed, by the state of their residence,as required by the state law.
> 
> For the same reason I support that all firearms be registered with the state, and all sales and transfers of firearms require a bill of sale, with the registration number and the license number of the person buying the firearm.
> 
> I wish I still had it, but as training officer I had a copy of the audio when two of officers in our county were shot and killed by responding to a complaint of two people fighting.
> 
> It began with dispatch and ended with the last words of one of the officer's, "shots fired"; the last few seconds were the sounds of gun fire which took his life.
Click to expand...


You ask, "Why was the phrase 'A well regulated Militia' included in the 2nd if it has no import?"
And of course the phrase has value.
But you interpret it wrong.
The phrase "well regulated" means practiced, familiar, reliable, and ready to go.
Like in a "well regulated clock" or "regular bowel movements".
So the meaning is that if the federal government were to ever infringe upon popular gun rights, that would make each state and the whole country more vulnerable to invasion, crime, takeover, etc.
The survival of a democratic republic is dependent upon a well armed and trained general population.
In no way does that imply any federal jurisdiction to restrict weapons, over anyone, at any time.  It does not at all imply any exceptions to that.  Clearly the 10th amendment says the federal government ONLY has very limited jurisdiction to exactly what it is explicitly given authority over in the Constitution, and that most certainly does not at all include weapons, in any way.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Rigby5 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not making an argument that the right to self defense be changed.  But, to argue "shall not be infringed" is ridiculous given the carnage created by the proliferation of firearms in the public domain.
> 
> 
> 
> The right to keep and bear arms, when exercised, harms no one;  as such, there is no sound argument for placing infringements upon it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...and a gun should never be easily obtained by an addict (drug or alcohol), a person convicted of a violent crime - misdemeanor or felony -, or detained and determined by a psychiatrist to be a danger to themselves or others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many of these people are already banned form purchase, ownership and possession of firearms by federal; to ban others, you need to change the law.
> Note that the changes you can make in the law are limited by the 2nd, 4th, 5th and 14th amendments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're making the claim I support confiscations.  That is your Straw Man.  The fact is any effort to change the laws will require no changes in the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments, since due process is already imposed on LE / government.
> 
> For the record, I do not support confiscations unless they are ordered by a court.
> 
> As for the 2nd A. it is clearly (and an honest person will so acknowledge) ambiguous.  Notwithstanding Scalia's opinion, the Militia isn't defined in terms of 18th or 21st centuries.
> 
> Why was the phrase "A well regulated Militia' included in the 2nd if it has no import?
> 
> "As for being necessary to the security of a free state" that phrase can easily be inferred that each individual state decide whose right can and cannot be infringed, and what form of arms are permissible (see the 10th Amendment for why).
> 
> As for your signature lines, it would be appropriate to post footnotes, so that words quoted would be seen in context.
> 
> I stand by my other comments (not quoted) as to why I support those who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control to be licensed, by the state of their residence,as required by the state law.
> 
> For the same reason I support that all firearms be registered with the state, and all sales and transfers of firearms require a bill of sale, with the registration number and the license number of the person buying the firearm.
> 
> I wish I still had it, but as training officer I had a copy of the audio when two of officers in our county were shot and killed by responding to a complaint of two people fighting.
> 
> It began with dispatch and ended with the last words of one of the officer's, "shots fired"; the last few seconds were the sounds of gun fire which took his life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You ask, "Why was the phrase 'A well regulated Militia' included in the 2nd if it has no import?"
> And of course the phrase has value.
> But you interpret it wrong.
> The phrase "well regulated" means practiced, familiar, reliable, and ready to go.
> Like in a "well regulated clock" or "regular bowel movements".
> So the meaning is that if the federal government were to ever infringe upon popular gun rights, that would make each state and the whole country more vulnerable to invasion, crime, takeover, etc.
> The survival of a democratic republic is dependent upon a well armed and trained general population.
> In no way does that imply any federal jurisdiction to restrict weapons, over anyone, at any time.  It does not at all imply any exceptions to that.  Clearly the 10th amendment says the federal government ONLY has very limited jurisdiction to exactly what it is explicitly given authority over in the Constitution, and that most certainly does not at all include weapons, in any way.
Click to expand...

Still trying to peddle this wrongheaded, moronic tripe.

And yet again:

There is nothing in the text or case law of the Second Amendment authorizing insurrectionist dogma.

The Framers did not amend the Constitution to ‘authorize’ the destruction of the Constitution and the Republic they just created.  

The Second Amendment codifies an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to the right of lawful self-defense, unconnected with militia service – not to ‘fight crime,’ not to act as ‘law enforcement,’ and certainly not to ‘overthrow’ a lawfully elected government reflecting the will of the majority of the people because some incorrectly perceive government to have become ‘tyrannical.’  

And the Federal government is at complete liberty to regulate firearms; the Second Amendment right is not ‘unlimited’ – government has the authority to place regulations and restrictions on the sale and possession of firearms, including the Federal government.


----------



## Rigby5

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not making an argument that the right to self defense be changed.  But, to argue "shall not be infringed" is ridiculous given the carnage created by the proliferation of firearms in the public domain.
> 
> 
> 
> The right to keep and bear arms, when exercised, harms no one;  as such, there is no sound argument for placing infringements upon it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...and a gun should never be easily obtained by an addict (drug or alcohol), a person convicted of a violent crime - misdemeanor or felony -, or detained and determined by a psychiatrist to be a danger to themselves or others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many of these people are already banned form purchase, ownership and possession of firearms by federal; to ban others, you need to change the law.
> Note that the changes you can make in the law are limited by the 2nd, 4th, 5th and 14th amendments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're making the claim I support confiscations.  That is your Straw Man.  The fact is any effort to change the laws will require no changes in the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments, since due process is already imposed on LE / government.
> 
> For the record, I do not support confiscations unless they are ordered by a court.
> 
> As for the 2nd A. it is clearly (and an honest person will so acknowledge) ambiguous.  Notwithstanding Scalia's opinion, the Militia isn't defined in terms of 18th or 21st centuries.
> 
> Why was the phrase "A well regulated Militia' included in the 2nd if it has no import?
> 
> "As for being necessary to the security of a free state" that phrase can easily be inferred that each individual state decide whose right can and cannot be infringed, and what form of arms are permissible (see the 10th Amendment for why).
> 
> As for your signature lines, it would be appropriate to post footnotes, so that words quoted would be seen in context.
> 
> I stand by my other comments (not quoted) as to why I support those who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control to be licensed, by the state of their residence,as required by the state law.
> 
> For the same reason I support that all firearms be registered with the state, and all sales and transfers of firearms require a bill of sale, with the registration number and the license number of the person buying the firearm.
> 
> I wish I still had it, but as training officer I had a copy of the audio when two of officers in our county were shot and killed by responding to a complaint of two people fighting.
> 
> It began with dispatch and ended with the last words of one of the officer's, "shots fired"; the last few seconds were the sounds of gun fire which took his life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You ask, "Why was the phrase 'A well regulated Militia' included in the 2nd if it has no import?"
> And of course the phrase has value.
> But you interpret it wrong.
> The phrase "well regulated" means practiced, familiar, reliable, and ready to go.
> Like in a "well regulated clock" or "regular bowel movements".
> So the meaning is that if the federal government were to ever infringe upon popular gun rights, that would make each state and the whole country more vulnerable to invasion, crime, takeover, etc.
> The survival of a democratic republic is dependent upon a well armed and trained general population.
> In no way does that imply any federal jurisdiction to restrict weapons, over anyone, at any time.  It does not at all imply any exceptions to that.  Clearly the 10th amendment says the federal government ONLY has very limited jurisdiction to exactly what it is explicitly given authority over in the Constitution, and that most certainly does not at all include weapons, in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still trying to peddle this wrongheaded, moronic tripe.
> 
> And yet again:
> 
> There is nothing in the text or case law of the Second Amendment authorizing insurrectionist dogma.
> 
> The Framers did not amend the Constitution to ‘authorize’ the destruction of the Constitution and the Republic they just created.
> 
> The Second Amendment codifies an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to the right of lawful self-defense, unconnected with militia service – not to ‘fight crime,’ not to act as ‘law enforcement,’ and certainly not to ‘overthrow’ a lawfully elected government reflecting the will of the majority of the people because some incorrectly perceive government to have become ‘tyrannical.’
> 
> And the Federal government is at complete liberty to regulate firearms; the Second Amendment right is not ‘unlimited’ – government has the authority to place regulations and restrictions on the sale and possession of firearms, including the Federal government.
Click to expand...



That seems pretty ignorant because the founders were famous for always authorizing insurrectionist dogma, like the Declaration of Independence.

You seem confused about historical fact.  The Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendment, were not AFTER the Republic has just been created, but was BEFORE any single state was willing to join into the Republic.   The whole point of the Bill of Rights was to weaken the federal government enough so that states would change their minds and consider joining.

I have no problem with your statement, "The Second Amendment codifies an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to the right of lawful self-defense, unconnected with militia service."
But you seem to be contradicting yourself because the right of lawful self-defense essentially is act as law enforcement and to overthrow tyrannies.  Clearly there were NO police back then at all, and the founders had no faith or trust in any government at that point.  

You do not seem to understand the Bill of Rights.
The 2nd amendment is not the source of any right, and is not where the right of individuals to bear arms comes from.  All rights were considered to pre-exist, and not be created or granted by government.  The Bill of Rights is just supposed to be line in the sand, reminders of what limits are not to be crossed by the federal government.  
But it is the 10th amendment that prohibits all federal weapons law.
The 10th amendment says that the federal government has ZERO jurisdiction on anything not expressly authorized to the federal government by some article of the Constitution.
So for the federal government to legally have ANY jurisdiction over weapons inside the US, there would have to be some article in the Constitution, expressly stating that.  But there is none.
{...
*Amendment X*
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
...}


----------



## Daryl Hunt

M14 Shooter said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> THIS is the kind of person who should NOT have access to assault weapons in particular nor probably guns in general.
> Crazy and guns are a really BAD mix.
> 
> 
> 
> Fact remains:
> Neither you nor dan have refuted the OBVIOUS and clear, plain language of the 2A.
Click to expand...


So, it's clear, plain language, is it.  The fact is, it's not clear enough.  It's so vague people are able to interpret it any way they wish to.  A good law or Amendment removes all ambiguity from it and the 2A hasn't done that.  It did for the first 70 years but weapons outpaced the 2A as well as the cost of war in money, equipment and manpower.  

Now, explain to me how it's so concise.  And don't just grab 5 words from it and keep hammering away with them.  Tell me how it's concise.


----------



## Rigby5

Daryl Hunt said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> THIS is the kind of person who should NOT have access to assault weapons in particular nor probably guns in general.
> Crazy and guns are a really BAD mix.
> 
> 
> 
> Fact remains:
> Neither you nor dan have refuted the OBVIOUS and clear, plain language of the 2A.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, it's clear, plain language, is it.  The fact is, it's not clear enough.  It's so vague people are able to interpret it any way they wish to.  A good law or Amendment removes all ambiguity from it and the 2A hasn't done that.  It did for the first 70 years but weapons outpaced the 2A as well as the cost of war in money, equipment and manpower.
> 
> Now, explain to me how it's so concise.  And don't just grab 5 words from it and keep hammering away with them.  Tell me how it's concise.
Click to expand...


The Constitution is very clear.
The federal government was strictly limited to only what states could not do themselves individually, such as protecting interstate commerce, negotiating international treaties, etc.
States have no difficulty at all in legislating their own weapons restrictions, so there obviously could not have been any need for any federal jurisdiction over weapons inside the US, and there is no article anywhere in the Constitution implying any such weapons jurisdiction.  Without an express authorization for federal jurisdiction over weapons, clearly the federal government is totally and completely bared from any jurisdiction over weapons, in any way, except maybe importation.


----------



## Lesh

A Well Regulated Militia Being necessary.

What you posted sounds nice but is irrelevant to this dicussion


----------



## Rigby5

Lesh said:


> A Well Regulated Militia Being necessary.
> 
> What you posted sounds nice but is irrelevant to this discussion




Because A, then B does not imply there are not also other reasons C, D, E, etc., for B as well.
Only one reason needs be shown for something for it to become justified, but that in no way means that is the only, exclusive reason.
And since the Bill of Rights are restrictions on the federal government, all that matters is that the federal government then is forbidden jurisdiction over weapons.
But is also clear that militias were up to states to create and control, not the federal government.
The federal government only is allowed to call them up from the states during emergencies.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Daryl Hunt said:


> So, it's clear, plain language, is it.  The fact is, it's not clear enough.  It's so vague people are able to interpret it any way they wish to.


That they can interpret it however they wish in no way means said interpretation is sound.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Lesh said:


> A Well Regulated Militia Being necessary.
> What you posted sounds nice but is irrelevant to this dicussion


So is your opinion on the matter.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

M14 Shooter said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, it's clear, plain language, is it.  The fact is, it's not clear enough.  It's so vague people are able to interpret it any way they wish to.
> 
> 
> 
> That they can interpret it however they wish in no way means said interpretation is sound.
Click to expand...


And who gets to decide what is sound or not sound in a Country of Laws?


----------



## danielpalos

We should have no security problems in our free States with a Second Amendment. 



> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Daryl Hunt said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, it's clear, plain language, is it.  The fact is, it's not clear enough.  It's so vague people are able to interpret it any way they wish to.
> 
> 
> 
> That they can interpret it however they wish in no way means said interpretation is sound.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And who gets to decide what is sound or not sound in a Country of Laws?
Click to expand...

The rules of logic.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

danielpalos said:


> We should have no security problems in our free States with a Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
Click to expand...


Don't you think you have done that phrase to death already?  Expand on it instead of using it as a cliche.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

M14 Shooter said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, it's clear, plain language, is it.  The fact is, it's not clear enough.  It's so vague people are able to interpret it any way they wish to.
> 
> 
> 
> That they can interpret it however they wish in no way means said interpretation is sound.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And who gets to decide what is sound or not sound in a Country of Laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The rules of logic.
Click to expand...


And who determines that logic in a Country of Laws?


----------



## hadit

Daryl Hunt said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should have no security problems in our free States with a Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't you think you have done that phrase to death already?  Expand on it instead of using it as a cliche.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately, shallow phrases are about all you're going to get from him.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Rigby5 said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Well Regulated Militia Being necessary.
> 
> What you posted sounds nice but is irrelevant to this discussion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because A, then B does not imply there are not also other reasons C, D, E, etc., for B as well.
> Only one reason needs be shown for something for it to become justified, but that in no way means that is the only, exclusive reason.
> And since the Bill of Rights are restrictions on the federal government, all that matters is that the federal government then is forbidden jurisdiction over weapons.
> But is also clear that militias were up to states to create and control, not the federal government.
> The federal government only is allowed to call them up from the states during emergencies.
Click to expand...


In re Militias:  See Art I, Sec. 8, Clause 15 & 16


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, it's clear, plain language, is it.  The fact is, it's not clear enough.  It's so vague people are able to interpret it any way they wish to.
> 
> 
> 
> That they can interpret it however they wish in no way means said interpretation is sound.
Click to expand...


And by claiming no infringement ever, that interpretation in no way reflects reality.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

M14 Shooter said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, it's clear, plain language, is it.  The fact is, it's not clear enough.  It's so vague people are able to interpret it any way they wish to.
> 
> 
> 
> That they can interpret it however they wish in no way means said interpretation is sound.
Click to expand...

…or that the ‘interpretation’ is legally relevant or valid.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, it's clear, plain language, is it.  The fact is, it's not clear enough.  It's so vague people are able to interpret it any way they wish to.
> 
> 
> 
> That they can interpret it however they wish in no way means said interpretation is sound.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And by claiming no infringement ever, that interpretation in no way reflects reality.
Click to expand...

Correct.

Indeed – and again – all laws are valid and presumed to be Constitutional until the courts rule otherwise, including laws regulating firearms.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Daryl Hunt said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, it's clear, plain language, is it.  The fact is, it's not clear enough.  It's so vague people are able to interpret it any way they wish to.
> 
> 
> 
> That they can interpret it however they wish in no way means said interpretation is sound.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And who gets to decide what is sound or not sound in a Country of Laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The rules of logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And who determines that logic in a Country of Laws?
Click to expand...

The rules of logic are independent of any country, or any law.


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, it's clear, plain language, is it.  The fact is, it's not clear enough.  It's so vague people are able to interpret it any way they wish to.
> 
> 
> 
> That they can interpret it however they wish in no way means said interpretation is sound.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And who gets to decide what is sound or not sound in a Country of Laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The rules of logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And who determines that logic in a Country of Laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The rules of logic are independent of any country, or any law.
Click to expand...


Explain this ^^^


----------



## danielpalos

Daryl Hunt said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should have no security problems in our free States with a Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't you think you have done that phrase to death already?  Expand on it instead of using it as a cliche.
Click to expand...

No, I don't.  Especially when those of the opposing view are only being hypocrites regarding, Repetition.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should have no security problems in our free States with a Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't you think you have done that phrase to death already?  Expand on it instead of using it as a cliche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, shallow phrases are about all you're going to get from him.
Click to expand...

It is clear and you Right Wingers have no answers; too Lazy?


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should have no security problems in our free States with a Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't you think you have done that phrase to death already?  Expand on it instead of using it as a cliche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, shallow phrases are about all you're going to get from him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is clear and you Right Wingers have no answers; too Lazy?
Click to expand...

You've had all the answers you need.  Not our problem you choose to ignore them.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should have no security problems in our free States with a Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't you think you have done that phrase to death already?  Expand on it instead of using it as a cliche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, shallow phrases are about all you're going to get from him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is clear and you Right Wingers have no answers; too Lazy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've had all the answers you need.  Not our problem you choose to ignore them.
Click to expand...

We should be blaming State representatives to government for any security problems in our free States.  It must be a management problem. 

_The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should have no security problems in our free States with a Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't you think you have done that phrase to death already?  Expand on it instead of using it as a cliche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, shallow phrases are about all you're going to get from him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is clear and you Right Wingers have no answers; too Lazy?
Click to expand...



Except that what you seem to be saying is that the 2nd amendment is a bar against any federal weapons jurisdiction, thus ensuring free states and country by preventing the general population from ever being disarmed.
Which I not only agree with, but so do most Right Wingers as well.
So unless your intent was to agree with Right Wingers, I don't think you made yourself at all clear?


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should have no security problems in our free States with a Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you think you have done that phrase to death already?  Expand on it instead of using it as a cliche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, shallow phrases are about all you're going to get from him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is clear and you Right Wingers have no answers; too Lazy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've had all the answers you need.  Not our problem you choose to ignore them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We should be blaming State representatives to government for any security problems in our free States.  It must be a management problem.
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
Click to expand...



Sure, it likely is and will always be a management problem when there is anything at all wrong with a country.
But that is why all governments in all countries always fail, and there are rebellions, invasions, upheavals, etc.
Its pretty easy to see from history that governments always tend towards increased corruption, and have to be restarted over again, periodically.  The last thing any responsible person would want is to make a popular uprising more difficult than it already is.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should have no security problems in our free States with a Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you think you have done that phrase to death already?  Expand on it instead of using it as a cliche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, shallow phrases are about all you're going to get from him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is clear and you Right Wingers have no answers; too Lazy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've had all the answers you need.  Not our problem you choose to ignore them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We should be blaming State representatives to government for any security problems in our free States.  It must be a management problem.
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
Click to expand...

And you continue ignoring the answers liberally provided you.


----------



## hadit

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should have no security problems in our free States with a Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't you think you have done that phrase to death already?  Expand on it instead of using it as a cliche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, shallow phrases are about all you're going to get from him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is clear and you Right Wingers have no answers; too Lazy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Except that what you seem to be saying is that the 2nd amendment is a bar against any federal weapons jurisdiction, thus ensuring free states and country by preventing the general population from ever being disarmed.
> Which I not only agree with, but so do most Right Wingers as well.
> So unless your intent was to agree with Right Wingers, I don't think you made yourself at all clear?
Click to expand...

He never does.  You won't get anything more than about a dozen or so phrases, cycled endlessly over and over.  He's no more lucid than a poorly programmed bot.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should have no security problems in our free States with a Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't you think you have done that phrase to death already?  Expand on it instead of using it as a cliche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, shallow phrases are about all you're going to get from him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is clear and you Right Wingers have no answers; too Lazy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Except that what you seem to be saying is that the 2nd amendment is a bar against any federal weapons jurisdiction, thus ensuring free states and country by preventing the general population from ever being disarmed.
> Which I not only agree with, but so do most Right Wingers as well.
> So unless your intent was to agree with Right Wingers, I don't think you made yourself at all clear?
Click to expand...

_The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you think you have done that phrase to death already?  Expand on it instead of using it as a cliche.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, shallow phrases are about all you're going to get from him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is clear and you Right Wingers have no answers; too Lazy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've had all the answers you need.  Not our problem you choose to ignore them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We should be blaming State representatives to government for any security problems in our free States.  It must be a management problem.
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, it likely is and will always be a management problem when there is anything at all wrong with a country.
> But that is why all governments in all countries always fail, and there are rebellions, invasions, upheavals, etc.
> Its pretty easy to see from history that governments always tend towards increased corruption, and have to be restarted over again, periodically.  The last thing any responsible person would want is to make a popular uprising more difficult than it already is.
Click to expand...

what are you talking about?  we should have no security problems in our free States.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you think you have done that phrase to death already?  Expand on it instead of using it as a cliche.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, shallow phrases are about all you're going to get from him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is clear and you Right Wingers have no answers; too Lazy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've had all the answers you need.  Not our problem you choose to ignore them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We should be blaming State representatives to government for any security problems in our free States.  It must be a management problem.
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you continue ignoring the answers liberally provided you.
Click to expand...

nothing but diversion?  we should have no security problems in our free States with Second Amendment.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should have no security problems in our free States with a Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you think you have done that phrase to death already?  Expand on it instead of using it as a cliche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, shallow phrases are about all you're going to get from him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is clear and you Right Wingers have no answers; too Lazy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Except that what you seem to be saying is that the 2nd amendment is a bar against any federal weapons jurisdiction, thus ensuring free states and country by preventing the general population from ever being disarmed.
> Which I not only agree with, but so do most Right Wingers as well.
> So unless your intent was to agree with Right Wingers, I don't think you made yourself at all clear?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He never does.  You won't get anything more than about a dozen or so phrases, cycled endlessly over and over.  He's no more lucid than a poorly programmed bot.
Click to expand...

i resort to the fewest fallacies.  hypocrisy is the Best You can do, with me.


----------



## Lesh

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should have no security problems in our free States with a Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't you think you have done that phrase to death already?  Expand on it instead of using it as a cliche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, shallow phrases are about all you're going to get from him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is clear and you Right Wingers have no answers; too Lazy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Except that what you seem to be saying is that the 2nd amendment is a bar against any federal weapons jurisdiction, thus ensuring free states and country by preventing the general population from ever being disarmed.
> Which I not only agree with, but so do most Right Wingers as well.
> So unless your intent was to agree with Right Wingers, I don't think you made yourself at all clear?
Click to expand...

God only knows what Dan is saying but clearly th 2A only "protects" gun rights as they pertain to a "Well Regulated Militia.."

Beyond that they are a state and local matter


----------



## danielpalos

Lesh said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should have no security problems in our free States with a Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you think you have done that phrase to death already?  Expand on it instead of using it as a cliche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, shallow phrases are about all you're going to get from him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is clear and you Right Wingers have no answers; too Lazy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Except that what you seem to be saying is that the 2nd amendment is a bar against any federal weapons jurisdiction, thus ensuring free states and country by preventing the general population from ever being disarmed.
> Which I not only agree with, but so do most Right Wingers as well.
> So unless your intent was to agree with Right Wingers, I don't think you made yourself at all clear?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God only knows what Dan is saying but clearly th 2A only "protects" gun rights as they pertain to a "Well Regulated Militia.."
> 
> Beyond that they are a state and local matter
Click to expand...

why do we have any security problems in our free States?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> That they can interpret it however they wish in no way means said interpretation is sound.
> 
> 
> 
> And who gets to decide what is sound or not sound in a Country of Laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The rules of logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And who determines that logic in a Country of Laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The rules of logic are independent of any country, or any law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Explain this ^^^
Click to expand...

https://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/


----------



## M14 Shooter

Lesh said:


> God only knows what Dan is saying but clearly th 2A only "protects" gun rights as they pertain to a "Well Regulated Militia.."
> Beyond that they are a state and local matter


This is, of course, a lie.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lesh said:


> A Well Regulated Militia Being necessary.
> 
> What you posted sounds nice but is irrelevant to this dicussion


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lesh said:


> God only knows what Dan is saying but clearly th 2A only "protects" gun rights as they pertain to a "Well Regulated Militia.."





Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should have no security problems in our free States with a Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't you think you have done that phrase to death already?  Expand on it instead of using it as a cliche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, shallow phrases are about all you're going to get from him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is clear and you Right Wingers have no answers; too Lazy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Except that what you seem to be saying is that the 2nd amendment is a bar against any federal weapons jurisdiction, thus ensuring free states and country by preventing the general population from ever being disarmed.
> Which I not only agree with, but so do most Right Wingers as well.
> So unless your intent was to agree with Right Wingers, I don't think you made yourself at all clear?
Click to expand...

Is dan being a dumbass again...again? 


I have to ignore his troll ass for a few weeks.  I can't stand it.  

.


----------



## danielpalos

The north Had to win; 

Because, 

Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


----------



## Rigby5

Lesh said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should have no security problems in our free States with a Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you think you have done that phrase to death already?  Expand on it instead of using it as a cliche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, shallow phrases are about all you're going to get from him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is clear and you Right Wingers have no answers; too Lazy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Except that what you seem to be saying is that the 2nd amendment is a bar against any federal weapons jurisdiction, thus ensuring free states and country by preventing the general population from ever being disarmed.
> Which I not only agree with, but so do most Right Wingers as well.
> So unless your intent was to agree with Right Wingers, I don't think you made yourself at all clear?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God only knows what Dan is saying but clearly th 2A only "protects" gun rights as they pertain to a "Well Regulated Militia.."
> 
> Beyond that they are a state and local matter
Click to expand...


It is true that guns are a state and local matter, but it does not at all matter why all federal weapons jurisdiction is barred, it simply clearly is.   There really is no legal justification for any federal firearms laws at all, (except maybe regarding imports).


----------



## Lesh

Rigby5 said:


> It is true that guns are a state and local matter, but it does not at all matter why all federal weapons jurisdiction is barred, it simply clearly is. There really is no legal justification for any federal firearms laws at all, (except maybe regarding imports).



Actually the commerce clause would apply


----------



## M14 Shooter

Lesh said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is true that guns are a state and local matter, but it does not at all matter why all federal weapons jurisdiction is barred, it simply clearly is. There really is no legal justification for any federal firearms laws at all, (except maybe regarding imports).
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the commerce clause would apply
Click to expand...

The Commerce Clause is limited by he 2nd (and other) amendment.


----------



## Lesh

M14 Shooter said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is true that guns are a state and local matter, but it does not at all matter why all federal weapons jurisdiction is barred, it simply clearly is. There really is no legal justification for any federal firearms laws at all, (except maybe regarding imports).
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the commerce clause would apply
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Commerce Clause is limited by he 2nd (and other) amendment.
Click to expand...

AT some point people are going to realize the fallacy of that.

The 2A only "protects" gun rights as related to "A Well Regulated Militia"

There's a reason that phrase is there. The Founders didn't just add words and phrases that had no meaning


----------



## Rigby5

Lesh said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is true that guns are a state and local matter, but it does not at all matter why all federal weapons jurisdiction is barred, it simply clearly is. There really is no legal justification for any federal firearms laws at all, (except maybe regarding imports).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the commerce clause would apply
Click to expand...



Not at all.
The commerce clause was actually ONLY about preventing states from interfering with interstate commerce.
The whole point of the federal government was ONLY to do that which states could not do.
And while states can't prevent another state from screwing with interstate commerce,  clearly not only can states easily deal with local state legislation to moderate weapons,but  it HAS to be done on a state level because what weapons needed in NYC are likely going to be different than what weapons are needed in Alaska or Louisiana.
In no way could anyone possibly justify any federal weapons legislation at all, in any way.

Linguistically everything could effect interstate commerce, but clearly the 10 amendment says that federal jurisdiction can not be inferred indirectly, but must be expressly allocated to federal jurisdiction in a separate article in the constitution.
It is not at all legal to infer from the commerce clause.
The 9th amendment was clear that weapons were to be totally under state, local, and individual jurisdiction.


----------



## Rigby5

Lesh said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is true that guns are a state and local matter, but it does not at all matter why all federal weapons jurisdiction is barred, it simply clearly is. There really is no legal justification for any federal firearms laws at all, (except maybe regarding imports).
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the commerce clause would apply
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Commerce Clause is limited by he 2nd (and other) amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> AT some point people are going to realize the fallacy of that.
> 
> The 2A only "protects" gun rights as related to "A Well Regulated Militia"
> 
> There's a reason that phrase is there. The Founders didn't just add words and phrases that had no meaning
Click to expand...



Except that the "well regulated militia" means that the whole country needs all of its adults to be well practiced in firearms.
They were even considering federal legislation criminalizing households that did not have arms.

Remember there were absolutely NO police back then at all, all law enforcement had to be local, and there was almost no standing military because they wanted to rely on "citizens soldiers" instead of paid mercenaries.

It would be very irrational to include an amendment in the list of restriction on the federal government that was intended to prevent the federal government from disarming its National Guard.  But that is essentially what you are claiming.  So what if the 2nd amendment were only referring to the militia, (which I disagree with), because the militia clearly were ever able bodied person, and were for defense of state, city, home, and person, as well as country.
It hardly matters why the restriction on any federal weapons laws is there.  We should all agree it is there, so then there can not legally be any federal weapons law, nor should there ever have been any, because there has never been any need.  Each state should have their own weapons law, as they feel appropriate for their needs.  Needs obviously are going to vary from state to state.


----------



## Lesh

Rigby5 said:


> Remember there were absolutely NO police back then at all,



And sa very small standing Army. So they needed a militia. 

That no longer is true


----------



## M14 Shooter

Lesh said:


> The 2A only "protects" gun rights as related to "A Well Regulated Militia"


It does not matter how many times your lie about this, you're still lying.


----------



## progressive hunter

Lesh said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is true that guns are a state and local matter, but it does not at all matter why all federal weapons jurisdiction is barred, it simply clearly is. There really is no legal justification for any federal firearms laws at all, (except maybe regarding imports).
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the commerce clause would apply
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Commerce Clause is limited by he 2nd (and other) amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> AT some point people are going to realize the fallacy of that.
> 
> The 2A only "protects" gun rights as related to "A Well Regulated Militia"
> 
> There's a reason that phrase is there. The Founders didn't just add words and phrases that had no meaning
Click to expand...

and thats also why they added

" THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"


----------



## danielpalos

progressive hunter said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is true that guns are a state and local matter, but it does not at all matter why all federal weapons jurisdiction is barred, it simply clearly is. There really is no legal justification for any federal firearms laws at all, (except maybe regarding imports).
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the commerce clause would apply
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Commerce Clause is limited by he 2nd (and other) amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> AT some point people are going to realize the fallacy of that.
> 
> The 2A only "protects" gun rights as related to "A Well Regulated Militia"
> 
> There's a reason that phrase is there. The Founders didn't just add words and phrases that had no meaning
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and thats also why they added
> 
> " THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BARE ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"
Click to expand...

A specific limitation on Government.  

The People have a right to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is true that guns are a state and local matter, but it does not at all matter why all federal weapons jurisdiction is barred, it simply clearly is. There really is no legal justification for any federal firearms laws at all, (except maybe regarding imports).
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the commerce clause would apply
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Commerce Clause is limited by he 2nd (and other) amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> AT some point people are going to realize the fallacy of that.
> 
> The 2A only "protects" gun rights as related to "A Well Regulated Militia"
> 
> There's a reason that phrase is there. The Founders didn't just add words and phrases that had no meaning
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and thats also why they added
> 
> " THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BARE ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A specific limitation on Government.
> 
> The People have a right to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union.
Click to expand...


You have to keep adding, "for their state or the union", because it's not in there.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the commerce clause would apply
> 
> 
> 
> The Commerce Clause is limited by he 2nd (and other) amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> AT some point people are going to realize the fallacy of that.
> 
> The 2A only "protects" gun rights as related to "A Well Regulated Militia"
> 
> There's a reason that phrase is there. The Founders didn't just add words and phrases that had no meaning
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and thats also why they added
> 
> " THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BARE ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A specific limitation on Government.
> 
> The People have a right to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to keep adding, "for their state or the union", because it's not in there.
Click to expand...

The several States are the Union.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the commerce clause would apply
> 
> 
> 
> The Commerce Clause is limited by he 2nd (and other) amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> AT some point people are going to realize the fallacy of that.
> 
> The 2A only "protects" gun rights as related to "A Well Regulated Militia"
> 
> There's a reason that phrase is there. The Founders didn't just add words and phrases that had no meaning
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and thats also why they added
> 
> " THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BARE ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A specific limitation on Government.
> 
> The People have a right to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to keep adding, "for their state or the union", because it's not in there.
Click to expand...


I still think that it was a typo that was never corrected.  Our Founding Fathers wanted to make hunting bears more sporting so they actually meant The People have a right to keep and  Arm Bears.  Imagine the excitement on opening bear season.


----------



## Hugo Furst

Lesh said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember there were absolutely NO police back then at all,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And sa very small standing Army. So they needed a militia.
> 
> That no longer is true
Click to expand...




Lesh said:


> And sa very small standing Army.



we had a standing army at that time?


----------



## Daryl Hunt

WillHaftawaite said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember there were absolutely NO police back then at all,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And sa very small standing Army. So they needed a militia.
> 
> That no longer is true
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> And sa very small standing Army.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> we had a standing army at that time?
Click to expand...


We did.  It was capped at a standing army of 75,000 not including the Navy which had no limits.  It stayed that way until the Civil War.  By 1898, that was changed due to the Spanish American War requirements.  And in 1917, the State Guards or Militias were changed to the National Guards and could be called up as Federal Troops in preparation for WWI.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Commerce Clause is limited by he 2nd (and other) amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> AT some point people are going to realize the fallacy of that.
> 
> The 2A only "protects" gun rights as related to "A Well Regulated Militia"
> 
> There's a reason that phrase is there. The Founders didn't just add words and phrases that had no meaning
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and thats also why they added
> 
> " THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BARE ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A specific limitation on Government.
> 
> The People have a right to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to keep adding, "for their state or the union", because it's not in there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The several States are the Union.
Click to expand...


That doesn't put it in there. That's why you have to keep adding it, to make the amendment fit your narrative when it doesn't.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> AT some point people are going to realize the fallacy of that.
> 
> The 2A only "protects" gun rights as related to "A Well Regulated Militia"
> 
> There's a reason that phrase is there. The Founders didn't just add words and phrases that had no meaning
> 
> 
> 
> and thats also why they added
> 
> " THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BARE ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A specific limitation on Government.
> 
> The People have a right to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to keep adding, "for their state or the union", because it's not in there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The several States are the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't put it in there. That's why you have to keep adding it, to make the amendment fit your narrative when it doesn't.
Click to expand...

they must be there, by implication.  that is all the right wing knows.


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> and thats also why they added
> 
> " THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BARE ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"
> 
> 
> 
> A specific limitation on Government.
> 
> The People have a right to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to keep adding, "for their state or the union", because it's not in there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The several States are the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't put it in there. That's why you have to keep adding it, to make the amendment fit your narrative when it doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they must be there, by implication.  that is all the right wing knows.
Click to expand...





danielpalos said:


> they must be there, by implication.


who's 'implication'?

besides yours?


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> A specific limitation on Government.
> 
> The People have a right to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have to keep adding, "for their state or the union", because it's not in there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The several States are the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't put it in there. That's why you have to keep adding it, to make the amendment fit your narrative when it doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they must be there, by implication.  that is all the right wing knows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> they must be there, by implication.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> who's 'implication'?
> 
> besides yours?
Click to expand...

there is no express immigration clause it is only implied in right wing fantasy.


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have to keep adding, "for their state or the union", because it's not in there.
> 
> 
> 
> The several States are the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't put it in there. That's why you have to keep adding it, to make the amendment fit your narrative when it doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they must be there, by implication.  that is all the right wing knows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> they must be there, by implication.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> who's 'implication'?
> 
> besides yours?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no express immigration clause it is only implied in right wing fantasy.
Click to expand...


immigration?

I was under the impression we were discussing the 2nd Amendment.


What does immigration have to do with it?


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The several States are the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't put it in there. That's why you have to keep adding it, to make the amendment fit your narrative when it doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they must be there, by implication.  that is all the right wing knows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> they must be there, by implication.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> who's 'implication'?
> 
> besides yours?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no express immigration clause it is only implied in right wing fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> immigration?
> 
> I was under the impression we were discussing the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> What does immigration have to do with it?
Click to expand...

implication.


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't put it in there. That's why you have to keep adding it, to make the amendment fit your narrative when it doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> they must be there, by implication.  that is all the right wing knows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> they must be there, by implication.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> who's 'implication'?
> 
> besides yours?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no express immigration clause it is only implied in right wing fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> immigration?
> 
> I was under the impression we were discussing the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> What does immigration have to do with it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> implication.
Click to expand...




danielpalos said:


> implication.



No...


Deflection


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> they must be there, by implication.  that is all the right wing knows.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> they must be there, by implication.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> who's 'implication'?
> 
> besides yours?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no express immigration clause it is only implied in right wing fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> immigration?
> 
> I was under the impression we were discussing the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> What does immigration have to do with it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> implication.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> implication.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No...
> 
> 
> Deflection
Click to expand...

The right of the People to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union shall not be Infringed.


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> who's 'implication'?
> 
> besides yours?
> 
> 
> 
> there is no express immigration clause it is only implied in right wing fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> immigration?
> 
> I was under the impression we were discussing the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> What does immigration have to do with it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> implication.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> implication.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No...
> 
> 
> Deflection
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right of the People to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union shall not be Infringed.
Click to expand...




danielpalos said:


> The right of the People to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union shall not be Infringed.



No

"The right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be Infringed. "

The rest is bullshit you want to 'implicate', but isn't there in any form.


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is no express immigration clause it is only implied in right wing fantasy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> immigration?
> 
> I was under the impression we were discussing the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> What does immigration have to do with it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> implication.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> implication.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No...
> 
> 
> Deflection
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right of the People to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union shall not be Infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right of the People to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union shall not be Infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No
> 
> "The right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be Infringed. "
> 
> The rest is bullshit you want to 'implicate', but isn't there in any form.
Click to expand...

immigration is a Clause not in our Constitution in any form.


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> immigration?
> 
> I was under the impression we were discussing the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> What does immigration have to do with it?
> 
> 
> 
> implication.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> implication.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No...
> 
> 
> Deflection
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right of the People to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union shall not be Infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right of the People to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union shall not be Infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No
> 
> "The right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be Infringed. "
> 
> The rest is bullshit you want to 'implicate', but isn't there in any form.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> immigration is a Clause not in our Constitution in any form.
Click to expand...


immigration has nothing to do with the thread.


----------



## Rigby5

WillHaftawaite said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember there were absolutely NO police back then at all,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And sa very small standing Army. So they needed a militia.
> 
> That no longer is true
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> And sa very small standing Army.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> we had a standing army at that time?
Click to expand...


Only a very small training nucleus.
I believe we had an academy at Annapolis, a few coastal forts, some naval ships, cannon, etc.


----------



## M14 Shooter

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is no express immigration clause it is only implied in right wing fantasy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> immigration?
> 
> I was under the impression we were discussing the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> What does immigration have to do with it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> implication.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> implication.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No...
> 
> 
> Deflection
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right of the People to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union shall not be Infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right of the People to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union shall not be Infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No
> "The right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be Infringed. "
> The rest is bullshit you want to 'implicate', but isn't there in any form.
Click to expand...

He's lying to you.    He knows it, you know it, everyone knows it.
Ignore button.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't put it in there. That's why you have to keep adding it, to make the amendment fit your narrative when it doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> they must be there, by implication.  that is all the right wing knows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> they must be there, by implication.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> who's 'implication'?
> 
> besides yours?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no express immigration clause it is only implied in right wing fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> immigration?
> 
> I was under the impression we were discussing the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> What does immigration have to do with it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> implication.
Click to expand...


Implication is not legal according to the 10th amendment.
Has to be expressly granted federal jurisdiction.

Immigration is expressly mentioned in the Constitution.
{...
Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 does read, “… To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, …”. The 14th Amendment, Section 1 addresses the protection of “All persons born or naturalized in the United States,…” which extended citizenship through the States to the former slaves. The rules of immigration were reserved to the States through the 10th Amendment until the first Federal law was enacted in 1875. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled the following year that immigration regulation was an exclusive Federal responsibility. Congress established the Immigration Service in 1891, which was the first time the Federal government took an active role. 
...}
Since the Constitution clearly recognized the need for there to be uniform naturalization rules, then that jurisdiction extends to entry as well.  You can't have states doing it because if one state was stricter, immigrant would go to a more lenient state and then cross over to the more strict state once inside.  And that would cause states to block interstate commerce then, which is also explicitly covered.


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> implication.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> implication.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No...
> 
> 
> Deflection
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right of the People to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union shall not be Infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right of the People to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union shall not be Infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No
> 
> "The right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be Infringed. "
> 
> The rest is bullshit you want to 'implicate', but isn't there in any form.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> immigration is a Clause not in our Constitution in any form.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> immigration has nothing to do with the thread.
Click to expand...

it has Everything to do with Implication.  

You claim the People may be Infringed from keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


----------



## danielpalos

M14 Shooter said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> immigration?
> 
> I was under the impression we were discussing the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> What does immigration have to do with it?
> 
> 
> 
> implication.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> implication.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No...
> 
> 
> Deflection
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right of the People to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union shall not be Infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right of the People to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union shall not be Infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No
> "The right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be Infringed. "
> The rest is bullshit you want to 'implicate', but isn't there in any form.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's lying to you.    He knows it, you know it, everyone knows it.
> Ignore button.
Click to expand...

i resort to the fewest fallacies; y'all are just plain hypocrites, by comparison.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> they must be there, by implication.  that is all the right wing knows.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> they must be there, by implication.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> who's 'implication'?
> 
> besides yours?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no express immigration clause it is only implied in right wing fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> immigration?
> 
> I was under the impression we were discussing the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> What does immigration have to do with it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> implication.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Implication is not legal according to the 10th amendment.
> Has to be expressly granted federal jurisdiction.
> 
> Immigration is expressly mentioned in the Constitution.
> {...
> Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 does read, “… To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, …”. The 14th Amendment, Section 1 addresses the protection of “All persons born or naturalized in the United States,…” which extended citizenship through the States to the former slaves. The rules of immigration were reserved to the States through the 10th Amendment until the first Federal law was enacted in 1875. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled the following year that immigration regulation was an exclusive Federal responsibility. Congress established the Immigration Service in 1891, which was the first time the Federal government took an active role.
> ...}
> Since the Constitution clearly recognized the need for there to be uniform naturalization rules, then that jurisdiction extends to entry as well.  You can't have states doing it because if one state was stricter, immigrant would go to a more lenient state and then cross over to the more strict state once inside.  And that would cause states to block interstate commerce then, which is also explicitly covered.
Click to expand...

no, it isn't.  there is no implication for immigration.  Our Constitution is express.  Naturalization is not immigration.


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> No...
> 
> 
> Deflection
> 
> 
> 
> The right of the People to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union shall not be Infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right of the People to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union shall not be Infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No
> 
> "The right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be Infringed. "
> 
> The rest is bullshit you want to 'implicate', but isn't there in any form.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> immigration is a Clause not in our Constitution in any form.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> immigration has nothing to do with the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it has Everything to do with Implication.
> 
> You claim the People may be Infringed from keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
Click to expand...




danielpalos said:


> You claim the People may be Infringed from keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.



State and Union have nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.

Stop derailing the thread


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> who's 'implication'?
> 
> besides yours?
> 
> 
> 
> there is no express immigration clause it is only implied in right wing fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> immigration?
> 
> I was under the impression we were discussing the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> What does immigration have to do with it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> implication.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Implication is not legal according to the 10th amendment.
> Has to be expressly granted federal jurisdiction.
> 
> Immigration is expressly mentioned in the Constitution.
> {...
> Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 does read, “… To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, …”. The 14th Amendment, Section 1 addresses the protection of “All persons born or naturalized in the United States,…” which extended citizenship through the States to the former slaves. The rules of immigration were reserved to the States through the 10th Amendment until the first Federal law was enacted in 1875. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled the following year that immigration regulation was an exclusive Federal responsibility. Congress established the Immigration Service in 1891, which was the first time the Federal government took an active role.
> ...}
> Since the Constitution clearly recognized the need for there to be uniform naturalization rules, then that jurisdiction extends to entry as well.  You can't have states doing it because if one state was stricter, immigrant would go to a more lenient state and then cross over to the more strict state once inside.  And that would cause states to block interstate commerce then, which is also explicitly covered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it isn't.  there is no implication for immigration.  Our Constitution is express.  Naturalization is not immigration.
Click to expand...


Immigration has nothing to do with the thread.

Stop derailing


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> and thats also why they added
> 
> " THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BARE ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"
> 
> 
> 
> A specific limitation on Government.
> 
> The People have a right to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to keep adding, "for their state or the union", because it's not in there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The several States are the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't put it in there. That's why you have to keep adding it, to make the amendment fit your narrative when it doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they must be there, by implication.  that is all the right wing knows.
Click to expand...


No, it's all YOU know, because it's simply not in there.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> implication.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> implication.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No...
> 
> 
> Deflection
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right of the People to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union shall not be Infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right of the People to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union shall not be Infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No
> "The right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be Infringed. "
> The rest is bullshit you want to 'implicate', but isn't there in any form.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's lying to you.    He knows it, you know it, everyone knows it.
> Ignore button.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i resort to the fewest fallacies; y'all are just plain hypocrites, by comparison.
Click to expand...


Stating one reason why a right shall not be infringed does not at all imply there are not other reasons as well.
And no reason at all has to be given.
The right to bear arms does not come FROM the 2nd amendment, but the 2nd is just reinforcing the restriction on the federal government.  The 4th, 5th, and 14th also reinforces the fact that the people have a right to be armed.
There simply is NOWHERE in the Constitution to pull any federal arms jurisdiction from at all.
So any federal weapons law is clearly and completely illegal.


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right of the People to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union shall not be Infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right of the People to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union shall not be Infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No
> 
> "The right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be Infringed. "
> 
> The rest is bullshit you want to 'implicate', but isn't there in any form.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> immigration is a Clause not in our Constitution in any form.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> immigration has nothing to do with the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it has Everything to do with Implication.
> 
> You claim the People may be Infringed from keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claim the People may be Infringed from keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> State and Union have nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Stop derailing the thread
Click to expand...

They have everything to do with our Second Amendment.  There are no natural rights recognized in our Second Amendment; all terms are plural not Individual; your individual interpretation is Implied not express.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> A specific limitation on Government.
> 
> The People have a right to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have to keep adding, "for their state or the union", because it's not in there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The several States are the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't put it in there. That's why you have to keep adding it, to make the amendment fit your narrative when it doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they must be there, by implication.  that is all the right wing knows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's all YOU know, because it's simply not in there.
Click to expand...

Yes; it is implied not express.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> No...
> 
> 
> Deflection
> 
> 
> 
> The right of the People to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union shall not be Infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right of the People to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union shall not be Infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No
> "The right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be Infringed. "
> The rest is bullshit you want to 'implicate', but isn't there in any form.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's lying to you.    He knows it, you know it, everyone knows it.
> Ignore button.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i resort to the fewest fallacies; y'all are just plain hypocrites, by comparison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stating one reason why a right shall not be infringed does not at all imply there are not other reasons as well.
> And no reason at all has to be given.
> The right to bear arms does not come FROM the 2nd amendment, but the 2nd is just reinforcing the restriction on the federal government.  The 4th, 5th, and 14th also reinforces the fact that the people have a right to be armed.
> There simply is NOWHERE in the Constitution to pull any federal arms jurisdiction from at all.
> So any federal weapons law is clearly and completely illegal.
Click to expand...

Our Second Amendment supports this States' right:


> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.


----------



## Lesh

Rigby5 said:


> Stating one reason why a right shall not be infringed does not at all imply there are not other reasons as well.



Possibly. But one has to wonder WHY they mentioned ONLY that one right and did so in a way that tied it directly to "the right to bear arms"

They clearly thought that a militia was "necessary". They had just fought a war for Independence in which that militia ws crucial.

The 2A was obviously about that militia and how to make sure it was "armed".

We no longer HAVE a militia


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> who's 'implication'?
> 
> besides yours?
> 
> 
> 
> there is no express immigration clause it is only implied in right wing fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> immigration?
> 
> I was under the impression we were discussing the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> What does immigration have to do with it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> implication.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Implication is not legal according to the 10th amendment.
> Has to be expressly granted federal jurisdiction.
> 
> Immigration is expressly mentioned in the Constitution.
> {...
> Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 does read, “… To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, …”. The 14th Amendment, Section 1 addresses the protection of “All persons born or naturalized in the United States,…” which extended citizenship through the States to the former slaves. The rules of immigration were reserved to the States through the 10th Amendment until the first Federal law was enacted in 1875. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled the following year that immigration regulation was an exclusive Federal responsibility. Congress established the Immigration Service in 1891, which was the first time the Federal government took an active role.
> ...}
> Since the Constitution clearly recognized the need for there to be uniform naturalization rules, then that jurisdiction extends to entry as well.  You can't have states doing it because if one state was stricter, immigrant would go to a more lenient state and then cross over to the more strict state once inside.  And that would cause states to block interstate commerce then, which is also explicitly covered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it isn't.  there is no implication for immigration.  Our Constitution is express.  Naturalization is not immigration.
Click to expand...


There is no implication because naturalization is explicitly immigration.  Naturalization is the only way a person can be a real immigrant.  Otherwise they are just visiting, and can't vote, etc.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> No
> 
> "The right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be Infringed. "
> 
> The rest is bullshit you want to 'implicate', but isn't there in any form.
> 
> 
> 
> immigration is a Clause not in our Constitution in any form.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> immigration has nothing to do with the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it has Everything to do with Implication.
> 
> You claim the People may be Infringed from keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claim the People may be Infringed from keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> State and Union have nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Stop derailing the thread
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They have everything to do with our Second Amendment.  There are no natural rights recognized in our Second Amendment; all terms are plural not Individual; your individual interpretation is Implied not express.
Click to expand...


The 2nd amendment is an absolute and total prohibition against any federal weapons laws or jurisdiction.
It does not matter why.
No reason has to be given, and if a reason were given, it does not have to be the only one.


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right of the People to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union shall not be Infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right of the People to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union shall not be Infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No
> "The right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be Infringed. "
> The rest is bullshit you want to 'implicate', but isn't there in any form.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's lying to you.    He knows it, you know it, everyone knows it.
> Ignore button.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i resort to the fewest fallacies; y'all are just plain hypocrites, by comparison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stating one reason why a right shall not be infringed does not at all imply there are not other reasons as well.
> And no reason at all has to be given.
> The right to bear arms does not come FROM the 2nd amendment, but the 2nd is just reinforcing the restriction on the federal government.  The 4th, 5th, and 14th also reinforces the fact that the people have a right to be armed.
> There simply is NOWHERE in the Constitution to pull any federal arms jurisdiction from at all.
> So any federal weapons law is clearly and completely illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment supports this States' right:
> 
> 
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...





danielpalos said:


> Our Second Amendment supports this States' right:



It supports ALL of the states right.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right of the People to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union shall not be Infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right of the People to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union shall not be Infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No
> "The right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be Infringed. "
> The rest is bullshit you want to 'implicate', but isn't there in any form.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's lying to you.    He knows it, you know it, everyone knows it.
> Ignore button.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i resort to the fewest fallacies; y'all are just plain hypocrites, by comparison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stating one reason why a right shall not be infringed does not at all imply there are not other reasons as well.
> And no reason at all has to be given.
> The right to bear arms does not come FROM the 2nd amendment, but the 2nd is just reinforcing the restriction on the federal government.  The 4th, 5th, and 14th also reinforces the fact that the people have a right to be armed.
> There simply is NOWHERE in the Constitution to pull any federal arms jurisdiction from at all.
> So any federal weapons law is clearly and completely illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment supports this States' right:
> 
> 
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


You mean state jurisdiction.
States do not have rights.
Only individuals have rights.
Then the individuals create states, bases on the needs of the inherent rights of the individuals.
For states to have rights, they would have to exist before the people, and that is impossible.


----------



## Lesh

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> immigration is a Clause not in our Constitution in any form.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> immigration has nothing to do with the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it has Everything to do with Implication.
> 
> You claim the People may be Infringed from keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claim the People may be Infringed from keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> State and Union have nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Stop derailing the thread
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They have everything to do with our Second Amendment.  There are no natural rights recognized in our Second Amendment; all terms are plural not Individual; your individual interpretation is Implied not express.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 2nd amendment is an absolute and total prohibition against any federal weapons laws or jurisdiction.
> It does not matter why.
> No reason has to be given, and if a reason were given, it does not have to be the only one.
Click to expand...

But oddly we have all sorts of laws regarding weapons. Machine guns in particular.

Huh...


----------



## Ambivalent1

Lesh said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> immigration has nothing to do with the thread.
> 
> 
> 
> it has Everything to do with Implication.
> 
> You claim the People may be Infringed from keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claim the People may be Infringed from keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> State and Union have nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Stop derailing the thread
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They have everything to do with our Second Amendment.  There are no natural rights recognized in our Second Amendment; all terms are plural not Individual; your individual interpretation is Implied not express.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 2nd amendment is an absolute and total prohibition against any federal weapons laws or jurisdiction.
> It does not matter why.
> No reason has to be given, and if a reason were given, it does not have to be the only one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But oddly we have all sorts of laws regarding weapons. Machine guns in particular.
> 
> Huh...
Click to expand...


You'll lead the charge to come for them....right?


----------



## Rigby5

Lesh said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stating one reason why a right shall not be infringed does not at all imply there are not other reasons as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Possibly. But one has to wonder WHY they mentioned ONLY that one right and did so in a way that tied it directly to "the right to bear arms"
> 
> They clearly thought that a militia was "necessary". They had just fought a war for Independence in which that militia ws crucial.
> 
> The 2A was obviously about that militia and how to make sure it was "armed".
> 
> We no longer HAVE a militia
Click to expand...


We obviously still have a militia and will ALWAYS have a militia.
When you hear a noise outside and go out with a weapon to see if someone is breaking into your property, that is a militia.
The fact we now have mercenary police and military is not a good idea, is very risky, prone to corruption, expensive, and not at all the way the founders wanted things.  Nor can we trust them, so they in no way alter the need for the militia.  
The reality is that paid police and military are always going to be beholding to who pays them, not to the general public.
So the need for citizens solider and militia not only will never go away, but having paid police and military makes the unpaid militia even more important, as those 2 paid factors are even more potential threats.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> No...
> 
> 
> Deflection
> 
> 
> 
> The right of the People to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union shall not be Infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right of the People to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union shall not be Infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No
> "The right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be Infringed. "
> The rest is bullshit you want to 'implicate', but isn't there in any form.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's lying to you.    He knows it, you know it, everyone knows it.
> Ignore button.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i resort to the fewest fallacies; y'all are just plain hypocrites, by comparison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stating one reason why a right shall not be infringed does not at all imply there are not other reasons as well.
> And no reason at all has to be given.
> The right to bear arms does not come FROM the 2nd amendment, but the 2nd is just reinforcing the restriction on the federal government.  The 4th, 5th, and 14th also reinforces the fact that the people have a right to be armed.
> There simply is NOWHERE in the Constitution to pull any federal arms jurisdiction from at all.
> So any federal weapons law is clearly and completely illegal.
Click to expand...

You can repeat this ignorant nonsense all you want but it will always be wrong; you indeed have no idea what you’re talking about.  

The people and the government are one in the same; government derives its authority from the consent of the people.

When government places limits and restrictions on a right, it does so at the behest of the people, where the will of the people is paramount.

The Second Amendment exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the courts – ultimately the Supreme Court.

That case law acts as a guide to the people (government) with regard to what restrictions are permitted, and what restrictions are not.

When the people (government) err and enact firearm regulatory measures repugnant to Second Amendment case law – such as prohibiting the possession of handguns – those disadvantaged by the law may seek relief in the courts resulting in such measures being invalidated.

That’s how our Constitutional Republic functions: legislative bodies act first, reflecting the will of the people, the judiciary responds second when warranted and determines the Constitutionality of legislative acts in the context of applicable case law.

Consequently, all and any Federal weapons law is clearly and completely legal provided that law comports with Second Amendment jurisprudence.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is no express immigration clause it is only implied in right wing fantasy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> immigration?
> 
> I was under the impression we were discussing the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> What does immigration have to do with it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> implication.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Implication is not legal according to the 10th amendment.
> Has to be expressly granted federal jurisdiction.
> 
> Immigration is expressly mentioned in the Constitution.
> {...
> Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 does read, “… To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, …”. The 14th Amendment, Section 1 addresses the protection of “All persons born or naturalized in the United States,…” which extended citizenship through the States to the former slaves. The rules of immigration were reserved to the States through the 10th Amendment until the first Federal law was enacted in 1875. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled the following year that immigration regulation was an exclusive Federal responsibility. Congress established the Immigration Service in 1891, which was the first time the Federal government took an active role.
> ...}
> Since the Constitution clearly recognized the need for there to be uniform naturalization rules, then that jurisdiction extends to entry as well.  You can't have states doing it because if one state was stricter, immigrant would go to a more lenient state and then cross over to the more strict state once inside.  And that would cause states to block interstate commerce then, which is also explicitly covered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it isn't.  there is no implication for immigration.  Our Constitution is express.  Naturalization is not immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no implication because naturalization is explicitly immigration.  Naturalization is the only way a person can be a real immigrant.  Otherwise they are just visiting, and can't vote, etc.
Click to expand...

Naturalization is the Only express clause.  

Well regulated militia and the security of a free State are express not implied.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> immigration is a Clause not in our Constitution in any form.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> immigration has nothing to do with the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it has Everything to do with Implication.
> 
> You claim the People may be Infringed from keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claim the People may be Infringed from keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> State and Union have nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Stop derailing the thread
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They have everything to do with our Second Amendment.  There are no natural rights recognized in our Second Amendment; all terms are plural not Individual; your individual interpretation is Implied not express.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 2nd amendment is an absolute and total prohibition against any federal weapons laws or jurisdiction.
> It does not matter why.
> No reason has to be given, and if a reason were given, it does not have to be the only one.
Click to expand...

lol.  it must be implied that the People shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


----------



## Rigby5

Lesh said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> immigration has nothing to do with the thread.
> 
> 
> 
> it has Everything to do with Implication.
> 
> You claim the People may be Infringed from keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claim the People may be Infringed from keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> State and Union have nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Stop derailing the thread
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They have everything to do with our Second Amendment.  There are no natural rights recognized in our Second Amendment; all terms are plural not Individual; your individual interpretation is Implied not express.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 2nd amendment is an absolute and total prohibition against any federal weapons laws or jurisdiction.
> It does not matter why.
> No reason has to be given, and if a reason were given, it does not have to be the only one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But oddly we have all sorts of laws regarding weapons. Machine guns in particular.
> 
> Huh...
Click to expand...


The states got lazy, the federal government got corrupt, and here we go down the slippery slope to dictatorship.
The founders were very clear that any federal laws usurping state jurisdiction, like over weapons, is totally and completely illegal.
Basically the test is whether or not states could do something.
Because if they can, it is always better to have the states do it, since they are closer to the people, and less expensive to implement and maintain.
There is absolutely not a single advantage for federal weapons laws, and huge reasons against it.
For example, you clearly want different weapons laws in Alaska than in NY.
There is no justification or legal basis for any federal weapons laws at all.


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> No
> "The right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be Infringed. "
> The rest is bullshit you want to 'implicate', but isn't there in any form.
> 
> 
> 
> He's lying to you.    He knows it, you know it, everyone knows it.
> Ignore button.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i resort to the fewest fallacies; y'all are just plain hypocrites, by comparison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stating one reason why a right shall not be infringed does not at all imply there are not other reasons as well.
> And no reason at all has to be given.
> The right to bear arms does not come FROM the 2nd amendment, but the 2nd is just reinforcing the restriction on the federal government.  The 4th, 5th, and 14th also reinforces the fact that the people have a right to be armed.
> There simply is NOWHERE in the Constitution to pull any federal arms jurisdiction from at all.
> So any federal weapons law is clearly and completely illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment supports this States' right:
> 
> 
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment supports this States' right:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It supports ALL of the states right.
Click to expand...

ad hominems are usually considered fallacies not valid arguments.  

how special, is that.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> No
> "The right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be Infringed. "
> The rest is bullshit you want to 'implicate', but isn't there in any form.
> 
> 
> 
> He's lying to you.    He knows it, you know it, everyone knows it.
> Ignore button.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i resort to the fewest fallacies; y'all are just plain hypocrites, by comparison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stating one reason why a right shall not be infringed does not at all imply there are not other reasons as well.
> And no reason at all has to be given.
> The right to bear arms does not come FROM the 2nd amendment, but the 2nd is just reinforcing the restriction on the federal government.  The 4th, 5th, and 14th also reinforces the fact that the people have a right to be armed.
> There simply is NOWHERE in the Constitution to pull any federal arms jurisdiction from at all.
> So any federal weapons law is clearly and completely illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment supports this States' right:
> 
> 
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean state jurisdiction.
> States do not have rights.
> Only individuals have rights.
> Then the individuals create states, bases on the needs of the inherent rights of the individuals.
> For states to have rights, they would have to exist before the people, and that is impossible.
Click to expand...

States' rights is a real concept.


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's lying to you.    He knows it, you know it, everyone knows it.
> Ignore button.
> 
> 
> 
> i resort to the fewest fallacies; y'all are just plain hypocrites, by comparison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stating one reason why a right shall not be infringed does not at all imply there are not other reasons as well.
> And no reason at all has to be given.
> The right to bear arms does not come FROM the 2nd amendment, but the 2nd is just reinforcing the restriction on the federal government.  The 4th, 5th, and 14th also reinforces the fact that the people have a right to be armed.
> There simply is NOWHERE in the Constitution to pull any federal arms jurisdiction from at all.
> So any federal weapons law is clearly and completely illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment supports this States' right:
> 
> 
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment supports this States' right:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It supports ALL of the states right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ad hominems are usually considered fallacies not valid arguments.
> 
> how special, is that.
Click to expand...


ad hom?

You implied the Second Amendment supports THIS states right.

I stated they all do


Which State does NOT support the Second?


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> i resort to the fewest fallacies; y'all are just plain hypocrites, by comparison.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stating one reason why a right shall not be infringed does not at all imply there are not other reasons as well.
> And no reason at all has to be given.
> The right to bear arms does not come FROM the 2nd amendment, but the 2nd is just reinforcing the restriction on the federal government.  The 4th, 5th, and 14th also reinforces the fact that the people have a right to be armed.
> There simply is NOWHERE in the Constitution to pull any federal arms jurisdiction from at all.
> So any federal weapons law is clearly and completely illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment supports this States' right:
> 
> 
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment supports this States' right:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It supports ALL of the states right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ad hominems are usually considered fallacies not valid arguments.
> 
> how special, is that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ad hom?
> 
> You implied the Second Amendment supports THIS states right.
> 
> I stated they all do
> 
> 
> Which State does NOT support the Second?
Click to expand...

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> immigration?
> 
> I was under the impression we were discussing the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> What does immigration have to do with it?
> 
> 
> 
> implication.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Implication is not legal according to the 10th amendment.
> Has to be expressly granted federal jurisdiction.
> 
> Immigration is expressly mentioned in the Constitution.
> {...
> Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 does read, “… To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, …”. The 14th Amendment, Section 1 addresses the protection of “All persons born or naturalized in the United States,…” which extended citizenship through the States to the former slaves. The rules of immigration were reserved to the States through the 10th Amendment until the first Federal law was enacted in 1875. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled the following year that immigration regulation was an exclusive Federal responsibility. Congress established the Immigration Service in 1891, which was the first time the Federal government took an active role.
> ...}
> Since the Constitution clearly recognized the need for there to be uniform naturalization rules, then that jurisdiction extends to entry as well.  You can't have states doing it because if one state was stricter, immigrant would go to a more lenient state and then cross over to the more strict state once inside.  And that would cause states to block interstate commerce then, which is also explicitly covered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it isn't.  there is no implication for immigration.  Our Constitution is express.  Naturalization is not immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no implication because naturalization is explicitly immigration.  Naturalization is the only way a person can be a real immigrant.  Otherwise they are just visiting, and can't vote, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Naturalization is the Only express clause.
> 
> Well regulated militia and the security of a free State are express not implied.
Click to expand...


Naturalization is the legal process by which one immigrates.
So they refer explicitly to the same thing, and are only different synonyms.

But well regulated militia and  security of a free State are not implied or express.
They are a rational.
A consideration.
A concern or thought.
They do not change the actual amendment itself, which is a strict bar on all federal weapons jurisdiction.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stating one reason why a right shall not be infringed does not at all imply there are not other reasons as well.
> And no reason at all has to be given.
> The right to bear arms does not come FROM the 2nd amendment, but the 2nd is just reinforcing the restriction on the federal government.  The 4th, 5th, and 14th also reinforces the fact that the people have a right to be armed.
> There simply is NOWHERE in the Constitution to pull any federal arms jurisdiction from at all.
> So any federal weapons law is clearly and completely illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment supports this States' right:
> 
> 
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment supports this States' right:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It supports ALL of the states right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ad hominems are usually considered fallacies not valid arguments.
> 
> how special, is that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ad hom?
> 
> You implied the Second Amendment supports THIS states right.
> 
> I stated they all do
> 
> 
> Which State does NOT support the Second?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
Click to expand...



But municipalities and individuals also rely on the militia.
The fact municipalities usually call them posses and no term is used when individuals defend themselves, does not alter the fact they are still aspects of a militia.
Remember there were zero police back then.
Who do you think did keep the peace then?


----------



## McRocket

Lakhota said:


> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
Click to expand...


I don't think it is obsolete...just woefully (and deliberately) misinterpreted.

'_A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._'

The ENTIRE point on the Second Amendment is the Militia (the military). It is NOTHING to do with burglars or stopping robberies or protecting people from the American, democratically elected government. ONLY about the militia (military).

Back when it was written, the full-time military was small and the Militia was necessary during times of war (which was the right way - BTW). So Militiamen HAD to own weapons to bring to the fight.

Today, that is obviously not the way it is. The US military is GINORMOUS.

*It's simple as I see it - if you want to own a gun, you HAVE to be in the military/reserves. If you are not - you cannot legally own a gun.

That is what the 2'nd Amendment basically says.

*
And to those gun bunnies who disagree...I do not even begin to care what you think (nor will I waste my time reading what you think about this). I KNOW some of you people literally love your guns more than your children. Many of you are flat out nuts. And all of you are mentally disturbed to some extent (IMO).
 And I am talking about 'gun bunnies' - NOT just gun owners. BIG difference.


----------



## Hugo Furst

McRocket said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think it is obsolete...just woefully (and deliberately) misinterpreted.
> 
> '_A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._'
> 
> The ENTIRE point on the Second Amendment is the Militia (the military). It is NOTHING to do with burglars or stopping robberies or protecting people from the American, democratically elected government. ONLY about the militia (military).
> 
> Back when it was written, the full-time military was small and the Militia was necessary during times of war (which was the right way - BTW). So Militiamen HAD to own weapons to bring to the fight.
> 
> Today, that is obviously not the way it is. The US military is GINORMOUS.
> 
> *It's simple as I see it - if you want to own a gun, you HAVE to be in the military/reserves. If you are not - you cannot legally own a gun.
> 
> That is what the 2'nd Amendment basically says.
> 
> *
> And to those gun bunnies who disagree...I do not even begin to care what you think (nor will I waste my time reading what you think about this). I KNOW some of you people love your guns more than your children. Many of you are flat out out-to-lunch on this issue.
Click to expand...




McRocket said:


> *It's simple as I see it - if you want to own a gun, you HAVE to be in the military/reserves. If you are not - you cannot legally own a gun.*



Didn't need to belong to a militia when it was written, no need to now.


----------



## Lesh

Rigby5 said:


> But municipalities and individuals also rely on the militia.



Then if you are a member of an actual ell regulated militia it may apply to you. I have never met such a person



McRocket said:


> It's simple as I see it - if you want to own a gun, you HAVE to be in the military/reserves



Just being a member of the reserves does not give you a need for a gun. Reserves store their weapons in an armory


----------



## McRocket

Lesh said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But municipalities and individuals also rely on the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then if you are a member of an actual ell regulated militia it may apply to you. I have never met such a person
> 
> 
> 
> McRocket said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's simple as I see it - if you want to own a gun, you HAVE to be in the military/reserves
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just being a member of the reserves does not give you a need for a gun. Reserves store their weapons in an armory
Click to expand...


Agreed.

But if someone's job is to carry a rifle and risk their life for their country - seems rather silly to deny them the right to do so at home. Also, I like the way the Swiss do it.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Lesh said:


> Possibly. But one has to wonder WHY they mentioned ONLY that one right and did so in a way that tied it directly to "the right to bear arms"


You say this like it hasn't been explained to you over and over and over.
You choose to not understand, and you choose to lie about it.


----------



## M14 Shooter

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> [
> You can repeat this ignorant nonsense all you want but it will always be wrong; you indeed have no idea what you’re talking about.
> The people and the government are one in the same; government derives its authority from the consent of the people.
> When government places limits and restrictions on a right, it does so at the behest of the people, where the will of the people is paramount.


Ah.  So Utah can ban abortions, and Mississippi can force blacks to pay a poll tax.
Who knew?


> The Second Amendment exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the courts – ultimately the Supreme Court.
> That case law acts as a guide to the people (government) with regard to what restrictions are permitted, and what restrictions are not.


Outstanding!
What has the USSC said in this regard?


> Consequently, all and any Federal weapons law is clearly and completely legal provided that law comports with Second Amendment jurisprudence.


That's a pretty long way of saying little to nothing.


----------



## Lesh

M14 Shooter said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Possibly. But one has to wonder WHY they mentioned ONLY that one right and did so in a way that tied it directly to "the right to bear arms"
> 
> 
> 
> You say this like it hasn't been explained to you over and over and over.
> You choose to not understand, and you choose to lie about it.
Click to expand...

Lie?

I'm expressing my opinion and explaining what I base that opinion on . The actual words in the 2A.

An opinion can not be a lie by definition ya fucking moron.


----------



## Lesh

McRocket said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But municipalities and individuals also rely on the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then if you are a member of an actual ell regulated militia it may apply to you. I have never met such a person
> 
> 
> 
> McRocket said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's simple as I see it - if you want to own a gun, you HAVE to be in the military/reserves
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just being a member of the reserves does not give you a need for a gun. Reserves store their weapons in an armory
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> But if someone's job is to carry a rifle and risk their life for their country - seems rather silly to deny them the right to do so at home. Also, I like the way the Swiss do it.
Click to expand...

That's aside from the point. There is no NEED for that in order to be a member of the reserves. The 2A simply doesn't apply there...silly or not.

That's not to say that the 2A in any bans anything. It simply doesn't apply outside the need for a weapon in a militia. There is no such need and no such militia


----------



## Lesh

Ambivalent1 said:


> You'll lead the charge to come for them....right?



Machine guns?

Nahhh the BATF will do that.

You misunderstand. I'm not in favor of taking guns away at all.

But it's plain that "gun rights" don't really stem from the 2A.

WHat I favor the banning of future sales of assault weapons and universal background checks


----------



## McRocket

Lesh said:


> McRocket said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But municipalities and individuals also rely on the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then if you are a member of an actual ell regulated militia it may apply to you. I have never met such a person
> 
> 
> 
> McRocket said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's simple as I see it - if you want to own a gun, you HAVE to be in the military/reserves
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just being a member of the reserves does not give you a need for a gun. Reserves store their weapons in an armory
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> But if someone's job is to carry a rifle and risk their life for their country - seems rather silly to deny them the right to do so at home. Also, I like the way the Swiss do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's aside from the point. There is no NEED for that in order to be a member of the reserves. The 2A simply doesn't apply there...silly or not.
> 
> That's not to say that the 2A in any bans anything. It simply doesn't apply outside the need for a weapon in a militia. There is no such need and no such militia
Click to expand...


I agree 100% with the way the Swiss do it (except that I do not believe people who do not want to be in the military should be forced to be). If you are in the military - you keep your weapon at home. And their crime rate is MILES lower than America's.

Countries Compared by Crime > Crime levels. International Statistics at NationMaster.com

Also, I am not against people owning guns. I am just against anyone owning one who is not in the military/reserves (outside of police, of course).

BTW, I also believe that anyone who legally owns a gun should automatically be allowed to carry it concealed. This would MASSIVELY cut down on mass shooting's. No way you start a mass shooting (looking for a big body count) if you have no idea who is carrying among your potential victims).


You disagree, so be it. But nothing you can say will change my mind - so I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Good day.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> implication.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Implication is not legal according to the 10th amendment.
> Has to be expressly granted federal jurisdiction.
> 
> Immigration is expressly mentioned in the Constitution.
> {...
> Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 does read, “… To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, …”. The 14th Amendment, Section 1 addresses the protection of “All persons born or naturalized in the United States,…” which extended citizenship through the States to the former slaves. The rules of immigration were reserved to the States through the 10th Amendment until the first Federal law was enacted in 1875. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled the following year that immigration regulation was an exclusive Federal responsibility. Congress established the Immigration Service in 1891, which was the first time the Federal government took an active role.
> ...}
> Since the Constitution clearly recognized the need for there to be uniform naturalization rules, then that jurisdiction extends to entry as well.  You can't have states doing it because if one state was stricter, immigrant would go to a more lenient state and then cross over to the more strict state once inside.  And that would cause states to block interstate commerce then, which is also explicitly covered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it isn't.  there is no implication for immigration.  Our Constitution is express.  Naturalization is not immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no implication because naturalization is explicitly immigration.  Naturalization is the only way a person can be a real immigrant.  Otherwise they are just visiting, and can't vote, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Naturalization is the Only express clause.
> 
> Well regulated militia and the security of a free State are express not implied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Naturalization is the legal process by which one immigrates.
> So they refer explicitly to the same thing, and are only different synonyms.
> 
> But well regulated militia and  security of a free State are not implied or express.
> They are a rational.
> A consideration.
> A concern or thought.
> They do not change the actual amendment itself, which is a strict bar on all federal weapons jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

Naturalization is not immigration.  Or, they would have use that express world. Immigration is an Implied power not an Express power.

The People have a right to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment supports this States' right:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment supports this States' right:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It supports ALL of the states right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ad hominems are usually considered fallacies not valid arguments.
> 
> how special, is that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ad hom?
> 
> You implied the Second Amendment supports THIS states right.
> 
> I stated they all do
> 
> 
> Which State does NOT support the Second?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But municipalities and individuals also rely on the militia.
> The fact municipalities usually call them posses and no term is used when individuals defend themselves, does not alter the fact they are still aspects of a militia.
> Remember there were zero police back then.
> Who do you think did keep the peace then?
Click to expand...

The People have a right to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union.


----------



## danielpalos

McRocket said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think it is obsolete...just woefully (and deliberately) misinterpreted.
> 
> '_A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._'
> 
> The ENTIRE point on the Second Amendment is the Militia (the military). It is NOTHING to do with burglars or stopping robberies or protecting people from the American, democratically elected government. ONLY about the militia (military).
> 
> Back when it was written, the full-time military was small and the Militia was necessary during times of war (which was the right way - BTW). So Militiamen HAD to own weapons to bring to the fight.
> 
> Today, that is obviously not the way it is. The US military is GINORMOUS.
> 
> *It's simple as I see it - if you want to own a gun, you HAVE to be in the military/reserves. If you are not - you cannot legally own a gun.
> 
> That is what the 2'nd Amendment basically says.
> 
> *
> And to those gun bunnies who disagree...I do not even begin to care what you think (nor will I waste my time reading what you think about this). I KNOW some of you people literally love your guns more than your children. Many of you are flat out nuts. And all of you are mentally disturbed to some extent (IMO).
> And I am talking about 'gun bunnies' - NOT just gun owners. BIG difference.
Click to expand...

The People are the Militia. 

Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws.


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> McRocket said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think it is obsolete...just woefully (and deliberately) misinterpreted.
> 
> '_A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._'
> 
> The ENTIRE point on the Second Amendment is the Militia (the military). It is NOTHING to do with burglars or stopping robberies or protecting people from the American, democratically elected government. ONLY about the militia (military).
> 
> Back when it was written, the full-time military was small and the Militia was necessary during times of war (which was the right way - BTW). So Militiamen HAD to own weapons to bring to the fight.
> 
> Today, that is obviously not the way it is. The US military is GINORMOUS.
> 
> *It's simple as I see it - if you want to own a gun, you HAVE to be in the military/reserves. If you are not - you cannot legally own a gun.
> 
> That is what the 2'nd Amendment basically says.
> 
> *
> And to those gun bunnies who disagree...I do not even begin to care what you think (nor will I waste my time reading what you think about this). I KNOW some of you people love your guns more than your children. Many of you are flat out out-to-lunch on this issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> McRocket said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It's simple as I see it - if you want to own a gun, you HAVE to be in the military/reserves. If you are not - you cannot legally own a gun.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't need to belong to a militia when it was written, no need to now.
Click to expand...

The People are the Militia; you are either Organized and well regulated or complaining about gun control laws Because you are unorganized.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> immigration has nothing to do with the thread.
> 
> 
> 
> it has Everything to do with Implication.
> 
> You claim the People may be Infringed from keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claim the People may be Infringed from keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> State and Union have nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Stop derailing the thread
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They have everything to do with our Second Amendment.  There are no natural rights recognized in our Second Amendment; all terms are plural not Individual; your individual interpretation is Implied not express.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 2nd amendment is an absolute and total prohibition against any federal weapons laws or jurisdiction.
> It does not matter why.
> No reason has to be given, and if a reason were given, it does not have to be the only one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  it must be implied that the People shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
Click to expand...


If it has to be implied, it is not express. The 2nd is express.


----------



## danielpalos

M14 Shooter said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Possibly. But one has to wonder WHY they mentioned ONLY that one right and did so in a way that tied it directly to "the right to bear arms"
> 
> 
> 
> You say this like it hasn't been explained to you over and over and over.
> You choose to not understand, and you choose to lie about it.
Click to expand...

only the Unorganized militia whines about gun control.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it has Everything to do with Implication.
> 
> You claim the People may be Infringed from keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claim the People may be Infringed from keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> State and Union have nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Stop derailing the thread
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They have everything to do with our Second Amendment.  There are no natural rights recognized in our Second Amendment; all terms are plural not Individual; your individual interpretation is Implied not express.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 2nd amendment is an absolute and total prohibition against any federal weapons laws or jurisdiction.
> It does not matter why.
> No reason has to be given, and if a reason were given, it does not have to be the only one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  it must be implied that the People shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it has to be implied, it is not express. The 2nd is express.
Click to expand...

naturalization is express not implied.  

this is express:



> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.



The People have a right to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union.


----------



## Lesh

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Implication is not legal according to the 10th amendment.
> Has to be expressly granted federal jurisdiction.
> 
> Immigration is expressly mentioned in the Constitution.
> {...
> Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 does read, “… To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, …”. The 14th Amendment, Section 1 addresses the protection of “All persons born or naturalized in the United States,…” which extended citizenship through the States to the former slaves. The rules of immigration were reserved to the States through the 10th Amendment until the first Federal law was enacted in 1875. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled the following year that immigration regulation was an exclusive Federal responsibility. Congress established the Immigration Service in 1891, which was the first time the Federal government took an active role.
> ...}
> Since the Constitution clearly recognized the need for there to be uniform naturalization rules, then that jurisdiction extends to entry as well.  You can't have states doing it because if one state was stricter, immigrant would go to a more lenient state and then cross over to the more strict state once inside.  And that would cause states to block interstate commerce then, which is also explicitly covered.
> 
> 
> 
> no, it isn't.  there is no implication for immigration.  Our Constitution is express.  Naturalization is not immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no implication because naturalization is explicitly immigration.  Naturalization is the only way a person can be a real immigrant.  Otherwise they are just visiting, and can't vote, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Naturalization is the Only express clause.
> 
> Well regulated militia and the security of a free State are express not implied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Naturalization is the legal process by which one immigrates.
> So they refer explicitly to the same thing, and are only different synonyms.
> 
> But well regulated militia and  security of a free State are not implied or express.
> They are a rational.
> A consideration.
> A concern or thought.
> They do not change the actual amendment itself, which is a strict bar on all federal weapons jurisdiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Naturalization is not immigration.  Or, they would have use that express world. Immigration is an Implied power not an Express power.
> 
> The People have a right to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union.
Click to expand...

Most obtuse poster on the site


----------



## danielpalos

Lesh said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> no, it isn't.  there is no implication for immigration.  Our Constitution is express.  Naturalization is not immigration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no implication because naturalization is explicitly immigration.  Naturalization is the only way a person can be a real immigrant.  Otherwise they are just visiting, and can't vote, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Naturalization is the Only express clause.
> 
> Well regulated militia and the security of a free State are express not implied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Naturalization is the legal process by which one immigrates.
> So they refer explicitly to the same thing, and are only different synonyms.
> 
> But well regulated militia and  security of a free State are not implied or express.
> They are a rational.
> A consideration.
> A concern or thought.
> They do not change the actual amendment itself, which is a strict bar on all federal weapons jurisdiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Naturalization is not immigration.  Or, they would have use that express world. Immigration is an Implied power not an Express power.
> 
> The People have a right to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most obtuse poster on the site
Click to expand...

express not implied.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Lesh said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Possibly. But one has to wonder WHY they mentioned ONLY that one right and did so in a way that tied it directly to "the right to bear arms"
> 
> 
> 
> You say this like it hasn't been explained to you over and over and over.
> You choose to not understand, and you choose to lie about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lie?
Click to expand...

Yes.   
You're making statements you know are not true.
Thus, a lie -- or, in your case, a series of them.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Lesh said:


> That's not to say that the 2A in any bans anything. It simply doesn't apply outside the need for a weapon in a militia.


This is another of your lies.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Lesh said:


> WHat I favor the banning of future sales of assault weapons and universal background checks


For no rational reason whatsoever.


----------



## Lesh

M14 Shooter said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Possibly. But one has to wonder WHY they mentioned ONLY that one right and did so in a way that tied it directly to "the right to bear arms"
> 
> 
> 
> You say this like it hasn't been explained to you over and over and over.
> You choose to not understand, and you choose to lie about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.
> You're making statements you know are not true.
> Thus, a lie -- or, in your case, a series of them.
Click to expand...

How the fuck do you know what I know?

You don't. Take your bullshit elsewhere


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Implication is not legal according to the 10th amendment.
> Has to be expressly granted federal jurisdiction.
> 
> Immigration is expressly mentioned in the Constitution.
> {...
> Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 does read, “… To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, …”. The 14th Amendment, Section 1 addresses the protection of “All persons born or naturalized in the United States,…” which extended citizenship through the States to the former slaves. The rules of immigration were reserved to the States through the 10th Amendment until the first Federal law was enacted in 1875. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled the following year that immigration regulation was an exclusive Federal responsibility. Congress established the Immigration Service in 1891, which was the first time the Federal government took an active role.
> ...}
> Since the Constitution clearly recognized the need for there to be uniform naturalization rules, then that jurisdiction extends to entry as well.  You can't have states doing it because if one state was stricter, immigrant would go to a more lenient state and then cross over to the more strict state once inside.  And that would cause states to block interstate commerce then, which is also explicitly covered.
> 
> 
> 
> no, it isn't.  there is no implication for immigration.  Our Constitution is express.  Naturalization is not immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no implication because naturalization is explicitly immigration.  Naturalization is the only way a person can be a real immigrant.  Otherwise they are just visiting, and can't vote, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Naturalization is the Only express clause.
> 
> Well regulated militia and the security of a free State are express not implied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Naturalization is the legal process by which one immigrates.
> So they refer explicitly to the same thing, and are only different synonyms.
> 
> But well regulated militia and  security of a free State are not implied or express.
> They are a rational.
> A consideration.
> A concern or thought.
> They do not change the actual amendment itself, which is a strict bar on all federal weapons jurisdiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Naturalization is not immigration.  Or, they would have use that express world. Immigration is an Implied power not an Express power.
> 
> The People have a right to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union.
Click to expand...


The People have a right to keep and bear Arms, period.


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> It supports ALL of the states right.
> 
> 
> 
> ad hominems are usually considered fallacies not valid arguments.
> 
> how special, is that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ad hom?
> 
> You implied the Second Amendment supports THIS states right.
> 
> I stated they all do
> 
> 
> Which State does NOT support the Second?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But municipalities and individuals also rely on the militia.
> The fact municipalities usually call them posses and no term is used when individuals defend themselves, does not alter the fact they are still aspects of a militia.
> Remember there were zero police back then.
> Who do you think did keep the peace then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People have a right to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union.
Click to expand...


no

they have the right to keep and bear arms PERIOD.

They don't need to do It for their State or the Union.


----------



## Lesh

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it has Everything to do with Implication.
> 
> You claim the People may be Infringed from keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claim the People may be Infringed from keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> State and Union have nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Stop derailing the thread
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They have everything to do with our Second Amendment.  There are no natural rights recognized in our Second Amendment; all terms are plural not Individual; your individual interpretation is Implied not express.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 2nd amendment is an absolute and total prohibition against any federal weapons laws or jurisdiction.
> It does not matter why.
> No reason has to be given, and if a reason were given, it does not have to be the only one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  it must be implied that the People shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it has to be implied, it is not express. The 2nd is express.
Click to expand...

Exactly..it expressly ties gun protections to the well regulated militia


----------



## danielpalos

M14 Shooter said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not to say that the 2A in any bans anything. It simply doesn't apply outside the need for a weapon in a militia.
> 
> 
> 
> This is another of your lies.
Click to expand...

Our supreme law of the land covers any conflict of laws.  Only well regulated militia of the whole and entire People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


----------



## Hugo Furst

Lesh said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> State and Union have nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Stop derailing the thread
> 
> 
> 
> They have everything to do with our Second Amendment.  There are no natural rights recognized in our Second Amendment; all terms are plural not Individual; your individual interpretation is Implied not express.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 2nd amendment is an absolute and total prohibition against any federal weapons laws or jurisdiction.
> It does not matter why.
> No reason has to be given, and if a reason were given, it does not have to be the only one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  it must be implied that the People shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it has to be implied, it is not express. The 2nd is express.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly..it expressly ties gun protections to the well regulated militia
Click to expand...




Lesh said:


> Exactly..it expressly ties gun protections to the well regulated militia



uh...no.

if it did, women could not own firearms.

males under 16, or over the age of 45 could not own firearms, (57 in some states).


----------



## danielpalos

M14 Shooter said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHat I favor the banning of future sales of assault weapons and universal background checks
> 
> 
> 
> For no rational reason whatsoever.
Click to expand...

I favor grabbing gun lovers not guns, and regulating them well. We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> no, it isn't.  there is no implication for immigration.  Our Constitution is express.  Naturalization is not immigration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no implication because naturalization is explicitly immigration.  Naturalization is the only way a person can be a real immigrant.  Otherwise they are just visiting, and can't vote, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Naturalization is the Only express clause.
> 
> Well regulated militia and the security of a free State are express not implied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Naturalization is the legal process by which one immigrates.
> So they refer explicitly to the same thing, and are only different synonyms.
> 
> But well regulated militia and  security of a free State are not implied or express.
> They are a rational.
> A consideration.
> A concern or thought.
> They do not change the actual amendment itself, which is a strict bar on all federal weapons jurisdiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Naturalization is not immigration.  Or, they would have use that express world. Immigration is an Implied power not an Express power.
> 
> The People have a right to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The People have a right to keep and bear Arms, period.
Click to expand...

natural rights are covered in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ad hominems are usually considered fallacies not valid arguments.
> 
> how special, is that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ad hom?
> 
> You implied the Second Amendment supports THIS states right.
> 
> I stated they all do
> 
> 
> Which State does NOT support the Second?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But municipalities and individuals also rely on the militia.
> The fact municipalities usually call them posses and no term is used when individuals defend themselves, does not alter the fact they are still aspects of a militia.
> Remember there were zero police back then.
> Who do you think did keep the peace then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People have a right to keep and bear Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no
> 
> they have the right to keep and bear arms PERIOD.
> 
> They don't need to do It for their State or the Union.
Click to expand...

they may not be Infringed by the federal Government.


----------



## danielpalos

Lesh said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> State and Union have nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Stop derailing the thread
> 
> 
> 
> They have everything to do with our Second Amendment.  There are no natural rights recognized in our Second Amendment; all terms are plural not Individual; your individual interpretation is Implied not express.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 2nd amendment is an absolute and total prohibition against any federal weapons laws or jurisdiction.
> It does not matter why.
> No reason has to be given, and if a reason were given, it does not have to be the only one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  it must be implied that the People shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it has to be implied, it is not express. The 2nd is express.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly..it expressly ties gun protections to the well regulated militia
Click to expand...

The Union had to win simply Because, only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


----------



## Rustic

Lesh said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck yourself asshole.
> 
> Mass shootings are a way of life in this country. And will be until we deal with the damn guns
> 
> Hell we just had one in that Synagogue. Probably 10 smaller ones since then
> 
> 
> 
> You're at least 3x more likely to die being struck by lightening than dying in a mass shooting.  If that's too risky for you, GET THE FUCK OUT!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea...well we can't do a lot about getting hit by lightning. We CAN address the gun violence
Click to expand...

Lol
More frivolous gun laws will not save a single soul...


----------



## Cellblock2429

waltky said:


> Maybe not obsolete but antiquated, out of date...
> 
> ... it needs to be updated to reflect the times...
> 
> ... and the threat of overkill firepower...
> 
> ... for the average citizen.


/——-/ They we’re developing automatic weapons in Colonial Times. The founding fathers knew about them. The 2nd Amendment : Is It for Muskets Only?!


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> They have everything to do with our Second Amendment.  There are no natural rights recognized in our Second Amendment; all terms are plural not Individual; your individual interpretation is Implied not express.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd amendment is an absolute and total prohibition against any federal weapons laws or jurisdiction.
> It does not matter why.
> No reason has to be given, and if a reason were given, it does not have to be the only one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  it must be implied that the People shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it has to be implied, it is not express. The 2nd is express.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly..it expressly ties gun protections to the well regulated militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Union had to win simply Because, only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
Click to expand...


again...

State and Union have nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.


is English your second language?

most of what you post makes no sense.


----------



## Cellblock2429

sfcalifornia said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> A well armed popalance is respected by government
> A disarmed popalance is dictated to by government
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please.  What do you think, congresspeople sit around and say, "ooo we'd better not pass that law...  Matthew will get his gun and shoot us!!"  Give me a frickin' break.  Go ahead and try to form a militia group or whatever.  See how far you get before you're all squashed like bugs.
> 
> It's populace btw, not populance.
Click to expand...

/——/ The militia is the National Guard and separate from the right of people to bear arms.


----------



## hadit

Lesh said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> State and Union have nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Stop derailing the thread
> 
> 
> 
> They have everything to do with our Second Amendment.  There are no natural rights recognized in our Second Amendment; all terms are plural not Individual; your individual interpretation is Implied not express.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 2nd amendment is an absolute and total prohibition against any federal weapons laws or jurisdiction.
> It does not matter why.
> No reason has to be given, and if a reason were given, it does not have to be the only one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  it must be implied that the People shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it has to be implied, it is not express. The 2nd is express.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly..it expressly ties gun protections to the well regulated militia
Click to expand...


That's not what the SC has ruled, and that applies.


----------



## Cellblock2429

Lesh said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> State and Union have nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Stop derailing the thread
> 
> 
> 
> They have everything to do with our Second Amendment.  There are no natural rights recognized in our Second Amendment; all terms are plural not Individual; your individual interpretation is Implied not express.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 2nd amendment is an absolute and total prohibition against any federal weapons laws or jurisdiction.
> It does not matter why.
> No reason has to be given, and if a reason were given, it does not have to be the only one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  it must be implied that the People shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it has to be implied, it is not express. The 2nd is express.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly..it expressly ties gun protections to the well regulated militia
Click to expand...

/——/ The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments contained in the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right belongs to individuals for self defense, while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices. State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right, per the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.Wikipedia


----------



## danielpalos

Cellblock2429 said:


> waltky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe not obsolete but antiquated, out of date...
> 
> ... it needs to be updated to reflect the times...
> 
> ... and the threat of overkill firepower...
> 
> ... for the average citizen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> /——-/ They we’re developing automatic weapons in Colonial Times. The founding fathers knew about them. The 2nd Amendment : Is It for Muskets Only?!
Click to expand...

Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd amendment is an absolute and total prohibition against any federal weapons laws or jurisdiction.
> It does not matter why.
> No reason has to be given, and if a reason were given, it does not have to be the only one.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  it must be implied that the People shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it has to be implied, it is not express. The 2nd is express.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly..it expressly ties gun protections to the well regulated militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Union had to win simply Because, only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> again...
> 
> State and Union have nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> 
> is English your second language?
> 
> most of what you post makes no sense.
Click to expand...

You are simply clueless and Causeless.


----------



## danielpalos

Cellblock2429 said:


> sfcalifornia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> A well armed popalance is respected by government
> A disarmed popalance is dictated to by government
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please.  What do you think, congresspeople sit around and say, "ooo we'd better not pass that law...  Matthew will get his gun and shoot us!!"  Give me a frickin' break.  Go ahead and try to form a militia group or whatever.  See how far you get before you're all squashed like bugs.
> 
> It's populace btw, not populance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ The militia is the National Guard and separate from the right of people to bear arms.
Click to expand...

Natural rights are in State Constitutions not our Second Amendment.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> They have everything to do with our Second Amendment.  There are no natural rights recognized in our Second Amendment; all terms are plural not Individual; your individual interpretation is Implied not express.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd amendment is an absolute and total prohibition against any federal weapons laws or jurisdiction.
> It does not matter why.
> No reason has to be given, and if a reason were given, it does not have to be the only one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  it must be implied that the People shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it has to be implied, it is not express. The 2nd is express.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly..it expressly ties gun protections to the well regulated militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not what the SC has ruled, and that applies.
Click to expand...

judicial activism that has no basis in the common law. 

The People are the Militia.


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd amendment is an absolute and total prohibition against any federal weapons laws or jurisdiction.
> It does not matter why.
> No reason has to be given, and if a reason were given, it does not have to be the only one.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  it must be implied that the People shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it has to be implied, it is not express. The 2nd is express.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly..it expressly ties gun protections to the well regulated militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not what the SC has ruled, and that applies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> judicial activism that has no basis in the common law.
> 
> The People are the Militia.
Click to expand...




danielpalos said:


> The People are the Militia.


Not when the Second was written and passed.


----------



## danielpalos

Cellblock2429 said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> They have everything to do with our Second Amendment.  There are no natural rights recognized in our Second Amendment; all terms are plural not Individual; your individual interpretation is Implied not express.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd amendment is an absolute and total prohibition against any federal weapons laws or jurisdiction.
> It does not matter why.
> No reason has to be given, and if a reason were given, it does not have to be the only one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  it must be implied that the People shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it has to be implied, it is not express. The 2nd is express.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly..it expressly ties gun protections to the well regulated militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments contained in the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right belongs to individuals for self defense, while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices. State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right, per the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.Wikipedia
Click to expand...

Judicial activism.  There are no Individual terms in our Second Amendment.  All terms are plural and collective.


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  it must be implied that the People shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it has to be implied, it is not express. The 2nd is express.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly..it expressly ties gun protections to the well regulated militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not what the SC has ruled, and that applies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> judicial activism that has no basis in the common law.
> 
> The People are the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not when the Second was written and passed.
Click to expand...

I gainsay your contention; want to argue about it?


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it has to be implied, it is not express. The 2nd is express.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly..it expressly ties gun protections to the well regulated militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not what the SC has ruled, and that applies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> judicial activism that has no basis in the common law.
> 
> The People are the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not when the Second was written and passed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gainsay your contention; want to argue about it?
Click to expand...


can you translate that?


----------



## Cellblock2429

danielpalos said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd amendment is an absolute and total prohibition against any federal weapons laws or jurisdiction.
> It does not matter why.
> No reason has to be given, and if a reason were given, it does not have to be the only one.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  it must be implied that the People shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it has to be implied, it is not express. The 2nd is express.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly..it expressly ties gun protections to the well regulated militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments contained in the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right belongs to individuals for self defense, while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices. State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right, per the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Judicial activism.  There are no Individual terms in our Second Amendment.  All terms are plural and collective.
Click to expand...

/———/ Correct, the Constitution does not list every citizen individually by name. Joe can own a gun, Bill can speak freely, John can vote. Wowza you’re the smart one.


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly..it expressly ties gun protections to the well regulated militia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what the SC has ruled, and that applies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> judicial activism that has no basis in the common law.
> 
> The People are the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not when the Second was written and passed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gainsay your contention; want to argue about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> can you translate that?
Click to expand...

Why do you believe the People were not the Militia upon the ratification of our federal Constitution?  Our federal Civil Rights are expressly declared.


----------



## danielpalos

Cellblock2429 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  it must be implied that the People shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it has to be implied, it is not express. The 2nd is express.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly..it expressly ties gun protections to the well regulated militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments contained in the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right belongs to individuals for self defense, while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices. State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right, per the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Judicial activism.  There are no Individual terms in our Second Amendment.  All terms are plural and collective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /———/ Correct, the Constitution does not list every citizen individually by name. Joe can own a gun, Bill can speak freely, John can vote. Wowza you’re the smart one.
Click to expand...

Our Constitution is Express not Implied.  Any more special pleading?


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what the SC has ruled, and that applies.
> 
> 
> 
> judicial activism that has no basis in the common law.
> 
> The People are the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not when the Second was written and passed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gainsay your contention; want to argue about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> can you translate that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you believe the People were not the Militia upon the ratification of our federal Constitution?  Our federal Civil Rights are expressly declared.
Click to expand...

Do you have any idea of what a militia consisted of in those days?

Males, aged 16-45, (57 in some states).

no women

no males under the age of 16.

no males over the age of 45, (57 in some states).

militia member had to be able bodied.

Which is why the Founding Fathers gave the right to bear arms to the PEOPLE.

So WOMEN could defend themselves.

So males younger than 16 or older than 45 could provide fresh meat for the family.

They couldn't join the militia, but they had need of firearms.


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> judicial activism that has no basis in the common law.
> 
> The People are the Militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not when the Second was written and passed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gainsay your contention; want to argue about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> can you translate that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you believe the People were not the Militia upon the ratification of our federal Constitution?  Our federal Civil Rights are expressly declared.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have any idea of what a militia consisted of in those days?
> 
> Males, aged 16-45, (57 in some states).
> 
> no women
> 
> no males under the age of 16.
> 
> no males over the age of 45, (57 in some states).
> 
> militia member had to be able bodied.
> 
> Which is why the Founding Fathers gave the right to bear arms to the PEOPLE.
> 
> So WOMEN could defend themselves.
> 
> So males younger than 16 or older than 45 could provide fresh meat for the family.
> 
> They couldn't join the militia, but they had need of firearms.
Click to expand...

I understand our Second Amendment is express not implied; the People may not be Infringed in the keeping and bearing of Arms, for their State or the Union.


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not when the Second was written and passed.
> 
> 
> 
> I gainsay your contention; want to argue about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> can you translate that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you believe the People were not the Militia upon the ratification of our federal Constitution?  Our federal Civil Rights are expressly declared.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have any idea of what a militia consisted of in those days?
> 
> Males, aged 16-45, (57 in some states).
> 
> no women
> 
> no males under the age of 16.
> 
> no males over the age of 45, (57 in some states).
> 
> militia member had to be able bodied.
> 
> Which is why the Founding Fathers gave the right to bear arms to the PEOPLE.
> 
> So WOMEN could defend themselves.
> 
> So males younger than 16 or older than 45 could provide fresh meat for the family.
> 
> They couldn't join the militia, but they had need of firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand our Second Amendment is express not implied; the People may not be Infringed in the keeping and bearing of Arms, for their State or the Union.
Click to expand...


When are you going to realize that makes absolutely no sense?


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I gainsay your contention; want to argue about it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> can you translate that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you believe the People were not the Militia upon the ratification of our federal Constitution?  Our federal Civil Rights are expressly declared.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have any idea of what a militia consisted of in those days?
> 
> Males, aged 16-45, (57 in some states).
> 
> no women
> 
> no males under the age of 16.
> 
> no males over the age of 45, (57 in some states).
> 
> militia member had to be able bodied.
> 
> Which is why the Founding Fathers gave the right to bear arms to the PEOPLE.
> 
> So WOMEN could defend themselves.
> 
> So males younger than 16 or older than 45 could provide fresh meat for the family.
> 
> They couldn't join the militia, but they had need of firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand our Second Amendment is express not implied; the People may not be Infringed in the keeping and bearing of Arms, for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When are you going to realize that makes absolutely no sense?
Click to expand...

anybody can say that.  you make no sense.  see how Easy that is.  only floozies should do it that way.


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> can you translate that?
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you believe the People were not the Militia upon the ratification of our federal Constitution?  Our federal Civil Rights are expressly declared.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have any idea of what a militia consisted of in those days?
> 
> Males, aged 16-45, (57 in some states).
> 
> no women
> 
> no males under the age of 16.
> 
> no males over the age of 45, (57 in some states).
> 
> militia member had to be able bodied.
> 
> Which is why the Founding Fathers gave the right to bear arms to the PEOPLE.
> 
> So WOMEN could defend themselves.
> 
> So males younger than 16 or older than 45 could provide fresh meat for the family.
> 
> They couldn't join the militia, but they had need of firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand our Second Amendment is express not implied; the People may not be Infringed in the keeping and bearing of Arms, for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When are you going to realize that makes absolutely no sense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> anybody can say that.  you make no sense.  see how Easy that is.  only floozies should do it that way.
Click to expand...


Bud, you might as well state "The Lord is My Shepard" instead of that.

neither have squat to do with the 2nd.


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you believe the People were not the Militia upon the ratification of our federal Constitution?  Our federal Civil Rights are expressly declared.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any idea of what a militia consisted of in those days?
> 
> Males, aged 16-45, (57 in some states).
> 
> no women
> 
> no males under the age of 16.
> 
> no males over the age of 45, (57 in some states).
> 
> militia member had to be able bodied.
> 
> Which is why the Founding Fathers gave the right to bear arms to the PEOPLE.
> 
> So WOMEN could defend themselves.
> 
> So males younger than 16 or older than 45 could provide fresh meat for the family.
> 
> They couldn't join the militia, but they had need of firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand our Second Amendment is express not implied; the People may not be Infringed in the keeping and bearing of Arms, for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When are you going to realize that makes absolutely no sense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> anybody can say that.  you make no sense.  see how Easy that is.  only floozies should do it that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bud, you might as well state "The Lord is My Shepard" instead of that.
> 
> neither have squat to do with the 2nd.
Click to expand...

neither do you.

Our Constitution is Express not Implied. 

Where are you getting your Individual natural rights from?


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any idea of what a militia consisted of in those days?
> 
> Males, aged 16-45, (57 in some states).
> 
> no women
> 
> no males under the age of 16.
> 
> no males over the age of 45, (57 in some states).
> 
> militia member had to be able bodied.
> 
> Which is why the Founding Fathers gave the right to bear arms to the PEOPLE.
> 
> So WOMEN could defend themselves.
> 
> So males younger than 16 or older than 45 could provide fresh meat for the family.
> 
> They couldn't join the militia, but they had need of firearms.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand our Second Amendment is express not implied; the People may not be Infringed in the keeping and bearing of Arms, for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When are you going to realize that makes absolutely no sense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> anybody can say that.  you make no sense.  see how Easy that is.  only floozies should do it that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bud, you might as well state "The Lord is My Shepard" instead of that.
> 
> neither have squat to do with the 2nd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> neither do you.
> 
> Our Constitution is Express not Implied.
> 
> Where are you getting your Individual natural rights from?
Click to expand...




danielpalos said:


> Our Constitution is Express not Implied.



You post that, but I see "The Lord is my Shepard".

Is there a chance of you coming back to Earth eventually?


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand our Second Amendment is express not implied; the People may not be Infringed in the keeping and bearing of Arms, for their State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When are you going to realize that makes absolutely no sense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> anybody can say that.  you make no sense.  see how Easy that is.  only floozies should do it that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bud, you might as well state "The Lord is My Shepard" instead of that.
> 
> neither have squat to do with the 2nd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> neither do you.
> 
> Our Constitution is Express not Implied.
> 
> Where are you getting your Individual natural rights from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Constitution is Express not Implied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You post that, but I see "The Lord is my Shepard".
> 
> Is there a chance of you coming back to Earth eventually?
Click to expand...

you need a valid argument not a diversion; floozy.


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> When are you going to realize that makes absolutely no sense?
> 
> 
> 
> anybody can say that.  you make no sense.  see how Easy that is.  only floozies should do it that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bud, you might as well state "The Lord is My Shepard" instead of that.
> 
> neither have squat to do with the 2nd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> neither do you.
> 
> Our Constitution is Express not Implied.
> 
> Where are you getting your Individual natural rights from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Constitution is Express not Implied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You post that, but I see "The Lord is my Shepard".
> 
> Is there a chance of you coming back to Earth eventually?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you need a valid argument not a diversion; floozy.
Click to expand...




danielpalos said:


> you need a valid argument not a diversion



you need to find a mirror for that, whore.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Lesh said:


> Exactly..it expressly ties gun protections to the well regulated militia


Your statement, above, is a lie


----------



## Lesh

Daniel has become a troll.

Whatever


----------



## M14 Shooter

Lesh said:


> Thus, a lie -- or, in your case, a series of them.
> 
> 
> 
> How the fuck do you know what I know?
Click to expand...

You know your statement is a lie, or you argue form abject ignorance.
Tell us which.


----------



## Lesh

M14 Shooter said:


> Your statement, above, is a lie



In your OPINION doofus.

The word "lie" has no place in a debate filled with opinion.

If I intentionally misstate facts..THAT might be a lie. Not the case however.

Get back to me when you know how to debate


----------



## Thinker101

Lesh said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your statement, above, is a lie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In your OPINION doofus.
> 
> The word "lie" has no place in a debate filled with opinion.
> 
> If I intentionally misstate facts..THAT might be a lie. Not the case however.
> 
> Get back to me when you know how to debate
Click to expand...


Yet you use the word "lie" in every other post you make...go figure.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Lesh said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your statement, above, is a lie
> 
> 
> 
> In your OPINION doofus.
Click to expand...

Incorrect.
You are fully aware of the fact your statement is untrue.
Thus, you lied.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Thinker101 said:


> Yet you use the word "lie" in every other post you make...go figure.


Petulant children are like that -- the rules they set for others do not apply to them.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not when the Second was written and passed.
> 
> 
> 
> I gainsay your contention; want to argue about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> can you translate that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you believe the People were not the Militia upon the ratification of our federal Constitution?  Our federal Civil Rights are expressly declared.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have any idea of what a militia consisted of in those days?
> 
> Males, aged 16-45, (57 in some states).
> 
> no women
> 
> no males under the age of 16.
> 
> no males over the age of 45, (57 in some states).
> 
> militia member had to be able bodied.
> 
> Which is why the Founding Fathers gave the right to bear arms to the PEOPLE.
> 
> So WOMEN could defend themselves.
> 
> So males younger than 16 or older than 45 could provide fresh meat for the family.
> 
> They couldn't join the militia, but they had need of firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand our Second Amendment is express not implied; the People may not be Infringed in the keeping and bearing of Arms, for their State or the Union.
Click to expand...


That's not what it says.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any idea of what a militia consisted of in those days?
> 
> Males, aged 16-45, (57 in some states).
> 
> no women
> 
> no males under the age of 16.
> 
> no males over the age of 45, (57 in some states).
> 
> militia member had to be able bodied.
> 
> Which is why the Founding Fathers gave the right to bear arms to the PEOPLE.
> 
> So WOMEN could defend themselves.
> 
> So males younger than 16 or older than 45 could provide fresh meat for the family.
> 
> They couldn't join the militia, but they had need of firearms.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand our Second Amendment is express not implied; the People may not be Infringed in the keeping and bearing of Arms, for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When are you going to realize that makes absolutely no sense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> anybody can say that.  you make no sense.  see how Easy that is.  only floozies should do it that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bud, you might as well state "The Lord is My Shepard" instead of that.
> 
> neither have squat to do with the 2nd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> neither do you.
> 
> Our Constitution is Express not Implied.
> 
> Where are you getting your Individual natural rights from?
Click to expand...


If the Constitution is express, not implied, why do you continue to say the second is implied, not express?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Apparently, language analogies are irrelevant to this discussion.


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> anybody can say that.  you make no sense.  see how Easy that is.  only floozies should do it that way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bud, you might as well state "The Lord is My Shepard" instead of that.
> 
> neither have squat to do with the 2nd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> neither do you.
> 
> Our Constitution is Express not Implied.
> 
> Where are you getting your Individual natural rights from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Constitution is Express not Implied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You post that, but I see "The Lord is my Shepard".
> 
> Is there a chance of you coming back to Earth eventually?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you need a valid argument not a diversion; floozy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> you need a valid argument not a diversion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you need to find a mirror for that, whore.
Click to expand...

it must require morals to resort to the fewest fallacies, floozy.


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bud, you might as well state "The Lord is My Shepard" instead of that.
> 
> neither have squat to do with the 2nd.
> 
> 
> 
> neither do you.
> 
> Our Constitution is Express not Implied.
> 
> Where are you getting your Individual natural rights from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Constitution is Express not Implied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You post that, but I see "The Lord is my Shepard".
> 
> Is there a chance of you coming back to Earth eventually?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you need a valid argument not a diversion; floozy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> you need a valid argument not a diversion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you need to find a mirror for that, whore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it must require morals to resort to the fewest fallacies, floozy.
Click to expand...


Guess that makes me more moral than you.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

You can tell which fools never had any logic or math classes in school.  

X being necessary for Y, the right of the people to Z shall not be infringed.

According to Dan and Lesh)

X = the people

but

X's right to Z shall not be infringed.

NOT

the people's right shall not be infringed.

Am I saying that right?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> You can tell which fools never had any logic or math classes in school.
> X being necessary for Y, the right of the people to Z shall not be infringed.
> According to Dan and Lesh)
> X = the people
> but
> X's right to Z shall not be infringed.
> NOT
> the people's right shall not be infringed.
> Am I saying that right?


They choose to be wrong.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Or is it this:

X being necessary for Y, the right of the people to Z shall not be infringed.

Thus (according to Dan and Lesh)

the people have the right to Z, but no person has the right to Z.

Only X can exercise the right to Z.  Persons cannot.

Somebody want to explain this in logical terms?

Lesh?

.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

The Constitution is Express not implied


.


Except when it says "the people."


Then, it is implied that "the people" means a collective group, but NOT individuals.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

A well-balanced *breakfast *= X

being necessary for *good health* = Y

the right of the people to *keep and eat food* = Z


----------



## hadit

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> The Constitution is Express not implied
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> Except when it says "the people."
> 
> 
> Then, it is implied that "the people" means a collective group, but NOT individuals.



Except on Tuesdays and during the full moon.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

hadit said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution is Express not implied
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> Except when it says "the people."
> 
> 
> Then, it is implied that "the people" means a collective group, but NOT individuals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except on Tuesdays and during the full moon.
Click to expand...

I wonder if that works for other rights?

The right of the press?  Does that only apply to CNN?  Do I not have the right to make publications as an individual?  Only big news collectives have the right?


.


----------



## Cellblock2429

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Or is it this:
> 
> X being necessary for Y, the right of the people to Z shall not be infringed.
> 
> Thus (according to Dan and Lesh)
> 
> the people have the right to Z, but no person has the right to Z.
> 
> Only X can exercise the right to Z.  Persons cannot.
> 
> Somebody want to explain this in logical terms?
> 
> Lesh?
> 
> .


/—-/ It’s called the Leftest Two Step


----------



## M14 Shooter

Cellblock2429 said:


> [
> /—-/ It’s called the Leftest Two Step


The only way they can keep their agenda alive is to lie.
Says it all, right there.


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> neither do you.
> 
> Our Constitution is Express not Implied.
> 
> Where are you getting your Individual natural rights from?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Constitution is Express not Implied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You post that, but I see "The Lord is my Shepard".
> 
> Is there a chance of you coming back to Earth eventually?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you need a valid argument not a diversion; floozy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> you need a valid argument not a diversion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you need to find a mirror for that, whore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it must require morals to resort to the fewest fallacies, floozy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guess that makes me more moral than you.
Click to expand...

anybody can say anything.  

Why should I believe Any Implied interpretation over Any Express declaration?


----------



## danielpalos

Lesh said:


> Daniel has become a troll.
> 
> Whatever


i gainsay your contention; want to argue about it?


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I gainsay your contention; want to argue about it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> can you translate that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you believe the People were not the Militia upon the ratification of our federal Constitution?  Our federal Civil Rights are expressly declared.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have any idea of what a militia consisted of in those days?
> 
> Males, aged 16-45, (57 in some states).
> 
> no women
> 
> no males under the age of 16.
> 
> no males over the age of 45, (57 in some states).
> 
> militia member had to be able bodied.
> 
> Which is why the Founding Fathers gave the right to bear arms to the PEOPLE.
> 
> So WOMEN could defend themselves.
> 
> So males younger than 16 or older than 45 could provide fresh meat for the family.
> 
> They couldn't join the militia, but they had need of firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand our Second Amendment is express not implied; the People may not be Infringed in the keeping and bearing of Arms, for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not what it says.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is Implied in every word.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand our Second Amendment is express not implied; the People may not be Infringed in the keeping and bearing of Arms, for their State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When are you going to realize that makes absolutely no sense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> anybody can say that.  you make no sense.  see how Easy that is.  only floozies should do it that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bud, you might as well state "The Lord is My Shepard" instead of that.
> 
> neither have squat to do with the 2nd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> neither do you.
> 
> Our Constitution is Express not Implied.
> 
> Where are you getting your Individual natural rights from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the Constitution is express, not implied, why do you continue to say the second is implied, not express?
Click to expand...

Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural rights; it says so in the first clause.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Apparently, language analogies are irrelevant to this discussion.


false analogies are worthless.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> You can tell which fools never had any logic or math classes in school.
> 
> X being necessary for Y, the right of the people to Z shall not be infringed.
> 
> According to Dan and Lesh)
> 
> X = the people
> 
> but
> 
> X's right to Z shall not be infringed.
> 
> NOT
> 
> the people's right shall not be infringed.
> 
> Am I saying that right?


The People are the Militia under the common law.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Or is it this:
> 
> X being necessary for Y, the right of the people to Z shall not be infringed.
> 
> Thus (according to Dan and Lesh)
> 
> the people have the right to Z, but no person has the right to Z.
> 
> Only X can exercise the right to Z.  Persons cannot.
> 
> Somebody want to explain this in logical terms?
> 
> Lesh?
> 
> .


Our Second Amendment expressly declares what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural rights.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> The Constitution is Express not implied
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> Except when it says "the people."
> 
> 
> Then, it is implied that "the people" means a collective group, but NOT individuals.


the People is plural and collective.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution is Express not implied
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> Except when it says "the people."
> 
> 
> Then, it is implied that "the people" means a collective group, but NOT individuals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except on Tuesdays and during the full moon.
Click to expand...

in Right Wing fantasy, the right wing is Always right.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

This is classic leftist word parsing:

militia = the people

but

the people =/= militia


The same does not mean the same.  


It fails logically.

.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> This is classic leftist word parsing:
> militia = the people
> but
> the people =/= militia
> The same does not mean the same.
> It fails logically.
> .


It does not matter how many times you explain to them that the militia is a subset of the people -- they choose to not understand.


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> You post that, but I see "The Lord is my Shepard".
> 
> Is there a chance of you coming back to Earth eventually?
> 
> 
> 
> you need a valid argument not a diversion; floozy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> you need a valid argument not a diversion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you need to find a mirror for that, whore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it must require morals to resort to the fewest fallacies, floozy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guess that makes me more moral than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> anybody can say anything.
> 
> Why should I believe Any Implied interpretation over Any Express declaration?
Click to expand...





danielpalos said:


> anybody can say anything.


I go by what was not only written, but inserted into the Bill of Rights.

you can't accept that


----------



## Lesh

M14 Shooter said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is classic leftist word parsing:
> militia = the people
> but
> the people =/= militia
> The same does not mean the same.
> It fails logically.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> It does not matter how many times you explain to them that the militia is a subset of the people -- they choose to not understand.
Click to expand...

The "militia" IS a "subset of the people" ...that no longer exists


----------



## Lesh

WillHaftawaite said:


> I go by what was not only written, but inserted into the Bill of Rights.



You mean the "Well Regulated Militia" clause.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Lesh said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is classic leftist word parsing:
> militia = the people
> but
> the people =/= militia
> The same does not mean the same.
> It fails logically.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> It does not matter how many times you explain to them that the militia is a subset of the people -- they choose to not understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The "militia" IS a "subset of the people" ...that no longer exists
Click to expand...

Your statement, above, is a lie.
Either that or you are hopelessly ignorant of the fact that the militia,. as defined by state and federal law, very much does exist.
So...   are you ignorant, or dishonest?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Lesh said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> I go by what was not only written, but inserted into the Bill of Rights.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the "Well Regulated Militia" clause.
Click to expand...

Which, as you know, has no bearing on who has the right to keep and bear arms, as protected by the 2nd.


----------



## Hugo Furst

Lesh said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> I go by what was not only written, but inserted into the Bill of Rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the "Well Regulated Militia" clause.
Click to expand...







no, the "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." part.

There was no need to belong to a militia when it was written, there is no need to belong to a militia now to own a firearm.


----------



## M14 Shooter

WillHaftawaite said:


> There was no need to belong to a militia when it was written, there is no need to belong to a militia now to own a firearm.


Everyone knows this.
They choose, however, to lie to you about it.


----------



## hadit

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> This is classic leftist word parsing:
> 
> militia = the people
> 
> but
> 
> the people =/= militia
> 
> 
> The same does not mean the same.
> 
> 
> It fails logically.
> 
> .



Leftists =/= logical.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution is Express not implied
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> Except when it says "the people."
> 
> 
> Then, it is implied that "the people" means a collective group, but NOT individuals.
> 
> 
> 
> the People is plural and collective.
Click to expand...


It means all the people, which means all the people can bear arms, which means it can't apply only to the militia because the militia is not all the people. How much plainer can it be made for you to understand?  I know you're impervious to fact and reason, but come on, you carry dogmatic to an extreme.


----------



## Lesh

You're inserting words that are not there. I am going by the words that are IN the 2A


----------



## M14 Shooter

Lesh said:


> You're inserting words that are not there. I am going by the words that are IN the 2A


AND...  you're lying.


----------



## Hugo Furst

Lesh said:


> You're inserting words that are not there. I am going by the words that are IN the 2A




link?


----------



## hadit

Lesh said:


> You're inserting words that are not there. I am going by the words that are IN the 2A



Do you then say women can be barred from gun ownership?  I maintain that the people is more then the militia.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> When are you going to realize that makes absolutely no sense?
> 
> 
> 
> anybody can say that.  you make no sense.  see how Easy that is.  only floozies should do it that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bud, you might as well state "The Lord is My Shepard" instead of that.
> 
> neither have squat to do with the 2nd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> neither do you.
> 
> Our Constitution is Express not Implied.
> 
> Where are you getting your Individual natural rights from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the Constitution is express, not implied, why do you continue to say the second is implied, not express?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural rights; it says so in the first clause.
Click to expand...


Except that it says Congress can't pass laws infringing on the rights of the people, not of the militia.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> This is classic leftist word parsing:
> 
> militia = the people
> 
> but
> 
> the people =/= militia
> 
> 
> The same does not mean the same.
> 
> 
> It fails logically.
> 
> .


Our Constitution is both gender and race neutral; the People are the Militia.


----------



## danielpalos

M14 Shooter said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is classic leftist word parsing:
> militia = the people
> but
> the people =/= militia
> The same does not mean the same.
> It fails logically.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> It does not matter how many times you explain to them that the militia is a subset of the people -- they choose to not understand.
Click to expand...

well regulated militia are a subset of the People.  

the People are the Militia.  you are Either well regulated or unorganized.


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> you need a valid argument not a diversion; floozy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> you need a valid argument not a diversion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you need to find a mirror for that, whore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it must require morals to resort to the fewest fallacies, floozy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guess that makes me more moral than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> anybody can say anything.
> 
> Why should I believe Any Implied interpretation over Any Express declaration?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> anybody can say anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I go by what was not only written, but inserted into the Bill of Rights.
> 
> you can't accept that
Click to expand...

There are no individual or singular terms Expressed in our Second Amendment.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution is Express not implied
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> Except when it says "the people."
> 
> 
> Then, it is implied that "the people" means a collective group, but NOT individuals.
> 
> 
> 
> the People is plural and collective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It means all the people, which means all the people can bear arms, which means it can't apply only to the militia because the militia is not all the people. How much plainer can it be made for you to understand?  I know you're impervious to fact and reason, but come on, you carry dogmatic to an extreme.
Click to expand...

The People are the Militia. 

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> anybody can say that.  you make no sense.  see how Easy that is.  only floozies should do it that way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bud, you might as well state "The Lord is My Shepard" instead of that.
> 
> neither have squat to do with the 2nd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> neither do you.
> 
> Our Constitution is Express not Implied.
> 
> Where are you getting your Individual natural rights from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the Constitution is express, not implied, why do you continue to say the second is implied, not express?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not natural rights; it says so in the first clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that it says Congress can't pass laws infringing on the rights of the people, not of the militia.
Click to expand...

The People are the Militia; you are either well regulated or complaining about gun control.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution is Express not implied
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> Except when it says "the people."
> 
> 
> Then, it is implied that "the people" means a collective group, but NOT individuals.
> 
> 
> 
> the People is plural and collective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It means all the people, which means all the people can bear arms, which means it can't apply only to the militia because the militia is not all the people. How much plainer can it be made for you to understand?  I know you're impervious to fact and reason, but come on, you carry dogmatic to an extreme.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia.
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
Click to expand...

The people's right shall not be infringed, whether they're in the militia or not.


----------



## Jitss617

waltky said:


> Maybe not obsolete but antiquated, out of date...
> 
> ... it needs to be updated to reflect the times...
> 
> ... and the threat of overkill firepower...
> 
> ... for the average citizen.


Or you can move out


----------



## JGalt




----------



## Jitss617

America and our laws and culture isn’t for anyone


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution is Express not implied
> 
> 
> 
> Except when it says "the people."
> 
> 
> Then, it is implied that "the people" means a collective group, but NOT individuals.
> 
> 
> 
> the People is plural and collective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It means all the people, which means all the people can bear arms, which means it can't apply only to the militia because the militia is not all the people. How much plainer can it be made for you to understand?  I know you're impervious to fact and reason, but come on, you carry dogmatic to an extreme.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia.
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people's right shall not be infringed, whether they're in the militia or not.
Click to expand...

That cannot be true.  Only well regulated militia are declared Necessary to the security of a free State.  

The unorganized militia can most definitely be infringed in the keeping and bearing of Arms; as can purely "civilian" Persons of the People.



> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> (Source: Illinois Constitution.)


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is classic leftist word parsing:
> 
> militia = the people
> 
> but
> 
> the people =/= militia
> 
> 
> The same does not mean the same.
> 
> 
> It fails logically.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Our Constitution is both gender and race neutral; the People are the Militia.
Click to expand...



only a section of the People are the Militia.

Hopefully, someday you will learn that.


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution is Express not implied
> 
> 
> 
> Except when it says "the people."
> 
> 
> Then, it is implied that "the people" means a collective group, but NOT individuals.
> 
> 
> 
> the People is plural and collective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It means all the people, which means all the people can bear arms, which means it can't apply only to the militia because the militia is not all the people. How much plainer can it be made for you to understand?  I know you're impervious to fact and reason, but come on, you carry dogmatic to an extreme.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia.
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people's right shall not be infringed, whether they're in the militia or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That cannot be true.  Only well regulated militia are declared Necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> The unorganized militia can most definitely be infringed in the keeping and bearing of Arms; as can purely "civilian" Persons of the People.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> (Source: Illinois Constitution.)
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


and yet another statement that makes no sense


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution is Express not implied
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> Except when it says "the people."
> 
> 
> Then, it is implied that "the people" means a collective group, but NOT individuals.
> 
> 
> 
> the People is plural and collective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It means all the people, which means all the people can bear arms, which means it can't apply only to the militia because the militia is not all the people. How much plainer can it be made for you to understand?  I know you're impervious to fact and reason, but come on, you carry dogmatic to an extreme.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia.
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
Click to expand...


one mans opinion.

what a shame it doesn't fit the dictionary definition


----------



## Rigby5

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is classic leftist word parsing:
> 
> militia = the people
> 
> but
> 
> the people =/= militia
> 
> 
> The same does not mean the same.
> 
> 
> It fails logically.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Our Constitution is both gender and race neutral; the People are the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> only a section of the People are the Militia.
> 
> Hopefully, someday you will learn that.
Click to expand...


Nope.
The militia is informal and as needed, so could be anyone or everyone.
Which means that everyone should be considered potential militia.  
If nothing goes wrong, it could be no one is needed to do anything.
But under invasion, etc., women and children could have become active members of the militia.
The reason you have to include everyone as the militia is because there were no police back then at all, so everyone had to enforce the law, defend themselves, etc.
And there were lots of threats, like native, Spanish from the south, pirates, gangs, French from north, etc.
So when you talk about who needed to be armed for the militia, that would have to be everyone.
There is no way to know ahead of time who will need those arms.


----------



## Hugo Furst

Rigby5 said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is classic leftist word parsing:
> 
> militia = the people
> 
> but
> 
> the people =/= militia
> 
> 
> The same does not mean the same.
> 
> 
> It fails logically.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Our Constitution is both gender and race neutral; the People are the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> only a section of the People are the Militia.
> 
> Hopefully, someday you will learn that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.
> The militia is informal and as needed, so could be anyone or everyone.
> Which means that everyone should be considered potential militia.
> If nothing goes wrong, it could be no one is needed to do anything.
> But under invasion, etc., women and children could have become active members of the militia.
> The reason you have to include everyone as the militia is because there were no police back then at all, so everyone had to enforce the law, defend themselves, etc.
> And there were lots of threats, like native, Spanish from the south, pirates, gangs, French from north, etc.
> So when you talk about who needed to be armed for the militia, that would have to be everyone.
> There is no way to know ahead of time who will need those arms.
Click to expand...



When it was written:

"
*Constitution and Bill of Rights (1787–1789)[edit]*
The delegates of the Constitutional Convention (the founding fathers/framers of the United States Constitution) under Article 1; section 8, clauses 15 and 16 of the federal constitution, granted Congress the power to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia", as well as, and in distinction to, the power to raise an army and a navy. The US Congress is granted the power to use the militia of the United States for three specific missions, as described in Article 1, section 8, clause 15: "To provide for the calling of the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions." The Militia Act of 1792[26] clarified whom the militia consists of:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, *That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia,* by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act."

Militia (United States) - Wikipedia

NO females, NO males under the age of 18, NO males over the age of 45, with some exceptions.

Same link.

as of 1903: "
Today, as defined by the Militia Act of 1903, the term "militia" is primarily used to describe two groups within the United States:


*Organized militia* – consisting of State militia forces; notably, the National Guard and Naval Militia.[8] (Note: the National Guard is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States.)
*Unorganized militia* – composing the Reserve Militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.[9]"
Close to the same age groups, and still no females, and still no infirm.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution is Express not implied
> 
> 
> 
> Except when it says "the people."
> 
> 
> Then, it is implied that "the people" means a collective group, but NOT individuals.
> 
> 
> 
> the People is plural and collective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It means all the people, which means all the people can bear arms, which means it can't apply only to the militia because the militia is not all the people. How much plainer can it be made for you to understand?  I know you're impervious to fact and reason, but come on, you carry dogmatic to an extreme.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia.
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people's right shall not be infringed, whether they're in the militia or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That cannot be true.  Only well regulated militia are declared Necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> The unorganized militia can most definitely be infringed in the keeping and bearing of Arms; as can purely "civilian" Persons of the People.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> (Source: Illinois Constitution.)
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Your quote makes it clear it's an individual right.


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is classic leftist word parsing:
> 
> militia = the people
> 
> but
> 
> the people =/= militia
> 
> 
> The same does not mean the same.
> 
> 
> It fails logically.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Our Constitution is both gender and race neutral; the People are the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> only a section of the People are the Militia.
> 
> Hopefully, someday you will learn that.
Click to expand...

When will you learn that the People are the Militia.  Only well regulated militia are declared Necessary. 

You confuse natural rights with the security of a free State.


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the People is plural and collective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It means all the people, which means all the people can bear arms, which means it can't apply only to the militia because the militia is not all the people. How much plainer can it be made for you to understand?  I know you're impervious to fact and reason, but come on, you carry dogmatic to an extreme.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia.
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people's right shall not be infringed, whether they're in the militia or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That cannot be true.  Only well regulated militia are declared Necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> The unorganized militia can most definitely be infringed in the keeping and bearing of Arms; as can purely "civilian" Persons of the People.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> (Source: Illinois Constitution.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and yet another statement that makes no sense
Click to expand...

still not dumbed down enough for the right wing?


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution is Express not implied
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> Except when it says "the people."
> 
> 
> Then, it is implied that "the people" means a collective group, but NOT individuals.
> 
> 
> 
> the People is plural and collective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It means all the people, which means all the people can bear arms, which means it can't apply only to the militia because the militia is not all the people. How much plainer can it be made for you to understand?  I know you're impervious to fact and reason, but come on, you carry dogmatic to an extreme.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia.
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> one mans opinion.
> 
> what a shame it doesn't fit the dictionary definition
Click to expand...

Context is Everything. 

What a shame is doesn't fit your right wing, special pleading.

That is the understanding of the militia under the _common_ law for the _common_ defense.


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is classic leftist word parsing:
> 
> militia = the people
> 
> but
> 
> the people =/= militia
> 
> 
> The same does not mean the same.
> 
> 
> It fails logically.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Our Constitution is both gender and race neutral; the People are the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> only a section of the People are the Militia.
> 
> Hopefully, someday you will learn that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.
> The militia is informal and as needed, so could be anyone or everyone.
> Which means that everyone should be considered potential militia.
> If nothing goes wrong, it could be no one is needed to do anything.
> But under invasion, etc., women and children could have become active members of the militia.
> The reason you have to include everyone as the militia is because there were no police back then at all, so everyone had to enforce the law, defend themselves, etc.
> And there were lots of threats, like native, Spanish from the south, pirates, gangs, French from north, etc.
> So when you talk about who needed to be armed for the militia, that would have to be everyone.
> There is no way to know ahead of time who will need those arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When it was written:
> 
> "
> *Constitution and Bill of Rights (1787–1789)[edit]*
> The delegates of the Constitutional Convention (the founding fathers/framers of the United States Constitution) under Article 1; section 8, clauses 15 and 16 of the federal constitution, granted Congress the power to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia", as well as, and in distinction to, the power to raise an army and a navy. The US Congress is granted the power to use the militia of the United States for three specific missions, as described in Article 1, section 8, clause 15: "To provide for the calling of the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions." The Militia Act of 1792[26] clarified whom the militia consists of:
> 
> Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, *That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia,* by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act."
> 
> Militia (United States) - Wikipedia
> 
> NO females, NO males under the age of 18, NO males over the age of 45, with some exceptions.
> 
> Same link.
> 
> as of 1903: "
> Today, as defined by the Militia Act of 1903, the term "militia" is primarily used to describe two groups within the United States:
> 
> 
> *Organized militia* – consisting of State militia forces; notably, the National Guard and Naval Militia.[8] (Note: the National Guard is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States.)
> *Unorganized militia* – composing the Reserve Militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.[9]"
> Close to the same age groups, and still no females, and still no infirm.
Click to expand...

Our federal Constitution is both gender and race neutral, from intelligently designed, Inception. 

Any inferences to gender or race are not binding.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the People is plural and collective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It means all the people, which means all the people can bear arms, which means it can't apply only to the militia because the militia is not all the people. How much plainer can it be made for you to understand?  I know you're impervious to fact and reason, but come on, you carry dogmatic to an extreme.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia.
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people's right shall not be infringed, whether they're in the militia or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That cannot be true.  Only well regulated militia are declared Necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> The unorganized militia can most definitely be infringed in the keeping and bearing of Arms; as can purely "civilian" Persons of the People.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> (Source: Illinois Constitution.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your quote makes it clear it's an individual right.
Click to expand...

subject to the police power.


----------



## Lesh

WillHaftawaite said:


> only a section of the People are the Militia.



A very small section...and even there it doesn't fit the description of a Well Regulated militia laid out in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution



Rigby5 said:


> The militia is informal and as needed, so could be anyone or everyone.
> Which means that everyone should be considered potential militia.



Nope..According to the Dick Act...ONLY males between 17 and 45 and even there they don't fit the above.

Scalia saw that as being far too restrictive for his political objective so he tossed the entire Militia clause out the window,'
That's TRUE legislating from the bench


----------



## Lesh

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is classic leftist word parsing:
> 
> militia = the people
> 
> but
> 
> the people =/= militia
> 
> 
> The same does not mean the same.
> 
> 
> It fails logically.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Our Constitution is both gender and race neutral; the People are the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> only a section of the People are the Militia.
> 
> Hopefully, someday you will learn that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.
> The militia is informal and as needed, so could be anyone or everyone.
> Which means that everyone should be considered potential militia.
> If nothing goes wrong, it could be no one is needed to do anything.
> But under invasion, etc., women and children could have become active members of the militia.
> The reason you have to include everyone as the militia is because there were no police back then at all, so everyone had to enforce the law, defend themselves, etc.
> And there were lots of threats, like native, Spanish from the south, pirates, gangs, French from north, etc.
> So when you talk about who needed to be armed for the militia, that would have to be everyone.
> There is no way to know ahead of time who will need those arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When it was written:
> 
> "
> *Constitution and Bill of Rights (1787–1789)[edit]*
> The delegates of the Constitutional Convention (the founding fathers/framers of the United States Constitution) under Article 1; section 8, clauses 15 and 16 of the federal constitution, granted Congress the power to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia", as well as, and in distinction to, the power to raise an army and a navy. The US Congress is granted the power to use the militia of the United States for three specific missions, as described in Article 1, section 8, clause 15: "To provide for the calling of the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions." The Militia Act of 1792[26] clarified whom the militia consists of:
> 
> Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, *That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia,* by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act."
> 
> Militia (United States) - Wikipedia
> 
> NO females, NO males under the age of 18, NO males over the age of 45, with some exceptions.
> 
> Same link.
> 
> as of 1903: "
> Today, as defined by the Militia Act of 1903, the term "militia" is primarily used to describe two groups within the United States:
> 
> 
> *Organized militia* – consisting of State militia forces; notably, the National Guard and Naval Militia.[8] (Note: the National Guard is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States.)
> *Unorganized militia* – composing the Reserve Militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.[9]"
> Close to the same age groups, and still no females, and still no infirm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is both gender and race neutral, from intelligently designed, Inception.
> 
> Any inferences to gender or race are not binding.
Click to expand...

Stop trolling please.


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is classic leftist word parsing:
> 
> militia = the people
> 
> but
> 
> the people =/= militia
> 
> 
> The same does not mean the same.
> 
> 
> It fails logically.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Our Constitution is both gender and race neutral; the People are the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> only a section of the People are the Militia.
> 
> Hopefully, someday you will learn that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When will you learn that the People are the Militia.  Only well regulated militia are declared Necessary.
> 
> You confuse natural rights with the security of a free State.
Click to expand...




danielpalos said:


> When will you learn that the People are the Militia.



I'm part of the People.

I'm almost 70 years old, clinically diagnosed as morbidly obese, on oxygen 24/7, carry an air tank that MIGHT last 2 1/2 hours.

What part of your 'militia' do I belong in?


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is classic leftist word parsing:
> 
> militia = the people
> 
> but
> 
> the people =/= militia
> 
> 
> The same does not mean the same.
> 
> 
> It fails logically.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Our Constitution is both gender and race neutral; the People are the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> only a section of the People are the Militia.
> 
> Hopefully, someday you will learn that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.
> The militia is informal and as needed, so could be anyone or everyone.
> Which means that everyone should be considered potential militia.
> If nothing goes wrong, it could be no one is needed to do anything.
> But under invasion, etc., women and children could have become active members of the militia.
> The reason you have to include everyone as the militia is because there were no police back then at all, so everyone had to enforce the law, defend themselves, etc.
> And there were lots of threats, like native, Spanish from the south, pirates, gangs, French from north, etc.
> So when you talk about who needed to be armed for the militia, that would have to be everyone.
> There is no way to know ahead of time who will need those arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When it was written:
> 
> "
> *Constitution and Bill of Rights (1787–1789)[edit]*
> The delegates of the Constitutional Convention (the founding fathers/framers of the United States Constitution) under Article 1; section 8, clauses 15 and 16 of the federal constitution, granted Congress the power to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia", as well as, and in distinction to, the power to raise an army and a navy. The US Congress is granted the power to use the militia of the United States for three specific missions, as described in Article 1, section 8, clause 15: "To provide for the calling of the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions." The Militia Act of 1792[26] clarified whom the militia consists of:
> 
> Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, *That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia,* by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act."
> 
> Militia (United States) - Wikipedia
> 
> NO females, NO males under the age of 18, NO males over the age of 45, with some exceptions.
> 
> Same link.
> 
> as of 1903: "
> Today, as defined by the Militia Act of 1903, the term "militia" is primarily used to describe two groups within the United States:
> 
> 
> *Organized militia* – consisting of State militia forces; notably, the National Guard and Naval Militia.[8] (Note: the National Guard is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States.)
> *Unorganized militia* – composing the Reserve Militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.[9]"
> Close to the same age groups, and still no females, and still no infirm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is both gender and race neutral, from intelligently designed, Inception.
> 
> Any inferences to gender or race are not binding.
Click to expand...




danielpalos said:


> Our federal Constitution is both gender and race neutral, from intelligently designed, Inception.



Right....

Do you also believe women had the right to vote as soon as the Constitution was ratified?


----------



## danielpalos

Lesh said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> only a section of the People are the Militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A very small section...and even there it doesn't fit the description of a Well Regulated militia laid out in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The militia is informal and as needed, so could be anyone or everyone.
> Which means that everyone should be considered potential militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope..According to the Dick Act...ONLY males between 17 and 45 and even there they don't fit the above.
> 
> Scalia saw that as being far too restrictive for his political objective so he tossed the entire Militia clause out the window,'
> That's TRUE legislating from the bench
Click to expand...

Special pleading is all the right wing has.  The federal militia is not the Only militia. 



> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.



We should have no security problems in our free States.


----------



## danielpalos

Lesh said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Constitution is both gender and race neutral; the People are the Militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> only a section of the People are the Militia.
> 
> Hopefully, someday you will learn that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.
> The militia is informal and as needed, so could be anyone or everyone.
> Which means that everyone should be considered potential militia.
> If nothing goes wrong, it could be no one is needed to do anything.
> But under invasion, etc., women and children could have become active members of the militia.
> The reason you have to include everyone as the militia is because there were no police back then at all, so everyone had to enforce the law, defend themselves, etc.
> And there were lots of threats, like native, Spanish from the south, pirates, gangs, French from north, etc.
> So when you talk about who needed to be armed for the militia, that would have to be everyone.
> There is no way to know ahead of time who will need those arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When it was written:
> 
> "
> *Constitution and Bill of Rights (1787–1789)[edit]*
> The delegates of the Constitutional Convention (the founding fathers/framers of the United States Constitution) under Article 1; section 8, clauses 15 and 16 of the federal constitution, granted Congress the power to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia", as well as, and in distinction to, the power to raise an army and a navy. The US Congress is granted the power to use the militia of the United States for three specific missions, as described in Article 1, section 8, clause 15: "To provide for the calling of the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions." The Militia Act of 1792[26] clarified whom the militia consists of:
> 
> Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, *That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia,* by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act."
> 
> Militia (United States) - Wikipedia
> 
> NO females, NO males under the age of 18, NO males over the age of 45, with some exceptions.
> 
> Same link.
> 
> as of 1903: "
> Today, as defined by the Militia Act of 1903, the term "militia" is primarily used to describe two groups within the United States:
> 
> 
> *Organized militia* – consisting of State militia forces; notably, the National Guard and Naval Militia.[8] (Note: the National Guard is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States.)
> *Unorganized militia* – composing the Reserve Militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.[9]"
> Close to the same age groups, and still no females, and still no infirm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is both gender and race neutral, from intelligently designed, Inception.
> 
> Any inferences to gender or race are not binding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop trolling please.
Click to expand...

You stop trolling by alleging I am the one trolling.  Get a Valid argument and Stop Trolling.


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is classic leftist word parsing:
> 
> militia = the people
> 
> but
> 
> the people =/= militia
> 
> 
> The same does not mean the same.
> 
> 
> It fails logically.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Our Constitution is both gender and race neutral; the People are the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> only a section of the People are the Militia.
> 
> Hopefully, someday you will learn that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When will you learn that the People are the Militia.  Only well regulated militia are declared Necessary.
> 
> You confuse natural rights with the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> When will you learn that the People are the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm part of the People.
> 
> I'm almost 70 years old, clinically diagnosed as morbidly obese, on oxygen 24/7, carry an air tank that MIGHT last 2 1/2 hours.
> 
> What part of your 'militia' do I belong in?
Click to expand...

You are part of the unorganized militia if you don't personally know and get along well with your heavy weapons section.


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Constitution is both gender and race neutral; the People are the Militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> only a section of the People are the Militia.
> 
> Hopefully, someday you will learn that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.
> The militia is informal and as needed, so could be anyone or everyone.
> Which means that everyone should be considered potential militia.
> If nothing goes wrong, it could be no one is needed to do anything.
> But under invasion, etc., women and children could have become active members of the militia.
> The reason you have to include everyone as the militia is because there were no police back then at all, so everyone had to enforce the law, defend themselves, etc.
> And there were lots of threats, like native, Spanish from the south, pirates, gangs, French from north, etc.
> So when you talk about who needed to be armed for the militia, that would have to be everyone.
> There is no way to know ahead of time who will need those arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When it was written:
> 
> "
> *Constitution and Bill of Rights (1787–1789)[edit]*
> The delegates of the Constitutional Convention (the founding fathers/framers of the United States Constitution) under Article 1; section 8, clauses 15 and 16 of the federal constitution, granted Congress the power to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia", as well as, and in distinction to, the power to raise an army and a navy. The US Congress is granted the power to use the militia of the United States for three specific missions, as described in Article 1, section 8, clause 15: "To provide for the calling of the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions." The Militia Act of 1792[26] clarified whom the militia consists of:
> 
> Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, *That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia,* by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act."
> 
> Militia (United States) - Wikipedia
> 
> NO females, NO males under the age of 18, NO males over the age of 45, with some exceptions.
> 
> Same link.
> 
> as of 1903: "
> Today, as defined by the Militia Act of 1903, the term "militia" is primarily used to describe two groups within the United States:
> 
> 
> *Organized militia* – consisting of State militia forces; notably, the National Guard and Naval Militia.[8] (Note: the National Guard is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States.)
> *Unorganized militia* – composing the Reserve Militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.[9]"
> Close to the same age groups, and still no females, and still no infirm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is both gender and race neutral, from intelligently designed, Inception.
> 
> Any inferences to gender or race are not binding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our federal Constitution is both gender and race neutral, from intelligently designed, Inception.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right....
> 
> Do you also believe women had the right to vote as soon as the Constitution was ratified?
Click to expand...

Yes, they did; all they needed to do was ask. 

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

All Persons born in the US after 1808 are automatically US citizens by natural born birth.


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is classic leftist word parsing:
> 
> militia = the people
> 
> but
> 
> the people =/= militia
> 
> 
> The same does not mean the same.
> 
> 
> It fails logically.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Our Constitution is both gender and race neutral; the People are the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> only a section of the People are the Militia.
> 
> Hopefully, someday you will learn that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When will you learn that the People are the Militia.  Only well regulated militia are declared Necessary.
> 
> You confuse natural rights with the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> When will you learn that the People are the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm part of the People.
> 
> I'm almost 70 years old, clinically diagnosed as morbidly obese, on oxygen 24/7, carry an air tank that MIGHT last 2 1/2 hours.
> 
> What part of your 'militia' do I belong in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are part of the unorganized militia if you don't personally know and get along well with your heavy weapons section.
Click to expand...




danielpalos said:


> You are part of the unorganized militia



Can't belong to the unorganized militia.

I can't pass the physical, and I'm too old.

*"Unorganized militia* – composing the Reserve Militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.[9]"


----------



## Lesh

danielpalos said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> only a section of the People are the Militia.
> 
> Hopefully, someday you will learn that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.
> The militia is informal and as needed, so could be anyone or everyone.
> Which means that everyone should be considered potential militia.
> If nothing goes wrong, it could be no one is needed to do anything.
> But under invasion, etc., women and children could have become active members of the militia.
> The reason you have to include everyone as the militia is because there were no police back then at all, so everyone had to enforce the law, defend themselves, etc.
> And there were lots of threats, like native, Spanish from the south, pirates, gangs, French from north, etc.
> So when you talk about who needed to be armed for the militia, that would have to be everyone.
> There is no way to know ahead of time who will need those arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When it was written:
> 
> "
> *Constitution and Bill of Rights (1787–1789)[edit]*
> The delegates of the Constitutional Convention (the founding fathers/framers of the United States Constitution) under Article 1; section 8, clauses 15 and 16 of the federal constitution, granted Congress the power to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia", as well as, and in distinction to, the power to raise an army and a navy. The US Congress is granted the power to use the militia of the United States for three specific missions, as described in Article 1, section 8, clause 15: "To provide for the calling of the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions." The Militia Act of 1792[26] clarified whom the militia consists of:
> 
> Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, *That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia,* by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act."
> 
> Militia (United States) - Wikipedia
> 
> NO females, NO males under the age of 18, NO males over the age of 45, with some exceptions.
> 
> Same link.
> 
> as of 1903: "
> Today, as defined by the Militia Act of 1903, the term "militia" is primarily used to describe two groups within the United States:
> 
> 
> *Organized militia* – consisting of State militia forces; notably, the National Guard and Naval Militia.[8] (Note: the National Guard is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States.)
> *Unorganized militia* – composing the Reserve Militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.[9]"
> Close to the same age groups, and still no females, and still no infirm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is both gender and race neutral, from intelligently designed, Inception.
> 
> Any inferences to gender or race are not binding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop trolling please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You stop trolling by alleging I am the one trolling.  Get a Valid argument and Stop Trolling.
Click to expand...

Your inane posts almost never address the topic..and often are just flat wrong...and oh yea...they're cryptic nonsense.

Troll posts


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> only a section of the People are the Militia.
> 
> Hopefully, someday you will learn that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.
> The militia is informal and as needed, so could be anyone or everyone.
> Which means that everyone should be considered potential militia.
> If nothing goes wrong, it could be no one is needed to do anything.
> But under invasion, etc., women and children could have become active members of the militia.
> The reason you have to include everyone as the militia is because there were no police back then at all, so everyone had to enforce the law, defend themselves, etc.
> And there were lots of threats, like native, Spanish from the south, pirates, gangs, French from north, etc.
> So when you talk about who needed to be armed for the militia, that would have to be everyone.
> There is no way to know ahead of time who will need those arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When it was written:
> 
> "
> *Constitution and Bill of Rights (1787–1789)[edit]*
> The delegates of the Constitutional Convention (the founding fathers/framers of the United States Constitution) under Article 1; section 8, clauses 15 and 16 of the federal constitution, granted Congress the power to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia", as well as, and in distinction to, the power to raise an army and a navy. The US Congress is granted the power to use the militia of the United States for three specific missions, as described in Article 1, section 8, clause 15: "To provide for the calling of the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions." The Militia Act of 1792[26] clarified whom the militia consists of:
> 
> Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, *That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia,* by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act."
> 
> Militia (United States) - Wikipedia
> 
> NO females, NO males under the age of 18, NO males over the age of 45, with some exceptions.
> 
> Same link.
> 
> as of 1903: "
> Today, as defined by the Militia Act of 1903, the term "militia" is primarily used to describe two groups within the United States:
> 
> 
> *Organized militia* – consisting of State militia forces; notably, the National Guard and Naval Militia.[8] (Note: the National Guard is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States.)
> *Unorganized militia* – composing the Reserve Militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.[9]"
> Close to the same age groups, and still no females, and still no infirm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is both gender and race neutral, from intelligently designed, Inception.
> 
> Any inferences to gender or race are not binding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our federal Constitution is both gender and race neutral, from intelligently designed, Inception.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right....
> 
> Do you also believe women had the right to vote as soon as the Constitution was ratified?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they did; all they needed to do was ask.
> 
> The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
> 
> All Persons born in the US after 1808 are automatically US citizens by natural born birth.
Click to expand...


at the time of the signing, women were second rate citizens, could not hold property, could not vote, and definitely could not serve as a member of the Militia.


----------



## Lesh

WillHaftawaite said:


> *"Unorganized militia* – composing the Reserve Militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.[9]"



And of course the "unorganized militia" bears no resemblance to the "Well Regulated Militia" described in Article 1 Section 8 that has officers, rolls,training, and discipline.


----------



## Lesh

There have been gun laws in this country since the very beginning

https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4825&context=lcp

Only recently has the 2A been claimed as support for unrestricted gun laws.


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Constitution is both gender and race neutral; the People are the Militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> only a section of the People are the Militia.
> 
> Hopefully, someday you will learn that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When will you learn that the People are the Militia.  Only well regulated militia are declared Necessary.
> 
> You confuse natural rights with the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> When will you learn that the People are the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm part of the People.
> 
> I'm almost 70 years old, clinically diagnosed as morbidly obese, on oxygen 24/7, carry an air tank that MIGHT last 2 1/2 hours.
> 
> What part of your 'militia' do I belong in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are part of the unorganized militia if you don't personally know and get along well with your heavy weapons section.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are part of the unorganized militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't belong to the unorganized militia.
> 
> I can't pass the physical, and I'm too old.
> 
> *"Unorganized militia* – composing the Reserve Militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.[9]"
Click to expand...

Everybody can be part of the militia under the common law for the common defense. 

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.


----------



## danielpalos

Lesh said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.
> The militia is informal and as needed, so could be anyone or everyone.
> Which means that everyone should be considered potential militia.
> If nothing goes wrong, it could be no one is needed to do anything.
> But under invasion, etc., women and children could have become active members of the militia.
> The reason you have to include everyone as the militia is because there were no police back then at all, so everyone had to enforce the law, defend themselves, etc.
> And there were lots of threats, like native, Spanish from the south, pirates, gangs, French from north, etc.
> So when you talk about who needed to be armed for the militia, that would have to be everyone.
> There is no way to know ahead of time who will need those arms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When it was written:
> 
> "
> *Constitution and Bill of Rights (1787–1789)[edit]*
> The delegates of the Constitutional Convention (the founding fathers/framers of the United States Constitution) under Article 1; section 8, clauses 15 and 16 of the federal constitution, granted Congress the power to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia", as well as, and in distinction to, the power to raise an army and a navy. The US Congress is granted the power to use the militia of the United States for three specific missions, as described in Article 1, section 8, clause 15: "To provide for the calling of the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions." The Militia Act of 1792[26] clarified whom the militia consists of:
> 
> Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, *That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia,* by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act."
> 
> Militia (United States) - Wikipedia
> 
> NO females, NO males under the age of 18, NO males over the age of 45, with some exceptions.
> 
> Same link.
> 
> as of 1903: "
> Today, as defined by the Militia Act of 1903, the term "militia" is primarily used to describe two groups within the United States:
> 
> 
> *Organized militia* – consisting of State militia forces; notably, the National Guard and Naval Militia.[8] (Note: the National Guard is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States.)
> *Unorganized militia* – composing the Reserve Militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.[9]"
> Close to the same age groups, and still no females, and still no infirm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is both gender and race neutral, from intelligently designed, Inception.
> 
> Any inferences to gender or race are not binding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop trolling please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You stop trolling by alleging I am the one trolling.  Get a Valid argument and Stop Trolling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your inane posts almost never address the topic..and often are just flat wrong...and oh yea...they're cryptic nonsense.
> 
> Troll posts
Click to expand...

lol.  just Because You say so?  sorry, you are not Simon.  You need a valid rebuttal not simple rejection.


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> only a section of the People are the Militia.
> 
> Hopefully, someday you will learn that.
> 
> 
> 
> When will you learn that the People are the Militia.  Only well regulated militia are declared Necessary.
> 
> You confuse natural rights with the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> When will you learn that the People are the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm part of the People.
> 
> I'm almost 70 years old, clinically diagnosed as morbidly obese, on oxygen 24/7, carry an air tank that MIGHT last 2 1/2 hours.
> 
> What part of your 'militia' do I belong in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are part of the unorganized militia if you don't personally know and get along well with your heavy weapons section.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are part of the unorganized militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't belong to the unorganized militia.
> 
> I can't pass the physical, and I'm too old.
> 
> *"Unorganized militia* – composing the Reserve Militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.[9]"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everybody can be part of the militia under the common law for the common defense.
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
Click to expand...




danielpalos said:


> Everybody can be part of the militia under the common law for the common defense.



NO THEY CAN'T

as I've just shown you.


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.
> The militia is informal and as needed, so could be anyone or everyone.
> Which means that everyone should be considered potential militia.
> If nothing goes wrong, it could be no one is needed to do anything.
> But under invasion, etc., women and children could have become active members of the militia.
> The reason you have to include everyone as the militia is because there were no police back then at all, so everyone had to enforce the law, defend themselves, etc.
> And there were lots of threats, like native, Spanish from the south, pirates, gangs, French from north, etc.
> So when you talk about who needed to be armed for the militia, that would have to be everyone.
> There is no way to know ahead of time who will need those arms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When it was written:
> 
> "
> *Constitution and Bill of Rights (1787–1789)[edit]*
> The delegates of the Constitutional Convention (the founding fathers/framers of the United States Constitution) under Article 1; section 8, clauses 15 and 16 of the federal constitution, granted Congress the power to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia", as well as, and in distinction to, the power to raise an army and a navy. The US Congress is granted the power to use the militia of the United States for three specific missions, as described in Article 1, section 8, clause 15: "To provide for the calling of the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions." The Militia Act of 1792[26] clarified whom the militia consists of:
> 
> Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, *That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia,* by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act."
> 
> Militia (United States) - Wikipedia
> 
> NO females, NO males under the age of 18, NO males over the age of 45, with some exceptions.
> 
> Same link.
> 
> as of 1903: "
> Today, as defined by the Militia Act of 1903, the term "militia" is primarily used to describe two groups within the United States:
> 
> 
> *Organized militia* – consisting of State militia forces; notably, the National Guard and Naval Militia.[8] (Note: the National Guard is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States.)
> *Unorganized militia* – composing the Reserve Militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.[9]"
> Close to the same age groups, and still no females, and still no infirm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is both gender and race neutral, from intelligently designed, Inception.
> 
> Any inferences to gender or race are not binding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our federal Constitution is both gender and race neutral, from intelligently designed, Inception.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right....
> 
> Do you also believe women had the right to vote as soon as the Constitution was ratified?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they did; all they needed to do was ask.
> 
> The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
> 
> All Persons born in the US after 1808 are automatically US citizens by natural born birth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> at the time of the signing, women were second rate citizens, could not hold property, could not vote, and definitely could not serve as a member of the Militia.
Click to expand...

did you know our Founding Fathers virtually invented, object orientation?

Here is the socialism our Founding Fathers wanted to ordain and establish with the social-ism of our form of federal Government and social Constitution for our Body Politic:

_We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America._


----------



## danielpalos

Lesh said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Unorganized militia* – composing the Reserve Militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.[9]"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And of course the "unorganized militia" bears no resemblance to the "Well Regulated Militia" described in Article 1 Section 8 that has officers, rolls,training, and discipline.
Click to expand...

And, you omit State militias who have to work with the rest of the citizenry.


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> When it was written:
> 
> "
> *Constitution and Bill of Rights (1787–1789)[edit]*
> The delegates of the Constitutional Convention (the founding fathers/framers of the United States Constitution) under Article 1; section 8, clauses 15 and 16 of the federal constitution, granted Congress the power to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia", as well as, and in distinction to, the power to raise an army and a navy. The US Congress is granted the power to use the militia of the United States for three specific missions, as described in Article 1, section 8, clause 15: "To provide for the calling of the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions." The Militia Act of 1792[26] clarified whom the militia consists of:
> 
> Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, *That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia,* by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act."
> 
> Militia (United States) - Wikipedia
> 
> NO females, NO males under the age of 18, NO males over the age of 45, with some exceptions.
> 
> Same link.
> 
> as of 1903: "
> Today, as defined by the Militia Act of 1903, the term "militia" is primarily used to describe two groups within the United States:
> 
> 
> *Organized militia* – consisting of State militia forces; notably, the National Guard and Naval Militia.[8] (Note: the National Guard is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States.)
> *Unorganized militia* – composing the Reserve Militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.[9]"
> Close to the same age groups, and still no females, and still no infirm.
> 
> 
> 
> Our federal Constitution is both gender and race neutral, from intelligently designed, Inception.
> 
> Any inferences to gender or race are not binding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our federal Constitution is both gender and race neutral, from intelligently designed, Inception.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right....
> 
> Do you also believe women had the right to vote as soon as the Constitution was ratified?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they did; all they needed to do was ask.
> 
> The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
> 
> All Persons born in the US after 1808 are automatically US citizens by natural born birth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> at the time of the signing, women were second rate citizens, could not hold property, could not vote, and definitely could not serve as a member of the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> did you know our Founding Fathers virtually invented, object orientation?
> 
> Here is the socialism our Founding Fathers wanted to ordain and establish with the social-ism of our form of federal Government and social Constitution for our Body Politic:
> 
> _We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America._
Click to expand...



what, in  your weak mind, has that to do with the conversation?

another deflection?


----------



## danielpalos

Lesh said:


> There have been gun laws in this country since the very beginning
> 
> https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4825&context=lcp
> 
> Only recently has the 2A been claimed as support for unrestricted gun laws.


Simple, judicial activism by the right wing; "bunch of illegals".  Special pleading in a vacuum that could virtually power zero point energy, if we could harness it.  

Even the South found out that Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> When will you learn that the People are the Militia.  Only well regulated militia are declared Necessary.
> 
> You confuse natural rights with the security of a free State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> When will you learn that the People are the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm part of the People.
> 
> I'm almost 70 years old, clinically diagnosed as morbidly obese, on oxygen 24/7, carry an air tank that MIGHT last 2 1/2 hours.
> 
> What part of your 'militia' do I belong in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are part of the unorganized militia if you don't personally know and get along well with your heavy weapons section.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are part of the unorganized militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't belong to the unorganized militia.
> 
> I can't pass the physical, and I'm too old.
> 
> *"Unorganized militia* – composing the Reserve Militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.[9]"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everybody can be part of the militia under the common law for the common defense.
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everybody can be part of the militia under the common law for the common defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO THEY CAN'T
> 
> as I've just shown you.
Click to expand...

The statutory militia is not *the* militia.  It is merely statutory for conflict of law purposes.


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Unorganized militia* – composing the Reserve Militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.[9]"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And of course the "unorganized militia" bears no resemblance to the "Well Regulated Militia" described in Article 1 Section 8 that has officers, rolls,training, and discipline.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And, you omit State militias who have to work with the rest of the citizenry.
Click to expand...



Do the State Militias have fewer qualifications to belong?

Do they accept  people under the age of17?

over the age of 45?

Less than able-bodied?


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our federal Constitution is both gender and race neutral, from intelligently designed, Inception.
> 
> Any inferences to gender or race are not binding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our federal Constitution is both gender and race neutral, from intelligently designed, Inception.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right....
> 
> Do you also believe women had the right to vote as soon as the Constitution was ratified?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they did; all they needed to do was ask.
> 
> The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
> 
> All Persons born in the US after 1808 are automatically US citizens by natural born birth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> at the time of the signing, women were second rate citizens, could not hold property, could not vote, and definitely could not serve as a member of the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> did you know our Founding Fathers virtually invented, object orientation?
> 
> Here is the socialism our Founding Fathers wanted to ordain and establish with the social-ism of our form of federal Government and social Constitution for our Body Politic:
> 
> _We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> what, in  your weak mind, has that to do with the conversation?
> 
> another deflection?
Click to expand...

This is your Constitutional objective: _We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America._


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Unorganized militia* – composing the Reserve Militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.[9]"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And of course the "unorganized militia" bears no resemblance to the "Well Regulated Militia" described in Article 1 Section 8 that has officers, rolls,training, and discipline.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And, you omit State militias who have to work with the rest of the citizenry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do the State Militias have fewer qualifications to belong?
> 
> Do they accept  people under the age of17?
> 
> over the age of 45?
> 
> Less than able-bodied?
Click to expand...

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Lesh said:


> Scalia saw that as being far too restrictive for his political objective so he tossed the entire Militia clause out the window,'
> That's TRUE legislating from the bench


Your post, above, is a lie.

Scala, like every other intellectually honest individual understands there is a difference between "the militia" and "the people", as well as the fact that the right of "the people", not "the militia" or "the people in the militia" is protected by the 2nd.

You choose to be wrong.


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Unorganized militia* – composing the Reserve Militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.[9]"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And of course the "unorganized militia" bears no resemblance to the "Well Regulated Militia" described in Article 1 Section 8 that has officers, rolls,training, and discipline.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And, you omit State militias who have to work with the rest of the citizenry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do the State Militias have fewer qualifications to belong?
> 
> Do they accept  people under the age of17?
> 
> over the age of 45?
> 
> Less than able-bodied?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
Click to expand...


unfit need not apply.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Lesh said:


> Stop trolling please.


Says she who continually lies about virtually everything involved with this topic..


----------



## M14 Shooter

Lesh said:


> Your inane posts almost never address the topic..and often are just flat wrong...and oh yea...they're cryptic nonsense.
> Troll posts


Says she who continually lies about virtually everything related to this topic.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Lesh said:


> And of course the "unorganized militia" bears no resemblance to the "Well Regulated Militia" described in Article 1 Section 8 that has officers, rolls,training, and discipline.


All of which, as you know, is utterly irrelevant to the right to keep and bear arms as protected by the 2nd.


----------



## danielpalos

M14 Shooter said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scalia saw that as being far too restrictive for his political objective so he tossed the entire Militia clause out the window,'
> That's TRUE legislating from the bench
> 
> 
> 
> Your post, above, is a lie.
> 
> Scala, like every other intellectually honest individual understands there is a difference between "the militia" and "the people", as well as the fact that the right of "the people", not "the militia" or "the people in the militia" is protected by the 2nd.
> 
> You choose to be wrong.
Click to expand...

There is no difference.  You merely confuse natural rights with what is necessary to the security of a free State.


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Unorganized militia* – composing the Reserve Militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.[9]"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And of course the "unorganized militia" bears no resemblance to the "Well Regulated Militia" described in Article 1 Section 8 that has officers, rolls,training, and discipline.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And, you omit State militias who have to work with the rest of the citizenry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do the State Militias have fewer qualifications to belong?
> 
> Do they accept  people under the age of17?
> 
> over the age of 45?
> 
> Less than able-bodied?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> unfit need not apply.
Click to expand...

That is for when, "Albert stops smiling". 

The _common_ defense operates under the _common_ law, literally.


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> And of course the "unorganized militia" bears no resemblance to the "Well Regulated Militia" described in Article 1 Section 8 that has officers, rolls,training, and discipline.
> 
> 
> 
> And, you omit State militias who have to work with the rest of the citizenry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do the State Militias have fewer qualifications to belong?
> 
> Do they accept  people under the age of17?
> 
> over the age of 45?
> 
> Less than able-bodied?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> unfit need not apply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is for when, "Albert stops smiling".
> 
> The _common_ defense operates under the _common_ law, literally.
Click to expand...




danielpalos said:


> That is for when, "Albert stops smiling".



Who?  What?



danielpalos said:


> The _common_ defense operates under the _common_ law, literally.



Common defense? Common law?

Why don't you try Common sense?

if someone is unfit, physically, they are a hazard to those around them in confrontations.


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, you omit State militias who have to work with the rest of the citizenry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do the State Militias have fewer qualifications to belong?
> 
> Do they accept  people under the age of17?
> 
> over the age of 45?
> 
> Less than able-bodied?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> unfit need not apply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is for when, "Albert stops smiling".
> 
> The _common_ defense operates under the _common_ law, literally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is for when, "Albert stops smiling".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who?  What?
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The _common_ defense operates under the _common_ law, literally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Common defense? Common law?
> 
> Why don't you try Common sense?
> 
> if someone is unfit, physically, they are a hazard to those around them in confrontations.
Click to expand...

You have to actually understand the concepts and context, not just right wing propaganda and rhetoric. 

This is the common law for the common defense:

_The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do the State Militias have fewer qualifications to belong?
> 
> Do they accept  people under the age of17?
> 
> over the age of 45?
> 
> Less than able-bodied?
> 
> 
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> unfit need not apply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is for when, "Albert stops smiling".
> 
> The _common_ defense operates under the _common_ law, literally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is for when, "Albert stops smiling".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who?  What?
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The _common_ defense operates under the _common_ law, literally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Common defense? Common law?
> 
> Why don't you try Common sense?
> 
> if someone is unfit, physically, they are a hazard to those around them in confrontations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have to actually understand the concepts and context, not just right wing propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> This is the common law for the common defense:
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
Click to expand...


Try common sense.

this guy:






is useless to a militia.


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> unfit need not apply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is for when, "Albert stops smiling".
> 
> The _common_ defense operates under the _common_ law, literally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is for when, "Albert stops smiling".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who?  What?
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The _common_ defense operates under the _common_ law, literally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Common defense? Common law?
> 
> Why don't you try Common sense?
> 
> if someone is unfit, physically, they are a hazard to those around them in confrontations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have to actually understand the concepts and context, not just right wing propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> This is the common law for the common defense:
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try common sense.
> 
> this guy:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is useless to a militia.
Click to expand...

is Surrender an Option for the militia of the United States?


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> unfit need not apply.
> 
> 
> 
> That is for when, "Albert stops smiling".
> 
> The _common_ defense operates under the _common_ law, literally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is for when, "Albert stops smiling".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who?  What?
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The _common_ defense operates under the _common_ law, literally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Common defense? Common law?
> 
> Why don't you try Common sense?
> 
> if someone is unfit, physically, they are a hazard to those around them in confrontations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have to actually understand the concepts and context, not just right wing propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> This is the common law for the common defense:
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try common sense.
> 
> this guy:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is useless to a militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> is Surrender an Option for the militia of the United States?
Click to expand...



Who is talking about surrender?

Is the man in the picture above militia material, or not??


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is for when, "Albert stops smiling".
> 
> The _common_ defense operates under the _common_ law, literally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is for when, "Albert stops smiling".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who?  What?
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The _common_ defense operates under the _common_ law, literally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Common defense? Common law?
> 
> Why don't you try Common sense?
> 
> if someone is unfit, physically, they are a hazard to those around them in confrontations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have to actually understand the concepts and context, not just right wing propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> This is the common law for the common defense:
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try common sense.
> 
> this guy:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is useless to a militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> is Surrender an Option for the militia of the United States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who is talking about surrender?
> 
> Is the man in the picture above militia material, or not??
Click to expand...

is surrender and Option, or not?


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who?  What?
> 
> Common defense? Common law?
> 
> Why don't you try Common sense?
> 
> if someone is unfit, physically, they are a hazard to those around them in confrontations.
> 
> 
> 
> You have to actually understand the concepts and context, not just right wing propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> This is the common law for the common defense:
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try common sense.
> 
> this guy:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is useless to a militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> is Surrender an Option for the militia of the United States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who is talking about surrender?
> 
> Is the man in the picture above militia material, or not??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> is surrender and Option, or not?
Click to expand...



More deflection?

Why can't you answer the question?

Is the man in the wheelchair, who is part of the People you keep referring to, Militia material?

or have you been talking out your ass?


----------



## Lesh

WillHaftawaite said:


> Why can't you answer the question?



Trolls don't answer questions. They just say stupid shit ...over and over


----------



## M14 Shooter

Lesh said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't you answer the question?
> 
> 
> 
> Trolls don't answer questions. They just say stupid shit ...over and over
Click to expand...

Says she who continually repeats the same lies about virtually everything related to this topic.


----------



## Thinker101

Lesh said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't you answer the question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trolls don't answer questions. They just say stupid shit ...over and over
Click to expand...


Thank you for that clarification...troll.


----------



## Rigby5

WillHaftawaite said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is classic leftist word parsing:
> 
> militia = the people
> 
> but
> 
> the people =/= militia
> 
> 
> The same does not mean the same.
> 
> 
> It fails logically.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Our Constitution is both gender and race neutral; the People are the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> only a section of the People are the Militia.
> 
> Hopefully, someday you will learn that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.
> The militia is informal and as needed, so could be anyone or everyone.
> Which means that everyone should be considered potential militia.
> If nothing goes wrong, it could be no one is needed to do anything.
> But under invasion, etc., women and children could have become active members of the militia.
> The reason you have to include everyone as the militia is because there were no police back then at all, so everyone had to enforce the law, defend themselves, etc.
> And there were lots of threats, like native, Spanish from the south, pirates, gangs, French from north, etc.
> So when you talk about who needed to be armed for the militia, that would have to be everyone.
> There is no way to know ahead of time who will need those arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When it was written:
> 
> "
> *Constitution and Bill of Rights (1787–1789)[edit]*
> The delegates of the Constitutional Convention (the founding fathers/framers of the United States Constitution) under Article 1; section 8, clauses 15 and 16 of the federal constitution, granted Congress the power to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia", as well as, and in distinction to, the power to raise an army and a navy. The US Congress is granted the power to use the militia of the United States for three specific missions, as described in Article 1, section 8, clause 15: "To provide for the calling of the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions." The Militia Act of 1792[26] clarified whom the militia consists of:
> 
> Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, *That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia,* by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act."
> 
> Militia (United States) - Wikipedia
> 
> NO females, NO males under the age of 18, NO males over the age of 45, with some exceptions.
> 
> Same link.
> 
> as of 1903: "
> Today, as defined by the Militia Act of 1903, the term "militia" is primarily used to describe two groups within the United States:
> 
> 
> *Organized militia* – consisting of State militia forces; notably, the National Guard and Naval Militia.[8] (Note: the National Guard is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States.)
> *Unorganized militia* – composing the Reserve Militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.[9]"
> Close to the same age groups, and still no females, and still no infirm.
Click to expand...



Wrong.
The Constitution had to explicitly mention the Federal Militia in order to be able to call it up, pay for it, etc. But the Federal Militia is not what the 2nd Amendment is referring to.  If you read ever state constitution, (which preceded the federal constitution), you see they refer to being able to call up and pay their own state militias.  And the specific mentioning of adult males is who can be FORCED to join the militias.  That does NOT prohibit females and children from joining voluntarily, as they obviously always have.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is classic leftist word parsing:
> 
> militia = the people
> 
> but
> 
> the people =/= militia
> 
> 
> The same does not mean the same.
> 
> 
> It fails logically.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Our Constitution is both gender and race neutral; the People are the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> only a section of the People are the Militia.
> 
> Hopefully, someday you will learn that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When will you learn that the People are the Militia.  Only well regulated militia are declared Necessary.
> 
> You confuse natural rights with the security of a free State.
Click to expand...


And the words "well regulated" mean regularly functioning in a timely, efficient, and practiced manner.
It could not mean restricted or controlled because the Bill of Rights is only to limit federal powers.
And even if it did mean controlled, the implication would have to be state or local control, not federal.


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have to actually understand the concepts and context, not just right wing propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> This is the common law for the common defense:
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try common sense.
> 
> this guy:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is useless to a militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> is Surrender an Option for the militia of the United States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who is talking about surrender?
> 
> Is the man in the picture above militia material, or not??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> is surrender and Option, or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> More deflection?
> 
> Why can't you answer the question?
> 
> Is the man in the wheelchair, who is part of the People you keep referring to, Militia material?
> 
> or have you been talking out your ass?
Click to expand...

You simply don't understand the concepts.  

Anyone who knows any history, understands what I mean.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is classic leftist word parsing:
> 
> militia = the people
> 
> but
> 
> the people =/= militia
> 
> 
> The same does not mean the same.
> 
> 
> It fails logically.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Our Constitution is both gender and race neutral; the People are the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> only a section of the People are the Militia.
> 
> Hopefully, someday you will learn that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When will you learn that the People are the Militia.  Only well regulated militia are declared Necessary.
> 
> You confuse natural rights with the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the words "well regulated" mean regularly functioning in a timely, efficient, and practiced manner.
> It could not mean restricted or controlled because the Bill of Rights is only to limit federal powers.
> And even if it did mean controlled, the implication would have to be state or local control, not federal.
Click to expand...

A common misperception by the right wing; wellness of regulation for the militia of the United States must be prescribed by our federal Congress.


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try common sense.
> 
> this guy:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is useless to a militia.
> 
> 
> 
> is Surrender an Option for the militia of the United States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who is talking about surrender?
> 
> Is the man in the picture above militia material, or not??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> is surrender and Option, or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> More deflection?
> 
> Why can't you answer the question?
> 
> Is the man in the wheelchair, who is part of the People you keep referring to, Militia material?
> 
> or have you been talking out your ass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You simply don't understand the concepts.
> 
> Anyone who knows any history, understands what I mean.
Click to expand...



Still deflecting.


it's a yes or no question.


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> is Surrender an Option for the militia of the United States?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is talking about surrender?
> 
> Is the man in the picture above militia material, or not??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> is surrender and Option, or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> More deflection?
> 
> Why can't you answer the question?
> 
> Is the man in the wheelchair, who is part of the People you keep referring to, Militia material?
> 
> or have you been talking out your ass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You simply don't understand the concepts.
> 
> Anyone who knows any history, understands what I mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Still deflecting.
> 
> 
> it's a yes or no question.
Click to expand...

is surrender an option or not.


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is talking about surrender?
> 
> Is the man in the picture above militia material, or not??
> 
> 
> 
> is surrender and Option, or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> More deflection?
> 
> Why can't you answer the question?
> 
> Is the man in the wheelchair, who is part of the People you keep referring to, Militia material?
> 
> or have you been talking out your ass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You simply don't understand the concepts.
> 
> Anyone who knows any history, understands what I mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Still deflecting.
> 
> 
> it's a yes or no question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> is surrender an option or not.
Click to expand...


Deflection seems to be your only option.


bye.


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> is surrender and Option, or not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More deflection?
> 
> Why can't you answer the question?
> 
> Is the man in the wheelchair, who is part of the People you keep referring to, Militia material?
> 
> or have you been talking out your ass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You simply don't understand the concepts.
> 
> Anyone who knows any history, understands what I mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Still deflecting.
> 
> 
> it's a yes or no question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> is surrender an option or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Deflection seems to be your only option.
> 
> 
> bye.
Click to expand...

You are the who is unwilling to answer that tactical question.  Not well regulated enough?


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> More deflection?
> 
> Why can't you answer the question?
> 
> Is the man in the wheelchair, who is part of the People you keep referring to, Militia material?
> 
> or have you been talking out your ass?
> 
> 
> 
> You simply don't understand the concepts.
> 
> Anyone who knows any history, understands what I mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Still deflecting.
> 
> 
> it's a yes or no question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> is surrender an option or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Deflection seems to be your only option.
> 
> 
> bye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the who is unwilling to answer that tactical question.  Not well regulated enough?
Click to expand...




danielpalos said:


> You are the who is unwilling to answer that tactical question



Odd, I asked you a question before you started deflecting.

a simple yes or no question.

and you have yet to answer it.


are you trolling?


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You simply don't understand the concepts.
> 
> Anyone who knows any history, understands what I mean.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still deflecting.
> 
> 
> it's a yes or no question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> is surrender an option or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Deflection seems to be your only option.
> 
> 
> bye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the who is unwilling to answer that tactical question.  Not well regulated enough?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the who is unwilling to answer that tactical question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Odd, I asked you a question before you started deflecting.
> 
> a simple yes or no question.
> 
> and you have yet to answer it.
> 
> 
> are you trolling?
Click to expand...

the senior officer present would need to know that answer, first.


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still deflecting.
> 
> 
> it's a yes or no question.
> 
> 
> 
> is surrender an option or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Deflection seems to be your only option.
> 
> 
> bye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the who is unwilling to answer that tactical question.  Not well regulated enough?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the who is unwilling to answer that tactical question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Odd, I asked you a question before you started deflecting.
> 
> a simple yes or no question.
> 
> and you have yet to answer it.
> 
> 
> are you trolling?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the senior officer present would need to know that answer, first.
Click to expand...



YOU are the senior officer....

do you put him your militia or not?

if so, at what position?


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> is surrender an option or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deflection seems to be your only option.
> 
> 
> bye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the who is unwilling to answer that tactical question.  Not well regulated enough?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the who is unwilling to answer that tactical question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Odd, I asked you a question before you started deflecting.
> 
> a simple yes or no question.
> 
> and you have yet to answer it.
> 
> 
> are you trolling?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the senior officer present would need to know that answer, first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOU are the senior officer....
> 
> do you put him your militia or not?
> 
> if so, at what position?
Click to expand...

we could be practical;

a camouflaged communications position could be useful

  a fortified machine gun position with a limited field fire​
there could be more depending on the situation.


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Deflection seems to be your only option.
> 
> 
> bye.
> 
> 
> 
> You are the who is unwilling to answer that tactical question.  Not well regulated enough?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the who is unwilling to answer that tactical question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Odd, I asked you a question before you started deflecting.
> 
> a simple yes or no question.
> 
> and you have yet to answer it.
> 
> 
> are you trolling?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the senior officer present would need to know that answer, first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOU are the senior officer....
> 
> do you put him your militia or not?
> 
> if so, at what position?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we could be practical;
> 
> a camouflaged communications position could be useful
> 
> a fortified machine gun position with a limited field fire​
> there could be more depending on the situation.
Click to expand...




danielpalos said:


> we could be practical;



That would be a first.



danielpalos said:


> a camouflaged communications position could be useful


How do you get him to it?



danielpalos said:


> a fortified machine gun position with a limited field fire



How do you get him to it?

If he drops dead because his medication wore off, has a heart attack, etc..who do you replace him with?

someone in even worse shape?

a 12-14 year old?

no SANE senior officer would even consider it.

(Which is propbably why you did)

Do us all a favor, find a topic you would make LESS of a fool of your self on, and leave this one alone.


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the who is unwilling to answer that tactical question.  Not well regulated enough?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the who is unwilling to answer that tactical question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Odd, I asked you a question before you started deflecting.
> 
> a simple yes or no question.
> 
> and you have yet to answer it.
> 
> 
> are you trolling?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the senior officer present would need to know that answer, first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOU are the senior officer....
> 
> do you put him your militia or not?
> 
> if so, at what position?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we could be practical;
> 
> a camouflaged communications position could be useful
> 
> a fortified machine gun position with a limited field fire​
> there could be more depending on the situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> we could be practical;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be a first.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> a camouflaged communications position could be useful
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you get him to it?
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> a fortified machine gun position with a limited field fire
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you get him to it?
> 
> If he drops dead because his medication wore off, has a heart attack, etc..who do you replace him with?
> 
> someone in even worse shape?
> 
> a 12-14 year old?
> 
> no SANE senior officer would even consider it.
> 
> (Which is propbably why you did)
> 
> Do us all a favor, find a topic you would make LESS of a fool of your self on, and leave this one alone.
Click to expand...

"runners" would be checking in and reporting situations and asking for further orders on a regular basis, in the first case, 

and he could be the gunner and only need to point and pull the trigger, the rest of the machine gun team could do the rest, in the second case.


----------



## Lesh

Rigby5 said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is classic leftist word parsing:
> 
> militia = the people
> 
> but
> 
> the people =/= militia
> 
> 
> The same does not mean the same.
> 
> 
> It fails logically.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Our Constitution is both gender and race neutral; the People are the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> only a section of the People are the Militia.
> 
> Hopefully, someday you will learn that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.
> The militia is informal and as needed, so could be anyone or everyone.
> Which means that everyone should be considered potential militia.
> If nothing goes wrong, it could be no one is needed to do anything.
> But under invasion, etc., women and children could have become active members of the militia.
> The reason you have to include everyone as the militia is because there were no police back then at all, so everyone had to enforce the law, defend themselves, etc.
> And there were lots of threats, like native, Spanish from the south, pirates, gangs, French from north, etc.
> So when you talk about who needed to be armed for the militia, that would have to be everyone.
> There is no way to know ahead of time who will need those arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When it was written:
> 
> "
> *Constitution and Bill of Rights (1787–1789)[edit]*
> The delegates of the Constitutional Convention (the founding fathers/framers of the United States Constitution) under Article 1; section 8, clauses 15 and 16 of the federal constitution, granted Congress the power to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia", as well as, and in distinction to, the power to raise an army and a navy. The US Congress is granted the power to use the militia of the United States for three specific missions, as described in Article 1, section 8, clause 15: "To provide for the calling of the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions." The Militia Act of 1792[26] clarified whom the militia consists of:
> 
> Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, *That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia,* by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act."
> 
> Militia (United States) - Wikipedia
> 
> NO females, NO males under the age of 18, NO males over the age of 45, with some exceptions.
> 
> Same link.
> 
> as of 1903: "
> Today, as defined by the Militia Act of 1903, the term "militia" is primarily used to describe two groups within the United States:
> 
> 
> *Organized militia* – consisting of State militia forces; notably, the National Guard and Naval Militia.[8] (Note: the National Guard is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States.)
> *Unorganized militia* – composing the Reserve Militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.[9]"
> Close to the same age groups, and still no females, and still no infirm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> The Constitution had to explicitly mention the Federal Militia in order to be able to call it up, pay for it, etc. But the Federal Militia is not what the 2nd Amendment is referring to.  If you read ever state constitution, (which preceded the federal constitution), you see they refer to being able to call up and pay their own state militias.  And the specific mentioning of adult males is who can be FORCED to join the militias.  That does NOT prohibit females and children from joining voluntarily, as they obviously always have.
Click to expand...

That makes no sense at all

The Constitution has two mentions of the militia.

The first is Article 1 Section 8 where it does note calling it up and describes why it should be called up. It also describes that "Well Regulated Militia" as a military body with officers, training, rolls, and discipline.

The other mention is the 2A where it states that because of the need (at that time) of a "Well Regulated Militia" they needed access to firearms


----------



## Lesh

danielpalos said:


> Anyone who knows any history, understands what I mean.



NO ONE...on either side of this debate understands what you mean...and even fewer care


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Odd, I asked you a question before you started deflecting.
> 
> a simple yes or no question.
> 
> and you have yet to answer it.
> 
> 
> are you trolling?
> 
> 
> 
> the senior officer present would need to know that answer, first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOU are the senior officer....
> 
> do you put him your militia or not?
> 
> if so, at what position?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we could be practical;
> 
> a camouflaged communications position could be useful
> 
> a fortified machine gun position with a limited field fire​
> there could be more depending on the situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> we could be practical;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be a first.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> a camouflaged communications position could be useful
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you get him to it?
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> a fortified machine gun position with a limited field fire
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you get him to it?
> 
> If he drops dead because his medication wore off, has a heart attack, etc..who do you replace him with?
> 
> someone in even worse shape?
> 
> a 12-14 year old?
> 
> no SANE senior officer would even consider it.
> 
> (Which is propbably why you did)
> 
> Do us all a favor, find a topic you would make LESS of a fool of your self on, and leave this one alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "runners" would be checking in and reporting situations and asking for further orders on a regular basis, in the first case,
> 
> and he could be the gunner and only need to point and pull the trigger, the rest of the machine gun team could do the rest, in the second case.
Click to expand...



you obviously have NO experience as a senior officer.

nor as a member of any existing military or militia on Earth.


----------



## danielpalos

Lesh said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who knows any history, understands what I mean.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO ONE...on either side of this debate understands what you mean...and even fewer care
Click to expand...

yet, i resort to the fewest fallacies; 

floozies.


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the senior officer present would need to know that answer, first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU are the senior officer....
> 
> do you put him your militia or not?
> 
> if so, at what position?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we could be practical;
> 
> a camouflaged communications position could be useful
> 
> a fortified machine gun position with a limited field fire​
> there could be more depending on the situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> we could be practical;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be a first.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> a camouflaged communications position could be useful
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you get him to it?
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> a fortified machine gun position with a limited field fire
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you get him to it?
> 
> If he drops dead because his medication wore off, has a heart attack, etc..who do you replace him with?
> 
> someone in even worse shape?
> 
> a 12-14 year old?
> 
> no SANE senior officer would even consider it.
> 
> (Which is propbably why you did)
> 
> Do us all a favor, find a topic you would make LESS of a fool of your self on, and leave this one alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "runners" would be checking in and reporting situations and asking for further orders on a regular basis, in the first case,
> 
> and he could be the gunner and only need to point and pull the trigger, the rest of the machine gun team could do the rest, in the second case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you obviously have NO experience as a senior officer.
> 
> nor as a member of any existing military or militia on Earth.
Click to expand...

you say that, but offer no superior solution.


----------



## M14 Shooter

WillHaftawaite said:


> you obviously have NO experience as a senior officer.
> nor as a member of any existing military or militia on Earth.


It should be noted that not even in the final days of Nazi Germany did they press into service men such as the one you pictured.
Butt then, you're talking to a troll, so...


----------



## Hugo Furst

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOU are the senior officer....
> 
> do you put him your militia or not?
> 
> if so, at what position?
> 
> 
> 
> we could be practical;
> 
> a camouflaged communications position could be useful
> 
> a fortified machine gun position with a limited field fire​
> there could be more depending on the situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> we could be practical;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be a first.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> a camouflaged communications position could be useful
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you get him to it?
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> a fortified machine gun position with a limited field fire
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you get him to it?
> 
> If he drops dead because his medication wore off, has a heart attack, etc..who do you replace him with?
> 
> someone in even worse shape?
> 
> a 12-14 year old?
> 
> no SANE senior officer would even consider it.
> 
> (Which is propbably why you did)
> 
> Do us all a favor, find a topic you would make LESS of a fool of your self on, and leave this one alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "runners" would be checking in and reporting situations and asking for further orders on a regular basis, in the first case,
> 
> and he could be the gunner and only need to point and pull the trigger, the rest of the machine gun team could do the rest, in the second case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you obviously have NO experience as a senior officer.
> 
> nor as a member of any existing military or militia on Earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you say that, but offer no superior solution.
Click to expand...


superior solution?

Don't, as they used to say, hire the halt and the lame.

There was a reason they created the age and physical guidelines in 1783, and 1903.

They wanted able bodied men in their prime defending the country.


----------



## danielpalos

M14 Shooter said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> you obviously have NO experience as a senior officer.
> nor as a member of any existing military or militia on Earth.
> 
> 
> 
> It should be noted that not even in the final days of Nazi Germany did they press into service men such as the one you pictured.
> Butt then, you're talking to a troll, so...
Click to expand...

We have no excuse for not having an army group in reserve.  

besides, volunteers could provide better coverage, if it is really really serious.


----------



## danielpalos

WillHaftawaite said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> we could be practical;
> 
> a camouflaged communications position could be useful
> 
> a fortified machine gun position with a limited field fire​
> there could be more depending on the situation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> we could be practical;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be a first.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> a camouflaged communications position could be useful
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you get him to it?
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> a fortified machine gun position with a limited field fire
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you get him to it?
> 
> If he drops dead because his medication wore off, has a heart attack, etc..who do you replace him with?
> 
> someone in even worse shape?
> 
> a 12-14 year old?
> 
> no SANE senior officer would even consider it.
> 
> (Which is propbably why you did)
> 
> Do us all a favor, find a topic you would make LESS of a fool of your self on, and leave this one alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "runners" would be checking in and reporting situations and asking for further orders on a regular basis, in the first case,
> 
> and he could be the gunner and only need to point and pull the trigger, the rest of the machine gun team could do the rest, in the second case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you obviously have NO experience as a senior officer.
> 
> nor as a member of any existing military or militia on Earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you say that, but offer no superior solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> superior solution?
> 
> Don't, as they used to say, hire the halt and the lame.
> 
> There was a reason they created the age and physical guidelines in 1783, and 1903.
> 
> They wanted able bodied men in their prime defending the country.
Click to expand...

What if you don't have a choice; leadership is the last thing that should go.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try common sense.
> 
> this guy:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is useless to a militia.
> 
> 
> 
> is Surrender an Option for the militia of the United States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who is talking about surrender?
> 
> Is the man in the picture above militia material, or not??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> is surrender and Option, or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> More deflection?
> 
> Why can't you answer the question?
> 
> Is the man in the wheelchair, who is part of the People you keep referring to, Militia material?
> 
> or have you been talking out your ass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You simply don't understand the concepts.
> 
> Anyone who knows any history, understands what I mean.
Click to expand...


Oh, we understand okay. You mean something completely different from the words you use.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> is Surrender an Option for the militia of the United States?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is talking about surrender?
> 
> Is the man in the picture above militia material, or not??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> is surrender and Option, or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> More deflection?
> 
> Why can't you answer the question?
> 
> Is the man in the wheelchair, who is part of the People you keep referring to, Militia material?
> 
> or have you been talking out your ass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You simply don't understand the concepts.
> 
> Anyone who knows any history, understands what I mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, we understand okay. You mean something completely different from the words you use.
Click to expand...

lol.  no, you don't.  you only know right wing propaganda and rhetoric, not any actual understanding of the issues.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is talking about surrender?
> 
> Is the man in the picture above militia material, or not??
> 
> 
> 
> is surrender and Option, or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> More deflection?
> 
> Why can't you answer the question?
> 
> Is the man in the wheelchair, who is part of the People you keep referring to, Militia material?
> 
> or have you been talking out your ass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You simply don't understand the concepts.
> 
> Anyone who knows any history, understands what I mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, we understand okay. You mean something completely different from the words you use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  no, you don't.  you only know right wing propaganda and rhetoric, not any actual understanding of the issues.
Click to expand...


And you don't understand the words you use.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> is surrender and Option, or not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More deflection?
> 
> Why can't you answer the question?
> 
> Is the man in the wheelchair, who is part of the People you keep referring to, Militia material?
> 
> or have you been talking out your ass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You simply don't understand the concepts.
> 
> Anyone who knows any history, understands what I mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, we understand okay. You mean something completely different from the words you use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  no, you don't.  you only know right wing propaganda and rhetoric, not any actual understanding of the issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you don't understand the words you use.
Click to expand...

i gainsay your contention; want to argue about it?


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> More deflection?
> 
> Why can't you answer the question?
> 
> Is the man in the wheelchair, who is part of the People you keep referring to, Militia material?
> 
> or have you been talking out your ass?
> 
> 
> 
> You simply don't understand the concepts.
> 
> Anyone who knows any history, understands what I mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, we understand okay. You mean something completely different from the words you use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  no, you don't.  you only know right wing propaganda and rhetoric, not any actual understanding of the issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you don't understand the words you use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i gainsay your contention; want to argue about it?
Click to expand...


Sure, go ahead. And when you realize you're arguing with yourself and stop, let me know.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You simply don't understand the concepts.
> 
> Anyone who knows any history, understands what I mean.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, we understand okay. You mean something completely different from the words you use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  no, you don't.  you only know right wing propaganda and rhetoric, not any actual understanding of the issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you don't understand the words you use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i gainsay your contention; want to argue about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, go ahead. And when you realize you're arguing with yourself and stop, let me know.
Click to expand...

echelon order; the right wing has already, given up.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, we understand okay. You mean something completely different from the words you use.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  no, you don't.  you only know right wing propaganda and rhetoric, not any actual understanding of the issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you don't understand the words you use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i gainsay your contention; want to argue about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, go ahead. And when you realize you're arguing with yourself and stop, let me know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> echelon order; the right wing has already, given up.
Click to expand...


Good start. How's it going so far?


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try common sense.
> 
> this guy:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is useless to a militia.
> 
> 
> 
> is Surrender an Option for the militia of the United States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who is talking about surrender?
> 
> Is the man in the picture above militia material, or not??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> is surrender and Option, or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> More deflection?
> 
> Why can't you answer the question?
> 
> Is the man in the wheelchair, who is part of the People you keep referring to, Militia material?
> 
> or have you been talking out your ass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You simply don't understand the concepts.
> 
> Anyone who knows any history, understands what I mean.
Click to expand...



Actually, the old guy in the wheel chair is exactly who needs to be a member of the armed militia.
Clearly he could not defend himself or his home unarmed.
And he has the right to defend himself and his home.
And that is the primary goal of the militia, defense of individual rights.
Defense of municipality, state, or country, come later and are not the primary mission of the armed militia.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is classic leftist word parsing:
> 
> militia = the people
> 
> but
> 
> the people =/= militia
> 
> 
> The same does not mean the same.
> 
> 
> It fails logically.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Our Constitution is both gender and race neutral; the People are the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> only a section of the People are the Militia.
> 
> Hopefully, someday you will learn that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When will you learn that the People are the Militia.  Only well regulated militia are declared Necessary.
> 
> You confuse natural rights with the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the words "well regulated" mean regularly functioning in a timely, efficient, and practiced manner.
> It could not mean restricted or controlled because the Bill of Rights is only to limit federal powers.
> And even if it did mean controlled, the implication would have to be state or local control, not federal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A common misperception by the right wing; wellness of regulation for the militia of the United States must be prescribed by our federal Congress.
Click to expand...


Wrong.
Clearly the whole point of the 2nd amendment is to bar all federal jurisdiction over weapons.
The intent had to be for all weapons jurisdiction to clearly be given only to state and local governments.
Congress gets no say at all.

As to the word "regulated", look at other places it is used in the Constitution.
For example, the federal government is authorized to regulate interstate commerce.
Did that ever mean to restrict?
Of course not.
It always meant to prevent restriction by any individual state.
It meant to facilitate the functionality of interstate commerce.

{... 
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:[3]

[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
...}

It is clear that individual rights are the only source of authority in a democratic republic, so things like interstate commerce can not be legally impeded by government for no reason.  Any regulation has to be only to facilitate.  While that is less clear with weapons because weapons can also obviously cause harm, the use of the same word, "regulate", is instructive.


----------



## Deplorable Yankee

"""But to ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless."""

From Jeff Snyder at the Washington Times, 1994


----------



## Rigby5

Deplorable Yankee said:


> """But to ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless."""
> 
> From Jeff Snyder at the Washington Times, 1994



Banning guns to stop criminals from using them for crimes, is like trying to reduce rape by making honest people celibate.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  no, you don't.  you only know right wing propaganda and rhetoric, not any actual understanding of the issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you don't understand the words you use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i gainsay your contention; want to argue about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, go ahead. And when you realize you're arguing with yourself and stop, let me know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> echelon order; the right wing has already, given up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good start. How's it going so far?
Click to expand...

great; a lot fewer fallacies to deal with.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> is Surrender an Option for the militia of the United States?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is talking about surrender?
> 
> Is the man in the picture above militia material, or not??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> is surrender and Option, or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> More deflection?
> 
> Why can't you answer the question?
> 
> Is the man in the wheelchair, who is part of the People you keep referring to, Militia material?
> 
> or have you been talking out your ass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You simply don't understand the concepts.
> 
> Anyone who knows any history, understands what I mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the old guy in the wheel chair is exactly who needs to be a member of the armed militia.
> Clearly he could not defend himself or his home unarmed.
> And he has the right to defend himself and his home.
> And that is the primary goal of the militia, defense of individual rights.
> Defense of municipality, state, or country, come later and are not the primary mission of the armed militia.
Click to expand...

The security of a free State, is the primary mission of the militia.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Constitution is both gender and race neutral; the People are the Militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> only a section of the People are the Militia.
> 
> Hopefully, someday you will learn that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When will you learn that the People are the Militia.  Only well regulated militia are declared Necessary.
> 
> You confuse natural rights with the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the words "well regulated" mean regularly functioning in a timely, efficient, and practiced manner.
> It could not mean restricted or controlled because the Bill of Rights is only to limit federal powers.
> And even if it did mean controlled, the implication would have to be state or local control, not federal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A common misperception by the right wing; wellness of regulation for the militia of the United States must be prescribed by our federal Congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> Clearly the whole point of the 2nd amendment is to bar all federal jurisdiction over weapons.
> The intent had to be for all weapons jurisdiction to clearly be given only to state and local governments.
> Congress gets no say at all.
> 
> As to the word "regulated", look at other places it is used in the Constitution.
> For example, the federal government is authorized to regulate interstate commerce.
> Did that ever mean to restrict?
> Of course not.
> It always meant to prevent restriction by any individual state.
> It meant to facilitate the functionality of interstate commerce.
> 
> {...
> Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:[3]
> 
> [The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
> ...}
> 
> It is clear that individual rights are the only source of authority in a democratic republic, so things like interstate commerce can not be legally impeded by government for no reason.  Any regulation has to be only to facilitate.  While that is less clear with weapons because weapons can also obviously cause harm, the use of the same word, "regulate", is instructive.
Click to expand...

Our federal Congress must _prescribe_ wellness of regulation for the militia of the United States.


----------



## Lesh

Rigby5 said:


> Clearly the whole point of the 2nd amendment is to bar all federal jurisdiction over weapons.



Nope...it's clearly to make sure that weapons are available to a "Well Regulated Militia...and we know that because it says so.

We no longer HAVE a "Well Regulated Militia" however


----------



## M14 Shooter

Lesh said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly the whole point of the 2nd amendment is to bar all federal jurisdiction over weapons.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope...it's clearly to make sure that weapons are available to a "Well Regulated Militia...and we know that because it says so.
Click to expand...

This is a lie.
You are fully aware of the fact the 2nd protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms in its entirety, not the right of the militia or the right of the the people in the militia to have a weapon for service in the militia.
Why do you lie about this?


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you don't understand the words you use.
> 
> 
> 
> i gainsay your contention; want to argue about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, go ahead. And when you realize you're arguing with yourself and stop, let me know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> echelon order; the right wing has already, given up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good start. How's it going so far?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> great; a lot fewer fallacies to deal with.
Click to expand...


That's because you until now have agreed with yourself. The problem is, you'll eventually run into a disagreement when the part of you that sees the outside world escapes your self imposed captivity and argues with the rest of you that ignores reality.


----------



## danielpalos

Lesh said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly the whole point of the 2nd amendment is to bar all federal jurisdiction over weapons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope...it's clearly to make sure that weapons are available to a "Well Regulated Militia...and we know that because it says so.
> 
> We no longer HAVE a "Well Regulated Militia" however
Click to expand...

why do you say that?


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> i gainsay your contention; want to argue about it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, go ahead. And when you realize you're arguing with yourself and stop, let me know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> echelon order; the right wing has already, given up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good start. How's it going so far?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> great; a lot fewer fallacies to deal with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because you until now have agreed with yourself. The problem is, you'll eventually run into a disagreement when the part of you that sees the outside world escapes your self imposed captivity and argues with the rest of you that ignores reality.
Click to expand...

in right wing fantasy You can Always be Right. 

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States. 



> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.


----------



## Lakhota

*Court Rules Gun Manufacturer Can Be Sued Over Newtown Shooting*

Good news.  What do you think?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Lakhota said:


> *Court Rules Gun Manufacturer Can Be Sued Over Newtown Shooting*
> Good news.  What do you think?


Makes as much sense as suing FoMoCo, had those people been killed by a drunk driver in a stolen Mustang.
It also violates federal law.


----------



## STAR*SN1PE

Lakhota said:


> *Court Rules Gun Manufacturer Can Be Sued Over Newtown Shooting*
> 
> Good news.  What do you think?


Jesus Christ are we really dropping the bar for common sense in this country this much. It’s terrible children got killed but come on. You hear more about Remington than you hear about Adam Lanza.  I’m sorry but bad things happen to good people. He was a sick kid, that’s the end of it.


----------



## M14 Shooter

STAR*SN1PE said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Court Rules Gun Manufacturer Can Be Sued Over Newtown Shooting*
> 
> Good news.  What do you think?
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus Christ are we really dropping the bar for common sense in this country this much. It’s terrible children got killed but come on. You hear more about Remington than you hear about Adam Lanza.  I’m sorry but bad things happen to good people. He was a sick kid, that’s the end of it.
Click to expand...

They don't care about the kids, they care about making it as hard as possible for the law abiding to exercise their rights to keep and bear arms.
If a few kids have to die as a means to that end, well, that's OK


----------



## Wry Catcher

ScienceRocks said:


> The second amendment was put into the consitution to fight fascist like you bastards. Our founders knew what big government dictators were all about.
> 
> Hell no it isn't out dated or obsolete.



How do you feel today, now that Trump is POTUS and mass murders with firearms are common occurrences.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The second amendment was put into the consitution to fight fascist like you bastards. Our founders knew what big government dictators were all about.
> Hell no it isn't out dated or obsolete.
> 
> 
> 
> How do you feel today, now that Trump is POTUS and mass murders with firearms are common occurrences[?]
Click to expand...

Well lets see...
The latter half of your question is mindless hyperbole, and has nothing to do with the first half of your question - or, by extension, the 2nd Amendment.
So....    Pretty good, thanks - far better than I'd feel if Hillary were President.


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> STAR*SN1PE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Court Rules Gun Manufacturer Can Be Sued Over Newtown Shooting*
> 
> Good news.  What do you think?
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus Christ are we really dropping the bar for common sense in this country this much. It’s terrible children got killed but come on. You hear more about Remington than you hear about Adam Lanza.  I’m sorry but bad things happen to good people. He was a sick kid, that’s the end of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They don't care about the kids, they care about making it as hard as possible for the law abiding to exercise their rights to keep and bear arms.
> If a few kids have to die as a means to that end, well, that's OK
Click to expand...


Statement (of a callous asshole):  "If a few kids have to die as a means to that end, well, that's OK"

Response:  There are no gun lovers of the 2nd A*. whose child has been shot to death on his or her school campus.

*As interpreted by the NRA and callous sociopaths such as M14Shooter.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> STAR*SN1PE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Court Rules Gun Manufacturer Can Be Sued Over Newtown Shooting*
> 
> Good news.  What do you think?
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus Christ are we really dropping the bar for common sense in this country this much. It’s terrible children got killed but come on. You hear more about Remington than you hear about Adam Lanza.  I’m sorry but bad things happen to good people. He was a sick kid, that’s the end of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They don't care about the kids, they care about making it as hard as possible for the law abiding to exercise their rights to keep and bear arms.
> If a few kids have to die as a means to that end, well, that's OK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Statement (of a callous asshole):  "If a few kids have to die as a means to that end, well, that's OK"
Click to expand...

I'm sorry you don't like the fact the anti-gun loons - such as yourself - use dead kids as a means to push their mindless agenda, but there's not a lot I can do about it.


----------



## Blues Man

Lakhota said:


> *Court Rules Gun Manufacturer Can Be Sued Over Newtown Shooting*
> 
> Good news.  What do you think?


It will be overturned and eventually end up in the Supreme Court where it will be deemed unconstitutional


----------



## Blues Man

Wry Catcher said:


> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The second amendment was put into the consitution to fight fascist like you bastards. Our founders knew what big government dictators were all about.
> 
> Hell no it isn't out dated or obsolete.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you feel today, now that Trump is POTUS and mass murders with firearms are common occurrences.
Click to expand...


Since only about 1% of all murder occur in mass shootings I wouldn't say it's common


----------



## M14 Shooter

Blues Man said:


> Since only about 1% of all murder occur in mass shootings I wouldn't say it's common


Murders in mass shootings make up about 0.15% of all murders in the US, and fell 35% from 2017 to 2018.


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since only about 1% of all murder occur in mass shootings I wouldn't say it's common
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murders in mass shootings make up about 0.15% of all murders in the US, and fell 35% from 2017 to 2018.
Click to expand...


A parent - and I suppose (and hope) you are not one - doesn't take statistics well, when one of their issues has been slaughtered by someone with a gun, while seated in a school classroom.

I put the life of an innocent well above you being inconvenienced.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since only about 1% of all murder occur in mass shootings I wouldn't say it's common
> 
> 
> 
> Murders in mass shootings make up about 0.15% of all murders in the US, and fell 35% from 2017 to 2018.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A parent - and I suppose (and hope) you are not one - doesn't take statistics well, when one of their issues has been slaughtered by someone with a gun, while seated in a school classroom.
Click to expand...

That a nice _argumentum ad passiones_ fallacy you have there - I even like the color!
Rational, reasoned people are not swayed by such fallacies -- why are you?

I'm sorry you don't like the fact so few people are killed in mass shootings -- I know you'd love to stand on the bodies of innocent victims and bathe yourself in their blood as you scream for more gun control; it must really piss you off that reality just won't cooperate.


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since only about 1% of all murder occur in mass shootings I wouldn't say it's common
> 
> 
> 
> Murders in mass shootings make up about 0.15% of all murders in the US, and fell 35% from 2017 to 2018.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A parent - and I suppose (and hope) you are not one - doesn't take statistics well, when one of their issues has been slaughtered by someone with a gun, while seated in a school classroom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That a nice _argumentum ad passiones_ fallacy you have there - I even like the color!
> Rational, reasoned people are not swayed by such fallacies -- why are you?
> 
> I'm sorry you don't like the fact so few people are killed in mass shootings -- I know you'd love to stand on the bodies of innocent victims and bathe yourself in their blood as you scream for more gun control; it must really piss you off that reality just won't cooperate.
Click to expand...


Reality is when a parent outlives his child, especially when the parent is mocked for their grief, and cries out for gun controls.

It's not always mass murder which snuff outs a child's life by gun violence, accidents and suicides contribute to that grief.  It's pricks like you who are the real cry babies, whining about the possibility they might be inconvenienced just because someone is killed by gun.

BTW, nowhere in the 2nd A. are guns mentioned.  Why do you believe guns get special treatment?

Think of all the arms of war regulated, licensed or prohibited.  

Doesn't the 2nd A. deny you the ownership or possession of a Surface to Air Missile, a Fragmentation Grenade, and/or a 50 Cal fully automatic machine gun?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since only about 1% of all murder occur in mass shootings I wouldn't say it's common
> 
> 
> 
> Murders in mass shootings make up about 0.15% of all murders in the US, and fell 35% from 2017 to 2018.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A parent - and I suppose (and hope) you are not one - doesn't take statistics well, when one of their issues has been slaughtered by someone with a gun, while seated in a school classroom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That a nice _argumentum ad passiones_ fallacy you have there - I even like the color!
> Rational, reasoned people are not swayed by such fallacies -- why are you?
> 
> I'm sorry you don't like the fact so few people are killed in mass shootings -- I know you'd love to stand on the bodies of innocent victims and bathe yourself in their blood as you scream for more gun control; it must really piss you off that reality just won't cooperate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reality is when a parent outlives his child, especially when the parent is mocked for their grief, and cries out for gun controls.
Click to expand...

You didn't answer my question:
Rational, reasoned people are not swayed by such fallacies -- why are you?
Well?


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since only about 1% of all murder occur in mass shootings I wouldn't say it's common
> 
> 
> 
> Murders in mass shootings make up about 0.15% of all murders in the US, and fell 35% from 2017 to 2018.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A parent - and I suppose (and hope) you are not one - doesn't take statistics well, when one of their issues has been slaughtered by someone with a gun, while seated in a school classroom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That a nice _argumentum ad passiones_ fallacy you have there - I even like the color!
> Rational, reasoned people are not swayed by such fallacies -- why are you?
> 
> I'm sorry you don't like the fact so few people are killed in mass shootings -- I know you'd love to stand on the bodies of innocent victims and bathe yourself in their blood as you scream for more gun control; it must really piss you off that reality just won't cooperate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reality is when a parent outlives his child, especially when the parent is mocked for their grief, and cries out for gun controls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't answer my question:
> Rational, reasoned people are not swayed by such fallacies -- why are you?
> Well?
Click to expand...


I have empathy for others, you are a callous conservative (read into that a jerk).


----------



## Blues Man

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since only about 1% of all murder occur in mass shootings I wouldn't say it's common
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murders in mass shootings make up about 0.15% of all murders in the US, and fell 35% from 2017 to 2018.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A parent - and I suppose (and hope) you are not one - doesn't take statistics well, when one of their issues has been slaughtered by someone with a gun, while seated in a school classroom.
> 
> I put the life of an innocent well above you being inconvenienced.
Click to expand...


Which is why we need to keep emotion out of law making

And how am I endangering the life of an innocent simply because I own firearms?


----------



## Blues Man

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since only about 1% of all murder occur in mass shootings I wouldn't say it's common
> 
> 
> 
> Murders in mass shootings make up about 0.15% of all murders in the US, and fell 35% from 2017 to 2018.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A parent - and I suppose (and hope) you are not one - doesn't take statistics well, when one of their issues has been slaughtered by someone with a gun, while seated in a school classroom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That a nice _argumentum ad passiones_ fallacy you have there - I even like the color!
> Rational, reasoned people are not swayed by such fallacies -- why are you?
> 
> I'm sorry you don't like the fact so few people are killed in mass shootings -- I know you'd love to stand on the bodies of innocent victims and bathe yourself in their blood as you scream for more gun control; it must really piss you off that reality just won't cooperate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reality is when a parent outlives his child, especially when the parent is mocked for their grief, and cries out for gun controls.
> 
> It's not always mass murder which snuff outs a child's life by gun violence, accidents and suicides contribute to that grief.  It's pricks like you who are the real cry babies, whining about the possibility they might be inconvenienced just because someone is killed by gun.
> 
> BTW, nowhere in the 2nd A. are guns mentioned.  Why do you believe guns get special treatment?
> 
> Think of all the arms of war regulated, licensed or prohibited.
> 
> Doesn't the 2nd A. deny you the ownership or possession of a Surface to Air Missile, a Fragmentation Grenade, and/or a 50 Cal fully automatic machine gun?
Click to expand...


The reality is

Shit Happens

Kids have been dying before their parents do since people have been having kids so it's part of reality


----------



## Blues Man

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Murders in mass shootings make up about 0.15% of all murders in the US, and fell 35% from 2017 to 2018.
> 
> 
> 
> A parent - and I suppose (and hope) you are not one - doesn't take statistics well, when one of their issues has been slaughtered by someone with a gun, while seated in a school classroom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That a nice _argumentum ad passiones_ fallacy you have there - I even like the color!
> Rational, reasoned people are not swayed by such fallacies -- why are you?
> 
> I'm sorry you don't like the fact so few people are killed in mass shootings -- I know you'd love to stand on the bodies of innocent victims and bathe yourself in their blood as you scream for more gun control; it must really piss you off that reality just won't cooperate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reality is when a parent outlives his child, especially when the parent is mocked for their grief, and cries out for gun controls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't answer my question:
> Rational, reasoned people are not swayed by such fallacies -- why are you?
> Well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have empathy for others, you are a callous conservative (read into that a jerk).
Click to expand...


So are you willing to make alcohol illegal again because drunk drivers kill people and you empathize?


----------



## Daryl Hunt

M14 Shooter said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since only about 1% of all murder occur in mass shootings I wouldn't say it's common
> 
> 
> 
> Murders in mass shootings make up about 0.15% of all murders in the US, and fell 35% from 2017 to 2018.
Click to expand...


It didn't fall because you placed more guns on the streets.  It fell for a lot of other reasons making itt much harder to actually do a mass shooting through gun laws, community involvement, safe areas in schools, drills, etc..  But placing more guns on the streets is part of the problem when you don't have the security in place when something goes haywire.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Blues Man said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> A parent - and I suppose (and hope) you are not one - doesn't take statistics well, when one of their issues has been slaughtered by someone with a gun, while seated in a school classroom.
> 
> 
> 
> That a nice _argumentum ad passiones_ fallacy you have there - I even like the color!
> Rational, reasoned people are not swayed by such fallacies -- why are you?
> 
> I'm sorry you don't like the fact so few people are killed in mass shootings -- I know you'd love to stand on the bodies of innocent victims and bathe yourself in their blood as you scream for more gun control; it must really piss you off that reality just won't cooperate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reality is when a parent outlives his child, especially when the parent is mocked for their grief, and cries out for gun controls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't answer my question:
> Rational, reasoned people are not swayed by such fallacies -- why are you?
> Well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have empathy for others, you are a callous conservative (read into that a jerk).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So are you willing to make alcohol illegal again because drunk drivers kill people and you empathize?
Click to expand...


Those who oppose all forms of gun control need to consider your post above.  Not that it will create a new prohibition against alcohol, but how the Mother's Against Drunk Drivers impacted legislation, increasing penalties / fines and longer periods of detention for drinking and driving.

As a responsible gun owner I have no fear of a comprehensive background investigaton if I decide to buy another firearm, or purchase ammunition.  Or of being vetted if the ownership of a gun one day requires a license.

Why do you, what are you hiding?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Blues Man said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since only about 1% of all murder occur in mass shootings I wouldn't say it's common
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murders in mass shootings make up about 0.15% of all murders in the US, and fell 35% from 2017 to 2018.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A parent - and I suppose (and hope) you are not one - doesn't take statistics well, when one of their issues has been slaughtered by someone with a gun, while seated in a school classroom.
> 
> I put the life of an innocent well above you being inconvenienced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is why we need to keep emotion out of law making
> 
> And how am I endangering the life of an innocent simply because I own firearms?
Click to expand...

Of course not.

But with rights come responsibilities, and those rights are neither unlimited nor absolute.

Measures having nothing to do with the regulation of firearms are perfectly appropriate and warranted – such as UCBs, measures which are consistent with Second Amendment case law.

The people decide what firearm regulatory measures are necessary and proper, the courts determine if they’re Constitutional.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Blues Man said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> A parent - and I suppose (and hope) you are not one - doesn't take statistics well, when one of their issues has been slaughtered by someone with a gun, while seated in a school classroom.
> 
> 
> 
> That a nice _argumentum ad passiones_ fallacy you have there - I even like the color!
> Rational, reasoned people are not swayed by such fallacies -- why are you?
> 
> I'm sorry you don't like the fact so few people are killed in mass shootings -- I know you'd love to stand on the bodies of innocent victims and bathe yourself in their blood as you scream for more gun control; it must really piss you off that reality just won't cooperate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reality is when a parent outlives his child, especially when the parent is mocked for their grief, and cries out for gun controls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't answer my question:
> Rational, reasoned people are not swayed by such fallacies -- why are you?
> Well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have empathy for others, you are a callous conservative (read into that a jerk).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So are you willing to make alcohol illegal again because drunk drivers kill people and you empathize?
Click to expand...

Fail.

False comparison fallacy.

No one is advocating a ‘prohibition’ of firearms.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Blues Man said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Court Rules Gun Manufacturer Can Be Sued Over Newtown Shooting*
> 
> Good news.  What do you think?
> 
> 
> 
> It will be overturned and eventually end up in the Supreme Court where it will be deemed unconstitutional
Click to expand...

Or not.

The issue in this case is advertising considered reckless and irresponsible, not the potential liability of gun manufactures when their products are used to commit a crime.

‘“The regulation of advertising that threatens the public’s health, safety, and morals has long been considered a core exercise of the states’ police powers,” Justice Richard Palmer wrote for the majority.’ _ibid_


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Murders in mass shootings make up about 0.15% of all murders in the US, and fell 35% from 2017 to 2018.
> 
> 
> 
> A parent - and I suppose (and hope) you are not one - doesn't take statistics well, when one of their issues has been slaughtered by someone with a gun, while seated in a school classroom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That a nice _argumentum ad passiones_ fallacy you have there - I even like the color!
> Rational, reasoned people are not swayed by such fallacies -- why are you?
> 
> I'm sorry you don't like the fact so few people are killed in mass shootings -- I know you'd love to stand on the bodies of innocent victims and bathe yourself in their blood as you scream for more gun control; it must really piss you off that reality just won't cooperate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reality is when a parent outlives his child, especially when the parent is mocked for their grief, and cries out for gun controls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't answer my question:
> Rational, reasoned people are not swayed by such fallacies -- why are you?
> Well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have empathy for others, you are a callous conservative (read into that a jerk).
Click to expand...

Ah - as suspected, you are devoid of logic and reason.
Good of you to admit it.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Daryl Hunt said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since only about 1% of all murder occur in mass shootings I wouldn't say it's common
> 
> 
> 
> Murders in mass shootings make up about 0.15% of all murders in the US, and fell 35% from 2017 to 2018.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It didn't fall because you placed more guns on the streets.
Click to expand...

Who claimed it did?
I know -exactly- why it fell; you have no clue.


> It fell for a lot of other reasons making itt much harder to actually do a mass shooting through gun laws...



No gun law ever stopped a mass shooting.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> Those who oppose all forms of gun control...


These people do not exist.


> As a responsible gun owner I have no fear of a comprehensive background investigaton if I decide to buy another firearm, or purchase ammunition.  Or of being vetted if the ownership of a gun one day requires a license.
> Why do you...?


Enough functional brain cells to know that you do not need permission form the government to exercise a right.


----------



## M14 Shooter

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Measures having nothing to do with the regulation of firearms are perfectly appropriate and warranted – such as UCBs,


Whats a UCB?


----------



## M14 Shooter

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> No one is advocating a ‘prohibition’ of firearms.


This is, of course, a lie.


----------



## Lesh

A "prohibition" is the banning of all of those items. What politician is advocating that?

None?

Oh


----------



## danielpalos

Blues Man said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since only about 1% of all murder occur in mass shootings I wouldn't say it's common
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murders in mass shootings make up about 0.15% of all murders in the US, and fell 35% from 2017 to 2018.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A parent - and I suppose (and hope) you are not one - doesn't take statistics well, when one of their issues has been slaughtered by someone with a gun, while seated in a school classroom.
> 
> I put the life of an innocent well above you being inconvenienced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is why we need to keep emotion out of law making
> 
> And how am I endangering the life of an innocent simply because I own firearms?
Click to expand...

accidents may happen.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lesh said:


> A "prohibition" is the banning of all of those items. What politician is advocating that?
> 
> None?
> 
> Oh


Lies.

We're pushing for complete repeal. 

Or you fuckers can leave well-enough alone?

.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Lesh said:


> A "prohibition" is the banning of all of those items. What politician is advocating that?
> None?
> Oh


The claim was that "No one is advocating a ‘prohibition’ of firearms"
Not, "politicians", but "no one" - as in "not one person".
Did you think your clumsy attempt to move the goalpost woudl go unnoticed?

In any event, his statement is a lie, or a statement of abject ignorance.

It’s Time to Ban Guns. Yes, All of Them.
Dear America: it's time to grow up and ban guns
Dear NRA, It's Time to Take Away Everyone's Gun
Ban guns
_et al, ad nauseam.
_
So, either Clayton lied, or he talked out his ass.
And you, like a faithful little puppy, without thinking or even bothering to look, rushed to his defense.
Priceless.


----------



## Blues Man

Wry Catcher said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> That a nice _argumentum ad passiones_ fallacy you have there - I even like the color!
> Rational, reasoned people are not swayed by such fallacies -- why are you?
> 
> I'm sorry you don't like the fact so few people are killed in mass shootings -- I know you'd love to stand on the bodies of innocent victims and bathe yourself in their blood as you scream for more gun control; it must really piss you off that reality just won't cooperate.
> 
> 
> 
> Reality is when a parent outlives his child, especially when the parent is mocked for their grief, and cries out for gun controls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't answer my question:
> Rational, reasoned people are not swayed by such fallacies -- why are you?
> Well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have empathy for others, you are a callous conservative (read into that a jerk).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So are you willing to make alcohol illegal again because drunk drivers kill people and you empathize?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those who oppose all forms of gun control need to consider your post above.  Not that it will create a new prohibition against alcohol, but how the Mother's Against Drunk Drivers impacted legislation, increasing penalties / fines and longer periods of detention for drinking and driving.
> 
> As a responsible gun owner I have no fear of a comprehensive background investigaton if I decide to buy another firearm, or purchase ammunition.  Or of being vetted if the ownership of a gun one day requires a license.
> 
> Why do you, what are you hiding?
Click to expand...


So you finally agree that increasing penalties will work?

And I have never once said I am against all gun laws.

I have no problem with felons not being able to legally own firearms.

The background check system we have is fine with me

What I have a problem with is people saying you can't own a particular firearm because someone else committed murder with a similar firearm.

And I have a real big problem with the "you're not a criminal until you are" bullshit


----------



## Blues Man

danielpalos said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since only about 1% of all murder occur in mass shootings I wouldn't say it's common
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murders in mass shootings make up about 0.15% of all murders in the US, and fell 35% from 2017 to 2018.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A parent - and I suppose (and hope) you are not one - doesn't take statistics well, when one of their issues has been slaughtered by someone with a gun, while seated in a school classroom.
> 
> I put the life of an innocent well above you being inconvenienced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is why we need to keep emotion out of law making
> 
> And how am I endangering the life of an innocent simply because I own firearms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> accidents may happen.
Click to expand...

Accidents do happen and accidents will always happen


----------



## Blues Man

Lesh said:


> A "prohibition" is the banning of all of those items. What politician is advocating that?
> 
> None?
> 
> Oh


So no one is calling for banning certain rifles?


----------



## Blues Man

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Court Rules Gun Manufacturer Can Be Sued Over Newtown Shooting*
> 
> Good news.  What do you think?
> 
> 
> 
> It will be overturned and eventually end up in the Supreme Court where it will be deemed unconstitutional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or not.
> 
> The issue in this case is advertising considered reckless and irresponsible, not the potential liability of gun manufactures when their products are used to commit a crime.
> 
> ‘“The regulation of advertising that threatens the public’s health, safety, and morals has long been considered a core exercise of the states’ police powers,” Justice Richard Palmer wrote for the majority.’ _ibid_
Click to expand...


I have never seen a rifle advertised in any publication meant for children have you?

These people are grasping at straws


----------



## Blues Man

Daryl Hunt said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since only about 1% of all murder occur in mass shootings I wouldn't say it's common
> 
> 
> 
> Murders in mass shootings make up about 0.15% of all murders in the US, and fell 35% from 2017 to 2018.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It didn't fall because you placed more guns on the streets.  It fell for a lot of other reasons making itt much harder to actually do a mass shooting through gun laws, community involvement, safe areas in schools, drills, etc..  But placing more guns on the streets is part of the problem when you don't have the security in place when something goes haywire.
Click to expand...


What's this more guns on the street bullshit?

Legally owned guns are not "on the street" and I don't see anyone here supporting the illegal trafficking and sale of guns


----------



## Lesh

Blues Man said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> A "prohibition" is the banning of all of those items. What politician is advocating that?
> 
> None?
> 
> Oh
> 
> 
> 
> So no one is calling for banning certain rifles?
Click to expand...

The claim was about a"prohibition of firearms" nimrod

No one is advocating that.

As far as "certain forearms" we already HAVE that and have had it for about a century...machine guns and sawed off shotguns


----------



## Blues Man

Lesh said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> A "prohibition" is the banning of all of those items. What politician is advocating that?
> 
> None?
> 
> Oh
> 
> 
> 
> So no one is calling for banning certain rifles?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The claim was about a"prohibition of firearms" nimrod
> 
> No one is advocating that.
> 
> As far as "certain forearms" we already HAVE that and have had it for about a century...machine guns and sawed off shotguns
Click to expand...

There is no ban on machine guns , Shit for Brains


----------



## hunarcy

Wry Catcher said:


> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The second amendment was put into the consitution to fight fascist like you bastards. Our founders knew what big government dictators were all about.
> 
> Hell no it isn't out dated or obsolete.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you feel today, now that Trump is POTUS and mass murders with firearms are common occurrences.
Click to expand...


Same as I felt when Obama was POTUS and mass murders with firearms were common occurrences.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Lesh said:


> The claim was about a"prohibition of firearms" nimrod
> No one is advocating that.


Did you read post 8297? 
Yes?  Then your statement, above, is a lie.
No?  Then your statement, above is made from abject ignorance.
Please - tell us which.


----------



## danielpalos

We have a Second Amendment.  Why do we have security problems in our free States.


----------



## Blues Man

danielpalos said:


> We have a Second Amendment.  Why do we have security problems in our free States.


Because people aren't obligated to protect other people


----------



## danielpalos

Blues Man said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a Second Amendment.  Why do we have security problems in our free States.
> 
> 
> 
> Because people aren't obligated to protect other people
Click to expand...

Why do we have militia?


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Blues Man said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since only about 1% of all murder occur in mass shootings I wouldn't say it's common
> 
> 
> 
> Murders in mass shootings make up about 0.15% of all murders in the US, and fell 35% from 2017 to 2018.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It didn't fall because you placed more guns on the streets.  It fell for a lot of other reasons making itt much harder to actually do a mass shooting through gun laws, community involvement, safe areas in schools, drills, etc..  But placing more guns on the streets is part of the problem when you don't have the security in place when something goes haywire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's this more guns on the street bullshit?
> 
> Legally owned guns are not "on the street" and I don't see anyone here supporting the illegal trafficking and sale of guns
Click to expand...


Legally buying guns out of Denny's Parking Lots in open states and then tranporting them and selling them illegally in a universal background or restricted area to gangs and criminals seems to be supported well in here.  Do you support a gun runner "Legally" purchasing those guns in, say Indiana, and then transporting to the bad parts of Chicago and selling them for a sizable profit to gang members?  Since 2016 when Illinois went to the Universal Background Check, Indiana has become the place to buy gang weapons for Chicago.  Other states are also used that are open but mostly, it's Indiana.  So  keep saying that you don't support illegal gun trafficking when, in reality, you do.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Daryl Hunt said:


> Do you support a gun runner "Legally" purchasing those guns in, say Indiana, and then transporting to the bad parts of Chicago...


This is a federal felony.  Interstate transfers require a FFL at each end and a background check on the buyer.
The "legal" sales you describe do not exist, and thus, your complaint unsound.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

M14 Shooter said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you support a gun runner "Legally" purchasing those guns in, say Indiana, and then transporting to the bad parts of Chicago...
> 
> 
> 
> This is a federal felony.  Interstate transfers require a FFL at each end and a background check on the buyer.
> The "legal" sales you describe do not exist, and thus, your complaint unsound.
Click to expand...


The original purchase is perfectly legal.  The buyer doesn't even have to show any identifying information.  He can even be masked during the transaction.  There is no law for the purchase.  Let's face it, when one person with a U-Haul buys your entire stock you should think they are up to something.  A Gun Dealer would have to report the sale.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Daryl Hunt said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you support a gun runner "Legally" purchasing those guns in, say Indiana, and then transporting to the bad parts of Chicago...
> 
> 
> 
> This is a federal felony.  Interstate transfers require a FFL at each end and a background check on the buyer.
> The "legal" sales you describe do not exist, and thus, your complaint unsound.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The original purchase is perfectly legal.
Click to expand...

So?  The interstate transfer is a felony, and so the sale of the guns in Illinois is, contrary to your claim, illegal.
Why do you think another law that makes it MORE illegal will stop this?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> The security of a free State, is the primary mission of the militia.


...and the primary mission of the 2A is to preserve the right of the people, so that a militia can be effective.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The security of a free State, is the primary mission of the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> ...and the primary mission of the 2A is to preserve the right of the people, so that a militia can be effective.
Click to expand...

Muster the militia until our security problems go away.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Blues Man said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a Second Amendment.  Why do we have security problems in our free States.
> 
> 
> 
> Because people aren't obligated to protect other people
Click to expand...


Seems as if those so adamant in their defense of the 2nd A. want to protect others, it's called the Zimmerman Syndrome; a dream to kill a bad guy and be seen as a hero.


----------



## Wry Catcher

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The security of a free State, is the primary mission of the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> ...and the primary mission of the 2A is to preserve the right of the people, so that a militia can be effective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Muster the militia until our security problems go away.
Click to expand...


Tried and failed at Kent State.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a Second Amendment.  Why do we have security problems in our free States.
> 
> 
> 
> Because people aren't obligated to protect other people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems as if those so adamant in their defense of the 2nd A. want to protect others, it's called the Zimmerman Syndrome; a dream to kill a bad guy and be seen as a hero.
Click to expand...

To _you _- but then  no one has accused you of being rational or reasonable - in fact you have gone out your way to prove just the opposite.


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a Second Amendment.  Why do we have security problems in our free States.
> 
> 
> 
> Because people aren't obligated to protect other people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems as if those so adamant in their defense of the 2nd A. want to protect others, it's called the Zimmerman Syndrome; a dream to kill a bad guy and be seen as a hero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To _you _- but then  no one has accused you of being rational or reasonable - in fact you have gone out your way to prove just the opposite.
Click to expand...


Idiot-gram, ad hominem variety.  

Tell the truth, you go to bed dreaming of using your gun in a movie theater, a grocery store or another public place to shoot and kill a threat to the public.

You aspire to be the hero, and have 15 minutes of fame.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> Idiot-gram, ad hominem variety.


Ok..  remember you said that....


> Tell the truth, you go to bed dreaming of using your gun in a movie theater, a grocery store or another public place to shoot and kill a threat to the public.


Oh, the irony.


----------



## danielpalos

Wry Catcher said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The security of a free State, is the primary mission of the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> ...and the primary mission of the 2A is to preserve the right of the people, so that a militia can be effective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Muster the militia until our security problems go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tried and failed at Kent State.
Click to expand...

A lack of adequate training.  The militia must be able to ensure the security of our free States.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Muster the militia until our security problems go away.


The 2A does not muster the militia.  It protects the right of the people.

Security problems, or not.

.


----------



## Wry Catcher

danielpalos said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The security of a free State, is the primary mission of the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> ...and the primary mission of the 2A is to preserve the right of the people, so that a militia can be effective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Muster the militia until our security problems go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tried and failed at Kent State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A lack of adequate training.  The militia must be able to ensure the security of our free States.
Click to expand...


Do you mean the militia must be as defined in Art. I, Sec. 8 in this manner:

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions"; and,

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress"

In re Kent State:

Seems the governor of Ohio overreached in calling forth the militia, sense the protest by students didn't meet the criteria in the first clause above;

And, the H. or Rep. as well as the Governor of Ohio failed in the training as well as the State Governor.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Wry Catcher said:


> Tell the truth, you go to bed dreaming of using your gun in a movie theater, a grocery store or another public place to shoot and kill a threat to the public.


I don't.

I carry to protect myself and my family ONLY.  I am not responsible for the protection of anyone else UNLESS government fails and we are all trying to repel an invasion.  

.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Muster the militia until our security problems go away.
> 
> 
> 
> The 2A does not muster the militia.  It protects the right of the people.
> 
> Security problems, or not.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

no, it doesn't.  It is about the security of a free State not natural rights.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> In re Kent State:
> Seems the governor of Ohio overreached in calling forth the militia, sense the protest by students didn't meet the criteria in the first clause above;


Unsupportable nonsense.  The governor is not limited by the clause you mentioned when calling up the militia for state service.


> And, the H. or Rep. as well as the Governor of Ohio failed in the training as well as the State Governor.


The federal government trains the national guard as part of its reserve component mission.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> no, it doesn't. It is about the security of a free State not natural rights.


Let's take it a piece at a time.

Does the 2A muster the militia?


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> no, it doesn't. It is about the security of a free State not natural rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Let's take it a piece at a time.
> 
> Does the 2A muster the militia?
Click to expand...

Our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.


So, I assume that means "no, the 2A does not muster the militia" right?


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.
> 
> 
> 
> So, I assume that means "no, the 2A does not muster the militia" right?
Click to expand...

Our Second Amendment, amends this: _To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;_


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Our Second Amendment, amends this: _To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;_


How?

It doesn't change anything about that clause.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment, amends this: _To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;_
> 
> 
> 
> How?
> 
> It doesn't change anything about that clause.
Click to expand...

The People are the Militia.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> The People are the Militia.


That statement is not relevant to my question.

How is art 1 sec 8 amended by the 2A?

.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia.
> 
> 
> 
> That statement is not relevant to my question.
> 
> How is art 1 sec 8 amended by the 2A?
> 
> .
Click to expand...

The legislature has the authority to muster the militia. The People are the Militia.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> The legislature has the authority to muster the militia. The People are the Militia.


That does not explain how the 2A amends Art.1 Sec.8. (and that is wrong, but one thing at a time).

.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The legislature has the authority to muster the militia. The People are the Militia.
> 
> 
> 
> That does not explain how the 2A amends Art.1 Sec.8. (and that is wrong, but one thing at a time).
> 
> .
Click to expand...

that a well regulated militia being Necessary to the security of a free State is one such amendment.


----------



## Lakhota

*New Zealand Prime Minister Promises Tighter Gun Laws : NPR*

Good for New Zealand.


----------



## Lesh

That's what sane people do


----------



## M14 Shooter

Lakhota said:


> *New Zealand Prime Minister Promises Tighter Gun Laws : NPR*
> Good for New Zealand.


Hyper-emotional reactionaries.


----------



## Lakhota

*New Zealand Commits To Gun Regulation Following Mosque Shootings*

Go New Zealand.  Maybe America can learn something from your action.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lakhota said:


> *New Zealand Commits To Gun Regulation Following Mosque Shootings*
> 
> Go New Zealand.  Maybe America can learn something from your action.


Dumbfuck.

How New Zealand's gun laws compare to the States'


----------



## Lakhota

The ban will include military-style assault rifles, high-capacity magazines and tools to modify firearms.

*Prime Minister: New Zealand To Ban Military-Style Semiautomatic Weapons After Massacre*

Great news!  Apparently it takes a woman to get the job done!  May America follow!


----------



## satrebil

Lakhota said:


> May America follow!



Come and take it.


----------



## sakinago

Lakhota said:


> *New Zealand Prime Minister Promises Tighter Gun Laws : NPR*
> 
> Good for New Zealand.


New Zealand had waaaay tighter gun control laws than we do. Why are people acting like New Zealand didn’t have heavy gun control already? That’s rhetorical....it’s becaude gun control doesn’t work for psychopaths. Just like the psychopaths in Paris. You don’t need guns to be a psychopath. You just need a soft target. The Paris shooters had full autos in a country that doesn’t even allow semi autos, and they got a full 40 minute reign of terror before the police could do anything about it. There’s a much deeper problem going on, when are the people who claim to care actually gonna wake up and look it in the eye?


----------



## satrebil

sakinago said:


> when are the people who claim to care actually gonna wake up and look it in the eye?



They won't. It's far easier for leftists to blame inanimate objects rather than their utterly useless policies.


----------



## basquebromance

USA 6 yrs after Sandy Hook •Thoughts & prayers 

 New Zealand 6 days after Christchurch •Ban semi automatic assault weapons •Buyback program •Pay for all funerals •Provide income for harmed •Māori dance •Wear solidarity scarf •AND Thoughts & prayers


----------



## sakinago

Lakhota said:


> The ban will include military-style assault rifles, high-capacity magazines and tools to modify firearms.
> 
> *Prime Minister: New Zealand To Ban Military-Style Semiautomatic Weapons After Massacre*
> 
> Great news!  Apparently it takes a woman to get the job done!  May America follow!


Notice how they don’t clarify what he used and just say semi auto rifle modified... that could literally be anything. We could literally be talking about a pistol with fiber optic sights (glow in the dark basically). What did he actually use?


----------



## satrebil

basquebromance said:


> USA 6 yrs after Sandy Hook •Thoughts & prayers
> 
> New Zealand 6 days after Christchurch •Ban semi automatic assault weapons •Buyback program •Pay for all funerals •Provide income for harmed •Māori dance •Wear solidarity scarf •AND Thoughts & prayers



We have what's called the 2nd Amendment, dingus. 

Feel free to move to NZ and be a subject.


----------



## basquebromance

satrebil said:


> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> 
> USA 6 yrs after Sandy Hook •Thoughts & prayers
> 
> New Zealand 6 days after Christchurch •Ban semi automatic assault weapons •Buyback program •Pay for all funerals •Provide income for harmed •Māori dance •Wear solidarity scarf •AND Thoughts & prayers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have what's called the 2nd Amendment, dingus.
> 
> Feel free to move to NZ and be a subject.
Click to expand...

you have a what who?


----------



## Lakhota

satrebil said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> May America follow!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come and take it.
Click to expand...


Okay.  We're on the way.  It's just a matter of time...


----------



## sakinago

“All gun owners must have a license to carry in New Zealand, but not all firearms have to be registered. Criminal background checks are mandatory, and factor in mental health, addiction, and domestic violence in one's history. Law enforcement has the final say in whether a private citizen can own a firearm, but they cannot issue a firearm if personal protection is the reason for purchase. 

Additionally, New Zealand prohibits open carry, concealed carry, and carrying without a permit. Fully automatic firearm permits may be issued, but certain types of semi-automatic weapons and shotguns are classified as military-style semi-automatic weapons and thus require a particular license in order to obtain.”

This is a gun control advocates wet dream for America. THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT PROTECT YOU FROM VIOLENCE. Stop believing them when they say shit like this. Again, in Paris, gun control capital of the world, 4 dudes Slaughtered 130 ppl within the time it takes a game of thrones episode. The governement can only be reactive to it.


----------



## satrebil

Lakhota said:


> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> May America follow!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come and take it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay.  We're on the way.  It's just a matter of time...
Click to expand...


Fantastic. Make sure you're the first one through the door.


----------



## Lakhota

Apparently we need a woman president to move America forward.


----------



## Chuz Life

Lakhota said:


> Apparently we need a woman president to move America forward.



Well, since gender is fluid now. . .  Trump is going to declare himself a woman.... Just to deny you tards the chance at the first female Prez.


----------



## M14 Shooter

sakinago said:


> New Zealand had waaaay tighter gun control laws than we do. Why are people acting like New Zealand didn’t have heavy gun control already?


When a gun law fails, the anti-gun loons reflexively react by demanding new gun laws.
They don't ask why the existing laws failed, they don't look at what the news laws they want will actually do, they just want new laws.
Further proof that all they want to do is make it as hard as possible for the law abiding to exercise their rights -- and they're more than  happy to use the blood of the innocent to get there.

"Assault weapons" are used to murder about 10 people per year in the US.
Conclusion:   Ban them!!  Ban them!!!


----------



## M14 Shooter

basquebromance said:


> USA 6 yrs after Sandy Hook •Thoughts & prayers
> New Zealand 6 days after Christchurch •Ban semi automatic assault weapons •Buyback program •Pay for all funerals •Provide income for harmed •Māori dance •Wear solidarity scarf •AND Thoughts & prayers


This is because the vast majority of Americans aren't hyper-emotional reactionaries with an agenda.


----------



## sakinago

M14 Shooter said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Zealand had waaaay tighter gun control laws than we do. Why are people acting like New Zealand didn’t have heavy gun control already?
> 
> 
> 
> When a gun law fails, the anti-gun loons reflexively react by demanding new gun laws.
> They don't ask why the existing laws failed, they don't look at what the news laws they want will actually do, they just want new laws.
> Further proof that all they want to do is make it as hard as possible for the law abiding to exercise their rights -- and they're more than  happy to use the blood of the innocent to get there.
> 
> "Assault weapons" are used to murder about 10 people per year in the US.
> Conclusion:   Ban them!!  Ban them!!!
Click to expand...

I’m starting to think with how useless college is becoming...there should be a mandatory 2 years of military service if you want to get a 4 year degree, and get government student loans. Unless you’re in a STEM field you’d actually learn more about the actual world, and how to defend yourself and what guns actually are...which they are just a tool.


----------



## M14 Shooter

sakinago said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Zealand had waaaay tighter gun control laws than we do. Why are people acting like New Zealand didn’t have heavy gun control already?
> 
> 
> 
> When a gun law fails, the anti-gun loons reflexively react by demanding new gun laws.
> They don't ask why the existing laws failed, they don't look at what the news laws they want will actually do, they just want new laws.
> Further proof that all they want to do is make it as hard as possible for the law abiding to exercise their rights -- and they're more than  happy to use the blood of the innocent to get there.
> 
> "Assault weapons" are used to murder about 10 people per year in the US.
> Conclusion:   Ban them!!  Ban them!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m starting to think with how useless college is becoming...there should be a mandatory 2 years of military service if you want to get a 4 year degree, and get government student loans. Unless you’re in a STEM field you’d actually learn more about the actual world, and how to defend yourself and what guns actually are...which they are just a tool.
Click to expand...

2 years of service... as part of the requirement to receive -any- federal benefits.    States can do as they choose as a requirement for their benefits.

4 year institutions have a terrible reputation of teaching what to think, not how to think.   It shows.


----------



## Rustic

Lakhota said:


> Apparently we need a woman president to move America forward.


Lol
Washington redskin,
You lack any and all common sense


----------



## Blues Man

Lakhota said:


> Apparently we need a woman president to move America forward.


Then why did you Dems pick Obama over Hillary?


----------



## EvilCat Breath

To the Democrats the entire Constitution is obsolete.   That's why they will get rid of it as soon as they can.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Tipsycatlover said:


> To the Democrats the entire Constitution is obsolete.   That's why they will get rid of it as soon as they can.


And until then, ignore it when it suits them to do so.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

M14 Shooter said:


> When a gun law fails, the anti-gun loons reflexively react by demanding new gun laws.


Which is why I do not believe these lying asshole who say they just want "common sense" gun control and nobody wants to ban and confiscate.

Liars.   All of them.

This is what we keep getting.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> When a gun law fails, the anti-gun loons reflexively react by demanding new gun laws.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why I do not believe these lying asshole who say they just want "common sense" gun control and nobody wants to ban and confiscate.
> Liars.   All of them.
Click to expand...

All of them.


----------



## Lakhota

Go New Zealand.  No thoughts and prayers - just action.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

satrebil said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> May America follow!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come and take it.
Click to expand...

lol

Conservatives are as childish as they are stupid.


----------



## Dale Smith

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> May America follow!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come and take it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol
> 
> Conservatives are as childish as they are stupid.
Click to expand...



So sayeth a stupid, useful commie idiot. Molon Labe, C Clayton Jones, the purse swinging, limp wrist.  Put your  sissy ass out in front of a "door to  door"  confiscation attempt. My money is on you folding like a cheap chair at the very prospect of having to make a stand, you communist puke.


----------



## Dale Smith

Tipsycatlover said:


> To the Democrats the entire Constitution is obsolete.   That's why they will get rid of it as soon as they can.



There will be a lot of dead leftard corpses stacked up like cord wood if they try.......it's my bet that these pansies don't have the stomach for the fight. I relish the opportunity.......leave free or die fighting for it.


----------



## M14 Shooter

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> May America follow!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come and take it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol
> Conservatives are as childish as they are stupid.
Click to expand...

One of these days you will have something meaningful to add to the conversation.
Today is not that day.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Lakhota said:


> Go New Zealand.  No thoughts and prayers - just action.


... by hyper-emotional reactionaries.
Woo.


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Idiot-gram, ad hominem variety.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok..  remember you said that....
> 
> 
> 
> Tell the truth, you go to bed dreaming of using your gun in a movie theater, a grocery store or another public place to shoot and kill a threat to the public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, the irony.
Click to expand...


You didn't deny it (it, being the Zimmerman Syndrome)


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Idiot-gram, ad hominem variety.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok..  remember you said that....
> 
> 
> 
> Tell the truth, you go to bed dreaming of using your gun in a movie theater, a grocery store or another public place to shoot and kill a threat to the public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, the irony.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't deny it (it, being the Zimmerman Syndrome)
Click to expand...

Which, of course, means nothing.


----------



## regent

Dale Smith said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> To the Democrats the entire Constitution is obsolete.   That's why they will get rid of it as soon as they can.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There will be a lot of dead leftard corpses stacked up like cord wood if they try.......it's my bet that these pansies don't have the stomach for the fight. I relish the opportunity.......leave free or die fighting for it.
Click to expand...

As I have posted before: For a time I was an MP at Fort Ord and we would practice crowd-control at times. Would we have shot civilians if ordered? Absolutely, and it has been done a few times in our history.


----------



## Lakhota

*U.S. ‘Deserves A Leader As Good As’ New Zealand PM: NYT Editorial Board*

I agree!


----------



## M14 Shooter

Lakhota said:


> *U.S. ‘Deserves A Leader As Good As’ New Zealand PM: NYT Editorial Board*
> I agree!


Given your mindless nonsense, I am not surprised.


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Idiot-gram, ad hominem variety.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok..  remember you said that....
> 
> 
> 
> Tell the truth, you go to bed dreaming of using your gun in a movie theater, a grocery store or another public place to shoot and kill a threat to the public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, the irony.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't deny it (it, being the Zimmerman Syndrome)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which, of course, means nothing.
Click to expand...


Oh, the irony.,


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Idiot-gram, ad hominem variety.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok..  remember you said that....
> 
> 
> 
> Tell the truth, you go to bed dreaming of using your gun in a movie theater, a grocery store or another public place to shoot and kill a threat to the public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, the irony.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't deny it (it, being the Zimmerman Syndrome)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which, of course, means nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, the irony.,
Click to expand...

You can describe your inability to understand as irony if you want - if only serves to further illustrate your inability to understand.


----------



## danielpalos

Organize more militia until we have no more security problems in our free States.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

danielpalos said:


> Organize more militia until we have no more security problems in our free States.



When you hire someone to protect your security, who protects your security from the one you hired?  Strongmen throughout history have been plagued with this dilima.


----------



## danielpalos

Daryl Hunt said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Organize more militia until we have no more security problems in our free States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you hire someone to protect your security, who protects your security from the one you hired?  Strongmen throughout history have been plagued with this dilima.
Click to expand...

that doesn't apply to the militia.  the People are the Militia.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

danielpalos said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Organize more militia until we have no more security problems in our free States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you hire someone to protect your security, who protects your security from the one you hired?  Strongmen throughout history have been plagued with this dilima.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that doesn't apply to the militia.  the People are the Militia.
Click to expand...


No, the People are what the Militia draws from.


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

The right to bear arms is the basic human right to self defense


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

Wonder if the Venezuelans regret turning in their guns?


----------



## Daryl Hunt

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> The right to bear arms is the basic human right to self defense



You really need a better speech writer, cupcake.


----------



## danielpalos

Daryl Hunt said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Organize more militia until we have no more security problems in our free States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you hire someone to protect your security, who protects your security from the one you hired?  Strongmen throughout history have been plagued with this dilima.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that doesn't apply to the militia.  the People are the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the People are what the Militia draws from.
Click to expand...

No, the People are the militia; you are either well regulated or unorganized.


----------



## danielpalos

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> The right to bear arms is the basic human right to self defense


Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not self-defense.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Organize more militia until we have no more security problems in our free States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you hear? We don't have security problems in the states any more.
Click to expand...

great, then we no longer need any more gun control.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

danielpalos said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Organize more militia until we have no more security problems in our free States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you hire someone to protect your security, who protects your security from the one you hired?  Strongmen throughout history have been plagued with this dilima.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that doesn't apply to the militia.  the People are the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the People are what the Militia draws from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the People are the militia; you are either well regulated or unorganized.
Click to expand...


Well organized is by the state.  Unorganized is by your fantasy.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

danielpalos said:


> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right to bear arms is the basic human right to self defense
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not self-defense.
Click to expand...


Like the other side, you need a better speech writer.  No one should take away your ability or right to self defense ever.  What the real question is, what are the limits to the methods allowed for self defense.  When does it go from justified to unjustified.


----------



## danielpalos

Daryl Hunt said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Organize more militia until we have no more security problems in our free States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you hire someone to protect your security, who protects your security from the one you hired?  Strongmen throughout history have been plagued with this dilima.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that doesn't apply to the militia.  the People are the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the People are what the Militia draws from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the People are the militia; you are either well regulated or unorganized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well organized is by the state.  Unorganized is by your fantasy.
Click to expand...

why do you say that?  Right wing bigotry, you have no superior argument.


----------



## danielpalos

Daryl Hunt said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right to bear arms is the basic human right to self defense
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not self-defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like the other side, you need a better speech writer.  No one should take away your ability or right to self defense ever.  What the real question is, what are the limits to the methods allowed for self defense.  When does it go from justified to unjustified.
Click to expand...

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not the whole and entire concept of individual rights.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

danielpalos said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right to bear arms is the basic human right to self defense
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not self-defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like the other side, you need a better speech writer.  No one should take away your ability or right to self defense ever.  What the real question is, what are the limits to the methods allowed for self defense.  When does it go from justified to unjustified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not the whole and entire concept of individual rights.
Click to expand...


Are you typing it or do all you have to is cut and paste it?


----------



## anynameyouwish

Lakhota said:


> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
Click to expand...


I support every LAW ABIDING NON FELON CITIZENS right to own pistols, rifles and automatic rifles/pistols

I believe any citizen who wants to purchase these weapons should be at least X years old (X equals ?) 
Should be trained by a licensed government professional (police or military)

I have no problem with any person owning multiple weapons.

In fact, I encourage it!  Especially antique pistols and rifles.  Neat stuff.

Besides sport, hunting and gun collecting I support a person's right to self-defense and to protect their home and family.


----------



## danielpalos

Daryl Hunt said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right to bear arms is the basic human right to self defense
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not self-defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like the other side, you need a better speech writer.  No one should take away your ability or right to self defense ever.  What the real question is, what are the limits to the methods allowed for self defense.  When does it go from justified to unjustified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not the whole and entire concept of individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you typing it or do all you have to is cut and paste it?
Click to expand...

it depends.  this time i typed it all out.


----------



## skookerasbil

840 pages of fAiL....if one is a gun grabber. Talk about an exercise in futility....of all the issues discussed in this forum, this issue is the most hopeless so why even bother debating when winning is so out of reach?

Congress is never going to vote for massive civil unrest. Doy


----------



## danielpalos

skookerasbil said:


> 840 pages of fAiL....if one is a gun grabber. Talk about an exercise in futility....of all the issues discussed in this forum, this issue is the most hopeless so why even bother debating when winning is so out of reach?
> 
> Congress is never going to vote for massive civil unrest. Doy


We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

anynameyouwish said:


> I believe any citizen who wants to purchase these weapons should be at least X years old (X equals ?)
> Should be trained by a licensed government professional (police or military)


I support this. 

I will ALWAYS support efforts to properly train citizens in the safe use of arms.

It should be MANDATORY in high school.

.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.


Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
A:  Repeat.
Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
A:  Repeat.
Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
A:  Repeat.
Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
A:  Repeat.
Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
A:  Repeat.
Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
A:  Repeat.
Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
A:  Repeat.
Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
A:  Repeat.
Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
A:  Repeat.
Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
A:  Repeat.
Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
A:  Repeat.
Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
A:  Repeat.
Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
A:  Repeat.
Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
A:  Repeat.
Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
A:  Repeat.
Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
A:  Repeat.
Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
A:  Repeat.
Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
A:  Repeat.
Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
A:  Repeat.
Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
A:  Repeat.
Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
A:  Repeat.
Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
A:  Repeat.
Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
A:  Repeat.
Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
A:  Repeat.
Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
A:  Repeat.
Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
A:  Repeat.
Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
A:  Repeat.
Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
A:  Repeat.
Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
A:  Repeat.
Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
A:  Repeat.
Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
A:  Repeat.
Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
A:  Repeat.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe any citizen who wants to purchase these weapons should be at least X years old (X equals ?)
> Should be trained by a licensed government professional (police or military)
> 
> 
> 
> I support this.
> 
> I will ALWAYS support efforts to properly train citizens in the safe use of arms.
> 
> It should be MANDATORY in high school.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

muster the militia until we have no security problems.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.
> 
> 
> 
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
Click to expand...

I don't ignore our supreme laws of the land, like the right wing.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Organize more militia until we have no more security problems in our free States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you hear? We don't have security problems in the states any more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> great, then we no longer need any more gun control.
Click to expand...


That's right. Now we can go back to the original purpose of the 2nd, which is to ensure that Congress will not infringe on the right of the people to have guns.


----------



## hadit

Daryl Hunt said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right to bear arms is the basic human right to self defense
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not self-defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like the other side, you need a better speech writer.  No one should take away your ability or right to self defense ever.  What the real question is, what are the limits to the methods allowed for self defense.  When does it go from justified to unjustified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not the whole and entire concept of individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you typing it or do all you have to is cut and paste it?
Click to expand...


I'm going with cut and paste. It's the exact same thing every time.


----------



## hadit

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe any citizen who wants to purchase these weapons should be at least X years old (X equals ?)
> Should be trained by a licensed government professional (police or military)
> 
> 
> 
> I support this.
> 
> I will ALWAYS support efforts to properly train citizens in the safe use of arms.
> 
> It should be MANDATORY in high school.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Every student should at least learn how to render a gun harmless. It could save lives.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.
> 
> 
> 
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't ignore our supreme laws of the land, like the right wing.
Click to expand...


You do, however, consistently ignore truth, logic and reason.


----------



## anynameyouwish

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe any citizen who wants to purchase these weapons should be at least X years old (X equals ?)
> Should be trained by a licensed government professional (police or military)
> 
> 
> 
> I support this.
> 
> I will ALWAYS support efforts to properly train citizens in the safe use of arms.
> 
> It should be MANDATORY in high school.
> 
> .
Click to expand...



Not sure about MANDATORY.

I respect the rights of those who don't want to play with guns, too.

However providing gun safety/use training in high school as an ELECTIVE is a good idea.

I think it would be a good idea for all public schools to provide (as an elective?) defense training beyond weapons; hand to hand combat, battle field medical training.......?....

Imagine a country where 100 million men and women were prepared to engage an enemy invader!


----------



## hadit

anynameyouwish said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe any citizen who wants to purchase these weapons should be at least X years old (X equals ?)
> Should be trained by a licensed government professional (police or military)
> 
> 
> 
> I support this.
> 
> I will ALWAYS support efforts to properly train citizens in the safe use of arms.
> 
> It should be MANDATORY in high school.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure about MANDATORY.
> 
> I respect the rights of those who don't want to play with guns, too.
> 
> However providing gun safety/use training in high school as an ELECTIVE is a good idea.
> 
> I think it would be a good idea for all public schools to provide (as an elective?) defense training beyond weapons; hand to hand combat, battle field medical training.......?....
> 
> Imagine a country where 100 million men and women were prepared to engage an enemy invader!
Click to expand...


It's a health safety issue. If we need to teach kids how to put a condom on a banana, they should at least know how to make sure a found gun is harmless.


----------



## anynameyouwish

hadit said:


> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe any citizen who wants to purchase these weapons should be at least X years old (X equals ?)
> Should be trained by a licensed government professional (police or military)
> 
> 
> 
> I support this.
> 
> I will ALWAYS support efforts to properly train citizens in the safe use of arms.
> 
> It should be MANDATORY in high school.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure about MANDATORY.
> 
> I respect the rights of those who don't want to play with guns, too.
> 
> However providing gun safety/use training in high school as an ELECTIVE is a good idea.
> 
> I think it would be a good idea for all public schools to provide (as an elective?) defense training beyond weapons; hand to hand combat, battle field medical training.......?....
> 
> Imagine a country where 100 million men and women were prepared to engage an enemy invader!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a health safety issue. If we need to teach kids how to put a condom on a banana, they should at least know how to make sure a found gun is harmless.
Click to expand...



Excellent point!


----------



## flack

* 10 U.S. Code § 246. Militia: composition and classes *

 U.S. Code 
 Notes 
  

  
prev | next
(a)
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1)
the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)
the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Organize more militia until we have no more security problems in our free States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you hear? We don't have security problems in the states any more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> great, then we no longer need any more gun control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's right. Now we can go back to the original purpose of the 2nd, which is to ensure that Congress will not infringe on the right of the people to have guns.
Click to expand...

it is about the security of our free States.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.
> 
> 
> 
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't ignore our supreme laws of the land, like the right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do, however, consistently ignore truth, logic and reason.
Click to expand...

from the right wing?  how droll.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.
> 
> 
> 
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't ignore our supreme laws of the land, like the right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do, however, consistently ignore truth, logic and reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> from the right wing?  how droll.
Click to expand...


Yes, you do ignore truth, logic and reason from the right wing. Why that would be droll escapes capture.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> muster the militia until we have no security problems.




Q: Pete and Repeat were in a boat. Pete fell out. Who was left?
A: Repeat.
Q: Pete and Repeat were in a boat. Pete fell out. Who was left?
A: Repeat.
Q: Pete and Repeat were in a boat. Pete fell out. Who was left?
A: Repeat.
Q: Pete and Repeat were in a boat. Pete fell out. Who was left?
A: Repeat.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> I don't ignore our supreme laws of the land


you ignore this:

...the right of the *people*...shall not be infringed...


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.
> 
> 
> 
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't ignore our supreme laws of the land, like the right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do, however, consistently ignore truth, logic and reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> from the right wing?  how droll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you do ignore truth, logic and reason from the right wing. Why that would be droll escapes capture.
Click to expand...

you believe you have truth, logic, and reason.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> muster the militia until we have no security problems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Q: Pete and Repeat were in a boat. Pete fell out. Who was left?
> A: Repeat.
> Q: Pete and Repeat were in a boat. Pete fell out. Who was left?
> A: Repeat.
> Q: Pete and Repeat were in a boat. Pete fell out. Who was left?
> A: Repeat.
> Q: Pete and Repeat were in a boat. Pete fell out. Who was left?
> A: Repeat.
Click to expand...

don't believe in the Law, I got it whining right wingers.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't ignore our supreme laws of the land
> 
> 
> 
> you ignore this:
> 
> ...the right of the *people*...shall not be infringed...
Click to expand...

It is about the security of a free State; due process can deny and disparage the Individual right for Individuals.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> Q:  Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out.  Who was left?
> A:  Repeat.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't ignore our supreme laws of the land, like the right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do, however, consistently ignore truth, logic and reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> from the right wing?  how droll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you do ignore truth, logic and reason from the right wing. Why that would be droll escapes capture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you believe you have truth, logic, and reason.
Click to expand...


Because I do, and you don't.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't ignore our supreme laws of the land
> 
> 
> 
> you ignore this:
> 
> ...the right of the *people*...shall not be infringed...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is about the security of a free State; due process can deny and disparage the Individual right for Individuals.
Click to expand...


Where does it say that? Quote it.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't ignore our supreme laws of the land, like the right wing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do, however, consistently ignore truth, logic and reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> from the right wing?  how droll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you do ignore truth, logic and reason from the right wing. Why that would be droll escapes capture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you believe you have truth, logic, and reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because I do, and you don't.
Click to expand...

i resort to the fewest fallacies and am the truest witness bearer.  the nine hundred ninety-nine, say what you do.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't ignore our supreme laws of the land
> 
> 
> 
> you ignore this:
> 
> ...the right of the *people*...shall not be infringed...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is about the security of a free State; due process can deny and disparage the Individual right for Individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where does it say that? Quote it.
Click to expand...

which felons have the right to keep and bear Arms?


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do, however, consistently ignore truth, logic and reason.
> 
> 
> 
> from the right wing?  how droll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you do ignore truth, logic and reason from the right wing. Why that would be droll escapes capture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you believe you have truth, logic, and reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because I do, and you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i resort to the fewest fallacies and am the truest witness bearer.  the nine hundred ninety-nine, say what you do.
Click to expand...


I'm sure you think that, but not really.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't ignore our supreme laws of the land
> 
> 
> 
> you ignore this:
> 
> ...the right of the *people*...shall not be infringed...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is about the security of a free State; due process can deny and disparage the Individual right for Individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where does it say that? Quote it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> which felons have the right to keep and bear Arms?
Click to expand...


Quote the text. Come on, you can do it.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> from the right wing?  how droll.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you do ignore truth, logic and reason from the right wing. Why that would be droll escapes capture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you believe you have truth, logic, and reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because I do, and you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i resort to the fewest fallacies and am the truest witness bearer.  the nine hundred ninety-nine, say what you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure you think that, but not really.
Click to expand...

just what the nine hundred ninety-nine would say.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't ignore our supreme laws of the land
> 
> 
> 
> you ignore this:
> 
> ...the right of the *people*...shall not be infringed...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is about the security of a free State; due process can deny and disparage the Individual right for Individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where does it say that? Quote it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> which felons have the right to keep and bear Arms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quote the text. Come on, you can do it.
Click to expand...

Punishment for a crime can result in denial and disparagement of your Individual rights and individual liberty.


----------



## Dick Foster

flack said:


> * 10 U.S. Code § 246. Militia: composition and classes *
> 
> U.S. Code
> Notes
> 
> 
> 
> prev | next
> (a)
> The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> (b) The classes of the militia are—
> (1)
> the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
> (2)
> the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.


Nice, however when the constitution was written, a militia was more like the Minutemen. Who at the time were considered traitors to the crown. You might want to bear in mind that when the founders (principally Adams) penned the constitution, the actions of the minutemen were fresh in their memory and is precisely why the second amendment came to be in the first place. Knowing some of your country's history helps.


----------



## danielpalos

Dick Foster said:


> flack said:
> 
> 
> 
> * 10 U.S. Code § 246. Militia: composition and classes *
> 
> U.S. Code
> Notes
> 
> 
> 
> prev | next
> (a)
> The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> (b) The classes of the militia are—
> (1)
> the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
> (2)
> the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
> 
> 
> 
> Nice, however when the constitution was written, a militia was more like the Minutemen. Who at the time were considered traitors to the crown. You might want to bear in mind that when the founders (principally Adams) penned the constitution, the actions of the minutemen were fresh in their memory and is precisely why the second amendment came to be in the first place. Knowing some of your country's history helps.
Click to expand...

Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control.


----------



## OODA_Loop

danielpalos said:


> Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control.



Fortunately the right to bear arms extends to the individual free from service in or connection with the militia as held in _Heller vs DC_


----------



## Dick Foster

danielpalos said:


> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flack said:
> 
> 
> 
> * 10 U.S. Code § 246. Militia: composition and classes *
> 
> U.S. Code
> Notes
> 
> 
> 
> prev | next
> (a)
> The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> (b) The classes of the militia are—
> (1)
> the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
> (2)
> the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
> 
> 
> 
> Nice, however when the constitution was written, a militia was more like the Minutemen. Who at the time were considered traitors to the crown. You might want to bear in mind that when the founders (principally Adams) penned the constitution, the actions of the minutemen were fresh in their memory and is precisely why the second amendment came to be in the first place. Knowing some of your country's history helps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control.
Click to expand...

Under the Constitution, gun control is illegal. All of it on every level be it federal, state or local.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control.


repeat


----------



## Jitss617

flack said:


> * 10 U.S. Code § 246. Militia: composition and classes *
> 
> U.S. Code
> Notes
> 
> 
> 
> prev | next
> (a)
> The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> (b) The classes of the militia are—
> (1)
> the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
> (2)
> the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.


I’d like to make one


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> i resort to the fewest fallacies and am the truest witness bearer. the nine hundred ninety-nine, say what you do.


You are world champion of the fallacy of repetition or argumentum ad nauseam.

Repeat.


----------



## danielpalos

OODA_Loop said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately the right to bear arms extends to the individual free from service in or connection with the militia as held in _Heller vs DC_
Click to expand...

That is not what our Constitution says.  Judicial activism?


----------



## danielpalos

Dick Foster said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flack said:
> 
> 
> 
> * 10 U.S. Code § 246. Militia: composition and classes *
> 
> U.S. Code
> Notes
> 
> 
> 
> prev | next
> (a)
> The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> (b) The classes of the militia are—
> (1)
> the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
> (2)
> the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
> 
> 
> 
> Nice, however when the constitution was written, a militia was more like the Minutemen. Who at the time were considered traitors to the crown. You might want to bear in mind that when the founders (principally Adams) penned the constitution, the actions of the minutemen were fresh in their memory and is precisely why the second amendment came to be in the first place. Knowing some of your country's history helps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Under the Constitution, gun control is illegal. All of it on every level be it federal, state or local.
Click to expand...

Only well regulated militia is exempted from the police power of a State.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> i resort to the fewest fallacies and am the truest witness bearer. the nine hundred ninety-nine, say what you do.
> 
> 
> 
> You are world champion of the fallacy of repetition or argumentum ad nauseam.
> 
> Repeat.
Click to expand...

the nine hundred ninety-nine, say that.


----------



## Dick Foster

danielpalos said:


> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flack said:
> 
> 
> 
> * 10 U.S. Code § 246. Militia: composition and classes *
> 
> U.S. Code
> Notes
> 
> 
> 
> prev | next
> (a)
> The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> (b) The classes of the militia are—
> (1)
> the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
> (2)
> the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
> 
> 
> 
> Nice, however when the constitution was written, a militia was more like the Minutemen. Who at the time were considered traitors to the crown. You might want to bear in mind that when the founders (principally Adams) penned the constitution, the actions of the minutemen were fresh in their memory and is precisely why the second amendment came to be in the first place. Knowing some of your country's history helps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Under the Constitution, gun control is illegal. All of it on every level be it federal, state or local.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia is exempted from the police power of a State.
Click to expand...

Most folks don't know what well regulated means as penned by Madison and that likely includes you. A malitia refers to an army of the people such as the minutemen were and has nothing to do with any government organization at any level. To understand the Constitution, you have to put yourself in the founder's time, place and circumstances. Not some weenie law professor on a campus somewhere today over run with snowflakes. In fact from all appearances, they have no understanding of the Constitution or what it means.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flack said:
> 
> 
> 
> * 10 U.S. Code § 246. Militia: composition and classes *
> 
> U.S. Code
> Notes
> 
> 
> 
> prev | next
> (a)
> The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> (b) The classes of the militia are—
> (1)
> the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
> (2)
> the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
> 
> 
> 
> Nice, however when the constitution was written, a militia was more like the Minutemen. Who at the time were considered traitors to the crown. You might want to bear in mind that when the founders (principally Adams) penned the constitution, the actions of the minutemen were fresh in their memory and is precisely why the second amendment came to be in the first place. Knowing some of your country's history helps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Under the Constitution, gun control is illegal. All of it on every level be it federal, state or local.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia is exempted from the police power of a State.
Click to expand...


Where does it say that?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Only well regulated militia is exempted from the police power of a State.


Show me where it says that.

I thought it said "the right of the people" shall not be infringed.

Am I wrong, Repeat?

.


----------



## danielpalos

Dick Foster said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flack said:
> 
> 
> 
> * 10 U.S. Code § 246. Militia: composition and classes *
> 
> U.S. Code
> Notes
> 
> 
> 
> prev | next
> (a)
> The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> (b) The classes of the militia are—
> (1)
> the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
> (2)
> the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
> 
> 
> 
> Nice, however when the constitution was written, a militia was more like the Minutemen. Who at the time were considered traitors to the crown. You might want to bear in mind that when the founders (principally Adams) penned the constitution, the actions of the minutemen were fresh in their memory and is precisely why the second amendment came to be in the first place. Knowing some of your country's history helps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Under the Constitution, gun control is illegal. All of it on every level be it federal, state or local.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia is exempted from the police power of a State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most folks don't know what well regulated means as penned by Madison and that likely includes you. A malitia refers to an army of the people such as the minutemen were and has nothing to do with any government organization at any level. To understand the Constitution, you have to put yourself in the founder's time, place and circumstances. Not some weenie law professor on a campus somewhere today over run with snowflakes. In fact from all appearances, they have no understanding of the Constitution or what it means.
Click to expand...

no, it doesn't.  The People are the Militia and subject to State or federal regulation.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flack said:
> 
> 
> 
> * 10 U.S. Code § 246. Militia: composition and classes *
> 
> U.S. Code
> Notes
> 
> 
> 
> prev | next
> (a)
> The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> (b) The classes of the militia are—
> (1)
> the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
> (2)
> the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
> 
> 
> 
> Nice, however when the constitution was written, a militia was more like the Minutemen. Who at the time were considered traitors to the crown. You might want to bear in mind that when the founders (principally Adams) penned the constitution, the actions of the minutemen were fresh in their memory and is precisely why the second amendment came to be in the first place. Knowing some of your country's history helps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Under the Constitution, gun control is illegal. All of it on every level be it federal, state or local.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia is exempted from the police power of a State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where does it say that?
Click to expand...

Well regulated militia are Necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia is exempted from the police power of a State.
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where it says that.
> 
> I thought it said "the right of the people" shall not be infringed.
> 
> Am I wrong, Repeat?
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Well regulated militia of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; Only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.


----------



## depotoo

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
Thomas Jefferson

“When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
Thomas Jefferson

“…It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control…The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them.”
Samuel Adams
“The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.”
Samuel Adams of Massachusetts — U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788

“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation… Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
James Madison, Federalist Papers, #46 at 243-244.




Want more?





danielpalos said:


> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice, however when the constitution was written, a militia was more like the Minutemen. Who at the time were considered traitors to the crown. You might want to bear in mind that when the founders (principally Adams) penned the constitution, the actions of the minutemen were fresh in their memory and is precisely why the second amendment came to be in the first place. Knowing some of your country's history helps.
> 
> 
> 
> Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Under the Constitution, gun control is illegal. All of it on every level be it federal, state or local.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia is exempted from the police power of a State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most folks don't know what well regulated means as penned by Madison and that likely includes you. A malitia refers to an army of the people such as the minutemen were and has nothing to do with any government organization at any level. To understand the Constitution, you have to put yourself in the founder's time, place and circumstances. Not some weenie law professor on a campus somewhere today over run with snowflakes. In fact from all appearances, they have no understanding of the Constitution or what it means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it doesn't.  The People are the Militia and subject to State or federal regulation.
Click to expand...


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia is exempted from the police power of a State.
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where it says that.
> 
> I thought it said "the right of the people" shall not be infringed.
> 
> Am I wrong, Repeat?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; Only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.
Click to expand...

That is the wrong interpretation.  The Amendment made NO SUCH QUALIFICATION to the right of the people.  

Otherwise, they would have said "when keeping and bearing arms for their State."  Because they did not include that qualifier, the right of the people, not a group of people, but individuals, not a militia, not only when serving in the militia, but ALL people at any time, shall not be infringed.

You cannot express your interpretation without adding stuff that is decidedly not there.

My interpritation requires no change.

A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people shall to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  

That is because my interpretation is correct and yours is communist wishful thinking.

Why try to lie, spin, and twist the plain language to mean the opposite?  Why not just amend the constitution to remove the 2nd completely?  Your interpretation has the exact same effect.  Just say what you really mean.  Quit lying.

.


----------



## anynameyouwish

flack said:


> * 10 U.S. Code § 246. Militia: composition and classes *
> 
> U.S. Code
> Notes
> 
> 
> 
> prev | next
> (a)
> The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> (b) The classes of the militia are—
> (1)
> the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
> (2)
> the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.



If this UNORGANIZED militia fights FOR the USA and defends ALL CITIZENS (including muslims and liberals and democrats) then fine.

But if this UNORGANIZED militia is a right wing paramilitary organization with its OWN agenda and is actively OPPOSED to most of the population and organized to FIGHT subsets of the population then they are NOT "militia".....they are terrorists.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Well regulated militia are Necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


Again, that is contrary to the plain language of the 2nd.  It says the right belongs NOT to the militia, but to the people.  And the right belonging to the people, not the militia, shall not be infringed.

Again, you want the 2nd to be meaningless and duplicative of Art 1 sec 8.  If you knew anything about law or legal interpretation, you would know that no part will be interpreted to render another part redundant or meaningless.

So, why keep playing this game?

You want to be rid of the 2nd.  Admit it.  Stop lying.

.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

anynameyouwish said:


> If this UNORGANIZED militia fights FOR the USA and defends ALL CITIZENS (including muslims and liberals and democrats) then fine.
> 
> But if this UNORGANIZED militia is a right wing paramilitary organization with its OWN agenda and is actively OPPOSED to most of the population and organized to FIGHT subsets of the population then they are NOT "militia".....they are terrorists.


Okay.

Who gets to decide which group is fighting for the people and which group is not?  

.


----------



## Rigby5

depotoo said:


> “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
> Thomas Jefferson
> 
> “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
> Thomas Jefferson
> 
> “…It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control…The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them.”
> Samuel Adams
> “The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.”
> Samuel Adams of Massachusetts — U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788
> 
> “Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation… Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
> James Madison, Federalist Papers, #46 at 243-244.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want more?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control.
> 
> 
> 
> Under the Constitution, gun control is illegal. All of it on every level be it federal, state or local.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia is exempted from the police power of a State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most folks don't know what well regulated means as penned by Madison and that likely includes you. A malitia refers to an army of the people such as the minutemen were and has nothing to do with any government organization at any level. To understand the Constitution, you have to put yourself in the founder's time, place and circumstances. Not some weenie law professor on a campus somewhere today over run with snowflakes. In fact from all appearances, they have no understanding of the Constitution or what it means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it doesn't.  The People are the Militia and subject to State or federal regulation.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Municipalities or states could pass weapons legislation, but NOT the federal government.
The whole point of the Bill of Rights is to totally deny some areas of jurisdiction to the federal government, at all.
And clearly weapons are one of them.
The 2nd amendment can't be about the federal government just not disarming the militia, because the state militias are everyone.  
Remember there were no police back then, and attacks from native, Spanish, pirates, gangs, etc., were unpredictable.
No one was going to come to your home if you were being robbed, because there was no one to call and no way to call.  Everyone had to be armed back then.
And I don't see how that need has really changed much.


----------



## depotoo

Actually, if you go back and read their writings, you will find it had to do with fighting off oppression from England, whereas they started confiscation of guns.  They stated, an armed populace cannot be overcome by a tyrant government, when they are armed.. 





Rigby5 said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
> Thomas Jefferson
> 
> “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
> Thomas Jefferson
> 
> “…It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control…The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them.”
> Samuel Adams
> “The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.”
> Samuel Adams of Massachusetts — U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788
> 
> “Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation… Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
> James Madison, Federalist Papers, #46 at 243-244.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want more?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> Under the Constitution, gun control is illegal. All of it on every level be it federal, state or local.
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia is exempted from the police power of a State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most folks don't know what well regulated means as penned by Madison and that likely includes you. A malitia refers to an army of the people such as the minutemen were and has nothing to do with any government organization at any level. To understand the Constitution, you have to put yourself in the founder's time, place and circumstances. Not some weenie law professor on a campus somewhere today over run with snowflakes. In fact from all appearances, they have no understanding of the Constitution or what it means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it doesn't.  The People are the Militia and subject to State or federal regulation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Municipalities or states could pass weapons legislation, but NOT the federal government.
> The whole point of the Bill of Rights is to totally deny some areas of jurisdiction to the federal government, at all.
> And clearly weapons are one of them.
> The 2nd amendment can't be about the federal government just not disarming the militia, because the state militias are everyone.
> Remember there were no police back then, and attacks from native, Spanish, pirates, gangs, etc., were unpredictable.
> No one was going to come to your home if you were being robbed, because there was no one to call and no way to call.  Everyone had to be armed back then.
> And I don't see how that need has really changed much.
Click to expand...


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Rigby5 said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
> Thomas Jefferson
> 
> “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
> Thomas Jefferson
> 
> “…It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control…The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them.”
> Samuel Adams
> “The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.”
> Samuel Adams of Massachusetts — U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788
> 
> “Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation… Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
> James Madison, Federalist Papers, #46 at 243-244.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want more?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> Under the Constitution, gun control is illegal. All of it on every level be it federal, state or local.
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia is exempted from the police power of a State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most folks don't know what well regulated means as penned by Madison and that likely includes you. A malitia refers to an army of the people such as the minutemen were and has nothing to do with any government organization at any level. To understand the Constitution, you have to put yourself in the founder's time, place and circumstances. Not some weenie law professor on a campus somewhere today over run with snowflakes. In fact from all appearances, they have no understanding of the Constitution or what it means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it doesn't.  The People are the Militia and subject to State or federal regulation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Municipalities or states could pass weapons legislation, but NOT the federal government.
> The whole point of the Bill of Rights is to totally deny some areas of jurisdiction to the federal government, at all.
> And clearly weapons are one of them.
> The 2nd amendment can't be about the federal government just not disarming the militia, because the state militias are everyone.
> Remember there were no police back then, and attacks from native, Spanish, pirates, gangs, etc., were unpredictable.
> No one was going to come to your home if you were being robbed, because there was no one to call and no way to call.  Everyone had to be armed back then.
> And I don't see how that need has really changed much.
Click to expand...

This is all correct.  I agree with you.

The problem is that the intent of the 2nd was screwed up in 1868, when the clumsy 14th Amendment made the 2nd Amendment applicable to the States.  It was one of the issues that Scalia should have addressed in Heller, but failed to do so.

.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

depotoo said:


> Actually, if you go back and read their writings, you will find it had to do with fighting off oppression from England, whereas they started confiscation of guns.  They stated, an armed populace cannot be overcome by a tyrant government, when they are armed..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
> Thomas Jefferson
> 
> “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
> Thomas Jefferson
> 
> “…It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control…The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them.”
> Samuel Adams
> “The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.”
> Samuel Adams of Massachusetts — U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788
> 
> “Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation… Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
> James Madison, Federalist Papers, #46 at 243-244.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want more?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia is exempted from the police power of a State.
> 
> 
> 
> Most folks don't know what well regulated means as penned by Madison and that likely includes you. A malitia refers to an army of the people such as the minutemen were and has nothing to do with any government organization at any level. To understand the Constitution, you have to put yourself in the founder's time, place and circumstances. Not some weenie law professor on a campus somewhere today over run with snowflakes. In fact from all appearances, they have no understanding of the Constitution or what it means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it doesn't.  The People are the Militia and subject to State or federal regulation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Municipalities or states could pass weapons legislation, but NOT the federal government.
> The whole point of the Bill of Rights is to totally deny some areas of jurisdiction to the federal government, at all.
> And clearly weapons are one of them.
> The 2nd amendment can't be about the federal government just not disarming the militia, because the state militias are everyone.
> Remember there were no police back then, and attacks from native, Spanish, pirates, gangs, etc., were unpredictable.
> No one was going to come to your home if you were being robbed, because there was no one to call and no way to call.  Everyone had to be armed back then.
> And I don't see how that need has really changed much.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

He was referring strictly to the original meaning and effect of the 2nd Amendment.  It was there ONLY to ban federal jurisdiction/authority over the issue of weapons.  States were still free to do whatever the fuck they wanted.

The 14th Amendment, however, makes the 2nd apply to the States too.  

.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rigby5 said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
> Thomas Jefferson
> 
> “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
> Thomas Jefferson
> 
> “…It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control…The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them.”
> Samuel Adams
> “The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.”
> Samuel Adams of Massachusetts — U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788
> 
> “Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation… Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
> James Madison, Federalist Papers, #46 at 243-244.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want more?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> Under the Constitution, gun control is illegal. All of it on every level be it federal, state or local.
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia is exempted from the police power of a State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most folks don't know what well regulated means as penned by Madison and that likely includes you. A malitia refers to an army of the people such as the minutemen were and has nothing to do with any government organization at any level. To understand the Constitution, you have to put yourself in the founder's time, place and circumstances. Not some weenie law professor on a campus somewhere today over run with snowflakes. In fact from all appearances, they have no understanding of the Constitution or what it means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it doesn't.  The People are the Militia and subject to State or federal regulation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Municipalities or states could pass weapons legislation, but NOT the federal government.
> The whole point of the Bill of Rights is to totally deny some areas of jurisdiction to the federal government, at all.
> And clearly weapons are one of them.
> The 2nd amendment can't be about the federal government just not disarming the militia, because the state militias are everyone.
> Remember there were no police back then, and attacks from native, Spanish, pirates, gangs, etc., were unpredictable.
> No one was going to come to your home if you were being robbed, because there was no one to call and no way to call.  Everyone had to be armed back then.
> And I don't see how that need has really changed much.
Click to expand...


You have the right to be armed in your home.  How you get maintain that right is up to the state down to the city.  But in the end, all levels (except the Federals who have no say in it) must afford a reasonable method to allow you to have a reasonable weapon to defend your home.  And that has absolutely nothing to do with the 2nd amendment.  That falls under States Rights.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

depotoo said:


> “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
> Thomas Jefferson
> 
> “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
> Thomas Jefferson
> 
> “…It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control…The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them.”
> Samuel Adams
> “The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.”
> Samuel Adams of Massachusetts — U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788
> 
> “Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation… Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
> James Madison, Federalist Papers, #46 at 243-244.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want more?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control.
> 
> 
> 
> Under the Constitution, gun control is illegal. All of it on every level be it federal, state or local.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia is exempted from the police power of a State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most folks don't know what well regulated means as penned by Madison and that likely includes you. A malitia refers to an army of the people such as the minutemen were and has nothing to do with any government organization at any level. To understand the Constitution, you have to put yourself in the founder's time, place and circumstances. Not some weenie law professor on a campus somewhere today over run with snowflakes. In fact from all appearances, they have no understanding of the Constitution or what it means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it doesn't.  The People are the Militia and subject to State or federal regulation.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court alone decides when the rights and protected liberties of the people have been infringed, and when they have not.

Government has the authority to place limits and restriction on our rights and protected liberties, including the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment.

Provided government enacts measures consistent with Constitutional case law, no liberties have been infringed, no rights violated.

One may post as many out of context quotes from the Framers as he so desires, with the understanding that such quotes advance no argument and are in no manner compelling when addressing the issue of the regulation of firearms, absent Second Amendment jurisprudence.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia is exempted from the police power of a State.
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where it says that.
> 
> I thought it said "the right of the people" shall not be infringed.
> 
> Am I wrong, Repeat?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; Only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the wrong interpretation.  The Amendment made NO SUCH QUALIFICATION to the right of the people.
> 
> Otherwise, they would have said "when keeping and bearing arms for their State."  Because they did not include that qualifier, the right of the people, not a group of people, but individuals, not a militia, not only when serving in the militia, but ALL people at any time, shall not be infringed.
> 
> You cannot express your interpretation without adding stuff that is decidedly not there.
> 
> My interpritation requires no change.
> 
> A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people shall to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> That is because my interpretation is correct and yours is communist wishful thinking.
> 
> Why try to lie, spin, and twist the plain language to mean the opposite?  Why not just amend the constitution to remove the 2nd completely?  Your interpretation has the exact same effect.  Just say what you really mean.  Quit lying.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Your ‘interpretation’ is ignorant, ridiculous, irrelevant, and wrong.

Only the Supreme Court has the authority to determine the meaning of the Second Amendment.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia is exempted from the police power of a State.
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where it says that.
> 
> I thought it said "the right of the people" shall not be infringed.
> 
> Am I wrong, Repeat?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; Only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the wrong interpretation.  The Amendment made NO SUCH QUALIFICATION to the right of the people.
> 
> Otherwise, they would have said "when keeping and bearing arms for their State."  Because they did not include that qualifier, the right of the people, not a group of people, but individuals, not a militia, not only when serving in the militia, but ALL people at any time, shall not be infringed.
> 
> You cannot express your interpretation without adding stuff that is decidedly not there.
> 
> My interpritation requires no change.
> 
> A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people shall to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> That is because my interpretation is correct and yours is communist wishful thinking.
> 
> Why try to lie, spin, and twist the plain language to mean the opposite?  Why not just amend the constitution to remove the 2nd completely?  Your interpretation has the exact same effect.  Just say what you really mean.  Quit lying.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your ‘interpretation’ is ignorant, ridiculous, irrelevant, and wrong.
> 
> Only the Supreme Court has the authority to determine the meaning of the Second Amendment.
Click to expand...


Wrong.  The Supreme Court has, for the most part, avoided making far reaching rulings on the 2nd like a plague.  They have left it where it belongs. It belongs in the States and the States have been making the rulings for the most part.  The only time the Supreme Court gets involved is when the State gets to vague on their laws.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia are Necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, that is contrary to the plain language of the 2nd.  It says the right belongs NOT to the militia, but to the people.  And the right belonging to the people, not the militia, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Again, you want the 2nd to be meaningless and duplicative of Art 1 sec 8.  If you knew anything about law or legal interpretation, you would know that no part will be interpreted to render another part redundant or meaningless.
> 
> So, why keep playing this game?
> 
> You want to be rid of the 2nd.  Admit it.  Stop lying.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

This ‘plain language’ nonsense is as tedious as it is ignorant and wrong. 

It was the original understanding and intent of the Framers that the Constitution be subject to interpretation by the courts.

Indeed, Constitutional case law as determined by the courts is vital, as it provides guidance to the people as they enact laws and measures, to ensure those laws and measures do not violate the rights and protected liberties of the people.

Absent Constitutional case law as determined by the courts, sound, responsible governance would be impossible.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Rigby5 said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
> Thomas Jefferson
> 
> “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
> Thomas Jefferson
> 
> “…It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control…The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them.”
> Samuel Adams
> “The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.”
> Samuel Adams of Massachusetts — U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788
> 
> “Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation… Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
> James Madison, Federalist Papers, #46 at 243-244.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want more?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> Under the Constitution, gun control is illegal. All of it on every level be it federal, state or local.
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia is exempted from the police power of a State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most folks don't know what well regulated means as penned by Madison and that likely includes you. A malitia refers to an army of the people such as the minutemen were and has nothing to do with any government organization at any level. To understand the Constitution, you have to put yourself in the founder's time, place and circumstances. Not some weenie law professor on a campus somewhere today over run with snowflakes. In fact from all appearances, they have no understanding of the Constitution or what it means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it doesn't.  The People are the Militia and subject to State or federal regulation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Municipalities or states could pass weapons legislation, but NOT the federal government.
> The whole point of the Bill of Rights is to totally deny some areas of jurisdiction to the federal government, at all.
> And clearly weapons are one of them.
> The 2nd amendment can't be about the federal government just not disarming the militia, because the state militias are everyone.
> Remember there were no police back then, and attacks from native, Spanish, pirates, gangs, etc., were unpredictable.
> No one was going to come to your home if you were being robbed, because there was no one to call and no way to call.  Everyone had to be armed back then.
> And I don't see how that need has really changed much.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.

The Federal government, states, and local jurisdictions are all subject to the same Second Amendment case law.

The Federal government, states, and local jurisdictions are all at liberty to enact firearm regulatory measures consistent with that case law.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

depotoo said:


> Actually, if you go back and read their writings, you will find it had to do with fighting off oppression from England, whereas they started confiscation of guns.  They stated, an armed populace cannot be overcome by a tyrant government, when they are armed..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
> Thomas Jefferson
> 
> “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
> Thomas Jefferson
> 
> “…It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control…The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them.”
> Samuel Adams
> “The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.”
> Samuel Adams of Massachusetts — U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788
> 
> “Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation… Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
> James Madison, Federalist Papers, #46 at 243-244.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want more?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia is exempted from the police power of a State.
> 
> 
> 
> Most folks don't know what well regulated means as penned by Madison and that likely includes you. A malitia refers to an army of the people such as the minutemen were and has nothing to do with any government organization at any level. To understand the Constitution, you have to put yourself in the founder's time, place and circumstances. Not some weenie law professor on a campus somewhere today over run with snowflakes. In fact from all appearances, they have no understanding of the Constitution or what it means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it doesn't.  The People are the Militia and subject to State or federal regulation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Municipalities or states could pass weapons legislation, but NOT the federal government.
> The whole point of the Bill of Rights is to totally deny some areas of jurisdiction to the federal government, at all.
> And clearly weapons are one of them.
> The 2nd amendment can't be about the federal government just not disarming the militia, because the state militias are everyone.
> Remember there were no police back then, and attacks from native, Spanish, pirates, gangs, etc., were unpredictable.
> No one was going to come to your home if you were being robbed, because there was no one to call and no way to call.  Everyone had to be armed back then.
> And I don't see how that need has really changed much.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Then you’re clearly not reading their writings, or not understanding what they wrote.

The Framers would not have amended the Founding Document to ‘authorize’ the destruction of the Constitution and Republic they had just created through force of arms, contrary to the will of the majority of the people.

The Second Amendment recognizes the individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense – not to ‘take up arms’ against a lawfully elected government incorrectly perceived to have become ‘tyrannical.’


----------



## Daryl Hunt

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, if you go back and read their writings, you will find it had to do with fighting off oppression from England, whereas they started confiscation of guns.  They stated, an armed populace cannot be overcome by a tyrant government, when they are armed..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
> Thomas Jefferson
> 
> “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
> Thomas Jefferson
> 
> “…It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control…The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them.”
> Samuel Adams
> “The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.”
> Samuel Adams of Massachusetts — U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788
> 
> “Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation… Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
> James Madison, Federalist Papers, #46 at 243-244.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want more?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most folks don't know what well regulated means as penned by Madison and that likely includes you. A malitia refers to an army of the people such as the minutemen were and has nothing to do with any government organization at any level. To understand the Constitution, you have to put yourself in the founder's time, place and circumstances. Not some weenie law professor on a campus somewhere today over run with snowflakes. In fact from all appearances, they have no understanding of the Constitution or what it means.
> 
> 
> 
> no, it doesn't.  The People are the Militia and subject to State or federal regulation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Municipalities or states could pass weapons legislation, but NOT the federal government.
> The whole point of the Bill of Rights is to totally deny some areas of jurisdiction to the federal government, at all.
> And clearly weapons are one of them.
> The 2nd amendment can't be about the federal government just not disarming the militia, because the state militias are everyone.
> Remember there were no police back then, and attacks from native, Spanish, pirates, gangs, etc., were unpredictable.
> No one was going to come to your home if you were being robbed, because there was no one to call and no way to call.  Everyone had to be armed back then.
> And I don't see how that need has really changed much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you’re clearly not reading their writings, or not understanding what they wrote.
> 
> The Framers would not have amended the Founding Document to ‘authorize’ the destruction of the Constitution and Republic they had just created through force of arms, contrary to the will of the majority of the people.
> 
> The Second Amendment recognizes the individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense – not to ‘take up arms’ against a lawfully elected government incorrectly perceived to have become ‘tyrannical.’
Click to expand...


No, but they did recognize the right of the State to take up arms for exactly that same reason in the form of an Organized AND ARMED Militia.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
> Thomas Jefferson
> 
> “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
> Thomas Jefferson
> 
> “…It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control…The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them.”
> Samuel Adams
> “The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.”
> Samuel Adams of Massachusetts — U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788
> 
> “Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation… Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
> James Madison, Federalist Papers, #46 at 243-244.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want more?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia is exempted from the police power of a State.
> 
> 
> 
> Most folks don't know what well regulated means as penned by Madison and that likely includes you. A malitia refers to an army of the people such as the minutemen were and has nothing to do with any government organization at any level. To understand the Constitution, you have to put yourself in the founder's time, place and circumstances. Not some weenie law professor on a campus somewhere today over run with snowflakes. In fact from all appearances, they have no understanding of the Constitution or what it means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it doesn't.  The People are the Militia and subject to State or federal regulation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Municipalities or states could pass weapons legislation, but NOT the federal government.
> The whole point of the Bill of Rights is to totally deny some areas of jurisdiction to the federal government, at all.
> And clearly weapons are one of them.
> The 2nd amendment can't be about the federal government just not disarming the militia, because the state militias are everyone.
> Remember there were no police back then, and attacks from native, Spanish, pirates, gangs, etc., were unpredictable.
> No one was going to come to your home if you were being robbed, because there was no one to call and no way to call.  Everyone had to be armed back then.
> And I don't see how that need has really changed much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is all correct.  I agree with you.
> 
> The problem is that the intent of the 2nd was screwed up in 1868, when the clumsy 14th Amendment made the 2nd Amendment applicable to the States.  It was one of the issues that Scalia should have addressed in Heller, but failed to do so.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

This is as ignorant as it is wrong.

The Second Amendment wasn’t incorporated to the states and local jurisdictions until 2010 (see _McDonald v. Chicago_).

Prior to _McDonald,_ the Second Amendment applied only to the Federal government, in the case of _Heller_, the District of Columbia, a Federal entity.

It was not an issue Scalia could have addressed because the Second Amendment had yet to be incorporated to the states and local jurisdictions.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
> Thomas Jefferson
> 
> “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
> Thomas Jefferson
> 
> “…It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control…The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them.”
> Samuel Adams
> “The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.”
> Samuel Adams of Massachusetts — U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788
> 
> “Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation… Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
> James Madison, Federalist Papers, #46 at 243-244.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want more?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia is exempted from the police power of a State.
> 
> 
> 
> Most folks don't know what well regulated means as penned by Madison and that likely includes you. A malitia refers to an army of the people such as the minutemen were and has nothing to do with any government organization at any level. To understand the Constitution, you have to put yourself in the founder's time, place and circumstances. Not some weenie law professor on a campus somewhere today over run with snowflakes. In fact from all appearances, they have no understanding of the Constitution or what it means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it doesn't.  The People are the Militia and subject to State or federal regulation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Municipalities or states could pass weapons legislation, but NOT the federal government.
> The whole point of the Bill of Rights is to totally deny some areas of jurisdiction to the federal government, at all.
> And clearly weapons are one of them.
> The 2nd amendment can't be about the federal government just not disarming the militia, because the state militias are everyone.
> Remember there were no police back then, and attacks from native, Spanish, pirates, gangs, etc., were unpredictable.
> No one was going to come to your home if you were being robbed, because there was no one to call and no way to call.  Everyone had to be armed back then.
> And I don't see how that need has really changed much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have the right to be armed in your home.  How you get maintain that right is up to the state down to the city.  But in the end, all levels (except the Federals who have no say in it) must afford a reasonable method to allow you to have a reasonable weapon to defend your home.  And that has absolutely nothing to do with the 2nd amendment.  That falls under States Rights.
Click to expand...

Not quite.

Again, per _Heller/McDonald_, the Federal government, state governments, and local governments are all subject to the same Second Amendment jurisprudence, and may only enact firearm regulatory measures consistent with that jurisprudence.

States and local jurisdictions are at liberty to go beyond Federal regulatory measures, but are still limited by Second Amendment case law.

It therefore has everything to do with the Second Amendment, much less with states’ rights, as the states remain subject to the Federal Constitution and the rulings of Federal courts.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Dick Foster said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flack said:
> 
> 
> 
> * 10 U.S. Code § 246. Militia: composition and classes *
> 
> U.S. Code
> Notes
> 
> 
> 
> prev | next
> (a)
> The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> (b) The classes of the militia are—
> (1)
> the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
> (2)
> the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
> 
> 
> 
> Nice, however when the constitution was written, a militia was more like the Minutemen. Who at the time were considered traitors to the crown. You might want to bear in mind that when the founders (principally Adams) penned the constitution, the actions of the minutemen were fresh in their memory and is precisely why the second amendment came to be in the first place. Knowing some of your country's history helps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Under the Constitution, gun control is illegal. All of it on every level be it federal, state or local.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia is exempted from the police power of a State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most folks don't know what well regulated means as penned by Madison and that likely includes you. A malitia refers to an army of the people such as the minutemen were and has nothing to do with any government organization at any level. To understand the Constitution, you have to put yourself in the founder's time, place and circumstances. Not some weenie law professor on a campus somewhere today over run with snowflakes. In fact from all appearances, they have no understanding of the Constitution or what it means.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

To understand the Constitution, one must read and understand its case law.

And for folks to understand what well-regulated means, all they need to do is read _Heller_.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice, however when the constitution was written, a militia was more like the Minutemen. Who at the time were considered traitors to the crown. You might want to bear in mind that when the founders (principally Adams) penned the constitution, the actions of the minutemen were fresh in their memory and is precisely why the second amendment came to be in the first place. Knowing some of your country's history helps.
> 
> 
> 
> Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Under the Constitution, gun control is illegal. All of it on every level be it federal, state or local.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia is exempted from the police power of a State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where does it say that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia are Necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
Click to expand...


It doesn't say that. I know you desperately want it to, because you continually say it does, but it just doesn't.


----------



## danielpalos

depotoo said:


> “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
> Thomas Jefferson
> 
> “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
> Thomas Jefferson
> 
> “…It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control…The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them.”
> Samuel Adams
> “The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.”
> Samuel Adams of Massachusetts — U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788
> 
> “Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation… Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
> James Madison, Federalist Papers, #46 at 243-244.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want more?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control.
> 
> 
> 
> Under the Constitution, gun control is illegal. All of it on every level be it federal, state or local.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia is exempted from the police power of a State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most folks don't know what well regulated means as penned by Madison and that likely includes you. A malitia refers to an army of the people such as the minutemen were and has nothing to do with any government organization at any level. To understand the Constitution, you have to put yourself in the founder's time, place and circumstances. Not some weenie law professor on a campus somewhere today over run with snowflakes. In fact from all appearances, they have no understanding of the Constitution or what it means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it doesn't.  The People are the Militia and subject to State or federal regulation.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.  



> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.



Muster the militia until we have no security problems. 

Want more?


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia is exempted from the police power of a State.
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where it says that.
> 
> I thought it said "the right of the people" shall not be infringed.
> 
> Am I wrong, Repeat?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; Only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the wrong interpretation.  The Amendment made NO SUCH QUALIFICATION to the right of the people.
> 
> Otherwise, they would have said "when keeping and bearing arms for their State."  Because they did not include that qualifier, the right of the people, not a group of people, but individuals, not a militia, not only when serving in the militia, but ALL people at any time, shall not be infringed.
> 
> You cannot express your interpretation without adding stuff that is decidedly not there.
> 
> My interpritation requires no change.
> 
> A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people shall to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> That is because my interpretation is correct and yours is communist wishful thinking.
> 
> Why try to lie, spin, and twist the plain language to mean the opposite?  Why not just amend the constitution to remove the 2nd completely?  Your interpretation has the exact same effect.  Just say what you really mean.  Quit lying.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

The first clause claims you are simply wrong.  Stop lying.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia are Necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, that is contrary to the plain language of the 2nd.  It says the right belongs NOT to the militia, but to the people.  And the right belonging to the people, not the militia, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Again, you want the 2nd to be meaningless and duplicative of Art 1 sec 8.  If you knew anything about law or legal interpretation, you would know that no part will be interpreted to render another part redundant or meaningless.
> 
> So, why keep playing this game?
> 
> You want to be rid of the 2nd.  Admit it.  Stop lying.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

you simply don't understand simple English.  

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.  Organize and muster the militia until that happens.  And, start with gun lovers, first.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> If this UNORGANIZED militia fights FOR the USA and defends ALL CITIZENS (including muslims and liberals and democrats) then fine.
> 
> But if this UNORGANIZED militia is a right wing paramilitary organization with its OWN agenda and is actively OPPOSED to most of the population and organized to FIGHT subsets of the population then they are NOT "militia".....they are terrorists.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay.
> 
> Who gets to decide which group is fighting for the people and which group is not?
> 
> .
Click to expand...

We have a Second Amendment; it is Express not Implied.


----------



## danielpalos

Daryl Hunt said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia is exempted from the police power of a State.
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where it says that.
> 
> I thought it said "the right of the people" shall not be infringed.
> 
> Am I wrong, Repeat?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; Only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the wrong interpretation.  The Amendment made NO SUCH QUALIFICATION to the right of the people.
> 
> Otherwise, they would have said "when keeping and bearing arms for their State."  Because they did not include that qualifier, the right of the people, not a group of people, but individuals, not a militia, not only when serving in the militia, but ALL people at any time, shall not be infringed.
> 
> You cannot express your interpretation without adding stuff that is decidedly not there.
> 
> My interpritation requires no change.
> 
> A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people shall to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> That is because my interpretation is correct and yours is communist wishful thinking.
> 
> Why try to lie, spin, and twist the plain language to mean the opposite?  Why not just amend the constitution to remove the 2nd completely?  Your interpretation has the exact same effect.  Just say what you really mean.  Quit lying.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your ‘interpretation’ is ignorant, ridiculous, irrelevant, and wrong.
> 
> Only the Supreme Court has the authority to determine the meaning of the Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  The Supreme Court has, for the most part, avoided making far reaching rulings on the 2nd like a plague.  They have left it where it belongs. It belongs in the States and the States have been making the rulings for the most part.  The only time the Supreme Court gets involved is when the State gets to vague on their laws.
Click to expand...

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control.
> 
> 
> 
> Under the Constitution, gun control is illegal. All of it on every level be it federal, state or local.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia is exempted from the police power of a State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where does it say that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia are Necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't say that. I know you desperately want it to, because you continually say it does, but it just doesn't.
Click to expand...

lol.  Nobody takes the right wing seriously about the Law, Constitutional or otherwise.  Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.


----------



## anynameyouwish

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> If this UNORGANIZED militia fights FOR the USA and defends ALL CITIZENS (including muslims and liberals and democrats) then fine.
> 
> But if this UNORGANIZED militia is a right wing paramilitary organization with its OWN agenda and is actively OPPOSED to most of the population and organized to FIGHT subsets of the population then they are NOT "militia".....they are terrorists.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay.
> 
> Who gets to decide which group is fighting for the people and which group is not?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


That's a very good question.

Obviously any militia that expressly states they are arming themselves to fight "dems, libs, gays, atheists, the government"  would be excluded.

If it were up to me I would formulate a plan to engage the services of militia to be utilized as an asset to the government and the people;  Have them meet with military/police trainers, train them to be helpful/useful in tasks like;  defending our borders from illegal aliens.

I wouldn't be surprised to find that organized militia groups, tasked with patrolling northern or southern borders, would be happy and proud to do it.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> Under the Constitution, gun control is illegal. All of it on every level be it federal, state or local.
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia is exempted from the police power of a State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where does it say that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia are Necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't say that. I know you desperately want it to, because you continually say it does, but it just doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Nobody takes the right wing seriously about the Law, Constitutional or otherwise.  Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.
Click to expand...


Everyone has recourse to the second amendment. The right of the people and so forth.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> you simply don't understand simple English.


...said the illegal Mexican who uses Google Translate to post on USMB.




C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This is as ignorant as it is wrong.
> 
> The Second Amendment wasn’t incorporated to the states and local jurisdictions until 2010 (see _McDonald v. Chicago_).


incorporated by way of????  What?  Which Amendment?



.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Daryl Hunt said:


> You have the right to be armed in your home.


This is a lie of omission.


> How you get maintain that right is up to the state down to the city.


This is a lie of deliberate misrepresentation.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> The first clause claims you are simply wrong.


What?  All it says is that a well regulated militia is necessary.  That is all the first clause tells us.

So the founders intended to tell us that something is necessary and that is all they did in the 2A???

WRONG, YOU FUCKING ASS!!!

Because it's necessary, what does the rest of the Amendment do?

It protects the right of the PEOPLE, not the fucking militia!!!!  THAT IS PLAIN ENGLISH, AS IT IS WRITTEN!!!!

THERE ARE NO COLLECTIVE RIGHTS, YOU DUMB FUCK!!!

THE MILITIA DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT.

PEOPLE DO.

INDIVIDUALS EXERCISE RIGHTS.  GROUPS ONLY EXERCISE RIGHTS TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY ARE MADE UP OF INDIVIDUALS WHO EXERCISE THEIR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.

All you do is repeat shit over and over and over and over and over and never make a fucking point EVER!!!

I am so FUCK SICK of you

SHUT THE FUCK UP and GO BACK TO MEXICO!!!

.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This ‘plain language’ nonsense is as tedious as it is ignorant and wrong.
> 
> It was the original understanding and intent of the Framers that the Constitution be subject to interpretation by the courts.


It took a while for _Marbury v. Madison_ to come around, but let's assume you're right.

Does that mean the SCOTUS can/should interpret the language in a way that means something opposite of what the words actually say? 

Why even have a constitution if the its clear meaning can be undermined by an all-powerful SCOTUS? 

People does not mean people?  People means the National Guard? 

And, I assume you agree with me that ALL federal gun laws BEFORE 2010 are, and should be deemed, UNCONSTITUTIONAL, correct?



C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Indeed, Constitutional case law as determined by the courts is vital, as it provides guidance to the people as they enact laws and measures, to ensure those laws and measures do not violate the rights and protected liberties of the people.
> 
> Absent Constitutional case law as determined by the courts, sound, responsible governance would be impossible.


I don't disagree with this, but don't tell me the SCOTUS can ignore non-ambiguous language. 

That's my BIGGEST problem voting for Democrats.  They put people on the Court who believe they have the right to "interpret" the word "up" to mean "down" or "hot" to mean "cold."  I don't give a rat fuck about a SCOTUS Justice's political leanings, as long as that Justice interprets the constitution the proper way, giving every word its plain and proper meaning, and not in a way that fits a desired result.  (See the ramblings of danielpalos)

.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia is exempted from the police power of a State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia are Necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't say that. I know you desperately want it to, because you continually say it does, but it just doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Nobody takes the right wing seriously about the Law, Constitutional or otherwise.  Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone has recourse to the second amendment. The right of the people and so forth.
Click to expand...

LOL.  Nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise. 

The North had to win simply Because, only well regulated militia of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union. 

Not the unorganized militias.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> you simply don't understand simple English.
> 
> 
> 
> ...said the illegal Mexican who uses Google Translate to post on USMB.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is as ignorant as it is wrong.
> 
> The Second Amendment wasn’t incorporated to the states and local jurisdictions until 2010 (see _McDonald v. Chicago_).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> incorporated by way of????  What?  Which Amendment?
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Says the right wing Bigot who believes he is Right, simply Because he is on the Right Wing.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first clause claims you are simply wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> What?  All it says is that a well regulated militia is necessary.  That is all the first clause tells us.
> 
> So the founders intended to tell us that something is necessary and that is all they did in the 2A???
> 
> WRONG, YOU FUCKING ASS!!!
> 
> Because it's necessary, what does the rest of the Amendment do?
> 
> It protects the right of the PEOPLE, not the fucking militia!!!!  THAT IS PLAIN ENGLISH, AS IT IS WRITTEN!!!!
> 
> THERE ARE NO COLLECTIVE RIGHTS, YOU DUMB FUCK!!!
> 
> THE MILITIA DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT.
> 
> PEOPLE DO.
> 
> INDIVIDUALS EXERCISE RIGHTS.  GROUPS ONLY EXERCISE RIGHTS TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY ARE MADE UP OF INDIVIDUALS WHO EXERCISE THEIR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.
> 
> All you do is repeat shit over and over and over and over and over and never make a fucking point EVER!!!
> 
> I am so FUCK SICK of you
> 
> SHUT THE FUCK UP and GO BACK TO MEXICO!!!
> 
> .
Click to expand...

There are no individual rights in our Second Amendment because it is about the security of a free State not natural rights.


----------



## Lesh

What the 2A says..."A Well Regulated Militia Being Necessary ...

It BEGINS thst Amendment with that phrase. That's not there by "accident".

Gun rights are protected in the Constitution as required by that "Well Regulated Militia" which no longer exists.If you want to claim that an UNorganized militia fits that description (it doesn't) then the DIck Act would be applicable. THAT act does away with the "Well Regulated Militia" and replaces it with the National Guard (which no longer is "self armed") and an "unorganized militia" consisting of ONLY MALES...between the ages of 17 and 45.

At BEST...under a rather tortured understanding of the 2A...it only protects gun rights for those people....and that's debatable since they are NOT "Well Regulated" as described elsewhere in the Constitution (Having rolls, Discipline, Officers, Training...and being used to put DOWN the kinds of insurrections that gun nuts claim the 2A would enable)


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> There are no individual rights in our Second Amendment because it is about the security of a free State not natural rights.


It's not about the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" like the CLEAR, EXPRESS LANGUAGE STATE, YOU FUCKING MEXICAN ASSWIPE!!!!

SHUT THE FUCK UP, TROLL!!!

.


----------



## danielpalos

Lesh said:


> What the 2A says..."A Well Regulated Militia Being Necessary ...
> 
> It BEGINS thst Amendment with that phrase. That's not there by "accident".
> 
> Gun rights are protected in the Constitution as required by that "Well Regulated Militia" which no longer exists.If you want to claim that an UNorganized militia fits that description (it doesn't) then the DIck Act would be applicable. THAT act does away with the "Well Regulated Militia" and replaces it with the National Guard (which no longer is "self armed") and an "unorganized militia" consisting of ONLY MALES...between the ages of 17 and 45.
> 
> At BEST...under a rather tortured understanding of the 2A...it only protects gun rights for those people....and that's debatable since they are NOT "Well Regulated" as described elsewhere in the Constitution (Having rolls, Discipline, Officers, Training...and being used to put DOWN the kinds of insurrections that gun nuts claim the 2A would enable)


It still exists for organizational purposes; you are either well regulated and know it, or unorganized.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lesh said:


> What the 2A says..."A Well Regulated Militia Being Necessary ...


So, all the founders intended to do was declare a militia necessary?

WRONG!!!



Lesh said:


> Gun rights are protected in the Constitution as required by that "Well Regulated Militia" which no longer exists.



WRONG!!!



Lesh said:


> If you want to claim that an UNorganized militia fits that description (it doesn't) then the DIck Act would be applicable.  THAT act does away with the "Well Regulated Militia" and replaces it with the National Guard (which no longer is "self armed") and an "unorganized militia" consisting of ONLY MALES...between the ages of 17 and 45.



WRONG

The Dick Act does not amend the Constitution.  Go back to law school.



Lesh said:


> At BEST...under a rather tortured understanding of the 2A...it only protects gun rights for those people...


Which people?  "The People?"

There no such qualifier in the 2A, nor is there a provision for the meaning and protections of the 2A to suddenly and arbitrarily disappear when some assclown commies think an armed citizenry is no longer needed (wanted).  



Lesh said:


> ...and that's debatable since they are NOT "Well Regulated" as described elsewhere in the Constitution (Having rolls, Discipline, Officers, Training...and being used to put DOWN the kinds of insurrections that gun nuts claim the 2A would enable)


BUT, the 2A did not condition the protections of the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE on being "well regulated" (not what you say it means) or being actively enrolled in an organized military force.  

Your remedy is to amend and quit lying about your intent.  

You want a total ban and do not believe humans have that basic right.  

Quit pretending otherwise.

.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no individual rights in our Second Amendment because it is about the security of a free State not natural rights.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not about the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" like the CLEAR, EXPRESS LANGUAGE STATE, YOU FUCKING MEXICAN ASSWIPE!!!!
> 
> SHUT THE FUCK UP, TROLL!!!
> 
> .
Click to expand...

The People not the Persons.  It makes all the difference in the world to the security of a free State.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> The People not the Persons. It makes all the difference in the world to the security of a free State.


Without persons, you would not have people.

How can you argue with a straight face that "People" does not mean "Persons"?

People have the right, but not a person? 


You are SUCH a communist.

That's how the communist power brokers defraud the unwashed masses.

"Who owns this food."

"The people."

"I am a person.  Can I eat some?"

"No.  It belongs to the People.  Not you."


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that?
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia are Necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't say that. I know you desperately want it to, because you continually say it does, but it just doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Nobody takes the right wing seriously about the Law, Constitutional or otherwise.  Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone has recourse to the second amendment. The right of the people and so forth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL.  Nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.
> 
> The North had to win simply Because, only well regulated militia of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Not the unorganized militias.
Click to expand...


Given that the Amendment says the right of the people, who then does not have recourse to it?


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first clause claims you are simply wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> What?  All it says is that a well regulated militia is necessary.  That is all the first clause tells us.
> 
> So the founders intended to tell us that something is necessary and that is all they did in the 2A???
> 
> WRONG, YOU FUCKING ASS!!!
> 
> Because it's necessary, what does the rest of the Amendment do?
> 
> It protects the right of the PEOPLE, not the fucking militia!!!!  THAT IS PLAIN ENGLISH, AS IT IS WRITTEN!!!!
> 
> THERE ARE NO COLLECTIVE RIGHTS, YOU DUMB FUCK!!!
> 
> THE MILITIA DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT.
> 
> PEOPLE DO.
> 
> INDIVIDUALS EXERCISE RIGHTS.  GROUPS ONLY EXERCISE RIGHTS TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY ARE MADE UP OF INDIVIDUALS WHO EXERCISE THEIR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.
> 
> All you do is repeat shit over and over and over and over and over and never make a fucking point EVER!!!
> 
> I am so FUCK SICK of you
> 
> SHUT THE FUCK UP and GO BACK TO MEXICO!!!
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no individual rights in our Second Amendment because it is about the security of a free State not natural rights.
Click to expand...


That's not what it says.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

hadit said:


> Given that the Amendment says the right of the people, who then does not have recourse to it?


PROVE IT, YOU PIECE OF TROLLING SHIT!!!  CITE A CASE!!!  QUOTE A SCHOLAR!!! ANYTHING!!!

Otherwise, your illegal Mexican ass can SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!

.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no individual rights in our Second Amendment because it is about the security of a free State not natural rights.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not about the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" like the CLEAR, EXPRESS LANGUAGE STATE, YOU FUCKING MEXICAN ASSWIPE!!!!
> 
> SHUT THE FUCK UP, TROLL!!!
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People not the Persons.  It makes all the difference in the world to the security of a free State.
Click to expand...


Given that the first amendment specifies that the right of the people to assemble is protected, does that mean you have the right to get together with anyone you choose, or must you be a part of an organized group to get together on a street corner?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

hadit said:


> Given that the first amendment specifies that the right of the people to assemble is protected, does that mean you have the right to get together with anyone you choose, or must you be a part of an organized group to get together on a street corner?


Get ready for more _argumentum ad nauseam, _off-topic deflection, and/or _argumentum ad hominem _about the right wing.

His lack of self-awareness is shocking.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Lesh said:


> What the 2A says..."A Well Regulated Militia Being Necessary ...
> It BEGINS thst Amendment with that phrase. That's not there by "accident".
> Gun rights are protected in the Constitution as required by that "Well Regulated Militia" which no longer exists


This is a lie.
Oh...sorry...
You are fully aware that you opinion runs contrary to established fact.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no individual rights in our Second Amendment because it is about the security of a free State not natural rights.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not about the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" like the CLEAR, EXPRESS LANGUAGE STATE, YOU FUCKING MEXICAN ASSWIPE!!!!
> SHUT THE FUCK UP, TROLL!!!
Click to expand...

The board has an ignore function for a reason.


----------



## Lesh

M14 Shooter said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the 2A says..."A Well Regulated Militia Being Necessary ...
> It BEGINS thst Amendment with that phrase. That's not there by "accident".
> Gun rights are protected in the Constitution as required by that "Well Regulated Militia" which no longer exists
> 
> 
> 
> This is a lie.
> Oh...sorry...
> You are fully aware that you opinion runs contrary to established fact.
Click to expand...

Fact and opinion are not the same things. Learn the difference


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lesh said:


> Fact and opinion are not the same things. Learn the difference


Look in the mirror.

.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People not the Persons. It makes all the difference in the world to the security of a free State.
> 
> 
> 
> Without persons, you would not have people.
> 
> How can you argue with a straight face that "People" does not mean "Persons"?
> 
> People have the right, but not a person?
> 
> 
> You are SUCH a communist.
> 
> That's how the communist power brokers defraud the unwashed masses.
> 
> "Who owns this food."
> 
> "The people."
> 
> "I am a person.  Can I eat some?"
> 
> "No.  It belongs to the People.  Not you."
Click to expand...

you have to engage in the special pleading of appealing to ignorance of the difference in, intent and purpose of our Second Article of Amendment.

Our Second Amendment recognizes and secures this State's sovereign right:



> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia are Necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't say that. I know you desperately want it to, because you continually say it does, but it just doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Nobody takes the right wing seriously about the Law, Constitutional or otherwise.  Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone has recourse to the second amendment. The right of the people and so forth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL.  Nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.
> 
> The North had to win simply Because, only well regulated militia of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Not the unorganized militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given that the Amendment says the right of the people, who then does not have recourse to it?
Click to expand...

Well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Article of Amendment, every time the unorganized militia whines about gun control.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first clause claims you are simply wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> What?  All it says is that a well regulated militia is necessary.  That is all the first clause tells us.
> 
> So the founders intended to tell us that something is necessary and that is all they did in the 2A???
> 
> WRONG, YOU FUCKING ASS!!!
> 
> Because it's necessary, what does the rest of the Amendment do?
> 
> It protects the right of the PEOPLE, not the fucking militia!!!!  THAT IS PLAIN ENGLISH, AS IT IS WRITTEN!!!!
> 
> THERE ARE NO COLLECTIVE RIGHTS, YOU DUMB FUCK!!!
> 
> THE MILITIA DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT.
> 
> PEOPLE DO.
> 
> INDIVIDUALS EXERCISE RIGHTS.  GROUPS ONLY EXERCISE RIGHTS TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY ARE MADE UP OF INDIVIDUALS WHO EXERCISE THEIR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.
> 
> All you do is repeat shit over and over and over and over and over and never make a fucking point EVER!!!
> 
> I am so FUCK SICK of you
> 
> SHUT THE FUCK UP and GO BACK TO MEXICO!!!
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no individual rights in our Second Amendment because it is about the security of a free State not natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not what it says.
Click to expand...

The first clause expressly declares it to be the "gospel Truth" for the militia of the United States.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no individual rights in our Second Amendment because it is about the security of a free State not natural rights.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not about the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" like the CLEAR, EXPRESS LANGUAGE STATE, YOU FUCKING MEXICAN ASSWIPE!!!!
> 
> SHUT THE FUCK UP, TROLL!!!
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People not the Persons.  It makes all the difference in the world to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given that the first amendment specifies that the right of the people to assemble is protected, does that mean you have the right to get together with anyone you choose, or must you be a part of an organized group to get together on a street corner?
Click to expand...

Our Second Amendment declares which subset of the People have literal recourse.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given that the first amendment specifies that the right of the people to assemble is protected, does that mean you have the right to get together with anyone you choose, or must you be a part of an organized group to get together on a street corner?
> 
> 
> 
> Get ready for more _argumentum ad nauseam, _off-topic deflection, and/or _argumentum ad hominem _about the right wing.
> 
> His lack of self-awareness is shocking.
Click to expand...

in right wing fantasy, you are Always right.


----------



## OODA_Loop

_Heller vs DC._

Individual right free from connection with militia service.


----------



## Lesh

According to Scalia...who supposedly was an "originalist" and ....wasn't


----------



## Lesh

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no individual rights in our Second Amendment because it is about the security of a free State not natural rights.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not about the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" like the CLEAR, EXPRESS LANGUAGE STATE, YOU FUCKING MEXICAN ASSWIPE!!!!
> 
> SHUT THE FUCK UP, TROLL!!!
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People not the Persons.  It makes all the difference in the world to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given that the first amendment specifies that the right of the people to assemble is protected, does that mean you have the right to get together with anyone you choose, or must you be a part of an organized group to get together on a street corner?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment declares which subset of the People have literal recourse.
Click to expand...

Stop trolling


----------



## M14 Shooter

Lesh said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the 2A says..."A Well Regulated Militia Being Necessary ...
> It BEGINS thst Amendment with that phrase. That's not there by "accident".
> Gun rights are protected in the Constitution as required by that "Well Regulated Militia" which no longer exists
> 
> 
> 
> This is a lie.
> Oh...sorry...
> You are fully aware that you opinion runs contrary to established fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fact and opinion are not the same things. Learn the difference
Click to expand...

Yes...   and you are fully aware that you opinion runs contrary to established fact.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Lesh said:


> According to Scalia...who supposedly was an "originalist" and ....wasn't


No.  According to the United States Supreme Court.
You are fully aware that you opinion runs contrary to established fact.


----------



## danielpalos

OODA_Loop said:


> _Heller vs DC._
> 
> Individual right free from connection with militia service.


a simple error in law subject to our Ninth Amendment. 

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law in federal venues.


----------



## danielpalos

Lesh said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no individual rights in our Second Amendment because it is about the security of a free State not natural rights.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not about the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" like the CLEAR, EXPRESS LANGUAGE STATE, YOU FUCKING MEXICAN ASSWIPE!!!!
> 
> SHUT THE FUCK UP, TROLL!!!
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People not the Persons.  It makes all the difference in the world to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given that the first amendment specifies that the right of the people to assemble is protected, does that mean you have the right to get together with anyone you choose, or must you be a part of an organized group to get together on a street corner?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment declares which subset of the People have literal recourse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop trolling
Click to expand...

you need a valid argument not fallacious ad hominems.


----------



## danielpalos

M14 Shooter said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to Scalia...who supposedly was an "originalist" and ....wasn't
> 
> 
> 
> No.  According to the United States Supreme Court.
> You are fully aware that you opinion runs contrary to established fact.
Click to expand...

Our form of Socialism is limited to Express powers delegated by the People our representatives to Government.


----------



## Lesh

Stop fucking TROLLING

Troll


----------



## danielpalos

Lesh said:


> Stop fucking TROLLING
> 
> Troll


what objection do you argumentatively have?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> a simple error in law subject to our Ninth Amendment.


The 9th Amendment helps OUR argument.  Not yours.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Only the Supreme Court has the authority to determine the meaning of the Second Amendment.


And they rejected the interpritation that the 2A protects the right of a militia, not induviduals.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Our Second Amendment declares which subset of the People have literal recourse.


It *literally* states that the right of the people (no qualification)...shall not be infringed.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> a simple error in law subject to our Ninth Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> The 9th Amendment helps OUR argument.  Not yours.
Click to expand...

There are no individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.  You cannot claim any implied individual right from the syntax expressly declared in our supreme law of the land.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> The first clause expressly declares it to be the "gospel Truth" for the militia of the United States.


It states that A militia and does not specifically refer to or name a specific organization or body.  

It literally states that a militia is necessary and literally states that the right of the people shall not be infringed.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first clause expressly declares it to be the "gospel Truth" for the militia of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> It states that A militia and does not specifically refer to or name a specific organization or body.
> 
> It literally states that a militia is necessary and literally states that the right of the people shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...

I am not sure why you believe you can appeal to ignorance of this common law fact:



> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.



That is the common law for the common defense.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't say that. I know you desperately want it to, because you continually say it does, but it just doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  Nobody takes the right wing seriously about the Law, Constitutional or otherwise.  Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone has recourse to the second amendment. The right of the people and so forth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL.  Nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.
> 
> The North had to win simply Because, only well regulated militia of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Not the unorganized militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given that the Amendment says the right of the people, who then does not have recourse to it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Article of Amendment, every time the unorganized militia whines about gun control.
Click to expand...


That's not an answer.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> There are no individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.


And, who said that?  What legal authority gave you that idea.  Or are you just talking out of your bean-farting ass?

There are no individual terms in the 1st Amendment either.  

Is it your argument that individuals' free speech is not protected?


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  Nobody takes the right wing seriously about the Law, Constitutional or otherwise.  Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone has recourse to the second amendment. The right of the people and so forth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL.  Nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.
> 
> The North had to win simply Because, only well regulated militia of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Not the unorganized militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given that the Amendment says the right of the people, who then does not have recourse to it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Article of Amendment, every time the unorganized militia whines about gun control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not an answer.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is.  Why do you believe it isn't?


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first clause claims you are simply wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> What?  All it says is that a well regulated militia is necessary.  That is all the first clause tells us.
> 
> So the founders intended to tell us that something is necessary and that is all they did in the 2A???
> 
> WRONG, YOU FUCKING ASS!!!
> 
> Because it's necessary, what does the rest of the Amendment do?
> 
> It protects the right of the PEOPLE, not the fucking militia!!!!  THAT IS PLAIN ENGLISH, AS IT IS WRITTEN!!!!
> 
> THERE ARE NO COLLECTIVE RIGHTS, YOU DUMB FUCK!!!
> 
> THE MILITIA DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT.
> 
> PEOPLE DO.
> 
> INDIVIDUALS EXERCISE RIGHTS.  GROUPS ONLY EXERCISE RIGHTS TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY ARE MADE UP OF INDIVIDUALS WHO EXERCISE THEIR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.
> 
> All you do is repeat shit over and over and over and over and over and never make a fucking point EVER!!!
> 
> I am so FUCK SICK of you
> 
> SHUT THE FUCK UP and GO BACK TO MEXICO!!!
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no individual rights in our Second Amendment because it is about the security of a free State not natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not what it says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The first clause expressly declares it to be the "gospel Truth" for the militia of the United States.
Click to expand...


No it doesn't.  It says the right of the people, not the militia, as you fantasize.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> And, who said that?  What legal authority gave you that idea.  Or are you just talking out of your bean-farting ass?
> 
> There are no individual terms in the 1st Amendment either.
> 
> Is it your argument that individuals' free speech is not protected?
Click to expand...

willful blindness is a moral turpitude, right winger. 

The People are the Militia; you are either, well regulated or not.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

M14 Shooter said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have the right to be armed in your home.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a lie of omission.
> 
> 
> 
> How you get maintain that right is up to the state down to the city.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a lie of deliberate misrepresentation.
Click to expand...


Sorry, you already got your daily reward.  You can't get anymore fruitcake awards today.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Daryl Hunt said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have the right to be armed in your home.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a lie of omission.
> 
> 
> 
> How you get maintain that right is up to the state down to the city.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a lie of deliberate misrepresentation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, you already got your daily reward.  You can't get anymore fruitcake awards today.
Click to expand...

Nothing here changes the fact you lied.


----------



## Lesh

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first clause expressly declares it to be the "gospel Truth" for the militia of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> It states that A militia and does not specifically refer to or name a specific organization or body.
> 
> It literally states that a militia is necessary and literally states that the right of the people shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...

“Literally “ means that those words actually are on that Amendment. They are not


----------



## progressive hunter

Lesh said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first clause expressly declares it to be the "gospel Truth" for the militia of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> It states that A militia and does not specifically refer to or name a specific organization or body.
> 
> It literally states that a militia is necessary and literally states that the right of the people shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “Literally “ means that those words actually are on that Amendment. They are not
Click to expand...

sorry lush but those are the words,,,,

you must be reading the communist constitution


----------



## danielpalos

progressive hunter said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first clause expressly declares it to be the "gospel Truth" for the militia of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> It states that A militia and does not specifically refer to or name a specific organization or body.
> 
> It literally states that a militia is necessary and literally states that the right of the people shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “Literally “ means that those words actually are on that Amendment. They are not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sorry lush but those are the words,,,,
> 
> you must be reading the communist constitution
Click to expand...

any land force is subject to Congressional legislation.  our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.


----------



## Lesh

danielpalos said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first clause expressly declares it to be the "gospel Truth" for the militia of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> It states that A militia and does not specifically refer to or name a specific organization or body.
> 
> It literally states that a militia is necessary and literally states that the right of the people shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “Literally “ means that those words actually are on that Amendment. They are not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sorry lush but those are the words,,,,
> 
> you must be reading the communist constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> any land force is subject to Congressional legislation.  our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.
Click to expand...

If your intention is to say stupid shit in order to lose this argument...you're succeeding


----------



## progressive hunter

Lesh said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first clause expressly declares it to be the "gospel Truth" for the militia of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> It states that A militia and does not specifically refer to or name a specific organization or body.
> 
> It literally states that a militia is necessary and literally states that the right of the people shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “Literally “ means that those words actually are on that Amendment. They are not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sorry lush but those are the words,,,,
> 
> you must be reading the communist constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> any land force is subject to Congressional legislation.  our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If your intention is to say stupid shit in order to lose this argument...you're succeeding
Click to expand...

neither,,,just giving you the facts,,,

if you can refute them then please do so


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> willful blindness is a moral turpitude


So, you are arguing that legal analysis should be obvious to everyone?

.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lesh said:


> “Literally “ means that those words actually are on that Amendment. They are not


It doesn't LITERALLY say "A [well regulated] militia" as opposed to "The Militia of the United States"?

It doesn't LITERALLY state that [a militia] [is] (is = a conjugated "be" verb = same as "being") necessary?  It doesn't literally state that "the right of the people" to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed."

I think I pretty much LITERALLY stated it.  I added no new words..

.


----------



## Lesh

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> It doesn't LITERALLY say "A [well regulated] militia" as opposed to "The Militia of the United States"?



It "literally" says "A Well Regulated Militia..."

It does not  "literally" or otherwise say whatever the fuck you are claiming


----------



## danielpalos

Lesh said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first clause expressly declares it to be the "gospel Truth" for the militia of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> It states that A militia and does not specifically refer to or name a specific organization or body.
> 
> It literally states that a militia is necessary and literally states that the right of the people shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “Literally “ means that those words actually are on that Amendment. They are not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sorry lush but those are the words,,,,
> 
> you must be reading the communist constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> any land force is subject to Congressional legislation.  our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If your intention is to say stupid shit in order to lose this argument...you're succeeding
Click to expand...

You don't know what you are talking about and have only fallacy for rebuttal instead of Any valid argument.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> willful blindness is a moral turpitude
> 
> 
> 
> So, you are arguing that legal analysis should be obvious to everyone?
> 
> .
Click to expand...

the right wing doesn't care about natural rights or a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge; what do they care about?


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Literally “ means that those words actually are on that Amendment. They are not
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't LITERALLY say "A [well regulated] militia" as opposed to "The Militia of the United States"?
> 
> It doesn't LITERALLY state that [a militia] [is] (is = a conjugated "be" verb = same as "being") necessary?  It doesn't literally state that "the right of the people" to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed."
> 
> I think I pretty much LITERALLY stated it.  I added no new words..
> 
> .
Click to expand...

The People are the Militia; you are Either well regulated or not.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> It states that A militia and does not specifically refer to or name a specific organization or body.
> 
> It literally states that a militia is necessary and literally states that the right of the people shall not be infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> “Literally “ means that those words actually are on that Amendment. They are not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sorry lush but those are the words,,,,
> 
> you must be reading the communist constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> any land force is subject to Congressional legislation.  our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If your intention is to say stupid shit in order to lose this argument...you're succeeding
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about and have only fallacy for rebuttal instead of Any valid argument.
Click to expand...

That's really pathetic.  I've seen you try the PeeWee Herman thing before.  It didn't work then and it won't work now.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Literally “ means that those words actually are on that Amendment. They are not
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't LITERALLY say "A [well regulated] militia" as opposed to "The Militia of the United States"?
> 
> It doesn't LITERALLY state that [a militia] [is] (is = a conjugated "be" verb = same as "being") necessary?  It doesn't literally state that "the right of the people" to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed."
> 
> I think I pretty much LITERALLY stated it.  I added no new words..
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia; you are Either well regulated or not.
Click to expand...

So if the people are the militia, and the militia can't have its right to arms infringed, that means the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed.  You just nuked your own argument.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Literally “ means that those words actually are on that Amendment. They are not
> 
> 
> 
> sorry lush but those are the words,,,,
> 
> you must be reading the communist constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> any land force is subject to Congressional legislation.  our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If your intention is to say stupid shit in order to lose this argument...you're succeeding
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about and have only fallacy for rebuttal instead of Any valid argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's really pathetic.  I've seen you try the PeeWee Herman thing before.  It didn't work then and it won't work now.
Click to expand...

i am not the inferior one with nothing but fallacy.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Literally “ means that those words actually are on that Amendment. They are not
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't LITERALLY say "A [well regulated] militia" as opposed to "The Militia of the United States"?
> 
> It doesn't LITERALLY state that [a militia] [is] (is = a conjugated "be" verb = same as "being") necessary?  It doesn't literally state that "the right of the people" to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed."
> 
> I think I pretty much LITERALLY stated it.  I added no new words..
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia; you are Either well regulated or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if the people are the militia, and the militia can't have its right to arms infringed, that means the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed.  You just nuked your own argument.
Click to expand...

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States; organize sufficient militia to make that happen, don't make excuses, right wingers.  There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> sorry lush but those are the words,,,,
> 
> you must be reading the communist constitution
> 
> 
> 
> any land force is subject to Congressional legislation.  our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If your intention is to say stupid shit in order to lose this argument...you're succeeding
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about and have only fallacy for rebuttal instead of Any valid argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's really pathetic.  I've seen you try the PeeWee Herman thing before.  It didn't work then and it won't work now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i am not the inferior one with nothing but fallacy.
Click to expand...

Yes, yes you are.  You haven't produced a valid argument yet.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Literally “ means that those words actually are on that Amendment. They are not
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't LITERALLY say "A [well regulated] militia" as opposed to "The Militia of the United States"?
> 
> It doesn't LITERALLY state that [a militia] [is] (is = a conjugated "be" verb = same as "being") necessary?  It doesn't literally state that "the right of the people" to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed."
> 
> I think I pretty much LITERALLY stated it.  I added no new words..
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia; you are Either well regulated or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if the people are the militia, and the militia can't have its right to arms infringed, that means the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed.  You just nuked your own argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States; organize sufficient militia to make that happen, don't make excuses, right wingers.  There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.
Click to expand...

Don't you remember? I told you that we already did that, so now we can go back to ordinary people owning guns if they want to.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> any land force is subject to Congressional legislation.  our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.
> 
> 
> 
> If your intention is to say stupid shit in order to lose this argument...you're succeeding
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about and have only fallacy for rebuttal instead of Any valid argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's really pathetic.  I've seen you try the PeeWee Herman thing before.  It didn't work then and it won't work now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i am not the inferior one with nothing but fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, yes you are.  You haven't produced a valid argument yet.
Click to expand...

i can't take Your inferiority seriously; you need a valid argument.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Literally “ means that those words actually are on that Amendment. They are not
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't LITERALLY say "A [well regulated] militia" as opposed to "The Militia of the United States"?
> 
> It doesn't LITERALLY state that [a militia] [is] (is = a conjugated "be" verb = same as "being") necessary?  It doesn't literally state that "the right of the people" to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed."
> 
> I think I pretty much LITERALLY stated it.  I added no new words..
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia; you are Either well regulated or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if the people are the militia, and the militia can't have its right to arms infringed, that means the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed.  You just nuked your own argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States; organize sufficient militia to make that happen, don't make excuses, right wingers.  There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't you remember? I told you that we already did that, so now we can go back to ordinary people owning guns if they want to.
Click to expand...

too lazy to muster but like to be hypocritical about the Poor, allegedly mooching?


----------



## Lakhota

Exclusive: NRA Official Sought Sandy Hook Hoaxer To Question Parkland Shooting, Emails Show

Ugly.  Very ugly.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

hadit said:


> So if the people are the militia, and the militia can't have its right to arms infringed, that means the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed. You just nuked your own argument.


all he does is respond with bullshit


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> If your intention is to say stupid shit in order to lose this argument...you're succeeding
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about and have only fallacy for rebuttal instead of Any valid argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's really pathetic.  I've seen you try the PeeWee Herman thing before.  It didn't work then and it won't work now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i am not the inferior one with nothing but fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, yes you are.  You haven't produced a valid argument yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i can't take Your inferiority seriously; you need a valid argument.
Click to expand...


A lot of people have given you many, many valid arguments that you've ignored, only to pop up and regurgitate the same failed phrases over and over again. No one can take you seriously about anything.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't LITERALLY say "A [well regulated] militia" as opposed to "The Militia of the United States"?
> 
> It doesn't LITERALLY state that [a militia] [is] (is = a conjugated "be" verb = same as "being") necessary?  It doesn't literally state that "the right of the people" to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed."
> 
> I think I pretty much LITERALLY stated it.  I added no new words..
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia; you are Either well regulated or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if the people are the militia, and the militia can't have its right to arms infringed, that means the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed.  You just nuked your own argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States; organize sufficient militia to make that happen, don't make excuses, right wingers.  There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't you remember? I told you that we already did that, so now we can go back to ordinary people owning guns if they want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> too lazy to muster but like to be hypocritical about the Poor, allegedly mooching?
Click to expand...


Now you're talking about the poor? Pick a subject and stay with it.


----------



## Lakhota

*The NRA Comes Out Against The Violence Against Women Act*

The NRA is pure evil.


----------



## Rigby5

Lakhota said:


> *The NRA Comes Out Against The Violence Against Women Act*
> 
> The NRA is pure evil.



The NRA has nothing at all to do with it, and in fact, the NRA originated the first gun control legislation back in 1911 when they were tied to the KKK and wanted to ensure Blacks, immigrants, and union organizers would be unable to defend themselves.
There is no excuse for preventing any law abiding citizens from having military grade weapon.
To do so would be to create an elite government not of or by the people.
And that is a dictatorship.
Citizens are more trusted with weapons and need them more than police or military do.
Citizens are the real first line of defense, and the police and military are more likely to either not be there when needed, or be abusive.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if the people are the militia, and the militia can't have its right to arms infringed, that means the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed. You just nuked your own argument.
> 
> 
> 
> all he does is respond with bullshit
Click to expand...

projecting is what the right wing is best at.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about and have only fallacy for rebuttal instead of Any valid argument.
> 
> 
> 
> That's really pathetic.  I've seen you try the PeeWee Herman thing before.  It didn't work then and it won't work now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i am not the inferior one with nothing but fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, yes you are.  You haven't produced a valid argument yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i can't take Your inferiority seriously; you need a valid argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A lot of people have given you many, many valid arguments that you've ignored, only to pop up and regurgitate the same failed phrases over and over again. No one can take you seriously about anything.
Click to expand...

All terms in our Second Amendment are collective and plural; where are you getting your implied individual rights from?


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia; you are Either well regulated or not.
> 
> 
> 
> So if the people are the militia, and the militia can't have its right to arms infringed, that means the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed.  You just nuked your own argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States; organize sufficient militia to make that happen, don't make excuses, right wingers.  There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't you remember? I told you that we already did that, so now we can go back to ordinary people owning guns if they want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> too lazy to muster but like to be hypocritical about the Poor, allegedly mooching?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you're talking about the poor? Pick a subject and stay with it.
Click to expand...

no valid rebuttals, only fallacy; i got it, right wingers.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> All terms in our Second Amendment are collective and plural; where are you getting your implied individual rights from?


All terms in our First Amendment are collective and plural. 

Explain that, you communist Mexican illegal fuck.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> All terms in our Second Amendment are collective and plural; where are you getting your implied individual rights from?
> 
> 
> 
> All terms in our First Amendment are collective and plural.
> 
> Explain that, you communist Mexican illegal fuck.
Click to expand...

The term Militia is expressly declared in our Second Amendment. 

That does explain it, "you refugee from the mountains of the true Caucasians".


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> The term Militia is expressly declared in our Second Amendment.
> 
> That does explain it, "you refugee from the mountains of the true Caucasians".


Thay explains JACK SHIT.  And I am NOT from  Caucas. 

Militia is a distinct term.  "People" is used in the First Amendment, yet none of those rights are "collective" rights.  Just because the word "Militia" is in the second amendment does not mean that all terms are collective.

That is the most idiotic claim I have ever heard.

 You are a dumb fuck.

 Go back to Mexico and enter the country the right way.

.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The term Militia is expressly declared in our Second Amendment.
> 
> That does explain it, "you refugee from the mountains of the true Caucasians".
> 
> 
> 
> Thay explains JACK SHIT.  And I am NOT from  Caucas.
> 
> Militia is a distinct term.  "People" is used in the First Amendment, yet none of those rights are "collective" rights.  Just because the word "Militia" is in the second amendment does not mean that all turms are collective.
> 
> That is the most idiotic claim I have ever heard.
> 
> You are a dumb fuck.
> 
> Go back to Mexico and enter the country the right way.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Militia is the distinct term that proves you wrong.  Not learn Anglo-Saxon well enough, "you refugee from the Olde World"?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The term Militia is expressly declared in our Second Amendment.
> 
> That does explain it, "you refugee from the mountains of the true Caucasians".
> 
> 
> 
> Thay explains JACK SHIT.  And I am NOT from  Caucas.
> 
> Militia is a distinct term.  "People" is used in the First Amendment, yet none of those rights are "collective" rights.  Just because the word "Militia" is in the second amendment does not mean that all turms are collective.
> 
> That is the most idiotic claim I have ever heard.
> 
> You are a dumb fuck.
> 
> Go back to Mexico and enter the country the right way.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Militia is the distinct term that proves you wrong.  Not learn Anglo-Saxon well enough, "you refugee from the Olde World"?
Click to expand...

Fuck you. 

Nobody accepts your bullshit communist "collective rights" argument.  It is illogical bullshit.

Now, fuck off, troll.

.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The term Militia is expressly declared in our Second Amendment.
> 
> That does explain it, "you refugee from the mountains of the true Caucasians".
> 
> 
> 
> Thay explains JACK SHIT.  And I am NOT from  Caucas.
> 
> Militia is a distinct term.  "People" is used in the First Amendment, yet none of those rights are "collective" rights.  Just because the word "Militia" is in the second amendment does not mean that all turms are collective.
> 
> That is the most idiotic claim I have ever heard.
> 
> You are a dumb fuck.
> 
> Go back to Mexico and enter the country the right way.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Militia is the distinct term that proves you wrong.  Not learn Anglo-Saxon well enough, "you refugee from the Olde World"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck you.
> 
> Nobody accepts your bullshit communist "collective rights" argument.  It is illogical bullshit.
> 
> Now, fuck off, troll.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

You lost already?  

Where is your dictionary definition that defines your point of view.  You all can cite definitions for socialism.


----------



## progressive hunter

Rigby5 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The NRA Comes Out Against The Violence Against Women Act*
> 
> The NRA is pure evil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The NRA has nothing at all to do with it, and in fact, the NRA originated the first gun control legislation back in 1911 when they were tied to the KKK and wanted to ensure Blacks, immigrants, and union organizers would be unable to defend themselves.
> There is no excuse for preventing any law abiding citizens from having military grade weapon.
> To do so would be to create an elite government not of or by the people.
> And that is a dictatorship.
> Citizens are more trusted with weapons and need them more than police or military do.
> Citizens are the real first line of defense, and the police and military are more likely to either not be there when needed, or be abusive.
Click to expand...

you ate your KOO-KOO puffs didnt you???


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> You lost already?
> 
> Where is your dictionary definition that defines your point of view. You all can cite definitions for socialism.


You have NEVER ONCE cited a source.  

Shut your fucking illegal Mexican mouth.

.


----------



## M14 Shooter

If you don't feed the troll, he will go away.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You lost already?
> 
> Where is your dictionary definition that defines your point of view. You all can cite definitions for socialism.
> 
> 
> 
> You have NEVER ONCE cited a source.
> 
> Shut your fucking illegal Mexican mouth.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

I have cited our express Second Amendment.  

Is English your second language; you keep making excuses.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You lost already?
> 
> Where is your dictionary definition that defines your point of view. You all can cite definitions for socialism.
> 
> 
> 
> You have NEVER ONCE cited a source.
> 
> Shut your fucking illegal Mexican mouth.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Our Second Amendment is Express not Implied. 

The People are the Militia; you are either well regulated or not. 

We should have no security problems in our free States and we really can blame our State legislators for it.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's really pathetic.  I've seen you try the PeeWee Herman thing before.  It didn't work then and it won't work now.
> 
> 
> 
> i am not the inferior one with nothing but fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, yes you are.  You haven't produced a valid argument yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i can't take Your inferiority seriously; you need a valid argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A lot of people have given you many, many valid arguments that you've ignored, only to pop up and regurgitate the same failed phrases over and over again. No one can take you seriously about anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All terms in our Second Amendment are collective and plural; where are you getting your implied individual rights from?
Click to expand...


The right of the people. You can't have people without persons. You do understand that, correct?


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if the people are the militia, and the militia can't have its right to arms infringed, that means the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed.  You just nuked your own argument.
> 
> 
> 
> We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States; organize sufficient militia to make that happen, don't make excuses, right wingers.  There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't you remember? I told you that we already did that, so now we can go back to ordinary people owning guns if they want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> too lazy to muster but like to be hypocritical about the Poor, allegedly mooching?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you're talking about the poor? Pick a subject and stay with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no valid rebuttals, only fallacy; i got it, right wingers.
Click to expand...


If you have a relevant comment, you'll get a rebuttal. Diversions, however, not so much.


----------



## hunarcy

Lesh said:


> According to Scalia...who supposedly was an "originalist" and ....wasn't



Scalia was just one vote.  However, of course, he was correct.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> i am not the inferior one with nothing but fallacy.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, yes you are.  You haven't produced a valid argument yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i can't take Your inferiority seriously; you need a valid argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A lot of people have given you many, many valid arguments that you've ignored, only to pop up and regurgitate the same failed phrases over and over again. No one can take you seriously about anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All terms in our Second Amendment are collective and plural; where are you getting your implied individual rights from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right of the people. You can't have people without persons. You do understand that, correct?
Click to expand...

I understand that the terms are express not implied if we have to quibble. 

And, if you merely want to imply, the people may not be infringed in the keeping and bearing of Arms for their State or the Union whenever the security of our free States should require it, makes much more rational and Constitutional sense under the common law for the common defense.


----------



## hunarcy

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no individual rights in our Second Amendment because it is about the security of a free State not natural rights.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not about the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" like the CLEAR, EXPRESS LANGUAGE STATE, YOU FUCKING MEXICAN ASSWIPE!!!!
> 
> SHUT THE FUCK UP, TROLL!!!
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People not the Persons.  It makes all the difference in the world to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given that the first amendment specifies that the right of the people to assemble is protected, does that mean you have the right to get together with anyone you choose, or must you be a part of an organized group to get together on a street corner?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment declares which subset of the People have literal recourse.
Click to expand...


"Our Second Amendment"?  I don't believe you are a citizen of this nation, so "Our Second Amendment" would not apply to you.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States; organize sufficient militia to make that happen, don't make excuses, right wingers.  There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you remember? I told you that we already did that, so now we can go back to ordinary people owning guns if they want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> too lazy to muster but like to be hypocritical about the Poor, allegedly mooching?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you're talking about the poor? Pick a subject and stay with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no valid rebuttals, only fallacy; i got it, right wingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you have a relevant comment, you'll get a rebuttal. Diversions, however, not so much.
Click to expand...

Natural rights including the natural right to defense of self and property is recognized and secured in State Constitutions not our Second Amendment.


----------



## danielpalos

hunarcy said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no individual rights in our Second Amendment because it is about the security of a free State not natural rights.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not about the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" like the CLEAR, EXPRESS LANGUAGE STATE, YOU FUCKING MEXICAN ASSWIPE!!!!
> 
> SHUT THE FUCK UP, TROLL!!!
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People not the Persons.  It makes all the difference in the world to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given that the first amendment specifies that the right of the people to assemble is protected, does that mean you have the right to get together with anyone you choose, or must you be a part of an organized group to get together on a street corner?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment declares which subset of the People have literal recourse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Our Second Amendment"?  I don't believe you are a citizen of this nation, so "Our Second Amendment" would not apply to you.
Click to expand...

too bad you only have an inferior argument.  you need more than fallacy for your bigotry to work with me, right wingers.  i really do have a superior, left wing position.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, yes you are.  You haven't produced a valid argument yet.
> 
> 
> 
> i can't take Your inferiority seriously; you need a valid argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A lot of people have given you many, many valid arguments that you've ignored, only to pop up and regurgitate the same failed phrases over and over again. No one can take you seriously about anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All terms in our Second Amendment are collective and plural; where are you getting your implied individual rights from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right of the people. You can't have people without persons. You do understand that, correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand that the terms are express not implied if we have to quibble.
> 
> And, if you merely want to imply, the people may not be infringed in the keeping and bearing of Arms for their State or the Union whenever the security of our free States should require it, makes much more rational and Constitutional sense under the common law for the common defense.
Click to expand...


It doesn't say anything about "for their state or the Union". That's another thing you keep tossing in there that doesn't belong.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> i can't take Your inferiority seriously; you need a valid argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of people have given you many, many valid arguments that you've ignored, only to pop up and regurgitate the same failed phrases over and over again. No one can take you seriously about anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All terms in our Second Amendment are collective and plural; where are you getting your implied individual rights from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right of the people. You can't have people without persons. You do understand that, correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand that the terms are express not implied if we have to quibble.
> 
> And, if you merely want to imply, the people may not be infringed in the keeping and bearing of Arms for their State or the Union whenever the security of our free States should require it, makes much more rational and Constitutional sense under the common law for the common defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't say anything about "for their state or the Union". That's another thing you keep tossing in there that doesn't belong.
Click to expand...

I understand our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you remember? I told you that we already did that, so now we can go back to ordinary people owning guns if they want to.
> 
> 
> 
> too lazy to muster but like to be hypocritical about the Poor, allegedly mooching?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you're talking about the poor? Pick a subject and stay with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no valid rebuttals, only fallacy; i got it, right wingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you have a relevant comment, you'll get a rebuttal. Diversions, however, not so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Natural rights including the natural right to defense of self and property is recognized and secured in State Constitutions not our Second Amendment.
Click to expand...


Based on what? And no, I won't just take your word for it.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of people have given you many, many valid arguments that you've ignored, only to pop up and regurgitate the same failed phrases over and over again. No one can take you seriously about anything.
> 
> 
> 
> All terms in our Second Amendment are collective and plural; where are you getting your implied individual rights from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right of the people. You can't have people without persons. You do understand that, correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand that the terms are express not implied if we have to quibble.
> 
> And, if you merely want to imply, the people may not be infringed in the keeping and bearing of Arms for their State or the Union whenever the security of our free States should require it, makes much more rational and Constitutional sense under the common law for the common defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't say anything about "for their state or the Union". That's another thing you keep tossing in there that doesn't belong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.
Click to expand...


Which is meaningless, again.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> too lazy to muster but like to be hypocritical about the Poor, allegedly mooching?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're talking about the poor? Pick a subject and stay with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no valid rebuttals, only fallacy; i got it, right wingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you have a relevant comment, you'll get a rebuttal. Diversions, however, not so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Natural rights including the natural right to defense of self and property is recognized and secured in State Constitutions not our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Based on what? And no, I won't just take your word for it.
Click to expand...

LOL.  Based on Constitutional law.  You don't have to take my word for it.

natural rights recognized in State Constitutions are secured via Due Process in federal venues.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> All terms in our Second Amendment are collective and plural; where are you getting your implied individual rights from?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right of the people. You can't have people without persons. You do understand that, correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand that the terms are express not implied if we have to quibble.
> 
> And, if you merely want to imply, the people may not be infringed in the keeping and bearing of Arms for their State or the Union whenever the security of our free States should require it, makes much more rational and Constitutional sense under the common law for the common defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't say anything about "for their state or the Union". That's another thing you keep tossing in there that doesn't belong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is meaningless, again.
Click to expand...

your appeals to ignorance are even more meaningless.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're talking about the poor? Pick a subject and stay with it.
> 
> 
> 
> no valid rebuttals, only fallacy; i got it, right wingers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you have a relevant comment, you'll get a rebuttal. Diversions, however, not so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Natural rights including the natural right to defense of self and property is recognized and secured in State Constitutions not our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Based on what? And no, I won't just take your word for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL.  Based on Constitutional law.  You don't have to take my word for it.
> 
> natural rights recognized in State Constitutions are secured via Due Process in federal venues.
Click to expand...


Natural rights are secured in the federal Constitution.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right of the people. You can't have people without persons. You do understand that, correct?
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that the terms are express not implied if we have to quibble.
> 
> And, if you merely want to imply, the people may not be infringed in the keeping and bearing of Arms for their State or the Union whenever the security of our free States should require it, makes much more rational and Constitutional sense under the common law for the common defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't say anything about "for their state or the Union". That's another thing you keep tossing in there that doesn't belong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is meaningless, again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your appeals to ignorance are even more meaningless.
Click to expand...


I'm not appealing to you, so why would you say that?


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> no valid rebuttals, only fallacy; i got it, right wingers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you have a relevant comment, you'll get a rebuttal. Diversions, however, not so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Natural rights including the natural right to defense of self and property is recognized and secured in State Constitutions not our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Based on what? And no, I won't just take your word for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL.  Based on Constitutional law.  You don't have to take my word for it.
> 
> natural rights recognized in State Constitutions are secured via Due Process in federal venues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Natural rights are secured in the federal Constitution.
Click to expand...

no, they are not.  they are recognized in State Constitutions and available via Due Process in federal venues.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that the terms are express not implied if we have to quibble.
> 
> And, if you merely want to imply, the people may not be infringed in the keeping and bearing of Arms for their State or the Union whenever the security of our free States should require it, makes much more rational and Constitutional sense under the common law for the common defense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't say anything about "for their state or the Union". That's another thing you keep tossing in there that doesn't belong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is meaningless, again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your appeals to ignorance are even more meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not appealing to you, so why would you say that?
Click to expand...

you are the one with the inferior argument.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

hadit said:


> I'm not appealing to you, so why would you say that?


Just hit the ignore button on that filthy illegal Mexican troll.

.


----------



## danielpalos

show us where any Thing other than Due Process is guaranteed in our federal Constitution.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's really pathetic.  I've seen you try the PeeWee Herman thing before.  It didn't work then and it won't work now.
> 
> 
> 
> i am not the inferior one with nothing but fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, yes you are.  You haven't produced a valid argument yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i can't take Your inferiority seriously; you need a valid argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A lot of people have given you many, many valid arguments that you've ignored, only to pop up and regurgitate the same failed phrases over and over again. No one can take you seriously about anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All terms in our Second Amendment are collective and plural; where are you getting your implied individual rights from?
Click to expand...


Because that is what a democratic republic means.
In a democratic republic, inherent individual rights are the ONLY source of any authority at all.
And government only ends up borrowing on this inherent rights of individuals, when it acts collectively to protect them.

For example, where does government get its authority to arms anyone, like police or military?
It comes from the inherent right of individuals to be armed to be able to protect their inherent rights of defense of self and property.
If individuals could not be armed, then they could not delegate being armed to the government, so then you could not have armed police or military.

So whether or not the terms of the 2nd amendment are collective or plural is not relevant.
The Bill of Rights is NOT at all the source of any rights.
Government can never be a source of rights.
People MAKE government, so rights have to already exist, in order for people to be able to make a government.
And the Bill of Rights was not a statement of rights, but of restriction on federal jurisdictions.
The 2nd amendment just says the feds get ZERO weapons jurisdiction, essentially.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> i am not the inferior one with nothing but fallacy.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, yes you are.  You haven't produced a valid argument yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i can't take Your inferiority seriously; you need a valid argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A lot of people have given you many, many valid arguments that you've ignored, only to pop up and regurgitate the same failed phrases over and over again. No one can take you seriously about anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All terms in our Second Amendment are collective and plural; where are you getting your implied individual rights from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because that is what a democratic republic means.
> In a democratic republic, inherent individual rights are the ONLY source of any authority at all.
> And government only ends up borrowing on this inherent rights of individuals, when it acts collectively to protect them.
> 
> For example, where does government get its authority to arms anyone, like police or military?
> It comes from the inherent right of individuals to be armed to be able to protect their inherent rights of defense of self and property.
> If individuals could not be armed, then they could not delegate being armed to the government, so then you could not have armed police or military.
> 
> So whether or not the terms of the 2nd amendment are collective or plural is not relevant.
> The Bill of Rights is NOT at all the source of any rights.
> Government can never be a source of rights.
> People MAKE government, so rights have to already exist, in order for people to be able to make a government.
> And the Bill of Rights was not a statement of rights, but of restriction on federal jurisdictions.
> The 2nd amendment just says the feds get ZERO weapons jurisdiction, essentially.
Click to expand...

I agree with all of this.

If an individual does not have the right to take certain actions, where does government get the authority to do so except through usurpation and tyranny?

There can be no collective rights absent the same rights being held by the individual.  

There can be no right of assembly (a collective action) without each individual participating in the assembly having the right independent of all others.


This is a fundamental area of disagreement between me and the now-ignored illegal Mexican communist, danielpalos.

He does not believe in individualism or individual liberty.  He believes in the FORCED collective, where rights are basically a myth, because collective rights can never be exercised.

Practical example:

Communist Enforcer:  "The People have the right to free speech."

Unwashed Peasant:  "I am a person.  I have a right to free speech."

Communist Enforcer:  "Wrong.  The People have the right."

Unwashed Peasant:  "So, I can't speak freely?"

Communist Enforcer:  "No, you can't speak.  Only The People have that right.  Now shut up and get out of The People's park.  Only the People are allowed to enjoy this space."

Unwashed Peasant:  "But, I am one of the people."

Communist Enforcer:  "But, you are not The People, so get the fuck out of here before I send you to the salt mines."


Who gets to speak and use the park?   Only the powerful.

.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> All terms in our Second Amendment are collective and plural; where are you getting your implied individual rights from?
> 
> 
> 
> All terms in our First Amendment are collective and plural.
> 
> Explain that, you communist Mexican illegal fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The term Militia is expressly declared in our Second Amendment.
> 
> That does explain it, "you refugee from the mountains of the true Caucasians".
Click to expand...


When you want to say something is wrong, just as any federal jurisdiction over something is wrong, you don't have to list ALL the reasons.  If you want to give a single sample, that does not at all imply there are not millions of other reasons that may even be better or more important.  You simply may list one that is most likely to sway those they want to sign on to the agreement.

Clearly a the effectiveness of a militia is a good reason to forbid all federal gun control.
But clearly that does not imply it is the ONLY reason, nor does it imply federal gun control could possibly be allowed then the reason is for something else.
Clearly the 2nd amendment does not allow for any federal jurisdiction at all, under any circumstances.
And that should be obvious, because the need, uses, and practicality of weapons obviously is going to vary from state to state, like NY to AL.

The ONLY times the federal government is ever allowed any jurisdiction over anything, is essentially when states can't do it alone.  Weapons regulation is not one of those.  So clearly only states or municipalities can ever have any weapons jurisdiction, at all.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> show us where any Thing other than Due Process is guaranteed in our federal Constitution.



The whole Bill of Rights is just absolute guarantees.

The 9th and 10th amendments sum it up the best.
{...
Amendment 9 
_- Other Rights Kept by the People_

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment 10 
_- Undelegated Powers Kept by the States and the People_

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
...}
What they essentially say is that only what has been expressly granted federal jurisdiction comes under federal authority, but everything is open ended state, local, and individual authority.

The Bill of Rights is entirely a guarantee on limits to federal jurisdiction.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you have a relevant comment, you'll get a rebuttal. Diversions, however, not so much.
> 
> 
> 
> Natural rights including the natural right to defense of self and property is recognized and secured in State Constitutions not our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Based on what? And no, I won't just take your word for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL.  Based on Constitutional law.  You don't have to take my word for it.
> 
> natural rights recognized in State Constitutions are secured via Due Process in federal venues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Natural rights are secured in the federal Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, they are not.  they are recognized in State Constitutions and available via Due Process in federal venues.
Click to expand...


Natural rights can never be enumerated anywhere.
There are infinite.
But they are alluded to everywhere.
The whole point of a democratic republic is to codify natural rights as being the only valid source of any authority, and for that to be the basis from which any legislation of executive action has to be justified.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you have a relevant comment, you'll get a rebuttal. Diversions, however, not so much.
> 
> 
> 
> Natural rights including the natural right to defense of self and property is recognized and secured in State Constitutions not our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Based on what? And no, I won't just take your word for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL.  Based on Constitutional law.  You don't have to take my word for it.
> 
> natural rights recognized in State Constitutions are secured via Due Process in federal venues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Natural rights are secured in the federal Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, they are not.  they are recognized in State Constitutions and available via Due Process in federal venues.
Click to expand...


Please explain how the First Amendment does not protect natural rights.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't say anything about "for their state or the Union". That's another thing you keep tossing in there that doesn't belong.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is meaningless, again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your appeals to ignorance are even more meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not appealing to you, so why would you say that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are the one with the inferior argument.
Click to expand...


Listen, PeeWee, you're not getting anywhere with that argument.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> i am not the inferior one with nothing but fallacy.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, yes you are.  You haven't produced a valid argument yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i can't take Your inferiority seriously; you need a valid argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A lot of people have given you many, many valid arguments that you've ignored, only to pop up and regurgitate the same failed phrases over and over again. No one can take you seriously about anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All terms in our Second Amendment are collective and plural; where are you getting your implied individual rights from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because that is what a democratic republic means.
> In a democratic republic, inherent individual rights are the ONLY source of any authority at all.
> And government only ends up borrowing on this inherent rights of individuals, when it acts collectively to protect them.
> 
> For example, where does government get its authority to arms anyone, like police or military?
> It comes from the inherent right of individuals to be armed to be able to protect their inherent rights of defense of self and property.
> If individuals could not be armed, then they could not delegate being armed to the government, so then you could not have armed police or military.
> 
> So whether or not the terms of the 2nd amendment are collective or plural is not relevant.
> The Bill of Rights is NOT at all the source of any rights.
> Government can never be a source of rights.
> People MAKE government, so rights have to already exist, in order for people to be able to make a government.
> And the Bill of Rights was not a statement of rights, but of restriction on federal jurisdictions.
> The 2nd amendment just says the feds get ZERO weapons jurisdiction, essentially.
Click to expand...

You confuse natural rights with our Second Article of Amendment.  

You have a natural right to defense of self and property through the use of Arms.  

that natural right has always been tempered by the Police power of a State for the "good of the State" over the Individual.


----------



## P F Tinmore

And remember, a jury can trump the Supreme Court.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, yes you are.  You haven't produced a valid argument yet.
> 
> 
> 
> i can't take Your inferiority seriously; you need a valid argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A lot of people have given you many, many valid arguments that you've ignored, only to pop up and regurgitate the same failed phrases over and over again. No one can take you seriously about anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All terms in our Second Amendment are collective and plural; where are you getting your implied individual rights from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because that is what a democratic republic means.
> In a democratic republic, inherent individual rights are the ONLY source of any authority at all.
> And government only ends up borrowing on this inherent rights of individuals, when it acts collectively to protect them.
> 
> For example, where does government get its authority to arms anyone, like police or military?
> It comes from the inherent right of individuals to be armed to be able to protect their inherent rights of defense of self and property.
> If individuals could not be armed, then they could not delegate being armed to the government, so then you could not have armed police or military.
> 
> So whether or not the terms of the 2nd amendment are collective or plural is not relevant.
> The Bill of Rights is NOT at all the source of any rights.
> Government can never be a source of rights.
> People MAKE government, so rights have to already exist, in order for people to be able to make a government.
> And the Bill of Rights was not a statement of rights, but of restriction on federal jurisdictions.
> The 2nd amendment just says the feds get ZERO weapons jurisdiction, essentially.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You confuse natural rights with our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> You have a natural right to defense of self and property through the use of Arms.
> 
> that natural right has always been tempered by the Police power of a State for the "good of the State" over the Individual.
Click to expand...


Several mistakes.
I agree that you have a natural right to defense of self and property.
That implies the individual use of arms.

I agree that natural right has always been tempered, but NOT at all by any police power especially when there were ZERO police back in the founder's days.
(in fact there were insignificant police until around 1900.)

Nor can any inherent natural right ever be abridged in any way, "for the good of the State".
In a democratic republic, essentially there is supposed to be no state, but only the extensions of the rights of individuals who collectively ARE the state.
So what you should have written, if you wanted to be accurate, is that natural rights can always be compromised when necessary in order to protect and defend the rights of others.
No state is supposed to ever have any authority of its own over any inherent rights.
Other individuals can need their rights defended, and the state can be the vehicle by which those rights are defended.
But it can never be done in the name of or for the good of the state, in a democratic republic, because the state has no standing in a democratic republic.


----------



## Rustic




----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> show us where any Thing other than Due Process is guaranteed in our federal Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The whole Bill of Rights is just absolute guarantees.
> 
> The 9th and 10th amendments sum it up the best.
> {...
> Amendment 9
> _- Other Rights Kept by the People_
> 
> The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
> 
> Amendment 10
> _- Undelegated Powers Kept by the States and the People_
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
> ...}
> What they essentially say is that only what has been expressly granted federal jurisdiction comes under federal authority, but everything is open ended state, local, and individual authority.
> 
> The Bill of Rights is entirely a guarantee on limits to federal jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

The states and local jurisdictions are likewise subject to the Bill of Rights, placing limits on the authority of state and local governments.  

Selective Incorporation - Definition, Examples, Cases, Processes

Indeed, the doctrine of Selective Incorporation was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court when it incorporated the Second Amendment to the states and local jurisdictions in 2010.  

And you’re also wrong about the Tenth Amendment:

“From the beginning and for many years, the [Tenth] amendment has been construed as not depriving the national government of authority to resort to all means for the exercise of a granted power which are appropriate and plainly adapted to the permitted end.”

United States v. Darby


----------



## Rustic

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> show us where any Thing other than Due Process is guaranteed in our federal Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The whole Bill of Rights is just absolute guarantees.
> 
> The 9th and 10th amendments sum it up the best.
> {...
> Amendment 9
> _- Other Rights Kept by the People_
> 
> The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
> 
> Amendment 10
> _- Undelegated Powers Kept by the States and the People_
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
> ...}
> What they essentially say is that only what has been expressly granted federal jurisdiction comes under federal authority, but everything is open ended state, local, and individual authority.
> 
> The Bill of Rights is entirely a guarantee on limits to federal jurisdiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The states and local jurisdictions are likewise subject to the Bill of Rights, placing limits on the authority of state and local governments.
> 
> Selective Incorporation - Definition, Examples, Cases, Processes
> 
> Indeed, the doctrine of Selective Incorporation was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court when it incorporated the Second Amendment to the states and local jurisdictions in 2010.
> 
> And you’re also wrong about the Tenth Amendment:
> 
> “From the beginning and for many years, the [Tenth] amendment has been construed as not depriving the national government of authority to resort to all means for the exercise of a granted power which are appropriate and plainly adapted to the permitted end.”
> 
> United States v. Darby
Click to expand...

Lol
No doubt you’re a collectivist


----------



## Aponi

Lakhota said:


> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
Click to expand...

No its not .
It may be more revelent then ever before.
With the rise of democrats socialist neo communists ideas and crime having a gun is more important then ever .


----------



## Aponi

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> show us where any Thing other than Due Process is guaranteed in our federal Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The whole Bill of Rights is just absolute guarantees.
> 
> The 9th and 10th amendments sum it up the best.
> {...
> Amendment 9
> _- Other Rights Kept by the People_
> 
> The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
> 
> Amendment 10
> _- Undelegated Powers Kept by the States and the People_
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
> ...}
> What they essentially say is that only what has been expressly granted federal jurisdiction comes under federal authority, but everything is open ended state, local, and individual authority.
> 
> The Bill of Rights is entirely a guarantee on limits to federal jurisdiction.
Click to expand...


We have class 2 items obey the law why should we be penalised for obeying the law


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> i can't take Your inferiority seriously; you need a valid argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of people have given you many, many valid arguments that you've ignored, only to pop up and regurgitate the same failed phrases over and over again. No one can take you seriously about anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All terms in our Second Amendment are collective and plural; where are you getting your implied individual rights from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because that is what a democratic republic means.
> In a democratic republic, inherent individual rights are the ONLY source of any authority at all.
> And government only ends up borrowing on this inherent rights of individuals, when it acts collectively to protect them.
> 
> For example, where does government get its authority to arms anyone, like police or military?
> It comes from the inherent right of individuals to be armed to be able to protect their inherent rights of defense of self and property.
> If individuals could not be armed, then they could not delegate being armed to the government, so then you could not have armed police or military.
> 
> So whether or not the terms of the 2nd amendment are collective or plural is not relevant.
> The Bill of Rights is NOT at all the source of any rights.
> Government can never be a source of rights.
> People MAKE government, so rights have to already exist, in order for people to be able to make a government.
> And the Bill of Rights was not a statement of rights, but of restriction on federal jurisdictions.
> The 2nd amendment just says the feds get ZERO weapons jurisdiction, essentially.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You confuse natural rights with our Second Article of Amendment.
> 
> You have a natural right to defense of self and property through the use of Arms.
> 
> that natural right has always been tempered by the Police power of a State for the "good of the State" over the Individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Several mistakes.
> I agree that you have a natural right to defense of self and property.
> That implies the individual use of arms.
> 
> I agree that natural right has always been tempered, but NOT at all by any police power especially when there were ZERO police back in the founder's days.
> (in fact there were insignificant police until around 1900.)
> 
> Nor can any inherent natural right ever be abridged in any way, "for the good of the State".
> In a democratic republic, essentially there is supposed to be no state, but only the extensions of the rights of individuals who collectively ARE the state.
> So what you should have written, if you wanted to be accurate, is that natural rights can always be compromised when necessary in order to protect and defend the rights of others.
> No state is supposed to ever have any authority of its own over any inherent rights.
> Other individuals can need their rights defended, and the state can be the vehicle by which those rights are defended.
> But it can never be done in the name of or for the good of the state, in a democratic republic, because the state has no standing in a democratic republic.
Click to expand...

Where are you getting your propaganda from?



> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> (Source: Illinois Constitution.)


----------



## M14 Shooter

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is meaningless, again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your appeals to ignorance are even more meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not appealing to you, so why would you say that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are the one with the inferior argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Listen, PeeWee, you're not getting anywhere with that argument.
Click to expand...

He's trolling you.
Ignore button.


----------



## danielpalos

Only the nine hundred ninety-nine have to troll because they have inferior arguments.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

dan palos is an illegal Mexicans commie troll who NEVER cites to any legal authority backing his stupid "arguments" and only responds with Pete and Repeat.

Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out. Who was left?
Repeat.

Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out. Who was left?
Repeat.

Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out. Who was left?
Repeat.

Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out. Who was left?
Repeat.

Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out. Who was left?
Repeat.

Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out. Who was left?
Repeat.

.


----------



## hadit

M14 Shooter said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is meaningless, again.
> 
> 
> 
> your appeals to ignorance are even more meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not appealing to you, so why would you say that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are the one with the inferior argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Listen, PeeWee, you're not getting anywhere with that argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's trolling you.
> Ignore button.
Click to expand...


Yes, he is, and I enjoy watching him go down in flames over and over again.


----------



## hadit

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> dan palos is an illegal Mexicans commie troll who NEVER cites to any legal authority backing his stupid "arguments" and only responds with Pete and Repeat.
> 
> Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out. Who was left?
> Repeat.
> 
> Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out. Who was left?
> Repeat.
> 
> Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out. Who was left?
> Repeat.
> 
> Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out. Who was left?
> Repeat.
> 
> Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out. Who was left?
> Repeat.
> 
> Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out. Who was left?
> Repeat.
> 
> .



True dat.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> show us where any Thing other than Due Process is guaranteed in our federal Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The whole Bill of Rights is just absolute guarantees.
> 
> The 9th and 10th amendments sum it up the best.
> {...
> Amendment 9
> _- Other Rights Kept by the People_
> 
> The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
> 
> Amendment 10
> _- Undelegated Powers Kept by the States and the People_
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
> ...}
> What they essentially say is that only what has been expressly granted federal jurisdiction comes under federal authority, but everything is open ended state, local, and individual authority.
> 
> The Bill of Rights is entirely a guarantee on limits to federal jurisdiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The states and local jurisdictions are likewise subject to the Bill of Rights, placing limits on the authority of state and local governments.
> 
> Selective Incorporation - Definition, Examples, Cases, Processes
> 
> Indeed, the doctrine of Selective Incorporation was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court when it incorporated the Second Amendment to the states and local jurisdictions in 2010.
> 
> And you’re also wrong about the Tenth Amendment:
> 
> “From the beginning and for many years, the [Tenth] amendment has been construed as not depriving the national government of authority to resort to all means for the exercise of a granted power which are appropriate and plainly adapted to the permitted end.”
> 
> United States v. Darby
Click to expand...

This, from Darby:

"The power of Congress over interstate commerce extends to those intrastate activities which so affect interstate commerce or the exercise of the power of Congress over it as to make their regulation an appropriate means to the attainment of a legitimate end -- the exercise of the granted power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. P. 118."

Is the effective END of constitutional government.  

If the Interstate Commerce Clause means also intrastate commerce, it simply means ALL commerce.  

Just like the Welfare Clause.  If it means ANYTHING to promote the welfare of the people, it means FedGov has all power and authority, and is no longer limited.

Congrats on your constitutional overthrow, commie.


.


----------



## Pilot1

hadit said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> your appeals to ignorance are even more meaningless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not appealing to you, so why would you say that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are the one with the inferior argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Listen, PeeWee, you're not getting anywhere with that argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's trolling you.
> Ignore button.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, he is, and I enjoy watching him go down in flames over and over again.
Click to expand...


Many of us have posted the relevant quotes, and information with the links over and over, so, yeah, I agree.


----------



## hadit

Pilot1 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not appealing to you, so why would you say that?
> 
> 
> 
> you are the one with the inferior argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Listen, PeeWee, you're not getting anywhere with that argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's trolling you.
> Ignore button.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, he is, and I enjoy watching him go down in flames over and over again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many of us have posted the relevant quotes, and information with the links over and over, so, yeah, I agree.
Click to expand...


He's a harmless diversion that provides some light amusement. You just have to remember he has no idea what he's even taking about so you can't take seriously anything he says.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> dan palos is an illegal Mexicans commie troll who NEVER cites to any legal authority backing his stupid "arguments" and only responds with Pete and Repeat.
> 
> Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out. Who was left?
> Repeat.
> 
> Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out. Who was left?
> Repeat.
> 
> Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out. Who was left?
> Repeat.
> 
> Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out. Who was left?
> Repeat.
> 
> Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out. Who was left?
> Repeat.
> 
> Pete and Repeat were in a boat.  Pete fell out. Who was left?
> Repeat.
> 
> .


yet, you allege I am the Troll.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> show us where any Thing other than Due Process is guaranteed in our federal Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The whole Bill of Rights is just absolute guarantees.
> 
> The 9th and 10th amendments sum it up the best.
> {...
> Amendment 9
> _- Other Rights Kept by the People_
> 
> The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
> 
> Amendment 10
> _- Undelegated Powers Kept by the States and the People_
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
> ...}
> What they essentially say is that only what has been expressly granted federal jurisdiction comes under federal authority, but everything is open ended state, local, and individual authority.
> 
> The Bill of Rights is entirely a guarantee on limits to federal jurisdiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The states and local jurisdictions are likewise subject to the Bill of Rights, placing limits on the authority of state and local governments.
> 
> Selective Incorporation - Definition, Examples, Cases, Processes
> 
> Indeed, the doctrine of Selective Incorporation was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court when it incorporated the Second Amendment to the states and local jurisdictions in 2010.
> 
> And you’re also wrong about the Tenth Amendment:
> 
> “From the beginning and for many years, the [Tenth] amendment has been construed as not depriving the national government of authority to resort to all means for the exercise of a granted power which are appropriate and plainly adapted to the permitted end.”
> 
> United States v. Darby
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This, from Darby:
> 
> "The power of Congress over interstate commerce extends to those intrastate activities which so affect interstate commerce or the exercise of the power of Congress over it as to make their regulation an appropriate means to the attainment of a legitimate end -- the exercise of the granted power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. P. 118."
> 
> Is the effective END of constitutional government.
> 
> If the Interstate Commerce Clause means also intrastate commerce, it simply means ALL commerce.
> 
> Just like the Welfare Clause.  If it means ANYTHING to promote the welfare of the people, it means FedGov has all power and authority, and is no longer limited.
> 
> Congrats on your constitutional overthrow, commie.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

you have to understand the concepts well enough to quibble.  we have a general welfare clause not a general malfare clause nor a general warfare clause.


----------



## danielpalos

Pilot1 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not appealing to you, so why would you say that?
> 
> 
> 
> you are the one with the inferior argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Listen, PeeWee, you're not getting anywhere with that argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's trolling you.
> Ignore button.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, he is, and I enjoy watching him go down in flames over and over again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many of us have posted the relevant quotes, and information with the links over and over, so, yeah, I agree.
Click to expand...

even women can gossip.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are the one with the inferior argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listen, PeeWee, you're not getting anywhere with that argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's trolling you.
> Ignore button.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, he is, and I enjoy watching him go down in flames over and over again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many of us have posted the relevant quotes, and information with the links over and over, so, yeah, I agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's a harmless diversion that provides some light amusement. You just have to remember he has no idea what he's even taking about so you can't take seriously anything he says.
Click to expand...

bigots in their majority, what else is new with the right wing.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Listen, PeeWee, you're not getting anywhere with that argument.
> 
> 
> 
> He's trolling you.
> Ignore button.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, he is, and I enjoy watching him go down in flames over and over again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many of us have posted the relevant quotes, and information with the links over and over, so, yeah, I agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's a harmless diversion that provides some light amusement. You just have to remember he has no idea what he's even taking about so you can't take seriously anything he says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bigots in their majority, what else is new with the right wing.
Click to expand...


I hear they're starting a new bowling league.


----------



## Pilot1

hadit said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> your appeals to ignorance are even more meaningless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not appealing to you, so why would you say that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are the one with the inferior argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Listen, PeeWee, you're not getting anywhere with that argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's trolling you.
> Ignore button.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, he is, and I enjoy watching him go down in flames over and over again.
Click to expand...




hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's trolling you.
> Ignore button.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, he is, and I enjoy watching him go down in flames over and over again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many of us have posted the relevant quotes, and information with the links over and over, so, yeah, I agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's a harmless diversion that provides some light amusement. You just have to remember he has no idea what he's even taking about so you can't take seriously anything he says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> bigots in their majority, what else is new with the right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hear they're starting a new bowling league.
Click to expand...


And a competitive, shooting team.  Only White Guys allowed.


----------



## ralfy

Before 2A was drafted, several colonists used firearms to defend themselves because they usually lived far from each other. At the same time, communities also established militias for various purposes, including slave patrols. The right to defend oneself was considered natural, with the right to bear arms connected to it and part of English common law.

After the Revolutionary War, Washington wrote about the poor quality of some militias.

While 2A was drafted and revised several times, framers debates on the need to avoid a large standing army, state rights to have their own armed groups, the desire to avoid tyranny, and threats including European invaders, whites who could rebel, slave riots, and Native Americans. They negotiated and ratified an amendment that argued that to ensure the availability of regulated militias, the right to bear arms would not be infringed. The idea sounds too obvious because several colonists were already armed and it was considered a natural right, part of the need for self-defense. This explains why 2A doesn't grant the right to bear arms but protects it: the right is natural and exists even without 2A, the Constitution, or even a nation. Still, the added something obvious because they wanted to show citizens that their right to defend themselves would not be infringed.

So, what's the connection between that and regulated militias? The framers didn't argue that the right to bear arms is granted by the government or that the right only exists if there are regulated militias. Rather, the right to defend oneself, which is natural, was used to justify the need to defend the country. Since they didn't want a large standing army, they resorted to militias, and since they didn't want ill-trained militias, they made sure that there were regulated ones.

What does "regulated" mean? It is defined in Art. 1 Sec. 8, which states who will organize these militias and their purpose, which is to serve the government.

How was the formation of regulated militias made operational? It is explained in the Militia Acts, which required all white males of a certain age range, and with few exceptions, to obtain battle rifles and report for training.

Thus, the purpose of 2A is not merely to protect the right to bear arms but to use it to ensure mandatory military service, which is what happened via the Militia Acts.

The problem is that what Washington complained about persisted as armies became more professional and complex. The country learned that the hard way during the War of 1812, when they realized that a small standing army with militias would not be enough to deal with professional armies. It still took awhile, even when blacks were included among males to serve given a subsequent Militia Act. But it was the last one, in 1903, that led to the formation of the National Guard, and eventually made 2A irrelevant. As military forces became increasingly complex, the country had to rely on reserves trained in the same way as the standing army, with conscription employed in case more troops were needed.

Today, what is left of 2A is the Selective Service System, where male citizens are merely required to register, with the government given the option to conscript them if necessary.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

ralfy said:


> Before 2A was drafted, several colonists used firearms to defend themselves because they usually lived far from each other. At the same time, communities also established militias for various purposes, including slave patrols. The right to defend oneself was considered natural, with the right to bear arms connected to it and part of English common law.
> 
> After the Revolutionary War, Washington wrote about the poor quality of some militias.
> 
> While 2A was drafted and revised several times, framers debates on the need to avoid a large standing army, state rights to have their own armed groups, the desire to avoid tyranny, and threats including European invaders, whites who could rebel, slave riots, and Native Americans. They negotiated and ratified an amendment that argued that to ensure the availability of regulated militias, the right to bear arms would not be infringed. The idea sounds too obvious because several colonists were already armed and it was considered a natural right, part of the need for self-defense. This explains why 2A doesn't grant the right to bear arms but protects it: the right is natural and exists even without 2A, the Constitution, or even a nation. Still, the added something obvious because they wanted to show citizens that their right to defend themselves would not be infringed.
> 
> So, what's the connection between that and regulated militias? The framers didn't argue that the right to bear arms is granted by the government or that the right only exists if there are regulated militias. Rather, the right to defend oneself, which is natural, was used to justify the need to defend the country. Since they didn't want a large standing army, they resorted to militias, and since they didn't want ill-trained militias, they made sure that there were regulated ones.
> 
> What does "regulated" mean? It is defined in Art. 1 Sec. 8, which states who will organize these militias and their purpose, which is to serve the government.
> 
> How was the formation of regulated militias made operational? It is explained in the Militia Acts, which required all white males of a certain age range, and with few exceptions, to obtain battle rifles and report for training.
> 
> Thus, the purpose of 2A is not merely to protect the right to bear arms but to use it to ensure mandatory military service, which is what happened via the Militia Acts.
> 
> The problem is that what Washington complained about persisted as armies became more professional and complex. The country learned that the hard way during the War of 1812, when they realized that a small standing army with militias would not be enough to deal with professional armies. It still took awhile, even when blacks were included among males to serve given a subsequent Militia Act. But it was the last one, in 1903, that led to the formation of the National Guard, and eventually made 2A irrelevant. As military forces became increasingly complex, the country had to rely on reserves trained in the same way as the standing army, with conscription employed in case more troops were needed.
> 
> Today, what is left of 2A is the Selective Service System, where male citizens are merely required to register, with the government given the option to conscript them if necessary.


But, still... the federal government should have no gun laws.  They are still ALL unconstitutional, as the intent of the 2A was to limit federal power.  

Until somebody amends the 2A, fed gov power over arms should be NOTHING.  ZERO.

.

Some want to simply ignore it and call it antiquated.  That is improper. 

.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> ralfy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before 2A was drafted, several colonists used firearms to defend themselves because they usually lived far from each other. At the same time, communities also established militias for various purposes, including slave patrols. The right to defend oneself was considered natural, with the right to bear arms connected to it and part of English common law.
> 
> After the Revolutionary War, Washington wrote about the poor quality of some militias.
> 
> While 2A was drafted and revised several times, framers debates on the need to avoid a large standing army, state rights to have their own armed groups, the desire to avoid tyranny, and threats including European invaders, whites who could rebel, slave riots, and Native Americans. They negotiated and ratified an amendment that argued that to ensure the availability of regulated militias, the right to bear arms would not be infringed. The idea sounds too obvious because several colonists were already armed and it was considered a natural right, part of the need for self-defense. This explains why 2A doesn't grant the right to bear arms but protects it: the right is natural and exists even without 2A, the Constitution, or even a nation. Still, the added something obvious because they wanted to show citizens that their right to defend themselves would not be infringed.
> 
> So, what's the connection between that and regulated militias? The framers didn't argue that the right to bear arms is granted by the government or that the right only exists if there are regulated militias. Rather, the right to defend oneself, which is natural, was used to justify the need to defend the country. Since they didn't want a large standing army, they resorted to militias, and since they didn't want ill-trained militias, they made sure that there were regulated ones.
> 
> What does "regulated" mean? It is defined in Art. 1 Sec. 8, which states who will organize these militias and their purpose, which is to serve the government.
> 
> How was the formation of regulated militias made operational? It is explained in the Militia Acts, which required all white males of a certain age range, and with few exceptions, to obtain battle rifles and report for training.
> 
> Thus, the purpose of 2A is not merely to protect the right to bear arms but to use it to ensure mandatory military service, which is what happened via the Militia Acts.
> 
> The problem is that what Washington complained about persisted as armies became more professional and complex. The country learned that the hard way during the War of 1812, when they realized that a small standing army with militias would not be enough to deal with professional armies. It still took awhile, even when blacks were included among males to serve given a subsequent Militia Act. But it was the last one, in 1903, that led to the formation of the National Guard, and eventually made 2A irrelevant. As military forces became increasingly complex, the country had to rely on reserves trained in the same way as the standing army, with conscription employed in case more troops were needed.
> 
> Today, what is left of 2A is the Selective Service System, where male citizens are merely required to register, with the government given the option to conscript them if necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> But, still... the federal government should have no gun laws.  They are still ALL unconstitutional, as the intent of the 2A was to limit federal power.
> 
> Until somebody amends the 2A, fed gov power over arms should be NOTHING.  ZERO.
> 
> .
> 
> Some want to simply ignore it and call it antiquated.  That is improper.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


The only time the Feds should get involved is when the States are unable to do it themselves.  For instance, the 1934 Firearms act.  What good does it do for , just for argument sake, for Illinois to pass a similar full auto gun ban when they a crime boss can just step over the border into Indiana and buy the auto weapon and bring it back into Chicago and continue spraying the streets with them.  It wasn't just a Chicago problem, it was also  a problem of almost every metro city in the United States with Organized Crime.  So the Feds do what the states can't do and pass a central law.  Like it or not, that is about the only one that has ever withstood time.    Sooner or later, look for them to pass the Universal Background Checks the same way.  Bump Stocks are also being done the same way.  If your states wants to play this silly assed "No Regulation Ever" game, then it just might come to pass that the other states might force the feds to go that route.  And you ain't going to like the Interstate Commerce side of things.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> ralfy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before 2A was drafted, several colonists used firearms to defend themselves because they usually lived far from each other. At the same time, communities also established militias for various purposes, including slave patrols. The right to defend oneself was considered natural, with the right to bear arms connected to it and part of English common law.
> 
> After the Revolutionary War, Washington wrote about the poor quality of some militias.
> 
> While 2A was drafted and revised several times, framers debates on the need to avoid a large standing army, state rights to have their own armed groups, the desire to avoid tyranny, and threats including European invaders, whites who could rebel, slave riots, and Native Americans. They negotiated and ratified an amendment that argued that to ensure the availability of regulated militias, the right to bear arms would not be infringed. The idea sounds too obvious because several colonists were already armed and it was considered a natural right, part of the need for self-defense. This explains why 2A doesn't grant the right to bear arms but protects it: the right is natural and exists even without 2A, the Constitution, or even a nation. Still, the added something obvious because they wanted to show citizens that their right to defend themselves would not be infringed.
> 
> So, what's the connection between that and regulated militias? The framers didn't argue that the right to bear arms is granted by the government or that the right only exists if there are regulated militias. Rather, the right to defend oneself, which is natural, was used to justify the need to defend the country. Since they didn't want a large standing army, they resorted to militias, and since they didn't want ill-trained militias, they made sure that there were regulated ones.
> 
> What does "regulated" mean? It is defined in Art. 1 Sec. 8, which states who will organize these militias and their purpose, which is to serve the government.
> 
> How was the formation of regulated militias made operational? It is explained in the Militia Acts, which required all white males of a certain age range, and with few exceptions, to obtain battle rifles and report for training.
> 
> Thus, the purpose of 2A is not merely to protect the right to bear arms but to use it to ensure mandatory military service, which is what happened via the Militia Acts.
> 
> The problem is that what Washington complained about persisted as armies became more professional and complex. The country learned that the hard way during the War of 1812, when they realized that a small standing army with militias would not be enough to deal with professional armies. It still took awhile, even when blacks were included among males to serve given a subsequent Militia Act. But it was the last one, in 1903, that led to the formation of the National Guard, and eventually made 2A irrelevant. As military forces became increasingly complex, the country had to rely on reserves trained in the same way as the standing army, with conscription employed in case more troops were needed.
> 
> Today, what is left of 2A is the Selective Service System, where male citizens are merely required to register, with the government given the option to conscript them if necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> But, still... the federal government should have no gun laws.  They are still ALL unconstitutional, as the intent of the 2A was to limit federal power.
> 
> Until somebody amends the 2A, fed gov power over arms should be NOTHING.  ZERO.
> 
> .
> 
> Some want to simply ignore it and call it antiquated.  That is improper.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual rights; it expressly says so in the first clause.


----------



## Rigby5

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> show us where any Thing other than Due Process is guaranteed in our federal Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The whole Bill of Rights is just absolute guarantees.
> 
> The 9th and 10th amendments sum it up the best.
> {...
> Amendment 9
> _- Other Rights Kept by the People_
> 
> The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
> 
> Amendment 10
> _- Undelegated Powers Kept by the States and the People_
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
> ...}
> What they essentially say is that only what has been expressly granted federal jurisdiction comes under federal authority, but everything is open ended state, local, and individual authority.
> 
> The Bill of Rights is entirely a guarantee on limits to federal jurisdiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The states and local jurisdictions are likewise subject to the Bill of Rights, placing limits on the authority of state and local governments.
> 
> Selective Incorporation - Definition, Examples, Cases, Processes
> 
> Indeed, the doctrine of Selective Incorporation was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court when it incorporated the Second Amendment to the states and local jurisdictions in 2010.
> 
> And you’re also wrong about the Tenth Amendment:
> 
> “From the beginning and for many years, the [Tenth] amendment has been construed as not depriving the national government of authority to resort to all means for the exercise of a granted power which are appropriate and plainly adapted to the permitted end.”
> 
> United States v. Darby
Click to expand...


You misunderstand.
Clearly the Bill of Rights was produced solely for the purpose of getting states to be less fearful of federal powers, and therefore more likely to join the union.
So the Bill of Right is ONLY restrictions on federal authority, originally.

So then what does Incorporated mean in terms of rights after the Civil War?
Since the south was abusing freed slaves, the 14th amendment was needed, and it put the federal government into the awkward position of having to determine what individual rights should be that states should not violate.  And while it did not simply say the Bill of Rights were then also applied to the states, it slowly started selectively incorporating some of the Bill of Rights as applying to states as well.
The SCOTUS theory for doing so was that if the federal government was barred from infringing, then the right must be pretty important.  But not all articles of the Bill of Rights have been incorporated.  And the 2nd amendment was only very recently incorporated in 2010, just as you mentioned.

I disagree with your interpretation of US vs Darby.  
That is not saying that the federal government is not limited to only what expressly authorized.  All it is saying is that it was unfair to states which wanted quality working conditions, to use interstate commerce to bring in out of state merchandise that violated the working conditions of the state law.  In effect the court was saying the imports were violating state law, and the 10th amendment does not prohibit federal regulation of interstate commerce in order to protect the rights of those in a state.  Regulation of interstate commerce is an explicit authorization of the federal government.


----------



## Rigby5

Daryl Hunt said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ralfy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before 2A was drafted, several colonists used firearms to defend themselves because they usually lived far from each other. At the same time, communities also established militias for various purposes, including slave patrols. The right to defend oneself was considered natural, with the right to bear arms connected to it and part of English common law.
> 
> After the Revolutionary War, Washington wrote about the poor quality of some militias.
> 
> While 2A was drafted and revised several times, framers debates on the need to avoid a large standing army, state rights to have their own armed groups, the desire to avoid tyranny, and threats including European invaders, whites who could rebel, slave riots, and Native Americans. They negotiated and ratified an amendment that argued that to ensure the availability of regulated militias, the right to bear arms would not be infringed. The idea sounds too obvious because several colonists were already armed and it was considered a natural right, part of the need for self-defense. This explains why 2A doesn't grant the right to bear arms but protects it: the right is natural and exists even without 2A, the Constitution, or even a nation. Still, the added something obvious because they wanted to show citizens that their right to defend themselves would not be infringed.
> 
> So, what's the connection between that and regulated militias? The framers didn't argue that the right to bear arms is granted by the government or that the right only exists if there are regulated militias. Rather, the right to defend oneself, which is natural, was used to justify the need to defend the country. Since they didn't want a large standing army, they resorted to militias, and since they didn't want ill-trained militias, they made sure that there were regulated ones.
> 
> What does "regulated" mean? It is defined in Art. 1 Sec. 8, which states who will organize these militias and their purpose, which is to serve the government.
> 
> How was the formation of regulated militias made operational? It is explained in the Militia Acts, which required all white males of a certain age range, and with few exceptions, to obtain battle rifles and report for training.
> 
> Thus, the purpose of 2A is not merely to protect the right to bear arms but to use it to ensure mandatory military service, which is what happened via the Militia Acts.
> 
> The problem is that what Washington complained about persisted as armies became more professional and complex. The country learned that the hard way during the War of 1812, when they realized that a small standing army with militias would not be enough to deal with professional armies. It still took awhile, even when blacks were included among males to serve given a subsequent Militia Act. But it was the last one, in 1903, that led to the formation of the National Guard, and eventually made 2A irrelevant. As military forces became increasingly complex, the country had to rely on reserves trained in the same way as the standing army, with conscription employed in case more troops were needed.
> 
> Today, what is left of 2A is the Selective Service System, where male citizens are merely required to register, with the government given the option to conscript them if necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> But, still... the federal government should have no gun laws.  They are still ALL unconstitutional, as the intent of the 2A was to limit federal power.
> 
> Until somebody amends the 2A, fed gov power over arms should be NOTHING.  ZERO.
> 
> .
> 
> Some want to simply ignore it and call it antiquated.  That is improper.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only time the Feds should get involved is when the States are unable to do it themselves.  For instance, the 1934 Firearms act.  What good does it do for , just for argument sake, for Illinois to pass a similar full auto gun ban when they a crime boss can just step over the border into Indiana and buy the auto weapon and bring it back into Chicago and continue spraying the streets with them.  It wasn't just a Chicago problem, it was also  a problem of almost every metro city in the United States with Organized Crime.  So the Feds do what the states can't do and pass a central law.  Like it or not, that is about the only one that has ever withstood time.    Sooner or later, look for them to pass the Universal Background Checks the same way.  Bump Stocks are also being done the same way.  If your states wants to play this silly assed "No Regulation Ever" game, then it just might come to pass that the other states might force the feds to go that route.  And you ain't going to like the Interstate Commerce side of things.
Click to expand...


I don't disagree with your reasoning, but any federal gun law is a bad idea because it was not what the constitution originally intended.

Another way it could have been handled would be for each state to prosecute people in its state who deliberately conspired to violate the laws of anther state.
That requires cooperation between states, but much better than a whole federal mechanism that can not ever really work well.
Another way would have been to simply not make full auto illegal anywhere, since it was really Prohibition that was the whole problem, and not full auto firearms.
Full auto is trivial to make almost any gun into, and no one really wants to.  There crimes with full auto are so rare as to be totally irrelevant.  The only one I can think of is the LA bank robbery about a decade ago.

The universal background check would not be an issue if not for the assault weapon and confiscation insanity.  There just is no such thing as an assault weapon, and no one should trust any government with records like that, since they already say they want to confiscate.  And that clearly is illegal and the line in the sand.

The federal government should not claim it has to do something when they are the ones who broke it in the first place.  There was no problem with Thompson machineguns being sold out of the back of magazine ads for $17, until the feds started Alcohol Prohibition and suddenly millions of dollars in alcohol revenue could not use banks or police protection.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ralfy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before 2A was drafted, several colonists used firearms to defend themselves because they usually lived far from each other. At the same time, communities also established militias for various purposes, including slave patrols. The right to defend oneself was considered natural, with the right to bear arms connected to it and part of English common law.
> 
> After the Revolutionary War, Washington wrote about the poor quality of some militias.
> 
> While 2A was drafted and revised several times, framers debates on the need to avoid a large standing army, state rights to have their own armed groups, the desire to avoid tyranny, and threats including European invaders, whites who could rebel, slave riots, and Native Americans. They negotiated and ratified an amendment that argued that to ensure the availability of regulated militias, the right to bear arms would not be infringed. The idea sounds too obvious because several colonists were already armed and it was considered a natural right, part of the need for self-defense. This explains why 2A doesn't grant the right to bear arms but protects it: the right is natural and exists even without 2A, the Constitution, or even a nation. Still, the added something obvious because they wanted to show citizens that their right to defend themselves would not be infringed.
> 
> So, what's the connection between that and regulated militias? The framers didn't argue that the right to bear arms is granted by the government or that the right only exists if there are regulated militias. Rather, the right to defend oneself, which is natural, was used to justify the need to defend the country. Since they didn't want a large standing army, they resorted to militias, and since they didn't want ill-trained militias, they made sure that there were regulated ones.
> 
> What does "regulated" mean? It is defined in Art. 1 Sec. 8, which states who will organize these militias and their purpose, which is to serve the government.
> 
> How was the formation of regulated militias made operational? It is explained in the Militia Acts, which required all white males of a certain age range, and with few exceptions, to obtain battle rifles and report for training.
> 
> Thus, the purpose of 2A is not merely to protect the right to bear arms but to use it to ensure mandatory military service, which is what happened via the Militia Acts.
> 
> The problem is that what Washington complained about persisted as armies became more professional and complex. The country learned that the hard way during the War of 1812, when they realized that a small standing army with militias would not be enough to deal with professional armies. It still took awhile, even when blacks were included among males to serve given a subsequent Militia Act. But it was the last one, in 1903, that led to the formation of the National Guard, and eventually made 2A irrelevant. As military forces became increasingly complex, the country had to rely on reserves trained in the same way as the standing army, with conscription employed in case more troops were needed.
> 
> Today, what is left of 2A is the Selective Service System, where male citizens are merely required to register, with the government given the option to conscript them if necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> But, still... the federal government should have no gun laws.  They are still ALL unconstitutional, as the intent of the 2A was to limit federal power.
> 
> Until somebody amends the 2A, fed gov power over arms should be NOTHING.  ZERO.
> 
> .
> 
> Some want to simply ignore it and call it antiquated.  That is improper.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual rights; it expressly says so in the first clause.
Click to expand...


BS.  The entire Bill of Rights is a list of absolute restrictions on federal authority.  Nothing else.   
If the 2nd amendment was only about "the security of a free state", whatever that is, then it would not have said, that the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed.
It would have said the authority of a free state to bear arms shall not be infringed.
ONLY individuals have rights.
Whenever you read the word "rights", the writing is referring to individuals.


----------



## Lakhota

Well, at least bump stocks finally got banned.  That's a start...


----------



## 2aguy

Lakhota said:


> Well, at least bump stocks finally got banned.  That's a start...




How?   With thousands of these in private hands, one was used in one attack in a country of over 320 million people.......are you really that deranged that you would think a ban on a gimmick used once for crime makes any difference?


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rigby5 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ralfy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before 2A was drafted, several colonists used firearms to defend themselves because they usually lived far from each other. At the same time, communities also established militias for various purposes, including slave patrols. The right to defend oneself was considered natural, with the right to bear arms connected to it and part of English common law.
> 
> After the Revolutionary War, Washington wrote about the poor quality of some militias.
> 
> While 2A was drafted and revised several times, framers debates on the need to avoid a large standing army, state rights to have their own armed groups, the desire to avoid tyranny, and threats including European invaders, whites who could rebel, slave riots, and Native Americans. They negotiated and ratified an amendment that argued that to ensure the availability of regulated militias, the right to bear arms would not be infringed. The idea sounds too obvious because several colonists were already armed and it was considered a natural right, part of the need for self-defense. This explains why 2A doesn't grant the right to bear arms but protects it: the right is natural and exists even without 2A, the Constitution, or even a nation. Still, the added something obvious because they wanted to show citizens that their right to defend themselves would not be infringed.
> 
> So, what's the connection between that and regulated militias? The framers didn't argue that the right to bear arms is granted by the government or that the right only exists if there are regulated militias. Rather, the right to defend oneself, which is natural, was used to justify the need to defend the country. Since they didn't want a large standing army, they resorted to militias, and since they didn't want ill-trained militias, they made sure that there were regulated ones.
> 
> What does "regulated" mean? It is defined in Art. 1 Sec. 8, which states who will organize these militias and their purpose, which is to serve the government.
> 
> How was the formation of regulated militias made operational? It is explained in the Militia Acts, which required all white males of a certain age range, and with few exceptions, to obtain battle rifles and report for training.
> 
> Thus, the purpose of 2A is not merely to protect the right to bear arms but to use it to ensure mandatory military service, which is what happened via the Militia Acts.
> 
> The problem is that what Washington complained about persisted as armies became more professional and complex. The country learned that the hard way during the War of 1812, when they realized that a small standing army with militias would not be enough to deal with professional armies. It still took awhile, even when blacks were included among males to serve given a subsequent Militia Act. But it was the last one, in 1903, that led to the formation of the National Guard, and eventually made 2A irrelevant. As military forces became increasingly complex, the country had to rely on reserves trained in the same way as the standing army, with conscription employed in case more troops were needed.
> 
> Today, what is left of 2A is the Selective Service System, where male citizens are merely required to register, with the government given the option to conscript them if necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> But, still... the federal government should have no gun laws.  They are still ALL unconstitutional, as the intent of the 2A was to limit federal power.
> 
> Until somebody amends the 2A, fed gov power over arms should be NOTHING.  ZERO.
> 
> .
> 
> Some want to simply ignore it and call it antiquated.  That is improper.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only time the Feds should get involved is when the States are unable to do it themselves.  For instance, the 1934 Firearms act.  What good does it do for , just for argument sake, for Illinois to pass a similar full auto gun ban when they a crime boss can just step over the border into Indiana and buy the auto weapon and bring it back into Chicago and continue spraying the streets with them.  It wasn't just a Chicago problem, it was also  a problem of almost every metro city in the United States with Organized Crime.  So the Feds do what the states can't do and pass a central law.  Like it or not, that is about the only one that has ever withstood time.    Sooner or later, look for them to pass the Universal Background Checks the same way.  Bump Stocks are also being done the same way.  If your states wants to play this silly assed "No Regulation Ever" game, then it just might come to pass that the other states might force the feds to go that route.  And you ain't going to like the Interstate Commerce side of things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't disagree with your reasoning, but any federal gun law is a bad idea because it was not what the constitution originally intended.
> 
> Another way it could have been handled would be for each state to prosecute people in its state who deliberately conspired to violate the laws of anther state.
> That requires cooperation between states, but much better than a whole federal mechanism that can not ever really work well.
> Another way would have been to simply not make full auto illegal anywhere, since it was really Prohibition that was the whole problem, and not full auto firearms.
> Full auto is trivial to make almost any gun into, and no one really wants to.  There crimes with full auto are so rare as to be totally irrelevant.  The only one I can think of is the LA bank robbery about a decade ago.
> 
> The universal background check would not be an issue if not for the assault weapon and confiscation insanity.  There just is no such thing as an assault weapon, and no one should trust any government with records like that, since they already say they want to confiscate.  And that clearly is illegal and the line in the sand.
> 
> The federal government should not claim it has to do something when they are the ones who broke it in the first place.  There was no problem with Thompson machineguns being sold out of the back of magazine ads for $17, until the feds started Alcohol Prohibition and suddenly millions of dollars in alcohol revenue could not use banks or police protection.
Click to expand...


I am going to use Chicago as an example both prior to 2016 and before.

Before 2016, the guns used in gun crimes in Chicago, over 60% were purchased in Illnois.  There was no market to import firearms for criminal acts since all one had to do is go into the county and buy guns from private sellers by the car load and transport them back into Chicago.  

In 2016, Illinois passed a Universal Background Check for the entire state and aggressively enforced it.  All of a sudden, the guns used in crimes purchased or stolen in Chicago from Illinois dropped to below 20%.  But the number of guns did not decrease though even though law enforcement actively collected quite a few that were used during crimes.  Where did these extra guns come from?  Most of them came from personal sales from Indiana who does not have universal background checks.  Buying those weapon in Indiana is not against the law.  But transporting them to Indiana is a felony for both the state of Illinois and the Federals.  That doesn't even slow them down because Indiana, more or less, told Illinois to just go pound sand.  New Mexico has the same problem with Arizona and Texas.  California has the same problem with Arizona and Nevada.  Colorado has the same problem with Kansas.  But it appears that most of us are a bit more civilized than Chicago or Detroit.  

AT what point does the states that have these illegal guns come streaming in finally push to have the Feds do something about it since it's really a National Problem?  One beyond anything any one or group of states can do anything about?  Do we start building walls between the states and put up check points everyone must pass through?  Do we put mandatory checkpoints on the borders between states to stop all cars coming from the offending states so that ALL cars can be searched for weapons?  Or do we force the states to go to universal background checks and aggressively enforce them either by the State or allow the Feds to enforce it.  

This is the reason that the 1934 Firearms Act was created in the first place.  What good does it do if a particular state bans the Thompson when all the mob guys have to do is go for a short drive one state over (40 minutes) and buy them over the counter and bring them back.  They passed that law not because the mobsters were mowing each other down.  They passed it because they were also mowing down innocent bystanders.  The same is happening now in places like Chicago and Detroit.  It happens so much, it's not even that much newsworthy.  

I can't give you the exact figures but it's pretty high but the majority of the population support the Universal Background Check.  Sooner or later, it's going to happen on the federal level.  And look for it to stand up in court as well.  But lets say it doesn't.  The Feds have ways to force a state to do something.  Like if a gun manufacturer ships to a state that isn't using a universal background check, they can tax them into non existance.  If they they move to that state that doesn't require universal background checks, the Feds and not allow them to ship outside that state through the Interstate Commerce.  It's going to happen.  We can keep fighting it and have a bunch of morons pass something we don't want or we can work with them and get something that will actually work.  So far, my bet is on the bunch of morons.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

2aguy said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, at least bump stocks finally got banned.  That's a start...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How?   With thousands of these in private hands, one was used in one attack in a country of over 320 million people.......are you really that deranged that you would think a ban on a gimmick used once for crime makes any difference?
Click to expand...


It doesn't happen over night.  It will take up to 10 years to get most of them.  And some will stay in some gun locker for a very long time and you will never be aware that it's there.  It took them about 10 years to get a handle on the Thompson MG.


----------



## ralfy

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> But, still... the federal government should have no gun laws.  They are still ALL unconstitutional, as the intent of the 2A was to limit federal power.
> 
> Until somebody amends the 2A, fed gov power over arms should be NOTHING.  ZERO.
> 
> .
> 
> Some want to simply ignore it and call it antiquated.  That is improper.
> 
> .



You can have gun laws because rights may be abridged, i.e., limited for various reasons. That's why, for example, convicts don't have the right to bear arms.

For these laws to be passed, a majority vote is needed.

Also, the purpose of 2A is not to limit federal power but to enhance it. That's why what defines regulated militias is seen in Art. 1 Sec. 8 and what makes them operational are the Militia Acts, which called for mandatory military service for male citizens.

There's no need to amend 2A to stop gun control. What you need to do is to convince more citizens to vote against it (i,e., gun control).

Finally, 2A is irrelevant because the gov't no longer needs regulated militias to supplement the army. Rather, it's been using the National Guard since 1903, and for citizens, conscription and the Selective Service System.


----------



## ralfy

Rustic said:


>



The problem was not so much whether or not guns used were illegal but whether or not militias were disciplined and sufficiently equipped. Washington's complaint was that several of them lacked both.

The gov't realized that they could not rely so much on militias after 1812, which is why they focused on increasing the size of the standing army. Ultimately, with the last Militia Act, they established the National Guard, which made the need for regulated militias irrelevant.

Today, the government focuses on voluntary service via the National Guard and conscription if more troops are needed. The only thing required of male citizens is to register.


----------



## 2aguy

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ralfy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before 2A was drafted, several colonists used firearms to defend themselves because they usually lived far from each other. At the same time, communities also established militias for various purposes, including slave patrols. The right to defend oneself was considered natural, with the right to bear arms connected to it and part of English common law.
> 
> After the Revolutionary War, Washington wrote about the poor quality of some militias.
> 
> While 2A was drafted and revised several times, framers debates on the need to avoid a large standing army, state rights to have their own armed groups, the desire to avoid tyranny, and threats including European invaders, whites who could rebel, slave riots, and Native Americans. They negotiated and ratified an amendment that argued that to ensure the availability of regulated militias, the right to bear arms would not be infringed. The idea sounds too obvious because several colonists were already armed and it was considered a natural right, part of the need for self-defense. This explains why 2A doesn't grant the right to bear arms but protects it: the right is natural and exists even without 2A, the Constitution, or even a nation. Still, the added something obvious because they wanted to show citizens that their right to defend themselves would not be infringed.
> 
> So, what's the connection between that and regulated militias? The framers didn't argue that the right to bear arms is granted by the government or that the right only exists if there are regulated militias. Rather, the right to defend oneself, which is natural, was used to justify the need to defend the country. Since they didn't want a large standing army, they resorted to militias, and since they didn't want ill-trained militias, they made sure that there were regulated ones.
> 
> What does "regulated" mean? It is defined in Art. 1 Sec. 8, which states who will organize these militias and their purpose, which is to serve the government.
> 
> How was the formation of regulated militias made operational? It is explained in the Militia Acts, which required all white males of a certain age range, and with few exceptions, to obtain battle rifles and report for training.
> 
> Thus, the purpose of 2A is not merely to protect the right to bear arms but to use it to ensure mandatory military service, which is what happened via the Militia Acts.
> 
> The problem is that what Washington complained about persisted as armies became more professional and complex. The country learned that the hard way during the War of 1812, when they realized that a small standing army with militias would not be enough to deal with professional armies. It still took awhile, even when blacks were included among males to serve given a subsequent Militia Act. But it was the last one, in 1903, that led to the formation of the National Guard, and eventually made 2A irrelevant. As military forces became increasingly complex, the country had to rely on reserves trained in the same way as the standing army, with conscription employed in case more troops were needed.
> 
> Today, what is left of 2A is the Selective Service System, where male citizens are merely required to register, with the government given the option to conscript them if necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> But, still... the federal government should have no gun laws.  They are still ALL unconstitutional, as the intent of the 2A was to limit federal power.
> 
> Until somebody amends the 2A, fed gov power over arms should be NOTHING.  ZERO.
> 
> .
> 
> Some want to simply ignore it and call it antiquated.  That is improper.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only time the Feds should get involved is when the States are unable to do it themselves.  For instance, the 1934 Firearms act.  What good does it do for , just for argument sake, for Illinois to pass a similar full auto gun ban when they a crime boss can just step over the border into Indiana and buy the auto weapon and bring it back into Chicago and continue spraying the streets with them.  It wasn't just a Chicago problem, it was also  a problem of almost every metro city in the United States with Organized Crime.  So the Feds do what the states can't do and pass a central law.  Like it or not, that is about the only one that has ever withstood time.    Sooner or later, look for them to pass the Universal Background Checks the same way.  Bump Stocks are also being done the same way.  If your states wants to play this silly assed "No Regulation Ever" game, then it just might come to pass that the other states might force the feds to go that route.  And you ain't going to like the Interstate Commerce side of things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't disagree with your reasoning, but any federal gun law is a bad idea because it was not what the constitution originally intended.
> 
> Another way it could have been handled would be for each state to prosecute people in its state who deliberately conspired to violate the laws of anther state.
> That requires cooperation between states, but much better than a whole federal mechanism that can not ever really work well.
> Another way would have been to simply not make full auto illegal anywhere, since it was really Prohibition that was the whole problem, and not full auto firearms.
> Full auto is trivial to make almost any gun into, and no one really wants to.  There crimes with full auto are so rare as to be totally irrelevant.  The only one I can think of is the LA bank robbery about a decade ago.
> 
> The universal background check would not be an issue if not for the assault weapon and confiscation insanity.  There just is no such thing as an assault weapon, and no one should trust any government with records like that, since they already say they want to confiscate.  And that clearly is illegal and the line in the sand.
> 
> The federal government should not claim it has to do something when they are the ones who broke it in the first place.  There was no problem with Thompson machineguns being sold out of the back of magazine ads for $17, until the feds started Alcohol Prohibition and suddenly millions of dollars in alcohol revenue could not use banks or police protection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am going to use Chicago as an example both prior to 2016 and before.
> 
> Before 2016, the guns used in gun crimes in Chicago, over 60% were purchased in Illnois.  There was no market to import firearms for criminal acts since all one had to do is go into the county and buy guns from private sellers by the car load and transport them back into Chicago.
> 
> In 2016, Illinois passed a Universal Background Check for the entire state and aggressively enforced it.  All of a sudden, the guns used in crimes purchased or stolen in Chicago from Illinois dropped to below 20%.  But the number of guns did not decrease though even though law enforcement actively collected quite a few that were used during crimes.  Where did these extra guns come from?  Most of them came from personal sales from Indiana who does not have universal background checks.  Buying those weapon in Indiana is not against the law.  But transporting them to Indiana is a felony for both the state of Illinois and the Federals.  That doesn't even slow them down because Indiana, more or less, told Illinois to just go pound sand.  New Mexico has the same problem with Arizona and Texas.  California has the same problem with Arizona and Nevada.  Colorado has the same problem with Kansas.  But it appears that most of us are a bit more civilized than Chicago or Detroit.
> 
> AT what point does the states that have these illegal guns come streaming in finally push to have the Feds do something about it since it's really a National Problem?  One beyond anything any one or group of states can do anything about?  Do we start building walls between the states and put up check points everyone must pass through?  Do we put mandatory checkpoints on the borders between states to stop all cars coming from the offending states so that ALL cars can be searched for weapons?  Or do we force the states to go to universal background checks and aggressively enforce them either by the State or allow the Feds to enforce it.
> 
> This is the reason that the 1934 Firearms Act was created in the first place.  What good does it do if a particular state bans the Thompson when all the mob guys have to do is go for a short drive one state over (40 minutes) and buy them over the counter and bring them back.  They passed that law not because the mobsters were mowing each other down.  They passed it because they were also mowing down innocent bystanders.  The same is happening now in places like Chicago and Detroit.  It happens so much, it's not even that much newsworthy.
> 
> I can't give you the exact figures but it's pretty high but the majority of the population support the Universal Background Check.  Sooner or later, it's going to happen on the federal level.  And look for it to stand up in court as well.  But lets say it doesn't.  The Feds have ways to force a state to do something.  Like if a gun manufacturer ships to a state that isn't using a universal background check, they can tax them into non existance.  If they they move to that state that doesn't require universal background checks, the Feds and not allow them to ship outside that state through the Interstate Commerce.  It's going to happen.  We can keep fighting it and have a bunch of morons pass something we don't want or we can work with them and get something that will actually work.  So far, my bet is on the bunch of morons.
Click to expand...



Moron.....the majority of people who answer the Universal Background surveys don't understand anything about them, first and foremost that we already have Federal background checks for gun purchases.......so any poll that doesn't actually state that Universal Background checks do not stop criminals from getting guns, and that almost every mass shooter already passed a mandated Federal background check already in place, is a useless poll......

The only reason the anti gunners want universal background checks is to demand universal gun registration....that's it.

Britain, an island....can't stop the increasing flow of illegal guns into their country, dittos Australia.....we have Mexican drug cartels building gun factories on our southern border......you are an idiot...criminals will get guns, and will not be stopped by background checks of any kind.........


----------



## Daryl Hunt

ralfy said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem was not so much whether or not guns used were illegal but whether or not militias were disciplined and sufficiently equipped. Washington's complaint was that several of them lacked both.
> 
> The gov't realized that they could not rely so much on militias after 1812, which is why they focused on increasing the size of the standing army. Ultimately, with the last Militia Act, they established the National Guard, which made the need for regulated militias irrelevant.
> 
> Today, the government focuses on voluntary service via the National Guard and conscription if more troops are needed. The only thing required of male citizens is to register.
Click to expand...


During the Civil War, it was Patriotic for the States to send their State Guards to fight.   The Feds were still under the 75,000 total army limit but the Guards weren't.  And the States came to the rescue.  But it was quickly noted that the 75,000 limit was out of date and was largely ignored.

But when the Spanish American War started or was winding up in 1898, they passed the first National Guard Act and removed the limit of the number of troops the Federals could have in it's army.  The Navy (hence the Marines) never had a limit from day one.  But the States largely ignored the new law and the Feds really didn't have a lot to back it up with.

When the "Great War" started up, Congress went to work on a National Guard Act in 1916 and finally got it signed into law in 1917 that created the modern National Guard where the Feds armed and trained the National Guard.  But it was more than that.  The States could still have their own militias called the SDF or State Defense Force that the State supported without Federal help, also known as State Guards.  This way, the 2nd amendment was still in force even if it really didn't mean a whole lot of anything for defense of the state from the Federal Government.  So the Feds passed laws that were adopted by the Military that prevented the Federal Troops from being used by the Feds to police the state unless it was a National Emergency.  That has been used once and that was under Eisenhower although a few Governors demanded it to be used before that an were told to go pound sand.  When Westinghouse, in 1946 demanded National Guard Troops to break the strike of appliance workers, Truman said he would nationalize the National Guard to protect the workers.  The Management had no choice but to abide by it's promises it made to the workers during the war.  When it was the old State Guard, the Governor would have had his "Private Army" come  in and start shooting.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

2aguy said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ralfy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before 2A was drafted, several colonists used firearms to defend themselves because they usually lived far from each other. At the same time, communities also established militias for various purposes, including slave patrols. The right to defend oneself was considered natural, with the right to bear arms connected to it and part of English common law.
> 
> After the Revolutionary War, Washington wrote about the poor quality of some militias.
> 
> While 2A was drafted and revised several times, framers debates on the need to avoid a large standing army, state rights to have their own armed groups, the desire to avoid tyranny, and threats including European invaders, whites who could rebel, slave riots, and Native Americans. They negotiated and ratified an amendment that argued that to ensure the availability of regulated militias, the right to bear arms would not be infringed. The idea sounds too obvious because several colonists were already armed and it was considered a natural right, part of the need for self-defense. This explains why 2A doesn't grant the right to bear arms but protects it: the right is natural and exists even without 2A, the Constitution, or even a nation. Still, the added something obvious because they wanted to show citizens that their right to defend themselves would not be infringed.
> 
> So, what's the connection between that and regulated militias? The framers didn't argue that the right to bear arms is granted by the government or that the right only exists if there are regulated militias. Rather, the right to defend oneself, which is natural, was used to justify the need to defend the country. Since they didn't want a large standing army, they resorted to militias, and since they didn't want ill-trained militias, they made sure that there were regulated ones.
> 
> What does "regulated" mean? It is defined in Art. 1 Sec. 8, which states who will organize these militias and their purpose, which is to serve the government.
> 
> How was the formation of regulated militias made operational? It is explained in the Militia Acts, which required all white males of a certain age range, and with few exceptions, to obtain battle rifles and report for training.
> 
> Thus, the purpose of 2A is not merely to protect the right to bear arms but to use it to ensure mandatory military service, which is what happened via the Militia Acts.
> 
> The problem is that what Washington complained about persisted as armies became more professional and complex. The country learned that the hard way during the War of 1812, when they realized that a small standing army with militias would not be enough to deal with professional armies. It still took awhile, even when blacks were included among males to serve given a subsequent Militia Act. But it was the last one, in 1903, that led to the formation of the National Guard, and eventually made 2A irrelevant. As military forces became increasingly complex, the country had to rely on reserves trained in the same way as the standing army, with conscription employed in case more troops were needed.
> 
> Today, what is left of 2A is the Selective Service System, where male citizens are merely required to register, with the government given the option to conscript them if necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> But, still... the federal government should have no gun laws.  They are still ALL unconstitutional, as the intent of the 2A was to limit federal power.
> 
> Until somebody amends the 2A, fed gov power over arms should be NOTHING.  ZERO.
> 
> .
> 
> Some want to simply ignore it and call it antiquated.  That is improper.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only time the Feds should get involved is when the States are unable to do it themselves.  For instance, the 1934 Firearms act.  What good does it do for , just for argument sake, for Illinois to pass a similar full auto gun ban when they a crime boss can just step over the border into Indiana and buy the auto weapon and bring it back into Chicago and continue spraying the streets with them.  It wasn't just a Chicago problem, it was also  a problem of almost every metro city in the United States with Organized Crime.  So the Feds do what the states can't do and pass a central law.  Like it or not, that is about the only one that has ever withstood time.    Sooner or later, look for them to pass the Universal Background Checks the same way.  Bump Stocks are also being done the same way.  If your states wants to play this silly assed "No Regulation Ever" game, then it just might come to pass that the other states might force the feds to go that route.  And you ain't going to like the Interstate Commerce side of things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't disagree with your reasoning, but any federal gun law is a bad idea because it was not what the constitution originally intended.
> 
> Another way it could have been handled would be for each state to prosecute people in its state who deliberately conspired to violate the laws of anther state.
> That requires cooperation between states, but much better than a whole federal mechanism that can not ever really work well.
> Another way would have been to simply not make full auto illegal anywhere, since it was really Prohibition that was the whole problem, and not full auto firearms.
> Full auto is trivial to make almost any gun into, and no one really wants to.  There crimes with full auto are so rare as to be totally irrelevant.  The only one I can think of is the LA bank robbery about a decade ago.
> 
> The universal background check would not be an issue if not for the assault weapon and confiscation insanity.  There just is no such thing as an assault weapon, and no one should trust any government with records like that, since they already say they want to confiscate.  And that clearly is illegal and the line in the sand.
> 
> The federal government should not claim it has to do something when they are the ones who broke it in the first place.  There was no problem with Thompson machineguns being sold out of the back of magazine ads for $17, until the feds started Alcohol Prohibition and suddenly millions of dollars in alcohol revenue could not use banks or police protection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am going to use Chicago as an example both prior to 2016 and before.
> 
> Before 2016, the guns used in gun crimes in Chicago, over 60% were purchased in Illnois.  There was no market to import firearms for criminal acts since all one had to do is go into the county and buy guns from private sellers by the car load and transport them back into Chicago.
> 
> In 2016, Illinois passed a Universal Background Check for the entire state and aggressively enforced it.  All of a sudden, the guns used in crimes purchased or stolen in Chicago from Illinois dropped to below 20%.  But the number of guns did not decrease though even though law enforcement actively collected quite a few that were used during crimes.  Where did these extra guns come from?  Most of them came from personal sales from Indiana who does not have universal background checks.  Buying those weapon in Indiana is not against the law.  But transporting them to Indiana is a felony for both the state of Illinois and the Federals.  That doesn't even slow them down because Indiana, more or less, told Illinois to just go pound sand.  New Mexico has the same problem with Arizona and Texas.  California has the same problem with Arizona and Nevada.  Colorado has the same problem with Kansas.  But it appears that most of us are a bit more civilized than Chicago or Detroit.
> 
> AT what point does the states that have these illegal guns come streaming in finally push to have the Feds do something about it since it's really a National Problem?  One beyond anything any one or group of states can do anything about?  Do we start building walls between the states and put up check points everyone must pass through?  Do we put mandatory checkpoints on the borders between states to stop all cars coming from the offending states so that ALL cars can be searched for weapons?  Or do we force the states to go to universal background checks and aggressively enforce them either by the State or allow the Feds to enforce it.
> 
> This is the reason that the 1934 Firearms Act was created in the first place.  What good does it do if a particular state bans the Thompson when all the mob guys have to do is go for a short drive one state over (40 minutes) and buy them over the counter and bring them back.  They passed that law not because the mobsters were mowing each other down.  They passed it because they were also mowing down innocent bystanders.  The same is happening now in places like Chicago and Detroit.  It happens so much, it's not even that much newsworthy.
> 
> I can't give you the exact figures but it's pretty high but the majority of the population support the Universal Background Check.  Sooner or later, it's going to happen on the federal level.  And look for it to stand up in court as well.  But lets say it doesn't.  The Feds have ways to force a state to do something.  Like if a gun manufacturer ships to a state that isn't using a universal background check, they can tax them into non existance.  If they they move to that state that doesn't require universal background checks, the Feds and not allow them to ship outside that state through the Interstate Commerce.  It's going to happen.  We can keep fighting it and have a bunch of morons pass something we don't want or we can work with them and get something that will actually work.  So far, my bet is on the bunch of morons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Moron.....the majority of people who answer the Universal Background surveys don't understand anything about them, first and foremost that we already have Federal background checks for gun purchases.......so any poll that doesn't actually state that Universal Background checks do not stop criminals from getting guns, and that almost every mass shooter already passed a mandated Federal background check already in place, is a useless poll......
> 
> The only reason the anti gunners want universal background checks is to demand universal gun registration....that's it.
> 
> Britain, an island....can't stop the increasing flow of illegal guns into their country, dittos Australia.....we have Mexican drug cartels building gun factories on our southern border......you are an idiot...criminals will get guns, and will not be stopped by background checks of any kind.........
Click to expand...


You are making some rather ridiculous statements here.  Put in enough truths mixed with lies to make it sound true.  It's still making shit up.  You are a prime example of the morons making laws I used in my example.  Guess what, you just won another award.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Daryl Hunt said:


> Most of them came from personal sales from Indiana who does not have universal background checks.  Buying those weapon in Indiana is not against the law.  But transporting them to Indiana is a felony for both the state of Illinois and the Federals.  That doesn't even slow them down....


Just so we're clear...
The federal laws that ban interstate sales of firearms w/o the involvement if a FFL and a background check did not slow down the interstate sales of firearms.
Pause....  let that sink in....
OK - thanks.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

M14 Shooter said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of them came from personal sales from Indiana who does not have universal background checks.  Buying those weapon in Indiana is not against the law.  But transporting them to Indiana is a felony for both the state of Illinois and the Federals.  That doesn't even slow them down....
> 
> 
> 
> Just so we're clear...
> The federal laws that ban interstate sales of firearms w/o the involvement if a FFL and a background check did not slow down the interstate sales of firearms.
> Pause....  let that sink in....
> OK - thanks.
Click to expand...


They haven't gone to those yet.  But if things keep going sour, it might come to that.  I am not saying it will but it's an option for rogue states.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Daryl Hunt said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of them came from personal sales from Indiana who does not have universal background checks.  Buying those weapon in Indiana is not against the law.  But transporting them to Indiana is a felony for both the state of Illinois and the Federals.  That doesn't even slow them down....
> 
> 
> 
> Just so we're clear...
> The federal laws that ban interstate sales of firearms w/o the involvement if a FFL and a background check did not slow down the interstate sales of firearms.
> Pause....  let that sink in....
> OK - thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They haven't gone to those yet.
Click to expand...

They have - 50 years ago..  YOU described them.
"Buying those weapon in Indiana is not against the law.  *But transporting them to Indiana is a felony for both the state of Illinois and the Federals.*"
"That doesn't even slow them down...." you said.
Let us know when that sinks in.]


----------



## Deno

Lakhota said:


> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
Click to expand...




Out of my cold dead hands Mother Flucker……………..

Come and get "em"...…………….


----------



## Rustic

Daryl Hunt said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, still... the federal government should have no gun laws.  They are still ALL unconstitutional, as the intent of the 2A was to limit federal power.
> 
> Until somebody amends the 2A, fed gov power over arms should be NOTHING.  ZERO.
> 
> .
> 
> Some want to simply ignore it and call it antiquated.  That is improper.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only time the Feds should get involved is when the States are unable to do it themselves.  For instance, the 1934 Firearms act.  What good does it do for , just for argument sake, for Illinois to pass a similar full auto gun ban when they a crime boss can just step over the border into Indiana and buy the auto weapon and bring it back into Chicago and continue spraying the streets with them.  It wasn't just a Chicago problem, it was also  a problem of almost every metro city in the United States with Organized Crime.  So the Feds do what the states can't do and pass a central law.  Like it or not, that is about the only one that has ever withstood time.    Sooner or later, look for them to pass the Universal Background Checks the same way.  Bump Stocks are also being done the same way.  If your states wants to play this silly assed "No Regulation Ever" game, then it just might come to pass that the other states might force the feds to go that route.  And you ain't going to like the Interstate Commerce side of things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't disagree with your reasoning, but any federal gun law is a bad idea because it was not what the constitution originally intended.
> 
> Another way it could have been handled would be for each state to prosecute people in its state who deliberately conspired to violate the laws of anther state.
> That requires cooperation between states, but much better than a whole federal mechanism that can not ever really work well.
> Another way would have been to simply not make full auto illegal anywhere, since it was really Prohibition that was the whole problem, and not full auto firearms.
> Full auto is trivial to make almost any gun into, and no one really wants to.  There crimes with full auto are so rare as to be totally irrelevant.  The only one I can think of is the LA bank robbery about a decade ago.
> 
> The universal background check would not be an issue if not for the assault weapon and confiscation insanity.  There just is no such thing as an assault weapon, and no one should trust any government with records like that, since they already say they want to confiscate.  And that clearly is illegal and the line in the sand.
> 
> The federal government should not claim it has to do something when they are the ones who broke it in the first place.  There was no problem with Thompson machineguns being sold out of the back of magazine ads for $17, until the feds started Alcohol Prohibition and suddenly millions of dollars in alcohol revenue could not use banks or police protection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am going to use Chicago as an example both prior to 2016 and before.
> 
> Before 2016, the guns used in gun crimes in Chicago, over 60% were purchased in Illnois.  There was no market to import firearms for criminal acts since all one had to do is go into the county and buy guns from private sellers by the car load and transport them back into Chicago.
> 
> In 2016, Illinois passed a Universal Background Check for the entire state and aggressively enforced it.  All of a sudden, the guns used in crimes purchased or stolen in Chicago from Illinois dropped to below 20%.  But the number of guns did not decrease though even though law enforcement actively collected quite a few that were used during crimes.  Where did these extra guns come from?  Most of them came from personal sales from Indiana who does not have universal background checks.  Buying those weapon in Indiana is not against the law.  But transporting them to Indiana is a felony for both the state of Illinois and the Federals.  That doesn't even slow them down because Indiana, more or less, told Illinois to just go pound sand.  New Mexico has the same problem with Arizona and Texas.  California has the same problem with Arizona and Nevada.  Colorado has the same problem with Kansas.  But it appears that most of us are a bit more civilized than Chicago or Detroit.
> 
> AT what point does the states that have these illegal guns come streaming in finally push to have the Feds do something about it since it's really a National Problem?  One beyond anything any one or group of states can do anything about?  Do we start building walls between the states and put up check points everyone must pass through?  Do we put mandatory checkpoints on the borders between states to stop all cars coming from the offending states so that ALL cars can be searched for weapons?  Or do we force the states to go to universal background checks and aggressively enforce them either by the State or allow the Feds to enforce it.
> 
> This is the reason that the 1934 Firearms Act was created in the first place.  What good does it do if a particular state bans the Thompson when all the mob guys have to do is go for a short drive one state over (40 minutes) and buy them over the counter and bring them back.  They passed that law not because the mobsters were mowing each other down.  They passed it because they were also mowing down innocent bystanders.  The same is happening now in places like Chicago and Detroit.  It happens so much, it's not even that much newsworthy.
> 
> I can't give you the exact figures but it's pretty high but the majority of the population support the Universal Background Check.  Sooner or later, it's going to happen on the federal level.  And look for it to stand up in court as well.  But lets say it doesn't.  The Feds have ways to force a state to do something.  Like if a gun manufacturer ships to a state that isn't using a universal background check, they can tax them into non existance.  If they they move to that state that doesn't require universal background checks, the Feds and not allow them to ship outside that state through the Interstate Commerce.  It's going to happen.  We can keep fighting it and have a bunch of morons pass something we don't want or we can work with them and get something that will actually work.  So far, my bet is on the bunch of morons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Moron.....the majority of people who answer the Universal Background surveys don't understand anything about them, first and foremost that we already have Federal background checks for gun purchases.......so any poll that doesn't actually state that Universal Background checks do not stop criminals from getting guns, and that almost every mass shooter already passed a mandated Federal background check already in place, is a useless poll......
> 
> The only reason the anti gunners want universal background checks is to demand universal gun registration....that's it.
> 
> Britain, an island....can't stop the increasing flow of illegal guns into their country, dittos Australia.....we have Mexican drug cartels building gun factories on our southern border......you are an idiot...criminals will get guns, and will not be stopped by background checks of any kind.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are making some rather ridiculous statements here.  Put in enough truths mixed with lies to make it sound true.  It's still making shit up.  You are a prime example of the morons making laws I used in my example.  Guess what, you just won another award.
> View attachment 253025
> View attachment 253026View attachment 253027
Click to expand...

What is Ridiculous is the federal government thinking it knows what’s best for the average US citizen when it comes to firearms ownership... lol
That being personal firearm ownership, that happens to Be none of the federal governments business...


----------



## NoVote

I reserve the right to keep and arm bears....


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ralfy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before 2A was drafted, several colonists used firearms to defend themselves because they usually lived far from each other. At the same time, communities also established militias for various purposes, including slave patrols. The right to defend oneself was considered natural, with the right to bear arms connected to it and part of English common law.
> 
> After the Revolutionary War, Washington wrote about the poor quality of some militias.
> 
> While 2A was drafted and revised several times, framers debates on the need to avoid a large standing army, state rights to have their own armed groups, the desire to avoid tyranny, and threats including European invaders, whites who could rebel, slave riots, and Native Americans. They negotiated and ratified an amendment that argued that to ensure the availability of regulated militias, the right to bear arms would not be infringed. The idea sounds too obvious because several colonists were already armed and it was considered a natural right, part of the need for self-defense. This explains why 2A doesn't grant the right to bear arms but protects it: the right is natural and exists even without 2A, the Constitution, or even a nation. Still, the added something obvious because they wanted to show citizens that their right to defend themselves would not be infringed.
> 
> So, what's the connection between that and regulated militias? The framers didn't argue that the right to bear arms is granted by the government or that the right only exists if there are regulated militias. Rather, the right to defend oneself, which is natural, was used to justify the need to defend the country. Since they didn't want a large standing army, they resorted to militias, and since they didn't want ill-trained militias, they made sure that there were regulated ones.
> 
> What does "regulated" mean? It is defined in Art. 1 Sec. 8, which states who will organize these militias and their purpose, which is to serve the government.
> 
> How was the formation of regulated militias made operational? It is explained in the Militia Acts, which required all white males of a certain age range, and with few exceptions, to obtain battle rifles and report for training.
> 
> Thus, the purpose of 2A is not merely to protect the right to bear arms but to use it to ensure mandatory military service, which is what happened via the Militia Acts.
> 
> The problem is that what Washington complained about persisted as armies became more professional and complex. The country learned that the hard way during the War of 1812, when they realized that a small standing army with militias would not be enough to deal with professional armies. It still took awhile, even when blacks were included among males to serve given a subsequent Militia Act. But it was the last one, in 1903, that led to the formation of the National Guard, and eventually made 2A irrelevant. As military forces became increasingly complex, the country had to rely on reserves trained in the same way as the standing army, with conscription employed in case more troops were needed.
> 
> Today, what is left of 2A is the Selective Service System, where male citizens are merely required to register, with the government given the option to conscript them if necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> But, still... the federal government should have no gun laws.  They are still ALL unconstitutional, as the intent of the 2A was to limit federal power.
> 
> Until somebody amends the 2A, fed gov power over arms should be NOTHING.  ZERO.
> 
> .
> 
> Some want to simply ignore it and call it antiquated.  That is improper.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual rights; it expressly says so in the first clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BS.  The entire Bill of Rights is a list of absolute restrictions on federal authority.  Nothing else.
> If the 2nd amendment was only about "the security of a free state", whatever that is, then it would not have said, that the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed.
> It would have said the authority of a free state to bear arms shall not be infringed.
> ONLY individuals have rights.
> Whenever you read the word "rights", the writing is referring to individuals.
Click to expand...

Where does it say that in our federal Constitution?  It is express not implied.  All terms in our Second Amendment are collective and plural.


----------



## danielpalos

Deno said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Out of my cold dead hands Mother Flucker……………..
> 
> Come and get "em"...…………….
Click to expand...

don't make me Have to muster and get to know my heavy weapons section.


----------



## Rigby5

Lakhota said:


> Well, at least bump stocks finally got banned.  That's a start...




I have no interests in bump stocks, so it does not at all matter.
However, the general population is supposed to be the only citizen soldiers we rely on.
There is not supposed to be any paid police or mercenary military.
So only the general population is supposed to have military grade weapons.
The paid police and military we have now will do what ever those who pay them, tell them to do, like shoot Blacks or invade innocent countries.  Those are the dangerous people we have to disarm.


----------



## Rustic

Rigby5 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, at least bump stocks finally got banned.  That's a start...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no interests in bump stocks, so it does not at all matter.
> However, the general population is supposed to be the only citizen soldiers we rely on.
> There is not supposed to be any paid police or mercenary military.
> So only the general population is supposed to have military grade weapons.
> The paid police and military we have now will do what ever those who pay them, tell them to do, like shoot Blacks or invade innocent countries.  Those are the dangerous people we have to disarm.
Click to expand...

Funny thing is the banning of bump stocks will not save a single soul… Washington Redskin got into the fucking fire water again obviously


----------



## Rigby5

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ralfy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before 2A was drafted, several colonists used firearms to defend themselves because they usually lived far from each other. At the same time, communities also established militias for various purposes, including slave patrols. The right to defend oneself was considered natural, with the right to bear arms connected to it and part of English common law.
> 
> After the Revolutionary War, Washington wrote about the poor quality of some militias.
> 
> While 2A was drafted and revised several times, framers debates on the need to avoid a large standing army, state rights to have their own armed groups, the desire to avoid tyranny, and threats including European invaders, whites who could rebel, slave riots, and Native Americans. They negotiated and ratified an amendment that argued that to ensure the availability of regulated militias, the right to bear arms would not be infringed. The idea sounds too obvious because several colonists were already armed and it was considered a natural right, part of the need for self-defense. This explains why 2A doesn't grant the right to bear arms but protects it: the right is natural and exists even without 2A, the Constitution, or even a nation. Still, the added something obvious because they wanted to show citizens that their right to defend themselves would not be infringed.
> 
> So, what's the connection between that and regulated militias? The framers didn't argue that the right to bear arms is granted by the government or that the right only exists if there are regulated militias. Rather, the right to defend oneself, which is natural, was used to justify the need to defend the country. Since they didn't want a large standing army, they resorted to militias, and since they didn't want ill-trained militias, they made sure that there were regulated ones.
> 
> What does "regulated" mean? It is defined in Art. 1 Sec. 8, which states who will organize these militias and their purpose, which is to serve the government.
> 
> How was the formation of regulated militias made operational? It is explained in the Militia Acts, which required all white males of a certain age range, and with few exceptions, to obtain battle rifles and report for training.
> 
> Thus, the purpose of 2A is not merely to protect the right to bear arms but to use it to ensure mandatory military service, which is what happened via the Militia Acts.
> 
> The problem is that what Washington complained about persisted as armies became more professional and complex. The country learned that the hard way during the War of 1812, when they realized that a small standing army with militias would not be enough to deal with professional armies. It still took awhile, even when blacks were included among males to serve given a subsequent Militia Act. But it was the last one, in 1903, that led to the formation of the National Guard, and eventually made 2A irrelevant. As military forces became increasingly complex, the country had to rely on reserves trained in the same way as the standing army, with conscription employed in case more troops were needed.
> 
> Today, what is left of 2A is the Selective Service System, where male citizens are merely required to register, with the government given the option to conscript them if necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> But, still... the federal government should have no gun laws.  They are still ALL unconstitutional, as the intent of the 2A was to limit federal power.
> 
> Until somebody amends the 2A, fed gov power over arms should be NOTHING.  ZERO.
> 
> .
> 
> Some want to simply ignore it and call it antiquated.  That is improper.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only time the Feds should get involved is when the States are unable to do it themselves.  For instance, the 1934 Firearms act.  What good does it do for , just for argument sake, for Illinois to pass a similar full auto gun ban when they a crime boss can just step over the border into Indiana and buy the auto weapon and bring it back into Chicago and continue spraying the streets with them.  It wasn't just a Chicago problem, it was also  a problem of almost every metro city in the United States with Organized Crime.  So the Feds do what the states can't do and pass a central law.  Like it or not, that is about the only one that has ever withstood time.    Sooner or later, look for them to pass the Universal Background Checks the same way.  Bump Stocks are also being done the same way.  If your states wants to play this silly assed "No Regulation Ever" game, then it just might come to pass that the other states might force the feds to go that route.  And you ain't going to like the Interstate Commerce side of things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't disagree with your reasoning, but any federal gun law is a bad idea because it was not what the constitution originally intended.
> 
> Another way it could have been handled would be for each state to prosecute people in its state who deliberately conspired to violate the laws of anther state.
> That requires cooperation between states, but much better than a whole federal mechanism that can not ever really work well.
> Another way would have been to simply not make full auto illegal anywhere, since it was really Prohibition that was the whole problem, and not full auto firearms.
> Full auto is trivial to make almost any gun into, and no one really wants to.  There crimes with full auto are so rare as to be totally irrelevant.  The only one I can think of is the LA bank robbery about a decade ago.
> 
> The universal background check would not be an issue if not for the assault weapon and confiscation insanity.  There just is no such thing as an assault weapon, and no one should trust any government with records like that, since they already say they want to confiscate.  And that clearly is illegal and the line in the sand.
> 
> The federal government should not claim it has to do something when they are the ones who broke it in the first place.  There was no problem with Thompson machineguns being sold out of the back of magazine ads for $17, until the feds started Alcohol Prohibition and suddenly millions of dollars in alcohol revenue could not use banks or police protection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am going to use Chicago as an example both prior to 2016 and before.
> 
> Before 2016, the guns used in gun crimes in Chicago, over 60% were purchased in Illnois.  There was no market to import firearms for criminal acts since all one had to do is go into the county and buy guns from private sellers by the car load and transport them back into Chicago.
> 
> In 2016, Illinois passed a Universal Background Check for the entire state and aggressively enforced it.  All of a sudden, the guns used in crimes purchased or stolen in Chicago from Illinois dropped to below 20%.  But the number of guns did not decrease though even though law enforcement actively collected quite a few that were used during crimes.  Where did these extra guns come from?  Most of them came from personal sales from Indiana who does not have universal background checks.  Buying those weapon in Indiana is not against the law.  But transporting them to Indiana is a felony for both the state of Illinois and the Federals.  That doesn't even slow them down because Indiana, more or less, told Illinois to just go pound sand.  New Mexico has the same problem with Arizona and Texas.  California has the same problem with Arizona and Nevada.  Colorado has the same problem with Kansas.  But it appears that most of us are a bit more civilized than Chicago or Detroit.
> 
> AT what point does the states that have these illegal guns come streaming in finally push to have the Feds do something about it since it's really a National Problem?  One beyond anything any one or group of states can do anything about?  Do we start building walls between the states and put up check points everyone must pass through?  Do we put mandatory checkpoints on the borders between states to stop all cars coming from the offending states so that ALL cars can be searched for weapons?  Or do we force the states to go to universal background checks and aggressively enforce them either by the State or allow the Feds to enforce it.
> 
> This is the reason that the 1934 Firearms Act was created in the first place.  What good does it do if a particular state bans the Thompson when all the mob guys have to do is go for a short drive one state over (40 minutes) and buy them over the counter and bring them back.  They passed that law not because the mobsters were mowing each other down.  They passed it because they were also mowing down innocent bystanders.  The same is happening now in places like Chicago and Detroit.  It happens so much, it's not even that much newsworthy.
> 
> I can't give you the exact figures but it's pretty high but the majority of the population support the Universal Background Check.  Sooner or later, it's going to happen on the federal level.  And look for it to stand up in court as well.  But lets say it doesn't.  The Feds have ways to force a state to do something.  Like if a gun manufacturer ships to a state that isn't using a universal background check, they can tax them into non existance.  If they they move to that state that doesn't require universal background checks, the Feds and not allow them to ship outside that state through the Interstate Commerce.  It's going to happen.  We can keep fighting it and have a bunch of morons pass something we don't want or we can work with them and get something that will actually work.  So far, my bet is on the bunch of morons.
Click to expand...



Logical and rational, but still wrong in my opinion.

The problems in Chicago have nothing at all to do with guns, so there would be no advantage in having federal assistance in implementing Chicago's incorrect solution.
The problem in Chicago is well known and understood.  The causes of crime are the classic poverty, injustice, lack of opportunity, etc., as well as the deliberately created War on Drugs.  The War on Drugs caused a well paid underground economy that can't rely on banks or police, so requires everyone involved to be armed.  That is identical to what Prohibition did.  It caused gangs to prey on each other, and caused them to commence an arms war of escalating violence.  End the War on Drugs, and likely it all goes away.  Nor is the War on Drugs legal either.  The authority for government comes from the defense of the rights of individuals, and the war on drugs defends no one.  It is a classic act of authoritarianism.  There is no legal basis for it.
All the crime in Chicago is caused by the government.  
From Prohibition, we know exactly what the War on Drugs had to do, so then the War on Drugs has to be an intentionally created excuse to cause crime, as a fake excuse to disarm, incarcerate, confiscate, intimidate, and murder.

Lets assume that to prevent guns from outside Chicago and outside of IL, all guns in the entirely country became illegal and were confiscated?  Would that reduce crime in Chicago?  Absolutely not one bit.  
First of all, none of the drugs coming into Chicago are  from the US.  They are all smuggled in from outside.  And all those drug smugglers have to be armed, to protect themselves from other gangs, so they already are smuggling guns.  All a total US ban on guns would do is so greatly raise prices, that they would switch over to more guns and less drugs.  Which in many ways would be an improvement.  There not only are hundreds of gun manufacturers in South America, Asia, Eastern Europe, etc., who would love for the profits that a US gun ban would cause, but it is easy to make home brew submachine guns like a Sten.  In fact, in WWII the military produced simple kits to make even bolt action rifles into submachine guns, called the Pederson Kit.  This is a trivial procedure.  You just remove the locking lugs and add springs and weight to slow the bolt down.
But most important of all is that guns are NEVER the cause or source of crime, so it is always pointless, foolish, and counter productive to do anything at all about the guns themselves.  If you fix the causes of crime, then all the problems go away.  If you do NOT fix the causes of crime, then you not only deserve the high crime, but then high crime is good, as a means of punishing those who refuse to stop the causes of crime.
Crime is the just deserts of bad government that allows injustice, poverty, lack of opportunity, etc.  You don't want to incarcerate those trying to survive, like those dealing drugs, but you want to lynch the corrupt politicians, bureaucrats, and government employees who deliberately caused the situation to happen.

Crime is the canary in the coal mine, telling you when there are problems.
Gun control is like killing that canary and lying about the fact the problems are even worse.


----------



## Rigby5

Daryl Hunt said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, at least bump stocks finally got banned.  That's a start...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How?   With thousands of these in private hands, one was used in one attack in a country of over 320 million people.......are you really that deranged that you would think a ban on a gimmick used once for crime makes any difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't happen over night.  It will take up to 10 years to get most of them.  And some will stay in some gun locker for a very long time and you will never be aware that it's there.  It took them about 10 years to get a handle on the Thompson MG.
Click to expand...


No, it will never happen.
The war on drugs was started under Nixon in 1971.  
It was never won, never ended, and only got much, much worse every single year.
And it is the War on Drugs that is the most responsible for the excessive amount and use of weapons, just as Prohibition did.
The 1934 gun control act did NOT at all solve the problem of the Thompson machineguns, but it was the end of Prohibition in 1929 that ended the Thompson machinegun problem.

You can not at all solve any weapons problem by legislation.
Weapons are easy to make, and all legislation does is make them more profitable.


----------



## Rigby5

ralfy said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, still... the federal government should have no gun laws.  They are still ALL unconstitutional, as the intent of the 2A was to limit federal power.
> 
> Until somebody amends the 2A, fed gov power over arms should be NOTHING.  ZERO.
> 
> .
> 
> Some want to simply ignore it and call it antiquated.  That is improper.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can have gun laws because rights may be abridged, i.e., limited for various reasons. That's why, for example, convicts don't have the right to bear arms.
> 
> For these laws to be passed, a majority vote is needed.
> 
> Also, the purpose of 2A is not to limit federal power but to enhance it. That's why what defines regulated militias is seen in Art. 1 Sec. 8 and what makes them operational are the Militia Acts, which called for mandatory military service for male citizens.
> 
> There's no need to amend 2A to stop gun control. What you need to do is to convince more citizens to vote against it (i,e., gun control).
> 
> Finally, 2A is irrelevant because the gov't no longer needs regulated militias to supplement the army. Rather, it's been using the National Guard since 1903, and for citizens, conscription and the Selective Service System.
Click to expand...


That is all totally wrong.
Actually convicts do have a right to defend themselves, so likely it is illegal to prevent felons from being armed after all parole and other restrictions are over.
And although you can have gun laws, clearly you can NOT have any federal gun jurisdiction at all.  That is the whole point of the Bill of Rights.

The ENTIRE Bill of Rights is ONLY restrictions on the federal government!
That is exactly what the Bill of Rights says, as well as every single politician at the time who was involved.  
The states were hesitate to sign up for a new big government that could be abusive, just as England had been, so the sole purpose of the Bill of Rights just as an additional set of absolute restriction and limits in federal powers.
The fact different articles of the Constitution define how state militias could be called upon for federal use in national emergencies, has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment or the Bill of Rights.

You do not have to amend the Bill of Rights or 2nd Amendment to stop gun control because that is exactly what the 2nd amendment says and is supposed to do.  It says there must be no federal gun jurisdiction at all.
You would need a constitutional amendment in order to GIVE any federal weapons jurisdiction.  There is NONE in the constitution now.  And without any explicit weapons jurisdiction anywhere in the constitution, any and all federal weapons laws are totally illegal.

And you are totally wrong about the current need for militias.  
The National Guard may or may not be what the federal government wishes to be able to call up in a national emergency, but national emergencies is not what militias are primarily for.  Militias are to protect state, municipality, home, and self.  
And if you look at the conscription system of the selective service system, it is NOT federally run.  Each state runs it through their own state appointed boards.  The feds have no jurisdiction over selective service system.

In fact, ALL of the current problems of police murdering unarmed Blacks, etc., of the Pentagon lying about WMD and invading innocent countries, etc., is all due to illegally creating mercenary police and military that work for pay.  That is not what the founders intended.  They wanted citizen soldiers only, who then would not be corrupted by pay.
The whole current military and police complex is totally corrupt and is causing all of our major problems.


----------



## Rigby5

ralfy said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem was not so much whether or not guns used were illegal but whether or not militias were disciplined and sufficiently equipped. Washington's complaint was that several of them lacked both.
> 
> The gov't realized that they could not rely so much on militias after 1812, which is why they focused on increasing the size of the standing army. Ultimately, with the last Militia Act, they established the National Guard, which made the need for regulated militias irrelevant.
> 
> Today, the government focuses on voluntary service via the National Guard and conscription if more troops are needed. The only thing required of male citizens is to register.
Click to expand...


Wrong.
The last time we were invaded was 1812, so that was the last time we needed any large military force.  The reason the standing army was increased after that, was corruption.
The military should not have been increased, and the purpose of doing so was in order to massacre natives, illegally invade Mexico several times, to illegally invade Cuba/Philippines, join with the terrorists in WWI, etc.
If we had stayed with the citizen soldiers the founders wanted, likely all those illegal wars would have been much harder to sell.
And the military is still likely the single most corrupt part of government, such as the illegal wars in Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, etc.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ralfy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before 2A was drafted, several colonists used firearms to defend themselves because they usually lived far from each other. At the same time, communities also established militias for various purposes, including slave patrols. The right to defend oneself was considered natural, with the right to bear arms connected to it and part of English common law.
> 
> After the Revolutionary War, Washington wrote about the poor quality of some militias.
> 
> While 2A was drafted and revised several times, framers debates on the need to avoid a large standing army, state rights to have their own armed groups, the desire to avoid tyranny, and threats including European invaders, whites who could rebel, slave riots, and Native Americans. They negotiated and ratified an amendment that argued that to ensure the availability of regulated militias, the right to bear arms would not be infringed. The idea sounds too obvious because several colonists were already armed and it was considered a natural right, part of the need for self-defense. This explains why 2A doesn't grant the right to bear arms but protects it: the right is natural and exists even without 2A, the Constitution, or even a nation. Still, the added something obvious because they wanted to show citizens that their right to defend themselves would not be infringed.
> 
> So, what's the connection between that and regulated militias? The framers didn't argue that the right to bear arms is granted by the government or that the right only exists if there are regulated militias. Rather, the right to defend oneself, which is natural, was used to justify the need to defend the country. Since they didn't want a large standing army, they resorted to militias, and since they didn't want ill-trained militias, they made sure that there were regulated ones.
> 
> What does "regulated" mean? It is defined in Art. 1 Sec. 8, which states who will organize these militias and their purpose, which is to serve the government.
> 
> How was the formation of regulated militias made operational? It is explained in the Militia Acts, which required all white males of a certain age range, and with few exceptions, to obtain battle rifles and report for training.
> 
> Thus, the purpose of 2A is not merely to protect the right to bear arms but to use it to ensure mandatory military service, which is what happened via the Militia Acts.
> 
> The problem is that what Washington complained about persisted as armies became more professional and complex. The country learned that the hard way during the War of 1812, when they realized that a small standing army with militias would not be enough to deal with professional armies. It still took awhile, even when blacks were included among males to serve given a subsequent Militia Act. But it was the last one, in 1903, that led to the formation of the National Guard, and eventually made 2A irrelevant. As military forces became increasingly complex, the country had to rely on reserves trained in the same way as the standing army, with conscription employed in case more troops were needed.
> 
> Today, what is left of 2A is the Selective Service System, where male citizens are merely required to register, with the government given the option to conscript them if necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> But, still... the federal government should have no gun laws.  They are still ALL unconstitutional, as the intent of the 2A was to limit federal power.
> 
> Until somebody amends the 2A, fed gov power over arms should be NOTHING.  ZERO.
> 
> .
> 
> Some want to simply ignore it and call it antiquated.  That is improper.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual rights; it expressly says so in the first clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BS.  The entire Bill of Rights is a list of absolute restrictions on federal authority.  Nothing else.
> If the 2nd amendment was only about "the security of a free state", whatever that is, then it would not have said, that the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed.
> It would have said the authority of a free state to bear arms shall not be infringed.
> ONLY individuals have rights.
> Whenever you read the word "rights", the writing is referring to individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where does it say that in our federal Constitution?  It is express not implied.  All terms in our Second Amendment are collective and plural.
Click to expand...


You would have to know nothing of the Bill of Rights to not know they are just all federal restrictions.

{...
*The Bill of Rights limits the (federal) government by enumerating the rights of the people and listing the things the (federal) government cannot do.* For example, the Bill of Rights states that the government cannot pass a law limiting the freedom of speech or religion.

The Bill of Rights is a term that refers to the first 10 amendments of the Constitution of the United States. The lack of a Bill of Rights was one of the main points of disagreement between federalists and anti-federalists. James Madison wrote the 10 amendments as a response to calls from several states for constitutional protection for individual liberties. The end result, approved by the House and ratified in 1791, is a list of limits on the powers of government. According to the Third Amendment, no soldier can be quartered in a private house in a time of peace without the consent of the owner. The Fourth Amendment prohibits the government from intruding in a citizen's home. According to the Fifth Amendment, no one can be held to answer for a capital crime in the absence of a grand jury. The Eighth Amendment prevents the government from imposing excessive bail or fines on citizens and from inflicting cruel and unusual punishments.
...}

How Does the Bill of Rights Limit the Government?

As to the exact wording of the Bill of Rights, here is the preamble and beginning:

{...
*The Preamble to The Bill of Rights*
Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, *in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added:* And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

*Amendment I*
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

*Amendment II*
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
,,,}

The Bill of Rights: A Transcription


It should be totally clear that the Bill of Rights was entirely additional prohibitions, limits, and restrictions on federal authority, powers, and jurisdictions.


----------



## hadit

Lakhota said:


> Well, at least bump stocks finally got banned.  That's a start...



Makes you feel good, does nothing to stop gun deaths.


----------



## Rustic

hadit said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, at least bump stocks finally got banned.  That's a start...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Makes you feel good, does nothing to stop gun deaths.
Click to expand...

You have to excuse Washington redskin... He gets into the fire water more often than not


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ralfy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before 2A was drafted, several colonists used firearms to defend themselves because they usually lived far from each other. At the same time, communities also established militias for various purposes, including slave patrols. The right to defend oneself was considered natural, with the right to bear arms connected to it and part of English common law.
> 
> After the Revolutionary War, Washington wrote about the poor quality of some militias.
> 
> While 2A was drafted and revised several times, framers debates on the need to avoid a large standing army, state rights to have their own armed groups, the desire to avoid tyranny, and threats including European invaders, whites who could rebel, slave riots, and Native Americans. They negotiated and ratified an amendment that argued that to ensure the availability of regulated militias, the right to bear arms would not be infringed. The idea sounds too obvious because several colonists were already armed and it was considered a natural right, part of the need for self-defense. This explains why 2A doesn't grant the right to bear arms but protects it: the right is natural and exists even without 2A, the Constitution, or even a nation. Still, the added something obvious because they wanted to show citizens that their right to defend themselves would not be infringed.
> 
> So, what's the connection between that and regulated militias? The framers didn't argue that the right to bear arms is granted by the government or that the right only exists if there are regulated militias. Rather, the right to defend oneself, which is natural, was used to justify the need to defend the country. Since they didn't want a large standing army, they resorted to militias, and since they didn't want ill-trained militias, they made sure that there were regulated ones.
> 
> What does "regulated" mean? It is defined in Art. 1 Sec. 8, which states who will organize these militias and their purpose, which is to serve the government.
> 
> How was the formation of regulated militias made operational? It is explained in the Militia Acts, which required all white males of a certain age range, and with few exceptions, to obtain battle rifles and report for training.
> 
> Thus, the purpose of 2A is not merely to protect the right to bear arms but to use it to ensure mandatory military service, which is what happened via the Militia Acts.
> 
> The problem is that what Washington complained about persisted as armies became more professional and complex. The country learned that the hard way during the War of 1812, when they realized that a small standing army with militias would not be enough to deal with professional armies. It still took awhile, even when blacks were included among males to serve given a subsequent Militia Act. But it was the last one, in 1903, that led to the formation of the National Guard, and eventually made 2A irrelevant. As military forces became increasingly complex, the country had to rely on reserves trained in the same way as the standing army, with conscription employed in case more troops were needed.
> 
> Today, what is left of 2A is the Selective Service System, where male citizens are merely required to register, with the government given the option to conscript them if necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> But, still... the federal government should have no gun laws.  They are still ALL unconstitutional, as the intent of the 2A was to limit federal power.
> 
> Until somebody amends the 2A, fed gov power over arms should be NOTHING.  ZERO.
> 
> .
> 
> Some want to simply ignore it and call it antiquated.  That is improper.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual rights; it expressly says so in the first clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BS.  The entire Bill of Rights is a list of absolute restrictions on federal authority.  Nothing else.
> If the 2nd amendment was only about "the security of a free state", whatever that is, then it would not have said, that the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed.
> It would have said the authority of a free state to bear arms shall not be infringed.
> ONLY individuals have rights.
> Whenever you read the word "rights", the writing is referring to individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where does it say that in our federal Constitution?  It is express not implied.  All terms in our Second Amendment are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You would have to know nothing of the Bill of Rights to not know they are just all federal restrictions.
> 
> {...
> *The Bill of Rights limits the (federal) government by enumerating the rights of the people and listing the things the (federal) government cannot do.* For example, the Bill of Rights states that the government cannot pass a law limiting the freedom of speech or religion.
> 
> The Bill of Rights is a term that refers to the first 10 amendments of the Constitution of the United States. The lack of a Bill of Rights was one of the main points of disagreement between federalists and anti-federalists. James Madison wrote the 10 amendments as a response to calls from several states for constitutional protection for individual liberties. The end result, approved by the House and ratified in 1791, is a list of limits on the powers of government. According to the Third Amendment, no soldier can be quartered in a private house in a time of peace without the consent of the owner. The Fourth Amendment prohibits the government from intruding in a citizen's home. According to the Fifth Amendment, no one can be held to answer for a capital crime in the absence of a grand jury. The Eighth Amendment prevents the government from imposing excessive bail or fines on citizens and from inflicting cruel and unusual punishments.
> ...}
> 
> How Does the Bill of Rights Limit the Government?
> 
> As to the exact wording of the Bill of Rights, here is the preamble and beginning:
> 
> {...
> *The Preamble to The Bill of Rights*
> Congress of the United States
> begun and held at the City of New-York, on
> Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
> 
> THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, *in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added:* And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
> 
> RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
> 
> ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
> 
> *Amendment I*
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
> 
> *Amendment II*
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> ,,,}
> 
> The Bill of Rights: A Transcription
> 
> 
> It should be totally clear that the Bill of Rights was entirely additional prohibitions, limits, and restrictions on federal authority, powers, and jurisdictions.
Click to expand...

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not Individual rights; it says so in the first clause.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, still... the federal government should have no gun laws.  They are still ALL unconstitutional, as the intent of the 2A was to limit federal power.
> 
> Until somebody amends the 2A, fed gov power over arms should be NOTHING.  ZERO.
> 
> .
> 
> Some want to simply ignore it and call it antiquated.  That is improper.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual rights; it expressly says so in the first clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BS.  The entire Bill of Rights is a list of absolute restrictions on federal authority.  Nothing else.
> If the 2nd amendment was only about "the security of a free state", whatever that is, then it would not have said, that the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed.
> It would have said the authority of a free state to bear arms shall not be infringed.
> ONLY individuals have rights.
> Whenever you read the word "rights", the writing is referring to individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where does it say that in our federal Constitution?  It is express not implied.  All terms in our Second Amendment are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You would have to know nothing of the Bill of Rights to not know they are just all federal restrictions.
> 
> {...
> *The Bill of Rights limits the (federal) government by enumerating the rights of the people and listing the things the (federal) government cannot do.* For example, the Bill of Rights states that the government cannot pass a law limiting the freedom of speech or religion.
> 
> The Bill of Rights is a term that refers to the first 10 amendments of the Constitution of the United States. The lack of a Bill of Rights was one of the main points of disagreement between federalists and anti-federalists. James Madison wrote the 10 amendments as a response to calls from several states for constitutional protection for individual liberties. The end result, approved by the House and ratified in 1791, is a list of limits on the powers of government. According to the Third Amendment, no soldier can be quartered in a private house in a time of peace without the consent of the owner. The Fourth Amendment prohibits the government from intruding in a citizen's home. According to the Fifth Amendment, no one can be held to answer for a capital crime in the absence of a grand jury. The Eighth Amendment prevents the government from imposing excessive bail or fines on citizens and from inflicting cruel and unusual punishments.
> ...}
> 
> How Does the Bill of Rights Limit the Government?
> 
> As to the exact wording of the Bill of Rights, here is the preamble and beginning:
> 
> {...
> *The Preamble to The Bill of Rights*
> Congress of the United States
> begun and held at the City of New-York, on
> Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
> 
> THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, *in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added:* And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
> 
> RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
> 
> ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
> 
> *Amendment I*
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
> 
> *Amendment II*
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> ,,,}
> 
> The Bill of Rights: A Transcription
> 
> 
> It should be totally clear that the Bill of Rights was entirely additional prohibitions, limits, and restrictions on federal authority, powers, and jurisdictions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not Individual rights; it says so in the first clause.
Click to expand...


First of all, a free State is not the national federation of free states, but only one of them.
The point of the Bill of Rights was not to define between individual or state issues, but merely to limit federal authority.

The motivation for the 2nd amendment was the same as the motivation for all of the Bill of Rights, which was to ensure federal limits, so that states would be willing to sign on to the federation.
But it is foolish to claim one badly understood motivation would be the only one.
When clearly the rest of the 2nd amendment says that the "right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed".
It does not say the authority of any level of government, but the right of the people.
And only individuals have any rights at all.
Governments do not have rights.
They only have delegated authority or jurisdiction.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rigby5 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, at least bump stocks finally got banned.  That's a start...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How?   With thousands of these in private hands, one was used in one attack in a country of over 320 million people.......are you really that deranged that you would think a ban on a gimmick used once for crime makes any difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't happen over night.  It will take up to 10 years to get most of them.  And some will stay in some gun locker for a very long time and you will never be aware that it's there.  It took them about 10 years to get a handle on the Thompson MG.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it will never happen.
> The war on drugs was started under Nixon in 1971.
> It was never won, never ended, and only got much, much worse every single year.
> And it is the War on Drugs that is the most responsible for the excessive amount and use of weapons, just as Prohibition did.
> The 1934 gun control act did NOT at all solve the problem of the Thompson machineguns, but it was the end of Prohibition in 1929 that ended the Thompson machinegun problem.
> 
> You can not at all solve any weapons problem by legislation.
> Weapons are easy to make, and all legislation does is make them more profitable.
Click to expand...


If the Thompson was ended, it had nothing to do with the ending of the Prohibition.  When the illegal booze became legal, the mobs just moved onto something else like Heroin and the like.  Getting rid of prohibition didn't end the Thompson, the vigorous enforcement nationwide ended it.  If you got caught with a servicable Thompson, you would get a mandatory 10 year  federal pen sentence.  Do a crime with one and you were a goner for a life sentence for each life taken.  Use it in a crime where no one was killed, you were still looking at 25 to life.  

It all depends on how serious the sentence is for the possession.  You want to stand there in front of a cop who is also armed with a thompson and scream, "You can't tell me what to do".  The old time cop would stitch your mid section with 45 projectiles unless you cooperated post haste.  Cops just got tired of dying.  And in inner cities, that's about where the cops are today.  They are tired of dying.


----------



## Rigby5

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, at least bump stocks finally got banned.  That's a start...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How?   With thousands of these in private hands, one was used in one attack in a country of over 320 million people.......are you really that deranged that you would think a ban on a gimmick used once for crime makes any difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't happen over night.  It will take up to 10 years to get most of them.  And some will stay in some gun locker for a very long time and you will never be aware that it's there.  It took them about 10 years to get a handle on the Thompson MG.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it will never happen.
> The war on drugs was started under Nixon in 1971.
> It was never won, never ended, and only got much, much worse every single year.
> And it is the War on Drugs that is the most responsible for the excessive amount and use of weapons, just as Prohibition did.
> The 1934 gun control act did NOT at all solve the problem of the Thompson machineguns, but it was the end of Prohibition in 1929 that ended the Thompson machinegun problem.
> 
> You can not at all solve any weapons problem by legislation.
> Weapons are easy to make, and all legislation does is make them more profitable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the Thompson was ended, it had nothing to do with the ending of the Prohibition.  When the illegal booze became legal, the mobs just moved onto something else like Heroin and the like.  Getting rid of prohibition didn't end the Thompson, the vigorous enforcement nationwide ended it.  If you got caught with a servicable Thompson, you would get a mandatory 10 year  federal pen sentence.  Do a crime with one and you were a goner for a life sentence for each life taken.  Use it in a crime where no one was killed, you were still looking at 25 to life.
> 
> It all depends on how serious the sentence is for the possession.  You want to stand there in front of a cop who is also armed with a thompson and scream, "You can't tell me what to do".  The old time cop would stitch your mid section with 45 projectiles unless you cooperated post haste.  Cops just got tired of dying.  And in inner cities, that's about where the cops are today.  They are tired of dying.
Click to expand...


I disagree.
The Thompson came from the depression, Prohibition, and the usual and known causes of crime.
The penalty for murdering someone with a machinegun is the same as murdering someone with a shotgun.  Until around the 1970s, the penalty was death.  It not only did not matter what weapon you used, but it is not at all clear criminals even care what the penalties are, since they don't think they are going to get caught.

And no, cops were not dying then or now.
No one is shooting at cops except to try to distract them as they try to get away.
Cops complain about how dangerous their job is, but the reality is that fewer than 50 cops a year are killed, and something like 75% of those deaths are from traffic, not criminals.

The reality is that it is a fake issue, deliberately lied about in order to oppress the general population even more.  And the people should not be taking it.  Unfair taxes that allow such wealth disparity, and causing the lowest percentage of owner occupied housing in US history, is a disgrace.  We need public health care, free college tuition, housing subsidies to equal the tax benefits landlords get, the end of wars of aggression, a 50% reduction in military spending (peace dividend we were promised), etc.

If not, then we not only should strike down all gun control laws against the general population, but start to enact laws to disarm the police and severely curtail the military.
It should be clear that guns in the hands of individuals is NOT at all the problem.
It is the overly armed government that is the entire problem.


----------



## anynameyouwish

Rigby5 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, at least bump stocks finally got banned.  That's a start...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How?   With thousands of these in private hands, one was used in one attack in a country of over 320 million people.......are you really that deranged that you would think a ban on a gimmick used once for crime makes any difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't happen over night.  It will take up to 10 years to get most of them.  And some will stay in some gun locker for a very long time and you will never be aware that it's there.  It took them about 10 years to get a handle on the Thompson MG.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it will never happen.
> The war on drugs was started under Nixon in 1971.
> It was never won, never ended, and only got much, much worse every single year.
> And it is the War on Drugs that is the most responsible for the excessive amount and use of weapons, just as Prohibition did.
> The 1934 gun control act did NOT at all solve the problem of the Thompson machineguns, but it was the end of Prohibition in 1929 that ended the Thompson machinegun problem.
> 
> You can not at all solve any weapons problem by legislation.
> Weapons are easy to make, and all legislation does is make them more profitable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the Thompson was ended, it had nothing to do with the ending of the Prohibition.  When the illegal booze became legal, the mobs just moved onto something else like Heroin and the like.  Getting rid of prohibition didn't end the Thompson, the vigorous enforcement nationwide ended it.  If you got caught with a servicable Thompson, you would get a mandatory 10 year  federal pen sentence.  Do a crime with one and you were a goner for a life sentence for each life taken.  Use it in a crime where no one was killed, you were still looking at 25 to life.
> 
> It all depends on how serious the sentence is for the possession.  You want to stand there in front of a cop who is also armed with a thompson and scream, "You can't tell me what to do".  The old time cop would stitch your mid section with 45 projectiles unless you cooperated post haste.  Cops just got tired of dying.  And in inner cities, that's about where the cops are today.  They are tired of dying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree.
> The Thompson came from the depression, Prohibition, and the usual and known causes of crime.
> The penalty for murdering someone with a machinegun is the same as murdering someone with a shotgun.  Until around the 1970s, the penalty was death.  It not only did not matter what weapon you used, but it is not at all clear criminals even care what the penalties are, since they don't think they are going to get caught.
> 
> And no, cops were not dying then or now.
> No one is shooting at cops except to try to distract them as they try to get away.
> Cops complain about how dangerous their job is, but the reality is that fewer than 50 cops a year are killed, and something like 75% of those deaths are from traffic, not criminals.
> 
> The reality is that it is a fake issue, deliberately lied about in order to oppress the general population even more.  And the people should not be taking it.  Unfair taxes that allow such wealth disparity, and causing the lowest percentage of owner occupied housing in US history, is a disgrace.  We need public health care, free college tuition, housing subsidies to equal the tax benefits landlords get, the end of wars of aggression, a 50% reduction in military spending (peace dividend we were promised), etc.
> 
> If not, then we not only should strike down all gun control laws against the general population, but start to enact laws to disarm the police and severely curtail the military.
> It should be clear that guns in the hands of individuals is NOT at all the problem.
> It is the overly armed government that is the entire problem.
Click to expand...




"Cops complain about how dangerous their job is, but the reality is that fewer than 50 cops a year are killed, and something like 75% of those deaths are from traffic, not criminals."

Still...it can be dangerous and IS dangerous in some areas.

And they are first responders to some grizzly scenes that I wouldn't want to see.

Plus they have to actively try to help people who have been shot, stabbed, been in a terrible car accident (or any kind of accident) and are still alive but in desperate straights....


fuk man

My hat is off to  them.

I don't think I could stand some of the situations that is demanded of them.


----------



## Rigby5

anynameyouwish said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> How?   With thousands of these in private hands, one was used in one attack in a country of over 320 million people.......are you really that deranged that you would think a ban on a gimmick used once for crime makes any difference?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't happen over night.  It will take up to 10 years to get most of them.  And some will stay in some gun locker for a very long time and you will never be aware that it's there.  It took them about 10 years to get a handle on the Thompson MG.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it will never happen.
> The war on drugs was started under Nixon in 1971.
> It was never won, never ended, and only got much, much worse every single year.
> And it is the War on Drugs that is the most responsible for the excessive amount and use of weapons, just as Prohibition did.
> The 1934 gun control act did NOT at all solve the problem of the Thompson machineguns, but it was the end of Prohibition in 1929 that ended the Thompson machinegun problem.
> 
> You can not at all solve any weapons problem by legislation.
> Weapons are easy to make, and all legislation does is make them more profitable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the Thompson was ended, it had nothing to do with the ending of the Prohibition.  When the illegal booze became legal, the mobs just moved onto something else like Heroin and the like.  Getting rid of prohibition didn't end the Thompson, the vigorous enforcement nationwide ended it.  If you got caught with a servicable Thompson, you would get a mandatory 10 year  federal pen sentence.  Do a crime with one and you were a goner for a life sentence for each life taken.  Use it in a crime where no one was killed, you were still looking at 25 to life.
> 
> It all depends on how serious the sentence is for the possession.  You want to stand there in front of a cop who is also armed with a thompson and scream, "You can't tell me what to do".  The old time cop would stitch your mid section with 45 projectiles unless you cooperated post haste.  Cops just got tired of dying.  And in inner cities, that's about where the cops are today.  They are tired of dying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree.
> The Thompson came from the depression, Prohibition, and the usual and known causes of crime.
> The penalty for murdering someone with a machinegun is the same as murdering someone with a shotgun.  Until around the 1970s, the penalty was death.  It not only did not matter what weapon you used, but it is not at all clear criminals even care what the penalties are, since they don't think they are going to get caught.
> 
> And no, cops were not dying then or now.
> No one is shooting at cops except to try to distract them as they try to get away.
> Cops complain about how dangerous their job is, but the reality is that fewer than 50 cops a year are killed, and something like 75% of those deaths are from traffic, not criminals.
> 
> The reality is that it is a fake issue, deliberately lied about in order to oppress the general population even more.  And the people should not be taking it.  Unfair taxes that allow such wealth disparity, and causing the lowest percentage of owner occupied housing in US history, is a disgrace.  We need public health care, free college tuition, housing subsidies to equal the tax benefits landlords get, the end of wars of aggression, a 50% reduction in military spending (peace dividend we were promised), etc.
> 
> If not, then we not only should strike down all gun control laws against the general population, but start to enact laws to disarm the police and severely curtail the military.
> It should be clear that guns in the hands of individuals is NOT at all the problem.
> It is the overly armed government that is the entire problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Cops complain about how dangerous their job is, but the reality is that fewer than 50 cops a year are killed, and something like 75% of those deaths are from traffic, not criminals."
> 
> Still...it can be dangerous and IS dangerous in some areas.
> 
> And they are first responders to some grizzly scenes that I wouldn't want to see.
> 
> Plus they have to actively try to help people who have been shot, stabbed, been in a terrible car accident (or any kind of accident) and are still alive but in desperate straights....
> 
> 
> fuk man
> 
> My hat is off to  them.
> 
> I don't think I could stand some of the situations that is demanded of them.
Click to expand...


About once a month we see a video of police accidentally or wrongly shooting an unarmed person.  Often the person was totally innocent and did not thing wrong.  At worst, some of the videos show the person trying to run away and being shot in the back by police.
And in not one single video of these shootings, do you see a single cop performing any first aid at all.  They don't even put on pressure to stop the bleeding.  

Maybe some police are doing a better job than that, but then why are they not saying more themselves when you see all these video of wrongful death by police?
Sorry, but unless police are willing to police themselves, then they are all collectively guilty.
And until the US no longer has the highest % of imprisoned in the world, then clearly the main problem in the US has to be the police.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual rights; it expressly says so in the first clause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS.  The entire Bill of Rights is a list of absolute restrictions on federal authority.  Nothing else.
> If the 2nd amendment was only about "the security of a free state", whatever that is, then it would not have said, that the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed.
> It would have said the authority of a free state to bear arms shall not be infringed.
> ONLY individuals have rights.
> Whenever you read the word "rights", the writing is referring to individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where does it say that in our federal Constitution?  It is express not implied.  All terms in our Second Amendment are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You would have to know nothing of the Bill of Rights to not know they are just all federal restrictions.
> 
> {...
> *The Bill of Rights limits the (federal) government by enumerating the rights of the people and listing the things the (federal) government cannot do.* For example, the Bill of Rights states that the government cannot pass a law limiting the freedom of speech or religion.
> 
> The Bill of Rights is a term that refers to the first 10 amendments of the Constitution of the United States. The lack of a Bill of Rights was one of the main points of disagreement between federalists and anti-federalists. James Madison wrote the 10 amendments as a response to calls from several states for constitutional protection for individual liberties. The end result, approved by the House and ratified in 1791, is a list of limits on the powers of government. According to the Third Amendment, no soldier can be quartered in a private house in a time of peace without the consent of the owner. The Fourth Amendment prohibits the government from intruding in a citizen's home. According to the Fifth Amendment, no one can be held to answer for a capital crime in the absence of a grand jury. The Eighth Amendment prevents the government from imposing excessive bail or fines on citizens and from inflicting cruel and unusual punishments.
> ...}
> 
> How Does the Bill of Rights Limit the Government?
> 
> As to the exact wording of the Bill of Rights, here is the preamble and beginning:
> 
> {...
> *The Preamble to The Bill of Rights*
> Congress of the United States
> begun and held at the City of New-York, on
> Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
> 
> THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, *in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added:* And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
> 
> RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
> 
> ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
> 
> *Amendment I*
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
> 
> *Amendment II*
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> ,,,}
> 
> The Bill of Rights: A Transcription
> 
> 
> It should be totally clear that the Bill of Rights was entirely additional prohibitions, limits, and restrictions on federal authority, powers, and jurisdictions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not Individual rights; it says so in the first clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, a free State is not the national federation of free states, but only one of them.
> The point of the Bill of Rights was not to define between individual or state issues, but merely to limit federal authority.
> 
> The motivation for the 2nd amendment was the same as the motivation for all of the Bill of Rights, which was to ensure federal limits, so that states would be willing to sign on to the federation.
> But it is foolish to claim one badly understood motivation would be the only one.
> When clearly the rest of the 2nd amendment says that the "right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed".
> It does not say the authority of any level of government, but the right of the people.
> And only individuals have any rights at all.
> Governments do not have rights.
> They only have delegated authority or jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

Nice story, bro.  

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not any implied right wing story.


----------



## buckeye45_73

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, still... the federal government should have no gun laws.  They are still ALL unconstitutional, as the intent of the 2A was to limit federal power.
> 
> Until somebody amends the 2A, fed gov power over arms should be NOTHING.  ZERO.
> 
> .
> 
> Some want to simply ignore it and call it antiquated.  That is improper.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual rights; it expressly says so in the first clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BS.  The entire Bill of Rights is a list of absolute restrictions on federal authority.  Nothing else.
> If the 2nd amendment was only about "the security of a free state", whatever that is, then it would not have said, that the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed.
> It would have said the authority of a free state to bear arms shall not be infringed.
> ONLY individuals have rights.
> Whenever you read the word "rights", the writing is referring to individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where does it say that in our federal Constitution?  It is express not implied.  All terms in our Second Amendment are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You would have to know nothing of the Bill of Rights to not know they are just all federal restrictions.
> 
> {...
> *The Bill of Rights limits the (federal) government by enumerating the rights of the people and listing the things the (federal) government cannot do.* For example, the Bill of Rights states that the government cannot pass a law limiting the freedom of speech or religion.
> 
> The Bill of Rights is a term that refers to the first 10 amendments of the Constitution of the United States. The lack of a Bill of Rights was one of the main points of disagreement between federalists and anti-federalists. James Madison wrote the 10 amendments as a response to calls from several states for constitutional protection for individual liberties. The end result, approved by the House and ratified in 1791, is a list of limits on the powers of government. According to the Third Amendment, no soldier can be quartered in a private house in a time of peace without the consent of the owner. The Fourth Amendment prohibits the government from intruding in a citizen's home. According to the Fifth Amendment, no one can be held to answer for a capital crime in the absence of a grand jury. The Eighth Amendment prevents the government from imposing excessive bail or fines on citizens and from inflicting cruel and unusual punishments.
> ...}
> 
> How Does the Bill of Rights Limit the Government?
> 
> As to the exact wording of the Bill of Rights, here is the preamble and beginning:
> 
> {...
> *The Preamble to The Bill of Rights*
> Congress of the United States
> begun and held at the City of New-York, on
> Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
> 
> THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, *in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added:* And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
> 
> RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
> 
> ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
> 
> *Amendment I*
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
> 
> *Amendment II*
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> ,,,}
> 
> The Bill of Rights: A Transcription
> 
> 
> It should be totally clear that the Bill of Rights was entirely additional prohibitions, limits, and restrictions on federal authority, powers, and jurisdictions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not Individual rights; it says so in the first clause.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the founders were happy to quarter soldiers, so much so they made the 2nd and 3rd amendments...you are  retarded......why do you want a defenseless public?


----------



## ding

Lakhota said:


> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
Click to expand...

Not as long as there are standing armies.


----------



## danielpalos

buckeye45_73 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual rights; it expressly says so in the first clause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS.  The entire Bill of Rights is a list of absolute restrictions on federal authority.  Nothing else.
> If the 2nd amendment was only about "the security of a free state", whatever that is, then it would not have said, that the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed.
> It would have said the authority of a free state to bear arms shall not be infringed.
> ONLY individuals have rights.
> Whenever you read the word "rights", the writing is referring to individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where does it say that in our federal Constitution?  It is express not implied.  All terms in our Second Amendment are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You would have to know nothing of the Bill of Rights to not know they are just all federal restrictions.
> 
> {...
> *The Bill of Rights limits the (federal) government by enumerating the rights of the people and listing the things the (federal) government cannot do.* For example, the Bill of Rights states that the government cannot pass a law limiting the freedom of speech or religion.
> 
> The Bill of Rights is a term that refers to the first 10 amendments of the Constitution of the United States. The lack of a Bill of Rights was one of the main points of disagreement between federalists and anti-federalists. James Madison wrote the 10 amendments as a response to calls from several states for constitutional protection for individual liberties. The end result, approved by the House and ratified in 1791, is a list of limits on the powers of government. According to the Third Amendment, no soldier can be quartered in a private house in a time of peace without the consent of the owner. The Fourth Amendment prohibits the government from intruding in a citizen's home. According to the Fifth Amendment, no one can be held to answer for a capital crime in the absence of a grand jury. The Eighth Amendment prevents the government from imposing excessive bail or fines on citizens and from inflicting cruel and unusual punishments.
> ...}
> 
> How Does the Bill of Rights Limit the Government?
> 
> As to the exact wording of the Bill of Rights, here is the preamble and beginning:
> 
> {...
> *The Preamble to The Bill of Rights*
> Congress of the United States
> begun and held at the City of New-York, on
> Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
> 
> THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, *in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added:* And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
> 
> RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
> 
> ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
> 
> *Amendment I*
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
> 
> *Amendment II*
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> ,,,}
> 
> The Bill of Rights: A Transcription
> 
> 
> It should be totally clear that the Bill of Rights was entirely additional prohibitions, limits, and restrictions on federal authority, powers, and jurisdictions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not Individual rights; it says so in the first clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, the founders were happy to quarter soldiers, so much so they made the 2nd and 3rd amendments...you are  retarded......why do you want a defenseless public?
Click to expand...

Nobody takes the right wing seriously.  Propaganda and rhetoric is all they know. 

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.


----------



## buckeye45_73

danielpalos said:


> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> BS.  The entire Bill of Rights is a list of absolute restrictions on federal authority.  Nothing else.
> If the 2nd amendment was only about "the security of a free state", whatever that is, then it would not have said, that the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed.
> It would have said the authority of a free state to bear arms shall not be infringed.
> ONLY individuals have rights.
> Whenever you read the word "rights", the writing is referring to individuals.
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that in our federal Constitution?  It is express not implied.  All terms in our Second Amendment are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You would have to know nothing of the Bill of Rights to not know they are just all federal restrictions.
> 
> {...
> *The Bill of Rights limits the (federal) government by enumerating the rights of the people and listing the things the (federal) government cannot do.* For example, the Bill of Rights states that the government cannot pass a law limiting the freedom of speech or religion.
> 
> The Bill of Rights is a term that refers to the first 10 amendments of the Constitution of the United States. The lack of a Bill of Rights was one of the main points of disagreement between federalists and anti-federalists. James Madison wrote the 10 amendments as a response to calls from several states for constitutional protection for individual liberties. The end result, approved by the House and ratified in 1791, is a list of limits on the powers of government. According to the Third Amendment, no soldier can be quartered in a private house in a time of peace without the consent of the owner. The Fourth Amendment prohibits the government from intruding in a citizen's home. According to the Fifth Amendment, no one can be held to answer for a capital crime in the absence of a grand jury. The Eighth Amendment prevents the government from imposing excessive bail or fines on citizens and from inflicting cruel and unusual punishments.
> ...}
> 
> How Does the Bill of Rights Limit the Government?
> 
> As to the exact wording of the Bill of Rights, here is the preamble and beginning:
> 
> {...
> *The Preamble to The Bill of Rights*
> Congress of the United States
> begun and held at the City of New-York, on
> Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
> 
> THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, *in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added:* And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
> 
> RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
> 
> ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
> 
> *Amendment I*
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
> 
> *Amendment II*
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> ,,,}
> 
> The Bill of Rights: A Transcription
> 
> 
> It should be totally clear that the Bill of Rights was entirely additional prohibitions, limits, and restrictions on federal authority, powers, and jurisdictions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not Individual rights; it says so in the first clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, the founders were happy to quarter soldiers, so much so they made the 2nd and 3rd amendments...you are  retarded......why do you want a defenseless public?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody takes the right wing seriously.  Propaganda and rhetoric is all they know.
> 
> We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.
Click to expand...

Define security problem and free states.


----------



## danielpalos

buckeye45_73 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that in our federal Constitution?  It is express not implied.  All terms in our Second Amendment are collective and plural.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You would have to know nothing of the Bill of Rights to not know they are just all federal restrictions.
> 
> {...
> *The Bill of Rights limits the (federal) government by enumerating the rights of the people and listing the things the (federal) government cannot do.* For example, the Bill of Rights states that the government cannot pass a law limiting the freedom of speech or religion.
> 
> The Bill of Rights is a term that refers to the first 10 amendments of the Constitution of the United States. The lack of a Bill of Rights was one of the main points of disagreement between federalists and anti-federalists. James Madison wrote the 10 amendments as a response to calls from several states for constitutional protection for individual liberties. The end result, approved by the House and ratified in 1791, is a list of limits on the powers of government. According to the Third Amendment, no soldier can be quartered in a private house in a time of peace without the consent of the owner. The Fourth Amendment prohibits the government from intruding in a citizen's home. According to the Fifth Amendment, no one can be held to answer for a capital crime in the absence of a grand jury. The Eighth Amendment prevents the government from imposing excessive bail or fines on citizens and from inflicting cruel and unusual punishments.
> ...}
> 
> How Does the Bill of Rights Limit the Government?
> 
> As to the exact wording of the Bill of Rights, here is the preamble and beginning:
> 
> {...
> *The Preamble to The Bill of Rights*
> Congress of the United States
> begun and held at the City of New-York, on
> Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
> 
> THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, *in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added:* And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
> 
> RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
> 
> ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
> 
> *Amendment I*
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
> 
> *Amendment II*
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> ,,,}
> 
> The Bill of Rights: A Transcription
> 
> 
> It should be totally clear that the Bill of Rights was entirely additional prohibitions, limits, and restrictions on federal authority, powers, and jurisdictions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not Individual rights; it says so in the first clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, the founders were happy to quarter soldiers, so much so they made the 2nd and 3rd amendments...you are  retarded......why do you want a defenseless public?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody takes the right wing seriously.  Propaganda and rhetoric is all they know.
> 
> We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Define security problem and free states.
Click to expand...

Any alleged need for alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror are alleged security problems.  We should have no security problems in our free States.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> BS.  The entire Bill of Rights is a list of absolute restrictions on federal authority.  Nothing else.
> If the 2nd amendment was only about "the security of a free state", whatever that is, then it would not have said, that the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed.
> It would have said the authority of a free state to bear arms shall not be infringed.
> ONLY individuals have rights.
> Whenever you read the word "rights", the writing is referring to individuals.
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that in our federal Constitution?  It is express not implied.  All terms in our Second Amendment are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You would have to know nothing of the Bill of Rights to not know they are just all federal restrictions.
> 
> {...
> *The Bill of Rights limits the (federal) government by enumerating the rights of the people and listing the things the (federal) government cannot do.* For example, the Bill of Rights states that the government cannot pass a law limiting the freedom of speech or religion.
> 
> The Bill of Rights is a term that refers to the first 10 amendments of the Constitution of the United States. The lack of a Bill of Rights was one of the main points of disagreement between federalists and anti-federalists. James Madison wrote the 10 amendments as a response to calls from several states for constitutional protection for individual liberties. The end result, approved by the House and ratified in 1791, is a list of limits on the powers of government. According to the Third Amendment, no soldier can be quartered in a private house in a time of peace without the consent of the owner. The Fourth Amendment prohibits the government from intruding in a citizen's home. According to the Fifth Amendment, no one can be held to answer for a capital crime in the absence of a grand jury. The Eighth Amendment prevents the government from imposing excessive bail or fines on citizens and from inflicting cruel and unusual punishments.
> ...}
> 
> How Does the Bill of Rights Limit the Government?
> 
> As to the exact wording of the Bill of Rights, here is the preamble and beginning:
> 
> {...
> *The Preamble to The Bill of Rights*
> Congress of the United States
> begun and held at the City of New-York, on
> Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
> 
> THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, *in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added:* And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
> 
> RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
> 
> ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
> 
> *Amendment I*
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
> 
> *Amendment II*
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> ,,,}
> 
> The Bill of Rights: A Transcription
> 
> 
> It should be totally clear that the Bill of Rights was entirely additional prohibitions, limits, and restrictions on federal authority, powers, and jurisdictions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not Individual rights; it says so in the first clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, a free State is not the national federation of free states, but only one of them.
> The point of the Bill of Rights was not to define between individual or state issues, but merely to limit federal authority.
> 
> The motivation for the 2nd amendment was the same as the motivation for all of the Bill of Rights, which was to ensure federal limits, so that states would be willing to sign on to the federation.
> But it is foolish to claim one badly understood motivation would be the only one.
> When clearly the rest of the 2nd amendment says that the "right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed".
> It does not say the authority of any level of government, but the right of the people.
> And only individuals have any rights at all.
> Governments do not have rights.
> They only have delegated authority or jurisdiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice story, bro.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not any implied right wing story.
Click to expand...


Of course the 2nd amendment is about the security of a free state, and that requires absolutely NO central weapons control, but maximized individual rights of a democratic republic.
Gun control is the opposite of a democratic republic, where you don't trust the people to be armed, so you instead eliminate all access to the freedom of weapons except by a monopoly or the elite few.
The 2nd amendment clearly says the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.
Only people have rights.
Governments, and even states have no rights.
Instead they have delegated authority from the individuals who are the actual source of all inherent rights.
It does not say that the police or the military shall not be infringed in their bearing of arms.
It says the people.
Do you trust the people or do you instead want the government to have authoritarian dictatorship?


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> BS.  The entire Bill of Rights is a list of absolute restrictions on federal authority.  Nothing else.
> If the 2nd amendment was only about "the security of a free state", whatever that is, then it would not have said, that the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed.
> It would have said the authority of a free state to bear arms shall not be infringed.
> ONLY individuals have rights.
> Whenever you read the word "rights", the writing is referring to individuals.
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that in our federal Constitution?  It is express not implied.  All terms in our Second Amendment are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You would have to know nothing of the Bill of Rights to not know they are just all federal restrictions.
> 
> {...
> *The Bill of Rights limits the (federal) government by enumerating the rights of the people and listing the things the (federal) government cannot do.* For example, the Bill of Rights states that the government cannot pass a law limiting the freedom of speech or religion.
> 
> The Bill of Rights is a term that refers to the first 10 amendments of the Constitution of the United States. The lack of a Bill of Rights was one of the main points of disagreement between federalists and anti-federalists. James Madison wrote the 10 amendments as a response to calls from several states for constitutional protection for individual liberties. The end result, approved by the House and ratified in 1791, is a list of limits on the powers of government. According to the Third Amendment, no soldier can be quartered in a private house in a time of peace without the consent of the owner. The Fourth Amendment prohibits the government from intruding in a citizen's home. According to the Fifth Amendment, no one can be held to answer for a capital crime in the absence of a grand jury. The Eighth Amendment prevents the government from imposing excessive bail or fines on citizens and from inflicting cruel and unusual punishments.
> ...}
> 
> How Does the Bill of Rights Limit the Government?
> 
> As to the exact wording of the Bill of Rights, here is the preamble and beginning:
> 
> {...
> *The Preamble to The Bill of Rights*
> Congress of the United States
> begun and held at the City of New-York, on
> Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
> 
> THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, *in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added:* And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
> 
> RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
> 
> ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
> 
> *Amendment I*
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
> 
> *Amendment II*
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> ,,,}
> 
> The Bill of Rights: A Transcription
> 
> 
> It should be totally clear that the Bill of Rights was entirely additional prohibitions, limits, and restrictions on federal authority, powers, and jurisdictions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not Individual rights; it says so in the first clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, the founders were happy to quarter soldiers, so much so they made the 2nd and 3rd amendments...you are  retarded......why do you want a defenseless public?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody takes the right wing seriously.  Propaganda and rhetoric is all they know.
> 
> We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.
Click to expand...


As long as we have a functioning 2nd amendment, then if the people are watchful, we should have no problem with any free state.
But as soon as the federal government is allowed to ignore the Bill of Rights restrictions on federal power, than all is lost.
And the line in the sand is federal gun control.
Clearly any federal gun control is totally and completely illegal, just like waterboarding at Guantanamo or the lies about Iraq having WMD.

The only problem is that the 2nd amendment is useless if we let the federal government ignore it.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You would have to know nothing of the Bill of Rights to not know they are just all federal restrictions.
> 
> {...
> *The Bill of Rights limits the (federal) government by enumerating the rights of the people and listing the things the (federal) government cannot do.* For example, the Bill of Rights states that the government cannot pass a law limiting the freedom of speech or religion.
> 
> The Bill of Rights is a term that refers to the first 10 amendments of the Constitution of the United States. The lack of a Bill of Rights was one of the main points of disagreement between federalists and anti-federalists. James Madison wrote the 10 amendments as a response to calls from several states for constitutional protection for individual liberties. The end result, approved by the House and ratified in 1791, is a list of limits on the powers of government. According to the Third Amendment, no soldier can be quartered in a private house in a time of peace without the consent of the owner. The Fourth Amendment prohibits the government from intruding in a citizen's home. According to the Fifth Amendment, no one can be held to answer for a capital crime in the absence of a grand jury. The Eighth Amendment prevents the government from imposing excessive bail or fines on citizens and from inflicting cruel and unusual punishments.
> ...}
> 
> How Does the Bill of Rights Limit the Government?
> 
> As to the exact wording of the Bill of Rights, here is the preamble and beginning:
> 
> {...
> *The Preamble to The Bill of Rights*
> Congress of the United States
> begun and held at the City of New-York, on
> Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
> 
> THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, *in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added:* And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
> 
> RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
> 
> ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
> 
> *Amendment I*
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
> 
> *Amendment II*
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> ,,,}
> 
> The Bill of Rights: A Transcription
> 
> 
> It should be totally clear that the Bill of Rights was entirely additional prohibitions, limits, and restrictions on federal authority, powers, and jurisdictions.
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not Individual rights; it says so in the first clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, the founders were happy to quarter soldiers, so much so they made the 2nd and 3rd amendments...you are  retarded......why do you want a defenseless public?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody takes the right wing seriously.  Propaganda and rhetoric is all they know.
> 
> We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Define security problem and free states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any alleged need for alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror are alleged security problems.  We should have no security problems in our free States.
Click to expand...


The war on crime, drugs, and terror are all fakes created by the federal government in order to frighten us so that we will accept total domination in order to feel safe.
But the reality is that it is the federal government we need to be frightened of, with all their fake wars and attempts to frighten us.
If there was no federal government at all, the states would all be much better off.
We could have just as strong of a defense against invasion, because no one has ever even tried to invade us since 1812.  The whole thing is just a fraud to scare us.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rigby5 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, at least bump stocks finally got banned.  That's a start...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How?   With thousands of these in private hands, one was used in one attack in a country of over 320 million people.......are you really that deranged that you would think a ban on a gimmick used once for crime makes any difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't happen over night.  It will take up to 10 years to get most of them.  And some will stay in some gun locker for a very long time and you will never be aware that it's there.  It took them about 10 years to get a handle on the Thompson MG.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it will never happen.
> The war on drugs was started under Nixon in 1971.
> It was never won, never ended, and only got much, much worse every single year.
> And it is the War on Drugs that is the most responsible for the excessive amount and use of weapons, just as Prohibition did.
> The 1934 gun control act did NOT at all solve the problem of the Thompson machineguns, but it was the end of Prohibition in 1929 that ended the Thompson machinegun problem.
> 
> You can not at all solve any weapons problem by legislation.
> Weapons are easy to make, and all legislation does is make them more profitable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the Thompson was ended, it had nothing to do with the ending of the Prohibition.  When the illegal booze became legal, the mobs just moved onto something else like Heroin and the like.  Getting rid of prohibition didn't end the Thompson, the vigorous enforcement nationwide ended it.  If you got caught with a servicable Thompson, you would get a mandatory 10 year  federal pen sentence.  Do a crime with one and you were a goner for a life sentence for each life taken.  Use it in a crime where no one was killed, you were still looking at 25 to life.
> 
> It all depends on how serious the sentence is for the possession.  You want to stand there in front of a cop who is also armed with a thompson and scream, "You can't tell me what to do".  The old time cop would stitch your mid section with 45 projectiles unless you cooperated post haste.  Cops just got tired of dying.  And in inner cities, that's about where the cops are today.  They are tired of dying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree.
> The Thompson came from the depression, Prohibition, and the usual and known causes of crime.
> The penalty for murdering someone with a machinegun is the same as murdering someone with a shotgun.  Until around the 1970s, the penalty was death.  It not only did not matter what weapon you used, but it is not at all clear criminals even care what the penalties are, since they don't think they are going to get caught.
> 
> And no, cops were not dying then or now.
> No one is shooting at cops except to try to distract them as they try to get away.
> Cops complain about how dangerous their job is, but the reality is that fewer than 50 cops a year are killed, and something like 75% of those deaths are from traffic, not criminals.
> 
> The reality is that it is a fake issue, deliberately lied about in order to oppress the general population even more.  And the people should not be taking it.  Unfair taxes that allow such wealth disparity, and causing the lowest percentage of owner occupied housing in US history, is a disgrace.  We need public health care, free college tuition, housing subsidies to equal the tax benefits landlords get, the end of wars of aggression, a 50% reduction in military spending (peace dividend we were promised), etc.
> 
> If not, then we not only should strike down all gun control laws against the general population, but start to enact laws to disarm the police and severely curtail the military.
> It should be clear that guns in the hands of individuals is NOT at all the problem.
> It is the overly armed government that is the entire problem.
Click to expand...


I watched a news clip during the early 70s of a Denver Cop (who was Black) questioning a black person on the street.  Both of them were constantly changing position.  The Black Civvy didn't want to get accidently shot by a round meant for the cop and the cop wanted to use the civvy as a shield.  It wasn't real healthy to be a Denver Cop in some areas.  Denver had the highest Cop Assassination rate for any Metro at that time.  You are using today as a yardstick for the days of yesterday.  And the Thompson was being used almost on a daily basis for Mob or Gang shootings which also killed innocent bystanders in the 20s and 30s.  By the 40s, the automatic weapon crime was gone.  And even the Cops started getting rid of theirs in the 50s.  

BTW, if you were involved in a crime using a Thompson or a Grease Gun during the 20s and 30s you probably would not get the chance to ever get the death penalty.  Not many made it that far.  They were killed by gunfire either by a rival or by the cops.  After they started to dry up the Thompson supply, if you did use one in a crime, you probably would not make it to be arrested.  It was a much more violent time than today even in the inner cities.  

The Cops today are armed with the Colt 6920 which is a high quality AR-15.  In the 90s, the cops discovered that they were severely outgunned when a shootout came to be.  They turned too Colt and colt put out the LE6920 Semi Auto which  is nothing more than a Military Grade AR-15 that you can buy just by special ordering it in most states.  All of a sudden, the Cops were either equal to or were the ones that outgunned the bad guys.  This has NOT caused a problem.  It's taken care of a problem.  Try facing a couple or three AR-15s with multiple 30 round mags with 5 cops with handguns.  It's not a fiar fight by a long shot. In this case, Law Enforcement had to upgun to the Civilian standards.  Along with the LE6920, the Law Enforcement also went to special training that gave them a much more professional force.  So there was another upside.  

California has banned the AR-15 and it's various clones completely with the exception of on duty law enforcement and military.  That didn't stop the ex marine from shooting up a dance hall and even taking down a couple of armed cops.  He used what he had available at the time which was one semi auto handgun with multiple mags.  He was a combat trained killer.  With a body count of 13 with the handgun, imagine what he could have done with an AR with multiple 30 round mags?  He very well might have exceeded the Nevada shooters record.  He had the skills.  It ended up being stopped when the cops upgunned with the LE6920s and he knew his seconds were numbered.  Luckily, the instances of this type of special trained and skill set person isn't the normal mass shooter.  But if the cops did not have the LE6920s, he could have continued killing and killed even more cops in the process.  Cops just aren't trained for that kind of Firefights but a Combat Marine is.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rigby5 said:


> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't happen over night.  It will take up to 10 years to get most of them.  And some will stay in some gun locker for a very long time and you will never be aware that it's there.  It took them about 10 years to get a handle on the Thompson MG.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it will never happen.
> The war on drugs was started under Nixon in 1971.
> It was never won, never ended, and only got much, much worse every single year.
> And it is the War on Drugs that is the most responsible for the excessive amount and use of weapons, just as Prohibition did.
> The 1934 gun control act did NOT at all solve the problem of the Thompson machineguns, but it was the end of Prohibition in 1929 that ended the Thompson machinegun problem.
> 
> You can not at all solve any weapons problem by legislation.
> Weapons are easy to make, and all legislation does is make them more profitable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the Thompson was ended, it had nothing to do with the ending of the Prohibition.  When the illegal booze became legal, the mobs just moved onto something else like Heroin and the like.  Getting rid of prohibition didn't end the Thompson, the vigorous enforcement nationwide ended it.  If you got caught with a servicable Thompson, you would get a mandatory 10 year  federal pen sentence.  Do a crime with one and you were a goner for a life sentence for each life taken.  Use it in a crime where no one was killed, you were still looking at 25 to life.
> 
> It all depends on how serious the sentence is for the possession.  You want to stand there in front of a cop who is also armed with a thompson and scream, "You can't tell me what to do".  The old time cop would stitch your mid section with 45 projectiles unless you cooperated post haste.  Cops just got tired of dying.  And in inner cities, that's about where the cops are today.  They are tired of dying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree.
> The Thompson came from the depression, Prohibition, and the usual and known causes of crime.
> The penalty for murdering someone with a machinegun is the same as murdering someone with a shotgun.  Until around the 1970s, the penalty was death.  It not only did not matter what weapon you used, but it is not at all clear criminals even care what the penalties are, since they don't think they are going to get caught.
> 
> And no, cops were not dying then or now.
> No one is shooting at cops except to try to distract them as they try to get away.
> Cops complain about how dangerous their job is, but the reality is that fewer than 50 cops a year are killed, and something like 75% of those deaths are from traffic, not criminals.
> 
> The reality is that it is a fake issue, deliberately lied about in order to oppress the general population even more.  And the people should not be taking it.  Unfair taxes that allow such wealth disparity, and causing the lowest percentage of owner occupied housing in US history, is a disgrace.  We need public health care, free college tuition, housing subsidies to equal the tax benefits landlords get, the end of wars of aggression, a 50% reduction in military spending (peace dividend we were promised), etc.
> 
> If not, then we not only should strike down all gun control laws against the general population, but start to enact laws to disarm the police and severely curtail the military.
> It should be clear that guns in the hands of individuals is NOT at all the problem.
> It is the overly armed government that is the entire problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Cops complain about how dangerous their job is, but the reality is that fewer than 50 cops a year are killed, and something like 75% of those deaths are from traffic, not criminals."
> 
> Still...it can be dangerous and IS dangerous in some areas.
> 
> And they are first responders to some grizzly scenes that I wouldn't want to see.
> 
> Plus they have to actively try to help people who have been shot, stabbed, been in a terrible car accident (or any kind of accident) and are still alive but in desperate straights....
> 
> 
> fuk man
> 
> My hat is off to  them.
> 
> I don't think I could stand some of the situations that is demanded of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About once a month we see a video of police accidentally or wrongly shooting an unarmed person.  Often the person was totally innocent and did not thing wrong.  At worst, some of the videos show the person trying to run away and being shot in the back by police.
> And in not one single video of these shootings, do you see a single cop performing any first aid at all.  They don't even put on pressure to stop the bleeding.
> 
> Maybe some police are doing a better job than that, but then why are they not saying more themselves when you see all these video of wrongful death by police?
> Sorry, but unless police are willing to police themselves, then they are all collectively guilty.
> And until the US no longer has the highest % of imprisoned in the world, then clearly the main problem in the US has to be the police.
Click to expand...


You don't see the life saving because it's not newsworthy and not political.  But it happens on a daily basis.  Cops save one hell of a lot more lives than they take.  Not to say that we don't need to get rid of the bad cops, but we need to see more of the good ones saving lives all the time.  But that would not be good for the negative for politics.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not Individual rights; it says so in the first clause.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the founders were happy to quarter soldiers, so much so they made the 2nd and 3rd amendments...you are  retarded......why do you want a defenseless public?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody takes the right wing seriously.  Propaganda and rhetoric is all they know.
> 
> We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Define security problem and free states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any alleged need for alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror are alleged security problems.  We should have no security problems in our free States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The war on crime, drugs, and terror are all fakes created by the federal government in order to frighten us so that we will accept total domination in order to feel safe.
> But the reality is that it is the federal government we need to be frightened of, with all their fake wars and attempts to frighten us.
> If there was no federal government at all, the states would all be much better off.
> We could have just as strong of a defense against invasion, because no one has ever even tried to invade us since 1812.  The whole thing is just a fraud to scare us.
Click to expand...


And we would be speaking and typing something other than American English.  Thanks, but no thanks, I think I want to keep the Federal Military even if it's not perfect.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that in our federal Constitution?  It is express not implied.  All terms in our Second Amendment are collective and plural.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You would have to know nothing of the Bill of Rights to not know they are just all federal restrictions.
> 
> {...
> *The Bill of Rights limits the (federal) government by enumerating the rights of the people and listing the things the (federal) government cannot do.* For example, the Bill of Rights states that the government cannot pass a law limiting the freedom of speech or religion.
> 
> The Bill of Rights is a term that refers to the first 10 amendments of the Constitution of the United States. The lack of a Bill of Rights was one of the main points of disagreement between federalists and anti-federalists. James Madison wrote the 10 amendments as a response to calls from several states for constitutional protection for individual liberties. The end result, approved by the House and ratified in 1791, is a list of limits on the powers of government. According to the Third Amendment, no soldier can be quartered in a private house in a time of peace without the consent of the owner. The Fourth Amendment prohibits the government from intruding in a citizen's home. According to the Fifth Amendment, no one can be held to answer for a capital crime in the absence of a grand jury. The Eighth Amendment prevents the government from imposing excessive bail or fines on citizens and from inflicting cruel and unusual punishments.
> ...}
> 
> How Does the Bill of Rights Limit the Government?
> 
> As to the exact wording of the Bill of Rights, here is the preamble and beginning:
> 
> {...
> *The Preamble to The Bill of Rights*
> Congress of the United States
> begun and held at the City of New-York, on
> Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
> 
> THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, *in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added:* And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
> 
> RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
> 
> ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
> 
> *Amendment I*
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
> 
> *Amendment II*
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> ,,,}
> 
> The Bill of Rights: A Transcription
> 
> 
> It should be totally clear that the Bill of Rights was entirely additional prohibitions, limits, and restrictions on federal authority, powers, and jurisdictions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not Individual rights; it says so in the first clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, a free State is not the national federation of free states, but only one of them.
> The point of the Bill of Rights was not to define between individual or state issues, but merely to limit federal authority.
> 
> The motivation for the 2nd amendment was the same as the motivation for all of the Bill of Rights, which was to ensure federal limits, so that states would be willing to sign on to the federation.
> But it is foolish to claim one badly understood motivation would be the only one.
> When clearly the rest of the 2nd amendment says that the "right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed".
> It does not say the authority of any level of government, but the right of the people.
> And only individuals have any rights at all.
> Governments do not have rights.
> They only have delegated authority or jurisdiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice story, bro.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not any implied right wing story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course the 2nd amendment is about the security of a free state, and that requires absolutely NO central weapons control, but maximized individual rights of a democratic republic.
> Gun control is the opposite of a democratic republic, where you don't trust the people to be armed, so you instead eliminate all access to the freedom of weapons except by a monopoly or the elite few.
> The 2nd amendment clearly says the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.
> Only people have rights.
> Governments, and even states have no rights.
> Instead they have delegated authority from the individuals who are the actual source of all inherent rights.
> It does not say that the police or the military shall not be infringed in their bearing of arms.
> It says the people.
> Do you trust the people or do you instead want the government to have authoritarian dictatorship?
Click to expand...

You contradict yourself.

If you place your trust in the people over that of government, then clearly the Second Amendment has nothing to do with the ‘security of a free state.’

The bulwark against tyranny is the will of the people, as expressed through the democratic process, safeguarded by the rule of law – not by the people ‘taking up arms’ against a government subjectively perceived to have become ‘tyrannical,’ not by an ‘armed insurrection’ against a lawfully elected government reflecting the will of the people, and not through a ‘force of arms’ absent the consent of the majority of the people as expressed through the political process.

You can’t have it both ways.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that in our federal Constitution?  It is express not implied.  All terms in our Second Amendment are collective and plural.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You would have to know nothing of the Bill of Rights to not know they are just all federal restrictions.
> 
> {...
> *The Bill of Rights limits the (federal) government by enumerating the rights of the people and listing the things the (federal) government cannot do.* For example, the Bill of Rights states that the government cannot pass a law limiting the freedom of speech or religion.
> 
> The Bill of Rights is a term that refers to the first 10 amendments of the Constitution of the United States. The lack of a Bill of Rights was one of the main points of disagreement between federalists and anti-federalists. James Madison wrote the 10 amendments as a response to calls from several states for constitutional protection for individual liberties. The end result, approved by the House and ratified in 1791, is a list of limits on the powers of government. According to the Third Amendment, no soldier can be quartered in a private house in a time of peace without the consent of the owner. The Fourth Amendment prohibits the government from intruding in a citizen's home. According to the Fifth Amendment, no one can be held to answer for a capital crime in the absence of a grand jury. The Eighth Amendment prevents the government from imposing excessive bail or fines on citizens and from inflicting cruel and unusual punishments.
> ...}
> 
> How Does the Bill of Rights Limit the Government?
> 
> As to the exact wording of the Bill of Rights, here is the preamble and beginning:
> 
> {...
> *The Preamble to The Bill of Rights*
> Congress of the United States
> begun and held at the City of New-York, on
> Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
> 
> THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, *in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added:* And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
> 
> RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
> 
> ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
> 
> *Amendment I*
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
> 
> *Amendment II*
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> ,,,}
> 
> The Bill of Rights: A Transcription
> 
> 
> It should be totally clear that the Bill of Rights was entirely additional prohibitions, limits, and restrictions on federal authority, powers, and jurisdictions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not Individual rights; it says so in the first clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, the founders were happy to quarter soldiers, so much so they made the 2nd and 3rd amendments...you are  retarded......why do you want a defenseless public?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody takes the right wing seriously.  Propaganda and rhetoric is all they know.
> 
> We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As long as we have a functioning 2nd amendment, then if the people are watchful, we should have no problem with any free state.
> But as soon as the federal government is allowed to ignore the Bill of Rights restrictions on federal power, than all is lost.
> And the line in the sand is federal gun control.
> Clearly any federal gun control is totally and completely illegal, just like waterboarding at Guantanamo or the lies about Iraq having WMD.
> 
> The only problem is that the 2nd amendment is useless if we let the federal government ignore it.
Click to expand...

You keep posting this over again and it’s just as wrong and ignorant as the first time you posted it.

The Federal government is in fact at liberty to enact firearm regulatory measures consistent with Second Amendment case law, laws which are in no manner ‘illegal.’

Period.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not Individual rights; it says so in the first clause.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the founders were happy to quarter soldiers, so much so they made the 2nd and 3rd amendments...you are  retarded......why do you want a defenseless public?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody takes the right wing seriously.  Propaganda and rhetoric is all they know.
> 
> We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Define security problem and free states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any alleged need for alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror are alleged security problems.  We should have no security problems in our free States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The war on crime, drugs, and terror are all fakes created by the federal government in order to frighten us so that we will accept total domination in order to feel safe.
> But the reality is that it is the federal government we need to be frightened of, with all their fake wars and attempts to frighten us.
> If there was no federal government at all, the states would all be much better off.
> We could have just as strong of a defense against invasion, because no one has ever even tried to invade us since 1812.  The whole thing is just a fraud to scare us.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

The people are solely responsible for the good – or bad – government they get; the people have only themselves to blame.

The problem isn’t the ‘evil’ Federal government, the problem is the ignorance, stupidity, and apathy of the people.


----------



## anynameyouwish

Rigby5 said:


> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't happen over night.  It will take up to 10 years to get most of them.  And some will stay in some gun locker for a very long time and you will never be aware that it's there.  It took them about 10 years to get a handle on the Thompson MG.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it will never happen.
> The war on drugs was started under Nixon in 1971.
> It was never won, never ended, and only got much, much worse every single year.
> And it is the War on Drugs that is the most responsible for the excessive amount and use of weapons, just as Prohibition did.
> The 1934 gun control act did NOT at all solve the problem of the Thompson machineguns, but it was the end of Prohibition in 1929 that ended the Thompson machinegun problem.
> 
> You can not at all solve any weapons problem by legislation.
> Weapons are easy to make, and all legislation does is make them more profitable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the Thompson was ended, it had nothing to do with the ending of the Prohibition.  When the illegal booze became legal, the mobs just moved onto something else like Heroin and the like.  Getting rid of prohibition didn't end the Thompson, the vigorous enforcement nationwide ended it.  If you got caught with a servicable Thompson, you would get a mandatory 10 year  federal pen sentence.  Do a crime with one and you were a goner for a life sentence for each life taken.  Use it in a crime where no one was killed, you were still looking at 25 to life.
> 
> It all depends on how serious the sentence is for the possession.  You want to stand there in front of a cop who is also armed with a thompson and scream, "You can't tell me what to do".  The old time cop would stitch your mid section with 45 projectiles unless you cooperated post haste.  Cops just got tired of dying.  And in inner cities, that's about where the cops are today.  They are tired of dying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree.
> The Thompson came from the depression, Prohibition, and the usual and known causes of crime.
> The penalty for murdering someone with a machinegun is the same as murdering someone with a shotgun.  Until around the 1970s, the penalty was death.  It not only did not matter what weapon you used, but it is not at all clear criminals even care what the penalties are, since they don't think they are going to get caught.
> 
> And no, cops were not dying then or now.
> No one is shooting at cops except to try to distract them as they try to get away.
> Cops complain about how dangerous their job is, but the reality is that fewer than 50 cops a year are killed, and something like 75% of those deaths are from traffic, not criminals.
> 
> The reality is that it is a fake issue, deliberately lied about in order to oppress the general population even more.  And the people should not be taking it.  Unfair taxes that allow such wealth disparity, and causing the lowest percentage of owner occupied housing in US history, is a disgrace.  We need public health care, free college tuition, housing subsidies to equal the tax benefits landlords get, the end of wars of aggression, a 50% reduction in military spending (peace dividend we were promised), etc.
> 
> If not, then we not only should strike down all gun control laws against the general population, but start to enact laws to disarm the police and severely curtail the military.
> It should be clear that guns in the hands of individuals is NOT at all the problem.
> It is the overly armed government that is the entire problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Cops complain about how dangerous their job is, but the reality is that fewer than 50 cops a year are killed, and something like 75% of those deaths are from traffic, not criminals."
> 
> Still...it can be dangerous and IS dangerous in some areas.
> 
> And they are first responders to some grizzly scenes that I wouldn't want to see.
> 
> Plus they have to actively try to help people who have been shot, stabbed, been in a terrible car accident (or any kind of accident) and are still alive but in desperate straights....
> 
> 
> fuk man
> 
> My hat is off to  them.
> 
> I don't think I could stand some of the situations that is demanded of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About once a month we see a video of police accidentally or wrongly shooting an unarmed person.  Often the person was totally innocent and did not thing wrong.  At worst, some of the videos show the person trying to run away and being shot in the back by police.
> And in not one single video of these shootings, do you see a single cop performing any first aid at all.  They don't even put on pressure to stop the bleeding.
> 
> Maybe some police are doing a better job than that, but then why are they not saying more themselves when you see all these video of wrongful death by police?
> Sorry, but unless police are willing to police themselves, then they are all collectively guilty.
> And until the US no longer has the highest % of imprisoned in the world, then clearly the main problem in the US has to be the police.
Click to expand...



"And until the US no longer has the highest % of imprisoned in the world, then clearly the main problem in the US has to be the police."

Can;t blame police for high incarceration rates.

Ya have to blame the LAW.  And those responsible for MAKING those laws.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that in our federal Constitution?  It is express not implied.  All terms in our Second Amendment are collective and plural.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You would have to know nothing of the Bill of Rights to not know they are just all federal restrictions.
> 
> {...
> *The Bill of Rights limits the (federal) government by enumerating the rights of the people and listing the things the (federal) government cannot do.* For example, the Bill of Rights states that the government cannot pass a law limiting the freedom of speech or religion.
> 
> The Bill of Rights is a term that refers to the first 10 amendments of the Constitution of the United States. The lack of a Bill of Rights was one of the main points of disagreement between federalists and anti-federalists. James Madison wrote the 10 amendments as a response to calls from several states for constitutional protection for individual liberties. The end result, approved by the House and ratified in 1791, is a list of limits on the powers of government. According to the Third Amendment, no soldier can be quartered in a private house in a time of peace without the consent of the owner. The Fourth Amendment prohibits the government from intruding in a citizen's home. According to the Fifth Amendment, no one can be held to answer for a capital crime in the absence of a grand jury. The Eighth Amendment prevents the government from imposing excessive bail or fines on citizens and from inflicting cruel and unusual punishments.
> ...}
> 
> How Does the Bill of Rights Limit the Government?
> 
> As to the exact wording of the Bill of Rights, here is the preamble and beginning:
> 
> {...
> *The Preamble to The Bill of Rights*
> Congress of the United States
> begun and held at the City of New-York, on
> Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
> 
> THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, *in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added:* And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
> 
> RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
> 
> ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
> 
> *Amendment I*
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
> 
> *Amendment II*
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> ,,,}
> 
> The Bill of Rights: A Transcription
> 
> 
> It should be totally clear that the Bill of Rights was entirely additional prohibitions, limits, and restrictions on federal authority, powers, and jurisdictions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not Individual rights; it says so in the first clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, a free State is not the national federation of free states, but only one of them.
> The point of the Bill of Rights was not to define between individual or state issues, but merely to limit federal authority.
> 
> The motivation for the 2nd amendment was the same as the motivation for all of the Bill of Rights, which was to ensure federal limits, so that states would be willing to sign on to the federation.
> But it is foolish to claim one badly understood motivation would be the only one.
> When clearly the rest of the 2nd amendment says that the "right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed".
> It does not say the authority of any level of government, but the right of the people.
> And only individuals have any rights at all.
> Governments do not have rights.
> They only have delegated authority or jurisdiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice story, bro.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not any implied right wing story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course the 2nd amendment is about the security of a free state, and that requires absolutely NO central weapons control, but maximized individual rights of a democratic republic.
> Gun control is the opposite of a democratic republic, where you don't trust the people to be armed, so you instead eliminate all access to the freedom of weapons except by a monopoly or the elite few.
> The 2nd amendment clearly says the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.
> Only people have rights.
> Governments, and even states have no rights.
> Instead they have delegated authority from the individuals who are the actual source of all inherent rights.
> It does not say that the police or the military shall not be infringed in their bearing of arms.
> It says the people.
> Do you trust the people or do you instead want the government to have authoritarian dictatorship?
Click to expand...

You are ambiguous.  The security of a free State may preclude individual rights; only well regulated militia may not be infringed in the keeping and bearing of Arms for their State or the Union.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that in our federal Constitution?  It is express not implied.  All terms in our Second Amendment are collective and plural.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You would have to know nothing of the Bill of Rights to not know they are just all federal restrictions.
> 
> {...
> *The Bill of Rights limits the (federal) government by enumerating the rights of the people and listing the things the (federal) government cannot do.* For example, the Bill of Rights states that the government cannot pass a law limiting the freedom of speech or religion.
> 
> The Bill of Rights is a term that refers to the first 10 amendments of the Constitution of the United States. The lack of a Bill of Rights was one of the main points of disagreement between federalists and anti-federalists. James Madison wrote the 10 amendments as a response to calls from several states for constitutional protection for individual liberties. The end result, approved by the House and ratified in 1791, is a list of limits on the powers of government. According to the Third Amendment, no soldier can be quartered in a private house in a time of peace without the consent of the owner. The Fourth Amendment prohibits the government from intruding in a citizen's home. According to the Fifth Amendment, no one can be held to answer for a capital crime in the absence of a grand jury. The Eighth Amendment prevents the government from imposing excessive bail or fines on citizens and from inflicting cruel and unusual punishments.
> ...}
> 
> How Does the Bill of Rights Limit the Government?
> 
> As to the exact wording of the Bill of Rights, here is the preamble and beginning:
> 
> {...
> *The Preamble to The Bill of Rights*
> Congress of the United States
> begun and held at the City of New-York, on
> Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
> 
> THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, *in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added:* And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
> 
> RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
> 
> ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
> 
> *Amendment I*
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
> 
> *Amendment II*
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> ,,,}
> 
> The Bill of Rights: A Transcription
> 
> 
> It should be totally clear that the Bill of Rights was entirely additional prohibitions, limits, and restrictions on federal authority, powers, and jurisdictions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not Individual rights; it says so in the first clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, the founders were happy to quarter soldiers, so much so they made the 2nd and 3rd amendments...you are  retarded......why do you want a defenseless public?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody takes the right wing seriously.  Propaganda and rhetoric is all they know.
> 
> We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As long as we have a functioning 2nd amendment, then if the people are watchful, we should have no problem with any free state.
> But as soon as the federal government is allowed to ignore the Bill of Rights restrictions on federal power, than all is lost.
> And the line in the sand is federal gun control.
> Clearly any federal gun control is totally and completely illegal, just like waterboarding at Guantanamo or the lies about Iraq having WMD.
> 
> The only problem is that the 2nd amendment is useless if we let the federal government ignore it.
Click to expand...

Muster the militia until we have no security problems; we have Second Amendment.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not Individual rights; it says so in the first clause.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the founders were happy to quarter soldiers, so much so they made the 2nd and 3rd amendments...you are  retarded......why do you want a defenseless public?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody takes the right wing seriously.  Propaganda and rhetoric is all they know.
> 
> We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Define security problem and free states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any alleged need for alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror are alleged security problems.  We should have no security problems in our free States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The war on crime, drugs, and terror are all fakes created by the federal government in order to frighten us so that we will accept total domination in order to feel safe.
> But the reality is that it is the federal government we need to be frightened of, with all their fake wars and attempts to frighten us.
> If there was no federal government at all, the states would all be much better off.
> We could have just as strong of a defense against invasion, because no one has ever even tried to invade us since 1812.  The whole thing is just a fraud to scare us.
Click to expand...

All the more reason for mustering the militia, instead.


----------



## danielpalos

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the founders were happy to quarter soldiers, so much so they made the 2nd and 3rd amendments...you are  retarded......why do you want a defenseless public?
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody takes the right wing seriously.  Propaganda and rhetoric is all they know.
> 
> We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Define security problem and free states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any alleged need for alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror are alleged security problems.  We should have no security problems in our free States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The war on crime, drugs, and terror are all fakes created by the federal government in order to frighten us so that we will accept total domination in order to feel safe.
> But the reality is that it is the federal government we need to be frightened of, with all their fake wars and attempts to frighten us.
> If there was no federal government at all, the states would all be much better off.
> We could have just as strong of a defense against invasion, because no one has ever even tried to invade us since 1812.  The whole thing is just a fraud to scare us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we would be speaking and typing something other than American English.  Thanks, but no thanks, I think I want to keep the Federal Military even if it's not perfect.
Click to expand...

thanks for implying that socialism is more trustworthy than capitalism.


----------



## buckeye45_73

danielpalos said:


> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You would have to know nothing of the Bill of Rights to not know they are just all federal restrictions.
> 
> {...
> *The Bill of Rights limits the (federal) government by enumerating the rights of the people and listing the things the (federal) government cannot do.* For example, the Bill of Rights states that the government cannot pass a law limiting the freedom of speech or religion.
> 
> The Bill of Rights is a term that refers to the first 10 amendments of the Constitution of the United States. The lack of a Bill of Rights was one of the main points of disagreement between federalists and anti-federalists. James Madison wrote the 10 amendments as a response to calls from several states for constitutional protection for individual liberties. The end result, approved by the House and ratified in 1791, is a list of limits on the powers of government. According to the Third Amendment, no soldier can be quartered in a private house in a time of peace without the consent of the owner. The Fourth Amendment prohibits the government from intruding in a citizen's home. According to the Fifth Amendment, no one can be held to answer for a capital crime in the absence of a grand jury. The Eighth Amendment prevents the government from imposing excessive bail or fines on citizens and from inflicting cruel and unusual punishments.
> ...}
> 
> How Does the Bill of Rights Limit the Government?
> 
> As to the exact wording of the Bill of Rights, here is the preamble and beginning:
> 
> {...
> *The Preamble to The Bill of Rights*
> Congress of the United States
> begun and held at the City of New-York, on
> Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
> 
> THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, *in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added:* And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
> 
> RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
> 
> ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
> 
> *Amendment I*
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
> 
> *Amendment II*
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> ,,,}
> 
> The Bill of Rights: A Transcription
> 
> 
> It should be totally clear that the Bill of Rights was entirely additional prohibitions, limits, and restrictions on federal authority, powers, and jurisdictions.
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not Individual rights; it says so in the first clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, the founders were happy to quarter soldiers, so much so they made the 2nd and 3rd amendments...you are  retarded......why do you want a defenseless public?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody takes the right wing seriously.  Propaganda and rhetoric is all they know.
> 
> We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Define security problem and free states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any alleged need for alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror are alleged security problems.  We should have no security problems in our free States.
Click to expand...



Oh so we dont have an issue with crime? Drugs? or terrorism?

Fuck, tell that to people in Chicago? or people that went to the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando?
or Sandy Hook? or any of these places with pschos……..what are you smoking?


----------



## danielpalos

buckeye45_73 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not Individual rights; it says so in the first clause.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the founders were happy to quarter soldiers, so much so they made the 2nd and 3rd amendments...you are  retarded......why do you want a defenseless public?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody takes the right wing seriously.  Propaganda and rhetoric is all they know.
> 
> We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Define security problem and free states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any alleged need for alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror are alleged security problems.  We should have no security problems in our free States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh so we dont have an issue with crime? Drugs? or terrorism?
> 
> Fuck, tell that to people in Chicago? or people that went to the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando?
> or Sandy Hook? or any of these places with pschos……..what are you smoking?
Click to expand...

We have a Second Amendment; muster the militia until we have no more security problems.


----------



## Lakhota

Yep, that's how I remember it.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> If you place your trust in the people over that of government, then clearly the Second Amendment has nothing to do with the ‘security of a free state.’


Then, its purpose must clearly be to protect the right of the people.



C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The bulwark against tyranny is the will of the people, as expressed through the democratic process, safeguarded by the rule of law – not by the people ‘taking up arms’ against a government subjectively perceived to have become ‘tyrannical,’ not by an ‘armed insurrection’ against a lawfully elected government reflecting the will of the people, and not through a ‘force of arms’ absent the consent of the majority of the people as expressed through the political process.
> 
> You can’t have it both ways.


You excluded the part where those in power could refuse to do the will of the people, or refuse to turn over power when voted out, or refuse to accept the result of an election.

.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the founders were happy to quarter soldiers, so much so they made the 2nd and 3rd amendments...you are  retarded......why do you want a defenseless public?
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody takes the right wing seriously.  Propaganda and rhetoric is all they know.
> 
> We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Define security problem and free states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any alleged need for alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror are alleged security problems.  We should have no security problems in our free States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh so we dont have an issue with crime? Drugs? or terrorism?
> 
> Fuck, tell that to people in Chicago? or people that went to the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando?
> or Sandy Hook? or any of these places with pschos……..what are you smoking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have a Second Amendment; muster the militia until we have no more security problems.
Click to expand...


Too late, we don't need militias any more, we have private ownership of weapons. Try again in another 100 years or so.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody takes the right wing seriously.  Propaganda and rhetoric is all they know.
> 
> We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.
> 
> 
> 
> Define security problem and free states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any alleged need for alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror are alleged security problems.  We should have no security problems in our free States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh so we dont have an issue with crime? Drugs? or terrorism?
> 
> Fuck, tell that to people in Chicago? or people that went to the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando?
> or Sandy Hook? or any of these places with pschos……..what are you smoking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have a Second Amendment; muster the militia until we have no more security problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too late, we don't need militias any more, we have private ownership of weapons. Try again in another 100 years or so.
Click to expand...


The Militia became a thing of the past as of 1917.  I just love these 2nd amendment people.


----------



## hadit

Daryl Hunt said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Define security problem and free states.
> 
> 
> 
> Any alleged need for alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror are alleged security problems.  We should have no security problems in our free States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh so we dont have an issue with crime? Drugs? or terrorism?
> 
> Fuck, tell that to people in Chicago? or people that went to the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando?
> or Sandy Hook? or any of these places with pschos……..what are you smoking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have a Second Amendment; muster the militia until we have no more security problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too late, we don't need militias any more, we have private ownership of weapons. Try again in another 100 years or so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Militia became a thing of the past as of 1917.  I just love these 2nd amendment people.
Click to expand...


Daniel's a special case.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Lakhota said:


> Yep, that's how I remember it.


No., it's not - because both of those statements are lies.
Oh wait...  since that's all YOU do maybe you DO remember it that way,
Huh.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Daryl Hunt said:


> The Militia became a thing of the past as of 1917.  I just love these 2nd amendment people.


Look at you, willfully unaware of the fact the 2nd Amendment protects the exercise of a right not related to the militia.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody takes the right wing seriously.  Propaganda and rhetoric is all they know.
> 
> We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.
> 
> 
> 
> Define security problem and free states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any alleged need for alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror are alleged security problems.  We should have no security problems in our free States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh so we dont have an issue with crime? Drugs? or terrorism?
> 
> Fuck, tell that to people in Chicago? or people that went to the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando?
> or Sandy Hook? or any of these places with pschos……..what are you smoking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have a Second Amendment; muster the militia until we have no more security problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too late, we don't need militias any more, we have private ownership of weapons. Try again in another 100 years or so.
Click to expand...

means nothing.  our Constitution is express not implied.


----------



## danielpalos

M14 Shooter said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Militia became a thing of the past as of 1917.  I just love these 2nd amendment people.
> 
> 
> 
> Look at you, willfully unaware of the fact the 2nd Amendment protects the exercise of a right not related to the militia.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't and cannot.  Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State, it says so in the first clause.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Define security problem and free states.
> 
> 
> 
> Any alleged need for alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror are alleged security problems.  We should have no security problems in our free States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh so we dont have an issue with crime? Drugs? or terrorism?
> 
> Fuck, tell that to people in Chicago? or people that went to the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando?
> or Sandy Hook? or any of these places with pschos……..what are you smoking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have a Second Amendment; muster the militia until we have no more security problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too late, we don't need militias any more, we have private ownership of weapons. Try again in another 100 years or so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> means nothing.  our Constitution is express not implied.
Click to expand...


Which also means nothing in this context. We have a standing police force in the states. They, along with privately owned firearms, provide security. Like I said, try again in a hundred years or so.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Militia became a thing of the past as of 1917.  I just love these 2nd amendment people.
> 
> 
> 
> Look at you, willfully unaware of the fact the 2nd Amendment protects the exercise of a right not related to the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't and cannot.  Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State, it says so in the first clause.
Click to expand...


You've lost this argument every single time you've made it, yet you continue making it. Why is that?


----------



## Daryl Hunt

danielpalos said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Militia became a thing of the past as of 1917.  I just love these 2nd amendment people.
> 
> 
> 
> Look at you, willfully unaware of the fact the 2nd Amendment protects the exercise of a right not related to the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't and cannot.  Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State, it says so in the first clause.
Click to expand...


Which became out of date as of the 1917 National Guard Act.  It appears that the gunnuters wants their cake and eat it too and so do you.  I say the 2nd amendment needs  to be amended in a bad way to keep it current and has needed it for at least a hundred years.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any alleged need for alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror are alleged security problems.  We should have no security problems in our free States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh so we dont have an issue with crime? Drugs? or terrorism?
> 
> Fuck, tell that to people in Chicago? or people that went to the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando?
> or Sandy Hook? or any of these places with pschos……..what are you smoking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have a Second Amendment; muster the militia until we have no more security problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too late, we don't need militias any more, we have private ownership of weapons. Try again in another 100 years or so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> means nothing.  our Constitution is express not implied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which also means nothing in this context. We have a standing police force in the states. They, along with privately owned firearms, provide security. Like I said, try again in a hundred years or so.
Click to expand...

it means everything in this context; there is no such Thing as a militia of Individuals of the People in our Republic under the federal doctrine.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Militia became a thing of the past as of 1917.  I just love these 2nd amendment people.
> 
> 
> 
> Look at you, willfully unaware of the fact the 2nd Amendment protects the exercise of a right not related to the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't and cannot.  Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State, it says so in the first clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've lost this argument every single time you've made it, yet you continue making it. Why is that?
Click to expand...

right wing bigotry?  in right wing fantasy, you are Always right simply for being on the right wing.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh so we dont have an issue with crime? Drugs? or terrorism?
> 
> Fuck, tell that to people in Chicago? or people that went to the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando?
> or Sandy Hook? or any of these places with pschos……..what are you smoking?
> 
> 
> 
> We have a Second Amendment; muster the militia until we have no more security problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too late, we don't need militias any more, we have private ownership of weapons. Try again in another 100 years or so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> means nothing.  our Constitution is express not implied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which also means nothing in this context. We have a standing police force in the states. They, along with privately owned firearms, provide security. Like I said, try again in a hundred years or so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it means everything in this context; there is no such Thing as a militia of Individuals of the People in our Republic under the federal doctrine.
Click to expand...

We can still own guns, even without a militia.  You do realize that, right?


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Militia became a thing of the past as of 1917.  I just love these 2nd amendment people.
> 
> 
> 
> Look at you, willfully unaware of the fact the 2nd Amendment protects the exercise of a right not related to the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't and cannot.  Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State, it says so in the first clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've lost this argument every single time you've made it, yet you continue making it. Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> right wing bigotry?  in right wing fantasy, you are Always right simply for being on the right wing.
Click to expand...

Common sense.  You've never been able to support your case in this regard.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a Second Amendment; muster the militia until we have no more security problems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too late, we don't need militias any more, we have private ownership of weapons. Try again in another 100 years or so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> means nothing.  our Constitution is express not implied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which also means nothing in this context. We have a standing police force in the states. They, along with privately owned firearms, provide security. Like I said, try again in a hundred years or so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it means everything in this context; there is no such Thing as a militia of Individuals of the People in our Republic under the federal doctrine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We can still own guns, even without a militia.  You do realize that, right?
Click to expand...

I understand the concept of natural rights.  Our Second Amendment is specifically about the security of our free States.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Militia became a thing of the past as of 1917.  I just love these 2nd amendment people.
> 
> 
> 
> Look at you, willfully unaware of the fact the 2nd Amendment protects the exercise of a right not related to the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't and cannot.  Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State, it says so in the first clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've lost this argument every single time you've made it, yet you continue making it. Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> right wing bigotry?  in right wing fantasy, you are Always right simply for being on the right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Common sense.  You've never been able to support your case in this regard.
Click to expand...

That is what I claim about the right wing.  The first clause of our Second Amendment is the express not implied, Intent and Purpose.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at you, willfully unaware of the fact the 2nd Amendment protects the exercise of a right not related to the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't and cannot.  Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State, it says so in the first clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've lost this argument every single time you've made it, yet you continue making it. Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> right wing bigotry?  in right wing fantasy, you are Always right simply for being on the right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Common sense.  You've never been able to support your case in this regard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is what I claim about the right wing.  The first clause of our Second Amendment is the express not implied, Intent and Purpose.
Click to expand...


You're making a lot of claims, always the same ones. Those claims have been destroyed many times, yet you continue going back to the beginning and doing it all over again. The right wing is not your problem. You're problem is the legal minds on the Supreme Court, who have ruled counter to what you say is right.


----------



## Wry Catcher

danielpalos said:


> Organize more militia until we have no more security problems in our free States.



Fine, as long as the militia is organized as stated in clause 15 & 16 in Art I, sec 8.  

There is no such thing as a disorganized militia, it is no more legal than the Crips and Bloods.


----------



## buckeye45_73

Daryl Hunt said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Define security problem and free states.
> 
> 
> 
> Any alleged need for alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror are alleged security problems.  We should have no security problems in our free States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh so we dont have an issue with crime? Drugs? or terrorism?
> 
> Fuck, tell that to people in Chicago? or people that went to the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando?
> or Sandy Hook? or any of these places with pschos……..what are you smoking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have a Second Amendment; muster the militia until we have no more security problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too late, we don't need militias any more, we have private ownership of weapons. Try again in another 100 years or so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Militia became a thing of the past as of 1917.  I just love these 2nd amendment people.
Click to expand...

Do you know what a militia is?


----------



## Staidhup

Do yourself a favor and recognize the intent implied by the verbiage "to form a militia", during that period if you wish, was simply the ability to defend yourself with help or on your own.

The attempt by those desiring one to forgo, rather forfeit, one's rights is a further attempt toward solidifying absolute control in the hands of the government to do as they so desire, thus further exposing the population to uncontrolled violence.

Even at the end of the civil war confederate troops were permitted to return home with their weapons, for the fundamental right insured by the Constitution and Bill of Rights provided one with the right to protect themselves, property, and home.. So what's wrong with that?

The issue we are faced today is sensationalism, political exploitation, capitalization by a few on a disaster, all resulting from population dynamics. The escalation in the population translates into the corresponding increase in the number of very unstable individuals, crime, and violence. The passage of a law will not curtail violence, just words, words, words, which is the only thing Dim's are good for.


----------



## Wry Catcher

buckeye45_73 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any alleged need for alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror are alleged security problems.  We should have no security problems in our free States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh so we dont have an issue with crime? Drugs? or terrorism?
> 
> Fuck, tell that to people in Chicago? or people that went to the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando?
> or Sandy Hook? or any of these places with pschos……..what are you smoking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have a Second Amendment; muster the militia until we have no more security problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too late, we don't need militias any more, we have private ownership of weapons. Try again in another 100 years or so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Militia became a thing of the past as of 1917.  I just love these 2nd amendment people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know what a militia is?
Click to expand...


There are two:  National Guard and the Navy Reserves.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Staidhup said:


> Do yourself a favor and recognize the intent implied by the verbiage "to form a militia", during that period if you wish, was simply the ability to defend yourself with help or on your own.
> 
> The attempt by those desiring one to forgo, rather forfeit, one's rights is a further attempt toward solidifying absolute control in the hands of the government to do as they so desire, thus further exposing the population to uncontrolled violence.
> 
> Even at the end of the civil war confederate troops were permitted to return home with their weapons, for the fundamental right insured by the Constitution and Bill of Rights provided one with the right to protect themselves, property, and home.. So what's wrong with that?
> 
> The issue we are faced today is sensationalism, political exploitation, capitalization by a few on a disaster, all resulting from population dynamics. The escalation in the population translates into the corresponding increase in the number of very unstable individuals, crime, and violence. The passage of a law will not curtail violence, just words, words, words, which is the only thing Dim's are good for.



Art I, Sec. 8, clause 15 & 16 defines the militia -  middle-aged over weight red state men dressed in  camouflage do not meet the standard set in COTUS.

The unregulated militia is a myth and a meme; no different than a crip or blood carrying a gun in red or blue.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

buckeye45_73 said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any alleged need for alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror are alleged security problems.  We should have no security problems in our free States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh so we dont have an issue with crime? Drugs? or terrorism?
> 
> Fuck, tell that to people in Chicago? or people that went to the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando?
> or Sandy Hook? or any of these places with pschos……..what are you smoking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have a Second Amendment; muster the militia until we have no more security problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too late, we don't need militias any more, we have private ownership of weapons. Try again in another 100 years or so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Militia became a thing of the past as of 1917.  I just love these 2nd amendment people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know what a militia is?
Click to expand...


I know exactly what it used to be.  Do you know what a State Defense Force is?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> Staidhup said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do yourself a favor and recognize the intent implied by the verbiage "to form a militia", during that period if you wish, was simply the ability to defend yourself with help or on your own.
> 
> The attempt by those desiring one to forgo, rather forfeit, one's rights is a further attempt toward solidifying absolute control in the hands of the government to do as they so desire, thus further exposing the population to uncontrolled violence.
> 
> Even at the end of the civil war confederate troops were permitted to return home with their weapons, for the fundamental right insured by the Constitution and Bill of Rights provided one with the right to protect themselves, property, and home.. So what's wrong with that?
> 
> The issue we are faced today is sensationalism, political exploitation, capitalization by a few on a disaster, all resulting from population dynamics. The escalation in the population translates into the corresponding increase in the number of very unstable individuals, crime, and violence. The passage of a law will not curtail violence, just words, words, words, which is the only thing Dim's are good for.
> 
> 
> 
> Art I, Sec. 8, clause 15 & 16 defines the militia -  middle-aged over weight red state men dressed in  camouflage do not meet the standard set in COTUS.
> The unregulated militia is a myth and a meme; no different than a crip or blood carrying a gun in red or blue.
Click to expand...

All of which is irrelevant in a discussion of the right to keep and bear arms.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Wry Catcher said:


> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckeye45_73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh so we dont have an issue with crime? Drugs? or terrorism?
> 
> Fuck, tell that to people in Chicago? or people that went to the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando?
> or Sandy Hook? or any of these places with pschos……..what are you smoking?
> 
> 
> 
> We have a Second Amendment; muster the militia until we have no more security problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too late, we don't need militias any more, we have private ownership of weapons. Try again in another 100 years or so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Militia became a thing of the past as of 1917.  I just love these 2nd amendment people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know what a militia is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are two:  National Guard and the Navy Reserves.
Click to expand...


The Navy Reserve has nothing to do with the State. It's strictly Federal.  Much like there is also an Army Reserve which has nothing to do with the Army National Guard.


----------



## Staidhup

Agree and disagree, this country won its independence by the blood and sacrifice of those very same middle-aged overweight men. To split hairs over the intent of the word militia as an excuse to restrict or limit one's right to own firearms is absurd.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't and cannot.  Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State, it says so in the first clause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've lost this argument every single time you've made it, yet you continue making it. Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> right wing bigotry?  in right wing fantasy, you are Always right simply for being on the right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Common sense.  You've never been able to support your case in this regard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is what I claim about the right wing.  The first clause of our Second Amendment is the express not implied, Intent and Purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're making a lot of claims, always the same ones. Those claims have been destroyed many times, yet you continue going back to the beginning and doing it all over again. The right wing is not your problem. You're problem is the legal minds on the Supreme Court, who have ruled counter to what you say is right.
Click to expand...

appealing to authority?  we have a Ninth Amendment; our Constitution is Express, not Implied by any fantastical, right wing bigotry.


----------



## danielpalos

Wry Catcher said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Organize more militia until we have no more security problems in our free States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fine, as long as the militia is organized as stated in clause 15 & 16 in Art I, sec 8.
> 
> There is no such thing as a disorganized militia, it is no more legal than the Crips and Bloods.
Click to expand...

where do you get your propaganda and rhetoric from?

there is no such Thing as well regulated militia of Individuals of the People in our federal Republic.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've lost this argument every single time you've made it, yet you continue making it. Why is that?
> 
> 
> 
> right wing bigotry?  in right wing fantasy, you are Always right simply for being on the right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Common sense.  You've never been able to support your case in this regard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is what I claim about the right wing.  The first clause of our Second Amendment is the express not implied, Intent and Purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're making a lot of claims, always the same ones. Those claims have been destroyed many times, yet you continue going back to the beginning and doing it all over again. The right wing is not your problem. You're problem is the legal minds on the Supreme Court, who have ruled counter to what you say is right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> appealing to authority?  we have a Ninth Amendment; our Constitution is Express, not Implied by any fantastical, right wing bigotry.
Click to expand...


Do you not consider the SC an authority on the Constitution?


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Organize more militia until we have no more security problems in our free States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fine, as long as the militia is organized as stated in clause 15 & 16 in Art I, sec 8.
> 
> There is no such thing as a disorganized militia, it is no more legal than the Crips and Bloods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> where do you get your propaganda and rhetoric from?
> 
> there is no such Thing as well regulated militia of Individuals of the People in our federal Republic.
Click to expand...


People own weapons. Militias do not. People have the right to bear arms. Militias do not.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> right wing bigotry?  in right wing fantasy, you are Always right simply for being on the right wing.
> 
> 
> 
> Common sense.  You've never been able to support your case in this regard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is what I claim about the right wing.  The first clause of our Second Amendment is the express not implied, Intent and Purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're making a lot of claims, always the same ones. Those claims have been destroyed many times, yet you continue going back to the beginning and doing it all over again. The right wing is not your problem. You're problem is the legal minds on the Supreme Court, who have ruled counter to what you say is right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> appealing to authority?  we have a Ninth Amendment; our Constitution is Express, not Implied by any fantastical, right wing bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you not consider the SC an authority on the Constitution?
Click to expand...

as a separate and equal branch of Government, it is not supposed to be a rubber stamp for any party.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Organize more militia until we have no more security problems in our free States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fine, as long as the militia is organized as stated in clause 15 & 16 in Art I, sec 8.
> 
> There is no such thing as a disorganized militia, it is no more legal than the Crips and Bloods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> where do you get your propaganda and rhetoric from?
> 
> there is no such Thing as well regulated militia of Individuals of the People in our federal Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People own weapons. Militias do not. People have the right to bear arms. Militias do not.
Click to expand...

where do you get your propaganda and rhetoric from?

Our Second Amendment clearly expresses what is necessary to the security of a free State.  

Congress is responsible for arming the militia.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Common sense.  You've never been able to support your case in this regard.
> 
> 
> 
> That is what I claim about the right wing.  The first clause of our Second Amendment is the express not implied, Intent and Purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're making a lot of claims, always the same ones. Those claims have been destroyed many times, yet you continue going back to the beginning and doing it all over again. The right wing is not your problem. You're problem is the legal minds on the Supreme Court, who have ruled counter to what you say is right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> appealing to authority?  we have a Ninth Amendment; our Constitution is Express, not Implied by any fantastical, right wing bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you not consider the SC an authority on the Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> as a separate and equal branch of Government, it is not supposed to be a rubber stamp for any party.
Click to expand...


Is it an authority on the Constitution or not?


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Organize more militia until we have no more security problems in our free States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fine, as long as the militia is organized as stated in clause 15 & 16 in Art I, sec 8.
> 
> There is no such thing as a disorganized militia, it is no more legal than the Crips and Bloods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> where do you get your propaganda and rhetoric from?
> 
> there is no such Thing as well regulated militia of Individuals of the People in our federal Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People own weapons. Militias do not. People have the right to bear arms. Militias do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> where do you get your propaganda and rhetoric from?
> 
> Our Second Amendment clearly expresses what is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Congress is responsible for arming the militia.
Click to expand...


The second amendment prevents Congress from making laws preventing people from owning guns. That's pretty much it.


----------



## progressive hunter

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Organize more militia until we have no more security problems in our free States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fine, as long as the militia is organized as stated in clause 15 & 16 in Art I, sec 8.
> 
> There is no such thing as a disorganized militia, it is no more legal than the Crips and Bloods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> where do you get your propaganda and rhetoric from?
> 
> there is no such Thing as well regulated militia of Individuals of the People in our federal Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People own weapons. Militias do not. People have the right to bear arms. Militias do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> where do you get your propaganda and rhetoric from?
> 
> Our Second Amendment clearly expresses what is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Congress is responsible for arming the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The second amendment prevents Congress from making laws preventing people from owning guns. That's pretty much it.
Click to expand...

it goes further than that,,,it means nobody can do anything the infringes on owning or having an arms,,and thats more than just guns,,,


----------



## SandSquid

Wry Catcher said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Organize more militia until we have no more security problems in our free States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fine, as long as the militia is organized as stated in clause 15 & 16 in Art I, sec 8.
> 
> There is no such thing as a disorganized militia, it is no more legal than the Crips and Bloods.
Click to expand...


Actually, the Constitution says when there is a disagreement on an interpretation of it, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to both fact and law in this case.  In this situation the SC determined the prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.  It was NOT an organized group, just "the whole people" as the founders of the Bill of Rights said.  The people feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.

Also that the Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment.   And that interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion.

So short of wanting to burn the parts of the Constitution you don't like, the Supreme Court in powers given by the Constitution has the jurisdiction to both law and fact in the matter that the second amendment guarantees the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.

Like the Father of the Bill of Rights, George Mason said "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the *whole people*."


----------



## SandSquid

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've lost this argument every single time you've made it, yet you continue making it. Why is that?
> 
> 
> 
> right wing bigotry?  in right wing fantasy, you are Always right simply for being on the right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Common sense.  You've never been able to support your case in this regard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is what I claim about the right wing.  The first clause of our Second Amendment is the express not implied, Intent and Purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're making a lot of claims, always the same ones. Those claims have been destroyed many times, yet you continue going back to the beginning and doing it all over again. The right wing is not your problem. You're problem is the legal minds on the Supreme Court, who have ruled counter to what you say is right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> appealing to authority?  we have a Ninth Amendment; our Constitution is Express, not Implied by any fantastical, right wing bigotry.
Click to expand...


Yes, and it is express when it says that the Supreme Court's power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, and have jurisdiction to both law and fact.  

You can't say some parts of the Constitution are express, but others are not since you believe they are "right wing bigotry".  You can't decide to white out this section of the Constitution, and maybe burn this article, but then take this one without the rest.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

SandSquid said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Organize more militia until we have no more security problems in our free States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fine, as long as the militia is organized as stated in clause 15 & 16 in Art I, sec 8.
> 
> There is no such thing as a disorganized militia, it is no more legal than the Crips and Bloods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, the Constitution says when there is a disagreement on an interpretation of it, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to both fact and law in this case.  In this situation the SC determined the prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.  It was NOT an organized group, just "the whole people" as the founders of the Bill of Rights said.  The people feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.
> 
> Also that the Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment.   And that interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion.
> 
> So short of wanting to burn the parts of the Constitution you don't like, the Supreme Court in powers given by the Constitution has the jurisdiction to both law and fact in the matter that the second amendment guarantees the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.
> 
> Like the Father of the Bill of Rights, George Mason said "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the *whole people*."
Click to expand...


Which in the case of any given emergency for whatever reason, the States can draw upon.  They can also arm them with Guns and even shovels if need  be or any manner of tools to ensure the safety or well being of the State.


----------



## Wry Catcher

SandSquid said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Organize more militia until we have no more security problems in our free States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fine, as long as the militia is organized as stated in clause 15 & 16 in Art I, sec 8.
> 
> There is no such thing as a disorganized militia, it is no more legal than the Crips and Bloods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, the Constitution says when there is a disagreement on an interpretation of it, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to both fact and law in this case.  In this situation the SC determined the prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.  It was NOT an organized group, just "the whole people" as the founders of the Bill of Rights said.  The people feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.
> 
> Also that the Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment.   And that interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion.
> 
> So short of wanting to burn the parts of the Constitution you don't like, the Supreme Court in powers given by the Constitution has the jurisdiction to both law and fact in the matter that the second amendment guarantees the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.
> 
> Like the Father of the Bill of Rights, George Mason said "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the *whole people*."
Click to expand...


It seems you've never read the Constitution, and maybe have never taken or passed a high school course in civics.

Read carefully Art I and Art III and you will find nothing which you claim exists in COTUS.


----------



## hadit

SandSquid said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> right wing bigotry?  in right wing fantasy, you are Always right simply for being on the right wing.
> 
> 
> 
> Common sense.  You've never been able to support your case in this regard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is what I claim about the right wing.  The first clause of our Second Amendment is the express not implied, Intent and Purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're making a lot of claims, always the same ones. Those claims have been destroyed many times, yet you continue going back to the beginning and doing it all over again. The right wing is not your problem. You're problem is the legal minds on the Supreme Court, who have ruled counter to what you say is right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> appealing to authority?  we have a Ninth Amendment; our Constitution is Express, not Implied by any fantastical, right wing bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, and it is express when it says that the Supreme Court's power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, and have jurisdiction to both law and fact.
> 
> You can't say some parts of the Constitution are express, but others are not since you believe they are "right wing bigotry".  You can't decide to white out this section of the Constitution, and maybe burn this article, but then take this one without the rest.
Click to expand...

Actually, that's exactly what he does to support his twisted version of reality.


----------



## SandSquid

Wry Catcher said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Organize more militia until we have no more security problems in our free States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fine, as long as the militia is organized as stated in clause 15 & 16 in Art I, sec 8.
> 
> There is no such thing as a disorganized militia, it is no more legal than the Crips and Bloods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, the Constitution says when there is a disagreement on an interpretation of it, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to both fact and law in this case.  In this situation the SC determined the prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.  It was NOT an organized group, just "the whole people" as the founders of the Bill of Rights said.  The people feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.
> 
> Also that the Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment.   And that interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion.
> 
> So short of wanting to burn the parts of the Constitution you don't like, the Supreme Court in powers given by the Constitution has the jurisdiction to both law and fact in the matter that the second amendment guarantees the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.
> 
> Like the Father of the Bill of Rights, George Mason said "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the *whole people*."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It seems you've never read the Constitution, and maybe have never taken or passed a high school course in civics.
> 
> Read carefully Art I and Art III and you will find nothing which you claim exists in COTUS.
Click to expand...


Yep the judicial power is vested in one supreme Court and extends to all cases arising under the Constitution..

Maybe they teach civics differently outside the US.  Maybe your teachers let you down.

Maybe you just want to try and rewrite and twist history when the Father of the Bill of Rights said the militia was the whole people"?

Or maybe just the Constitution isn't for you, and you'd prefer to be under some other country's laws instead.

But for Americans, like it or not the power to determine if something is protected and legal or not by the Constitution is expressly designated to the Judicial powers of the government vested in one Supreme Court.


----------



## WillPower

The Supremes can no more abolish the 2nd than they can any other amendment in the Bill of Rights.......those are cast in granite.


----------



## SandSquid

SandSquid said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Organize more militia until we have no more security problems in our free States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fine, as long as the militia is organized as stated in clause 15 & 16 in Art I, sec 8.
> 
> There is no such thing as a disorganized militia, it is no more legal than the Crips and Bloods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, the Constitution says when there is a disagreement on an interpretation of it, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to both fact and law in this case.  In this situation the SC determined the prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.  It was NOT an organized group, just "the whole people" as the founders of the Bill of Rights said.  The people feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.
> 
> Also that the Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment.   And that interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion.
> 
> So short of wanting to burn the parts of the Constitution you don't like, the Supreme Court in powers given by the Constitution has the jurisdiction to both law and fact in the matter that the second amendment guarantees the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.
> 
> Like the Father of the Bill of Rights, George Mason said "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the *whole people*."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It seems you've never read the Constitution, and maybe have never taken or passed a high school course in civics.
> 
> Read carefully Art I and Art III and you will find nothing which you claim exists in COTUS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep the judicial power is vested in one supreme Court and extends to all cases arising under the Constitution..
> 
> Maybe they teach civics differently outside the US.  Maybe your teachers let you down.
> 
> Maybe you just want to try and rewrite and twist history when the Father of the Bill of Rights said the militia was the whole people"?
> 
> Or maybe just the Constitution isn't for you, and you'd prefer to be under some other country's laws instead.
> 
> But for Americans, like it or not the power to determine if something is protected and legal or not by the Constitution is expressly designated to the Judicial powers of the government vested in one Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

And yes.  When the Supreme Court heard the court of appeals for the DC circuit, the Constitution which said "In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact" mattered. 

You may not like that, but your opinion does not have jurisdiction to law and fact in that case.   The Supreme Courts does.

And Law and Fact is that The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes in the USA.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is what I claim about the right wing.  The first clause of our Second Amendment is the express not implied, Intent and Purpose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're making a lot of claims, always the same ones. Those claims have been destroyed many times, yet you continue going back to the beginning and doing it all over again. The right wing is not your problem. You're problem is the legal minds on the Supreme Court, who have ruled counter to what you say is right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> appealing to authority?  we have a Ninth Amendment; our Constitution is Express, not Implied by any fantastical, right wing bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you not consider the SC an authority on the Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> as a separate and equal branch of Government, it is not supposed to be a rubber stamp for any party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it an authority on the Constitution or not?
Click to expand...

we have our Ninth Amendment; it is express or it isn't.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Organize more militia until we have no more security problems in our free States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fine, as long as the militia is organized as stated in clause 15 & 16 in Art I, sec 8.
> 
> There is no such thing as a disorganized militia, it is no more legal than the Crips and Bloods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> where do you get your propaganda and rhetoric from?
> 
> there is no such Thing as well regulated militia of Individuals of the People in our federal Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People own weapons. Militias do not. People have the right to bear arms. Militias do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> where do you get your propaganda and rhetoric from?
> 
> Our Second Amendment clearly expresses what is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Congress is responsible for arming the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The second amendment prevents Congress from making laws preventing people from owning guns. That's pretty much it.
Click to expand...

it is about the security of our free States, not natural rights.


----------



## danielpalos

SandSquid said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> right wing bigotry?  in right wing fantasy, you are Always right simply for being on the right wing.
> 
> 
> 
> Common sense.  You've never been able to support your case in this regard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is what I claim about the right wing.  The first clause of our Second Amendment is the express not implied, Intent and Purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're making a lot of claims, always the same ones. Those claims have been destroyed many times, yet you continue going back to the beginning and doing it all over again. The right wing is not your problem. You're problem is the legal minds on the Supreme Court, who have ruled counter to what you say is right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> appealing to authority?  we have a Ninth Amendment; our Constitution is Express, not Implied by any fantastical, right wing bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, and it is express when it says that the Supreme Court's power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, and have jurisdiction to both law and fact.
> 
> You can't say some parts of the Constitution are express, but others are not since you believe they are "right wing bigotry".  You can't decide to white out this section of the Constitution, and maybe burn this article, but then take this one without the rest.
Click to expand...

where am I doing that?

Our Second Amendment is express, not implied by right wing fantasy.


----------



## sealybobo

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> So, back on topic:
> 
> NOBODY wanted to touch the 2A as it relates to the 14th.  It would have opened the door for lots of chaos and a bunch of emergency action.  They all preferred to let sleeping dogs lie.
> 
> Enter, the _Heller _decision.
> 
> Without the clumsy 14th Amendment, the 2nd Amendment is strictly a limit on federal power.  Nothing more.  But, when States are required to give state citizens due process and the privileges and immunities of U.S. Citizens, the 2nd Amendment becomes a bar on State power too.
> 
> Now, nobody can regulate arms.  Then, we have a huge constitutional show down on the 14th Amendment, which upsets 100+ years of jurisprudence and the whole fucking Union is hanging in the balance.
> 
> They should have let it happen and it would have made the Union stronger.  But, people are chicken shit.
> 
> .


Why can’t I buy a gun and carry it around with me? How come republicans don’t agree that’s unconstitutional? They actually tried to pass it in Michigan and republicans couldn’t get it done even though they controlled all branch’s of government.


----------



## Lakhota

WillPower said:


> The Supremes can no more abolish the 2nd than they can any other amendment in the Bill of Rights.......those are cast in granite.



Funny.  The 2nd Amendment means whatever SCOTUS says it means at any point in time.  It currently stands as a fossil.


----------



## Lakhota

*NRA Could Lose Tax-Exempt Status Over Shady Business Practices, Report Says*

Why does the NRA have tax-exempt status in the first place?  They're just a bunch of gun-running thugs.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Lakhota said:


> WillPower said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supremes can no more abolish the 2nd than they can any other amendment in the Bill of Rights.......those are cast in granite.
> 
> 
> 
> Funny.  The 2nd Amendment means whatever SCOTUS says it means at any point in time.  It currently stands as a fossil.
Click to expand...

Your opinion means nothing.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Lakhota said:


> *NRA Could Lose Tax-Exempt Status Over Shady Business Practices, Report Says*
> Why does the NRA have tax-exempt status in the first place?  They're just a bunch of gun-running thugs.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> So, back on topic:
> 
> NOBODY wanted to touch the 2A as it relates to the 14th.  It would have opened the door for lots of chaos and a bunch of emergency action.  They all preferred to let sleeping dogs lie.
> 
> Enter, the _Heller _decision.
> 
> Without the clumsy 14th Amendment, the 2nd Amendment is strictly a limit on federal power.  Nothing more.  But, when States are required to give state citizens due process and the privileges and immunities of U.S. Citizens, the 2nd Amendment becomes a bar on State power too.
> 
> Now, nobody can regulate arms.  Then, we have a huge constitutional show down on the 14th Amendment, which upsets 100+ years of jurisprudence and the whole fucking Union is hanging in the balance.
> 
> They should have let it happen and it would have made the Union stronger.  But, people are chicken shit.
> 
> .


At least you’re consistent at being ignorant, ridiculous, and wrong.

_Heller_ had nothing to do with the 14th Amendment – it was _McDonald_ that made the states and local jurisdictions subject to Second Amendment case law, consistent with 14th Amendment incorporation doctrine.

Indeed, the _McDonald _Court reaffirmed 14th Amendment incorporation doctrine as the appropriate means by with to apply the Bill of Rights to the states and local jurisdictions – a reaffirmation Scalia himself agreed with:

‘I join the Court's opinion. Despite my misgivings about Substantive Due Process as an original matter, I have acquiesced in the Court's incorporation of certain guarantees in the Bill of Rights "because it is both long established and narrowly limited." _Albright v. Oliver_, 510 U. S. 266, 275 (1994) (SCALIA, J., concurring). This case does not require me to reconsider that view, since straight for ward application of settled doctrine suffices to decide it.’

McDonald v. City of Chicago, No. 08-1521 | Casetext

Prior to _McDonald_, of course, the Second Amendment applied solely to the Federal government – which is why Heller challenged the firearm regulatory measures of the District of Columbia, the District being a Federal entity.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

M14 Shooter said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillPower said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supremes can no more abolish the 2nd than they can any other amendment in the Bill of Rights.......those are cast in granite.
> 
> 
> 
> Funny.  The 2nd Amendment means whatever SCOTUS says it means at any point in time.  It currently stands as a fossil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your opinion means nothing.
Click to expand...

Just as your opinion means nothing.

The only opinion that matters belongs solely to the Supreme Court – opinions which become facts of law.

As a fact of law:

The Second Amendment is not ‘unlimited’

Measures requiring universal background checks are not un-Constitutional

Measures limiting magazine capacity are not un-Constitutional

Measures placing limits and restrictions concerning firearms other than handguns are not un-Constitutional

Measures prohibiting the open carrying of firearms are not un-Constitutional

Measures designating certain individuals as prohibited persons are not un-Constitutional

Measures regulating the commercial sale of firearms are not un-Constitutional

Measures prohibiting firearms in schools are not un-Constitutional

Measures placing age restrictions on the purchasing of firearms are not un-Constitutional

Measures requiring waiting periods when purchasing a firearm are not un-Constitutional

Measures requiring licenses and permits are not un-Constitutional

Measures requiring the registration of firearms are not un-Constitutional

As a fact of law, government has the authority to place limits and restrictions on the possession of firearms consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

And as a fact of law, a given firearm regulatory measure does not violate the Second Amendment until such time as the Supreme Court rules that it does.


----------



## M14 Shooter

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillPower said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supremes can no more abolish the 2nd than they can any other amendment in the Bill of Rights.......those are cast in granite.
> 
> 
> 
> Funny.  The 2nd Amendment means whatever SCOTUS says it means at any point in time.  It currently stands as a fossil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your opinion means nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just as your opinion means nothing.
Click to expand...

Just as -your- opinion means nothing.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're making a lot of claims, always the same ones. Those claims have been destroyed many times, yet you continue going back to the beginning and doing it all over again. The right wing is not your problem. You're problem is the legal minds on the Supreme Court, who have ruled counter to what you say is right.
> 
> 
> 
> appealing to authority?  we have a Ninth Amendment; our Constitution is Express, not Implied by any fantastical, right wing bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you not consider the SC an authority on the Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> as a separate and equal branch of Government, it is not supposed to be a rubber stamp for any party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it an authority on the Constitution or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have our Ninth Amendment; it is express or it isn't.
Click to expand...


Is the Supreme Court an authority on the Constitution? Just answer that. Then we can worry about the ninth amendment. Until then, not so much.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fine, as long as the militia is organized as stated in clause 15 & 16 in Art I, sec 8.
> 
> There is no such thing as a disorganized militia, it is no more legal than the Crips and Bloods.
> 
> 
> 
> where do you get your propaganda and rhetoric from?
> 
> there is no such Thing as well regulated militia of Individuals of the People in our federal Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People own weapons. Militias do not. People have the right to bear arms. Militias do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> where do you get your propaganda and rhetoric from?
> 
> Our Second Amendment clearly expresses what is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Congress is responsible for arming the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The second amendment prevents Congress from making laws preventing people from owning guns. That's pretty much it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about the security of our free States, not natural rights.
Click to expand...


The Supreme Court holds differently. Are you more of an authority than they are? If so, cite your qualifications.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> appealing to authority?  we have a Ninth Amendment; our Constitution is Express, not Implied by any fantastical, right wing bigotry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you not consider the SC an authority on the Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> as a separate and equal branch of Government, it is not supposed to be a rubber stamp for any party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it an authority on the Constitution or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have our Ninth Amendment; it is express or it isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is the Supreme Court an authority on the Constitution? Just answer that. Then we can worry about the ninth amendment. Until then, not so much.
Click to expand...

sure.  however, they are not infallible.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> where do you get your propaganda and rhetoric from?
> 
> there is no such Thing as well regulated militia of Individuals of the People in our federal Republic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People own weapons. Militias do not. People have the right to bear arms. Militias do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> where do you get your propaganda and rhetoric from?
> 
> Our Second Amendment clearly expresses what is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Congress is responsible for arming the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The second amendment prevents Congress from making laws preventing people from owning guns. That's pretty much it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about the security of our free States, not natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court holds differently. Are you more of an authority than they are? If so, cite your qualifications.
Click to expand...

Our Ninth Amendment.  The Intent and Purpose of our Second Amendment is in the first clause, not the second clause.


----------



## sealybobo

Lakhota said:


> WillPower said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supremes can no more abolish the 2nd than they can any other amendment in the Bill of Rights.......those are cast in granite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny.  The 2nd Amendment means whatever SCOTUS says it means at any point in time.  It currently stands as a fossil.
Click to expand...

And or your state. Michigan for example almost passed a law saying you can open or conceal carry without taking the cow class. I would love that. I want to take guns up north and worry I’ll get a felony for transporting them wrong. I should be able to drive around lock and loaded. If not then we don’t really have the right, right?

Seems like my right has been limited.


----------



## WillPower

sealybobo said:


> And or your state. Michigan for example almost passed a law saying you can open or conceal carry without taking the cow class. I would love that. I want to take guns up north and worry I’ll get a felony for transporting them wrong. I should be able to drive around lock and loaded. If not then we don’t really have the right, right?
> 
> Seems like my right has been limited.



Back in the day, Michigan required any weapon in your possession not be "at hand" to endanger an officer.  In other words, it had to be locked, unloaded, in the glove box or trunk.  Here in Phoenix, the law has a trap-door if the cops want to mess with you....you can't have a loaded gun in your possession within several hundred feet of a school zone.  It's impossible to drive the city streets here without passing a school, and consequently committing a felony.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

sealybobo said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillPower said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supremes can no more abolish the 2nd than they can any other amendment in the Bill of Rights.......those are cast in granite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny.  The 2nd Amendment means whatever SCOTUS says it means at any point in time.  It currently stands as a fossil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And or your state. Michigan for example almost passed a law saying you can open or conceal carry without taking the cow class. I would love that. I want to take guns up north and worry I’ll get a felony for transporting them wrong. I should be able to drive around lock and loaded. If not then we don’t really have the right, right?
> 
> Seems like my right has been limited.
Click to expand...

Limited, perhaps – but not ‘violated.’

Again, the Second Amendment right is not ‘absolute. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” _ibid_


----------



## WillPower

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Again, the Second Amendment right is not ‘absolute. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” _ibid_



Try taking our firearms and see what happens.


----------



## Wry Catcher

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> where do you get your propaganda and rhetoric from?
> 
> there is no such Thing as well regulated militia of Individuals of the People in our federal Republic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People own weapons. Militias do not. People have the right to bear arms. Militias do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> where do you get your propaganda and rhetoric from?
> 
> Our Second Amendment clearly expresses what is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Congress is responsible for arming the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The second amendment prevents Congress from making laws preventing people from owning guns. That's pretty much it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about the security of our free States, not natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court holds differently. Are you more of an authority than they are? If so, cite your qualifications.
Click to expand...


I can read the Constitution and have done so many times, I've also taken ConLaw and studied the rulings of the Supreme Court, reading not only the decision but the dissenting arguments.

Thus to claim the Supreme Court holds Heller differently, or any other decision not 9-0, is dishonest.


----------



## progressive hunter

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillPower said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supremes can no more abolish the 2nd than they can any other amendment in the Bill of Rights.......those are cast in granite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny.  The 2nd Amendment means whatever SCOTUS says it means at any point in time.  It currently stands as a fossil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And or your state. Michigan for example almost passed a law saying you can open or conceal carry without taking the cow class. I would love that. I want to take guns up north and worry I’ll get a felony for transporting them wrong. I should be able to drive around lock and loaded. If not then we don’t really have the right, right?
> 
> Seems like my right has been limited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Limited, perhaps – but not ‘violated.’
> 
> Again, the Second Amendment right is not ‘absolute. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” _ibid_
Click to expand...

case law clayton to the rescue,,,AGAIN,,,

and he still cant get it right


----------



## hadit

Wry Catcher said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> People own weapons. Militias do not. People have the right to bear arms. Militias do not.
> 
> 
> 
> where do you get your propaganda and rhetoric from?
> 
> Our Second Amendment clearly expresses what is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Congress is responsible for arming the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The second amendment prevents Congress from making laws preventing people from owning guns. That's pretty much it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about the security of our free States, not natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court holds differently. Are you more of an authority than they are? If so, cite your qualifications.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can read the Constitution and have done so many times, I've also taken ConLaw and studied the rulings of the Supreme Court, reading not only the decision but the dissenting arguments.
> 
> Thus to claim the Supreme Court holds Heller differently, or any other decision not 9-0, is dishonest.
Click to expand...


Daniel is a special case.


----------



## Wry Catcher

hadit said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> where do you get your propaganda and rhetoric from?
> 
> Our Second Amendment clearly expresses what is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Congress is responsible for arming the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The second amendment prevents Congress from making laws preventing people from owning guns. That's pretty much it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about the security of our free States, not natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court holds differently. Are you more of an authority than they are? If so, cite your qualifications.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can read the Constitution and have done so many times, I've also taken ConLaw and studied the rulings of the Supreme Court, reading not only the decision but the dissenting arguments.
> 
> Thus to claim the Supreme Court holds Heller differently, or any other decision not 9-0, is dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel is a special case.
Click to expand...


Huh?


----------



## hadit

Wry Catcher said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The second amendment prevents Congress from making laws preventing people from owning guns. That's pretty much it.
> 
> 
> 
> it is about the security of our free States, not natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court holds differently. Are you more of an authority than they are? If so, cite your qualifications.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can read the Constitution and have done so many times, I've also taken ConLaw and studied the rulings of the Supreme Court, reading not only the decision but the dissenting arguments.
> 
> Thus to claim the Supreme Court holds Heller differently, or any other decision not 9-0, is dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel is a special case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh?
Click to expand...


If you ever want to be entertained, look up what he's posted. He's dogmatic beyond belief and has about a dozen stock phrases he constantly recycles, no matter how many times he gets trounced.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> People own weapons. Militias do not. People have the right to bear arms. Militias do not.
> 
> 
> 
> where do you get your propaganda and rhetoric from?
> 
> Our Second Amendment clearly expresses what is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Congress is responsible for arming the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The second amendment prevents Congress from making laws preventing people from owning guns. That's pretty much it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about the security of our free States, not natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court holds differently. Are you more of an authority than they are? If so, cite your qualifications.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can read the Constitution and have done so many times, I've also taken ConLaw and studied the rulings of the Supreme Court, reading not only the decision but the dissenting arguments.
> Thus to claim the Supreme Court holds Heller differently, or any other decision not 9-0, is dishonest.
Click to expand...

You said:
It is about the security of our free States, not natural rights
He means:
The USSC says otherwise.

He is, of course, correct.


----------



## Wry Catcher

WillPower said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the Second Amendment right is not ‘absolute. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” _ibid_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try taking our firearms and see what happens.
Click to expand...


Ask David Koresh.


----------



## WillPower

Wry Catcher said:


> Try taking our firearms and see what happens.



Ask David Koresh.[/QUOTE]

Ask the families of the 4 ATF agents killed in the initial raid.  Reno ordered a tank to pour flammable gas inside the compound and Cav helicopters to murder over 70 innocent Christians as they ran out the back from the inferno, a totally illegal act.  The good that came from it was a message to Clinturd he couldn't continue to murder Americans with opposing political views.  Reno is dead and burning in Hell for it and I hope to outlive Clinton so I can piss on his grave.  I'm sure your smug response is based on the premise you communists will murder those who won't surrender their weapons sometime in the future.  Try it.....the Military will win the first few days, and then take such horrific loses they'll turn on their officers, who in turn will rout the government that ordered it.


----------



## Wry Catcher

WillPower said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try taking our firearms and see what happens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ask David Koresh.
Click to expand...


Ask the families of the 4 ATF agents killed in the initial raid.  Reno ordered a tank to pour flammable gas inside the compound and Cav helicopters to murder over 70 innocent Christians as they ran out the back from the inferno, a totally illegal act.  The good that came from it was a message to Clinturd he couldn't continue to murder Americans with opposing political views.  Reno is dead and burning in Hell for it and I hope to outlive Clinton so I can piss on his grave.  I'm sure your smug response is based on the premise you communists will murder those who won't surrender their weapons sometime in the future.  Try it.....the Military will win the first few days, and then take such horrific loses they'll turn on their officers, who in turn will rout the government that ordered it.[/QUOTE]

I see, you've been in the reading room of the Ministry of Truth.


----------



## sealybobo

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillPower said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supremes can no more abolish the 2nd than they can any other amendment in the Bill of Rights.......those are cast in granite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny.  The 2nd Amendment means whatever SCOTUS says it means at any point in time.  It currently stands as a fossil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And or your state. Michigan for example almost passed a law saying you can open or conceal carry without taking the cow class. I would love that. I want to take guns up north and worry I’ll get a felony for transporting them wrong. I should be able to drive around lock and loaded. If not then we don’t really have the right, right?
> 
> Seems like my right has been limited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Limited, perhaps – but not ‘violated.’
> 
> Again, the Second Amendment right is not ‘absolute. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” _ibid_
Click to expand...

Yea but how can conservatives not defend any mans right to carry a gun? 

They talk about any new gun legislation being unconstitutional but so what? Whatever laws that exist now that say I can’t walk in the woods with my loaded gun, unless I take a class is too. 

I shouldn’t have to take a class. Talk about registering and monitoring all gun owners. The government knows where all you ccw permit carrying card members live. You’ve registered yourselves.

The truth is even republicans don’t want everyone walking around armed.


----------



## sealybobo

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> where do you get your propaganda and rhetoric from?
> 
> there is no such Thing as well regulated militia of Individuals of the People in our federal Republic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People own weapons. Militias do not. People have the right to bear arms. Militias do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> where do you get your propaganda and rhetoric from?
> 
> Our Second Amendment clearly expresses what is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Congress is responsible for arming the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The second amendment prevents Congress from making laws preventing people from owning guns. That's pretty much it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about the security of our free States, not natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court holds differently. Are you more of an authority than they are? If so, cite your qualifications.
Click to expand...

If the Supreme Court leaned left would you still be singing it’s praises?


----------



## buckeye45_73

sealybobo said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillPower said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supremes can no more abolish the 2nd than they can any other amendment in the Bill of Rights.......those are cast in granite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny.  The 2nd Amendment means whatever SCOTUS says it means at any point in time.  It currently stands as a fossil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And or your state. Michigan for example almost passed a law saying you can open or conceal carry without taking the cow class. I would love that. I want to take guns up north and worry I’ll get a felony for transporting them wrong. I should be able to drive around lock and loaded. If not then we don’t really have the right, right?
> 
> Seems like my right has been limited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Limited, perhaps – but not ‘violated.’
> 
> Again, the Second Amendment right is not ‘absolute. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” _ibid_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea but how can conservatives not defend any mans right to carry a gun?
> 
> They talk about any new gun legislation being unconstitutional but so what? Whatever laws that exist now that say I can’t walk in the woods with my loaded gun, unless I take a class is too.
> 
> I shouldn’t have to take a class. Talk about registering and monitoring all gun owners. The government knows where all you ccw permit carrying card members live. You’ve registered yourselves.
> 
> The truth is even republicans don’t want everyone walking around armed.
Click to expand...

I do except criminals....you get convicted you lose your rights....no issue with that


----------



## Rustic

sealybobo said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillPower said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supremes can no more abolish the 2nd than they can any other amendment in the Bill of Rights.......those are cast in granite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny.  The 2nd Amendment means whatever SCOTUS says it means at any point in time.  It currently stands as a fossil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And or your state. Michigan for example almost passed a law saying you can open or conceal carry without taking the cow class. I would love that. I want to take guns up north and worry I’ll get a felony for transporting them wrong. I should be able to drive around lock and loaded. If not then we don’t really have the right, right?
> 
> Seems like my right has been limited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Limited, perhaps – but not ‘violated.’
> 
> Again, the Second Amendment right is not ‘absolute. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” _ibid_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea but how can conservatives not defend any mans right to carry a gun?
> 
> They talk about any new gun legislation being unconstitutional but so what? Whatever laws that exist now that say I can’t walk in the woods with my loaded gun, unless I take a class is too.
> 
> I shouldn’t have to take a class. Talk about registering and monitoring all gun owners. The government knows where all you ccw permit carrying card members live. You’ve registered yourselves.
> 
> The truth is even republicans don’t want everyone walking around armed.
Click to expand...

Firearm registration is unconstitutional...
South Dakota now allows concealed handguns to be carried without a permit - CNN


----------



## progressive hunter

sealybobo said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> People own weapons. Militias do not. People have the right to bear arms. Militias do not.
> 
> 
> 
> where do you get your propaganda and rhetoric from?
> 
> Our Second Amendment clearly expresses what is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Congress is responsible for arming the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The second amendment prevents Congress from making laws preventing people from owning guns. That's pretty much it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about the security of our free States, not natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court holds differently. Are you more of an authority than they are? If so, cite your qualifications.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the Supreme Court leaned left would you still be singing it’s praises?
Click to expand...



not the job of SCOTUS to lean one way or the other,,,


----------



## Cellblock2429

Lakhota said:


> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
Click to expand...

/——/ Here’s a good reason to bear arms- protecting our borders from invaders, and apparently it’s working.
Mexico warns of 'deep concern' over armed groups on U.S. border - Reuters


----------



## hadit

sealybobo said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> People own weapons. Militias do not. People have the right to bear arms. Militias do not.
> 
> 
> 
> where do you get your propaganda and rhetoric from?
> 
> Our Second Amendment clearly expresses what is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Congress is responsible for arming the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The second amendment prevents Congress from making laws preventing people from owning guns. That's pretty much it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about the security of our free States, not natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court holds differently. Are you more of an authority than they are? If so, cite your qualifications.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the Supreme Court leaned left would you still be singing it’s praises?
Click to expand...


How is it singing praises to note that the SC has a lot of authority on the Constitution?


----------



## watchingfromafar

Rustic said:


> Firearm registration is unconstitutional...



So said the spider to the fly---


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Rustic said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillPower said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supremes can no more abolish the 2nd than they can any other amendment in the Bill of Rights.......those are cast in granite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny.  The 2nd Amendment means whatever SCOTUS says it means at any point in time.  It currently stands as a fossil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And or your state. Michigan for example almost passed a law saying you can open or conceal carry without taking the cow class. I would love that. I want to take guns up north and worry I’ll get a felony for transporting them wrong. I should be able to drive around lock and loaded. If not then we don’t really have the right, right?
> 
> Seems like my right has been limited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Limited, perhaps – but not ‘violated.’
> 
> Again, the Second Amendment right is not ‘absolute. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” _ibid_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea but how can conservatives not defend any mans right to carry a gun?
> 
> They talk about any new gun legislation being unconstitutional but so what? Whatever laws that exist now that say I can’t walk in the woods with my loaded gun, unless I take a class is too.
> 
> I shouldn’t have to take a class. Talk about registering and monitoring all gun owners. The government knows where all you ccw permit carrying card members live. You’ve registered yourselves.
> 
> The truth is even republicans don’t want everyone walking around armed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Firearm registration is unconstitutional...
> South Dakota now allows concealed handguns to be carried without a permit - CNN
Click to expand...


And exactly what is your per person per mile saturation in SD again?  Are people really beating a path to live there?  Remember, cupcake, I lived there for a few years and the best view I had was SD in my rear view mirror.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

sealybobo said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillPower said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supremes can no more abolish the 2nd than they can any other amendment in the Bill of Rights.......those are cast in granite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny.  The 2nd Amendment means whatever SCOTUS says it means at any point in time.  It currently stands as a fossil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And or your state. Michigan for example almost passed a law saying you can open or conceal carry without taking the cow class. I would love that. I want to take guns up north and worry I’ll get a felony for transporting them wrong. I should be able to drive around lock and loaded. If not then we don’t really have the right, right?
> 
> Seems like my right has been limited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Limited, perhaps – but not ‘violated.’
> 
> Again, the Second Amendment right is not ‘absolute. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” _ibid_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea but how can conservatives not defend any mans right to carry a gun?
> 
> They talk about any new gun legislation being unconstitutional but so what? Whatever laws that exist now that say I can’t walk in the woods with my loaded gun, unless I take a class is too.
> 
> I shouldn’t have to take a class. Talk about registering and monitoring all gun owners. The government knows where all you ccw permit carrying card members live. You’ve registered yourselves.
> 
> The truth is even republicans don’t want everyone walking around armed.
Click to expand...

Conservatives who claim that a new firearm regulatory measure is ‘un-Constitution’ are both ignorant and wrong.

Otherwise, that one must take a training course and have a license to carry a concealed firearm does not violate the Second Amendment.

Citizens may argue that such laws are pointless and ineffective, but they can’t claim that those laws are un-Constitutional.


----------



## Cellblock2429

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillPower said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supremes can no more abolish the 2nd than they can any other amendment in the Bill of Rights.......those are cast in granite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny.  The 2nd Amendment means whatever SCOTUS says it means at any point in time.  It currently stands as a fossil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And or your state. Michigan for example almost passed a law saying you can open or conceal carry without taking the cow class. I would love that. I want to take guns up north and worry I’ll get a felony for transporting them wrong. I should be able to drive around lock and loaded. If not then we don’t really have the right, right?
> 
> Seems like my right has been limited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Limited, perhaps – but not ‘violated.’
> 
> Again, the Second Amendment right is not ‘absolute. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” _ibid_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea but how can conservatives not defend any mans right to carry a gun?
> 
> They talk about any new gun legislation being unconstitutional but so what? Whatever laws that exist now that say I can’t walk in the woods with my loaded gun, unless I take a class is too.
> 
> I shouldn’t have to take a class. Talk about registering and monitoring all gun owners. The government knows where all you ccw permit carrying card members live. You’ve registered yourselves.
> 
> The truth is even republicans don’t want everyone walking around armed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conservatives who claim that a new firearm regulatory measure is ‘un-Constitution’ are both ignorant and wrong.
> 
> Otherwise, that one must take a training course and have a license to carry a concealed firearm does not violate the Second Amendment.
> 
> Citizens may argue that such laws are pointless and ineffective, but they can’t claim that those laws are un-Constitutional.
Click to expand...

/——/ Until the USSC rules they aren’t unConstitutional we sure can make that claim. It’s called the 1st Amendment


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

progressive hunter said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillPower said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supremes can no more abolish the 2nd than they can any other amendment in the Bill of Rights.......those are cast in granite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny.  The 2nd Amendment means whatever SCOTUS says it means at any point in time.  It currently stands as a fossil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And or your state. Michigan for example almost passed a law saying you can open or conceal carry without taking the cow class. I would love that. I want to take guns up north and worry I’ll get a felony for transporting them wrong. I should be able to drive around lock and loaded. If not then we don’t really have the right, right?
> 
> Seems like my right has been limited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Limited, perhaps – but not ‘violated.’
> 
> Again, the Second Amendment right is not ‘absolute. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” _ibid_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> case law clayton to the rescue,,,AGAIN,,,
> 
> and he still cant get it right
Click to expand...

lol

Dig up Scalia and argue with him about it; that’s a direct quote from Scalia.


----------



## Wry Catcher

progressive hunter said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> where do you get your propaganda and rhetoric from?
> 
> Our Second Amendment clearly expresses what is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Congress is responsible for arming the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The second amendment prevents Congress from making laws preventing people from owning guns. That's pretty much it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about the security of our free States, not natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court holds differently. Are you more of an authority than they are? If so, cite your qualifications.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the Supreme Court leaned left would you still be singing it’s praises?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> not the job of SCOTUS to lean one way or the other,,,
Click to expand...


Than why have Trump and McConnell chosen to pack the Supreme Court?


----------



## progressive hunter

Wry Catcher said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The second amendment prevents Congress from making laws preventing people from owning guns. That's pretty much it.
> 
> 
> 
> it is about the security of our free States, not natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court holds differently. Are you more of an authority than they are? If so, cite your qualifications.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the Supreme Court leaned left would you still be singing it’s praises?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> not the job of SCOTUS to lean one way or the other,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Than why have Trump and McConnell chosen to pack the Supreme Court?
Click to expand...

exactly how are they packing the court???

they guys he put in care more about the constitution than those progressive kunts obama put in


----------



## Rustic

Daryl Hunt said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny.  The 2nd Amendment means whatever SCOTUS says it means at any point in time.  It currently stands as a fossil.
> 
> 
> 
> And or your state. Michigan for example almost passed a law saying you can open or conceal carry without taking the cow class. I would love that. I want to take guns up north and worry I’ll get a felony for transporting them wrong. I should be able to drive around lock and loaded. If not then we don’t really have the right, right?
> 
> Seems like my right has been limited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Limited, perhaps – but not ‘violated.’
> 
> Again, the Second Amendment right is not ‘absolute. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” _ibid_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea but how can conservatives not defend any mans right to carry a gun?
> 
> They talk about any new gun legislation being unconstitutional but so what? Whatever laws that exist now that say I can’t walk in the woods with my loaded gun, unless I take a class is too.
> 
> I shouldn’t have to take a class. Talk about registering and monitoring all gun owners. The government knows where all you ccw permit carrying card members live. You’ve registered yourselves.
> 
> The truth is even republicans don’t want everyone walking around armed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Firearm registration is unconstitutional...
> South Dakota now allows concealed handguns to be carried without a permit - CNN
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And exactly what is your per person per mile saturation in SD again?  Are people really beating a path to live there?  Remember, cupcake, I lived there for a few years and the best view I had was SD in my rear view mirror.
Click to expand...

Lol
Violent crime is basically nonexistent in western South Dakota, doesn’t cost much to live in western South Dakota, it isn’t overrun with crazy’s like east/west coast and most of Colorado anymore, Regulations are at an minimum, Very few frivolous gun control laws, We do have all four seasons here, Lots of natural resources to take advantage of, No state income tax, Wide open spaces with decent scenery, And certainly is not crawling with people.. Sure it isn’t perfect, But a very decent place to live if you want to be left alone.


----------



## sealybobo

hadit said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> where do you get your propaganda and rhetoric from?
> 
> Our Second Amendment clearly expresses what is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Congress is responsible for arming the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The second amendment prevents Congress from making laws preventing people from owning guns. That's pretty much it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about the security of our free States, not natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court holds differently. Are you more of an authority than they are? If so, cite your qualifications.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the Supreme Court leaned left would you still be singing it’s praises?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is it singing praises to note that the SC has a lot of authority on the Constitution?
Click to expand...

And you love it now that it tilts your way. If they were libs you’d say they were legislating from the bench


----------



## sealybobo

progressive hunter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is about the security of our free States, not natural rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court holds differently. Are you more of an authority than they are? If so, cite your qualifications.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the Supreme Court leaned left would you still be singing it’s praises?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> not the job of SCOTUS to lean one way or the other,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Than why have Trump and McConnell chosen to pack the Supreme Court?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> exactly how are they packing the court???
> 
> they guys he put in care more about the constitution than those progressive kunts obama put in
Click to expand...

I love this care more about the constitution crap. No, they interpret it the way you like.

Well you’re going to find this new Supreme Court sees it the way rich people and corporations see it.

Are you rich?


----------



## sealybobo

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillPower said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supremes can no more abolish the 2nd than they can any other amendment in the Bill of Rights.......those are cast in granite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny.  The 2nd Amendment means whatever SCOTUS says it means at any point in time.  It currently stands as a fossil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And or your state. Michigan for example almost passed a law saying you can open or conceal carry without taking the cow class. I would love that. I want to take guns up north and worry I’ll get a felony for transporting them wrong. I should be able to drive around lock and loaded. If not then we don’t really have the right, right?
> 
> Seems like my right has been limited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Limited, perhaps – but not ‘violated.’
> 
> Again, the Second Amendment right is not ‘absolute. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” _ibid_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea but how can conservatives not defend any mans right to carry a gun?
> 
> They talk about any new gun legislation being unconstitutional but so what? Whatever laws that exist now that say I can’t walk in the woods with my loaded gun, unless I take a class is too.
> 
> I shouldn’t have to take a class. Talk about registering and monitoring all gun owners. The government knows where all you ccw permit carrying card members live. You’ve registered yourselves.
> 
> The truth is even republicans don’t want everyone walking around armed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conservatives who claim that a new firearm regulatory measure is ‘un-Constitution’ are both ignorant and wrong.
> 
> Otherwise, that one must take a training course and have a license to carry a concealed firearm does not violate the Second Amendment.
> 
> Citizens may argue that such laws are pointless and ineffective, but they can’t claim that those laws are un-Constitutional.
Click to expand...

Might as well say register yourself as a person they should go after if they ever want to round up the guns.

I shouldn’t have to jump through hoops to exercise my rights. You republicans put up with too many regulations


----------



## sealybobo

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillPower said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supremes can no more abolish the 2nd than they can any other amendment in the Bill of Rights.......those are cast in granite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny.  The 2nd Amendment means whatever SCOTUS says it means at any point in time.  It currently stands as a fossil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And or your state. Michigan for example almost passed a law saying you can open or conceal carry without taking the cow class. I would love that. I want to take guns up north and worry I’ll get a felony for transporting them wrong. I should be able to drive around lock and loaded. If not then we don’t really have the right, right?
> 
> Seems like my right has been limited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Limited, perhaps – but not ‘violated.’
> 
> Again, the Second Amendment right is not ‘absolute. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” _ibid_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> case law clayton to the rescue,,,AGAIN,,,
> 
> and he still cant get it right
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol
> 
> Dig up Scalia and argue with him about it; that’s a direct quote from Scalia.
Click to expand...

Maybe he’s just a rino


----------



## progressive hunter

sealybobo said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court holds differently. Are you more of an authority than they are? If so, cite your qualifications.
> 
> 
> 
> If the Supreme Court leaned left would you still be singing it’s praises?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> not the job of SCOTUS to lean one way or the other,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Than why have Trump and McConnell chosen to pack the Supreme Court?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> exactly how are they packing the court???
> 
> they guys he put in care more about the constitution than those progressive kunts obama put in
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I love this care more about the constitution crap. No, they interpret it the way you like.
> 
> Well you’re going to find this new Supreme Court sees it the way rich people and corporations see it.
> 
> Are you rich?
Click to expand...

what do you mean by rich???
the only savings account I have is the change bottle on my dresser,,,
I think you and I have a different view on what wealth is,,,


----------



## sealybobo

progressive hunter said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> where do you get your propaganda and rhetoric from?
> 
> Our Second Amendment clearly expresses what is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Congress is responsible for arming the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The second amendment prevents Congress from making laws preventing people from owning guns. That's pretty much it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is about the security of our free States, not natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court holds differently. Are you more of an authority than they are? If so, cite your qualifications.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the Supreme Court leaned left would you still be singing it’s praises?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> not the job of SCOTUS to lean one way or the other,,,
Click to expand...

And that’s why trump didn’t pick moderates. Got it.


----------



## sealybobo

progressive hunter said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Supreme Court leaned left would you still be singing it’s praises?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> not the job of SCOTUS to lean one way or the other,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Than why have Trump and McConnell chosen to pack the Supreme Court?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> exactly how are they packing the court???
> 
> they guys he put in care more about the constitution than those progressive kunts obama put in
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I love this care more about the constitution crap. No, they interpret it the way you like.
> 
> Well you’re going to find this new Supreme Court sees it the way rich people and corporations see it.
> 
> Are you rich?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what do you mean by rich???
> the only savings account I have is the change bottle on my dresser,,,
> I think you and I have a different view on what wealth is,,,
Click to expand...

If you can’t afford to retire @ 67 then you haven’t maga.


----------



## progressive hunter

sealybobo said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The second amendment prevents Congress from making laws preventing people from owning guns. That's pretty much it.
> 
> 
> 
> it is about the security of our free States, not natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court holds differently. Are you more of an authority than they are? If so, cite your qualifications.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the Supreme Court leaned left would you still be singing it’s praises?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> not the job of SCOTUS to lean one way or the other,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that’s why trump didn’t pick moderates. Got it.
Click to expand...

picking moderates is still stacking the courts,,,

seems you think its stacking if you dont agree with them,,,


----------



## progressive hunter

sealybobo said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> not the job of SCOTUS to lean one way or the other,,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Than why have Trump and McConnell chosen to pack the Supreme Court?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> exactly how are they packing the court???
> 
> they guys he put in care more about the constitution than those progressive kunts obama put in
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I love this care more about the constitution crap. No, they interpret it the way you like.
> 
> Well you’re going to find this new Supreme Court sees it the way rich people and corporations see it.
> 
> Are you rich?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what do you mean by rich???
> the only savings account I have is the change bottle on my dresser,,,
> I think you and I have a different view on what wealth is,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can’t afford to retire @ 67 then you haven’t maga.
Click to expand...

i'm retired at 53,,,


----------



## sealybobo

progressive hunter said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is about the security of our free States, not natural rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court holds differently. Are you more of an authority than they are? If so, cite your qualifications.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the Supreme Court leaned left would you still be singing it’s praises?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> not the job of SCOTUS to lean one way or the other,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that’s why trump didn’t pick moderates. Got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> picking moderates is still stacking the courts,,,
> 
> seems you think its stacking if you dont agree with them,,,
Click to expand...

Moderate meaning not a left or right wing nut


----------



## Wry Catcher

sealybobo said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court holds differently. Are you more of an authority than they are? If so, cite your qualifications.
> 
> 
> 
> If the Supreme Court leaned left would you still be singing it’s praises?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> not the job of SCOTUS to lean one way or the other,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Than why have Trump and McConnell chosen to pack the Supreme Court?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> exactly how are they packing the court???
> 
> they guys he put in care more about the constitution than those progressive kunts obama put in
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I love this care more about the constitution crap. No, they interpret it the way you like.
> 
> Well you’re going to find this new Supreme Court sees it the way rich people and corporations see it.
> 
> Are you rich?
Click to expand...


Calling Sotomayor, Kagan and Ginsburg "progressive kunts" is vulgar, hateful and despicable.

PH and others like him are an embarrassment to all American citizens. 

Does his family look up to hi8m for this misogynistic garbage?  Do the mods and administrator of the USMB have pride in the garbage he spews?  It seems so since he is still here.  Sadly.


----------



## sealybobo

progressive hunter said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Than why have Trump and McConnell chosen to pack the Supreme Court?
> 
> 
> 
> exactly how are they packing the court???
> 
> they guys he put in care more about the constitution than those progressive kunts obama put in
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I love this care more about the constitution crap. No, they interpret it the way you like.
> 
> Well you’re going to find this new Supreme Court sees it the way rich people and corporations see it.
> 
> Are you rich?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what do you mean by rich???
> the only savings account I have is the change bottle on my dresser,,,
> I think you and I have a different view on what wealth is,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can’t afford to retire @ 67 then you haven’t maga.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i'm retired at 53,,,
Click to expand...

Most people are not like you. Why should we vote like you vote?


----------



## progressive hunter

Wry Catcher said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Supreme Court leaned left would you still be singing it’s praises?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> not the job of SCOTUS to lean one way or the other,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Than why have Trump and McConnell chosen to pack the Supreme Court?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> exactly how are they packing the court???
> 
> they guys he put in care more about the constitution than those progressive kunts obama put in
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I love this care more about the constitution crap. No, they interpret it the way you like.
> 
> Well you’re going to find this new Supreme Court sees it the way rich people and corporations see it.
> 
> Are you rich?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Calling Sotomayor, Kagan and Ginsburg "progressive kunts" is vulgar, hateful and despicable.
> 
> You and others like you are an embarrassment to all American citizens.
> 
> Does your family look up to you for this misogynistic garbage?  Do the mods and administrator of the USMB have pride in the garbage you spew?
Click to expand...

just cause its vulgar doesnt mean its not true,,,,

does it hurt your feelings???


----------



## sealybobo

Wry Catcher said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Supreme Court leaned left would you still be singing it’s praises?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> not the job of SCOTUS to lean one way or the other,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Than why have Trump and McConnell chosen to pack the Supreme Court?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> exactly how are they packing the court???
> 
> they guys he put in care more about the constitution than those progressive kunts obama put in
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I love this care more about the constitution crap. No, they interpret it the way you like.
> 
> Well you’re going to find this new Supreme Court sees it the way rich people and corporations see it.
> 
> Are you rich?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Calling Sotomayor, Kagan and Ginsburg "progressive kunts" is vulgar, hateful and despicable.
> 
> You and others like you are an embarrassment to all American citizens.
> 
> Does your family look up to you for this misogynistic garbage?  Do the mods and administrator of the USMB have pride in the garbage you spew?
Click to expand...

Who are you talking to?


----------



## progressive hunter

sealybobo said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> exactly how are they packing the court???
> 
> they guys he put in care more about the constitution than those progressive kunts obama put in
> 
> 
> 
> I love this care more about the constitution crap. No, they interpret it the way you like.
> 
> Well you’re going to find this new Supreme Court sees it the way rich people and corporations see it.
> 
> Are you rich?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what do you mean by rich???
> the only savings account I have is the change bottle on my dresser,,,
> I think you and I have a different view on what wealth is,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can’t afford to retire @ 67 then you haven’t maga.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i'm retired at 53,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most people are not like you. Why should we vote like you vote?
Click to expand...

DUH!!!! most people are dummer,,,

well my way of voting has saved my soul from the rot of the democrat and republican partys actions,,,,


----------



## sealybobo

progressive hunter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> not the job of SCOTUS to lean one way or the other,,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Than why have Trump and McConnell chosen to pack the Supreme Court?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> exactly how are they packing the court???
> 
> they guys he put in care more about the constitution than those progressive kunts obama put in
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I love this care more about the constitution crap. No, they interpret it the way you like.
> 
> Well you’re going to find this new Supreme Court sees it the way rich people and corporations see it.
> 
> Are you rich?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Calling Sotomayor, Kagan and Ginsburg "progressive kunts" is vulgar, hateful and despicable.
> 
> You and others like you are an embarrassment to all American citizens.
> 
> Does your family look up to you for this misogynistic garbage?  Do the mods and administrator of the USMB have pride in the garbage you spew?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just cause its vulgar doesnt mean its not true,,,,
> 
> does it hurt your feelings???
Click to expand...

Those judges a good moderate judges. The righties always side against the people and with the rich and corporations


----------



## progressive hunter

sealybobo said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Than why have Trump and McConnell chosen to pack the Supreme Court?
> 
> 
> 
> exactly how are they packing the court???
> 
> they guys he put in care more about the constitution than those progressive kunts obama put in
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I love this care more about the constitution crap. No, they interpret it the way you like.
> 
> Well you’re going to find this new Supreme Court sees it the way rich people and corporations see it.
> 
> Are you rich?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Calling Sotomayor, Kagan and Ginsburg "progressive kunts" is vulgar, hateful and despicable.
> 
> You and others like you are an embarrassment to all American citizens.
> 
> Does your family look up to you for this misogynistic garbage?  Do the mods and administrator of the USMB have pride in the garbage you spew?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just cause its vulgar doesnt mean its not true,,,,
> 
> does it hurt your feelings???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those judges a good moderate judges. The righties always side against the people and with the rich and corporations
Click to expand...

theyre a cpl of baby killing tramps,,,,,


----------



## sealybobo

progressive hunter said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love this care more about the constitution crap. No, they interpret it the way you like.
> 
> Well you’re going to find this new Supreme Court sees it the way rich people and corporations see it.
> 
> Are you rich?
> 
> 
> 
> what do you mean by rich???
> the only savings account I have is the change bottle on my dresser,,,
> I think you and I have a different view on what wealth is,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can’t afford to retire @ 67 then you haven’t maga.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i'm retired at 53,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most people are not like you. Why should we vote like you vote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> DUH!!!! most people are dummer,,,
> 
> well my way of voting has saved my soul from the rot of the democrat and republican partys actions,,,,
Click to expand...

I’m going to be ok despite republicans not because of them.

Or, in an every man for himself system I’ll do better than most. I am now.

And those stupid shits either don’t vote or vote with you so honestly they deserve less


----------



## sealybobo

progressive hunter said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> exactly how are they packing the court???
> 
> they guys he put in care more about the constitution than those progressive kunts obama put in
> 
> 
> 
> I love this care more about the constitution crap. No, they interpret it the way you like.
> 
> Well you’re going to find this new Supreme Court sees it the way rich people and corporations see it.
> 
> Are you rich?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Calling Sotomayor, Kagan and Ginsburg "progressive kunts" is vulgar, hateful and despicable.
> 
> You and others like you are an embarrassment to all American citizens.
> 
> Does your family look up to you for this misogynistic garbage?  Do the mods and administrator of the USMB have pride in the garbage you spew?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just cause its vulgar doesnt mean its not true,,,,
> 
> does it hurt your feelings???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those judges a good moderate judges. The righties always side against the people and with the rich and corporations
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> theyre a cpl of baby killing tramps,,,,,
Click to expand...

I love abortion. Think about all the bad baby mamas on this planet right now. Now triple that number. That’s what we’d have without abortion.

Even republicans know this. It’s why you had the senate, White House, house of reps and Supreme Court for two years and they didn’t stop the murder.

Abortion must not be murder


----------



## Wry Catcher

sealybobo said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> not the job of SCOTUS to lean one way or the other,,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Than why have Trump and McConnell chosen to pack the Supreme Court?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> exactly how are they packing the court???
> 
> they guys he put in care more about the constitution than those progressive kunts obama put in
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I love this care more about the constitution crap. No, they interpret it the way you like.
> 
> Well you’re going to find this new Supreme Court sees it the way rich people and corporations see it.
> 
> Are you rich?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Calling Sotomayor, Kagan and Ginsburg "progressive kunts" is vulgar, hateful and despicable.
> 
> You and others like you are an embarrassment to all American citizens.
> 
> Does your family look up to you for this misogynistic garbage?  Do the mods and administrator of the USMB have pride in the garbage you spew?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who are you talking to?
Click to expand...


Not You.  I fixed my post after posting it, and saw my mistake.  Here is the repair:

*Calling Sotomayor, Kagan and Ginsburg "progressive kunts" is vulgar, hateful and despicable.

PH and others like him are an embarrassment to all American citizens. 

Does his family look up to him for this misogynistic garbage? Do the mods and administrator of the USMB have pride in the garbage he spews? It seems so since he is still here. Sadly.

Mea culpa.
*


----------



## progressive hunter

sealybobo said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> what do you mean by rich???
> the only savings account I have is the change bottle on my dresser,,,
> I think you and I have a different view on what wealth is,,,
> 
> 
> 
> If you can’t afford to retire @ 67 then you haven’t maga.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i'm retired at 53,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most people are not like you. Why should we vote like you vote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> DUH!!!! most people are dummer,,,
> 
> well my way of voting has saved my soul from the rot of the democrat and republican partys actions,,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m going to be ok despite republicans not because of them.
> 
> Or, in an every man for himself system I’ll do better than most. I am now.
> 
> And those stupid shits either don’t vote or vote with you so honestly they deserve less
Click to expand...

so you say,,,


----------



## progressive hunter

sealybobo said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love this care more about the constitution crap. No, they interpret it the way you like.
> 
> Well you’re going to find this new Supreme Court sees it the way rich people and corporations see it.
> 
> Are you rich?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calling Sotomayor, Kagan and Ginsburg "progressive kunts" is vulgar, hateful and despicable.
> 
> You and others like you are an embarrassment to all American citizens.
> 
> Does your family look up to you for this misogynistic garbage?  Do the mods and administrator of the USMB have pride in the garbage you spew?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just cause its vulgar doesnt mean its not true,,,,
> 
> does it hurt your feelings???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those judges a good moderate judges. The righties always side against the people and with the rich and corporations
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> theyre a cpl of baby killing tramps,,,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I love abortion. Think about all the bad baby mamas on this planet right now. Now triple that number. That’s what we’d have without abortion.
> 
> Even republicans know this. It’s why you had the senate, White House, house of reps and Supreme Court for two years and they didn’t stop the murder.
> 
> Abortion must not be murder
Click to expand...

sorry but its murder,,,,


----------



## M14 Shooter

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillPower said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Supremes can no more abolish the 2nd than they can any other amendment in the Bill of Rights.......those are cast in granite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny.  The 2nd Amendment means whatever SCOTUS says it means at any point in time.  It currently stands as a fossil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And or your state. Michigan for example almost passed a law saying you can open or conceal carry without taking the cow class. I would love that. I want to take guns up north and worry I’ll get a felony for transporting them wrong. I should be able to drive around lock and loaded. If not then we don’t really have the right, right?
> 
> Seems like my right has been limited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Limited, perhaps – but not ‘violated.’
> 
> Again, the Second Amendment right is not ‘absolute. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” _ibid_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea but how can conservatives not defend any mans right to carry a gun?
> 
> They talk about any new gun legislation being unconstitutional but so what? Whatever laws that exist now that say I can’t walk in the woods with my loaded gun, unless I take a class is too.
> 
> I shouldn’t have to take a class. Talk about registering and monitoring all gun owners. The government knows where all you ccw permit carrying card members live. You’ve registered yourselves.
> 
> The truth is even republicans don’t want everyone walking around armed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conservatives who claim that a new firearm regulatory measure is ‘un-Constitution’ are both ignorant and wrong.
> Otherwise, that one must take a training course and have a license to carry a concealed firearm does not violate the Second Amendment.
> Citizens may argue that such laws are pointless and ineffective, but they can’t claim that those laws are un-Constitutional.
Click to expand...

And YOU cannot point out where the USSC has ruled them constitutional.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> Than why have Trump and McConnell chosen to pack the Supreme Court?


McConnell and Trump increased the size of the court to add more conservative justices?


----------



## Wry Catcher

progressive hunter said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love this care more about the constitution crap. No, they interpret it the way you like.
> 
> Well you’re going to find this new Supreme Court sees it the way rich people and corporations see it.
> 
> Are you rich?
> 
> 
> 
> what do you mean by rich???
> the only savings account I have is the change bottle on my dresser,,,
> I think you and I have a different view on what wealth is,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can’t afford to retire @ 67 then you haven’t maga.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i'm retired at 53,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most people are not like you. Why should we vote like you vote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DUH!!!! most people are dummer,,,
> 
> well my way of voting has saved my soul from the rot of the democrat and republican partys actions,,,,
Click to expand...


Really, dummer than you?  Next time try dumber, it will be much less ironic.


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Than why have Trump and McConnell chosen to pack the Supreme Court?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> McConnell and Trump increased the size of the court to add more conservative justices?
Click to expand...


Why always with you a logical fallacy?  Your straw men are always put together with wet straw, clothed in asbestos and not once did you remember to bring a match.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

M14 Shooter said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny.  The 2nd Amendment means whatever SCOTUS says it means at any point in time.  It currently stands as a fossil.
> 
> 
> 
> And or your state. Michigan for example almost passed a law saying you can open or conceal carry without taking the cow class. I would love that. I want to take guns up north and worry I’ll get a felony for transporting them wrong. I should be able to drive around lock and loaded. If not then we don’t really have the right, right?
> 
> Seems like my right has been limited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Limited, perhaps – but not ‘violated.’
> 
> Again, the Second Amendment right is not ‘absolute. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” _ibid_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea but how can conservatives not defend any mans right to carry a gun?
> 
> They talk about any new gun legislation being unconstitutional but so what? Whatever laws that exist now that say I can’t walk in the woods with my loaded gun, unless I take a class is too.
> 
> I shouldn’t have to take a class. Talk about registering and monitoring all gun owners. The government knows where all you ccw permit carrying card members live. You’ve registered yourselves.
> 
> The truth is even republicans don’t want everyone walking around armed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conservatives who claim that a new firearm regulatory measure is ‘un-Constitution’ are both ignorant and wrong.
> Otherwise, that one must take a training course and have a license to carry a concealed firearm does not violate the Second Amendment.
> Citizens may argue that such laws are pointless and ineffective, but they can’t claim that those laws are un-Constitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And YOU cannot point out where the USSC has ruled them constitutional.
Click to expand...


If one has to pay for the course or license it's unconstitutional. You cannot be forced to pay for a right. Illinois is finding that out with their FOID cards.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

sealybobo said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> not the job of SCOTUS to lean one way or the other,,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Than why have Trump and McConnell chosen to pack the Supreme Court?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> exactly how are they packing the court???
> 
> they guys he put in care more about the constitution than those progressive kunts obama put in
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I love this care more about the constitution crap. No, they interpret it the way you like.
> 
> Well you’re going to find this new Supreme Court sees it the way rich people and corporations see it.
> 
> Are you rich?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what do you mean by rich???
> the only savings account I have is the change bottle on my dresser,,,
> I think you and I have a different view on what wealth is,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can’t afford to retire @ 67 then you haven’t maga.
Click to expand...


Careful using MAGA.  Are you aware where that came from in 2014?  Trump saw it laying around and said, "I think I'll use that".  It's in the Mueller report.


----------



## progressive hunter

Wry Catcher said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> what do you mean by rich???
> the only savings account I have is the change bottle on my dresser,,,
> I think you and I have a different view on what wealth is,,,
> 
> 
> 
> If you can’t afford to retire @ 67 then you haven’t maga.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i'm retired at 53,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most people are not like you. Why should we vote like you vote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DUH!!!! most people are dummer,,,
> 
> well my way of voting has saved my soul from the rot of the democrat and republican partys actions,,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really, dummer than you?  Next time try dumber, it will be much less ironic.
Click to expand...



thought I'd give you something to focus on since you dont understand the topic so much,,,


----------



## sealybobo

progressive hunter said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you can’t afford to retire @ 67 then you haven’t maga.
> 
> 
> 
> i'm retired at 53,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most people are not like you. Why should we vote like you vote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> DUH!!!! most people are dummer,,,
> 
> well my way of voting has saved my soul from the rot of the democrat and republican partys actions,,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m going to be ok despite republicans not because of them.
> 
> Or, in an every man for himself system I’ll do better than most. I am now.
> 
> And those stupid shits either don’t vote or vote with you so honestly they deserve less
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you say,,,
Click to expand...

How are you retired at 53? Everyone should take that path. What did you do?

Probably drawing disability. Lol


----------



## sealybobo

progressive hunter said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Calling Sotomayor, Kagan and Ginsburg "progressive kunts" is vulgar, hateful and despicable.
> 
> You and others like you are an embarrassment to all American citizens.
> 
> Does your family look up to you for this misogynistic garbage?  Do the mods and administrator of the USMB have pride in the garbage you spew?
> 
> 
> 
> just cause its vulgar doesnt mean its not true,,,,
> 
> does it hurt your feelings???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those judges a good moderate judges. The righties always side against the people and with the rich and corporations
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> theyre a cpl of baby killing tramps,,,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I love abortion. Think about all the bad baby mamas on this planet right now. Now triple that number. That’s what we’d have without abortion.
> 
> Even republicans know this. It’s why you had the senate, White House, house of reps and Supreme Court for two years and they didn’t stop the murder.
> 
> Abortion must not be murder
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sorry but its murder,,,,
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court and republicans clearly do not agree.


----------



## progressive hunter

sealybobo said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> just cause its vulgar doesnt mean its not true,,,,
> 
> does it hurt your feelings???
> 
> 
> 
> Those judges a good moderate judges. The righties always side against the people and with the rich and corporations
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> theyre a cpl of baby killing tramps,,,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I love abortion. Think about all the bad baby mamas on this planet right now. Now triple that number. That’s what we’d have without abortion.
> 
> Even republicans know this. It’s why you had the senate, White House, house of reps and Supreme Court for two years and they didn’t stop the murder.
> 
> Abortion must not be murder
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sorry but its murder,,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Supreme Court and republicans clearly do not agree.
Click to expand...

and theyve never been wrong before,,,


----------



## sealybobo

Daryl Hunt said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Than why have Trump and McConnell chosen to pack the Supreme Court?
> 
> 
> 
> exactly how are they packing the court???
> 
> they guys he put in care more about the constitution than those progressive kunts obama put in
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I love this care more about the constitution crap. No, they interpret it the way you like.
> 
> Well you’re going to find this new Supreme Court sees it the way rich people and corporations see it.
> 
> Are you rich?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what do you mean by rich???
> the only savings account I have is the change bottle on my dresser,,,
> I think you and I have a different view on what wealth is,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can’t afford to retire @ 67 then you haven’t maga.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Careful using MAGA.  Are you aware where that came from in 2014?  Trump saw it laying around and said, "I think I'll use that".  It's in the Mueller report.
Click to expand...

Well it should have come from a liberal progressive socialist democrat who is pro union and pro new deal. Pro labor laws and pensions. Pro social security, Medicare and affordable healthcare for all.

This is the time period when America was great. Liberal policies created a middle class never seen before.

The rich fought back. They started winning when Reagan conned America. Then gw bush. Then trump. The middle class is doomed


----------



## sealybobo

progressive hunter said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those judges a good moderate judges. The righties always side against the people and with the rich and corporations
> 
> 
> 
> theyre a cpl of baby killing tramps,,,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I love abortion. Think about all the bad baby mamas on this planet right now. Now triple that number. That’s what we’d have without abortion.
> 
> Even republicans know this. It’s why you had the senate, White House, house of reps and Supreme Court for two years and they didn’t stop the murder.
> 
> Abortion must not be murder
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sorry but its murder,,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Supreme Court and republicans clearly do not agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and theyve never been wrong before,,,
Click to expand...

I just point out your position is very unpopular. That or republicans are cowards. They’ve let you down. They say they are pro life but do little to stop the MURDER


----------



## progressive hunter

sealybobo said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> i'm retired at 53,,,
> 
> 
> 
> Most people are not like you. Why should we vote like you vote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> DUH!!!! most people are dummer,,,
> 
> well my way of voting has saved my soul from the rot of the democrat and republican partys actions,,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m going to be ok despite republicans not because of them.
> 
> Or, in an every man for himself system I’ll do better than most. I am now.
> 
> And those stupid shits either don’t vote or vote with you so honestly they deserve less
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you say,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How are you retired at 53? Everyone should take that path. What did you do?
> 
> Probably drawing disability. Lol
Click to expand...

its all about priorities,,,,

are the people that are retired and still working really retired???

WHAT IS RETIREMENT???

last I heard it was a communist thing to get the old people out of the way so the younger ones could be easily  indoctrinated into the communist party


----------



## progressive hunter

sealybobo said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> theyre a cpl of baby killing tramps,,,,,
> 
> 
> 
> I love abortion. Think about all the bad baby mamas on this planet right now. Now triple that number. That’s what we’d have without abortion.
> 
> Even republicans know this. It’s why you had the senate, White House, house of reps and Supreme Court for two years and they didn’t stop the murder.
> 
> Abortion must not be murder
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sorry but its murder,,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Supreme Court and republicans clearly do not agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and theyve never been wrong before,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just point out your position is very unpopular. That or republicans are cowards. They’ve let you down. They say they are pro life but do little to stop the MURDER
Click to expand...

pro life is just one of many reasons,,,no need to focus on just it since that has been debated to no end,,,


----------



## Daryl Hunt

sealybobo said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> exactly how are they packing the court???
> 
> they guys he put in care more about the constitution than those progressive kunts obama put in
> 
> 
> 
> I love this care more about the constitution crap. No, they interpret it the way you like.
> 
> Well you’re going to find this new Supreme Court sees it the way rich people and corporations see it.
> 
> Are you rich?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what do you mean by rich???
> the only savings account I have is the change bottle on my dresser,,,
> I think you and I have a different view on what wealth is,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can’t afford to retire @ 67 then you haven’t maga.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Careful using MAGA.  Are you aware where that came from in 2014?  Trump saw it laying around and said, "I think I'll use that".  It's in the Mueller report.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well it should have come from a liberal progressive socialist democrat who is pro union and pro new deal. Pro labor laws and pensions. Pro social security, Medicare and affordable healthcare for all.
> 
> This is the time period when America was great. Liberal policies created a middle class never seen before.
> 
> The rich fought back. They started winning when Reagan conned America. Then gw bush. Then trump. The middle class is doomed
Click to expand...


If you read the Mueller report you would know where it came from and wouldn't be touting it.  At least they got the color of the hat right.


----------



## sealybobo

Daryl Hunt said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love this care more about the constitution crap. No, they interpret it the way you like.
> 
> Well you’re going to find this new Supreme Court sees it the way rich people and corporations see it.
> 
> Are you rich?
> 
> 
> 
> what do you mean by rich???
> the only savings account I have is the change bottle on my dresser,,,
> I think you and I have a different view on what wealth is,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can’t afford to retire @ 67 then you haven’t maga.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Careful using MAGA.  Are you aware where that came from in 2014?  Trump saw it laying around and said, "I think I'll use that".  It's in the Mueller report.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well it should have come from a liberal progressive socialist democrat who is pro union and pro new deal. Pro labor laws and pensions. Pro social security, Medicare and affordable healthcare for all.
> 
> This is the time period when America was great. Liberal policies created a middle class never seen before.
> 
> The rich fought back. They started winning when Reagan conned America. Then gw bush. Then trump. The middle class is doomed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you read the Mueller report you would know where it came from and wouldn't be touting it.  At least they got the color of the hat right.
Click to expand...

But I do want to make America great again. Return it to we the people.

The corporations don’t know best, we the people do. Government isn’t the enemy. It needs to be taken back from them though.


----------



## sealybobo

progressive hunter said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love abortion. Think about all the bad baby mamas on this planet right now. Now triple that number. That’s what we’d have without abortion.
> 
> Even republicans know this. It’s why you had the senate, White House, house of reps and Supreme Court for two years and they didn’t stop the murder.
> 
> Abortion must not be murder
> 
> 
> 
> sorry but its murder,,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Supreme Court and republicans clearly do not agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and theyve never been wrong before,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just point out your position is very unpopular. That or republicans are cowards. They’ve let you down. They say they are pro life but do little to stop the MURDER
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> pro life is just one of many reasons,,,no need to focus on just it since that has been debated to no end,,,
Click to expand...

How is it you can afford to vote republican and retire in your 50s? You did that how exactly?


----------



## progressive hunter

sealybobo said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> what do you mean by rich???
> the only savings account I have is the change bottle on my dresser,,,
> I think you and I have a different view on what wealth is,,,
> 
> 
> 
> If you can’t afford to retire @ 67 then you haven’t maga.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Careful using MAGA.  Are you aware where that came from in 2014?  Trump saw it laying around and said, "I think I'll use that".  It's in the Mueller report.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well it should have come from a liberal progressive socialist democrat who is pro union and pro new deal. Pro labor laws and pensions. Pro social security, Medicare and affordable healthcare for all.
> 
> This is the time period when America was great. Liberal policies created a middle class never seen before.
> 
> The rich fought back. They started winning when Reagan conned America. Then gw bush. Then trump. The middle class is doomed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you read the Mueller report you would know where it came from and wouldn't be touting it.  At least they got the color of the hat right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I do want to make America great again. Return it to we the people.
> 
> The corporations don’t know best, we the people do. Government isn’t the enemy. It needs to be taken back from them though.
Click to expand...

the corp. argument is such bullshit,,,

you want the country back???

thats simple,,use the constitution,,,

after 35yrs of watching closely its clear the party system is the problem and the constitution is the solution,,,

a big factor when talking politics is to be specific as to which body you are talking about,,,state or federal,,

the states have far more power in some areas than the feds and vice versa,,this has been severely abused,,,


----------



## sealybobo

progressive hunter said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you can’t afford to retire @ 67 then you haven’t maga.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Careful using MAGA.  Are you aware where that came from in 2014?  Trump saw it laying around and said, "I think I'll use that".  It's in the Mueller report.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well it should have come from a liberal progressive socialist democrat who is pro union and pro new deal. Pro labor laws and pensions. Pro social security, Medicare and affordable healthcare for all.
> 
> This is the time period when America was great. Liberal policies created a middle class never seen before.
> 
> The rich fought back. They started winning when Reagan conned America. Then gw bush. Then trump. The middle class is doomed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you read the Mueller report you would know where it came from and wouldn't be touting it.  At least they got the color of the hat right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I do want to make America great again. Return it to we the people.
> 
> The corporations don’t know best, we the people do. Government isn’t the enemy. It needs to be taken back from them though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the corp. argument is such bullshit,,,
> 
> you want the country back???
> 
> thats simple,,use the constitution,,,
> 
> after 35yrs of watching closely its clear the party system is the problem and the constitution is the solution,,,
> 
> a big factor when talking politics is to be specific as to which body you are talking about,,,state or federal,,
> 
> the states have far more power in some areas than the feds and vice versa,,this has been severely abused,,,
Click to expand...

No it’s not bullshit. There was a time in America when corporations treated workers like shit. Workers unionized and brought everyone’s wages up. During this era is when America was great. Since union membership went from 35% of American workers down to about 10%, how has that worked out for us. Coincidence? Shouldn’t wages have went up as unions went away?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Supreme Court leaned left would you still be singing it’s praises?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> not the job of SCOTUS to lean one way or the other,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Than why have Trump and McConnell chosen to pack the Supreme Court?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> exactly how are they packing the court???
> 
> they guys he put in care more about the constitution than those progressive kunts obama put in
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I love this care more about the constitution crap. No, they interpret it the way you like.
> 
> Well you’re going to find this new Supreme Court sees it the way rich people and corporations see it.
> 
> Are you rich?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Calling Sotomayor, Kagan and Ginsburg "progressive kunts" is vulgar, hateful and despicable.
Click to expand...

And true.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Than why have Trump and McConnell chosen to pack the Supreme Court?
> 
> 
> 
> McConnell and Trump increased the size of the court to add more conservative justices?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why always with you a logical fallacy?  Your straw men are always put together with wet straw, clothed in asbestos and not once did you remember to bring a match.
Click to expand...

What's that?
You -don't- know what it means to "pack" a court?
Gee.  Surprise.


----------



## M14 Shooter

sealybobo said:


> This is the time period when America was great. Liberal policies created a middle class never seen before.


Protestant work ethic - the virtual antithesis of liberal policies - created a strong middle class.


----------



## progressive hunter

sealybobo said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Careful using MAGA.  Are you aware where that came from in 2014?  Trump saw it laying around and said, "I think I'll use that".  It's in the Mueller report.
> 
> 
> 
> Well it should have come from a liberal progressive socialist democrat who is pro union and pro new deal. Pro labor laws and pensions. Pro social security, Medicare and affordable healthcare for all.
> 
> This is the time period when America was great. Liberal policies created a middle class never seen before.
> 
> The rich fought back. They started winning when Reagan conned America. Then gw bush. Then trump. The middle class is doomed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you read the Mueller report you would know where it came from and wouldn't be touting it.  At least they got the color of the hat right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I do want to make America great again. Return it to we the people.
> 
> The corporations don’t know best, we the people do. Government isn’t the enemy. It needs to be taken back from them though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the corp. argument is such bullshit,,,
> 
> you want the country back???
> 
> thats simple,,use the constitution,,,
> 
> after 35yrs of watching closely its clear the party system is the problem and the constitution is the solution,,,
> 
> a big factor when talking politics is to be specific as to which body you are talking about,,,state or federal,,
> 
> the states have far more power in some areas than the feds and vice versa,,this has been severely abused,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it’s not bullshit. There was a time in America when corporations treated workers like shit. Workers unionized and brought everyone’s wages up. During this era is when America was great. Since union membership went from 35% of American workers down to about 10%, how has that worked out for us. Coincidence? Shouldn’t wages have went up as unions went away?
Click to expand...

when the fed  favors one group over another one are bound to get cheated if not both,,,

as I said be specific about which government body is the problem,,,


----------



## Wry Catcher

progressive hunter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you can’t afford to retire @ 67 then you haven’t maga.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i'm retired at 53,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most people are not like you. Why should we vote like you vote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DUH!!!! most people are dummer,,,
> 
> well my way of voting has saved my soul from the rot of the democrat and republican partys actions,,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really, dummer than you?  Next time try dumber, it will be much less ironic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> thought I'd give you something to focus on since you dont understand the topic so much,,,
Click to expand...


Ah huh, I'm sure that was your plan, you've proved to be so prosaic.


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Than why have Trump and McConnell chosen to pack the Supreme Court?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> McConnell and Trump increased the size of the court to add more conservative justices?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why always with you a logical fallacy?  Your straw men are always put together with wet straw, clothed in asbestos and not once did you remember to bring a match.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's that?
> You -don't- know what it means to "pack" a court?
> Gee.  Surprise.
Click to expand...


I do, and it seems you don't.  Pack, a verb meaning to cram a large number of things into (a container or space).


----------



## Wry Catcher

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Than why have Trump and McConnell chosen to pack the Supreme Court?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> McConnell and Trump increased the size of the court to add more conservative justices?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why always with you a logical fallacy?  Your straw men are always put together with wet straw, clothed in asbestos and not once did you remember to bring a match.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's that?
> You -don't- know what it means to "pack" a court?
> Gee.  Surprise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do, and it seems you don't.  Pack, a verb meaning to cram a large number of things into (a container or space).
Click to expand...


FDR wanted to expand the space.


----------



## Rustic

sealybobo said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> what do you mean by rich???
> the only savings account I have is the change bottle on my dresser,,,
> I think you and I have a different view on what wealth is,,,
> 
> 
> 
> If you can’t afford to retire @ 67 then you haven’t maga.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Careful using MAGA.  Are you aware where that came from in 2014?  Trump saw it laying around and said, "I think I'll use that".  It's in the Mueller report.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well it should have come from a liberal progressive socialist democrat who is pro union and pro new deal. Pro labor laws and pensions. Pro social security, Medicare and affordable healthcare for all.
> 
> This is the time period when America was great. Liberal policies created a middle class never seen before.
> 
> The rich fought back. They started winning when Reagan conned America. Then gw bush. Then trump. The middle class is doomed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you read the Mueller report you would know where it came from and wouldn't be touting it.  At least they got the color of the hat right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I do want to make America great again. Return it to we the people.
> 
> The corporations don’t know best, we the people do. Government isn’t the enemy. It needs to be taken back from them though.
Click to expand...

Government is the enemy


----------



## Dale Smith

sealybobo said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny.  The 2nd Amendment means whatever SCOTUS says it means at any point in time.  It currently stands as a fossil.
> 
> 
> 
> And or your state. Michigan for example almost passed a law saying you can open or conceal carry without taking the cow class. I would love that. I want to take guns up north and worry I’ll get a felony for transporting them wrong. I should be able to drive around lock and loaded. If not then we don’t really have the right, right?
> 
> Seems like my right has been limited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Limited, perhaps – but not ‘violated.’
> 
> Again, the Second Amendment right is not ‘absolute. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” _ibid_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea but how can conservatives not defend any mans right to carry a gun?
> 
> They talk about any new gun legislation being unconstitutional but so what? Whatever laws that exist now that say I can’t walk in the woods with my loaded gun, unless I take a class is too.
> 
> I shouldn’t have to take a class. Talk about registering and monitoring all gun owners. The government knows where all you ccw permit carrying card members live. You’ve registered yourselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is even republicans don’t want everyone walking around armed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conservatives who claim that a new firearm regulatory measure is ‘un-Constitution’ are both ignorant and wrong.
> 
> Otherwise, that one must take a training course and have a license to carry a concealed firearm does not violate the Second Amendment.
> 
> Citizens may argue that such laws are pointless and ineffective, but they can’t claim that those laws are un-Constitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Might as well say register yourself as a person they should go after if they ever want to round up the guns.
> 
> I shouldn’t have to jump through hoops to exercise my rights. You republicans put up with too many regulations
Click to expand...


You are registered as a "Person" which according to Black's Law dictionary also means you are a corporation.....


----------



## sealybobo

M14 Shooter said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the time period when America was great. Liberal policies created a middle class never seen before.
> 
> 
> 
> Protestant work ethic - the virtual antithesis of liberal policies - created a strong middle class.
Click to expand...

That didn’t bring wages up. That didn’t give us unemployment insurance, labor laws, minimum wages, overtime, disability, regulations that make the workplace safer, child labor laws.

You can’t just say Protestant work ethic created a strong middle class idiot you must explain, give evidence and explain how. 

You can’t and won’t. 

Let me guess you’re a Protestant?


----------



## sealybobo

Rustic said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you can’t afford to retire @ 67 then you haven’t maga.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Careful using MAGA.  Are you aware where that came from in 2014?  Trump saw it laying around and said, "I think I'll use that".  It's in the Mueller report.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well it should have come from a liberal progressive socialist democrat who is pro union and pro new deal. Pro labor laws and pensions. Pro social security, Medicare and affordable healthcare for all.
> 
> This is the time period when America was great. Liberal policies created a middle class never seen before.
> 
> The rich fought back. They started winning when Reagan conned America. Then gw bush. Then trump. The middle class is doomed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you read the Mueller report you would know where it came from and wouldn't be touting it.  At least they got the color of the hat right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I do want to make America great again. Return it to we the people.
> 
> The corporations don’t know best, we the people do. Government isn’t the enemy. It needs to be taken back from them though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Government is the enemy
Click to expand...

It’s your government fool. It’s been taken over by the rich fool. Stupid sucker


----------



## Blues Man

sealybobo said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> i'm retired at 53,,,
> 
> 
> 
> Most people are not like you. Why should we vote like you vote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> DUH!!!! most people are dummer,,,
> 
> well my way of voting has saved my soul from the rot of the democrat and republican partys actions,,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m going to be ok despite republicans not because of them.
> 
> Or, in an every man for himself system I’ll do better than most. I am now.
> 
> And those stupid shits either don’t vote or vote with you so honestly they deserve less
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you say,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How are you retired at 53? Everyone should take that path. What did you do?
> 
> Probably drawing disability. Lol
Click to expand...


I'm 54 and I don't work anymore.

I spent my 20's 30's and 40's  securing the foundation for passive income that will last until I die.

I flipped houses during the real estate boom and used all the profits to buy rental properties so all I have to do now is go to the mail box and collect my rent checks.

I have an LLC with 2 employees who do all the grunt work for me so all I do now is walk the dogs and play my guitar at local bars and open mic nights


----------



## SandSquid

SassyIrishLass said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And or your state. Michigan for example almost passed a law saying you can open or conceal carry without taking the cow class. I would love that. I want to take guns up north and worry I’ll get a felony for transporting them wrong. I should be able to drive around lock and loaded. If not then we don’t really have the right, right?
> 
> Seems like my right has been limited.
> 
> 
> 
> Limited, perhaps – but not ‘violated.’
> 
> Again, the Second Amendment right is not ‘absolute. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” _ibid_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea but how can conservatives not defend any mans right to carry a gun?
> 
> They talk about any new gun legislation being unconstitutional but so what? Whatever laws that exist now that say I can’t walk in the woods with my loaded gun, unless I take a class is too.
> 
> I shouldn’t have to take a class. Talk about registering and monitoring all gun owners. The government knows where all you ccw permit carrying card members live. You’ve registered yourselves.
> 
> The truth is even republicans don’t want everyone walking around armed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conservatives who claim that a new firearm regulatory measure is ‘un-Constitution’ are both ignorant and wrong.
> Otherwise, that one must take a training course and have a license to carry a concealed firearm does not violate the Second Amendment.
> Citizens may argue that such laws are pointless and ineffective, but they can’t claim that those laws are un-Constitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And YOU cannot point out where the USSC has ruled them constitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If one has to pay for the course or license it's unconstitutional. You cannot be forced to pay for a right. Illinois is finding that out with their FOID cards.
Click to expand...

Actually that is incorrect.  While the ownership of firearms in ones home to protect oneself has been deemed Constitutional, that SC hearing specifically said licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously.   

Yes there are limitations to our rights.  I can't arm myself with an RPG.  And I am all for MORE training and classes on firearm safety and impact of using them.  Also, I am not really into the socialist aspect that we will just put the financial burden on the masses, but some side with socialism.

Like the first amendment, I have the right to say what I want.  But that right doesn't cover everything.  I can't just say I want to have a speech at X university.  I need to get my permits, pay the costs associated with holding that event, etc.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

SandSquid said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Limited, perhaps – but not ‘violated.’
> 
> Again, the Second Amendment right is not ‘absolute. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” _ibid_
> 
> 
> 
> Yea but how can conservatives not defend any mans right to carry a gun?
> 
> They talk about any new gun legislation being unconstitutional but so what? Whatever laws that exist now that say I can’t walk in the woods with my loaded gun, unless I take a class is too.
> 
> I shouldn’t have to take a class. Talk about registering and monitoring all gun owners. The government knows where all you ccw permit carrying card members live. You’ve registered yourselves.
> 
> The truth is even republicans don’t want everyone walking around armed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conservatives who claim that a new firearm regulatory measure is ‘un-Constitution’ are both ignorant and wrong.
> Otherwise, that one must take a training course and have a license to carry a concealed firearm does not violate the Second Amendment.
> Citizens may argue that such laws are pointless and ineffective, but they can’t claim that those laws are un-Constitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And YOU cannot point out where the USSC has ruled them constitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If one has to pay for the course or license it's unconstitutional. You cannot be forced to pay for a right. Illinois is finding that out with their FOID cards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually that is incorrect.  While the ownership of firearms in ones home to protect oneself has been deemed Constitutional, that SC hearing specifically said licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously.
> 
> Yes there are limitations to our rights.  I can't arm myself with an RPG.  And I am all for MORE training and classes on firearm safety and impact of using them.  Also, I am not really into the socialist aspect that we will just put the financial burden on the masses, but some side with socialism.
> 
> Like the first amendment, I have the right to say what I want.  But that right doesn't cover everything.  I can't just say I want to have a speech at X university.  I need to get my permits, pay the costs associated with holding that event, etc.
Click to expand...


Then no more bitching about voter ID being a poll tax


----------



## progressive hunter

SandSquid said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Limited, perhaps – but not ‘violated.’
> 
> Again, the Second Amendment right is not ‘absolute. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” _ibid_
> 
> 
> 
> Yea but how can conservatives not defend any mans right to carry a gun?
> 
> They talk about any new gun legislation being unconstitutional but so what? Whatever laws that exist now that say I can’t walk in the woods with my loaded gun, unless I take a class is too.
> 
> I shouldn’t have to take a class. Talk about registering and monitoring all gun owners. The government knows where all you ccw permit carrying card members live. You’ve registered yourselves.
> 
> The truth is even republicans don’t want everyone walking around armed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conservatives who claim that a new firearm regulatory measure is ‘un-Constitution’ are both ignorant and wrong.
> Otherwise, that one must take a training course and have a license to carry a concealed firearm does not violate the Second Amendment.
> Citizens may argue that such laws are pointless and ineffective, but they can’t claim that those laws are un-Constitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And YOU cannot point out where the USSC has ruled them constitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If one has to pay for the course or license it's unconstitutional. You cannot be forced to pay for a right. Illinois is finding that out with their FOID cards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually that is incorrect.  While the ownership of firearms in ones home to protect oneself has been deemed Constitutional, that SC hearing specifically said licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously.
> 
> Yes there are limitations to our rights.  I can't arm myself with an RPG.  And I am all for MORE training and classes on firearm safety and impact of using them.  Also, I am not really into the socialist aspect that we will just put the financial burden on the masses, but some side with socialism.
> 
> Like the first amendment, I have the right to say what I want.  But that right doesn't cover everything.  I can't just say I want to have a speech at X university.  I need to get my permits, pay the costs associated with holding that event, etc.
Click to expand...

sorry but rights are not limited ,,,you either have them or you done,,,and just because you dont mind being controlled doesnt mean the rest of us will sit back like useful idiots....


thats what believing in evolution has done to you


----------



## Blues Man

SandSquid said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Limited, perhaps – but not ‘violated.’
> 
> Again, the Second Amendment right is not ‘absolute. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” _ibid_
> 
> 
> 
> Yea but how can conservatives not defend any mans right to carry a gun?
> 
> They talk about any new gun legislation being unconstitutional but so what? Whatever laws that exist now that say I can’t walk in the woods with my loaded gun, unless I take a class is too.
> 
> I shouldn’t have to take a class. Talk about registering and monitoring all gun owners. The government knows where all you ccw permit carrying card members live. You’ve registered yourselves.
> 
> The truth is even republicans don’t want everyone walking around armed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conservatives who claim that a new firearm regulatory measure is ‘un-Constitution’ are both ignorant and wrong.
> Otherwise, that one must take a training course and have a license to carry a concealed firearm does not violate the Second Amendment.
> Citizens may argue that such laws are pointless and ineffective, but they can’t claim that those laws are un-Constitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And YOU cannot point out where the USSC has ruled them constitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If one has to pay for the course or license it's unconstitutional. You cannot be forced to pay for a right. Illinois is finding that out with their FOID cards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually that is incorrect.  While the ownership of firearms in ones home to protect oneself has been deemed Constitutional, that SC hearing specifically said licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously.
> 
> Yes there are limitations to our rights.  I can't arm myself with an RPG.  And I am all for MORE training and classes on firearm safety and impact of using them.  Also, I am not really into the socialist aspect that we will just put the financial burden on the masses, but some side with socialism.
> 
> Like the first amendment, I have the right to say what I want.  But that right doesn't cover everything.  I can't just say I want to have a speech at X university.  I need to get my permits, pay the costs associated with holding that event, etc.
Click to expand...


The first amendment doesn't guarantee you that you can give a speech at a university even if you want to pay for it.

All the first amendment does is prevent the government from passing a law denying you freedom of speech.

No private venue is obligated to allow you to exercise your right on their property


----------



## Blues Man

progressive hunter said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea but how can conservatives not defend any mans right to carry a gun?
> 
> They talk about any new gun legislation being unconstitutional but so what? Whatever laws that exist now that say I can’t walk in the woods with my loaded gun, unless I take a class is too.
> 
> I shouldn’t have to take a class. Talk about registering and monitoring all gun owners. The government knows where all you ccw permit carrying card members live. You’ve registered yourselves.
> 
> The truth is even republicans don’t want everyone walking around armed.
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives who claim that a new firearm regulatory measure is ‘un-Constitution’ are both ignorant and wrong.
> Otherwise, that one must take a training course and have a license to carry a concealed firearm does not violate the Second Amendment.
> Citizens may argue that such laws are pointless and ineffective, but they can’t claim that those laws are un-Constitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And YOU cannot point out where the USSC has ruled them constitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If one has to pay for the course or license it's unconstitutional. You cannot be forced to pay for a right. Illinois is finding that out with their FOID cards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually that is incorrect.  While the ownership of firearms in ones home to protect oneself has been deemed Constitutional, that SC hearing specifically said licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously.
> 
> Yes there are limitations to our rights.  I can't arm myself with an RPG.  And I am all for MORE training and classes on firearm safety and impact of using them.  Also, I am not really into the socialist aspect that we will just put the financial burden on the masses, but some side with socialism.
> 
> Like the first amendment, I have the right to say what I want.  But that right doesn't cover everything.  I can't just say I want to have a speech at X university.  I need to get my permits, pay the costs associated with holding that event, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sorry but rights are not limited ,,,you either have them or you done,,,and just because you dont mind being controlled doesnt mean the rest of us will sit back like useful idiots....
> 
> 
> thats what believing in evolution has done to you
Click to expand...


The right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.  There are restrictions on rights when the exercise of those rights violate the rights of others


----------



## SandSquid

Blues Man said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea but how can conservatives not defend any mans right to carry a gun?
> 
> They talk about any new gun legislation being unconstitutional but so what? Whatever laws that exist now that say I can’t walk in the woods with my loaded gun, unless I take a class is too.
> 
> I shouldn’t have to take a class. Talk about registering and monitoring all gun owners. The government knows where all you ccw permit carrying card members live. You’ve registered yourselves.
> 
> The truth is even republicans don’t want everyone walking around armed.
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives who claim that a new firearm regulatory measure is ‘un-Constitution’ are both ignorant and wrong.
> Otherwise, that one must take a training course and have a license to carry a concealed firearm does not violate the Second Amendment.
> Citizens may argue that such laws are pointless and ineffective, but they can’t claim that those laws are un-Constitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And YOU cannot point out where the USSC has ruled them constitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If one has to pay for the course or license it's unconstitutional. You cannot be forced to pay for a right. Illinois is finding that out with their FOID cards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually that is incorrect.  While the ownership of firearms in ones home to protect oneself has been deemed Constitutional, that SC hearing specifically said licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously.
> 
> Yes there are limitations to our rights.  I can't arm myself with an RPG.  And I am all for MORE training and classes on firearm safety and impact of using them.  Also, I am not really into the socialist aspect that we will just put the financial burden on the masses, but some side with socialism.
> 
> Like the first amendment, I have the right to say what I want.  But that right doesn't cover everything.  I can't just say I want to have a speech at X university.  I need to get my permits, pay the costs associated with holding that event, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The first amendment doesn't guarantee you that you can give a speech at a university even if you want to pay for it.
> 
> All the first amendment does is prevent the government from passing a law denying you freedom of speech.
> 
> No private venue is obligated to allow you to exercise your right on their property
Click to expand...


That's kind of my point.  

Granted a university is a public venue (at least state run schools).   But even then the amendments aren't blanket statements.   Someone with a felony conviction of shooting his wife, who's served his time can't own a gun.  

The first says you can't be jailed for speech.  Doesn't say you can speak wherever you want.   Doesn't say you aren't responsible for your actions, doesn't say all speech should cost 0$ or be on the government dime.   Doesn't say if your speech attacks or causes harm to someone else you can't be held accountable.   etc.


----------



## progressive hunter

Blues Man said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives who claim that a new firearm regulatory measure is ‘un-Constitution’ are both ignorant and wrong.
> Otherwise, that one must take a training course and have a license to carry a concealed firearm does not violate the Second Amendment.
> Citizens may argue that such laws are pointless and ineffective, but they can’t claim that those laws are un-Constitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> And YOU cannot point out where the USSC has ruled them constitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If one has to pay for the course or license it's unconstitutional. You cannot be forced to pay for a right. Illinois is finding that out with their FOID cards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually that is incorrect.  While the ownership of firearms in ones home to protect oneself has been deemed Constitutional, that SC hearing specifically said licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously.
> 
> Yes there are limitations to our rights.  I can't arm myself with an RPG.  And I am all for MORE training and classes on firearm safety and impact of using them.  Also, I am not really into the socialist aspect that we will just put the financial burden on the masses, but some side with socialism.
> 
> Like the first amendment, I have the right to say what I want.  But that right doesn't cover everything.  I can't just say I want to have a speech at X university.  I need to get my permits, pay the costs associated with holding that event, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sorry but rights are not limited ,,,you either have them or you done,,,and just because you dont mind being controlled doesnt mean the rest of us will sit back like useful idiots....
> 
> 
> thats what believing in evolution has done to you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.  There are restrictions on rights when the exercise of those rights violate the rights of others
Click to expand...



correct,,, I dont have a right to harm others,,,but I do have a right to defend myself from others,,including the government,,,


----------



## progressive hunter

SandSquid said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives who claim that a new firearm regulatory measure is ‘un-Constitution’ are both ignorant and wrong.
> Otherwise, that one must take a training course and have a license to carry a concealed firearm does not violate the Second Amendment.
> Citizens may argue that such laws are pointless and ineffective, but they can’t claim that those laws are un-Constitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> And YOU cannot point out where the USSC has ruled them constitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If one has to pay for the course or license it's unconstitutional. You cannot be forced to pay for a right. Illinois is finding that out with their FOID cards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually that is incorrect.  While the ownership of firearms in ones home to protect oneself has been deemed Constitutional, that SC hearing specifically said licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously.
> 
> Yes there are limitations to our rights.  I can't arm myself with an RPG.  And I am all for MORE training and classes on firearm safety and impact of using them.  Also, I am not really into the socialist aspect that we will just put the financial burden on the masses, but some side with socialism.
> 
> Like the first amendment, I have the right to say what I want.  But that right doesn't cover everything.  I can't just say I want to have a speech at X university.  I need to get my permits, pay the costs associated with holding that event, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The first amendment doesn't guarantee you that you can give a speech at a university even if you want to pay for it.
> 
> All the first amendment does is prevent the government from passing a law denying you freedom of speech.
> 
> No private venue is obligated to allow you to exercise your right on their property
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's kind of my point.
> 
> Granted a university is a public venue (at least state run schools).   But even then the amendments aren't blanket statements.   Someone with a felony conviction of shooting his wife, who's served his time can't own a gun.
> 
> The first says you can't be jailed for speech.  Doesn't say you can speak wherever you want.   Doesn't say you aren't responsible for your actions, doesn't say all speech should cost 0$ or be on the government dime.   Doesn't say if your speech attacks or causes harm to someone else you can't be held accountable.   etc.
Click to expand...



sorry jr but thats not what the 1st says,,,and if a man shoots his wife why would he even be in a position to buy a gun??
he should be in jail for the rest of his life


----------



## Blues Man

progressive hunter said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> And YOU cannot point out where the USSC has ruled them constitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If one has to pay for the course or license it's unconstitutional. You cannot be forced to pay for a right. Illinois is finding that out with their FOID cards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually that is incorrect.  While the ownership of firearms in ones home to protect oneself has been deemed Constitutional, that SC hearing specifically said licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously.
> 
> Yes there are limitations to our rights.  I can't arm myself with an RPG.  And I am all for MORE training and classes on firearm safety and impact of using them.  Also, I am not really into the socialist aspect that we will just put the financial burden on the masses, but some side with socialism.
> 
> Like the first amendment, I have the right to say what I want.  But that right doesn't cover everything.  I can't just say I want to have a speech at X university.  I need to get my permits, pay the costs associated with holding that event, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sorry but rights are not limited ,,,you either have them or you done,,,and just because you dont mind being controlled doesnt mean the rest of us will sit back like useful idiots....
> 
> 
> thats what believing in evolution has done to you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.  There are restrictions on rights when the exercise of those rights violate the rights of others
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> correct,,, I dont have a right to harm others,,,but I do have a right to defend myself from others,,including the government,,,
Click to expand...


Yes and I fail to see how my owning guns or carrying a concealed weapon violates the rights of anyone else


----------



## progressive hunter

Blues Man said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> If one has to pay for the course or license it's unconstitutional. You cannot be forced to pay for a right. Illinois is finding that out with their FOID cards.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually that is incorrect.  While the ownership of firearms in ones home to protect oneself has been deemed Constitutional, that SC hearing specifically said licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously.
> 
> Yes there are limitations to our rights.  I can't arm myself with an RPG.  And I am all for MORE training and classes on firearm safety and impact of using them.  Also, I am not really into the socialist aspect that we will just put the financial burden on the masses, but some side with socialism.
> 
> Like the first amendment, I have the right to say what I want.  But that right doesn't cover everything.  I can't just say I want to have a speech at X university.  I need to get my permits, pay the costs associated with holding that event, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sorry but rights are not limited ,,,you either have them or you done,,,and just because you dont mind being controlled doesnt mean the rest of us will sit back like useful idiots....
> 
> 
> thats what believing in evolution has done to you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.  There are restrictions on rights when the exercise of those rights violate the rights of others
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> correct,,, I dont have a right to harm others,,,but I do have a right to defend myself from others,,including the government,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes and I fail to see how my owning guns or carrying a concealed weapon violates the rights of anyone else
Click to expand...

me either,,,


----------



## SandSquid

SassyIrishLass said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea but how can conservatives not defend any mans right to carry a gun?
> 
> They talk about any new gun legislation being unconstitutional but so what? Whatever laws that exist now that say I can’t walk in the woods with my loaded gun, unless I take a class is too.
> 
> I shouldn’t have to take a class. Talk about registering and monitoring all gun owners. The government knows where all you ccw permit carrying card members live. You’ve registered yourselves.
> 
> The truth is even republicans don’t want everyone walking around armed.
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives who claim that a new firearm regulatory measure is ‘un-Constitution’ are both ignorant and wrong.
> Otherwise, that one must take a training course and have a license to carry a concealed firearm does not violate the Second Amendment.
> Citizens may argue that such laws are pointless and ineffective, but they can’t claim that those laws are un-Constitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And YOU cannot point out where the USSC has ruled them constitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If one has to pay for the course or license it's unconstitutional. You cannot be forced to pay for a right. Illinois is finding that out with their FOID cards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually that is incorrect.  While the ownership of firearms in ones home to protect oneself has been deemed Constitutional, that SC hearing specifically said licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously.
> 
> Yes there are limitations to our rights.  I can't arm myself with an RPG.  And I am all for MORE training and classes on firearm safety and impact of using them.  Also, I am not really into the socialist aspect that we will just put the financial burden on the masses, but some side with socialism.
> 
> Like the first amendment, I have the right to say what I want.  But that right doesn't cover everything.  I can't just say I want to have a speech at X university.  I need to get my permits, pay the costs associated with holding that event, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then no more bitching about voter ID being a poll tax
Click to expand...

I'm not.


----------



## sealybobo

SandSquid said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Limited, perhaps – but not ‘violated.’
> 
> Again, the Second Amendment right is not ‘absolute. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” _ibid_
> 
> 
> 
> Yea but how can conservatives not defend any mans right to carry a gun?
> 
> They talk about any new gun legislation being unconstitutional but so what? Whatever laws that exist now that say I can’t walk in the woods with my loaded gun, unless I take a class is too.
> 
> I shouldn’t have to take a class. Talk about registering and monitoring all gun owners. The government knows where all you ccw permit carrying card members live. You’ve registered yourselves.
> 
> The truth is even republicans don’t want everyone walking around armed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conservatives who claim that a new firearm regulatory measure is ‘un-Constitution’ are both ignorant and wrong.
> Otherwise, that one must take a training course and have a license to carry a concealed firearm does not violate the Second Amendment.
> Citizens may argue that such laws are pointless and ineffective, but they can’t claim that those laws are un-Constitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And YOU cannot point out where the USSC has ruled them constitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If one has to pay for the course or license it's unconstitutional. You cannot be forced to pay for a right. Illinois is finding that out with their FOID cards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually that is incorrect.  While the ownership of firearms in ones home to protect oneself has been deemed Constitutional, that SC hearing specifically said licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously.
> 
> Yes there are limitations to our rights.  I can't arm myself with an RPG.  And I am all for MORE training and classes on firearm safety and impact of using them.  Also, I am not really into the socialist aspect that we will just put the financial burden on the masses, but some side with socialism.
> 
> Like the first amendment, I have the right to say what I want.  But that right doesn't cover everything.  I can't just say I want to have a speech at X university.  I need to get my permits, pay the costs associated with holding that event, etc.
Click to expand...


Cowards and hypocrites.  Look at you soft shoeing and toe tapping around the fact that you like gun regulations.  You are "all for" making someone take a class just to carry a 38 special around in their purse.  Doesn't take a rocket scientist to know how to use a gun.  I should have to pay and take the time to take your fucking classes and be registered with my local cops.  I should just be able to open my purse and put my loaded gun in it and go walk in the woods.

By the way I'm a dude but I'm trying to make a point.  You are restricting my rights.  You are making me take a class and jump through your hoops just to do what I am supposedly constitutionally legally allowed to do, BEAR ARMS.

bear 

(of a person) carry.
Fucking founders should have said CARRY.  Right to CARRY a gun.  How ridiculous I am legally allowed to have them in my home but when I go out I have to be a sheep unless I register and take a class and get put on the list.

Clearly Republicans in Michigan agree with me because they came very close to allowing anyone to carry without taking the class

Michigan state House approves carrying concealed guns without permit - Reuters

Does this mean I'm more conservative than you?  I want this bill to pass.  I don't think it did.  Nothing liberals could have done to stop it if it didn't pass so Republicans are hypocrites and like gun regulations too.  Don't be conned/fooled/duped.


----------



## sealybobo

The package of four bills, which cleared the Republican-controlled House with support from a handful of Democrats, now moves to the Senate, also dominated by Republicans.

It was not immediately clear whether Michigan’s Republican Governor Rick Snyder supports the bill. But the measure, if also approved in a Senate vote, could automatically become law 14 days after reaching the governor’s desk unless he vetoes it.

The legislation would lift a requirement that handgun owners obtain a concealed pistol license with a $100 fee to legally carry the weapon in public.

Handgun owners also would be allowed carry a concealed pistol in public without the firearms training that is currently mandated.


----------



## sealybobo

ScienceRocks said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> fyi;  the Second Amendment allows you to have the other amendments.
> 
> For those totally ignorant of history
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep,
> 
> Without the second the government can just take all of our rights away.
Click to expand...

They can take your rights away even with the second amendment.  What are you going to do about it?


----------



## SandSquid

sealybobo said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea but how can conservatives not defend any mans right to carry a gun?
> 
> They talk about any new gun legislation being unconstitutional but so what? Whatever laws that exist now that say I can’t walk in the woods with my loaded gun, unless I take a class is too.
> 
> I shouldn’t have to take a class. Talk about registering and monitoring all gun owners. The government knows where all you ccw permit carrying card members live. You’ve registered yourselves.
> 
> The truth is even republicans don’t want everyone walking around armed.
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives who claim that a new firearm regulatory measure is ‘un-Constitution’ are both ignorant and wrong.
> Otherwise, that one must take a training course and have a license to carry a concealed firearm does not violate the Second Amendment.
> Citizens may argue that such laws are pointless and ineffective, but they can’t claim that those laws are un-Constitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And YOU cannot point out where the USSC has ruled them constitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If one has to pay for the course or license it's unconstitutional. You cannot be forced to pay for a right. Illinois is finding that out with their FOID cards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually that is incorrect.  While the ownership of firearms in ones home to protect oneself has been deemed Constitutional, that SC hearing specifically said licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously.
> 
> Yes there are limitations to our rights.  I can't arm myself with an RPG.  And I am all for MORE training and classes on firearm safety and impact of using them.  Also, I am not really into the socialist aspect that we will just put the financial burden on the masses, but some side with socialism.
> 
> Like the first amendment, I have the right to say what I want.  But that right doesn't cover everything.  I can't just say I want to have a speech at X university.  I need to get my permits, pay the costs associated with holding that event, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cowards and hypocrites.  Look at you soft shoeing and toe tapping around the fact that you like gun regulations.  You are "all for" making someone take a class just to carry a 38 special around in their purse.  Doesn't take a rocket scientist to know how to use a gun.  I should have to pay and take the time to take your fucking classes and be registered with my local cops.  I should just be able to open my purse and put my loaded gun in it and go walk in the woods.
> 
> By the way I'm a dude but I'm trying to make a point.  You are restricting my rights.  You are making me take a class and jump through your hoops just to do what I am supposedly constitutionally legally allowed to do, BEAR ARMS.
> 
> bear
> 
> (of a person) carry.
> Fucking founders should have said CARRY.  Right to CARRY a gun.  How ridiculous I am legally allowed to have them in my home but when I go out I have to be a sheep unless I register and take a class and get put on the list.
> 
> Clearly Republicans in Michigan agree with me because they came very close to allowing anyone to carry without taking the class
> 
> Michigan state House approves carrying concealed guns without permit - Reuters
> 
> Does this mean I'm more conservative than you?  I want this bill to pass.  I don't think it did.  Nothing liberals could have done to stop it if it didn't pass so Republicans are hypocrites and like gun regulations too.  Don't be conned/fooled/duped.
Click to expand...


Fuck off..   I carry myself.  I don't want people taking away that right everytime some moron with no clue how to carry or shoot a firearm shoots his foot, his kid, uses it as a reason to win an argument rather than de-escalate the situation.

Yes I like sensible gun regulations.   Background checks, heck yes.   Keeping them out of the hands of violent criminals and crazy people.  Heck yes.   Making sure someone is well trained in that weapon before taking one in public, not only on the use of it, but legal ramifications of pulling it, HECK YES.


----------



## sealybobo

Rustic said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you can’t afford to retire @ 67 then you haven’t maga.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Careful using MAGA.  Are you aware where that came from in 2014?  Trump saw it laying around and said, "I think I'll use that".  It's in the Mueller report.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well it should have come from a liberal progressive socialist democrat who is pro union and pro new deal. Pro labor laws and pensions. Pro social security, Medicare and affordable healthcare for all.
> 
> This is the time period when America was great. Liberal policies created a middle class never seen before.
> 
> The rich fought back. They started winning when Reagan conned America. Then gw bush. Then trump. The middle class is doomed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you read the Mueller report you would know where it came from and wouldn't be touting it.  At least they got the color of the hat right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I do want to make America great again. Return it to we the people.
> 
> The corporations don’t know best, we the people do. Government isn’t the enemy. It needs to be taken back from them though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Government is the enemy
Click to expand...


I just realized Republicans are for gun regulations too.  

Michigan state House approves carrying concealed guns without permit - Reuters

The package of four bills, which cleared the Republican-controlled House with support from a handful of Democrats, now moves to the Senate, also dominated by Republicans.

It was not immediately clear whether Michigan’s Republican Governor Rick Snyder supports the bill. But the measure, if also approved in a Senate vote, could automatically become law 14 days after reaching the governor’s desk unless he vetoes it.

The legislation would lift a requirement that handgun owners obtain a concealed pistol license with a $100 fee to legally carry the weapon in public.

Handgun owners also would be allowed carry a concealed pistol in public without the firearms training that is currently mandated.

This bill did not pass.  I wanted it to.  I want to be able to carry my loaded gun up north and not be treated like a criminal for carrying my loaded gun in the car.  You fucking hypocrite pussy Republicans don't realize the Republicans are playing you.

They had every branch of government did they stop murdering babies?  Nope.

Do they let you freely carry a gun?  Not in Michigan, even though Republicans could have easily signed it into law.

Look what Republicans said

"It is currently legal in the state of Michigan for a law-abiding person to openly carry a firearm on their person without any training classes, fees or state bureaucracy," said Hoitenga. "It only becomes illegal when a person puts on a coat, because the gun then becomes concealed. One millimeter of clothing makes the difference between a criminal act and a legal act."

Opponents have criticized the bills, questioning whether they would allow people barred from getting a concealed carry license to carry concealed weapons anyway. 

The House passed the bills in June, and since then they've been stuck in the Government Operations Committee. Senate Majority Leader Arlan Meekhof, R-West Olive, who controls the committee, said in September the timing wasn't right to run the bills. 

That was when we had a Republican governor.  Now we have a Democratic Governor.  She will never signed this into law.  Republicans cowards.  They don't believe what they say.  Now they will start justifying gun regulations like these.


----------



## sealybobo

SandSquid said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives who claim that a new firearm regulatory measure is ‘un-Constitution’ are both ignorant and wrong.
> Otherwise, that one must take a training course and have a license to carry a concealed firearm does not violate the Second Amendment.
> Citizens may argue that such laws are pointless and ineffective, but they can’t claim that those laws are un-Constitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> And YOU cannot point out where the USSC has ruled them constitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If one has to pay for the course or license it's unconstitutional. You cannot be forced to pay for a right. Illinois is finding that out with their FOID cards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually that is incorrect.  While the ownership of firearms in ones home to protect oneself has been deemed Constitutional, that SC hearing specifically said licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously.
> 
> Yes there are limitations to our rights.  I can't arm myself with an RPG.  And I am all for MORE training and classes on firearm safety and impact of using them.  Also, I am not really into the socialist aspect that we will just put the financial burden on the masses, but some side with socialism.
> 
> Like the first amendment, I have the right to say what I want.  But that right doesn't cover everything.  I can't just say I want to have a speech at X university.  I need to get my permits, pay the costs associated with holding that event, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cowards and hypocrites.  Look at you soft shoeing and toe tapping around the fact that you like gun regulations.  You are "all for" making someone take a class just to carry a 38 special around in their purse.  Doesn't take a rocket scientist to know how to use a gun.  I should have to pay and take the time to take your fucking classes and be registered with my local cops.  I should just be able to open my purse and put my loaded gun in it and go walk in the woods.
> 
> By the way I'm a dude but I'm trying to make a point.  You are restricting my rights.  You are making me take a class and jump through your hoops just to do what I am supposedly constitutionally legally allowed to do, BEAR ARMS.
> 
> bear
> 
> (of a person) carry.
> Fucking founders should have said CARRY.  Right to CARRY a gun.  How ridiculous I am legally allowed to have them in my home but when I go out I have to be a sheep unless I register and take a class and get put on the list.
> 
> Clearly Republicans in Michigan agree with me because they came very close to allowing anyone to carry without taking the class
> 
> Michigan state House approves carrying concealed guns without permit - Reuters
> 
> Does this mean I'm more conservative than you?  I want this bill to pass.  I don't think it did.  Nothing liberals could have done to stop it if it didn't pass so Republicans are hypocrites and like gun regulations too.  Don't be conned/fooled/duped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck off..   I carry myself.  I don't want people taking away that right everytime some moron with no clue how to carry or shoot a firearm shoots his foot, his kid, uses it as a reason to win an argument rather than de-escalate the situation.
Click to expand...

So you agree with the regulations we have in place?


----------



## SandSquid

sealybobo said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> And YOU cannot point out where the USSC has ruled them constitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If one has to pay for the course or license it's unconstitutional. You cannot be forced to pay for a right. Illinois is finding that out with their FOID cards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually that is incorrect.  While the ownership of firearms in ones home to protect oneself has been deemed Constitutional, that SC hearing specifically said licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously.
> 
> Yes there are limitations to our rights.  I can't arm myself with an RPG.  And I am all for MORE training and classes on firearm safety and impact of using them.  Also, I am not really into the socialist aspect that we will just put the financial burden on the masses, but some side with socialism.
> 
> Like the first amendment, I have the right to say what I want.  But that right doesn't cover everything.  I can't just say I want to have a speech at X university.  I need to get my permits, pay the costs associated with holding that event, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cowards and hypocrites.  Look at you soft shoeing and toe tapping around the fact that you like gun regulations.  You are "all for" making someone take a class just to carry a 38 special around in their purse.  Doesn't take a rocket scientist to know how to use a gun.  I should have to pay and take the time to take your fucking classes and be registered with my local cops.  I should just be able to open my purse and put my loaded gun in it and go walk in the woods.
> 
> By the way I'm a dude but I'm trying to make a point.  You are restricting my rights.  You are making me take a class and jump through your hoops just to do what I am supposedly constitutionally legally allowed to do, BEAR ARMS.
> 
> bear
> 
> (of a person) carry.
> Fucking founders should have said CARRY.  Right to CARRY a gun.  How ridiculous I am legally allowed to have them in my home but when I go out I have to be a sheep unless I register and take a class and get put on the list.
> 
> Clearly Republicans in Michigan agree with me because they came very close to allowing anyone to carry without taking the class
> 
> Michigan state House approves carrying concealed guns without permit - Reuters
> 
> Does this mean I'm more conservative than you?  I want this bill to pass.  I don't think it did.  Nothing liberals could have done to stop it if it didn't pass so Republicans are hypocrites and like gun regulations too.  Don't be conned/fooled/duped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck off..   I carry myself.  I don't want people taking away that right everytime some moron with no clue how to carry or shoot a firearm shoots his foot, his kid, uses it as a reason to win an argument rather than de-escalate the situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you agree with the regulations we have in place?
Click to expand...


Some.  I think some could be made better.   


Such as all gun sales needing either a background check or proof of carry ID (which requires one to get).  Gun shows, etc... Unless it is gifted by a close family member.  And even then I think if the family member isn't willing to make the case that they are a safe owner in court someday, they should run a background check.  

I don't care for the 21 for rifles law in some states.  I think if you are old enough to fight in the military you should be able to own.  Or maybe a "meet in the middle"..  If you are under 21, you can buy with either a hunters safety, or carry permit class.  

I'm ok with the temporary removal if a cop, family member, teacher, or mental health professional deems that a risk.  Give it some hard dates (Must have evaluation within 30 days or something), but that is one of the big spots where these crazed shooters might be able to be stopped.  

I'd like a better carry course.  I think they cover some items well, classroom safety on types of firearms, classroom legal ramifications, etc, but some more live fire I think would be beneficial.  Maybe some situational training with mockups of situations.  Maybe a 2 weekend class to let it sink in instead of 4 hours.  I'd like to see it at a federal level too with full reciprocity.  And maybe part taught by law enforcement even.  

I think both sides get so dug in on both ends of the spectrum, when neither is for the best, we lose any chance of improving firearm laws.  

I'd like MUCH tougher laws against carrying while under the influence (I also want harder DUI laws myself).   Nothing good comes from guns and alcohol and I am ok for a much tougher stance there.


----------



## hadit

sealybobo said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Careful using MAGA.  Are you aware where that came from in 2014?  Trump saw it laying around and said, "I think I'll use that".  It's in the Mueller report.
> 
> 
> 
> Well it should have come from a liberal progressive socialist democrat who is pro union and pro new deal. Pro labor laws and pensions. Pro social security, Medicare and affordable healthcare for all.
> 
> This is the time period when America was great. Liberal policies created a middle class never seen before.
> 
> The rich fought back. They started winning when Reagan conned America. Then gw bush. Then trump. The middle class is doomed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you read the Mueller report you would know where it came from and wouldn't be touting it.  At least they got the color of the hat right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I do want to make America great again. Return it to we the people.
> 
> The corporations don’t know best, we the people do. Government isn’t the enemy. It needs to be taken back from them though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Government is the enemy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just realized Republicans are for gun regulations too.
> 
> Michigan state House approves carrying concealed guns without permit - Reuters
> 
> The package of four bills, which cleared the Republican-controlled House with support from a handful of Democrats, now moves to the Senate, also dominated by Republicans.
> 
> It was not immediately clear whether Michigan’s Republican Governor Rick Snyder supports the bill. But the measure, if also approved in a Senate vote, could automatically become law 14 days after reaching the governor’s desk unless he vetoes it.
> 
> The legislation would lift a requirement that handgun owners obtain a concealed pistol license with a $100 fee to legally carry the weapon in public.
> 
> Handgun owners also would be allowed carry a concealed pistol in public without the firearms training that is currently mandated.
> 
> This bill did not pass.  I wanted it to.  I want to be able to carry my loaded gun up north and not be treated like a criminal for carrying my loaded gun in the car.  You fucking hypocrite pussy Republicans don't realize the Republicans are playing you.
> 
> They had every branch of government did they stop murdering babies?  Nope.
> 
> Do they let you freely carry a gun?  Not in Michigan, even though Republicans could have easily signed it into law.
> 
> Look what Republicans said
> 
> "It is currently legal in the state of Michigan for a law-abiding person to openly carry a firearm on their person without any training classes, fees or state bureaucracy," said Hoitenga. "It only becomes illegal when a person puts on a coat, because the gun then becomes concealed. One millimeter of clothing makes the difference between a criminal act and a legal act."
> 
> Opponents have criticized the bills, questioning whether they would allow people barred from getting a concealed carry license to carry concealed weapons anyway.
> 
> The House passed the bills in June, and since then they've been stuck in the Government Operations Committee. Senate Majority Leader Arlan Meekhof, R-West Olive, who controls the committee, said in September the timing wasn't right to run the bills.
> 
> That was when we had a Republican governor.  Now we have a Democratic Governor.  She will never signed this into law.  Republicans cowards.  They don't believe what they say.  Now they will start justifying gun regulations like these.
Click to expand...


Is it a bad thing?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> I do, and it seems you don't.  Pack, a verb meaning to cram a large number of things into (a container or space).


Allow me to educate you - again.

"Packing the court" means to increase the size of the court so you can add enough justices that match your political persuasion to overtake an otherwise hostile majority.
packing the court - Google Search

REPLACING  outgoing with justices that match those being replaced isn't "packing" a court.


----------



## M14 Shooter

sealybobo said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the time period when America was great. Liberal policies created a middle class never seen before.
> 
> 
> 
> Protestant work ethic - the virtual antithesis of liberal policies - created a strong middle class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That didn’t bring wages up.
Click to expand...

Competition for good workers always bring wages up for said workers.


> That didn’t give us unemployment insurance, labor laws, minimum wages, overtime, disability, regulations that make the workplace safer, child labor laws.


Those things did not create a strong middle class - in fact, they, along with the remainder of liberal social engineering policy, create an entitled class, the antithesis of those who work hard.


> You can’t just say Protestant work ethic created a strong middle class idiot you must explain


Sure I can, you idiot.
But, because your aneurysm will burst if I don't...
People willing and able to work hard and work well will make more money than those who are not.
More people willing and able to work hard and well means a stronger middle class; fewer means a weaker middle class.
Thus, the protestant work ethic created and expanded the strong middle class.


----------



## M14 Shooter

sealybobo said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Careful using MAGA.  Are you aware where that came from in 2014?  Trump saw it laying around and said, "I think I'll use that".  It's in the Mueller report.
> 
> 
> 
> Well it should have come from a liberal progressive socialist democrat who is pro union and pro new deal. Pro labor laws and pensions. Pro social security, Medicare and affordable healthcare for all.
> 
> This is the time period when America was great. Liberal policies created a middle class never seen before.
> 
> The rich fought back. They started winning when Reagan conned America. Then gw bush. Then trump. The middle class is doomed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you read the Mueller report you would know where it came from and wouldn't be touting it.  At least they got the color of the hat right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I do want to make America great again. Return it to we the people.
> 
> The corporations don’t know best, we the people do. Government isn’t the enemy. It needs to be taken back from them though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Government is the enemy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s your government fool. It’s been taken over by the rich fool. Stupid sucker
Click to expand...

Does your mother know you use her iPhone to little the internet with such nonsense?


----------



## jillian

Lakhota said:


> Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited  never have been and never will be  Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star


Well regulated militia

Not psychotic trash


----------



## sealybobo

M14 Shooter said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the time period when America was great. Liberal policies created a middle class never seen before.
> 
> 
> 
> Protestant work ethic - the virtual antithesis of liberal policies - created a strong middle class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That didn’t bring wages up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Competition for good workers always bring wages up for said workers.
> 
> 
> 
> That didn’t give us unemployment insurance, labor laws, minimum wages, overtime, disability, regulations that make the workplace safer, child labor laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those things did not create a strong middle class - in fact, they, along with the remainder of liberal social engineering policy, create an entitled class, the antithesis of those who work hard.
> 
> 
> 
> You can’t just say Protestant work ethic created a strong middle class idiot you must explain
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure I can, you idiot.
> But, because your aneurysm will burst if I don't...
> People willing and able to work hard and work well will make more money than those who are not.
> More people willing and able to work hard and well means a stronger middle class; fewer means a weaker middle class.
> Thus, the protestant work ethic created and expanded the strong middle class.
Click to expand...


What?  I'm going to stop you on your first point.  We flooded the market with low wage/highly skilled illegal immigrants and that lowered the wages.  

So, you have nothing but generic catch phrases that may or may not even be right.

First you said:  Protestant work ethic - the virtual antithesis of liberal policies - created a strong middle class.

And now you come back with some random bullshit:  Competition for good workers always bring wages up for said workers.

Really?  So why are wages so staggeringly low still?  Right now we have more jobs than we do workers.  Wages should be through the roof.  They aren't but nothing is going to prove you wrong even reality.  

Now I'll keep reading your bullshit but so far you seem fos.


----------



## M14 Shooter

SandSquid said:


> Actually that is incorrect.  While the ownership of firearms in ones home to protect oneself has been deemed Constitutional, that SC hearing specifically said licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously.


That's not what the USSC said.
_-The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home_
----The court did not limit the constitutional protections for the exercise of the right to self-defense withing the home.

_-Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capricious_
----The court did not rule one way or the other in the licensing law, or that a licensing law is constitutional so long as it is not arbitrarily or capriciously enforced.


> Yes there are limitations to our rights.  I can't arm myself with an RPG.


A nearly universally agreed upon basic statement on rights:
Your right to (x) ends when it interferes with someone's right to (y)
 How does this apply to the right to keep and bear arms?


> Like the first amendment, I have the right to say what I want.  But that right doesn't cover everything.  I can't just say I want to have a speech at X university.  I need to get my permits, pay the costs associated with holding that event, etc.


Because you want to use public property, and the state has a compelling interest in maintaining order and safety when you do.
How does that apply to the the basic, simple  exercise of the right to keep and bear arms?


----------



## M14 Shooter

jillian said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited  never have been and never will be  Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia
Click to expand...

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home

how do you not know this?


----------



## Jitss617

sealybobo said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea but how can conservatives not defend any mans right to carry a gun?
> 
> They talk about any new gun legislation being unconstitutional but so what? Whatever laws that exist now that say I can’t walk in the woods with my loaded gun, unless I take a class is too.
> 
> I shouldn’t have to take a class. Talk about registering and monitoring all gun owners. The government knows where all you ccw permit carrying card members live. You’ve registered yourselves.
> 
> The truth is even republicans don’t want everyone walking around armed.
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives who claim that a new firearm regulatory measure is ‘un-Constitution’ are both ignorant and wrong.
> Otherwise, that one must take a training course and have a license to carry a concealed firearm does not violate the Second Amendment.
> Citizens may argue that such laws are pointless and ineffective, but they can’t claim that those laws are un-Constitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And YOU cannot point out where the USSC has ruled them constitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If one has to pay for the course or license it's unconstitutional. You cannot be forced to pay for a right. Illinois is finding that out with their FOID cards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually that is incorrect.  While the ownership of firearms in ones home to protect oneself has been deemed Constitutional, that SC hearing specifically said licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously.
> 
> Yes there are limitations to our rights.  I can't arm myself with an RPG.  And I am all for MORE training and classes on firearm safety and impact of using them.  Also, I am not really into the socialist aspect that we will just put the financial burden on the masses, but some side with socialism.
> 
> Like the first amendment, I have the right to say what I want.  But that right doesn't cover everything.  I can't just say I want to have a speech at X university.  I need to get my permits, pay the costs associated with holding that event, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cowards and hypocrites.  Look at you soft shoeing and toe tapping around the fact that you like gun regulations.  You are "all for" making someone take a class just to carry a 38 special around in their purse.  Doesn't take a rocket scientist to know how to use a gun.  I should have to pay and take the time to take your fucking classes and be registered with my local cops.  I should just be able to open my purse and put my loaded gun in it and go walk in the woods.
> 
> By the way I'm a dude but I'm trying to make a point.  You are restricting my rights.  You are making me take a class and jump through your hoops just to do what I am supposedly constitutionally legally allowed to do, BEAR ARMS.
> 
> bear
> 
> (of a person) carry.
> Fucking founders should have said CARRY.  Right to CARRY a gun.  How ridiculous I am legally allowed to have them in my home but when I go out I have to be a sheep unless I register and take a class and get put on the list.
> 
> Clearly Republicans in Michigan agree with me because they came very close to allowing anyone to carry without taking the class
> 
> Michigan state House approves carrying concealed guns without permit - Reuters
> 
> Does this mean I'm more conservative than you?  I want this bill to pass.  I don't think it did.  Nothing liberals could have done to stop it if it didn't pass so Republicans are hypocrites and like gun regulations too.  Don't be conned/fooled/duped.
Click to expand...

I don’t think you can read


----------



## sealybobo

Jitss617 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives who claim that a new firearm regulatory measure is ‘un-Constitution’ are both ignorant and wrong.
> Otherwise, that one must take a training course and have a license to carry a concealed firearm does not violate the Second Amendment.
> Citizens may argue that such laws are pointless and ineffective, but they can’t claim that those laws are un-Constitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> And YOU cannot point out where the USSC has ruled them constitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If one has to pay for the course or license it's unconstitutional. You cannot be forced to pay for a right. Illinois is finding that out with their FOID cards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually that is incorrect.  While the ownership of firearms in ones home to protect oneself has been deemed Constitutional, that SC hearing specifically said licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously.
> 
> Yes there are limitations to our rights.  I can't arm myself with an RPG.  And I am all for MORE training and classes on firearm safety and impact of using them.  Also, I am not really into the socialist aspect that we will just put the financial burden on the masses, but some side with socialism.
> 
> Like the first amendment, I have the right to say what I want.  But that right doesn't cover everything.  I can't just say I want to have a speech at X university.  I need to get my permits, pay the costs associated with holding that event, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cowards and hypocrites.  Look at you soft shoeing and toe tapping around the fact that you like gun regulations.  You are "all for" making someone take a class just to carry a 38 special around in their purse.  Doesn't take a rocket scientist to know how to use a gun.  I should have to pay and take the time to take your fucking classes and be registered with my local cops.  I should just be able to open my purse and put my loaded gun in it and go walk in the woods.
> 
> By the way I'm a dude but I'm trying to make a point.  You are restricting my rights.  You are making me take a class and jump through your hoops just to do what I am supposedly constitutionally legally allowed to do, BEAR ARMS.
> 
> bear
> 
> (of a person) carry.
> Fucking founders should have said CARRY.  Right to CARRY a gun.  How ridiculous I am legally allowed to have them in my home but when I go out I have to be a sheep unless I register and take a class and get put on the list.
> 
> Clearly Republicans in Michigan agree with me because they came very close to allowing anyone to carry without taking the class
> 
> Michigan state House approves carrying concealed guns without permit - Reuters
> 
> Does this mean I'm more conservative than you?  I want this bill to pass.  I don't think it did.  Nothing liberals could have done to stop it if it didn't pass so Republicans are hypocrites and like gun regulations too.  Don't be conned/fooled/duped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t think you can read
Click to expand...


Republicans talked about allowing people to conceal carry in Michigan.  I am all for them passing this law.  Any regulations that say I can't bare arms is unconstitutional.

Yet Republicans aren't even as conservative as I am on this matter.  They passed the law in the House of Reps but the Michigan Senate and/or Republican governor didn't get it done.  They said it wasn't time.  Maybe now that we have a Democratic governor they'll get it through?  NOT!  Fucking cowards.

Also, in 2018 Republicans controlled every branch of government yet they didn't ban abortion.  I guess abortion isn't murder after all.  Or, I guess they don't really agree with social conservatives that it's murder.  That's cool with me.  It's what I thought all along.


If you do not have a CPL license then you cannot carry a loadedfirearm in any vehicle. Unless the firearm is unloaded and is one or more of the following;




Taken down.
Enclosed in a case.
Carried in the trunk of the vehicle.
Inaccessible from the interior of the vehicle.
If you have a CPL license from Michigan then you can carry a loaded and concealed firearm in a vehicle.

*The Law*
750.227d – Transporting firearm


See, they say they tried to pass it  Michigan state House approves carrying concealed guns without permit - Reuters

But couldn't get it done when they controlled every branch of the government.  Republicans sure have you stupid poor Republicans conned with wedge issues they aren't even sincere about.


----------



## sealybobo

In other words gun regulations are not unconstitutional and Republicans know it.  They just don't want any more because it hurts gun sales.


----------



## sealybobo

M14 Shooter said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited  never have been and never will be  Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
> 
> how do you not know this?
Click to expand...

What about when I go out.  Why can't I take my gun with me?  Don't give me that shit I have to take a class.  That's a regulation and all Republicans know those are unconstitutional.


----------



## M14 Shooter

sealybobo said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited  never have been and never will be  Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
> 
> how do you not know this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about when I go out.  Why can't I take my gun with me?
Click to expand...

I can.


----------



## sealybobo

M14 Shooter said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited  never have been and never will be  Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
> 
> how do you not know this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about when I go out.  Why can't I take my gun with me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can.
Click to expand...

Because you went through the regulations and got a ccw permit.  You shouldn't have to do that to carry your gun.  I don't want to go through the hassle just to take a gun to and from my hunting property.

The fact you can or can't has no place here.  All that tells me is you accept that regulation.  I'm finding many Republicans are ok with certain gun regulations.  So not all regulations are bad.  Got it.


----------



## sealybobo

M14 Shooter said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your Second Amendment rights are not unlimited  never have been and never will be  Applesauce - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
> 
> how do you not know this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about when I go out.  Why can't I take my gun with me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can.
Click to expand...


Permitless concealed carry
Legislation pending in the MI Senate Government Operations Committee would let Michigan gun owners carry concealed weapons without needing a concealed weapon permit.

The bills are sponsored by Republican Reps. Michele Hoitenga, R-Manton; Pamela Hornberger, R-Chesterfield Twp.; Sue Allor, R-Wolverine; and Triston Cole, R-Mancelona.

"It is currently legal in the state of Michigan for a law-abiding person to openly carry a firearm on their person without any training classes, fees or state bureaucracy," said Hoitenga. "It only becomes illegal when a person puts on a coat, because the gun then becomes concealed. One millimeter of clothing makes the difference between a criminal act and a legal act."


Eliminating pistol registration
Rep. Lee Chatfield’s house bill 4554 would eliminate the requirement that Michiganders register their pistols.

Michigan is one of only six states to require registration, Chatfield said earlier this year. 

“Criminals don't register handguns they misuse for wrong, so what we end up with is a list that intrudes on the civil liberties of honest gun owners exercising their constitutional right to defend their families," Chatfield said.

The bill is pending in the House Judiciary Committee.

Read more about the bill here.


Republicans got none of this done before the Republican governor left office.  All talk.


----------



## M14 Shooter

sealybobo said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about when I go out.  Why can't I take my gun with me?
> 
> 
> 
> I can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because you went through the regulations and got a ccw permit.  You shouldn't have to do that to carry your gun.
Click to expand...

Nope. Open carry has always been legal in my state.


> The fact you can or can't has no place here


It does - it illustrates the limits you live under are a failure of the people of your state to elect the right people.


----------



## Rustic

sealybobo said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Careful using MAGA.  Are you aware where that came from in 2014?  Trump saw it laying around and said, "I think I'll use that".  It's in the Mueller report.
> 
> 
> 
> Well it should have come from a liberal progressive socialist democrat who is pro union and pro new deal. Pro labor laws and pensions. Pro social security, Medicare and affordable healthcare for all.
> 
> This is the time period when America was great. Liberal policies created a middle class never seen before.
> 
> The rich fought back. They started winning when Reagan conned America. Then gw bush. Then trump. The middle class is doomed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you read the Mueller report you would know where it came from and wouldn't be touting it.  At least they got the color of the hat right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I do want to make America great again. Return it to we the people.
> 
> The corporations don’t know best, we the people do. Government isn’t the enemy. It needs to be taken back from them though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Government is the enemy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s your government fool. It’s been taken over by the rich fool. Stupid sucker
Click to expand...

Lol
The deep state controls the government


----------



## sealybobo

M14 Shooter said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about when I go out.  Why can't I take my gun with me?
> 
> 
> 
> I can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because you went through the regulations and got a ccw permit.  You shouldn't have to do that to carry your gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. Open carry has always been legal in my state.
> 
> 
> 
> The fact you can or can't has no place here
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It does - it illustrates the limits you live under are a failure of the people of your state to elect the right people.
Click to expand...

Yes, the Republicans failed us.  

Or, is it common sense.  Do Michiganders want all the people in Detroit carrying around guns without getting CCW's?  Nope.

What state allows you to conceal carry without a CCW?


----------



## sealybobo

M14 Shooter said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about when I go out.  Why can't I take my gun with me?
> 
> 
> 
> I can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because you went through the regulations and got a ccw permit.  You shouldn't have to do that to carry your gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. Open carry has always been legal in my state.
> 
> 
> 
> The fact you can or can't has no place here
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It does - it illustrates the limits you live under are a failure of the people of your state to elect the right people.
Click to expand...


Found it 

Seven *states* — Maine, Arizona, Kansas, Wyoming, Alaska, Vermont, and now Missouri — do not require a *permit* *to* *carry* a *concealed* *handgun* within their borders.


----------



## M14 Shooter

sealybobo said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about when I go out.  Why can't I take my gun with me?
> 
> 
> 
> I can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because you went through the regulations and got a ccw permit.  You shouldn't have to do that to carry your gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. Open carry has always been legal in my state.
> 
> 
> 
> The fact you can or can't has no place here
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It does - it illustrates the limits you live under are a failure of the people of your state to elect the right people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, the Republicans failed us.
Click to expand...

No.   You failed you.


> What state allows you to conceal carry without a CCW?


Constitutional carry - Wikipedia


----------



## Rustic

sealybobo said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about when I go out.  Why can't I take my gun with me?
> 
> 
> 
> I can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because you went through the regulations and got a ccw permit.  You shouldn't have to do that to carry your gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. Open carry has always been legal in my state.
> 
> 
> 
> The fact you can or can't has no place here
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It does - it illustrates the limits you live under are a failure of the people of your state to elect the right people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Found it
> 
> Seven *states* — Maine, Arizona, Kansas, Wyoming, Alaska, Vermont, and now Missouri — do not require a *permit* *to* *carry* a *concealed* *handgun* within their borders.
Click to expand...

South Dakota now allows concealed handguns to be carried without a permit - CNN


----------



## sealybobo

Rustic said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about when I go out.  Why can't I take my gun with me?
> 
> 
> 
> I can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because you went through the regulations and got a ccw permit.  You shouldn't have to do that to carry your gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. Open carry has always been legal in my state.
> 
> 
> 
> The fact you can or can't has no place here
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It does - it illustrates the limits you live under are a failure of the people of your state to elect the right people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seven *states* — Maine, Arizona, Kansas, Wyoming, Alaska, Vermont, and now Missouri — do not require a *permit* *to* *carry* a *concealed* *handgun* within their borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> South Dakota now allows concealed handguns to be carried without a permit - CNN
Click to expand...


Wow.  I never thought it would pass.  Maybe there is hope here for Michigan.

Seven *states* — Maine, Arizona, Kansas, Wyoming, Alaska, Vermont, and now Missouri — do not require a *permit* *to* *carry* a *concealed* *handgun* within their borders.

So S. Dakota makes it 8?

This is like the legalized pot wave sweeping the country.  I love it.


----------



## Rustic

sealybobo said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can.
> 
> 
> 
> Because you went through the regulations and got a ccw permit.  You shouldn't have to do that to carry your gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. Open carry has always been legal in my state.
> 
> 
> 
> The fact you can or can't has no place here
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It does - it illustrates the limits you live under are a failure of the people of your state to elect the right people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seven *states* — Maine, Arizona, Kansas, Wyoming, Alaska, Vermont, and now Missouri — do not require a *permit* *to* *carry* a *concealed* *handgun* within their borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> South Dakota now allows concealed handguns to be carried without a permit - CNN
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow.  I never thought it would pass.  Maybe there is hope here for Michigan.
> 
> Seven *states* — Maine, Arizona, Kansas, Wyoming, Alaska, Vermont, and now Missouri — do not require a *permit* *to* *carry* a *concealed* *handgun* within their borders.
> 
> So S. Dakota makes it 8?
> 
> This is like the legalized pot wave sweeping the country.  I love it.
Click to expand...

“Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia and Wyoming also do not require a permit to carry a concealed weapon, the National Rifle Association and the National Conference of State Legislatures said”


----------



## watchingfromafar

Cellblock2429 said:


> /——/ Until the USSC rules they aren’t unConstitutional we sure can make that claim. It’s called the 1st Amendment


*
What does that have to do with guns-?*

*First Amendment to the United States Constitution*
_The *First Amendment* (*Amendment I*) to the United States Constitution prevents the government from making laws which respect an establishment of religion, prohibit the free exercise of religion, or abridge the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the right to peaceably assemble, or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights._
First Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

*What does this have to do with guns-?*

 Just asking -

I believe trump would like to take away all the above if he could which I believe he believes he can and sadly, will in due time

Just saying -


----------



## watchingfromafar

Rustic said:


> also do not require a permit to carry a concealed weapon, the National Rifle Association and the National Conference of State Legislatures said”



*Gun Control Is as Old as the Old West*
Contrary to the popular imagination, bearing arms on the frontier was a heavily regulated business

It's *October 26, 1881*, in Tombstone, and Arizona is not yet a state. The O.K. Corral is quiet, and it's had an unremarkable existence for the two years it's been standing—although it's about to become famous.

Marshall Virgil Earp, having deputized his brothers Wyatt and Morgan and his pal Doc Holliday, is having a gun control problem. Long-running tensions between the lawmen and a faction of cowboys – represented this morning by Billy Claiborne, the Clanton brothers, and the McLaury brothers – will come to a head over Tombstone's gun law.

*The laws of Tombstone at the time required visitors, upon entering town to disarm, either at a hotel or a lawman's office. *

Gun Control Is as Old as the Old West
Contrary to the popular imagination, bearing arms on the frontier was a heavily regulated business

image: https://thumbs-prod.si-cdn.com/7hLl651LYAFdrPD6uJnBbRi1Rj8=/800x600/filters:no_upscale()/https://public-media.si-cdn.com/filer/da/bc/dabc3b99-f221-4392-8e0a-a3b3f3d98af5/wright1913_dodge_city_in_1878_14782835852.jpg

The “Old West” conjures up all sorts of imagery, but broadly, the term is used to evoke life among the crusty prospectors, threadbare gold panners, madams of brothels, and six-shooter-packing cowboys in small frontier towns – such as Tombstone, Deadwood, Dodge City, or Abilene, to name a few. One other thing these cities had in common: strict gun control laws.

*Laws regulating ownership and carry of firearms*, apart from the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, were *passed at a local level rather than by Congress*. “Gun control laws were adopted pretty quickly in these places,” says Winkler*. “Most were adopted by municipal governments exercising self-control and self-determination.” *

*Carrying any kind of weapon, guns or knives, was not allowed other than outside town borders and inside the home. When visitors left their weapons with a law officer upon entering town, they'd receive a token, like a coat check, which they'd exchange for their guns when leaving town.*

The practice was started in Southern states, which *were among the first to enact laws against concealed carry of guns and knives, in the early 1800s. --* The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, points to an 1840 Alabama court that, in upholding its state ban, ruled it was a state's right to regulate where and how a citizen could carry, and that the state constitution's allowance of personal firearms *“is not to bear arms upon all occasions and in all places.”*

*Contrary to the popular imagination, bearing arms on the frontier was a heavily regulated business*

image: https://thumbs-prod.si-cdn.com/7hLl651LYAFdrPD6uJnBbRi1Rj8=/800x600/filters:no_upscale()/https://public-media.si-cdn.com/filer/da/bc/dabc3b99-f221-4392-8e0a-a3b3f3d98af5/wright1913_dodge_city_in_1878_14782835852.jpg

Dodge City in 1878 (Wikimedia Commons)

It's *October 26, 1881*, in Tombstone, and Arizona
The laws of Tombstone at the time required visitors, *upon entering town to disarm, either at a hotel or a lawman's office. *(Residents of many famed cattle towns, such as Dodge City, Abilene, and Deadwood, had similar restrictions.)
image: https://public-media.si-cdn.com/fil...d-4fac-8fc0-7ff859b10f21/mclauriesclanton.jpg

*"Tombstone had much more restrictive laws on carrying guns in public in the 1880s than it has today,” *says Adam Winkler, a professor and specialist in American constitutional law at UCLA School of Law. “Today, you're allowed to carry a gun without a license or permit on Tombstone streets. Back in the 1880s, you weren't.” Same goes for most of the New West, to varying degrees, in the once-rowdy frontier towns of Nevada, Kansas, Montana, and South Dakota.

*Dodge City, Kansas, formed a municipal government in 1878*. According to Stephen Aron, a professor of history at UCLA, the *first law passed was one prohibiting the carry of guns in town*, likely by civic leaders and influential merchants who wanted people to move there, invest their time and resources, and bring their families. Cultivating a reputation of peace and stability was necessary, even in boisterous towns, if it were to become anything more transient than a one-industry boom town.

Laws regulating ownership and carry of firearms, apart from the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, were passed at a local level rather than by Congress. “*Gun control laws were adopted pretty quickly in these places*,” says Winkler. “Most were adopted by municipal governments exercising self-control and self-determination.” *Carrying any kind of weapon, guns or knives, was not *allowed other than outside town borders and inside the home. *When visitors left their weapons with a law officer upon entering town, they'd receive a token, like a coat check, which they'd exchange for their guns when leaving town.*

*Louisiana, too, upheld an early ban on concealed carry firearms*. When a Kentucky court reversed its ban, the state constitution was amended to specify the *Kentucky general assembly was within its rights to, in the future, regulate or prohibit concealed carry*.

Still, Winkler says, it was an affirmation that regulation was compatible with the Second Amendment. The federal government of the 1800s largely stayed out of gun-law court battles.

“People were allowed to own guns, and everyone did own guns [in the West], for the most part,” says Winkler. “Having a firearm to protect yourself in the lawless wilderness from wild animals, hostile native tribes, and outlaws was a wise idea. *But when you came into town, you had to either check your guns if you were a visitor or keep your guns at home if you were a resident.”*

Published in 1903, Andy Adams’s Log of a Cowboy, a “slightly fictionalized” account of the author’s life on the cattle trails of the 1880s, was a refutation against the myth-making dime store novels of the day. The book, which included stories about lawless cowboys visiting Dodge City firing into the air to shoot out lights, has been called the most realistic written account of cowboy life and is still in print today.

Gun Control Is as Old as the Old West      |     History     | Smithsonian

Did the Wild West Have More Gun Control Than We Do Today?
*A check? *That’s right. *When you entered a frontier town, you were legally required to leave your guns at the stables on the outskirts of town or drop them off with the sheriff*, who would give you a token in exchange. You checked your guns then like you’d check your overcoat today at a Boston restaurant in winter. Visitors were welcome, but their guns were not.

While people were allowed to have guns at home for self-protection, frontier towns usually *barred anyone but law enforcement from carrying guns in public. *

When Dodge City residents organized their municipal government, do you know what the very first law they passed was? A gun control law. They declared that “any person or persons found carrying concealed weapons in the city of Dodge or violating the laws of the State shall be dealt with according to law.” Many frontier towns, including Tombstone, Arizona—the site of the infamous “Shootout at the OK Corral”—also barred the carrying of guns openly.

Today in Tombstone, you don’t even need a permit to carry around a firearm. Gun rights advocates are pushing lawmakers in state after state to do away with nearly all limits on the ability of people to have guns in public.

Like any law regulating things that are small and easy to conceal, the gun control of the Wild West wasn’t always perfectly enforced. But statistics show that, next to drunk and disorderly conduct, *the most common cause of arrest was illegally carrying a firearm. Sheriffs and marshals took gun control seriously.*
Did the Wild West Have More Gun Control Than We Do Today? | HuffPost

*Illinois town bans assault weapons, will fine those who keep them*

The town of Deerfield, Ill., has moved to ban assault weapons, including the AR-15 used in the school shooting in Parkland, Florida, claiming the measure will make the town more safe from mass shootings.

The ordinance was passed unanimously Monday by the Deerfield Village Board. It states the move is in the best interest of public health and will spur a culture change toward *"the normative value that assault weapons should have no role or purpose in civil society."*

It also takes a swing at a popular reading of the Second Amendment, stating the weapons are *"not reasonably necessary to protect an individual's right of self-defense" *or to preserve a well-regulated militia.

Illinois town bans assault weapons, will fine those who keep them

*Chicago suburb bans assault weapons in response to Parkland shooting*
With the future of federal gun control legislation uncertain, an affluent Chicago suburb this week took the aggressive step of *banning assault weapons within its borders*, in what local officials said was a direct response to the mass shooting at a Parkland, Fla., high school earlier this year.

*Officials in Deerfield, Ill., unanimously approved the ordinance, which prohibits the possession, manufacture or sale of a range of firearms, as well as large-capacity magazines. *Residents of the 19,000-person village have until June 13 to remove the guns from village limits or face up to $1,000 per day in fines.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...hooting/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.95db16134355

*Seattle will require gun owners to lock up their firearms*, after the City Council voted unanimously Monday to pass legislation proposed by Mayor Jenny Durkan.

Starting 180 days after Durkan signs the legislation, it will be *a civil infraction to store a gun without the firearm being secured in a locked container.*

The legislation will apply only to guns kept somewhere, rather than those carried by or under the control of their owners.

Also under the legislation, *it will be a civil infraction when an owner knows or should know that a minor, “at-risk person” or unauthorized user is likely to access a gun and such a person actually does access the weapon.*

The legislation allows fines up to $500 when a gun isn’t locked up, up to $1,000 when a prohibited person accesses a firearm and *up to $10,000 when a prohibited person uses the weapon to hurt someone or commit a crime.*
Gun owners face fines up to $10,000 for not locking up their guns under new Seattle law

The above was good gun control laws.
*Why/how all the above was abolished; puzzles the mind -*


----------



## Lakhota

Why is the shady NRA tax-exempt?

*NRA In Chaos As Wayne LaPierre Is Reportedly Asked To Resign*


----------



## Lakhota

The NRA is in deep shit.  

*BLACKMAIL AND BALLISTICS: THE NRA IN TURMOIL*


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lakhota said:


> Why is the shady NRA tax-exempt?
> 
> *NRA In Chaos As Wayne LaPierre Is Reportedly Asked To Resign*


"The National Rifle Association is in turmoil amid allegations that Oliver North, recently installed as the gun lobbying organization’s president, threatened to release damaging..."

The NRA is not the lobbying organization.  That is a separate entity. 

HuffPo fucking sucks at news.


----------



## Lakhota

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is the shady NRA tax-exempt?
> 
> *NRA In Chaos As Wayne LaPierre Is Reportedly Asked To Resign*
> 
> 
> 
> "The National Rifle Association is in turmoil amid allegations that Oliver North, recently installed as the gun lobbying organization’s president, threatened to release damaging..."
> 
> The NRA is not the lobbying organization.  That is a separate entity.
> 
> HuffPo fucking sucks at news.
Click to expand...


Bullshit.  It's all under the NRA umbrella.

*Is the NRA an educational organization? A lobby group? A nonprofit? A media outlet? Yes*


----------



## danielpalos

Rustic said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about when I go out.  Why can't I take my gun with me?
> 
> 
> 
> I can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because you went through the regulations and got a ccw permit.  You shouldn't have to do that to carry your gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. Open carry has always been legal in my state.
> 
> 
> 
> The fact you can or can't has no place here
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It does - it illustrates the limits you live under are a failure of the people of your state to elect the right people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Found it
> 
> Seven *states* — Maine, Arizona, Kansas, Wyoming, Alaska, Vermont, and now Missouri — do not require a *permit* *to* *carry* a *concealed* *handgun* within their borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> South Dakota now allows concealed handguns to be carried without a permit - CNN
Click to expand...

This is a simple exercise of the Traditional police power of a State and has nothing to do with our Second Amendment:


> SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Source: Illinois Constitution.)


----------



## Lakhota

Sounds like the shady NRA gun mafia is in deep shit.

*ROILED NRA STICKS TO ITS GUNS*


----------



## M14 Shooter

Lakhota said:


> Sounds like the shady NRA gun mafia is in deep shit.
> 
> *ROILED NRA STICKS TO ITS GUNS*


No one cares what you think...


----------



## g5000

The NRA is eating its own.

Crooked Oliver North is out.


----------



## Lakhota

*NRA IN CRISIS*

The NRA Is A Crashed Car On Fire, Ready To Explode

Great news!


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lakhota said:


> *NRA IN CRISIS*
> 
> The NRA Is A Crashed Car On Fire, Ready To Explode
> 
> Great news!


That just gives the other, better organizations room to rise.

The NRA is too weak, in my opinion.  They want all kinds of restrictions that other advocacy organizations see as nothing more than a soft assault on the inalienable right to have any weapon a potential opponent would have.  

We need an organization that will put machine guns back in the hands of citizens and protect us further from your communist revolution. 

.


----------



## Lakhota

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *NRA IN CRISIS*
> 
> The NRA Is A Crashed Car On Fire, Ready To Explode
> 
> Great news!
> 
> 
> 
> That just gives the other, better organizations room to rise.
> 
> The NRA is too weak, in my opinion.  They want all kinds of restrictions that other advocacy organizations see as nothing more than a soft assault on the inalienable right to have any weapon a potential opponent would have.
> 
> We need an organization that will put machine guns back in the hands of citizens and protect us further from your communist revolution.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Yeah, like Reagan's ban on assault weapons.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lakhota said:


> Yeah, like Reagan's ban on assault weapons.


You mean Reagan's racist ban as California Governor?  Yes.  I would agree that Reagan was shit.


----------



## Lakhota

*LEAKED DOCS REVEAL: NRA DROWNING IN DEBT*

Great news!


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Unfortunately the NRA isn't going anywhere.


----------



## M14 Shooter

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Unfortunately the NRA isn't going anywhere.


Yes...  your anti-gun fantasies will remain stymied by an informed voting public.


----------



## Rustic




----------



## Lakhota

*Ex-NRA President Warned That $24M In Legal Fees Could Strangle The Group*

Before his departure, Oliver North warned officials that $24 million and counting in legal fees may strangle the group.

Choke, baby, choke!


----------



## Lakhota

*NRA Board Members Say New President Lied About Disclosing Financial Troubles*

Leaked documents reveal the National Rifle Association is drowning in legal fees. Board members say they didn’t know.

*CIRCULAR FIRING SQUAD: NRA INFIGHTING MOUNTS!*

Drown, baby, drown!


----------



## Cecilie1200

WillPower said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And or your state. Michigan for example almost passed a law saying you can open or conceal carry without taking the cow class. I would love that. I want to take guns up north and worry I’ll get a felony for transporting them wrong. I should be able to drive around lock and loaded. If not then we don’t really have the right, right?
> 
> Seems like my right has been limited.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Back in the day, Michigan required any weapon in your possession not be "at hand" to endanger an officer.  In other words, it had to be locked, unloaded, in the glove box or trunk.  Here in Phoenix, the law has a trap-door if the cops want to mess with you....you can't have a loaded gun in your possession within several hundred feet of a school zone.  It's impossible to drive the city streets here without passing a school, and consequently committing a felony.
Click to expand...


It's entirely possible to drive past multiple schools without even realizing they're there.  I took the same route to work for two months and didn't realize I was driving past a charter school until it went back in session and they started putting out the "School Zone - 15 MPH" signs.


----------



## Zorro!

M14 Shooter said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> *NRA Could Lose Tax-Exempt Status Over Shady Business Practices, Report Says*
> Why does the NRA have tax-exempt status in the first place?  They're just a bunch of gun-running thugs.
Click to expand...

The NRA is America's oldest Civil Rights Organization.  The Left hates civil rights because they desire tyranny and imagine they would be in control of it.

I support a consumption tax for everyone, effectively ending non-profit/tax-exempt status completely.

As for The Right To Bear Arms:

Fireams Policy Coallition reported, 

"The Pennsylvania State Supreme Court issued a significant 53-page majority opinion in the criminal appeal of Commonwealth v. Hicks. Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF) filed an important coalition amicus brief cited by the Court supporting Hicks in December of 2017, alongside Firearms Owners Against Crime (FOAC) and seven Members of Pennsylvania’s General Assembly. The Court’s decision, concurring opinions, and the FPC/FPF amicus brief can be viewed at www.firearmspolicy.org/legal.​
"*At issue was whether someone’s carrying of a firearm could be used as reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct, and thus justification for police to conduct a stop-and-frisk of the gun owner. The court ruled in Hicks that such searches and seizures, in the absence of other evidence are completely unlawful.*"​
The appellant is Michael J. Hicks, who had a concealed gun permit, who was caught on a surveillance camera showing off his gun in June 2014. Officers stopped and frisked him.

The Morning Call reported,

"after officers smelled alcoholic beverages on Hicks’ breath, he was charged with drunken driving, among other misdemeanor offenses.​
"Hicks, then 35 and living in Allentown, asked a Lehigh County judge to throw out the charges on grounds that the stop was illegal, but the judge found his arrest was justified. He was convicted of driving under the influence of a high rate of alcohol for a second offense and sentenced to 30 days to six months in jail."​
Such a conviction would cost him his concealed gun permit. Justice was done. It took five years.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Zorro! said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> *NRA Could Lose Tax-Exempt Status Over Shady Business Practices, Report Says*
> Why does the NRA have tax-exempt status in the first place?  They're just a bunch of gun-running thugs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The NRA is America's oldest Civil Rights Organization.  The Left hates civil rights because they desire tyranny and imagine they would be in control of it.
> 
> I support a consumption tax for everyone, effectively ending non-profit/tax-exempt status completely.
> 
> As for The Right To Bear Arms:
> 
> Fireams Policy Coallition reported,
> 
> "The Pennsylvania State Supreme Court issued a significant 53-page majority opinion in the criminal appeal of Commonwealth v. Hicks. Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF) filed an important coalition amicus brief cited by the Court supporting Hicks in December of 2017, alongside Firearms Owners Against Crime (FOAC) and seven Members of Pennsylvania’s General Assembly. The Court’s decision, concurring opinions, and the FPC/FPF amicus brief can be viewed at www.firearmspolicy.org/legal.​
> "*At issue was whether someone’s carrying of a firearm could be used as reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct, and thus justification for police to conduct a stop-and-frisk of the gun owner. The court ruled in Hicks that such searches and seizures, in the absence of other evidence are completely unlawful.*"​
> The appellant is Michael J. Hicks, who had a concealed gun permit, who was caught on a surveillance camera showing off his gun in June 2014. Officers stopped and frisked him.
> 
> The Morning Call reported,
> 
> "after officers smelled alcoholic beverages on Hicks’ breath, he was charged with drunken driving, among other misdemeanor offenses.​
> "Hicks, then 35 and living in Allentown, asked a Lehigh County judge to throw out the charges on grounds that the stop was illegal, but the judge found his arrest was justified. He was convicted of driving under the influence of a high rate of alcohol for a second offense and sentenced to 30 days to six months in jail."​
> Such a conviction would cost him his concealed gun permit. Justice was done. It took five years.
Click to expand...

The right likes to lie.


----------



## M14 Shooter

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Zorro! said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> *NRA Could Lose Tax-Exempt Status Over Shady Business Practices, Report Says*
> Why does the NRA have tax-exempt status in the first place?  They're just a bunch of gun-running thugs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The NRA is America's oldest Civil Rights Organization.  The Left hates civil rights because they desire tyranny and imagine they would be in control of it.
> 
> I support a consumption tax for everyone, effectively ending non-profit/tax-exempt status completely.
> 
> As for The Right To Bear Arms:
> 
> Fireams Policy Coallition reported,
> 
> "The Pennsylvania State Supreme Court issued a significant 53-page majority opinion in the criminal appeal of Commonwealth v. Hicks. Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF) filed an important coalition amicus brief cited by the Court supporting Hicks in December of 2017, alongside Firearms Owners Against Crime (FOAC) and seven Members of Pennsylvania’s General Assembly. The Court’s decision, concurring opinions, and the FPC/FPF amicus brief can be viewed at www.firearmspolicy.org/legal.​
> "*At issue was whether someone’s carrying of a firearm could be used as reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct, and thus justification for police to conduct a stop-and-frisk of the gun owner. The court ruled in Hicks that such searches and seizures, in the absence of other evidence are completely unlawful.*"​
> The appellant is Michael J. Hicks, who had a concealed gun permit, who was caught on a surveillance camera showing off his gun in June 2014. Officers stopped and frisked him.
> 
> The Morning Call reported,
> 
> "after officers smelled alcoholic beverages on Hicks’ breath, he was charged with drunken driving, among other misdemeanor offenses.​
> "Hicks, then 35 and living in Allentown, asked a Lehigh County judge to throw out the charges on grounds that the stop was illegal, but the judge found his arrest was justified. He was convicted of driving under the influence of a high rate of alcohol for a second offense and sentenced to 30 days to six months in jail."​
> Such a conviction would cost him his concealed gun permit. Justice was done. It took five years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right likes to lie.
Click to expand...

Not as much as you do, however.


----------



## Lakhota

NRA Gets Subpoenas From D.C. Attorney General To Hand Over Financial Records

New York Attorney General Letitia James has also issued subpoenas for the records.

Good news!


----------



## westwall

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Zorro! said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> *NRA Could Lose Tax-Exempt Status Over Shady Business Practices, Report Says*
> Why does the NRA have tax-exempt status in the first place?  They're just a bunch of gun-running thugs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The NRA is America's oldest Civil Rights Organization.  The Left hates civil rights because they desire tyranny and imagine they would be in control of it.
> 
> I support a consumption tax for everyone, effectively ending non-profit/tax-exempt status completely.
> 
> As for The Right To Bear Arms:
> 
> Fireams Policy Coallition reported,
> 
> "The Pennsylvania State Supreme Court issued a significant 53-page majority opinion in the criminal appeal of Commonwealth v. Hicks. Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF) filed an important coalition amicus brief cited by the Court supporting Hicks in December of 2017, alongside Firearms Owners Against Crime (FOAC) and seven Members of Pennsylvania’s General Assembly. The Court’s decision, concurring opinions, and the FPC/FPF amicus brief can be viewed at www.firearmspolicy.org/legal.​
> "*At issue was whether someone’s carrying of a firearm could be used as reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct, and thus justification for police to conduct a stop-and-frisk of the gun owner. The court ruled in Hicks that such searches and seizures, in the absence of other evidence are completely unlawful.*"​
> The appellant is Michael J. Hicks, who had a concealed gun permit, who was caught on a surveillance camera showing off his gun in June 2014. Officers stopped and frisked him.
> 
> The Morning Call reported,
> 
> "after officers smelled alcoholic beverages on Hicks’ breath, he was charged with drunken driving, among other misdemeanor offenses.​
> "Hicks, then 35 and living in Allentown, asked a Lehigh County judge to throw out the charges on grounds that the stop was illegal, but the judge found his arrest was justified. He was convicted of driving under the influence of a high rate of alcohol for a second offense and sentenced to 30 days to six months in jail."​
> Such a conviction would cost him his concealed gun permit. Justice was done. It took five years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right likes to lie.
Click to expand...






And they don't hold a candle next to you, cupcake.


----------



## Pilot1

^^^^The Reservation called.  You're late for Fire Water Hour.


----------



## westwall

Lakhota said:


> NRA Gets Subpoenas From D.C. Attorney General To Hand Over Financial Records
> 
> New York Attorney General Letitia James has also issued subpoenas for the records.
> 
> Good news!







Yes, we all know how you stalinists want to control everything.  Can't do it if the serfs are armed though..


----------



## Frankeneinstein

Lakhota said:


> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
Click to expand...

There was a thread earlier today pretending that no one on the left is making this claim, this would have forced them to tweak their BS story...but as usual rosie its too little too late


----------



## mikegriffith1

Obsolete???!!! That is just an absurd argument. Ask the people who live under tyrannies if having the means to defend themselves is obsolete. Ask the thousands of people each year who find it necessary to use a gun to protect themselves and/or their property if guns are obsolete.


----------



## Lakhota

mikegriffith1 said:


> Obsolete???!!! That is just an absurd argument. Ask the people who live under tyrannies if having the means to defend themselves is obsolete. Ask the thousands of people each year who find it necessary to use a gun to protect themselves and/or their property if guns are obsolete.



Apples and oranges.  That has nothing to do with Russians funneling money to the NRA to help get Trump elected.  Investigators are looking for the Russia connection.


----------



## Wyatt earp

westwall said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> NRA Gets Subpoenas From D.C. Attorney General To Hand Over Financial Records
> 
> New York Attorney General Letitia James has also issued subpoenas for the records.
> 
> Good news!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we all know how you stalinists want to control everything.  Can't do it if the serfs are armed though..
Click to expand...



Holy crap westwall..


----------



## westwall

Lakhota said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obsolete???!!! That is just an absurd argument. Ask the people who live under tyrannies if having the means to defend themselves is obsolete. Ask the thousands of people each year who find it necessary to use a gun to protect themselves and/or their property if guns are obsolete.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apples and oranges.  That has nothing to do with Russians funneling money to the NRA to help get Trump elected.  Investigators are looking for the Russia connection.
Click to expand...







Shit, chief, they funneled more money to the shrilary than they did to trump.  Why doesn't that bother you?  Oh, yeah, 'cause you're a progressive stalinist, so of course you want pootins bitch to win!  How silly of me.


----------



## 2aguy

Lakhota said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obsolete???!!! That is just an absurd argument. Ask the people who live under tyrannies if having the means to defend themselves is obsolete. Ask the thousands of people each year who find it necessary to use a gun to protect themselves and/or their property if guns are obsolete.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apples and oranges.  That has nothing to do with Russians funneling money to the NRA to help get Trump elected.  Investigators are looking for the Russia connection.
Click to expand...



Wow....you must have been sleeping off a lot of booze....that lie hasn't been thrown around for months now....you have to catch up...we are already on the Trump knew epstein lie.....


----------



## Polishprince

Lakhota said:


> NRA Gets Subpoenas From D.C. Attorney General To Hand Over Financial Records
> 
> New York Attorney General Letitia James has also issued subpoenas for the records.
> 
> Good news!




What's so great about top governmental officials using their incredible power to harass their political opponents?

What's the goal of Ms. James here? To throw the NRA out of NY?  Imprison those who would stand up for their right to self-preservation?


----------



## Rigby5

Zorro! said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> *NRA Could Lose Tax-Exempt Status Over Shady Business Practices, Report Says*
> Why does the NRA have tax-exempt status in the first place?  They're just a bunch of gun-running thugs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The NRA is America's oldest Civil Rights Organization.  The Left hates civil rights because they desire tyranny and imagine they would be in control of it.
> 
> I support a consumption tax for everyone, effectively ending non-profit/tax-exempt status completely.
> 
> As for The Right To Bear Arms:
> 
> Fireams Policy Coallition reported,
> 
> "The Pennsylvania State Supreme Court issued a significant 53-page majority opinion in the criminal appeal of Commonwealth v. Hicks. Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF) filed an important coalition amicus brief cited by the Court supporting Hicks in December of 2017, alongside Firearms Owners Against Crime (FOAC) and seven Members of Pennsylvania’s General Assembly. The Court’s decision, concurring opinions, and the FPC/FPF amicus brief can be viewed at www.firearmspolicy.org/legal.​
> "*At issue was whether someone’s carrying of a firearm could be used as reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct, and thus justification for police to conduct a stop-and-frisk of the gun owner. The court ruled in Hicks that such searches and seizures, in the absence of other evidence are completely unlawful.*"​
> The appellant is Michael J. Hicks, who had a concealed gun permit, who was caught on a surveillance camera showing off his gun in June 2014. Officers stopped and frisked him.
> 
> The Morning Call reported,
> 
> "after officers smelled alcoholic beverages on Hicks’ breath, he was charged with drunken driving, among other misdemeanor offenses.​
> "Hicks, then 35 and living in Allentown, asked a Lehigh County judge to throw out the charges on grounds that the stop was illegal, but the judge found his arrest was justified. He was convicted of driving under the influence of a high rate of alcohol for a second offense and sentenced to 30 days to six months in jail."​
> Such a conviction would cost him his concealed gun permit. Justice was done. It took five years.
Click to expand...


Wrong.
A misdemeanor DUI does nothing at all to one's concealed carry permit. 
You need to be convicted of a felony to lose your rights.


----------



## Rigby5

Lakhota said:


> NRA Gets Subpoenas From D.C. Attorney General To Hand Over Financial Records
> 
> New York Attorney General Letitia James has also issued subpoenas for the records.
> 
> Good news!



I don't particularly like the political bias of the NRA, but why would this matter?
The NRA does nothing that harms anyone.
So who cares?


----------



## westwall

Rigby5 said:


> Zorro! said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> *NRA Could Lose Tax-Exempt Status Over Shady Business Practices, Report Says*
> Why does the NRA have tax-exempt status in the first place?  They're just a bunch of gun-running thugs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The NRA is America's oldest Civil Rights Organization.  The Left hates civil rights because they desire tyranny and imagine they would be in control of it.
> 
> I support a consumption tax for everyone, effectively ending non-profit/tax-exempt status completely.
> 
> As for The Right To Bear Arms:
> 
> Fireams Policy Coallition reported,
> 
> "The Pennsylvania State Supreme Court issued a significant 53-page majority opinion in the criminal appeal of Commonwealth v. Hicks. Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF) filed an important coalition amicus brief cited by the Court supporting Hicks in December of 2017, alongside Firearms Owners Against Crime (FOAC) and seven Members of Pennsylvania’s General Assembly. The Court’s decision, concurring opinions, and the FPC/FPF amicus brief can be viewed at www.firearmspolicy.org/legal.​
> "*At issue was whether someone’s carrying of a firearm could be used as reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct, and thus justification for police to conduct a stop-and-frisk of the gun owner. The court ruled in Hicks that such searches and seizures, in the absence of other evidence are completely unlawful.*"​
> The appellant is Michael J. Hicks, who had a concealed gun permit, who was caught on a surveillance camera showing off his gun in June 2014. Officers stopped and frisked him.
> 
> The Morning Call reported,
> 
> "after officers smelled alcoholic beverages on Hicks’ breath, he was charged with drunken driving, among other misdemeanor offenses.​
> "Hicks, then 35 and living in Allentown, asked a Lehigh County judge to throw out the charges on grounds that the stop was illegal, but the judge found his arrest was justified. He was convicted of driving under the influence of a high rate of alcohol for a second offense and sentenced to 30 days to six months in jail."​
> Such a conviction would cost him his concealed gun permit. Justice was done. It took five years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> A misdemeanor DUI does nothing at all to one's concealed carry permit.
> You need to be convicted of a felony to lose your rights.
Click to expand...





Depends on the State.  In Nevada any misdemeanor conviction results in the loss of your CCW.


----------



## Rigby5

mikegriffith1 said:


> Obsolete???!!! That is just an absurd argument. Ask the people who live under tyrannies if having the means to defend themselves is obsolete. Ask the thousands of people each year who find it necessary to use a gun to protect themselves and/or their property if guns are obsolete.



There are over 1 million successful serious violent crimes every year, so it it more likely that there are several million unsuccessful do to someone using defensive arms.


----------



## Rigby5

Lakhota said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obsolete???!!! That is just an absurd argument. Ask the people who live under tyrannies if having the means to defend themselves is obsolete. Ask the thousands of people each year who find it necessary to use a gun to protect themselves and/or their property if guns are obsolete.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apples and oranges.  That has nothing to do with Russians funneling money to the NRA to help get Trump elected.  Investigators are looking for the Russia connection.
Click to expand...


That seems pretty silly.
Actually, I kind of like the Russians.
They not only were our allies, but are not attacking countries all over the world, or trying to flood our markets with cheap plagiarized copies of our stuff.
We really have no conflict with them, and they have very little world presence.

But that has nothing to do with the post you were responding to.
The FACTS are that a democratic republic relies on the population being armed.
That was there is no need for an armed police or military, because an armed police or military always ends up causing the destruction of any democratic republic.
That is because police and military do what those who sign their paychecks want, not what we want.


----------



## Rigby5

westwall said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zorro! said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> *NRA Could Lose Tax-Exempt Status Over Shady Business Practices, Report Says*
> Why does the NRA have tax-exempt status in the first place?  They're just a bunch of gun-running thugs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The NRA is America's oldest Civil Rights Organization.  The Left hates civil rights because they desire tyranny and imagine they would be in control of it.
> 
> I support a consumption tax for everyone, effectively ending non-profit/tax-exempt status completely.
> 
> As for The Right To Bear Arms:
> 
> Fireams Policy Coallition reported,
> 
> "The Pennsylvania State Supreme Court issued a significant 53-page majority opinion in the criminal appeal of Commonwealth v. Hicks. Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF) filed an important coalition amicus brief cited by the Court supporting Hicks in December of 2017, alongside Firearms Owners Against Crime (FOAC) and seven Members of Pennsylvania’s General Assembly. The Court’s decision, concurring opinions, and the FPC/FPF amicus brief can be viewed at www.firearmspolicy.org/legal.​
> "*At issue was whether someone’s carrying of a firearm could be used as reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct, and thus justification for police to conduct a stop-and-frisk of the gun owner. The court ruled in Hicks that such searches and seizures, in the absence of other evidence are completely unlawful.*"​
> The appellant is Michael J. Hicks, who had a concealed gun permit, who was caught on a surveillance camera showing off his gun in June 2014. Officers stopped and frisked him.
> 
> The Morning Call reported,
> 
> "after officers smelled alcoholic beverages on Hicks’ breath, he was charged with drunken driving, among other misdemeanor offenses.​
> "Hicks, then 35 and living in Allentown, asked a Lehigh County judge to throw out the charges on grounds that the stop was illegal, but the judge found his arrest was justified. He was convicted of driving under the influence of a high rate of alcohol for a second offense and sentenced to 30 days to six months in jail."​
> Such a conviction would cost him his concealed gun permit. Justice was done. It took five years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> A misdemeanor DUI does nothing at all to one's concealed carry permit.
> You need to be convicted of a felony to lose your rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on the State.  In Nevada any misdemeanor conviction results in the loss of your CCW.
Click to expand...


That is not true.
Here is a quote from a brief summary of the requirements for a concealed carry permit in Nevada:
{...
8. No felony criminal conviction (regardless of crime or date of occurance). If you have a felony on your criminal record you can NOT obtain a CCW, nor can you own a handgun.

9. No misdemeanor criminal conviction that involved the use of violence or threats thereof within 3 years prior to submitting your application.
...}
Nevada CCW Permit Requirements

So only a misdemeanor involving threats and violence can cause the CCW to be revoked, and even then for only 3 years.
A DUI is not involving threats or violence.


----------



## westwall

Rigby5 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zorro! said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> *NRA Could Lose Tax-Exempt Status Over Shady Business Practices, Report Says*
> Why does the NRA have tax-exempt status in the first place?  They're just a bunch of gun-running thugs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The NRA is America's oldest Civil Rights Organization.  The Left hates civil rights because they desire tyranny and imagine they would be in control of it.
> 
> I support a consumption tax for everyone, effectively ending non-profit/tax-exempt status completely.
> 
> As for The Right To Bear Arms:
> 
> Fireams Policy Coallition reported,
> 
> "The Pennsylvania State Supreme Court issued a significant 53-page majority opinion in the criminal appeal of Commonwealth v. Hicks. Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF) filed an important coalition amicus brief cited by the Court supporting Hicks in December of 2017, alongside Firearms Owners Against Crime (FOAC) and seven Members of Pennsylvania’s General Assembly. The Court’s decision, concurring opinions, and the FPC/FPF amicus brief can be viewed at www.firearmspolicy.org/legal.​
> "*At issue was whether someone’s carrying of a firearm could be used as reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct, and thus justification for police to conduct a stop-and-frisk of the gun owner. The court ruled in Hicks that such searches and seizures, in the absence of other evidence are completely unlawful.*"​
> The appellant is Michael J. Hicks, who had a concealed gun permit, who was caught on a surveillance camera showing off his gun in June 2014. Officers stopped and frisked him.
> 
> The Morning Call reported,
> 
> "after officers smelled alcoholic beverages on Hicks’ breath, he was charged with drunken driving, among other misdemeanor offenses.​
> "Hicks, then 35 and living in Allentown, asked a Lehigh County judge to throw out the charges on grounds that the stop was illegal, but the judge found his arrest was justified. He was convicted of driving under the influence of a high rate of alcohol for a second offense and sentenced to 30 days to six months in jail."​
> Such a conviction would cost him his concealed gun permit. Justice was done. It took five years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> A misdemeanor DUI does nothing at all to one's concealed carry permit.
> You need to be convicted of a felony to lose your rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on the State.  In Nevada any misdemeanor conviction results in the loss of your CCW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not true.
> Here is a quote from a brief summary of the requirements for a concealed carry permit in Nevada:
> {...
> 8. No felony criminal conviction (regardless of crime or date of occurance). If you have a felony on your criminal record you can NOT obtain a CCW, nor can you own a handgun.
> 
> 9. No misdemeanor criminal conviction that involved the use of violence or threats thereof within 3 years prior to submitting your application.
> ...}
> Nevada CCW Permit Requirements
> 
> So only a misdemeanor involving threats and violence can cause the CCW to be revoked, and even then for only 3 years.
> A DUI is not involving threats or violence.
Click to expand...






Those are ISSUING requirements.  Get a misdemeanor arrest after you have it, and it is instantly placed on Suspension, and upon conviction it is Revoked.


----------



## Rigby5

Almost 900 pages.
This is silly.
How could anyone ever possibly consider gun control in a democratic republic?
Clearly a democratic republic must have the general population with superior right of arms than the police or military, or else you don't have a democratic republic.


----------



## westwall

Rigby5 said:


> Almost 900 pages.
> This is silly.
> How could anyone ever possibly consider gun control in a democratic republic?
> Clearly a democratic republic must have the general population with superior right of arms than the police or military, or else you don't have a democratic republic.







Because they don't want us to be a Constitutional Republic.  Before they can make that happen though, they must disarm us.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The right likes to lie.



Bill of Right attempts to make liberalism illegal yet you have it pictured above your name? Why??


----------



## bripat9643

westwall said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> NRA Gets Subpoenas From D.C. Attorney General To Hand Over Financial Records
> 
> New York Attorney General Letitia James has also issued subpoenas for the records.
> 
> Good news!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we all know how you stalinists want to control everything.  Can't do it if the serfs are armed though..
Click to expand...

That's the same woman who is going after Trump's tax records.


----------



## hadit

Lakhota said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obsolete???!!! That is just an absurd argument. Ask the people who live under tyrannies if having the means to defend themselves is obsolete. Ask the thousands of people each year who find it necessary to use a gun to protect themselves and/or their property if guns are obsolete.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apples and oranges.  That has nothing to do with Russians funneling money to the NRA to help get Trump elected.  Investigators are looking for the Russia connection.
Click to expand...


Man, Mueller should have just asked you instead of spending years and millions of dollars.


----------



## Rustic

Lakhota said:


> NRA Gets Subpoenas From D.C. Attorney General To Hand Over Financial Records
> 
> New York Attorney General Letitia James has also issued subpoenas for the records.
> 
> Good news!


Lol
Washington redskin...
Gun Owners of America | The only no compromise gun lobby in Washington


----------



## Rustic

Rustic said:


>


More firearms legally… Safer the community


----------



## Flash

Lakhota said:


> NRA Gets Subpoenas From D.C. Attorney General To Hand Over Financial Records
> 
> New York Attorney General Letitia James has also issued subpoenas for the records.
> 
> Good news!




The NRA has some high level corruption going on now.  The corruption has absolutely nothing to do with the right to keep and bear arms.  

Don't start your filthy Moon Bat party just yet.  Gun lobby money is being channeled through other sources now.

You are confused Moon Bat.  The NRA is losing members now but it is because they have been pandering too much to you filthy ass Libtard anti gun nut assholes instead of being strong proponents of our Constitutional rights.  They supported background checks, bump stock bans, age restrictions and all that other oppressive shit you Liberals love so much.  You should all be members but you are too stupid to figure it out.


----------



## hunarcy

Lakhota said:


> NRA Gets Subpoenas From D.C. Attorney General To Hand Over Financial Records
> 
> New York Attorney General Letitia James has also issued subpoenas for the records.
> 
> Good news!



Do away with the NRA and you'll be dealing with groups like:

RevolutionPAC.com
Second Amendment Foundation
Women Warrior PAC
CCRKBA.org
jpfo.org
gunowners.org
nationalgunrights.org

If you destroy the NRA, its members will move to these REALLY radical groups and make you wish the NRA was still around.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Rigby5 said:


> Almost 900 pages.
> This is silly.
> How could anyone ever possibly consider gun control in a democratic republic?
> Clearly a democratic republic must have the general population with superior right of arms than the police or military, or else you don't have a democratic republic.


No, this post is silly.

The United States is a Constitutional Republic; and in our Constitutional Republic government has the authority to enact all manner of laws, measures, and regulation provided they’re consistent with Constitutional case law – including the regulation of firearms.

And firearm regulatory measures consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence do not jeopardize the rights of gunowners.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right likes to lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill of Right attempts to make liberalism illegal yet you have it pictured above your name? Why??
Click to expand...

Because liberals defend the right of conservatives to lie, no matter how reprehensible those lies might be – such as the ridiculous lie that the intent of the Bill of Rights is to make being liberal ‘illegal.’

Indeed, the Bill of Rights was composed by liberals, safeguarding the rights and protected liberties of all Americans from attack by the hateful, reactionary right.

The contempt for Second Amendment case law demonstrated by conservatives in this very thread is further proof of that.


----------



## Lakhota

hunarcy said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> NRA Gets Subpoenas From D.C. Attorney General To Hand Over Financial Records
> 
> New York Attorney General Letitia James has also issued subpoenas for the records.
> 
> Good news!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do away with the NRA and you'll be dealing with groups like:
> 
> RevolutionPAC.com
> Second Amendment Foundation
> Women Warrior PAC
> CCRKBA.org
> jpfo.org
> gunowners.org
> nationalgunrights.org
> 
> If you destroy the NRA, its members will move to these REALLY radical groups and make you wish the NRA was still around.
Click to expand...


The NRA was once a good outfit - until it was hijacked by radicals in 1977.  After that - I cancelled my membership. 

In gun lore it’s known as the Revolt at Cincinnati. On May 21, 1977, and into the morning of May 22, a rump caucus of gun rights radicals took over the annual meeting of the National Rifle Association.

The Old Guard was caught by surprise. The NRA officers sat up front, on a dais, observing their demise. The organization, about a century old already, was thoroughly mainstream and bipartisan, focusing on hunting, conservation and marksmanship. It taught Boy Scouts how to shoot safely. But the world had changed, and everything was more political now. The rebels saw the NRA leaders as elites who lacked the heart and conviction to fight against gun-control legislation.

How NRA’s true believers converted a marksmanship group into a mighty gun lobby


----------



## satrebil

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> and in our Constitutional Republic government has the authority to enact all manner of laws, measures, and regulation provided they’re consistent with Constitutional case law – including the regulation of firearms.



Cool. Let me know when "shall not be infringed" kicks in, k?


----------



## 007

Lakhota said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> NRA Gets Subpoenas From D.C. Attorney General To Hand Over Financial Records
> 
> New York Attorney General Letitia James has also issued subpoenas for the records.
> 
> Good news!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do away with the NRA and you'll be dealing with groups like:
> 
> RevolutionPAC.com
> Second Amendment Foundation
> Women Warrior PAC
> CCRKBA.org
> jpfo.org
> gunowners.org
> nationalgunrights.org
> 
> If you destroy the NRA, its members will move to these REALLY radical groups and make you wish the NRA was still around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The NRA was once a good outfit - until it was hijacked by radicals in 1977.  After that - I cancelled my membership.
> 
> In gun lore it’s known as the Revolt at Cincinnati. On May 21, 1977, and into the morning of May 22, a rump caucus of gun rights radicals took over the annual meeting of the National Rifle Association.
> 
> The Old Guard was caught by surprise. The NRA officers sat up front, on a dais, observing their demise. The organization, about a century old already, was thoroughly mainstream and bipartisan, focusing on hunting, conservation and marksmanship. It taught Boy Scouts how to shoot safely. But the world had changed, and everything was more political now. The rebels saw the NRA leaders as elites who lacked the heart and conviction to fight against gun-control legislation.
> 
> How NRA’s true believers converted a marksmanship group into a mighty gun lobby
Click to expand...

If it wasn't for the NRA, you democrats would have tried to confiscate all the firearms in America already, and no doubt started a second civil war.


----------



## 2aguy

Flash said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> NRA Gets Subpoenas From D.C. Attorney General To Hand Over Financial Records
> 
> New York Attorney General Letitia James has also issued subpoenas for the records.
> 
> Good news!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The NRA has some high level corruption going on now.  The corruption has absolutely nothing to do with the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Don't start your filthy Moon Bat party just yet.  Gun lobby money is being channeled through other sources now.
> 
> You are confused Moon Bat.  The NRA is losing members now but it is because they have been pandering too much to you filthy ass Libtard anti gun nut assholes instead of being strong proponents of our Constitutional rights.  They supported background checks, bump stock bans, age restrictions and all that other oppressive shit you Liberals love so much.  You should all be members but you are too stupid to figure it out.
Click to expand...



Yeah, they won't like the other gun Rights groups....GOA and the 2nd Amendment foundation are more hard core than the NRA...


----------



## Zorro!

Rigby5 said:


> Zorro! said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> *NRA Could Lose Tax-Exempt Status Over Shady Business Practices, Report Says*
> Why does the NRA have tax-exempt status in the first place?  They're just a bunch of gun-running thugs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The NRA is America's oldest Civil Rights Organization.  The Left hates civil rights because they desire tyranny and imagine they would be in control of it.
> 
> I support a consumption tax for everyone, effectively ending non-profit/tax-exempt status completely.
> 
> As for The Right To Bear Arms:
> 
> Fireams Policy Coallition reported,
> 
> "The Pennsylvania State Supreme Court issued a significant 53-page majority opinion in the criminal appeal of Commonwealth v. Hicks. Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF) filed an important coalition amicus brief cited by the Court supporting Hicks in December of 2017, alongside Firearms Owners Against Crime (FOAC) and seven Members of Pennsylvania’s General Assembly. The Court’s decision, concurring opinions, and the FPC/FPF amicus brief can be viewed at www.firearmspolicy.org/legal.​
> "*At issue was whether someone’s carrying of a firearm could be used as reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct, and thus justification for police to conduct a stop-and-frisk of the gun owner. The court ruled in Hicks that such searches and seizures, in the absence of other evidence are completely unlawful.*"​
> The appellant is Michael J. Hicks, who had a concealed gun permit, who was caught on a surveillance camera showing off his gun in June 2014. Officers stopped and frisked him.
> 
> The Morning Call reported,
> 
> "after officers smelled alcoholic beverages on Hicks’ breath, he was charged with drunken driving, among other misdemeanor offenses.​
> "Hicks, then 35 and living in Allentown, asked a Lehigh County judge to throw out the charges on grounds that the stop was illegal, but the judge found his arrest was justified. He was convicted of driving under the influence of a high rate of alcohol for a second offense and sentenced to 30 days to six months in jail."​
> Such a conviction would cost him his concealed gun permit. Justice was done. It took five years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> A misdemeanor DUI does nothing at all to one's concealed carry permit.
> You need to be convicted of a felony to lose your rights.
Click to expand...

*Nevada CCW permit revoked for misdemeanor DUI. Can I avoid the revocation by proving non-habituality of the use of alcohol?*
LVMPD CCW: CCW permit revoked due to a recent misdemeanor DUI (alcohol) conviction. NRS 202.3657, section 4(d)(1) mandates. 

"Has habitually used intoxicating liquor or a controlled substance to the extent that his or her normal faculties are impaired. For the purposes of this paragraph, it is presumed that a person has so used intoxicating liquor or a controlled substance if, during the immediately preceding 5 years, the person has been: (1)Convicted of violating the provisions of NRS 484C.110 (DUI statute)...".​


----------



## jc456

Lakhota said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obsolete???!!! That is just an absurd argument. Ask the people who live under tyrannies if having the means to defend themselves is obsolete. Ask the thousands of people each year who find it necessary to use a gun to protect themselves and/or their property if guns are obsolete.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apples and oranges.  That has nothing to do with Russians funneling money to the NRA to help get Trump elected.  Investigators are looking for the Russia connection.
Click to expand...

How did they get him elected? Come now tell us their secrets!


----------



## jc456

Yo yo, leftist fkwads, please tell us how Russia got trump elected? We know they didn’t hack anything cause the transmission pipes are too small for the data to be extracted! So, come on big boys and girls, how did old Russia get trump elected?


----------



## Flash

hunarcy said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> NRA Gets Subpoenas From D.C. Attorney General To Hand Over Financial Records
> 
> New York Attorney General Letitia James has also issued subpoenas for the records.
> 
> Good news!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do away with the NRA and you'll be dealing with groups like:
> 
> RevolutionPAC.com
> Second Amendment Foundation
> Women Warrior PAC
> CCRKBA.org
> jpfo.org
> gunowners.org
> nationalgunrights.org
> 
> If you destroy the NRA, its members will move to these REALLY radical groups and make you wish the NRA was still around.
Click to expand...



Many of us are fed up with the NRA giving into the Liberals all the time and have switched our support to other groups like GOA.


----------



## Flash

2aguy said:


> [
> 
> 
> Yeah, they won't like the other gun Rights groups....GOA and the 2nd Amendment foundation are more hard core than the NRA...



The NRA has become pussified.  You can't count on them any more to look after our Constitutional right.  With them nowadays it is all about not offending the Libtards.

I send my money to GOA now.


----------



## 007

Flash said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> Yeah, they won't like the other gun Rights groups....GOA and the 2nd Amendment foundation are more hard core than the NRA...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The NRA has become pussified.  You can't count on them any more to look after our Constitutional right.  With them nowadays it is all about not offending the Libtards.
> 
> I send my money to GOA now.
Click to expand...

How exactly has the NRA become "pussified?"


----------



## Flash

007 said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> Yeah, they won't like the other gun Rights groups....GOA and the 2nd Amendment foundation are more hard core than the NRA...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The NRA has become pussified.  You can't count on them any more to look after our Constitutional right.  With them nowadays it is all about not offending the Libtards.
> 
> I send my money to GOA now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How exactly has the NRA become "pussified?"
Click to expand...



It is not aggressive with the onslaught of attacks on our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms on the state level. They should be fighting these oppressive laws like we see in California and New York tooth and nail but I don't see them doing it. It has taken some pretty pussy positions on things like background checks.  It was deplorable the way they gave in on bump stocks here in Florida and on the national level.

I can't trust them any more to protect my Constitutional rights.  

Besides, they need to get the upper management in order.  Some indications of corruption.

I'll give support to GOA.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> the ridiculous lie that the intent of the Bill of Rights is to make being liberal ‘illegal.’
> .



Did you think our genius Republican Founders were worried about the Girl Scouts preventing free speech or about liberal big govt preventing it?

Do you think the 9 & 10 Amendments restricting govt to only the enumerated powers was because they feared ugly libcommies would emerge to concentrate all power in central govt???

See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?


----------



## Flash

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> the ridiculous lie that the intent of the Bill of Rights is to make being liberal ‘illegal.’
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you think our genius Republican Founders were worried about the Girl Scouts preventing free speech or about liberal big govt preventing it?
> 
> Do you think the 9 & 10 Amendments restricting govt to only the enumerated powers was because they feared ugly libcommies would emerge to concentrate all power in central govt???
> 
> See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?
Click to expand...



What we Conservatives are most concerned about is making this country a socialist shithole where the greedy welfare queens use the government to steal what they are unable to earn for themselves.


----------



## jc456

Flash said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> the ridiculous lie that the intent of the Bill of Rights is to make being liberal ‘illegal.’
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you think our genius Republican Founders were worried about the Girl Scouts preventing free speech or about liberal big govt preventing it?
> 
> Do you think the 9 & 10 Amendments restricting govt to only the enumerated powers was because they feared ugly libcommies would emerge to concentrate all power in central govt???
> 
> See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What we Conservatives are most concerned about is making this country a socialist shithole where the greedy welfare queens use the government to steal what they are unable to earn for themselves.
Click to expand...

Funny how the elites ain’t forfeiting shit, but they want all of our money


----------



## Lakhota

The NRA is in deep shit.


----------



## jc456

Lakhota said:


> The NRA is in deep shit.


nope


----------



## basquebromance

i think women should be stopped and frisked to see if they have tampons.


----------



## Rigby5

Flash said:


> 007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> Yeah, they won't like the other gun Rights groups....GOA and the 2nd Amendment foundation are more hard core than the NRA...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The NRA has become pussified.  You can't count on them any more to look after our Constitutional right.  With them nowadays it is all about not offending the Libtards.
> 
> I send my money to GOA now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How exactly has the NRA become "pussified?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is not aggressive with the onslaught of attacks on our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms on the state level. They should be fighting these oppressive laws like we see in California and New York tooth and nail but I don't see them doing it. It has taken some pretty pussy positions on things like background checks.  It was deplorable the way they gave in on bump stocks here in Florida and on the national level.
> 
> I can't trust them any more to protect my Constitutional rights.
> 
> Besides, they need to get the upper management in order.  Some indications of corruption.
> 
> I'll give support to GOA.
Click to expand...


Even though I am an extreme leftist, I tend to agree with you.
States also need to be restrained from infringing on individual rights.
But it is hard to call them "Constitutional" since the founders wrote the Bill of Rights badly, as just restrictions on federal abuse.
It is really more the Declaration of Independence that stresses individual rights.

Even though I could care less about bump stocks, you have a point about CA, NY, and FL violating their authority.


----------



## Rigby5

Flash said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> the ridiculous lie that the intent of the Bill of Rights is to make being liberal ‘illegal.’
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you think our genius Republican Founders were worried about the Girl Scouts preventing free speech or about liberal big govt preventing it?
> 
> Do you think the 9 & 10 Amendments restricting govt to only the enumerated powers was because they feared ugly libcommies would emerge to concentrate all power in central govt???
> 
> See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What we Conservatives are most concerned about is making this country a socialist shithole where the greedy welfare queens use the government to steal what they are unable to earn for themselves.
Click to expand...


That is not very realistic.
The reality is that most of our tax money is being wasted on military spending.
We have thousands of expensive foreign deployments.
We spend as much on the military as the whole rest of the planet combined.

If you want a work requirement for welfare, that is fine.
But the reality is that welfare is a tiny portion of the budget, less than 10% for sure.
And a conservative should be against a budget deficit, what is stealing from future generations, to pay interest, except in rare emergencies.

And don't forget that socialism does not have to be done federally.
Socialism traditionally is best done locally and decentralized.


----------



## Flash

Rigby5 said:


> [
> 
> But it is hard to call them "Constitutional" since the founders wrote the Bill of Rights badly, .



For the security of a free state he right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is very clear.  Some people just interpret it badly.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Rigby5 said:


> The reality is that most of our tax money is being wasted on military spending.


Most of our tax money, by roughly a 2;1 margin, goes to entitlement spending.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Rigby5 said:


> Even though I am an extreme leftist, I tend to agree with you.


That is very interesting.

What I have found is that the horizontal political spectrum is not linear.  It's circular.  The farther left you go, the more right you become.  It follows, and I am not surprised, that extreme the extreme left would agree with the extreme right on certain issues.

The vertical political spectrum, however, is linear, because that involves mutual duality.  The more authoritarian one becomes, he necessarily becomes less libertarian, and vice versa.



Rigby5 said:


> States also need to be restrained from infringing on individual rights.
> But it is hard to call them "Constitutional" since the founders wrote the Bill of Rights badly, as just restrictions on federal abuse.


I agree with this.

The 2nd Amendment was a limit on federal power and a reservation to the States.

States should also be restrained, but that would be via a different instrument, separate from the 2nd Amendment.

The 14th Amendment is also horribly written and unnecessarily broad.  Because it is so horribly written, it actually has the textual effect of imposing the 2nd Amendment on States, even though the SCOTUS has never fully addressed that issue.  At some point, I am sure they will be asked to do so. 

.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

M14 Shooter said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reality is that most of our tax money is being wasted on military spending.
> 
> 
> 
> Most of our tax money, by roughly a 2;1 margin, goes to entitlement spending.
Click to expand...

I agree that defense spending is not "most" but it is a very substantial portion, the burden to which we should not be obligated, given that a substantial portion of such defense spending is for the non-reimbursed security of other nations.  If those nations would pay us for our services, we could afford a lot of the fancy "social" programs they enjoy at our expense.  Maybe we could demand that those nations pay for a voluntary UHC system in America.  Or, they could pay for and provide their own security.  Either way.


.


----------



## Flash

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reality is that most of our tax money is being wasted on military spending.
> 
> 
> 
> Most of our tax money, by roughly a 2;1 margin, goes to entitlement spending.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree that defense spending is not "most" but it is a very substantial portion, the burden to which we should not be obligated, given that a substantial portion of such defense spending is for the non-reimbursed security of other nations.  If those nations would pay us for our services, we could afford a lot of the fancy "social" programs they enjoy at our expense.  Maybe we could demand that those nations pay for a voluntary UHC system in America.  Or, they could pay for and provide their own security.  Either way.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...



We have $4.8 trillion annual Federal budget  The recent defense budget was less than $.8 trillion.

There a re a few things we should provide at a federal level.  Defense, courts, care for our veterans, State Department etc.  I don't even mind paying a Federal and state tax on fuel in order to fund the roads.

What is wrong is the trillions spent on various forms of welfare and wasted projects.

Welfare is more than just food stamps, Obamaphones and Obamacare subsidies.  It is school lunches, subsidies, foreign aid, grants, bailouts and all those earmarks.  It is bailing out GM to get the UAW support and giving money to Solyndra and subsidizing education to the states in order to get money to the greedy teacher's unions. 

We don't need most of the cabinet Departments that we have now like Education and HUD.

We could have a great Federal government for about $1.5 trillion a year.

We sure as hell should not be giving one red cent to any Illegal especially providing schooling for their kids or free lunches.


----------



## Rigby5

Flash said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> But it is hard to call them "Constitutional" since the founders wrote the Bill of Rights badly, .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the security of a free state he right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is very clear.  Some people just interpret it badly.
Click to expand...


It is easy to interpret that as the right of a state to have its own armed militia.
I think the 4th and 5th amendment are more specific about individual rights needing arms.
But the problem with calling a right to be "constitutional" is that it then sounds like they are created and granted by the constitution, and that can not be.
Rights have to precede the constitution, and be the reason why writing a constitution is possible.
If they were granted by the constitution, then they would be arbitrary privileges that could just as easily be rescinded.
But rights are fundamental, and can not be rescinded legally, in a democratic republic.


----------



## Rigby5

M14 Shooter said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reality is that most of our tax money is being wasted on military spending.
> 
> 
> 
> Most of our tax money, by roughly a 2;1 margin, goes to entitlement spending.
Click to expand...


Entitlement includes things like social security and unemployment, which is NOT supposed to be government money in the first place.
That is why entitlements are not supposed to even be part of the annual budget process.
It is not spending when you repay money put into things like social security or unemployment insurance.

And when you include interest on past military spending, that is more like 60% of discretionary spending.
Social services are less than  10%.


----------



## Rigby5

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even though I am an extreme leftist, I tend to agree with you.
> 
> 
> 
> That is very interesting.
> 
> What I have found is that the horizontal political spectrum is not linear.  It's circular.  The farther left you go, the more right you become.  It follows, and I am not surprised, that extreme the extreme left would agree with the extreme right on certain issues.
> 
> The vertical political spectrum, however, is linear, because that involves mutual duality.  The more authoritarian one becomes, he necessarily becomes less libertarian, and vice versa.
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> States also need to be restrained from infringing on individual rights.
> But it is hard to call them "Constitutional" since the founders wrote the Bill of Rights badly, as just restrictions on federal abuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree with this.
> 
> The 2nd Amendment was a limit on federal power and a reservation to the States.
> 
> States should also be restrained, but that would be via a different instrument, separate from the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> The 14th Amendment is also horribly written and unnecessarily broad.  Because it is so horribly written, it actually has the textual effect of imposing the 2nd Amendment on States, even though the SCOTUS has never fully addressed that issue.  At some point, I am sure they will be asked to do so.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I tend to agree as well that the current interpretation of 14th amendment has caused the 2nd to be correctly incorporated as an individual right, even though mostly ignored.

With vertical political spectrum, the right wing Libertarians want minimal government coercion, just like the left wing anarchists.  Both believe in human nature in an idealistic way.  And I also tend to agree with them to a point.

The difference is I fear large capitalist corporations, and right wingers instead fear large corrupt central government.
My solution is local socialism, instead of large, distant, and centralized.


----------



## Rigby5

Flash said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reality is that most of our tax money is being wasted on military spending.
> 
> 
> 
> Most of our tax money, by roughly a 2;1 margin, goes to entitlement spending.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree that defense spending is not "most" but it is a very substantial portion, the burden to which we should not be obligated, given that a substantial portion of such defense spending is for the non-reimbursed security of other nations.  If those nations would pay us for our services, we could afford a lot of the fancy "social" programs they enjoy at our expense.  Maybe we could demand that those nations pay for a voluntary UHC system in America.  Or, they could pay for and provide their own security.  Either way.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have $4.8 trillion annual Federal budget  The recent defense budget was less than $.8 trillion.
> 
> There a re a few things we should provide at a federal level.  Defense, courts, care for our veterans, State Department etc.  I don't even mind paying a Federal and state tax on fuel in order to fund the roads.
> 
> What is wrong is the trillions spent on various forms of welfare and wasted projects.
> 
> Welfare is more than just food stamps, Obamaphones and Obamacare subsidies.  It is school lunches, subsidies, foreign aid, grants, bailouts and all those earmarks.  It is bailing out GM to get the UAW support and giving money to Solyndra and subsidizing education to the states in order to get money to the greedy teacher's unions.
> 
> We don't need most of the cabinet Departments that we have now like Education and HUD.
> 
> We could have a great Federal government for about $1.5 trillion a year.
> 
> We sure as hell should not be giving one red cent to any Illegal especially providing schooling for their kids or free lunches.
Click to expand...


That is not correct.
It is wrong to include things like social security or unemployment insurance into the budget.
It is not federal money so it is not federal spending.
It is your personal money being paid back to you.
It is not discretiionary, so should never be included in budget considerations.
Here is the real budget.


----------



## Rigby5

Flash said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reality is that most of our tax money is being wasted on military spending.
> 
> 
> 
> Most of our tax money, by roughly a 2;1 margin, goes to entitlement spending.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree that defense spending is not "most" but it is a very substantial portion, the burden to which we should not be obligated, given that a substantial portion of such defense spending is for the non-reimbursed security of other nations.  If those nations would pay us for our services, we could afford a lot of the fancy "social" programs they enjoy at our expense.  Maybe we could demand that those nations pay for a voluntary UHC system in America.  Or, they could pay for and provide their own security.  Either way.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have $4.8 trillion annual Federal budget  The recent defense budget was less than $.8 trillion.
> 
> There a re a few things we should provide at a federal level.  Defense, courts, care for our veterans, State Department etc.  I don't even mind paying a Federal and state tax on fuel in order to fund the roads.
> 
> What is wrong is the trillions spent on various forms of welfare and wasted projects.
> 
> Welfare is more than just food stamps, Obamaphones and Obamacare subsidies.  It is school lunches, subsidies, foreign aid, grants, bailouts and all those earmarks.  It is bailing out GM to get the UAW support and giving money to Solyndra and subsidizing education to the states in order to get money to the greedy teacher's unions.
> 
> We don't need most of the cabinet Departments that we have now like Education and HUD.
> 
> We could have a great Federal government for about $1.5 trillion a year.
> 
> We sure as hell should not be giving one red cent to any Illegal especially providing schooling for their kids or free lunches.
Click to expand...


It is totally wrong to include things like food stamps because people have to buy food stamps and are only getting a subsidy on 40% or less.
It is wrong to include foreign aid, since that actually is defense spending or for local US commercial interests.
It is wrong to include PELL grants since the universities are used for free federal research then.
It is wrong to include bailouts to auto industries or banks, because that was all paid back.
It was wrong to include Solyndra because we should not allow China to get a monopoly on strategic technology.
Teachers are way under paid.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Rigby5 said:


> Entitlement includes things like social security and unemployment, which is NOT supposed to be government money in the first place.
> That is why entitlements are not supposed to even be part of the annual budget process.


Never-the-less, most of our tax money, by roughly a 2;1 margin, goes to entitlement spending

FY2018-2009 (10 years)
Total spending:  $36,785.8B
Discretionary:   $12,408.1B   (33.7%)
Entitlement:  $24377.7B   (66.2%)
Defense:   6$,318.8B  (17.1%)
www.cbo.gov/publication/55151


----------



## Rigby5

M14 Shooter said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Entitlement includes things like social security and unemployment, which is NOT supposed to be government money in the first place.
> That is why entitlements are not supposed to even be part of the annual budget process.
> 
> 
> 
> Never-the-less, most of our tax money, by roughly a 2;1 margin, goes to entitlement spending
> 
> FY2018-2009 (10 years)
> Total spending:  $36,785.8B
> Discretionary:   $12,408.1B   (33.7%)
> Entitlement:  $24377.7B   (66.2%)
> Defense:   6$,318.8B  (17.1%)
> www.cbo.gov/publication/55151
Click to expand...


But you still do not get the point.
Entitlement spending like Social Security does not cost anything at all!
The US treasury counts Social Security as INCOME, not debt because it constantly brings in MORE than it costs.
Entitlements are self funding.
They pay for themselves.
You do not pay for them through income taxes.
The only part of the federal budget that we have to pay for is the discretionary part, and that is almost all military.
Over the past 50 years, Social Security has been funding most of the federal projects, like wars, space exploration, etc., because it has been running a surplus.
It won't be for a few years yet that Social Security will be running a deficit and need addtionial money from the general fund to pay for its output.

Social security has always been an income so far.  But it is projected to be a slight deficit from 2020 to 2040, for awhile.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Rigby5 said:


> But you still do not get the point.
> Entitlement spending like Social Security does not cost anything at all!


The funding for entitlement spending derives directly from taxes, and thus, is "tax money" - YOUR term:

_The reality is that *most of our tax money* is being wasted on military spending._

And so, your statement has no basis in fact.



> The only part of the federal budget that we have to pay for is the discretionary part, and that is almost all military.


This statement is also false.


----------



## Rigby5

M14 Shooter said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you still do not get the point.
> Entitlement spending like Social Security does not cost anything at all!
> 
> 
> 
> The funding for entitlement spending derives directly from taxes, and thus, is "tax money" - YOUR term:
> 
> _The reality is that *most of our tax money* is being wasted on military spending._
> 
> And so, your statement has no basis in fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only part of the federal budget that we have to pay for is the discretionary part, and that is almost all military.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This statement is also false.
Click to expand...


No, entitlement programs like Social Security have their own funding source, so are self funding.
In effect you are just getting your own money back, with 3% interest, 30 years or so later.
The reality is that it is a pay as you go system, so that the money paid in by one person immediately gets paid out to someone else, but there has always been a surplus.
The whole federal government has been floated by borrowing from the Social Security surplus since it was invented, over half a century ago.

The other large nondiscretionary payment is for interest on the national debt, and that is entirely military spending.
Once you include the social services that are actually VA, GIBill, etc., it is clear the military actually costs way more than 50% of our national spending.  It is really more like 75%.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Rigby5 said:


> No, entitlement programs like Social Security have their own funding source, so are self funding.


The programs are funded by taxes, and thus, their expenditures are tax money being spent.
The numbers simply do not lie:  Your statement is false.


----------



## Rigby5

M14 Shooter said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, entitlement programs like Social Security have their own funding source, so are self funding.
> 
> 
> 
> The programs are funded by taxes, and thus, their expenditures are tax money being spent.
> The numbers simply do not lie:  Your statement is false.
Click to expand...


Social Security and unemployment are funded by taxes, but FICA is not income tax.
Half is paid by the employer, and you get back more than you paid in.
And it runs a surplus.
So it is not a cost, but an income to government.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Rigby5 said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, entitlement programs like Social Security have their own funding source, so are self funding.
> 
> 
> 
> The programs are funded by taxes, and thus, their expenditures are tax money being spent.
> The numbers simply do not lie:  Your statement is false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Social Security and unemployment are funded by taxes...
Click to expand...

Yes.  That's what I said:
_The programs are funded by taxes, and thus, their expenditures are tax money being spent._

Your statement has been demonstrated false


----------



## Flash

Rigby5 said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reality is that most of our tax money is being wasted on military spending.
> 
> 
> 
> Most of our tax money, by roughly a 2;1 margin, goes to entitlement spending.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree that defense spending is not "most" but it is a very substantial portion, the burden to which we should not be obligated, given that a substantial portion of such defense spending is for the non-reimbursed security of other nations.  If those nations would pay us for our services, we could afford a lot of the fancy "social" programs they enjoy at our expense.  Maybe we could demand that those nations pay for a voluntary UHC system in America.  Or, they could pay for and provide their own security.  Either way.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have $4.8 trillion annual Federal budget  The recent defense budget was less than $.8 trillion.
> 
> There a re a few things we should provide at a federal level.  Defense, courts, care for our veterans, State Department etc.  I don't even mind paying a Federal and state tax on fuel in order to fund the roads.
> 
> What is wrong is the trillions spent on various forms of welfare and wasted projects.
> 
> Welfare is more than just food stamps, Obamaphones and Obamacare subsidies.  It is school lunches, subsidies, foreign aid, grants, bailouts and all those earmarks.  It is bailing out GM to get the UAW support and giving money to Solyndra and subsidizing education to the states in order to get money to the greedy teacher's unions.
> 
> We don't need most of the cabinet Departments that we have now like Education and HUD.
> 
> We could have a great Federal government for about $1.5 trillion a year.
> 
> We sure as hell should not be giving one red cent to any Illegal especially providing schooling for their kids or free lunches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not correct.
> It is wrong to include things like social security or unemployment insurance into the budget.
> It is not federal money so it is not federal spending.
> It is your personal money being paid back to you.
> It is not discretiionary, so should never be included in budget considerations.
> Here is the real budget.
Click to expand...



You are confused Moon Bat.

"What the stupid Moon Bats call non discretionary" is just as wasteful as most discretionary.   

We spend a ridiculous $4.8 trillion a year for this filthy ass Federal government.   . More than the GDP of all but a few countries of the countries on earth. Disgusting, isn't it?

In 2014 Ron Paul came up with a simple plan to cut one trillion dollars a year.  In that budget SS and Medicare were maintained, the defense budget grew and most of the filthy welfare programs were intact.  The Libtards couldn't even do that.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Rigby5 said:


> The reality is that most of our tax money is being wasted on military spending.
> We have thousands of expensive foreign deployments.
> We spend as much on the military as the whole rest of the planet combined.
> 
> .



1) Wasted? Defeating Nazis Communists and ISIS is wasted?
2) yes, in almost every African country to fight ISIS, and????
3)  yes, more than the rest because we are the world's policemen. Would you want to see a county or City without policemen??????


----------



## Flash

Rigby5 said:


> [
> 
> The reality is that most of our tax money is being wasted on military spending.
> .



You stupid Moon Bats are as ignorant of math as you are of history, climate science, biology, economics and the Constitution.

Defense is only about 1/7th of the Federal government spending.  Only in Moon Bat Land is that "most".

Some of our military spending is welfare.  Like when we fight other's people wars for them instead of protecting our own borders.  For instance, Obama spent a few billions attacking Libya and trillions escalating the war in Afghanistan.  Did you write him a letter and tell him to stop wasting money?  I doubt it.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Rigby5 said:


> The difference is I fear large capitalist corporations, and right wingers instead fear large corrupt central government.
> My solution is local socialism, instead of large, distant, and centralized.


At this point in time, large corps and corrupt central government are one, and the same.  Large corporations are able to exercise their will because they use government as their instrument.  We should ALL fear/respect both and keep a watchful eye. 

If socialism is going to work, it will only do so on an extremely local level, where all participants know each other and/or have a connection or mutual identity.  I still believe that it cannot be sustained, even at that level, but that's a different topic for another thread.


----------



## Flash

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is I fear large capitalist corporations, and right wingers instead fear large corrupt central government.
> My solution is local socialism, instead of large, distant, and centralized.
> 
> 
> 
> At this point in time, large corps and corrupt central government are one, and the same.  Large corporations are able to exercise their will because they use government as their instrument.  We should ALL fear/respect both and keep a watchful eye.
> 
> If socialism is going to work, it will only do so on an extremely local level, where all participants know each other and/or have a connection or mutual identity.  I still believe that it cannot be sustained, even at that level, but that's a different topic for another thread.
Click to expand...



We practice socialism in my family.    

However,

It wouldn't work for my neighborhood.

It wouldn't work for my city.

It wouldn't work for the state.

It sure as hell wouldn't work for the country.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Rigby5 said:


> The other large nondiscretionary payment is for interest on the national debt, and that is entirely military spending.


FY2018-2009
Income tax revenue:  $14,251.8B
Corporate tax revenue:  $2,796.8B
Total:  $17,048.6B
Defense spending: $6,931.2B (40.6%)

With defense spending accounting for ~40% of revenue, how can it be responsible for the deficit, the  debt, or the interest on the debt?


----------



## Lakhota

*3 NRA Board Members Resign In Latest Sign Of Dissent In Gun Group*

The evil NRA is falling apart.


----------



## 2aguy

Lakhota said:


> *3 NRA Board Members Resign In Latest Sign Of Dissent In Gun Group*
> 
> The evil NRA is falling apart.




The NRA isn't evil.....that would be the democrat party, the home of racism, misogyny, violence and hate....


----------



## hunarcy

Lakhota said:


> *3 NRA Board Members Resign In Latest Sign Of Dissent In Gun Group*
> 
> The evil NRA is falling apart.



You're stupid.


----------



## danielpalos

We have a Second Amendment.  Why do we have security problems in our free States?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

TheOldSchool said:


> It's definitely not the most important amendment, like most conservatives argue, but it's not obsolete.  We're the United Freakin States.  We were founded on a revolutionary crazy notion that people are allowed to be as free as they want.
> 
> If you take away that crazy, then we're closer to being like the French.  And no one wants that.


without the second the rest would be negated
So yes it is the most important one.
However, if the second amendment didn't exist I would still have the right to defend my life as I so choose. The second amendment tells the government what it can't do against my right of self defense


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> We have a Second Amendment.  Why do we have security problems in our free States?


most of those problems are within blue run areas


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a Second Amendment.  Why do we have security problems in our free States?
> 
> 
> 
> most of those problems are within blue run areas
Click to expand...

Our Second Amendment doesn't distinguish. 

Why are we wasting money on alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror?


----------



## Lakhota




----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a Second Amendment.  Why do we have security problems in our free States?
> 
> 
> 
> most of those problems are within blue run areas
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment doesn't distinguish.
> 
> Why are we wasting money on alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror?
Click to expand...

Because people believe that if they do something anything it will make them feel safe.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Lakhota said:


>


Yes the second amendment protects weapons of war in the hands of citizens
The musket was a weapon of war at the time everyone had a musket


----------



## danielpalos

Lakhota said:


>


Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control.


----------



## M14 Shooter

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Yes the second amendment protects weapons of war in the hands of citizens
> The musket was a weapon of war at the time everyone had a musket


Going by the anti-gun loons... if a weapon of war looks scary, the 2nd doesn't protect it.
Else, you're good.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

M14 Shooter said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes the second amendment protects weapons of war in the hands of citizens
> The musket was a weapon of war at the time everyone had a musket
> 
> 
> 
> Going by the anti-gun loons... if a weapon of war looks scary, the 2nd doesn't protect it.
> Else, you're good.
Click to expand...

Firearms don't look scary Firearm can't harm you it's the one who holds the firearm in their hand that can hurt you.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> We have a Second Amendment.  Why do we have security problems in our free States?



No one takes the left seriously about gun control.


----------



## hadit

Lakhota said:


>



Did you write that using a quill pen and send it via the Pony Express?


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control.
Click to expand...


Only lame bots make insane posts about nothing.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a Second Amendment.  Why do we have security problems in our free States?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one takes the left seriously about gun control.
Click to expand...

Our Second Amendment is express not implied.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only lame bots make insane posts about nothing.
Click to expand...

only the right wing appeals to ignorance and claim they are for the "gospel Truth".


----------



## Lakhota

The right to bear arms also includes RESPONSIBILITY.

Any functional idiot can be quickly taught to fire a gun and hit a cardboard box - but there's much more to it than that if an armed citizen pulls a gun in a violent shootout like in El Paso. How are police supposed to know the difference between the armed citizen and the terrorist?


----------



## hunarcy

Lakhota said:


> The right to bear arms also includes RESPONSIBILITY.
> 
> Any functional idiot can be quickly taught to fire a gun and hit a cardboard box - but there's much more to it than that if an armed citizen pulls a gun in a violent shootout like in El Paso. How are police supposed to know the difference between the armed citizen and the terrorist?



One guy shooting at the crowd=terrorist

Crowd shooting at one guy=armed citizens


----------



## Lakhota

hunarcy said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right to bear arms also includes RESPONSIBILITY.
> 
> Any functional idiot can be quickly taught to fire a gun and hit a cardboard box - but there's much more to it than that if an armed citizen pulls a gun in a violent shootout like in El Paso. How are police supposed to know the difference between the armed citizen and the terrorist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One guy shooting at the crowd=terrorist
> 
> Crowd shooting at one guy=armed citizens
Click to expand...


A shootout?  Wow!


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a Second Amendment.  Why do we have security problems in our free States?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one takes the left seriously about gun control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is express not implied.
Click to expand...


It sure is, and expressly guarantees the right to bear arms.


----------



## hadit

hadit said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you write that using a quill pen and send it via the Pony Express?
Click to expand...


Obviously, you must have used them if you're trying to make the claim that the BOR only applies to things in use when it was written.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a Second Amendment.  Why do we have security problems in our free States?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one takes the left seriously about gun control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is express not implied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It sure is, and expressly guarantees the right to bear arms.
Click to expand...

Only the unorganized militia complain about gun control laws.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a Second Amendment.  Why do we have security problems in our free States?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one takes the left seriously about gun control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is express not implied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It sure is, and expressly guarantees the right to bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the unorganized militia complain about gun control laws.
Click to expand...


Only you are so consistently incoherent and dogmatic.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a Second Amendment.  Why do we have security problems in our free States?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one takes the left seriously about gun control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is express not implied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It sure is, and expressly guarantees the right to bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the unorganized militia complain about gun control laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only you are so consistently incoherent and dogmatic.
Click to expand...

Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.


----------



## hunarcy

hunarcy said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right to bear arms also includes RESPONSIBILITY.
> 
> Any functional idiot can be quickly taught to fire a gun and hit a cardboard box - but there's much more to it than that if an armed citizen pulls a gun in a violent shootout like in El Paso. How are police supposed to know the difference between the armed citizen and the terrorist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One guy shooting at the crowd=terrorist
> 
> Crowd shooting at one guy=armed citizens
Click to expand...


Thanks for showing you don't have a clue.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one takes the left seriously about gun control.
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is express not implied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It sure is, and expressly guarantees the right to bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the unorganized militia complain about gun control laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only you are so consistently incoherent and dogmatic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.
Click to expand...


As do individuals.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is express not implied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It sure is, and expressly guarantees the right to bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the unorganized militia complain about gun control laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only you are so consistently incoherent and dogmatic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As do individuals.
Click to expand...

Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws.


----------



## Lakhota

Don't be a Dick.  Ban assault weapons and pass universal background checks!


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one takes the left seriously about gun control.
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is express not implied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It sure is, and expressly guarantees the right to bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the unorganized militia complain about gun control laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only you are so consistently incoherent and dogmatic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.
Click to expand...


If you look at who the founders considered the well regulated militia, it was essentially everyone.
Each state words it slightly differently, but there were no police or any standing army back then, so the unorganized militia had to do everything, when needed.  The tradition was the shotgun over the mantel.  Good for pirates, bandits, gangs, bears, coyotes, natives, snakes, rabid dogs, etc.

By the way, the phrase "well regulated" means well practiced, as in regular digestion, a well regulated clock, etc.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> It sure is, and expressly guarantees the right to bear arms.
> 
> 
> 
> Only the unorganized militia complain about gun control laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only you are so consistently incoherent and dogmatic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As do individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws.
Click to expand...


Which is supposed to be everyone.


----------



## Rigby5

Lakhota said:


> Don't be a Dick.  Ban assault weapons and pass universal background checks!




There is no such thing as an assault weapon.
In the revolutionary war, blunderbusses were used as assault weapons, (also called coach guns).
In the civil war, a pair of pistols was used as assault weapons by cavalry.
In the first world war, it was the pump, trench, shotgun.
In WWII it was carbines.

There days, all weapons used as assault weapons are full auto.
No firearm sold to civilians are full auto.

If you think you need universal background checks to prevent sales over the internet or at gun shows, you would be completely wrong.
Gun shows and internet sales have always required background checks in the last 20 years.

So if someone threatens your sister and she asks to borrow a gun for protection, according to you she should have to pay $20 for a background check and wait a week?  That makes no sense at all.
Criminals are never going to bother with background checks, because they already intend to violate crimes with far greater penalties.
Background checks only keep the honest disarmed.


----------



## Lakhota

Rigby5 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be a Dick.  Ban assault weapons and pass universal background checks!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as an assault weapon.
> In the revolutionary war, blunderbusses were used as assault weapons, (also called coach guns).
> In the civil war, a pair of pistols was used as assault weapons by cavalry.
> In the first world war, it was the pump, trench, shotgun.
> In WWII it was carbines.
> 
> There days, all weapons used as assault weapons are full auto.
> No firearm sold to civilians are full auto.
> 
> If you think you need universal background checks to prevent sales over the internet or at gun shows, you would be completely wrong.
> Gun shows and internet sales have always required background checks in the last 20 years.
> 
> So if someone threatens your sister and she asks to borrow a gun for protection, according to you she should have to pay $20 for a background check and wait a week?  That makes no sense at all.
> Criminals are never going to bother with background checks, because they already intend to violate crimes with far greater penalties.
> Background checks only keep the honest disarmed.
Click to expand...


An assault weapon is any weapon that makes a gun nut feel like Rambo - especially with high-capacity magazines.  Except for police - all magazines should be limited to no more than 5 rounds.  No one goes on a shooting rampage with single-shot weapons.  Don't be a Dick.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is express not implied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It sure is, and expressly guarantees the right to bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the unorganized militia complain about gun control laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only you are so consistently incoherent and dogmatic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you look at who the founders considered the well regulated militia, it was essentially everyone.
> Each state words it slightly differently, but there were no police or any standing army back then, so the unorganized militia had to do everything, when needed.  The tradition was the shotgun over the mantel.  Good for pirates, bandits, gangs, bears, coyotes, natives, snakes, rabid dogs, etc.
> 
> By the way, the phrase "well regulated" means well practiced, as in regular digestion, a well regulated clock, etc.
Click to expand...

lol.  no, it doesn't.  you are either unorganized or well regulated and Organized.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only the unorganized militia complain about gun control laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only you are so consistently incoherent and dogmatic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As do individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is supposed to be everyone.
Click to expand...

The organized militia has literal recourse to our Second Amendment.


----------



## TRFjr

Lakhota said:


> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
Click to expand...

*no, because the reason for the founding fathers  acknowledging  the god-given right to protect oneself and family is just as relevant today as it was over 200 years ago *


----------



## TRFjr

*Heller v DC made the right for an individual to own a firearm including so-called assault rifles settled law 
just like you liberals claim Woe v Wade made the right for a woman to have an abortion settled law 

so get over it only recourse you have is a constitutional amendment *


----------



## Lakhota

TRFjr said:


> *Heller v DC made the right for an individual to own a firearm including so-called assault rifles settled law
> just like you liberals claim Woe v Wade made the right for a woman to have an abortion settled law
> 
> so get over it only recourse you have is a constitutional amendment *



The 2nd Amendment means whatever SCOTUS says it means at any given time!  It has been limited several times in the past - and will be in the future.  There are no constitutional amendments required to legislate gun control laws - such as banning assault weapons, banning high-capacity magazines, banning certain types of ammunition, and universal background checks on all gun transactions.

*Republicans claim the 2nd Amendment doesn't have limits. They're wrong.*


----------



## Rigby5

Lakhota said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be a Dick.  Ban assault weapons and pass universal background checks!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as an assault weapon.
> In the revolutionary war, blunderbusses were used as assault weapons, (also called coach guns).
> In the civil war, a pair of pistols was used as assault weapons by cavalry.
> In the first world war, it was the pump, trench, shotgun.
> In WWII it was carbines.
> 
> There days, all weapons used as assault weapons are full auto.
> No firearm sold to civilians are full auto.
> 
> If you think you need universal background checks to prevent sales over the internet or at gun shows, you would be completely wrong.
> Gun shows and internet sales have always required background checks in the last 20 years.
> 
> So if someone threatens your sister and she asks to borrow a gun for protection, according to you she should have to pay $20 for a background check and wait a week?  That makes no sense at all.
> Criminals are never going to bother with background checks, because they already intend to violate crimes with far greater penalties.
> Background checks only keep the honest disarmed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An assault weapon is any weapon that makes a gun nut feel like Rambo - especially with high-capacity magazines.  Except for police - all magazines should be limited to no more than 5 rounds.  No one goes on a shooting rampage with single-shot weapons.  Don't be a Dick.
Click to expand...


You have that backwards.
The police are the ones who should be limited to small capacity magazines.
That is because they have a duty to not accidentally shoot people in the background, and historically the police, KGB, Stazi, Savik, kopos, etc., are always the ones who destroy freedom and democracy.
The founders had no police and did not want any.
In fact, they wanted citizen soldiers as well.

As for trying to limit capacity, that is not the weapon's fault, and simply can not be done any more.
Magazines are trivial to modify.  You can just cut up a couple of magazines and weld them together.
In fact, almost any single shot weapon can fairly easy to turn into a full auto machine gun with a high capacity.
You can't change that will minor gun laws, if people intent to commit murder.
Only a Dick would think you can get mass murder to reduce by passing a minor, punitive law.
Nor would anyone but a Dicks want to try to cover up severe social problems by pretending that eliminating weapons helped anything.  If people are committing mass murder, there has to be reasons.  And you want to fix the reasons, not just try to suppress the result.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> It sure is, and expressly guarantees the right to bear arms.
> 
> 
> 
> Only the unorganized militia complain about gun control laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only you are so consistently incoherent and dogmatic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you look at who the founders considered the well regulated militia, it was essentially everyone.
> Each state words it slightly differently, but there were no police or any standing army back then, so the unorganized militia had to do everything, when needed.  The tradition was the shotgun over the mantel.  Good for pirates, bandits, gangs, bears, coyotes, natives, snakes, rabid dogs, etc.
> 
> By the way, the phrase "well regulated" means well practiced, as in regular digestion, a well regulated clock, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  no, it doesn't.  you are either unorganized or well regulated and Organized.
Click to expand...


Nonsense.
The Organized Militia is only supposed to be called up when the nation is attacked.
Until then, you are the unorganized militia, but have to still train in order to be ready.
And training to be ready is what makes the militia "well regulated".
Regulated does not mean restricted, it means practiced.


----------



## Rigby5

Lakhota said:


> TRFjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Heller v DC made the right for an individual to own a firearm including so-called assault rifles settled law
> just like you liberals claim Woe v Wade made the right for a woman to have an abortion settled law
> 
> so get over it only recourse you have is a constitutional amendment *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd Amendment means whatever SCOTUS says it means at any given time!  It has been limited several times in the past - and will be in the future.  There are no constitutional amendments required to legislate gun control laws - such as banning assault weapons, banning high-capacity magazines, banning certain types of ammunition, and universal background checks on all gun transactions.
> 
> *Republicans claim the 2nd Amendment doesn't have limits. They're wrong.*
Click to expand...


No, you are entirely wrong.
The SCOTUS opened the floodgate and can't back up now.
An assault weapons ban would mean 40 million people would become criminals and there would be a civil war the first time an innocent gun owner was murdered by a corrupt government in violation of the ex post facto article in the Constitution.
Read Article I, Section 9, Clause 3: on Ex Post Facto laws being illegal.

{... No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. ...}

Guide to the Constitution

That means that assault weapons have been legally purchased and owned, so now can not be made illegal and confiscated.

The SCOTUS can NOT at all do whatever it wants.
It has to remain true to the rules and basic premise of a democratic republic.
And if you can ban certain types of weapons, magazines, etc., from the general public, then the police, military, etc., must also be banned.  The authority of public employees, like the SCOTUS, police, military, etc., comes from the inherent rights of individuals.  They can not have authority above that of the general public, in a democratic republic.


----------



## Lakhota

Rigby5 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be a Dick.  Ban assault weapons and pass universal background checks!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as an assault weapon.
> In the revolutionary war, blunderbusses were used as assault weapons, (also called coach guns).
> In the civil war, a pair of pistols was used as assault weapons by cavalry.
> In the first world war, it was the pump, trench, shotgun.
> In WWII it was carbines.
> 
> There days, all weapons used as assault weapons are full auto.
> No firearm sold to civilians are full auto.
> 
> If you think you need universal background checks to prevent sales over the internet or at gun shows, you would be completely wrong.
> Gun shows and internet sales have always required background checks in the last 20 years.
> 
> So if someone threatens your sister and she asks to borrow a gun for protection, according to you she should have to pay $20 for a background check and wait a week?  That makes no sense at all.
> Criminals are never going to bother with background checks, because they already intend to violate crimes with far greater penalties.
> Background checks only keep the honest disarmed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An assault weapon is any weapon that makes a gun nut feel like Rambo - especially with high-capacity magazines.  Except for police - all magazines should be limited to no more than 5 rounds.  No one goes on a shooting rampage with single-shot weapons.  Don't be a Dick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have that backwards.
> The police are the ones who should be limited to small capacity magazines.
> That is because they have a duty to not accidentally shoot people in the background, and historically the police, KGB, Stazi, Savik, kopos, etc., are always the ones who destroy freedom and democracy.
> The founders had no police and did not want any.
> In fact, they wanted citizen soldiers as well.
> 
> As for trying to limit capacity, that is not the weapon's fault, and simply can not be done any more.
> Magazines are trivial to modify.  You can just cut up a couple of magazines and weld them together.
> In fact, almost any single shot weapon can fairly easy to turn into a full auto machine gun with a high capacity.
> You can't change that will minor gun laws, if people intent to commit murder.
> Only a Dick would think you can get mass murder to reduce by passing a minor, punitive law.
> Nor would anyone but a Dicks want to try to cover up severe social problems by pretending that eliminating weapons helped anything.  If people are committing mass murder, there has to be reasons.  And you want to fix the reasons, not just try to suppress the result.
Click to expand...


Do you still have fantasies of winning a gunfight with police and military forces?  Funny...


----------



## Rigby5

Lakhota said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be a Dick.  Ban assault weapons and pass universal background checks!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as an assault weapon.
> In the revolutionary war, blunderbusses were used as assault weapons, (also called coach guns).
> In the civil war, a pair of pistols was used as assault weapons by cavalry.
> In the first world war, it was the pump, trench, shotgun.
> In WWII it was carbines.
> 
> There days, all weapons used as assault weapons are full auto.
> No firearm sold to civilians are full auto.
> 
> If you think you need universal background checks to prevent sales over the internet or at gun shows, you would be completely wrong.
> Gun shows and internet sales have always required background checks in the last 20 years.
> 
> So if someone threatens your sister and she asks to borrow a gun for protection, according to you she should have to pay $20 for a background check and wait a week?  That makes no sense at all.
> Criminals are never going to bother with background checks, because they already intend to violate crimes with far greater penalties.
> Background checks only keep the honest disarmed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An assault weapon is any weapon that makes a gun nut feel like Rambo - especially with high-capacity magazines.  Except for police - all magazines should be limited to no more than 5 rounds.  No one goes on a shooting rampage with single-shot weapons.  Don't be a Dick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have that backwards.
> The police are the ones who should be limited to small capacity magazines.
> That is because they have a duty to not accidentally shoot people in the background, and historically the police, KGB, Stazi, Savik, kopos, etc., are always the ones who destroy freedom and democracy.
> The founders had no police and did not want any.
> In fact, they wanted citizen soldiers as well.
> 
> As for trying to limit capacity, that is not the weapon's fault, and simply can not be done any more.
> Magazines are trivial to modify.  You can just cut up a couple of magazines and weld them together.
> In fact, almost any single shot weapon can fairly easy to turn into a full auto machine gun with a high capacity.
> You can't change that will minor gun laws, if people intent to commit murder.
> Only a Dick would think you can get mass murder to reduce by passing a minor, punitive law.
> Nor would anyone but a Dicks want to try to cover up severe social problems by pretending that eliminating weapons helped anything.  If people are committing mass murder, there has to be reasons.  And you want to fix the reasons, not just try to suppress the result.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you still have fantasies of winning a gunfight with police and military forces?  Funny...
Click to expand...



The REALITY is that the police and military are always inherently corrupt, because they do what those who sign their paycheck tell them to do.  Doesn't matter if it is ancient Rome, or the British regulars attempting to suppress the colonials.
All government become corrupt eventually and need to be destroyed.
Happens about every 400 years or so.
Anyone who prevents the general population from being able to revolt against a corrupt dictatorship, is a traitor.
And the police and military have NEVER won against a popular insurgency.
They could not even win in Vietnam or Afghanistan.
Corruption always loses because all you have to do is cut into their profits, and they will quit.


----------



## Lakhota

Rigby5 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be a Dick.  Ban assault weapons and pass universal background checks!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as an assault weapon.
> In the revolutionary war, blunderbusses were used as assault weapons, (also called coach guns).
> In the civil war, a pair of pistols was used as assault weapons by cavalry.
> In the first world war, it was the pump, trench, shotgun.
> In WWII it was carbines.
> 
> There days, all weapons used as assault weapons are full auto.
> No firearm sold to civilians are full auto.
> 
> If you think you need universal background checks to prevent sales over the internet or at gun shows, you would be completely wrong.
> Gun shows and internet sales have always required background checks in the last 20 years.
> 
> So if someone threatens your sister and she asks to borrow a gun for protection, according to you she should have to pay $20 for a background check and wait a week?  That makes no sense at all.
> Criminals are never going to bother with background checks, because they already intend to violate crimes with far greater penalties.
> Background checks only keep the honest disarmed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An assault weapon is any weapon that makes a gun nut feel like Rambo - especially with high-capacity magazines.  Except for police - all magazines should be limited to no more than 5 rounds.  No one goes on a shooting rampage with single-shot weapons.  Don't be a Dick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have that backwards.
> The police are the ones who should be limited to small capacity magazines.
> That is because they have a duty to not accidentally shoot people in the background, and historically the police, KGB, Stazi, Savik, kopos, etc., are always the ones who destroy freedom and democracy.
> The founders had no police and did not want any.
> In fact, they wanted citizen soldiers as well.
> 
> As for trying to limit capacity, that is not the weapon's fault, and simply can not be done any more.
> Magazines are trivial to modify.  You can just cut up a couple of magazines and weld them together.
> In fact, almost any single shot weapon can fairly easy to turn into a full auto machine gun with a high capacity.
> You can't change that will minor gun laws, if people intent to commit murder.
> Only a Dick would think you can get mass murder to reduce by passing a minor, punitive law.
> Nor would anyone but a Dicks want to try to cover up severe social problems by pretending that eliminating weapons helped anything.  If people are committing mass murder, there has to be reasons.  And you want to fix the reasons, not just try to suppress the result.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you still have fantasies of winning a gunfight with police and military forces?  Funny...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The REALITY is that the police and military are always inherently corrupt, because they do what those who sign their paycheck tell them to do.  Doesn't matter if it is ancient Rome, or the British regulars attempting to suppress the colonials.
> All government become corrupt eventually and need to be destroyed.
> Happens about every 400 years or so.
> Anyone who prevents the general population from being able to revolt against a corrupt dictatorship, is a traitor.
> And the police and military have NEVER won against a popular insurgency.
> They could not even win in Vietnam or Afghanistan.
> Corruption always loses because all you have to do is cut into their profits, and they will quit.
Click to expand...


Funny.  They do what they were elected to do - good or bad. Voice your concerns at the ballot box.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> It sure is, and expressly guarantees the right to bear arms.
> 
> 
> 
> Only the unorganized militia complain about gun control laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only you are so consistently incoherent and dogmatic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As do individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws.
Click to expand...


Doesn't matter who complains about it.


----------



## hadit

Lakhota said:


> Don't be a Dick.  Ban assault weapons and pass universal background checks!



Don't be more stupid than you need to.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only you are so consistently incoherent and dogmatic.
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As do individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is supposed to be everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The organized militia has literal recourse to our Second Amendment.
Click to expand...


As do individuals.


----------



## hadit

Rigby5 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TRFjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Heller v DC made the right for an individual to own a firearm including so-called assault rifles settled law
> just like you liberals claim Woe v Wade made the right for a woman to have an abortion settled law
> 
> so get over it only recourse you have is a constitutional amendment *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd Amendment means whatever SCOTUS says it means at any given time!  It has been limited several times in the past - and will be in the future.  There are no constitutional amendments required to legislate gun control laws - such as banning assault weapons, banning high-capacity magazines, banning certain types of ammunition, and universal background checks on all gun transactions.
> 
> *Republicans claim the 2nd Amendment doesn't have limits. They're wrong.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you are entirely wrong.
> The SCOTUS opened the floodgate and can't back up now.
> An assault weapons ban would mean 40 million people would become criminals and there would be a civil war the first time an innocent gun owner was murdered by a corrupt government in violation of the ex post facto article in the Constitution.
> Read Article I, Section 9, Clause 3: on Ex Post Facto laws being illegal.
> 
> {... No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. ...}
> 
> Guide to the Constitution
> 
> That means that assault weapons have been legally purchased and owned, so now can not be made illegal and confiscated.
> 
> The SCOTUS can NOT at all do whatever it wants.
> It has to remain true to the rules and basic premise of a democratic republic.
> And if you can ban certain types of weapons, magazines, etc., from the general public, then the police, military, etc., must also be banned.  The authority of public employees, like the SCOTUS, police, military, etc., comes from the inherent rights of individuals.  They can not have authority above that of the general public, in a democratic republic.
Click to expand...


If the second can be perverted by a mere court vote, so can the first. I wonder how keen the anti gun activists would be to have their internet ramblings carefully controlled so as not to offend anyone who supports Trump.


----------



## hadit

Lakhota said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be a Dick.  Ban assault weapons and pass universal background checks!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as an assault weapon.
> In the revolutionary war, blunderbusses were used as assault weapons, (also called coach guns).
> In the civil war, a pair of pistols was used as assault weapons by cavalry.
> In the first world war, it was the pump, trench, shotgun.
> In WWII it was carbines.
> 
> There days, all weapons used as assault weapons are full auto.
> No firearm sold to civilians are full auto.
> 
> If you think you need universal background checks to prevent sales over the internet or at gun shows, you would be completely wrong.
> Gun shows and internet sales have always required background checks in the last 20 years.
> 
> So if someone threatens your sister and she asks to borrow a gun for protection, according to you she should have to pay $20 for a background check and wait a week?  That makes no sense at all.
> Criminals are never going to bother with background checks, because they already intend to violate crimes with far greater penalties.
> Background checks only keep the honest disarmed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An assault weapon is any weapon that makes a gun nut feel like Rambo - especially with high-capacity magazines.  Except for police - all magazines should be limited to no more than 5 rounds.  No one goes on a shooting rampage with single-shot weapons.  Don't be a Dick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have that backwards.
> The police are the ones who should be limited to small capacity magazines.
> That is because they have a duty to not accidentally shoot people in the background, and historically the police, KGB, Stazi, Savik, kopos, etc., are always the ones who destroy freedom and democracy.
> The founders had no police and did not want any.
> In fact, they wanted citizen soldiers as well.
> 
> As for trying to limit capacity, that is not the weapon's fault, and simply can not be done any more.
> Magazines are trivial to modify.  You can just cut up a couple of magazines and weld them together.
> In fact, almost any single shot weapon can fairly easy to turn into a full auto machine gun with a high capacity.
> You can't change that will minor gun laws, if people intent to commit murder.
> Only a Dick would think you can get mass murder to reduce by passing a minor, punitive law.
> Nor would anyone but a Dicks want to try to cover up severe social problems by pretending that eliminating weapons helped anything.  If people are committing mass murder, there has to be reasons.  And you want to fix the reasons, not just try to suppress the result.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you still have fantasies of winning a gunfight with police and military forces?  Funny...
Click to expand...


The don't have to. They simply need to make the cost high enough to prevent someone from trying.


----------



## danielpalos

TRFjr said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *no, because the reason for the founding fathers  acknowledging  the god-given right to protect oneself and family is just as relevant today as it was over 200 years ago *
Click to expand...

Natural rights are recognized in State Constitutions and available via Due Process not our Second Amendment.


----------



## danielpalos

TRFjr said:


> *Heller v DC made the right for an individual to own a firearm including so-called assault rifles settled law
> just like you liberals claim Woe v Wade made the right for a woman to have an abortion settled law
> 
> so get over it only recourse you have is a constitutional amendment *


The error in DC v. Heller is that there is no such Thing as well regulated militia of Individuals. 

You are either, well regulated or unorganized militia of the United States and of the State in which you reside.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only the unorganized militia complain about gun control laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only you are so consistently incoherent and dogmatic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you look at who the founders considered the well regulated militia, it was essentially everyone.
> Each state words it slightly differently, but there were no police or any standing army back then, so the unorganized militia had to do everything, when needed.  The tradition was the shotgun over the mantel.  Good for pirates, bandits, gangs, bears, coyotes, natives, snakes, rabid dogs, etc.
> 
> By the way, the phrase "well regulated" means well practiced, as in regular digestion, a well regulated clock, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  no, it doesn't.  you are either unorganized or well regulated and Organized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> The Organized Militia is only supposed to be called up when the nation is attacked.
> Until then, you are the unorganized militia, but have to still train in order to be ready.
> And training to be ready is what makes the militia "well regulated".
> Regulated does not mean restricted, it means practiced.
Click to expand...

Our Second Amendment is express not implied. Well regulated militia may not be Infringed in the keeping and bearing of Arms for their State or the Union.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only the unorganized militia complain about gun control laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only you are so consistently incoherent and dogmatic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As do individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter who complains about it.
Click to expand...

Yes, it does.  The unorganized militia is expressly subject to the police power of the State.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Whomever says that natural rights are not protected by the U.S Constitution knows fuck-all about Constitutional Law.

.


----------



## TRFjr

danielpalos said:


> TRFjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Heller v DC made the right for an individual to own a firearm including so-called assault rifles settled law
> just like you liberals claim Woe v Wade made the right for a woman to have an abortion settled law
> 
> so get over it only recourse you have is a constitutional amendment *
> 
> 
> 
> The error in DC v. Heller is that there is no such Thing as well regulated militia of Individuals.
> 
> You are either, well regulated or unorganized militia of the United States and of the State in which you reside.
Click to expand...

yet you believe the right to an abortion isn't in error when nowhere in the constitution is abortion ever  mentioned


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Whomever says that natural rights are not protected by the U.S Constitution knows fuck-all about Constitutional Law.
> 
> .


natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available in our federal Constitution via Due Process.


----------



## danielpalos

TRFjr said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TRFjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Heller v DC made the right for an individual to own a firearm including so-called assault rifles settled law
> just like you liberals claim Woe v Wade made the right for a woman to have an abortion settled law
> 
> so get over it only recourse you have is a constitutional amendment *
> 
> 
> 
> The error in DC v. Heller is that there is no such Thing as well regulated militia of Individuals.
> 
> You are either, well regulated or unorganized militia of the United States and of the State in which you reside.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yet you believe the right to an abortion isn't in error when nowhere in the constitution is abortion ever  mentioned
Click to expand...

it must be up to the conscience of the individual.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Whomever says that natural rights are not protected by the U.S Constitution needs to go back to fucking law school and stop pretending to know a goddamn thing.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only you are so consistently incoherent and dogmatic.
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As do individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter who complains about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it does.  The unorganized militia is expressly subject to the police power of the State.
Click to expand...


Complaining does precisely nothing, therefore it doesn't matter who complains. I know this is one of your core cherished phrases, but it simply means nothing. You can stop using it now.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> TRFjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TRFjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Heller v DC made the right for an individual to own a firearm including so-called assault rifles settled law
> just like you liberals claim Woe v Wade made the right for a woman to have an abortion settled law
> 
> so get over it only recourse you have is a constitutional amendment *
> 
> 
> 
> The error in DC v. Heller is that there is no such Thing as well regulated militia of Individuals.
> 
> You are either, well regulated or unorganized militia of the United States and of the State in which you reside.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yet you believe the right to an abortion isn't in error when nowhere in the constitution is abortion ever  mentioned
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it must be up to the conscience of the individual.
Click to expand...


And owning a firearm must also be up to the conscience of the individual.


----------



## TRFjr

danielpalos said:


> TRFjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Heller v DC made the right for an individual to own a firearm including so-called assault rifles settled law
> just like you liberals claim Woe v Wade made the right for a woman to have an abortion settled law
> 
> so get over it only recourse you have is a constitutional amendment *
> 
> 
> 
> The error in DC v. Heller is that there is no such Thing as well regulated militia of Individuals.
> 
> You are either, well regulated or unorganized militia of the United States and of the State in which you reside.
Click to expand...

*the coma after "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, " was placed for a reason 
 its to separate what follows next not in conjunction with 
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" is an addition to not in conjunction with *


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As do individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter who complains about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it does.  The unorganized militia is expressly subject to the police power of the State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Complaining does precisely nothing, therefore it doesn't matter who complains. I know this is one of your core cherished phrases, but it simply means nothing. You can stop using it now.
Click to expand...

get well regulated, don't be lazy.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TRFjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TRFjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Heller v DC made the right for an individual to own a firearm including so-called assault rifles settled law
> just like you liberals claim Woe v Wade made the right for a woman to have an abortion settled law
> 
> so get over it only recourse you have is a constitutional amendment *
> 
> 
> 
> The error in DC v. Heller is that there is no such Thing as well regulated militia of Individuals.
> 
> You are either, well regulated or unorganized militia of the United States and of the State in which you reside.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yet you believe the right to an abortion isn't in error when nowhere in the constitution is abortion ever  mentioned
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it must be up to the conscience of the individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And owning a firearm must also be up to the conscience of the individual.
Click to expand...

i am not claiming it isn't.  but, States have police power.


----------



## danielpalos

TRFjr said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TRFjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Heller v DC made the right for an individual to own a firearm including so-called assault rifles settled law
> just like you liberals claim Woe v Wade made the right for a woman to have an abortion settled law
> 
> so get over it only recourse you have is a constitutional amendment *
> 
> 
> 
> The error in DC v. Heller is that there is no such Thing as well regulated militia of Individuals.
> 
> You are either, well regulated or unorganized militia of the United States and of the State in which you reside.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *the coma after "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, " was placed for a reason
> its to separate what follows next not in conjunction with
> "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" is an addition to not in conjunction with *
Click to expand...

not the case in this case.  it merely separates the first clause from the second clause.  

there are no individual terms or rights expressed in our Second Article of Amendment to our federal Constitution.  It is not a Constitution unto itself.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> As do individuals.
> 
> 
> 
> Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter who complains about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it does.  The unorganized militia is expressly subject to the police power of the State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Complaining does precisely nothing, therefore it doesn't matter who complains. I know this is one of your core cherished phrases, but it simply means nothing. You can stop using it now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> get well regulated, don't be lazy.
Click to expand...


Get a clue, don't be dogmatic.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TRFjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TRFjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Heller v DC made the right for an individual to own a firearm including so-called assault rifles settled law
> just like you liberals claim Woe v Wade made the right for a woman to have an abortion settled law
> 
> so get over it only recourse you have is a constitutional amendment *
> 
> 
> 
> The error in DC v. Heller is that there is no such Thing as well regulated militia of Individuals.
> 
> You are either, well regulated or unorganized militia of the United States and of the State in which you reside.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yet you believe the right to an abortion isn't in error when nowhere in the constitution is abortion ever  mentioned
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it must be up to the conscience of the individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And owning a firearm must also be up to the conscience of the individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i am not claiming it isn't.  but, States have police power.
Click to expand...


Over abortion as well?


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> TRFjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TRFjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Heller v DC made the right for an individual to own a firearm including so-called assault rifles settled law
> just like you liberals claim Woe v Wade made the right for a woman to have an abortion settled law
> 
> so get over it only recourse you have is a constitutional amendment *
> 
> 
> 
> The error in DC v. Heller is that there is no such Thing as well regulated militia of Individuals.
> 
> You are either, well regulated or unorganized militia of the United States and of the State in which you reside.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *the coma after "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, " was placed for a reason
> its to separate what follows next not in conjunction with
> "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" is an addition to not in conjunction with *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not the case in this case.  it merely separates the first clause from the second clause.
> 
> there are no individual terms or rights expressed in our Second Article of Amendment to our federal Constitution.  It is not a Constitution unto itself.
Click to expand...


The Supreme Court (for the uncounted nth time) disagrees with you. You can stop saying that now.


----------



## TRFjr

danielpalos said:


> TRFjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TRFjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Heller v DC made the right for an individual to own a firearm including so-called assault rifles settled law
> just like you liberals claim Woe v Wade made the right for a woman to have an abortion settled law
> 
> so get over it only recourse you have is a constitutional amendment *
> 
> 
> 
> The error in DC v. Heller is that there is no such Thing as well regulated militia of Individuals.
> 
> You are either, well regulated or unorganized militia of the United States and of the State in which you reside.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *the coma after "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, " was placed for a reason
> its to separate what follows next not in conjunction with
> "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" is an addition to not in conjunction with *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not the case in this case.  it merely separates the first clause from the second clause.
> 
> there are no individual terms or rights expressed in our Second Article of Amendment to our federal Constitution.  It is not a Constitution unto itself.
Click to expand...

sorry until you show me your constitutional law degree I will put my credibility on those that sit on the supreme court

*District of Columbia v. Heller*, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the *Second Amendment protects an individual's Right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia*, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home

*How A Comma Gave Americans The Right To Own Guns*
_Take a look at the Second Amendment: _

_ "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State*,* the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." _

_ That little, red comma caused the Supreme Court to strike down D.C.'s ban on handguns, the country's strictest gun control law to date. _

_ Before the Supreme Court heard the case, the D.C. circuit court of appeals nixed the ban, too. "According to the court, the second comma divides the amendment into two clauses: one 'prefatory' and the other 'operative.' On this reading, the bit about a well-regulated militia is just preliminary throat clearing; the framers don't really get down to business until they start talking about 'the right of the people ... shall not be infringed,'"  The New York Times reported. _

How A Comma Gave Americans The Right To Own Guns


----------



## Blues Man

TRFjr said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TRFjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TRFjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Heller v DC made the right for an individual to own a firearm including so-called assault rifles settled law
> just like you liberals claim Woe v Wade made the right for a woman to have an abortion settled law
> 
> so get over it only recourse you have is a constitutional amendment *
> 
> 
> 
> The error in DC v. Heller is that there is no such Thing as well regulated militia of Individuals.
> 
> You are either, well regulated or unorganized militia of the United States and of the State in which you reside.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *the coma after "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, " was placed for a reason
> its to separate what follows next not in conjunction with
> "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" is an addition to not in conjunction with *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not the case in this case.  it merely separates the first clause from the second clause.
> 
> there are no individual terms or rights expressed in our Second Article of Amendment to our federal Constitution.  It is not a Constitution unto itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sorry until you show me your constitutional law degree I will put my credibility on those that sit on the supreme court
> 
> *District of Columbia v. Heller*, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the *Second Amendment protects an individual's Right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia*, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
Click to expand...

Stop wasting your time with this asshat


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter who complains about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it does.  The unorganized militia is expressly subject to the police power of the State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Complaining does precisely nothing, therefore it doesn't matter who complains. I know this is one of your core cherished phrases, but it simply means nothing. You can stop using it now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> get well regulated, don't be lazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Get a clue, don't be dogmatic.
Click to expand...

i have a clue.  it is about equality regardless of wealth under the socialism of our supreme law of the land.


----------



## Papageorgio

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TRFjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TRFjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Heller v DC made the right for an individual to own a firearm including so-called assault rifles settled law
> just like you liberals claim Woe v Wade made the right for a woman to have an abortion settled law
> 
> so get over it only recourse you have is a constitutional amendment *
> 
> 
> 
> The error in DC v. Heller is that there is no such Thing as well regulated militia of Individuals.
> 
> You are either, well regulated or unorganized militia of the United States and of the State in which you reside.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yet you believe the right to an abortion isn't in error when nowhere in the constitution is abortion ever  mentioned
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it must be up to the conscience of the individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And owning a firearm must also be up to the conscience of the individual.
Click to expand...


I agree, I respect all who own or carry guns, I would never own one however my right to choose not to should not infringe on another's right to choose to.


----------



## TRFjr

Papageorgio said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TRFjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TRFjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Heller v DC made the right for an individual to own a firearm including so-called assault rifles settled law
> just like you liberals claim Woe v Wade made the right for a woman to have an abortion settled law
> 
> so get over it only recourse you have is a constitutional amendment *
> 
> 
> 
> The error in DC v. Heller is that there is no such Thing as well regulated militia of Individuals.
> 
> You are either, well regulated or unorganized militia of the United States and of the State in which you reside.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yet you believe the right to an abortion isn't in error when nowhere in the constitution is abortion ever  mentioned
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it must be up to the conscience of the individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And owning a firearm must also be up to the conscience of the individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree, I respect all who own or carry guns, I would never own one however my right to choose not to should not infringe on another's right to choose to.
Click to expand...

*a right only goes so far till it violates the right of another 
and the right to life is probably the most fundamental right of them all 

my owning a firearm in no way infringes on any right of yours
 an abortion infringes on the right to life of the unborn *


----------



## danielpalos

TRFjr said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TRFjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The error in DC v. Heller is that there is no such Thing as well regulated militia of Individuals.
> 
> You are either, well regulated or unorganized militia of the United States and of the State in which you reside.
> 
> 
> 
> yet you believe the right to an abortion isn't in error when nowhere in the constitution is abortion ever  mentioned
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it must be up to the conscience of the individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And owning a firearm must also be up to the conscience of the individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree, I respect all who own or carry guns, I would never own one however my right to choose not to should not infringe on another's right to choose to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *a right only goes so far till it violates the right of another
> and the right to life is probably the most fundamental right of them all
> 
> my owning a firearm in no way infringes on any right of yours
> an abortion infringes on the right to life of the unborn *
Click to expand...

you only care about natural rights in abortion threads.  you need to establish more confidence in your sincerity than that.


----------



## Papageorgio

TRFjr said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TRFjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The error in DC v. Heller is that there is no such Thing as well regulated militia of Individuals.
> 
> You are either, well regulated or unorganized militia of the United States and of the State in which you reside.
> 
> 
> 
> yet you believe the right to an abortion isn't in error when nowhere in the constitution is abortion ever  mentioned
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it must be up to the conscience of the individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And owning a firearm must also be up to the conscience of the individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree, I respect all who own or carry guns, I would never own one however my right to choose not to should not infringe on another's right to choose to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *a right only goes so far till it violates the right of another
> and the right to life is probably the most fundamental right of them all
> 
> my owning a firearm in no way infringes on any right of yours
> an abortion infringes on the right to life of the unborn *
Click to expand...


Where the hell did I say otherwise? I never fucking said you couldn't own a fire arm, I stated my right to choose not to should not infringe on your right to. 

 In other words, I was fucking agreeing with hadit. Learn to comprehend what is written! What any of this has to do with abortion is beyond me, but I am also against abortion, so again, learn to read.


----------



## Papageorgio

danielpalos said:


> TRFjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TRFjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> yet you believe the right to an abortion isn't in error when nowhere in the constitution is abortion ever  mentioned
> 
> 
> 
> it must be up to the conscience of the individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And owning a firearm must also be up to the conscience of the individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree, I respect all who own or carry guns, I would never own one however my right to choose not to should not infringe on another's right to choose to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *a right only goes so far till it violates the right of another
> and the right to life is probably the most fundamental right of them all
> 
> my owning a firearm in no way infringes on any right of yours
> an abortion infringes on the right to life of the unborn *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you only care about natural rights in abortion threads.  you need to establish more confidence in your sincerity than that.
Click to expand...


One stupid moronic statement followed by another. Your stupidity knows no bounds.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Papageorgio said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TRFjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it must be up to the conscience of the individual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And owning a firearm must also be up to the conscience of the individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree, I respect all who own or carry guns, I would never own one however my right to choose not to should not infringe on another's right to choose to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *a right only goes so far till it violates the right of another
> and the right to life is probably the most fundamental right of them all
> 
> my owning a firearm in no way infringes on any right of yours
> an abortion infringes on the right to life of the unborn *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you only care about natural rights in abortion threads.  you need to establish more confidence in your sincerity than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One stupid moronic statement followed by another. Your stupidity knows no bounds.
Click to expand...

If you are chatting with danielpalos, I recommend the Ignore function.  

He is full of bullshit and canned responses.  He never justifies a single position with any relevant authority.  He is simply full of shit.

Ignore.

.


----------



## TRFjr

danielpalos said:


> TRFjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TRFjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> yet you believe the right to an abortion isn't in error when nowhere in the constitution is abortion ever  mentioned
> 
> 
> 
> it must be up to the conscience of the individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And owning a firearm must also be up to the conscience of the individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree, I respect all who own or carry guns, I would never own one however my right to choose not to should not infringe on another's right to choose to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *a right only goes so far till it violates the right of another
> and the right to life is probably the most fundamental right of them all
> 
> my owning a firearm in no way infringes on any right of yours
> an abortion infringes on the right to life of the unborn *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you only care about natural rights in abortion threads.  you need to establish more confidence in your sincerity than that.
Click to expand...

so tell me what other natural rights are you are assuming I don't care about?


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter who complains about it.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does.  The unorganized militia is expressly subject to the police power of the State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Complaining does precisely nothing, therefore it doesn't matter who complains. I know this is one of your core cherished phrases, but it simply means nothing. You can stop using it now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> get well regulated, don't be lazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Get a clue, don't be dogmatic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i have a clue.  it is about equality regardless of wealth under the socialism of our supreme law of the land.
Click to expand...


How is that related to guns?


----------



## danielpalos

TRFjr said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TRFjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> it must be up to the conscience of the individual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And owning a firearm must also be up to the conscience of the individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree, I respect all who own or carry guns, I would never own one however my right to choose not to should not infringe on another's right to choose to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *a right only goes so far till it violates the right of another
> and the right to life is probably the most fundamental right of them all
> 
> my owning a firearm in no way infringes on any right of yours
> an abortion infringes on the right to life of the unborn *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you only care about natural rights in abortion threads.  you need to establish more confidence in your sincerity than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so tell me what other natural rights are you are assuming I don't care about?
Click to expand...

i need to play word games with you for around an hour.



> *“You can discover more about a person in an hour of play than a year of conversation.”*—Plato.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does.  The unorganized militia is expressly subject to the police power of the State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Complaining does precisely nothing, therefore it doesn't matter who complains. I know this is one of your core cherished phrases, but it simply means nothing. You can stop using it now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> get well regulated, don't be lazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Get a clue, don't be dogmatic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i have a clue.  it is about equality regardless of wealth under the socialism of our supreme law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is that related to guns?
Click to expand...

You could simply enroll to become organized.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Lakhota said:


> An assault weapon is any weapon that makes a gun nut feel like Rambo....


Someday, you will, somehow, add something meaningful to some conversation, somewhere.
Today is not that day.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Complaining does precisely nothing, therefore it doesn't matter who complains. I know this is one of your core cherished phrases, but it simply means nothing. You can stop using it now.
> 
> 
> 
> get well regulated, don't be lazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Get a clue, don't be dogmatic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i have a clue.  it is about equality regardless of wealth under the socialism of our supreme law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is that related to guns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You could simply enroll to become organized.
Click to expand...


Irrelevant.


----------



## Lakhota

*ANOTHER NRA BOARD MEMBER JUMPS SHIP!*


----------



## Papageorgio

Lakhota said:


> *ANOTHER NRA BOARD MEMBER JUMPS SHIP!*



Dream on nut job.


----------



## hunarcy

Lakhota said:


> Don't be a Dick.  Ban assault weapons and pass universal background checks!



By blaming the gun, you absolve the shooter.  THAT is being a dick and you should stop it.


----------



## hunarcy

Lakhota said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be a Dick.  Ban assault weapons and pass universal background checks!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as an assault weapon.
> In the revolutionary war, blunderbusses were used as assault weapons, (also called coach guns).
> In the civil war, a pair of pistols was used as assault weapons by cavalry.
> In the first world war, it was the pump, trench, shotgun.
> In WWII it was carbines.
> 
> There days, all weapons used as assault weapons are full auto.
> No firearm sold to civilians are full auto.
> 
> If you think you need universal background checks to prevent sales over the internet or at gun shows, you would be completely wrong.
> Gun shows and internet sales have always required background checks in the last 20 years.
> 
> So if someone threatens your sister and she asks to borrow a gun for protection, according to you she should have to pay $20 for a background check and wait a week?  That makes no sense at all.
> Criminals are never going to bother with background checks, because they already intend to violate crimes with far greater penalties.
> Background checks only keep the honest disarmed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An assault weapon is any weapon that makes a gun nut feel like Rambo - especially with high-capacity magazines.  Except for police - all magazines should be limited to no more than 5 rounds.  No one goes on a shooting rampage with single-shot weapons.  Don't be a Dick.
Click to expand...


I can see that the idea of a magazine with more than 5 rounds made you pee yourself in fear.  That's sad.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

hunarcy said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be a Dick.  Ban assault weapons and pass universal background checks!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By blaming the gun, you absolve the shooter.  THAT is being a dick and you should stop it.
Click to expand...

Don't expect Kemosabe to make any sense.  The gun killed all his worthless idiot people.

I would hate guns too if I were an injun.



.


----------



## Papageorgio

Lakhota said:


> Don't be a Dick.  Ban assault weapons and pass universal background checks!



Why is it that when law enforcement shoots a criminal, it’s law enforcement’s fault. When a nut job goes out and does a mass shooting it’s the guns fault?


----------



## Lakhota




----------



## watchingfromafar

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be a Dick.  Ban assault weapons and pass universal background checks!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By blaming the gun, you absolve the shooter.  THAT is being a dick and you should stop it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't expect Kemosabe to make any sense.  The gun killed all his worthless idiot people.
> 
> I would hate guns too if I were an injun.
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


----------



## watchingfromafar

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Don't be a Dick.  Ban assault weapons and pass universal background checks!


_By blaming the gun, you absolve the shooter.  THAT is being a dick and you should stop it._
Don't expect Kemosabe to make any sense.  The gun killed all his worthless idiot people.
I would hate guns too if I were an injun




Bootney Lee Farnsworth,..,.,,.I see you
you feel the warmth of my piss
on your face
right now--
-
o8/30/2019
9:54 pm
cst (;-


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

_"Republicans claim the 2nd Amendment doesn't have limits. They're wrong."_

Of course they’re wrong.

‘In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has explicitly said so, in a 2008 case called _Heller_. "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited," wrote Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the court's most principled conservatives at the time. "It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." (The case itself concerned gun laws in Washington, D.C.) 

In other words, while the Second Amendment does generally allow for gun ownership, it has left specificity for modern-day jurists, legislators and voters to debate.’ _ibid_

And there’s nothing ‘new’ about this ruling, it’s a reaffirmation of the settled, accepted fact – beyond dispute – that no right is ‘unlimited,’ including the Second Amendment right.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

hadit said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TRFjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Heller v DC made the right for an individual to own a firearm including so-called assault rifles settled law
> just like you liberals claim Woe v Wade made the right for a woman to have an abortion settled law
> 
> so get over it only recourse you have is a constitutional amendment *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd Amendment means whatever SCOTUS says it means at any given time!  It has been limited several times in the past - and will be in the future.  There are no constitutional amendments required to legislate gun control laws - such as banning assault weapons, banning high-capacity magazines, banning certain types of ammunition, and universal background checks on all gun transactions.
> 
> *Republicans claim the 2nd Amendment doesn't have limits. They're wrong.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you are entirely wrong.
> The SCOTUS opened the floodgate and can't back up now.
> An assault weapons ban would mean 40 million people would become criminals and there would be a civil war the first time an innocent gun owner was murdered by a corrupt government in violation of the ex post facto article in the Constitution.
> Read Article I, Section 9, Clause 3: on Ex Post Facto laws being illegal.
> 
> {... No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. ...}
> 
> Guide to the Constitution
> 
> That means that assault weapons have been legally purchased and owned, so now can not be made illegal and confiscated.
> 
> The SCOTUS can NOT at all do whatever it wants.
> It has to remain true to the rules and basic premise of a democratic republic.
> And if you can ban certain types of weapons, magazines, etc., from the general public, then the police, military, etc., must also be banned.  The authority of public employees, like the SCOTUS, police, military, etc., comes from the inherent rights of individuals.  They can not have authority above that of the general public, in a democratic republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the second can be perverted by a mere court vote, so can the first. I wonder how keen the anti gun activists would be to have their internet ramblings carefully controlled so as not to offend anyone who supports Trump.
Click to expand...

To support firearm regulatory measures consistent with Second Amendment case law is not to be ‘anti-gun’ – the notion is as ignorant as it is ridiculous.


----------



## Lakhota




----------



## Deplorable Yankee

Lakhota said:


>




Two dogs fuckin Youre a savage dick 
Your new Right  n proper white name is Dick Savage ...( all puns intended) 

 they will never stop trying to take your guns away .
Wake up patriots Red flag laws are more dangerous than a left wing transgender SSRI  induced mass shooter  ...Trump and republicans are disgusting for even suggesting them


----------



## M14 Shooter

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> _"Republicans claim the 2nd Amendment doesn't have limits. They're wrong."_



Republicans do not claim this.
Why do you need to lie to make a point?


----------



## hadit

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TRFjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Heller v DC made the right for an individual to own a firearm including so-called assault rifles settled law
> just like you liberals claim Woe v Wade made the right for a woman to have an abortion settled law
> 
> so get over it only recourse you have is a constitutional amendment *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd Amendment means whatever SCOTUS says it means at any given time!  It has been limited several times in the past - and will be in the future.  There are no constitutional amendments required to legislate gun control laws - such as banning assault weapons, banning high-capacity magazines, banning certain types of ammunition, and universal background checks on all gun transactions.
> 
> *Republicans claim the 2nd Amendment doesn't have limits. They're wrong.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you are entirely wrong.
> The SCOTUS opened the floodgate and can't back up now.
> An assault weapons ban would mean 40 million people would become criminals and there would be a civil war the first time an innocent gun owner was murdered by a corrupt government in violation of the ex post facto article in the Constitution.
> Read Article I, Section 9, Clause 3: on Ex Post Facto laws being illegal.
> 
> {... No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. ...}
> 
> Guide to the Constitution
> 
> That means that assault weapons have been legally purchased and owned, so now can not be made illegal and confiscated.
> 
> The SCOTUS can NOT at all do whatever it wants.
> It has to remain true to the rules and basic premise of a democratic republic.
> And if you can ban certain types of weapons, magazines, etc., from the general public, then the police, military, etc., must also be banned.  The authority of public employees, like the SCOTUS, police, military, etc., comes from the inherent rights of individuals.  They can not have authority above that of the general public, in a democratic republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the second can be perverted by a mere court vote, so can the first. I wonder how keen the anti gun activists would be to have their internet ramblings carefully controlled so as not to offend anyone who supports Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To support firearm regulatory measures consistent with Second Amendment case law is not to be ‘anti-gun’ – the notion is as ignorant as it is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Anti-gun is an attitude, and it is those with that attitude to whom I was referring.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TRFjr said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Heller v DC made the right for an individual to own a firearm including so-called assault rifles settled law
> just like you liberals claim Woe v Wade made the right for a woman to have an abortion settled law
> 
> so get over it only recourse you have is a constitutional amendment *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd Amendment means whatever SCOTUS says it means at any given time!  It has been limited several times in the past - and will be in the future.  There are no constitutional amendments required to legislate gun control laws - such as banning assault weapons, banning high-capacity magazines, banning certain types of ammunition, and universal background checks on all gun transactions.
> 
> *Republicans claim the 2nd Amendment doesn't have limits. They're wrong.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you are entirely wrong.
> The SCOTUS opened the floodgate and can't back up now.
> An assault weapons ban would mean 40 million people would become criminals and there would be a civil war the first time an innocent gun owner was murdered by a corrupt government in violation of the ex post facto article in the Constitution.
> Read Article I, Section 9, Clause 3: on Ex Post Facto laws being illegal.
> 
> {... No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. ...}
> 
> Guide to the Constitution
> 
> That means that assault weapons have been legally purchased and owned, so now can not be made illegal and confiscated.
> 
> The SCOTUS can NOT at all do whatever it wants.
> It has to remain true to the rules and basic premise of a democratic republic.
> And if you can ban certain types of weapons, magazines, etc., from the general public, then the police, military, etc., must also be banned.  The authority of public employees, like the SCOTUS, police, military, etc., comes from the inherent rights of individuals.  They can not have authority above that of the general public, in a democratic republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the second can be perverted by a mere court vote, so can the first. I wonder how keen the anti gun activists would be to have their internet ramblings carefully controlled so as not to offend anyone who supports Trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To support firearm regulatory measures consistent with Second Amendment case law is not to be ‘anti-gun’ – the notion is as ignorant as it is ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anti-gun is an attitude, and it is those with that attitude to whom I was referring.
Click to expand...

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and regulate them well.


----------



## danielpalos

...thank goodness women don't really believe in equality so they can join the militia and get well regulated, and become a corporal so they can "grab guys by their gun", when they need them.


----------



## hunarcy

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be a Dick.  Ban assault weapons and pass universal background checks!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By blaming the gun, you absolve the shooter.  THAT is being a dick and you should stop it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't expect Kemosabe to make any sense.  The gun killed all his worthless idiot people.
> 
> I would hate guns too if I were an injun.
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Actually, it was the lack of guns and the inability to maintain a steady supply that killed his people.  If anyone should know the dangers of taking guns away from people, it's the Amerind population.  That's why I'm pretty sure he's not what he presents himself to be.


----------



## TRFjr

Lakhota said:


>


*such utter bull crap 
why do you brain dead liberals believe such fake memes with no sourcing  that some kid could have created 

now for the truth

Dick's Sporting Goods Sales Sink After Gun Policy | National Review
*


----------



## Lakhota

*AT LEAST 5 DEAD, 21 SHOT IN WEST TEXAS*

Another gun massacre.


----------



## danielpalos

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free State.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. _The legislature shall_ provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and regulate them well!


----------



## danielpalos

It is the common law for the common defense!


----------



## Lakhota

Tips about potential acts of mass killings have spiked, and law enforcement appears to be paying close attention to threats.

In the four weeks since a 21-year-old alleged white nationalist was charged in the slaughter of 22 people inside a Walmart in El Paso, Texas, law enforcement authorities have arrested more than 40 people as potential mass shooters — an average of more than one per day.

*Over 40 People Have Been Arrested As Potential Mass Shooters Since El Paso*

Homegrown white terrorists.


----------



## hunarcy

Lakhota said:


> Tips about potential acts of mass killings have spiked, and law enforcement appears to be paying close attention to threats.
> 
> In the four weeks since a 21-year-old alleged white nationalist was charged in the slaughter of 22 people inside a Walmart in El Paso, Texas, law enforcement authorities have arrested more than 40 people as potential mass shooters — an average of more than one per day.
> 
> *Over 40 People Have Been Arrested As Potential Mass Shooters Since El Paso*
> 
> Homegrown white terrorists.



Good!  That's effective.  Going after the people who are the problem instead of the gun is the right way to go!


----------



## Wyatt earp

Lakhota said:


> Tips about potential acts of mass killings have spiked, and law enforcement appears to be paying close attention to threats.
> 
> In the four weeks since a 21-year-old alleged white nationalist was charged in the slaughter of 22 people inside a Walmart in El Paso, Texas, law enforcement authorities have arrested more than 40 people as potential mass shooters — an average of more than one per day.
> 
> *Over 40 People Have Been Arrested As Potential Mass Shooters Since El Paso*
> 
> Homegrown white terrorists.



*So Many People Were Shot In Chicago This Weekend, A Hospital Had To Briefly Stop Taking Patients*

Chicago had two mass shootings within hours of each other on Sunday. In total, 46 people were injured by gun violence in the city over the weekend.




Kadia GobaBuzzFeed News Reporter




Reporting From
Washington, DC
Posted on August 5, 2019, at 6:27 p.m. ET
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bu...hicago-brooklyn-mass-shootings-el-paso-dayton


----------



## danielpalos

any competent adult should be able to acquire and posses Arms if they love them sufficiently.

Any gun lovers who love guns enough to purchase them can be enrolled in the militia to be organized and well regulated.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> any competent adult should be able to acquire and posses Arms if they love them sufficiently.
> 
> Any gun lovers who love guns enough to purchase them can be enrolled in the militia to be organized and well regulated.


We already are 
*10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes*
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
*(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.*


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> any competent adult should be able to acquire and posses Arms if they love them sufficiently.
> 
> Any gun lovers who love guns enough to purchase them can be enrolled in the militia to be organized and well regulated.



Kind of odd because no one "loves" guns.
They have a history, interesting varieties of operations and mechanisms, they have intricate details like a watch, collectible aspects like old cars, etc.  But since guns are not alive, it is impossible to consider that interest "love".

The fact guns represent democracy, equality, individuality, freedom, defense, etc., simply makes them essential.
And while some think that just having police that are armed is sufficient, that is extremely foolish.
The Savik, KGB, Kapos, Gestapo, Stazi, etc., are what all police turn into, if they are not corrupt from the beginning, and even when they are not corrupt, they still can never get anywhere in time to protect anyone. 

But you also are looking at it backwards.
Since everyone is supposed to be responsibly acting for the safety of the family, community, state, and country, everyone is supposed to be the militia, and it is deliberately supposed to be unorganized so that it is NOT centrally controlled.  It is supposed to be the spontaneous will of the people as a whole and NOT dictated by any corrupt central, large, or wealthy entity.  Once something is organized and controlled, it is no longer trustworthy.
You want to be able to draw on the unorganized militia in order to form organized posses or state troops for defense, but one must NEVER allow any central power to control the force of arms in a democratic republic, or else it ceases to be a democratic republic, very quickly.  This is obvious even in the US, where the Spanish American War, the Philippine Rebellion, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, etc., were all totally illegal and corrupt murders by a US military that is already totally out of control.

The end of monarchies and the success of democratic republics are the direct result of armed populations allowing for power to actually be in the hands of the people.
Gun control of any form is in direct conflict with the principles and foundation of any democratic republic.
Gun control is not just foolish, but incredibly evil.


----------



## Rigby5

hunarcy said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tips about potential acts of mass killings have spiked, and law enforcement appears to be paying close attention to threats.
> 
> In the four weeks since a 21-year-old alleged white nationalist was charged in the slaughter of 22 people inside a Walmart in El Paso, Texas, law enforcement authorities have arrested more than 40 people as potential mass shooters — an average of more than one per day.
> 
> *Over 40 People Have Been Arrested As Potential Mass Shooters Since El Paso*
> 
> Homegrown white terrorists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good!  That's effective.  Going after the people who are the problem instead of the gun is the right way to go!
Click to expand...



It is happening so much that there likely is something systemic wrong, like job instability, over hyped media, pesticides in the water, etc.  We need to prevent what is causing people to have violent episodes, not just lock up the ones who already are violent.


----------



## Rigby5

bear513 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tips about potential acts of mass killings have spiked, and law enforcement appears to be paying close attention to threats.
> 
> In the four weeks since a 21-year-old alleged white nationalist was charged in the slaughter of 22 people inside a Walmart in El Paso, Texas, law enforcement authorities have arrested more than 40 people as potential mass shooters — an average of more than one per day.
> 
> *Over 40 People Have Been Arrested As Potential Mass Shooters Since El Paso*
> 
> Homegrown white terrorists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *So Many People Were Shot In Chicago This Weekend, A Hospital Had To Briefly Stop Taking Patients*
> 
> Chicago had two mass shootings within hours of each other on Sunday. In total, 46 people were injured by gun violence in the city over the weekend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kadia GobaBuzzFeed News Reporter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reporting From
> Washington, DC
> Posted on August 5, 2019, at 6:27 p.m. ET
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bu...hicago-brooklyn-mass-shootings-el-paso-dayton
Click to expand...


That one is easy.
About 90% of shootings come from the War on Drugs.
So all we have to do is end the war on drugs be decriminalization.
When you make something illegal, like we did with alcohol in Prohibition, then profits go up, you get turf wars, and thefts from the large amount of cash that can't be put in banks or defended by police.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Rigby5 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tips about potential acts of mass killings have spiked, and law enforcement appears to be paying close attention to threats.
> 
> In the four weeks since a 21-year-old alleged white nationalist was charged in the slaughter of 22 people inside a Walmart in El Paso, Texas, law enforcement authorities have arrested more than 40 people as potential mass shooters — an average of more than one per day.
> 
> *Over 40 People Have Been Arrested As Potential Mass Shooters Since El Paso*
> 
> Homegrown white terrorists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *So Many People Were Shot In Chicago This Weekend, A Hospital Had To Briefly Stop Taking Patients*
> 
> Chicago had two mass shootings within hours of each other on Sunday. In total, 46 people were injured by gun violence in the city over the weekend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kadia GobaBuzzFeed News Reporter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reporting From
> Washington, DC
> Posted on August 5, 2019, at 6:27 p.m. ET
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bu...hicago-brooklyn-mass-shootings-el-paso-dayton
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That one is easy.
> About 90% of shootings come from the War on Drugs.
> So all we have to do is end the war on drugs be decriminalization.
> When you make something illegal, like we did with alcohol in Prohibition, then profits go up, you get turf wars, and thefts from the large amount of cash that can't be put in banks or defended by police.
Click to expand...



So Colorado didn't have mass shootings and pot is not legal?


----------



## Wyatt earp

Once again why do you libtards set yourself up to be embarrassed by a simple maintenance guy like me?


----------



## Rigby5

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> any competent adult should be able to acquire and posses Arms if they love them sufficiently.
> 
> Any gun lovers who love guns enough to purchase them can be enrolled in the militia to be organized and well regulated.
> 
> 
> 
> We already are
> *10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes*
> (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> (b) The classes of the militia are—
> (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
> *(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.*
Click to expand...




bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> any competent adult should be able to acquire and posses Arms if they love them sufficiently.
> 
> Any gun lovers who love guns enough to purchase them can be enrolled in the militia to be organized and well regulated.
> 
> 
> 
> We already are
> *10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes*
> (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> (b) The classes of the militia are—
> (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
> *(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.*
Click to expand...


Agreed that in a democratic republic, everyone is supposed to be a member of the militia, as each household is supposed to defend itself if possible.

But I do not agree with your sig line, "LIBERALS ARE TRAITORS ".
Before the 1990s, it was the republicans who were passing gun control laws.
And the classic liberal tradition, like Jefferson, is to expand individual liberties.
I agree something has gone wrong with many people who call themselves liberals, after 1990 or so, but we should not confuse the term with some of the individuals who are using the term wrong.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> any competent adult should be able to acquire and posses Arms if they love them sufficiently.
> 
> Any gun lovers who love guns enough to purchase them can be enrolled in the militia to be organized and well regulated.
> 
> 
> 
> We already are
> *10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes*
> (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> (b) The classes of the militia are—
> (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
> *(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.*
Click to expand...

Simply loving your gun qualifies for the militia registry.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> any competent adult should be able to acquire and posses Arms if they love them sufficiently.
> 
> Any gun lovers who love guns enough to purchase them can be enrolled in the militia to be organized and well regulated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kind of odd because no one "loves" guns.
> They have a history, interesting varieties of operations and mechanisms, they have intricate details like a watch, collectible aspects like old cars, etc.  But since guns are not alive, it is impossible to consider that interest "love".
> 
> The fact guns represent democracy, equality, individuality, freedom, defense, etc., simply makes them essential.
> And while some think that just having police that are armed is sufficient, that is extremely foolish.
> The Savik, KGB, Kapos, Gestapo, Stazi, etc., are what all police turn into, if they are not corrupt from the beginning, and even when they are not corrupt, they still can never get anywhere in time to protect anyone.
> 
> But you also are looking at it backwards.
> Since everyone is supposed to be responsibly acting for the safety of the family, community, state, and country, everyone is supposed to be the militia, and it is deliberately supposed to be unorganized so that it is NOT centrally controlled.  It is supposed to be the spontaneous will of the people as a whole and NOT dictated by any corrupt central, large, or wealthy entity.  Once something is organized and controlled, it is no longer trustworthy.
> You want to be able to draw on the unorganized militia in order to form organized posses or state troops for defense, but one must NEVER allow any central power to control the force of arms in a democratic republic, or else it ceases to be a democratic republic, very quickly.  This is obvious even in the US, where the Spanish American War, the Philippine Rebellion, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, etc., were all totally illegal and corrupt murders by a US military that is already totally out of control.
> 
> The end of monarchies and the success of democratic republics are the direct result of armed populations allowing for power to actually be in the hands of the people.
> Gun control of any form is in direct conflict with the principles and foundation of any democratic republic.
> Gun control is not just foolish, but incredibly evil.
Click to expand...

No one hates guns, either.  

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> any competent adult should be able to acquire and posses Arms if they love them sufficiently.
> 
> Any gun lovers who love guns enough to purchase them can be enrolled in the militia to be organized and well regulated.
> 
> 
> 
> We already are
> *10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes*
> (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> (b) The classes of the militia are—
> (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
> *(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply loving your gun qualifies for the militia registry.
Click to expand...

Stop drunk posting


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> any competent adult should be able to acquire and posses Arms if they love them sufficiently.
> 
> Any gun lovers who love guns enough to purchase them can be enrolled in the militia to be organized and well regulated.
> 
> 
> 
> We already are
> *10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes*
> (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> (b) The classes of the militia are—
> (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
> *(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply loving your gun qualifies for the militia registry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop drunk posting
Click to expand...

The point is, you are welcome to purchase guns you like, and be automatically registered with the local militia.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> any competent adult should be able to acquire and posses Arms if they love them sufficiently.
> 
> Any gun lovers who love guns enough to purchase them can be enrolled in the militia to be organized and well regulated.
> 
> 
> 
> We already are
> *10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes*
> (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> (b) The classes of the militia are—
> (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
> *(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply loving your gun qualifies for the militia registry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop drunk posting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point is, you are welcome to purchase guns you like, and be automatically registered with the local militia.
Click to expand...

Every abled body man and woman are in the unorganized Militia that includes you if you are an American citizen.
So when was the last time you trained?


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> any competent adult should be able to acquire and posses Arms if they love them sufficiently.
> 
> Any gun lovers who love guns enough to purchase them can be enrolled in the militia to be organized and well regulated.
> 
> 
> 
> We already are
> *10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes*
> (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> (b) The classes of the militia are—
> (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
> *(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply loving your gun qualifies for the militia registry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop drunk posting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point is, you are welcome to purchase guns you like, and be automatically registered with the local militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every abled body man and woman are in the unorganized Militia that includes you if you are an American citizen.
> So when was the last time you trained?
Click to expand...

lol.  gun lovers have to go first.


----------



## MAGAman

danielpalos said:


> lol.  gun lovers have to go first.


Good luck scaring them away with your pussy hat.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We already are
> *10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes*
> (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> (b) The classes of the militia are—
> (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
> *(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.*
> 
> 
> 
> Simply loving your gun qualifies for the militia registry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop drunk posting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point is, you are welcome to purchase guns you like, and be automatically registered with the local militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every abled body man and woman are in the unorganized Militia that includes you if you are an American citizen.
> So when was the last time you trained?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  gun lovers have to go first.
Click to expand...

You are in the unorganized militia.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simply loving your gun qualifies for the militia registry.
> 
> 
> 
> Stop drunk posting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point is, you are welcome to purchase guns you like, and be automatically registered with the local militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every abled body man and woman are in the unorganized Militia that includes you if you are an American citizen.
> So when was the last time you trained?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  gun lovers have to go first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are in the unorganized militia.
Click to expand...

yes, i am; and, we have a Ninth Amendment.  grab gun lovers, first.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop drunk posting
> 
> 
> 
> The point is, you are welcome to purchase guns you like, and be automatically registered with the local militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every abled body man and woman are in the unorganized Militia that includes you if you are an American citizen.
> So when was the last time you trained?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  gun lovers have to go first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are in the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, i am; and, we have a Ninth Amendment.  grab gun lovers, first.
Click to expand...

Yes, we have the 9th amendment and leftist have abused it. also since the 2nd amendment is a federally protected right what was your point?


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is, you are welcome to purchase guns you like, and be automatically registered with the local militia.
> 
> 
> 
> Every abled body man and woman are in the unorganized Militia that includes you if you are an American citizen.
> So when was the last time you trained?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  gun lovers have to go first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are in the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, i am; and, we have a Ninth Amendment.  grab gun lovers, first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, we have the 9th amendment and leftist have abused it. also since the 2nd amendment is a federally protected right what was your point?
Click to expand...

Grab gun lovers first.


----------



## hunarcy

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simply loving your gun qualifies for the militia registry.
> 
> 
> 
> Stop drunk posting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point is, you are welcome to purchase guns you like, and be automatically registered with the local militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every abled body man and woman are in the unorganized Militia that includes you if you are an American citizen.
> So when was the last time you trained?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  gun lovers have to go first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are in the unorganized militia.
Click to expand...


No, he's a time-wasting troll.  Real people are in the unorganized militia.


----------



## Lakhota

Sad...


----------



## hunarcy

Lakhota said:


> Sad...



And people like you are the cause of the blight.


----------



## danielpalos

We have a Second Amendment.  

Why do we have security problems in our free States?


----------



## Lakhota

Texas Gunman Failed Background Check, Was On Downward ‘Spiral’ Before Attack: Officials

How could this happen?


----------



## danielpalos

militia service compensation could beat unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States.

as options, they could reduce any poverty related anxieties.


----------



## Lakhota

*Walmart Says It Will Stop Selling Handgun Ammunition*

The announcement follows a string of mass shootings in the last month, one of which occurred at a Walmart store.

Walmart said Tuesday it would discontinue the sale of handgun ammunition.

The Bentonville, Arkansas-based retailer also said it would ban shoppers from openly carrying firearms in its stores, even in states that allow doing so.

The announcements come in the wake of three mass shootings in the last month, including one that took place at a Walmart store in El Paso, Texas.

Prior to the El Paso shooting, which left 22 people dead, a Walmart employee who had been suspended shot and killed two co-workers in the Mississippi store where he worked on July 30.

“As a company, we experienced two horrific events in one week, and we will never be the same,” Walmart’s CEO Doug McMillon said in a memo to employees on Tuesday.

*Walmart said it would stop selling short-barrel rifle ammunition, including the .223 caliber and 5.56 caliber sometimes used in high-capacity magazines on assault-style weapons. *The company also said it would discontinue handgun sales in Alaska, the only remaining state where Walmart sells handguns.
*
Walmart Says It Will Stop Selling Handgun Ammunition*

Well, that's a good first step.  Now stop selling assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.


----------



## danielpalos

We should insist our State legislators, bail us out, with appropriate legislation.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Not selling handgun ammunition and 5.56 NATO is pointless.  

But prohibiting open carry is appropriate.


----------



## hunarcy

Lakhota said:


> Texas Gunman Failed Background Check, Was On Downward ‘Spiral’ Before Attack: Officials
> 
> How could this happen?



Because when Law Enforcement received complaints about him, they did not act.  https://nypost.com/2019/09/01/texas-mass-shooter-threatened-neighbor-shot-animals-from-roof-report/


----------



## M14 Shooter

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Not selling handgun ammunition and 5.56 NATO is pointless.
> But prohibiting open carry is appropriate.


Because the sight of a holstered gun is likely to cause a panic among the ignorant.


----------



## JGalt

M14 Shooter said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not selling handgun ammunition and 5.56 NATO is pointless.
> But prohibiting open carry is appropriate.
> 
> 
> 
> Because the sight of a holstered gun is likely to cause a panic among the ignorant.
Click to expand...


That's why I seldom carry open. Some idiot left-winger might go off the rails, try to grab it, and end up getting shot in the nuts.


----------



## Lakhota

*WALMART DROPS HANDGUN AMMO*

Walmart Also Asks Shoppers Not To Openly Carry Firearms In Its Stores

Go Walmart.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Lakhota said:


> *WALMART DROPS HANDGUN AMMO*
> 
> Walmart Also Asks Shoppers Not To Openly Carry Firearms In Its Stores
> 
> Go Walmart.




*We're sorry, but something went wrong.*


----------



## Wyatt earp

After the El Paso shooting, Walmart told employees to take down any video game signs and displays depicting violence. Critics demanded more from the retailer, though, including that it stop contributing to the campaigns of politicians backed by the National Rifle Association


----------



## Lakhota

*Alex Jones Loses Another Legal Battle In Sandy Hook Defamation Case*

Good news!  He belongs in prison!


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

_Officials said Monday that the suspect had been fired by his employer, Journey Oil Field Services, on Saturday morning. He called 911 and the FBI’s national tip line after his dismissal and made “rambling” statements “about some of the atrocities that he felt he had gone through,” Christopher Combs, special agent in charge of FBI’s San Antonio division, said at a press conference._

And they did nothing about it.  F.B.I. - For Blatant Inaction


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> _Officials said Monday that the suspect had been fired by his employer, Journey Oil Field Services, on Saturday morning. He called 911 and the FBI’s national tip line after his dismissal and made “rambling” statements “about some of the atrocities that he felt he had gone through,” Christopher Combs, special agent in charge of FBI’s San Antonio division, said at a press conference._
> 
> And they did nothing about it.  F.B.I. - For Blatant Inaction


Would this person have had as much "emotional turbulence, if he knew he could quit and applied for unemployment compensation, before it got to this point?"


----------



## Lakhota

*More Big Retailers Ask Customers Not To Openly Carry Guns In Stores*

Walgreens and CVS have joined similar calls from Kroger and Walmart following multiple mass shootings in recent weeks.

Well, baby steps are better than no steps at all.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Lakhota said:


> *More Big Retailers Ask Customers Not To Openly Carry Guns In Stores*
> 
> Walgreens and CVS have joined similar calls from Kroger and Walmart following multiple mass shootings in recent weeks.
> 
> Well, baby steps are better than no steps at all.


Not even baby steps.

The vast majority of those who carry, carry concealed. 

This policy actually doesn’t do anything and is utterly insignificant.


----------



## Lakhota

*Our gun laws need major changes!*


----------



## JGalt

Lakhota said:


> *Our gun laws need major changes!*



Da fuq kinda BS is that? Nobody needs a "license" to buy guns. 

And if he was "committed", he never would have legally been able to pass the background check.


----------



## Lakhota

JGalt said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Our gun laws need major changes!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Da fuq kinda BS is that? Nobody needs a "license" to buy guns.
> 
> And if he was "committed", he never would have legally been able to pass the background check.
Click to expand...


Ask the NRA why he had these guns.  They defend nuts with guns - and fight hard against legislation to prevent it.


----------



## hunarcy

Lakhota said:


> *Our gun laws need major changes!*



No, the "gun laws" aren't the problem.  How we deal with the mentally ill needs major changes.


----------



## JGalt

Lakhota said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Our gun laws need major changes!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Da fuq kinda BS is that? Nobody needs a "license" to buy guns.
> 
> And if he was "committed", he never would have legally been able to pass the background check.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ask the NRA why he had these guns.  They defend nuts with guns - and fight hard against legislation to prevent it.
Click to expand...


You're an idiot. The NRA has nothing to do with morons getting their hands on guns.

Do you even know what the NRA does?


----------



## hadit

Lakhota said:


> *Alex Jones Loses Another Legal Battle In Sandy Hook Defamation Case*
> 
> Good news!  He belongs in prison!



For what crime?


----------



## Lakhota

JGalt said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Our gun laws need major changes!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Da fuq kinda BS is that? Nobody needs a "license" to buy guns.
> 
> And if he was "committed", he never would have legally been able to pass the background check.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ask the NRA why he had these guns.  They defend nuts with guns - and fight hard against legislation to prevent it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an idiot. The NRA has nothing to do with morons getting their hands on guns.
> 
> Do you even know what the NRA does?
Click to expand...


Funny.  I was an NRA member for many years - until it was hijacked by radicals in 1977.  Also, the NRA fights legislation to prevent mentally ill from having access to guns.  Google it...

How NRA’s true believers converted a marksmanship group into a mighty gun lobby


----------



## JGalt

Lakhota said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Our gun laws need major changes!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Da fuq kinda BS is that? Nobody needs a "license" to buy guns.
> 
> And if he was "committed", he never would have legally been able to pass the background check.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ask the NRA why he had these guns.  They defend nuts with guns - and fight hard against legislation to prevent it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an idiot. The NRA has nothing to do with morons getting their hands on guns.
> 
> Do you even know what the NRA does?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny.  I was an NRA member for many years - until it was hijacked by radicals in 1977.  Also, the NRA fights legislation to prevent mentally ill from having access to guns.  Google it...
> 
> How NRA’s true believers converted a marksmanship group into a mighty gun lobby
Click to expand...


Say that again. You haven't convinced me that you were ever a member of the NRA.


----------



## hunarcy

Lakhota said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Our gun laws need major changes!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Da fuq kinda BS is that? Nobody needs a "license" to buy guns.
> 
> And if he was "committed", he never would have legally been able to pass the background check.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ask the NRA why he had these guns.  They defend nuts with guns - and fight hard against legislation to prevent it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an idiot. The NRA has nothing to do with morons getting their hands on guns.
> 
> Do you even know what the NRA does?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny.  I was an NRA member for many years - until it was hijacked by radicals in 1977.  Also, the NRA fights legislation to prevent mentally ill from having access to guns.  Google it...
> 
> How NRA’s true believers converted a marksmanship group into a mighty gun lobby
Click to expand...


Wow, I thought you loons supported democracy, but you label the grassroots take over of the organization as "hijacked by radicals".  You're nuts.


----------



## hunarcy

JGalt said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Our gun laws need major changes!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Da fuq kinda BS is that? Nobody needs a "license" to buy guns.
> 
> And if he was "committed", he never would have legally been able to pass the background check.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ask the NRA why he had these guns.  They defend nuts with guns - and fight hard against legislation to prevent it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an idiot. The NRA has nothing to do with morons getting their hands on guns.
> 
> Do you even know what the NRA does?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny.  I was an NRA member for many years - until it was hijacked by radicals in 1977.  Also, the NRA fights legislation to prevent mentally ill from having access to guns.  Google it...
> 
> How NRA’s true believers converted a marksmanship group into a mighty gun lobby
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Say that again. You haven't convinced me that you were ever a member of the NRA.
Click to expand...


Based on his posts, I doubt if he's ever even been in a gun store.


----------



## Lakhota

hunarcy said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Our gun laws need major changes!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Da fuq kinda BS is that? Nobody needs a "license" to buy guns.
> 
> And if he was "committed", he never would have legally been able to pass the background check.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ask the NRA why he had these guns.  They defend nuts with guns - and fight hard against legislation to prevent it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an idiot. The NRA has nothing to do with morons getting their hands on guns.
> 
> Do you even know what the NRA does?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny.  I was an NRA member for many years - until it was hijacked by radicals in 1977.  Also, the NRA fights legislation to prevent mentally ill from having access to guns.  Google it...
> 
> How NRA’s true believers converted a marksmanship group into a mighty gun lobby
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, I thought you loons supported democracy, but you label the grassroots take over of the organization as "hijacked by radicals".  You're nuts.
Click to expand...


The NRA was originally a good outfit - until the rabid batshit crazy radicals ruined it by turning it into a gun lobby.  Even most current NRA members overwhelmingly favor universal background checks.


----------



## hunarcy

Lakhota said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Da fuq kinda BS is that? Nobody needs a "license" to buy guns.
> 
> And if he was "committed", he never would have legally been able to pass the background check.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ask the NRA why he had these guns.  They defend nuts with guns - and fight hard against legislation to prevent it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an idiot. The NRA has nothing to do with morons getting their hands on guns.
> 
> Do you even know what the NRA does?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny.  I was an NRA member for many years - until it was hijacked by radicals in 1977.  Also, the NRA fights legislation to prevent mentally ill from having access to guns.  Google it...
> 
> How NRA’s true believers converted a marksmanship group into a mighty gun lobby
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, I thought you loons supported democracy, but you label the grassroots take over of the organization as "hijacked by radicals".  You're nuts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The NRA was originally a good outfit - until the rabid batshit crazy radicals ruined it by turning it into a gun lobby.  Even most current NRA members overwhelmingly favor universal background checks.
Click to expand...


Your ignorance is OVERWHELMING.


----------



## Lakhota

hunarcy said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Da fuq kinda BS is that? Nobody needs a "license" to buy guns.
> 
> And if he was "committed", he never would have legally been able to pass the background check.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ask the NRA why he had these guns.  They defend nuts with guns - and fight hard against legislation to prevent it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an idiot. The NRA has nothing to do with morons getting their hands on guns.
> 
> Do you even know what the NRA does?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny.  I was an NRA member for many years - until it was hijacked by radicals in 1977.  Also, the NRA fights legislation to prevent mentally ill from having access to guns.  Google it...
> 
> How NRA’s true believers converted a marksmanship group into a mighty gun lobby
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Say that again. You haven't convinced me that you were ever a member of the NRA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Based on his posts, I doubt if he's ever even been in a gun store.
Click to expand...


My .270 Weatherby Magnum is laughing at you.


----------



## hunarcy

Lakhota said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ask the NRA why he had these guns.  They defend nuts with guns - and fight hard against legislation to prevent it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're an idiot. The NRA has nothing to do with morons getting their hands on guns.
> 
> Do you even know what the NRA does?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny.  I was an NRA member for many years - until it was hijacked by radicals in 1977.  Also, the NRA fights legislation to prevent mentally ill from having access to guns.  Google it...
> 
> How NRA’s true believers converted a marksmanship group into a mighty gun lobby
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Say that again. You haven't convinced me that you were ever a member of the NRA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Based on his posts, I doubt if he's ever even been in a gun store.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My .270 Weatherby Magnum is laughing at you.
Click to expand...


First, if you truly believe a rifle laughs, you are too mentally disturbed to own a firearm.    Second, based on your posts, I'll still have to believe that you are lying about owning one.


----------



## JGalt

Lakhota said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ask the NRA why he had these guns.  They defend nuts with guns - and fight hard against legislation to prevent it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're an idiot. The NRA has nothing to do with morons getting their hands on guns.
> 
> Do you even know what the NRA does?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny.  I was an NRA member for many years - until it was hijacked by radicals in 1977.  Also, the NRA fights legislation to prevent mentally ill from having access to guns.  Google it...
> 
> How NRA’s true believers converted a marksmanship group into a mighty gun lobby
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Say that again. You haven't convinced me that you were ever a member of the NRA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Based on his posts, I doubt if he's ever even been in a gun store.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My .270 Weatherby Magnum is laughing at you.
Click to expand...


More likely, it's sitting in a closet, rusting away. I'll give ya $20 for it.


----------



## Lakhota

JGalt said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're an idiot. The NRA has nothing to do with morons getting their hands on guns.
> 
> Do you even know what the NRA does?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny.  I was an NRA member for many years - until it was hijacked by radicals in 1977.  Also, the NRA fights legislation to prevent mentally ill from having access to guns.  Google it...
> 
> How NRA’s true believers converted a marksmanship group into a mighty gun lobby
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Say that again. You haven't convinced me that you were ever a member of the NRA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Based on his posts, I doubt if he's ever even been in a gun store.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My .270 Weatherby Magnum is laughing at you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More likely, it's sitting in a closet, rusting away. I'll give ya $20 for it.
Click to expand...


No thanks.  It's my favorite deer and elk gun.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

Peek-a-boo.  The Constitution is outdated and I'm coming for your guns...and you !
   Muh ha ha ha ha!!


----------



## JGalt

Lakhota said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny.  I was an NRA member for many years - until it was hijacked by radicals in 1977.  Also, the NRA fights legislation to prevent mentally ill from having access to guns.  Google it...
> 
> How NRA’s true believers converted a marksmanship group into a mighty gun lobby
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Say that again. You haven't convinced me that you were ever a member of the NRA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Based on his posts, I doubt if he's ever even been in a gun store.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My .270 Weatherby Magnum is laughing at you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More likely, it's sitting in a closet, rusting away. I'll give ya $20 for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No thanks.  It's my favorite deer and elk gun.
Click to expand...


Ok then. $30. But that's my final offer.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

Lakhota said:


> The NRA was originally a good outfit - until the rabid batshit crazy radicals ruined it by turning it into a gun lobby.  Even most current NRA members overwhelmingly favor universal background checks.



UNIONS were originally a good idea....until rabid batshit crazy radicals ruined them by turning them into a political machine / lobby.

There is absolutely no reason to change existing gun law unless your agenda is to support the ability of people to be oppressed.
ZERO.
More gun cuntrol will only result in good people being on government lists and the abuse that goes along with being on lists run by radical politicians who have agendas.

More background checks will not stop the insane from killing.

Want to stop all the killings?   Take away FREEDOM.....ALL of it......like North Korea.....

*OH WAIT......*


----------



## Lakhota

JGalt said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Say that again. You haven't convinced me that you were ever a member of the NRA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Based on his posts, I doubt if he's ever even been in a gun store.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My .270 Weatherby Magnum is laughing at you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More likely, it's sitting in a closet, rusting away. I'll give ya $20 for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No thanks.  It's my favorite deer and elk gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok then. $30. But that's my final offer.
Click to expand...


Funny.  That would barely buy half a box of Nosler cartridges.


----------



## danielpalos

Our State legislators need to organize more militia.


----------



## Lakhota

*Stop the carnage!*


----------



## Marion Morrison

Lakhota said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ask the NRA why he had these guns.  They defend nuts with guns - and fight hard against legislation to prevent it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're an idiot. The NRA has nothing to do with morons getting their hands on guns.
> 
> Do you even know what the NRA does?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny.  I was an NRA member for many years - until it was hijacked by radicals in 1977.  Also, the NRA fights legislation to prevent mentally ill from having access to guns.  Google it...
> 
> How NRA’s true believers converted a marksmanship group into a mighty gun lobby
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Say that again. You haven't convinced me that you were ever a member of the NRA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Based on his posts, I doubt if he's ever even been in a gun store.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My .270 Weatherby Magnum is laughing at you.
Click to expand...


Oh? What grain bullet does that shoot, lying bitch?
I already know, so if/when you get it wrong, I'm gonna hammer you.


----------



## Lakhota

Marion Morrison said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're an idiot. The NRA has nothing to do with morons getting their hands on guns.
> 
> Do you even know what the NRA does?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny.  I was an NRA member for many years - until it was hijacked by radicals in 1977.  Also, the NRA fights legislation to prevent mentally ill from having access to guns.  Google it...
> 
> How NRA’s true believers converted a marksmanship group into a mighty gun lobby
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Say that again. You haven't convinced me that you were ever a member of the NRA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Based on his posts, I doubt if he's ever even been in a gun store.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My .270 Weatherby Magnum is laughing at you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh? What grain bullet does that shoot, lying bitch?
> I already know, so if/when you get it wrong, I'm gonna hammer you.
Click to expand...


You already know?  That's funny.  Even your question exposes your ignorance.  Personally, I use 100, 130, and 150.  They also come in 140 - but I don't use them.  Thanks for playing...


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Lakhota said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny.  I was an NRA member for many years - until it was hijacked by radicals in 1977.  Also, the NRA fights legislation to prevent mentally ill from having access to guns.  Google it...
> 
> How NRA’s true believers converted a marksmanship group into a mighty gun lobby
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Say that again. You haven't convinced me that you were ever a member of the NRA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Based on his posts, I doubt if he's ever even been in a gun store.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My .270 Weatherby Magnum is laughing at you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh? What grain bullet does that shoot, lying bitch?
> I already know, so if/when you get it wrong, I'm gonna hammer you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You already know?  That's funny.  Even your question exposes your ignorance.  Personally, I use 100, 130, and 150.  They also come in 140 - but I don't use them.  Thanks for playing...
Click to expand...

I figured you to be a 110 gr shooter.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Lakhota said:


> *Stop the carnage!*


Without a gun you have no liberty, nor save your life against gang violence


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> Our State legislators need to organize more militia.


You need a militia separate from government control.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Lakhota said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Da fuq kinda BS is that? Nobody needs a "license" to buy guns.
> 
> And if he was "committed", he never would have legally been able to pass the background check.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ask the NRA why he had these guns.  They defend nuts with guns - and fight hard against legislation to prevent it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an idiot. The NRA has nothing to do with morons getting their hands on guns.
> 
> Do you even know what the NRA does?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny.  I was an NRA member for many years - until it was hijacked by radicals in 1977.  Also, the NRA fights legislation to prevent mentally ill from having access to guns.  Google it...
> 
> How NRA’s true believers converted a marksmanship group into a mighty gun lobby
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, I thought you loons supported democracy, but you label the grassroots take over of the organization as "hijacked by radicals".  You're nuts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The NRA was originally a good outfit - until the rabid batshit crazy radicals ruined it by turning it into a gun lobby.  Even most current NRA members overwhelmingly favor universal background checks.
Click to expand...

No they don't favor more useless background checks since we already have background checks


----------



## Lakhota

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Stop the carnage!*
> 
> 
> 
> Without a gun you have no liberty, nor save your life against gang violence
Click to expand...


I love guns - but that's not the point.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Lakhota said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Stop the carnage!*
> 
> 
> 
> Without a gun you have no liberty, nor save your life against gang violence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love guns - but that's not the point.
Click to expand...

You should never have one. People like you will have you gun stolen and used against you.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our State legislators need to organize more militia.
> 
> 
> 
> You need a militia separate from government control.
Click to expand...

States have their own militias.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our State legislators need to organize more militia.
> 
> 
> 
> You need a militia separate from government control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> States have their own militias.
Click to expand...

Sure they do but
the unorganized Militia is separated from the national guard


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our State legislators need to organize more militia.
> 
> 
> 
> You need a militia separate from government control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> States have their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure they do but
> the unorganized Militia is separated from the national guard
Click to expand...

States have their own organized, State militias.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our State legislators need to organize more militia.
> 
> 
> 
> You need a militia separate from government control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> States have their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure they do but
> the unorganized Militia is separated from the national guard
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> States have their own organized, State militias.
Click to expand...

and the unorganized militia which is sanctioned by federal law is separated from the state Militia.


----------



## JGalt

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our State legislators need to organize more militia.
> 
> 
> 
> You need a militia separate from government control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> States have their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure they do but
> the unorganized Militia is separated from the national guard
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> States have their own organized, State militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and the unorganized militia which is sanctioned by federal law is separated from the state Militia.
Click to expand...


The unorganized militia is the last line of this country's defense, should law enforcement and the military fail. That would consist of anyone who loves this country enough to be armed and prepared. It is also most likely the reason no country has tried to invade us.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our State legislators need to organize more militia.
> 
> 
> 
> You need a militia separate from government control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> States have their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure they do but
> the unorganized Militia is separated from the national guard
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> States have their own organized, State militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and the unorganized militia which is sanctioned by federal law is separated from the state Militia.
Click to expand...

separated from what?  you are either organized and well regulated or unorganized.


----------



## danielpalos

JGalt said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need a militia separate from government control.
> 
> 
> 
> States have their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure they do but
> the unorganized Militia is separated from the national guard
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> States have their own organized, State militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and the unorganized militia which is sanctioned by federal law is separated from the state Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The unorganized militia is the last line of this country's defense, should law enforcement and the military fail. That would consist of anyone who loves this country enough to be armed and prepared. It is also most likely the reason no country has tried to invade us.
Click to expand...

A well regulated militia is a States' sovereign right. It says so in our Second Amendment.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

Lakhota said:


> I love guns - but that's not the point.



Yeah...riiiight.
You also love lying....apparently.
it's a Progressives / Socialist thing.....I wouldn't understand


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

danielpalos said:


> A well regulated militia is a States' sovereign right. It says so in our Second Amendment.



Then folks on the Right better start forming those militias PRONTO


----------



## danielpalos

BasicHumanUnit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> A well regulated militia is a States' sovereign right. It says so in our Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then folks on the Right better start forming those militias PRONTO
Click to expand...

we really can blame our State legislators.


----------



## Lakhota

danielpalos said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> States have their own militias.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they do but
> the unorganized Militia is separated from the national guard
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> States have their own organized, State militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and the unorganized militia which is sanctioned by federal law is separated from the state Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The unorganized militia is the last line of this country's defense, should law enforcement and the military fail. That would consist of anyone who loves this country enough to be armed and prepared. It is also most likely the reason no country has tried to invade us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A well regulated militia is a States' sovereign right. It says so in our Second Amendment.
Click to expand...


Yeah, grab your musket.


----------



## JGalt

Lakhota said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they do but
> the unorganized Militia is separated from the national guard
> 
> 
> 
> States have their own organized, State militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and the unorganized militia which is sanctioned by federal law is separated from the state Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The unorganized militia is the last line of this country's defense, should law enforcement and the military fail. That would consist of anyone who loves this country enough to be armed and prepared. It is also most likely the reason no country has tried to invade us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A well regulated militia is a States' sovereign right. It says so in our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, grab your musket.
Click to expand...


I'll grab my musket when you stick to your antiqued hand-operated printing press to exercise your First Amendment.


----------



## Lakhota

JGalt said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> States have their own organized, State militias.
> 
> 
> 
> and the unorganized militia which is sanctioned by federal law is separated from the state Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The unorganized militia is the last line of this country's defense, should law enforcement and the military fail. That would consist of anyone who loves this country enough to be armed and prepared. It is also most likely the reason no country has tried to invade us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A well regulated militia is a States' sovereign right. It says so in our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, grab your musket.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll grab my musket when you stick to your antiqued hand-operated printing press to exercise your First Amendment.
Click to expand...


My "antiqued hand-operated printing press" hasn't killed one single person!


----------



## JGalt

Lakhota said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> and the unorganized militia which is sanctioned by federal law is separated from the state Militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The unorganized militia is the last line of this country's defense, should law enforcement and the military fail. That would consist of anyone who loves this country enough to be armed and prepared. It is also most likely the reason no country has tried to invade us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A well regulated militia is a States' sovereign right. It says so in our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, grab your musket.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll grab my musket when you stick to your antiqued hand-operated printing press to exercise your First Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My "antiqued hand-operated printing press" hasn't killed one single person!
Click to expand...


Neither have my guns. I can't vouch for whatever they did before I met them, but they're pretty-well rehabilitated now.

Even the ones that might have had a reputation of oppressing the working-class proletariat in past ages, are busy protecting my life, the lives of my family, my property, and my liberty.


----------



## Lakhota

I love my guns!  I just want guns kept out of the hands of people who shouldn't have access to them.  I have no doubt that most reasonable NRA members would agree with that.  That why I say the radical NRA gun nutters are the greatest threat to my gun rights.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Lakhota said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> and the unorganized militia which is sanctioned by federal law is separated from the state Militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The unorganized militia is the last line of this country's defense, should law enforcement and the military fail. That would consist of anyone who loves this country enough to be armed and prepared. It is also most likely the reason no country has tried to invade us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A well regulated militia is a States' sovereign right. It says so in our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, grab your musket.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll grab my musket when you stick to your antiqued hand-operated printing press to exercise your First Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My "antiqued hand-operated printing press" hasn't killed one single person!
Click to expand...

But your 21st century posting has killed your thought process.


----------



## JGalt

Lakhota said:


> I love my guns!  I just want guns kept out of the hands of people who shouldn't have access to them.  I have no doubt that most reasonable NRA members would agree with that.  That why I say the radical NRA gun nutters are the greatest threat to my gun rights.



What makes you think that "radical NRA gun nutters" sic are less responsible than you are? Do you lock your guns up in a gun safe, like the NRA promotes? Do you take your children out to the gun range to teach them gun safety, like the NRA promotes?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> States have their own militias.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they do but
> the unorganized Militia is separated from the national guard
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> States have their own organized, State militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and the unorganized militia which is sanctioned by federal law is separated from the state Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The unorganized militia is the last line of this country's defense, should law enforcement and the military fail. That would consist of anyone who loves this country enough to be armed and prepared. It is also most likely the reason no country has tried to invade us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A well regulated militia is a States' sovereign right. It says so in our Second Amendment.
Click to expand...

The unorganized Militia has no connection with the national guard.


----------



## Lakhota

*NRA Wants Mentally Ill To Have Gun Rights*

Why?


----------



## JGalt

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they do but
> the unorganized Militia is separated from the national guard
> 
> 
> 
> States have their own organized, State militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and the unorganized militia which is sanctioned by federal law is separated from the state Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The unorganized militia is the last line of this country's defense, should law enforcement and the military fail. That would consist of anyone who loves this country enough to be armed and prepared. It is also most likely the reason no country has tried to invade us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A well regulated militia is a States' sovereign right. It says so in our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The unorganized Militia has no connection with the national guard.
Click to expand...


You are correct.. The unorganized militia is beholden to no governmental branch, only the United States Constitution.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they do but
> the unorganized Militia is separated from the national guard
> 
> 
> 
> States have their own organized, State militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and the unorganized militia which is sanctioned by federal law is separated from the state Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The unorganized militia is the last line of this country's defense, should law enforcement and the military fail. That would consist of anyone who loves this country enough to be armed and prepared. It is also most likely the reason no country has tried to invade us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A well regulated militia is a States' sovereign right. It says so in our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The unorganized Militia has no connection with the national guard.
Click to expand...

States have a separate, State only militia.


----------



## JGalt

Lakhota said:


> *NRA Wants Mentally Ill To Have Gun Rights*
> 
> Why?



People who have recovered from mental illness can get their firearms rights restored.

From the NRAILA:

"A person cannot be federally disqualified from owning a gun based simply on a psychiatrist’s diagnosis, a doctor’s referral, or the opinion of a law enforcement officer, let alone based on getting a drug prescription or seeking mental health treatment."

NRA-ILA | Mental Health and Firearms

So what are you saying, chuckles? That the entire sciences of of psychology and medicine are frauds, and that there's no cure or treatment for mental illness?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> States have their own organized, State militias.
> 
> 
> 
> and the unorganized militia which is sanctioned by federal law is separated from the state Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The unorganized militia is the last line of this country's defense, should law enforcement and the military fail. That would consist of anyone who loves this country enough to be armed and prepared. It is also most likely the reason no country has tried to invade us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A well regulated militia is a States' sovereign right. It says so in our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The unorganized Militia has no connection with the national guard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> States have a separate, State only militia.
Click to expand...

What is your point that you are so desperately trying to make? Are you trying to say there is no unorganized militia?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lakhota said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be a Dick.  Ban assault weapons and pass universal background checks!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as an assault weapon.
> In the revolutionary war, blunderbusses were used as assault weapons, (also called coach guns).
> In the civil war, a pair of pistols was used as assault weapons by cavalry.
> In the first world war, it was the pump, trench, shotgun.
> In WWII it was carbines.
> 
> There days, all weapons used as assault weapons are full auto.
> No firearm sold to civilians are full auto.
> 
> If you think you need universal background checks to prevent sales over the internet or at gun shows, you would be completely wrong.
> Gun shows and internet sales have always required background checks in the last 20 years.
> 
> So if someone threatens your sister and she asks to borrow a gun for protection, according to you she should have to pay $20 for a background check and wait a week?  That makes no sense at all.
> Criminals are never going to bother with background checks, because they already intend to violate crimes with far greater penalties.
> Background checks only keep the honest disarmed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An assault weapon is any weapon that makes a gun nut feel like Rambo - especially with high-capacity magazines.  Except for police - all magazines should be limited to no more than 5 rounds.  No one goes on a shooting rampage with single-shot weapons.  Don't be a Dick.
Click to expand...


I just heard you say, "We should ban whatever I'm afraid of based on my own ignorance and bigotry toward conservatives!"

Don't be a LaCooter.


----------



## Cecilie1200

TRFjr said:


> *Heller v DC made the right for an individual to own a firearm including so-called assault rifles settled law
> just like you liberals claim Woe v Wade made the right for a woman to have an abortion settled law
> 
> so get over it only recourse you have is a constitutional amendment *



You know you're trying to reason with someone who's one nerve impulse away from brain death, right?


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> and the unorganized militia which is sanctioned by federal law is separated from the state Militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The unorganized militia is the last line of this country's defense, should law enforcement and the military fail. That would consist of anyone who loves this country enough to be armed and prepared. It is also most likely the reason no country has tried to invade us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A well regulated militia is a States' sovereign right. It says so in our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The unorganized Militia has no connection with the national guard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> States have a separate, State only militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is your point that you are so desperately trying to make? Are you trying to say there is no unorganized militia?
Click to expand...

No.  Only that only the unorganized militia complains about gun control.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The unorganized militia is the last line of this country's defense, should law enforcement and the military fail. That would consist of anyone who loves this country enough to be armed and prepared. It is also most likely the reason no country has tried to invade us.
> 
> 
> 
> A well regulated militia is a States' sovereign right. It says so in our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The unorganized Militia has no connection with the national guard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> States have a separate, State only militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is your point that you are so desperately trying to make? Are you trying to say there is no unorganized militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  Only that only the unorganized militia complains about gun control.
Click to expand...

Why do you allow your emotions to make stupid comments for you?


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> A well regulated militia is a States' sovereign right. It says so in our Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> The unorganized Militia has no connection with the national guard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> States have a separate, State only militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is your point that you are so desperately trying to make? Are you trying to say there is no unorganized militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  Only that only the unorganized militia complains about gun control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you allow your emotions to make stupid comments for you?
Click to expand...

well regulated militia are necessary and have literal recourse to our Second Amendment in Any conflict of laws; unlike the unorganized militia who prefer to complain.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The unorganized Militia has no connection with the national guard.
> 
> 
> 
> States have a separate, State only militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is your point that you are so desperately trying to make? Are you trying to say there is no unorganized militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  Only that only the unorganized militia complains about gun control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you allow your emotions to make stupid comments for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well regulated militia are necessary and have literal recourse to our Second Amendment in Any conflict of laws; unlike the unorganized militia who prefer to complain.
Click to expand...

the regular militia doesn't have a second amendment right


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> States have a separate, State only militia.
> 
> 
> 
> What is your point that you are so desperately trying to make? Are you trying to say there is no unorganized militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  Only that only the unorganized militia complains about gun control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you allow your emotions to make stupid comments for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well regulated militia are necessary and have literal recourse to our Second Amendment in Any conflict of laws; unlike the unorganized militia who prefer to complain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the regular militia doesn't have a second amendment right
Click to expand...

militia regulars must have that right; it says so in the first clause.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is your point that you are so desperately trying to make? Are you trying to say there is no unorganized militia?
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Only that only the unorganized militia complains about gun control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you allow your emotions to make stupid comments for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well regulated militia are necessary and have literal recourse to our Second Amendment in Any conflict of laws; unlike the unorganized militia who prefer to complain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the regular militia doesn't have a second amendment right
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> militia regulars must have that right; it says so in the first clause.
Click to expand...

militia regulars are the national guard. the national guard doesn't have a second amendment right when they are in performance of their duties


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Only that only the unorganized militia complains about gun control.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you allow your emotions to make stupid comments for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well regulated militia are necessary and have literal recourse to our Second Amendment in Any conflict of laws; unlike the unorganized militia who prefer to complain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the regular militia doesn't have a second amendment right
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> militia regulars must have that right; it says so in the first clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> militia regulars are the national guard. the national guard doesn't have a second amendment right when they are in performance of their duties
Click to expand...

do you always appeal to ignorance and expect to be taken seriously? 

California State Guard - Wikipedia


----------



## Lakhota




----------



## Lakhota

*





GOP LAWMAKER SENDS OMINOUS ‘THREAT’ TO BETO O’ROURKE*

‘My AR Is Ready For You’: Texas State Rep Posted On Twitter

Gun nutters are dangerous!


----------



## Blues Man

Lakhota said:


> *NRA Wants Mentally Ill To Have Gun Rights*
> 
> Why?



So you think that someone who was successfully treated for for a mental illness and has been cleared by Doctors shouldn't be able to petition to have their rights restored?

WHy?


----------



## 2aguy

Lakhota said:


>




And then the Supreme Court ruled that he was an idiot in their Heller v D.C. decision........and Caetano v Massachusetts...and McDonald v City of Chicago.....and on and on....that guy was n idiot....


----------



## hadit

Lakhota said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> and the unorganized militia which is sanctioned by federal law is separated from the state Militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The unorganized militia is the last line of this country's defense, should law enforcement and the military fail. That would consist of anyone who loves this country enough to be armed and prepared. It is also most likely the reason no country has tried to invade us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A well regulated militia is a States' sovereign right. It says so in our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, grab your musket.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll grab my musket when you stick to your antiqued hand-operated printing press to exercise your First Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My "antiqued hand-operated printing press" hasn't killed one single person!
Click to expand...


Really? How many teenagers kill themselves over social media?

You do know that a gun owner can say that his gun never killed anyone too.


----------



## JusticeHammer

Lakhota said:


> Trying to live modern life according to the Constitution is much like trying to live modern life according to the Bible.  Both are subject to vast interpretation.


You have to be smarter than a lib to do it.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Lakhota said:


> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GOP LAWMAKER SENDS OMINOUS ‘THREAT’ TO BETO O’ROURKE*
> 
> ‘My AR Is Ready For You’: Texas State Rep Posted On Twitter
> 
> Gun nutters are dangerous!


I came into this world covered in somebody else's blood kicking and screaming I will have no problem leaving it the same way


----------



## Lakhota

Go Beto!  No civilian needs AR weapons!


----------



## Lakhota

*String Of Child Shootings Cast Light On Texas’ Shocking Gun Violence*

Sad.  Really sad.


----------



## easyt65

Barry and Democrats sold / armed Mexican Drug Cartels, Al Qaeda, ISIS, Hezbollah, etc... But want to take law-abiding US citizens' weapons away....go figure...


----------



## Lakhota

Colt suspends production of AR-15s for civilian market.

Good news.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lakhota said:


> Colt suspends production of AR-15s for civilian market.
> 
> Good news.


Yes.  It's all over now.  No need to ban the sale of ARs.  They gone.

Congrats on the victory.  No.new laws needed.



.


----------



## KissMy

Your Guns are Useless to Defeat the US Government. Over 2 million US citizens who have a constitutional right to bear arms vowed "Storm" to the governments "Area 51" today, have FAILED!!!

That's because only scared pussies cling to guns in their moms basements.


----------



## danielpalos

Organize more militia until we have no security problems in our free States!


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

KissMy said:


> Your Guns are Useless to Defeat the US Government. Over 2 million US citizens who have a constitutional right to bear arms vowed "Storm" to the governments "Area 51" today, have FAILED!!!
> 
> That's because only scared pussies cling to guns in their moms basements.


Put up a big sign outside your home that says you have no guns in your house.  Post a picture of it here.

.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your Guns are Useless to Defeat the US Government. Over 2 million US citizens who have a constitutional right to bear arms vowed "Storm" to the governments "Area 51" today, have FAILED!!!
> 
> That's because only scared pussies cling to guns in their moms basements.
> 
> 
> 
> Put up a big sign outside your home that says you have no guns in your house.  Post a picture of it here.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

According to the Robin Hood story, someone good with a quarterstaff can defeat someone good with a ranged weapon, at close range.


----------



## KissMy

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your Guns are Useless to Defeat the US Government. Over 2 million US citizens who have a constitutional right to bear arms vowed "Storm" to the governments "Area 51" today, have FAILED!!!
> 
> That's because only scared pussies cling to guns in their moms basements.
> 
> 
> 
> Put up a big sign outside your home that says you have no guns in your house.  Post a picture of it here.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


----------



## Lakhota

An 18-month investigation from Senate Committee on Finance staff reveals how deeply connected the National Rifle Association was with Russian officials.

*NRA Became ‘Foreign Asset’ To Russia Before 2016 Election, Senate Report Says*

The NRA is evil.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

KissMy said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your Guns are Useless to Defeat the US Government. Over 2 million US citizens who have a constitutional right to bear arms vowed "Storm" to the governments "Area 51" today, have FAILED!!!
> 
> That's because only scared pussies cling to guns in their moms basements.
> 
> 
> 
> Put up a big sign outside your home that says you have no guns in your house.  Post a picture of it here.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

That's not yours.

Prove it's yours.  And post your address.

.


----------



## Lakhota

Gun violence must be addressed.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lakhota said:


> Gun *violence* must be addressed.


Then, why don't you address VIOLENCE, instead of taking away firearms from non-violent people? 

I'll answer for you. Because your goal is not public safety. You have an ulterior agenda.

.


----------



## hadit

KissMy said:


> Your Guns are Useless to Defeat the US Government. Over 2 million US citizens who have a constitutional right to bear arms vowed "Storm" to the governments "Area 51" today, have FAILED!!!
> 
> That's because only scared pussies cling to guns in their moms basements.



As we have seen around the world, outright defeat of the government is not necessary when the populace can make the price high enough.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

KissMy said:


> Your Guns are Useless to Defeat the US Government. Over 2 million US citizens who have a constitutional right to bear arms vowed "Storm" to the governments "Area 51" today, have FAILED!!!
> 
> That's because only scared pussies cling to guns in their moms basements.


Ho Chihuahua says hi.






.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lakhota said:


>


That is all the proof I need that Warren Burger was not fit to sit on the court. No reasonable mind could make that interpretation, given the history and the statements of the founders.

Some people simply are not fit to sit on a court because they cannot put their own political issues and political views aside. They cannot except law regardless of the outcome.

Here are some examples of what a court should do when confronted with the question:

_Bliss v. Commonwealth_ (1822, Ky.)[ - 

"_But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution._"

_Nunn v. Georgia_ (1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)) - 

"_The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, re-established by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Carta!"_

.


----------



## KissMy

hadit said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your Guns are Useless to Defeat the US Government. Over 2 million US citizens who have a constitutional right to bear arms vowed "Storm" to the governments "Area 51" today, have FAILED!!!
> 
> That's because only scared pussies cling to guns in their moms basements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As we have seen around the world, outright defeat of the government is not necessary when the populace can make the price high enough.
Click to expand...

Without a huge number of citizens owning arsenals of 81mm mortars, the price to jackboot government military will not be high enough.

Taiwan citizens have guns and they are getting their ass kicked.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

KissMy said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your Guns are Useless to Defeat the US Government. Over 2 million US citizens who have a constitutional right to bear arms vowed "Storm" to the governments "Area 51" today, have FAILED!!!
> 
> That's because only scared pussies cling to guns in their moms basements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As we have seen around the world, outright defeat of the government is not necessary when the populace can make the price high enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Without a huge number of citizens owning arsenals of 80mm mortars, the price to jackboot government military will not be high enough.
> 
> Taiwan citizens have guns and they are getting their ass kicked.
Click to expand...

Did you miss the part of history where the United States Military got it's fucking ass kicked by a bunch of rice farmers in southeast Asia?

 you have no idea what you were talking about.

.


----------



## KissMy

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your Guns are Useless to Defeat the US Government. Over 2 million US citizens who have a constitutional right to bear arms vowed "Storm" to the governments "Area 51" today, have FAILED!!!
> 
> That's because only scared pussies cling to guns in their moms basements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As we have seen around the world, outright defeat of the government is not necessary when the populace can make the price high enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Without a huge number of citizens owning arsenals of 80mm mortars, the price to jackboot government military will not be high enough.
> 
> Taiwan citizens have guns and they are getting their ass kicked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you miss the part of history where the United States Military got it's fucking ass kicked by a bunch of rice farmers in southeast Asia?
> 
> you have no idea what you were talking about.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

I would hardly say 3.1 million dead Vietnam citizens & trained military vs 57,939 dead US government military was an ass kicking. However the government soldier is many times more deadly today than it was then. If you don't have weaponized drones, mortars, independent encrypted long range communication & targeting systems, you will never get within range of your gun before they smoke your ass.


----------



## Lesh

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your Guns are Useless to Defeat the US Government. Over 2 million US citizens who have a constitutional right to bear arms vowed "Storm" to the governments "Area 51" today, have FAILED!!!
> 
> That's because only scared pussies cling to guns in their moms basements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As we have seen around the world, outright defeat of the government is not necessary when the populace can make the price high enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Without a huge number of citizens owning arsenals of 80mm mortars, the price to jackboot government military will not be high enough.
> 
> Taiwan citizens have guns and they are getting their ass kicked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you miss the part of history where the United States Military got it's fucking ass kicked by a bunch of rice farmers in southeast Asia?
> 
> you have no idea what you were talking about.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

The farmers in our Revolution were famous for dropping their weapons and running at the first shot or glint of British bayonets.

The Revolutionary War was won by a REGULAR ARMY that had canons and all the accouterments of a modern (at that time) military...ours and the very capable French Army.

Read some history and lose the myths

The "farmers" in Vietnam were augmented by NVA Regulars...who had not only large artillery pieces but tanks and machine guns


----------



## Rigby5

KissMy said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your Guns are Useless to Defeat the US Government. Over 2 million US citizens who have a constitutional right to bear arms vowed "Storm" to the governments "Area 51" today, have FAILED!!!
> 
> That's because only scared pussies cling to guns in their moms basements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As we have seen around the world, outright defeat of the government is not necessary when the populace can make the price high enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Without a huge number of citizens owning arsenals of 80mm mortars, the price to jackboot government military will not be high enough.
> 
> Taiwan citizens have guns and they are getting their ass kicked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you miss the part of history where the United States Military got it's fucking ass kicked by a bunch of rice farmers in southeast Asia?
> 
> you have no idea what you were talking about.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would hardly say 3.1 million dead Vietnam citizens & trained military vs 57,939 dead US government military was an ass kicking. However the government soldier is many times more deadly today than it was then. If you don't have weaponized drones, mortars, independent encrypted long range communication & targeting systems, you will never get within range of your gun before they smoke your ass.
Click to expand...


I disagree.
The advantage of an insurgency is stealth.
When your side does not have planes, armor, satellites, etc., you slit their throat when they are taking a piss in the bushes.  You assassinate dictator's henchmen in the elevator.
But there are times is also helps to have large capacity rifles as well, so they must never be allowed to be made illegal.
It would be a basic violation of the principles of the 14th amendment.
That is nothing the police or military can have that all citizens then also must have the right to have.
We are the only source of any authority in a democratic republic, so we must be able to have it if anyone can at all.
If these things are illegal for average individuals, then they must be illegal for police and military, based on equal treatment under the law.


----------



## Rigby5

Lesh said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your Guns are Useless to Defeat the US Government. Over 2 million US citizens who have a constitutional right to bear arms vowed "Storm" to the governments "Area 51" today, have FAILED!!!
> 
> That's because only scared pussies cling to guns in their moms basements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As we have seen around the world, outright defeat of the government is not necessary when the populace can make the price high enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Without a huge number of citizens owning arsenals of 80mm mortars, the price to jackboot government military will not be high enough.
> 
> Taiwan citizens have guns and they are getting their ass kicked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you miss the part of history where the United States Military got it's fucking ass kicked by a bunch of rice farmers in southeast Asia?
> 
> you have no idea what you were talking about.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The farmers in our Revolution were famous for dropping their weapons and running at the first shot or glint of British bayonets.
> 
> The Revolutionary War was won by a REGULAR ARMY that had canons and all the accouterments of a modern (at that time) military...ours and the very capable French Army.
> 
> Read some history and lose the myths
> 
> The "farmers" in Vietnam were augmented by NVA Regulars...who had not only large artillery pieces but tanks and machine guns
Click to expand...


That is not true.
The farmers of the revolution did NOT drop their weapons, and while they did run and retreat, they kept firing.
There were hardly any REGULAR ARMY at all on the colonial side of the revolution.  There was no money, weapons, or time for training.  They were almost all irregular, and  mostly used their own arms.
The revolutionary farmers were well known for being vastly superior to "regulars", and groups like the Green Mountain Boys in NY, Vermont, and New Hampshire vastly out classed the British regulars.
Of course revolutionary forced did not hold and fight in tight formation, because that would be a stupid way to fight.
Irregulars almost always are better than paid mercenaries.
Sure the NVA regulars did most of the fighting in Vietnam, but they rarely had tanks, artillery, or machinegun.
They mostly beat us by setting booby traps and hand to hand.
Professional military always lose because they cost too much and are always too small in number.
Kill ratios are irrelevant then.
And the reality is that anyone dumb enough to join a mercenary military likely has to fight in strict formation because they are not capable of fighting in any better way, even though that is the worst possible means of fighting.

The best example of irregulars beating regulars is not the American revolution, but the French and Indian War, with Braddock's Defeat.  Back then regulars were awful, and they are no better now, just more high tech.  And that is the only thing we have to prevent, as a democratic republic can only exist as long as the general population has access to the same tech as the corrupt mercenaries.


----------



## KissMy

We were armed when they taxed workers, created federal reserve, took our Gold, created military industrial complex, removed the gold standard, invited illegal foreigners to invade our lands, took automatic weapons, sent our jobs, wealth & technology to China, the government printing presses roar loudly. You & your guns remained silent!!!


----------



## Rigby5

KissMy said:


> We were armed when they taxed workers, created federal reserve, took our Gold, created military industrial complex, removed the gold standard, invited illegal foreigners to invade our lands, sent our jobs, wealth & technology to China, the government printing presses roar loudly. You & your guns remained silent!!!



Good point.
But it is the old slow simmer the frog does not respond to problem.
Incrementally each step did not warrant armed rebellion, even though all the steps together did.
Really, there should have been armed rebellion at the very first federal weapons law, since it is totally and completely illegal.
Only states and municipalities have any weapons jurisdiction at all.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

It was *clearly* the intent of the founders that the people have the power to defend their liberty from their own government.



"_At a time when our lordly Masters in Great Britain will be satisfied with nothing less than the deprivation of American freedom, it seems highly necessary that something should be done to avert the stroke and maintain the liberty which we have derived from our Ancestors; but the manner of doing it to answer the purpose effectually is the point in question._

_That no man shou’d scruple, or hesitate a moment to use arms in defence of so valuable a blessing, on which all the good and evil of life depends; is clearly my opinion..._"
George Washington, letter to George Mason April 5th 1769

Founders Online: From George Washington to George Mason, 5 April 1769



_"A consciousness of those in power that their administration of the public affairs has been honest, may perhaps produce too great a degree of indignation: and those characters wherein fear predominates over hope may apprehend too much from these instances of irregularity. They may conclude too hastily that nature has formed man insusceptible of any other government but that of force, a conclusion not founded in truth, nor experience. Societies exist under three forms sufficiently distinguishable.
_

_Without government, as among our Indians._
_Under governments wherein the will of every one has a just influence, as is the case in England in a slight degree, and in our states, in a great one._
_Under governments of force: as is the case in all other monarchies and in most of the other republics._
_"To have an idea of the curse of existence under these last, they must be seen. It is a government of wolves over sheep. It is a problem, not clear in my mind, that the 1st condition is not the best. But I believe it to be inconsistent with any great degree of population. The second state has a great deal of good in it. The mass of mankind under that enjoys a precious degree of liberty & happiness. It has it's evils too: the principal of which is the turbulence to which it is subject. But weigh this against the oppressions of monarchy, and it becomes nothing. Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietam servitutem. _*(Translation:  [understood I] Prefer dangerous liberty to quiet slavery)*_ Even this evil is productive of good. It prevents the degeneracy of government, and nourishes a general attention to the public affairs. _*I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, & as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. *_Unsuccessful rebellions indeed generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. _*An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions, as not to discourage them too much.* _*It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."*_
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to James Madison (1787)

To James Madison  Paris, Jan. 30, 1787 < The Letters of Thomas Jefferson 1743-1826 < Thomas Jefferson < Presidents < American History From Revolution To Reconstruction and beyond




_"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. … What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? *And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.* The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."_
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to William Stevens Smith (1787)
*
Founders Online: From Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 13 November 1 …*



_Falsa idea di utilità è quella, che sacrifica mille vantaggi reali, per un inconveniente o immaginario, o di poca conseguenza, che toglierebbe agli uomini il fuoco perchè incendia, e l'acqua perchè annega; che non ripara ai mali, che col distruggere. Le leggi, che proibiscono di portar le armi, sono leggi di tal natura; esse non disarmano che i non inclinati, nè determinati ai delitti, mentre coloro che hanno il coraggio di poter violare le leggi più sacre della umanità è le più importanti del codice, come rispetteranno le minori, e le puramente arbitrarie? Queste peggiorano la condizione degli assaliti migliorando quella degli assalitori, non iscemano gli omicidi, ma gli accrescono, perchè è maggiore la confidenza nell'assalire i disarmati, che gli armati. Queste si chiaman leggi, non preventrici, ma paurose dei delitti, che nascono dalla tumultuosa impressione di alcuni fatti particolari, non dalla ragionata meditazione degl'inconvenienti, ed avvantaggi di un decreto universale._
Cesare Beccaria's Essay on Crimes and Punishments, originally published in Italian in 1764 - WHICH JEFFERSON OWNED AND NOTED:   Falsa idea di utilità (false ideas of utility)--which Beccaria was describing.  See below.
_
_
Translated:

_A principal source of errors and injustice are *false ideas of utility*. For example: that legislator has false ideas of utility who considers particular more than general conveniencies, who had rather command the sentiments of mankind than excite them, who dares say to reason, "Be thou a slave;" who would sacrifice a thousand real advantages to the fear of an imaginary or trifling inconvenience; who would deprive men of the use of fire for fear of their being burnt, and of water for fear of their being drowned; and who knows of no means of preventing evil but by destroying it.

*The laws of this nature are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent. *Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance? Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and to the wise legislator? and does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty? It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and of the assailants better, and rather encourages than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack unarmed than armed persons._

Because Jefferson owned sever copies of this essay and made notes on the passage, we can assume that he shared Beccaria's beliefs.
https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/laws-forbid-
carrying-armsspurious-quotation



_we had never been permitted to exercise self-government. when forced to assume it, we were Novices in it’s science. it’s principles and forms had entered little into our former education. we established however some, altho’ not all it’s important principles. the constitutions of most of our states assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, both fact and law, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; *that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;* that they are entitled to freedom of person; freedom of religion; freedom of property; and freedom of the press. _
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
Founders Online: From Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824



_“To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. *Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation,* the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear,* the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.* And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

"*Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors.*”_
– James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788
The Avalon Project : Federalist No 46




So, those of you making the argument that we do not have enough arms to fight off the FedGov's standing army, are simply making the argument that *WE CIVILIANS MUST HAVE MORE POWERFUL WEAPONS*.  


*WE NEED ZERO RESTRICTIONS!
*
.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lesh said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your Guns are Useless to Defeat the US Government. Over 2 million US citizens who have a constitutional right to bear arms vowed "Storm" to the governments "Area 51" today, have FAILED!!!
> 
> That's because only scared pussies cling to guns in their moms basements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As we have seen around the world, outright defeat of the government is not necessary when the populace can make the price high enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Without a huge number of citizens owning arsenals of 80mm mortars, the price to jackboot government military will not be high enough.
> 
> Taiwan citizens have guns and they are getting their ass kicked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you miss the part of history where the United States Military got it's fucking ass kicked by a bunch of rice farmers in southeast Asia?
> 
> you have no idea what you were talking about.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The farmers in our Revolution were famous for dropping their weapons and running at the first shot or glint of British bayonets.
> 
> The Revolutionary War was won by a REGULAR ARMY that had canons and all the accouterments of a modern (at that time) military...ours and the very capable French Army.
> 
> Read some history and lose the myths
> 
> The "farmers" in Vietnam were augmented by NVA Regulars...who had not only large artillery pieces but tanks and machine guns
Click to expand...

So, you don't think we can get those?

What are you really saying here?  That we civilians need better weapons?  

I agree.

.


----------



## Lesh

Rigby5 said:


> The farmers of the revolution did NOT drop their weapons, and while they did run and retreat, they kept firing.
> There were hardly any REGULAR ARMY at all on the colonial side of the revolution. There was no money, weapons, or time for training. They were almost all irregular, and mostly used their own arms.





Rigby5 said:


> The revolutionary farmers were well known for being vastly superior to "regulars"



You have read ZERO history...obviously


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

KissMy said:


> We were armed when they taxed workers, created federal reserve, took our Gold, created military industrial complex, removed the gold standard, invited illegal foreigners to invade our lands, took automatic weapons, sent our jobs, wealth & technology to China, the government printing presses roar loudly. You & your guns remained silent!!!


We have tolerated quite a bit, and we probably will tolerate a bit more, but we are now telling you what will awake the guns--YOUR ATTEMPT TO TAKE THEM.

I have listened to many.  I have seen the resolve of citizens.  You should take this very seriously.


You have a choice:  

Leave well-enough alone and the status quo remains (i.e. very limited and highly regulated civilian possession of machine guns or other automatic weapons, but free use of semi-autos and magazine capacities)
Push your luck, and we repeal everything either by representation or by armed rebellion/force and anything goes.  Full Autos become readily available to anyone.
You decide.


----------



## Lesh

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> So, you don't think we can get those?
> 
> What are you really saying here? That we civilians need better weapons?
> 
> I agree.



"Those" are either illegal to own or heavily regulated


----------



## M14 Shooter

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> We have tolerated quite a bit, and we probably will tolerate a bit more, but we are now telling you what will awake the guns--YOUR ATTEMPT TO TAKE THEM.


Democrats want to ban the manufacture and sale of all semi-auto handguns and rifles.
I do not think this will be tolerated.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lesh said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you don't think we can get those?
> 
> What are you really saying here? That we civilians need better weapons?
> 
> I agree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Those" are either illegal to own or heavily regulated
Click to expand...

Right.

You don't think that we will eventually overrun the vastly outnumbered regular troops and take their superior weapons?

You don't seem to understand what it takes to win an armed conflict.  All the air superiority and weapons dominance in the world has never and WILL never replace boots on the ground, and there are WAY more of us, and that's assuming half the military does not join our side (they will).

So, take your bullshit about our final conquest being decided and shove it up your communist, totalitarian-loving ass.

But, back to the point you accidentally made.  *WE CIVILIANS NEED MACHINE GUNS, ARTILLERY, TANKS, BOMBS, FIGHTER JETS, ETC.*

.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

M14 Shooter said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have tolerated quite a bit, and we probably will tolerate a bit more, but we are now telling you what will awake the guns--YOUR ATTEMPT TO TAKE THEM.
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats want to ban the manufacture and sale of all semi-auto handguns and rifles.
> I do not think this will be tolerated.
Click to expand...

I don't think a single new gun-control law will be tolerated, but I am sure they will test our resolve.

.


----------



## Lesh

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> You don't think that we will eventually overrun the vastly outnumbered regular troops and take their superior weapons?



No I don't.

I think you are living in some weird (and dangerous) comic book fantasy


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lesh said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't think that we will eventually overrun the vastly outnumbered regular troops and take their superior weapons?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I don't.
> 
> I think you are living in some weird (and dangerous) comic book fantasy
Click to expand...

So, you either think George Washington et al were WRONG:

"_That no man shou’d scruple, or hesitate a moment to use arms in defence of so valuable a blessing, on which all the good and evil of life depends; is clearly my opinion..._"
*See post #9187 

*
Or, you admit that we need to be better armed as civilians.


Which is it?

.


----------



## Lesh

Dude...look up the battles of Cowpen and King's Mountain.

They put the militia in front...to fire ONE shot (maybe) and then run....drawing the Brits in to be hammered by the regulars...with ya know....canon


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lesh said:


> Dude...look up the battles of Cowpen and King's Mountain.
> 
> They put the militia in front...to fire ONE shot (maybe) and then run....drawing the Brits in to be hammered by the regulars...with ya know....canon


So, what argument are you making?  

Civilians don't have enough firepower? 

I agree.

.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Lesh said:


> Dude...look up the battles of Cowpen and King's Mountain.
> They put the militia in front...to fire ONE shot (maybe) and then run....drawing the Brits in to be hammered by the regulars...with ya know....canon


The PLAN was for them to run - they did not break.
How do you think this supports your nonsense?


----------



## KissMy

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were armed when they taxed workers, created federal reserve, took our Gold, created military industrial complex, removed the gold standard, invited illegal foreigners to invade our lands, took automatic weapons, sent our jobs, wealth & technology to China, the government printing presses roar loudly. You & your guns remained silent!!!
> 
> 
> 
> We have tolerated quite a bit, and we probably will tolerate a bit more, but we are now telling you what will awake the guns--YOUR ATTEMPT TO TAKE THEM.
> 
> I have listened to many.  I have seen the resolve of citizens.  You should take this very seriously.
> 
> 
> You have a choice:
> 
> Leave well-enough alone and the status quo remains (i.e. very limited and highly regulated civilian possession of machine guns or other automatic weapons, but free use of semi-autos and magazine capacities)
> Push your luck, and we repeal everything either by representation or by armed rebellion/force and anything goes.  Full Autos become readily available to anyone.
> You decide.
Click to expand...

LOL!!! - They took guns from the people of New Orleans & you pussies did not injure the government thugs.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

KissMy said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were armed when they taxed workers, created federal reserve, took our Gold, created military industrial complex, removed the gold standard, invited illegal foreigners to invade our lands, took automatic weapons, sent our jobs, wealth & technology to China, the government printing presses roar loudly. You & your guns remained silent!!!
> 
> 
> 
> We have tolerated quite a bit, and we probably will tolerate a bit more, but we are now telling you what will awake the guns--YOUR ATTEMPT TO TAKE THEM.
> 
> I have listened to many.  I have seen the resolve of citizens.  You should take this very seriously.
> 
> 
> You have a choice:
> 
> Leave well-enough alone and the status quo remains (i.e. very limited and highly regulated civilian possession of machine guns or other automatic weapons, but free use of semi-autos and magazine capacities)
> Push your luck, and we repeal everything either by representation or by armed rebellion/force and anything goes.  Full Autos become readily available to anyone.
> You decide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL!!! - They took guns from the people of New Orleans & you pussies did not injure the government thugs.
Click to expand...

Not apples to oranges.  Not even apples to meatloaf.  
Apples to to fucking suitcases.  

I wasn't in New Orleans and didn't know about it until recently.

We can only presume that government gave the guns back.  

Now, passing national legislation is quite a bit different, don't you think?

.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

_“No free government was ever founded, or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the state…such area well-regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, *as individuals*, and their rights as freemen.”_
-Richard Henry Lee, Gazette (Charleston), September 8 1788
Richard Henry Lee Quote


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

"_Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force: Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined. _
* * *
"_Most of the human race are now in this deplorable condition: And those nations who have gone in search of grandeur, power, and splendor, have also fallen a sacrifice, and been the victims of their own folly: While they acquired those visionary blessings, they lost their freedom. My great objection to this Government is, that it does not leave us the means of defending our rights, or of waging war against tyrants.._."
– Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778
Speech of Patrick Henry (June 5, 1788) < The Anti-Federalist Papers < 1786-1800 < Documents < American History From Revolution To Reconstruction and beyond


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

"_A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny; *and how are you to punish them*? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment? In what situation are we to be? The clause before you gives a power of direct taxation, unbounded and unlimited, exclusive power of legislation, in all cases whatsoever, for ten miles square, and over all places purchased for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, &c. What resistance could be made? The attempt would be madness. You will find all the strength of this country in the hands of your enemies; their garrisons will naturally be the strongest places in the country. Your militia is given up to Congress, also, in another part of this plan: they will therefore act as they think proper: all power will be in their own possession. You cannot force them to receive their punishment: of what service would militia be to you, [52] when, most probably, you will not have a single musket in the state? for, as arms are to be provided by Congress, they may or may not furnish them._"
– Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778
Speech of Patrick Henry (June 5, 1788)


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

“_The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them._”
– Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

http://resources.utulsa.edu/law/classes/rice/Constitutional/Storey/story_hist_const_amend.html


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

“_If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair._”
– Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
The Avalon Project : Federalist No 28


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that the original intent of the Constitution was to preserve the ability of the people to resist tyranny WITH GUNS?  I think I have sufficiently brow-beat the point.  Anyone who says otherwise is a fucking moron.

We, the citizens, need machine guns, tanks, artillery, air power, bombs, etc.  

.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

In the event that ANYONE is still doubting that our founders intended citizens to be armed to the fullest extent, here is more:

"_As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people, duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which shall be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms._"
– Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/...com/&httpsredir=1&article=1421&context=wmborj


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Our founders seem to be in complete agreement in that they INTENDED that we, the individual citizens, have the FULL power of a military force, not just semi-autos, much less mere shot guns and deer rifles.

Here is more:

“_The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American … the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”_
-Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788
https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/...com/&httpsredir=1&article=1421&context=wmborj


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

So, we all agree that every citizen must be armed with at least a fucking machine gun?

Very well.

.


----------



## LuckyDuck

Lakhota said:


> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
Click to expand...

Let's look at why the 2nd Amendment was created:  The private citizens (colonists) at the time, were living under an "oppressive" government (England), much like people live under oppressive governments today (Leninist/Marxist governments), although today, they just flee to the U.S..  Anyway, the private citizens rose up and created an army, navy and various private militias to throw England out.  The weapons used by the colonists were exactly the same as those used by their British enemy armies.
So, when the founders drafted the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment, they had in mind that private citizens should be allowed to form militias utilizing the standard firearms used by the enemy troops in order that they may protect their state from enemies, both foreign AND DOMESTIC!
Fast forward to today and while the public has accepted that they cannot own a fully automatic firearm without a Federal Firearms License, we put out foot down at an attempt to take away our right to own semi-automatic rifles with magazines.  That oppressive tyrannical government that we were warned about has been insidiously growing from within and while in the past, was the Democratic party, is now a Leninist/Marxist party that is a threat to out individual liberties, our very freedom.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

LuckyDuck said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's look at why the 2nd Amendment was created:  The private citizens (colonists) at the time, were living under an "oppressive" government (England), much like people live under oppressive governments today (Leninist/Marxist governments), although today, they just flee to the U.S..  Anyway, the private citizens rose up and created an army, navy and various private militias to throw England out.  The weapons used by the colonists were exactly the same as those used by their British enemy armies.
> So, when the founders drafted the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment, they had in mind that private citizens should be allowed to form militias utilizing the standard firearms used by the enemy troops in order that they may protect their state from enemies, both foreign AND DOMESTIC!
> Fast forward to today and while the public has accepted that they cannot own a fully automatic firearm without a Federal Firearms License, we put out foot down at an attempt to take away our right to own semi-automatic rifles with magazines.  That oppressive tyrannical government that we were warned about has been insidiously growing from within and while in the past, was the Democratic party, is now a Leninist/Marxist party that is a threat to out individual liberties, our very freedom.
Click to expand...

We have warned them. 

We are willing to leave well-enough alone (for now) and maintain the highly restrictive nature of certain military arms under the status quo, but if they continue to push the envelope, we have every right to demand and get unrestricted access to purchase MILITARY GRADE weapons and munitions, and we will carry our automatic weapons and other deadly arms openly so that they shit their pants in front of everyone.

Which will it be, commies?

.


----------



## LuckyDuck

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's look at why the 2nd Amendment was created:  The private citizens (colonists) at the time, were living under an "oppressive" government (England), much like people live under oppressive governments today (Leninist/Marxist governments), although today, they just flee to the U.S..  Anyway, the private citizens rose up and created an army, navy and various private militias to throw England out.  The weapons used by the colonists were exactly the same as those used by their British enemy armies.
> So, when the founders drafted the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment, they had in mind that private citizens should be allowed to form militias utilizing the standard firearms used by the enemy troops in order that they may protect their state from enemies, both foreign AND DOMESTIC!
> Fast forward to today and while the public has accepted that they cannot own a fully automatic firearm without a Federal Firearms License, we put out foot down at an attempt to take away our right to own semi-automatic rifles with magazines.  That oppressive tyrannical government that we were warned about has been insidiously growing from within and while in the past, was the Democratic party, is now a Leninist/Marxist party that is a threat to out individual liberties, our very freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have warned them.
> 
> We are willing to leave well-enough alone (for now) and maintain the highly restrictive nature of certain military arms under the status quo, but if they continue to push the envelope, we have every right to demand and get unrestricted access to purchase MILITARY GRADE weapons and munitions, and we will carry our automatic weapons and other deadly arms openly so that they shit their pants in front of everyone.
> 
> Which will it be, commies?
> 
> .
Click to expand...

The problem we have is that the leftist Marists (formerly known as the Democratic Party) have suggested in a bribe to the military, that when they take away everyone's guns, the active duty military personnel will be allowed to keep theirs; this in a hope to bribe the military personnel to side with them, which the troops might go along with.  Although some of them won't betray their families and friends.


----------



## Lakhota




----------



## LuckyDuck

Lakhota said:


>


And, Justice Burger was in error.  The 2nd Amendment maintains that private citizens may possess and carry arms so that they may become part of a regulated militia to defend their states, unless of course, the state becomes the oppressive/tyrannical government that our founding fathers warned us about; then the armed citizens can form militias to combat their oppressive/tyrannical/Leninist/Marxist state.


----------



## Lakhota

The so-called right to bear arms seems to be getting drastically out of hand - even among cops who can't tell the difference between tasers and pistols.













						Police Claim Officer Who Shot And Killed Man In Traffic Stop Likely Meant To Shock Him Instead
					

An officer killed Daunte Wright, 20, outside Minneapolis on Sunday. Police say she likely thought she was using a stun gun rather than a firearm.




					www.huffpost.com


----------



## hadit

Lakhota said:


> The so-called right to bear arms seems to be getting drastically out of hand - even among cops who can't tell the difference between tasers and pistols.
> 
> View attachment 479324
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Police Claim Officer Who Shot And Killed Man In Traffic Stop Likely Meant To Shock Him Instead
> 
> 
> An officer killed Daunte Wright, 20, outside Minneapolis on Sunday. Police say she likely thought she was using a stun gun rather than a firearm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.huffpost.com


Aren't the anti-gunners always on about making guns safe? Sounds to me like they just need to make tasers feel very different from firearms.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Lakhota said:


> *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means.*
Click to expand...

Your logic is off.


----------



## Lakhota

hadit said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> The so-called right to bear arms seems to be getting drastically out of hand - even among cops who can't tell the difference between tasers and pistols.
> 
> View attachment 479324
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Police Claim Officer Who Shot And Killed Man In Traffic Stop Likely Meant To Shock Him Instead
> 
> 
> An officer killed Daunte Wright, 20, outside Minneapolis on Sunday. Police say she likely thought she was using a stun gun rather than a firearm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.huffpost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't the anti-gunners always on about making guns safe? Sounds to me like they just need to make tasers feel very different from firearms.
Click to expand...


The woman who shot the black kid was a veteran officer.  Also, tasers are supposed to be carried on the opposite less-dominate side from the pistol.  How could she not know the difference?


----------



## JGalt

Lakhota said:


> The so-called right to bear arms seems to be getting drastically out of hand - even among cops who can't tell the difference between tasers and pistols.
> 
> View attachment 479324
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Police Claim Officer Who Shot And Killed Man In Traffic Stop Likely Meant To Shock Him Instead
> 
> 
> An officer killed Daunte Wright, 20, outside Minneapolis on Sunday. Police say she likely thought she was using a stun gun rather than a firearm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.huffpost.com



Maybe they cops should be taught to yell "Taser Taser Taser, Is this really my Taser?"


----------



## dblack

Lakhota said:


> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
Click to expand...


If it is, then we need to ratify an amendment to make that clear.


----------



## Concerned American

Lakhota said:


> I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed.  It's just a matter of time...


Only if you let it, just like the republic itself.  The bad thing is, I am afraid Americans have become lazy and complacent and are no more than sheep to the slaughter at this point.


----------



## Lastamender

Lakhota said:


> The so-called right to bear arms seems to be getting drastically out of hand - even among cops who can't tell the difference between tasers and pistols.
> 
> View attachment 479324
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Police Claim Officer Who Shot And Killed Man In Traffic Stop Likely Meant To Shock Him Instead
> 
> 
> An officer killed Daunte Wright, 20, outside Minneapolis on Sunday. Police say she likely thought she was using a stun gun rather than a firearm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.huffpost.com


You are more than welcome to call BLM or Anti-Fa to protect you.


----------



## Lesh

LuckyDuck said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, Justice Burger was in error.  The 2nd Amendment maintains that private citizens may possess and carry arms so that they may become part of a regulated militia to defend their states, unless of course, the state becomes the oppressive/tyrannical government that our founding fathers warned us about; then the armed citizens can form militias to combat their oppressive/tyrannical/Leninist/Marxist state.
Click to expand...

The Constitution says no such thing. It DOES say that the Well Regulated Militia can put DOWN such insurrections and indeed the militia was called out to put down both Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey


----------



## Lesh

Of course the militia no longer exists so the whole thing is stupid and pointless


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Lakhota said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> The so-called right to bear arms seems to be getting drastically out of hand - even among cops who can't tell the difference between tasers and pistols.
> 
> View attachment 479324
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Police Claim Officer Who Shot And Killed Man In Traffic Stop Likely Meant To Shock Him Instead
> 
> 
> An officer killed Daunte Wright, 20, outside Minneapolis on Sunday. Police say she likely thought she was using a stun gun rather than a firearm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.huffpost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't the anti-gunners always on about making guns safe? Sounds to me like they just need to make tasers feel very different from firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The woman who shot the black kid was a veteran officer.  Also, tasers are supposed to be carried on the opposite less-dominate side from the pistol.  How could she not know the difference?
Click to expand...

You had to insert “black” into it? He was a kid. She made a mistake. Do people who have driven cars for 30 yrs not get into accidents? It was a tragic mistake but it wasn’t racism as much as you want to spin that narrative.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Lesh said:


> Of course the militia no longer exists so the whole thing is stupid and pointless


That is neither for you nor me to decide and the horse has left the barn. Over 100mil guns out there.


----------



## AZrailwhale

Lakhota said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has human nature changed?
> 
> Have people stopped doing evil things and threatening innocent people?
> 
> Have politicians learned to respect the sovereignty of the people and stop trying to micromanage their existence?
> 
> If not, then of course it isn't obsolete. You'd have to be an idiot to think that or completely ignorant of the purpose of the Second amendment which is to protect our right to self defense and prevent tyranny and oppression.
> 
> When the people fear the government, we have tyranny. When the government fears it's people, then we have freedom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your NaziCon rant doesn't address the OP.  Do you belong to a militia?  Why isn't the 2nd Amendment obsolete?
Click to expand...

The Second isn’t obsolete because the basic character of government hasn’t changed since Hammurabi wrote his law code.  The natural desire of any government is to control and the people who are drawn to government think that they know far better than those they govern.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

A criminal resisted arrest and got shot. What's the problem?


----------



## gipper

Lakhota said:


> The so-called right to bear arms seems to be getting drastically out of hand - even among cops who can't tell the difference between tasers and pistols.
> 
> View attachment 479324
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Police Claim Officer Who Shot And Killed Man In Traffic Stop Likely Meant To Shock Him Instead
> 
> 
> An officer killed Daunte Wright, 20, outside Minneapolis on Sunday. Police say she likely thought she was using a stun gun rather than a firearm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.huffpost.com


Imagine the Native American tribes, like the plains Indians particularly the Sioux, not having access to firearms.


----------



## asaratis

Lakhota said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> The so-called right to bear arms seems to be getting drastically out of hand - even among cops who can't tell the difference between tasers and pistols.
> 
> View attachment 479324
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Police Claim Officer Who Shot And Killed Man In Traffic Stop Likely Meant To Shock Him Instead
> 
> 
> An officer killed Daunte Wright, 20, outside Minneapolis on Sunday. Police say she likely thought she was using a stun gun rather than a firearm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.huffpost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't the anti-gunners always on about making guns safe? Sounds to me like they just need to make tasers feel very different from firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The woman who shot the black kid was a veteran officer.  Also, tasers are supposed to be carried on the opposite less-dominate side from the pistol.  How could she not know the difference?
Click to expand...

First sensible post I've seen from you in years!


----------



## AZrailwhale

rightwinger said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> fyi;  the Second Amendment allows you to have the other amendments.
> 
> For those totally ignorant of history
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right to vote secured by a free and open press allows you to have the other amendments
> 
> At no point in our history has our freedom,deliniated by the second amendment, been assured by private gun ownership. A free press protects our freedom every day
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A free press can inform the citizens, but is of no use to stop an oppressive government. What it CAN do, is call out the armed militia.
> 
> The Press is also free to support the oppression, kind of like MSNBC
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An oppressive government is more afraid of your vote than your gun
Click to expand...

What is the saying?  “Who votes isn’t important, who counts the votes is important.“


----------



## JusticeHammer

One more example of consequences when you don't follow orders and resist. I like how the press told the police chief not to call the rioters rioters. They are RIOTERS!!!!


----------



## Lakhota

How could a 26-year police veteran not know the difference between a taser and a pistol?

She must face criminal charges!





"I’ll Tase you! I’ll Tase you! Taser! Taser! Taser!" the officer is heard shouting on her bodycam footage released at a news conference. She draws her weapon after the man breaks free from police outside his car and gets back behind the wheel.

After firing a single shot from her handgun, the car speeds away, and the officer is heard saying, "Holy (expletive)! I shot him."

The Hennepin County Medical Examiner's office said in a statement that Wright died of a gunshot wound to the chest "and manner of death is homicide." 

State records cited by The Tribune indicate Potter became a licensed police officer in Minnesota in 1995 at the age of 22.









						Who is Kimberly Potter, the cop involved in the Daunte Wright deadly shooting?
					

The Minnesota cop who investigators say fired the shot in the death of a 20-year-old Black man during a traffic stop Sunday afternoon has been identified.




					www.foxnews.com


----------



## Oddball

Lakhota said:


> How could a 26-year police veteran not know the difference between a taser and a pistol?
> 
> View attachment 479345
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is Kimberly Potter, the cop involved in the Daunte Wright deadly shooting?
> 
> 
> The Minnesota cop who investigators say fired the shot in the death of a 20-year-old Black man during a traffic stop Sunday afternoon has been identified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.foxnews.com


How could  an ignorant sub-moron like you ask such a question?...Have you even held a real pistol?


----------



## Oddball

I'll score the answer to the previous question a big NO.


----------



## Rigby5

Lesh said:


> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, Justice Burger was in error.  The 2nd Amendment maintains that private citizens may possess and carry arms so that they may become part of a regulated militia to defend their states, unless of course, the state becomes the oppressive/tyrannical government that our founding fathers warned us about; then the armed citizens can form militias to combat their oppressive/tyrannical/Leninist/Marxist state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution says no such thing. It DOES say that the Well Regulated Militia can put DOWN such insurrections and indeed the militia was called out to put down both Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey
Click to expand...


But the Declaration of Independence most certainly DOES say that governments that are corrupt should be put down.
And since it seems obvious that all government slowly become more corrupt over time, it is foolish to let them ever get a monopoly.


----------



## Rigby5

Lesh said:


> Of course the militia no longer exists so the whole thing is stupid and pointless



Wrong.
The National Guard did not change the original purpose of the militia, which is to defend our own individual homes.
The police or anyone else can never do that, and it is a protected individual right.


----------



## AZrailwhale

Oddball said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> How could a 26-year police veteran not know the difference between a taser and a pistol?
> 
> View attachment 479345
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is Kimberly Potter, the cop involved in the Daunte Wright deadly shooting?
> 
> 
> The Minnesota cop who investigators say fired the shot in the death of a 20-year-old Black man during a traffic stop Sunday afternoon has been identified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How could  an ignorant sub-moron like you ask such a question?...Have you even held a real pistol?
Click to expand...

She made a mistake.  Mistakes happen.  Unfortunately for both the officer and victim, this was a lethal mistake.  The officer committed manslaughter and should receive a fair trial and bear the responsibility for her mistake.


----------



## Rigby5

9thIDdoc said:


> A criminal resisted arrest and got shot. What's the problem?



The problem is police do not have the authority to murder, so then if it was deliberate, we would have to insist upon the police officer being convicted for the criminal act.


----------



## Oddball

AZrailwhale said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> How could a 26-year police veteran not know the difference between a taser and a pistol?
> 
> View attachment 479345
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is Kimberly Potter, the cop involved in the Daunte Wright deadly shooting?
> 
> 
> The Minnesota cop who investigators say fired the shot in the death of a 20-year-old Black man during a traffic stop Sunday afternoon has been identified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How could  an ignorant sub-moron like you ask such a question?...Have you even held a real pistol?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She made a mistake.  Mistakes happen.  Unfortunately for both the officer and victim, this was a lethal mistake.  The officer committed manslaughter and should receive a fair trial and bear the responsibility for her mistake.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to judge until all the facts are in....The released video shows me someone who slipped the cuffs and was about to be a threat to the officers with a deadly weapon {i.e. the car)....An accident under such a scenario doesn't even warrant a manslaughter charge.


----------



## Rigby5

JusticeHammer said:


> One more example of consequences when you don't follow orders and resist. I like how the press told the police chief not to call the rioters rioters. They are RIOTERS!!!!



Police can never be trusted and you are never supposed to follow their orders.
For example, they always want to search the car, and that is always illegal.
Only a criminal would try to intimidate people into consenting to that illegal search.
There was no violation, so the police were wrong to even stop the person, much less everything else.


----------



## Lakhota

AZrailwhale said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> How could a 26-year police veteran not know the difference between a taser and a pistol?
> 
> View attachment 479345
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is Kimberly Potter, the cop involved in the Daunte Wright deadly shooting?
> 
> 
> The Minnesota cop who investigators say fired the shot in the death of a 20-year-old Black man during a traffic stop Sunday afternoon has been identified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How could  an ignorant sub-moron like you ask such a question?...Have you even held a real pistol?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She made a mistake.  Mistakes happen.  Unfortunately for both the officer and victim, this was a lethal mistake.  The officer committed manslaughter and should receive a fair trial and bear the responsibility for her mistake.
Click to expand...


Also, apparently this wasn't the first time that Kim Potter has killed.

According to The Tribune, Potter was involved in another fatal shooting in August 2019.  









						Who is Kimberly Potter, the cop involved in the Daunte Wright deadly shooting?
					

The Minnesota cop who investigators say fired the shot in the death of a 20-year-old Black man during a traffic stop Sunday afternoon has been identified.




					www.foxnews.com


----------



## Rigby5

Oddball said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> How could a 26-year police veteran not know the difference between a taser and a pistol?
> 
> View attachment 479345
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is Kimberly Potter, the cop involved in the Daunte Wright deadly shooting?
> 
> 
> The Minnesota cop who investigators say fired the shot in the death of a 20-year-old Black man during a traffic stop Sunday afternoon has been identified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How could  an ignorant sub-moron like you ask such a question?...Have you even held a real pistol?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She made a mistake.  Mistakes happen.  Unfortunately for both the officer and victim, this was a lethal mistake.  The officer committed manslaughter and should receive a fair trial and bear the responsibility for her mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not going to judge until all the facts are in....The released video shows me someone who slipped the cuffs and was about to be a threat to the officers with a deadly weapon {i.e. the car)....An accident under such a scenario doesn't even warrant a manslaughter charge.
Click to expand...


A car is not  at all a lethal weapon until someone points it at a person and starts to accelerate.
Saying a car is a lethal weapon because it in theory can kill, makes as much sense as claiming a rock is a lethal weapon, because in theory it or just about anything can also kill.


----------



## Oddball

Rigby5 said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> How could a 26-year police veteran not know the difference between a taser and a pistol?
> 
> View attachment 479345
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is Kimberly Potter, the cop involved in the Daunte Wright deadly shooting?
> 
> 
> The Minnesota cop who investigators say fired the shot in the death of a 20-year-old Black man during a traffic stop Sunday afternoon has been identified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How could  an ignorant sub-moron like you ask such a question?...Have you even held a real pistol?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She made a mistake.  Mistakes happen.  Unfortunately for both the officer and victim, this was a lethal mistake.  The officer committed manslaughter and should receive a fair trial and bear the responsibility for her mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not going to judge until all the facts are in....The released video shows me someone who slipped the cuffs and was about to be a threat to the officers with a deadly weapon {i.e. the car)....An accident under such a scenario doesn't even warrant a manslaughter charge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A car is not  at all a lethal weapon until someone points it at a person and starts to accelerate.
> Saying a car is a lethal weapon because it in theory can kill, makes as much sense as claiming a rock is a lethal weapon, because in theory it or just about anything can also kill.
Click to expand...

Tell that to the poor bastard who was dragged to death by some juvenile punks a couple weeks ago.


----------



## Markle

When the doo-doo hit the fan, all her training went out the window.  I'm sure she saw the gun on the seat and panicked.  A terrible tragedy but it doesn't warrant rioting and looting.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Rigby5 said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> A criminal resisted arrest and got shot. What's the problem?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is police do not have the authority to murder, so then if it was deliberate, we would have to insist upon the police officer being convicted for the criminal act.
Click to expand...

The man was wanted. There was a warrant for his arrest and the police were preforming their duties placing the man under arrested he resisted by jumping back into the car (where he could easily have had a weapon).  I consider the shooting justified and certainly far less likely to have been murder that the capitol cop who shot down an unarmed woman without cause.


----------



## InspectorDetector

Rigby5 said:


> JusticeHammer said:
> 
> 
> 
> One more example of consequences when you don't follow orders and resist. I like how the press told the police chief not to call the rioters rioters. They are RIOTERS!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Police can never be trusted and you are never supposed to follow their orders.
> For example, they always want to search the car, and that is always illegal.
> Only a criminal would try to intimidate people into consenting to that illegal search.
> There was no violation, so the police were wrong to even stop the person, much less everything else.
Click to expand...


There is this thing called the 4th Amendment. A LEO asks if he can search your car - only a damned fool (especially a guilty fool) says "Sure, go ahead". You are under no ob ligation whatsoever to allow a search of your vehicle without a warrant.

That doesn't meant that the officer involved can't try to "coerce" you into playing stupid. The Police are allowed BY LAW to lie to you to achieve a result. DO NOT RESPOND TO A POLICE OFFICER OTHER THAN TO SAY "Yes sir and no sir". If he asks for your ID - you say "yes sir" and hand it over. If he asks to search your vehicle, politely refuse until said officer presents a search warrant. The same with your license and your registration. Wake the hell up folks.

Stop fighting the police. Leave the arrogance bullshit alone. Stupid fools. And yet people wonder why so damned many people are shot by cops. I don't blame them.


----------



## InspectorDetector

9thIDdoc said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> A criminal resisted arrest and got shot. What's the problem?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is police do not have the authority to murder, so then if it was deliberate, we would have to insist upon the police officer being convicted for the criminal act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The man was wanted. There was a warrant for his arrest and the police were preforming their duties placing the man under arrested he resisted by jumping back into the car (where he could easily have had a weapon).  I consider the shooting justified and certainly far less likely to have been murder that the capitol cop who shot down an unarmed woman without cause.
Click to expand...



Anything this young punk did was justified - in the eyes of the Black Lies Matter. Doesn't matter what happened or didn't 't happen. The officer is guilty and should be hanged by the neck until dead - again, in the eyes of the black community.

We've turned a corner in America where blacks have figured out that they have an advantage over "whitey" and they will run with it until the cows come home. Get used to it. It is going to get much, MUCH worse.


----------



## Markle

Lesh said:


> Of course the militia no longer exists so the whole thing is stupid and pointless



Apparently, English grammar was never your strong point.


----------



## Markle

Rigby5 said:


> JusticeHammer said:
> 
> 
> 
> One more example of consequences when you don't follow orders and resist. I like how the press told the police chief not to call the rioters rioters. They are RIOTERS!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Police can never be trusted and you are never supposed to follow their orders.
> For example, they always want to search the car, and that is always illegal.
> Only a criminal would try to intimidate people into consenting to that illegal search.
> There was no violation, so the police were wrong to even stop the person, much less everything else.
Click to expand...


Very true.  

How is it an illegal search if the driver gives permission?  So you refuse, and they suspect that you have drugs on your person or in your car.  The officer says fine, and then he radios for a K-9 unit.  A half-hour later the K-9 unit shows up.  The officer asks you again if you'll give him permission to search you and your car.  You would give a smart-ass answer because you're so much smarter than the cop.  The dog handler gets the dog out of the car and walks around the car sniffing.  The pooch gives the sign that he smells something at the passenger door.  That's probable cause, no warrant needed.  The cop opens the door and the dog jumps in and starts pawing at your console.

Sorry Rigby5, you're under arrest.  Great work son.

They also had probable cause to make a routine stop of the car.  The registration had expired.


----------



## Lakhota

How are terrorist militias considered "well regulated"?  Who "regulates" them?  How are they "necessary to the security of a free state"?  We know who regulates the military and National Guard.









						American militia movement - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

‘_How are they "necessary to the security of a free state"?’_

They’re not.

In fact, there are no more ‘militias.’

The Second Amendment safeguards an individual right to possess a firearm, unconnected with militia service.


----------



## 2aguy

Lakhota said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> The so-called right to bear arms seems to be getting drastically out of hand - even among cops who can't tell the difference between tasers and pistols.
> 
> View attachment 479324
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Police Claim Officer Who Shot And Killed Man In Traffic Stop Likely Meant To Shock Him Instead
> 
> 
> An officer killed Daunte Wright, 20, outside Minneapolis on Sunday. Police say she likely thought she was using a stun gun rather than a firearm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.huffpost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't the anti-gunners always on about making guns safe? Sounds to me like they just need to make tasers feel very different from firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The woman who shot the black kid was a veteran officer.  Also, tasers are supposed to be carried on the opposite less-dominate side from the pistol.  How could she not know the difference?
Click to expand...


How about when a cop says stop resisting....you fucking stop resisting....that would be the best way to keep it from escalating....don't you think?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ‘_How are they "necessary to the security of a free state"?’_
> 
> They’re not.
> 
> In fact, there are no more ‘militias.’
> 
> The Second Amendment safeguards an individual right to possess a firearm, unconnected with militia service.


there are militias I know for a fact North Carolina had one in the 1990's


----------



## surada

Lakhota said:


> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
Click to expand...


Why not just join the National Guard if you think we need an armed militia.. That would include training, discipline and leadership.


----------



## Flash

Lakhota said:


> The so-called right to bear arms seems to be getting drastically out of hand - even among cops who can't tell the difference between tasers and pistols.
> 
> View attachment 479324
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Police Claim Officer Who Shot And Killed Man In Traffic Stop Likely Meant To Shock Him Instead
> 
> 
> An officer killed Daunte Wright, 20, outside Minneapolis on Sunday. Police say she likely thought she was using a stun gun rather than a firearm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.huffpost.com




Only stupid uneducated Moon Bats are confused about the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.


----------



## Lakhota

surada said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not just join the National Guard if you think we need an armed militia.. That would include training, discipline and leadership.
Click to expand...


Funny.  I'm 74.  I've already served my time in the military.  The "official" military.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Lakhota said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not just join the National Guard if you think we need an armed militia.. That would include training, discipline and leadership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny.  I'm 74.  I've already served my time in the military.  The "official" military.
Click to expand...

National Guard is the official military to they are 1/3 of the active Army force


----------



## danielpalos

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ‘_How are they "necessary to the security of a free state"?’_
> 
> They’re not.
> 
> In fact, there are no more ‘militias.’
> 
> The Second Amendment safeguards an individual right to possess a firearm, unconnected with militia service.


That ruling was in legal error.  There are no individuals unconnected with the militia only militia service well regulated. 

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788


----------



## hadit

Lakhota said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> The so-called right to bear arms seems to be getting drastically out of hand - even among cops who can't tell the difference between tasers and pistols.
> 
> View attachment 479324
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Police Claim Officer Who Shot And Killed Man In Traffic Stop Likely Meant To Shock Him Instead
> 
> 
> An officer killed Daunte Wright, 20, outside Minneapolis on Sunday. Police say she likely thought she was using a stun gun rather than a firearm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.huffpost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't the anti-gunners always on about making guns safe? Sounds to me like they just need to make tasers feel very different from firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The woman who shot the black kid was a veteran officer.  Also, tasers are supposed to be carried on the opposite less-dominate side from the pistol.  How could she not know the difference?
Click to expand...

She's human, with a job that's nearly impossible to do perfectly. Even with the very best of all training, mistakes happen. It just underlines the necessity of giving the officer no reason to fear you.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> ‘_How are they "necessary to the security of a free state"?’_
> 
> They’re not.
> 
> In fact, there are no more ‘militias.’
> 
> The Second Amendment safeguards an individual right to possess a firearm, unconnected with militia service.
> 
> 
> 
> That ruling was in legal error.  There are no individuals unconnected with the militia only militia service well regulated.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
Click to expand...

Yet another Daniel legal discovery. The legal profession is wrong, the keyboard jockey insists.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 479370
> 
> How are terrorist militias considered "well regulated"?  Who "regulates" them?  How are they "necessary to the security of a free state"?  We know who regulates the military and National Guard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American militia movement - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org


Historically the term "militia" is simply used to describe any group of armed civilians banded together for a common cause. The People cannot form militias if they are unarmed. The military (which includes the National Guard) are not civilians and are not militias. Militias may become military with government approval at which time they are no longer militias and become regular (regulated) troops. The FF were well aware of this having recently won independence with just such units and they (both)continued to be in common use through the American "Civil" War. Militias were intended to be the check against governments that become tyrannical (unconstitutional) which is why they cannot be government controlled troops although they can contain regular troops acting in their civilian capacity such as some of the Oath Keepers. A State that is controlled by an unconstitutional (illegal) government cannot be properly described as a "free state".


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.

The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)

The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)

What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?

Establish a militia?

of

Protect the right of the people?


----------



## hadit

hadit said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> The so-called right to bear arms seems to be getting drastically out of hand - even among cops who can't tell the difference between tasers and pistols.
> 
> View attachment 479324
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Police Claim Officer Who Shot And Killed Man In Traffic Stop Likely Meant To Shock Him Instead
> 
> 
> An officer killed Daunte Wright, 20, outside Minneapolis on Sunday. Police say she likely thought she was using a stun gun rather than a firearm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.huffpost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't the anti-gunners always on about making guns safe? Sounds to me like they just need to make tasers feel very different from firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The woman who shot the black kid was a veteran officer.  Also, tasers are supposed to be carried on the opposite less-dominate side from the pistol.  How could she not know the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She's human, with a job that's nearly impossible to do perfectly. Even with the very best of all training, mistakes happen. It just underlines the necessity of giving the officer no reason to fear you.
Click to expand...

So, Lakhota, you disagree. Here's what I said:

"She's human, with a job that's nearly impossible to do perfectly. Even with the very best of all training, mistakes happen. It just underlines the necessity of giving the officer no reason to fear you."

What exactly in that do you find disagreeable? 

That the officer is human?
That being a police officer is a job that's nearly impossible to do perfectly?
That even with the best training, mistakes happen?
That given all that, it's best to give the officer no reason to fear you?

What exactly are you disagreeing with?


----------



## asaratis

surada said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not just join the National Guard if you think we need an armed militia.. That would include training, discipline and leadership.
Click to expand...

The National Guard is controlled by the US State Governors and the POTUS.  There is no better example of this than the currently employed THOUSANDS of NG troops stationed in Washington, D.C. to PROTECT THE SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES AND THEIR SUPPORTING STAFF.

The loosely organized militia consisting of constitutionally armed citizens (as intended by the founders) is not under control of elected officials but is under control of the *TRUE GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE AND BY THE PEOPLE.*

The intent was (and still is) to protect the existence of the democratic Republic called the United States from becoming a despotic pure democracy or a dictatorship under the direction of a rogue governing body.

When our Army was initially founded, command of it was given to the POTUS, but the funding of it was controlled by congress for periods limited to 2 years.






						On this day: Congress officially creates the U.S. Army | Constitution Center
					

To some it seemed like a technicality, but on this day in 1789, President George Washington succeeded in getting the First Congress to recognize the U.S. Army under the terms of our new Constitution.



					constitutioncenter.org
				







> *On this day: Congress officially creates the U.S. Army*
> 
> September 29, 2020 by NCC Staff
> 
> To some it seemed like a technicality, but on this day in 1789, President George Washington succeeded in getting the First Congress to recognize the U.S. Army under the terms of our new Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> The Revolutionary War version of the Army had been formed under Washington on June 14, 1775 as the Continental Congress decided it was needed in the conflict with Great Britain. The first version of the Army worked with state militias on the fight for independence.
> 
> The Articles of Confederation, which were finally ratified in 1781, established the ability to raise troops for the common defense of the United States. (It also allowed individual states to declare war under certain conditions.) But the Confederation government greatly scaled back the remains of the Continental Army into a new regiment with 700 men.
> 
> In general, there were great concerns about the need for a standing army outside of times of war. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia provided checks on any standing army by allowing the President to command it, but Congress to finance it using short-term legislation.
> 
> Congress had the power to do this under Article I, Section 8, Clause 12, known as the Army Clause. “The Congress shall have Power To . . . raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years,” the Clause read.
> 
> As the First Congress entered its final day on September 29, 1789, now-President Washington insisted that the lawmakers pass an Act clarifying the Army’s role under the new Constitution.
> 
> Back on August 7, President Washington wrote to Congress to remind them that legislation was needed to replace the outdated part of the Articles that pertained to the military.
> 
> “I am particularly anxious it should receive an early attention as circumstances will admit; because it is now in our power to avail ourselves of the military knowledge disseminated throughout the several States by means of the many well instructed Officers and soldiers of the late Army; a resource which is daily diminishing by deaths and other causes,” Washington wrote.
> 
> Despite a personal appeal from Secretary of War Henry Knox, Congress didn’t act. Washington had to write a second time to the lawmakers, who finally made it the first order of business on the final day of its first session.
> 
> Congress finally passed an Act for “Establishment of the Troops,” which also allowed for the President to call up state militias under some circumstances. It also required a loyalty oath to the Constitution by anyone in service.
> 
> At the time, the standing federal Army had about 800 members, including officers. Today, the U.S. Army was expected to have about 450,000 active duty personnel in 2018, its smallest number since 1940.



In order to guarantee the protection of the people from a well armed, rogue governing body, SCOTUS upholds the provisions of the 2nd Amendment with certain reasonable limitations that apply to the general public but not to licensed gun dealers and some others.

Screw the gun grabbers!

Guns are not the problem.

Weapons of any sort are not the problem.

Evil people are the problem.  Evil cannot be legislated into non-existence.


----------



## surada

asaratis said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not just join the National Guard if you think we need an armed militia.. That would include training, discipline and leadership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The National Guard is controlled by the US State Governors and the POTUS.  There is no better example of this than the currently employed THOUSANDS of NG troops stationed in Washington, D.C. to PROTECT THE SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES AND THEIR SUPPORTING STAFF.
> 
> The loosely organized militia consisting of constitutionally armed citizens (as intended by the founders) is not under control of elected officials but is under control of the *TRUE GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE AND BY THE PEOPLE.*
> 
> The intent was (and still is) to protect the existence of the democratic Republic called the United States from becoming a despotic pure democracy or a dictatorship under the direction of a rogue governing body.
> 
> When our Army was initially founded, command of it was given to the POTUS, but the funding of it was controlled by congress for periods limited to 2 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On this day: Congress officially creates the U.S. Army | Constitution Center
> 
> 
> To some it seemed like a technicality, but on this day in 1789, President George Washington succeeded in getting the First Congress to recognize the U.S. Army under the terms of our new Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> constitutioncenter.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *On this day: Congress officially creates the U.S. Army*
> 
> September 29, 2020 by NCC Staff
> 
> To some it seemed like a technicality, but on this day in 1789, President George Washington succeeded in getting the First Congress to recognize the U.S. Army under the terms of our new Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> The Revolutionary War version of the Army had been formed under Washington on June 14, 1775 as the Continental Congress decided it was needed in the conflict with Great Britain. The first version of the Army worked with state militias on the fight for independence.
> 
> The Articles of Confederation, which were finally ratified in 1781, established the ability to raise troops for the common defense of the United States. (It also allowed individual states to declare war under certain conditions.) But the Confederation government greatly scaled back the remains of the Continental Army into a new regiment with 700 men.
> 
> In general, there were great concerns about the need for a standing army outside of times of war. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia provided checks on any standing army by allowing the President to command it, but Congress to finance it using short-term legislation.
> 
> Congress had the power to do this under Article I, Section 8, Clause 12, known as the Army Clause. “The Congress shall have Power To . . . raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years,” the Clause read.
> 
> As the First Congress entered its final day on September 29, 1789, now-President Washington insisted that the lawmakers pass an Act clarifying the Army’s role under the new Constitution.
> 
> Back on August 7, President Washington wrote to Congress to remind them that legislation was needed to replace the outdated part of the Articles that pertained to the military.
> 
> “I am particularly anxious it should receive an early attention as circumstances will admit; because it is now in our power to avail ourselves of the military knowledge disseminated throughout the several States by means of the many well instructed Officers and soldiers of the late Army; a resource which is daily diminishing by deaths and other causes,” Washington wrote.
> 
> Despite a personal appeal from Secretary of War Henry Knox, Congress didn’t act. Washington had to write a second time to the lawmakers, who finally made it the first order of business on the final day of its first session.
> 
> Congress finally passed an Act for “Establishment of the Troops,” which also allowed for the President to call up state militias under some circumstances. It also required a loyalty oath to the Constitution by anyone in service.
> 
> At the time, the standing federal Army had about 800 members, including officers. Today, the U.S. Army was expected to have about 450,000 active duty personnel in 2018, its smallest number since 1940.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In order to guarantee the protection of the people from a well armed, rogue governing body, SCOTUS upholds the provisions of the 2nd Amendment with certain reasonable limitations that apply to the general public but not to licensed gun dealers and some others.
> 
> Screw the gun grabbers!
> 
> Guns are not the problem.
> 
> Weapons of any sort are not the problem.
> 
> Evil people are the problem.  Evil cannot be legislated into non-existence.
Click to expand...


Back then the US didn't have a standing army or national guard or police departments. 

Are you prepared to fight other Americans in defense of a moron like Trump who has never even read the US constitution?


----------



## CowboyTed

TheOldSchool said:


> It's definitely not the most important amendment, like most conservatives argue, but it's not obsolete.  We're the United Freakin States.  We were founded on a revolutionary crazy notion that people are allowed to be as free as they want.
> 
> If you take away that crazy, then we're closer to being like the French.  And no one wants that.



You know the French view on US irresponsible gun ownership as a small dick thing...

If they had proper sized dicks and knew how to use them they wouldn't need those guns...

Real men have no problem registering there guns, what are they scared off..


----------



## Cecilie1200

Markle said:


> When the doo-doo hit the fan, all her training went out the window.  I'm sure she saw the gun on the seat and panicked.  A terrible tragedy but it doesn't warrant rioting and looting.



NOTHING warrants rioting and looting.  We have systems in place for dealing with such situations, and at no point in time is rioting and looting a part of that system.


----------



## kaz

surada said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> surada said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not just join the National Guard if you think we need an armed militia.. That would include training, discipline and leadership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The National Guard is controlled by the US State Governors and the POTUS.  There is no better example of this than the currently employed THOUSANDS of NG troops stationed in Washington, D.C. to PROTECT THE SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES AND THEIR SUPPORTING STAFF.
> 
> The loosely organized militia consisting of constitutionally armed citizens (as intended by the founders) is not under control of elected officials but is under control of the *TRUE GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE AND BY THE PEOPLE.*
> 
> The intent was (and still is) to protect the existence of the democratic Republic called the United States from becoming a despotic pure democracy or a dictatorship under the direction of a rogue governing body.
> 
> When our Army was initially founded, command of it was given to the POTUS, but the funding of it was controlled by congress for periods limited to 2 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On this day: Congress officially creates the U.S. Army | Constitution Center
> 
> 
> To some it seemed like a technicality, but on this day in 1789, President George Washington succeeded in getting the First Congress to recognize the U.S. Army under the terms of our new Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> constitutioncenter.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *On this day: Congress officially creates the U.S. Army*
> 
> September 29, 2020 by NCC Staff
> 
> To some it seemed like a technicality, but on this day in 1789, President George Washington succeeded in getting the First Congress to recognize the U.S. Army under the terms of our new Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> The Revolutionary War version of the Army had been formed under Washington on June 14, 1775 as the Continental Congress decided it was needed in the conflict with Great Britain. The first version of the Army worked with state militias on the fight for independence.
> 
> The Articles of Confederation, which were finally ratified in 1781, established the ability to raise troops for the common defense of the United States. (It also allowed individual states to declare war under certain conditions.) But the Confederation government greatly scaled back the remains of the Continental Army into a new regiment with 700 men.
> 
> In general, there were great concerns about the need for a standing army outside of times of war. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia provided checks on any standing army by allowing the President to command it, but Congress to finance it using short-term legislation.
> 
> Congress had the power to do this under Article I, Section 8, Clause 12, known as the Army Clause. “The Congress shall have Power To . . . raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years,” the Clause read.
> 
> As the First Congress entered its final day on September 29, 1789, now-President Washington insisted that the lawmakers pass an Act clarifying the Army’s role under the new Constitution.
> 
> Back on August 7, President Washington wrote to Congress to remind them that legislation was needed to replace the outdated part of the Articles that pertained to the military.
> 
> “I am particularly anxious it should receive an early attention as circumstances will admit; because it is now in our power to avail ourselves of the military knowledge disseminated throughout the several States by means of the many well instructed Officers and soldiers of the late Army; a resource which is daily diminishing by deaths and other causes,” Washington wrote.
> 
> Despite a personal appeal from Secretary of War Henry Knox, Congress didn’t act. Washington had to write a second time to the lawmakers, who finally made it the first order of business on the final day of its first session.
> 
> Congress finally passed an Act for “Establishment of the Troops,” which also allowed for the President to call up state militias under some circumstances. It also required a loyalty oath to the Constitution by anyone in service.
> 
> At the time, the standing federal Army had about 800 members, including officers. Today, the U.S. Army was expected to have about 450,000 active duty personnel in 2018, its smallest number since 1940.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In order to guarantee the protection of the people from a well armed, rogue governing body, SCOTUS upholds the provisions of the 2nd Amendment with certain reasonable limitations that apply to the general public but not to licensed gun dealers and some others.
> 
> Screw the gun grabbers!
> 
> Guns are not the problem.
> 
> Weapons of any sort are not the problem.
> 
> Evil people are the problem.  Evil cannot be legislated into non-existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Back then the US didn't have a standing army or national guard or police departments.
> 
> Are you prepared to fight other Americans in defense of a moron like Trump who has never even read the US constitution?
Click to expand...


More empty rhetoric from the guy who's never read the first, second, fourth, fifth, ninth or tenth amendments, LOL.

There is virtually nothing in the Democrat massive spending bills that are authorized by the Constitution, which means by the ninth and tenth amendments they are prohibited to the Federal government.    But you just keep parroting hate media and the fascist Democrat party as if you're making a point


----------



## surada

kaz said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> surada said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not just join the National Guard if you think we need an armed militia.. That would include training, discipline and leadership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The National Guard is controlled by the US State Governors and the POTUS.  There is no better example of this than the currently employed THOUSANDS of NG troops stationed in Washington, D.C. to PROTECT THE SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES AND THEIR SUPPORTING STAFF.
> 
> The loosely organized militia consisting of constitutionally armed citizens (as intended by the founders) is not under control of elected officials but is under control of the *TRUE GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE AND BY THE PEOPLE.*
> 
> The intent was (and still is) to protect the existence of the democratic Republic called the United States from becoming a despotic pure democracy or a dictatorship under the direction of a rogue governing body.
> 
> When our Army was initially founded, command of it was given to the POTUS, but the funding of it was controlled by congress for periods limited to 2 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On this day: Congress officially creates the U.S. Army | Constitution Center
> 
> 
> To some it seemed like a technicality, but on this day in 1789, President George Washington succeeded in getting the First Congress to recognize the U.S. Army under the terms of our new Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> constitutioncenter.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *On this day: Congress officially creates the U.S. Army*
> 
> September 29, 2020 by NCC Staff
> 
> To some it seemed like a technicality, but on this day in 1789, President George Washington succeeded in getting the First Congress to recognize the U.S. Army under the terms of our new Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> The Revolutionary War version of the Army had been formed under Washington on June 14, 1775 as the Continental Congress decided it was needed in the conflict with Great Britain. The first version of the Army worked with state militias on the fight for independence.
> 
> The Articles of Confederation, which were finally ratified in 1781, established the ability to raise troops for the common defense of the United States. (It also allowed individual states to declare war under certain conditions.) But the Confederation government greatly scaled back the remains of the Continental Army into a new regiment with 700 men.
> 
> In general, there were great concerns about the need for a standing army outside of times of war. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia provided checks on any standing army by allowing the President to command it, but Congress to finance it using short-term legislation.
> 
> Congress had the power to do this under Article I, Section 8, Clause 12, known as the Army Clause. “The Congress shall have Power To . . . raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years,” the Clause read.
> 
> As the First Congress entered its final day on September 29, 1789, now-President Washington insisted that the lawmakers pass an Act clarifying the Army’s role under the new Constitution.
> 
> Back on August 7, President Washington wrote to Congress to remind them that legislation was needed to replace the outdated part of the Articles that pertained to the military.
> 
> “I am particularly anxious it should receive an early attention as circumstances will admit; because it is now in our power to avail ourselves of the military knowledge disseminated throughout the several States by means of the many well instructed Officers and soldiers of the late Army; a resource which is daily diminishing by deaths and other causes,” Washington wrote.
> 
> Despite a personal appeal from Secretary of War Henry Knox, Congress didn’t act. Washington had to write a second time to the lawmakers, who finally made it the first order of business on the final day of its first session.
> 
> Congress finally passed an Act for “Establishment of the Troops,” which also allowed for the President to call up state militias under some circumstances. It also required a loyalty oath to the Constitution by anyone in service.
> 
> At the time, the standing federal Army had about 800 members, including officers. Today, the U.S. Army was expected to have about 450,000 active duty personnel in 2018, its smallest number since 1940.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In order to guarantee the protection of the people from a well armed, rogue governing body, SCOTUS upholds the provisions of the 2nd Amendment with certain reasonable limitations that apply to the general public but not to licensed gun dealers and some others.
> 
> Screw the gun grabbers!
> 
> Guns are not the problem.
> 
> Weapons of any sort are not the problem.
> 
> Evil people are the problem.  Evil cannot be legislated into non-existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Back then the US didn't have a standing army or national guard or police departments.
> 
> Are you prepared to fight other Americans in defense of a moron like Trump who has never even read the US constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More empty rhetoric from the guy who's never read the first, second, fourth, fifth, ninth or tenth amendments, LOL.
> 
> There is virtually nothing in the Democrat massive spending bills that are authorized by the Constitution, which means by the ninth and tenth amendments they are prohibited to the Federal government.    But you just keep parroting hate media and the fascist Democrat party as if you're making a point
Click to expand...


I'm not a guy. I prefer to work thru our system of checks and balances per our Constitution. 

You should study the  history of Spain in the 16th, 17th and 18th century. They never invested a dime in the people.


----------



## kaz

surada said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> surada said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> surada said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not just join the National Guard if you think we need an armed militia.. That would include training, discipline and leadership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The National Guard is controlled by the US State Governors and the POTUS.  There is no better example of this than the currently employed THOUSANDS of NG troops stationed in Washington, D.C. to PROTECT THE SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES AND THEIR SUPPORTING STAFF.
> 
> The loosely organized militia consisting of constitutionally armed citizens (as intended by the founders) is not under control of elected officials but is under control of the *TRUE GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE AND BY THE PEOPLE.*
> 
> The intent was (and still is) to protect the existence of the democratic Republic called the United States from becoming a despotic pure democracy or a dictatorship under the direction of a rogue governing body.
> 
> When our Army was initially founded, command of it was given to the POTUS, but the funding of it was controlled by congress for periods limited to 2 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On this day: Congress officially creates the U.S. Army | Constitution Center
> 
> 
> To some it seemed like a technicality, but on this day in 1789, President George Washington succeeded in getting the First Congress to recognize the U.S. Army under the terms of our new Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> constitutioncenter.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *On this day: Congress officially creates the U.S. Army*
> 
> September 29, 2020 by NCC Staff
> 
> To some it seemed like a technicality, but on this day in 1789, President George Washington succeeded in getting the First Congress to recognize the U.S. Army under the terms of our new Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> The Revolutionary War version of the Army had been formed under Washington on June 14, 1775 as the Continental Congress decided it was needed in the conflict with Great Britain. The first version of the Army worked with state militias on the fight for independence.
> 
> The Articles of Confederation, which were finally ratified in 1781, established the ability to raise troops for the common defense of the United States. (It also allowed individual states to declare war under certain conditions.) But the Confederation government greatly scaled back the remains of the Continental Army into a new regiment with 700 men.
> 
> In general, there were great concerns about the need for a standing army outside of times of war. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia provided checks on any standing army by allowing the President to command it, but Congress to finance it using short-term legislation.
> 
> Congress had the power to do this under Article I, Section 8, Clause 12, known as the Army Clause. “The Congress shall have Power To . . . raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years,” the Clause read.
> 
> As the First Congress entered its final day on September 29, 1789, now-President Washington insisted that the lawmakers pass an Act clarifying the Army’s role under the new Constitution.
> 
> Back on August 7, President Washington wrote to Congress to remind them that legislation was needed to replace the outdated part of the Articles that pertained to the military.
> 
> “I am particularly anxious it should receive an early attention as circumstances will admit; because it is now in our power to avail ourselves of the military knowledge disseminated throughout the several States by means of the many well instructed Officers and soldiers of the late Army; a resource which is daily diminishing by deaths and other causes,” Washington wrote.
> 
> Despite a personal appeal from Secretary of War Henry Knox, Congress didn’t act. Washington had to write a second time to the lawmakers, who finally made it the first order of business on the final day of its first session.
> 
> Congress finally passed an Act for “Establishment of the Troops,” which also allowed for the President to call up state militias under some circumstances. It also required a loyalty oath to the Constitution by anyone in service.
> 
> At the time, the standing federal Army had about 800 members, including officers. Today, the U.S. Army was expected to have about 450,000 active duty personnel in 2018, its smallest number since 1940.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In order to guarantee the protection of the people from a well armed, rogue governing body, SCOTUS upholds the provisions of the 2nd Amendment with certain reasonable limitations that apply to the general public but not to licensed gun dealers and some others.
> 
> Screw the gun grabbers!
> 
> Guns are not the problem.
> 
> Weapons of any sort are not the problem.
> 
> Evil people are the problem.  Evil cannot be legislated into non-existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Back then the US didn't have a standing army or national guard or police departments.
> 
> Are you prepared to fight other Americans in defense of a moron like Trump who has never even read the US constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More empty rhetoric from the guy who's never read the first, second, fourth, fifth, ninth or tenth amendments, LOL.
> 
> There is virtually nothing in the Democrat massive spending bills that are authorized by the Constitution, which means by the ninth and tenth amendments they are prohibited to the Federal government.    But you just keep parroting hate media and the fascist Democrat party as if you're making a point
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a guy. I prefer to work thru our system of checks and balances per our Constitution.
> 
> You should study the  history of Spain in the 16th, 17th and 18th century. They never invested a dime in the people.
Click to expand...


More just empty rhetoric.

LOL, you want bigger government checks, and that's "investment."    Greedy socialist


----------



## 9thIDdoc

surada said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> surada said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not just join the National Guard if you think we need an armed militia.. That would include training, discipline and leadership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The National Guard is controlled by the US State Governors and the POTUS.  There is no better example of this than the currently employed THOUSANDS of NG troops stationed in Washington, D.C. to PROTECT THE SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES AND THEIR SUPPORTING STAFF.
> 
> The loosely organized militia consisting of constitutionally armed citizens (as intended by the founders) is not under control of elected officials but is under control of the *TRUE GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE AND BY THE PEOPLE.*
> 
> The intent was (and still is) to protect the existence of the democratic Republic called the United States from becoming a despotic pure democracy or a dictatorship under the direction of a rogue governing body.
> 
> When our Army was initially founded, command of it was given to the POTUS, but the funding of it was controlled by congress for periods limited to 2 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On this day: Congress officially creates the U.S. Army | Constitution Center
> 
> 
> To some it seemed like a technicality, but on this day in 1789, President George Washington succeeded in getting the First Congress to recognize the U.S. Army under the terms of our new Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> constitutioncenter.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *On this day: Congress officially creates the U.S. Army*
> 
> September 29, 2020 by NCC Staff
> 
> To some it seemed like a technicality, but on this day in 1789, President George Washington succeeded in getting the First Congress to recognize the U.S. Army under the terms of our new Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> The Revolutionary War version of the Army had been formed under Washington on June 14, 1775 as the Continental Congress decided it was needed in the conflict with Great Britain. The first version of the Army worked with state militias on the fight for independence.
> 
> The Articles of Confederation, which were finally ratified in 1781, established the ability to raise troops for the common defense of the United States. (It also allowed individual states to declare war under certain conditions.) But the Confederation government greatly scaled back the remains of the Continental Army into a new regiment with 700 men.
> 
> In general, there were great concerns about the need for a standing army outside of times of war. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia provided checks on any standing army by allowing the President to command it, but Congress to finance it using short-term legislation.
> 
> Congress had the power to do this under Article I, Section 8, Clause 12, known as the Army Clause. “The Congress shall have Power To . . . raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years,” the Clause read.
> 
> As the First Congress entered its final day on September 29, 1789, now-President Washington insisted that the lawmakers pass an Act clarifying the Army’s role under the new Constitution.
> 
> Back on August 7, President Washington wrote to Congress to remind them that legislation was needed to replace the outdated part of the Articles that pertained to the military.
> 
> “I am particularly anxious it should receive an early attention as circumstances will admit; because it is now in our power to avail ourselves of the military knowledge disseminated throughout the several States by means of the many well instructed Officers and soldiers of the late Army; a resource which is daily diminishing by deaths and other causes,” Washington wrote.
> 
> Despite a personal appeal from Secretary of War Henry Knox, Congress didn’t act. Washington had to write a second time to the lawmakers, who finally made it the first order of business on the final day of its first session.
> 
> Congress finally passed an Act for “Establishment of the Troops,” which also allowed for the President to call up state militias under some circumstances. It also required a loyalty oath to the Constitution by anyone in service.
> 
> At the time, the standing federal Army had about 800 members, including officers. Today, the U.S. Army was expected to have about 450,000 active duty personnel in 2018, its smallest number since 1940.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In order to guarantee the protection of the people from a well armed, rogue governing body, SCOTUS upholds the provisions of the 2nd Amendment with certain reasonable limitations that apply to the general public but not to licensed gun dealers and some others.
> 
> Screw the gun grabbers!
> 
> Guns are not the problem.
> 
> Weapons of any sort are not the problem.
> 
> Evil people are the problem.  Evil cannot be legislated into non-existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Back then the US didn't have a standing army or national guard or police departments.
> 
> Are you prepared to fight other Americans in defense of a moron like Trump who has never even read the US constitution?
Click to expand...

Are you prepared to fight other Americans in defense of an unconstitutional (illegal) government?


----------



## surada

kaz said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> surada said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> surada said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not just join the National Guard if you think we need an armed militia.. That would include training, discipline and leadership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The National Guard is controlled by the US State Governors and the POTUS.  There is no better example of this than the currently employed THOUSANDS of NG troops stationed in Washington, D.C. to PROTECT THE SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES AND THEIR SUPPORTING STAFF.
> 
> The loosely organized militia consisting of constitutionally armed citizens (as intended by the founders) is not under control of elected officials but is under control of the *TRUE GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE AND BY THE PEOPLE.*
> 
> The intent was (and still is) to protect the existence of the democratic Republic called the United States from becoming a despotic pure democracy or a dictatorship under the direction of a rogue governing body.
> 
> When our Army was initially founded, command of it was given to the POTUS, but the funding of it was controlled by congress for periods limited to 2 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On this day: Congress officially creates the U.S. Army | Constitution Center
> 
> 
> To some it seemed like a technicality, but on this day in 1789, President George Washington succeeded in getting the First Congress to recognize the U.S. Army under the terms of our new Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> constitutioncenter.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *On this day: Congress officially creates the U.S. Army*
> 
> September 29, 2020 by NCC Staff
> 
> To some it seemed like a technicality, but on this day in 1789, President George Washington succeeded in getting the First Congress to recognize the U.S. Army under the terms of our new Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> The Revolutionary War version of the Army had been formed under Washington on June 14, 1775 as the Continental Congress decided it was needed in the conflict with Great Britain. The first version of the Army worked with state militias on the fight for independence.
> 
> The Articles of Confederation, which were finally ratified in 1781, established the ability to raise troops for the common defense of the United States. (It also allowed individual states to declare war under certain conditions.) But the Confederation government greatly scaled back the remains of the Continental Army into a new regiment with 700 men.
> 
> In general, there were great concerns about the need for a standing army outside of times of war. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia provided checks on any standing army by allowing the President to command it, but Congress to finance it using short-term legislation.
> 
> Congress had the power to do this under Article I, Section 8, Clause 12, known as the Army Clause. “The Congress shall have Power To . . . raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years,” the Clause read.
> 
> As the First Congress entered its final day on September 29, 1789, now-President Washington insisted that the lawmakers pass an Act clarifying the Army’s role under the new Constitution.
> 
> Back on August 7, President Washington wrote to Congress to remind them that legislation was needed to replace the outdated part of the Articles that pertained to the military.
> 
> “I am particularly anxious it should receive an early attention as circumstances will admit; because it is now in our power to avail ourselves of the military knowledge disseminated throughout the several States by means of the many well instructed Officers and soldiers of the late Army; a resource which is daily diminishing by deaths and other causes,” Washington wrote.
> 
> Despite a personal appeal from Secretary of War Henry Knox, Congress didn’t act. Washington had to write a second time to the lawmakers, who finally made it the first order of business on the final day of its first session.
> 
> Congress finally passed an Act for “Establishment of the Troops,” which also allowed for the President to call up state militias under some circumstances. It also required a loyalty oath to the Constitution by anyone in service.
> 
> At the time, the standing federal Army had about 800 members, including officers. Today, the U.S. Army was expected to have about 450,000 active duty personnel in 2018, its smallest number since 1940.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In order to guarantee the protection of the people from a well armed, rogue governing body, SCOTUS upholds the provisions of the 2nd Amendment with certain reasonable limitations that apply to the general public but not to licensed gun dealers and some others.
> 
> Screw the gun grabbers!
> 
> Guns are not the problem.
> 
> Weapons of any sort are not the problem.
> 
> Evil people are the problem.  Evil cannot be legislated into non-existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Back then the US didn't have a standing army or national guard or police departments.
> 
> Are you prepared to fight other Americans in defense of a moron like Trump who has never even read the US constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More empty rhetoric from the guy who's never read the first, second, fourth, fifth, ninth or tenth amendments, LOL.
> 
> There is virtually nothing in the Democrat massive spending bills that are authorized by the Constitution, which means by the ninth and tenth amendments they are prohibited to the Federal government.    But you just keep parroting hate media and the fascist Democrat party as if you're making a point
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a guy. I prefer to work thru our system of checks and balances per our Constitution.
> 
> You should study the  history of Spain in the 16th, 17th and 18th century. They never invested a dime in the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More just empty rhetoric.
> 
> LOL, you want bigger government checks, and that's "investment."    Greedy socialist
Click to expand...


You are a fool.


----------



## bripat9643

Lakhota said:


> The so-called right to bear arms seems to be getting drastically out of hand - even among cops who can't tell the difference between tasers and pistols.
> 
> View attachment 479324
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Police Claim Officer Who Shot And Killed Man In Traffic Stop Likely Meant To Shock Him Instead
> 
> 
> An officer killed Daunte Wright, 20, outside Minneapolis on Sunday. Police say she likely thought she was using a stun gun rather than a firearm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.huffpost.com


pistols have been around for 300 years, moron.


----------



## bripat9643

Lakhota said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> The so-called right to bear arms seems to be getting drastically out of hand - even among cops who can't tell the difference between tasers and pistols.
> 
> View attachment 479324
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Police Claim Officer Who Shot And Killed Man In Traffic Stop Likely Meant To Shock Him Instead
> 
> 
> An officer killed Daunte Wright, 20, outside Minneapolis on Sunday. Police say she likely thought she was using a stun gun rather than a firearm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.huffpost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't the anti-gunners always on about making guns safe? Sounds to me like they just need to make tasers feel very different from firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The woman who shot the black kid was a veteran officer.  Also, tasers are supposed to be carried on the opposite less-dominate side from the pistol.  How could she not know the difference?
Click to expand...

How does any of this prove we need gun control?  Do you intend to take either guns or tasers away from the cops?


----------



## Concerned American

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 479370
> 
> How are terrorist militias considered "well regulated"?  Who "regulates" them?  How are they "necessary to the security of a free state"?  We know who regulates the military and National Guard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American militia movement - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org


What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" do you not understand.  The right is addressed in the latter part of the statement.  The first part of the statement is irrelevant except for justification purposes.  Your misguided opinion is noted, but the SCOTUS has already ruled.  Sorry your feelings are hurt.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

CowboyTed said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's definitely not the most important amendment, like most conservatives argue, but it's not obsolete.  We're the United Freakin States.  We were founded on a revolutionary crazy notion that people are allowed to be as free as they want.
> 
> If you take away that crazy, then we're closer to being like the French.  And no one wants that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know the French view on US irresponsible gun ownership as a small dick thing...
> 
> If they had proper sized dicks and knew how to use them they wouldn't need those guns...
> 
> Real men have no problem registering there guns, what are they scared off..
Click to expand...

So you're saying that instead of shooting the enemy we should fuck him? Knock yourself out but I believe I'll pass.


----------



## kaz

surada said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> More just empty rhetoric.
> 
> LOL, you want bigger government checks, and that's "investment."    Greedy socialist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a fool.
Click to expand...


You just make shit up, talk in sweeping statements and think it means anything


----------



## surada

9thIDdoc said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> surada said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not just join the National Guard if you think we need an armed militia.. That would include training, discipline and leadership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The National Guard is controlled by the US State Governors and the POTUS.  There is no better example of this than the currently employed THOUSANDS of NG troops stationed in Washington, D.C. to PROTECT THE SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES AND THEIR SUPPORTING STAFF.
> 
> The loosely organized militia consisting of constitutionally armed citizens (as intended by the founders) is not under control of elected officials but is under control of the *TRUE GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE AND BY THE PEOPLE.*
> 
> The intent was (and still is) to protect the existence of the democratic Republic called the United States from becoming a despotic pure democracy or a dictatorship under the direction of a rogue governing body.
> 
> When our Army was initially founded, command of it was given to the POTUS, but the funding of it was controlled by congress for periods limited to 2 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On this day: Congress officially creates the U.S. Army | Constitution Center
> 
> 
> To some it seemed like a technicality, but on this day in 1789, President George Washington succeeded in getting the First Congress to recognize the U.S. Army under the terms of our new Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> constitutioncenter.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *On this day: Congress officially creates the U.S. Army*
> 
> September 29, 2020 by NCC Staff
> 
> To some it seemed like a technicality, but on this day in 1789, President George Washington succeeded in getting the First Congress to recognize the U.S. Army under the terms of our new Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> The Revolutionary War version of the Army had been formed under Washington on June 14, 1775 as the Continental Congress decided it was needed in the conflict with Great Britain. The first version of the Army worked with state militias on the fight for independence.
> 
> The Articles of Confederation, which were finally ratified in 1781, established the ability to raise troops for the common defense of the United States. (It also allowed individual states to declare war under certain conditions.) But the Confederation government greatly scaled back the remains of the Continental Army into a new regiment with 700 men.
> 
> In general, there were great concerns about the need for a standing army outside of times of war. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia provided checks on any standing army by allowing the President to command it, but Congress to finance it using short-term legislation.
> 
> Congress had the power to do this under Article I, Section 8, Clause 12, known as the Army Clause. “The Congress shall have Power To . . . raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years,” the Clause read.
> 
> As the First Congress entered its final day on September 29, 1789, now-President Washington insisted that the lawmakers pass an Act clarifying the Army’s role under the new Constitution.
> 
> Back on August 7, President Washington wrote to Congress to remind them that legislation was needed to replace the outdated part of the Articles that pertained to the military.
> 
> “I am particularly anxious it should receive an early attention as circumstances will admit; because it is now in our power to avail ourselves of the military knowledge disseminated throughout the several States by means of the many well instructed Officers and soldiers of the late Army; a resource which is daily diminishing by deaths and other causes,” Washington wrote.
> 
> Despite a personal appeal from Secretary of War Henry Knox, Congress didn’t act. Washington had to write a second time to the lawmakers, who finally made it the first order of business on the final day of its first session.
> 
> Congress finally passed an Act for “Establishment of the Troops,” which also allowed for the President to call up state militias under some circumstances. It also required a loyalty oath to the Constitution by anyone in service.
> 
> At the time, the standing federal Army had about 800 members, including officers. Today, the U.S. Army was expected to have about 450,000 active duty personnel in 2018, its smallest number since 1940.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In order to guarantee the protection of the people from a well armed, rogue governing body, SCOTUS upholds the provisions of the 2nd Amendment with certain reasonable limitations that apply to the general public but not to licensed gun dealers and some others.
> 
> Screw the gun grabbers!
> 
> Guns are not the problem.
> 
> Weapons of any sort are not the problem.
> 
> Evil people are the problem.  Evil cannot be legislated into non-existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Back then the US didn't have a standing army or national guard or police departments.
> 
> Are you prepared to fight other Americans in defense of a moron like Trump who has never even read the US constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you prepared to fight other Americans in defense of an unconstitutional (illegal) government?
Click to expand...


You jackass, in 2016 Trump claimed 3-5 million illegals voted.


----------



## kaz

surada said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> surada said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> In order to guarantee the protection of the people from a well armed, rogue governing body, SCOTUS upholds the provisions of the 2nd Amendment with certain reasonable limitations that apply to the general public but not to licensed gun dealers and some others.
> 
> Screw the gun grabbers!
> 
> Guns are not the problem.
> 
> Weapons of any sort are not the problem.
> 
> Evil people are the problem.  Evil cannot be legislated into non-existence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Back then the US didn't have a standing army or national guard or police departments.
> 
> Are you prepared to fight other Americans in defense of a moron like Trump who has never even read the US constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you prepared to fight other Americans in defense of an unconstitutional (illegal) government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You jackass, in 2016 Trump claimed 3-5 million illegals voted.
Click to expand...


What an irrational response


----------



## Concerned American

surada said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> surada said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> surada said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> surada said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not just join the National Guard if you think we need an armed militia.. That would include training, discipline and leadership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The National Guard is controlled by the US State Governors and the POTUS.  There is no better example of this than the currently employed THOUSANDS of NG troops stationed in Washington, D.C. to PROTECT THE SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES AND THEIR SUPPORTING STAFF.
> 
> The loosely organized militia consisting of constitutionally armed citizens (as intended by the founders) is not under control of elected officials but is under control of the *TRUE GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE AND BY THE PEOPLE.*
> 
> The intent was (and still is) to protect the existence of the democratic Republic called the United States from becoming a despotic pure democracy or a dictatorship under the direction of a rogue governing body.
> 
> When our Army was initially founded, command of it was given to the POTUS, but the funding of it was controlled by congress for periods limited to 2 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On this day: Congress officially creates the U.S. Army | Constitution Center
> 
> 
> To some it seemed like a technicality, but on this day in 1789, President George Washington succeeded in getting the First Congress to recognize the U.S. Army under the terms of our new Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> constitutioncenter.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *On this day: Congress officially creates the U.S. Army*
> 
> September 29, 2020 by NCC Staff
> 
> To some it seemed like a technicality, but on this day in 1789, President George Washington succeeded in getting the First Congress to recognize the U.S. Army under the terms of our new Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> The Revolutionary War version of the Army had been formed under Washington on June 14, 1775 as the Continental Congress decided it was needed in the conflict with Great Britain. The first version of the Army worked with state militias on the fight for independence.
> 
> The Articles of Confederation, which were finally ratified in 1781, established the ability to raise troops for the common defense of the United States. (It also allowed individual states to declare war under certain conditions.) But the Confederation government greatly scaled back the remains of the Continental Army into a new regiment with 700 men.
> 
> In general, there were great concerns about the need for a standing army outside of times of war. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia provided checks on any standing army by allowing the President to command it, but Congress to finance it using short-term legislation.
> 
> Congress had the power to do this under Article I, Section 8, Clause 12, known as the Army Clause. “The Congress shall have Power To . . . raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years,” the Clause read.
> 
> As the First Congress entered its final day on September 29, 1789, now-President Washington insisted that the lawmakers pass an Act clarifying the Army’s role under the new Constitution.
> 
> Back on August 7, President Washington wrote to Congress to remind them that legislation was needed to replace the outdated part of the Articles that pertained to the military.
> 
> “I am particularly anxious it should receive an early attention as circumstances will admit; because it is now in our power to avail ourselves of the military knowledge disseminated throughout the several States by means of the many well instructed Officers and soldiers of the late Army; a resource which is daily diminishing by deaths and other causes,” Washington wrote.
> 
> Despite a personal appeal from Secretary of War Henry Knox, Congress didn’t act. Washington had to write a second time to the lawmakers, who finally made it the first order of business on the final day of its first session.
> 
> Congress finally passed an Act for “Establishment of the Troops,” which also allowed for the President to call up state militias under some circumstances. It also required a loyalty oath to the Constitution by anyone in service.
> 
> At the time, the standing federal Army had about 800 members, including officers. Today, the U.S. Army was expected to have about 450,000 active duty personnel in 2018, its smallest number since 1940.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In order to guarantee the protection of the people from a well armed, rogue governing body, SCOTUS upholds the provisions of the 2nd Amendment with certain reasonable limitations that apply to the general public but not to licensed gun dealers and some others.
> 
> Screw the gun grabbers!
> 
> Guns are not the problem.
> 
> Weapons of any sort are not the problem.
> 
> Evil people are the problem.  Evil cannot be legislated into non-existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Back then the US didn't have a standing army or national guard or police departments.
> 
> Are you prepared to fight other Americans in defense of a moron like Trump who has never even read the US constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More empty rhetoric from the guy who's never read the first, second, fourth, fifth, ninth or tenth amendments, LOL.
> 
> There is virtually nothing in the Democrat massive spending bills that are authorized by the Constitution, which means by the ninth and tenth amendments they are prohibited to the Federal government.    But you just keep parroting hate media and the fascist Democrat party as if you're making a point
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a guy. I prefer to work thru our system of checks and balances per our Constitution.
> 
> You should study the  history of Spain in the 16th, 17th and 18th century. They never invested a dime in the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More just empty rhetoric.
> 
> LOL, you want bigger government checks, and that's "investment."    Greedy socialist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a fool.
Click to expand...

It is obvious that you are looking in the mirror.


----------



## JusticeHammer

Rigby5 said:


> JusticeHammer said:
> 
> 
> 
> One more example of consequences when you don't follow orders and resist. I like how the press told the police chief not to call the rioters rioters. They are RIOTERS!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Police can never be trusted and you are never supposed to follow their orders.
> For example, they always want to search the car, and that is always illegal.
> Only a criminal would try to intimidate people into consenting to that illegal search.
> There was no violation, so the police were wrong to even stop the person, much less everything else.
Click to expand...

Wrong. He was pulled over for expired tags. You're argument is a typical libtard argument, stupid and wrong.


----------



## JusticeHammer

Lakhota said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not just join the National Guard if you think we need an armed militia.. That would include training, discipline and leadership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny.  I'm 74.  I've already served my time in the military.  The "official" military.
Click to expand...

Call you radar.


----------



## kaz

Lakhota said:


> surada said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not just join the National Guard if you think we need an armed militia.. That would include training, discipline and leadership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny.  I'm 74.  I've already served my time in the military.  The "official" military.
Click to expand...


Cool.   What country?


----------



## 9thIDdoc

surada said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> surada said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> surada said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not just join the National Guard if you think we need an armed militia.. That would include training, discipline and leadership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The National Guard is controlled by the US State Governors and the POTUS.  There is no better example of this than the currently employed THOUSANDS of NG troops stationed in Washington, D.C. to PROTECT THE SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES AND THEIR SUPPORTING STAFF.
> 
> The loosely organized militia consisting of constitutionally armed citizens (as intended by the founders) is not under control of elected officials but is under control of the *TRUE GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE AND BY THE PEOPLE.*
> 
> The intent was (and still is) to protect the existence of the democratic Republic called the United States from becoming a despotic pure democracy or a dictatorship under the direction of a rogue governing body.
> 
> When our Army was initially founded, command of it was given to the POTUS, but the funding of it was controlled by congress for periods limited to 2 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On this day: Congress officially creates the U.S. Army | Constitution Center
> 
> 
> To some it seemed like a technicality, but on this day in 1789, President George Washington succeeded in getting the First Congress to recognize the U.S. Army under the terms of our new Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> constitutioncenter.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *On this day: Congress officially creates the U.S. Army*
> 
> September 29, 2020 by NCC Staff
> 
> To some it seemed like a technicality, but on this day in 1789, President George Washington succeeded in getting the First Congress to recognize the U.S. Army under the terms of our new Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> The Revolutionary War version of the Army had been formed under Washington on June 14, 1775 as the Continental Congress decided it was needed in the conflict with Great Britain. The first version of the Army worked with state militias on the fight for independence.
> 
> The Articles of Confederation, which were finally ratified in 1781, established the ability to raise troops for the common defense of the United States. (It also allowed individual states to declare war under certain conditions.) But the Confederation government greatly scaled back the remains of the Continental Army into a new regiment with 700 men.
> 
> In general, there were great concerns about the need for a standing army outside of times of war. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia provided checks on any standing army by allowing the President to command it, but Congress to finance it using short-term legislation.
> 
> Congress had the power to do this under Article I, Section 8, Clause 12, known as the Army Clause. “The Congress shall have Power To . . . raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years,” the Clause read.
> 
> As the First Congress entered its final day on September 29, 1789, now-President Washington insisted that the lawmakers pass an Act clarifying the Army’s role under the new Constitution.
> 
> Back on August 7, President Washington wrote to Congress to remind them that legislation was needed to replace the outdated part of the Articles that pertained to the military.
> 
> “I am particularly anxious it should receive an early attention as circumstances will admit; because it is now in our power to avail ourselves of the military knowledge disseminated throughout the several States by means of the many well instructed Officers and soldiers of the late Army; a resource which is daily diminishing by deaths and other causes,” Washington wrote.
> 
> Despite a personal appeal from Secretary of War Henry Knox, Congress didn’t act. Washington had to write a second time to the lawmakers, who finally made it the first order of business on the final day of its first session.
> 
> Congress finally passed an Act for “Establishment of the Troops,” which also allowed for the President to call up state militias under some circumstances. It also required a loyalty oath to the Constitution by anyone in service.
> 
> At the time, the standing federal Army had about 800 members, including officers. Today, the U.S. Army was expected to have about 450,000 active duty personnel in 2018, its smallest number since 1940.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In order to guarantee the protection of the people from a well armed, rogue governing body, SCOTUS upholds the provisions of the 2nd Amendment with certain reasonable limitations that apply to the general public but not to licensed gun dealers and some others.
> 
> Screw the gun grabbers!
> 
> Guns are not the problem.
> 
> Weapons of any sort are not the problem.
> 
> Evil people are the problem.  Evil cannot be legislated into non-existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Back then the US didn't have a standing army or national guard or police departments.
> 
> Are you prepared to fight other Americans in defense of a moron like Trump who has never even read the US constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you prepared to fight other Americans in defense of an unconstitutional (illegal) government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You jackass, in 2016 Trump claimed 3-5 million illegals voted.
Click to expand...

And maybe they did. Can you prove otherwise? Also beside the point.


----------



## asaratis

surada said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> surada said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not just join the National Guard if you think we need an armed militia.. That would include training, discipline and leadership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The National Guard is controlled by the US State Governors and the POTUS.  There is no better example of this than the currently employed THOUSANDS of NG troops stationed in Washington, D.C. to PROTECT THE SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES AND THEIR SUPPORTING STAFF.
> 
> The loosely organized militia consisting of constitutionally armed citizens (as intended by the founders) is not under control of elected officials but is under control of the *TRUE GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE AND BY THE PEOPLE.*
> 
> The intent was (and still is) to protect the existence of the democratic Republic called the United States from becoming a despotic pure democracy or a dictatorship under the direction of a rogue governing body.
> 
> When our Army was initially founded, command of it was given to the POTUS, but the funding of it was controlled by congress for periods limited to 2 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On this day: Congress officially creates the U.S. Army | Constitution Center
> 
> 
> To some it seemed like a technicality, but on this day in 1789, President George Washington succeeded in getting the First Congress to recognize the U.S. Army under the terms of our new Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> constitutioncenter.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *On this day: Congress officially creates the U.S. Army*
> 
> September 29, 2020 by NCC Staff
> 
> To some it seemed like a technicality, but on this day in 1789, President George Washington succeeded in getting the First Congress to recognize the U.S. Army under the terms of our new Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> The Revolutionary War version of the Army had been formed under Washington on June 14, 1775 as the Continental Congress decided it was needed in the conflict with Great Britain. The first version of the Army worked with state militias on the fight for independence.
> 
> The Articles of Confederation, which were finally ratified in 1781, established the ability to raise troops for the common defense of the United States. (It also allowed individual states to declare war under certain conditions.) But the Confederation government greatly scaled back the remains of the Continental Army into a new regiment with 700 men.
> 
> In general, there were great concerns about the need for a standing army outside of times of war. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia provided checks on any standing army by allowing the President to command it, but Congress to finance it using short-term legislation.
> 
> Congress had the power to do this under Article I, Section 8, Clause 12, known as the Army Clause. “The Congress shall have Power To . . . raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years,” the Clause read.
> 
> As the First Congress entered its final day on September 29, 1789, now-President Washington insisted that the lawmakers pass an Act clarifying the Army’s role under the new Constitution.
> 
> Back on August 7, President Washington wrote to Congress to remind them that legislation was needed to replace the outdated part of the Articles that pertained to the military.
> 
> “I am particularly anxious it should receive an early attention as circumstances will admit; because it is now in our power to avail ourselves of the military knowledge disseminated throughout the several States by means of the many well instructed Officers and soldiers of the late Army; a resource which is daily diminishing by deaths and other causes,” Washington wrote.
> 
> Despite a personal appeal from Secretary of War Henry Knox, Congress didn’t act. Washington had to write a second time to the lawmakers, who finally made it the first order of business on the final day of its first session.
> 
> Congress finally passed an Act for “Establishment of the Troops,” which also allowed for the President to call up state militias under some circumstances. It also required a loyalty oath to the Constitution by anyone in service.
> 
> At the time, the standing federal Army had about 800 members, including officers. Today, the U.S. Army was expected to have about 450,000 active duty personnel in 2018, its smallest number since 1940.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In order to guarantee the protection of the people from a well armed, rogue governing body, SCOTUS upholds the provisions of the 2nd Amendment with certain reasonable limitations that apply to the general public but not to licensed gun dealers and some others.
> 
> Screw the gun grabbers!
> 
> Guns are not the problem.
> 
> Weapons of any sort are not the problem.
> 
> Evil people are the problem.  Evil cannot be legislated into non-existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Back then the US didn't have a standing army or national guard or police departments.
> 
> Are you prepared to fight other Americans in defense of a moron like Trump who has never even read the US constitution?
Click to expand...

I try to maintain a posture of not conversing with full of shit idiots.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> ‘_How are they "necessary to the security of a free state"?’_
> 
> They’re not.
> 
> In fact, there are no more ‘militias.’
> 
> The Second Amendment safeguards an individual right to possess a firearm, unconnected with militia service.
> 
> 
> 
> That ruling was in legal error.  There are no individuals unconnected with the militia only militia service well regulated.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet another Daniel legal discovery. The legal profession is wrong, the keyboard jockey insists.
Click to expand...

We have a Tenth Amendment.  Legislation from the Bench is something right wingers allege to be against.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?


Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.


----------



## Lakhota

JusticeHammer said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JusticeHammer said:
> 
> 
> 
> One more example of consequences when you don't follow orders and resist. I like how the press told the police chief not to call the rioters rioters. They are RIOTERS!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Police can never be trusted and you are never supposed to follow their orders.
> For example, they always want to search the car, and that is always illegal.
> Only a criminal would try to intimidate people into consenting to that illegal search.
> There was no violation, so the police were wrong to even stop the person, much less everything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. He was pulled over for expired tags. You're argument is a typical libtard argument, stupid and wrong.
Click to expand...


As was reported today on TV - their DMV is running way behind because of COVID-19 in issuing new stickers for license plates.  They said many people are driving with expired stickers.


----------



## danielpalos

Should they consider automating that process to help expedite the process?


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
Click to expand...


The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> ‘_How are they "necessary to the security of a free state"?’_
> 
> They’re not.
> 
> In fact, there are no more ‘militias.’
> 
> The Second Amendment safeguards an individual right to possess a firearm, unconnected with militia service.
> 
> 
> 
> That ruling was in legal error.  There are no individuals unconnected with the militia only militia service well regulated.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet another Daniel legal discovery. The legal profession is wrong, the keyboard jockey insists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have a Tenth Amendment.  Legislation from the Bench is something right wingers allege to be against.
Click to expand...

They didn't rewrite the law, did they?


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> ‘_How are they "necessary to the security of a free state"?’_
> 
> They’re not.
> 
> In fact, there are no more ‘militias.’
> 
> The Second Amendment safeguards an individual right to possess a firearm, unconnected with militia service.
> 
> 
> 
> That ruling was in legal error.  There are no individuals unconnected with the militia only militia service well regulated.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet another Daniel legal discovery. The legal profession is wrong, the keyboard jockey insists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have a Tenth Amendment.  Legislation from the Bench is something right wingers allege to be against.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They didn't rewrite the law, did they?
Click to expand...

They merely ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the end to the means.


----------



## hadit

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
Click to expand...

Daniel clearly understands the law and the Constitution far better than do the Justices on the Supreme Court. They have, what, a few centuries of study and adjudications between them compared to his towering intellect that discovers whatever he wants to invent in the plain text of laws that say the exact opposite. He's quite the legal scholar, you know.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> ‘_How are they "necessary to the security of a free state"?’_
> 
> They’re not.
> 
> In fact, there are no more ‘militias.’
> 
> The Second Amendment safeguards an individual right to possess a firearm, unconnected with militia service.
> 
> 
> 
> That ruling was in legal error.  There are no individuals unconnected with the militia only militia service well regulated.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet another Daniel legal discovery. The legal profession is wrong, the keyboard jockey insists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have a Tenth Amendment.  Legislation from the Bench is something right wingers allege to be against.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They didn't rewrite the law, did they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They merely ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the end to the means.
Click to expand...

All they can do is strike down a law or allow it to stand. They cannot rewrite it. And again, why aren't you on the Supreme Court, since you know better than all of them put together?


----------



## hadit

Rigby5 said:


> JusticeHammer said:
> 
> 
> 
> One more example of consequences when you don't follow orders and resist. I like how the press told the police chief not to call the rioters rioters. They are RIOTERS!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Police can never be trusted and you are never supposed to follow their orders.
> For example, they always want to search the car, and that is always illegal.
> Only a criminal would try to intimidate people into consenting to that illegal search.
> There was no violation, so the police were wrong to even stop the person, much less everything else.
Click to expand...

I've never had the police want to search my vehicle or even ask me to get out of it. Of course, they never saw a gun laying on the back seat, or an open container of alcohol, or a cloud of marijuana smoke coming out of my window either. Nor have I ever gotten in their face and basically dared them to restrain me. Sounds like someone gave you some bad advice about how to deal with cops.


----------



## Lesh

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
Click to expand...

It has not. Cite the cases


----------



## Lesh

hadit said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JusticeHammer said:
> 
> 
> 
> One more example of consequences when you don't follow orders and resist. I like how the press told the police chief not to call the rioters rioters. They are RIOTERS!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Police can never be trusted and you are never supposed to follow their orders.
> For example, they always want to search the car, and that is always illegal.
> Only a criminal would try to intimidate people into consenting to that illegal search.
> There was no violation, so the police were wrong to even stop the person, much less everything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've never had the police want to search my vehicle or even ask me to get out of it. Of course, they never saw a gun laying on the back seat, or an open container of alcohol, or a cloud of marijuana smoke coming out of my window either. Nor have I ever gotten in their face and basically dared them to restrain me. Sounds like someone gave you some bad advice about how to deal with cops.
Click to expand...

You're also white


----------



## Lesh

JusticeHammer said:


> Wrong. He was pulled over for expired tags.





Lakhota said:


> As was reported today on TV - their DMV is running way behind because of COVID-19 in issuing new stickers for license plates. They said many people are driving with expired stickers.


And cops know that.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
Click to expand...

Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Daniel clearly understands the law and the Constitution far better than do the Justices on the Supreme Court. They have, what, a few centuries of study and adjudications between them compared to his towering intellect that discovers whatever he wants to invent in the plain text of laws that say the exact opposite. He's quite the legal scholar, you know.
Click to expand...

Right wingers simply don't care about the law and prefer to be hypocrites about being legal to the law in immigration threads.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> ‘_How are they "necessary to the security of a free state"?’_
> 
> They’re not.
> 
> In fact, there are no more ‘militias.’
> 
> The Second Amendment safeguards an individual right to possess a firearm, unconnected with militia service.
> 
> 
> 
> That ruling was in legal error.  There are no individuals unconnected with the militia only militia service well regulated.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet another Daniel legal discovery. The legal profession is wrong, the keyboard jockey insists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have a Tenth Amendment.  Legislation from the Bench is something right wingers allege to be against.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They didn't rewrite the law, did they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They merely ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the end to the means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All they can do is strike down a law or allow it to stand. They cannot rewrite it. And again, why aren't you on the Supreme Court, since you know better than all of them put together?
Click to expand...

Why did they ignore the rules of construction or sacrifice the end to the means?


----------



## WinterBorn

Lesh said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has not. Cite the cases
Click to expand...


District of Columbia v. Heller
from:      DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu) 
"_Held:_
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22."


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has not. Cite the cases
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> District of Columbia v. Heller
> from:      DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)
> "_Held:_
> 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
> 
> (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22."
Click to expand...

Paragraph 1 is disingenuous, ignores the rules of construction, and sacrifices the end to the means.   

The People are the Militia; you are either organized and well regulated or unorganized and subject to the traditional police power of a State.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
Click to expand...


No, they are not.


----------



## AZrailwhale

Oddball said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> How could a 26-year police veteran not know the difference between a taser and a pistol?
> 
> View attachment 479345
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is Kimberly Potter, the cop involved in the Daunte Wright deadly shooting?
> 
> 
> The Minnesota cop who investigators say fired the shot in the death of a 20-year-old Black man during a traffic stop Sunday afternoon has been identified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How could  an ignorant sub-moron like you ask such a question?...Have you even held a real pistol?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She made a mistake.  Mistakes happen.  Unfortunately for both the officer and victim, this was a lethal mistake.  The officer committed manslaughter and should receive a fair trial and bear the responsibility for her mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not going to judge until all the facts are in....The released video shows me someone who slipped the cuffs and was about to be a threat to the officers with a deadly weapon {i.e. the car)....An accident under such a scenario doesn't even warrant a manslaughter charge.
Click to expand...

The problem is that the officer thought she was using her taser.  So even she didn't think deadly force was justified at the time.


----------



## Oddball

AZrailwhale said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> How could a 26-year police veteran not know the difference between a taser and a pistol?
> 
> View attachment 479345
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is Kimberly Potter, the cop involved in the Daunte Wright deadly shooting?
> 
> 
> The Minnesota cop who investigators say fired the shot in the death of a 20-year-old Black man during a traffic stop Sunday afternoon has been identified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How could  an ignorant sub-moron like you ask such a question?...Have you even held a real pistol?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She made a mistake.  Mistakes happen.  Unfortunately for both the officer and victim, this was a lethal mistake.  The officer committed manslaughter and should receive a fair trial and bear the responsibility for her mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not going to judge until all the facts are in....The released video shows me someone who slipped the cuffs and was about to be a threat to the officers with a deadly weapon {i.e. the car)....An accident under such a scenario doesn't even warrant a manslaughter charge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem is that the officer thought she was using her taser.  So even she didn't think deadly force was justified at the time.
Click to expand...

Taser can kill....Just far less likely to than a bullet.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
Click to expand...

Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?


----------



## asaratis

Lakhota said:


> JusticeHammer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JusticeHammer said:
> 
> 
> 
> One more example of consequences when you don't follow orders and resist. I like how the press told the police chief not to call the rioters rioters. They are RIOTERS!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Police can never be trusted and you are never supposed to follow their orders.
> For example, they always want to search the car, and that is always illegal.
> Only a criminal would try to intimidate people into consenting to that illegal search.
> There was no violation, so the police were wrong to even stop the person, much less everything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. He was pulled over for expired tags. You're argument is a typical libtard argument, stupid and wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As was reported today on TV - their DMV is running way behind because of COVID-19 in issuing new stickers for license plates.  They said many people are driving with expired stickers.
Click to expand...

How is an officer to determine whether the owner of the car had attempted to apply for a renewal sticker?  Since many people do not mail their applications for tag renewal, a check with the DMV computer files may result in a waste of time. 

The logical way to determine this is to stop the car and ask the driver.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
Click to expand...


Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.

But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.

The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.

The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.


----------



## danielpalos

asaratis said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JusticeHammer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JusticeHammer said:
> 
> 
> 
> One more example of consequences when you don't follow orders and resist. I like how the press told the police chief not to call the rioters rioters. They are RIOTERS!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Police can never be trusted and you are never supposed to follow their orders.
> For example, they always want to search the car, and that is always illegal.
> Only a criminal would try to intimidate people into consenting to that illegal search.
> There was no violation, so the police were wrong to even stop the person, much less everything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. He was pulled over for expired tags. You're argument is a typical libtard argument, stupid and wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As was reported today on TV - their DMV is running way behind because of COVID-19 in issuing new stickers for license plates.  They said many people are driving with expired stickers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is an officer to determine whether the owner of the car had attempted to apply for a renewal sticker?  Since many people do not mail their applications for tag renewal, a check with the DMV computer files may result in a waste of time.
> 
> The logical way to determine this is to stop the car and ask the driver.
Click to expand...

They could have asked for his driver's license after he stopped in a well lit area; they should view it from their own safety perspective as well.


----------



## WinterBorn

AZrailwhale said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> How could a 26-year police veteran not know the difference between a taser and a pistol?
> 
> View attachment 479345
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is Kimberly Potter, the cop involved in the Daunte Wright deadly shooting?
> 
> 
> The Minnesota cop who investigators say fired the shot in the death of a 20-year-old Black man during a traffic stop Sunday afternoon has been identified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How could  an ignorant sub-moron like you ask such a question?...Have you even held a real pistol?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She made a mistake.  Mistakes happen.  Unfortunately for both the officer and victim, this was a lethal mistake.  The officer committed manslaughter and should receive a fair trial and bear the responsibility for her mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not going to judge until all the facts are in....The released video shows me someone who slipped the cuffs and was about to be a threat to the officers with a deadly weapon {i.e. the car)....An accident under such a scenario doesn't even warrant a manslaughter charge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem is that the officer thought she was using her taser.  So even she didn't think deadly force was justified at the time.
Click to expand...


Even in a high stress situation, if you can't tell the difference between a Taser and a firearm, you probably shouldn't be issued either.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
Click to expand...

That is just right wingers appealing to ignorance, like usual.  Context means everything and is why you cannot ignore or appeal to ignorance of the first clause wiithout resorting to a fallacy of composition.   I resort to the fewest fallacies. Any questions?


----------



## WinterBorn

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
Click to expand...


Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.


----------



## Lakhota

WinterBorn said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> How could a 26-year police veteran not know the difference between a taser and a pistol?
> 
> View attachment 479345
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is Kimberly Potter, the cop involved in the Daunte Wright deadly shooting?
> 
> 
> The Minnesota cop who investigators say fired the shot in the death of a 20-year-old Black man during a traffic stop Sunday afternoon has been identified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How could  an ignorant sub-moron like you ask such a question?...Have you even held a real pistol?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She made a mistake.  Mistakes happen.  Unfortunately for both the officer and victim, this was a lethal mistake.  The officer committed manslaughter and should receive a fair trial and bear the responsibility for her mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not going to judge until all the facts are in....The released video shows me someone who slipped the cuffs and was about to be a threat to the officers with a deadly weapon {i.e. the car)....An accident under such a scenario doesn't even warrant a manslaughter charge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem is that the officer thought she was using her taser.  So even she didn't think deadly force was justified at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even in a high stress situation, if you can't tell the difference between a Taser and a firearm, you probably shouldn't be issued either.
Click to expand...


Amen!  Especially for someone 48 years old who has been a cop for 26 years.


----------



## Cecilie1200

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
Click to expand...


I'm trying to think of ANY "collective right" enshrined in the Constitution, and I'm drawing a blank.  Even the right to assemble is an INDIVIDUAL right, the right of individuals to meet with other individuals.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is just right wingers appealing to ignorance, like usual.  Context means everything and is why you cannot ignore or appeal to ignorance of the first clause wiithout resorting to a fallacy of composition.   I resort to the fewest fallacies. Any questions?
Click to expand...


Not rightwingers.   Constitutional scholars, including members of the US Supreme Court.

In fact, the SCOTUS addressed that in their ruling on District of Columbia v. Heller.

"_Held:_

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28."


----------



## Lakhota

asaratis said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JusticeHammer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JusticeHammer said:
> 
> 
> 
> One more example of consequences when you don't follow orders and resist. I like how the press told the police chief not to call the rioters rioters. They are RIOTERS!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Police can never be trusted and you are never supposed to follow their orders.
> For example, they always want to search the car, and that is always illegal.
> Only a criminal would try to intimidate people into consenting to that illegal search.
> There was no violation, so the police were wrong to even stop the person, much less everything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. He was pulled over for expired tags. You're argument is a typical libtard argument, stupid and wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As was reported today on TV - their DMV is running way behind because of COVID-19 in issuing new stickers for license plates.  They said many people are driving with expired stickers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is an officer to determine whether the owner of the car had attempted to apply for a renewal sticker?  Since many people do not mail their applications for tag renewal, a check with the DMV computer files may result in a waste of time.
> 
> The logical way to determine this is to stop the car and ask the driver.
Click to expand...


The cops should have been aware of the DMV slowdown and the sticker delays because of COVID-19.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
Click to expand...

Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.


----------



## Oddball

WinterBorn said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> How could a 26-year police veteran not know the difference between a taser and a pistol?
> 
> View attachment 479345
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is Kimberly Potter, the cop involved in the Daunte Wright deadly shooting?
> 
> 
> The Minnesota cop who investigators say fired the shot in the death of a 20-year-old Black man during a traffic stop Sunday afternoon has been identified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How could  an ignorant sub-moron like you ask such a question?...Have you even held a real pistol?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She made a mistake.  Mistakes happen.  Unfortunately for both the officer and victim, this was a lethal mistake.  The officer committed manslaughter and should receive a fair trial and bear the responsibility for her mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not going to judge until all the facts are in....The released video shows me someone who slipped the cuffs and was about to be a threat to the officers with a deadly weapon {i.e. the car)....An accident under such a scenario doesn't even warrant a manslaughter charge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem is that the officer thought she was using her taser.  So even she didn't think deadly force was justified at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even in a high stress situation, if you can't tell the difference between a Taser and a firearm, you probably shouldn't be issued either.
Click to expand...

Have you ever been in such a high stress situation?...I haven't and am not in any position to make such a pronouncement.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
Click to expand...


Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


----------



## Oddball

Lakhota said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JusticeHammer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JusticeHammer said:
> 
> 
> 
> One more example of consequences when you don't follow orders and resist. I like how the press told the police chief not to call the rioters rioters. They are RIOTERS!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Police can never be trusted and you are never supposed to follow their orders.
> For example, they always want to search the car, and that is always illegal.
> Only a criminal would try to intimidate people into consenting to that illegal search.
> There was no violation, so the police were wrong to even stop the person, much less everything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. He was pulled over for expired tags. You're argument is a typical libtard argument, stupid and wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As was reported today on TV - their DMV is running way behind because of COVID-19 in issuing new stickers for license plates.  They said many people are driving with expired stickers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is an officer to determine whether the owner of the car had attempted to apply for a renewal sticker?  Since many people do not mail their applications for tag renewal, a check with the DMV computer files may result in a waste of time.
> 
> The logical way to determine this is to stop the car and ask the driver.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The cops should have been aware of the DMV slowdown and the sticker delays because of COVID-19.
Click to expand...

Doesn't mean that you just let everyone drive around with expired tags, fool.


----------



## Lakhota

Minnesota Officer Who Killed Daunte Wright Resigns
					

Brooklyn Center police officer Kim Potter fatally shot the 20-year-old Black man during a traffic stop, sparking protests against racial injustice and police brutality.




					www.huffpost.com
				




Now she must be held accountable!


----------



## WinterBorn

Oddball said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> How could a 26-year police veteran not know the difference between a taser and a pistol?
> 
> View attachment 479345
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is Kimberly Potter, the cop involved in the Daunte Wright deadly shooting?
> 
> 
> The Minnesota cop who investigators say fired the shot in the death of a 20-year-old Black man during a traffic stop Sunday afternoon has been identified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How could  an ignorant sub-moron like you ask such a question?...Have you even held a real pistol?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She made a mistake.  Mistakes happen.  Unfortunately for both the officer and victim, this was a lethal mistake.  The officer committed manslaughter and should receive a fair trial and bear the responsibility for her mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not going to judge until all the facts are in....The released video shows me someone who slipped the cuffs and was about to be a threat to the officers with a deadly weapon {i.e. the car)....An accident under such a scenario doesn't even warrant a manslaughter charge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem is that the officer thought she was using her taser.  So even she didn't think deadly force was justified at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even in a high stress situation, if you can't tell the difference between a Taser and a firearm, you probably shouldn't be issued either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you ever been in such a high stress situation?...I haven't and am not in any position to make such a pronouncement.
Click to expand...


I have been in high stress situations.    And there was no threat to the officer, hence her using her Taser.


----------



## danielpalos

Cecilie1200 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm trying to think of ANY "collective right" enshrined in the Constitution, and I'm drawing a blank.  Even the right to assemble is an INDIVIDUAL right, the right of individuals to meet with other individuals.
Click to expand...

Show us the _Individual_ terms, right wingers; don't merely proclaim it and insist you must be Right, simply because you are on the right wing.

_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._

Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If it were an Individual right, it would clearly enumerate so.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is just right wingers appealing to ignorance, like usual.  Context means everything and is why you cannot ignore or appeal to ignorance of the first clause wiithout resorting to a fallacy of composition.   I resort to the fewest fallacies. Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not rightwingers.   Constitutional scholars, including members of the US Supreme Court.
> 
> In fact, the SCOTUS addressed that in their ruling on District of Columbia v. Heller.
> 
> "_Held:_
> 
> 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
> 
> (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
> 
> (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28."
Click to expand...

Show us the Individual terms, right wingers.  

*Amendment X*
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


----------



## Oddball

WinterBorn said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> How could a 26-year police veteran not know the difference between a taser and a pistol?
> 
> View attachment 479345
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is Kimberly Potter, the cop involved in the Daunte Wright deadly shooting?
> 
> 
> The Minnesota cop who investigators say fired the shot in the death of a 20-year-old Black man during a traffic stop Sunday afternoon has been identified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How could  an ignorant sub-moron like you ask such a question?...Have you even held a real pistol?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She made a mistake.  Mistakes happen.  Unfortunately for both the officer and victim, this was a lethal mistake.  The officer committed manslaughter and should receive a fair trial and bear the responsibility for her mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not going to judge until all the facts are in....The released video shows me someone who slipped the cuffs and was about to be a threat to the officers with a deadly weapon {i.e. the car)....An accident under such a scenario doesn't even warrant a manslaughter charge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem is that the officer thought she was using her taser.  So even she didn't think deadly force was justified at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even in a high stress situation, if you can't tell the difference between a Taser and a firearm, you probably shouldn't be issued either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you ever been in such a high stress situation?...I haven't and am not in any position to make such a pronouncement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have been in high stress situations.    And there was no threat to the officer, hence her using her Taser.
Click to expand...

The perp jumped into the driver seat and was preparing to pull away....If you don't think that's a life threatening situation, maybe we should check in with that poor Paki dude who got carjacked a couple weeks ago.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm trying to think of ANY "collective right" enshrined in the Constitution, and I'm drawing a blank.  Even the right to assemble is an INDIVIDUAL right, the right of individuals to meet with other individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show us the _Individual_ terms, right wingers; don't merely proclaim it and insist you must be Right, simply because you are on the right wing.
> 
> _A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If it were an Individual right, it would clearly enumerate so.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
Click to expand...


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


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...

Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not. 

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm trying to think of ANY "collective right" enshrined in the Constitution, and I'm drawing a blank.  Even the right to assemble is an INDIVIDUAL right, the right of individuals to meet with other individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show us the _Individual_ terms, right wingers; don't merely proclaim it and insist you must be Right, simply because you are on the right wing.
> 
> _A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If it were an Individual right, it would clearly enumerate so.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.".
Click to expand...

Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.  Only the unorganized militia whines about gun control laws for those too lazy to get organized and well regulated.


----------



## hadit

Lesh said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JusticeHammer said:
> 
> 
> 
> One more example of consequences when you don't follow orders and resist. I like how the press told the police chief not to call the rioters rioters. They are RIOTERS!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Police can never be trusted and you are never supposed to follow their orders.
> For example, they always want to search the car, and that is always illegal.
> Only a criminal would try to intimidate people into consenting to that illegal search.
> There was no violation, so the police were wrong to even stop the person, much less everything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've never had the police want to search my vehicle or even ask me to get out of it. Of course, they never saw a gun laying on the back seat, or an open container of alcohol, or a cloud of marijuana smoke coming out of my window either. Nor have I ever gotten in their face and basically dared them to restrain me. Sounds like someone gave you some bad advice about how to deal with cops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're also white
Click to expand...

Nor have I ever resembled the guy who just held up 3 liquor stores in the last week. 

Let's see. White guy, black guy. Both have a gun laying in the back seat of the car in plain sight, both are stopped because they ran a stop sign. Both are asked to step out of the vehicle. Black guy calmly and slowly complies, keeping his hands in plain sight the whole time, also making no sudden or hostile moves, assuring the officers he will do whatever they tell him to. White guy jumps out of the car, flings open the back door and dives for the gun. Who's going to live to see another day? Let's face reality, when a guy with a gun who can legally shoot you tells you to do something, it behooves you to do it. If it's something they're not authorized to tell you to do, go for the big payday later on. At least you'll be alive to collect it. Not so smart to mouth off at a cop or try to fight him.


----------



## Concerned American

WinterBorn said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> How could a 26-year police veteran not know the difference between a taser and a pistol?
> 
> View attachment 479345
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is Kimberly Potter, the cop involved in the Daunte Wright deadly shooting?
> 
> 
> The Minnesota cop who investigators say fired the shot in the death of a 20-year-old Black man during a traffic stop Sunday afternoon has been identified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How could  an ignorant sub-moron like you ask such a question?...Have you even held a real pistol?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She made a mistake.  Mistakes happen.  Unfortunately for both the officer and victim, this was a lethal mistake.  The officer committed manslaughter and should receive a fair trial and bear the responsibility for her mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not going to judge until all the facts are in....The released video shows me someone who slipped the cuffs and was about to be a threat to the officers with a deadly weapon {i.e. the car)....An accident under such a scenario doesn't even warrant a manslaughter charge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem is that the officer thought she was using her taser.  So even she didn't think deadly force was justified at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even in a high stress situation, if you can't tell the difference between a Taser and a firearm, you probably shouldn't be issued either.
Click to expand...

While I agree with your point, I can see where, in the heat of the moment, any person could make a mistake.  Reminds me of the old saw, "when you're up to your ass in alligators, it is hard to remember that your original intention was to drain the swamp."  LOL


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
Click to expand...


And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.


----------



## Concerned American

Lakhota said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JusticeHammer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JusticeHammer said:
> 
> 
> 
> One more example of consequences when you don't follow orders and resist. I like how the press told the police chief not to call the rioters rioters. They are RIOTERS!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Police can never be trusted and you are never supposed to follow their orders.
> For example, they always want to search the car, and that is always illegal.
> Only a criminal would try to intimidate people into consenting to that illegal search.
> There was no violation, so the police were wrong to even stop the person, much less everything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. He was pulled over for expired tags. You're argument is a typical libtard argument, stupid and wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As was reported today on TV - their DMV is running way behind because of COVID-19 in issuing new stickers for license plates.  They said many people are driving with expired stickers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is an officer to determine whether the owner of the car had attempted to apply for a renewal sticker?  Since many people do not mail their applications for tag renewal, a check with the DMV computer files may result in a waste of time.
> 
> The logical way to determine this is to stop the car and ask the driver.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The cops should have been aware of the DMV slowdown and the sticker delays because of COVID-19.
Click to expand...

Cops are tasked with enforcing the law.  The law says you should have current tags and registration on your car, so they enforced the law.  Criminals also steal cars and plates, what if he had stolen your car and put out of date plates on it in order to escape detection.  You would be singing the cop's praises because he recovered your car.  Next time engage your brain before you engage your mouth.


----------



## asaratis

Lakhota said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JusticeHammer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JusticeHammer said:
> 
> 
> 
> One more example of consequences when you don't follow orders and resist. I like how the press told the police chief not to call the rioters rioters. They are RIOTERS!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Police can never be trusted and you are never supposed to follow their orders.
> For example, they always want to search the car, and that is always illegal.
> Only a criminal would try to intimidate people into consenting to that illegal search.
> There was no violation, so the police were wrong to even stop the person, much less everything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. He was pulled over for expired tags. You're argument is a typical libtard argument, stupid and wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As was reported today on TV - their DMV is running way behind because of COVID-19 in issuing new stickers for license plates.  They said many people are driving with expired stickers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is an officer to determine whether the owner of the car had attempted to apply for a renewal sticker?  Since many people do not mail their applications for tag renewal, a check with the DMV computer files may result in a waste of time.
> 
> The logical way to determine this is to stop the car and ask the driver.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The cops should have been aware of the DMV slowdown and the sticker delays because of COVID-19.
Click to expand...

I haven't said they were not.  What they are justified in determining is whether the application for that car's sticker had been applied for or attempted to be obtained in person.  More importantly, they are justified in confirming that the vehicle was properly insured.

Vehicles with expired tag may also be be uninsured.  This presents a danger to other cars owners in denying them compensation for damage to their own vehicle and compensation for medical bills caused by personal injury.

The stopping of the car was justified.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
Click to expand...

That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
Click to expand...


Yes, there is.   A militia, especially in the time our constitution was written, was individuals who would answer a call to arms.    Not a call to collect their gov't firearms.  But a call to bring their own firearms.


----------



## Concerned American

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, there is.   A militia, especially in the time our constitution was written, was individuals who would answer a call to arms.    Not a call to collect their gov't firearms.  But a call to bring their own firearms.
Click to expand...

As in Minutemen?  Thank you!


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as a collective right that is independent of an individual right.

You are very confused.

Who has a right to assemble?  Is that a right held individually or by a group?

You don't know the answer.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, there is.   A militia, especially in the time our constitution was written, was individuals who would answer a call to arms.    Not a call to collect their gov't firearms.  But a call to bring their own firearms.
Click to expand...

This is a sovereign right of a State not individuals:

A well regulated _Militia_, being _necessary_ to the security of a free _State_, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


----------



## danielpalos

Concerned American said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, there is.   A militia, especially in the time our constitution was written, was individuals who would answer a call to arms.    Not a call to collect their gov't firearms.  But a call to bring their own firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As in Minutemen?  Thank you!
Click to expand...

Before our federal Constitution.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such thing as a collective right that is independent of an individual right.
> 
> You are very confused.
> 
> Who has a right to assemble?  Is that a right held individually or by a group?
> 
> You don't know the answer.
Click to expand...

There is if you understand the context.  Our Second Amendment is not about Individual rights.


----------



## asaratis

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, there is.   A militia, especially in the time our constitution was written, was individuals who would answer a call to arms.    Not a call to collect their gov't firearms.  But a call to bring their own firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a sovereign right of a State not individuals:
> 
> A well regulated _Militia_, being _necessary_ to the security of a free _State_, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...

But the individuals have to be in possession of their own firearms in order to bring them to muster.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, there is.   A militia, especially in the time our constitution was written, was individuals who would answer a call to arms.    Not a call to collect their gov't firearms.  But a call to bring their own firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a sovereign right of a State not individuals:
> 
> A well regulated _Militia_, being _necessary_ to the security of a free _State_, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...


Nothing in the Bill of Rights, with the exception of the 10th amendment, is intended to protect the rights of the State.   This has been held true by every constitutional scholar since the document was written.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, there is.   A militia, especially in the time our constitution was written, was individuals who would answer a call to arms.    Not a call to collect their gov't firearms.  But a call to bring their own firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As in Minutemen?  Thank you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Before our federal Constitution.
Click to expand...


And used in the conflict that allowed the US Constitution to be written and adopted.


----------



## asaratis

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such thing as a collective right that is independent of an individual right.
> 
> You are very confused.
> 
> Who has a right to assemble?  Is that a right held individually or by a group?
> 
> You don't know the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is if you understand the context.  Our Second Amendment is not about Individual rights.
Click to expand...

How can one person peaceably assemble?  Who would that person assemble with if not another person who desired to peaceably assemble with that person?

It takes two (or more) to peaceably assemble...and it takes a specific cause for which the assembly is made.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such thing as a collective right that is independent of an individual right.
> 
> You are very confused.
> 
> Who has a right to assemble?  Is that a right held individually or by a group?
> 
> You don't know the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is if you understand the context.  Our Second Amendment is not about Individual rights.
Click to expand...


No, it is a collective right if you focus on the prefatory clause instead of the operative clause.    And you ignore what the framers said.    And if you never read the Federalist Papers.  And if you never studied the US Constitution and the first 9 amendments.

But if you focus on the operative clause (the point of the amendment), know what the framers said, read the Federalist Papers, and study the US Constitution and its history, you would know it is an individual right.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, there is.   A militia, especially in the time our constitution was written, was individuals who would answer a call to arms.    Not a call to collect their gov't firearms.  But a call to bring their own firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a sovereign right of a State not individuals:
> 
> A well regulated _Militia_, being _necessary_ to the security of a free _State_, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...

Then, why use "Militia" in one clause and "People" in the other?

Why not just say:

"A well regulated _Militia_, being _necessary_ to the security of a free _State_, the right of the _Militia _to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Using different words shows different meaning and intent.


----------



## Concerned American

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, there is.   A militia, especially in the time our constitution was written, was individuals who would answer a call to arms.    Not a call to collect their gov't firearms.  But a call to bring their own firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a sovereign right of a State not individuals:
> 
> A well regulated _Militia_, being _necessary_ to the security of a free _State_, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then, why use "Militia" in one clause and "People" in the other?
> 
> Why not just say:
> 
> "A well regulated _Militia_, being _necessary_ to the security of a free _State_, the right of the _Militia _to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Using different words shows different meaning and intent.
Click to expand...

Not to a person with a kindergarten education.


----------



## Markle

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 479370
> 
> How are terrorist militias considered "well regulated"?  Who "regulates" them?  How are they "necessary to the security of a free state"?  We know who regulates the military and National Guard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American militia movement - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org



You really are desperate, aren't you?  Terrorist militias?  Are you serious?

Obviously, like your good friend or sock Lesh, you believed that English grammar in school was a waste of good time.  Allow me to help you both.  Isn't it great that our Founding Fathers were NOT ignorant about punctuation?


----------



## Markle

Lakhota said:


> Funny. I'm 74. I've already served my time in the military. The "official" military.



How do you disagree with this statement made by 2aguy?  "How about when a cop says stop resisting....you fucking stop resisting....that would be the best way to keep it from escalating....don't you think?"

Really, I want to know how resisting arrest is a great action to take in those circumstances.


----------



## danielpalos

asaratis said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, there is.   A militia, especially in the time our constitution was written, was individuals who would answer a call to arms.    Not a call to collect their gov't firearms.  But a call to bring their own firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a sovereign right of a State not individuals:
> 
> A well regulated _Militia_, being _necessary_ to the security of a free _State_, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But the individuals have to be in possession of their own firearms in order to bring them to muster.
Click to expand...

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Keep and bear is not the same as private ownership. 

From Article 1, Section 8 of our federal Constitution:

To provide for organizing, _arming_, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, there is.   A militia, especially in the time our constitution was written, was individuals who would answer a call to arms.    Not a call to collect their gov't firearms.  But a call to bring their own firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a sovereign right of a State not individuals:
> 
> A well regulated _Militia_, being _necessary_ to the security of a free _State_, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing in the Bill of Rights, with the exception of the 10th amendment, is intended to protect the rights of the State.   This has been held true by every constitutional scholar since the document was written.
Click to expand...

All you need now is a valid argument to substantiate your currently unsubstantiated right wing opinion.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

asaratis said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such thing as a collective right that is independent of an individual right.
> 
> You are very confused.
> 
> Who has a right to assemble?  Is that a right held individually or by a group?
> 
> You don't know the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is if you understand the context.  Our Second Amendment is not about Individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can one person peaceably assemble?  Who would that person assemble with if not another person who desired to peaceably assemble with that person?
> 
> It takes two (or more) to peaceably assemble...and it takes a specific cause for which the assembly is made.
Click to expand...

But, each individual has an independent right to assemble.

ALL RIGHTS held collectively are also held individually.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Lesh said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JusticeHammer said:
> 
> 
> 
> One more example of consequences when you don't follow orders and resist. I like how the press told the police chief not to call the rioters rioters. They are RIOTERS!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Police can never be trusted and you are never supposed to follow their orders.
> For example, they always want to search the car, and that is always illegal.
> Only a criminal would try to intimidate people into consenting to that illegal search.
> There was no violation, so the police were wrong to even stop the person, much less everything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've never had the police want to search my vehicle or even ask me to get out of it. Of course, they never saw a gun laying on the back seat, or an open container of alcohol, or a cloud of marijuana smoke coming out of my window either. Nor have I ever gotten in their face and basically dared them to restrain me. Sounds like someone gave you some bad advice about how to deal with cops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're also white
Click to expand...

What? Are you now going to whine piss and moan about poor you being born the wrong color? Boring.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, there is.   A militia, especially in the time our constitution was written, was individuals who would answer a call to arms.    Not a call to collect their gov't firearms.  But a call to bring their own firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a sovereign right of a State not individuals:
> 
> A well regulated _Militia_, being _necessary_ to the security of a free _State_, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...

And whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed? That's right, the people, NOT the militia, the people.


----------



## danielpalos

asaratis said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such thing as a collective right that is independent of an individual right.
> 
> You are very confused.
> 
> Who has a right to assemble?  Is that a right held individually or by a group?
> 
> You don't know the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is if you understand the context.  Our Second Amendment is not about Individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can one person peaceably assemble?  Who would that person assemble with if not another person who desired to peaceably assemble with that person?
> 
> It takes two (or more) to peaceably assemble...and it takes a specific cause for which the assembly is made.
Click to expand...

I am not sure what you mean.  

Here is the express law:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

There is no such Thing as any form of Militia of One.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> No, it is a collective right if you focus on the prefatory clause instead of the operative clause.


There is no appeal to ignorance of any part of the law.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, there is.   A militia, especially in the time our constitution was written, was individuals who would answer a call to arms.    Not a call to collect their gov't firearms.  But a call to bring their own firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a sovereign right of a State not individuals:
> 
> A well regulated _Militia_, being _necessary_ to the security of a free _State_, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then, why use "Militia" in one clause and "People" in the other?
> 
> Why not just say:
> 
> "A well regulated _Militia_, being _necessary_ to the security of a free _State_, the right of the _Militia _to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Using different words shows different meaning and intent.
Click to expand...

The People are the Militia. 

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such thing as a collective right that is independent of an individual right.
> 
> You are very confused.
> 
> Who has a right to assemble?  Is that a right held individually or by a group?
> 
> You don't know the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is if you understand the context.  Our Second Amendment is not about Individual rights.
Click to expand...

You are appealing to ignorance of the law. It is about individual rights, as the SC has ruled.


----------



## danielpalos

Concerned American said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, there is.   A militia, especially in the time our constitution was written, was individuals who would answer a call to arms.    Not a call to collect their gov't firearms.  But a call to bring their own firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a sovereign right of a State not individuals:
> 
> A well regulated _Militia_, being _necessary_ to the security of a free _State_, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then, why use "Militia" in one clause and "People" in the other?
> 
> Why not just say:
> 
> "A well regulated _Militia_, being _necessary_ to the security of a free _State_, the right of the _Militia _to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> Using different words shows different meaning and intent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not to a person with a kindergarten education.
Click to expand...

What different intent?  There are no Individual terms employed regardless. 

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such thing as a collective right that is independent of an individual right.
> 
> You are very confused.
> 
> Who has a right to assemble?  Is that a right held individually or by a group?
> 
> You don't know the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is if you understand the context.  Our Second Amendment is not about Individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can one person peaceably assemble?  Who would that person assemble with if not another person who desired to peaceably assemble with that person?
> 
> It takes two (or more) to peaceably assemble...and it takes a specific cause for which the assembly is made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not sure what you mean.
> 
> Here is the express law:
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> There is no such Thing as any form of Militia of One.
Click to expand...

But, it's not the right of the Militia.  It's the right of the people.  So, it doesn't fucking matter.

For individuals to serve in the Militia, those individuals were and still are required to purchase and keep their own weapons.  It MUST be an individual right to keep and bear arms.  There is on other way.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, there is.   A militia, especially in the time our constitution was written, was individuals who would answer a call to arms.    Not a call to collect their gov't firearms.  But a call to bring their own firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a sovereign right of a State not individuals:
> 
> A well regulated _Militia_, being _necessary_ to the security of a free _State_, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed? That's right, the people, NOT the militia, the people.
Click to expand...

Well regulated militia is declared Necessary not optional to the security of a free State.   It really is that simple.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such thing as a collective right that is independent of an individual right.
> 
> You are very confused.
> 
> Who has a right to assemble?  Is that a right held individually or by a group?
> 
> You don't know the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is if you understand the context.  Our Second Amendment is not about Individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are appealing to ignorance of the law. It is about individual rights, as the SC has ruled.
Click to expand...

We have a Tenth Amendment to deal with fallacies of appeal to authority.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
Click to expand...

"The People" refers to individual rights.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such thing as a collective right that is independent of an individual right.
> 
> You are very confused.
> 
> Who has a right to assemble?  Is that a right held individually or by a group?
> 
> You don't know the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is if you understand the context.  Our Second Amendment is not about Individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can one person peaceably assemble?  Who would that person assemble with if not another person who desired to peaceably assemble with that person?
> 
> It takes two (or more) to peaceably assemble...and it takes a specific cause for which the assembly is made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not sure what you mean.
> 
> Here is the express law:
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> There is no such Thing as any form of Militia of One.
Click to expand...

how do you remove a tyrant who controls the firearms or military?


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such thing as a collective right that is independent of an individual right.
> 
> You are very confused.
> 
> Who has a right to assemble?  Is that a right held individually or by a group?
> 
> You don't know the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is if you understand the context.  Our Second Amendment is not about Individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can one person peaceably assemble?  Who would that person assemble with if not another person who desired to peaceably assemble with that person?
> 
> It takes two (or more) to peaceably assemble...and it takes a specific cause for which the assembly is made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But, each individual has an independent right to assemble.
> 
> ALL RIGHTS held collectively are also held individually.
Click to expand...

This is a States' right not an Individual right:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, there is.   A militia, especially in the time our constitution was written, was individuals who would answer a call to arms.    Not a call to collect their gov't firearms.  But a call to bring their own firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a sovereign right of a State not individuals:
> 
> A well regulated _Militia_, being _necessary_ to the security of a free _State_, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed? That's right, the people, NOT the militia, the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia is declared Necessary not optional to the security of a free State.   It really is that simple.
Click to expand...

Of course it is. It also doesn't eliminate the protection of the individual's right to bear arms. That also is simple. Individuals need to have arms so we can call up a militia if necessary, and the operative part of that is *Individuals need to have arms*.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, there is.   A militia, especially in the time our constitution was written, was individuals who would answer a call to arms.    Not a call to collect their gov't firearms.  But a call to bring their own firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a sovereign right of a State not individuals:
> 
> A well regulated _Militia_, being _necessary_ to the security of a free _State_, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed? That's right, the people, NOT the militia, the people.
Click to expand...


The People are the Militia.  You are either well regulated and have literal recourse to our Second Amendment or subject to the traditional police power of the State as unorganized militia and Individual civil Persons under the common law.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such thing as a collective right that is independent of an individual right.
> 
> You are very confused.
> 
> Who has a right to assemble?  Is that a right held individually or by a group?
> 
> You don't know the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is if you understand the context.  Our Second Amendment is not about Individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are appealing to ignorance of the law. It is about individual rights, as the SC has ruled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have a Tenth Amendment to deal with fallacies of appeal to authority.
Click to expand...

In this case, the SC has a whole lot more authority than you do. You can say all you want to (and I know you will) that the 2nd Amendment means something, but everyone is going to accept the court's ruling, not your imagination, and more than you claiming you should get paid UC for never working a job gets you a check.


----------



## danielpalos

9thIDdoc said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "The People" refers to individual rights.
Click to expand...

Not in our Second Amendment; there are no singular or Individual terms in our Second Amendment only collective and plural terms.  Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, there is.   A militia, especially in the time our constitution was written, was individuals who would answer a call to arms.    Not a call to collect their gov't firearms.  But a call to bring their own firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a sovereign right of a State not individuals:
> 
> A well regulated _Militia_, being _necessary_ to the security of a free _State_, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed? That's right, the people, NOT the militia, the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia.  You are either well regulated and have literal recourse to our Second Amendment or subject to the traditional police power of the State as unorganized militia and Individual civil Persons under the common law.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
Click to expand...

That's right, all the people are free to bear arms, the 2nd Amendment spells that out. Not the state, not the militia, all the people. Glad you noticed it.


----------



## hadit

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such thing as a collective right that is independent of an individual right.
> 
> You are very confused.
> 
> Who has a right to assemble?  Is that a right held individually or by a group?
> 
> You don't know the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is if you understand the context.  Our Second Amendment is not about Individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can one person peaceably assemble?  Who would that person assemble with if not another person who desired to peaceably assemble with that person?
> 
> It takes two (or more) to peaceably assemble...and it takes a specific cause for which the assembly is made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not sure what you mean.
> 
> Here is the express law:
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> There is no such Thing as any form of Militia of One.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how do you remove a tyrant who controls the firearms or military?
Click to expand...

In Daniel's world you don't.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such thing as a collective right that is independent of an individual right.
> 
> You are very confused.
> 
> Who has a right to assemble?  Is that a right held individually or by a group?
> 
> You don't know the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is if you understand the context.  Our Second Amendment is not about Individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can one person peaceably assemble?  Who would that person assemble with if not another person who desired to peaceably assemble with that person?
> 
> It takes two (or more) to peaceably assemble...and it takes a specific cause for which the assembly is made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not sure what you mean.
> 
> Here is the express law:
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> There is no such Thing as any form of Militia of One.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how do you remove a tyrant who controls the firearms or military?
Click to expand...

That is your special pleading.  How should a sovereign State respond to tyranny? 

You have a First Amendment and it is First not Second.


----------



## dudmuck

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, there is.   A militia, especially in the time our constitution was written, was individuals who would answer a call to arms.    Not a call to collect their gov't firearms.  But a call to bring their own firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a sovereign right of a State not individuals:
> 
> A well regulated _Militia_, being _necessary_ to the security of a free _State_, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed? That's right, the people, NOT the militia, the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia.  You are either well regulated and have literal recourse to our Second Amendment or subject to the traditional police power of the State as unorganized militia and Individual civil Persons under the common law.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
Click to expand...


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, there is.   A militia, especially in the time our constitution was written, was individuals who would answer a call to arms.    Not a call to collect their gov't firearms.  But a call to bring their own firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a sovereign right of a State not individuals:
> 
> A well regulated _Militia_, being _necessary_ to the security of a free _State_, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed? That's right, the people, NOT the militia, the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia is declared Necessary not optional to the security of a free State.   It really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it is. It also doesn't eliminate the protection of the individual's right to bear arms. That also is simple. Individuals need to have arms so we can call up a militia if necessary, and the operative part of that is *Individuals need to have arms*.
Click to expand...

There is no implication regarding private Arms when general issue Arms will do.

To provide for organizing, _arming_, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


----------



## Concerned American

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, there is.   A militia, especially in the time our constitution was written, was individuals who would answer a call to arms.    Not a call to collect their gov't firearms.  But a call to bring their own firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a sovereign right of a State not individuals:
> 
> A well regulated _Militia_, being _necessary_ to the security of a free _State_, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed? That's right, the people, NOT the militia, the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia is declared Necessary not optional to the security of a free State.   It really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it is. It also doesn't eliminate the protection of the individual's right to bear arms. That also is simple. Individuals need to have arms so we can call up a militia if necessary, and the operative part of that is *Individuals need to have arms*.
Click to expand...

You guys are pissing up a wet rope with this one.  He is an idiotic troll who is playing you.  He will run you around with circular arguments until you are blue in the face.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such thing as a collective right that is independent of an individual right.
> 
> You are very confused.
> 
> Who has a right to assemble?  Is that a right held individually or by a group?
> 
> You don't know the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is if you understand the context.  Our Second Amendment is not about Individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are appealing to ignorance of the law. It is about individual rights, as the SC has ruled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have a Tenth Amendment to deal with fallacies of appeal to authority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In this case, the SC has a whole lot more authority than you do. You can say all you want to (and I know you will) that the 2nd Amendment means something, but everyone is going to accept the court's ruling, not your imagination, and more than you claiming you should get paid UC for never working a job gets you a check.
Click to expand...

They are not more supreme than our Tenth Amendment.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, there is.   A militia, especially in the time our constitution was written, was individuals who would answer a call to arms.    Not a call to collect their gov't firearms.  But a call to bring their own firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a sovereign right of a State not individuals:
> 
> A well regulated _Militia_, being _necessary_ to the security of a free _State_, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed? That's right, the people, NOT the militia, the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia.  You are either well regulated and have literal recourse to our Second Amendment or subject to the traditional police power of the State as unorganized militia and Individual civil Persons under the common law.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's right, all the people are free to bear arms, the 2nd Amendment spells that out. Not the state, not the militia, all the people. Glad you noticed it.
Click to expand...

The whole People are the militia.  Only well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.  Only right wingers ignore history to repeat historical mistakes and proclaim they are not really like that but are for the "gospel Truth".


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such thing as a collective right that is independent of an individual right.
> 
> You are very confused.
> 
> Who has a right to assemble?  Is that a right held individually or by a group?
> 
> You don't know the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is if you understand the context.  Our Second Amendment is not about Individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can one person peaceably assemble?  Who would that person assemble with if not another person who desired to peaceably assemble with that person?
> 
> It takes two (or more) to peaceably assemble...and it takes a specific cause for which the assembly is made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not sure what you mean.
> 
> Here is the express law:
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> There is no such Thing as any form of Militia of One.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how do you remove a tyrant who controls the firearms or military?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In Daniel's world you don't.
Click to expand...

Right wing fantasy is all right wingers have.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such thing as a collective right that is independent of an individual right.
> 
> You are very confused.
> 
> Who has a right to assemble?  Is that a right held individually or by a group?
> 
> You don't know the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is if you understand the context.  Our Second Amendment is not about Individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can one person peaceably assemble?  Who would that person assemble with if not another person who desired to peaceably assemble with that person?
> 
> It takes two (or more) to peaceably assemble...and it takes a specific cause for which the assembly is made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not sure what you mean.
> 
> Here is the express law:
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> There is no such Thing as any form of Militia of One.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how do you remove a tyrant who controls the firearms or military?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In Daniel's world you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right wing fantasy is all right wingers have.
Click to expand...

just answer the question


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "The People" refers to individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not in our Second Amendment; there are no singular or Individual terms in our Second Amendment only collective and plural terms.  Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.
Click to expand...

Every right identified in the Bill of Rights uses plurals.

"People" are made up of individuals.  

You would be arguing that individuals have no rights.  That is SHIT!!!


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

According to Collectivists, there should not be an individual 4th Amendment right.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

No person has an individual right to be secure in his/her person/papers, etc.  It's only the the right of the people.  Therefore, Government can search and seize without Warrant any individual, but not a collective group of people.

Right?

(yes.  your argument is that stupid)


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, there is.   A militia, especially in the time our constitution was written, was individuals who would answer a call to arms.    Not a call to collect their gov't firearms.  But a call to bring their own firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a sovereign right of a State not individuals:
> 
> A well regulated _Militia_, being _necessary_ to the security of a free _State_, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed? That's right, the people, NOT the militia, the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia is declared Necessary not optional to the security of a free State.   It really is that simple.
Click to expand...

And, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is declared protected and shall not be infringed.

It's even more simple.


----------



## hadit

Concerned American said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, there is.   A militia, especially in the time our constitution was written, was individuals who would answer a call to arms.    Not a call to collect their gov't firearms.  But a call to bring their own firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a sovereign right of a State not individuals:
> 
> A well regulated _Militia_, being _necessary_ to the security of a free _State_, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed? That's right, the people, NOT the militia, the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia is declared Necessary not optional to the security of a free State.   It really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it is. It also doesn't eliminate the protection of the individual's right to bear arms. That also is simple. Individuals need to have arms so we can call up a militia if necessary, and the operative part of that is *Individuals need to have arms*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You guys are pissing up a wet rope with this one.  He is an idiotic troll who is playing you.  He will run you around with circular arguments until you are blue in the face.
Click to expand...

Oh, we're quite familiar with him and enjoy watching his dance. It's quite entertaining.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

hadit said:


> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, there is.   A militia, especially in the time our constitution was written, was individuals who would answer a call to arms.    Not a call to collect their gov't firearms.  But a call to bring their own firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a sovereign right of a State not individuals:
> 
> A well regulated _Militia_, being _necessary_ to the security of a free _State_, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed? That's right, the people, NOT the militia, the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia is declared Necessary not optional to the security of a free State.   It really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it is. It also doesn't eliminate the protection of the individual's right to bear arms. That also is simple. Individuals need to have arms so we can call up a militia if necessary, and the operative part of that is *Individuals need to have arms*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You guys are pissing up a wet rope with this one.  He is an idiotic troll who is playing you.  He will run you around with circular arguments until you are blue in the face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, we're quite familiar with him and enjoy watching his dance. It's quite entertaining.
Click to expand...

I have him on ignore, but I choose to school him periodically, until he becomes tired and boring again with his lame, repeated, unintelligent "arguments" he is unable to defend.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
Click to expand...




danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, there is.   A militia, especially in the time our constitution was written, was individuals who would answer a call to arms.    Not a call to collect their gov't firearms.  But a call to bring their own firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a sovereign right of a State not individuals:
> 
> A well regulated _Militia_, being _necessary_ to the security of a free _State_, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...

States don't have rights; they have constitutionally granted authority. "Free state" as used could either mean condition, State or federal governments . In any case it is a militia that is necessary (not government troops) for it to be considered free. There is not set a number of people required for a militia only that they be non-government volunteer civilians although the unit may retain the militia name after becoming regular government troops.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, there is.   A militia, especially in the time our constitution was written, was individuals who would answer a call to arms.    Not a call to collect their gov't firearms.  But a call to bring their own firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a sovereign right of a State not individuals:
> 
> A well regulated _Militia_, being _necessary_ to the security of a free _State_, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed? That's right, the people, NOT the militia, the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia is declared Necessary not optional to the security of a free State.   It really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it is. It also doesn't eliminate the protection of the individual's right to bear arms. That also is simple. Individuals need to have arms so we can call up a militia if necessary, and the operative part of that is *Individuals need to have arms*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no implication regarding private Arms when general issue Arms will do.
> 
> To provide for organizing, _arming_, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter, the 2nd specifically provides for the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms, not the militia, not the state, the PEOPLE. That means that people have to be allowed to have firearms. Not firearms they don't own that are stashed in an armory under government control, THEIR arms. There's no way around it.


----------



## hadit

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, there is.   A militia, especially in the time our constitution was written, was individuals who would answer a call to arms.    Not a call to collect their gov't firearms.  But a call to bring their own firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a sovereign right of a State not individuals:
> 
> A well regulated _Militia_, being _necessary_ to the security of a free _State_, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed? That's right, the people, NOT the militia, the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia is declared Necessary not optional to the security of a free State.   It really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it is. It also doesn't eliminate the protection of the individual's right to bear arms. That also is simple. Individuals need to have arms so we can call up a militia if necessary, and the operative part of that is *Individuals need to have arms*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You guys are pissing up a wet rope with this one.  He is an idiotic troll who is playing you.  He will run you around with circular arguments until you are blue in the face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, we're quite familiar with him and enjoy watching his dance. It's quite entertaining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have him on ignore, but I choose to school him periodically, until he becomes tired and boring again with his lame, repeated, unintelligent "arguments" he is unable to defend.
Click to expand...

Yeah, he has a cycle. He comes out with the usual list of arguments, somebody squashes him, he goes away for a bit, then right back to it. Funny thing is, he thinks he wins the arguments.


----------



## hadit

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> According to Collectivists, there should not be an individual 4th Amendment right.
> 
> "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
> 
> No person has an individual right to be secure in his/her person/papers, etc.  It's only the the right of the people.  Therefore, Government can search and seize without Warrant any individual, but not a collective group of people.
> 
> Right?
> 
> (yes.  your argument is that stupid)


The same for the 1st Amendment. To be consistent, they should be insisting you only have the right to free speech if you are a member of a government approved, trained and licensed protest group. You don't have the right to simply speak your mind by yourself.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, there is.   A militia, especially in the time our constitution was written, was individuals who would answer a call to arms.    Not a call to collect their gov't firearms.  But a call to bring their own firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a sovereign right of a State not individuals:
> 
> A well regulated _Militia_, being _necessary_ to the security of a free _State_, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed? That's right, the people, NOT the militia, the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia.  You are either well regulated and have literal recourse to our Second Amendment or subject to the traditional police power of the State as unorganized militia and Individual civil Persons under the common law.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's right, all the people are free to bear arms, the 2nd Amendment spells that out. Not the state, not the militia, all the people. Glad you noticed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The whole People are the militia.  Only well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.  Only right wingers ignore history to repeat historical mistakes and proclaim they are not really like that but are for the "gospel Truth".
Click to expand...

Your knowledge of history well and truly sucks or you would realize how idiotic your well refuted statements are.


----------



## Markle

danielpalos said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> ‘_How are they "necessary to the security of a free state"?’_
> 
> They’re not.
> 
> In fact, there are no more ‘militias.’
> 
> The Second Amendment safeguards an individual right to possess a firearm, unconnected with militia service.
> 
> 
> 
> That ruling was in legal error.  There are no individuals unconnected with the militia only militia service well regulated.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
Click to expand...








surada said:


> Back then the US didn't have a standing army or national guard or police departments.
> 
> Are you prepared to fight other Americans in defense of a moron like Trump who has never even read the US constitution?



Please explain.  How is supporting the Second Amendment defending President Trump and what difference does that make?


----------



## hadit

Markle said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> ‘_How are they "necessary to the security of a free state"?’_
> 
> They’re not.
> 
> In fact, there are no more ‘militias.’
> 
> The Second Amendment safeguards an individual right to possess a firearm, unconnected with militia service.
> 
> 
> 
> That ruling was in legal error.  There are no individuals unconnected with the militia only militia service well regulated.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> surada said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back then the US didn't have a standing army or national guard or police departments.
> 
> Are you prepared to fight other Americans in defense of a moron like Trump who has never even read the US constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please explain.  How is supporting the Second Amendment defending President Trump and what difference does that make?
Click to expand...

"But, but, but, TRUMP!" is going to be the go-to diversion until the next Republican president is sworn in, then it will be her problem.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such thing as a collective right that is independent of an individual right.
> 
> You are very confused.
> 
> Who has a right to assemble?  Is that a right held individually or by a group?
> 
> You don't know the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is if you understand the context.  Our Second Amendment is not about Individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can one person peaceably assemble?  Who would that person assemble with if not another person who desired to peaceably assemble with that person?
> 
> It takes two (or more) to peaceably assemble...and it takes a specific cause for which the assembly is made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not sure what you mean.
> 
> Here is the express law:
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> There is no such Thing as any form of Militia of One.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how do you remove a tyrant who controls the firearms or military?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In Daniel's world you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right wing fantasy is all right wingers have.
Click to expand...

And there it is, the classic Daniel Dodge. Tell us, Daniel, how DO you remove a tyrant who controls the firearms and the military if you have no weapons at all? How do you make it difficult enough that he eventually gives up because he faces armed opposition at every turn?


----------



## Cecilie1200

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such thing as a collective right that is independent of an individual right.
> 
> You are very confused.
> 
> Who has a right to assemble?  Is that a right held individually or by a group?
> 
> You don't know the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is if you understand the context.  Our Second Amendment is not about Individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can one person peaceably assemble?  Who would that person assemble with if not another person who desired to peaceably assemble with that person?
> 
> It takes two (or more) to peaceably assemble...and it takes a specific cause for which the assembly is made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not sure what you mean.
> 
> Here is the express law:
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> There is no such Thing as any form of Militia of One.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how do you remove a tyrant who controls the firearms or military?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In Daniel's world you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right wing fantasy is all right wingers have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And there it is, the classic Daniel Dodge. Tell us, Daniel, how DO you remove a tyrant who controls the firearms and the military if you have no weapons at all? How do you make it difficult enough that he eventually gives up because he faces armed opposition at every turn?
Click to expand...


Follow-up question, if you would be so kind as to pass it along to Daniel.

Can you name us any country where oppressive tyranny ever developed in which the citizenry was armed?


----------



## Markle

Oddball said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> How could a 26-year police veteran not know the difference between a taser and a pistol?
> 
> View attachment 479345
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is Kimberly Potter, the cop involved in the Daunte Wright deadly shooting?
> 
> 
> The Minnesota cop who investigators say fired the shot in the death of a 20-year-old Black man during a traffic stop Sunday afternoon has been identified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How could  an ignorant sub-moron like you ask such a question?...Have you even held a real pistol?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She made a mistake.  Mistakes happen.  Unfortunately for both the officer and victim, this was a lethal mistake.  The officer committed manslaughter and should receive a fair trial and bear the responsibility for her mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not going to judge until all the facts are in....The released video shows me someone who slipped the cuffs and was about to be a threat to the officers with a deadly weapon {i.e. the car)....An accident under such a scenario doesn't even warrant a manslaughter charge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem is that the officer thought she was using her taser.  So even she didn't think deadly force was justified at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even in a high stress situation, if you can't tell the difference between a Taser and a firearm, you probably shouldn't be issued either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you ever been in such a high stress situation?...I haven't and am not in any position to make such a pronouncement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have been in high stress situations.    And there was no threat to the officer, hence her using her Taser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The perp jumped into the driver seat and was preparing to pull away....If you don't think that's a life threatening situation, maybe we should check in with that poor Paki dude who got carjacked a couple weeks ago.
Click to expand...


There was also a loaded gun on the seat next to him.  She panicked.  It is simple as that, a horribly tragic ending.  All he had to do was, follow the legal instructions from the officer.


----------



## Lakhota

Markle said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> How could a 26-year police veteran not know the difference between a taser and a pistol?
> 
> View attachment 479345
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is Kimberly Potter, the cop involved in the Daunte Wright deadly shooting?
> 
> 
> The Minnesota cop who investigators say fired the shot in the death of a 20-year-old Black man during a traffic stop Sunday afternoon has been identified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How could  an ignorant sub-moron like you ask such a question?...Have you even held a real pistol?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She made a mistake.  Mistakes happen.  Unfortunately for both the officer and victim, this was a lethal mistake.  The officer committed manslaughter and should receive a fair trial and bear the responsibility for her mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not going to judge until all the facts are in....The released video shows me someone who slipped the cuffs and was about to be a threat to the officers with a deadly weapon {i.e. the car)....An accident under such a scenario doesn't even warrant a manslaughter charge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem is that the officer thought she was using her taser.  So even she didn't think deadly force was justified at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even in a high stress situation, if you can't tell the difference between a Taser and a firearm, you probably shouldn't be issued either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you ever been in such a high stress situation?...I haven't and am not in any position to make such a pronouncement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have been in high stress situations.    And there was no threat to the officer, hence her using her Taser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The perp jumped into the driver seat and was preparing to pull away....If you don't think that's a life threatening situation, maybe we should check in with that poor Paki dude who got carjacked a couple weeks ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was also a loaded gun on the seat next to him.  She panicked.  It is simple as that, a horribly tragic ending.  All he had to do was, follow the legal instructions from the officer.
Click to expand...


Although irrelevant, who told you "there was also a loaded gun on the seat next to him"?  I haven't heard that from any reliable source.


----------



## Markle

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such thing as a collective right that is independent of an individual right.
> 
> You are very confused.
> 
> Who has a right to assemble?  Is that a right held individually or by a group?
> 
> You don't know the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is if you understand the context.  Our Second Amendment is not about Individual rights.
Click to expand...


You simply demand to remain ignorant, don't you?  Why?


----------



## Markle

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, there is.   A militia, especially in the time our constitution was written, was individuals who would answer a call to arms.    Not a call to collect their gov't firearms.  But a call to bring their own firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a sovereign right of a State not individuals:
> 
> A well regulated _Militia_, being _necessary_ to the security of a free _State_, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed? That's right, the people, NOT the militia, the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia is declared Necessary not optional to the security of a free State.   It really is that simple.
Click to expand...


----------



## Lesh

Markle said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, there is.   A militia, especially in the time our constitution was written, was individuals who would answer a call to arms.    Not a call to collect their gov't firearms.  But a call to bring their own firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a sovereign right of a State not individuals:
> 
> A well regulated _Militia_, being _necessary_ to the security of a free _State_, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed? That's right, the people, NOT the militia, the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia is declared Necessary not optional to the security of a free State.   It really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting the full Amendment.

Note that it points out the reason it exists "A* Well Regulated Militia *being necessary to the security of a free state..."


----------



## Lesh

hadit said:


> Doesn't matter, the 2nd specifically provides for the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms, not the militia, not the state, the PEOPLE


Yea...we're not talking about a militia made up of farm anaimals


hadit said:


> That means that people have to be allowed to have firearms.


In order to be part of a militia...which no longer exists


hadit said:


> Daniel, how DO you remove a tyrant who controls the firearms and the military if you have no weapons at all?


You'll note that Article 1 Section 8 Clause 15 (16?) describes the USE of that militia to put DOWN the type of insurrection you claim the 2A promotes.

And in fact it was used to do just that in Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion


----------



## hadit

Lesh said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, there is.   A militia, especially in the time our constitution was written, was individuals who would answer a call to arms.    Not a call to collect their gov't firearms.  But a call to bring their own firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a sovereign right of a State not individuals:
> 
> A well regulated _Militia_, being _necessary_ to the security of a free _State_, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed? That's right, the people, NOT the militia, the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia is declared Necessary not optional to the security of a free State.   It really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for posting the full Amendment.
> 
> Note that it points out the reason it exists "A* Well Regulated Militia *being necessary to the security of a free state..."
Click to expand...

Sure, that's a reason WHY the right is protected, but WHAT is being protected from infringement by the government? The right of PEOPLE to bear arms.


----------



## asaratis

danielpalos said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, there is.   A militia, especially in the time our constitution was written, was individuals who would answer a call to arms.    Not a call to collect their gov't firearms.  But a call to bring their own firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a sovereign right of a State not individuals:
> 
> A well regulated _Militia_, being _necessary_ to the security of a free _State_, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But the individuals have to be in possession of their own firearms in order to bring them to muster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to *keep* and* bear* Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Keep and bear is not the same as private ownership.
> 
> From Article 1, Section 8 of our federal Constitution:
> 
> To provide for organizing, _arming_, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Click to expand...

Then operative words are KEEP and BEAR.  To have the right to KEEP, means they shall not be taken away.  To BEAR means to carry on one's person, which means they can't be taken away.

Think about it for a month or so.  Then get back to me.


----------



## hadit

Lesh said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter, the 2nd specifically provides for the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms, not the militia, not the state, the PEOPLE
> 
> 
> 
> Yea...we're not talking about a militia made up of farm anaimals
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> That means that people have to be allowed to have firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In order to be part of a militia...which no longer exists
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, how DO you remove a tyrant who controls the firearms and the military if you have no weapons at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You'll note that Article 1 Section 8 Clause 15 (16?) describes the USE of that militia to put DOWN the type of insurrection you claim the 2A promotes.
> 
> And in fact it was used to do just that in Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion
Click to expand...

1. Interesting. A plain reading of what you wrote reveals that you are claiming Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion were attempts to remove a tyrant. Which tyrant would that have been?
2. Yes, a militia is made up of PEOPLE, and it is PEOPLE who have the right to bear arms, NOT the militia and NOT the state, but the PEOPLE.
3. The right does not expire because there are no militias around right now. In fact, the right needs to be protected so if we should ever need to call up a militia, we could. Your argument falls flat on that one.


----------



## asaratis

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such thing as a collective right that is independent of an individual right.
> 
> You are very confused.
> 
> Who has a right to assemble?  Is that a right held individually or by a group?
> 
> You don't know the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is if you understand the context.  Our Second Amendment is not about Individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can one person peaceably assemble?  Who would that person assemble with if not another person who desired to peaceably assemble with that person?
> 
> It takes two (or more) to peaceably assemble...and it takes a specific cause for which the assembly is made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But, each individual has an independent right to assemble.
> 
> ALL RIGHTS held collectively are also held individually.
Click to expand...

An individual's right to assemble (with others) means nothing if nobody else wants to assemble with that individual.


----------



## Oddball

Lesh said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, there is.   A militia, especially in the time our constitution was written, was individuals who would answer a call to arms.    Not a call to collect their gov't firearms.  But a call to bring their own firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a sovereign right of a State not individuals:
> 
> A well regulated _Militia_, being _necessary_ to the security of a free _State_, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed? That's right, the people, NOT the militia, the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia is declared Necessary not optional to the security of a free State.   It really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for posting the full Amendment.
> 
> Note that it points out the reason it exists "A* Well Regulated Militia *being necessary to the security of a free state..."
Click to expand...

Let's chart that out, for the English language illiterate......


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such thing as a collective right that is independent of an individual right.
> 
> You are very confused.
> 
> Who has a right to assemble?  Is that a right held individually or by a group?
> 
> You don't know the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is if you understand the context.  Our Second Amendment is not about Individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can one person peaceably assemble?  Who would that person assemble with if not another person who desired to peaceably assemble with that person?
> 
> It takes two (or more) to peaceably assemble...and it takes a specific cause for which the assembly is made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not sure what you mean.
> 
> Here is the express law:
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> There is no such Thing as any form of Militia of One.
Click to expand...

Still waiting for a collectivist to insist the right to free speech only applies if you're a member of a licensed, trained and government approved protest group. You know, to be consistent and all about who the people are.


----------



## asaratis

danielpalos said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such thing as a collective right that is independent of an individual right.
> 
> You are very confused.
> 
> Who has a right to assemble?  Is that a right held individually or by a group?
> 
> You don't know the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is if you understand the context.  Our Second Amendment is not about Individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can one person peaceably assemble?  Who would that person assemble with if not another person who desired to peaceably assemble with that person?
> 
> It takes two (or more) to peaceably assemble...and it takes a specific cause for which the assembly is made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not sure what you mean.
> 
> Here is the express law:
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> There is no such Thing as any form of Militia of One.
Click to expand...

If a rouge US governing body decides to do away with the Constitution, the people have the right to defend it, form their own well regulated militia and shoot back.  To do this they need the firearms that are guaranteed to be available to them. That is exactly how we got out from under British rulers.  We were armed.

Go to school, little one.

You're trying, but failing.  Your logic is non-existent.  Go to school.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such thing as a collective right that is independent of an individual right.
> 
> You are very confused.
> 
> Who has a right to assemble?  Is that a right held individually or by a group?
> 
> You don't know the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is if you understand the context.  Our Second Amendment is not about Individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can one person peaceably assemble?  Who would that person assemble with if not another person who desired to peaceably assemble with that person?
> 
> It takes two (or more) to peaceably assemble...and it takes a specific cause for which the assembly is made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not sure what you mean.
> 
> Here is the express law:
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> There is no such Thing as any form of Militia of One.
Click to expand...

Daniel, 

1. Has any nation with a well armed populace fallen to a tyrant?
2. Do tyrants typically reveal themselves as tyrants before or after they disarm the populace?


----------



## asaratis

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such thing as a collective right that is independent of an individual right.
> 
> You are very confused.
> 
> Who has a right to assemble?  Is that a right held individually or by a group?
> 
> You don't know the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is if you understand the context.  Our Second Amendment is not about Individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can one person peaceably assemble?  Who would that person assemble with if not another person who desired to peaceably assemble with that person?
> 
> It takes two (or more) to peaceably assemble...and it takes a specific cause for which the assembly is made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But, each individual has an independent right to assemble.
> 
> ALL RIGHTS held collectively are also held individually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a States' right not an Individual right:
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...



Go to school.


----------



## Lesh

asaratis said:


> If a rouge US governing body decides to do away with the Constitution,


If they're wearing rouge you have my permission to shoot em


----------



## hadit

asaratis said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such thing as a collective right that is independent of an individual right.
> 
> You are very confused.
> 
> Who has a right to assemble?  Is that a right held individually or by a group?
> 
> You don't know the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is if you understand the context.  Our Second Amendment is not about Individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can one person peaceably assemble?  Who would that person assemble with if not another person who desired to peaceably assemble with that person?
> 
> It takes two (or more) to peaceably assemble...and it takes a specific cause for which the assembly is made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But, each individual has an independent right to assemble.
> 
> ALL RIGHTS held collectively are also held individually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a States' right not an Individual right:
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Go to school.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid he'd just argue with the teacher and insist that everyone in the history of America that ever studied the Constitution is wrong, that he's right and that he wins all the arguments.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

dudmuck said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, there is.   A militia, especially in the time our constitution was written, was individuals who would answer a call to arms.    Not a call to collect their gov't firearms.  But a call to bring their own firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a sovereign right of a State not individuals:
> 
> A well regulated _Militia_, being _necessary_ to the security of a free _State_, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed? That's right, the people, NOT the militia, the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia.  You are either well regulated and have literal recourse to our Second Amendment or subject to the traditional police power of the State as unorganized militia and Individual civil Persons under the common law.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Which was nothing less than gross overreach.


----------



## Lesh

asaratis said:


> Then operative words are KEEP and BEAR. To have the right to KEEP, means they shall not be taken away. To BEAR means to carry on one's person, which means they can't be taken away.


And the word "Militia" is the reason for the Amendment


----------



## Markle

Lesh said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, there is.   A militia, especially in the time our constitution was written, was individuals who would answer a call to arms.    Not a call to collect their gov't firearms.  But a call to bring their own firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a sovereign right of a State not individuals:
> 
> A well regulated _Militia_, being _necessary_ to the security of a free _State_, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed? That's right, the people, NOT the militia, the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia is declared Necessary not optional to the security of a free State.   It really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for posting the full Amendment.
> 
> Note that it points out the reason it exists "A* Well Regulated Militia *being necessary to the security of a free state..."
Click to expand...


I posted instructions for danielpalos to learn about commas, I mistakenly presumed that you would learn from it too.  Apparently, neither of you could learn from that one, how about this one?

Are you really so ignorant about punctuation in the English language or are you pretending to be ignorant?  How can we tell?


----------



## Lesh

Course there is no militia anymore so...


----------



## Lesh

Markle said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, there is.   A militia, especially in the time our constitution was written, was individuals who would answer a call to arms.    Not a call to collect their gov't firearms.  But a call to bring their own firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a sovereign right of a State not individuals:
> 
> A well regulated _Militia_, being _necessary_ to the security of a free _State_, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed? That's right, the people, NOT the militia, the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia is declared Necessary not optional to the security of a free State.   It really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for posting the full Amendment.
> 
> Note that it points out the reason it exists "A* Well Regulated Militia *being necessary to the security of a free state..."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I posted instructions for danielpalos to learn about commas, I mistakenly presumed that you would learn from it too.  Apparently, neither of you could learn from that one, how about this one?
> 
> Are you really so ignorant about punctuation in the English language or are you pretending to be ignorant?  How can we tell?
Click to expand...


Did someone tell you that a comma negates what comes before it?

That clause is there for a reason. It tells you WHY the entire sentence exists


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lesh said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, there is.   A militia, especially in the time our constitution was written, was individuals who would answer a call to arms.    Not a call to collect their gov't firearms.  But a call to bring their own firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a sovereign right of a State not individuals:
> 
> A well regulated _Militia_, being _necessary_ to the security of a free _State_, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed? That's right, the people, NOT the militia, the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia is declared Necessary not optional to the security of a free State.   It really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for posting the full Amendment.
> 
> Note that it points out the reason it exists "A* Well Regulated Militia *being necessary to the security of a free state..."
Click to expand...

If it's no longer necessary....AMEND!!!  Otherwise, the right of the people shall not be infringed, so SHUT THE FUCK UP! I GET A FUCKING MACHINE GUN!


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lesh said:


> Course there is no militia anymore so...


Yet there has been no amendment, so fuck off.


----------



## Markle

Oddball said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, there is.   A militia, especially in the time our constitution was written, was individuals who would answer a call to arms.    Not a call to collect their gov't firearms.  But a call to bring their own firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a sovereign right of a State not individuals:
> 
> A well regulated _Militia_, being _necessary_ to the security of a free _State_, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed? That's right, the people, NOT the militia, the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia is declared Necessary not optional to the security of a free State.   It really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for posting the full Amendment.
> 
> Note that it points out the reason it exists "A* Well Regulated Militia *being necessary to the security of a free state..."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's chart that out, for the English language illiterate......
> 
> View attachment 479640
Click to expand...


So good, I had to steal it!

I hated diagraming sentences in high school but it did help me along in life!


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such thing as a collective right that is independent of an individual right.
> 
> You are very confused.
> 
> Who has a right to assemble?  Is that a right held individually or by a group?
> 
> You don't know the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is if you understand the context.  Our Second Amendment is not about Individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can one person peaceably assemble?  Who would that person assemble with if not another person who desired to peaceably assemble with that person?
> 
> It takes two (or more) to peaceably assemble...and it takes a specific cause for which the assembly is made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not sure what you mean.
> 
> Here is the express law:
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> There is no such Thing as any form of Militia of One.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how do you remove a tyrant who controls the firearms or military?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In Daniel's world you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right wing fantasy is all right wingers have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just answer the question
Click to expand...

There is no such Thing as a Militia of One under our Constitutional form of Government.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such thing as a collective right that is independent of an individual right.
> 
> You are very confused.
> 
> Who has a right to assemble?  Is that a right held individually or by a group?
> 
> You don't know the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is if you understand the context.  Our Second Amendment is not about Individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can one person peaceably assemble?  Who would that person assemble with if not another person who desired to peaceably assemble with that person?
> 
> It takes two (or more) to peaceably assemble...and it takes a specific cause for which the assembly is made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not sure what you mean.
> 
> Here is the express law:
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> There is no such Thing as any form of Militia of One.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how do you remove a tyrant who controls the firearms or military?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In Daniel's world you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right wing fantasy is all right wingers have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just answer the question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such Thing as a Militia of One under our Constitutional form of Government.
Click to expand...

"People" is made up of individuals.  A "Militia" may be necessary, but the people (and each person) retains the right to keep and bear arms.

You are a fool to tie it to the Militia.  It was a preexisting individual right.  The 2A take authority away from the Federal Government.


----------



## Rigby5

Lesh said:


> Course there is no militia anymore so...



Wrong.
There many uses for the militia.
The federal and state government are two, but they prefer now to use the National Guard instead.
However, the municipalities still need and authorize posses, which are also the militia.
And every home owner has a legitimate use of the militia when they protect themselves from home invasion.
So the federal government gets no say in who the militia is or what it does.
All the federal government can do is call on the militia for help if it wants to.
It can not disband or disarm it.
Neither can the state.


----------



## Rigby5

Lesh said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, there is.   A militia, especially in the time our constitution was written, was individuals who would answer a call to arms.    Not a call to collect their gov't firearms.  But a call to bring their own firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a sovereign right of a State not individuals:
> 
> A well regulated _Militia_, being _necessary_ to the security of a free _State_, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed? That's right, the people, NOT the militia, the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia is declared Necessary not optional to the security of a free State.   It really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for posting the full Amendment.
> 
> Note that it points out the reason it exists "A* Well Regulated Militia *being necessary to the security of a free state..."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I posted instructions for danielpalos to learn about commas, I mistakenly presumed that you would learn from it too.  Apparently, neither of you could learn from that one, how about this one?
> 
> Are you really so ignorant about punctuation in the English language or are you pretending to be ignorant?  How can we tell?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did someone tell you that a comma negates what comes before it?
> 
> That clause is there for a reason. It tells you WHY the entire sentence exists
Click to expand...


Wrong.
I agree with the idea that the first half of the sentence is giving a reason why the federal government is to be prohibited from infringing on gun rights, but when you list a reason, that in no way implies it is the ONLY reason.
If you reworded it slightly to:

Because a well regulated militia is necessary to a free state, then the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

That in no way implies that the need for a well regulated militia is the ONLY reason why the federal government is banned from any gun laws, and it would not matter what it implied because it still means a total ban on any federal weapons legislation.

If what you are trying to imply is that the 2nd amendment was only to ensure the National Guard was armed, that would make no sense.  That would be something silly like:

Because the National Guard is necessary for national defense, the federal government shall not disarm the National Guard.

And clearly that is not the intent.  The key words are that armed are necessary for a "free state", and that meant each state had its own need for an armed population.  The need for an armed force by the federal government was not at all primary.


----------



## WinterBorn

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such thing as a collective right that is independent of an individual right.
> 
> You are very confused.
> 
> Who has a right to assemble?  Is that a right held individually or by a group?
> 
> You don't know the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is if you understand the context.  Our Second Amendment is not about Individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can one person peaceably assemble?  Who would that person assemble with if not another person who desired to peaceably assemble with that person?
> 
> It takes two (or more) to peaceably assemble...and it takes a specific cause for which the assembly is made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not sure what you mean.
> 
> Here is the express law:
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> There is no such Thing as any form of Militia of One.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how do you remove a tyrant who controls the firearms or military?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In Daniel's world you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right wing fantasy is all right wingers have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just answer the question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such Thing as a Militia of One under our Constitutional form of Government.
Click to expand...


Says who?   Show me a single constitutional requirements for the number of people it takes to form a militia.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such thing as a collective right that is independent of an individual right.
> 
> You are very confused.
> 
> Who has a right to assemble?  Is that a right held individually or by a group?
> 
> You don't know the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is if you understand the context.  Our Second Amendment is not about Individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can one person peaceably assemble?  Who would that person assemble with if not another person who desired to peaceably assemble with that person?
> 
> It takes two (or more) to peaceably assemble...and it takes a specific cause for which the assembly is made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not sure what you mean.
> 
> Here is the express law:
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> There is no such Thing as any form of Militia of One.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how do you remove a tyrant who controls the firearms or military?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In Daniel's world you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right wing fantasy is all right wingers have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just answer the question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such Thing as a Militia of One under our Constitutional form of Government.
Click to expand...


Nonsense.
Almost every state constitution has the definition of its militia, as being every able bodied male.

For example, this is from the Constitution of the State of Virginia.
{...
*§ 44-1. Composition of militia.*
The militia of the Commonwealth of Virginia shall consist of all able-bodied residents of the Commonwealth who are citizens of the United States and all other able-bodied persons resident in the Commonwealth who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, who are at least 16 years of age and, except as hereinafter provided, not more than 55 years of age. The militia shall be divided into three classes: the National Guard, which includes the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard; the Virginia Defense Force; and the unorganized militia.

...}





						Title 44. Military and Emergency Laws
					






					law.lis.virginia.gov


----------



## frigidweirdo

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such thing as a collective right that is independent of an individual right.
> 
> You are very confused.
> 
> Who has a right to assemble?  Is that a right held individually or by a group?
> 
> You don't know the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is if you understand the context.  Our Second Amendment is not about Individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can one person peaceably assemble?  Who would that person assemble with if not another person who desired to peaceably assemble with that person?
> 
> It takes two (or more) to peaceably assemble...and it takes a specific cause for which the assembly is made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not sure what you mean.
> 
> Here is the express law:
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> There is no such Thing as any form of Militia of One.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how do you remove a tyrant who controls the firearms or military?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In Daniel's world you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right wing fantasy is all right wingers have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just answer the question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such Thing as a Militia of One under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> Almost every state constitution has the definition of its militia, as being every able bodied male.
> 
> For example, this is from the Constitution of the State of Virginia.
> {...
> *§ 44-1. Composition of militia.*
> The militia of the Commonwealth of Virginia shall consist of all able-bodied residents of the Commonwealth who are citizens of the United States and all other able-bodied persons resident in the Commonwealth who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, who are at least 16 years of age and, except as hereinafter provided, not more than 55 years of age. The militia shall be divided into three classes: the National Guard, which includes the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard; the Virginia Defense Force; and the unorganized militia.
> 
> ...}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Title 44. Military and Emergency Laws
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> law.lis.virginia.gov
Click to expand...


Well, the militia of the US is every able bodied male, more or less, it's the "unorganized militia" as created by the Dick Act. 

Designed to stop people demanding to be in the National Guard. Because the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia!


----------



## Rigby5

Lesh said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, there is.   A militia, especially in the time our constitution was written, was individuals who would answer a call to arms.    Not a call to collect their gov't firearms.  But a call to bring their own firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a sovereign right of a State not individuals:
> 
> A well regulated _Militia_, being _necessary_ to the security of a free _State_, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed? That's right, the people, NOT the militia, the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia is declared Necessary not optional to the security of a free State.   It really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for posting the full Amendment.
> 
> Note that it points out the reason it exists "A* Well Regulated Militia *being necessary to the security of a free state..."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I posted instructions for danielpalos to learn about commas, I mistakenly presumed that you would learn from it too.  Apparently, neither of you could learn from that one, how about this one?
> 
> Are you really so ignorant about punctuation in the English language or are you pretending to be ignorant?  How can we tell?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did someone tell you that a comma negates what comes before it?
> 
> That clause is there for a reason. It tells you WHY the entire sentence exists
Click to expand...


You have forgotten your laws of logic and reasoning.
A single reason for something to be true does not imply there are not others.
If A then B does not imply Not A then Not B.
There can also be if C then B, and C can be true even though A is false.


----------



## hadit

Lesh said:


> Course there is no militia anymore so...


The Constitutional requirement, though, is that a militia is necessary, and the people need to be armed so it can be formed.


----------



## hadit

Lesh said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then operative words are KEEP and BEAR. To have the right to KEEP, means they shall not be taken away. To BEAR means to carry on one's person, which means they can't be taken away.
> 
> 
> 
> And the word "Militia" is the reason for the Amendment
Click to expand...

Right, which means that the militia is necessary, which in turn means that that people have to be armed so the militia can be formed if it's needed.


----------



## Lesh

hadit said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Course there is no militia anymore so...
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitutional requirement, though, is that a militia is necessary, and the people need to be armed so it can be formed.
Click to expand...

The idea that we have a militia is as outdated as slavery...which is also codified in the Constitution


----------



## Lesh

Rigby5 said:


> A single reason for something to be true does not imply there are not others.


"Other" reasons are NOT in the Constitution. Only a "need" for a militia...which no longer exists.

And if it did it would only "protect" that right for males 17-45 excepting Federal workers (and others)


----------



## hadit

Lesh said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Course there is no militia anymore so...
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitutional requirement, though, is that a militia is necessary, and the people need to be armed so it can be formed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The idea that we have a militia is as outdated as slavery...which is also codified in the Constitution
Click to expand...

The Constitution was amended to outlaw slavery. It has not been amended to outlaw the militia. That's the difference.


----------



## hadit

Lesh said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A single reason for something to be true does not imply there are not others.
> 
> 
> 
> "Other" reasons are NOT in the Constitution. Only a "need" for a militia...which no longer exists.
> 
> And if it did it would only "protect" that right for males 17-45 excepting Federal workers (and others)
Click to expand...

It is necessary, though, that we be able to form it if we need it, and the people need to be armed so we can. Look, if you don't like the Constitution the way it's written, amend it.


----------



## Lesh

Again (because you ignored it) the Dick Amendment codified the militia as ONLY protecting gun rights for males 17-45 excepting government workers and numerous others.

Anyone else is subject to state and local laws.

You wanna go that way?

Scalia didn't so he rewrote the whole mess in Heller. He knew that was a losing argument so he decoupled the militia from the 2A


----------



## Lesh

The fact that we regulate machine guns (because of their danger to the public) means that we CAN regulate assault weapons as well for the same reason despite their "need" by the militia (which is a fantasy at this point}.


----------



## danielpalos

Markle said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 479370
> 
> How are terrorist militias considered "well regulated"?  Who "regulates" them?  How are they "necessary to the security of a free state"?  We know who regulates the military and National Guard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American militia movement - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really are desperate, aren't you?  Terrorist militias?  Are you serious?
> 
> Obviously, like your good friend or sock Lesh, you believed that English grammar in school was a waste of good time.  Allow me to help you both.  Isn't it great that our Founding Fathers were NOT ignorant about punctuation?
Click to expand...

Show us where is says you can use a comma to ignore any clause.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> According to Collectivists, there should not be an individual 4th Amendment right.
> 
> "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
> 
> No person has an individual right to be secure in his/her person/papers, etc.  It's only the the right of the people.  Therefore, Government can search and seize without Warrant any individual, but not a collective group of people.
> 
> Right?
> 
> (yes.  your argument is that stupid)



Our Constitution is express not implied in any way.  That means, context means everything.  There are no Individual or singular terms used in our Second Amendment and the whole and entire People are the militia.  You are either, well regulated and necessary or unorganized and subject to the Traditional police power of a State. 

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, there is.   A militia, especially in the time our constitution was written, was individuals who would answer a call to arms.    Not a call to collect their gov't firearms.  But a call to bring their own firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a sovereign right of a State not individuals:
> 
> A well regulated _Militia_, being _necessary_ to the security of a free _State_, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed? That's right, the people, NOT the militia, the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia is declared Necessary not optional to the security of a free State.   It really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is declared protected and shall not be infringed.
> 
> It's even more simple.
Click to expand...

Yes, the People who are a well regulated militia who keep and bear Arms for the security of their State or the Union.


----------



## danielpalos

Concerned American said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, there is.   A militia, especially in the time our constitution was written, was individuals who would answer a call to arms.    Not a call to collect their gov't firearms.  But a call to bring their own firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a sovereign right of a State not individuals:
> 
> A well regulated _Militia_, being _necessary_ to the security of a free _State_, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed? That's right, the people, NOT the militia, the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia is declared Necessary not optional to the security of a free State.   It really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it is. It also doesn't eliminate the protection of the individual's right to bear arms. That also is simple. Individuals need to have arms so we can call up a militia if necessary, and the operative part of that is *Individuals need to have arms*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You guys are pissing up a wet rope with this one.  He is an idiotic troll who is playing you.  He will run you around with circular arguments until you are blue in the face.
Click to expand...

Right wingers are just plain full of fallacy and must be Trolls and not know it.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lesh said:


> Again (because you ignored it) the Dick Amendment codified the militia as ONLY protecting gun rights for males 17-45 excepting government workers and numerous others.
> 
> Anyone else is subject to state and local laws.
> 
> You wanna go that way?
> 
> Scalia didn't so he rewrote the whole mess in Heller. He knew that was a losing argument so he decoupled the militia from the 2A


Statute cannot modify the constitution.

All that did was provide for a part-time army, not create a militia, which was to remain separate from government.

Why would a militia need to be separate from its government? What could the founders possibly have foreseen?

I don't know, maybe that we/they would have to fight another revolution in the future if the did not keep them separate? Like the war they just fought? Against their previous government?

You truly are a stupid motherfucker if you don't see that. You have no understanding of history.


----------



## danielpalos

Markle said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such thing as a collective right that is independent of an individual right.
> 
> You are very confused.
> 
> Who has a right to assemble?  Is that a right held individually or by a group?
> 
> You don't know the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is if you understand the context.  Our Second Amendment is not about Individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You simply demand to remain ignorant, don't you?  Why?
Click to expand...

Show us where it states you can ignore the first clause of the law.


----------



## danielpalos

Markle said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, there is.   A militia, especially in the time our constitution was written, was individuals who would answer a call to arms.    Not a call to collect their gov't firearms.  But a call to bring their own firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a sovereign right of a State not individuals:
> 
> A well regulated _Militia_, being _necessary_ to the security of a free _State_, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed? That's right, the people, NOT the militia, the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia is declared Necessary not optional to the security of a free State.   It really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; only the unorganized militia complain about gun control laws meant for Individuals who are specifically not well regulated militia. 

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)


----------



## danielpalos

asaratis said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, there is.   A militia, especially in the time our constitution was written, was individuals who would answer a call to arms.    Not a call to collect their gov't firearms.  But a call to bring their own firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a sovereign right of a State not individuals:
> 
> A well regulated _Militia_, being _necessary_ to the security of a free _State_, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But the individuals have to be in possession of their own firearms in order to bring them to muster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to *keep* and* bear* Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Keep and bear is not the same as private ownership.
> 
> From Article 1, Section 8 of our federal Constitution:
> 
> To provide for organizing, _arming_, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then operative words are KEEP and BEAR.  To have the right to KEEP, means they shall not be taken away.  To BEAR means to carry on one's person, which means they can't be taken away.
> 
> Think about it for a month or so.  Then get back to me.
Click to expand...

You have no idea what you are talking about.  

_To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;_

GI's are generally issued their weapons upon weapons qualification, for the during of the security need.


----------



## danielpalos

asaratis said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such thing as a collective right that is independent of an individual right.
> 
> You are very confused.
> 
> Who has a right to assemble?  Is that a right held individually or by a group?
> 
> You don't know the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is if you understand the context.  Our Second Amendment is not about Individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can one person peaceably assemble?  Who would that person assemble with if not another person who desired to peaceably assemble with that person?
> 
> It takes two (or more) to peaceably assemble...and it takes a specific cause for which the assembly is made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But, each individual has an independent right to assemble.
> 
> ALL RIGHTS held collectively are also held individually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An individual's right to assemble (with others) means nothing if nobody else wants to assemble with that individual.
Click to expand...

There is no such Thing as a Militia of One under our Constitutional form of Government.


----------



## danielpalos

Oddball said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, there is.   A militia, especially in the time our constitution was written, was individuals who would answer a call to arms.    Not a call to collect their gov't firearms.  But a call to bring their own firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a sovereign right of a State not individuals:
> 
> A well regulated _Militia_, being _necessary_ to the security of a free _State_, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed? That's right, the people, NOT the militia, the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia is declared Necessary not optional to the security of a free State.   It really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for posting the full Amendment.
> 
> Note that it points out the reason it exists "A* Well Regulated Militia *being necessary to the security of a free state..."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's chart that out, for the English language illiterate......
> 
> View attachment 479640
Click to expand...

It proves your reading comprehension sucks.   There are no Individual terms in our Second Amendment and the whole and entire People are the Militia. 

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such thing as a collective right that is independent of an individual right.
> 
> You are very confused.
> 
> Who has a right to assemble?  Is that a right held individually or by a group?
> 
> You don't know the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is if you understand the context.  Our Second Amendment is not about Individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can one person peaceably assemble?  Who would that person assemble with if not another person who desired to peaceably assemble with that person?
> 
> It takes two (or more) to peaceably assemble...and it takes a specific cause for which the assembly is made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not sure what you mean.
> 
> Here is the express law:
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> There is no such Thing as any form of Militia of One.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still waiting for a collectivist to insist the right to free speech only applies if you're a member of a licensed, trained and government approved protest group. You know, to be consistent and all about who the people are.
Click to expand...

Where does it say well regulated militia are necessary in any other amendment?


----------



## danielpalos

asaratis said:


> If a rouge US governing body decides to do away with the Constitution, the people have the right to defend it, form their own well regulated militia and shoot back.  To do this they need the firearms that are guaranteed to be available to them. That is exactly how we got out from under British rulers.  We were armed.
> 
> Go to school, little one.
> 
> You're trying, but failing.  Your logic is non-existent.  Go to school.


Isn't right wing fantasy wonderful.  We have fifty State governments to deal with it,


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, there is.   A militia, especially in the time our constitution was written, was individuals who would answer a call to arms.    Not a call to collect their gov't firearms.  But a call to bring their own firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a sovereign right of a State not individuals:
> 
> A well regulated _Militia_, being _necessary_ to the security of a free _State_, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed? That's right, the people, NOT the militia, the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia is declared Necessary not optional to the security of a free State.   It really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for posting the full Amendment.
> 
> Note that it points out the reason it exists "A* Well Regulated Militia *being necessary to the security of a free state..."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's chart that out, for the English language illiterate......
> 
> View attachment 479640
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It proves your reading comprehension sucks.   There are no Individual terms in our Second Amendment and the whole and entire People are the Militia.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
Click to expand...

The First Amendment also has no individual terms, yet you believe it protects your individual right to free speech. Or are you going to argue you only have free speech as part of a licensed, trained and government approved protest organization?


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such thing as a collective right that is independent of an individual right.
> 
> You are very confused.
> 
> Who has a right to assemble?  Is that a right held individually or by a group?
> 
> You don't know the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is if you understand the context.  Our Second Amendment is not about Individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can one person peaceably assemble?  Who would that person assemble with if not another person who desired to peaceably assemble with that person?
> 
> It takes two (or more) to peaceably assemble...and it takes a specific cause for which the assembly is made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not sure what you mean.
> 
> Here is the express law:
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> There is no such Thing as any form of Militia of One.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Daniel,
> 
> 1. Has any nation with a well armed populace fallen to a tyrant?
> 2. Do tyrants typically reveal themselves as tyrants before or after they disarm the populace?
Click to expand...

All you have is a fallacy of false cause. 

_To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;_


----------



## danielpalos

asaratis said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such thing as a collective right that is independent of an individual right.
> 
> You are very confused.
> 
> Who has a right to assemble?  Is that a right held individually or by a group?
> 
> You don't know the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is if you understand the context.  Our Second Amendment is not about Individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can one person peaceably assemble?  Who would that person assemble with if not another person who desired to peaceably assemble with that person?
> 
> It takes two (or more) to peaceably assemble...and it takes a specific cause for which the assembly is made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But, each individual has an independent right to assemble.
> 
> ALL RIGHTS held collectively are also held individually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a States' right not an Individual right:
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Go to school.
Click to expand...

You first.   I resort to the fewest fallacies.  All y'all have is nothing but fallacy.  Isn't right wing fantasy wonderful for right wingers.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such thing as a collective right that is independent of an individual right.
> 
> You are very confused.
> 
> Who has a right to assemble?  Is that a right held individually or by a group?
> 
> You don't know the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is if you understand the context.  Our Second Amendment is not about Individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can one person peaceably assemble?  Who would that person assemble with if not another person who desired to peaceably assemble with that person?
> 
> It takes two (or more) to peaceably assemble...and it takes a specific cause for which the assembly is made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not sure what you mean.
> 
> Here is the express law:
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> There is no such Thing as any form of Militia of One.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still waiting for a collectivist to insist the right to free speech only applies if you're a member of a licensed, trained and government approved protest group. You know, to be consistent and all about who the people are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where does it say well regulated militia are necessary in any other amendment?
Click to expand...

You tell me. Are the "people" in the First Amendment the same as the "people" in the Second? If they are, why do you insist it means individuals in the First and a group in the Second?


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such thing as a collective right that is independent of an individual right.
> 
> You are very confused.
> 
> Who has a right to assemble?  Is that a right held individually or by a group?
> 
> You don't know the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is if you understand the context.  Our Second Amendment is not about Individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can one person peaceably assemble?  Who would that person assemble with if not another person who desired to peaceably assemble with that person?
> 
> It takes two (or more) to peaceably assemble...and it takes a specific cause for which the assembly is made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not sure what you mean.
> 
> Here is the express law:
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> There is no such Thing as any form of Militia of One.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Daniel,
> 
> 1. Has any nation with a well armed populace fallen to a tyrant?
> 2. Do tyrants typically reveal themselves as tyrants before or after they disarm the populace?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All you have is a fallacy of false cause.
> 
> _To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;_
Click to expand...

You didn't answer the questions, did you?


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> I'm afraid he'd just argue with the teacher and insist that everyone in the history of America that ever studied the Constitution is wrong, that he's right and that he wins all the arguments.


Only right wingers are always wrong but want to be taken as seriously as if they were Right instead of merely on the right wing.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm afraid he'd just argue with the teacher and insist that everyone in the history of America that ever studied the Constitution is wrong, that he's right and that he wins all the arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> Only right wingers are always wrong but want to be taken as seriously as if they were Right instead of merely on the right wing.
Click to expand...

And yet you dogmatically insist that you are always right and win every argument, even when the entire legal profession disagrees with you.


----------



## danielpalos

Lesh said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then operative words are KEEP and BEAR. To have the right to KEEP, means they shall not be taken away. To BEAR means to carry on one's person, which means they can't be taken away.
> 
> 
> 
> And the word "Militia" is the reason for the Amendment
Click to expand...

Yes, there is no appeal to ignorance of the terms employed in our Second Amendment. A well regulated militia is a States' sovereign right and authority to draft their own militia from the body of the People.


----------



## danielpalos

Markle said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, there is.   A militia, especially in the time our constitution was written, was individuals who would answer a call to arms.    Not a call to collect their gov't firearms.  But a call to bring their own firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a sovereign right of a State not individuals:
> 
> A well regulated _Militia_, being _necessary_ to the security of a free _State_, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed? That's right, the people, NOT the militia, the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia is declared Necessary not optional to the security of a free State.   It really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for posting the full Amendment.
> 
> Note that it points out the reason it exists "A* Well Regulated Militia *being necessary to the security of a free state..."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I posted instructions for danielpalos to learn about commas, I mistakenly presumed that you would learn from it too.  Apparently, neither of you could learn from that one, how about this one?
> 
> Are you really so ignorant about punctuation in the English language or are you pretending to be ignorant?  How can we tell?
Click to expand...

Show us where it says you can use a comma to appeal to ignorance of any terms.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then operative words are KEEP and BEAR. To have the right to KEEP, means they shall not be taken away. To BEAR means to carry on one's person, which means they can't be taken away.
> 
> 
> 
> And the word "Militia" is the reason for the Amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, there is no appeal to ignorance of the terms employed in our Second Amendment. A well regulated militia is a States' sovereign right and authority to draft their own militia from the body of the People.
Click to expand...

The bottom line remains, then, that the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> "People" is made up of individuals.  A "Militia" may be necessary, but the people (and each person) retains the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> You are a fool to tie it to the Militia.  It was a preexisting individual right.  The 2A take authority away from the Federal Government.



There are no individual terms used in our Second Amendment.  And, the People are the Militia.  There is no such Thing as well regulated militia of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government. 

Texas Statute
431.010. Organization Prohibited
(a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), a body of persons other than the regularly organized state military forces or the troops of the United States may not associate as a military company or organization or parade in public with firearms in a municipality of the state.

(b) With the consent of the governor, students in an educational institution at which military science is a prescribed part of the course of instruction and soldiers honorably discharged from the service of the United States may drill and parade with firearms in public.

(c) This section does not prevent a parade by the active militia of another state as provided by law.


----------



## danielpalos

WinterBorn said:


> Says who?   Show me a single constitutional requirements for the number of people it takes to form a militia.


Says the guy who resorts to the fewest fallacies and knows when right wingers have nothing but fallacy.



> *431.010. Organization Prohibited*
> (a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), a body of persons other than the regularly organized state military forces or the troops of the United States may not associate as a military company or organization or parade in public with firearms in a municipality of the state.
> (b) With the consent of the governor, students in an educational institution at which military science is a prescribed part of the course of instruction and soldiers honorably discharged from the service of the United States may drill and parade with firearms in public.
> (c) This section does not prevent a parade by the active militia of another state as provided by law.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such thing as a collective right that is independent of an individual right.
> 
> You are very confused.
> 
> Who has a right to assemble?  Is that a right held individually or by a group?
> 
> You don't know the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is if you understand the context.  Our Second Amendment is not about Individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can one person peaceably assemble?  Who would that person assemble with if not another person who desired to peaceably assemble with that person?
> 
> It takes two (or more) to peaceably assemble...and it takes a specific cause for which the assembly is made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not sure what you mean.
> 
> Here is the express law:
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> There is no such Thing as any form of Militia of One.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how do you remove a tyrant who controls the firearms or military?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In Daniel's world you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right wing fantasy is all right wingers have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just answer the question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such Thing as a Militia of One under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> Almost every state constitution has the definition of its militia, as being every able bodied male.
> 
> For example, this is from the Constitution of the State of Virginia.
> {...
> *§ 44-1. Composition of militia.*
> The militia of the Commonwealth of Virginia shall consist of all able-bodied residents of the Commonwealth who are citizens of the United States and all other able-bodied persons resident in the Commonwealth who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, who are at least 16 years of age and, except as hereinafter provided, not more than 55 years of age. The militia shall be divided into three classes: the National Guard, which includes the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard; the Virginia Defense Force; and the unorganized militia.
> 
> ...}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Title 44. Military and Emergency Laws
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> law.lis.virginia.gov
Click to expand...

So what.  

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

Where are the Individuals unconnected with a requirement for militia service?  You are either well regulated or unorganized.  Our Second Amendment clearly enumerates well regulated militia not the unorganized militia as individuals.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then operative words are KEEP and BEAR. To have the right to KEEP, means they shall not be taken away. To BEAR means to carry on one's person, which means they can't be taken away.
> 
> 
> 
> And the word "Militia" is the reason for the Amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right, which means that the militia is necessary, which in turn means that that people have to be armed so the militia can be formed if it's needed.
Click to expand...


_To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;_


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> "People" is made up of individuals.  A "Militia" may be necessary, but the people (and each person) retains the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> You are a fool to tie it to the Militia.  It was a preexisting individual right.  The 2A take authority away from the Federal Government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no individual terms used in our Second Amendment.  And, the People are the Militia.  There is no such Thing as well regulated militia of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Texas Statute
> 431.010. Organization Prohibited
> (a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), a body of persons other than the regularly organized state military forces or the troops of the United States may not associate as a military company or organization or parade in public with firearms in a municipality of the state.
> 
> (b) With the consent of the governor, students in an educational institution at which military science is a prescribed part of the course of instruction and soldiers honorably discharged from the service of the United States may drill and parade with firearms in public.
> 
> (c) This section does not prevent a parade by the active militia of another state as provided by law.
Click to expand...

There are no individual terms used in the First Amendment either, yet you claim you have an individual right to free speech. Or are you going to insist you only have free speech in the context of a licensed, regulated and government approved protest group?


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> The First Amendment also has no individual terms, yet you believe it protects your individual right to free speech. Or are you going to argue you only have free speech as part of a licensed, trained and government approved protest organization?


Yes, the context is very clear and includes no terms regarding what is necessary to the security of a free State.   And, you ignore this fact under the common law. 

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then operative words are KEEP and BEAR. To have the right to KEEP, means they shall not be taken away. To BEAR means to carry on one's person, which means they can't be taken away.
> 
> 
> 
> And the word "Militia" is the reason for the Amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right, which means that the militia is necessary, which in turn means that that people have to be armed so the militia can be formed if it's needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;_
Click to expand...

Which means that the government should be providing the arms people have the right to keep.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter, the 2nd specifically provides for the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms, not the militia, not the state, the PEOPLE
> 
> 
> 
> Yea...we're not talking about a militia made up of farm anaimals
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> That means that people have to be allowed to have firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In order to be part of a militia...which no longer exists
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, how DO you remove a tyrant who controls the firearms and the military if you have no weapons at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You'll note that Article 1 Section 8 Clause 15 (16?) describes the USE of that militia to put DOWN the type of insurrection you claim the 2A promotes.
> 
> And in fact it was used to do just that in Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. Interesting. A plain reading of what you wrote reveals that you are claiming Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion were attempts to remove a tyrant. Which tyrant would that have been?
> 2. Yes, a militia is made up of PEOPLE, and it is PEOPLE who have the right to bear arms, NOT the militia and NOT the state, but the PEOPLE.
> 3. The right does not expire because there are no militias around right now. In fact, the right needs to be protected so if we should ever need to call up a militia, we could. Your argument falls flat on that one.
Click to expand...

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment also has no individual terms, yet you believe it protects your individual right to free speech. Or are you going to argue you only have free speech as part of a licensed, trained and government approved protest organization?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the context is very clear and includes no terms regarding what is necessary to the security of a free State.   And, you ignore this fact under the common law.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
Click to expand...

And "the people" have the right to bear arms. Not the militia and not the state, the people. And why aren't you putting the name of the protest organization you belong to in your posts?


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter, the 2nd specifically provides for the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms, not the militia, not the state, the PEOPLE
> 
> 
> 
> Yea...we're not talking about a militia made up of farm anaimals
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> That means that people have to be allowed to have firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In order to be part of a militia...which no longer exists
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, how DO you remove a tyrant who controls the firearms and the military if you have no weapons at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You'll note that Article 1 Section 8 Clause 15 (16?) describes the USE of that militia to put DOWN the type of insurrection you claim the 2A promotes.
> 
> And in fact it was used to do just that in Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. Interesting. A plain reading of what you wrote reveals that you are claiming Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion were attempts to remove a tyrant. Which tyrant would that have been?
> 2. Yes, a militia is made up of PEOPLE, and it is PEOPLE who have the right to bear arms, NOT the militia and NOT the state, but the PEOPLE.
> 3. The right does not expire because there are no militias around right now. In fact, the right needs to be protected so if we should ever need to call up a militia, we could. Your argument falls flat on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
Click to expand...

You're saying the same thing I am, which is that people have the right to bear arms. You do that when you say the militia is the people.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such thing as a collective right that is independent of an individual right.
> 
> You are very confused.
> 
> Who has a right to assemble?  Is that a right held individually or by a group?
> 
> You don't know the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is if you understand the context.  Our Second Amendment is not about Individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can one person peaceably assemble?  Who would that person assemble with if not another person who desired to peaceably assemble with that person?
> 
> It takes two (or more) to peaceably assemble...and it takes a specific cause for which the assembly is made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not sure what you mean.
> 
> Here is the express law:
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> There is no such Thing as any form of Militia of One.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still waiting for a collectivist to insist the right to free speech only applies if you're a member of a licensed, trained and government approved protest group. You know, to be consistent and all about who the people are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where does it say well regulated militia are necessary in any other amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You tell me. Are the "people" in the First Amendment the same as the "people" in the Second? If they are, why do you insist it means individuals in the First and a group in the Second?
Click to expand...

Context is everything.  Our Second Amendment clearly expresses what is Necessary to the security of a free State not free individuals of the People.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm afraid he'd just argue with the teacher and insist that everyone in the history of America that ever studied the Constitution is wrong, that he's right and that he wins all the arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> Only right wingers are always wrong but want to be taken as seriously as if they were Right instead of merely on the right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet you dogmatically insist that you are always right and win every argument, even when the entire legal profession disagrees with you.
Click to expand...

I resort to the fewest fallacies.   And, simply Because You claim it doesn't mean it is based on fact, logic, or reason.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then operative words are KEEP and BEAR. To have the right to KEEP, means they shall not be taken away. To BEAR means to carry on one's person, which means they can't be taken away.
> 
> 
> 
> And the word "Militia" is the reason for the Amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, there is no appeal to ignorance of the terms employed in our Second Amendment. A well regulated militia is a States' sovereign right and authority to draft their own militia from the body of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The bottom line remains, then, that the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...

That means lgbtq individuals of the people may not be denied and disparaged when the security of our free States or the Union requires it.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> "People" is made up of individuals.  A "Militia" may be necessary, but the people (and each person) retains the right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> You are a fool to tie it to the Militia.  It was a preexisting individual right.  The 2A take authority away from the Federal Government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no individual terms used in our Second Amendment.  And, the People are the Militia.  There is no such Thing as well regulated militia of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Texas Statute
> 431.010. Organization Prohibited
> (a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), a body of persons other than the regularly organized state military forces or the troops of the United States may not associate as a military company or organization or parade in public with firearms in a municipality of the state.
> 
> (b) With the consent of the governor, students in an educational institution at which military science is a prescribed part of the course of instruction and soldiers honorably discharged from the service of the United States may drill and parade with firearms in public.
> 
> (c) This section does not prevent a parade by the active militia of another state as provided by law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no individual terms used in the First Amendment either, yet you claim you have an individual right to free speech. Or are you going to insist you only have free speech in the context of a licensed, regulated and government approved protest group?
Click to expand...

Context means everything; along with an already established understanding of the law. 

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."


And why would the militia exclude "public officials" aka GOVERNMENT?


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then operative words are KEEP and BEAR. To have the right to KEEP, means they shall not be taken away. To BEAR means to carry on one's person, which means they can't be taken away.
> 
> 
> 
> And the word "Militia" is the reason for the Amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right, which means that the militia is necessary, which in turn means that that people have to be armed so the militia can be formed if it's needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which means that the government should be providing the arms people have the right to keep.
Click to expand...

They do have a right to keep and bear Arms when necessary for the security of our free States or the Union.  Otherwise, the Traditional police power of a State applies. 

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment also has no individual terms, yet you believe it protects your individual right to free speech. Or are you going to argue you only have free speech as part of a licensed, trained and government approved protest organization?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the context is very clear and includes no terms regarding what is necessary to the security of a free State.   And, you ignore this fact under the common law.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And "the people" have the right to bear arms. Not the militia and not the state, the people. And why aren't you putting the name of the protest organization you belong to in your posts?
Click to expand...


The People are the Militia.  Only right wingers, never get it.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter, the 2nd specifically provides for the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms, not the militia, not the state, the PEOPLE
> 
> 
> 
> Yea...we're not talking about a militia made up of farm anaimals
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> That means that people have to be allowed to have firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In order to be part of a militia...which no longer exists
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, how DO you remove a tyrant who controls the firearms and the military if you have no weapons at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You'll note that Article 1 Section 8 Clause 15 (16?) describes the USE of that militia to put DOWN the type of insurrection you claim the 2A promotes.
> 
> And in fact it was used to do just that in Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. Interesting. A plain reading of what you wrote reveals that you are claiming Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion were attempts to remove a tyrant. Which tyrant would that have been?
> 2. Yes, a militia is made up of PEOPLE, and it is PEOPLE who have the right to bear arms, NOT the militia and NOT the state, but the PEOPLE.
> 3. The right does not expire because there are no militias around right now. In fact, the right needs to be protected so if we should ever need to call up a militia, we could. Your argument falls flat on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're saying the same thing I am, which is that people have the right to bear arms. You do that when you say the militia is the people.
Click to expand...

Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for the security needs of their State or the Union.  Otherwise, you are subject to the traditional police power of a State.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such thing as a collective right that is independent of an individual right.
> 
> You are very confused.
> 
> Who has a right to assemble?  Is that a right held individually or by a group?
> 
> You don't know the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is if you understand the context.  Our Second Amendment is not about Individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can one person peaceably assemble?  Who would that person assemble with if not another person who desired to peaceably assemble with that person?
> 
> It takes two (or more) to peaceably assemble...and it takes a specific cause for which the assembly is made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not sure what you mean.
> 
> Here is the express law:
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> There is no such Thing as any form of Militia of One.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still waiting for a collectivist to insist the right to free speech only applies if you're a member of a licensed, trained and government approved protest group. You know, to be consistent and all about who the people are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where does it say well regulated militia are necessary in any other amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You tell me. Are the "people" in the First Amendment the same as the "people" in the Second? If they are, why do you insist it means individuals in the First and a group in the Second?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Context is everything.  Our Second Amendment clearly expresses what is Necessary to the security of a free State not free individuals of the People.
Click to expand...

What is necessary is for individuals to bear arms.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm afraid he'd just argue with the teacher and insist that everyone in the history of America that ever studied the Constitution is wrong, that he's right and that he wins all the arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> Only right wingers are always wrong but want to be taken as seriously as if they were Right instead of merely on the right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet you dogmatically insist that you are always right and win every argument, even when the entire legal profession disagrees with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I resort to the fewest fallacies.   And, simply Because You claim it doesn't mean it is based on fact, logic, or reason.
Click to expand...

Except we show through fact, logic AND reason where you are wrong and you dogmatically continue to insist you're right, even though no legal scholar agrees with your interpretations. In short, you do NOT "resort to the fewest fallacies".


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter, the 2nd specifically provides for the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms, not the militia, not the state, the PEOPLE
> 
> 
> 
> Yea...we're not talking about a militia made up of farm anaimals
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> That means that people have to be allowed to have firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In order to be part of a militia...which no longer exists
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel, how DO you remove a tyrant who controls the firearms and the military if you have no weapons at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You'll note that Article 1 Section 8 Clause 15 (16?) describes the USE of that militia to put DOWN the type of insurrection you claim the 2A promotes.
> 
> And in fact it was used to do just that in Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. Interesting. A plain reading of what you wrote reveals that you are claiming Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion were attempts to remove a tyrant. Which tyrant would that have been?
> 2. Yes, a militia is made up of PEOPLE, and it is PEOPLE who have the right to bear arms, NOT the militia and NOT the state, but the PEOPLE.
> 3. The right does not expire because there are no militias around right now. In fact, the right needs to be protected so if we should ever need to call up a militia, we could. Your argument falls flat on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're saying the same thing I am, which is that people have the right to bear arms. You do that when you say the militia is the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for the security needs of their State or the Union.  Otherwise, you are subject to the traditional police power of a State.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
Click to expand...

Your first statement is your unsubstantiated opinion. Your second one applies only to Illinois, so why do you keep quoting it as if it applies to the US Constitution? Ultimately, people have to be able to bear arms, not militias and not the state, the people.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment also has no individual terms, yet you believe it protects your individual right to free speech. Or are you going to argue you only have free speech as part of a licensed, trained and government approved protest organization?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the context is very clear and includes no terms regarding what is necessary to the security of a free State.   And, you ignore this fact under the common law.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And "the people" have the right to bear arms. Not the militia and not the state, the people. And why aren't you putting the name of the protest organization you belong to in your posts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia.  Only right wingers, never get it.
Click to expand...

Say it right, the militia is the people. The people have the right to bear arms, not the militia.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then operative words are KEEP and BEAR. To have the right to KEEP, means they shall not be taken away. To BEAR means to carry on one's person, which means they can't be taken away.
> 
> 
> 
> And the word "Militia" is the reason for the Amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right, which means that the militia is necessary, which in turn means that that people have to be armed so the militia can be formed if it's needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which means that the government should be providing the arms people have the right to keep.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They do have a right to keep and bear Arms when necessary for the security of our free States or the Union.  Otherwise, the Traditional police power of a State applies.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
Click to expand...

You're turning an explanatory clause into a command clause. The militia is but one reason why the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, but it's not the only one. Ultimately, what is protected? Say it, you know you can.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then operative words are KEEP and BEAR. To have the right to KEEP, means they shall not be taken away. To BEAR means to carry on one's person, which means they can't be taken away.
> 
> 
> 
> And the word "Militia" is the reason for the Amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, there is no appeal to ignorance of the terms employed in our Second Amendment. A well regulated militia is a States' sovereign right and authority to draft their own militia from the body of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The bottom line remains, then, that the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That means lgbtq individuals of the people may not be denied and disparaged when the security of our free States or the Union requires it.
Click to expand...

Who is saying they should be? You know I just caught you trying to divert again. Remember now, YOU brought sexual orientation into this, not me or anyone else, that's all on YOU.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

Lesh said:


> Course there is no militia anymore so...


Are you blind or dumb? There are now, and always have been in America, many many militias units. In addition they can form quickly as long as people have arms which is a primary virtue.


----------



## Cecilie1200

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such thing as a collective right that is independent of an individual right.
> 
> You are very confused.
> 
> Who has a right to assemble?  Is that a right held individually or by a group?
> 
> You don't know the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is if you understand the context.  Our Second Amendment is not about Individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can one person peaceably assemble?  Who would that person assemble with if not another person who desired to peaceably assemble with that person?
> 
> It takes two (or more) to peaceably assemble...and it takes a specific cause for which the assembly is made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not sure what you mean.
> 
> Here is the express law:
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> There is no such Thing as any form of Militia of One.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Daniel,
> 
> 1. Has any nation with a well armed populace fallen to a tyrant?
> 2. Do tyrants typically reveal themselves as tyrants before or after they disarm the populace?
Click to expand...


Appreciate you asking that for me, since I have his stupid butt on ignore.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> What is necessary is for individuals to bear arms.


To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment also has no individual terms, yet you believe it protects your individual right to free speech. Or are you going to argue you only have free speech as part of a licensed, trained and government approved protest organization?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the context is very clear and includes no terms regarding what is necessary to the security of a free State.   And, you ignore this fact under the common law.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And "the people" have the right to bear arms. Not the militia and not the state, the people. And why aren't you putting the name of the protest organization you belong to in your posts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia.  Only right wingers, never get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Say it right, the militia is the people. The people have the right to bear arms, not the militia.
Click to expand...

That makes so sense whatsoever.  The People are the militia.  Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for the security needs of their State or the Union. 

Criminals of the People do not have a right to keep and bear Arms.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then operative words are KEEP and BEAR. To have the right to KEEP, means they shall not be taken away. To BEAR means to carry on one's person, which means they can't be taken away.
> 
> 
> 
> And the word "Militia" is the reason for the Amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right, which means that the militia is necessary, which in turn means that that people have to be armed so the militia can be formed if it's needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which means that the government should be providing the arms people have the right to keep.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They do have a right to keep and bear Arms when necessary for the security of our free States or the Union.  Otherwise, the Traditional police power of a State applies.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're turning an explanatory clause into a command clause. The militia is but one reason why the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, but it's not the only one. Ultimately, what is protected? Say it, you know you can.
Click to expand...

The intent and purposes clause cannot be ignored without appealing to ignorance of the law.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then operative words are KEEP and BEAR. To have the right to KEEP, means they shall not be taken away. To BEAR means to carry on one's person, which means they can't be taken away.
> 
> 
> 
> And the word "Militia" is the reason for the Amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right, which means that the militia is necessary, which in turn means that that people have to be armed so the militia can be formed if it's needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which means that the government should be providing the arms people have the right to keep.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They do have a right to keep and bear Arms when necessary for the security of our free States or the Union.  Otherwise, the Traditional police power of a State applies.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're turning an explanatory clause into a command clause. The militia is but one reason why the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, but it's not the only one. Ultimately, what is protected? Say it, you know you can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The intent and purposes clause cannot be ignored without appealing to ignorance of the law.
Click to expand...

What makes you think it is being ignored?

Millions of citizens are armed and ready to defend the homeland.  

The operative clause cannot be ignored.  To do so is purpose without action.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then operative words are KEEP and BEAR. To have the right to KEEP, means they shall not be taken away. To BEAR means to carry on one's person, which means they can't be taken away.
> 
> 
> 
> And the word "Militia" is the reason for the Amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right, which means that the militia is necessary, which in turn means that that people have to be armed so the militia can be formed if it's needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which means that the government should be providing the arms people have the right to keep.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They do have a right to keep and bear Arms when necessary for the security of our free States or the Union.  Otherwise, the Traditional police power of a State applies.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're turning an explanatory clause into a command clause. The militia is but one reason why the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, but it's not the only one. Ultimately, what is protected? Say it, you know you can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The intent and purposes clause cannot be ignored without appealing to ignorance of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What makes you think it is being ignored?
> 
> Millions of citizens are armed and ready to defend the homeland.
> 
> The operative clause cannot be ignored.  To do so is purpose without action.
Click to expand...

Because all terms are collective and plural not individual or singular.  

And, the means must be sacrificed to the end and not the opposite.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Because all terms are collective and plural not individual or singular.


So, no individual has a right to be secure in his/her/its home from unreasonable searches?

All terms in the 4th Amendment are "collective" and plural.



Your collectivist argument falls to pieces every single time.

Look, if you don't like the 2A, AMEND.  Otherwise, deal with it.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then operative words are KEEP and BEAR. To have the right to KEEP, means they shall not be taken away. To BEAR means to carry on one's person, which means they can't be taken away.
> 
> 
> 
> And the word "Militia" is the reason for the Amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right, which means that the militia is necessary, which in turn means that that people have to be armed so the militia can be formed if it's needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which means that the government should be providing the arms people have the right to keep.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They do have a right to keep and bear Arms when necessary for the security of our free States or the Union.  Otherwise, the Traditional police power of a State applies.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're turning an explanatory clause into a command clause. The militia is but one reason why the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, but it's not the only one. Ultimately, what is protected? Say it, you know you can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The intent and purposes clause cannot be ignored without appealing to ignorance of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What makes you think it is being ignored?
> 
> Millions of citizens are armed and ready to defend the homeland.
> 
> The operative clause cannot be ignored.  To do so is purpose without action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because all terms are collective and plural not individual or singular.
> 
> And, the means must be sacrificed to the end and not the opposite.
Click to expand...

Thus you are only allowed free speech if you're part of a licensed, trained and government approved protest group. Which group are you part of?


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then operative words are KEEP and BEAR. To have the right to KEEP, means they shall not be taken away. To BEAR means to carry on one's person, which means they can't be taken away.
> 
> 
> 
> And the word "Militia" is the reason for the Amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right, which means that the militia is necessary, which in turn means that that people have to be armed so the militia can be formed if it's needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which means that the government should be providing the arms people have the right to keep.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They do have a right to keep and bear Arms when necessary for the security of our free States or the Union.  Otherwise, the Traditional police power of a State applies.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're turning an explanatory clause into a command clause. The militia is but one reason why the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, but it's not the only one. Ultimately, what is protected? Say it, you know you can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The intent and purposes clause cannot be ignored without appealing to ignorance of the law.
Click to expand...

No one's ignoring it. The people need to bear arms so the militia can be formed. And, based on what you keep posting, the government is supposed to arm the people for that purpose.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment also has no individual terms, yet you believe it protects your individual right to free speech. Or are you going to argue you only have free speech as part of a licensed, trained and government approved protest organization?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the context is very clear and includes no terms regarding what is necessary to the security of a free State.   And, you ignore this fact under the common law.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And "the people" have the right to bear arms. Not the militia and not the state, the people. And why aren't you putting the name of the protest organization you belong to in your posts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia.  Only right wingers, never get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Say it right, the militia is the people. The people have the right to bear arms, not the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That makes so sense whatsoever.  The People are the militia.  Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for the security needs of their State or the Union.
> 
> Criminals of the People do not have a right to keep and bear Arms.
Click to expand...

No, the militia is the people. The people need to be armed so the militia can be formed. The PEOPLE have the right to bear arms, not the militia.


----------



## Markle

Lesh said:


> The fact that we regulate machine guns (because of their danger to the public) means that we CAN regulate assault weapons as well for the same reason despite their "need" by the militia (which is a fantasy at this point}.



Except for the fact that the government has been incapable of describing an assault weapon.

For instance, what is the difference in these two weapons?


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is necessary is for individuals to bear arms.
> 
> 
> 
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...

There you are, the government owes me some weapons. Note that word you underlined.


----------



## hadit

Markle said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that we regulate machine guns (because of their danger to the public) means that we CAN regulate assault weapons as well for the same reason despite their "need" by the militia (which is a fantasy at this point}.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except for the fact that the government has been incapable of describing an assault weapon.
> 
> For instance, what is the difference in these two weapons?
Click to expand...

Liberals fear big and black, so any gun that's big and black will be an assault weapon they want to ban.


----------



## Markle

I'm having a hard time deciding who is the biggest Troll, danielpalos or Lesh.  I think they're in a contest with each other to the bottom of the pond.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment also has no individual terms, yet you believe it protects your individual right to free speech. Or are you going to argue you only have free speech as part of a licensed, trained and government approved protest organization?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the context is very clear and includes no terms regarding what is necessary to the security of a free State.   And, you ignore this fact under the common law.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And "the people" have the right to bear arms. Not the militia and not the state, the people. And why aren't you putting the name of the protest organization you belong to in your posts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia.  Only right wingers, never get it.
Click to expand...

So, the people have the right, not the militia?

Or does the militia have the right, and not the prople?

But, wait.....the people are the militia!!!  But the people are not individuals, so individuals don't get the right....just the people...

I am so confused!!!



Dan, your "logic" blows donkey ass.  To interpret things your way tortures the words and meanings.

*The plain language is clear. *

It's even more clear given the context and circumstances at the time it was ratified.

A militia is necessary, so the right of individuals (people) to obtain their own military arms, and keep those arms, and be ready to answer the call to arms, JUST LIKE THE MINUTE MEN AT THE TIME THE 2A WAS DRAFTED, shall not be infringed.

It is the only interpretation that makes sense.


----------



## asaratis

9500


----------



## Markle

danielpalos said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, there is.   A militia, especially in the time our constitution was written, was individuals who would answer a call to arms.    Not a call to collect their gov't firearms.  But a call to bring their own firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a sovereign right of a State not individuals:
> 
> A well regulated _Militia_, being _necessary_ to the security of a free _State_, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed? That's right, the people, NOT the militia, the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia is declared Necessary not optional to the security of a free State.   It really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for posting the full Amendment.
> 
> Note that it points out the reason it exists "A* Well Regulated Militia *being necessary to the security of a free state..."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I posted instructions for danielpalos to learn about commas, I mistakenly presumed that you would learn from it too.  Apparently, neither of you could learn from that one, how about this one?
> 
> Are you really so ignorant about punctuation in the English language or are you pretending to be ignorant?  How can we tell?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show us where it says you can use a comma to appeal to ignorance of any terms.
Click to expand...


Wow, you really did skip English grammar and punctuation.  Even more amusing is that you seem to relish boasting about your ignorance.  Well, whatever floats your boat!


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is necessary is for individuals to bear arms.
> 
> 
> 
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...


Incorrect.
A use of the militia for the defense of country or state does not at all imply that is the only use/need for militia.
Militia is also where villages get their posses from as well as individuals in defense from home invasion.

Your problem is the classic, if A then B logic, which you are trying to subvert by saying if not A, then not B, and that is an error.
The need for a federal or state militia is not the ONLY reasons why there was to be no federal infringement on weapons.
Besides A, there is C, D, E, etc.
A well armed and trained population is also necessary for defense of city, village, suburb, home, and each and every individual.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment also has no individual terms, yet you believe it protects your individual right to free speech. Or are you going to argue you only have free speech as part of a licensed, trained and government approved protest organization?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the context is very clear and includes no terms regarding what is necessary to the security of a free State.   And, you ignore this fact under the common law.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And "the people" have the right to bear arms. Not the militia and not the state, the people. And why aren't you putting the name of the protest organization you belong to in your posts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia.  Only right wingers, never get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Say it right, the militia is the people. The people have the right to bear arms, not the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That makes so sense whatsoever.  The People are the militia.  Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for the security needs of their State or the Union.
> 
> Criminals of the People do not have a right to keep and bear Arms.
Click to expand...


Wrong.
The only source of any legal authority comes from individual rights and the individual right of defense trumps any state or federal need for defense.

Of course criminals to have the right of defense so do have the right to bear arms.
The only reason we can disarm criminals is not because they do not have rights, but that the rights of others who may be threatened by criminals could be given higher priority.

But that is not the case in society.
Criminals are in prisons, and when they serve their sentence and are released, they no longer are criminals.
You can not legally create a multi tiered society with ex-criminals having fewer rights.
That is not legally possible.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment also has no individual terms, yet you believe it protects your individual right to free speech. Or are you going to argue you only have free speech as part of a licensed, trained and government approved protest organization?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the context is very clear and includes no terms regarding what is necessary to the security of a free State.   And, you ignore this fact under the common law.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And "the people" have the right to bear arms. Not the militia and not the state, the people. And why aren't you putting the name of the protest organization you belong to in your posts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia.  Only right wingers, never get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Say it right, the militia is the people. The people have the right to bear arms, not the militia.
Click to expand...


/thread


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is necessary is for individuals to bear arms.
> 
> 
> 
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incorrect.
> A use of the militia for the defense of country or state does not at all imply that is the only use/need for militia.
> Militia is also where villages get their posses from as well as individuals in defense from home invasion.
> 
> Your problem is the classic, if A then B logic, which you are trying to subvert by saying if not A, then not B, and that is an error.
> The need for a federal or state militia is not the ONLY reasons why there was to be no federal infringement on weapons.
> Besides A, there is C, D, E, etc.
> A well armed and trained population is also necessary for defense of city, village, suburb, home, and each and every individual.
Click to expand...

Schooled.


----------



## kaz

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Say it right, the militia is the people. The people have the right to bear arms, not the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> That makes so sense whatsoever.  The People are the militia.  Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for the security needs of their State or the Union.
> 
> Criminals of the People do not have a right to keep and bear Arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> The only source of any legal authority comes from individual rights and the individual right of defense trumps any state or federal need for defense.
> 
> Of course criminals to have the right of defense so do have the right to bear arms.
> The only reason we can disarm criminals is not because they do not have rights, but that the rights of others who may be threatened by criminals could be given higher priority.
> 
> But that is not the case in society.
> Criminals are in prisons, and when they serve their sentence and are released, they no longer are criminals.
> You can not legally create a multi tiered society with ex-criminals having fewer rights.
> That is not legally possible.
Click to expand...


Criminals can only have their rights limited with due process, including their right to be armed.

It's not a question of "priority"


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

kaz said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Say it right, the militia is the people. The people have the right to bear arms, not the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> That makes so sense whatsoever.  The People are the militia.  Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for the security needs of their State or the Union.
> 
> Criminals of the People do not have a right to keep and bear Arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> The only source of any legal authority comes from individual rights and the individual right of defense trumps any state or federal need for defense.
> 
> Of course criminals to have the right of defense so do have the right to bear arms.
> The only reason we can disarm criminals is not because they do not have rights, but that the rights of others who may be threatened by criminals could be given higher priority.
> 
> But that is not the case in society.
> Criminals are in prisons, and when they serve their sentence and are released, they no longer are criminals.
> You can not legally create a multi tiered society with ex-criminals having fewer rights.
> That is not legally possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Criminals can only have their rights limited with due process, including their right to be armed.
> 
> It's not a question of "priority"
Click to expand...

Criminals who have paid their debt to society should be fully restored. 

If a criminal is to be reformed, he must have rights restored.  It is completely asinine to demand paroled criminals to conform to society, yet deprive them of the means to protect themselves.  More often than not, they are in more need of protection.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Lesh said:


> The fact that we regulate machine guns (because of their danger to the public) means that we CAN regulate assault weapons as well for the same reason despite their "need" by the militia (which is a fantasy at this point}.


semiautomatics are not assault weapons


----------



## hadit

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that we regulate machine guns (because of their danger to the public) means that we CAN regulate assault weapons as well for the same reason despite their "need" by the militia (which is a fantasy at this point}.
> 
> 
> 
> semiautomatics are not assault weapons
Click to expand...

If they're big and black, they'll be called assault weapons. Anti-gunners are scared of big and black.


----------



## kaz

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Say it right, the militia is the people. The people have the right to bear arms, not the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> That makes so sense whatsoever.  The People are the militia.  Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for the security needs of their State or the Union.
> 
> Criminals of the People do not have a right to keep and bear Arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> The only source of any legal authority comes from individual rights and the individual right of defense trumps any state or federal need for defense.
> 
> Of course criminals to have the right of defense so do have the right to bear arms.
> The only reason we can disarm criminals is not because they do not have rights, but that the rights of others who may be threatened by criminals could be given higher priority.
> 
> But that is not the case in society.
> Criminals are in prisons, and when they serve their sentence and are released, they no longer are criminals.
> You can not legally create a multi tiered society with ex-criminals having fewer rights.
> That is not legally possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Criminals can only have their rights limited with due process, including their right to be armed.
> 
> It's not a question of "priority"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Criminals who have paid their debt to society should be fully restored.
> 
> If a criminal is to be reformed, he must have rights restored.  It is completely asinine to demand paroled criminals to conform to society, yet deprive them of the means to protect themselves.  More often than not, they are in more need of protection.
Click to expand...


If you're saying that's your opinion, that's fine.  But there is nothing in the Constitution that says that.

I don't agree with your portraying it that their prison sentence is = repaying their debt to society.    If your parents ground you for a week and remove your TV for a month, you can't say you can watch TV in a week because at that point your grounding is over.  They are separate punishments.

Personally, I think it depends if I would give them their gun rights back after prison.  I wouldn't give a blanket yes or no


----------



## Lesh

bigrebnc1775 said:


> semiautomatics are not assault weapons


EVERY weapon ever called an assault weapon (either by gun manufacturers themselves or anyone else) has ALWAYS been a semi-auto at a minimum. Some "no doubters" are select fire.


----------



## Rigby5

kaz said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Say it right, the militia is the people. The people have the right to bear arms, not the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> That makes so sense whatsoever.  The People are the militia.  Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for the security needs of their State or the Union.
> 
> Criminals of the People do not have a right to keep and bear Arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> The only source of any legal authority comes from individual rights and the individual right of defense trumps any state or federal need for defense.
> 
> Of course criminals to have the right of defense so do have the right to bear arms.
> The only reason we can disarm criminals is not because they do not have rights, but that the rights of others who may be threatened by criminals could be given higher priority.
> 
> But that is not the case in society.
> Criminals are in prisons, and when they serve their sentence and are released, they no longer are criminals.
> You can not legally create a multi tiered society with ex-criminals having fewer rights.
> That is not legally possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Criminals can only have their rights limited with due process, including their right to be armed.
> 
> It's not a question of "priority"
Click to expand...


Due process is not the source of legal authority, but just the means by which we adjudicate when rights conflict.
It is a case of priority because when there is a conflict of rights, like there is when criminals harm others, we do have the authority to prioritize the rights of law abiding citizens over the rights of the criminals who are harming others.
If we could not prioritize laws abiding over law breaking, then we could never incarcerate anyone.
Due process is not what justifies it, but is how it is handled in detailed implementation.


----------



## Rigby5

Lesh said:


> The fact that we regulate machine guns (because of their danger to the public) means that we CAN regulate assault weapons as well for the same reason despite their "need" by the militia (which is a fantasy at this point}.



It is not clear we can legally restrict machine guns.
It is not clear they are a danger to the public, or that restricting them is not more of a danger.
The fact we do is it not proof it is right, because we do a lot of corrupt things we should not do, like Prohibition, the war on drugs, 3 strikes laws, asset forfeiture, etc.

But "assault weapons" obviously cannot be restricted because they can not be defined and do not really exist.
Nor is there any precedents since the 1994 assault weapons ban did not prevent the sale of any assault weapon.
It just made manufacturers to remove the bayonet lug and flash suppressor from ARs.

Nor is any militia a fantasy ever.
The fact we currently do not need the militia normally, does not mean we won't from a disaster like Katrina, a future war, increased gang activity, etc.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 479370
> 
> How are terrorist militias considered "well regulated"?  Who "regulates" them?  How are they "necessary to the security of a free state"?  We know who regulates the military and National Guard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American militia movement - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really are desperate, aren't you?  Terrorist militias?  Are you serious?
> 
> Obviously, like your good friend or sock Lesh, you believed that English grammar in school was a waste of good time.  Allow me to help you both.  Isn't it great that our Founding Fathers were NOT ignorant about punctuation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show us where is says you can use a comma to ignore any clause.
Click to expand...


Again, if A then B does not imply if not A, then not B.
That is because although the need for the federal government to be able to call up an armed militia is ONE reason why there can be  no federal weapons laws, there may be an infinite number of other reasons why an armed militia is necessary and there then should be no federal weapons laws.

The 2nd amendment did not say all the reasons why there is to be a ban on all federal weapons laws.  
And it does not matter how many reasons there are.
The fact is it says there can be no federal weapons laws at all, period.


----------



## Markle

Rigby5 said:


> But that is not the case in society.
> Criminals are in prisons, and when they serve their sentence and are released, they no longer are criminals.
> You can not legally create a multi tiered society with ex-criminals having fewer rights.
> That is not legally possible.



They (criminals) have the right to apply to have their rights returned.  Due process.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, there is.   A militia, especially in the time our constitution was written, was individuals who would answer a call to arms.    Not a call to collect their gov't firearms.  But a call to bring their own firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a sovereign right of a State not individuals:
> 
> A well regulated _Militia_, being _necessary_ to the security of a free _State_, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed? That's right, the people, NOT the militia, the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia is declared Necessary not optional to the security of a free State.   It really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is declared protected and shall not be infringed.
> 
> It's even more simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, the People who are a well regulated militia who keep and bear Arms for the security of their State or the Union.
Click to expand...


I disagree.
The right of self defense is vastly superior to the need for the defense of state or country.
The state or country are NOT the source of any authority and can not be the main justification for prohibiting federal gun laws.
Individual rights are supreme, and the only source of any legal authority.
The fact a state and country can aid individual rights also gives these entities some authority, but it is only secondary and borrowed from the main source of authority, which is individual rights.


----------



## Rigby5

Lesh said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> semiautomatics are not assault weapons
> 
> 
> 
> EVERY weapon ever called an assault weapon (either by gun manufacturers themselves or anyone else) has ALWAYS been a semi-auto at a minimum. Some "no doubters" are select fire.
Click to expand...


Wrong.
Assault weapons are a use where you want maximum rate of fire, so once automatic weapons became available, only automatic weapons have ever been referred to as assault weapons.
That is because they have such a higher rate of fire.
It is wrong now to ever refer to any semi automatic weapon as an assault weapon.

The history is that originally the blunderbuss was the assault weapon of the Revolutionary war period, because it was multi projectile, so the more rapid fire than an ordinary rifle.
By the Civil War, what was used as an assault weapon was a pair of percussion cap revolvers.
In WWI it was the pump shotgun.
In WWII it likely was the M-1 carbine.
By Vietnam, it was the full auto M-16.

Now that there are full auto M-16s/M-4s, you can't go back in time and say that carbines, shotguns, revolvers, or blunderbusses should be illegal.  
And since the AR-15 is just a single shot carbine, is can not possibly be restricted in any way.


----------



## Markle

Lesh said:


> EVERY weapon ever called an assault weapon (either by gun manufacturers themselves or anyone else) has ALWAYS been a semi-auto at a minimum. Some "no doubters" are select fire.








Which of these weapons are not semi-automatics?


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, there is.   A militia, especially in the time our constitution was written, was individuals who would answer a call to arms.    Not a call to collect their gov't firearms.  But a call to bring their own firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a sovereign right of a State not individuals:
> 
> A well regulated _Militia_, being _necessary_ to the security of a free _State_, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed? That's right, the people, NOT the militia, the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia is declared Necessary not optional to the security of a free State.   It really is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is declared protected and shall not be infringed.
> 
> It's even more simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, the People who are a well regulated militia who keep and bear Arms for the security of their State or the Union.
Click to expand...


By the way, "well regulated" means efficient and proficient.  
It does not mean "restricted".
For example, the commerce clause of the Constitution:
{...  To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;  ...}
Does not mean to "restrict".
It means the opposite, to "facilitate" by preventing anyone from restricting it.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because all terms are collective and plural not individual or singular.
> 
> 
> 
> So, no individual has a right to be secure in his/her/its home from unreasonable searches?
> 
> All terms in the 4th Amendment are "collective" and plural.
> 
> 
> 
> Your collectivist argument falls to pieces every single time.
> 
> Look, if you don't like the 2A, AMEND.  Otherwise, deal with it.
Click to expand...

Only because You appeal to ignorance of our Constitutional form of federal Government.  How typical of the right wing who want to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth" simply because they are on the right wing.

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via due process in federal venues. 

_All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy. _(Source: California State Constitution)


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> Thus you are only allowed free speech if you're part of a licensed, trained and government approved protest group. Which group are you part of?


Begging the question is usually considered a fallacy.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> No one's ignoring it. The people need to bear arms so the militia can be formed. And, based on what you keep posting, the government is supposed to arm the people for that purpose.


There is no appeal to ignorance of express law in legal venues. 

_To provide for organizing, *arming*, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;_


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> No, the militia is the people. The people need to be armed so the militia can be formed. The PEOPLE have the right to bear arms, not the militia.


Your substitution is a fallacy.  Criminals of the People do not have a right to keep and bear Arms. 

Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People (of which even You speak) have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is necessary is for individuals to bear arms.
> 
> 
> 
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There you are, the government owes me some weapons. Note that word you underlined.
Click to expand...

Harass your State legislators to do the Job they get paid to do.

_The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._

To the Militia Mobile!


----------



## danielpalos

Markle said:


> I'm having a hard time deciding who is the biggest Troll, danielpalos or Lesh.  I think they're in a contest with each other to the bottom of the pond.


Right wing cultists are worse but get a freer pass.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment also has no individual terms, yet you believe it protects your individual right to free speech. Or are you going to argue you only have free speech as part of a licensed, trained and government approved protest organization?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the context is very clear and includes no terms regarding what is necessary to the security of a free State.   And, you ignore this fact under the common law.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And "the people" have the right to bear arms. Not the militia and not the state, the people. And why aren't you putting the name of the protest organization you belong to in your posts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia.  Only right wingers, never get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, the people have the right, not the militia?
> 
> Or does the militia have the right, and not the prople?
> 
> But, wait.....the people are the militia!!!  But the people are not individuals, so individuals don't get the right....just the people...
> 
> I am so confused!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Dan, your "logic" blows donkey ass.  To interpret things your way tortures the words and meanings.
> 
> *The plain language is clear. *
> 
> It's even more clear given the context and circumstances at the time it was ratified.
> 
> A militia is necessary, so the right of individuals (people) to obtain their own military arms, and keep those arms, and be ready to answer the call to arms, JUST LIKE THE MINUTE MEN AT THE TIME THE 2A WAS DRAFTED, shall not be infringed.
> 
> It is the only interpretation that makes sense.
Click to expand...

The People are the Militia.  You are either well regulated and necessary to the security of a free State or unorganized and subject to the traditional police power of your State.

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)


----------



## danielpalos

Markle said:


> Wow, you really did skip English grammar and punctuation.  Even more amusing is that you seem to relish boasting about your ignorance.  Well, whatever floats your boat!



Says the guy with only ad hominems instead of valid arguments.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is necessary is for individuals to bear arms.
> 
> 
> 
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incorrect.
> A use of the militia for the defense of country or state does not at all imply that is the only use/need for militia.
> Militia is also where villages get their posses from as well as individuals in defense from home invasion.
> 
> Your problem is the classic, if A then B logic, which you are trying to subvert by saying if not A, then not B, and that is an error.
> The need for a federal or state militia is not the ONLY reasons why there was to be no federal infringement on weapons.
> Besides A, there is C, D, E, etc.
> A well armed and trained population is also necessary for defense of city, village, suburb, home, and each and every individual.
Click to expand...

Your opinion is duly noted.  However, there is no appeal to ignorance of express law.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment also has no individual terms, yet you believe it protects your individual right to free speech. Or are you going to argue you only have free speech as part of a licensed, trained and government approved protest organization?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the context is very clear and includes no terms regarding what is necessary to the security of a free State.   And, you ignore this fact under the common law.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And "the people" have the right to bear arms. Not the militia and not the state, the people. And why aren't you putting the name of the protest organization you belong to in your posts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia.  Only right wingers, never get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Say it right, the militia is the people. The people have the right to bear arms, not the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That makes so sense whatsoever.  The People are the militia.  Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for the security needs of their State or the Union.
> 
> Criminals of the People do not have a right to keep and bear Arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> The only source of any legal authority comes from individual rights and the individual right of defense trumps any state or federal need for defense.
> 
> Of course criminals to have the right of defense so do have the right to bear arms.
> The only reason we can disarm criminals is not because they do not have rights, but that the rights of others who may be threatened by criminals could be given higher priority.
> 
> But that is not the case in society.
> Criminals are in prisons, and when they serve their sentence and are released, they no longer are criminals.
> You can not legally create a multi tiered society with ex-criminals having fewer rights.
> That is not legally possible.
Click to expand...

Non-sequiturs are usually considered fallacies.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 479370
> 
> How are terrorist militias considered "well regulated"?  Who "regulates" them?  How are they "necessary to the security of a free state"?  We know who regulates the military and National Guard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American militia movement - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really are desperate, aren't you?  Terrorist militias?  Are you serious?
> 
> Obviously, like your good friend or sock Lesh, you believed that English grammar in school was a waste of good time.  Allow me to help you both.  Isn't it great that our Founding Fathers were NOT ignorant about punctuation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show us where is says you can use a comma to ignore any clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, if A then B does not imply if not A, then not B.
> That is because although the need for the federal government to be able to call up an armed militia is ONE reason why there can be  no federal weapons laws, there may be an infinite number of other reasons why an armed militia is necessary and there then should be no federal weapons laws.
> 
> The 2nd amendment did not say all the reasons why there is to be a ban on all federal weapons laws.
> And it does not matter how many reasons there are.
> The fact is it says there can be no federal weapons laws at all, period.
Click to expand...

There is no appeal to ignorance of express law.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> I disagree.
> The right of self defense is vastly superior to the need for the defense of state or country.
> The state or country are NOT the source of any authority and can not be the main justification for prohibiting federal gun laws.
> Individual rights are supreme, and the only source of any legal authority.
> The fact a state and country can aid individual rights also gives these entities some authority, but it is only secondary and borrowed from the main source of authority, which is individual rights.


You misunderstand our federal form of Government.  Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via due process in federal venues. 

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy. (California State Constitution)


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> By the way, "well regulated" means efficient and proficient.
> It does not mean "restricted".
> For example, the commerce clause of the Constitution:
> {...  To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;  ...}
> Does not mean to "restrict".
> It means the opposite, to "facilitate" by preventing anyone from restricting it.



There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, right wingers.  Wellness of Regulation must be _prescribed_ by our federal Congress for the militia of the United Staes. 

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


----------



## Markle

danielpalos said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you really did skip English grammar and punctuation.  Even more amusing is that you seem to relish boasting about your ignorance.  Well, whatever floats your boat!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the guy with only ad hominems instead of valid arguments.
Click to expand...


As you know, I provided concrete facts.   You ignore it because you have your own agenda.

I am sorry you choose to ignore English and grammar the years you were in school.  You knew how to talk, so what difference did the funny marks on the page make.  That's your problem, no one elses.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thus you are only allowed free speech if you're part of a licensed, trained and government approved protest group. Which group are you part of?
> 
> 
> 
> Begging the question is usually considered a fallacy.
Click to expand...

Ducking, dodging, and refusing to answer a simple question is also considered a fallacy.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one's ignoring it. The people need to bear arms so the militia can be formed. And, based on what you keep posting, the government is supposed to arm the people for that purpose.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of express law in legal venues.
> 
> _To provide for organizing, *arming*, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;_
Click to expand...

You keep saying that the government owes me weapons. Why?


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the militia is the people. The people need to be armed so the militia can be formed. The PEOPLE have the right to bear arms, not the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> Your substitution is a fallacy.  Criminals of the People do not have a right to keep and bear Arms.
> 
> Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People (of which even You speak) have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
Click to expand...

Not a substitution. I merely showed you that that PEOPLE have the right to bear arms, not the militia.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lesh said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> semiautomatics are not assault weapons
> 
> 
> 
> EVERY weapon ever called an assault weapon (either by gun manufacturers themselves or anyone else) has ALWAYS been a semi-auto at a minimum. Some "no doubters" are select fire.
Click to expand...

So, all you faggots have to do is call something an assault weapon and you get to ban it?

FUCK YOU!!!

Look, dipshit.  Let me educate you.

The term "assault rifle" comes from the Nazi German battle rifle call the Sturmgewehr 44 (literally translates "storm rifle" but means "assault rifle").






What made this rifle unique is that it combined the characteristics of a battle rifle with that of a submachine gun.  It could shoot semi-auto and full-auto (select fire).

That has become the literal definition of an "assault rifle."  It must shoot both semi-auto and full-auto to be "assault."  Get it, you uninformed cock smoke?


----------



## asaratis

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the militia is the people. The people need to be armed so the militia can be formed. The PEOPLE have the right to bear arms, not the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> Your substitution is a fallacy.  Criminals of the People do not have a right to keep and bear Arms.
> 
> Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People (of which even You speak) have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
Click to expand...

Read the 2nd Amendment very slowly.  You clearly do not understand it despite valiant efforts by educated users here to explain it to you.

Pay attention to the phrase immediately following the first comma.



> A well regulated Militia, *being necessary to the security of a free State*, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


If the governing body of any one of our 50 free States (or that of the entire union) goes rogue and promotes changing to a non-free State (or union of States), the people, in finding it necessary to protect the security of their free State, have cause to form a well regulated Militia of their own to oppose that of the rogue governing body.  For this, weapons are required.

Additionally,

In the 2008 case _District of Columbia v. Heller_, the Supreme Court held that the "Second Amendment *protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia*, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."







						DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
					






					www.law.cornell.edu
				






> (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause.  The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.  The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule.  *The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. *


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Markle said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But that is not the case in society.
> Criminals are in prisons, and when they serve their sentence and are released, they no longer are criminals.
> You can not legally create a multi tiered society with ex-criminals having fewer rights.
> That is not legally possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They (criminals) have the right to apply to have their rights returned.  Due process.
Click to expand...

They do.  It's called the parole board.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, "well regulated" means efficient and proficient.
> It does not mean "restricted".
> For example, the commerce clause of the Constitution:
> {...  To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;  ...}
> Does not mean to "restrict".
> It means the opposite, to "facilitate" by preventing anyone from restricting it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, right wingers.  Wellness of Regulation must be _prescribed_ by our federal Congress for the militia of the United Staes.
> 
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Click to expand...

Even if all of that is true, it does not change the FACT the the right of the people shall not be infringed.  You can NEVER get around that part, no matter how hard you try.  Just give up. or amend.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one's ignoring it. The people need to bear arms so the militia can be formed. And, based on what you keep posting, the government is supposed to arm the people for that purpose.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of express law in legal venues.
> 
> _To provide for organizing, *arming*, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep saying that the government owes me weapons. Why?
Click to expand...

Learn how to read.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the militia is the people. The people need to be armed so the militia can be formed. The PEOPLE have the right to bear arms, not the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> Your substitution is a fallacy.  Criminals of the People do not have a right to keep and bear Arms.
> 
> Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People (of which even You speak) have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not a substitution. I merely showed you that that PEOPLE have the right to bear arms, not the militia.
Click to expand...

The People are the Militia.  You are either well regulated and necessary or unorganized and unnecessary and subject to the police power of your State.


----------



## StormAl

Lakhota said:


> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
Click to expand...

We have the right to bear arms against the militia right.


----------



## danielpalos

asaratis said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the militia is the people. The people need to be armed so the militia can be formed. The PEOPLE have the right to bear arms, not the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> Your substitution is a fallacy.  Criminals of the People do not have a right to keep and bear Arms.
> 
> Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People (of which even You speak) have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read the 2nd Amendment very slowly.  You clearly do not understand it despite valiant efforts by educated users here to explain it to you.
> 
> Pay attention to the phrase immediately following the first comma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A well regulated Militia, *being necessary to the security of a free State*, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the governing body of any one of our 50 free States (or that of the entire union) goes rogue and promotes changing to a non-free State (or union of States), the people, in finding it necessary to protect the security of their free State, have cause to form a well regulated Militia of their own to oppose that of the rogue governing body.  For this, weapons are required.
> 
> Additionally,
> 
> In the 2008 case _District of Columbia v. Heller_, the Supreme Court held that the "Second Amendment *protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia*, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.law.cornell.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause.  The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.  The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule.  *The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. *
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

A legal error.  The People are the Militia.  There is no one unconnected with the militia only with militia service well regulated.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, "well regulated" means efficient and proficient.
> It does not mean "restricted".
> For example, the commerce clause of the Constitution:
> {...  To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;  ...}
> Does not mean to "restrict".
> It means the opposite, to "facilitate" by preventing anyone from restricting it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, right wingers.  Wellness of Regulation must be _prescribed_ by our federal Congress for the militia of the United Staes.
> 
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even if all of that is true, it does not change the FACT the the right of the people shall not be infringed.  You can NEVER get around that part, no matter how hard you try.  Just give up. or amend.
Click to expand...

You are just plain wrong, right wingers.  Criminals of the People get Infringed all the time.


----------



## Markle

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the militia is the people. The people need to be armed so the militia can be formed. The PEOPLE have the right to bear arms, not the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> Your substitution is a fallacy.  Criminals of the People do not have a right to keep and bear Arms.
> 
> Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People (of which even You speak) have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not a substitution. I merely showed you that that PEOPLE have the right to bear arms, not the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia.  You are either well regulated and necessary or unorganized and unnecessary and subject to the police power of your State.
Click to expand...


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.
> The right of self defense is vastly superior to the need for the defense of state or country.
> The state or country are NOT the source of any authority and can not be the main justification for prohibiting federal gun laws.
> Individual rights are supreme, and the only source of any legal authority.
> The fact a state and country can aid individual rights also gives these entities some authority, but it is only secondary and borrowed from the main source of authority, which is individual rights.
> 
> 
> 
> You misunderstand our federal form of Government.  Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via due process in federal venues.
> 
> All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy. (California State Constitution)
Click to expand...

If you would just recognize the intent of 2A, everything else would make perfect sense.

No federal authority.  That's it.


----------



## Markle

danielpalos said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you really did skip English grammar and punctuation.  Even more amusing is that you seem to relish boasting about your ignorance.  Well, whatever floats your boat!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the guy with only ad hominems instead of valid arguments.
Click to expand...


How is this an "ad hominem" argument?


----------



## StormAl

Markle said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you really did skip English grammar and punctuation.  Even more amusing is that you seem to relish boasting about your ignorance.  Well, whatever floats your boat!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the guy with only ad hominems instead of valid arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As you know, I provided concrete facts.   You ignore it because you have your own agenda.
> 
> I am sorry you choose to ignore English and grammar the years you were in school.  You knew how to talk, so what difference did the funny marks on the page make.  That's your problem, no one elses.
Click to expand...

While you attack the messenger, you have lost the message in the meantime.  Well regulated does not mean what you think it means.


----------



## Batcat

If anything, in a world where mobs are burning down cities and threatening people in their cars and homes,  idiot politicians are defunding police departments and police officers quitting and leaving the big cities in mass — the Second Amendment is more meaningful and important today than it has been during my lifetime. 

Plus we have democrats seriously planning to turn our nation into a socialist workers paradise. If that happens don’t think Norway {which is not a socialist nation,)think Cuba or Venezuela or China and Russia. 

Citizens in Venezuela regret giving up their firearms. 









						Venezuela Banned Private Gun Ownership Less Than A Decade Ago
					

Venezuela banned private citizens from owning guns seven years ago, leaving firearms solely in the hands of the state. It is a decision some have come to regret.




					dailycaller.com


----------



## frigidweirdo

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the militia is the people. The people need to be armed so the militia can be formed. The PEOPLE have the right to bear arms, not the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> Your substitution is a fallacy.  Criminals of the People do not have a right to keep and bear Arms.
> 
> Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People (of which even You speak) have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not a substitution. I merely showed you that that PEOPLE have the right to bear arms, not the militia.
Click to expand...


The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. 

Imagine the militia having the right to be in the militia.


----------



## Deplorable Yankee

Lakhota said:


> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
Click to expand...











Bfytw


----------



## StormAl

Deplorable Yankee said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 480032
> 
> View attachment 480031
> 
> 
> Bfytw
Click to expand...

Disagree.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

frigidweirdo said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the militia is the people. The people need to be armed so the militia can be formed. The PEOPLE have the right to bear arms, not the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> Your substitution is a fallacy.  Criminals of the People do not have a right to keep and bear Arms.
> 
> Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People (of which even You speak) have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not a substitution. I merely showed you that that PEOPLE have the right to bear arms, not the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.
> 
> Imagine the militia having the right to be in the militia.
Click to expand...

Complete bullshit revision of history.

Minute Men had to purchase and maintain their own firearms to be ready for militia service when needed, which was their duty.

The right of people to keep those firearms was secured and guaranteed in the bill of rights and the authority withheld from the new federal government so the people would accept the new constitution. 

Read the fucking federalist papers, for fuck's sake.


----------



## StormAl

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the militia is the people. The people need to be armed so the militia can be formed. The PEOPLE have the right to bear arms, not the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> Your substitution is a fallacy.  Criminals of the People do not have a right to keep and bear Arms.
> 
> Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People (of which even You speak) have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not a substitution. I merely showed you that that PEOPLE have the right to bear arms, not the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.
> 
> Imagine the militia having the right to be in the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Complete bullshit revision of history.
> 
> Minute Men had to purchase and maintain their own firearms to be ready for militia service when needed, which was their duty.
> 
> The right of people to keep those firearms was secured and guaranteed in the bill of rights and the authority withheld from the new federal government so the people would accept the new constitution.
> 
> Read the fucking federalist papers, for fuck's sake.
Click to expand...

You don't get it, do you?


----------



## kaz

Rigby5 said:


> Due process is not the source of legal authority ...



Strawman


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.
> The right of self defense is vastly superior to the need for the defense of state or country.
> The state or country are NOT the source of any authority and can not be the main justification for prohibiting federal gun laws.
> Individual rights are supreme, and the only source of any legal authority.
> The fact a state and country can aid individual rights also gives these entities some authority, but it is only secondary and borrowed from the main source of authority, which is individual rights.
> 
> 
> 
> You misunderstand our federal form of Government.  Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via due process in federal venues.
> 
> All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy. (California State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you would just recognize the intent of 2A, everything else would make perfect sense.
> 
> No federal authority.  That's it.
Click to expand...

Appeal to ignorance of the law is all you have.


----------



## danielpalos

Markle said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you really did skip English grammar and punctuation.  Even more amusing is that you seem to relish boasting about your ignorance.  Well, whatever floats your boat!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the guy with only ad hominems instead of valid arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is this an "ad hominem" argument?
Click to expand...

Argumentum ad hominem is a fallacy.  You need a valid argument for rebuttal.


----------



## danielpalos

StormAl said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you really did skip English grammar and punctuation.  Even more amusing is that you seem to relish boasting about your ignorance.  Well, whatever floats your boat!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the guy with only ad hominems instead of valid arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As you know, I provided concrete facts.   You ignore it because you have your own agenda.
> 
> I am sorry you choose to ignore English and grammar the years you were in school.  You knew how to talk, so what difference did the funny marks on the page make.  That's your problem, no one elses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While you attack the messenger, you have lost the message in the meantime.  Well regulated does not mean what you think it means.
Click to expand...

If it weren't for fallacy, right wingers would have no arguments at all.


----------



## danielpalos

Batcat said:


> If anything, in a world where mobs are burning down cities and threatening people in their cars and homes,  idiot politicians are defunding police departments and police officers quitting and leaving the big cities in mass — the Second Amendment is more meaningful and important today than it has been during my lifetime.
> 
> Plus we have democrats seriously planning to turn our nation into a socialist workers paradise. If that happens don’t think Norway {which is not a socialist nation,)think Cuba or Venezuela or China and Russia.
> 
> Citizens in Venezuela regret giving up their firearms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Venezuela Banned Private Gun Ownership Less Than A Decade Ago
> 
> 
> Venezuela banned private citizens from owning guns seven years ago, leaving firearms solely in the hands of the state. It is a decision some have come to regret.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dailycaller.com



The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the militia is the people. The people need to be armed so the militia can be formed. The PEOPLE have the right to bear arms, not the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> Your substitution is a fallacy.  Criminals of the People do not have a right to keep and bear Arms.
> 
> Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People (of which even You speak) have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not a substitution. I merely showed you that that PEOPLE have the right to bear arms, not the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.
> 
> Imagine the militia having the right to be in the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Complete bullshit revision of history.
> 
> Minute Men had to purchase and maintain their own firearms to be ready for militia service when needed, which was their duty.
> 
> The right of people to keep those firearms was secured and guaranteed in the bill of rights and the authority withheld from the new federal government so the people would accept the new constitution.
> 
> Read the fucking federalist papers, for fuck's sake.
Click to expand...

That was before our federal Constitution.  Our Founding Fathers specifically put this in our federal Constitution:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


----------



## StormAl

danielpalos said:


> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you really did skip English grammar and punctuation.  Even more amusing is that you seem to relish boasting about your ignorance.  Well, whatever floats your boat!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the guy with only ad hominems instead of valid arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As you know, I provided concrete facts.   You ignore it because you have your own agenda.
> 
> I am sorry you choose to ignore English and grammar the years you were in school.  You knew how to talk, so what difference did the funny marks on the page make.  That's your problem, no one elses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While you attack the messenger, you have lost the message in the meantime.  Well regulated does not mean what you think it means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it weren't for fallacy, right wingers would have no arguments at all.
Click to expand...

Right wing conservatism is a fallacy: politically, economically, and patriotically.


----------



## Lesh

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Read the fucking federalist papers, for fuck's sake.


The Federalist Papers were a rationalization used to push the acceptance of the Constitution to a skeptical public (mainly NY)...which ultimately failed since the number of NY delegates who were anti-Federalist ended up to be twice the number of Federalists.

It was propaganda...not law


----------



## StormAl

Lesh said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read the fucking federalist papers, for fuck's sake.
> 
> 
> 
> The Federalist Papers were a rationalization used to push the acceptance of the Constitution to a skeptical public (mainly NY)...which ultimately failed since the number of NY delegates who were anti-Federalist ended up to be twice the number of Federalists.
> 
> It was propaganda...not law
Click to expand...

Yet NY ratified the Constitution, so the Papers purpose worked.


----------



## Lesh

StormAl said:


> Yet NY ratified the Constitution, so the Papers purpose worked.


NY ratified in SPITE of them.

The Constitution already HAD 9 states so NY was simply acknowledging a fact.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lesh said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read the fucking federalist papers, for fuck's sake.
> 
> 
> 
> The Federalist Papers were a rationalization used to push the acceptance of the Constitution to a skeptical public (mainly NY)...which ultimately failed since the number of NY delegates who were anti-Federalist ended up to be twice the number of Federalists.
> 
> It was propaganda...not law
Click to expand...

It shows intent of the founders.

If they were wrong, AMEND!!!

Why do you asshole have such a problem with the proper process?

What are you afraid of?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lesh said:


> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet NY ratified the Constitution, so the Papers purpose worked.
> 
> 
> 
> NY ratified in SPITE of them.
> 
> The Constitution already HAD 9 states so NY was simply acknowledging a fact.
Click to expand...

It required unanimous consent.


----------



## Lesh

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> It shows intent of the founders.


Such is the claim.

In point of fact it shows rationalization.

Propaganda designed to get NY to ratify


----------



## Lesh

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> It required unanimous consent.


Wrong as usual


----------



## InspectorDetector

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the militia is the people. The people need to be armed so the militia can be formed. The PEOPLE have the right to bear arms, not the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> Your substitution is a fallacy.  Criminals of the People do not have a right to keep and bear Arms.
> 
> Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People (of which even You speak) have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not a substitution. I merely showed you that that PEOPLE have the right to bear arms, not the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.
> 
> Imagine the militia having the right to be in the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Complete bullshit revision of history.
> 
> Minute Men had to purchase and maintain their own firearms to be ready for militia service when needed, which was their duty.
> 
> The right of people to keep those firearms was secured and guaranteed in the bill of rights and the authority withheld from the new federal government so the people would accept the new constitution.
> 
> Read the fucking federalist papers, for fuck's sake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was before our federal Constitution.  Our Founding Fathers specifically put this in our federal Constitution:
> 
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Click to expand...



Where does it state that?


----------



## BS Filter

Lakhota said:


> Trying to live modern life according to the Constitution is much like trying to live modern life according to the Bible.  Both are subject to vast interpretation.


Only to corrupt idiots.


----------



## Lesh

InspectorDetector said:


> Where does it state that?


Article 1 Section 8 Clause 15 or 16


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the militia is the people. The people need to be armed so the militia can be formed. The PEOPLE have the right to bear arms, not the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> Your substitution is a fallacy.  Criminals of the People do not have a right to keep and bear Arms.
> 
> Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People (of which even You speak) have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not a substitution. I merely showed you that that PEOPLE have the right to bear arms, not the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.
> 
> Imagine the militia having the right to be in the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Complete bullshit revision of history.
> 
> Minute Men had to purchase and maintain their own firearms to be ready for militia service when needed, which was their duty.
> 
> The right of people to keep those firearms was secured and guaranteed in the bill of rights and the authority withheld from the new federal government so the people would accept the new constitution.
> 
> Read the fucking federalist papers, for fuck's sake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was before our federal Constitution.  Our Founding Fathers specifically put this in our federal Constitution:
> 
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Click to expand...


Except that the federal use of calling up the organized militia for national defense is only a small part of what the militia is for.  An armed population is for state defense and disasters, municipal defense, disasters, and posses, and for individual home protection.  The federal use may never even happen in an average lifetime.  The personal defense use will happen many times n an ordinary lifetime.


----------



## Rigby5

StormAl said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you really did skip English grammar and punctuation.  Even more amusing is that you seem to relish boasting about your ignorance.  Well, whatever floats your boat!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the guy with only ad hominems instead of valid arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As you know, I provided concrete facts.   You ignore it because you have your own agenda.
> 
> I am sorry you choose to ignore English and grammar the years you were in school.  You knew how to talk, so what difference did the funny marks on the page make.  That's your problem, no one elses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While you attack the messenger, you have lost the message in the meantime.  Well regulated does not mean what you think it means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it weren't for fallacy, right wingers would have no arguments at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right wing conservatism is a fallacy: politically, economically, and patriotically.
Click to expand...


This "Federalist Papers" thing is backwards.
The Federalists were the Hamilton and Madison crowd who wanted an extremely strong federal government, standing military, etc., and would likely have been all in favor of gun control.
The majority of the founders were anti-federalists, like Jefferson, did not want a strong federal government, did not want a standing military, and wanted an armed population instead.


----------



## Rigby5

Lesh said:


> InspectorDetector said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it state that?
> 
> 
> 
> Article 1 Section 8 Clause 15 or 16
Click to expand...


{...  I. Section. 8., clauses 15 and 16: *[The Congress shall have Power]* To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; ...}

That says the militia is not created, owned, or controlled by the federal government except those rare occasions when they are "called forth", for defense against invasion.

The fact the feds have claim to be able to USE the militia, does in no way change the fact the feds are not supposed to be or own the militia.  And that should be obvious since the feds are only for defense against the big stuff, insurrection and invasion.  Over 99% of what you need force for is not federal.  It is state, local, and individual.


----------



## danielpalos

Lesh said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read the fucking federalist papers, for fuck's sake.
> 
> 
> 
> The Federalist Papers were a rationalization used to push the acceptance of the Constitution to a skeptical public (mainly NY)...which ultimately failed since the number of NY delegates who were anti-Federalist ended up to be twice the number of Federalists.
> 
> It was propaganda...not law
Click to expand...

Right wingers have a problem being legal to express law.  They merely prefer to practice the abomination of hypocrisy in border threads.


----------



## danielpalos

InspectorDetector said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the militia is the people. The people need to be armed so the militia can be formed. The PEOPLE have the right to bear arms, not the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> Your substitution is a fallacy.  Criminals of the People do not have a right to keep and bear Arms.
> 
> Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People (of which even You speak) have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not a substitution. I merely showed you that that PEOPLE have the right to bear arms, not the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.
> 
> Imagine the militia having the right to be in the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Complete bullshit revision of history.
> 
> Minute Men had to purchase and maintain their own firearms to be ready for militia service when needed, which was their duty.
> 
> The right of people to keep those firearms was secured and guaranteed in the bill of rights and the authority withheld from the new federal government so the people would accept the new constitution.
> 
> Read the fucking federalist papers, for fuck's sake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was before our federal Constitution.  Our Founding Fathers specifically put this in our federal Constitution:
> 
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it state that?
Click to expand...

There is no appeal to ignorance of (Constitutional) law.  Only right wingers never get it.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the militia is the people. The people need to be armed so the militia can be formed. The PEOPLE have the right to bear arms, not the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> Your substitution is a fallacy.  Criminals of the People do not have a right to keep and bear Arms.
> 
> Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People (of which even You speak) have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not a substitution. I merely showed you that that PEOPLE have the right to bear arms, not the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.
> 
> Imagine the militia having the right to be in the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Complete bullshit revision of history.
> 
> Minute Men had to purchase and maintain their own firearms to be ready for militia service when needed, which was their duty.
> 
> The right of people to keep those firearms was secured and guaranteed in the bill of rights and the authority withheld from the new federal government so the people would accept the new constitution.
> 
> Read the fucking federalist papers, for fuck's sake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was before our federal Constitution.  Our Founding Fathers specifically put this in our federal Constitution:
> 
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that the federal use of calling up the organized militia for national defense is only a small part of what the militia is for.  An armed population is for state defense and disasters, municipal defense, disasters, and posses, and for individual home protection.  The federal use may never even happen in an average lifetime.  The personal defense use will happen many times n an ordinary lifetime.
Click to expand...

There is no appeal to ignorance of express law.  

To provide for organizing, _*arming*_, and disciplining, the Militia


----------



## Markle

danielpalos said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you really did skip English grammar and punctuation.  Even more amusing is that you seem to relish boasting about your ignorance.  Well, whatever floats your boat!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the guy with only ad hominems instead of valid arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is this an "ad hominem" argument?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Argumentum ad hominem is a fallacy.  You need a valid argument for rebuttal.
Click to expand...


The English language, grammar and punctuation is NOT a valid argument?  You really did skip grammar and punctuation in school, didn't you?  But now you profess to be an authority on the English language?  Really?


----------



## danielpalos

Markle said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you really did skip English grammar and punctuation.  Even more amusing is that you seem to relish boasting about your ignorance.  Well, whatever floats your boat!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the guy with only ad hominems instead of valid arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is this an "ad hominem" argument?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Argumentum ad hominem is a fallacy.  You need a valid argument for rebuttal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The English language, grammar and punctuation is NOT a valid argument?  You really did skip grammar and punctuation in school, didn't you?  But now you profess to be an authority on the English language?  Really?
Click to expand...

Yes, it is when you merely claim your unsubstantiated opinion without supporting it with a valid argument.

Where does it say you can ignore the first clause due to a comma?


----------



## BS Filter

danielpalos said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you really did skip English grammar and punctuation.  Even more amusing is that you seem to relish boasting about your ignorance.  Well, whatever floats your boat!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the guy with only ad hominems instead of valid arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is this an "ad hominem" argument?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Argumentum ad hominem is a fallacy.  You need a valid argument for rebuttal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The English language, grammar and punctuation is NOT a valid argument?  You really did skip grammar and punctuation in school, didn't you?  But now you profess to be an authority on the English language?  Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is when you merely claim your unsubstantiated opinion without supporting it with a valid argument.
> 
> Where does it say you can ignore the first clause due to a comma?
Click to expand...

You're an idiot.


----------



## Batcat

danielpalos said:


> Batcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If anything, in a world where mobs are burning down cities and threatening people in their cars and homes,  idiot politicians are defunding police departments and police officers quitting and leaving the big cities in mass — the Second Amendment is more meaningful and important today than it has been during my lifetime.
> 
> Plus we have democrats seriously planning to turn our nation into a socialist workers paradise. If that happens don’t think Norway {which is not a socialist nation,)think Cuba or Venezuela or China and Russia.
> 
> Citizens in Venezuela regret giving up their firearms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Venezuela Banned Private Gun Ownership Less Than A Decade Ago
> 
> 
> Venezuela banned private citizens from owning guns seven years ago, leaving firearms solely in the hands of the state. It is a decision some have come to regret.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dailycaller.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
Click to expand...




> (a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> 
> (b)The classes of the militia are—
> 
> (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
> 
> (2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10 U.S. Code § 246 -  Militia: composition and classes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.law.cornell.edu


----------



## danielpalos

BS Filter said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you really did skip English grammar and punctuation.  Even more amusing is that you seem to relish boasting about your ignorance.  Well, whatever floats your boat!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the guy with only ad hominems instead of valid arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is this an "ad hominem" argument?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Argumentum ad hominem is a fallacy.  You need a valid argument for rebuttal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The English language, grammar and punctuation is NOT a valid argument?  You really did skip grammar and punctuation in school, didn't you?  But now you profess to be an authority on the English language?  Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is when you merely claim your unsubstantiated opinion without supporting it with a valid argument.
> 
> Where does it say you can ignore the first clause due to a comma?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're an idiot.
Click to expand...

You are full of fallacy; why should I care what judgemental fullers of fallacy allege in public venues?


----------



## danielpalos

Batcat said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Batcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If anything, in a world where mobs are burning down cities and threatening people in their cars and homes,  idiot politicians are defunding police departments and police officers quitting and leaving the big cities in mass — the Second Amendment is more meaningful and important today than it has been during my lifetime.
> 
> Plus we have democrats seriously planning to turn our nation into a socialist workers paradise. If that happens don’t think Norway {which is not a socialist nation,)think Cuba or Venezuela or China and Russia.
> 
> Citizens in Venezuela regret giving up their firearms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Venezuela Banned Private Gun Ownership Less Than A Decade Ago
> 
> 
> Venezuela banned private citizens from owning guns seven years ago, leaving firearms solely in the hands of the state. It is a decision some have come to regret.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dailycaller.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> 
> (b)The classes of the militia are—
> 
> (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
> 
> (2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10 U.S. Code § 246 -  Militia: composition and classes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.law.cornell.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Women have the franchise now.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lesh said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> It required unanimous consent.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong as usual
Click to expand...

Any state now willing to except a new constitution is free to remain separate. Require it? Will be part of the union will be on their own. New York and send it. Stop with this bullshit table.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you really did skip English grammar and punctuation.  Even more amusing is that you seem to relish boasting about your ignorance.  Well, whatever floats your boat!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the guy with only ad hominems instead of valid arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is this an "ad hominem" argument?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Argumentum ad hominem is a fallacy.  You need a valid argument for rebuttal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The English language, grammar and punctuation is NOT a valid argument?  You really did skip grammar and punctuation in school, didn't you?  But now you profess to be an authority on the English language?  Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is when you merely claim your unsubstantiated opinion without supporting it with a valid argument.
> 
> Where does it say you can ignore the first clause due to a comma?
Click to expand...

Who is ignoring the first clause?

You're ignoring the purpose of the first clause and giving it some meaning that it does not have. Further ignoring the second clause. Your interpretation of the entire amendment requires you to resign weird meaning to each word.

My interpretation is quite plain and requires no twisted tortured interpretation.

A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state.

The word "being" is a form of the verb "is."  You know, am, is, are, was, were, be, being, been, become, feel, seem. 

A well regulated militia *IS* necessary for the security of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and....etc.

in other words, to keep the states free, they need to be able to organize a militia in times of emergency. Because that militia is drawn from the entire population, and because of past practices of having private citizens bring their own arms to participate in a militia, we (the federal government) will not exercise authority over any aspect of private citizens keeping their private arms so that they can bear them at a time of need.

Simple. Practicable. Applicable. Does not require a tortured interpretation.

Why do you motherfuckers have to complicate the fuck out of everything when you know history and you know good and goddamn well what the intent was?

Why don't you motherfuckers just fucking admit exactly what we have been saying?  You want to deprive us of the right to keep and bear arms and you are trying to interpret the Constitution in a way so that you can.

Do you understand that anybody who does that is a traitor and an enemy of the United States and its people.?


----------



## Batcat

danielpalos said:


> Batcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Batcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If anything, in a world where mobs are burning down cities and threatening people in their cars and homes,  idiot politicians are defunding police departments and police officers quitting and leaving the big cities in mass — the Second Amendment is more meaningful and important today than it has been during my lifetime.
> 
> Plus we have democrats seriously planning to turn our nation into a socialist workers paradise. If that happens don’t think Norway {which is not a socialist nation,)think Cuba or Venezuela or China and Russia.
> 
> Citizens in Venezuela regret giving up their firearms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Venezuela Banned Private Gun Ownership Less Than A Decade Ago
> 
> 
> Venezuela banned private citizens from owning guns seven years ago, leaving firearms solely in the hands of the state. It is a decision some have come to regret.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dailycaller.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> 
> (b)The classes of the militia are—
> 
> (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
> 
> (2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10 U.S. Code § 246 -  Militia: composition and classes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.law.cornell.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Women have the franchise now.
Click to expand...

So the militia will consist of all able bodied men and women under the age of 45? I wonder if exceptions will be made for pregnant women and mothers?


----------



## Batcat

danielpalos said:


> Batcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If anything, in a world where mobs are burning down cities and threatening people in their cars and homes,  idiot politicians are defunding police departments and police officers quitting and leaving the big cities in mass — the Second Amendment is more meaningful and important today than it has been during my lifetime.
> 
> Plus we have democrats seriously planning to turn our nation into a socialist workers paradise. If that happens don’t think Norway {which is not a socialist nation,)think Cuba or Venezuela or China and Russia.
> 
> Citizens in Venezuela regret giving up their firearms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Venezuela Banned Private Gun Ownership Less Than A Decade Ago
> 
> 
> Venezuela banned private citizens from owning guns seven years ago, leaving firearms solely in the hands of the state. It is a decision some have come to regret.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dailycaller.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
Click to expand...


A large number of police are quitting because they get no support from the cities that employ them. It is becoming hard to find anyone who wants to be a cop. 

Perhaps the state will have to form militia groups separate from the National Guard to help keep the peace. 

We can’t continue to see our cities burn every time a cop kills a black male. The cost of insurance for an urban business will be so high few except the largest corporations can afford it.


----------



## Lesh

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> It required unanimous consent.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong as usual
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any state now willing to except a new constitution is free to remain separate. Require it? Will be part of the union will be on their own. New York and send it. Stop with this bullshit table.
Click to expand...

I don’t have my decoder ring working just now.

Translate please


----------



## Lesh

Batcat said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Batcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If anything, in a world where mobs are burning down cities and threatening people in their cars and homes,  idiot politicians are defunding police departments and police officers quitting and leaving the big cities in mass — the Second Amendment is more meaningful and important today than it has been during my lifetime.
> 
> Plus we have democrats seriously planning to turn our nation into a socialist workers paradise. If that happens don’t think Norway {which is not a socialist nation,)think Cuba or Venezuela or China and Russia.
> 
> Citizens in Venezuela regret giving up their firearms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Venezuela Banned Private Gun Ownership Less Than A Decade Ago
> 
> 
> Venezuela banned private citizens from owning guns seven years ago, leaving firearms solely in the hands of the state. It is a decision some have come to regret.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dailycaller.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A large number of police are quitting because they get no support from the cities that employ them. It is becoming hard to find anyone who wants to be a cop.
> 
> Perhaps the state will have to form militia groups separate from the National Guard to help keep the peace.
> 
> We can’t continue to see our cities burn every time a cop kills a black male. The cost of insurance for an urban business will be so high few except the largest corporations can afford it.
Click to expand...

Here’s an idea. Stop killing unarmed black males


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you really did skip English grammar and punctuation.  Even more amusing is that you seem to relish boasting about your ignorance.  Well, whatever floats your boat!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the guy with only ad hominems instead of valid arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is this an "ad hominem" argument?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Argumentum ad hominem is a fallacy.  You need a valid argument for rebuttal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The English language, grammar and punctuation is NOT a valid argument?  You really did skip grammar and punctuation in school, didn't you?  But now you profess to be an authority on the English language?  Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is when you merely claim your unsubstantiated opinion without supporting it with a valid argument.
> 
> Where does it say you can ignore the first clause due to a comma?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who is ignoring the first clause?
> 
> You're ignoring the purpose of the first clause and giving it some meaning that it does not have. Further ignoring the second clause. Your interpretation of the entire amendment requires you to resign weird meaning to each word.
> 
> My interpretation is quite plain and requires no twisted tortured interpretation.
> 
> A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state.
> 
> The word "being" is a form of the verb "is."  You know, am, is, are, was, were, be, being, been, become, feel, seem.
> 
> A well regulated militia *IS* necessary for the security of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and....etc.
> 
> in other words, to keep the states free, they need to be able to organize a militia in times of emergency. Because that militia is drawn from the entire population, and because of past practices of having private citizens bring their own arms to participate in a militia, we (the federal government) will not exercise authority over any aspect of private citizens keeping their private arms so that they can bear them at a time of need.
> 
> Simple. Practicable. Applicable. Does not require a tortured interpretation.
> 
> Why do you motherfuckers have to complicate the fuck out of everything when you know history and you know good and goddamn well what the intent was?
> 
> Why don't you motherfuckers just fucking admit exactly what we have been saying?  You want to deprive us of the right to keep and bear arms and you are trying to interpret the Constitution in a way so that you can.
> 
> Do you understand that anybody who does that is a traitor and an enemy of the United States and its people.?
Click to expand...

I understand you simply know nothing about the law.  You cannot ignore the first clause.  There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.


----------



## danielpalos

Batcat said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Batcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Batcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If anything, in a world where mobs are burning down cities and threatening people in their cars and homes,  idiot politicians are defunding police departments and police officers quitting and leaving the big cities in mass — the Second Amendment is more meaningful and important today than it has been during my lifetime.
> 
> Plus we have democrats seriously planning to turn our nation into a socialist workers paradise. If that happens don’t think Norway {which is not a socialist nation,)think Cuba or Venezuela or China and Russia.
> 
> Citizens in Venezuela regret giving up their firearms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Venezuela Banned Private Gun Ownership Less Than A Decade Ago
> 
> 
> Venezuela banned private citizens from owning guns seven years ago, leaving firearms solely in the hands of the state. It is a decision some have come to regret.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dailycaller.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> 
> (b)The classes of the militia are—
> 
> (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
> 
> (2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10 U.S. Code § 246 -  Militia: composition and classes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.law.cornell.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Women have the franchise now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the militia will consist of all able bodied men and women under the age of 45? I wonder if exceptions will be made for pregnant women and mothers?
Click to expand...

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

It is up to the legislature to ensure valid rules are established; there must be some exemptions for service.  No one in a coma or in the hospital or even simply sick with the flu should be required to become organized and well regulated without the end justifying the means.


----------



## danielpalos

Batcat said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Batcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If anything, in a world where mobs are burning down cities and threatening people in their cars and homes,  idiot politicians are defunding police departments and police officers quitting and leaving the big cities in mass — the Second Amendment is more meaningful and important today than it has been during my lifetime.
> 
> Plus we have democrats seriously planning to turn our nation into a socialist workers paradise. If that happens don’t think Norway {which is not a socialist nation,)think Cuba or Venezuela or China and Russia.
> 
> Citizens in Venezuela regret giving up their firearms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Venezuela Banned Private Gun Ownership Less Than A Decade Ago
> 
> 
> Venezuela banned private citizens from owning guns seven years ago, leaving firearms solely in the hands of the state. It is a decision some have come to regret.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dailycaller.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A large number of police are quitting because they get no support from the cities that employ them. It is becoming hard to find anyone who wants to be a cop.
> 
> Perhaps the state will have to form militia groups separate from the National Guard to help keep the peace.
> 
> We can’t continue to see our cities burn every time a cop kills a black male. The cost of insurance for an urban business will be so high few except the largest corporations can afford it.
Click to expand...

Insist our legislators do their (paid) Job. 

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> Batcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Batcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If anything, in a world where mobs are burning down cities and threatening people in their cars and homes,  idiot politicians are defunding police departments and police officers quitting and leaving the big cities in mass — the Second Amendment is more meaningful and important today than it has been during my lifetime.
> 
> Plus we have democrats seriously planning to turn our nation into a socialist workers paradise. If that happens don’t think Norway {which is not a socialist nation,)think Cuba or Venezuela or China and Russia.
> 
> Citizens in Venezuela regret giving up their firearms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Venezuela Banned Private Gun Ownership Less Than A Decade Ago
> 
> 
> Venezuela banned private citizens from owning guns seven years ago, leaving firearms solely in the hands of the state. It is a decision some have come to regret.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dailycaller.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A large number of police are quitting because they get no support from the cities that employ them. It is becoming hard to find anyone who wants to be a cop.
> 
> Perhaps the state will have to form militia groups separate from the National Guard to help keep the peace.
> 
> We can’t continue to see our cities burn every time a cop kills a black male. The cost of insurance for an urban business will be so high few except the largest corporations can afford it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Insist our legislators do their (paid) Job.
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
Click to expand...

Which means then that all persons of the state need to be armed, which of course means...........

That all persons have the right to bear arms and the federal government cannot infringe on that?


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Batcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Batcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If anything, in a world where mobs are burning down cities and threatening people in their cars and homes,  idiot politicians are defunding police departments and police officers quitting and leaving the big cities in mass — the Second Amendment is more meaningful and important today than it has been during my lifetime.
> 
> Plus we have democrats seriously planning to turn our nation into a socialist workers paradise. If that happens don’t think Norway {which is not a socialist nation,)think Cuba or Venezuela or China and Russia.
> 
> Citizens in Venezuela regret giving up their firearms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Venezuela Banned Private Gun Ownership Less Than A Decade Ago
> 
> 
> Venezuela banned private citizens from owning guns seven years ago, leaving firearms solely in the hands of the state. It is a decision some have come to regret.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dailycaller.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A large number of police are quitting because they get no support from the cities that employ them. It is becoming hard to find anyone who wants to be a cop.
> 
> Perhaps the state will have to form militia groups separate from the National Guard to help keep the peace.
> 
> We can’t continue to see our cities burn every time a cop kills a black male. The cost of insurance for an urban business will be so high few except the largest corporations can afford it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Insist our legislators do their (paid) Job.
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which means then that all persons of the state need to be armed, which of course means...........
> 
> That all persons have the right to bear arms and the federal government cannot infringe on that?
Click to expand...

To provide for organizing, *arming*, and disciplining, the Militia

There is no appeal to ignorance of express law.


----------



## Lesh

danielpalos said:


> I understand you simply know nothing about the law. You cannot ignore the first clause. There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.


Scalia did just that, claiming that the "preferatory clause" was merely rhetorical throat clearing.

Of course he did this because he knew he needed to decouple the militia from the 2A if his judicial activism was going to make ANY sense at all.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Batcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Batcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If anything, in a world where mobs are burning down cities and threatening people in their cars and homes,  idiot politicians are defunding police departments and police officers quitting and leaving the big cities in mass — the Second Amendment is more meaningful and important today than it has been during my lifetime.
> 
> Plus we have democrats seriously planning to turn our nation into a socialist workers paradise. If that happens don’t think Norway {which is not a socialist nation,)think Cuba or Venezuela or China and Russia.
> 
> Citizens in Venezuela regret giving up their firearms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Venezuela Banned Private Gun Ownership Less Than A Decade Ago
> 
> 
> Venezuela banned private citizens from owning guns seven years ago, leaving firearms solely in the hands of the state. It is a decision some have come to regret.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dailycaller.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A large number of police are quitting because they get no support from the cities that employ them. It is becoming hard to find anyone who wants to be a cop.
> 
> Perhaps the state will have to form militia groups separate from the National Guard to help keep the peace.
> 
> We can’t continue to see our cities burn every time a cop kills a black male. The cost of insurance for an urban business will be so high few except the largest corporations can afford it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Insist our legislators do their (paid) Job.
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which means then that all persons of the state need to be armed, which of course means...........
> 
> That all persons have the right to bear arms and the federal government cannot infringe on that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To provide for organizing, *arming*, and disciplining, the Militia
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of express law.
Click to expand...

Oh, so you're saying that the government owes me some weapons?


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you really did skip English grammar and punctuation.  Even more amusing is that you seem to relish boasting about your ignorance.  Well, whatever floats your boat!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the guy with only ad hominems instead of valid arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is this an "ad hominem" argument?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Argumentum ad hominem is a fallacy.  You need a valid argument for rebuttal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The English language, grammar and punctuation is NOT a valid argument?  You really did skip grammar and punctuation in school, didn't you?  But now you profess to be an authority on the English language?  Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is when you merely claim your unsubstantiated opinion without supporting it with a valid argument.
> 
> Where does it say you can ignore the first clause due to a comma?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who is ignoring the first clause?
> 
> You're ignoring the purpose of the first clause and giving it some meaning that it does not have. Further ignoring the second clause. Your interpretation of the entire amendment requires you to resign weird meaning to each word.
> 
> My interpretation is quite plain and requires no twisted tortured interpretation.
> 
> A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state.
> 
> The word "being" is a form of the verb "is."  You know, am, is, are, was, were, be, being, been, become, feel, seem.
> 
> A well regulated militia *IS* necessary for the security of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and....etc.
> 
> in other words, to keep the states free, they need to be able to organize a militia in times of emergency. Because that militia is drawn from the entire population, and because of past practices of having private citizens bring their own arms to participate in a militia, we (the federal government) will not exercise authority over any aspect of private citizens keeping their private arms so that they can bear them at a time of need.
> 
> Simple. Practicable. Applicable. Does not require a tortured interpretation.
> 
> Why do you motherfuckers have to complicate the fuck out of everything when you know history and you know good and goddamn well what the intent was?
> 
> Why don't you motherfuckers just fucking admit exactly what we have been saying?  You want to deprive us of the right to keep and bear arms and you are trying to interpret the Constitution in a way so that you can.
> 
> Do you understand that anybody who does that is a traitor and an enemy of the United States and its people.?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand you simply know nothing about the law.  You cannot ignore the first clause.  There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.
Click to expand...


The first clause of the 2nd Amendment gives A reason why there should be  no federal firearm laws.
But in no way does that at all suggest it is the ONLY reason why there should be no federal firearm laws.


----------



## danielpalos

Lesh said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand you simply know nothing about the law. You cannot ignore the first clause. There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.
> 
> 
> 
> Scalia did just that, claiming that the "preferatory clause" was merely rhetorical throat clearing.
> 
> Of course he did this because he knew he needed to decouple the militia from the 2A if his judicial activism was going to make ANY sense at all.
Click to expand...

Our Tenth Amendment applies since that Court has no good explanation for why they Chose to ignore the rules of construction and sacrifice the end to the means in that ruling.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you really did skip English grammar and punctuation.  Even more amusing is that you seem to relish boasting about your ignorance.  Well, whatever floats your boat!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the guy with only ad hominems instead of valid arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is this an "ad hominem" argument?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Argumentum ad hominem is a fallacy.  You need a valid argument for rebuttal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The English language, grammar and punctuation is NOT a valid argument?  You really did skip grammar and punctuation in school, didn't you?  But now you profess to be an authority on the English language?  Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is when you merely claim your unsubstantiated opinion without supporting it with a valid argument.
> 
> Where does it say you can ignore the first clause due to a comma?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who is ignoring the first clause?
> 
> You're ignoring the purpose of the first clause and giving it some meaning that it does not have. Further ignoring the second clause. Your interpretation of the entire amendment requires you to resign weird meaning to each word.
> 
> My interpretation is quite plain and requires no twisted tortured interpretation.
> 
> A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state.
> 
> The word "being" is a form of the verb "is."  You know, am, is, are, was, were, be, being, been, become, feel, seem.
> 
> A well regulated militia *IS* necessary for the security of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and....etc.
> 
> in other words, to keep the states free, they need to be able to organize a militia in times of emergency. Because that militia is drawn from the entire population, and because of past practices of having private citizens bring their own arms to participate in a militia, we (the federal government) will not exercise authority over any aspect of private citizens keeping their private arms so that they can bear them at a time of need.
> 
> Simple. Practicable. Applicable. Does not require a tortured interpretation.
> 
> Why do you motherfuckers have to complicate the fuck out of everything when you know history and you know good and goddamn well what the intent was?
> 
> Why don't you motherfuckers just fucking admit exactly what we have been saying?  You want to deprive us of the right to keep and bear arms and you are trying to interpret the Constitution in a way so that you can.
> 
> Do you understand that anybody who does that is a traitor and an enemy of the United States and its people.?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand you simply know nothing about the law.  You cannot ignore the first clause.  There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The first clause of the 2nd Amendment gives A reason why there should be  no federal firearm laws.
> But in no way does that at all suggest it is the ONLY reason why there should be no federal firearm laws.
Click to expand...

I agree that the Intent and Purpose clause cannot be ignored or separated from that which it limits.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Batcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Batcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If anything, in a world where mobs are burning down cities and threatening people in their cars and homes,  idiot politicians are defunding police departments and police officers quitting and leaving the big cities in mass — the Second Amendment is more meaningful and important today than it has been during my lifetime.
> 
> Plus we have democrats seriously planning to turn our nation into a socialist workers paradise. If that happens don’t think Norway {which is not a socialist nation,)think Cuba or Venezuela or China and Russia.
> 
> Citizens in Venezuela regret giving up their firearms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Venezuela Banned Private Gun Ownership Less Than A Decade Ago
> 
> 
> Venezuela banned private citizens from owning guns seven years ago, leaving firearms solely in the hands of the state. It is a decision some have come to regret.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dailycaller.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A large number of police are quitting because they get no support from the cities that employ them. It is becoming hard to find anyone who wants to be a cop.
> 
> Perhaps the state will have to form militia groups separate from the National Guard to help keep the peace.
> 
> We can’t continue to see our cities burn every time a cop kills a black male. The cost of insurance for an urban business will be so high few except the largest corporations can afford it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Insist our legislators do their (paid) Job.
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which means then that all persons of the state need to be armed, which of course means...........
> 
> That all persons have the right to bear arms and the federal government cannot infringe on that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To provide for organizing, *arming*, and disciplining, the Militia
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of express law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, so you're saying that the government owes me some weapons?
Click to expand...

Sure.  Insist your legislators organize more militia (so you can get weapons qualified) and ensure we have no security problems in our free States.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

To the militia mobile!


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Batcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Batcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If anything, in a world where mobs are burning down cities and threatening people in their cars and homes,  idiot politicians are defunding police departments and police officers quitting and leaving the big cities in mass — the Second Amendment is more meaningful and important today than it has been during my lifetime.
> 
> Plus we have democrats seriously planning to turn our nation into a socialist workers paradise. If that happens don’t think Norway {which is not a socialist nation,)think Cuba or Venezuela or China and Russia.
> 
> Citizens in Venezuela regret giving up their firearms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Venezuela Banned Private Gun Ownership Less Than A Decade Ago
> 
> 
> Venezuela banned private citizens from owning guns seven years ago, leaving firearms solely in the hands of the state. It is a decision some have come to regret.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dailycaller.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A large number of police are quitting because they get no support from the cities that employ them. It is becoming hard to find anyone who wants to be a cop.
> 
> Perhaps the state will have to form militia groups separate from the National Guard to help keep the peace.
> 
> We can’t continue to see our cities burn every time a cop kills a black male. The cost of insurance for an urban business will be so high few except the largest corporations can afford it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Insist our legislators do their (paid) Job.
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which means then that all persons of the state need to be armed, which of course means...........
> 
> That all persons have the right to bear arms and the federal government cannot infringe on that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To provide for organizing, *arming*, and disciplining, the Militia
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of express law.
Click to expand...


To provide for means that the government could tax and spend on weapons as necessary.
That in no way implies people were not supposed to be armed themselves, since there is no way the federal government could arm enough people in an emergency.

And again, the federal use for defense from invasion was not the main need for an armed militia, and never was.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you really did skip English grammar and punctuation.  Even more amusing is that you seem to relish boasting about your ignorance.  Well, whatever floats your boat!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the guy with only ad hominems instead of valid arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is this an "ad hominem" argument?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Argumentum ad hominem is a fallacy.  You need a valid argument for rebuttal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The English language, grammar and punctuation is NOT a valid argument?  You really did skip grammar and punctuation in school, didn't you?  But now you profess to be an authority on the English language?  Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is when you merely claim your unsubstantiated opinion without supporting it with a valid argument.
> 
> Where does it say you can ignore the first clause due to a comma?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who is ignoring the first clause?
> 
> You're ignoring the purpose of the first clause and giving it some meaning that it does not have. Further ignoring the second clause. Your interpretation of the entire amendment requires you to resign weird meaning to each word.
> 
> My interpretation is quite plain and requires no twisted tortured interpretation.
> 
> A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state.
> 
> The word "being" is a form of the verb "is."  You know, am, is, are, was, were, be, being, been, become, feel, seem.
> 
> A well regulated militia *IS* necessary for the security of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and....etc.
> 
> in other words, to keep the states free, they need to be able to organize a militia in times of emergency. Because that militia is drawn from the entire population, and because of past practices of having private citizens bring their own arms to participate in a militia, we (the federal government) will not exercise authority over any aspect of private citizens keeping their private arms so that they can bear them at a time of need.
> 
> Simple. Practicable. Applicable. Does not require a tortured interpretation.
> 
> Why do you motherfuckers have to complicate the fuck out of everything when you know history and you know good and goddamn well what the intent was?
> 
> Why don't you motherfuckers just fucking admit exactly what we have been saying?  You want to deprive us of the right to keep and bear arms and you are trying to interpret the Constitution in a way so that you can.
> 
> Do you understand that anybody who does that is a traitor and an enemy of the United States and its people.?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand you simply know nothing about the law.  You cannot ignore the first clause.  There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The first clause of the 2nd Amendment gives A reason why there should be  no federal firearm laws.
> But in no way does that at all suggest it is the ONLY reason why there should be no federal firearm laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree that the Intent and Purpose clause cannot be ignored or separated from that which it limits.
Click to expand...


The well regulated militia clause does show one intention and one purpose, but regardless of if there is one reason to limit federal firearm laws, or a million additional reasons, the result is the same.  There really can be no federal firearm laws, legally.
Each state has different firearm needs and concerns, so it is not a federal matter in any way.
And many federal firearm laws, like prohibiting firearm ownership to ex-felons, seems totally illegal to me.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Batcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Batcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If anything, in a world where mobs are burning down cities and threatening people in their cars and homes,  idiot politicians are defunding police departments and police officers quitting and leaving the big cities in mass — the Second Amendment is more meaningful and important today than it has been during my lifetime.
> 
> Plus we have democrats seriously planning to turn our nation into a socialist workers paradise. If that happens don’t think Norway {which is not a socialist nation,)think Cuba or Venezuela or China and Russia.
> 
> Citizens in Venezuela regret giving up their firearms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Venezuela Banned Private Gun Ownership Less Than A Decade Ago
> 
> 
> Venezuela banned private citizens from owning guns seven years ago, leaving firearms solely in the hands of the state. It is a decision some have come to regret.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dailycaller.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A large number of police are quitting because they get no support from the cities that employ them. It is becoming hard to find anyone who wants to be a cop.
> 
> Perhaps the state will have to form militia groups separate from the National Guard to help keep the peace.
> 
> We can’t continue to see our cities burn every time a cop kills a black male. The cost of insurance for an urban business will be so high few except the largest corporations can afford it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Insist our legislators do their (paid) Job.
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which means then that all persons of the state need to be armed, which of course means...........
> 
> That all persons have the right to bear arms and the federal government cannot infringe on that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To provide for organizing, *arming*, and disciplining, the Militia
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of express law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To provide for means that the government could tax and spend on weapons as necessary.
> That in no way implies people were not supposed to be armed themselves, since there is no way the federal government could arm enough people in an emergency.
> 
> And again, the federal use for defense from invasion was not the main need for an armed militia, and never was.
Click to expand...

The point is, private arms is not a right since Congress reserved the authority of arming the militia.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> The well regulated militia clause does show one intention and one purpose, but regardless of if there is one reason to limit federal firearm laws, or a million additional reasons, the result is the same. There really can be no federal firearm laws, legally.


How did you reach that conclusion?  

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Batcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Batcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If anything, in a world where mobs are burning down cities and threatening people in their cars and homes,  idiot politicians are defunding police departments and police officers quitting and leaving the big cities in mass — the Second Amendment is more meaningful and important today than it has been during my lifetime.
> 
> Plus we have democrats seriously planning to turn our nation into a socialist workers paradise. If that happens don’t think Norway {which is not a socialist nation,)think Cuba or Venezuela or China and Russia.
> 
> Citizens in Venezuela regret giving up their firearms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Venezuela Banned Private Gun Ownership Less Than A Decade Ago
> 
> 
> Venezuela banned private citizens from owning guns seven years ago, leaving firearms solely in the hands of the state. It is a decision some have come to regret.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dailycaller.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A large number of police are quitting because they get no support from the cities that employ them. It is becoming hard to find anyone who wants to be a cop.
> 
> Perhaps the state will have to form militia groups separate from the National Guard to help keep the peace.
> 
> We can’t continue to see our cities burn every time a cop kills a black male. The cost of insurance for an urban business will be so high few except the largest corporations can afford it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Insist our legislators do their (paid) Job.
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which means then that all persons of the state need to be armed, which of course means...........
> 
> That all persons have the right to bear arms and the federal government cannot infringe on that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To provide for organizing, *arming*, and disciplining, the Militia
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of express law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To provide for means that the government could tax and spend on weapons as necessary.
> That in no way implies people were not supposed to be armed themselves, since there is no way the federal government could arm enough people in an emergency.
> 
> And again, the federal use for defense from invasion was not the main need for an armed militia, and never was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point is, private arms is not a right since Congress reserved the authority of arming the militia.
Click to expand...

Then since the right to bear arms shall not be infringed (private right), the government owes me some weapons.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The well regulated militia clause does show one intention and one purpose, but regardless of if there is one reason to limit federal firearm laws, or a million additional reasons, the result is the same. There really can be no federal firearm laws, legally.
> 
> 
> 
> How did you reach that conclusion?
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
Click to expand...

How does the Illinois State Constitution override the federal Constitution? And if it does not, why do you keep quoting it as if it's significant?


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Batcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Batcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If anything, in a world where mobs are burning down cities and threatening people in their cars and homes,  idiot politicians are defunding police departments and police officers quitting and leaving the big cities in mass — the Second Amendment is more meaningful and important today than it has been during my lifetime.
> 
> Plus we have democrats seriously planning to turn our nation into a socialist workers paradise. If that happens don’t think Norway {which is not a socialist nation,)think Cuba or Venezuela or China and Russia.
> 
> Citizens in Venezuela regret giving up their firearms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Venezuela Banned Private Gun Ownership Less Than A Decade Ago
> 
> 
> Venezuela banned private citizens from owning guns seven years ago, leaving firearms solely in the hands of the state. It is a decision some have come to regret.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dailycaller.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A large number of police are quitting because they get no support from the cities that employ them. It is becoming hard to find anyone who wants to be a cop.
> 
> Perhaps the state will have to form militia groups separate from the National Guard to help keep the peace.
> 
> We can’t continue to see our cities burn every time a cop kills a black male. The cost of insurance for an urban business will be so high few except the largest corporations can afford it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Insist our legislators do their (paid) Job.
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which means then that all persons of the state need to be armed, which of course means...........
> 
> That all persons have the right to bear arms and the federal government cannot infringe on that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To provide for organizing, *arming*, and disciplining, the Militia
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of express law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To provide for means that the government could tax and spend on weapons as necessary.
> That in no way implies people were not supposed to be armed themselves, since there is no way the federal government could arm enough people in an emergency.
> 
> And again, the federal use for defense from invasion was not the main need for an armed militia, and never was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point is, private arms is not a right since Congress reserved the authority of arming the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then since the right to bear arms shall not be infringed (private right), the government owes me some weapons.
Click to expand...

It is a public right.  Remember, right wingers, y'all allege no checks for Individuals from our general welfare clause.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The well regulated militia clause does show one intention and one purpose, but regardless of if there is one reason to limit federal firearm laws, or a million additional reasons, the result is the same. There really can be no federal firearm laws, legally.
> 
> 
> 
> How did you reach that conclusion?
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does the Illinois State Constitution override the federal Constitution? And if it does not, why do you keep quoting it as if it's significant?
Click to expand...

It doesn't.  The police power is a State's sovereign right.  It is merely presented as legal proof that our Second Amendment cannot do what right wingers allege.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Batcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Batcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If anything, in a world where mobs are burning down cities and threatening people in their cars and homes,  idiot politicians are defunding police departments and police officers quitting and leaving the big cities in mass — the Second Amendment is more meaningful and important today than it has been during my lifetime.
> 
> Plus we have democrats seriously planning to turn our nation into a socialist workers paradise. If that happens don’t think Norway {which is not a socialist nation,)think Cuba or Venezuela or China and Russia.
> 
> Citizens in Venezuela regret giving up their firearms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Venezuela Banned Private Gun Ownership Less Than A Decade Ago
> 
> 
> Venezuela banned private citizens from owning guns seven years ago, leaving firearms solely in the hands of the state. It is a decision some have come to regret.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dailycaller.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A large number of police are quitting because they get no support from the cities that employ them. It is becoming hard to find anyone who wants to be a cop.
> 
> Perhaps the state will have to form militia groups separate from the National Guard to help keep the peace.
> 
> We can’t continue to see our cities burn every time a cop kills a black male. The cost of insurance for an urban business will be so high few except the largest corporations can afford it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Insist our legislators do their (paid) Job.
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which means then that all persons of the state need to be armed, which of course means...........
> 
> That all persons have the right to bear arms and the federal government cannot infringe on that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To provide for organizing, *arming*, and disciplining, the Militia
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of express law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To provide for means that the government could tax and spend on weapons as necessary.
> That in no way implies people were not supposed to be armed themselves, since there is no way the federal government could arm enough people in an emergency.
> 
> And again, the federal use for defense from invasion was not the main need for an armed militia, and never was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point is, private arms is not a right since Congress reserved the authority of arming the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then since the right to bear arms shall not be infringed (private right), the government owes me some weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a public right.  Remember, right wingers, y'all allege no checks for Individuals from our general welfare clause.
Click to expand...

Well, since the SC disagrees with you, you're simply wrong. The second is an individual right and you can't change that. Pretending you're a greater Constitutional scholar than the Justices is not impressive.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The well regulated militia clause does show one intention and one purpose, but regardless of if there is one reason to limit federal firearm laws, or a million additional reasons, the result is the same. There really can be no federal firearm laws, legally.
> 
> 
> 
> How did you reach that conclusion?
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does the Illinois State Constitution override the federal Constitution? And if it does not, why do you keep quoting it as if it's significant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't.  The police power is a State's sovereign right.  It is merely presented as legal proof that our Second Amendment cannot do what right wingers allege.
Click to expand...

It's not legal proof of anything outside of Illinois. You like the way it sounds so you quote it, but it's meaningless outside the state, and there's a LOT more to the US than just Illinois.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> Well, since the SC disagrees with you, you're simply wrong. The second is an individual right and you can't change that. Pretending you're a greater Constitutional scholar than the Justices is not impressive.


Means nothing to me.  Our Tenth Amendment is more supreme than any legal error promulgated by that Court.  Your fallacies are even less, impressive.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The well regulated militia clause does show one intention and one purpose, but regardless of if there is one reason to limit federal firearm laws, or a million additional reasons, the result is the same. There really can be no federal firearm laws, legally.
> 
> 
> 
> How did you reach that conclusion?
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does the Illinois State Constitution override the federal Constitution? And if it does not, why do you keep quoting it as if it's significant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't.  The police power is a State's sovereign right.  It is merely presented as legal proof that our Second Amendment cannot do what right wingers allege.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not legal proof of anything outside of Illinois. You like the way it sounds so you quote it, but it's meaningless outside the state, and there's a LOT more to the US than just Illinois.
Click to expand...

Our Second Amendment secures a State's sovereign right not an individual right.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Batcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Batcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If anything, in a world where mobs are burning down cities and threatening people in their cars and homes,  idiot politicians are defunding police departments and police officers quitting and leaving the big cities in mass — the Second Amendment is more meaningful and important today than it has been during my lifetime.
> 
> Plus we have democrats seriously planning to turn our nation into a socialist workers paradise. If that happens don’t think Norway {which is not a socialist nation,)think Cuba or Venezuela or China and Russia.
> 
> Citizens in Venezuela regret giving up their firearms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Venezuela Banned Private Gun Ownership Less Than A Decade Ago
> 
> 
> Venezuela banned private citizens from owning guns seven years ago, leaving firearms solely in the hands of the state. It is a decision some have come to regret.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dailycaller.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A large number of police are quitting because they get no support from the cities that employ them. It is becoming hard to find anyone who wants to be a cop.
> 
> Perhaps the state will have to form militia groups separate from the National Guard to help keep the peace.
> 
> We can’t continue to see our cities burn every time a cop kills a black male. The cost of insurance for an urban business will be so high few except the largest corporations can afford it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Insist our legislators do their (paid) Job.
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which means then that all persons of the state need to be armed, which of course means...........
> 
> That all persons have the right to bear arms and the federal government cannot infringe on that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To provide for organizing, *arming*, and disciplining, the Militia
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of express law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To provide for means that the government could tax and spend on weapons as necessary.
> That in no way implies people were not supposed to be armed themselves, since there is no way the federal government could arm enough people in an emergency.
> 
> And again, the federal use for defense from invasion was not the main need for an armed militia, and never was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point is, private arms is not a right since Congress reserved the authority of arming the militia.
Click to expand...

Contrary to the plain language?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The well regulated militia clause does show one intention and one purpose, but regardless of if there is one reason to limit federal firearm laws, or a million additional reasons, the result is the same. There really can be no federal firearm laws, legally.
> 
> 
> 
> How did you reach that conclusion?
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does the Illinois State Constitution override the federal Constitution? And if it does not, why do you keep quoting it as if it's significant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't.  The police power is a State's sovereign right.  It is merely presented as legal proof that our Second Amendment cannot do what right wingers allege.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not legal proof of anything outside of Illinois. You like the way it sounds so you quote it, but it's meaningless outside the state, and there's a LOT more to the US than just Illinois.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment secures a State's sovereign right not an individual right.
Click to expand...

But, acknowledges a preexisting right of the people?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Batcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Batcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If anything, in a world where mobs are burning down cities and threatening people in their cars and homes,  idiot politicians are defunding police departments and police officers quitting and leaving the big cities in mass — the Second Amendment is more meaningful and important today than it has been during my lifetime.
> 
> Plus we have democrats seriously planning to turn our nation into a socialist workers paradise. If that happens don’t think Norway {which is not a socialist nation,)think Cuba or Venezuela or China and Russia.
> 
> Citizens in Venezuela regret giving up their firearms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Venezuela Banned Private Gun Ownership Less Than A Decade Ago
> 
> 
> Venezuela banned private citizens from owning guns seven years ago, leaving firearms solely in the hands of the state. It is a decision some have come to regret.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dailycaller.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A large number of police are quitting because they get no support from the cities that employ them. It is becoming hard to find anyone who wants to be a cop.
> 
> Perhaps the state will have to form militia groups separate from the National Guard to help keep the peace.
> 
> We can’t continue to see our cities burn every time a cop kills a black male. The cost of insurance for an urban business will be so high few except the largest corporations can afford it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Insist our legislators do their (paid) Job.
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which means then that all persons of the state need to be armed, which of course means...........
> 
> That all persons have the right to bear arms and the federal government cannot infringe on that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To provide for organizing, *arming*, and disciplining, the Militia
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of express law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To provide for means that the government could tax and spend on weapons as necessary.
> That in no way implies people were not supposed to be armed themselves, since there is no way the federal government could arm enough people in an emergency.
> 
> And again, the federal use for defense from invasion was not the main need for an armed militia, and never was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point is, private arms is not a right since Congress reserved the authority of arming the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then since the right to bear arms shall not be infringed (private right), the government owes me some weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a public right.  Remember, right wingers, y'all allege no checks for Individuals from our general welfare clause.
Click to expand...

A "public right" is no right at all.  You may as well just say that there is no right.

The "people's food" only gets eaten by a select few.

The "people's house" only gets used by the rich and powerful.

Can I eat the "people's" food?

No. That food belongs to the people.

Well, I am a person.  Why can't I eat it?

You are not the people.

Then, who gets to eat it?

The people.  Not you.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The well regulated militia clause does show one intention and one purpose, but regardless of if there is one reason to limit federal firearm laws, or a million additional reasons, the result is the same. There really can be no federal firearm laws, legally.
> 
> 
> 
> How did you reach that conclusion?
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does the Illinois State Constitution override the federal Constitution? And if it does not, why do you keep quoting it as if it's significant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't.  The police power is a State's sovereign right.  It is merely presented as legal proof that our Second Amendment cannot do what right wingers allege.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not legal proof of anything outside of Illinois. You like the way it sounds so you quote it, but it's meaningless outside the state, and there's a LOT more to the US than just Illinois.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment secures a State's sovereign right not an individual right.
Click to expand...

Whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed?


----------



## frigidweirdo

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Batcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Batcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If anything, in a world where mobs are burning down cities and threatening people in their cars and homes,  idiot politicians are defunding police departments and police officers quitting and leaving the big cities in mass — the Second Amendment is more meaningful and important today than it has been during my lifetime.
> 
> Plus we have democrats seriously planning to turn our nation into a socialist workers paradise. If that happens don’t think Norway {which is not a socialist nation,)think Cuba or Venezuela or China and Russia.
> 
> Citizens in Venezuela regret giving up their firearms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Venezuela Banned Private Gun Ownership Less Than A Decade Ago
> 
> 
> Venezuela banned private citizens from owning guns seven years ago, leaving firearms solely in the hands of the state. It is a decision some have come to regret.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dailycaller.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A large number of police are quitting because they get no support from the cities that employ them. It is becoming hard to find anyone who wants to be a cop.
> 
> Perhaps the state will have to form militia groups separate from the National Guard to help keep the peace.
> 
> We can’t continue to see our cities burn every time a cop kills a black male. The cost of insurance for an urban business will be so high few except the largest corporations can afford it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Insist our legislators do their (paid) Job.
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which means then that all persons of the state need to be armed, which of course means...........
> 
> That all persons have the right to bear arms and the federal government cannot infringe on that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To provide for organizing, *arming*, and disciplining, the Militia
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of express law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To provide for means that the government could tax and spend on weapons as necessary.
> That in no way implies people were not supposed to be armed themselves, since there is no way the federal government could arm enough people in an emergency.
> 
> And again, the federal use for defense from invasion was not the main need for an armed militia, and never was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point is, private arms is not a right since Congress reserved the authority of arming the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then since the right to bear arms shall not be infringed (private right), the government owes me some weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a public right.  Remember, right wingers, y'all allege no checks for Individuals from our general welfare clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, since the SC disagrees with you, you're simply wrong. The second is an individual right and you can't change that. Pretending you're a greater Constitutional scholar than the Justices is not impressive.
Click to expand...


Well, technically the 2A is a limit on the powers of the Federal government. 

The right is assumed to be individual.

In fact, it makes no sense as individual. 

The point of the right to keep arms (the right to own weapons) was to stop the feds being able to de-arm the militia by taking the militia's weaponry. 

The point of the right to bear arms (the right to be in the militia) was to stop the feds from stopping individual being in the militia.

Imagine if the militia had a right to be in the militia.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, since the SC disagrees with you, you're simply wrong. The second is an individual right and you can't change that. Pretending you're a greater Constitutional scholar than the Justices is not impressive.
> 
> 
> 
> Means nothing to me.  Our Tenth Amendment is more supreme than any legal error promulgated by that Court.  Your fallacies are even less, impressive.
Click to expand...

Thankfully, your thinking your legal understanding is superior to that of the Justices remains solely in your imagination and has no power to influence anything. You are but a keyboard jockey wailing in the corner, "But I'm RIGHT. All those meanies on the Court and everybody else in the world is WRONG. I know better than they do. They're all stupid heads!!!". Too bad your opinion means nothing.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Batcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Batcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If anything, in a world where mobs are burning down cities and threatening people in their cars and homes,  idiot politicians are defunding police departments and police officers quitting and leaving the big cities in mass — the Second Amendment is more meaningful and important today than it has been during my lifetime.
> 
> Plus we have democrats seriously planning to turn our nation into a socialist workers paradise. If that happens don’t think Norway {which is not a socialist nation,)think Cuba or Venezuela or China and Russia.
> 
> Citizens in Venezuela regret giving up their firearms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Venezuela Banned Private Gun Ownership Less Than A Decade Ago
> 
> 
> Venezuela banned private citizens from owning guns seven years ago, leaving firearms solely in the hands of the state. It is a decision some have come to regret.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dailycaller.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A large number of police are quitting because they get no support from the cities that employ them. It is becoming hard to find anyone who wants to be a cop.
> 
> Perhaps the state will have to form militia groups separate from the National Guard to help keep the peace.
> 
> We can’t continue to see our cities burn every time a cop kills a black male. The cost of insurance for an urban business will be so high few except the largest corporations can afford it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Insist our legislators do their (paid) Job.
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which means then that all persons of the state need to be armed, which of course means...........
> 
> That all persons have the right to bear arms and the federal government cannot infringe on that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To provide for organizing, *arming*, and disciplining, the Militia
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of express law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To provide for means that the government could tax and spend on weapons as necessary.
> That in no way implies people were not supposed to be armed themselves, since there is no way the federal government could arm enough people in an emergency.
> 
> And again, the federal use for defense from invasion was not the main need for an armed militia, and never was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point is, private arms is not a right since Congress reserved the authority of arming the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Contrary to the plain language?
Click to expand...

What plain language are you referring to?  There are no Individual or singular terms plainly used in our Second Amendment. 

Here is some plain language for you:

To provide for organizing, *arming*, and disciplining, the Militia


----------



## frigidweirdo

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you really did skip English grammar and punctuation.  Even more amusing is that you seem to relish boasting about your ignorance.  Well, whatever floats your boat!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the guy with only ad hominems instead of valid arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is this an "ad hominem" argument?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Argumentum ad hominem is a fallacy.  You need a valid argument for rebuttal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The English language, grammar and punctuation is NOT a valid argument?  You really did skip grammar and punctuation in school, didn't you?  But now you profess to be an authority on the English language?  Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is when you merely claim your unsubstantiated opinion without supporting it with a valid argument.
> 
> Where does it say you can ignore the first clause due to a comma?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who is ignoring the first clause?
> 
> You're ignoring the purpose of the first clause and giving it some meaning that it does not have. Further ignoring the second clause. Your interpretation of the entire amendment requires you to resign weird meaning to each word.
> 
> My interpretation is quite plain and requires no twisted tortured interpretation.
> 
> A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state.
> 
> The word "being" is a form of the verb "is."  You know, am, is, are, was, were, be, being, been, become, feel, seem.
> 
> A well regulated militia *IS* necessary for the security of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and....etc.
> 
> in other words, to keep the states free, they need to be able to organize a militia in times of emergency. Because that militia is drawn from the entire population, and because of past practices of having private citizens bring their own arms to participate in a militia, we (the federal government) will not exercise authority over any aspect of private citizens keeping their private arms so that they can bear them at a time of need.
> 
> Simple. Practicable. Applicable. Does not require a tortured interpretation.
> 
> Why do you motherfuckers have to complicate the fuck out of everything when you know history and you know good and goddamn well what the intent was?
> 
> Why don't you motherfuckers just fucking admit exactly what we have been saying?  You want to deprive us of the right to keep and bear arms and you are trying to interpret the Constitution in a way so that you can.
> 
> Do you understand that anybody who does that is a traitor and an enemy of the United States and its people.?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand you simply know nothing about the law.  You cannot ignore the first clause.  There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The first clause of the 2nd Amendment gives A reason why there should be  no federal firearm laws.
> But in no way does that at all suggest it is the ONLY reason why there should be no federal firearm laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree that the Intent and Purpose clause cannot be ignored or separated from that which it limits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The well regulated militia clause does show one intention and one purpose, but regardless of if there is one reason to limit federal firearm laws, or a million additional reasons, the result is the same.  There really can be no federal firearm laws, legally.
> Each state has different firearm needs and concerns, so it is not a federal matter in any way.
> And many federal firearm laws, like prohibiting firearm ownership to ex-felons, seems totally illegal to me.
Click to expand...


Not true. The 2A prevents the feds from stopping individuals from having arms. It doesn't stop them limiting which arms they can have. As long as individuals can get their hands on arms are "reasonable" prices, then they can do what they like.

They can even ban people getting nukes. Shock horror.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The well regulated militia clause does show one intention and one purpose, but regardless of if there is one reason to limit federal firearm laws, or a million additional reasons, the result is the same. There really can be no federal firearm laws, legally.
> 
> 
> 
> How did you reach that conclusion?
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does the Illinois State Constitution override the federal Constitution? And if it does not, why do you keep quoting it as if it's significant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't.  The police power is a State's sovereign right.  It is merely presented as legal proof that our Second Amendment cannot do what right wingers allege.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not legal proof of anything outside of Illinois. You like the way it sounds so you quote it, but it's meaningless outside the state, and there's a LOT more to the US than just Illinois.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment secures a State's sovereign right not an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But, acknowledges a preexisting right of the people?
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't.  It expresses as State's sovereign right to raise its own militia for its own security.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Batcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Batcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If anything, in a world where mobs are burning down cities and threatening people in their cars and homes,  idiot politicians are defunding police departments and police officers quitting and leaving the big cities in mass — the Second Amendment is more meaningful and important today than it has been during my lifetime.
> 
> Plus we have democrats seriously planning to turn our nation into a socialist workers paradise. If that happens don’t think Norway {which is not a socialist nation,)think Cuba or Venezuela or China and Russia.
> 
> Citizens in Venezuela regret giving up their firearms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Venezuela Banned Private Gun Ownership Less Than A Decade Ago
> 
> 
> Venezuela banned private citizens from owning guns seven years ago, leaving firearms solely in the hands of the state. It is a decision some have come to regret.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dailycaller.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A large number of police are quitting because they get no support from the cities that employ them. It is becoming hard to find anyone who wants to be a cop.
> 
> Perhaps the state will have to form militia groups separate from the National Guard to help keep the peace.
> 
> We can’t continue to see our cities burn every time a cop kills a black male. The cost of insurance for an urban business will be so high few except the largest corporations can afford it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Insist our legislators do their (paid) Job.
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which means then that all persons of the state need to be armed, which of course means...........
> 
> That all persons have the right to bear arms and the federal government cannot infringe on that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To provide for organizing, *arming*, and disciplining, the Militia
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of express law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To provide for means that the government could tax and spend on weapons as necessary.
> That in no way implies people were not supposed to be armed themselves, since there is no way the federal government could arm enough people in an emergency.
> 
> And again, the federal use for defense from invasion was not the main need for an armed militia, and never was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point is, private arms is not a right since Congress reserved the authority of arming the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then since the right to bear arms shall not be infringed (private right), the government owes me some weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a public right.  Remember, right wingers, y'all allege no checks for Individuals from our general welfare clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A "public right" is no right at all.  You may as well just say that there is no right.
> 
> The "people's food" only gets eaten by a select few.
> 
> The "people's house" only gets used by the rich and powerful.
> 
> Can I eat the "people's" food?
> 
> No. That food belongs to the people.
> 
> Well, I am a person.  Why can't I eat it?
> 
> You are not the people.
> 
> Then, who gets to eat it?
> 
> The people.  Not you.
Click to expand...

Your special pleading is not better than a valid argument.  States have a right to raise militias for their own security.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, since the SC disagrees with you, you're simply wrong. The second is an individual right and you can't change that. Pretending you're a greater Constitutional scholar than the Justices is not impressive.
> 
> 
> 
> Means nothing to me.  Our Tenth Amendment is more supreme than any legal error promulgated by that Court.  Your fallacies are even less, impressive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thankfully, your thinking your legal understanding is superior to that of the Justices remains solely in your imagination and has no power to influence anything. You are but a keyboard jockey wailing in the corner, "But I'm RIGHT. All those meanies on the Court and everybody else in the world is WRONG. I know better than they do. They're all stupid heads!!!". Too bad your opinion means nothing.
Click to expand...

Yours even less since have nothing but fallacy.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, since the SC disagrees with you, you're simply wrong. The second is an individual right and you can't change that. Pretending you're a greater Constitutional scholar than the Justices is not impressive.
> 
> 
> 
> Means nothing to me.  Our Tenth Amendment is more supreme than any legal error promulgated by that Court.  Your fallacies are even less, impressive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thankfully, your thinking your legal understanding is superior to that of the Justices remains solely in your imagination and has no power to influence anything. You are but a keyboard jockey wailing in the corner, "But I'm RIGHT. All those meanies on the Court and everybody else in the world is WRONG. I know better than they do. They're all stupid heads!!!". Too bad your opinion means nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yours even less since have nothing but fallacy.
Click to expand...

Except that I agree with the SC. I have the right to bear arms under the 2nd Amendment.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The well regulated militia clause does show one intention and one purpose, but regardless of if there is one reason to limit federal firearm laws, or a million additional reasons, the result is the same. There really can be no federal firearm laws, legally.
> 
> 
> 
> How did you reach that conclusion?
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does the Illinois State Constitution override the federal Constitution? And if it does not, why do you keep quoting it as if it's significant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't.  The police power is a State's sovereign right.  It is merely presented as legal proof that our Second Amendment cannot do what right wingers allege.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not legal proof of anything outside of Illinois. You like the way it sounds so you quote it, but it's meaningless outside the state, and there's a LOT more to the US than just Illinois.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment secures a State's sovereign right not an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But, acknowledges a preexisting right of the people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't.  It expresses as State's sovereign right to raise its own militia for its own security.
Click to expand...

And that means the people have the right to bear arms, individually.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, since the SC disagrees with you, you're simply wrong. The second is an individual right and you can't change that. Pretending you're a greater Constitutional scholar than the Justices is not impressive.
> 
> 
> 
> Means nothing to me.  Our Tenth Amendment is more supreme than any legal error promulgated by that Court.  Your fallacies are even less, impressive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thankfully, your thinking your legal understanding is superior to that of the Justices remains solely in your imagination and has no power to influence anything. You are but a keyboard jockey wailing in the corner, "But I'm RIGHT. All those meanies on the Court and everybody else in the world is WRONG. I know better than they do. They're all stupid heads!!!". Too bad your opinion means nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yours even less since have nothing but fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except that I agree with the SC. I have the right to bear arms under the 2nd Amendment.
Click to expand...

Everyone has the right to keep and bear Arms for the security of their State or the Union; none of the Governments in our Constitutional republic have the authority to deny or disparage patriots from keeping and bearing Arms and being organized into a well regulated militia.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The well regulated militia clause does show one intention and one purpose, but regardless of if there is one reason to limit federal firearm laws, or a million additional reasons, the result is the same. There really can be no federal firearm laws, legally.
> 
> 
> 
> How did you reach that conclusion?
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does the Illinois State Constitution override the federal Constitution? And if it does not, why do you keep quoting it as if it's significant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't.  The police power is a State's sovereign right.  It is merely presented as legal proof that our Second Amendment cannot do what right wingers allege.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not legal proof of anything outside of Illinois. You like the way it sounds so you quote it, but it's meaningless outside the state, and there's a LOT more to the US than just Illinois.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment secures a State's sovereign right not an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But, acknowledges a preexisting right of the people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't.  It expresses as State's sovereign right to raise its own militia for its own security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that means the people have the right to bear arms, individually.
Click to expand...

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The well regulated militia clause does show one intention and one purpose, but regardless of if there is one reason to limit federal firearm laws, or a million additional reasons, the result is the same. There really can be no federal firearm laws, legally.
> 
> 
> 
> How did you reach that conclusion?
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does the Illinois State Constitution override the federal Constitution? And if it does not, why do you keep quoting it as if it's significant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't.  The police power is a State's sovereign right.  It is merely presented as legal proof that our Second Amendment cannot do what right wingers allege.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not legal proof of anything outside of Illinois. You like the way it sounds so you quote it, but it's meaningless outside the state, and there's a LOT more to the US than just Illinois.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment secures a State's sovereign right not an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But, acknowledges a preexisting right of the people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't.  It expresses as State's sovereign right to raise its own militia for its own security.
Click to expand...

And, the way such a militia was armed at the time of the 2A's drafting was INDIVIDUALS owning their own firearms so they could serve and answer the call.

We can go around and around all day, but the 2A intent was to keep the FedGov from confiscating weapons from individuals.

PERIOD!!!!

You can twist and torture meanings all day long, and it will NOT change the history and therefore, the ultimate purpose of the 2A---individuals keep their guns!!!


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Everyone has the right to keep and bear Arms for the security of their State or the Union


And, the ENTIRE history prior to the 2A being drafted consisted of INDIVIDUALS keeping their OWN arms for personal protection AND service in the militia.


----------



## SC Patriot

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The well regulated militia clause does show one intention and one purpose, but regardless of if there is one reason to limit federal firearm laws, or a million additional reasons, the result is the same. There really can be no federal firearm laws, legally.
> 
> 
> 
> How did you reach that conclusion?
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does the Illinois State Constitution override the federal Constitution? And if it does not, why do you keep quoting it as if it's significant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't.  The police power is a State's sovereign right.  It is merely presented as legal proof that our Second Amendment cannot do what right wingers allege.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not legal proof of anything outside of Illinois. You like the way it sounds so you quote it, but it's meaningless outside the state, and there's a LOT more to the US than just Illinois.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment secures a State's sovereign right not an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But, acknowledges a preexisting right of the people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't.  It expresses as State's sovereign right to raise its own militia for its own security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And, the way such a militia was armed at the time of the 2A's drafting was INDIVIDUALS owning their own firearms so they could serve and answer the call.
> 
> We can go around and around all day, but the 2A intent was to keep the FedGov from confiscating weapons from individuals.
> 
> PERIOD!!!!
> 
> You can twist and torture meanings all day long, and it will NOT change the history and therefore, the ultimate purpose of the 2A---individuals keep their guns!!!
Click to expand...

Actually, the 2A was designed to ensure the people never have to worry about the federal government taking over the people. Afterall, we pay their salaries.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)


And I agree with that, but the term "police power" must be defined and narrowly tailored so as to NOT countermand the individual right to keep and bear arms.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

SC Patriot said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The well regulated militia clause does show one intention and one purpose, but regardless of if there is one reason to limit federal firearm laws, or a million additional reasons, the result is the same. There really can be no federal firearm laws, legally.
> 
> 
> 
> How did you reach that conclusion?
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does the Illinois State Constitution override the federal Constitution? And if it does not, why do you keep quoting it as if it's significant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't.  The police power is a State's sovereign right.  It is merely presented as legal proof that our Second Amendment cannot do what right wingers allege.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not legal proof of anything outside of Illinois. You like the way it sounds so you quote it, but it's meaningless outside the state, and there's a LOT more to the US than just Illinois.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment secures a State's sovereign right not an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But, acknowledges a preexisting right of the people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't.  It expresses as State's sovereign right to raise its own militia for its own security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And, the way such a militia was armed at the time of the 2A's drafting was INDIVIDUALS owning their own firearms so they could serve and answer the call.
> 
> We can go around and around all day, but the 2A intent was to keep the FedGov from confiscating weapons from individuals.
> 
> PERIOD!!!!
> 
> You can twist and torture meanings all day long, and it will NOT change the history and therefore, the ultimate purpose of the 2A---individuals keep their guns!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, the 2A was designed to ensure the people never have to worry about the federal government taking over the people. Afterall, we pay their salaries.
Click to expand...

That is the broader meaning and purpose, but the practical effect was denying the FedGov authority to take arms from individuals.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> Well, since the SC disagrees with you, you're simply wrong. The second is an individual right and you can't change that. Pretending you're a greater Constitutional scholar than the Justices is not impressive.


Appeal to authority is a fallacy, and I could claim simple activism on the part of that Court since they have no justification for ignoring the rules of construction or sacrificing the end to the means.  

Our Tenth Amendment applies.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> Whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed?


The People who are organized into well regulated militia to keep and bear Arms for the security of their State or the Union.  Any questions?


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> 
> 
> And I agree with that, but the term "police power" must be defined and narrowly tailored so as to NOT countermand the individual right to keep and bear arms.
Click to expand...

You need to remember your own right wing rhetoric. 

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed?
> 
> 
> 
> The People who are organized into well regulated militia to keep and bear Arms for the security of their State or the Union.  Any questions?
Click to expand...

Who gets to decide?  What is the penalty for not organizing?

This is all bullshit.

The militia is independent of government.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> 
> 
> And I agree with that, but the term "police power" must be defined and narrowly tailored so as to NOT countermand the individual right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to remember your own right wing rhetoric.
> 
> The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.
Click to expand...

I don't know what that has to do with police power being a narrowly-tailored concept so as to not kill liberty.


----------



## Brain357

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The well regulated militia clause does show one intention and one purpose, but regardless of if there is one reason to limit federal firearm laws, or a million additional reasons, the result is the same. There really can be no federal firearm laws, legally.
> 
> 
> 
> How did you reach that conclusion?
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does the Illinois State Constitution override the federal Constitution? And if it does not, why do you keep quoting it as if it's significant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't.  The police power is a State's sovereign right.  It is merely presented as legal proof that our Second Amendment cannot do what right wingers allege.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not legal proof of anything outside of Illinois. You like the way it sounds so you quote it, but it's meaningless outside the state, and there's a LOT more to the US than just Illinois.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment secures a State's sovereign right not an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But, acknowledges a preexisting right of the people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't.  It expresses as State's sovereign right to raise its own militia for its own security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And, the way such a militia was armed at the time of the 2A's drafting was INDIVIDUALS owning their own firearms so they could serve and answer the call.
> 
> We can go around and around all day, but the 2A intent was to keep the FedGov from confiscating weapons from individuals.
> 
> PERIOD!!!!
> 
> You can twist and torture meanings all day long, and it will NOT change the history and therefore, the ultimate purpose of the 2A---individuals keep their guns!!!
Click to expand...

We had the 2a because at the time we had no standing arming.   It served no purpose now that we have one.


----------



## SC Patriot

Brain357 said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The well regulated militia clause does show one intention and one purpose, but regardless of if there is one reason to limit federal firearm laws, or a million additional reasons, the result is the same. There really can be no federal firearm laws, legally.
> 
> 
> 
> How did you reach that conclusion?
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does the Illinois State Constitution override the federal Constitution? And if it does not, why do you keep quoting it as if it's significant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't.  The police power is a State's sovereign right.  It is merely presented as legal proof that our Second Amendment cannot do what right wingers allege.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not legal proof of anything outside of Illinois. You like the way it sounds so you quote it, but it's meaningless outside the state, and there's a LOT more to the US than just Illinois.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment secures a State's sovereign right not an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But, acknowledges a preexisting right of the people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't.  It expresses as State's sovereign right to raise its own militia for its own security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And, the way such a militia was armed at the time of the 2A's drafting was INDIVIDUALS owning their own firearms so they could serve and answer the call.
> 
> We can go around and around all day, but the 2A intent was to keep the FedGov from confiscating weapons from individuals.
> 
> PERIOD!!!!
> 
> You can twist and torture meanings all day long, and it will NOT change the history and therefore, the ultimate purpose of the 2A---individuals keep their guns!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We had the 2a because at the time we had no standing arming.   It served no purpose now that we have one.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

It is the peoples protection from a government overstepping its boundaries.


----------



## danielpalos

Brain357 said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The well regulated militia clause does show one intention and one purpose, but regardless of if there is one reason to limit federal firearm laws, or a million additional reasons, the result is the same. There really can be no federal firearm laws, legally.
> 
> 
> 
> How did you reach that conclusion?
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does the Illinois State Constitution override the federal Constitution? And if it does not, why do you keep quoting it as if it's significant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't.  The police power is a State's sovereign right.  It is merely presented as legal proof that our Second Amendment cannot do what right wingers allege.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not legal proof of anything outside of Illinois. You like the way it sounds so you quote it, but it's meaningless outside the state, and there's a LOT more to the US than just Illinois.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment secures a State's sovereign right not an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But, acknowledges a preexisting right of the people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't.  It expresses as State's sovereign right to raise its own militia for its own security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And, the way such a militia was armed at the time of the 2A's drafting was INDIVIDUALS owning their own firearms so they could serve and answer the call.
> 
> We can go around and around all day, but the 2A intent was to keep the FedGov from confiscating weapons from individuals.
> 
> PERIOD!!!!
> 
> You can twist and torture meanings all day long, and it will NOT change the history and therefore, the ultimate purpose of the 2A---individuals keep their guns!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We had the 2a because at the time we had no standing arming.   It served no purpose now that we have one.
Click to expand...

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.  

Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and Regulate them Well!

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The well regulated militia clause does show one intention and one purpose, but regardless of if there is one reason to limit federal firearm laws, or a million additional reasons, the result is the same. There really can be no federal firearm laws, legally.
> 
> 
> 
> How did you reach that conclusion?
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does the Illinois State Constitution override the federal Constitution? And if it does not, why do you keep quoting it as if it's significant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't.  The police power is a State's sovereign right.  It is merely presented as legal proof that our Second Amendment cannot do what right wingers allege.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not legal proof of anything outside of Illinois. You like the way it sounds so you quote it, but it's meaningless outside the state, and there's a LOT more to the US than just Illinois.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment secures a State's sovereign right not an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But, acknowledges a preexisting right of the people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't.  It expresses as State's sovereign right to raise its own militia for its own security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that means the people have the right to bear arms, individually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
Click to expand...

What does that mean in Minnesota? See, the Illinois Constitution doesn't effect the rest of the states. Perhaps you forgot that? Therefore, it doesn't address the individual right of the people to bear arms.


----------



## hadit

Brain357 said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The well regulated militia clause does show one intention and one purpose, but regardless of if there is one reason to limit federal firearm laws, or a million additional reasons, the result is the same. There really can be no federal firearm laws, legally.
> 
> 
> 
> How did you reach that conclusion?
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does the Illinois State Constitution override the federal Constitution? And if it does not, why do you keep quoting it as if it's significant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't.  The police power is a State's sovereign right.  It is merely presented as legal proof that our Second Amendment cannot do what right wingers allege.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not legal proof of anything outside of Illinois. You like the way it sounds so you quote it, but it's meaningless outside the state, and there's a LOT more to the US than just Illinois.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment secures a State's sovereign right not an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But, acknowledges a preexisting right of the people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't.  It expresses as State's sovereign right to raise its own militia for its own security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And, the way such a militia was armed at the time of the 2A's drafting was INDIVIDUALS owning their own firearms so they could serve and answer the call.
> 
> We can go around and around all day, but the 2A intent was to keep the FedGov from confiscating weapons from individuals.
> 
> PERIOD!!!!
> 
> You can twist and torture meanings all day long, and it will NOT change the history and therefore, the ultimate purpose of the 2A---individuals keep their guns!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We had the 2a because at the time we had no standing arming.   It served no purpose now that we have one.
Click to expand...

But until the Constitution is amended, the right to bear arms is the law of the land.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed?
> 
> 
> 
> The People who are organized into well regulated militia to keep and bear Arms for the security of their State or the Union.  Any questions?
Click to expand...

That's not what it says, is it? Please try again. I'll even give you a hint, the answer is a lot shorter and it's in what you wrote.


----------



## 2aguy

Brain357 said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The well regulated militia clause does show one intention and one purpose, but regardless of if there is one reason to limit federal firearm laws, or a million additional reasons, the result is the same. There really can be no federal firearm laws, legally.
> 
> 
> 
> How did you reach that conclusion?
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does the Illinois State Constitution override the federal Constitution? And if it does not, why do you keep quoting it as if it's significant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't.  The police power is a State's sovereign right.  It is merely presented as legal proof that our Second Amendment cannot do what right wingers allege.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not legal proof of anything outside of Illinois. You like the way it sounds so you quote it, but it's meaningless outside the state, and there's a LOT more to the US than just Illinois.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment secures a State's sovereign right not an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But, acknowledges a preexisting right of the people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't.  It expresses as State's sovereign right to raise its own militia for its own security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And, the way such a militia was armed at the time of the 2A's drafting was INDIVIDUALS owning their own firearms so they could serve and answer the call.
> 
> We can go around and around all day, but the 2A intent was to keep the FedGov from confiscating weapons from individuals.
> 
> PERIOD!!!!
> 
> You can twist and torture meanings all day long, and it will NOT change the history and therefore, the ultimate purpose of the 2A---individuals keep their guns!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We had the 2a because at the time we had no standing arming.   It served no purpose now that we have one.
Click to expand...



You should explain that to the 1.1 million Americans who use their legal guns every year to stop rape, robbery and murder....according to the Centers for Disease Control.

Then you might ask the 12 million innocent men, women and children......families who gave up their guns because the governments of Europe told them they would be safer without them.....and then they were sent to gas chambers and murdered ......12 million human beings in the span of about 7 years..........

But first they gave up their guns....based on the same arguments you make now...


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, since the SC disagrees with you, you're simply wrong. The second is an individual right and you can't change that. Pretending you're a greater Constitutional scholar than the Justices is not impressive.
> 
> 
> 
> Appeal to authority is a fallacy, and I could claim simple activism on the part of that Court since they have no justification for ignoring the rules of construction or sacrificing the end to the means.
> 
> Our Tenth Amendment applies.
Click to expand...

We also have the 14th amendment, and quite frankly, you should appeal to authority a little more often, because your constant yammering about your legal thought processes being superior to the Justices on the SC is not convincing.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, since the SC disagrees with you, you're simply wrong. The second is an individual right and you can't change that. Pretending you're a greater Constitutional scholar than the Justices is not impressive.
> 
> 
> 
> Means nothing to me.  Our Tenth Amendment is more supreme than any legal error promulgated by that Court.  Your fallacies are even less, impressive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thankfully, your thinking your legal understanding is superior to that of the Justices remains solely in your imagination and has no power to influence anything. You are but a keyboard jockey wailing in the corner, "But I'm RIGHT. All those meanies on the Court and everybody else in the world is WRONG. I know better than they do. They're all stupid heads!!!". Too bad your opinion means nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yours even less since have nothing but fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except that I agree with the SC. I have the right to bear arms under the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everyone has the right to keep and bear Arms for the security of their State or the Union; none of the Governments in our Constitutional republic have the authority to deny or disparage patriots from keeping and bearing Arms and being organized into a well regulated militia.
Click to expand...

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Nothing in there limiting it to serving the state.


----------



## 2aguy

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, since the SC disagrees with you, you're simply wrong. The second is an individual right and you can't change that. Pretending you're a greater Constitutional scholar than the Justices is not impressive.
> 
> 
> 
> Appeal to authority is a fallacy, and I could claim simple activism on the part of that Court since they have no justification for ignoring the rules of construction or sacrificing the end to the means.
> 
> Our Tenth Amendment applies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We also have the 14th amendment, and quite frankly, you should appeal to authority a little more often, because your constant yammering about your legal thought processes being superior to the Justices on the SC is not convincing.
Click to expand...



But his legal thought is about as sophisticated as the thought coming from the 4 left wingers on the court......


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> What does that mean in Minnesota? See, the Illinois Constitution doesn't effect the rest of the states. Perhaps you forgot that? Therefore, it doesn't address the individual right of the people to bear arms.


Under our federal form of Government, it is clearly a State's sovereign right.


----------



## Rigby5

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> 
> 
> What does that mean in Minnesota? See, the Illinois Constitution doesn't effect the rest of the states. Perhaps you forgot that? Therefore, it doesn't address the individual right of the people to bear arms.
Click to expand...


What it means is that the federal government was/is totally prevented any weapons jurisdiction, but states/municipalities are not.
The point is people and states did not trust large central government.
They had just been forced to violently rebel against a large central government that had tried gun control, they were rightfully wary of that being allowed to happen again.
The people were not unhappy with state or local government, only large central government.


----------



## Rigby5

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, since the SC disagrees with you, you're simply wrong. The second is an individual right and you can't change that. Pretending you're a greater Constitutional scholar than the Justices is not impressive.
> 
> 
> 
> Means nothing to me.  Our Tenth Amendment is more supreme than any legal error promulgated by that Court.  Your fallacies are even less, impressive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thankfully, your thinking your legal understanding is superior to that of the Justices remains solely in your imagination and has no power to influence anything. You are but a keyboard jockey wailing in the corner, "But I'm RIGHT. All those meanies on the Court and everybody else in the world is WRONG. I know better than they do. They're all stupid heads!!!". Too bad your opinion means nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yours even less since have nothing but fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except that I agree with the SC. I have the right to bear arms under the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everyone has the right to keep and bear Arms for the security of their State or the Union; none of the Governments in our Constitutional republic have the authority to deny or disparage patriots from keeping and bearing Arms and being organized into a well regulated militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Nothing in there limiting it to serving the state.
Click to expand...


At the time, the Bill of Rights was considered only restrictions on the federal government.
I think the right to bear arms is better illustrated from the 4th and 5th amendment, as an individual right.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, since the SC disagrees with you, you're simply wrong. The second is an individual right and you can't change that. Pretending you're a greater Constitutional scholar than the Justices is not impressive.
> 
> 
> 
> Means nothing to me.  Our Tenth Amendment is more supreme than any legal error promulgated by that Court.  Your fallacies are even less, impressive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thankfully, your thinking your legal understanding is superior to that of the Justices remains solely in your imagination and has no power to influence anything. You are but a keyboard jockey wailing in the corner, "But I'm RIGHT. All those meanies on the Court and everybody else in the world is WRONG. I know better than they do. They're all stupid heads!!!". Too bad your opinion means nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yours even less since have nothing but fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except that I agree with the SC. I have the right to bear arms under the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everyone has the right to keep and bear Arms for the security of their State or the Union; none of the Governments in our Constitutional republic have the authority to deny or disparage patriots from keeping and bearing Arms and being organized into a well regulated militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Nothing in there limiting it to serving the state.
Click to expand...

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does that mean in Minnesota? See, the Illinois Constitution doesn't effect the rest of the states. Perhaps you forgot that? Therefore, it doesn't address the individual right of the people to bear arms.
> 
> 
> 
> Under our federal form of Government, it is clearly a State's sovereign right.
Click to expand...


PLEASE, states do NOT have "rights".
States have legal authority that is obtained by individuals delegating it, from their inherent individual rights.
I know what you mean, but try to be more careful.

In a dictatorship you can have "might makes right", "the power of the sword", "Devine right", etc.
But not in a democratic republic.  Then there are only inherent individual rights.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does that mean in Minnesota? See, the Illinois Constitution doesn't effect the rest of the states. Perhaps you forgot that? Therefore, it doesn't address the individual right of the people to bear arms.
> 
> 
> 
> Under our federal form of Government, it is clearly a State's sovereign right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PLEASE, states do NOT have "rights".
> States have legal authority that is obtained by individuals delegating it, from their inherent individual rights.
> I know what you mean, but try to be more careful.
> 
> In a dictatorship you can have "might makes right", "the power of the sword", "Devine right", etc.
> But not in a democratic republic.  Then there are only inherent individual rights.
Click to expand...

I agree to disagree.  My reasoning supports my usage.  

States have a legal right to organize militia of the People for the security of their free State or the Union.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, since the SC disagrees with you, you're simply wrong. The second is an individual right and you can't change that. Pretending you're a greater Constitutional scholar than the Justices is not impressive.
> 
> 
> 
> Means nothing to me.  Our Tenth Amendment is more supreme than any legal error promulgated by that Court.  Your fallacies are even less, impressive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thankfully, your thinking your legal understanding is superior to that of the Justices remains solely in your imagination and has no power to influence anything. You are but a keyboard jockey wailing in the corner, "But I'm RIGHT. All those meanies on the Court and everybody else in the world is WRONG. I know better than they do. They're all stupid heads!!!". Too bad your opinion means nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yours even less since have nothing but fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except that I agree with the SC. I have the right to bear arms under the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everyone has the right to keep and bear Arms for the security of their State or the Union; none of the Governments in our Constitutional republic have the authority to deny or disparage patriots from keeping and bearing Arms and being organized into a well regulated militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Nothing in there limiting it to serving the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...


Repeating it does not help because it does imply all levels of government are equally barred from infringement.
It takes other sources to see how popular sentiments were against federal powers but not against state powers.


----------



## hadit

Rigby5 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> 
> 
> What does that mean in Minnesota? See, the Illinois Constitution doesn't effect the rest of the states. Perhaps you forgot that? Therefore, it doesn't address the individual right of the people to bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What it means is that the federal government was/is totally prevented any weapons jurisdiction, but states/municipalities are not.
> The point is people and states did not trust large central government.
> They had just been forced to violently rebel against a large central government that had tried gun control, they were rightfully wary of that being allowed to happen again.
> The people were not unhappy with state or local government, only large central government.
Click to expand...

The 14th amendment prevents states from writing unconstitutional laws.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, since the SC disagrees with you, you're simply wrong. The second is an individual right and you can't change that. Pretending you're a greater Constitutional scholar than the Justices is not impressive.
> 
> 
> 
> Means nothing to me.  Our Tenth Amendment is more supreme than any legal error promulgated by that Court.  Your fallacies are even less, impressive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thankfully, your thinking your legal understanding is superior to that of the Justices remains solely in your imagination and has no power to influence anything. You are but a keyboard jockey wailing in the corner, "But I'm RIGHT. All those meanies on the Court and everybody else in the world is WRONG. I know better than they do. They're all stupid heads!!!". Too bad your opinion means nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yours even less since have nothing but fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except that I agree with the SC. I have the right to bear arms under the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everyone has the right to keep and bear Arms for the security of their State or the Union; none of the Governments in our Constitutional republic have the authority to deny or disparage patriots from keeping and bearing Arms and being organized into a well regulated militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Nothing in there limiting it to serving the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Repeating it does not help because it does imply all levels of government are equally barred from infringement.
> It takes other sources to see how popular sentiments were against federal powers but not against state powers.
Click to expand...

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law in legal venues.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does that mean in Minnesota? See, the Illinois Constitution doesn't effect the rest of the states. Perhaps you forgot that? Therefore, it doesn't address the individual right of the people to bear arms.
> 
> 
> 
> Under our federal form of Government, it is clearly a State's sovereign right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PLEASE, states do NOT have "rights".
> States have legal authority that is obtained by individuals delegating it, from their inherent individual rights.
> I know what you mean, but try to be more careful.
> 
> In a dictatorship you can have "might makes right", "the power of the sword", "Devine right", etc.
> But not in a democratic republic.  Then there are only inherent individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree to disagree.  My reasoning supports my usage.
> 
> States have a legal right to organize militia of the People for the security of their free State or the Union.
Click to expand...


Absolutely wrong.
States do not and can not have rights.
Rights mean something inherent and indestructable..
Since states do not exist until created, and can be created or transformed at will by the people, then states can never have rights.
What states have instead is the authority they get from each individual delegating some of their inherent right authority.

So what states have that allows them to organize a militia is delegated authority, not a right.
Rights are inherent, delegated authority is a step down and indirect.

And even more important is that the legal authority of states to organize a militia, does not at all address what the relationship between states and individuals may be?  If individuals do not need something and that something were of high chances to be harmful to others of the states, then restriction of that could be warranted.  I just disagree that applies to firearms because I think they are needed and not really harmful at all.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, since the SC disagrees with you, you're simply wrong. The second is an individual right and you can't change that. Pretending you're a greater Constitutional scholar than the Justices is not impressive.
> 
> 
> 
> Means nothing to me.  Our Tenth Amendment is more supreme than any legal error promulgated by that Court.  Your fallacies are even less, impressive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thankfully, your thinking your legal understanding is superior to that of the Justices remains solely in your imagination and has no power to influence anything. You are but a keyboard jockey wailing in the corner, "But I'm RIGHT. All those meanies on the Court and everybody else in the world is WRONG. I know better than they do. They're all stupid heads!!!". Too bad your opinion means nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yours even less since have nothing but fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except that I agree with the SC. I have the right to bear arms under the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everyone has the right to keep and bear Arms for the security of their State or the Union; none of the Governments in our Constitutional republic have the authority to deny or disparage patriots from keeping and bearing Arms and being organized into a well regulated militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Nothing in there limiting it to serving the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...

A reason for the right to bear arms is so a militia can be formed, the right to bear arms is protected and that stands alone.


----------



## Rigby5

hadit said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> 
> 
> What does that mean in Minnesota? See, the Illinois Constitution doesn't effect the rest of the states. Perhaps you forgot that? Therefore, it doesn't address the individual right of the people to bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What it means is that the federal government was/is totally prevented any weapons jurisdiction, but states/municipalities are not.
> The point is people and states did not trust large central government.
> They had just been forced to violently rebel against a large central government that had tried gun control, they were rightfully wary of that being allowed to happen again.
> The people were not unhappy with state or local government, only large central government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 14th amendment prevents states from writing unconstitutional laws.
Click to expand...


Since the constitution did not really intend to list individual rights, that is not exactly a correct argument.
The 14th tries to enhance protection of individual rights, and the constitution is one of the main sources the courts use, but it is a much more subtle argument than that, It is known as the Pneumbra Principle, were you look at things like the Constitution in order to try to figure out what inherent individual rights were supposed to be, bases on if the feds were to not infringe, then it must have been pretty important.  Problem is, sometimes you want local infringement even if you don't want federal infringement.


----------



## hadit

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, since the SC disagrees with you, you're simply wrong. The second is an individual right and you can't change that. Pretending you're a greater Constitutional scholar than the Justices is not impressive.
> 
> 
> 
> Means nothing to me.  Our Tenth Amendment is more supreme than any legal error promulgated by that Court.  Your fallacies are even less, impressive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thankfully, your thinking your legal understanding is superior to that of the Justices remains solely in your imagination and has no power to influence anything. You are but a keyboard jockey wailing in the corner, "But I'm RIGHT. All those meanies on the Court and everybody else in the world is WRONG. I know better than they do. They're all stupid heads!!!". Too bad your opinion means nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yours even less since have nothing but fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except that I agree with the SC. I have the right to bear arms under the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everyone has the right to keep and bear Arms for the security of their State or the Union; none of the Governments in our Constitutional republic have the authority to deny or disparage patriots from keeping and bearing Arms and being organized into a well regulated militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Nothing in there limiting it to serving the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Repeating it does not help because it does imply all levels of government are equally barred from infringement.
> It takes other sources to see how popular sentiments were against federal powers but not against state powers.
Click to expand...

Daniel has about 5 things that he repeats endlessly, thinking they are profound.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, since the SC disagrees with you, you're simply wrong. The second is an individual right and you can't change that. Pretending you're a greater Constitutional scholar than the Justices is not impressive.
> 
> 
> 
> Means nothing to me.  Our Tenth Amendment is more supreme than any legal error promulgated by that Court.  Your fallacies are even less, impressive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thankfully, your thinking your legal understanding is superior to that of the Justices remains solely in your imagination and has no power to influence anything. You are but a keyboard jockey wailing in the corner, "But I'm RIGHT. All those meanies on the Court and everybody else in the world is WRONG. I know better than they do. They're all stupid heads!!!". Too bad your opinion means nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yours even less since have nothing but fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except that I agree with the SC. I have the right to bear arms under the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everyone has the right to keep and bear Arms for the security of their State or the Union; none of the Governments in our Constitutional republic have the authority to deny or disparage patriots from keeping and bearing Arms and being organized into a well regulated militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Nothing in there limiting it to serving the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Repeating it does not help because it does imply all levels of government are equally barred from infringement.
> It takes other sources to see how popular sentiments were against federal powers but not against state powers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law in legal venues.
Click to expand...


Sure there is. All you have to do is show an example where local restriction are accepted while federal would not, like speed limits or parking restrictions.


----------



## hadit

Rigby5 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> 
> 
> What does that mean in Minnesota? See, the Illinois Constitution doesn't effect the rest of the states. Perhaps you forgot that? Therefore, it doesn't address the individual right of the people to bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What it means is that the federal government was/is totally prevented any weapons jurisdiction, but states/municipalities are not.
> The point is people and states did not trust large central government.
> They had just been forced to violently rebel against a large central government that had tried gun control, they were rightfully wary of that being allowed to happen again.
> The people were not unhappy with state or local government, only large central government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 14th amendment prevents states from writing unconstitutional laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since the constitution did not really intend to list individual rights, that is not exactly a correct argument.
> The 14th tries to enhance protection of individual rights, and the constitution is one of the main sources the courts use, but it is a much more subtle argument than that, It is known as the Pneumbra Principle, were you look at things like the Constitution in order to try to figure out what inherent individual rights were supposed to be, bases on if the feds were to not infringe, then it must have been pretty important.  Problem is, sometimes you want local infringement even if you don't want federal infringement.
Click to expand...

It definitely does inhibit states from doing things like forming a state church, such as some of the colonies had when they became a part of the Republic.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does that mean in Minnesota? See, the Illinois Constitution doesn't effect the rest of the states. Perhaps you forgot that? Therefore, it doesn't address the individual right of the people to bear arms.
> 
> 
> 
> Under our federal form of Government, it is clearly a State's sovereign right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PLEASE, states do NOT have "rights".
> States have legal authority that is obtained by individuals delegating it, from their inherent individual rights.
> I know what you mean, but try to be more careful.
> 
> In a dictatorship you can have "might makes right", "the power of the sword", "Devine right", etc.
> But not in a democratic republic.  Then there are only inherent individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree to disagree.  My reasoning supports my usage.
> 
> States have a legal right to organize militia of the People for the security of their free State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely wrong.
> States do not and can not have rights.
> Rights mean something inherent and indestructable..
> Since states do not exist until created, and can be created or transformed at will by the people, then states can never have rights.
> What states have instead is the authority they get from each individual delegating some of their inherent right authority.
> 
> So what states have that allows them to organize a militia is delegated authority, not a right.
> Rights are inherent, delegated authority is a step down and indirect.
> 
> And even more important is that the legal authority of states to organize a militia, does not at all address what the relationship between states and individuals may be?  If individuals do not need something and that something were of high chances to be harmful to others of the states, then restriction of that could be warranted.  I just disagree that applies to firearms because I think they are needed and not really harmful at all.
Click to expand...

States' rights are sovereign within their jurisdiction; in relation to the powers expressly enumerated to the general government.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> A reason for the right to bear arms is so a militia can be formed, the right to bear arms is protected and that stands alone.


That is simply right-wing propaganda and rhetoric.   Organized militia muster at an armory should it be required.

To provide for organizing, *arming*, and disciplining, the Militia

To the militia mobile!


----------



## Rigby5

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, since the SC disagrees with you, you're simply wrong. The second is an individual right and you can't change that. Pretending you're a greater Constitutional scholar than the Justices is not impressive.
> 
> 
> 
> Means nothing to me.  Our Tenth Amendment is more supreme than any legal error promulgated by that Court.  Your fallacies are even less, impressive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thankfully, your thinking your legal understanding is superior to that of the Justices remains solely in your imagination and has no power to influence anything. You are but a keyboard jockey wailing in the corner, "But I'm RIGHT. All those meanies on the Court and everybody else in the world is WRONG. I know better than they do. They're all stupid heads!!!". Too bad your opinion means nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yours even less since have nothing but fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except that I agree with the SC. I have the right to bear arms under the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everyone has the right to keep and bear Arms for the security of their State or the Union; none of the Governments in our Constitutional republic have the authority to deny or disparage patriots from keeping and bearing Arms and being organized into a well regulated militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Nothing in there limiting it to serving the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A reason for the right to bear arms is so a militia can be formed, the right to bear arms is protected and that stands alone.
Click to expand...


Not good enough.
For if bearing arms allows you to form a militia, it then also implies that bearing arms can allow criminal gangs to form.
That implies both good and bad, so then does not imply automatically that there should be no local restrictions.
I only tend to be against most local restrictions because criminals are not deterred by them anyway, since they intend to violate much more serious laws.  
But surely you can not seriously be trying to say there can't be any gun laws?
How about a regulation of no arms to prison visitors?


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, since the SC disagrees with you, you're simply wrong. The second is an individual right and you can't change that. Pretending you're a greater Constitutional scholar than the Justices is not impressive.
> 
> 
> 
> Means nothing to me.  Our Tenth Amendment is more supreme than any legal error promulgated by that Court.  Your fallacies are even less, impressive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thankfully, your thinking your legal understanding is superior to that of the Justices remains solely in your imagination and has no power to influence anything. You are but a keyboard jockey wailing in the corner, "But I'm RIGHT. All those meanies on the Court and everybody else in the world is WRONG. I know better than they do. They're all stupid heads!!!". Too bad your opinion means nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yours even less since have nothing but fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except that I agree with the SC. I have the right to bear arms under the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everyone has the right to keep and bear Arms for the security of their State or the Union; none of the Governments in our Constitutional republic have the authority to deny or disparage patriots from keeping and bearing Arms and being organized into a well regulated militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Nothing in there limiting it to serving the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Repeating it does not help because it does imply all levels of government are equally barred from infringement.
> It takes other sources to see how popular sentiments were against federal powers but not against state powers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of the law in legal venues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure there is. All you have to do is show an example where local restriction are accepted while federal would not, like speed limits or parking restrictions.
Click to expand...

Well Regulated militia of the whole and entire People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment. 

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788


----------



## Rigby5

hadit said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> 
> 
> What does that mean in Minnesota? See, the Illinois Constitution doesn't effect the rest of the states. Perhaps you forgot that? Therefore, it doesn't address the individual right of the people to bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What it means is that the federal government was/is totally prevented any weapons jurisdiction, but states/municipalities are not.
> The point is people and states did not trust large central government.
> They had just been forced to violently rebel against a large central government that had tried gun control, they were rightfully wary of that being allowed to happen again.
> The people were not unhappy with state or local government, only large central government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 14th amendment prevents states from writing unconstitutional laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since the constitution did not really intend to list individual rights, that is not exactly a correct argument.
> The 14th tries to enhance protection of individual rights, and the constitution is one of the main sources the courts use, but it is a much more subtle argument than that, It is known as the Pneumbra Principle, were you look at things like the Constitution in order to try to figure out what inherent individual rights were supposed to be, bases on if the feds were to not infringe, then it must have been pretty important.  Problem is, sometimes you want local infringement even if you don't want federal infringement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It definitely does inhibit states from doing things like forming a state church, such as some of the colonies had when they became a part of the Republic.
Click to expand...


Interesting point.
But if I imagine back to Wm. Penn wanting to start Pennsylvania, it does not seem so awful to have a state tied to a particular religion.  That is exactly what Israel is doing.  But perhaps you are right and there should be no state religion because there will always some in that state, of other religions, and if someone decides to change religions, does that mean they would have to move?


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does that mean in Minnesota? See, the Illinois Constitution doesn't effect the rest of the states. Perhaps you forgot that? Therefore, it doesn't address the individual right of the people to bear arms.
> 
> 
> 
> Under our federal form of Government, it is clearly a State's sovereign right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PLEASE, states do NOT have "rights".
> States have legal authority that is obtained by individuals delegating it, from their inherent individual rights.
> I know what you mean, but try to be more careful.
> 
> In a dictatorship you can have "might makes right", "the power of the sword", "Devine right", etc.
> But not in a democratic republic.  Then there are only inherent individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree to disagree.  My reasoning supports my usage.
> 
> States have a legal right to organize militia of the People for the security of their free State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely wrong.
> States do not and can not have rights.
> Rights mean something inherent and indestructable..
> Since states do not exist until created, and can be created or transformed at will by the people, then states can never have rights.
> What states have instead is the authority they get from each individual delegating some of their inherent right authority.
> 
> So what states have that allows them to organize a militia is delegated authority, not a right.
> Rights are inherent, delegated authority is a step down and indirect.
> 
> And even more important is that the legal authority of states to organize a militia, does not at all address what the relationship between states and individuals may be?  If individuals do not need something and that something were of high chances to be harmful to others of the states, then restriction of that could be warranted.  I just disagree that applies to firearms because I think they are needed and not really harmful at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> States' rights are sovereign within their jurisdiction; in relation to the powers expressly enumerated to the general government.
Click to expand...


Wrong.
In a democratic republic, only individuals have rights, and sovereign states only have delegated authority.
You said it yourself, that state powers come from what the people enumerate when they create that entity and delegate to it.
A created entity can never have rights, as rights are supposed to be inherent and immutable.
Even prisoners are supposed to still have rights, just subordinated to the rights of others they threaten.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> A reason for the right to bear arms is so a militia can be formed, the right to bear arms is protected and that stands alone.
> 
> 
> 
> That is simply right-wing propaganda and rhetoric.   Organized militia muster at an armory should it be required.
> 
> To provide for organizing, *arming*, and disciplining, the Militia
> 
> To the militia mobile!
Click to expand...

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. There is no mention of an armory in the amendment. And why do you keep saying the government owes me weapons?


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> In a democratic republic, only individuals have rights, and sovereign states only have delegated authority.
> You said it yourself, that state powers come from what the people enumerate when they create that entity and delegate to it.
> A created entity can never have rights, as rights are supposed to be inherent and immutable.
> Even prisoners are supposed to still have rights, just subordinated to the rights of others they threaten.


This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.


----------



## hadit

Rigby5 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> 
> 
> What does that mean in Minnesota? See, the Illinois Constitution doesn't effect the rest of the states. Perhaps you forgot that? Therefore, it doesn't address the individual right of the people to bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What it means is that the federal government was/is totally prevented any weapons jurisdiction, but states/municipalities are not.
> The point is people and states did not trust large central government.
> They had just been forced to violently rebel against a large central government that had tried gun control, they were rightfully wary of that being allowed to happen again.
> The people were not unhappy with state or local government, only large central government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 14th amendment prevents states from writing unconstitutional laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since the constitution did not really intend to list individual rights, that is not exactly a correct argument.
> The 14th tries to enhance protection of individual rights, and the constitution is one of the main sources the courts use, but it is a much more subtle argument than that, It is known as the Pneumbra Principle, were you look at things like the Constitution in order to try to figure out what inherent individual rights were supposed to be, bases on if the feds were to not infringe, then it must have been pretty important.  Problem is, sometimes you want local infringement even if you don't want federal infringement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It definitely does inhibit states from doing things like forming a state church, such as some of the colonies had when they became a part of the Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting point.
> But if I imagine back to Wm. Penn wanting to start Pennsylvania, it does not seem so awful to have a state tied to a particular religion.  That is exactly what Israel is doing.  But perhaps you are right and there should be no state religion because there will always some in that state, of other religions, and if someone decides to change religions, does that mean they would have to move?
Click to expand...

Some of the original colonies not only had a state church but you were required to attend services.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> A reason for the right to bear arms is so a militia can be formed, the right to bear arms is protected and that stands alone.
> 
> 
> 
> That is simply right-wing propaganda and rhetoric.   Organized militia muster at an armory should it be required.
> 
> To provide for organizing, *arming*, and disciplining, the Militia
> 
> To the militia mobile!
Click to expand...


Wrong.
Very few arms are ever kept at armories.
That would allow for a very susceptible weak link in any level of defense.

Almost all the arms, including cannon, used in the American Revolution were privately owned.
That is the best way to do it, and that is what Switzerland, Israel, etc., all do.

To provide for arming means to allow government to spend tax money on supplemental arms, and was not intended to mean the government should provide all arms.
That would be silly since there were no local police and everyone had to protect themselves all the time.
Protection is not just from some foreign invasion you would have weeks to prepare for.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> A reason for the right to bear arms is so a militia can be formed, the right to bear arms is protected and that stands alone.
> 
> 
> 
> That is simply right-wing propaganda and rhetoric.   Organized militia muster at an armory should it be required.
> 
> To provide for organizing, *arming*, and disciplining, the Militia
> 
> To the militia mobile!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. There is no mention of an armory in the amendment. And why do you keep saying the government owes me weapons?
Click to expand...

Not enough reading comprehension skills to go around on the right wing?   Congress is expressly delegated the authority to Arm the militia; that can happen more efficaciously at an armory.


----------



## hadit

Rigby5 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, since the SC disagrees with you, you're simply wrong. The second is an individual right and you can't change that. Pretending you're a greater Constitutional scholar than the Justices is not impressive.
> 
> 
> 
> Means nothing to me.  Our Tenth Amendment is more supreme than any legal error promulgated by that Court.  Your fallacies are even less, impressive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thankfully, your thinking your legal understanding is superior to that of the Justices remains solely in your imagination and has no power to influence anything. You are but a keyboard jockey wailing in the corner, "But I'm RIGHT. All those meanies on the Court and everybody else in the world is WRONG. I know better than they do. They're all stupid heads!!!". Too bad your opinion means nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yours even less since have nothing but fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except that I agree with the SC. I have the right to bear arms under the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everyone has the right to keep and bear Arms for the security of their State or the Union; none of the Governments in our Constitutional republic have the authority to deny or disparage patriots from keeping and bearing Arms and being organized into a well regulated militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Nothing in there limiting it to serving the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A reason for the right to bear arms is so a militia can be formed, the right to bear arms is protected and that stands alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not good enough.
> For if bearing arms allows you to form a militia, it then also implies that bearing arms can allow criminal gangs to form.
> That implies both good and bad, so then does not imply automatically that there should be no local restrictions.
> I only tend to be against most local restrictions because criminals are not deterred by them anyway, since they intend to violate much more serious laws.
> But surely you can not seriously be trying to say there can't be any gun laws?
> How about a regulation of no arms to prison visitors?
Click to expand...

That amendment, as written, assumes that every person is allowed access to firearms. Case law since that point has been putting restrictions in place on who can possess firearms and what types of firearms can be possessed by anyone. We are at the point now where to go much further we need to amend the Constitution.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> In a democratic republic, only individuals have rights, and sovereign states only have delegated authority.
> You said it yourself, that state powers come from what the people enumerate when they create that entity and delegate to it.
> A created entity can never have rights, as rights are supposed to be inherent and immutable.
> Even prisoners are supposed to still have rights, just subordinated to the rights of others they threaten.
> 
> 
> 
> This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Click to expand...


The word "law" here refers to legislations, but actually rights are the source of legal authority that allows legislation to be written, and inherent rights really are supreme law of the land really.
All written legislation then has to conform to and be authorized by those inherent rights they derive from.

That means states can not go off and arbitrarily decide to do things anyway they way.
The constitution is supposed to divide jurisdictions and delineate federal and state jurisdictions.

However, there are still superior principles to all federal and state legislation, because the come from inherent rights of individuals.
And federal gun control laws violate both the 2nd amendment and those basic superior principles.
The federal government was denies any firearms jurisdiction by the constitution, and individuals need to be the source of armed force in any democratic republic.


----------



## Rigby5

hadit said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> 
> 
> What does that mean in Minnesota? See, the Illinois Constitution doesn't effect the rest of the states. Perhaps you forgot that? Therefore, it doesn't address the individual right of the people to bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What it means is that the federal government was/is totally prevented any weapons jurisdiction, but states/municipalities are not.
> The point is people and states did not trust large central government.
> They had just been forced to violently rebel against a large central government that had tried gun control, they were rightfully wary of that being allowed to happen again.
> The people were not unhappy with state or local government, only large central government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 14th amendment prevents states from writing unconstitutional laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since the constitution did not really intend to list individual rights, that is not exactly a correct argument.
> The 14th tries to enhance protection of individual rights, and the constitution is one of the main sources the courts use, but it is a much more subtle argument than that, It is known as the Pneumbra Principle, were you look at things like the Constitution in order to try to figure out what inherent individual rights were supposed to be, bases on if the feds were to not infringe, then it must have been pretty important.  Problem is, sometimes you want local infringement even if you don't want federal infringement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It definitely does inhibit states from doing things like forming a state church, such as some of the colonies had when they became a part of the Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting point.
> But if I imagine back to Wm. Penn wanting to start Pennsylvania, it does not seem so awful to have a state tied to a particular religion.  That is exactly what Israel is doing.  But perhaps you are right and there should be no state religion because there will always some in that state, of other religions, and if someone decides to change religions, does that mean they would have to move?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some of the original colonies not only had a state church but you were required to attend services.
Click to expand...


I know, but it does not seem totally wrong for people to have religious communities, like the Mormons, etc., if they want.  The main problems I see are if those of other religions want to move there or someone wants to change religion?


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> A reason for the right to bear arms is so a militia can be formed, the right to bear arms is protected and that stands alone.
> 
> 
> 
> That is simply right-wing propaganda and rhetoric.   Organized militia muster at an armory should it be required.
> 
> To provide for organizing, *arming*, and disciplining, the Militia
> 
> To the militia mobile!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. There is no mention of an armory in the amendment. And why do you keep saying the government owes me weapons?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not enough reading comprehension skills to go around on the right wing?   Congress is expressly delegated the authority to Arm the militia; that can happen more efficaciously at an armory.
Click to expand...


Nah, to be useful, people need to practice, monthly at least.
And it would take way too long for everyone to get to an armory.
Not to mention that armory weapons likely would need cleaning, adjustments, repairs, etc., before they would be ready for service.  No one has ever relied on armories for rapid defense.
Everyone in frontier families had home defense weapons.
It is only recently that arms ownership have started to decline.
And that really is a very bad idea, since the odds of violence, catastrophe, civil unrest, foreign conflict, etc., is increasing, not decreasing.


----------



## hadit

Rigby5 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> 
> 
> What does that mean in Minnesota? See, the Illinois Constitution doesn't effect the rest of the states. Perhaps you forgot that? Therefore, it doesn't address the individual right of the people to bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What it means is that the federal government was/is totally prevented any weapons jurisdiction, but states/municipalities are not.
> The point is people and states did not trust large central government.
> They had just been forced to violently rebel against a large central government that had tried gun control, they were rightfully wary of that being allowed to happen again.
> The people were not unhappy with state or local government, only large central government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 14th amendment prevents states from writing unconstitutional laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since the constitution did not really intend to list individual rights, that is not exactly a correct argument.
> The 14th tries to enhance protection of individual rights, and the constitution is one of the main sources the courts use, but it is a much more subtle argument than that, It is known as the Pneumbra Principle, were you look at things like the Constitution in order to try to figure out what inherent individual rights were supposed to be, bases on if the feds were to not infringe, then it must have been pretty important.  Problem is, sometimes you want local infringement even if you don't want federal infringement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It definitely does inhibit states from doing things like forming a state church, such as some of the colonies had when they became a part of the Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting point.
> But if I imagine back to Wm. Penn wanting to start Pennsylvania, it does not seem so awful to have a state tied to a particular religion.  That is exactly what Israel is doing.  But perhaps you are right and there should be no state religion because there will always some in that state, of other religions, and if someone decides to change religions, does that mean they would have to move?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some of the original colonies not only had a state church but you were required to attend services.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know, but it does not seem totally wrong for people to have religious communities, like the Mormons, etc., if they want.  The main problems I see are if those of other religions want to move there or someone wants to change religion?
Click to expand...

There is certainly no prohibition against forming communities and people do it all the time. The difference here is that we don't want the government enforcing community using the force of law.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Yes.  Diagram that sentence, please.  It will teach you how fucking wrong you are.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Here you go, Dan:


https://www.masterclass.com/articles/how-to-diagram-a-sentence#how-to-diagram-a-sentence-in-5-steps


https://www.masterclass.com/articles/how-to-diagram-a-sentence#how-to-diagram-a-sentence-in-5-steps



*How to Diagram a Sentence in 5 Steps*
The kind of sentence you’re building will determine how you diagram. Below are some ways you can diagram sentences and build on them to create better writing: 

Start with two lines. Draw a horizontal line cut in the center by a vertical line. The left side of the vertical line represents the subject of the sentence (the person or thing performing the verb), and the right is the predicate (the words that modify the subject and usually introduce an action). 
Add the subject and predicate. For a basic sentence, start with a simple subject and a verb phrase. This becomes your independent clause, which is a sentence that can stand on its own. If you use “the man” as the subject and “waved” as the predicate, “The man waved” would be the resulting diagrammed sentence. 
Build on your independent clause. Some sentences involve a direct object—the “what” or the “whom” of the sentence—which is the recipient of the transitive verb (also known as the action verb). If you’re including a direct object, draw another vertical line to the right of the predicate—this will be where the direct object goes. An example of a complete sentence with a direct object is, “The darkness scared the baby.” 
Add modifiers. Sometimes words need additional modifiers in order to create a more specific picture—this is where indirect objects come into play. Direct objects receive the verb’s action, and indirect objects, which generally have a preposition with them, receive the direct object. Beneath your verb, draw a diagonal line connecting it with the indirect object. “The teachers gave their students (indirect object) a passing grade (direct object).” When diagrammed correctly, each element of your sentence is parsed in a visual way that ensures each piece is functioning as it should. 
Make your sentence more complex. If you want to write longer sentences, join two independent clauses with a comma or conjunction, and mark them with a dotted line on your diagram. Ensure that each sentence is its own complete thought and can stand on its own before combining it with another to make a compound sentence.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Hey Dan.  Here's a video:



--------------|--------------

Draw your two likes.

Got it?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

What is the "subject" of the sentence?

Which "what" or "who" in the 2A is the direct object and what is it's transient verb?

Here's a hint---there is only one independent clause.

I will wait.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> 
> 
> What does that mean in Minnesota? See, the Illinois Constitution doesn't effect the rest of the states. Perhaps you forgot that? Therefore, it doesn't address the individual right of the people to bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What it means is that the federal government was/is totally prevented any weapons jurisdiction, but states/municipalities are not.
> The point is people and states did not trust large central government.
> They had just been forced to violently rebel against a large central government that had tried gun control, they were rightfully wary of that being allowed to happen again.
> The people were not unhappy with state or local government, only large central government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 14th amendment prevents states from writing unconstitutional laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since the constitution did not really intend to list individual rights, that is not exactly a correct argument.
> The 14th tries to enhance protection of individual rights, and the constitution is one of the main sources the courts use, but it is a much more subtle argument than that, It is known as the Pneumbra Principle, were you look at things like the Constitution in order to try to figure out what inherent individual rights were supposed to be, bases on if the feds were to not infringe, then it must have been pretty important.  Problem is, sometimes you want local infringement even if you don't want federal infringement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It definitely does inhibit states from doing things like forming a state church, such as some of the colonies had when they became a part of the Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting point.
> But if I imagine back to Wm. Penn wanting to start Pennsylvania, it does not seem so awful to have a state tied to a particular religion.  That is exactly what Israel is doing.  But perhaps you are right and there should be no state religion because there will always some in that state, of other religions, and if someone decides to change religions, does that mean they would have to move?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some of the original colonies not only had a state church but you were required to attend services.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know, but it does not seem totally wrong for people to have religious communities, like the Mormons, etc., if they want.  The main problems I see are if those of other religions want to move there or someone wants to change religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is certainly no prohibition against forming communities and people do it all the time. The difference here is that we don't want the government enforcing community using the force of law.
Click to expand...

431.010. Organization Prohibited
(a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), a body of persons other than the regularly organized state military forces or the troops of the United States may not associate as a military company or organization or parade in public with firearms in a municipality of the state.

(b) With the consent of the governor, students in an educational institution at which military science is a prescribed part of the course of instruction and soldiers honorably discharged from the service of the United States may drill and parade with firearms in public.

(c) This section does not prevent a parade by the active militia of another state as provided by law.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> 
> 
> What does that mean in Minnesota? See, the Illinois Constitution doesn't effect the rest of the states. Perhaps you forgot that? Therefore, it doesn't address the individual right of the people to bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What it means is that the federal government was/is totally prevented any weapons jurisdiction, but states/municipalities are not.
> The point is people and states did not trust large central government.
> They had just been forced to violently rebel against a large central government that had tried gun control, they were rightfully wary of that being allowed to happen again.
> The people were not unhappy with state or local government, only large central government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 14th amendment prevents states from writing unconstitutional laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since the constitution did not really intend to list individual rights, that is not exactly a correct argument.
> The 14th tries to enhance protection of individual rights, and the constitution is one of the main sources the courts use, but it is a much more subtle argument than that, It is known as the Pneumbra Principle, were you look at things like the Constitution in order to try to figure out what inherent individual rights were supposed to be, bases on if the feds were to not infringe, then it must have been pretty important.  Problem is, sometimes you want local infringement even if you don't want federal infringement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It definitely does inhibit states from doing things like forming a state church, such as some of the colonies had when they became a part of the Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting point.
> But if I imagine back to Wm. Penn wanting to start Pennsylvania, it does not seem so awful to have a state tied to a particular religion.  That is exactly what Israel is doing.  But perhaps you are right and there should be no state religion because there will always some in that state, of other religions, and if someone decides to change religions, does that mean they would have to move?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some of the original colonies not only had a state church but you were required to attend services.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know, but it does not seem totally wrong for people to have religious communities, like the Mormons, etc., if they want.  The main problems I see are if those of other religions want to move there or someone wants to change religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is certainly no prohibition against forming communities and people do it all the time. The difference here is that we don't want the government enforcing community using the force of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 431.010. Organization Prohibited
> (a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), a body of persons other than the regularly organized state military forces or the troops of the United States may not associate as a military company or organization or parade in public with firearms in a municipality of the state.
> 
> (b) With the consent of the governor, students in an educational institution at which military science is a prescribed part of the course of instruction and soldiers honorably discharged from the service of the United States may drill and parade with firearms in public.
> 
> (c) This section does not prevent a parade by the active militia of another state as provided by law.
Click to expand...

Community =/= military. Even you should know that.


----------



## emilynghiem

Lakhota said:


> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
Click to expand...

Consistent enforcement and use of the Second Amendment has always relied on the Context of enforcing the rest of the Bill of Rights and Constitution it is part of.

No guns can be ever be used legally for the purpose of VIOLATING Constitutional laws and equal protections thereunder. Including * Right to life liberty and property/pursuit of happiness that cannot be deprived without DUE PROCESS
* Right to security in our persons houses and effects (ie right to property) from unreasonable searches or seizures that require lawful warrants
* Right to equal protections of the laws, including DUE PROCESS and all other rights in the Bill of Rights and Constitution, as well as rights reserved to people and states not authorized to Govt (by consent of voters, taxpayers or citizens/people affected by proposed policies)

The problem Lakhota
Is Liberals keep taking the 2A "out of context with the rest of the Constitution/Bill of Rights"

How is it the fault of law abiding citizens if you don't believe in, respect or follow the entire law in full context? Because you do this, YOU (not Constitutional law abiding citizens) require ADDED legislation to ensure the rest of the Bill of Rights is included as conditions on using the 2A for DEFENDING Constitutional laws and rights, not violating them.

Do we need a legal agreement that the 2A only applies to DEFENDING Constitutional laws, rights and protections, and can never be taken out of context and abused to VIOLATE rights or protections of others?

Do we need a Constitutional Convention, not on changing laws, but interpreting existing laws to stop this need for adding more and more legislation. Because people haven't agreed yet on enforcing Constitutional laws to begin with, which we already have in writing!

www.ethics-commission.net


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> In a democratic republic, only individuals have rights, and sovereign states only have delegated authority.
> You said it yourself, that state powers come from what the people enumerate when they create that entity and delegate to it.
> A created entity can never have rights, as rights are supposed to be inherent and immutable.
> Even prisoners are supposed to still have rights, just subordinated to the rights of others they threaten.
> 
> 
> 
> This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The word "law" here refers to legislations, but actually rights are the source of legal authority that allows legislation to be written, and inherent rights really are supreme law of the land really.
> All written legislation then has to conform to and be authorized by those inherent rights they derive from.
> 
> That means states can not go off and arbitrarily decide to do things anyway they way.
> The constitution is supposed to divide jurisdictions and delineate federal and state jurisdictions.
> 
> However, there are still superior principles to all federal and state legislation, because the come from inherent rights of individuals.
> And federal gun control laws violate both the 2nd amendment and those basic superior principles.
> The federal government was denies any firearms jurisdiction by the constitution, and individuals need to be the source of armed force in any democratic republic.
Click to expand...

Our federal Constitution is our supreme law of the land.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> A reason for the right to bear arms is so a militia can be formed, the right to bear arms is protected and that stands alone.
> 
> 
> 
> That is simply right-wing propaganda and rhetoric.   Organized militia muster at an armory should it be required.
> 
> To provide for organizing, *arming*, and disciplining, the Militia
> 
> To the militia mobile!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. There is no mention of an armory in the amendment. And why do you keep saying the government owes me weapons?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not enough reading comprehension skills to go around on the right wing?   Congress is expressly delegated the authority to Arm the militia; that can happen more efficaciously at an armory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, to be useful, people need to practice, monthly at least.
> And it would take way too long for everyone to get to an armory.
> Not to mention that armory weapons likely would need cleaning, adjustments, repairs, etc., before they would be ready for service.  No one has ever relied on armories for rapid defense.
> Everyone in frontier families had home defense weapons.
> It is only recently that arms ownership have started to decline.
> And that really is a very bad idea, since the odds of violence, catastrophe, civil unrest, foreign conflict, etc., is increasing, not decreasing.
Click to expand...

Well regulated militia do; only the unorganized militia as individual persons of the People complain about gun control laws laws.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> 
> 
> What does that mean in Minnesota? See, the Illinois Constitution doesn't effect the rest of the states. Perhaps you forgot that? Therefore, it doesn't address the individual right of the people to bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What it means is that the federal government was/is totally prevented any weapons jurisdiction, but states/municipalities are not.
> The point is people and states did not trust large central government.
> They had just been forced to violently rebel against a large central government that had tried gun control, they were rightfully wary of that being allowed to happen again.
> The people were not unhappy with state or local government, only large central government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 14th amendment prevents states from writing unconstitutional laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since the constitution did not really intend to list individual rights, that is not exactly a correct argument.
> The 14th tries to enhance protection of individual rights, and the constitution is one of the main sources the courts use, but it is a much more subtle argument than that, It is known as the Pneumbra Principle, were you look at things like the Constitution in order to try to figure out what inherent individual rights were supposed to be, bases on if the feds were to not infringe, then it must have been pretty important.  Problem is, sometimes you want local infringement even if you don't want federal infringement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It definitely does inhibit states from doing things like forming a state church, such as some of the colonies had when they became a part of the Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting point.
> But if I imagine back to Wm. Penn wanting to start Pennsylvania, it does not seem so awful to have a state tied to a particular religion.  That is exactly what Israel is doing.  But perhaps you are right and there should be no state religion because there will always some in that state, of other religions, and if someone decides to change religions, does that mean they would have to move?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some of the original colonies not only had a state church but you were required to attend services.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know, but it does not seem totally wrong for people to have religious communities, like the Mormons, etc., if they want.  The main problems I see are if those of other religions want to move there or someone wants to change religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is certainly no prohibition against forming communities and people do it all the time. The difference here is that we don't want the government enforcing community using the force of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 431.010. Organization Prohibited
> (a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), a body of persons other than the regularly organized state military forces or the troops of the United States may not associate as a military company or organization or parade in public with firearms in a municipality of the state.
> 
> (b) With the consent of the governor, students in an educational institution at which military science is a prescribed part of the course of instruction and soldiers honorably discharged from the service of the United States may drill and parade with firearms in public.
> 
> (c) This section does not prevent a parade by the active militia of another state as provided by law.
Click to expand...


I vaguely remember what this was about, and slightly disagree with the founders.
But the founder's intent was to prevent a private army from deliberately trying to intimidate the government with constant, hostile, and armed drills in front of the government buildings.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> In a democratic republic, only individuals have rights, and sovereign states only have delegated authority.
> You said it yourself, that state powers come from what the people enumerate when they create that entity and delegate to it.
> A created entity can never have rights, as rights are supposed to be inherent and immutable.
> Even prisoners are supposed to still have rights, just subordinated to the rights of others they threaten.
> 
> 
> 
> This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The word "law" here refers to legislations, but actually rights are the source of legal authority that allows legislation to be written, and inherent rights really are supreme law of the land really.
> All written legislation then has to conform to and be authorized by those inherent rights they derive from.
> 
> That means states can not go off and arbitrarily decide to do things anyway they way.
> The constitution is supposed to divide jurisdictions and delineate federal and state jurisdictions.
> 
> However, there are still superior principles to all federal and state legislation, because the come from inherent rights of individuals.
> And federal gun control laws violate both the 2nd amendment and those basic superior principles.
> The federal government was denies any firearms jurisdiction by the constitution, and individuals need to be the source of armed force in any democratic republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is our supreme law of the land.
Click to expand...


The federal constitution is the supreme legislation of the land, but it is not supreme law.
For example, is says nothing about many individual rights that are superior to the constitution.
Like the right of privacy.
It is not in the constitution specifically, but is a superior unenumerated right, which can not legally be abridged by the constitution or any mere legislation.
The only time inherent rights like privacy can be abridged is when necessary in order to defend the inherent rights of others.

That really is obvious if you think about it, because where did the constitution come from?
It can't just be arbitrary because then we would have a dictatorship instead of a democratic republic.
The Declaration of Independence tells us where the constitution came from.
It came from the same inherent individual rights that justified our rebellion from England.
These inherent rights are supreme law of the land, and is where the justification and authority for the constitution came from.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> A reason for the right to bear arms is so a militia can be formed, the right to bear arms is protected and that stands alone.
> 
> 
> 
> That is simply right-wing propaganda and rhetoric.   Organized militia muster at an armory should it be required.
> 
> To provide for organizing, *arming*, and disciplining, the Militia
> 
> To the militia mobile!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. There is no mention of an armory in the amendment. And why do you keep saying the government owes me weapons?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not enough reading comprehension skills to go around on the right wing?   Congress is expressly delegated the authority to Arm the militia; that can happen more efficaciously at an armory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, to be useful, people need to practice, monthly at least.
> And it would take way too long for everyone to get to an armory.
> Not to mention that armory weapons likely would need cleaning, adjustments, repairs, etc., before they would be ready for service.  No one has ever relied on armories for rapid defense.
> Everyone in frontier families had home defense weapons.
> It is only recently that arms ownership have started to decline.
> And that really is a very bad idea, since the odds of violence, catastrophe, civil unrest, foreign conflict, etc., is increasing, not decreasing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia do; only the unorganized militia as individual persons of the People complain about gun control laws laws.
Click to expand...


Nah, the Organized Militia is only in existence when the unorganized militia is called up for some specific threat.
In the mean time, you need people to be well versed with firearms and they have to be easily accessible.  If all arms were stashed in some armory somewhere, no one would be ready if some emergency actually happened.

You should not refer to a "regulated" militia, because the original meaning of that wording "to keep regular", means to be well practices and smoothly functioning.  When people refer to a "regular" digestion, they mean daily bowl movements, they do not intent to imply restrictions.  The word "regulated" actually means the opposite of "restricted".
When you "regulate interstate commerce", you do not restrict it, but instead prevent any one state from restricting commerce from or to other states.


----------



## hadit

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> 
> 
> What does that mean in Minnesota? See, the Illinois Constitution doesn't effect the rest of the states. Perhaps you forgot that? Therefore, it doesn't address the individual right of the people to bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What it means is that the federal government was/is totally prevented any weapons jurisdiction, but states/municipalities are not.
> The point is people and states did not trust large central government.
> They had just been forced to violently rebel against a large central government that had tried gun control, they were rightfully wary of that being allowed to happen again.
> The people were not unhappy with state or local government, only large central government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 14th amendment prevents states from writing unconstitutional laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since the constitution did not really intend to list individual rights, that is not exactly a correct argument.
> The 14th tries to enhance protection of individual rights, and the constitution is one of the main sources the courts use, but it is a much more subtle argument than that, It is known as the Pneumbra Principle, were you look at things like the Constitution in order to try to figure out what inherent individual rights were supposed to be, bases on if the feds were to not infringe, then it must have been pretty important.  Problem is, sometimes you want local infringement even if you don't want federal infringement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It definitely does inhibit states from doing things like forming a state church, such as some of the colonies had when they became a part of the Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting point.
> But if I imagine back to Wm. Penn wanting to start Pennsylvania, it does not seem so awful to have a state tied to a particular religion.  That is exactly what Israel is doing.  But perhaps you are right and there should be no state religion because there will always some in that state, of other religions, and if someone decides to change religions, does that mean they would have to move?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some of the original colonies not only had a state church but you were required to attend services.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know, but it does not seem totally wrong for people to have religious communities, like the Mormons, etc., if they want.  The main problems I see are if those of other religions want to move there or someone wants to change religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is certainly no prohibition against forming communities and people do it all the time. The difference here is that we don't want the government enforcing community using the force of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 431.010. Organization Prohibited
> (a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), a body of persons other than the regularly organized state military forces or the troops of the United States may not associate as a military company or organization or parade in public with firearms in a municipality of the state.
> 
> (b) With the consent of the governor, students in an educational institution at which military science is a prescribed part of the course of instruction and soldiers honorably discharged from the service of the United States may drill and parade with firearms in public.
> 
> (c) This section does not prevent a parade by the active militia of another state as provided by law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Community =/= military. Even you should know that.
Click to expand...

You disagree, Daniel. Why do you disagree that community is not the same as the military?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Another hint:


danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> In a democratic republic, only individuals have rights, and sovereign states only have delegated authority.
> You said it yourself, that state powers come from what the people enumerate when they create that entity and delegate to it.
> A created entity can never have rights, as rights are supposed to be inherent and immutable.
> Even prisoners are supposed to still have rights, just subordinated to the rights of others they threaten.
> 
> 
> 
> This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The word "law" here refers to legislations, but actually rights are the source of legal authority that allows legislation to be written, and inherent rights really are supreme law of the land really.
> All written legislation then has to conform to and be authorized by those inherent rights they derive from.
> 
> That means states can not go off and arbitrarily decide to do things anyway they way.
> The constitution is supposed to divide jurisdictions and delineate federal and state jurisdictions.
> 
> However, there are still superior principles to all federal and state legislation, because the come from inherent rights of individuals.
> And federal gun control laws violate both the 2nd amendment and those basic superior principles.
> The federal government was denies any firearms jurisdiction by the constitution, and individuals need to be the source of armed force in any democratic republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is our supreme law of the land.
Click to expand...

So, why do you keep quoting state statutes?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> A reason for the right to bear arms is so a militia can be formed, the right to bear arms is protected and that stands alone.
> 
> 
> 
> That is simply right-wing propaganda and rhetoric.   Organized militia muster at an armory should it be required.
> 
> To provide for organizing, *arming*, and disciplining, the Militia
> 
> To the militia mobile!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. There is no mention of an armory in the amendment. And why do you keep saying the government owes me weapons?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not enough reading comprehension skills to go around on the right wing?   Congress is expressly delegated the authority to Arm the militia; that can happen more efficaciously at an armory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, to be useful, people need to practice, monthly at least.
> And it would take way too long for everyone to get to an armory.
> Not to mention that armory weapons likely would need cleaning, adjustments, repairs, etc., before they would be ready for service.  No one has ever relied on armories for rapid defense.
> Everyone in frontier families had home defense weapons.
> It is only recently that arms ownership have started to decline.
> And that really is a very bad idea, since the odds of violence, catastrophe, civil unrest, foreign conflict, etc., is increasing, not decreasing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia do; only the unorganized militia as individual persons of the People complain about gun control laws laws.
Click to expand...

Organized v. Unorganized is a bunch of *BULLSHIT*.

Statutes cannot supersede the Constitution.  The Dick Act does NOT define the militia, does NOT establish the militia, and does not IN ANY FUCKING WAY limit the militia or the people.  It ONLY establishes the National Guard, which is wholly unconnected from the militia because it is under the control of the standing U.S. Military.  The militia must be completely independent and separate from government, and only tied to government to the extent government calls the militia to action against a military threat.

To the extent that the Dick Act is a half-assed attempt by statists to circumvent the constitution, that has already been shot down.  It does NOTHING regarding our rights.

Take that tired, bullshit argument the fuck outta here.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> In a democratic republic, only individuals have rights, and sovereign states only have delegated authority.
> You said it yourself, that state powers come from what the people enumerate when they create that entity and delegate to it.
> A created entity can never have rights, as rights are supposed to be inherent and immutable.
> Even prisoners are supposed to still have rights, just subordinated to the rights of others they threaten.
> 
> 
> 
> This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The word "law" here refers to legislations, but actually rights are the source of legal authority that allows legislation to be written, and inherent rights really are supreme law of the land really.
> All written legislation then has to conform to and be authorized by those inherent rights they derive from.
> 
> That means states can not go off and arbitrarily decide to do things anyway they way.
> The constitution is supposed to divide jurisdictions and delineate federal and state jurisdictions.
> 
> However, there are still superior principles to all federal and state legislation, because the come from inherent rights of individuals.
> And federal gun control laws violate both the 2nd amendment and those basic superior principles.
> The federal government was denies any firearms jurisdiction by the constitution, and individuals need to be the source of armed force in any democratic republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is our supreme law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The federal constitution is the supreme legislation of the land, but it is not supreme law.
> For example, is says nothing about many individual rights that are superior to the constitution.
> Like the right of privacy.
> It is not in the constitution specifically, but is a superior unenumerated right, which can not legally be abridged by the constitution or any mere legislation.
> The only time inherent rights like privacy can be abridged is when necessary in order to defend the inherent rights of others.
> 
> That really is obvious if you think about it, because where did the constitution come from?
> It can't just be arbitrary because then we would have a dictatorship instead of a democratic republic.
> The Declaration of Independence tells us where the constitution came from.
> It came from the same inherent individual rights that justified our rebellion from England.
> These inherent rights are supreme law of the land, and is where the justification and authority for the constitution came from.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

The Constitution does not grant or create rights.  It only acts to limit the Federal Government to prevent the infringement of those rights.

Hell, the bill of rights was established with the constitution, yet the 2A refers to "the right of the people" which points to the already-existing right.  It must follow that the intent of the 2A was to prevent the FedGov from having any legislative authority over any aspect of the right of individuals to keep or bear arms.

States may have, but that shit went the way of the dodo when the 14th Amendment was ratified.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> In a democratic republic, only individuals have rights, and sovereign states only have delegated authority.
> You said it yourself, that state powers come from what the people enumerate when they create that entity and delegate to it.
> A created entity can never have rights, as rights are supposed to be inherent and immutable.
> Even prisoners are supposed to still have rights, just subordinated to the rights of others they threaten.
> 
> 
> 
> This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The word "law" here refers to legislations, but actually rights are the source of legal authority that allows legislation to be written, and inherent rights really are supreme law of the land really.
> All written legislation then has to conform to and be authorized by those inherent rights they derive from.
> 
> That means states can not go off and arbitrarily decide to do things anyway they way.
> The constitution is supposed to divide jurisdictions and delineate federal and state jurisdictions.
> 
> However, there are still superior principles to all federal and state legislation, because the come from inherent rights of individuals.
> And federal gun control laws violate both the 2nd amendment and those basic superior principles.
> The federal government was denies any firearms jurisdiction by the constitution, and individuals need to be the source of armed force in any democratic republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is our supreme law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The federal constitution is the supreme legislation of the land, but it is not supreme law.
> For example, is says nothing about many individual rights that are superior to the constitution.
> Like the right of privacy.
> It is not in the constitution specifically, but is a superior unenumerated right, which can not legally be abridged by the constitution or any mere legislation.
> The only time inherent rights like privacy can be abridged is when necessary in order to defend the inherent rights of others.
> 
> That really is obvious if you think about it, because where did the constitution come from?
> It can't just be arbitrary because then we would have a dictatorship instead of a democratic republic.
> The Declaration of Independence tells us where the constitution came from.
> It came from the same inherent individual rights that justified our rebellion from England.
> These inherent rights are supreme law of the land, and is where the justification and authority for the constitution came from.
Click to expand...

I am not sure what you mean.  The judicature adjudicates based on our federal Constitution and express, supreme law of the land.  The judicial branch is delegated the judicial power of the United States.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> Nah, the Organized Militia is only in existence when the unorganized militia is called up for some specific threat.


How did you reach that conclusion from our Second Amendment?


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> You disagree, Daniel. Why do you disagree that community is not the same as the military?


Because it is irrelevant.  The People are the Militia.  Our Second Amendment is clear. 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Another hint:
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> In a democratic republic, only individuals have rights, and sovereign states only have delegated authority.
> You said it yourself, that state powers come from what the people enumerate when they create that entity and delegate to it.
> A created entity can never have rights, as rights are supposed to be inherent and immutable.
> Even prisoners are supposed to still have rights, just subordinated to the rights of others they threaten.
> 
> 
> 
> This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The word "law" here refers to legislations, but actually rights are the source of legal authority that allows legislation to be written, and inherent rights really are supreme law of the land really.
> All written legislation then has to conform to and be authorized by those inherent rights they derive from.
> 
> That means states can not go off and arbitrarily decide to do things anyway they way.
> The constitution is supposed to divide jurisdictions and delineate federal and state jurisdictions.
> 
> However, there are still superior principles to all federal and state legislation, because the come from inherent rights of individuals.
> And federal gun control laws violate both the 2nd amendment and those basic superior principles.
> The federal government was denies any firearms jurisdiction by the constitution, and individuals need to be the source of armed force in any democratic republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is our supreme law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, why do you keep quoting state statutes?
Click to expand...

Did you miss the concept?  Because it is a State's sovereign right.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> A reason for the right to bear arms is so a militia can be formed, the right to bear arms is protected and that stands alone.
> 
> 
> 
> That is simply right-wing propaganda and rhetoric.   Organized militia muster at an armory should it be required.
> 
> To provide for organizing, *arming*, and disciplining, the Militia
> 
> To the militia mobile!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. There is no mention of an armory in the amendment. And why do you keep saying the government owes me weapons?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not enough reading comprehension skills to go around on the right wing?   Congress is expressly delegated the authority to Arm the militia; that can happen more efficaciously at an armory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, to be useful, people need to practice, monthly at least.
> And it would take way too long for everyone to get to an armory.
> Not to mention that armory weapons likely would need cleaning, adjustments, repairs, etc., before they would be ready for service.  No one has ever relied on armories for rapid defense.
> Everyone in frontier families had home defense weapons.
> It is only recently that arms ownership have started to decline.
> And that really is a very bad idea, since the odds of violence, catastrophe, civil unrest, foreign conflict, etc., is increasing, not decreasing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia do; only the unorganized militia as individual persons of the People complain about gun control laws laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Organized v. Unorganized is a bunch of *BULLSHIT*.
> 
> Statutes cannot supersede the Constitution.  The Dick Act does NOT define the militia, does NOT establish the militia, and does not IN ANY FUCKING WAY limit the militia or the people.  It ONLY establishes the National Guard, which is wholly unconnected from the militia because it is under the control of the standing U.S. Military.  The militia must be completely independent and separate from government, and only tied to government to the extent government calls the militia to action against a military threat.
> 
> To the extent that the Dick Act is a half-assed attempt by statists to circumvent the constitution, that has already been shot down.  It does NOTHING regarding our rights.
> 
> Take that tired, bullshit argument the fuck outta here.
Click to expand...

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> In a democratic republic, only individuals have rights, and sovereign states only have delegated authority.
> You said it yourself, that state powers come from what the people enumerate when they create that entity and delegate to it.
> A created entity can never have rights, as rights are supposed to be inherent and immutable.
> Even prisoners are supposed to still have rights, just subordinated to the rights of others they threaten.
> 
> 
> 
> This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The word "law" here refers to legislations, but actually rights are the source of legal authority that allows legislation to be written, and inherent rights really are supreme law of the land really.
> All written legislation then has to conform to and be authorized by those inherent rights they derive from.
> 
> That means states can not go off and arbitrarily decide to do things anyway they way.
> The constitution is supposed to divide jurisdictions and delineate federal and state jurisdictions.
> 
> However, there are still superior principles to all federal and state legislation, because the come from inherent rights of individuals.
> And federal gun control laws violate both the 2nd amendment and those basic superior principles.
> The federal government was denies any firearms jurisdiction by the constitution, and individuals need to be the source of armed force in any democratic republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is our supreme law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The federal constitution is the supreme legislation of the land, but it is not supreme law.
> For example, is says nothing about many individual rights that are superior to the constitution.
> Like the right of privacy.
> It is not in the constitution specifically, but is a superior unenumerated right, which can not legally be abridged by the constitution or any mere legislation.
> The only time inherent rights like privacy can be abridged is when necessary in order to defend the inherent rights of others.
> 
> That really is obvious if you think about it, because where did the constitution come from?
> It can't just be arbitrary because then we would have a dictatorship instead of a democratic republic.
> The Declaration of Independence tells us where the constitution came from.
> It came from the same inherent individual rights that justified our rebellion from England.
> These inherent rights are supreme law of the land, and is where the justification and authority for the constitution came from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not sure what you mean.  The judicature adjudicates based on our federal Constitution and express, supreme law of the land.  The judicial branch is delegated the judicial power of the United States.
Click to expand...


Wrong.
For example, abortion rights rulings are based on the inherent individual right of privacy, which is not all mentioned in the Constitution in any way.
The constitution is not at all an attempt to create, list, or protect inherent individual rights.
It is just a division of jurisdiction between state and federal.
The whole point of the 14th amendment is about how the real basis for law and its source of authority comes from inherent individual rights.
The SCOTUS can use the constitution to help decide what these inherent individual rights are, based on the shadow they cast in the framing of the constitution, but many are not there, like the right of privacy.
We have to go back to ancient common law precedent to find them.
Which means the constitution is NOT the source of all law.
And what "supreme law of the land" means is not that it is the source of all law, but that it is the final arbiter of jurisdiction between state and federal jurisdiction.
There not only are layers above the Constitution, but there have to be, in order to authorize and justify the existence of the constitution itself.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, the Organized Militia is only in existence when the unorganized militia is called up for some specific threat.
> 
> 
> 
> How did you reach that conclusion from our Second Amendment?
Click to expand...


First of all there are other sources to look at that are much longer, detailed, and easier to understand than the 2nd amendment, and they clearly indicate that the Founders did not like or trust a standing mercenary military, and instead wanted an armed population so that citizen soldiers could be called up when needed instead.

But second is that if Organized Militia existed all the time, then the 2nd Amendment would make no sense.
Lets assume the Organized Militia were the National Guard.
Then with a permanent Organized Militia, the 2nd amendment would read something like:

{...   The National Guard being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the National Guard to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. ...}

See why that makes no sense?
There is no point to a 2nd amendment restriction on the federal government if it were only about keeping an arm of the federal government armed and ready.
Restricting the federal government from disarming its own branch of service, makes no sense.
Clearly the 2nd amendment has to be about preventing the federal government from disarming something that is not part of the federal government.  And the 2nd amendment then justifies this by saying that not disarming this something that is not federal, may also be useful to the federal government in future emergencies, if allowed to remain armed.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> For example, abortion rights rulings are based on the inherent individual right of privacy, which is not all mentioned in the Constitution in any way.


Only because you appeal to ignorance of our federal form of Government, like most right-wingers. 

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy. (California State Constitution)

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via due process in federal venues.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> First of all there are other sources to look at that are much longer, detailed, and easier to understand than the 2nd amendment, and they clearly indicate that the Founders did not like or trust a standing mercenary military, and instead wanted an armed population so that citizen soldiers could be called up when needed instead.


Our Second Amendment is an express part of our supreme law of the land.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> For example, abortion rights rulings are based on the inherent individual right of privacy, which is not all mentioned in the Constitution in any way.
> 
> 
> 
> Only because you appeal to ignorance of our federal form of Government, like most right-wingers.
> 
> All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy. (California State Constitution)
> 
> Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via due process in federal venues.
Click to expand...


First of all, I am extreme left, progressive, liberal, not right-wing.
Second is that inherent individual rights are infinite so impossible to enumerate in state or federal law.
Only when specific inherent individual rights have a history of being abused do we bother recognizing and securing them in legislation.
The trick is for the courts to strike down legislation that is abusive right away, like the War on Drugs should have been.
Any and all federal weapons laws also are clearly inherently illegal.
It should be up to each state to decide if something like a coachgun should be legal or not.
For example, in places where there are poisonous snakes.


----------



## NotVote

I don't know about you, but I will always reserve the right to keep and arm bears.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all there are other sources to look at that are much longer, detailed, and easier to understand than the 2nd amendment, and they clearly indicate that the Founders did not like or trust a standing mercenary military, and instead wanted an armed population so that citizen soldiers could be called up when needed instead.
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is an express part of our supreme law of the land.
Click to expand...


Yes, but that does not mean there are higher sources we can look at and use to understand the short wording of the 2nd amendment.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Grammar lesson:

Let's go eat grandma.

Or

Let's go eat, grandma.


Dan Palos does not see the difference.


----------



## sartre play

Maybe we should change the conversation, about the right to bare arms, FOCUS for a while on what we gun owners who have respect for guns and there use, what can we do to reduce the constant gun deaths. There will always be murder, yet there seems to be a new group of gun people who are different from us, that have little skill or respect for guns. & see them as tools to be used for power.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> For example, abortion rights rulings are based on the inherent individual right of privacy, which is not all mentioned in the Constitution in any way.
> 
> 
> 
> Only because you appeal to ignorance of our federal form of Government, like most right-wingers.
> 
> All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy. (California State Constitution)
> 
> Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via due process in federal venues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, I am extreme left, progressive, liberal, not right-wing.
> Second is that inherent individual rights are infinite so impossible to enumerate in state or federal law.
> Only when specific inherent individual rights have a history of being abused do we bother recognizing and securing them in legislation.
> The trick is for the courts to strike down legislation that is abusive right away, like the War on Drugs should have been.
> Any and all federal weapons laws also are clearly inherently illegal.
> It should be up to each state to decide if something like a coachgun should be legal or not.
> For example, in places where there are poisonous snakes.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant since States have the traditional police power over Individuals of the people.


----------



## danielpalos

sartre play said:


> Maybe we should change the conversation, about the right to bare arms, FOCUS for a while on what we gun owners who have respect for guns and there use, what can we do to reduce the constant gun deaths. There will always be murder, yet there seems to be a new group of gun people who are different from us, that have little skill or respect for guns. & see them as tools to be used for power.


The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> For example, abortion rights rulings are based on the inherent individual right of privacy, which is not all mentioned in the Constitution in any way.
> 
> 
> 
> Only because you appeal to ignorance of our federal form of Government, like most right-wingers.
> 
> All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy. (California State Constitution)
> 
> Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via due process in federal venues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, I am extreme left, progressive, liberal, not right-wing.
> Second is that inherent individual rights are infinite so impossible to enumerate in state or federal law.
> Only when specific inherent individual rights have a history of being abused do we bother recognizing and securing them in legislation.
> The trick is for the courts to strike down legislation that is abusive right away, like the War on Drugs should have been.
> Any and all federal weapons laws also are clearly inherently illegal.
> It should be up to each state to decide if something like a coachgun should be legal or not.
> For example, in places where there are poisonous snakes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant since States have the traditional police power over Individuals of the people.
Click to expand...

Then, why is the FedGov regulating the purchase and possession of any weapons by individuals "of the people"?

Why is the FedGov assuming a traditional State role?

Explain it 

(you won't because you can't)


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> You disagree, Daniel. Why do you disagree that community is not the same as the military?
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is irrelevant.  The People are the Militia.  Our Second Amendment is clear.
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about the militia. Please do try to actually read what is written before spewing yet another of your 5 favorite lines.


----------



## eddiew37

Bear this
*It's all in the math*


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> For example, abortion rights rulings are based on the inherent individual right of privacy, which is not all mentioned in the Constitution in any way.
> 
> 
> 
> Only because you appeal to ignorance of our federal form of Government, like most right-wingers.
> 
> All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy. (California State Constitution)
> 
> Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via due process in federal venues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, I am extreme left, progressive, liberal, not right-wing.
> Second is that inherent individual rights are infinite so impossible to enumerate in state or federal law.
> Only when specific inherent individual rights have a history of being abused do we bother recognizing and securing them in legislation.
> The trick is for the courts to strike down legislation that is abusive right away, like the War on Drugs should have been.
> Any and all federal weapons laws also are clearly inherently illegal.
> It should be up to each state to decide if something like a coachgun should be legal or not.
> For example, in places where there are poisonous snakes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant since States have the traditional police power over Individuals of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then, why is the FedGov regulating the purchase and possession of any weapons by individuals "of the people"?
> 
> Why is the FedGov assuming a traditional State role?
> 
> Explain it
> 
> (you won't because you can't)
Click to expand...

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> You disagree, Daniel. Why do you disagree that community is not the same as the military?
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is irrelevant.  The People are the Militia.  Our Second Amendment is clear.
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wasn't talking about the militia. Please do try to actually read what is written before spewing yet another of your 5 favorite lines.
Click to expand...

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788


----------



## Utilitarian

eddiew37 said:


> Bear this
> *It's all in the math*


You can't find fraud if the system isn't designed to catch it.

The gun deaths figure is a bit deceptive anyway.  It includes suicides.  About 60% of all gun deaths are suicides, and so someone determined to kill themselves will find another way if they can't get a gun.  Preventing suicide requires a different approach from preventing homicide.


----------



## eddiew37

Utilitarian said:


> eddiew37 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bear this
> *It's all in the math*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't find fraud if the system isn't designed to catch it.
> 
> The gun deaths figure is a bit deceptive anyway.  It includes suicides.  About 60% of all gun deaths are suicides, and so someone determined to kill themselves will find another way if they can't get a gun.  Preventing suicide requires a different approach from preventing homicide.
Click to expand...

Saying you're correct  ,,what have republicans done  to help prevent suicide ?  I guess NOTHING


----------



## Utilitarian

eddiew37 said:


> Utilitarian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eddiew37 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bear this
> *It's all in the math*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't find fraud if the system isn't designed to catch it.
> 
> The gun deaths figure is a bit deceptive anyway.  It includes suicides.  About 60% of all gun deaths are suicides, and so someone determined to kill themselves will find another way if they can't get a gun.  Preventing suicide requires a different approach from preventing homicide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Saying you're correct  ,,what have republicans done  to help prevent suicide ?  I guess NOTHING
Click to expand...

Your first error is assuming government is the best approach.  Most of what prevents suicide is personal.  Family should be the first resort.

For those without family or without a reliable one, there are community resources like churches and nonprofits.  Short of that, government could get involved in public spending on mental health, but that's something best handled by local government, not the feds.

Ultimately, it comes down to one thing -- the depressed person seeking out help.  Not every person with suicidal tendencies or thoughts is obvious about it.  Some people internalize it.  Those are the people hardest to stop, because they can act without anyone knowing there's an issue.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> You disagree, Daniel. Why do you disagree that community is not the same as the military?
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is irrelevant.  The People are the Militia.  Our Second Amendment is clear.
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wasn't talking about the militia. Please do try to actually read what is written before spewing yet another of your 5 favorite lines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
Click to expand...

Dude! I wasn't talking about the militia! Let it go.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> You disagree, Daniel. Why do you disagree that community is not the same as the military?
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is irrelevant.  The People are the Militia.  Our Second Amendment is clear.
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wasn't talking about the militia. Please do try to actually read what is written before spewing yet another of your 5 favorite lines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude! I wasn't talking about the militia! Let it go.
Click to expand...

The People are the Militia.  There is no one unconnected with the Militia, only with the organized and well-regulated militia.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> You disagree, Daniel. Why do you disagree that community is not the same as the military?
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is irrelevant.  The People are the Militia.  Our Second Amendment is clear.
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wasn't talking about the militia. Please do try to actually read what is written before spewing yet another of your 5 favorite lines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude! I wasn't talking about the militia! Let it go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia.  There is no one unconnected with the Militia, only with the organized and well-regulated militia.
Click to expand...

That just means that no one can be denied the right to bear arms. Is that what you're trying to say?

Think a moment about what you're saying. You're saying that only the militia has the right to bear arms, but that's not what the amendment says, is it?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> You disagree, Daniel. Why do you disagree that community is not the same as the military?
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is irrelevant.  The People are the Militia.  Our Second Amendment is clear.
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wasn't talking about the militia. Please do try to actually read what is written before spewing yet another of your 5 favorite lines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude! I wasn't talking about the militia! Let it go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia.  There is no one unconnected with the Militia, only with the organized and well-regulated militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That just means that no one can be denied the right to bear arms. Is that what you're trying to say?
> 
> Think a moment about what you're saying. You're saying that only the militia has the right to bear arms, but that's not what the amendment says, is it?
Click to expand...

If the Militia are the people, and only the people/militia have the right to bear arms, why do we have the biggest, most powerful military the world has ever known?

Things should change.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> You disagree, Daniel. Why do you disagree that community is not the same as the military?
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is irrelevant.  The People are the Militia.  Our Second Amendment is clear.
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wasn't talking about the militia. Please do try to actually read what is written before spewing yet another of your 5 favorite lines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude! I wasn't talking about the militia! Let it go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia.  There is no one unconnected with the Militia, only with the organized and well-regulated militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That just means that no one can be denied the right to bear arms. Is that what you're trying to say?
> 
> Think a moment about what you're saying. You're saying that only the militia has the right to bear arms, but that's not what the amendment says, is it?
Click to expand...

That just means anyone can be drafted for the security of our free States. 

To provide for organizing, *arming*, and disciplining, the Militia


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> You disagree, Daniel. Why do you disagree that community is not the same as the military?
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is irrelevant.  The People are the Militia.  Our Second Amendment is clear.
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wasn't talking about the militia. Please do try to actually read what is written before spewing yet another of your 5 favorite lines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude! I wasn't talking about the militia! Let it go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia.  There is no one unconnected with the Militia, only with the organized and well-regulated militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That just means that no one can be denied the right to bear arms. Is that what you're trying to say?
> 
> Think a moment about what you're saying. You're saying that only the militia has the right to bear arms, but that's not what the amendment says, is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That just means anyone can be drafted for the security of our free States.
> 
> To provide for organizing, *arming*, and disciplining, the Militia
Click to expand...

The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed. The militia does not bear arms, the people do, and no, you can't keep all the arms in an armory somewhere and expect the PEOPLE to go there to get them in an emergency. The PEOPLE own them and keep them at home. We've been over this, and it's obvious that you have no clue what the militia was at the time the amendment was written. And why do you keep saying the government owes me weapons?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> That just means anyone can be drafted for the security of our free States.
> 
> To provide for organizing, *arming*, and disciplining, the Militia


But not _creating _the Militia.

Note how it says that the people have the right to bear arms, but also KEEP arms.  You can't ignore the "keep" part.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed. The militia does not bear arms, the people do,


The State has a right to organize militia.  The People are the Militia.  You are simply appealing to ignorance, like usual for the right-wing.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> That just means anyone can be drafted for the security of our free States.
> 
> To provide for organizing, *arming*, and disciplining, the Militia
> 
> 
> 
> But not _creating _the Militia.
> 
> Note how it says that the people have the right to bear arms, but also KEEP arms.  You can't ignore the "keep" part.
Click to expand...

Only right wingers appeal to ignorance of the law but still want to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth" in border threads. 

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> That just means anyone can be drafted for the security of our free States.
> 
> To provide for organizing, *arming*, and disciplining, the Militia
> 
> 
> 
> But not _creating _the Militia.
> 
> Note how it says that the people have the right to bear arms, but also KEEP arms.  You can't ignore the "keep" part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only right wingers appeal to ignorance of the law but still want to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth" in border threads.
> 
> To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
> 
> To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
Click to expand...

That doesn't explain away the "keep" part.

The people have the right to keep arms, right?  

They also have the right to serve in the militia, and to "bear" arms.

Keep

KEEP

*KEEP*

Dictionary: KEEP

*keep*
\ ˈkēp   \
kept\ ˈkept   \; keeping
*Definition of keep*
 (Entry 1 of 2)
transitive verb
1a: to retain in one's possession or power



There's no getting around the plain language.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> That just means anyone can be drafted for the security of our free States.
> 
> To provide for organizing, *arming*, and disciplining, the Militia
> 
> 
> 
> But not _creating _the Militia.
> 
> Note how it says that the people have the right to bear arms, but also KEEP arms.  You can't ignore the "keep" part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only right wingers appeal to ignorance of the law but still want to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth" in border threads.
> 
> To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
> 
> To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That doesn't explain away the "keep" part.
> 
> The people have the right to keep arms, right?
> 
> They also have the right to serve in the militia, and to "bear" arms.
> 
> Keep
> 
> KEEP
> 
> *KEEP*
> 
> Dictionary: KEEP
> 
> *keep*
> \ ˈkēp   \
> kept\ ˈkept   \; keeping
> *Definition of keep*
> (Entry 1 of 2)
> transitive verb
> 1a: to retain in one's possession or power
> 
> 
> 
> There's no getting around the plain language.
Click to expand...

No, there isn't.  Right-wingers prefer to appeal to ignorance. 

To provide for organizing, *arming*, and disciplining, the Militia

GI's are generally issued Arms they keep and bear upon weapons qualification and necessity.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed. The militia does not bear arms, the people do,
> 
> 
> 
> The State has a right to organize militia.  The People are the Militia.  You are simply appealing to ignorance, like usual for the right-wing.
Click to expand...

The people have the right to bear arms, full stop. The people, not the militia.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed. The militia does not bear arms, the people do,
> 
> 
> 
> The State has a right to organize militia.  The People are the Militia.  You are simply appealing to ignorance, like usual for the right-wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people have the right to bear arms, full stop. The people, not the militia.
Click to expand...

That is nothing but right wing propaganda. 

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed. The militia does not bear arms, the people do,
> 
> 
> 
> The State has a right to organize militia.  The People are the Militia.  You are simply appealing to ignorance, like usual for the right-wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people have the right to bear arms, full stop. The people, not the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is nothing but right wing propaganda.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
Click to expand...

The SC agrees with it, so no. Look, you can regurgitate your talking points all day long, but it won't change reality. People can have guns, it's that simple.


----------



## bendog

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> You disagree, Daniel. Why do you disagree that community is not the same as the military?
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is irrelevant.  The People are the Militia.  Our Second Amendment is clear.
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wasn't talking about the militia. Please do try to actually read what is written before spewing yet another of your 5 favorite lines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude! I wasn't talking about the militia! Let it go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia.  There is no one unconnected with the Militia, only with the organized and well-regulated militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That just means that no one can be denied the right to bear arms. Is that what you're trying to say?
> 
> Think a moment about what you're saying. You're saying that only the militia has the right to bear arms, but that's not what the amendment says, is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the Militia are the people, and only the people/militia have the right to bear arms, why do we have the biggest, most powerful military the world has ever known?
> 
> Things should change.
Click to expand...

If you are the militia, you must be regulated.  According to the Amendment.  Trust me, you don't want that.  You, and I, just want to peacefully own our guns.  It's not hard.  Nor is it controversial.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

bendog said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> You disagree, Daniel. Why do you disagree that community is not the same as the military?
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is irrelevant.  The People are the Militia.  Our Second Amendment is clear.
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wasn't talking about the militia. Please do try to actually read what is written before spewing yet another of your 5 favorite lines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude! I wasn't talking about the militia! Let it go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia.  There is no one unconnected with the Militia, only with the organized and well-regulated militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That just means that no one can be denied the right to bear arms. Is that what you're trying to say?
> 
> Think a moment about what you're saying. You're saying that only the militia has the right to bear arms, but that's not what the amendment says, is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the Militia are the people, and only the people/militia have the right to bear arms, why do we have the biggest, most powerful military the world has ever known?
> 
> Things should change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you are the militia, you must be regulated.  According to the Amendment.  Trust me, you don't want that.  You, and I, just want to peacefully own our guns.  It's not hard.  Nor is it controversial.
Click to expand...

I assume by "regulated" you mean well trained and functioning properly?

I am.  Are you?


----------



## StormAl

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the militia is the people. The people need to be armed so the militia can be formed. The PEOPLE have the right to bear arms, not the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> Your substitution is a fallacy.  Criminals of the People do not have a right to keep and bear Arms.
> 
> Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People (of which even You speak) have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not a substitution. I merely showed you that that PEOPLE have the right to bear arms, not the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.
> 
> Imagine the militia having the right to be in the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Complete bullshit revision of history.
> 
> Minute Men had to purchase and maintain their own firearms to be ready for militia service when needed, which was their duty.
> 
> The right of people to keep those firearms was secured and guaranteed in the bill of rights and the authority withheld from the new federal government so the people would accept the new constitution.
> 
> Read the fucking federalist papers, for fuck's sake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was before our federal Constitution.  Our Founding Fathers specifically put this in our federal Constitution:
> 
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that the federal use of calling up the organized militia for national defense is only a small part of what the militia is for.  An armed population is for state defense and disasters, municipal defense, disasters, and posses, and for individual home protection.  The federal use may never even happen in an average lifetime.  The personal defense use will happen many times n an ordinary lifetime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of express law.
> 
> To provide for organizing, _*arming*_, and disciplining, the Militia
Click to expand...

. . . and disciplining the Militia

All a governor has to do is call the Militia in to organized and well-regulated.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed. The militia does not bear arms, the people do,
> 
> 
> 
> The State has a right to organize militia.  The People are the Militia.  You are simply appealing to ignorance, like usual for the right-wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people have the right to bear arms, full stop. The people, not the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is nothing but right wing propaganda.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SC agrees with it, so no. Look, you can regurgitate your talking points all day long, but it won't change reality. People can have guns, it's that simple.
Click to expand...

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> I assume by "regulated" you mean well trained and functioning properly?
> 
> I am.  Are you?


To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


----------



## frigidweirdo

bendog said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> You disagree, Daniel. Why do you disagree that community is not the same as the military?
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is irrelevant.  The People are the Militia.  Our Second Amendment is clear.
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wasn't talking about the militia. Please do try to actually read what is written before spewing yet another of your 5 favorite lines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude! I wasn't talking about the militia! Let it go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia.  There is no one unconnected with the Militia, only with the organized and well-regulated militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That just means that no one can be denied the right to bear arms. Is that what you're trying to say?
> 
> Think a moment about what you're saying. You're saying that only the militia has the right to bear arms, but that's not what the amendment says, is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the Militia are the people, and only the people/militia have the right to bear arms, why do we have the biggest, most powerful military the world has ever known?
> 
> Things should change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you are the militia, you must be regulated.  According to the Amendment.  Trust me, you don't want that.  You, and I, just want to peacefully own our guns.  It's not hard.  Nor is it controversial.
Click to expand...


That's not true at all. The Amendment says a well regulated militia is best for the security of a free state. It doesn't say the government has to do this. 

The Bill of Rights is a government document. The Constitution can do two things, empower the government or limit the power of the government. In this case it LIMITS the power of the government by preventing them from stopping individuals having arms and preventing them stopping people going into the militia.

There's no clause in the US constitution that FORCES the US govt to do something.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed. The militia does not bear arms, the people do,
> 
> 
> 
> The State has a right to organize militia.  The People are the Militia.  You are simply appealing to ignorance, like usual for the right-wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people have the right to bear arms, full stop. The people, not the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is nothing but right wing propaganda.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SC agrees with it, so no. Look, you can regurgitate your talking points all day long, but it won't change reality. People can have guns, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amendment X
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Click to expand...

Amendment 14.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed. The militia does not bear arms, the people do,
> 
> 
> 
> The State has a right to organize militia.  The People are the Militia.  You are simply appealing to ignorance, like usual for the right-wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people have the right to bear arms, full stop. The people, not the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is nothing but right wing propaganda.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SC agrees with it, so no. Look, you can regurgitate your talking points all day long, but it won't change reality. People can have guns, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amendment X
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amendment 14.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant.


----------



## hadit

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed. The militia does not bear arms, the people do,
> 
> 
> 
> The State has a right to organize militia.  The People are the Militia.  You are simply appealing to ignorance, like usual for the right-wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people have the right to bear arms, full stop. The people, not the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is nothing but right wing propaganda.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SC agrees with it, so no. Look, you can regurgitate your talking points all day long, but it won't change reality. People can have guns, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amendment X
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amendment 14.
Click to expand...

You disagree with the 14th Amendment, Daniel? Why is that?


----------



## Bezukhov

What about my right to arm bears?


----------



## Rigby5

hadit said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed. The militia does not bear arms, the people do,
> 
> 
> 
> The State has a right to organize militia.  The People are the Militia.  You are simply appealing to ignorance, like usual for the right-wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people have the right to bear arms, full stop. The people, not the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is nothing but right wing propaganda.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SC agrees with it, so no. Look, you can regurgitate your talking points all day long, but it won't change reality. People can have guns, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amendment X
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amendment 14.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You disagree with the 14th Amendment, Daniel? Why is that?
Click to expand...


I do not really agree with Daniel on this one, but the 14 amendment does not automatically "incorporate" all the restrictions in the bill of rights to also apply against the states, cities, or other individuals.
The courts have to individually decide to "incorporate" them.
But I believe Heller or McDonald finally accomplished that.
The right to bear arms now is a protected individual right.


----------



## InspectorDetector

Lesh said:


> InspectorDetector said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it state that?
> 
> 
> 
> Article 1 Section 8 Clause 15 or 16
Click to expand...


"A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." - George Washington

That's good enough for me, skippy.......


----------



## Rigby5

Lesh said:


> InspectorDetector said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it state that?
> 
> 
> 
> Article 1 Section 8 Clause 15 or 16
Click to expand...


That only allows the federal government to tax in order to pay for arms if needed for something big, like defense from an invasion.  It does not imply that the federal government was the normal source of arms for the militia before it was called for federal duty, and that implies each individual was to arm themselves.  Which is the only logical interpretation since there were no significant police back then, and there were things like native uprisings, etc.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Keep


----------



## Rigby5

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Keep



Correct.
{...  the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed  ...}
It does not say the Organized Militia can be provisioned by the federal armories.
It says the individual people have a right to keep arms, which implies they own them and are in their homes.


----------



## AZrailwhale

danielpalos said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, there is.   A militia, especially in the time our constitution was written, was individuals who would answer a call to arms.    Not a call to collect their gov't firearms.  But a call to bring their own firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a sovereign right of a State not individuals:
> 
> A well regulated _Militia_, being _necessary_ to the security of a free _State_, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...

If the second was intended to insure the preservation of the militia’s arms, it would have been worded:  the militias rights to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  Instead the Bill of Rights, which is all about INDIVIDUAL rights, not collective rights, say the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


----------



## Lesh

Rigby5 said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.
> {...  the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed  ...}
> It does not say the Organized Militia can be provisioned by the federal armories.
> It says the individual people have a right to keep arms, which implies they own them and are in their homes.
Click to expand...

Actually it does. It says that because of their need in militia duty they should be protected.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed. The militia does not bear arms, the people do,
> 
> 
> 
> The State has a right to organize militia.  The People are the Militia.  You are simply appealing to ignorance, like usual for the right-wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people have the right to bear arms, full stop. The people, not the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is nothing but right wing propaganda.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SC agrees with it, so no. Look, you can regurgitate your talking points all day long, but it won't change reality. People can have guns, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amendment X
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amendment 14.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You disagree with the 14th Amendment, Daniel? Why is that?
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with it; your usage of it is merely irrelevant in this context.  Our Second Amendment is clear.  

What point are you trying to make with our Fourteenth Amendment?


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed. The militia does not bear arms, the people do,
> 
> 
> 
> The State has a right to organize militia.  The People are the Militia.  You are simply appealing to ignorance, like usual for the right-wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people have the right to bear arms, full stop. The people, not the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is nothing but right wing propaganda.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SC agrees with it, so no. Look, you can regurgitate your talking points all day long, but it won't change reality. People can have guns, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amendment X
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amendment 14.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You disagree with the 14th Amendment, Daniel? Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not really agree with Daniel on this one, but the 14 amendment does not automatically "incorporate" all the restrictions in the bill of rights to also apply against the states, cities, or other individuals.
> The courts have to individually decide to "incorporate" them.
> But I believe Heller or McDonald finally accomplished that.
> The right to bear arms now is a protected individual right.
Click to expand...

This is a State's sovereign right:

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)


----------



## danielpalos

InspectorDetector said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> InspectorDetector said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it state that?
> 
> 
> 
> Article 1 Section 8 Clause 15 or 16
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." - George Washington
> 
> That's good enough for me, skippy.......
Click to expand...

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> InspectorDetector said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it state that?
> 
> 
> 
> Article 1 Section 8 Clause 15 or 16
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That only allows the federal government to tax in order to pay for arms if needed for something big, like defense from an invasion.  It does not imply that the federal government was the normal source of arms for the militia before it was called for federal duty, and that implies each individual was to arm themselves.  Which is the only logical interpretation since there were no significant police back then, and there were things like native uprisings, etc.
Click to expand...

To provide for organizing, *arming*, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.
> {...  the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed  ...}
> It does not say the Organized Militia can be provisioned by the federal armories.
> It says the individual people have a right to keep arms, which implies they own them and are in their homes.
Click to expand...

To provide for organizing, *arming*, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.


----------



## danielpalos

AZrailwhale said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
> 
> The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose.  (Militia)
> 
> The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
> 
> What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
> 
> Establish a militia?
> 
> of
> 
> Protect the right of the people?
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights.   States have a right to organize their own militias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is that?   There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment.  All terms are collective and plural.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they are.  See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers.  Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information.    You do it quit often.
> 
> But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech.  Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion.  Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
> 
> The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
> 
> The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daniel, you are welcome to disagree.    That just means you are wrong.   Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way.  If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population.    As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court.   But your opinion carries very little weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the whole Point, right winger.  The People are the Militia not Individuals.  There is no such Thing as well regulated _militia_ of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, there is.   A militia, especially in the time our constitution was written, was individuals who would answer a call to arms.    Not a call to collect their gov't firearms.  But a call to bring their own firearms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a sovereign right of a State not individuals:
> 
> A well regulated _Militia_, being _necessary_ to the security of a free _State_, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the second was intended to insure the preservation of the militia’s arms, it would have been worded:  the militias rights to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  Instead the Bill of Rights, which is all about INDIVIDUAL rights, not collective rights, say the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...

The People are the Militia.  Only well regulated Militias of the whole and entire People are declared Necessary to the security of our free States. 

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed. The militia does not bear arms, the people do,
> 
> 
> 
> The State has a right to organize militia.  The People are the Militia.  You are simply appealing to ignorance, like usual for the right-wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people have the right to bear arms, full stop. The people, not the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is nothing but right wing propaganda.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SC agrees with it, so no. Look, you can regurgitate your talking points all day long, but it won't change reality. People can have guns, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amendment X
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amendment 14.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You disagree with the 14th Amendment, Daniel? Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't disagree with it; your usage of it is merely irrelevant in this context.  Our Second Amendment is clear.
> 
> What point are you trying to make with our Fourteenth Amendment?
Click to expand...

That states cannot make laws that are unconstitutional. The Second Amendment is clear, the people have the right to bear arms.


----------



## Lesh

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed. The militia does not bear arms, the people do,
> 
> 
> 
> The State has a right to organize militia.  The People are the Militia.  You are simply appealing to ignorance, like usual for the right-wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people have the right to bear arms, full stop. The people, not the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is nothing but right wing propaganda.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SC agrees with it, so no. Look, you can regurgitate your talking points all day long, but it won't change reality. People can have guns, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amendment X
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amendment 14.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You disagree with the 14th Amendment, Daniel? Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't disagree with it; your usage of it is merely irrelevant in this context.  Our Second Amendment is clear.
> 
> What point are you trying to make with our Fourteenth Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That states cannot make laws that are unconstitutional. The Second Amendment is clear, the people have the right to bear arms.
Click to expand...

In the context of a well regulated militia. Yes. Very clear


----------



## hadit

Lesh said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed. The militia does not bear arms, the people do,
> 
> 
> 
> The State has a right to organize militia.  The People are the Militia.  You are simply appealing to ignorance, like usual for the right-wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people have the right to bear arms, full stop. The people, not the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is nothing but right wing propaganda.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SC agrees with it, so no. Look, you can regurgitate your talking points all day long, but it won't change reality. People can have guns, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amendment X
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amendment 14.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You disagree with the 14th Amendment, Daniel? Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't disagree with it; your usage of it is merely irrelevant in this context.  Our Second Amendment is clear.
> 
> What point are you trying to make with our Fourteenth Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That states cannot make laws that are unconstitutional. The Second Amendment is clear, the people have the right to bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the context of a well regulated militia. Yes. Very clear
Click to expand...

That's a reason they gave for the freedom being protected, but it's not restrictive. IOW, they might as well have said, "Because we need to be warm in the winter, the right to wear a coat shall not be infringed". That doesn't mean your right to wear a coat only exists in the winter but not in the fall or spring. It merely defines a reason for your freedom to wear a coat.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Rigby5 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed. The militia does not bear arms, the people do,
> 
> 
> 
> The State has a right to organize militia.  The People are the Militia.  You are simply appealing to ignorance, like usual for the right-wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people have the right to bear arms, full stop. The people, not the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is nothing but right wing propaganda.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SC agrees with it, so no. Look, you can regurgitate your talking points all day long, but it won't change reality. People can have guns, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amendment X
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amendment 14.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You disagree with the 14th Amendment, Daniel? Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not really agree with Daniel on this one, but the 14 amendment does not automatically "incorporate" all the restrictions in the bill of rights to also apply against the states, cities, or other individuals.
> The courts have to individually decide to "incorporate" them.
> But I believe Heller or McDonald finally accomplished that.
> The right to bear arms now is a protected individual right.
Click to expand...

Protected as an individual right by FedGov against States under the 14th Amendment, yes.

The 14th Amendment is a clumsy POL in my opinion.  It really screws up all else.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lesh said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed. The militia does not bear arms, the people do,
> 
> 
> 
> The State has a right to organize militia.  The People are the Militia.  You are simply appealing to ignorance, like usual for the right-wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people have the right to bear arms, full stop. The people, not the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is nothing but right wing propaganda.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SC agrees with it, so no. Look, you can regurgitate your talking points all day long, but it won't change reality. People can have guns, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amendment X
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amendment 14.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You disagree with the 14th Amendment, Daniel? Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't disagree with it; your usage of it is merely irrelevant in this context.  Our Second Amendment is clear.
> 
> What point are you trying to make with our Fourteenth Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That states cannot make laws that are unconstitutional. The Second Amendment is clear, the people have the right to bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the context of a well regulated militia. Yes. Very clear
Click to expand...

That is false.


----------



## InspectorDetector

danielpalos said:


> InspectorDetector said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> InspectorDetector said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it state that?
> 
> 
> 
> Article 1 Section 8 Clause 15 or 16
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." - George Washington
> 
> That's good enough for me, skippy.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
Click to expand...


Yeah right. SO you are telling me that the citizens have to rely on the "state" to arm them....nonsense.


----------



## InspectorDetector

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> InspectorDetector said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it state that?
> 
> 
> 
> Article 1 Section 8 Clause 15 or 16
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That only allows the federal government to tax in order to pay for arms if needed for something big, like defense from an invasion.  It does not imply that the federal government was the normal source of arms for the militia before it was called for federal duty, and that implies each individual was to arm themselves.  Which is the only logical interpretation since there were no significant police back then, and there were things like native uprisings, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To provide for organizing, *arming*, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Click to expand...


Again - leave it up to the "state" to arm the populace....sounds just like the former USSR.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed. The militia does not bear arms, the people do,
> 
> 
> 
> The State has a right to organize militia.  The People are the Militia.  You are simply appealing to ignorance, like usual for the right-wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people have the right to bear arms, full stop. The people, not the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is nothing but right wing propaganda.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SC agrees with it, so no. Look, you can regurgitate your talking points all day long, but it won't change reality. People can have guns, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amendment X
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amendment 14.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You disagree with the 14th Amendment, Daniel? Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't disagree with it; your usage of it is merely irrelevant in this context.  Our Second Amendment is clear.
> 
> What point are you trying to make with our Fourteenth Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That states cannot make laws that are unconstitutional. The Second Amendment is clear, the people have the right to bear arms.
Click to expand...

The People are the Militia.  You cannot ignore that legal fact.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed. The militia does not bear arms, the people do,
> 
> 
> 
> The State has a right to organize militia.  The People are the Militia.  You are simply appealing to ignorance, like usual for the right-wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people have the right to bear arms, full stop. The people, not the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is nothing but right wing propaganda.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SC agrees with it, so no. Look, you can regurgitate your talking points all day long, but it won't change reality. People can have guns, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amendment X
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amendment 14.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You disagree with the 14th Amendment, Daniel? Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't disagree with it; your usage of it is merely irrelevant in this context.  Our Second Amendment is clear.
> 
> What point are you trying to make with our Fourteenth Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That states cannot make laws that are unconstitutional. The Second Amendment is clear, the people have the right to bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the context of a well regulated militia. Yes. Very clear
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a reason they gave for the freedom being protected, but it's not restrictive. IOW, they might as well have said, "Because we need to be warm in the winter, the right to wear a coat shall not be infringed". That doesn't mean your right to wear a coat only exists in the winter but not in the fall or spring. It merely defines a reason for your freedom to wear a coat.
Click to expand...

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via due process in federal venues. 

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy. (California State Constitution)

States reserve their traditional police power.

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.  (The Federalist Number Forty-Five)

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed. The militia does not bear arms, the people do,
> 
> 
> 
> The State has a right to organize militia.  The People are the Militia.  You are simply appealing to ignorance, like usual for the right-wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people have the right to bear arms, full stop. The people, not the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is nothing but right wing propaganda.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SC agrees with it, so no. Look, you can regurgitate your talking points all day long, but it won't change reality. People can have guns, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amendment X
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amendment 14.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You disagree with the 14th Amendment, Daniel? Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not really agree with Daniel on this one, but the 14 amendment does not automatically "incorporate" all the restrictions in the bill of rights to also apply against the states, cities, or other individuals.
> The courts have to individually decide to "incorporate" them.
> But I believe Heller or McDonald finally accomplished that.
> The right to bear arms now is a protected individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Protected as an individual right by FedGov against States under the 14th Amendment, yes.
> 
> The 14th Amendment is a clumsy POL in my opinion.  It really screws up all else.
Click to expand...

Our Second Amendment is more relevant.  There are no Individual or singular terms in our Second Amendment.


----------



## danielpalos

InspectorDetector said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> InspectorDetector said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> InspectorDetector said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it state that?
> 
> 
> 
> Article 1 Section 8 Clause 15 or 16
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." - George Washington
> 
> That's good enough for me, skippy.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah right. SO you are telling me that the citizens have to rely on the "state" to arm them....nonsense.
Click to expand...

Nonsense is all you have, right wingers.  That is why it can be soo difficult to take y'all seriously in immigration threads.  Appealing to ignorance of the law is what y'all are best at. 

To provide for organizing, *arming*, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


----------



## danielpalos

InspectorDetector said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> InspectorDetector said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it state that?
> 
> 
> 
> Article 1 Section 8 Clause 15 or 16
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That only allows the federal government to tax in order to pay for arms if needed for something big, like defense from an invasion.  It does not imply that the federal government was the normal source of arms for the militia before it was called for federal duty, and that implies each individual was to arm themselves.  Which is the only logical interpretation since there were no significant police back then, and there were things like native uprisings, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To provide for organizing, *arming*, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again - leave it up to the "state" to arm the populace....sounds just like the former USSR.
Click to expand...

There is no appeal to ignorance of Constitutional law, right wingers.  You are only welcome to ignore the Russian Constitution in the US.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed. The militia does not bear arms, the people do,
> 
> 
> 
> The State has a right to organize militia.  The People are the Militia.  You are simply appealing to ignorance, like usual for the right-wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people have the right to bear arms, full stop. The people, not the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is nothing but right wing propaganda.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SC agrees with it, so no. Look, you can regurgitate your talking points all day long, but it won't change reality. People can have guns, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amendment X
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amendment 14.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You disagree with the 14th Amendment, Daniel? Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't disagree with it; your usage of it is merely irrelevant in this context.  Our Second Amendment is clear.
> 
> What point are you trying to make with our Fourteenth Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That states cannot make laws that are unconstitutional. The Second Amendment is clear, the people have the right to bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia.  You cannot ignore that legal fact.
Click to expand...

The militia is the people. People have the right to bear arms, not the militia.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed. The militia does not bear arms, the people do,
> 
> 
> 
> The State has a right to organize militia.  The People are the Militia.  You are simply appealing to ignorance, like usual for the right-wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people have the right to bear arms, full stop. The people, not the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is nothing but right wing propaganda.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SC agrees with it, so no. Look, you can regurgitate your talking points all day long, but it won't change reality. People can have guns, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amendment X
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amendment 14.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You disagree with the 14th Amendment, Daniel? Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't disagree with it; your usage of it is merely irrelevant in this context.  Our Second Amendment is clear.
> 
> What point are you trying to make with our Fourteenth Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That states cannot make laws that are unconstitutional. The Second Amendment is clear, the people have the right to bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the context of a well regulated militia. Yes. Very clear
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a reason they gave for the freedom being protected, but it's not restrictive. IOW, they might as well have said, "Because we need to be warm in the winter, the right to wear a coat shall not be infringed". That doesn't mean your right to wear a coat only exists in the winter but not in the fall or spring. It merely defines a reason for your freedom to wear a coat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via due process in federal venues.
> 
> All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy. (California State Constitution)
> 
> States reserve their traditional police power.
> 
> The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.  (The Federalist Number Forty-Five)
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
Click to expand...

We're not talking about the Illinois state constitution. Stop quoting it as if it's relevant.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed. The militia does not bear arms, the people do,
> 
> 
> 
> The State has a right to organize militia.  The People are the Militia.  You are simply appealing to ignorance, like usual for the right-wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people have the right to bear arms, full stop. The people, not the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is nothing but right wing propaganda.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SC agrees with it, so no. Look, you can regurgitate your talking points all day long, but it won't change reality. People can have guns, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amendment X
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amendment 14.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You disagree with the 14th Amendment, Daniel? Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not really agree with Daniel on this one, but the 14 amendment does not automatically "incorporate" all the restrictions in the bill of rights to also apply against the states, cities, or other individuals.
> The courts have to individually decide to "incorporate" them.
> But I believe Heller or McDonald finally accomplished that.
> The right to bear arms now is a protected individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Protected as an individual right by FedGov against States under the 14th Amendment, yes.
> 
> The 14th Amendment is a clumsy POL in my opinion.  It really screws up all else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is more relevant.  There are no Individual or singular terms in our Second Amendment.
Click to expand...

There aren't any in the First Amendment either, yet you claim it applies to you individually.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed. The militia does not bear arms, the people do,
> 
> 
> 
> The State has a right to organize militia.  The People are the Militia.  You are simply appealing to ignorance, like usual for the right-wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people have the right to bear arms, full stop. The people, not the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is nothing but right wing propaganda.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SC agrees with it, so no. Look, you can regurgitate your talking points all day long, but it won't change reality. People can have guns, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amendment X
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amendment 14.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You disagree with the 14th Amendment, Daniel? Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't disagree with it; your usage of it is merely irrelevant in this context.  Our Second Amendment is clear.
> 
> What point are you trying to make with our Fourteenth Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That states cannot make laws that are unconstitutional. The Second Amendment is clear, the people have the right to bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia.  You cannot ignore that legal fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The militia is the people. People have the right to bear arms, not the militia.
Click to expand...

The People are the Militia.  Well regulated militia of the People may not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> We're not talking about the Illinois state constitution. Stop quoting it as if it's relevant.


Did you forget your own right wing propaganda? 

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

This is a State's sovereign right secured by our Second Amendment:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed. The militia does not bear arms, the people do,
> 
> 
> 
> The State has a right to organize militia.  The People are the Militia.  You are simply appealing to ignorance, like usual for the right-wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people have the right to bear arms, full stop. The people, not the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is nothing but right wing propaganda.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SC agrees with it, so no. Look, you can regurgitate your talking points all day long, but it won't change reality. People can have guns, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amendment X
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amendment 14.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You disagree with the 14th Amendment, Daniel? Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not really agree with Daniel on this one, but the 14 amendment does not automatically "incorporate" all the restrictions in the bill of rights to also apply against the states, cities, or other individuals.
> The courts have to individually decide to "incorporate" them.
> But I believe Heller or McDonald finally accomplished that.
> The right to bear arms now is a protected individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Protected as an individual right by FedGov against States under the 14th Amendment, yes.
> 
> The 14th Amendment is a clumsy POL in my opinion.  It really screws up all else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is more relevant.  There are no Individual or singular terms in our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There aren't any in the First Amendment either, yet you claim it applies to you individually.
Click to expand...

Our First Amendment does not claim only well regulated militia of the People are necessary and therefore, only they can petition for redress of grievances.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed. The militia does not bear arms, the people do,
> 
> 
> 
> The State has a right to organize militia.  The People are the Militia.  You are simply appealing to ignorance, like usual for the right-wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people have the right to bear arms, full stop. The people, not the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is nothing but right wing propaganda.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SC agrees with it, so no. Look, you can regurgitate your talking points all day long, but it won't change reality. People can have guns, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amendment X
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amendment 14.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You disagree with the 14th Amendment, Daniel? Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't disagree with it; your usage of it is merely irrelevant in this context.  Our Second Amendment is clear.
> 
> What point are you trying to make with our Fourteenth Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That states cannot make laws that are unconstitutional. The Second Amendment is clear, the people have the right to bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia.  You cannot ignore that legal fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The militia is the people. People have the right to bear arms, not the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia.  Well regulated militia of the People may not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
Click to expand...

The militia is the people.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're not talking about the Illinois state constitution. Stop quoting it as if it's relevant.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you forget your own right wing propaganda?
> 
> The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.
> 
> This is a State's sovereign right secured by our Second Amendment:
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
Click to expand...

How does Illinois' constitution effect people in Texas?


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed. The militia does not bear arms, the people do,
> 
> 
> 
> The State has a right to organize militia.  The People are the Militia.  You are simply appealing to ignorance, like usual for the right-wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people have the right to bear arms, full stop. The people, not the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is nothing but right wing propaganda.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SC agrees with it, so no. Look, you can regurgitate your talking points all day long, but it won't change reality. People can have guns, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amendment X
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amendment 14.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You disagree with the 14th Amendment, Daniel? Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not really agree with Daniel on this one, but the 14 amendment does not automatically "incorporate" all the restrictions in the bill of rights to also apply against the states, cities, or other individuals.
> The courts have to individually decide to "incorporate" them.
> But I believe Heller or McDonald finally accomplished that.
> The right to bear arms now is a protected individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Protected as an individual right by FedGov against States under the 14th Amendment, yes.
> 
> The 14th Amendment is a clumsy POL in my opinion.  It really screws up all else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is more relevant.  There are no Individual or singular terms in our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There aren't any in the First Amendment either, yet you claim it applies to you individually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our First Amendment does not claim only well regulated militia of the People are necessary and therefore, only they can petition for redress of grievances.
Click to expand...

There are no individual terms in the First Amendment. You're assuming it applies to you as an individual. IOW, the lack of individual terms in the Second is not sufficient to say it does not apply individually, and thus has the SC ruled.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed. The militia does not bear arms, the people do,
> 
> 
> 
> The State has a right to organize militia.  The People are the Militia.  You are simply appealing to ignorance, like usual for the right-wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people have the right to bear arms, full stop. The people, not the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is nothing but right wing propaganda.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SC agrees with it, so no. Look, you can regurgitate your talking points all day long, but it won't change reality. People can have guns, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amendment X
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amendment 14.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You disagree with the 14th Amendment, Daniel? Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't disagree with it; your usage of it is merely irrelevant in this context.  Our Second Amendment is clear.
> 
> What point are you trying to make with our Fourteenth Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That states cannot make laws that are unconstitutional. The Second Amendment is clear, the people have the right to bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia.  You cannot ignore that legal fact.
Click to expand...

The people also have the right to be secure in their homes, persons, papers....etc.  (4th Amendment)

Are you also arguing that the 4th Amendment only protects collective rights?  If so, your logic fall to pieces and you NEVER EXPLAIN OR JUSTIFY YOUR BULLSHIT.  YOU JUST KEEP REPEATING YOUR BULLSHIT!


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed. The militia does not bear arms, the people do,
> 
> 
> 
> The State has a right to organize militia.  The People are the Militia.  You are simply appealing to ignorance, like usual for the right-wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people have the right to bear arms, full stop. The people, not the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is nothing but right wing propaganda.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SC agrees with it, so no. Look, you can regurgitate your talking points all day long, but it won't change reality. People can have guns, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amendment X
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amendment 14.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You disagree with the 14th Amendment, Daniel? Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't disagree with it; your usage of it is merely irrelevant in this context.  Our Second Amendment is clear.
> 
> What point are you trying to make with our Fourteenth Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That states cannot make laws that are unconstitutional. The Second Amendment is clear, the people have the right to bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia.  You cannot ignore that legal fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The militia is the people. People have the right to bear arms, not the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia.  Well regulated militia of the People may not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The militia is the people.
Click to expand...

The People are the Militia.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're not talking about the Illinois state constitution. Stop quoting it as if it's relevant.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you forget your own right wing propaganda?
> 
> The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.
> 
> This is a State's sovereign right secured by our Second Amendment:
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does Illinois' constitution affect people in Texas?
Click to expand...

States' rights.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed. The militia does not bear arms, the people do,
> 
> 
> 
> The State has a right to organize militia.  The People are the Militia.  You are simply appealing to ignorance, like usual for the right-wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people have the right to bear arms, full stop. The people, not the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is nothing but right wing propaganda.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SC agrees with it, so no. Look, you can regurgitate your talking points all day long, but it won't change reality. People can have guns, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amendment X
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amendment 14.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You disagree with the 14th Amendment, Daniel? Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't disagree with it; your usage of it is merely irrelevant in this context.  Our Second Amendment is clear.
> 
> What point are you trying to make with our Fourteenth Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That states cannot make laws that are unconstitutional. The Second Amendment is clear, the people have the right to bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia.  You cannot ignore that legal fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The militia is the people. People have the right to bear arms, not the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia.  Well regulated militia of the People may not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The militia is the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia.
Click to expand...

Which simply means the people have the right to bear arms, not the militia.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're not talking about the Illinois state constitution. Stop quoting it as if it's relevant.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you forget your own right wing propaganda?
> 
> The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.
> 
> This is a State's sovereign right secured by our Second Amendment:
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does Illinois' constitution affect people in Texas?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> States' rights.
Click to expand...

IOW, it doesn't, and since we're talking about things that impact the entire nation, is totally irrelevant. Quit quoting it as if it's significant.


----------



## hadit

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed. The militia does not bear arms, the people do,
> 
> 
> 
> The State has a right to organize militia.  The People are the Militia.  You are simply appealing to ignorance, like usual for the right-wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people have the right to bear arms, full stop. The people, not the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is nothing but right wing propaganda.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SC agrees with it, so no. Look, you can regurgitate your talking points all day long, but it won't change reality. People can have guns, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amendment X
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amendment 14.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You disagree with the 14th Amendment, Daniel? Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not really agree with Daniel on this one, but the 14 amendment does not automatically "incorporate" all the restrictions in the bill of rights to also apply against the states, cities, or other individuals.
> The courts have to individually decide to "incorporate" them.
> But I believe Heller or McDonald finally accomplished that.
> The right to bear arms now is a protected individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Protected as an individual right by FedGov against States under the 14th Amendment, yes.
> 
> The 14th Amendment is a clumsy POL in my opinion.  It really screws up all else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is more relevant.  There are no Individual or singular terms in our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There aren't any in the First Amendment either, yet you claim it applies to you individually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our First Amendment does not claim only well regulated militia of the People are necessary and therefore, only they can petition for redress of grievances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no individual terms in the First Amendment. You're assuming it applies to you as an individual. IOW, the lack of individual terms in the Second is not sufficient to say it does not apply individually, and thus has the SC ruled.
Click to expand...

So again, Daniel, you disagree. Tell us, precisely which of these statements do you actually disagree with?

There are no individual terms in the First Amendment.
You're assuming it applies to you as an individual.
The SC has ruled that the 2nd amendment protects the individual right to own firearms.

Which of those do you think is wrong?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed. The militia does not bear arms, the people do,
> 
> 
> 
> The State has a right to organize militia.  The People are the Militia.  You are simply appealing to ignorance, like usual for the right-wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people have the right to bear arms, full stop. The people, not the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is nothing but right wing propaganda.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SC agrees with it, so no. Look, you can regurgitate your talking points all day long, but it won't change reality. People can have guns, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amendment X
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amendment 14.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You disagree with the 14th Amendment, Daniel? Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't disagree with it; your usage of it is merely irrelevant in this context.  Our Second Amendment is clear.
> 
> What point are you trying to make with our Fourteenth Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That states cannot make laws that are unconstitutional. The Second Amendment is clear, the people have the right to bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia.  You cannot ignore that legal fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The militia is the people. People have the right to bear arms, not the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia.  Well regulated militia of the People may not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
Click to expand...

You are so fucking stupid!

Learn how to read fucking English!!!!!


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed. The militia does not bear arms, the people do,
> 
> 
> 
> The State has a right to organize militia.  The People are the Militia.  You are simply appealing to ignorance, like usual for the right-wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people have the right to bear arms, full stop. The people, not the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is nothing but right wing propaganda.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SC agrees with it, so no. Look, you can regurgitate your talking points all day long, but it won't change reality. People can have guns, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amendment X
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amendment 14.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You disagree with the 14th Amendment, Daniel? Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't disagree with it; your usage of it is merely irrelevant in this context.  Our Second Amendment is clear.
> 
> What point are you trying to make with our Fourteenth Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That states cannot make laws that are unconstitutional. The Second Amendment is clear, the people have the right to bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia.  You cannot ignore that legal fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The militia is the people. People have the right to bear arms, not the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia.  Well regulated militia of the People may not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The militia is the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia.
Click to expand...

Are the people the militia????

You think you're making a point, but you're not. You're a dumb fuck.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed. The militia does not bear arms, the people do,
> 
> 
> 
> The State has a right to organize militia.  The People are the Militia.  You are simply appealing to ignorance, like usual for the right-wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people have the right to bear arms, full stop. The people, not the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is nothing but right wing propaganda.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SC agrees with it, so no. Look, you can regurgitate your talking points all day long, but it won't change reality. People can have guns, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amendment X
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amendment 14.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You disagree with the 14th Amendment, Daniel? Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not really agree with Daniel on this one, but the 14 amendment does not automatically "incorporate" all the restrictions in the bill of rights to also apply against the states, cities, or other individuals.
> The courts have to individually decide to "incorporate" them.
> But I believe Heller or McDonald finally accomplished that.
> The right to bear arms now is a protected individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Protected as an individual right by FedGov against States under the 14th Amendment, yes.
> 
> The 14th Amendment is a clumsy POL in my opinion.  It really screws up all else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is more relevant.  There are no Individual or singular terms in our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There aren't any in the First Amendment either, yet you claim it applies to you individually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our First Amendment does not claim only well regulated militia of the People are necessary and therefore, only they can petition for redress of grievances.
Click to expand...

You have completely fucked up the English language you dumb fuck.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> Which simply means the people have the right to bear arms, not the militia.


You simply don't understand that the People are the Militia.  Well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Are the people the militia????
> 
> You think you're making a point, but you're not. You're a dumb fuck.


I know I am making a point, unlike You and other right wingers who have nothing but fallacy.

Well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed. The militia does not bear arms, the people do,
> 
> 
> 
> The State has a right to organize militia.  The People are the Militia.  You are simply appealing to ignorance, like usual for the right-wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people have the right to bear arms, full stop. The people, not the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is nothing but right wing propaganda.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SC agrees with it, so no. Look, you can regurgitate your talking points all day long, but it won't change reality. People can have guns, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amendment X
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amendment 14.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You disagree with the 14th Amendment, Daniel? Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not really agree with Daniel on this one, but the 14 amendment does not automatically "incorporate" all the restrictions in the bill of rights to also apply against the states, cities, or other individuals.
> The courts have to individually decide to "incorporate" them.
> But I believe Heller or McDonald finally accomplished that.
> The right to bear arms now is a protected individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Protected as an individual right by FedGov against States under the 14th Amendment, yes.
> 
> The 14th Amendment is a clumsy POL in my opinion.  It really screws up all else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is more relevant.  There are no Individual or singular terms in our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There aren't any in the First Amendment either, yet you claim it applies to you individually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our First Amendment does not claim only well regulated militia of the People are necessary and therefore, only they can petition for redress of grievances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have completely fucked up the English language you dumb fuck.
Click to expand...

That is just You not me.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed. The militia does not bear arms, the people do,
> 
> 
> 
> The State has a right to organize militia.  The People are the Militia.  You are simply appealing to ignorance, like usual for the right-wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people have the right to bear arms, full stop. The people, not the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is nothing but right wing propaganda.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SC agrees with it, so no. Look, you can regurgitate your talking points all day long, but it won't change reality. People can have guns, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amendment X
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amendment 14.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You disagree with the 14th Amendment, Daniel? Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not really agree with Daniel on this one, but the 14 amendment does not automatically "incorporate" all the restrictions in the bill of rights to also apply against the states, cities, or other individuals.
> The courts have to individually decide to "incorporate" them.
> But I believe Heller or McDonald finally accomplished that.
> The right to bear arms now is a protected individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Protected as an individual right by FedGov against States under the 14th Amendment, yes.
> 
> The 14th Amendment is a clumsy POL in my opinion.  It really screws up all else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is more relevant.  There are no Individual or singular terms in our Second Amendment.
Click to expand...

Nor in the 4th Amendment

There is no individual right to be secure in homes, etc. from unreasonable searches and seizures?


This is why you are stupid.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Nor in the 4th Amendment
> 
> There is no individual right to be secure in homes, etc. from unreasonable searches and seizures?
> This is why you are stupid.



Context means everything.  That is why you are full of fallacy.


----------



## justinacolmena

danielpalos said:


> Context means everything. That is why you are full of fallacy.


The context of a private home? The one you are raiding and burglarizing under color of law?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nor in the 4th Amendment
> 
> There is no individual right to be secure in homes, etc. from unreasonable searches and seizures?
> This is why you are stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Context means everything.  That is why you are full of fallacy.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't know what context means if it bit you on the ass.

When the 2A was drafted, who do you think was armed and how ?

Don't say COCKSUCKING SHIT about context.  You know not what it means.

Learn English.  Then talk shit, you no-English-speaking illegal alien


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which simply means the people have the right to bear arms, not the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> You simply don't understand that the People are the Militia.  Well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.
Click to expand...

You keep saying that but it's irrelevant because the SC has ruled that the 2nd protects the individual right to bear arms.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are the people the militia????
> 
> You think you're making a point, but you're not. You're a dumb fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> I know I am making a point, unlike You and other right wingers who have nothing but fallacy.
> 
> Well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.
Click to expand...

The individual people have literal recourse to the Second Amendment.


----------



## hadit

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed. The militia does not bear arms, the people do,
> 
> 
> 
> The State has a right to organize militia.  The People are the Militia.  You are simply appealing to ignorance, like usual for the right-wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people have the right to bear arms, full stop. The people, not the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is nothing but right wing propaganda.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SC agrees with it, so no. Look, you can regurgitate your talking points all day long, but it won't change reality. People can have guns, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amendment X
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amendment 14.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You disagree with the 14th Amendment, Daniel? Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not really agree with Daniel on this one, but the 14 amendment does not automatically "incorporate" all the restrictions in the bill of rights to also apply against the states, cities, or other individuals.
> The courts have to individually decide to "incorporate" them.
> But I believe Heller or McDonald finally accomplished that.
> The right to bear arms now is a protected individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Protected as an individual right by FedGov against States under the 14th Amendment, yes.
> 
> The 14th Amendment is a clumsy POL in my opinion.  It really screws up all else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is more relevant.  There are no Individual or singular terms in our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nor in the 4th Amendment
> 
> There is no individual right to be secure in homes, etc. from unreasonable searches and seizures?
> 
> 
> This is why you are stupid.
Click to expand...

Or in the First Amendment. There is no right to free speech unless you're part of a regulated, licensed, government approved protest group. There is no individual right to assemble with whomever you want, you only have that right as part of a licensed, regulated, government approved assembly group. You can't just go from one group to another.


----------



## danielpalos

justinacolmena said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Context means everything. That is why you are full of fallacy.
> 
> 
> 
> The context of a private home? The one you are raiding and burglarizing under color of law?
Click to expand...

How did you come up with Your scenario and why do You believe it is relevant?

Our Second Amendment is clearly about the security of our free States not Individual liberty.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nor in the 4th Amendment
> 
> There is no individual right to be secure in homes, etc. from unreasonable searches and seizures?
> This is why you are stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Context means everything.  That is why you are full of fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You wouldn't know what context means if it bit you on the ass.
> 
> When the 2A was drafted, who do you think was armed and how ?
> 
> Don't say COCKSUCKING SHIT about context.  You know not what it means.
> 
> Learn English.  Then talk shit, you no-English-speaking illegal alien
Click to expand...

Says the ignoramus who is full of fallacy.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which simply means the people have the right to bear arms, not the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> You simply don't understand that the People are the Militia.  Well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep saying that but it's irrelevant because the SC has ruled that the 2nd protects the individual right to bear arms.
Click to expand...

Not true and simply false on its face.  Criminals of the People do not have a right to keep and bear Arms. 

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are the people the militia????
> 
> You think you're making a point, but you're not. You're a dumb fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> I know I am making a point, unlike You and other right wingers who have nothing but fallacy.
> 
> Well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The individual people have literal recourse to the Second Amendment.
Click to expand...

The individual people who are organized into well-regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; but not themselves as Individuals of the People.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed. The militia does not bear arms, the people do,
> 
> 
> 
> The State has a right to organize militia.  The People are the Militia.  You are simply appealing to ignorance, like usual for the right-wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people have the right to bear arms, full stop. The people, not the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is nothing but right wing propaganda.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SC agrees with it, so no. Look, you can regurgitate your talking points all day long, but it won't change reality. People can have guns, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amendment X
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amendment 14.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You disagree with the 14th Amendment, Daniel? Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not really agree with Daniel on this one, but the 14 amendment does not automatically "incorporate" all the restrictions in the bill of rights to also apply against the states, cities, or other individuals.
> The courts have to individually decide to "incorporate" them.
> But I believe Heller or McDonald finally accomplished that.
> The right to bear arms now is a protected individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Protected as an individual right by FedGov against States under the 14th Amendment, yes.
> 
> The 14th Amendment is a clumsy POL in my opinion.  It really screws up all else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is more relevant.  There are no Individual or singular terms in our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nor in the 4th Amendment
> 
> There is no individual right to be secure in homes, etc. from unreasonable searches and seizures?
> 
> 
> This is why you are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or in the First Amendment. There is no right to free speech unless you're part of a regulated, licensed, government approved protest group. There is no individual right to assemble with whomever you want, you only have that right as part of a licensed, regulated, government approved assembly group. You can't just go from one group to another.
Click to expand...

It doesn't say that in our First Amendment.  Our Second Amendment does expressly declare what is Necessary not Optional to the security of a free State.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Our Second Amendment is clearly about the security of our free States not Individual liberty.


The security of a free state is the stated reason, yes.

But, what is the operative clause in the sentence?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are the people the militia????
> 
> You think you're making a point, but you're not. You're a dumb fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> I know I am making a point, unlike You and other right wingers who have nothing but fallacy.
> 
> Well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The individual people have literal recourse to the Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The individual people who are organized into well-regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; but not themselves as Individuals of the People.
Click to expand...

That's like saying individuals do not have the independent right to assemble.  NOT TRUE.

You can try to torture the words in the preforatory clause in a failed attempt to turn them into the operative clause all you want, but it does not work.  Your interpretation is contrary to the plain language in the 2A.  Your interpretation ignores the very purpose and concerns of the people in adopting a new constitutions (CONTEXT).

There are no collective rights that are not also held individually.  Otherwise, there would be no individual rights.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is clearly about the security of our free States not Individual liberty.
> 
> 
> 
> The security of a free state is the stated reason, yes.
> 
> But, what is the operative clause in the sentence?
Click to expand...

That well-regulated militia of the whole and entire People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> That's like saying individuals do not have the independent right to assemble.  NOT TRUE.
> 
> You can try to torture the words in the preforatory clause in a failed attempt to turn them into the operative clause all you want, but it does not work.  Your interpretation is contrary to the plain language in the 2A.  Your interpretation ignores the very purpose and concerns of the people in adopting a new constitutions (CONTEXT).
> 
> There are no collective rights that are not also held individually.  Otherwise, there would be no individual rights.


No, it isn't.  That is Your straw man argument. 

There are no individual or singular terms used in our Second Amendment.  And, the whole and entire People are the Militia.  Only well regulated Militia of the whole and entire People are necessary to the security of our free States, and may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> That well-regulated militia of the whole and entire People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


That is contrary to the plain language of the 2A.  You are making things up AGAIN.

It says nothing about the whole or entire people.  It says nothing about limits on the infringement being subject to keeping and bearing arms for the State or Union. 

Clause 1:  A well-regulated (meaning properly functioning) militia, 
Clause 1A: being (a form of the "is" verb) necessary for the security of a free state,
Clause 2:   the right of the people (can mean both as a whole and as individuals = people) shall not be infringed (zero regulation or restriction).

Tell me where I have misinterpreted the language.  

Explain how I got it wrong.  English is my first language.  You?

You never explain anything.  

You just repeat more bullshit and make up other shit.

My interpretation is correct.

Your "interpretation" is stupid and nonsensical.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> No, it isn't. That is Your straw man argument.


You have no idea what a strawman fallacy is, do you?  

It could have been a false equivalency (it' not), but it is definitely NOT a strawman.  You need to go back to debate school and learn what the fallacies really are, and how they are useful.



danielpalos said:


> There are no individual or singular terms used in our Second Amendment.


By that logic, the U.S. Constitution protects ZERO individual rights.  I have shown you how your idiot "logic" would be applicable to the 4th Amendment and even the 1st Amendment---because there are no "individual terms" in either of those, based on your idiot "logic." 

People means individuals.  It's the plural of person.  You can't have people without persons.



danielpalos said:


> And, the whole and entire People are the Militia.


And each individual is a member of the militia.  You cannot separate the person from the people.  



danielpalos said:


> Only well regulated Militia of the whole and entire People are necessary to the security of our free States,


It may be true that a well-regulated militia is necessary, but you can hardly argue that it was a prerequisite to the right of the people NOT being infringed.  That is pure idiocy and contrary to the VERY plain language.


danielpalos said:


> and may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


NOWHERE in the plain and clear language of the 2A is there such a qualification.  The operation is simply "*shall not be infringed"* without qualification.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is clearly about the security of our free States not Individual liberty.
> 
> 
> 
> The security of a free state is the stated reason, yes.
> 
> But, what is the operative clause in the sentence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That well-regulated militia of the whole and entire People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
Click to expand...

That's not in there, you added that last part. IOW, it doesn't say what you want it to say, so you change it. Bearing arms is an individual right, as found by the SC. Or, if you insist on continuing with this, what protest group do you belong to that confers the right to free speech for you?


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed. The militia does not bear arms, the people do,
> 
> 
> 
> The State has a right to organize militia.  The People are the Militia.  You are simply appealing to ignorance, like usual for the right-wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people have the right to bear arms, full stop. The people, not the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is nothing but right wing propaganda.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SC agrees with it, so no. Look, you can regurgitate your talking points all day long, but it won't change reality. People can have guns, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amendment X
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amendment 14.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You disagree with the 14th Amendment, Daniel? Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not really agree with Daniel on this one, but the 14 amendment does not automatically "incorporate" all the restrictions in the bill of rights to also apply against the states, cities, or other individuals.
> The courts have to individually decide to "incorporate" them.
> But I believe Heller or McDonald finally accomplished that.
> The right to bear arms now is a protected individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Protected as an individual right by FedGov against States under the 14th Amendment, yes.
> 
> The 14th Amendment is a clumsy POL in my opinion.  It really screws up all else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is more relevant.  There are no Individual or singular terms in our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nor in the 4th Amendment
> 
> There is no individual right to be secure in homes, etc. from unreasonable searches and seizures?
> 
> 
> This is why you are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or in the First Amendment. There is no right to free speech unless you're part of a regulated, licensed, government approved protest group. There is no individual right to assemble with whomever you want, you only have that right as part of a licensed, regulated, government approved assembly group. You can't just go from one group to another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't say that in our First Amendment.  Our Second Amendment does expressly declare what is Necessary not Optional to the security of a free State.
Click to expand...

Of course it doesn't say that in the First. It also doesn't say it in the Second. The declaration you refer to only gives a reason why the government is restricted, it does not restrict the right to the militia, as found by the SC.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed. The militia does not bear arms, the people do,
> 
> 
> 
> The State has a right to organize militia.  The People are the Militia.  You are simply appealing to ignorance, like usual for the right-wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people have the right to bear arms, full stop. The people, not the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is nothing but right wing propaganda.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SC agrees with it, so no. Look, you can regurgitate your talking points all day long, but it won't change reality. People can have guns, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amendment X
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amendment 14.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You disagree with the 14th Amendment, Daniel? Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not really agree with Daniel on this one, but the 14 amendment does not automatically "incorporate" all the restrictions in the bill of rights to also apply against the states, cities, or other individuals.
> The courts have to individually decide to "incorporate" them.
> But I believe Heller or McDonald finally accomplished that.
> The right to bear arms now is a protected individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Protected as an individual right by FedGov against States under the 14th Amendment, yes.
> 
> The 14th Amendment is a clumsy POL in my opinion.  It really screws up all else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is more relevant.  There are no Individual or singular terms in our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nor in the 4th Amendment
> 
> There is no individual right to be secure in homes, etc. from unreasonable searches and seizures?
> 
> 
> This is why you are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or in the First Amendment. There is no right to free speech unless you're part of a regulated, licensed, government approved protest group. There is no individual right to assemble with whomever you want, you only have that right as part of a licensed, regulated, government approved assembly group. You can't just go from one group to another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't say that in our First Amendment.  Our Second Amendment does expressly declare what is Necessary not Optional to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it doesn't say that in the First. It also doesn't say it in the Second. The declaration you refer to only gives a reason why the government is restricted, it does not restrict the right to the militia, as found by the SC.
Click to expand...

And, his interpretation is contrary to the historical context, where minutemen, who were always armed with their privately owned weapons, were expected to keep those weapons and bring them to answer the call to arms.  He cannot resolve his nonsensical conflict with the practices at the time the 2A was ratified.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> That well-regulated militia of the whole and entire People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> That is contrary to the plain language of the 2A.  You are making things up AGAIN.
> 
> It says nothing about the whole or entire people.  It says nothing about limits on the infringement being subject to keeping and bearing arms for the State or Union.
> 
> Clause 1:  A well-regulated (meaning properly functioning) militia,
> Clause 1A: being (a form of the "is" verb) necessary for the security of a free state,
> Clause 2:   the right of the people (can mean both as a whole and as individuals = people) shall not be infringed (zero regulation or restriction).
> 
> Tell me where I have misinterpreted the language.
> 
> Explain how I got it wrong.  English is my first language.  You?
> 
> You never explain anything.
> 
> You just repeat more bullshit and make up other shit.
> 
> My interpretation is correct.
> 
> Your "interpretation" is stupid and nonsensical.
Click to expand...

You don't know what you are talking about, typical of right-wingers. 

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't. That is Your straw man argument.
> 
> 
> 
> You have no idea what a strawman fallacy is, do you?
> 
> It could have been a false equivalency (it' not), but it is definitely NOT a strawman.  You need to go back to debate school and learn what the fallacies really are, and how they are useful.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no individual or singular terms used in our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By that logic, the U.S. Constitution protects ZERO individual rights.  I have shown you how your idiot "logic" would be applicable to the 4th Amendment and even the 1st Amendment---because there are no "individual terms" in either of those, based on your idiot "logic."
> 
> People means individuals.  It's the plural of person.  You can't have people without persons.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, the whole and entire People are the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And each individual is a member of the militia.  You cannot separate the person from the people.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated Militia of the whole and entire People are necessary to the security of our free States,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It may be true that a well-regulated militia is necessary, but you can hardly argue that it was a prerequisite to the right of the people NOT being infringed.  That is pure idiocy and contrary to the VERY plain language.
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> and may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NOWHERE in the plain and clear language of the 2A is there such a qualification.  The operation is simply "*shall not be infringed"* without qualification.
Click to expand...

The People are the Militia.  You are either, organized and well-regulated or unorganized and subject to the police power of a State.  

There is No One, who is unconnected with the Militia, only with organized and well regulated Militia; our Second Amendment is clear as to which subset of the Militia is Necessary to the security of a free State.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is clearly about the security of our free States not Individual liberty.
> 
> 
> 
> The security of a free state is the stated reason, yes.
> 
> But, what is the operative clause in the sentence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That well-regulated militia of the whole and entire People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not in there, you added that last part. IOW, it doesn't say what you want it to say, so you change it. Bearing arms is an individual right, as found by the SC. Or, if you insist on continuing with this, what protest group do you belong to that confers the right to free speech for you?
Click to expand...

You have no idea what you are talking and only resort to fallacy, legal or otherwise. 

I ask, sir, what is the militia? *It is the whole people*, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> Of course it doesn't say that in the First. It also doesn't say it in the Second. The declaration you refer to only gives a reason why the government is restricted, it does not restrict the right to the militia, as found by the SC.


Because it should be self-evident. 

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788


----------



## hadit

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed. The militia does not bear arms, the people do,
> 
> 
> 
> The State has a right to organize militia.  The People are the Militia.  You are simply appealing to ignorance, like usual for the right-wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The people have the right to bear arms, full stop. The people, not the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is nothing but right wing propaganda.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SC agrees with it, so no. Look, you can regurgitate your talking points all day long, but it won't change reality. People can have guns, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amendment X
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amendment 14.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You disagree with the 14th Amendment, Daniel? Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not really agree with Daniel on this one, but the 14 amendment does not automatically "incorporate" all the restrictions in the bill of rights to also apply against the states, cities, or other individuals.
> The courts have to individually decide to "incorporate" them.
> But I believe Heller or McDonald finally accomplished that.
> The right to bear arms now is a protected individual right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Protected as an individual right by FedGov against States under the 14th Amendment, yes.
> 
> The 14th Amendment is a clumsy POL in my opinion.  It really screws up all else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is more relevant.  There are no Individual or singular terms in our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nor in the 4th Amendment
> 
> There is no individual right to be secure in homes, etc. from unreasonable searches and seizures?
> 
> 
> This is why you are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or in the First Amendment. There is no right to free speech unless you're part of a regulated, licensed, government approved protest group. There is no individual right to assemble with whomever you want, you only have that right as part of a licensed, regulated, government approved assembly group. You can't just go from one group to another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't say that in our First Amendment.  Our Second Amendment does expressly declare what is Necessary not Optional to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it doesn't say that in the First. It also doesn't say it in the Second. The declaration you refer to only gives a reason why the government is restricted, it does not restrict the right to the militia, as found by the SC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And, his interpretation is contrary to the historical context, where minutemen, who were always armed with their privately owned weapons, were expected to keep those weapons and bring them to answer the call to arms.  He cannot resolve his nonsensical conflict with the practices at the time the 2A was ratified.
Click to expand...

His interpretation ignores everything beyond his desired conclusion.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it doesn't say that in the First. It also doesn't say it in the Second. The declaration you refer to only gives a reason why the government is restricted, it does not restrict the right to the militia, as found by the SC.
> 
> 
> 
> Because it should be self-evident.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
Click to expand...

It is self-evident. It is the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms, not that of the militia, as has been ruled by the SC and borne out by the writings of those who wrote the Constitution.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is clearly about the security of our free States not Individual liberty.
> 
> 
> 
> The security of a free state is the stated reason, yes.
> 
> But, what is the operative clause in the sentence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That well-regulated militia of the whole and entire People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not in there, you added that last part. IOW, it doesn't say what you want it to say, so you change it. Bearing arms is an individual right, as found by the SC. Or, if you insist on continuing with this, what protest group do you belong to that confers the right to free speech for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no idea what you are talking and only resort to fallacy, legal or otherwise.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? *It is the whole people*, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
Click to expand...

Actually, I do know what I'm talking about, because that last part is NOT in the text of the Amendment. Go back and check. If you find "entire People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union", throw away the book you're reading or never go back to that web site again because it's lying to you.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it doesn't say that in the First. It also doesn't say it in the Second. The declaration you refer to only gives a reason why the government is restricted, it does not restrict the right to the militia, as found by the SC.
> 
> 
> 
> Because it should be self-evident.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is self-evident. It is the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms, not that of the militia, as has been ruled by the SC and borne out by the writings of those who wrote the Constitution.
Click to expand...

All right-wingers do is make stuff up and expect us to believe y'all have the "gospel Truth" instead of just fallacy.  The whole and entire People are the Militia. 

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> That well-regulated militia of the whole and entire People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> That is contrary to the plain language of the 2A.  You are making things up AGAIN.
> 
> It says nothing about the whole or entire people.  It says nothing about limits on the infringement being subject to keeping and bearing arms for the State or Union.
> 
> Clause 1:  A well-regulated (meaning properly functioning) militia,
> Clause 1A: being (a form of the "is" verb) necessary for the security of a free state,
> Clause 2:   the right of the people (can mean both as a whole and as individuals = people) shall not be infringed (zero regulation or restriction).
> 
> Tell me where I have misinterpreted the language.
> 
> Explain how I got it wrong.  English is my first language.  You?
> 
> You never explain anything.
> 
> You just repeat more bullshit and make up other shit.
> 
> My interpretation is correct.
> 
> Your "interpretation" is stupid and nonsensical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about, typical of right-wingers.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
Click to expand...

Again, no explanation.  Just bullshit.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is clearly about the security of our free States not Individual liberty.
> 
> 
> 
> The security of a free state is the stated reason, yes.
> 
> But, what is the operative clause in the sentence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That well-regulated militia of the whole and entire People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not in there, you added that last part. IOW, it doesn't say what you want it to say, so you change it. Bearing arms is an individual right, as found by the SC. Or, if you insist on continuing with this, what protest group do you belong to that confers the right to free speech for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no idea what you are talking and only resort to fallacy, legal or otherwise.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? *It is the whole people*, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, I do know what I'm talking about, because that last part is NOT in the text of the Amendment. Go back and check. If you find "entire People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union", throw away the book you're reading or never go back to that web site again because it's lying to you.
Click to expand...

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." 
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is clearly about the security of our free States not Individual liberty.
> 
> 
> 
> The security of a free state is the stated reason, yes.
> 
> But, what is the operative clause in the sentence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That well-regulated militia of the whole and entire People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not in there, you added that last part. IOW, it doesn't say what you want it to say, so you change it. Bearing arms is an individual right, as found by the SC. Or, if you insist on continuing with this, what protest group do you belong to that confers the right to free speech for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no idea what you are talking and only resort to fallacy, legal or otherwise.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? *It is the whole people*, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, I do know what I'm talking about, because that last part is NOT in the text of the Amendment. Go back and check. If you find "entire People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union", throw away the book you're reading or never go back to that web site again because it's lying to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
Click to expand...

Again, no explanation....just bullshit.


----------



## danielpalos

All that tells me is that y'all just a bunch of parrots who don't understand the argument.   Typical of the Right-Wing.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is clearly about the security of our free States not Individual liberty.
> 
> 
> 
> The security of a free state is the stated reason, yes.
> 
> But, what is the operative clause in the sentence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That well-regulated militia of the whole and entire People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not in there, you added that last part. IOW, it doesn't say what you want it to say, so you change it. Bearing arms is an individual right, as found by the SC. Or, if you insist on continuing with this, what protest group do you belong to that confers the right to free speech for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no idea what you are talking and only resort to fallacy, legal or otherwise.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? *It is the whole people*, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, I do know what I'm talking about, because that last part is NOT in the text of the Amendment. Go back and check. If you find "entire People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union", throw away the book you're reading or never go back to that web site again because it's lying to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
Click to expand...

Just like I said, the militia is the PEOPLE, and it is the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms that is protected. Did you forget that whole argument?


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it doesn't say that in the First. It also doesn't say it in the Second. The declaration you refer to only gives a reason why the government is restricted, it does not restrict the right to the militia, as found by the SC.
> 
> 
> 
> Because it should be self-evident.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is self-evident. It is the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms, not that of the militia, as has been ruled by the SC and borne out by the writings of those who wrote the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All right-wingers do is make stuff up and expect us to believe y'all have the "gospel Truth" instead of just fallacy.  The whole and entire People are the Militia.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
Click to expand...

The SC agrees that the second amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> All that tells me is that y'all just a bunch of parrots who don't understand the argument.   Typical of the Right-Wing.


And the pigeon takes another lap around the board.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is clearly about the security of our free States not Individual liberty.
> 
> 
> 
> The security of a free state is the stated reason, yes.
> 
> But, what is the operative clause in the sentence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That well-regulated militia of the whole and entire People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not in there, you added that last part. IOW, it doesn't say what you want it to say, so you change it. Bearing arms is an individual right, as found by the SC. Or, if you insist on continuing with this, what protest group do you belong to that confers the right to free speech for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no idea what you are talking and only resort to fallacy, legal or otherwise.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? *It is the whole people*, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, I do know what I'm talking about, because that last part is NOT in the text of the Amendment. Go back and check. If you find "entire People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union", throw away the book you're reading or never go back to that web site again because it's lying to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just like I said, the militia is the PEOPLE, and it is the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms that is protected. Did you forget that whole argument?
Click to expand...

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it doesn't say that in the First. It also doesn't say it in the Second. The declaration you refer to only gives a reason why the government is restricted, it does not restrict the right to the militia, as found by the SC.
> 
> 
> 
> Because it should be self-evident.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is self-evident. It is the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms, not that of the militia, as has been ruled by the SC and borne out by the writings of those who wrote the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All right-wingers do is make stuff up and expect us to believe y'all have the "gospel Truth" instead of just fallacy.  The whole and entire People are the Militia.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SC agrees that the second amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms.
Click to expand...

So what.   Legal fallacies are just that.  Our Founding Fathers provided a solution for it. 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> All that tells me is that y'all just a bunch of parrots who don't understand the argument.   Typical of the Right-Wing.


Or there's another explanation...


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it doesn't say that in the First. It also doesn't say it in the Second. The declaration you refer to only gives a reason why the government is restricted, it does not restrict the right to the militia, as found by the SC.
> 
> 
> 
> Because it should be self-evident.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is self-evident. It is the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms, not that of the militia, as has been ruled by the SC and borne out by the writings of those who wrote the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All right-wingers do is make stuff up and expect us to believe y'all have the "gospel Truth" instead of just fallacy.  The whole and entire People are the Militia.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SC agrees that the second amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what.   Legal fallacies are just that.  Our Founding Fathers provided a solution for it.
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Click to expand...

You're making my argument for me--the federal government has no authority to regulate arms.  The federal government shall not infringe on the right of the people.

Powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states.

How is this anything other than a ban on federal authority?

How can you torture the words to mean something other?

Can we at least agree that the second amendment was intended to reserve the authority/powers to regulate arms to the States?

Maybe you don't understand your own argument?


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it doesn't say that in the First. It also doesn't say it in the Second. The declaration you refer to only gives a reason why the government is restricted, it does not restrict the right to the militia, as found by the SC.
> 
> 
> 
> Because it should be self-evident.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is self-evident. It is the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms, not that of the militia, as has been ruled by the SC and borne out by the writings of those who wrote the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All right-wingers do is make stuff up and expect us to believe y'all have the "gospel Truth" instead of just fallacy.  The whole and entire People are the Militia.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SC agrees that the second amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what.   Legal fallacies are just that.  Our Founding Fathers provided a solution for it.
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're making my argument for me--the federal government has no authority to regulate arms.  The federal government shall not infringe on the right of the people.
> 
> Powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states.
> 
> How is this anything other than a ban on federal authority?
> 
> How can you torture the words to mean something other?
> 
> Can we at least agree that the second amendment was intended to reserve the authority/powers to regulate arms to the States?
> 
> Maybe you don't understand your own argument?
Click to expand...

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it doesn't say that in the First. It also doesn't say it in the Second. The declaration you refer to only gives a reason why the government is restricted, it does not restrict the right to the militia, as found by the SC.
> 
> 
> 
> Because it should be self-evident.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is self-evident. It is the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms, not that of the militia, as has been ruled by the SC and borne out by the writings of those who wrote the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All right-wingers do is make stuff up and expect us to believe y'all have the "gospel Truth" instead of just fallacy.  The whole and entire People are the Militia.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SC agrees that the second amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms.
Click to expand...

I don't think he understands how the 14th Amendment works to change the 2A into a restriction on both the FedGov and States.  

The 14th amendment was sitting there waiting to fuck that authority out of both state and fed. The 14th amendment is an abomination of clumsy legal quagmires.

States were arguably not limited in being able to infringe on the rights of individuals before the 14th's privileges and immunities mandate.  Too late now.  

Only an amendment can fix that encroachment on State authority.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it doesn't say that in the First. It also doesn't say it in the Second. The declaration you refer to only gives a reason why the government is restricted, it does not restrict the right to the militia, as found by the SC.
> 
> 
> 
> Because it should be self-evident.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is self-evident. It is the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms, not that of the militia, as has been ruled by the SC and borne out by the writings of those who wrote the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All right-wingers do is make stuff up and expect us to believe y'all have the "gospel Truth" instead of just fallacy.  The whole and entire People are the Militia.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SC agrees that the second amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think he understands how the 14th Amendment works to change the 2A into a restriction on both the FedGov and States.
> 
> The 14th amendment was sitting there waiting to fuck that authority out of both state and fed. The 14th amendment is an abomination of clumsy legal quagmires.
> 
> States were arguably not limited in being able to infringe on the rights of individuals before the 14th's privileges and immunities mandate.  Too late now.
> 
> Only an amendment can fix that encroachment on State authority.
Click to expand...

It is not true.  Our Second Amendment is clear and completely unambiguous in any way.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it doesn't say that in the First. It also doesn't say it in the Second. The declaration you refer to only gives a reason why the government is restricted, it does not restrict the right to the militia, as found by the SC.
> 
> 
> 
> Because it should be self-evident.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is self-evident. It is the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms, not that of the militia, as has been ruled by the SC and borne out by the writings of those who wrote the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All right-wingers do is make stuff up and expect us to believe y'all have the "gospel Truth" instead of just fallacy.  The whole and entire People are the Militia.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SC agrees that the second amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what.   Legal fallacies are just that.  Our Founding Fathers provided a solution for it.
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're making my argument for me--the federal government has no authority to regulate arms.  The federal government shall not infringe on the right of the people.
> 
> Powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states.
> 
> How is this anything other than a ban on federal authority?
> 
> How can you torture the words to mean something other?
> 
> Can we at least agree that the second amendment was intended to reserve the authority/powers to regulate arms to the States?
> 
> Maybe you don't understand your own argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Click to expand...

Just what argument are you failing to make?

We know that the FedGov has the authority to arm, organize, discipline the militia.  So?

That is a different issue than the regulation of individual citizens purchase and use of arms.  Based on your own goddamn argument, 2A explicitly excludes that authority from the FedGov.

Right?


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it doesn't say that in the First. It also doesn't say it in the Second. The declaration you refer to only gives a reason why the government is restricted, it does not restrict the right to the militia, as found by the SC.
> 
> 
> 
> Because it should be self-evident.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is self-evident. It is the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms, not that of the militia, as has been ruled by the SC and borne out by the writings of those who wrote the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All right-wingers do is make stuff up and expect us to believe y'all have the "gospel Truth" instead of just fallacy.  The whole and entire People are the Militia.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SC agrees that the second amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what.   Legal fallacies are just that.  Our Founding Fathers provided a solution for it.
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're making my argument for me--the federal government has no authority to regulate arms.  The federal government shall not infringe on the right of the people.
> 
> Powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states.
> 
> How is this anything other than a ban on federal authority?
> 
> How can you torture the words to mean something other?
> 
> Can we at least agree that the second amendment was intended to reserve the authority/powers to regulate arms to the States?
> 
> Maybe you don't understand your own argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just what argument are you failing to make?
> 
> We know that the FedGov has the authority to arm, organize, discipline the militia.  So?
> 
> That is a different issue than the regulation of individual citizens purchase and use of arms.  Based on your own goddamn argument, 2A explicitly excludes that authority from the FedGov.
> 
> Right?
Click to expand...

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it doesn't say that in the First. It also doesn't say it in the Second. The declaration you refer to only gives a reason why the government is restricted, it does not restrict the right to the militia, as found by the SC.
> 
> 
> 
> Because it should be self-evident.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is self-evident. It is the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms, not that of the militia, as has been ruled by the SC and borne out by the writings of those who wrote the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All right-wingers do is make stuff up and expect us to believe y'all have the "gospel Truth" instead of just fallacy.  The whole and entire People are the Militia.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SC agrees that the second amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what.   Legal fallacies are just that.  Our Founding Fathers provided a solution for it.
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're making my argument for me--the federal government has no authority to regulate arms.  The federal government shall not infringe on the right of the people.
> 
> Powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states.
> 
> How is this anything other than a ban on federal authority?
> 
> How can you torture the words to mean something other?
> 
> Can we at least agree that the second amendment was intended to reserve the authority/powers to regulate arms to the States?
> 
> Maybe you don't understand your own argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Click to expand...

Wow, you regurgitated everything you have to say on the subject in one post. No need for you to say anything further, because it will only be a recitation of one of these.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it doesn't say that in the First. It also doesn't say it in the Second. The declaration you refer to only gives a reason why the government is restricted, it does not restrict the right to the militia, as found by the SC.
> 
> 
> 
> Because it should be self-evident.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is self-evident. It is the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms, not that of the militia, as has been ruled by the SC and borne out by the writings of those who wrote the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All right-wingers do is make stuff up and expect us to believe y'all have the "gospel Truth" instead of just fallacy.  The whole and entire People are the Militia.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SC agrees that the second amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what.   Legal fallacies are just that.  Our Founding Fathers provided a solution for it.
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're making my argument for me--the federal government has no authority to regulate arms.  The federal government shall not infringe on the right of the people.
> 
> Powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states.
> 
> How is this anything other than a ban on federal authority?
> 
> How can you torture the words to mean something other?
> 
> Can we at least agree that the second amendment was intended to reserve the authority/powers to regulate arms to the States?
> 
> Maybe you don't understand your own argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just what argument are you failing to make?
> 
> We know that the FedGov has the authority to arm, organize, discipline the militia.  So?
> 
> That is a different issue than the regulation of individual citizens purchase and use of arms.  Based on your own goddamn argument, 2A explicitly excludes that authority from the FedGov.
> 
> Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
Click to expand...

Which means nothing in Texas, or Florida, or Wisconsin. You know, the rest of the states.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it doesn't say that in the First. It also doesn't say it in the Second. The declaration you refer to only gives a reason why the government is restricted, it does not restrict the right to the militia, as found by the SC.
> 
> 
> 
> Because it should be self-evident.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is self-evident. It is the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms, not that of the militia, as has been ruled by the SC and borne out by the writings of those who wrote the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All right-wingers do is make stuff up and expect us to believe y'all have the "gospel Truth" instead of just fallacy.  The whole and entire People are the Militia.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SC agrees that the second amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what.   Legal fallacies are just that.  Our Founding Fathers provided a solution for it.
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're making my argument for me--the federal government has no authority to regulate arms.  The federal government shall not infringe on the right of the people.
> 
> Powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states.
> 
> How is this anything other than a ban on federal authority?
> 
> How can you torture the words to mean something other?
> 
> Can we at least agree that the second amendment was intended to reserve the authority/powers to regulate arms to the States?
> 
> Maybe you don't understand your own argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, you regurgitated everything you have to say on the subject in one post. No need for you to say anything further, because it will only be a recitation of one of these.
Click to expand...

You need a valid rebuttal, not a non sequitur which is usually considered a fallacy. Typical of the right wing who, never get it and don't ask relevant questions.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it doesn't say that in the First. It also doesn't say it in the Second. The declaration you refer to only gives a reason why the government is restricted, it does not restrict the right to the militia, as found by the SC.
> 
> 
> 
> Because it should be self-evident.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is self-evident. It is the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms, not that of the militia, as has been ruled by the SC and borne out by the writings of those who wrote the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All right-wingers do is make stuff up and expect us to believe y'all have the "gospel Truth" instead of just fallacy.  The whole and entire People are the Militia.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SC agrees that the second amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what.   Legal fallacies are just that.  Our Founding Fathers provided a solution for it.
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're making my argument for me--the federal government has no authority to regulate arms.  The federal government shall not infringe on the right of the people.
> 
> Powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states.
> 
> How is this anything other than a ban on federal authority?
> 
> How can you torture the words to mean something other?
> 
> Can we at least agree that the second amendment was intended to reserve the authority/powers to regulate arms to the States?
> 
> Maybe you don't understand your own argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just what argument are you failing to make?
> 
> We know that the FedGov has the authority to arm, organize, discipline the militia.  So?
> 
> That is a different issue than the regulation of individual citizens purchase and use of arms.  Based on your own goddamn argument, 2A explicitly excludes that authority from the FedGov.
> 
> Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
Click to expand...

So what are you trying to argue?


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it doesn't say that in the First. It also doesn't say it in the Second. The declaration you refer to only gives a reason why the government is restricted, it does not restrict the right to the militia, as found by the SC.
> 
> 
> 
> Because it should be self-evident.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is self-evident. It is the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms, not that of the militia, as has been ruled by the SC and borne out by the writings of those who wrote the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All right-wingers do is make stuff up and expect us to believe y'all have the "gospel Truth" instead of just fallacy.  The whole and entire People are the Militia.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SC agrees that the second amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what.   Legal fallacies are just that.  Our Founding Fathers provided a solution for it.
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're making my argument for me--the federal government has no authority to regulate arms.  The federal government shall not infringe on the right of the people.
> 
> Powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states.
> 
> How is this anything other than a ban on federal authority?
> 
> How can you torture the words to mean something other?
> 
> Can we at least agree that the second amendment was intended to reserve the authority/powers to regulate arms to the States?
> 
> Maybe you don't understand your own argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just what argument are you failing to make?
> 
> We know that the FedGov has the authority to arm, organize, discipline the militia.  So?
> 
> That is a different issue than the regulation of individual citizens purchase and use of arms.  Based on your own goddamn argument, 2A explicitly excludes that authority from the FedGov.
> 
> Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which means nothing in Texas, or Florida, or Wisconsin. You know, the rest of the states.
Click to expand...

Only if you understand nothing of our Constitutional form of Government. 

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it doesn't say that in the First. It also doesn't say it in the Second. The declaration you refer to only gives a reason why the government is restricted, it does not restrict the right to the militia, as found by the SC.
> 
> 
> 
> Because it should be self-evident.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is self-evident. It is the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms, not that of the militia, as has been ruled by the SC and borne out by the writings of those who wrote the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All right-wingers do is make stuff up and expect us to believe y'all have the "gospel Truth" instead of just fallacy.  The whole and entire People are the Militia.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SC agrees that the second amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what.   Legal fallacies are just that.  Our Founding Fathers provided a solution for it.
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're making my argument for me--the federal government has no authority to regulate arms.  The federal government shall not infringe on the right of the people.
> 
> Powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states.
> 
> How is this anything other than a ban on federal authority?
> 
> How can you torture the words to mean something other?
> 
> Can we at least agree that the second amendment was intended to reserve the authority/powers to regulate arms to the States?
> 
> Maybe you don't understand your own argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just what argument are you failing to make?
> 
> We know that the FedGov has the authority to arm, organize, discipline the militia.  So?
> 
> That is a different issue than the regulation of individual citizens purchase and use of arms.  Based on your own goddamn argument, 2A explicitly excludes that authority from the FedGov.
> 
> Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what are you trying to argue?
Click to expand...

What don't you understand?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Make sense or shut the fuck up!


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it doesn't say that in the First. It also doesn't say it in the Second. The declaration you refer to only gives a reason why the government is restricted, it does not restrict the right to the militia, as found by the SC.
> 
> 
> 
> Because it should be self-evident.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is self-evident. It is the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms, not that of the militia, as has been ruled by the SC and borne out by the writings of those who wrote the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All right-wingers do is make stuff up and expect us to believe y'all have the "gospel Truth" instead of just fallacy.  The whole and entire People are the Militia.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SC agrees that the second amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what.   Legal fallacies are just that.  Our Founding Fathers provided a solution for it.
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're making my argument for me--the federal government has no authority to regulate arms.  The federal government shall not infringe on the right of the people.
> 
> Powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states.
> 
> How is this anything other than a ban on federal authority?
> 
> How can you torture the words to mean something other?
> 
> Can we at least agree that the second amendment was intended to reserve the authority/powers to regulate arms to the States?
> 
> Maybe you don't understand your own argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, you regurgitated everything you have to say on the subject in one post. No need for you to say anything further, because it will only be a recitation of one of these.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need a valid rebuttal, not a non sequitur which is usually considered a fallacy. Typical of the right wing who, never get it and don't ask relevant questions.
Click to expand...

We've rebutted every single one of those. All that's left is to make fun of you.

(The pigeon takes another lap)


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

I need to round up a few bullshit, unexplained phrases to just copy and paste in response to Dan Palos.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it doesn't say that in the First. It also doesn't say it in the Second. The declaration you refer to only gives a reason why the government is restricted, it does not restrict the right to the militia, as found by the SC.
> 
> 
> 
> Because it should be self-evident.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is self-evident. It is the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms, not that of the militia, as has been ruled by the SC and borne out by the writings of those who wrote the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All right-wingers do is make stuff up and expect us to believe y'all have the "gospel Truth" instead of just fallacy.  The whole and entire People are the Militia.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SC agrees that the second amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what.   Legal fallacies are just that.  Our Founding Fathers provided a solution for it.
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're making my argument for me--the federal government has no authority to regulate arms.  The federal government shall not infringe on the right of the people.
> 
> Powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states.
> 
> How is this anything other than a ban on federal authority?
> 
> How can you torture the words to mean something other?
> 
> Can we at least agree that the second amendment was intended to reserve the authority/powers to regulate arms to the States?
> 
> Maybe you don't understand your own argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just what argument are you failing to make?
> 
> We know that the FedGov has the authority to arm, organize, discipline the militia.  So?
> 
> That is a different issue than the regulation of individual citizens purchase and use of arms.  Based on your own goddamn argument, 2A explicitly excludes that authority from the FedGov.
> 
> Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which means nothing in Texas, or Florida, or Wisconsin. You know, the rest of the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only if you understand nothing of our Constitutional form of Government.
> 
> Amendment X
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Click to expand...

And you again ignore the 14th, which prevents states from passing unconstitutional laws. Regardless, the Illinois constitution has no bearing whatsoever on any other state.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

I have never seen someone who so completely fails to understand his own arguments.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Ready?  Here we go:



I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788 



I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788 



I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788 



I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788 



I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788 



I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788 



I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788 




I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788 



Am I winning the arguement yet?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it doesn't say that in the First. It also doesn't say it in the Second. The declaration you refer to only gives a reason why the government is restricted, it does not restrict the right to the militia, as found by the SC.
> 
> 
> 
> Because it should be self-evident.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is self-evident. It is the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms, not that of the militia, as has been ruled by the SC and borne out by the writings of those who wrote the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All right-wingers do is make stuff up and expect us to believe y'all have the "gospel Truth" instead of just fallacy.  The whole and entire People are the Militia.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SC agrees that the second amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what.   Legal fallacies are just that.  Our Founding Fathers provided a solution for it.
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're making my argument for me--the federal government has no authority to regulate arms.  The federal government shall not infringe on the right of the people.
> 
> Powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states.
> 
> How is this anything other than a ban on federal authority?
> 
> How can you torture the words to mean something other?
> 
> Can we at least agree that the second amendment was intended to reserve the authority/powers to regulate arms to the States?
> 
> Maybe you don't understand your own argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just what argument are you failing to make?
> 
> We know that the FedGov has the authority to arm, organize, discipline the militia.  So?
> 
> That is a different issue than the regulation of individual citizens purchase and use of arms.  Based on your own goddamn argument, 2A explicitly excludes that authority from the FedGov.
> 
> Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what are you trying to argue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What don't you understand?
Click to expand...

That is a question better directed toward you.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it doesn't say that in the First. It also doesn't say it in the Second. The declaration you refer to only gives a reason why the government is restricted, it does not restrict the right to the militia, as found by the SC.
> 
> 
> 
> Because it should be self-evident.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is self-evident. It is the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms, not that of the militia, as has been ruled by the SC and borne out by the writings of those who wrote the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All right-wingers do is make stuff up and expect us to believe y'all have the "gospel Truth" instead of just fallacy.  The whole and entire People are the Militia.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SC agrees that the second amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what.   Legal fallacies are just that.  Our Founding Fathers provided a solution for it.
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're making my argument for me--the federal government has no authority to regulate arms.  The federal government shall not infringe on the right of the people.
> 
> Powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states.
> 
> How is this anything other than a ban on federal authority?
> 
> How can you torture the words to mean something other?
> 
> Can we at least agree that the second amendment was intended to reserve the authority/powers to regulate arms to the States?
> 
> Maybe you don't understand your own argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, you regurgitated everything you have to say on the subject in one post. No need for you to say anything further, because it will only be a recitation of one of these.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need a valid rebuttal, not a non sequitur which is usually considered a fallacy. Typical of the right wing who, never get it and don't ask relevant questions.
Click to expand...

Actually make a fucking argument so we can rebut it.  So far, you have done nothing but barf up nonsense without explanation.


----------



## Lesh

hadit said:


> We've rebutted every single one of those. All that's left is to make fun of you.


Whining and saying stupid shit isn't "rebutting" anything.

Explain how machine guns can be regulated and even banned but assault rifles can't.

They pose the same danger to society and serve almost the exact function


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lesh said:


> Explain how machine guns can be regulated and even banned but assault rifles can't.


Unconstitutional laws.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Make sense or shut the fuck up!


Ask relevant questions, troll.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Ready?  Here we go:
> 
> 
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> 
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> 
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> 
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> 
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> 
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> 
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> 
> 
> Am I winning the arguement yet?


It may take a while to dumb it down enough for the right wing.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Make sense or shut the fuck up!
> 
> 
> 
> Ask relevant questions, troll.
Click to expand...

Is the power to regulate arms held by the FedGov or the States?


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it doesn't say that in the First. It also doesn't say it in the Second. The declaration you refer to only gives a reason why the government is restricted, it does not restrict the right to the militia, as found by the SC.
> 
> 
> 
> Because it should be self-evident.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is self-evident. It is the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms, not that of the militia, as has been ruled by the SC and borne out by the writings of those who wrote the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All right-wingers do is make stuff up and expect us to believe y'all have the "gospel Truth" instead of just fallacy.  The whole and entire People are the Militia.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SC agrees that the second amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what.   Legal fallacies are just that.  Our Founding Fathers provided a solution for it.
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're making my argument for me--the federal government has no authority to regulate arms.  The federal government shall not infringe on the right of the people.
> 
> Powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states.
> 
> How is this anything other than a ban on federal authority?
> 
> How can you torture the words to mean something other?
> 
> Can we at least agree that the second amendment was intended to reserve the authority/powers to regulate arms to the States?
> 
> Maybe you don't understand your own argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just what argument are you failing to make?
> 
> We know that the FedGov has the authority to arm, organize, discipline the militia.  So?
> 
> That is a different issue than the regulation of individual citizens purchase and use of arms.  Based on your own goddamn argument, 2A explicitly excludes that authority from the FedGov.
> 
> Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what are you trying to argue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What don't you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a question better directed toward you.
Click to expand...

I understand our Second Amendment is clear and unambiguous in any way.  There is nothing left to implication due to the clarity of expression.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Actually make a fucking argument so we can rebut it.  So far, you have done nothing but barf up nonsense without explanation.


You have no valid rebuttalls only fallacy.  Even promiscuoous women are less full of fallacy and I give them a free pass on those grounds.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain how machine guns can be regulated and even banned but assault rifles can't.
> 
> 
> 
> Unconstitutional laws.
Click to expand...

This is a State's sovereign right, secured by our Tenth Amendment. 

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually make a fucking argument so we can rebut it.  So far, you have done nothing but barf up nonsense without explanation.
> 
> 
> 
> You have no valid rebuttalls only fallacy.  Even promiscuoous women are less full of fallacy and I give them a free pass on those grounds.
Click to expand...

Is the power to regulate arms held by the FedGov or the States?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

*Is the power to regulate arms held by the FedGov or the States?*


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Make sense or shut the fuck up!
> 
> 
> 
> Ask relevant questions, troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is the power to regulate arms held by the FedGov or the States?
Click to expand...

To provide for organizing, _*arming*_, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it doesn't say that in the First. It also doesn't say it in the Second. The declaration you refer to only gives a reason why the government is restricted, it does not restrict the right to the militia, as found by the SC.
> 
> 
> 
> Because it should be self-evident.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is self-evident. It is the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms, not that of the militia, as has been ruled by the SC and borne out by the writings of those who wrote the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All right-wingers do is make stuff up and expect us to believe y'all have the "gospel Truth" instead of just fallacy.  The whole and entire People are the Militia.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SC agrees that the second amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what.   Legal fallacies are just that.  Our Founding Fathers provided a solution for it.
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're making my argument for me--the federal government has no authority to regulate arms.  The federal government shall not infringe on the right of the people.
> 
> Powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states.
> 
> How is this anything other than a ban on federal authority?
> 
> How can you torture the words to mean something other?
> 
> Can we at least agree that the second amendment was intended to reserve the authority/powers to regulate arms to the States?
> 
> Maybe you don't understand your own argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, you regurgitated everything you have to say on the subject in one post. No need for you to say anything further, because it will only be a recitation of one of these.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need a valid rebuttal, not a non sequitur which is usually considered a fallacy. Typical of the right wing who, never get it and don't ask relevant questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We've rebutted every single one of those. All that's left is to make fun of you.
> 
> (The pigeon takes another lap)
Click to expand...

In Right-Wing fantasy, you are Always Right.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> To provide for organizing, _*arming*_,


Do you know what that means?

THe FedGov can give arms to the militia.



How does that answer my question?


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> To provide for organizing, _*arming*_,
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what that means?
> 
> THe FedGov can give arms to the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> How does that answer my question?
Click to expand...

By regulation.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

*IS THE POWER TO REGULATE ARMS HELD BY THE FEDGOV OR THE STATES?*

It's one of those either/or questions.  Pick one.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> *IS THE POWER TO REGULATE ARMS HELD BY THE FEDGOV OR THE STATES?*
> 
> It's one of those either/or questions.  Pick one.


did you miss it in a previous post?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Don't give me the laughy face and bolt like a pussy.  

Who has the constitutional authority/power to regulate the individual purchase, ownership, possession, and use of arms?

I don't give a fuck about Congress having the authority to purchase arms for the militia.  I am talking about the individual right.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Who has the constitutional authority/power to regulate the individual purchase, ownership, possession, and use of arms?


*excessive trolling content removed*


Just admit that you don't know the answer, Dan, so we can all laugh at you and move on.


----------



## danielpalos

Don't be such a troll. 

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Don't be such a troll.
> 
> To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
> 
> To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;


Don't avoid the answer to my question.

You still have not answered the question.  

Which

governing 

body

should/does

have 

the 

authority

to 

regulate

an

individual's 

purchase

ownership

possession

and

use 

of a fucking gun?

I can't make the question any clearer.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;


That has nothing to do with an individual's purchase, ownership, possession or use of a fucking gun.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;


That has nothing to do with an individual's purchase, ownership, possession or use of a fucking gun.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be such a troll.
> 
> To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
> 
> To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> 
> 
> 
> Don't avoid the answer to my question.
> 
> You still have not answered the question.
> 
> Which
> 
> governing
> 
> body
> 
> should/does
> 
> have
> 
> the
> 
> authority
> 
> to
> 
> regulate
> 
> an
> 
> individual's
> 
> purchase
> 
> ownership
> 
> possession
> 
> and
> 
> use
> 
> of a fucking gun?
> 
> I can't make the question any clearer.
Click to expand...

Only if you ignore our federal form of Constitutional government.  Are you a US citizen, Right-Winger?


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> 
> 
> 
> That has nothing to do with an individual's purchase, ownership, possession or use of a fucking gun.
Click to expand...

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it doesn't say that in the First. It also doesn't say it in the Second. The declaration you refer to only gives a reason why the government is restricted, it does not restrict the right to the militia, as found by the SC.
> 
> 
> 
> Because it should be self-evident.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is self-evident. It is the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms, not that of the militia, as has been ruled by the SC and borne out by the writings of those who wrote the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All right-wingers do is make stuff up and expect us to believe y'all have the "gospel Truth" instead of just fallacy.  The whole and entire People are the Militia.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SC agrees that the second amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what.   Legal fallacies are just that.  Our Founding Fathers provided a solution for it.
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're making my argument for me--the federal government has no authority to regulate arms.  The federal government shall not infringe on the right of the people.
> 
> Powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states.
> 
> How is this anything other than a ban on federal authority?
> 
> How can you torture the words to mean something other?
> 
> Can we at least agree that the second amendment was intended to reserve the authority/powers to regulate arms to the States?
> 
> Maybe you don't understand your own argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, you regurgitated everything you have to say on the subject in one post. No need for you to say anything further, because it will only be a recitation of one of these.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need a valid rebuttal, not a non sequitur which is usually considered a fallacy. Typical of the right wing who, never get it and don't ask relevant questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We've rebutted every single one of those. All that's left is to make fun of you.
> 
> (The pigeon takes another lap)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In Right-Wing fantasy, you are Always Right.
Click to expand...

You can always be right when you completely ignore every rebuttal to your arguments. You can always be right when you insist your legal reasoning is superior to that of the justices on the SC and the rest of the legal profession. You can always be right when you just repeat ad nauseum meaningless one-liners.

IOW, you are not always right, you do not resort to the fewest fallacies and you do not win every argument.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> 
> 
> 
> That has nothing to do with an individual's purchase, ownership, possession or use of a fucking gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
Click to expand...

Which means nothing in North Dakota, Oklahoma, or Hawaii.


----------



## hadit

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Who has the constitutional authority/power to regulate the individual purchase, ownership, possession, and use of arms?
> 
> 
> Who has the constitutional authority/power to regulate the individual purchase, ownership, possession, and use of arms?
> 
> 
> Who has the constitutional authority/power to regulate the individual purchase, ownership, possession, and use of arms?
> 
> 
> Who has the constitutional authority/power to regulate the individual purchase, ownership, possession, and use of arms?
> 
> 
> Who has the constitutional authority/power to regulate the individual purchase, ownership, possession, and use of arms?
> 
> 
> Who has the constitutional authority/power to regulate the individual purchase, ownership, possession, and use of arms?
> 
> 
> Who has the constitutional authority/power to regulate the individual purchase, ownership, possession, and use of arms?
> 
> 
> Who has the constitutional authority/power to regulate the individual purchase, ownership, possession, and use of arms?
> 
> 
> Who has the constitutional authority/power to regulate the individual purchase, ownership, possession, and use of arms?
> 
> 
> Who has the constitutional authority/power to regulate the individual purchase, ownership, possession, and use of arms?
> 
> 
> Who has the constitutional authority/power to regulate the individual purchase, ownership, possession, and use of arms?
> 
> 
> Who has the constitutional authority/power to regulate the individual purchase, ownership, possession, and use of arms?
> 
> 
> Who has the constitutional authority/power to regulate the individual purchase, ownership, possession, and use of arms?
> 
> 
> Who has the constitutional authority/power to regulate the individual purchase, ownership, possession, and use of arms?
> 
> 
> Who has the constitutional authority/power to regulate the individual purchase, ownership, possession, and use of arms?
> 
> 
> Who has the constitutional authority/power to regulate the individual purchase, ownership, possession, and use of arms?
> 
> 
> Who has the constitutional authority/power to regulate the individual purchase, ownership, possession, and use of arms?
> 
> 
> Who has the constitutional authority/power to regulate the individual purchase, ownership, possession, and use of arms?
> 
> 
> Who has the constitutional authority/power to regulate the individual purchase, ownership, possession, and use of arms?
> 
> 
> Who has the constitutional authority/power to regulate the individual purchase, ownership, possession, and use of arms?
> 
> 
> Who has the constitutional authority/power to regulate the individual purchase, ownership, possession, and use of arms?
> 
> 
> Who has the constitutional authority/power to regulate the individual purchase, ownership, possession, and use of arms?
> 
> 
> Who has the constitutional authority/power to regulate the individual purchase, ownership, possession, and use of arms?
> 
> 
> Who has the constitutional authority/power to regulate the individual purchase, ownership, possession, and use of arms?
> 
> 
> Who has the constitutional authority/power to regulate the individual purchase, ownership, possession, and use of arms?
> 
> 
> Who has the constitutional authority/power to regulate the individual purchase, ownership, possession, and use of arms?
> 
> 
> Who has the constitutional authority/power to regulate the individual purchase, ownership, possession, and use of arms?
> 
> 
> Who has the constitutional authority/power to regulate the individual purchase, ownership, possession, and use of arms?
> 
> 
> Who has the constitutional authority/power to regulate the individual purchase, ownership, possession, and use of arms?
> 
> 
> Who has the constitutional authority/power to regulate the individual purchase, ownership, possession, and use of arms?
> 
> 
> Who has the constitutional authority/power to regulate the individual purchase, ownership, possession, and use of arms?
> 
> 
> Who has the constitutional authority/power to regulate the individual purchase, ownership, possession, and use of arms?
> 
> 
> Just admit that you don't know the answer, Dan, so we can all laugh at you and move on.


Oh, he knows the answer, he just won't admit it.


----------



## Lesh

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Is the power to regulate arms held by the FedGov or the States?


The States...except as required for a well regulated militia (which no longer exists)


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lesh said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is the power to regulate arms held by the FedGov or the States?
> 
> 
> 
> The States...except as required for a well regulated militia (which no longer exists)
Click to expand...

So, EXCLUSIVELY by the states?  Right?

All federal gun laws are unconstitutional, right?


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> To provide for organizing, _*arming*_,
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what that means?
> 
> THe FedGov can give arms to the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> How does that answer my question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By regulation.
Click to expand...


The Founders used the word "regulate" to mean "keep regular", as in a well functioning clock, regular bowel movements, etc.
Regulation does not mean to restrict.
It means the opposite, in to prevent restriction, like the article on regulating interstate commerce was to prevent states from restricting commerce by other states, through that state.

If the 2nd amendment were to ensure the feds could call up an Organized Militia and then arm them, the 2nd amendment would make no sense.

{...  *The National Guard, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the National Guard to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.* ...}

That obviously is not what the founders meant or intended, and in fact makes no sense at all.
Clearly the feds never owned enough weapons to arm more than a tiny fraction of the people needed for the American Rebellion or defense from invasion.

And the whole Bill of Rights was about restrictions against the federal government, nothing else.
So the main point would have been the need for a state militia to retain arms, not the need for the feds to be able to call up the militia.
And most state constitutions define the state militia as all able bodied adult males.
But given there were essentially zero police back then, so obviously defense was an individual right, and there is no such thing as a collective right.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> ...
> Only if you ignore our federal form of Constitutional government.  Are you a US citizen, Right-Winger?



A federation is a very loose grouping of sovereign entities for a very limited purpose.
Like the UN is a federation.
It is not imply a strong central government at all.
In fact, the whole federation thing from the Founders was borrowed from the Federation of 7 Iroquois nations.
A federal form of government is where strong state governments voluntarily decide to adopt a unified approach on a few items that are best handled collectively.  
The Constitution empowers the federal government with very few authorities.
It could not even impose an income tax or have a standing military even.
Absolutely no jurisdiction over education, health care, drugs, guns, or anything better handled at the state or local level.
About the only things dedicated to the federal government were treaties, diplomacy, defense, interstate commerce, and immigration.

I agree with the SCOTUS that the 14th amendment was necessary and the feds had to increase to block state abuses of rights, but it is WAY out of control now, and the federal government is the biggest threat this country now faces.
For example, the Military Industrial Complex lying about Iraqi WMD, murdering 3 million Vietnamese, the federal War on Drugs, Prohibition, etc.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it doesn't say that in the First. It also doesn't say it in the Second. The declaration you refer to only gives a reason why the government is restricted, it does not restrict the right to the militia, as found by the SC.
> 
> 
> 
> Because it should be self-evident.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is self-evident. It is the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms, not that of the militia, as has been ruled by the SC and borne out by the writings of those who wrote the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All right-wingers do is make stuff up and expect us to believe y'all have the "gospel Truth" instead of just fallacy.  The whole and entire People are the Militia.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SC agrees that the second amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what.   Legal fallacies are just that.  Our Founding Fathers provided a solution for it.
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're making my argument for me--the federal government has no authority to regulate arms.  The federal government shall not infringe on the right of the people.
> 
> Powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states.
> 
> How is this anything other than a ban on federal authority?
> 
> How can you torture the words to mean something other?
> 
> Can we at least agree that the second amendment was intended to reserve the authority/powers to regulate arms to the States?
> 
> Maybe you don't understand your own argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, you regurgitated everything you have to say on the subject in one post. No need for you to say anything further, because it will only be a recitation of one of these.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need a valid rebuttal, not a non sequitur which is usually considered a fallacy. Typical of the right wing who, never get it and don't ask relevant questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We've rebutted every single one of those. All that's left is to make fun of you.
> 
> (The pigeon takes another lap)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In Right-Wing fantasy, you are Always Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can always be right when you completely ignore every rebuttal to your arguments. You can always be right when you insist your legal reasoning is superior to that of the justices on the SC and the rest of the legal profession. You can always be right when you just repeat ad nauseum meaningless one-liners.
> 
> IOW, you are not always right, you do not resort to the fewest fallacies and you do not win every argument.
Click to expand...

lol.  I gainsay your contention.  Want to argue about it and see who resorts to the fewest fallacies?


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> 
> 
> 
> That has nothing to do with an individual's purchase, ownership, possession or use of a fucking gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which means nothing in North Dakota, Oklahoma, or Hawaii.
Click to expand...

Only if you ignore our federal form of Constitutional government. 

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it doesn't say that in the First. It also doesn't say it in the Second. The declaration you refer to only gives a reason why the government is restricted, it does not restrict the right to the militia, as found by the SC.
> 
> 
> 
> Because it should be self-evident.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is self-evident. It is the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms, not that of the militia, as has been ruled by the SC and borne out by the writings of those who wrote the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All right-wingers do is make stuff up and expect us to believe y'all have the "gospel Truth" instead of just fallacy.  The whole and entire People are the Militia.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SC agrees that the second amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what.   Legal fallacies are just that.  Our Founding Fathers provided a solution for it.
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're making my argument for me--the federal government has no authority to regulate arms.  The federal government shall not infringe on the right of the people.
> 
> Powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states.
> 
> How is this anything other than a ban on federal authority?
> 
> How can you torture the words to mean something other?
> 
> Can we at least agree that the second amendment was intended to reserve the authority/powers to regulate arms to the States?
> 
> Maybe you don't understand your own argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, you regurgitated everything you have to say on the subject in one post. No need for you to say anything further, because it will only be a recitation of one of these.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need a valid rebuttal, not a non sequitur which is usually considered a fallacy. Typical of the right wing who, never get it and don't ask relevant questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We've rebutted every single one of those. All that's left is to make fun of you.
> 
> (The pigeon takes another lap)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In Right-Wing fantasy, you are Always Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can always be right when you completely ignore every rebuttal to your arguments. You can always be right when you insist your legal reasoning is superior to that of the justices on the SC and the rest of the legal profession. You can always be right when you just repeat ad nauseum meaningless one-liners.
> 
> IOW, you are not always right, you do not resort to the fewest fallacies and you do not win every argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  I gainsay your contention.  Want to argue about it and see who resorts to the fewest fallacies?
Click to expand...

We already have and it is I.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> 
> 
> 
> That has nothing to do with an individual's purchase, ownership, possession or use of a fucking gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which means nothing in North Dakota, Oklahoma, or Hawaii.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only if you ignore our federal form of Constitutional government.
> 
> Amendment X
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Click to expand...

Illinois has no bearing on South Dakota, Virginia, or Arkansas. They can write their own constitutions. And again you're ignoring the 14th. Stop cherry-picking the little pieces you like out of the Constitution and consider the whole thing for a change.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> 
> 
> 
> That has nothing to do with an individual's purchase, ownership, possession or use of a fucking gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which means nothing in North Dakota, Oklahoma, or Hawaii.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only if you ignore our federal form of Constitutional government.
> 
> Amendment X
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Click to expand...

So, the 2A was in explicit reservation of power to the states regarding any legislation or regulation of individuals purchasing firearms, correct?

And, if so, you would also agree that the NFA and all subsequent Federal gun laws are unconstitutional as FUCK, right?

You seem to be riding the fence and trying to have it both ways.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it doesn't say that in the First. It also doesn't say it in the Second. The declaration you refer to only gives a reason why the government is restricted, it does not restrict the right to the militia, as found by the SC.
> 
> 
> 
> Because it should be self-evident.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is self-evident. It is the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms, not that of the militia, as has been ruled by the SC and borne out by the writings of those who wrote the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All right-wingers do is make stuff up and expect us to believe y'all have the "gospel Truth" instead of just fallacy.  The whole and entire People are the Militia.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SC agrees that the second amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what.   Legal fallacies are just that.  Our Founding Fathers provided a solution for it.
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're making my argument for me--the federal government has no authority to regulate arms.  The federal government shall not infringe on the right of the people.
> 
> Powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states.
> 
> How is this anything other than a ban on federal authority?
> 
> How can you torture the words to mean something other?
> 
> Can we at least agree that the second amendment was intended to reserve the authority/powers to regulate arms to the States?
> 
> Maybe you don't understand your own argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, you regurgitated everything you have to say on the subject in one post. No need for you to say anything further, because it will only be a recitation of one of these.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need a valid rebuttal, not a non sequitur which is usually considered a fallacy. Typical of the right wing who, never get it and don't ask relevant questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We've rebutted every single one of those. All that's left is to make fun of you.
> 
> (The pigeon takes another lap)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In Right-Wing fantasy, you are Always Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can always be right when you completely ignore every rebuttal to your arguments. You can always be right when you insist your legal reasoning is superior to that of the justices on the SC and the rest of the legal profession. You can always be right when you just repeat ad nauseum meaningless one-liners.
> 
> IOW, you are not always right, you do not resort to the fewest fallacies and you do not win every argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  I gainsay your contention.  Want to argue about it and see who resorts to the fewest fallacies?
Click to expand...

Bro.  Simply identifying fallacy is not enough.  Every argument has fallacy.  Otherwise, it would not be called argument.  It would be called TRUTH.

All that you gain by identifying the fallacy is identifying the potential weakness in an argument, SO YOU CAN FORMULATE A COUNTER-ARGUMENT.

Simply saying "fallacy, fallacy, fallacy" does ZERO to advance your position.   ZERO!!!


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it doesn't say that in the First. It also doesn't say it in the Second. The declaration you refer to only gives a reason why the government is restricted, it does not restrict the right to the militia, as found by the SC.
> 
> 
> 
> Because it should be self-evident.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is self-evident. It is the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms, not that of the militia, as has been ruled by the SC and borne out by the writings of those who wrote the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All right-wingers do is make stuff up and expect us to believe y'all have the "gospel Truth" instead of just fallacy.  The whole and entire People are the Militia.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SC agrees that the second amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what.   Legal fallacies are just that.  Our Founding Fathers provided a solution for it.
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're making my argument for me--the federal government has no authority to regulate arms.  The federal government shall not infringe on the right of the people.
> 
> Powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states.
> 
> How is this anything other than a ban on federal authority?
> 
> How can you torture the words to mean something other?
> 
> Can we at least agree that the second amendment was intended to reserve the authority/powers to regulate arms to the States?
> 
> Maybe you don't understand your own argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, you regurgitated everything you have to say on the subject in one post. No need for you to say anything further, because it will only be a recitation of one of these.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need a valid rebuttal, not a non sequitur which is usually considered a fallacy. Typical of the right wing who, never get it and don't ask relevant questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We've rebutted every single one of those. All that's left is to make fun of you.
> 
> (The pigeon takes another lap)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In Right-Wing fantasy, you are Always Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can always be right when you completely ignore every rebuttal to your arguments. You can always be right when you insist your legal reasoning is superior to that of the justices on the SC and the rest of the legal profession. You can always be right when you just repeat ad nauseum meaningless one-liners.
> 
> IOW, you are not always right, you do not resort to the fewest fallacies and you do not win every argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  I gainsay your contention.  Want to argue about it and see who resorts to the fewest fallacies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We already have and it is I.
Click to expand...

You are Always Right, in right wing fantasy.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> 
> 
> 
> That has nothing to do with an individual's purchase, ownership, possession or use of a fucking gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which means nothing in North Dakota, Oklahoma, or Hawaii.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only if you ignore our federal form of Constitutional government.
> 
> Amendment X
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Illinois has no bearing on South Dakota, Virginia, or Arkansas. They can write their own constitutions. And again you're ignoring the 14th. Stop cherry-picking the little pieces you like out of the Constitution and consider the whole thing for a change.
Click to expand...

There is no appeal to ignorance of State's rights or our Tenth Amendment.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> 
> 
> 
> That has nothing to do with an individual's purchase, ownership, possession or use of a fucking gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which means nothing in North Dakota, Oklahoma, or Hawaii.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only if you ignore our federal form of Constitutional government.
> 
> Amendment X
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, the 2A was in explicit reservation of power to the states regarding any legislation or regulation of individuals purchasing firearms, correct?
> 
> And, if so, you would also agree that the NFA and all subsequent Federal gun laws are unconstitutional as FUCK, right?
> 
> You seem to be riding the fence and trying to have it both ways.
Click to expand...

You seem to ignore our federal form of Constitutional government.  Are you, fresh off the boat from Unitary government Europe?


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it doesn't say that in the First. It also doesn't say it in the Second. The declaration you refer to only gives a reason why the government is restricted, it does not restrict the right to the militia, as found by the SC.
> 
> 
> 
> Because it should be self-evident.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is self-evident. It is the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms, not that of the militia, as has been ruled by the SC and borne out by the writings of those who wrote the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All right-wingers do is make stuff up and expect us to believe y'all have the "gospel Truth" instead of just fallacy.  The whole and entire People are the Militia.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SC agrees that the second amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what.   Legal fallacies are just that.  Our Founding Fathers provided a solution for it.
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're making my argument for me--the federal government has no authority to regulate arms.  The federal government shall not infringe on the right of the people.
> 
> Powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states.
> 
> How is this anything other than a ban on federal authority?
> 
> How can you torture the words to mean something other?
> 
> Can we at least agree that the second amendment was intended to reserve the authority/powers to regulate arms to the States?
> 
> Maybe you don't understand your own argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, you regurgitated everything you have to say on the subject in one post. No need for you to say anything further, because it will only be a recitation of one of these.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need a valid rebuttal, not a non sequitur which is usually considered a fallacy. Typical of the right wing who, never get it and don't ask relevant questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We've rebutted every single one of those. All that's left is to make fun of you.
> 
> (The pigeon takes another lap)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In Right-Wing fantasy, you are Always Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can always be right when you completely ignore every rebuttal to your arguments. You can always be right when you insist your legal reasoning is superior to that of the justices on the SC and the rest of the legal profession. You can always be right when you just repeat ad nauseum meaningless one-liners.
> 
> IOW, you are not always right, you do not resort to the fewest fallacies and you do not win every argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  I gainsay your contention.  Want to argue about it and see who resorts to the fewest fallacies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We already have and it is I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are Always Right, in right wing fantasy.
Click to expand...

No, I'm right when I argue with you, because you are wrong. Why do you think no one agrees with you?


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> 
> 
> 
> That has nothing to do with an individual's purchase, ownership, possession or use of a fucking gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which means nothing in North Dakota, Oklahoma, or Hawaii.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only if you ignore our federal form of Constitutional government.
> 
> Amendment X
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Illinois has no bearing on South Dakota, Virginia, or Arkansas. They can write their own constitutions. And again you're ignoring the 14th. Stop cherry-picking the little pieces you like out of the Constitution and consider the whole thing for a change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of State's rights or our Tenth Amendment.
Click to expand...

And you are being deliberately ignorant of the fourteenth Amendment. States cannot violate the Constitution, which means that if the Federal government is prohibited from infringing on the people's right to bear arms, so are the states.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> There is no appeal to ignorance of State's rights or our Tenth Amendment.


This, and pretty much everything you type is an appeal to bafflement (or argument by gibberish) because you never actually say anything of substance.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> You seem to ignore our federal form of Constitutional government. Are you, fresh off the boat from Unitary government Europe?


Well, why don't you point out SPECIFICALLY where and how I am wrong WITHOUT your repeated appeal to gibberish.


----------



## justinacolmena

danielpalos said:


> Our Second Amendment is clearly about the security of our free States not Individual liberty.


Don't be such a jackass murderer-for-hire, you stupid dumbfuck democrat.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Our 2nd Amendment (like much of our constitution) is not about the security of a free state, but the separation of Federal authority verses State authority.

Only a fool would identify the operative clause of the 2A to be the establishment or security of a free state, much like a fool would believe a breakfast has the right to food in the example below:






The 2A was originally a limit on Federal authority.  The context of the Constitution's ratification process and the concerns of each State that the FedGov would be trading one gun-grabbing tyrant for another. 

For 200 years, everyone understood that the 2A banned the Federal government from infringing on individual gun rights.  Even the 1934 National Firearms Act was careful to stay within the FedGov's taxing authority, because EVERYONE KNEW that the FedGov had no authority to ban any guns, BECAUSE of the 2A.  

It has only been since Marxists have been unable to pull off a successful revolution that ANYONE has EVER tried to willfully misinterpret the very plain language that the federal government will not infringe on individual gun rights.

It makes perfect sense that Dan Palos is so convinced that his bullshit interpretation is correct, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.  He is, after all, a fucking communist shit.

Gun grabbers are commies and commies are gun grabbers.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Cue:  "a militia of the whole people..."


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Our 2nd Amendment (like much of our constitution) is not about the security of a free state, but the separation of Federal authority verses State authority.
> 
> Only a fool would identify the operative clause of the 2A to be the establishment or security of a free state, much like a fool would believe a breakfast has the right to food in the example below:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 2A was originally a limit on Federal authority.  The context of the Constitution's ratification process and the concerns of each State that the FedGov would be trading one gun-grabbing tyrant for another.
> 
> For 200 years, everyone understood that the 2A banned the Federal government from infringing on individual gun rights.  Even the 1934 National Firearms Act was careful to stay within the FedGov's taxing authority, because EVERYONE KNEW that the FedGov had no authority to ban any guns, BECAUSE of the 2A.
> 
> It has only been since Marxists have been unable to pull off a successful revolution that ANYONE has EVER tried to willfully misinterpret the very plain language that the federal government will not infringe on individual gun rights.
> 
> It makes perfect sense that Dan Palos is so convinced that his bullshit interpretation is correct, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.  He is, after all, a fucking communist shit.
> 
> Gun grabbers are commies and commies are gun grabbers.


Ignorant, wrongheaded nonsense.

The Federal government in fact has the authority to ban weapons not within the scope of the Second Amendment.

Current caselaw holds that neither the Federal government nor state governments may ban handguns.

And the issue has nothing to do with non-existent ‘Marxists’ or mythical ‘gun grabbers – such baseless idiocy is typical rightwing demagoguery, fearmongering, and lies.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our 2nd Amendment (like much of our constitution) is not about the security of a free state, but the separation of Federal authority verses State authority.
> 
> Only a fool would identify the operative clause of the 2A to be the establishment or security of a free state, much like a fool would believe a breakfast has the right to food in the example below:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 2A was originally a limit on Federal authority.  The context of the Constitution's ratification process and the concerns of each State that the FedGov would be trading one gun-grabbing tyrant for another.
> 
> For 200 years, everyone understood that the 2A banned the Federal government from infringing on individual gun rights.  Even the 1934 National Firearms Act was careful to stay within the FedGov's taxing authority, because EVERYONE KNEW that the FedGov had no authority to ban any guns, BECAUSE of the 2A.
> 
> It has only been since Marxists have been unable to pull off a successful revolution that ANYONE has EVER tried to willfully misinterpret the very plain language that the federal government will not infringe on individual gun rights.
> 
> It makes perfect sense that Dan Palos is so convinced that his bullshit interpretation is correct, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.  He is, after all, a fucking communist shit.
> 
> Gun grabbers are commies and commies are gun grabbers.
> 
> 
> 
> Ignorant, wrongheaded nonsense.
> 
> The Federal government in fact has the authority to ban weapons not within the scope of the Second Amendment.
> 
> Current caselaw holds that neither the Federal government nor state governments may ban handguns.
> 
> And the issue has nothing to do with non-existent ‘Marxists’ or mythical ‘gun grabbers – such baseless idiocy is typical rightwing demagoguery, fearmongering, and lies.
Click to expand...


What guns are specifically mentioned in the Second? Lol this'll be good


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The Federal government in fact has the authority to ban weapons not within the scope of the Second Amendment.


Well, current military service includes the use of automatic weapons, does it not?  For a militia to be effective, the people would need arms equivalent to that of an invading force, right?

So, the Hughes Amendment is unconstitutional pursuant to the _Miller_ holding?

I agree.

Give us back machine guns.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

SassyIrishLass said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our 2nd Amendment (like much of our constitution) is not about the security of a free state, but the separation of Federal authority verses State authority.
> 
> Only a fool would identify the operative clause of the 2A to be the establishment or security of a free state, much like a fool would believe a breakfast has the right to food in the example below:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 2A was originally a limit on Federal authority.  The context of the Constitution's ratification process and the concerns of each State that the FedGov would be trading one gun-grabbing tyrant for another.
> 
> For 200 years, everyone understood that the 2A banned the Federal government from infringing on individual gun rights.  Even the 1934 National Firearms Act was careful to stay within the FedGov's taxing authority, because EVERYONE KNEW that the FedGov had no authority to ban any guns, BECAUSE of the 2A.
> 
> It has only been since Marxists have been unable to pull off a successful revolution that ANYONE has EVER tried to willfully misinterpret the very plain language that the federal government will not infringe on individual gun rights.
> 
> It makes perfect sense that Dan Palos is so convinced that his bullshit interpretation is correct, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.  He is, after all, a fucking communist shit.
> 
> Gun grabbers are commies and commies are gun grabbers.
> 
> 
> 
> Ignorant, wrongheaded nonsense.
> 
> The Federal government in fact has the authority to ban weapons not within the scope of the Second Amendment.
> 
> Current caselaw holds that neither the Federal government nor state governments may ban handguns.
> 
> And the issue has nothing to do with non-existent ‘Marxists’ or mythical ‘gun grabbers – such baseless idiocy is typical rightwing demagoguery, fearmongering, and lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What guns are specifically mentioned in the Second? Lol this'll be good
Click to expand...

He is talking about the _Miller _holding, which is funny, because under _Miller_, we should have machine guns.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it doesn't say that in the First. It also doesn't say it in the Second. The declaration you refer to only gives a reason why the government is restricted, it does not restrict the right to the militia, as found by the SC.
> 
> 
> 
> Because it should be self-evident.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is self-evident. It is the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms, not that of the militia, as has been ruled by the SC and borne out by the writings of those who wrote the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All right-wingers do is make stuff up and expect us to believe y'all have the "gospel Truth" instead of just fallacy.  The whole and entire People are the Militia.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SC agrees that the second amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what.   Legal fallacies are just that.  Our Founding Fathers provided a solution for it.
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're making my argument for me--the federal government has no authority to regulate arms.  The federal government shall not infringe on the right of the people.
> 
> Powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states.
> 
> How is this anything other than a ban on federal authority?
> 
> How can you torture the words to mean something other?
> 
> Can we at least agree that the second amendment was intended to reserve the authority/powers to regulate arms to the States?
> 
> Maybe you don't understand your own argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, you regurgitated everything you have to say on the subject in one post. No need for you to say anything further, because it will only be a recitation of one of these.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need a valid rebuttal, not a non sequitur which is usually considered a fallacy. Typical of the right wing who, never get it and don't ask relevant questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We've rebutted every single one of those. All that's left is to make fun of you.
> 
> (The pigeon takes another lap)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In Right-Wing fantasy, you are Always Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can always be right when you completely ignore every rebuttal to your arguments. You can always be right when you insist your legal reasoning is superior to that of the justices on the SC and the rest of the legal profession. You can always be right when you just repeat ad nauseum meaningless one-liners.
> 
> IOW, you are not always right, you do not resort to the fewest fallacies and you do not win every argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  I gainsay your contention.  Want to argue about it and see who resorts to the fewest fallacies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We already have and it is I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are Always Right, in right wing fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I'm right when I argue with you, because you are wrong. Why do you think no one agrees with you?
Click to expand...

lol.  I am Right even though I am on the left simply Because I say so.  That means You have to be Wrong even though you are on the right.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> And you are being deliberately ignorant of the fourteenth Amendment. States cannot violate the Constitution, which means that if the Federal government is prohibited from infringing on the people's right to bear arms, so are the states.


Only well-regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no appeal to ignorance of State's rights or our Tenth Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> This, and pretty much everything you type is an appeal to bafflement (or argument by gibberish) because you never actually say anything of substance.
Click to expand...

lol.  You simply understand nothing of substance; are you on the Right-Wing?


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to ignore our federal form of Constitutional government. Are you, fresh off the boat from Unitary government Europe?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, why don't you point out SPECIFICALLY where and how I am wrong WITHOUT your repeated appeal to gibberish.
Click to expand...

I have several times.  It must be too complicated for a right winger, like you.


----------



## danielpalos

justinacolmena said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is clearly about the security of our free States not Individual liberty.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be such a jackass murderer-for-hire, you stupid dumbfuck democrat.
Click to expand...

If it weren't for fallacy, Right-Wingers would have no arguments at all.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Our 2nd Amendment (like much of our constitution) is not about the security of a free state, but the separation of Federal authority verses State authority.
> 
> Only a fool would identify the operative clause of the 2A to be the establishment or security of a free state, much like a fool would believe a breakfast has the right to food in the example below:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 2A was originally a limit on Federal authority.  The context of the Constitution's ratification process and the concerns of each State that the FedGov would be trading one gun-grabbing tyrant for another.
> 
> For 200 years, everyone understood that the 2A banned the Federal government from infringing on individual gun rights.  Even the 1934 National Firearms Act was careful to stay within the FedGov's taxing authority, because EVERYONE KNEW that the FedGov had no authority to ban any guns, BECAUSE of the 2A.
> 
> It has only been since Marxists have been unable to pull off a successful revolution that ANYONE has EVER tried to willfully misinterpret the very plain language that the federal government will not infringe on individual gun rights.
> 
> It makes perfect sense that Dan Palos is so convinced that his bullshit interpretation is correct, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.  He is, after all, a fucking communist shit.
> 
> Gun grabbers are commies and commies are gun grabbers.


I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788


----------



## danielpalos

SassyIrishLass said:


> What guns are specifically mentioned in the Second? Lol this'll be good


Does it matter?

To provide for organizing, _*arming*_, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


----------



## justinacolmena

danielpalos said:


> Only well-regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


Hey dumbfuck. The right of the people. El derecho del pueblo. The universal human right. Learn some English and pass the bar.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to ignore our federal form of Constitutional government. Are you, fresh off the boat from Unitary government Europe?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, why don't you point out SPECIFICALLY where and how I am wrong WITHOUT your repeated appeal to gibberish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have several times.  It must be too complicated for a right winger, like you.
Click to expand...

Or you repeatedly failed to explain with any manner of competence.

So do you disagree with the Miller holding?

That's the case where the Supreme Court held that the second amendment protects only the ownership of military type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia and that a double barrel sought off shotgun was never intended to be used in a militia.

What does that mean for us?

Machine guns should be protected under the second amendment.

All precedent from the Supreme Court is rightly against your position going back more than 200 years.  You should just give up on it.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it doesn't say that in the First. It also doesn't say it in the Second. The declaration you refer to only gives a reason why the government is restricted, it does not restrict the right to the militia, as found by the SC.
> 
> 
> 
> Because it should be self-evident.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is self-evident. It is the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms, not that of the militia, as has been ruled by the SC and borne out by the writings of those who wrote the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All right-wingers do is make stuff up and expect us to believe y'all have the "gospel Truth" instead of just fallacy.  The whole and entire People are the Militia.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SC agrees that the second amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what.   Legal fallacies are just that.  Our Founding Fathers provided a solution for it.
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're making my argument for me--the federal government has no authority to regulate arms.  The federal government shall not infringe on the right of the people.
> 
> Powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states.
> 
> How is this anything other than a ban on federal authority?
> 
> How can you torture the words to mean something other?
> 
> Can we at least agree that the second amendment was intended to reserve the authority/powers to regulate arms to the States?
> 
> Maybe you don't understand your own argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, you regurgitated everything you have to say on the subject in one post. No need for you to say anything further, because it will only be a recitation of one of these.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need a valid rebuttal, not a non sequitur which is usually considered a fallacy. Typical of the right wing who, never get it and don't ask relevant questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We've rebutted every single one of those. All that's left is to make fun of you.
> 
> (The pigeon takes another lap)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In Right-Wing fantasy, you are Always Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can always be right when you completely ignore every rebuttal to your arguments. You can always be right when you insist your legal reasoning is superior to that of the justices on the SC and the rest of the legal profession. You can always be right when you just repeat ad nauseum meaningless one-liners.
> 
> IOW, you are not always right, you do not resort to the fewest fallacies and you do not win every argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  I gainsay your contention.  Want to argue about it and see who resorts to the fewest fallacies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We already have and it is I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are Always Right, in right wing fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I'm right when I argue with you, because you are wrong. Why do you think no one agrees with you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  I am Right even though I am on the left simply Because I say so.  That means You have to be Wrong even though you are on the right.
Click to expand...

We've backed up our arguments with fact and reason. You have merely repeated yourself to no avail.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you are being deliberately ignorant of the fourteenth Amendment. States cannot violate the Constitution, which means that if the Federal government is prohibited from infringing on the people's right to bear arms, so are the states.
> 
> 
> 
> Only well-regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
Click to expand...

No, that is incorrect, as the SC has found. You do remember them, don't you, the ones with the final say on the Constitution? IOW, your statement is false because you have to add what is not there.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> What guns are specifically mentioned in the Second? Lol this'll be good
> 
> 
> 
> Does it matter?
> 
> To provide for organizing, _*arming*_, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Click to expand...

And there you go again, saying the government owes me weapons. You have to be saying that because you say the government is supposed to arm the militia and you keep saying the militia and the people are one and the same.


----------



## hadit

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to ignore our federal form of Constitutional government. Are you, fresh off the boat from Unitary government Europe?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, why don't you point out SPECIFICALLY where and how I am wrong WITHOUT your repeated appeal to gibberish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have several times.  It must be too complicated for a right winger, like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or you repeatedly failed to explain with any manner of competence.
> 
> So do you disagree with the Miller holding?
> 
> That's the case where the Supreme Court held that the second amendment protects only the ownership of military type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia and that a double barrel sought off shotgun was never intended to be used in a militia.
> 
> What does that mean for us?
> 
> Machine guns should be protected under the second amendment.
> 
> All precedent from the Supreme Court is rightly against your position going back more than 200 years.  You should just give up on it.
Click to expand...

He claims the SC is wrong when he disagrees with them. It's that super duper legal mind of his that discovers all kinds of crap no one else in the world can see.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> We've backed up our arguments with fact and reason. You have merely repeated yourself to no avail.


I already told you, you are simply Wrong even though you are on the Right merely Because I am Right even though I am on the left.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've backed up our arguments with fact and reason. You have merely repeated yourself to no avail.
> 
> 
> 
> I already told you, you are simply Wrong even though you are on the Right merely Because I am Right even though I am on the left.
Click to expand...

And the pigeon takes another lap.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you are being deliberately ignorant of the fourteenth Amendment. States cannot violate the Constitution, which means that if the Federal government is prohibited from infringing on the people's right to bear arms, so are the states.
> 
> 
> 
> Only well-regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that is incorrect, as the SC has found. You do remember them, don't you, the ones with the final say on the Constitution? IOW, your statement is false because you have to add what is not there.
Click to expand...

Can they explain why they ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the End to the Means in those decisions? 

If not, 

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> What guns are specifically mentioned in the Second? Lol this'll be good
> 
> 
> 
> Does it matter?
> 
> To provide for organizing, _*arming*_, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And there you go again, saying the government owes me weapons. You have to be saying that because you say the government is supposed to arm the militia and you keep saying the militia and the people are one and the same.
Click to expand...

Should I insist our legislators do their Job?

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> What guns are specifically mentioned in the Second? Lol this'll be good
> 
> 
> 
> Does it matter?
> 
> To provide for organizing, _*arming*_, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And there you go again, saying the government owes me weapons. You have to be saying that because you say the government is supposed to arm the militia and you keep saying the militia and the people are one and the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Should I insist our legislators do their Job?
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
Click to expand...

So when do I get my AR?


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you are being deliberately ignorant of the fourteenth Amendment. States cannot violate the Constitution, which means that if the Federal government is prohibited from infringing on the people's right to bear arms, so are the states.
> 
> 
> 
> Only well-regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that is incorrect, as the SC has found. You do remember them, don't you, the ones with the final say on the Constitution? IOW, your statement is false because you have to add what is not there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can they explain why they ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the End to the Means in those decisions?
> 
> If not,
> 
> Amendment X
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Click to expand...

What did they say when you notified them they got it wrong?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you are being deliberately ignorant of the fourteenth Amendment. States cannot violate the Constitution, which means that if the Federal government is prohibited from infringing on the people's right to bear arms, so are the states.
> 
> 
> 
> Only well-regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that is incorrect, as the SC has found. You do remember them, don't you, the ones with the final say on the Constitution? IOW, your statement is false because you have to add what is not there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can they explain why they ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the End to the Means in those decisions?
> 
> If not,
> 
> Amendment X
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Click to expand...

To hold as they should have (sticking down all federal gun laws) would have cause a massive panic by the control freak Karens when the unlimited sale of machine guns instantly becomes legal.

I don't like their departure from rules of interpretation either, but you are doing the exact same thing.  You have done nothing but add to and take away from the very plain meaning--fed gov shall not infringe on the right of the people--FOR ANY REASON.

Now that you have become a goddamn broken record again and have absolutely nothing useful to say, it's back on IGNORE for your illegal ass.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> What guns are specifically mentioned in the Second? Lol this'll be good
> 
> 
> 
> Does it matter?
> 
> To provide for organizing, _*arming*_, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And there you go again, saying the government owes me weapons. You have to be saying that because you say the government is supposed to arm the militia and you keep saying the militia and the people are one and the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Should I insist our legislators do their Job?
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So when do I get my AR?
Click to expand...

Once you get organized and weapons qualified.  

My motto is: Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and regulate them well!


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you are being deliberately ignorant of the fourteenth Amendment. States cannot violate the Constitution, which means that if the Federal government is prohibited from infringing on the people's right to bear arms, so are the states.
> 
> 
> 
> Only well-regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that is incorrect, as the SC has found. You do remember them, don't you, the ones with the final say on the Constitution? IOW, your statement is false because you have to add what is not there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can they explain why they ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the End to the Means in those decisions?
> 
> If not,
> 
> Amendment X
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did they say when you notified them they got it wrong?
Click to expand...

You are welcome to start a gofundme page to purchase some quality time before the Court.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you are being deliberately ignorant of the fourteenth Amendment. States cannot violate the Constitution, which means that if the Federal government is prohibited from infringing on the people's right to bear arms, so are the states.
> 
> 
> 
> Only well-regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that is incorrect, as the SC has found. You do remember them, don't you, the ones with the final say on the Constitution? IOW, your statement is false because you have to add what is not there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can they explain why they ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the End to the Means in those decisions?
> 
> If not,
> 
> Amendment X
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To hold as they should have (sticking down all federal gun laws) would have cause a massive panic by the control freak Karens when the unlimited sale of machine guns instantly becomes legal.
> 
> I don't like their departure from rules of interpretation either, but you are doing the exact same thing.  You have done nothing but add to and take away from the very plain meaning--fed gov shall not infringe on the right of the people--FOR ANY REASON.
> 
> Now that you have become a goddamn broken record again and have absolutely nothing useful to say, it's back on IGNORE for your illegal ass.
Click to expand...

Only well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment not the unorganized militia of the People.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Only well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment not the unorganized militia of the People.


I see no such qualification in the 2A.  That's like saying only groups have the right to assemble under the 1A.  

Quit making up fake requirements.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment not the unorganized militia of the People.
> 
> 
> 
> I see no such qualification in the 2A.  That's like saying only groups have the right to assemble under the 1A.
> 
> Quit making up fake requirements.
Click to expand...

Only if you appeal to ignorance or a fallacy of composition.  Our Second Amendment is express not implied in any way.  The terms used are very clear and not ambiguous in any way.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment not the unorganized militia of the People.
> 
> 
> 
> I see no such qualification in the 2A.  That's like saying only groups have the right to assemble under the 1A.
> 
> Quit making up fake requirements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance or a fallacy of composition.  Our Second Amendment is express not implied in any way.  The terms used are very clear and not ambiguous in any way.
Click to expand...

And it expressly states that because a militia is necessary, the right shall not be infringed. That's it.  No "only when" etc. is written.  

Your argument is THE VERY DEFINITION of composition fallacy!!!

Who taught you how to argue, dumbass?


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment not the unorganized militia of the People.
> 
> 
> 
> I see no such qualification in the 2A.  That's like saying only groups have the right to assemble under the 1A.
> 
> Quit making up fake requirements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance or a fallacy of composition.  Our Second Amendment is express not implied in any way.  The terms used are very clear and not ambiguous in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And it expressly states that because a militia is necessary, the right shall not be infringed. That's it.  No "only when" etc. is written.
> 
> Your argument is THE VERY DEFINITION of composition fallacy!!!
> 
> Who taught you how to argue, dumbass?
Click to expand...

How did you reach your conclusion?

_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._

It clearly can be restated as; well-regulated militia of the whole and entire People being necessary to the security of a free State, the People, who are a well-regulated militia, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for the security needs of their State or the Union.

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

If your argument is that the government owes us each a military firearm, I have no problem with that, but it is wholly unconnected to service in the National Guard.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> If your argument is that the government owes us each a military firearm, I have no problem with that, but it is wholly unconnected to service in the National Guard.


Why is it that even Mexicans from Mexico seem to understand our federal form of Constitutional Government better than most Right-Wingers?


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment not the unorganized militia of the People.
> 
> 
> 
> I see no such qualification in the 2A.  That's like saying only groups have the right to assemble under the 1A.
> 
> Quit making up fake requirements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance or a fallacy of composition.  Our Second Amendment is express not implied in any way.  The terms used are very clear and not ambiguous in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And it expressly states that because a militia is necessary, the right shall not be infringed. That's it.  No "only when" etc. is written.
> 
> Your argument is THE VERY DEFINITION of composition fallacy!!!
> 
> Who taught you how to argue, dumbass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How did you reach your conclusion?
> 
> _A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._
> 
> It clearly can be restated as; well-regulated militia of the whole and entire People being necessary to the security of a free State, the People, who are a well-regulated militia, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for the security needs of their State or the Union.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
Click to expand...


But then what is the argument?
If the "whole people" are the militia who then can not be denied arms, that still prohibits any and all federal firearm laws.
That is because it is states alone who are supposed to need, define, manage, maintain, and legislate the militia.
All the feds are authorized to do is be able to call up the state militia if necessary for emergency use.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment not the unorganized militia of the People.
> 
> 
> 
> I see no such qualification in the 2A.  That's like saying only groups have the right to assemble under the 1A.
> 
> Quit making up fake requirements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance or a fallacy of composition.  Our Second Amendment is express not implied in any way.  The terms used are very clear and not ambiguous in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And it expressly states that because a militia is necessary, the right shall not be infringed. That's it.  No "only when" etc. is written.
> 
> Your argument is THE VERY DEFINITION of composition fallacy!!!
> 
> Who taught you how to argue, dumbass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How did you reach your conclusion?
> 
> _A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._
> 
> It clearly can be restated as; well-regulated militia of the whole and entire People being necessary to the security of a free State, the People, who are a well-regulated militia, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for the security needs of their State or the Union.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But then what is the argument?
> If the "whole people" are the militia who then can not be denied arms, that still prohibits any and all federal firearm laws.
> That is because it is states alone who are supposed to need, define, manage, maintain, and legislate the militia.
> All the feds are authorized to do is be able to call up the state militia if necessary for emergency use.
Click to expand...

Where does it say that in our federal Constitution?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It says well regulated militia of the whole people not the unorganized militia of the whole people.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment not the unorganized militia of the People.
> 
> 
> 
> I see no such qualification in the 2A.  That's like saying only groups have the right to assemble under the 1A.
> 
> Quit making up fake requirements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance or a fallacy of composition.  Our Second Amendment is express not implied in any way.  The terms used are very clear and not ambiguous in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And it expressly states that because a militia is necessary, the right shall not be infringed. That's it.  No "only when" etc. is written.
> 
> Your argument is THE VERY DEFINITION of composition fallacy!!!
> 
> Who taught you how to argue, dumbass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How did you reach your conclusion?
> 
> _A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._
> 
> It clearly can be restated as; well-regulated militia of the whole and entire People being necessary to the security of a free State, the People, who are a well-regulated militia, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for the security needs of their State or the Union.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But then what is the argument?
> If the "whole people" are the militia who then can not be denied arms, that still prohibits any and all federal firearm laws.
> That is because it is states alone who are supposed to need, define, manage, maintain, and legislate the militia.
> All the feds are authorized to do is be able to call up the state militia if necessary for emergency use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where does it say that in our federal Constitution?
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> It says well regulated militia of the whole people not the unorganized militia of the whole people.
Click to expand...


First of all, it is the states that define and provide the militia, so it is not up to the federal constitution, which only defines what the feds can and can not do.
Second is that how can the "well regulated militia of the whole People" be anything BUT the unorganized militia of the whole people.  The whole people are not organized and never will be.  There is no "organized militia" until it is called up, like for a posse after a bank robbery.  
What the 2nd amendment hints at being able to be called upon does not have to exist all the time as an organized unit, but as an unorganized potential that could become an organized unit when necessary.
Just as if this country were to be invaded, we would start a mandatory draft.
Those drafted would not necessarily have time to be trained, so the founders wanted and expected everyone who could, to constantly own their own arms and be familiar enough with them so they could be called upon instantly in an emergency.

That is NOT the National Guard.  Clearly the Founders did not trust or want any standing military that was essentially mercenary because they worked for pay.

There is no means by which anyone over age can be excluded.
While the state constitutions do not force women to have a militia responsibility, clearly it does not deny them and in reality women did fight in the revolution.
Denying universal participation in the defense of country, state, village, and individual home, would be an elitest society, contrary to the egalitarian principles of democratic republic.
For clearly the heart of a democratic republic depends upon the people being able to maintain their control over power by having control over arms.

Any attempt to divide the majority of the population from the means of force of arms, is a direct threat to the continuance of the democratic republic.
The only way to have a free people is to have a well armed people.
There can be no other way.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment not the unorganized militia of the People.
> 
> 
> 
> I see no such qualification in the 2A.  That's like saying only groups have the right to assemble under the 1A.
> 
> Quit making up fake requirements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance or a fallacy of composition.  Our Second Amendment is express not implied in any way.  The terms used are very clear and not ambiguous in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And it expressly states that because a militia is necessary, the right shall not be infringed. That's it.  No "only when" etc. is written.
> 
> Your argument is THE VERY DEFINITION of composition fallacy!!!
> 
> Who taught you how to argue, dumbass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How did you reach your conclusion?
> 
> _A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._
> 
> It clearly can be restated as; well-regulated militia of the whole and entire People being necessary to the security of a free State, the People, who are a well-regulated militia, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for the security needs of their State or the Union.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But then what is the argument?
> If the "whole people" are the militia who then can not be denied arms, that still prohibits any and all federal firearm laws.
> That is because it is states alone who are supposed to need, define, manage, maintain, and legislate the militia.
> All the feds are authorized to do is be able to call up the state militia if necessary for emergency use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where does it say that in our federal Constitution?
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> It says well regulated militia of the whole people not the unorganized militia of the whole people.
Click to expand...

You prove again that you need to go back to law school.


----------



## Colin norris

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution exist only in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review.
> 
> Neither the Constitution nor any of its Amendments are obsolete.
> 
> Whatever the current case law might be concerning the Second Amendment, however, further restrictions, regulations, or even bans will do little to curtail gun violence.
> 
> The genius of the Constitution is it compels us to seek actual solutions to our many problems; be it abortion, campaign finance reform, or gun violence, the Constitution prevents us from taking the easy route often taken by dictatorships and totalitarian regimes, where the liberty of the people is destroyed.
> 
> This does not mean we are helpless to do nothing, at the mercy of strict, unyielding jurisprudence protecting the rights of gun owners; rather, it means we must find solutions based on facts and evidence, and be prepared to address and acknowledge painful, embarrassing aspects of our society and culture.
Click to expand...


There's nothing genius about the constitution. No government has ever tried to stop gun ownership. Its fully automatics which are the problem. 
No one can argue with the unnecessary deaths associated with guns. Thise deaths are not collateral damage for gun ownership. That's absurd. 
Trump the tyrant reigned for 4 years and not one shot fired in anger. So much for that justification.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> First of all, it is the states that define and provide the militia, so it is not up to the federal constitution, which only defines what the feds can and can not do.


How did you reach that conclusion? 

Article 1, Section 8: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

I think Rigby5 is iron-clad proof that this is not a right v. left issue.

It's rather an up v. down issue.  

(up being authoritarian and down being libertarian).

No government should have authority and power that the citizens themselves do not have. That is repugnant by all measures.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> I think Rigby5 is iron-clad proof that this is not a right v. left issue.
> 
> It's rather an up v. down issue.
> 
> (up being authoritarian and down being libertarian).
> 
> No government should have authority and power that the citizens themselves do not have. That is repugnant by all measures.


Not at all.  You simply don't understand the function of Government and why power is _delegated_ to our representatives.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> What guns are specifically mentioned in the Second? Lol this'll be good
> 
> 
> 
> Does it matter?
> 
> To provide for organizing, _*arming*_, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And there you go again, saying the government owes me weapons. You have to be saying that because you say the government is supposed to arm the militia and you keep saying the militia and the people are one and the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Should I insist our legislators do their Job?
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So when do I get my AR?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once you get organized and weapons qualified.
> 
> My motto is: Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and regulate them well!
Click to expand...

None of that is constitutional. The government neither owes me weapons nor does it have to regulate me if I choose to own them. That's the law.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you are being deliberately ignorant of the fourteenth Amendment. States cannot violate the Constitution, which means that if the Federal government is prohibited from infringing on the people's right to bear arms, so are the states.
> 
> 
> 
> Only well-regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that is incorrect, as the SC has found. You do remember them, don't you, the ones with the final say on the Constitution? IOW, your statement is false because you have to add what is not there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can they explain why they ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the End to the Means in those decisions?
> 
> If not,
> 
> Amendment X
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To hold as they should have (sticking down all federal gun laws) would have cause a massive panic by the control freak Karens when the unlimited sale of machine guns instantly becomes legal.
> 
> I don't like their departure from rules of interpretation either, but you are doing the exact same thing.  You have done nothing but add to and take away from the very plain meaning--fed gov shall not infringe on the right of the people--FOR ANY REASON.
> 
> Now that you have become a goddamn broken record again and have absolutely nothing useful to say, it's back on IGNORE for your illegal ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment not the unorganized militia of the People.
Click to expand...

You just made that up. It's not in the Second Amendment.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you are being deliberately ignorant of the fourteenth Amendment. States cannot violate the Constitution, which means that if the Federal government is prohibited from infringing on the people's right to bear arms, so are the states.
> 
> 
> 
> Only well-regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that is incorrect, as the SC has found. You do remember them, don't you, the ones with the final say on the Constitution? IOW, your statement is false because you have to add what is not there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can they explain why they ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the End to the Means in those decisions?
> 
> If not,
> 
> Amendment X
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did they say when you notified them they got it wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are welcome to start a gofundme page to purchase some quality time before the Court.
Click to expand...

I don't need to. You think they got it wrong, so what did they say when you told them?


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> None of that is constitutional. The government neither owes me weapons nor does it have to regulate me if I choose to own them. That's the law.


This is a State's right secured by our Tenth Amendment:

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you are being deliberately ignorant of the fourteenth Amendment. States cannot violate the Constitution, which means that if the Federal government is prohibited from infringing on the people's right to bear arms, so are the states.
> 
> 
> 
> Only well-regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that is incorrect, as the SC has found. You do remember them, don't you, the ones with the final say on the Constitution? IOW, your statement is false because you have to add what is not there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can they explain why they ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the End to the Means in those decisions?
> 
> If not,
> 
> Amendment X
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To hold as they should have (sticking down all federal gun laws) would have cause a massive panic by the control freak Karens when the unlimited sale of machine guns instantly becomes legal.
> 
> I don't like their departure from rules of interpretation either, but you are doing the exact same thing.  You have done nothing but add to and take away from the very plain meaning--fed gov shall not infringe on the right of the people--FOR ANY REASON.
> 
> Now that you have become a goddamn broken record again and have absolutely nothing useful to say, it's back on IGNORE for your illegal ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment not the unorganized militia of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just made that up. It's not in the Second Amendment.
Click to expand...

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you are being deliberately ignorant of the fourteenth Amendment. States cannot violate the Constitution, which means that if the Federal government is prohibited from infringing on the people's right to bear arms, so are the states.
> 
> 
> 
> Only well-regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that is incorrect, as the SC has found. You do remember them, don't you, the ones with the final say on the Constitution? IOW, your statement is false because you have to add what is not there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can they explain why they ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the End to the Means in those decisions?
> 
> If not,
> 
> Amendment X
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did they say when you notified them they got it wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are welcome to start a gofundme page to purchase some quality time before the Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't need to. You think they got it wrong, so what did they say when you told them?
Click to expand...

Start a gofundme account so we can find out.


----------



## Rigby5

Colin norris said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By Peter Weber_
> 
> That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.
> 
> Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:
> 
> _A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed._​
> It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."
> 
> As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​
> "Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: *Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. *So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution exist only in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review.
> 
> Neither the Constitution nor any of its Amendments are obsolete.
> 
> Whatever the current case law might be concerning the Second Amendment, however, further restrictions, regulations, or even bans will do little to curtail gun violence.
> 
> The genius of the Constitution is it compels us to seek actual solutions to our many problems; be it abortion, campaign finance reform, or gun violence, the Constitution prevents us from taking the easy route often taken by dictatorships and totalitarian regimes, where the liberty of the people is destroyed.
> 
> This does not mean we are helpless to do nothing, at the mercy of strict, unyielding jurisprudence protecting the rights of gun owners; rather, it means we must find solutions based on facts and evidence, and be prepared to address and acknowledge painful, embarrassing aspects of our society and culture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's nothing genius about the constitution. No government has ever tried to stop gun ownership. Its fully automatics which are the problem.
> No one can argue with the unnecessary deaths associated with guns. Thise deaths are not collateral damage for gun ownership. That's absurd.
> Trump the tyrant reigned for 4 years and not one shot fired in anger. So much for that justification.
Click to expand...


No, fully automatic weapons are rare, expensive, and highly restricted.
All the mass shootings were done with semi auto, which means one bullet for each trigger pull only.
The only times automatic weapons were used in crimes was back in Prohibition days with cheap Thompson machine guns, the LA bank robbery that has full auto Chinese AK-47s, and the Las Vegas concert shooting what Paddock used a bump stock that simulates a high rate of fire by flopping around.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, it is the states that define and provide the militia, so it is not up to the federal constitution, which only defines what the feds can and can not do.
> 
> 
> 
> How did you reach that conclusion?
> 
> Article 1, Section 8: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Click to expand...


What you are quoting from the Constitution is about the ability of the federal government to be ABLE to call up and finance the Organized Militia out of each state's unorganized volunteer militias.
The intent was to not have a standing army, and instead have the states encourage personal firearm ownership and group training so that the feds could call upon them when necessary.

Go look at the Civil War history and you will see that each state used different uniforms, firearms, etc.
The US army was sustained by the states and not the federal government, and the federal government simply had the authority to draft from the unorganized state militias as needed.

For example, the Zouaves of Indiana.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think Rigby5 is iron-clad proof that this is not a right v. left issue.
> 
> It's rather an up v. down issue.
> 
> (up being authoritarian and down being libertarian).
> 
> No government should have authority and power that the citizens themselves do not have. That is repugnant by all measures.
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.  You simply don't understand the function of Government and why power is _delegated_ to our representatives.
Click to expand...


We can't delegate that which we do not have.
So if we can be restricted on firearms, then we don't have the authority to arm a military.
We are the source of all legal authority, in the defense of our inherent rights.
We then can delegate from our inherent authority to create and armed military.
But then there is no way in hell that we can be restricted more than the subordinates we delegate to.
If we can be restricted, then no one has the authority to have it.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you are being deliberately ignorant of the fourteenth Amendment. States cannot violate the Constitution, which means that if the Federal government is prohibited from infringing on the people's right to bear arms, so are the states.
> 
> 
> 
> Only well-regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that is incorrect, as the SC has found. You do remember them, don't you, the ones with the final say on the Constitution? IOW, your statement is false because you have to add what is not there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can they explain why they ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the End to the Means in those decisions?
> 
> If not,
> 
> Amendment X
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To hold as they should have (sticking down all federal gun laws) would have cause a massive panic by the control freak Karens when the unlimited sale of machine guns instantly becomes legal.
> 
> I don't like their departure from rules of interpretation either, but you are doing the exact same thing.  You have done nothing but add to and take away from the very plain meaning--fed gov shall not infringe on the right of the people--FOR ANY REASON.
> 
> Now that you have become a goddamn broken record again and have absolutely nothing useful to say, it's back on IGNORE for your illegal ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment not the unorganized militia of the People.
Click to expand...


That is silly because the 2nd amendment is not at all the source of individual gun rights.
The 2nd amendment is only a strict and total prohibition on any federal jurisdiction over firearms.
Sure it gives a reason why, but clearly it is not the only reason why, and why does not really even matter, since the point is still that the federal government shall make no law at all infringing on gun rights of anyone.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> The intent was to not have a standing army, and instead have the states encourage personal firearm ownership and group training so that the feds could call upon them when necessary.


Not sure how you reached your conclusion.  GI stands for general issue; that includes Arms. 

To provide for organizing, *arming*, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> So if we can be restricted on firearms, then we don't have the authority to arm a military.


I have no idea how you arrived at that conclusion. 

To provide for organizing, *arming*, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you are being deliberately ignorant of the fourteenth Amendment. States cannot violate the Constitution, which means that if the Federal government is prohibited from infringing on the people's right to bear arms, so are the states.
> 
> 
> 
> Only well-regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that is incorrect, as the SC has found. You do remember them, don't you, the ones with the final say on the Constitution? IOW, your statement is false because you have to add what is not there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can they explain why they ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the End to the Means in those decisions?
> 
> If not,
> 
> Amendment X
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To hold as they should have (sticking down all federal gun laws) would have cause a massive panic by the control freak Karens when the unlimited sale of machine guns instantly becomes legal.
> 
> I don't like their departure from rules of interpretation either, but you are doing the exact same thing.  You have done nothing but add to and take away from the very plain meaning--fed gov shall not infringe on the right of the people--FOR ANY REASON.
> 
> Now that you have become a goddamn broken record again and have absolutely nothing useful to say, it's back on IGNORE for your illegal ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment not the unorganized militia of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is silly because the 2nd amendment is not at all the source of individual gun rights.
> The 2nd amendment is only a strict and total prohibition on any federal jurisdiction over firearms.
> Sure it gives a reason why, but clearly it is not the only reason why, and why does not really even matter, since the point is still that the federal government shall make no law at all infringing on gun rights of anyone.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't.  It says well regulated militia of the People shall not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.  

That is still true today.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you are being deliberately ignorant of the fourteenth Amendment. States cannot violate the Constitution, which means that if the Federal government is prohibited from infringing on the people's right to bear arms, so are the states.
> 
> 
> 
> Only well-regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that is incorrect, as the SC has found. You do remember them, don't you, the ones with the final say on the Constitution? IOW, your statement is false because you have to add what is not there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can they explain why they ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the End to the Means in those decisions?
> 
> If not,
> 
> Amendment X
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To hold as they should have (sticking down all federal gun laws) would have cause a massive panic by the control freak Karens when the unlimited sale of machine guns instantly becomes legal.
> 
> I don't like their departure from rules of interpretation either, but you are doing the exact same thing.  You have done nothing but add to and take away from the very plain meaning--fed gov shall not infringe on the right of the people--FOR ANY REASON.
> 
> Now that you have become a goddamn broken record again and have absolutely nothing useful to say, it's back on IGNORE for your illegal ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment not the unorganized militia of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is silly because the 2nd amendment is not at all the source of individual gun rights.
> The 2nd amendment is only a strict and total prohibition on any federal jurisdiction over firearms.
> Sure it gives a reason why, but clearly it is not the only reason why, and why does not really even matter, since the point is still that the federal government shall make no law at all infringing on gun rights of anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't.  It says well regulated militia of the People shall not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> That is still true today.
Click to expand...

You're just making that up. It says the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed, not the militia.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you are being deliberately ignorant of the fourteenth Amendment. States cannot violate the Constitution, which means that if the Federal government is prohibited from infringing on the people's right to bear arms, so are the states.
> 
> 
> 
> Only well-regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that is incorrect, as the SC has found. You do remember them, don't you, the ones with the final say on the Constitution? IOW, your statement is false because you have to add what is not there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can they explain why they ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the End to the Means in those decisions?
> 
> If not,
> 
> Amendment X
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To hold as they should have (sticking down all federal gun laws) would have cause a massive panic by the control freak Karens when the unlimited sale of machine guns instantly becomes legal.
> 
> I don't like their departure from rules of interpretation either, but you are doing the exact same thing.  You have done nothing but add to and take away from the very plain meaning--fed gov shall not infringe on the right of the people--FOR ANY REASON.
> 
> Now that you have become a goddamn broken record again and have absolutely nothing useful to say, it's back on IGNORE for your illegal ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment not the unorganized militia of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just made that up. It's not in the Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
Click to expand...

That's not what it says.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you are being deliberately ignorant of the fourteenth Amendment. States cannot violate the Constitution, which means that if the Federal government is prohibited from infringing on the people's right to bear arms, so are the states.
> 
> 
> 
> Only well-regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that is incorrect, as the SC has found. You do remember them, don't you, the ones with the final say on the Constitution? IOW, your statement is false because you have to add what is not there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can they explain why they ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the End to the Means in those decisions?
> 
> If not,
> 
> Amendment X
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did they say when you notified them they got it wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are welcome to start a gofundme page to purchase some quality time before the Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't need to. You think they got it wrong, so what did they say when you told them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Start a gofundme account so we can find out.
Click to expand...

You told them they were wrong, tell us what they said. Or couldn't you hear because they were laughing too hard?


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of that is constitutional. The government neither owes me weapons nor does it have to regulate me if I choose to own them. That's the law.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a State's right secured by our Tenth Amendment:
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
Click to expand...

Why are you pretending the Illinois constitution means anything anywhere other than Illinois? And again, 14th Amendment. Read it, learn it.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment not the unorganized militia of the People.
> 
> 
> 
> I see no such qualification in the 2A.  That's like saying only groups have the right to assemble under the 1A.
> 
> Quit making up fake requirements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance or a fallacy of composition.  Our Second Amendment is express not implied in any way.  The terms used are very clear and not ambiguous in any way.
Click to expand...

That is correct. The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. It's very clear.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Dan Palos sees this when he reads the 2A:

_A well-regulated national guard is the militia and only the right of members of the national guard to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed while they are members of the national guard._

Yes.  It is literally that stupid.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you are being deliberately ignorant of the fourteenth Amendment. States cannot violate the Constitution, which means that if the Federal government is prohibited from infringing on the people's right to bear arms, so are the states.
> 
> 
> 
> Only well-regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that is incorrect, as the SC has found. You do remember them, don't you, the ones with the final say on the Constitution? IOW, your statement is false because you have to add what is not there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can they explain why they ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the End to the Means in those decisions?
> 
> If not,
> 
> Amendment X
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To hold as they should have (sticking down all federal gun laws) would have cause a massive panic by the control freak Karens when the unlimited sale of machine guns instantly becomes legal.
> 
> I don't like their departure from rules of interpretation either, but you are doing the exact same thing.  You have done nothing but add to and take away from the very plain meaning--fed gov shall not infringe on the right of the people--FOR ANY REASON.
> 
> Now that you have become a goddamn broken record again and have absolutely nothing useful to say, it's back on IGNORE for your illegal ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment not the unorganized militia of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is silly because the 2nd amendment is not at all the source of individual gun rights.
> The 2nd amendment is only a strict and total prohibition on any federal jurisdiction over firearms.
> Sure it gives a reason why, but clearly it is not the only reason why, and why does not really even matter, since the point is still that the federal government shall make no law at all infringing on gun rights of anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't.  It says well regulated militia of the People shall not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> That is still true today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're just making that up. It says the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed, not the militia.
Click to expand...

You are just making that stuff up.  The People are the Militia.  Thus, the Militia are the People. They are not seperate. 

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment not the unorganized militia of the People.
> 
> 
> 
> I see no such qualification in the 2A.  That's like saying only groups have the right to assemble under the 1A.
> 
> Quit making up fake requirements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance or a fallacy of composition.  Our Second Amendment is express not implied in any way.  The terms used are very clear and not ambiguous in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is correct. The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. It's very clear.
Click to expand...

Yes, the People who are a well regulated militia and thus Necessary to the security of a free State.   All terms are collective and plural not individual or singular.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Dan Palos sees this when he reads the 2A:
> 
> _A well-regulated national guard is the militia and only the right of members of the national guard to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed while they are members of the national guard._
> 
> Yes.  It is literally that stupid.


The People who are the national guard are the militia.  See how that works.  Why mention the militia at all if it means nothing to right wingers?


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you are being deliberately ignorant of the fourteenth Amendment. States cannot violate the Constitution, which means that if the Federal government is prohibited from infringing on the people's right to bear arms, so are the states.
> 
> 
> 
> Only well-regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that is incorrect, as the SC has found. You do remember them, don't you, the ones with the final say on the Constitution? IOW, your statement is false because you have to add what is not there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can they explain why they ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the End to the Means in those decisions?
> 
> If not,
> 
> Amendment X
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To hold as they should have (sticking down all federal gun laws) would have cause a massive panic by the control freak Karens when the unlimited sale of machine guns instantly becomes legal.
> 
> I don't like their departure from rules of interpretation either, but you are doing the exact same thing.  You have done nothing but add to and take away from the very plain meaning--fed gov shall not infringe on the right of the people--FOR ANY REASON.
> 
> Now that you have become a goddamn broken record again and have absolutely nothing useful to say, it's back on IGNORE for your illegal ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment not the unorganized militia of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just made that up. It's not in the Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not what it says.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you are being deliberately ignorant of the fourteenth Amendment. States cannot violate the Constitution, which means that if the Federal government is prohibited from infringing on the people's right to bear arms, so are the states.
> 
> 
> 
> Only well-regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that is incorrect, as the SC has found. You do remember them, don't you, the ones with the final say on the Constitution? IOW, your statement is false because you have to add what is not there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can they explain why they ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the End to the Means in those decisions?
> 
> If not,
> 
> Amendment X
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did they say when you notified them they got it wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are welcome to start a gofundme page to purchase some quality time before the Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't need to. You think they got it wrong, so what did they say when you told them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Start a gofundme account so we can find out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You told them they were wrong, tell us what they said. Or couldn't you hear because they were laughing too hard?
Click to expand...

All it takes is capital to purchase justice under our form of Capitalism.   Start a gofundme page or simply be "too chicken" because you are full of fallacy.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you are being deliberately ignorant of the fourteenth Amendment. States cannot violate the Constitution, which means that if the Federal government is prohibited from infringing on the people's right to bear arms, so are the states.
> 
> 
> 
> Only well-regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that is incorrect, as the SC has found. You do remember them, don't you, the ones with the final say on the Constitution? IOW, your statement is false because you have to add what is not there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can they explain why they ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the End to the Means in those decisions?
> 
> If not,
> 
> Amendment X
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To hold as they should have (sticking down all federal gun laws) would have cause a massive panic by the control freak Karens when the unlimited sale of machine guns instantly becomes legal.
> 
> I don't like their departure from rules of interpretation either, but you are doing the exact same thing.  You have done nothing but add to and take away from the very plain meaning--fed gov shall not infringe on the right of the people--FOR ANY REASON.
> 
> Now that you have become a goddamn broken record again and have absolutely nothing useful to say, it's back on IGNORE for your illegal ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment not the unorganized militia of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is silly because the 2nd amendment is not at all the source of individual gun rights.
> The 2nd amendment is only a strict and total prohibition on any federal jurisdiction over firearms.
> Sure it gives a reason why, but clearly it is not the only reason why, and why does not really even matter, since the point is still that the federal government shall make no law at all infringing on gun rights of anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't.  It says well regulated militia of the People shall not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> That is still true today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're just making that up. It says the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed, not the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are just making that stuff up.  The People are the Militia.  Thus, the Militia are the People. They are not seperate.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
Click to expand...

Which is your way of admitting that the people have the right to bear arms.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment not the unorganized militia of the People.
> 
> 
> 
> I see no such qualification in the 2A.  That's like saying only groups have the right to assemble under the 1A.
> 
> Quit making up fake requirements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance or a fallacy of composition.  Our Second Amendment is express not implied in any way.  The terms used are very clear and not ambiguous in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is correct. The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. It's very clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, the People who are a well regulated militia and thus Necessary to the security of a free State.   All terms are collective and plural not individual or singular.
Click to expand...

Same then with the First. What registered protest group are you in?


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Palos sees this when he reads the 2A:
> 
> _A well-regulated national guard is the militia and only the right of members of the national guard to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed while they are members of the national guard._
> 
> Yes.  It is literally that stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> The People who are the national guard are the militia.  See how that works.  Why mention the militia at all if it means nothing to right wingers?
Click to expand...

That's not what you've been endlessly regurgitating. You keep saying that the militia is the whole people, thus negating your own argument. Please pick a horse and stay on it.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you are being deliberately ignorant of the fourteenth Amendment. States cannot violate the Constitution, which means that if the Federal government is prohibited from infringing on the people's right to bear arms, so are the states.
> 
> 
> 
> Only well-regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that is incorrect, as the SC has found. You do remember them, don't you, the ones with the final say on the Constitution? IOW, your statement is false because you have to add what is not there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can they explain why they ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the End to the Means in those decisions?
> 
> If not,
> 
> Amendment X
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To hold as they should have (sticking down all federal gun laws) would have cause a massive panic by the control freak Karens when the unlimited sale of machine guns instantly becomes legal.
> 
> I don't like their departure from rules of interpretation either, but you are doing the exact same thing.  You have done nothing but add to and take away from the very plain meaning--fed gov shall not infringe on the right of the people--FOR ANY REASON.
> 
> Now that you have become a goddamn broken record again and have absolutely nothing useful to say, it's back on IGNORE for your illegal ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment not the unorganized militia of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just made that up. It's not in the Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not what it says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is.
Click to expand...

No, it says the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. You know this, yet keep yammering on.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you are being deliberately ignorant of the fourteenth Amendment. States cannot violate the Constitution, which means that if the Federal government is prohibited from infringing on the people's right to bear arms, so are the states.
> 
> 
> 
> Only well-regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that is incorrect, as the SC has found. You do remember them, don't you, the ones with the final say on the Constitution? IOW, your statement is false because you have to add what is not there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can they explain why they ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the End to the Means in those decisions?
> 
> If not,
> 
> Amendment X
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did they say when you notified them they got it wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are welcome to start a gofundme page to purchase some quality time before the Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't need to. You think they got it wrong, so what did they say when you told them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Start a gofundme account so we can find out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You told them they were wrong, tell us what they said. Or couldn't you hear because they were laughing too hard?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All it takes is capital to purchase justice under our form of Capitalism.   Start a gofundme page or simply be "too chicken" because you are full of fallacy.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying they were wrong. I'm not saying my legal expertise is greater than theirs. That's all you. Now, since I'm sure you served notice to the Supreme Court that an internet keyboard jockey has said they are wrong and he is right, what did they say in reply and how long will it be before they issue a proclamation declaring you to be the ultimate source of legal expertise?


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> Which is your way of admitting that the people have the right to bear arms.


Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment unlike the unorganized militia of the whole and entire People who are subject to the police power of a State.  

This is a State's sovereign Right:

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> Same then with the First. What registered protest group are you in?


Where does it say that in the "prefatory clause"?


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Palos sees this when he reads the 2A:
> 
> _A well-regulated national guard is the militia and only the right of members of the national guard to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed while they are members of the national guard._
> 
> Yes.  It is literally that stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> The People who are the national guard are the militia.  See how that works.  Why mention the militia at all if it means nothing to right wingers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not what you've been endlessly regurgitating. You keep saying that the militia is the whole people, thus negating your own argument. Please pick a horse and stay on it.
Click to expand...

That is your straw man argument. 

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you are being deliberately ignorant of the fourteenth Amendment. States cannot violate the Constitution, which means that if the Federal government is prohibited from infringing on the people's right to bear arms, so are the states.
> 
> 
> 
> Only well-regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that is incorrect, as the SC has found. You do remember them, don't you, the ones with the final say on the Constitution? IOW, your statement is false because you have to add what is not there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can they explain why they ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the End to the Means in those decisions?
> 
> If not,
> 
> Amendment X
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To hold as they should have (sticking down all federal gun laws) would have cause a massive panic by the control freak Karens when the unlimited sale of machine guns instantly becomes legal.
> 
> I don't like their departure from rules of interpretation either, but you are doing the exact same thing.  You have done nothing but add to and take away from the very plain meaning--fed gov shall not infringe on the right of the people--FOR ANY REASON.
> 
> Now that you have become a goddamn broken record again and have absolutely nothing useful to say, it's back on IGNORE for your illegal ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment not the unorganized militia of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just made that up. It's not in the Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not what it says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it says the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. You know this, yet keep yammering on.
Click to expand...

No, it says well regulated militia of the People have a right to keep and bear Arms for the security needs of their State (or the Union).


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you are being deliberately ignorant of the fourteenth Amendment. States cannot violate the Constitution, which means that if the Federal government is prohibited from infringing on the people's right to bear arms, so are the states.
> 
> 
> 
> Only well-regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that is incorrect, as the SC has found. You do remember them, don't you, the ones with the final say on the Constitution? IOW, your statement is false because you have to add what is not there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can they explain why they ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the End to the Means in those decisions?
> 
> If not,
> 
> Amendment X
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did they say when you notified them they got it wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are welcome to start a gofundme page to purchase some quality time before the Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't need to. You think they got it wrong, so what did they say when you told them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Start a gofundme account so we can find out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You told them they were wrong, tell us what they said. Or couldn't you hear because they were laughing too hard?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All it takes is capital to purchase justice under our form of Capitalism.   Start a gofundme page or simply be "too chicken" because you are full of fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not saying they were wrong. I'm not saying my legal expertise is greater than theirs. That's all you. Now, since I'm sure you served notice to the Supreme Court that an internet keyboard jockey has said they are wrong and he is right, what did they say in reply and how long will it be before they issue a proclamation declaring you to be the ultimate source of legal expertise?
Click to expand...

Where is Your argument and notice before the Court?


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The intent was to not have a standing army, and instead have the states encourage personal firearm ownership and group training so that the feds could call upon them when necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure how you reached your conclusion.  GI stands for general issue; that includes Arms.
> 
> To provide for organizing, *arming*, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Click to expand...


GI has usually meant "Government Issue" as in the GI Bill for veteran's education.

But what does "To provide for organizing, *arming*, and disciplining, the Militia", have to do with anything?
When the government provides for widows and orphans, that does not mean the government is the only source of support for widows and orphans or that the government then somehow is supposed to own the widows and orphans.
It just means the government is ALLOWED to do provide support if it decides it wants to.
And of course in time of emergencies like invasion, then the government would want to provided for turning the disorganized militia into an organized defense force.
The point of this article is that for the federal government to be able to allocate any funding for anything, it has to be specifically authorized to be able to make that expenditure of our money.  So to pay for an army for defense from invasion, then this article was needed in order to allow that.
It says nothing about where the troops should come from or how they would gain arms expertise.  
Nor does it say what the main purpose of those men at arms would be when not needed for any national emergency.
For clearly the MAIN use of men at arms in any country is much greater on the state, local, and individual level.  Even more so back then when there were no police and there were many more local threats, and very few national threats.

To put this into perspective, the Confederate arsenals provided by the states, held a total of 160,000 small arms, while the Confederate arsenals had to support an army that would grow from 750,000 to 1,000,000 men.  So then clearly the vast majority of the Confederate forces were using personal arms.  And the Union started with a similar ratio, until they ramped up production.  No one would ever try to pay for and store even a fraction of the arms one would need for some unexpected emergency like invasion.  Arms stored in armories would be a terrible idea in that the people would not be familiar with them in time, and they would soon become obsolete as weapons rapidly keep changing and improving.  Some arms are always put into armories, but it is considered a small and temporary buffer and not the main means of arms.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> But what does "To provide for organizing, *arming*, and disciplining, the Militia", have to do with anything?


lol.  Government issue.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if we can be restricted on firearms, then we don't have the authority to arm a military.
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea how you arrived at that conclusion.
> 
> To provide for organizing, *arming*, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Click to expand...


It seems you are assuming that legal authority comes from and originates with legislation, and that is incorrect.
Legal authority has to come first, BEFORE you have the delegated authority to be able to write legislation.
This is not an authoritarian dictatorship, so the only source of any legal authority comes from the inherent rights of all individuals.

The fact congress can pen legislation allowing for tax money to be spent on defensive arms, comes from the fact we all as individuals have that defensive individual rights, so then can delegate some of that inherent authority to a government to do it for us.  It does not come from government or those who pen legislation for us.  It comes from us as individuals, and those acting under the authority we delegate to them, can not then interfere at all in the primary source, our individual right of defense.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if we can be restricted on firearms, then we don't have the authority to arm a military.
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea how you arrived at that conclusion.
> 
> To provide for organizing, *arming*, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It seems you are assuming that legal authority comes from and originates with legislation, and that is incorrect.
> Legal authority has to come first, BEFORE you have the delegated authority to be able to write legislation.
> This is not an authoritarian dictatorship, so the only source of any legal authority comes from the inherent rights of all individuals.
> 
> The fact congress can pen legislation allowing for tax money to be spent on defensive arms, comes from the fact we all as individuals have that defensive individual rights, so then can delegate some of that inherent authority to a government to do it for us.  It does not come from government or those who pen legislation for us.  It comes from us as individuals, and those acting under the authority we delegate to them, can not then interfere at all in the primary source, our individual right of defense.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you are talking about. 

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you are being deliberately ignorant of the fourteenth Amendment. States cannot violate the Constitution, which means that if the Federal government is prohibited from infringing on the people's right to bear arms, so are the states.
> 
> 
> 
> Only well-regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that is incorrect, as the SC has found. You do remember them, don't you, the ones with the final say on the Constitution? IOW, your statement is false because you have to add what is not there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can they explain why they ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the End to the Means in those decisions?
> 
> If not,
> 
> Amendment X
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To hold as they should have (sticking down all federal gun laws) would have cause a massive panic by the control freak Karens when the unlimited sale of machine guns instantly becomes legal.
> 
> I don't like their departure from rules of interpretation either, but you are doing the exact same thing.  You have done nothing but add to and take away from the very plain meaning--fed gov shall not infringe on the right of the people--FOR ANY REASON.
> 
> Now that you have become a goddamn broken record again and have absolutely nothing useful to say, it's back on IGNORE for your illegal ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment not the unorganized militia of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is silly because the 2nd amendment is not at all the source of individual gun rights.
> The 2nd amendment is only a strict and total prohibition on any federal jurisdiction over firearms.
> Sure it gives a reason why, but clearly it is not the only reason why, and why does not really even matter, since the point is still that the federal government shall make no law at all infringing on gun rights of anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't.  It says well regulated militia of the People shall not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> That is still true today.
Click to expand...


Not it does not.
It is clear they are listing a reason why the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed, but it does not at all imply in any way that is the ONLY reason.
And in fact is never mentions that arms were necessary for the Union at all.
Implying that states may need arms against the Union if the Union were to become corrupt, just as the British rule had become corrupt and an armed rebellion warranted.

Nor does your version mention that bearing arms is an individual right.
If they were referring to weapons stored in federal armories, then no restriction in the Bill of Rights would have been necessary.  
Why would you need to prohibit federal infringement on federal armories?
That makes no sense at all.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you are being deliberately ignorant of the fourteenth Amendment. States cannot violate the Constitution, which means that if the Federal government is prohibited from infringing on the people's right to bear arms, so are the states.
> 
> 
> 
> Only well-regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that is incorrect, as the SC has found. You do remember them, don't you, the ones with the final say on the Constitution? IOW, your statement is false because you have to add what is not there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can they explain why they ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the End to the Means in those decisions?
> 
> If not,
> 
> Amendment X
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To hold as they should have (sticking down all federal gun laws) would have cause a massive panic by the control freak Karens when the unlimited sale of machine guns instantly becomes legal.
> 
> I don't like their departure from rules of interpretation either, but you are doing the exact same thing.  You have done nothing but add to and take away from the very plain meaning--fed gov shall not infringe on the right of the people--FOR ANY REASON.
> 
> Now that you have become a goddamn broken record again and have absolutely nothing useful to say, it's back on IGNORE for your illegal ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment not the unorganized militia of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is silly because the 2nd amendment is not at all the source of individual gun rights.
> The 2nd amendment is only a strict and total prohibition on any federal jurisdiction over firearms.
> Sure it gives a reason why, but clearly it is not the only reason why, and why does not really even matter, since the point is still that the federal government shall make no law at all infringing on gun rights of anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn't.  It says well regulated militia of the People shall not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> That is still true today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're just making that up. It says the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed, not the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are just making that stuff up.  The People are the Militia.  Thus, the Militia are the People. They are not seperate.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
Click to expand...


Wrong.
The militia is a subset of the People.
If the adult male of the homestead is off hunting and a bear threatens, then a juvenile or female would need arms to deal with the local threat.
The point being that the inherent right of individual defense does not require arms only for national defense.
Arms are needed for the individual right of defense, by the entire population, not just those capable of joining a militia.

You are constantly switching what you mean by the militia.
If the militia is the People, then it includes juveniles and women as well, and is nothing at all like the restricted subset we might call the National Guard.

And the 2nd amendment can't just be referring to a subset because the need for defense is individual, coming from an individual inherent right.  Nor can it then imply something under federal control like the National Guard, which is not even supposed to exist between national emergencies.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment not the unorganized militia of the People.
> 
> 
> 
> I see no such qualification in the 2A.  That's like saying only groups have the right to assemble under the 1A.
> 
> Quit making up fake requirements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance or a fallacy of composition.  Our Second Amendment is express not implied in any way.  The terms used are very clear and not ambiguous in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is correct. The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. It's very clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, the People who are a well regulated militia and thus Necessary to the security of a free State.   All terms are collective and plural not individual or singular.
Click to expand...


The word "People" is all inclusive.
It leaves no one out.
Therefore has to imply it is an individual rights.
And we know it has to be because in a democratic republic, no legislation can be penned at all unless it is authorized by inherent individual rights.
There can not be a collective right because there would not be any authority to create a collective entity unless there was an inherent individual right preceding its creation.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> Not it does not.
> It is clear they are listing a reason why the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed, but it does not at all imply in any way that is the ONLY reason.


Yes, it does and you are simply wrong, like usual for the Right Wing who are Always Right, in right wing fantasy.

The People are the Militia.  Our Second Amendment simply specifies which persons of the People are necessary to the security of a free State.  A well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment, unlike the unorganized militia of the People. 

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> The militia is a subset of the People.


Wrong.  The People are the Militia.  Well regulated militia of the People is a subset of the whole and entire People.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment not the unorganized militia of the People.
> 
> 
> 
> I see no such qualification in the 2A.  That's like saying only groups have the right to assemble under the 1A.
> 
> Quit making up fake requirements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance or a fallacy of composition.  Our Second Amendment is express not implied in any way.  The terms used are very clear and not ambiguous in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is correct. The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. It's very clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, the People who are a well regulated militia and thus Necessary to the security of a free State.   All terms are collective and plural not individual or singular.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The word "People" is all inclusive.
> It leaves no one out.
> Therefore has to imply it is an individual rights.
> And we know it has to be because in a democratic republic, no legislation can be penned at all unless it is authorized by inherent individual rights.
> There can not be a collective right because there would not be any authority to create a collective entity unless there was an inherent individual right preceding its creation.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is all inclusive.  The people are the militia, all inclusively.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Palos sees this when he reads the 2A:
> 
> _A well-regulated national guard is the militia and only the right of members of the national guard to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed while they are members of the national guard._
> 
> Yes.  It is literally that stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> The People who are the national guard are the militia.  See how that works.  Why mention the militia at all if it means nothing to right wingers?
Click to expand...


Makes no sense at all.
The People is everyone.  The superset of all living humans within the borders, including women and children.
For everyone has rights, even if they are infants and can't bear arms.
The national guard are a very small subset of the people, who not only decide they are willing to accept the rank, but are also found to be acceptable and necessary to the government.
And the militia are a middle group who might include neighbors who would act to protect others when the need arises, such as volunteering for a posse to catch bank robbers.
The People, National Guard, and Militia are 3 distinct and different groups.

But going back to the 2nd amendment, listing 1 reason why something is true, does not imply there are not other reasons.  The Constitution continually admits it does not try to enumerate, since justifications could be infinite and impossible to enumerate.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> Makes no sense at all.
> The People is everyone.


Why mention what is Necessary to the security of a free State, if that is not what was Intended?


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if we can be restricted on firearms, then we don't have the authority to arm a military.
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea how you arrived at that conclusion.
> 
> To provide for organizing, *arming*, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It seems you are assuming that legal authority comes from and originates with legislation, and that is incorrect.
> Legal authority has to come first, BEFORE you have the delegated authority to be able to write legislation.
> This is not an authoritarian dictatorship, so the only source of any legal authority comes from the inherent rights of all individuals.
> 
> The fact congress can pen legislation allowing for tax money to be spent on defensive arms, comes from the fact we all as individuals have that defensive individual rights, so then can delegate some of that inherent authority to a government to do it for us.  It does not come from government or those who pen legislation for us.  It comes from us as individuals, and those acting under the authority we delegate to them, can not then interfere at all in the primary source, our individual right of defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no idea what you are talking about.
> 
> This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Click to expand...


This is NOT claiming the Constitution is the source of legal authority.
This is saying the Constitution is the supreme legislation, meaning attempt at defining and defending inherent individual rights, which are the actual source of legal authority.

Go back to the Declaration of Independence.
It says that inherent individual rights are the only source of legal authority, and that is where the authority to rebel, to be able to form a new government, and to write a constitution came from.
So the constitution is not the source.
Inherent individual rights are the source.
So then it is totally wrong to claim wording in a document subordinate to inherent individual rights, is the only source of individual rights.  

The individual right to arms does not come from the 2nd amendment, but if the right to arms was considered so important by the founders, that they had to prevent infringement by the federal government, then clearly the shadow of the individual right cast by this federal restriction indicates no one should infringe upon it.
Use the same penumbra argument used by the SCOTUS to define what the individual right to privacy is.
It also is not enumerated and well defined.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> The militia is a subset of the People.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  The People are the Militia.  Well regulated militia of the People is a subset of the whole and entire People.
Click to expand...


But the 2nd amendment says that the right of the whole People to bear arms shall not be infringed.
It did not just say that a subset was only to be protected.
That is the whole point of the argument, in that you seem to keep getting this backwards.

I agree that the first clause of the 2nd amendment refers only to a subset of the People, the militia.
But it implies that is not the only reason or need, because the main clause clearly makes no implication of a limited subset.
It says the right of the whole People to be armed shall not be infringed upon.
Another reason for this is likely that a militia likely can not even be identified before hand, and is created spontaneously as needed.  Therefore you have to have an well armed general population in order to effectively be able to call up a militia when needed.
It can't be referring to a federal force like the National Guard because the 2nd amendment makes no sense then.
It would be like saying, "A federal National Guard being necessary for a free state, the right of the federal National Guard to bear arms shall not be infringed by the federal government".


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment not the unorganized militia of the People.
> 
> 
> 
> I see no such qualification in the 2A.  That's like saying only groups have the right to assemble under the 1A.
> 
> Quit making up fake requirements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance or a fallacy of composition.  Our Second Amendment is express not implied in any way.  The terms used are very clear and not ambiguous in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is correct. The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. It's very clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, the People who are a well regulated militia and thus Necessary to the security of a free State.   All terms are collective and plural not individual or singular.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The word "People" is all inclusive.
> It leaves no one out.
> Therefore has to imply it is an individual rights.
> And we know it has to be because in a democratic republic, no legislation can be penned at all unless it is authorized by inherent individual rights.
> There can not be a collective right because there would not be any authority to create a collective entity unless there was an inherent individual right preceding its creation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is all inclusive.  The people are the militia, all inclusively.
Click to expand...


No it is not.
The militia can not include all the People.
Does it include infants?
Clearly not, as you would not allow infants near firearms under any circumstances.

The People are the larger superset, of which the militia is a smaller subset.
All People have inherent rights.
But you would not likely include convicted criminals serving sentences, in the militia.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Makes no sense at all.
> The People is everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> Why mention what is Necessary to the security of a free State, if that is not what was Intended?
Click to expand...


For several reasons.
One is that if you can give a good argument or justification for something, that is likely to get more people to accept it, without any intent of it being the ONLY reason or justification for it.
Another is that since they just came through a bloody rebellion against a corrupt central government, they likely were saying that it was important to be able to ensure such a rebellion was always possible whenever it becomes necessary again in the future.  
Any democratic republic is ultimately dependent upon the ability of the people to rebel against government corruption and injustice.
That will always be the case.
Its a universal truth.
The inherent rights of individual has to always have superior means of force in democratic republic.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> This is NOT claiming the Constitution is the source of legal authority.
> This is saying the Constitution is the supreme legislation, meaning attempt at defining and defending inherent individual rights, which are the actual source of legal authority.


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The People are the Militia of the United States.  

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> The militia is a subset of the People.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  The People are the Militia.  Well regulated militia of the People is a subset of the whole and entire People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the 2nd amendment says that the right of the whole People to bear arms shall not be infringed.
> It did not just say that a subset was only to be protected.
> That is the whole point of the argument, in that you seem to keep getting this backwards.
> 
> I agree that the first clause of the 2nd amendment refers only to a subset of the People, the militia.
> But it implies that is not the only reason or need, because the main clause clearly makes no implication of a limited subset.
> It says the right of the whole People to be armed shall not be infringed upon.
> Another reason for this is likely that a militia likely can not even be identified before hand, and is created spontaneously as needed.  Therefore you have to have an well armed general population in order to effectively be able to call up a militia when needed.
> It can't be referring to a federal force like the National Guard because the 2nd amendment makes no sense then.
> It would be like saying, "A federal National Guard being necessary for a free state, the right of the federal National Guard to bear arms shall not be infringed by the federal government".
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't.  It says well regulated militia of the whole and entire people are necessary to the security of our free States.

A well regulated Militia (of the whole People), being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the (well-regulated militia of the) people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> No it is not.
> The militia can not include all the People.
> Does it include infants?


Your straw man argument is disingenuous.  Infants can't keep and bear Arms, either.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> For several reasons.
> One is that if you can give a good argument or justification for something, that is likely to get more people to accept it, without any intent of it being the ONLY reason or justification for it.


Isn't right wing fantasy wonderful?  

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

The organized militia has literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for the security needs of their State or the Union.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is your way of admitting that the people have the right to bear arms.
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment unlike the unorganized militia of the whole and entire People who are subject to the police power of a State.
> 
> This is a State's sovereign Right:
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
Click to expand...


What do you think "police power" is, considering that police did not really exist in any number until around 1900?
Police power is not a government power, but the right of defense of inherent individual rights.
When you arrest someone for a crime like murder or rape, it is not coming from any authority of government, but the defense of inherent individual rights.
If a member of the US military commits murder, you have the authority to arrest them in order to prevent more murders and punish the one already committed.

And a small side point, but states do not have sovereign Rights really.
Only individuals have rights because rights imply they are inherent.
States only have delegated authority because they are not inherent, but are created, and can be limited in authority as the people decide to.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not it does not.
> It is clear they are listing a reason why the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed, but it does not at all imply in any way that is the ONLY reason.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does and you are simply wrong, like usual for the Right Wing who are Always Right, in right wing fantasy.
> 
> The People are the Militia.  Our Second Amendment simply specifies which persons of the People are necessary to the security of a free State.  A well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment, unlike the unorganized militia of the People.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
Click to expand...


Way wrong.
First of all I am far LEFT of anyone here, as a socialist, progressive, liberal, left wing extremist.
Second is that you can't say the People are the militia in one breath and then say the People can have firearm restrictions and while the militia can't in another breath.  You clearly are making a contradiction.
While militia may be the main reason why federal firearm laws are to be prohibited, it is clear that the whole People are to be free of any federal firearm laws, not just the militia.
Nor does it matter why.
All the matters is that the 2nd amendment prohibits any and all federal firearms legislation.

Quoting Mason does not help your case, because it likely was intended to be humor, but if not, could simply be wrong.
As an example of a big historical mistake, I refer you to the Dred Scott Decision.
Quoting a mistake by a historical figure does not make something more right.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it is not.
> The militia can not include all the People.
> Does it include infants?
> 
> 
> 
> Your straw man argument is disingenuous.  Infants can't keep and bear Arms, either.
Click to expand...


Correct, that you can not let infants keep or bear arms.
But that is NOT due to federal law.
That rightfully and legally is legislated by the states.

Obviously gun laws should always only be by state and municipality.
For example, I would legislate it to be legal for those as young as 15 to be able to bear arms in bear or snake country, but a total ban on unregistered firearms might be understandable in a place like NYC or DC.
The federal government obviously has no authority, business, or need to make any firearm laws.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment not the unorganized militia of the People.
> 
> 
> 
> I see no such qualification in the 2A.  That's like saying only groups have the right to assemble under the 1A.
> 
> Quit making up fake requirements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance or a fallacy of composition.  Our Second Amendment is express not implied in any way.  The terms used are very clear and not ambiguous in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is correct. The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. It's very clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, the People who are a well regulated militia and thus Necessary to the security of a free State.   All terms are collective and plural not individual or singular.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The word "People" is all inclusive.
> It leaves no one out.
> Therefore has to imply it is an individual rights.
> And we know it has to be because in a democratic republic, no legislation can be penned at all unless it is authorized by inherent individual rights.
> There can not be a collective right because there would not be any authority to create a collective entity unless there was an inherent individual right preceding its creation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is all inclusive.  The people are the militia, all inclusively.
Click to expand...


Impossible for the people to be the militia, all inclusively. 
The militia is who can legally bear arms for defense.
And clearly those incarcerated can not, even though they still have rights and are part of the People as a whole.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is your way of admitting that the people have the right to bear arms.
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment unlike the unorganized militia of the whole and entire People who are subject to the police power of a State.
> 
> This is a State's sovereign Right:
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you think "police power" is, considering that police did not really exist in any number until around 1900?
> Police power is not a government power, but the right of defense of inherent individual rights.
> When you arrest someone for a crime like murder or rape, it is not coming from any authority of government, but the defense of inherent individual rights.
> If a member of the US military commits murder, you have the authority to arrest them in order to prevent more murders and punish the one already committed.
> 
> And a small side point, but states do not have sovereign Rights really.
> Only individuals have rights because rights imply they are inherent.
> States only have delegated authority because they are not inherent, but are created, and can be limited in authority as the people decide to.
Click to expand...

Link?  You are only Always Right, in right wing fantasy.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.--The Federalist Number Forty-Five.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not it does not.
> It is clear they are listing a reason why the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed, but it does not at all imply in any way that is the ONLY reason.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does and you are simply wrong, like usual for the Right Wing who are Always Right, in right wing fantasy.
> 
> The People are the Militia.  Our Second Amendment simply specifies which persons of the People are necessary to the security of a free State.  A well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment, unlike the unorganized militia of the People.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Way wrong.
> First of all I am far LEFT of anyone here, as a socialist, progressive, liberal, left wing extremist.
> Second is that you can't say the People are the militia in one breath and then say the People can have firearm restrictions and while the militia can't in another breath.  You clearly are making a contradiction.
> While militia may be the main reason why federal firearm laws are to be prohibited, it is clear that the whole People are to be free of any federal firearm laws, not just the militia.
> Nor does it matter why.
> All the matters is that the 2nd amendment prohibits any and all federal firearms legislation.
> 
> Quoting Mason does not help your case, because it likely was intended to be humor, but if not, could simply be wrong.
> As an example of a big historical mistake, I refer you to the Dred Scott Decision.
> Quoting a mistake by a historical figure does not make something more right.
Click to expand...

You don't know what you are talking about and have no rational argument. 

You can't ignore the first clause of the Second Amendment.  It Must mean something.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it is not.
> The militia can not include all the People.
> Does it include infants?
> 
> 
> 
> Your straw man argument is disingenuous.  Infants can't keep and bear Arms, either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct, that you can not let infants keep or bear arms.
> But that is NOT due to federal law.
> That rightfully and legally is legislated by the states.
> 
> Obviously gun laws should always only be by state and municipality.
> For example, I would legislate it to be legal for those as young as 15 to be able to bear arms in bear or snake country, but a total ban on unregistered firearms might be understandable in a place like NYC or DC.
> The federal government obviously has no authority, business, or need to make any firearm laws.
Click to expand...

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is your way of admitting that the people have the right to bear arms.
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment unlike the unorganized militia of the whole and entire People who are subject to the police power of a State.
> 
> This is a State's sovereign Right:
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you think "police power" is, considering that police did not really exist in any number until around 1900?
> Police power is not a government power, but the right of defense of inherent individual rights.
> When you arrest someone for a crime like murder or rape, it is not coming from any authority of government, but the defense of inherent individual rights.
> If a member of the US military commits murder, you have the authority to arrest them in order to prevent more murders and punish the one already committed.
> 
> And a small side point, but states do not have sovereign Rights really.
> Only individuals have rights because rights imply they are inherent.
> States only have delegated authority because they are not inherent, but are created, and can be limited in authority as the people decide to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?  You are only Always Right, in right wing fantasy.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.--The Federalist Number Forty-Five.
Click to expand...


Again you make the mistake of assuming I am right wing, when in reality I am extreme left wing, liberal, progressive, socialist.

And I don't get the point to the rest, since it says federal powers are to be very limited, and isn't it your position that federal gun control is legal, which is not at all a limited federal power?


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment not the unorganized militia of the People.
> 
> 
> 
> I see no such qualification in the 2A.  That's like saying only groups have the right to assemble under the 1A.
> 
> Quit making up fake requirements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance or a fallacy of composition.  Our Second Amendment is express not implied in any way.  The terms used are very clear and not ambiguous in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is correct. The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. It's very clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, the People who are a well regulated militia and thus Necessary to the security of a free State.   All terms are collective and plural not individual or singular.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The word "People" is all inclusive.
> It leaves no one out.
> Therefore has to imply it is an individual rights.
> And we know it has to be because in a democratic republic, no legislation can be penned at all unless it is authorized by inherent individual rights.
> There can not be a collective right because there would not be any authority to create a collective entity unless there was an inherent individual right preceding its creation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is all inclusive.  The people are the militia, all inclusively.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Impossible for the people to be the militia, all inclusively.
> The militia is who can legally bear arms for defense.
> And clearly those incarcerated can not, even though they still have rights and are part of the People as a whole.
Click to expand...

This came up for actual debate, right wingers. 

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is your way of admitting that the people have the right to bear arms.
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment unlike the unorganized militia of the whole and entire People who are subject to the police power of a State.
> 
> This is a State's sovereign Right:
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you think "police power" is, considering that police did not really exist in any number until around 1900?
> Police power is not a government power, but the right of defense of inherent individual rights.
> When you arrest someone for a crime like murder or rape, it is not coming from any authority of government, but the defense of inherent individual rights.
> If a member of the US military commits murder, you have the authority to arrest them in order to prevent more murders and punish the one already committed.
> 
> And a small side point, but states do not have sovereign Rights really.
> Only individuals have rights because rights imply they are inherent.
> States only have delegated authority because they are not inherent, but are created, and can be limited in authority as the people decide to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?  You are only Always Right, in right wing fantasy.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.--The Federalist Number Forty-Five.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again you make the mistake of assuming I am right wing, when in reality I am extreme left wing, liberal, progressive, socialist.
> 
> And I don't get the point to the rest, since it says federal powers are to be very limited, and isn't it your position that federal gun control is legal, which is not at all a limited federal power?
Click to expand...

All you have is Right-Wing arguments.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not it does not.
> It is clear they are listing a reason why the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed, but it does not at all imply in any way that is the ONLY reason.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does and you are simply wrong, like usual for the Right Wing who are Always Right, in right wing fantasy.
> 
> The People are the Militia.  Our Second Amendment simply specifies which persons of the People are necessary to the security of a free State.  A well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment, unlike the unorganized militia of the People.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Way wrong.
> First of all I am far LEFT of anyone here, as a socialist, progressive, liberal, left wing extremist.
> Second is that you can't say the People are the militia in one breath and then say the People can have firearm restrictions and while the militia can't in another breath.  You clearly are making a contradiction.
> While militia may be the main reason why federal firearm laws are to be prohibited, it is clear that the whole People are to be free of any federal firearm laws, not just the militia.
> Nor does it matter why.
> All the matters is that the 2nd amendment prohibits any and all federal firearms legislation.
> 
> Quoting Mason does not help your case, because it likely was intended to be humor, but if not, could simply be wrong.
> As an example of a big historical mistake, I refer you to the Dred Scott Decision.
> Quoting a mistake by a historical figure does not make something more right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about and have no rational argument.
> 
> You can't ignore the first clause of the Second Amendment.  It Must mean something.
Click to expand...


Sure the leading clause means something, but not what you claim it means.
The militia is not defined ahead of need like the National Guard is.
So for the militia to be available if an emergency comes up that needs an armed force, you can't allow any federal gun control laws.  
Federal gun control could prevent there from being a well armed militia when it became necessary.
So clearly that is why  the 2nd amendment was specifically put in.
It makes no sense for the 2nd amendment to mean a force that is already federal and armed by the federal government, like the National Guard.
Clearly the founders were hedging their bets on this new federal government they were going to try out, and wanted a means of rebellion in case things did not work out.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> Sure the leading clause means something, but not what you claim it means.
> The militia is not defined ahead of need like the National Guard is.


Yes, it is.  You can't appeal to ignorance. 

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment not the unorganized militia of the People.
> 
> 
> 
> I see no such qualification in the 2A.  That's like saying only groups have the right to assemble under the 1A.
> 
> Quit making up fake requirements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance or a fallacy of composition.  Our Second Amendment is express not implied in any way.  The terms used are very clear and not ambiguous in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is correct. The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. It's very clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, the People who are a well regulated militia and thus Necessary to the security of a free State.   All terms are collective and plural not individual or singular.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The word "People" is all inclusive.
> It leaves no one out.
> Therefore has to imply it is an individual rights.
> And we know it has to be because in a democratic republic, no legislation can be penned at all unless it is authorized by inherent individual rights.
> There can not be a collective right because there would not be any authority to create a collective entity unless there was an inherent individual right preceding its creation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is all inclusive.  The people are the militia, all inclusively.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Impossible for the people to be the militia, all inclusively.
> The militia is who can legally bear arms for defense.
> And clearly those incarcerated can not, even though they still have rights and are part of the People as a whole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This came up for actual debate, right wingers.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
Click to expand...


Well a person who was wrong in 1788 does not help your position now, because they are still wrong.
The militia is not the whole people but only a subset.
For example, infants, the insane, and those incarcerated are part of the People, but not acceptable in the militia.
Where you draw the line depends upon immediate circumstances.
For example, if we were attacked and losing, we might consider emptying the prisons if they promise to defend.
Which is why you have to maintain control over firearms on the local level and not federal.
Never federal, as the federal government is always the least responsive, equitable, adaptive, or reliable.
It we ever need a rebellion, it is likely to be against the federal government, not state or local.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is your way of admitting that the people have the right to bear arms.
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment unlike the unorganized militia of the whole and entire People who are subject to the police power of a State.
> 
> This is a State's sovereign Right:
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
Click to expand...

Again, you're making it up. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the citizens of Wyoming are bound by the police power of the state of Illinois. Let me know when you're ready to talk about the 2nd Amendment and what the plain language means. Just so you're clear, the law as it stands today is that individuals may own weapons.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same then with the First. What registered protest group are you in?
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that in the "prefatory clause"?
Click to expand...

There are no individual terms in the 1st Amendment, therefore it's not an individual right. That is your standard, correct?


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> Well a person who was wrong in 1788 does not help your position now, because they are still wrong.
> The militia is not the whole people but only a subset.


Link?

How is this in a State Constitution:

_The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._

If, that is not true?

_I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."_
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you are being deliberately ignorant of the fourteenth Amendment. States cannot violate the Constitution, which means that if the Federal government is prohibited from infringing on the people's right to bear arms, so are the states.
> 
> 
> 
> Only well-regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that is incorrect, as the SC has found. You do remember them, don't you, the ones with the final say on the Constitution? IOW, your statement is false because you have to add what is not there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can they explain why they ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the End to the Means in those decisions?
> 
> If not,
> 
> Amendment X
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did they say when you notified them they got it wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are welcome to start a gofundme page to purchase some quality time before the Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't need to. You think they got it wrong, so what did they say when you told them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Start a gofundme account so we can find out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You told them they were wrong, tell us what they said. Or couldn't you hear because they were laughing too hard?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All it takes is capital to purchase justice under our form of Capitalism.   Start a gofundme page or simply be "too chicken" because you are full of fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not saying they were wrong. I'm not saying my legal expertise is greater than theirs. That's all you. Now, since I'm sure you served notice to the Supreme Court that an internet keyboard jockey has said they are wrong and he is right, what did they say in reply and how long will it be before they issue a proclamation declaring you to be the ultimate source of legal expertise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where is Your argument and notice before the Court?
Click to expand...

Again, I don't need one. You are claiming they are wrong and your legal expertise is obviously higher than theirs, so what did they say when you told them they were wrong?


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is your way of admitting that the people have the right to bear arms.
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment unlike the unorganized militia of the whole and entire People who are subject to the police power of a State.
> 
> This is a State's sovereign Right:
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you're making it up. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the citizens of Wyoming are bound by the police power of the state of Illinois. Let me know when you're ready to talk about the 2nd Amendment and what the plain language means. Just so you're clear, the law as it stands today is that individuals may own weapons.
Click to expand...

I am making the Point that it is a Sovereign power of a free State of our Union.  Why is it that right wingers only seem to understand unitary forms of Government better than our own federal form of Constitutional Government?

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you are being deliberately ignorant of the fourteenth Amendment. States cannot violate the Constitution, which means that if the Federal government is prohibited from infringing on the people's right to bear arms, so are the states.
> 
> 
> 
> Only well-regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that is incorrect, as the SC has found. You do remember them, don't you, the ones with the final say on the Constitution? IOW, your statement is false because you have to add what is not there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can they explain why they ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the End to the Means in those decisions?
> 
> If not,
> 
> Amendment X
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did they say when you notified them they got it wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are welcome to start a gofundme page to purchase some quality time before the Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't need to. You think they got it wrong, so what did they say when you told them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Start a gofundme account so we can find out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You told them they were wrong, tell us what they said. Or couldn't you hear because they were laughing too hard?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All it takes is capital to purchase justice under our form of Capitalism.   Start a gofundme page or simply be "too chicken" because you are full of fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not saying they were wrong. I'm not saying my legal expertise is greater than theirs. That's all you. Now, since I'm sure you served notice to the Supreme Court that an internet keyboard jockey has said they are wrong and he is right, what did they say in reply and how long will it be before they issue a proclamation declaring you to be the ultimate source of legal expertise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where is Your argument and notice before the Court?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, I don't need one. You are claiming they are wrong and your legal expertise is obviously higher than theirs, so what did they say when you told them they were wrong?
Click to expand...

They can't tell I am wrong until it goes before that Court.  Put up the capital under our form of Capitalism or you have no point and no argument.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you are being deliberately ignorant of the fourteenth Amendment. States cannot violate the Constitution, which means that if the Federal government is prohibited from infringing on the people's right to bear arms, so are the states.
> 
> 
> 
> Only well-regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that is incorrect, as the SC has found. You do remember them, don't you, the ones with the final say on the Constitution? IOW, your statement is false because you have to add what is not there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can they explain why they ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the End to the Means in those decisions?
> 
> If not,
> 
> Amendment X
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To hold as they should have (sticking down all federal gun laws) would have cause a massive panic by the control freak Karens when the unlimited sale of machine guns instantly becomes legal.
> 
> I don't like their departure from rules of interpretation either, but you are doing the exact same thing.  You have done nothing but add to and take away from the very plain meaning--fed gov shall not infringe on the right of the people--FOR ANY REASON.
> 
> Now that you have become a goddamn broken record again and have absolutely nothing useful to say, it's back on IGNORE for your illegal ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment not the unorganized militia of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just made that up. It's not in the Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not what it says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it says the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. You know this, yet keep yammering on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it says well regulated militia of the People have a right to keep and bear Arms for the security needs of their State (or the Union).
Click to expand...

You're obviously not reading the text of the 2nd Amendment, because it doesn't say that. Check your law book. If it's written in crayon, throw it away because it's no good. Here's a hint, it actually says, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It does NOT say what you are claiming. So when you tell the SC they are wrong, be sure to quote what you think the 2nd says, because that will make everything clear to them. It won't stop them from laughing as you are dragged away, but it will make things clear.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is your way of admitting that the people have the right to bear arms.
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment unlike the unorganized militia of the whole and entire People who are subject to the police power of a State.
> 
> This is a State's sovereign Right:
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you're making it up. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the citizens of Wyoming are bound by the police power of the state of Illinois. Let me know when you're ready to talk about the 2nd Amendment and what the plain language means. Just so you're clear, the law as it stands today is that individuals may own weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am making the Point that it is a Sovereign power of a free State of our Union.  Why is it that right wingers only seem to understand unitary forms of Government better than our own federal form of Constitutional Government?
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
Click to expand...

And a state cannot write laws that are unconstitutional, therefore the 2nd Amendment applies them as well. And why don't you ever quote a different state's constitution?


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you are being deliberately ignorant of the fourteenth Amendment. States cannot violate the Constitution, which means that if the Federal government is prohibited from infringing on the people's right to bear arms, so are the states.
> 
> 
> 
> Only well-regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that is incorrect, as the SC has found. You do remember them, don't you, the ones with the final say on the Constitution? IOW, your statement is false because you have to add what is not there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can they explain why they ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the End to the Means in those decisions?
> 
> If not,
> 
> Amendment X
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did they say when you notified them they got it wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are welcome to start a gofundme page to purchase some quality time before the Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't need to. You think they got it wrong, so what did they say when you told them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Start a gofundme account so we can find out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You told them they were wrong, tell us what they said. Or couldn't you hear because they were laughing too hard?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All it takes is capital to purchase justice under our form of Capitalism.   Start a gofundme page or simply be "too chicken" because you are full of fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not saying they were wrong. I'm not saying my legal expertise is greater than theirs. That's all you. Now, since I'm sure you served notice to the Supreme Court that an internet keyboard jockey has said they are wrong and he is right, what did they say in reply and how long will it be before they issue a proclamation declaring you to be the ultimate source of legal expertise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where is Your argument and notice before the Court?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, I don't need one. You are claiming they are wrong and your legal expertise is obviously higher than theirs, so what did they say when you told them they were wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They can't tell I am wrong until it goes before that Court.  Put up the capital under our form of Capitalism or you have no point and no argument.
Click to expand...

Yet you claim that they are wrong. Why haven't you told them yet? Afraid they'll laugh you out of the building in shame?


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Palos sees this when he reads the 2A:
> 
> _A well-regulated national guard is the militia and only the right of members of the national guard to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed while they are members of the national guard._
> 
> Yes.  It is literally that stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> The People who are the national guard are the militia.  See how that works.  Why mention the militia at all if it means nothing to right wingers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not what you've been endlessly regurgitating. You keep saying that the militia is the whole people, thus negating your own argument. Please pick a horse and stay on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is your straw man argument.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
Click to expand...

It's not a straw man to note that you contradicted yourself.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment not the unorganized militia of the People.
> 
> 
> 
> I see no such qualification in the 2A.  That's like saying only groups have the right to assemble under the 1A.
> 
> Quit making up fake requirements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance or a fallacy of composition.  Our Second Amendment is express not implied in any way.  The terms used are very clear and not ambiguous in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is correct. The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. It's very clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, the People who are a well regulated militia and thus Necessary to the security of a free State.   All terms are collective and plural not individual or singular.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The word "People" is all inclusive.
> It leaves no one out.
> Therefore has to imply it is an individual rights.
> And we know it has to be because in a democratic republic, no legislation can be penned at all unless it is authorized by inherent individual rights.
> There can not be a collective right because there would not be any authority to create a collective entity unless there was an inherent individual right preceding its creation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is all inclusive.  The people are the militia, all inclusively.
Click to expand...

So then when you assert ad nauseum that the militia has the right to keep and bear arms, you're really saying that the PEOPLE have the right to keep and bear arms, thus making it an individual right, not a collective one. Good-bye, you ARE the weakest link, do not pass GO, do not collect $200, make sure to pay the receptionist on the way out.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> You are just making that stuff up. The People are the Militia. Thus, the Militia are the People. They are not seperate.


Thus, the right of the people (or the militia, because they are the same) shall not be infringed....PERIOD!!!!!  

You can't have it both ways, DAN.

Either the people are the militia, and the militia are the people, and the people's right shall not be infringed, or militia's right shall not be infringed, but they are one in the same, and therefore THE PEOPLE'S RIGHT SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!!


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

hadit said:


> So then when you assert ad nauseum that the militia has the right to keep and bear arms, you're really saying that the PEOPLE have the right to keep and bear arms, thus making it an individual right, not a collective one. Good-bye, you ARE the weakest link, do not pass GO, do not collect $200, make sure to pay the receptionist on the way out.


/thread

It's over.


----------



## hadit

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are just making that stuff up. The People are the Militia. Thus, the Militia are the People. They are not seperate.
> 
> 
> 
> Thus, the right of the people (or the militia, because they are the same) shall not be infringed....PERIOD!!!!!
> 
> You can't have it both ways, DAN.
> 
> Either the people are the militia, and the militia are the people, and the people's right shall not be infringed, or militia's right shall not be infringed, but they are one in the same, and therefore THE PEOPLE'S RIGHT SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!!
Click to expand...

As usual, he did not think beyond the first layer of argument and did not realize he was contradicting himself.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well a person who was wrong in 1788 does not help your position now, because they are still wrong.
> The militia is not the whole people but only a subset.
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> How is this in a State Constitution:
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> If, that is not true?
> 
> _I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."_
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
Click to expand...


But that just means the state has the authority to call up a militia for state or national defense when needed.
And that clearly is not the National Guard, but everyone who is capable of bearing arms.
So then clearly that is why the founders pass the 2nd amendment, to prevent the federal government from denying arms to the People, which would make it impossible for the state to then be able to call up an armed militia.

You can't have and armed militia and federal gun control at the same time.
They are contradictory.
And while there are clear needs for an armed militia, there is absolutely no reason at all for any federal gun control.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Yes, it is. You can't appeal to ignorance.


You have no fucking idea what the appeal to ignorance fallacy even is, do you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Nobody is claiming that their position must be true because there is no evidence to the contrary.  The plain language of the 2A requires nothing more.

But, your arguments seem to be nothing but appeals to gibberish:

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Argument-by-Gibberish
Repeating the same bullshit over and over again and demanding we accept your interpretation of the bullshit is the very definition.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Rigby5 said:


> Well a person who was wrong in 1788 does not help your position now, because they are still wrong.
> The militia is not the whole people but only a subset.


Followed by:



danielpalos said:


> Link?
> 
> How is this in a State Constitution:
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> If, that is not true?
> 
> _I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, *except for a few public officials.*"_
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788


_*except for a few public officials.
 *_


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is your way of admitting that the people have the right to bear arms.
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment unlike the unorganized militia of the whole and entire People who are subject to the police power of a State.
> 
> This is a State's sovereign Right:
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you're making it up. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the citizens of Wyoming are bound by the police power of the state of Illinois. Let me know when you're ready to talk about the 2nd Amendment and what the plain language means. Just so you're clear, the law as it stands today is that individuals may own weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am making the Point that it is a Sovereign power of a free State of our Union.  Why is it that right wingers only seem to understand unitary forms of Government better than our own federal form of Constitutional Government?
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
Click to expand...


I don't get what you are trying to say here at all.
The point is no one should like a unitary, centralized, single form of government.
The closer to the people, the more responsive, adaptive, flexible, and accurate the government.
So then that is an argument against federal gun control.
That is what the 2nd amendment also says, no federal gun laws.
That that is also what your quoted state constitution says, no federal gun laws, and only local police powers.
So then what is it you are arguing about?
Since everything you post says there should be no federal gun laws.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well a person who was wrong in 1788 does not help your position now, because they are still wrong.
> The militia is not the whole people but only a subset.
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> How is this in a State Constitution:
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> If, that is not true?
> 
> _I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."_
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that just means the state has the authority to call up a militia for state or national defense when needed.
> And that clearly is not the National Guard, but everyone who is capable of bearing arms.
> So then clearly that is why the founders pass the 2nd amendment, to prevent the federal government from denying arms to the People, which would make it impossible for the state to then be able to call up an armed militia.
> 
> You can't have and armed militia and federal gun control at the same time.
> They are contradictory.
> And while there are clear needs for an armed militia, there is absolutely no reason at all for any federal gun control.
Click to expand...

Well said, but that will go in one ear and out the other.  Some people are simply not equipped to live free.  They should change or the fuck out.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Rigby5 said:


> I don't get what you are trying to say here at all.


Welcome to Daniel Palos.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> I am making the Point that it is a Sovereign power of a free State of our Union. Why is it that right wingers only seem to understand unitary forms of Government better than our own federal form of Constitutional Government?


It is the exclusive sovereign power of a free state to enact any laws or regulations related to the purchase, ownership, use/possession of arms, right?

How is that ANY different than, saying the FedGov has no authority?

Why are we all saying the same thing, but not saying the same thing?

All Fed gun laws are unconstitutional.  That's it.  You just admitted it.



> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)


Illinois has the police power authority to enact laws related to the purchase, ownership, use/possession of arms.  The FedGov does not.  WHICH IS THE MEANING AND PURPOSE OF THE 2A.

You admitted it.


----------



## dblack

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't get what you are trying to say here at all.
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome to Daniel Palos.
Click to expand...

It's a fool's errand to try.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

dblack said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't get what you are trying to say here at all.
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome to Daniel Palos.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a fool's errand to try.
Click to expand...

And I should know better.  I am a fool for trying.


----------



## Concerned American

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> the FedGov has no authority?


Is that why every gun dealer in the US has to have a federal firearms license.  The state is free to make any law they choose as long as it is not contrary to the US constitution.   State constitutions are no different.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Concerned American said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> the FedGov has no authority?
> 
> 
> 
> Is that why every gun dealer in the US has to have a federal firearms license.  The state is free to make any law they choose as long as it is not contrary to the US constitution.   State constitutions are no different.
Click to expand...

Exactly.  All federal gun laws are unconstitutional, which is what Scalia SHOULD HAVE DONE in _Heller_.  He knew what he should have done but was too scared of the consequences (people selling machine guns to anyone else, no questions asked).  It was gutless, yet here we are.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Article 1, § 23 of the *Texas Constitution*: 

"Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear *arms* in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of *arms*, with a view to prevent crime."

As opposed to the 2A which has ZERO qualification.  FedGov has NO AUTHORITY!!!! PERIOD!!!  The 1934 NFA is unconstitutional.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> You're obviously not reading the text of the 2nd Amendment, because it doesn't say that. Check your law book. If it's written in crayon, throw it away because it's no good. Here's a hint, it actually says, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It does NOT say what you are claiming. So when you tell the SC they are wrong, be sure to quote what you think the 2nd says, because that will make everything clear to them. It won't stop them from laughing as you are dragged away, but it will make things clear.


All you or they need to do is show me how I am wrong.  Simply claiming what you do is equivalent to me claiming I am Right, simply because I say so.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're obviously not reading the text of the 2nd Amendment, because it doesn't say that. Check your law book. If it's written in crayon, throw it away because it's no good. Here's a hint, it actually says, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It does NOT say what you are claiming. So when you tell the SC they are wrong, be sure to quote what you think the 2nd says, because that will make everything clear to them. It won't stop them from laughing as you are dragged away, but it will make things clear.
> 
> 
> 
> All you or they need to do is show me how I am wrong.  Simply claiming what you do is equivalent to me claiming I am Right, simply because I say so.
Click to expand...

True or false:

The 2nd Amendment says: "_the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed_."


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is your way of admitting that the people have the right to bear arms.
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment unlike the unorganized militia of the whole and entire People who are subject to the police power of a State.
> 
> This is a State's sovereign Right:
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you're making it up. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the citizens of Wyoming are bound by the police power of the state of Illinois. Let me know when you're ready to talk about the 2nd Amendment and what the plain language means. Just so you're clear, the law as it stands today is that individuals may own weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am making the Point that it is a Sovereign power of a free State of our Union.  Why is it that right wingers only seem to understand unitary forms of Government better than our own federal form of Constitutional Government?
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And a state cannot write laws that are unconstitutional, therefore the 2nd Amendment applies them as well. And why don't you ever quote a different state's constitution?
Click to expand...

Because it is a States' right.  All States have that right.  I use that example because it is simple and to the point.  

Did you forget your own limited Government rhetoric for your special pleading argument?

_The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected._--The Federalist Number Forty-Five

There is nothing Implied in our Second Amendment.   If you have to Imply, you are moving toward the slippery slope of resorting to fallacy.  

There are no Individual or Singular terms in our Second Amendment; by express and intelligent design.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> Yet you claim that they are wrong. Why haven't you told them yet? Afraid they'll laugh you out of the building in shame?


I am the one using my real name on a debate site.  Why don't You get someone who knows more than You about the law to come here and argue it with me?


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Palos sees this when he reads the 2A:
> 
> _A well-regulated national guard is the militia and only the right of members of the national guard to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed while they are members of the national guard._
> 
> Yes.  It is literally that stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> The People who are the national guard are the militia.  See how that works.  Why mention the militia at all if it means nothing to right wingers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not what you've been endlessly regurgitating. You keep saying that the militia is the whole people, thus negating your own argument. Please pick a horse and stay on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is your straw man argument.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not a straw man to note that you contradicted yourself.
Click to expand...

That is just You making stuff up because in Right Wing fantasy, you are Always Right.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> So then when you assert ad nauseum that the militia has the right to keep and bear arms, you're really saying that the PEOPLE have the right to keep and bear arms, thus making it an individual right, not a collective one. Good-bye, you ARE the weakest link, do not pass GO, do not collect $200, make sure to pay the receptionist on the way out.


I got it right before.  Why do You still not understand the simple concept?

Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People are Necessary to the security of our free States and may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are just making that stuff up. The People are the Militia. Thus, the Militia are the People. They are not seperate.
> 
> 
> 
> Thus, the right of the people (or the militia, because they are the same) shall not be infringed....PERIOD!!!!!
> 
> You can't have it both ways, DAN.
> 
> Either the people are the militia, and the militia are the people, and the people's right shall not be infringed, or militia's right shall not be infringed, but they are one in the same, and therefore THE PEOPLE'S RIGHT SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!!
Click to expand...

Neither can You.

Can criminals of the People keep and bear Arms or well regulated Militia of the People?


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well a person who was wrong in 1788 does not help your position now, because they are still wrong.
> The militia is not the whole people but only a subset.
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> How is this in a State Constitution:
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> If, that is not true?
> 
> _I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."_
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that just means the state has the authority to call up a militia for state or national defense when needed.
> And that clearly is not the National Guard, but everyone who is capable of bearing arms.
> So then clearly that is why the founders pass the 2nd amendment, to prevent the federal government from denying arms to the People, which would make it impossible for the state to then be able to call up an armed militia.
> 
> You can't have and armed militia and federal gun control at the same time.
> They are contradictory.
> And while there are clear needs for an armed militia, there is absolutely no reason at all for any federal gun control.
Click to expand...

The People means everybody. 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is. You can't appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> You have no fucking idea what the appeal to ignorance fallacy even is, do you?
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
> Nobody is claiming that their position must be true because there is no evidence to the contrary.  The plain language of the 2A requires nothing more.
> 
> But, your arguments seem to be nothing but appeals to gibberish:
> 
> https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Argument-by-Gibberish
> Repeating the same bullshit over and over again and demanding we accept your interpretation of the bullshit is the very definition.
Click to expand...

You understand even less. 

There are no Individual or Singular terms in our Second Amendment and our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States not Individual liberty.  It says so in the first clause.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is your way of admitting that the people have the right to bear arms.
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment unlike the unorganized militia of the whole and entire People who are subject to the police power of a State.
> 
> This is a State's sovereign Right:
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you're making it up. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the citizens of Wyoming are bound by the police power of the state of Illinois. Let me know when you're ready to talk about the 2nd Amendment and what the plain language means. Just so you're clear, the law as it stands today is that individuals may own weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am making the Point that it is a Sovereign power of a free State of our Union.  Why is it that right wingers only seem to understand unitary forms of Government better than our own federal form of Constitutional Government?
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't get what you are trying to say here at all.
> The point is no one should like a unitary, centralized, single form of government.
> The closer to the people, the more responsive, adaptive, flexible, and accurate the government.
> So then that is an argument against federal gun control.
> That is what the 2nd amendment also says, no federal gun laws.
> That that is also what your quoted state constitution says, no federal gun laws, and only local police powers.
> So then what is it you are arguing about?
> Since everything you post says there should be no federal gun laws.
Click to expand...

Our Second Amendment cannot do what you claim since it would have to be a Constitution unto itself instead of merely, the Second Article of Amendment to our federal Constitution.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> It is the exclusive sovereign power of a free state to enact any laws or regulations related to the purchase, ownership, use/possession of arms, right?


Not in the federal districts. 

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;-And


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> the FedGov has no authority?
> 
> 
> 
> Is that why every gun dealer in the US has to have a federal firearms license.  The state is free to make any law they choose as long as it is not contrary to the US constitution.   State constitutions are no different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly.  All federal gun laws are unconstitutional, which is what Scalia SHOULD HAVE DONE in _Heller_.  He knew what he should have done but was too scared of the consequences (people selling machine guns to anyone else, no questions asked).  It was gutless, yet here we are.
Click to expand...


Not at all.  The general government of the Union has the delegated authority to fix Standards for the Union. 

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the *Standard* of Weights and Measures;


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Article 1, § 23 of the *Texas Constitution*:
> 
> "Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear *arms* in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of *arms*, with a view to prevent crime."
> 
> As opposed to the 2A which has ZERO qualification.  FedGov has NO AUTHORITY!!!! PERIOD!!!  The 1934 NFA is unconstitutional.


This says the same thing by equivalency:

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Article 1, § 23 of the *Texas Constitution*:
> 
> "Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear *arms* in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of *arms*, with a view to prevent crime."
> 
> As opposed to the 2A which has ZERO qualification.  FedGov has NO AUTHORITY!!!! PERIOD!!!  The 1934 NFA is unconstitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> This says the same thing by equivalency:
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
Click to expand...

EXACTLY!!!

Which excludes Federal authority within the states.

All fed gun laws NOT pertaining to DC or the territories are unconstitutional, right?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> the FedGov has no authority?
> 
> 
> 
> Is that why every gun dealer in the US has to have a federal firearms license.  The state is free to make any law they choose as long as it is not contrary to the US constitution.   State constitutions are no different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly.  All federal gun laws are unconstitutional, which is what Scalia SHOULD HAVE DONE in _Heller_.  He knew what he should have done but was too scared of the consequences (people selling machine guns to anyone else, no questions asked).  It was gutless, yet here we are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all.  The general government of the Union has the delegated authority to fix Standards for the Union.
> 
> To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the *Standard* of Weights and Measures;
Click to expand...

So, when the constitution says no federal authority, it means....federal authority?

No.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is. You can't appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> You have no fucking idea what the appeal to ignorance fallacy even is, do you?
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
> Nobody is claiming that their position must be true because there is no evidence to the contrary.  The plain language of the 2A requires nothing more.
> 
> But, your arguments seem to be nothing but appeals to gibberish:
> 
> https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Argument-by-Gibberish
> Repeating the same bullshit over and over again and demanding we accept your interpretation of the bullshit is the very definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You understand even less.
> 
> There are no Individual or Singular terms in our Second Amendment and our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States not Individual liberty.  It says so in the first clause.
Click to expand...

So, this begs the question AGAIN.

Does the federal government have authority to regulate individual gun possession, ownership, etc. within the states?

You can't have it both ways, Dan.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Article 1, § 23 of the *Texas Constitution*:
> 
> "Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear *arms* in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of *arms*, with a view to prevent crime."
> 
> As opposed to the 2A which has ZERO qualification.  FedGov has NO AUTHORITY!!!! PERIOD!!!  The 1934 NFA is unconstitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> This says the same thing by equivalency:
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> EXACTLY!!!
> 
> Which excludes Federal authority within the states.
> 
> All fed gun laws NOT pertaining to DC or the territories are unconstitutional, right?
Click to expand...

Not at all.  Congress is delegated the authority to fix Standards for the Union.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> So, when the constitution says no federal authority, it means....federal authority?
> 
> No.


Show us where our federal Constitution says no federal authority.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is. You can't appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> You have no fucking idea what the appeal to ignorance fallacy even is, do you?
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
> Nobody is claiming that their position must be true because there is no evidence to the contrary.  The plain language of the 2A requires nothing more.
> 
> But, your arguments seem to be nothing but appeals to gibberish:
> 
> https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Argument-by-Gibberish
> Repeating the same bullshit over and over again and demanding we accept your interpretation of the bullshit is the very definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You understand even less.
> 
> There are no Individual or Singular terms in our Second Amendment and our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States not Individual liberty.  It says so in the first clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, this begs the question AGAIN.
> 
> Does the federal government have authority to regulate individual gun possession, ownership, etc. within the states?
> 
> You can't have it both ways, Dan.
Click to expand...

Yes.  

To exercise exclusive Legislation in _all Cases whatsoever_, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;-And


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is. You can't appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> You have no fucking idea what the appeal to ignorance fallacy even is, do you?
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
> Nobody is claiming that their position must be true because there is no evidence to the contrary.  The plain language of the 2A requires nothing more.
> 
> But, your arguments seem to be nothing but appeals to gibberish:
> 
> https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Argument-by-Gibberish
> Repeating the same bullshit over and over again and demanding we accept your interpretation of the bullshit is the very definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You understand even less.
> 
> There are no Individual or Singular terms in our Second Amendment and our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States not Individual liberty.  It says so in the first clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, this begs the question AGAIN.
> 
> Does the federal government have authority to regulate individual gun possession, ownership, etc. within the states?
> 
> You can't have it both ways, Dan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.
> 
> To exercise exclusive Legislation in _all Cases whatsoever_, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;-And
Click to expand...

So, DC and the territories?  Not Texas, right


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same then with the First. What registered protest group are you in?
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that in the "prefatory clause"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no individual terms in the 1st Amendment, therefore it's not an individual right. That is your standard, correct?
Click to expand...

Our First Amendment has no, prefatory, Intent and Purpose clause like our Second Amendment.  Context matters or you only have a fallacy of composition.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, when the constitution says no federal authority, it means....federal authority?
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> Show us where our federal Constitution says no federal authority.
Click to expand...

10A


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> So, DC and the territories?  Not Texas, right


You miss the point about our Second Article of Amendment to our federal Constitution.  

This is what it amends:

_To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;_


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, when the constitution says no federal authority, it means....federal authority?
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> Show us where our federal Constitution says no federal authority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 10A
Click to expand...

That amendment supports my argument more than yours. 

Amendment X
_The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people._

There are no Individual or Singular terms in our Second Amendment, literally.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, DC and the territories?  Not Texas, right
> 
> 
> 
> You miss the point about our Second Article of Amendment to our federal Constitution.
> 
> This is what it amends:
> 
> _To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
> 
> To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;_
Click to expand...

although the second amendment is called an amendment, it does not amend anything because it was ratified along with the rest of the constitution. This is something that you probably are not aware of because you're not a US citizen.

Have you read the Federalist papers regarding the justification for the first 10 amendments or the "bill of rights?"


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, when the constitution says no federal authority, it means....federal authority?
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> Show us where our federal Constitution says no federal authority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 10A
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That amendment supports my argument more than yours.
> 
> Amendment X
> _The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people._
> 
> There are no Individual or Singular terms in our Second Amendment, literally.
Click to expand...

and again, there are no individual or singular terms in any of the Bill of Rights.

For you to argue that the lack of singular terms in any of the amendments constitutes no individual rights, you would be arguing that no individual has the right to free speech or the right against unreasonable searches and seizures.

You have never reconciled this discrepancy, to the point where I'm about done talking to you.

Your singular versus plural argument is fucking bullshit. Nobody, not even people on your side, is buying that shit.  it is a fucking dumb ass argument that doesn't pass the laugh your ass off test.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

According to Dan, only the 5th and 6th Amendments secure any individual liberty.

No right to free speech or religion.

Dan never reconciles that problem with his bullshit argument.  Because it is bullshit.

And forget about that pesky 9A.  It doesn't mean what it says.  Right, Dan?


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, DC and the territories?  Not Texas, right
> 
> 
> 
> You miss the point about our Second Article of Amendment to our federal Constitution.
> 
> This is what it amends:
> 
> _To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
> 
> To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> although the second amendment is called an amendment, it does not amend anything because it was ratified along with the rest of the constitution. This is something that you probably are not aware of because you're not a US citizen.
> 
> Have you read the Federalist papers regarding the justification for the first 10 amendments or the "bill of rights?"
Click to expand...

The Bill of Rights was an anti-federalist thing.   And, our Second Amendment would Have to be a Constitution unto itself instead of merely, not even the First, but the Second, Article of Amendment.  Our First Amendment is first not second for a reason.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> and again, there are no individual or singular terms in any of the Bill of Rights.


The difference is in the context.  This is the Intent and Purpose for our Second Article of Amendment:

_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,_

None of the other amendments have it.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> According to Dan, only the 5th and 6th Amendments secure any individual liberty.
> 
> No right to free speech or religion.
> 
> Dan never reconciles that problem with his bullshit argument.  Because it is bullshit.
> 
> And forget about that pesky 9A.  It doesn't mean what it says.  Right, Dan?


You can't appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment.  It Must mean something.


----------



## justinacolmena

danielpalos said:


> You can't appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment. It Must mean something.


*>>> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,*
= Seeing as how the regular armed forces, national guard, and homeland security and all that are necessary and all, NEVERTHELESS,​*>>> the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.*
= The universal human right to possess and carry firearms and other weapons, shall not be violated or questioned in any way or subjected to registration or government regulation or any other infringements.​


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to Dan, only the 5th and 6th Amendments secure any individual liberty.
> 
> No right to free speech or religion.
> 
> Dan never reconciles that problem with his bullshit argument.  Because it is bullshit.
> 
> And forget about that pesky 9A.  It doesn't mean what it says.  Right, Dan?
> 
> 
> 
> You can't appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment.  It Must mean something.
Click to expand...

You can't misuse the term "appeal to ignorance" like you have repeatedly and be taken seriously.  You don't know what it means, but I digress...

You have mistakenly read meaning into the first clause that is not there.  No reasonable interpretation of the 2A creates any meaning other than a preservation of the individual right to keep weapons.   The first clause is nothing more than stating a purpose for what they ACTUALL DID, which is preserve the right of the people.  Any interpretation to the contrary is pure repugnance.

Don't like it????  AMEND!!!!!


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> the FedGov has no authority?
> 
> 
> 
> Is that why every gun dealer in the US has to have a federal firearms license.  The state is free to make any law they choose as long as it is not contrary to the US constitution.   State constitutions are no different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly.  All federal gun laws are unconstitutional, which is what Scalia SHOULD HAVE DONE in _Heller_.  He knew what he should have done but was too scared of the consequences (people selling machine guns to anyone else, no questions asked).  It was gutless, yet here we are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all.  The general government of the Union has the delegated authority to fix Standards for the Union.
> 
> To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the *Standard* of Weights and Measures;
Click to expand...


Gun laws are not fixing an arbitrary standard, but instead are attempting to modify individual rights, which does not fall under federal authority.
Basically the constitution divided jurisdiction, and the federal government is only authorized to do that which states can not do themselves, like national defense, immigration, interstate commerce, etc.
It was never intended for the federal government to ever make any weapons legislation at all.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, when the constitution says no federal authority, it means....federal authority?
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> Show us where our federal Constitution says no federal authority.
Click to expand...


That is easy.

{... 

The text of the Second Amendment reads in full: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The framers of the Bill of Rights adapted the wording of the amendment from nearly identical clauses in some of the original 13 state constitutions.

During the Revolutionary War era, “militia” referred to groups of men who banded together to protect their communities, towns, colonies and eventually states, once the United States declared its independence from Great Britain in 1776

Many people in America at the time believed governments used soldiers to oppress the people, and thought the federal government should only be allowed to raise armies (with full-time, paid soldiers) when facing foreign adversaries. For all other purposes, they believed, it should turn to part-time militias, or ordinary civilians using their own weapons.

...}

httpsL//www.history.com/topics/united-states-constitution/2nd-amendment


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, DC and the territories?  Not Texas, right
> 
> 
> 
> You miss the point about our Second Article of Amendment to our federal Constitution.
> 
> This is what it amends:
> 
> _To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
> 
> To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;_
Click to expand...


Now you are getting me confused again.
The Articles of the Constitution are not amendments and the amendment don't have articles.

Here is Article 1 of the constitution, Section 8, Clause 15 and 16:

{... 


*Clause 15*
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
ArtI.S8.C15.1  Power to Call Forth the Militia

*Clause 16*
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
ArtI.S8.C16.1  Power to Organize Militias

...}

That only allows for the federal government to use the militia if the country needs them, such as if we were invaded.
It does not mean the federal government owns, creates, or arms the militia.
And because there is state, local, and individual need for a militia, that is why the 2nd Amendment prohibits any federal weapons laws at all.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to Dan, only the 5th and 6th Amendments secure any individual liberty.
> 
> No right to free speech or religion.
> 
> Dan never reconciles that problem with his bullshit argument.  Because it is bullshit.
> 
> And forget about that pesky 9A.  It doesn't mean what it says.  Right, Dan?
> 
> 
> 
> You can't appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment.  It Must mean something.
Click to expand...


Sure it means that an armed population is necessary for a free state.


----------



## Esdraelon

ScienceRocks said:


> The second amendment was put into the consitution to fight fascist like you bastards. Our founders knew what big government dictators were all about.
> 
> Hell no it isn't out dated or obsolete.


They were highly educated men and they intimately understood the Enlightenment philosophy of the base, power-hungry nature of human beings.  The very concept of a constitution that specifically LIMITED the power of government was radical at the time.  2A was never about hunting, sports or even personal self-defense as much as it was about keeping the power to rebel against tyrannical government available to citizens.  
Anyone who doubts their intent need only take the time to read some of the Federalist essays of the time.  The attempt to gut 2A or to compel the surrender of weapons or be imprisoned will set this nation on fire.  These coward bastards so depend on a projection, that they cannot grasp that their reaction to government might not be the reaction of everyone else.  They truly cannot understand that millions of us would fight and risk death for the preservation of our rights.  
States that want to be governed under our Constitution need to begin negotiations and strive to build a new confederacy that will defend the Constitution and each other from the tyrants that occupy DC.  At their heart, they are fools and cowards and even our military will fracture and go to war with itself over divided loyalties.  Since NO American will win in that scenario...QUI BONO?


----------



## justinacolmena

Rigby5 said:


> And because there is state, local, and individual need for a militia, that is why the 2nd Amendment prohibits any federal weapons laws at all.


States and localities aren't allowed to infringe the right to bear arms either, dumbass.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> So then when you assert ad nauseum that the militia has the right to keep and bear arms, you're really saying that the PEOPLE have the right to keep and bear arms, thus making it an individual right, not a collective one. Good-bye, you ARE the weakest link, do not pass GO, do not collect $200, make sure to pay the receptionist on the way out.
> 
> 
> 
> I got it right before.  Why do You still not understand the simple concept?
> 
> Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People are Necessary to the security of our free States and may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
Click to expand...

That's not the Second Amendment, no matter how much you wish it was.


----------



## danielpalos

justinacolmena said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment. It Must mean something.
> 
> 
> 
> *>>> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,*
> = Seeing as how the regular armed forces, national guard, and homeland security and all that are necessary and all, NEVERTHELESS,​*>>> the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.*
> = The universal human right to possess and carry firearms and other weapons, shall not be violated or questioned in any way or subjected to registration or government regulation or any other infringements.​
Click to expand...

That is not what our Second Amendment clearly expresses, just your fantastical, right wing view.  If what you allege is true, then all police State regulation is justified for those not associated with, "all that are necessary".   Deadly weapons must be regulated to some extent as part of the police power of any State.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Palos sees this when he reads the 2A:
> 
> _A well-regulated national guard is the militia and only the right of members of the national guard to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed while they are members of the national guard._
> 
> Yes.  It is literally that stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> The People who are the national guard are the militia.  See how that works.  Why mention the militia at all if it means nothing to right wingers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not what you've been endlessly regurgitating. You keep saying that the militia is the whole people, thus negating your own argument. Please pick a horse and stay on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is your straw man argument.
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not a straw man to note that you contradicted yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is just You making stuff up because in Right Wing fantasy, you are Always Right.
Click to expand...

If the militia is the people and the people are the militia (as you have said), and the Second says that the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed, then you have no leg to stand on when you claim only the militia can bear arms and not the people.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you claim that they are wrong. Why haven't you told them yet? Afraid they'll laugh you out of the building in shame?
> 
> 
> 
> I am the one using my real name on a debate site.  Why don't You get someone who knows more than You about the law to come here and argue it with me?
Click to expand...

Not my problem. You clearly do not understand the law at all, you just glom onto a phrase or two and insist you understand it. You don't.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to Dan, only the 5th and 6th Amendments secure any individual liberty.
> 
> No right to free speech or religion.
> 
> Dan never reconciles that problem with his bullshit argument.  Because it is bullshit.
> 
> And forget about that pesky 9A.  It doesn't mean what it says.  Right, Dan?
> 
> 
> 
> You can't appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment.  It Must mean something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't misuse the term "appeal to ignorance" like you have repeatedly and be taken seriously.  You don't know what it means, but I digress...
> 
> You have mistakenly read meaning into the first clause that is not there.  No reasonable interpretation of the 2A creates any meaning other than a preservation of the individual right to keep weapons.   The first clause is nothing more than stating a purpose for what they ACTUALL DID, which is preserve the right of the people.  Any interpretation to the contrary is pure repugnance.
> 
> Don't like it????  AMEND!!!!!
Click to expand...

You misuse logic to attempt to mean what it doesn't.  See how easy that is.  

And, the People are the Militia.  There is no one unconnected with the Militia in the US, only with the organized and well regulated Militia.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> the FedGov has no authority?
> 
> 
> 
> Is that why every gun dealer in the US has to have a federal firearms license.  The state is free to make any law they choose as long as it is not contrary to the US constitution.   State constitutions are no different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly.  All federal gun laws are unconstitutional, which is what Scalia SHOULD HAVE DONE in _Heller_.  He knew what he should have done but was too scared of the consequences (people selling machine guns to anyone else, no questions asked).  It was gutless, yet here we are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all.  The general government of the Union has the delegated authority to fix Standards for the Union.
> 
> To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the *Standard* of Weights and Measures;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gun laws are not fixing an arbitrary standard, but instead are attempting to modify individual rights, which does not fall under federal authority.
> Basically the constitution divided jurisdiction, and the federal government is only authorized to do that which states can not do themselves, like national defense, immigration, interstate commerce, etc.
> It was never intended for the federal government to ever make any weapons legislation at all.
Click to expand...

There is no individual right to misuse deadly weapons.  Criminals of the People are routinely, not only denied and disparaged, but also Infringed in their alleged right to keep and bear Arms.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, when the constitution says no federal authority, it means....federal authority?
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> Show us where our federal Constitution says no federal authority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is easy.
> 
> {...
> 
> The text of the Second Amendment reads in full: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The framers of the Bill of Rights adapted the wording of the amendment from nearly identical clauses in some of the original 13 state constitutions.
> 
> During the Revolutionary War era, “militia” referred to groups of men who banded together to protect their communities, towns, colonies and eventually states, once the United States declared its independence from Great Britain in 1776
> 
> Many people in America at the time believed governments used soldiers to oppress the people, and thought the federal government should only be allowed to raise armies (with full-time, paid soldiers) when facing foreign adversaries. For all other purposes, they believed, it should turn to part-time militias, or ordinary civilians using their own weapons.
> 
> ...}
> 
> httpsL//www.history.com/topics/united-states-constitution/2nd-amendment
Click to expand...

Unfortunately for your point of view, our federal Constitution superceded the Article of Confedation.

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, DC and the territories?  Not Texas, right
> 
> 
> 
> You miss the point about our Second Article of Amendment to our federal Constitution.
> 
> This is what it amends:
> 
> _To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
> 
> To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you are getting me confused again.
> The Articles of the Constitution are not amendments and the amendment don't have articles.
> 
> Here is Article 1 of the constitution, Section 8, Clause 15 and 16:
> 
> {...
> 
> 
> *Clause 15*
> To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> ArtI.S8.C15.1  Power to Call Forth the Militia
> 
> *Clause 16*
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> ArtI.S8.C16.1  Power to Organize Militias
> 
> ...}
> 
> That only allows for the federal government to use the militia if the country needs them, such as if we were invaded.
> It does not mean the federal government owns, creates, or arms the militia.
> And because there is state, local, and individual need for a militia, that is why the 2nd Amendment prohibits any federal weapons laws at all.
Click to expand...

The Amendments are Articles.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to Dan, only the 5th and 6th Amendments secure any individual liberty.
> 
> No right to free speech or religion.
> 
> Dan never reconciles that problem with his bullshit argument.  Because it is bullshit.
> 
> And forget about that pesky 9A.  It doesn't mean what it says.  Right, Dan?
> 
> 
> 
> You can't appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment.  It Must mean something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure it means that an armed population is necessary for a free state.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't.  

This is what it means:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State


----------



## danielpalos

justinacolmena said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And because there is state, local, and individual need for a militia, that is why the 2nd Amendment prohibits any federal weapons laws at all.
> 
> 
> 
> States and localities aren't allowed to infringe the right to bear arms either, dumbass.
Click to expand...

This is a State's sovereign Right:

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> You misuse logic to attempt to mean what it doesn't. See how easy that is.


They, why don't you explain what you think "appeal to ignorance" means.  (this should be fun)



danielpalos said:


> And, the People are the Militia. There is no one unconnected with the Militia in the US, only with the organized and well regulated Militia.


That makes absolutely no sense.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State


Why didn't they just leave it at that, if that is all the 2A is?

The rules of interpretation are very much against your retarded position.  

_A well-regulated colon, being necessary for proper digestion, the right of the people to grow and eat high-fiber vegetables shall not be infringed._

No serious person with any command of the English language would interpret the above to mean anything but preservation of individual rights.  IT IS THE SAME!!!!

If you insist on your bullshit interpretation, you will cause a war.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Alright.   Dan is back on ignore.  He is clearly not an American and English is his second language.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You misuse logic to attempt to mean what it doesn't. See how easy that is.
> 
> 
> 
> They, why don't you explain what you think "appeal to ignorance" means.  (this should be fun)
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, the People are the Militia. There is no one unconnected with the Militia in the US, only with the organized and well regulated Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That makes absolutely no sense.
Click to expand...

You explain it since You believe I don't know what it means.  (this should be even funner)

You have absolutely no sense.  See how easy that is.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
> 
> 
> 
> Why didn't they just leave it at that, if that is all the 2A is?
> 
> The rules of interpretation are very much against your retarded position.
> 
> _A well-regulated colon, being necessary for proper digestion, the right of the people to grow and eat high-fiber vegetables shall not be infringed._
> 
> No serious person with any command of the English language would interpret the above to mean anything but preservation of individual rights.  IT IS THE SAME!!!!
> 
> If you insist on your bullshit interpretation, you will cause a war.
Click to expand...

The point is that the security of a free State is the End not the Means.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Alright.   Dan is back on ignore.  He is clearly not an American and English is his second language.


Says an ignorant right winger who must be fresh off the boat from unitary government Europe since he has no clue as to how our federal form of Government is supposed to work


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to Dan, only the 5th and 6th Amendments secure any individual liberty.
> 
> No right to free speech or religion.
> 
> Dan never reconciles that problem with his bullshit argument.  Because it is bullshit.
> 
> And forget about that pesky 9A.  It doesn't mean what it says.  Right, Dan?
> 
> 
> 
> You can't appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment.  It Must mean something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't misuse the term "appeal to ignorance" like you have repeatedly and be taken seriously.  You don't know what it means, but I digress...
> 
> You have mistakenly read meaning into the first clause that is not there.  No reasonable interpretation of the 2A creates any meaning other than a preservation of the individual right to keep weapons.   The first clause is nothing more than stating a purpose for what they ACTUALL DID, which is preserve the right of the people.  Any interpretation to the contrary is pure repugnance.
> 
> Don't like it????  AMEND!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You misuse logic to attempt to mean what it doesn't.  See how easy that is.
> 
> And, the People are the Militia.  There is no one unconnected with the Militia in the US, only with the organized and well regulated Militia.
Click to expand...

Which means the PEOPLE have the right to bear arms, not the militia.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You misuse logic to attempt to mean what it doesn't. See how easy that is.
> 
> 
> 
> They, why don't you explain what you think "appeal to ignorance" means.  (this should be fun)
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, the People are the Militia. There is no one unconnected with the Militia in the US, only with the organized and well regulated Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That makes absolutely no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You explain it since You believe I don't know what it means.  (this should be even funner)
> 
> You have absolutely no sense.  See how easy that is.
Click to expand...


But if "there is no one unconnected with the Militia in the US", there can't be any federal firearm laws because that would risk disarming a member of that universal Militia.
But there could be state or local laws, since the needs of the Militia could vary between NYC and rural Wyoming.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
> 
> 
> 
> Why didn't they just leave it at that, if that is all the 2A is?
> 
> The rules of interpretation are very much against your retarded position.
> 
> _A well-regulated colon, being necessary for proper digestion, the right of the people to grow and eat high-fiber vegetables shall not be infringed._
> 
> No serious person with any command of the English language would interpret the above to mean anything but preservation of individual rights.  IT IS THE SAME!!!!
> 
> If you insist on your bullshit interpretation, you will cause a war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point is that the security of a free State is the End not the Means.
Click to expand...


Which puts the emphasis on free states to be greater than the lesser need for national concerns.
So that increases the opinion that the  2nd amendment was a prohibition on federal firearms laws.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
> 
> 
> 
> Why didn't they just leave it at that, if that is all the 2A is?
> 
> The rules of interpretation are very much against your retarded position.
> 
> _A well-regulated colon, being necessary for proper digestion, the right of the people to grow and eat high-fiber vegetables shall not be infringed._
> 
> No serious person with any command of the English language would interpret the above to mean anything but preservation of individual rights.  IT IS THE SAME!!!!
> 
> If you insist on your bullshit interpretation, you will cause a war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point is that the security of a free State is the End not the Means.
Click to expand...

And the *means* are stated RIGHT IN THE 2A, DAN!!!!  Armed people from which a militia may be assembled.

You are never going to understand because you don't know the history.  You probably have never heard of the minutemen, have you?

You don't get it.  That's all there is left to say.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
> 
> 
> 
> Why didn't they just leave it at that, if that is all the 2A is?
> 
> The rules of interpretation are very much against your retarded position.
> 
> _A well-regulated colon, being necessary for proper digestion, the right of the people to grow and eat high-fiber vegetables shall not be infringed._
> 
> No serious person with any command of the English language would interpret the above to mean anything but preservation of individual rights.  IT IS THE SAME!!!!
> 
> If you insist on your bullshit interpretation, you will cause a war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point is that the security of a free State is the End not the Means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which puts the emphasis on free states to be greater than the lesser need for national concerns.
> So that increases the opinion that the  2nd amendment was a prohibition on federal firearms laws.
Click to expand...

He will never see how he walked right into that, or he does see it.  He just doesn't care.  He wants one result, and will hear nothing contrary to that outcome.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Alright.   Dan is back on ignore.  He is clearly not an American and English is his second language.
> 
> 
> 
> Says an ignorant right winger who must be fresh off the boat from unitary government Europe since he has no clue as to how our federal form of Government is supposed to work
Click to expand...


But in our form of federation, the central federal government is deliberately constrained and prevented from becoming too powerful or abusive.  Since safety is a concern within states and can not be done properly at a federal level, it should clear that the point of the 2nd amendment was to prevent any federal weapons jurisdiction.
Not only were there no police back then, but most people lived on rural frontiers where they had to fend for themselves.
Which clearly does not allow for any federal weapons legislation.


----------



## Rigby5

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to Dan, only the 5th and 6th Amendments secure any individual liberty.
> 
> No right to free speech or religion.
> 
> Dan never reconciles that problem with his bullshit argument.  Because it is bullshit.
> 
> And forget about that pesky 9A.  It doesn't mean what it says.  Right, Dan?
> 
> 
> 
> You can't appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment.  It Must mean something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't misuse the term "appeal to ignorance" like you have repeatedly and be taken seriously.  You don't know what it means, but I digress...
> 
> You have mistakenly read meaning into the first clause that is not there.  No reasonable interpretation of the 2A creates any meaning other than a preservation of the individual right to keep weapons.   The first clause is nothing more than stating a purpose for what they ACTUALL DID, which is preserve the right of the people.  Any interpretation to the contrary is pure repugnance.
> 
> Don't like it????  AMEND!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You misuse logic to attempt to mean what it doesn't.  See how easy that is.
> 
> And, the People are the Militia.  There is no one unconnected with the Militia in the US, only with the organized and well regulated Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which means the PEOPLE have the right to bear arms, not the militia.
Click to expand...


But if he wants to make the "people" mean the same as the "militia", then it does not matter.
He is still admitting that the feds can't make any weapons laws.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

_United States v. Cruikshank_, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1875),"[The Second Amendment] has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government...”

Was the _Cruikshank _wrong?


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to Dan, only the 5th and 6th Amendments secure any individual liberty.
> 
> No right to free speech or religion.
> 
> Dan never reconciles that problem with his bullshit argument.  Because it is bullshit.
> 
> And forget about that pesky 9A.  It doesn't mean what it says.  Right, Dan?
> 
> 
> 
> You can't appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment.  It Must mean something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't misuse the term "appeal to ignorance" like you have repeatedly and be taken seriously.  You don't know what it means, but I digress...
> 
> You have mistakenly read meaning into the first clause that is not there.  No reasonable interpretation of the 2A creates any meaning other than a preservation of the individual right to keep weapons.   The first clause is nothing more than stating a purpose for what they ACTUALL DID, which is preserve the right of the people.  Any interpretation to the contrary is pure repugnance.
> 
> Don't like it????  AMEND!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You misuse logic to attempt to mean what it doesn't.  See how easy that is.
> 
> And, the People are the Militia.  There is no one unconnected with the Militia in the US, only with the organized and well regulated Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which means the PEOPLE have the right to bear arms, not the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But if he wants to make the "people" mean the same as the "militia", then it does not matter.
> He is still admitting that the feds can't make any weapons laws.
Click to expand...

Not at all.  You simply don't understand our form of federal Government.  Our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself as it must Be, for your point of view to be valid.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to Dan, only the 5th and 6th Amendments secure any individual liberty.
> 
> No right to free speech or religion.
> 
> Dan never reconciles that problem with his bullshit argument.  Because it is bullshit.
> 
> And forget about that pesky 9A.  It doesn't mean what it says.  Right, Dan?
> 
> 
> 
> You can't appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment.  It Must mean something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't misuse the term "appeal to ignorance" like you have repeatedly and be taken seriously.  You don't know what it means, but I digress...
> 
> You have mistakenly read meaning into the first clause that is not there.  No reasonable interpretation of the 2A creates any meaning other than a preservation of the individual right to keep weapons.   The first clause is nothing more than stating a purpose for what they ACTUALL DID, which is preserve the right of the people.  Any interpretation to the contrary is pure repugnance.
> 
> Don't like it????  AMEND!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You misuse logic to attempt to mean what it doesn't.  See how easy that is.
> 
> And, the People are the Militia.  There is no one unconnected with the Militia in the US, only with the organized and well regulated Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which means the PEOPLE have the right to bear arms, not the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But if he wants to make the "people" mean the same as the "militia", then it does not matter.
> He is still admitting that the feds can't make any weapons laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all.  You simply don't understand our form of federal Government.  Our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself as it must Be, for your point of view to be valid.
Click to expand...

An amendment in the Bill of Rights does not have to be a constitution unto itself in order to define jurisdiction.
The whole point of the Bill of Rights was to clarify the limits of the federal government, so that states would give up their apprehensions and join.
Most of what the constitution does is authorize specific powers to the federal government.
Then the Bill of Rights adds more specific restrictions, such as the 9th and 10th amendments which say the feds can ONLY do what they are specifically authorized to do in the Constitution, but anything not specifically given jurisdiction, automatically falls under local and state jurisdiction.

Having just come out of a bad situation with an over bearing and abusive central authority they had to rebel from with force of arms, it is not at all hard to understand that the founder were very unwilling to ever allow any new central authority to become abusive or to make rebellion any harder when it becomes necessary.  Because it should be obvious to anyone who studies history, that rebellion always becomes necessary.  All central governments always decay into corruption.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
> 
> 
> 
> Why didn't they just leave it at that, if that is all the 2A is?
> 
> The rules of interpretation are very much against your retarded position.
> 
> _A well-regulated colon, being necessary for proper digestion, the right of the people to grow and eat high-fiber vegetables shall not be infringed._
> 
> No serious person with any command of the English language would interpret the above to mean anything but preservation of individual rights.  IT IS THE SAME!!!!
> 
> If you insist on your bullshit interpretation, you will cause a war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point is that the security of a free State is the End not the Means.
Click to expand...

Regardless of the reason why, the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed.


----------



## hadit

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
> 
> 
> 
> Why didn't they just leave it at that, if that is all the 2A is?
> 
> The rules of interpretation are very much against your retarded position.
> 
> _A well-regulated colon, being necessary for proper digestion, the right of the people to grow and eat high-fiber vegetables shall not be infringed._
> 
> No serious person with any command of the English language would interpret the above to mean anything but preservation of individual rights.  IT IS THE SAME!!!!
> 
> If you insist on your bullshit interpretation, you will cause a war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point is that the security of a free State is the End not the Means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which puts the emphasis on free states to be greater than the lesser need for national concerns.
> So that increases the opinion that the  2nd amendment was a prohibition on federal firearms laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He will never see how he walked right into that, or he does see it.  He just doesn't care.  He wants one result, and will hear nothing contrary to that outcome.
Click to expand...

He never realizes how he undermines his own arguments.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Let's follow Dan's reasoning here:

The end the founders contemplated when drafting the 2A was the security of a free state.   States protected themselves with a militia made up of ordinary citizens who were armed and ready to respond do the call to arms.  This is indisputable historical fact.  This discussion cannot continue until DAN ADMITS THAT MOTHERFUCKING FACT!!!

So, according to Dan, the 2A was written and ratified to protect the collective right of the militia (even though it actually says "the right of the people").  But, only well-regulated militia of all the people of the United States, as a collective group, are protected, even though Dan admits that the stated end is the security of a free state.

What did I miss, Dan?


----------



## justinacolmena

danielpalos said:


> Deadly weapons must be regulated to some extent as part of the police power of any State.


Attention dumbass. You need to be be extorted and tortured out of your liberal political opinions, if you think "the State" be allowed to steal our weapons. You'll be begging for a bullet to end it all.




__





						REVELATION 9:5 KJV And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months:...
					

Revelation 9:5 KJV: And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months: and their torment was as the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man.




					www.kingjamesbibleonline.org


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
> 
> 
> 
> Why didn't they just leave it at that, if that is all the 2A is?
> 
> The rules of interpretation are very much against your retarded position.
> 
> _A well-regulated colon, being necessary for proper digestion, the right of the people to grow and eat high-fiber vegetables shall not be infringed._
> 
> No serious person with any command of the English language would interpret the above to mean anything but preservation of individual rights.  IT IS THE SAME!!!!
> 
> If you insist on your bullshit interpretation, you will cause a war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point is that the security of a free State is the End not the Means.
Click to expand...


Of course.
The means of a free state is weapons that prevent a dictatorship from being able to intimidate a population, like they could if the population were unarmed.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> justinacolmena said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment. It Must mean something.
> 
> 
> 
> *>>> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,*
> = Seeing as how the regular armed forces, national guard, and homeland security and all that are necessary and all, NEVERTHELESS,​*>>> the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.*
> = The universal human right to possess and carry firearms and other weapons, shall not be violated or questioned in any way or subjected to registration or government regulation or any other infringements.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not what our Second Amendment clearly expresses, just your fantastical, right wing view.  If what you allege is true, then all police State regulation is justified for those not associated with, "all that are necessary".   Deadly weapons must be regulated to some extent as part of the police power of any State.
Click to expand...


Sure.  States have to have some reasonable regulations in weapons.
For example, we don't want children running around with them, for them to be carried into courtrooms or banks, etc.
But the point is that is supposed to be all up to the states and not the federal government.
Police powers does not imply any federal powers.
Police means state or local.
And even police power over weapons is over shadowed by the 4th and 5th amendment individual right to life and protection of possessions.


----------



## justinacolmena

Rigby5 said:


> Sure. States have to have some reasonable regulations in weapons.


NO.
They don't have business "regulating" away our rights they are not supposed to be infringing in the first place.


----------



## justinacolmena

Rigby5 said:


> Police powers does not imply any federal powers.
> Police means state or local.


Police powers are Mafia powers, a.k.a. Mob rule, in Chicago. There's a mobster in the back room who "has it made" (as a "made man") and calls all the shots in that shithole town, and they wonder why it's all on fire and burning down.


----------



## Rigby5

justinacolmena said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. States have to have some reasonable regulations in weapons.
> 
> 
> 
> NO.
> They don't have business "regulating" away our rights they are not supposed to be infringing in the first place.
Click to expand...


I don't think of it as regulating rights away, but instead as protecting rights when there is conflict between the rights of multiple different individuals.
For example, just like we don't want someone to drive drunk, they likely should not be getting drunk and be armed at the same time.
Gun rights are not unlimited, like we don't want juveniles to have guns unless they are in an supervised class or something.
When you go into a bank, if you are carrying a rifle, how do they know you do not intend to rob it?
So places of business have the right to limit people from carrying in arms.
That means there then have to be laws to protect them.


----------



## Rigby5

justinacolmena said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Police powers does not imply any federal powers.
> Police means state or local.
> 
> 
> 
> Police powers are Mafia powers, a.k.a. Mob rule, in Chicago. There's a mobster in the back room who "has it made" (as a "made man") and calls all the shots in that shithole town, and they wonder why it's all on fire and burning down.
Click to expand...


I am not to worried about cities doing gun control laws I do not like.
One reason is they tend not to, and another is that I can avoid a city if I want.
My main concern is federal gun control, because they are the ones that can prevent the guns I want from even being made or imported.


----------



## justinacolmena

Rigby5 said:


> I am not to worried about cities doing gun control laws I do not like.
> One reason is they tend not to, and another is that I can avoid a city if I want.


That "would" be true if city cops stayed within their city limits. But that's too much wood to cut.


Rigby5 said:


> My main concern if federal gun control, because they are the ones that can prevent the guns I want from even being made or imported.


This is true. Federal ATF cops are gay male heavy smokers who breathe heavy down your neck with fingerprints, extended anal probe background checks, etc., and they work up a domestic violence rape kit for every gun purchase just because they can.


----------



## justinacolmena

Rigby5 said:


> ... conflict between the rights of multiple different individuals.
> For example, just like we don't want someone to drive drunk, they likely should not be getting drunk and be armed at the same time.
> Gun rights are not unlimited ...


If my finger wasn't on the trigger when they were shot and killed, then my gun rights should not be revoked.
If I'm not the one getting drunk, then I have every right to be armed, and it's not really anybody else's business anyways.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Lesh said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> semiautomatics are not assault weapons
> 
> 
> 
> EVERY weapon ever called an assault weapon (either by gun manufacturers themselves or anyone else) has ALWAYS been a semi-auto at a minimum. Some "no doubters" are select fire.
Click to expand...

Assault is an act therefore bats are assault weapons, fists are assault weapons, Cars are assault weapons, rocks are assault weapons any objected can be called an assault weapon


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Markle said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> EVERY weapon ever called an assault weapon (either by gun manufacturers themselves or anyone else) has ALWAYS been a semi-auto at a minimum. Some "no doubters" are select fire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which of these weapons are not semi-automatics?
Click to expand...

they all use the same method to fire


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Markle said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But that is not the case in society.
> Criminals are in prisons, and when they serve their sentence and are released, they no longer are criminals.
> You can not legally create a multi tiered society with ex-criminals having fewer rights.
> That is not legally possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They (criminals) have the right to apply to have their rights returned.  Due process.
Click to expand...

Dr. Phil had an anti trumper on his show today that girl had mental issues.,


----------



## Lesh

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> EVERY weapon ever called an assault weapon (either by gun manufacturers themselves or anyone else) has ALWAYS been a semi-auto at a minimum. Some "no doubters" are select fire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which of these weapons are not semi-automatics?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they all use the same method to fire
Click to expand...

Neither hand gun is gas operated and the shotgun does not have a removable mag. You know nothing


----------



## Lesh

hadit said:


> Which means the PEOPLE have the right to bear arms, not the militia.


As per the 2A...the people who are in a Well Regulated Militia


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> An amendment in the Bill of Rights does not have to be a constitution unto itself in order to define jurisdiction.


Yes, it does.  Otherwise it is merely the Second Article of Amendment.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> Regardless of the reason why, the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed.


Maybe in Right-Wing fantasy.  In the real world, criminals of the People get infringed all the time.


----------



## hadit

Lesh said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which means the PEOPLE have the right to bear arms, not the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> As per the 2A...the people who are in a Well Regulated Militia
Click to expand...

No, that's a reason given for the right being protected, but the right itself is independent of a militia. It's a moot point anyway, because Dan keeps insisting that the militia is the entire people, which comes right back around to it being an individual right. When the Amendment was written, the writers knew that the militia wasn't always in use and that the people had to be armed so they could be called into it when needed. IOW, they had to have weapons in their homes.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> The end the founders contemplated when drafting the 2A was the security of a free state. States protected themselves with a militia made up of ordinary citizens who were armed and ready to respond do the call to arms.


Not all of them had arms.

To provide for organizing, *arming*, and disciplining, the Militia


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless of the reason why, the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe in Right-Wing fantasy.  In the real world, criminals of the People get infringed all the time.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you're saying that, according to the Constitution, the government cannot legally prevent people from owning weapons.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> Of course.
> The means of a free state is weapons that prevent a dictatorship from being able to intimidate a population, like they could if the population were unarmed.


The State not Individuals of the People.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course.
> The means of a free state is weapons that prevent a dictatorship from being able to intimidate a population, like they could if the population were unarmed.
> 
> 
> 
> The State not Individuals of the People.
Click to expand...

That's not what it says. You're just making that up.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> justinacolmena said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment. It Must mean something.
> 
> 
> 
> *>>> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,*
> = Seeing as how the regular armed forces, national guard, and homeland security and all that are necessary and all, NEVERTHELESS,​*>>> the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.*
> = The universal human right to possess and carry firearms and other weapons, shall not be violated or questioned in any way or subjected to registration or government regulation or any other infringements.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not what our Second Amendment clearly expresses, just your fantastical, right wing view.  If what you allege is true, then all police State regulation is justified for those not associated with, "all that are necessary".   Deadly weapons must be regulated to some extent as part of the police power of any State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure.  States have to have some reasonable regulations in weapons.
> For example, we don't want children running around with them, for them to be carried into courtrooms or banks, etc.
> But the point is that is supposed to be all up to the states and not the federal government.
> Police powers does not imply any federal powers.
> Police means state or local.
> And even police power over weapons is over shadowed by the 4th and 5th amendment individual right to life and protection of possessions.
Click to expand...

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> No, that's a reason given for the right being protected, but the right itself is independent of a militia.


Not true. How can criminals of the People be Infringed as is customary and usual; if Your point of view is correct?


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course.
> The means of a free state is weapons that prevent a dictatorship from being able to intimidate a population, like they could if the population were unarmed.
> 
> 
> 
> The State not Individuals of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not what it says. You're just making that up.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is.  You simply have nothing but right wing fantasy.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's a reason given for the right being protected, but the right itself is independent of a militia.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. How can criminals of the People be Infringed as is customary and usual; if Your point of view is correct?
Click to expand...

You're the one who keeps insisting the militia is all of the people, and you keep posting quotes to that effect. Apparently you haven't been noticing that you're destroying your own argument. Are you now saying it's not?


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course.
> The means of a free state is weapons that prevent a dictatorship from being able to intimidate a population, like they could if the population were unarmed.
> 
> 
> 
> The State not Individuals of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not what it says. You're just making that up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is.  You simply have nothing but right wing fantasy.
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...

Says nothing about the right of a state to be armed. On the contrary, it says the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. You keep missing that vital piece.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> justinacolmena said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't appeal to ignorance of the first clause of our Second Amendment. It Must mean something.
> 
> 
> 
> *>>> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,*
> = Seeing as how the regular armed forces, national guard, and homeland security and all that are necessary and all, NEVERTHELESS,​*>>> the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.*
> = The universal human right to possess and carry firearms and other weapons, shall not be violated or questioned in any way or subjected to registration or government regulation or any other infringements.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not what our Second Amendment clearly expresses, just your fantastical, right wing view.  If what you allege is true, then all police State regulation is justified for those not associated with, "all that are necessary".   Deadly weapons must be regulated to some extent as part of the police power of any State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure.  States have to have some reasonable regulations in weapons.
> For example, we don't want children running around with them, for them to be carried into courtrooms or banks, etc.
> But the point is that is supposed to be all up to the states and not the federal government.
> Police powers does not imply any federal powers.
> Police means state or local.
> And even police power over weapons is over shadowed by the 4th and 5th amendment individual right to life and protection of possessions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
Click to expand...

Which has no effect in Arkansas.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless of the reason why, the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe in Right-Wing fantasy.  In the real world, criminals of the People get infringed all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds like you're saying that, according to the Constitution, the government cannot legally prevent people from owning weapons.
Click to expand...

Not even the lgbtq community when the security of our free States or the Union may require it.  Don't ask, don't tell was completely unnecessary.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless of the reason why, the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe in Right-Wing fantasy.  In the real world, criminals of the People get infringed all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds like you're saying that, according to the Constitution, the government cannot legally prevent people from owning weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not even the lgbtq community when the security of our free States or the Union may require it.  Don't ask, don't tell was completely unnecessary.
Click to expand...

Which again has nothing whatsoever to do with the Second Amendment. You have reached the end of your programmed responses.


----------



## frigidweirdo

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless of the reason why, the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe in Right-Wing fantasy.  In the real world, criminals of the People get infringed all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds like you're saying that, according to the Constitution, the government cannot legally prevent people from owning weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not even the lgbtq community when the security of our free States or the Union may require it.  Don't ask, don't tell was completely unnecessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which again has nothing whatsoever to do with the Second Amendment. You have reached the end of your programmed responses.
Click to expand...


Oh, he was there years ago.


----------



## Lesh

hadit said:


> No, that's a reason given for the right being protected,


Yup


hadit said:


> the right itself is independent of a militia.


Nope


----------



## hadit

Lesh said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's a reason given for the right being protected,
> 
> 
> 
> Yup
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> the right itself is independent of a militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope
Click to expand...

Well, that and 5 bucks will get you coffee at Starbucks. The SC has thusly ruled, so it's a moot point.


----------



## hadit

frigidweirdo said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless of the reason why, the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe in Right-Wing fantasy.  In the real world, criminals of the People get infringed all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds like you're saying that, according to the Constitution, the government cannot legally prevent people from owning weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not even the lgbtq community when the security of our free States or the Union may require it.  Don't ask, don't tell was completely unnecessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which again has nothing whatsoever to do with the Second Amendment. You have reached the end of your programmed responses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, he was there years ago.
Click to expand...

Yup. He's nearing the end of this current cycle, however, when he goes off into even more incoherence then usual and disappears for a while.


----------



## frigidweirdo

hadit said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless of the reason why, the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe in Right-Wing fantasy.  In the real world, criminals of the People get infringed all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds like you're saying that, according to the Constitution, the government cannot legally prevent people from owning weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not even the lgbtq community when the security of our free States or the Union may require it.  Don't ask, don't tell was completely unnecessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which again has nothing whatsoever to do with the Second Amendment. You have reached the end of your programmed responses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, he was there years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup. He's nearing the end of this current cycle, however, when he goes off into even more incoherence then usual and disappears for a while.
Click to expand...


I put him on ignore so long ago. He doesn't care about reality. He's just here to entertain himself.


----------



## justinacolmena

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Assault is an act therefore bats are assault weapons, fists are assault weapons, Cars are assault weapons, rocks are assault weapons any objected can be called an assault weapon


Classifying a weapon as an "assault weapon" should not have any effect on its legality. WE THE PEOPLE need the weapons to defend our homes against armed assault.


----------



## Markle

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> EVERY weapon ever called an assault weapon (either by gun manufacturers themselves or anyone else) has ALWAYS been a semi-auto at a minimum. Some "no doubters" are select fire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which of these weapons are not semi-automatics?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they all use the same method to fire
Click to expand...


Right, they are all semi-automatic weapons.


----------



## justinacolmena

Markle said:


> Right, they are all semi-automatic weapons.


So any long gun except a bolt-action or lever-action rifle is considered an assault weapon?


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile

ScienceRocks said:


> The second amendment was put into the consitution to fight fascist like you bastards. Our founders knew what big government dictators were all about.
> 
> Hell no it isn't out dated or obsolete.


They did not know what "big government" is. They may have warned against expanded government, because they could not compose the constitution for a robust government, because they did not have the complete information. They only knew to warn against tyranny.


----------



## Markle

justinacolmena said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right, they are all semi-automatic weapons.
> 
> 
> 
> So any long gun except a bolt-action or lever-action rifle is considered an assault weapon?
Click to expand...


That's what makes describing an assault weapon impossible.


----------



## Lesh

hadit said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's a reason given for the right being protected,
> 
> 
> 
> Yup
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> the right itself is independent of a militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, that and 5 bucks will get you coffee at Starbucks. The SC has thusly ruled, so it's a moot point.
Click to expand...

It did. A Right Wing Court threw out stare decisis and declared that the the "militia clause" wasn't even there.

Oddly it is and another court is just as likely to rule that way


----------



## Lesh

justinacolmena said:


> So any long gun except a bolt-action or lever-action rifle is considered an assault weapon?


Nope. A semi auto magazine fed long gun is however


Markle said:


> That's what makes describing an assault weapon impossible.


Not really


----------



## Lesh

Markle said:


> Right, they are all semi-automatic weapons.


Nope. The revolver is a double action weapon. The shotgun is not detachable mag. The other handgun is not gas operated and is of course not a long gun.

Stop exposing your ignoirance


----------



## hadit

Lesh said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's a reason given for the right being protected,
> 
> 
> 
> Yup
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> the right itself is independent of a militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, that and 5 bucks will get you coffee at Starbucks. The SC has thusly ruled, so it's a moot point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It did. A Right Wing Court threw out stare decisis and declared that the the "militia clause" wasn't even there.
> 
> Oddly it is and another court is just as likely to rule that way
Click to expand...

The court hasn't been "right wing" for a long time. You disagreeing with one of their decisions does not make them so.


----------



## hadit

Lesh said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right, they are all semi-automatic weapons.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. The revolver is a double action weapon. The shotgun is not detachable mag. The other handgun is not gas operated and is of course not a long gun.
> 
> Stop exposing your ignoirance
Click to expand...

You do realize though, that the majority of gun deaths are due to hand guns and banning "assault" (another term for big and black) rifles will do little to reduce the number of deaths?


----------



## Lesh

hadit said:


> The court hasn't been "right wing" for a long time.


BWAHAHAHAHAHA

You funny boy


----------



## Who_Me?

*Thank Goodness for Guns:*

One morning a guy looked our his window and saw a gorilla in his tree in the yard. Not knowing what to do he began calling pest control companies. After many tries he reached a guy who said he could remove the gorilla from his yard.

So the pest control guy comes out, and with him he brings a baseball bat, a pair of handcuffs, a chihuahua, and a shotgun. The homeowner asked him, "how are you going to get the gorilla with this stuff?"

The pest control guy says, "OK, this chihuahua is specially trained to bite the genitals of anyone that jumps in front of him. I'm going to climb the tree with the baseball bat, I'll hit the fingers of the gorilla. He will fall out of the tree in front of the chihuahua. The chihuahua will bite the genitals of the gorilla. The gorilla will cover his genitals with his hands. You will slap the handcuffs on the gorilla's wrists and we'll take him away!"

The homeowner said, "What's the shotgun for?" The pest control guy replied, "If I fall out of the tree first, shoot the flippin chihuahua!"


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless of the reason why, the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe in Right-Wing fantasy.  In the real world, criminals of the People get infringed all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds like you're saying that, according to the Constitution, the government cannot legally prevent people from owning weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not even the lgbtq community when the security of our free States or the Union may require it.  Don't ask, don't tell was completely unnecessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which again has nothing whatsoever to do with the Second Amendment. You have reached the end of your programmed responses.
Click to expand...

It has more to do with our Second Amendment than your right wing fantasy, Individual and Singular rights.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's a reason given for the right being protected, but the right itself is independent of a militia.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. How can criminals of the People be Infringed as is customary and usual; if Your point of view is correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're the one who keeps insisting the militia is all of the people, and you keep posting quotes to that effect. Apparently you haven't been noticing that you're destroying your own argument. Are you now saying it's not?
Click to expand...

lol.  You simply have no logic or reason for a valid rebuttal and Have to resort to right wing fantasy, like is usual for the Right-Wing.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course.
> The means of a free state is weapons that prevent a dictatorship from being able to intimidate a population, like they could if the population were unarmed.
> 
> 
> 
> The State not Individuals of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not what it says. You're just making that up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is.  You simply have nothing but right wing fantasy.
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says nothing about the right of a state to be armed. On the contrary, it says the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. You keep missing that vital piece.
Click to expand...

That is Your misunderstanding like is usual for right wing fantasists.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> Which has no effect in Arkansas.


It is an example of a State's right.  All States have a similar clause.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Lesh said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> EVERY weapon ever called an assault weapon (either by gun manufacturers themselves or anyone else) has ALWAYS been a semi-auto at a minimum. Some "no doubters" are select fire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which of these weapons are not semi-automatics?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they all use the same method to fire
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither hand gun is gas operated and the shotgun does not have a removable mag. You know nothing
Click to expand...

 Which has nothing to do with what I said but here you go













						An Official Journal Of The NRA | Back To Basics: How Semi-Automatic Firearms Work
					

The semi-automatic firearm is so standard now that many accept it as the way firearms have always worked.




					www.americanrifleman.org


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless of the reason why, the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe in Right-Wing fantasy.  In the real world, criminals of the People get infringed all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds like you're saying that, according to the Constitution, the government cannot legally prevent people from owning weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not even the lgbtq community when the security of our free States or the Union may require it.  Don't ask, don't tell was completely unnecessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which again has nothing whatsoever to do with the Second Amendment. You have reached the end of your programmed responses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has more to do with our Second Amendment than your right wing fantasy, Individual and Singular rights.
Click to expand...

Do I really need to point out that you're vainly introducing new things, hoping to distract from the core subject because you don't have anything left?


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's a reason given for the right being protected, but the right itself is independent of a militia.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. How can criminals of the People be Infringed as is customary and usual; if Your point of view is correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're the one who keeps insisting the militia is all of the people, and you keep posting quotes to that effect. Apparently you haven't been noticing that you're destroying your own argument. Are you now saying it's not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  You simply have no logic or reason for a valid rebuttal and Have to resort to right wing fantasy, like is usual for the Right-Wing.
Click to expand...

Which has nothing to do with what I said. Are you now saying that the militia is not all the people?


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course.
> The means of a free state is weapons that prevent a dictatorship from being able to intimidate a population, like they could if the population were unarmed.
> 
> 
> 
> The State not Individuals of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not what it says. You're just making that up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is.  You simply have nothing but right wing fantasy.
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says nothing about the right of a state to be armed. On the contrary, it says the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. You keep missing that vital piece.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is Your misunderstanding like is usual for right wing fantasists.
Click to expand...

Those are the words that are there, that apparently you don't see.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which has no effect in Arkansas.
> 
> 
> 
> It is an example of a State's right.  All States have a similar clause.
Click to expand...

We're talking about the second amendment and its restrictions on the federal government. And you don't seem to comprehend the 14th amendment at all.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless of the reason why, the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe in Right-Wing fantasy.  In the real world, criminals of the People get infringed all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds like you're saying that, according to the Constitution, the government cannot legally prevent people from owning weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not even the lgbtq community when the security of our free States or the Union may require it.  Don't ask, don't tell was completely unnecessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which again has nothing whatsoever to do with the Second Amendment. You have reached the end of your programmed responses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has more to do with our Second Amendment than your right wing fantasy, Individual and Singular rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do I really need to point out that you're vainly introducing new things, hoping to distract from the core subject because you don't have anything left?
Click to expand...

Can lgbtq persons of the People keep and bear Arms?   You need more than ad hominems to prove your argument.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's a reason given for the right being protected, but the right itself is independent of a militia.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. How can criminals of the People be Infringed as is customary and usual; if Your point of view is correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're the one who keeps insisting the militia is all of the people, and you keep posting quotes to that effect. Apparently you haven't been noticing that you're destroying your own argument. Are you now saying it's not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  You simply have no logic or reason for a valid rebuttal and Have to resort to right wing fantasy, like is usual for the Right-Wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which has nothing to do with what I said. Are you now saying that the militia is not all the people?
Click to expand...

Nope; that is just your misunderstanding, like usual for the right wing.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course.
> The means of a free state is weapons that prevent a dictatorship from being able to intimidate a population, like they could if the population were unarmed.
> 
> 
> 
> The State not Individuals of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not what it says. You're just making that up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is.  You simply have nothing but right wing fantasy.
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says nothing about the right of a state to be armed. On the contrary, it says the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. You keep missing that vital piece.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is Your misunderstanding like is usual for right wing fantasists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those are the words that are there, that apparently you don't see.
Click to expand...

I see them quite well.  Our Second Amendment is clearly about the security of our free States not individual liberty or natural rights.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which has no effect in Arkansas.
> 
> 
> 
> It is an example of a State's right.  All States have a similar clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We're talking about the second amendment and its restrictions on the federal government. And you don't seem to comprehend the 14th amendment at all.
Click to expand...

What is your point about the Fourteenth Amendment?  Our Second Amendment is quite clear.  The People are the Militia.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless of the reason why, the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe in Right-Wing fantasy.  In the real world, criminals of the People get infringed all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds like you're saying that, according to the Constitution, the government cannot legally prevent people from owning weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not even the lgbtq community when the security of our free States or the Union may require it.  Don't ask, don't tell was completely unnecessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which again has nothing whatsoever to do with the Second Amendment. You have reached the end of your programmed responses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has more to do with our Second Amendment than your right wing fantasy, Individual and Singular rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do I really need to point out that you're vainly introducing new things, hoping to distract from the core subject because you don't have anything left?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can lgbtq persons of the People keep and bear Arms?   You need more than ad hominems to prove your argument.
Click to expand...

Who is saying they cannot? That's not even on the radar screen.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which has no effect in Arkansas.
> 
> 
> 
> It is an example of a State's right.  All States have a similar clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We're talking about the second amendment and its restrictions on the federal government. And you don't seem to comprehend the 14th amendment at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is your point about the Fourteenth Amendment?  Our Second Amendment is quite clear.  The People are the Militia.
Click to expand...

Yet you say the militia is all the people, so what's your problem? The 14th ensures that the states can't pass unconstitutional laws, which means they cannot infringe on the rights of the PEOPLE to bear arms.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless of the reason why, the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe in Right-Wing fantasy.  In the real world, criminals of the People get infringed all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds like you're saying that, according to the Constitution, the government cannot legally prevent people from owning weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not even the lgbtq community when the security of our free States or the Union may require it.  Don't ask, don't tell was completely unnecessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which again has nothing whatsoever to do with the Second Amendment. You have reached the end of your programmed responses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has more to do with our Second Amendment than your right wing fantasy, Individual and Singular rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do I really need to point out that you're vainly introducing new things, hoping to distract from the core subject because you don't have anything left?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can lgbtq persons of the People keep and bear Arms?   You need more than ad hominems to prove your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who is saying they cannot? That's not even on the radar screen.
Click to expand...

Only if you ignore history.  Why was there Ever any "don't ask don't tell" legislation?


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which has no effect in Arkansas.
> 
> 
> 
> It is an example of a State's right.  All States have a similar clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We're talking about the second amendment and its restrictions on the federal government. And you don't seem to comprehend the 14th amendment at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is your point about the Fourteenth Amendment?  Our Second Amendment is quite clear.  The People are the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet you say the militia is all the people, so what's your problem? The 14th ensures that the states can't pass unconstitutional laws, which means they cannot infringe on the rights of the PEOPLE to bear arms.
Click to expand...

What unconstitutional laws?

*A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,* the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Our Second Amendment is Constitutional law.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Can lgbtq persons of the People keep and bear Arms?


Yes, you butt pirates and trannies can keep and bear arms.  Nobody cares whose dick you suck or chop off.  That is HARDLY a qualifier within the meaning of the 2A.  Totally irrelevant.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Our Second Amendment is clearly about the security of our free States not individual liberty or natural rights.


Clearly....


It couldn't POSSIBLY be about BOTH.  That would be........too deep for the likes of you.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which has no effect in Arkansas.
> 
> 
> 
> It is an example of a State's right.  All States have a similar clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We're talking about the second amendment and its restrictions on the federal government. And you don't seem to comprehend the 14th amendment at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is your point about the Fourteenth Amendment?  Our Second Amendment is quite clear.  The People are the Militia.
Click to expand...

Confirmed.  You know cocksucking SHIT about the 14th.  Otherwise, you would not need to ask that question.

Have you ever read it?  Do you know what it does?

You have NO understanding of our history.  That disqualifies you to opine on this subject.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Only if you ignore history. Why was there Ever any "don't ask don't tell" legislation?


DUMB FUCK!!!!

The 2A is NOT about the fucking U.S. Military. 

Oh

My

GOD!!!!


I have been arguing with a fucking idiot....


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which has no effect in Arkansas.
> 
> 
> 
> It is an example of a State's right.  All States have a similar clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We're talking about the second amendment and its restrictions on the federal government. And you don't seem to comprehend the 14th amendment at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is your point about the Fourteenth Amendment?  Our Second Amendment is quite clear.  The People are the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet you say the militia is all the people, so what's your problem? The 14th ensures that the states can't pass unconstitutional laws, which means they cannot infringe on the rights of the PEOPLE to bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What unconstitutional laws?
> 
> *A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,* the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is Constitutional law.
Click to expand...

It's both for the security of a free state and about securing the right of the people.  The two go hand in hand.

Are you a faggot or trannie who got bounched from the army?   If so, I am sorry for you.  That's not right in my opinion, but that has FUCK ALL to do with the 2A.   

I cannot believe I have been arguing with someone so fucking ignorant.

Jesus.


----------



## Markle

Lesh said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> EVERY weapon ever called an assault weapon (either by gun manufacturers themselves or anyone else) has ALWAYS been a semi-auto at a minimum. Some "no doubters" are select fire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which of these weapons are not semi-automatics?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they all use the same method to fire
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither hand gun is gas operated and the shotgun does not have a removable mag. You know nothing
Click to expand...


Whether or not a weapon is gas-operated has nothing to do, whatsoever with it being a semi-automatic weapon. Even you should know that.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can lgbtq persons of the People keep and bear Arms?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you butt pirates and trannies can keep and bear arms.  Nobody cares whose dick you suck or chop off.  That is HARDLY a qualifier within the meaning of the 2A.  Totally irrelevant.
Click to expand...

*Trump's controversial transgender military policy goes into effect*
“The policy is insidious in operation but designed to be as comprehensive a ban as possible,” the nonpartisan Palm Center, which studies LGBTQ military issues, stated.--https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/trump-s-controversial-transgender-military-policy-goes-effect-n993826

A Democrat had to reverse your right wing bigotry and hypocrisy.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is clearly about the security of our free States not individual liberty or natural rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly....
> 
> 
> It couldn't POSSIBLY be about BOTH.  That would be........too deep for the likes of you.
Click to expand...

Only if you appeal to ignorance of express law.  That is usually how deep the right wing goes. 

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  

Only well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for the security needs of their State or the Union.

The unorganized militia and criminals of the People, do not.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which has no effect in Arkansas.
> 
> 
> 
> It is an example of a State's right.  All States have a similar clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We're talking about the second amendment and its restrictions on the federal government. And you don't seem to comprehend the 14th amendment at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is your point about the Fourteenth Amendment?  Our Second Amendment is quite clear.  The People are the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Confirmed.  You know cocksucking SHIT about the 14th.  Otherwise, you would not need to ask that question.
> 
> Have you ever read it?  Do you know what it does?
> 
> You have NO understanding of our history.  That disqualifies you to opine on this subject.
Click to expand...

Yes, I have.  I understand it.  That is why I ask You, right winger, how you believe it applies.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you ignore history. Why was there Ever any "don't ask don't tell" legislation?
> 
> 
> 
> DUMB FUCK!!!!
> 
> The 2A is NOT about the fucking U.S. Military.
> 
> Oh
> 
> My
> 
> GOD!!!!
> 
> 
> I have been arguing with a fucking idiot....
Click to expand...

lol.  Projecting much?  It is what right wingers do best. 

Our Second Amendment is about the Security of our free States not Individual Liberty or Natural Rights; it says so in the first clause which the second clause Must follow.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which has no effect in Arkansas.
> 
> 
> 
> It is an example of a State's right.  All States have a similar clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We're talking about the second amendment and its restrictions on the federal government. And you don't seem to comprehend the 14th amendment at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is your point about the Fourteenth Amendment?  Our Second Amendment is quite clear.  The People are the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet you say the militia is all the people, so what's your problem? The 14th ensures that the states can't pass unconstitutional laws, which means they cannot infringe on the rights of the PEOPLE to bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What unconstitutional laws?
> 
> *A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,* the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is Constitutional law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's both for the security of a free state and about securing the right of the people.  The two go hand in hand.
> 
> Are you a faggot or trannie who got bounched from the army?   If so, I am sorry for you.  That's not right in my opinion, but that has FUCK ALL to do with the 2A.
> 
> I cannot believe I have been arguing with someone so fucking ignorant.
> 
> Jesus.
Click to expand...

All y'all know how to do is project, right winger. 

For the security needs of our free States not Individual Liberty nor Natural Rights.


----------



## Markle

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course.
> The means of a free state is weapons that prevent a dictatorship from being able to intimidate a population, like they could if the population were unarmed.
> 
> 
> 
> The State not Individuals of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not what it says. You're just making that up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is.  You simply have nothing but right wing fantasy.
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...


All these months and you are still proud of the fact that you never learned English grammar and punctuation.  If you ever do, even you would quit your ignorant attack on the Second Amendment.


----------



## danielpalos

Not at all.  After all this time you still haven't learned how to resort to the fewest fallacies or have valid arguments.


----------



## Lesh

Markle said:


> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Markle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lesh said:
> 
> 
> 
> EVERY weapon ever called an assault weapon (either by gun manufacturers themselves or anyone else) has ALWAYS been a semi-auto at a minimum. Some "no doubters" are select fire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which of these weapons are not semi-automatics?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they all use the same method to fire
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither hand gun is gas operated and the shotgun does not have a removable mag. You know nothing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whether or not a weapon is gas-operated has nothing to do, whatsoever with it being a semi-automatic weapon. Even you should know that.
Click to expand...

But that’s not what you claimed. Your claim was that they all operated the same.

Clearly you have no clue


----------



## Lesh

Markle said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course.
> The means of a free state is weapons that prevent a dictatorship from being able to intimidate a population, like they could if the population were unarmed.
> 
> 
> 
> The State not Individuals of the People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not what it says. You're just making that up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is.  You simply have nothing but right wing fantasy.
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All these months and you are still proud of the fact that you never learned English grammar and punctuation.  If you ever do, even you would quit your ignorant attack on the Second Amendment.
Click to expand...

Your claim appears to be that anything that comes after a comma has nothing to do with what comes after.

Ummm no. That’s not how it works


----------



## Lesh

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which has no effect in Arkansas.
> 
> 
> 
> It is an example of a State's right.  All States have a similar clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We're talking about the second amendment and its restrictions on the federal government. And you don't seem to comprehend the 14th amendment at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is your point about the Fourteenth Amendment?  Our Second Amendment is quite clear.  The People are the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet you say the militia is all the people, so what's your problem? The 14th ensures that the states can't pass unconstitutional laws, which means they cannot infringe on the rights of the PEOPLE to bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What unconstitutional laws?
> 
> *A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,* the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is Constitutional law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's both for the security of a free state and about securing the right of the people.  The two go hand in hand.
> 
> Are you a faggot or trannie who got bounched from the army?   If so, I am sorry for you.  That's not right in my opinion, but that has FUCK ALL to do with the 2A.
> 
> I cannot believe I have been arguing with someone so fucking ignorant.
> 
> Jesus.
Click to expand...

So apparently you were “bounched” and that had a profound effect on you. Sad

Was it painful?


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless of the reason why, the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe in Right-Wing fantasy.  In the real world, criminals of the People get infringed all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds like you're saying that, according to the Constitution, the government cannot legally prevent people from owning weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not even the lgbtq community when the security of our free States or the Union may require it.  Don't ask, don't tell was completely unnecessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which again has nothing whatsoever to do with the Second Amendment. You have reached the end of your programmed responses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has more to do with our Second Amendment than your right wing fantasy, Individual and Singular rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do I really need to point out that you're vainly introducing new things, hoping to distract from the core subject because you don't have anything left?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can lgbtq persons of the People keep and bear Arms?   You need more than ad hominems to prove your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who is saying they cannot? That's not even on the radar screen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only if you ignore history.  Why was there Ever any "don't ask don't tell" legislation?
Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with the Second Amendment, thus ignored.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which has no effect in Arkansas.
> 
> 
> 
> It is an example of a State's right.  All States have a similar clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We're talking about the second amendment and its restrictions on the federal government. And you don't seem to comprehend the 14th amendment at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is your point about the Fourteenth Amendment?  Our Second Amendment is quite clear.  The People are the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet you say the militia is all the people, so what's your problem? The 14th ensures that the states can't pass unconstitutional laws, which means they cannot infringe on the rights of the PEOPLE to bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What unconstitutional laws?
> 
> *A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,* the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is Constitutional law.
Click to expand...

That's right, and the states can't pass laws that violate it. Ever think of that?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, _*the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.*_


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can lgbtq persons of the People keep and bear Arms?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you butt pirates and trannies can keep and bear arms.  Nobody cares whose dick you suck or chop off.  That is HARDLY a qualifier within the meaning of the 2A.  Totally irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Trump's controversial transgender military policy goes into effect*
> “The policy is insidious in operation but designed to be as comprehensive a ban as possible,” the nonpartisan Palm Center, which studies LGBTQ military issues, stated.--https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/trump-s-controversial-transgender-military-policy-goes-effect-n993826
> 
> A Democrat had to reverse your right wing bigotry and hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with the 2nd, ignored.


----------



## hadit

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you ignore history. Why was there Ever any "don't ask don't tell" legislation?
> 
> 
> 
> DUMB FUCK!!!!
> 
> The 2A is NOT about the fucking U.S. Military.
> 
> Oh
> 
> My
> 
> GOD!!!!
> 
> 
> I have been arguing with a fucking idiot....
Click to expand...

It's a classic Daniel dodge. He does it when even he starts to realize he has nothing left, so he tries to distract.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is clearly about the security of our free States not individual liberty or natural rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly....
> 
> 
> It couldn't POSSIBLY be about BOTH.  That would be........too deep for the likes of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance of express law.  That is usually how deep the right wing goes.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for the security needs of their State or the Union.
> 
> The unorganized militia and criminals of the People, do not.
Click to expand...

Quit pretending the Illinois state constitution has bearing on the 2nd Amendment. And yes, individuals have literal recourse to our Second Amendment, full stop. Doesn't matter if they're part of a militia or not (you claim the militia is all the people), and it doesn't matter if they're bearing arms "for the security needs of their State or the Union". That's something you just made up.


----------



## hadit

Lesh said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which has no effect in Arkansas.
> 
> 
> 
> It is an example of a State's right.  All States have a similar clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We're talking about the second amendment and its restrictions on the federal government. And you don't seem to comprehend the 14th amendment at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is your point about the Fourteenth Amendment?  Our Second Amendment is quite clear.  The People are the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet you say the militia is all the people, so what's your problem? The 14th ensures that the states can't pass unconstitutional laws, which means they cannot infringe on the rights of the PEOPLE to bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What unconstitutional laws?
> 
> *A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,* the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is Constitutional law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's both for the security of a free state and about securing the right of the people.  The two go hand in hand.
> 
> Are you a faggot or trannie who got bounched from the army?   If so, I am sorry for you.  That's not right in my opinion, but that has FUCK ALL to do with the 2A.
> 
> I cannot believe I have been arguing with someone so fucking ignorant.
> 
> Jesus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So apparently you were “bounched” and that had a profound effect on you. Sad
> 
> Was it painful?
Click to expand...

Obvious spelling trolls are obvious.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> That has nothing to do with the Second Amendment, thus ignored.


Then why were homosexuals once banned from keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union?


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which has no effect in Arkansas.
> 
> 
> 
> It is an example of a State's right.  All States have a similar clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We're talking about the second amendment and its restrictions on the federal government. And you don't seem to comprehend the 14th amendment at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is your point about the Fourteenth Amendment?  Our Second Amendment is quite clear.  The People are the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet you say the militia is all the people, so what's your problem? The 14th ensures that the states can't pass unconstitutional laws, which means they cannot infringe on the rights of the PEOPLE to bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What unconstitutional laws?
> 
> *A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,* the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is Constitutional law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's right, and the states can't pass laws that violate it. Ever think of that?
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, _*the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.*_
Click to expand...

Only if you ignore the first clause And sacrifice the End to the Means.  Only right-wingers repeat that historical mistake and allege they are "for the gospel Truth".


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can lgbtq persons of the People keep and bear Arms?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you butt pirates and trannies can keep and bear arms.  Nobody cares whose dick you suck or chop off.  That is HARDLY a qualifier within the meaning of the 2A.  Totally irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Trump's controversial transgender military policy goes into effect*
> “The policy is insidious in operation but designed to be as comprehensive a ban as possible,” the nonpartisan Palm Center, which studies LGBTQ military issues, stated.--https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/trump-s-controversial-transgender-military-policy-goes-effect-n993826
> 
> A Democrat had to reverse your right wing bigotry and hypocrisy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That has nothing to do with the 2nd, ignored.
Click to expand...

In other words, you don't really care if the People are infringed as long as You are not Infringed.  I get it, right-wingers.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is clearly about the security of our free States not individual liberty or natural rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly....
> 
> 
> It couldn't POSSIBLY be about BOTH.  That would be........too deep for the likes of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance of express law.  That is usually how deep the right wing goes.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for the security needs of their State or the Union.
> 
> The unorganized militia and criminals of the People, do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quit pretending the Illinois state constitution has bearing on the 2nd Amendment. And yes, individuals have literal recourse to our Second Amendment, full stop. Doesn't matter if they're part of a militia or not (you claim the militia is all the people), and it doesn't matter if they're bearing arms "for the security needs of their State or the Union". That's something you just made up.
Click to expand...

It demonstrates a free State's sovereign right to police itself with the traditional use of the police power.  That is all, right-winger.  Your red herrings are worthless in argumentation venues.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> That has nothing to do with the Second Amendment, thus ignored.
> 
> 
> 
> Then why were homosexuals once banned from keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union?
Click to expand...

What part of ignored don't you understand?


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which has no effect in Arkansas.
> 
> 
> 
> It is an example of a State's right.  All States have a similar clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We're talking about the second amendment and its restrictions on the federal government. And you don't seem to comprehend the 14th amendment at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is your point about the Fourteenth Amendment?  Our Second Amendment is quite clear.  The People are the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet you say the militia is all the people, so what's your problem? The 14th ensures that the states can't pass unconstitutional laws, which means they cannot infringe on the rights of the PEOPLE to bear arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What unconstitutional laws?
> 
> *A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,* the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is Constitutional law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's right, and the states can't pass laws that violate it. Ever think of that?
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, _*the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only if you ignore the first clause And sacrifice the End to the Means.  Only right-wingers repeat that historical mistake and allege they are "for the gospel Truth".
Click to expand...


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, _*the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.*_


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can lgbtq persons of the People keep and bear Arms?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you butt pirates and trannies can keep and bear arms.  Nobody cares whose dick you suck or chop off.  That is HARDLY a qualifier within the meaning of the 2A.  Totally irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Trump's controversial transgender military policy goes into effect*
> “The policy is insidious in operation but designed to be as comprehensive a ban as possible,” the nonpartisan Palm Center, which studies LGBTQ military issues, stated.--https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/trump-s-controversial-transgender-military-policy-goes-effect-n993826
> 
> A Democrat had to reverse your right wing bigotry and hypocrisy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That has nothing to do with the 2nd, ignored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, you don't really care if the People are infringed as long as You are not Infringed.  I get it, right-wingers.
Click to expand...

What part of ignored don't you understand?


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is clearly about the security of our free States not individual liberty or natural rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly....
> 
> 
> It couldn't POSSIBLY be about BOTH.  That would be........too deep for the likes of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance of express law.  That is usually how deep the right wing goes.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Only well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for the security needs of their State or the Union.
> 
> The unorganized militia and criminals of the People, do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quit pretending the Illinois state constitution has bearing on the 2nd Amendment. And yes, individuals have literal recourse to our Second Amendment, full stop. Doesn't matter if they're part of a militia or not (you claim the militia is all the people), and it doesn't matter if they're bearing arms "for the security needs of their State or the Union". That's something you just made up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It demonstrates a free State's sovereign right to police itself with the traditional use of the police power.  That is all, right-winger.  Your red herrings are worthless in argumentation venues.
Click to expand...

Did you even notice that the quote you keep slinging around explicitly cites the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? It says nothing whatsoever about the militia, so why do you? I mean, you repeat it like it was "gospel truth".


----------



## The Irish Ram

Lakhota said:


> Trying to live modern life according to the Constitution is much like trying to live modern life according to the Bible.  Both are subject to vast interpretation.



Actually, neither are subject to interpretation.  Insisting that they must mean something other than what they say is where the fault and confusion sets in. 

This right shall not be infringed, means this right shall not be infringed.  It does not say, this right shall not be infringed,  except for...


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, _*the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.*_


Your point?

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons (the People) within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

A well regulated Militia (of the whole People), being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> Did you even notice that the quote you keep slinging around explicitly cites the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? It says nothing whatsoever about the militia, so why do you? I mean, you repeat it like it was "gospel truth".



Only if you appeal to ignorance of the actual Terms involved.  There are no Individual or Singular Terms in our Second Article of Amendment, unlike express Constitutional Articles in State Constitutions.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the _*individual*_ citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, _*the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.*_
> 
> 
> 
> Your point?
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons (the People) within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> A well regulated Militia (of the whole People), being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...

And there you go again, undermining your own argument by saying the militia is all of the people, which of course means it is the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms, not the militia.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you even notice that the quote you keep slinging around explicitly cites the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? It says nothing whatsoever about the militia, so why do you? I mean, you repeat it like it was "gospel truth".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance of the actual Terms involved.  There are no Individual or Singular Terms in our Second Article of Amendment, unlike express Constitutional Articles in State Constitutions.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the _*individual*_ citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
Click to expand...

Since the state constitution cannot violate the federal constitution, as written it specifically makes the right to keep and bear arms an _*individual*_ one. You emphasized it. The only conclusion is to state that the 2nd applies to individuals.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, _*the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.*_
> 
> 
> 
> Your point?
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons (the People) within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> A well regulated Militia (of the whole People), being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And there you go again, undermining your own argument by saying the militia is all of the people, which of course means it is the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms, not the militia.
Click to expand...

I ask, sir, what is the militia? *It is the whole people*, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you even notice that the quote you keep slinging around explicitly cites the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? It says nothing whatsoever about the militia, so why do you? I mean, you repeat it like it was "gospel truth".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance of the actual Terms involved.  There are no Individual or Singular Terms in our Second Article of Amendment, unlike express Constitutional Articles in State Constitutions.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the _*individual*_ citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the state constitution cannot violate the federal constitution, as written it specifically makes the right to keep and bear arms an _*individual*_ one. You emphasized it. The only conclusion is to state that the 2nd applies to individuals.
Click to expand...

I only emphasize that there are no Individual or Singular Terms, in our federal Second Amendment.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, _*the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.*_
> 
> 
> 
> Your point?
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons (the People) within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> A well regulated Militia (of the whole People), being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And there you go again, undermining your own argument by saying the militia is all of the people, which of course means it is the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms, not the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? *It is the whole people*, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
Click to expand...

So if the militia is the whole people, then the 2nd applies to the whole people, which means it's an individual right, just as the SC found.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you even notice that the quote you keep slinging around explicitly cites the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? It says nothing whatsoever about the militia, so why do you? I mean, you repeat it like it was "gospel truth".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance of the actual Terms involved.  There are no Individual or Singular Terms in our Second Article of Amendment, unlike express Constitutional Articles in State Constitutions.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the _*individual*_ citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the state constitution cannot violate the federal constitution, as written it specifically makes the right to keep and bear arms an _*individual*_ one. You emphasized it. The only conclusion is to state that the 2nd applies to individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I only emphasize that there are no Individual or Singular Terms, in our federal Second Amendment.
Click to expand...

Just as there are none in the First, yet the state of Illinois has no problem putting it in their state constitution as an individual right. Why do you think that is? Are you going to now say they got it wrong after you quoted them so often?


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, _*the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.*_
> 
> 
> 
> Your point?
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons (the People) within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> A well regulated Militia (of the whole People), being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And there you go again, undermining your own argument by saying the militia is all of the people, which of course means it is the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms, not the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? *It is the whole people*, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if the militia is the whole people, then the 2nd applies to the whole people, which means it's an individual right, just as the SC found.
Click to expand...

Our Second Amendment clearly states that it is well regulated militia of the whole People _not inclusive_ of the unorganized militia.  They must have been more right wing back then.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you even notice that the quote you keep slinging around explicitly cites the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? It says nothing whatsoever about the militia, so why do you? I mean, you repeat it like it was "gospel truth".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance of the actual Terms involved.  There are no Individual or Singular Terms in our Second Article of Amendment, unlike express Constitutional Articles in State Constitutions.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the _*individual*_ citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the state constitution cannot violate the federal constitution, as written it specifically makes the right to keep and bear arms an _*individual*_ one. You emphasized it. The only conclusion is to state that the 2nd applies to individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I only emphasize that there are no Individual or Singular Terms, in our federal Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just as there are none in the First, yet the state of Illinois has no problem putting it in their state constitution as an individual right. Why do you think that is? Are you going to now say they got it wrong after you quoted them so often?
Click to expand...

The first clause of our Second Amendment explains it quite well. 

Yes, that activist Court ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the End to the Means; contrary to the dictates of legal axioms and plain reason.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, _*the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.*_
> 
> 
> 
> Your point?
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons (the People) within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> A well regulated Militia (of the whole People), being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And there you go again, undermining your own argument by saying the militia is all of the people, which of course means it is the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms, not the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? *It is the whole people*, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if the militia is the whole people, then the 2nd applies to the whole people, which means it's an individual right, just as the SC found.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment clearly states that it is well regulated militia of the whole People _not inclusive_ of the unorganized militia.  They must have been more right wing back then.
Click to expand...

So you deny even that which you quote ad nauseum, which clearly states that the militia is the whole people, something you emphasize in the quote. Yet again you destroy your own argument for us. And you're also again adding things to the second amendment that aren't there. Our Second Amendment clearly states that it is the PEOPLE whose right to bear arms is protected, not the militia (which you also claim is the PEOPLE). The only way you can arrive at your conclusion is by adding things that just are not there.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you even notice that the quote you keep slinging around explicitly cites the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? It says nothing whatsoever about the militia, so why do you? I mean, you repeat it like it was "gospel truth".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance of the actual Terms involved.  There are no Individual or Singular Terms in our Second Article of Amendment, unlike express Constitutional Articles in State Constitutions.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the _*individual*_ citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the state constitution cannot violate the federal constitution, as written it specifically makes the right to keep and bear arms an _*individual*_ one. You emphasized it. The only conclusion is to state that the 2nd applies to individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I only emphasize that there are no Individual or Singular Terms, in our federal Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just as there are none in the First, yet the state of Illinois has no problem putting it in their state constitution as an individual right. Why do you think that is? Are you going to now say they got it wrong after you quoted them so often?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The first clause of our Second Amendment explains it quite well.
> 
> Yes, that activist Court ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the End to the Means; contrary to the dictates of legal axioms and plain reason.
Click to expand...

I wish for once you would realize what you're trying desperately to say but continually mangle. First, you keep quoting the Illinois state constitution. Now you're willing to throw it in the trash as an "activist Court".

The state of Illinois has no problem putting it in their state constitution as an individual right. Why do you think that is? Are you going to now say they got it wrong after you quoted them so often? One other question, is the Illinois state constitution unconstitutional, because it clearly defines the right to bear arms as an individual one?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, _*the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.*_
> 
> 
> 
> Your point?
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons (the People) within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> A well regulated Militia (of the whole People), being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And there you go again, undermining your own argument by saying the militia is all of the people, which of course means it is the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms, not the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? *It is the whole people*, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if the militia is the whole people, then the 2nd applies to the whole people, which means it's an individual right, just as the SC found.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment clearly states that it is well regulated militia of the whole People _not inclusive_ of the unorganized militia.  They must have been more right wing back then.
Click to expand...

That is the dumbest fuckiing shit I have ever heard.

You are taking at least 10 leaps in logic to get where you are.

Holy FUCK you are stupid.

OUR (not your) 2nd Amendment does not clearly state "a well regulated militia of the whole people" dumbass.  It says NOTHING about organization.  

Making shit up.

Has your illegal ass ever heard of Minutemen?  Answer the fucking question.  Failure to do so proves you know jack fucking shit.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can lgbtq persons of the People keep and bear Arms?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you butt pirates and trannies can keep and bear arms.  Nobody cares whose dick you suck or chop off.  That is HARDLY a qualifier within the meaning of the 2A.  Totally irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Trump's controversial transgender military policy goes into effect*
> “The policy is insidious in operation but designed to be as comprehensive a ban as possible,” the nonpartisan Palm Center, which studies LGBTQ military issues, stated.--https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/trump-s-controversial-transgender-military-policy-goes-effect-n993826
> 
> A Democrat had to reverse your right wing bigotry and hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

ZERO to do with the 2A, you ignorant faggot fuck.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> That has nothing to do with the Second Amendment, thus ignored.
> 
> 
> 
> Then why were homosexuals once banned from keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union?
Click to expand...

YOU ARE FUCKING STUPID!!!

The 2A has ZERO to do with a standing army and you faggots.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

ScienceRocks said:


> The second amendment was put into the consitution to fight fascist like you bastards. Our founders knew what big government dictators were all about.
> 
> Hell no it isn't out dated or obsolete.



It is if Patriots are closet sissies...which appears to be the case.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, _*the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.*_
> 
> 
> 
> Your point?
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons (the People) within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> A well regulated Militia (of the whole People), being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And there you go again, undermining your own argument by saying the militia is all of the people, which of course means it is the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms, not the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? *It is the whole people*, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if the militia is the whole people, then the 2nd applies to the whole people, which means it's an individual right, just as the SC found.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment clearly states that it is well regulated militia of the whole People _not inclusive_ of the unorganized militia.  They must have been more right wing back then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you deny even that which you quote ad nauseum, which clearly states that the militia is the whole people, something you emphasize in the quote. Yet again you destroy your own argument for us. And you're also again adding things to the second amendment that aren't there. Our Second Amendment clearly states that it is the PEOPLE whose right to bear arms is protected, not the militia (which you also claim is the PEOPLE). The only way you can arrive at your conclusion is by adding things that just are not there.
Click to expand...

The unorganized militia or criminals of the whole people may be Infringed unlike the Organized and well regulated militia of the whole people.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you even notice that the quote you keep slinging around explicitly cites the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? It says nothing whatsoever about the militia, so why do you? I mean, you repeat it like it was "gospel truth".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance of the actual Terms involved.  There are no Individual or Singular Terms in our Second Article of Amendment, unlike express Constitutional Articles in State Constitutions.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the _*individual*_ citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the state constitution cannot violate the federal constitution, as written it specifically makes the right to keep and bear arms an _*individual*_ one. You emphasized it. The only conclusion is to state that the 2nd applies to individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I only emphasize that there are no Individual or Singular Terms, in our federal Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just as there are none in the First, yet the state of Illinois has no problem putting it in their state constitution as an individual right. Why do you think that is? Are you going to now say they got it wrong after you quoted them so often?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The first clause of our Second Amendment explains it quite well.
> 
> Yes, that activist Court ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the End to the Means; contrary to the dictates of legal axioms and plain reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wish for once you would realize what you're trying desperately to say but continually mangle. First, you keep quoting the Illinois state constitution. Now you're willing to throw it in the trash as an "activist Court".
> 
> The state of Illinois has no problem putting it in their state constitution as an individual right. Why do you think that is? Are you going to now say they got it wrong after you quoted them so often? One other question, is the Illinois state constitution unconstitutional, because it clearly defines the right to bear arms as an individual one?
Click to expand...

Because I actually understand the Federalist Papers and the concepts they explain, unlike the Right-Wing who only have right wing fantasy to work with.   Only right wingers appeal to Ignorance about Every Thing, even their own propaganda and rhetoric.

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.--The Federalist Number Forty-Five


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, _*the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.*_
> 
> 
> 
> Your point?
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons (the People) within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> A well regulated Militia (of the whole People), being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And there you go again, undermining your own argument by saying the militia is all of the people, which of course means it is the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms, not the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? *It is the whole people*, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if the militia is the whole people, then the 2nd applies to the whole people, which means it's an individual right, just as the SC found.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment clearly states that it is well regulated militia of the whole People _not inclusive_ of the unorganized militia.  They must have been more right wing back then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the dumbest fuckiing shit I have ever heard.
> 
> You are taking at least 10 leaps in logic to get where you are.
> 
> Holy FUCK you are stupid.
> 
> OUR (not your) 2nd Amendment does not clearly state "a well regulated militia of the whole people" dumbass.  It says NOTHING about organization.
> 
> Making shit up.
> 
> Has your illegal ass ever heard of Minutemen?  Answer the fucking question.  Failure to do so proves you know jack fucking shit.
Click to expand...

Simply because You say so without any valid argument to back it up?  You are Always Right, in right wing fantasy.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can lgbtq persons of the People keep and bear Arms?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you butt pirates and trannies can keep and bear arms.  Nobody cares whose dick you suck or chop off.  That is HARDLY a qualifier within the meaning of the 2A.  Totally irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Trump's controversial transgender military policy goes into effect*
> “The policy is insidious in operation but designed to be as comprehensive a ban as possible,” the nonpartisan Palm Center, which studies LGBTQ military issues, stated.--https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/trump-s-controversial-transgender-military-policy-goes-effect-n993826
> 
> A Democrat had to reverse your right wing bigotry and hypocrisy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ZERO to do with the 2A, you ignorant faggot fuck.
Click to expand...

Right wingers have zero to do with the 2A.  

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


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you even notice that the quote you keep slinging around explicitly cites the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? It says nothing whatsoever about the militia, so why do you? I mean, you repeat it like it was "gospel truth".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance of the actual Terms involved.  There are no Individual or Singular Terms in our Second Article of Amendment, unlike express Constitutional Articles in State Constitutions.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the _*individual*_ citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the state constitution cannot violate the federal constitution, as written it specifically makes the right to keep and bear arms an _*individual*_ one. You emphasized it. The only conclusion is to state that the 2nd applies to individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I only emphasize that there are no Individual or Singular Terms, in our federal Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just as there are none in the First, yet the state of Illinois has no problem putting it in their state constitution as an individual right. Why do you think that is? Are you going to now say they got it wrong after you quoted them so often?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The first clause of our Second Amendment explains it quite well.
> 
> Yes, that activist Court ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the End to the Means; contrary to the dictates of legal axioms and plain reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wish for once you would realize what you're trying desperately to say but continually mangle. First, you keep quoting the Illinois state constitution. Now you're willing to throw it in the trash as an "activist Court".
> 
> The state of Illinois has no problem putting it in their state constitution as an individual right. Why do you think that is? Are you going to now say they got it wrong after you quoted them so often? One other question, is the Illinois state constitution unconstitutional, because it clearly defines the right to bear arms as an individual one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because I actually understand the Federalist Papers and the concepts they explain, unlike the Right-Wing who only have right wing fantasy to work with.   Only right wingers appeal to Ignorance about Every Thing, even their own propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.--The Federalist Number Forty-Five
Click to expand...

You don't understand shit.

Minutemen?


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> That has nothing to do with the Second Amendment, thus ignored.
> 
> 
> 
> Then why were homosexuals once banned from keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YOU ARE FUCKING STUPID!!!
> 
> The 2A has ZERO to do with a standing army and you faggots.
Click to expand...

Proof, right wingers have only fantasy and not even a consistent approach with their own propaganda and rhetoric. 

That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; *that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty*; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you even notice that the quote you keep slinging around explicitly cites the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? It says nothing whatsoever about the militia, so why do you? I mean, you repeat it like it was "gospel truth".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance of the actual Terms involved.  There are no Individual or Singular Terms in our Second Article of Amendment, unlike express Constitutional Articles in State Constitutions.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the _*individual*_ citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the state constitution cannot violate the federal constitution, as written it specifically makes the right to keep and bear arms an _*individual*_ one. You emphasized it. The only conclusion is to state that the 2nd applies to individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I only emphasize that there are no Individual or Singular Terms, in our federal Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just as there are none in the First, yet the state of Illinois has no problem putting it in their state constitution as an individual right. Why do you think that is? Are you going to now say they got it wrong after you quoted them so often?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The first clause of our Second Amendment explains it quite well.
> 
> Yes, that activist Court ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the End to the Means; contrary to the dictates of legal axioms and plain reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wish for once you would realize what you're trying desperately to say but continually mangle. First, you keep quoting the Illinois state constitution. Now you're willing to throw it in the trash as an "activist Court".
> 
> The state of Illinois has no problem putting it in their state constitution as an individual right. Why do you think that is? Are you going to now say they got it wrong after you quoted them so often? One other question, is the Illinois state constitution unconstitutional, because it clearly defines the right to bear arms as an individual one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because I actually understand the Federalist Papers and the concepts they explain, unlike the Right-Wing who only have right wing fantasy to work with.   Only right wingers appeal to Ignorance about Every Thing, even their own propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.--The Federalist Number Forty-Five
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't understand shit.
> 
> Minutemen?
Click to expand...

You mean the well regulated militia who could be ready at a minute's notice, unlike the unorganized militia which proved itself worthless to the security of our free States in recent times?

Minutemen were civilian colonists who independently formed militia companies self-trained in weaponry, tactics, and military strategies, *comprising the American colonial partisan militia during the American Revolutionary War. *They were known for being ready at a minute's notice, hence the name.[1] Minutemen provided a highly mobile, rapidly deployed force that enabled the colonies to respond immediately to war threats.

The minutemen were among the first to fight in the American Revolution. *Their teams constituted about a quarter of the entire militia. *They were generally younger and more mobile--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minutemen









						Minutemen - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




Some towns in Massachusetts had a long history of *designating a portion of their militia as minutemen,* with "minute companies" constituting special units within the militia system whose members underwent additional training and held themselves ready to turn out rapidly for emergencies, "at a minute's notice" and hence their name. Other towns, such as Lexington, preferred to keep their entire militia in a single unit.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you even notice that the quote you keep slinging around explicitly cites the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? It says nothing whatsoever about the militia, so why do you? I mean, you repeat it like it was "gospel truth".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance of the actual Terms involved.  There are no Individual or Singular Terms in our Second Article of Amendment, unlike express Constitutional Articles in State Constitutions.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the _*individual*_ citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the state constitution cannot violate the federal constitution, as written it specifically makes the right to keep and bear arms an _*individual*_ one. You emphasized it. The only conclusion is to state that the 2nd applies to individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I only emphasize that there are no Individual or Singular Terms, in our federal Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just as there are none in the First, yet the state of Illinois has no problem putting it in their state constitution as an individual right. Why do you think that is? Are you going to now say they got it wrong after you quoted them so often?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The first clause of our Second Amendment explains it quite well.
> 
> Yes, that activist Court ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the End to the Means; contrary to the dictates of legal axioms and plain reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wish for once you would realize what you're trying desperately to say but continually mangle. First, you keep quoting the Illinois state constitution. Now you're willing to throw it in the trash as an "activist Court".
> 
> The state of Illinois has no problem putting it in their state constitution as an individual right. Why do you think that is? Are you going to now say they got it wrong after you quoted them so often? One other question, is the Illinois state constitution unconstitutional, because it clearly defines the right to bear arms as an individual one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because I actually understand the Federalist Papers and the concepts they explain, unlike the Right-Wing who only have right wing fantasy to work with.   Only right wingers appeal to Ignorance about Every Thing, even their own propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.--The Federalist Number Forty-Five
Click to expand...


While I am not responding to every post because I would just be repeating myself, I do want to make a point here.
The Federalist Papers are not written by the good guys like Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, etc.
The Federalist Papers were written by Hamilton and Madison, the 2 who wanted a much stronger federal government than anyone else, and wanted less protection for individual rights.

In general you will find that it is right wingers who are the most "law and order" and agree with the Federalist Papers the most on strong central government.
In contrast, I am more of a left wing, progressive, liberal, and strongly dislike strong federal powers, and instead prefer a decentralized or almost anarchistic state.

In fact, gun control has always been a right wing opinion, where the first gun controls was to prevent Blacks, immigrants, and labor organizers from being armed.  The next big gun control bout was around 1986 after Reagan got shot by Hinkley.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you even notice that the quote you keep slinging around explicitly cites the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? It says nothing whatsoever about the militia, so why do you? I mean, you repeat it like it was "gospel truth".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance of the actual Terms involved.  There are no Individual or Singular Terms in our Second Article of Amendment, unlike express Constitutional Articles in State Constitutions.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the _*individual*_ citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the state constitution cannot violate the federal constitution, as written it specifically makes the right to keep and bear arms an _*individual*_ one. You emphasized it. The only conclusion is to state that the 2nd applies to individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I only emphasize that there are no Individual or Singular Terms, in our federal Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just as there are none in the First, yet the state of Illinois has no problem putting it in their state constitution as an individual right. Why do you think that is? Are you going to now say they got it wrong after you quoted them so often?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The first clause of our Second Amendment explains it quite well.
> 
> Yes, that activist Court ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the End to the Means; contrary to the dictates of legal axioms and plain reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wish for once you would realize what you're trying desperately to say but continually mangle. First, you keep quoting the Illinois state constitution. Now you're willing to throw it in the trash as an "activist Court".
> 
> The state of Illinois has no problem putting it in their state constitution as an individual right. Why do you think that is? Are you going to now say they got it wrong after you quoted them so often? One other question, is the Illinois state constitution unconstitutional, because it clearly defines the right to bear arms as an individual one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because I actually understand the Federalist Papers and the concepts they explain, unlike the Right-Wing who only have right wing fantasy to work with.   Only right wingers appeal to Ignorance about Every Thing, even their own propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.--The Federalist Number Forty-Five
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't understand shit.
> 
> Minutemen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean the well regulated militia who could be ready at a minute's notice, unlike the unorganized militia which proved itself worthless to the security of our free States in recent times?
> 
> Minutemen were civilian colonists who independently formed militia companies self-trained in weaponry, tactics, and military strategies, *comprising the American colonial partisan militia during the American Revolutionary War. *They were known for being ready at a minute's notice, hence the name.[1] Minutemen provided a highly mobile, rapidly deployed force that enabled the colonies to respond immediately to war threats.
> 
> The minutemen were among the first to fight in the American Revolution. *Their teams constituted about a quarter of the entire militia. *They were generally younger and more mobile--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minutemen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Minutemen - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some towns in Massachusetts had a long history of *designating a portion of their militia as minutemen,* with "minute companies" constituting special units within the militia system whose members underwent additional training and held themselves ready to turn out rapidly for emergencies, "at a minute's notice" and hence their name. Other towns, such as Lexington, preferred to keep their entire militia in a single unit.
Click to expand...


I disagree.
The Minutemen were totally unorganized.
They did not wear uniform, were not paid, and were totally made up of volunteers who were not under any formal contract or commitment.

Read your own quote better:
{,,, Minutemen were civilian colonists who independently formed militia companies self-trained in weaponry, tactics, and military strategies, comprising the American colonial partisan militia during the American Revolutionary War.  ...}

Civilian colonists, self-trained, and partisan, definitely means unorganized militia.,


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you even notice that the quote you keep slinging around explicitly cites the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? It says nothing whatsoever about the militia, so why do you? I mean, you repeat it like it was "gospel truth".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance of the actual Terms involved.  There are no Individual or Singular Terms in our Second Article of Amendment, unlike express Constitutional Articles in State Constitutions.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the _*individual*_ citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the state constitution cannot violate the federal constitution, as written it specifically makes the right to keep and bear arms an _*individual*_ one. You emphasized it. The only conclusion is to state that the 2nd applies to individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I only emphasize that there are no Individual or Singular Terms, in our federal Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just as there are none in the First, yet the state of Illinois has no problem putting it in their state constitution as an individual right. Why do you think that is? Are you going to now say they got it wrong after you quoted them so often?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The first clause of our Second Amendment explains it quite well.
> 
> Yes, that activist Court ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the End to the Means; contrary to the dictates of legal axioms and plain reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wish for once you would realize what you're trying desperately to say but continually mangle. First, you keep quoting the Illinois state constitution. Now you're willing to throw it in the trash as an "activist Court".
> 
> The state of Illinois has no problem putting it in their state constitution as an individual right. Why do you think that is? Are you going to now say they got it wrong after you quoted them so often? One other question, is the Illinois state constitution unconstitutional, because it clearly defines the right to bear arms as an individual one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because I actually understand the Federalist Papers and the concepts they explain, unlike the Right-Wing who only have right wing fantasy to work with.   Only right wingers appeal to Ignorance about Every Thing, even their own propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.--The Federalist Number Forty-Five
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While I am not responding to every post because I would just be repeating myself, I do want to make a point here.
> The Federalist Papers are not written by the good guys like Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, etc.
> The Federalist Papers were written by Hamilton and Madison, the 2 who wanted a much stronger federal government than anyone else, and wanted less protection for individual rights.
> 
> In general you will find that it is right wingers who are the most "law and order" and agree with the Federalist Papers the most on strong central government.
> In contract, I am more of a left wing, progressive, liberal, and strongly dislike strong federal powers, and instead prefer a decentralized or almost anarchistic state.
> 
> In fact, gun control has always been a right wing opinion, where the first gun controls was to prevent Blacks, immigrants, and labor organizers from being armed.  The next big gun control bout was around 1986 after Reagan got shot by Hinkley.
Click to expand...

Agreed.  The authoritarian right is all about guns for me but not for thee.

I too consider myself a liberal.  

The label has somewhat lost its meaning.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, _*the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.*_
> 
> 
> 
> Your point?
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons (the People) within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> A well regulated Militia (of the whole People), being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And there you go again, undermining your own argument by saying the militia is all of the people, which of course means it is the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms, not the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? *It is the whole people*, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if the militia is the whole people, then the 2nd applies to the whole people, which means it's an individual right, just as the SC found.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment clearly states that it is well regulated militia of the whole People _not inclusive_ of the unorganized militia.  They must have been more right wing back then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you deny even that which you quote ad nauseum, which clearly states that the militia is the whole people, something you emphasize in the quote. Yet again you destroy your own argument for us. And you're also again adding things to the second amendment that aren't there. Our Second Amendment clearly states that it is the PEOPLE whose right to bear arms is protected, not the militia (which you also claim is the PEOPLE). The only way you can arrive at your conclusion is by adding things that just are not there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The unorganized militia or criminals of the whole people may be Infringed unlike the Organized and well regulated militia of the whole people.
Click to expand...

The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed. You have to add things to make it different. Subsequent case law has denied felons the right to bear arms, but the amendment does not say that. The amendment is clear, the right to bear arms is an individual right.


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you even notice that the quote you keep slinging around explicitly cites the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? It says nothing whatsoever about the militia, so why do you? I mean, you repeat it like it was "gospel truth".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance of the actual Terms involved.  There are no Individual or Singular Terms in our Second Article of Amendment, unlike express Constitutional Articles in State Constitutions.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the _*individual*_ citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the state constitution cannot violate the federal constitution, as written it specifically makes the right to keep and bear arms an _*individual*_ one. You emphasized it. The only conclusion is to state that the 2nd applies to individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I only emphasize that there are no Individual or Singular Terms, in our federal Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just as there are none in the First, yet the state of Illinois has no problem putting it in their state constitution as an individual right. Why do you think that is? Are you going to now say they got it wrong after you quoted them so often?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The first clause of our Second Amendment explains it quite well.
> 
> Yes, that activist Court ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the End to the Means; contrary to the dictates of legal axioms and plain reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wish for once you would realize what you're trying desperately to say but continually mangle. First, you keep quoting the Illinois state constitution. Now you're willing to throw it in the trash as an "activist Court".
> 
> The state of Illinois has no problem putting it in their state constitution as an individual right. Why do you think that is? Are you going to now say they got it wrong after you quoted them so often? One other question, is the Illinois state constitution unconstitutional, because it clearly defines the right to bear arms as an individual one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because I actually understand the Federalist Papers and the concepts they explain, unlike the Right-Wing who only have right wing fantasy to work with.   Only right wingers appeal to Ignorance about Every Thing, even their own propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.--The Federalist Number Forty-Five
Click to expand...

Is the Illinois state constitution unconstitutional, because it clearly defines the right to bear arms as an individual one?


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> I disagree.
> The Minutemen were totally unorganized.
> They did not wear uniform, were not paid, and were totally made up of volunteers who were not under any formal contract or commitment.
> 
> Read your own quote better:
> {,,, Minutemen were civilian colonists who independently formed militia companies self-trained in weaponry, tactics, and military strategies, comprising the American colonial partisan militia during the American Revolutionary War.  ...}
> 
> Civilian colonists, self-trained, and partisan, definitely means unorganized militia.,


Although the terms _militia_ and _minutemen_ are sometimes used interchangeably today, in the 18th century there was a decided difference between the two. Militia were men in arms formed to protect their towns from foreign invasion and ravages of war. Minutemen were a small hand-picked elite force which were required to be highly mobile and able to assemble quickly. Minutemen were selected from militia muster rolls by their commanding officers. 





						Minutemen
					

A historical overview of the contributions of the minutemen to the American Revolution and earlier conflicts



					www.ushistory.org


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> The right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed.


I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

*A well regulated Militia*, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> Is the Illinois state constitution unconstitutional, because it clearly defines the right to bear arms as an individual one?


*Subject only to the police power*, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.
> The Minutemen were totally unorganized.
> They did not wear uniform, were not paid, and were totally made up of volunteers who were not under any formal contract or commitment.
> 
> Read your own quote better:
> {,,, Minutemen were civilian colonists who independently formed militia companies self-trained in weaponry, tactics, and military strategies, comprising the American colonial partisan militia during the American Revolutionary War.  ...}
> 
> Civilian colonists, self-trained, and partisan, definitely means unorganized militia.,
> 
> 
> 
> Although the terms _militia_ and _minutemen_ are sometimes used interchangeably today, in the 18th century there was a decided difference between the two. Militia were men in arms formed to protect their towns from foreign invasion and ravages of war. Minutemen were a small hand-picked elite force which were required to be highly mobile and able to assemble quickly. Minutemen were selected from militia muster rolls by their commanding officers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Minutemen
> 
> 
> A historical overview of the contributions of the minutemen to the American Revolution and earlier conflicts
> 
> 
> 
> www.ushistory.org
Click to expand...

So, minute men were militia men, just like all the others, but they were asked to move around to different areas to help bolster defenses for other towns, correct?

And who armed them?  Who are the regular militia?

Are national guardsmen allowed to take their weapons home with them and go to the firing range to practice?  Who owns the weapons the national guardsmen use?

This is where your entire argument falls to pieces.


----------



## danielpalos

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.
> The Minutemen were totally unorganized.
> They did not wear uniform, were not paid, and were totally made up of volunteers who were not under any formal contract or commitment.
> 
> Read your own quote better:
> {,,, Minutemen were civilian colonists who independently formed militia companies self-trained in weaponry, tactics, and military strategies, comprising the American colonial partisan militia during the American Revolutionary War.  ...}
> 
> Civilian colonists, self-trained, and partisan, definitely means unorganized militia.,
> 
> 
> 
> Although the terms _militia_ and _minutemen_ are sometimes used interchangeably today, in the 18th century there was a decided difference between the two. Militia were men in arms formed to protect their towns from foreign invasion and ravages of war. Minutemen were a small hand-picked elite force which were required to be highly mobile and able to assemble quickly. Minutemen were selected from militia muster rolls by their commanding officers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Minutemen
> 
> 
> A historical overview of the contributions of the minutemen to the American Revolution and earlier conflicts
> 
> 
> 
> www.ushistory.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, minute men were militia men, just like all the others, but they were asked to move around to different areas to help bolster defenses for other towns, correct?
> 
> And who armed them?  Who are the regular militia?
> 
> Are national guardsmen allowed to take their weapons home with them and go to the firing range to practice?  Who owns the weapons the national guardsmen use?
> 
> This is where your entire argument falls to pieces.
Click to expand...

Did you miss it in the article?  Minute men were the "special forces" of their day.

To provide for organizing, *arming*, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, _*the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.*_
> 
> 
> 
> Your point?
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons (the People) within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> A well regulated Militia (of the whole People), being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And there you go again, undermining your own argument by saying the militia is all of the people, which of course means it is the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms, not the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I ask, sir, what is the militia? *It is the whole people*, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if the militia is the whole people, then the 2nd applies to the whole people, which means it's an individual right, just as the SC found.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment clearly states that it is well regulated militia of the whole People _not inclusive_ of the unorganized militia.  They must have been more right wing back then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you deny even that which you quote ad nauseum, which clearly states that the militia is the whole people, something you emphasize in the quote. Yet again you destroy your own argument for us. And you're also again adding things to the second amendment that aren't there. Our Second Amendment clearly states that it is the PEOPLE whose right to bear arms is protected, not the militia (which you also claim is the PEOPLE). The only way you can arrive at your conclusion is by adding things that just are not there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The unorganized militia or criminals of the whole people may be Infringed unlike the Organized and well regulated militia of the whole people.
Click to expand...


When you take weapons away from a criminal being imprisoned, you are NOT infringing.
That is because you are providing for their safety, so you are not taking away the right of defense.
You actually are increasing it.
Government can not infringe legally because rights superseded government.
When you moderate between the conflicting rights of multiple individuals, you are not infringing.
You are attempting to maximize rights between many people.
Any deliberate infringement is illegal.

And you DO legally infringe upon the actions of the Organized and well regulated Militia.
The Posse Comitatus Act deliberately intended to prevent the Organized Militia from being used on civilians in the US.
The Organized Militia could infringe upon individuals, so there has to be laws to curb the Organized Militia from being abusive.

In no way does anything imply that federal gun control is at all legal.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.
> The Minutemen were totally unorganized.
> They did not wear uniform, were not paid, and were totally made up of volunteers who were not under any formal contract or commitment.
> 
> Read your own quote better:
> {,,, Minutemen were civilian colonists who independently formed militia companies self-trained in weaponry, tactics, and military strategies, comprising the American colonial partisan militia during the American Revolutionary War.  ...}
> 
> Civilian colonists, self-trained, and partisan, definitely means unorganized militia.,
> 
> 
> 
> Although the terms _militia_ and _minutemen_ are sometimes used interchangeably today, in the 18th century there was a decided difference between the two. Militia were men in arms formed to protect their towns from foreign invasion and ravages of war. Minutemen were a small hand-picked elite force which were required to be highly mobile and able to assemble quickly. Minutemen were selected from militia muster rolls by their commanding officers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Minutemen
> 
> 
> A historical overview of the contributions of the minutemen to the American Revolution and earlier conflicts
> 
> 
> 
> www.ushistory.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, minute men were militia men, just like all the others, but they were asked to move around to different areas to help bolster defenses for other towns, correct?
> 
> And who armed them?  Who are the regular militia?
> 
> Are national guardsmen allowed to take their weapons home with them and go to the firing range to practice?  Who owns the weapons the national guardsmen use?
> 
> This is where your entire argument falls to pieces.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you miss it in the article?  Minute men were the "special forces" of their day.
> 
> To provide for organizing, *arming*, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Click to expand...


They were a special elite forced, but totally and completely unorganized.
They were voluntary, ununiformed, self armed, self trained, and followed no chain of command.

Providing for organizing, arming, or disciplining an Organized Militia only means that people could be drafted if an emergency that warranted it should come up.
That does not mean the Organized Militia exists when no emergency is current.
So the Founders were counting on a volunteer unorganized militia to fill in for less serious or smaller scale emergencies not on the national scale.
Which is why the Founders wanted to ensure the federal government did not interfere with the unorganized militia by passing destructive gun control laws.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> When you take weapons away from a criminal being imprisoned, you are NOT infringing.
> That is because you are providing for their safety, so you are not taking away the right of defense.
> You actually are increasing it.
> Government can not infringe legally because rights superseded government.
> When you moderate between the conflicting rights of multiple individuals, you are not infringing.
> You are attempting to maximize rights between many people.
> Any deliberate infringement is illegal.
> 
> And you DO legally infringe upon the actions of the Organized and well regulated Militia.
> The Posse Comitatus Act deliberately intended to prevent the Organized Militia from being used on civilians in the US.
> The Organized Militia could infringe upon individuals, so there has to be laws to curb the Organized Militia from being abusive.
> 
> In no way does anything imply that federal gun control is at all legal.


The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> They were a special elite forced, but totally and completely unorganized.


No, they weren't.  And, you would know that if you had read the article.


----------



## Lakhota

When will people wake up and do what is right?


----------



## Rigby5

Lakhota said:


> When will people wake up and do what is right?
> 
> View attachment 602910



Wrong.
Ending the fillibuster won't accomplish any of those things, but will allow the other side to try even worse things than they are doing now.
Ending the fillibuster does not just work for one side.
Both sides will try to pass bad stuff.
The fillibuster prevents extreme stuff, so is good to limit both sides.


----------



## KissMy

I want violent suspects charged & locked up until trial, then serve their time.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> No, they weren't.  And, you would know that if you had read the article.



I read the article, and the Minutemen were unpaid volunteers with their own equipment.
They were selected, but otherwise totally unorganized.


----------



## Rigby5

KissMy said:


> I want violent suspects charged & locked up until trial, then serve their time.



Wrong.
Trials are about a year or more out, so that is illegal.
Everyone who is not going to run, should be out on bail.


----------



## Lastamender

Lakhota said:


> When will people wake up and do what is right?
> 
> View attachment 602910


Manchin and Sinema are wide awake.


----------



## Markle

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> Trials are about a year or more out, so that is illegal.
> Everyone who is not going to run, should be out on bail.


Yeah, as violent crime, especially murder skyrockets, we see how well that is working.


----------



## AZrailwhale

Lakhota said:


> When will people wake up and do what is right?
> 
> View attachment 602910


Thank god for the filibuster.


----------



## KissMy

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> Trials are about a year or more out, so that is illegal.
> Everyone who is not going to run, should be out on bail.


Investigation found 43% of people arrested for 2021 homicides, from January through October, were on pretrial release or post-conviction sentencing. Many more crimes by those doing time with ankle monitors instead of in a cage.

Trials can be sped way up & constitution amended. We have more DNA forensics, phone tracking, surveillance cameras, etc than ever before. Hire more investigators, prosecutors & judges to speed up convictions. Bring back Clinton's & Biden's 3 strikes law for violent offenders.


----------



## bripat9643

Lakhota said:


> When will people wake up and do what is right?
> 
> View attachment 602910



You listed a lot of reasons that we want to keep it, moron.


----------



## Blues Man

Lakhota said:


> When will people wake up and do what is right?
> 
> View attachment 602910


I don;t want any of that shit


----------



## Uncensored2008

KissMy said:


> I want violent suspects charged & locked up until trial, then serve their time.



No you don't.

You want enemies of the Reich locked up until they are executed.

You don't want BLM Brown Shirt or ANTIFA Insurrectionists locked up or prosecuted.

You and your Reich are waging war against the American Republic and Constitution


----------



## Uncensored2008

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> Trials are about a year or more out, so that is illegal.
> Everyone who is not going to run, should be out on bail.



If they let them out on bail, how will they coerce confessions from them?


----------



## hadit

Lakhota said:


> When will people wake up and do what is right?
> 
> View attachment 602910


Vote Republican, the country you save just might be your own.


----------



## flack

Lakhota said:


> When will people wake up and do what is right?
> 
> View attachment 602910


Want to live under communism? It won’t happen with the filibuster.


----------



## Flash

Lakhota said:


> When will people wake up and do what is right?
> 
> View attachment 602910




*You are confused Moon Bat.  What is right is to adhere to the Bill of Rights where the filthy ass government shall not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, that everybody is responsible to pay their own health care bills, where we recognize that AGW is a scam and where wages are decided between the employee and employer and not have stupid bureaucrats deciding pay levels.*


----------



## JusticeHammer

Lakhota said:


> When will people wake up and do what is right?
> 
> View attachment 602910


All good reasons to keep the fillibuster. Good Americans don't want those commie things


----------



## Cellblock2429

Lakhota said:


> When will people wake up and do what is right?
> 
> View attachment 602910


/---/ Five good reasons to keep the filibuster. Thanks for exposing the democRATs true agenda. You are the best.


----------



## Flash

The filibuster is really a good thing.

It is a buffer against extreme legislature that could be passed by a majority of one vote.

These stupid Libtards that want to do away with the filibuster would be the first ones to bitch about the bills that would be passed with a 51% Republican majority.


----------



## Concerned American

Lakhota said:


> When will people wake up and do what is right?
> 
> View attachment 602910


It's time to end the democrat party.


----------



## Concerned American

Flash said:


> The filibuster is really a good thing.
> 
> It is a buffer against extreme legislature that could be passed by a majority of one vote.
> 
> These stupid Libtards that want to do away with the filibuster would be the first ones to bitch about the bills that would be passed with a 51% Republican majority.


I think it should take a 2/3 majority of both houses to pass ANY legislation.


----------



## Flash

Concerned American said:


> I think it should take a 2/3 majority of both houses to pass ANY legislation.


I would go farther than that.  Any legislation to increase taxes or that reduces our individual liberty (like gun control) would need 100%.


----------



## Rigby5

flack said:


> Want to live under communism? It won’t happen with the filibuster.



I think communism is wonderful, although no one has ever done it on a scale larger than a small tribe.
And communism is totally contrary to gun control, which only a fascist dictatorship would support.


----------



## Flash

Rigby5 said:


> I think communism is wonderful, although no one has ever done it on a scale larger than a small tribe.
> And communism is totally contrary to gun control, which only a fascist dictatorship would support.




Bullshit.

It has been on large scale in several countries, including the Soviet Union.

Every Communist country has implemented draconian gun control.


----------



## Soupnazi630

Rigby5 said:


> I think communism is wonderful, although no one has ever done it on a scale larger than a small tribe.
> And communism is totally contrary to gun control, which only a fascist dictatorship would support.


Communism is abominable it ahs been tried and failed in many nations.

Communims IS bvy definition dictatorship rherefore DEMANDING gun control


----------



## Rigby5

Flash said:


> Bullshit.
> 
> It has been on large scale in several countries, including the Soviet Union.
> 
> Every Communist country has implemented draconian gun control.



Wrong.
Communism is collective, collaborative, and communal, which pretty much requires a democratic republic.
Stalin killed all the communists and created a capitalist paradise for him and his wealthy elite.


----------



## Rigby5

Soupnazi630 said:


> Communism is abominable it ahs been tried and failed in many nations.
> 
> Communims IS bvy definition dictatorship rherefore DEMANDING gun control



There is an absolute and totally contradiction between communism and a dictatorship.
Communism is collective, communal, and cooperative, like a family, small tribe, club, monastery, etc.
All dictatorships have always been capitalist, profit motivated instead.


----------



## Flash

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> Communism is collective, collaborative, and communal, which pretty much requires a democratic republic.
> Stalin killed all the communists and created a capitalist paradise for him and his wealthy elite.




One thing about you stupid uneducated Moon Bats.  You don't know any more about History than you know about Economics, Biology, Climate Science, Ethics or the Constitution.


----------



## Soupnazi630

Rigby5 said:


> There is an absolute and totally contradiction between communism and a dictatorship.
> Communism is collective, communal, and cooperative, like a family, small tribe, club, monastery, etc.
> All dictatorships have always been capitalist, profit motivated instead.


You are wrong.

Communism is rooted and besed entirely on absolute dictatorship and cannot exist withou it.

COmmunism is not based on communal standards or cooperation it is strictly a political system of tyrannical violence imposed on others.

Capitalists are the opposite and reject dictatorships


----------



## JusticeHammer

Rigby5 said:


> I think communism is wonderful, although no one has ever done it on a scale larger than a small tribe.
> And communism is totally contrary to gun control, which only a fascist dictatorship would support.


Commies and those who think communism is wonderful are anti American pussies.


----------



## JusticeHammer

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> Communism is collective, collaborative, and communal, which pretty much requires a democratic republic.
> Stalin killed all the communists and created a capitalist paradise for him and his wealthy elite.


Communism is for pussies.


----------



## there4eyeM

People are obligated to understand rights before they can be truly free to exercise them.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lakhota said:


> When will people wake up and do what is right?
> 
> View attachment 602910



So you define "what is right" as "whatever gives me the agenda I want without having to convince people to agree with me".

Why am I not surprised?


----------



## Flash

there4eyeM said:


> People are obligated to understand rights before they can be truly free to exercise them.


I understand that the Constitution of the US says very clearly that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Most of the Moon Bats don't understand what the phrase "shall not be infringed means".  Too complicated for them.


----------



## Rigby5

Flash said:


> One thing about you stupid uneducated Moon Bats.  You don't know any more about History than you know about Economics, Biology, Climate Science, Ethics or the Constitution.



Stalin created a wealthy elite, who controlled the whole country by force.
That is a capitalist profit motive as well as capitalist use of force.
If you understood anything about politics or economics, you would understand.


----------



## Rigby5

Soupnazi630 said:


> You are wrong.
> 
> Communism is rooted and besed entirely on absolute dictatorship and cannot exist withou it.
> 
> COmmunism is not based on communal standards or cooperation it is strictly a political system of tyrannical violence imposed on others.
> 
> Capitalists are the opposite and reject dictatorships



Nonsense.
The history of communism if like agricultureal cooperatives, like the Kibbutzim in Israel.
Communism never has been dictatorial and there is no way it could be communal, collective, or cooperative if it was not also democratic.

Capitalists on the other hand, are like Hitler, Napoleon, Ghengis Khan, Atilla the Hun, or any dictator who is profit motivated.


----------



## Rigby5

JusticeHammer said:


> Commies and those who think communism is wonderful are anti American pussies.



You have no idea what communism is.
When you grew up, was your family operating on the profit motive, where you had to pay for your room and board?
If not, then your family was communist.


----------



## Rigby5

Flash said:


> I understand that the Constitution of the US says very clearly that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> Most of the Moon Bats don't understand what the phrase "shall not be infringed means".  Too complicated for them.



Shall not be infringed means it us up to the states and individuals as to what gun rights should be.
The federal government is pretty much prohibited any jurisdiction on firearms at all.


----------



## Soupnazi630

Rigby5 said:


> Nonsense.
> The history of communism if like agricultureal cooperatives, like the Kibbutzim in Israel.
> Communism never has been dictatorial and there is no way it could be communal, collective, or cooperative if it was not also democratic.
> 
> Capitalists on the other hand, are like Hitler, Napoleon, Ghengis Khan, Atilla the Hun, or any dictator who is profit motivated.


Wrong 

Looting ia not profit, none of your examples are capitalist.

The history of communism is North Korea, the USSr, Red CHina Cuba etc.

It is always be design a dictatorship it is nebver based on cooperation or community


----------



## woodwork201

Rigby5 said:


> I think communism is wonderful, although no one has ever done it on a scale larger than a small tribe.
> And communism is totally contrary to gun control, which only a fascist dictatorship would support.


I don't generally think you're an idiot but this post has me wondering.


----------



## woodwork201

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> Communism is collective, collaborative, and communal, which pretty much requires a democratic republic.
> Stalin killed all the communists and created a capitalist paradise for him and his wealthy elite.


Have you actually read the Communist Manifesto?  Well, of course you haven't; your ignorance on the topic is quite apparent.  And I'm no longer wondering.  I take back all the posts where I didn't think you were an idiot.  I am embarrassed that I didn't see you for what you were on your first post.  You really are an ignorant idiot.


----------



## Flash

Rigby5 said:


> Shall not be infringed means it us up to the states and individuals as to what gun rights should be.
> The federal government is pretty much prohibited any jurisdiction on firearms at all.


You stupid uneducated Moon Bats don't under the Constitution anymore than you don't understand History, Biology, Economics, Climate Science or Ethics.

It is settled law that the the States, Locals or even the district of Columbia cannot violate the Bill of Rights.  Recently that was what _Heller_ and _McDonald _were all about. They tried to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms and the Supremes to them to go fuck themselves.

What else you got Moon Bat?


----------



## JusticeHammer

Rigby5 said:


> You have no idea what communism is.
> When you grew up, was your family operating on the profit motive, where you had to pay for your room and board?
> If not, then your family was communist.


I grew up in the USA. Yes I know what communism is. And yes we worked hard and paid for everything we had. Unlike you spoiled Dems who think communism is good. Fuck off.


----------



## JusticeHammer

woodwork201 said:


> Have you actually read the Communist Manifesto?  Well, of course you haven't; your ignorance on the topic is quite apparent.  And I'm no longer wondering.  I take back all the posts where I didn't think you were an idiot.  I am embarrassed that I didn't see you for what you were on your first post.  You really are an ignorant idiot.


Yep
Glad you see him for what he is now.


----------



## JusticeHammer

Rigby5 said:


> Nonsense.
> The history of communism if like agricultureal cooperatives, like the Kibbutzim in Israel.
> Communism never has been dictatorial and there is no way it could be communal, collective, or cooperative if it was not also democratic.
> 
> Capitalists on the other hand, are like Hitler, Napoleon, Ghengis Khan, Atilla the Hun, or any dictator who is profit motivated.


Wrong, idiot.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

Lakhota said:


> I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed. It's just a matter of time...


And I'm a freedom of the press  lover and without the second amendment the first amendments time will be up as well...especially if arguments like "antiquated" are deemed valid...

This is just more white liberal politics, the only parts of the constitution they agree with are the parts not actually in the constitution.


----------



## Lakhota

California Bill Would Allow Citizens To Enforce Weapons Ban​A California bill would allow private citizens to go after gun makers in the same way Texas allows them to target abortion providers.


----------



## woodwork201

Rigby5 said:


> Nonsense.
> The history of communism if like agricultureal cooperatives, like the Kibbutzim in Israel.
> Communism never has been dictatorial and there is no way it could be communal, collective, or cooperative if it was not also democratic.
> 
> Capitalists on the other hand, are like Hitler, Napoleon, Ghengis Khan, Atilla the Hun, or any dictator who is profit motivated.


I shouldn't do your work for you but, knowing you're a communist, you can't possibly be expected to use your own brain so I'll lay it out for you.

Agricultural cooperatives are as capitalistic as it gets.  Individual "bourgeois" farmers, each owning their own production, get together to sell their own property and reap the rewards of that sale.  

They don't take the hundred acres of wheat from one farmer, and a thousand acres of wheat from another farmer, combine them and give each farmer 550 acres of profit.  That would be communism, if they did that.  Well, actually in communism, even bastardized enough to give anything to the farmer, might take 1100 acres of total production from two farmers, give each the profit from 5 acres and keep 1090 acres of profit for the state.

In communism, the state would own not only the farms but all of the tools and everything it took to get food from the soil.  The proletariat would not be permitted to grow a single grain, a single carrot, or anything else, for their own consumption. There would be no bourgeois; only the proletariat.  Every grain harvested would belong to the state and would be redistributed (think the USSR's law of spikelets and the famine that killed perhaps 10 million or more).  

In capitalism, the proletariat can work hard, earn and own land, and become part of the bourgeois.  In communism, there is no bourgeois, only the State (think USSR) and the poor proletariat.  There is no hope, or even plan or design, that the proletariat can improve his lot in life by skill or hard work or by any other means other than selling out their neighbor proletarians for collecting leftover grain after the field is harvested. 

In the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels make it very plain that, in their view, the proletariat spend their labor supporting the bourgeois and that communism is completely different: because in communism the proletariat spend their labor in supporting the state.   So how exactly did the life of the proletariat change?  

On the surface, the state of the proletariat didn't change.  All that happened is the Marxists stole the legally and hard-earned property of the bourgeois but the proletariat is, at best in communism, still the slave to the labor he can provide.  But if you dig a little deeper, you find that, as demonstrated in the famine in the USSR, the condition of the proletariat gets much, much worse under communism.

The capitalist invests time, money, energy, and brain power to build ways to get more wheat from the same ground, making more wheat available for everyone.  They invent tractors, improved varieties, mapping systems to know how every single square foot of their farm is producing, computerized irrigation, and more.  For the communist, though, none of this ever comes to pass.  Where the Soviet Union had some of these things, it was only based on what designs and intellectual property they could steal.  They couldn't improve it or invent it.  Under capitalism, even for those that choose not to work to become part of the bourgeois, the life of the proletariat continuously improves.  For the communist, enough to stay alive, to simply exist, is the best for which they can hope.

In communism, the state police (think KGB and Stasi) are absolutely necessary.  The state must have the means to enforce the will of the state and to ensure that theft for personal consumption of state property, even a single grain of wheat, does not happen.  The consequences must be severe and the people must be afraid of the state.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> Communism is collective, collaborative, and communal, which pretty much requires a democratic republic.
> Stalin killed all the communists and created a capitalist paradise for him and his wealthy elite.



That is one of the stupidest posts I've ever read.

Quit fantasizing and read some actual history.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Lakhota said:


> California Bill Would Allow Citizens To Enforce Weapons Ban​A California bill would allow private citizens to go after gun makers in the same way Texas allows them to target abortion providers.




Say Shitting Bull, what about;









						Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




I know you Nazis have utter contempt for the law - but don't you think this is just more virtue signaling by Kim Jong Newsom and the Nazis ahead of a brutal mid-terms in hopes of stirring up their rabid troops, knowing full well it will be laughed out of court?


----------



## Uncensored2008

woodwork201 said:


> I shouldn't do your work for you but, knowing you're a communist, you can't possibly be expected to use your own brain so I'll lay it out for you.
> 
> Agricultural cooperatives are as capitalistic as it gets.  Individual "bourgeois" farmers, each owning their own production, get together to sell their own property and reap the rewards of that sale.
> 
> They don't take the hundred acres of wheat from one farmer, and a thousand acres of wheat from another farmer, combine them and give each farmer 550 acres of profit.  That would be communism, if they did that.  Well, actually in communism, even bastardized enough to give anything to the farmer, might take 1100 acres of total production from two farmers, give each the profit from 5 acres and keep 1090 acres of profit for the state.
> 
> In communism, the state would own not only the farms but all of the tools and everything it took to get food from the soil.  The proletariat would not be permitted to grow a single grain, a single carrot, or anything else, for their own consumption. There would be no bourgeois; only the proletariat.  Every grain harvested would belong to the state and would be redistributed (think the USSR's law of spikelets and the famine that killed perhaps 10 million or more).
> 
> In capitalism, the proletariat can work hard, earn and own land, and become part of the bourgeois.  In communism, there is no bourgeois, only the State (think USSR) and the poor proletariat.  There is no hope, or even plan or design, that the proletariat can improve his lot in life by skill or hard work or by any other means other than selling out their neighbor proletarians for collecting leftover grain after the field is harvested.
> 
> In the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels make it very plain that, in their view, the proletariat spend their labor supporting the bourgeois and that communism is completely different: because in communism the proletariat spend their labor in supporting the state.   So how exactly did the life of the proletariat change?
> 
> On the surface, the state of the proletariat didn't change.  All that happened is the Marxists stole the legally and hard-earned property of the bourgeois but the proletariat is, at best in communism, still the slave to the labor he can provide.  But if you dig a little deeper, you find that, as demonstrated in the famine in the USSR, the condition of the proletariat gets much, much worse under communism.
> 
> The capitalist invests time, money, energy, and brain power to build ways to get more wheat from the same ground, making more wheat available for everyone.  They invent tractors, improved varieties, mapping systems to know how every single square foot of their farm is producing, computerized irrigation, and more.  For the communist, though, none of this ever comes to pass.  Where the Soviet Union had some of these things, it was only based on what designs and intellectual property they could steal.  They couldn't improve it or invent it.  Under capitalism, even for those that choose not to work to become part of the bourgeois, the life of the proletariat continuously improves.  For the communist, enough to stay alive, to simply exist, is the best for which they can hope.
> 
> In communism, the state police (think KGB and Stasi) are absolutely necessary.  The state must have the means to enforce the will of the state and to ensure that theft for personal consumption of state property, even a single grain of wheat, does not happen.  The consequences must be severe and the people must be afraid of the state.




What you describe is socialism, not Communism.

Under Communism there is no state. All things are owned in common. More precisely there is no property. So there would be no farm per se. People would just wander by and plant things for the good of the community.  They might or might not stay around and harvest the crops. If they do, they have no more claim to eat that a bum in the gutter does.

In a Marxian fantasy world, people want to toil in the sun without reward because they care about the community. Under the absurd fantasy, there is so much produced by people with no incentive to produce that there is an abundance and no one worries about food or shelter. Free hotels that were built by people who just felt like it provide shelter for all. Free kitchens with cooks who just feel like making and serving food feed everyone. Someone will do the dishes just because they love the community.


----------



## flack

Uncensored2008 said:


> What you describe is socialism, not Communism.
> 
> Under Communism there is no state. All things are owned in common. More precisely there is no property. So there would be no farm per se. People would just wander by and plant things for the good of the community.  They might or might not stay around and harvest the crops. If they do, they have no more claim to eat that a bum in the gutter does.
> 
> In a Marxian fantasy world, people want to toil in the sun without reward because they care about the community. Under the absurd fantasy, there is so much produced by people with no incentive to produce that there is an abundance and no one worries about food or shelter. Free hotels that were built by people who just felt like it provide shelter for all. Free kitchens with cooks who just feel like making and serving food feed everyone. Someone will do the dishes just because they love the community.


Ask the people in Venezuela how they feel about that.


----------



## Uncensored2008

flack said:


> Ask the people in Venezuela how they feel about that.



People who support Communism are people with no understanding of Communism.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lakhota said:


> California Bill Would Allow Citizens To Enforce Weapons Ban​A California bill would allow private citizens to go after gun makers in the same way Texas allows them to target abortion providers.



Except that, once again, the right to purchase and own firearms is protected by the US Constitution, where the "right" to kill unborn babies is not, no matter how much you and your lunatic comrades imagine that it is.

I will never understand why you left-idiots keep thinking, "I really want this, so that makes it equivalent to a civil right" is a valid argument.  But then, I've never sustained catastrophic brain damage, so I probably don't have the right frame of reference for understanding leftists.


----------



## kaz

Lakhota said:


> When will people wake up and do what is right?
> 
> View attachment 602910



All hail government!       God, you love free shit.  Sad.      You have to turn in your balls, you don't even know what a man is and you sure the fuck don't want to be one. Sad


----------



## kaz

Uncensored2008 said:


> People who support Communism are people with no understanding of Communism.



I don't know.  If you were a loser in life like flack , wouldn't you want a system like socialism where your wealth isn't actually earned too?  How would Flack "earn" wealth, anyway?


----------



## flack

kaz said:


> I don't know.  If you were a loser in life like flack , wouldn't you want a system like socialism where your wealth isn't actually earned too?  How would Flack "earn" wealth, anyway?


By working two jobs.


----------



## woodwork201

Uncensored2008 said:


> What you describe is socialism, not Communism.
> 
> Under Communism there is no state. All things are owned in common. More precisely there is no property. So there would be no farm per se. People would just wander by and plant things for the good of the community.  They might or might not stay around and harvest the crops. If they do, they have no more claim to eat that a bum in the gutter does.
> 
> In a Marxian fantasy world, people want to toil in the sun without reward because they care about the community. Under the absurd fantasy, there is so much produced by people with no incentive to produce that there is an abundance and no one worries about food or shelter. Free hotels that were built by people who just felt like it provide shelter for all. Free kitchens with cooks who just feel like making and serving food feed everyone. Someone will do the dishes just because they love the community.



That's a myth.  This is from Chapter 2 of the Communist Manifesto:

The Communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional​property relations; no wonder that its development involved the most
radical rupture with traditional ideas.​But let us have done with the bourgeois objections to Communism.​We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working
class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the
battle of democracy.​*The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all**
capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production
in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling*
*class; *and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.​

Marx talks about degrees of communism where the state is in the first stages but, even then, he's not talking about the State as above and he's not talking about Socialism.  He just assumes that the revolution will lead to a revolutionary government, as has always been the case.  In his own fantasy, he talks about the State, as in the revolutionary government, will yield power and give the power to the proletariat (but he still calls them the proletariat, acknowledging that they're always the slaves to their labor) but even then, there is a State - the proletariat organized as the ruling class.  Note the use of the word "ruling".

Like all communists, they lie about what Communism is - even Marx did it.  But, like all communists, if you read their words you will find that they eventually tell what they're really trying to do.


----------



## Lakhota

So, California is going to copy the Texas abortion law for guns in California.  Interesting...


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lakhota said:


> So, California is going to copy the Texas abortion law for guns in California.  Interesting...



If you find leftist stupidity interesting.  Personally, I find it boring and repetitive.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Cecilie1200 said:


> If you find leftist stupidity interesting.  Personally, I find it boring and repetitive.


And predictable, and full of failure once it hits the courts.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Lakhota said:


> When will people wake up and do what is right?
> 
> View attachment 602910


Ukraine is ending their gun control restrictions today, and handing out guns to anyone that will fight. I laugh at you idiot stupid gun control nuts psychopath's.


----------



## Lakhota




----------



## petro

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 645144


He is wrong.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 645144


Against a draconian style democrat run government


----------



## surada

petro said:


> He is wrong.


Nope. He's correct. Study it.


----------



## petro

surada said:


> Nope. He's correct. Study it.


Already did.
Already argued this shit, he is wrong...


----------



## bigrebnc1775

surada said:


> Nope. He's correct. Study it.


He's wrong.


----------



## Rigby5

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 645144



Sorry, but that obviously was an extremely stupid thing for Burger to say.
Obviously the entire American Revolution was about individual rights, like taxation without representation, and had nothing at all to do with states or state militias.
And the reason we won the American Revolution was because of the number of weapons owned by individuals, not states.  I don't think states provided any firearms at all for the American Revolution?
In fact, since there were essentially no police until around 1900, almost always, the main need for firearms was individual.  
Not once did state require their armed militia.
Almost always the need for firearms were for individual home defense, from cattle rustlers, and other threats.
I doubt there was much federal need for firearms either.  The Civil war, the Mexican wars, etc., likely could and should have just been avoided.  They were unnecessary and brutal.
The only valid need for firearms has always only been individual home defense.
We could and probably should completely disarm all levels of government, and only have individual arms.


----------



## Rigby5

surada said:


> Nope. He's correct. Study it.



Since this country was born out of armed rebellion by individuals, from a corrupt government, I hardly see how there is any sort of argument that could defend gun control that prevents armed rebellion by the population?
Has there ever been any government that has not gone completely corrupt within 400 years or so?
Don't all governments continually become more corrupt over time?


----------



## BS Filter

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 645144


Idiot.  I doubt he really said that.


----------



## petro




----------



## Rigby5

The actual only possible interpretation of the Bill of Rights is that the first federal gun control law in 1927, and all federal firearm laws that followed, are simply illegal.
The federal government was clearly denied any firearm jurisdiction at all.


----------



## Rigby5

petro said:


> View attachment 645156



In fact, all the cannons used by the Continental Army, were privately owned.


----------



## progressive hunter

Rigby5 said:


> The actual only possible interpretation of the Bill of Rights is that the first federal gun control law in 1927, and all federal firearm laws that followed, are simply illegal.
> The federal government was clearly denied any firearm jurisdiction at all.


the states were also denied,,


----------



## BS Filter

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 645144


Bogus.  I doubt he said this.  He most certainly wasn't a "conservative".  Bogus.


----------



## Rigby5

progressive hunter said:


> the states were also denied,,



The federal Constitution and Bill of Rights would not have had the authority or jurisdiction to deny all state jurisdiction over firearms.
For example, what if states wanted to pass legislation preventing juveniles from being armed in public, making it illegal to carry a firearm in public that was loaded and cocked, or basic gun safety like that?


----------



## progressive hunter

Rigby5 said:


> The federal Constitution and Bill of Rights would not have had the authority or jurisdiction to deny all state jurisdiction over firearms.
> For example, what if states wanted to pass legislation preventing juveniles from being armed in public, making it illegal to carry a firearm in public that was loaded and cocked, or basic gun safety like that?


you never did answer if states could do the same with other amendments like the 5th A and jail or execute people without due process,,
you just keep making up crazy shit like this,,


----------



## Rigby5

surada said:


> Nope. He's correct. Study it.



I watched more video of Warren Burger saying the 2nd amendment is a fraud that should never have been in the Bill of Rights.
I am paraphrasing, but he said why shouldn't firearms be regulated, like for juveniles, the way we regulate cars now?


And the reason that really made Warren Burger sound ignorant is that he clearly misunderstood the use and meaning of the word "regulated", in the 2nd amendment.
A "well regulated militia" is not one that is carefully constricted by laws, but one that is well functioning, practiced, reliable, etc., as in a "well regulated clock".
Sorry, but Warren Burger in this interview, came off like a very ignorant person.
The founders clearly did not trust a mercenary military, wanted citizen soldiers instead, and wanted to ensure that the general population would not only be armed, but well practiced and ready to fight whenever it became necessary.
In no way did the Founders want only state militias to be armed.  The Founders are on record saying they were considering making firearm ownership mandatory, so that everyone would be well practiced in the use of weapon when necessary.
Burger's modern and reverse interpretation of the word "regulated" makes we wonder if he ever read anything at all about Constitutional law?


----------



## Rigby5

progressive hunter said:


> you never did answer if states could do the same with other amendments like the 5th A and jail or execute people without due process,,
> you just keep making up crazy shit like this,,



Of course states could and did often violate the rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights.
For example, slavery.

It took a Civil War to put states under the restrictions of individual rights.


----------



## progressive hunter

Rigby5 said:


> Of course states could and did often violate the rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights.
> For example, slavery.


youre dodging a direct question,,,

I can only guess you know youre wrong but cant admit it,,,


----------



## progressive hunter

Rigby5 said:


> I watched more video of Warren Burger saying the 2nd amendment is a fraud that should never have been in the Bill of Rights.
> I am paraphrasing, but he said why shouldn't firearms be regulated, like for juveniles, the way we regulate cars now?
> 
> 
> And the reason that really made Warren Burger sound ignorant is that he clearly misunderstood the use and meaning of the word "regulated", in the 2nd amendment.
> A "well regulated militia" is not one that is carefully constricted by laws, but one that is well functioning, practiced, reliable, etc., as in a "well regulated clock".
> Sorry, but Warren Burger in this interview, came off like a very ignorant person.
> The founders clearly did not trust a mercenary military, wanted citizen soldiers instead, and wanted to ensure that the general population would not only be armed, but well practiced and ready to fight whenever it became necessary.
> In no way did the Founders want only state militias to be armed.  The Founders are on record saying they were considering making firearm ownership mandatory, so that everyone would be well practiced in the use of weapon when necessary.
> Burger's modern and reverse interpretation of the word "regulated" makes we wonder if he ever read anything at all about Constitutional law?


you know good and well the well regulated militia part has nothing to do with the right to keep and bare arms since its specifically says SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED,,,


----------



## Rigby5

progressive hunter said:


> youre dodging a direct question,,,
> 
> I can only guess you know youre wrong but cant admit it,,,



The Bill of Rights was specifically added to induce states to be more likely to sign on, by restricting the federal government.
Adding restriction on the states would not have helped accomplish that at all.
So there was no incentive for the Founders to add anything to protect individual rights.


----------



## progressive hunter

Rigby5 said:


> The Bill of Rights was specifically added to induce states to be more likely to sign on, by restricting the federal government.
> Adding restriction on the states would not have helped accomplish that at all.
> So there was no incentive for the Founders to add anything to protect individual rights.


youre still dodging the question,,,

its a simple yes or no
can a state change/ignore the 5th A and jail or execute without due process??
or any other amendment??


----------



## Rigby5

progressive hunter said:


> you know good and well the well regulated militia part has nothing to do with the right to keep and bare arms since its specifically says SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED,,,



The "well regulated militia" part does have something to do with "shall not be infringed".
To me, it clearly is saying that, "Because we need citizens soldiers good with arms, that the right of citizens to be well armed must not be interfered with."
From a purely legalistic basis they may have wanted no federal jurisdiction over firearms, but they clearly were also giving the pragmatic argument that there is a NEED for a well armed citizenry.


----------



## Missouri_Mike

Rigby5 said:


> The Bill of Rights was specifically added to induce states to be more likely to sign on, by restricting the federal government.
> Adding restriction on the states would not have helped accomplish that at all.
> So there was no incentive for the Founders to add anything to protect individual rights.


Everything in the bill of rights is an individual right. How do you come up with this stuff?


----------



## Rigby5

progressive hunter said:


> youre still dodging the question,,,
> 
> its a simple yes or no
> can a state change/ignore the 5th A and jail or execute without due process??
> or any other amendment??



Yes state could and did, but no longer can, due to the 14th amendment.


----------



## progressive hunter

Rigby5 said:


> The "well regulated militia" part does have something to do with "shall not be infringed".
> To me, it clearly is saying that, "Because we need citizens soldiers good with arms, that the right of citizens to be well armed must not be interfered with."
> From a purely legalistic basis they may have wanted no federal jurisdiction over firearms, but they clearly were also giving the pragmatic argument that there is a NEED for a well armed citizenry.


but you said the states can interfere with it??

whats the difference between feds and states?? thay are both government,,,


----------



## Rigby5

Missouri_Mike said:


> Everything in the bill of rights is an individual right. How do you come up with this stuff?



Nope, the intent of the Bill of Rights was all for the states.
For example:
{... Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[4] ...}
That is totally restrictions on the federal government, and not anything about restriction on states.
There were several states at the time, Pennsylvania and Connecticut, that did have established state religions.


----------



## progressive hunter

Rigby5 said:


> Yes state could and did, but no longer can, due to the 14th amendment.


so that means they have no power over the 2nd A either,,,

your answer is NO they cant override the bill of rights and that includes the 2nd A


----------



## progressive hunter

Rigby5 said:


> Nope, the intent of the Bill of Rights was all for the states.
> For example:
> {... Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[4] ...}
> That is totally restrictions on the federal government, and not anything about restriction on states.
> There were several states at the time, Pennsylvania and Connecticut, that did have established state religions.


my god youre an idiot,,,


----------



## scruffy

Lakhota said:


> I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed.  It's just a matter of time...


Listen up, stupid leftie.

Self defense is a NATURAL right.

In other words, I don't care about your laws, your amendments, or anything else.

I'm going to bear and carry with or without your approval.

And there's not a damn thing you can do about it


----------



## Rigby5

progressive hunter said:


> but you said the states can interfere with it??
> 
> whats the difference between feds and states?? thay are both government,,,



The difference is the states already existed and the federal government did not, so the Founders were trying to entice the states to join.  The Bill of Rights was to be accepted by the states, not by the people.
There was not some big public referendum on whether or not to join.
It was entirely to be decided by the state legislatures.


----------



## Rigby5

Lakhota said:


> I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed.  It's just a matter of time...



And we will have to fight to end this government then.
It can not be allowed to be changed.
It is not that guns are so important, but that a government that does not understand that rights bubble up from the people, and tries to restrict individual rights, then is a clear and present danger to all individual, and has to be utterly destoryed.


----------



## progressive hunter

Rigby5 said:


> The difference is the states already existed and the federal government did not, so the Founders were trying to entice the states to join.  The Bill of Rights was to be accepted by the states, not by the people.
> There was not some big public referendum on whether or not to join.
> It was entirely to be decided by the state legislatures.


dude you are all over the place and should quit now,,,

doesnt matter who came first or why,, the constitution is the law of the land and states have to follow it just like the feds,,


----------



## Rigby5

progressive hunter said:


> so that means they have no power over the 2nd A either,,,
> 
> your answer is NO they cant override the bill of rights and that includes the 2nd A



The SCOTUS has consistently said they will interpret the 14th amendment, incorporation, as they see fit on an individual case basis.
Whether or not you and I disagree with them is irrelevant.
So far there is little proof that states are restricted from infringment of 2nd amendment gun rights.
The best are:









						The Most Important Supreme Court Cases About Guns and Gun Rights
					

Gun rights are an extremely contentious issue in the United States, so there have been a lot of US Supreme Court gun cases. Gun rights advocates typically use the Second Amendment to argue that the right to possess firearms for self-defense is constitutionally protected. However, the Second...




					www.ranker.com
				



Caetano v. Massachusettes​
Year: 2016
What it did: Overturned the conviction of a woman who carried a stun gun for self-defense.
How people reacted: The prosecutor and judge in Caetano's criminal case agreed that Caetano should be exonerated from the charges brought against her. However, the statute used to convict her initially remains on the books in Massachusetts.
This case isn't actually about firearms, but it is about the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment can apply to weapons other than those that were available at the time the Constitution was written. This ruling has cast doubt over whether states can ban tasers and other types of weapons which are not firearms.

McDonald v. Chicago​
Year: 2010
What it did: Struck down a Chicago ordinance which banned handguns.
How people reacted: After the Court ruled in his favor, the plaintiff in the case said he was happy to be able to purchase a gun "to protect himself from the thugs in his neighborhood." The mayor of Chicago responded to the ruling by saying, "As a city we must continue to stand up...and fight for a ban on assault weapons...as well as crack down on gun shops."

McDonald clarified the ruling of Heller, saying that neither the federal government nor state governments can infringe on individual citizens' right to bear arms. The Chicago ordinance was declared unconstitutional.

...}


----------



## Rigby5

progressive hunter said:


> dude you are all over the place and should quit now,,,
> 
> doesnt matter who came first or why,, the constitution is the law of the land and states have to follow it just like the feds,,



No, the feds and the Constitution were deliberately inferior to the states.
They would  not have signed on otherwise.
But it also was inevitable that individual rights would eventually need protection from the states.
It just was not true until the 14th amendment, and is still an ongoing  process.
The SCOTUS has refused to make the blanket protection of individual rights you want.


----------



## progressive hunter

Rigby5 said:


> The SCOTUS has consistently said they will interpret the 14th amendment, incorporation, as they see fit on an individual case basis.
> Whether or not you and I disagree with them is irrelevant.
> So far there is little proof that states are restricted from infringment of 2nd amendment gun rights.
> The best are:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Most Important Supreme Court Cases About Guns and Gun Rights
> 
> 
> Gun rights are an extremely contentious issue in the United States, so there have been a lot of US Supreme Court gun cases. Gun rights advocates typically use the Second Amendment to argue that the right to possess firearms for self-defense is constitutionally protected. However, the Second...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ranker.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Caetano v. Massachusettes​
> Year: 2016
> What it did: Overturned the conviction of a woman who carried a stun gun for self-defense.
> How people reacted: The prosecutor and judge in Caetano's criminal case agreed that Caetano should be exonerated from the charges brought against her. However, the statute used to convict her initially remains on the books in Massachusetts.
> This case isn't actually about firearms, but it is about the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment can apply to weapons other than those that were available at the time the Constitution was written. This ruling has cast doubt over whether states can ban tasers and other types of weapons which are not firearms.
> 
> McDonald v. Chicago​
> Year: 2010
> What it did: Struck down a Chicago ordinance which banned handguns.
> How people reacted: After the Court ruled in his favor, the plaintiff in the case said he was happy to be able to purchase a gun "to protect himself from the thugs in his neighborhood." The mayor of Chicago responded to the ruling by saying, "As a city we must continue to stand up...and fight for a ban on assault weapons...as well as crack down on gun shops."
> 
> McDonald clarified the ruling of Heller, saying that neither the federal government nor state governments can infringe on individual citizens' right to bear arms. The Chicago ordinance was declared unconstitutional.
> 
> ...}


yeah and SCOTUS never gets anything wrong,,

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

remember you yourself said after the 14th the states couldnt change or ignore the bill of rights,,


----------



## progressive hunter

Rigby5 said:


> No, the feds and the Constitution were deliberately inferior to the states.
> They would  not have signed on otherwise.
> But it also was inevitable that individual rights would eventually need protection from the states.
> It just was not true until the 14th amendment, and is still an ongoing  process.
> The SCOTUS has refused to make the blanket protection of individual rights you want.


depends on what youre talking about,, specifics matter,,

fed law comes before state law,,,


----------



## scruffy

progressive hunter said:


> depends on what youre talking about,, specifics matter,,
> 
> fed law comes before state law,,,


And my law comes before fed law.

Sorry lefties and righties, this boy does t care about you or your politics.

Scruffy only cares about his family, and he will do ANYTHING to protect them and keep them safe


----------



## scruffy

progressive hunter said:


> yeah and SCOTUS never gets anything wrong,,
> 
> SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
> 
> remember you yourself said after the 14th the states couldnt change or ignore the bill of rights,,


The feds have no authority and no power over my weapons.

If they somehow manage to take one away from me, I'll have another one inside of 10 minutes.

Fuck the clueless incompetent feds. They can go to hell


----------



## progressive hunter

scruffy said:


> The feds have no authority and no power over my weapons.
> 
> If they somehow manage to take one away from me, I'll have another one inside of 10 minutes.
> 
> Fuck the clueless incompetent feds. They can go to hell


neither do the states,,


----------



## Rigby5

progressive hunter said:


> yeah and SCOTUS never gets anything wrong,,
> 
> SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
> 
> remember you yourself said after the 14th the states couldnt change or ignore the bill of rights,,



Well in theory the states should also be created by individuals, and therefore inferior to individual rights, but the US was built backwards, by states dictated by royal decree.
But it is not the states that I am worried about now, since it is the federal government that is doing most of the infringing.
It is much easier to fix states later.
It is the federal infringement in firearms, drugs, health care, debt, etc., that is paramount right now.


----------



## Rigby5

progressive hunter said:


> depends on what youre talking about,, specifics matter,,
> 
> fed law comes before state law,,,



Except that there should never be a case where that comes up.
The federal government is supposed to only be restricted to those things states can not do themselves.
So it should never happen that both federal and state pass laws on the same thing.


----------



## progressive hunter

Rigby5 said:


> Well in theory the states should also be created by individuals, and therefore inferior to individual rights, but the US was built backwards, by states dictated by royal decree.
> But it is not the states that I am worried about now, since it is the federal government that is doing most of the infringing.
> It is much easier to fix states later.
> It is the federal infringement in firearms, drugs, health care, debt, etc., that is paramount right now.


if pigs had wings their ass's wouldnt hit the ground when they jumped,,,

since you admitted the states cant change or ignore the bill of rights after the 14th was passed is all I needed from you,,,

now you dont have to claim different anymore,,


----------



## Rigby5

scruffy said:


> And my law comes before fed law.
> 
> Sorry lefties and righties, this boy does t care about you or your politics.
> 
> Scruffy only cares about his family, and he will do ANYTHING to protect them and keep them safe



But to keep your family safe, you need the greater strength the federal government can provide, such as FCC, FAA, the military, etc.


----------



## progressive hunter

Rigby5 said:


> Except that there should never be a case where that comes up.
> The federal government is supposed to only be restricted to those things states can not do themselves.
> So it should never happen that both federal and state pass laws on the same thing.


SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED,,

and you already admitted they cant infringe on the 2nd anymore than any other amendment,,


----------



## Rigby5

progressive hunter said:


> neither do the states,,



Well someone has to.
For example, do you want people selling guns to 10 year olds?


----------



## progressive hunter

Rigby5 said:


> Well someone has to.
> For example, do you want people selling guns to 10 year olds?


who are you to dictate another persons rights??


----------



## Rigby5

progressive hunter said:


> if pigs had wings their ass's wouldnt hit the ground when they jumped,,,
> 
> since you admitted the states cant change or ignore the bill of rights after the 14th was passed is all I needed from you,,,
> 
> now you dont have to claim different anymore,,



No, I did not say that the states can't change or ignore the bill of rights after the 14th was passed.
What I said was that after the 14th was passed, the SCOTUS was authorized to protect individual rights from abuse by the states.
That does not mean the Bill of Rights exactly, but also may mean more and wider protections than the Bill of Rights.
Like the Bill of Rights says nothing about the individual right of Privacy, yet the 14th amendment does imply the states can't infringe upon that individual right any more.
The problem with the 14th however, is that the SCOTUS has to decide on an individual basis,  because they refuse to make any generic or blanket interpretations on it.


----------



## Rigby5

progressive hunter said:


> who are you to dictate another persons rights??



I did not say me, but someone.
And I was implying that since it can't be the feds, then it has to be either states of municipal.


----------



## Ame®icano

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 645144


Funny, he said that four years after he left the bench. And while on bench, at no point during his tenure did the Supreme Court address the question of whether the Second Amendment confers an individual or collective right. Second, where is the second part of the Amendment he was discussing in NPR interview. Oh, it's not shown, because it doesn't suit the narrative.

You know, he also said this...


----------



## Soupnazi630

surada said:


> Nope. He's correct. Study it.


He is wrong as any person who HAS studied it knows


----------



## scruffy

Rigby5 said:


> But to keep your family safe, you need the greater strength the federal government can provide, such as FCC, FAA, the military, etc.


What ???

Putin isn't threatening my family 

Airplanes and radio stations aren't threatening my family.

Only LEFTARD FUCKING ASSHOLES with a stick up their butt, those are the only people threatening my family.

And I certainly don't need any government to deal with them.

Are you kidding? The feckless cops that stand idly by and do NOTHING while screaming progtards put my children in fear of their lives?

I don't need them. I can handle the problem myself


----------



## Batcat

Lakhota said:


> I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed.  It's just a matter of time...


Once we lose the Second Amendment we lose what freedom we have left. We will find ourselves living in a USSR like nation with a Big Brother and Big Sister watching everything we do. Step out of line and off to a re-education camp you go. Plus we will likely have a nice new State Religion to believe in rather than that outdated Christianity. 









						Social Justice: Our New Civil Religion - The American Conservative
					

The old religion is being displaced by a hostile rival. And Christians don't know what to do about it




					www.theamericanconservative.com


----------



## scruffy

Batcat said:


> Once we lose the Second Amendment we lose what freedom we have left. We will find ourselves living in a USSR like nation with a Big Brother and Big Sister watching everything we do. Step out of line and off to a re-education camp you go. Plus we will likely have a nice new State Religion to believe in rather than that outdated Christianity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Social Justice: Our New Civil Religion - The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The old religion is being displaced by a hostile rival. And Christians don't know what to do about it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com


Well, I agree - and that was kind of my point.

We will NEVER lose the Second Amendment. Even if there's no actual Amendment in law, self defense is a NATURAL right, and therefore there is no way anyone can ever "take it away".

If they try, just ignore them. Who cares? I can buy an untraceable weapon for 100 dollars in less than 10 minutes. Why should I care what any dumb gun-grabbing progtard thinks about the law?


----------



## Batcat

scruffy said:


> Well, I agree - and that was kind of my point.
> 
> We will NEVER lose the Second Amendment. Even if there's no actual Amendment in law, self defense is a NATURAL right, and therefore there is no way anyone can ever "take it away".
> 
> If they try, just ignore them. Who cares? I can buy an untraceable weapon for 100 dollars in less than 10 minutes. Why should I care what any dumb gun-grabbing progtard thinks about the law?


A large number of real Americans will agree with you if the Dems ever manage to pass laws requiring all firearms to be turned in. 

Gun confiscation doesn’t even work in Canada. 









						Gun Control Fail: Canadian Gun Owners Not Turning in Their Recently Banned Guns
					

Even in Canada, gun control doesn't seem too popular.




					redstate.com
				




By Brandon Morse | Dec 30, 2021 5:00 PM ET

_
According to iPolitics, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau instituted a ban that took place on May 1 of 2020, and estimated that the ban would apply to around 100,000 firearms in the country.

As of today, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have received a grand total of 160 guns for decommissioning out of that aforementioned massive number as reported by iPolitics:




			“The Canadian Firearms Program (CFP) can confirm that, as of Dec. 9, 2021, 18 firearms (formerly classified as restricted) affected by the May 1, 2020, Order in Council (OIC) have been deactivated,” added Sgt. Caroline Duval, the spokesperson who forwarded the Mounties’ response.
“In addition, there have been 142 OIC-affected firearms recorded as surrendered to a public agency for destruction since May 1, 2020.”
		
Click to expand...

_








						Canada's Supposedly Dead Gun Registry Still In Use
					

They say that the internet is forever. Apparently, so is a gun registry. You see, in Canada, they had a long gun registry. It was a complete disaster and eventually, lawmakers up that way voted to kil...




					bearingarms.com


----------



## 2aguy

surada said:


> Nope. He's correct. Study it.




We have......over and over, and in the Heller decision, Scalia went through the entire history of 2nd Amendment jurisprudence, going back to England........


----------



## 2aguy

Batcat said:


> A large number of real Americans will agree with you if the Dems ever manage to pass laws requiring all firearms to be turned in.
> 
> Gun confiscation doesn’t even work in Canada.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gun Control Fail: Canadian Gun Owners Not Turning in Their Recently Banned Guns
> 
> 
> Even in Canada, gun control doesn't seem too popular.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> redstate.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By Brandon Morse | Dec 30, 2021 5:00 PM ET
> 
> 
> _According to iPolitics, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau instituted a ban that took place on May 1 of 2020, and estimated that the ban would apply to around 100,000 firearms in the country.
> 
> As of today, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have received a grand total of 160 guns for decommissioning out of that aforementioned massive number as reported by iPolitics:_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canada's Supposedly Dead Gun Registry Still In Use
> 
> 
> They say that the internet is forever. Apparently, so is a gun registry. You see, in Canada, they had a long gun registry. It was a complete disaster and eventually, lawmakers up that way voted to kil...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bearingarms.com




Gun crime is increasing in Canada.....see...criminals evolve.....they change.  The anti-gun fanatics don't understand this.....Canada imported 3rd world males who don't respect Canadian culture or laws.......and they have drug turf to take and protect...so guns are the necessary tool for their livlihoods.......


----------



## surada

petro said:


> Already did.
> Already argued this shit, he is wrong...


We had no standing military or national guard at the time. It was all militias with varying degrees of training and discipline.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Rigby5 said:


> The actual only possible interpretation of the Bill of Rights is that the first federal gun control law in 1927, and all federal firearm laws that followed, are simply illegal.
> The federal government was clearly denied any firearm jurisdiction at all.


Actually the only jurisdiction the federal government has is to protect the right not take it away. The states have no jurisdiction over the second amendment because it's a right protected by the federal government.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

surada said:


> We had no standing military or national guard at the time. It was all militias with varying degrees of training and discipline.


And we were never supposed to have a standing army.


----------



## rightwinger

Rigby5 said:


> And the reason we won the American Revolution was because of the number of weapons owned by individuals, not states. I don't think states provided any firearms at all for the American Revolution?


The reason we won the American Revolution was because of the Continental Army led by George Washington

It was not until the French, with their Army and Navy joined that we actually defeated the British


----------



## bigrebnc1775

rightwinger said:


> The reason we won the American Revolution was because of the Continental Army led by George Washington
> 
> It was not until the French, with their Army and Navy joined that we actually defeated the British


How many French troops were used and what battle? Are you forgetting we were also fighting to German Hessians?


----------



## surada

bigrebnc1775 said:


> How many French troops were used and what battle? Are you forgetting we were also fighting to German Hessians?


Hessians were deserting to stay in America.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

surada said:


> Hessians were deserting to stay in America.


Doubtful if you knew anything about the mindset of the Hessians. They were fierce fighters they lived to fight. So spew you bullshit lies somewhere else.


----------



## surada

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Doubtful if you knew anything about the mindset of the Hessians. They were fierce fighters they lived to fight. So spew you bullshit lies somewhere else.


They were just mercenaries. Some 6000 deserted.









						Hessian Soldiers
					

The term Hessian Soldiers generally refers to German auxiliary troops hired by Great Britain to fight in the American Revolutionary War (1775-1783) alongside British troops. At the commencement of the war, King George III of Great Britain needed additional troops to increase his fighting power...




					www.familysearch.org


----------



## bigrebnc1775

surada said:


> They were just mercenaries. Some 6000 deserted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hessian Soldiers
> 
> 
> The term Hessian Soldiers generally refers to German auxiliary troops hired by Great Britain to fight in the American Revolutionary War (1775-1783) alongside British troops. At the commencement of the war, King George III of Great Britain needed additional troops to increase his fighting power...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.familysearch.org


You may want to revisit your source.




__





						Hessians
					

The term "Hessians" refers to the approximately 30,000 German troops hired by the British to help fight during the American Revolution.




					www.mountvernon.org
				



Life in the Hessian Army was harsh. The system aimed to instill iron discipline and the punishments could be brutal. Still, morale was generally high. Officers were well-educated, promotion was by merit, and soldiers took pride in serving their prince and their people. Furthermore, military service provided economic benefits. The families of soldiers were exempt from certain taxes, wages were higher than in farm work, and there was the promise of booty (money earned through the sale of captured military property) and plunder (property taken from civilians). Officially plunder was _verboten _(forbidden), but officers, who also had a taste for looted goods, often looked the other way.


----------



## surada

bigrebnc1775 said:


> You may want to revisit your source.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hessians
> 
> 
> The term "Hessians" refers to the approximately 30,000 German troops hired by the British to help fight during the American Revolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.mountvernon.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Life in the Hessian Army was harsh. The system aimed to instill iron discipline and the punishments could be brutal. Still, morale was generally high. Officers were well-educated, promotion was by merit, and soldiers took pride in serving their prince and their people. Furthermore, military service provided economic benefits. The families of soldiers were exempt from certain taxes, wages were higher than in farm work, and there was the promise of booty (money earned through the sale of captured military property) and plunder (property taken from civilians). Officially plunder was _verboten _(forbidden), but officers, who also had a taste for looted goods, often looked the other way.


I did. Lots of them deserted.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 645144






See, this is the problem for you Liberals....you believe whatever they tell you.



Here is the truth:


. Arguments against the 2nd Amendment:

a. “…well regulated militia…” Consider the sentence “Being a fisherman, Joe needs a boat.” Does this mean that Joe should only buy a boat if he fishes for a living? The reference to a militia is a reason why the people “When the words of the enacting clause are clear and positive, recourse must not be had to the preamble.” James Kent, _Commentaries on American Law_, 1858 (Legal scholar and law professor at Columbia College)

In the Constitution, Congress is given the power “to promote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts” by enacting copyright and patent laws (Article 1, Section 8). Would you argue that every copyright work or patented invention must promote scientific progress and useful arts?



1792 Militia Act of 1792, setting forth standards for the May 2 Act, (1792 Militia Act of 1792 was passed by the Second Congress, allowing the president to call out members of the states militias.) including a] _each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of age 18 and under age 45… b] provide himself with a good musket,…bayonet and belt,… not less than twenty four cartridges.; c] exempting all elected officials and employees of the government._



George Mason, Father of the Bill of Rights: "I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." (Jonathan Elliot, The Debates of the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, [NY: Burt Franklin,1888] p.425-6)



The Constitution gave Congress the power to raise and support a national army, and to organize “the Militia.” This is because an army didn’t naturally exist, while “the Militia” only had to be organized: it always existed. (See enumerated powers in Article 1,Section 8.)



The Supreme Court, in US v. Miller, (1939) “…militia system…implied the general obligation of all adult male inhabitants to possess arms, and, with certain exceptions, to cooperate in the work of defence.” It concluded that the militia was primarily civilians.



Today, federal law defines “the militia of the United States” to include all able-bodied males from 17 to 45 and members of the National Guard up to age 64, but excluding those who have no intention of becoming citizens, and active military personnel. (US Code Title 10, sect. 311-313)



[10 U.S. Code § 311 -  Exchange of defense personnel between United States and friendly foreign countries: authority]


----------



## rightwinger

bigrebnc1775 said:


> How many French troops were used and what battle? Are you forgetting we were also fighting to German Hessians?



Read up on the Battle of Yorktown


----------



## PoliticalChic

surada said:


> Nope. He's correct. Study it.




By now, most sentient individuals know that whatever you claim, the opposite is the truth.

That makes you a valuable asset.


----------



## jc456

BS Filter said:


> Bogus.  I doubt he said this.  He most certainly wasn't a "conservative".  Bogus.


What a demofk says we he wants to take over your country.


----------



## jc456

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 645144


What a demofk says we he wants to take over your country.


----------



## progressive hunter

Rigby5 said:


> I did not say me, but someone.
> And I was implying that since it can't be the feds, then it has to be either states of municipal.


or its nobody,,


----------



## Uncensored2008

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 645144




Just when you think Shitting Bull couldn't be more of a fucking liar...

Warren Burger - little left of Joseph Stalin - but the fake indian calls him "conservative."


----------



## Uncensored2008

petro said:


> He is wrong.



Burger was politically left of Elena Kagan.


----------



## Uncensored2008

surada said:


> Nope. He's correct. Study it.



I studied it and found that you are lying, Hezbollah Hannah,


----------



## jc456

Rigby5 said:


> Well someone has to.
> For example, do you want people selling guns to 10 year olds?


I'm just curious with this question, but, why shouldn't a 10 year old be able to buy a gun if they had money?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

surada said:


> I did. Lots of them deserted.


You know nothing and it shows. because their mental state of mind would not allow them to desert. Their training from a young age, the reward to their families in German prevented them fr deserting


----------



## bigrebnc1775

rightwinger said:


> Read up on the Battle of Yorktown


Oh one battle just one battle? what caused the Brits to retreat to Yorktown?


----------



## rightwinger

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Oh one battle just one battle? what caused the Brits to retreat to Yorktown?


Continental Army
Not militia troops

It was the French Navy that bottled up the British Army and left them no option but surrender


----------



## bigrebnc1775

rightwinger said:


> Continental Army
> Not militia troops
> 
> It was the French Navy that bottled up the British Army and left them no option but surrender


That's hilarious, no militia members helped in the war? 😆 So now you report no French troops helped only the French navy in one battle 😆
During the American Revolution, the militia provided the bulk of the American forces as well as a pool for recruiting or drafting of regulars. The militia played a similar role in the War of 1812 and the American Civil War. After that conflict, however, the militia fell into disuse.


----------



## Cellblock2429

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 645144


/———: We’ll, he would have voted against CRT. You cool with that? 
Burger was willing to regulate certain categories of speech in schools​In addressing other issues that often arose under the First Amendment, Burger showed willingness to regulate pornography, dirty words, and disruptive speech in schools. He wrote the Court’s decision articulating standards under which government could prosecute obscenity in Miller v. California (1973) and its companion case, Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton. In Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser (1986), his last opinion for the Court, Burger wrote that public school officials could punish students for lewd and vulgar speech.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

rightwinger said:


> Continental Army
> Not militia troops
> 
> It was the French Navy that bottled up the British Army and left them no option but surrender


You're a complete dumb fuck.

The Continental Army was made up of...wait for it................MILITIA TROOPS.


Regardless, we're getting machine guns.  It's only a matter of time, and there is not a cocksucking thing you can do about it.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 645144


One of the WORST SCOTUS justices of all time.

He never saw a part of the constitution that he didn't interpret differently from the plain language.

HORRIBLE justice.  DID NOT BELONG ON ANY BENCH!!!


----------



## rightwinger

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> You're a complete dumb fuck.
> 
> The Continental Army was made up of...wait for it................MILITIA TROOPS.
> 
> 
> Regardless, we're getting machine guns.  It's only a matter of time, and there is not a cocksucking thing you can do about it.


Militia Troops provided support to the Continental Army

They we’re not a professional Army which the Continental Army became. The Continental Army was funded and controlled by the Continental Congress

They were not a militia group. 
Most militias were ineffective fighters


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

rightwinger said:


> Militia Troops provided support to the Continental Army
> 
> They we’re not a professional Army which the Continental Army became. The Continental Army was funded and controlled by the Continental Congress
> 
> They were not a militia group.
> Most militias were ineffective fighters


The continental army did not become a professional force until after they had been fighting for a while.  They were militia until Washington got congress to pay them.

Most militia were ineffective fighters because they still relied on antiquated fighting methods (standing on a field and firing at each other).  

Guerilla warfare HEAVILY favors a citizen army....or did you just forget that recently the most powerful military the world has ever known just left Afghanistan with its tail between its legs?


----------



## Batcat

2aguy said:


> Gun crime is increasing in Canada.....see...criminals evolve.....they change.  The anti-gun fanatics don't understand this.....Canada imported 3rd world males who don't respect Canadian culture or laws.......and they have drug turf to take and protect...so guns are the necessary tool for their livlihoods.......


If one day all guns in our nation were successfully disappeared by some magician waving a magic wand,  guns would start to be smuggled in the next day.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Batcat said:


> If one day all guns in our nation were successfully disappeared by some magician waving a magic wand,  guns would start to be smuggled in the next day.


Or manufactured.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

rightwinger said:


> Militia Troops provided support to the Continental Army
> 
> They we’re not a professional Army which the Continental Army became. The Continental Army was funded and controlled by the Continental Congress
> 
> They were not a militia group.
> Most militias were ineffective fighters


I've already proved this myth wrong


----------



## rightwinger

bigrebnc1775 said:


> I've already proved this myth wrong


Actually, you demonstrated your limited knowledge of history for all to see


----------



## bigrebnc1775

rightwinger said:


> Actually, you demonstrated your limited knowledge of history for all to see


I did what you never did post a legitimate source. You gave your opinion.


----------



## Ame®icano

bigrebnc1775 said:


> I did what you never did post a legitimate source. You gave your opinion.



I doubt it's "his". Lefties don't have own opinions, rather they post opinions of their handlers, that they turn into "feelings".


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Ame®icano said:


> I doubt it's "his". Lefties don't have own opinions, rather they post opinions of their handlers, that they turn into "feelings".


Ok I will accept that.


----------



## easyt65

Lakhota said:


> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week


How many armed nutbags attack police precincts and military bases?

How many armed nutbags attack schools, churches, and grocery stores, where there is less of a chance they might get shot?


----------



## jc456

easyt65 said:


> How many armed nutbags attack police precincts and military bases?
> 
> How many armed nutbags attack schools, churches, and grocery stores, where there is less of a chance they might get shot?


Well 33 were shot in Chicago this weekend and you didn’t hear shit


----------



## bigrebnc1775

jc456 said:


> Well 33 were shot in Chicago this weekend and you didn’t hear shit


That's a slow weekend for Chicago.


----------



## JusticeHammer

surada said:


> Nope. He's correct. Study it.


Have, and he is wrong.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PoliticalChic said:


> By now, most sentient individuals know that whatever you claim, the opposite is the truth.
> 
> That makes you a valuable asset.



Hezbollah Hannah lie? Only on days ending in "Y"


----------



## jc456

bigrebnc1775 said:


> That's a slow weekend for Chicago.


And it’s never heard whatever the count!


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

rightwinger said:


> Militia Troops provided support to the Continental Army
> 
> They we’re not a professional Army which the Continental Army became. The Continental Army was funded and controlled by the Continental Congress
> 
> They were not a militia group.
> Most militias were ineffective fighters


It was the Framers’ original intent that the sanctioned and recognized state militia be the first line of defense against invasion or insurrection, not armed private citizens – the right to bear arms was solely for the benefit of official state militia.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> It was the Framers’ original intent that the sanctioned and recognized state militia be the first line of defense against invasion or insurrection, not armed private citizens – the right to bear arms was solely for the benefit of official state militia.


LOL keep making shit up.


----------



## jc456

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> It was the Framers’ original intent that the sanctioned and recognized state militia be the first line of defense against invasion or insurrection, not armed private citizens – the right to bear arms was solely for the benefit of official state militia.


Nope


----------



## AZrailwhale

Lakhota said:


> I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed.  It's just a matter of time...


The only way to change the 2nd would be another amendment or a second constitutional convention.  The first will never happen as long as most states are red.  The second would have results you would really hate.  The minimum I can see would be ironclad protections against the federal government interfering in state government and a radical reduction in both the power of the federal government AND its power to tax,


----------



## jc456

Lakhota said:


> I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed.  It's just a matter of time...


It will? When?


----------



## jc456

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The Constitution exist only in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review.
> 
> Neither the Constitution nor any of its Amendments are obsolete.
> 
> Whatever the current case law might be concerning the Second Amendment, however, further restrictions, regulations, or even bans will do little to curtail gun violence.
> 
> The genius of the Constitution is it compels us to seek actual solutions to our many problems; be it abortion, campaign finance reform, or gun violence, the Constitution prevents us from taking the easy route often taken by dictatorships and totalitarian regimes, where the liberty of the people is destroyed.
> 
> This does not mean we are helpless to do nothing, at the mercy of strict, unyielding jurisprudence protecting the rights of gun owners; rather, it means we must find solutions based on facts and evidence, and be prepared to address and acknowledge painful, embarrassing aspects of our society and culture.


Facts like?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> It was the Framers’ original intent that the sanctioned and recognized state militia be the first line of defense against invasion or insurrection, not armed private citizens – the right to bear arms was solely for the benefit of official state militia.


Racist leftists lie all the time, stop lying


----------



## Big Bend Texas

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> It was the Framers’ original intent that the sanctioned and recognized state militia be the first line of defense against invasion or insurrection, not armed private citizens – the right to bear arms was solely for the benefit of official state militia.


There is of course no mention of state militias at all in the 2nd Amendment.

The "militia" was every man capable of bearing arms between 16 and 60 at the time.  The unorganized militias more than anything made it possible for the US to hang on long enough for the French to come to our rescue.  The Continental Army which consisted primarily of state militias had very few victories during the revolution and if not for the constant harrying of the Brits by the small community militias never giving them any rest or respite victory would likely not have been possible at all.

The unorganized militia cannot do so without the individual right to carry which is why they specifically stated "The Right of The People" not the "Right of the Militia" or "Right of the State".

It is directly tied to our right to self defense, defense of home, self, family, community, state, and the nation.

The writings of the founders make that absolutely clear as again was clearly detailed in the Heller Decision.


----------



## Big Bend Texas

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This does not mean we are helpless to do nothing, at the mercy of* strict, unyielding jurisprudence protecting the rights of gun owners;* rather, it means we must find solutions based on facts and evidence, and be prepared to address and acknowledge painful, embarrassing aspects of our society and culture


Yes it does unless and until you Amend The Constitution.

Gun owners have been at the mercy of bad, baseless decisions limiting our 2nd Amendment rights since the end of the civil war.

You folks are going to have  to learn with the fact we're taking those rights back one decision at a time and will be for at least the next thirty or forty years.

The solution to "gun violence" has nothing to do with limiting the rights of the law abiding, and has everything to do with fully enforcing existing laws and length prison sentences for the offenders.

Shootings like the one in Buffalo are so rare as to be a statistical zero along with the number of deaths they case.

The vast majority of gun related homicides are related to gang activity and illegal drugs and usually are committed by repeat offenders.

Deal with them appropriately and with the full force of law for a decade or so and then we can talk about what restrictions might further be needed in the future.

Of course, we can also start with the mentally ill which are almost always responsible in the end for the vast majority of these types of shootings.

Again and again we find that the system failed even with glaring warnings to stop these individuals who in many cases had, previously had numerous mental health and violent outburst problems in schools who kept them quiet and when police were called then failed to get them dealt with appropriately in the courts.

Sane, law abiding gun owners are not the problem.


----------



## jc456

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> It was the Framers’ original intent that the sanctioned and recognized state militia be the first line of defense against invasion or insurrection, not armed private citizens – the right to bear arms was solely for the benefit of official state militia.


It was?  Fk, how old are you?


----------



## jc456

Big Bend Texas said:


> Yes it does unless and until you Amend The Constitution.
> 
> Gun owners have been at the mercy of bad, baseless decisions limiting our 2nd Amendment rights since the end of the civil war.
> 
> You folks are going to have  to learn with the fact we're taking those rights back one decision at a time and will be for at least the next thirty or forty years.
> 
> The solution to "gun violence" has nothing to do with limiting the rights of the law abiding, and has everything to do with fully enforcing existing laws and length prison sentences for the offenders.
> 
> Shootings like the one in Buffalo are so rare as to be a statistical zero along with the number of deaths they case.
> 
> The vast majority of gun related homicides are related to gang activity and illegal drugs and usually are committed by repeat offenders.
> 
> Deal with them appropriately and with the full force of law for a decade or so and then we can talk about what restrictions might further be needed in the future.
> 
> Of course, we can also start with the mentally ill which are almost always responsible in the end for the vast majority of these types of shootings.
> 
> Again and again we find that the system failed even with glaring warnings to stop these individuals who in many cases had, previously had numerous mental health and violent outburst problems in schools who kept them quiet and when police were called then failed to get them dealt with appropriately in the courts.
> 
> Sane, law abiding gun owners are not the problem.


Again, the black dude, *Darrell E. Brooks*,, who drove his SUV down the center of a Parade used a vehicle to kill 6 White people, out on bail bound and a Nationalist.  Are we now not allowed to drive?


----------



## jc456

jc456 said:


> Again, the black dude, *Darrell E. Brooks*,, who drove his SUV down the center of a Parade used a vehicle to kill 6 White people, out on bail bound and a Nationalist.  Are we now not allowed to drive?


Again, that damn fking SUV, they all ought to be banned and stop selling them.  Cause it's never about the individual driving it.  Has to be the car is a weapon and as such should be eliminated from society.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

The only way to protect the citizens from their own fucking government is to arm every man, woman, child, and it, with state of the art infantry weapons and disarm the government.


----------



## Uncensored2008

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> It was the Framers’ original intent that the sanctioned and recognized state militia be the first line of defense against invasion or insurrection, not armed private citizens – the right to bear arms was solely for the benefit of official state militia.



You can't be this stupid.

Or maybe you can, Saul.


----------



## jc456

Lakhota said:


> I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed.  It's just a matter of time...


Nope


----------



## M14 Shooter

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> It was the Framers’ original intent that the sanctioned and recognized state militia be the first line of defense against invasion or insurrection...


This is a lie, as the Framers gave Congress the power to create a standing army for these purposes.


C_Clayton_Jones said:


> he right to bear arms was solely for the benefit of official state militia.


This is a lie. as the 2nd Amendment protects the right of the people.
Not the state.
Not the militia.
Not the people in the militia
But, the people


----------



## woodwork201

Rigby5 said:


> Has there ever been any government that has not gone completely corrupt within 400 years or so?




Let me fix that for ya:


Rigby5 said:


> Has there ever been any government that has not gone completely corrupt within 400 *minutes* or so?


----------



## woodwork201

Rigby5 said:


> The actual only possible interpretation of the Bill of Rights is that the first federal gun control law in 1927, and all federal firearm laws that followed, are simply illegal.
> The federal government was clearly denied any firearm jurisdiction at all.


Which law is that?


----------



## woodwork201

M14 Shooter said:


> This is a lie, as the Framers gave Congress the power to create a standing army for these purposes.



Wrong.  State militias were absolutely the Founders vision of the first defense against insurrection and invasion.  The Founders were very much against the idea of a standing army.  They knew it could be important at times but they limited the Standing Army t o 2-years maximum unless explicitly reauthorized.

Don't let the anti-gunners suck you into their twist of history to tie the 2nd Amendment to the right to keep and bear arms solely to national defense.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

woodwork201 said:


> Wrong.  State militias were absolutely the Founders vision of the first defense against insurrection and invasion.  The Founders were very much against the idea of a standing army.  They knew it could be important at times but they limited the Standing Army t o 2-years maximum unless explicitly reauthorized.
> 
> Don't let the anti-gunners suck you into their twist of history to tie the 2nd Amendment to the right to keep and bear arms.


God you anti firearms types will say anything even when patently false.


----------



## woodwork201

RetiredGySgt said:


> God you anti firearms types will say anything even when patently false.


You're an idiot.  I'm the most pro-right to keep and bear arms person on this forum.  I'm an absolutist about "shall not be infringed".  That is why the argument about using the militia for defense against invasion and the phrase in the 2nd Amendment are so important. It's not the only protection in the 2nd, not  just for militia use, but if you allow that the militia is not a purpose then you allow the antis the argument that gun ownership is no longer required.


----------



## jc456

M14 Shooter said:


> This is a lie, as the Framers gave Congress the power to create a standing army for these purposes.
> 
> This is a lie. as the 2nd Amendment protects the right of the people.
> Not the state.
> Not the militia.
> Not the people in the militia
> But, the people










						Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				


​Text​There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with capitalization or punctuation differences. Differences exist between the version passed by Congress and put on display and the versions ratified by the states.[24][25][26][27][28][29][30] These differences have been a focus of debate regarding the meaning of the amendment, particularly regarding the importance of what the courts have called the prefatory clause.[31][32]

The final, handwritten original of the Bill of Rights as passed by Congress, with the rest of the original prepared by scribe William Lambert, is preserved in the National Archives.[33] This is the version ratified by Delaware[34] and used by the Supreme Court in _District of Columbia v. Heller_:



> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.[35]






Heller 2008 stated individuals right to bear arms for self defense.








						Second Amendment
					






					www.law.cornell.edu
				



_Second Amendment_​_In the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the "Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."_


----------



## jc456

woodwork201 said:


> You're an idiot.  I'm the most pro-right to keep and bear arms person on this forum.  I'm an absolutist about "shall not be infringed".  That is why the argument about using the militia for defense against invasion and the phrase in the 2nd Amendment are so important. It's not the only protection in the 2nd, not  just for militia use, but if you allow that the militia is not a purpose then you allow the antis the argument that gun ownership is no longer required.


heller 2008 insures that can't happen.  Not sure what you're referring to.  I posted the original hand written version.

'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms'

Not the militia, the people.  The people can protect the state as a militia if necessary.  Heller ensured an individual can protect one's home with a gun.

I would take a step further now and say the states can organize a militia to protect the United States over demofks who are trying to take over.

Again, why there can never be an insurrection.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

woodwork201 said:


> You're an idiot.  I'm the most pro-right to keep and bear arms person on this forum.  I'm an absolutist about "shall not be infringed".  That is why the argument about using the militia for defense against invasion and the phrase in the 2nd Amendment are so important. It's not the only protection in the 2nd, not  just for militia use, but if you allow that the militia is not a purpose then you allow the antis the argument that gun ownership is no longer required.


What makes you think the militia is not necessary now, even with a standing army?

A militia is necessary, REGARDLESS of a standing army and ESPECIALLY if there is a standing army.  

There MUST be a balance of power.


----------



## jc456

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> What makes you think the militia is not necessary now, even with a standing army?
> 
> A militia is necessary, REGARDLESS of a standing army and ESPECIALLY if there is a standing army.
> 
> There MUST be a balance of power.


EXACTLY

national guard ensures states rights.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

LOL


woodwork201 said:


> You're an idiot.  I'm the most pro-right to keep and bear arms person on this forum.  I'm an absolutist about "shall not be infringed".  That is why the argument about using the militia for defense against invasion and the phrase in the 2nd Amendment are so important. It's not the only protection in the 2nd, not  just for militia use, but if you allow that the militia is not a purpose then you allow the antis the argument that gun ownership is no longer required.


 the right was and is intended to be FOR the PEOPLE, as in a right to all citizens, explain in great detail why every other amendment that use the term "the people" is understood to mean an INDIVIDUAL right but some how the 2nd is not?


----------



## woodwork201

jc456 said:


> heller 2008 insures that can't happen.  Not sure what you're referring to.  I posted the original hand written version.
> 
> 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms'
> 
> Not the militia, the people.  The people can protect the state as a militia if necessary.  Heller ensured an individual can protect one's home with a gun.
> 
> I would take a step further now and say the states can organize a militia to protect the United States over demofks who are trying to take over.
> 
> Again, why there can never be an insurrection.



Can't you read?  This is why we're losing the gun rights battle; those who claim to be on our side are ignorant and illiterate.

Did I say that the right to keep and bear arms is not an individual right?  I said what the Constitution says: that one of the key considerations is that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a security of a free state.  It's right there in the Constitution and yet some of the so-called, self-proclaimed, gun rights supporters here deny that it means what it says. 

So let me walk those of you with reading comprehension disabilities through the conversation:

M14 shooter said that the Founders intended that a standing army protect our country from invasion and insurrection.  M14 Shooter clearly has not read the Constitution.  The Constitution clearly empowers the Congress to call out the militia to fight invasion and insurrection.  It doesn't say Congress can call out the National Guard or that, in the case of invasion at home, the Congress can order the "National" Guard home from Afghanistan or wherever else the Federal Government has sent them.  The Founders wrote, and included in the Constitution, that the intended way to defend against invasion and insurrection was the militia - that very same militia mentioned in the 2nd Amendment.  M14 Shooter was demonstrably wrong and I corrected him on it.

Then RetiredGySgt, also suffering from a reading comprehension disability, said that I was an anti-gunner and that what I said was patently false.  RetiredGySgt likes guns.  He even likes a limited right to keep and bear arms, but he most definitely is not a supporter of an uninfringed right to keep and bear arms as described in the 2nd Amendment.  He's stated in the past that he supports the government's claim of authority to ban whole categories of people from owning guns.  He is a gun controller at heart.  I've proven that my response to M14 Shooter is correct and, therefore, I've also proven that RetiredGySgt's claim that I'm anti-gun like he is, and his statement that my post was patently false, are both... well... patently false.

Then, jc456, you started strong with post 10,410.  You were exactly correct.  But then you must have hit the bong or something because  10,411 is completely off track.  Nowhere did I say that the right to keep and bear arms is not a protected right of the people.  It's right there in the Constitution - a document that it appears that only you and I, from this thread, may have read.

But let me clarify the point about the prefatory clause of the 2nd Amendment.  We all know that the Founders wrote about the right to defend oneself from danger - bears or burglars, it's the same.  We know that they wrote about using arms to defend against tyrannical government; they even wrote about it in The Declaration of Independence. 

There is zero doubt by judges, justices, lawyers, legislators, leftists, socialists and communists, even those posting on this board and in this thread, know for certain that original intent was that the right to keep and bear arms was for all of these purposes and was intended to be absolute and is an individual right.  We all know for certain that those who claim otherwise are lying to support their political objectives.  We get it.  But the problem is this:  The only reason for keeping and bearing arms mentioned in the Constitution is that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

So, back to your first post - in any form of commas, etc.: *A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state*, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.. 

Let me repeat it again for the hard-of-reading:  *A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, *the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Nowhere in there does it say or suggest that a person must be a member of the militia to keep and bear arms.  The Founders understood, as you suggested, that the militia may be formed, expanded, or built up in response to insurrection or invasion so the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  If the right were stripped, how could a militia be called up?

The next argument the anti-gunners, including M14 Shooter (actually an anti-gunner as well) makes is that since, as they and M14 Shooter claim, the militia is no longer necessary for the security of a free state, then, according to all of them, the single mention in the Constitution of one reason the right is protected no longer valid and the anti-gunners use their belief in that invalidity to claim that the 2nd Amendment simply no longer applies or matters. 

The anti-gunners claim they don't even need to repeal the 2nd Amendment because it simply doesn't matter since we have a standing army.  But they're wrong.  The 2nd Amendment makes a statement:  *A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.*  The government, including Congress, cannot repeal that statement.  The 2nd Amendment didn't argue that a well regulated militia might be necessary to the security of a free state and Congress can't replace the militia with the Army Reserves and they can't defend the homeland from invasion or insurrection with a bunch of National Guard solders half-way around the world fighting foreign wars.

The Founders didn't say that as long as a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state then the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  They made a very clear statement in the Constitution of the United States:  *A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state. *  Therefore, for as long as the Constitution stood (it's questionable whether it stands today),  *A well regulated militia IS and WILL BE necessary to the security of a free state* so,constitutionally, a well regulated militia will remain necessary to the security of a free state until such a time as that statement is removed from the Constitution by amendment according to Article V.

So when idiots claim that the militia has nothing to do with the right to keep and bear arms, even though it is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, they help the left to take the very best argument for the 2nd Amendment's protection of the right to keep and bear arms.

And to bring it all the way around, yes, the Founders intended, and rightly so - even today, that the militia, not the standing army, be the first response to insurrection and invasion in the United States.


----------



## woodwork201

RetiredGySgt said:


> LOL
> 
> the right was and is intended to be FOR the PEOPLE, as in a right to all citizens, explain in great detail why every other amendment that use the term "the people" is understood to mean an INDIVIDUAL right but some how the 2nd is not?


Quote where I said otherwise.


----------



## woodwork201

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> What makes you think the militia is not necessary now, even with a standing army?
> 
> A militia is necessary, REGARDLESS of a standing army and ESPECIALLY if there is a standing army.
> 
> There MUST be a balance of power.


Quote where I said otherwise.  It is the whole point of my response to M14 Shooter, and RetiredGySgt.  Read my long post a couple up from here where I make an irrefutable argument proving that the militia is absolutely necessary and only constitutional amendment can even attempt to make it otherwise.


----------



## j-mac

It is only fascist neo progressives that the American populace be disarmed. Then they feel no one could fight their tyrannical dreams.


----------



## woodwork201

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> There MUST be a balance of power.



Where do you get that idea?  It was the intention of the Founders that the people have so much more firepower than the government that there would never be a question of tyranny; it would simply not be possible.  

Unfortunately, so-called, self-proclaimed, patriots and gun rights supporters, including most on this thread, have surrendered the right to keep and bear arms, supporting the government in its infringements by banning entire classes of arms and restricting entire classes of the population, keeping and bearing arms.  The days of the people having overwhelming power over government are behind us.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

woodwork201 said:


> Where do you get that idea?  It was the intention of the Founders that the people have so much more firepower than the government that there would never be a question of tyranny; it would simply not be possible.
> 
> Unfortunately, so-called, self-proclaimed, patriots and gun rights supporters, including most on this thread, have surrendered the right to keep and bear arms, supporting the government in its infringements by banning entire classes of arms and restricting entire classes of the population, keeping and bearing arms.  The days of the people having overwhelming power over government are behind us.


You are an idiot. the second amendment does not rest only on the militia. It stands alone as an individual right, In fact the anti gunners argue that if it rests on a militia that it is no longer needed due to a militia no longer existing,


----------



## Uncensored2008

M14 Shooter said:


> This is a lie, as the Framers gave Congress the power to create a standing army for these purposes.
> 
> This is a lie. as the 2nd Amendment protects the right of the people.
> Not the state.
> Not the militia.
> Not the people in the militia
> But, the people



"An armed populace cannot be ruled."  - Henry VIII as he announced that he was reversing the law of James VI allowing peasants to have swords and knives.

Every tyrant seeks to disarm their enslaved subjects.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Uncensored2008 said:


> "An armed populace cannot be ruled."  - Henry VIII as he announced that he was reversing the law of James VI allowing peasants to have swords and knives.
> Every tyrant seeks to disarm their enslaved subjects.


They want to take the guns because they want to do things they know they will get shot for.


----------



## Lakhota

So sad.  So true.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 649593
> 
> So sad.  So true.



Thanks for your mindless meme, Shittting Bull


----------



## Leo123

waltky said:


> Maybe not obsolete but antiquated, out of date...
> 
> ... it needs to be updated to reflect the times...
> 
> ... and the threat of overkill firepower...
> 
> ... for the average citizen.


Average citizens don't murder.


----------



## Lakhota

Amen!


----------



## Rigby5

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 649593
> 
> So sad.  So true.



Nonsense.
First of all, there is only about one school incident a year, so extremely rare.
Second is that making guns more illegal won't work any more than making drugs illegal did.
Third is that these school shootings are actually suicides, so are mental health issues, so we should ensure mental health care is free.
Forth is that likely schools need to be nicer, so they do not anger people so much.


----------



## Rigby5

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 649600
> 
> Amen!



That is insane.
The founders did not want a standing military because they did not trust mercenaries.
So then they wanted all the citizens to be armed and familiar with arms, in order to be capable of being quickly called up for defense of individuals, village, state, or country.
It makes no sense to claim the 2nd amendment was to protect only the states, because the threats came from criminals attacking homes or villages, or foreign attacks on the whole country.
There was never any time states needed an armed militia.

Sure the first part of the 2nd amendment mentions militia, but that is not typically related to a state.
{... A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.[35] ...}
If the intent was only to prevent state militias from being disarmed by a rogue federal government, then is would not have said, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Instead it would have said, "the right of state militias to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."


----------



## Lakhota

*Amen!*


----------



## Rigby5

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 649802
> 
> *Amen!*



Sorry, but that makes no sense.
The point of the Kentucky long rifle was to shoot Redcoats, so you had to have rifles as good as the enemy.
The future enemy, the new Redcoats, are the current military and police.
They are not only already corrupt, but will become eventually so corrupt they will no longer be tolerable.
So then we will have to have rifles as good as the enemy then, which will be the military and police.


----------



## 2aguy

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 649600
> 
> Amen!




And just like when the Supreme Court ruled the wrong way in Dredd Scott, and Plessy v. Ferguson, the pampered, politically appointed lawyer in your meme was wrong too......considering Justices get private, armed security for themselves,  and a lifetime government job that we pay for....

Scalia went through the entire history of the Right to Keep and Bear arms in the Heller decision...it would be nice if morons like you would take the time to have someone read it to you...since you obviously can't understand the simple words, The Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...


----------



## 2aguy

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 649802
> 
> *Amen!*


----------



## 2aguy

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 649802
> 
> *Amen!*




Why is it you morons keep posting stupid things like that?

If you would simply take the time to have someone read the Heller decision to you, you might understand how dumb you are....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

*Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. *

*We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. *


Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), *the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.*

*--------*


----------



## 2aguy

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 649802
> 
> *Amen!*




So...shithead....Freedom of speech only applies to words created on the printing press....right?

You dumb ass...


----------



## 2aguy

Rigby5 said:


> Nonsense.
> First of all, there is only about one school incident a year, so extremely rare.
> Second is that making guns more illegal won't work any more than making drugs illegal did.
> Third is that these school shootings are actually suicides, so are mental health issues, so we should ensure mental health care is free.
> Forth is that likely schools need to be nicer, so they do not anger people so much.




Not even that........one of the other anti-gun fanatics posted a meme showing school shootings dating back to 1988......there was a grand total of 13 over the 32 year period....

More kids are killed by criminals with guns in Chicago each year than all the school shootings in that 32 year period.....and the policies of the democrat party are allowing those gun criminals to keep shooting people....


----------



## scruffy

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> It was the Framers’ original intent that the sanctioned and recognized state militia be the first line of defense against invasion or insurrection, not armed private citizens – the right to bear arms was solely for the benefit of official state militia.


Another dumbshit libtard. ^^^


----------



## scruffy

jc456 said:


> EXACTLY
> 
> national guard ensures states rights.


Not any more.


----------



## scruffy

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 649802
> 
> *Amen!*


So go ahead and change them, fucktard.

You have that power.

Stop whining, dumbass


----------



## surada

bigrebnc1775 said:


> You know nothing and it shows. because their mental state of mind would not allow them to desert. Their training from a young age, the reward to their families in German prevented them fr deserting


The Prussians were mercenaries. They weren't fighting for Germany. 6000 fought for the British... Over 1000 deserted.









						The Revolutionary War Hero Who Was Openly Gay
					

Baron Friedrich von Steuben was known for his bravery and the discipline and grit he brought to the American troops.




					www.history.com


----------



## Uncensored2008

2aguy said:


> Why is it you morons keep posting stupid things like that?
> 
> If you would simply take the time to have someone read the Heller decision to you, you might understand how dumb you are....
> 
> https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
> 
> *Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.
> 
> We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. *
> 
> 
> Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), *the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.*
> 
> *--------*



Stupid people are swayed by simple slogans. It's the basis of popular advertising. The fascist democrats are the party of and for stupid people. They seek to sway those who do not think.

In all seriousness, Lakhota has an IQ of maybe 65. These kinds of moronic slogans are as complicated as her thoughts get.


----------



## Uncensored2008

scruffy said:


> Another dumbshit libtard. ^^^



Saul Goodman isn't dumb.

Just sleazy, corrupt, and REALLY dishonest. If you have an accident or injury, call him - he'll be chasing your ambulance...


----------



## Uncensored2008

surada said:


> The Prussians were mercenaries. They weren't fighting for Germany. 6000 fought for the British... Over 1000 deserted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Revolutionary War Hero Who Was Openly Gay
> 
> 
> Baron Friedrich von Steuben was known for his bravery and the discipline and grit he brought to the American troops.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.history.com



Hezbollah Hannah posts shit as openly dishonest as she is.

"OPENLY GAY"

But then if you read you find;

" He also downplayed rumors "

"Rumors" and "openly" and contradictory.

Desperate to rewrite history to fit your narrative.

Tell us Hannah, what are gay rights in your beloved homeland of Iran?


----------



## Uncensored2008

scruffy said:


> So go ahead and change them, fucktard.
> 
> You have that power.
> 
> Stop whining, dumbass



I don't understand why the Nazis don't pass a law forbidding people from murdering children in school? 

Since the only thing lacking is a law, as the fascists keep telling us, they need to pass one...


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Uncensored2008 said:


> I don't understand why the Nazis don't pass a law forbidding people from murdering children in school?
> 
> Since the only thing lacking is a law, as the fascists keep telling us, they need to pass one...


Just pass a law preventing people from thinking about going to school and murdering children.  Action precedes the thought, right?


It is a sad, disgusting bit of naivety to believe that we can have laws that are proactive while people remain free. It will never happen. It will always lead to tyranny and oppression.

Anyone attempting to enact a proactive law (like banning guns because .00003% might use them incorrectly) is a miserable tyrant who MUST be put to death in the most brutal way possible.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Just pass a law preventing people from thinking about going to school and murdering children.  Action precedes the thought, right?
> 
> 
> It is a sad, disgusting bit of naivety to believe that we can have laws that are proactive while people remain free. It will never happen. It will always lead to tyranny and oppression.
> 
> Anyone attempting to enact a proactive law (like banning guns because .00003% might use them incorrectly) is a miserable tyrant who MUST be put to death in the most brutal way possible.



It's not naivety, it's cynicism. The fascists want to crush civil rights. They react with glee to these things because they see it as an opportunity to further their sick agenda.

The left LOVES school shootings. I'd go as far as to suggest they'd promote them behind the scenes if they thought they could get away with it.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

surada said:


> The Prussians were mercenaries. They weren't fighting for Germany. 6000 fought for the British... Over 1000 deserted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Revolutionary War Hero Who Was Openly Gay
> 
> 
> Baron Friedrich von Steuben was known for his bravery and the discipline and grit he brought to the American troops.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.history.com


There were 30,000 Hessians not 6000. Again they would not desert because their families in Germany were kept up by the state for their service.


----------



## Rigby5

Lakhota said:


> More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week



How could the 2nd amendment ever become obsolete somehow?
The decentralized requirements of a democratic republic, can never change.
A democratic republic has to remain with all legal authority emanating from the inherent rights of individuals, so can never allow top down gun control.
That would require government to be the autocratic source of legal authority instead of a democratic republic.

Just ask yourself if right now, do we trust the armed members of the government, like the police and military?
And clearly the answer is no.
We have the police routinely murdering innocent people, like children playing with a toy gun in a park, a med tech in her own home when the police decide to conduct a no-knock-warrant, etc.
We have the army lying about Iraqi WMD and murdering half a million innocents.
So clearly to reduce the murder of innocents, it is government guns we need to confiscate, not private guns.


----------



## strollingbones




----------



## Rigby5

Lakhota said:


> Trying to live modern life according to the Constitution is much like trying to live modern life according to the Bible.  Both are subject to vast interpretation.



No one should live according to the Old Testament.
It is clearly barbaric.
The New Testament is also weak because Roman imperialism is clearly immoral and illegal, but would have been dangerous to openly oppose.

The constitution however, is only a few hundred years old, and nothing has or could significantly change.
The main principle is constant and will always be valid, which is that government can NEVER be fully trusted, and only the population as a whole should ever be trusted.

Gun control is inherently flawed because it is saying to trust government completely, and allow no one else any say at all.


----------



## Rigby5

bigrebnc1775 said:


> There were 30,000 Hessians not 6000. Again they would not desert because their families in Germany were kept up by the state for their service.



A little more complex than that.

{...
About 900 Hessian soldiers and officers were taken prisoner by General Washington and the Continental Army following the Battle of Trenton on December 26, 1776. Have you ever wondered what happened to them?
...

Once they arrived in Pennsylvania, the Hessian officers were separated from the enlisted soldiers, who were immediately marched to Newtown and divided between a prison and Newtown Presbyterian Church. The officers—about 26 of them in all—were held overnight in a single room of the McConkey’s Ferry Inn.

The next day, they were marched to Newtown, too, but they were housed quite comfortably in private homes. The special treatment, Seabright explains, was because of their status.

...

From Newtown, the Hessian officers and soldiers were marched to Philadelphia and paraded through the streets before they were ultimately settled in a barracks. Washington promptly published a proclamation stating that the Hessians were not the enemy. They were forced into the war and should be treated humanely, it said.

From that point, people started to bring food to the barracks, and they treated the Hessians with great kindness—much to their surprise. Quite notoriously, the British and Hessians treated their American prisoners brutally, especially on the prison ships anchored in the Hudson River.

“The Hessian officers eventually signed something called a ‘parole,’ saying they wouldn’t do anything to get in Washington’s way,” Seabright says. “As a result, they were pretty much given free rein.”

From the barracks in Philadelphia, the Hessian soldiers were marched to Lancaster County, where they were put to work on farms. The officers were sent to Virginia. “When they reached the Virginia border,” Seabright says, “the American guards basically released them on their own recognizance.”

According to historian David Hackett Fischer, about 23 percent of the Hessians who survived the war remained in America. Other estimates go as high as 40 percent.

A significant portion returned to America after the war with their families. “So it was not a bad ending for the Hessian prisoners,” Seabright says.
...}









						What Happened to the Captured Hessians? | Washington Crossing Historic Park
					

About 900 Hessian soldiers and officers were taken prisoner by General Washington and the Continental Army following the Battle of Trenton on December 26, 1776. Have you ever wondered what happened to them? Washington and his troops wasted little time moving their new prisoners away from the...




					www.washingtoncrossingpark.org


----------



## M14 Shooter

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 649802
> 
> *Amen!*


Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment .  We do not interpret constitutional rights that way.  Just as the First Amendment  protects modern forms of communications, _e.g._, _Reno_ v. _American Civil Liberties Union_, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment  applies to modern forms of search, _e.g._, _Kyllo_ v. _United States_, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) ,* the Second Amendment  extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.*


----------



## M14 Shooter

strollingbones said:


> View attachment 650015


Democeats in Congress have no interest in passing gun control, as they know it will cost them both houses.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Rigby5 said:


> A little more complex than that.
> 
> {...
> About 900 Hessian soldiers and officers were taken prisoner by General Washington and the Continental Army following the Battle of Trenton on December 26, 1776. Have you ever wondered what happened to them?
> ...
> 
> Once they arrived in Pennsylvania, the Hessian officers were separated from the enlisted soldiers, who were immediately marched to Newtown and divided between a prison and Newtown Presbyterian Church. The officers—about 26 of them in all—were held overnight in a single room of the McConkey’s Ferry Inn.
> 
> The next day, they were marched to Newtown, too, but they were housed quite comfortably in private homes. The special treatment, Seabright explains, was because of their status.
> 
> ...
> 
> From Newtown, the Hessian officers and soldiers were marched to Philadelphia and paraded through the streets before they were ultimately settled in a barracks. Washington promptly published a proclamation stating that the Hessians were not the enemy. They were forced into the war and should be treated humanely, it said.
> 
> From that point, people started to bring food to the barracks, and they treated the Hessians with great kindness—much to their surprise. Quite notoriously, the British and Hessians treated their American prisoners brutally, especially on the prison ships anchored in the Hudson River.
> 
> “The Hessian officers eventually signed something called a ‘parole,’ saying they wouldn’t do anything to get in Washington’s way,” Seabright says. “As a result, they were pretty much given free rein.”
> 
> From the barracks in Philadelphia, the Hessian soldiers were marched to Lancaster County, where they were put to work on farms. The officers were sent to Virginia. “When they reached the Virginia border,” Seabright says, “the American guards basically released them on their own recognizance.”
> 
> According to historian David Hackett Fischer, about 23 percent of the Hessians who survived the war remained in America. Other estimates go as high as 40 percent.
> 
> A significant portion returned to America after the war with their families. “So it was not a bad ending for the Hessian prisoners,” Seabright says.
> ...}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Happened to the Captured Hessians? | Washington Crossing Historic Park
> 
> 
> About 900 Hessian soldiers and officers were taken prisoner by General Washington and the Continental Army following the Battle of Trenton on December 26, 1776. Have you ever wondered what happened to them? Washington and his troops wasted little time moving their new prisoners away from the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.washingtoncrossingpark.org


The point is they didn't desert


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 649593
> 
> So sad.  So true.



"Oh, look, I found a meme that said what I wanted to hear!  Now I can post without having to think again!"


----------



## Cecilie1200

2aguy said:


> Why is it you morons keep posting stupid things like that?
> 
> If you would simply take the time to have someone read the Heller decision to you, you might understand how dumb you are....
> 
> https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
> 
> *Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.
> 
> We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. *
> 
> 
> Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), *the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.*
> 
> *--------*



You do realize that the time and effort necessary for LaCooter to do the unfamiliar work of actually thinking would seriously cut into the time she can spend feeling self-righteous about what a vile specimen she is, right?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

M14 Shooter said:


> Democeats in Congress have no interest in passing gun control, as they know it will cost them both houses.


It needs to cost them all if they don't start repealing the bullshit.


----------



## bigrebnc1775




----------



## woodwork201

RetiredGySgt said:


> You are an idiot. the second amendment does not rest only on the militia. It stands alone as an individual right, In fact the anti gunners argue that if it rests on a militia that it is no longer needed due to a militia no longer existing,


Where did I suggest that the 2nd Amendment rests only on the militia?  Who's the idiot?  You're the one with the reading comprehension deficiency.


----------



## woodwork201

RetiredGySgt said:


> You are an idiot. the second amendment does not rest only on the militia. It stands alone as an individual right, In fact the anti gunners argue that if it rests on a militia that it is no longer needed due to a militia no longer existing,


The idiocy in your comment is in your belief that the militia no longer exists or that it is no longer necessary.  You're wrong in both counts.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

woodwork201 said:


> The idiocy in your comment is in your belief that the militia no longer exists or that it is no longer necessary.  You're wrong in both counts.


I realize since you are a lefty you are brain damaged but reread what I wrote I never said a militia wasnt needed or still exist.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

woodwork201 said:


> The idiocy in your comment is in your belief that the militia no longer exists or that it is no longer necessary.  You're wrong in both counts.


A militia is necessary.  Everyone is a member.  Therefore, everyone needs all bearable weapons for service in a militia, including machine guns.

So are you ready to repeal the NFA?


----------



## Lakhota




----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 651466


Did

not

happen


----------



## Lakhota

Go Canada!


----------



## Lakhota

Amen!


----------



## woodwork201

M14 Shooter said:


> Democeats in Congress have no interest in passing gun control, as they know it will cost them both houses.


After 1994, that has been true up to now.  For those too young or who don't remember, the Democrats took a shellacking  after passing the Assault Weapons Ban that year.

The problem is, this isn't 1994 and even if we remember, I don't think the Democrats and the socialists remember and the anti-gun lobby doesn't care; they keep their jobs even if their puppets in DC go home.

And I don't think the Democrats, and many Republicans as well, in Congress remember 1994.  Remember how many Republicans voted to impeach a Republican president on blatantly false charges.

I hope you're right, M14, but I'm not counting on it.


----------



## woodwork201

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> A militia is necessary.  Everyone is a member.  Therefore, everyone needs all bearable weapons for service in a militia, including machine guns.
> 
> So are you ready to repeal the NFA?


You might be the first one besides me in this long divergence to get it right (sorry if I forgot or missed anyone else).  The Constitution says that the militia is necessary.  Congress can't make it unnecessary.  The President cannot make it unnecessary and governors can't make it unnecessary.  It is necessary.  Strategically it will always be necessary even if ignored.  Constitutionally, it is necessary unless and until the Constitution is changed to take those words out of the Constitution.  Being necessary, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed whether or not they are currently in a militia and whether or not the government chooses to include militias in their military planning or whether or not the sky is blue or grass is green.

Just because the Congress has made the false claim that the National Guard is the militia,  and even if it were (which it is not), the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed.

Yes, of course, I am ready to repeal the NFA.  I'm ready to repeal GCA, FOPA, the Lautenberg Amendment, and any other law that infringes on the right to keep and bear arms.  Every one of them is unconstitutional.

There are a lot of faux-conservatives in the world, including on these forums, those who pretend to believe in and support the right to keep and bear arms, and, to a point they do.  But they don't support the 2nd Amendment protection that the right cannot be infringed.  They support what they and the left agree to call, "reasonable restrictions".  In fact, they don't support the Constitution.  They believe in ideas like "strict scrutiny" or "compelling state interest", ideas that the Government and the courts use to violate the Constitution.  Once they accept that the Government can violate the absolute, literal, original intent definitions of the Constitution in any one thing then they accept that the Government has the power to violate the Constitution.  All that's left is to argue over what, when, and how.  And the Government gets to make those calls so we know how that will turn out.


----------



## Big Bend Texas

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> It was the Framers’ original intent that the sanctioned and recognized state militia be the first line of defense against invasion or insurrection, not armed private citizens – the right to bear arms was solely for the benefit of official state militia.


There is of course no rational or factual basis for such a claim.

The first line of defense was always a citizen militia which can mobilize in minutes to hours.

It can take days or weeks to mobilize a state or national force.


----------



## Kosh

“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary”​
― Karl Marx


----------



## Lakhota




----------



## Billy000

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 651523
> 
> Amen!


Lol so true.


----------



## Flash

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 730133


Burger was an idiot to say that.  Just like you are an idiot to think posting that garbage means anything.

The Supremes after him set it right.


----------



## dudmuck

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 730133


----------



## Leo123

dudmuck said:


>


Yeah, that was stupid.


----------



## Polishprince

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 730133




Chief Justice Burger wasn't "conservative" in any sense of the word, if you'll remember his vote in the Far Left Roe v Wade decision of 1973.

In any event,  I'm not a lawyer.   But I do know an armed society is a polite society, and nothing is worse than not allowing Law Abiders to defend themselves.


----------



## jc456

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 730133


He was wrong


----------



## Yarddog

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 730133





Problem with that is that.... the Bill of rights, those amendments were intended to secure rights to the PEOPLE.... not the state. The language needs to be seen in that context.


----------



## jc456

Yarddog said:


> Problem with that is that.... the Bill of rights, those amendments were intended to secure rights to the PEOPLE.... not the state. The language needs to be seen in that context.


It didn’t say state it says people


----------



## DukeU

Billy000 said:


> Lol so true.



So, let's rely on Barney for our protection.     

Only he should have guns...........


----------



## westwall

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 730133




He is, and was wrong.  He wasn't a conservative at all.  Government HAS no RIGHTS.

Government takes RIGHTS away.

DURRRRRR


----------



## bripat9643

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 730133


Warren Burger is the world's biggest con artists.  There is no evidence that the founder's added the Second Amendment to maintain state armies.  Why would they need the 2nd amendment for that?  Every country n the world already had a government military,


----------



## Billy000

DukeU said:


> So, let's rely on Barney for our protection.
> 
> Only he should have guns...........


No one is talking about taking away their guns. The point is, even with guns, they are clearly useless lol. Let’s give guns to actual competent police instead.


----------



## Lakhota




----------



## DukeU

Billy000 said:


> *No one is talking about taking away their guns.* The point is, even with guns, they are clearly useless lol. *Let’s give guns to actual competent police instead.*



No one!         




Didn't you just "like" a post basically comparing police to Barney Fife?


----------



## Billy000

DukeU said:


> No one!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you just "like" a post basically comparing police to Barney Fife?


What are you talking about right now? Why does saying Texas police resemble Barney mean I oppose guns? Are you even listening to yourself?


----------



## DukeU

Billy000 said:


> What are you talking about right now? Why does saying Texas police resemble Barney mean I oppose guns? Are you even listening to yourself?



Well, let's clear the air.

Are you for or against the 2nd Amendment?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

dudmuck said:


>



    Did you ever stop to think that yard darts serve no other purpose other than a game?
 Same with the clacker balls.


----------



## Billy000

DukeU said:


> Well, let's clear the air.
> 
> Are you for or against the 2nd Amendment?


I’m for it but with caveats. That’s how you sum up the typical leftwing ideology on guns. You like to pretend it means we oppose guns altogether but that’s always been nonsense.


----------



## DukeU

Billy000 said:


> I’m for it but with caveats.



We have 20,000+ caveats on guns.


----------



## Billy000

DukeU said:


> We have 20,000+ caveats on guns.


You don’t know the true number with or without that exaggeration. You like to pretend there can’t be ANY compromise. It’s long overdo for you to see otherwise.


----------



## DukeU

Billy000 said:


> You don’t know the true number with or without that exaggeration. You like to pretend there can’t be ANY compromise. It’s long overdo for you to see otherwise.



What is the true number?     


How much more compromise should there be?

Which new gun law that you propose would have stopped the latest shootings?


----------



## Billy000

DukeU said:


> What is the true number?
> 
> 
> How much more compromise should there be?
> 
> Which new gun law that you propose would have stopped the latest shootings?


I don’t know the true number either, but I know better than to exaggerate the number.

No laws would have prevented the latest shootings. That doesn’t somehow mean we be defeatist pussies and don’t even try to curb gun violence. Of course, civilians being prevented from owning pointless AR-15 rifles would go a long way. I mean clearly that is the weapon of choice for mass shooters. That has been the case over and over and over again. So while outlawing such rifles probably wouldn’t have prevented the COS shooter from carrying out his plan, it’s possible a lesser weapon would minimize casualties.

Of course, altogether, banning certain guns shouldn’t be the focus. The focus should be on laws that aim to keep guns out the possession of those mentally unstable. It should be laws that make it more difficult to obtain guns. If all that helps, then sure, we can keep those semi automatic rifles on the market. I doubt that’s the case though.

Doesn’t it bother you that other politically stable first world nations do not have mass shootings like we do? Have you ever wondered why? Take Israel. You have to be at least 27 to own a gun. It requires a psychiatric evaluation and background check. Guess what? That government is stable isn’t? The citizens don’t feel threatened by their government. The country exists peacefully. It’s the only democracy in the Middle East. I guess strict gun laws is not the road to fascism is it?


----------



## LuckyDuck

While the first part of the paragraph addresses the right for states to have well regulated militias, the second half specifically addressed its citizenry in that the "right" of the people to bear (carry) arms shall not be infringed (limited or undermined), to protect the "freedom" of their state.  
If said state is taken over (whether by vote or not) by a Marxist-Communist government, it is the duty of citizens to form their own "regulated militias," to restore their state to the freedoms under the Bill of Rights and thus under our Constitution.


----------



## there4eyeM

Obviously, militia-level training in use and safety should be required, especially for the massive firepower of modern weapons.


----------



## Batcat

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 730133


You might find this article about the meme you posted interesting. …









						Warren Burger Meme Bungles 2nd Amendment
					

A fatuous new meme has gained sudden social media popularity among gun-grabbers in their ongoing campaign to render the Second Amendment meaningless. The meme features a portrait of former Chief Justice of the United States Warren Burger, alongside a 1990 quote that somehow sprang to life after...




					www.cfif.org
				




***snip***

_Instead of reviving obscure, decades-old quotations from a retired Chief Justice who never actually participated in a significant Second Amendment case during his tenure, anyone engaging in the Second Amendment debate should simply read the Heller majority opinion to understand the constitutional and historical realities. 

It’s unfortunate that Burger chose to opine in such a careless, conclusory manner in an offhand pop-culture Parade Magazine piece.  But fortunately, a more informed opinion prevailed when the Supreme Court finally settled the matter in Heller.  _


----------



## Harry Dresden

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 730133


lakota who were those "people" mentioned in the 2nd?....


----------



## gipper

Batcat said:


> You might find this article about the meme you posted interesting. …
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Warren Burger Meme Bungles 2nd Amendment
> 
> 
> A fatuous new meme has gained sudden social media popularity among gun-grabbers in their ongoing campaign to render the Second Amendment meaningless. The meme features a portrait of former Chief Justice of the United States Warren Burger, alongside a 1990 quote that somehow sprang to life after...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cfif.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ***snip***
> 
> _Instead of reviving obscure, decades-old quotations from a retired Chief Justice who never actually participated in a significant Second Amendment case during his tenure, anyone engaging in the Second Amendment debate should simply read the Heller majority opinion to understand the constitutional and historical realities.
> 
> It’s unfortunate that Burger chose to opine in such a careless, conclusory manner in an offhand pop-culture Parade Magazine piece.  But fortunately, a more informed opinion prevailed when the Supreme Court finally settled the matter in Heller.  _


Yes. The Bill of Rights was clearly all about individual rights. Not collective rights. If Burger’s statement is accurate, it makes no sense.


----------



## 2aguy

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 730133



Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot…….they agree with those statements……


----------



## 2aguy

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 651489
> 
> Go Canada!



Ye……Germany did the exact same thing……..then 19 years later murdered 15 million innocent men, women and children…………


----------



## emilynghiem

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 730133


Close: not "defense of the State as in Govt" but defense of the laws as in the Natural laws in the Bill of Rights.

Yes, arms and militant force are NOT to be used for criminal violations of the laws, but to enforce the laws even in and especially in cases where the "people in govt power" abuse authority to violate rights and laws.

For example, in cases where a police officer or prison guard is raping a detained victim, if another witness happens to catch this crime going on, that person might need to use force or a weapon to make that offender stop, even though the offender is a govt employee and the person stopping the crime is a civilian and not in any official govt capacity.

Lakhota I respect your right to YOUR interpretation and beliefs regarding this law and the Constitution as a whole. But cannot justify imposing YOUR beliefs on the rest of the nation that disagrees.

It makes equal sense, history wise, that the signers and authors of the Bill of Rights included this principle after the Revolution was fought against British authorities who did seize weapons from the American Colonists as part of the oppressive "tyranny of taxation without representation." The whole point of the Constitution and Bill of Rights added as a condition for ratification, was to represent the people in forming a govt system to check itself.

The ultimate check on govt abuses is the people, and the framers knew this. That's why we still have the same divisions we saw back then between the Federalists and Antifederalists, also known as the Statists vs the Libertarians, or the Radical Liberals vs the Classic Liberals

To this day, the Second Amendment can be interpreted BOTH ways.

I believe that putting the people first, still allows the people to agree how to defend rights laws and protections for security, including using govt and or using armed enforcement, but assuming authority only belongs to govt doesn't allow equal freedom of both viewpoints.

Therefore, similar to putting prochoice positions first, as the default, to allow both prochoice and prolife beliefs, I also recommend putting the interpretation first, as the default, that the people retain "rights to defense" against criminal threats violations and abuses, even by govt agents or entities, and then using that authority of the people in enforcing laws to then support by consent any regulations on armed force deemed in keeping with those laws through govt.

Let's call for a Conference between Liberal Statists and Conservative Libertarians on both the right to bear arms, the right to vote under agreed protocols, and the rights to due process in cases of abortion, immigration, and other debated policies causing conflicts.

The standard for any such Council consultations between people and parties, media and govt, should be 1. Equal inclusion without punishing or bullying anyone for their political, religious or ideological beliefs 2. Agreement to respect any divisions or objections regarding conflicting beliefs, where such people or groups have equal right to separate from opposing groups and govern their own members, similar to religious denominations managed voluntarily, separating from govt to prevent imposing their beliefs on others.
3. And agreeing to reach a consensus on either common points and plans before recommending such reforms corrections and solutions to govt or public institutions to implement, and or on conceding points of differences in policy beliefs or creeds, such as political party platforms, that all parties agree to delegate to party precincts or local councils to manage democratically on local levels to respect equal "public Accommodations" for people of all creeds or parties and settle conflicts that way without imposing or infringing on the equal rights and protections of others.

How about calling a party convention between the various party leaders and members willing to write out a truce?

In exchange for protecting each parties' rights to enforce express and exercise their own platforms, they also agree to stop abusing govt to force those ideologies on other people or parties that object due to defense or violation of their beliefs that cannot be regulated by govt either.

Let's agree to recognize political beliefs as equally protected by the First, Fourteenth, Fifth and Tenth Amendments as well as Civil Rights to Public Accommodations without Discriminating by Creed.

All in favor, let's convene and respect each other's rights and beliefs, interests and consent, by the same "Golden Rule"  standards we want our own rights and protections to be respected and included.

Then when we settle all conflicts to establish where we agree and where we disagree, we can better implement reforms and solutions through state, federal or local govt and public institutions, party and media, that respect these principles we agree on and points where we disagree and need diverse representation for each case of differences where govt cannot mandate but requires consent of the people where beliefs are involved and can't be forced by govt to change.

In the name of Justice, known as Jesus, I call for prayer unity and commitment to Peace, known as the Holy Spirit, to be received and restored by consensus formed among we the people, known as the church body under Scriptural authority and known as the the govt under natural laws in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, that we all agree to govern ourselves and our relations, whether inside or outside govt, by the Golden Rule of Equal Justice and Peace and no longer abuse the party media or govt structures to "conspire to violate equal civil rights of others."

See also www.ethics-commission.net

Lakhota Let's write to AOC and Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Tulsi Gabbard, Andrew Yang and Bernie Sanders, Trump and Beto, Clinton and Biden, and ask to set up a Constitutional Council of Parties to address and resolve all these matters without affecting current govt. Acting as advisers to both Media, Party and Govt leaders on points of Agreement and points of differences so Govt is only used to implement and enforce Agreed policies while the people reclaim responsibility for resolving and managing where we have differences in beliefs and creeds that govt cannot impose on others by force but which require consent.

In the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, known as the Kingdom of God or Universal Truth, Justice and Peace, I call for all three to be established by consent of the people regardless of Creed by including all people and parties, all denominations and beliefs, to mediate and resolve these issues without any further bullying by coercion or exclusion, and by teaching and enforcing the Golden Rule of equal respect and protections for others as we want for ourselves.

May truth, justice and peace be received and restored for all people, tribes and nations by this process. Thank you and Amen. Lord hear our prayers and may all petitions be heard and resolved in perfect peace.

Thank you!

Yours truly,
Emily

Emily Nghiem
Houston Texas

In calling for a
Constitutional Council to address separation of parties from govt, including separation of taxation and representation to protect equal public accommodations for people of all creeds, and settlement plans for restitution, reimbursement and corrections for past abuses of govt, party, or corporate entities for which individuals and public taxpayers are owed for debts and damages.
Cooperative Council to assist all groups and districts in managing their own resources including businesses, schools, health care, police and govt to be self reliant and democratically self governing. 
 and Christian council for private reconciliation and mediation outside of govt for individuals and groups to prevent abuse of media and parties to interfere with govt policies and process.


----------



## emilynghiem

bripat9643 said:


> Warren Burger is the world's biggest con artists.  There is no evidence that the founder's added the Second Amendment to maintain state armies.  Why would they need the 2nd amendment for that?  Every country n the world already had a government military,


Some states that approved the adding of the Second Amendment did not even have any "state militias" at the time, so they couldn't be referring to that or the states would not be equally protected. It had to mean the people being the source of any armed militia to check govt. Then you can have all three recognized: the people, the state govt and the national govt. The whole point of adding the Bill of Rights was to delineate the "rights of individuals" that protestors objected to the Constitution as not adequately protecting. Am I studying the same history as other people? Where are we not getting that the only reason the Constitution got ratified is the concession and agreement to add the Bill of Rights to define individual liberties and protections from federal govt abuses that the opposing groups feared most in forming a Central govt. The founders and we the people today  all know where that would lead, why is this news?


----------



## DukeU

Billy000 said:


> *I don’t know* the true number either,* but I know* better than to exaggerate the number.



Nothing more needs to be said.



Billy000 said:


> No laws would have prevented the latest shootings. That doesn’t somehow mean we be defeatist pussies and don’t even try to curb gun violence. Of course, civilians being prevented from owning pointless AR-15 rifles would go a long way. I mean clearly that is the weapon of choice for mass shooters. That has been the case over and over and over again. So while outlawing such rifles probably wouldn’t have prevented the COS shooter from carrying out his plan, it’s possible a lesser weapon would minimize casualties.



Wait, are you saying that no new law would prevent the shootings, but a new law would prevent what the shooter uses?    LOL

Why go after the AR-15? The vast majority of gun incidents involve handguns, and it's not even close. So, that is not great logic there, if you want to stop gun violence, wouldn't it make sense to ban handguns?

Your arguments make no sense whatsoever.




Billy000 said:


> Of course, altogether, banning certain guns shouldn’t be the focus. The focus should be on laws that aim to keep guns out the possession of those mentally unstable. It should be laws that make it more difficult to obtain guns. If all that helps, then sure, we can keep those semi automatic rifles on the market. I doubt that’s the case though.



Again, what new law do you propose?




Billy000 said:


> Doesn’t it bother you that other politically stable first world nations do not have mass shootings like we do? Have you ever wondered why? Take Israel. You have to be at least 27 to own a gun. It requires a psychiatric evaluation and background check. Guess what? That government is stable isn’t? The citizens don’t feel threatened by their government. The country exists peacefully. It’s the only democracy in the Middle East. I guess strict gun laws is not the road to fascism is it?





Israelis Rush for Gun Licenses After a Series of Fatal Shootings - BNN


----------



## flack

emilynghiem said:


> Some states that approved the adding of the Second Amendment did not even have any "state militias" at the time, so they couldn't be referring to that or the states would not be equally protected. It had to mean the people being the source of any armed militia to check govt. Then you can have all three recognized: the people, the state govt and the national govt. The whole point of adding the Bill of Rights was to delineate the "rights of individuals" that protestors objected to the Constitution as not adequately protecting. Am I studying the same history as other people? Where are we not getting that the only reason the Constitution got ratified is the concession and agreement to add the Bill of Rights to define individual liberties and protections from federal govt abuses that the opposing groups feared most in forming a Central govt. The founders and we the people today  all know where that would lead, why is this news?


we do not have a national government, we have a federal government. A very big difference.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

emilynghiem said:


> Am I studying the same history as other people?


No idea what ‘history’ you’re studying.

Here’s the history you should be studying:

_Presser v. Illinois_ (1886)

The _Presser_ Court held that private armed citizens could not unilaterally declare themselves a ‘militia’ – that only a state government or the Federal government could establish and recognize a militia.

The Court further held that laws prohibiting private armed citizens from forming ‘militias’ absent government authorization were Constitutional.

There is nothing in the history, text, or caselaw of the Second Amendment that endorses insurrectionist dogma, it is lawless treason for private armed citizens to attempt to ‘overthrow’ a government they perceive to have become ‘tyrannical.’


----------



## RetiredGySgt

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> No idea what ‘history’ you’re studying.
> 
> Here’s the history you should be studying:
> 
> _Presser v. Illinois_ (1886)
> 
> The _Presser_ Court held that private armed citizens could not unilaterally declare themselves a ‘militia’ – that only a state government or the Federal government could establish and recognize a militia.
> 
> The Court further held that laws prohibiting private armed citizens from forming ‘militias’ absent government authorization were Constitutional.
> 
> There is nothing in the history, text, or caselaw of the Second Amendment that endorses insurrectionist dogma, it is lawless treason for private armed citizens to attempt to ‘overthrow’ a government they perceive to have become ‘tyrannical.’


And the Colonies committed treason when they rebelled against the Crown. So, what is your point? The 2nd protects personal rights not State rights. Thus, the reason it says the right of the people not the right of the State.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 730133



Warren Burger "conservative?"


----------



## Uncensored2008

Billy000 said:


> Lol so true.



Yeah, i mean when you call a guy to the left of Mao "conservative" anything is possible...

You fucking Nazis....


----------



## Uncensored2008

Flash said:


> Burger was an idiot to say that.  Just like you are an idiot to think posting that garbage means anything.
> 
> The Supremes after him set it right.



Burger was a leftist pile of shit. The AOC of SCOTUS.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Polishprince said:


> Chief Justice Burger wasn't "conservative" in any sense of the word, if you'll remember his vote in the Far Left Roe v Wade decision of 1973.
> 
> In any event,  I'm not a lawyer.   But I do know an armed society is a polite society, and nothing is worse than not allowing Law Abiders to defend themselves.



Burger was just as "conservative" as Bernie Sanders...


----------



## emilynghiem

DukeU said:


> Nothing more needs to be said.
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, are you saying that no new law would prevent the shootings, but a new law would prevent what the shooter uses?    LOL
> 
> Why go after the AR-15? The vast majority of gun incidents involve handguns, and it's not even close. So, that is not great logic there, if you want to stop gun violence, wouldn't it make sense to ban handguns?
> 
> Your arguments make no sense whatsoever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, what new law do you propose?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israelis Rush for Gun Licenses After a Series of Fatal Shootings - BNN


How about letting districts and states pass ordinances where residents can require their community members to take the same screening, training and oath to uphold laws and due process as any other police or military veterans if they want to use arms to enforce laws. And make sure everyone is screened and trained NOT to abuse force for committing crimes or violations of rights and laws.

www.isocracytx.net/hp-org/hpdmissn.gif


----------



## emilynghiem

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> No idea what ‘history’ you’re studying.
> 
> Here’s the history you should be studying:
> 
> _Presser v. Illinois_ (1886)
> 
> The _Presser_ Court held that private armed citizens could not unilaterally declare themselves a ‘militia’ – that only a state government or the Federal government could establish and recognize a militia.
> 
> The Court further held that laws prohibiting private armed citizens from forming ‘militias’ absent government authorization were Constitutional.
> 
> There is nothing in the history, text, or caselaw of the Second Amendment that endorses insurrectionist dogma, it is lawless treason for private armed citizens to attempt to ‘overthrow’ a government they perceive to have become ‘tyrannical.’


1886 is after the founders agreed to add the Bill of Rights as a condition for agreeing to adopt the Constitution. 

The historic split between "Liberals who believe Govt is the authority for establishing collective will of the people" and "Conservatives who believe people are the core authority from which secular govt derives its authority based on CONSENT of the people" already existed, passed down from Rousseau and Locke. 

This split historically explains the conflicts in policy that lean toward one or the other. 

To interpret Pressler in an equally Conservative as Liberal vein, the state or federal govts would still need to make decisions on militia by consent of the people. Then that ruling would equally accommodate both liberal and conservative standards. 

Taken out of context with the right of the people to democratic representation and protections within a republican form of govt, it becomes unconstitutional to impose govt regulations on "militia or right to armed defense" WITHOUT consent of the people affected. 

You can still enforce Pressler but within the Constitutional rights and protections that all other citizens believe in as well. 

If you create a 'Statist' bias and abuse govt to enforce that discriminating against other creeds, instead of forming a consensus that protects all people equally, then abusing Party to do so constitutes "conspiracy to violate civil rights" which I argue is a felony, similar to criminal trafficking and RICO racketeering. 

I strongly urge consensus instead of any further abuse of Party, Media or Govt to violate the equal civil rights of others not to be penalized and deprived of representation due to differences in creed, to prevent civil rights violations of equal protections of the laws from such discrimination. 

www.ethics-commission.net


----------



## DukeU

emilynghiem said:


> How about letting districts and states pass ordinances where residents can require their community members to take the same screening, training and oath to uphold laws and due process as any other police or military veterans if they want to use arms to enforce laws. And make sure everyone is screened and trained NOT to abuse force for committing crimes or violations of rights and laws.



Before any new laws are passed, we have to adhere to our current laws. Why make new laws when the ones we already have are not being enforced? It makes no sense.

Our border is not secure, we are releasing violent criminals from prison, and not enforcing current gun laws. But, some think new laws would work???  SMH


#35: One week after being released on felony gun charge, …

California men accused of committing rapes, murder after being …​
Texas Congressman: "The border is not secure" | CNN …


----------



## watchingfromafar

I do not understand why there are so many here who are against the American democratic way of life.

*The historical truth about guns!!!!*​*Way back in the day of the cowboy’s gun control was tougher than it is today*

_The *Second Amendment* (*Amendment II*) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights.

In the 2008 Heller decision, the Supreme Court affirmed for the first time that the right belongs to individuals, *exclusively for **self-defense*_* in the home*_,_ _ while also including, as dicta, that the right is not unlimited and does not preclude the existence of certain long-standing prohibitions such as those *forbidding "the possession of **firearms*_* by felons and the mentally ill"*_ or restrictions on "the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right._

*Gun Control Is as Old as the Old West*
Contrary to the popular imagination, bearing arms on the frontier was a heavily regulated business
*The “Old West” conjures up all sorts of imagery,* but broadly, the term is used to evoke life among the crusty prospectors, threadbare gold panners, madams of brothels, and six-shooter-packing cowboys in small frontier towns – such as Tombstone, Deadwood, Dodge City, or Abilene, to name a few. One other thing these cities had in common: strict gun control laws.

_*Laws regulating ownership and carry of firearms*, apart from the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, were *passed at a local level rather than by Congress*. “Gun control laws were adopted pretty quickly in these places,” says Winkler*. “Most were adopted by municipal governments exercising self-control and self-determination.” 

Carrying any kind of weapon, guns, or knives, was not allowed other than outside town borders and inside the home. When visitors left their weapons with a law officer upon entering town, they'd receive a token, like a coat check, which they'd exchange for their guns when leaving town. *

The practice was started in Southern states, which _*were among the first to enact laws against concealed carry of guns and knives, in the early 1800s. --*_ The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, points to an 1840 Alabama court that, in upholding its state ban, ruled it was a state's right to regulate where and how a citizen could carry, and that the state constitution's allowance of personal firearms* “is not to bear arms upon all occasions and in all places.”*_* 

Contrary to the popular imagination, bearing arms on the frontier was a heavily regulated business*

_Dodge City in 1878 (Wikimedia Commons)
It's *October 26, 1881*, in Tombstone, and Arizona
The laws of Tombstone at the time required visitors, *upon entering town to disarm, either at a hotel or a lawman's office. *(Residents of many famed cattle towns, such as Dodge City, Abilene, and Deadwood, had similar restrictions.)
image: https://public-media.si-cdn.com/fil...d-4fac-8fc0-7ff859b10f21/mclauriesclanton.jpg_

*"Tombstone had much more restrictive laws on carrying guns in public in the 1880s than it has today,” *Same goes for most of the New West, to varying degrees, in the once-rowdy frontier towns of Nevada, Kansas, Montana, and South Dakota.

_*Dodge City, Kansas, formed a municipal government in 1878*. According to Stephen Aron, a professor of history at UCLA, the *first law passed was one prohibiting the carry of guns in town*, likely by civic leaders and influential merchants who wanted people to move there, *Cultivating a reputation of peace and stability was necessary*, even in boisterous towns, if it were to become anything more transient than a one-industry boom town.

*Laws regulating ownership and carry of firearms*, apart from the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, were passed at a local level rather than by Congress. “*Gun control laws were adopted pretty quickly in these places*,” says Winkler. “Most were adopted by municipal governments exercising self-control and self-determination. ”* Carrying any kind of weapon, guns or knives, was not *allowed other than outside town borders and inside the home. *When visitors left their weapons with a law officer upon entering town, they'd receive a token, like a coat check, which they'd exchange for their guns when leaving town. 

Louisiana, too, upheld an early ban on concealed carry firearms*. When a Kentucky court reversed its ban, the state constitution was amended to specify the *Kentucky general assembly was within its rights to, in the future, regulate or prohibit concealed carry*. _

Still, Winkler says, it was an affirmation that regulation was compatible with the Second Amendment. The federal government of the 1800s largely stayed out of gun-law court battles.

_*“People were allowed to own guns, and everyone did own guns [in the West*], for the most part,” says Winkler

“Having a firearm to protect yourself in the lawless wilderness from wild animals, hostile native tribes, and outlaws was a wise idea. _*But when you came into town, you had to either check your guns if you were a visitor or keep your guns at home if you were a resident.” *
_Gun Control Is as Old as the Old West_

*Did the Wild West Have More Gun Control Than We Do Today? 

The answer is YES. When you entered a frontier town, you were legally required to leave your guns at the stables on the outskirts of town or drop them off with the sheriff*_, who would give you a token in exchange. You checked your guns then like you’d check your overcoat today at a Boston restaurant in winter. Visitors were welcome, but their guns were not.
While people were allowed to have guns at home for self-protection, frontier towns usually *barred anyone but law enforcement from carrying guns in public. *

When Dodge City residents organized their municipal government, do you know what the very first law they passed was? *A gun control law*. They declared that “any person or persons found carrying concealed weapons in the city of Dodge or violating the laws of the State shall be dealt with according to law.” Many frontier towns, including Tombstone, Arizona—the site of the infamous “Shootout at the OK Corral”—also *barred the carrying of guns openly*. 

Like any law regulating things that are small and easy to conceal, the gun control of the Wild West wasn’t always perfectly enforced. But statistics show that, next to drunk and disorderly conduct, *the most common cause of arrest was illegally carrying a firearm. Sheriffs and marshals took gun control seriously. *
Did the Wild West Have More Gun Control Than We Do Today?

*Illinois town bans assault weapons, will fine those who keep them *The town of Deerfield, Ill., has moved to *ban assault weapons, including the AR-15 *used in the school shooting in Parkland, Florida, claiming the measure will make the town more safe from mass shootings.

*The ordinance was passed unanimously* Monday by the Deerfield Village Board. It states the move is in the best interest of public health and will spur a culture change toward *"the normative value that assault weapons should have no role or purpose in civil society." *

It also takes a swing at a popular reading of the Second Amendment, stating the weapons are *"not reasonably necessary to protect an individual's right of self-defense" *or to preserve a well-regulated militia.
Illinois town bans assault weapons, will fine those who keep them

*Chicago suburb bans assault weapons in response to Parkland shooting*

With the future of federal gun control legislation uncertain, an affluent Chicago suburb this week took the aggressive step of *banning assault weapons within its borders*, in what local officials said was a direct response to the mass shooting at a Parkland, Fla., high school earlier this year.

*Officials in Deerfield, Ill., unanimously approved the ordinance, which prohibits the possession, manufacture or sale of a range of firearms, as well as large-capacity magazines.* *Residents of the 19,000-person village have until June 13 to remove the guns from village limits or face up to $1,000 per day in fines.*
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...hooting/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.95db16134355

*Seattle will require gun owners to lock up their firearms*, after the City Council voted unanimously Monday to pass legislation proposed by Mayor Jenny Durkan.
Starting 180 days after Durkan signs the legislation, it will be _*a civil infraction to store a gun without the firearm being secured in a locked container. *
_The legislation will apply only to guns kept somewhere, rather than those carried by or under the control of their owners.
Also under the legislation, _*it will be a civil infraction when an owner knows or should know that a minor, “at-risk person” or unauthorized user is likely to access a gun and such a person actually does access the weapon. 

The legislation allows fines up to $500 when a gun isn’t locked up,*
_up to $1,000 when a prohibited person accesses a firearm
and up to $10,000 when a prohibited person uses the weapon to hurt someone or commit a crime._
Gun owners face fines up to $10,000 for not locking up their guns under new Seattle law

*What has changed from then to now?
-*​


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

RetiredGySgt said:


> And the Colonies committed treason when they rebelled against the Crown. So, what is your point? The 2nd protects personal rights not State rights. Thus, the reason it says the right of the people not the right of the State.


It’s not ‘my’ point.

It’s a settled, accepted fact of Constitutional law and Second Amendment jurisprudence: private citizens cannot just ‘declare’ themselves a ‘militia.’

The Second Amendment does not authorize armed private citizens who subjectively and incorrectly perceive the government to have become ‘tyrannical’ to ‘take up arms’ against a lawfully elected government – to do so would be criminal rebellion and treason.

The Second Amendment safeguards the individual right to possess a firearm for lawful self-defense, not to check the power of the state or oppose government ‘tyranny.’

No one claims that the Second Amendment protects the rights of the states – whatever that’s supposed to mean; the Second Amendment is an individual right, not a collective right, having nothing to do with militia service.


----------



## watchingfromafar

Sorry it is a long read but still needed
-


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

emilynghiem said:


> 1886 is after the founders agreed to add the Bill of Rights as a condition for agreeing to adopt the Constitution.


And?

The Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means – including the Second Amendment.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its caselaw, as determined by the Supreme Court – and that was the case at the founding of the Republic and ratification of the Constitution; see Article VI of the Constitution.

And according to the Constitution, per the original intent of the Framers, only a state government or the Federal government may authorize and recognize a militia.

Armed private citizens alone do not constitute a militia nor are they part of a lawfully recognized militia.

Armed private citizens cannot by their own accord declare themselves a ‘militia.’

Laws that prohibit armed private citizens from declaring themselves a ‘militia’ are Constitutional.

Citizens have the right to possess firearms for lawful self-defense, not to belong to a ‘militia,’ not to check the authority of the state, and not to guard against ‘tyranny.’


----------



## DukeU

watchingfromafar said:


> I do not understand why there are so many here who are against the American democratic way of life.
> 
> *The historical truth about guns!!!!*​*Way back in the day of the cowboy’s gun control was tougher than it is today*




And criminals didn't comply with those tougher laws, go figure.


----------



## emilynghiem

DukeU said:


> Before any new laws are passed, we have to adhere to our current laws. Why make new laws when the ones we already have are not being enforced? It makes no sense.
> 
> Our border is not secure, we are releasing violent criminals from prison, and not enforcing current gun laws. But, some think new laws would work???  SMH
> 
> 
> #35: One week after being released on felony gun charge, …
> 
> California men accused of committing rapes, murder after being …​
> Texas Congressman: "The border is not secure" | CNN …


I also would rather it be enough just to agree how to interpret the Bill of Rights we already have in writing. 

However, given our Statist Liberal friends and their parties have their beliefs in going through democratic process and or courts or govt officials to establish an agreed public policy,  I'm trying to accommodate both approaches to forming a consensus. 

The closest I can see is using Party and Media to organize a consensus. 

So people like you and me who don't require govt before we enforce existing laws can still organize greater agreement and outreach by local districts, statewide and nationally through the various parties and media. 

While our liberal cohorts who want something in writing established through govt can figure that out where it doesn't violate the rights and beliefs of others. 

Some people need govt or courts to make it official. 

I figured we would resolve all that by the time we reach a consensus on the two approaches to govt as independent ideologies that don't need to compete with or impose on each other. Let's organize among parties first, since that doesn't rely on govt. Then once we assess what it takes to support each groups beliefs about the use of govt, we can work out what is necessary either be legal order, legislative or Constitutional policies.

I am guessing that since we agree on very little, that will limit the legislation needed to just those few areas of agreement what is absolutely necessary. 

The majority of populations and diversity of interests not being in agreement will invoke the need for local representation and likely require using multiple parties per district to accommodate those differences. Most policies will likely be delegated to local levels because of the diversity that can't be captured in one inform policy. I believe the laws that are that universal are already in the Bill of Rights, but just not getting enforced equally because we haven't agreed how to teach or train people to govern themselves democratically using existing laws already on the books. 

The freedom to do that is already there.
But the ability to access the knowledge and training to manage resources is still not equal. The media and parties may be the best way to redistribute the knowledge of the laws and how to manage credit and resources to enforce and exercise rights we already have.


----------



## emilynghiem

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> And?
> 
> The Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means – including the Second Amendment.
> 
> The Constitution exists solely in the context of its caselaw, as determined by the Supreme Court – and that was the case at the founding of the Republic and ratification of the Constitution; see Article VI of the Constitution.
> 
> And according to the Constitution, per the original intent of the Framers, only a state government or the Federal government may authorize and recognize a militia.
> 
> Armed private citizens alone do not constitute a militia nor are they part of a lawfully recognized militia.
> 
> Armed private citizens cannot by their own accord declare themselves a ‘militia.’
> 
> Laws that prohibit armed private citizens from declaring themselves a ‘militia’ are Constitutional.
> 
> Citizens have the right to possess firearms for lawful self-defense, not to belong to a ‘militia,’ not to check the authority of the state, and not to guard against ‘tyranny.’


Sure, we can get the Supreme Court to agree how to settle this and still protect and recognize both rights to both interpretations. 

Currently the trend is for the Supreme Court to kick the legislative decisions back to states. 

And I would add that States are also responsible for accommodating people of various Party beliefs and creeds without discrimination or bias for or against one or another. 

Let's ask for a Council between Parties to iron out both points of Agreement and dissension, and facilitate solutions that accommodate both approaches. 

The Liberals put Govt authority above individuals called Statism. And the Conservatives favor Libertarianism, and put individual rights first (WITHIN the bounds of compliance and enforcement of laws, where criminal violations or abuse to break laws is not protected)  before secular govt which derives its authority from consent of the people, (including religious beliefs that can neither be prohibited nor established by govt but remain individual rights as long as these do not violate other rights or protections of others). 

Once we reach an agreement, those positions in favor of agreed policies and against specific points of  objection can be presented to the Council of Governors and the Senate Judiciary Committee to resolve matters before Courts. 

We need this anyway due to the issues of due process and beliefs in right to life which Roe V Wade brought up. 

And the whole conflict over govt policy on right to health care, LGBT, CRT etc taught in schools or how to fund separate choices of education and health care policies while still guaranteeing equal access to school and medical sites proportional to populations without govt dictating personal choice of policies that belong to the people.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> And?
> 
> The Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means – including the Second Amendment.
> 
> The Constitution exists solely in the context of its caselaw, as determined by the Supreme Court – and that was the case at the founding of the Republic and ratification of the Constitution; see Article VI of the Constitution.
> 
> And according to the Constitution, per the original intent of the Framers, only a state government or the Federal government may authorize and recognize a militia.
> 
> Armed private citizens alone do not constitute a militia nor are they part of a lawfully recognized militia.
> 
> Armed private citizens cannot by their own accord declare themselves a ‘militia.’
> 
> Laws that prohibit armed private citizens from declaring themselves a ‘militia’ are Constitutional.
> 
> Citizens have the right to possess firearms for lawful self-defense, not to belong to a ‘militia,’ not to check the authority of the state, and not to guard against ‘tyranny.’


you are mudding the waters no one is arguing to form non sanctioned militias you are trying to conflate that with an individual right to bear arms which people do argue is not the case no matter how you claim otherwise. Democrats want to ban firearm types that the Supreme Court has ruled are protected. Semi auto rifles with whatever non-lethal additions one wants are protected, no assault weapon ban attempting to outlaw AR-15's is constitutional according to the Supreme Court.


----------



## emilynghiem

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> It’s not ‘my’ point.
> 
> It’s a settled, accepted fact of Constitutional law and Second Amendment jurisprudence: private citizens cannot just ‘declare’ themselves a ‘militia.’
> 
> The Second Amendment does not authorize armed private citizens who subjectively and incorrectly perceive the government to have become ‘tyrannical’ to ‘take up arms’ against a lawfully elected government – to do so would be criminal rebellion and treason.
> 
> The Second Amendment safeguards the individual right to possess a firearm for lawful self-defense, not to check the power of the state or oppose government ‘tyranny.’
> 
> No one claims that the Second Amendment protects the rights of the states – whatever that’s supposed to mean; the Second Amendment is an individual right, not a collective right, having nothing to do with militia service.


I think we are pretty close to saying very similar.

There is a lawful process of using arms for defense.

I think where we disagree:
What happens when govt abuses force to oppress politically where it's NOT lawfully following and defending the laws

If we can define the process for addressing such conflicts BEFORE arms are taken up by either govt officials or the civilians arguing the govt is committing criminal oppressive abuses, then we can prevent abuse of force by either side.

I agree that it's in the very relationship between the 2A and the rest of the Bill of Rights that violating due process, rights to life liberty property and other laws is NOT an option or purpose.

I think you are relying on Pressler to clarify that, but other people see it as problematic to rely on courts/govt to establish that interpretation.

Neither govt nor citizens should abuse arms or authority to violate civil and Constitutional rights.

Let's start the conversation there.

Then we can hash out how Conservatives use and teach laws to promote that standards. And how Liberals teach it using court rulings or whatever they need to come to the same conclusions.

I don't quite get why people need Judges to rule on laws for them, but some people rely on that just like some people use the Catholic priests and Pope to establish uniform interpretation collectively while others work through independent groups and don't rely on a central middleman but treat people as equal authority to reach consensus that way. 


C_Clayton_Jones said:


> And?
> 
> The Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means – including the Second Amendment.
> 
> The Constitution exists solely in the context of its caselaw, as determined by the Supreme Court – and that was the case at the founding of the Republic and ratification of the Constitution; see Article VI of the Constitution.
> 
> And according to the Constitution, per the original intent of the Framers, only a state government or the Federal government may authorize and recognize a militia.
> 
> Armed private citizens alone do not constitute a militia nor are they part of a lawfully recognized militia.
> 
> Armed private citizens cannot by their own accord declare themselves a ‘militia.’
> 
> Laws that prohibit armed private citizens from declaring themselves a ‘militia’ are Constitutional.
> 
> Citizens have the right to possess firearms for lawful self-defense, not to belong to a ‘militia,’ not to check the authority of the state, and not to guard against ‘tyranny.’


----------



## emilynghiem

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> And?
> 
> The Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means – including the Second Amendment.
> 
> The Constitution exists solely in the context of its caselaw, as determined by the Supreme Court – and that was the case at the founding of the Republic and ratification of the Constitution; see Article VI of the Constitution.
> 
> And according to the Constitution, per the original intent of the Framers, only a state government or the Federal government may authorize and recognize a militia.
> 
> Armed private citizens alone do not constitute a militia nor are they part of a lawfully recognized militia.
> 
> Armed private citizens cannot by their own accord declare themselves a ‘militia.’
> 
> Laws that prohibit armed private citizens from declaring themselves a ‘militia’ are Constitutional.
> 
> Citizens have the right to possess firearms for lawful self-defense, not to belong to a ‘militia,’ not to check the authority of the state, and not to guard against ‘tyranny.’


Hi C_Clayton_Jones:

Would you consider it "illegal" for Korean property owners to band together armed with AR 15's to defend their shops from looting and arson when the LAPD quit responding to 9-1-1 calls and left citizens in their own, at the mercy of mobs until the rioting died down. Does this constitute an illegal militia? 

26 Years Ago, Roof Koreans appeared: The Guns of the ’92 L.A. Riots - AR15.COM


----------



## Uncensored2008

emilynghiem said:


> How about letting districts and states pass ordinances where residents can require their community members to take the same screening, training and oath to uphold laws and due process as any other police or military veterans if they want to use arms to enforce laws. And make sure everyone is screened and trained NOT to abuse force for committing crimes or violations of rights and laws.
> 
> www.isocracytx.net/hp-org/hpdmissn.gif



And require any who want to vote to pass the bar.

Or better yet, leave civil rights alone.


----------



## bripat9643

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> No idea what ‘history’ you’re studying.
> 
> Here’s the history you should be studying:
> 
> _Presser v. Illinois_ (1886)
> 
> The _Presser_ Court held that private armed citizens could not unilaterally declare themselves a ‘militia’ – that only a state government or the Federal government could establish and recognize a militia.
> 
> The Court further held that laws prohibiting private armed citizens from forming ‘militias’ absent government authorization were Constitutional.
> 
> There is nothing in the history, text, or caselaw of the Second Amendment that endorses insurrectionist dogma, it is lawless treason for private armed citizens to attempt to ‘overthrow’ a government they perceive to have become ‘tyrannical.’


What "insurrectionist dogma" are you referring to?


----------



## Uncensored2008

bripat9643 said:


> What "insurrectionist dogma" are you referring to?



The United States Constitution.


C Clayton Saul Goodman demands that any found possessing, reading, or distributing that document be imprisoned for life.


----------



## bripat9643

Uncensored2008 said:


> The United States Constitution.
> 
> 
> C Clayton Saul Goodman demands that any found possessing, reading, or distributing that document be imprisoned for life.


They especially mean the First Amendment.  Saying what you think is what you hate speech.


----------



## Lakhota




----------



## Lakhota




----------



## Lakhota




----------



## bripat9643

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 731926


Democrat Mayors.


----------



## sartre play

Not the guns fault, untrained & angry people thinking violence will solve problems.


----------



## Rigby5

Lakhota said:


>



You clearly have this backwards.
All the real threats, murders, crimes, etc., come from corrupt governments, like slavery, Manifest Destiny, illegal wars, the Holocaust, etc.
So the truth is anyone who does not arm themselves in case of government abuse, is essentially a traitor.
Government gun control is inherently illegal and corrupt.
The only guns that should be controlled are the ones in the hands of the government.


----------



## Rigby5

Lakhota said:


> View attachment 731926



The US does not have the highest per capita in guns by any means.
And over half the guns in the US actually are owned by collectors.
Countries that value freedom, like Switzerland and Israel, have much higher guns per capita than the US really.  
And safety is dependent upon the causes of crime, not just deterrent retaliation ability.
And the US has the highest causes of crime, such as poverty, injustice, lack of opportunity, etc.
The US is unsafe because we have one of the most corrupt governments in the whole world.
We do not even have public health care like the rest of the world has.


----------



## bripat9643

sartre play said:


> Not the guns fault, untrained & angry people thinking violence will solve problems.


So there's no reason to send $50 billion worth of arms to Ukraine?


----------



## LilOlLady

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> A militia is necessary.  Everyone is a member.  Therefore, everyone needs all bearable weapons for service in a militia, including machine guns.
> 
> So are you ready to repeal the NFA?


*MILITIA:*

a *military force* that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
"creating a militia was no answer to the army's manpower problem"
a military force that engages in *rebel or terrorist activities in opposition to a regular army.*
all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for *military service.*

*If one civilian has a machine gun, every civilian must have one.*


----------

